be imagined to be so essentiall to communion as union In all bodyes whether naturall mysticall or politicall communion of parts flowes from union with the whole Christ being the common head of Christians and center of union hence it is that all that are united to him are united one to another or according to the Apostles phrase are members one of another Rom 12.5 And being so communion in giving and receiving mutuall help is the naturall effect and common right of such union It would be monsterous in nature and can it be otherwise in grace for one member of the same body to deny the communication of comfort to the other No man saith the Apostle ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it as the Lord doth the Church Eph. 5.29 And does the Lord nourish and cherish such because they are his members and shall it be denied amongst those that are members one oâ— another God forbid 2. Communion is the end of union or that for the sake of which union is made Christ tooke our nature into union with himselfe that by communication he might become Wisdome Righteousnesse Sanctification and Redemption to us And he hath knit together the severall parts that the whole body might increase and be edified by that which every joynt supplieth by the effectuall working of the measure of every part Eph 4.16 Col 2.19 And therefore to deny communion to those among whom there is union is to crosse and frustrate the very end of union 3. That which is given and belongs to the whole body is given and belongs to every part But the work of ministration as the word is rendred to wit of the ordinances of Christ is ordained for the edification of the whole body Eph 4.12 and consequently for every part All that in common is given to the Church as the ordinances as well as other things are is given to every one that is Christs as all those are who are united to him 1 Cor 3.21 22 23. And the pasture that is provided for the sheep of Christs flock belongs to every one that by Christ enters into his owne sheepfold John 10.9 To conclude then what better stronger or more rightfull claime can any have to communion in a particular Church then his membership in the universall Obj. 1. Against this it may be some will object that union with the Church does not give such a right to communion in it but that some unworthy and unchristian behaviour may be a just barr to ones communion with the Church at such time as his union with it is not denyed The Apostle commands to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly not working at all but walking as a busie-body and yet during the time of this withdrawing he would have such an one to be admonished as a brother and not counted as an enemy and what is this lesse then to acknowledge him as yet a brother in the universall Church and yet to deny him communion in their particular society 2 Thes 3 6-15 Answ When such scandalls in life or doctrine are found in a person that hath been owned for one of Christs Church as does so farre contradict that christian profession by which he was first received into communion with the Church as to give just ground of suspition that there was never that internall union with Christ and his Church which such profession did seem to import or if there were that it hath been since dissolved by such an offensive walking as is justly suspected to be inconsistent with true grace I say while things are in such a doubtfull suspitious posture and in a way of ripening for a finall judgment of the Church about his cutting off such a carriage of the Church towards such a Delinquent seemes most suitable as by which he shall be declared neither clearly on nor clearly off the Church but hanging in suspence as namely by suspending him communion as one going off the Church if not recovered and yet to be admonished as a brother not yet totally cast off And this seemes clearly to be the case of those whom the Apostolicall rule in 2 Thes 3 6-15 concernes But then this will not be found of force against the admission of such godly Pedobaptists to Church-communion who hold their supposed errour upon such termes as does not at all render their spirituall and internall union with Christ so with his Church justly suspected in the account of sober impartiall and judicious Christians 1. The disorderly walking in 2 Thes 3. contrary to the tradition of the Apostles which was to be proceeded against by with-drawing from such as were guilty of it was not every disorder that was contrary to Apostolical tradition or institution as is most evident For the Apostles clearly taught such meats might lawfully be eaten which some scrupled 1 Tim 4.3 4 5. and likewise some dayes to be common which some Christians did count sacred Col 2.16 17. Gal 4.10 11. and Circumcision to be unnecessary which some Christians thought necessary 1 Cor 7.19 Gal 5.6 and yet for all that allowed yea required the admission of such godly Christians to communion who meerly through weaknesse and want of conviction were found in these things disorderly and non-obedient to those Apostolicall traditions or institutions Rom 14 1.-6 15.1 7. Acts 21. 2. The disorderly walking in 2 Thes 3. to be proceeded against by withdrawing from such as were guilty of it was of a morall nature and of publick scandall to those without as well as those within the Church and not matter of doubtfull disputation among good Christians as the other things were For such was not working and playing the busie-bodyes 1 Thes 4.11 12. 1 Tim 5.13 14. 1 Pet 4.15 which yet was the disorder precisely for which the Apostle enjoynes withdrawing from in 2 Thes 3. Yea it was an evill of that nature and so contradictious to the Christian profession that according to the same Apostles own account whosoever made himselfe guilty of it denyed the faith and rendred himselfe worse then an Iâ— fidell 1 Tim 5.8 And therefore no marvell if not meet to be continued in communion when the profession and conversation the only visible witnesse of internall union is rendred invalid by so mighty a contradiction But what 's this to the godly Pedobaptists case whose supposed errour is not of a morall nature nor of publick scandall to those without nor such as does invalidate the testimony of their profession and conversation as witnessing their internall union with Christ and his Church nor so much as rendering it doubtfull nor justly to be suspected but a matter of doubtfull disputation among many of those that are truely godly and not of least discerning in spirituall affaires Obj. 2. It may be yet further objected that though its true that membership with Christ and in the Church universall gives a remote right to communion in particular Churches yet none can have an immediate
this But some which are for infant baptisme are visibly of Christs universall body which I prove thus 1. If those essentiall and constitutive properties and marks by which the visible members of the primitive Churches which were of Christs universall body were described and distinguished from those that were not are visibly in some that are for infant baptisme then some that are for infant baptisme are visibly of Christs universall body But those essentiall and constitutive properties and markes by which the visible members of the primitive Churches that were of Christs universall body were described and distinguished are visible in some that are for infant baptisme Therefore c. I suppose the consequence of the Major proposition will not be denyed viz. that if the same things which essentially made the sound members of the primitive Churches to be visibly of the universall body of Christ be found in Pedobaptists that then there is all reason to conclude them to be of the same body what ever defects otherwise may be found in them For those properties and formall differences which are argumentative and declarative of the kinde doe argue and declare all to be of that kinde in whom those properties and formall differences are found If a humane body and reasonable soule be essentiall to mankinde and that by which that kinde of creature doth formally differ from all other then it must needs follow that all that have a humane body and reasonable soule what ever other defects in nature they have are of mankinde For the examination of the truth of the Minor we will consider what those essentiall and constitutive properties and marks were by which those of the primitive Churches were discerned to be of Christs universall body and distinguished from those that were not and then consider whether the same things properties and marks be not visible in many that are for infant baptisme Those that were of Christs body in Rome you have distinguished from the rest in Rome that were not by this propertie called to be Saints Rom 1.7 Those in Corinth in like manner by these Sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints and others of the same body else-where described by this that they are such as call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours to wit believingly and sincerely 1 Cor 1.2 Those of the Church of Christ at Ephesus thus The Saints which are at Ephesus the faithfull in Christ Jesus Eph 1.1 Those at Philippi thus All the Saints in Christ Jesus Phii 1.1 Those at Colosse thus The Saints and faithfull brethren in Christ Col 1.2 Now that there are many of those that are for infant baptisme concerning whom it is meet for us and for all Saints to think that they are called to be Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus are faithfull in Christ Jesus are faithfull brethren in Christ and such as call and that in faith upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ both theirs and ours I hope no sober Christian will deny and to thinke otherwise would argue little skill in Christianity and an extraordinary deep poverty in charity 2. I further prove that some that are for infant baptisme are of the universall body of Christ thus All that doe truely believe in Jesus Christ are members of that universall body whereof he is the head but some for infant baptisme doe so believe Ergo c. The Minor needs no proof The Major viz. that so many of those that are for infant baptisme as doe unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ are members of his body or which is the same are of his Church I prove from Heb 3.6 But Christ as a Son over his owne house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firme unto the end Againe ver 14. For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end It was their faith and confidence in Christ we see that made them partakers of Christ and to be of his house which is the Church 1 Tim 3.15 and upon their perseverance in this confidence did depend their perseverance in this priviledge And the same faith which did make them partakers of Christ and to be of his house when found in those that are for infant baptisme will produce the same effect and procure them the same priviledge The Saints are called the houshold of faith Gal 6.10 as receiving that denomination from their faith which makes them of Gods house They are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus that have faith Gal. 3.26 and such as are Sons abide in Gods house for ever as members of his family Joh. 8.35 For God hath no children that are not of his houshold 3. If some that are for infant baptisme are reconciled to God by Christs death on the crosse upon their believing and so through Christ and by the Spirit have an accesse unto the father then such are no more strangers and forrainers but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Ephes 2 16-19 But some that are for infant baptisme are so reconciled and have such an accesse to the father This is not without the concession of the Antipedobaptists and therefore needs no farther proofe Therefore we may well conclude that some that are for infant baptisme are no more strangers and forreiners but fellow-citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Object Against the pertinency of the forecited proofes to conclude Pedobaptists to be visibly of the body of Christ it may perhaps be objected that all those Christians of the severall Churches of which the forecited Scriptures make mention were all baptized after the profession of faith and that it will not follow that because faith sanctification and the rest of those qualifications did denominate such as were baptized after faith to be of the Church that therefore they must denominate such as are not baptized after faith to be of the Church likewise For as they had one faith so they had one baptisme Eph 4.5 and this did beare its share in their Christian denomination and distinction as well as any other qualification To this I answer That it was the faith calling and sanctification as such and the visibility of these by which those Christians were described and denominated to be of the Church and distinguished from those that were not and therefore those that are under the same qualifications essentially as some Pedobaptists are though perhaps not circumstantially must needs come under the same denomination of membership in the Church of Christ If the Apostle Paul were now alive and should write an Epistle to the Church of God in London inscribing and directing it to all in London that are called to be Saints or sanctified in Christ Jesus or the faithfull in Christ would it not be reasonable to think that all such Pedobaptists there as are called to be Saints and sanctified in
Congregation of Pedobaptists Object Though we doe owne the godly Pedobaptists to be members of Christs-body yet withall because their visible Church-state and ministery is founded in infant baptisme we cannot but in that respect judge them to be of the whorish state and our separation from them is not as they are of the body of Christ but as they are members of the harlot and so our schisme from them respects not their christian but their harlot or antichristian state Answ 1. When you owne the godly Pedobaptists to be of Christs body it is because they are visibly so for upon no other account can they be knowne or acknowledged to be so And I would have it seriously considered whether it be not a contradiction to grant them to be members of Christs body and yet to affirme them to be members of the harlot and whether its possible for them to be of the Christian and Antichristian state both at once No man can serve two Masters that are contrary Mat 6.24 No more sure can one be a member of two opposite bodyes at once As by the same actions by which a man makes himselfe a friend of the world he makes himselfe an enemy to God James 4.4 So by the same actions by which a man makes himselfe a member of the harlot Church he for ought I know cuts himselfe off from the body of Christ or true Church And the reason is clearly this because the mysticall harlot when once she comes to be so receives her bill of divorce from the Lord by which the marriage-union and relation becomes dissolved Isa 50.1 Jer 3.8 Hos 2.2 5. And that which is true of the whole in this case is true of every part the wholenesse only excepted if the harlot be under divorcement as such then all that make up that harlot state are so And therefore whilst you acknowledge them members of Christs body you cannot rationally repute them of the whorish state 2. It is not every erronious opinion or superstitious practice that is found amongst them of the whorish state that will denominate all those to be of that state that hold them whilst they are otherwise loyall to Christ in the mayne no more then every wanton or immodest word looke or gesture will denominate a woman to be a whore who is otherwise loyall to her husband in the mayne The good Kings Solomon Asa and Jehosaphat were guilty of a little spirituall immodesty in using or at least tolerating the high places but did not come under a spirituall divorce from God thereby as others did who did that and more nor did they thereby become unfit to be held communion with in other regular acts of Gods