Truth Prevailing Against the Fiercest Opposition, Part 21
Your three and twentieth Conſideration is: THat there is no ſubstantiall Argument produced to juſtifie ſuch a practiſe, nor you beleive ever will be.
Whether we have not given Arguments to juſtifie it, more than one, and that grounded upon the Scriptures and your own principles, and indeed the principles of all the learned, I referre to the judgement of the Reader.
As for that which you ſay, by way of reply to my Brother Allens anſwer to your fourty Queries about Church communion, I ſhall leave him to anſwer, or be ſilent, as he findeth cauſe, onelyonly it lieth much upon my ſpirit to ſhew unto your ſelf (if may be) if not to your ſelf yet to the unprejudiced Reader, the palpable ſuffering of many of the Scriptures engaged in that ſervice.
The firſt is the 2. of Acts 41. which Text my Brother Allen urgeth to prove addition to the Church and fellowſhip in it, to follow Baptiſme, not goe before it: and that
1. Becauſe the Text ſaith, they gladly received the Word.
2. Were baptiſed.
3. Were added to the Church.
4. Continued in the Apoſtles doctrine and fellowſhip.
Now Mr. Goodwin will have it, that Baptiſme might be left out of the chain, and yet they might have been Church members notwithſtanding.
1. Becauſe thoſe who are ſaid to have been baptiſed in the former part of the verſe, are not ſaid in the latter to have been added to the CHURCH, but ſimply, they were added or added unto. Mr. Allen underſtandeth the Relative to thoſe words, added to, to be (Them) according to the preſent tranſlation, and whereto both he and the Tranſlators are guided.
1. By the mention of the hundred and twenty Diſciples in the Chapter before at the 15. verſe, to which theſe that were now converted were added, which in the 47. verſe of this 2. chapter are called the Church in plain Engliſh, And the Lord added to the CHƲRCH dayly, &c.
And that the Relative to thoſe words ADDED to were the (Church) or the hundred and twenty Diſciples ſpoken of before, Mr. Goodwin himſelf in his fourty Queries (which I do not think were written above half a year before this Water dipping) ſo underſtood it, mark his words, It cannot be demonſtratively proved from the Scriptures, that thoſe hundred and twenty Diſciples, unto which it is here ſaid, P. 6. Of 40 Queries. Acts 1.15.that three thouſand were ADDED, &c. which a little before he himſelf calleth the Church in the ſame page: But now all of a ſudden Mr. Goodwin altereth his mind, and will not let the 47. verſe expound the 42. though the context as fai…ly leadeth to it as heart can wiſh, but runneth us to the 11▪ of Acts 24. to know the Relative to the words (added to) in the 2. Acts 41. becauſe there it is thus written, And much people was added to (the Lord.) Here again you inſinuate a difference in ſenſe between thoſe words, added to the Lord, and thoſe, added to the Church, whereas in your Letter to Mr. Tho. Goodwin, p. 5. you expound the joyning to the Lord, ſpoken of Acts 11.24. of immembring into the Church, your words theſe, There is mention made of many that were added or joyn'd to the LORD, i. e. ſay you, were immembred into the CHƲRCH: Now what conſtruction can any rational, impartial, conſiderate man make of this your ſhifting too and fro in this manner, but as an evident demonſtration, that in fighting againſt us you labour to engage the Scriptures in a warre they have no mind too, and ſo you looſe your way, and know not well where to ſet your foot, not what ground to ſtand on: The Lord make you ſenſible of it.
But again you ſay, 2. It is ſaid, Acts 2, 47. And the Lord added to the Church: WHO, ſaith Mr. Goodwin, ſuch as were baptiſed? No, but ſuch as ſhould be ſaved, or were ſaved, which was not by being baptiſed but beleiving.
Here Mr. Goodwin ſaith two things.
1. That thoſe that the Text ſpeaketh of, that were added to the Church, were not ſuch as were baptiſed, but, &c. If this be not a ſtrange propoſition, and as contrary to the Scripture as light to darkneſs, I am under the enchantment Mr. Goodwin upbraideth me with ſo often; for though it be true, that thoſe that were added to the Church were ſuch as ſhould be ſaved, yet it followeth not, that thoſe that were added to the Church were not baptiſed; nay, it is plain they were by the 41. verſe, Then they that gladly received his word were baptiſed, and the ſame day (that is, that they received the Word and were baptiſed) there were added unto them, or the Church, about three thouſand ſoules, who continued in the Apoſtles fellowſhip.
But by this doctrine of Mr. Goodwins, Baptiſme ſhould be a crime rather than an act of obedience, becauſe he maketh the Church not to conſiſt of ſuch perſons as have been baptiſed; is this doctrine according to the form of wholſome words? Doth not the Apoſtle write to the CHURCH of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1.10 13. Rom. 6.3, 4 Col. 2.12. Gal. 3.27.and CHURCH at Rome, and Church at COLOSSE, and the CHURCHES of Galatia, and were they not made up of baptiſed perſons.
But 2. Mr. Goodwin ſaith, The Lord added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved, which ſay you, was NOT by being BAPTISED, but beleiving. Here Mr. Goodwin oppoſeth Baptiſme to beleiving, in reference to ſalvation, but it is not by vertue of this Text, He that beleiveth, and is baptiſed, ſhall be ſaved. And by vertue of what Text of Scripture he doth it, I know not, for though Baptiſme ſhould not be looked upon as a condition of abſolute neceſſity to ſalvation as faith is, yet ſure it is ſome way neceſſary to ſalvation, it is plain in the Text, and therefore not to be put in oppoſition to faith in reference thereto: what a wide difference there is between making Baptiſme equa… with faith, as conditional of ſalvation, which is the judgement of many learned men, as you know, and making it ſtand in oppoſition to faith, in reference thereto, as you doe.
Sir, will that God that ordained Baptiſme to be Faiths companion, to ſerve the ſame intereſt of the pretious ſoules of men, will he take it kindly, that you toil thus to make them look like enemies rather than friends? In a word Sir, this doctrine is altogether unſcriptural, and as pleaſant to the taſt of a healthful ſoul, as vinegar to the teeth.
But 3. and laſtly, you ſay, though it ſhould be read thus, Then they that gladly received his word were baptiſed, and the ſame day there were added to the Church: yet the recording their addition to the Church after their Baptiſme, doth not prove their addition was BY their Baptiſme.
The cauſe doth not require it, neither doth my Brother Allen affirm it from this Text, but onelyonly that addition to the Church followed it, and did not goe before it (which was your own words heretofore, as I have ſhewn already) and we think it is ſafeſt to follow the Scripture pattern (partly becauſe of what you ſaid heretofore, that all others were but ſeducers) but cheifly becauſe of the expreſs Word of God.
But whatever the matter is, you think now one may goe another way and doe as well.
