the moral Precept Evangelized is perfect But may not I herein use John Bunyan's own words and turn them against himself as one justly guilty of Fictions and Scriptureless Notions for where do you read in Scripture of the Law Evangelized Surely the contrary is often found and although James as it is urged by John Bunyan Chap. 2. prelling love which he calls the Royal Law and indeed was before the Law given upon Sinai 1 Joh. 2.7 urgeth it to be according to what was before written yet he doth not call the Law given upon Sinai the Royal Law or the Law of Liberty as J. Bunyan falsly pretends contrary to Paul's words who saith Gal. 4.24 It was a Law although as much Evangelized in his dayes as now which gendreth to bondage yea the Ten Commandments written in stone so exalted by John Bunyan he calls the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3.7 of condemnation vers 9. and placeth it in opposition to the ministration of the Spirit and of Righteousness which is the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ that needeth not have any recourse to the Law being in it self much more perfect as indeed the Law of Liberty which James intends As also Paul saith Rom. 8.2 The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death Wherefore in short The Apostle James doth not as John Bunyan pretends exalt the Law given upon Sinai as the Rule of Communion but writing to the Brethren of the dispersed Twelve Tribes whom he well knew were zealous of the Law he endeavours thereby to convince them of their Duty as Christ did to the Jews Joh. 5.39 45. And Paul the Heathens by the words of their own Poets Acts 17.28 confirming the Truth by the witness of themselves Tit. 1.12 as I also often take occasion to do from J. Bunyan his own Confession although I should be as far from making his words the Rule of Truth as Paul the writings of the Heathen Poets which never were alleaged to that end yet J. Bunyan might as well affirm it as to say that James Chap. 2. calls the Law given upon Sinai the Law of Liberty which also he is pleased to avouch as the Rule of Communion pag. 82. alleaging the words of Paul I am under the Law to Christ which sure as he shunned naming the place he might have been ashamed to have instanced in this case it being only a Parenthesis in 1 Cor. 9.21 where Paul having declared his endeavours to gain many that it might not be thought John Bunyan-like he would wave Christ's Ordinances or pervert his Doctrine he tells us That in all this his condescention before spoken of he is not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ having as if he should have said great respect to his holy Ordinances which must not be violated by any means not the Law of Sinai for if himself may be heard he saith Gal. 2.19 That he was dead to that and that dead to him as is confirmed Rom. 7.1 2 3. by the Example of a Widow whose Husband is dead from whence the Apostle concludes vers 6. That we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we were held whereupon sure it may be concluded of John Bunyan as Paul saith 1 Tim. 1.7 He would be a Teacher of the Law although he understandeth neither what he saith nor whereof he affirms although we know the Law is good if a man use it lawfully as farther appeareth in that Distich pag. 83. where he saith Communion is forbidden with such as live in the transgression of a moral Precept alleaging Paul's words 1 Cor. 5.11 If any man that is called a Brother be a Fornicator or Covetous or an Idolator or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one no not to eat Paul saith not John Bunyan tells you if any man be not baptized or joyn with the unbaptized these saith J. B. are fictions and Scriptureless-notions Answ I must say to John Bunyan herein as was said to Peter Matth. 26.73 Thy speech bewrayeth thee If any man that is called a Brother c. They were Church-members whom these words were spoken of and already baptized by John Bunyan's own grant and therefore Paul needed not to say If any be unbaptized for there was none such amongst them but it seems there were some that so far degenerated from their Profession as to be guilty of some of the aforesaid Evils wherefore Paul tells them without the Law of Sinai they ought to be excluded from the Church for the Gospel of Christ Jesus permits none such wicked persons to be retained We say therefore Although upon Confession of Faith and submission to Baptism c. We ought to receive persons into Fellowship and Church-Communion according to the pattern of the Primitive Churches yet if any such shall be guilty of the aforesaid Evils they must be again separated according to the blessed Rule of Christ which Paul by the afore-said words intends wherein although he doth not say If any man be unbaptized c. having then no occasion for such words yet sure it is great impudence in John Bunyan to say they are Fictions and Scriptureless Notions Is it a Fiction to deny Communion with those that are disobedient to a Principle of Christ's Doctrine is that a scriptureless Notion Doth not the Scripture say If any man transgresseth and abideth not in the Doctrine of Christ whereof Baptism is a part he hath not God 2 Joh. 9. and v. 10. If any man come like John Bunyan and bring not that Doctrine he is to be