worship There 's a great deal of difference between that which is essentiall to the constituting of a state and other things which enter not the definition thereof A bad man may doe many good things and a good man many evill by which neither are to be denominated good or bad but by what they are and doe in the mayne by what is predominant in them So those that are of the whorish state may hold many of the same truths and doe some of the same good deeds which a sound member of Christs Church may doe and yet not thereby be worthy the denomination of such a member as long as their corruptions in doctrine worship and life out-weigh these And it s as true that some that are not of the whorish state may be tainted with some of her errours and superstitions which as to matter of constitution of state may be much over-ballanced by soundnesse of faith purity of worship and sincerity of life in the mayne We had need then to take heed of being rash and bold in judging such to be of the whorish state upon account of some under-degree of spirituall lightnesse that our consciences tell us are in the state of grace and Spouse-like love Christ more then they doe any other It would provoke even a good man to have his wife called whore whom he knowes guilty onely of some lesser faults and surely it does no lesse displease the Lord to have such as are espoused to him to be so dealt with 3. It remains then that I adde one thing more for the compleating my answer to the objection and that is That communion with Saints that are in some things erronious and superstitious does not inferre a communion in the errour or superstition it selfe whilst you bear your witnesse against it This is plaine otherwise the strong must have been guilty of the errour and superstition of the weak Saints in the Church at Rome by holding that communion with them to which the Apostle pressed them Rom 14 and 15 Chapters Else the few names in Sardis also could not have kept their garments undeâ— led in holding communion with persons so much defiled as the rest there were which yet they did Rev 3.4 It followes then that such involuntary errours in persons as doe consist with the visibility of true grace doe not render communion with them unlawfull in such things which are not of themselve unlawfull we may hold communion with them in their graces and in their duties though not in their errours Though you may and ought to withdraw your communion in such acts wherein you are sure they have not communion with Christ yet you may not doe so in those in which you know they have VI Argument IF the godly Anabaptists doe hold communion with the godly Pedobaptists in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lords Supper Then it is not unlawfull but their duty for them to hold communion in breaking of bread it selfe which is the signe But the godly Anabaptists and godly Pedobaptists doe hold communion one with another in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lords Supper Therefore c. That which is signified by the use of the bread and cup in the Lords Supper is shewed by the Apostle 1 Cor 10.16 to wit communion in the body and blood of Christ And that the godly of both sorts to wit of Pedobaptists and Anabaptists have communion by faith in the body and blood of Jesus Christ eating the same spirituall meat and drinking the same spirituall drink I think will not be denyed and therefore needs no proofe But that which requires a further demonstration is the Major proposition The reason then why it s not unlawfull but a duty for those to hold communion in the signe that have communion in the substance or thing signified is 1. Because so to doe answers the end of the ordinance whereas a denyall of communion in the signe where it is held in substance would crosse the very end of the ordinance The signe is ordained but for the thing sake unto which it does relate the outward communion in the signe bread and wine is appointed to signifie and increase the communicants inward and spirituall communion in the body blood of
the greatest part of the prayers they make the Chapters they read the Sermons they hear in order to their growth in grace already received as it is for them to be baptized before they participate in the Supper and yet who will say that it is a sin for them to pray to read or to heare the word for such an end And if it be not a sin for them to doe these duties for their growth why should it be their sin to have communion in the Supper for the same end since there is as much reason to lay aside the one as to forbear the other upon the forementioned ground If they doe sin their sin lies not in doing that which they know to be their duty but in omitting that which is but is not knowne by them so to be And if these duties be lawfull in them to doe as Christians can it reasonably be thought unlawfull for us to joyne with them in them May we not joyne with them and hold communion with them in that which is lawfull being men having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ because we may not have communion with them or joyne with them in that which is unlawfull Or does our communion with them in that which is good make us guilty of their infirmities or mistakes especially when they know that we disallow them If this were so there would have been no roome for Christian communion between the weake and strong Christians in the Apostles dayes the heâ—b-eaters and the flesh-eaters those that were for the observing of such a day and those that were not those that were for circumcising and those that were not Obj. But was not Christ as faithfull in his house as Moses was in his Heb. 3.2 If so hath not he been as paâ—ticular and as strict in his lawes for communion as namely that no unbaptized person should tast of his Supper as Moses was in forbidding the uncircumcised to eat of the Passeover Answ Christ is and hath been as faithfull in his house as Moses was in his but how not in descending to so many particularities about externall ordinances as Moses did but in declaring all that he had received from his father to make known John 12.49 50. 15.15 As Moses waâ— faithfull to the extent of his Commission so was Christ to the utmost latitude of his But then it will follow that if Christ hath no where given a law in like manner and upon like termes forbidding all unbaptized Disciples communion in the Supper as Moses did for the restraining of the uncircumcised from the Passeover that the reason is because he had no such command from his father and consequently that it is not the fathers will to lay the same restraint in the one case as he did in the other This I conceive may be an answer fully sati factory to this fifth Argument I might here have shewed that the New Testament makes the Christian Circumcision which consists in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh Rom. 2.29 Phil. 3.3 Col 2.11 to answer more properly to Circumcision in the flesh then Baptisme does and consequently that as the literall Circumcision was the boundary of communion in the old Testament Church so the spirituall Circumcision is the boundary of communion in the New Testament Church No men being to be knowne or acknowledged for Church-members now after the flesh as by Circumcision they were wont to be but now if any man be in Christ he is a new creature upon that account to be looked upon as one in Christ 2 Cor 5.16 17. As the want then of a regular Baptisme is an argument that the new creatureship is wanting so farre I shall grant the want of it an argument against communion with those that want it but no further as I see Sixth Argument for Separation is to this effect If the practice of holding communion with such onely as are baptized after faith be more safe and more full of Scripture light and evidence then the practice of holding communion with Pedobaptists is then such a practice is rather to be chosen then the other But the practice of holding communion with such onely as are baptized after faith is more safe and more full of Scripture-light and evidence then the other is Therefore c. Answ Here the Minor is again denyed It is not more safe nor more full of Scripture-light and evidence to hold communion with such onely as are baptized after faith when in the doing of it communion with other godly Christians of different perswasion is rejected There is no Scripture-light or evidence for this neither of precept or example as will be further shewed afterwards but is a practice attended with danger and inconvenience both to themselves and others and to the affaires of Jesus Christ now abroad in the world as hath already been shewed and needs not here to be repeated and will be further touched on afterward And this much shall suffice for the taking downe of the old building which yet indeed was not old but new I shall now proceed to the erecting of that in its place and roome which as I judge will be more substantiall beautifull and serviceable then the other was Six Arguments for the lawfulnesse of Church-Communion between the godly Pedobaptists and Anabaptists notwithstanding their different perswasion touching infant and after Baptism I. Argument ALL those that are visibly of Christs universall body have thereby a right to communion in particular Churches but some which are for infant Baptisme are visibly of Christs universall body therefore some which are for infant baptisme have a right to communion in particular Churches Before I endeavour the proofe of the proposition take a word for explication of some of the termes of it By the universall body of Christ I meane all those that are actually united to him and are thereby in an actuall and present capacity of being saved by him Those in Scripture are called the body of Christ his body the Church the whole body and the generall assembly and Church of the first-born Eph 4.12 16. 1.22 23. Col 1.18 24. Heb 12.23 Of this number some are invisible and some visible Of those that are invisible some are in the other world and some in this Those in this world that are of Christs body and yet not visibly so are such as are united to Christ by internall grace and have not yet had opportunity to manifest it by a suitable profession and conversation Those are visibly of this body whose profession and conversation is declarative of this spirituall union And of this number are many of those that are for infant baptisme Thus much for explication now to our proofe of the proposition It is affirmed in the Major proposition that all those that are visibly of Christs universall body have thereby a right to communion in particular Churches 1. The truth of this is obvious to common sense for what can