You have answered already, "That they ought to be ashamed, and to repent of that abomination [their sprinkling] BEFORE they come to have a sight of the pattern of the house of G.o.d, the goings in and the comings out thereof" (Eze 43:10,11). But, Sir, where do you find that want of light in water baptism, or because a man hath been sprinkled, that he is to be kept dark in all other temple-inst.i.tutions, till he be ashamed and repent of that? Pray produce the texts, for Ezekiel helps you nothing: he speaks only of the pattern of the house, the goings out, and comings in thereof.
As for the coming in, you have already confessed, That baptism is not the entering ordinance. And as for the worship that Christ hath inst.i.tuted in his church, as a church, I say, (and you also have said it) baptism is none of the forms thereof, none of the ordinances thereof, none of the laws thereof; for baptism is, as to the practice of it, that which is without the church, without the house of G.o.d.[6] Then by your own text, if a man do repent him of his christening in his childhood, he may be received into fellowship without submitting to baptism: but I will not strain you too far.
You add, "Is it a person"s light that giveth being to a precept?"
Ans. Who said it? Yet it is his light and faith about it, that can make him to do it acceptably.
You ask again, "Suppose men plead want of light in other commands?"
Ans. If they be not such, the forbearance of which, discapacitates him of membership, he may yet be received to fellowship.
"But what if a man want light in the supper?"
Ans. There is more to be said in that case than in the other: for that is a part of that worship which Christ hath inst.i.tuted for his church, to be conversant in as a church; presenting them as such, with their communion with their Head, and with one another as members of him. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread" (1 Cor 10:16,17). Wherefore this being a duty inc.u.mbent on the church, as a church; and on every member of that body as such, they are obliged in that case more closely to deal with the members, than in that wherein they are not so concerned; and with which as such, they have nothing to do. No man baptizeth by virtue of his office in the church; no man is baptized by virtue of his membership there.
"But what if a man want light in his duty to the poor?"
Ans. If he doth, G.o.d must give it him; I mean to know his duty as a church member. Now I will add, but what if he that can give a shilling, giveth nothing? I suppose all that the church can do in that case, is but to warn, to exhort, and charge him, and to shew him his duty: and if he neglect, to shew him, that "He which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly" (2 Cor 9:6). But to cut a man off for this, as you forwardly urge, would argue that church, at least I think so, a little too bold with so high and weighty a censure. I plead not here for the churl, but seek to allay your heat: and should it be granted that such deserve as you would have it, this makes no matter to the case in hand. Now whereas you suggest, "That moral evils are but sins against men,"
you are too much unadvised: the moral evil, as you call it, whether you respect the breach of the first or second table, is first and immediately a sin against G.o.d; and more insufferable, yea and d.a.m.nable, than for a man for want of light to forbear either baptism or the Lord"s Supper.
But say you, "We have now found an advocate for sin against G.o.d, in the breach of one of HIS holy commands?"
Ans. As if none of the moral precepts were HIS. But, Sir, who have I pleaded for, in the denial of any one ordinance of G.o.d? Yea, or for their neglect of it either? What I say, is but that men must have light, that they may not do in darkness, or Papist-like, live by an implicit faith.
But I see you put no difference between an open breach of the law, and a forbearing that which to him is doubtful. But I will suppose a case: There is a man wants light in baptism, yet by his neighbour is pressed to it: he saith he seeth it not to be his duty; the other saith, he sins if he doth it not: now seeing "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Rom 14:23); what should this man do? If you say, let him use the means: I say so too. But what, if when he hath used it, he still continueth dark about it; what will you advise him now? If you bid him wait, do you not encourage him to live in sin, as much as I do? Nay, and seeing you will not let him for want of light in that, obey G.o.d in other his inst.i.tutions; what is it but to say, Seeing you live for want of light in the neglect of baptism, we will make you, while you continue so, live, though quite against your light, in the breach of all the rest. And WHERE you are commanded thus, you may shew the place when you find it.
