but withal, give me leave to correct, as I think, one extravagant
expression of yours. You say, 'It is CONSENT on all hands and
NOTHING else, that makes them members of particular churches, and
not faith and baptism.' You might have stopped at, and nothing
else, you need not in particular have rejected faith: your first
error was bad enough: what, NOTHING else but consent? What, not so
much as a respect to the matter or end? Why then are not all the
communities of all the highwaymen in the land, truly constituted
churches of Christ; unless you can prove that they hold together,
but not by consent? What? consent and nothing else? But why do
YOU throw out FAITH? why, I throw out baptism; which because you
cannot as to the case in hand fetch in again, therefore out must
faith go too. Your action is much like that harlot's, that stood
to be judged by Solomon, who because her own child was dead, would
have her neighbour's killed also (1 Kings 3:26). Faith, Sir, both
in the profession and confession of it, is of immediate and also
absolute concern, even in the very act of the church's reception,
of this or another member. Throw out faith, and there is no such
thing as a Christian, neither visible nor invisible. You ought
to receive no man, but upon a comfortable satisfaction to the
church, that you are now receiving a believer. Faith, whether it
be savingly there or no, is the great argument with the church in
receiving any: we receive not men as men, but the man immediately
under that supposition; He hath faith, he is a Christian. Sir,
consent simply, without faith, makes no man a member of the church
of God: because then would a church not cease to be a church,
whoever they received among them. Yea, by this assertion you have
justified the church of Rome itself, to be to this day both good,
and godly, unless you can prove that they did at first, and do
now receive their unbelieving members, without their own consent.
The church hath no such liberty to receive men without respect to
faith; yea, faith and holiness must be the essentials, or basis,
upon, and for the sake of which you receive them: holiness, I say,
yet not such as is circumstantial, but that which is such in the
very heart of it: pray you in your next therefore word it better,
lest while you slight and trample upon me, you stand before all,
blame-worthy yourself.
The scriptures you speak of, I did not in my first produce to
shew persons unbaptized [in water] might hold communion with the
church, though I am fully convinced they may, but to shew, that
knowledge of those persons, of their faith and holiness in general,
ought first to be shewed to the church, before she can lawfully
receive them (Acts 9:26-31; 1 Cor 16:10; 2 Cor 8:23). As to
my answer to a question which you have of your's corrupted, and
then abused: I tell you again, That a discovery of the faith and
holiness, and a declaration of the willingness of a person to subject
himself to the laws and government of Christ in his church, is a
ground sufficient to receive such a member.
But you descant; Is baptism one of the laws of Christ?
Ans. It is none of those laws, neither any part of them, that the
church, as a church, should shew her obedience by. For albeit that
baptism be given by Christ our Lord to the church, yet not for
them to worship him by as a church. Shew me what church-ordinance
it is; and when, or where the church, as a church, is to practise
it, as one of those laws and appointments that he hath commanded
his church to shew to him her obedience by. Again, That submitting
to water baptism, is a sign or note, that was ever required by
any of the primitive churches, of him that would hold fellowship
with them; or that it infuseth such grace and holiness into those
that submit thereto, as to capacitate them for such a privilege;
or that they did acknowledge it a sign thereof, I find not in all
the Bible.
I find not, as I told you in my first, that baptism is a sign to
any, but the person that is baptized (Col 2:12; Rom 6:1-4; 1 Cor
15:29; Acts 2:38, 22:16). The church hath her satisfaction of the
person, from better proof (1 Peter 3:21).
I told you also, That baptism makes thee no member of the church,
neither doth it make thee a visible saint: It giveth thee therefore,
neither right to, nor being of membership at all. Why, Sir, did you
not answer these things? but slip them with others, as if you were
unconcerned; troubling your reader with such kind of insinuations,
as must needs be unsavoury to godly ears. You make the moral law
none of Christ's but Moses'; not the son's but the servant's; and
tell me, because I plead for faith and holiness, according to moral
duties gospelized, (they are my words) whereby we ought to judge
of the fitness of members; that therefore Moses is more beholden
to me than Christ.
Sir, know you not yet, that a difference is to be put betwixt
those rules that discover the essentials of holiness, and those
that in themselves are not such; and that that of faith and the
moral law is the one, and baptism, &c. the other. Is not love to
God, abhorrence of idols, to forbear blaspheming, to honour our
parents, to do no murder, to forbear theft, not to bear false
witness, nor covet, &c. are not (I say) these the precepts of the
Lord Jesus, because delivered by Moses? Or, are these such as may
better be broken, than for want of light to forbear baptism with
water? Or, doth a man while he liveth in the neglect of these,
and in the mean time bustle about those you call gospel commands,
most honour Christ, or best fit himself for fellowship with the
saints? Need I tell you, That the faith of Christ, with the ten
commandments, are as much now gospel commands as baptism; and
ought to be in as much, and far more respect with the holy ones
than that, or other the like.[5]
Yea, shall I tell you, That baptism will neither admit a man into
fellowship, nor keep him there, if he be a transgressor of a moral
precept; and that a man who believeth in Jesus, and fulfilleth
the royal law, doth more glorify God, and honour religion in the
world, than he that keepeth, if there were so many, ten thousand
figurative laws. As to those commands that respect God's instituted
worship in a church, as a church, I have told you that baptism is
none of them, and you have been driven to confess it. The church
then must first look to faith, then to good living according to the
ten commandments; after that she must respect those appointments
of our Lord Jesus that respects her outward order and discipline,
and then she walks as becomes her, sinning if she neglecteth
either; sinning if she overvalueth either. But why did you not
answer those tests I produced for the strengthening of my argument
(Rom 14:17,18; Deut 27:47; James 2:8-12; 1 Cor 9:21, 5:9-11; Gal
6:15,16; Phil 3; 1 Tim 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-32; Rom 13:13; James 4:11;
1 Cor 5:12). Deal fairly; Answer those texts, with the argument
made upon them; and when you have after a godly manner done that,
you may the more boldly condemn.
You tell me, that I say, 'None ever received baptism without light
therein.'
What if I did? (as I did not) but you grant it: and now I will ask
you, and pray deal fairly in your answer. May a man be a visible
saint without light therein? May he have a good conscience without
light therein? And seeing that baptism is none of the worship that
Christ instituted in his church for them to practice as a church,
must he be kept dark about all other things concerning the worship
of God in his church, until he receive light therein?
You have answered already, 'That they ought to be ashamed, and
to repent of that abomination [their sprinkling] BEFORE they come
to have a sight of the pattern of the house of God, the goings
in and the comings out thereof' (Eze 43:10,11). But, Sir, where
do you find that want of light in water baptism, or because a
man hath been sprinkled, that he is to be kept dark in all other
temple-institutions, till he be ashamed and repent of that? Pray
produce the texts, for Ezekiel helps you nothing: he speaks only
of the pattern of the house, the goings out, and comings in thereof.
As for the coming in, you have already confessed, That baptism is
not the entering ordinance. And as for the worship that Christ
hath instituted in his church, as a church, I say, (and you also
have said it) baptism is none of the forms thereof, none of the
ordinances thereof, none of the laws thereof; for baptism is, as
to the practice of it, that which is without the church, without
the house of God.[6] Then by your own text, if a man do repent
him of his christening in his childhood, he may be received into
fellowship without submitting to baptism: but I will not strain
you too far.
You add, 'Is it a person's light that giveth being to a precept?'
Ans. Who said it? Yet it is his light and faith about it, that
can make him to do it acceptably.
You ask again, 'Suppose men plead want of light in other commands?'
Ans. If they be not such, the forbearance of which, discapacitates
him of membership, he may yet be received to fellowship.
'But what if a man want light in the supper?'
Ans. There is more to be said in that case than in the other: for
that is a part of that worship which Christ hath instituted for
his church, to be conversant in as a church; presenting them as
such, with their communion with their Head, and with one another
as members of him. 'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many
are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one
bread' (1 Cor 10:16,17). Wherefore this being a duty incumbent
on the church, as a church; and on every member of that body as
such, they are obliged in that case more closely to deal with the
members, than in that wherein they are not so concerned; and with
which as such, they have nothing to do. No man baptizeth by virtue
of his office in the church; no man is baptized by virtue of his
membership there.
'But what if a man want light in his duty to the poor?'
Ans. If he doth, God must give it him; I mean to know his duty
as a church member. Now I will add, but what if he that can give
a shilling, giveth nothing? I suppose all that the church can do
in that case, is but to warn, to exhort, and charge him, and to
shew him his duty: and if he neglect, to shew him, that 'He which
soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly' (2 Cor 9:6). But to
cut a man off for this, as you forwardly urge, would argue that
church, at least I think so, a little too bold with so high and
weighty a censure. I plead not here for the churl, but seek to
allay your heat: and should it be granted that such deserve as
you would have it, this makes no matter to the case in hand. Now
whereas you suggest, 'That moral evils are but sins against men,'
you are too much unadvised: the moral evil, as you call it,
whether you respect the breach of the first or second table, is
first and immediately a sin against God; and more insufferable, yea
and damnable, than for a man for want of light to forbear either
baptism or the Lord's Supper.
But say you, 'We have now found an advocate for sin against God,
in the breach of one of HIS holy commands?'
Ans. As if none of the moral precepts were HIS. But, Sir, who have
I pleaded for, in the denial of any one ordinance of God? Yea, or
for their neglect of it either? What I say, is but that men must
have light, that they may not do in darkness, or Papist-like, live
by an implicit faith.
But I see you put no difference between an open breach of the
law, and a forbearing that which to him is doubtful. But I will
suppose a case: There is a man wants light in baptism, yet by
his neighbour is pressed to it: he saith he seeth it not to be
his duty; the other saith, he sins if he doth it not: now seeing
'whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Rom 14:23); what should this
man do? If you say, let him use the means: I say so too. But what,
if when he hath used it, he still continueth dark about it; what
will you advise him now? If you bid him wait, do you not encourage
him to live in sin, as much as I do? Nay, and seeing you will
not let him for want of light in that, obey God in other his
institutions; what is it but to say, Seeing you live for want
of light in the neglect of baptism, we will make you, while you
continue so, live, though quite against your light, in the breach
of all the rest. And WHERE you are commanded thus, you may shew
the place when you find it.
Now where you urge, that you are one of them that say, 'The epistles
were writ to particular churches, and so serve nothing at all for
our kind of communion.' Urging further, 'That it will be difficult
for me to prove, that they were also directed to particular saints.'
Ans. I wish there were nothing harder, that were good for me to
do. But what should be the reason that our author, with others
of his opinion, should stickle so hard to prove [that] all the
epistles were wrote to particular churches? Why, because those
members were, as they think, every one baptized; and so the epistles
from which we fetch our arguments for the love and concord of
saints, to be only proper to themselves.[7] But if this be true,
there is virtue indeed, and more than ever I dreamed of, in partaking
of water baptism: for if that shall take away the epistles, and
consequently the whole Bible, from all that are not baptized;
then are the other churches, and also particular saints, in a very
deplorable condition. For he asketh me very devoutly, 'Whether
any unbaptized persons were concerned in these epistles?' But why
would they take from us the Holy Scriptures? Verily, that we might
have naught to justify our practice withal: for if the Scriptures
belong only to baptized believers, they then belong not to the
rest; and in truth, if they could persuade us to yield them this
grant, we should but sorrily justify our practice. But I would ask
these men, 'If the word of God came out from them? Or if it came
to them only?' (1 Cor 14:36). Or, whether Christ hath not given his
whole word to every one that believeth, whether they be baptized,
or in, or out of church fellowship (James 17:14). Or, whether every
saint in some sort, hath not the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
which are the Scriptures and their power? Would to God they
had learned more modesty, than thus to take from all others, and
appropriate to themselves, and that for the sake of their observing
a circumstance in religion, so high, and glorious a privilege.
But we will come a little to proof: what church will this author
find in Rome, that time the epistle was sent to the brethren
there, besides that church that was in Aquila's house, although
many more saints were then in the city? (Rom 16:5). Yea, the
apostle in his salutation at the beginning, embraceth them only
as brethren, without the least intimation of their being gathered
into fellowship: 'To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called
to be saints: Grace to you,' &c. (1:7). To all there, to all
in that city, beloved of God, and that are converted to the Lord
Jesus Christ. A church there was in Aquila's house, and that
there were many more saints besides, is, and that by the text, as
manifest. Besides, considering the rules that are given them in
the 14th and 15th chapters about their receiving one another, doth
yet strongly suggest to me, that they were not yet in fellowship,
but as it were now about it, when Paul wrote his epistle to them.
The first epistle written to Corinth, was also wrote to all them
'that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord'
(1:2). But it will be hard work for our author to make it manifest,
that none in those days did call on the name of our Lord, but those
that were first baptized. The second epistle also, was not only
written to the church at Corinth, but also to 'all the saints which
were in all Achaia' (2 Cor 1:1). To the Galatians and Thessalonians
indeed, his salutation was only to the churches there: But the
three epistles before were as well to all other [saints]: As also
that to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, in which the
faithful and SAINTS in Christ Jesus were also every one comprehended.
Besides, to what particular church was the epistle to the Hebrews
wrote? Or the epistle of James? Both those of Peter, and the first
of John? Nay, that of John was wrote to some at that time out of
fellowship, 'that also may have fellowship with [us]' the church
(1:1-4). So that these brethren must not have all the scriptures.
We have then a like privilege with all saints, to use the scriptures
for our godly edifying, and to defend ourselves thereby, from the
assaults of those that would make spoil of us. But to pass this,
and come to the next.
You object for that I said, 'If water baptism [as the circumstances
with which the church was pestered of old] trouble the peace, and
wound the consciences of the godly, dismember and break their
fellowships; it is, although an ordinance, for the present prudently
to be shunned.' At this (as I said) you object, and say, 'Did I
ever find baptism a pest or plague to churches? And did ever God
send an ordinance to be a pest and plague to his people?'
I answer: I said not that God did send it for any such end at all;
God's ordinances are none of this in themselves: nor if used as,
and for the end for which God sent them. But yet both baptism,
and the supper of the Lord, have, by being wrested out of their
place, been a great affliction to the godly both in this and
other ages. What say you to breaking of bread, which the devil, by
abusing, made an engine in the hand of Papists, to burn, starve,
hang and draw thousands? What say you to John of Leyden? What
work did he make by the abuse of the ordinance of water baptism?
And I wish this age had not given cause, through the church-rending
spirits that some are possessed with, to make complaint of this
matter; who have also had for their engine the baptism with water.
Yea, yourself, Sir, so far as I can perceive, could you get but
the opportunity; yourself (I say) under pretence of this innocent
ordinance, as you term it, would not stick to make inroads,
and outroads too, in all the churches, that suit not your fancy,
in the land. For you have already been bold to affirm, 'That all
those that have baptized infants, ought to be ashamed and repent,
before they be showed the pattern of the house.' And what is this
but to threaten, that could you have your will of them, you would
quickly take from them their present church privileges, and let
them see nothing thereof, till those qualifications, especially
subjection to water baptism, was found to attend each of them.
As to the persons you speak of, 'Who have rent churches in pieces,
by making preaching by method, doctrine, reason and use, to be
anti-christian': Or, because they could not have other ministrations
performed after their fancies 'the imprudence of such with yourselves,
hath been heart-breaking to many a gracious soul; an high occasion
of stumbling to the weak, and a reproach to the ways of the Lord.'
That it may be prudently shunned, I referred you then for proof,
to what should be offered after: but at this you cry out, and so
pass it.
And now, reader, although this author hath thus objected against
some passages in this my first argument for communion with persons
unbaptized; yet the body of my argument he misseth and passeth over,
as a thing not worth the answering; whether because he forgot, or
because he was conscious to himself, that he knew not what to do
therewith, I will not now determine. 1. I effectually prove, 'That
baptism is not the initiating ordinance.' 2. I prove, 'That though
it was, yet the case may so fall out, that members might be received
without it.' 3. I prove, 'That baptism makes no man a visible
saint, nor giveth any right to church fellowship.' 4. I prove,
'That faith, and a life becoming the law of the ten commandments,
should be the chief and most solid argument with true churches to
receive saints to fellowship.'[8] 5. I prove, 'That circumcision
in the flesh, which was the entering ordinance of old, was a type
of circumcision in the heart,' &c. These things, with others, our
author letteth pass; although in the proof of them abideth the
strength of this first argument; to which I must entreat him in
his next, to cast his eye, and give fair answer; as also to the
scriptures on which each are built, or he must suffer me to say,
I am abused. Further, I make a question upon three scriptures,
Whether all the saints, even in the primitive times, were baptized
with water? to which also he answereth nothing; whereas he ought
to have done it, if he will take in hand to confute. The scriptures
are 1 Corinthians 1:14-16; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27. Yet were
they effectually answered, my argument is nothing weakened.
You come to my second argument, drawn from Ephesians 4:4-6. Upon
which a little more now to enlarge, and then to take notice of
your objection. The apostle then in that fourth of the Ephesians,
exhorteth the church there 'with all lowliness and meekness, with
long suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to
keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace' (vv 2,3). This
done, he presents them with such arguments, as might fasten his
exhortation to purpose upon them.
1. The first is, because the body is ONE; There is 'one body';
therefore they should not divide. For if the church of Christ be
a body, there ought not to be a rent or schism among them (1 Cor
12).
2. His second argument is, There is 'one spirit,' or one quickening
principle by which the body is made to live; for having asserted
before that Christ hath indeed a body, it was meet that he showed
also, that this body hath life, and motion. Now that life, being
none other, than that nourishment, or spirit of life, from which
'the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of the
measure in every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying
of itself in love' (Eph 4:16). Now this spirit, being first, and
chiefly, in the head, therefore none other but those that hold the
head can have this nourishment ministered to them: besides, this
is the spirit that knits the body together, and makes it increase
with the increase of God (Col 2:19). This is 'the unity of the
spirit' which he before exhorts them to keep.
3. The third argument is, Because their hope is also but one. 'Even
as ye are called [saith he] in one hope of your calling': as who
should say, My brethren, if you are called with one calling, if
your hope, both as to the grace of hope, and also the object, be
but one: if you hope for one heaven, and for one eternal life:
then maintain that unity of the spirit, and hope, while here, in
love, 'and the bond of peace' (Eph 4:3).
4. The fourth argument is, There is 'one Lord,' or husband, or prince,
to whom this church belongs: therefore if we have husbands, but
one, Lord and prince but one, let us not read into many parties,
as if we had many husbands, lords, and princes, to govern us,
as his wife, his house, and kingdom. 'Is Christ divided?' (1 Cor
1:13).
5. The fifth argument is, There is 'one faith,' by which we all
stand justified by one Lord Jesus Christ; 'one faith' by which we
escape the wrath of God; 'one faith' by which only they that have
it are blessed; yea, seeing there is but 'one faith,' by which
we are all put into one way of salvation, let us hold together as
such.
6. The sixth argument is, There is 'one baptism.' Now we are come
to the pinch, viz., Whether it be that of water, or no? which
I must positively deny. (1.) Because water baptism hath nothing
to do in a church, as a church; it neither bringeth us into the
church, nor is any part of our worship when we come there; how then
can the peace and unity of the church depend upon water baptism?
Besides, he saith expressly, It is the 'unity of the spirit,' not
water, that is here intended: and the arguments brought to enforce
it, are such as wholly and immediately relate to the duty of the
church, as a church. (2.) Further, That other text, that treateth
of our being baptized into a body, saith expressly it is done by
the spirit: 'For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body'
(1 Cor 12:13). Here is the church presented as under the notion
of 'one body'; here is a baptism mentioned, by which they are
brought, or initiated into this body: Now that this is the baptism
of water, is utterly against the words of the text; 'For by one
spirit are we all baptized into one body.' Besides, if the baptism
here be of water, then is it the initiating ordinance; but the
contrary I have proved, and this author stands by my doctrine.
So then, the baptism here respecting the church as one body, and
water, having nothing to do to enter men into the church, nor to
command them to practise it as a church, in order to their peace
or communion, or respecting the worship of God as such: and (I say
again) the baptism in the sixth argument, being urged precisely
for no other purpose, but with respect to the church's peace as
a body; it must needs be THAT baptism, by virtue of which, they
were initiated, and joined together in one; and that baptism being
only that which the Spirit executeth; this therefore is that one
baptism.
7. The other argument is also effectual; there is 'One God and
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you
all' (Eph 4:6). If we are 'one body'; if to it there be but 'one
spirit'; if we have but 'one hope, one faith,' and be all baptized
by 'one spirit' into that 'one' body; and if we have but 'one
Lord, one God,' and he in every one of us; let us be also 'one':
and let them that are thus qualified, both join together, and hold
in one.
But our author against this, objecteth, That, 'now I employ my pen
against every man; and give the lie to all expositors, for they
hold this one baptism, to be none other than that of water.'[9]
Ans. What if I should also send you to answer those expositors
that expound certain scriptures for infant baptism, and that by
them brand us for anabaptists; must this drive you from your belief
of the truth? EXPOSITORS I reverence, but must live by mine own
faith (Habb 2:4). God hath no where bound himself to them more
than to others, with respect to the revelation of his mind in his
word. But it becomes not you to run thus to expositors, who are,
as to your notions in many things, but of yesterday: 'to the law,
and to the testimony' (Isa 8:20): for 'Out of the mouth of babes'
the Lord hath 'ordained strength' (Psa 8:2).
But you bid me tell you, 'What I mean by spirit baptism?'
Ans. Sir, you mistake me, I treat not here of our being baptized
with the Spirit, with respect to its coming from heaven into us;
but of that act of the spirit, when come, which baptizeth us into
a body or church. It is one thing to be baptized with the Spirit
in the first sense; and another to be baptized by it in the sense
I treat of: for the Spirit to come upon me, is one thing; and
for that when come, to implant, embody, or baptize me into the
body of Christ, is another. Your question therefore is grounded
on a mistake, both of my judgment, and the words of the apostle.
Wherefore thus I soon put an end to your objections. For the
Spirit to come down upon me, is one thing; and for the Spirit to
baptize, or implant me into the church, is another: for to be
possessed with the spirit, is one thing; and to be led by that
spirit, is another. I conclude then; seeing the argument taken
from that one baptism, respecteth church fellowship properly;
and seeing water baptism meddleth not with it as such; it is the
other, even that in 1 Corinthians 12:16 that is here intended,
and no other.
But you add, 'If nothing but extraordinary gifts are called the
baptism of the Spirit in a strict sense; then that baptism (1 Cor
12) must be water baptism, as well as that in the Ephesians.'
Hold: you make your conclusions before you have cause; first, prove
that in the Ephesians to be meant of water baptism, and that the
baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is the baptism you would have it;
and then conclude my argument void. That it is the baptism of the
Holy Ghost according to the common notion, I say not; for you to
assert it is the baptism of water, gives the lie to the text: but
that it is an act of the Holy Ghost, baptizing the saints into
a body, or church, you will hardly be able to make the contrary
appear to be truth. 'But behold, while here you would have this
to be baptism with water, how you contradict and condemn your own
notion: you say water baptism is not the entering ordinance; yet
the baptism here is such as baptizeth us into a body: wherefore
before you say next time that this in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is meant
of water baptism; affirm that water baptism is the initiating or
entering ordinance, that your opinion and doctrine may hang better
together.'
We come to my third argument; which is to prove, that it is lawful
to hold church communion with the godly sincere believer, though
he hath not be baptized with water, because he hath the DOCTRINE
of baptisms (Heb 6:2). Which doctrine I distinguish from the
practice of it; the doctrine being that which by the outward sign
is presented to us; or which by the outward circumstance of the
act is preached to the believer, viz., the death of Christ, my
death with Christ; also his resurrection from the dead, and mine
with him to newness of life. 'This our author calleth one of the
strangest paradoxes that he hath LIGHTLY observed.'
Ans. How light he is in his observation of things, I know not; this
I am sure, the apostle makes mention of the doctrine of baptisms;
now that the doctrine of a man, or ordinance, is the signification
of what is preached, is apparent to very sense. What is Christ's
doctrine, Paul's doctrine, scripture doctrine, but the truth couched
under the words that are spoken? so the doctrine of baptism, yea
and the doctrine of the Lord's supper, are those truths or mysteries
that such ordinances preach unto us. And that the doctrine of
baptism, in this sense, is the great end for which that, and the
Lord's supper, was instituted, is apparent from all the scriptures:
it is that which the apostle seeketh for in that eminent sixth
of the Romans, 'Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection' (3-5). What is here discoursed, but
the doctrine of or that which baptism teacheth; with an intimation;
that that was the chief, for the sake of which that shadow was
instituted; as also that they that have the doctrine, or that
which is signified thereby, they only must reign with Christ.
Again, This is that which he seeketh for among the Corinthians;
'If the dead rise not at all,' [saith he], 'why then were you
baptized for the dead?' (1 Cor 15:29). Why then were you baptized?
What did baptism teach you? What doctrine did it preach to you?
further, 'Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised
him from the dead' (Col 2:12). What is here in chief asserted,
but the doctrine only which water baptism preacheth? with an
intimation, that they, and they only, are the saved of the Lord,
that have heard, received, and that live in this doctrine.
The same may be said of the Lord's supper, it also hath its
doctrine. But against this our author objecteth, saying, 'That
this is called the doctrine of baptism, I am yet to learn.'
Ans. Your ignorance of the truth makes it not an error: but I pray
you, what is the doctrine of baptism, if not that which baptism
teacheth, even that which is signified thereby? As that is the
doctrine of Christ, and the scriptures; which he and they teach
as the mind of God.
But you say, 'I took the doctrine of baptism to be the command
that a believer should be baptized, for such ends as the gospel
expresseth.'
Ans. To assert that a figurative ordinance is of God, is one thing;
but the doctrinal signification of that ordinance is another. A
man may preach the command, yet none of the doctrine which baptism
preacheth. The doctrine lieth not in the command, but the mystery
discovered to faith, by the act.
You object, 'If the resurrection be the doctrine of baptism, why
doth the apostle make that, and the doctrine of baptism, things
distinct, in Hebrews 6.'
Ans. The resurrection simply considered, is not the doctrine of
baptism, but Christ's, and mine by him. Besides, there is more in
it than the mystery of this resurrection; there is my death first,
and then my rising with him.
But you add, 'Under the law, all the sacrifices of that dispensation,
with their sabbaths, were types of that Christ, who was the substance
of all those ceremonies. If any of them then that professed faith
in the Messias to come, should upon scruples, or want of pretended
light, neglect the whole, or part of that typical worship; why
may not a man say of them, as this advocate of the practice under
debate, they had the richer and better sacrifice.'
Ans. First, that the brethren which refuse to be baptized, as
you and I would have them, refuse it for want of pretended light,
becomes you not to imagine, unless your boldness will lead you
to judge, that all men want sincerity, that come not up to our
judgment. Their conscience may be better than either yours or mine;
yet God, for purposes best known to himself, may forbear to give
them conviction of their duty in this particular. But what, because
they are not baptized, have they not Jesus Christ? Or, must we
now be afraid to say that Christ is better than water baptism?[10]
Yea, God himself for the sake of this better thing, hath suffered
in his church a suspension of some of his ordinances, yet owned
them for his truly constituted congregation. What say you to the
church in the wilderness? I touched you with it in my first, but
perceive you listed not to meddle therewith. That church received
members, the way which was not prescribed by, but directly against
the revealed mind of God; yet stood a true church, their members
true members; also that church in that state, was such before
whom, among whom, and to whom God continually made known himself
to be their God, and owned them for his peculiar treasure.
And now I am fallen upon it, let me a little enlarge: this church,
according to the then instituted worship of God, had circumcision
for their entering ordinance (Gen 17:13,14), without which it was
unlawful to receive any into fellowship with them: yea, he that
without it was received, was to be cut off, and cast out again.
Further, as to the passover, the uncircumcised were utterly
forbidden to eat it (Exo 12:48). Now if our brethren had as
express prohibition to justify their groundless opinion, as here
is to exclude the uncircumcised from the communion of the church
and the passover: I say, if they could find it written, 'No
unbaptized person shall enter, no unbaptized person shall eat of
the supper'; what a noise would they make about it? But yet let
the reader observe, that although circumcision was the entering
ordinance, and our author saith baptism is not; yea, though this
church was expressly forbidden to receive the uncircumcised, and
we have not a syllable now to forbid the unbaptized, yet this church
received members without, and otherwise than by this entering
ordinance. They also admitted them to the passover; yea,
entertained, retained, and held communion with them so long as
forty years without it. I say again, That the number of this sort
of communicants was not so few as six hundred thousand. Moreover,
to these uncircumcised was the land of Canaan given, yea, a
possession of part thereof before they were circumcised; but the
old circumcised ones might not enter therein. I am the larger in
this, because our author hath overlooked my first mention thereof.
And now I ask, What was the reason that God continued his presence
with this church notwithstanding this transgression? Was it not
because they had that richer and better thing, 'the Lord Jesus
Christ?' For they did all eat of that spiritual bread, and drink
of that 'spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was
Christ' (1 Cor 10:3,4). I confess I find them under rebukes and
judgments in the wilderness, and that they were many times threatened
to be destroyed; but yet I find not so much as one check for their
receiving of members uncircumcised. Further, in the New Testament,
where we have a catalogue of their sins, and also of their punishment
for them; we find not a word about circumcision, nor the smallest
intimation of the least rebuke for neglecting the entering ordinance
(1 Cor 10:5-10). I will therefore say of them, as I have also
said of my brethren, 'They had the richer and better thing.'
But you object, 'That this putteth the whole of God's instituted
worship both under the law and gospel, to the highest uncertainties.'
Ans. This putteth our opposers out of their road, and quencheth the
flame of their unwarrantable zeal. For if the entering ordinance,
if the ordinance without which no man might be added to the church,
was laid aside for forty years; yea, if more than six hundred
thousand did communicate with them without it: I say again, If
they did it, and held communion with God, that notwithstanding;
yea, and had not, that we read of, all that time one small check
for so doing; why may not we now enter communion, hold communion,
maintain communion, church communion, without being judged,
and condemned by you? because we cannot for want of light be all
baptized before; especially considering baptism makes no man a
saint, is not the entering ordinance, is no part of the worship
of God enjoined the church as a church. To conclude, although we
receive members unbaptized [in after], we leave not God's instituted
worship at uncertainties, especially what he hath commanded us
as his church; we only profess our want of light in some things;
but see no word to warrant the forbearance of our duty in all,
for want of persuasion in one.
You object, 'I call baptism a circumstance, an outward-shew I
NICKNAME it.'
Ans. Deep reproof! but why did you not shew me my evil in thus
calling it, when opposed to the substance, and the thing signified?
Is it the substance, is it the thing signified? And why may not I
give it the name of a shew; when you call it a symbol, and compare
it to a gentleman's livery?
But you say, I call it an outward shew.
Ans. Is it an inward one? What is it?
'It is a command.'
Ans. But doth that install it in that place and dignity, that was
never intended for it?
You object further, 'They cannot have the doctrine of baptism that
understand not our way of administering it.'
This is your mistake, both of the doctrine and thing itself. But
if you will not SCORN to take notice of me, I advise you again
to consider, That a man may find baptism to be commanded, may
be informed who ought to administer it; may also know the proper
subject; and that the manner of baptizing is dipping; and may desire
to practise it because it is commanded, and yet know nothing of
what water baptism preacheth; or of the mystery baptism sheweth
to faith. But that the doctrine of baptism is not the practice of
it, not the outward act, but the thing signified; and that every
believer hath that, must argue you more than too bold to deny it.
But say you, 'Who taught you to divide betwixt Christ and his
precepts, that you word it at such a rate? That he that hath the
one,' &c.
Ans. To say nothing of faith, and the word; verily reason itself
teacheth it. For if Christ be my righteousness, and not water; if
Christ be my advocate, and not water; if there be that good and
blessedness in Christ, that is not in water; then is Jesus Christ
better than water; and also in these to be eternally divided from
water; unless we will make them co-saviours, co-advocates, and
such as are equally good and profitable to men.
But say you, 'I thought that he that hath Christ, had an orderly
right to all Christ's promises and precepts; and that the precepts
of Christ, are part of the riches that a believer hath in and by
Christ.'
Ans. A believer hath more in Christ than either promise or precept;
but all believers know not all things, that of God are given to
them by Christ. But must not they use, and enjoy what they know,
because they know not all. Or must they neglect the weightier
matters, because they want mint, and anise, and cummin? Your
pretended orderly right is your fancy; there is not a syllable
in the whole bible, that bids a Christian to forbear his duty in
other things, because he wanteth, as you term it, the symbol, or
water baptism.
But say you, 'He that despiseth his birthright of ordinances, our
church privileges, will be found to be a profane person, as Esau
in God's account.'
Baptism is not the privilege of a church as such. But what? are
they all Esau's indeed? Must we go to hell, and be damned, for
want of faith in water baptism? And take notice, I do not plead
for a despising of baptism, but a bearing with our brother, that
cannot do it for want of light. The best of baptism he hath,
viz. the signification thereof: he wanteth only the outward shew,
which if he had, would not prove him a truly visible saint; it
would not tell me he had the grace of God in his heart; it is no
characteristical note to another of my Sonship with God. But why
did you not answer these parts of my argument? Why did you only
cavil at words? which if they had been left out, the argument yet
stands good. 'He that is not baptized [in water], if yet a true
believer, hath the DOCTRINE of baptism; yea, he ought to have it
before he be convicted, it is his duty to be baptized, or else he
playeth the hypocrite. There is therefore no difference between
that believer that is, and he that is not yet baptized with water;
but only his going down into the water, there to perform an outward
ceremony, the substance of which he hath already; which yet he is
not commanded to do with respect to membership with the church;
but to obtain by that, further understanding of his privilege by
Christ, which before he made profession of, and that as a visible
believer.'[11]
But to come to my fourth argument, which you so tenderly touch
as if it burnt your fingers: 'I am bold [say I] to have communion
with visible saints as before, because God hath communion with them,
whose example in the case we are strictly commanded to follow.'
'Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory
of God' (Rom 15:7). Yea, though they be saints, in opinion contrary
to you, or I. 'We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities
of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). Infirmities
that are sinful: for they that are natural are incident to all.
Infirmities therefore they are, that for want of light, cause
a man to err in circumstantials: and the reason upon which Paul
groundeth this admonition is; 'For even Christ pleased not himself,
but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee
fell on me' (Rom 15:3).
You say to this, 'That it is Paul's direction to the church at
Rome how to receive their brethren church members.'
I answer, 1. What? are not the poor saints now in this city? are
not they concerned in these instructions? or is not the church
by these words at all directed how to carry it to those that were
not yet in fellowship? A bold assertion! but grounded upon nothing,
but that you would have it so. 2. But how will you prove that there
was a church, a rightly constituted church, at Rome, besides that
in Aquila's house? (chap. 16). Neither doth this epistle, nor any
other in the whole book of God affirm it. Besides, since Paul in
this last chapter saluteth the church, as in this man's house,
but the other, only as particular saints, it giveth further ground
of conviction to you, that those others were not as yet imbodied
in such a fellowship. 3. But suppose there was another church
besides; it doth not therefore follow, that the apostle exhorteth
them only to receive persons already in fellowship; but 'Him,'
even every 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations' (14:1). 4. Suppose again, the receiving
here exhorted to, be such as you would have it, yet the rule by
which they are directed to do it, is that by which we perceive
that Christ hath received them. But Christ did not receive them by
[water] baptism, but as given to him by the Father. Him, therefore,
concerning whom we are convinced, that he by the Father is given
to Christ, 'Him should we receive.' 5. But what need I grant you,
that which cannot be proved? yet if you could prove it, it availeth
nothing at all; because you may not, cannot, ought not to dare to
limit the exhortation to receiving of one another into each other's
affections only; and not also receiving saints into communion.
But you object: 'To make God's receiving the rule of our receiving,
in all cases will not hold.'
Ans. Keep to the thing, man: if it hold in the case in hand, it
is enough, the which you have not denied. And that it holds thus,
is plain, because commanded. But let the reader know, that your
putting in that way of his receiving which is invisible to us;
is but an unhandsome straddling over my argument, which treateth
only of a visible receiving; such as is manifest to the church.
This you knew, but sought by evading to turn the reader from
considering the strength of this my argument. 'The receiving then
[said I] because it is set as an example to the church, is such
as must needs be visible unto them; and is best discovered by that
word that describeth the visible saint. Whoso then you can judge
a visible saint, one that walketh with God, you may, nay ought to
judge by the same word, that God hath received him. Now him that
God receiveth, him should you receive.' But will any object; they
cannot believe that God receiveth the unbaptized saints; I will
not suppose you so much stupefied, and therefore shall make no
answer.
But you seem to be much offended, because I said, 'Vain man! Think
not by the straightness of thine order in outward, and bodily
conformity to outward and shadowish circumstances, that thy peace
is maintained with God?' But why so much offended at this? [It is
say you] 'Because you intend by this the brethren of the baptized
way.'
Ans. If they be vain men, and set up their OWN order, how straight
soever they make it, they are worthy to be reproved; if 'they
have rejected the word of the Lord; what wisdom is in them?' (Jer
8:9). And as you suggest the first, I affirm the second. But if
you would be justified in excluding those, with whom yet you see
God hath communion, because they yet see not a shadow with you;
produce the scripture for such order, that we may believe it is the
order of God. But deal fairly, lest we shew your nakedness, and
others see your shame. You tell me of the order of the Colossians
(2:5). But if you can prove that that church refused to hold
communion with that saint whom they knew to be received by Christ,
and held communion with him [Christ], or that none but those that
are baptized [in water] are received by and hold communion with
him, then you justify your order. In the mean while the whole of
mine argument stands firm against you; 'You must have communion
with visible saints, because God hath communion with them, whose
example in the case we are strictly commanded to follow.'
