YOur Confession of Faith I have viewed, and have reviewed that part which respects Church Communion with Unbap­tized persons: should all of your rank, take occasion to tell the World what they do, and do not believe or practice, it might give them more imployment then they can or need to attend: I should little have troubled my self, to take notice of the rest of your offers, in your Con­fession, had you not under the head before expressed, shewed your self so bold to assert that which is yet unproved; neither should I have medled with the controversie at all, [Page 2] had I found any, of parts, that would divert themselves from more weighty occasions, to take notice of you; but since you are so willing to be known in the World, by you. Singular Faith, it is my liberty, as well as others, into whose hands it falls, to weigh what you have said, in truths ballance: and if it be found too light, to reject it whether you will or no. Though I love not Con­troversies, yet Truth must not be lost.

Now Sir, for your Ten Argu­ments, for your practice; with the Eighteen Absurdities, drawn from the Principle or Practice of them that are contrary minded; wherein you insult over them, as Babes foolish, yea Beasts, if not Men, as you seem proudly and imperiously to assert: You by your fixing of these absurdities upon this innocent Principle and Practice, do not con­tent your self to degrade all the [Page 3] Baptized Brethren, of this perswasi­on; but with too much impudence, do Render them amongst the worst of men, medling with the very Secrets of the most High, which are so much out of your reach, that you have rendred them that oppose your Principle; to be the cause of the Deaths of those Hundreds of Thou­sands that have fallen by Gods Judgements in these late years; one of the most Prodigiousest Sentence that ever I heard pass from the Mouth, or fall under the Pen of the worst of Truths Enemies, as though nothing short, in your rage, would serve you then to defie all the Brethren of the Baptized way, and Blaspheam them that dwell in Hea­ven. I shall orderly touch at these things as I go along.

Your great noise about an Initi­ating Ordinance, wherein you spend time enough, I shall take no notice of, I know none that assert it to [Page 4] be the Inlet into perticuler Churches, though it prepares them for Reception: It's consent ON all hands, and nothing else, that makes them Members of this or that perticuler Church, and not Faith and Baptism.

You are pleased in the general, before you come to your Arguments, to call in several Scriptures to sup­port your practice, which your self do acknowledge are not direct to the purpose, as Acts 9. 25, 26, 27. 1 Cor. 16. 10. 2 Cor. 8. 23. Which you confess respects the receiving them as Officers: is there no diffe­rence between the receiving of the one, and of the other? must Phebees case, and others of the like nature, be brought in to patronize your Practice, when there is no­thing in them that respects the mat­ter in Controversie. Were any of these Unbaptized persons? say it if you dare. Sure it is a bad Cause, [Page 5] that must be upheld by such for­raign and remote shifts: besides, what need Paul plead for the Vindi­cation of himself, or others? that he was Baptized, when your self ac­knowledge that Baptism immedi­ately after Conversion, was the known practice of the first Christi­ans; which none in those times did so much as question, therefore no need to plead that, but his Conver­sation in those things, about which the false Apostles, or other, might injustly tax him.

You start a Question, Page 70. by what rule Persons are to be recei­ved. And Answer, by a discovery of their Faith and Holiness, and Willingness to subject to all Christs Laws. And pray you tell me, is obeying Baptism, no part of a Chri­stians Holiness? is Baptism none of the Laws of Christ, the Law-giver? must this, with others have no place of discovery? but must [Page 6] it altogether be shut out from being a witness to the truth of Faith: if it must, lets know by what rule, for we shall not take your word, but by holiness. I perceive you mean only a walking, according to the Moral precept, which with Faith in Christ is sufficient to make a Church-Member, so that I perceive Mo­ses is more beholden to you then Christ; the Servant then the Son, if Moses Law in his Moral pre­cepts, be the onely bounds of a Christians Holiness or Sanctifi­cation, under the Gospel, for what end, then are all those Gospel-Commands, especially in instituted Worship, they are in your cense of little use to us: obe­dience to them doth not add to our Holiness, therefore a breach of them, by that rule, must be no part of our sin.

But you tell us, Page 93. None ever received Baptism, without [Page 7] light in it: I grant it, they never received it aright, which is a clear Argument, that the persons you plead for, for Church-fellowship, never received it at all, because they could not then have light in it when they were sprinkled, and therefore ought to repent and be ashamed of that abomination, before they come to have a sight of the pattern of the House of God, the goings in, and comings out thereof, Ezek. 43. 10, 11.

2. Is it a Persons light, that gives being to a Precept? is it not his sin, though he want light? he that knew not his Masters will was beaten, because it is like he had means to know it, though he was ignorant.

