Part 1
Differences in Judgment
ABOUT Water-Baptism,
No Bar to Communion
John Bunyan.
London, Printed for John Wilkins, 1673.
To Communicate with Saints, as Saints, proved lawful.
In answer to a book written by the Baptists, and published by Mr. T.
P. And Mr. W. K. Entitled, some serious reflections on that part of Mr. Bunyan's confession of faith, touching church-communion with
unbaptized believers.
Wherein, their objections and arguments are answered, and the doctrine of communion still asserted and vindicated. Here is also Mr. Henry Jesse's judgment in the case, fully declaring the doctrine I
have asserted.
_________________________________
Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified? Should thy lies make men hold their peace?
and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee an answer? Job
11:2, 3.
_________________________________
I am for Peace, but when I speak they are for War. Psal. 120:7.
London, Printed for John Wilkins, and are to be sold at his Shop in
Exchange-Alley, next door to the Exchange-Coffee-House, over
against the Royal-Exchange, 1673.
The team from PROJECT PURITAS (Logan West with
David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf) offered an edited draft
obtained from the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
LIBRARY, published in 1673 in London for John Wilkins.
This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This
license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any
medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial
purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Edited, formatted, and published by Crowdedship, October 2024.
Table of Contents
To the Reader ..................................................................................... 7
Differences in Judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion. ....................................................................................... 9
First Argument .............................................................................. 24
Second Argument ......................................................................... 28
Third Argument ............................................................................ 34
Fourth Argument .......................................................................... 43
Fifth Argument ............................................................................. 48
Sixth Argument ............................................................................. 50
Seventh Argument ........................................................................ 57
Eighth Argument .......................................................................... 62
Ninth Argument ............................................................................ 65
Tenth Argument ............................................................................ 71
I come now to your Fourteen Arguments ........................................ 74
First Argument .............................................................................. 74
Second Argument ......................................................................... 76
Third Argument ............................................................................ 77
Fourth Argument .......................................................................... 78
Fifth Argument ............................................................................. 79
Sixth Argument ............................................................................. 81
Seventh Argument ........................................................................ 82
Eighth Argument .......................................................................... 84
Ninth Argument ............................................................................ 85
Tenth Argument ............................................................................ 86
Eleventh Argument ....................................................................... 87
Twelfth Argument ........................................................................ 88
Thirteenth Argument .................................................................... 90
Fourteenth Argument .................................................................... 91
I come now to your Questions ......................................................... 94
Question 1 ..................................................................................... 94
Question 2 ..................................................................................... 95
Question 3 ..................................................................................... 95
Question 4 ..................................................................................... 96
Question 5 ..................................................................................... 98
Question 6 ..................................................................................... 98
Question 7 ..................................................................................... 99
To Conclude .................................................................................. 99
Henry Jessey's Judgment ............................................................... 101
To the Reader
Courteous Reader,
Be entreated to believe me, I had not set Pen to Paper about this
Controversy, had we been let alone at quiet in our Christian
Communion. But being assaulted for more than sixteen years;
wherein the Brethren of the Baptized-way (as they had their
opportunity) have sought to break us in pieces, merely because we
are not in their way all baptized first: I could not, I durst not, forbear
to do a little, if it might be, to settle the Brethren, and to arm them
against the attempts, which also of late they begin to revive upon us.
That I deny the Ordinance of Baptism, or that I have placed one
piece of an Argument against it, (though they feign it) is quite
without color of truth. All I say, is, That the Church of Christ hath
not Warrant to keep out of their Communion the Christian that is
discovered to be a visible Saint by the Word, the Christian that
walketh according to his Light with God. I will not make
Reflections upon those unhandsome brands that my Brethren have
laid upon me for this, as that I am a Machiavellian, a man devilish,
proud, insolent, presumptuous, and the like; neither will I say as
they, The Lord rebuke thee; words fitter to be spoke to the Devil,
then a Brother. But Reader, read and compare, lay aside Prejudice
and Judge. What Mr. Kiffin hath done in the matter I forgive, and
love him never the worse, but must stand by my Principles because
they are peaceable, godly, profitable, and such as tend to the
Edification of my Brother, and as I believe will be justified in the
day of Judgment.
