not him that eateth DESPISE him that eateth not But by despising them to understand the rejection of them from Church communion the Scripture saith no such thing and for you to say it it is to be guilty of that which you charge us with namely to take a half for a whole and to indulge a light appearance and to let it pass for an evident demonstration But 3. Suppose the word receive should respect the Communion of the Church and the Argument this That God having received the weak into communion with himself it is the Churches duty to receive â—hem into her communion Doth it follow from thence that it would be her duty to receive them disorderly into her communion To come a little closer Cornelius the person you instance in from Acts 10.25 being a fearer of God and worker of righteousness was ACCEPTED of God yet when God had a purpose to adde him to the visible Church of Christ he sendeth him to a Minister of Christ and inspireth him to command Cornelius to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Acts 10.48 Neither doth Peter notwithstanding he was convinced of his being a person accepted of God hold any Church communion with him before it what ever he did after 4. If fellowship with God give immediate right to full communion with the Church simply upon that account then not onely the godly of the Presbyterians have such a right but the Episcopal party too nay 't is probable a many in the darkness of Popery for I suppose no body can be so uncharitable as to think there are no persons there upright nay to shew the unreasonableness of this opinion I could go further and say Pagans debt and Dowry p. 14. many amongst the Heathen which in your judgement may be in the state of grace These and all these have a present actual immediate right to Church communion In a word as this principle was contrary to your judgement heretofore so also hath your practise been ever since you took up the Church way I remember not one man that ever sat down with the Church in the constant fellowship thereof but was orderly joyn'd according to the Independant principles Nor one man that ever occasionally broak bread with the Church but it was matter of offence to some except they were members of some Church or other Who then may not see whose eyes are not too heavy to open what a strait your opposing us bringeth you too namely to turn head upon the principles of the way you walk in and your own constant practise and what man is he who doth not glory in men whose faith and practise standeth not in the wisdome of men but in the power of God 1 Cor. 3.21 1 Cor. 2.5 James 2.1 and that hath not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons but must conceive with jealousies as strong as death that that cause which you now plead is not right which putteth so learned a man as your self to so desperate a losse Your fifth Consideration for substance this THat learned men are not agreed about the exact signification of the word BAPTIZO whether it be to dip or not therefore not fit for any much less such illiterate ones to determine it and build so great a matter upon it To which I answer 1. What considerable advantage would it be to us to know the original at this point it seemeth all the knowledge of the learned worketh not union in judgement about it you confess they are not agreed for all that But 2. Whether learned men can agree about the signification of the word BAPTIZO or no it is of little consideration to us in this case because the Spirit of God hath interpreted it to our hand in the holy Scripture elsewhere namely in the 6. of Romans 4. and Colos 2.12 Therefore we are BURIED with him by Baptisme Again being BURIED with him in Baptisme wherein also we are risen with him besides many other places So that if these Scriptures speak of water Baptisme which is but few mens question That one of them doth I have proved already and would the other if need required it there must be a buriall of the body in water where the Baptisme of the Gospel of Christ is rightly administred otherwise it is none of the Baptisme of Christ and the Apostles and Primitive Churches The late Annotators are much to be commended for their honest and upright dealing with the Scripture herein upon this 4 verse of the 6. Romans these words Buried with him by Baptisme in this phrase say they the Apostle seemeth to allude to the antient manner of Baptism which was to dip the parties baptised and as it were to bury them under the water for a while and then to draw them out of it and lift them up to represent the buriall of our old Man and our Resurrection to newness of life Again upon the 8. of Acts 38. these words They both went down into the water and he baptised him They were wont say they to goâ— down into the water and dip the whole body As in the 3. Math. 16. So that their judgement of the Text there also And Jesus when he was baptized went up straight way out of the water I say their judgement is that his body was dipt by John in Jordan and who can think otherwise with reason for to what purpose should he go to the River to be baptised but because there would be a want of much water And how clear is this apprehension to an unprejudiced mind since that the abundance of water is given for the reason of Johns baptising at Enon John 3.23 And John also was baptising in Enon near to Salim because there was MVCH WATER there But besides the 3. Math. 16. saith of Jesus that when he was baptised he went Up straitway OUT of the water And so Mark 1.9 10. and how could he be said to go up out of the water except he first went down into it As the Scripture saith expresly of Phillip and the Eunuch I say as expresly as they can speak read else Acts 8.38 And Phillip and the Eunuch went both DOWN INTO the water and he baptised him and when they were come Up OUT of the water And can any body with any shew of reason conceive that they went down into the water to be sprinkled of the face Justin Martyr therefore telleth us that in their Baptisme they were BORN of water which he propoundeth as their practise from the Primitive custome Mr. Baxster Saints Rest p. 179. Now the whole man its coming out of the womb of the water hath a perfect Analogy to a natural birth to which he doth allude but in the sprinkling of the face there is no likeness at all to any such thing as a birth Calvin himself as much a friend as he was to Infant-sprinkling yet was so honest as to affirm its practise was not from the