3. Suppose men plead want of light in other Commands, must they be excused? what if a man want light in the Supper after he's in the Church, or in Church-Govern­ment, and therefore thinks not him­self [Page 8] accountable for his Conversati­on to men, but God: or what if a man want light in his Duty to the poor, and thinks it enough to bid his brother be fed, and be cloathed, though he give little for his relief: Perhaps he may give Two Pence, when according to what he hath, he ought to give Twelve Pence? Why may not want of Light, excuse these men from being rejected out of Churches, as well as want of light makes way for Unbaptized to come in? But perhaps you will say, these are Moral evils, and they sin against men, well, let it be so: but I remem­ber what Old Samuel said to his Sons, 1 Sam. 2. 25. If one Man sin against another, the Judge shall plead for him, but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall plead for him? But we have now found an Advocate for Sin against God, in the breach of One of his Holy Commands: when sin against the Law of God, that [Page 9] wrongs the poor shall not go free.

You are pleased to tell us, that same Object, Page 86. against your Proofs, out of the Epistles, because they were Writ to perticular Churches: and indeed, I am one of those same, to which you Answer, that some of them, as the first Epistle of Corinth. and some others named, were not so directed, but to perticular Saints, as well as Chur­ches.

I answer, I think that will be difficult for you to prove: For it is apparent, the matter of those Epi­stles did respect Churches, and those Churches in special to whom Directed (though of use to all Saints) as I might easily demon­strate: But sir, pray you tell us, in your next, whether any of those you mean, were Unbaptized beleivers, that were concerned in those Epi­stles: forasmuch as you confess, in those times Baptism followed imme­diately [Page 10] upon Conversion: if the [...] were not Unbaptized Believers, [...] is without our question, for Pa [...] might Write to them as well a Timothy and others, that they migh [...] know how to behave themselves i [...] the House of God.

You also say, Page 16. If Wate [...] Baptism as other things, pester th [...] Church as of Old, trouble the peace wound the Conscience of the Godly, dismember and break their fel­lowships, though an Ordinance, it' [...] prudently to be shunned.

I answer, it's very boldly offered who gave you liberty to shun Truth for Peace; But you hint, the Church hath of old been pestred with Bap­tism, and therefore when it is so, it may prudently be shunned. I confess if ever you find Baptism a Pest or Plague to Churches, all men will shun the Plague: is this the best Title you can give to one of Christs Commands? did God ever [Page 11] send an Ordinance, as a Pest and Plague to his People? are not all [...]he Ordinances of the Gospel, Blessings, yea, New Covenant Blessings? is there any thing in the nature of Innocent Baptism, to Pester Churches, or do they Pester Churches that plead for it, or they that deny it? but the Consciences of the Godly, you say; are wound­ed, the Churches Peace broken, their fellowship dismembred, and what then? Suppose these effects follow persons opposing other Ordi­nances, must they be shunned, to avoid the effects? I have in my time known Godly Conscientious persons Dismember Fellowships, break the Peace of Churches, by [...]nakeing Preaching by Method, Doctrine, Reason, and Use, to be Antichristian; who could not be satisfied in their Consciences, as they said, unless the great Ordi­nance of thus Preaching, was ex­ploded, [Page 12] and some thing like Con­ference btought in the room. I have known persons make a Sacrifice of the peace of Churches, for putting the Administration of breaking Bread upon perticuler persons, by Church-appointment, and not leaveing it promisciously amongst the Gifted-Brethren, as each of them was Free; and these as exact Moralists in their lives, and as Holy in their Conversations, as any of your Unbaptized persons, that you so highly extoll above others, to be the Honour and Crown of Churches; and must the Church for peace sake shun these Great Appointments of Preaching and Breaking Bread, rather then Grieve the Consci­ences of these Godly ones? though it was no part of their Godliness to make such Breaches, neither is it for any of those you plead for, to deny Baptism, how Godly [Page 13] soever they may be in other things: if this be your Prudence or Wis­dom, to shake hands with Truth and Purity, for peace, the Lord deliver me from such a Fellow­ship; This Wisdom is from beneath and not from above.

Your Second Argument is taken from Ephesians 4. One Spirit, one Hope, one Faith, one Baptism; This Baptism, you say, is not of Water, but the Spirit.

I Answer, I see rather then you will miss your end in saying some­thing, you care not if your Pen be imployed against every man, and you give the lye to all Expositors besides your self (as I know of) if this be Spirit Baptism. Pray you tell me what you mean by Spirit Baptism: if you mean the work of the Spirit in Conversi­on, I grant Conversion is the Spi­rits Work; but where Conversi­on barely without extraordinary [Page 14] gifts, is called the Baptism of the Spirit, I am in a readiness to learn, if you can teach me, but why must this Baptism not be Water Baptism, if Water Baptism be a Truth, the Spirit leadeth into this Truth, as well as others: if Paul intended Spirit Baptism, in this place, as the last thing he urgeth upon them, for Union: what doth he mean by Spirit and Faith, which are urged before by him, as Arguments? can Persons have the Spirit, without the Fruits of the Spirit? Why doth not Paul put Spirit again, in the place of Baptism, according to your cense, who are pleased to make him speaking one and the same thing, in his First and Last Arguments? though the one he calls Spirit, and the other Baptism.