I have also here presented thee with the Opinion of Mr. Henry Jesse,
in the Case, which providentially I met with, as I was coming to
London to put my Papers to the Press, and that it was his Judgment
is Asserted to me, known many years since to some of the Baptists,
to whom it was sent, but never yet Answered; and will yet be
Attested if need shall require. Farewell.
Thine in all Christian Service, according to my Light and Power,
John Bunyan.
Differences in Judgment
about Water-Baptism no
Bar to Communion.
SIR,
Your seemingly serious reflections upon that part of my plain-
hearted Confession of Faith, which rendereth a Reason of my
freedom to Communicate with those of the Saints and Faithful, who
differ from me about Water-Baptism, I have read, and considered,
and have weighed them so well as my rank and abilities will admit
me to do. But finding yours (if I mistake not) far short of a candid
Replication; I thought convenient, not only to tell you of those
impertinencies everywhere scattered up and down in your Book; but
also, that in my simple opinion, your rigid and Church disquieting-
Principles are not fit for any Age and state of the Church.
But before I enter the body of your Book, give me leave a little to
discourse you about your Preamble to the same, wherein are two
miscarriages unworthy your pretended seriousness, because void of
love, and humility. The first is, In that you closely disdain my
Person, because of my low descent among men, stigmatizing me for
a Person of THAT Rank, that need not to be heeded, or attended
unto,
Answ. What it is that gives a man reverence with you, I know not;
but for certain, He that despiseth the Poor, reproacheth his Maker:
yet a poor man is better than a liar. To have gay-clothing, or gold-
rings, or the Persons that wear them in admiration; or to be partial in
your judgment, or respects, for the sake, or upon the account of flesh
and blood, doubtless convicteth you to be of the Law a transgressor,
and not without partiality, &c. in the midst of your seeming sanctity.
Again you say: I had not meddled with the Controversy at all, had I
found any of parts that would divert themselves to take notice of
YOU.
Answ. What need you, before you have showed one syllable of a
reasonable Argument in opposition to what I Assert, thus trample my
Person, my Gifts, and Grace (have I any) so disdainfully under your
feet? What a kind of a YOU am I? And why is MY Rank so mean,
that the most gracious and godly among you, may not duly and
soberly consider of what I have said? Was it not the art of the false
Apostles of old to say thus? to bespatter a man, that his Doctrine
might be disregarded. Is not this the Carpenter? and, His bodily
presence is weak and contemptible, did not use to be in the months
of the Saints; for they knew the Wind blew where it listed. Neither is
it high birth, worldly breeding, or wealth; but electing love, grace,
and the wisdom that comes from Heaven, that those who strive for
strictness of order in the things, and Kingdom of Christ, should have
in regard, and esteem. Need I read you a Lecture? Hath not God
chosen the foolish, the weak, the base, yea and even things that are
not, to bring to naught things that are? Why then do you despise my
rank, my state, and quality in the World?
As for my Confession of Faith, which you also secretly despise. If it
be good, and godly, why may it not be accepted? If I have spoken
evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? If
you, and the Brethren of your way, did think it convenient to show
to the World what you held; if perhaps by that means you might
escape the Prison: why might not I, after above 11 years endurance
there, give the World a view of my Faith and Practice; if
peradventure, wrong Thoughts, and false Judgments of me, might by
that means be abated, and removed. But you suggest; I did it,
because I was so willing to be known in the World by my
SINGULAR Faith, and Practice. How singular my Faith and
Practice is, may be better known to you hereafter: but that I did it for
a popular applause and fame, as your words seem to bear (for they
proceed from a taunting Spirit) that will be known to you better in
the day of God, when your evil surmises of your Brother, and my
designs in writing my Book, will be published upon the house-tops.
