Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, Chapter 2

Discourse of Right to Church-Communion · Chapter 2

p. 10CHAP. II. Reaſons why Ʋnbaptized Members may not be admitted to the Lords Supper.

THat perſons Unbaptized may regularly be admitted to the Communion of the Lords Supper, is denied from theſe Reaſons:

1. Becauſe this Opinion tends to deſtroy the Nature, Ends, and Uſes of theſe Goſpel Ordinances. The nature of Baptiſm is Spiritual, when rightly Adminiſtred: Was it not ſubmitted unto by the Primitive Chriſtians? Was it not the firſt Act done by them, after their Converſion? Act. 2.41,42. Whereby they became viſible Profeſſors of the Goſpel of Truth, which figured their Death, Burial, and Reſurrection with Chriſt. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. p. 11Is it not an Inſtitution ſtampt with as Divine a Character, and as Sacred a Sanction as any in Scripture? All Nations taught, being to receive it, and being of the ſame duration with Preaching, ſubmitted to by Chriſt himſelf, before he entred upon his Publick Miniſtry (which is the moſt Illuſtrious Example in the World) witneſſed unto by the Renowned Worthies of all Ages.

Now that this Ordinance, being of that quality, enforced by ſo great Authority, ſubmitted to by ſuch Examples, and ſerving for ſuch gracious ends, (as to be the Symbol of Regeneration, in which a Believer is made a Partaker of thoſe Divine Conveyances, thoſe communications of Grace, and increaſings of Faith, promiſed by the Lord Jeſus to his ſincere followers,) ſhould be put in danger of being quite aboliſht, and the practiſe loſt by an unſeaſonablep. 12and miſtaken apprehenſion, and that by ſuch perſons as own Baptiſm to be as here repreſented, is a matter ſomething ſtrange, and 'tis to be feared, will prove in the conſequence of ill Effect, not only to this but the ſucceeding Generation, if they that Eſpouſe it ſhould go about to propagate this new Principle: to prevent which, (if it may pleaſe the Divine Will to bleſs theſe lines) was the only end of this Eſſay, and that purely out of the Zeal I have to preſerve (as much as in me lies) the Ordinances in their purity, as they were delivered to us by Chriſt; for we all know what a vaſt trouble and hazard the Reformers (and indeed many that are alive at preſent) had to Reſcue this as well other Truths and Ordinances, from the Ridiculous Additions of Sanguinary Perſecuting Romaniſts, under whoſe Captivity it groaned for ſome Ages.

p. 13To enforce what is ſaid, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew here ſome of the ill conſequences of this Opinion, and the ſmall reaſon our Brethren have to propagate it, though I ſtill reſerve much to the Chapter of Objections, where their Reaſons will be more largly reply'd to.

1. This Opinion has a direct tendency to invalidate, or indeed, quite throw out of doors, and diſcontinue the uſe of a Foundation Ordinance, or Principle of the Goſpel of Chriſt, Heb. 6.2. For if Unbaptized Perſons may be admitted to all Church Priviledges, does not ſuch a practice plainly ſuppoſe that it is unneceſſary? Supra ſic per plura quod ſieri poteſt perp…ciora.for to what purpoſe is it to be Baptized (may one Reaſon with himſelf) if he may enjoy all Church Priviledges without it? The Baptiſts (if once ſuch a belief prevails,) would be eaſily tempted to lay aſide that reproached Practice, p. 14(which Envious Men have unjuſtly derided and aſperſed,) of being dipt, that is Baptized, and challenge their Church Communion by vertue of their Faith only; and ſuch as Baptized Infants would be ſatisfied to diſcontinue the practice, when one they are perſwaded, that their Children may be Regular Church-Members without it; for if it be ſuperfluous, diſcreet and thrifty People would willingly be rid of the trouble of Chriſtning-Feaſts, (as they call them) and all the appurtenances thereto belonging: ſo that in a ſhort time we ſhould have neither old nor young baptized, and by conſequence be in a likely condition to loſe one of the Sacraments, which would eaſily make way for the loſs of the other, both having an equal Sanction in Scripture; and the Arguments that diſanul the one, will deſtroy the other, and conſequently all Ordinances,p. 15and Modes of Worſhip, and laſtly, Religion it ſelf. For if a thing expreſly commanded, and practiſed by Chriſt, be lookt upon as unneceſſary, every man will conclude, that 'tis all one, whether he takes or leaves it, and will, if he can chooſe, rather leave it, ſince the taking it up, is ſomthing troubleſome and of no uſe, (as is ſuppoſed) which begets an Opinion, That Chriſts Laws may be diſpens'd withal by men, and ſo leſſens that Reverence and Eſteem which perſons ought to have for Chriſt: and when ſuch do once make a Breach in thoſe Boundaries & Limits, which they are enjoyned not to paſs, they ſeldom ſtop in that extravagant Career till they run beyond all Religion into Atheiſm, or pretended Enthuſiaſm. So that (at beſt) this Opinion tends to encourage perſons in the neglect or contempt of Religious Duty, or to p. 16the loſs thereof quite and clean; which is, no leſs, than to be, not only an Acceſſary, but (in a great meaſure) the Cauſe of that ſin.