Sir, I list not to contend about this, but leave you to Answer those Expositors that have in all their writings made this, Water Baptism.

[Page 15] Farther, if nothing but extraor­dinary gifts be called the Baptism of the Spirit, in a strickt sence, then that Baptism, 1 Cor. 12. must be wa­ter Baptism, as well as this in Ephe­sians 4. and then your Argument from both is void.

Your Third Argument is, That these you plead for, have the Doct­rine of Baptismes; in which you are pleased to distinguish between the Doctrine, and the Practice: this is one of the strangest Paradoxes that I have lightly observed; is it enough to hold practical Doctrines, to know them so as to hold them, and yet not do them? You need ne­ver ask a believer whether he hold a practical Doctrine, his obedience to it will always speak for him: But I pray you how came these Unbap­tized persons to have the Doctrine of Baptism? Why? the Doctrine of Baptism, you say, is the death of Christ, his Resurrection; and the [Page 16] believers interest in both, to new­ness of life. I confess that Christ's death and resurrection, and our in­terest in both, is signified by Bap­tism; but that that was, or ought to be called the Doctrine of Baptism, I am yet to learn: Verily, I took the Doctrine of Baptism to be the Com­mand, that a believer ought to be baptized in Christ's Name, for such ends which the Gospel expresses; I never took the death Christ, nor the resurrection, to be the Doctrine of Baptism: if the Resurrection be the Doctrine of Baptism, why doth the Apostle make that, and the Doctrine of Baptismes distinct in Hebrews 6. which you cote.

2. Under the Law all the Sacrifi­ces of that dispensation with their Sabaths and other things, were Tipes of that Christ who was the substance of all those Ceremonies: If any of them then that professed Faith in the Messiah to come, should upon [Page 17] scruples, or want of pretended light, neglect the whole, or part of that Tipical-Worship, why may not a man say of them, as this advocate says of the practice under debate? They had the richer and better Sa­crifice, they had the substance and body of all the Tipes: So that this principle puts the whole of Gods instituted Worship, both under Law and Gospel, to the highest uncer­tainties; & it is so indifferently com­mended to men for their practice, that the holiness or good that is in it, is by the Author so indeserna­ble, that he can hardly fix upon any thing to say for it, though enough he hath to say against it; and that is the third thing I would take notice of in this Argument.

Baptism is but a Circumstance, as he is pleased often to word it: And Page 88. Onely an outward SHEW. He may have the heart of Water-Baptism that is never Baptized: it is [Page 18] but a form, (an almost nothing:) men are not much better. Is it not enough for you to despise your bre­thren, but contempt also must be thrown upon this precious truth of Christ? from whom have you Autho­rity to nick-name any of Christ's precepts? is this according to the form of sound words? will you be wise above what is written, and call Commands Circumstances, only meer shews? do you pretend your self a Minister of the Gospel, and dare you thus disparage Gospel truths by such low Titles, to discharge men of their obedience to them? Verily Sir, what ever you think of your self, I am confident Christ will not take this well at your hands.

4. You say these have the Doct­rine of Baptism; if they have it, they understand it: you say it is the death of Christ, his Resurrection, and their interest in it: But I conceive in the Doctrine of Baptism there is some [Page 19] thing else that more properly re­lates to-Baptism as a Command, which it will be hard for you to prove these Unbaptized persons have.

• 1. A right Administration.
• 2. A right Subject.
• 3. The right manner of dipping.
• 4. The right end.

Have these you speak of the Doctrine of Baptism, as you say, and are strangers to, or enemies to these Essentials of Gospel-Baptism? I think upon second thoughts you will hardly stand by it.

5. Who taught you to devide be­tween Christ and his Precepts, that you word it at such a rate, that he that hath the one hath that which is better & richer then the other? I had thought that he that hath Christ, hath an orderly right to all Christ's promises, and all Christs precepts; & that the precepts of Christ are part of the riches which a believer hath [Page 20] in and by Christ, and ought not to be so slightly represented. He that slightly despiseth his Birth, right of Ordinances, or Church-privi­ledges will be found to be a profane person as Esau, in Gods account, though he thinks it is no Sin to make a mean account of them.

Your Fourth Argument is grounded upon Romans 15. 1, 6. Receive one another to the Glory of God.

I answer, 1. It was Paul's directi­on to the Church at Rome, how they ought to carry it towards their Brethren Church members. And it is no ways likely, that this recei­ving is a receiving one another into Church-Communion, for they were in before: but by reason of those Jewish differances that was amongst them about meats, and drinks, and days, they were apt to grieve and Judge one another in those indiffe­rent things; and to cast each other [Page 21] out of their hearts, having not that Christian respect to each other as they ought; by which God was dis­honoured: therefore he exalts them to receive each others into their af­fections, which would be to the Glory of God.

That the difference amongst the Romans was about indifferent things that might, or might not be done, is clear from the 14 Chapter; their differences was not about Baptism, or any New Testament Ordinance; for I have indeavonred to prove them before Baptized: Therefore what you urge from hence comes not neer the matter in question.

