Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, Chapter 5

Discourse of Right to Church-Communion · Chapter 5

p. 118CHAP. V. Wherein the Objections againſt this Poſition viz. That none may be Regularly admitted to the Lords Supper, that are not firſt Baptized, are Anſwered.

Obj. 1. THere is no Rule, or expreſs Warrant of Scripture to Exclude Perſons fearing God, from receiving the Lords Supper, who by vertue of their Faith have a Right to it.

Anſw. This Objection ſuppoſes things very dangerous. As,

1. That Holineſs without Baptiſm inveſts a Right to other Church Ordinances, which is not to be ſuppoſed, for Chriſt the Lamb of God was Holy in the Higheſt Degree, and in him wasp. 119found no Sin, yet he was Baptized before he entred upon his Publick Miniſtry,Matt. 3.15,16.Matt 3:15Matt 3:16 which is a moſt Illuſtrious Example, and the Pattern which the Saints followed; for in a Word, the great Apoſtle Paul and all thoſe Primitive Saints Recorded by the Spirit to be Believers, and therefore Holy; were nevertheleſs Baptized, which might have been forborn but that it was an indiſpenſable Duty: and whatſoever Reaſon may be given, why Holineſs without Baptiſm may ſerve, the like may be produced, Why Holineſs without any other Ordinance may be ſufficient for a Believer? And unleſs it be leſs neceſſary now for Believers to perform Goſpel Duties, then for Evangelical Saints; or unleſs it can be made out, that Baptiſm was only Appointed for that Age, (as Holy an Age as ever was,) then the obligation of Practiſing that Duty ſtill lies upon All Chriſtians,p. 120which is a Warrant and Rule for the Excluſion of ſuch as will not ſubmit to it.

2. It ſuppoſes, That whatſoever is not forbidden in Scripture, is Lawful; and ſo the Receiving of Believers that are not baptized to the Supper, being not Prohibited, is therefore Lawful.

Now that this is a Pernicious way of Argument, has been largely Demonſtrated about the beginning, as tending to bring all Humane Inventions into Gods Worſhip, to which we refer: yet doubtleſs, it will be granted by all that the only Warrant we have, (as has been frequently ſaid) for the Practice of Goſpel Duties, muſt be the expreſs Warrant, or Word of God; according to which we muſt walk: and I very well remember, That the Old Nonconformiſts who faithfully followed the Lord▪ according to the Light they had received, rather thanp. 121they would kneel at the Sacrament, thought it their Duty to forbear the Practice of that great Ordinance, giving this as their Reaſon: To leave (ſay they) the Practiſe of Chriſt and his Apoſtles in the manner of Receiving the Sacrament, and to follow the Practice of Men, in a poſture Invented by Men is not ſafe: but to kneel at the Sacrament is ſo, &c. therefore not ſafe.

And if the Servants of God in thoſe times were ſo Cautious of doing any thing that might be an Addition to the Worſhip of God, although but in a Circumſtance: how much ought Chriſtians Now when the Matter is about the very Order of the Practiſe of Ordinances themſelves; for here in the Caſe in hand, is a moſt evident leaving the Practice of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and following the Inventions of Men.

2. The Commiſſion given byp. 122Chriſt Matt. 28.19. Go teach all Nations Baptizing them, &c. hath been an Argument of great weight in the minds of all that oppoſe Infant Baptiſm; the order of the words ſhewing who are to be baptized, viz. Such as are taught Firſt Teach, then Baptize: and if it be an Argument, that proves Believers baptiſm only, It muſt have its Conſideration, That Baptiſm muſt go before the Practice of other Ordinances, as Preaching goes before Baptiſm.

We find Act. 1.3. that Jeſus Chriſt was Forty days with his Diſciples, ſpeaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God; and doubtleſs he was not wanting in giving them direction concerning the order of his Worſhip. For as the Commiſſion Matth. 28.19. was given after his Reſurrection, we may ſee his Apoſtles (as appears by their conſtant Adminiſtrations ſutablep. 123thereto) did Practiſe no other way, as Act. 2.41,42. and ſeveral other places fully produced before. Which Practiſe in order to the receiving or enjoying of Ordinances, I take to be a conſtant and a ſtanding direction for all Churches, in all times, unleſs any can ſhew a variation from it, by any of the Primitive Churches afterwards, which cannot be done; I would fain know of him that Preaches the Goſpel to men, what Doctrine he is to Preach to them? is it any other than to Believe and be Baptiſed; If no other, (as I judg all will grant) than if in caſe the party Believing ſhould queſtion whether Water Baptiſm be the Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, or if he believes it, is not yet ſatisfied it is his duty to be Baptiſed, but deſires he may break Bread with the Church, can this without a manifeſt breach of the Rule be Admitted.