Word of God but the CHURCH HER TAKING TO HER SELF THE LIBERTY meaning to vary from the Apostolick practise which was by plunging the body into the water and this he acknowledgeth from Acts 8.38 Phillip and the Eunuch going down into the water and coming up out of it Com. upon the Acts p. 208. and did not Calvin understand the original And doth he not further plainly say this practise was taken up since the beginning for of old the rite was to put all the body into the water Or what if so be that the words translated INTO and OUT OF may from the Originall be rendred UNTO and FROM doth it follow that they must needs be so rendred in this place or was they ever so translated by any one since the new Testament was put into English and indeed how can it be with any reason thought they should be so since it is plain they were come unto the water before this is affirmed of them that they went down into it by v. 36. which saith they came unto a certain water and the Eunuch said lo here is water But 2. Suppose the words should be so translated here would that force us to beleive they went but to the water side and not into the water and that they came but from the water side and not UP out of the Element of water besides the cry of the Scriptures lately mentioned and the judgements of learned men upon them which Mr. Baxster well knoweth surely every body that goeth into the water goeth unto it first Mr. Baxster alloweth the custome of the Primitive times are patterns to us with the limitation formerly spoken of p. 135. of his plain Scripture proof arguing against the necessity of dipping saith 1. It is not yet proved by any that dipping was the Primitive practise which is strange since he himself giveth us the judgement of Justin Martyr as orthodox who relating their way of baptising from the Primitive times p. 129. of Saints Rest saith That they are brought to the water and are BORN again or baptised doth not that imply their dipping how else is there the least resemblance between an ordinary birth and their baptisme and is not an Analogy therein aimed at but I referre the Reader to what hath been said to this point already but I cannot but much wonder that Mr. Baxster should say that the Jaylour was baptised in his house doth the Scripture say so read Acts 16.33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptised he and all his strait way but where he was baptised is not set down But the next words rather give us that it was not in the house because presently after the mention of his baptisme the Text saith He brought them into the house so that though this Text speaketh clearly onely to his being baptised presently upon beleiving not to the place where or the manner how yet it giveth more ground to beleive it was done out of doors than in the house But what need we grope in the dark doth not the light shine bright from other Scriptures why should we think the Jaylors baptisme to differ from all other mens But Mr. Baxster objecteth further that the River Enon where the Text saith was MUCH water which also is given for the reason why John baptised there Travellers say is a small brook that a man may almost step over Whatever Travellers say I hope Mr. Baxster that hath written so much to prove the Scriptures truth will beleive the plain Word of God namely that there was much water there then when John baptised there whatever there may be when the Traveller was there There might be much water there when John baptised there as doubtless there was or the Scripture would not say so and yet little enough when the Traveller pass'd that way that Mr Baxster speaketh of Doth not the Scriptures say Psalm 107.33 34. He turneth Rivers into a wilderness and the water springs into dry ground for the wickedness of them that dwell therein Nay doth he not threaten the Jewes Psalm 42.15 That he would dry up their pooles and promise when he restoreth them that he will make their thirsty lands springs Isaiah 35 7. Their present driness then is no argument that there was not much water in Johns dayes But honest Reader is not this an ugly suggestion infinitely disparaging the Scriptures Is the report of Travellers any thing to us against the express Word of God and doth not Mr. Baxster urge the report of Travellers as considerable to the contrary of what is written in the Word I offer not this as any Argument that Mr. Baxster hath not a due esteem of the Scripture No no I pray God strengthen my faith in them and make it equall to his he is a person that my soul honoureth for his edge God-ward but to shew the Reader what cause he hath to suspect that cause that putteth such learned men as Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Baxster is upon such strange adventures to make it good In the mean time thou canst not lightly but see that we have the plain words of Scripture on our side that their mouth is open and their heart enlarged to justifie our practise but they will neither be courted nor forced to speak against us But Mr. Baxster further objecteth against the necessity of dipping thus P. 135. of plain Scripture The thing signified is set forth by the phrase of washing or sprinkling and the sign need not exceed the thing signified I confess the sign need not exceed the thing signified but it is farre from the truth that sprinkling or any washing that is not by dipping can be any sign of all the holy thing signified in baptisme which is plainly set down in the 6. Roman 4 and Colos 2.12 Being buried with him in Baptisme wherein also you are risen with him If the Baptisme of the New Testament sealed in Christs hears bloud be the sign of Death Buriall and Resurrection then is not sprinkling or any washing that is not by dipping sufficient to signifie it but the Baptisme of the New Testament is a sign of Death Buriall and Resurrection 't is plain in the Text Mr. Baxster acknowledgeth both these Scriptures to be meant of water Baptisme p. 342. Of his Scripture proof As for those Scriptures namely 1 Corrinth 6.11 Titus 3.5 with some others P. 135. Of Scripture proof which Mr. Baxster instanceth in as hinting the spiritual good things signified by Baptisme I acknowledge they respect a part of the good things signified by baptisme namely the soules cleansing from sin by Christs bloud but not all nor indeed half what he intended to signifie by Baptisme But what should the reason be that Mr. Baxsters design being to enumerate the Scriptures speaking of the holy thing signified in baptisme should leave out the two grand capital Scriptures to the point namely Colos 2.12 Roman 6.34 Is it not
were added unto them or the Church about three thousand soules who continued in the Apostles fellowship But by this doctrine of Mr. Goodwins Baptisme should be a crime rather than an act of obedience because he maketh the Church not to consist of such persons as have been baptised is this doctrine according to the form of wholsome words Doth not the Apostle write to the CHURCH of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.10 13. Rom. 6.3 4 Col. 2.12 Gal. 3.27 and CHURCH at Rome and Church at COLOSSE and the CHURCHES of Galatia and were they not made up of baptised persons But 2. Mr. Goodwin saith The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved which say you was NOT by being BAPTISED but beleiving Here Mr. Goodwin opposeth Baptisme to beleiving in reference to salvation but it is not by vertue of this Text He that beleiveth and is baptised shall be saved And by vertue of what Text of Scripture he doth it I know not for though Baptisme should not be looked upon as a condition of absolute necessity to salvation as faith is yet sure it is some way necessary to salvation it is plain in the Text and therefore not to be put in opposition to faith in reference thereto what a wide difference there is between making Baptisme equaâ— with faith as conditional of salvation which is the judgement of many learned men as you know and making it stand in opposition to faith in reference thereto as you doe Sir will that God that ordained Baptisme to be Faiths companion to serve the same interest of the pretious soules of men will he take it kindly that you toil thus to make them look like enemies rather than friends In a word Sir this doctrine is altogether unscriptural and as pleasant to the tast of a healthful soul as vinegar to the teeth But 3. and lastly you say though it should be read thus Then they that gladly received his word were baptised and the same day there were added to the Church yet the recording their addition to the Church after their Baptisme doth not prove their addition was BY their Baptisme The cause doth not require it neither doth my Brother Allen affirm it from this Text but onely that addition to the Church followed it and did not goe before it which was your own words heretofore as I have shewn already and we think it is safest to follow the Scripture pattern partly because of what you said heretofore that all others were but seducers but cheifly because of the express Word of God But whatever the matter is you think now one may goe another way and doe as well The second Scripture which in my apprehension suffereth under your pen is Math. 28.19 which I have proved at large already p. 13 14 15 16. of this book where I have laid down my Brother Allens Argument from the words and answered Mr. Goodwins objections against it in doing which the Reader will easily perceive that Text complaining of hard usage The third is the 1. Corinth 12.13 which I have also discharged the service Mr. Goodwin employed it in p. 18 19 20 21 22 23. of this book because the truth is it is not pleased with it The fourth which doth not onely whisper but cry out of injury is the 8. of Acts 27. And Phillip said if thou beleivest with all thy heart thou mayest The words its evident are an answer to the Eunuch who asked Phillip upon the sight of water what hindred that he might not be baptised Mr. Goodwin supposeth by these words THOU MAYEST he not saying to him THOU MUST is noted a liberty which he calleth an Evangelicall liberty concerning external Ordinances implying he might be baptised if he would he should not sin or he he might refuse without sin This I take to be the most unnatural unkindly and indeed injurious stroke of the Text of any that hath been touched Gird up therefore the loines of thy mind and consider good Reader that thou beest not hurt by this dangerous gloss of the Text. 1. If Phillip should have propounded Baptisme to the Eunuch upon such slight termes not as a duty on him but a thing indifferent he should have done that he had no warrant for from Christ Christ gave all his Commands to be obeyed not to be trifled with John 15.14 Ye are my friends if you doe WHATSOEVER I command you Revel 22.12 14. Blessed are they that DOE his Commandments that they may have right to the tree of life Acts 3 22. A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you him shall you hear in ALL things WHATSOEVER he shall say unto you And it shall come to passe that every soul that wil not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from amongst the people that by hearing is meant obeying in this Scripture is your own sense Luke 6.46 Why call you me Lord Lord and DOE not the things that I say So that if Baptisme be one of the Commands of Christ Mat. 28.19 Acts 2.37 Mar. 16.16 as I have proved from Acts 2.37 and might do it from many others And 2. that Christ gave all his Commands to be observed John 15.14 Rev. 22.14 Acts 3.22 And 3. that he counteth those no friends of his that baulketh any of them 4. That he threateneth them with destruction that observeth him not in whatsoever he commandeth without exception of any thing yea that he distateth any ones calling him Lord that doth not obey him Then I think it followeth roundly enough that if Phillip should have propounded Baptisme to the Eunuch upon such termes of indifferency he should have betrayed his trust Reader what thinkst thou 2. To evince that Phillip by those words THOU MAYEST did not intend them by way of indifferency as to the Eunuchs obedience appeareth by this because then he should act by a differing Spirit from all the rest of his brethren the Servants of Christ that were imployed in the Lords work But he was acted by the same Spirit I shall take that for granted that the Spirit that said unto Phillip Goe near and joyn thy self Acts 8.29 that it was the Spirit of the ever-living God which acted Phillip thorough that negotiation he had with the Eunuch Now that Spirit inspireth Peter to COMMAND Cornelius and his Company to be baptised after faith Acts 10.47 Peter did not say you may or you may chuse but though they were deeply baptised with the Spirit yet Peter commandeth them to be baptised with water for all that In the Name of the Lord Jesus which was in full pursuit of his Commission which also is a clear interpretation of it that when Christ saith Disciple me all Nations baptising them his meaning was that they should having discipled them command the Disciples to be baptised In the Name of the Lord Jesus that they should lay it home to the consciences of the Disciples and a duty to be baptised into his Name and so bear the
do without the joynt concurrence both of God and the Creature So also in the new Testament Acts 26.17 18. Delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles unto whom now I send thee to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God Is not here much more put into Pauls Commission than he was able without God to do or will any body say that Paul acted short of his Commission or falsified his trust if he did not actually open all the eyes of the Gentiles and turn them from the power of Satan to God But Sir to convince you that there is more included in the Commission than was in the Apostles power to effect supposing the word Teach should signifie onely what you apprehend namely the speaking such things which are proper to make Disciples Consider this They are charged to baptise all they taught and was that in their power could they baptise any more than were willing to be baptised or should they have been judged falsifiers of their trust or acting short of their Commission for not baptising all those that should take horses and ride away from them when they had heard the Word It appeareth therefore undeniably that the very principle whereupon you found the absurdity is not good and consequently no force in your argument but this being all you have levied against my Brother Allens Argument built upon the Text and being found weak his conclusion lifteth up its head and that is that it is disorderly for persons to hold Church-Communion before Baptisme because Baptisme by Christs order was the next thing to be done after discipling and that immediately Secondly A second Argument to prove it a disorderly Practise for the Disciples to hold Church Communion before Baptisme is this If the Scripture maketh Baptisme the gate or entrance into the visible Church or Body of Christ Then is it a most disorderly practise for persons to sit down in Church-society without it But the Scripture maketh Baptism the gate or entrance into the visible Church or Body of Christ Mr. Goodwin denâ—eth now in effect that Baptisme is the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Body of Christ yea he is so far from thinking so P. 61 Of his Water dipping that he thinketh the injunction of it is but after the manner of the free-will offerings under the Law so that men may either obey or not obey without sin yea P 48 Water dipping that a Church may be of as sound and worthy a constitution without Baptisme as with it Now before I make particular answer to Mr. Goodwins Exception to the interpretation of the Scripture alledged to prove it I desire to make one observation which I would commend to the serious consideration of the Reader which is this That notwithstanding the vast variety of differences in the judgement of Professors about other matters of Christian Religion both learned and unlearned in so much that setting aside some few famous fundamentals it is a hard matter to find two men universally agreeing Yet for this opinion that Baptisme is the Sacrament of entrance into the visible Church of Christ all the Professors of Christian Religion hath met in it as one man as far as I ever yet heard or read of whether Papal Prelatical Presbiterial or Independant or Anabaptist except some few persons lately the most whereof are given to Seekerisme And is not that opinion justly to be suspected for an error that crosseth the judgement of almost all the world reputed Christian as well those that are under no temptation by worldly respects to baulk the naked truth as those that are This Argument I confess amounteth not to a demonstration but it justly provoketh an eye of jealousie over that opinion that singleth a man out from all his brethren of like pretious faith and rendreth him like the Widdow Paul speaketh of desolate I shall now proceed to establish this truth by shewing the invalidity of your great exception to the interpretation of the 1 Corinth 12.13 which Text my Brother Allen insisteth on to prove it the words these By one Spirit we are all baptised into one Body my Brother Allen understandeth with Mr. Baxster and the generally reputed Orthodox the word baptised properly of water Baptisme P. 342. Of plain Scripture Mr. Goodwin will needs understand it just now of Spirit Baptisme but why P. 68 72. Of his water dip because the Text saith By one Spirit we are baptised and as for water it is not mentioned To which I answer 1. The not mentioning of water is no Argument that the Text is not to be understood of water Baptisme because the word water is not mentioned in the Commission it self for baptising which yet notwithstanding is plainly enough interpreted by the Apostles to be meant of water Baptisme because of their practising it by vertue of their Commission So also in the 1 Corinth 1.13 14 15. the word water is not set down but no body in their right wits will understand the words otherwise Were you baptised in the Nume of Paul I thank God I baptised none of you But you say the Text speaketh of another Element P. 342. Of Insânts Châ—rch-Membership namely the Spirit 'T is true it doth mention the Spirit as a concurrent cause saith learned Baxsten but the Text speaketh of reall Baptisme 2. How frequently are effects attributed to the Spirit in Scripture in this sence Is not Baptisme the Doctrine of the Spirit as well as other duties Acts 1.2 Acts 2.38 Act. 8.29.38 Act. 1.48 and that which the Spirit exciteth to amongst other acts of obedience did not the Spirit send Phillip to the Eunuch as well to baptise him with water as preach to him and did not the Spirit inspire Peter to command Cornelius to be baptised and is not the proper office of the Spirit to excite men to and guide men in the performance of all dutie why then may not reall Baptisme with water being an act of obedience be attributed to the Spirit 1 Pet. 1.22 as well as any other acts of obedience whatsoever 3. To understand these words By the Spirit as a working cause and Baptisme as the effect agreeth to the context from the first verse to the 12. At the first verse No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost and is not that by the agency and working of the Spirit upon the heart perswading it to think so honourably of Christ as to call him Lord. The Spirits work is to raise the esteem of Christ in the soul The soules calling him Lord is the effect of that work In the like sense I humbly apprehend all the gifts spoken of to the 12. verse are attributed to the Spirit namely as so many effects of his operation as the cause producing them Which having treated on at large he cometh in the 13. verse to tell them that by the
same Spirit which enriched them with those gifts mentioned they became enabled to stoop to the yoak of Chtist and put him on by Baptisme by which both Jews and Gentiles receiving the Gospel became incorporated into the mystical body of Christ and so though many members yet became now but one body As with persons in civil Corporations who of many individuals become one body by solemnizing the rite of entrance without which no man is counted a Member But now not to understand the words By one Spirit and Baptised the one as the cause the other as the effect would be to sense these words By the Spirit differently from the sense of the same words divers times in the preceding verses and enforce a metaphorical use of the word Baptised without any necessity But fourthly to make it clear that by Baptisme here he meaneth it not of the baptisme of the Spirit it appeareth by that which is attributed to it namely the entring of all persons into the mystical body of Christ he saith it is â—NTO ONE BODY and we are ALL baptised into one body So that it is the meanes sanctified by God for all the members entrance into that body It cannot therefore be meant of the baptisme of the Spirit because then working of miracles and speaking with tongues and prophesying extraordinary which the Scripture meaneth onely by the baptisme of the Spirit should be the initiating Ordinance into the body of Christ for all Church members which I suppose every one will say is absurd to imagine I have onely to prove for the making good this Argument that when the Scripture speaketh of the Baptisme of the Spirit it would alwayes be understood of working miracles speaking with tongues and the like and not of common and ordinary gifts as faith and love c. It appeareth thus 1. In that the holy Spirit never giveth to faith or love or any common gifts of the Spirit the name of baptisme for men to do so is unscripturall 2. Because Christs speaking to his Apostles who had a good degree of faith and love yet he did not deem them for the present baptised with the holy Spirit but onely telleth them Acts 1.4 5. they should be so baptised and adviseth them to wait at Jerusalem for it whereupon they were baptised with it accordingly upon the day of Pentecost Acts 2.3 4. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sate And they began to speak with other tongues c. Now in the 11. Acts 16. Peter calleth Cornelius his speaking with tongues the baptisme of the holy Ghost which Christ promised Then remembred I the word of the Lord meaning when he heard them speak with tongues Acts 10 46 John indeed baptised with water but ye shall be baptised with the holy Ghost So that the meaning of John the Baptist Math. 3.11 and Christ Acts 1.4 where they speak of the baptisme of the Spirit must needs be of such a being filled with the Spirit and pouring forth of the Spirit as whereby persons do speak with tongues and the like because the Scriptures so interpreteth it and to judge otherwise were to be wise not onely above but against that which is written But thirdly and lastly to put it out of doubt you shall find the Scriptures putting abroad difference between that enjoyment of the Spirit which the Scripture calleth the Baptisme of the Spirit and that by which persons come to abound with faith love joy peace c. as to the wayes of attaining the one and the other To attain ordinary fillings of the Spirit in respect of these common fruits we are exhorted to the use of meanes to get them and blamed if we have them not Eph. 5 18. Luke 24.25 So that the largeness of the possession of them dependeth ordinarily upon the Creatures industry and in that way attained and according to mens industry or sloath they ordinarily have more or less of the Spirit But as for the Baptisme of the Spirit it is immediately conferr'd by way of extraordinary gift Consult the Scriptures where the Baptisme of the Spirit is mentioned and you shall find it so The first place is the 2 of Acts 2 3 4. verse â—nd suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house where they were sitting And there APPEARED unto them cloven tongues like as of fire and it sat upon each of them And they were all filled with the holy Ghost and began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance Now the Apostle Peter â—â—lleth â—his â—he 〈◊〉 of the Spirit Acts 11.15 16. and also expresseth their attaining it by the falling of the boly Ghost upon them As I â—egâ—â—â—o speak the holy Ghost FELL on them as on us at the beginning So also in the 8. of Acts 16. Who when they were come down prayed for them that they night receive the holy Ghost meaning principally the holy Ghost in that way which they had not before for they had the holy Ghost to enable them to beleive as appeareth at the 12. verse but they had not the Baptisme of the Spirit which now Peter and John came to be instruments in by prayer for them with laying on of hands though not exclusive of a further presence of the Spirit in a common way But now how doth the Spirit express this kind of attaining the Spirit Mark at the 16. verse For as yet he was FALLEN upon none of them onely they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus So in the 19. of Acts 6. And when Paul had laid his hands on them the holy Ghost CAME upon them and they spake with tongues and prophesied Doth the Sun shine clearer at noon-day than this truth that the common fruits of the Spirit are one thing and the baptisme of the Spirit another namely the gifts of speaking with tongues extraordinary prophesying and working miracles and if that be granted and who can with reason deny it It followeth then unavoidably that the 1 Corinth 12.13 speaketh not of the Baptisme of the Spirit because then speaking with tongues and working miracles should be the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Church of Christ for ALL Church-members for it is plain whatever is meant by Baptism in that Text that is the use of it we are all baptised INTO ONE BODY Fifthly and lastly to prove that by the word baptised in the 1 Cor. 12.13 is meant reall baptsme and not the baptism of the Spirit The scope and drift of the Apostle in mentioning it saith a good say to it Which is to make an argument of it 1 Cor. 1â— from 1â— 10 25. to perswade to Christian love care and tenderness one of another as one may easily see that will consult the place Now for proper reall Baptisme we find the Apostle make use of that often to the same purpose Once before in the beginning of this Epistle
1 Cor. 1.10 and 15. so in the 4. of the Eph. 4 5. and to the Colossians also But we never read of working miracles or speaking with tongues made any Argument of union I hope then enough and more than enough is said to satisfie any indifferent man that the word baptised in the fore-mentioned place is to be understood properly even of water Baptisme and consequently the Argument from that Text to prove Baptisme the door of entrance into the visible Church of Christ unanswerable But besides this 1 Cor. 12.13 to prove Baptisme the door of the visible Church the 6 of the Romans 3. speaketh the same language Know ye not that so many of us as were BAPTISED INTO Jesus Christ were baptised into his death c. Now to prove that by Baptisme in the first clause he meaneth it not of mortification which some conceive the Baptisme of the Spirit it appeareth thus If the Baptism of the Text be used as an Argument to perswade to perfect mortification and a new life then is it not the thing it self But it is used as an Argument to perswade to perfect the work of mortification and a new life In the 2 verse How shall we â—â—â—t are dead to sin live any longer therein Now they were not already dead to sin in a proper sense they were not already actually mortified though the work was begun in them for then there would be little fear of longer continuing in sin to which they were dead from which he now dehorteth them But in the 3. verse he mentioneth their Baptisme and useth it argument wise to perswade not to live any longer in sin Know ye not that so many of us as wâ—â—e baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death And at the 4. verse Therefore we are buried with him by baptisme into death that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father even so we aslo should walk in newness of life So that his doctrine in my apprehension is plainly this that though for the present they were not attained to the perfect state of actuall mortification yet by their baptisme they were under an effectual obligation to use all possible meanes to attain thereto and if this be not the true sense of the place I have lost my tast good Reader judge Now to come home to the point to prove Baptisme the entring Ordinance into the visible body of Christ The Text saith plainly of Baptisme that it was INTO JESUS CHRIST Now how into Christ but into the mystical body of Christ the Church which in the 1 Corin. 12.12 is caâ—led Christ for as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body SO ALSO IS CHRIST meaning in respect of the Church which is his mistical body where though there be many members yet all make but one body as 1 Cor 12.13 saith the gate and entrance whereinto is by the door of Baptisme But in this point having the judgement of almost all the learned on our side I need say the less I shall therefore conclude as to this with offering the words of Vrsinus and Mr. Baxsters Argument with a word from the non-repeating it as to the same person Vrsinus in his Catechisme Baptisme is a Sacrament of entrance into the Church P 421 whence it cometh that the Supper is presented to none except first baptised As a Souldier before listing and a King before crowning and taking his Oath Plain Scriture proof P. 24. so are we he putteth in infants too Church members before Baptisme But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn engaging sign SO EVERY ONE THAT HATH RIGHT TO BE SOLEMNLY ADMITTED INTO THE VISIBLE CHURCH must ordinarily be admitted by Baptisme I prove it thus If we have neither precept nor example in Scripture since Christ ordained Baptisme of any other way of admitting visible Members but onely by Baptism then all that must be admitted visible Members must ordinarily be baptised But since Baptisme was instituted we have no precept or example of admitting visible Members any other way but constant precept and example for admitting this way Therefore all that must be admitted visible Members MUST be baptised I know not what in any shew of reason can be said to this by those that RENOUNCE not Scripture Mark well Mr. Baxster thinks they that bold men may be visible members without Baptisme renounce the Word of God for their rule For what man dare go in a way that hath neither precept nor example to warrant it from a way that hath a full current of both Yet they that will admit Members into the Church without Baptisme do so And what can any man in reason imagine to be the ground why Baptisme is but once practised whereas prayer and hearing and breaking bread frequent but onely this that God in the Ordinance of Baptisme hath in some respect a different design though in many other respects the very same as I shall shew hereafter and wherein can any one conceive that difference to lie but here that it is the Rite of entrance into the body of Christ and consequently no need of reiterating it no more than there is of being twice made free of the City or twice listed into an Army Some I find make a question whether Baptisme should not be repeated in respect of the same person which is strange considering that though Christ in the Commission ordereth the Apostles to Teach the Disciples again there is not a word of baptising again Math. 18.20 neither did the Apostles ever baptise any into the Name of Christ twice that we find in Scripture and surely they both knew and practised the mind of Christ 1 Cor. 11.1 Phil. 3 17. and we are charged to follow their example and to mark those which walk contrary to avoid them From these premises it is clear enough that Baptisme is in the wisdom of Christ the Ordinance of entrance into the visible Church or Body of Christ and consequently there can be no regular enjoying the priviledges due to the body before it The truth is to admit unbaptised persons to all the priviledges of Church communion is as irregular and disorderly as to admit the Mayor to the grand priviledges of the chair before he hath been sworn to the faithful service of the City 3. To prove baptised persons sitting down in Church bodies with unbaptised disorderly I prove it thus That practise which bringeth down the esteem of Baptisme and maketh it slighted is against the Order of Christ But for Disciples that are baptised to walk together in a Church body with unbaptised bringeth down the esteem of Baptisme and maketh it sleighted That it is against the Order of Christ that any thing should be practised to prejudice the primitive esteem of Baptisme appeareth 1. By Christs joyning it
God the injunction from heaven is very particular and express See that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the Mount Heb. 8.5 And Ezek. 43 10. Thou Son of Man shew the house to the house of Israel that they may be ashamed of their iniquity and let them measure the pattern viz. to build say you mark with ALL POSSIBLE EXACTNESSE according to it Now whether the Disciples sitting down in Church bodies before Baptisme be not directly contrary to the pattern and consequently a disorderly practise let the world judge 1. By the Scriptures where we have Christ commanding baptisme presently upon discipling Math. 18.19 which we see the Apostles practised with much faithfulness in the whole story of the Acts to which we have spoken already 2. Where we find the erection of the first famous Gospel Church the manner is thus reported Acts 2.41 1. They gladly received the Word 2. Were baptised And 3. They continued