rejected But to colour the design John Bunyan proceeds to tell the World pag. 83. That the Word of Faith and the Moral Precept is that which Paul enjoyns the Galatians and Philippians still avoiding outward Circumstances he might as well have said Baptism Hence therefore saith he when he had treated of Faith he falls point-blank upon moral Duties urging pag. 84. that in Christ neither Circumcision nor Vncircumcision availeth any thing but a new Creature and that peace is promised to as many as walk according to this Rule Gal. 6.15 16. Which Rule he would have you believe excludes Baptism and therefore he adds pag. 86. In Christ Jesus no outward or Circumstantial thing but a new Creature wherein he proceeds to tell us a fair tale from whence he concludes pag. 90. That seeing Baptism is no initiating Ordinance nor visible Character of a Saint no breach in a good and holy life nor intrencheth upon any man's right but his own Faith may be effectual without it and his life approved by the worst of his enemies he may keep the Law wherefore his friends should not dishonour God in breaking the Law Alleaging the words of James Chap. 4.11 Speak not evil of one another Brethren for he that speaketh evil of his Brother speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law From whence he reasons That the
in vain thus God deals with men whereof he complains Isa 49.4 I have laboured in vain I have spent my strength for nought and in vain Insomuch that in justification of himself against John Bunyan and such others he appeals to his Enemies in the case viz. Judge I pray you what could I have done more for Sinners than I have done Isa 5.4 I have given my Son to redeem them from death and in him I have also offered them Eternal Salvation which I have invited them to imbrace and also endeavoured to effect in their hearts by the motions of my holy Spirit for the operation whereof I have waited even until I perceived all my endeavours to be in vain my Spirit is resisted and in despite thereof they have persisted in wickedness wherein what could I have done more or what can I now do save only bewail their folly in that they should so against my will forsake their own merâ—â—â—â—… Jona 2.8 and that also the Lord frequently doth he grieveth for the destruction of Sinners Jer. 4.19 My bowels my bowels I am pained at my very heart Not that God hath Bowels or an Heart like men but the bowels of the Father are his tender mercies and great compassion being unwilling to punish For the Lord doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the Children of Men Lam. 3.33 It is hard with the Lord viz. against his good pleasure How saith he shall I give thee up O backsliding Ephraim How shall I deliver thee to death O sinful Israel How shall I make thee as Adama How shall I set thee as Zeboim My heart is turned within me my repentings are kindled together Hos 11.8 Thus the Son of God being like unto his Father in compassion when he beheld Jerusalem Luk. 19.41 42. he wept over it because they would not know the things that belong to their peace he was grieved for the hardness of their hearts Mark 3.5 wishing it had been otherwise O that thou hadst hearkned to my Commandments Isa 48.18 O that Israel had walked in my wayes Psa 81.16 What great compassion is this what demonstrations of love are here When Jesus wept for Lazarus Joh. 11.35 The Jews looked upon it as a great demonstration of love and is it not so in God towards Sinners When David wept after Abner's Bier and bewailed him it is said 2 Sam. 3.37 That all Israel understood that day that the death of Abner was not of the King but far contrary to his mind And surely also we may conclude from what hath been alleaged that the death of Sinners is not of our God he never determined any such thing neither is he any ways the cause thereof it is far from him whereby as we may perceive the death of Sinners is altogether of themselves and not by or through God's blinding them So the order of his Election may be perceived contrary to John Bunyan's Faith the Confession whereof I have now done with having offered thus much because that God is much dishonoured and many People deceived through the not understanding these things I come now to the Reason of his Practice in Worship J.B. pag. 48. Wherein he first distinguisheth between those with whom he dares not have Communion and those with whom he dares have Communion with I suppose he means Concerning what he saith touching those with whom he dare not have Communion I shall leave him unto himself only take notice That those who do not profess Faith and Holiness yea the open Prophane may be nearer Heaven than those that pretend great Zeal without Knowledge Our Saviour said of old Matth. 21.31 That the Publicans and Harlots enter into the Kingdom of God before you But I shall now consider what J. B. saith concerning whom he dare which he thus declares I dare have Communion yea 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 pag. 65. Although as afterwards he declares as well as in his Title Page they dissent about Water-Baptism Answ If J. Bunyan had only said this I know not who would have gainsaid nay if he had told us that he could have Communion with the Church of Rome I know not who would have opposed him except the Catholicks themselves who peradventure considering the Errors of his Faith would not judge him fit for Communion with them But John Bunyan proceeds to perswade others to do the same and therefore he urgeth greatly the reason of his Practice to draw Disciples after him I wish the event be not as Christ said to the Pharisees Matt. 23.15 Ye compass Sea and Land to make one Proselyte and when he is made ye make him twofold more the Child of Hell But before we judge let us hear him speak let us weigh what is said therein I readily perceive he hath learned what Solomon saith Prov. 1.17 That in vain is the Net spread in the sight of any Bird Wherefore by crafty insinuations and subtile evasions he endeavoureth to darken Counsel the better to undermine the hearts of the weak that his deceit might not be discovered Wherefore not suddenly coming to the matter he endeavoureth by fair pretences although mixt with tautologies and incongruous relations to pre-engage the Reader Quest And then at length propounds this question pag. 70. By what rule would you receive him into Fellowship To which he answers himself thus 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 This answer being given he offers a second question viz. But do you not count that by Water-Baptism and not otherwise that being the initiating and entring Ordinance they ought to be received into Fellowship To this he presumes to answer No Answ If I understand this answer it denies Baptism to be a discovery of Faith and Holiness or a declaration of willingness to subject to the Laws of Christ in his Church for the Question is Do you not count that by Water-baptism c. which must have respect to the former description of his Rule wherein it seems Water-Baptism hath now no part and in truth it must be so excluded by J. Bunyan's opinion for otherwise that in despight of what he hath said would be the Rule proposed by himself But herein hath not John Bunyan forgot himself Pag. 64. he acknowledgeth Water-baptism to be an Ordinance of Christ a holy Ordinance a duty enjoyned to such as have received the Gospel before yet now he denies it to be a discovery of Faith and Holiness or a declaration of willingness to subject to the Laws of Christ in his Church pag. 122 123. What impudent Contradictions are here an Ordinance of Christ an holy Ordinance a duty enjoyned to Gospel-Receivers and yet no discovery of Faith Is not Faith discovered by Works Jam. 2.17 And by what works if not obedience to
Christ's Ordinances to holy Ordinances to enjoyned duties I know not surely what if not this discovers Faith Again an Ordinance of Christ an holy Ordinance a Duty enjoyned and yet no discovery of Holiness Is it not Holiness it self to obey Christ's Ordinances his holy Ordinances to perform duties enjoyned Thus the wise are taken in their own craftiness 1 Cor. 3.19 Further Is not a real subjection to Christ's Ordinances a real performance of those Duties enjoyned us the best declaration of a willingness thereto yet all this John Bunyan is pleased positively to deny although he doth not only confess concerning Baptism as aforesaid viz. That it is an Ordinance of Christ an holy Ordinance a Duty enjoyned But further tells us It is of excellent use to the Church pag. 64. But what is that It seems it is no discovery of Faith nor Holiness nor a willingness to subject to Christ's Laws it is of no use in these things nor of any use in Church-Communion what excellent use is it then of John Bunyan answers It is a representation of the Death and Resurrection of Christ an help to our Faith yea meet to instruct us in the most weighty matters of the Kingdom of God pag. 64 65. Reply Well said John Bunyan it seems now Baptism is good for something the Devils sometimes were enforced to confess Christ saying Mark 3.11 Luk. 4.34 41. We know thee who thou art Jesus the Holy One of God although they were his great Enemies Even so J. B. is in this inconsistent not only to Truth but also to himself for sure the obedience to such an Ordinance as is ordained by Christ a representation of his Death and Resurrection a help to our Faith an instruction in the most weighty matters of the Kingdom of God an enjoyned Duty is a discovery of Faith and Holiness and a declaration of subjection to Christ's Laws And if so then it is the Rule of Communion John Bunyan himself proposeth in his aforementioned description pag. 70. and so the cause he hath wilfully lost but no marvel that men are deceived when they stand up against the Ordinances of Christ But tarry We must not conclude he saith Baptism is no initiating or entring Ordinance into Church-Communion and herein is the mistake to think it is so because in time past Baptism was administred upon conversion pag. 70. Answ If by time past he meaneth the Apostle's dayes which I presume he doth for he further confesseth that Water-baptism in the Primitive times was generally submitted to before Church-Communion pag. 91 92. I wonder where is the greatest mistake whether in John Bunyan's vilifying the Ordinances of Baptism or in the observation thereof according as himself confesseth the Practice of the Primitive Church and that upon Conversion before Communion sure there can be no mistake in following so good a pattern But he proceeds to tell