p. 124The Apoſtle tells us Gal. 3.27. That ſo many of you (or as ſome render it) all yee that are Baptiſed into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt, that is, they have **The Verb foreign ſignifies to put on as a Garment. Liegh Crit. Sacr.put on Chriſt as a Garment, and by Baptiſm have put on the viſible Profeſſion of Chriſt, plainly holding out, that none have put on the viſible Profeſſion of Chriſt until they be Baptized; the outward Sign, anſwering to the inward Grace, ſo Rom. 6.3. Know ye not that we who were Baptiſed into Jeſus Chriſt, were Baptiſed into his Death: which Baptiſm is a pledge of—Can it therefore be judged upon any Reaſonable pretence that any man ſhould be Admitted to Walk in the Practiſe of the Ordinances of Chriſt, before he hath put on Chriſt in the viſible Profeſſion of his Name by Baptiſm.

From the whole of which we infer, in anſwer to the Objection That our Practice ſuitable to theſep. 25Precepts and Examples, are a ſufficient Rule and Warrant for our not admitting them to the Lords Supper, and to call for Scripture Precepts or Examples for refuſing them, is very abſurd; For we may as well call for the like to Warrant our Separation from the Church of Rome by Name, which can be produced no more then this, yet it does not follow, that Communion with that Church, as now it is, is Lawful. Scripture Examples are matter of Fact; and therefore, there having been no ſuch corrupt Practice crept into the world when the Scripture was written, therefore there was no occaſion for any baptized Perſon to diſclaim Communion with the Unbaptized; there being no ſuch Cauſe of which to make an Example.

Obj. 2. But we admit none to the Supper of the Lord, but thoſe p. 126that think they are Baptiſed already, and Judg what they received in their Infancy ſufficient.

Anſwer. It is certain that they who believe that the only Subjects of Baptiſm are actual Believers, viz. ſuch who upon a Profeſſion of Faith received that Ordinance, and eſteemed no other Baptiſm valid, cannot judg the Baptiſm received in Infancy to be Chriſts Baptiſm, they knowing that the proper Subject appointed by Chriſt, viz. a Believer (which is the main part of the Eſſence of the Ordinance) is wanting, and certainly the Ground of Churches proceedings, in admitting perſons to the Supper cannot be built upon the imagination of the party deſiring Communion, but upon the knowledg the Church hath of it, and its being tryed by the Rule which they are to Walk by. For,

p. 127Suppoſe a Perſon deſires to ſit down as a Member of the Church, as thinking he hath a true Faith, and a Right to the Priviledge in the Church, when yet he can give no ſatisfactory demonſtration of either; will any think the Church ought to receive him becauſe he hath that good perſuaſion of himſelf, when they themſelves are ſatisfied that what he declares is inſufficient by the Rule, to make out his Right? Or will any judgment of Charity warrant ſuch a proceeding? Certainly no; and yet the Reaſon is the ſame for the latter, as for the former. Beſides the Conſequence to the party that ſhould be ſo Admitted to the Supper upon his conceit that he is Baptized is very dangerous, and muſt needs build him up in a conceit that he hath that which indeed he hath not. God of old gave this charge, that a ſtumbling-block muſt notp. 128be put in the way of the blind, and ſurely a greater ſtumbling-block cannot be put in ſuch mens way to hinder their inquiry after the True Baptiſm of Chriſt then to admit of that ſuppoſition, which the Church knoweth is not true. For having now the enjoyment of all the priviledges of the Houſe of God, they hereby are for ever careleſs of making any further Inquiry: and I heartily wiſh that this may be ſeriouſly conſidered by thoſe that exerciſe this groundleſs Charity.

Again, ſuppoſe the Child of a Baptized Perſon of ſufficient Age, that was brought up in a Godly manner, is Converted and become a Believer, yet was never Baptized at all, ſhould propoſe for Communion with the Church, would they admit him without Baptiſm, if he deſires Communion ſo? (not being ſatisfied, that it is a neceſſary Duty,) If they would, then p. 129it is evident, that they quite Exclude Baptiſm out of the Rank of Ordinances; If they do not admit him, then they place a ſufficiency in Infant Baptiſm, becauſe they grant a Priviledge to him that had it, and deny the ſame to him that had it not, (whom we do ſuppoſe to be as much a Believer, and as holy as the other) which is expreſly againſt their own Principle, viz. to eſteem Infant Baptiſm as no Baptiſm; and therefore if they hold to it, ſhould place him that was ſo in infancy baptized, and him that was never baptized, in the ſame rank, with reſpect to the Priviledge of Church Communion.