The ſecond Scripture, which in my apprehenſion ſuffereth under your pen is, Math. 28.19. which I have proved at large already, p. 13, 14, 15, 16. of this book, where I have laid down my Brother Allens Argument from the words, and anſwered Mr. Goodwins objections againſt it, in doing which, the Reader will eaſily perceive that Text complaining of hard uſage.
The third is the 1. Corinth. 12.13. which I have alſo diſcharged the ſervice Mr. Goodwin employed it in, p. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. of this book, becauſe the truth is, it is not pleaſed with it.
The fourth, which doth not onelyonly whiſper, but cry out of injury, is the 8. of Acts 27. And Phillip ſaid, if thou beleiveſt with all thy heart, thou mayeſt. The words its evident are an anſwer to the Eunuch, who asked Phillip upon the ſight of water, what hindred that he might not be baptiſed.
Mr. Goodwin ſuppoſeth by theſe words, THOU MAYEST, he not ſaying to him, THOU MUST, is noted a liberty, which he calleth an Evangelicall liberty concerning external Ordinances, implying, he might be baptiſed if he would, he ſhould not ſin, or he he might refuſe without ſin.
This I take to be the moſt unnatural, unkindly, and indeed injurious ſtroke of the Text of any that hath been touched: Gird up therefore the loines of thy mind, and conſider good Reader, that thou beeſt not hurt by this dangerous gloſs of the Text.
1. If Phillip ſhould have propounded Baptiſme to the Eunuch, upon ſuch ſlight termes, not as a duty on him, but a thing indifferent, he ſhould have done that he had no warrant for from Chriſt; Chriſt gave all his Commands to be obeyed, not to be trifled with, John 15.14. Ye are my friends if you doe WHATSOEVER I command you. Revel. 22.12, 14. Bleſſed are they that DOE his Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. Acts 3▪ 22. A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up unto you, him ſhall you hear in ALL things WHATSOEVER he ſhall ſay unto you: And it ſhall come to paſſe, that every ſoul that wil not hear that Prophet, ſhall be deſtroyed from amongſt the people: (that by hearing is meant obeying in this Scripture, is your own ſenſe) Luke 6.46. Why call you me Lord, Lord, and DOE not the things that I ſay. So that if Baptiſme be one of the Commands of Chriſt,Mat. 28.19. Acts 2.37. Mar. 16.16. as I have proved from Acts 2.37. and might do it from many others. And
2. that Chriſt gave all his Commands to be obſerved:John. 15.14. Rev. 22.14. Acts 3.22. And
3. that he counteth thoſe no friends of his that baulketh any of them.
4. That he threateneth them with deſtruction, that obſerveth him not in whatſoever he commandeth, without exception of any thing, yea, that he diſtateth any ones calling him Lord that doth not obey him.
Then I think it followeth roundly enough, that if Phillip ſhould have propounded Baptiſme to the Eunuch upon ſuch termes of indifferency, he ſhould have betrayed his truſt, Reader what thinkſt thou?
2. To evince, that Phillip by thoſe words, THOU MAYEST, did not intend them by way of indifferency as to the Eunuchs obedience, appeareth by this, becauſe then he ſhould act by a differing Spirit from all the reſt of his brethren, the Servants of Chriſt, that were imployed in the Lords work. But he was acted by the ſame Spirit. I ſhall take that for granted, that the Spirit that ſaid unto Phillip, Goe near and joyn thy ſelf, Acts 8.29. that it was the Spirit of the ever-living God which acted Phillip thorough that negotiation he had with the Eunuch.
Now that Spirit inſpireth Peter to COMMAND Cornelius and his Company to be baptiſed after faith, Acts 10.47. Peter did not ſay, you may, or you may chuſe, but though they were deeply baptiſed with the Spirit, yet Peter commandeth them to be baptiſed with water for all that, In the Name of the Lord Jeſus, which was in full purſuit of his Commiſſion, which alſo is a clear interpretation of it, that when Chriſt ſaith, Diſciple me all Nations, baptiſing them, his meaning was, that they ſhould, having diſcipled them, command the Diſciples to be baptiſed, In the Name of the Lord Jeſus; that they ſhould lay it home to the conſciences of the Diſciples, and a duty, to be baptiſed into his Name, and ſo bear the Name and wear the livery of their Lord and Maſter.
The ſame Apoſtle to the ſame purpoſe, Acts 2 38. Even ſo did Ananias in reſpect of Paul, ARISE, WHY tarrieſt thou, be baptiſed and waſh away thy ſins, and that before he eat, though he had faſted three dayes.
I remember, Sir, an obſervation of your own upon theſe words, both rational and pleaſant, from hence, that Ananias importuneth Paul to baptiſme by thoſe words, Ariſe, Why? Behold, ſaith Mr. Goodwin, whoſoever d…l yeth obedience to any of the Ordinances of the Goſpel, will never be able to give a reaſon for it, WHY tarrieſt thou? This obſervation, who doth not taſt the ſweetneſs and goodneſs of the truth in it, that hath not loſt their caſt? But for thoſe obſervations you now make of the like places, who can caſt them but with ſorrow of heart, or behold them with dry eyes.
Again, as Ananias haſtened Paul to Baptiſme after faith, ſo did Paul haſten the Jaylour, Acts 16 33. And was baptiſed he and all his: mark, ST…A …WAY, even before his eating of meat. Paul was more ſet upon the Lords work, than feeding his own belly. HEAVENLY SOUL, though it was night, and he hungry (for after they came from baptiſme into the houſe, the Jayler ſet meat before them) yet he firſt mindeth his Lords work, like Chriſt, John 4. who whilſt the woman of S…m…a was preſent to preach too, the Diſciples would not ſo much as offer him meat, but when ſhe was gone, the Text ſaith, (IN THE MEAN WHILE) the Diſciples ſaid, Maſter eat, verſe 31. but his content was ſo great …n feeding ſoules, that he fed upon that as other men did upon meat and drink, verſe 32. I have meat to eat that ye know not off.
But 3. To diſcover Mr. Goodwins great miſtake of this Text, conſider this, if Phillip ſhould have preach'd Baptiſme as an indifferent thing, would it not have been to diſparage the wiſdome of Chriſt in ordaining it, who not onelyonly commanded it, but picked it out of all the reſt of the Ordinances, to mention it by name with Teaching in the Commiſſion,Mat. 28 19. And 2 commanding it to be done with ſo great ſolemnity,Acts 2.3…. Mar. 16.16. and ordering the Apoſtles to propound it w…th Repentance and Faith, in order to remiſſion of ſins and ſalvation, having firſt been baptiſed himſelf to fultil all righteouſneſs: If Phillip after all this ſhould have preached … as an indifferent thing, would it not have been a great diſparagement to the wiſdome of Chriſt, in thus inſtituting it, and thus gracing it; for what would the import of ſuch a carriage have been, but that Chriſt repented of inſtituting it, that he had over ſhot himſelf in it, as men uſe to doe, and that experience proved it to be of no moment? Confider and judge.
