Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism No Bar to Communion, Argument
I come now to your Fourteen Arguments, and shall impartially consider them.
YOur first Argument to prove it lawful to reject the Unbaptized Saint, is, Because the great Commission of Christ, Matth. 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 injoyned 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 alwayes, 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 favour not at all your groundless supposition.
To conclude, these words have not laid Baptism in the way to debar the Saint from Fellowship of his Brethren, no more than to hinder his inheritance in Life and Glory. Mark reads it thus; He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned, Mark 16. 16. letting Baptism, which he mentioned in the promise, fall, when he came at the threatning.
God also doth thus with respect to his Worship in the Church, he commands all and every whit of his will to be done, but beareth with our coming short in this, and that, and another Duty. But let's go on.
Your second Argument, is: That the Order of Christ's Commission, as well as the matter therein contained to be observed, may easily be concluded, from God's severity towards them that sought him not according to due order, 1 Chron. 15. 13. Was God so exact with his People then, that all things to a Pin must be according to the Pattern in the Mount, Heb. 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 no… 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, 9, 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-fetch'd 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, 13, 14, 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 expresly 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.
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-dayes. 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 adde, 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 your selves, hath not yet been shewed by the Authority of the Word. The second of the Acts proveth not, That the three thousand were necessitated to be baptized in order to their Fellowship with the Church, neither doth it say THEY, yea they only, were received into the Church. But suppose all this, as much was done at the first Institution of Circumcision, &c. yet afterwards thousands were received without it.
Your fourth Argument is, None of the Scripture-Saints ever attempted this Church-priviledge without Baptism, (if they did, let it be shewn). The Eunuch first desired Baptism before any thing else; Paul was first baptized before he did essay to joyn with the Church. Our Lord Christ, the great Example of the New Testament, entred not upon his publick Ministry, much less any other Gospel-Ordinance of Worship, till he was Baptized.
Answ. That none of the Scripture-Saints (if there be any unscripture ones) so much as attempted this Church-priviledge 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 Priviledge of his Fathers House? This you are to prove.
Your fifth Argument is, If Christ himself was made manifest to be the SENT of God by Baptism, as appears Mark 1. 9, 10. Then why may not Baptism, as the first Fruits of Faith, and the first step of Gospel-Obedience, as to Instituted Worship, be a manifesting, discovering Ordinance upon others who thus follow Christ's steps.
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 any thing 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 Mat. 3. 14.of thee, and comest thou to me) and knew him after to be the SENT of God; yet notJoh. 1. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 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, 14, 15, 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 tyed 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 tyed or bound to any outward Circumstance; one believeth he may, and another believeth he may not, either do this or that.
Your sixth Argument is, If Baptism be in any sence any part of the foundation of a Church, as to order, Heb. 6. 1, 2. it must have place here or no where: why are those things called first Principles, if not first to be believed, and practised? Why are they rendred by the learned the A. B. C. of a Christian, and the beginning of Christianity, Milk for Babes, if it be no matter whether Baptism be practised or no? If it be said Water-baptism is not there intended, let them shew me how many Baptisms there are besides Water-baptism? Can you build and leave out a stone in the Foundation? I intend not Baptism a Foundation any other 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, vers. 1, 2. Further, Baptisms are not here mentioned, with respect to the Act in Water, but of the Doctrine, that is, the signification thereof. The Doctrine of Baptisms. And observe, neither Faith, nor Repentance, nor Baptisms, are called here Foundations: Another thing, for a Foundation, is here by the Holy Ghost intended, even a Foundation for them all; a Foundation OF Faith, OF Repentance, OF the Doctrine of Baptisms, OF the Resurrection of the Dead, and OF eternal Judgment. And this Foundation is Jesus Christ himself, and these are the first Principles, the Milk, the A. B. C. and the beginning of Christian Religion in the World.
I dare not say, No matter whether Water-Baptism be practised or no. But it is not a stone in the Foundation of a Church, no not respecting order; it is not, to another, a sign of my Sonship with God; it is not the door into Fellowship with the Saints, it is no Church Ordinance, as you, your self have testified, pag. 40. So then as to Church-work, it hath no place at all therein.
Your seventh Argument is, If Paul knew the Galatians ONLY upon the account of Charity, NO other wayes 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 mens profession of Faith, when it shews it self by this self—same Obedience, Gal. 3. 26, 27. Baptism being an Obligation to all following Duties.
Answ. This your Argument, being builded upon no more than a SEEMING Import, and having been above ten times overthrown already; I might leave still with you, till your seeming Import is come to a real one, and both to a greater perswasion upon your own Conscience. But verily Sir, you grosly 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 our selves, from the Things and Priviledges 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 onelyonly God, and him that hath, and acteth it, can be privy to. It is one thing for him that administreth, 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.