Now where you urge, that you are one of them that say, "The epistles were writ to particular churches, and so serve nothing at all for our kind of communion." Urging further, "That it will be difficult for me to prove, that they were also directed to particular saints."
Ans. I wish there were nothing harder, that were good for me to do. But what should be the reason that our author, with others of his opinion, should stickle so hard to prove [that] all the epistles were wrote to particular churches? Why, because those members were, as they think, every one baptized; and so the epistles from which we fetch our arguments for the love and concord of saints, to be only proper to themselves.[7] But if this be true, there is virtue indeed, and more than ever I dreamed of, in partaking of water baptism: for if that shall take away the epistles, and consequently the whole Bible, from all that are not baptized; then are the other churches, and also particular saints, in a very deplorable condition. For he asketh me very devoutly, "Whether any unbaptized persons were concerned in these epistles?" But why would they take from us the Holy Scriptures? Verily, that we might have naught to justify our practice withal: for if the Scriptures belong only to baptized believers, they then belong not to the rest; and in truth, if they could persuade us to yield them this grant, we should but sorrily justify our practice. But I would ask these men, "If the word of G.o.d came out from them? Or if it came to them only?" (1 Cor 14:36). Or, whether Christ hath not given his whole word to every one that believeth, whether they be baptized, or in, or out of church fellowship (James 17:14). Or, whether every saint in some sort, hath not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which are the Scriptures and their power? Would to G.o.d they had learned more modesty, than thus to take from all others, and appropriate to themselves, and that for the sake of their observing a circ.u.mstance in religion, so high, and glorious a privilege.
But we will come a little to proof: what church will this author find in Rome, that time the epistle was sent to the brethren there, besides that church that was in Aquila"s house, although many more saints were then in the city? (Rom 16:5). Yea, the apostle in his salutation at the beginning, embraceth them only as brethren, without the least intimation of their being gathered into fellowship: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of G.o.d, called to be saints: Grace to you," &c. (1:7). To all there, to all in that city, beloved of G.o.d, and that are converted to the Lord Jesus Christ. A church there was in Aquila"s house, and that there were many more saints besides, is, and that by the text, as manifest. Besides, considering the rules that are given them in the 14th and 15th chapters about their receiving one another, doth yet strongly suggest to me, that they were not yet in fellowship, but as it were now about it, when Paul wrote his epistle to them.
The first epistle written to Corinth, was also wrote to all them "that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord"
(1:2). But it will be hard work for our author to make it manifest, that none in those days did call on the name of our Lord, but those that were first baptized. The second epistle also, was not only written to the church at Corinth, but also to "all the saints which were in all Achaia" (2 Cor 1:1). To the Galatians and Thessalonians indeed, his salutation was only to the churches there: But the three epistles before were as well to all other [saints]: As also that to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, in which the faithful and SAINTS in Christ Jesus were also every one comprehended.
Besides, to what particular church was the epistle to the Hebrews wrote? Or the epistle of James? Both those of Peter, and the first of John? Nay, that of John was wrote to some at that time out of fellowship, "that also may have fellowship with [us]" the church (1:1-4). So that these brethren must not have all the scriptures.
We have then a like privilege with all saints, to use the scriptures for our G.o.dly edifying, and to defend ourselves thereby, from the a.s.saults of those that would make spoil of us. But to pa.s.s this, and come to the next.
You object for that I said, "If water baptism [as the circ.u.mstances with which the church was pestered of old] trouble the peace, and wound the consciences of the G.o.dly, dismember and break their fellowships; it is, although an ordinance, for the present prudently to be shunned." At this (as I said) you object, and say, "Did I ever find baptism a pest or plague to churches? And did ever G.o.d send an ordinance to be a pest and plague to his people?"
