A Confession of My Faith, and a Reason of My Practice, Etc.
'Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil-doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.'—1 Peter 3:15, 16.
1. I believe, that there is but one only true God, and there is none other but he. 'To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things' (1 Cor 8:6). 'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God' &c. (John 17:3, see also Mark 12:32; Acts 17:24).
2. I believe, that this God is almighty, eternal, invisible, incomprehensible, &c. 'I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect' (Gen 17:1). 'The eternal God is thy refuge' (Deut 33:27). 'Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever' (1 Tim 1:17, see also Job 11:7; Rom 11:33).
3. I believe, that this God is unspeakably perfect in all his attributes of power, wisdom, justice, truth, holiness, mercy, love, &c. his power is said to be eternal (Rom 1:20), his understanding and wisdom infinite (Psa 147:5); he is called the just Lord in opposition to all things (Zeph 3:5). He is said to be truth itself and the God thereof (2 Thess 2:10; Deut 32:4). There is none holy as the Lord. 'God is love.' 'Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?' (Job 11:7).
4. I believe, that in the Godhead, there are three persons or subsistances. 'There are three that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost' (1 John 5:7, see also Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isa 6:8).
5. I believe, that these three are in nature, essence, and eternity, equally one. 'These three are one' (1 John 5:7).
6. I believe, [that] there is 'a world to come' (Heb 2:5, 6:5).
7. I believe, that there shall be 'a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust' (Acts 24:15). 'Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt' (Dan 12:2). 'Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation' (John 5:28).
8. I believe, that they that 'shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection' (Luke 20:34-36, see also John 10:27-29; Rev 7:16, 20:6).
9. I believe, that those that die impenitent, shall be tormented with the devil and his angels, and shall be cast with them into 'the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone' (Rev 21:8). 'Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched' (Mark 9:43,48, see also Matt 25:41,46; John 5:29).
10. I believe, that because God is naturally holy and just, even, as he is good and merciful; therefore, all having sinned, none can be saved, without the means of a redeemer. 'Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom' (Job 33:24). 'We have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins' (Col 1:14). For which 'without shedding of blood, is no remission' (Heb 9:22).
11. I believe that Jesus Christ our Lord himself is the redeemer. 'They remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer' (Psa 78:35). 'Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot' (1 Peter 1:18,19).
12. I believe, that the great reason why the Lord, the second person in the Godhead, did clothe himself with our flesh and blood, was that he might be capable of obtaining the redemption, that before the world, was intended for us. 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; [mark] that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage' (Heb 2:14,15). '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' (Gal 4:4,5). 'Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, and that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted' (Heb 2:17,18). 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through [faith in] Jesus Christ' (Gal 3:13,14).
13. I believe, that the time when he clothed himself with our flesh, was in the days of the reign of Caesar Augustus; then, I say, and not till then, was the Word 'made flesh,' or clothed with our nature (John 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16). 'And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered' (Luke 2:1,4-6). This child was he of whom godly Simeon was told by the Holy Ghost, when he said, That he should not see death until he had seen the Lord's Christ (vv 25-27).
14. I believe, therefore, that this very child, as afore is testified, is both God and man; the Christ of the living God. 'And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds—keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger' (Luke 2:7-12). Again, 'But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him;—saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us' (Matt 1:21,22).
15. I believe, therefore, that the righteousness, and redemption, by which we that believe, stand just before God, as saved from the curse of the law, is the righteousness, and redemption, that consists in the personal acts and performances of this child Jesus; this God-man the Lord's Christ: it consisteth, I say, in his personal fulfilling the law for us, to the utmost requirement of the justice of God. 'Think not [saith he] that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil' (Matt 5:17). By which means he became 'the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth' (Rom 10:4). 'For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh' (Rom 8:3). So finishing transgressions, and making an end of sins, and making reconciliation for iniquity, He brought in everlasting righteousness (1 John 3:8; 2 Tim 1:9; Heb 10:5-10; Dan 9:24).
16. I believe, that for the completing of this work, he was always sinless (Heb 4:15); did always the things that pleased God's justice (John 8:29), that every one of his acts, both of doing and suffering, and rising again from the dead, was really and infinitely perfect, being done by him as God-man (Heb 7:26-28): wherefore his acts before he died, are called, 'the righteousness of God' (Rom 3:21,22), his blood, 'the blood of God' (Acts 20:28), and 'hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us' (1 John 3:16). The Godhead which gave virtue to all the acts of the human nature, was then in perfect union with it, when he hanged upon the cross for our sins (Acts 10:36; John 20:28; Rom 1:4).
17. I believe then, that the righteousness that saveth the sinner from the wrath to come, is properly and personally Christ's, and ours but as we have union with him; God by grace imputing it to us. 'Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith' (Phil 3:8,9). 'But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption' (1 Cor 1:30). 'For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor 5:21) ['IN the LORD have I righteousness and strength' (Isa 45:24).]
18. I believe, that God, as the reward of Christ's undertakings for us, hath exalted him to his own right-hand, as our mediator, and given him a name above every name; and hath made him Lord of all, and judge of quick and dead: and all this that we who believe might take courage to believe, and hope in God (Eph 1:17-22). 'And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself—unto death, even the death of the cross, [where he died for our sins]. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him; and given him a name—above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father' (Phil 2:8-11). 'And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead' (Acts 10:42, 17:31). 'Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God' (1 Peter 1:19-21).
19. I believe, that being at the right hand of God in heaven, he doth there effectually exercise the offices of his excellent priesthood, and mediatorship, presenting himself continually before God, in the righteousness which is accomplished for us, when he was in the world. For by the efficacy of his blood, he not only went into the holy place, but being there, and having by it obtained eternal redemption for us; now, as receiving the worth and merit thereof from the Father; doth bestow upon us grace, repentance, faith, and the remission of sins: yea he also received for us, the Holy Ghost to be sent unto us, to ascertain[4] us of our adoption and glory: 'For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest' (Heb 8:4). 'Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession' (Heb 4:14). 'For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim 2:5). For 'by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.—For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us' (Heb 9:12,24). 'Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear' (Acts 2:23, 5:31).[5]
20. I believe, that being there, he shall so continue till the restitution of all things, and then he shall come again in glory, and shall sit in judgment upon all flesh. And I believe, that according to his sentence so shall their judgment be. 'Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things,—spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began' (Acts 3:19-21). For 'this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heave' (Acts 1:11). 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God'; &c. (1 Thess 4:16). 'When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the king say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal' (Matt 25:31-33,41,46). For 'the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat' (2 Peter 3:10-12).
21. I believe that when he comes, his saints shall have a reward of grace, for all their work and labour of love which they showed to his name in the world. 'And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour' (1 Cor 3:8). 'And then shall every man have praise of God' (4:5). 'And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be' (Rev 22:12). 'Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord' (1 Cor 15:58). 'Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ' (Col 3:24).
How Christ is made ours; or by what means this or that man, hath that benefit by him, as to stand just before God now, and in the day of judgment.
Of Justification.
1. I believe, we being sinful creatures in ourselves, that no good thing done by us, can procure of God the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But that the imputation thereof is an act of grace, a free gift without our deserving. 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus' (Rom 3:24, 5:17). 'Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus' (2 Tim 1:9).
2. I believe also, That the power of imputing righteousness resideth only in God by Christ: 1. Sin being the transgression of the law. 2. The soul that hath sinned being his creature, and the righteousness also his, and his only. 'Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin' (Rom 4:6-8). Hence therefore it is said again, That men 'shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness' (Psa 145:7). 'For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy' (Rom 9:15,16).
3. I believe, that the offer of this righteousness, as tendered in the gospel, is to be received by faith; we still in the very act of receiving it, judging ourselves sinners in ourselves. 'Oh wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ' (Rom 7:24,25). 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved' (Acts 16:31). The gospel is preached in all nations for the obedience of faith. 'Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, [a sacrifice to appease the displeasure of God] through faith in his blood. To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; to declare I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth on Jesus' (Rom 3:24-26). 'Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:38,39).
4. I believe, that this faith, as it respecteth the imputation of this righteousness, for justification before God, doth put forth itself in such acts, as purely respect the offer of a gift. It receiveth, accepteth of, embraceth, or trusteth to it. 'As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name' (John 1:12). 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief' (1 Tim 1:15; Heb 11:13). 'In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy spirit of promise' (Eph 1:13). I believe therefore, that as to my justification from the curse of the law, I am, as I stand in myself, ungodly, to receive, accept of, embrace, and trust to the righteousness, that is already provided by, and wrapt up in the personal doings and sufferings of Christ; it being faith in that, and that only, that can justify a sinner in the sight of God.[6]
5. I believe, that the faith that so doth, is not to be found with any but those, in whom the Spirit of God by mighty power doth work it: all others being fearful and incredulous, dare not venture their souls and eternity upon it. And hence it is called the faith that is wrought by the exceeding great and mighty power of God; the faith of the operation of God. And hence it is that others are said to be fearful, and so unbelieving. These with other ungodly sinners must have their part in the lake of fire (Eph 1:18,19; Col 2:12; Eph 2:8; Phil 1:19; Rev 21:8).
6. I believe, that this faith is effectually wrought in none, but those which before the world were appointed unto glory. 'And as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed' (Acts 13:48). 'That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory' (Rom 9:23). 'We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God;—knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God' (1 Thess 1:2-4). But of the rest he saith, 'ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said' (John 10:26), which latter words relate to the 16th verse, which respecteth the election of God.
'Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and I should heal them' (John 12:39,40).
Of Election.
1. I believe that election is free and permanent, being founded in grace, and the unchangeable will of God. 'Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace: otherwise work is no more work' (Rom 11:5,6). 'Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his' (2 Tim 2:19). 'In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will' (Eph 1:11).
2. I believe, that this decree, choice or election, was before the foundation of the world; and so before the elect themselves, had being in themselves: For 'God who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were' (Rom 4:17), stays not for the being of things, to determine his eternal purpose by; but having all things present to him, in his wisdom, he made his choice before the world was (Eph 1:4; 2 Tim 1:9).
3. I believe, that the decree of election is so far off from making works in us foreseen, the ground or cause of the choice: that it containeth in the bowels of it, not only the persons, but the graces that accompany their salvation. And hence it is, that it is said; we are predestinated 'to be conformed to the image of his Son' (Rom 8:29); not because we are, but 'that we SHOULD be holy and without blame before him in love' (Eph 1:4). 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph 2:10). He blessed us according as he chose us in Christ. And hence it is again that the salvation and calling of which we are now made partakers, is no other than what was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; according to his eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph 3:8-11; 2 Tim 1:9; Rom 8:29).
4. I believe that Christ Jesus is he in whom the elect are always considered, and that without him there is neither election, grace, nor salvation. 'Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace: wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.—That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are in earth, even in him' (Eph 1:5-7,10). 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved' (Acts 4:12).
5. I believe, that there is not any impediment attending the election of God, that can hinder their conversion, and eternal salvation. 'Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?—Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?' &c. (Rom 8:30-35). 'What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded' (Rom 11:7). 'For Israel hath not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of the LORD of hosts: though their land was filled with sin, against the holy one of Israel' (Jer 51:5). When Ananias made intercession against Saul, saying, 'Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.' What said God unto him? 'Go thy way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel' (Acts 9:12,15).
6. I believe that no man can know his election, but by his calling. The vessels of mercy, which God afore prepared unto glory, do thus claim a share therein: 'Even us, [say they,] whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea; I will call them my people, which were not my people, and her beloved, which was not beloved' (Rom 9:24,25).
7. I believe therefore, that election doth not forestal or prevent the means which are of God appointed to bring us to Christ, to grace and glory; but rather putteth a necessity upon the use and effect thereof; because they are chosen to be brought to heaven that way: that is, by the faith of Jesus Christ, which is the end of effectual calling. 'Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure' (2 Peter 1:10; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Peter 1:12).
Of Calling.
I believe, that to effectual calling, the Holy Ghost must accompany the word of the gospel, and that with mighty power: I mean that calling, which of God is made to be the fruit of electing love. 'Knowing,' saith Paul to the Thessalonians, 'brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance,' &c. (1 Thess 1:4,5). Otherwise men will not, cannot, hear and turn. Samuel was called four times, before he knew the voice of him that spake from heaven (1 Sam 3:-610). It is said of them in Hosea, That as the prophets called them so they went from them; and instead of turning to them, 'sacrificed to Baalim, and burned incense to graven images' (Hosea 11:2). The reason is, because men by nature are not only dead in sins, but enemies in their minds by reason of wicked works: the call then is, 'Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light' (Eph 5:14). Understand, therefore, that effectual calling is like that word of Christ that raised Lazarus from the dead; a word attended with an arm that was omnipotent. 'Lazarus, come forth' (John 11:43). It was a word to the dead; but not only so: it was a word for the dead; a word that raised him from the dead; a word that outwent all opposition; and that brought him forth of the grave, though bound hand and foot therein (Gal 1:15). And hence it is, that calling is sometimes expressed by quickening (Eph 2:1,2), awakening, illuminating, or bringing them forth of darkness to light, that amazeth and astonisheth them (Heb 10:32; Acts 9:6). For as it is a strange thing for a man that lay long dead, or never saw the light with his eyes, to be raised out of the grave, or to be made to see that which he could not so much as once think of before, so it is with effectual calling. Hence it is that Paul, when called, stood 'trembling and was astonished': and that Peter saith, 'he hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light' (1 Peter 2:9; Eph 4:24; Acts 9:6). In effectual calling the voice of God is heard, and the gates of heaven are opened:[7] when God called Abraham, he appeared to him in glory. That of Ananias to Saul is experienced but by few. 'The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, [saith he,] that thou shouldest know his will, and see that just one, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth' (Acts 22:14). True, Saul's call was out of the ordinary way, but yet as to the matter, and truth of the work, it was no other than all the chosen have, viz.
(1.) An effectual awakening about the evil of sin; and especially of unbelief (John 16:9). And therefore when the Lord God called Adam, he also made unto him an effectual discovery of sin; insomuch that he stript him of all his righteousness (Gen 3). Thus he also served the gaoler (Acts 16:29,30). Yea it is such an awakening, as by it, he sees he was without Christ, without hope, and a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, 'and without God in the world' (Eph 2:12). Oh the dread and amazement that the guilt of sin brings with it, when it is revealed by the God of heaven; and like to it is the sight of mercy, when it pleaseth God, who calleth us by his grace, to reveal his Son in us.
(2.) In effectual calling there is great awakenings about the world to come, and the glory of unseen things; the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment; the salvation that God hath prepared for them that love him; with the blessedness that will attend us, and be upon us, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, are great things in the soul that is under the awakening calls of God. And hence we are said to be called to glory (1 Thess 2:12). 'To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ' (2 Thess 2:14).
(3.) In effectual calling there is also a sanctifying virtue; and hence we are said to be called with an holy calling (1 Thess 4:7), with an 'heavenly calling' (Heb 3:1). Called to glory and virtue. 'But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light' (1 Peter 2:9). Yea, effectual calling hath annexed to it, as its inseparable companion, the promise of thorough sanctification. 'Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it' (1 Thess 5:24).
Of Faith.
I believe, that effectual calling doth therefore produce, 1. FAITH; and therefore it is said, that 'faith cometh by hearing' (Rom 10:17); by hearing the word that calleth us 'unto the grace of Christ' (Gal 1:6). For by the word that calleth us, is Jesus Christ held forth to us; and offered to be our righteousness; and therefore the apostle saith again, that God hath called us 'unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ' (1 Cor 1:9); that is, to be made partakers of the riches of grace, and the righteousness that is in him. 2. It produceth hope. It giveth a ground to hope; and therefore hope is said to be the hope of our calling (Eph 1:18). And again, 'Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling' (Eph 4:4). Now the godly wise know, whoso misseth of effectual calling, misseth of eternal life; because God justifieth none but them whom he calleth; and glorifies none but those whom he justifies: and therefore it is that Peter said before, 'Make your calling, and [so] your election sure': make it sure, that is, prove your calling right, by the word of God. For whoso staggereth at the certainty of his calling, cannot comfortably hope for a share in eternal life. 'Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope. My soul fainteth for thy salvation, but I hope in thy word' (Psa 119:49,81). 3. It produceth repentance; for when a man hath heaven and hell before his eyes (as he will have if he be under the power of effectual calling) or when a man hath a revelation of the mercy and justice of God, with an heart-drawing invitation to lay hold on the tender forgiveness of sins; and being made also to behold the goodly beauty of holiness; it must needs be, that repentance appears, and puts forth itself, unto self-revenging acts, for all its wickedness which in the days of ignorance it delighted in. And hence is that saying, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance' (Mark 2:17). For the effecting of which, the preaching of the word of the kingdom, is most proper: 'Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt 4:17).
Of Repentance.
Repentance is a turning the heart to God in Christ: a turning of it from sin, and the devil, and darkness; to the goodness, and grace, and holiness that is in him. Wherefore, they that of old are said to repent, are said to loath and abhor themselves, for all their abominations. 'I abhor myself,' [said Job,] 'and repent in dust and ashes' (Job 42:6, see also Eze 6:9, 20:43, 36:31, 42:6, 16:63).
Godly repentance doth not only affect the soul with the loathsome nature of sin that is past; but filleth the heart with godly hatred of sins that yet may come. When Moses feared that through his being overburthened with the care of the children of Israel, some unruly or sinful passions might show themselves in him, what saith he? 'Kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight, and let me not see my wretchedness' (Num 11:15). See also how that which Paul calleth godly repentance, wrought in the upright Corinthians, 'Behold,' [saith he,] this self same thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter (2 Cor 7:11).
Of Love.
It [effectual calling] produceth also love: wherefore Paul, when he had put the church in remembrance that they were called of God, adds, That concerning brotherly love, they had no need that he should write unto them (1 Thess 4:9). As who should say, If God be so kind to us, to forgive us our sins, to save our souls, and to give us the kingdom of heaven; let these be motives beyond all other to provoke us to love again. Farther, if we that are thus beloved of God, are made members of one man's body, all partakers of his grace, clothed all, with his glorious righteousness, and are together appointed to be the children of the next world; why should we not love one another? 'Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another' (1 John 4:11). And truly so we shall, if the true grace of God be upon us; because we also see them to be the called of Jesus. Travellers, that are of the same country, love and take pleasure one in another, when they meet in a strange land.[8] Why, we sojourn here in a strange country, with them that are heirs together with us of the promised kingdom and glory (Heb 11:9). Now, as I said, this holy love worketh by love: mark, love in God and Christ when discovered, constraineth us to love [one another] (2 Cor 5:14).
The name, therefore, and word, and truth of God in Christ, together with the sincerity of grace, of faith, and holiness in us, are the delightful objects of this love (Psa 119:47,127,132,159, 5:11, 69:36, 101:6). For it embraceth with delight and complacency, but as it discerneth the image of God, and of Christ in the soul, his presence in the ministry, and a suitableness in our worship to the word and mind of Christ (Psa 26:8, 27:4, 84:1-4; 1 Thess 5:13; Phil 1:3-7; Eph 4:32).
Love also hath a blessed faculty, and heavenly, in bearing and suffering afflictions, putting up wrongs, overlooking the infirmities of the brethren, and in serving in all Christian offices the necessities of the saints. 'Charity suffereth long and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth' (1 Cor 13:4-8, also 1 Peter 4:8; Gal 5:13). In a word, it designeth a holy conversation in this world; that God, and Christ, and the word of Christ, 'may be glorified thereby' (2 Cor 11:10-12; 1 Peter 1:12, 3:16).
Of the Scriptures.
Touching which word of God I thus believe and confess, 1. That all the holy scriptures are the words of God. 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim 3:16). For the prophecy [of the scripture] came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). 2. I believe that the holy scriptures, of themselves, without the addition of human inventions, are able to make the man of God perfect in all things; and 'thoroughly to furnish him unto all good works.' They are able 'to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus' (2 Tim 3:15). And to instruct thee in all other things, that either respect the worship of God, or thy walking before all men (2 Tim 3:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). 3. I believe the great end why God committed the scriptures to writing was; that we might be instructed to Christ, taught how to believe (1 John 5:13), [and be] encouraged to patience and hope, for the grace that is to be brought unto us at the revelation of Jesus Christ (John 20:31; Rom 15:4). Also that we might understand what is sin, and how to avoid the commission thereof. 'Concerning the works of men [said David] by the word of thy lips, I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer' (Psa 17:4). 'Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way' (Psa 119:104). 'Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee' (Psa 119:11). 4. I believe that they cannot be broken, but will certainly be fulfilled in all the prophecies, threatenings, and promises, either to the salvation or damnation of men. They are like that flying roll, that will go over all the earth to cut off and curse (Ze 5:2-4). In them is contained also the blessing, they preach to us also the way of salvation (Gal 3:8). 'Beware, therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish:[9] for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you' (Acts 13:40,41, see also John 10:35, 12:37-41, 3:17-19). 5. I believe that Jesus Christ, by the word of the scriptures, will judge all men at the day of doom; for that is the book of the law of the Lord, according to Paul's gospel (John 12:44-50; Rom 2:16). 6. I believe, that this God 'made the world and all things [that are] therein' (Acts 17:24), for 'in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is' (Exo 20:11). Also, that after the time of the making thereof, he disposed of it to the children of men, with a reserve thereof for the children of God, that should in all ages be born thereunto. 'When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel' (Deut 32:8), for as he 'made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, [so he] hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation' (Acts 17:26).
Of Magistracy.
I believe, that magistracy is God's ordinance, which he hath appointed for the government of the whole world; and that it is a judgment of God, to be without those ministers of God, which he hath ordained to put wickedness to shame (Ju 18:7). 'Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not then be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing' (Rom 13:2-6). Many are the mercies we receive, by a well qualified magistrate, and if any shall at any time be otherwise inclined, let us shew our Christianity in a patient suffering, for well doing, what it shall please God to inflict by them.[10]
A Reason of My Practice in Worship.
Having thus made confession of my faith, I now come to shew you my practice in worship, with the reasons thereof. The which I shall have occasion to touch, under two distinct heads.
I. With whom I dare not hold communion.
II. With whom I dare.
Only, first, note, that by the word communion, I mean fellowship in the things of the kingdom of Christ, or that which is commonly called church communion, the communion of saints. For in civil affairs, and in things of this world that are honest, I am not altogether tied up from the fornicators thereof (1 Cor 5:9,10); wherefore in my following discourse understand me in the first sense:—Now, then,
FIRST, I dare not have communion with them that profess not faith and holiness; or that are not visible saints by calling: but note, that by this assertion, I meddle not with the elect; but as he is a visible saint by calling; neither do I exclude the secret hypocrite, if he be hid from me by visible saintship. Wherefore I dare not have communion with men from a single supposition, that they may be elect, neither dare I exclude the other from a single supposing that he may be a secret hypocrite. I meddle not here with these things; I only exclude him that is not a visible saint. Now he that is visibly or openly profane, cannot be then a visible saint; for he that is a visible saint must profess faith, and repentance, and consequently holiness of life: and with none else dare I communicate.
First, Because God himself hath so strictly put the difference, both by word and deed; for from the beginning, he did not only put a difference between the seed of the woman and the children of the wicked (Gen 3:15), only the instinct of grace and change of the mind is his own, but did cast out from his presence the father of all the ungodly, even cursed Cain, when he shewed himself openly profane, and banished him to go into the land of the runnagate, or vagabond, where from God's face, and so the privileges of the communion of saints, he was ever after hid (Gen 4:8-16).
Besides, when after this, through the policy of Satan, the children of Cain, and the seed of Seth, did commix themselves in worship, and by that means had corrupted the way of God: what followed, but first, God judged it wickedness, raised up Noah to preach against it, and after that, because they would not be reclaimed, he brought the flood upon the whole world of these ungodly; and saved only Noah alive, and his because he had kept himself righteous (Gen 6:1-13)[11]. Here I could enlarge abundantly, and add many more instances of a like nature, but I am here only for a touch upon things.
Second, Because it is so often commanded in the scriptures, That all the congregation should be holy. 'I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy' (Lev 11:44). 'Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy' (19:2). 'Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God' (20:7; 1 Peter 1:15,16). Besides, 1. The gates of the temple were to be shut against all other. 'Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in' (Isa 26:2). 'This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter' (Psa 118:20). 'Thus saith the Lord God: No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel' (Eze 44:9). 2. Because the things of worship are holy; 'Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord' (Isa 52:11). 3. Because all the limits and bounds of communion are holy. 'This is the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain, the whole limit thereof—shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house' (Eze 43:12)[12].
Third, I dare not have communion with them; because the example of New Testament churches before us, have been a community of visible saints. Paul, to the Romans, writes thus: 'To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints' (1:7). And to the rest of the churches thus: 'Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus; called to be saints' (1 Cor 1:2). 'To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus' (Eph 1:1). 'To all the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons' (Phil 1:1). 'To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse' (Col 1:2). 'To the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ,' &c. (1 Thess 1:1).Thus you see under what denomination those persons went of old, who were counted worthy to be members of a visible church of Christ. Besides, the members of such churches go under such characters as these.
(1.) 'The called of Christ Jesus' (Rom 1:6). (2.) Men that have drank into the Spirit of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:13). (3.) Persons in whom was God the Father (Eph 4:6). (4.) They were all made partakers of the joy of the gospel (Phil 1:7). (5.) Persons that were circumcised inwardly (Col 2:11). (6.) Persons that turned from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9). (7.) Those that were the body of Christ, and members in particular, that is, those that were visibly such; because they made profession of faith, of holiness, of repentance, of love to Christ, and of self-denial, at their receiving into fellowship.
Fourth, I dare not hold communion with the open profane.
(1.) Because it is promised to the church, that she shall dwell by herself; that is, as she is a church, and spiritual; Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations (Num 23:9). (2.) Because this is their privilege. 'But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light' (1 Peter 2:9,10). (3.) Because this is the fruit of the death of Christ, 'who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works' (Titus 2:14). (4.) Because this is the commandment: 'Save yourselves from this untoward generation' (Acts 2:40). (5.) Because with such it is not possible we should have true and spiritual communion. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you,—saith the Lord Almighty (2 Cor 6:14-18).
Fifth, I dare not hold communion with the open profane. Because
(1.) This would be ploughing with an ox, and an ass together (Deut 22:10): heavenly persons suit best for communion in heavenly matters. (2.) It subjecteth not the nature of our discipline, which is not forced, but free,[13] in a professed subjection to the will and commandment of Christ: others being excluded by God's own prohibition (Lev 1:3; Rom 6:17; 2 Cor 8:12, 9:7,13, 8:5). Paul also, when he exhorteth Timothy to follow after righteousness, faith, charity, peace, &c., (which are the bowels of church communion,) he saith, do it 'with them that call on the Lord, out of a pure heart' (2 Tim 2:22).
Sixth, In a word, to hold communion with the open profane, is most pernicious and destructive. (1.) 'Twas the wicked multitude that fell a lusting, and that tempted Christ in the desert (Num 11:4). (2.) It was the profane heathen, of whom Israel learned to worship idols. They 'were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And served their idols; which were a snare unto them' (Psa 106:35,36). (3.) It is the mingled people that God hath threatened to plague with those deadly punishments of his, with which he hath threatened to punish Babylon itself; saying, When a sword is upon her liars, her mighty, her chariots, and treasures; a sword also shall be upon the mingled people that are in the midst of her.
And no marvel: for, (1.) Mixed communion polluteth the ordinances of God. Say to the rebels, saith the Lord God, 'Let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant, because of all your abominations' (Eze 44:6,7). (2.) It violateth he law. 'Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: [how] They have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean' (Eze 20:26). (3.) It profaneth the holiness of God. 'Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god' (Mal 2:11). (4.) It defileth the truly gracious. 'Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?' (1 Cor 5:6). Look diligently therefore, 'lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled' (Heb 12:15).
Lastly, To conclude, it provoketh God to punish with severe judgments: And therefore heed well. (1.) As I said before, The drowning of the whole world was occasioned by the sons of God commixing themselves with the daughters of men; and the corruption of worship that followed thereupon (Gen 6, 7). (2.) He sent a plague upon the children of Israel, for joining themselves unto the people of Moab; and for following their abominations in worship (Num 25:1-5; Josh 22:17): and let no man think, that now I have altered the state of the question: for it is all one with the church to communicate with the profane; and to sacrifice and offer their gifts to the devil (Deut 32:16-19; Psa 106:36-40)[14]: the reason is, because such have by their sin forsaken the protection of heaven, and are given up to their own heart-lusts; and left to be overcome of the wicked, to whom they have joined themselves (Deut 12, 7:1-6). join not yourselves, said God, to the wicked, neither in religion nor marriages; 'For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly' (Deut 7:5). 'Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him who was beloved of his God' (Neh 13:26). Hear how Paul handleth the point; 'But I say, that the things which the Gentiles [or openly profane] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: Ye cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?' (1 Cor 10:20-22). I conclude, that therefore it is an evil, and a dangerous thing to hold church communion with the openly profane and ungodly. It polluteth his ordinances: it violateth his law: it profaneth his holiness: it defileth his people; and provoketh the Lord to severe and terrible judgments.
Object. But we can prove in all ages [that] there have been the open profane in the church of God.
Ans. In many ages indeed it hath been so: but mark, they appeared not such, when first they were received unto communion (Exo 12:48), neither were they with God's liking, as such, to be retained among them, but in order to their admonition, repentance and amendment of life: of which, if they failed, God presently threatened the church; and either cut them off from the church, as he did the idolators, fornicators, murmurers, tempters, sabbath breakers; with Korah, Dathan, Achan, and others (2 Cor 6; 1 Cor 5; Exo 32:25; Num 25:1-9, 21:5,6, 14:37, 16, 15:32-36; Josh 7; 2 Kings 17; Eze 22, 23) or else cut off them with the church and all, as he served the ten tribes at one time, and the two tribes at another. 'My God will cast them away, because they did not hearken unto him: and they shall be wanderers among the nations' (Hosea 9:17). I might here greatly enlarge, but I intend brevity; yet let me tell you, that when Nehemiah understood by the book of the law of the Lord, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God: 'They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude' (Neh 13:1-3). Many have pleaded for the profane, that they should abide in the church of God; but such hath not considered, that God's wrath at all times hath with great indignation been shewed against such offenders and their conceits. Indeed they like not for to plead for them under that notion, but rather as Korah, and his company: 'All the congregation are holy every one of them' (Num 16:3). But it maketh no matter by what name they are called; if by their deeds they shew themselves openly wicked: for names and notions sanctify not the heart and nature; they make not virtues of vice, neither can it save such advocates from the heavy curse both of God and men (Prov 17:15, 24:24). 'The righteous men, they shall judge them after the manner of adulteresses, and after the manner of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is in their hands' (Eze 23:45).
SECOND, Thus have I shewed you with whom I dare not have communion: and now to shew you with whom I dare. But in order thereto, I desire you
First, To take notice; That touching shadowish, or figurative ordinances; I believe that Christ hath ordained but two in his church, viz., Water baptism and the supper of the Lord: both which are of excellent use to the church in this world; they being to us representations of the death and resurrection of Christ; and are, as God shall make them, helps to our faith therein. But I count them not the fundamentals of our Christianity, nor grounds or rule to communion with saints: servants they are, and our mystical ministers, to teach and instruct us in the most weighty matters of the kingdom of God: I therefore here declare my reverent esteem of them; yet dare not remove them, as some do, from the place and end, where by God they are set and appointed; nor ascribe unto them more than they were ordered to have in their first and primitive institution. It is possible to commit idolatry even with God's own appointments: but I pass this, and come to the thing propounded.
Second, then, I dare have communion, church communion, with those that are visible saints by calling: with those that, by the word of the gospel, have been brought over to faith and holiness: and it maketh no matter to me, what their life was heretofore, if they now be 'washed,' if they be 'sanctified,' if they be 'justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor 6:11). Now in order to the discovery of this faith and holiness, and so to fellowship in church communion: I hold it requisite that a faithful relation be made thereof by the party thus to be received; yea, if need be, by witnesses also, for the satisfaction of the church, that she may receive in faith and judgment, such as best shall suit her holy profession (Acts 9:26-28; 1 Cor 16:10; 2 Cor 8:23). Observe it; these texts do respect extraordinary officers; and yet see, that in order to their reception by the church, there was made to them a faithful relation of the faith and holiness of those very persons; for no man may intrude himself upon, or thrust himself upon, or thrust himself into a church of Christ; without the church have first the knowledge and liking of the person to be received: if otherwise, there is a door opened for all the heretics in the world; yea, for devils also if they appear in human shapes. But Paul shows you the manner of receiving, by pleading (after some disgrace thrown upon him by the false apostles) for his own admission of his companions: 'Receive us, [saith he,] we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man; we have defrauded no man' (2 Cor 7:2). And so concerning Timothy: 'If Timotheus come, [saith he,] see that he may be with you without fear: for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do' (1 Cor 16:10). Also, when Paul supposed that Titus might be suspected by some; see how he pleads for him: If 'any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ' (2 Cor 8:23). Phebe also, when she was to be received by the church at Rome; see how he speaketh in her behalf: 'I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is sat Cenchrea: that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also' (Rom 16:1,2). Yea, when the apostles and brethren sent their epistles from Jerusalem to Antioch; under what characters do those go, that were the messengers to them? 'It seemed good unto [the Holy Ghost and to] us,—to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,' &c. (Acts 15:25-27). Now though the occasions upon which these commendations were written were not simply, or only, in order to church relation, but also for other causes; yet because the persons concerned were of the churches to be received as faithful, and such who would partake of church privileges with them, they have, therefore, their faith and faithfulness related to the churches, as those that were particularly embodied there. Besides Timothy and Titus being extraordinary officers, stood as members and officers in every church where they were received. Likewise Barnabas and Saul, Judas and Silas, abode as members and officers where they were sent. It was requisite, therefore, that the letters of recommendation should be in substance the same with that relation that ought to be made to the church, by or for the person that is to be embodied there. But to return, I DARE HAVE COMMUNION, CHURCH COMMUNION, WITH THOSE THAT ARE VISIBLE SAINTS BY CALLING.
Quest. But by what rule would you receive them into fellowship with yourselves?
Ans. Even by a discovery of their faith and holiness, and their declaration of willingness to subject themselves to the laws and government of Christ in his church.
Quest. But do you not count that by water baptism, and not otherwise, that being the initiating and entering ordinance; they ought to be received into fellowship?
Ans. No; But tarry, and take my sense with my word. For herein lies the mistake, To think that because in time past baptism was administered upon conversion, that therefore it is the initiating and entering ordinance into church communion: when by the word no such thing is testified of it. Besides, that it is not so will be manifest, if we consider the nature and power of such an ordinance.
