SOME ●●●●ous Reflections On that Part of ●●BVNIONS ●●●●●●sion of Faith: ●OUCHING 〈◊〉 Communion ●ITH 〈◊〉 Persons: 〈◊〉 ALSO arguments against the 〈…〉, and Seven Queries 〈…〉 the Author.  
〈…〉 of Christ & the Church.  
〈…〉 that is first in his own cause 〈…〉 just, but his Neighbour cometh and sercheth him.  
Psalm 55. 12, 13 14. For it was not an Enemy that reproached me, than I could have born it, etc.  
London, Printed for Francis Smith, at the Elephant and Castle near the Royal Exchange in Cornhill, and at the same sign the first Shop without Temple-Bar, 1673.   

●●●teous Reader,  
HEre is presented to thy serious Consideration, some observations upon a late Book, ●ti●●led, The Confession of Faith, of I. B. Wherein that Author declareth his Faith conserning Church Fellowship, and the way of entrance therein: Endeavouring, after his manner, to prove that Men and Women that believe in Jesus Christ, although not Baptised with water, may be Members of any particular Church of Christ 〈…〉 aught to be admitted to 〈…〉 Lords Supper, and all oth●● Church Ordinances; A Doctri●● not known or practised in the first Gospel Churches, or by any others of what perswasio● 〈◊〉 ever, that have professed 〈◊〉 Christian Faith, since that ti●● to this very age: as for 〈◊〉 practice of the Churches 〈…〉 Primative times, the Scripture is in no one thing plainer than in this, that all Persons before they were added to the Church, were Baptised with Water, which appeareth both by the Commission given by Jesus Christ, Mat. 28. 19 and the Practice of the Apostles, Acts 2. 38, 39 Which is more at large showed in this Treatise: I suppose the Author who himself is against ●he Baptising of Children, and or the Baptising of Believers, 〈◊〉 their profession of Faith in ●●ist, makes it none of the lest ●his Arguments, why he is a●●●●st Childrens Baptism, than 〈…〉. that there being no 〈◊〉 precedent, or example in 〈◊〉 ●●●iptures for Childrens 〈◊〉, therefore Children aught not to be Baptised. If this Argument be good (as I believe it is) that causeth him to forsake the practice of Baptising Children; why should it not be as good at lest to him in the case in hand? but to 'cause in him the same belief, that none aught to be admitted to the Lords Supper, but such as a●e Baptised with Water, seeing there cannot be shown any Precept 〈…〉 or Example in the Scriptures that any Unbaptized-person 〈◊〉 ever admitted to the Lords 〈◊〉 per; for the Scriptures alle● 〈◊〉 by him, and some Consequen●● drawn therefrom to the 〈…〉, if they be seriously 〈…〉 by the Reader, they 〈…〉 a great deal of bold 〈…〉 confidence of his own, but not any thing to the matter, to prove what they are brought for, but it is very usual for such persons who have not the truth with them, to fill their Writings with their own confidences, that so they may induce a belief in others, of the things they assert from their own Authority. The severe Charges laid by him against those that are contrary minded, if true, would be suffi●●●nt to frighten them into his persuasion, but we pass not for man's judgement, knowing that he which judgeth us is the Lord, who will bring the hidden ●hings of darkness to light, all we pled for is, that all that profess themselves to be Christians, should walk according to the Primative pattern, and in this matter we are sure we follow none other but the footsteps of the Flock of Christ in all ages.  
We would appeal to the conscience of this Apposer, whether the Arguments published by many for Baptising of children, have not more force in them, and of greater Antiquity (although in our judgements short of proof) than any 〈…〉 that is Writ by him, to 〈…〉 the lawfulness of any to rec●●● the Lords Supper that is not fir●● Baptised with Water. I shal● say nothing of the great contempt cast by him upon Water Baptism, but desire the Lord may humble him for it; Wisdom is justified of her children.  
I desire to Honour and Reverence those many faithful Christians that differ from us, who notwithstanding value this Ordinance of Christ, only mistake in the subject, and are far from placing Religion only in this or any other institution of Christ; but finding the Scriptures show no other Rule in the Order of instituted Worship, than upon believing, to be first Baptised, than added to the Church, we dare not be wise above what is Written.  
Communion with all Saints, i● all things, is a  thing, and not the lest part of th●t Glory which will for ever ●e enjoyed in Heaven, and it would be a blessed thing, if while Christians differ in their light, the best knowing but in part, it might be maid up by an increase of love, this would convince the World they were Christ's Disciples indeed; but care must be had in the first place, to observe the Rules given by our great Lord, and to walk according to them, and not for Communion sake to leap over the Order Jesus Christ hath Prescribed in his Word; I shall not trouble thee any longer, but commend the consideration of the matter Ensuing to thy serious Thoughts, and th● blessing of that God who i● able to 'cause all Grace and Truth to abound in thy Sou●▪  
Thine in the Lord, W. K.   

Sir,  
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 employment than they can or need to attend: I should little have troubled myself, to take notice of the rest of your offers, in your Confession, had you not under the head before expressed, shown yourself so bold to assert that which is yet unproved; neither should I have meddled with the controversy at all, 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 truth's balance: 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 yourself to degrade all the Baptised Brethrens, of this persuasion; but with too much impudence, do Tender them amongst the worst of men, meddling with the very Secrets of the most High, which are so much out of your reach, that you have rendered them that oppose your Principle; to be the cause of the Deaths of those Hundreds of Thousands that have fallen by God's 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 Truth's Enemies, as though nothing short, in your rage, would serve you than to defy all the Brethrens of the Baptised way, and Blaspheam them that devil 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 be the Inlet into particular Churches, though it prepares them for Reception: It's consent ON all hands, and nothing else, that makes them Members of this or that particular 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 yourself 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 patronise your Practice, when there is nothing in them that respects the matter in Controversy. Were any of these Unbaptized persons? say it if you dare. Sure it is a bad Cause, that must be upheld by such foreign and remote shifts: besides, what need Paul pled for the Vindication of himself, or others? that he was Baptised, when yourself 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 pled 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 Christ's Laws. And pray you tell me, is obeying Baptism, no part of a Christians Holiness? is Baptism none of the Laws of Christ, the Lawgiver? must this, with others have no place of discovery? but must it altogether be shut out from being a witness to the truth of Faith: if it must, let's 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 than Christ; the Servant than the Son, if Moses Law in his Moral precepts, be the only bounds of a Christians Holiness or Sanctification, under the Gospel, for what end, than 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 light in it: I grant it, they never received it aright, which is a clear Argument, that the persons you pled for, for Church-fellowship, never received it at all, because they could not than have light in it when they were sprinkled, and therefore aught to repent and be ashamed of that abomination, before they come to have a sight of the pattern of the House of God, the go in, and come 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 Master's will was beaten, because it is like he had means to know it, though he was ignorant.  
3. Suppose men pled 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 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 clothed, though he give little for his relief: Perhaps he may give Two Pence, when according to what he hath, he aught 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 pled for him, but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall pled 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 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 particular 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 particular 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 Unbaptised beleivers, that were concerned in those Epistles: forasmuch as you confess, in those time's Baptism followed immediately upon Conversion: if the● were not Unbaptised Believers, ● is without our question, for Pa●● might Writ to them as well a Timothy and others, that they might 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 eat Truth for Peace; But you hint, the Church hath of old been pestered with Baptism, and therefore when it is so, it may prudently be shunned. I confess if ever you found Baptism a Pest or Plague to Churches, all men will eat the Plague: is this the best Title you can give to one of Christ's Commands? did God ever sand 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 pled for it, or they that deny it? but the Consciences of the Godly, you say; are wounded, the Church's Peace broken, their fellowship dismembered, and what than? 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, 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 particular persons, by Church-appointment, and not leaveing they promisciously amongst the Gifted-brethrens, 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 extol above others, to be the Honour and Crown of Churches; and must the Church for peace sake eat these Great Appointments of Preaching and Breaking Bread, rather than 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 pled for, to deny Baptism, how Godly 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 than you will miss your end in saying something, you care not if your Pen be employed against every man, and you give the lie to all Expositors besides yourself (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 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.  
Farther, if nothing but extraordinary gifts be called the Baptism of the Spirit, in a strict sense, than that Baptism, 1 Cor. 12. must be water Baptism, as well as this in Ephesians 4. and than your Argument from both is voided.  
Your Third Argument is, That these you pled for, have the Doctrine of Baptisms; 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 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 aught 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 aught to be baptised 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 Baptisms distinct in Hebrews 6. which you cote.  