Object. 3. It is ſaid, Rom. 14.1. Him that is weak in the Faith receive you, and it being but the weakneſs of ſuch perſons to judge their own Baptiſm Lawful, yet being ſuch as have faith, this Scripture ſufficientlyp. 130Warrants us to receive them.

Anſw. For the right underſtanding of this Text, Two things ought to be conſidered, which if well weighed may give a clear Anſwer to this Scripture Objection.

1. What Weakneſs this is, which the Apoſtle here intends.

2. What is to be underſtood by Receiving ſuch.

1. The weakneſs ſpoken of in the Text, hath Relation only to thoſe miſtakes that did attend ſome of them touching a liberty of eating, or not eating Meats, or the keeping or not keeping of days which were things in themſelves of an indifferent Nature, the doing or not doing of which, was not Sin, as the Apoſtle in that Chapter plainly ſhews; and hath no Relation to the Order of Worſhip preſcribed by Chriſt, much leſs to the Practice or not Practice of Ordinances,p. 131for then the meaning of the Apoſtle ſhould be, if they did practice, or not practice, it was all one, there was no Sin in the matter.

2. The Receiving here cannot be meant to receive into the Church as Members, Becauſe the Apoſtle Writes this Epiſtle to the Church, and theſe weak Members as a part of that Church; but the Receiving here intended is into the Affections of each other; that the differences that were amongſt them ſhould not hinder the Law of Love, which they, and every Chriſtian ought to cheriſh and Exerciſe towards each other, let their differences be of what nature they will: That this muſt be the Senſe of the Apoſtle, the clear Scope of the whole Chapter makes evident. But to bring this Text to prove a Lawfulneſs of receiving any that are Chriſtians although never ſo ignorant of thep. 132Ordinances, and Inſtituted Worſhip of Chriſt, and the order preſcribed by him is to wring Blood out of it, and not that precious Truth that is manifeſted by it.

Object. 4. Whereas ſome infer from 1 Cor. 12.13. By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, Bond or Free, and have been all made to Drink into one Spirit, &c. That Baptiſm is the Inchurching Ordinance, the concluſion is impertinent, for not Water Baptiſm, but the Baptiſm of the Spirit is there meant.

Anſ. That Baptiſm was of ſo conſtant and Univerſal uſe to the Enchurching of all ſorts Ranks and Degrees, is fairly deduced from this Text, however excepted againſt; and that none were Inchurched without it, unleſs any man can find or name ſome perſons that p. 133were neither Jews nor Gentiles, Bond nor Free, which denotes plainly, that all ſorts were receiv'd by Baptiſm: the Jews though before Circumciſed, yet were Baptized; the Gentiles, ſome times a People a far off were upon their believing by Baptiſm received. If free, as Maſters, yet not admitted without it; If Bond, as Servants, yet by this Ordinance they were made equally of the ſame Church Priviledge by Baptiſm, Gal. 3.27,28.

And that Water Baptiſm is here meant is the Judgment of the moſt Learned Expoſitors: and the next words do make it Appear, We have been all made to Drink into one Spirit. By being baptized into one body and made to Drink into one Spirit. The Apoſtle ſhews the Communion which Believers have with the Holy Spirit in the Two Ordinances, Baptiſm and the Lords Supper. For what elſe canp. 134be intended by Drinking into one Spirit, but the Saints Communion in the Spirit, in, and by the Supper [Drinking] by a Synecdoche being put both for Eating and Drinking: And if ſo, why muſt we not as well underſtand the Firſt Ordinance in its proper Senſe for Water Baptiſm in the former part, as the Later Ordinance, the Supper in the firſt part of the Text.

2. If the Baptiſm of the Spirit had been meant, then the being Baptiſed into one Body, and Drinking into one Spirit, muſt be one and the ſame thing, but ſurely Baptiſing and Drinking are no more the ſame, than the Body and the Spirit are the ſame, into which they are ſaid reſpectively to be Baptiſed, and to Drink. But it is clear the Apoſtle hereby intends to mind thoſe Corinthians, how that by means of the ſame Spirit working upon all their Hearts, they became Members of the ſame p. 135Body by Baptiſm, and that being of the Body, they came to have Communion in Spirit, or with the Spirit in the Supper.

