Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

the readers of our author, but especially to himself, for had he read it before he published his, perhaps it might have prevented it, or at least, have made him ashamed to quote thofe expreffions, with fuch a complement upon the author of them. How does this become one, who calls himself a minister of the gofpel, to be guilty of fuch a fcandal and defamation as this is? What, did the man never see the ordinance adminiftered? If he has, his wickedness in publishing this is the greater; if not, he ought to have took an opportunity to have informed himself, before he had made fo free with the practice, as to asperse it after this manner. It is well known, that the clothes we ufe in baptism, are either the person's wearing apparel, or else those which are on purpose provided, which are made of as thick, or thicker stuff, than what are ufually worn in the performance of the most fervile work. Thofe who have feen the ordinance administered, know with what decency it is performed, and with such, I am perfuaded what our author fays will find but little credit. I have nothing else, I think, to obferve now, unless it be, his arguing for the preferableness of applying water to the perfon, to any other mode of baptifm, from the application of grace to us, and not us to that, in p. 46. which I fuppofe was forgot in the conference, or else he had not an opportunity to croud it in. To which I need only reply, that there does not appear to be any neceffity of using a mode in baptifm, that must be conformable to that; befides, if there was, does not every body know, that in plunging a perfon, there is an application of the water to him, as well as an application of him to the water? For as foon as ever a perfon is plunged, the water will apply itfelf to him. As to the vanity which he thinks we are guilty of, in monopolizing the name of baptifts to ourselves, he may take the name himself if he pleases, seeing he thinks we have nothing to do with it, for we will not quarrel with him about it: But fince it is neceffary to make use of fome names of diftinction in civil converfation, he does well to tell us, what name we should be called by, and that is plungers; but then he will be hard put to it to fhew the difference between a baptist and a plunger : Befides, the old objection against the name baptift being peculiar to John, or to an administrator, may as well be objected against this name as the other, because we are not all plungers, but by far the greatest part, are only perfons plunged. However I could wish, as well as he, that all names were laid afide, especially as terms of reproach, and the great name of Chrift alone exalted.

CHAP.

CHA P. VIII.

Concerning the free or mixt communion of churches.

MR [R B. W. here and there drops a sentence, fignifying his love and affection to persons of our persuasion, as in p. 42. "Christians of your persuasion, "I hope, I dearly love;" this and fuch like expreffions, I can understand no otherwife than as a wheedling and cajoling of thofe of his members, who are of a different perfuafion from him in this point, whom he knows he must have grieved and offended, by this fhameful and scandalous way of writing. And at the fame time, when he expresses so much love to them, he lets them know, that he does not admire their plunging principle, though he does not love "to make a great noise about it." I think he has made a great noise about it, and fuch an one as, perhaps by this time, he would be glad to have laid. He fignifies his readiness" to carry on evangelical fellowship, in all the acts thereof, "with chearfulness," with those who are differently, minded from him. That those of a different perfuafion from us, fhould willingly receive into their communion fuch whom they judge believers in Chrift, who have been baptized by immerfion; I do not wonder at, seeing they generally judge baptifm performed fo, to be valid; but how Mr B. W. can receive fuch, I cannot fee, when he looks upon it to be no ordinance of God, p. 41. and a fuperftitious invention, p. 23. nay, will-worship, p. 24. There are two churches in London, which, I have been informed, will not receive perfons of our perfuafion into their communion; but whether it is, because they judge our baptifm invalid, and fo we not proper perfons for communion, or whether it is a prudential ftep, that their churches may not be over-run by us, I cannot tell; I think thofe of our persuasion act a very weak part in propofing to belong to any fuch churches, who, when they are in them, are too much regarded only for the fake of their fubscriptions, are but noun fubftantives therein, and too many like Ifachar's ass, bow down between two burdens. But to return, Mr B. W. has thought fit, in the close of this conference, to produce "some few reasons for the equity and neceffity of com"munion with faints as faints, without making difference in judgment about "water-baptism, a bar unto evangelical church fellowship;" which I fhall now confider.

ft, "God has received them, and we should be followers of God as dear chil"dren. We are commanded to receive one another, as Christ hath received us "to the glory of God." That we should be followers of God in all things, which

he

he has made our duty, is certain, but his, and his Son's reception of perfons, is no rule for the reception of church members. A fovereign lord may do what he pleases himself, but his fervants must act according to his orders: God and Chrift have received unconverted finners, but that is no rule for churches; God the Father has fo received them into his love and affections, as to fet them apart for himself, provide all bleffings of grace for them, nay, give himself in covenant to them, fend his Son to die for them, his Spirit to convert them, and all previous to it. Chrift alfo hath received them, fo as to become a furety for them, take the charge both of their perfons and grace, give himself a ransom for them, and bestow his grace upon them; for we are first apprehended by Chrift, before we are capable of apprehending and receiving him: Muft we therefore receive unconverted perfons into church-fellowship, because God and Christ have received them? It is what God has commanded us to do, and not all that he himfelf does, that we are to be followers of him in, or indeed can be; besides, the churches of Chrift are oftentimes obliged, according to Chrift's own rules, to reject those whom Chrift has received, and cut them off from church-communion; witness the incestuous perfon; fo that they are not perfons merely received by Chrift, but perfons received by Chrift, fubjecting themselves to his ordinances, and to the laws of his house, that we are to receive, and retain in churches. The text in Romans xv. 7. which speaks of receiving one another, as Chrift hath received us to the glory of God, can never be understood of the receiving of perfons into church-fellowship. For the perfons who are exhorted both to receive and be received, were members of churches already; therefore that text only regards the mutual love and affection which they fhould have to one another, as brethren and church-members; which is enforced by the ftrong love and affection Chrift had to them.