2. Under the Law all the Sacrifices of that dispensation with their Sabaths and other things, were Tips of that Christ who was the substance of all those Ceremonies: If any of them than that professed Faith in the Messiah to come, should upon 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 Tips: 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 Only an outward SHOW. He may have the heart of Water-Baptism that is never Baptised: it is but a form, (an almost nothing:) men are not much better. Is it not enough for you to despise your brethrens, but contempt also must be thrown upon this precious truth of Christ? from whom have you Authority to nickname 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 mere shows? do you pretend yourself 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 yourself, 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 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 divide 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 than the other? I had thought that he that hath Christ, hath an orderly right to all Christ's promises, and all Christ's precepts; & that the precepts of Christ are part of the richeses which a believer hath in and by Christ, and aught 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 God's 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 aught to carry it towards their Brethrens 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 out of their hearts, having not that Christian respect to each other as they aught; 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 Baptised: Therefore what you urge from hence comes not near 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 aught not to receive him till he had given satisfaction by repentance, showing the fruits of it, for his sinful bypast life: I doubt not but God may receive Infants dying in Infancy, as the fruit of his electing love; but I suppose you yourself 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 straightness 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 Brethrens of the Baptised way, that differ from you in this point: Is this the best Title you have for them? But,  
Secondly, You pinch at the straightness of their Order: I never knew straightness in Order to be a crime, but rather a praise. Paul rejoiced to behold the Order, Col. 2. 5. as well as the Faith of the Colossians, 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? aught we not to glorify 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, 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 sense is maintained by Baptism? or dare you say that your Faith, or Love, or Obedience to any precept, doth in that sense, either procure, or maintain your peace, in the matter of Justification? If not▪ you aught not to pair of any part of Gospel▪ obedience, and tender 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  us.  
Answ. Who saith it doth? Persons aught to be Christians before they are Baptised; 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 accounted you practise instituted Worship now, unless upon the same account as Paul practised 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.  
Your sixth Argument is, Edification, which you say is greater than 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, show us a Church without Baptism, approved of by the New Testament, and than edify 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? Endeavour to make men as Holy as you can, that they may be fit for Church-Fellowship, when God shall show them the orderly way to it, we shall never blame you; but you say Edification is greater than 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 signify so much as you say it doth. But add,  
Why may you not as well say that Edification is greater than breaking Bread? than any part of Church rule, or Government? and so at once shut out all instituted Worship; for something you call Edification. Why must Water-Baptism be the BUT that you so constantly shoot at?  
3. How comes Contesting for Water-Baptism to be so much against you? is not the lest of truth's 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 Judgements 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 place: It appears not, there was any positive 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 positive 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 than Judgement, it is no wonder to me, if he go out of the way. We can as boldly assert our Love to all the Godly, though Unbaptised, 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 aught not to be left undone; and I doubt your favour towards them, in descrying before them one of Christ's Commands, as a Circumstance, mere show, that that may, or may not be done; for which we are neither better nor worse (in your sense) making it no more than eating, or not eating, as men are persuaded: 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 Balance, it will be found no lesle than 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 sense of his Sin, yet I aught 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 lie, instead of the truth, a false Baptism, instead of Christ's appointment, if in that matter Ephraim like, they are joined to an Jdol, must I not wait till God shows 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 than 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 than 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 saith some of them did, Chap. 15. but whereas you say they shut one another out of Communion for these things, that I found not: (What ever they might or aught 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 than 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▪ yourself, 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 their case, which agrees not with the controversy 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 by Water-Baptism: a very high charge against this great truth: It is no wonder you lay divisions at our doors, when Baptism itself must be accused as a makebate, 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 Baptised in his name: a good Argument to provoke to union; and to take them of from doting upon those Factious leaders amongst them; by whom it is like they were most of them Baptised, to let them know they were not Baptised in the names of men, but of Christ. But wherein lies the force of this man's Argument against Baptism, as to its place, worth, or continuance? Why? it is urged from two grounds.  
First, Because Paul knew not that he Baptised a●y but those he names; which argues, he made not so great a matter of Baptism as some do now adays, for than he would have heeded it better, and made more Conscience thereof, than 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 Corinth's he had Baptised. Is this so demonstrable a ground? Sir, if one should ask you how many you have Baptised 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 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 sense that you oppose, and makes Conscience of it, as one of Christ's Precepts, to that degree which you disallow of; and yet for those few that he hath Baptised, 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 Baptised, much lesle the number, or names of them he hath Baptised else where, and yet but one of the meanest dispensers of Baptism, who hath had lesle share in that blessed work, than 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, might be Baptised by the teaching brethrens amongst themselves, is more than probable, and therefore well might Paul say, He knew not, or did not remember who he had Baptised amongst them.  
But your Second ground is from Paul's thanking God, and telling us he was not sent to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel: Doth this prove that Paul slighted Baptism? I think not, as will afterwards appear.  