That ordinance then, that is, the initiating or entering ordinance [as before] doth give to them that partake thereof a right to, and a being of, membership with that particular church by which it is administered. I say, a right to, and a being of, membership, without the addition of another church act. This is evident by the law of circumcision, which was the initiating law of old; for by the administration of that very ordinance, the partaker thereof was forthwith a member of that congregation, without the addition of another church act (Gen 17). This is declared in its first institution, and therefore it is called the token of the covenant. The token or sign of righteousness, of Abraham's faith, and of the visible membership of those that joined themselves to the church with him; the very inlet into church communion that gave a being of membership among them. And thus Moses himself expounds it; 'every man's servant, that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall eat' of the passover (Exo 12:44), without the addition of another church act, to empower him thereunto; his circumcision hath already given him a being there, and so a right to, and privilege in church relation: 'A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof, [because not circumcised]. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; [For then he is one of the church] and he shall be as one born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof' (Exo 12:48). Neither could any other thing, according to the law of circumcision, give the devoutest person that breathed a being of membership with them. 'He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised:—and the uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people' (Gen 17:13,14). Note then, that that which is the initiating ordinance admitteth none into church communion but these that first partake thereof. The angel sought to kill Moses himself, for attempting to make his child a member without it (Exo 4:24-26). Note again, that as it admitteth of none to membership without it; so as I said, the very act of circumcising them, without the addition of another church act, gave them a being of membership with that very church, by whom they were circumcised. But none of this can be said of baptism. First, there is none debarred or threatened to be cut off from the church, if they be not first baptized. Secondly, Neither doth it give to the person baptized a being of membership with this or that church, by whose members he hath been baptized. John gathered no particular church, yet was he the first and great baptizer with water; he preached Christ to come, and baptized with the baptism of repentance, and left his disciples to be gathered by him (Acts 19:3-5). 'And unto him shall the gathering of the people be' (Gen 49:10). Besides, after Christ's ascension, Philip baptized the eunuch, but made him by that no member of any particular church,. We only read, that Philip was caught away from him, and that the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing to his master and country of Ethiopia (Acts 8:35-40). Neither was Cornelius made a member of the church at Jerusalem, by his being baptized at Peter's command at Cesarea (Acts 10, 11). Neither were they that were converted at Antioch, by them that were scattered from the church at Jerusalem, by their baptism, if they were baptized [in water] at all, joined to the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19). No, they were after gathered and embodied among themselves by other church acts (Acts 16). What shall I say? into what particular church was Lydia baptized by Paul, or those first converts at Philippi? Yea even in the second of the Acts, baptizing and adding to the church appear to be acts distinct: but if baptism were the initiating ordinance, then was he that was baptized made a member; made a member of a particular church, by the very act of water baptism. Neither ought any by God's ordinance to have baptized any, but with respect to the admitting them by that act to a being of membership in this particular church. For if it be the initiating ordinance, it entereth them into the church: What church? Into a visible church. Now there is no church visible but that which is particular; the universal being utterly invisible, and known to none but God. The person then that is baptized stands by that a member of no church at all, neither of the visible, nor yet of the invisible. A visible saint he is, but not made so by baptism; for he must be a visible saint before, else he ought not to be baptized (Acts 8:37, 9:17, 16:33).
Take it again; Baptism [in water] makes thee no member of the church, neither particular nor universal: neither doth it make thee a visible saint: It therefore gives thee neither right to nor being of membership at all.
Quest. But why then were they baptized?
Ans. That their own faith by that figure might be strengthened in the death and resurrection of Christ. And that themselves might see, that they have professed themselves dead, and buried, and risen with him to newness of life (Col 2:12; Rom 6:4). It did not seal to the church that they were so (their satisfaction as to that arose from better arguments) but taught the party himself that he ought so to be. Farther, it confirmed to his own conscience the forgiveness of sins, if by unfeigned faith he laid hold upon Jesus Christ (Gal 3:26; 1 Cor 15:29; Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Now then, if baptism be not the initiating ordinance, we must seek for entering some other way, by some other appointment of Christ, unless we will say that without rule, without order, and without an appointment of Christ, we may enter into his visible kingdom. The church under the law had its initiating and entering ordinance: it must not therefore be, unless we should think that Moses was more punctual and exact than Christ, but that also our Lord hath his entering appointment. Now that which by Christ is made the door of entrance into the church, by that we may doubtless enter; and seeing baptism is not that ordinance, we ought not to seek to enter thereby, but may with good conscience enter without it.
Quest. But by what rule then would you gather persons into church communion?
Ans. Even by that rule by which they are discovered to the church to be visible saints; and willing to be gathered into their body and fellowship. By that word of God therefore, by which their faith, experience and conversation, being examined, is found good; by that the church should receive them into fellowship with them. Mark; not as they practice things that are circumstantial, but as their faith is commended by a word of faith, and their conversation by a moral precept. Wherefore that is observable, that after Paul had declared himself sound of faith, he falls down to the body of the law: 'Receive us, [saith he,] we have wronged no man, we have corrupted no man, we have defrauded no man.' He saith not, I am baptized, but I have wronged no man, &c. (2 Cor 7:2, see also 5:18-21). And if churches after the confession of faith made more use of the ten commandments, to judge of the fitness of persons by; they might not exceed by this seeming strictness, Christian tenderness towards them they receive to communion.
I will say therefore, that by the word of faith, and of good works, moral duties gospelized, we ought to judge of the fitness of members by, by which we ought also to receive them to fellowship: For he that in these things proveth sound, he hath the antitype of circumcision, which was before the entering ordinance. 'For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,—whose praise is not of men, but of God' (Rom 2:28,29: Phil 3:1-4). Now a confession of this by word and life, makes this inward circumcision visible; when you know him therefore to be thus circumcised, you ought to admit him to the Lord's passover: he, if any, hath a share not only in church communion, but a visible right to the kingdom of heaven. Again, 'For the kingdom of God, [or our service to Christ] is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of men' (Rom 14:17,18; Deut 28:47). By which word Righteousness, he meaneth as James doth, the royal law, the perfect law, which is the moral precept evangelized, or delivered to us by the hand of Christ (John 2:8.9). The law was given twice on Sinai: the last time it was given with a proclamation of grace and mercy of God, and of the pardon of sins going before (Exo 19, 34:1-10). The second giving is here intended; for so it cometh after faith, which first receiveth the proclamation of forgiveness; hence we are said to do this righteousness in the joy and peace of the Holy Ghost. Now he that in these things serveth Christ, is accepted of God, and approved of men. For who is he that can justly find fault with him, that fulfilleth the royal law from a principle of faith and love. 'If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well'; ye are approved of men. Again, he that hath loved another hath fulfilled the law, for love is the fulfilling of the law. He then that serveth Christ according to the royal law, from faith and love going before, he is a fit person for church communion; God accepteth him, men approve him. Now that the royal law is the moral precept, read the place (John 2:8-12). It is also called the law of liberty, because the bondage is taken away by forgiveness going before; and this is it by which we are judged, as is said, meet or unmeet for church communion, &c.
Therefore I say, the rule by which we receive church-members, it is the word of the faith of Christ, and of the moral precept evangelized, as I said before, I am 'under the law to Christ,' saith Paul (1 Cor 9:21). So when he forbiddeth us communion with men, they be such as are destitute of the faith of Christ, and live in the transgression of a moral precept: 'I have written unto you, [saith he,] not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat' (1 Cor 5:11). He saith not, if any man be not baptized [in water], have not hands laid on him, or join with the unbaptized, these are fictious, scriptureless notions. 'For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; And if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law' (Rom 13:9,10). The word of faith, and the moral precept, is that which Paul enjoins the Galatians and Philippians, still avoiding outward circumstances: hence therefore when he had to the Galatians treated of faith, he falls point blank upon moral duties. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God' (Gal 6:15,16). As many as walk according to this rule: What rule? The rule by which men are proved new creatures: The word of faith, and the moral precept. Wherefore Paul exhorteth the Ephesians not to walk, 'as other Gentiles, in the vanity of their mind'; seeing they had received Christ, and had 'heard him, and had been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus.' That they would put off the old man; what is that? Why, 'the former conversation,' which is 'corrupt according to the deceitful lusts'; lying, anger, sin, giving place to the devil, corrupt communication, all bitterness, wrath, clamour, evil-speaking, with all malice. And that they would 'put on the new man.' What is that? That which is 'created in righteousness and true holiness'; a being 'renewed in the spirit' of their mind, and a putting away all these things (Eph 4). 'For in Christ Jesus'; these words are put in, on purpose to shew us the nature of New Testament administrations, and how they differ from the old. In Moses an outward conformity to an outward and carnal ordinance, was sufficient to give (they subjecting themselves thereto) a being of membership with the Jews; but in Christ Jesus it is not so; of Abraham's flesh was the national Jewish congregation; but it is Abraham's faith that makes New Testament churches: They that are of faith, are the children of faithful Abraham. They that are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham (Gal 3:7-9). So then the seed being now spiritual, the rule must needs be spiritual also, viz. The word of faith and holiness. This is the gospel concision knife, sharper than any two-edged sword; and that by which New Testament saints are circumcised in heart, ears, and lips. 'For in Christ Jesus,' [is] no outward and circumstantial thing, but the new creature; none are subjects of the visible kingdom of Christ but visible saints by calling: now that which manifesteth a person to be a visible saint, must be conformity to the word of faith and holiness. 'And they that are Christ's, have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts' (Gal 5:24). Hearken how delightfully Paul handleth the point: The new creatures are the Israel of God. The new creature hath a rule by himself to walk by; and as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Paul to the Philippians commandeth as much; where treating of his own practice in the doctrine of faith and holiness, requireth them to walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing. I desire to be found in Christ, saith he, I reach forward toward the things that are before; my conversation is in heaven, and flatly opposite to them whose God is their belly, who glory in their shame, and who mind earthly things. Brethren, saith he, 'be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so' (Phil 3:17). Mark them; for what? For persons that are to be received into fellowship, and the choicest communion of saints. And indeed this is the safest way to judge of the meetness of persons by: for take away the confession of faith and holiness; and what can distinguish a Christian from a Turk? He that indeed receiveth faith, and that squareth his life by the royal, perfect, moral precept; and that walketh therein, in the joy and peace of the Holy Ghost, no man can reject him; he cannot be a man if he object against him; not a man in Christ; not a man in understanding. 'The law is not made for a righteous man'; neither to debar him the communion of saints if he desire it, nor to cast him out if he were in. 'But for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust' (1 Tim 1:9-11). Paul also, when he would leave an everlasting conviction upon the Ephesians, concerning his faith and holiness, treating first of the sufficiency of Christ's blood, and the grace of God to save us; he adds, 'I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel,' he bringeth them to the moral precept, to prove the sincerity of his good conversation by (Acts 20:33). And when men have juggled what they can, and made never such a prattle about religion; yet if their greatest excellency, as to the visibility of their saintship, lieth in an outward conformity to an outward circumstance in religion, their profession is not worth two mites. 'Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof' (Rom 13:13,14). And it is observable, that after the apostle had in the 9th and 10th verses of this chapter told us, that the moral precept is the rule of a good conversation, and exhorted us to make no provision for the flesh; he adds, these things provided, we may receive any that believe in Christ Jesus unto communion with us; how weak soever and dark in circumstantials; and chiefly designs the proof thereof in the remaining part of his epistle. For he that is of sound faith, and of conversation honest in the world; no man, however he may fail in circumstantials, may lightly reproach or vilify him. And indeed such persons are the honour of Christian congregations. Indeed he is prejudiced, for want of light in these things about which he is dark, as of baptism, or the like; but seeing that is not the initiating ordinance, or the visible character of a saint; yea, seeing it maketh no breach in a good and holy life: nor intrencheth upon any man's right but his own; and seeing his faith may be effectual without it, and his life approved by the worst of his enemies; why should his friends, while he keeps the law, dishonour God by breaking of the same? 'Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge' (James 4:11). He that is judged, must needs fail somewhere in the apprehension of him that judgeth him, else why is he judged. But he must fail in substance, for then he is worthy to be judged (1 Cor 5:12). His failure is then in a circumstance, for which he ought not to be judged.
Object. But notwithstanding all that you have said, water baptism ought to go before the church-membership; shew me one in all the New Testament, that was received into fellowship without it.
Ans. 1. That water baptism hath formerly gone first is granted: but that it ought of necessity so to do, I never saw proof. 2. None ever received it without light going before, unless they did play the hypocrite: and besides no marvel though in the primitive times it was so generally practised first, for the unconverted themselves know, it belonged to the disciples of Jesus Christ (John 1:24-27). Yet that all that were received into fellowship were even then baptized first, would strain a weak man's wit to prove it, if arguments were closely made upon these three texts of holy scripture (1 Cor 1:14-16; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3). But I pass them, and say, If you can shew me the Christian, that in the primitive times remained dark about it, I will shew you the Christian that was received without it. But should I grant more than can be proved, viz. That baptism was the initiating ordinance; and that it once did, as circumcision of old, give a being of membership to the partakers; yea set the case that men were forbidden then to enter into fellowship without it: yet the case may so be, that these things notwithstanding, men might be received into fellowship without it. All these things intailed to circumcision; that was the initiating ordinance; that gave being of membership; that was it without which it was positively commanded none should be received into fellowship (Josh 5). Yet for all this more than six hundred thousand were received into the church without it, yea received, and also retained there, and that by Moses and Joshua, even those to whom the land was promised, when the uncircumcised were cut off. But why then were they not circumcised? Doubtless there was a reason; either they wanted time, or opportunity, or instruments, or something. But they could not render a bigger reason than this, I have no light therein: which is the cause at this day that many a faithful man denieth to take up the ordinance of baptism: but I say whatever the hindrance was, it mattereth not; our brethren have a manifest one, an invincible one, one that all the men on earth, nor angels in heaven can remove: For it is God that createth light; and for them to do it without light would but prove them unfaithful to themselves, and make them sinners against God; 'For whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Rom 14:23). If therefore Moses and Joshua thought fit to communicate with six hundred thousand uncircumcised persons; when by the law not one such ought to have been received among them; why may not I have communion, the closest communion with visible saints as afore described, although they want light in, and so cannot submit to that, which of God was never made the wall of division betwixt us. I shall therefore hold communion with such.
First, Because the true visible saint hath already [been] subjected to that which is better; even to the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ; by which he stands just before God; he also hath made the most exact and strict rule under heaven, that whereby he squares his life before men. He hath like precious faith with the best of saints, and a conversation according to light received, becoming the gospel of Christ. He is therefore to be received, received I say, not by THY light, not for that in circumstances he jumpeth with thy opinion; but according to his own faith which he ought to keep to himself before God. 'Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience' (1 Cor 10:29). Some indeed do object, that what the apostles wrote, they wrote to gathered churches, and so to such as were baptized. And therefore the arguments that are in the epistles about things circumstantial, respect not the case in hand. But I will tell such, that as to the first part of their objection, they are utterly under a mistake. The first to the Corinthians, the epistle of James, both them of Peter, and the first epistle of John, were expressly written to all the godly, as well as particular churches. Again; if water baptism, as the circumstances with which the churches were pestered of old, trouble their peace, wound the consciences of the godly, dismember and break their fellowship; it is, although an ordinance, for the present to be prudently shunned; for the edification of the church, as I shall shew anon, is to be preferred before it.
Second, and observe it; 'One Spirit,—one hope,—one Lord, one faith, one baptism [not of water, for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all' (Eph 4:1-6). This is a sufficient rule for us to hold communion by, and also to endeavour the maintaining that communion, and to keep it in unity, within the bond of peace against all attempts whatsoever (1 Cor 12:16).
Third, I am bold therefore to have communion with such (Heb 6:1,2). Because they also have the doctrine of baptism: I say the doctrine of them. For here you must note, I distinguish between the doctrine and practice of water baptism; The doctrine being that which by the outward sign is presented to us, or which by the outward circumstance 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 is the doctrine which baptism preacheth, or that which by the outward action is signified to the believing receiver. Now I say, he that believeth in Jesus Christ hath richer and better than that [of baptism in water], viz. is dead to sin, and that lives to God by him, he hath the HEART, POWER and DOCTRINE of baptism: all then that he wanteth, is but the sign, the shadow, or the outward circumstances thereof. Nor yet is THAT despised but forborne for want of light. The best of baptisms he hath; he is baptized by that one Spirit; he hath the heart of water baptism, he wanteth only the outward shew, which if he had would not prove him a truly visible saint; it would not tell me he had grace in his heart. It is no characteristical note to another, of my sonship with God. Indeed it is a sign to the person baptized, and an help to his own faith. He should know by that circumstance, that he hath received remission of sins; if his faith be as true, as his being baptized is felt by him. But if for want of light, he partake not of that sign, his faith can see it in other things, exceeding great and precious promises. Yea, as I also have hinted already, if he appear not a brother before, he appeareth not a brother by that: And those that shall content themselves to make that the note of visible church-membership; I doubt make things not much better, the note of their sonship with God.
Fourth, I am bold to hold communion with visible saints as afore [described]; because God hath communion with them; whose examples in the case, we are straitly commanded to follow. 'Receive ye one another as Christ also received us [saith Paul,] to the glory of God' (Rom 15:1-7). Yea, though they be saints of opinions contrary to you; though it goeth against the mind of them that are strong. 'We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). What infirmities? Those that are natural are incident to all, they are infirmities then that are sinful, that cause a man, for want of light, to err in circumstantials; And the reason upon which he grounds this admonition is, that 'Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell on me.' You say, to have communion with such weak brethren, reproacheth your opinions, and practice. Grant it, your dulness and deadness, and imperfections also reproach the holiness of God; if you say no, for Christ hath borne our sins; the answer is still the same, Their sins also are fallen upon Christ; he then that hath taken away thy sins from before the throne of God; hath taken away their shortness in conformity to an outward circumstance in religion. Both your infirmities are fallen upon Christ; yea, if notwithstanding thy great sins, thou standest by Christ complete before the throne of God; why may not thy brother, notwithstanding his little ones, stand complete before thee in the church.
Vain man! think not by the straitness of thine order, in outward and bodily conformity, to outward and shadowish circumstances, that thy peace is maintained with God, for peace with God is by faith in the blood of his cross; who hath borne the reproaches of you both. Wherefore he that hath communion with God for Christ's sake, is as good and as worthy of the communion of saints as thyself. He erreth in A CIRCUMSTANCE, thou errest in A SUBSTANCE; who must bear these errors? Upon whom must these reproaches fall? (Phil 1:10). Some of the things of God that are excellent, have not been approved by some of the saints: What then? must these for this be cast out of the church? No, these reproaches by which the wisdom of heaven is reproached have fallen upon me, saith Christ. But to return; GOD HATH RECEIVED HIM, Christ hath received him, therefore do you receive him. There is more solidity in this argument, than if all the churches of God had received him. This receiving then, because it is set as an example to the church, is such as must needs be visible to them; and is best described by that word which discovereth the visible saint. Whoso, therefore, you can by the word, judge a visible saint, one that walketh with God; you may judge by the selfsame word that God hath received him. Now him that God receiveth and holdeth communion with, him you should receive and hold communion with. Will any say we cannot believe that God hath received any but such as are baptized [in water]? I will not suppose a brother so stupefied; and therefore to that I will not answer.
Receive him 'TO THE GLORY OF GOD.' To the glory of God, is put in on purpose, to show what dishonour they bring to God, who despise to have communion with them; who yet they know have communion with God. For how doth this man, or that church, glorify God, or count the wisdom and holiness of heaven beyond them, when they refuse communion with them, concerning whom, they are by the word convinced, that they have communion with God. 'Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one towards another according to Christ Jesus' (Rom 15:5). By this word patience, Paul insinuateth how many imperfections, the choicest Christians do mingle their best performances with. And by this of consolation, how readily God overlooks, passeth by them, and comforteth you notwithstanding. Now that this mind should be in Christians one to another, is manifest; because Paul prays that it might be so. But this is an heavenly gift, and therefore must be fetched from thence. But let the patience of God, and the willingness of Christ, to bear the reproaches of the weak; and the consolations that they have in God, notwithstanding, moderate your passions, and put you upon prayer, to be minded like Jesus Christ.
Fifth, Because a failure in such a circumstance as water, doth not unchristian us. This must needs be granted, not only from what was said before; but for that thousands of thousands that could not consent thereto as we have, more gloriously than we are like to do, acquitted themselves and their christianity before men, and are now with the innumerable company of angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. What is said of eating, or the contrary, may as to this be said of water baptism. Neither if I be baptized, am I the better, neither if I be not, am I the worse: not the better before God: not the worse before men: still meaning as Paul doth, provided I walk according to my light with God: otherwise it is false; for if a man that seeth it to be his duty shall despisingly neglect it; or if he that hath no faith therein shall foolishly take it up; both these are for this the worse, being convicted in themselves for transgressors. He therefore that doth it according to his light, doth well, and he that doth it not, or dare not do it for want of light, doth not ill; for he approveth his heart to be sincere with God; he dare not do any thing but by light in the word. If therefore he be not by grace a partaker of light, in that circumstance which thou professest; yet he is a partaker of that liberty and mercy by which thou standest. He hath liberty to call God father, as thou: and to believe he shall be saved by Jesus: his faith, as thine, hath purified his heart: he is tender of the glory of God as thou art: and can claim by grace an interest in heaven; which thou must not do because of water: ye are both then Christians before God and men without it: he that can, let him preach to himself by that: he that cannot, let him preach to himself by the promises; but yet let us rejoice in God together: let us exalt his name together. Indeed the baptized can thank God for that, for which another cannot; but may not he that is unbaptized thank God for that which the baptized cannot? Wouldest thou be content that I should judge thee, because thou canst not for my light give thanks with me? why then should he judge me, for that I cannot give thanks with him for his? 'Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way' (Rom 14:13). And seeing the things wherein we exceed each other, are such as neither make nor mar Christianity; let us love one another and walk together by that glorious rule above specified, leaving each other in all such circumstances to our own master, to our own faith. 'Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand' (Rom 14:4).
Sixth, I am therefore for holding communion thus, because the edification of souls in the faith and holiness of the gospel, is of greater concernment than an agreement in outward things;[16] I say, it is of greater concernment with us, and of far more profit to our brother; than our agreeing in, or contesting for the business of water baptism (John 16:13; 1 Cor 14:26; 2 Cor 10:8, 12:19; Eph 4:12; 2 Tim 3:17; 1 Cor 8:1, 13:1-4). That the edification of the soul, is of the greatest concern, is out of measure evident because heaven and eternal happiness are so immediately concerned therein. Besides, this is that for which Christ died, for which the Holy Ghost was given, yea for which the scriptures and the gifts of all the godly are given to the church; yea, and if gifts are not bent to this very work, the persons are said to be proud or uncharitable that have them; and stand but for cyphers or worse among the churches of God. Farther, edification is that that cherisheth all grace, and maketh the Christians quick and lively, and maketh sin lean and dwindling, and filleth the mouth with thanksgiving to God. But to contest with gracious men, with men that walk with God; to shut such out of the churches; because they will not sin against their souls, rendereth thee uncharitable (Rom 14:15,20). Thou seekest to destroy the word of God; thou begettest contentions, janglings, murmurings, and evil surmisings, thou ministerest occasion for whisperings, backbitings, slanders and the like, rather than godly edifying; contrary to the whole current of the scriptures and peace of all communities. Let us therefore leave off these contentions, 'and follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another' (Rom 14:19). And know that the edification of the church of God dependeth not upon, neither is tied to this or that circumstance. Especially when there are in the hearts of the godly, different persuasions about it; then it becometh them in the wisdom of God, to take more care for their peace and unity; than to widen or make large their uncomfortable differences.
Although Aaron transgressed the law, because he ate not the sin-offering of the people; yet seeing he could not do it with satisfaction to his own conscience, Moses was content that he left it undone (Lev 10:16-20). Joshua was so zealous against Eldad and Medad, for prophesying in the camp, without first going to the Lord to the door of the tabernacle, as they were commanded, that he desired Moses to forbid them (Num 11:27,28). But Moses calls his zeal envy, and prays to God for more such prophets; knowing that although they failed in a circumstance, they were right in that which was better. The edification of the people in the camp was that which pleased Moses.
In Hezekiah's time, though the people came to the passover in an undue manner, and 'did eat it otherwise than it was written'; yet the wise king would not forbid them, but rather admitted it, knowing that their edification was of greater concern, than to hold them to a circumstance or two (2 Chron 30:13-27). Yea, God himself did like the wisdom of the king, and healed, that is, forgave, the people at the prayer of Hezekiah. And observe it, notwithstanding this disorder, as to circumstances, the feast was kept with great gladness; and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the Lord; yea, there was not the like joy in Jerusalem from the time of Solomon unto that same time. What shall we say, all things must give place to the profit of the people of God. Yea, sometimes laws themselves, for their outward preservation, much more for godly edifying. When Christ's disciples plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath, no doubt for very hunger, and were rebuked by the Pharisees for it, as for that which was unlawful; how did their Lord succour them? By excusing them, and rebuking their adversaries. 'Have ye not read,' said he, 'what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profaned the sabbath, and are blameless?' (Matt 12:1-5). Why blameless? because they did it in order to the edification of the people. If laws and ordinances of old have been broken, and the breach of them borne with, when yet the observance of outward things was more strictly commanded than now, when the profit and edification of the people came in competition, how much more may not we have communion, church communion, where no law is transgressed thereby.
Seventh, Therefore I am for holding communion thus, because love, which above all things we are commanded to put on, is of much more worth than to break about baptism; Love is also more discovered when it receiveth for the sake of Christ and grace, than when it refuseth for want of water: and observe it, as I have also said before, this exhortation to love is grounded upon the putting on of the new creature; which new creature hath swallowed up all distinctions, that have before been common among the churches. As I am a Jew, you are a Greek; I am circumcised, you are not: I am free, you are bound. Because Christ was all in all these, 'Put on therefore,' saith he, 'as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering,' that is, with reference to the infirmities of the weak, 'forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye: and above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness' (Col 3:12-14). Which forbearing and forgiving respecteth not only private and personal injuries, but also errors in judgment about inclinations and distinctions tending to divisions, and separating upon the grounds laid down in verse 11 which how little soever they now seem to us, who are beyond them, were strong, and of weight to them who in that day were entangled with them. Some saints then were not free to preach to any but the Jews: denying the word of life to the Gentiles, and contending with them who preferred it to them: which was a greater error than this of baptism (Acts 11:1-19). But what should we do with such kind of saints? Why love them still, forgive them, bear with them, and maintain church communion with them. Why? because they are new creatures, because they are Christ's: for this swallows up all distinctions. Farther, because they are elect and beloved of God. Divisions and distinctions are of shorter date than election; let not them therefore that are but momentary, and hatched in darkness, break that bond that is from everlasting. It is love, not baptism, that discovereth us to the world to be Christ's disciples. It is love, that is the undoubted character of our interest in, and sonship with God: I mean when we love as saints, and desire communion with others, because they have fellowship one with another, in their fellowship with God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3). And now though the truth and sincerity of our love to God, be then discovered when we keep his commandments, in love to his name; yet we should remember again, that the two head and chief commandments, are faith in Jesus, and love to the brethren (1 John 3:23). So then he that pretendeth to love, and yet seeks not the profit of his brother in chief; he loveth, but they are his own opinions and froward notions (James 4:11; Rom 14:21). 'Love is the fulfilling of the law'; but he fulfils it not who judgeth and setteth at nought his brother; that stumbleth, offendeth, and maketh weak his brother; and all for the sake of a circumstance, that to which he cannot consent, except he sin against his own soul, or Papist like, live by an implicit faith.[17] Love therefore is sometimes more seen and showed, in forbearing to urge and press what we know, than in publishing and imposing. 'I could not,' (saith Paul, love would not let me) 'speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able' (1 Cor 3:1,2). The apostle considered not only the knowledge that he had in the mysteries of Christ; but the temper, the growth, and strength of the churches, and accordingly kept back, or communicated to them, what might be for their profit (Acts 20:18-20). So Christ, 'I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now' (John 16:12). It may be some will count these old and threadbare texts; but such must know, that the word of the Lord must stand for ever (Isa 40:8). And I should dare to say to such, if the best of thy new shifts, be to slight, and abuse old scriptures; it shews thou art more fond of thy unwarrantable opinion, than swift to hear, and ready to yield to the authority that is infallible.
But to conclude this, when we attempt to force our brother beyond his light, or to break his heart with grief; to thrust him beyond his faith, or to bar him from his privilege: how can we say, I love? What shall I say? To have fellowship one with another for the sake of an outward circumstance, or to make that the door to fellowship which God hath not; yea to make that the including, excluding charter; the bounds, bar, and rule of communion; when by the word of the everlasting testament there is no warrant for it; to speak charitably, if it be not for want of love, it is for want of knowledge in the mysteries of the kingdom of Christ. Strange! take two Christians equal in all points but this, nay, let one go beyond the other far, for grace and holiness; yet this circumstance of water shall drown and sweep away all his excellencies, not counting him worthy of that reception, that with hand and heart shall be given to a novice in religion, because he consents to water.
Eighth. But for God's people to divide into parties, or to shut each other from church communion; though from greater points, and upon higher pretences, than this of water baptism; hath heretofore been counted carnal, and the actors herein babyish Christians. Paul and Apollos, Cephas and Christ, were doubtless higher things than those about which we contend: yet when they made divisions for them; how sharply are they rebuked? Are ye not CARNAL, CARNAL, CARNAL? For whereas there are among you, envyings, strife, divisions, or factions: 'are ye not carnal' (1 Cor 1:11,12, 3:1-4). While one saith, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? See therefore from whence arise all they endeavours, zeal, and labour, to accomplish divisions among the godly: let Paul or Cephas, or Christ himself, be the burthen of thy song, yet the heart from whence they flow is carnal; and thy actions, discoveries of childishness. But, doubtless when these contentions were among the Corinthians, and one man was vilified, that another might be promoted; a lift with a carnal brother, was thought great wisdom to widen the breach. But why should HE be rebuked, that said he was for Christ? Because he was for him in opposition to his holy apostles. Hence he saith, 'Is Christ divided,' or separate from his servants? Note therefore that these divisions are deserted by the persons the divisions were made about; neither Paul, nor Apollos, nor Cephas, nor Christ is here. Let the cry be never so loud, Christ, order, the rule, the command, or the like; carnality is but the bottom, and they are but babes that do it; their zeal is but a puff (1 Cor 4:6). And observe it, the great division at Corinth, was helped forward by water baptism: this the apostle intimates by, 'Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' Ah, brethren! Carnal Christians with outward circumstances, will, if they be let alone, make sad work in the churches of Christ, against the spiritual growth of the same. But 'I thank God,' saith Paul, 'that I baptized none of you,' &c. Not but that it was then an ordinance of God, but they abused it, in making parties thereby. 'I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,—and the household of Stephanus': men of note among the brethren, men of good judgment, and reverenced by the rest; they can tell you I intended not to make a party to myself thereby. 'Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.' By this negligent relating, who were baptized by him; he showeth that he made no such matter of baptism, as some in these days do; nay, that he made no matter at all thereof, with respect to church communion; for if he did not heed who himself had baptized; he much less heeded, who were baptized by others; but if baptism had been the initiating, or entering ordinance, and so appointed of God; no doubt he had made more conscience thereof, than so lightly to pass it over. 'For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' The gospel then may be effectually preached, and yet baptism neither administered nor mentioned. The gospel being good tidings to sinners, upon the account of free grace through Christ; but baptism with things of like nature, are duties enjoined such a people who received the gospel before. I speak not this, because I would teach men to break the least of the commandments of God; but to persuade my brethren of the baptized way, not to hold too much thereupon, not to make it an essential of the gospel of Christ, nor yet of communion of saints.
'He sent me not to baptize': these words are spoken with holy indignation against them that abuse this ordinance of Christ. So when he speaketh of the ministers themselves, which also they had abused; in his speaking, he as it were trampleth upon them, as if they were nothing at all. 'Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?' 'He that planteth is not any thing, neither is he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase' (1 Cor 3:5,7). Yet for all this, the ministers and their ministry are a glorious appointment of God in the world. Baptism also is a holy ordinance, but when Satan abuseth it, and wrencheth it out of its place; making that which was ordained of God for the edification of believers, the only weapon to break in pieces the love, the unity, the concord of saints; then What is baptism? then neither is baptism anything. And this is no new doctrine; for God by the mouth of his prophets of old, cried out against his own institutions, when abused by his people: 'To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me,' saith the LORD: 'I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations, incense is an abomination to me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with it; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me, I am weary to bear them' (Isa 1:11-14). And yet all these were his own appointments. But why then did he thus abhor them? Because they retained the evil of their doings, and used them as they did other of his appointments, viz., 'For strife and debate, and to strike with the fist of wickedness' (58:4): Wherefore when that of God that is great, is overweighed by that which is small; it is the wisdom of them that see it, to put load to the other end of the scale; until the things thus abused, poise in their own place. But to pass this and proceed.
Ninth, If we shall reject visible saints by calling saints that have communion with God, that have received the law at the hand of Christ, that are of an holy conversation among men; they desiring to have communion with us, as much as in us lieth, we take from them their very privileges, and the blessings to which they were born of God. For Paul saith not only to the gathered church at Corinth, but to all scattered saints that in every place call upon the name of the Lord; That Jesus Christ is theirs, That Paul, and Apollos, and the world, and life, and death, and all things are theirs, because they are Christ's, and Christ is God's. But saith he, let no man glory in men, such as Paul and Cephas, though these were excellent: because this privilege comes to you upon another bottom, even by faith of Jesus Christ, 'Drink you all of this,' is entailed to faith, not baptism: nay, baptized persons may yet be excluded this; when he that discerneth the Lord's body hath right and privilege to it (1 Cor 11:28,29). But to exclude Christians from church communion and to debar them their heaven-born privileges, for the want of that which yet God never made a wall of division between us.
(1.) This looks too like a spirit of persecution (Job 19:28). (2.) It respecteth more a form, than the spirit and power of godliness (2 Tim 3:5). (3.) This is to make laws, where God hath made none, and to be wise above what is written, contrary to God's word, and our own principles. (4.) It is a directing of the Spirit of God. (5.) It bindeth all men's faith and light to mine opinion. (6.) It taketh away the children's bread. (7.) It withholdeth from them the increase of faith. (8.) It tendeth to harden the hearts of the wicked. (9.) It tendeth to make wicked the hearts of weak Christians. (10.) It setteth open a door to all temptations. (11.) It tempteth the devil to fall upon those that are alone, and have none to help them. (12.) It is the nursery of all vain janglings, back-bitings, and strangeness among the Christians. (13.) It occasioneth the world to reproach us. (14.) It holdeth staggering consciences, in doubt of the right way of the Lord. (15.) It giveth occasion to many to turn aside to most dangerous heresies. (16.) It abuseth the holy scriptures; It wresteth God's ordinances out of their place. (17.) It is a prop to antichrist. (18.) Shall I add, Is it not that which greatly prevailed to bring down these judgments, which at present we feel and groan under;[18] I will dare to say, it was[19] a cause thereof.
Tenth, and lastly, Bear with one word farther. What greater contempt can be thrown upon the saints than for their brethren to cast them off, or to debar them church communion? Think you not that the world may groundly say, Some great iniquity lies hid in the skirts of your brethren; when in truth the transgression is yet your own? But I say, what can the church do more to the sinners or open profane? Civil commerce you will have with the worst, and what more have you with these? Perhaps you will say we can pray and preach with these; and hold them Christians, saints, and godly. Well, but let me ask you one word farther: Do you believe, that of very conscience they cannot consent, as you, to that of water baptism? And that if they had light therein, they would as willingly do it as you? Why then, as I have shewed you, our refusal to hold communion with them is without a ground from the word of God. But can you commit your soul to their ministry, and join with them in prayer; and yet not count them meet for other gospel privileges? I wold know by what scripture you do it? Perhaps you will say, I commit not my soul to their ministry, only hear them occasionally for trial. If this be all the respect thou hast for them and their ministry, thou mayest have as much for the worst that pisseth against the wall. But if thou canst hear them as God's ministers, and sit under their ministry as God's ordinance; then shew me where God hath such a gospel ministry, as that the persons ministering may not, though desiring it, be admitted with you to the closest communion of saints. But if thou sittest under their ministry for fleshly politic ends, thou hearest the word like an atheist, and art thyself, while thou judgest thy brother, in the practice of the worst of men. But I say, where do you find this piece-meal communion with men that profess faith and holiness as you, and separation from the world. If you object, that my principles lead me to have communion with all; I answer with all as afore described; if they will have communion with me.
Object. Then you may have communion with the members of antichrist.
Ans. If there be a visible saint yet remaining in that church; let him come to us, and we will have communion with him.
Quest. What, though he yet stand a member of that sinful number, and profess himself one of them.
Ans. You suppose an impossibility; for it cannot be that, at the same time, a man should visibly stand a member of two bodies diametrically opposite one to another. Wherefore it must be supposed, that he who professeth himself a member of a church of Christ, must forthwith, nay before, forsake the antichristian one. The which if he refuseth to do, it is evident he doth not sincerely desire to have fellowship with the saints.
[Quest.] But he saith he cannot see that that company to which you stand opposite, and conclude antichristian, is indeed the antichristian church.
[Ans.] If so, he cannot desire to join with another, if he know them to be professedly and directly opposite. I hold therefore to what I said at first; That if there be any saints in the antichristian church, my heart, and the door of our congregation is open to receive them, into closest fellowship with us.
Object. But how if they yet retain some antichristian principles.