But you ask me, 'If outward and bodily conformity be become a
crime?'
Ans. I nowhere said it; but know that to glorify God with our
bodies, respecteth chiefly far higher and more weighty things,
than that of water baptism; 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin'
(Rom 14:23); and to set up an ordinance, though an ordinance of
God, that by it the church may be pulled in pieces, or the truly
visible saints excluded communion with their brethren; I say again,
to make water baptism a bar and division between saint and saint,
every whit otherwise gracious and holy alike: This is like fasting
'for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness'
(Isa 58:4); and is not to be found within the whole bible, but
is wholly an order of your own devising. As to the peace you make
an objection about you have granted me what I intended; and now I
add further, that for church peace to be founded in water baptism,
or any other external rite, not having to do with the church, as
a church, is poor peace indeed: Church peace is founded in blood;
and love to each other for Jesus' sake (Phil 2:1-4). Bearing with,
and forbearing one another, in all things circumstantial, that
concern not church worship as such (Eph 4:31,32). And in my other
[treatise] I have proved that baptism is not such, and therefore
ought not to be urged to make rents and divisions among brethren.
But you ask, 'Is my peace maintained in a way of disobedience?
and conclude if it be, you fear it is false.'
Ans. If the first were true; you need not to doubt of the second;
but it may be thought he hath little to say in the controversy,
who is forced to stuff out his papers, with such needless prattles
as these.
My fifth argument is, 'That a failure in such a circumstance as
water baptism, doth not unchristian us'; this you are compelled
to grant. And I conclude with your words, persons ought to be
Christians before visible Christians; such as any congregation in
the land may receive to communion with themselves, because God
hath shewed us that he has received them. 'Receive him to the glory
of God.' To the glory of God, is put in on purpose, to shew what
dishonour they bring to him, who despise to have communion with
such, whom they know do maintain communion with God. I say again,
How doth this man, or that church, glorify God, or count the wisdom
and holiness of heaven beyond them, when they refuse communion
with them, concerning whom yet they are convinced, that they
have communion with God? But my argument you have not denied; nor
meddled with the conclusion at all; which is, 'That therefore,
even because a failure here, doth not unchristian us, doth not
make us insincere'; and I add, doth not lay us open to any revealed
judgment or displeasure of God (if it doth, shew where) therefore
it should not, it ought not to make us obnoxious to the displeasure
of the church of God.
But you say, 'I rank gospel precepts, with Old Testament abrogated
ceremonies.'
Ans. You should have given your reader my words, that he might
have judged from my own mouth: I said then, speaking before of
Christianity itself, 'that thousands of thousands that could not
consent to water, as we, are now with the innumerable company of
angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect.' What was said of
eating, or the contrary, may as to this be said of water baptism:
neither if I be baptized, am I the better? neither if I be not,
am I the worse? not the better before God, not the worse before
men: still meaning as Paul, provided I walk according to my light
with God; otherwise it is false. For if a man that seeth it to
be his duty, shall despisingly neglect it; or if he that hath not
faith about it, shall foolishly take it up: both these are for
this the worse; I mean, as to their own sense, being convicted in
themselves, as transgressors. He therefore that doth it according
to his light, doth well; and he that doth it not, for want of light,
doth not ill; for he approveth his heart to be sincere with God,
even by that his forbearance. And I tell you again, It is nowhere
recorded, that this man is under any revealed threatening of God,
for his not being baptized with water, he not having light therein,
but is admitted through his grace to as many promises as you. If
therefore he be not a partaker of that circumstance, yet he is of
that liberty, and mercy, by which you stand with God.
But that I practise instituted worship, upon the same account as
Paul did circumcision, and shaving, is too bold for you to presume
to imagine. What? because I will not suffer water to carry away
the epistles from the Christians; and because I will not let
water baptism be the rule, the door, the bolt, the bar, the wall
of division between the righteous, and the righteous; must I
therefore be judged to be a man without conscience to the worship
of Jesus Christ? The Lord deliver me from superstitious and
idolatrous thoughts about any of the ordinances of Christ and of
God. But my fifth argument standeth against you untouched; you
have not denied, much less confuted the least syllable thereof.
You tell me my sixth argument is, Edification.
Ans. If it be, why is it not embraced? But my own words are these:
'I am for holding communion thus. Because the edification of souls
in the faith and holiness of the gospel, is of greater concern than
an agreement in outward things; I say, it is of greater concern
with us, and of far more profit to our brother, than our agreeing
in, or contesting for, water baptism' (John 16:13; 1 Cor 14:12;
2 Cor 10:8, 12:19; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:1,2; 8:1). Now why did you
not take this argument in pieces, and answer those scriptures, on
which the strength thereof depends; but if to contest, and fall
out about water baptism, be better than to edify the house of God,
produce the texts, that we may be informed.
You say, 'Edification is the end of all communion, but all things
must be done in order, orderly.'
Ans. When you have proved that there is no such thing as an orderly
edifying of the church, without water baptism precede, then it
will be time enough to think you have said something.
You add, 'Edification as to church fellowship being a building up,
doth suppose the being of a church; but pray you shew us a church
without baptism.'
Ans. See here the spirit of these men, who for the want of water
baptism, have at once unchurched all such congregations of God
in the world; but against this I have, and do urge, That water
baptism giveth neither being, nor well-being to a church, neither
is any part of that instituted worship of God, that the church, as
such, should be found in the practice of. Therefore her edification
as a church may, yea and ought to be attained unto without it.
But you say, 'Shew us a New Testament church without baptism.'
Ans. What say you to the church all along the Revelation quite
through the reign of Antichrist? Was that a New Testament church,
or no? Again, If baptism be without the church, as a church,
if it hath nothing to do in the constituting of a church; if it
be not the door of entrance into the church, if it be no part of
church-worship as such; then, although all the members of that
church were baptized, yet the church is a church without water
baptism. But all the churches in the New Testament were such:
therefore, &c. Again, If baptism respect believers, as particular
persons only; if it respects their own conscience only; if it
make a man no visible believer to me, then it hath nothing to do
with church-membership. Because, that which respects my own person
only, my own conscience only: that which is no character of my
visible saintship to the church, cannot be an argument unto them
to receive me into fellowship with themselves. But this is true.
Therefore, &c.
You proceed, '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 fitted for church-fellowship, when God shall shew them the
orderly way to it.'
Ans. What a many private things have we now brought out to public
view? Private Christians, private means, and a private increase
of grace. But, Sir, Are none but those of your way the public
Christians? Or, ought none but them that are baptized to have the
public means of grace? Or, must their graces be increased by none
but private means? Was you awake now? Or, are you become so high
in your own phantasies, that none have, or are to have but private
means of grace? And, are there no public Christians, or public
christian meetings, but them of your way? I did not think that
all but baptists, should only abide in holes.
But you find fault because I said, 'Edification is greater than
contesting about water baptism.'
Ans. If it be not, confute me; if it be, forbear to cavil: water
baptism, and all God's ordinances, are to be used to edification;
not to beget heats and contentions among the godly, wherefore
edification is best.
Object. 'I had thought that the preaching, and opening baptism,
might have been reckoned a part of our edification.'
Ans. The act of water baptism hath not place in church worship,
neither in whole nor in part; wherefore pressing it upon the church
is to no purpose at all.
Object. 'Why may you not as well say, that edification is greater
than breaking of bread.'
Ans. So it is, else that should never have been instituted to
edify withal; that which serveth, is not greater than he that is
served thereby. Baptism and the Lord's supper both, were made for
us, not we for them; wherefore both were made for our edification,
but no one for our destruction. But again, The Lord's supper,
not baptism, is for the church, as a church; therefore as we will
maintain the church's edifying, that must be maintained in it; yea,
sued oft, to shew the Lord's death till he come (1 Cor 11:22-26).
Besides, because it is a great part of church worship, as such,
therefore it is pronounced blessed, the Lord did openly bless it
before he gave it; yea and we ought to bless it also; 'The cup of
blessing which we bless,' not to say more. Therefore your reasoning
from the one to the other will not hold.
Object. 'How comes contesting for water baptism to be so much
against you?'
Ans. First, Because weak brethren cannot bear it; whom yet we are
commanded to receive, but not to doubtful disputation; doubtful
to them, therefore for their sakes, I must forbear it (Rom 14:1).
Secondly, Because I have not seen any good effect, but the contrary,
wherever such hot spirits have gone before me: 'For where envying
and strife is, there is confusion,' or tumults, 'and every evil
work' (James 3:16).[12] Thirdly, Because by the example of the
Lord, and Paul, we must consider the present state of the church,
and not trouble them with what they cannot bear (John 16:13; 1
Cor 3:1-3). I conclude then, edification in the church is to be
preferred above what the church, as a church, hath nothing to do
withal. 'All things, dearly beloved, are for our edifying' (1 Cor
14:5, 12:26; 2 Cor 12:19; Eph 4:16; Rom 15:2; 1 Cor 14:3; 2 Cor
10:8, 13:10; Rom 14:19). Before I wind up this argument, I present
you with several instances, shewing that the breach of [some of]
God's precepts have been borne with, when they come in competition
with edification. As first, That of Aaron, who let the offering for
sin be burnt, that should have indeed been eaten (Lev 10:16-20).
Yet because he could not do it to his edification, Moses was
content. But the law was thereby transgressed, 'The priest that
offereth it for sin, shall eat it' (6:26).
To this you reply, 'That was not a constant, continued forbearing
of God's worship, but a suspending of it for a season.'
Ans. We also suspend it but for a season; when persons can be
baptized to their edification, they have the liberty. But, This
was not a bare suspension, but a flat transgression of the law. 'Ye
should indeed have eaten it.' Yet Moses was content (Lev 10:16-20).
But say you, 'Perhaps it was suspended upon just and legal grounds,
though not expressed.'
Ans. The express rule was against it; 'Ye should indeed [said
Moses] have eaten it in the holy place: as I commanded' (v 18). But
good Sir, are you now for unwritten verities? for legal grounds,
though not expressed? I will not drive you further, here is Rome
enough. As for Eldad and Medad, it cannot be denied, but that their
edifying of the people, was preferred before their conforming to
every circumstance (Num 11:16-26).
You add, 'That Paul for a seeming low thing did withstand Peter.'
Sir, If you make but a seeming low thing of dissembling, and teaching
others so to do, especially where the doctrine of justification
is endangered, I cannot expect much good conscience from you (Gal
2:11-13).
As for your answer to the case of Hezekiah, it is faulty in two
respects: 1. For that you make the passover a type of the Lord's
supper, when it was only a type of the body and blood of the Lord:
'For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' (1 Cor 5:7).
2. In that you make it an example to you to admit persons unprepared
to the Lord's supper.
Ans. May you indeed receive persons into the church unprepared
for the Lord's supper; yea, unprepared for that, with other solemn
appointments? For so you word it. O what an engine have you made
of water baptism. Thus, gentle reader, while this author teareth
us in pieces for not making [water] baptism the orderly rule
for receiving the godly and conscientious into communion; he can
receive persons if baptized, though unprepared for the supper, and
other solemn appointments? I would have thee consult the place,
and see if it countenanceth such an act. That a man who pleadeth
for a water baptism above the peace and edification of the church,
ought to be received, although unprepared, into the church to the
Lord's supper, and other solemn appointments; especially considering
the nature of right church constitution, and the severity
of God towards those that came unprepared to his table of old (1
Cor 11:28-30). A riddle indeed, That the Lord should, without a
word, so severely command, that all which want light in baptism,
be excluded church privileges; and yet against his word, admit
of persons unprepared, to the Lord's table, and other solemn
appointments.
But good Sir, why so short-winded? why could not you make the same
work with the other scriptures, as you did with these? I must leave
them upon you unanswered; and standing by my argument conclude,
That if laws and ordinances of old have been broken, and the breach
of them born with, when yet the observation of outward things was
more strictly commanded than now, if the profit and edification
of the church come in competition; how much more, may not we have
communion, church communion, when no law of God is transgressed
thereby. And note, That all this while I plead not, as you, for
persons unprepared, but godly, and such as walk with God.
We come now to my seventh argument, for communion with the godly,
though unbaptized persons; which you say is LOVE. My argument
is this; 'Therefore I am for communion thus; because love, which
above all things we are commanded to put on, is of much more worth
than to break about baptism.' And let the reader note, That of
this argument you deny not so much as one syllable, but run to
another story; but I will follow you. I add further, That love is
more discovered when we receive for the sake of Christ, than when
we refuse his children for want of water: And tell you again, That
this exhortation to love is grounded not upon [water] baptism,
but the putting on of the new creature, which hath swallowed up
all distinctions (Col 3:9-14). Yea, there are ten arguments in
this one, which you have not so much as touched; but thus object,
'That man that makes affection the rule of his walking, rather
than judgment, it is no wonder if he go out of the way.'
Ans. Love to them, we are persuaded that God hath received, is
love that is guided by judgment; and to receive them that are
such, because God hath bidden us (Rom 14), is judgment guided by
rule. My argument therefore hath forestalled all your noise, and
standeth still on its legs against you. As to the duties of piety
and charity, you boast of, sound not a trumpet, tell not your
left hand of it; we are talking now of communion of saints, church
communion, and I plead, that to love, and hold together as such,
is better than to break in pieces for want of water baptism. My
reason is, because we are exhorted in all things to put on love;
the love of church communion: contrariwise you oppose, Above all
things put on water. For the best saint under heaven that hath
not that, with him you refuse communion. Thus you make baptism,
though no church ordinance, a bar to shut out the godly, and a
trap-door to let the unprepared into churches, to the Lord's
supper, and other solemn appointments.
But you object, 'Must our love to the unbaptized indulge them
in an act of disobedience? Cannot we love their persons, parts,
graces, but we must love their sins?'
Ans. We plead not for indulging, 'But are there not with you,
even with you, sins against the Lord your God?' (2 Chron 28:10).
But why can you indulge the baptists in many acts of disobedience?
For to come unprepared into the church, is an act of disobedience:
To come unprepared to the supper is an act of disobedience; and to
come so also to other solemn appointments, are acts of disobedience.
'But for these things,' you say, 'you do not cast, nor keep any
out of the church.'
Ans. But what acts of disobedience do we indulge them in?
'In the sin of infant baptism.'
Ans. We indulge them not; but being commanded to bear with the
infirmities of each other, suffer it; it being indeed in our eyes
such; but in theirs they say a duty, till God shall otherwise
persuade them. If you be without infirmity, do you first throw a
stone at them: They keep their faith in that to themselves, and
trouble not their brethren therewith: we believe that God hath
received them; they do not want to us a proof of their sonship
with God; neither hath he made water a wall of division between
us, and therefore we do receive them.
Object. '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.'
Ans. If it be the highest piece of friendship, to preach water
baptism to unbaptized believers, the lowest act thereof must needs
be very low. But contrariwise, I count it so far off from being
any act of friendship, to press baptism in our notion on those
that cannot bear it; that it is a great abuse of the peace of
my brother, the law of love, the law of Christ, or the society
of the faithful. Love suffereth long, and is kind, is not easily
provoked: let us therefore follow after the things that make for
peace, and things wherewith one may edify another: let every one
of us please his neighbour, for his good to edification: Bear you
one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ (1 Cor 13;
Rom 14:19, 15:2; Gal 6:2).
But say you, 'I doubt when this comes to be weighed in God's
balance, it will be found no less than flattery, for which you
will be reproved.'
Ans. It seems you do but doubt it, wherefore the principles from
which you doubt it, of that methinks you should not be certain;
but this is of little weight to me; for he that will presume
to appropriate the epistles to himself and fellows, for the sake
of baptism, and that will condemn all the churches of Christ in
the land for want of baptism, and that will account his brother
as profane Esau and rejected, as idolatrous Ephraim because he
wanteth his way of water baptism; he acts out of his wonted way,
of rigidness, when he doth but doubt, and not affirm his brother
to be a flatterer. I leave therefore this your doubt to be resolved
at the day of judgment, and in the mean time trample upon your harsh
and unchristian surmises. As to our love to Christians in other
cases, I hope we shall also endeavour to follow the law of the
Lord; but because it respects not the matter in hand, it concerns
us not now to treat thereof.
My argument treateth of church communion; in the prosecution of
which I prove. 1. That love is grounded upon the new creature (Col
3:10-15). 2. Upon our fellowship with the Father and Son (1 John
1:2,3). 3. That with respect to this, it is the fulfilling of the
royal law (James 4:11; Rom 14:21). 4. That it shews itself in acts
of forbearing, rather than in publishing some truths: communicating
only what is profitable, forbearing to publish what cannot be born
(1 Cor 3:1,2; Acts 20:18-20; John 3:16,17). 5. I shew further, That
to have fellowship for, to make that the ground of, or to receive
one another chiefly upon the account of an outward circumstance;
to make baptism the including and excluding charter: the bounds,
bar, and rule of communion, when by the word of the everlasting
testament, there is no word for it, to speak charitably, if it
be not for want of love, it is for want of light in the mysteries
of the kingdom of Christ. Strange! Take two Christians equal in
all points but this; nay, let one go beyond the other in grace and
goodness, as far as a man is beyond a babe, yet water shall turn
the scale, shall open the door of communion to the less; and
command the other to stand back: yet is no proof to the church of
this babe's faith and hope, hath nothing to do with his entering
into fellowship, is no part of the worship of the church.[13]
These things should have been answered, seeing you will take upon
you so roundly to condemn our practice.
You come now to my eighth argument; which you do not only render
falsely, but by so doing abuse your reader. I said not that the
church at Corinth did shut each other out of communion; but, for
God's people to divide into parties, or to shut each other from
church communion, though for greater points, and upon higher
pretences, than that of water baptism, hath heretofore been counted
carnal, and the actors therein babyish Christians: and then bring
in the factions, that was in the church at Corinth. But what! May
not the evil of denying church communion now, if proved naught
by a less crime in the church at Corinth, be counted carnal and
babyish; but the breach of communion must be charged upon them at
Corinth also?
That my argument is good you grant, saying, 'The divisions of the
church at Corinth were about the highest fundamental principles,
for which they are often called carnal'; yet you cavil at it. But
if they were to be blamed for dividing, though for the highest
points; are not you much more for condemning your brethren to
perpetual banishment from church communion, though sound in all
the great points of the gospel, and right in all church ordinances
also, because for want of light they fail only in the point of
baptism?
As to your quibble about Paul and Apollos, whether they, or
others, were the persons, though I am satisfied you are out, yet
it weakeneth not my argument; for if they were blame worthy for
dividing, though about the highest fundamental principles, as you
say, how ought you to blush for carrying it as you do to persons,
perhaps, more godly than ourselves, because they jump not with
you in a circumstance? That the divisions at Corinth were helped
on by the abuse of baptism, to me is evident, from Paul's so oft
suggesting it: 'Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God
that I baptized none of you,--lest any should say, I had baptized
in mine own name' (1:13-15).
I do not say, that they who baptized them designed this, or that
baptism in itself effected it; nor yet, though our author feigns
it, 'that they were most of them baptized by their factious
leaders.' But that they had their factious leaders, is evident;
and that these leaders made use of the names of Paul, Apollos,
and Christ, is as evident; for by these names they were beguiled
by the help of ABUSED baptism.
But say you, 'Wherein lies the force of this man's argument against
baptism as to its place, worth, and continuance?'
I answer: I have no argument against its place, worth or continuance,
although thus you seek to scandalize me. But this kind of sincerity
of yours, will never make me one of your disciples. Have not I told
you even in this argument, 'That I speak not as I do, to persuade
or teach men to break the least of God's commandments; but that
my brethren of the baptized way may not hold too much thereupon,
may not make it an essential of the gospel, nor yet of the communion
of saints.' Yet he feigns that I urge two arguments against it.
But reader, thou mayest know I have no such reason in my book.
Besides, I should be a fool indeed, were I against it, should I
make use of such weak arguments. My words then are these: 'I thank
God,' said Paul, 'that I baptized none of you but Crispus,' &c.
'Not but that then it was an ordinance, but they abused it in making
parties thereby, as they abused also Paul, and Cephas. Besides,
said he, I know not whether I baptized any other. By this negligent
relating who were baptized by him, he sheweth that he made no
such matter thereof, as some in these days do. Nay, that he made
no matter at all thereof with respect to a church communion. For
if he did not heed who himself had baptized, much less did he heed
who were baptized by others? But if baptism had been the initiating
ordinance, and I now add, essential to church communion; then no
doubt he had made more conscience of it, than thus lightly to pass
it by.'
I add further, where he saith, He 'was not sent to baptize'; that
he spake with an holy indignation against those that had abused
that ordinance. 'Baptism is an holy ordinance, but when Satan
abuseth it, and wrencheth it out of its place, making that which
is ordained of God, for the edification of believers, the only
weapon to break in pieces the love, unity, and concord of the
saints; than as Paul said of himself and fellows (1 Cor 3:5-7).
What is baptism? Neither is baptism any thing? This is no new
doctrine, for God by the mouth of the prophet of old, cried out
against his own appointments, when abused by his own people (Isa
1:11-15); because they used them "for strife, and debate, and to
smite with the fist of wickedness"' (58:4). But to forbear, to
take notice thus of these things, my argument stands firm against
you: 'For if they at Corinth were blame worthy for dividing,
though their divisions were, if you say true, about the highest
fundamentals, you ought to be ashamed, thus to banish your brethren
from the privileges of church communion for ever, for the want of
so low a thing as water baptism.' I call it not low, with respect
to God's appointment, though so, it is far from the highest place,
but in comparison of those fundamentals, about which you say, 'the
Corinthians made their divisions.'
You come next to my ninth argument, and serve it as Hanun served
David's servants (2 Sam 10:4), you have cut off one half of its
beard, and its garments to its buttocks, thinking to send it home
with shame. You state it thus: 'That by denying communion with
unbaptized believers, you take from them their privileges to which
they are born.'
Ans. Have I such an argument, in all my little book? Are not my
words verbatim these? 'If we shall reject visible saints by
calling, saints that have communion with God; that have received
the law at the hand of Christ; that are of an holy conversation
among men, they desiring to have communion with us; as much
as in us lieth, we take from them their very privileges, and the
blessings to which they were born of God.' This is mine argument:
now confute it.
Paul saith, not only to the gathered church at Corinth, but to
all scattered saints, that in every place call upon the name of
the Lord (1 Cor 1:2). That if Jesus Christ is theirs; that Paul
and Apollos, and Cephas, and the world, and all things else was
theirs (3:22).
But you answer, 'We take from them nothing, but we keep them from
a disorderly practice of gospel ordinances, we offer them their
privileges, in the way of gospel order.'
Ans. Where have you one word of God, that forbiddeth a person, so
qualified, as is signified in mine argument, the best communion
of saints for want of water? There is not a syllable for this in
all the book of God. So then, you in this your plausible defence,
do make your scriptureless light, which in very deed is darkness
(Isa 8:20), the rule of your brother's faith; and how well you
will come off for this in the day of God, you might, were you not
wedded to your wordless opinion, soon begin to conceive.
I know your reply, 'New Testament saints are all baptized first.'
Ans. Suppose it granted: Were they baptized, that thereby they
might be qualified for their right to communion of saints, so
that, without their submitting to water, they were to be denied
the other? Further, suppose I should grant this groundless notion,
Were not the Jews in Old Testament times to enter the church by
circumcision? (Gen 17; Exo 12). For that, though water is not,
was the very entering ordinance. Besides, as I said before, there
was a full forbidding of all that were not circumcised from entering
into fellowship, with a threatening to cut them off from the church
if they entered in without it: yet more than six hundred thousand
entered that church without it. But how now, if such an one as
you had then stood up and objected, Sir Moses, What is the reason
that you transgress the order of God, to receive members without
circumcision? Is not that the very entering ordinance? Are not you
commanded to keep out of the church all that are not circumcised?
Yea, and for all those that you thus received, are you not commanded
to cast them out again, to cut them off from among this people
(Gen 17:13,14; Exo 12:44-46). I say, Would not this man have had
a far better argument to have resisted Moses, than you, in your
wordless notion, have to shut out men from the church, more holy
than many of ourselves? But do you think that Moses and Joshua,
and all the elders of Israel, would have thanked this fellow, or
have concluded that he spake on God's behalf? Or, that they should
then, for the sake of a better than what you call order, have set
to the work that you would be doing, even to break the church in
pieces for this?
But say you, 'If any will find or force another way into the sheep
fold than by the footsteps of the flock, we have no such custom
nor the churches of God.'
Ans. What was done of old I have shewed you, that Christ, not
baptism, is the way to the sheep fold, is apparent: and that the
person [who thus enters], in mine argument, is entitled to all
these, to wit, Christ, grace, and all the things of the kingdom
of Christ in the church, is, upon the scriptures urged, as evident.
But you add, 'That according to mine old confidence, I affirm,
That drink ye all of this is entailed to faith, not baptism: a
thing,' say you, 'soon said, but yet never proved.'