It cannot be the Baptiſm of the Spirit, becauſe the Spirit is here ſet forth by the Apoſtle, as the Agent or working Cauſe, and Baptiſm as the Effect; and it is ridiculous to make both Cauſe and Effect the ſame thing. It is true the Scripture ſpeaks elſewhere of a being Baptiſed with the Spirit, but when it doth ſo, it ſtill declares either Jeſus Chriſt, or God the Father as the Agent of Baptiſing with the Spirit, but never as making the Spirit both the Subject Matter wherewith, and the Agent whereby, men are Baptiſed in the ſame Baptiſm, ſee Matth. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Luk. 3.16. and 24.49. Act. 11.4,5,16.

We find in Scripture that when God chargeth men for ſin, he tells them, They did that which hep. 136commanded not, neither did it enter in his heart. Now that this was the Order of Adminiſtration with reſpect to theſe Ordinances, viz. 1. To Teach, then Baptiſe, and then Admit to Church-Communion, is elſe where fully Evidenc'd from Precept and Example, Matth. 28.19. Act. 2.41. &c. And if that be the ſtated Method of God, and the Univerſal Practiſe of the Primitive Chriſtians, we may Rationally infer that the contrary Practiſe is a Deviation from the Divine Rule, and a thing which God Commanded not.

The Apoſtle according to the Rule of Chriſt, firſt at Jeruſalem, to put this Commiſſion in Execution, Luk. 24.47. And did Act according to it, and certainly their punctual Conformity to it, ought to be taken by us as the Interpretation of this grand Precept, and their Example a ſufficient Pattern for ſucceeding Chriſtians, p. 137unleſs we will ſuppoſe them to depart from it as ſoon as they began to Act in purſuance of it, which ſuppoſition includes a very ſtrange Uncharitableneſs, and a very unbecoming Opinion of theſe Holy men. For nothing can be more plain than that Addition to the Church (or Church-Fellowſhip) followed after Baptiſm, and did not go before it: and why men now find a greater good in their own way than in his, is not to be eaſily reſolved. Baptiſm in thoſe days did certainly precede Church-Enjoyments, for it was eſteem'd (as it ſtill ought to be) a means of implanting men into Chriſt, or the Body of Chriſt the Church, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3. Now let it be conſidered what a Planting together imports; It muſt be certainly the firſt putting of Chriſtians together, in order to their Growing together in Chriſt, and yet all this was done p. 138by Baptiſm: and may we not ſuppoſe Trees to grow together before they are Planted together, as this Spiritual Plantation of Chriſt, viz. the Church, or Society of Chriſtians, who were, and ſhould ſtill be Planted together by Baptiſm, not into this or that particular Church; but into that one Church of Chriſt, which is diſtributed into ſeveral parts and particular Societies. Hence Baptiſm is called one of the Principles or begining Doctrines of Chriſt, and part of the Foundation, Heb. 6.1,2. Now there is no Houſe can ſtand without its Principle, or can be Erected without a Foundation. See 1 Cor. 12.13. Where we have an account of all being Baptiſed into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, Bond or Free, which comprehended all Ranks and Degrees of Chriſtians, as is elſewhere demonſtrated.

p. 139Obj. 5. The Phraſe, Rom. 6.3. and Gal. 3.27. [As many] of you as have been Baptiſed into Chriſt, &c. implies that all that were in thoſe Churches of Rome and Galatia were not Baptiſed.

Anſ. If we conſult the Scripture with the Coherence, it will appear how weak this Objection is.