But fourthly from the Text it ſelf; it appeareth clearly enough, that Phillip had other thoughts of Baptiſme, than as a thing indifferent, by the high termes he putteth upon it: for upon the queſtion put on the Eunuchs part, what hindred that he might not be baptiſed? Phillip anſwereth, If thou beleiveſt:
2. With thy HEART
3. With ALL thy heart, thou mayeſt: ſhould Phillip have propounded it as a thing indifferent, THAT would have ſpoken it a matter of ſmall moment to the Creature.
But it is plain, he putteth high termes upon it, for if he did not beleive, and that with ALL the heart, it would hinder and ſtop his proceedings to that Ordinance; and therefore an unreaſonable thing to imagine him propounding it as a matter of indifferency, for doth not all men judge it a ſenſeleſs thing for any man to put high and extraordinary termes upon a poor and mean commodity, or doth ſo doing unbecome men? and can any body judge it becomming the wiſdome of the Spirit of God?
The truth is, thoſe words, THOU MAYEST (following thoſe words, If thou beleiveſt with all thy heart, in anſwer to the Eunuchs queſtion, What hindreth? being underſtood, as Mr. Goodwin would have them, that is, that he might if he would, or might refuſe without ſin) would render his Anſwer to have no more ſavour than is in the white of an Egg, becauſe that ſenſe of them is a plain contradiction to the high termes he putteth upon it.
Beſides, at the 12. verſe in this 8. chapter of the Acts, it appeareth Phillip was very chary of the Ordinance of Baptiſme: mark, BUT WHEN THEY BELEIVED, Phillip preaching the things concerning the Kingdome of God, and the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, they were baptiſed both men and women, BUT WHEN THEY BELEIVED, not before; the truth is, not any one of the Apoſtles, or Adminiſtrators of the Ordinances, ſhewed a more tender ſpirit of the honour of Baptiſme than Phillip, moſt unlike therefore was he by thoſe words, THOU MAYEST, to mean, he might, or he might not.
5. Phillip inſiſting upon the doctrine of Baptiſme, as well as other doctrines of Chriſt, at that time to the Eunuch, when he had but a little time to inſtruct him in in all, is that which mightily reproveth that conceit, that by thoſe words, THOU MAYEST, ſhould be meant, thou mayeſt, or thou mayeſt chuſe; can any man imagine, that Phillip ſhould ſpend any part of his little time with him, in the diſcourſe of that, which he might neglect without ſin or dammage. It ſeemeth Phillip opened the doctrine of Baptiſme to him, as well as other things, and that he underſtood it not onelyonly as his duty, but a priviledge not to be admitted to abſolutely but conditionally, why elſe ſhould he ſay, WHAT HINDRETH? Doth not that imply, that he thought ſomething might, and withall doubted his own fitneſs, which made him put the queſtion?
But if any object, that it appeareth not that Phillip inſiſted at all on Baptiſme.
I confeſs it is not ſaid in words at length that he did.
But 1. We find the queſtion put on the Eunuchs part upon his converſe with Phillip.
2. We read of no other that inſtructed him in Chriſtiaanity.
And 3. It was the manner of the Apoſtles to preach Faith and Baptiſme together, being the beginning doctrines of Chriſt, and belonging to the foundation of a Chriſtian man. Heb. 6.2.
Thus did this Phillip unto the Samaritans in the beginning of this 8. of the Acts, we read onelyonly of his preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, there is no mention made of his preaching of Baptiſme by Name, but no body will be ſo brutiſh as to imagine that Phillip would baptiſe them, before he inſtructed them concerning the nature, uſe and ends of Baptiſme, becauſe then they could not worſhip God in ſpirit, but ignorantly and carnally, and where then would the difference be between the worſhippers under the Law and under the Goſpel, herein lay a main part of the reformation by Chriſt, that he rendereth his worſhippers more ſpiritual than under the Law: 'Tis ſuch worſhippers that he ſeeketh, John 4. In a word, the Apoſtles admiſſion, and the Beleivers ſubmiſſion to Baptiſme, doth imply their being taught and inſtructed therein, and that by themſelves too, leaſt they ſhould be found acceſſary to the profaning of the Ordinance of Chriſt, by adminiſtring it to ſuch as might be unfit ſubjects.
Our late Annotators upon Acts 8.36. What hindreth me to be baptiſed? It appeareth hence, ſay they, that among other parts of Chriſtian Religion, Phillip had preached to him concerning Baptiſme.
Conſider Calvin. p. 207. of his Commentary of the 8. of Acts, But we ſee that Chriſt was preached to the Eunuch in ſuch ſort; that he knew that Baptiſme was a ſign of new life in him, and that therefore he would not neglect the ſame, becauſe it was added to the Word, and ſuch an addition as was inſeparable.
I conclude then from the premiſes, that the ſcope of the place is juſt the contrary to what Mr. Goodwin affirmeth, he would have thoſe words of Phillip to the Eunuch, THOU MAYEST, to note indifferency: but I hope I have proved they note juſt the contrary, namely, the ſacredneſs of the Rite, and high advantage of it to the Creature, and conſequently, the Eunuchs duty and all Chriſts Diſciples to come under it, but with care and fear, therefore he muſt examine, whether he BELEIVE WITH ALL HIS HEART.
A fifth Scripture which liketh not your gloſſe is, Galat. 4.1, 2, 3. the words are as followeth, Now I ſay, that the heir as long as he liveth is a child, differeth nothing from a ſervant, though he be Lord of all, but is under Tutors and Governours untill the time appointed of the Father; Even ſo we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world, but when the fulneſs of time was come, God ſent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons.
From the difference of the two ſtates of the Church, under the Law and under the Goſpel, which apppeareth in this Scripture, Mr. Goodwin inferreth, that the Church is not now to be looked upon as under the like rigor of ſubjection to Goſpel Ordinances, as the Church then was to the Ordinances of the Law, and if it were, the two ſo different ſtates of the Church mentioned ſhould be confounded.
To this I ſay, the inference is not good: The Church now is as ſtraitly bound to the obſervation of Goſpel Ordinances, as the Church then was to thoſe Ordinances of Moſes. Neither doth the conceiving ſo confound the two different ſtates of the Church.
1. That we are as ſtraitly bound to Chriſts Ordinances, as the Church then was to Moſes his. Conſider Acts 3.22. for Moſes truly ſaid unto the Fathers, A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up unto you of your brethren, like unto me, him ſhall you HEAR, or obey in ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER he ſhall ſay unto you: and it ſhall come to paſſe, that every ſoul which ſhall not hear that Prophet, ſhall be DESTROYED from amongſt the people: If ſo, doth it not follow roundly enough, that we are all tied to obey Chriſt in his Ordinances, as much as the Jewes were of old to obey the Ordinances of the Law.
For.