2. This Opinion gives up a Cauſe and Truth that has been by judicious Pens well Defended both from Scripture and Antiquity, and which theſe Brethren themſelves are convinced to be a Goſpel Truth: for if it be once admitted that it is not neceſſary to Church-Communion, every Man of ſence will infer, That our contentions for it were frivolous, our Separation Schiſmatical, and our Suffering the Penalties of Humane Laws, fooliſh: and conſequently, we ſhall be expoſed to the Reproaches of ſuch as are (without this advantage) ready enough to Revile and Perſecute us.

3. This Opinion perverts or rather deſtroys Order: & flatly contradicts the Practice of the Primitivep. 17Chriſtians; It is ſaid, Act 2.41. Then they that gladly received his Word were Baptized. Here is the right Goſpel Order, Firſt, they that gladly received the Word; that is, they that believed, and no other, were immediately Baptiſed, (that it was immediately, appears by the Adverb then) which was the ſecond Work, and the ſame day (viz. after they believed and were Baptized) there were added unto them, (that is, received into Church-Fellowſhip, by Faith and Baptiſm) about Three thouſand Souls. ver. 42. And they continued ſteadfaſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip (that is in the ſame Faith and Communion,) and in breaking of Bread and Prayers (that is in the enjoyment and Adminiſtration of Church Ordinances:) Is not here a famous Inſtance or Preſident of their Practice, which anſwers thoſe frequent and undecent Clamours of ſuch, who callp. 18for Scripture to juſtifie the Excluſion of our holy Brethren that have not been ſo Baptized. **2. Theſſ. 3.6.2 Thess 3:6Whereas in the fore-going Pages, there is a Scripture cited, That juſtifies our withdrawing from diſorderly walkers; and ſuch as make this Out-cry own the practices of Infant Baptiſm in that particular to be ſuch, and therefore our Separation for that Reaſon (purſuant to that Expreſs Command) lawful; which they muſt grant, or deny Infant Baptiſm to be diſorderly; or elſe muſt ſay, that there be ſome diſorderly walkers, that we may and ought to have Communion with, notwithſtanding that ſolemn Prohibition of it, 2 Theſſ. 3.6.

And whereas it is ſaid, That Baptiſm was never Ordained of God to be a Wall of Diviſion, between the holy, and the holy; the holy that are, and the holy that are not ſo Baptized withp. 19Water, as we, &c. It is Anſwered,

1. The Phraſe [Wall of Diviſion] is ambiguous; If it be meant of a total Excluſion of other Chriſtians from our Love, Charity, and Chriſtian-Communion, as far as we agree; we do not look upon Baptiſm to be ſuch a Wall of Diviſion, neither do we ſo practice it.

2. If it be meant, of an Excluding from immediate Church-fellowſhip, although we meet not with this Phraſe, [viz. Wall of Diviſion] in thoſe very words, yet we find what is equivalent in 2 Theſſ. 3.6. and ſeveral other Texts: and it is remarkable, that the Word Tranſlated foreign ex a priv. & foreign Ordinatus. foreign. inordinatus vel ex ordine, out of Order.diſorderly, is a metaphor borrowed from the Cuſtom of War, wherein every Souldier hath his Station aſſigned him, from which, when he ſwerves, he becomes diſorderly, which the Apoſtle Elegantly uſes, to denote, That every Chriſtian is a Souldier p. 20that's Liſted under the Banner of Chriſt, and muſt keep his exact Station appointed him, without the leaſt inclining to the right or left hand, backward or forward, without the Word of Command. Beza upon the place tells us, that Livius was wont to uſe this word of Soldiers, that kept not their Station: And Stephanus calls thoſe Souldiers by this Name, who are diſorderly. From this Emphaſis of the word, we may gather, That if Military Commanders expect a punctual and regular Obedience from their Soldiers; and ſeverely puniſh ſuch as break their Array, or quit their Stations; The Lord (who is a Jealous God with reſpect to his Worſhip, and poſitive Inſtitutions) will call any, that preſume to break the Order he has preſcribed, to a ſevere account, as hath been, and ſhall be further demonſtrated.

