john bunyan differences in judgment abou - no bar to communion

8/11/2019 John Bunyan Differences in Judgment Abou - No Bar to Communion

1/40

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 BUNYANS CONFESSION OF FAITH,TOUCHING CHURCH COMMUNION WITH UNBAPTIZED BELIEVERS.

WHEREIN THEIR OBJECTIONS AND ARGUMENTS ARE ANSWERED, AND THE DOCTRINE OF COMMUNIONSTILL ASSERTED AND VINDICATED. HERE IS ALSO MR. HENRY JESSES 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 tothe 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 beenlet alone at quiet in our Christian communion.But being assaulted for more than sixteen years,

wherein the brethren of the baptized way, asthey had their opportunity, have sought tobreak us in pieces, merely because we are not,in their way, all baptized first: I could not, Idurst not, forbear to do a little, if it might be, tosettle the brethren, and to arm them against theattempts, which also of late they begin to reviveupon us. That I deny the ordinance of baptism,or that I have placed one piece of an argumentagainst it, though they feign it, is quite withoutcolour of truth. All I say is, That the church ofChrist hath not warrant to keep out of their

communion the Christian that is discovered tobe a visible saint by the word, the Christian thatwalketh according to his light with God. I willnot make reflections upon those unhandsomebrands that my brethren have laid upon me forthis, 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 abrother. But reader, read and compare; layaside prejudice and judge. What Mr. Kiffin hath

done in the matter I forgive, and love him neverthe worse, but must stand by my principlesbecause they are peaceable, godly, profitable,and such as tend to the edification of mybrother, and as I believe will be justified in theday of judgment.

I have also here presented thee with theopinion of Mr. Henry Jesse, in the case, whichprovidentially I met with as I was coming toLondon to put my papers to the press; and thatit was his judgment is asserted to me, knownmany years since to some of the Baptists, to

whom it was sent, but never yet answered; andwill yet be attested if need shall require.Farewell.

Thine in all Christian service, according tomy light and power,

JOHN BUNYAN.


2/40

THE WORKS OFJOHN BUNYAN2

ReadPs. 1:1 3.

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 tocommunicate with those of the saints andfaithful who differ from me about waterbaptism; I have read and considered, and haveweighed them so well as my rank and abilitieswill admit me to do. But finding yours, if Imistake not, far short of a candid replication, Ithought [it] convenient, not only to tell you ofthose impertinencies everywhere scattered upand down in your book; but also, that in mysimple opinion, your rigid and church-

disquieting principles are not fit for any age andstate of the church.

But before I enter the body of your book,give me leave a little to discourse you aboutyour preamble to the same, wherein are twomiscarriages unworthy your pretendedseriousness, because void of love and humility.The first is, In that you closely disdain myperson 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

1 Who is there that reads these revilings of Bunyan for

his poverty and mean descent, but must be struckwith the unsearchable wisdom of the Almighty. Thesalvation of the church requires that GOD shouldbe manifest in the flesh. Does he appear in hisglory? Does he honour riches, and power, andwisdom, by descending in one of these classes? No;the poor, the despised in this world, claim kindredwith him--Is not this the carpenters son? Haveany of the rulers or pharisees believed on him? Evenwith these examples before them, his Baptistministerial brethren, who sat at his feet when hecame to London, and listened to his eloquence, now,in their hot dispute, revile and taunt him with hisimprisonment--his poverty--his want of book learn-ing. Refused the communion of some eminentearthly saints, it drove him to closer communionwith his God, and the prison, became a Bethel--noneother than the house of God, and the very gate ofheaven; and in a holy, happy frame of soul, hebreathes forgiveness: What Mr. Kiffin hath done inthe matter I forgive, and love him never the worse!!--Ed.

Ans. What it is that gives a man reverencewith 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 gayclothing, or gold rings, or the persons that wearthem in admiration; or to be partial in yourjudgment, or respects, for the sake, or upon theaccount of, flesh and blood, doubtlessconvicteth you to be of the law a transgressor,and not without partiality, &c., in the midst ofyour seeming sanctity.

Again, you say, I had not meddled with thecontroversy at all, had I found any of parts thatwould divert themselves to take notice of

YOU.Ans. What need you, before you have

shewed one syllable of a reasonable argumentin opposition to what I assert, thus trample myperson, my gifts, and grace, have I any, sodisdainfully under your feet? Whatkind of a YOU am I?

2 And why is

MY rank so mean, that the most gracious andgodly among you, may not duly and soberlyconsider of what I have said? Was it not the artof the false apostles of old to say thus? To

bespatter a man, that his doctrine might bedisregarded. Is not this the carpenter? And,His bodily presence is weak and his speechcontemptible (1 Cor 10:10), did not use to bein the mouths of the saints; for they knew thatthe wind bloweth where it listeth (John 3:8).Neither is it high birth, worldly breeding, orwealth; but electing love, grace, and the wisdomthat comes from heaven, that those who strivefor strictness of order in the things andkingdom 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 bringto nought things that are? (1 Cor 1:27,28).

2 How do these verses cut down all the carnal pride of

man. Who is THE BLESSED? not the rich, orpowerful, or worldly wise, but those that delight inthe word of God.--Ed.


3/40

DIFFERENCES ABOUT BAPTISM NO BAR TO COMMUNION 3

Why then do you despise my rank, my state,and quality in the world?

As for my confession of faith, which you alsosecretly despise. If it be good and godly, whymay 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 worldwhat you held; if perhaps by that means youmight escape the person: why might not I, afterabove eleven years endurance there, give theworld a view of my faith and practice; ifperadventure, wrong thoughts, and falsejudgments of me, might by that means beabated, and removed. But you suggest; I did it,because I was so willing to be known in theworld by my SINGULAR faith and practice.

3

How singular my faith and practice is, may bebetter known to you hereafter: but that I did itfor a popular applause and fame, as your wordsseem to bear, for they proceed from a tauntingspirit, that will be known to you better in theday of God, when your evil surmises of yourbrother, and my designs in writing my book,will be published upon the house-tops (Luke12:1-4).

And even now, before I go any further, I willgive you a touch of the reason of my publishingthat part thereof which you so hotly oppose. It

was because of those continual assaults that therigid brethren of your way, made, not onlyupon this congregation, to rend it; but alsoupon many others about us. If peradventurethey might break us in pieces, and draw from usdisciples after them. Assaults, I say, upon thiscongregation by times, for no less than thesesixteen or eighteen years. Yea, myself they havesent for, and endeavoured to persuade me tobreak communion with my brethren; also withmany others they have often tampered, if haply

their seeds of division might take. Neither didthey altogether fail of their purpose, for somethey did rend and dismember from us; but nonebut those, of whom now they begin to be

3 Nearly all the Baptist churches of that day limited

communion to them who had been baptized inwater on a profession of their faith. It is verydifferent now; Bunyans principles have spread, arespreading, and must soon become universal.--Ed.

ashamed. The judgment of God so followingtheir design, that the persons which then theyprevailed upon, are now a stink, and reproachto religion. Neither were these spirits contentwith that discord they did sow among us, butthey proceeded to seize upon others. But to pass

these. The wild, and unsound positions theyhave urged to maintain their practice, would betoo large here to insert. Now, Sir, to settle thebrethren, the brethren of our community, andto prevent such disorders among others, wasthe cause of my publishing my papers: andconsidering my concern in the house of God, Icould do no less than to give them warning,That every man might deliver his soul.

You proceed, saying, It is my liberty, as wellas others into whose hands it falls, to weighwhat you have said in truths balance, and if itbe found too light, to reject it whether you willor no.

Ans. Do but grant me, without mocking ofme, the liberty you desire to take, and Godhelping me, I desire no more [than] to shift formyself among you. As to your saying, that Iproudly and imperiously insult, because I saythey are babes and carnal, that attempt tobreak the peace and communion of churches,though upon better pretences than water. Youmust know I am still of that mind, and shall be,

so long as I see the effects that follow, viz. Thebreach of love, taking off Christians from themore weighty things of God; and to make themquarrel and have heart-burnings one againstanother.

Where you are pleased to charge me withraging, for laying those eighteen particularcrimes to the charge of such who excludeChristians from church communion, and debarthem their heaven-born privileges, for the wantof 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 chargeslie wholly and only in that; then you may, timeenough, call my language such as wantethcharity: but I question though that was granted,whether your saying, I RAGE, will be justifiedin the day of judgment.


4/40


My great noise, as you call it, about aninitiating ordinance, you say, you shall take nonotice of.

Ans. 1. Although you do not, I must: For ifbaptism be not that, but another; and if visiblesaints may enter into fellowship by that other,

and are nowhere forbidden so to do, becausethey have not light into water baptism: it is ofweight to be considered by me; yea, and ofothers too who are unprejudiced. 2. Howignorant you are of such as hold it the initiatingordinance I know not: nor how long you havebeen of that persuasion I know not. This Iknow, that men of your own party, as serious,godly, and it may be, more learned thanyourself, have within less than this twelve-month urged it. Mr. D. in my hearing, did fromRomans 6:1, 2 in the meeting in Lothburyaffirm it: also my much esteemed Mr. D. A.4didtwice in a conference with me assert it. 3. Butwhatever you say, whether for, or against, tisno matter; for while you deny it be the enteringordinance, you account it the wall, bar, bolt,and door; even that which must separatebetween the righteous and the righteous; nay,you make want of light therein, a ground toexclude the most godly your communion, whenevery novice in religion shall be received intoyour 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 isthe initiating ordinance: but withal, give meleave to correct, as I think, one extravagantexpression of yours. You say, It is CONSENTon all hands and NOTHING else, that makesthem members of particular churches, and notfaith and baptism. You might have stopped at,and nothing else, you need not in particularhave rejected faith: your first error was bad

enough: what, NOTHING else but consent?What, not so much as a respect to the matter orend? Why then are not all the communities of

4 Mr. H. DAnvers: A seventh end of baptism is, that

the baptized person may orderly thereby have anentrance into the visible church. None wereesteemed members, or did partake of its ordinances,before they were baptized, being so Gods hedge orboundary.--Treatise of Baptism, p. 20, ed. 1674.

all the highwaymen in the land, trulyconstituted churches of Christ; unless you canprove that they hold together, but not byconsent? What? consent and nothing else? Butwhy do YOU throw out FAITH? why, I throwout baptism; which because you cannot as to

the case in hand fetch in again, therefore outmust faith go too. Your action is much like thatharlots, that stood to be judged by Solomon,who because her own child was dead, wouldhave her neighbours killed also (1 Kings 3:26).Faith, Sir, both in the profession and confessionof it, is of immediate and also absolute concern,even in the very act of the churchs reception, ofthis or another member. Throw out faith, andthere is no such thing as a Christian, neithervisible nor invisible. You ought to receive noman, but upon a comfortable satisfaction to thechurch, that you are now receiving a believer.Faith, whether it be savingly there or no, is thegreat argument with the church in receivingany: we receive not men as men, but the manimmediately under that supposition; He hathfaith, he is a Christian. Sir, consent simply,without faith, makes no man a member of thechurch of God: because then would a churchnot cease to be a church, whoever they receivedamong them. Yea, by this assertion you havejustified the church of Rome itself, to be to this

day both good, and godly, unless you can provethat they did at first, and do now receive theirunbelieving members, without their ownconsent. The church hath no such liberty toreceive men without respect to faith; yea, faithand holiness must be the essentials, or basis,upon, and for the sake of which you receivethem: holiness, I say, yet not such as iscircumstantial, but that which is such in thevery heart of it: pray you in your next thereforeword it better, lest while you slight and trample

upon me, you stand before all, blame-worthyyourself.The scriptures you speak of, I did not in my

first produce to shew persons unbaptized [inwater] might hold communion with the church,though I am fully convinced they may, but toshew, that knowledge of those persons, of theirfaith and holiness in general, ought first to beshewed to the church, before she can lawfullyreceive them (Acts 9:26-31; 1 Cor 16:10; 2 Cor


5/40


8:23). As to my answer to a question which youhave of yours corrupted, and then abused: I tellyou again, That a discovery of the faith andholiness, and a declaration of the willingness ofa person to subject himself to the laws andgovernment of Christ in his church, is a ground

sufficient to receive such a member.But you descant; Is baptism one of the lawsof Christ?

Ans. It is none of those laws, neither anypart of them, that the church, as a church,should shew her obedience by. For albeit thatbaptism be given by Christ our Lord to thechurch, yet not for them to worship him by as achurch. Shew me what church-ordinance it is;and when, or where the church, as a church, isto practise it, as one of those laws andappointments that he hath commanded hischurch to shew to him her obedience by. Again,That submitting to water baptism, is a sign ornote, that was ever required by any of theprimitive churches, of him that would holdfellowship with them; or that it infuseth suchgrace and holiness into those that submitthereto, as to capacitate them for such aprivilege; or that they did acknowledge it a signthereof, I find not in all the Bible.

I find not, as I told you in my first, thatbaptism 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 hersatisfaction of the person, from better proof (1Peter 3:21).

I told you also, That baptism makes thee nomember of the church, neither doth it makethee a visible saint: It giveth thee therefore,neither right to, nor being of membership at all.Why, Sir, did you not answer these things? butslip them with others, as if you wereunconcerned; troubling your reader with such

kind of insinuations, as must needs beunsavoury to godly ears. You make the morallaw none of Christs but Moses; not the sonsbut the servants; and tell me, because I pleadfor faith and holiness, according to moral dutiesgospelized, (they are my words) whereby weought to judge of the fitness of members; thattherefore Moses is more beholden to me thanChrist.

Sir, know you not yet, that a difference is tobe put betwixt those rules that discover theessentials of holiness, and those that inthemselves are not such; and that that of faithand the moral law is the one, and baptism, &c.the other. Is not love to God, abhorrence of

idols, to forbear blaspheming, to honour ourparents, to do no murder, to forbear theft, notto bear false witness, nor covet, &c. are not (Isay) these the precepts of the Lord Jesus,because delivered by Moses? Or, are these suchas may better be broken, than for want of lightto forbear baptism with water? Or, doth a manwhile he liveth in the neglect of these, and in themean time bustle about those you call gospelcommands, most honour Christ, or best fithimself for fellowship with the saints? Need Itell you, That the faith of Christ, with the tencommandments, are as much now gospelcommands as baptism; and ought to be in asmuch, and far more respect with the holy onesthan that, or other the like.

5

Yea, shall I tell you, That baptism willneither admit a man into fellowship, nor keephim there, if he be a transgressor of a moralprecept; and that a man who believeth in Jesus,and fulfilleth the royal law, doth more glorifyGod, and honour religion in the world, than hethat keepeth, if there were so many, ten

thousand figurative laws. As to thosecommands that respect Gods institutedworship in a church, as a church, I have toldyou that baptism is none of them, and you havebeen driven to confess it. The church then mustfirst look to faith, then to good living accordingto the ten commandments; after that she mustrespect those appointments of our Lord Jesusthat respects her outward order and discipline,and then she walks as becomes her, sinning ifshe neglecteth either; sinning if she overvalueth

either. But why did you not answer those tests Iproduced for the strengthening of my argument(Rom 14:17,18; Deut 27:47; James 2:8-12; 1Cor 9:21, 5:9-11; Gal 6:15,16; Phil 3; 1 Tim1:9-11; Acts 20:28-32; Rom 13:13; James 4:11;

5 A modern writer, in a critique on Bunyan, says that

he did as much justice to grace as his Calvinismwould allow him!! May all the world be suchCalvinists.--Ed.


6/40


1 Cor 5:12). Deal fairly; Answer those texts,with the argument made upon them; and whenyou have after a godly manner done that, youmay the more boldly condemn.

You tell me, that I say, None ever receivedbaptism 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 inyour answer. May a man be a visible saintwithout light therein? May he have a goodconscience without light therein? And seeingthat baptism is none of the worship that Christinstituted in his church for them to practice as achurch, must he be kept dark about all otherthings concerning the worship of God in hischurch, until he receive light therein?

You have answered already, That theyought to be ashamed, and to repent of thatabomination [their sprinkling] BEFORE theycome to have a sight of the pattern of the houseof God, the goings in and the comings outthereof (Eze 43:10,11). But, Sir, where do youfind that want of light in water baptism, orbecause a man hath been sprinkled, that he is tobe kept dark in all other temple-institutions, tillhe be ashamed and repent of that? Prayproduce the texts, for Ezekiel helps younothing: he speaks only of the pattern of thehouse, the goings out, and comings in thereof.

As for the coming in, you have alreadyconfessed, That baptism is not the enteringordinance. And as for the worship that Christhath instituted in his church, as a church, I say,(and you also have said it) baptism is none ofthe forms thereof, none of the ordinancesthereof, none of the laws thereof; for baptismis, as to the practice of it, that which is withoutthe church, without the house of God.

6Then by

your own text, if a man do repent him of hischristening 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 persons light that giveth

being to a precept?

6 Without the church, previous to having entered

into the church, a personalobedience to the divinecommand; having repented, then be baptized:neither of these are duties to be performed by thechurch, as such, but individually.--Ed.

Ans. Who said it? Yet it is his light and faithabout it, that can make him to do it acceptably.

You ask again, Suppose men plead want oflight in other commands?

Ans. If they be not such, the forbearance ofwhich, 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 thatworship which Christ hath instituted for hischurch, to be conversant in as a church;presenting them as such, with their communionwith their Head, and with one another asmembers of him. The cup of blessing which webless, is it not the communion of the blood ofChrist? The bread which we break, is it not thecommunion of the body of Christ? For webeing many are one bread, and one body; forwe are all partakers of that one bread (1 Cor10:16,17). Wherefore this being a dutyincumbent on the church, as a church; and onevery member of that body as such, they areobliged in that case more closely to deal withthe members, than in that wherein they are notso concerned; and with which as such, theyhave nothing to do. No man baptizeth by virtueof his office in the church; no man is baptizedby virtue of his membership there.

But what if a man want light in his duty tothe poor?

Ans. If he doth, God must give it him; Imean to know his duty as a church member.Now I will add, but what if he that can give ashilling, giveth nothing? I suppose all that thechurch can do in that case, is but to warn, toexhort, and charge him, and to shew him hisduty: and if he neglect, to shew him, that Hewhich soweth sparingly, shall reap alsosparingly (2 Cor 9:6). But to cut a man off for

this, as you forwardly urge, would argue thatchurch, at least I think so, a little too bold withso high and weighty a censure. I plead not herefor the churl, but seek to allay your heat: andshould it be granted that such deserve as youwould have it, this makes no matter to the casein hand. Now whereas you suggest, That moralevils are but sins against men, you are toomuch unadvised: the moral evil, as you call it,whether you respect the breach of the first or


7/40


second table, is first and immediately a sinagainst God; and more insufferable, yea anddamnable, than for a man for want of light toforbear either baptism or the Lords Supper.

But say you, We have now found anadvocate for sin against God, in the breach of

one of HIS holy commands?Ans. As if none of the moral precepts wereHIS. But, Sir, who have I pleaded for, in thedenial of any one ordinance of God? Yea, or fortheir neglect of it either? What I say, is but thatmen must have light, that they may not do indarkness, or Papist-like, live by an implicitfaith.

But I see you put no difference between anopen breach of the law, and a forbearing thatwhich to him is doubtful. But I will suppose acase: There is a man wants light in baptism, yetby his neighbour is pressed to it: he saith heseeth it not to be his duty; the other saith, hesins if he doth it not: now seeing whatsoever isnot of faith is sin (Rom 14:23); what shouldthis man do? If you say, let him use the means: Isay so too. But what, if when he hath used it, hestill continueth dark about it; what will youadvise him now? If you bid him wait, do younot encourage him to live in sin, as much as Ido? Nay, and seeing you will not let him forwant of light in that, obey God in other his

institutions; what is it but to say, Seeing youlive 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 ofall the rest. And WHERE you are commandedthus, you may shew the place when you find it.

Now where you urge, that you are one ofthem that say, The epistles were writ toparticular churches, and so serve nothing at allfor 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, thatwere good for me to do. But what should be thereason that our author, with others of hisopinion, should stickle so hard to prove [that]all the epistles were wrote to particularchurches? Why, because those members were,as they think, every one baptized; and so theepistles from which we fetch our arguments forthe love and concord of saints, to be only

proper to themselves.7But if this be true, there

is virtue indeed, and more than ever I dreamedof, in partaking of water baptism: for if thatshall take away the epistles, and consequentlythe whole Bible, from all that are not baptized;then are the other churches, and also particular

saints, in a very deplorable condition. For heasketh me very devoutly, Whether anyunbaptized persons were concerned in theseepistles? But why would they take from us theHoly Scriptures? Verily, that we might havenaught to justify our practice withal: for if theScriptures belong only to baptized believers,they then belong not to the rest; and in truth, ifthey could persuade us to yield them this grant,we should but sorrily justify our practice. But Iwould ask these men, If the word of God cameout from them? Or if it came to them only? (1Cor 14:36). Or, whether Christ hath not givenhis whole word to every one that believeth,whether they be baptized, or in, or out ofchurch fellowship (James 17:14). Or, whetherevery saint in some sort, hath not the keys ofthe kingdom of heaven, which are theScriptures and their power? Would to God theyhad learned more modesty, than thus to takefrom all others, and appropriate to themselves,and that for the sake of their observing acircumstance 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 timethe epistle was sent to the brethren there,besides that church that was in Aquilas house,although many more saints were then in thecity? (Rom 16:5). Yea, the apostle in hissalutation at the beginning, embraceth themonly as brethren, without the least intimation oftheir being gathered into fellowship: To all thatbe in Rome, beloved of God, called to besaints:

Grace to you, &c. (1:7). To all there, to all inthat city, beloved of God, and that areconverted to the Lord Jesus Christ. A churchthere was in Aquilas house, and that there weremany more saints besides, is, and that by the

7 To themselves, to the particular churches only to

which they were written. Contrary to the word, Allscripture is given - to be profitable to the man ofGod in every church (2 Tim 3:16).--Ed.


8/40


text, as manifest. Besides, considering the rulesthat are given them in the 14th and 15thchapters about their receiving one another, dothyet strongly suggest to me, that they were notyet in fellowship, but as it were now about it,when Paul wrote his epistle to them.

The first epistle written to Corinth, was alsowrote to all them that in every place call uponthe name of Jesus Christ our Lord (1:2). But itwill be hard work for our author to make itmanifest, that none in those days did call on thename of our Lord, but those that were firstbaptized. The second epistle also, was not onlywritten to the church at Corinth, but also to allthe saints which were in all Achaia (2 Cor 1:1).To the Galatians and Thessalonians indeed, hissalutation was only to the churches there: Butthe three epistles before were as well to all other[saints]: As also that to the Ephesians,Philippians, and Colossians, in which thefaithful and SAINTS in Christ Jesus were alsoevery one comprehended. Besides, to whatparticular church was the epistle to theHebrews wrote? Or the epistle of James? Boththose of Peter, and the first of John? Nay, thatof John was wrote to some at that time out offellowship, that also may have fellowship with[us] the church (1:1-4). So that these brethrenmust not have all the scriptures. We have then a

like privilege with all saints, to use thescriptures for our godly edifying, and to defendourselves thereby, from the assaults of thosethat 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 churchwas pestered of old] trouble the peace, andwound the consciences of the godly, dismemberand break their fellowships; it is, although anordinance, 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 tochurches? And did ever God send an ordinanceto be a pest and plague to his people?

I answer: I said not that God did send it forany such end at all; Gods ordinances are noneof this in themselves: nor if used as, and for theend for which God sent them. But yet bothbaptism, and the supper of the Lord, have, bybeing wrested out of their place, been a great

affliction to the godly both in this and otherages. What say you to breaking of bread, whichthe devil, by abusing, made an engine in thehand of Papists, to burn, starve, hang and drawthousands? What say you to John of Leyden?What work did he make by the abuse of the

ordinance of water baptism? And I wish thisage had not given cause, through the church-rending spirits that some are possessed with, tomake complaint of this matter; who have alsohad for their engine the baptism with water.Yea, yourself, Sir, so far as I can perceive, couldyou get but the opportunity; yourself (I say)under pretence of this innocent ordinance, asyou term it, would not stick to make inroads,and outroads too, in all the churches, that suitnot your fancy, in the land. For you havealready been bold to affirm, That all those thathave baptized infants, ought to be ashamed andrepent, before they be showed the pattern of thehouse. And what is this but to threaten, thatcould you have your will of them, you wouldquickly take from them their present churchprivileges, and let them see nothing thereof, tillthose qualifications, especially subjection towater baptism, was found to attend each ofthem.

As to the persons you speak of, Who haverent churches in pieces, by making preaching by

method, doctrine, reason and use, to be anti-christian: Or, because they could not haveother ministrations performed after their fanciesthe imprudence of such with yourselves, hathbeen heart-breaking to many a gracious soul; anhigh occasion of stumbling to the weak, and areproach to the ways of the Lord. That it maybe prudently shunned, I referred you then forproof, to what should be offered after: but atthis you cry out, and so pass it.