1. Are not the Ordinances ſome of the things Chriſt hath ſaid?
2. Are they not as plainly commanded, eſpecially this of Baptiſme? Acts 2.37. Mark 16.16.
3. Are they not exhibited with as high a penalty in caſe of neglect or contempt? was there any higher penalty put upon diſobedience than deſtruction? How then ſaith Mr. Goodwin, we are not now ſo tied as then? Nay, are we not tied faſter to the Ordinances of Chriſt? and ſhall not we contract more guilt, by contempt or neglect of them, than the carnal Church of the Jewes did by the neglect of Moſes?
Conſidering the 2. Hebr. 1. Therefore we ought to give the more earneſt heed to the things which we have heard, leaſt at any time we ſhould let them ſlip: Here he ſpeaketh of the words of Chriſt the great Prophet. Now from the greatneſs and excellency of the Commander he argueth to their giving the more earneſt heed, leaſt at any time they ſhould let them ſlip.
To this add Hebr. 12.25. See that ye refuſe not him that ſpake, for if they eſcaped not, who refuſed him that ſpake on earth, much more ſhall not we eſcape, if we turn away from him that ſpeaketh from heaven. How plain a caſe then is this from theſe Scriptures.
To theſe we might add the 8. of Mark 38. He that ſhall be aſhamed of me and of my words, of him ſhall the Son of man be aſhamed when he cometh in the glory of the Father.
But it may be ſome may object, we are tied more to obey Chriſt in other things, becauſe of the excellency of Chriſt above Moſes, but not to the Ordinances of Chriſt.
To which I anſwer, the Scriptures ſaith, Whoſoever ſhall be aſhamed of HIS WORDS, without exception of any, of him will he be aſhamed, &c. Nay, that none may plead excuſe, Acts 3.22. The place touched before, Him ſhall yee hear in WHATSOEVER he ſhall ſay unto you. Now if Mr. Goodwin can bring us as plain Scripture any where, that Chriſt will diſpenſe with diſobedience, or neglect of ſome of his Commandments, as I have done that he would have none neglected, then let the world give ear to him, yea in particular, doth not the Command lie expreſly as well to reſpect his Ordinances for worſhip, as faith or manners otherwiſe; Col. 2.6. yea, are not the Churches commanded to hold faſt the traditions which they had been taught, 2 Theſ. 2.15.
To this add 1 Cor. 11.1, 2. Be ye followers of me as I am of Chriſt. Now I praiſe you brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ORDINANCES AS I delivered them unto you.
Where it appeareth
1. That Paul had the Ordinances for the Church from Chriſt.
2. That it was a praiſe-worthy thing to keep them ALL.
3. To keep them pure alſo from mens inventions; mark, AS I DELIVERED them unto you.
4. His exhorting them to look to them, and his praiſing them that they had KEPT them, doth imply, it would be a hard matter to keep the Ordinances pure, from changes and mixtures of mens inventions, as now we find by experience.
But Mr. Goodwin ſuppoſeth, that if the Churches now be as ſtraitly bound to Chriſts Ordinances, as the old Church was to Moſes Lawes, then the two different ſtates of the Church ſhall be confounded.
To which I anſwer, if the difference of the two ſtates lie in no ſuch thing as the difference of obligation to the Ordinances of the two Prophets, then the equall obligation to the Ordinances of the two Prophets will not confound the two different ſtates of the Church, but the difference of the two ſtates lieth in no ſuch thing.
That the difference of the two ſtates lieth in no ſuch thing.
If the Scripture no where ſay any ſuch thing, neither in plain words, nor by good conſequence, then there is no ſuch thing.
But the Scriptures no where affirm any ſuch thing.
Now whereas Mr. Goodwin ſuppoſeth as much may be drawn from the 4. Galat. 1, 2, 3. That the Text doth ſignifie a farre different ſtate of the Church is plain and clear but that that difference ſhould lie in a leſs obligation to any of the Commandments of Chriſt, then the Church then was to the Ordinances of Moſes, this is not in the Text, nor indeed in any other.
'Tis true: 1. This Text ſaith, We, when we were children, were in bondage to the elements of the world, which at the 9. verſe he calleth weak and beggarly, but they were no other but the carnall Ordinances of the Law of Moſes, thoſe ſlaviſh cuſtomes of the Jewiſh Law, which he calleth the rudiments of the world, or beginnings of teaching ſutable to their dark ſtate; but to argue from their redemption to thoſe Ordinances, to our liberty from obedience to Chriſts in his, which Mr. Goodwin doth, (or elſe where is the countenance this Text giveth his cauſe) but in my poor apprehenſion it is a horrid conſequence.
Again 2. The Text ſaith further, That we are redeemed from under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of ſons. But that the receiving the adoption of ſons ſignifieth any ſuch thing, as a leſs tie to obey the great Prophet in his Ordinances, than was on the Jews to obey their leſſe Prophet in his, or that to ſuppoſe us to ſtand equally bound to Chriſt in his Ordinances as they were to Moſes in his, that this will confound the difference of the two ſtates of the Church, is onelyonly ſaid by Mr. Goodwin, not proved, nor attempted to be.
Now as I have ſhewn already, that the difference of the two ſtates cannot lie in this, that Chriſts Diſciples are leſſe bound to Chriſts Ordinances, than Moſes was in his, by Acts 3.22. Hebr. 2.1. Hebr. 12.25. Mark 8.38. But for the further clearing of this point, I ſhall offer breifly wherein the difference of the two ſtates of the Church doth lie, and particularly.
1. In the matter of the Church; the matter of the old Teſtament Church was Abrahams carnall ſeed, without reſpect to morrals, Acts 7.38. The whole poſterity of Abraham are called the CHURCH in the wilderneſs. But now under the new Teſtament, the matter of the Church is the ſpiritual ſeed of Abraham, ſuch as follow him in faith and holineſs, Math. 3.9. John 4.23, 24. 1 Peter 1.5. The Churches of the new Teſtament are or ought to be by conſtituation, called to be Saints, ſanctified by Chriſt Jeſus, 1 Corinth 1.2. and if any other be admitted, and prove otherwiſe, ſuch are not to be endured in communion, 1 Corinth. 5.13. 2 Theſ. 3.6, 14. Revel. 2.2. Chriſt affirmeth it in the honour of the Church of Epheſus, that they could not bear them that did evil.
2, In reſpect of the Ordinances, The Ordinances of the old Church exceeding many. The Goſpel ſew.
2. The old ones coſtly and afflictive. The new comparatively not ſo.
3. The old ones carnal, the new comparatively ſpiritual, Gal. 3.2. eſpecially Baptiſme, which betokeneth the reward of duty, namely, reſurrection to glory with Chriſt, as well as our duty now, and preſent ſtate of death and burial with Chriſt, Coloſ. 2.12. compared with Coloſ. 3.1.
3. In reſpect of a more abundant pouring forth of the Spirit, Luke 11.13. 2 Corinth. 3.8. the conſequence whereof is:
1 More boldneſs in approaches to God, Galat. 4 6, Romans 8.15.
2. More light and knowledge touching the good will of God to ſinners, and the way of their reconcilement to God, 2 Tim. 1.10. Epheſ. 1.9. Titus 2.11. 2 Corinth 5.19, 21.
4. The Churches under the new Teſtament have richer grounds whereupon to raiſe holineſs & conformity to God, Titus 2.11, 12, 13, 14. Hebr. 2.3. Rom. 8. from 32. to 39. 2 Corinth. 3.18. 1 Peter 1.16, 17, 18.
5. They have richer grounds of comfort, becauſe clearer ground for faith and hope, 1 Peter 1.21. Rom 8 21. Rom. 4.25. therefore, 1 Pet. 1.8. Rom. 5.2, 3, they rejoyced with joy unſpeakable and full of glory.
6. More peace of conſcience, Hebr. 7.19. Hebr. 9.9, 14. Hebr. 10.1.
7. More full communion with God the Father and the Son, 1 John 1.3.
By all which it appeareth, that there are reſpects in abundance to ſhew wherein the difference of the two ſtates of the Church lieth, and conſequently no neceſſity to conceive, that if the Diſciples of Chriſt be as ſtraitly bound to obey him in all his Ordinances, as the old Church was to obey Moſes in his, that then the difference of the two ſtates of the Church would be confounded: I ſhall conclude this with the words of Mr. Baxſter; If when Gods worſhip was ſo much ceremonious, he yet layeth a charge to DOE WHATSOEVER he commandeth, and to ADD NOTHING THERETO, NOR TAKE OƲGHT THEREFROM, That is, ſaith he, not to or from the words commanding onelyonly, but alſo THE WORK COMMANDED; Is it likely then, that he will be leſſe jealous in this now?
Sixthly, A ſixth Scripture complaining of wrong, is the 1 Corinth. 11.24, 25, 26. There is an eye of Evangelical liberty concerning external obſervations,P. 61. Of Water dip. ſaith Mr. Goodwin, in the inſtitution it ſelf of the other Ordinances alſo, as the Apoſtle rendereth it, 1 Corinth. 11 25, 26. THIS DO YE, AS OFT AS YE DOE IT, in remembrance of me, for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ſhew the Lords death till he come, Here is no injunction, how oft? (but a plain intimation of liberty touching this) onelyonly the termes for the manner of doing it is ſet down, which is the direct calculation or manner of ſanction of the inſtitution concerning the free-will offering under the Law; this kind was impoſed on no man as of neceſſity.
To which I anſwer: Your inference from the word, I humbly conceive to be juſt contrary to the deſign of our Lord Jeſus in the inſtituting; you ſuppoſe he intended a liberty as to the uſe of the ſupper by not determining the time, how oft, they ſhould eat that bread, whereas in truth, the undetermining of the time, how oft, following the poſitive command of its uſe, This doe ye, noteth rather the frequent uſe of it upon all convenient occaſions, as ſuppoſing the determining of time for the performance of commands, is onelyonly neceſſary where the matter commanded doth not nearly concern the party that doth obey, he ſuppoſeth principles of ſelf-love will carry men to frequent diligently the meanes of their comfort and ſafety; which alſo I take to be the reaſon why 'tis not ſet down punctually how oft we ſhall pray, or hear, or frequent the aſſemblies of the Saints: That precept (ſaith Dr. Ames) of an undeterminate time, Doe this, admitteth no other limitation but want of opportunity, or ſome juſt impediment. But Ʋrſinus more plain from the words, AS OF T, The Supper therefore, ſaith Ʋrſin, is often to be reiterated, and that
1. Becauſe of the words of the inſtitution: and
2. Becauſe of the end of the inſtitution.
So that from the words of the inſtitution, in conjunction with the end of the Ordinance, Ʋrſin gathereth, and that according to pure reaſon, that it ought often to be celebrated.
But to put it out of all doubt to the godly Reader, that theſe words, AS OFT as ye doe it, doth not imply any liberty to neglect it without ſin, but the juſt contrary. Conſider that known general rule to judge of all doctrines. The true doctrine of the Goſpel is a doctrine according to godlineſs, that is out of all diſpute: Now then bring that interpretation to the ſtandard, which ſaith, that thoſe words of the inſtitution, As oft as ye doe it, imply its not being impoſed upon any man as of neceſſity, but much like the free-will Offering under the Law: Is this interpretation according to godlineſs, or rather ungodlineſs? may not Mr. Goodwin as well ſay, it is a doctrine according to health, for a man to neglect the food by which he liveth? The deſign of Chriſt in this Ordinance is to keep alive the memories of Chriſts death and paſſion for us, with all the benefits thereof, 1 Corinth. 11. to confirm faith, to convey ſuccouring vertue from Chriſt to releive the ſoul againſt temptation, to quicken affection to Chriſt, and one another, as all agree, and would it be according to godlineſs, to be under a liberty to diſuſe it without ſin? may not Mr. Goodwin as well ſay, we are under a liberty, not to honour Chriſt, or doe our ſelves or the world good? And as for any ſimilitude between the Ordinances of the Goſpel, in particular this, and the free-will Offering under the Law.
Surely Sir you are under a wonderful miſtake, becauſe the free-will Offerings were not poſitively commanded, and therefore have the name of free-will Offerings, whereas the Lord Supper is poſitively commanded, 1 Corinth. 11.24, 25. And when he had given thanks, he ſaid, take eat, this is my body, THIS DOE in remembrance, &c. After the ſame manner alſo he took the cup, and ſaid, THIS DOE, So that though there be not a determinate time, how oft they ſhould doe it, yet here is a poſitive order to the Churches to doe it, and therefore could not be neglected without ſin, but for the free-will Offerings under the Law, they were not bound to offer them at all; 'tis therefore true as you ſay, this kind of Offering was impoſed upon no man by way of neceſſity, but it is becauſe there was no Law poſitively enjoyning them, and conſequently no ſin at all to neglect them: What a vaſt difference then is there between external Ordinances under the Goſpel, and the free-will Offering under the Law, even as much as between a matter commanded and that which is not.
Sir, you ſay our way hath a face of godlineſs, but a heart of errour and prophaneneſs. But Sir, ſhould you live to theſe principles (which I am perſwaded you are a better man than ever to do) our way would be before yours, though what you ſay were true of it, ours, you ſay, hath a face of godlineſs, though it hath a heart of error, but yours would have neither face nor heart: And though you your ſelf never practiſe that looſeneſs that theſe pleadings directly tend to, the Lord knoweth how many others may be enſnared by them, which in my apprehenſion you ought ſadly to lay to heart. Let us not therefore judge one another any more, but judge this rather, that no man put a ſtumbling block or an occaſion, to fall in his brothers way, Rom. 14.13.
A ſeventh Scripture, which in my apprehenſion is a brother in the ſame complaint with thoſe which are paſt, is Gal. 5.6. For in Chriſt Jeſus neither circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion, but faith which worketh by love.
From hence you ſay, That the Apoſtle by ſhutting out Circumciſion inſtance wiſe with Ʋncircumciſion, and letting in onelyonly Faith, the new Creature, P. 81. Of Water dip.with keeping the Commandments of God as available, he ſhut out BAPTISME alſo, and all ceremonial practications whatſoever.