2. "All faints are alike partakers of the great and fundamental privileges of "the gofpel." If by the great and fundamental privileges of the gofpel, he means union to Chrift, juftification by him, faith in him, and communion with him, who denies that faints are partakers of these things? Though in fome of them, not all alike; for fome have more faith in Chrift, and more communion with him, than others have: But what is this argument produced for? or indeed, is there any argument in it? does he mean that therefore they ought to partake of gospel ordinances? who denies it? And we would have them partake of them alike too, both of Baptifm and the Lord's fupper; it is the thing we are pleading for.

3. "All believers, though in leffer things differently minded, are in a capa"city to promote mutual edification in a church-ftate." But then their admittance into it, and walk with it, must be according to gofpel order, or else they are like to be of little service to promote mutual edification in it.

VOL. II.

Нн

4. "It

4.

"It is obfervable that the churches for the free communion of faints, are "the moft orderly and profperous." This obfervation is wrong, witness the churches in Northamptonshire, where there is fcarcely an orderly or profperous one of that way; they having been made a prey of, and pillaged by others, to whofe capricious humours they have been too much subject.

5. "Many waters fhould not in the least quench love, nor fhould the floods "drown it." This is foolishly and impertinently applied to water-baptism: But what is it that fome men cannot fee in some texts of Scripture?

6. "Behold how good and how pleasant it is!" I think I must also make a note of admiration too, as wondering what the man means by giving us half a fentence! But perhaps this is to give us a specimen of what shadows of words are, though I fuppofe he means for brethren to dwell together in unity; it would have been no great trouble to have expreffed it; but he is willing to let us know that he has got a concife way of fpeaking and writing. For brethren to dwell together in unity, is indeed very pleasant and delightful: But how can two walk, or dwell together thus, except they are agreed!

7. "All the faints fhall for ever dwell in glory together." Who denies it? But does it from thence follow, that they must all dwell together on earth? And if he means that it may be inferred from hence, that they ought to be admitted, whilst here, to church-fellowship, who denies it? But I hope it must be in a way agreeable to gospel order; and he ought to have first proved, that admission to church-fellowship without water baptifm, is according to gospel order. Jefus Chrift, no doubt, receives many unbaptized persons into heaven; and fo he does no doubt, fuch who never partook of the Lord's fupper; nay, who never were in church-fellowship: But are these things to be laid aside by us upon that account? We are not to take our measures of acting in Chrift's church here below, from what he himself does in heaven, but from those rules which he has left us on earth to go by.

Having thus confidered our author's reafons, for the free and mixt communion of faints, without making water baptifm a bar to it; I fhall take the liberty to fubjoin some reasons against it, which I defire chiefly might be regarded and confidered by those who are of the fame perfuafion with us, with refpect to the ordinance of water-baptifm. They are as follow:

1. Because fuch a practice is contrary to Chrift's commiffion, in Matt. xxviii. 19. where Chrift's orders are to baptize thofe that are taught. It is not only without a precept of Chrift, which in matters of worship we should be careful that we do not act without, (for he has no where commanded to receive unbaptized perfons into churches) but it is alfo contrary to one which requires all believers to be baptized; and this must be either before they are church members

or

or after they are so, or never. The two latter, I dare fay, will not be afferted, and therefore the former is true.

2. It is contrary to the order and practice of the primitive churches; it is not only without a precept, but without a precedent: The admiffion of the first converts after Chrift's death, refurrection, and afcenfion, into church fellowship, was after this manner. First, they gladly received the word, then were baptized, and after that, added to the church, Acts ii. 41. So the apostle Paul first believed, then was baptized, and after that affayed to join himself to the difciples, As ix. 18, 26. Who therefore that has any regard to a command of Chrift, and an apostolical practice, would break in upon fuch a beautiful order as this? I challenge any perfon, to give one fingle inftance of any one that was ever received into thofe primitive churches without being first baptized.

3. It has a tendency to lay afide the ordinance entirely. For upon the fame foot that perfons, who plead their baptifm in their infancy, which to us is none at all, may be received, thofe who never make pretenfions to any, yea, utterly deny water-baptifin, may alfo. Moreover, if once it is accounted an indif ferent thing, that may, or may not be done; that it is unneceffary and uneffential to church-communion, to which perfons may be admitted without it, they will lie under a temptation wholly to omit it, rather than incur the trouble, fhame, and reproach that attend it.

4. It has a tendency to lay afide the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, and indeed all others. For, fuppofe a perfon fhould come and propofe.for communion, to any of those churches who are upon this foundation, and give a fatisfactory account of his faith and experience to them, fo that they are willing to receive him; but after all, he tells them he is differently minded from them, with respect to the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper: I am willing to walk with you, fays he, in all other ordinances but that; and, as to that, I am very willing to meet when you do, and with you; to remember Chrift's dying love: I hope I shall be enabled to feed by faith, upon his flesh and blood as well as you; but I think to eat the bread, and drink the wine, are but outward ceremonies, and altoge.her needlefs. I fhould be glad to know, whether any of thefe churches would reject this man? I am fure, according to their own principles, they cannot. Therefore has not this a tendency to lay afide the ordinance of the Lord's Supper? For if it is warrantable for one man, it is for ten or twenty, and fo on ad infinitum. All that I can meet with, as yet, that is objected to this, is, that the Lord's-Supper is a church-ordinance, and cannot be difpenfed with in fuch a cafe; but baptifin is not, and therefore may. But baptifm is an ordinance of Chrift, and therefore cannot be difpenfed

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »