Part 2
Answ. 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, 'tis of greater concern with us,
and of far more profit to Brother, than our agreeing in, or contessing
for Water-baptism (Joh. 16:13; 1 Cor. 14:12; 2 Cor. 10:8, 12:19;
Ephes. 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.
Answ. 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 show us a Chuh
without Baptism..
Answ. See here the spirit of these Men, who for the want of Water-
baptism, have at once un-Churched 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, Show us a New Testament Church without Baptism.
Answ. 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? Endeavor to make men as holy as you can, that they
may be futed for Church-fellowship, when God shall show them the
orderly way to it.
Answ. 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.
Answ. 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.
Answ. 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.
Answ. 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, used oft, to
show 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?
Answ. 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,
where-ever such hot Spirits have gone before me: For where Envy
and Strife is, there is Confusion (or Tumults) and every Evil-work
(Jam. 3:1617). 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 (Joh. 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. 4:26; 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, showing that some of the breach of God's Precepts have
been born 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). Yet because he could not
do it to his Edification, Moses was content. But the Law was thereby
transgressed (6:26). The Priest that offereth it for Sin, shall eat it.
To this you Reply, That was not a constant, continued, forbearing of
God's Worship, but a suspending of it for a season.
Answ. We also suspend it but for a season; when Persons can be
baptized to their Edification, they have the liberty. But secondly,
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.
Answ. The express Rule was against it; Ye should indeed (said
Moses ) have eaten it in the Holy place, as I commanded (verse 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.
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 Sacrifice 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.
Answ. 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 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
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 or 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.
SEVENTH ARGUMENT
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 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.
Answ. 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. found 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?
Answ. 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.
Answ. But what acts of disobedience do we indulge them in?
In the Sin of Infant-baptism.
Answ. 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.
Obj. 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.
Answ. 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 everyone of us please his Neighbor, 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.
Answ. It seems you do but doubt it, wherefore the Principle 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
endeavor 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. 3:9) &c. (2) Upon our fellowship with the Father and Son (1
Joh. 1:2-3). (3) That with respect to this, it is the fulfilling of the
Royal Law (Jam. 4:11; Rom. 14:21). (4) That it shows itself in acts
of forbearing, rather than in publishing some Truths:
Communicating only what is profitable, forbearing to publishing
what cannot be born (1 Cor. 3:1-2; Acts 20:18-20; Joh. 16:17). (5) I
show 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, & 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 Babes Faith and Hope, hath nothing to do with his entering into
fellowship, is no part of the Worship of the Church. These things
should have been answered, seeing you will take upon you so
roundly to condemn our practice.
EIGHTH ARGUMENT
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 of 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 Babish-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 Babish;
but the breach of Communion must be charged upon them at Corinth
also?
That my Argument is good you grant. saying, The Divisions at 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 Apollo, 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 you baptized in the Name of Paul? I thank God I baptized
none of you, lest any should say, I had baptized in my own Name.
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, Apollo, 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 mayst 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 showeth
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, What is Baptism? Neither is Baptism
anything? 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, because they used them for strife, and
debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness. 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 forever, 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.
NINTH ARGUMENT
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, you take from them their Privileges to which they are
born.
Answ. 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, (1 Cor. 1:1-2. & 3:22) not only to the Gathered Church at
Corinth, but to all scattered Saints, that in every place call upon the
Name of the Lord, that Jesus Christ is theirs; that Paul, and Apollo,
and Cephas, and the World, and all things else was theirs.
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.'
Answ. 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 defense, do make
your Scriptureless Light, which in very deed is darkness (Isa. 8:20-
21), the Rule of your Brothers 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 were all baptized first.
Answ. 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?
For that, though Water is not, was the very entering-Ordinance.
Besides, as I said before, there was a full forbidding 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; Exod. 12:24-26) 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.
Answ. What was done of old, I have showed you, that Christ, not
Baptism, is the way to the Sheep-fold, is apparent: and that the
person, 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.
Answ. 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, 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 19:25-28, &c. ) 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 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 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 Machiavels Scholars, also
proud, presumptuous, impeaching the Judgment of God.
Answ. 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 Printers haste, to leave the last sheet to be
overlooked by him, which was the cause it was not among the
Errata's. 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 (Luk. 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. 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.
TENTH ARGUMENT
My last Argument, you say is this;
The World may wonder at your carriage to those Unbaptized
Persons, in keeping them out of Communion?
Ans. You will yet 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 open Profane, yea, to
all Wizards and Witches in the Land? For all you can do to them (I
speak now as to Church-acts) is no other than 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 Monopolize 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, 'twould 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 forever shut out those, far better than ourselves, that
have not, according to our Notion, been baptized with Water; then
'twill be time enough, to talk of ground for so doing. In the
meantime, 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.
FIRST ARGUMENT
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 afterward 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.
Answ. 1. That the Ministers are to Disciple and Baptize, is granted.
But that they are prohibited (by the Commission, Matth. 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, skrewed 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 always, even to 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 favor
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.
SECOND ARGUMENT
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. 7:16, 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 not to leave men to
their own liberty, to time and place his Appointments, contrary to
what he hath given in express Rule, for in his Word as before?
(Ezek. 44:7-10). It was the Priest's Sin formerly to bring the
uncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house.
Answ. That there is no such Order in that Commission as you feign,
I have proved. As for your far-fetched Instance (1 Chron. 15) 'tis
quite besides 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 (Exod. 25:14; 1 Chron. 15:12-15; Numb. 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 who so 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 Ezek. 44. to insinuate that
unbaptized Believers are like the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, I
leave it to all Gospel-Novices to consider.
THIRD ARGUMENT
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.
Answ. 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 showed 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.
FOURTH ARGUMENT
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.
Answ. That none of the Scripture-Saints (if there be any unscriptural
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 Fathers House? This
you are to prove.
FIFTH ARGUMENT
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.
Answ. 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
of 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) 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, 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 (Mat. 3:13-16; Luk. 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 first fruits 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) 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.
SIXTH ARGUMENT
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 nowhere: why are those things called first Principles, if not
first to be believed, and practiced? 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 practiced or
no? If it be said Water-baptism is not there intended, let them show
me how many Baptisms there are besides Water-baptism? Can you
build and leave out a stone in the Foundation? I intend not Baptism a
Foundation any other way, but in respect of order, and it is either
intended for that or nothing.
Answ. Baptism is in no sense the Foundation of a Church. I find no
foundation of a Church, but Jesus Christ himself (Mat. 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,
verse. 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 practiced 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.
SEVENTH ARGUMENT
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 self—same Obedience (Gal. 3:26-
27). Baptism being an Obligation to all following Duties.
Answ. This your Argument, being built 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 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
Fathers 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 baptized 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.
EIGHTH ARGUMENT
Your eighth Argument is. If being baptized into Christ, be a putting
on of Christ, as Paul expresses, 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 Masters Liveries, so are Gospel-Believers by this Livery of
Water-baptism, that all that first trusted in Christ submitted unto;
which is in itself is as much an Obligation to all Gospel-Obedience,
as Circumcision was to keep the whole Law.
Answ. 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 I
known by Water-baptism to be one that hath put on Christ, as a
Gentleman's man is known to be his Masters 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 you are my Disciples, if
you 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. 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. 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. 8:28-29; Phil. 3:3).
NINTH ARGUMENT
Your ninth Argument is, If it were commendable in the
Thessalonians, that they followed the foot-steps of the Church of
Judea (1 Thes. 2:24), 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
praise-worthy, 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.
Answ. That the Text saith there was a Church OF Judea, I find not (1
Thess. 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 the 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 Country-men, even as they have of the Jews, &c.
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 besides the purpose,
and for stretching them so miserably to uphold you in your fancies.
TENTH ARGUMENT
Your tenth Argument is, If so be, that any of the Members at
Corinth, Galatia, Coloss, 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 that 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 Spirits Wisdom, (Heb.
6; 1 Pet. 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?
Answ. 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 they see not yet, that that is their Duty, is
because we are not forbidden, but commanded to receive them,
because God and Christ hath done it (Rom. 14, 15).
ELEVENTH ARGUMENT
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.
Answ. (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 showeth 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
profane, or to receive, as YOU profess YOU do, Persons unprepared
to the Lord's Table, and other solemn Appointments.
TWELFTH ARGUMENT
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 offense, to
Professors? That very few will inquire after it, or submit to it? Hath
not man's wisdom interposed to darken this part of God's Counsel?
By which Professors seem willingly led, though against so many
plain Commands and Examples, written as with a Sun-beam, that he
that runs may read? And must an Advocate be entertained to plead
for so gross a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes of the first
Gospel-times were never guilty of?
Answ. Many words to little purpose: (1) 1. Must God be called to an
account by you, why he giveth more Light about the Supper, than
Baptism? May he not show to, or conceal from this, or another of his
Servants, which of his Truths he pleaseth? Some of the Members of
the Church of 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 show to each
other the Death and Blood of the Lord; as they ought to do, till he
comes (1 Cor. 10:15-17, 11:22, 23:24-26). 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 stigmatized, 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 showed us he hath received, and
commanded we should receive them.
THIRTEENTH ARGUMENT
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 Christians
Obedience, to make way for a Church-fellowship of man's devising?
Answ. (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 show himself a
Christian without Water baptism, He shall never show either Saint,
or Sinner, that he is a Christian by it. (2) Who 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. not 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.
FOURTEENTH ARGUMENT
Your last Argument is, If the Baptism of John was so far honored,
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.
Answ. (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 show 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, of which
Water was but an outward signification (Mark 1:4). Now, what is the
Baptism of Repentance, but an unfeigned acknowledgment that they
were Sinners, and so stood in need of a Savior, Jesus Christ: This
Baptism, or Baptism under this Notion, the Pharisees would not
receive, For they trusted to themselves that they were righteous, that
they were not as other men, that they had need of NO repentance:
Not, but that they would have been baptized with Water, might that
have been without an acknowledgement that they were Sinners:
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.
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? and Paul
examine them that were? (Matt. 3:7; 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 all 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.
QUESTION 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
foot-steps of the Flock in the first Ages?
Answ. 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 own
self they have endeavored 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.
QUESTION 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
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?
Answ. I have thrown no dirt upon them, nor laid anything 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.
QUESTION 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.
Answ. 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. 15:16).
QUESTION 4
Is it not the Spirit of Diotrephes of old, in you, who loved to have
the preeminence, 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?
Answ. 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,
show 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-renting
Principles. As to the Retaliation, mind the hand of God, and
remember Adonibezek (Judges 1:7). Let the Truth come into our
quarters and welcome, but sowers of Discord, because the Lord
hates it, we also ourselves will avoid them.
QUESTION 5
Is there no contempt cast upon the Brethren, who desired your
satisfaction, that at the same time, when you had opportunity to
speak to them; instead of that, you committed the Letters to others,