Ans. 1. That it is entailed to faith, must be confessed of all
hands. 2. That it is the privilege of him that discerneth the Lord's
body, and that no man is to deny him it, is also by the text as
evident, 'and so let him eat,' because he is worthy. Wherefore
he, and he only, that discerneth the Lord's body, he is the worthy
receiver, the worthy receiver in God's estimation; but that none
discern the Lord's body but the baptized [in water], is both fond
and ridiculous once to surmise.
Wherefore to exclude Christians, and to debar them their heaven-born
privileges, for want of that which yet God never made the wall of
division betwixt us: This looks too like a spirit of persecution
(Job 19:28), and carrieth in it those eighteen absurdities which
you have so hotly cried out against. And I do still add, 'Is
it not that which greatly prevailed with God to bring down those
judgments which at present we [the people of God] groan under,
I will dare to say it was,[14] A cause thereof.' Yea, I will yet
proceed; I fear, I strongly fear, that the rod of God is not yet
to be taken from us; for what [is a] more provoking sin among
Christians than to deny one another their rights and privileges,
to which they are born of God? And then to father these their
doings upon God, when yet he hath not commanded it, neither in
the New Testament nor the Old.
But I may not lightly pass this by, for because I have gathered
eighteen absurdities from this abuse of God's ordinances, or from
the sin of binding the brethren to observe order, not founded on
the command of God; and I am sure you have none to shut out men as
good, as holy, and as sound in faith as ourselves, from communion.
Therefore you call my conclusion devilish, top-full of ignorance
and prejudice, and me, one of Machiavel's scholars, also proud,
presumptuous, impeaching the judgment of God.
Ans. But what is there in my proposition, that men, considerate,
can be offended at? These are my words: 'But to exclude Christians
from church communion, and to debar them their heaven-born
privileges, for the want of that which yet God never made a wall
of division between us: this looks too like a spirit of persecution:
this respecteth more the form than the spirit and power of godliness,
&c. Shall I add, Is it not that which greatly prevailed to bring
down those judgments which at present we feel and groan under?
I will dare to say, it was a cause thereof.' A was in my copy,
instead whereof the printer put in the; for this, although I
speak only the truth, I will not beg of you belief; besides, the
bookseller desired me, because of the printer's haste, to leave
the last sheet to be overlooked by him, which was the cause it
was not among the erratas. But I say, wherein is the proposition
offensive? Is it not a wicked thing to make bars to communion,
where God hath made none? Is it not a wickedness to make that a
wall of division betwixt us which God never commanded to be so? If
it be not, justify your practice; if it be, take shame. Besides,
the proposition is universal, why then should you be the chief
intended? But you have in this done like to the lawyers of old,
who, when Christ reproved the pharisees of wickedness before them,
said, 'Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also' (Luke 11:45).
But you feign, and would also that the world should believe, that
the eighteen absurdities which naturally flow from the proposition
I make, to be the effects of baptism, saying to me, 'None but
yourself could find an innocent truth big with so many monstrous
absurdities.'
I answer: This is but speaking wickedly for God, or rather to
justify your wordless practice. I say not that baptism hath any
absurdity in it, though your abusing it, hath them all, and many
more, while you make it, without warrant from the word, as the
flaming sword, to keep the brotherhood out of communion, because
they, after your manner, cannot consent thereto. And let no man
be offended, for that I suggest that baptism may be abused to the
breeding such monstrous absurdities, for greater truths than that
have been as much abused. What say you to, 'This is my body?' To
instance no more, although I could instance many, are not they the
words of our Lord? Are not they part of the scriptures of truth?
and yet behold, even with those words, the devil, by abusing
them, made an engine to let out the heart-blood of thousands.[15]
Baptism also may be abused, and is, when more is laid upon it
by us than is commanded by God. And that you do so, is manifest
by what I have said already, and shall yet say to your fourteen
arguments.
My last argument, you say, is this: 'The world may wonder at your
carriage to these unbaptized persons, in keeping them out of
communion?'
Ans. You will set up your own words, and then fight against them;
but my words are these: 'What greater contempt can be thrown upon
the saints, than for their brethren to cut them off from, or to
debar them church communion.' And now I add, Is not this to deliver
them to the devil (1 Cor 5), or to put them to shame before all
that see your acts? There is but one thing can hinder this, and
that is, by-standers see that these, your brethren, that you thus
abuse, are as holy men as ourselves. Do you more to the openly
prophane, yea, to all wizards and witches in the land?[16] For
all you can do to them, I speak now as to church acts, is no other
than to debar them the communion of saints.
And now I say again, the world may well wonder, when they see
you deny holy men of God that liberty of the communion of saints
which you monopolise to yourselves: and though they do not understand
the grounds of profession, or communion, yet they can both see
and say, these holy men of God, in all visible acts of holiness,
are not one inch behind you. Yea, I will put it to yourselves, If
those many, yea, very many, who thus severely, but with how little
ground, is seen by men of God, you deny communion with; are not
of as good, as holy, as unblameable in life, and as sound, if not
sounder in the faith than many among ourselves: Here only they
make the stop, they cannot, without light, be driven into water
baptism, I mean after our notion of it: but what if they were, it
would be little sign to me, that they were sincere with God.
To conclude this; when you have proved that water baptism, which
you yourself have said is not a church ordinance, is essential
to church communion, and that the church may, by the word of God,
bolt, bar, and for ever shut out those, far better than ourselves,
that have not, according to our notion, been baptized with water;
then it will be time enough to talk of ground for so doing. In
the mean time I must take leave to tell you, 'There is not in all
the Bible one syllable for such a practice, wherefore your great
cry about your order is wordless, and therefore faithless, and
is a mere human invention.'
I COME NOW TO YOUR FOURTEEN ARGUMENTS, AND SHALL IMPARTIALLY
CONSIDER THEM.
Your first argument to prove it lawful to reject the unbaptized
saint, is, 'Because the great commission of Christ (Matt 28),
from which all persons have their authority for their ministry,
if any authority at all, doth clearly direct the contrary. By that
commission ministers are first to disciple, and then to baptize
them so made disciples, and afterwards to teach them to observe
all that Christ commanded them, as to other ordinances of worship.
If ministers have no other authority to teach them other parts of
gospel worship, before they believe and are baptized, it may be
strongly supposed they are not to admit them to other ordinances
before they have passed this first enjoined in the commission.'
Ans. 1. That the ministers are to disciple and baptize, is granted.
But that they are prohibited, by the commission (Matt 28), to
teach the disciples other parts of gospel worship that have not
light in baptism, remains for you to prove. Shall I add, this
position is so absurd and void of truth, that none that have
ever read the love of Christ, the nature of faith, the end of the
gospel, or of the reason of instituted worship (which is edification)
with understanding, should so much as once imagine.
But where are they here forbidden to teach them other truths before
they be baptized? This text as fairly denieth to the unbaptized
believer heaven and glory. Nay, our author, in the midst of all
his flutter about this 28th of Matthew, dare venture to gather
no more therefrom, but that it may be strongly supposed. Behold
therefore, gentle reader, the ground on which these brethren lay
the stress of their separation from their fellows, is nothing else
but a supposition, without warrant, screwed out of this blessed
word of God. Strongly supposed! but may it not be as strongly
supposed that the presence and blessing of the Lord Jesus, with
his ministers, is laid upon the same ground also? for thus he
concludes the text, 'And lo, I am with you alway even unto the
end of the world.' But would, I say, any man from these words
conclude, that Christ Jesus hath here promised his presence only
to them that, after discipling, baptize those that are so made;
and that they that do not baptize shall neither have his presence
nor his blessing? I say again, should any so conclude hence, would
not all experience prove him void of truth? The words therefore
must be left, by you, as you found them, they favour not at all
your groundless supposition.
To conclude, these words have not laid baptism in the way to debar
the saint from fellowship of his brethren, no more than to hinder
his inheritance in life and glory. Mark reads it thus: 'He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned' (Mark 16:16). Letting baptism, which he
mentioned in the promise, fall, when he came at the threatening.
God also doth thus with respect to his worship in the church, he
commands all and every whit of his will to be done, but beareth
with our coming short in this, and that, and another duty. But
let's go on.
Your second argument is, 'That the order of Christ's commission,
as well as the matter therein contained to be observed, may easily
be concluded, from God's severity towards them that sought him not
according to due order (1 Chron 15:13). Was God so exact with his
people then, that all things to a pin must be according to the pattern
in the mount (Heb 8:5, 9:11), whose worship then comparatively,
to the gospel, was but after the law of a carnal commandment; and
can it be supposed he should be so indifferent now to leave men
to their own liberty, to time and place his appointments, contrary
to what he had given an express rule for in his word as before?
(Eze 44:7,9,10). It was the priest's sin, formerly to bring the
uncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house.'
Ans. That there is no such order in that commission as you feign,
I have proved. As for your far-fetch'd instance (1 Chron 15),
it is quite beside your purpose. The express word was, That the
priest, not a cart, should bear the ark of God. Also they were
not to touch it, and yet Uzza did (Exo 25:14; 1 Chron 15:12-16;
Num 4:15; 1 Chron 13). Now, if you can make that 28th of Matthew
say, Receive none that are not baptized first; or that Christ
would have them of his, that are not yet baptized, kept ignorant
of all other truths that respect church communion; then you say
something, else you do but raise a mist before the simple reader:
but whoso listeth may hang on your sleeve. As for the pins and
tacks of the tabernacle, they were expressly commanded; and when
you have proved by the word of God, That you ought to shut saints
out of your communion for want of baptism, then you may begin more
justly to make your parallel. How fitly you have urged (Eze 44)
to insinuate that unbaptized believers are like the uncircumcised
in heart and flesh, I leave it to all gospel-novices to consider.
Your third argument is, 'The practice of the first gospel-ministers,
with them that first trusted in Christ, discovers the truth of
what I assert. Certainly they that lived at the spring-head, or
fountain of truth, and had the law from Christ's own mouth, knew
the meaning of his commission better than we: but their constant
practice in conformity to that commission, all along the Acts of
the Apostles, discovers that they never arrived to such a latitude
as men plead for now-a-days. They that gladly received the word
were baptized, and they, yea they only, were received into the
church.'
Ans. How well you have proved what you have asserted, is manifest
by my answer to the two former arguments. I add, That the ministers
and servants of Jesus Christ in the first churches, for that you
are to prove, were commanded to forbear to preach other truths to
the unbaptized believers; or that they were to keep them out of
the church; or that the apostles, and first fathers, have given
you to understand by their example, that you ought to keep as
good out of churches as yourselves, hath not yet been shewed by
the authority of the word. The second of the Acts proveth not,
That the three thousand were necessitated to be baptized in order
to their fellowship with the church, neither doth it say THEY, yea
they only, were received into the church. But suppose all this,
as much was done at the first institution of circumcision, &c.,
yet afterwards thousands were received without it.
Your fourth argument is, 'None of the scripture saints ever attempted
this church privilege without baptism, if they did, let it be
shewn. The eunuch first desired baptism before anything else; Paul
was first baptized before he did essay to join with the church.
Our Lord Christ, the great example of the New Testament, entered
not upon his public ministry, much less any other gospel ordinance
of worship, till he was baptized.'
Ans. That none of the scripture saints, if there be any unscripture
ones, so much as attempted this church-privilege first, remains
for you to prove. But suppose they were all baptized, because
they had light therein, what then? Doth this prove that baptism
is essential to church communion? Or, that Christ commanded in
the 28th of Matthew, or gave his ministers by that, authority,
not to make known to believers other parts of gospel-worship, if
they shall want light in baptism? The eunuch, Paul, and our blessed
Lord Jesus, did none of them, by their baptism, set themselves to
us examples how to enter into church communion; what church was
the eunuch baptized into, or made a member of; but where is it
said, that the unbaptized believer, how excellent soever in faith
and holiness, must, for want of water baptism, be shut out from the
communion of saints, or be debarred the privilege of his Father's
house? This you are to prove.
Your fifth argument is, 'If Christ himself was made manifest to
be the SENT of God by baptism, as appears (Mark 1:9,10), then why
may not baptism, as the first fruits of faith, and the first step
of gospel-obedience, as to instituted worship, be a manifesting
discovering ordinance upon others who thus follow Christ's steps.'
Ans. That Jesus Christ was manifested as the SENT of God by baptism,
or that baptism is the first fruit of faith and the first step to
gospel-obedience, as to instituted worship, is both without proof
and truth; the text saith not, he was manifest to be the 'sent'
of God by baptism; nay it saith not, that by that he was manifest
to others to be anything thereby: you have therefore but wronged
the text to prove your wordless practice by. Yea, John himself,
though he knew him before he was baptized, to be a man of God,
for, saith he, 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest
thou to me' (Matt 3:14), and knew him after to be the 'sent' of
God; yet not in, or by, but after he was baptized, to wit, by the
descending of the Holy Ghost, after he was come out of the water,
as he was in prayer, for the heavens were opened to John (John
1:30-34), and he saw, and bare record, because he saw the Spirit
descend from heaven, and abide upon Jesus, after his baptism, as
he was in prayer (Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21,22). Thus we find him
made known before and after, but not at all by baptism, to be the
'sent' of God.