1. For that Rom. 6.3. Let it be conſidered to whom the Apoſtle writes: Is it not to the whole Church, and every individual of them? In verſe 1, 2. When he ſays, What ſhall we ſay then? Shall we continue in ſin, that Grace may abound? God forbid. How ſhall we that are dead to ſin, live any longer therein? ? If theſe words in the firſt and ſecond Verſe reſpect the whole Church, as they muſt be ſuppoſed to do, unleſs we will conclude that the Apoſtle p. 140did grant a liberty to ſome of the Church to continue in ſin, and live therein, then theſe words, Know ye not that as many of us as were Baptiſed into Jeſus Chriſt, &c. Are Interrogatively propounded not only to the ſame perſons, unto whom the former words relate, but alſo as an Argument or Reaſon why none of them ſhould live any longer in ſin, which is the thing from which he was a diſſuading not only ſome of them, but even all of them in the foregoing verſes, and which he improves in an Argumentative way throughout the greateſt part of the Chapter, and it would not befit the Reaſon of any ordinary man, much leſs of a Great Apoſtle to make choice a Reaſon or Motive to infore his Exhortation or Perſuaſion, which is of leſs extent in the tendency and concernment of it, then are the perſons whom he doth Exhort or Dehort. Which p. 141yet is a piece of weakneſs, of which we muſt ſuppoſe this Apoſtle to be guilty, unleſs you do conclude that all thoſe of the Church of Rome were diſſuaded from continuing any longer in ſin upon this ground, becauſe they had been all Baptiſed into the Death of Chriſt, viz. a Conformity to his Death, as well as a belief of it. To conclude, If the whole Church had not been under the Motive, the whole Church could not be preſſed by it as here you ſee they are.

As for the other Text,Gal. 3.26,27.Gal 3:26Gal 3:27 Gal 3.26. the Apoſtle had aſſured them, viz. them to whom he now writes, To be all the children of God by Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, that is they were lookt upon as children of God by their confeſſing and owning of Jeſus Chriſt, of which he gives this account, verſe 27. Becauſe they had put on Chriſt in Baptiſm You are all the children of God byp. 142Faith in Chriſt Jeſus, for, or becauſe, as many of you, as have been Baptiſed into Chriſt, have put on Chriſt: as if he ſhould ſay, if the Owning and Profeſſing Chriſt does denominate men to be the Children of God, now under the Goſpel, as indeed it does, then ye are all the Children of God, becauſe by being Baptiſed into Chriſt, ye have all of you put him on, that is, ſo to appear with him, wherever ye become, as you do appear with the Clothes you wear. But now moſt certain it is, they could not all of them have been denominated the Children of God by Faith in Chriſt, upon account of their being Baptiſed into Chriſt (which yet we ſee they are) unleſs they had been all of them Baptiſed into Chriſt indeed.

Beſides in what hath been ſaid already it does not appear that p. 143any in the Apoſtles days were inchurched without Baptiſm. And for any to aſſert that ſome, not all, were Baptiſed, is to affirm what is void of Scripture, Reaſon, and Common Senſe. As for any countenance in Scripture, there is none—And it has as little in Reaſon: for if it ſhould be true, it will follow that this Great Ordinance was a duty to ſome only, and not to all, and the Reaſon why it ſhould be ſo, will be very difficult to aſſign, was it becauſe it was commanded to ſome only, and not others? If ſo, let them be inſtanced by ſome kind of Record, who were obliged to the Practiſe, and who not: was it becauſe ſome only had need of it, and others not? or becauſe thoſe glorious myſteries repreſented by it, were uſeleſs to ſome, and not to all? Or what other Reaſon was it? If none can be aſſigned, then we may ſafely conclude that allp. 144Church-Members were then Baptiſed; and ought to be ſo ſtill.

It is confeſſed that ſometimes the Phraſe [As many] has not the ſame Latitude of ſignification as the Phraſe [All men] which includes every Individual, the term [As many] being reſtrained to matter going before being then Partitive: But here it has Relation to the whole ſcope of the Text, and muſt therefore intend all, or all of that Church to whom he wrote, to confirm which Interpretation we find other Texts [As many] muſt of neceſſity be ſo underſtood as 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many ſervants as are▪ under the Yoke, count their own Maſters worthy of all Honour: doth he thereby ſuppoſe or may it be implyed that there were ſome ſervants who were not under the Yoke, or that there were ſome Servants who were not to count their Maſters worthy of all Honour? Butp. 145which muſt be ſuppoſed notwithſtanding, if this form or manner of ſpeaking (as many as) be always to be underſtood to intend the dividing of the intire Number of Perſons ſpoken unto; which yet to ſuppoſe muſt needs be very abſurd.

Object. And if it be ſaid, That this Exhortation, let as many Servants as &c. doth intentionally reſpect ſo many Believing Servants as were under to Yoke; and that therefore in reſpect of other Believers it is partitive.

Anſw. If that be granted there will be more gained than otherwiſe: for then it may well be ſaid, that thoſe Texts, Rom. 6.3. Gall. 3.27. Intentionally, only reſpected thoſe at Rome and Gallatia, who did Believe, and were Baptized; and therefore is partitive in reſpect of others, the Inhabitants of thoſe p. 146places, dividing thoſe of the Churches, from others dwelling in the ſame places, who were not of thoſe Churches.

