<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2007-10-15</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. Proofed title page(s).  Checked for GROUP tags. Checked ^s. Reviewed structure. Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, etc.). Checked for signatures. Checked placement and completeness of PBs. Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, --s, and UNCLEARs. Corrected 16 $s and $$word$$s etc. of 48. Converted 32 $$s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="oxf". Checked spacing of foreign GAPs. Checked for EPIGRAPHs and ARGUMENTs.  Checked for LBs. Checked for startqs, endqs, oes, q;s, and Qs. Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there. Checked for CLOSERs, TRAILERs, and BYLINEs. Checked for missing page GAPs. DONE.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A85422">
<STC T="W">G1213</STC>
<STC T="T">E723_15</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862598</BIBNO>
<VID>166777</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>VVater-Dipping NO <HI>Firm Footing for Church-Communion:</HI> OR CONSIDERATIONS Proving it not &s;imply lawful, but nece&s;&s;ary al|&s;o (in point of Duty) for per&s;ons baptized after the new mode of Dipping, to continue Communion with tho&s;e Churches, or imbodied Societies of Saints, of which they were Members before the &s;aid Dipping; And that to betray their Tru&s;t or Faith given unto <HI>Je|&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> to &s;erve him in the relation and capacity, whether of Officers, or other Members, in the&s;e Churches (re&s;pectively) by de&s;erting the&s;e Churches, is a &s;in highly provoking in the &s;ight of God. Together with a Po&s;t-&s;cript touching the pre|tended <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to the <HI>Forty Queries</HI> about Church-communion, Infant and after Bapti&s;m. By <HI>John Goodwin,</HI> a Servant of God in the Go&s;pel of his dear Son.</P>
<Q>Ye did run well; who did hinder you, that ye &s;hould not obey the Truth? </Q>
<BIBL>Gal. 5. 7.</BIBL>
<Q>Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them. </Q>
<BIBL>Jer. 15. 19.</BIBL>
<Q>If there be any con&s;olation in Chri&s;t, if any comfort of love, if any fellow&s;hip of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfil ye my joy; be ye like minded, having the &s;ame love, being of one accord, of one mind: Let nothing be done through &s;trife or vain glory, &amp;c. </Q>
<BIBL>Phil. 2. 1, 2, 3.</BIBL>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed by <HI>J. M.</HI> for <HI>Henry Cripps</HI> and <HI>Lodowick Lloyd,</HI> and are to be &s;old at their &s;hop in <HI>Popes-head</HI> Alley. 1653.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Good Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>_HOw thou wilt interpret, or accept of, the Con&s;iderations here pre&s;ented unto thee, I know not. The ground of my doubt is, becau&s;e they are but as &s;o many candles lighted up to &s;hew unto men the Sun. Ne|ver did my pen labor in a cau&s;e more ex|pedite and facil: yet this (I confe&s;s) is fully balanced with the unrea&s;onablene&s;s and difficulty of conviction in tho&s;e per&s;ons, with whom I have chiefly to do. And &s;ince all proof ought to be made by &s;omewhat more manife&s;t and bet|ter known, then the conclu&s;ion in question; he who&s;e task it is to prove that twice two make four, mu&s;t needs have an hard Province to manage. My engagement in the&s;e Papers is (upon the matter) only to prove, That <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> doth not require of his Followers to be promi&s;e-breakers for his &s;ake (much le&s;s for a Ceremonies &s;ake) when the matter of the&s;e promi&s;es is just, and holy, and good; lea&s;t of all when the&s;e promi&s;es have been &s;o|lemnly made, and as in his own pre&s;ence, and unto per&s;ons relating in Faith and Holine&s;s unto him&s;elf. It is a po|lique Maxim maintained by the Con&s;i&s;tory of <HI>Rome,</HI> that
<PB REF="3">
<HI>Promi&s;es are not to be kept with Heretiques:</HI> but that <NOTE PLACE="marg">Fides cum Haeretic<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">s non e&s;t &s;ervanda.</NOTE> promi&s;es &s;hould not be kept with Saints and true Beleevers, and &s;o acknowledged, certainly is the apprehen&s;ion and conceit of a troubled and maimed fancy. And I confe&s;s that the cure of a mi&s;u&s;ed and di&s;tempered fancy is <GAP DESC="foreign">, little better then an hopele&s;s undertaking; &s;eldom atchieved by art, or skill; &s;ometimes by chance, or Providence out of cour&s;e. However, my &s;mall pains in teaching the&s;e Papers to &s;peak as they do, &s;hall be largely re|warded, if God &s;hall only plea&s;e to u&s;e them as a Shield, wherewith to defend tho&s;e, which are yet whole and &s;ound, from like impre&s;sions of di&s;temper.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thine, to &s;erve thee in the things, both of thy pre&s;ent, and eternal Peace, J. G.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="part">
<PB N="5" REF="3">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATIONS, Proving it not &s;imply lawful, but nece&s;&s;ary al&s;o in point of Duty, for per&s;ons Baptized after the new mode of Dip|ing, to continue in Communion with tho&s;e Churches, or imbodied Societies of Saints, of which they were Mem|bers before the &s;aid Dipping or Baptizing; and that to betray their Tru&s;t, or Faith given unto <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> to &s;erve him in the relation and capacity, whether of Offi|cers, or other Members in the&s;e Churches re&s;pectively, by de&s;erting the&s;e Churches, is a &s;in highly provoking in the &s;ight of God.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION I.</HEAD>
<P>_IT is evident from many notable pa&s;&s;ages of Scripture, that God him&s;elf hath given a kind of Superintendency or power of Regulation unto the Law of Nature, the dictates and du|ties thereof, over In&s;titutions, and Ceremonial Commands, and the ob&s;ervations of the&s;e, (even as he hath given a like power unto &s;ome In&s;titutions over others, <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 5.) &s;o that when and while&s;t the ob&s;ervation of an In&s;titution or Ceremony cannot take place, or be practi&s;ed, without tre&s;pa&s;&s;ing upon &s;ome branch or other of the &s;aid Law of Nature, then and &s;o long, the &s;aid ob&s;ervation is to give place: nor is the Law of God requiring it, in &s;uch a ca&s;e,
<PB N="6" REF="4">
broken, or di&s;paraged in the lea&s;t. <HI>Have ye not read</HI> (&s;aith our Saviour to the <HI>Phaers&s;ees) what David did when he was an hun|gered, and they that were with him, How he entered into the Hou&s;e of God, and did eat the &s;hewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat</HI> [viz. in ordinary ca&s;es,] <HI>neither for them which were with him, but for the Prie&s;ts only,</HI> Mat. 12. 3, 4. And &s;oon after: <HI>But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not &s;acrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltle&s;s: For the Son of man</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">By <HI>Son of man</HI> here, is not meant Chri&s;t (per|&s;onally con&s;i|dered,) but any per&s;on of mankind. See <HI>Hugo Grotius</HI> upon the place, who gi|veth a &s;uffici|ent account of this Expo&s;iti+on.</NOTE> <HI>is Lord even of the Sabbath day.</HI> Again, a few ver&s;es after: <HI>What man &s;hall there be among you, that &s;hall have one &s;heep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better then a &s;heep?</HI> El&s;ewhere: <HI>If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, and there remem|bere&s;t that thy Brother hath ought again&s;t thee, Leave there thy gift before the Altar, and go thy way: fir&s;t be reconciled to thy Brother, and then offer thy gift,</HI> Mat. 5. 23, 24. [Our Brethren, in &s;tead of reconciling them&s;elves to their Brethren, fall out with them, and then go and offer their gift of Dipping.] From the &s;ame lips in another place this dew of Heaven falleth: <HI>The Sab|bath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,</HI> Mark 2. 27. Circumci&s;ion was a great In&s;titution of God, and obedience unto it mo&s;t &s;trictly and &s;olemnly commanded: Yet they to whom it was particularly commanded, omitted the ob&s;ervation and practi&s;e of it for forty years together; and this without any other warrant, di&s;pen&s;ation, relaxation, or permi&s;&s;ion from God, but only that which by the Light and Law of Nature he granted unto them, and yet are blamele&s;s. And yet it may be worthy con&s;ideration, that the inconvenience in Nature, I mean the degree of &s;mart, pain, trouble, or danger in any kind, the prevention and avoyding where|of they judged (and truly) a &s;ufficient di&s;pen&s;ation from God for a forbearance of Circumci&s;ion during their travel, was not &s;o great or threatening, but that in probability they might have endured it, without the lo&s;s of any of their lives. The <HI>Jews</HI> of later times, though rigid enough in their Doctrine concerning the ob&s;ervation of their Sabbath, yet have this maxim, <HI>Periculum vitae pellit Sabbatum,</HI> Peril of life drives away the Sabbath. But on the con|trary it is no where to be found in Scripture, that God giveth any &s;uperintendency unto In&s;titutions or Ceremonial Ob&s;ervations over the Moral Law, or Authority to over-rule the dictates or any
<PB N="7" REF="4">
the principles of the Law of Nature, or to exempt any man from the performance of any duty required hereby. How much le&s;s will he ju&s;tifie any man, in pleading the nece&s;&s;ity of &s;ubmitting to &s;uch a Ceremony, which, or at lea&s;t the nece&s;&s;ity whereof, more probably is of humane, then divine In&s;titution, by way of bar to the per|formance of &s;uch duties, which the Moral Law, yea the Law of Nature it &s;elf, requireth? Therefore inexcu&s;eable altogether are &s;uch per&s;ons, both in the &s;ight of God, and men, who pretend them|&s;elves di&s;obliged from the performance of &s;uch promi&s;es, which they have &s;olemnly made unto their Brethren, by a nece&s;&s;ary of &s;ub|jecting to an external Rite or Ceremony: how much more, when the ob&s;ervation of this Rite or Ceremony, is, and always hath been, by all the judicious, learned and faithful &s;ervants of God in the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> world (a very few, and the&s;e upon no accompt, very con&s;iderable, excepted) adjudged no ways nece&s;&s;ary by vertue of any Precept, or Command of God? God (doubtle&s;s) by the Law of Nature, and of love to their Brethren, requireth of &s;uch men a forbearance of their Ceremony (though &s;uppo&s;ed of Divine In&s;ti|tution) for the peace, comfort, &s;piritual accommodation and edifica|tion of their Brethren, rather then the practi&s;e of it to their offence, trouble, and di&s;traction, yea to the danger of the precious Souls of many weak ones, who are emboldened by their example, having no &s;ufficient ground in them&s;elves for &s;uch a practi&s;e, to condemn them&s;elves in allowing and practi&s;ing the &s;ame Ceremony. For, as our Saviour of the <HI>Sabbath,</HI> &s;o &s;ay I of Bapti&s;m: Bapti&s;m was made for man, and not man for Bapti&s;m. Bapti&s;m was made, or or|dained, for man, <HI>[i. e.</HI> for mans benefit, comfort, and accommoda|tion; and con&s;equently, is only to be u&s;ed and admini&s;tred in order hereunto, and &s;o not to his di&s;turbance, danger, or di&s;traction,] not man for Bapti&s;m, <HI>[i. e.</HI> man was not made or created by God for any &s;uch end as this, that Bapti&s;m by his trouble, &s;orrow, mo|le&s;tation or danger &s;hould be magnified or exalted in the world.] And why it &s;hould not &s;avour of as much Chri&s;tianity, and be of equal acceptance with God, for the peace of the Churches and &s;ervants of God in the&s;e days, to lay a&s;leep a living Ordinance for a time, as it did in the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> to awaken a dead Ordinance (I mean Circumci&s;ion) upon the &s;ame account in his days, I under|&s;tand not.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="consideration">
<PB N="8" REF="5">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION II.</HEAD>
<P>The Churches and Societies of the Saints, which are not actually and externally baptized with that figure or kind of Bapti&s;m &s;o much contended for, yet, &s;uppo&s;ing this very Bapti&s;m to be the only Bapti&s;mal Ordinance of Chri&s;t, and that it is his Will that they &s;hould be baptized with it, they are, according to the rule and &s;tandard of divine E&s;timate and Acceptance, baptized therewith, as well as tho&s;e per&s;ons them&s;elves, who &s;o impotently plea&s;e them&s;elves in their &s;ubjection to the letter of it. The Standard, or &s;tanding Rule of Divine E&s;timate, is this: <HI>If there be fir&s;t a willing mind, a man is accepted according to that he hath,</HI> (&s;o it were better rendered, though the difference be not material,) <HI>and not according to that he hath not, 2 Cor.</HI> 1. 12. By a like rule God likewi&s;e e&s;timateth the &s;infulne&s;s and wickedne&s;s of men. <HI>Who&s;o|ever looketh on a woman to lu&s;t after her, hath</HI> COMMITTED ADULTERY <HI>with her already in his heart, Mat.</HI> 5. 28. So then if the Members of unbaptized Churches (&s;o called) have a <HI>willing mind,</HI> are prepared and large-hearted to &s;ubmit unto all and every the Ordinances of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and con&s;equently, unto New-Bapti&s;m it &s;elf, (&s;uppo&s;ing this to be one of that retinue,) but only want the opportunity of light and conviction &s;o to judg &amp; conceive of it, they are accepted with God, and e&s;teemed by him, (and ought they not then to be &s;o with men?) as per&s;ons baptized with that very Bap|ti&s;m. Yea the truth is, that if the unbaptized Churches &s;in, or be blame-worthy, for not being actually baptized after the manner of the Brethren of New-Bapti&s;m, the&s;e per&s;ons them&s;elves are in a great degree acce&s;&s;ary unto &s;uch their &s;in, partly by admini&s;tring unto them only weak and in&s;ufficient grounds for their conviction, partly al&s;o (and more e&s;pecially) by cau&s;ing, through their pride, frowardne&s;s, in&s;olency and di&s;dainfulne&s;s of &s;pirit, together with many other &s;trains of mo&s;t unchri&s;tian behaviour towards them, that &s;acrifice of the Lord (if &s;uch it be) to be abhorred. Be&s;ides, I am all thoughts made, that the far greater part of tho&s;e, who have been prevailed with to accept of a dip for Bapti&s;m, neither have, nor ever had, either that love unto, nor &s;acred and reverent e&s;teem of, all the Ordinances of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> which thou&s;ands of tho&s;e have, whom God hath not yet &s;o per&s;waded. So then they who
<PB N="9" REF="5">
refu&s;e Communion with &s;uch Saints, who have not been actually baptized with their Bapti&s;m, upon this pretence only, that they have not been thus baptized, reject the communion of tho&s;e, whom God reputeth to have been baptized with that very Bapti&s;m, for the want of which &s;uch men reject them, (always &s;uppo&s;ed, as hath been &s;aid, that the Dipping-Bapti&s;m is the &s;ole Bapti&s;m. Ordinance of <HI>Chri&s;t.)</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION III.</HEAD>
<P>The Scripture very frequently and expre&s;ly teacheth, that by Faith men become and are made the children of <HI>Abraham,</HI> and Sons of God. <HI>But as many as received him, to them gave he pow|er to become the Sons of God, even to them that beleeve on his Name,</HI> Joh. 1. 12. <HI>But ye are all the children of God by Faith in Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> Joh. 3. 26. See al&s;o <HI>Rom.</HI> 4. 11, 12, 16. If then true Beleevers be the Sons of God, then mu&s;t all they needs be Ba&s;tards, and no Sons of God, but children of <HI>Satan,</HI> who are not their Brethren. And if they who are the Sons of God, and con&s;equent|ly their Brethren, be a&s;hamed of them, and &s;hall refu&s;e to own them in their Church-fellow&s;hip, are they not a&s;hamed of tho&s;e, of whom the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> profe&s;&s;eth before Heaven and Earth that he is not a&s;hamed; no, not a&s;hamed to own them in the relation of <HI>Brethren? For both he that &s;anctifieth, and they who are &s;an|ctified, are all of one: for which cau&s;e</HI> HE IS NOT ASHAMED TO CALL THEM BRETHREN, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 2. 11. Mu&s;t not then <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> needs look upon tho&s;e men, as greater in their own conceit, either in Holine&s;s, or in Dignity, or in both, then him&s;elf, who are a&s;hamed of &s;uch per&s;ons, of whom he is not a&s;hamed; yea indeed in whom he glorieth, as being (with their fellows) <HI>his Fulne&s;s;</HI> and in whom he &s;hall come to be <HI>glorified</HI> and <HI>admired</HI> in the great day? a <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 10. Or is not the great jealou&s;ie of Chri&s;t like to be provoked, when men &s;hall pre&s;ume to make, or call, that <HI>common,</HI> which <HI>he hath &s;anctified</HI> with his own blood, and made expre&s;s declaration from Heaven accordingly? Or can either a thing, or per&s;on, be made, or called common, in a more di&s;graceful, or reproachful way, then when men &s;hall &s;eparate from them as unclean, or defective in Holine&s;s?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="consideration">
<PB N="10" REF="6">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION IV.</HEAD>
<P>Such per&s;ons, whom God judgeth meet for communion and fellow&s;hip with him&s;elf, and his Son <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> the rea&s;ons and grounds of this his judgment being vi&s;ible in the&s;e per&s;ons, e&s;pecially being acknowledged al&s;o by men, ought not to be judg|ed unmeet for any holy communion with the Holie&s;t of men, e&s;pe|cially not by tho&s;e, who do acknowledg tho&s;e things in the&s;e per|&s;ons, which are the grounds of their acceptance into the &s;aid com|munion with God. The Apo&s;tle in&s;tructing the &s;trong in Faith, in their duty towards the weak <HI>[i. e.</HI> towards tho&s;e who were at pre&s;ent ignorant of many things which the other knew] &s;aith thus: <HI>Him that is weak in the Faith, receive you:</HI> And again; <HI>Let not him that eateth [i. e.</HI> the &s;trong in Faith, who under&s;tands his liberty] <HI>de&s;pi&s;e him that eateth not, [i. e.</HI> the weak,] <HI>Rom.</HI> 14 1, 3. The rea&s;on, why God would have no <HI>de&s;pi&s;ing</HI> of weak <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> on the one hand, nor <HI>judging</HI> of tho&s;e that were &s;trong on the other, is delivered by the Apo&s;tle in the&s;e words, [ver&s;. 3.] <HI>For God hath accepted him; i. e.</HI> as well the weak, as the &s;trong; and again, the &s;trong as well as the weak, (the rea&s;on equally rela|ting to both the preceding clau&s;es in the ver&s;e;) clearly avouching Gods <HI>accepting</HI> of per&s;ons, when di&s;covered, or acknowledged by men, for an obliging ground upon the&s;e, not to <HI>de&s;pi&s;e</HI> them, or [which is by the Apo&s;tle interpreted as the &s;ame] to reject them from their communion. Now the grounds of Gods <HI>acceptance</HI> of men and women as meet for communion with him, and his Son <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> are from place to place in the Scriptures declared &s;uch, which are owned and acknowledged by per&s;ons them&s;elves bap|tized according to the new and late edition of this Ordinance (&s;o much corrected, enlarged, and amended) in tho&s;e Churches, and their members, who at pre&s;ent make u&s;e of the former edition only. <HI>In every Nation</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Peter,</HI> &s;peaking of God) <HI>he that feareth him, and worketh righteou&s;ne&s;s, is</HI> ACCEPTED <HI>with him,</HI> Acts 10. 35. <HI>The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righte|ou&s;ne&s;s and peace, and joy in the Holy Gho&s;t: for he that in the&s;e things &s;erveth Chri&s;t, is</HI> ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD, <HI>&amp;c. Rom. 14. 17, 18. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have</HI> FELLOVVSHIP <HI>one with another, &amp;c.</HI> (to omit other
<PB N="11" REF="6">
places of like import, which are many.) Now the Brethren of the New baptized Churches them&s;elves, at lea&s;t &s;uch of them who&s;e Judgments and Con&s;ciences have not been drowned by the dipping of their bodies, do acknowledg all the &s;aid qualifications, as <HI>the fear of God, the working righteou&s;ne&s;s, &amp;c.</HI> to be as vi&s;ible in the members of bodies by them called, unbaptized, as in their own. Yea &s;ome of them as yet retain &s;o much <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> ingenuity, as to confe&s;s, that in our unbaptized Churches (to plea&s;e <HI>Jews,</HI> we &s;peak in the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> language) we have per&s;ons of as great, or greater worth, for holine&s;s, righteou&s;ne&s;s, the fear and love of God, with all other Chri&s;tian accompli&s;hments, as them&s;elves have in the be&s;t of their Congregations, notwith&s;tanding the unimaginable advan|tage of their Bapti&s;m. I wi&s;h in my Soul for their &s;akes, that God would mercifully plea&s;e to put it into their hearts &s;eriou&s;ly to con|&s;ider, of what in&s;ufferable height and in&s;olency of &s;pirit it &s;trongly &s;avoreth, for men to judg tho&s;e unworthy their communion, whom the mo&s;t Holy God, the great and high Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;or of Heaven and Earth, accepteth into his.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION V.</HEAD>
<P>The main Pillar upon which the hou&s;e of our new Dippers of Men, and Dividers of Churches, is built, is the &s;ignification of the verb <HI>baptizo,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, tran&s;lated to baptize: as for others, they are much more crazy, although neither is this of any great &s;trength. But how few are there among&s;t tho&s;e, who with &s;o much violence and height of confidence build troubles, &s;orrows, di&s;tractions and confu&s;ions of <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Churches, upon this Pillar, that under&s;tand little or much what the &s;aid word <GAP DESC="foreign"> meaneth, or what it &s;ignifieth. For ought they know (upon their own account) <GAP DESC="foreign"> may &s;ignifie, either to tide, or to run, or to build, as well as to dip; So that all the Faith they have, of the proper &s;ignification of the &s;aid word, is built upon the authority and tradition of men. And the truth is, that men of greate&s;t judgment and knowledg in the Greek tongue are not agreed about the adequate or exact &s;ignification of it. Certain it is, that the word which properly, primitively, and originally &s;ignifieth to dip, is <GAP DESC="foreign">, nor <GAP DESC="foreign"> being only a frequentative (as Grammarians &s;peak) and of a diminutive form, from the original <GAP DESC="foreign">, as <GAP DESC="foreign"> is from
<PB N="12" REF="7">
the verb <GAP DESC="foreign">, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> from <GAP DESC="foreign">, (with many others of like con&s;ideration in the Greek tongue.) And very con&s;iderable it is, that the Scripture of the New Te&s;tament, where ever it hath occa|&s;ion to expre&s;s the act of <HI>dipping,</HI> con&s;tantly u&s;eth the word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, never <GAP DESC="foreign">, [See <HI>Luk. 16. 24. Joh. 13. 26. Revel.</HI> 19. 13.] as on the contrary, where ever it hath occa&s;ion to mention or expre&s;s the &s;acred action of Bapti&s;m, it never u&s;eth the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, but always, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Yea it is granted by the Dipping Grandees them|&s;elves, that the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, is often found in the New Te&s;ta|ment it &s;elf, where it &s;ignifieth nothing le&s;s (or rather &s;omewhat le&s;s) then dipping. Yea that when it is u&s;ed in the Sacramental &s;ignification, that it doth not &s;ignifie or import, dipping, unle&s;s it be &s;aid to &s;ignifie undipping, or lifting out of the water al&s;o, is to me evident from mo&s;t, if not all the places, where the &s;acred action known by the name of baptizing, is expre&s;&s;ed by it. I &s;hall argue only that one (at pre&s;ent) <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. The Apo&s;tles commi&s;&s;ion there, as to the matter of baptizing, is expre&s;&s;ed by the &s;aid word; <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now if the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> here &s;ignifies to dip, and not to undip, or heave out of the water, then had the Apo&s;tles no authority at all, or commi&s;&s;ion from Chri&s;t, to per|form the one half of the bapti&s;mal tran&s;action, (we &s;peak now ac|cording to the Dipping principles) <HI>viz.</HI> that which con&s;i&s;ts in the lifting or taking up out of the water, tho&s;e whom they were to dip into or under the water: but in ca&s;e they did rai&s;e or help them out of the water, they did it upon their own heads, and without commi&s;&s;ion; and con&s;equently it could be no part of the bapti&s;|mal tran&s;action. How unrea&s;onable a thing then is it, and un|worthy <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> to &s;well again&s;t their peaceable Brethren, (their Brethren partakers of like precious Faith with them&s;elves) to &s;eparate them&s;elves from their Holy A&s;&s;emblies, as if they were the Synagogues of Satan, to pronounce them unclean for Chri&s;tian Communion, &amp;c. upon the account only, or chiefly, of humane tra|dition, and of &s;uch things whereof them&s;elves can have no certain knowledg, no, nor yet men of far greater learning and knowledg, then they?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION VI.</HEAD>
<P>No Authority can di&s;charge, or di&s;oblige, but that which is
<PB N="13" REF="7">
either greater then, or at lea&s;t, equal unto that which bindeth. The Authority of &s;uch a Command of God, which is manife&s;tly and undi&s;puteably &s;uch, and is &s;o acknowledged by the con&s;ciences of all men, is greater, then of any &s;uch Command, whereof it is mat|ter of doubtful di&s;putation whether he be the Author, or no. It is (I pre&s;ume) no mans doubt or que&s;tion, but that, 1. It is the Command of God. That they who have promi&s;ed things lawful, and meet to be done, and in their power to do, &s;hould perform their promi&s;e accordingly; how much more when &s;uch promi&s;es have been made in a &s;acred and &s;olemn manner, in the pre&s;ence of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and of a great number of his Saints round about him, yea and (in &s;ome &s;ort) unto <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf? Nor, 2. Can it be any <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> mans que&s;tion, but that Chri&s;tian offices of love, as the edifying, comforting, admoni&s;hing, coun&s;elling, watching over Brethren, &s;upporting tho&s;e that are weak, refre&s;hing the bowels of tho&s;e that &s;tand in need, with other &s;ervices belonging either to Elders, or Members of <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Congregations, are things very lawful to be done, yea and more then lawful, e&s;pecially when they have been promi&s;ed. Therefore unle&s;s men, who have promi&s;ed &s;uch things as the&s;e, can &s;hew as fair, as full, as expre&s;s a di&s;charge from God, from the performance of them, as that Command of his is, which he hath layed upon them for their performance, they are to be looked upon as promi&s;e-breakers (and this of one of the wor&s;t and mo&s;t horrid kinds) if they &s;hall refu&s;e, or neglect, to per|form them. Now I appeal to the Con&s;ciences of tho&s;e per&s;ons them&s;elves, who upon any pretence what&s;oever (e&s;pecially upon the pretence of a fal&s;e Bapti&s;m, &s;o called only by them&s;elves) &s;hall, after their Covenant &s;truck, and promi&s;e made, with and to any <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church, or Society of Saints, to perform all the particu|lars &s;pecified, turn their backs upon this Church, thus treading and trampling under foot their holy Covenant and Promi&s;e, whether they can produce any thing from God, or from the Word of God, &s;o particular and expre&s;s for their di&s;charge and di&s;obligement in this kind, as that Command of his is, by which both they and all others &s;tand charged to keep promi&s;e. I fear the &s;in of Church|breaking, yea and Church-de&s;erting without the leave or con&s;ent of the Church de&s;erted, will not be under&s;tood or duly con&s;idered by men, until the puni&s;hment of it come to be &s;uffered, and then it will be too late. A pretended Defect in, or of, Bapti&s;m, will not
<PB N="14" REF="8">
excu&s;e any mans <HI>waxing wanton,</HI> or kicking with the heel, <HI>again&s;t Chri&s;t</HI> in any of his Churches, or A&s;&s;emblies of his Saints; no nor yet any &s;uch Defect as this in truth of being.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION VII.</HEAD>
<P>In that very Text of Scripture, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 6. 2. wherein our New Bapti&s;ts place a great part of their tru&s;t for the &s;upport of their Cau&s;e, there is evidently imported a <HI>plurality of Bapti&s;ms;</HI> the Doctrine or Explication of which is here numbered among&s;t the <HI>foundations of Chri&s;t, i. e.</HI> &s;uch heads of Doctrine, wherein per|&s;ons were wont to be in&s;tructed (as it were) in the infancy of their Chri&s;tian profe&s;&s;ion, in order to their further increa&s;e in knowledg. Now whether the Holy Gho&s;t by mentioning, <HI>Bapti&s;ms</HI> (in the plural number) did not intend to in&s;inuate, that however in one &s;ence and con&s;ideration there be only <HI>one Bapti&s;m, Ephe&s;. 4. 5. [viz.</HI> in re&s;pect of the &s;ignification and end of Baptizing,] yet in re&s;pect of variety of &s;ubjects, and of different forms of admini&s;tra|tion, wherein it might be, or was to be, admini&s;tred, it might not be many, is (I &s;uppo&s;e) not &s;o ea&s;ie upon grounds &s;atisfactory to a con&s;idering man, to determine: Yet I judg it much more difficult for any man upon &s;uch an account to prove the contrary. Therefore &s;uch per&s;ons who call Chri&s;tian Churches and Societies of men, <HI>ac|cur&s;ed,</HI> or unclean, for want of &s;uch or &s;uch a determinate form of Baptizing, are not able to give any rea&s;onable or <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> account of &s;uch their hard &s;ayings; nor yet to prove, that a plurality of <HI>Bapti&s;ms,</HI> as well in re&s;pect of different kinds of &s;ubjects, as of external modes of admini&s;tration, was not intended, or allowed by <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> nor (con&s;equently) that the Bapti&s;m practi&s;ed in the Churches of their reproach, is not a Bapti&s;m approved by him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION VIII.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Every Kingdom</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Chri&s;t) divided again&s;t it &s;elf, is brought to de&s;olation: and every City or hou&s;e divided again&s;t it &s;elf, &s;hall not &s;tand,</HI> Mat. 12. 25. meaning, that in all Communi|ties and Societies of men, greater or l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;&s;er, divi&s;ions of one part again&s;t another, threaten di&s;&s;olution of the whole. In con&s;idera|tion whereof &s;ome of the ancient Fathers judged a &s;chi&s;matical