Ans. If they be such as eat out the bowels of a church, so soon as they are detected he must either be kept out, while out, or cast out, if in: for it must be the prudence of every community to preserve its own unity with peace and truth: the which the churches of Christ may do; and yet as I have shewed already, receive such persons as differ upon the point of water baptism. For the doing or not doing of that neither maketh nor marreth the bowels or foundation of church communion.
Object. But this is receiving for opinion sake; as before you said of us.
Ans. No; we receive him for the sake of Christ, and grace, and for our mutual edification in the faith; and that we respect not opinions, I mean in lesser matters, 'tis evident; for things wherein we differ are no breach of communion among us; we let every man have his own faith in such things to himself before God.
I Now Come to a Short Application.
I. Keep a strict separation, I pray you, from communion with the open profane; and let not man use his liberty in church relation as an occasion to the flesh; but in love serve one another. 'Looking diligently—lest any root of bitterness—[any poisonful herb (Deut 29:18)] spring up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled' (Heb 12:15). And let those that before were reasons for my separation, be motives to you to maintain the like: and remember that when men have said what they can for a sinful mixture in the worship of God; the arm of the Lord is made bare against it.
II. In the midst of your zeal for the Lord, remember that the visible saint is his; and is privileged in all those spiritual things that you have in the word and live in the practice of, and that he is to partake thereof, according to his light therein. Quarrel not with him about things that are circumstantial; but receive him in the Lord, as becometh saints: if he will not have communion with you, the neglect is his, not yours. But saith the open profane, why cannot we be reckoned saints also? We have been christened, we go to church, we take the communion.[20] Poor people! This will not do; for so long as in life and conversation you appear to be open profane, we cannot, unless we sin, receive you into our fellowship: for by your ungodly lives you shew that you know not Christ; and while you are such by the word, you are reputed but beasts: now then judge yourselves, if it be not a strange community that consisteth of men and beasts: let beasts be with the beasts, you know yourselves do so; you receive not your horse nor your hog to your table, you put them in a room by themselves. Besides I have shewed you before, that for many reasons we cannot have communion with you.
(1.) The church of God must be holy (Lev 11:44, 19:2, 20:7; 1 Peter 1:15,16; Isa 26:2; Psa 118:20; Eze 43:12, 44:9; Isa 52:11).
(2.) The example of the churches of Christ before, hath been a community of visible saints (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 1:1; Col 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1-5). Poor carnal man, there are many other reasons urged in this little book, that shew why we cannot have communion with thee: not that we refuse of pride or stoutness, or because we scorn you as men. No, we pity you, and pray to God for you; and could, if you were converted, with joy receive you to fellowship with us: Did you never read in Daniel, That iron is not mixed with miry clay? (2:43). No more can the saints with you, in the worship of God, and fellowship of the gospel, When those you read of in the fourth of Ezra, attempted to join in temple work with the children of the captivity; what said the children of Judah? 'Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel,' &c (Eze 4:3).
I return now to those that are visible saints by calling, that stand at a distance one from another, upon the accounts before specified: Brethren; CLOSE; CLOSE; be one, as the Father in Christ is one.
1. This is the way to convince the world that you are Christ's, and the subjects of one Lord; whereas the contrary makes them doubt it (John 13:34,35, 17:23). 2. This is the way to increase love; that grace so much desired by some, and so little enjoyed by others (2 Cor 7:15). 3. This is the way to savour and taste the Spirit of God in each other's experience; for which if you find it in truth you cannot but bless, if you be saints, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 1:2-4). 4. This is the way to increase knowledge, or to see more in the word of God: for that may be known by two; that is not seen by one (Isa 52:8). 5. This is the way to remove secret jealousies and murmurings one against the other: yea this is the way to prevent much sin, and greatly to frustrate that design of hell (Prov 6:16-19). 6. This is the way to bring them out of the world into fellowship that now stand off from our gospel privileges, for the sake of our vain janglings. 7. This is the way to make antichrist shake, totter, and tremble (Isa 11:13,14). 8. This is the way to leave Babylon as an habitation for devils only; and to make it a hold for foul spirits, and a cage only for every unclean and hateful bird. 9. This is the way to hasten the work of Christ's kingdom in the world; and to forward his coming to the eternal judgment. 10. And this is the way to obtain much of that, WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL SERVANT, when you stand before his face. [In the words of Paul] 'I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in a few words' (Heb 13:22).
Footnotes:
1. It is much to be regretted that these books, in common withall Mr. Bunyan's Works, were grossly corrupted in the text in all the editions published since 1737,—'poor peace indeed,' was changed to 'pure peace indeed'; 'here is Rome enough,' meaning popery enough, was altered to 'here is room enough'; 'Baptist,' was printed 'Papist,' &c., &c.: all the typographical errors have now been carefully corrected by Bunyan's editions.
2. Reply to Kinghorn. 1818, p. xii.
3. King Charles the 2nd, about a year after this time, pardoned near five hundred Quakers, who had been languishing in prison for not attending the church service. Upon this Mr. Bunyan, and his fellow prisoners at Bedford, petitioned for liberty, and at a court of privy council at Whitehall, the 17th May, 1672, present, the King and twenty-four of his councillors, the following minute was made:—'Whereas, by order of the Board of the 8th instant, the humble petition of John Penn, John Bunyan, John Dunn, Thomas Haynes, Simon Haynes, and George Parr, prisoners in the goale of Bedford, convicted upon several statutes for not conforming to the rights and ceremonyes of the church of England, and for being at unlawful meetings, was referred to the Sheriff of the county of Bedford, who was required to certify this Board whether the said persons were committed for the crimes in the said petition mentioned, AND FOR NO OTHER; which he having accordingly done, by his certificate dated the 11th instant. It was thereupon, this day, ordered by his Ma(tie) in council, That the said petition and certificate be (and are herewith) sent to his Ma(tie's) Attorney General, who is authorized, and required, to insert them into the general pardon to be passed for the Quakers.' This fully confirms what Bunyan says as to the cause of his long and dangerous imprisonment. It was for being absent from the state church and worshipping God according to His will, as expressed in the Bible. See Introduction to Pilgrim's Progress, Hansard Knollys edition.
4. 'To ascertain us,' in the 17th century meant 'to make us confident,' 'to assure us.' 'It ascertaining me that I am one of God's children.'—Hammond. Ed.
5. Eternal blessings on our Emmanuel, who faithfully performed His promise of sending the Comforter to unlock the mysteries of the kingdom of grace, and guide us into all truth: without His powerful aid we can neither know or perform any thing to a good or saving purpose.—Mason.
6. The gracious soul believes in Christ for justification, from a sense of utter inability to obtain justification by works. This is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, the glorifier of Jesus.—Mason.
7. Effectual calling is evidenced by the soul's love to God, in his dear Son; a superior delight in Him, as a reconciled Father, cleaving to Him, His ways, and people; and longing for the full fruition and final enjoyment of Him in glory.—Mason.
8. How great is the delight of meeting in a foreign country, after a long absence from home, with one who speaks your own language and sympathizes with your national feelings. How much more strong are those enjoyments arising from the communion of saints, while travelling through an enemy's country, with difficult duties to perform,—animated by a kindred spirit, and seeking the same eternal home.—Ed.
9. The despising and disregarding the Holy Scriptures, rejecting Jesus and the way of salvation by Him, especially after having attained to the knowledge and conviction of the truth of it by the gospel, is the unpardonable sin, and renders men obdurate and impenitent.—Mason.
10. How strongly must have been the principle of humble submission to the will of God implanted and rooted in Bunyan's mind. He writes this peaceful advice from his dungeon, after twelve years' cruel imprisonment for his love and obedience to the Saviour. It requires a holy flame of Divine love to enable us to take the spoiling of our goods joyfully; but how much more strongly must this principle pervade the heart to enable us to suffer the loss of liberty, deprived of the society of a much loved wife and family, and in daily fear of an ignominious death! We cannot sufficiently admire the grace of God in the sufferer, nor abhor the tyranny under which he suffered.—Ed.
11. This idea is found in other of Bunyan's Works. Certainly the mixture of saints and sinners in a national church established for worldly purposes, must engender hypocrisy and pride, intolerance and persecution. Such leaders in Satan's army were calculated mightily to assist, if they were not the original cause, of the overspreading of sin which called forth the flood to wash away.—Ed.
12. Bishop Hall describes a Christian indeed as 'having white hands and a clean soul, fit to lodge God in; all the rooms whereof are set apart for his holiness.'—Ed.
13. Submission to the disciples of a Christian church must be voluntary, and not by the constraint of force or hypocrisy. In Christ's church ALL must be free, and not a mixture of free-men and the slaves of sin.—Ed.
14. What faithfulness and plain dealing is here. If any church communicates with the profane it is offering sacrifice to the devil.—Ed.
15. One of the most touching scenes in the Pilgrim's Progress beautifully illustrates this fact. When Christian led Hopeful into Bye-path Meadow, so that they fell into the hands of Giant Despair, Hopeful says, 'I wold have spoke plainer, but that you are older than I.' That whole scene manifests the most delicate sensibility and christian feeling.—Ed.
16. How strange that pious men should have been prone to punish their fellows for non-conformity in an outward sign. They themselves were suffering inconceivable miseries under acts of uniformity in rites and ceremonies. How applicable to the framers of such acts of parliament are our Lord's words, 'Woe unto you, pharisees, who whiten and garnish the outside of a sepulchre, while within it is full of uncleanness, hypocrisy, and iniquity' (Matt 23).—Ed.
17. 'An implicit faith'; faith in things without inquiry, or in things not expressed.—Ed.
18. 'These judgments we feel and groan under.' So frightful were the persecutions of the dissenters by the church in 1670, that the narrative says, 'The town [of Bedford] was so thin of people, and the shops shut down, that it seemed like a place visited with the pest, where usually is written upon the door, "Lord, have mercy upon us."' Had the dissenters been united, the church would not have dared to exercise such barbarities—men and women in jails—some hanged for not going to church—all their goods swept away, and their children perishing.—Ed.
19. The printer had inserted 'the cause'; Bunyan's manuscript was 'a cause.' See marginal note, in his Differences in Judgment.—Ed.
20. This is a much more extensive evil than many would credit. I have met with these very expressions not only among the poor but the rich. It is an awful delusion.—Ed.
***
Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion: Or, to Communicate with Saints, as Saints, Proved Lawful.
IN ANSWER TO A BOOK WRITTEN BY THE BAPTISTS, AND PUBLISHED BY MR. T. PAUL AND MR. W. KIFFIN, ENTITLED, 'SOME SERIOUS REFLECTIONS ON THAT PART OF MR BUNYAN'S CONFESSION OF FAITH, TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS.'
WHEREIN THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNION STILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. HERE IS ALSO MR. HENRY JESSE'S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE, FULLY DECLARING THE DOCTRINE I HAVE ASSERTED.
By John Bunyan.
'Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified? should thy lies make men hold their peace? and when thou mockest, shall no man make thee an answer [unashamed?]'—Job 11:2, 3
London: Printed for John Wilkins, and are to be sold at his shop in Exchange Alley, next door to the Exchange Coffee House, over against the Royal Exchange, 1673.
Courteous Reader,
Be intreated to believe me, I had not set pen to paper about this controversy, had we been let alone at quiet in our Christian communion. But being assaulted for more than sixteen years, wherein the brethren of the baptized way, as they had their opportunity, have sought to break us in pieces, merely because we are not, in their way, all baptized first: I could not, I durst not, forbear to do a little, if it might be, to settle the brethren, and to arm them against the attempts, which also of late they begin to revive upon us. That I deny the ordinance of baptism, or that I have placed one piece of an argument against it, though they feign it, is quite without colour of truth. All I say is, That the church of Christ hath not warrant to keep out of their communion the Christian that is discovered to be a visible saint by the word, the Christian that walketh according to his light with God. I will not make reflections upon those unhandsome brands that my brethren have laid upon me for this, as that I am a machivilian, a man devilish, proud, insolent, presumptuous, and the like, neither will I say as they, The Lord rebuke thee; Words fitter to be spoken to the devil than a brother. But reader, read and compare; lay aside prejudice and judge. What Mr. Kiffin hath done in the matter I forgive, and love him never the worse, but must stand by my principles because they are peaceable, godly, profitable, and such as tend to the edification of my brother, and as I believe will be justified in the day of judgment.
I have also here presented thee with the opinion of Mr. Henry Jesse, in the case, which providentially I met with as I was coming to London to put my papers to the press; and that it was his judgment is asserted to me, known many years since to some of the Baptists, to whom it was sent, but never yet answered; and will yet be attested if need shall require. Farewell.
Thine in all Christian service, according to my light and power,
John Bunyan.
Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion.
Sir,
Your seemingly serious reflections upon that part of my plain-hearted confession of faith, which rendereth a reason of my freedom to communicate with those of the saints and faithful who differ from me about water baptism; I have read and considered, and have weighed them so well as my rank and abilities will admit me to do. But finding yours, if I mistake not, far short of a candid replication, I thought [it] convenient, not only to tell you of those impertinencies everywhere scattered up and down in your book; but also, that in my simple opinion, your rigid and church-disquieting principles are not fit for any age and state of the church.
But before I enter the body of your book, give me leave a little to discourse you about your preamble to the same, wherein are two miscarriages unworthy your pretended seriousness, because void of love and humility. The first is, In that you closely disdain my person because of my low descent among men, stigmatising me for a person of THAT rank, that need not to be heeded or attended unto.[1]
Ans. What it is that gives a man reverence with you, I know not; but for certain. He that despiseth the poor reproacheth his Maker; yet, 'a poor man is better than a liar.' To have gay clothing, or gold rings, or the persons that wear them in admiration; or to be partial in your judgment, or respects, for the sake, or upon the account of, flesh and blood, doubtless convicteth you to be of the law a transgressor, and not without partiality, &c., in the midst of your seeming sanctity.
Again, you say, 'I had not meddled with the controversy at all, had I found any of parts that would divert themselves to take notice of YOU.'
Ans. What need you, before you have shewed one syllable of a reasonable argument in opposition to what I assert, thus trample my person, my gifts, and grace, have I any, so disdainfully under your feet? What kind of a YOU am I?[2] And why is MY rank so mean, that the most gracious and godly among you, may not duly and soberly consider of what I have said? Was it not the art of the false apostles of old to say thus? To bespatter a man, that his doctrine might be disregarded. 'Is not this the carpenter?' And, 'His bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible' (1 Cor 10:10), did not use to be in the mouths of the saints; for they knew that 'the wind bloweth where it listeth' (John 3:8). Neither is it high birth, worldly breeding, or wealth; but electing love, grace, and the wisdom that comes from heaven, that those who strive for strictness of order in the things and kingdom of Christ, should have in regard and esteem (James 3:17). Need I read you a lecture? 'Hath not God chosen the foolish,—the weak,—the base, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are?' (1 Cor 1:27,28). Why then do you despise my rank, my state, and quality in the world?
As for my confession of faith, which you also secretly despise. If it be good and godly, why may it not be accepted? If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? If you, and the brethren of your way, did think it convenient to shew to the world what you held; if perhaps by that means you might escape the person: why might not I, after above eleven years' endurance there, give the world a view of my faith and practice; if peradventure, wrong thoughts, and false judgments of me, might by that means be abated, and removed. But you suggest; I did it, because I was so willing to be known in the world by my SINGULAR faith and practice.[3] How singular my faith and practice is, may be better known to you hereafter: but that I did it for a popular applause and fame, as your words seem to bear, for they proceed from a taunting spirit, that will be known to you better in the day of God, when your evil surmises of your brother, and my designs in writing my book, will be published upon the house-tops (Luke 12:1-4).
And even now, before I go any further, I will give you a touch of the reason of my publishing that part thereof which you so hotly oppose. It was because of those continual assaults that the rigid brethren of your way, made, not only upon this congregation, to rend it; but also upon many others about us. If peradventure they might break us in pieces, and draw from us disciples after them. Assaults, I say, upon this congregation by times, for no less than these sixteen or eighteen years. Yea, myself they have sent for, and endeavoured to persuade me to break communion with my brethren; also with many others they have often tampered, if haply their seeds of division might take. Neither did they altogether fail of their purpose, for some they did rend and dismember from us; but none but those, of whom now they begin to be ashamed. The judgment of God so following their design, that the persons which then they prevailed upon, are now a stink, and reproach to religion. Neither were these spirits content with that discord they did sow among us, but they proceeded to seize upon others. But to pass these. The wild, and unsound positions they have urged to maintain their practice, would be too large here to insert. Now, Sir, to settle the brethren, the brethren of our community, and to prevent such disorders among others, was the cause of my publishing my papers: and considering my concern in the house of God, I could do no less than to give them warning, 'That every man might deliver his soul.'
You proceed, saying, 'It is my liberty, as well as others into whose hands it falls, to weigh what you have said in truth's balance, and if it be found too light, to reject it whether you will or no.'
Ans. Do but grant me, without mocking of me, the liberty you desire to take, and God helping me, I desire no more [than] to shift for myself among you. As to your saying, that I proudly and imperiously insult, because I say they are 'babes and carnal, that attempt to break the peace and communion of churches, though upon better pretences than water.' You must know I am still of that mind, and shall be, so long as I see the effects that follow, viz. The breach of love, taking off Christians from the more weighty things of God; and to make them quarrel and have heart-burnings one against another.
Where you are pleased to charge me with raging, for laying those eighteen particular crimes to the charge of such who exclude Christians from church communion, and debar them their heaven-born privileges, for the want of that, which yet God never made the wall of division between us. I say, when you can prove, That God hath made water baptism that wall, and that the stress of the after eighteen charges lie wholly and only in that; then you may, time enough, call my language such as wanteth charity: but I question though that was granted, whether your saying, I RAGE, will be justified in the day of judgment.
My great noise, as you call it, about an initiating ordinance, you say, you shall take no notice of.
Ans. 1. Although you do not, I must: For if baptism be not that, but another; and if visible saints may enter into fellowship by that other, and are nowhere forbidden so to do, because they have not light into water baptism: it is of weight to be considered by me; yea, and of others too who are unprejudiced. 2. How ignorant you are of such as hold it the initiating ordinance I know not: nor how long you have been of that persuasion I know not. This I know, that men of your own party, as serious, godly, and it may be, more learned than yourself, have within less than this twelve-month urged it. Mr. D. in my hearing, did from Romans 6:1, 2 in the meeting in Lothbury affirm it: also my much esteemed Mr. D. A.[4] did twice in a conference with me assert it. 3. But whatever you say, whether for, or against, 'tis no matter; for while you deny it be the entering ordinance, you account it the wall, bar, bolt, and door; even that which must separate between the righteous and the righteous; nay, you make want of light therein, a ground to exclude the most godly your communion, when every novice in religion shall be received into your bosom, and be of esteem with you because he hath, and from what ground God knows, submitted to water baptism.
I am glad that you conclude with me what is the initiating ordinance: but withal, give me leave to correct, as I think, one extravagant expression of yours. You say, 'It is CONSENT on all hands and NOTHING else, that makes them members of particular churches, and not faith and baptism.' You might have stopped at, and nothing else, you need not in particular have rejected faith: your first error was bad enough: what, NOTHING else but consent? What, not so much as a respect to the matter or end? Why then are not all the communities of all the highwaymen in the land, truly constituted churches of Christ; unless you can prove that they hold together, but not by consent? What? consent and nothing else? But why do YOU throw out FAITH? why, I throw out baptism; which because you cannot as to the case in hand fetch in again, therefore out must faith go too. Your action is much like that harlot's, that stood to be judged by Solomon, who because her own child was dead, would have her neighbour's killed also (1 Kings 3:26). Faith, Sir, both in the profession and confession of it, is of immediate and also absolute concern, even in the very act of the church's reception, of this or another member. Throw out faith, and there is no such thing as a Christian, neither visible nor invisible. You ought to receive no man, but upon a comfortable satisfaction to the church, that you are now receiving a believer. Faith, whether it be savingly there or no, is the great argument with the church in receiving any: we receive not men as men, but the man immediately under that supposition; He hath faith, he is a Christian. Sir, consent simply, without faith, makes no man a member of the church of God: because then would a church not cease to be a church, whoever they received among them. Yea, by this assertion you have justified the church of Rome itself, to be to this day both good, and godly, unless you can prove that they did at first, and do now receive their unbelieving members, without their own consent. The church hath no such liberty to receive men without respect to faith; yea, faith and holiness must be the essentials, or basis, upon, and for the sake of which you receive them: holiness, I say, yet not such as is circumstantial, but that which is such in the very heart of it: pray you in your next therefore word it better, lest while you slight and trample upon me, you stand before all, blame-worthy yourself.
The scriptures you speak of, I did not in my first produce to shew persons unbaptized [in water] might hold communion with the church, though I am fully convinced they may, but to shew, that knowledge of those persons, of their faith and holiness in general, ought first to be shewed to the church, before she can lawfully receive them (Acts 9:26-31; 1 Cor 16:10; 2 Cor 8:23). As to my answer to a question which you have of your's corrupted, and then abused: I tell you again, That a discovery of the faith and holiness, and a declaration of the willingness of a person to subject himself to the laws and government of Christ in his church, is a ground sufficient to receive such a member.
But you descant; Is baptism one of the laws of Christ?
Ans. It is none of those laws, neither any part of them, that the church, as a church, should shew her obedience by. For albeit that baptism be given by Christ our Lord to the church, yet not for them to worship him by as a church. Shew me what church-ordinance it is; and when, or where the church, as a church, is to practise it, as one of those laws and appointments that he hath commanded his church to shew to him her obedience by. Again, That submitting to water baptism, is a sign or note, that was ever required by any of the primitive churches, of him that would hold fellowship with them; or that it infuseth such grace and holiness into those that submit thereto, as to capacitate them for such a privilege; or that they did acknowledge it a sign thereof, I find not in all the Bible.
I find not, as I told you in my first, that baptism is a sign to any, but the person that is baptized (Col 2:12; Rom 6:1-4; 1 Cor 15:29; Acts 2:38, 22:16). The church hath her satisfaction of the person, from better proof (1 Peter 3:21).
I told you also, That baptism makes thee no member of the church, neither doth it make thee a visible saint: It giveth thee therefore, neither right to, nor being of membership at all. Why, Sir, did you not answer these things? but slip them with others, as if you were unconcerned; troubling your reader with such kind of insinuations, as must needs be unsavoury to godly ears. You make the moral law none of Christ's but Moses'; not the son's but the servant's; and tell me, because I plead for faith and holiness, according to moral duties gospelized, (they are my words) whereby we ought to judge of the fitness of members; that therefore Moses is more beholden to me than Christ.
Sir, know you not yet, that a difference is to be put betwixt those rules that discover the essentials of holiness, and those that in themselves are not such; and that that of faith and the moral law is the one, and baptism, &c. the other. Is not love to God, abhorrence of idols, to forbear blaspheming, to honour our parents, to do no murder, to forbear theft, not to bear false witness, nor covet, &c. are not (I say) these the precepts of the Lord Jesus, because delivered by Moses? Or, are these such as may better be broken, than for want of light to forbear baptism with water? Or, doth a man while he liveth in the neglect of these, and in the mean time bustle about those you call gospel commands, most honour Christ, or best fit himself for fellowship with the saints? Need I tell you, That the faith of Christ, with the ten commandments, are as much now gospel commands as baptism; and ought to be in as much, and far more respect with the holy ones than that, or other the like.[5]
Yea, shall I tell you, That baptism will neither admit a man into fellowship, nor keep him there, if he be a transgressor of a moral precept; and that a man who believeth in Jesus, and fulfilleth the royal law, doth more glorify God, and honour religion in the world, than he that keepeth, if there were so many, ten thousand figurative laws. As to those commands that respect God's instituted worship in a church, as a church, I have told you that baptism is none of them, and you have been driven to confess it. The church then must first look to faith, then to good living according to the ten commandments; after that she must respect those appointments of our Lord Jesus that respects her outward order and discipline, and then she walks as becomes her, sinning if she neglecteth either; sinning if she overvalueth either. But why did you not answer those tests I produced for the strengthening of my argument (Rom 14:17,18; Deut 27:47; James 2:8-12; 1 Cor 9:21, 5:9-11; Gal 6:15,16; Phil 3; 1 Tim 1:9-11; Acts 20:28-32; Rom 13:13; James 4:11; 1 Cor 5:12). Deal fairly; Answer those texts, with the argument made upon them; and when you have after a godly manner done that, you may the more boldly condemn.
You tell me, that I say, 'None ever received baptism without light therein.'
What if I did? (as I did not) but you grant it: and now I will ask you, and pray deal fairly in your answer. May a man be a visible saint without light therein? May he have a good conscience without light therein? And seeing that baptism is none of the worship that Christ instituted in his church for them to practice as a church, must he be kept dark about all other things concerning the worship of God in his church, until he receive light therein?
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 God, 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-institutions, 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 instituted 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 God.[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 instituted 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 incumbent 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, God 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 God; and more insufferable, yea and damnable, 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 God, 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 God? 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 God in other his institutions; 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 God 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 God 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 circumstance 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 God, called to be saints: Grace to you,' &c. (1:7). To all there, to all in that city, beloved of God, 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 godly edifying, and to defend ourselves thereby, from the assaults of those that would make spoil of us. But to pass this, and come to the next.
You object for that I said, 'If water baptism [as the circumstances with which the church was pestered of old] trouble the peace, and wound the consciences of the godly, 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 God send an ordinance to be a pest and plague to his people?'
I answer: I said not that God did send it for any such end at all; God's ordinances are none of this in themselves: nor if used as, and for the end for which God 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 godly 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 pass it.
And now, reader, although this author hath thus objected against some passages in this my first argument for communion with persons unbaptized; yet the body of my argument he misseth and passeth 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 circumcision in the flesh, which was the entering ordinance of old, was a type of circumcision in the heart,' &c. These things, with others, our author letteth pass; 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 asserted 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 God (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 God; '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 God 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 God 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 God,' 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). God 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 assert 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 godly 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 circumstance 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 instituted, 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 instituted; 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 God, who hath raised him from the dead' (Col 2:12). What is here in chief asserted, 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 God.
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 assert that a figurative ordinance is of God, 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.'
Ans. The resurrection simply considered, is not the doctrine of baptism, but Christ's, and mine by him. Besides, there is more in it than the mystery of this resurrection; there is my death first, and then my rising with him.
But you add, 'Under the law, all the sacrifices of that dispensation, with their sabbaths, were types of that Christ, who was the substance of all those ceremonies. If any of them then that professed faith in the Messias to come, should upon scruples, or want of pretended light, neglect the whole, or part of that typical worship; why may not a man say of them, as this advocate of the practice under debate, they had the richer and better sacrifice.'
Ans. First, that the brethren which refuse to be baptized, as you and I would have them, refuse it for want of pretended light, becomes you not to imagine, unless your boldness will lead you to judge, that all men want sincerity, that come not up to our judgment. Their conscience may be better than either yours or mine; yet God, for purposes best known to himself, may forbear to give them conviction of their duty in this particular. But what, because they are not baptized, have they not Jesus Christ? Or, must we now be afraid to say that Christ is better than water baptism?[10] Yea, God himself for the sake of this better thing, hath suffered in his church a suspension of some of his ordinances, yet owned them for his truly constituted congregation. What say you to the church in the wilderness? I touched you with it in my first, but perceive you listed not to meddle therewith. That church received members, the way which was not prescribed by, but directly against the revealed mind of God; yet stood a true church, their members true members; also that church in that state, was such before whom, among whom, and to whom God continually made known himself to be their God, and owned them for his peculiar treasure.
And now I am fallen upon it, let me a little enlarge: this church, according to the then instituted worship of God, had circumcision for their entering ordinance (Gen 17:13,14), without which it was unlawful to receive any into fellowship with them: yea, he that without it was received, was to be cut off, and cast out again. Further, as to the passover, the uncircumcised were utterly forbidden to eat it (Exo 12:48). Now if our brethren had as express prohibition to justify their groundless opinion, as here is to exclude the uncircumcised from the communion of the church and the passover: I say, if they could find it written, 'No unbaptized person shall enter, no unbaptized person shall eat of the supper'; what a noise would they make about it? But yet let the reader observe, that although circumcision was the entering ordinance, and our author saith baptism is not; yea, though this church was expressly forbidden to receive the uncircumcised, and we have not a syllable now to forbid the unbaptized, yet this church received members without, and otherwise than by this entering ordinance. They also admitted them to the passover; yea, entertained, retained, and held communion with them so long as forty years without it. I say again, That the number of this sort of communicants was not so few as six hundred thousand. Moreover, to these uncircumcised was the land of Canaan given, yea, a possession of part thereof before they were circumcised; but the old circumcised ones might not enter therein. I am the larger in this, because our author hath overlooked my first mention thereof. And now I ask, What was the reason that God continued his presence with this church notwithstanding this transgression? Was it not because they had that richer and better thing, 'the Lord Jesus Christ?' For they did all eat of that spiritual bread, and drink of that 'spiritual rock that followed them: and that rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:3,4). I confess I find them under rebukes and judgments in the wilderness, and that they were many times threatened to be destroyed; but yet I find not so much as one check for their receiving of members uncircumcised. Further, in the New Testament, where we have a catalogue of their sins, and also of their punishment for them; we find not a word about circumcision, nor the smallest intimation of the least rebuke for neglecting the entering ordinance (1 Cor 10:5-10). I will therefore say of them, as I have also said of my brethren, 'They had the richer and better thing.'
But you object, 'That this putteth the whole of God's instituted worship both under the law and gospel, to the highest uncertainties.'
Ans. This putteth our opposers out of their road, and quencheth the flame of their unwarrantable zeal. For if the entering ordinance, if the ordinance without which no man might be added to the church, was laid aside for forty years; yea, if more than six hundred thousand did communicate with them without it: I say again, If they did it, and held communion with God, that notwithstanding; yea, and had not, that we read of, all that time one small check for so doing; why may not we now enter communion, hold communion, maintain communion, church communion, without being judged, and condemned by you? because we cannot for want of light be all baptized before; especially considering baptism makes no man a saint, is not the entering ordinance, is no part of the worship of God enjoined the church as a church. To conclude, although we receive members unbaptized [in after], we leave not God's instituted worship at uncertainties, especially what he hath commanded us as his church; we only profess our want of light in some things; but see no word to warrant the forbearance of our duty in all, for want of persuasion in one.
You object, 'I call baptism a circumstance, an outward-shew I
NICKNAME it.'
Ans. Deep reproof! but why did you not shew me my evil in thus calling it, when opposed to the substance, and the thing signified? Is it the substance, is it the thing signified? And why may not I give it the name of a shew; when you call it a symbol, and compare it to a gentleman's livery?
But you say, I call it an outward shew.
Ans. Is it an inward one? What is it?
'It is a command.'
Ans. But doth that install it in that place and dignity, that was never intended for it?
You object further, 'They cannot have the doctrine of baptism that understand not our way of administering it.'
This is your mistake, both of the doctrine and thing itself. But if you will not SCORN to take notice of me, I advise you again to consider, That a man may find baptism to be commanded, may be informed who ought to administer it; may also know the proper subject; and that the manner of baptizing is dipping; and may desire to practise it because it is commanded, and yet know nothing of what water baptism preacheth; or of the mystery baptism sheweth to faith. But that the doctrine of baptism is not the practice of it, not the outward act, but the thing signified; and that every believer hath that, must argue you more than too bold to deny it.
But say you, 'Who taught you to divide betwixt Christ and his precepts, that you word it at such a rate? That he that hath the one,' &c.
Ans. To say nothing of faith, and the word; verily reason itself teacheth it. For if Christ be my righteousness, and not water; if Christ be my advocate, and not water; if there be that good and blessedness in Christ, that is not in water; then is Jesus Christ better than water; and also in these to be eternally divided from water; unless we will make them co-saviours, co-advocates, and such as are equally good and profitable to men.
But say you, 'I thought that he that hath Christ, had an orderly right to all Christ's promises and precepts; and that the precepts of Christ, are part of the riches that a believer hath in and by Christ.'
Ans. A believer hath more in Christ than either promise or precept; but all believers know not all things, that of God are given to them by Christ. But must not they use, and enjoy what they know, because they know not all. Or must they neglect the weightier matters, because they want mint, and anise, and cummin? Your pretended orderly right is your fancy; there is not a syllable in the whole bible, that bids a Christian to forbear his duty in other things, because he wanteth, as you term it, the symbol, or water baptism.
But say you, 'He that despiseth his birthright of ordinances, our church privileges, will be found to be a profane person, as Esau in God's account.'
Baptism is not the privilege of a church as such. But what? are they all Esau's indeed? Must we go to hell, and be damned, for want of faith in water baptism? And take notice, I do not plead for a despising of baptism, but a bearing with our brother, that cannot do it for want of light. The best of baptism he hath, viz. the signification thereof: he wanteth only the outward shew, which if he had, would not prove him a truly visible saint; it would not tell me he had the grace of God in his heart; it is no characteristical note to another of my Sonship with God. But why did you not answer these parts of my argument? Why did you only cavil at words? which if they had been left out, the argument yet stands good. 'He that is not baptized [in water], if yet a true believer, hath the DOCTRINE of baptism; yea, he ought to have it before he be convicted, it is his duty to be baptized, or else he playeth the hypocrite. There is therefore no difference between that believer that is, and he that is not yet baptized with water; but only his going down into the water, there to perform an outward ceremony, the substance of which he hath already; which yet he is not commanded to do with respect to membership with the church; but to obtain by that, further understanding of his privilege by Christ, which before he made profession of, and that as a visible believer.'[11]
But to come to my fourth argument, which you so tenderly touch as if it burnt your fingers: 'I am bold [say I] to have communion with visible saints as before, because God hath communion with them, whose example in the case we are strictly commanded to follow.' 'Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God' (Rom 15:7). Yea, though they be saints, in opinion contrary to you, or I. 'We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves' (Rom 15:1). Infirmities that are sinful: for they that are natural are incident to all. Infirmities therefore they are, that for want of light, cause a man to err in circumstantials: and the reason upon which Paul groundeth this admonition is; 'For even Christ pleased not himself, but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me' (Rom 15:3).
You say to this, 'That it is Paul's direction to the church at
Rome how to receive their brethren church members.'
I answer, 1. What? are not the poor saints now in this city? are not they concerned in these instructions? or is not the church by these words at all directed how to carry it to those that were not yet in fellowship? A bold assertion! but grounded upon nothing, but that you would have it so. 2. But how will you prove that there was a church, a rightly constituted church, at Rome, besides that in Aquila's house? (chap. 16). Neither doth this epistle, nor any other in the whole book of God affirm it. Besides, since Paul in this last chapter saluteth the church, as in this man's house, but the other, only as particular saints, it giveth further ground of conviction to you, that those others were not as yet imbodied in such a fellowship. 3. But suppose there was another church besides; it doth not therefore follow, that the apostle exhorteth them only to receive persons already in fellowship; but 'Him,' even every 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations' (14:1). 4. Suppose again, the receiving here exhorted to, be such as you would have it, yet the rule by which they are directed to do it, is that by which we perceive that Christ hath received them. But Christ did not receive them by [water] baptism, but as given to him by the Father. Him, therefore, concerning whom we are convinced, that he by the Father is given to Christ, 'Him should we receive.' 5. But what need I grant you, that which cannot be proved? yet if you could prove it, it availeth nothing at all; because you may not, cannot, ought not to dare to limit the exhortation to receiving of one another into each other's affections only; and not also receiving saints into communion.
But you object: 'To make God's receiving the rule of our receiving, in all cases will not hold.'
Ans. Keep to the thing, man: if it hold in the case in hand, it is enough, the which you have not denied. And that it holds thus, is plain, because commanded. But let the reader know, that your putting in that way of his receiving which is invisible to us; is but an unhandsome straddling over my argument, which treateth only of a visible receiving; such as is manifest to the church. This you knew, but sought by evading to turn the reader from considering the strength of this my argument. 'The receiving then [said I] because it is set as an example to the church, is such as must needs be visible unto them; and is best discovered by that word that describeth the visible saint. Whoso then you can judge a visible saint, one that walketh with God, you may, nay ought to judge by the same word, that God hath received him. Now him that God receiveth, him should you receive.' But will any object; they cannot believe that God receiveth the unbaptized saints; I will not suppose you so much stupefied, and therefore shall make no answer.