And now, reader, although this author hath

thus objected against some passages in this myfirst argument for communion with personsunbaptized; yet the body of my argument hemisseth and passeth over, as a thing not worththe answering; whether because he forgot, orbecause he was conscious to himself, that heknew not what to do therewith, I will not nowdetermine. 1. I effectually prove, That baptismis not the initiating ordinance. 2. I prove, Thatthough it was, yet the case may so fall out, that


9/40


members might be received without it. 3. Iprove, That baptism makes no man a visiblesaint, nor giveth any right to churchfellowship. 4. I prove, That faith, and a lifebecoming the law of the ten commandments,should be the chief and most solid argument

with true churches to receive saints tofellowship.8 5. I prove, That circumcision in

the flesh, which was the entering ordinance ofold, was a type of circumcision in the heart,&c. These things, with others, our authorletteth pass; although in the proof of themabideth the strength of this first argument; towhich I must entreat him in his next, to cast hiseye, and give fair answer; as also to thescriptures on which each are built, or he mustsuffer me to say, I am abused. Further, I make aquestion upon three scriptures, Whether all thesaints, even in the primitive times, werebaptized with water? to which also heanswereth nothing; whereas he ought to havedone it, if he will take in hand to confute. Thescriptures are 1 Corinthians 1:14-16; Romans6:3; Galatians 3:27. Yet were they effectuallyanswered, my argument is nothing weakened.

You come to my second argument, drawnfrom Ephesians 4:4-6. Upon which a little morenow to enlarge, and then to take notice of yourobjection. The apostle then in that fourth of the

Ephesians, exhorteth the church there with alllowliness and meekness, with long suffering,forbearing one another in love; endeavouring tokeep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace(vv 2,3). This done, he presents them with sucharguments, as might fasten his exhortation topurpose upon them.

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 evangelicalsum of the whole law, Thou shalt love the Lord thyGod with all thy heart, and thy neighbour asthyself. This happy state of mind can only beattained by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Howawful the thought that multitudes of professingChristians rely upon outward ceremonies, a fleshlycarnal confidence in ordinances, while they are deadas to union with God and to spiritual communionwith his saints. Reader, how is it with your ownsoul.--Ed.

1. The first is, because the body is ONE;There is one body; therefore they should notdivide. For if the church of Christ be a body,there ought not to be a rent or schism amongthem (1 Cor 12).

2. His second argument is, There is one

spirit, or one quickening principle by which thebody is made to live; for having asserted beforethat Christ hath indeed a body, it was meet thathe showed also, that this body hath life, andmotion. Now that life, being none other, thanthat nourishment, or spirit of life, from whichthe whole body fitly joined together andcompacted by that which every joint supplieth,according to the effectual working of themeasure in every part, maketh increase of thebody unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph4:16). Now this spirit, being first, and chiefly,in the head, therefore none other but those thathold the head can have this nourishmentministered to them: besides, this is the spiritthat knits the body together, and makes itincrease with the increase of God (Col 2:19).This is the unity of the spirit which he beforeexhorts them to keep.

3. The third argument is, Because their hopeis 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, andalso the object, be but one: if you hope for oneheaven, and for one eternal life: then maintainthat unity of the spirit, and hope, while here, inlove, and the bond of peace (Eph 4:3).

4. The fourth argument is, There is oneLord, or husband, or prince, to whom thischurch belongs: therefore if we have husbands,but one, Lord and prince but one, let us notread into many parties, as if we had manyhusbands, lords, and princes, to govern us, as

his wife, his house, and kingdom. Is Christdivided? (1 Cor 1:13).5. The fifth argument is, There is one faith,

by which we all stand justified by one LordJesus Christ; one faith by which we escape thewrath of God; one faith by which only theythat have it are blessed; yea, seeing there is butone faith, by which we are all put into oneway of salvation, let us hold together as such.


10/40


6. The sixth argument is, There is onebaptism. Now we are come to the pinch, viz.,Whether it be that of water, or no? which Imust positively deny. (1.) Because waterbaptism hath nothing to do in a church, as achurch; it neither bringeth us into the church,

nor is any part of our worship when we comethere; how then can the peace and unity of thechurch depend upon water baptism? Besides, hesaith expressly, It is the unity of the spirit, notwater, that is here intended: and the argumentsbrought to enforce it, are such as wholly andimmediately relate to the duty of the church, asa church. (2.) Further, That other text, thattreateth of our being baptized into a body, saithexpressly it is done by the spirit: For by onespirit are we all baptized into one body (1 Cor12:13). Here is the church presented as underthe notion of one body; here is a baptismmentioned, by which they are brought, orinitiated into this body: Now that this is thebaptism of water, is utterly against the words ofthe text; For by one spirit are we all baptizedinto one body. Besides, if the baptism here beof water, then is it the initiating ordinance; butthe contrary I have proved, and this authorstands by my doctrine. So then, the baptismhere respecting the church as one body, andwater, having nothing to do to enter men into

the church, nor to command them to practise itas a church, in order to their peace orcommunion, or respecting the worship of Godas such: and (I say again) the baptism in thesixth argument, being urged precisely for noother purpose, but with respect to the churchspeace as a body; it must needs be THATbaptism, by virtue of which, they were initiated,and joined together in one; and that baptismbeing only that which the Spirit executeth; thistherefore is that one baptism.

7. The other argument is also effectual; thereis One God and Father of all, who isabove all,and through all, and in you all (Eph 4:6). If weare one body; if to it there be but one spirit;if we have but one hope, one faith, and be allbaptized by one spirit into that one body;and if we have but one Lord, one God, and hein every one of us; let us be also one: and letthem 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; andgive the lie to all expositors, for they hold this

one baptism, to be none other than that ofwater.

9

Ans. What if I should also send you toanswer those expositors that expound certainscriptures for infant baptism, and that by thembrand us for anabaptists; must this drive youfrom your belief of the truth? EXPOSITORS Ireverence, but must live by mine own faith(Habb 2:4). God hath no where bound himselfto them more than to others, with respect to therevelation of his mind in his word. But itbecomes not you to run thus to expositors, whoare, as to your notions in many things, but ofyesterday: to the law, and to the testimony (Isa8:20): for Out of the mouth of babes the Lordhath ordained strength (Psa 8:2).

But you bid me tell you, What I mean byspirit baptism?

Ans. Sir, you mistake me, I treat not here ofour being baptized with the Spirit, with respectto its coming from heaven into us; but of thatact of the spirit, when come, which baptizeth usinto a body or church. It is one thing to bebaptized with the Spirit in the first sense; andanother 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, isanother. Your question therefore is groundedon a mistake, both of my judgment, and thewords of the apostle. Wherefore thus I soon putan end to your objections. For the Spirit to

9 Bunyans adversaries were wrong in stating that all

the expositors agreed in referring this one baptismto be that in or with water. John Caime, 1662, refers

to 1 Corinthians 12:13, as an illustration ofEphesians 4:5, One baptism, by one SPIRIT are weall baptized. The Assemblys Annotations, 1657,infers that one means once, and refers to theNicene creed, which says, one baptism for theremission of sins; this surely cannot mean that theapplication of water remits sins. Diodati, 1648, issilent on this subject. Dr. Hammond, 1653, says,the same vow to be administered to all. Verysimilar to this is the Dutch annotations of TheodoreHaak.--Ed.


11/40


come down upon me, is one thing; and for theSpirit to baptize, or implant me into the church,is another: for to be possessed with the spirit, isone thing; and to be led by that spirit, isanother. I conclude then; seeing the argumenttaken from that one baptism, respecteth church

fellowship properly; and seeing water baptismmeddleth not with it as such; it is the other,even that in 1 Corinthians 12:16 that is hereintended, and no other.

But you add, If nothing but extraordinarygifts are called the baptism of the Spirit in astrict sense; then that baptism (1 Cor 12) mustbe water baptism, as well as that in theEphesians.