And even now, before I go any further, I will give you a touch of the
Reason of my publishing that part thereof which you so hotly
oppose. It was because of those continual Assaults that the rigid
Brethren of your way, made, not only upon this Congregation, to
rent it; but also upon many others about us: if peradventure they
might break us in pieces, and draw from us Disciples after them.
Assaults (I say) upon this Congregation by times, for no less than
these sixteen or eighteen years: Yea, myself they have sent for, and
endeavored to persuade me to break Communion with my Brethren;
also with many others they have often tampered, if haply their seeds
of Division might take. Neither did they altogether fail of their
purpose, for some they did rent and dismember from us; but none
but those, of whom now they begin to be ashamed. The Judgment of
God so following their design, that the Persons which then they
prevailed upon, are now a stink, and reproach to Religion. Neither
were these Spirits content with that discord they did sow among us,
but they proceeded to seize upon others. But to pass these: The wild,
and unsound Positions they have urged to maintain their Practice,
would be too large here to insert. Now, Sir, to settle the Brethren (the
Brethren of our Community) and to prevent such disorders among
others, was the cause of my publishing my Papers: and considering
my Concern in the House of God, I could do no less than to give
them warning, That every man might deliver his Soul.
You proceed, saying, It is my liberty, as well as others into whose
hands it falls, to weigh what you have said in Truths balance, and if
it be found too light, to reject it whether you will or no.
Answ. Do but grant me, without mocking of me, the liberty you
desire to take, and God helping me, I desire no more to shift for
myself among you. As to your saying, that I proudly and
imperiously insult, because I say they are Babes and Carnal, that
attempt to break the Peace and Communion of Churches, though
upon better pretences than Water. You must know I am still of that
mind, and shall be so long as I see the Effects that follow, viz. The
breach of Love, taking off Christians from the more weighty things
of God; and to make them quarrel and have heart-burnings one
against another.
Where you are pleased to charge me with Raging, for laying those
Eighteen particular Crimes to the charge of SUCH who exclude
Christians from Church-Communion, and debar them their Heaven-
born Privileges, for the want of that, which yet God never made, the
Wall of Division between us. I say, when you can prove, That God
hath made Water-Baptism that Wall, and that the stress of the after
Eighteen Charges lie wholly and only in that; then you may time
enough call my language such as wanteth Charity: but I question
though that was granted, whether your saying, I RAGE, will be
justified in the day of Judgment.
My great noise (as you call it) about an initiating Ordinance, you
say, you shall take no notice of.
Answ. (1) Although you do not, I must: For if Baptism be not that,
but another; and if visible Saints may enter into Fellowship by that
other, and are nowhere forbidden so to do, because they have not
light into Water-Baptism: it is of weight to be considered by me;
yea, and of others too who are unprejudiced. (2) How ignorant you
are of such as hold it the initiating Ordinance I know not: nor how
long you have been of that persuasion I know not. This I know, that
men of your own Party, as serious, godly, and it may be more
learned than yourself, have within less than this twelve-month urged
it. Mr. D. in my hearing, did from Rom. 6:1, 2. in the Meeting in
Lothbury affirm it: Also my much esteemed Friend Mr. D. A. did
twice in a Conference with me Assert it. (3) But whatever you say,
whether for, or against, 'tls no matter; for while you deny it to be the
entering Ordinance, you account it the Wall, Bar, Bolt, and Door;
even that which must separate between the righteous and the
righteous; nay, you make want of Light therein, a ground to exclude
the most Godly your Communion, when every Novice in Religion
shall be received into your bosom, and be of esteem with you
because he hath (and from what ground God knows) submitted to
Water-Baptism.
I am glad that in you conclude with me what is the initiating
Ordinance: 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 Highway-men 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 Harlots, that stood to be judged by Solomon, who because her
own Child was dead, would have her Neighbors killed also. Faith
(Sir) both in the Profession and Confession of it, is of immediate and
also absolute concern, even in the very act of the Churches
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: Hoiness (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 show
persons unbaptized might hold Communion with the Church
(though I am fully convinced they may) but to show, that knowledge
of those Persons, of their Faith and Holiness in general, ought first
to be showed to the Church, before she can lawfully receive them
(Acts 9:25-27; 1 Cor. 16:10; 2 Cor. 8:23). As to my Answer to a
Question which you have at of yours 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 none of the Laws of Christ?
Answ. It is none of those Laws, neither any part of them, that the
Church, as a Church, should show 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. Show me what Church-Ordinance it
is; and when, or where the Church, as a Church is to practice it, as
one of those Laws and Appointments that he hath commanded his
Church to show 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. The Church hath her satisfaction of the
Person, from better proof, Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:29; Acts
2:38, 22:16; 1 Pet. 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 unsavory to godly ears. You make the Moral Law
none of Christ's, but Moses's; not the Sons, but the Servants: 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 beholding 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 honor 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 honor 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.
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 honor 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 over-valueth either. But why did you not Answer those
Texts I produced for the strengthening of my Argument, viz. Rom.
14:18; Deut. 23:47; Jam. 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; Jam. 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 of mine, 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 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 in thereof, Ezek. 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: 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 Persons Light that giveth being to a Precept?
Answ. Who said it? Yet it's 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?
Answ. If they be not such, the forbearance of which, discapaciates
him of Membership, he may yet be received to Fellowship.
But what if a man want Light in the Supper?
Answ. 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?
Answ. 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 show him his
Duty; and if he neglect, to show him, That he that soweth sparingly,
shall not reap plentifully (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?
Answ. 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 Papistlike, 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 Neighbor 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; 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 show 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.
Answ. 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 all the Epistles were wrote
to particular Churches? Why, because those Members were, as they
think, everyone baptized; and so the Epistles from which we fetch
our Arguments for the Love and Concord of Saints, to be only
proper to themselves. 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? Or, whether Christ hath not given his whole
Word to everyone that believeth, whether they be baptized, or in, or
out of Church-Fellowship? Joh. 17. 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 learnt 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.
FIRST ARGUMENT
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 at
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 called upon the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, (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; as also that to the Ephesians,
Philippians, and Colossians, in which the Faithful, and Saints in
Christ Jesus were also everyone comprehended. Besides, To what
particular Church was the Epistle to the Hebrews wrote? or the
Epistle of James? both those of Peter, and the first of John? Nay, that
of John was wrote to some at that time out of Fellowship, that they
might have fellowship with the Church (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-renting-Spirits
that some are possessed with, to make complaint of this matter; who
have also had for their Engine the Baptism with Water: Yea, yourself
Sir, so far as I can perceive, could you get but the opportunity;
yourself (I say) under pretense of this innocent Ordinance, as you
term it, would not stick to make in-roads, 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
Antichristian; 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 a 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. (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 Cor. 1:14-
16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Yet were they effectually answered, my
Argument is Nothing weakened.
SECOND ARGUMENT
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
longsuffering, and forbearing one another, to ENDEAVOUR to keep
the Unity of the SPIRIT in the bond of PEACE (verses 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.
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 fully joined together, and compact, by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working of the measure in every
part, maketh increase of the body, to 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, & makes it increase with the increase of God
(Col. 2:16). This is the Unity of the Spirit which he before exhorts
them to keep.
3. The third Argument is, Because their Hope is also but one. Even
as you are called (saith he) in one Hope of your calling: As who
should say, My Brethren, if you are called with one calling, if your
Hope, both as to the Grace of Hope, and also the Object, be but one:
if you hope for one Heaven, and for one Eternal Life; then maintain
that Unity of the Spirit, and Hope, while here, in love, and the bond
of peace.
4. The fourth Argument is, There is one Lord, or Husband, or Prince,
to whom this Church belongs: Therefore if we have Husbands but
one, Lord, and Prince but one, let us not rent into many Parties, as if
we had many Husbands, Lord's, and Princes, to govern us, as his
Wife, his House, and Kingdom. Is Christ divided?
5. The fifth Argument is, There is one Faith, by which we all stand
justified by one Lord Jesus Christ; one Faith by which we escape the
Wrath of God; one Faith by which only they that have it are blessed;
yea, seeing there is but one Faith, by which we are all put into one
way of Salvation, let us hold together as such.
6. The sixth Argument, There is one Baptism. Now we are come to
the pinch, viz. Whether it be that of Water, or no? which I must
positively deny. (1) Because Water-Baptism hath nothing to do in a
Church, as a Church; it neither bringeth us into the Church, nor is
any part of our Worship when we come there; how then can the
Peace and Unity of the Church depend upon Water-Baptism?
Besides, he saith 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 we are all baptized into one body, 1 Cor. 12:13. Here is
the Church presented as under the notion of a Body; here is a
Baptism mentioned, by which they are brought, or initiated into this
Body: Now that this is the Baptism of Water, is utterly against the
words of the Text; For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body: besides, if the Baptism here be of Water, then is it the
initiating Ordinance; but the contrary I have proved, and this Author
stands by my Doctrine. So then, the Baptism here, respecting the
Church as a Body, and Water having nothing to do to enter men into
the Church, nor to command them to practice it as a Church, in order
to their Peace, or Communion, or respecting the Worship of God as
such: And (I say again) the Baptism in the sixth Argument, being
urged precisely for no other purpose, but with respect to the
Churches peace as a Body; it must needs be THAT Baptism, by
virtue of which, they were initiated, and 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. 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.
Answ. What if I should also send you to Answer those Expositors
that expound certain Scriptures for Infant -Baptism, and that by
them brand us for Anabaptists; must this drive you from your belief
of the Truth? Expositors I reverence, but must live by mine own
Faith: God hath nowhere bound himself to them more than to others,
with respect to the revelation of his Mind in his Word.
But it becomes not you to run thus to Expositors, who are, as to your
notions in many things, but of yesterday: To the Law, and to the
Testimony: For out of the mouth of Babes the Lord hath ordained
strength.
But you bid me tell you, What I mean by Spirit-Baptism?
Answ. Sir, you mistake me, I treat not here of our being baptized
with the Spirit, with respect to its coming from Heaven into us; but
of that act of the Spirit, when come, which baptizeth us into a Body,
or Church: It is one thing to be baptized with the Spirit in the first
sense; and another to be baptized by it in the sense I treat of: for the
Spirit to come upon me, is one thing; and for that when come, to
implant, imbody, or baptize me into the body of Christ, is another.
Your Question therefore is grounded on a a mistake, both of my
Judgment, and the words of the Apostle. Wherefore thus I soon put
an end to your Objections. 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.
THIRD ARGUMENT
We come to my third Argument; Which is to prove, It is lawful to
hold Church-Communion with the godly sincere Believer, though he
hath not been baptized with Water, because he hath the DOCTRINE
of Baptisms, Heb. 6. Which Doctrine I distinguish from the Practice
of it; the Doctrine being that which by the outward-sign is presented
to us; or which by the outward-circumstance of the act is preached
to the Believer, viz. the Death of Christ, my death with Christ; also
his Resurrection from the dead, and mine with him to newness of
life. This our Author calleth one of the strangest Paradoxes that he
hath LIGHTLY observed.