<PB N="15" REF="8">
rending and dividing of the Church, to proceed only from a diabo|lical &s;pirit, and to be a &s;in of very near affinity with that which is unpardonable <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Eos quoque a&s;&s;erit Diaboli|co ut<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;piritu, qui &s;eparant Eccle&s;iam Dei: ut omnium tem|porum haereticos &amp; &s;chi&s;maticos comprehenderet, quibus indul|gentiam negat, quod omne pec|catum [aliud] e&s;t circa &s;ingu|lus, hoc in uni|ver&s;os. Soli e|nim &s;unt qui volunt &s;olvire <HI>Chri&s;ti</HI> grati|am, qui Eccle|&s;lae membra di&s;|cerpunt, propter quam pa&s;&s;us e&s;t Dominus, &s;piri|tu&s;que, &s;anctus datus e&s;t nobis. <HI>Ambr. de Poe|nitentia. lib. 2. c.</HI> 4.</NOTE>. Now although I judg this &s;omewhat too hard and heavy a cen&s;ure of &s;chi&s;matical practi&s;es, and in this re&s;pect like to the cen&s;ures wherewith Schi&s;matiques them&s;elves always burthen tho&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Societies, from which they rend them|&s;elves, for wanting one thing or other that &s;hould make them cize with the &s;tandard of their imaginations, yet due con&s;ideration had of all tho&s;e high appearances of the Holy Gho&s;t in Scripture again&s;t &s;chi&s;ms, divi&s;ions, &s;trifes and contentions among&s;t imbodied Saints, the &s;in of Schi&s;m mu&s;t needs be adjudged a &s;in of a deep demerit, and high provocation, in the &s;ight of God, and of <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> And the more precipitate, violent and heady any Schi&s;m &s;hall be, and with how much the more contempt, and neglect of tho&s;e, in re&s;pect ei|ther of giving, or receiving &s;atisfaction about the pretended ground of &s;chi&s;matizing, again&s;t whom the &s;in &s;hall be committed, and again, the le&s;s con&s;iderable, all circum&s;tances duly weighed, the matter pretended for the &s;chi&s;m-making &s;hall be, &s;o much the more haynous mu&s;t the &s;in needs be, and puni&s;hable with the &s;orer Judgment by God. Now whether the Schi&s;m made by the Re|baptizing party of Profe&s;&s;ors among&s;t us, from tho&s;e Churches, of which they were lately Members, upon the only pretence of a de|fect of Bapti&s;m, be not fearfully aggravated by all the &s;aid circum|&s;tances, I leave to their own Con&s;ciences, when God &s;hall have awakened them, to con&s;ider.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION IX.</HEAD>
<P>That determinate kind of Bapti&s;m, which is the fire-brand of contention among&s;t the Saints, and which hath put the Chri&s;tian world about us into a flame, is by one of the grave&s;t Authors, and and greate&s;t Apo&s;tles of the Anti-paedo bapti&s;tical Faith, called (and that with evidence enough of truth) <HI>a carnal Ceremony</HI> <NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Treati&s;e en|tituled, <HI>Of Bapti&s;m,</HI> (p. 22.) generally pre&s;umed written by Mr <HI>Lawrence.</HI></NOTE>, <HI>i. e.</HI> an external Rite of &s;ome &s;acred &s;ignification, or import. Now to make new partition walls of <HI>carnal Ceremonies,</HI> and this not only between <HI>Abrahams</HI> &s;piritual &s;eed, and the prophane Gentile part of the world, but between one part of this ble&s;&s;ed &s;eed it &s;elf, and another, &s;o that the one, becau&s;e of this Ceremony ri&s;ing up in their way, may not come at, to enjoy any &s;piritual communion,
<PB N="16" REF="9">
with the other, is it not the founding of a new kind of <HI>Judai&s;m</HI> in the world; and the making work for Chri&s;t to be crucified a &s;econd time for the di&s;&s;olution of it?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION X.</HEAD>
<P>Ignorance in &s;ome things appertaining to the knowledg of God, and the my&s;tery of Chri&s;t, whether found in a Church, or in parti|cular per&s;ons, rendereth neither the one nor the other unclean up|on any &s;uch terms, but that both may lawfully, and without the lea&s;t tincture of guilt, be conver&s;ed with in a Church-way. Other|wi&s;e there will neither Church, nor Member, be found upon Earth, but who&s;e communion will defile us; in as much as the Apo&s;tle, &s;peaking as well of him&s;elf and his fellow Apo&s;tles, as of the intire &s;ucce&s;&s;ive body of Chri&s;tians in all ages, &s;aith; <HI>We know in part, and we prophecy in part, 1 Cor.</HI> 13. 9. Again, where Churches, or per&s;ons, <HI>know</HI> but <HI>in part,</HI> it cannot be expected they &s;hould prac|ti&s;e <HI>in whole,</HI> or in full. He is a good Chri&s;tian, who practi&s;eth and walketh up to his light, though he doth not walk above it, yea although his light be &s;omewhat low, and mixt with much dark|ne&s;s. And though an erring or mi&s;taking Con&s;cience, will not &s;im|ply or totally ju&s;tifie a concurring practi&s;e, yet will it ju&s;tifie it comparatively; it being better to follow the dictate or light of a mi&s;-guided or mi&s;-taught Con&s;cience, then to rebel again&s;t it. O|therwi&s;e &s;ad were the ca&s;e of tho&s;e &s;acrilegious Church-breakers, who out of Con&s;cience (I judg no wor&s;e of many of them) prac|ti&s;e this enormity. Now then they who give &s;entence again&s;t a Church, or people, as unclean for communion, only becau&s;e they do not practi&s;e Bapti&s;mal Dipping, mu&s;t ground the equity of &s;uch a &s;entence, either, 1. Upon their non-conviction of the nece&s;&s;ity of &s;uch a practi&s;e; or, 2. Upon the non-practi&s;e it &s;elf, which they mu&s;t &s;uppo&s;e, either to be concurrent with, or repugnant unto, the light of their Judgments and Con&s;ciences. If the former of the&s;e, the ignorance or non-conviction of a Church, or people, of the nece&s;&s;ity of Dipping, be pretended for a ground of the &s;en|tence we &s;peak of, to ju&s;tifie this pretence, it mu&s;t be proved, that every mi&s;take or di&s;&s;atisfaction in Judgment, in any controver&s;al Point what&s;oever of like difficulty or di&s;puteablene&s;s with that about the nece&s;&s;ity of Dipping, rendereth a Church or people un|clean
<PB N="17" REF="9">
for Communion. But I look to &s;ee <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t as he is,</HI> long before this be proved. 2. If the ground of the &s;aid &s;entence be the latter, <HI>the non-practi&s;e of dipping,</HI> then, in ca&s;e it be &s;up|po&s;ed that this <HI>non-practi&s;e</HI> be a matter of con&s;cience in the Church or people we &s;peake of, and confirm to their judgments, they are adjudged unclean for not defiling, or not &s;inning again&s;t, their con&s;cience. But far be it from us to &s;u&s;pect our Brethren in the Faith, of &s;uch a judgment as this. If it be &s;uppo&s;ed to be contrary to their judgment, and that in refu&s;ing to practi&s;e Bap|ti&s;mal dipping, they go again&s;t their con&s;ciences, then are the Suppo&s;ers <HI>judgers of evil thoughts,</HI> &s;uppo&s;ing that which they cannot prove, indeed have no ground or rea&s;on at all to &s;u&s;pect, but ground in abundance to conclude the contrary. So that they can upon no <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> or rea&s;onable ground pronounce any &s;uch hard &s;entence again&s;t their non dipping Brethren, as of unclean|ne&s;s for Church Communion. And if they would but plea&s;e plainly and clearly to declare, wherein they place the high deme|rit, the unpardonable crime of non-dipping, while&s;t men remain di&s;&s;atisfied, either touching the lawfulne&s;s, or nece&s;&s;ity of the practi&s;e, I verily beleeve they would &s;oon be a&s;hamed of their notion, and out of hand pull down all they have built upon it.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XI.</HEAD>
<P>When the Apo&s;tle writeth to the Churches in his days, in &s;un|dry <NOTE PLACE="marg">See Rom. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. 7. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Ephe&s;. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. Col. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. 2.</NOTE> the in&s;criptions of his Epi&s;tles unto them, wherein he de&s;crib|eth them, he in&s;ereth the mention of their &s;anctification, their calling to be Saints, their being beloved of God, their Saint&s;hip, their faithfulne&s;s in Chri&s;t, &amp;c. but never &s;o much as hinteth their having been baptized. Which is a &s;trong pre&s;umption at lea&s;t (if not a demon&s;tration) that in ca&s;e it be &s;uppo&s;ed that all the&s;e Churches were baptized, yet the Apo&s;tle did not look upon their Bapti&s;m as any part of their Church-&s;hip, or of the vi&s;ibility there|of, much le&s;s as any e&s;&s;ential part or point of either. For if &s;uch a thing &s;hall be &s;uppo&s;ed, what rea&s;on can be imagined, why their Bapti&s;m &s;hould not once, or twice at lea&s;t, have been mentioned in their di&s;cription, as well as their Faith, Sanctification, calling &amp;c. &s;o frequently, and (well-nigh) con&s;tantly (I mean, one, or other of them.) So then it is a plain ca&s;e that the Apo&s;tle doth not
<PB N="18" REF="10">
e&s;timate the truth of Churches by the ob&s;ervation or practi&s;e of Bapti&s;m (much le&s;s by the practi&s;e of &s;uch or &s;uch a determinate kind of baptizing) but by the Faith and Holine&s;s of the per&s;ons in|churched. Bapti&s;m is never mentioned &s;o much as by way of commendation, either of Church or per&s;on, (at lea&s;t not more then the ob&s;ervance of other ordinances) no not when &s;everal other matters of prai&s;e are in&s;i&s;ted on in reference unto either: (See 1 <HI>Cor. 11, 2. Rom. 1. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 4, 5. Ephe&s;. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 6. Acts.</HI> 11. 24. to pa&s;s over other texts of like import) and yet ma|ny things may be commendable in either, which are not e&s;&s;enti|ally requi&s;ite to their being. And (doubtle&s;s) if men were not un|der &s;ome &s;trong enchantment, and the rational powers of their Souls &s;trangely held, in reference (at lea&s;t) to the &s;ubject we now &s;peak o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">, &s;uch an imagination as this would never have been found among&s;t all their thoughts, That Bapti&s;m according to one mode, or other, &s;hould be a con&s;tituting principle of a true Church.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XII.</HEAD>
<P>When the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> in&s;tructeth Chri&s;tian Churches with their re&s;pective members, who and what manner of per&s;ons they are, who are unmeet for their <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Communion, he mentioneth <HI>Fornicators, Covetous, Idolaters, Railers, Drunk|ards, Extortioners, Di&s;orderly walkers,</HI> &amp;c. but never per|&s;ons <NOTE PLACE="marg">1. Cor. 5. 11. 2 The&s;. 3 6.</NOTE> of an holy and blamle&s;s conver&s;ation, whether baptized, or unbaptized. If our Brethren reply, that there was no occa&s;ion why he &s;hould mention per&s;ons unbaptized, in as much as there was none &s;uch in the&s;e days, who lived holily, or had the names of Brethren among&s;t Chri&s;tians; We an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. That our Brethren are &s;till wont to u&s;e &s;lime in &s;tead of mor|tar to build their <HI>Babel;</HI> I mean, to make u&s;e of light conjectures, loo&s;e &s;uppo&s;itions, pre&s;umptions, &s;elf-imaginations, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in &s;tead of &s;olid and clear demon&s;trations, either from the Scriptures, or &s;ound principles in rea&s;on, for the defence and &s;upport of their Cau&s;e. To &s;ay that in the times we &s;peak of, there were no Saints reputed Brethren in any <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church, who were unbaptized, is &s;omewhat lighter then a meer conjecture, and not of any more weight then &s;uch a &s;uppo&s;ition, which hath much rea&s;on and &s;trength of probability again&s;t it (as hath been &s;hewed el&s;ewhere.)</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="19" REF="10">
2. In ca&s;e we &s;hould releive the poor, and grant our Brethren their &s;aid &s;uppo&s;ition without proof, yet how do they know that in ca&s;e there had been any unbaptized per&s;ons reputed Brethren among&s;t the Churches (e&s;pecially &s;uch, the truth and validity of who&s;e Bapti&s;m had been the only que&s;tion, for this is the ca&s;e be|tween us and our Brethren) that the Apo&s;tle would have ranked them among&s;t <HI>Fornicators, Drunkards, Idolaters, &amp;c.</HI> and prohibited the Churches of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> communion as well with the one, as with the other? But</P>
<P N="3">3. When our Brethren pronounce the Saints and &s;ervants of God unclean for Church communion, upon a pretence only (or be it a true plea) of their not being baptized, do they not intrude them&s;elves into the prerogative Office of Chri&s;t, making new Orders, Laws, and con&s;titutions of them&s;elves for Church com|munion, which were never made by him? Or if they de&s;ire to be judged Innocent of this Great Offence, let them produce from the Go&s;pel &s;ome Order or Law of this tenor, or import, That he that hath only been wa&s;hed in the Name of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and not dipt over head and ears, &s;hall be unclean for Chri&s;tian communion, although the Image of God in righteou&s;ne&s;s and true holine&s;s be never &s;o re&s;plendent and lovely in him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XIII.</HEAD>
<P>A &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion unto the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m upon tho&s;e terms on which it is obtruded by our Brethren upon all &s;orts of Beleev|ers, is, as them&s;elves al&s;o acknowledg, yea and boa&s;t of (though to the &s;hame both of their opinion, and practi&s;e in the way) ve|ry offen&s;ive, burthen&s;ome, and greivous to the fle&s;h. And the truth is, that when men or women, e&s;pecially being any thing weak or tender of con&s;titution, &s;hall in winter or cold &s;ea&s;ons be per&s;waded unto it, they had need <HI>purifie them&s;elves,</HI> as men at Sea u&s;e to do (God him&s;elf ob&s;erving and reporting it, <HI>Job. 41. 23.) by rea&s;on of the breakings of Leviathan,</HI> i. e. when they expect nothing but death by being wrackt by this unruly and for|midable creature. Yea for many to go into Rivers, or Ponds to be dow&s;ed over head and ears, in &s;uch &s;ea&s;ons, is as expre&s;s a tempt|ing God, as a pa&s;&s;ing through the fire would be. One of tho&s;e poor women lately per&s;waded into the watery Paradi&s;e about
<PB N="20" REF="11">
<HI>Newington,</HI> had much ado to recover the air with her life, &s;aying when &s;he came from the water to her &s;elf, words, either the&s;e, or to a like effect; that &s;he was almo&s;t gon, and that well might the bu&s;ine&s;s of baptizing be re&s;embled to <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> death, for &s;he was nigh unto death by it. The re&s;t, who had &s;omewhat a better return of their venture, yet &s;u&s;tained lo&s;s. There was not very long before a maid-&s;ervant living within a door or two of me, in the City, who being led (by what Spirit let under&s;tanding Chri&s;|tians judg) to meet with <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> under water, was &s;o far from being healed of the infirmity, which &s;he carried thither, that &s;he brought with her out of the water the extream torture of &s;everal days together. What became of her after this, I know not. And how &s;everely the healths, yea and lives of men and women are almo&s;t continually threatened, and &s;ometimes &s;everely handled, by the waters of Bapti&s;mal dipping, are matters better known to many others, then my &s;elf. And if they be thus terri|bly au&s;tere to the fle&s;h in the Southern parts of <HI>England,</HI> what may we judg them to be in the Northen parts of <HI>Scotland,</HI> and in climates of far le&s;s communion with the warmth and heat of the Sun, then it? Yea Mr <HI>Fi&s;her</HI> him&s;elf imputes <HI>Pauls</HI> being &s;o <HI>tardy</HI> and <HI>backward</HI> to the duty of dipping, as to need &s;uch a &s;harp <HI>Exu&s;citation</HI> hereunto, as he conceits the words of <HI>Ananias, And now why tarrie&s;t thou,</HI> &amp;c. do import; he imputes (I &s;ay) this &s;uppo&s;ed backwardne&s;s in <HI>Paul</HI> to the &s;aid &s;uppo&s;ed duty, to a <HI>&s;en&s;iblene&s;s in him of &s;ome tediou&s;ne&s;s in the &s;ervice</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Mr Fi&s;her.</HI> Baby-bapti&s;m, P. 370.</NOTE>. A little before he hath the&s;e words: <HI>I know no mans fle&s;h forward to it, further then by Faith it is over-powerd.</HI> So that by con|&s;ent of both parties, Bapti&s;m by Dipping, upon &s;uch terms, and under &s;uch circum&s;tances as our new Bapti&s;ts urge the nece&s;&s;ity of it, is a burthen exceeding grievous, and next to that which is in|tolerable, to the fle&s;h: yea neither party needs be tender, upon &s;uch terms to vote it a yoke more heavy then circumci&s;ion under the Law, which yet <HI>Peter</HI> plainly tells the <HI>Jews,</HI> was &s;uch <HI>a yoke, which neither they</HI> nor <HI>their. Fathers were able to bear;</HI> yea and upon this account, calleth the putting of it upon the necks of the Di&s;ciples, <HI>a tempting of God. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the necks of the Di&s;ciples, which,</HI> &amp;c *. Con|cerning the other Sacramental &s;ervice of the Lords &s;upper, it is <NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 15. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">0.</NOTE> &s;ufficiently known that it is in no degree burthen&s;ome, or trou|ble&s;om
<PB N="21" REF="11">
to the fle&s;h, but rather of a cheri&s;hing, nouri&s;hing, and welcom import to it. Nor is it (I &s;uppo&s;e) the &s;ence of our di&s;&s;enting Brethren, but that Go&s;pel Bapti&s;m was by Chri&s;t calculated and intended for <HI>babes</HI> in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> for beleevers of the fir&s;t peep (as it were) out of the &s;hell, and greate&s;t weak|ne&s;s, in the Faith; as on the other hand, the Sacramental Se|vice of the Supper was in like manner prepared and ordained by him for Beleevers of grown &s;tature and &s;trength.</P>
<P>Now then <HI>I</HI> cannot but greatly wonder, that our Brethren &s;hould e&s;teem it a matter of &s;uch high impiety in us, and de|&s;erving no le&s;s cen&s;ure or puni&s;hment, then excommunication it &s;elf, to judg it contrary both to the wi&s;dom and tenderne&s;s of bowels in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> towards his Saints, to provide the &s;trong|e&s;t meat for his weake&s;t babes, and milk for his &s;trong men; to put his new-born babes to bear the heat and burthen of the day of Chri&s;tianity, while&s;t his old Souldiers, men of &s;trength and courage, are fea&s;ting with bread and wine at his table. Con|&s;idering what a &s;tream and torrent of Scriptures there are that run a head again&s;t &s;uch a notion as this, we know not how to handle our judgments or con&s;ciences to make them of this opi|nion, that Evangelical Bapti&s;m con&s;i&s;teth in any thing &s;o like the piercings of a &s;word to the fle&s;h, or which requireth &s;uch an <HI>overpowring of Faith</HI> to &s;ubject men unto it, as our Brethren them&s;elves repre&s;ent their dipping to be, and to require. Nor can we with all the might of our own under&s;tandings, nor with all the additional help of the light hitherto afforded us by our Brethren, tell how to beleeve or conceive, that <HI>all the Land of Judea, and they of Ieru&s;alem,</HI> with all <HI>the region round about Iordan,</HI> were all <HI>over-powered</HI> by any &s;uch high hand of Faith, who yet came thick and threefold, troops upon troops, and companies after companies, to be baptized of <HI>John,</HI> and were baptized accordingly.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XIV.</HEAD>
<P>For tho&s;e who are <HI>babes in Chri&s;t</HI> and <HI>weak in the Faith;</HI> yea for tho&s;e, who <HI>know but in part</HI> (and higher then thus, neither doth their knowledg it &s;elf ri&s;e, who think they know more then all the world be&s;ides) to mi&s;take, where (in a manner)
<PB N="22" REF="12">
all the judicious, learned, and grave, all the zealous, faith|ful, and be&s;t con&s;cienced Chri&s;tians, and Servants of God throughout the world, Fathers, Martyrs, Reformers, and others, for &s;ixteen generations together, even from the days of the Apo&s;tles, until now, have mi&s;taken, and not been able to di&s;cover the truth, or mind of God, is (doubtle&s;s) the mo&s;t venial and pardonable mi&s;take, that can well be imagined; yea although it &s;hould be &s;uppo&s;ed that the &s;ubject matter, wherein, or about which, this mi&s;take hath been, be of very great weight and con&s;equence. Such as this, and no whit wor&s;e or more culpable then this, is the mi&s;take (if yet a mi&s;take it be) of tho&s;e Churches and Saints, who judg it no ways nece&s;|&s;ary, nor agreeable to the mind of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> for them to de&s;ire a bapti&s;mal dipping, having been regularly (as they conceive) and &s;ufficiently baptized in their Infancy. Now the common and be&s;t-known principles of rea&s;on and equity, (and of Chri&s;tianity mo&s;t of all) upon mi&s;takes of the mo&s;t-venial nature, and which are incident to the be&s;t, the mo&s;t watchful and faithful of men, teach men to inflict the lighte&s;t puni&s;hment, whether by cen&s;ure, or otherwi&s;e (if any at all) that well may be. If then to judg and condemn a Church, or people of God, as a &s;purious and unclean Congregation, with whom no man can joyn in Church-communion, without polluting him&s;elf in the &s;ight of God, be an high and heavy cen&s;ure (which I pre&s;ume no man que&s;tions) then mu&s;t they, who inflict this cen|&s;ure only upon the account of the demerit of the afore&s;aid mi&s;|take, needs be extreamly irregular, unrighteous, and unrea&s;onable in &s;o doing. And yet they who in the open view of the world, inflict it by an actual, ha&s;ty, and (as it were) a frightful rend|ing and tearing off them&s;elves from &s;uch Churches, inflict it up|on the harde&s;t and mo&s;t unchri&s;tian terms that can be imagined. And give me leave here only to add this; that I know no more pregnant a &s;ymptome of a &s;trong inchantment, delu&s;ion, or di|&s;temper, then when a petty handful of men are rank of confi|dence and conceit, that all the world are out of their witts, but them&s;elves; and that they are as &s;o many &s;tars of the fir&s;t magni|tude, and all other men but as the &s;nuffs of &s;o many Candles.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="consideration">
<PB N="23" REF="12">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XV.</HEAD>
<P>That Bapti&s;m, how duly &s;oever admini&s;tred, is no Church|maker, but at the highe&s;t, a Church-adorner (and this po&s;&s;i|bly in &s;ome ca&s;es only too) is evident from hence; that the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> whil&s;t he was yet unbaptized, was as much the head, and as legitimate an head, of the Church, as after his <NOTE PLACE="marg">The Doctrine of Bapti&s;m is numbred as mong&s;t the <HI>Foundations</HI> of Chri&s;t <HI>(i.e.</HI> &s;uch princi|ples or Doc|trines, as were u&s;ually fir&s;t taught and learned by yong &s;cholars in Chri&s;tiani|ty, as being ea&s;ie of per|ception) but this proveth not the actu|al reception of the Rite of any Bapti&s;m, one or other, is e&s;&s;ential to the making a man a true member of Chri&s;t, nor yet of a Church of Chri&s;t, any whit mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">e (if &s;o much) then a cordial be|leif of that far greater <HI>Foundation</HI> (of the two) the re&s;urrection of the dead.</NOTE> bapti&s;m. And as Chri&s;t obtained not the Head-&s;hip of the Church, nor right unto it, by being baptized, &s;o neither do beleevers obtain their right to member&s;hip in a Church, by their being baptized. Yea it is but conjectural and traditional Di|vinity, to affirm or hold, that all the members of all the Churches in the Apo&s;tles days were baptized. Certain I am that Bapti&s;m cannot rationally pretend to &s;o much Intere&s;t to con&s;titute, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters"> legitimate, members of <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Churches un|der the Go&s;pel, as circumci&s;ion might to con&s;titute the mem|bers of the <HI>Iewi&s;h</HI> Church under the Law. Yet this Church was altogether as true a Church, and all <HI>Abrahams</HI> children by <HI>I&s;aak</HI> as true members of this church, when and while&s;t they had no practi&s;e of circumci&s;ion among&s;t them (as <HI>viz.</HI> dur|ing their Fourty years journeying through the Wilderne&s;s) as when it was in the mo&s;t regular and &s;tanding u&s;e among them. Yea (doubtle&s;s) <HI>Abraham</HI> and his family were as much the Church of God, before the Ordinance it &s;elf of circumci&s;ion was delivered unto him, as afterwards. And why the <HI>Iewi&s;h</HI> children before the eight day, &s;hould not be judged members of that church, as well as after, I under&s;tand not. Therefore without all controver&s;ie Bapti&s;m is no builder of Churches, although, as &s;ome men now &s;et it on work, it is a puller of them down. Nor doth it at all &s;avour of Go&s;pel di&s;pen&s;ation, that God &s;hould build his &s;piritual Temple upon Foundations made of a <HI>carnal ceremony,</HI> or that he &s;hould deny that poor and mean priviledg (comparatively) of Church-member&s;hip, unto that Grace (I mean, Faith) unto which he hath vouch&s;afed that High and Heavenly prerogative, the making of men to be|com the Sons of God. Be&s;ides, that which is no where menti|oned as commending any man, either unto God, or men, more then, or &s;o much as, many other duties or qualifications,
<PB N="24" REF="13">
cannot rea&s;onably be judged more nece&s;&s;ary to any mans regu|lar admi&s;&s;ion into Church-fellow&s;hip, then tho&s;e other things. Now Bapti&s;m is no where repre&s;ented in the Scriptures as com|mending any man, either unto God, or men, nor as any con|&s;iderable te&s;timony of any mans Faith, va&s;t multitudes of peo|ple having been baptized by <HI>Iohn,</HI> yea and by Chri&s;t him&s;elf or his Di&s;ciples, whereas there were very few true beleevers among&s;t them <HI>(Mat. 3. 5. Mar. 1. 5. Luk.</HI> 7, 21. Compared with <HI>Iohn. 1. 11. Ioh. 3. 32, Acts.</HI> 1. 15.) whereas other qualifications, as Faith, Love, Righteou&s;ne&s;s, Holine&s;s, Humility, the new Crea|ture, the hearing of the Word, the &s;earching of the Scriptures, (with many others of like character) are frequently in&s;i&s;ted upon, as matters of worthy te&s;timony unto tho&s;e, in whom they were found, yea and &s;ome of them of &s;ignal acceptance with God. Therefore certainly it is a mo&s;t groundle&s;s and importune conceit, to e&s;timate the truth of a Church of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> by the Bapti&s;m of the members; or to deny unto &s;uch congre|gations or bodies of Saints, the legitimacy of Church-&s;hip, up|on a pretence and conceit of their not being baptized, which are in all things, which commend a Church, either unto God, or men, the Glory of Churches, yea and (in the Apo&s;tles &s;ence, 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8. 23.) the <HI>Glory of Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XVI.</HEAD>
<P>The main, if not the only, ground and rea&s;on why our new|baptizing and baptized Brethren, reject the Bapti&s;m, &s;o e&s;teemed and practi&s;ed among us, is, becau&s;e they &s;uppo&s;e it to be a meer nullity, and to have nothing in it of the Bapti&s;m appoint|ed by <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> Upon this their &s;uppo&s;ition they proceed with the utmo&s;t &s;everity again&s;t us, they excommunicate us, and deliver us up to <HI>Satan,</HI> that we may learn rightly to bap|tize. But if the Lord <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> rule be true, <HI>a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Mat.</HI> 7. 18.) And again; that <HI>every tree is known by his own fruit (Luk.</HI> 6. 44.) then is our <HI>Bap|ti&s;m</HI> no <HI>corrupt</HI> Bapti&s;m, but the <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> commended by <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> or however, far from being a nullity. For it is a true rule: <HI>Nonentis, nulli &s;unt affectus, nulla opperatio:</HI> Nullities, or non-entities, have neither affections, nor effects, or opera|tions:
<PB N="25" REF="13">
produce nothing which is proper to be produced by a re|al and truly exci&s;tent cau&s;e. But that Bapti&s;m among&s;t us, which our Brethren very incon&s;iderately and <HI>invita veritate,</HI> vote to be a <HI>nullity,</HI> is as efficacious, as operative, in re&s;pect of all the main ends of Bapti&s;m (the Bapti&s;m I mean intended by <HI>Chri&s;t)</HI> as theirs is, or can be; yea in re&s;pect of &s;ome of the&s;e ends, if not all, it hath the preheminency. For</P>