Hold: you make your conclusions before youhave cause; first, prove that in the Ephesians tobe meant of water baptism, and that thebaptism in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is the baptismyou would have it; and then conclude myargument void. That it is the baptism of theHoly Ghost according to the common notion, Isay not; for you to assert it is the baptism ofwater, gives the lie to the text: but that it is anact of the Holy Ghost, baptizing the saints intoa body, or church, you will hardly be able tomake the contrary appear to be truth. Butbehold, while here you would have this to bebaptism with water, how you contradict and

condemn your own notion: you say waterbaptism is not the entering ordinance; yet thebaptism here is such as baptizeth us into abody: wherefore before you say next time thatthis in 1 Corinthians 12:16 is meant of waterbaptism; affirm that water baptism is theinitiating or entering ordinance, that youropinion and doctrine may hang better together.

We come to my third argument; which is toprove, that it is lawful to hold churchcommunion 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 fromthe practice of it; the doctrine being that whichby the outward sign is presented to us; or whichby the outward circumstance of the act ispreached to the believer, viz., the death ofChrist, my death with Christ; also hisresurrection from the dead, and mine with himto newness of life. This our author calleth one

of the strangest paradoxes that he hathLIGHTLY observed.

Ans. How light he is in his observation ofthings, I know not; this I am sure, the apostlemakes mention of the doctrine of baptisms;now that the doctrine of a man, or ordinance, is

the signification of what is preached, isapparent to very sense. What is Christsdoctrine, Pauls doctrine, scripture doctrine, butthe truth couched under the words that arespoken? so the doctrine of baptism, yea and thedoctrine of the Lords supper, are those truthsor mysteries that such ordinances preach untous. And that the doctrine of baptism, in thissense, is the great end for which that, and theLords supper, was instituted, is apparent fromall the scriptures: it is that which the apostleseeketh for in that eminent sixth of theRomans, Know ye not that so many of us aswere baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptizedinto his death? Therefore we are buried withhim by baptism into death: that like as Christwas raised up from the dead by the glory of theFather, even so we also should walk in newnessof life. For if we have been planted together inthe likeness of his death, we shall be also in thelikeness of his resurrection (3-5). What is herediscoursed, but the doctrine of or that whichbaptism teacheth; with an intimation; that that

was the chief, for the sake of which thatshadow was instituted; as also that they thathave the doctrine, or that which is signifiedthereby, they only must reign with Christ.

Again, This is that which he seeketh foramong the Corinthians; If the dead rise not atall, [saith he], why then were you baptized forthe dead? (1 Cor 15:29). Why then were youbaptized? What did baptism teach you? Whatdoctrine did it preach to you? further, Buriedwith him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen

with him through the faith of the operation ofGod, who hath raised him from the dead (Col2:12). What is here in chief asserted, but thedoctrine only which water baptism preacheth?with an intimation, that they, and they only, arethe saved of the Lord, that have heard, received,and that live in this doctrine.

The same may be said of the Lords supper,it also hath its doctrine. But against this our


12/40


author objecteth, saying, That this is called thedoctrine of baptism, I am yet to learn.

Ans. Your ignorance of the truth makes itnot an error: but I pray you, what is thedoctrine of baptism, if not that which baptismteacheth, even that which is signified thereby?

As that is the doctrine of Christ, and thescriptures; which he and they teach as the mindof God.

But you say, I took the doctrine of baptismto be the command that a believer should bebaptized, for such ends as the gospelexpresseth.

Ans. To assert that a figurative ordinance isof God, is one thing; but the doctrinalsignification of that ordinance is another. Aman may preach the command, yet none of thedoctrine which baptism preacheth. The doctrinelieth not in the command, but the mysterydiscovered to faith, by the act.

You object, If the resurrection be thedoctrine of baptism, why doth the apostle makethat, and the doctrine of baptism, thingsdistinct, in Hebrews 6.

Ans. The resurrection simply considered, isnot the doctrine of baptism, but Christs, andmine by him. Besides, there is more in it thanthe mystery of this resurrection; there is mydeath first, and then my rising with him.

But you add, Under the law, all thesacrifices of that dispensation, with theirsabbaths, were types of that Christ, who wasthe substance of all those ceremonies. If any ofthem then that professed faith in the Messias tocome, should upon scruples, or want ofpretended light, neglect the whole, or part ofthat typical worship; why may not a man say ofthem, as this advocate of the practice underdebate, 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, becomesyou not to imagine, unless your boldness willlead you to judge, that all men want sincerity,that come not up to our judgment. Theirconscience may be better than either yours ormine; yet God, for purposes best known tohimself, may forbear to give them conviction oftheir duty in this particular. But what, becausethey are not baptized, have they not Jesus

Christ? Or, must we now be afraid to say thatChrist is better than water baptism?

10Yea, God

himself for the sake of this better thing, hathsuffered in his church a suspension of some ofhis ordinances, yet owned them for his trulyconstituted congregation. What say you to the

church in the wilderness? I touched you with itin my first, but perceive you listed not tomeddle therewith. That church receivedmembers, the way which was not prescribed by,but directly against the revealed mind of God;yet stood a true church, their members truemembers; also that church in that state, wassuch before whom, among whom, and to whomGod continually made known himself to betheir God, and owned them for his peculiartreasure.

And now I am fallen upon it, let me a littleenlarge: this church, according to the theninstituted worship of God, had circumcision fortheir entering ordinance (Gen 17:13,14),without which it was unlawful to receive anyinto fellowship with them: yea, he that withoutit was received, was to be cut off, and cast outagain. Further, as to the passover, theuncircumcised were utterly forbidden to eat it(Exo 12:48). Now if our brethren had asexpress prohibition to justify their groundlessopinion, as here is to exclude the uncircumcised

from the communion of the church and thepassover: I say, if they could find it written, Nounbaptized person shall enter, no unbaptizedperson shall eat of the supper; what a noisewould they make about it? But yet let thereader observe, that although circumcision wasthe entering ordinance, and our author saithbaptism is not; yea, though this church wasexpressly forbidden to receive theuncircumcised, and we have not a syllable nowto forbid the unbaptized, yet this church

received members without, and otherwise thanby this entering ordinance. They also admitted

10 Heaven forbid that we should be afraid or ashamedof 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 forlife, but Christ is our essential food all through thewilderness--every hour of life until we enter the gatesof the celestial and eternal city.--Ed.


13/40


them to the passover; yea, entertained, retained,and held communion with them so long as fortyyears without it. I say again, That the numberof this sort of communicants was not so few assix hundred thousand. Moreover, to theseuncircumcised was the land of Canaan given,

yea, a possession of part thereof before theywere circumcised; but the old circumcised onesmight not enter therein. I am the larger in this,because our author hath overlooked my firstmention thereof. And now I ask, What was thereason that God continued his presence withthis church notwithstanding this transgression?Was it not because they had that richer andbetter thing, the Lord Jesus Christ? For theydid all eat of that spiritual bread, and drink ofthat spiritual rock that followed them: and thatrock was Christ (1 Cor 10:3,4). I confess I findthem under rebukes and judgments in thewilderness, and that they were many timesthreatened to be destroyed; but yet I find not somuch as one check for their receiving ofmembers uncircumcised. Further, in the NewTestament, where we have a catalogue of theirsins, and also of their punishment for them; wefind not a word about circumcision, nor thesmallest intimation of the least rebuke forneglecting 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 andbetter thing.

But you object, That this putteth the wholeof Gods instituted worship both under the lawand gospel, to the highest uncertainties.

Ans. This putteth our opposers out of theirroad, and quencheth the flame of theirunwarrantable zeal. For if the enteringordinance, if the ordinance without which noman might be added to the church, was laidaside for forty years; yea, if more than six

hundred thousand did communicate with themwithout it: I say again, If they did it, and heldcommunion with God, that notwithstanding;yea, and had not, that we read of, all that timeone small check for so doing; why may not wenow enter communion, hold communion,maintain communion, church communion,without being judged, and condemned by you?because we cannot for want of light be allbaptized before; especially considering baptism

makes no man a saint, is not the enteringordinance, is no part of the worship of Godenjoined the church as a church. To conclude,although we receive members unbaptized [inafter], we leave not Gods instituted worship atuncertainties, especially what he hath

commanded us as his church; we only professour want of light in some things; but see noword to warrant the forbearance of our duty inall, 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 notshew me my evil in thus calling it, whenopposed to the substance, and the thingsignified? Is it the substance, is it the thingsignified? And why may not I give it the nameof a shew; when you call it a symbol, andcompare it to a gentlemans livery?

But you say, I call it anoutward 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 ourway of administering it.