That Paul did Baptise 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 than must be, that he was not only, or mainly sent to Baptise, but Preach; as the great work he was to attend upon. Note, he doth not say he was not sent to Preach Baptism, but not mainly to Baptise: He had the same Commission to Preach Baptism, as Faith; and he could not be true to his trust, if he should eat to declare that part of the Counsel of God, as occasion served, and required. And yet though he Preached Faith and Baptism, he might Baptise but few of them that were persuaded to obedience by his Ministry, but the bore dispencing that ordinance, might be by any gifted Brother, called to that work.  
Annanias, a certain Disciple, Baptised Paul; (and not an Apostle.) Peter commanded Cornelius, and those that were with him, to be Baptised: but the Text doth not say Peter did it; it might be done by some of the Brethrens that came with him: neither can it reasonably be supposed that the 3000. converted by Peter's Sermon, Act. 2. was all Baptised by him, or the Apostles only; but it is very like they had many administrators, which doth not at all entrench 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 Baptise; (these being properly no Church-Ordinances) though in order to it.  
Your Ninth Argument is, That by denying Communion with Vnbaptized persons we take from them their privilege 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 privilege in the way of Gospel order, as all the Scripture Saints received their Privileges. But if any will found, and force another way into the Sheepfold, than by following the footsteps of the Flocks, we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God, you according to your old manner of confidence affirm. Drink ye all of this? Is this entailed to Faith, and not Baptism? It is soon said, but never yet proved; it is neither entailed by Precept, Promise', or precedent, to Faith, without Baptism, that ever yet can be showed: 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 ridiculous, so top-ful of ignorance, or prejudice; and are in themselves such a heap of unheard of reproaches, that deserve no other answer than contempt; 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 yourself could ever found an innocent truth, big with so many monstrous absurdities, as you do. You have carried it like one of Machevel's Scholars, 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 eat 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 this principle and practice is the cause of all our late Judgements. Sir, it is well for us, that you are none of the King's 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 not lesle, than 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 God's 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, presumptuous, impeaching of the Justice of God? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do righteously? Gen 19 Will 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 controversy between you, and us, nor knew nothing of the form or order of God's house; and must their ruin lie 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 profaneness, 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 not more, but, The Lord rebuke thee.  
Your Tenth and last Argument hath so little reason, and so much of confusion in it, that it renders itself unworthy of an answer. That the World may wonder at our carriage to these Vnbaptized 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, than they that are for the greatest liberty. All that the enemy could found against Daniel, was in the matters of his God, (in the business of Worship,) which the World World 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 Baptise not more, which I perceive you have no great zeal for.  
I shall now take liberty to add some Arguments to Justify our Principle and Practice, against all that you have said to the contrary.  
THe Question is, Whether Vnbaptzed persons have been, or aught to be members of Gospel Churches.  
I answer, They aught not to be: for these Reasons.  
First, Because the great Commission of Christ, Mat. 28. (from which all persons have their Authority for their Ministry, (if any Authority at all) doth clearly direct the contrary by that Commission. Ministers are, first to Disciple, and than Baptise them, so made Disciples; and afterwards 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 Baptised, it may be strongly supposed, they are not to admit them to other Ordinances, before they have passed the first enjoined 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 God's severity towards them that sought him not according to due order; 1 Chron. 15. 13. Was God so exact with his people than, that all things, to a pin, must be according to the pattern in the Mount? Heb. 7. 16, and 9, 10. whose Worship than 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 shown, Ezekiel 44. 7, 9, 10. It was the Priest's Sin formerly to bring the Uncircumcised 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 Springhead, on Fountain of truth; and had the Law from Christ's own mouth, knew the meaning of his Commission, better than we: But their constant practice, in conformity to that Commission, all along the Acts of the Apostles, clearly discovers that they never arrived to such a Latitude as men pled for now adays: They that gladly received the Word was Baptised, 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 shown:) the Eunuch▪ first desired Baptism, before any thing else: Paul was first Baptised, before he did assay to join with the Church: our Lord Christ, the great example of the New Testament, entered not upon his public Ministry, much lesle any other Gospel Ordinance of Worship, till he was Baptised.  
Fifthly, If Christ himself was made manifest, as the sent of God, by Baptism, as appears Mark 1. 9, 10. than 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 rendered 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 show me how many Baptisms there are besides Water-baptism: Can you build, and leave out a stone in the Foundation? I intent 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; than the same way we may Judge of the truth of men's profession of Faith, when it shows itself by this self same obedience, Gal. 3. 26, 27. Baptism being an obligation to all following duties.  