But you seem to be much offended, because I said, 'Vain man! Think not by the straightness of thine order in outward, and bodily conformity to outward and shadowish circumstances, that thy peace is maintained with God?' But why so much offended at this? [It is say you] 'Because you intend by this the brethren of the baptized way.'
Ans. If they be vain men, and set up their OWN order, how straight soever they make it, they are worthy to be reproved; if 'they have rejected the word of the Lord; what wisdom is in them?' (Jer 8:9). And as you suggest the first, I affirm the second. But if you would be justified in excluding those, with whom yet you see God hath communion, because they yet see not a shadow with you; produce the scripture for such order, that we may believe it is the order of God. But deal fairly, lest we shew your nakedness, and others see your shame. You tell me of the order of the Colossians (2:5). But if you can prove that that church refused to hold communion with that saint whom they knew to be received by Christ, and held communion with him [Christ], or that none but those that are baptized [in water] are received by and hold communion with him, then you justify your order. In the mean while the whole of mine argument stands firm against you; 'You must have communion with visible saints, because God hath communion with them, whose example in the case we are strictly commanded to follow.'
But you ask me, 'If outward and bodily conformity be become a crime?'
Ans. I nowhere said it; but know that to glorify God with our bodies, respecteth chiefly far higher and more weighty things, than that of water baptism; 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin' (Rom 14:23); and to set up an ordinance, though an ordinance of God, that by it the church may be pulled in pieces, or the truly visible saints excluded communion with their brethren; I say again, to make water baptism a bar and division between saint and saint, every whit otherwise gracious and holy alike: This is like fasting 'for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness' (Isa 58:4); and is not to be found within the whole bible, but is wholly an order of your own devising. As to the peace you make an objection about you have granted me what I intended; and now I add further, that for church peace to be founded in water baptism, or any other external rite, not having to do with the church, as a church, is poor peace indeed: Church peace is founded in blood; and love to each other for Jesus' sake (Phil 2:1-4). Bearing with, and forbearing one another, in all things circumstantial, that concern not church worship as such (Eph 4:31,32). And in my other [treatise] I have proved that baptism is not such, and therefore ought not to be urged to make rents and divisions among brethren.
But you ask, 'Is my peace maintained in a way of disobedience? and conclude if it be, you fear it is false.'
Ans. If the first were true; you need not to doubt of the second; but it may be thought he hath little to say in the controversy, who is forced to stuff out his papers, with such needless prattles as these.
My fifth argument is, 'That a failure in such a circumstance as water baptism, doth not unchristian us'; this you are compelled to grant. And I conclude with your words, persons ought to be Christians before visible Christians; such as any congregation in the land may receive to communion with themselves, because God hath shewed us that he has received them. 'Receive him to the glory of God.' To the glory of God, is put in on purpose, to shew what dishonour they bring to him, who despise to have communion with such, whom they know do maintain communion with God. I say again, How doth this man, or that church, glorify God, or count the wisdom and holiness of heaven beyond them, when they refuse communion with them, concerning whom yet they are convinced, that they have communion with God? But my argument you have not denied; nor meddled with the conclusion at all; which is, 'That therefore, even because a failure here, doth not unchristian us, doth not make us insincere'; and I add, doth not lay us open to any revealed judgment or displeasure of God (if it doth, shew where) therefore it should not, it ought not to make us obnoxious to the displeasure of the church of God.
But you say, 'I rank gospel precepts, with Old Testament abrogated ceremonies.'
Ans. You should have given your reader my words, that he might have judged from my own mouth: I said then, speaking before of Christianity itself, 'that thousands of thousands that could not consent to water, as we, are now with the innumerable company of angels, and the spirits of just men made perfect.' What was said of eating, or the contrary, may as to this be said of water baptism: neither if I be baptized, am I the better? neither if I be not, am I the worse? not the better before God, not the worse before men: still meaning as Paul, provided I walk according to my light with God; otherwise it is false. For if a man that seeth it to be his duty, shall despisingly neglect it; or if he that hath not faith about it, shall foolishly take it up: both these are for this the worse; I mean, as to their own sense, being convicted in themselves, as transgressors. He therefore that doth it according to his light, doth well; and he that doth it not, for want of light, doth not ill; for he approveth his heart to be sincere with God, even by that his forbearance. And I tell you again, It is nowhere recorded, that this man is under any revealed threatening of God, for his not being baptized with water, he not having light therein, but is admitted through his grace to as many promises as you. If therefore he be not a partaker of that circumstance, yet he is of that liberty, and mercy, by which you stand with God.
But that I practise instituted worship, upon the same account as Paul did circumcision, and shaving, is too bold for you to presume to imagine. What? because I will not suffer water to carry away the epistles from the Christians; and because I will not let water baptism be the rule, the door, the bolt, the bar, the wall of division between the righteous, and the righteous; must I therefore be judged to be a man without conscience to the worship of Jesus Christ? The Lord deliver me from superstitious and idolatrous thoughts about any of the ordinances of Christ and of God. But my fifth argument standeth against you untouched; you have not denied, much less confuted the least syllable thereof.
You tell me my sixth argument is, Edification.
Ans. If it be, why is it not embraced? But my own words are these: 'I am for holding communion thus. Because the edification of souls in the faith and holiness of the gospel, is of greater concern than an agreement in outward things; I say, it is of greater concern with us, and of far more profit to our brother, than our agreeing in, or contesting for, water baptism' (John 16:13; 1 Cor 14:12; 2 Cor 10:8, 12:19; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:1,2; 8:1). Now why did you not take this argument in pieces, and answer those scriptures, on which the strength thereof depends; but if to contest, and fall out about water baptism, be better than to edify the house of God, produce the texts, that we may be informed.
You say, 'Edification is the end of all communion, but all things must be done in order, orderly.'
Ans. When you have proved that there is no such thing as an orderly edifying of the church, without water baptism precede, then it will be time enough to think you have said something.
You add, 'Edification as to church fellowship being a building up, doth suppose the being of a church; but pray you shew us a church without baptism.'
Ans. See here the spirit of these men, who for the want of water baptism, have at once unchurched all such congregations of God in the world; but against this I have, and do urge, That water baptism giveth neither being, nor well-being to a church, neither is any part of that instituted worship of God, that the church, as such, should be found in the practice of. Therefore her edification as a church may, yea and ought to be attained unto without it.
But you say, 'Shew us a New Testament church without baptism.'
Ans. What say you to the church all along the Revelation quite through the reign of Antichrist? Was that a New Testament church, or no? Again, If baptism be without the church, as a church, if it hath nothing to do in the constituting of a church; if it be not the door of entrance into the church, if it be no part of church-worship as such; then, although all the members of that church were baptized, yet the church is a church without water baptism. But all the churches in the New Testament were such: therefore, &c. Again, If baptism respect believers, as particular persons only; if it respects their own conscience only; if it make a man no visible believer to me, then it hath nothing to do with church-membership. Because, that which respects my own person only, my own conscience only: that which is no character of my visible saintship to the church, cannot be an argument unto them to receive me into fellowship with themselves. But this is true. Therefore, &c.
You proceed, 'If by edification, be meant the private increase of grace, in one another, in the use of private means, as private Christians in meeting together; how doth the principle you oppose hinder that? Endeavour to make men as holy as you can, that they may be fitted for church-fellowship, when God shall shew them the orderly way to it.'
Ans. What a many private things have we now brought out to public view? Private Christians, private means, and a private increase of grace. But, Sir, Are none but those of your way the public Christians? Or, ought none but them that are baptized to have the public means of grace? Or, must their graces be increased by none but private means? Was you awake now? Or, are you become so high in your own phantasies, that none have, or are to have but private means of grace? And, are there no public Christians, or public christian meetings, but them of your way? I did not think that all but baptists, should only abide in holes.
But you find fault because I said, 'Edification is greater than contesting about water baptism.'
Ans. If it be not, confute me; if it be, forbear to cavil: water baptism, and all God's ordinances, are to be used to edification; not to beget heats and contentions among the godly, wherefore edification is best.
Object. 'I had thought that the preaching, and opening baptism, might have been reckoned a part of our edification.'
Ans. The act of water baptism hath not place in church worship, neither in whole nor in part; wherefore pressing it upon the church is to no purpose at all.
Object. 'Why may you not as well say, that edification is greater than breaking of bread.'
Ans. So it is, else that should never have been instituted to edify withal; that which serveth, is not greater than he that is served thereby. Baptism and the Lord's supper both, were made for us, not we for them; wherefore both were made for our edification, but no one for our destruction. But again, The Lord's supper, not baptism, is for the church, as a church; therefore as we will maintain the church's edifying, that must be maintained in it; yea, sued oft, to shew the Lord's death till he come (1 Cor 11:22-26). Besides, because it is a great part of church worship, as such, therefore it is pronounced blessed, the Lord did openly bless it before he gave it; yea and we ought to bless it also; 'The cup of blessing which we bless,' not to say more. Therefore your reasoning from the one to the other will not hold.
Object. 'How comes contesting for water baptism to be so much against you?'
Ans. First, Because weak brethren cannot bear it; whom yet we are commanded to receive, but not to doubtful disputation; doubtful to them, therefore for their sakes, I must forbear it (Rom 14:1). Secondly, Because I have not seen any good effect, but the contrary, wherever such hot spirits have gone before me: 'For where envying and strife is, there is confusion,' or tumults, 'and every evil work' (James 3:16).[12] Thirdly, Because by the example of the Lord, and Paul, we must consider the present state of the church, and not trouble them with what they cannot bear (John 16:13; 1 Cor 3:1-3). I conclude then, edification in the church is to be preferred above what the church, as a church, hath nothing to do withal. 'All things, dearly beloved, are for our edifying' (1 Cor 14:5, 12:26; 2 Cor 12:19; Eph 4:16; Rom 15:2; 1 Cor 14:3; 2 Cor 10:8, 13:10; Rom 14:19). Before I wind up this argument, I present you with several instances, shewing that the breach of [some of] God's precepts have been borne with, when they come in competition with edification. As first, That of Aaron, who let the offering for sin be burnt, that should have indeed been eaten (Lev 10:16-20). Yet because he could not do it to his edification, Moses was content. But the law was thereby transgressed, 'The priest that offereth it for sin, shall eat it' (6:26).
To this you reply, 'That was not a constant, continued forbearing of God's worship, but a suspending of it for a season.'
Ans. We also suspend it but for a season; when persons can be baptized to their edification, they have the liberty. But, This was not a bare suspension, but a flat transgression of the law. 'Ye should indeed have eaten it.' Yet Moses was content (Lev 10:16-20).
But say you, 'Perhaps it was suspended upon just and legal grounds, though not expressed.'
Ans. The express rule was against it; 'Ye should indeed [said Moses] have eaten it in the holy place: as I commanded' (v 18). But good Sir, are you now for unwritten verities? for legal grounds, though not expressed? I will not drive you further, here is Rome enough. As for Eldad and Medad, it cannot be denied, but that their edifying of the people, was preferred before their conforming to every circumstance (Num 11:16-26).
You add, 'That Paul for a seeming low thing did withstand Peter.'
Sir, If you make but a seeming low thing of dissembling, and teaching others so to do, especially where the doctrine of justification is endangered, I cannot expect much good conscience from you (Gal 2:11-13).
As for your answer to the case of Hezekiah, it is faulty in two respects: 1. For that you make the passover a type of the Lord's supper, when it was only a type of the body and blood of the Lord: 'For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us' (1 Cor 5:7). 2. In that you make it an example to you to admit persons unprepared to the Lord's supper.
Ans. May you indeed receive persons into the church unprepared for the Lord's supper; yea, unprepared for that, with other solemn appointments? For so you word it. O what an engine have you made of water baptism. Thus, gentle reader, while this author teareth us in pieces for not making [water] baptism the orderly rule for receiving the godly and conscientious into communion; he can receive persons if baptized, though unprepared for the supper, and other solemn appointments? I would have thee consult the place, and see if it countenanceth such an act. That a man who pleadeth for a water baptism above the peace and edification of the church, ought to be received, although unprepared, into the church to the Lord's supper, and other solemn appointments; especially considering the nature of right church constitution, and the severity of God towards those that came unprepared to his table of old (1 Cor 11:28-30). A riddle indeed, That the Lord should, without a word, so severely command, that all which want light in baptism, be excluded church privileges; and yet against his word, admit of persons unprepared, to the Lord's table, and other solemn appointments.
But good Sir, why so short-winded? why could not you make the same work with the other scriptures, as you did with these? I must leave them upon you unanswered; and standing by my argument conclude, That if laws and ordinances of old have been broken, and the breach of them born with, when yet the observation of outward things was more strictly commanded than now, if the profit and edification of the church come in competition; how much more, may not we have communion, church communion, when no law of God is transgressed thereby. And note, That all this while I plead not, as you, for persons unprepared, but godly, and such as walk with God.
We come now to my seventh argument, for communion with the godly, though unbaptized persons; which you say is LOVE. My argument is this; 'Therefore I am for communion thus; because love, which above all things we are commanded to put on, is of much more worth than to break about baptism.' And let the reader note, That of this argument you deny not so much as one syllable, but run to another story; but I will follow you. I add further, That love is more discovered when we receive for the sake of Christ, than when we refuse his children for want of water: And tell you again, That this exhortation to love is grounded not upon [water] baptism, but the putting on of the new creature, which hath swallowed up all distinctions (Col 3:9-14). Yea, there are ten arguments in this one, which you have not so much as touched; but thus object,
'That man that makes affection the rule of his walking, rather than judgment, it is no wonder if he go out of the way.'
Ans. Love to them, we are persuaded that God hath received, is love that is guided by judgment; and to receive them that are such, because God hath bidden us (Rom 14), is judgment guided by rule. My argument therefore hath forestalled all your noise, and standeth still on its legs against you. As to the duties of piety and charity, you boast of, sound not a trumpet, tell not your left hand of it; we are talking now of communion of saints, church communion, and I plead, that to love, and hold together as such, is better than to break in pieces for want of water baptism. My reason is, because we are exhorted in all things to put on love; the love of church communion: contrariwise you oppose, Above all things put on water. For the best saint under heaven that hath not that, with him you refuse communion. Thus you make baptism, though no church ordinance, a bar to shut out the godly, and a trap-door to let the unprepared into churches, to the Lord's supper, and other solemn appointments.
But you object, 'Must our love to the unbaptized indulge them in an act of disobedience? Cannot we love their persons, parts, graces, but we must love their sins?'
Ans. We plead not for indulging, 'But are there not with you, even with you, sins against the Lord your God?' (2 Chron 28:10). But why can you indulge the baptists in many acts of disobedience? For to come unprepared into the church, is an act of disobedience: To come unprepared to the supper is an act of disobedience; and to come so also to other solemn appointments, are acts of disobedience.
'But for these things,' you say, 'you do not cast, nor keep any out of the church.'
Ans. But what acts of disobedience do we indulge them in?
'In the sin of infant baptism.'
Ans. We indulge them not; but being commanded to bear with the infirmities of each other, suffer it; it being indeed in our eyes such; but in theirs they say a duty, till God shall otherwise persuade them. If you be without infirmity, do you first throw a stone at them: They keep their faith in that to themselves, and trouble not their brethren therewith: we believe that God hath received them; they do not want to us a proof of their sonship with God; neither hath he made water a wall of division between us, and therefore we do receive them.
Object. 'I take it to be the highest act of friendship to be faithful to these professors, and to tell them they want this one thing in gospel order, which ought not to be left undone.'
Ans. If it be the highest piece of friendship, to preach water baptism to unbaptized believers, the lowest act thereof must needs be very low. But contrariwise, I count it so far off from being any act of friendship, to press baptism in our notion on those that cannot bear it; that it is a great abuse of the peace of my brother, the law of love, the law of Christ, or the society of the faithful. Love suffereth long, and is kind, is not easily provoked: let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another: let every one of us please his neighbour, for his good to edification: Bear you one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ (1 Cor 13; Rom 14:19, 15:2; Gal 6:2).
But say you, 'I doubt when this comes to be weighed in God's balance, it will be found no less than flattery, for which you will be reproved.'
Ans. It seems you do but doubt it, wherefore the principles from which you doubt it, of that methinks you should not be certain; but this is of little weight to me; for he that will presume to appropriate the epistles to himself and fellows, for the sake of baptism, and that will condemn all the churches of Christ in the land for want of baptism, and that will account his brother as profane Esau and rejected, as idolatrous Ephraim because he wanteth his way of water baptism; he acts out of his wonted way, of rigidness, when he doth but doubt, and not affirm his brother to be a flatterer. I leave therefore this your doubt to be resolved at the day of judgment, and in the mean time trample upon your harsh and unchristian surmises. As to our love to Christians in other cases, I hope we shall also endeavour to follow the law of the Lord; but because it respects not the matter in hand, it concerns us not now to treat thereof.
My argument treateth of church communion; in the prosecution of which I prove. 1. That love is grounded upon the new creature (Col 3:10-15). 2. Upon our fellowship with the Father and Son (1 John 1:2,3). 3. That with respect to this, it is the fulfilling of the royal law (James 4:11; Rom 14:21). 4. That it shews itself in acts of forbearing, rather than in publishing some truths: communicating only what is profitable, forbearing to publish what cannot be born (1 Cor 3:1,2; Acts 20:18-20; John 3:16,17). 5. I shew further, That to have fellowship for, to make that the ground of, or to receive one another chiefly upon the account of an outward circumstance; to make baptism the including and excluding charter: the bounds, bar, and rule of communion, when by the word of the everlasting testament, there is no word for it, to speak charitably, if it be not for want of love, it is for want of light in the mysteries of the kingdom of Christ. Strange! Take two Christians equal in all points but this; nay, let one go beyond the other in grace and goodness, as far as a man is beyond a babe, yet water shall turn the scale, shall open the door of communion to the less; and command the other to stand back: yet is no proof to the church of this babe's faith and hope, hath nothing to do with his entering into fellowship, is no part of the worship of the church.[13] These things should have been answered, seeing you will take upon you so roundly to condemn our practice.
You come now to my eighth argument; which you do not only render falsely, but by so doing abuse your reader. I said not that the church at Corinth did shut each other out of communion; but, for God's people to divide into parties, or to shut each other from church communion, though for greater points, and upon higher pretences, than that of water baptism, hath heretofore been counted carnal, and the actors therein babyish Christians: and then bring in the factions, that was in the church at Corinth. But what! May not the evil of denying church communion now, if proved naught by a less crime in the church at Corinth, be counted carnal and babyish; but the breach of communion must be charged upon them at Corinth also?
That my argument is good you grant, saying, 'The divisions of the church at Corinth were about the highest fundamental principles, for which they are often called carnal'; yet you cavil at it. But if they were to be blamed for dividing, though for the highest points; are not you much more for condemning your brethren to perpetual banishment from church communion, though sound in all the great points of the gospel, and right in all church ordinances also, because for want of light they fail only in the point of baptism?
As to your quibble about Paul and Apollos, whether they, or others, were the persons, though I am satisfied you are out, yet it weakeneth not my argument; for if they were blame worthy for dividing, though about the highest fundamental principles, as you say, how ought you to blush for carrying it as you do to persons, perhaps, more godly than ourselves, because they jump not with you in a circumstance? That the divisions at Corinth were helped on by the abuse of baptism, to me is evident, from Paul's so oft suggesting it: 'Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you,—lest any should say, I had baptized in mine own name' (1:13-15).
I do not say, that they who baptized them designed this, or that baptism in itself effected it; nor yet, though our author feigns it, 'that they were most of them baptized by their factious leaders.' But that they had their factious leaders, is evident; and that these leaders made use of the names of Paul, Apollos, and Christ, is as evident; for by these names they were beguiled by the help of ABUSED baptism.
But say you, 'Wherein lies the force of this man's argument against baptism as to its place, worth, and continuance?'
I answer: I have no argument against its place, worth or continuance, although thus you seek to scandalize me. But this kind of sincerity of yours, will never make me one of your disciples. Have not I told you even in this argument, 'That I speak not as I do, to persuade or teach men to break the least of God's commandments; but that my brethren of the baptized way may not hold too much thereupon, may not make it an essential of the gospel, nor yet of the communion of saints.' Yet he feigns that I urge two arguments against it. But reader, thou mayest know I have no such reason in my book. Besides, I should be a fool indeed, were I against it, should I make use of such weak arguments. My words then are these: 'I thank God,' said Paul, 'that I baptized none of you but Crispus,' &c. 'Not but that then it was an ordinance, but they abused it in making parties thereby, as they abused also Paul, and Cephas. Besides, said he, I know not whether I baptized any other. By this negligent relating who were baptized by him, he sheweth that he made no such matter thereof, as some in these days do. Nay, that he made no matter at all thereof with respect to a church communion. For if he did not heed who himself had baptized, much less did he heed who were baptized by others? But if baptism had been the initiating ordinance, and I now add, essential to church communion; then no doubt he had made more conscience of it, than thus lightly to pass it by.'
I add further, where he saith, He 'was not sent to baptize'; that he spake with an holy indignation against those that had abused that ordinance. 'Baptism is an holy ordinance, but when Satan abuseth it, and wrencheth it out of its place, making that which is ordained of God, for the edification of believers, the only weapon to break in pieces the love, unity, and concord of the saints; than as Paul said of himself and fellows (1 Cor 3:5-7). What is baptism? Neither is baptism any thing? This is no new doctrine, for God by the mouth of the prophet of old, cried out against his own appointments, when abused by his own people (Isa 1:11-15); because they used them "for strife, and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness"' (58:4). But to forbear, to take notice thus of these things, my argument stands firm against you: 'For if they at Corinth were blame worthy for dividing, though their divisions were, if you say true, about the highest fundamentals, you ought to be ashamed, thus to banish your brethren from the privileges of church communion for ever, for the want of so low a thing as water baptism.' I call it not low, with respect to God's appointment, though so, it is far from the highest place, but in comparison of those fundamentals, about which you say, 'the Corinthians made their divisions.'
You come next to my ninth argument, and serve it as Hanun served David's servants (2 Sam 10:4), you have cut off one half of its beard, and its garments to its buttocks, thinking to send it home with shame. You state it thus: 'That by denying communion with unbaptized believers, you take from them their privileges to which they are born.'
Ans. Have I such an argument, in all my little book? Are not my words verbatim these? 'If we shall reject visible saints by calling, saints that have communion with God; that have received the law at the hand of Christ; that are of an holy conversation among men, they desiring to have communion with us; as much as in us lieth, we take from them their very privileges, and the blessings to which they were born of God.' This is mine argument: now confute it.
Paul saith, not only to the gathered church at Corinth, but to all scattered saints, that in every place call upon the name of the Lord (1 Cor 1:2). That if Jesus Christ is theirs; that Paul and Apollos, and Cephas, and the world, and all things else was theirs (3:22).
But you answer, 'We take from them nothing, but we keep them from a disorderly practice of gospel ordinances, we offer them their privileges, in the way of gospel order.'
Ans. Where have you one word of God, that forbiddeth a person, so qualified, as is signified in mine argument, the best communion of saints for want of water? There is not a syllable for this in all the book of God. So then, you in this your plausible defence, do make your scriptureless light, which in very deed is darkness (Isa 8:20), the rule of your brother's faith; and how well you will come off for this in the day of God, you might, were you not wedded to your wordless opinion, soon begin to conceive.
I know your reply, 'New Testament saints are all baptized first.'
Ans. Suppose it granted: Were they baptized, that thereby they might be qualified for their right to communion of saints, so that, without their submitting to water, they were to be denied the other? Further, suppose I should grant this groundless notion, Were not the Jews in Old Testament times to enter the church by circumcision? (Gen 17; Exo 12). For that, though water is not, was the very entering ordinance. Besides, as I said before, there was a full forbidding of all that were not circumcised from entering into fellowship, with a threatening to cut them off from the church if they entered in without it: yet more than six hundred thousand entered that church without it. But how now, if such an one as you had then stood up and objected, Sir Moses, What is the reason that you transgress the order of God, to receive members without circumcision? Is not that the very entering ordinance? Are not you commanded to keep out of the church all that are not circumcised? Yea, and for all those that you thus received, are you not commanded to cast them out again, to cut them off from among this people (Gen 17:13,14; Exo 12:44-46). I say, Would not this man have had a far better argument to have resisted Moses, than you, in your wordless notion, have to shut out men from the church, more holy than many of ourselves? But do you think that Moses and Joshua, and all the elders of Israel, would have thanked this fellow, or have concluded that he spake on God's behalf? Or, that they should then, for the sake of a better than what you call order, have set to the work that you would be doing, even to break the church in pieces for this?
But say you, 'If any will find or force another way into the sheep fold than by the footsteps of the flock, we have no such custom nor the churches of God.'
Ans. What was done of old I have shewed you, that Christ, not baptism, is the way to the sheep fold, is apparent: and that the person [who thus enters], in mine argument, is entitled to all these, to wit, Christ, grace, and all the things of the kingdom of Christ in the church, is, upon the scriptures urged, as evident.
But you add, 'That according to mine old confidence, I affirm, That drink ye all of this is entailed to faith, not baptism: a thing,' say you, 'soon said, but yet never proved.'
Ans. 1. That it is entailed to faith, must be confessed of all hands. 2. That it is the privilege of him that discerneth the Lord's body, and that no man is to deny him it, is also by the text as evident, 'and so let him eat,' because he is worthy. Wherefore he, and he only, that discerneth the Lord's body, he is the worthy receiver, the worthy receiver in God's estimation; but that none discern the Lord's body but the baptized [in water], is both fond and ridiculous once to surmise.
Wherefore to exclude Christians, and to debar them their heaven-born privileges, for want of that which yet God never made the wall of division betwixt us: This looks too like a spirit of persecution (Job 19:28), and carrieth in it those eighteen absurdities which you have so hotly cried out against. And I do still add, 'Is it not that which greatly prevailed with God to bring down those judgments which at present we [the people of God] groan under, I will dare to say it was,[14] A cause thereof.' Yea, I will yet proceed; I fear, I strongly fear, that the rod of God is not yet to be taken from us; for what [is a] more provoking sin among Christians than to deny one another their rights and privileges, to which they are born of God? And then to father these their doings upon God, when yet he hath not commanded it, neither in the New Testament nor the Old.
But I may not lightly pass this by, for because I have gathered eighteen absurdities from this abuse of God's ordinances, or from the sin of binding the brethren to observe order, not founded on the command of God; and I am sure you have none to shut out men as good, as holy, and as sound in faith as ourselves, from communion. Therefore you call my conclusion devilish, top-full of ignorance and prejudice, and me, one of Machiavel's scholars, also proud, presumptuous, impeaching the judgment of God.
Ans. But what is there in my proposition, that men, considerate, can be offended at? These are my words: 'But to exclude Christians from church communion, and to debar them their heaven-born privileges, for the want of that which yet God never made a wall of division between us: this looks too like a spirit of persecution: this respecteth more the form than the spirit and power of godliness, &c. Shall I add, Is it not that which greatly prevailed to bring down those judgments which at present we feel and groan under? I will dare to say, it was a cause thereof.' A was in my copy, instead whereof the printer put in the; for this, although I speak only the truth, I will not beg of you belief; besides, the bookseller desired me, because of the printer's haste, to leave the last sheet to be overlooked by him, which was the cause it was not among the erratas. But I say, wherein is the proposition offensive? Is it not a wicked thing to make bars to communion, where God hath made none? Is it not a wickedness to make that a wall of division betwixt us which God never commanded to be so? If it be not, justify your practice; if it be, take shame. Besides, the proposition is universal, why then should you be the chief intended? But you have in this done like to the lawyers of old, who, when Christ reproved the pharisees of wickedness before them, said, 'Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also' (Luke 11:45).
But you feign, and would also that the world should believe, that the eighteen absurdities which naturally flow from the proposition I make, to be the effects of baptism, saying to me, 'None but yourself could find an innocent truth big with so many monstrous absurdities.'
I answer: This is but speaking wickedly for God, or rather to justify your wordless practice. I say not that baptism hath any absurdity in it, though your abusing it, hath them all, and many more, while you make it, without warrant from the word, as the flaming sword, to keep the brotherhood out of communion, because they, after your manner, cannot consent thereto. And let no man be offended, for that I suggest that baptism may be abused to the breeding such monstrous absurdities, for greater truths than that have been as much abused. What say you to, 'This is my body?' To instance no more, although I could instance many, are not they the words of our Lord? Are not they part of the scriptures of truth? and yet behold, even with those words, the devil, by abusing them, made an engine to let out the heart-blood of thousands.[15] Baptism also may be abused, and is, when more is laid upon it by us than is commanded by God. And that you do so, is manifest by what I have said already, and shall yet say to your fourteen arguments.
My last argument, you say, is this: 'The world may wonder at your carriage to these unbaptized persons, in keeping them out of communion?'
Ans. You will set up your own words, and then fight against them; but my words are these: 'What greater contempt can be thrown upon the saints, than for their brethren to cut them off from, or to debar them church communion.' And now I add, Is not this to deliver them to the devil (1 Cor 5), or to put them to shame before all that see your acts? There is but one thing can hinder this, and that is, by-standers see that these, your brethren, that you thus abuse, are as holy men as ourselves. Do you more to the openly prophane, yea, to all wizards and witches in the land?[16] For all you can do to them, I speak now as to church acts, is no other than to debar them the communion of saints.
And now I say again, the world may well wonder, when they see you deny holy men of God that liberty of the communion of saints which you monopolise to yourselves: and though they do not understand the grounds of profession, or communion, yet they can both see and say, these holy men of God, in all visible acts of holiness, are not one inch behind you. Yea, I will put it to yourselves, If those many, yea, very many, who thus severely, but with how little ground, is seen by men of God, you deny communion with; are not of as good, as holy, as unblameable in life, and as sound, if not sounder in the faith than many among ourselves: Here only they make the stop, they cannot, without light, be driven into water baptism, I mean after our notion of it: but what if they were, it would be little sign to me, that they were sincere with God.
To conclude this; when you have proved that water baptism, which you yourself have said is not a church ordinance, is essential to church communion, and that the church may, by the word of God, bolt, bar, and for ever shut out those, far better than ourselves, that have not, according to our notion, been baptized with water; then it will be time enough to talk of ground for so doing. In the mean time I must take leave to tell you, 'There is not in all the Bible one syllable for such a practice, wherefore your great cry about your order is wordless, and therefore faithless, and is a mere human invention.'
I Come Now to Your Fourteen Arguments, and Shall Impartially Consider Them.
Your first argument to prove it lawful to reject the unbaptized saint, is, 'Because the great commission of Christ (Matt 28), from which all persons have their authority for their ministry, if any authority at all, doth clearly direct the contrary. By that commission ministers are first to disciple, and then to baptize them so made disciples, and afterwards to teach them to observe all that Christ commanded them, as to other ordinances of worship. If ministers have no other authority to teach them other parts of gospel worship, before they believe and are baptized, it may be strongly supposed they are not to admit them to other ordinances before they have passed this first enjoined in the commission.'
Ans. 1. That the ministers are to disciple and baptize, is granted. But that they are prohibited, by the commission (Matt 28), to teach the disciples other parts of gospel worship that have not light in baptism, remains for you to prove. Shall I add, this position is so absurd and void of truth, that none that have ever read the love of Christ, the nature of faith, the end of the gospel, or of the reason of instituted worship (which is edification) with understanding, should so much as once imagine.
But where are they here forbidden to teach them other truths before they be baptized? This text as fairly denieth to the unbaptized believer heaven and glory. Nay, our author, in the midst of all his flutter about this 28th of Matthew, dare venture to gather no more therefrom, but that it may be strongly supposed. Behold therefore, gentle reader, the ground on which these brethren lay the stress of their separation from their fellows, is nothing else but a supposition, without warrant, screwed out of this blessed word of God. Strongly supposed! but may it not be as strongly supposed that the presence and blessing of the Lord Jesus, with his ministers, is laid upon the same ground also? for thus he concludes the text, 'And lo, I am with you alway even unto the end of the world.' But would, I say, any man from these words conclude, that Christ Jesus hath here promised his presence only to them that, after discipling, baptize those that are so made; and that they that do not baptize shall neither have his presence nor his blessing? I say again, should any so conclude hence, would not all experience prove him void of truth? The words therefore must be left, by you, as you found them, they favour not at all your groundless supposition.
To conclude, these words have not laid baptism in the way to debar the saint from fellowship of his brethren, no more than to hinder his inheritance in life and glory. Mark reads it thus: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned' (Mark 16:16). Letting baptism, which he mentioned in the promise, fall, when he came at the threatening. God also doth thus with respect to his worship in the church, he commands all and every whit of his will to be done, but beareth with our coming short in this, and that, and another duty. But let's go on.
Your second argument is, 'That the order of Christ's commission, as well as the matter therein contained to be observed, may easily be concluded, from God's severity towards them that sought him not according to due order (1 Chron 15:13). Was God so exact with his people then, that all things to a pin must be according to the pattern in the mount (Heb 8:5, 9:11), whose worship then comparatively, to the gospel, was but after the law of a carnal commandment; and can it be supposed he should be so indifferent now to leave men to their own liberty, to time and place his appointments, contrary to what he had given an express rule for in his word as before? (Eze 44:7,9,10). It was the priest's sin, formerly to bring the uncircumcised in heart and flesh into his house.'
Ans. That there is no such order in that commission as you feign, I have proved. As for your far-fetch'd instance (1 Chron 15), it is quite beside your purpose. The express word was, That the priest, not a cart, should bear the ark of God. Also they were not to touch it, and yet Uzza did (Exo 25:14; 1 Chron 15:12-16; Num 4:15; 1 Chron 13). Now, if you can make that 28th of Matthew say, Receive none that are not baptized first; or that Christ would have them of his, that are not yet baptized, kept ignorant of all other truths that respect church communion; then you say something, else you do but raise a mist before the simple reader: but whoso listeth may hang on your sleeve. As for the pins and tacks of the tabernacle, they were expressly commanded; and when you have proved by the word of God, That you ought to shut saints out of your communion for want of baptism, then you may begin more justly to make your parallel. How fitly you have urged (Eze 44) to insinuate that unbaptized believers are like the uncircumcised in heart and flesh, I leave it to all gospel-novices to consider.
Your third argument is, 'The practice of the first gospel-ministers, with them that first trusted in Christ, discovers the truth of what I assert. Certainly they that lived at the spring-head, or fountain of truth, and had the law from Christ's own mouth, knew the meaning of his commission better than we: but their constant practice in conformity to that commission, all along the Acts of the Apostles, discovers that they never arrived to such a latitude as men plead for now-a-days. They that gladly received the word were baptized, and they, yea they only, were received into the church.'
Ans. How well you have proved what you have asserted, is manifest by my answer to the two former arguments. I add, That the ministers and servants of Jesus Christ in the first churches, for that you are to prove, were commanded to forbear to preach other truths to the unbaptized believers; or that they were to keep them out of the church; or that the apostles, and first fathers, have given you to understand by their example, that you ought to keep as good out of churches as yourselves, hath not yet been shewed by the authority of the word. The second of the Acts proveth not, That the three thousand were necessitated to be baptized in order to their fellowship with the church, neither doth it say THEY, yea they only, were received into the church. But suppose all this, as much was done at the first institution of circumcision, &c., yet afterwards thousands were received without it.
Your fourth argument is, 'None of the scripture saints ever attempted this church privilege without baptism, if they did, let it be shewn. The eunuch first desired baptism before anything else; Paul was first baptized before he did essay to join with the church. Our Lord Christ, the great example of the New Testament, entered not upon his public ministry, much less any other gospel ordinance of worship, till he was baptized.'
Ans. That none of the scripture saints, if there be any unscripture ones, so much as attempted this church-privilege first, remains for you to prove. But suppose they were all baptized, because they had light therein, what then? Doth this prove that baptism is essential to church communion? Or, that Christ commanded in the 28th of Matthew, or gave his ministers by that, authority, not to make known to believers other parts of gospel-worship, if they shall want light in baptism? The eunuch, Paul, and our blessed Lord Jesus, did none of them, by their baptism, set themselves to us examples how to enter into church communion; what church was the eunuch baptized into, or made a member of; but where is it said, that the unbaptized believer, how excellent soever in faith and holiness, must, for want of water baptism, be shut out from the communion of saints, or be debarred the privilege of his Father's house? This you are to prove.