Answ. How light he is in his Observation of things, I know not: This
I am sure, the Apostle makes mention of the Doctrine of Baptism;
Now that the Doctrine of a man, or Ordinance, is the signification of
what is Preached, is apparent to very sense. What is Christ's
Doctrine, Paul 's Doctrine, Scripture-Doctrine, but the Truth couched
under the words that are spoken? So the Doctrine of Baptism, yea
and the Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, are those Truths or Mysteries
that such Ordinances preach unto ns. And that the Doctrine of
Baptism in this sense, is the great end for which that, and the Lord's
Supper was instituted, is apparent from all the Scriptures: it is that
which the Apostle seeketh for in that eminent sixth of the Romans,
Know you not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ,
were baptized into his Death? Therefore we are buried with him by
Baptism, that like as Christ was raised from the Dead by the Glory
of the Father; so we should walk in newness of Life. For if we have
been planted together in the likeness of his Death, we shall be also
in the likeness of his Resurrection, Rom. 6:3-5. 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, Baried with
him in Baptism, wherein also you are risen again with him, through
the Faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead.
What is here in chief asserted, but the Doctrine only which Water-
baptism preacheth? with an intimation, that they, and they only, are
the saved of the Lord, that have heard, received, and that live in this
Doctrine, Col. 2:12-13.
The same may be said of the Lord's Supper, it also hath its Doctrine.
But against this our Author objecteth, saying, That this is called the
Doctrine of Baptism, I am yet to learn.
Answ. Your ignorance of the Truth makes it not an Error: But I pray
you, what is the Doctrine of Baptism, if not that which Baptism
teacheth, even that which is signified thereby? As that is the
Doctrine of Christ, and the Scriptures; which he and they teach as
the mind of God.
But you say, I took the Doctrine of Baptism to be the Command that
a Believer should be baptized, for such ends as the Gospel
expresseth.
Answ. To assert that a figurative Ordinance of God, is one thing; but
the Doctrinal signification of that Ordinance is another: A man may
preach the Command, yet none of the Doctrine which Baptism
preacheth. The Doctrine 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.
Answ. The Resurrection simply considered, is not the Doctrine of
Baptism, but Christ's, and mine by him. Besides, there is more in it
than the Mystery of this Resurrection; there is my death first, and
then my rising with him.
But you add, Under the Law, all the Sacrifices of that Dispensation,
with their Sabbaths, were Types of that Christ, who was the
substance of all those Ceremonies. If any of them then that
professed Faith in the Messias to come, should upon scruples, or
want of pretended Light, neglect the whole, or part of that Typical
Worship; why may not a man say of them, as this Advocate of the
Practice under Debate, they had the richer and better Sacrifice.
Answ. First, That the Brethren which refuse to be baptized, as you
and I would have them, refuse it for want of pretended Light,
becomes you not to imagine, unless your boldness will lead you to
judge, that all men want sincerity, that come not up to our judgment.
Their Conscience may be better than either yours or mine; yet God,
for purposes best known to himself, may forbear to give them
conviction of their Duty in this particular. But what? Because they
are not baptized; have they not Jesus Christ? Or, must we now be
afraid to say Christ is better than Water-baptism? Yea, God himself
for the sake of this better thing, hath suffered in his Church a
suspension of some of his Ordinances, yet owned them for his truly
Constituted Congregation. What say you to the Church in the
Wilderness? I touched you with it in my first, but perceive you listed
not to meddle therewith. That Church received Members, the way
which was not prescribed by, but directly against the revealed Mind
of God; yet stood a true Church, their Members true Members; also
that Church in that state, was such before whom, among whom, and
to whom God continually made known himself to be their God, and
owned them for his peculiar treasure.
And now I am 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 Uncircumcized was utterly
forbidden to eat it (Exod. 12). 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 drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and
that Rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10). I confess I find them under
rebukes and judgments in the Wilderness, and that they were many
times 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.
Answ. This putteth our Opposers out of their road, and quencheth
the flame of their unwarrantable zeal. For if the entering-Ordinance,
if the Ordinance without which no man might be added to the
Church, was laid aside for forty years; yea, if more than six hundred
thousand did Communicate with them without it: I say again, If they
did it, and held Communion with God, that notwithstanding; yea,
and had not (that we read of) all that time, one small check for so
doing; why may not we now, enter Communion, hold Communion,
maintain Communion, Church-Communion, without being judged,
and condemned by you? because we cannot for want of Light be all
baptized before; especially considering Baptism makes no man a
Saint, is not the entering-Ordinance, is no part of the Worship of
God enjoined the Church as a Church. To conclude, Although we
receive Members unbaptized, we leave not God's Instituted Worship
at uncertainties, especially what he hath commanded us as his
Church; we only profess our want of Light in some things; but see
no Word to warrant the forbearance of our Duty in all, for want of
persuasion in one.