2. You make Gods receiving to be the rule for our receiving▪ which in all cases will not [...]old: God re­ceives men at that very instant in which they receive his Son, before the fruits of their Faith appear; but so cannot we: God received the thief upon the Cross, but the Church [Page 22] ought not to receive him till he had given satisfaction by repentance, shewing the fruits of it, for his sin­ful by-past life: I doubt not but God may receive Infants dying in Infan­cy, as the fruit of his electing love; but I suppose you your self will not yet, receive them upon that ground.

3. You are pleased to go on in Page 91. very rhetorically: Vain man, think not by the streightness of thine Or­der in outward and, bodily Conformity to outward & shadowish Circumstances, that thy peace is maintained with God.

First, By vain man, you mean I suppose the Brethren of the Bapti­zed way, that differ from you in this point: Is this the best Title you have for them? But,

Secondly, You pinch at the streightness of their Order: I never knew streightness in Order to be a crime, but rather a praise. Paul re­joyced to behold the Order, Col. 2. 5. as well as the Faith of the Colossians, [Page 23] though you despise it. But,

Thirdly, You are pleased to say, it is outward and bodily Conformi­ty to outward and shadowish Cir­cumstances.

Sir, Is outward and bodily con­formity become a crime? ought we not to glorifie God with our bodies as well as souls, which are Gods? Is not the whole Man to be improved in the ser­vice 1 Cor. 6. 20. of God? but you add in out­ward and shadowish Circumstances; I know you mean Baptism, a Title that was never given (by any found in the Faith) to any New Testament Ordinances: But you say our peace is not maintained hereby, but by the Blood of the Cross: I know our peace is made for us by the Blood of Christ's Cross, but is not our peace maintained and kept alive in the way of obedience? hath your sincere obedience to the Gospel Commands no influence upon your Conscience, [Page 24] in the matter of peace? or, is your peace maintained in the way of dis­obedience? if it be, I fear it is a false peace: I speak now of peace of Con­science.

2. If you mean by peace with God, that which pacifies God, and is the manifest cause of God's being at peace with us: who amongst us ever told you that our peace in that sence is maintained by Baptism? or dare you say that your Faith, or Love, or Obedience to any precept, doth in that sence, either procure, or maintain your peace, in the mat­ter of Justification? If not▪ you ought not to pare off any part of Gospel▪ obedience, and render it of so lit­tle worth; when we own the whole of what we all do, is altogether too little to be a Peace-Offering for us.

Your Fifth Argument is▪ That a failure in Batism doth not Ʋnchristian us.

[Page 25] Answ. Who saith it doth? Per­sons ought to be Christians before they are Baptized; and once a Christian, and always a Christian: but in pursuit of this Argument you are pleased to rank Water-Baptism with eating▪ or not eating, that if a man do it, he is not the better, or neglect it, he is not the worse.

Verily Sir, if Gospel-Precepts must be ranked with Old Testament Ceremonies that are abrogated by the death of Christ, I know not upon what account you practice instituted Worship now, unless upon the same account as Paul p [...]actised Circumcision upon Timo­thy, or shaving on others, not as a Command from God, but as a pru­dential consideration as to others, which is below that confession, or profession, that hitherto you have made▪ about Baptism. What ever your design may be, either now, or hereafter.

[Page 26] Your Sixt Argument is, Edifica­tion, which you say is greater then agreement in outward things, and con­testing for Water-Baptism.

Answ. Edification is the end of all Communion, but all things must be done in order, orderly. Edifica­tion as to Church-Fellowship, being a building up, doth suppose the be­ing of a Church, before they can be thus Edified or built up: But pray you, shew us a Church without Baptism, approved of by the New Testament, and then edifie them as much as you can. But if by Edifi­cation be meant the private in­crease of Grace in one another, in the use of private means, as pri­vate Christians in meeting toge­ther, how doth the Principle you oppose, hinder that? Indeavour to make men as Holy as you can, that they may be fit for Church-Fellowship, when God shall shew them the orderly way to it, we [Page 27] shall never blame you; but you say Edification is greater then con­testing for Water-Baptism; To which I answer,

I had thought that a Preaching and opening Baptism, might have been reckoned as a part of our Edification, and we may be as well Edified by rightly knowing and understanding that, as by many other Ordinances, especially if it signifie so much as you say it doth. But add,

Why may you not as well say that Edification is greater then breaking Bread? then any part of Church rule, or Government? and so at once shut out all insti­tuted Worship; for somthing you call Edification. Why must Water-Baptism be the BƲT that you so constantly shoot at?

3. How comes Contesting for Water-Baptism to be so much a­gainst you? is not the least of truths [Page 28] worth the contending for? or, what need any to trouble themselves, to contest for Water-Baptism: If none of your new Church-members do not contest against it, in principle or practice? which if they do, at whose door shall sinful contention be laid, ours or theirs?