Object. 6. If it be Objected from Act. 9.26. That we find not there, when Paul was preſented to the Church at Jeruſalem, and Aſſayed to joyn himſelf to the Diſciples, that the Church made any inquiry whether he was Baptized or no, in order to his Reception amongſt them; or that Barnabas in giving ſatisfaction to the Apoſtles and the Church concerning his meetneſs to be admitted into Communion with them, ſo much as mentions his being Baptized, but only declareth unto them, how he had ſeen the Lord in the way, and that he had ſpoken to him, and how he had Preached boldly at Damaſcus in the Name of Jeſus.

Anſw. There is no good Reaſon can be given, or to ſuppoſe that p. 147Paul was admitted to Communion with the Church, until the Church had knowledg either from himſelf, Barnabus, or ſome other, of his having obey'd the Goſpel in Embracing the firſt Principles of it; of which Baptiſm is one, Heb. 6.2. For how ſhould they know him to be a Diſciple of Chriſt and ſo meet for Communion with them, but by knowing that he had at leaſt done the firſt things of a Diſciple, of which we find all along the Hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles, a Being Baptized, to be one, and doubtleſs leſs ſatisfaction would not have ſerved them concerning him, than would concerning another Diſciple who had never appeared in that height of oppoſition againſt them, as he had done.

Again, when the Text tells us, That Barnabas declared unto them, how he had ſeen the Lord in the way, and had ſpoken to him; can p. 148it be thought he could ſay leſs then what it was, that the Lord had ſpoke to him? And if ſo, then how can it be thought but that the Relation of his being Baptized muſt needs come in at his Report to them? inaſmuch as that Direction which the Lord gave Paul, about his going into a Straight ſtreet in order to his further Information, touching the Will of the Lord concerning him, to Rehearſe the Carriage of Ananias towards Saul; and conſequently his baptizing of him: unleſs it ſhould be ſuppoſed, that Barnabas made a broken and imperfect Relation of the Lords dealing with him, which we cannot do without Judging Barnabas either weak or careleſs in that great buſineſs: For it cannot be thought that Barnabas uſed no more words in this Relation then what are here Recorded by Luke; ſince we have frequently, if not for the moſtp. 149part; but the brief Heads of things. Recorded that were done, and ſpoken by Chriſt, the Apoſtles, and other Diſciples, John 21.25. Act. 2.40.

And we find Paul himſelf in making the Relation of that great Providence of the Lord towards him in his Converſion, particularly mention his Baptiſm, Act. 22.5, to 16. and that which was required of him to be found in the Practice of, before he ſhould go forth in the performance of that great Work he was Called unto, namely, to Preach the Goſpel.

Object. 7. It is Objected, that this was in the Infancy of the Church, and is no binding Rule to us.

Anſw. If that be no Rule to us, let it be ſhown where there is another Rule? beſides do not all men of any underſtanding know, that this is the great Argumentp. 150brought to Countenance Infant Baptiſm: And is not this the pretence by which all thoſe Traditions of Men in the Worſhip of God are brought in? How greatly is that place, 1 Cor. 14.40. abus'd and miſtaken? Let all things be done decently and in Order. From whence men take upon them to preſcribe what they pleaſe, and call it Order, impoſing the ſame upon Mens Conſciences, whereas Order and Decency there, muſt reſpect that Order which he himſelf had preſcribed in the foregoing Verſes, wherein is ſhewn, what Order ought to be uſed in the improvement of thoſe ſeveral Gifts which God hath given to that Church, in the Exerciſe whereof the Church might receive Edification. They eſpecially that are afraid to comply with the Inventions of men in the Worſhip of God in ſome things, ſhould above all others be careful of bringing in anyp. 151Inventions of their own in other things, leſt while they build again themſelves the things they Deſtroy in others; they make themſelves Tranſgreſſors, and give that advantage to others they would not willingly do.

Object. 8. A main thing built upon, is, that Ʋnion with Chriſt gives a Right to all the Ordinances of Chriſt.

Anſw. It is readily granted, that Union with Chriſt, ſignifyed by a viſible Profeſſion of Faith gives a man Right to Baptiſm, and having this Union and being baptized, they have a Right to Church Fellowſhip, and the Lords Supper, &c. but that by vertue of Union with Chriſt they have a right to the Lords Supper; and accordingly to partake of the ſame before they are Baptized is Deny'd from the Reaſons already given,p. 152nor can it any where be proved.

