I. Say you, "Though G.o.d dispensed with their obedience to circ.u.mcision in that time (Gen 17; Exo 12) it follows not that you or I should dispense with the ordinance of water baptism now."
Ans. G.o.d commanded it, and made it the initiating ordinance to church communion. But Moses, and Aaron, and Joshua, and the elders of Israel, dispensed with it for forty years; therefore the dispensing with it was ministerial, and that with G.o.d"s allowance, as you affirm. Now if they might dispense with circ.u.mcision, though the initiating ordinance; why may not we receive G.o.d"s holy ones into fellowship, since we are not forbidden it, but commanded; yea, why should we make water baptism, which G.o.d never ordained to that end, a bar to shut out and let in to church communion?
II. You ask, "Was circ.u.mcision dispensed with for want of light, it being plainly commanded?"
Ans. Whatever was the cause, want of light is as great a cause: and that it must necessarily follow, they must needs see it, because commanded, favours too much of a tang of free will, or of the sufficiency of our understanding, and intrencheth too hard on the glory of the Holy Ghost; whose work it is "to bring all things to our remembrance, whatsoever Christ hath said to us" (John 14:26).
III. You ask, "Cannot you give yourself a reason, that their moving, travelling state made them incapable, and that G.o.d was merciful?
Can the same reason, or anything like it, for refusing baptism, be given now?"
Ans. I cannot give myself this reason, nor can you by it give me any satisfaction. Because their travelling state could not hinder; if you consider that they might, and doubtless did lie still in one place years together. 1. They were forty years going from Egypt to Canaan: and they had but forty-two journies thither. 2. They at times went several of these journies in one and the same year.
They went, as I take it, eleven of them by the end of the third month after they came out of the land of Egypt. Compare Exodus 19:1 with Numbers 33:15. 3. Again, in the fortieth year, we find them in Mount Hor, where Aaron died, and was buried. Now that was the year they went into Canaan; and in that year they had nine journies more, or ten, by that they got over Jordan (Num 33:38), &c. Here then were twenty journies in less than one year and an half. Divide then the rest of the time to the rest of the journies, and they had above thirty-eight years to go their two and twenty journies in. And how this should be such a traveling moving state, as that it should hinder their keeping this ordinance in its season, to wit, to circ.u.mcise their children the eighth day; especially considering to circ.u.mcise them in their childhood, as they were born, might be with more security, than to let them live while they were men, I see not.
If you should think that their wars in the wilderness might hinder them; I answer, They had, for ought I can discern, ten times as much fighting in the land of Canaan, where they were circ.u.mcised, as in the wilderness where they were not. And if carnal or outward safety had been the argument, doubtless they would not have circ.u.mcised themselves in the sight, as it were, of one and thirty kings (Josh 5, 12). I say, they would not have circ.u.mcised their six hundred thousand warriors, and have laid them open to the attempts and dangers of their enemies. No such thing, therefore, as you are pleased to suggest, was the cause of their not being as yet circ.u.mcised.
VI. "An extraordinary instance to be brought into a standing rule, are no parallels": That is the sum of your fourth.
Ans. The rule was ordinary; which was circ.u.mcision; the laying aside of this rule became as ordinary, so long a time as forty years, and in the whole church also. But this is a poor shift, to have nothing to say, but that the case was extraordinary, when it was not.
But you ask, "Might they do so when they came into Canaan?"
Ans. No, no. No more shall we do as we do now "when that which is perfect is come."
You add, "Because the church in the wilderness (Rev 12) could not come by ordinances, &c. therefore when they may be come at, we need not practise them."
Ans. No body told you so. But are you out of that wilderness mentioned? (Rev 12). Is Antichrist down and dead to ought but your faith? Or are we only out of that Egyptian darkness, that in baptism have got the start of our brethren? For shame be silent: yourselves are yet under so great a cloud, as to imagine to yourselves a Rule of Practice not found in the Bible; that is, to count it a sin to receive your holy brethren, though not forbidden but commanded to do it (Rom 14, 15).
Your great flourish against my fourth argument, I leave to them that can judge of the weight of your words; as also what you say of the fifth or sixth.