As for your instance of Aron, it was not a constant continued for­bearance of that part of God's Worship, but a suspending of it for that season, (and perhaps upon Just and Lega [...] grounds, though not expressed,) which made that zealous man, Moses, who stoned a man for gathering sticks on the Sabath day; and was a spectator of God's Judg­ments on Aron's Sons for their Sin:) so easily bear with Aron in that matter. Paul for a seeming low thing did withstand Peter to his face, and blamed him. And for Elded & Meded if they did miss it, it was but in a Circumstance of [Page 29] place: It appears not, there was any possitive Law broken by it, which is the case under our debate, how often so ever you dispisingly call Baptism a Circumstance: neither doth the case of Hezekiah reach our case: it was indeed their not being prepared for that service, which was their Sin, and may be too fitly compared to unpreparedness, to the Lords Supper, or other solemn ap­pointments, for which we do not cast, nor keep any out of the Church, it being no denying either in word or practice, of any possitive Ordi­nance; which is that we charge your intended Church-members with.

Your Seventh Argument for Communion with Unbaptized per­sons, is, Love.

Answ. That man that makes af­fection the rule of his walking, ra­ther then Judgement, it is no won­der to me, if he go out of the way. [Page 30] We can as boldly assert our Love to all the Godly, though Unbaptized, as you; and I think we have not been behind hand to manifest it, either in private Duties of Piety with them, wherein we are agreed; or in works of Charity towards them, in all their sufferings, accor­ding to our utmost ability: But must our love to these, indulge them in any act of disobedience? cannot we love their Persons, Parts, Gra­ces, but we must love their Sins, and disorders? I take it to be the highest act of friendship to be faithful to these professors, and to tell them they want this one thing in Gospel order, which ought not to be left undone; and I doubt your favour towards them, in descrying before them one of Christs Commands, as a Circumstance, meer shew, that that may, or may not be done; for which we are neither better nor worse (in your sence) making it no more then [Page 31] eating, or not eating, as men are perswaded: Is this your faithful­ness to your friends, that you pre­tend so much love to? I doubt when it comes to be weighed in God's Ballance, it will be found no less then Flattery, for which you will be reproved. May I not love a Saint, as a Saint for Christ's sake, unless I hold Church-Communion with him? unless I countenance him in a breach of Gospel Order? Nay, if a Child of God fall into Sin, or dis­order, without the due sence of his Sin, yet I ought to love him: though I am forced to deal with him, and to withdraw from him, yet I am not to count him as an enemy, but admonish as a brother in some respects: and must we be Judged to have no love to the persons un­der debate, because we are not willing to suffer them to sit down satisfied with a lye, instead of the truth, a false Baptism, instead of [Page 32] Christ's appointment, if in that matter Ephraim like, they are joyn­ed to an Jdol, must I not wait till God shews them that abomination, and yet love them for what of God we see in them?

Your Eighth Argument is from the state of the Church of Corinth, who you say are called Carnal, for their divisions, and shutting each o­ther out of Communion for greater points, and on higher pretences then that of Water-Baptism.

Answ. It is true, there was di­visions in the Church of Corinth, for which they are often called Carnal: and their divisions was about greater things then Bap­tism, I grant: for I believe it was not ba [...]ely their divisions about persons, but the highest Fundamen­tal Principles, opposed by some of the leaders of those Factions amongst them; as denying the re­surrection of the dead; as Paul [Page 33] saith some of them did, Chap. 15. but whereas you say they shut one a­nother out of Communion for these things, that I find not: (What ever they might or ought to do) it is cer­tain they were a Church in order, planted upon Gospel Principles, though afterwards some of them declined from those Principles: and though the Principles about which they might differ, was great­er then Baptism, is true, but that without much means, and due waiting for the fruit of that means, they could not shut them out of Communion is as true; and I put it to▪ your self, if any person should offer Communion with you, that deny the Resurrection, would you receive him? but if any person do after receiving deny that, or o­ther Principles, can you immedi­ately shut him out of the Church, without the use of means, and waiting? this seems to me to be [Page 34] their case, which agrees not with the controversie in hand. But you say their divisions was about Persons, Paul, Apollo, and Christ: I do grant their division was about persons, their Teachers; and one was for one, and others for a­nother; but I question whether any of them in this division was for Paul, Apollo, or Christ; but rather for others in opposition to them who were true Ministers: My reason is, because Paul tells us that what he had said of himself and Apollo, was in a Figure, 1 Cor. 4. 6. not properly, but doth modestly aply the business to himself and others, as though their divisions was about them, when it was not about them, but others that did oppose them, namely the false Apostles, or Notional Teachers of that Church.