I answer: I said not that G.o.d did send it for any such end at all; G.o.d"s ordinances are none of this in themselves: nor if used as, and for the end for which G.o.d sent them. But yet both baptism, and the supper of the Lord, have, by being wrested out of their place, been a great affliction to the G.o.dly both in this and other ages. What say you to breaking of bread, which the devil, by abusing, made an engine in the hand of Papists, to burn, starve, hang and draw thousands? What say you to John of Leyden? What work did he make by the abuse of the ordinance of water baptism?
And I wish this age had not given cause, through the church-rending spirits that some are possessed with, to make complaint of this matter; who have also had for their engine the baptism with water.
Yea, yourself, Sir, so far as I can perceive, could you get but the opportunity; yourself (I say) under pretence of this innocent ordinance, as you term it, would not stick to make inroads, and outroads too, in all the churches, that suit not your fancy, in the land. For you have already been bold to affirm, "That all those that have baptized infants, ought to be ashamed and repent, before they be showed the pattern of the house." And what is this but to threaten, that could you have your will of them, you would quickly take from them their present church privileges, and let them see nothing thereof, till those qualifications, especially subjection to water baptism, was found to attend each of them.
As to the persons you speak of, "Who have rent churches in pieces, by making preaching by method, doctrine, reason and use, to be anti-christian": Or, because they could not have other ministrations performed after their fancies "the imprudence of such with yourselves, hath been heart-breaking to many a gracious soul; an high occasion of stumbling to the weak, and a reproach to the ways of the Lord."
That it may be prudently shunned, I referred you then for proof, to what should be offered after: but at this you cry out, and so pa.s.s it.
And now, reader, although this author hath thus objected against some pa.s.sages in this my first argument for communion with persons unbaptized; yet the body of my argument he misseth and pa.s.seth over, as a thing not worth the answering; whether because he forgot, or because he was conscious to himself, that he knew not what to do therewith, I will not now determine. 1. I effectually prove, "That baptism is not the initiating ordinance." 2. I prove, "That though it was, yet the case may so fall out, that members might be received without it." 3. I prove, "That baptism makes no man a visible saint, nor giveth any right to church fellowship." 4. I prove, "That faith, and a life becoming the law of the ten commandments, should be the chief and most solid argument with true churches to receive saints to fellowship."[8] 5. I prove, "That circ.u.mcision in the flesh, which was the entering ordinance of old, was a type of circ.u.mcision in the heart," &c. These things, with others, our author letteth pa.s.s; although in the proof of them abideth the strength of this first argument; to which I must entreat him in his next, to cast his eye, and give fair answer; as also to the scriptures on which each are built, or he must suffer me to say, I am abused. Further, I make a question upon three scriptures, Whether all the saints, even in the primitive times, were baptized with water? to which also he answereth nothing; whereas he ought to have done it, if he will take in hand to confute. The scriptures are 1 Corinthians 1:14-16; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27. Yet were they effectually answered, my argument is nothing weakened.
You come to my second argument, drawn from Ephesians 4:4-6. Upon which a little more now to enlarge, and then to take notice of your objection. The apostle then in that fourth of the Ephesians, exhorteth the church there "with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace" (vv 2,3). This done, he presents them with such arguments, as might fasten his exhortation to purpose upon them.
1. The first is, because the body is ONE; There is "one body"; therefore they should not divide. For if the church of Christ be a body, there ought not to be a rent or schism among them (1 Cor 12).
2. His second argument is, There is "one spirit," or one quickening principle by which the body is made to live; for having a.s.serted before that Christ hath indeed a body, it was meet that he showed also, that this body hath life, and motion. Now that life, being none other, than that nourishment, or spirit of life, from which "the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working of the measure in every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Eph 4:16). Now this spirit, being first, and chiefly, in the head, therefore none other but those that hold the head can have this nourishment ministered to them: besides, this is the spirit that knits the body together, and makes it increase with the increase of G.o.d (Col 2:19). This is "the unity of the spirit" which he before exhorts them to keep.
3. The third argument is, Because their hope is also but one. "Even as ye are called [saith he] in one hope of your calling": as who should say, My brethren, if you are called with one calling, if your hope, both as to the grace of hope, and also the object, be but one: if you hope for one heaven, and for one eternal life: then maintain that unity of the spirit, and hope, while here, in love, "and the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3).
4. The fourth argument is, There is "one Lord," or husband, or prince, to whom this church belongs: therefore if we have husbands, but one, Lord and prince but one, let us not read into many parties, as if we had many husbands, lords, and princes, to govern us, as his wife, his house, and kingdom. "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor 1:13).
5. The fifth argument is, There is "one faith," by which we all stand justified by one Lord Jesus Christ; "one faith" by which we escape the wrath of G.o.d; "one faith" by which only they that have it are blessed; yea, seeing there is but "one faith," by which we are all put into one way of salvation, let us hold together as such.
6. The sixth argument is, There is "one baptism." Now we are come to the pinch, viz., Whether it be that of water, or no? which I must positively deny. (1.) Because water baptism hath nothing to do in a church, as a church; it neither bringeth us into the church, nor is any part of our worship when we come there; how then can the peace and unity of the church depend upon water baptism?
Besides, he saith expressly, It is the "unity of the spirit," not water, that is here intended: and the arguments brought to enforce it, are such as wholly and immediately relate to the duty of the church, as a church. (2.) Further, That other text, that treateth of our being baptized into a body, saith expressly it is done by the spirit: "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body"
(1 Cor 12:13). Here is the church presented as under the notion of "one body"; here is a baptism mentioned, by which they are brought, or initiated into this body: Now that this is the baptism of water, is utterly against the words of the text; "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body." Besides, if the baptism here be of water, then is it the initiating ordinance; but the contrary I have proved, and this author stands by my doctrine.
So then, the baptism here respecting the church as one body, and water, having nothing to do to enter men into the church, nor to command them to practise it as a church, in order to their peace or communion, or respecting the worship of G.o.d as such: and (I say again) the baptism in the sixth argument, being urged precisely for no other purpose, but with respect to the church"s peace as a body; it must needs be THAT baptism, by virtue of which, they were initiated, and joined together in one; and that baptism being only that which the Spirit executeth; this therefore is that one baptism.
7. The other argument is also effectual; there is "One G.o.d and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph 4:6). If we are "one body"; if to it there be but "one spirit"; if we have but "one hope, one faith," and be all baptized by "one spirit" into that "one" body; and if we have but "one Lord, one G.o.d," and he in every one of us; let us be also "one": and let them that are thus qualified, both join together, and hold in one.
But our author against this, objecteth, That, "now I employ my pen against every man; and give the lie to all expositors, for they hold this one baptism, to be none other than that of water."[9]
Ans. What if I should also send you to answer those expositors that expound certain scriptures for infant baptism, and that by them brand us for anabaptists; must this drive you from your belief of the truth? EXPOSITORS I reverence, but must live by mine own faith (Habb 2:4). G.o.d hath no where bound himself to them more than to others, with respect to the revelation of his mind in his word. But it becomes not you to run thus to expositors, who are, as to your notions in many things, but of yesterday: "to the law, and to the testimony" (Isa 8:20): for "Out of the mouth of babes"
the Lord hath "ordained strength" (Psa 8:2).
But you bid me tell you, "What I mean by spirit baptism?"
Ans. Sir, you mistake me, I treat not here of our being baptized with the Spirit, with respect to its coming from heaven into us; but of that act of the spirit, when come, which baptizeth us into a body or church. It is one thing to be baptized with the Spirit in the first sense; and another to be baptized by it in the sense I treat of: for the Spirit to come upon me, is one thing; and for that when come, to implant, embody, or baptize me into the body of Christ, is another. Your question therefore is grounded on a mistake, both of my judgment, and the words of the apostle.
Wherefore thus I soon put an end to your objections. For the Spirit to come down upon me, is one thing; and for the Spirit to baptize, or implant me into the church, is another: for to be possessed with the spirit, is one thing; and to be led by that spirit, is another. I conclude then; seeing the argument taken from that one baptism, respecteth church fellowship properly; and seeing water baptism meddleth not with it as such; it is the other, even that in 1 Corinthians 12:16 that is here intended, and no other.
But you add, "If nothing but extraordinary gifts are called the baptism of the Spirit in a strict sense; then that baptism (1 Cor 12) must be water baptism, as well as that in the Ephesians."
Hold: you make your conclusions before you have cause; first, prove that in the Ephesians to be meant of water baptism, and that the baptism in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is the baptism you would have it; and then conclude my argument void. That it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost according to the common notion, I say not; for you to a.s.sert it is the baptism of water, gives the lie to the text: but that it is an act of the Holy Ghost, baptizing the saints into a body, or church, you will hardly be able to make the contrary appear to be truth. "But behold, while here you would have this to be baptism with water, how you contradict and condemn your own notion: you say water baptism is not the entering ordinance; yet the baptism here is such as baptizeth us into a body: wherefore before you say next time that this in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is meant of water baptism; affirm that water baptism is the initiating or entering ordinance, that your opinion and doctrine may hang better together."
We come to my third argument; which is to prove, that it is lawful to hold church communion with the G.o.dly sincere believer, though he hath not be baptized with water, because he hath the DOCTRINE of baptisms (Heb 6:2). Which doctrine I distinguish from the practice of it; the doctrine being that which by the outward sign is presented to us; or which by the outward circ.u.mstance of the act is preached to the believer, viz., the death of Christ, my death with Christ; also his resurrection from the dead, and mine with him to newness of life. "This our author calleth one of the strangest paradoxes that he hath LIGHTLY observed."
Ans. How light he is in his observation of things, I know not; this I am sure, the apostle makes mention of the doctrine of baptisms; now that the doctrine of a man, or ordinance, is the signification of what is preached, is apparent to very sense. What is Christ"s doctrine, Paul"s doctrine, scripture doctrine, but the truth couched under the words that are spoken? so the doctrine of baptism, yea and the doctrine of the Lord"s supper, are those truths or mysteries that such ordinances preach unto us. And that the doctrine of baptism, in this sense, is the great end for which that, and the Lord"s supper, was inst.i.tuted, is apparent from all the scriptures: it is that which the apostle seeketh for in that eminent sixth of the Romans, "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (3-5). What is here discoursed, but the doctrine of or that which baptism teacheth; with an intimation; that that was the chief, for the sake of which that shadow was inst.i.tuted; as also that they that have the doctrine, or that which is signified thereby, they only must reign with Christ.
Again, This is that which he seeketh for among the Corinthians; "If the dead rise not at all," [saith he], "why then were you baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor 15:29). Why then were you baptized?
What did baptism teach you? What doctrine did it preach to you?
further, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of G.o.d, who hath raised him from the dead" (Col 2:12). What is here in chief a.s.serted, but the doctrine only which water baptism preacheth? with an intimation, that they, and they only, are the saved of the Lord, that have heard, received, and that live in this doctrine.
The same may be said of the Lord"s supper, it also hath its doctrine. But against this our author objecteth, saying, "That this is called the doctrine of baptism, I am yet to learn."
Ans. Your ignorance of the truth makes it not an error: but I pray you, what is the doctrine of baptism, if not that which baptism teacheth, even that which is signified thereby? As that is the doctrine of Christ, and the scriptures; which he and they teach as the mind of G.o.d.
But you say, "I took the doctrine of baptism to be the command that a believer should be baptized, for such ends as the gospel expresseth."
Ans. To a.s.sert that a figurative ordinance is of G.o.d, is one thing; but the doctrinal signification of that ordinance is another. A man may preach the command, yet none of the doctrine which baptism preacheth. The doctrine lieth not in the command, but the mystery discovered to faith, by the act.
You object, "If the resurrection be the doctrine of baptism, why doth the apostle make that, and the doctrine of baptism, things distinct, in Hebrews 6."