For the instance I give you of Aaron, David, and Hezekiah, who did things not commanded, and that about holy matters, and yet were held excusable; you, nor yet your abettors for you, can by any means overthrow. Aaron transgressed the commandment (Lev 6:26, 10:18); David did what was not lawful; and they in Hezekiah"s time, "did eat the pa.s.sover otherwise than it was written" (2 Chron 30:18). But here I perceive the shoe pincheth; which makes you glad of Mr. Denne"s evasion for help At this also Mr. D"Anvers cries out, but yet to no purpose, charging me with a.s.serting, that ignorance absolves from sin of omission and commission. But, Sirs, fairly take from me the texts, with others that I can urge; and then begin to accuse. You have healed your suggestion of unwritten verities poorly. But any shift to shift off the force of truth. After the same manner also you have helped your a.s.serting, "that you neither keep out, nor cast out from the church, if baptized, such as come unprepared to the supper, and other solemn appointments." Let us leave yours and mine to the pondering of wiser men.
My seventh argument, as I said, you have not so much as touched; nor the ten in that one, but only derided at the ten. But we will show them to the reader. 1. Love, which above all other things we are commanded to put on, is much more worth, than to break about baptism (Col 3:14). 2. Love is more discovered, when we receive for the sake of Christ and grace, than when we refuse for want of water. 3. The church at Colosse was charged to receive and forbear the saints, because they were new creatures. 4. Some saints were in the church at Jerusalem, that opposed the preaching of salvation to the Gentiles; and yet retained their membership. 5. Divisions and distinctions among saints are of later date than election, and the signs of that; and therefore should give place. 6. It is love, not baptism, that discovereth us to the world to be Christ"s disciples (John 13:35). 7. It is love that is the undoubted character of our interest in, and fellowship with, Christ (Rom 12:10, 16:10). 8. Fellowship with Christ is sufficient to invite to, and the new creature the great rule of our fellowship with, Christ (1 John 1:2). 9. Love is the fulfilling of the law, wherefore he that hath it is accepted with G.o.d, and ought to be approved of men; but he fulfils it not, who judgeth and setteth at nought his brother (Gal 6:16; Phil 3:16; Rom 14; James 4:11). 10. Love is sometimes more seen, and showed in forbearing to urge and press what we know, than in publishing and imposing (John 16:12; 1 Cor 3:1,2). 11. When we attempt to force our brother beyond his light, or to break his heart with grief, to trust him beyond his faith, or bar him from his privileges, how can we say I love? 12. To make that the door to communion which G.o.d hath not; to make that the including, excluding charter, the bar, bounds, and rule of communion, is for want of love. Here are two into the bargain.
If any of these, Sir, please you not in this dress; give me a word; and I shall, as well as my wit will serve, give you them in a syllogistical mode.
Now that you say (practically) for some speak with their feet (their walking (Prov 6:13)) that water is above love; and all other things are evident; because have they all but water, you refuse them for want of that; yea, and will be so hardy, though without G.o.d"s word, to refuse communion with them.
In our discourse about the carnality that was the cause of the divisions that were at Corinth, you ask, Who must the charge of carnality fall upon, them that defend, or them that oppose the truth?
Ans. Perhaps on both; but be sure upon them that oppose, wherefore look you to yourselves, "who without any command of G.o.d to warrant you, exclude your brother from communion; your brother whom G.o.d hath commanded you to receive."
My ninth argument, you make yourself merry with in the beginning: but why do you by and by so cut and hack, and cast it as it were in the fire. Those seventeen absurdities you can by no means avoid.
For if you have not, as indeed you have not, though you mock me for speaking a word in Latin, one word of G.o.d that commands you to shut out your brethren for want of water baptism, from your communion; I say, if you have not one word of G.o.d to make this a duty to you, then unavoidably, 1. You do it by a spirit of persecution. 2. With more respect to a form, than the spirit and power of G.o.dliness. 3. This also, makes laws, where G.o.d makes none; and is to be wise above what is written. 4. It is a directing the Spirit of the Lord. 5. And bindeth all men"s consciences to our light and opinion. 6. It taketh away the children"s bread. 7. And withholdeth from them the increase of faith. 8. It tendeth to make wicked the hearts of weak Christians. 9. It tendeth to harden the hearts of the wicked. 10. It setteth open a door to all temptations.
11. It tempteth the devil to fall upon them that are alone. 12. It is the nursery of all vain janglings. 13. It occasioneth the world to reproach us. 14. It holdeth staggering consciences in doubt, of the right ways of the Lord. 15. It abuseth the holy scriptures.