Secondly, You tell us, the great divisions of Corinth was helped for­ward [Page 35] by Water-Baptism: a very high charge against this great truth: It is no wonder you lay divisions at our doors, when Bap­tism it self must be accused as a make-bate, or a furtherer of di­visions amongst the Saints: Oh! let the heavens blush at the inso­lency of this man of words; that ever Christ should appoint an Or­dinance so highly detrimental to the peace of Saints. But how doth it appear that Baptism hath a hand in these divisions? because Paul imitates they were not Bap­tized in his name: a good Argu­ment to provoke to union; and to take them off from doting upon those Factious leaders amongst them; by whom it is like they were most of them Baptized, to let them know they were not Baptized in the names of men, but of Christ. But wherein lies the force of this mans Argument against Baptism, [Page 36] as to its place, worth, or continu­ance? Why? it is urged from two grounds.

First, Because Paul knew not that he Baptized a [...]y but those he names; which argues, he made not so great a matter of Baptism as some do now adays, for then he would have heeded it better, and made more Conscience thereof, then so lightly pass it over: What must the blessed Apostles Conscience be cal­led in question about one of Christ's appointments? and must it be sup­posed he is so negligent in this matter? and only because he knew not who of the Corinths he had Baptized. Is this so demonstrable a ground? Sir, if one should ask you how many you have Baptized in the Course of your Ministry, can you give an account? I think not, (unless you have kept a Record by you, of the per­sons, that your works might be [Page 37] heard of to your praise, as occa­sion serves;) which I suppose few Ministers do, neither did Paul it seems by his own words. I could tell you of a person that is zea­lous for Baptism in the sence that you oppose, and makes Conscience of it, as one of Christ's Precepts, to that degree which you disalow of; and yet for those few that he hath Baptized, far short of what Paul, or you may have done, and yet he knows not, remembers not, who of the Church he walks with, that he hath Baptized, much less the number, or names of them he hath Baptized else where, and yet but one of the meanest dis­pencers of Baptism, who hath had less share in that blessed work, then many others he knows a­mongst us. That Paul did first gather and plant the Church of Corinth, is clear; but that the many that were added to that populous peo­ple, [Page 38] might be Baptized by the teaching brethren amongst them­selves, is more then probable, and therefore well might Paul say, He knew not, or did not remember who he had Baptized amongst them.

But your Second ground is from Paul's thanking God, and telling us he was not sent to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel: Doth this prove that Paul slighted Bap­tism? I think not, as will after­wards appear.

That Paul did Baptize some of them, and many others, is not to be questioned, because expressed: That Paul did any thing in this or other Ordinances, but what he had a Commission for, may not be presumed: his meaning then must be, that he was not only, or mainly sent to Baptize, but Preach; as the great work he was to a­tend upon. Note, he doth not say he was not sent to Preach Baptism, [Page 39] but not mainly to Baptize: He had the same Commission to Preach Baptism, as Faith; and he could not be true to his trust, if he should shun to declare that part of the Counsel of God, as occasion ser­ved, and required. And yet though he Preached Faith and Baptism, he might Baptize but few of them that were perswaded to obedience by his Ministry, but the bare dispencing that ordinance, might be by any gifted Brother, called to that work.

Annanias, a certain Disciple, Bap­tized Paul; (and not an Apostle.) Peter commanded Cornelius, and those that were with him, to be Baptized: but the Text doth not say Peter did it; it might be done by some of the Brethren that came with him: neither can it resona­bly be supposed that the 3000. converted by Peter's Sermon, Act. 2. was all Baptized by him, or the [Page 40] Apostles only; but it is very like they had many administrators, which doth not at all intrench upon the great Commission of Christ, but is found in it; it being given to Preaching Disciples, as Preaching Disciples; and all Preaching Dis­ciples have authority from thence, to Preach and Baptize; (these be­ing properly no Church-Ordinan­ces) though in order to it.

Your Ninth Argument is, That by denying Communion with Ʋnbap­tized persons we take from them their priviledge to which they are born.

Answ. We take from them no­thing; but we keep them from a disorderly practice of Gospel Or­dinances: we offer them their pri­viledge in the way of Gospel or­der, as all the Scripture Saints received their Priviledges. But if any will find, and force another way into the Sheepfold, then by following the footsteps of the Flocks, [Page 41] we have no such custome, nor the Churches of God, you according to your old manner of confidence affirm. Drink ye all of this? Is this in­tailed to Faith, and not Baptism? It is soon said, but never yet proved; it is neither intailed by Precept, Promise, or president, to Faith, without Baptism, that ever yet can be shewed: Nay, it is most ap­parent, that this new way of fel­lowship was not from the begin­ning, but Baptism went before, as a Simbol of our new birth: and breaking bread followed after, as the spiritual nourishment of Christ's new born Babes.