And that baptism is the fruit of faith, or that faith ought to be
tied to take its first step in water baptism, in the instituted
worship of God; this you must prove, it is not found expressed
within the whole Bible. Faith acts according to its strength and
as it sees, it is not tied or bound to any outward circumstance;
one believeth he may, and another believeth he may not, either do
this or that.
Your sixth argument is, 'If baptism be in any sense any part of
the foundation of a church, as to order (Heb 6:1,2), it must
have place here or no where: why are those things called first
principles, if not first to be believed and practised? Why are
they rendered by the learned the A, B, C, of a Christian, and
the beginning of Christianity, milk for babes, if it be no matter
whether baptism be practised or no? If it be said water baptism
is not there intended, let them shew me how many baptisms there
are besides water baptism? Can you build and leave out a stone in
the foundation? I intend not baptism a foundation any other ways
but in respect of order, and it is either intended for that or
nothing.'
Ans. Baptism is in no sense the foundation of a church. I find
no foundation of a church but Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18;
1 Cor 3:11). Yea, the foundation mentioned (Heb 6:1,2) is nothing
else but this very Christ. For he is the foundation, not only of
the church, but of all that good that at any time is found in her.
He is the foundation OF our repentance, and OF our faith towards
God (vv 1,2). Further, baptisms are not here mentioned with
respect to the act in water, but of the doctrine; that is, the
signification thereof. 'The doctrine of baptisms.' And observe,
neither faith, nor repentance, nor baptisms, are called here
foundations: Another thing, for a foundation, is here by the Holy
Ghost intended, even a foundation for them all: a foundation of
faith, of repentance, of the doctrine of baptisms, of the resurrection
of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this foundation is Jesus
Christ himself, and these are the first principles, the milk, the
A, B, C, and the beginning of Christian religion in the world.
I dare not say, No matter whether water baptism be practised or
no. But it is not a stone in the foundation of a church, no not
respecting order; it is not, to another, a sign of my sonship
with God; it is not the door into fellowship with the saints, it
is no church ordinance, as you, yourself, have testified. So then
as to church work, it hath no place at all therein.
Your seventh argument is, 'If Paul knew the Galatians only upon
the account of charity, No other ways to be the sons of God by
faith; but by this part of their obedience, as he seems to import,
then the same way we judge of the truth of men's profession of
faith, when it shows itself by this selfsame obedience. Baptism
being an obligation to all following duties' (Gal 3:26,27).
Ans. This your argument, being builded upon no more than a SEEMING
import, and having been above ten times overthrown already; I might
leave still with you, till your seeming import is come to a real
one, and both to a greater persuasion upon your own conscience.
But verily Sir, you grossly abuse your reader; must imports, yea,
must seeming imports now stand for arguments, thereby to maintain
your confident separation from your brethren? Yea, must such things
as these, be the basis on which you build those heavy censures and
condemnations you raise against your brethren, that cannot comply
with you, because you want the word? A seeming import. But are
these words of faith? or do the scriptures only help you to seeming
imports, and me-hap-soes[17] for your practice? No, nor yet to them
neither, for I dare boldly affirm it, and demand, if you can, to
prove, that there is so much as a seeming import in all the word of
God, that countenanceth your shutting men, better than ourselves,
from the things and privileges of our Father's house. That to the
Galatians, saith not, that Paul knew them to be the sons of God
by faith, no other way, but by THIS part of their obedience; but
puts them upon concluding themselves the sons of God, if they
were baptized into the Lord Jesus, which could not, ordinarily,
be known but unto themselves alone; because, being thus baptized,
respecteth a special act of faith, which only God and him that
hath, and acteth it, can be privy to. It is one thing for him
that administereth, to baptize in the name of Jesus, and another
thing for him that is the subject, by that to be baptize INTO Jesus
Christ: Baptizing into Christ, is rather the act of the faith of
him that is baptized, than his going into water and coming out
again. But that Paul knew this to be the state of the Galatians
no other way, but by their external act of being baptized with
water, is both wild and unsound, and a miserable IMPORT indeed.
Your eighth argument is, 'If being baptized into Christ, be a
putting on of Christ, as Paul expressed, then they have not put on
Christ, in that sense he means, that are not baptized; if this
putting on of Christ, doth not respect the visibility of Christianity;
assign something else as its signification; great 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 unto; which is in itself as much an obligation to all
gospel obedience, as circumcision was to keep the whole law.'
Ans. For a reply to the first part of this argument, go back to
the answer to the seventh. Now that none have put on Christ in
Paul's sense; yea, in a saving, in the best sense; but them that
have, as you would have them, gone into water, will be hard for
you to prove, yea, is ungodly for you to assert. Your comparing
water baptism to a gentleman's livery, by which his name is known
to be his, is fantastical. Go you but ten doors from where men have
knowledge of you, and see how many of the world, or Christians,
will know you by this goodly livery, to be one that hath put on
Christ. What! known by water baptism to be one that hath put on
Christ, as a gentleman's man is known to be his master's servant,
by the gay garment his master gave him. Away fond man, you do
quite forget the text. 'By THIS shall all men know that ye are
my disciples, if ye have love one to another' (John 13:35). That
baptism is in itself obliging, to speak properly, it is false, for
set it by itself, and it stands without the stamp of heaven upon
it, and without its signification also: and how, as such, it
should be obliging, I see not. Where you insinuate, it comes in
the room of, and obligeth as circumcision: you say, you know not
what (Acts 15:1,2). Circumcision was the initiating ordinance, but
this you have denied to baptism. Further, circumcision then bound
men to the whole obedience of the law, when urged by the false
apostles, and received by an erroneous conscience (Gal 5:1-4).
Would you thus urge water baptism! would you have men to receive
it with such consciences? Circumcision in the flesh, was a type of
circumcision in the heart, and not of water baptism (Rom 2:28,29;
Phil 3:3).
Your ninth argument is, 'If it were commendable in the Thessalonians,
that they followed the footsteps of the church of Judea (1 Thess
2:14), who it appears followed this order of adding baptized
believers unto the church; then they that have found out another
way of making church members, are not by that rule praiseworthy,
but rather to be blamed; it was not what was since in corrupted
times, but that which was from the beginning: the first churches
were the purest pattern.'
Ans. That the text saith there was a church of Judea, I find not
in 1 Thessalonians 2:14. And that the Thessalonians are commended
for refusing to have communion with the unbaptized believers,
for that is our question, prove it by the word, and then you do
something. Again, that the commendations (1 Thess 2:14) do chiefly,
or at all, respect their being baptized: or, because they followed
the churches of God, which in Judea were in Christ Jesus, in the
example of water baptism is quite beside the word. The verse runs
thus: 'For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God
which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like
things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.'
This text then commends them, not for that they were baptized with
water, but, for that they stood their ground, although baptized
with suffering, like them in Judea, for the name of the Lord Jesus.
For suffering like things of their own countrymen, as they did of
the Jews. Will you not yet leave off to abuse the word of God, and
forbear turning it out of its place, to maintain your unchristian
practice of rejecting the people of God, and excluding them their
blessed privileges. The unbaptized believer, instead of taking
shame for entering into fellowship without it, will be ready, I
doubt, to put you to shame for bringing scriptures so much beside
the purpose, and for stretching them so miserably to uphold you
in your fancies.
Your tenth argument is, 'If so be, that any of the members at
Corinth, Galatia, Colosse, Rome, or them that Peter wrote to,
were not baptized, then Paul's arguments for the resurrection to
them, or to press them to holiness from the ground (Rom 6; Col
2; 1 Cor 15) was out of doors, and altogether needless, yea, it
bespeaks his ignorance, and throweth contempt upon the Spirit's
wisdom (Heb 6; 1 Peter 3:21) by which he wrote; if that must be
asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end, which had no
being: and if all the members of all those churches were baptized,
why should any plead for an exemption from baptism, for any church
member now?'
Ans. Suppose all, if all these churches were baptized, what then?
that answereth not our question. We ask where you find it written,
that those that are baptized, should keep men as holy, and as much
beloved of the Lord Jesus as themselves, out of church communion,
for want of light in water baptism. Why we plead for their admission,
though ye see not yet, that this is their duty, is because we
are not forbidden, but commanded to receive them, because God and
Christ hath done it (Rom 14, 15).
Your eleventh argument is, 'If unbaptized persons must be received
into churches, only because they are believers, though they deny
baptism; then why may not others plead 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 will. So then
as the consequence of this principle, churches may be made up of
visible sinners, instead of visible saints.'
Ans. 1. I plead not for believers simply because they are believers,
but for such believers of whom we are persuaded by the word, that
God hath received them. 2. There are some of the ordinances, that
be they neglected, the being of a church, as to her visible gospel
constitution, is taken quite away; but baptism is none of them,
it being no church ordinance as such, nor any part of faith, nor
of that holiness of heart, or life, that sheweth me to the church
to be indeed a visible saint. The saint is a saint before, and
may walk with God, and be faithful with the saints, and to his
own light also though he never be baptized. Therefore to plead for
his admission, makes no way at all for the admission of the open
prophane, or to receive, as you profess you do, persons unprepared
to the Lord's table, and other solemn appointments.
Your twelfth argument is, 'Why should professors have more light
in breaking of bread, than baptism? That this must be so urged for
their excuse: Hath God been more sparing in making out his mind
in the one, rather than the other? Is there more precepts or
precedents for the supper, than baptism? Hath God been so bountiful
in making out himself about the supper, that few or none that own
ordinances scruple it? And must baptism be such a rock of offence
to professors, that very few will enquire 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 plead for so gross a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes
of the first gospel times were never guilty of?'
Ans. Many words to little purpose. 1. Must God be called to an
account by you, why he giveth more light about the supper than
baptism? May he not shew to, or conceal from this, or another of
his servants, which of his truths he pleaseth. Some of the members
of the church at Jerusalem had a greater truth than this kept
from them, for ought I know, as long as they lived (Acts 11:19),
yet God was not called in question about it. 2. Breaking of
bread, not baptism, being a church ordinance, and that such also
as must be often reiterated; yea, it being an ordinance so full of
blessedness, as lively to present union and communion with Christ
to all the members that worthily eat thereof: I say, the Lord's
supper being such, that while the members sit at that feast, they
shew to each other the death and blood of the Lord, as they ought
to do, till he comes (1 Cor 10:15-17, 11:25,26). The church as a
church, is much more concerned in that, than in water baptism, both
as to her faith and comfort; both as to her union and communion.
3. Your supposition, that very few professors will seriously inquire
after water baptism, is too rude. What, must all the children of
God, that are not baptized for want of light, be still stigmatised
with want of serious inquiry after God's mind in it. 4. That I am an
advocate, entertained to plead for so gross a piece of ignorance,
as want of light in baptism, is but like the rest of your jumbling.
I plead for communion with men, godly and faithful, I plead that
they may be received, that God hath shewed us he hath received,
and commanded we should receive them.
Your thirteenth argument is, 'If obedience must discover the truth
of a man's faith to others, why must baptism be shut out, as if
it was no part of gospel 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
a Christian's obedience, to make way for a church fellowship of
man's devising.'
Ans. 1. This is but round, round, the same thing over and over.
That my obedience to water, is not a discovery of my faith to
others, is evident, from the body of the Bible, we find nothing
that affirms it. And I will now add, That if a man cannot shew
himself a Christian without water baptism; he shall never shew
either saint or sinner, that he is a Christian by it. 2. Who [soever]
they are that despise it, I know not but that church membership
may be without it, (seeing even you yourself have concluded it
is no church ordinance, nor the entering ordinance) standeth both
with scripture and reason, as mine arguments make manifest. So
that all your arguments prove no more but this, 'That you are so
wedded to your wordless notions, that charity can have no place
with you.' Have you all this while so much as given me one small
piece of a text to prove it unlawful for the church, to receive
those whom she, by the word, perceiveth the Lord God and her
Christ hath received? No: and therefore you have said so much as
amounts to nothing.
Your last argument is, 'If the baptism of John was so far honoured
and dignified, that they that did submit to it, are said to justify
God; and those that did it not, are said to reject his counsel
against themselves: so that their receiving, or rejecting the whole
doctrine of God, hath its denomination from this single practice.
And is there not as much to be said of the baptism of Christ,
unless you will say it is inferior to John's in worth and use.'