This conſequence is an abſolute ſtranger to the premiſes, for though the Apoſtle ſhut out Circumciſion and uncircumciſion, and let in onelyonly Faith, the new Creature, and keeping the Commands of God as available, it followeth not from hence, that he ſhut out Baptiſme, as available.
If onelyonly ſuch things are ſhut out as available, which are no commands of God, then Baptiſme is not ſhut out, becauſe Baptiſme is the command of God.
But onelyonly ſuch things are ſhut out as available, that are no commands of God.
That onelyonly ſuch things are ſhut out as unavailable, that are no commands of God, appeareth by their being oppoſed to thoſe that are: Mark the Text, Neither Circumciſion, nor Ʋncircumciſion availeth, BUT KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.
To inferre therefore from Circumciſions unavailableneſs (which is none of the Commandment of God) to Baptiſme its being ſo, which is the Command of God, and that ſerving the grand intereſt of the Creature, even that of remiſſion of ſins and ſalvation (in ſome ſenſe) which muſt either be acknowledged, or the Scriptures renounced, Acts 2.38. Mark 16.16. I ſay, to make ſuch inferences, is rather to ſay what one would have, than what is, and to intreat the Scripture to look towards what YOU would have, rather than in humility to be ſubject to what THEY would have; Reader judge elſe
But 2. If the Apoſtles intention was to ſhut out nothing at all by thoſe words (NOR UNCIRCUMCISION) then your apprehenſion of Baptiſme, its being ſhut out as available, falleth to the ground, becauſe you ſuppoſe its excluſion lieth wrapt up in thoſe words.
But the Apoſtle ſhut out nothing at all, nor intended the ſhutting out of any thing by thoſe words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION.
That he intended not the ſhutting out of any thing at all, one thing or other by thoſe words, nor Ʋncircumciſion, but onelyonly the notifying, that being uncircumciſed would not hinder the Gentiles acceptation with God now under the Goſpel, no more than circumciſion would further it.
It appeareth firſt, by comparing this Scripture with the 1 Corinth. 7.18, 19. the words as followeth, Is any man called being circumciſed (that is, is any Jew converted to the Goſpel) let him not become uncircumciſed.
On the other hand, Is any called in uncircumciſion? let him not be circumciſed; that is, is any Gentile converted to the Goſpel? let him not make conſcience of circumciſion. The next words, which are the ſame with theſe in the Text, are the reaſon, why, a converted Jew ſhould not be troubled that he was circumciſed, nor the converted Gentile that he wanted it: Mark, CIRCUMCISION is nothing, and UNCIRCUMCISION is nothing; meaning, that now ſince the Orders of the great Prophet came forth, which all the world are bound to hear upon pain of death, Acts 3.22. by which the ſtate of the Church is altered now. Circumciſion is nothing, that is, availeth nothing to any mans acceptation with God, whatever it did heretofore; non Ʋncircumciſion is nothing, that is, the want of circumciſion, or being uncircumciſed, is nothing to hinder the Gentiles acceptation with God: but now under the Goſpel, or in Chriſt Jeſus, as we have it in this Galat. 5.6. that which now heareth ſway is FAITH, Gal. 6.15. THE NEW CREATURE: And in this 1 Corinth. 7.19. THE KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, meaning the Commandments of the Goſpel, now in being, which is the character of the new Creature, in that 6. Galat. 16. As many as WALK ACCORDING TO THIS RƲLE peace be on them: So then, of the doctrine of theſe Scriptures this is the ſum, That however Circumciſion was a great priviledge heretofore, and a matter acceptable to God, and the want of Circumciſion did debarre men from many priviledges which the Jewes enjoyed, yet now neither will the one doe the Jew any good, nor the want of it doe the Gentile any hurt, but now Jew and Gentile meeting in faith, the new Creature, and keeping the Commandments of God, now in being, ſhall both meet in the ſelf ſame priviledges and reſpects from God, according to the 3 Galat. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither mal nor female, mark, for ye are ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESƲS.
Upon the whole matter then I conclude, that by thoſe words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in all theſe three places, Galat. 5 6. Galat. 6.15. 1 Corinth. 7.19. the Apoſtle intendeth not the excluſion of any thing, but onelyonly to note, that being uncircumciſed, or the want of circumciſion would doe the Gentile no dammage, no more than the preſence of circumciſion would doe the Jew no good, now under the Goſpel, and my reaſon for this apprehenſion is grounded upon the 19. verſe of the 1 Corinth. 7. where thoſe words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, are given for the reaſon why, if any Gentile was converted to the faith, they ſhould not be circumciſed, which words could be no reaſon, why converted Gentiles ſhould not be circumciſed, but upon ſuppoſition, that being uncircumciſed would not prejudice them.
2, To underſtand the words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, of the ſhutting out of any thing, as it muſt be of ſome priviledge of the Gentiles, ſo it muſt be of ſome they had in diſtinction from the Jewes, becauſe he includeth all belonging to the Jewes, under the word Circumciſion, but they had none in diſtinction from the Jewes, therefore none to ſhut out; as for the Ordinances of the Goſpel, they had them in common with the Jewes upon beleiving, and before the Goſpel they had none at all, but lived without God in the world, Epheſ. 2.12. To the Jewes onelyonly were committed the Oracles of God, not any to the Gentiles, Romans 3.2.
3. The ſcope and drift of the Apoſtle in this Epiſtle, is to inveigh againſt the ſtanding of the Jewiſh religion ONELYONLY, and that becauſe the converted Jewes were very apt to be intangled with a conceit of the old Religion, its being of force under the Goſpel. Galat. 5.1. Stand faſt therefore in the liberty wherewith Chriſt hath made you free, and be not entangled again with the yoak of bondage; meaning the Jewiſh Ordinances, to which they were inclinable, he was not troubled with their over eſteem, but their under eſteem rather of the Ordinances of the new Teſtament, therefore farre enough from offering any thing to their diſparagement, but on the contrary, every thing to encreaſe their eſteem of them, that they might the more eaſily be brought off the old.
4. The words as they lie doe not enforce us by thoſe words, Nor UNCIRCUMCISION, to underſtand the ſhutting out of any thing, conſider them, In Chriſt Jeſus neither circumciſion availeth any thing, nor uncircumciſion. He doth not affirm the ſame thing of uncircumciſion, that it doth not avail any thing, as he doth of circumciſion; He ſaith indeed, nor uncircumciſion, after his affirming that circumciſion did not avail, which at firſt ſight doth tempt to that underſtanding of them, but by comparing this Text with that other mentioned, namely, 1 Corinth. 7.18 19. where we have the ſame words uſed by the Apoſtle to another Church, and by a narrow inſpection into them, it appeareth plainly enough, that his mind is not to ſuppoſe the Gentiles poſſeſs'd of any thing to exclude as available, but onelyonly to affirm that: as Ciroumciſion now under the Goſpel would not avail, ſo neither on the other hand would being uncircumciſed unavail, as hath been proved already.