16. It is a prop to Antichrist. 17. And giveth occasion to many to turn aside to most dangerous errors.
And though the last is so abhorred by you, that you cannot contain yourselves when you read it: yet do I affirm, as I did in my first "That to exclude Christians from church communion, and to debar them their heaven-born privileges, for the want of that which G.o.d never yet made a wall of division between us; did, and doth, and will prevail with G.o.d to send those judgments we have, or may hereafter feel." Like me yet as you will.
I come next to what you have said in justification of your fourteen arguments. "Such as they were," say you, "I am willing to stand by them: What I have offered, I have offered modestly: according to the utmost light I had into those scriptures upon which they are bottomed; having not arrived unto such a peremptory way of dictatorship, as what I render must be taken for laws binding to others in faith and practice; and therefore express myself by suppositions, strong presumptions, and fair seeming conclusions from the premises."
Ans. Your arguments, as you truly say, are builded upon, or drawn from suppositions and presumptions; and all because you want for your help the words of the holy scripture. And let the reader note. For as I have often called for the word, but as yet could never get it, because you have it not, neither in precept, precedent, nor example, therefore come you forth with your seeming imports and presumptions.
The judicious reader will see in this last, that not only here, but in other places, what poor shifts you are driven to, to keep your pen going. But, Sir, since you are not peremptory in your proof; how came you to be so absolute in your practice? For notwithstanding all your seeming modesty, you will neither grant these communion with you; nor allow their communion among themselves, that turn aside from your "seeming imports"; and that go not with you in your strong presumptions. You must not; you dare not; lest you countenance their idolatry; and nourish them up in sin; they live in the breach of gospel-order; and Ephraim-like are joined to an idol. And as for your love, it amounts to this, you thus deal with them, and withdraw from them, and all because of some strong presumptions and suppositions.
But you tell me, "I use the arguments of the paedo-baptist, to wit, But where are infants forbidden to be baptized?"
But I ingenuously tell you, I know not what paedo means: and how then should I know his arguments. 1. I take no man"s argument but Mr. K."s, I must not name him farther, I say I take no man"s argument but his now, viz. "That there being no precept, precedent or example, for you to shut your holy brethren out of church communion; therefore you should not do it." That you have no command to do it, is clear, and you must of necessity grant it.
Now where there is no precept for a foundation; it is not what you by all your reasonings can suggest; can deliver you from the guilt of adding to his word. Are you commanded to reject them; If yea, where is it? If nay, for shame be silent.
"Let us say what we will," say you, "for our own practice; unless we bring positive scriptures that yours is forbidden, though nowhere written; you will be as a man in a rage without it; and would have it thought you go away with the garland."
Ans. 1. I am not in a rage, but contend with you earnestly for the truth. And say what you will or can, though with much more squibbing frumps[4] and taunts than hitherto you have mixed our writing with, Scripture, scripture, we cry still. And it is a bad sign that your cause is naught; when you snap and snarl because I call for scripture. 2. Had you a scripture for this practice, that you ought to shut your brethren out of communion for want of water baptism I had done; but you are left of the word of G.o.d, and confess it! 3. And as you have not a text that justifies your own; so neither that condemns our holy and Christian communion.
We are commanded also to receive him that is weak in the faith, for G.o.d hath received him. I read not of garlands, but those in the Acts; take you them. And I say moreover, that honest and holy Mr. Jesse hath justified our practice, and you have not condemned his arguments. They therefore stand all upon their feet against you.
I leave your 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 arguments under my answers where they are suppressed. In your seventh you again complain, for that I touch your "seeming imports"; saying, "I do not use to say as John Bunyan, this I say, and I dare to say. I please myself by commending my apprehensions soberly, and submissively to others much above me."
Ans. 1. Seeming imports are a base and unworthy foundation for a practice in religion; and therefore I speak against them. 2.
Where you say, you submit your apprehensions soberly to those much above you; it is false; unless you conclude none are above you, but those of your own opinion. Have you soberly, and submissively commended your apprehensions to those congregations in London, that are not of your persuasion in the case in hand? and have you consented to stand by their opinion? Have you commended your apprehensions soberly and submissively to those you call Independents and Presbyters? And are you willing to stand by their judgment in the case? Do you not reserve to yourself the liberty of judging what they say? and of choosing what you judge is right, whether they conclude with you or no? If so; why do you so much dissemble with all the world, in print; to pretend you submit to others"
judgment, and yet abide to condemn their judgments? you have but one help: perhaps you think they are not above you; and by that proviso secure yourself; but it will not do.