Your fifth argument is, 'If Christ himself was made manifest to be the SENT of God by baptism, as appears (Mark 1:9,10), then why may not baptism, as the first fruits of faith, and the first step of gospel-obedience, as to instituted worship, be a manifesting discovering ordinance upon others who thus follow Christ's steps.'
Ans. That Jesus Christ was manifested as the SENT of God by baptism, or that baptism is the first fruit of faith and the first step to gospel-obedience, as to instituted worship, is both without proof and truth; the text saith not, he was manifest to be the 'sent' of God by baptism; nay it saith not, that by that he was manifest to others to be anything thereby: you have therefore but wronged the text to prove your wordless practice by. Yea, John himself, though he knew him before he was baptized, to be a man of God, for, saith he, 'I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me' (Matt 3:14), and knew him after to be the 'sent' of God; yet not in, or by, but after he was baptized, to wit, by the descending of the Holy Ghost, after he was come out of the water, as he was in prayer, for the heavens were opened to John (John 1:30-34), and he saw, and bare record, because he saw the Spirit descend from heaven, and abide upon Jesus, after his baptism, as he was in prayer (Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21,22). Thus we find him made known before and after, but not at all by baptism, to be the 'sent' of God.
And that baptism is the fruit of faith, or that faith ought to be tied to take its first step in water baptism, in the instituted worship of God; this you must prove, it is not found expressed within the whole Bible. Faith acts according to its strength and as it sees, it is not tied or bound to any outward circumstance; one believeth he may, and another believeth he may not, either do this or that.
Your sixth argument is, 'If baptism be in any sense any part of the foundation of a church, as to order (Heb 6:1,2), it must have place here or no where: why are those things called first principles, if not first to be believed and practised? Why are they rendered by the learned the A, B, C, of a Christian, and the beginning of Christianity, milk for babes, if it be no matter whether baptism be practised or no? If it be said water baptism is not there intended, let them shew me how many baptisms there are besides water baptism? Can you build and leave out a stone in the foundation? I intend not baptism a foundation any other ways but in respect of order, and it is either intended for that or nothing.'
Ans. Baptism is in no sense the foundation of a church. I find no foundation of a church but Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 3:11). Yea, the foundation mentioned (Heb 6:1,2) is nothing else but this very Christ. For he is the foundation, not only of the church, but of all that good that at any time is found in her. He is the foundation OF our repentance, and OF our faith towards God (vv 1,2). Further, baptisms are not here mentioned with respect to the act in water, but of the doctrine; that is, the signification thereof. 'The doctrine of baptisms.' And observe, neither faith, nor repentance, nor baptisms, are called here foundations: Another thing, for a foundation, is here by the Holy Ghost intended, even a foundation for them all: a foundation of faith, of repentance, of the doctrine of baptisms, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this foundation is Jesus Christ himself, and these are the first principles, the milk, the A, B, C, and the beginning of Christian religion in the world. I dare not say, No matter whether water baptism be practised or no. But it is not a stone in the foundation of a church, no not respecting order; it is not, to another, a sign of my sonship with God; it is not the door into fellowship with the saints, it is no church ordinance, as you, yourself, have testified. So then as to church work, it hath no place at all therein.
Your seventh argument is, 'If Paul knew the Galatians only upon the account of charity, No other ways to be the sons of God by faith; but by this part of their obedience, as he seems to import, then the same way we judge of the truth of men's profession of faith, when it shows itself by this selfsame obedience. Baptism being an obligation to all following duties' (Gal 3:26,27).
Ans. This your argument, being builded upon no more than a SEEMING import, and having been above ten times overthrown already; I might leave still with you, till your seeming import is come to a real one, and both to a greater persuasion upon your own conscience. But verily Sir, you grossly abuse your reader; must imports, yea, must seeming imports now stand for arguments, thereby to maintain your confident separation from your brethren? Yea, must such things as these, be the basis on which you build those heavy censures and condemnations you raise against your brethren, that cannot comply with you, because you want the word? A seeming import. But are these words of faith? or do the scriptures only help you to seeming imports, and me-hap-soes[17] for your practice? No, nor yet to them neither, for I dare boldly affirm it, and demand, if you can, to prove, that there is so much as a seeming import in all the word of God, that countenanceth your shutting men, better than ourselves, from the things and privileges of our Father's house. That to the Galatians, saith not, that Paul knew them to be the sons of God by faith, no other way, but by THIS part of their obedience; but puts them upon concluding themselves the sons of God, if they were baptized into the Lord Jesus, which could not, ordinarily, be known but unto themselves alone; because, being thus baptized, respecteth a special act of faith, which only God and him that hath, and acteth it, can be privy to. It is one thing for him that administereth, to baptize in the name of Jesus, and another thing for him that is the subject, by that to be baptize INTO Jesus Christ: Baptizing into Christ, is rather the act of the faith of him that is baptized, than his going into water and coming out again. But that Paul knew this to be the state of the Galatians no other way, but by their external act of being baptized with water, is both wild and unsound, and a miserable IMPORT indeed.
Your eighth argument is, 'If being baptized into Christ, be a putting on of Christ, as Paul expressed, then they have not put on Christ, in that sense he means, that are not baptized; if this putting on of Christ, doth not respect the visibility of Christianity; assign something else as its signification; great men's servants are known by their master's liveries, so are gospel believers by this livery of water baptism, that all that first trusted in Christ submitted unto; which is in itself as much an obligation to all gospel obedience, as circumcision was to keep the whole law.'
Ans. For a reply to the first part of this argument, go back to the answer to the seventh. Now that none have put on Christ in Paul's sense; yea, in a saving, in the best sense; but them that have, as you would have them, gone into water, will be hard for you to prove, yea, is ungodly for you to assert. Your comparing water baptism to a gentleman's livery, by which his name is known to be his, is fantastical. Go you but ten doors from where men have knowledge of you, and see how many of the world, or Christians, will know you by this goodly livery, to be one that hath put on Christ. What! known by water baptism to be one that hath put on Christ, as a gentleman's man is known to be his master's servant, by the gay garment his master gave him. Away fond man, you do quite forget the text. 'By THIS shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another' (John 13:35). That baptism is in itself obliging, to speak properly, it is false, for set it by itself, and it stands without the stamp of heaven upon it, and without its signification also: and how, as such, it should be obliging, I see not. Where you insinuate, it comes in the room of, and obligeth as circumcision: you say, you know not what (Acts 15:1,2). Circumcision was the initiating ordinance, but this you have denied to baptism. Further, circumcision then bound men to the whole obedience of the law, when urged by the false apostles, and received by an erroneous conscience (Gal 5:1-4). Would you thus urge water baptism! would you have men to receive it with such consciences? Circumcision in the flesh, was a type of circumcision in the heart, and not of water baptism (Rom 2:28,29; Phil 3:3).
Your ninth argument is, 'If it were commendable in the Thessalonians, that they followed the footsteps of the church of Judea (1 Thess 2:14), who it appears followed this order of adding baptized believers unto the church; then they that have found out another way of making church members, are not by that rule praiseworthy, but rather to be blamed; it was not what was since in corrupted times, but that which was from the beginning: the first churches were the purest pattern.'
Ans. That the text saith there was a church of Judea, I find not in 1 Thessalonians 2:14. And that the Thessalonians are commended for refusing to have communion with the unbaptized believers, for that is our question, prove it by the word, and then you do something. Again, that the commendations (1 Thess 2:14) do chiefly, or at all, respect their being baptized: or, because they followed the churches of God, which in Judea were in Christ Jesus, in the example of water baptism is quite beside the word. The verse runs thus: 'For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.' This text then commends them, not for that they were baptized with water, but, for that they stood their ground, although baptized with suffering, like them in Judea, for the name of the Lord Jesus. For suffering like things of their own countrymen, as they did of the Jews. Will you not yet leave off to abuse the word of God, and forbear turning it out of its place, to maintain your unchristian practice of rejecting the people of God, and excluding them their blessed privileges. The unbaptized believer, instead of taking shame for entering into fellowship without it, will be ready, I doubt, to put you to shame for bringing scriptures so much beside the purpose, and for stretching them so miserably to uphold you in your fancies.
Your tenth argument is, 'If so be, that any of the members at Corinth, Galatia, Colosse, Rome, or them that Peter wrote to, were not baptized, then Paul's arguments for the resurrection to them, or to press them to holiness from the ground (Rom 6; Col 2; 1 Cor 15) was out of doors, and altogether needless, yea, it bespeaks his ignorance, and throweth contempt upon the Spirit's wisdom (Heb 6; 1 Peter 3:21) by which he wrote; if that must be asserted as a ground to provoke them to such an end, which had no being: and if all the members of all those churches were baptized, why should any plead for an exemption from baptism, for any church member now?'
Ans. Suppose all, if all these churches were baptized, what then? that answereth not our question. We ask where you find it written, that those that are baptized, should keep men as holy, and as much beloved of the Lord Jesus as themselves, out of church communion, for want of light in water baptism. Why we plead for their admission, though ye see not yet, that this is their duty, is because we are not forbidden, but commanded to receive them, because God and Christ hath done it (Rom 14, 15).
Your eleventh argument is, 'If unbaptized persons must be received into churches, only because they are believers, though they deny baptism; then why may not others plead for the like privilege, that are negligent in any other gospel ordinance of worship, from the same ground of want of light, let it be what it will. So then as the consequence of this principle, churches may be made up of visible sinners, instead of visible saints.'
Ans. 1. I plead not for believers simply because they are believers, but for such believers of whom we are persuaded by the word, that God hath received them. 2. There are some of the ordinances, that be they neglected, the being of a church, as to her visible gospel constitution, is taken quite away; but baptism is none of them, it being no church ordinance as such, nor any part of faith, nor of that holiness of heart, or life, that sheweth me to the church to be indeed a visible saint. The saint is a saint before, and may walk with God, and be faithful with the saints, and to his own light also though he never be baptized. Therefore to plead for his admission, makes no way at all for the admission of the open prophane, or to receive, as you profess you do, persons unprepared to the Lord's table, and other solemn appointments.
Your twelfth argument is, 'Why should professors have more light in breaking of bread, than baptism? That this must be so urged for their excuse: Hath God been more sparing in making out his mind in the one, rather than the other? Is there more precepts or precedents for the supper, than baptism? Hath God been so bountiful in making out himself about the supper, that few or none that own ordinances scruple it? And must baptism be such a rock of offence to professors, that very few will enquire after it, or submit to it? Hath not man's wisdom interposed to darken this part of God's counsel? By which professors seem willingly led, though against so many plain commands and examples, written as with a sun beam, that he that runs may read? And must an advocate be entertained to plead for so gross a piece of ignorance, that the meanest babes of the first gospel times were never guilty of?'
Ans. Many words to little purpose. 1. Must God be called to an account by you, why he giveth more light about the supper than baptism? May he not shew to, or conceal from this, or another of his servants, which of his truths he pleaseth. Some of the members of the church at Jerusalem had a greater truth than this kept from them, for ought I know, as long as they lived (Acts 11:19), yet God was not called in question about it. 2. Breaking of bread, not baptism, being a church ordinance, and that such also as must be often reiterated; yea, it being an ordinance so full of blessedness, as lively to present union and communion with Christ to all the members that worthily eat thereof: I say, the Lord's supper being such, that while the members sit at that feast, they shew to each other the death and blood of the Lord, as they ought to do, till he comes (1 Cor 10:15-17, 11:25,26). The church as a church, is much more concerned in that, than in water baptism, both as to her faith and comfort; both as to her union and communion. 3. Your supposition, that very few professors will seriously inquire after water baptism, is too rude. What, must all the children of God, that are not baptized for want of light, be still stigmatised with want of serious inquiry after God's mind in it. 4. That I am an advocate, entertained to plead for so gross a piece of ignorance, as want of light in baptism, is but like the rest of your jumbling. I plead for communion with men, godly and faithful, I plead that they may be received, that God hath shewed us he hath received, and commanded we should receive them.
Your thirteenth argument is, 'If obedience must discover the truth of a man's faith to others, why must baptism be shut out, as if it was no part of gospel obedience? Is there no precept for this practice, that it must be thus despised, as a matter of little use? Or shall one of Christ's precious commands be blotted out of a Christian's obedience, to make way for a church fellowship of man's devising.'
Ans. 1. This is but round, round, the same thing over and over. That my obedience to water, is not a discovery of my faith to others, is evident, from the body of the Bible, we find nothing that affirms it. And I will now add, That if a man cannot shew himself a Christian without water baptism; he shall never shew either saint or sinner, that he is a Christian by it. 2. Who [soever] they are that despise it, I know not but that church membership may be without it, (seeing even you yourself have concluded it is no church ordinance, nor the entering ordinance) standeth both with scripture and reason, as mine arguments make manifest. So that all your arguments prove no more but this, 'That you are so wedded to your wordless notions, that charity can have no place with you.' Have you all this while so much as given me one small piece of a text to prove it unlawful for the church, to receive those whom she, by the word, perceiveth the Lord God and her Christ hath received? No: and therefore you have said so much as amounts to nothing.
Your last argument is, 'If the baptism of John was so far honoured and dignified, that they that did submit to it, are said to justify God; and those that did it not, are said to reject his counsel against themselves: so that their receiving, or rejecting the whole doctrine of God, hath its denomination from this single practice. And is there not as much to be said of the baptism of Christ, unless you will say it is inferior to John's in worth and use.'
Ans. 1. That our denomination of believers, and of our receiving the doctrine of the Lord Jesus, is not to be reckoned from our baptism, is evident; because according to our notion of it, they only that have before received the doctrine of the gospel, and so shew it us by their confession of faith, they only ought to be baptized. This might serve for an answer for all: but, 2. The Baptism of John was 'the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins' (Mark 1:4; Matt 3;6; Luke 3:3), of which water was but an outward signification. Now what is the baptism of repentance, but an unfeigned acknowledgment that they were sinners, and so stood in need of a Saviour, Jesus Christ. This baptism, or baptism under this notion, the Pharisees would not receive (Luke 7:29,30). For they 'trusted in themselves that they were righteous,' that they were 'not as other men,' that they had need of no repentance (Luke 18:9, 10:29, 15:7). Not but that they would have been baptized with water, might that have been without an acknowledgment that they were sinners (Matt 3:7); wherefore seeing the counsel of God respected rather the remission of sins by Jesus Christ, than the outward act of water baptism, ye ought not, as you do, by this your reasoning, to make it rather, at least in the revelation of it, to terminate in the outward act of being baptized, but in unfeigned and sound repentance, and the receiving of Jesus Christ by faith (Eph 1:7,8,11).
Further, A desire to submit to John's water baptism, or of being baptized by him in water, did not demonstrate by that single act, the receiving of the whole doctrine of God as you suggest. 'Why did John reject the Pharisees that would have been baptized (Matt 3:7), and Paul examine them that were?' (Acts 19:2,3). If your doctrine be true, why did they not rather say, Oh! seeing you desire to be baptized, seeing you have been baptized, you need not to be questioned any further; your submitting to John's water, to us is a sufficient testimony, even that single act, that you have received the whole doctrine of God. But I say, why did John call them vipers? And Paul asked them, Whether they had yet 'received the Holy Ghost?' Yea, it is evident, that a man may be desirous of water, that a man may be baptized, and neither own the doctrine of repentance, nor know on whom he should believe; evident, I say, and that by the same texts (Matt 3:7; Acts 19:2-4).
You have grounded therefore this your last argument, as also the rest, upon an utter mistake of things.
I COME NOW TO YOUR Questions; WHICH ALTHOUGH THEY BE MIXED WITH
GALL, I WILL WITH PATIENCE SEE IF I CAN TURN THEM INTO FOOD.
[Quest. 1.] Your first question is, 'I ask your own heart, whether popularity and applause of variety of professors, be not in the bottom of what you have said; that hath been your snare to pervert the right ways of the Lord, and to lead others into a path wherein we can find none of the footsteps of the flock in the first ages?'
Ans. Setting aside a retaliation, like your question, I say, and God knows I speak the truth, I have been tempted to do what I have done, by a provocation of sixteen years long; tempted, I say, by the brethren of your way: who, whenever they saw their opportunity, have made it their business to seek to rend us in pieces; mine ownself they have endeavoured to persuade to forsake the church; some they have rent quite off from us, others they have attempted and attempted to divide and break off from us, but by the mercy of God, have been hitherto prevented. A more large account you may have in my next, if you think good to demand it; but I thank God that I have written what I have written.
Quest. 2. 'Have you dealt brotherly, or like a Christian, to throw so much dirt upon your brethren, in print, in the face of the world, when you had an opportunity to converse with them of reputation amongst us, before printing, being allowed the liberty by them, at the same time for you to speak among them?'
Ans. I have thrown no dirt upon them, nor laid any thing to their charge, if their practice be warrantable by the word; but you have not been offended at the dirt yourselves have thrown at all the godly in the land that are not of our persuasion, in counting them unfit to be communicated with, or to be accompanied with in the house of God. This dirt you never complained of, nor would, I doubt, to this day, might you be still let alone to throw it. As to my book, it was printed before I spake with any of you, or knew whether I might be accepted of you. As to them of reputation among you, I know others not one tittle inferior to them, and have my liberty to consult with who I like best.
Quest. 3. 'Doth your carriage answer the law of love or civility, when the brethren used means to send for you for a conference, and their letter was received by you, that you should go out again from the city after knowledge of their desires, and not vouchsafe a meeting with them, when the glory of God, and the vindication of so many churches is concerned.'
Ans. The reason why I came not amongst you, was partly because I consulted mine own weakness, and counted not myself, being a dull headed man, able to engage so many of the chief of you, as I was then informed intended to meet me. I also feared, in personal disputes, heats and bitter contentions might arise, a thing my spirit hath not pleasure in: I feared also, that both myself and words would be misrepresented; and that not without cause, for if they that answer a book will alter, and screw arguments out of their place, and make my sentences stand in their own words, not mine, when I say my words are in a book to be seen, what would you have done, had I in the least, either in matter or manner, though but seemingly miscarried among you. As for the many churches which you say are concerned, as also the glory of God, I doubt not to say they are only your wordless opinions that are concerned; the glory of God is vindicated: We receive him that God hath received, and that 'to the glory of God' (Rom 15:7).
Quest. 4. 'Is it not the spirit of Diotrephes of old, in you, who loved to have the pre-eminence, that you are so bold to keep out all the brethren, that are not of your mind in this matter, from having any entertainment in the churches or meetings to which you belong, though you yourself have not been denied the like liberty, among them that are contrary minded to you? Is this the way of your retaliation? Or are you afraid lest the truth should invade your quarters?'
Ans. I can say, I would not have the spirit you talk of; what I have of it, God take it from me. But what was the spirit of Diotrephes? Why, not to receive the brethren into the church, and to forbid them that would (3 John 9,10). This do not I; I am for communion with saints, because they are saints: I shut none of the brethren out of the churches, nor forbid them that would receive them. I say again, shew me the man that is a visible believer, and that walketh with God; and though he differ with me about baptism, the doors of the church stand open for him, and all our heaven-born privileges he shall be admitted to them. But how came Diotrephes so lately into our parts? Where was he in those days that our brethren of the baptized way, would neither receive into the church, nor pray with men as good as themselves, because they were not baptized; but would either, like Quakers, stand with their hats on their heads, or else withdraw till we had done.
As to our not suffering those you plead for to preach in our assemblies, the reason is, because we cannot yet prevail with them, to repent of their church-rending principles. As to the retaliation, mind the hand of God, and remember Adonibezek (Judg 1:7). Let the truth come into our quarters and welcome, but sowers of discord, because the Lord hates it (Prov 6:19), we also ourselves will AVOID them (Rom 16:17,18).
Quest. 5. 'Is there no contempt cast upon the brethren, who desired your satisfaction, that at the same time, when you have opportunity to speak to them, instead of that, you committed the letters to others, by way of reflection upon them?'
Ans. It is no contempt at all to consult men more wise and judicious than him that wrote, or myself either. But why not consult with others. Is wisdom to die with you? Or do you count all that yourselves have no hand in, done to your disparagement?
Quest. 6. 'Did not your presumption prompt you to provoke them to printing, in your letter to them, when they desired to be found in no such practice, lest the enemies of truth should take advantage by it?'
Ans. What provoked you to print, will be best known at the day of judgment, whether your fear of losing your wordless opinion, or my plain answer to your letter: The words in my letter are, 'As for my book never defer its answer till you speak with me, for I strive not for mastery but truth.' Though you did not desire to write, yet with us there was continual labour to rend us to pieces, and to prevent that, was my first book written. And let who will take advantage, so the truth of God, and the edification of my brother be promoted.
Quest. 7. 'Whether your principle and practice is not equally against others as well as us, viz. Episcopal, Presbyterians, and Independents, who are also of our side, for our practice, though they differ with us about the subject of baptism. Do you delight to have your hand against every man?'
Ans. I own water baptism to be God's ordinance, but I make no idol of it. Where you call now the Episcopal to side with you, and also the Presbyterian, &c. you will not find them easily persuaded to conclude with you against me. They are against your manner of dipping, as well as the subject of water baptism; neither do you, for all you flatter them, agree together in all but the subject. Do you allow their sprinkling? Do you allow their signing with the cross? Why then have you so stoutly, an hundred times over, condemned these things as antichristian. I am not against every man, though by your abusive language you would set every one against me; but am for union, concord, and communion with saints, as saints, and for that cause I wrote my book.
To conclude,—1. In all I have said, I put a difference between my brethren of the baptized way; I know some are more moderate than some. 2. When I plead for the unbaptized, I chiefly intend those that are not so baptized as my brethren judge right, according to the first pattern. 3. If any shall count my papers worth the scribbling against, let him deal with my arguments, and things immediately depending upon them, and not conclude that he hath confuted a book, when he hath only quarrelled at words. 4. I have done when I have told you, that I strive not for mastery, nor to shew myself singular; but, if it might be, for union and communion among the godly. And count me not as an enemy, because I tell you the truth. 5. And now, dissenting brethren, I commend you to God, who can pardon your sin, and give you more grace, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Here Followeth Mr. Henry Jessey's Judgment upon the Same Argument.
'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' &c.—Romans 14:1
Whereas some suppose the receiving there mentioned, was but receiving into brotherly affection, such as were in church fellowship; but not a receiving of such as were weak into the church. For answer unto which consider,
That in the texts are two things to be inquired into. First,
What weakness of faith this is, that must not hinder receiving.
Secondly, by whom, and to what, he that is weak in the faith is
to be received?
First, To the first, What weakness of faith this is that must not hinder receiving, whether was it weakness in the graces of faith, or in the doctrine of faith? It is conceived that the first is included, but the second principally intended.
1. That some of the Lord's people are weak in the graces of faith, will be confessed by all (Mark 9:24; Luke 24:25) and that the Lord would have his lambs fed as well as his sheep, and his children as well as grown men, and that he hath given the right to gospel privileges, not to degrees of grace, but to the truth; 'him that is weak in the faith receive ye': or unto you, as some GOOD translations read it (Rom 14:1).[18]
2. It is supposed, that this command of receiving him that is weak in the faith, doth principally intend, that is weak in the doctrine of faith, and that not so much in the doctrine of justification, as in gospel institutions, as doth appear by the second and sixth verses: which shew, that it was in matters of practice, wherein some were weak, and at which others were offended; notwithstanding the glorious Lord who bears all his Israel upon his heart receives them (v 3) and commandeth, 'him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' or unto you.
Second, Therefore, here we are to inquire of the receiving in the text, By whom, and to what he that is weak in the faith, should be received. In which inquiry there are two parts. 1. By whom. 2. To what.
1. To the first. The text makes answer, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' or unto you; which must be the church at Rome, to whom the epistle was writ; as also to all 'beloved of God, called to be saints' (Rom 1:7). And as to them, so unto all churches and saints, Beloved and called throughout the world.
Note, That epistles are as well to direct how churches are to carry things towards saints without, as to saints within; and also toward all men so as to give no offence to Jew or Gentile, nor to the church of God (1 Cor 10:32).
2. The second part of the inquiry is, to what he that is weak in the faith is to be received? whether only unto mutual affection, as some affirm, as if he were in church fellowship before, that were weak in the faith? Or whether the text doth as well, if not rather intend, the receiving such as were, and are weak in the faith, Not only unto mutual affection if in the church, but unto church fellowship also, if they were out. For clearing of which consider, to whom the epistle was written (Rom 1:7). Not only to the church there, but unto all that were beloved of God, and called to be saints in all ages. And as at Rome it is like there then were, and in other places now are, saints weak in the faith, both in and out of church fellowship; and it is probable there then were, and elsewhere now are, those that will cast such out of their mutual affection. And if they will cast such out of their mutual affection that are within, no doubt they will keep out of their church fellowship those that are without.
Arg. 1. Whereas the Lord's care extends to all his, and if it were a good argument in the third verse, for them to receive those within, because God hath received them, it would be as good an argument to receive in those without, for God hath received them also: unless it could be proved, that all that were and are weak in the faith, were and are in church fellowship, which is not likely: for if they would cast such out of their affection that are within, they would upon the same account keep them out of church fellowship that were without: therefore as it is a duty to receive those within unto mutual affection, so it is no less a duty, by the text, to receive such weak ones as are without, into church fellowship.
Arg. 2. Is urged from the words themselves, which are, 'Receive him that is weak in the faith'; wherein the Lord puts NO limitation in this text or in any other; and who is he then that can restrain it, unless he will limit the Holy One of Israel? And how would such an interpretation foolishly charge the Lord, as if he took care ONLY of those within, but not like care of those without; whereas he commandeth them to receive them, and useth this motive, he had received them, and he receiveth those that are weak in the faith, if without, as well as those within.
From the example, to wit, That God had received them; whereas had he been of the church, they would have been persuaded of that before the motive was urged: for no true church of Christ's would take in, or keep in any, whom they judged the Lord had not received; but those weak ones were such as they questioned whether the Lord had received them, else the text had not been an answer sufficient for their receiving them: There might have been objected, they hold up Jewish observations of meats and days, which by the death of Christ were abolished, and so did deny some of the effects of his death; yet the Lord who was principally wronged could pass this by, and commandeth others to receive them also. And if it be a good argument to receive such as are weak in any thing, whom the Lord hath received, then there can be no good argument to reject for any thing for which the Lord will not reject them: for else the command in the first verse, and his example in the third verse were insufficient, without some other arguments unto the church, besides his command and example.
Some object, 'Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God' (Rom 15:7). And from thence supposing they were all in church fellowship before, whereas the text saith not so: for if you consider the eighth and ninth verses, you may see he speaks unto Jews and Gentiles in general, that if the Jews had the receiving, they should receive Gentiles; and if the Gentiles had the receiving, they should receive Jews, for had they not been on both sides commanded: the Jews might have said to the Gentiles, you are commanded to receive us, but we are not commanded to receive you; and if the weak had the receiving, they should receive the strong; and if the strong had the receiving, they should not keep out the weak; and the text is reinforced with the example of the Son's receiving us unto the glory of God, that as he receiveth Jews and poor Gentiles, weak and strong, in church fellowship, or out of church fellowship; so should they to the glory of God. And as the Lord Jesus received some, though they held some things more than were commanded, and some things less than were commanded, and as those that were weak and in church fellowship, so those that were weak and out of church fellowship; and that not only into mutual affection, but unto fellowship with himself; and so should they, not only receive such as were weak within into mutual affection, but such as were without, both to mutual affection and to church fellowship: or else such weak ones as were without, had been excluded by the text. Oh! how is the heart of God the Father and the Son set upon this, to have his children in his house, and in one another's hearts as they are in his, and are borne upon the shoulders and breasts of his Son their high priest? and as if all this will not do it, but the devil will divide them still, whose work it properly is; But 'the God of peace' will come in shortly, 'and bruise Satan under their feet,' as in Romans 16:20. And they will agree to be in one house, when they are more of one heart; in the mean time prays, as in chapter 15:5, 'Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus.'
I shall endeavour the answering of some objections, and leave it unto consideration.
Object. Some say this bearing or receiving, were but in things indifferent.
Ans. That eating, or forbearing upon a civil account, are things indifferent, is true: but not when done upon the account of worship, as keeping of days, and establishing Jewish observations about meats, which by the death of Christ are taken away; and it is not fairly to be imagined the same church at Rome looked so upon them as indifferent; nor that the Lord doth; that it were all alike to him to hold up Jewish observations, or to keep days or no days, right days or wrong days, as indifferent things, which is a great mistake, and no less than to make God's grace little in receiving such. For if it were but in things wherein they had not sinned, it were no great matter for the Lord to receive, and it would have been as good an argument or motive to the church, to say the things were indifferent, as to say the Lord had received them. Whereas the text is to set out the riches of grace to the vessels of mercy, as Romans 9:15. That as at first he did freely choose and accept them; so when they fail and miscarry in many things, yea about his worship also, although he be most injured thereby, yet he is first in passing it by, and persuading others to do the like. That as the good Samaritan did in the Old Testament,[19] so our good Samaritan doth in the New, when priest and Levite passed by, pastor and people pass by, yet he will not, but pours in oil, and carries them to his inn, and calls for receiving, and setting it upon his account.
Object. That this bearing with, and receiving such as are weak in the faith, must be limited to meats and days, and such like things that had been old Jewish observations, but not unto the being ignorant in, or doubting of any New Testament institution.
Ans. Where the Lord puts no limitation, men should be wary how they do it, for they must have a command or example, before they can limit this command; for although the Lord took this occasion from their difference about meats and days to give this command, yet the command is not limited there, no more than Matthew 12:1-8. That when they made use of his good law rigorously in the letter, he presently published an act of grace in the 7th verse, and tells them, Had they known what this meaneth, 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' they would not have condemned the guiltless; as also Matthew 9:13, 'Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice,' which is not to be limited unto what was the present occasion of publishing the command, but observed as a general rule upon all occasions, wherein mercy and sacrifice comes in competition, to shew the Lord will rather have a duty omitted that is due to him, than mercy to his creatures omitted by them. So in the text, when some would not receive such as were weak in the faith, as to matters of practice, the Lord was pleased to publish this act of grace: 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.' Now unless it be proved, that no saint can be weak in the faith in any thing but meats and days, or in some Old Testament observations, and that he ought not to be judged a saint that is weak in the faith as it relates to gospel institutions, in matters of practice; you cannot limit the text, and you must also prove his weakness SUCH, as that the Lord will not receive him; else the command in the first verse, and the reason or motive in the third verse, will both be in force upon you; to wit, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' or unto you,—'for God hath received him.'
Object. But some may object from 1 Corinthians 12:13, 'For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles.' Some there are that affirm this to be meant of water baptism, and that particular churches are formed thereby, and all persons are to be admitted and jointed unto such churches by water baptism.
Ans. That the baptism intended in the text is the Spirit's baptism, and not water baptism; and that the body the text intends, is not principally the church of Corinth, but all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, being baptized into one mystical body, as Ephesians 4:4, 'There is one body and one Spirit,' wherein there is set out the uniter and the united; therefore in the third verse they are exhorted to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The united are all the faithful in one body; into whom? in the fifth verse, in one Lord Jesus Christ: by what? one faith, one baptism, which CANNOT be meant of water baptism; for water baptism doth not unite all this body, for some of them never had water baptism, and are yet of this body, and by the Spirit gathered into one Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 1:10), 'both which are in heaven and in earth,' Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:16), 'that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross.' The instrument you have in verse 18, 'by one spirit' (Eph 3:6). 'That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body' (v 15). 'Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.' And the reasons of their keeping 'the unity of the Spirit,' in Ephesians 4:3 is laid down in verses 4, 5 being 'one body,' 'one Spirit,' having 'one hope,' 'one Lord,' 'one faith,' 'one baptism,' whether they were Jews or Gentiles, such as were in heaven or in earth, which CANNOT be meant of water baptism, for in that sense they had not all one baptism, nor admitted and united thereby. So in 1 Corinthians 12:13, 'For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit'; which cannot be meant of water baptism, in regard all the body of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, partook not thereof.
Object. But Ephesians 4:5 saith, there is but 'one baptism'; and by what hath been said, if granted, water baptism will be excluded, or else there is more baptisms than one.
Ans. It followeth not that because the Spirit will have no corrival, that therefore other things may not be in their places. That because the Spirit of God taketh the pre-eminence, therefore other things may not be subservient (1 John 2:27). The apostle tells them, That the anointing which they have received of him, abideth in them; and you need not, saith he, 'that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things.' By this some may think John excludes the ministry; no such matter, though the Holy Ghost had confirmed and instructed them so in the truth of the gospel, as that they were furnished against seducers in verse 26 yet you see John goes on still teaching them in many things: as also in Ephesians 4:11-13, 'He gave some, apostles;—some evangelists, and some pastors, and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.' So in the Spirit's baptism, though it have the pre-eminence, and appropriateth some things, as peculiar to itself, it doth not thereby destroy the use and end of water baptism, or any other ordinance in its place: for water baptism is a means to increase grace, and in it, and by it sanctification is forwarded, and remission of sins more cleared and witnessed; yet the giving grace, and regenerating and renewing, is the Holy Spirit's peculiar. Consider (Titus 3:5), 'By the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost'; Baptism being the outward sign of the inward graces wrought by the Spirit, a representation or figure, as in 1 Peter 3:21, 'The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us [not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,] by the resurrection of Jesus Christ'; not excluding water baptism; but shewing, That the spiritual part is chiefly to be looked at: though such as slight water baptism, as the Pharisees and lawyers did (Luke 7:30), reject the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized. And such as would set water baptism in the Spirit's place, exalt a duty against the deity and dignity of the Spirit, and to give the glory due unto him, as God blessed for ever, unto a duty.
By which mistake of setting up water baptism in the Spirit's place, and assigning it a work, which was never appointed unto it; of forming the body of Christ, either in general, as in 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5 or as to particular churches of Christ, we may see the fruit; that instead of being the means of uniting as the Spirit doth; that it hath not only rent his seamless coat, but divided his body which he hath purchased with his own blood, and opposed that great design of Father, Son, and Spirit, in uniting poor saints, thereby pulling in pieces what the Spirit hath put together. 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,—for God hath received him'; being such as the Spirit had baptized and admitted of the body of Christ, he would have his churches receive them also: whose baptism is the ONLY baptism, and so is called the ONE baptism. Therefore consider, whether such a practice, hath a command or an example, that persons must be joined into church fellowship by water baptism; for John baptized many, yet he did not baptize some into one church, and some into another, nor all into one church, as the church of Rome doth. And into what church did Philip baptize the eunuch, or the apostle the jailor and his house? And all the rest they baptized, were they not left free to join themselves for their convenience and edification? All which I leave to consideration. I might have named some inconveniences, if not absurdities that would follow the assertion: as to father the mistakes of the baptizers on the Spirit's act, who is not mistaken in any HE baptizeth; no false brethren creep in unawares into the mystical body by him; and also, how this manner of forming churches would suit a country, where many are converted, and willing to be baptized; but there being no church to be baptized into, how shall such a church state begin? The first must be baptized into no church, and the rest into him as the church, or the work stand still for want of a church.
Object. 'But God is a God of order, and hath ordained order in all the churches of Christ; and for to receive one that holds the baptism he had in his infancy, there is no command nor example for, and by the same rule children will be brought in to be church members.'
Ans. That God is a God of order, and hath ordained orders in all the churches of Christ is true; and that this is one of the orders to receive him that is weak in the faith, is as true. And though there be no example or command, in so many words, receive such an one that holds the baptism he had in his infancy, nor to reject such a one: but there is a command to receive him that is weak in the faith, without limitation, and it is like this might not be a doubt in those days, and so not spoken of in particular.