<P N="1">1. It doth as &s;olemnly, with as much authority and power, with as expre&s;s a &s;ignification to the under&s;tandings and appre|hen&s;ions of the world about us, te&s;tifie and declare us the profe&s;|ed Di&s;ciples and followers of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> as that Bapti&s;m prac|tized by them can do. Nay in this (which is one of the mo&s;t con&s;i|derable ends of Bapti&s;m) it is of the two more efficacious then theirs. For their Bapti&s;m is (comparatively) a kind of <HI>Barbarian</HI> to the world: nor do the generality of men interpret or look up|on it, as any thing more &s;ignificative, or a&s;&s;ertive, of their own|ing the Name and Faith of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t;</HI> then our Bapti&s;m; which was al&s;o theirs, untill they renounced it, by &s;ub&s;tituting another in the place of it. Yea the &s;ence of the world, and of the generality of per&s;ons, among&s;t whom they live, is &s;o far from being either, that by their Infant-Bapti&s;m they &s;tood in&s;ufficiently declared the pro|fe&s;&s;ed Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t, or that by their new Bapti&s;m they make any materiall addition unto that their Declaration, that it inclines rather to this, <HI>viz.</HI> That they betake them&s;elves to a Re-bapti&s;m, more to di&s;obliege them&s;elves from what their Infant-Bapti&s;m ingaged them unto, then to &s;trengthen or make valid that ingage|ment; which, at lea&s;t as they apprehend, cannot receive any addi|tion of &s;trength or validitie by any further Bapti&s;m, but they are jealous that it may be di&s;inabled, or at lea&s;t di&s;advantaged, by &s;uch an after-Bapti&s;m. Of which apprehen&s;ion I wi&s;h they had not, and yet much more, that they may not in time have, too ju&s;t a ground. But however, nothing can be more evident, then that that Bapti&s;m is mo&s;t &s;erviceable and efficacious to te&s;tifie or demon&s;trate a per|&s;on, man or woman, to be a profe&s;&s;or of, and to own, the Name and Faith of <HI>Je&s;us Christ</HI> in the &s;ight of the world, who&s;e &s;igni|fication and import in this behalf is be&s;t known unto the world. If &s;o, then is our Bapti&s;m, as valid, as efficacious, in re&s;pect of this great end of Bapti&s;m, as our Brethrens new Bapti&s;m can be; and con&s;equently, is far from being a <HI>nullity.</HI></P>
<P N="2"><PB N="26" REF="14">
2. Our Bapti&s;m is altogether as operative, as bearing, as ingaging upon our judgments and Con&s;ciences, to become the reall, loyall, and true Di&s;ciples of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, as theirs can be upon theirs, or could be upon ours, &s;hould we come under it. For out of the &s;ence and con&s;cience we have that we have been Baptized, and &s;till own and &s;tand by that our Bapti&s;m, we expect no other but the &s;evere&s;t judgment and condemnation, which belong to Covenant-breakers with their God, from his hand, if we &s;hall be found unfaithfull un|der this our Bapti&s;mall ingagement. And certain I am, that our Brethrens new-Bapti&s;m can have no richer, no fuller, no more vi|gorous or potent an influence upon their judgements and con&s;ci|ence in this kind, then &s;o. I wi&s;h that theirs may hold weight with ours in this ballance. If our Bapti&s;m, whil&s;t it was theirs al&s;o, had not the &s;ame weight of engagement upon their con&s;ciences, which it hath upon ours, have they rea&s;on to judge us for it, and not ra|ther them&s;elves? Therefore in re&s;pect of this great end al&s;o of Bap|ti&s;m, ours is no whit more a nullitie, then theirs.</P>
<P N="3">3. (And la&s;tly) nor can we, or they (rea&s;onably, and upon ground) judge that our Bapti&s;m (as we call Bapti&s;m) is le&s;s edifying, &s;trengthening, comforting, to the inner man, then theirs. Our &s;ouls, through the grace and goodne&s;s of our good God unto us, have pro&s;pered as much under that Bapti&s;m which we own, and by means of it (as far as we are able to compute) as we can, upon con|&s;ultation had with al Oracles that are like to inform us in the point, expect they would, or &s;hould have done, under that Bapti&s;m, who&s;e thre&s;hold our Brethren place &s;o neer the thre&s;hold of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf. I beleeve there are thou&s;ands yet abiding under our Bapti&s;m, who would not willingly exchange &s;pirituall e&s;tates with the be&s;t of tho&s;e, who to better their e&s;tates in this kind, have &s;ought &s;ecurity under the wing and &s;helter of a new Bapti&s;m: yea I make very little que&s;tion, but that if our Brethren of this new Bapti&s;m (at lea&s;t many of them) would deal ingeniou&s;ly and freely (and what is this but Chri&s;tianly?) with us in the point, they would acknowledge and confe&s;s, that they carried far the greater part of that &s;pirituall trea&s;ure, of which they are at pre&s;ent po&s;&s;e&s;t, from under that Bapti&s;m which they for&s;ook, unto that which they have taken in exchange for it. Yea I heartily wi&s;h for the &s;ake of &s;ome of them, whom I know, that their <HI>New</HI> Bapti&s;m doth not help to dimini&s;h their <HI>Old</HI> grace. Therefore in re&s;pect of this
<PB N="27" REF="14">
great end al&s;o and benefit of Bapti&s;m, the building up of the inner man in Grace and peace, our Bapti&s;m is no whit behind theirs; but, if experience will be allowed to umpire, much be|fore it. I know no other end of Bapti&s;m but what is ea&s;ily re|duceable to one of the&s;e three. <HI>Set them</HI> then <HI>to judg</HI> (as the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh in another ca&s;e) <HI>who are lea&s;t e&s;teemed in the Church,</HI> whether that Bapti&s;m be like to be a <HI>nullity,</HI> which acts and performs, and this with authority and power, all the ends, &s;ervices, purpo&s;es and intents of Bapti&s;m; yea and in mo&s;t of them, if not in all, quits it &s;elf at a more worthy rate of effi|cacy and &s;ucce&s;s, then that which pretends to the honour of be|ing the &s;ole reality and truth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XVII.</HEAD>
<P>It is no where to be found in Scripture, that any Church of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> or imbodied &s;ociety of Beleevers, was commanded by God, or Chri&s;t, or his Apo&s;tles, to be Dipped; nor yet threatened, or reproved by any of them, for the non-practi&s;e of Dipping. If this be denyed, let the Scriptures, one, or more be produced (for as yet none have been) for the ju&s;tifica|tion of &s;uch a Denyal. Is it not then pre&s;umption in the High|e&s;t, and an a&s;&s;uming of an Anti chri&s;tian power, to impo&s;e Laws upon <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Societies, which the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> never impo&s;|ed; yea and to cen&s;ure and &s;candalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of Anti-chri&s;tian, and unclean, only for the tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions of their own Laws? Nor will it &s;erve the turn, to pretend, that it is to be found in Scripture, that par|ticular members of Churches or imbodied &s;ocieties of Saints, are commanded to be dipped, and by con&s;equence, that Churches, or whole Churches, ought to be &s;o likewi&s;e. For (be&s;ides that this is contrary to the avouched principles of tho&s;e, who are like thus to pretend, who affirm, that the Scrip|ture no where reports, or makes, any per&s;on a member of a Church, but only &s;uch who were dipped, before they entred that relation, and con&s;equently could have no &s;uch command impo&s;ed on them, being now members) it followeth not, that becau&s;e &s;ome particular members of a body were required to be dipped, therefore the whole body was commanded to be
<PB N="28" REF="15">
dipped likewi&s;e; e&s;pecially not upon &s;uch terms, that unle&s;s it would be thus wholy, univer&s;ally, and in all its members dipt, it &s;hould be unclean in the &s;ight of God and men, and all communion with it &s;inful. Therefore they who impo&s;e &s;uch a Law as this upon <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Churches, or Societies, and make them heynous tran&s;gre&s;&s;ors for the breach of it, puni&s;h|ing and cen&s;uring them accordingly, are u&s;urpers of the high Prerogative of God, and of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> claiming and exerci&s;ing a Lord&s;hip over the Faith and con&s;ciences of men.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XVIII.</HEAD>
<P>Yea I beleeve it is more then the greate&s;t Oracle of Bapti&s;mal Dipping under Heaven, will ever be able to prove to the &s;ati&s;|faction of a con&s;cience Chri&s;tianly con&s;iderate, that there is any precept or command of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the Scriptures, whereby it is made &s;inful for any per&s;on what&s;oever, not only not to be dip|ed, but to be not &s;o much as baptized in one form, or other. For fir&s;t, certain it is, that it is no &s;in unto any per&s;on what&s;o|ever to be un-dipt, while&s;t there is no per&s;on to be found &s;uffi|ciently authorized by <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> to admini&s;ter dipping unto him. And however the camel be &s;wallowed whole, either by the largne&s;s of the con&s;ciences, or by the &s;cantne&s;s of the under|&s;tandings, of our Metropolitan Dippers, yet is it not &s;o ea&s;ie for them to ju&s;tifie the authentiquene&s;s or validity of that com|mi&s;&s;ion, by which they act (without fear or trembling) the parts of dippers. But of this el&s;where. Secondly, that pre|cept of Chri&s;t, <HI>Mat.</HI> 28. 19. which (as far as I under&s;tand) they make their cheif trea&s;ure to &s;upport them in their wars again&s;t their Brethren, doth at no hand make tho&s;e tran&s;gre&s;&s;|ors, who are not dip-wi&s;e baptized, no nor yet tho&s;e who are not baptized, either &s;o, or otherwi&s;e. For fir&s;t, here is no precept, charge, or command given unto any per&s;on, one or more, but unto the Apo&s;tles only. <HI>Go ye therefore</HI> [i. e. ye Apo&s;tles] and <HI>teach all Nations, baptizing them,</HI> &amp;c. Now as a Law impo&s;ed upon a Magi&s;trate for the di&s;charge of his office, doth not make a &s;ubject guilty by his non-performance of it, nay he [the &s;ubject] &s;hould be more guilty, in ca&s;e he &s;hould ob&s;erve it: &s;o neither doth a charge layd by <HI>Christ</HI> upon
<PB N="29" REF="15">
his Apo&s;tles in reference to their &s;pecial office &amp; mini&s;try, oblige any other &s;ort of men to the ob&s;ervation of it <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">This commi|&s;&s;ion cannot be thought to obliege, or im|power, ordina|ry Pa&s;tors or Teachers; be|cau&s;e they were not to <HI>go and teach all Nations;</HI> but to watch over tho&s;e particu|lar flocks, over which the Ho|ly Gho&s;t ma|keth them O|ver&s;eers, Acts 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2.</NOTE> Secondly, in the&s;e words, <HI>baptizing them,</HI> it cannot rea&s;onably be conceived that they were injoyned to baptize any per&s;on, or per&s;ons. again&s;t their wills, or whether they would, or no. No, nor is it a mat|ter of ea&s;ie re&s;olution, what is the Antecedent or Sub&s;tantive to this Relative pronoun, <HI>them;</HI> or whom, or what per&s;ons they are, whom our Saviour here authorizeth his Apo&s;tles to baptize. Therefore, Thirdly, Here being no command layd upon any per&s;on to be baptized, or to de&s;ire Bapti&s;m of the Apo&s;tles, it clearly follows, that the Apo&s;tles are here injoyned only to bap|tize &s;uch per&s;ons, who &s;hall freely and voluntarily require the &s;ame at their hand. Nor, Fourthly, Can it be proved from the&s;e words, <HI>teaching them to ob&s;erve all things, what&s;oever I have commanded them,</HI> that the Apo&s;tles did teach Saints, beleevers, or others, to require Bapti&s;m of them, unle&s;s it were fir&s;t prov|ed, that this was one particular of tho&s;e things, which Chri&s;t commanded his Apo&s;tles to teach the Nations to ob&s;erve. But I beleeve there is no day in the year au&s;picious for our new Bap|ti&s;ts to undertake the proof of this. Nor, Fifthly, do we find, that the Apo&s;tles in the cour&s;e of their mini&s;try, did ever <HI>teach</HI> either Church or per&s;on, to demand, or &s;eek Bapti&s;m at their hand; much le&s;s threaten them, or charge them with di&s;obedi|ence unto Chri&s;t for not &s;eeking it. Sixthly, in ca&s;e it &s;hould be granted, that the Apo&s;tles by the tenor and vertue of their commi&s;&s;ion, might, and did, teach Beleevers to ob&s;erve the Law of requiring Bapti&s;m at their hands, yet it followeth not from hence, that by vertue of this commi&s;&s;ion they had power al&s;o given them to make it a &s;tanding Law for all Pa&s;tors and teachers to the worlds end, who were to &s;ucceed them in the preaching the Go&s;pel, to impo&s;e the ob&s;ervation of the &s;ame Law upon all Beleevers; con&s;idering 1. That water-Bapti&s;m, as appears partly by the expre&s;s intentions of God about it in the fir&s;t &s;etting it on foot in the world, <HI>Ioh.</HI> 1. 31. partly al&s;o, in that there is never mention made of any admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;m in any place, but only upon the fir&s;t coming or preach|ing of the Go&s;pel therein, although there were never &s;o many converted to the Faith in the &s;ame place afterwards (I mean, upon a &s;econd publication of the Go&s;pel in this place) <HI>Acts.</HI> 2.
<PB N="30" REF="16">
41. compared with <HI>Acts.</HI> 4. 4, &amp; 5. 14, &amp; 9. 42, and 19. 3. with ver&s;. 18. by the&s;e two con&s;iderations (I &s;ay) it fully ap|pears that water-Bapti&s;m was never intended by God, but either only or chiefly, for an Introductory or planting Ordinance <HI>i. e.</HI> to attend the Go&s;pel for a time at its fir&s;t coming unto, and re|ception by a People, Citty, or Nation, until it &s;hould get &s;ome con&s;iderable rooting, and Intere&s;t among&s;t them, not for a &s;ta|ple or &s;tanding ordinance in one and the &s;ame place (whereof good rea&s;on might be given, but that we are now upon a pin of brevity.) Secondly, That where&s;oever, either the work and office of Pa&s;tors and Teachers, or their qualifications are de&s;cribed, or the Intentions of God in, and about the erections of them in the Church declared, there is not the lea&s;t mention made either of any charge given them to baptize, nor of any qualifications requi&s;ite in tho&s;e, who &s;hould baptize, nor of any intent of God, or of Chri&s;t, that they &s;hould baptize. See and com|pare 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 1, 2, 4, &amp;c. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4. 1, 2. <HI>Tit. 1. 7, 8. Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. Thirdly, When the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> directeth <HI>Ti|mothy</HI> to <HI>commit unto Faithful men, the things which he had heard of him among many witne&s;&s;es,</HI> the end why he thus direct|eth him, is &s;ignified in the&s;e words, <HI>who be able to teach others al&s;o (2 Tim.</HI> 2. 2.) plainly intimating, that what is deriveable from the Apo&s;tles unto &s;tanding Pa&s;tors and Teachers, re&s;pects cheifly, if not only, their abilities to teach, or preach the Go&s;pel. Seventhly, Concerning the&s;e words, <HI>And lo I am with you to the end of the World;</HI> neither do the&s;e nece&s;&s;arily prove, that a mini&s;teriall or actually <HI>Baptizing</HI> &s;hould con|tinue to the end of the world, at lea&s;t not in all parts or places in the world, where the mini&s;tery of the Go&s;pel &s;hould be con|tinued. For 1. <HI>Jerom</HI> conceiveth that the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves are here &s;aid to live, and &s;o to teach and baptize, <HI>to the end of the world,</HI> viz. in and by, their writings and other labours in the mini&s;try: and that the pre&s;ence of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> with them to the end of the world here promi&s;ed, importeth, 1 his direct|ing, &s;trengthening, and incouraging pre&s;ence, while&s;t they continued in the body; and 2 his a&s;&s;i&s;ting pre&s;ence with them in their writings and other labours faithfully performed in the work of the Go&s;pel, whereby the&s;e &s;hould pro&s;per and bring forth fruit to the end of the world. This is no hard or far fetcht
<PB N="31" REF="16">
interpretation. <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tho&s;e words Dan.</HI> 12. 13. But go thou thy way til the end be, for thou &s;halt re&s;t &amp; stand up in thy lot at the end of the days, <HI>are commonly under&s;tood in a &s;ence of much affinity hereunto.</HI></NOTE> Yet 2. be it granted, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> here promi&s;eth his pre&s;ence, not unto the Apo&s;tles alone, but to all their &s;ucce&s;|&s;ors in teaching and baptizing, (though a &s;ub&s;tantial 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 &s;hould &s;ucceed them in both, &s;hould baptize up|on any other terms then the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves did, yea or are recorded in the Scriptures to have done. Now (as we lately ob|&s;erv'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 fir&s;t bringing of the Name of Chri&s;t, and the Go&s;pel thereunto, in ca&s;e it found any competent entertainment and &s;ettlement there. But, Eightly, (and la&s;tly) Grant we all that can either rea&s;onably or unrea&s;onably be demanded from the words in hand, on the behalf of tho&s;e, who were, and are, to &s;ucceed the Apo&s;tles in the work of the Go&s;pel, <HI>viz.</HI> Mini&s;ters and Teachers, and that Chri&s;t promi&s;eth his pre&s;ence with them, as well in Baptizing, as in teaching; yet what pre&s;ence of his is here promi&s;ed to private Chri&s;tians, in their Admini&s;trations of Bapti&s;me? Surely when they Baptize, Chri&s;t is not with them in the work; how much le&s;s when per&s;ons of this character &s;hall put forth their hand to touch the Ark of Bapti&s;m, who are not &s;o much as Baptized them&s;elves? And yet a Bapti&s;m admini&s;tred upon &s;uch polluted terms as the&s;e, is the mother and Foundre&s;s of all tho&s;e Baptizmall Admini&s;trations, for which our Brethren &s;o importunately magnifie them&s;elves a|gain&s;t us. To plead, that a per&s;on unbaptized, may admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m in a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity, is a &s;ufficient plea indeed thus under|&s;tood; <HI>viz.</HI> 1. When God him&s;elf adjudgeth and determines the ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity; and 2. authorizeth from heaven any per&s;on, one or more, for the work, as he did <HI>John Bapti&s;t.</HI> Otherwi&s;e <HI>&V;z|zah</HI> had as good, or better rea&s;on to judge that a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity, in which he put forth his hand to &s;tay the Ark, then our fir&s;t un|hallowed and undipt dipper in this Nation, had to call that a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity, wherein, to the &s;ad di&s;turbance of the affairs of the Go&s;pel, yea and of the civil peace al&s;o, he &s;et up the Dipping trade.</P>
<P>We do not intend that any thing hitherto argued in the con&s;ide|ration in hand, &s;hould be taken as meant for a po&s;itive or demon|&s;trative proof, that the Ordinance of Bapti&s;m is now extinct, or not admini&s;trable without &s;in in the world; but rather as a demon|&s;tration
<PB N="32" REF="17">
partly of the many Labyrinths and difficulties, which they ought to overcom and clear, who are &s;o confidently po&s;i|tive and a&s;&s;ertive of the contrary; partly of the mo&s;t unrea&s;on|able and importune practi&s;e of tho&s;e, who pronounce all men unworthy of <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> communion, who are not as po&s;itive and a&s;&s;ertive in matters of &s;o doubtful di&s;putation, as them|&s;elves.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XIX.</HEAD>
<P><GAP DESC="foreign">, i. e. <HI>&V;ariances, Emulations, Animo&s;ities, Contentions, Divi&s;ions</HI> [or Sediti|ons] <HI>Sects</HI> *, are by the Holy Gho&s;t him&s;elf adjudged <HI>works of</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">The word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, is commonly rendred, <HI>Sect.</HI> See Act. 5. 17. Act. 15. 5. Act. 24. 15. 5. Act. 26. 5. Act. 28. 22.</NOTE> <HI>the fle&s;h,</HI> and &s;uch which are <HI>manife&s;t;</HI> Yea and are ranged in the middle between, <HI>adultery, fornication, uncleanne&s;s, wanton|ne&s;s, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, on the one hand,</HI> and, <HI>Envy|ings murthers, drunkenne&s;s, revellings, and &s;uch like,</HI> on the other hand. Concerning all which, joyntly and &s;everally the Apo&s;tle denounceth this heavy Sentence: <HI>Of which I tell you before, as I have al&s;o told you in times pa&s;t, that they which do &s;uch things &s;hall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Gal.</HI> 5, 19, 20. 21. [meaning, without repentance] Now how can men and women in any other way, or upon any other account, more manife&s;tly, or more directly incur the guilt of the &s;aid &s;ins of <HI>Variances, Emulations, animo&s;ities, Seditions, Sects,</HI> (at lea&s;t of &s;ome, if not of the mo&s;t of them, and con&s;equently the dread|full doom of being excluded from the Kingdom of God) then by labouring in the very fire to trouble, di&s;turb, rend, tear, di&s;member, break into &s;ects and factions, &s;uch Churches or bo|dies of Saints, who until now were walking Holily, and hum|bly with their God in unity, love, and peace, edyfiing one ano|ther in their mo&s;t holy faith, with all good con&s;cience ob&s;erv|ing all Ordinances of God made known unto them for &s;uch, and ready and willing further to ab&s;erve all other, that &s;hould in like manner be made known unto them? Or can any pre|tence or plea what&s;oever render the children of &s;uch high mi&s;|demeanors excu&s;able before the Judgment Seat of <HI>Chri&s;t?</HI> I draw out my whole heart and Soul in reque&s;ts unto my God, that he will graciou&s;ly awaken the con&s;ciences of &s;uch per&s;ons,
<PB N="33" REF="17">
who whil&s;t they pull down, what Chri&s;t hath built up, and &s;catter, what he hath gathered together, think they do him &s;ervice. Certainly never were the &s;ins of <HI>variance, emulation, wrath, &s;trife, Church-&s;eaition, &s;chi&s;m,</HI> commited in the world by men, nor can it be imagined how they &s;hould be commited, if they who quarrel, trouble, rend and tear off them&s;elves, la|bour in the very fire to rend and tear off others, from <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Churches and Congregations, only for di&s;&s;enting from them in their private conceits about the ceremony of Bapti&s;m, be not guilty of them. The contentions, rents and &s;chi&s;ms in the Catho|lique Church, &s;o deeply complained of, bewailed, and oppo&s;ed by the Fathers of old, were, according to a true e&s;timate, but as &s;hadows of the&s;e &s;ins, and of light demerit, in compari&s;on.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XX.</HEAD>
<P>When &s;ome of the Brethren of the Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem</HI> were un&s;atisfied about that which <HI>Peter</HI> did, in going to the <HI>Gentiles</HI> at <HI>Cornelius</HI> his hou&s;e in <HI>Ce&s;area,</HI> and having communion with them, <HI>Peter,</HI> in order to their &s;atisfaction, and his own ju&s;ti|fication in holding communion with them, doth not in&s;i&s;t upon, nor &s;o much as mention, or hint, their being baptized, but only the gift of the Holy Gho&s;t given unto them by God in Te&s;timo|ny of their Faith. <HI>For as much then</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who beleeved on the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, who, or what, was I that I could with&s;tand God? Acts</HI> 11. 17. Where (by the way) it is ob&s;ervable, that <HI>Peter</HI> judg|ed that a <HI>with&s;tanding</HI> of God which our Brethren call a &s;erving, or an obeying of God; I mean, a refu&s;ing of communion with tho&s;e, concerning who&s;e faith in <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> he had received &s;atisfaction. Upon the &s;aid account given by <HI>Peter,</HI> it follows (ver&s;. 18.) <HI>When they heard the&s;e things, they held their peace and glorified God, &s;aying, Then hath God al&s;o to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.</HI> From whence it is evident, that neither did <HI>Peter</HI> him&s;elf, nor yet the Brethren of this Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> look upon Bapti&s;m, as e&s;&s;ential to <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> commu|nion, or as ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary to be found in tho&s;e, with whom this communion may lawfully be held. For if &s;o, why did not <HI>Peter</HI> rather in&s;i&s;t upon their Bapti&s;m, then the te&s;ti|mony
<PB N="34" REF="18">
of their beleeving, for his vindication in holding com|munion with them? Yea and why did not tho&s;e who contend|ed with him about his &s;aid act of communion, make &s;ome &s;uch objection as this again&s;t his plea (in&s;tead of being &s;atisfied with it) Why do&s;t thou tell us of the falling of the Holy Gho&s;t upon the&s;e <HI>Gentiles,</HI> or of their beleeving? What is this to ju&s;tifie thee in going in unto them? Tell us were they baptized, or no? Cer|tainly both <HI>Peters</HI> &s;ilence of Bapti&s;m in his plea, and their &s;ilence in not inquiring after it for their &s;atisfaction, <HI>divi&s;im</HI> and <HI>conjunctim</HI> prove, that Bapti&s;m in the&s;e days was looked upon as no foundation e&s;&s;entially requi&s;ite to build Church com|munion upon. For that that communion with the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> about which <HI>Peter</HI> was now que&s;tioned at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> was con&s;tructively at lea&s;t &s;uch a communion, is evident; 1. Be|cau&s;e <HI>Peter</HI> for his ju&s;tification therein, pleads the falling of the Holy Gho&s;t upon them as a te&s;timony from God of their beleeving in Chri&s;t, which is no proper or nece&s;&s;ary plea for the ju&s;tification of the lawfulne&s;s of any other communion. 2. That communion which con&s;i&s;ted in any kind of eating with men, was by the <HI>Jews,</HI> who were the men that now contended with <HI>Peter</HI> about his communion with the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> interpreted as an acknowledging and owning of them in re|lation unto God, and as per&s;ons in Covenant with him. In which re&s;pect they judged it unlawful for a <HI>Jew</HI> to &s;it at table, and eat meat with an unpro&s;elyted <HI>Gentile,</HI> as appears from <HI>Luk.</HI> 5. 30. and &s;undry other places. Yea our Saviour him|&s;elf looked upon a regular forbearance of communion in this ca&s;e, as a matter of Religion, and of like nature with the of|fering of <HI>&s;acrifice, Mat.</HI> 9. 13. compared with ver. 10. 11.</P>
<P>To pretend that that communion, which <HI>Peter</HI> had with the&s;e <HI>Gentiles,</HI> was after, not before, their baptizing, is little to the purpo&s;e. For that their baptizing was meerly accident|al and irrelative to his communion with them, appears clearly 1. Becau&s;e he builds his ju&s;tification in it upon quite another foundation (as we have heard) <HI>viz.</HI> the gift of the Holy Gho&s;t unto them in te&s;timony of their beleeving (which notwith|&s;tanding our Brethren judg in&s;ufficient to ju&s;tifie them in a like communion, unle&s;s it be eeked out with a baptizing.) 2. Becau&s;e, they who demanded, and expected (if were to be
<PB N="35" REF="18">
had) a plenary &s;atisfaction of that act of <HI>Peter</HI> in communicating with them, were fully &s;atisfied with the account mentioned, making no que&s;tion for con&s;cience &s;ake about their baptizing. In like manner this very Church at <HI>Ieru&s;alem,</HI> a while before, had admitted <HI>Paul</HI> into their communion, only upon <HI>Barnabas</HI> his <HI>declaring unto them that he had &s;een the Lord in the way, and that he had &s;poken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Da|ma&s;cus in the name of Je&s;us, (Acts.</HI> 9. 27.) without having heard the lea&s;t inkling of his baptizing. Yea it may be a que&s;tion whe|ther <HI>Barnabas</HI> him&s;elf knew that he had been baptized: but however if he did know it, it is &s;carce a que&s;tion, but that be|ing now to prepare him a way into communion with this Church, he would have repre&s;ented his Bapti&s;m, if he had judged the know|ledg hereof nece&s;&s;ary for this Church, before they could lawfully receive him into their communion. Yea a little before this, <HI>Ana|nias</HI> at <HI>Dama&s;cus</HI> had given him the right hand of Chri&s;tian fel|low&s;hip in calling him, Brother, before he was baptized. There|fore our Brethrens conceit of &s;uch an ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity of Bapti&s;m in order to Church-fellow&s;hip, as they dream of, is but an Apo|cryphal dream, without footing or foundation in the Scriptures. How much more is the empha&s;is of this their conceit Apocryphal, which beareth, not that Bapti&s;m &s;imply, but Bapti&s;m according to their model of circum&s;tances in every circum&s;tantial punctillo admini&s;tred, is of this Soveraign and Sacred nece&s;&s;ity to qualifie and capacitate for Church-communion? Do they affect to be either more wi&s;e or more Holy then God?</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XXI.</HEAD>
<P>When <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> a&s;cended up on high, it is &s;aid <HI>that he led Cap|tivity captive, and gave Gifts unto men; Some, Apo&s;tles; and &s;ome, Prophets: and &s;ome Evangeli&s;ts: and &s;ome Pa&s;tors, and Teachers, For the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Mini&s;tery, and for the edifying of the body of Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 8, 11, 12. From hence it appeareth by as cleer a light as any the Sun &s;hineth at noon day&punc; that <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> gift of <HI>Pa&s;tors,</HI> and <HI>Teachers,</HI> was intended by him, not with limitation to <HI>Saints</HI> baptized, or for the <HI>perfecting</HI> of them, but to <HI>Saints</HI> &s;imply and in general, whether baptized, or unbaptized, or (which is the
<PB N="36" REF="19">