Eighthly, If being Baptised into Christ, be a putting on of Christ, as Paul expresses, than they have not put on Christ in that sense he means, that are not Baptised. If this putting on of Christ do not respect the visibility of Christianity, assign something else as its signification, great men's servants are known by their Master's Liveries, so are Gospel believers by this Livery of Water Baptism, that all that first trusted in Christ, submitted to: which is in itself, 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 footsteps of the Church of Judah, who, it appears, observed this Order, of adding Baptised believers to the Church, than they that have found out another way of making Church-members, are not by that rule 
1 Thes. 2. 14.  praiseworthy, but rather 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 Baptised, than 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 those Churches were Baptised, why should any pled 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, than why may not others pled for the like privilege, that are negligent in any other Gospel Ordinance of Worship, from the same ground, of want of light, let it be what it william. So than, 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, than Baptism? (that this must be so urged for their excuse) hath God been more sparing in making out his mind, in the one, rather than the other? Is there more precepts, or precedents for the Supper, than Baptism? hath God been so bountiful, in making out himself about the Supper, that few or none, that own Ordinances, scruple it; and must Baptism be such a Rock of offence to professors, that very few will seriously inquire after it, or submit to it? hath not man's wisdom interposed, to darken this part of God's Counsel, by which professors seem 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 entertained to pled for so gross a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes of the first Gospel times were never guilty of?  
Thirteenthly, If obedience must discover the truth of a man's 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 despised, as a matter of little use? or shall one of Christ's precious commands, be blotted out of the Copy of a Christians obedience, to make way for a Church-Fellowship of man's devising?  
Fourteen, If the Baptism of John, was so far honoured, and dignified, that they that did submit to it, are said to Justify 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 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 not more, but these few Queries, which I commmit to your most serious consideration.  

Some Queries.  
1. ASk your heart whether popilarity, and applause of variety of professors, be not in the bottom of what you have said; that hath been your snare, to pervert the straight way of the Lord, and to lead others into a path, wherein we can found none of the footsteps of the Flocks in the first time?  
2. Have you dealt brotherly, or like a Christian, to throw so much dirt upon your Brethrens, in Print, in the face of the World, when you had opportunity to converse with 〈◊〉 of reputation, amongst 〈…〉 Printing; being 〈◊〉 the liberty by them, at the same time, for you to speak amongst them?  
3. Doth your carriage answer the Law of Love, or Civility, when the Brethrens used means to sand to you for a conference, and their Letter was received by you, that you should go out again from the City, after knowledge of their desires, and not vouchsafe a meeting with them, when the Glory of God, and the vindication of so many Churches, is concerned?  
4. Is it not the Spirit of Diophrites of old, in you, Who 〈…〉 loved to 〈…〉 preheminen● 〈…〉 
3 John 9 10.  you are 〈…〉 as to keep out all the Brethrens that are not of your mind in this matter, from having any entertainment in the Churches, or meetings to which you belong, though you yourself have not been denied the like liberty, amongst them that are contrary minded to you? is this the way of your retaliation? or are you afraid jest the truth should in this matter invade your Quarters?  
6. Is there no contempt cast upon the Brethrens, who desired your satisfaction, that at the same time, when you had opportunity to speak to them, 〈…〉 that, you commit●●● 〈◊〉 ●etter to others, by 〈…〉 reflection upon them?  
6. Did not your presumption prompt you to provoke them to Printing, in your Letter, to them, when they desired to be found in no such practice, lest the enemies of truth should take advantage by it?  
7. Whether your Principle & Practice is not equally against others, as well as us? viz. Episcopal, Presbiterian, and Independent, who are all of our side, for our practice (though they differ with us about the subject of Baptism:) do you delight to have your hand against every man?   
FINIS.   

IN the Epistle, Pag● 〈…〉 precedent. p. 8. l. 17. 〈…〉 Elie. p. 16. l. 12. r. death of 〈…〉 l. 4. r. exhorts.   


1. Symptoms of growth, and decay of godliness, in eighty signs of a living and dying Christian, with the causes of decay, and remedies for recovery. The second Edition much enlarged, with the Addition also of twenty signs largely improved.  
2. A new and useful Concordance to the Holy Bible, according to the last Translation, containing the most material Scriptures, in the Line & Margin of the old and new Testament, together with the chief acceptations of special words, with notes to distinguish the promises, commands, and threaten, being plainer, and much larger than any of this Volume yet extant. In Octavo and Twelves: Also to be had bound up with the Bible, in both Volumes. By Mr. Vavisor Powel.