But the Lord provides a remedy for all times in the text, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye'; for else receiving would not be upon the account of saintship; but upon knowing, and doing all things according to rule and order, and that must be perfectly, else for to deny any thing, or to affirm too much is disorderly, and would hinder receiving: but the Lord seals not so with his people, but accounts 'LOVE the fulfilling of the law,' though they be ignorant in many things both as to knowing and doing; and receives them into communion and fellowship with himself, and would have others do the same also. And if he would have so much bearing in the apostle's days, when they had infallible helps to expound truths unto them, much more now, the church hath been so long in the wilderness and in captivity, and not that his people should be driven away in the dark day, though they are sick and weak (Eze 34:16,21). And that it should be supposed such tenderness would bring in children in age to be church members, yea and welcome, if any body could prove them in the faith, though never so weak; for the text is, 'Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye': It is not He, and his wife and children, unless it can be proved they are IN THE FAITH.
Object. 'By this, some ordinances may be lost or omitted, and is it to be supposed the Lord would suffer any of his ordinances to be lost or omitted in the Old or New Testament, or the right use of them, and yet own such for true churches, and what reason can there be for it.?'
Ans. The Lord hath suffered some ordinances to be omitted and lost in the Old Testament, and yet owned the church. Though circumcision were omitted in the wilderness, yet he owned them to be his church (Acts 7:38); and many of the ordinances were lost in the captivity: see Ainsworth upon Exodus 28, 30 &c. which shewed what the high-priest was to put on, and were not to be omitted upon pain of death, as the Urim and Thummim, yet being lost, and several other ordinances, the ark, with the mercy-seat and cherubims, the fire from heaven, the majesty and divine presence, &c. yet, he owns the second temple, though short of the first, and filled it with his glory, and honoured it with his Son, being a member and a minister therein (Mal 3:1), 'The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple': So in the New Testament, since their wilderness condition, and great and long captivity, there is some darkness and doubts, and want of light in the best of the Lord's people, in many of his ordinances, and that for several ages, and yet how hath the Lord owned them for his churches, wherein he is to have glory and praise 'throughout all ages' (Eph 3:21). And so should we own them, unless we will condemn the generation of the just. It must be confessed, That if exact practice be required, and clearness in gospel institutions before communion; who dare be so bold as to say his hands are clean, and that he hath done all the Lord's commands, as to institutions in his worship? and must not confess the change of times doth necessitate some variation, if not alteration, either in the matter or manner of things according to primitive practice; yet owned for true churches, and received as visible saints, though ignorant either wholly, or in great measure, in laying on of hands, singing, washing of feet, and anointing with oil, in the gifts of the Spirit, which is the Urim and Thummim of the gospel. And it cannot be proved, that the churches were so ignorant in the primitive times, nor yet that such were received into fellowship; yet now herein it is thought meet their should be bearing, and why not in baptism, especially in such as own it for an ordinance, though in some things miss it, and do yet shew their love unto it, and unto the Lord, and unto his law therein, that they could be willing to die for it rather than to deny it; and to be baptized in their blood; which sheweth, they hold it in conscience their duty, while they have further light from above, and are willing to hear and obey as far as they know, though weak in the faith, as to clearness in gospel institutions: surely the text is on their side, or else it will exclude all the former, 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,—but not to doubtful disputations' (Rom 14:5). Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and such the Lord hath received.
As to the query, What reason is there, why the Lord should suffer any of his ordinances to be lost?
Ans. If there were no reason to be shewn, it should teach us silence, for he doth nothing without the highest reason; and there doth appear some reasons in the Old Testament, why those ordinances of Urim and Thummim, &c. were suffered to be lost in the captivity, that they might long and look for the Lord Jesus, the priest, that was to stand up with Urim and Thummim (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65), which the Lord by this puts them upon the hoping for, and to be in the expectation of so great a mercy, which was the promise of the Old Testament, and all the churches losses in the New Testament. By all the dark night of ignorance she hath been in, and long captivity she hath been under, and in her wandering wilderness state, wherein she hath rather been fed with manna from heaven, than by men upon earth; and after all her crosses and losses, the Lord lets light break in by degrees, and deliverance by little and little; and she is 'coming out of the wilderness leaning upon her beloved'; and the Lord hath given the valley of Achor for a door of hope, that ere long she may receive the promise of the gospel richly, by the Spirit, to be poured upon us from on high (Isa 32:15), and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field become a forest, and then the Lord will take away the covering cast over all people (Isa 25:7), and the vail that is spread over all nations (Isa 11:9); 'For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea' (v 13). Then 'Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.' Thus will the God of peace bruise Satan under foot shortly; and one reason why the Lord may suffer all this darkness and differences that have been, and yet are, is, that we might long and look for this blessed promise of the gospel, the pourings out of the Spirit.
Object. But many authors do judge, that the weak and strong were all in church fellowship before, and that the receiving (Rom 14:1) was but into mutual affection.
Ans. It ought to be seriously weighed how any differ from so many worthy authors, is confessed; to whom the world is so much beholden for their help in many things; but it would be of dangerous consequence to take all for granted they say, and unlike the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11). Though they had some infallible teachers, yet they took not their words or doctrine upon trust; and there may be more ground to question expositors on this text, in regard their principles necessitate them to judge that the sense; for if it be in their judgments a duty to compel all to come in, and to receive all, and their children, they must needs judge by that text, they were all of the church, and in fellowship, before their scrupling meats and days, because that is an act of grown persons at years of discretion; and therefore the receiving is judged by them to be only into mutual affection, for it is impossible for them to hold their opinion, and judge otherwise of the text; for in baptism, they judge infants should be received into church fellowship; and then scrupling meats and days must needs be after joining. Their judgments might as well be taken, that it is a duty to baptize infants, as that they can judge of this text rightly, and hold their practice.
Object. But no uncircumcised person was to eat the passover (Exo 12). And doth not the Lord as well require the sign of baptism now, as of circumcision then? and is there not like reason for it?
Ans. The Lord, in the Old Testament, expressly commanded no uncircumcised person should eat the passover (Exo 12:48; Eze 44:9), that no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, or uncircumcised in flesh, should enter into his sanctuary.[20] And had the Lord commanded, that no unbaptized person should enter into his churches, it had been clear. And no doubt, Christ was as faithful as a son in all his house, as Moses was as a servant; and although there had been little reason, if the Lord had commanded it so to be, yet in God's worship we must not make the likeness of any thing in our reason, but the will of God, the ground of duty; for upon such a foundation some would build the baptizing of infants, because it would be like unto circumcision, and so break the second commandment, in making the likeness of things of their own contrivance, of force with institutions in the worship of God.
The most that I think can be said is, That we have no gospel example for receiving without baptism, or rejecting any for want of it. Therefore it is desired, what hath been said, may be considered; lest while we look for an example, we do not overlook a command upon a mistake, supposing that they were all in church fellowship before; whereas the text saith not so, but 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,' or unto you.
We may see also how the Lord proceeds under the law, though he accounts those things that were done contrary to his law, sinful, though done ignorantly; yet never required the offender to offer sacrifice till he knew thereof (Lev 5:5 compared with vv 15,16). And that may be a man's own sin through his ignorance; that though it may be another's duty to endeavour to inform him in, yet not thereupon to keep him out of his Father's house; for surely the Lord would not have any of his children kept out, without we have a word for it. And though they scruple some meats in their Father's house, yet it may be dangerous for the stronger children to deny them all the rest of the dainties therein, till the weak and sick can eat strong meat; whereas Peter had meat for one, and milk for another; and Peter must feed the poor lambs as well as the sheep; and if others will not do it, the great shepherd will come ere long and look up what hath been driven away (Eze 34:4,11; Isa 40:11). He will feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs into his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.
Footnotes:
1. Who is there that reads these revilings of Bunyan for his poverty and mean descent, but must be struck with the unsearchable wisdom of the Almighty. The salvation of the church requires that 'GOD should be manifest in the flesh.' Does he appear in his glory? Does he honour riches, and power, and wisdom, by descending in one of these classes? No; the poor, the despised in this world, claim kindred with him—'Is not this the carpenter's son?' 'Have any of the rulers or pharisees believed on him?' Even with these examples before them, his Baptist ministerial brethren, who sat at his feet when he came to London, and listened to his eloquence, now, in their hot dispute, revile and taunt him with his imprisonment—his poverty—his want of book learning. Refused the communion of some eminent earthly saints, it drove him to closer communion with his God, and the prison, became a Bethel—none other than the house of God, and the very gate of heaven; and in a holy, happy frame of soul, he breathes forgiveness: 'What Mr. Kiffin hath done in the matter I forgive, and love him never the worse'!!—Ed.
2. How do these verses cut down all the carnal pride of man. Who is THE BLESSED? not the rich, or powerful, or worldly wise, but those that delight in the word of God.—Ed.
3. Nearly all the Baptist churches of that day limited communion to them who had been baptized in water on a profession of their faith. It is very different now; Bunyan's principles have spread, are spreading, and must soon become universal.—Ed.
4. Mr. H. D'Anvers: 'A seventh end of baptism is, that the baptized person may orderly thereby have an entrance into the visible church. None were esteemed members, or did partake of its ordinances, before they were baptized, being so God's hedge or boundary.'—Treatise of Baptism, p. 20, ed. 1674.
5. A modern writer, in a critique on Bunyan, says that he did as much justice to grace as his Calvinism would allow him!! May all the world be such Calvinists.—Ed.
6. 'Without the church,' previous to having entered into the church, a personal obedience to the divine command; having repented, then be baptized: neither of these are duties to be performed by the church, as such, but individually.—Ed.
7. 'To themselves,' to the particular churches only to which they were written. Contrary to the word, 'All scripture is given—to be profitable to the man of God' in every church (2 Tim 3:16).—Ed.
8. To these ten commandments must be added that new command given by the Saviour, 'That ye love one another' (John 12:34); or rather the evangelical sum of the whole law, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself.' This happy state of mind can only be attained by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. How awful the thought that multitudes of professing Christians rely upon outward ceremonies, a fleshly carnal confidence in ordinances, while they are dead as to union with God and to spiritual communion with his saints. Reader, how is it with your own soul.—Ed.
9. Bunyan's adversaries were wrong in stating that all the expositors agreed in referring this 'one baptism' to be that in or with water. John Caime, 1662, refers to 1 Corinthians 12:13, as an illustration of Ephesians 4:5, 'One baptism,' 'by one SPIRIT are we all baptized.' The Assembly's Annotations, 1657, infers that 'one' means 'once,' and refers to the Nicene creed, which says, 'one baptism for the remission of sins'; this surely cannot mean that the application of water remits sins. Diodati, 1648, is silent on this subject. Dr. Hammond, 1653, says, 'the same vow to be administered to all.' Very similar to this is the Dutch annotations of Theodore Haak.—Ed.
10. Heaven forbid that we should be afraid or ashamed of saying that Christ is better than water baptism. Christ is the heavenly manna, the sweet, pleasant, nourishing food of the soul. Baptism is only once for life, but Christ is our essential food all through the wilderness—every hour of life until we enter the gates of the celestial and eternal city.—Ed.
11. While we acknowledge the importance of water baptism, to which Christ submitted, yet we do well to consider that it was not intended as a means of purifying his infinite purity; no more does it purify the believer who follows his Redeemer in this ordinance. He was as much a believer before as he is after the ceremony. He submits to it as an act of obedience to the divine command, in the humble hope that his faith may be strengthened and his soul refreshed.—Ed.
12. 'The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God' (James 1:20). The angry passions of man work evil. Such fiery zeal is contrary to the spirit of Christ. The ignorant must be won by meekness to embrace the truth.—Ed.
13. It becomes all prayerfully to follow divine commands in ALL THINGS. Nothing is indifferent or non-essential that God hath ordained for the believer. But if disciples differ about days, or meats, or water, ought such differences to prevent their communion and fellowship more than differences in personal stature, or beauty, or in mental powers. Uniformity in anything but love to God and to each other is a fool's paradise, contrary to the experience of the apostolic and all ages, and opposed to every law of nature.—Ed.
14. This typographical error in 'The Reasons of my Practice' is corrected in this edition for the first time.—Ed.
15. The doctrine of the real presence, called transubstantiation, was the test of adherence to the Romish church, which unless all persons pretended to believe they were sacrificed with brutal ferocity.—Ed.
16. In Bunyan's days, both the laws of the land, the judges, and the commonalty, gave credence to the wicked gambols of wizards and witches. Many a poor iniquitous old woman, from some mysterious hints of her power to tell fortunes, or to gratify the revengeful feelings of her neighbours, was put to a cruel death. More enlightened times have dissipated this illusion, and driven these imaginary imps of darkness into benighted countries.—Ed.
17. 'Me-hap-soes,' a contraction of 'it may so happen.'—Ed.
18. Tyndale, and all the early English translations, rend it 'unto you,' until the Elisabethan State Bible, called the Bishop's, in 1568. Do not the words mean that Christians are to receive such as are weak in the faith into their hearts by love, without troubling their heads with perplexing disputes?—Ed.
19. Under the Old Testament dispensation; the parable or history is recorded in Luke 10.—Ed.
20. We cannot offer to God any acceptable sacrifice until spiritually baptized. First joined to God by a living faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, and then bringing forth the fruits of this internal and purifying baptism, we must give ourselves to his church in the bonds of the gospel.—Ed.
***
PEACEABLE PRINCIPLES AND TRUE: OR, A BRIEF ANSWER TO MR. D'ANVER'S AND MR. PAUL'S BOOKS AGAINST MY CONFESSION OF FAITH, AND DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENT ABOUT BAPTISM NO BAR TO COMMUNION.
Wherein Their Scriptureless Notions Are Overthrown, and My Peaceable Principles Still Maintained.
'Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?'—Psalm 58:1
Sir,
I have received and considered your short reply to my differences in judgment about water baptism no bar to communion; and observe, that you touch not the argument at all: but rather labour what you can, and beyond what you ought, to throw odiums upon your brother for reproving you for your error, viz. 'That those believers that have been baptized after confession of faith made by themselves, ought and are in duty bound to exclude from their church fellowship, and communion at the table of the Lord, those of their holy brethren that have not been so baptized.' This is your error. Error, I call it, because it is not founded upon the word, but a mere human device; for although I do not deny, but acknowledge, that baptism is God's ordinance; yet I have denied, that baptism was ever ordained of God to be a wall of division between the holy and the holy; the holy that are, and the holy that are not, so baptized with water as we. You, on the contrary, both by doctrine and practice, assert that it is; and therefore do separate yourselves from all your brethren that in that matter differ from you; accounting them, notwithstanding their saving faith and holy lives, not fitly qualified for church communion, and all because they have not been, as you, baptized. Further, you count their communion among themselves unlawful, and therefore unwarrantable; and have concluded, 'they are joined to idols, and that they ought not to be shewed the pattern of the house of God, until they be ashamed of their sprinkling in their infancy, and accept of and receive baptism as you.' Yea, you count them as they stand, not the churches of God; saying, 'We have no such custom, nor the churches of God.' At this I have called for your proofs, the which you have attempted to produce; but in conclusion have shewed none other, but 'That the primitive churches had those they received, baptized before so received.'
I have told you, that this, though it were granted, cometh not up to the question; for we ask not, 'whether they were so baptized? But whether you find a word in the Bible that justifieth your concluding that it is your duty to exclude those of your holy brethren that have not been so baptized?' From this you cry out, that I take up the arguments of them that plead for infant baptism: I answer, I take up no other argument but your own, viz. 'That there being no precept, precedent, nor example in all the scripture, for our excluding our holy brethren that differ in this point from us, therefore we ought not to dare to do it,' but contrariwise to receive them;[1] because God hath given us sufficient proof that himself hath received them, whose example in this case he hath commanded us to follow (Rom 14:3,15). This might serve for an answer to your reply. But because, perhaps, should I thus conclude, some might make an ill use of my brevity; I shall therefore briefly step after you, and examine your short reply; at least, where shew of argument is.
Your first five pages are spent to prove me either proud or a liar; for inserting in the title-page of my 'Differences,' &c. that your book was written by the Baptist, or brethren of your way.
In answer to which; whoso readeth your second, your fifth and sixth questions to me, may not perhaps be easily persuaded to the contrary; but the two last in your reply, are omitted by you; whether for verity's sake, or because you were conscious to yourself, that the sight of them would overthrow your insinuations, I leave to the sober to judge. But put the case I had failed herein, Doth this warrant your unlawful practice?
You ask me next, 'How long is it since I was a Baptist?' and then add, 'It is an ill bird that bewrays his own nest.'
Ans. I must tell you, avoiding your slovenly language, I know none to whom that title is so proper as to the disciples of John. And since you would know by what name I would be distinguished from others; I tell you, I would be, and hope I am, A CHRISTIAN; and choose, if God should count me worthy, to be called a Christian, a Believer, or other such name which is approved by the Holy Ghost (Acts 11:26). And as for those factious titles of Anabaptists, Independents, Presbyterians, or the like, I conclude, that they came neither from Jerusalem, nor Antioch, but rather from hell and Babylon; for they naturally tend to divisions, 'you may know them by their fruits.'
Next, you tell us of your goodly harmony in London; or of the 'amicable christian correspondency betwixt those of divers persuasions there, until my turbulent and mutineering spirit got up.'
Ans. The cause of my writing, I told you, which you have neither disapproved in whole, nor in part. And now I ask what kind of christian correspondency you have with them? Is it such as relateth to church communion; or such only as you are commanded to have with every brother that walketh disorderly, that they may be ashamed of their church communion, which you condemn? if so, your great flourish will add no praise to them; and why they should glory in a correspondency with them as Christians, who yet count them under such deadly sin, which will not by any means, as they now stand, suffer you to admit them to their Father's table, to me is not easy to believe.
Farther, Your christian correspondency, as you call it, will not keep you now and then, from fingering some of their members from them; nor from teaching them that you so take away, to judge and condemn them that are left behind: Now who boasteth in this besides yourself, I know not.
Touching Mr. Jesse's judgment in the case in hand, you know it condemneth your practice; and since in your first, you have called for an author's testimony, I have presented you with one, whose arguments you have not condemned.
For your insinuating my abusive and unworthy behaviour, as the cause of the brethren's attempting to break our Christian communion; it is not only false but ridiculous. False; for they have attempted to make me also one of their disciples, and sent to me, and for me for that purpose. Besides, it is ridiculous; surely their pretended order, and as they call it, our disorder, was the cause; or they must render themselves very malicious, to seek the overthrow of a whole congregation, for, if it had been so, the unworthy behaviour of one.
Now, since you tell me 'That Mr. Kiffin hath no need of my forgiveness for the wrong he hath done me in his epistle.'
I ask, did he tell you so? But let it lie as it doth; I will at this time turn his argument upon him, and desire his direct answer: There being no precept, precedent or example for Mr. Kiffin to exclude his holy brethren from Christian communion that differ with him about baptism, he ought not to do it; but there is neither precept, precedent, nor example; therefore, &c.
You blame me for writing his name at length: but I know he is not ashamed of his name: and for you, though at the remotest rate, to insinuate it, must needs be damage to him.
Your artificial squibbling[2] suggestions to the world about myself, imprisonment, and the like I freely bind unto me as an ornament among the rest of my reproaches, till the Lord shall wipe them off at his coming. But they are no argument that you have a word that binds you to exclude the holy brethren communion.
Now what if, as you suggest, the sober Dr. Owen, though he told me and others at first he would write an epistle to my book, yet waved it afterwards; this is also to my advantage; because it was through the earnest solicitations of several of you that at that time stopped his hand; And perhaps it was more for the glory of God that truth should go naked into the world, than as seconded by so mighty an armour-bearer as he.
You tell me also, that some of the sober Independents have shewed dislike to my writing on this subject: What then? If I should also say, as I can without lying, that several of the Baptists have wished yours burnt before it had come to light; is your book ever the worse for that?
You tell us, you meddle not with Presbyterians, Independents, mixed Communionists (a new name), but are for liberty for all according to their light.
Ans. I ask then, suppose an holy man of God, that differeth from you, as those above-named do, in the manner of water baptism; I say, suppose such an one should desire communion with you, yet abiding by his own light, as to the thing in question, Would you receive him to fellowship? If no, do you not dissemble?
But you add, 'If unbaptized believers do not walk with us, they may walk with them with whom they are better agreed.'
Ans. Then it seems you do but flatter them. You are not, for all you pretend to give them their liberty, agreed they should have it with you. Thus do the Papists give the Protestants their liberty, because they can neither will nor choose.
Again, But do you not follow them with clamours and out-cries, that their communion, even amongst themselves, is unwarrantable? Now, how then do you give them their liberty? Nay, do not even these things declare that you would take it away if you could?
'For the time that I have been a Baptist (say you ) I do not remember that ever I knew that one unbaptized person did so much as offer themselves to us for church fellowship.'
Ans. This is no proof of your love to your brethren; but rather an argument that your rigidness was from that day to this so apparent, that those good souls despaired to make such attempts; we know they have done it elsewhere, where they hoped to meet with encouragement.
You seem to retract your denial of baptism to be the initiating ordinance. And indeed Mr. D'Anvers told me, that you must retract that opinion, and that he had, or would speak to you to do it; yet by some it is still so acknowledged to be; and in particular, by your great helper, Mr. Denne, who strives to maintain it by several arguments; but your denial may be a sufficient confutation to him; so I leave you together to agree about it, and conclude you have overthrown him.
But it seems though you do not now own it to be the inlet into a particular church; yet, as you tell us of your last, 'you never denied that baptism doth not make a believer a member of the universal, orderly, church visible. And in this Mr. D'Anvers and you agree.' 'Persons enter into the visible church thereby,' saith he.
Ans. Universal, that is, the whole church: This word now comprehendeth all the parts of it, even from Adam to the very world's end, whether in heaven or earth, &c. Now that [water] baptism makes a man a member of this church, I do not yet believe, nor can you shew me why I should. 2. The universal, orderly church. What church this should be, if by orderly you mean harmony or agreement in the outward parts of worship, I do not understand neither.
And yet thus you should mean, because you add the word visible to all at the last; 'The universal, orderly, visible church.' Now I would yet learn of this brother where this church is; for if it be visible, he can tell and also shew it. But, to be short, there is no such church: the universal church cannot be visible; a great part of that vast body being already in heaven, and a great part as yet, perhaps, unborn.
But if he should mean by universal, the whole of that part of this church that is on earth, then neither is it 'visible' nor 'orderly.' 1. Not visible; for the part remains always to the best man's eye utterly invisible. 2. This church is not orderly; that is, hath not harmony in its outward and visible parts of worship; some parts opposing and contradicting the other most severely. Yea, would it be uncharitable to believe that some of the members of this body could willingly die in opposing that which others of the members hold to be a truth of Christ? As for instance at home; could not some of those called Baptists die in opposing infant baptism? And again, some of them that are for infant baptism die for that as a truth? Here therefore is no order, but an evident contradiction: and that too in such parts of worship, as both count visible parts of worship indeed.
So then by 'universal, orderly, visible church,' this brother must mean those of the saints only that have been, or are baptized as we; this is clear, because baptism, saith he, maketh a believer a member of this church; his meaning then is, that there is an universal, orderly, visible church, and they alone are the Baptists; and that every one that is baptized is by that made a member of the universal, orderly, visible church of Baptists, and that the whole number of the rest of saints are utterly excluded.
But now if other men should do as this man, how many universal churches should we have? An 'universal, orderly, visible church of Independents'; an 'universal, orderly, visible church of Presbyterians,' and the like. And who of them, if as much confused in their notions as this brother, might not, they judging by their own light, contend for their universal church, as he for his? But they have more wit.
But suppose that this unheard of fictitious church were the only true universal church; yet whoever they baptize must be a visible saint first, and if a visible saint, then a visible member of Christ; and if so, then a visible member of his body, which is the church, before they be baptized; now he which is a visible member of the church already, that which hath so made him, hath prevented all those claims that by any may be made or imputed to this or that ordinance to make him so (Acts 8:37, 19:17, 16:33). His visibility is already; he is already a visible member of the body of Christ, and after that baptized. His baptism then neither makes him a member nor a visible member of the body of Jesus Christ.
You go on, 'That I said it was consent that makes persons members of particular churches is true.'
Ans. But that it is consent and nothing else, consent without faith, &c., is false. Your after-endeavour to heal your unsound saying will do you no good: 'Faith gives being to, as well as probation for membership.'
What you say now of the epistles, that they were written to particular saints, and those too out of churches as well as in, I always believed: but in your first you were pleased to say, 'You were one of them that objected against our proofs out of the epistles, because they were written to particular churches, [intending these baptized] and that they were written to other saints, would be hard for me to prove': but you do well to give way to the truth.
What I said about baptism's being a PEST, take my words as they lie, and I stand still thereto: 'Knowing that Satan can make any of God's ordinances a PEST and plague to his people, even baptism, the Lord's table, and the holy scriptures; yea, the ministers also of Jesus Christ may be suffered to abuse them, and wrench them out of their place.' Wherefore I pray, if you write again, either consent to, or deny this position, before you proceed in your outcry.
But I must still continue to tell you, though you love not to hear thereof, That supposing your opinion hath hold of your conscience, if you might have your will, you would make inroads and outroads too in all the churches that are not as you in the land. You reckon that church privileges belong not to them who are not baptized as we, saying, 'How can we take these privileges from them before they have them, we keep them from a disorderly practice of ordinances, especially among ourselves'; intimating you do what you can also among others: and he that shall judge those he walketh not with, or say, as you, that they, like Ephraim, are 'joined to an idol, and ought to repent and be ashamed of that idol before they be shewed the pattern of the house'; and then shall back all with the citation of a text; doth it either in jest or in earnest; if in jest it is abominable; if in earnest his conscience is engaged; and being engaged, it putteth him upon doing what he can to extirpate the thing he counteth idolatrous and abominable, out of the churches abroad, as well as that he stands in relation unto. This being thus, it is reasonable to conclude, you want not an heart, but opportunity for your inroads and outroads among them.
Touching those five things I mentioned in my second; you should not have counted they were found no where, because not found under that head which I mention: and now lest you should miss them again, I will present you with them here.
1. 'Baptism is not the initiating ordinance. 2. That though it was, the case may so fall out, that members might be received without it. 3. That baptism makes no man a visible saint. 4. That faith, and a life becoming the ten commandments, should be the chief and most solid argument with churches to receive to fellowship. 5. That circumcision in the flesh was a type of circumcision in the heart, and not of water baptism.' To these you should have given fair answers, then you had done like a workman.
Now we are come where you labour to insinuate, 'that a transgression against a positive precept, respecting instituted worship, hath been punished with the utmost severity that God hath executed against men, on record, on this side hell.'
Ans. Mr. D'Anvers says, 'That to transgress a positive precept respecting worship, is a breach of the first and second commandments.' If so, then it is for the breach of them, that these severe rebukes befall the sons of men. 2. But you instance the case of Adam his eating the forbidden fruit; yet to no great purpose. Adam's first transgression was, that he violated the law that was written in his heart; in that he hearkened to the tempting voice of his wife; and after, because he did eat of the tree: he was bad then before he did eat of the tree; which badness was infused over his whole nature; and then he bare this evil fruit of eating things that God hath forbidden (Gen 3). Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or the tree bad, and his fruit bad (Matt 7:17; Luke 6:43,44). Men must be bad, ere they do evil; and good, ere they do good. Again, which was the greatest judgment, to be defiled and depraved, or to be put out of paradise, do you in your next determine.
But as to the matter in hand, What positive precept do they transgress that will not reject him that God bids us receive, if he want light in baptism?
As for my calling for scripture to prove it lawful thus to exclude them; blame me for it no more; verily I still must do it; and had you but one to give, I had had it long before this. But you wonder I should ask for a scripture to prove a negative.
Ans. 1. Are you at that door, my brother? If a drunkard, a swearer, or whoremonger should desire communion with you, and upon your refusal, demand your grounds; would you think his demands such you ought not to answer? would you not readily give him by SCORES? So, doubtless would you deal with us, but that in this you are without the lids[3] of the Bible. 2. But again, you have acted as those that must produce a positive rule. 'You count it your duty, a part of your obedience to God, to keep those out of church fellowship that are not baptized as you.' I then demand what precept bids you do this? where are you commanded to do it?
You object, That in Ephesians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 is not meant of Spirit baptism: but Mr. Jesse says it is not, cannot be the baptism with water: and you have not at all refuted him. And now for the church in the wilderness; 'You thought, as you say, I would have answered myself in the thing'; but as yet I have not, neither have you. But let us see what you urge for an answer.
I. Say you, 'Though God dispensed with their obedience to circumcision in that time (Gen 17; Exo 12) it follows not that you or I should dispense with the ordinance of water baptism now.'
Ans. God 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 God's allowance, as you affirm. Now if they might dispense with circumcision, though the initiating ordinance; why may not we receive God's holy ones into fellowship, since we are not forbidden it, but commanded; yea, why should we make water baptism, which God never ordained to that end, a bar to shut out and let in to church communion?
II. You ask, 'Was circumcision 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 God 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 circumcise their children the eighth day; especially considering to circumcise 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 circumcised, as in the wilderness where they were not. And if carnal or outward safety had been the argument, doubtless they would not have circumcised themselves in the sight, as it were, of one and thirty kings (Josh 5, 12). I say, they would not have circumcised 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 circumcised.
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 circumcision; 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 passover 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 asserting, 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 asserting, '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 God, 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 God 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 God'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 God to warrant you, exclude your brother from communion; your brother whom God 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 God 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 God 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 godliness. 3. This also, makes laws, where God 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 God never yet made a wall of division between us; did, and doth, and will prevail with God 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 God, 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 God 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 passing 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 passing 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 passing 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, God 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 pass 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 God'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 ungodly attempts; but Moses continuing to make peace betwixt them, the same person attempted to charge him with a murderous and bloody 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 godly. 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 assault 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 God, 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 God' (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 God: consequently telling thee, that those that receive such a brother are not (let them talk while they will) any of the churches of God: see their charity, their candour and love, in the midst of their great pretensions of love.
But be thou assured, christian reader, that for these their uncharitable words and actions, they have not footing in the word of God, 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 assault.
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.
This I thank God for, that some of the brethren of this way, are of late more moderate than formerly, and that those that retain their former sourness still, are left by their brethren, to the vinegar of their own spirits, their brethren ingeniously confessing, that could these of their company bear it, they have liberty in their own souls to communicate with saints as saints, though they differ about water baptism.
Well, God banish bitterness out of the churches, and pardon them that are the maintainers of schisms and divisions among the godly. 'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; [farther it is] As the dew of Hermon, that descended upon the mountains of Zion: [Mark] for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore' (Psa 133).
I was advised by some, who considered the wise man's proverb, not to let Mr. Paul pass with all his bitter invectives, but I consider that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God; therefore I shall leave him to the censure and rebuke of the sober, where I doubt not but his unsavoury ways with me will be seasonably brought to his remembrance. Farewell.
I am thine to serve thee, Christian, so long as I can look out at those eyes, that have had so much dirt thrown at them by many.
J. Bunyan
Of the Love of Christ
The love of Christ, poor I may touch upon:
But 'tis unsearchable. Oh! there is none
Its large dimensions can comprehend,
Should they dilate thereon, world without end.
When we had sinned, in his zeal he sware,
That he upon his back our sins would bear.
And since unto sin is entailed death,
He vowed, for our sins he'd lose his breath.
He did not only say, vow, or resolve,
But to astonishment did so involve
Himself in man's distress and misery,
As for, and with him, both to live and die.
To his eternal fame in sacred story,
We find that he did lay aside his glory,
Stept from the throne of highest dignity;
Became poor man, did in a manger lie;
Yea was beholden upon his, for bread;
Had of his own not where to lay his head:
Though rich, he did, for us, become thus poor,
That he might make us rich for evermore.
Nor was this but the least of what he did;
But the outside of what he suffered.
God made his blessed Son under the law;
Under the curse, which, like the lion's paw,
Did rend and tear his soul, for mankind's sin,
More than if we for it in hell had been.
His cries, his tears, and bloody agony,
The nature of his death doth testify.
Nor did he of constraint himself thus give
For sin, to death, that man might with him live.
He did do what he did most willingly,
He sung, and gave God thanks, that he must die.
But do kings use to die for captive slaves?
Yet we were such, when Jesus died to save us.
Yea, when he made himself a sacrifice,
It was that he might save his enemies.
And, though he was provoked to retract
His blest resolves, for such, so good an act,
By the abusive carriages of those,
That did both him, his love, and grace oppose:
Yet he, as unconcerned with such things
Goes on, determines to make captives kinds
Yea, many of his murderers he takes
Into his favour, and them princes makes.
Footnotes:
1. A tender conscience, jealous of grieving or offending the Holy Spirit, is of an inestimable value. If in our conscientious conclusions we offend others, we must leave to them an equal right to their own conclusions without harsh judgment.—Ed.
2. 'Squibbling,' feeble, ill-natured ridicule; now obsolete.—Ed.
3. 'Without the lids of the Bible,' not within it; a popular Puritan saying.—Ed.
4. 'Frump,' to mock, flout, scoff. 'You must learn to mock; to frump your own father on occason.' Ironically used in Ruggle's Ignoramus.—Ed.
5. Mr. D'Anvers, in a postscript to his History of Baptism, the first edition, 1673, thus violently attacks his brother Bunyan:—'Having read his book, I took myself concerned to give some short return to it, leaving his "manifold absurdities," "contradictions," "unbrotherly tauntings and reflections," "contemptions," "traducings the wisdom of Christ, and his holy appointments," to be called to account by that band that hath so well begun to reckon with him.' He was in prison, and his brother thus visits him with gall and wormwood instead of consoling cordials. He goes on to confound water baptism with that of the Spirit, and charges Bunyan with 'ignorance and folly—dangerous and destructive to religion itself,' 'contradicting the authority of Christ,' calls him 'egregiously ignorant,' 'self-condemning.' All this uncharitable vituperation was because Mr. Bunyan would hold communion with all those who had been baptized into, and put on, Christ. The passage quoted is correct, except that 'married estate' should be 'marriage state.' So satisfied was D'Anvers with the just and Christian correction given him for so egregious a blunder, that if he did not repent with tears, he took special care to leave out all this absurd reference to the marriage ceremony performed in water from his second edition.—Ed.
6. Strife and contention—evil speaking of surmisings among professors, are tokens of a carnal mind, injurious to spiritual peace, and abominable to God. The envious, discontented, and malicious, are the devil's working tools. If such die unsubdued by divine grace, they plunge themselves into the bottomless pit. True wisdom avid strife and contention, is moderate in doubtful opinions, patient and cautious in judging others.—Ed.
***
A Case of Conscience Resolved; Viz.,
WHETHER, WHERE A CHURCH OF CHRIST IS SITUATE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE WOMEN OF THAT CONGREGATION, ORDINARILY, AND BY APPOINTMENT, TO SEPARATE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR BRETHREN, AND SO TO ASSEMBLE TOGETHER, TO PERFORM SOME PARTS OF DIVINE WORSHIP, AS PRAYER, ETC., WITHOUT THEIR MEN?
And the Arguments Made Use of for That Practice, Examined.
By John Bunyan.
Editor's Advertisement.
This exceedingly rare tract was first published in 1683, and was not reprinted, either separately, or in any edition of Bunyan's works. The public are indebted to the owner of a copy in perfect preservation, who kindly lent it, with a painful prohibition that he is to remain unknown; but with full allowance to any one who wishes to collate it with this new edition, by applying to the editor.
At the time this case was drawn and submitted to Mr. Bunyan for his opinion, he was one of the most popular preachers in the kingdom, and universally esteemed in all the churches of Christ, for his profound knowledge of the sacred Scriptures. This may account for such a case being sent to him, in preference to those illustrious divines, who for learning and talent have been unrivalled in any age.