This is your mistake, both of the doctrineand thing itself. But if you will not SCORN to

take notice of me, I advise you again toconsider, That a man may find baptism to becommanded, may be informed who ought toadminister it; may also know the propersubject; and that the manner of baptizing isdipping; and may desire to practise it because itis commanded, and yet know nothing of whatwater baptism preacheth; or of the mysterybaptism sheweth to faith. But that the doctrineof baptism is not the practice of it, not theoutward act, but the thing signified; and that

every believer hath that, must argue you morethan too bold to deny it.But say you, Who taught you to divide

betwixt Christ and his precepts, that you wordit 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 bemy righteousness, and not water; if Christ bemy advocate, and not water; if there be that


14/40


good and blessedness in Christ, that is not inwater; then is Jesus Christ better than water;and also in these to be eternally divided fromwater; unless we will make them co-saviours,co-advocates, and such as are equally good andprofitable to men.

But say you, I thought that he that hathChrist, had an orderly right to all Christspromises and precepts; and that the precepts ofChrist, are part of the riches that a believer hathin and by Christ.

Ans. A believer hath more in Christ thaneither promise or precept; but all believersknow not all things, that of God are given tothem by Christ. But must not they use, andenjoy what they know, because they know notall. Or must they neglect the weightier matters,because they want mint, and anise, andcummin? Your pretended orderly right is yourfancy; there is not a syllable in the whole bible,that bids a Christian to forbear his duty inother things, because he wanteth, as you termit, the symbol, or water baptism.

But say you, He that despiseth his birthrightof ordinances, our church privileges, will befound to be a profane person, as Esau in Godsaccount.

Baptism is not the privilege of a church assuch. But what? are they all Esaus indeed?

Must we go to hell, and be damned, for want offaith in water baptism? And take notice, I donot plead for a despising of baptism, but abearing with our brother, that cannot do it forwant of light. The best of baptism he hath, viz.the signification thereof: he wanteth only theoutward shew, which if he had, would notprove him a truly visible saint; it would not tellme he had the grace of God in his heart; it is nocharacteristical note to another of my Sonshipwith God. But why did you not answer these

parts of my argument? Why did you only cavilat words? which if they had been left out, theargument yet stands good. He that is notbaptized [in water], if yet a true believer, haththe DOCTRINE of baptism; yea, he ought tohave it before he be convicted, it is his duty tobe baptized, or else he playeth the hypocrite.There is therefore no difference between thatbeliever that is, and he that is not yet baptizedwith water; but only his going down into the

water, there to perform an outward ceremony,the substance of which he hath already; whichyet he is not commanded to do with respect tomembership with the church; but to obtain bythat, further understanding of his privilege byChrist, which before he made profession of, and

that as a visible believer.

11

But to come to my fourth argument, whichyou so tenderly touch as if it burnt your fingers:I am bold [say I] to have communion withvisible saints as before, because God hathcommunion with them, whose example in thecase we are strictly commanded to follow.Receive ye one another, as Christ also receivedus to the glory of God (Rom 15:7). Yea,though they be saints, in opinion contrary toyou, or I. We that are strong ought to bear theinfirmities of the weak, and not to pleaseourselves (Rom 15:1). Infirmities that aresinful: for they that are natural are incident toall. Infirmities therefore they are, that for wantof light, cause a man to err in circumstantials:and the reason upon which Paul groundeth thisadmonition is; For even Christ pleased nothimself, but, as it is written, The reproaches ofthem that reproached thee fell on me (Rom15:3).

You say to this, That it is Pauls direction tothe 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 theseinstructions? or is not the church by thesewords at all directed how to carry it to thosethat were not yet in fellowship? A boldassertion! but grounded upon nothing, but thatyou would have it so. 2. But how will youprove that there was a church, a rightlyconstituted church, at Rome, besides that in

11 While we acknowledge the importance of waterbaptism, to which Christ submitted, yet we do wellto consider that it was not intended as a means ofpurifying his infinite purity; no more does it purifythe believer who follows his Redeemer in thisordinance. He was as much a believer before as he isafter the ceremony. He submits to it as an act ofobedience to the divine command, in the humblehope that his faith may be strengthened and his soulrefreshed.--Ed.


15/40


Aquilas house? (chap. 16). Neither doth thisepistle, nor any other in the whole book of Godaffirm it. Besides, since Paul in this last chaptersaluteth the church, as in this mans house, butthe other, only as particular saints, it givethfurther ground of conviction to you, that those

others were not as yet imbodied in such afellowship. 3. But suppose there was anotherchurch besides; it doth not therefore follow,that the apostle exhorteth them only to receivepersons already in fellowship; but Him, evenevery 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 bywhich they are directed to do it, is that bywhich we perceive that Christ hath receivedthem. But Christ did not receive them by[water] baptism, but as given to him by theFather. Him, therefore, concerning whom weare convinced, that he by the Father is given toChrist, Him should we receive. 5. But whatneed I grant you, that which cannot be proved?yet if you could prove it, it availeth nothing atall; because you may not, cannot, ought not todare to limit the exhortation to receiving of oneanother into each others affections only; andnot also receiving saints into communion.

But you object: To make Gods 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 havenot denied. And that it holds thus, is plain,because commanded. But let the reader know,that your putting in that way of his receivingwhich is invisible to us; is but an unhandsomestraddling over my argument, which treatethonly of a visible receiving; such as is manifest tothe church. This you knew, but sought byevading to turn the reader from considering the

strength of this my argument. The receivingthen [said I] because it is set as an example tothe church, is such as must needs be visible untothem; and is best discovered by that word thatdescribeth the visible saint. Whoso then you canjudge a visible saint, one that walketh withGod, you may, nay ought to judge by the sameword, that God hath received him. Now himthat God receiveth, him should you receive.But will any object; they cannot believe that

God receiveth the unbaptized saints; I will notsuppose you so much stupefied, and thereforeshall make no answer.

But you seem to be much offended, because Isaid, Vain man! Think not by the straightnessof thine order in outward, and bodily

conformity to outward and shadowishcircumstances, that thy peace is maintainedwith God? But why so much offended at this?[It is say you] Because you intend by this thebrethren of the baptized way.

Ans. If they be vain men, and set up theirOWN order, how straight soever they make it,they are worthy to be reproved; if they haverejected the word of the Lord; what wisdom isin them? (Jer 8:9). And as you suggest the first,I affirm the second. But if you would bejustified in excluding those, with whom yet yousee God hath communion, because they yet seenot a shadow with you; produce the scripturefor such order, that we may believe it is theorder of God. But deal fairly, lest we shew yournakedness, and others see your shame. You tellme of the order of the Colossians (2:5). But ifyou can prove that that church refused to holdcommunion with that saint whom they knew tobe received by Christ, and held communionwith him [Christ], or that none but those thatare baptized [in water] are received by and hold

communion with him, then you justify yourorder. In the mean while the whole of mineargument stands firm against you; You musthave communion with visible saints, becauseGod hath communion with them, whoseexample in the case we are strictly commandedto follow.

But you ask me, If outward and bodilyconformity be become a crime?

Ans. I nowhere said it; but know that toglorify God with our bodies, respecteth chiefly

far higher and more weighty things, than thatof water baptism; Whatsoever isnot of faith issin (Rom 14:23); and to set up an ordinance,though an ordinance of God, that by it thechurch may be pulled in pieces, or the trulyvisible saints excluded communion with theirbrethren; I say again, to make water baptism abar and division between saint and saint, everywhit otherwise gracious and holy alike: This islike fasting for strife and debate, and to smite


16/40


with the fist of wickedness (Isa 58:4); and isnot to be found within the whole bible, but iswholly an order of your own devising. As to thepeace you make an objection about you havegranted me what I intended; and now I addfurther, that for church peace to be founded in

water baptism, or any other external rite, nothaving to do with the church, as a church, ispoor peace indeed: Church peace is founded inblood; and love to each other for Jesus sake(Phil 2:1-4). Bearing with, and forbearing oneanother, in all things circumstantial, thatconcern not church worship as such (Eph4:31,32). And in my other [treatise] I haveproved that baptism is not such, and thereforeought not to be urged to make rents anddivisions among brethren.

But you ask, Is my peace maintained in away of disobedience? and conclude if it be, youfear it is false.

Ans. If the first were true; you need not todoubt of the second; but it may be thought hehath little to say in the controversy, who isforced to stuff out his papers, with suchneedless prattles as these.