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 mens Servants are known by their Masters Liveries, so are Gospel-Believers by this Livery of Water-baptism, that all that first trusted in Christ submitted unto; which is in it self 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 Gentlemans 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 Gentlemans 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 it SELF obliging, to speak properly, it is false, for set it by it self, 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,Acts 15. 1, 2. you know not what. Circumcision was the initiating Ordinance, but this you have denyedGal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. 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?Rom. 2. 28, 29. Circumcision in the flesh, was a Type of Circumcision in the heart, and not ofPhil. 3. 3. Water-baptism.
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 Patern.
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 Countrey-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 Countreymen, 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 Priviledges.
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.
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. 12.) by which he wrote; if that must be asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end, which had no beeing; 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.
Your eleventh Argument is, If unbaptized Persons must be received into Churches onelyonly, because they are Believers, though they deny Baptism; Then why may not others plead for the like priviledge, that are negligent in any other Gospel-Ordinance of Worship, from the same ground of want of light, let it be what it will. So then as the consequence of this Principle, Churches m… be made up of visible sinners, instead of visible Saints.
Answ. I plead not for Believers simply because they are Believers, but for such Believers of whom we are perswaded by the Word, that God hath received them.
2. There are some of the Ordinances that, be they neglected, the being of a Church, as to her visible Gospel-Constitution, is taken quite away; but Baptism is none of them, it being no Church-Ordinance as such, nor any part of Faith, nor of that Holiness of heart, or life, that sheweth me to the Church to be indeed a visible Saint. The Saint is a Saint before, and may walk with God, and be faithful with the Saints, and to his own Light allo, though he never be baptized. Therefore to plead for his admission, makes no way at all for the admission of the open prophane, or to receive, as YOU profess YOU do, Persons unprepared to the Lord's Table, and other solemn Appointments. pag. 29.
Your twelfth Argument is, Why should Professors have more Light in breaking of Bread, than Baptism? That this must be so urged for their excuse: Hath God been more sparing in making out his mind in the one, rather than the other? Is there more Precepts or Precedents for the Supper, than Baptism? Hath God been so bountiful in making out himself about the Supper, that few or none, that own Ordinances, scruple it: And must Baptism be such a rock of offence, to Professors? That very few will 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 widingly 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. Must God be called to an account by you, why he giveth more Light about the Supper, than Baptism? May he not shew to, or conceal from this, or another of his Servants, which of his Truths he pleaseth? Some of the Members of the Church 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 shew to each other the Death and Blood of the Lord; as they ought to do, till he comes, (1 Cor. 10. 15, 16, 17. & 11. 22, 23. 24, 25, 26.) the Church, as a Church, is much more concerned in THAT, than in Water-baptism, both as to her Faith, and Comfort; both as to her Union, and Communion.
3. Your supposition, That very few Professors will seriously enquire after Waterbaptism, is too rude. What! must all the Children of God, that are not baptized for want of Light, be still stigmatized, with want of ferious inquiry after God's mind in it.
4. That I am an Advocate, entertained, to plead for so gross a piece of ignorance, as want of Light in Baptism, is but like the rest of your jumbling. I plead for Communion with men, godly and faithful, I plead that they may be received, that God hath shewed us he hath received, and commanded we should receive them.
Your thirteenth Argument is, If Obedience must discover the truth of a man's Faith to others, why must Baptism be shut out? as if it was no part of Gospel-Obediance. 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 shew himself a Christian without Waterbaptism, He shall never shew 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 your self have conoluded, it is no Church-Ordinance, p. 40. not the entering-Ordinance, p. 3, 4.) standeth both with Scripture and Reason, as mine Arguments make manifest. So that all your Arguments prove no more but this, That you are so wedded to your wordless Notions, that Charity can have no place with you. Have you all this while so much as given me one small piece of a Text to prove it unlawful for the Church to receive those whom she, by the Word, perceiveth the Lord God and her Christ hath received? No: and therefore you have said so much as amounts to nothing.
Your last Argument is, If the Baptism of John was so far honoured, and dignified, that they that did submit to it, are said to justifie 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 shew it us by their Confession of Faith, they only ought to be baptized. This might serve for an Answer for all: But,
2. The Baptism of John was the Baptism of Repentance, for the Remission of Sins, ofMatth. 3. 4, 5, 6. which Water was but an outward signification, Mark 1. 4. Now, what is the BaptismLuk. 3. 3. of Repentance, but an unfeigned acknowledgment that they were Sinners, and so stood inChap. 7. 29, 30. need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ: This Baptism, or Baptism under this Notion, the Pharisees Cha. 18 9.would not receive, For they trusted to themselves Chap. 10. 29.that they were righteous, that they were not as other men, that they had need of NO repentance: Not, but that they would haveChap. 15. 7 been baptized with Water, might that have been without an acknowledgement that they were Sinners: wherefore seeing the CounselMat. 3. 7. of God respected, rather the Remission of sins by Jesus Christ, than the outward act ofEph. 1. 7, 8, 11. 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? Matth. 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 ask'd 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 (Matth. 3. 7. Acts 19. 2, 3, 4.)
You have grounded therefore this your last Argument, as also all the rest, upon an utter mistake of things.