The Reformation had progressed through state impediments so slowly, that the masses of the people were involved in the grossest darkness. So Mr. Keach complained—"The church is but newly come out of the wilderness of popish darkness; and not so fully neither as to be as clear as the sun; as in due time she shall."[1]The era of the commonwealth let loose a flood of religious light and liberty: those who had just emerged from the darkness of Popery, and those who had received, implicitly, and without investigation, their religion from the formal services of the Liturgy, were now alarmed with the thunder of faithful exhortations, personally and prayerfully to examine the sacred Scriptures, upon pain of everlasting death. A light so new, and so marvellous, dazzled and perplexed those who rushed into it, without earnest prayer for divine guidance. They were like men who had been born and brought up in a dark, a deep, a noisome mine, when, suddenly emerging into light, are overpowered by its splendour. Long and sharp was the controversy whether singing ought to be used in public worship; whether the seventh day of the week or the first was to be consecrated; whether ministers were to be paid for their services; and in this case, to define the privileges and duties of women as helpers in the gospel; and it is surprising that this question is almost as new now as it was then. It is thus stated—"Whether it is the duty of the women of the churches of Christ to separate themselves from their brethren, and, as so separate, to perform divine worship by themselves."
It appears that some females in Bedford were in the habit of thus meeting, under the advice of a Mr. K. They held prayer meetings for special purposes, at the imminent risk of imprisonment; but whether, in these meetings, they exhorted, or preached to each other, does not appear. John Bunyan was applied to for advice, which he plainly gives. He was a stern advocate for scriptural authority in all things pertaining to divine worship; and one who, in regarding the invaluable virtues of women, most admired retiring modesty as the loveliest adornment of the female character. The terms he uses, and the spirit in which he writes, intimate plainly that his own wife, who was remarkable for her devotion to God and her affectionate attachment to her husband, was also the most obedient of her sex.
In this tract we find no unmeaning gallant fribbling, but the solemn language of one who had death and judgment before his face. He conducts the inquiry with great care, as becomes a subject of such universal interest: and the great majority of Christians remain to this day his disciples. The Society of Friends is an exception, as to females being admitted to the ministry; while the Wesleyan Methodists have gained a most beneficial influence, by embracing, to the full extent, Bunyan's notions of rendering available the tender zeal, in comparatively private labours, of their pious females, in spreading the hallowed influences of Christianity.
The Society of Friends stands upon high ground in justifying its practice in allowing females to minister in holy things. J. J. Gurney says—"Friends believe it right, freely and equally to allow the ministry of both sexes." His reason is—"That all true ministry is under the immediate spirit of the influence of Christ: therefore we are bound to make way for the exercise of the gift of all persons that the Spirit may direct into this service. We dare not say to the modest and pious female, 'Thou shalt not declare the word of the Lord,' when we believe that an infinitely higher authority has issued a directly opposite injunction."[2]
The difference arises as to the more public work of the ministry in proclaiming or preaching the kingdom of Christ to the world. In the ordinary ministry, by teaching the young—by a godly conversation—by visiting and praying with the sick and afflicted—by encouraging the inquirers and directing their way to the kingdom of heaven,—in these important duties there appears to be neither male nor female in Christ Jesus—all are equal.
John Bunyan would have united to a great degree with John Gurney in these sentiments. But as our Lord appointed no female evangelists, or apostles, or missionaries; and as the Holy Ghost has directed, that all bishops or elders should be married MEN, it would appear a strange innovation to place a female in the pastoral office. Bunyan believed that God usually commissions men and not women to this important work. J. J. Gurney fully admits that women "are forbidden to usurp authority over the man," and therefore no active part is assigned to them in public assemblies for the settlement of the affairs of the church. [3] The women's meetings were established for the purpose of exercising a wholesome care over their own sex. [4] "That faithful women should be helps to the men in the service of truth, as they are outwardly in civil and temporal things." [5] And to this who can refuse his hearty AMEN.
There is too much sectarian spirit in all our controversies. Reader, in considering this subject, endeavour to forget for the time those opinions in which you have been trained. Examine the question by the Word alone, and may the Holy Spirit inscribe upon your hearts that divine record, which is to be found only in the Christian system: "There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). G. OFFOR. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THOSE GODLY WOMEN CONCERNED IN THE FOLLOWING TREATISE.
Honoured Sisters,
'Tis far from me to despise you, or to do anything to your reproach. I know you are beloved of God for the sake of Christ, and that you stand fixed for ever by faith upon the same foundation with US. I also know that the Lord doth put no difference betwixt male and female, as to the communications of his saving graces, but hath often made many of your sex eminent for piety; yea, there hath been of you, I speak now of ordinary Christians, that for holiness of life have outgone many of the brethren: Nor can their virtuous lives but be renown and glory to YOU, and conviction to those of US that have come behind you in faith and holiness. The love of women in spirituals, as well as naturals, ofttimes outgoes that of men.
When Christ was upon earth, we read not that any man did to, and for him, as did the woman that was a sinner, Joanna, Susanna, and many others (Luke 7:36-38, 8:1-3). And as they have shewed themselves eminent for piety, so for Christian valour and fortitude of mind, when called of God to bear witness to, and for his name in the world: as all histories of that nature doth sufficiently testify. They were WOMEN, as I take it as well as men, that were tortured, and that would not accept of deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection (Heb 11:35). Wherefore I honour and praise your eminency in virtue; and desire to be provoked by the exceeding piety of any of you, in all holy conversation and godliness.
And although, as you will find, I have not without a cause, made a question of the lawfulness of your assembling together, by yourselves, to perform, without your men, solemn worship to God: yet I dare not make you yourselves the authors of your own miscarriage in this. I do therefore rather impute it to our leaders, who whether of a fond respect to some seeming abilities they think is in you for this, or from a persuasion that you have been better than themselves in other things; or whether from a preposterous zeal, they have put you upon a work so much too heavy for you: I shall not at this time concern myself to inquire into. But this is certain, at least it is so in my apprehension, that in this matter you are tempted by them to take too much upon you.
I am not insensible but that for my thus writing, though I thereby have designed your honour and good order; I am like enough to run the gauntlet among you, and to partake most smartly of the scourge of the tongues of some, and to be soundly brow-beaten for it by others: specially by our author, who will find himself immediately concerned, for that I have blamed him for what he hath irregularly done, both with the Word, to you, and me. I look also to be sufficiently scandalized, and counted a man not for prayer, and meetings for prayer, and the like; but I will labour to bear them with patience, and seek their good that shall be tempted to abuse me.
I had not, indeed I had not, spoke a word to this question in this manner, had not Mr. K. sent his paper abroad, and amongst us, for the encouraging this practice with us, in opposition to our peace. I do not say he designed our breach, but his arguments tended thereto; and had not our people been of a wise and quiet temper, his paper might have set us into a flame. But thanks be to God, we are at quiet, and walk in love, notwithstanding the LIFTS that have been to make us do otherwise. There are also the mouths of some opened against me for this, who lie at wait for occasions, and shew that they are glad to take them before they are given by me: to whom I now shew by this ensuing discourse, that I had a reason to do what I did.
I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ: to whom be honour and glory for ever. And remain, your faithful friend and brother to pray for you, to love you in the gospel, and to do you what Christian service I can,
John Bunyan.
The Women's Prayer Meeting A CASE OF CONSCIENCE RESOLVED, &c.
The occasion of my meddling in this manner with this controversy, is this. After I had, for reasons best known to myself, by searching found, that those called the women's meetings wanted for their support, a bottom in the word: I called them in our fellowship into question. Now having so done, my reasons for so doing, as was but reason, were demanded; and I gave them, to the causing of that practice with us to cease. So subject to the word were our women, and so willing to let go what by that could not be proved a duty for them to be found in the practice of. But when I had so done, by what means I know not, Mr. K., hearing of my proceeding in this matter, though I think he knew little of question or answer, sets pen to paper, and draws up four arguments for the justification of these meetings. The which, when done, were sent down into our parts; not to me, but to some of his own persuasion, who kept them, or sent them, or lent them whither they thought good: And so about two years after, with this note immediately following, they were conveyed to my hand.
Bro: Bunyan, This enclosed, was sent to me from godly women, whose custom for a long time hath been to meet together to pray: who hearing of your contrary opinion, sent this. It came from Mr. K., who would desire to know what objections you have against it: and he is ready to give his further advice. Pray be pleased to give your answer in writing, for Mr. K. expects it.
Your friends in the Lord, S. B. S. F. Pray be pleased to leave your answer with S. F. [6]in Bedford.
Now having received the papers, and considering the contents thereof: I was at first at a question with myself, whether the thing was feigned, or true; and to that purpose, writ to these women again: but calling to mind, that I had heard something of this before, I concluded there was ground to believe, as I do, [that it was true, and not feigned:] And so resolved to answer his demand and expectation. But to say nothing more as to this, I will next present you with the arguments he sent, and then with my manner of handling of them. Mr. K.'s Arguments for Female Prayer Meetings.
He begins with this question, Whether women fearing God may meet to pray together, and whether it be lawful for them so to do? Which done, he falls to a wonderment, saying, It seems very strange to me, that any who profess the fear of God, can make any question touching the lawfulness thereof: The rule for praying being so general to all, and there being so many instances for the practice thereof, upon several occasions in the word of God, for their encouragement therein.
He next presents us with his arguments, which are in number four, but in verity not one, to prove that thing for the which he urgeth them: as I hope to make appear by that I have done.
First, saith he, If women may praise God together for mercies received for the church of God, or for themselves? then they may pray together: The proof whereof is plain (Exo 15:20,21). If it be objected the case was extraordinary, and that Miriam was a prophetess; To which I answer, That the danger of ruin and destruction, and our deliverance from it, if the Lord grant it, cannot be looked at but as extraordinary. The designs of ruin to the church, and servants of God, being as great as at that time when God delivered his people from the hand of Pharaoh. [7] And will call for praises, if the Lord please to send it, as then. And whereas it is further objected, that Miriam was an extraordinary person. To which I answer, That the duty itself of praising God for the mercy, was incumbent upon all, in as much as they were partakers of the mercy. And the same spirit of Christ that was in her, is also in all his servants: given for the same end, both to pray for mercies we stand in need of, and to praise God for [them].
Second, If women have in imminent danger to themselves and the church of God, prayed jointly together for deliverance, and God hath answered and approved of the same: then may women jointly pray together. The instance we have is famous (Esth 4:16). We there see she and her maidens did pray and fast together, and the Lord gave a gracious answer and deliverance.
Third, If God hath in gospel times promised the pouring out of his Spirit to women, to that very end that they may pray together apart from men; then it is not only their liberty, but duty to meet and pray together. But God hath promised his Spirit to that end (Zech 12:10-13). Which Scripture is plain is a promise of gospel times. And it is to be noted that the text doth not in the singular number, say He shall pray apart, and his wife apart; but THEY shall pray apart, and THEIR wives apart. And (Mal 3:16) God takes notice of all them that speak often together, and call upon his name.
Fourth, If God hath so approved of women's meeting together to pray in gospel times, as then, and at that time to take an advantage to make known to them his mind and will concerning Jesus Christ: then it is lawful for women to pray together. But God hath so approved of their meeting to pray together (Acts 16:13). By which text it appeareth it was a frequent practice for women to meet and pray together.
These are Mr. K.'s arguments; the conclusion of his paper follows. And besides all these particular instances, says he, what means those general rules to build up one another in our most holy faith, and pray in the Holy Ghost (Jude 20). But it extends to all that believe, both men and women; unless any will say women are not to be built up in their most holy faith. Therefore let not any hinder you from a duty so incumbent upon you in a special manner, in such a day as this is. Cannot many women that have used this practice, by experience, say, they have met with the Lord in it, and have found many blessed returns of prayer from God, both to themselves and the church, wherein God hath owned them? Therefore what God hath borne witness to, and approved of, let no man deter you from. Pray turn to the Scriptures quoted, which I hope will give you full satisfaction. Mr. Bunyan's Answer.
These are his arguments, and this his conclusion, in which I cannot but say, there is not only boldness, but flattery. Boldness, in fathering of his misunderstanding upon the authority of the word of God: and flattery, in soothing up persons in a way of their own, by making of them the judges in their own cause: the which I hope to make farther appear anon.
For since his women in their letter told me that Mr. K. expects my answer, I count myself called to shew the unsoundness of his opinion. Indeed he would, as they insinuate, confine me to answer by writing. But his papers have been I know not where, and how to put check to his extravagancies, that also, I know not, but by scattering mine [answer] abroad. And as I will not be confined to an answer in writing: so neither to his methods of argumentation. What scholar he is, I know not; for my part, I am not ashamed to confess, that I neither know the mode nor figure of a syllogism, nor scarce which is major or minor. Methinks I perceive but little sense, and far less truth in his arguments: also I hold that he has stretched and strained the holy Word out of place, to make it, if it might have been, to shore up his fond conceits. I shall therefore, first take these texts from the errors to which he hath joined them, and then fall to picking the bones of his syllogisms. [8]
But as I shall not confine myself to his mode and way of arguing, so neither shall I take notice of his question upon which he stateth the matter in controversy. But shall propound the same question here, which, for the substance of it, was handled among us, when the thing itself was in doubt among us, namely,
Whether, where a church of Christ is situate, it is the duty of the women of that congregation, ordinarily, and by appointment, to separate themselves from their brethren, and so to assemble together, to perform some parts of divine worship, as prayer, &c. without their men?
This was our question, this we debated, and this Mr. K. might have sent for, and have spoken to, since he will needs be a confuter. And, courteous reader, since I have here presented thee with the question, I will also present thee with the method which I took when I handled it among my brethren.
First, I opened the terms of the question.
Second, Then shewed what assemblies they were that used to perform divine worship to God.
Third, And so shewed whose prayers in such worship was used, or by Paul and others desired.
First, By church of Christ, I mean, one gathered or constituted by, and walking after the rule of the Word of God. By situate, I mean, where such church shall happen to be, in whole, or in the parts thereof. By separating, I mean, their meetings together by appointment of their own, and as so met, to attempt to perform divine worship [by] prayer without their men.
Second, To shew what manner of assemblies they were that used to perform divine worship to God of old. Now I find that there have been three sorts of assemblies, in which divine worship has been performed.
1. It has been performed in mixed assemblies; in assemblies made up of saints and sinners. I say divine worship has been performed in such assemblies, for, that there, the saints have been edified, sinners convinced and converted, and made to confess their sins, to the glory of God. Of these assemblies we read (Matt 5:1, 13:1, 23:1; Mark 4:1, 2:1, 6:2, 10:1; Luke 5:1, 8, 12:1, 13:1, 15:1, 20:1; 1 Cor 14:23). And in many other scriptures.
2. I also find that the church, by herself, or as distinct from the world, have met together to perform it by themselves (Mark 4:34; Acts 2:1-4, 13:1,2; 15:4, 20:7; John 20:19-26).
3. I find also that assemblies for divine worship have been made up of the elders, and principal brethren of the church, none of the rest of the congregation being present (Matt 10:1; Luke 9:1; Acts 1:3, 2:17,18; Gal 2:1,2) with several other scriptures beside. But in all the Scripture, I find not that the women of the churches of Christ, did use to separate themselves from their brethren, and as so separate, perform worship together among themselves, or in that their congregation: or that they made, by allowance of the Word, appointment so to do. Thus far therefore this must stand for a human invention, and Mr. K. for the promoter thereof.
Third, This done, in the third place, I come to shew you whose prayers, or by whose mouth prayer in such assemblies, as are above proved lawful, used to be made, or by Paul or others were desired.
1. Whose prayers were used, or who was the mouth? and I find them called the prayers of the church in general, or of the principal men thereof in particular (Judg 2:4,5, 20:8,26; Joel 1:14, 2:15-17; Acts 12:5, 13:1-3).
2. Also when Paul, or others, desired that prayers should be made of others for them. They either desired the prayers of the church in general, or of the brethren in particular (but never desireth, or biddeth a woman's meeting, that prayers might there be made for them). (1.) He desireth the prayers of the church in general (Col 4:2; Phil 1:19, 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17; Heb 13:18). (2.) Or if he desireth prayers of certain persons, he only calls upon the men and brethren in particular; but never upon a woman by name nor sex to do it (1 Thess 5:25; 2 Thess 3:1; Rom 15:30; 1 Tim 2:8). Nor was, as I said, the apostle alone in this thing. Christ speaks a parable to this end, that MEN ought always to pray (Luke 18:1). James saith, the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous MAN (5:16). Moses sent the young men to sacrifice (Exo 24:5). And the people in the time of Zacharias, sent their MEN to pray before the Lord (Zech 7:2). I do not believe that by any of these the prayers of women are despised, but by these we are taught, who, as the mouth in assemblies to pray, is commended unto us.
One word more, The women in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, when they had made their cakes to the queen of heaven, (though the thing which they did was as right in their own eyes, as if they had done true worship indeed) and was questioned by the prophet for what they had done, could not justify what they had done as to the act, but by pleading, They did it not "without their men" (Jer 44:17-19).
Thus having premised these few things, I shall now come more directly to discourse of the question itself, TO WIT, Whether, where a church of Christ is situate, it is the duty of the women of that congregation, ordinarily, and by appointment, to separate themselves from their brethren, and as so separate, to assemble together to perform divine worship, [by] prayer, without their men?
This was our question, and this I will now give a negative answer unto. For I find not in Christ's testament any command so to do; no nor yet example: and where there is none of these, it cannot be a duty upon them; no, nor yet liberty, but presumption to attempt it.
The command, says Mr. K., is general to all. But I answer, yet limited, and confined to order and manner of performance. Women may, yea ought to pray; what then? Is it their duty to help to carry on prayer in public assemblies with men, as they? Are they to be the audible mouth there, before all, to God? No verily, and yet the command is general to all to pray. Women of the respective churches of Christ, have no command to separate themselves from the men of their congregations, to perform prayer in their own company without them, and yet the command is general to all to pray. We must therefore distinguish of [between] persons and performances, though we may not exclude either. The manner also, and order in which such and such duties must be done, Mr. K. knows is as essential, in some cases, as the very matter of worship. But we will come to my reasons for my dissenting from Mr. K. in this. After which I will consider his arguments, and the scriptures that he would under-prop them with. As for my reasons for my dissenting from him, they are these:—
First, To appoint meetings for divine worship, either in the whole church or in the parts of it, is an act of power: which power, resideth in the elders in particular, or in the church in general. But never in the women as considered by themselves. Mr. K. indeed doth insinuate that this power also resided in them; for he saith, God hath in gospel times promised the Spirit to women to that very end, that they may pray together, apart from men. Now if the Spirit is given them to THIS very end, that they may do it apart from men, then they have a power residing in themselves to call their own sex together to do it. And what brave doings will such a conclusion make, even the blind himself will perceive. But further of this anon; meanwhile we will attend [to] our own assertion. Namely, "that to call the church, or parts thereof together, to perform divine worship to God, is an ACT of POWER, which power resideth in the church in general, or in the elders in particular." We will treat of the last first.
1. For the eldership, Moses and Aaron of old were they, with the priests, that were to call the church together to perform divine worship to God, and that both as to the whole, or as to the parts of it (Num 10:7,8; Deut 4:14, 31:11,12; Exo 4:29, 12:21, 17:5). Also, in after times, they were the elders and chief of the church, that did it (Josh 24:1; Ezra 10:5-9; Acts 14:27, 15:3). Or,
2, if their calling together to perform divine worship, was not by the elders alone: yet it was by the power that resided in the church for that thing, who jointly ordered the same (Judg 20:8,18: Ezra 3:1; Zeph 2:1-3; Acts 12:12; 1 Cor 5:4, 11:20). All these are plain cases. But never, as I ever did read of in the Bible, did women, ordinary believing ones, assume this power of the elders, or of the church, to themselves.
If it be asked, Who did appoint that meeting made mention of in
Acts 12:12?
I answer, It was appointed by the power of the church, who, for her own conveniency, if she cannot come all into one place at once to perform the duty, as it is not likely four or five thousand should, in times of persecution, which was their case, [they] may meet some here, some there, for their edification and comfort. Compare verse 5 with 12 and 17. Nor do I question the lawfulness of this or that part of the church's assembling together for prayer: though the elders, and greatest part of the brethren, be absent. If, first, such MEN that call such assemblies are countenanced by the elders, or church, to do it (1 Tim 2:8; 2 Tim 2:22). But that the sisters of this or that church, may call their own sex together to perform such worship by themselves to God (for this is the thing in debate) I find no warrant for.
Second, Because this kind of worship, when done in and by a company, is MINISTERIAL to that company, as well as petitionary to God. That is, they that, as the mouth in assemblies pray to God, teach that assembly, as well as beg mercies of him. And I find not that women may assemble to do thus. That such prayer is a kind of ministering in the word to standers by, consider well 1 Corinthians 14:15-19. Wherefore let them keep silence in the church, and in the parts thereof, when assembled to worship God.
In all public worship by prayer, teaching is set on foot, two ways: 1. By propounding to that assembly the things that must, by agreement, be prayed for. 2. And by proving them to suit with the will of God, that prayer may be made in faith (1 John 5:14).
1. For all such prayer must be made for the things agreed upon first; and consequently for things that by the word are proved good, and suitable for the seasons, persons, or things, for or about which such prayers are made. For they that have meetings for prayer, without this, pray at random, and not by rule.
"If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching anything that they shall ask [according to God's will] it shall be done for them," saith Christ, "of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 18:19). Now, I say, if things prayed for in assemblies must first be jointly agreed upon, then must such things, by some one, or more of that assembly, be first propounded, expounded, and proved to be good by the word. Good for such persons, seasons, or things, for which such prayer is made. And, besides, the gifts required to do this, if this is not teaching I am out. And yet this must first be done to instruct all present, to help their faith, and to quicken their spirits to, and in that worship. That they may as one man have their eyes unto the Lord (Zech 9:1). But that this power is given to women, to ordinary believing ones that are in the highest account in churches, I do not believe. I do not believe they should minister to God in prayer before the whole church, for then I should be a Ranter or a Quaker; nor do I believe they should do it in their own womanish assembly, for the reason urged before. And I will add, if brethren not heretofore called by the church to open scriptures, or to speak in the church to God in prayer, [9] are not at first to be admitted to do this, but before the elders or principal brethren, that they may hear and judge (1 Cor 14:26-29). How can it be thought to be meet or lawful for women, of whom it must be supposed, that they have received no such gifts, that they should use this power? I say, how can it be imagined that the women should be bound of God to do this in such sort as doth utterly exclude the elders and all the men in the congregation from a possibility of understanding and of judging of what they do? And yet this is the doctrine of Mr. K.; for he saith, "That the Spirit of God is promised to women to this very end, that they may pray together, apart from men." But God is not the author of this confusion in the churches.
2. But secondly, As teaching by prayer in assemblies, is thus set on foot; so every one also that shall in such meetings be the mouth of the whole, to God, ministereth so, doctrine to that assembly, as well as presenteth petitions to God. Else how can that assembly say AMEN at their prayer or giving of thanks? For to say AMEN is an effect of conviction, or of edification received of the stander by, from him that now is so ministering in that assembly before God (1 Cor 14:15-17). Yea, I believe that they that pray in assemblies, or that shall give thanks for mercies received there, ought to labour to speak, not only with fervency of words, but with such soundness of doctrine while they mention, urge, or plead the promise with God, that that whole assembly may be enlightened, taught, taken, and carried away in their spirits, on the wing of that prayer, and of faith, to God, whose face they are come to seek, and whose grace they are gathered together to beg. Now this is called praying and praising, to the teaching and edifying of others, as by the scripture afore named is made appear (1 Cor 14:14-19). But by what word of God the sisters of the respective churches may set up this way of teaching of one another in their assemblies, I am ignorant of.
Third, The Holy Ghost doth particularly insist upon the inability of women, as to their well managing of the worship now under consideration, and therefore it ought not to be presumed upon by them. They are forbidden to teach, yea to speak in the church of God. And why forbidden, but because of their inability. They cannot orderly manage that worship to God, that in assemblies is to be performed before him; I speak now of our ordinary believing ones, and I know none extraordinary among the churches. They are not builded to manage such worship, "they are not the image and glory of God, as the men are" (1 Cor 11:7). They are placed beneath, and are called the glory of the man. Wherefore they are weak, and not permitted to perform public worship to God. When our first mother, who was not attended with those weaknesses, either sinful or natural, as our women now are, stept out of her place but to speak a good word for worship, you see how she was baffled, and befooled therein; she utterly failed in the performance, though she briskly attempted the thing. Yea she so failed thereabout, that at one clap she overthrew, not only, as to that, the reputation of women for ever, but her soul, her husband, and the whole world besides (Gen 3:1-7). The fallen angel knew what he did when he made his assault upon the woman. His subtilty told him that the women was the weaker vessel. He knew also that the man was made the head in worship, and the keeper of the garden of God. The Lord God took the man, said unto the man, commanded the man, and made him keeper of the garden (Gen 2:15-17). Wherefore the management of worship belonged to him. This, the serpent, as I said, was aware of. And therefore he comes to the woman, says to the woman, and deals with the woman about it, and so overcomes the world. Wherefore it is from this consideration that Paul tells Timothy that he permitted not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. But to call the church or parts thereof together, to perform solemn worship, and in such a call to exclude or shut out the men, is an usurping of that authority over them to a high degree. And he renders the reason of this his prohibition thus, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve, [and therefore had the headship in worship]. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression" (1 Tim 2:13,14). But again, it should seem, methinks, if women must needs be managers of worship in assemblies, they should do it, as Eve, before Adam, in presence of the men: But that I think none will allow, though that would be the way best to correct miscarriages; how then should it be thought convenient for them to do it alone. If children are not thought fit to help to guide the ship with the mariners, shall they be trusted so much as with a boat at sea alone. The thing in hand is a parallel case.
Fourth, If the weightiness of this worship be, as indeed it is, so great, that the strongest and best able to perform it do usually come off with blushing, and with repentance for their shortness, as to the well performance thereof; though they engage therein by good and lawful authority; what will they do who are much weaker here, and when, as Eve, they set to it in a way of usurping of authority, and of their own head and will. To offer strange fire with incense, which was a type of prayer, you know what it cost Nadab and Abihu, though men, and the sons of Aaron. [Yet] Mr. K. cries the sisters, the women, the women's meetings, and the like, and how they have prevailed with heaven. Poor man, I am sorry for his weakness, and that he should show that himself is so nunnish[10] in such a day as this.
But to return, as all worship in assemblies ought to be performed with the most exact order and solemnity; so this of prayer with that, if possible, that is more than all the rest; and therefore this makes it more heavy still. When men preach they have to do with men, but when they pray in assemblies they have to do both with men and with God at once. And I say, if it be so great a matter to speak to men before God; how great a matter is it to speak to men and God at once; to God by way of petition, and to men by way of instruction. But I am persuaded if those most fond of the women's meetings for prayer were to petition the king for their lives, they would not set women to be their advocates to him; specially if the king should declare beforehand by law, that he permitted not a woman in an open auditory to speak before him.
There are also many temptations that attend the duty of praying in assemblies, especially those that are immediately employed therein. These temptations, they awake, are aware of, are forced to wrestle with, and greatly to groan under. Wherefore we put not the weak upon this service; not the weak, though they be men; not they in the presence of the strong. How then should the weakest of all be put upon it, and that when together by themselves. Men, though strong, and though acting by lawful authority in this, are not able, but with unutterable groans, to do it: how then shall all those that attempt it without that authority, perform it as acceptable worship to God? This work, therefore, is as much too heavy for our women now, as that about which Eve engaged in at first, was too heavy for her. But,
Fifth, If this worship may be managed by the sisterhood of the churches, being congregated together in the absence of their men: of what signification is it that man is made head of the woman as well in worship as in nature? (1 Cor 11:3,7). Yea more, why are the elders of the churches called watchmen, overseers, guides, teachers, rulers, and the like? If this kind of worship may be performed, without their conduct and government? (Eze 3:17, 33:7; Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; Psa 28:72; Heb 13:17).
1. Why is man made the head of the woman in worship, in the worship now under debate, in that worship that is to be performed in assemblies? And why are the women commanded silence there, if they may congregate by themselves, and set up and manage worship there? Worship was ordained before the woman was made, wherefore the word of God at the first did not immediately come to her, but to him that was first formed, and made the head in worship (Gen 2:16-18; 1 Cor 14:35,36). And hence it is that women are so strictly tied up to this headship; that if they will learn, they must ask their husbands at home (v 35), not appoint meetings of their own sex to teach one another. "But what must they do that have unbelieving ones? and what must they do that have none?" Answer, Let them attend upon those ordinances that God has appointed for the building up and perfecting of the body of Christ (Eph 4:11-13), and learn as the angels do (Eph 3:10; 1 Peer 1:12).
2. But I say, if they must do as Mr. K. says, they are in duty bound, to wit, meet by themselves apart from their men, and as so met, perform this most solemn worship to God: how shall the elders and overseers, the watchmen, rulers, and guides in worship, perform their duty to God, and to the church of God, in this, since from this kind of worship they are quite excluded, and utterly shut out of doors: unless it be said, that to watch, to oversee, and to guide, in the matter and manner of performance of this worship in assemblies, is no part of the watchman or overseer's work; or in their lawful absence, the work of the principal men of the church. Nor will the faithful and dutiful overseer leave worship, no, not in the best part of the congregation assembled to worship, to be performed by every weak brother, though I believe it might with more warrant be left to them, than to the strongest among our ordinary ones of the other sex.
Also our elders and watchmen covet, if we have unbelievers to behold, that our worship be performed by the most able. How then shall it be thought that they should be so silly, to turn a company of weak women loose to be abused by the fallen angels? Can it be thought that their congregation, since they have it without a command, shall fare better among those envious spirits than those that are lawfully called shall fare before the world? Watchman, watchman, see to thy duty, look well to the manner of worship that is to be performed according to thy commission. Trust not Eve, as Adam did, with worship, and with its defence. Look that all things be done in worship as becomes thee—a head, both in nature and by office—and leave not so solemn a part of worship as prayer, in company, is, and ought to be accounted to be done; thou canst by no means tell how. Watch in and over all such worship thyself. Be diligent to know the state of thy flocks, whether they be flocks of men, or women; and look well to thy herds, and thou shalt have milk enough, not only for men and babes, but also for the maintenance and life of thy maidens. So that they need not go with their pitchers to seek water there where their God has not sent them (Prov 27:23-27). Besides the shepherds' tents is provision sufficient for them (Cant 1:8). But, for a conclusion of this, I will ask this man, If he doth not, by pleading for these women's meetings, declare, that the women, without their men, are better able by themselves to maintain divine worship, than the men are without their elders? forasmuch as he himself will not allow that the men should always perform worship without his oversight and inspection, and yet will plead for the women to have such worship in their congregation, among themselves, excluding for ever the men therefrom. For, saith he, the Spirit is promised to be given to them to that very end, that they may meet together to pray apart without their men.
And now for Mr. K.'s arguments, which, as I said, are in number four.
1. We will take the scriptures from them; and,
2. Then pick the bones of their carcasses.
Yet in my taking of the scriptures from his arguments, I will do it in a way that is most to his advantage, making of each of them as formidable an objection as I can against myself.
Objection.
Miriam took a timbrel in her hand, and went out, and all the women went out after her, praising God with timbrels and dances for their deliverances. Therefore the women of the churches of Christ may appoint meetings of their own, as separate from their brethren, and then and there perform divine worship, [by] prayer, in that, their congregation, without their men (Exo 15:20,21). Answer
1. Miriam was a prophetess: and, I suppose, that none of our women will pretend to be such. And though Mr. K. labours to get over this, by saying that the work of praising was incumbent upon all: yet by his leave, judgment, and discretion, and a spirit of conduct suitable to the duty, as we read of, was found among the women in none but she. Why is it else said, Miriam led them forth; Miriam the prophetess did it. Another, by Mr. K.'s argument, might have done it as well. Thus degrades he the prophetess, that he may get favour with the ordinary women, and prompt them on to a work that he has a superstitious affection for.
2. But his assertion is of no weight. The women were not left in that extraordinary service to the spirit of ordinary believers. Nor can I count it but crooked dealing to bring in extraordinary persons, in their extraordinary acts, to prove it lawful for ordinary persons to do that which is not commanded them.
3. But though Miriam did go forth, or come out with the women, yet not from the men, into some remote place in the wilderness to worship by themselves. She rather went or came out, and the women followed her from the place by the sea, where now they were, after Moses, to sing as her sex became her; for she, though an extraordinary woman, might not make herself an equal with Moses and Aaron, therefore she came behind in worship, yet with the body of the people, as it is said, "So Moses brought Israel from the Red Sea" (Exo 15:22). Women, though prophetesses, must wear some badge or other of inferiority to those that are prophets indeed (1 Cor 11:3-9). And I choose to understand that Miriam did this. (1.) Because the text last mentioned says so. (2.) Because Miriam, and all the women, did sing with the words of the men, verse 1 compared with 21. (3.) For that they did sing them after the men, as taking them from their mouth. For, saith the text, Miriam answered them, and so handed it down to them of her sex, saying, "Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously" (vv 1,21). (4.) For that she commanded the women that they should sing the same song: hence it is called the song of Moses, not of Miriam (Rev 15:3). (5.) From all which I conclude, that Miriam did not draw the women away into some such place where neither Moses, nor Aaron, nor the elders of Israel could see, behold, and observe their manner of worship. But that she, as her modesty became her, did lead them out from that place where they were, to sing, and to dance, and to praise God, after the men. (6.) This scripture therefore favoureth not this man's opinion, to wit, "That it is the duty of the women of the churches of Christ to separate themselves from their brethren, and as so separate, to perform divine worship by themselves."
Objection.
Esther, the queen, performed, with her maidens, this duty of prayer, without their men: therefore the women of gospel churches may separate themselves from their brethren, and perform it among themselves (Esth 4:16).
Answer.
1. Esther was in the house of the king's chamberlain, and could not at this time come to her brethren; No, not to her uncle, Mordecai, to consult how to prevent an approaching judgment. Yea, Mordecai and she were fain to speak one to another by Hatach, whom the king had appointed to attend upon the queen (vv 5-9). So she could by no means, at that time, have communion with the church. No marvel, therefore, if she fasted with her maidens alone: for so she must now do, or not do it at all. But I will here ask this, our argumentator, whether Esther did count it a burden or a privilege thus now to be separated form her brethren, and so forced to perform this work as she did? If a privilege, let him prove it. If a burden, he has little cause to make use of it to urge that, her practice then, for a ground to women that are at liberty, to separate from their brethren to perform such worship by themselves in their company, without their men.
2. We do not read that she desired that any of the women that were at liberty should come from the men to be with her; whence we may gather, that she preferred their liberty to worship with men, far beyond a woman's meeting. She counted that too many, by herself and her maidens, were in such bondage already.
3. Neither did she attempt to take that unavoidable work upon herself, but as begging of the men that she might, by their faith and prayers, be borne up therein; clearly concluding that she did count such work too hard for women to perform by themselves, without the help of men (vv 15,16).
4. Besides this woman's meeting, as Mr. K. would have it, was made up of none but the queen and her household maids, and with but few of them; nor will we complain of our honest women when the case is so that they cannot go out to the church to do this, if they pray with their maids at home.
5. But what if Esther did pray with her maids in her closet, because she could not come out to her brethren. Is it fair to make the necessity of a woman in bondage a law to women at liberty? This argument, therefore, is erroneous, and must not have this text to show it up; we therefore take it away from his words and proceed to a sight of his next.
Objection.
But it is said by the prophet Zecharias, that the Spirit is promised to be given, in New Testament times, to women, that they may pray together apart from men (Zech 12:11-13).
Answer. The text says nothing so, but is greatly abused by this man. Indeed, it says their wives shall mourn apart, but it saith not, they shall do so together. Yea, that they shall separate themselves by the dictate of God, from their brethren, to do so, is that which this text knows nothing of. Sometimes many may be together, apart from others; but why Mr. K., to serve his purpose, should rack and strain this text to justify his woman's meeting, I see no reason at all. My reason against him is, for that the look here upon him whom we have pierced, which is to be the cause of this mourning, is to be by an immediate revelation of the Holy Ghost, who doth not use to tell before hand when he will so come down upon us. But such a meeting as Mr. K. intends must be the product of consultation and time. "I will pour," saith God, "upon the house of David—the spirit of grace and of supplications: and then they shall look"; that is, when that spirit so worketh with them as to enable them so to do. Now, I say, I would know, since this mourning is to be the effect of this look, and so before one is aware (Cant 6:12), whether Mr. K. can prove that these women were to have an item beforehand, when they should have this look. But as it would be ridiculous thus to conclude, so as ridiculous is it to think to prove his women's meetings from hence.