My fifth argument is, That a failure in sucha circumstance as water baptism, doth notunchristian us; this you are compelled to grant.And I conclude with your words, persons ought

to be Christians before visible Christians; suchas any congregation in the land may receive tocommunion with themselves, because God hathshewed us that he has received them. Receivehim to the glory of God. To the glory of God,is put in on purpose, to shew what dishonourthey bring to him, who despise to havecommunion with such, whom they know domaintain communion with God. I say again,How doth this man, or that church, glorifyGod, or count the wisdom and holiness of

heaven beyond them, when they refusecommunion with them, concerning whom yetthey are convinced, that they have communionwith God? But my argument you have notdenied; nor meddled with the conclusion at all;which is, That therefore, even because a failurehere, doth not unchristian us, doth not make usinsincere; and I add, doth not lay us open toany revealed judgment or displeasure of God (ifit doth, shew where) therefore it should not, it

ought not to make us obnoxious to thedispleasure of the church of God.

But you say, I rank gospel precepts, withOld Testament abrogated ceremonies.

Ans. You should have given your reader mywords, that he might have judged from my own

mouth: I said then, speaking before ofChristianity itself, that thousands of thousandsthat could not consent to water, as we, are nowwith the innumerable company of angels, andthe spirits of just men made perfect. What wassaid of eating, or the contrary, may as to this besaid of water baptism: neither if I be baptized,am I the better? neither if I be not, am I theworse? not the better before God, not the worsebefore men: still meaning as Paul, provided Iwalk according to my light with God; otherwiseit is false. For if a man that seeth it to be hisduty, shall despisingly neglect it; or if he thathath not faith about it, shall foolishly take itup: both these are for this the worse; I mean, asto their own sense, being convicted inthemselves, as transgressors. He therefore thatdoth it according to his light, doth well; and hethat doth it not, for want of light, doth not ill;for he approveth his heart to be sincere withGod, even by that his forbearance. And I tellyou again, It is nowhere recorded, that this manis under any revealed threatening of God, for

his not being baptized with water, he nothaving light therein, but is admitted through hisgrace to as many promises as you. If thereforehe be not a partaker of that circumstance, yethe is of that liberty, and mercy, by which youstand with God.

But that I practise instituted worship, uponthe same account as Paul did circumcision, andshaving, is too bold for you to presume toimagine. What? because I will not suffer waterto carry away the epistles from the Christians;

and because I will not let water baptism be therule, the door, the bolt, the bar, the wall ofdivision between the righteous, and therighteous; must I therefore be judged to be aman without conscience to the worship of JesusChrist? The Lord deliver me from superstitiousand idolatrous thoughts about any of theordinances of Christ and of God. But my fifthargument standeth against you untouched; you


17/40


have not denied, much less confuted the leastsyllable thereof.

You tell me my sixth argument is,Edification.

Ans. If it be, why is it not embraced? But myown words are these: I am for holding

communion thus. Because the edification ofsouls in the faith and holiness of the gospel, isof greater concern than an agreement inoutward things; I say, it is of greater concernwith us, and of far more profit to our brother,than our agreeing in, or contesting for, waterbaptism (John 16:13; 1 Cor 14:12; 2 Cor 10:8,12:19; Eph 4:12; 1 Cor 13:1,2; 8:1). Now whydid you not take this argument in pieces, andanswer those scriptures, on which the strengththereof depends; but if to contest, and fall outabout water baptism, be better than to edify thehouse of God, produce the texts, that we maybe informed.

You say, Edification is the end of allcommunion, but all things must be done inorder, orderly.

Ans. When you have proved that there is nosuch thing as an orderly edifying of the church,without water baptism precede, then it will betime enough to think you have said something.

You add, Edification as to church fellowshipbeing a building up, doth suppose the being of a

church; but pray you shew us a church withoutbaptism.

Ans. See here the spirit of these men, who forthe want of water baptism, have at onceunchurched all such congregations of God inthe world; but against this I have, and do urge,That water baptism giveth neither being, norwell-being to a church, neither is any part ofthat 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 Testamentchurch without baptism.

Ans. What say you to the church all alongthe Revelation quite through the reign ofAntichrist? 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 theconstituting of a church; if it be not the door ofentrance into the church, if it be no part of

church-worship as such; then, although all themembers of that church were baptized, yet thechurch is a church without water baptism. Butall the churches in the New Testament weresuch: therefore, &c. Again, If baptism respectbelievers, as particular persons only; if it

respects their own conscience only; if it make aman no visible believer to me, then it hathnothing to do with church-membership.Because, that which respects my own persononly, my own conscience only: that which is nocharacter of my visible saintship to the church,cannot be an argument unto them to receive meinto fellowship with themselves. But this is true.Therefore, &c.

You proceed, If by edification, be meant theprivate increase of grace, in one another, in theuse of private means, as private Christians inmeeting together; how doth the principle youoppose hinder that? Endeavour to make men asholy as you can, that they may be fitted forchurch-fellowship, when God shall shew themthe orderly way to it.

Ans. What a many private things have wenow brought out to public view? PrivateChristians, private means, and a privateincrease of grace. But, Sir, Are none but thoseof your way the public Christians? Or, oughtnone but them that are baptized to have the

public means of grace? Or, must their graces beincreased by none but private means? Was youawake now? Or, are you become so high inyour own phantasies, that none have, or are tohave but private means of grace? And, are thereno public Christians, or public christianmeetings, but them of your way? I did not thinkthat all but baptists, should only abide in holes.

But you find fault because I said, Edificationis greater than contesting about water baptism.

Ans. If it be not, confute me; if it be, forbear

to cavil: water baptism, and all Godsordinances, are to be used to edification; not tobeget heats and contentions among the godly,wherefore edification is best.

Object. I had thought that the preaching,and opening baptism, might have beenreckoned a part of our edification.

Ans. The act of water baptism hath not placein church worship, neither in whole nor in part;


18/40


wherefore pressing it upon the church is to nopurpose at all.

Object. Why may you not as well say, thatedification is greater than breaking of bread.

Ans. So it is, else that should never have beeninstituted to edify withal; that which serveth, is

not greater than he that is served thereby.Baptism and the Lords supper both, were madefor us, not we for them; wherefore both weremade for our edification, but no one for ourdestruction. But again, The Lords supper, notbaptism, is for the church, as a church;therefore as we will maintain the churchsedifying, that must be maintained in it; yea,sued oft, to shew the Lords death till he come(1 Cor 11:22-26). Besides, because it is a greatpart of church worship, as such, therefore it ispronounced blessed, the Lord did openly blessit before he gave it; yea and we ought to bless italso; The cup of blessing which we bless, notto say more. Therefore your reasoning from theone to the other will not hold.

Object. How comes contesting for waterbaptism to be so much against you?

Ans. First, Because weak brethren cannotbear it; whom yet we are commanded toreceive, but not to doubtful disputation;doubtful to them, therefore for their sakes, Imust 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 isconfusion, or tumults, and every evil work(James 3:16).

12Thirdly, Because by the example

of the Lord, and Paul, we must consider thepresent state of the church, and not troublethem with what they cannot bear (John 16:13;1 Cor 3:1-3). I conclude then, edification in thechurch is to be preferred above what thechurch, 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; Rom14:19). Before I wind up this argument, I

12 The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness ofGod (James 1:20). The angry passions of man workevil. Such fiery zeal is contrary to the spirit of Christ.The ignorant must be won by meekness to embracethe truth.--Ed.

present you with several instances, shewing thatthe breach of [some of] Gods precepts havebeen borne with, when they come incompetition with edification. As first, That ofAaron, 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 hisedification, Moses was content. But the law wasthereby transgressed, The priest that offereth itfor sin, shall eat it (6:26).

To this you reply, That was not a constant,continued forbearing of Gods worship, but asuspending of it for a season.

Ans. We also suspend it but for a season;when persons can be baptized to theiredification, they have the liberty. But, This wasnot a bare suspension, but a flat transgressionof the law. Ye should indeed have eaten it. YetMoses was content (Lev 10:16-20).

But say you, Perhaps it was suspended uponjust and legal grounds, though not expressed.

Ans. The express rule was against it; Yeshould indeed [said Moses] have eaten it in theholy place: as I commanded (v 18). But goodSir, are you now for unwritten verities? for legalgrounds, though not expressed? I will not driveyou further, here is Rome enough. As for Eldadand Medad, it cannot be denied, but that theiredifying of the people, was preferred before

their conforming to every circumstance (Num11:16-26).

You add, That Paul for a seeming low thingdid withstand Peter.