This may be plainly illuſtrated by this ſimilitude. A Child, by being the Eldeſt Son of his Father, has a Right to his Fathers Eſtate as Heir thereof, as ſoon as his Father is dead, but yet for the actual Poſſeſſion thereof, there is required his coming to Age, till which time he cannot Poſſeſs that Right; the Law requiring this as the Order by which he is to come to the enjoyment thereof. So though Union with Chriſt gives a man a Right to all the Ordinances of Chriſt, yet are they to be enjoyed in that Order which the Law preſcribeth.

Obj. 9. This is a Dividing Principle, and 'tis very cenſorious to judge none fit for Communion in a Church, but ſuch as are Baptiſed thereby, Ʋnchriſtianing all other Perſons that are of another mind.

p. 153Anſw. This is no other Principle but what the Scripture doth every where juſtifie, as hath been largely proved before. And this Objection is rather chargeable on the contrary Opinion, as being that which divides the Ordinance from its proper uſe and end by putting it out of its place, where God in his Word hath ſet it. There being no Diviſion made by Principle, but what is made by the ignorance of the perſons that Oppoſe it about the Rule and Order by which Chriſtians ought to walk; or by their wilful neglect of that which is required by the Lord, of thoſe that deſire Communion with the Church. For if the Lord of the Family preſcribe an Order by which it ſhould be Governed, can it be reaſonable that his Rule ſhould be broken for the ſake of the Servants Ignorance or wilfulneſs?

p. 1542. We cenſure none ſo rigidly as to take upon us to Unchriſtian or Unchurch them; all that we do is (in diſcharge of our Duty to God, and Faithfulneſs in our places) to labour to keep the Lords Ordinances in that Purity and Order the Sacred Records teſtifie they were left in, and in a Spirit of Love and Meekneſs to contend earneſtly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints;1 Cor. 11.2. Jude 3.1 Cor 11:2Jude 1:3 which we conceive to be a Duty enjoyned upon all Chriſtians, &c.

Obj. 10. It hath been Objected from Eph. 4.4,5,6. Where under the ſeveral Heads there is in the fourth Head one Baptiſm. Now ſaith the Objector if we believe the other ſix things there mentioned, viz. One Body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one Hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, one God and Father of all, &c. and are not found in the Practiſe of the p. 155fourth Head, viz. one Baptiſm; what Reaſon is there that we ſhould be deprived of Communion in the Lords Supper, for either the neglect of it, and not ſeeing we are bound to Practiſe it? &c.

Anſw. It doth appear from the Text that this is a Golden Chain linked together by the Spirit of God himſelf, the taking of one of which Links away may weaken the whole: and if the Wiſdom of the Spirit hath linked or joyned them together, it ſeems to be great preſumption in any to put them a ſunder. Therefore let it be noted that the Apoſtle verſe 3. Exhorts the Church to keep the Ʋnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. In the 4, 5, 6. verſes he ſhews, wherein the Unity of the Spirit which is to be kept conſiſts, by giving a Character of the True Apoſtolick Religion, epitomized under ſeven Heads.

p. 1561. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and in us all.

2. One Lord the ſecond Adam, the man Chriſt Jeſus; by whom, and for whom are all things, the great Mediator betwixt God and Man.

3. One Faith, Believing in this one God, and this one Lord Jeſus the one Mediator.

4. One Baptiſm, which in all the three Editions thereof hath ſignified a Profeſſion and Ingagement to this one God, and one Mediator by the Profeſſion of the one Faith.

5. One Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, the great Teacher and Inſtructor of this one Body into a further Communion with the Father and the Son.

6. One Body, whereof all the Baptiſed are profeſſed Members, and whereto they arep. 157compleatly United by that one Spirit.

7. One hope of their Calling, in believing the Reſurrection of the Body, and Eternal Life, which God hath promiſed to all thoſe that obey him.

From this we may with much Aſſurance infer, that we are under an indiſpenſable Obligation to be found in the Practice of this one Baptiſm, which holds forth our Intereſt in, and Profeſſion of this one God and Father, one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and one Spirit, into whoſe Name we are Commanded to be Baptiſed, Matth. 28.19. &c. The Objector ſuppoſes the bare Belief (without the viſible Profeſſion) of Baptiſm, is enough; which indeed is not ſo: becauſe the Nature and Conſtitution of this Ordinance is purely Practical by vertue of a poſitive Precept, and no pretence of a ſpeculativep. 158Belief will excuſe the neglect of it; any more than the neglect of an Exerciſe of Faith reſpecting any other of the ſix points, which the Holy Spirit has joyned with it.The Antients tell us the Form of Baptiſm when they Expound, Eph. 4.5. One Law.Eph 4:5

Queſt. Whereas it may be further Queryed. Whether one Ordinance gives a Right to the enjoyment of another?