Nor doth the conclusion that he hath made hereupon prove more but that he is ignorant of the work of the Spirit in this matter, or that his fondness for the women's meetings hath made him forget his own experience. For how can one that never had but one such look upon Jesus Christ, draw such a conclusion from hence. And that all those women should have this look at the same time, even all the women of the house of David and of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that they might, all of them, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, separate themselves from their men to hold a woman's meeting or meetings by themselves for this, is more fictitious than one would imagine a man should dream. If he says that the women have a promise to have this look when they please, or that they are sure to have it because it is entailed to THEIR meeting, for this seems to come nearest his conclusion: yet what unavoidable inconveniences will flow therefrom, I leave to any to judge. But I take this mourning to be according as another of the prophets says, "They shall be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one for his iniquity" (Eze 7:16). All those souls, therefore, that shall be counted worthy to have this look shall mourn apart, or by themselves, when they have it. For though a man cannot appoint to himself when he will repent of his sins, or when the Holy Ghost will work, yet he shall repent indeed; he shall do it, I say, when HE doth so work, not staying till another can do so too. And since our own iniquity will then make us best consider our own case, mourning apart, or every one for their own iniquity, is most naturally proper thereto. And this is the mourning that shall be in the house of David, Jerusalem, the church, both with men and women, at all times when the Holy Ghost shall help us to look upon him whom we have pierced. Pray God give Mr. K. and myself more of these looks upon a crucified Christ, for then we shall understand this and other such like scriptures otherwise than to draw such incoherent inferences from them as he doth.
Objection.
"Women were wont in gospel times to meet together to pray. Therefore the women in gospel churches may separate themselves from their brethren to perform divine worship by themselves without their men" (Acts 16:13). This is another of his scriptures, brought to uphold this fancy: But,
Answer
1. It is not said that the women of churches met together alone to pray. But that Paul went down to a river-side where prayer was wont to be made, and spake unto the women that resorted thither. It looks therefore most agreeable to the word, to think that there the law was read by the Jewish priests to the proselyted women of that city, and that prayer, as was their custom in all such service, was intermixed therewith. But this is but conjectural. And yet, for all that, it is better grounded, and hath more reason on its side, than hath any of this man's arguments for the opinion of his women's meetings. But,
2. There was there at that time no gospel church of Christ, nor before that any gospel ministry, consequently no church obedience. Should it then be granted, that there were none but women at that meeting, and that their custom was to meet at that river-side to pray, it doth not therefore follow, that their practice was to be a pattern, a rule, a law to women in churches, to separate from their brethren, to perform divine worship, in their own woman's congregation without their men.
3. There was there no gospel believer. Lydia herself, before Paul came thither, had her heart shut up against the faith of Jesus Christ; and how a company of strangers to gospel faith, should in that their doing, be a pattern to the women in churches, a pattern of Christian worship, I do not understand.
4. If Paul's call to Philippi had been by the vision of a woman, or woman's meeting: what an argument would this man have drawn from thence to have justified his women's meetings? But since it was by a man, he hath lost an argument thereby. Though he, notwithstanding, doth adventure to say, that God so approved of that meeting, as then, and at that time, to take advantage to make known his mind and will to them concerning Jesus Christ.
5. And now I am in, since Mr. K. will needs have this scripture to justify such a practice, I wonder that he so lightly overlooked Paul's going to that meeting, for thither he went to be sure (Acts 16:13-16). Yea how fairly, to his thinking, might he have pleaded, that Paul by this act of his, was a great lover, countenancer and commender of those he calls the women's meetings. Paul went to the women's meeting at Philippi, therefore it is lawful for the women of gospel churches to separate from their brethren, and to congregate by themselves for the performance of some parts of divine worship. I say how easily might he have said this, and then have popt in those two verses above quoted, and so have killed the old one? [11]For the word lies liable to be abused by the ignorance of men, and it had been better than it is, if this had been the first time that this man had served it so, for the justification of his rigid principles; but when men, out of a fond conceit of their own abilities, or of prejudice to them that contradict their errors, are tempted to shew their folly, they will not want an opportunity from false glosses put upon the text, to do it.
6. But Paul went to that company to preach Christ's gospel to them, not for that they merited his coming, but of the grace of God, as also did Peter and John, when at the hour of prayer they went up into the temple, and Paul into the synagogue at Antioch (Acts 3:1-3, 13:14-16). But as fairly might this man have urged, that the healing of the lame man that lay at that time at the gate of the temple, and the conversion of them by Paul at Antioch, was by the procurement of the prayers of the sisters and by their reading of the law in that synagogue at Antioch, as to argue as he has done, that God was so well pleased, or so well approved of that woman's meeting as he feigns it at Philippi, as to send, &c. to them his minister.
7. But again, that this woman's meeting should be so deserving, and that while they were without the faith of Christ, as to procure a gospel minister to be sent unto them, that Christ might to them be made known, and yet that so few of them should be converted to the faith, seems a greater paradox to me. For we read not that one of the women then, or of them of the town, that did use to go to that meeting (for Lydia was of Thyatira), was ever converted to Christ; brethren we read of several, but we hear not of any one more of those women (v 40). But Lydia worshipped God, therefore her practice might prevail. Although it is said she worshipped God, yet she was but a proselyte, as those Acts 13 were, and knew no more of Christ than the eunuch did (Acts 8). But hold, she had faith, will that make all practice acceptable; yea, law and commandment to others, and the work of those that have none, meritorious? But we must touch upon these things anon.
Objection.
"But (saith Mr. K.) Malachi 3:16 doth countenance these meetings."
Answer.
Not at all; though Mr. K. has pleased to change a term in the text, to make it speak his mind; for he has put out thought, and put in call; but all will not do his work; for when he has done what he can, it will be difficult to make that scripture say, It is the duty of women in gospel churches to separate from their brethren, to perform divine worship among themselves.
Objection.
"But Jude 20 doth justify these meetings, except," saith he, "any will say, women are not to be built up in their most holy faith."
Answer.
How fain would the man lay hold on something, only he wants divine help, that is, the word of God, to bottom his things upon. But doth the apostle here at all treat of the women and their meetings, or are they only the beloved; and to be built up, &c. speaks he not there to the church, which consisteth of men and women? and are not men the more noble part in all the churches of Christ? But can women no other way be built up in their most holy faith, but by meetings of their own without their men? But, Building up YOURSELVES, I suppose is the thing he holds by. But cannot the church, and every woman in it, build up themselves without their woman's meetings? wherefore have they the word, their closet, and the grace of meditation, but to build up themselves withal? He saith not, "Build up one another," but if he had, it might well have been done without a woman's meeting. But anything to save a drowning man. This text then is written to the church of Christ, by which it is exhorted to faith and prayer; but it speaks not a word of a woman's meeting, and therefore it is fooling with the word to suggest it. I cannot therefore, while I see this impertinent dealing, but think our argumentator dotes, or takes upon him to be a head of those he thinks to rule over. The woman's letter to me also seems to import the same, when they say, "Mr. K. would desire to know what objections you have against it (his arguments), and he is ready to give his further advice."
Thus having taken from his arguments those holy words of God which he has abused, to make them stand; I come next to the arguments themselves, and intend to pick their bones for the crows.
1stly,
He saith, "That the same spirit that was in Miriam, is also in all God's servants for the same end, both to pray for mercies we stand in need of, and to praise God for mercies received."
Answer.
1. But the question is, whether Miriam did, as she led out the women to dance, act only as an ordinary saint. And if you evade this, you choose the tongue of the crafty, and use the words of deceit; for she managed that work as she was "Miriam the prophetess"; and in your next, pray tell your women so.
2. But as Miriam the prophetess, she did not lead the women from their men, to worship in some place remote by themselves, as we have shewed before.
2dly, He saith, "That God hath promised to pour out his Spirit in gospel times to that very end, that women might pray together apart from men."
Answer.
1. Not mentioning again what was said before: I add, if by men, he means the brethren, the prophet will not be his voucher, for he neither saith nor intimates such a thing.
2. And how far short this saying is, of making of God and his holy prophet, the author of schism in worship, and an encouragement unto schism therein, it is best in time that he looks to it. For if they may withdraw to do thus at one time, they may withdraw to do thus at another. And if the Spirit is given to them to this very end, that they may go by themselves from the church, to perform this divine worship at one time, they may, for what bounds this man has set them, go by themselves to do thus always. But, as I said, the whole of this proposition being false, the error is still the greater.
3dly,
"God," saith he, "hath so well approved of women meeting together to pray in gospel times, as then, and at that time, to take occasion to make known his mind and will to them concerning Jesus Christ" (Acts 16:13).
Answer.
Let the reader consider what was said before, and now it follows; if this assertion be true, then the popish doctrine of merit is good, yea the worst sort of it, which is, works done before faith. For that we read of none of these women save Lydia feared or worshipped God; and yet saith he, God so approved of that meeting as then, and at that time, to send them his gospel, which is one of the richest blessings; nor will it help to lay Cornelius, now in my way, for the deservings here were, for ought we read, of women that feared not God. Here Lydia only bare that character; it is said SHE worshipped God, but she was not all the women. But Mr. K. saith thus of them all. I know also there was faith in some in Messias to come, though when he came, they knew not his person; but this is not the case neither; these women, who held up as he feigned, this meeting, were not as we read of, of this people.
4thly,
He said, "That Esther and her maids fasted and prayed, and the Lord gave a gracious return, or answer and deliverance." That is, to the church, that then was under the rage of Haman.
Answer.
Let the reader remember what was said before, and now I ask this man,
1. Whether Mordecai and the good men then did not pray and fast as well as she? And if so, Whether they might not obtain at least, some little of the mercy, as well as those women? If so,
2. Whether Mr. K., in applying the deliverance of this people to the prayer of the queen and her maids, for he lays it only there, be not deceitfully arguing, and do not tend to puff up that sex, to their hurt and damage! Yea whether it doth not tend to make them unruly and headstrong? But if they be more gently inclined to obedience, no thanks to Mr. K.
3. And if I should ask Mr. K. who gave him authority to attribute thus the deliverance of this people, to who and what prayers he please, I suppose it would not be easy for him to answer. The text saith not that the prayers of these women procured the blessing. But Mr. K. hath here a woman's meeting to vindicate, and therefore it is that he is thus out in his mind. Prayers were heard and the church was delivered. And I doubt not but that these good women had hand and heart in the work. But should all be admitted that Mr. K. hath said as to this also, yet this scripture, as hath already been proved, will not justify his woman's meeting.
5thly,
"He makes his appeal to the women, if they have not obtained, by their prayers in these their meetings, many blessed returns of prayer from God, both to themselves and the church of God."
Answer.
I count this no whit better than the very worst of his paper, for besides the silliness of his appeal, by which he makes these good women to be judges in their own cause, his words have a direct tendency in them to puff them up to their destruction. I have wondered sometimes, to see when something extraordinary hath happened to the church of God for good, that a few women meeting together to pray, should be possessed with a conceit, that they fetched the benefit down from heaven, when perhaps ten thousand men in the land prayed for the mercy as hard as they. Yea I have observed, that though the things bestowed, were not so much as thought of by them, yet they have been apt to conclude that their meeting together has done it. But poor women, you are to be pitied; your tempter is to bear the blame, to wit, this man and his fellows.
I come now to some objections that may yet be thought on: and will speak a word to them.
Objection.
It is said, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (matt 18:20).
Answer.
To gather together in Christ's name, is to gather together by his authority; That is, by his law and commandment (Acts 4:17,18,30, 5:28,40; Col 3:17). But we have no law of Christ, nor commandment, that the women of this or that church, should separate themselves from their brethren, to maintain meetings among themselves, for the performing of divine worship: and therefore such meetings cannot be in his name; that is, by his authority, law, and commandment; and so ought not to be at all.
Objection.
"But women may, if sent for by them of their own sex, come to see them when they are sick, and when so come together, pray in that assembly before they part."
Answer.
The law of Christ is, "Is any sick among you? let him [and the woman is included in the man] call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him," &c. And to this injunction there is a threefold promise made. (1.) "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick." (2.) "And the Lord shall raise him up." (3.) "And if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him" (John 5:14,15). And considering, that this advice is seconded with so much grace: I think it best in all such cases, as in all other, to make the word of God our rule.
Objection.
"But women have sometimes cases, which modesty will not admit should be made known to men, what must they do then?"
Answer.
Their husbands and they are one flesh, and are no more to be accounted two. Let them tell their grief to them. Thus Rachel asked children of her husband, and went not to a nest of women to make her complaint to them (Gen 30:1). Or let them betake themselves to their closets, with Rebecca (Gen 25:20-23). Or if they be in the assembly of the saints, let them pray in their hearts, with Hannah. And if their petition be lawful, I doubt not but they may be heard (1 Sam 1:13).
Our author, perhaps, will say, I have not spoken to his question; which was, "Whether women, fearing God, may meet to pray together? And whether it be lawful for them so to do?"
But I answer, I have: with respect to all such godly women as are in the churches of the saints (1 Cor 14:33-35 compared with vv 15-17). And when he has told us, that his question respected only those out of churches, then will I confess that I did mistake him. Yet he will get nothing thereby, forasmuch as his question, to be sure, intends those in special. Also his arguments are for the justifying of that their practice. Now the reason why I waved the form of his question, was, because it was both scanty and lean of words, as to the matter of the controversy in hand: also I thought it best to make it more ample, and distinct, for the edification of our reader. And if after all, Mr. K. is not pleased at what I have done, let him take up the question, and answer it better. The man perhaps may fly to the case of utter necessity, and so bring forth another question, to wit, whether, if the men of a church should all die, be murdered, or cast into prison: the women of that church may not meet together to pray? And whether it be not lawful for them so to do? But when he produceth a necessity for the putting of such a question, and then shall put it to me; I will, as God shall help me, give him an answer thereto.
But, may some say, Our women in this do not what they do of their own heads, they are allowed to do what they do by the church.
I answer, No church allowance is a foundation sufficient to justify that which is neither commanded nor allowed by the word. Besides, who knows not, that have their eyes in their heads, what already has, and what further may, come into the churches, at such a gap as this. And now to give the reader a cautionary conclusion.
Caution 1.
Take heed of letting the name, or good show of a thing, beget in thy heart a religious reverence of that thing; but look to the word for thy bottom,[12] for it is the word that authorizeth, whatever may be done with warrant in worship to God; without the word things are of human invention, of what splendour or beauty soever they may appear to be. Without doubt the Friars and Nuns, and their religious orders, were of a good intent at first, as also compulsive vows of chastity, single life, and the like. But they were all without the word, and therefore, as their bottom wanted divine authority, so the practice wanted sanctity by the Holy Ghost. The word prayer is, of itself, in appearance so holy, that he forthwith seems to be a devil that forbids it. And yet we find that prayers have been out of joint, and disorderly used; and therefore may by one, without incurring the danger of damnation, be called into question; and if found without order by him, he may labour to set them in joint again (Matt 6:5-8, 23:14; James 4:3).
I am not of the number of them that say, "What profit should we have if we pray unto God?" (Job 21:15). But finding no good footing in the word for that kind of service we have treated about above, and knowing that error and human inventions in religion will not offer themselves, but with wiped lips, and a countenance as demure as may be, and also being persuaded that this opinion of Mr. K. is vagrant, yea a mere alien as to the scriptures, I being an officer, have apprehended it, and put it in the stocks, and there will keep it, till I see by what authority it has leave to pass and repass as it lists, among the godly in this land.
Caution 2.
Yet by all that I have said, I never meant to intimate in the least, but that believing women are saints as well as men: and members of the body of Christ. And I will add, that as they, and we, are united to Christ, and made members of his mystical body, the fulness of him that fills all in all, so there is no superiority, as I know of, but we are all one in Christ. For, the man is not without the woman, nor "the woman without the man, in the Lord," (1 Cor 11:11) nor are we counted "as male or female" in him (Gal 3:28; Eph 1:23). Only we must observe that this is spoken of that church which is his true mystical body, and not of every particular congregation of professing Christians. The churches of Christ here and there are also called his body. But no church here, though never so famous, must be taken for that of which mention was made afore. [13]As Christ then has a body mystical, which is called his members, his flesh, and his bones (Eph 5:30), so he has a body politic, congregations modelled by the skill that his ministers have in his word, for the bearing up of his name, and the preserving of his glory in the world against Antichrist. In this church, order and discipline, for the nourishing up of the true mystical body of Christ, has been placed from the foundation of the world. Wherefore in this, laws, and statutes, and government, is to be looked after, and given heed unto, for the edification of that which is to arrive at last to a perfect man: to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (1 Cor 12:27-30; Eph 4:11-13).
Now, where there is order and government by laws and statutes, there must, of necessity, be also a distinction of sex, degrees, and age. Yea, offices and officers must also be there, for our furtherance and joy of faith. From which government and rule our ordinary women are excluded by Paul; nor should it, since it is done by the wisdom of God, be any offence unto them.
In this church there are ofttimes many hypocrites, and formal professors, and heresies, "That they which are approved may be made manifest" (1 Cor 11:19). These therefore being there, and being suffered to act as they many times do, provoke the truly godly to contend with them by the word; for that these hypocrites, and formal professors, naturally incline to a denial of the power of godliness, and to set up forms of their own in the stead thereof (Mar 7:6-9; 2 Tim 3:5).
And this is done for the sake and for the good of those that are the true members of the body of Christ, and that are to arrive at his haven of rest: from whom those others at last shall be purged, and with them, all their things that offend. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear let him hear" (Matt 13:43).
This church, that thus consisteth of all righteous, that are so in God's account: they are to have a house in heaven, and to be for God's habitation there. Who, then, shall be governed by their head without those officers and laws that are necessary here. And both at last shall be subject to him, that sometime did put all things under Christ, that God may be all in all (John 14:1-3; Eph 2:21; 1 Cor 15:23-27). Wherefore, my beloved sisters, this inferiority of yours will last but a little while. When the day of God's salvation is come, to wit, when our Lord shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God, these distinctions of sexes shall be laid aside, and every pot shall be filled to the brim. For with a notwithstanding you shall be saved, and be gathered up to that state of felicity if you continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety (1 Tim 2:15).
Caution 3.
I doubt not at all of the lawfulness of women's praying, and that, both in private and public: only when they pray publicly, they should not separate from, but join with the church in that work. They should also not be the mouth of the assembly, but in heart, desires, groans, and tears, they should go along with the men. In their closets they are at liberty to speak unto their God, who can bear with, and pity them with us; and pardon all our weakness for the sake of Jesus Christ.
And here I will take an occasion to say, there may be a twofold miscarriage in prayer, one in doctrine, the other in the frame of the heart. All are too much subject to the last, women [more easily] to the first. And for this cause it is, at least so I think, that women are not permitted to teach, nor speak in assemblies, for divine worship, but to be and to learn in silence (1 Cor 14:33-35, 15:33). For he that faileth as to the frame of his spirit, hurteth only himself: but he that faileth in doctrine corrupteth them that stand by. Let the women be alone with Rebecca in the closet; or, if in company, let her, with Hannah, speak to herself and to God; and not doubt, but if she be humble, and keep within compass, she shall be a sharer with her brethren in the mercy.
Caution 4.
Nor are women, by what I have said, debarred from any work or employ, unto which they are enjoined by the word. They have often been called forth to be God's witnesses, and have borne famous testimony for him against the sons of the sorceress and the whore.[14] I remember many of them with comfort, even of these eminent daughters of Sarah, whose daughters you also are, so long as you do well, and are not afraid with any amazement (1 Peter 3:1-6). What by the word of God, you are called unto, what by the word is enjoined you do; and the Lord be with you.
But this of the women's meetings; since, indeed, there is nothing for its countenance in the word, and since the calling together of assemblies for worship is an act of power, and belongeth to the church, elders, or chief men of the same: let me intreat you to be content, to be under subjection and obedience, as also saith the law. We hold that it is God's word that we are to look to, as to all things pertaining to worship, because it is the word that authorizeth and sanctifieth what we do.
Caution 5.
WOMEN! They are an ornament in the church of God on earth, as the ANGELS are in the church in heaven. Betwixt whom also there is some comparison, for they cover their faces in acts of worship (Isa 6:2; 1 Cor 11:10). But as the angels in heaven are not Christ, and so not admitted to the mercy-seat to speak to God, so neither are women on earth, [but] the man; who is to worship with open face before him, and to be the mouth in prayer for the rest. As the angels then cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, with faces covered in heaven: So let the women, cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, with their faces covered on earth: Yea, thus they should do, because of the angels. "For this cause ought the woman to have power," that is a covering, "on her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10). Not only because the angels are present, but because women and angels, as to their worship, in their respective places, have a semblance. For the angels are inferior to the great man Christ, who is in heaven; and the woman is inferior to the man, that truly worships God in the church on earth.
Methinks, holy and beloved sisters, you should be content to wear this power, or badge of your inferiority, since the cause thereof arose at first from yourselves. It was the woman that at first the serpent made use of, and by whom he then overthrew the world: wherefore the women, to the world's end, must wear tokens of her underlingship in all matters of worship. To say nothing of that which she cannot shake off, to wit, her pains and sorrows in child-bearing, which God has riveted to her nature, there is her silence, and shame, and a covering for her face, in token of it, which she ought to be exercised with, whenever the church comes together to worship (Gen 3:16; 1 Tim 2:15; 1 Cor 11:13; 1 Tim 2:9).
Do you think that God gave the woman her hair, that she might deck herself, and set off her fleshly beauty therewith? It was given her to cover her face with, in token of shame and silence, for that by the woman sin came into the world (1 Tim 2:9). And perhaps the reason why the angels cover their faces when they cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, in heaven, is to shew that they still bear in mind, with a kind of abhorrence, the remembrance of their fellows falling from thence. Modesty, and shame-facedness, becomes women at all times, especially in times of public worship, and the more of this is mixed with their grace and personage, the more beautiful they are both to God and men. But why must the women have shame-facedness, since they live honestly as the men? I answer, In remembrance of the fall of Eve, and to that the apostle applies it. For a woman, necessity has no law, to shave her head, and to look with open face in worship, as if she could be a leader there, is so far from doing that which becomes her, that it declares her to have forgot what God would have her for ever with shame remember.
Caution 6.
In what I have said about the women's meetings, I have not at all concerned myself about those women, that have been extraordinary ones, such as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, or the rest, as the daughters of Philip the evangelist, Priscilla, the women that Paul said laboured with him in the gospel, or such like; for they might teach, prophecy, and had power to call the people together so to do. Though this I must say concerning them, they ought to, and did, notwithstanding so high a calling, still bear about with them the badge of their inferiority to them that were prophets indeed. And hence it is said, under pain of being guilty of disorder, that if they prayed in the church, or prophesied there, with their head uncovered, they then dishonoured their head (1 Cor 11:5).
The prophetesses were below the prophets, and their covering for their heads was to be worn in token thereof, and perhaps it was for want of regard to this order, that when Miriam began to perk it [15] before Moses, that God covered her face with a leprous-scab (Num 12:10). Hence these women, when prophets were present, did use to lie still as to acts of power, and leave that to be put forth by them that were higher than they. And even Miriam herself, though she was one indeed, yet she came always behind, not only in name but worship, unless when she was in her own disorders (Num 12:1).
And it is worth your farther noting, that when God tells Israel that they should take heed in the plague of leprosy, that they diligently observed to do what the priest and Levites taught them, that he conjoins with that exhortation, that they should "remember what God did unto Miriam by the way" (Deut 24:8,9). Intimating surely that they should not give heed to women, that would be perking up in matters of worshipping God. Much less should we invest them with power to call congregations of their own, there to perform worship without their men.
Yet, will I say, notwithstanding all this, that if any of these high women had, but we never read that they did, separate themselves, and others of their own sex with them, apart to worship by themselves: or if they had given out commandment so to do, and had joined God's name to that commandment, I should have freely consented that our women should do so too, when led out, and conducted in worship, by so extraordinary a one. Yea more, If any of these high women had given it out for law, that the women of the churches in New Testament times, ought to separate themselves from their men, and as so separate, perform divine worship among themselves: I should have subscribed thereto. But finding nothing like this in the word of God, for the sanctifying of such a practice: and seeing so many scriptures wrested out of their place to justify so fond a conceit: and all this done by a man of conceit, and of one that, as his sisters say, expects my answer: I found myself engaged to say something for the suppressing of this his opinion.
But to return to the good women in the churches, and to make up my discourse with them.
First, These meetings of yours, honourable women, wherein you attempt to perform divine worship by yourselves, without your men, not having the authority of the word to sanctify them, will be found will-worship, in the day when you, as to that, shall be measured with that golden reed, the law of God. And "who hath required this at your hand?" may put you to your shifts for an answer, notwithstanding all Mr. K. has said to uphold you (Isa 1:12; Rev 11:1).
Secondly, These meetings of yours need not be; there are elders or brethren in all churches, to call to, and manage this worship of God, in the world: if you abide in your subjection and worship as you are commanded.
Thirdly, These meetings of yours, instead of being an ornament to the church in which you are, are a shame and blemish to those churches. For they manifest the unruliness of such women, or that the church wants skill to govern them (1 Cor 14:23). Have you not "in your flock a male?" (Mal 1:14).
Fourthly, Suppose your meetings in some cases were lawful, yet since by the brethren they may be managed better, you and your meetings ought to give place. That the church together, and the brethren, as the mouth to God, are capable of managing this solemn worship best: consider—1. The gifts for all such service are most to be found in the elders and leading men in the church: and not in the women thereof. 2. The spirit for conduct and government in that worship, is not in the women, but in the men. 3. The men are admitted in such worship, to stand with open face before God, a token of much admittance to liberty and boldness with God, a thing denied to the women (1 Cor 11:4,5). 4. For that when meetings for prayers are commanded, the men, to be the mouth to God, are mentioned, but not in ordinary women, in all the Scriptures. Where the women and children, and them that suck the breasts are called, with the bride and bridegroom, and the whole land, to mourn: yet the ministers, and elders, and chiefest of the brethren, are they, and they only, that are bid to say, "Spare thy people, O Lord! and give not thine heritage to reproach" (Joel 1:13,14, 2:15-17). 5. The word for encouragement to pray believingly in assemblies is given to men. And it is the word that makes, and that sanctifies an ordinance of God: men, therefore, in all assemblies for worship, should be they that should manage it, and let others join in their places.
Objection.
But the women is included in the man, for the same word signifies both.
Answer.
1. If the woman is included here, let her not exclude the man. But the man is [by them] excluded: The man is excluded by this woman's meeting from worship; from worship, though he be the head in worship over the women, and by God's ordinance appointed to manage it, and this is an excluding of the worst complexion (1 Cor 11:3).
2. Though the woman is included, when the man sometimes is named, yet the man is not excluded, when himself as chief is named. But to cut him off from being the chief in all assemblies for worship, is to exclude him, and that when he for that in chief is named.
3. The woman is included when the man is named, yet but in her place, and if she worships in assemblies, her part is to hold her tongue, to learn in silence; and if she speaks, she must do it, I mean as to worship, in her heart to God.
4. Nor, do I think, that any woman that is holy and humble, will take offence at what I have said; for I have not in anything sought to degrade them, or to take from them what either nature or grace, or an appointment of God hath invested them with: but have laboured to keep them in their place. And doubtless to abide where God has put us, is that which not only highly concerns us, but that, which becomes us best. Sisters, I have said what I have said to set you right, and to prevent your attempting to do things in such sort unto which you are not appointed. Remember what God did to Miriam, and be afraid.
Be as often in your closets as you will; the oftener there the better. This is your duty, this is your privilege: this place is sanctified to you for service by the holy Word of God. Here you may be, and not make ordinances interfere, and not presume upon the power of your superiors, and not thrust out your brethren, nor put them behind your backs in worship.
Be also as often as possibly you can, in worship, when the church, or parts thereof, are assembled for that end, according to God's appointment. And when you are there, join with heart and soul with your brethren in all holy petitions to God. Let the men in prayer be the mouth to God, and the women list after with groans and desires. Let the men stand with open face in this worship, for that they are the image and glory of God, and let the women be clothed in modest apparel, with shame-facedness, in token of the remembrance of what has been touched afore.
When women keep their places, and men manage their worshipping of God as they should, we shall have better days for the church of God, in the world (Jer 29:10-14). Women are not to be blamed for that they are forward to pray to God, only let them know their bounds; and I wish that idleness in men be not the cause of their putting their good women upon this work. Surely they that can scarce tie their shoes, and their garters, before they arrive at the tavern, or get to the coffee-house door in a morning, can scarce spare time to be a while in their closets with God. Morning closet-prayers are now, by most London professors, thrown away; and what kind of ones they make at night, God doth know, and their conscience, when awake, will know; however I have cause, as to this, to look at home: And God mend me and all his servants about it, and wherein we else are out.
I have done, after I have said, that there are some other things, concerning women, touching which, when I have an opportunity, I may also give my judgment. But at present, I intreat that these lines be taken in good part, for I seek edification, not contention.
Footnotes:
[1] "Breach Repaired," a defence of singing in public worship, then newly and partially introduced. 1700, p. 2.
[2] Distinguishing Practices of Friends, p. 280-1.
[3] P. 495.
[4] P. 509.
[5] Sketch of Friends' Discipline, p. 35.
[6] Probably a female branch of the family of John or Samuel Fenn, hatters at Bedford, who, in 1670, were cruelly persecuted for suffering a meeting for religious worship to take place in the house of John Fenn. Not only all their stock of hats, materials, and tools, but the whole of their household furniture was seized and carried off to satisfy ruinous fines. One John Bardolf was also cruelly persecuted for Christ's sake at the same time.—Vide Narrative of Arbitrary Proceedings at Bedford, 4to, 1670, in the editor's possession.
[7] In times of such severe trial and suffering to our pilgrim forefathers, they knew the value of prayer; and at the risk of property, liberty, and even life, held frequent meetings to implore their God and Father to mitigate their sufferings, and to have mercy upon their cruel persecutors. Not only working tools and stock, but commonly all the furniture, was taken from the Christians, while their ministers and members, both men and women, were imprisoned in miserable jails. One of these, Mr. Robert Kalder, dying, was buried in the churchyard; but those furious bigots dug up his naked body, and dragged it to the gates of his former residence, leaving it there, a frightful spectacle to his widow and family. They had meetings for prayer; and how does it become their descendants in the faith to have days of thanksgiving and nights of praise?—See Broadmead Records and Crosby's History of Baptists, vol. ii., p. 240.—Ed.
[8] "Syllogism," a form of reasoning, consisting of three propositions, having this property; that the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises: so that if the first and second be granted, the conclusion must be granted in like manner. No wonder that Bunyan neither understood nor was awed by this hard word. Armed with holy Writ, he goes to work "to pick the bones of the syllogism."—Ed.
[9] Much stress was, and is now, laid in many churches upon the necessity of all persons, before praying or preaching in public, being guided by the opinion of the church. The taking advice in so important a step must be proper; but any pledge to abide by it, contrary to the conscientious conviction of the individual, would be a violation of the duty of private judgment. If in their ministrations they were false or foolish, the church must exercise discipline; but if they became useful, surely no objection could be urged as to the validity of their call to the ministry, because the church had not been first consulted or had advised them not to proceed. The desire—the ability, by sound views of divine truth, and a happy way of illustrating and enforcing them—with the opportunity of so doing, is the divine call to this holy work.—Ed.
[10] "So nunnish," a singular mode of expression, alluding to the nuns being separated from the world, and shut up by themselves. They were not permitted to exercise the priestly office. Father confessors and chaplains were appointed for these duties.—Ed.
[11] To have said that the spirit of divination, which was cast out, was so far killed by virtue of a female prayer meeting, would have been as true as to have said, that these meetings were limited to females only.—Ed.
[12] "Bottom," or foundation.
[13] A dangerous error, originating in the sectarian pride of Antichrist, prevails to a very great extent. It is that some one visible church, or set of united churches, is the mystical body of Christ, and entitled to be called THECHURCHEvery congregation of pious men and women, united together in the faith, is a church of Christ. But THE church comprises all the saints of God who ever lived—live now, or will live on the earth; until their number is completed, and this creation shall give place to the new heavens and the new earth. Every church is as distinct as it is equal; whether it meet at Corinth, Rome, or Ephesus, at London or Edinburgh. Be it Episcopalian, Independent, Presbyterian, Baptist, or a church of the Society of Friends; each is entitled, according to the New Testament, to equal honour and privilege.—Ed.
[14] The usual appellations of Popery.—Ed.
[15] "To perk it," to hold up her head with affected superiority or spiritual pride.—Ed.
***
Instruction for the Ignorant:
Being a Salve to Cure That Great Want of Knowledge, Which So Much Reigns Both in Young and Old.
Prepared and Presented to Them in a Plain and Easy Dialogue, Fitted to the Capacity of the Weakest.
'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.'—Hosea 4:6
Advertisement by the Editor.
This little catechism is upon a plan perfectly new and unique. It was first published as a pocket volume in 1675, and has been republished in every collection of the author's works; and recently in a separate tract. The earliest edition that has been discovered bears the date of 1691; from which our copy has been prepared for the press. This is the first book of this class that was composed upon the broad basis of Christianity, perfectly free from sectarian bias or peculiarity. It is an exhibition of scriptural truths, before which error falls without the trouble of pulling it down. It is in the world, like the ark of God in the temple of Dagon. It is alike admirably calculated to convey the most important truths to the inmates of a palace or of a workhouse,—to the young or to the aged,—to the ignorant Roman Catholic, or to the equally ignorant Protestant. Its broad catholicity is its distinguishing excellence. In the separate communions included within the general church of Christ are various, and in many respects, inestimable compendiums of Christian truth, arranged for the catechetical instruction of the young and ignorant; but it cannot be denied that these, one and all, exhibit some marks of sectarian feeling and dogmatic teaching in the details that relate to the special views which each communion takes of certain scriptural doctrines. The reason why this should be the case is very obvious: there would be no differences of opinion amongst Christians except from conviction that these differences are essential, and such conviction naturally leads to these points of disagreement being (may we not say?) rather too obtrusively enforced as part and portion of a saving belief. All Bunyan's efforts were to awaken sinners to a sense of their degradation, misery, and danger, and to direct them to the only refuge from the wrath to come—the hope set before them in the gospel; and then leaving the pious convert to the guidance of his Bible in forming his connections in the pilgrimage of life. Bunyan is solemnly in earnest; his desire is, that poor sinners should be relieved from ignorance, darkness, and destruction, and be introduced into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. May his impressive injunction be indelibly fixed upon our souls, 'To read, ponder over, and receive the wholesome medicine as we shall answer in the day of the terrible judgment.'—GEO. OFFOR.
TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN AND ABOUT BEDFORD, WALKING IN THE FAITH AND FELLOWSHIP OF THE GOSPEL, YOUR AFFECTIONATE BROTHER AND COMPANION IN THE KINGDOM AND PATIENCE OF JESUS CHRIST, WISHETH ALL GRACE AND MERCY BY JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.
Holy and beloved,
Although I have designed this little treatise for public and common benefit, yet considering that I am to you a debtor not only in common charity; but by reason of special bonds which the Lord hath laid upon me to you-ward, I could do no less, being driven from you in presence, not affection, but first present you with this little book; not for that you are wanting in the things contained herein, but to put you again in remembrance of first things, and to give you occasion to present something to your carnal relations, that may be, if God will, for their awakening and conversion: accept it therefore as a token of my christian remembrance of you.
Next I present it to all those unconverted, old and young, who have been at any time under my preaching, and yet remain in their sins:[1] and I entreat them also that they receive it as a token of my love to their immortal souls; yea, I charge them as they will answer it in the day of terrible judgment, that they read, ponder over, and receive this wholesome medicine prepared for them. Now the God of blessing bless it to the awakening of many sinners, and the salvation of their souls by faith in Jesus Christ. Amen.
Yours, to serve you by my ministry, when I can,[2] to your edification and consolation,