If any one think, that the ſupplying of theſe words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in the Text, with the addition of theſe, DOTH NOT UNAVAIL OR HINDER, to compleat the ſenſe, that this is harſh.
To ſuch I anſwer, it is a moſt frequent thing in Scripture, for the holy Spirit to expreſs himſelf ſo, that there is an abſolute neceſſity of making ſuch ſupplies, which notwithſtanding the ſcope, context and clear reaſon of the thing leadeth to: but I ſhall inſtance onelyonly in theſe words, in the 1 Corinth. 7.19. Circumciſion is nothing; here is the ſame reaſon, indeed neceſſity of ſupply to compleat the ſenſe, by theſe words, DOTH NOT AVAIL, as there is to ſupply the next words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, with theſe, DOTH NOT UNAVAIL: He then that complaineth of harſhneſs in the one, may as well complain of it in the other.
But if it be objected, No, becauſe the
5. Galat.
6. giveth the ſenſe of the words IS NOTHING, in the 1 Corinth.
7. to be availeth nothing, or doth not avail any thing.
I anſwer, ſo doth the Apoſtle his making thoſe words, NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, in the 1 Corinth 7.19. the reaſon why converted Gentiles ſhould not be circumciſed, clearly give the ſenſe of the words, in the 5. Galat. 6. to be, DOTH NOT ƲNAVAIL, becauſe thereby is a full reaſon given, why new Converts ſhould not be circumciſed, (to which we have ſpoken at large already:) By all which it appeareth, the Apoſtle intended not the excluſion of any thing (by thoſe words) NOR UNCIRCUMCISION, ſo farre was he from ſhutting out any of the Commands of Chriſt by them, or ſetting ſome of them againſt others; but this untrue ſuppoſition being the foundation of Mr. Goodwins Argument from the Text, his whole building falleth to the ground, with all his ſcoffes at the end of it.
The eighth and laſt Scripture that complaineth of the ſervice,P. 81. Of Water dip. is Galat. 3.27. For as many of you as have been baptiſed into Chriſt have put on Chriſt: You ſay, queſtionleſs the Apoſtles meaning plainly and directly by the particle, As many As, is to part the Beleivers amongſt themſelves, and conſequently noteth a mixture of baptiſed with unbaptiſed perſons in full Church communion.
This cannot be the meaning of the place, that the words, As many As, doth not import All, becauſe ſuch a conſtruction of them ſpoileth the ſenſe, they being given as an account, why he preſumeth them ALL the children of God by faith: Now for him to go about to prove them ALL the children of God by faith, becauſe of what was done but to a part of them, had been to fall ſhort in his demonſtration, and conſequently to looſe his Argument, ſo that parting the Diſciples amongſt themſelves, can never be the deſign of the Spirit in thoſe words, AS MANY AS.
2. To confirme the Reader therein, I referre thee to that proof we have made in anſwer to Mr: Goodwins third Conſideration, by which it fully appeareth, that there was no ſuch thing in thoſe dayes, as Church-fellowſhip before Baptiſme, where I hope thou wilt have full ſatisfaction, as in divers other places of this Book.
3. Conſider this, the ſame perſons that in the 27. verſe are noted under the words, As many As, in the 28. verſe are called ALL, as well as in the 26. verſe, for YE are ALL one in Chriſt Jeſus, that the object of the word YE, is not a part of the Churches, but the whole, as well in the 28. verſe as in the 26. there is no queſtion, becauſe there is nothing affirmed between to enforce, nay, not to invite to a reſtrain'd underſtanding them.
But if any one ask, what the reaſon ſhould be, that the Apoſtle chuſeth ſuch words as theſe, which for the moſt part are partitive, and yet by them intend all, and every individuall?
I anſwer: (For variety) the ſcope and context neceſſitating them to be underſtood univerſally, yea, the word MANY is upon that account (as I apprehend) often put in Scripture for ALL, as in the 9. Hebr. 28. He was once offered to bear the ſins of many: Now the 1 Timot. 2.6. ſaith, He gave himſelf a ranſome for ALL: and Mr. Goodwin underſtandeth the word ALL largely, as well he may: So in the 5. Romans 15. If through the offence of one many be dead: but by the 12. verſe it appeareth, by this word MANY, he meaneth the whole poſterity of Adam, for he ſaith, Death paſſed upon ALL men.
Now the words, As many As, ſerved the Apoſtles deſign in this place, with as much advantage every jot as the word All would do. There being two ſorts of perſons become proſelites to Chriſtian Religion, namely, Jewes and Gentiles, and the Gentiles being apt to think, that they ſhould not be the children of God upon ſo good termes as the Jewes, becauſe of the high reſpect God bear from the beginning to the Jewes more than the Gentiles, and that therefore onelyonly, ſo many of the Church as were Jewes ſhould become heires of that priviledge through beleiving; the Apoſtle for their comfort doth aſſure them, that not onelyonly ſo many of the Church as were Jewes became the Sons of God by faith, and put on Chriſt by Baptiſme, but AS MANY as were baptiſed into Chriſt, though they were never ſo many, and of what rank, ſex, condition ſoever, whether they were Jewes, or whether they were Gentiles, and though they were like the ſtarres in the skie for multitude, they had all put on Chriſt, and were all members of the ſame body, according to the next words, verſe 20. There is neither Jew, nor Greek, nor bond, nor free, nor male, nor female, but ALL one in Chriſt Jeſus: So that there is a ſtrain of Elegancy in the Apoſtles varying the word All to As many As, ſo farre are they from neceſſitating us to underſtand them, parting the Diſciples amongſt themſelves.
So I have done with the Scriptures which Mr. Goodwin uſeth to overthrow my Brother Allens Arguments, levied to prove the unlawfulneſs of mixt communion of baptiſed and unbaptiſed perſons in Church-fellowſhip, beſides theſe eight I doe not find any he uſeth to found any Argument on to anſwer him: if then it appear, that the Scriptures Mr. Goodwin buildeth on like not the ſervice, but in truth bitterly complain of it, (and whether they doe not ſo, I referre to the judgement of the judicious Reader) and let him judge of Mr. Goodwins whole building, accordingly. And whether Mr. Goodwin find, that heaving at my Brother Allens Anſwer to his fourty Queries, be but like the heaving at a feather,P. 55. Of Water dip. which, he ſaith, is too childiſh a poſture for a man? or rather, whether the truth in it be not like a mountain rather, which the greateſt Giant heaving at (though Mr. Goodwin himſelf) cannot make to ſtir.
And now let all the world judge between us and Mr. Goodwin.