You object, I call Baptism a Circumstance, a show, an outward-
show, I NICK-NAME it.
Answ. Deep reproof! But why did you not show 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 Show; when you call it a symbol, and compare it to a
Gentleman's Livery?
But you say, I call it an OUTWARD show.
Answ. Is it an Inward one? What is it?
It is a Command?
Answ. But doth that install it in that place and dignity, that was
never intended for it?
You object further, They cannot have the Doctrine of Baptism that
understand not our way of 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 practice it because it is Commanded, and yet know nothing of
what Water-baptism preacheth; or of the Mystery baptism showeth
to Faith. But that the Doctrine of Baptism is not the Practice of it,
not the outward act, but the thing signified; and that every Believer
hath that, must argue you more than too bold to deny it.
But say you, Who taught you to divide betwixt Christ and his
Precepts, that you word it at such a rate? That he that hath the one,
&c.
Answ. To say nothing of Faith, and the Word: verily Reason 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-Savior's, Co-Advocates, and such as
are equally good, and profitable to men.
But say you, I thought that he that hath Christ, had an orderly right
to all Christ's Promises and Precepts; and that the Precepts of Christ,
are part of the riches that a Believer hath in and by Christ.
Answ. A Believer hath more in Christ, then either Promise or
Precept; but all Believers know not all things, that of God are given
to them by Christ. But must not they use, and enjoy what they know,
because they know not all? Or must they neglect the weightier
matters, because they want Mint, and Anise, and Commin? Your
pretended orderly right is your fancy; there is not a syllable in the
whole Bible, that bids a Christian to forbear his Duty in other things,
because he wanteth (as you term it) the 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 show, which if he
had, would not prove him a truly visible Saint; it would not tell me
he had the Grace of God in his heart; it is no Characteristical note to
another of my Sonship with God. But why did you not Answer these
parts of my Argument? Why did you only cavil at words? which if
they had been left out, the Argument yet stands good. He that is not
baptized, if yet a true Believer, hath the Doctrine of Baptism; yea, he
ought to have it before he be Convicted, it is his duty to be baptized,
or else he playeth the Hypocrite. There is therefore no difference
between that Believer that is, and he that is not yet baptized with
Water; but only his going down into the Water, there to perform an
outward Ceremony of the Substance which he hath already; which
yet he is not Commanded to do with respect to Membership with the
Church; but to obtain by that further understanding of his Privilege
by Christ, which before he made Profession of, and that as a visible
Believer.
FOURTH ARGUMENT
But to come to my fourth Argument, which you so tenderly touch as
if it burnt your fingers: I am bold (say I) to have Communion with
visible Saints as before, because God hath Communion with them,
whose example in the case we are strictly commanded to follow.
Receive ye one another, as Christ Jesus hath received you, to the
glory of God. Yea, though they be Saints in Opinion contrary to you,
or I. We that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,
and not to please ourselves. Infirmities that are Sinful: for they that
are Natural, are incident to all. Infirmities therefore they are, that for
want of Light, cause a Man to err in Circumstantials: And the reason
upon which Paul groundeth this admonition is; For Christ pleased
not himself, but as it is written, the reproaches of them that
reproached thee are fallen upon me.