us The Word doth not testifie it to be an initiating Ordinance pag. 70. Answ What testimony need we have further than your own Confession out of thy own mouth thou shalt be judged Is not the Primitive pattern their general Practice a sufficient testimony Doth not the word of the Scripture enjoyn us to follow that Example But peradventure J. B. would have a plain Text to say Baptism is an initiating Ordinance wherein I commend John Bunyan in putting the question into such terms as he well knew were not to be found expresly in the Scripture he thought it would make most for his advantage and might carry the best gloss in the denial which to illustrate he tells you pag. 71. It wants the nature and power of such an Ordinance for that which is the initiating Ordinance saith he doth give to the partakers a being of Church-membership in that particular Church by which it is administred without the addition of another Church-act And this he endeavoureth to prove by the Example of Circumcision which saith he pag. 71. was to the Jews an initiating Ordinance whereby they were made forthwith Church-members and also none so accompted nor admitted but those that did partake thereof Answ His proofs for what is here said are various although when enquired into there is no such thing to be found and therefore I may say it is a deceipt of J. B for as he saith of Baptism so must I say of Circumcision by the Word there is no such thing to be found Where is Circumcision called expresly in Scripture an initiating Ordinance yet J. B. is pleased so to call it upon far less grounds than there is for Baptism so to be called for if Circumcision was such an Ordinance as he describes what must be said of Sarai Rebeka Deborah and all the holy Women of old who at once John Bunyan shuts the Church-door against and will not suffer them to enter It is well God's thoughts are not like mens Surely I might upon better grounds than J. B. prove That some uncircumcised persons were admitted to Church-fellowship For if uncircumcised persons were admitted into the Temple of God to pray there c. Then uncircumcised persons were Church-Members for the Temple was more peculiar than the Passeover But Anna and divers Holy Women uncircumcised persons did reside in the Temple Ergo. Yea further if I should say Holy Women did eat the Passeover I suppose I should not be gainsaid although it overthrows John Bunyan's position but we see this like the Sodomites that whilst they endeavoured to break open the door of Lot's house they were so smitten with blindness that they could not find the doors of their own Gen. 19.11 this astonished them But John Bunyan is more obdurate for he yet persists in the defamation of Baptism and tells us p. 74. First There was none debarred or threatned to be cut off from the Church if not first baptized Secondly That Baptism doth not give a being of Membership in this or that particular Church by whose Members the Parties are baptized Answ First how can J. Bunyan expect any instance to be given of the debarring of any unbaptized Person when that by his own Confession pag. 91. in the Primitive times they were generally even all Disciples baptized upon Conversion And if so much less can it be expected to find any threatned to be cut off from the Church because not first baptized there not being in those dayes such an Heretick hatch'd as would so explode Baptism To the second That Baptism doth not give a being of Membership into this or that particular Church I answer It is not required if considered distinctly neither did Circumcision so although much boasted of Did Circumcision give a being of Membership in particular Churches distinct one Person to be a member at Jerusalem another at Capernaum c. and there only No surely he that was a member in one place was a member in all and therefore J. Bunyan's needless questions and assertions pag. 74. might have been spared for the Eunuch Cornelius Lydia the Samaritans
not so in Hezekiah 's time Did they not keep the Passeover otherwise than it was written and yet allowed I answer No There was no allowance of any thing contrary to what was written in the Law wherefore first we must note concerning the time there was a limitation by the Law of God as appears Numb 9.9 10 11. The Lord spake unto Moses saying If any of you or your posterity be unclean or in a journey afar off that he cannot keep the Passeover in its appointed season they shall keep it on the fourteenth day of the second month at Even c. which was the time that Hezekiah taking Counsel by the Law of God kept it 2 Chron. 