1. Whether we are as lie repreſenteth us? Perſons of a maimed fancy, P. 4. Of Water dip.having our reaſons, judgements and underſtandings ſtupified, distraught and confounded, that all reaſon oppoſing us is a Barbarian to us, that common ſenſe is a myſtery in acceſſible to our underſtandings, men of ſound intellectuals are as men that ſpeak to us in a ſtrange tongue; P. 41, 42.that if they ſpeak any thing againſt our way, we know not valleys from hills, nor hills from valleys, rivers from trees, trees from rivers, halfes from wholes, nor wholes from halfes, precepts from promiſes, nor promiſes from precepts, ceremony from ſubſtance, nor ſubſtance from ceremony; every diſtinction that attempteth to ſhew us the error of our way, Ipſo facto, becometh a Chaos and confuſion. On the other hand, for the maintenance and defence of our way, the ſhadowes of mountains ſeem valiant and arm'd men, ſtubble and rotten wood are turned into weapons of ſteel and iron before us, letter becometh ſpirit, face becometh heart, promiſe becometh precept, ceremony becometh ſubſtance, Apoſtles become ordinary men and women, diſputables become demonſtrations, and peradventures become all Yeas and Amens, in reſpect of theſe marvellous and ſad diſtempers in our fancies and underſtandings, to reaſon with us about our way, or to endeavour our conviction, ſeldome turneth to any better account than a beating of the air, or their Diogenes his begging applications to the ſtatues of men.
2. Whether theſe expreſſions may not be juſtly numbred amongſt thoſe cruel mockings which the cruel perſecutors of old tried the worthies of the Lord with, Hebr. 11.36. even thoſe of whom the world was not worthy.
3. Whether ſuch contemptuous revilings be not the way to harden fallen perſons in their ſin, there being no ſign of charity in them, but hatred, rather than recover them, and as directly contrary to the rule, as fleſh is to ſpirit, 2 Timothy 2.24. And the Servant of the Lord MUST NOT STRIVE, but be GENTLE TO ALL MEN, apt to teach, patient, in meekneſs inſtructing thoſe that oppoſe themſelves, if peradventure God will give them repentance, to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themſelves out of the ſnare of the devill. So alſo Galations 6.1. If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are ſpiritual reſtore ſuch a one in THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESSE, conſidering thy ſelf leaſt thou alſo be tempted.
4. Whether theſe expreſſions are not directly contrary to the advice of the Spirit of God in theſe Scriptures following, Phillip. 2.3. In lowlineſs of mind, let each eſteem other BETTER than themſelves. Romans 12.9. In honour preferring one another. Titus 3.2. Speak evill of no man. Coloſ. 3.12. Put on therefore (as the elect of God) holy and beloved bowels of mercies, kindneſs, humbleneſs of mind, meekneſs, long ſuffering, &c.
5. Whether there be not as palpable a breach of the royall law of Love, without which all profeſſion of Religion is vain, 1 Corinth. 13.1, 2. James 1.26. (which Chriſt calleth the new Commandment, 1 John 3.14. His Commandment, John 15.12. The ſcope of the Goſpel, 1 Timothy 1.5. The Character of Chriſts Diſciples, John 13.35. The mark of tranſlation from death to life, 1 John 3.14.) as any can be imagined, conſidering what Paul ſaith, Galat. 5.14, 15. where he oppoſeth biting and devouring one another, to the great law of Love. All the Law is fulfilled in one word, Thou ſhalt love thy Neighbour as thy ſelf, BUT IF YE BITE AND DEVOUR, &c. Again, conſidering what he ſaith, 1 Corinth. 13.4, 5. Charity ſuffereth long, and is kind, Charity VAUNTETH not it ſelf, doth not behave it ſelf unſeemingly, is not eaſily provoked, THINKETH NO ILL.
6. Whether theſe contemptuous rebukes be not condemned by the 14. Romans 10. But why doſt thou judge thy brother, or why doſt thou SET AT NOUGHT thy brother? and whether ſuch that uſe them can expect to ſtand with comfort before God at the great day without repentance, ſince the Apoſtle ſub-joyneth theſe words, We ſhall all ſtand before the judgement ſeat of Chriſt, to thoſe, Why doſt thou ſet at nought thy brother? And conſidering the words of our Saviour, Math. 5.22. But whoſoever ſhall ſay, THOU FOOL, ſhall be in danger of hell fire. And Math. 10.3, 4, 6. Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye ſhall not enter into the Kingdome of heaven: whoſoever ſhall humble himſelf as this little child, the ſame is greateſt in the Kingdome of heaven: verſe 6. But who ſo ſhall offend one of theſe little ones, which beleive in me, it were better for him, that a mill-ſtone were hanged about HIS NECK, and that he were drowned in the depth of the Sea.
7. Whether then the good Spirit of God, which all good men are exhorted to be filled with, Epheſ. 5.18. had any thing to do with Mr. Goodwin in the drawing up this book, which not onelyonly in this one page, but frequently, even to the end thereof, is ſtuft with reproaches, either of the morrals or intellectuals of thoſe he writeth againſt, and that without all bounds, and that too of ſuch, that not long before he lift up as high towards heaven, as now he throweth them down towards hell.
8. Whether ſuch like Arguments are ordinarily fled too, but in caſes of extream neceſſity, when the cauſe is barren of Scripture evidence and demonſtration? and laſtly, whether Mr. Goodwin may not as ſoon prove the lawfulneſs of this way of writing from the holy Scriptures, as baptiſed perſons ſitting down in Church ſocieties with unbaptiſed?
HEAVENS, EARTH, Judge.
FINIS.
POSTSCRIPT.
THere is one thing further obſervable in Mr. Goodwins Anſwer to my Brother Allen, which I take my ſelf bound to give the Reader-notice of (leaſt he erre through the ignorance of it) that is, that he doth with my Brother Allen, juſt as the ſix Book-ſellers did with him, p. 64. by leaving out the very word SUCH, (though I ſuppoſe through overſight) whereupon the ſtreſſe of the Argument lieth: Conſider elſe; My Brother Allens Argument runneth thus, If one Perſon may be admitted without Baptiſme, why not two, if two, why not ten, and ſo a hundred, or a thouſand, and conſequently SUCH, Goſpel order, laid totally aſide, meaning Baptiſme.
Mr. Goodwin anſwereth thus, If a hundred, P. 64. Of Water dip.or a thouſand, or ten thouſands ſhould be admitted to Church Priviledges upon a manifeſtation of their faith (which may be otherwiſe done, and ſo farre better ſatisfaction then by being baptiſed) with an excluſion of all others, who are able to give no ſuch accompt of a work of faith in them, would this be a totall laying aſide of Goſpel order? Good Reader conſider and judge.
My Brother Allen ſaith not, that it would be a totall laying aſide of Goſpel order, but a totall laying aſide of SUCH Goſpel order, which he was ſpeaking of, namely, the great Ordinance of Baptiſme, as Mr. Baxſter calleth it, and if the Reader be indeed good, and will obey your ſummons, to conſider firſt and judge after, he muſt needs judge the truth in Mr. Allens Argument ſhining with its own light.
End of the text · Thomas Lamb, Truth Prevailing Against the Fiercest Opposition (1655)