As for your Eighteen Inferances, or Absurdities drawn for our Prin­ciple and Practice, they are in themselves so rediculous, so top­ful of ignorance, or prejudice; and are in themselves such a heap of unheard of reproaches, that de­serve no other answer then con­tempt; [Page 42] they carrying their self contradiction in their own bowels. I durst commit this cause to the worst of our Enemies, and doubt not they themselves being Judges, would clear us in the things laid to our charge; that none but your self could ever find an innocent truth, big with so many monstrous obsurdities, as you do. You have carried it like one of Machevel's Schollers, to purpose, Throw dirt enough, and some of it will be sure to stick. And the last of all looks with so dreadful a countenance, that it hath a tendency, to provoke, not only all other professors, but all sorts of persons, to shun us, as well as or Principle, as that which is ruining to mankind in general; that they may upon that account (if true) eye us, as the most pernicious varment under heaven; persons made to be taken and destroyed. Can you so confidently affirm, that [Page 43] this principle and practice is the cause of all our late Judgements. Sir, it is well for us, that you are none of the Kings Chaplains; or if you were, that his Majesty had not an ear to hear, or a heart to believe such unheard of reproa­ches as these are; for if he did, he could do no less, then expulse such vipers, that have been the death of so many hundred thou­sands of his subjects, as your de­vilish suggestions seems to intimate, not only out of the Land, but out of the World.

Sir, who made you so privy to the secrets of Gods Judgements, that you must assign this alone, as the cause of (not some but) all the Judgements that have befallen us? And is not this high charge a prouded, presumptious, im­peaching of the Justice of God? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do righteously? Gen 19. Will [Page 44] he slay the innocent with the guilty? Are there not millions lately swept into the Grave, and buri­ed in the great deeps, that never heard, directly, or indirectly of the controversie between you, and us, nor knew nothing of the form or order of Gods house; and must their ruine lye at our doors? No wonder Sir, that you deal so se­verely with us, since the Righte­ous proceeds of the great God, have such a hidden cause assigned to them, as though the times pro­phaness, Superstition, Blasphemy; and Atheism, hath no hand in our late Judgements, but the load of all, must be laid upon that which so few that suffered, are concerned in. The Lord Judge between us, and this accuser; to whom we shall say no more, but, The Lord rebuke thee.

[Page 45] Your Tenth and last Argument hath so little reason, and so much of confusion in it, that it renders it self unworthy of an answer. That the World may wonder at our carriage to these Ʋnbaptized persons, in keeping them out of Communion, is your last Argument.

Answ. I grant, the World are in some cases Judges of our con­versation; and it becomes us to carry it well in those things, where­in they are capable to be Judges: but I deny, that the World are proper Judges of the grounds of our Profession, or Communion, as to Church-fellowship: these things are out of their sight; and they do oftener Judge them that walk closest in their duty, then they that are for the greatest li­berty. All that the enemy could find against Daniel, was in the matters of his God, (in the busi­ness of Worship,) which the World World [Page 46] are uncapable to Judge of: And therefore what you say, as to their reproaches, doth clearly vanish: and if you eye that you may preach and pray, especially Baptize no more, which I perceive you have no great zeal for.

I shall now take liberty to add some Arguments to Justifie our Principle and Practice, against all that you have said to the con­trary.

THe Question is, Whether Ʋn­baptzed persons have been, or ought to be members of Gospel Chur­ches.

I answer, They ought not to be: for these Reasons.

First, Because the great Com­mission of Christ, Mat. 28. (from [Page 47] which all persons have their Au­thority for their Ministry, (if any Authority at all) doth clearly di­rect the contrary by that Com­mission. Ministers are, first to Dis­ciple, and then Baptize them, so made Disciples; and afterward teach them to observe all that Christ had commanded, as to other Ordinances of Worship. If Mini­sters have no other authority to teach them other parts of Gospel Worship, before they believe and are Baptized, it may be strongly supposed, they are not to admit them to other Ordinances, before they have passed the first injoyned in that Commission.

Secondly, That the order of Christ's Commission, as well as the matter therein contained, to be ob­served, may easily be concluded from Gods severity towards them that sought him not according to [Page 48] due order; 1 Chron. 15. 13. Was God so exact with his people then, that all things, to a pin, must be according to the pattern in the Mount? Heb. 7. 16, and 9, 10. whose Wor­ship then compartively, to the Gospels, was but after the Law of a carnal Commandment: and can it be supposed, he should be so in­different, now to leave men to their own liberty, to time and place his appointments contrary to what he hath given an express rule for, in his word, as before shewed, Ezekiel 44. 7, 9, 10. It was the Priests Sin for­merly to bring the Ʋncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house.

Thirdly, The practice of the first Gospel Ministers, with them that first trusted in Christ, discovers the truth of what I assert. Certainly they that lived at the Spring-head, on Fountain of truth; and had the Law from Christ's own mouth, [Page 49] knew the meaning of his Commis­sion, better then we: But their constant practice, in conformity to that Commission, all along the Acts of the Apostles, clearly discovers that they never arrived to such a Latitude as men plead for now adays: They that gladly received the Word was Baptized, and they (yea they only) was received to the Church, Acts 2.

Fourthly, None of the Scripture Saints ever attempted this Church-Priviledge, before Baptism, (if they did, let it be shewn:) the Eunuch▪ first desired Baptism, before any thing else: Paul was first Baptized, before he did assay to joyn with the Church: our Lord Christ, the great example of the New Testa­ment, entred not upon his pub­lique Ministry, much less any o­ther Gospel Ordinance of Worship, till he was Baptized.

[Page 50] Fifthly, If Christ himself was made manifest, as the sent of God, by Baptism, as appears Mark 1. 9, 10. then why may not Baptism as the first fruit of Faith, and the first step of Gospel obedience, as to instituted Worship, be a manifesting, discovering Ordinance upon others, who thus follow Christ's steps?

Sixthly, If Baptism be in any fence, any part of the Foundation of a Church, as to order, Heb. 6. 1, 2. it must have a place here, or no where. Why are those things called first Principles, if not first to be believed and practised? Why are they rendred by the learned, as the A B C of a Christian, and the beginnings of Christianity, milk for babes, if it be no mat­ter whither Baptism be practised or no? If it be said Water-Bap­tism be not there intended, let them shew me how many Baptis­mes [Page 51] there are besides Water-Bap­tisme: Can you build, and leave out a stone in the Foundation? I intend not Baptism as a founda­tion any other way, but respecting order; and it is either intended for that, or nothing.

Seventhly, If Paul knew the Galathians, upon the account of Charity, no other way to be the Sons of God by Faith, but by this part of their obedience, as he seems to import; then the same way we may Judge of the truth of mens profession of Faith, when it shews it self by this self same o­bedience, Gal. 3. 26, 27. Baptism being an obligation to all follow­ing duties.

Eighthly, If being Baptized in­to Christ, be a putting on of Christ, as Paul expresses, then they have not put on Christ in that [Page 52] sence he means, that are not Bap­tized. If this putting on of Christ do not respect the visibility of Christianity, assign something else as its signification, great mens ser­vants are known by their Masters Liveries, so are Gospel believers by this Livery of Water Bap­tism, that all that first trusted in Christ, submitted to: which is in it self, as much as an Obli­gation to all Gospel obedience, as Circumcision was to keep the whole Law.

Ninthly, If it were com­mendable in them of Thossalonica, that they followed the foot-steps of the Church of Judah, who, it appeares, observed this Order, of adding Baptized believers to the Church, then they that have found out another way of mak­ing Church-members, are not by that rule 1 Thes. 2. 14. praise-worthy, but ra­ther [Page 53] to be blamed: It is not what was since in corrupted times, but that which was from the beginning: the first Churches was the purest pattern.

Tenthly, If so be that any of the members of Corinth, Galatia, Coloss, Rome, Romans. 6. Colos. 2. 1 Cor. 15. or them that Peter writes to, were not Baptized, then Paul's Arguments for the Resurrection to them, or to press them to Holiness, from that ground, was out a doors, and altogether need­less: Nay, it bespeaks his ignorance; and 1 Pet. 3. 12. throws contempt up­on the Spirits Wis­dom, Heb. 6. by which he wrote, if that must be asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end, which had no being a and if all the members of all [Page 54] those Churches were Baptized, why should any plead for an ex­emption from Baptism, for any Church-members now?

Eleventhly, If Unbaptized per­sons must be received into the Church, only, because they are believers; though they deny Bap­tism, then why may not others plead for the like priviledge, that are negligent in any other Gospel Ordinance of Worship, from the same ground, of want of light, let it be what it will. So then, as the Consequence of this Principle, Churches may be made up of visible Sinners, in­stead of visible Saints.

Twelfthly, Why should pro­fessors have more light in break­ing of bread, then Baptism? (that this must be so urged for their excuse) hath God been [Page 55] more sparing in making out his mind, in the one, rather then the other? Is there more pre­cepts, or presidents for the Sup­per, then Baptism? hath God been so bountiful, in making out himself about the Supper, that few or none, that own Or­dinances, scruple it; and must Baptism be such a Rock of of­fence to professors, that very few will seriously enquire after it, or submit to it? hath not mans wisdom interposed, to dark­en this part of Gods Counsel, by which professors seem willing­ly led, though against so many plain commands and examples, written as with a Sun beam, that he that runs may read; and must an advocate be intertained to plead for so grose a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes of the first Gospel times were ne­ver guilty of?

[Page 56] Thirteenthly, If obedience must discover the truth of a mans Faith to others? why must Bap­tism be shut out, as if it were no part of Gospel obedience? is there no precept for this practice, that it must be thus dispised, as a matter of little use? or shall one of Christs precious commands, be blotted out of the Copy of a Christians obedience, to make way for a Church-Fellowship of mans devising?

Fourteenthly, If the Baptism of John, was so far honoured, and dignified, that they that did sub­mit to it, are said to Justifie God; and they that did not, are said, Luke 7. to reject his Counsel, a­gainst themselves; so that their receiving, or rejecting the whole Doctrine of God, by John, hath its demonstration from this single practice: and is there not as much [Page 57] to be said of the Baptism of Christ? unless you will say it is [...] in worth and use, to that of John's.

I add no more, but these few Queries, which I commmit to your most serious consideration.