You say to this, 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 Mans house, but the other
only as particular Saints, it giveth farther ground of Conviction to
you, that those others were not as yet imbodyed in such a
fellowship. (3) But suppose there was another Church besides; it
doth not therefore follow, that the Apostle exhorteth them only to
receive persons already in fellowship; but him, even every him, that
there was weak in the Faith, but not to doubtful disputations. (4)
Suppose again, The receiving here exhorted to, be such as you
would have it; yet the Rule by which they are directed to do it, is
that by which we perceive that Christ hath received them: But Christ
did not receive them by Baptism, but as given to him by the Father:
Him therefore concerning whom we are convinced, that he by the
Father is given to Christ, Him should we receive. (5) But what need
I grant you that which cannot be proved? yet if you could prove it, it
availeth nothing at all; because you may not, cannot, ought not to
dare to limit the Exhortation to receiving of one another into each
others affections only; and not also receiving Saints into
Communion.
But you object: To make God's receiving the Rule of our receiving,
in all cases will not hold.
Answ. 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 stradling over my Argument, which treateth only of a
visible receiving; such as is manifest to the Church: This you knew,
but sought by evading, to turn the Reader from considering the
strength of this my Argument. The receiving then (said I), because it
is set an example to the Church, is such as must needs be visible
unto them; and is best discovered by that word that describeth the
visible Saint: Whoso then you can judge a visible Saint, one that
walketh with God, you may, nay ought to judge by the same Word,
God hath received him. Now him that God receiveth, him should
you receive. But will any object; they cannot believe that God
receiveth the unbaptized Saints? I will not suppose you so much
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?
Because, you intend by this the Brethren of the Baptized way.
Answ. If they be vain Men, and set up their OWN Order; how
straight soever they make it, they are worthy to be reproved: If they
have rejected the Word of the Lord, what wisdom is in them. And as
you suggest the first, I affirm the second. But if you would be
justified in excluding those, with whom yet you see God hath
Communion, because they yet see not a shadow with you; produce
the Scripture for such Order, that we may believe it is the Order of
God: But deal fairly, left we show 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, or that none but those that are baptized 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?
Answ. 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; and to set
up an Ordinance, though an Ordinance of God, that by it the
Churches 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 betwixt Saint and Saint, every-
whit otherwise gracious and holy alike: This is like fasting for strife,
and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness; and is not to be
found within the whole Bible, but is wholly an order of your own
devising. As to the Peace you make an Objection about you have
granted me what I intended; and now I add further, That for Church-
peace to be founded in Baptism, or any other external Rite, not
having to do with the Church as a Church, is poor Peace indeed:
Churchpeace is founded in blood; and love to each other for Jesus
sake; bearing with, and forbearing one another, in all things
Circumstantial, that concern not Church-worship as such: And in my
other I have proved that Baptism is not such, and therefore ought not
to be urged to make rents and divisions among Brethren.
But you ask, Is my peace maintained in a way of disobedience? and
conclude if it be, you fear it is false.
Answ. 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.
FIFTH ARGUMENT
My fifth Argument is, That a failure in such a Circumstance as
Water-baptism, doth not un-Christian us; This you are compelled to
grant. 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 showed us that he hath received them. Receive him to the Glory
of God: [To the Glory of God] is put in on purpose, to show what
dishonor 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 un-Christian us, doth not make us insincere; and I
add, Doth not lay us open to any revealed judgment or displeasure of
God; (if it doth, show 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.
Answ. You should have given your Reader my words, that he might
have judged from my own mouth: I said then (speaking before of
Christianity 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 'tis 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 practice Instituted Worship, upon the same account as Paul
did Circumcision, and shaving, is too bold for you to presume to
imagine. What? Because I will not suffer Water to carry away the
Epistles from the Christians; and because I will not let Water-
baptism be the Rule, the Door, the Bolt, the Bar, the Wall of
Division between the Righteous, & the Righteous; must I therefore
be judged to be a Man without Conscience to the Worship of Jesus
Christ? The Lord deliver me from Superstitious, and Idolatrous
thoughts about any the Ordinances of Christ, and of God. But my
fifth Argument standeth against you untouched; you have not
denied, much less confuted the least syllable thereof.
SIXTH ARGUMENT
You tell me my sixth Argument is, Edification.