For the offence you take at any comment upon your calling baptism, "a livery": and for your calling it "the Spirit"s metaphorical description of baptism": both phrases are boldness, without the word. Neither do I find it called a listing ordinance, nor the solemnization of the marriage betwixt Christ and a believer. But perhaps you had this from Mr. D"Anvers, who pleaseth himself with this kind of wording it: and says moreover in justification of you, "That persons entered into the visible church thereby [by baptism, which is untrue, though Mr. Baxter also saith it] are by consent admitted into particular congregations, where they may claim their privileges due to baptized believers, being orderly put into the body, and put on Christ by their baptismal vow and covenant: for by that public declaration of consent, is the marriage and solemn contract made betwixt Christ and a believer in baptism. And, saith he, if it be preposterous and wicked for a man and woman to cohabit together, and to enjoy the privileges of a married state without the pa.s.sing of that public solemnity: So it is NO less disorderly upon a spiritual account, for any to claim the privileges of a church, or be admitted to the same, till the pa.s.sing of this solemnity by them."
Ans. But these words are very black. First, Here he hath not only implicitly forbidden Jesus Christ to hold communion with the saints that are not yet his by [water] baptism; but is bold to charge him with being as preposterous and wicked if he do, as a man that liveth with a woman in the privileges of a married state, without pa.s.sing that public solemnity. Secondly, He here also chargeth him as guilty of the same wickedness, that shall but dare to claim church communion without it; yea, and the whole church too, if they shall admit such members to their fellowship.
And now since cleaving to Christ by vow and covenant, will not do without baptism, after personal confession of faith; what a state are all those poor saints of Jesus in, that have avowed themselves to be his a thousand times without THIS baptism? Yea, and what a case is Jesus Christ in too, by your argument, to hold that communion with them, that belongeth only unto them that are married to him by this solemnity! Brother, G.o.d give him repentance. I wot that through ignorance and a preposterous zeal he said it: unsay it again with tears, and by a public renunciation of so wicked and horrible words; but I thus sparingly pa.s.s you by.[5]
I shall not trouble the world any farther with an answer to the rest of your books: The books are public to the world: let men read and judge. And had it not been for your endeavouring to stigmatize me with reproach and scandal, a thing that doth not become you, I needed not have given you two lines in answer.
And now, my angry brother, if you shall write again, pray keep to the question, namely, "What precept, precedent, or example have you in G.o.d"s word to exclude your holy brethren from church communion for want of water baptism." Mr. Denne"s great measure, please yourself with it, and when you shall make his arguments your own, and tell me so, you perhaps may have an answer, but considering him, and comparing his notions with his conversation, I count it will be better for him to be better in morals, before he be worthy of an answer.
THE CONCLUSION.
Reader, when Moses sought to set the brethren that strove against each other, at one, he that did the wrong thrust him away, as unwilling to be hindered in his unG.o.dly attempts; but Moses continuing to make peace betwixt them, the same person attempted to charge him with a murderous and b.l.o.o.d.y design, saying, "Wilt thou kill me as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?" (Exo 2:14) a thing too commonly thrown upon those that seek peace, and ensue it (Acts 7:24-29). "My soul," saith David, "hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace, [said he] but when I speak, they are for war" (Psa 120:6,7). One would think that even nature itself should count peace and concord a thing of greatest worth among saints, especially since they, above all men, know themselves; for he that best knoweth himself is best able to pity and bear with another (Heb 5:2); yet even amongst these, such will arise, as will make divisions among their brethren, and seek "to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30), crying still that they, even they are in the right, and all that hold not with them in the wrong, and to be withdrawn from (Rom 16:17). But when every HE, hath said all that he can, it is one of the things which the Lord hateth, to sow "discord among brethren" (Prov 6:19).[6]
Yet many years" experience we have had of these mischievous attempts, as also have others in other places, as may be instanced if occasion requireth it, and that especially by those of the rigid way of our brethren, the Baptists so called, whose principles will neither allow them to admit to communion, the saint that different from them about baptism, nor consent they should communicate in a church-state among themselves: but take occasion still ever as they can, both to reproach their church-state, and to finger from amongst them who they can to themselves. These things being grievous to those concerned, as we are, though perhaps those at quiet are too little concerned in the matter, therefore when I could no longer forbear, I thought good to present to public view the warrantableness of our holy communion, and the unreasonableness of their seeking to break us to pieces. At this Mr. William K[iffin], Mr. Thomas Paul, and Mr. Henry D"Anvers, and Mr. Denne, fell with might and main upon me; some comparing me to the devil, others to a bedlam, others to a sot, and the like, for my seeking peace and truth among the G.o.dly. Nay, further, they began to cry out murder, as if I intended nothing less than to accuse them to the magistrate, and to render them incapable of a share in the commonwealth, when I only struck at their heart-breaking, church-rending principles and practice; in their excluding their holy brethren"s communion from them, and their condemning of it [eve] among themselves. They also follow me with slanders and reproaches, counting, it seems, such things arguments to defend themselves.