Ans. 1. That our denomination of believers, and of our receiving
the doctrine of the Lord Jesus, is not to be reckoned from our
baptism, is evident; because according to our notion of it, they
only that have before received the doctrine of the gospel, and
so shew it us by their confession of faith, they only ought to
be baptized. This might serve for an answer for all: but, 2. The
Baptism of John was 'the baptism of repentance, for the remission
of sins' (Mark 1:4; Matt 3;6; Luke 3:3), of which water was but
an outward signification. Now what is the baptism of repentance,
but an unfeigned acknowledgment that they were sinners, and so
stood in need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ. This baptism, or baptism
under this notion, the Pharisees would not receive (Luke 7:29,30).
For they 'trusted in themselves that they were righteous,' that
they were 'not as other men,' that they had need of no repentance
(Luke 18:9, 10:29, 15:7). Not but that they would have been baptized
with water, might that have been without an acknowledgment that
they were sinners (Matt 3:7); wherefore seeing the counsel of God
respected rather the remission of sins by Jesus Christ, than the
outward act of water baptism, ye ought not, as you do, by this
your reasoning, to make it rather, at least in the revelation
of it, to terminate in the outward act of being baptized, but in
unfeigned and sound repentance, and the receiving of Jesus Christ
by faith (Eph 1:7,8,11).
Further, A desire to submit to John's water baptism, or of being
baptized by him in water, did not demonstrate by that single act,
the receiving of the whole doctrine of God as you suggest. 'Why
did John reject the Pharisees that would have been baptized (Matt
3:7), and Paul examine them that were?' (Acts 19:2,3). If your
doctrine be true, why did they not rather say, Oh! seeing you
desire to be baptized, seeing you have been baptized, you need not
to be questioned any further; your submitting to John's water, to
us is a sufficient testimony, even that single act, that you have
received the whole doctrine of God. But I say, why did John call
them vipers? And Paul asked them, Whether they had yet 'received
the Holy Ghost?' Yea, it is evident, that a man may be desirous
of water, that a man may be baptized, and neither own the doctrine
of repentance, nor know on whom he should believe; evident, I say,
and that by the same texts (Matt 3:7; Acts 19:2-4).
You have grounded therefore this your last argument, as also the
rest, upon an utter mistake of things.
I COME NOW TO YOUR Questions; WHICH ALTHOUGH THEY BE MIXED WITH
GALL, I WILL WITH PATIENCE SEE IF I CAN TURN THEM INTO FOOD.
[Quest. 1.] Your first question is, 'I ask your own heart, whether
popularity and applause of variety of professors, be not in the
bottom of what you have said; that hath been your snare to pervert
the right ways of the Lord, and to lead others into a path wherein
we can find none of the footsteps of the flock in the first ages?'
Ans. Setting aside a retaliation, like your question, I say, and
God knows I speak the truth, I have been tempted to do what I have
done, by a provocation of sixteen years long; tempted, I say, by
the brethren of your way: who, whenever they saw their opportunity,
have made it their business to seek to rend us in pieces; mine
ownself they have endeavoured to persuade to forsake the church;
some they have rent quite off from us, others they have attempted
and attempted to divide and break off from us, but by the mercy
of God, have been hitherto prevented. A more large account you
may have in my next, if you think good to demand it; but I thank
God that I have written what I have written.
Quest. 2. 'Have you dealt brotherly, or like a Christian, to
throw so much dirt upon your brethren, in print, in the face of
the world, when you had an opportunity to converse with them of
reputation amongst us, before printing, being allowed the liberty
by them, at the same time for you to speak among them?'
Ans. I have thrown no dirt upon them, nor laid any thing to their
charge, if their practice be warrantable by the word; but you
have not been offended at the dirt yourselves have thrown at all
the godly in the land that are not of our persuasion, in counting
them unfit to be communicated with, or to be accompanied with in
the house of God. This dirt you never complained of, nor would,
I doubt, to this day, might you be still let alone to throw it.
As to my book, it was printed before I spake with any of you, or
knew whether I might be accepted of you. As to them of reputation
among you, I know others not one tittle inferior to them, and have
my liberty to consult with who I like best.
Quest. 3. 'Doth your carriage answer the law of love or civility,
when the brethren used means to send for you for a conference,
and their letter was received by you, that you should go out again
from the city after knowledge of their desires, and not vouchsafe
a meeting with them, when the glory of God, and the vindication
of so many churches is concerned.'
Ans. The reason why I came not amongst you, was partly because I
consulted mine own weakness, and counted not myself, being a dull
headed man, able to engage so many of the chief of you, as I was
then informed intended to meet me. I also feared, in personal
disputes, heats and bitter contentions might arise, a thing my
spirit hath not pleasure in: I feared also, that both myself and
words would be misrepresented; and that not without cause, for
if they that answer a book will alter, and screw arguments out of
their place, and make my sentences stand in their own words, not
mine, when I say my words are in a book to be seen, what would you
have done, had I in the least, either in matter or manner, though
but seemingly miscarried among you. As for the many churches which
you say are concerned, as also the glory of God, I doubt not to
say they are only your wordless opinions that are concerned; the
glory of God is vindicated: We receive him that God hath received,
and that 'to the glory of God' (Rom 15:7).
Quest. 4. 'Is it not the spirit of Diotrephes of old, in you, who
loved to have the pre-eminence, that you are so bold to keep out
all the brethren, 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,
among them that are contrary minded to you? Is this the way of
your retaliation? Or are you afraid lest the truth should invade
your quarters?'
Ans. I can say, I would not have the spirit you talk of; what
I have of it, God take it from me. But what was the spirit of
Diotrephes? Why, not to receive the brethren into the church, and
to forbid them that would (3 John 9,10). This do not I; I am for
communion with saints, because they are saints: I shut none of the
brethren out of the churches, nor forbid them that would receive
them. I say again, shew me the man that is a visible believer, and
that walketh with God; and though he differ with me about baptism,
the doors of the church stand open for him, and all our heaven-born
privileges he shall be admitted to them. But how came Diotrephes so
lately into our parts? Where was he in those days that our brethren
of the baptized way, would neither receive into the church, nor
pray with men as good as themselves, because they were not baptized;
but would either, like Quakers, stand with their hats on their
heads, or else withdraw till we had done.
As to our not suffering those you plead for to preach in our
assemblies, the reason is, because we cannot yet prevail with
them, to repent of their church-rending principles. As to the
retaliation, mind the hand of God, and remember Adonibezek (Judg
1:7). Let the truth come into our quarters and welcome, but
sowers of discord, because the Lord hates it (Prov 6:19), we also
ourselves will AVOID them (Rom 16:17,18).
Quest. 5. 'Is there no contempt cast upon the brethren, who desired
your satisfaction, that at the same time, when you have opportunity
to speak to them, instead of that, you committed the letters to
others, by way of reflection upon them?'
Ans. It is no contempt at all to consult men more wise and judicious
than him that wrote, or myself either. But why not consult
with others. Is wisdom to die with you? Or do you count all that
yourselves have no hand in, done to your disparagement?
Quest. 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?'
Ans. What provoked you to print, will be best known at the day of
judgment, whether your fear of losing your wordless opinion, or
my plain answer to your letter: The words in my letter are, 'As
for my book never defer its answer till you speak with me, for I
strive not for mastery but truth.' Though you did not desire to
write, yet with us there was continual labour to rend us to pieces,
and to prevent that, was my first book written. And let who will
take advantage, so the truth of God, and the edification of my
brother be promoted.
Quest. 7. 'Whether your principle and practice is not equally
against others as well as us, viz. Episcopal, Presbyterians, and
Independents, who are also 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?'
Ans. I own water baptism to be God's ordinance, but I make no
idol of it. Where you call now the Episcopal to side with you, and
also the Presbyterian, &c. you will not find them easily persuaded
to conclude with you against me. They are against your manner of
dipping, as well as the subject of water baptism; neither do you,
for all you flatter them, agree together in all but the subject.
Do you allow their sprinkling? Do you allow their signing with
the cross? Why then have you so stoutly, an hundred times over,
condemned these things as antichristian. I am not against every
man, though by your abusive language you would set every one
against me; but am for union, concord, and communion with saints,
as saints, and for that cause I wrote my book.
To conclude,--1. In all I have said, I put a difference between my
brethren of the baptized way; I know some are more moderate than
some. 2. When I plead for the unbaptized, I chiefly intend those
that are not so baptized as my brethren judge right, according
to the first pattern. 3. If any shall count my papers worth the
scribbling against, let him deal with my arguments, and things
immediately depending upon them, and not conclude that he hath
confuted a book, when he hath only quarrelled at words. 4. I have
done when I have told you, that I strive not for mastery, nor to
shew myself singular; but, if it might be, for union and communion
among the godly. And count me not as an enemy, because I tell you
the truth. 5. And now, dissenting brethren, I commend you to God,
who can pardon your sin, and give you more grace, and an inheritance
among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
HERE FOLLOWETH MR. HENRY JESSEY'S JUDGMENT UPON THE SAME ARGUMENT.
'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' &c.--Romans 14:1
Whereas some suppose the receiving there mentioned, was but receiving
into brotherly affection, such as were in church fellowship; but
not a receiving of such as were weak into the church. For answer
unto which consider,
That in the texts are two things to be inquired into. First,
What weakness of faith this is, that must not hinder receiving.
Secondly, by whom, and to what, he that is weak in the faith is
to be received?
First, To the first, What weakness of faith this is that must not
hinder receiving, whether was it weakness in the graces of faith,
or in the doctrine of faith? It is conceived that the first is
included, but the second principally intended.
1. That some of the Lord's people are weak in the graces of faith,
will be confessed by all (Mark 9:24; Luke 24:25) and that the Lord
would have his lambs fed as well as his sheep, and his children
as well as grown men, and that he hath given the right to gospel
privileges, not to degrees of grace, but to the truth; 'him
that is weak in the faith receive ye': or unto you, as some GOOD
translations read it (Rom 14:1).[18]
2. It is supposed, that this command of receiving him that is weak
in the faith, doth principally intend, that is weak in the doctrine
of faith, and that not so much in the doctrine of justification,
as in gospel institutions, as doth appear by the second and sixth
verses: which shew, that it was in matters of practice, wherein
some were weak, and at which others were offended; notwithstanding
the glorious Lord who bears all his Israel upon his heart receives
them (v 3) and commandeth, 'him that is weak in the faith receive
ye,' or unto you.
Second, Therefore, here we are to inquire of the receiving in the
text, By whom, and to what he that is weak in the faith, should
be received. In which inquiry there are two parts. 1. By whom. 2.
To what.
1. To the first. The text makes answer, 'Him that is weak in the
faith receive ye,' or unto you; which must be the church at Rome,
to whom the epistle was writ; as also to all 'beloved of God, called
to be saints' (Rom 1:7). And as to them, so unto all churches and
saints, Beloved and called throughout the world.
Note, That epistles are as well to direct how churches are to
carry things towards saints without, as to saints within; and also
toward all men so as to give no offence to Jew or Gentile, nor to
the church of God (1 Cor 10:32).
2. The second part of the inquiry is, to what he that is weak in
the faith is to be received? whether only unto mutual affection,
as some affirm, as if he were in church fellowship before, that
were weak in the faith? Or whether the text doth as well, if not
rather intend, the receiving such as were, and are weak in the
faith, Not only unto mutual affection if in the church, but unto
church fellowship also, if they were out. For clearing of which
consider, to whom the epistle was written (Rom 1:7). Not only
to the church there, but unto all that were beloved of God, and
called to be saints in all ages. And as at Rome it is like there
then were, and in other places now are, saints weak in the faith,
both in and out of church fellowship; and it is probable there
then were, and elsewhere now are, those that will cast such out
of their mutual affection. And if they will cast such out of their
mutual affection that are within, no doubt they will keep out of
their church fellowship those that are without.
Arg. 1. Whereas the Lord's care extends to all his, and if it
were a good argument in the third verse, for them to receive those
within, because God hath received them, it would be as good an
argument to receive in those without, for God hath received them
also: unless it could be proved, that all that were and are weak
in the faith, were and are in church fellowship, which is not
likely: for if they would cast such out of their affection that are
within, they would upon the same account keep them out of church
fellowship that were without: therefore as it is a duty to receive
those within unto mutual affection, so it is no less a duty, by
the text, to receive such weak ones as are without, into church
fellowship.
Arg. 2. Is urged from the words themselves, which are, 'Receive
him that is weak in the faith'; wherein the Lord puts NO limitation
in this text or in any other; and who is he then that can restrain
it, unless he will limit the Holy One of Israel? And how would
such an interpretation foolishly charge the Lord, as if he took
care ONLY of those within, but not like care of those without;
whereas he commandeth them to receive them, and useth this motive,
he had received them, and he receiveth those that are weak in the
faith, if without, as well as those within.