3. This Aſſertion reaches anyp. 21other Goſpel-Ordinance, as well as Baptiſm: For if it ſhould be ſaid, That the Supper was never Ordained of God to be a Wall of Diviſion between the Holy and the Holy, that do not ſo receive it as we, it will as rationally follow with reſpect to this, as well as Baptiſm, that we ſhould not exclude a perſon that doubts it, or poſitively aſſerts it to be needleſs, from our Communion, which may be likewiſe ſaid of any Church-Ordinance whatſoever; and conſequently, the Rule of Communion muſt not be what we find written, but the Sanctity of the Party (whether pretended or real) that propoſes himſelf as a Member. For I would ask thoſe that pretend tenderneſs, and for that cauſe admit Perſons to the Lords Supper that are Unbaptized, that if any perſon ſhould deſire to joyn to a Church, and yet declares, he wants Light to practicep. 22the Ordinance of the Supper, but in other things would be of their Communion, whether they would admit him upon thoſe terms, he wanting Light in that Ordinance of Chriſt wherein the Communion of the Church doth chiefly conſiſt? If they would admit him, they open ſo wide a gap, that any Ordinance upon the like pretence may be diſpenced with, and two or three, yea all, as well as one, may be Caſhier'd, and Church-Order may be quite turned to an Anarchy. If they would not admit a perſon upon the ſaid terms, then 'tis neceſſary to produce ſome Divine Law that makes the Supper more Eſſential than Baptiſm, or elſe the practice can never be juſtified. But that no ſuch Authority can be ſhewn, is undenyable; for that Divine Law that Ordained the Supper, did alſo Eſtabliſh Baptiſm. If it be ſaid, Matt. 26.26. Luk. 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.p. 2324. Take eate, this is my Body. This do in Remembrance of me, &c. It is alſo ſaid, Matt. 28.19. Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and holy Ghoſt. Act. 2.38. Repent & be Baptized every one of you for the Remiſſion of Sins, &c. Act. 22.16. Ariſe and be Baptized, & waſh away thy Sins, &c.

Do the former Scriptures Inſtitute the Supper, and Command its conſtant Obſervation? The latter do as well Inſtitute Baptiſm, and Command its conſtant Obſervation, the very ſame Sanction, the ſame Spirit, with equal Authority Eſtabliſhes both, giving Baptiſm precedency in order of time, as being the Sacrament of the Spiritual Birth, and the other of Spiritual Nouriſhment and Growth; and ſurely there is as much need of being New Born, as being Spiritually fed, that being of abſolute neceſſity with reſpect to priority, in order to this.

p. 24Did Chriſt himſelf Celebrate this Supper, as before? Why the ſame Lord Jeſus before he entred upon his Publick Miniſtry, was Baptized, Matt. 3.16,17. And Jeſus when he was Baptized, went up ſtraight-way out of the Water: and lo the Heavens were opened to him, and he ſaw the Spirit of God deſcending like a Dove, and lighting upon him; ſaying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleaſed. Here the whole Trinity appears, the Father by a Voice, the Son in his Body, and the Holy Ghoſt like a Dove: All Three make the Triumph, and Ratifie the Affair; never was any Ordinance graced with ſuch a Preſence, nor made Authentick by a more Illuſtrious Example.

Does the Supper ſhew forth the Lords Death till he come? 1 Cor- 11.26. So Baptiſm is a lively ſymbol of the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12.

p. 25Does Examination go before the Supper? 1 Cor. 11.28. So Faith and Repentance, the two great Goſpel Graces, with Confeſſion of ſins, are neceſſary Antecedents to Baptiſm, Act. 2.38. Act. 8.37. and all theſe are altogether as neceſſary before the Supper.

Is it ſaid John 6.54. Whoſo eateth my fleſh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life? &c. So it is ſaid Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved, &c. 1 Pet. 3.21. The like figure whereunto, even Baptiſm doth alſo now ſave us, (not the putting away the filth of the fleſh, but the **foreign. Stipulatio.ſtipulation (or anſwer) of a good Conſcience toward God, by the Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt. As the Supper is a Spiritual participation of the Body and Blood of Chriſt by Faith, and ſo (not meerly by the work done) is a means of Salvation; ſo Baptiſm Signs and Seals our Salvation top. 26us, which lies in Juſtification and diſcharge of ſin, &c.