in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking bread and prayer but first you see they were baptised behold then the pattern in the Mount and must not he be next to willingly ignorant that doth not see this that is so plainly written that he that runneth may read it Why then if all other patterns be but seducers and that our duty is to build with all possible exactness according to the first pattern have you not justified our separation from you for resusing to build according to this pattern 2. Let the judgement of the learned Mr. Baxster Saints rest p 179 from Doctor Preston touching the primitive practise be taken This food we call the Eucharist saith Justin Martyr one of the most ancient Fathers from the practise of the primitive Church to which â—o man is admitted but onely he that beleiveth the truth of our doctrine being washed in the laver of Regeneration for remission of sinâ— which washing he expresseth thus Then meaning after faith and prayer they are brought to the Water and are BORN AGAIN OR BAPTISED in the same way as we our selves were born again for they are washed with water In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit But that which is home to my point is that no Disciple touched the Eucharist as he calleth it till first baptised indeed after Baptisme then he sitteth down with the body in full communion but not before 3. As we have the Scriptures of our side and the judgement of the learned on our side that this was the Primitive practise so we had you your self on our side at this point when you writ your letter to Mr. Tho. Goodwin p 7. Covenanting is not lawful before Baptisme is is evident because it is not lawfull for a Church to receive the unbaptised into fellowship with them as Members of that body neither is there example or APPEARANCE of warrant in Scripture for such a thing And at that time you were as confident as Confidence it self could make you Pag. 1. of what you then wrote as you there affirm or if you were not of other things yet of this because you say and that according to truth That there is neither example nor appearance of warrant in Scripture for such a thing Yea in that letter p. 5. Evident it is that those that were added to the Church were baptised before this is affirmed of them So that upon Principles of your own which is that we ought to build with all possible exactness according to the pattern you are condemned 1. By the Scriptures 2. By the learned 3. Out of your own mouth all which speak Baptisme to goe before Church-fellowship and consequently to walk otherwise a disorderly practise answer who can And the truth is if we are not to follow the customes of the Primitive Churches in worship in every thing that we can follow them in with this limitation Positive giving way to Morral which they did under the Law how are they a pattern to us how shall we understand where to follow them and wherein to leave them Upon the whole matter then I conclude that though by faith men become the Sons of God and that Christ owneth all true Beleivers for brethren yet they have not thereby a present immediate right to full communion with the Church simply upon that account because the same God that ordained faith the meanes of adoption hath ordained Baptisme to goe before visible membership into the Church of Christ much more before a constant sitting down in full Church Communion they then that walk otherwise cast off the Rule and so reproach the wisdom of Christ complain of the Rule as imperfect and become Judges of the Law Your fourth Consideration being of one heart and soul with the third I shall have the lesse to say to it it is for substance this THat persons that have fellowship and Communion with God are thereby immediately fittted for communion with the Church without Baptisme otherwise it is not against us This Proposition Mr. Goodwin supposeth proved by the 14. Rom. 1 2 3. Him that is weak in the faith receive you Again let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not the reason why he must be received and not despised is For God hath accepted him But how Mr. Goodwin or any man else can make this follow from thence that therefore all persons that have fellowship with God have a present right to Church communion without Baptisme I understand not For 1. The weak in faith that this Text speaketh of were baptised persons which appeareth by the sixth chapter where he useth their Baptisme as an argument to mortification and a new life That the words in the third verse So many of us is not partitive of the Disciples amongst themselves which Brother Allen hath proved unanswerably from the scope to which Mr. Goodwin hath made no reply and to the further clearing whereof I shall speak something in due place 2. Mr. Goodwin supposeth that the object of receiving is into Church communion when the Text saith Him that is weak in the faith receive you which I humbly apprehend is an ungrounded conjecture because the Apostle writeth to an establish'd Church whereof those weak ones were a part which by vertue of their membership were already in full communion with the Church Besides is it a reasonable thing to imagine that such a thought would enter into the heart of the Church to cast brethren out of fellowship with the Church of Christ that was regularly immembred because they were more self denying than others by eating hearbs which they did unto the Lord Rom. 14.6 Surely the Church wanted no exhortation to that so that this caution therefore serveth some other design as I humbly apprehend namely the common respect of Christians which strong ones can hardly vouchsafe to the weak for as the weak are apt to judge the strong so the strong to slight and despise the weak which is the words of the Text Rom. 14.3 Let