But I in the meantime call for proof, scripture proof, to convince me it is a duty to refuse communion with those of the saints that differ from them about baptism: at this Mr. P[aul] takes offence, calling my demanding of proof for their rejecting the unbaptized believer, how excellent soever in faith and holiness, a clamorous calling for proof, with high and swelling words, which he counteth not worthy of answer; but I know the reason, he by this demand is shut out of the Bible, as himself also suggesteth: wherefore when coming to a.s.sault me with arguments, he can do it but by seeming imports, suppositions, and strong presumptions, and tells you farther in his reply, "That this is the utmost of his light in the scriptures urged for his practice"; of which light thou mayest easily judge, good reader, that hast but the common understanding of the mind of G.o.d, concerning brotherly love. Strange! that the scripture that everywhere commandeth and presseth to love, to forbearance, and bearing the burden of our brother; should yet imply, or implicitly import that we should shut them out of our Father"s house; or that those scriptures that command us to receive the weak, should yet command us to shut out the strong! Thinkest thou, reader, that the scripture hath two faces, and speaketh with two mouths? yet it must do so, by these men"s doctrine. It saith expressly, "Receive one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of G.o.d" (Rom 15:7). But these men say, it is not duty, it is preposterous, and idolatrous; concluding that to receive this brother, is not a custom of them, not yet of the churches of G.o.d: consequently telling thee, that those that receive such a brother are not (let them talk while they will) any of the churches of G.o.d: see their charity, their candour and love, in the midst of their great pretensions of love.
But be thou a.s.sured, christian reader, that for these their uncharitable words and actions, they have not footing in the word of G.o.d, neither can they heal themselves with suggesting their amicable correspondence to the world. Church communion I plead for, church communion they deny them, yet church communion is scripture communion, and we read of none other among the saints.
True, we are commanded to withdraw "from every brother that walketh disorderly,--that he may be ashamed, yet not to count him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess 3:6,14,15).
If this be that they intend, for I know not of another communion, that we ought to have with those, to whom we deny church communion; then what ground of rejoicing those have that are thus respected by their brethren, I leave it to themselves to consider of.
In the meanwhile, I affirm, "that baptism with water, is neither a bar nor bolt to communion of saints, nor a door nor inlet to communion of saints." The same which is the argument of my books; and as some of the moderate among themselves have affirmed, that neither Mr. K., Mr. P. nor Mr. D"Anvers, have made invalid, though sufficiently they have made their a.s.sault.
For Mr. Denne, I suppose they count him none of themselves, though both he, and Mr. Lamb, like to like, are brought for authors and abetters of their practice, and to refel my peaceable principle.
For Mr. Denne, if either of the three will make his arguments their own, they may see what their servant can do: but I shall not bestow paper and ink upon him, nor yet upon Mr. Lamb; the one already, having given his profession the lie, and for the other perhaps they that know his life, will see little of conscience in the whole of his religion, and conclude him not worth the taking notice of. Besides Mr. P. hath also concluded against Mr. Denne, That baptism is not the initiating ordinance, and that his utmost strength for the justification of his own practise is, "suppositions, imports, and strong presumptions," things that they laugh at, despise and deride, when brought by their brethren to prove infant baptism.
Railing for railing, I will not render, though one of these opposers, Mr. Dan. by name, did tell me, that Mr. Paul"s reply when it came out, would sufficiently provoke me to so beastly a work: but what is the reason of his so writing, if not the peevishness of his own spirit, or the want of better matter.