By this brief Parallel we may ſee that Baptiſm is not only ordained and ratified by the great Law-giver, as well as the Supper, but that it is dignified with as Spiritual Encomiums as any Goſpel Ordinance can be; and if the advantage inclines to either of them, it is evident that the New Teſtament more frequently mentions the Command and Practice of Baptiſm than of the Supper: for beſides the Great Commiſſion, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15,16. &c. you have frequent Precepts and Examples of it. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.38. Act. 9.18. Act. 10.48. Act. 16.15,33. Act. 18.8. &c. Neither do we find any one Ordinance of the New Teſtament ſo made uſe of by the Apoſtle to incite Chriſtians to dye to ſin and live to God, as this Ordinance of Baptiſm, being that which p. 27is ſignified thereby is called a Burial with Chriſt, Rom. 6.4. A putting on of Chriſt. Gal. 3.27. The ſignification of the waſhing away of our ſins by the blood of Chriſt, Act. 22.16. That having an intereſt in Chriſt, and being buryed with him, We may walk in newneſs of life, &c. Whereas beſides the Inſtitution of the Lords Supper by Jeſus Chriſt, inſtanced by the ſeveral Evangeliſts, that Ordinance is but four times mentioned, viz. Act. 2.42. Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.23. By all which it appears that the Ordinance of Baptiſm, as it has the Precedency in point of Order, ſo it is more frequently mentioned, and more earneſtly inculcated, than the other, & therefore the Obligation to preſerve it, as Delivered by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, is indiſpenſable.

4. In regard it is granted by ſuch as hold the opinion here argued againſt, that Baptiſm and the Supper, p. 28&c. are poſitive Inſtitutions It will unavoidably follow, tha… all the Force and Authority they have upon the Conſcience in point of Practice, is to be derived from the plain expreſs Law and Word of God, which made them Ordinances; from whence only we are to ſeek both a Warrant for, and the Method and manner of Practiſing them. The Direction given to Moſes was, See that thou make ALL things according to the PATTERN ſhewed thee in the Mount, Heb. 8.5. Exod. 25.9. to 40. And no leſs exact are Chriſtians to be in the Adminiſtration of Goſpel Ordinances; ſince to deviate from the expreſs Rule, is branded with the odious Title of Will-Worſhip, and humane Tradition.

All Sound and Orthodox Writers with one mind agree (and meer Reaſon teaches it) that where a Rule and expreſs Law is p. 29preſcribed to men, that very Preſcription, is an expreſs prohibition of the contrary: Act. 2.38. to 42.Acts 2:38–42Here we have the Order of Goſpel Adminiſtration, not only Commanded, but Practiſed. Firſt they Preached; and ſuch as were Converted, were Baptized; ſuch as were Baptized, walkt in Church-Fellowſhip, &c. Breaking of Bread and Prayers; which being ſo expreſs, what neceſſity is there to be wiſe above what is written, and to clamour for Precept or Example, to prove that Baptiſm is a bar to Communion, ſince we read every where, (where Goſpel order is ſet down,) that all ſuch as were received, were firſt Baptized; and not one inſtance in the whole Bible, that any were received without it. Nor is it rational to think that any were admitted to Church-Fellowſhip any other way, unleſs we will ſay that theſe poſitive Precepts were calculated for ſomep. 30only, and not for all Chriſtians, which is not only abſurd, but againſt the very Letter of the Scripture, Matth. 28.19. Teach all Nations Baptizing them, that is every individual that gladly receives the Word in every Nation: Take Eat, &c. Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26.26. &c. That is, every individual Member of the Church. Which Interpretation muſt needs ſtand, until the Maintainers of this new Opinion can aſſign to what ſort of Chriſtians theſe Divine Precepts are obligatory, and to what ſort they are not; a thing impoſſible to be made out. Which I ſhall ſhut up in the words of Mr. Coxe, in his late Diſcourſe of the Covenants, page 131. In matters of Poſitive Right (ſaith he) we can have no warrant for our practice, but from a Poſitive Precept: for things of this kind fall not within the compaſs of Common Light, or general Principles of Natural Religion;p. 31but have their Original from a particular, diſtinct, and independent Will of the Law-giver. And therefore Inferences built upon General Notions may ſoon lead us into miſtakes about them; if upon ſuch inferences we Form a Rule to our ſelves of larger extent than the expreſs words of the Inſtitution do warrant. Which as it is a ſound and excellent Truth, quite overthrows this practice of admitting Unbaptized perſons to the Communion of the Lords Supper, there being no poſitive Precept to warrant it:Quere how conſiſtent, &c. and therefore is queried how this their Opinion can be conſiſtent, or reconciled with theſe expreſſions?

To conclude: The ends and uſes of Baptiſm being (1.) To repreſent to the Eye and Underſtanding by a viſible ſign or figure what hath been Preacht to the Ear and Heart. (2.) To witneſs Repentance, Matth. 3.6,11. Act. 2.38. Mark p. 321.4. (3.) To evidence Regeneration, called in alluſion to it the waſhing of Regeneration, Tit. 3.5. A being born of the Water and the Spirit, John 3.5. (4.) A Symbol of our dying unto ſin, and living again to Chriſtian newneſs of life, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. &c. It is therefore an Ordinance of very great ſignificancy, and ſuch as go about to lay it aſide, (as this Opinion in its tendency and Conſequence muſt needs do) deſerve no thanks from the Churches of Chriſt, who have experienced much of the Lords preſence in its Regular and Orderly Adminiſtration.