Sir, If you make but a seeming low thing ofdissembling, and teaching others so to do,especially where the doctrine of justification isendangered, I cannot expect much goodconscience 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 Lords supper, whenit was only a type of the body and blood of theLord: For even Christ our passover is sacrificedfor us (1 Cor 5:7). 2. In that you make it anexample to you to admit persons unprepared tothe Lords supper.

Ans. May you indeed receive persons intothe church unprepared for the Lords supper;yea, unprepared for that, with other solemnappointments? For so you word it. O what an


19/40


engine have you made of water baptism. Thus,gentle reader, while this author teareth us inpieces for not making [water] baptism theorderly rule for receiving the godly andconscientious into communion; he can receivepersons if baptized, though unprepared for the

supper, and other solemn appointments? Iwould have thee consult the place, and see if itcountenanceth such an act. That a man whopleadeth for a water baptism above the peaceand edification of the church, ought to bereceived, although unprepared, into the churchto the Lords supper, and other solemnappointments; especially considering the natureof right church constitution, and the severity ofGod towards those that came unprepared to histable of old (1 Cor 11:28-30). A riddle indeed,That the Lord should, without a word, soseverely command, that all which want light inbaptism, be excluded church privileges; and yetagainst his word, admit of persons unprepared,to the Lords table, and other solemnappointments.

But good Sir, why so short-winded? whycould not you make the same work with theother scriptures, as you did with these? I mustleave them upon you unanswered; and standingby my argument conclude, That if laws andordinances of old have been broken, and the

breach of them born with, when yet theobservation of outward things was more strictlycommanded than now, if the profit andedification of the church come in competition;how much more, may not we have communion,church communion, when no law of God istransgressed thereby. And note, That all thiswhile I plead not, as you, for personsunprepared, but godly, and such as walk withGod.

We come now to my seventh argument, for

communion with the godly, though unbaptizedpersons; which you say is LOVE. My argumentis this; Therefore I am for communion thus;because love, which above all things we arecommanded to put on, is of much more worththan to break about baptism. And let thereader note, That of this argument you denynot so much as one syllable, but run to anotherstory; but I will follow you. I add further, Thatlove is more discovered when we receive for the

sake of Christ, than when we refuse his childrenfor want of water: And tell you again, That thisexhortation to love is grounded not upon[water] baptism, but the putting on of the newcreature, which hath swallowed up alldistinctions (Col 3:9-14). Yea, there are ten

arguments in this one, which you have not somuch as touched; but thus object,That man that makes affection the rule of

his walking, rather than judgment, it is nowonder if he go out of the way.

Ans. Love to them, we are persuaded thatGod hath received, is love that is guided byjudgment; and to receive them that are such,because God hath bidden us (Rom 14), isjudgment guided by rule. My argumenttherefore hath forestalled all your noise, andstandeth still on its legs against you. As to theduties of piety and charity, you boast of, soundnot a trumpet, tell not your left hand of it; weare talking now of communion of saints, churchcommunion, and I plead, that to love, and holdtogether as such, is better than to break inpieces for want of water baptism. My reason is,because we are exhorted in all things to put onlove; the love of church communion:contrariwise you oppose, Above all things puton water. For the best saint under heaven thathath not that, with him you refuse communion.

Thus you make baptism, though no churchordinance, a bar to shut out the godly, and atrap-door to let the unprepared into churches,to the Lords supper, and other solemnappointments.

But you object, Must our love to theunbaptized indulge them in an act ofdisobedience? Cannot we love their persons,parts, graces, but we must love their sins?

Ans. We plead not for indulging, But arethere notwith you, even with you, sins against

the Lord your God? (2 Chron 28:10). But whycan you indulge the baptists in many acts ofdisobedience? For to come unprepared into thechurch, is an act of disobedience: To comeunprepared to the supper is an act ofdisobedience; and to come so also to othersolemn appointments, are acts of disobedience.

But for these things, you say, you do notcast, nor keep any out of the church.


20/40


Ans. But what acts of disobedience do weindulge them in?

In the sin of infant baptism.Ans. We indulge them not; but being

commanded to bear with the infirmities of eachother, suffer it; it being indeed in our eyes such;

but in theirs they say a duty, till God shallotherwise persuade them. If you be withoutinfirmity, do you first throw a stone at them:They keep their faith in that to themselves, andtrouble not their brethren therewith: we believethat God hath received them; they do not wantto us a proof of their sonship with God; neitherhath he made water a wall of division betweenus, and therefore we do receive them.

Object. I take it to be the highest act offriendship to be faithful to these professors, andto tell them they want this one thing in gospelorder, which ought not to be left undone.

Ans. If it be the highest piece of friendship,to preach water baptism to unbaptizedbelievers, the lowest act thereof must needs bevery low. But contrariwise, I count it so far offfrom being any act of friendship, to pressbaptism in our notion on those that cannot bearit; that it is a great abuse of the peace of mybrother, the law of love, the law of Christ, orthe society of the faithful. Love suffereth long,and is kind, is not easily provoked: let us

therefore follow after the things that make forpeace, and things wherewith one may edifyanother: let every one of us please hisneighbour, for his good to edification: Bear youone anothers burdens, and so fulfil the law ofChrist (1 Cor 13; Rom 14:19, 15:2; Gal 6:2).

But say you, I doubt when this comes to beweighed in Gods balance, it will be found noless than flattery, for which you will bereproved.

Ans. It seems you do but doubt it, wherefore

the principles from which you doubt it, of thatmethinks you should not be certain; but this isof little weight to me; for he that will presumeto appropriate the epistles to himself andfellows, for the sake of baptism, and that willcondemn all the churches of Christ in the landfor want of baptism, and that will account hisbrother as profane Esau and rejected, asidolatrous Ephraim because he wanteth his wayof water baptism; he acts out of his wonted

way, of rigidness, when he doth but doubt, andnot affirm his brother to be a flatterer. I leavetherefore this your doubt to be resolved at theday of judgment, and in the mean time trampleupon your harsh and unchristian surmises. Asto our love to Christians in other cases, I hope

we shall also endeavour to follow the law of theLord; but because it respects not the matter inhand, it concerns us not now to treat thereof.

My argument treateth of churchcommunion; in the prosecution of which Iprove. 1. That love is grounded upon the newcreature (Col 3:10-15). 2. Upon our fellowshipwith the Father and Son (1 John 1:2,3). 3. Thatwith respect to this, it is the fulfilling of theroyal law (James 4:11; Rom 14:21). 4. That itshews itself in acts of forbearing, rather than inpublishing some truths: communicating onlywhat is profitable, forbearing to publish whatcannot be born (1 Cor 3:1,2; Acts 20:18-20;John 3:16,17). 5. I shew further, That to havefellowship for, to make that the ground of, orto receive one another chiefly upon the accountof an outward circumstance; to make baptismthe including and excluding charter: thebounds, bar, and rule of communion, when bythe word of the everlasting testament, there isno word for it, to speak charitably, if it be notfor 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 andgoodness, as far as a man is beyond a babe, yetwater shall turn the scale, shall open the doorof communion to the less; and command theother to stand back: yet is no proof to thechurch of this babes faith and hope, hathnothing to do with his entering into fellowship,is no part of the worship of the church.

13These

13

It becomes all prayerfully to follow divinecommands in ALL THINGS. Nothing is indifferentor non-essential that God hath ordained for thebeliever. But if disciples differ about days, or meats,or water, ought such differences to prevent theircommunion and fellowship more than differences inpersonal stature, or beauty, or in mental powers.Uniformity in anything but love to God and to eachother is a fools paradise, contrary to the experienceof the apostolic and all ages, and opposed to everylaw of nature.--Ed.


21/40


things should have been answered, seeing youwill take upon you so roundly to condemn ourpractice.

You come now to my eighth argument;which you do not only render falsely, but by sodoing abuse your reader. I said not that the

church at Corinth did shut each other out ofcommunion; but, for Gods people to divideinto parties, or to shut each other from churchcommunion, though for greater points, andupon higher pretences, than that of waterbaptism, hath heretofore been counted carnal,and the actors therein babyish Christians: andthen bring in the factions, that was in thechurch at Corinth. But what! May not the evilof denying church communion now, if provednaught by a less crime in the church at Corinth,be counted carnal and babyish; but the breachof communion must be charged upon them atCorinth also?

That my argument is good you gra

john bunyan differences in judgment abou - no bar to communion

Documents