Anſw. It is anſwered, no; For we have before proved that all Ordinances are to be obſerved in that Order which the Appointer of them hath preſcribed; from which we ought not to vary. For as Circumciſion was the firſt Ordinance to be Adminiſtred before they might be partakers of the Paſſeover although it gave not a Right to the Paſſeover, yet might not any partake of it (before they were Circumciſed) without ſin: So alſo in the New Teſtament,p. 159Baptiſm is the firſt Ordinance to be Adminiſtred by the direction and appointment of God, without which, the Supper of the Lord may not be received without Sin. All that is pleaded for by this, is the Orderly obſervation of the New Teſtament Ordinances.

Queſt. But why ſhould any be debar'd the enjoyment of thoſe Ordinances they have light into, becauſe they want light in others?

Anſw. It deſerves to be ſeriouſly conſidered, whether the neglect of the Ordinance of Baptiſm doth not more ariſe from the want of a heart to obey God therein, by reaſon of the contempt put upon it, then for want of Light. Is any Ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt in the New Teſtament more plain and clear than this? Are there not many more inſtances in the New Teſtament for the Practiſe p. 160of this then the Lords Supper? For beſides the Inſtitution of it by Jeſus Chriſt, inſtanced by the ſeveral Evangeliſts, it is but four times mentioned, viz. Act. 2.42. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. & 11.23. Whereas we find beſides the Commiſſion given by Jeſus Chriſt, Matth. 28.19. &c. that 'tis again enjoyned, Act. 2.38. & 8.38. Act. 10.48. & 16.15.33. Act. 9.18. Act. 18.8. &c. Neither do we find any one Ordinance of the Goſpel ſo much made uſe of by the Apoſtles to incite Chriſtians to die to ſin, and live to Cod, as is largely demonſtrated in the foregoing ſheets, to which we refer, &c.

Obj. 11. And whereas it may be Objected that 'tis Love and not Baptiſm, that diſcovers us to be Chriſts Diſciples; It is anſwered.

Anſw. We do readily confeſsp. 161that we are commanded to put on love, Coll. 3.14. which is a great Character of a Diſciple of Chriſt, and it is much to be Lamented, that there is ſo little ſeen among Saints: Yet that cannot be called Love, which is exerciſed in oppoſition to the Order preſcribed in the Word, by which Ordinances ought to be Adminiſtred; For as Love is a grace of the Spirit of Chriſt; ſo Ordinances are the appointments of the ſame Spirit which works Grace in the Hearts of Chriſtians; All true Goſpel Love being Regulated by Goſpel-Rule; and as all men may know the Diſciples of Chriſt by their Love one to another: ſo alſo, it is a Character given by the ſame Lord, of being a Diſciple when this Love is manifeſt in keeping his Commandements, John 14.15. If ye Love me keep my Commandments. ver. 21. He that hath my Commandements, and keepeth them,p. 130he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me, ſhall be beloved of my Father, and I will love him and will manifeſt my ſelf to him. ver. 23. Jeſus anſwered and ſaid, If any man Love me, he will keep my Words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our aboad with him. ver. 24. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my ſayings, and the Word which you hear is not mine, but the Fathers which ſent me. Now of theſe Commandments this Ordinance of Baptiſm is not the leaſt, and it ſeems to ſavour of little Love in them that would have Men believe, it is advanced in them above their Brethren to charge them with want of Love, as the only Reaſon why they cannot admit perſons to the Supper of the Lord, that never yet Received the Baptiſm of Chriſt. Therefore,

Here we can Appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, That the true Reaſon is, becauſe we dare notp. 131break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt, and not want of Love to them. And the Sence we have of the great Severity God hath ſhewed againſt thoſe that have made the leaſt Breach upon that Order which he himſelf hath preſcribed.

Theſe things I leave to the ſerious Conſideration of thoſe to whom this brief Eſſay may come, deſiring they may try all thing, and hold faſt that which is Good.

FINIS.

End of the text · William Kiffin, Discourse of Right to Church-Communion (1681)