&s;ame) to all <HI>Saints</HI> without exception of any, in as much as the Body of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> con&s;i&s;ts of all the&s;e, according to that 2 <HI>The&s;. 1. 10. When he &s;hall come to be glorified in his Saints, and to be admired in</HI> ALL THEM THAT BELEEVE. Now if <HI>Pa&s;tors and Teachers</HI> were <HI>given</HI> by <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> that all Saints, one or other, bap|tized or unbaptized, &s;hould be <HI>perfected</HI> by them, and the whole Body of Chri&s;t edifyed, then certainly they have all right to Church-fellow&s;hip, in as much as Pa&s;tors and Teachers have their callings only by, and re&s;idence in Churches. Neither are they in any capacity, or probable way of <HI>perfecting</HI> them, but only when, and whil&s;t, they are incorporated with them in their Churches (re&s;pectively.) If men will not allow the pri|viledg of Church-member&s;hip unto the Saints deemed by them unbaptized, do they not herein ri&s;e up again&s;t the Councel and gracious Intendments of <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> towards them for their perfecting? Fighting again&s;t Chri&s;t is a &s;in mo&s;t dread&s;ully ter|rible, whe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">e forgivene&s;s cannot be pleaded in prayer for the &s;in|ers upon this account, <HI>For they know not what they do.</HI> But I tru&s;t, Ignorance is the mother of that &s;ad Devotion of our Brethren, whereby they reject, yea oppo&s;e, the Councel of Chri&s;t con|cerning his Saints.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XXII.</HEAD>
<P>Be&s;ides the many rea&s;ons and arguments in our way (many of them of great pregnancy and &s;trength, as they &s;eem in our eye) which &s;eperate between our judgments, and the nece&s;&s;i|ty, yea or expediency, of a Bapti&s;mal Dipping (which rea|&s;ons may be publi&s;hed in due time) we have &s;ome di&s;cou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">age|ments and di&s;&s;wa&s;iv<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">s upon us otherwi&s;e from that way.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, We under&s;tand by books and writings of &s;uch autho|rity and credit, that we have no ground at all <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">o que&s;tion their truth, that that generat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">on of men, who&s;e judgments have gone wondering after Dipping, and Rebaptizing, have from the ve|ry fir&s;t original and &s;pring of them &s;ince the late Reformation, been very trouble&s;ome and turbulent in all places where they have encrea&s;ed to any numbers con&s;iderable; and wi&s;er men then I are not a little jealous over the peace of this Nation, le&s;t it &s;hould &s;uffer, as other places formerly have done, from the tu|multuous
<PB N="37" REF="19">
and domine<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ring &s;pirit of this &s;ort of men &s;o nume|rou&s;ly prevailing as they do. There is a &s;trong tide of Report both from <HI>Ireland</HI> and <HI>Scotland,</HI> that as far as the Intere&s;t and power, &s;o far the in&s;olency al&s;o and importune haughtine&s;s of that generation we &s;peak of, extendeth in both the&s;e Nations, and that all per&s;ons, of what Integrity or worth &s;oever other|wi&s;e, who are not enlightened with their darkne&s;s about their <HI>dipping,</HI> are troden under foot like un&s;avory &s;alt, and judged unmeet for any place of tru&s;t or power with them, being allow|ed only the preferements of drawing water, and hewing wood. One of this faction or party in <HI>England</HI> (and he no &s;mall begger neither) &s;peaking of a Per&s;on, who, though not of his judg|ment about the nece&s;&s;ity of dipping, yet otherwi&s;e a man (to my knowledg) that had very well de&s;erved of that way in &s;e|veral re&s;pects, as well publique, as private, yet &s;peaking (I &s;ay) of this per&s;on, he &s;aid in the prefence of &s;everal per&s;ons of quality, that <HI>He de&s;erved to be hanged;</HI> an aphori&s;m con&s;o|nant to the later &s;aying of a preacher of that way about the Ci|ty, who in di&s;cour&s;e with a per&s;on (walking in communion with me) about his judgment, and being (as it &s;eems) wor&s;t|ed in the skirmi&s;h, at la&s;t recovered all the ground he had lo&s;t with this or the like, <HI>Epiphonema;</HI> that &s;he might find her Church at <HI>Tyburn,</HI> and the Gallows. The&s;e words I regard but as muck, notwith&s;tanding it may concern others to look after the fire. But &s;urely the&s;e men, when they come into their Kingdom of Authority and power, will execute judg|ment and ju&s;tice without partiality. If &s;o, then, He that de|&s;erveth to be hanged, mu&s;t expect no better quarter then that of the halter: and if ju&s;tice be admini&s;tred without partiality, all that are in the &s;ame condemnation of Anti-dipping with him, may bear him company in the &s;ame expection. Let no man think that becau&s;e I write the&s;e things, I do not walk charita|bly towards the per&s;ons of the men, of whom I &s;peak, or that I bear in my &s;pirit the lea&s;t touch or tincture of any Sini&s;ter af|fection again&s;t the wor&s;t of them. My principles (I confe&s;s) are too lofty and &s;tiff to honour any mans unworthine&s;s what|&s;oever, &s;o far, as for the &s;ake thereof to become his enemy. <HI>Je|&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> with the hand of his grace hath taken my gall out of my bowels, and divided it between &s;in and <HI>Satan.</HI> My
<PB N="38" REF="20">
Con&s;cience beareth me witne&s;s in the Holy Gho&s;t, that as I have been cordially and chri&s;tianly re&s;pectful and friendly unto the&s;e men, as far as I have had opportunity to &s;erve them, &s;o am I &s;till rea|dy to bow down and lick the du&s;t at the feet even of the meane&s;t of them, and of him among&s;t them, who ever he be, that is my greate&s;t enemy, for their &s;piritual, yea or temporal accommodation. Nor do I deny, or doubt, but that as among&s;t the <HI>Phari&s;ees,</HI> though <HI>a generation of Vipers</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Mat. 3. 7. &amp; 23. 33.</NOTE>, there were &s;ome who beleeved in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg"><HI>Luk.</HI> 3. 1. &amp; 7. 50 Act. 15. 5</NOTE>; &s;o among tho&s;e, who have been baptized in their own water, &s;ome there are baptized into the Spirit of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and upright in the &s;ight of God. But the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> being <HI>mingled amongst the Heathen,</HI> in time <HI>learned their works</HI> <NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 105. 36.</NOTE> and the Night|ingale (&s;ome &s;ay) by conver&s;ing among Sparrows, will forget her native notes, and learn to chirp. Moreover, tho&s;e things were not in <HI>Hazael</HI>'s heart, while&s;t he was yet a Subject, which were af|terwards ingendered there, when he came to be King over <HI>Sy|ria</HI> <NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">2 Kin. 8. 12, 13</NOTE>.</P>
<P>Secondly, There is &s;carce any of tho&s;e worthy In&s;truments, <HI>Lu|ther, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Mu&s;culus, Bullinger,</HI> with others of like name and worth (almo&s;t) without number, who&s;e piety, zeal and faithfulne&s;s in conjunction with their &s;ingu|lar gifts, and abilities of learning, God was plea&s;ed to honour and u&s;e in the glorious Work of the Reformation, and in the de&s;eace and propagation of the reformed Religion unto this day, but in their Writings, Commentaries upon the Scriptures, and others, very frequently and upon all occa&s;ion take up mo&s;t &s;ad complaints again&s;t this generation of men, as enemies to the progre&s;s of the Go&s;pel, and by their unchri&s;tian and unworthy carriages, cau&s;ing the good Word of God and the Reformed Religion to be evil &s;poken of, and reproached by the Adver&s;aries thereof in the world.</P>
<P>Thirdly, We under&s;tand by the Records of former times, and our own experience time after time informeth us in part, that ma|ny of the be&s;t, and mo&s;t con&s;iderate per&s;ons, who have been for &s;ome time engaged in that way, after full tryal of it, have for&s;aken it, as not finding God, or Chri&s;t, in it.</P>
<P>Fourthly, We under&s;tand by frequent and very credible informa|tions, &amp; &s;ome of us are able to te&s;tifie as much upon our own know|ledg and experience, that in &s;ome of thier religious A&s;&s;emblies and
<PB N="39" REF="20">
Conventions there is no con&s;iderable pre&s;ence of God with them; that there is little taught among&s;t them with any evidence or de|mon&s;tration of the Spirit, with any Authority and Power; that the Scriptures are very defectively and lamely opened and applyed, ever and anon wre&s;ted to the countenancing and magnifying of their own private conceit and notion about Bapti&s;m; and that the greate&s;t part of the time, during the&s;e Meetings, is &s;pent in fruitle&s;s altercations, and vain janglings. Nor know we any ground to be|leeve that it is much better in tho&s;e other Congregations of the&s;e men, which we know not, then it is in tho&s;e which we know.</P>
<P>Fifthly, Another thing of little le&s;s di&s;couragement unto us then the former, is, that there have been, and &s;till are extant, three or four &s;everal Editions, or man-devi&s;ed modes, of Dipping, every latter pretending to correct the in&s;ufficiency, irregularity, or in|convenience, of the former. In regard whereof, &s;ome (we un|der&s;tand) in&s;tead of being once baptized, have been dipped three or four times over, thus committing that &s;in in Bapti&s;m, which Chri&s;t prohibits in prayer, the &s;in, I mean, of <HI>vain repetitions.</HI> So that in ca&s;e our Con&s;ciences did lead us to a bapti&s;mal Dipping, yet &s;hould we be at a lo&s;s concerning the particular mode or form, which is agreeable to the mind of Chri&s;t, there being &s;o many Competitors for this honour. And for the Mode of the late&s;t and newe&s;t Invention, and which (as we under&s;tand) is of greate&s;t e&s;teem, it is, as far as we are able to conceive by the repre&s;entation of it made unto &s;ome of us, &s;o contrived, and &s;o to be managed, that the Bapti&s;t, who dippeth according to it, had need be a man of &s;tout limbs, and of a very able and active body: otherwi&s;e the per&s;on to be baptized, e&s;pecially if in any degree corpulent or un|wieldy, runs a great hazard of meeting with <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> latter Bap|ti&s;m <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Luke 12, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">0, Mat, 20. 22 23</NOTE> in&s;tead of his former. And if this manner of Baptizing were in u&s;e in the Apo&s;tles days, it is no great marvel that <HI>Paul,</HI> be|ing a man little and low of &s;tature (as Hi&s;tory reports him, and him&s;elf overtures, 2 <HI>Cor,</HI> 10, 1, 10.) cared &s;o little and &s;eldom to adventure upon the work. And yet &s;hould we he&s;itate in our Con&s;ciences much more, where to find a competent per&s;on among&s;t them authorized by God to admini&s;ter &s;uch a kind of Bapti&s;m un|to us. For we are not yet baptized into the belief of either of the&s;e Doctrines; either, 1. That a per&s;on unbaptized, may, without a &s;pecial call or warrant from God, like unto that of <HI>John Bapti&s;t,
<PB N="40" REF="21">
Luke</HI> 3. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">. undertake the Admini&s;tration; Or, 2. That that was a ca&s;e of nece&s;&s;ity, wherein either <HI>Nicholas Stork</HI> (with his three Comrades) in <HI>Germany</HI> about the year 1521, or whoever he was that fir&s;t, him&s;elf being in his own Judgment and Con&s;cience un-baptized, pre&s;umed to baptize others after that exotique mode in this Nation. Nor are we convinced or clear in our Judgments, that any of tho&s;e, who have been dipped among&s;t us, have been rightly baptized, if it be &s;uppo&s;ed that true Bapti&s;m con&s;i&s;ts in a total immer&s;ion, or &s;ubmer&s;ion, by him that baptizeth; becau&s;e the baptized them&s;elves are wont to &s;ubmerge the greater part of their bodies, before the Bapti&s;t comes at them; and &s;o are rather &s;e-baptized, then baptized according to what the Scripture &s;eems to &s;peak concerning Bapti&s;m. Be&s;ides, we do not read in the Scriptures of any Bapti&s;mal Boots, or Bapti&s;mal Breeches, or of &s;hifting garments to avoyd the danger of being baptized, or of encircling women with women after their coming from the wa|ter to &s;alve their mode&s;ty, with &s;ome other devices now, or of late in frequent u&s;e among&s;t our new Bapti&s;ts in the way of their prac|ti&s;e. All the&s;e things narrowly con&s;idered, mini&s;ter a ground of vehement &s;u&s;pition unto us, left the whole &s;tory of Bapti&s;mal Dip|ing &s;hould prove Apocryphal.</P>
<P>Sixthly, Another thing much di&s;couraging and di&s;&s;wading un|to us from the way mentioned, is, that they who have pa&s;&s;ed over the bridg of Anabapti&s;m, can find (as it &s;eems) no firm ground to &s;tand on on the other &s;ide, but are ever and anon &s;hifting their Judgments and their practi&s;es, running out into &s;trange and un|couth opinious, heaping up ob&s;ervation upon ob&s;ervation: yea their own Churches and Congregations, notwith&s;tanding their high Purification by Bapti&s;m, are &s;ometimes unclean to them; in &s;o much that they divide, and &s;ubdivide, yea and are ready to di|vide again their divi&s;ions.</P>
<P>Seventhly, Whereas <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf is not more <HI>Antichri|&s;tian,</HI> then in claiming and exerci&s;ing &s;uch a dominion over the Faith of his Pro&s;elytes and Di&s;ciples, by vertue whereof he com|mandeth them to depend only upon Mini&s;ters and Teachers of his own Faith and wicked per&s;wa&s;ion in matters of Religion, &s;everely prohibiting unto them the hearing of Prote&s;tant Preachers; we under&s;tand that the &s;ame high-impo&s;ing &s;pirit domineers more ge|nerally in the Churches and Congregations which have been dipt;
<PB N="41" REF="21">
and that they al&s;o &s;olemnly conjure all their Pro&s;elytes and Con|verts not to hear <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf &s;peaking by any other mouth, then theirs; thus bearing them in hand, as if a voyce from Heaven like unto that, which was heard by the people at <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> Bapti&s;m concerning him, had come unto them al&s;o in reference to them&s;elves and their Teachers, in this or the like tenor of words: We are the only true Churches and Mini&s;ters of <HI>Chri&s;t: HEAR &V;S.</HI> Yea there was of late a very great Schi&s;m made in one of the&s;e Churches, and the greater part apo&s;ynagoguized by the le&s;&s;er, becau&s;e of the high mi&s;demeanor of &s;ome of the Members in hear|ing the words of eternal life from the mouths of &s;uch Mini&s;ters, who follow not them in their way. Such principles and practi&s;es as the&s;e we judg to be mo&s;t notoriou&s;ly and emphatically <HI>Anti-chri&s;tian,</HI> and &s;uch wherein (as was &s;aid in a like ca&s;e) the very horns and hoofs of the bea&s;t may be felt and handled. Yea we can|not but judg them to be of mo&s;t pernicious con&s;equence to the precious Souls of men, as depriving them of the be&s;t means and op|portunities which God mo&s;t graciou&s;ly affordeth unto them for their recovery out of all &s;uch &s;nares, wherein at any time their foot may be taken. This is another grand di&s;couragement unto us from that way.</P>
<P>Eighthly, We ob&s;erve, That (more generally) when men or women have &s;uffered them&s;elves to be intangled with a conceit of that way; e&s;pecially when they have bowed down their Judgments and Con&s;ciences unto it, they are pre&s;ently found in that &s;ad con|dition and di&s;temper, wherein the Apo&s;tle perc<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ived the <HI>Galati|ans,</HI> upon their &s;ubjection to the yoke of Circumci&s;ion, when he demanded of them, <HI>Who hath bewitched you</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Gal. 3 1.</NOTE>? For as the&s;e were &s;o &s;trangely be&s;otted and di&s;&s;en&s;ed with their notion of Circumci|&s;ion and legal Ob&s;ervations, that the Apo&s;tle him&s;elf <HI>feared</HI> <NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Gal. 4. 11.</NOTE> that he &s;hould not be able to deliver them, no not by the cleare&s;t argu|ments and demon&s;trations of the vanity and danger of their new notion, and practi&s;e: &s;o are the Rea&s;ons, Judgments and Under|&s;tandings of the per&s;ons we &s;peak of, &s;o &s;tupified, di&s;traught and confounded with the admiration of their Water-work, and their airy conceits about it, that all Rea&s;on oppo&s;ing it, is a <HI>Barbarian</HI> unto them; common &s;ence is a my&s;tery inacce&s;&s;ible to their under|&s;tandings, the light of the noon-day offering to di&s;cover any na|kedne&s;s in their way, is as dark as the darkne&s;s of mid-night it &s;elf:
<PB N="42" REF="22">
Men of &s;ound and &s;erious intellectuals are as men that &s;peak unto them in a &s;trange tongue, if they &s;peak any thing again&s;t their way. They know not valleys from hills, nor hills from valleys, rivers from trees, nor trees from rivers, halfs from wholes, nor wholes from halfs, precepts from promi&s;es, nor promi&s;es from precepts, cere|mony from &s;ub&s;tance, nor &s;ub&s;tance from ceremony; every di|&s;tinction that attempts to &s;hew them the error of their way, <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> becomes a Chaos and confu&s;ion. On the other hand, for the maintenance and defence of their way, the &s;hadows of mountains &s;eem valiant and armed men; &s;tubble and rotten wood, are turned into weapons of &s;teel and iron before them; letter becomes &s;pirit, face becomes heart, promi&s;e becomes precept, ceremony becomes &s;ub&s;tance, Apo&s;tles become ordinary men and women, di&s;puteables become demon&s;trations, and peradventures become all Yeas and Amens. In re&s;pect of the&s;e marvellous and &s;ad di&s;tempers in their fancies and under&s;tandings, to rea&s;on with them about their way, or to endeavor their conviction, &s;eldom turns to any better account then a beating of the ayr, or then <HI>Diogenes</HI> his begging ap|plications to the Statues of men.</P>
<P>But Ninethly (and la&s;tly) The fir&s;t born of all Di&s;couragements unto us in this kind, is, that which our eyes dayly &s;ee, and our ears oft hear, and wherewith our hearts are continually made &s;ad with|in us, <HI>viz.</HI> that the generality or far greater part of tho&s;e, who turn a&s;ide into this way, do, &s;ome more &s;uddenly, others by degrees, impair and decline in their Graces, lo&s;e that &s;weetne&s;s, meekne&s;s, love, and Chri&s;tian humility of &s;pirit, wherewith they were for|merly adorned, as if they were baptized in <HI>Marah</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Exod. 15 23.</NOTE>, or in the wa|ters of the Red Sea. Never did we know any that by being dipped added thereby &s;o much as an hairs bredth to his &s;piritual &s;tature, or that became in any degree either more meek, or more humble, or more patient, or more merciful, or more mortifyed, &s;elf-deny|ing, or the like; but very many have we known and heard of, who upon &s;uch an engagement have made &s;hipwrack of much &s;piritual trea&s;ure, wherewith God had ble&s;&s;ed them under their fir&s;t Bap|ti&s;m. Many have we known, who went into the water, Lambs, and came out of it Wolves and Tygers: many who went in, Doves, and came out, Serpents; as if they had met with the &s;pirit that rules in the ayr under the water, in &s;tead of the &s;weet Spirit of <HI>Christ.</HI> Yea we have known &s;ome, who &s;oon after their dipping
<PB N="43" REF="22">
have perpetrated and done things &s;o unworthy and un&s;utable to their former <HI>genius,</HI> which if any man had challenged them be|fore their dipping, that they would do after, we have rea&s;on to judg they would have replied to the challenge, as <HI>Hazael</HI> did to <HI>Eli&s;ha</HI> in &s;omewhat a like ca&s;e; <HI>But what is thy &s;ervant a dog that he &s;hould do this great thing? 2 King.</HI> 8. 13. So many &s;ad &s;pectacles and &s;tories, wherewith our eyes and ears are fill'd from time to time, e&s;pecially not being ballanced or counter|poy&s;ed with any thing de&s;ireable, or of moment, put us into &s;ome fears, le&s;t as God, in his ju&s;t, though &s;ecret judgment, gives Sathan a permi&s;&s;ion to haunt &s;ome hou&s;es, and to mi&s;u&s;e and terrifie tho&s;e that &s;hall lodg in them; &s;o he &s;hould, for cau&s;es be&s;t known to him&s;elf (though &s;omewhat might with good probability be conjectured in this kind) have granted unto this enemy of mankind &s;omewhat a like power, over the opinion and practi&s;e of Rebaptizing, and to tempt tho&s;e, who &s;uffer them&s;elves to be intangled with them, more dangerou&s;|ly and prevailingly, then tho&s;e, who in &s;implicity of heart walk before him in the contrary way. We are not definitive in this; but only crave leave (without offence) to make known our fears. And however, God having multiplied grace, mercy and peace unto us in that way of his wor&s;hip, wherein at pre|&s;ent we walk, we judge it no <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> prudence to tempt him in another. But whether our Brethren have any ju&s;t cau&s;e to ca&s;t us out of their communion, for not for&s;aking a way of experienced peace and &s;afety, to walk in a way of &s;o much dan|ger, as that they &s;eek to conjure us into, we leave to their own con&s;ciences, and to all con&s;idering men, to judg and deter|mine.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="consideration">
<HEAD>CONSIDERATION XXIII.</HEAD>
<P>The Con&s;ideration that &s;ealeth unto me the conclu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ency and force of all the former, again&s;t the practi&s;e of Church-rending upon the p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">etence of undipt members, is, the invalidity of any <NOTE PLACE="marg">Fir&s;t Argu|ment again&s;t lawfullne&s;s of communion with undipt Churches, An&s;wered.</NOTE> thing that hath been yet brought to light (and I pre&s;ume of all that ever will, or can be) in ju&s;tification of it.</P>
<P N="1">1. It is not true, (is hath been &s;ufficiently proved) that cir|cumci&s;ion was con&s;titutive of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, or gave being of
<PB N="44" REF="23">
member&s;hip to all the leg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">imate members of it. Or if this could be made good, yet would it not follow from hence, that therefore Bapti&s;m mu&s;t needs con&s;titute the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church. For what though it be &s;uppo&s;ed that Bapti&s;m &s;ucceedeth in the place of circumci&s;ion (a &s;uppo&s;ition, which though true and de|mon&s;trable enough, yet neither lives, nor dyes, to me) yet it followeth not, that it &s;hould &s;ucceed it in all its circum&s;tantial ends and relations. <HI>Solomon</HI> &s;ucceeded <HI>David</HI> in his Kingdom, yet he did not &s;ucceed him in his wives or concubines, or any his relations of affinity.</P>
<P N="2">2. Nor do the contents of <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 41. prove, &s;o much as in f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ce, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Second Argu|ment An&s;wer|ed.</NOTE> or appearance, that Bapti&s;m is of the e&s;&s;ence of a Church-member. For, 1. Tho&s;e who are &s;aid to have been <HI>baptized</HI> (in the former part of the ver&s;e) are not &s;aid (in the latter) to have been <HI>added</HI> to the Church, but &s;imply, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>they were added,</HI> or added to. If the que&s;tion be, to what, or to whom they were added, if not to the Church; the Holy Gho&s;t him|&s;elf may inform you, expre&s;&s;ing him&s;elf more plainly in a like ca&s;e, <HI>Act. 11. 24. And much people was</HI> ADDED TO THE LORD. And, 2. It is &s;aid, <HI>Act. 2, 47. And the Lord added unto the Church,</HI> who? Such as were baptized? no: but, <HI>Such as &s;hould be &s;aved,</HI> or, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e.</HI> tho&s;e who are, or were, &s;aved, or delivered, <HI>viz.</HI> from the general impiety of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Nation, which was, not by being baptized, but by beleeving. 3. (and la&s;tly for this) In ca&s;e their baptizing having been mentioned in the former part of the ver&s;e, it &s;hould been &s;aid (in the latter) that they <HI>were added</HI> unto the Church, yet <GAP DESC="foreign"> would not have proved <GAP DESC="foreign">; the recording of their addition to the Church after their being baptized, will not prove this addition to have been made by vertue, or by means of their baptizing. In the former part of the ver&s;e, <HI>Ioh. 6. 49. Chri&s;t</HI> telleth the <HI>Jews</HI> that <HI>their Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderne&s;s:</HI> he &s;ubjoyneth in the latter, <HI>and are dead.</HI> Will any man rea&s;on from hence; becau&s;e this <HI>eating Manna</HI> is reported in the former part of the ver&s;e, and their death, or being <HI>dead,</HI> in the latter; therefore their <HI>death</HI> was cau&s;ed by their <HI>eating of manna.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Nor doth that of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 13. make any <NOTE PLACE="marg">The third Ar|gument An|&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">ered.</NOTE> whit more (if not rather le&s;s) for Church-con&s;titution by Bapti&s;m, then the former. For, 1. When the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body,</HI> it is not nece&s;&s;ary we &s;hould un|der&s;tand
<PB N="45" REF="23">
him to &s;peak of water-Bapti&s;w; becau&s;e, 1. Here is ano|ther element expre&s;ly named, wherein this Bapti&s;m might be ad|mini&s;tred, viz. <HI>the Spirit,</HI> whereas there is no mention of water at all. 2. The phra&s;e of being baptized with the Spirit, or with the Holy Gho&s;t (as <GAP DESC="foreign">, might have been tran&s;lat|ed here, as it is in all other places of like con&s;truction, as <HI>viz. Mat. 3. 11. Mar. 1. 8. Luk. 3. 16. Ioh. 1, 33. Acts 1. 5, Acts</HI> 11, 16.) is mo&s;t u&s;ual and frequent in the Scriptures (as the &s;e|veral texts now cited &s;ufficiently declare;) whereas, to be with, or through, the &s;pirit, baptized with water, is an uncouth and hard expre&s;&s;ion, no where found in the Scriptures, nor carry|ing any regular Sence in it. 3. If the <HI>unity</HI> or onene&s;s of the <HI>body</HI> here &s;poken of, did, or doth depend upon their baptizing with water, and was cau&s;ed by this, it had been impertinent for the Apo&s;tle to mention the <HI>unity</HI> of the Spirit, For <HI>we by one Spirit are all,</HI> &amp;c. he &s;hould rather have in&s;i&s;ted upon the one|ne&s;s, or &s;ame-ne&s;s of water Bapti&s;m (as he doth, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 5.) 4. The unity or onene&s;s of the body, of which the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks, is not &s;o much, or &s;o proper, an effect of water-Bapti&s;m, no nor of the onene&s;s of this Bapti&s;m (if it be any effect of ei|ther at all) is of the Spirit, by which this body is in&s;pired, anima|ted, acted, and moved, and the members of it knit together, and kept from di&s;&s;olution. 5. Whether all the members of the body were <HI>baptized</HI> with water, or no, is uncertain. The Apo|&s;tle expre&s;ly profe&s;&s;eth that he baptized <HI>[viz.</HI> with water] very few of them; and who el&s;e &s;hould baptize them all, no where appears; whereas that they were all with, or by, <HI>the Spirit bap|tized into the &s;ame body</HI> [i. e. per&s;waded and over-ruled in their judgments and con&s;ciences to imbody them&s;elves in a pro|fe&s;&s;ion of the Faith of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and of the Go&s;pel] is un|que&s;tionable. 6, The Spirit is no where &s;aid to baptize men with water by or through the Spirit. 7. Though there be no expre&s;s mention in the ver&s; either of God, or of Chri&s;t, who el&s;ewhere (the one, or the other) are &s;aid to <HI>baptize with the Spirit,</HI> tho&s;e who are thus baptived, yet ver&s;e. 6. God is named, and this under the con&s;ideration of his unity, or &s;amene&s;s, as <HI>working all in all: But it is the &s;ame God that worketh all in all.</HI> And in the next ver&s;e it is &s;aid; <HI>But the manife&s;tation of the Spirit is
<PB N="46" REF="24">
given unto every man,</HI> &amp;c. [meaning, by God, mentioned in the ver&s;e preceding.] Be&s;ides, There is nothing more familiat in the Scriptures, then to expre&s;s &s;uch actions, which are proper unto God, or <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> indefinitely, and without the mention of ei|ther. <HI>All Power is given unto me</HI> [&s;aith Chri&s;t, meaning by God his Father] <HI>in Heaven and in Earth, Matth.</HI> 28. 18. In&s;tances of this con&s;truction, &s;ee <HI>Matth.</HI> 12. 37. and 25. 29. <HI>Philip.</HI> 4. 12. (be&s;ides many others.) Yea actions appropriate, whether to Angels, or men, are &s;ometimes thus expre&s;&s;ed. 8. The re&s;emblance which the Apo&s;tle borrowed (in the Ver&s;e next preceding that in hand) from the natural body, &s;heweth that the unity or onene&s;s of that Church body of which he here &s;peak|eth, is not &s;uch an onene&s;s which accrueth unto it by Water-Bap|ti&s;m, or any external Rite or Ceremony, but by the onene&s;s and &s;amene&s;s of that Spirit, by which it is (as it were) inform'd in|wardly, and &s;upported in life, and &s;piritual Being. <HI>For as the bo|dy</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: &s;o is Chri&s;t;</HI> intima|ting, that as the natural body, notwith&s;tanding the plurality and diver&s;ity 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 the&s;e members re&s;pectively, but by that &s;pirit of life which diffu&s;eth it &s;elf into all and every of the&s;e members pro|portionably, and &s;o by means of the onene&s;s or &s;amene&s;s of it, cau&s;eth a joynt coalition and natural con&s;ent in all the&s;e members to con&s;titute and make one and the &s;ame entire body; &s;o is the my&s;tical or &s;piritual Body of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> made, and doth become, one and the &s;ame Body in its kind, notwith&s;tanding the great number and difference of the per&s;ons, who are the members of it, by means of that Spirit, and his unity and &s;amene&s;s, which communicates him&s;elf inwardly unto them all, rai&s;ing and begetting in them an holy con&s;ent to love and &s;erve, and accommodate one another, much after the &s;ame manner, as the natural members in that other body do. 9. Nor is it any ways probable, that in that clau&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">, tran&s;lated, <HI>and have been made to drink into one Spirit,</HI> the Apo&s;tle &s;peaketh of the &s;acramental drinking in the Supper; 1. Becau&s;e <HI>drinking,</HI> or the &s;up, in this Sacrament, is never found mentioned apart, or without mention of the bread in the &s;ame contexture of Scripture with it. 2. To
<PB N="47" REF="24">
&s;ay that they, who have before this their <HI>drinking,</HI> received the &s;ame <HI>Spirit,</HI> are made to drink [at the Lords Table] for, into, or unto, the &s;ame Spirit, is very improper, and not without very much ado, &s;o much as truth. 3. Neither are Beleevers any where &s;aid, to be made to drink, or to have <HI>drink</HI> given them, at the Lords Ta|ble, in order to their obtaining the &s;ame <HI>Spirit,</HI> 4. Learned Expo|&s;itors give notice of &s;everal different readings of this clau&s;e, found in Manu&s;cripts, and other Copies. In a Manu&s;cript (&s;aith <HI>Groti|us</HI> upon the place) this clau&s;e is thus read: <GAP DESC="foreign">, i. e. <HI>and we all are one Body. Oecumenius</HI> (it &s;eems) did read it thus: <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e.</HI> and we all drank, or were cau&s;ed to drink, one potion, or one drinking, for, or unto, one Spirit. Some of the Fathers read the clau&s;e in their language, <HI>Et omnes unum Spiritum potavimus, i. e.</HI> and we all have drank one Spirit; with which the Syriac al&s;o accordeth. 5. The mean|ing of the clau&s;e (if the reading we have be judged authentique) con&s;trued with the former, &s;eems to be this: We have by the <HI>&s;ame Spirit,</HI> not only, or &s;imply, been <HI>baptized into one</HI> and the &s;ame <HI>Bo|dy, [i. e.</HI> received &s;uch a proportion, or mea&s;ure of the Spirit given us, which is &s;ufficient to make us <HI>one Body,]</HI> but we have al&s;o been <HI>made to drink unto one Spirit, [i. e.</HI> have received of this Spirit of God &s;o liberally, &s;o plentifully, that we may very well become <HI>one Spirit</HI> hereby among&s;t our &s;elves, and walk together without either divi&s;ions in judgme~ts, or di&s;tances in our affections.] This con&s;truction of the prepo&s;ition, <GAP DESC="foreign">, might be exemplified from the Scriptures: and however, there is no hardne&s;s or un|plea&s;antne&s;s in it. And this Expo&s;ition of the clau&s;e, receives countenance from all tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages in both Epi&s;tles, wherein the Apo&s;tle &s;ignifies the more then ordinary pourings out of the Spirit in variety of gifts and graces upon the&s;e <HI>Corinthians.</HI> But, 10. (and la&s;tly) Suppo&s;e it &s;hould be granted, 1. That the Apo&s;tle in this Ver&s;e &s;peaks of Water-Bapti&s;m, 2. That his meaning is, that by this <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> they had been all <HI>baptized into one Body;</HI> Yet, 1. It doth not follow, that this mu&s;t needs be under&s;tood <HI>con|&s;titutively,</HI> but <HI>declaratively</HI> only; and that all implyed hereby &s;hould be, that by their Bapti&s;m they did declare, or <HI>&s;igno tenus</HI> pretend, unto the world, that they were <HI>one Body,</HI> not that they were con&s;tituted, or really and actually made <HI>one Body,</HI> by their Bapti&s;m. 2. Both the &s;aid particulars admitted, yea and this al&s;o,
<PB N="48" REF="25">
that they were (in a &s;ence) by Water-Bapti&s;m <HI>baptized [con&s;ti|tutively] into one Body,</HI> yet will it not follow from all the&s;e put together, either, 1. But that they might have been, yea and now were, the &s;ame Body, which they were, by another Con&s;titution, and Con&s;titutor (one, or more) be&s;ides that of Water-Bapti&s;m; Or, 2. That no other kind of Water-Bapti&s;m, but only that by Dipping, would have been every whit as effectual, as that by dip|ing, to con&s;titute or make them one Body. As to the former; Men may be truly &s;aid to be ju&s;tified <HI>[i. e.</HI> con&s;tituted or made righte|ous] by Faith; and yet as truly be &s;aid al&s;o to be ju&s;tified by <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> yea and by God him&s;elf, and this with the &s;elf &s;ame Ju&s;ti|fication. Yea Children without Faith are ju&s;tified with the &s;ame Ju&s;tification by God and <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> wherewith men Beleevers are ju&s;tified through Faith. In like manner a company of Beleevers, may be &s;aid to be con&s;tituted a Church by <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> and yet be &s;aid to be con&s;tituted and made this very Church by the Spirit of Chri&s;t, or by Faith al&s;o; yea though Bapti&s;m be wanting, yet may the&s;e per&s;ons be a Church of a like, as &s;ound, as worthy a con&s;titu|tion by means of the other two, the Spirit of Chri&s;t, and Faith. To the latter; Suppo&s;e baptizing by &s;prinkling, or pouring water on the face, or head, were only the Ordinance of men, and not of <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> yet by common agreement and con&s;ent about the &s;ignifi|cation and purport of this Ordinance, a general &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion unto it by men, might as well and as much, con&s;titute them one and the &s;ame Body, as baptizing by dipping would do. It is true, upon &s;uch a &s;uppo&s;ition as this, the unity of the Body, &s;o far as the ceremony of &s;prinkling hath to do in it, is not rai&s;ed, or effected, according to the mind or precept of <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> but yet tho&s;e other Con&s;titutors of the &s;ame unity (I mean, the Spirit of God, and Faith) are not defeated in their operations or effects hereby. So that the Body, or Church, we &s;peak of, is a true Body or Church of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> al|though the external Contributor towards the unity of it, be not &s;uch as it ought to be. But in this latter part of our An&s;wer, we put our &s;elves to more trouble then we need, by arguing again&s;t &s;uch thing<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">, which neither can be proved, nor are (indeed) in them|&s;elves probable. However our Brethren may plea&s;e to take notice here from how ready and de&s;irous we are to give them &s;atisfaction in the large&s;t mea&s;ure they can de&s;ire it.</P>
<P N="4">4. (And la&s;tly) Whereas an unlawfulne&s;s of communicating
<PB N="49" REF="25">
with Churches or per&s;ons unbaptized (as &s;ome call unbaptized) <NOTE PLACE="marg">Fourth (and la&s;t) Argu|ment again&s;t the lawfulne&s;s of communion with Churches undipt, an|&s;wered.</NOTE> is argued from hence; that the Go&s;pel no where records, or ap|proves of, any &s;uch communicating by Saints baptized, in the A|po&s;tles days; we an&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. That it is not recorded that the &s;pring, or water, wherein the <HI>Eunuch</HI> was baptized, was &s;o deep as to reach, or come up to his ankles, when he went (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) into it: yet our Brethren build very high, and with confidence (more then enough) upon a far greater depth then &s;o in it. Nor is it recorded that any of the &s;even Churches of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> or the greater part of the Members of any of them, were baptized: yet our Brethren would think it unrea|&s;onable in us to deny it. But by what Law &s;hould our Brethren judg it unrea&s;onable in us to deny, upon the account of a non-be|ing recorded, what they &s;uppo&s;e to be true; when as they judg it very commendable in them&s;elves to deny that only upon the &s;ame account of not being recorded, which we judg to be true? But if we deny them the principle, or priviledg of unrea&s;onablene&s;s, their fabrick falls to the ground.</P>
<P N="2">2. Where the Scripture, not only allows, but enjoyneth, the beleeving yoke-fellow in marriage, cohabitation with the unbe|leeving, there it doth <HI>ex &s;uper abundanti</HI> both approve and require Church-cohabitation and communion of the baptized with the un-baptized; at lea&s;t where both parties are really &s;anctified by Faith in <HI>Chri&s;t Je&s;us,</HI> and the Baptized have mo&s;t &s;olemnly, and in the pre&s;ence of God, and before many witne&s;&s;es of his Saints, engaged them&s;elves by promi&s;e unto the other, to walk with them in all the Ordinances of God and of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as they &s;hould be at any time revealed and made known unto them. I &s;hall not (I &s;uppo&s;e) need to traver&s;e the compari&s;on. The Argument <HI>a minore ad majus,</HI> from the le&s;s probability to the greater, lieth large above ground. If Infidelity, which is ten times wor&s;e then the want of an external Ceremony, yet hath no power to ab&s;olve the beleeving wife for her matrimonial engagement to her Husband; much le&s;s hath a defect of, or in, an outward Ceremony, in one or more members of a Chri&s;tian Society, any Commi&s;&s;ion or Authority from God to di&s;charge tho&s;e, who call them&s;elves baptized, from tho&s;e &s;acred promi&s;es or engagements, wherein they have openly and avowingly affianced them&s;elves to this Society.</P>
<P N="3">3. Where the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;aith, <HI>What God hath joyned toge|ther,
<PB N="50" REF="26">
let no man put a&s;under, (Mat.</HI> 19. 6.) he doth more then ju&s;tifie that Communion, which is the &s;ubject matter of our pre|&s;ent Debate. For if it was God, that joyned together the per&s;ons who now look upon them&s;elves, as Baptized, with tho&s;e who are challenged for unbaptized, in that holy Communion wherein they &s;ometimes walked together, then it is a plain ca&s;e, that no man (indeed no creature) what&s;oever hath any authority or right of power, what&s;oever his pretence may be, to di&s;&s;olve the band of this Communion between them, except it be given unto him by God. And then this gift or grant from God mu&s;t be made to ap|pear to men, before they ought to own or countenance any man in his act of parting, or putting a&s;under what God hath joyned to|gether. And the truth is, that that man, or creature, that &s;hall claim a right of power to abrogate or di&s;anul any act of God, otherwi&s;e then from God him&s;elf, maketh him&s;elf not only equal, but &s;uperior in power, unto God. So that all the Que&s;tion is, whether God may lawfully and with truth be entituled to tho&s;e tran&s;actions, by which the re&s;pective members of a Society or fel|low&s;hip of Saints, do at any time imbody them&s;elves, or become a Church or &s;piritual Corporation. For if it be either granted, or proved, that God is the Author of the&s;e councels or motions in the hearts of his Saints, as well undipt, as dipped, by which they incorporate or imbody them&s;elves, it will roundly follow, that men have no power, but that which is u&s;urped, and &s;infully u&s;ed, to di&s;&s;olve, either in whole, or in part, the&s;e imbodied Societies, or Incorporations. For if God, upon this &s;uppo&s;ition, &s;hould autho|rize or licen&s;e men to make any &s;uch di&s;&s;olution, he &s;hould be di|vided again&s;t, and incon&s;i&s;tent with, him&s;elf; giving men leave, what he builds up in one day, to pull down the next. For certain it is, that they who &s;eparate and rend them&s;elves off from any So|ciety of Saints after one, two, or three years walking with them, had the &s;ame right or power of &s;eparating them&s;elves the very next day or hour after their fir&s;t uniting, unle&s;s it be &s;uppo&s;ed that this Society in the mean time hath enormou&s;ly corrupted it &s;elf, or apo&s;tatized from that Faith, which it profe&s;&s;ed when the &s;aid per|&s;ons fir&s;t joyned them&s;elves unto it. Now whether God be the Author of tho&s;e coun&s;els and motions in the hearts of his Saints, whether dipt, or undipt, by the ducture whereof they are led to imbody them&s;elves (as hath been &s;aid,) can be no mans que&s;tion,
<PB N="51" REF="26">
who doth but know and con&s;ider the mo&s;t gracious and ble&s;&s;ed tendencies, yea and real effects of &s;uch Incorporations, when the per&s;ons incorporated do but in any con&s;iderable degree walk ac|cording to their light, and perform the terms of their engagements, dipping, or not dipping, making no difference in this kind. Not|with&s;tanding if a thing &s;o clear and evident as this &s;hould be any mans doubt, demon&s;trations and proofs are near at hand; but till they be called for, the Reader (haply) for his ea&s;e, had rather hear of them, then have them. But,</P>
<P N="4">4. (And la&s;tly) To ju&s;tifie the practi&s;e of per&s;ons dipped in &s;eparating and tearing off them&s;elves from the Societies of Saints undipt, it is not (&s;o much as in colour or &s;hew) &s;ufficient to plead, that they find no Example in the Scripture of any &s;uch Communi|on; but it is ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;ary hereunto, that they find and &s;hew &s;ome Example (and this atte&s;ted by the Spirit of God) of &s;uch a Separation, as they practi&s;e. They find no Example in Scripture of any Beleever dipped after they had been dedicated in their Infancy unto the Service of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> by &s;prinkling, or wa&s;hing; yet they judg them&s;elves bound to the practi&s;e. Why may they not as well judg them&s;elves bound to remain in communion with Societies undipt, although they find no Example in Scripture of a like practi&s;e? If they practi&s;e in one ca&s;e without Example, why do they not the like in the other? As for matter of Precept, where|on to build either the one practi&s;e, or the other; certainly there is as much (or rather much more) for holding communion with Saints, though undipt, as for dipping, after &s;prinkling, or wa&s;hing. And as &s;prinkling, or wa&s;hing in Infancy, is no where expre&s;ly or <HI>liter&acirc; ten&ugrave;s</HI> made an exception again&s;t after Dipping; &s;o neither is this dipping made any exception or bar again&s;t holding commu|nion with Saints or Beleevers, though undipt. Yea whereas that Communion&punc; we &s;peak of is an act or &s;ervice of love and of mercy, and con&s;equently one of the great things of the Law, Dipping being only a Ceremony, and &s;o an&s;wering the tything of Mint, Ani&s;e, and Cummin, certainly if men think them&s;elves bound in Con&s;ci|ence not to leave the latter undone, they are much bound to ob|&s;erve and do the former. Therefore they who dip after &s;prinkling, in this very practi&s;e condemn them&s;elves for breaking Communi|on after Dipping.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="52" REF="27">
<HEAD>Po&s;t-&s;cript, To the Reader.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Good Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>UPon occa&s;ion of the foregoing Con&s;iderations, and the Argu|ment traver&s;ed in them, I judged it not ami&s;s to &s;ubjoyn in the cloze of them one Con&s;ideration more&punc;  which though it doth not &s;o particularly relate unto the Argument of the former, yet may it through the ble&s;&s;ing of God comfort, &s;trengthen, and relieve thee again&s;t &s;uch impre&s;&s;ions of &s;adne&s;s, wherewith, as well that trouble&s;om and di&s;orderly behavior of men there counter-argued, as many other parts of no better, if not of a much wor&s;e import, like to be &s;hortly acted upon the &s;tage of the world yet &s;tanding, are like to fill thy Soul. The Con&s;ideration I mean, is, That the Great Troubler of the World, the Devil, knowing that he hath now but a very &s;hort time, is like to arm him&s;elf with greater wrath then ever, again&s;t the poor generation of the children of men, the objects of his deadly fury and mo&s;t inveterate indigna|tion. They who have yet their turns of mortality to take, either in whole, or in part, are like to learn and know more within the &s;pace of one year what a <HI>DEVIL</HI> meaneth, then tho&s;e who have lived before them have done in &s;even. Satan hath but dallied with the world in mi&s;chief and blood hitherto (in compari&s;on.) The &s;cope of time before him wherein to act, was a kind of temp|tation upon him to remi&s;&s;ne&s;s in his work. Now finding and feel|ing him&s;elf clo&s;e begirt, and pen'd up in &s;traits of time for action, it cannot be expected but that he &s;hould dayly break out upon the world like thunder and lightening out of the blacke&s;t cloud. <HI>Acer|rima virtus e&s;t, quam ultima nece&s;&s;itas extundit.</HI> He never rent <NOTE PLACE="marg">Seneca.</NOTE> and tare the poor child <HI>(Luk.</HI> 9.) &s;o cruelly, as when he knew that the date of his po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion was now expired. And however his game by, as well the pre&s;ent troubles, perplexities, and confu&s;ions of the world, as the eternal ruine and perdition of the precious Souls of men, (for his <HI>motto</HI> may be, <HI>Tam marte, qu&agrave;m Mercurio,)</HI> yet when he can pur&s;ue and follow both in one and the &s;ame cha&s;e, he is in the highe&s;t exta&s;ie of his delight. His great and deeply beloved de&s;ign is to di&s;&s;olve his works in the world, who he knoweth came
<PB N="53" REF="27">
into the world to di&s;&s;olve his. And as he knoweth that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>'s method for the de&s;truction of his Kingdom was by kindling a fire of divi&s;ion in the mid&s;t of it, by means whereof, where <HI>five</HI> &s;hould <HI>be in an hou&s;e, three</HI> &s;hould <HI>be divided again&s;t two, and two a|gain&s;t three, The father divided again&s;t the &s;on, and the &s;on a|gain&s;t the father, the mother again&s;t the daughter, and the daughter against the mother</HI> <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Luk. 12 49, 51, 52, 53.</NOTE>, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in like manner his method, by way of revenge, and, if it were po&s;&s;ible, to de&s;troy the Kingdom of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> is, by ca&s;ting fire too, a fire of divi&s;ion, into that al&s;o, whereby the Saints in their families likewi&s;e &s;hould be divided, the husband again&s;t the wife, and the wife again&s;t the husband; the father again&s;t his &s;ons, and the &s;ons again&s;t their father; the ma&s;ter again&s;t his &s;ervants, and the &s;ervants again&s;t their ma&s;ter, &amp;c. And though it be true, that the Devil hath in former ages ca&s;t &s;undry fires of &s;eparation and divi&s;ion into that great body or bulk of the Profe&s;&s;ors of <HI>Christ</HI> in the world (commonly called, the Catho|lique Church) cau&s;ing hereby great troubles and confu&s;ions in this Church, and po&s;&s;ibly might &s;eparate and divide &s;ome true Saints and Servants of God, from others, partakers of like precious Faith with them, yet did he never (at lea&s;t &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days) attempt the Kingdom of Chri&s;t &s;o compact in it &s;elf, and &s;o well fortified for its own defence and pre&s;ervation, as of late it was a|mong&s;t us in the Congregational Churches of the Nation, by any fire of divi&s;ion what&s;oever like unto that, which is be&s;t known in the world by the name of, <HI>Anabapti&s;m.</HI> By other fires, for the mo&s;t part he either &s;eparated the vile from the precious, or the v&s;e among&s;t them&s;elves, and from the vile; in both which ca&s;es the &s;piritual Kingdom of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was rather a gainer, then a lo&s;er. But by this fire of <HI>Anabapti&s;m</HI> (at lea&s;t as the greate&s;t part of the En|gineers, who work with it, do employ it) he &s;eparates only the precious from the precious, Saints from Saints, Beleevers from Be|leevers; and makes the one to become as Publicans and Heathens unto the other. By means whereof many &s;piritual temples and ha|bitations of the living God, fair and large, and wherein his Soul delighted to dwell, are in imminent danger of being made wa&s;te and de&s;olate. Ala&s;s! the fires of Swenkfieldiani&s;m, Famdi&s;m, Antinomiani&s;m, Lutherani&s;m, Calvini&s;m, Super-Ordinanci&s;m, with the &s;parks of Quaking and Ranting, were, and are, but as <HI>ignes lambentes,</HI> fires running up and down and licking only the out&s;ide
<PB N="54" REF="28">
of the hou&s;e, without kindling upon, or burning any the prin|cipals, or main timber; whereas the fire of <HI>Anabapti&s;m,</HI> is like the fire kindled by God him&s;elf heretofore in <HI>Zion;</HI> the fiercene&s;s whereof was &s;o &s;ore, that (as <HI>Ieremiah</HI> lamenteth the ca&s;e) <HI>it devoured the Foundations thereof, Lam.</HI> 4. 11.</P>
<P>And if we diligently con&s;ider the nature of that de&s;ign, the accompli&s;hing whereof Sathan projecteth by this fire, we can|not rea&s;onably conceive but that it &s;hould be very &s;ubtil and pe|netrating (in its kind) I mean very apt and proper to in&s;inuate and convey it &s;elf into the judgments and con&s;ciences of good men, either le&s;s knowing, or le&s;s con&s;iderate; and yet withall &s;o propertied al&s;o, that per&s;ons who are diligent in the u&s;e of the touch&s;tone, and of through judgments, may not feel the lea&s;t warmth or heat of truth in it. That fire which is to &s;epa|rate between Silver and Silver, between Gold and Gold, had need have &s;omewhat more then ordinary fire, in it. And when <HI>Sathans</HI> device and work is to &s;ever and divide Saints from Saints, true beleevers from true beleevers, imbodied as clo&s;e and fa&s;t together as the &s;cales of <HI>Leviathan,</HI> the fire whereof he mu&s;t make u&s;e in the operation, mu&s;t be &s;ome notion, opinion, or apprehen&s;ion, one or more, &s;o calculated and conditioned, that in face it may look like a truth of God, and yet in heart be far otherwi&s;e. For by means of &s;uch a compo&s;ition or con&s;ti|tution as this, it is apt to take good people of lighter and weak|er judgments, and le&s;s con&s;iderate, and to leave tho&s;e of &s;trong|er, and more inquiring: and thus the operation is fini&s;hed, and the &s;eparation wrought. For there is &s;carce any Church or congregation of Beleevers, but is compounded of the&s;e two &s;orts of per&s;ons; &s;ome who are more credulous, and more ea|&s;ie to be taken with appearances; others, who are more jea|lous of faces, and who mu&s;t &s;ee, a &s;ound bottom, before they approve, or commend tops. Now the Doctrine or opinion (with the concurrent practi&s;e) imbraced by tho&s;e, who are be&s;t known from others by the Name of Anabapti&s;ts (I intend no reflection in the term, nor any avouchment of the propriety of it, in reference to tho&s;e meant by it, but meerly de&s;ignation) is of that calculation we &s;peak of: it hath a face or &s;hew, both of truth, and Godline&s;s; but it hath an heart of error, and pro|phanene&s;s. By means of the former it captivateth one &s;ort of
<PB N="55" REF="28">
men: by means of the latter, it alienateth the judgments and affections of others from it.</P>
<P>I know not (good Reader) whether thou ha&s;t taken any no|tice either of the Fourty Queries about Church-communion and Bapti&s;m (&s;ome while &s;ince publi&s;hed) or of the An&s;wer (&s;o called) to them, publi&s;hed more lately. I judg it not worth, either mine, or any other mans pains, to make an Anti-an&s;wer, or ju&s;t reply. Heaving at a feather is too child|i&s;h a po&s;ture for a man. Something may be &s;aid in commen|dation of a fair face, although the heart relating to it be never &s;o foul and bad. My Antiqueri&s;t is a man of parts and worth, in his &s;phere: but what the word of God, and evidence of truth make crooked, what parts or abilities of man are able to make &s;treight? I &s;hall, upon occa&s;ion of the &s;ubject di&s;cour&s;ed in the prece|dure of the&s;e papers, here only &s;ay this (giving in withal a &s;mall fir&s;t-fruits of an account for &s;uch my belief) that I verily beleeve that there is nothing an&s;wered to any one of the &s;aid Fourty Queries, but what is defective, either in point of per|tinency, or of truth, or at lea&s;t of proof. The grounds of my Faith in this kind, are partly the nature and import of the que&s;ti|ons; partly the tenor and &s;ub&s;tance of &s;uch of the An&s;wers, which I have had time to weigh and con&s;ider.</P>
<P>For the former; If I &s;hould propo&s;e &s;uch a que&s;tion, the tenor whereof &s;hould import, that I verily beleeve the Sun to be up at noon day, or, that the body ought not to be &s;acrificed upon the &s;ervice of the &s;hadow, or the rayment belonging to it, or the like; could I expect, or think, that he who &s;hould under|take in An&s;wer to &s;uch my Que&s;tions, to overthrow my belief imported in either, could alledg or in&s;i&s;t upon any thing, but which of nece&s;&s;ity mu&s;t be, either impertinent, or untrue (if not both) or if neither, yet uncertain; which in clo&s;e di&s;pu|tations, e&s;pecially if the degree of uncertainty be any thing con|&s;iderable, amounts to little more, then to that which is un|true.</P>
<P>For the latter; becau&s;e I would not be thought to &s;eek out my Antigoni&s;t, where po&s;&s;ibly he may be more obnoxious, or weak, I &s;hall give a brief account of his weakne&s;s in the be&s;t of his &s;trength; for I pre&s;ume that if he be &s;tronger then him|&s;elf any where, it is in the front of his battail, and in his formo&s;t
<PB N="56" REF="29">
An&s;wers. Therefore let us (in a word) &s;ee whether the founda|tions both of his fir&s;t and &s;econd An&s;wers, be not le&s;s either in pertinency (as hath been &s;aid) or in Truth (if not in both,) or lea&s;t in proof.</P>
<P N="1">1. In his An&s;wer to the fir&s;t Query, he layeth for one ground hereof, that which is the matter of que&s;tion between him, and his Queri&s;t, <HI>viz.</HI> that <HI>Con&s;tituting of Churches without Bapti&s;m is a corrupt practi&s;e;</HI> 2. That <HI>Infant-&s;prinkling is a corrupt prac|ti&s;e</HI> al&s;o. Now what an impertinency is it in arguing, to a&s;&s;ert that without proof, which is denyed by the adver&s;e party (and that in the Que&s;tion it &s;elf under debate,) and withall to build the proce&s;s of the di&s;pute upon it?</P>
<P N="2">2. He layeth this for another ground of his An&s;wer; that <HI>there was no &s;uch practi&s;e, as either con&s;tituting of Churches without Bapti&s;m, or &s;prinkling of Infants, on foot in the world, till after all the Books of the Holy Scriptures were fini&s;hed.</HI> This likewi&s;e he affirms without all proof, notwith&s;tanding he well knows that the &s;ence of his Queri&s;t &s;tands to the contrary. This is of the &s;ame hou&s;e and lineage of impertinency with the former.</P>
<P N="3">3. He builds another &s;trein of his An&s;wer upon this ground; that <HI>the Queri&s;t hath di&s;claimed communion with the Church of Rome, and the Parochial Churches in England;</HI> and this upon this ground, <HI>becau&s;e there is no example in Scripture for &s;uch Church-Con&s;titution, as that of Rome and England is.</HI> Here are more un|truths then one, un e&s;s a very improper con&s;truction of the phra&s;e, <HI>di&s;claim communion,</HI> contracts the number. For I never <HI>di&s;claim|ed communion</HI> with the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> more then I have done with the Church of <HI>Mahomet:</HI> nor had I ever occa&s;ion to do the one, more then the other. But the Grand untruth here is, that I &s;hould have di&s;claimed communion with the&s;e Churches, becau&s;e there is no example in Scripture of &s;uch <HI>Church-Con&s;titutions</HI> &amp;c. my Anti queri&s;t is very much mi&s;taken in this: for I <HI>di&s;claim</HI> no action what&s;oever upon this account, becau&s;e there is no example of this action in the Scripture; as neither do I perform any action, &s;imply becau&s;e there is an example of &s;uch an action here. But the adequate ground of my <HI>di&s;claiming</HI> any action (and &s;o of com|munion with any Church what&s;oever) is, that I find no &s;ufficient ground in the Scriptures for my doing it. But I may (and do) find &s;ufficient grounds in the Scripture for my doing of many
<PB N="57" REF="29">
things, of which I find here no examples. However, upon this mi&s;taken ground of my di&s;claiming communion with the&s;e two Churches, he goeth on his way merrily, and builds as &s;ecurely, as he that mi&s;takes the &s;and for a rock.</P>
<P N="4">4. He advanceth &s;uppo&s;ing yet further, that I hold <HI>communion with Churches built upon Infant-Bapti&s;m.</HI> Surely here is a pair of mi&s;takes: one, about his own; another, about my practi&s;e. For, 1. Him&s;elf di&s;claims communion with tho&s;e Societies of Saints, which here he calls, <HI>Churches,</HI> meerly upon this account, becau&s;e they are no <HI>Churches.</HI> 2. Whereas he chargeth me with <HI>holding cammunion with Churches built upon Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> the truth is, that I hold no communion with &s;uch <HI>Churches;</HI> nor do I know any <HI>Church,</HI> one or other, <HI>built</HI> upon any <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> whether <HI>Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> or <HI>Beleever-Bapti&s;m.</HI> The <HI>Churches</HI> with which I hold communion, are <HI>B&V;ILT upon the Founda|tions of the Apo&s;tles and Prophets, Je&s;us Chri&s;t him&s;elf being the chief corner &s;tone, Ephe&s;.</HI> 2. 20.</P>
<P N="5">5. Neither is it at all pertinent to the bu&s;ine&s;s before him, to in|form his Queri&s;t, or others, that <HI>there is example in abundance in Scripture of Churches of a better Con&s;titution,</HI> [he means, then of Churches <HI>built upon Infant-Bapti&s;m,</HI> &s;uch as he &s;uppo&s;eth I hold communion with,] and that this is, <HI>of Saints baptized after they had beleeved.</HI> We do not beleeve that Bapti&s;m, when&s;oever, or how&s;oever admini&s;tred, is any part of, or ingredient into, a Churches con&s;titution, more then the Go&s;pel it &s;elf, or the preach|ing hereof, or the &s;ervice of the Lords Table. A Church may be of a very ill con&s;titution, though all the members of it have been re|gularly baptized; and on the contrary of a good and &s;ound con|&s;titution, though there have been &s;ome defect or irregularity in their Bapti&s;m. Bapti&s;m is extrin&s;ecal to Church-con&s;titution, as the wa&s;hing of a mans face or hands is to the con&s;titution or com|plexion of his natural body.</P>
<P N="6">6. Another mi&s;taken ground, upon which he builds very high, is, that the Queri&s;t, and others of his Judgment, <HI>plead the Pre|cept o&s; circumci&s;ing Infants under the Law, as virtually requi|ring the baptizing of Infants under the Go&s;pel.</HI> I confe&s;s if we &s;hould plead thus, we &s;hould plead much after the rate of tho&s;e, who plead the unlawfulne&s;s of Church communion with the Saints, becau&s;e they jump not in conceit with them in every cir|cum&s;tance
<PB N="58" REF="30">
about Baptizing. We are far from either &s;aying or thinking, that <HI>the precept of circumci&s;ing Infants under the Law, virtually requires the baptizing of them under the Go&s;pel.</HI> We hold, that had there not been a precept given, in, or under the Go&s;pel for baptizing, the precept of circumci&s;ing Infants un|der the Law, could not have ju&s;tified us in our baptizing them under the Go&s;pel. We do not go about to prove the lawful|ne&s;s (much le&s;s the nece&s;&s;ity) of baptizing, from the precept of circumci&s;ing: this is a Grand mi&s;take in the Antiqueri&s;t about the &s;ence of his Adver&s;aries: but we receiving a precept, from God under the Go&s;pel for baptizing, without any deter|mination of, or limitation unto, any certain age of the per&s;ons, to be by vertue of this precept baptized, and finding the Councel of God to have pitched upon Infancy, as the mo&s;t meet age for the reception of a former Ordinance of like &s;piritual &s;ignifi|cation and import with Bapti&s;m, judg our &s;elves bound in con|&s;cience rather to be directed to the proper &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m by the Councel of God in a ca&s;e of like nature, then to con&s;ult the wi&s;doms (or wills rather) of men in the bu&s;ine&s;s. This con&s;idered,</P>
<P N="7">7. How, not impertinent only, but importune and un&s;ave|ry, is that in&s;ultation, <HI>If it be not good rea&s;oning from circum|ci&s;ion to Bapti&s;m, let the Pedobapti&s;ts bid adieu to their cau&s;e of Infant Bapti&s;m, which is built and bottomed thereupon.</HI> Alas, good man! the cau&s;e of Pedo-bapti&s;m is not at all built or bot|tomed upon any rea&s;oning from circumci&s;ion to Bapti&s;m, but upon the good Word of God it &s;elf. Neither have we any rea|&s;on, or need, <HI>to bid adieu to this cau&s;e,</HI> although (to plea&s;e our friend the Antiqueri&s;t) we &s;hould take our leaves of our rea&s;on|ing from the &s;ubject of circumci&s;ion to the more appropriate &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m. Yea this our good freind him&s;elf being &s;o 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 cau&s;e of Pedo-bapti&s;m, be&s;ides what we argue from the &s;ubject of circumci&s;ion. Yea him&s;elf hath of late been hewing and hacking at &s;ome of them (whereof notice may be taken in due time) but his attempts again&s;t them have rather proved them to be &s;trong, then any ways weak.</P>
<P N="8">8. How impertinently weak is that in&s;ulting demand al&s;o
<PB N="59" REF="30">
(in the proce&s;s of this an&s;wer) <HI>And now which of the horns of this Dolemma will the Pedobapti&s;ts &s;uffer them&s;elves to be gored by?</HI> Here the Anti-queri&s;t (it &s;eems) turns Queri&s;t him|&s;elf. But if he hath not an happier &s;troke in Anti-queri&s;m, then in Queri&s;m, he had better harken unto the Proverb, <HI>Manum de ta|bul&acirc;,</HI> and leave his paper as white as he found it. The Pedo|bapti&s;ts need not fear goaring by either of the horns of his <HI>Di|lemma:</HI> they &s;tand &s;o &s;taringly wide, that there is roomth enough and enough for &s;eaven men to pa&s;s abre&s;t between them. For fir&s;t, the mans <HI>Dilemma</HI> taketh it for granted, that <HI>uncir|cumci&s;ed per&s;ons were excluded</HI> [&s;urely he means, <HI>always,</HI> not &s;ometimes, or in &s;ome ca&s;es only; for this would &s;ink the &s;ay|ing too far beneath his cau&s;e) <HI>from acts of Church Communion, whil&s;t circumci&s;ion was in force.</HI> Will he &s;ay that women were circumci&s;ed? or that they were excluded form acts of Church-communion, becau&s;e they were uncircumci&s;ed? or that all tho&s;e, who were not circumci&s;ed in the Wilderne&s;s, were ex|cluded from all acts of Church communion for Forty Years to|gether? 2. The &s;aid <HI>Dilemma</HI> very weakly &s;uppo&s;eth, that the Author of it, may from the exclu&s;ion of uncircumci&s;ed ones under the Law from acts of Church-communion then, as well argue to the exclu&s;ion of unbaptized, or unduly baptized ones under the Go&s;pel, from Church-communion now, as we rea&s;on from the &s;ubject of circumci&s;ion, to the &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m. I wonder upon what principle or ground in rea&s;on &s;uch a &s;up|po&s;ition or conceit as this &s;tandeth. For what the <HI>Antiqueri&s;t</HI> offereth upon this account, is no better then gibbrich or non|&s;ence unto me. <HI>For</HI> (&s;ayth he) <HI>the &s;ame things have the &s;ame con&s;equences; and two things alike, belong to the like rea&s;on and judgment.</HI> He that either can under&s;tand the&s;e topiques, or fit them to his ca&s;e, mu&s;t plough with a &s;tronger and nimbler heyfer, then mine. That which I &s;uppo&s;e the man would have, is this (but his demand is mo&s;t unrea&s;onable and impor|tune) that if Bapti&s;m &s;ucceeds circumci&s;ion in one thing, it mu&s;t &s;ucceed it in another; yea in all things. How empty &s;uch a conceit as this is both of rea&s;on, and of truth, hath been &s;hewed in the la&s;t of our foregoing Con&s;iderations. And however &s;ome of us upon occa&s;ion &s;ometimes &s;ay, that Bapti&s;m &s;ucceeds circum|ci&s;ion (which is a truth evident enough, and acknowledged
<PB N="60" REF="31">
&s;uch, in &s;ome re&s;pects, by one of the Great Apo&s;tles of the An|ti-queri&s;ts Faith in the matter of Bapti&s;m,) yet have we no need of &s;uch a &s;aying to &s;upport our cau&s;e of Infant Bapti&s;m. For the analogy or proportion of rea&s;on, from whence we argue, that infants may be as well the &s;ubjects of Bapti&s;m, as of circum|ci&s;ion, may equally &s;tand, whether Bapti&s;m be looked upon as Succe&s;&s;or unto circumci&s;ion, or no.</P>
<P>But if our good Freinds intellectuals be not too far &s;pent with the &s;trength of the Inchantment upon him, but that he yet re|mains in &s;ome competent capacity to receive in&s;truction, I &s;hall here (once for all) give him an account, why, though it were to be granted (which yet it is not, but only with limitation, as was lately &s;hewed) that want of circumci&s;ion did exclude from Church-&s;hip under the Law, yet this at no hand proveth, that therefore a defect of, or in, Bapti&s;m, &s;hould do the like under the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P N="1">1. The Church of God being in the Infancy or nonage of it under the Law, the &s;tate and condition of it was more &s;ervile, then now under the Go&s;pel. <HI>Now I &s;ay that the heir as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a &s;ervant, though he be Lord of all;</HI> But <HI>is under Tutors and Governors, until the time appointed of the Father. Even &s;o we when we were children, were in bondage under the Elements of the world. But whtn the fulne&s;s of time was come, God &s;ent forth his Son made of a woman, made under the Law, To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of Sons</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Gal. 4. 1. 2. 3, &amp;c.</NOTE>. In re&s;pect of this different State of the Church under the Law, and under the Go&s;pel, the Churh is not to be looked upon as under a like ri|gour of &s;ubjection to any carnal Ordinance or Ceremony what|&s;oever, as it was under the Law. Nor are the external Cere|monies of the Go&s;pel pre&s;&s;ed upon like terms of peremptorine&s;s and &s;everity, upon the Saints, as tho&s;e of the Law were im|po&s;ed upon the carnal Church of the <HI>Jews.</HI> If they were, the two &s;o different States of the Church mentioned, &s;hould be con|founded. But &s;omewhat to this purpo&s;e we &s;peak in our Con|&s;iderations; where we declared, that in the Go&s;pel, no man is threatened for not being Baptized, Bapti&s;m being here en|joyned or recommended unto men by way of indulgence, and for their &s;piritual benefit and accommodation, not with any in|tention
<PB N="61" REF="31">
on Gods part to render the bare omi&s;&s;ion of it an arti|cle of condemnation again&s;t any man, much after the manner of the Law of the free-wil offering under the Law. And where|as it was &s;aid unto <HI>Abraham</HI> concerning circumci&s;ion, <HI>He that is born in thy hou&s;e, and he that is bought with thy mony mu&s;t needs be circumci&s;ed,</HI> It is no where &s;aid unto any per&s;on in the New Te&s;tament, ye <HI>mu&s;t needs</HI> be baptized; Yea unto the <HI>Eunuch</HI> requiring Bapti&s;m, <HI>Philip</HI> an&s;wered, <HI>If thou beleeve&s;t with thy whole heart, thou</HI> MAYST, not, <HI>thou</HI> MUST [be baptized.] There is an eye of this Evangelical liberty concerning external ob&s;erva|tions in the In&s;titution it &s;elf of the other Ordinance al&s;o, as the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> recordeth it, 1 <HI>Cor. 11. 25. 26. This do ye as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do &s;hew the Lords death till he come.</HI> Here is no Injunction of the <HI>Quoties,</HI> but a plain intimation of a liberty touching this; only the manner of the <HI>Toties</HI> is &s;trictly pre&s;crib|ed: which is the direct calculation, or manner of &s;anction of the In&s;titution concerning the free-wil offering under the Law. This kind of offering was impo&s;ed upon no man, as of nece&s;&s;i|ty: only the terms of the oblation of it, when offered, are &s;trict|ly pre&s;cribed. See <HI>Levit.</HI> 1. 2, 3, &amp;c. and again, <HI>Levit.</HI> 22. 18. 19. 20, &amp;c. But,</P>
<P N="2">2. Concerning Circumci&s;ion, there never was any que&s;tion among the <HI>Jews,</HI> nor indeed any place or occa&s;ion for a que&s;tion, either whether it was commanded by God, or no, or whether the practi&s;e of it was to continue till the coming of the <HI>Me&s;&s;iah,</HI> or no; no nor yet concerning the due mode or manner of its admini&s;tration. So that who&s;oever refu&s;ed to &s;ubmit to cir|cumci&s;ion, during the reign of it, did <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> and without di&s;|pute, openly manife&s;t, yea profe&s;s di&s;obedience to God in an expre&s;s command. Whereas the Anti-queri&s;t well knoweth, that among&s;t the Saints and &s;ervants of God them&s;elves, and per&s;ons as tender con&s;cienced, of as rich an obediential frame of heart towards God, as him&s;elf, or the be&s;t of his late-born per&s;wa&s;ion, there are many &s;cruples, que&s;tions, and ca&s;es of con&s;cience about Bapti&s;m; &s;ome being un&s;atisfied whether there be any command of God, or of Chri&s;t, in the Go&s;pel, requiring &s;ubjection of any per&s;on in the&s;e days, unto &s;uch a thing; others, ohether the mind and plea&s;ure of God be, that
<PB N="62" REF="32">
the ordinary and &s;tanding admini&s;tration of it &s;hould be made to Infants, or per&s;ons of mature years; others again, whether the admini&s;tration of it may not with as good, or better accep|tance with God, be made by &s;prinkling, or pouring water on the baptized, as by dowzing or dipping (be&s;ides &s;everal others of like nature.) And &s;uch que&s;tions and di&s;&s;atisfactions among&s;t holy, humble, grave and &s;ober <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> as the&s;e, undeni|ably &s;hew and prove, that the mind and will of God t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">uching the&s;e particulars, is very &s;paringly, ob&s;curely, and with much &s;cantne&s;s of di&s;covery, delivered in the Scriptures.</P>
<P>The premi&s;es con&s;idered, the ca&s;e mu&s;t needs become plain, why, though it &s;hould be granted that circumci&s;ion was made by God a nece&s;&s;ary condition of Church-&s;hip under the Law, yet this no ways proveth, that he hath made Bapti&s;m, e&s;pecially in any particular mode of its admini&s;tration, a like condition of Church-member&s;hip under the Go&s;pel. If God &s;hould have intended Bapti&s;m (as &s;ome men count Bapti&s;m) for a nece&s;&s;ary requi&s;ite, or ingredient into Church&s;hip under the Go&s;pel, he &s;hould have made a Law for the inchurching of his Saints, which would have excluded the far greate&s;t (yea and be&s;t) part of them from all part and fellow&s;hip in that gracious accommodation; and which would have brought in an Heterogeneal generation of vain and loo&s;e per&s;ons, in their &s;tead; as now the ground|le&s;s conceit of &s;uch a Law doth among&s;t us. Nor can any man tolerably imagin, had the precept of God concerning circumci|&s;ion under the Law, been like to have occa&s;ioned as many doubt|ful di&s;putations among&s;t the be&s;t of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Nation, as he knew the &s;ignification of his mind concerning Bapti&s;m in the Go&s;pel, would occa&s;ion and rai&s;e among&s;t the be&s;t of his Saints, that he would ever have regulated Church-fellow&s;hip among&s;t them by circumci&s;ion. Yea,</P>
<P N="3">3. (And la&s;tly) the Regulation of Church-communion un|der the Levitical Law by circumci&s;ion (upon the terms, and with the limitations formerly &s;pecified) is &s;o far from being &s;o much as a probable argument, that Church-communion &s;hould be intended by God to be regulated by Bapti&s;m under the Go|&s;pel, that it rather evinceth the quite contrary. For as the communion of the Church under the Law, whil&s;t it [the Church] was yet carnal, and &s;ervile, in the Infancy or non|age
<PB N="63" REF="32">
of it, was regulated by a Rule or Law &s;uitable to the &s;tate and condition of it, <HI>i. e.</HI> by a Law of a carnal Ordinance; &s;o is it rea|&s;onable to conceive, that the Church under the Go&s;pel being <HI>&s;pi|ritual (1 Pet.</HI> 2. 5.) and of mature growth, the Communion thereof &s;hould be regulated by a Law or Rule agreeable to the con|dition and &s;tate hereof, and which requireth, and con&s;i&s;eth in, &s;omewhat that is more &s;piritual, and not by Bapti&s;m, which is a <HI>carnal Ceremony</HI> (&s;o acknowledged by the Greate&s;t Ma&s;ters them&s;elves of the way called <HI>Anabapti&s;m)</HI> as well as Circumci|&s;ion.</P>
<P>Thus they who have eyes to &s;ee, and hearts to under&s;tand, may clearly enough perceive, that however the &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m un|der the Go&s;pel may be rationally calculated by the &s;ubject of Cir|cumci&s;ion under the Law; yet the Regulation of Church-com|munion by Circumci&s;ion under the Law, can be no ground of e&s;ti|mating Church fellow&s;hip by Bapti&s;m under the Go&s;pel. We have a&s;&s;igned Rea&s;on upon Rea&s;on of the difference. And thus having felt and handled the two in&s;ulting horns of the late-threa|tening <HI>Dilemma;</HI> we find them to be made of brown paper. But (to proceed yet a little further with the An&s;werer in his An&s;wer to the fir&s;t Query)</P>
<P N="9">9. Another ground whereon he builds, is, that <HI>the Scripture is every whit as expre&s;s; for Bapti&s;m, to precede the enjoyment of Church priviledges, as it is for a voluntary con&s;enting to Church Order and Government, to precede the &s;ame enjoyment.</HI> But how impertinently to his Cau&s;e, and with how little proof, is this af|firmed? Fir&s;t, If by, <HI>Church-priviledges,</HI> he means, all <HI>Church-priviledges,</HI> how can the Scripture be expre&s;s for Bapti&s;m to pre|cede the enjoyment of them, when as it &s;elf is one of the&s;e privi|ledges; and (doubtle&s;s according to his &s;ence) one of the greate&s;t of them? Is the Scripture expre&s;s for any thing to precede the enjoyment of it &s;elf? If by, <HI>Church-priviledges,</HI> he means, &s;ome of the&s;e <HI>priviledges,</HI> when he hath &s;pecified which he means, we &s;hall con&s;ider further of his a&s;&s;ertion. But,</P>
<P>2. The <HI>Scripture</HI> may be <HI>expre&s;s</HI> enough <HI>for Bapti&s;m to pre|cede the enjoyment</HI> he &s;peaks of, <HI>[i. e.</HI> that <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> did &s;ometimes precede this enjoyment, and may precede it &s;till, yea and haply that in &s;ome ca&s;es it ought to precede it,] and yet be neither <HI>expre&s;s,</HI> nor virtual or implicit, for the ab&s;olute or univer&s;al nece&s;sity of
<PB N="64" REF="33">
&s;uch a precedure, which is the point wherewith the Query before him pincheth him.</P>
<P>3. (And la&s;tly) The Scripture may be as <HI>expre&s;s</HI> for what he &s;aith it is, as for a <HI>voluntary con&s;enting to Church Order,</HI> &amp;c. and yet be neither expre&s;s, nor yet virtual or con&s;equential, for it. For the Truth is, that the Scripture is not expre&s;s for the &s;aid <HI>con&s;ent|ing:</HI> only &s;ome of us judg it meet to de&s;ire &s;uch a con&s;ent of tho&s;e, whom we judg otherwi&s;e meet to admit into Communion with us in Church-priviledges, to prevent &s;ome grand inconveniences, which it is not pertinent here to &s;pecifie; although the &s;ence of others of us is otherwi&s;e in the ca&s;e. And,</P>
<P N="10">10. How impertinent to his Cau&s;e is this rea&s;oning: <HI>If one per&s;on may be admitted upon &s;uch terms,</HI> [he means, to Church-priviledges without Bapti&s;m,] <HI>then why not two? if twe, why not ten, and &s;o an hundred, or a thou&s;and? and con&s;equently &s;uch Go&s;pel Order layd totally a&s;ide?</HI> If an hundred, or a thou&s;and, or ten thou&s;ands, &s;hould be admitted to Church-priviledges upon a manife&s;tation of their Faith (which may be otherways, and to far better &s;atisfaction, done, then by a being Baptized) with an exclu|&s;ion of all others, who are able to give no &s;uch account of a work of Faith in them, would this be a total laying a&s;ide of Go&s;pel Or|der? Good Reader, con&s;ider and judg.</P>
<P N="11">11. He affirms, that <HI>tho&s;e Precepts, Exhortations, or Doctrines by which men &s;tand enjoyned to ob&s;erve Go&s;pel Order, do virtu|ally prohibit men Baptized communion with unbaptized in Church-fellow&s;hip, as that which is contrary thereunto.</HI> But at what a di&s;tance do his Proofs &s;tand from his Po&s;ition, as if they were meer &s;trangers to it. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. His fir&s;t Proof is built upon a clear mi&s;take of the word, <HI>Teach, Go and teach All Nations, Mat.</HI> 28. 19. (and indeed upon a mi&s;under&s;tanding of the whole Ver&s;e.) For <GAP DESC="foreign">, to teach, doth not &s;ignifie <HI>to teach men &s;o, as to make them willing to obey the Go&s;pel,</HI> [which &s;ence notwith&s;tanding bears the whole bur|then of his fir&s;t Proof of the &s;aid Po&s;ition:] this &s;ence of the word was (I beleeve) never heard of from any Author that hath written in the Greek Tongue; and however, cannot be the &s;ence of it here (as will appear pre&s;ently:) but the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, properly &s;ig|nifies to in&s;truct or teach; or (which is the &s;ame) to do that, which is apt and proper to make a Di&s;ciple, one or more, whether
<PB N="65" REF="33">
any per&s;on be actually, or by way of event or &s;ucce&s;s, made a Di|&s;ciple, or no. And that this was the proper and only &s;ence of the word intended by the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> here, is evident; becau&s;e o|therwi&s;e, 1. He mu&s;t be conceived to give a Commi&s;&s;ion or Charge to men to do that, which was not in their power to do, as <HI>viz.</HI> actually to regenerate, or convert men to the Faith, &amp;c. 2. It would follow, that although the Apo&s;tles &s;hould have taught and preached the Go&s;pel with never &s;o much faithfulne&s;s, yet they had fal&s;ified the Tru&s;t repo&s;ed in them by <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and acted &s;hort of their Commi&s;&s;ion, if they did not at all times when they preached, make tho&s;e, to whom they preached, actual Beleevers. This con|&s;idered, how impertinent and in&s;ul&s;e is that conceit, that an <HI>In|junction to baptize is therefore put by a participle of the pre&s;ent ten&s;e,</HI> Teach all Nations, baptizing them <HI>&amp;c.</HI> to imply, that they were <HI>pre&s;ently</HI> to baptize men <HI>upon their being taught.</HI> If this were &s;o, all per&s;ons what&s;oever, to whom the Go&s;pel was at any time preached by the Apo&s;tles, were, upon their bare hearing of it, and whether they beleeved, or bla&s;phemed, to have been <HI>bap|tized</HI> by them. And if there be any &s;ence at all in the&s;e words, <HI>as all examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apo&s;tles do declare,</HI> how loud an untruth is it. There is not &s;o much as any one <HI>ex|ample</HI> throughout the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, of a per&s;on baptized barely or meerly upon his hearing of the Go&s;pel preached unto him. But how impertinently this piece of Scripture is alledged, either to prove who, or what kind of per&s;on, is the proper and adequate &s;ubject of Bapti&s;m; or a nece&s;sitie that all beleevers to the Worlds end, &s;hould be baptized, or otherwi&s;e be guilty of Sin, hath been argued in the preceding Con&s;iderations.</P>
<P N="2">2. How little truth, or pertinency there is in his &s;econd Proof of the afore&s;aid Po&s;ition, &s;ufficiently appears by the examination of the fir&s;t. For though <HI>the Apo&s;tles did put the &s;aid Commi&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t into execution according to his Command, i. e.</HI> did both <HI>teach</HI> and <HI>baptize,</HI> yet it doth not follow from hence, either, 1. That they <HI>baptized</HI> all that they taught, (the contrary hereunto is evident from the Story, <HI>Act.</HI> 2. 41, 43. and 5. 33. and other places) Therefore the <HI>Teaching</HI> mentioned in their Commi&s;sion, was not the Rule of their Baptizing. Nor, 2. Doth it follow, that be|cau&s;e upon their fir&s;t preaching of the Go&s;pel in <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> they baptized tho&s;e <HI>who gladly received their Word,</HI> and beleeved,
<PB N="66" REF="34">
therefore they baptized in like manner all tho&s;e, or any of tho&s;e, who were converted to the Faith by their after-preaching in the &s;ame place. We read of no &s;uch thing as this in any place of the <HI>Acts,</HI> or el&s;ewhere (as we formerly ob&s;erved.) Nor did the tenor of their Commi&s;sion impo&s;e this upon them. For he that is &s;im|ply and only commanded to Teach, and to Baptize, as he is not hereby commanded to <HI>teach</HI> continually, &s;o neither is he com|manded to <HI>baptize</HI> always when he teacheth. But whereas he demandeth; <HI>What is more plain then that the Commi&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t to them, was to teach and baptize fir&s;t, and to admit into Church-fellow&s;hip thereupon, as is vi&s;ible in that prime example of theirs,</HI> Acts 2. 41, 42. I an&s;wer, This is much more plain, <HI>viz.</HI> that they were not commi&s;sioned in that Commi&s;sion we &s;peak of, <HI>to admit into Church-fellow&s;hip,</HI> either upon terms of Bapti&s;m, or any other, there being not &s;o much as the lea&s;t mention or hint here about admi&s;sion into Church-fellow&s;hip. Nor is it &s;aid, <HI>Acts</HI> 2. 41, 42. either that the Apo&s;tles admitted any into Church-fellow|&s;hip; or 3. That any were admitted into Church-fellow&s;hip, much le&s;s that they were admitted into this fellow&s;hip, becau&s;e they had been baptized; But all that is here &s;aid (as to the point now in hand) is: <HI>Then they that gladly received his Word, were baptized, and the &s;ame day</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, i. e. <HI>there were added,</HI> or added to [not, <HI>to them,</HI> as our Antago|ni&s;t empha&s;eth, or, to the Church, but rather, <HI>to the Lord,</HI> as it is, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 24] <HI>about three thou&s;and Souls.</HI> Neither is the <HI>addi|tion</HI> here &s;poken of, a&s;cribed to the Apo&s;tles: it is not &s;aid, that they, or any of them, <HI>added</HI> &s;o much as one Soul. But if we will entitle him unto the <HI>addition</HI> here &s;poken of, to whom the Holy Gho&s;t a&s;cribeth it, <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 47. we mu&s;t &s;ay, that it was made by the Lord; <HI>And the Lord added unto the Church dayly &s;uch as &s;hould be &s;aved.</HI> Here, where there is expre&s;s mention made of <HI>adding to the Church,</HI> there is no mention made of Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P N="3">3. His third and la&s;t Proof is as irrelative to his purpo&s;e, as both the former. For Chri&s;tians are not &s;aid <HI>(Rom.</HI> 65.) to be <HI>planted together in</HI> [it is not, <HI>into,</HI> as our Anti-queri&s;t takes a mo&s;t un|worthy liberty, both here, and el&s;ewhere more then once or twice, to mi&s;-cite his Scriptures] <HI>the likene&s;s of Chri&s;ts death,</HI> by rea|&s;on, or means, of their Water-Bapti&s;m; for then it would follow (from the latter clau&s;e of the Ver&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">)
<PB N="67" REF="34">
that all who are thus baptized, &s;hould be everla&s;tingly Partakers of his <HI>Re&s;urrection;</HI> but we are &s;aid to be <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>complanted</HI> with <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> in, through, or by means of, a likene&s;s of his death, when we are truly and really mortified, and become dead unto &s;in, and to the world: Which is a kind of death holding &s;ome analogy with, and carrying in it &s;ome re&s;emblance of, that death which <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;uffered upon the Cro&s;s. And the Apo&s;tle informs us, that by &s;uch a death as this, we become <HI>planted together with Chri&s;t, i. e.</HI> intere&s;ted with him in that mo&s;t &s;table, fixed, and unchange|able Councel and Purpo&s;e of God, wherein he hath decreed the immortal Glory and Ble&s;&s;edne&s;s of all tho&s;e that &s;hall obey him. This &s;ence of the place con&s;idered, how frivolous and impertinent is this &s;upercilious Interrogatory, which he builds upon it? <HI>And may you not therefore as well &s;uppo&s;e trees to grow together, be|fore they are planted together, as to &s;uppo&s;e Chri&s;tians to grow together before they are planted together?</HI> Yes &s;urely, as well the latter, as the former: but the mi&s;chief of the impertinency is; that Chri&s;tians may be <HI>planted</HI> together in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> by a work of morti|fication, and &s;o grow together, whether they be baptized, or no: and they may be baptized together, and &s;o be planted together as far as water can plant them, and yet not grow together; but &s;ome wither and dye, while&s;t others grow and pro&s;per. Or however, &s;uch a <HI>plantation</HI> which is by Bapti&s;m only, is no way, or means, of <HI>growth</HI> unto any man. And yet of the two, it is a broader impertinency, to make this demand, in &s;tead of a Proof that a Church cannot &s;tand but upon Bapti&s;m, <HI>And what hou&s;e &s;tands without its principles, or is built without a foundation,</HI> only upon occa&s;ion of this admonition of the Apo&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrews; Lea|ving the Word of the beginning of Christ, let us advance towards perfection;</HI> and his making, not the practi&s;e, but <HI>the Doctrine,</HI> not of any one <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> determinately, but of <HI>Bapti&s;ms</HI> (plurally) a part of the <HI>foundation; i. e.</HI> of the body or &s;y&s;teme of that Doc|trine, which young beginners in the School of <HI>Christ</HI> were wont to learn in the fir&s;t place, as in building a foundation is fir&s;t to be layd in order to a &s;uper&s;truction. But what is there in this pa&s;|&s;age, to prove that one <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> or one kind of <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> is the foundation of a Church, more then another? or that any kind of <HI>Bapti&s;m,</HI> more then <HI>impo&s;ition of hands?</HI> or that either <HI>impo&s;ition of hands,</HI> or <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> in one kind or other, more then <HI>repentance
<PB N="68" REF="35">
from dead works,</HI> or <HI>Faith towards God;</HI> e&s;pecially con&s;idering that the&s;e two are named in the fir&s;t place, as the principal parts of the Foundation he &s;peaks of, and fir&s;t to be layd? Yea &s;uppo&s;ing that the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> to whom he writes, were a con&s;tituted Church, and that he had taught them <HI>the Doctrine of Bapti&s;ms</HI> under this Con&s;titution, it evidently follows, either that they were a Church before they were baptized, or that they had been baptized before they had been in&s;tructed in the Doctrine of <HI>Bapti&s;m.</HI> I beleeve it is much harder for the Anti-queri&s;t to e&s;cape <HI>goaring</HI> (as he calls it) by one or other of the <HI>horns</HI> of this <HI>Dilemma,</HI> then we found it to make an e&s;cape from both the <HI>horns of that Dilemma,</HI> which was prepared by him to do the mi&s;chief.</P>
<P N="12">12. Concerning the Text, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 13. where the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, not as our Anti-queri&s;t citeth the words &s;horter by the head, that <HI>they were all baptized into one Body;</HI> but, <HI>BY ONE SPI|RIT they were all baptized, &amp;c.</HI> this Scripture (I &s;ay) we argued &s;omewhat at large in the la&s;t of our Con&s;iderations; and found war in the heart of it again&s;t Church-con&s;titution by Water-Bap|ti&s;m. And running is no po&s;ture for repetitions. Only whereas my Friend the <HI>Anti-queri&s;t</HI> challengeth me that &s;ome while &s;ince I interpreted this Scripture comportingly with his notion; the truth is, that I do not find &s;uch a line in any fragment of the hi&s;tory of my life extant at pre&s;ent in my memory; yet becau&s;e I dayly find &s;o little &s;tedfa&s;tne&s;s in my memory, as I do, I had rather in the bu&s;ine&s;s tru&s;t my Friend and his memory, then mine own. But this I well remember, that long &s;ince I learned this Chri&s;tian Prin|ciple from an Heathen Philo&s;opher, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>A man mu&s;t be content to &s;acrifice even his own &s;ay|ings, and opinions, upon the &s;ervice of the Truth.</HI> This kind of &s;a|crifice I have oft offered: and if my Antagoni&s;t, and &s;ome others, could be per&s;waded to con&s;ecrate them&s;elves Prie&s;ts of this Order, with me, the water of Bapti&s;m would be no longer a fire to divide between Friends and Friends. But they rather chu&s;e to be Prie&s;ts of that Order, who&s;e Hierourgy or Prie&s;tly Function mainly &s;tands in &s;acrificing the body upon the &s;ervice of the rayment, or the &s;ub&s;tance, upon the &s;ervice of the &s;hadow.</P>
<P N="13">13. Whereas he demands, <HI>Ought not that, which was a rea&s;on to them</HI> [he means, the Apo&s;tles in the primitive times] <HI>not to ad|mit Church-members into Church fellow&s;hip</HI> [we pardon the
<PB N="69" REF="35">
impropriety] <HI>without Bapti&s;m, to be a rea&s;on unto us likewi&s;e to &s;teere the &s;ame cou<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e,</HI> &amp;c. doth he not very impertinently and groundle&s;ly &s;uppo&s;e, that they had <HI>a rea&s;on</HI> not to admit the ad|mi&s;&s;ion he &s;peaks of? He hath not hitherto &s;o much as intimat|ed unto us any <HI>rea&s;on</HI> at all of &s;uch a non-admi&s;&s;ion in the Apo|&s;tles, as that now mentioned. If that &s;hould be granted him, which he will never be able to prove, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Apo&s;tles did not admit into Church-fellow&s;hip without Bapti&s;m, yet it will not follow from hence, that therefore they had a <HI>rea&s;on</HI> to admit none without it; e&s;pecially if the ca&s;e were &s;o, as the <HI>Anti queri&s;t</HI> &s;eems to &s;uppo&s;e it, <HI>viz.</HI> that no unbaptized per&s;on ever de&s;ired &s;uch admi&s;&s;ion of them. And &s;uppo&s;e (for argu|ment &s;ake) that they had <HI>de facto</HI> admited into Church-com|munion only unbaptized per&s;ons, it would not follow from hence, that therefore they had <HI>rea&s;on</HI> to exclude all others, as all that were baptized, in ca&s;e they had de&s;ired it. If all who de&s;ired Church-fellow&s;hip, and con&s;equently all who were ad|mitted unto it, were baptized; is this any argument or proof, that therefore in ca&s;e others had de&s;ired it, they mu&s;t needs have been rejected? If a man &s;hould go a fi&s;hing upon the Seas, and &s;hould catch only of one &s;ort of Fi&s;h, as &s;uppo&s;e White|ings, would it follow that therefore he had <HI>rea&s;on</HI> to catch no other?</P>
<P N="14">14. How importune and impertinent are the&s;e words al&s;o! <HI>If &s;o, then farewel all Go&s;pel obligations. For if we may take liberty to ca&s;t away one Law of Go&s;pel Order, and Wor&s;hip, then why not two, and &s;o three, and in the end, all? &amp;c.</HI> For doth he not here &s;uppo&s;e, that &s;eparating from Churches, or per&s;ons, unbaptized (though e&s;teemed in the world, and by all but him|&s;elf, and his, baptized) is or was, a <HI>Law of Go&s;pel Order, binding Chri&s;tians of the fir&s;t age?</HI> Surely this <HI>Law</HI> is written on the back-&s;ide of &s;ome of <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tles, where no man did ever read it. And they that <HI>take liberty to ca&s;t away this Law,</HI> are more like to bid <HI>all Go&s;pel obligations,</HI> welcome, then to bid them <HI>farewel.</HI> Secondly he &s;uppo&s;eth that <HI>tho&s;e rules, by which the Apo&s;tles ordered them&s;elves in their times, were binding to Chri&s;tians of that age;</HI> which is broadly importune and truth|le&s;s. For the truth is, that no <HI>rule</HI> what&s;oever, by which the <HI>Apo&s;tles ordered them&s;elves,</HI> as Apo&s;tles (and certainly they
<PB N="70" REF="36">
<HI>ordered them&s;elves</HI> by many &s;uch <HI>rules</HI> as the&s;e) was <HI>binding unto</HI> any other <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> of that age, but unto them&s;elves only. Thirdly (and la&s;tly) he &s;uppo&s;eth it a grand ab&s;urdity, and tending to a di&s;&s;olution of all Go&s;pel Order, to imagin, that there were any <HI>Go&s;pel rules binding only to Chri&s;tians of the fir&s;t age of the Go&s;pel.</HI> Doth he think, that when <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> of the <HI>age</HI> he &s;peaks of, <HI>&s;old their po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ions, lands, and hou&s;es, and brought the prices of them, and laid them down at the Apo&s;tles feet,</HI> they did this irregularly, or without <HI>rule?</HI> or without a <HI>rule binding</HI> unto them? If this latter, then it follows, that either <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elf, or his Apo&s;tles, pre&s;cribed &s;ome <HI>rules,</HI> which were not <HI>binding,</HI> no not unto <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> of this <HI>fir&s;t age?</HI> Or doth he think that that <HI>rule,</HI> by which tho&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> act|ed in the ca&s;e &s;pecified, is <HI>binding unto us now?</HI> Yet that <HI>Rule</HI> re&s;pected charity, and &s;elf-denial; and &s;o in rea&s;on &s;hould be more <HI>binding</HI> unto us now, then <HI>rules</HI> re&s;pecting only an out|ward rite or ceremony. Again it was a <HI>rule binding</HI> unto tho&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> he &s;peaks of, that their <HI>women praying or prophe&s;ying,</HI> &s;hould have their <HI>head covered,</HI> and that men on the contrary &s;hould have their heads <HI>uncovered.</HI> Doth he judge this <HI>rule binding</HI> unto us now? Or do all men &s;in who <HI>Prophe&s;y [i. e.</HI> joyn with him that preahcheth the Word, in the act of hearing] with their <HI>heads covered?</HI> I beleeve there are many who &s;hould &s;in much more, if they &s;hould Prophecy with their <HI>heads un|covered;</HI> viz. all tho&s;e who by rea&s;on of weakne&s;s or tender|ne&s;s are like to &s;uffer in their healths, if they &s;hould &s;it uncover|ed for an hour or two together, in a cold place and cold &s;ea&s;on. There is the &s;ame confideration of a fro&s;ty-dipping to per&s;ons that are valetudinary, of a crazy and infirm con&s;titution, though it were &s;uppo&s;ed that there was a rule <HI>binding Chri&s;tians</HI> of that age, and of tho&s;e warm Countries, to dip at all times imme|diately upon their beleeving. In&s;tance might be given in &s;eve|ral other <HI>Go&s;pel rules,</HI> which were <HI>binding</HI> unto <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> of the fir&s;t age, at lea&s;t unto tho&s;e particular <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> to whom they were pre&s;cribed, and yet are not &s;o <HI>unto us now.</HI> The rule which pre&s;cribed the <HI>Holy ki&s;s,</HI> which pre&s;cribed the <HI>&s;peaking in an</HI> unknown <HI>tongue by two, or at the mo&s;t by three, (1 Cor.</HI> 14. 27.) which pre&s;cribed the holding of the peace to him that was &s;peaking in the Church, in ca&s;e any thing were revealed
<PB N="71" REF="36">
unto another, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14. 30.) which pre&s;cribed <HI>ab&s;taining from meat offered to Idols,</HI> and <HI>from blood, &amp;c.</HI> were <HI>binding</HI> unto tho&s;e <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> of the fir&s;t age, to whom they were given; but are they all <HI>binding</HI> unto us now? Or in ca&s;e they were all now <HI>bind|ing,</HI> but one or more of them not &s;o apprehended by <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> now, and upon this account not ob&s;erved by them; doth it follow from hence, that they mu&s;t needs <HI>bid farewell to all Gospel Obli|gations?</HI> If my Anti-queri&s;t not &s;eeing, or minding a Friend of his pa&s;&s;ing by him in the &s;treet, &s;hould omit the &s;alutations accu&s;tomed between Friends, doth this tend to the aboli&s;hing or ca&s;ting away all friendly commerce or expre&s;&s;ions between them otherwi&s;e? Or in ca&s;e a man gathering his Apples, overlooks one that is more covered with leaves or boughs, then the re&s;t, and &s;o leaveth it ungathered, doth he hereby either di&s;po&s;e, tempt, or encou|rage, either him&s;elf, or others, never to gather Apple more? What frivolous and empty rea&s;onings are the&s;e? Let me here ob|&s;erve this one thing more. The Apo&s;tles were not &s;o uniform in impo&s;ing Ordinances upon Churches in their days, but that what upon occa&s;ion they impo&s;ed upon one, &s;ometimes they relaxed un|to another. They impo&s;ed ab&s;tinence <HI>from meats offered to Idols,</HI> and &s;o <HI>from blood,</HI> upon the Church at <HI>Antioch,</HI> &s;imply and inde|finitely, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 29. whereas the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> enjoyneth the for|mer ab&s;tinence unto the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> only in the ca&s;e of &s;candal unto weak Brethren, and of encouragement to Idolaters, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8 7, 9, 10. compared with <HI>Chap. 10. 23, 27, 28, &amp;c.</HI> and con|cerning the latter, he &s;eemeth to relax it unto the generality of <HI>Christians</HI> (tho&s;e haply excepted, to whom it had been enjoyned, together with others lying under the like circum&s;tantial obligati|ons thereunto) in that pa&s;&s;age to <HI>Timothy, 1 Tim.</HI> 4. 1, 2, 3, 4. where he &s;aith, that <HI>every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refu&s;ed, if it be received with thanksgiving;</HI> yea and (which is more con&s;iderable) maketh it a character of men <HI>giving heed to &s;educing &s;pirits, and &s;peaking lyes in hypocri&s;ie,</HI> to <HI>command to ab&s;tain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P N="15">15. Whereas he &s;aith, that <HI>it is &s;aid in effect</HI> in 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 13, and the <HI>like Scriptures lately quoted</HI> by him, <HI>that all of all &s;orts, ranks, and degrees, that were of the Body, were baptized into the Body, &amp;c.</HI> it is indeed &s;aid (as we heard) that they were all <HI>by one
<PB N="72" REF="37">
Spirit baptized into one Body.</HI> But how impertinent, yea and voyd of truth is it to a&s;cribe that unto Water-Bapti&s;m, which is &s;o expre&s;ly attributed by the Apo&s;tle to a baptizing in, or with, the Spirit? But this Scripture hath been argued more at large.</P>
<P N="16">16. (And la&s;tly, for this An&s;wer) He &s;aith, that <HI>the &s;ame ground which did &s;atisfie Beleevers then</HI> [in the Apo&s;tles days] <HI>in not joyning in Church fellow&s;hip with per&s;ons unbaptized, though they did beleeve&mdash;will &s;erve to &s;atisfie baptized Be|leevers now touching the lawfulne&s;s of the &s;ame practi&s;e, which is the will and appointment of Je&s;us Chri&s;t that &s;o it &s;hould be,</HI> &amp;c. But to how little purpo&s;e is this &s;aid? For, 1. He hath not yet proved (nor I beleeve ever will) that baptized Beleevers in the Apo&s;tles days did not joyn in Church-fellow&s;hip with per&s;ons un-baptized, though Beleevers. And how impertinent is it in argu|ing, to &s;uppo&s;e that without proof, which a man knoweth is deny|ed by his adver&s;ary? 2. In ca&s;e he had proved, or could prove, &s;uch a thing, (I mean, that baptized Beleevers did not joyn in Church-fellow&s;hip with unbaptized Beleevers,) yet would it not follow from hence, that therefore they did not thus joyn with &s;uch upon any &s;uch ground as this, <HI>viz. becau&s;e it was the will and appointment of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t that &s;o it &s;hould be. Chri&s;tians</HI> in the&s;e times (as in all other) did, and e&s;pecially did not, many things, upon other grounds, then this, as <HI>viz</HI> becau&s;e they have no occa|&s;ion, opportunity, or nece&s;&s;ity to do them. They did not joyn them&s;elves in a Team with Hor&s;es, or after the manner of Hor&s;es, to draw Carts, or Wains; they did not, at lea&s;t many of them did not, joyn with Merchants where they lived, in their Adventures by Sea. Did they omit the doing of the&s;e things (and twenty more like unto them) upon this ground, or motive, becau&s;e it was <HI>the will and appointment of Ie&s;us Chri&s;t that &s;o it &s;hould be?</HI> How uncouth, &s;aple&s;s, and without &s;avor, are &s;uch conceits and rea&s;on|ments as the&s;e? The baptized Beleevers he &s;peaks of might po&s;&s;i|bly not joyn in Church-fellow&s;hip with unbaptized Beleevers, only upon this ground; <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e no &s;uch de&s;ired this fellow|&s;hip with them. But will <HI>this ground &s;erve to &s;atisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulne&s;s of &s;uch a practi&s;e,</HI> when as there are Beleevers, whom they call unbaptized, who de&s;ire this fellow&s;hip with them? But it is no great marvel that the Carver, though a good Arti&s;t, can make no better a <HI>Mercury;</HI> the wood
<PB N="73" REF="37">
he hath to work upon, is not for it. 3. (And la&s;tly) The non|joyning of baptized Beleevers in Church-fellow&s;hip with Belee|vers unbaptized, could it be proved, would <HI>&s;erve to &s;atisfie bap|tized Beleevers now touching the lawfulne&s;s of the &s;ame practi&s;e.</HI> But not to joyn, and to break off or &s;eparate after joyning, are two very different practi&s;es. That ground which would &s;atisfie a beleev|ing man or woman for their not joyning in marriagewith an Infidel or Unbeleever; will not &s;erve to &s;atisfie them touching the law|fulne&s;s of the practi&s;e of &s;eparation from him, or her, after marriage. Therefore my <HI>Anti-queri&s;t</HI> doth not argue pertinently at this turn neither. He pleads another Cau&s;e in &s;tead of his own.</P>
<P>For a cloze to what at pre&s;ent I reply to his An&s;wer given unto my fir&s;t Query, it is very ob&s;ervable, that he doth not at all, his long An&s;wer throughout, &s;o much as touch upon one thing, which the &s;aid Query asketh after with as great a de&s;ire of &s;atisfaction, as after any thing be&s;ides. The Query thus &s;aluteth him: <HI>Whether is there any Precept, or Example, in the Gospel, of any per&s;on, how duly &s;oever baptized, who di&s;claimed Chri&s;tian Communion, either in Church-fellow&s;hip, or in any the Ordinances of the Go|&s;pel, with tho&s;e, whom he judged true Beleevers, upon an account only of their not having been baptized,</HI> ESPECIALLY AFTER SUCH A MANNER, AS HE JUDGED IT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO HAVE BEEN? The&s;e la&s;t words, <HI>e&s;pecially after &s;uch a manner, &amp;c.</HI> which are as emphatical as any other in all the Query, and with which he found his Cau&s;e harder pinched then with any thing be&s;ides, he prudently di&s;&s;embles in his An&s;wer, as if they were not. To give a ju&s;t and competent An&s;wer to the Query, he &s;hould not only have attempted to prove, that there are examples in theGo&s;pel of baptized per&s;ons, who di&s;claimed Church communion with Beleevers upon the only account of their not having been baptized (which indeed he hath attempted, though &s;ucce&s;sle&s;ly,) but al&s;o that they di&s;claimed this Communion with them upon the account only of their not having been baptized af|ter &s;uch or &s;uch a particular mode, as they judged nece&s;&s;ary. But &s;peaking neither little nor much to this point, in &s;tead of an An&s;wer in full to the Query before him, he giveth us an An&s;wer that is empty; and which &s;peaketh &s;hort to other things, but to that which is mo&s;t material, nothing at all.</P>
<P><PB N="74" REF="38">
Concerning his An&s;wer to the &s;econd Query, it is of a like raw <NOTE PLACE="marg">The An&s;wer to the &s;econd Query, exa|mined.</NOTE> &s;pinning with the former, and in neither re&s;pect, either of perti|nency, or of truth, any whit more con&s;iderable then it. For,</P>
<P N="1">1. (To take notice in the beginning of this An&s;wer, of the &s;ame Tergiver&s;ation, which we re&s;pited to the cloze of the former) He doth his good will to &s;ay &s;omewhat to what he conceived more repliable in the Query; but that which he apprehended (as he had rea&s;on to do) more intractable, he an&s;wereth with &s;ilence, and a prudential &s;lip. Yea whereas by tran&s;cribing &s;o much of the <HI>Query,</HI> as he doth, he induceth his Reader to conceive that he pre&s;enteth him with the whole; the truth is, that he wholly &s;up|pre&s;&s;eth and keeps out of &s;ight, that intire clau&s;e, wherein the Query beareth harde&s;t upon him. For the&s;e words are not extant in his Edition; <HI>E&s;pecially in ca&s;e they had been baptized and &s;o|lemnly con&s;ecrated by wa&s;hing with water unto the &s;ervice of Je|&s;us Chri&s;t before.</HI> And as his prudence taught him not to acquaint his Reader that there were any &s;uch words in the Query, as the&s;e, &s;o the &s;ame Guide directed him to undertake &s;omewhat el&s;e, in &s;tead of an&s;wering any thing to the matter contained in them. For had his An&s;wer kept way with the demand intended in the&s;e words, it mu&s;t have proved not &s;imply, or only, that the Apo&s;tles, or <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> in their days, denyed Church-communion unto Be|leevers not baptized, after their beleeving, but unto &s;uch Beleevers al&s;o, who had been &s;olemnly con&s;ecrated by wa&s;hing with water unto the &s;ervice of <HI>Ie&s;us Chri&s;t</HI> before their beleeving. This he wi&s;ely con&s;idered was impo&s;&s;ible for him to do: Therefore he abandoneth it from among&s;t his undertakings. In the mean time we are like to have but a lame An&s;wer to the Query.</P>
<P N="2">2. How little &s;avor, either of rea&s;on, or of truth, is there in the very fir&s;t words of this An&s;wer! For are they not the&s;e? <HI>It doth not only appear, that the Apo&s;tles and other Chri&s;tians would have declined Church-communion with Beleevers, becau&s;e not baptized, but it appears that they did do it. For it &s;ufficiently appears that men and women did beleeve, before they were bap|tized.</HI> By the way let this be minded; that here al&s;o he evades and &s;lips quire be&s;ides that, which that part of the Query, to which here he pretends an An&s;wer, principally demanded. For it is here demanded, not only whether it can be proved, that the Apo&s;tles, or other <HI>Chri&s;tians,</HI> would have <HI>declined</HI> Church-communion
<PB N="75" REF="38">
with, but further, whether they would have <HI>denied</HI> this com|munion unto, &s;uch per&s;ons, whom they judged true Beleevers, becau&s;e not baptized. Now the difference between, <HI>declining communion with,</HI> and, <HI>denying communion unto,</HI> is very broad. A man may <HI>decline, i. e.</HI> not do, many things, <HI>[viz.</HI> in ca&s;e he be not reque&s;ted, or de&s;ired to do them] which yet being re|que&s;ted, he would not deny to do. The Apo&s;tles might very po&s;&s;ibly <HI>decline, i. e.</HI> non-admit unbaptized Beleevers into Church-communion, upon a &s;uppo&s;ition that they de&s;ired it not. And yet as po&s;&s;ibly, nay much more probably, not <HI>deny</HI> this communion unto them, in ca&s;e they had de&s;ired it. But in as much as the Anti-queri&s;t had not &s;o much as in colour what to an&s;wer to this &s;trein, or touch of the Querie, his prudentials be|friended him with this &s;tratagem; to leave out tho&s;e words of the Querie in the tran&s;cription, wherein this unruly demand was contained. But pa&s;&s;ing by this, how impertinently doth he argue that little which he undertakes, in the words mentioned? For,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Suppo&s;e it &s;hould be granted him that the Apo&s;tles and Chri&s;tians did decline communion with Beleevers unbaptized, doth it pre&s;ently follow, that therefore they declined it, be|cau&s;e they were unbaptized? A man declines &s;uch and &s;uch meats, which are tender and ea&s;ie of dige&s;tion: but this prov|eth not, that their tenderne&s;s, or ea&s;ine&s;s of dige&s;tion is the rea|&s;on why he declines them. Every quality or property in a &s;ub|ject, is not the rea&s;on or ground of every thing that is done un|to it, nor yet of the forbearance of every act, that is not acted upon, or about it.</P>
<P>If my Antiqueri&s;t demands; But what can rea&s;onably be &s;up|po&s;ed to be the rea&s;on or cau&s;e, why the Apo&s;tles or others, &s;hould decline communion with un-baptized Beleevers, but only their not being baptized; I an&s;wer;</P>
<P N="1">1. That a &s;imple <HI>non-admiting</HI> to Communion, can in no to|lerable con&s;truction be called, a <HI>declining</HI> of communion, or, of admiting to co~munion. There be an hundred godly per&s;ons about theCity, whom I do not admit intoChurch communion with me, who&s;e communion notwith&s;tanding I cannot with truth be charged to <HI>decline.</HI> Therefore whil&s;t my Anti-queri&s;t only &s;hews or proves, that the Apo&s;tles, or others, did not admit into Church-communion, Beleevers unbaptized, he doth not at all hereby &s;a|tisfie or an&s;wer theQue&s;tion propounded: This &s;peaks of <HI>declining</HI>
<PB N="76" REF="39">
Communion: he an&s;wers of not admiting to communion, Here is only a &s;tone given, when bread was demanded. Yet,</P>
<P N="2">2. To the que&s;tion now propounded, I an&s;wer; The rea&s;on why the Apo&s;tles did not admit Beleevers unbaptized into Church-communion (if this either &s;hould be granted, or could be proved) is mo&s;t probably this; <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e &s;uch Beleev|ers de&s;ired it not of them. The Apo&s;tles were not wont to ad|mit into Church-communion (in that &s;ence we now &s;peak of admi&s;&s;ion) any per&s;on again&s;t his will, or without his de&s;ire &s;ignified on &s;uch a behalf. If my friendly Antogoni&s;t here re|plies; but if the primitive Beleevers did not de&s;ire admittance into Church-communion, until they were baptized, why is not this primitive pattern followed now? I an&s;wer; 1. it is not affirmed, or granted, that they made no &s;uch de&s;ire, but only upon &s;uppo&s;ition, and for argument &s;ake. Yet,</P>
<P>2. The pattern mentioned, is, as far as I under&s;tand, gene|rally followed in the&s;e days; no per&s;on that I know, de&s;iring Church-communion, but &s;uch only, who judg them&s;elves bap|tized, as the primitive Chri&s;tians did in their days.</P>
<P>How untruly he &s;aith, that it <HI>appears that the Apo&s;tles and other Chri&s;tians did decline Church-communion with Beleevers unbaptized, becau&s;e unbaptized,</HI> needs no further evidence then the late premi&s;es. The rea&s;on which he &s;ubjoyns, is mo&s;t im|portunely impertinent. For what though it never &s;o <HI>&s;ufficient|ly appears that men and women did beleeve before they were bap|tized?</HI> What is there in this to prove, that therefore the Apo|&s;tles and <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> did decline Church-communion with Be|leevers unbaptized, becau&s;e unbaptized. He that can make hand and glove of this rea&s;on, and that which was to be proved by it, how gladly, were it po&s;&s;ible, would I exchange under&s;tandings with him!</P>
<P>Whereas he demands; <HI>What is a not admiting, le&s;s, then a refu&s;ing to admit, them to &s;uch communion?</HI> I an&s;wer; that though I cannot tell <HI>what [i. e.</HI> preci&s;ely how much] <HI>le&s;s it is,</HI> yet this I am certain of (and &s;o may any other per&s;on readily be) that very much <HI>le&s;s it is.</HI> A non-acting dothnot nece&s;&s;arily &s;up|po&s;e an unwillingne&s;s to act, but po&s;&s;ibly a want of an oppor|tunity only for acting, and &s;ometimes a want of power. But a <HI>refu&s;ing</HI> to act, always imports a want of will to act.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="77" REF="39">
3. Whereas he turns Queri&s;t, and demands: <HI>Will it follow, that becau&s;e the&s;e external rites, Bapti&s;m and the like, do not avail unto mens ju&s;tification, when they are ob&s;erved, that therefore they are not nece&s;&s;ary unto Church-communion.</HI></P>
<P>I an&s;wer affirmatively, yes, <HI>it will follow,</HI> For if men may be ju&s;tified without Bapti&s;m; it follows that they may be|leeve and be &s;anctified al&s;o, andcon&s;equently brought into the number of Saints, without it. Now that the will and plea&s;ure of the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is, that all Saints without exception, whe|ther Baptized or unbaptized, whether convinced of the nece&s;sity of Bapti&s;m, orunconvinced, &s;hould be <HI>perfected [i. e.</HI> built up to the greate&s;t meetne&s;s for their Inheritance in light, that may be] and con&s;equently admitted into Church-communion, where the be&s;t means of &s;uch an edification are to be found, hath been &s;uffici|ently (I tru&s;t) proved in the preceding Con&s;iderations. Concern|ing <HI>the rite of Circumci&s;ion,</HI> how, and with what limitations it was nece&s;&s;ary to Church-communion among&s;t the <HI>Jews;</HI> as likewi&s;e how different the Con&s;ideration of circumci&s;ion, and Bapti&s;m, is, about the Regulation of Church-communion, hath been argued at large already.</P>
<P>And whereas he demands; <HI>How then can the Queri&s;t e&s;ti|mate the u&s;efulnes and di&s;u&s;efulne&s;s of Bapti&s;m as to Church-communion, by circumci&s;ion, as he doth,</HI> &amp;c. the <HI>Queri&s;t</HI> an&s;wer|eth, That he is &s;o far from doing that, which he is here charg|ed to do, that (as he even now intimated) his &s;ince is, that there is altogether a different con&s;ideration between Circumci&s;ion and Bapti&s;m, in their re&s;pective relations to Church-communi|on. Only herein he confe&s;&s;eth an agreement between them, that as <HI>that is not circumci&s;ion, which is outward in the fle&s;h (Rom.</HI> 2. 28. meaning, not the circumci&s;ion which much com|mendeth any man unto God) &s;o neither is that Bapti&s;m which is externally admini&s;tred and received, the Bapti&s;m that much intere&s;&s;eth any per&s;on in his favour.</P>
<P N="4">4. Whereas he yet demands, <HI>How the Apo&s;tles or others Chri&s;tians in the&s;e times would have known, or have been able upon good ground to have concluded, that &s;uch per&s;ons had truly beleeved in Chri&s;t unto Ju&s;tification, and had been meet to be ad|mitted to communion with them, who &s;hould (if any &s;uch had been) have refu&s;ed to obey Chri&s;t in &s;ubmitting to Bapti&s;m, &amp;c.</HI> I an&s;wer;</P>
<P><PB N="78" REF="40">
Who&s;oever refu&s;eth <HI>[i. e.</HI> profe&s;&s;edly denyeth] to obey <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> not only <HI>in &s;ubmitting unto Bapti&s;m,</HI> but in any other of his commands, [being made known to be his unto him] cannot (I &s;uppo&s;e) by any argument or te&s;timony what&s;oever be concluded to beleeve in <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> unto ju&s;tification. But this nothing hindereth, but that in ca&s;e any per&s;on be in the general cour&s;e of his life con&s;cientious, and ob&s;ervant of the Laws of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> as far as the knowledg hereof &s;hall come to him, he may be upon this account concluded a Beleever unto ju&s;tification, although being ignorant of, or di&s;&s;atisfied about, any particular Law of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> as &s;uppo&s;e his Law concerning Bapti&s;m, he &s;hould not exhibit obedience unto it. Nor is a refu&s;al to &s;ub|mit unto Bapti&s;m, in the&s;e days, of a like interpretation with &s;uch a refu&s;al in the days of the Apo&s;tles: Becau&s;e then there could be no place for any que&s;tion or doubt, whether a &s;ubmit|ting unto Bapti&s;m, at lea&s;t being required by the Apo&s;tles, were an act of obedience unto Chri&s;t, or no; whereas now it is the &s;ence of &s;ome worthy <HI>Chri&s;tians</HI> (I do not &s;ay it is mine) that a &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion unto Bapti&s;m is rather an act of will-wor&s;hip, then of obedience unto <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and others are di&s;&s;atisfied about the nece&s;sity of it. Therefore although a refu&s;ing to be baptized then, did argue a <HI>rejection of the Councel of God,</HI> in the refu|&s;ers; yet &s;uppo&s;ing that God hath now layd Bapti&s;m a&s;ide (which is the judgment of tho&s;e lately mentioned) a refu&s;ing to &s;ubmit unto it rather argueth an accepting, then a rejecting, of the Councel of God. As the <HI>Jews</HI> who refu&s;ed to &s;ubmit, unto circumci&s;ion after the Go&s;pel had been preached unto them, did not herein reject the Councel of God concerning cir|cumci&s;ion, but imbrace and accept it; however &s;uch a refu&s;al before would have been a rejection of it.</P>
<P N="5">5. Neither doth <HI>the Queri&s;t e&s;timate the Apo&s;tles judgment of Go&s;pel Rites by what he speaks of circumci&s;ion,</HI> but by what he oppo&s;eth both to <HI>circumci&s;ion,</HI> and to <HI>uncircumci&s;ion,</HI> and &s;peaketh concerning them. For whereas the Apo&s;tle expre&s;&s;eth him&s;elf, thus: <HI>In Je&s;us Chri&s;t neither circumci&s;ion availeth any thing, nor uncircumci&s;ion, but</HI> FAITH WHICH WORKETH BY LOVE: And again, <HI>Circumci&s;ion is nothing, and uncircum|ci&s;ion is nothing, but</HI> THE KEEPING OF THE COMMAND|MENTS OF GOD; He plainly declares and avoucheth, that
<PB N="79" REF="40">
that which is oppo&s;ite to &s;uch things which <HI>are nothing, a vail nothing,</HI> (and con&s;equently, which is &s;omewhat, and which highly <HI>availeth)</HI> is not Bapti&s;m, nor any other external rite or ceremony, but &s;uch a thing, which is as contra-di&s;tingui&s;hable again&s;t the&s;e, as again&s;t circumci&s;ion, or uncircumci&s;ion them|&s;elves, viz. <HI>Faith which worketh by love;</HI> and, <HI>The keeping of the Commandments of God.</HI> Nor doth an <HI>oppo&s;ition</HI> made <HI>be|tween Faith, and Go&s;pel Ordinances,</HI> any whit more <HI>&s;et them to|gether by the ears,</HI> then the Evangeli&s;t <HI>John</HI> &s;ets <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> (who were and are, as <HI>good Friends,</HI> as <HI>Faith and Go&s;pel Rites) together by the ears,</HI> in making this oppo&s;ition between them: <HI>For the Law was given by</HI> MOSES: <HI>but Grace and Truth came by Je&s;us</HI> CHRIST. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1. 17. Or then <HI>John Bap|ti&s;t &s;et</HI> his Bapti&s;m, and the Bapti&s;m of <HI>Chri&s;t, together by the ears,</HI> by oppo&s;ing them thus: <HI>I indeed have baptized you with water: But He &s;hall baptize you with the Holy Gho&s;t and with fire. Mar.</HI> 1. 9. He that &s;aith, <HI>Luther</HI> was of an active re&s;o|lute, and tearing &s;pirit, <HI>Melancthon</HI> of a gentle and &s;oft, doth not <HI>&s;et</HI> the&s;e good Friends <HI>together by the ears,</HI> but only &s;hews wherein, notwith&s;tanding their agreement as dear Con&s;orts and Friends, they yet differed the one from the other. There are no two things in the world, but differ in &s;omething the one from the other: and con&s;equently may in re&s;pect hereof, be oppo&s;ed the one unto the other. Yea though Bapti&s;m (I mean a &s;ubmitting unto Bapti&s;m) be the keeping of a commandment of God; yet may it regularly enough be oppo&s;ed to the keeping of the Commandments of God, as one man may be oppo&s;ed un|to many, or the &s;etting of a mans foot out of his door, to the performance of a long journey. But the&s;e things are (I &s;uppo&s;e) a little out of my <HI>Anti-queri&s;t</HI> his Element.</P>
<P N="6">6. Whereas he demands; <HI>Why doth the Queri&s;t make cir|cumci&s;ion a Go&s;pel rite, which is indeed a rite aboli&s;hed by the Go&s;pel?</HI> I may much more hone&s;tly demand, why doth the <HI>Anti-queri&s;t</HI> lay to the <HI>Queri&s;t</HI> charge a thing which he know|eth not, no nor yet the words of his <HI>Querie?</HI> For though he &s;hould &s;ay (which yet he doth not, the Anti-queri&s;t making too bold here, as too frequently el&s;ewhere, to mi&s;-recite his words, as the Reader may readily ob&s;erve by comparing the Original all along with the tran&s;cript) that <HI>under the Go&s;pel
<PB N="80" REF="41">
Circumci&s;ion by a Synechdoche &s;peciei is put for all external rites and ceremonies,</HI> yet doth not &s;uch a &s;aying as this nece&s;&s;arily &s;uppo&s;e, or imply, <HI>circumci&s;ion to be a Go&s;pel rite.</HI> For <HI>rites,</HI> or ceremonies, being of two kinds, &s;ome of Divine, others of humane in&s;titution, the Apo&s;tle may by the &s;ayd figure <HI>Synech|doche,</HI> mention only <HI>circumci&s;ion,</HI> in &s;tead of all other Divine rites, without &s;uppo&s;ing it to be a <HI>Go&s;pel rite,</HI> ina&s;much as there were far more rites of Divine in&s;titution under the Law, then there are under the Go&s;pel. His following words, <HI>And if for all kind, then certainly for Go&s;pel rites and ceremonies; for they are &s;ome of all,</HI> have neither goodne&s;s of &s;ence in them, nor pertinency to his bu&s;ine&s;s in hand. For what though <HI>cir|cumci&s;ion be put for all kinds of rites</HI> [of Divine in&s;titution] and con&s;equently, for <HI>Gospel rites</HI> al&s;o, yet doth it follow from hence, that it &s;elf mu&s;t needs be a Go&s;pel rite? By what prin|ciple in rea&s;on is this con&s;equence formed? Suppo&s;ing there are two &s;orts of men in the world, rich, and poor, and I, having occa&s;ion to &s;peak of men in general, &s;hould, to give &s;ome light to my di&s;cour&s;e, in&s;tance in <HI>John, Thomas,</HI> or <HI>James,</HI> I &s;hould not by my in&s;tancing <HI>Iohn</HI> (for example) in this ca&s;e, &s;uppo&s;e him to be determinately either a rich man, or a poor. But the&s;e things (I confe&s;s) are &s;carce worth the examining, excepting only that me thinks I perceive my Anti-queri&s;t in a little exta&s;ie of contentment, by vertue of a con|ceit he hath that I have &s;o ill behaved my &s;elf in the pa&s;&s;age in hand, that he can make large earnings by de&s;canting upon it. And I would wilingly awaken him out of his exta&s;ie. For certain I am, that there is nothing in the <HI>Query,</HI> rightly under|&s;tood, but is exception-proof. And the truth is, that all things in his An&s;wer to this Query from fir&s;t to la&s;t, duly con&s;idered, together with that his contentment mentioned, there &s;eems to be a mixture of a kind of di&s;content again&s;t the Apo&s;tle for op|po&s;ing <HI>Faith,</HI> the <HI>new Creature, keeping the Commandments of God,</HI> unto <HI>circumci&s;ion,</HI> and not Bapti&s;m rather. For if it had been written thus; <HI>In Chri&s;t Je&s;us neither circumci&s;ion availeth any thing, nor uncircumci&s;ion,</HI> but Bapti&s;m which is by dipping, or plunging into water, I beleeve he would have been as hard or heavy to be born, <HI>as an hand maid that is heir to her Mi&s;tris: Prov.</HI> 30. 23. And I under&s;tand that a Great
<PB N="81" REF="41">
Doctor of that way, taking occa&s;ion not long &s;ince to open the &s;aid pa&s;&s;age of the Apo&s;tle to his people, made &s;peciall trea&s;ure of this ob&s;ervation from it, that although the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, <HI>That in Christ Ie&s;us circumci&s;ion availeth nothing,</HI> yet he doth not &s;ay that Bapti&s;m availeth nothing. If he had under&s;tood the Apo&s;tle (a trouble of mind not much incident to th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters"> generation) he mu&s;t needs have known, that however the Apo&s;tle did not in &s;o many words &s;ay, <HI>That Bapti&s;m availeth nothing,</HI> yet con&s;tructively and in pregnancie and neer-handedne&s;s of con&s;equence, he &s;aid eve|ry whit as much, yea and &s;omewhat more too. For by &s;huting out <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> in&s;tance-wi&s;e, together with <HI>uncircumci&s;ion,</HI> and letting in onely <HI>Faith, the New creature, the keeping the Com|mands of God,</HI> it is a plain ca&s;e that together with <HI>circumci&s;ion</HI> he excluded <HI>Bapti&s;m</HI> al&s;o, yea and all other ceremoniall practications what&s;oever. But &s;uch an ob&s;ervation as that now &s;pecified, is a competent in&s;tance, or example, whereby to e&s;timate how un|worthily the Scriptures are commonly handled in tho&s;e Con|gregations. But,</P>
<P N="6">6. My <HI>Anti-querist</HI> greatneth the pile of his former imperti|nencies by heaping all the&s;e words upon it: <HI>Neither &s;urely would any man (much le&s;s the Querist) be &s;o impertinent, as to a&s;&s;ert no externall rite availeable under the Gospel, becau&s;e circumci&s;ion is not, unle&s;s he held circumci&s;ion to be as much a Gospel rite, as any other; &s;ince it is against common &s;ence to &s;ay, That which is greater is not available to &s;uch or &s;uch an end, becau&s;e that which is le&s;s is not; and yet more irrationall would it be to a&s;&s;ert the non-availeablene&s;s of that which is, from the non-availeablene&s;s of that which is not: which yet would be the trip of the Querist, if he &s;hould not think that circumci&s;ion had &s;ome manner of in&s;titutive being, yea as eminent a being under the Go&s;pel, as any other rite of the Go&s;pel hath.</HI> Hereunto add we this vaine-glorious vapour in the following Paragraph: <HI>Truly I cannot but think that cau&s;e hard be&s;ted, that is fain to beg its bread out of &s;uch de&s;olate places as is that of Circumci&s;ion for one, who&s;e foundation was long &s;ince ra&s;ed by the hand of the Go&s;pel to the very ground.</HI> The long thread of all this di&s;cour&s;e is &s;pun of tow that hath touched the fire. The ba&s;is and ground work of the whole Fabrick hath been already, ra&s;ed to the very ground. For my friend al along &s;uppo&s;eth, 1. That I make the be&s;t and mo&s;t con&s;cientious ob&s;ervation of
<PB N="82" REF="42">
Go&s;pel rites, of no acceptation at all with God. 2. That I argue that comparative non-availablene&s;s of Go&s;pel rites, which I a&s;&s;ert and hold, from the non-availablene&s;s of Circumci&s;ion &s;imply con|&s;idered. Again&s;t both the&s;e I have &s;ufficiently explained my &s;elf already, and likewi&s;e vindicated the words of the Queree from any intimation or &s;uppo&s;ition of either. Touching the former, I &s;hall add nothing to the premi&s;es relating thereunto. For the latter, I have likewi&s;e &s;hewed in as plain <HI>Engli&s;h</HI> as I know how to write, that neither do I, nor the <HI>Queree,</HI> argue the comparative non-availablene&s;s of Bapti&s;m, which the <HI>Queree</HI> onely a&s;&s;erteth (as the Anti-queri&s;t him&s;elf yeildeth, as we formerly heard) from the non-availablene&s;s of <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> &s;imply con&s;idered (this we have formerly &s;hewed to be a palpable mi&s;take) but from <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> con&s;idered in that oppo&s;ition, which the Apo&s;tle maketh (in the Scripture before us) between it, and <HI>Faith;</HI> and again, between it, and <HI>the New Creature.</HI> From this oppo&s;ition it evidently appea|reth, that the Apo&s;tle by excluding <HI>Circumci&s;ion</HI> (with uncircum|ci&s;ion) from that availablene&s;s with God, which he &s;olely a&s;cribes unto <HI>Faith,</HI> the <HI>new creature</HI> and <HI>the keeping the Commandments of God,</HI> intended together with <HI>circumci&s;ion,</HI> to exclude all cere|moniall ob&s;ervances, as well tho&s;e of the Go&s;pel, as tho&s;e of the Law. This con&s;idered, it had been more honour for the <HI>Anti-querist</HI> to have kept him&s;elf as free from the charge, as the Que|ri&s;t is from the <HI>crime</HI> or <HI>trip,</HI> of rea&s;oning at any &s;uch rate of non|&s;ence, at this: <HI>becau&s;e that which is le&s;s, is not available to &s;uch, or &s;uch as end; therefore neither is that which is greater avail|able hereunto:</HI> Or again, <HI>becau&s;e that which is not, is not avail|able; therefore neither is that which is.</HI> How can I but think that my Friend dreamt waking, when &s;uch rea&s;onings as the&s;e, pre&s;ent|ed them&s;elves to his imagination, as the arguing of his Friend the Queri&s;t? Either he complements profoundly in his private addre&s;s by Letter unto him, wherein he pretends to give him the right hand of him&s;elf in abilities to manage a di&s;cour&s;e; or el&s;e he renders him&s;elf weak indeed in &s;uch affairs, by making him&s;elf an underling in abilities to a man, the tenour and &s;train of who&s;e rea&s;onings is &s;o far beneath the line of the mo&s;t irrationall of men.</P>
<P>By this time we &s;uppo&s;e that the <HI>vapour</HI> al&s;o mentioned is wholly vani&s;hed into the ayre. The cau&s;e he &s;peaks of, cannot well, at lea&s;t needs not, <HI>beg the bread</HI> of it's &s;upport <HI>out of de&s;olate
<PB N="83" REF="42">
places;</HI> there being very few places, e&s;pecially in the new Te&s;ta|ment, but which yeild this <HI>bread</HI> plentifully. A ta&s;te hereof is gi|ven in the premi&s;ed Con&s;iderations. But concerning the <HI>place,</HI> which he calls <HI>de&s;olate,</HI> it hath been proved over and over, that there groweth a &s;trong <HI>&s;taff of bread</HI> for the &s;upport of the cau&s;e depending, in the very mid&s;t of it.</P>
<P N="7">7. And la&s;tly, whereas he demands; <HI>But why al&s;o doth the Queri&s;t oppo&s;e the rites and ceremonies of the Go&s;pel, or under the Go&s;pel, to the keeping the commands of God, &amp;c.</HI> he &s;hould ra|ther have demanded a rea&s;on why the Apo&s;tle doth it. But whe|ther it be the Apo&s;tle, or the <HI>Queri&s;t,</HI> or both, who makes this oppo&s;ition, a plain rea&s;on hath been given of it, and the &s;en&s;e de|clared wherein this oppo&s;ition is to be under&s;tood. Yea I &s;uppo&s;e the Anti-queri&s;t him&s;elf can hardly be &s;o enormou&s;ly extravagant in his opinion or notion about Bapti&s;m, as not to judg but that an habituall and con&s;tant cour&s;e of obedience to the re&s;t of the Com|mandements of God, doth much more highly commend a per&s;on unto God, then one &s;ingle act of an externall &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion unto Bapti&s;m. If &s;o, then is there a manife&s;t ground for an oppo&s;ition between Bapti&s;m, and <HI>a keeping of the Commandments of God,</HI> yea though a &s;ubjection unto Bapti&s;m be &s;uppo&s;ed to be an act of <HI>keeping</HI> one of the&s;e <HI>Commandments,</HI> yea and available al&s;o, to a degree, for a commending of men unto God. For as <HI>little</HI> may ve|ry regularly be oppo&s;ed unto <HI>much,</HI> and &s;o, <HI>le&s;s,</HI> unto <HI>more;</HI> &s;o may that which is <HI>le&s;s</HI> acceptable unto God, be very properly, and according to the &s;tricte&s;t rules of oppo&s;ition, be oppo&s;ed unto that which is <HI>more.</HI> Neither is there &s;o much as a face, or the lighte&s;t appearance of <HI>a contra-diction,</HI> between <HI>denying the ob&s;erva|tion of the Ceremonies of the Go&s;pel to be available</HI> (compara|tively) <HI>to any mans acceptation with God,</HI> and an affirming <HI>that a keeping the Commands of God is</HI> highly <HI>available to &s;uch a pur|po&s;e.</HI> But enough of this with a &s;urplu&s;&s;age, formerly.</P>
<P>Thus we &s;ee plainly, and without a Parable, that no An&s;wer hath as yet been given by the Anti-queri&s;t to the two fir&s;t <HI>Queries,</HI> unle&s;s by An&s;wer we under&s;tand any thing which he that makes it is plea&s;ed &s;o to cal. Nor is it any di&s;paragement to any mans abilities or worth, that he isnot able to make an egg &s;tand end-ways upon a &s;mooth table, without cracking it, though &s;uch an undertaking may (I confe&s;s) &s;omewhat reflect upon him. My Friend (my <HI>Anti-queri&s;t)</HI>
<PB N="84" REF="43">
hath &s;u&s;teyned no lo&s;s at all in my e&s;teem of his parts and abilities, by drawing up &s;o in&s;ufficient an an&s;wer to the Queries, as he hath don. For I well know and con&s;ider how far a mi&s;taken province will oppre&s;s, abu&s;e, and belye any mans learning, knowledg, parts, and abilities what&s;oever.</P>
<P>I &s;uppo&s;e there is no need of any further ingagement of mine again&s;t the &s;aid An&s;wer; the fir&s;t fruits being polluted, the whole Lump is hereby &s;ufficiently proved to be unclean. Only I &s;hall take notice from his An&s;wer to the fourth <HI>Query,</HI> how impertinently he citeth (and upon no better account, vindicat|eth) this of the Apo&s;tle. (1 <HI>Tim. 6. 1.) Let</HI> As MANY <HI>&s;er|vants as are under the yoke, count their own Ma&s;ters worthy of all honour,</HI> to overthrow this a&s;&s;ertion <HI>of his Queri&s;t,</HI> that this particle, <HI>as many as,</HI> in &s;uch con&s;tructions as tho&s;e <HI>Rom.</HI> 6. 3. and <HI>Gal.</HI> 3 27. is always partitive. <HI>When the Apo&s;tle</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;aith, Let as many &s;ervants, as are under the yoke, count,</HI> &amp;c. <Q REND="margQuotes">doth he thereby &s;uppo&s;e, or imply, that there were &s;ome &s;er|vants that were not under the yoke, or who were not to count their Ma&s;ters worthy all honour?</Q>  Yes (my good friend) the Apo&s;tle doth here &s;uppo&s;e that there were &s;ome &s;ervants not under &s;uch <HI>a yoke</HI> as that, whereof he here &s;peaks; as is mo&s;t evident from the oppo&s;ition which he makes in the very nex words, ver&s;e. 2. &s;peaking of &s;ervants of another kind; <HI>But tho&s;e who have Beleeving Ma&s;ters,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>let them not de&s;pi&s;e them,</HI> &amp;c. And the be&s;t expo&s;itors general|ly acknowledg and give notice of a di&s;tribution or partition of &s;ervants into two kinds, in this context of Scripture; yet not into two &s;uch kinds neither, as my <HI>Antiqueri&s;t</HI> notioneth in his objection, which he &s;o favorably frameth again&s;t him&s;elf, that he may plaufibly (at lea&s;t) an&s;wer it. Servants are not here di&s;tributed into beleeving, and unbeleeving; but into &s;uch who are <HI>under the yoke,</HI> [viz. of unbeleeving Ma&s;ters] and &s;uch, who are free from this yoke, as being &s;ervants to Ma&s;ters, who beleeve. Both the one and the other kind of &s;ervants are plain|ly enough &s;uppo&s;ed by the Apo&s;tle to be beleevers. Nor was it his manner in any of his Epi&s;tles, to give directions about the carriage or behavior of Infidels, or to pre&s;cribe matters of duty unto them. How impertinent then is that which he pretends in the an&s;wer, which he draweth up to his own objection,
<PB N="58" REF="43">
<HI>viz.</HI> that the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, <HI>as many as,</HI> u&s;ed. <HI>Rom. 6. 3. Gal. 3. 27. intentionally only re&s;pect tho&s;e at Rome (and &s;o in Galatia) who did beleeve, and were baptized, and therefore are partitive in re&s;pect of others the inhabitants of tho&s;e places, dividing tho&s;e of the&s;e Churches from others dwelling in the &s;ame places,</HI> &amp;c. For what can be more evident then that the Apo&s;tle by the particle, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>as manyas,</HI> in the Scriptures before us, did not intend to divide the beleeving members of the Churches of <HI>Rome &amp; Galatia,</HI> from the unbeleeving party of men in the&s;e places, but only beleev|ers them&s;elves among&s;t them&s;elves, the baptized, from the un-baptized; con&s;idering that in the former of the &s;aid places, he expre&s;&s;eth him&s;elf thus; <HI>Know ye not that &s;o many of</HI> Us <HI>as were baptized into</HI> Je&s;us Chri&s;t, &amp;c. and in the latter, thus: <HI>For as many of YO&V; as have been baptized,</HI> &amp;c? Is it worthy any mans belief, that <HI>Paul</HI> writing thus to the beleeving mem|bers of the Church at <HI>Rome, Know ye not that &s;o many of us that were baptized,</HI> &amp;c. &s;hould either in the pronoun, Us include <HI>Nero,</HI> with all the rabble of pagan Idolater in <HI>Rome,</HI> as if he wrot to the&s;e, as well as to the Saints or that he intended to &s;ignifie unto them, that him&s;elf was one of tho&s;e, who dwelt in <HI>Rome?</HI> Or is not his meaning in &s;aying <HI>&s;o many of us as,</HI> &amp;c. clearly this, that as many of <HI>us</HI> Saints, or of <HI>us</HI> beleevers, who have been baptized? For in what other con&s;ideration, rel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="OXF" EXTENT="2 letters">ion, or re&s;pect, he &s;hould make him&s;elf one of them, is not ea&s;ie to imagin. Evident it is from Chap. 1. 13. 15. that he was no dweller in <HI>Rome,</HI> at the time of writing this Epi&s;tle, nor had been any time before. So likewi&s;e when he writes to the Churches, and members of the Churches of <HI>Galatia,</HI> thus; <HI>For as many of YO&V; as have been baptized,</HI> &amp;c. can his meaning be, as many of you <HI>who dwell in Galatia,</HI> as have been baptized? Or doth not &s;uch a &s;ence as this plainly imply, that he wrote his Epi&s;tle a&s;wel to the Infidels in the Countries of <HI>Galatia,</HI> as to the members of the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Churches there? Therefore (que&s;tionle&s;s) the Apo&s;tles meaning in the words before us, is plainly and directly this: <HI>As many of you,</HI> who being members of the Churches of <HI>Galatia, have been baptized into Chri&s;t, have put on Chri&s;t:</HI> and con&s;equently the particle <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>as many as,</HI> is not partitive of the beleevers in the places mentioned, from the re&s;t of unbeleeving Inhabitants there,
<PB N="86" REF="44">
but of beleevers among&s;t them&s;elves, tho&s;e that had been bap|tized, from tho&s;e who were at pre&s;ent unbaptized, in either place re&s;pectively. This to be the expre&s;s &s;ence of the two pa&s;&s;ages mentioned might be further evidenced by the light of &s;undry con&s;iderations, but that we judge the premi&s;es alrea|dy levied &s;ufficient to e&s;tabli&s;h that conclu&s;ion. It being then &s;o clear a ca&s;e, that there were &s;ome members of Churches in the Apo&s;tles days, who were unbaptized, at lea&s;t for a time, it undenyably follows, that Bapti&s;m is no Con&s;titutor of Churches; as the beloved notion of my Anti-queri&s;t beareth.</P>
<P>Concerning that Copweb-piece, &s;tiled by the Author, <HI>Some Bapti&s;mal abu&s;es briefly di&s;covered,</HI> wherewith &s;ome &s;illy flies (as I under&s;tand) have been intangled and catched, there is a be&s;ome preparing for the bru&s;hing away of that al&s;o from the Temple of God, &s;o far as it is catching, and hath not been di&s;|mantled by the contents of the&s;e papers. For the tail of it, wherein the &s;ting, and the wor&s;t of the poy&s;on lies, hath been cut off and &s;wept away hereby.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="part">
<PB N="87" REF="44">
<HEAD>THE ANATOMY OF Ana-Bapti&s;m.</HEAD>
<P>_ANa-Bapti&s;m, is, by the Modern Architects of it, built upon Foundations, or Grounds of three &s;orts. Some<LIST>
<ITEM>1. True, but not pertinent.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. Fal&s;, and therefore not pertinent.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. Conjecturall onely, and therefore very little pertinent.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P N="1">1. Of the fir&s;t &s;ort are<LIST>
<ITEM>1. All tho&s;e Texts of Scripture, on which they mi&s;-ground, fir&s;t their Opinion, and then their Practicti&s;e. As, <HI>Mat. 19. 28. Mar. 16. 16. Act. 2. 38, 41. Act. 8. 37. Rom. 6. 3, 4. Colo&s;&s;. 2. 12. Heb.</HI> 6. 2. (po&s;&s;ibly with &s;ome others) The&s;e are <HI>true Grounds</HI> of Doctrines, and practi&s;es corre&s;ponding; but are irrelative to the Doctrine and Practi&s;e of Ana-Bapti&s;m.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. Of this &s;ort al&s;o, are the&s;e, and &s;ome other like Tenents upon which they build their &s;aid Fabrick.<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That in the Scripture there is no particular or expre&s;&s;e, either Precept, or Example, for Infant-Bapti&s;m.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That no Ordinance of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> can be neglected, or omitted, without &s;in. This rightly under&s;tood, and with due limitation, is a truth al&s;o: but thus under&s;tood, it reacheth not their practi&s;e.</ITEM>
</LIST></ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P N="2">2. Of the &s;econd &s;ort are the&s;e,<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That in ca&s;e Infants were not Baptized in the dayes of <HI>Iohn</HI> the Bapti&s;t, nor of Chri&s;t, nor of his Apo&s;tles, then ought not Bap|ti&s;m to be admini&s;tred unto Infants now.</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB N="88" REF="45">
2. That Circumci&s;ion was neither &s;ign nor &s;eal of the Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, or of the Covenant of Grace, but unto the per&s;on of <HI>Abraham</HI> onely.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. That Bapti&s;m it &s;elf is no Seal of the Covenant of Grace un|to any per&s;on what&s;oever, but a &s;ign onely.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. That an Admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;m made to profe&s;&s;ing Be|leevers, doth more conduce unto, and better an&s;wer the ends of Bapti&s;m, then that which is made to Infants.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5. That Infant-Bapti&s;m is di&s;agreeable to the Mini&s;tration of the New Te&s;tament.</ITEM>
<ITEM>6. That none ought to be Baptized but &s;uch who [in their own per&s;on] appear voluntarily willing to be Baptized in obedience unto God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>7. That Infant-Bapti&s;m is a nullitie.</ITEM>
<ITEM>8. That Infant-Church-member-&s;hip was a Leviticall Ceremo|nie, and aboli&s;hed (with the re&s;t of the Legall Ceremonies) by <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the Go&s;pell.</ITEM>
<ITEM>9. That a profe&s;&s;ion of Faith, whether reall, or feigned, is a more warrantable ground, whereon to admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m, then an e&s;tate in Grace, though atte&s;ted by God him&s;elf.</ITEM>
<ITEM>10. That any Per&s;on un-baptized, may, without &s;pecial Com|mi&s;&s;ion from God, and without proof-making of &s;uch a Commi&s;|&s;ion, admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m; and that &s;uch a mans Admini&s;tration (together with all the admini&s;trations lineally de&s;cending from it) is the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>11. That any per&s;on what&s;oever pretending to beleeve, and to have been baptized, whether inve&s;ted into any Office, or not, may as lawfully admini&s;ter Bapti&s;m, as he that is an Officer in a Church.</ITEM>
<ITEM>12. That not &s;imply Bapti&s;m, but the admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;m to beleevers onely, is an Ordinance of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> properly &s;o called.</ITEM>
<ITEM>13. That there can be no warrantable ground for the admini&s;tra|tion of an Ordinance to &s;uch or &s;uch a &s;ubject, or after &s;uch or &s;uch a manner, but either a particular and expre&s;s precept for, or example of, the one, and the other.</ITEM>
<ITEM>14. That there ought to be a re&s;emblance, or &s;imilitude, be|tween the &s;ign, and the thing &s;ignified [as there is between the bu&s;h, and the wine in the Vintners celler; and was between the &s;treight pole on which the brazen Serpent was lift up, and the
<PB N="89" REF="45">
cro&s;s timber, on which the Lord <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> was Crucified; and again between the Rain-bow, and the &s;afty of the Earth from drowning, between Circumci&s;ion, and the Covenant which God made with <HI>Abraham,</HI> and his &s;eed.]</ITEM>
<ITEM>15. That the Baptizing of Infants is unlawful, becau&s;e it is not a Ordinance of Chri&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>16. That obedience to external Rites, Ordinances and In&s;titu|tions, is to be preferred before obedience to the Law of nature, or to the precepts of the Moral Law.</ITEM>
<ITEM>17. That no circum&s;tance mentioned in the Tenour of an In&s;ti|tution, or ob&s;erved in the fir&s;t Admini&s;tration thereof, can with|out &s;in either be omitted, or varied, in after Admini&s;trations, up|on any occa&s;ion or con&s;ideration what&s;oever.</ITEM>
<ITEM>18. That per&s;ons baptized after the new mode of dipping, though void of &s;aving Grace, and &s;trangers unto Holine&s;s, are notwith&s;tanding, by vertue of &s;uch their Bapti&s;m, rendered vi&s;ible Saints; whereas others not &s;o baptized, are invi&s;ible, not|with&s;tanding the greate&s;t Exemplarine&s;s of Saint-&s;hip in the whole cour&s;e of their lives, and conver&s;ations otherwi&s;e.</ITEM>
<ITEM>19. That children under the Go&s;pel are more unworthy, more unmeet, le&s;s capable, &s;ubjects of Bapti&s;m, then they were of cir|cumci&s;ion under the Law.</ITEM>
<ITEM>20. That it was better, and more edifying unto men to receive the initiating or fir&s;t Sacramental pledg of Gods Fatherly love and care, in the time of their Infancy, under the Law; and that now under the Go&s;pel, it is wor&s;e, and le&s;s edifying unto them to re|ceive it at the &s;ame time, and better and more edifying to receive it afterwards, <HI>viz.</HI> when they come to years of di&s;cretion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>21. That the <HI>Jews,</HI> who beleeved in <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> and &s;o came un|der the Go&s;pel Admini&s;tration, were, in re&s;pect of their children, in a wor&s;e condition, then they had been in under the Law: And that &s;uch of the <HI>Gentiles,</HI> who were by Faith engrafted into their Olive, did, in their children, partake le&s;s of the root and fatne&s;s thereof, then the <HI>Iews</HI> them&s;elves, before the coming of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the Fle&s;h, had done: and con&s;equently, that God was much more indulgent unto children, yea and unto Parents in reference to their children, under the Law, then he is under the Go&s;pel.</ITEM>
<ITEM>22. That Parents may di&s;-intere&s;s their children of Church pri|viledges, by their Apo&s;tacy or unbelief; but cannot re&s;tore them hereunto by their repentance, or beleeving.</ITEM>
<ITEM><PB N="90" REF="46">
23 That &s;uch <HI>Iews,</HI> who, together with there children, were Church-members, before their coming in by Faith unto <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> by this coming in to <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> bereaved their children of this pri|viledg without any recompence.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Of the Third (and la&s;t) &s;ort are the&s;e.<LIST>
<ITEM>1. That there was no child in any of tho&s;e Families or Hou&s;|holds, which are recorded in the New Te&s;tament to have been baptized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. That no Infant or child was Baptized in the days of <HI>Iohn</HI> the Bapti&s;t, or of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> or of the Apo&s;tles.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. That all, and every the re&s;pective members of all and every the re&s;pective Churches in the Apo&s;tles days, were baptized.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. That the <HI>Eunuch</HI> baptized by <HI>Philip. Act.</HI> 8. and tho&s;e <HI>Gentiles</HI> commanded by <HI>Peter</HI> to be baptized, <HI>Act.</HI> 10. were baptized by a Total Immer&s;ion of their bodies under water by tho&s;e, who baptized them.</ITEM>
<ITEM>5. That per&s;ons, who from their Infancy, or fir&s;t capacity of making any profe&s;sion of Religion at all, have publiquely and con|&s;tantly profe&s;&s;ed the Name and Faith of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the world, ought to be baptized into this profe&s;sion after Ten, Twenty, Forty years &s;pent and pa&s;&s;ed in this profe&s;sion.</ITEM>
<ITEM>6. That Infant-Bapti&s;m was fir&s;t brought into the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church after the days of the Apo&s;tles.</ITEM>
<ITEM>7. That Bapti&s;m ought a&s;wel to be Admini&s;tred, yea and urged and impo&s;ed, in a Place, City or Country, where the Go&s;pel hath flouri&s;hed for an hundred years together, or more, as at, or about the time, when (through the Providence of God) it fir&s;t came in the Mini&s;try of it, unto this place.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Of the&s;e three kinds of arguments or grounds (as they have been now repre&s;ented) that the fir&s;t are impertinent (as to the ju&s;tificati|on of Ana-bapti&s;m) the Second, erroneous; the Third and la&s;t, conjectural only, I am all thoughts made; and &s;hall, God &s;par|ing me health and life, and more material occa&s;ions not interven|ing, give an account of my Faith herein in due time.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="46">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Pag. 24. l. 36. <HI>read,</HI> operatio.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 30. l. 27. <HI>r.</HI> actuall.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 36. l. 25. <HI>r.</HI> &s;eparate.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 37. l. 24. <HI>for</HI> muck <HI>r.</HI> &s;moak.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 44. l. 26. <HI>r.</HI> &s;hould have.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 45. l. 1. <HI>r.</HI> Bapti&s;m.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 46. l. 37. <HI>r.</HI> or the cup.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 51. l. 35. <HI>r.</HI> much more.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 56. l. 4. <HI>r.</HI> or at lea&s;t.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 59. l. 29. <HI>for,</HI> two <HI>r.</HI> to.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 61. l. <HI>ult, r.</HI> whether.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 69. l. 13. <HI>r.</HI> admitted.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Pag. 77. l. 34. <HI>r.</HI> other.</ITEM>
</LIST>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