30.2 3 16. uncleanness and distance of place not permitting the observation thereof in the first month which was the time at first appointed and that although a Circumstance so exactly that God threatned death to the man that should neglect the appointed season Numb 9.13 And it is apparent what befel Jeroboam for his Error therein 1 King 12.23 Although he was as ready as John Bunyan to plead the Edification and ease of the People for his warrant 2 King 12.28 But if now any say Why did the King pray God to pardon if there was not an undue manner in the eating And why is the Lord said to heal the People if they did not offend To which I answer First That the observation of the Passeover in respect to the time when it was kept as aforesaid was not undue Nor Secondly any thing that the King either Commanded or Allowed yet there was an undue receiving the Passeover otherwise than what was written But how was that the Text declareth That there was an intrusion of many of the People who had not cleansed themselves according to the Law which although John Bunyan pretends the King did allow knowing that their Edification was of greater concern than to hold them to a Circumstance or two the Scripture saith the contrary viz. That Hezekiah did account it a sin and not at all for Edification or Profit and therefore prayed earnestly to God for pardon lest that therefore his anger should break forth against them unto whom the Lord was pleased graciously to hearken and healed them From whence John Bunyan wickedly concludes that God did like it and thereupon urgeth it as a great Reason why now the Church should bear with undue proceedings contrary to what is written But well did the Holy Ghost reprehend such Rom. 6.1 that because God was gracious in pardoning they would presumptuously sin that grace might abound which ought to be abhorred by all the Godly But methinks some will say John Bunyan offers further in this matter pag. 101. viz. When Christ's Disciples plucked the ears of Corn and were charged by the Pharisees with breach of the Sabbath Matth. 12.1 6. Their Lord excuseth them and rebuketh their Adversaries saying Have ye not read what David did when he was an hungred and they that were with him how he entred into the House of God and did eat the Shewbread which was not lawful for him to eat neither for them that were with him but only for the Priests Or have you not read in the Law how that on the Sabbath-day the Priests in the Temple prophane the Sabbath and are blameless Why blameless saith John Bunyan because they did it in order to the Edification of the People From whence he concludes If Laws and Ordinances have been broken and the breach of them born with when the profit and edification of the People came in competition how much more may we have Church-Communion where no Law is transgressed thereby Answ Yes surely For where there is no Law there is no Transgression there cannot be in that any sin But John Bunyan hath forgot in his Conclusion the matter in hand which is not whether we may have Church-Communion where no Law is transgressed which he needed not have taken such pains to prove but whether we may have Church-Communion with persons not obedient to Baptism which before hath been often proved a Command yea a necessary Command and confessed by himself to belong to all Disciples and so also undoubtedly intended by him in this Reason according to the written Word wherefore he pleadeth for doing otherwise than it was written and doth tell you but how truly you may judge Laws and Ordinances have been broken and the breach of them born with when the profit of the People and their edification came in competition which it seems John Bunyan prefers before the honour of God when he conceits there may be Profit and Edification he will break even Laws and Ordinances to carry on his design to whom verily it will one day be said Who hath required this at your hand Isa 1.12 to break my Laws for your own profit When you did pretend to worship me did not you serve your selves Zech. 7.6 yea although it reached to the contempt of my Laws You will it seems make them give place to use John Bunyan's own words for the advancing of your selves Will not this in a wise man's judgment be hard to be answered when the God of Heaven shall plead in the defence of his holy Laws the Disciples plucking the ears of Corn will not justifie it for know that was no sin upon the account of any Law of God they might eat yea take their food on the Sabbath day there was no illegality therein But if here you ask Why Christ did not tell the Pharisees so I answer That he knowing the hardness of their hearts endeavoured rather to convince them by the instances of such things as were allowed by themselves As Paul to the Athenians Act. 17. alleageth the sayings of their own Poets So doth Christ here yet not allowing any disobedience no not in the Priests who John Bunyan is pleased to say were blameless because they did it in order to the Edification of the People But I will say they were blameless because they did it in order to the Law of God Numb 28.9 which required the Offerings to be made on the Sabbath day so that although the act considered simply viz. the slaying the Offering c. was a prophanation of the Sabbath yet in that it was the Offering-Sacrifice they were blameless as aforesaid because God the great Law-giver required it as our Saviour gives us the like instance of the Circumcising a man on the Sabbath day which in that it was God's Command to be done on the Eighth day was no breach of the Sabbath when it happened to be then done As for the instance of David although I might say something in the case seeing our Saviour doth not justifie it but saith it was unlawful I shall conclude that the like may be said of John Bunyan's Church-Communion that he doth and teacheth that which is not lawful to be done wherefore at his peril it will be for teaching men to break Christ's Commands Matth. 5.19 although