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
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
are regularly visible members of the universall Church and doe affirm that the godly Pedobaptists are visibly members of the universall Church though not baptized after professâ—on of faith and being so have right to particular Church-membership Whatever it is that gives us ground to judge any of the Pedobaptists godly or men fearing God makes their universall Church-membership visible For there are no godly men or holy men who are not members of Christs body and consequently for the same reason for which we judge any godly we must judge them of the body or Church of Christ if we doe but know and understand what we judge But touching the visibility of the universall Church-membership of the godly Pedobaptists and of their right to communion in particular Churches thereby I shall have occasion to speake more particularly and fully in my first Argument for generall communion among Saints and therefore shall say no more of it here but referre you thither Fourth Argument for Separation stands thus If according to Gospel order all Christs Disciples ought first to be baptized before they be admitted unto Church-communion then the godly Pedobaptistâ— although the Disciples of Christ not being baptized cannot be admitted to such communion without breach of Gospel order But according to Gospel order all Christs Disciples ought first to be baptized before they be admitted unto Church-communion Therefore c. Answ I freely grant with all my heart that it is the order of Christ Jesus in the Gospel that his Disciples should first be baptized before they desire or claime communion in a particular Church For baptizing is that which next followes discipling according both to the Commission of Christ Mat. 28.19 and the constant recorded practice of the primitive times And so farre the Argument holds good that if any godly Pedobaptist or other Disciple of Christ should desire Church-communion before he is baptized as Christ would have him baptized having opportunity of being so he should therein make himselfe a transgressor of that order And yet for all that it will not follow but that the godly Pedobaptists may be admitted to Church-communion by the Anabaptists without any breach of Gospel order on their part that doe so admit them And therefore I distinguish upon that phrase without breach of Gospel order mentioned in the close of the consequence of the Major proposition as it relates to the admission of the godly Pedobaptists to communion 1. As it respects the persons themselves to be admitted the proposition is true upon supposition that the godly Pedobaptists should prove not to be baptized then it would be a breach of the Gospel order aforesaid on their part to claime Church-communion before they are baptized But 2. If that passage cannot be admitted to such communion without breach of Gospel order be understood as respecting the Anabaptists as persons admitting then I conceive the consequence of the Major proposition is false and that it will be no breach of Gospel order on their part to admit such to their communion but indeed a conforming to and a faithfull observing of Gospel order visible in other parts of the New Testament so to doe For There is no Gospel order that I know of that enjoynes baptized believers in no case to admit believers that are not baptized into their communion and where there is no law there is no transgression Rom 4.15 And if Christ have made no such law I am sure it will not become us to make any such When I formerly built up that way of Separation which now I am labouring to take downe my soule made diligent search for some Scripture forbidding the baptized to hold communion with unbaptized believers And among all which I thought looked that way Mat. 28.19 is the chiefe Goe teach or disciple all nations baptizing them Which being againe looked into I finde that all that can be gathered from it hereabout is onely this that Christ would have all those to be baptized that should be made Disciples or at most to be baptized next after discipling These words containe onely a law about discipling and baptizing but nothing at all about communion they enjoyne what shall be done in the one but forbid nothing to be done in the other As for the Disciples after behaviour it is concerned in the next words following ver 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you viz to teach them If then it did appeare that the Lord commanded his Apostles to teach the Disciples when once baptized not to admit any unbaptized Disciples of his to their communion in no case then indeed it would be unlawfull for them so to doe But till that do appeare we had need to take heed of making voyd another command of the Lord that we might establish our own tradition instead of his command in this Obj. But is not the constant order which the primitive Saints observed a Gospel order and was it not their constant order without so much as once varying it to receive onely such into Church-fellowship and communion as were before baptized Acts 2.41 1 Cor 12.13 And would it not then be a violation of such Gospel order to doe otherwise now Answ I doe not know but that it was their constant order as to matter of fact to receive only baptized Disciples into Church-communion nor do I think but that under the circumstances of their case what they did in that kinde was a Gospel order and that under the same circumstances to doe otherwise now would be a violation of Gospel order And yet for all that this their primitive order of non-admission of unbaptized does not binde up the Anabaptists to a non-admission of the godly Pedobaptists to their communion where the same reason of non-admission is not in being For it is not the meer fact and literall practice of the primitive Saints simply considered that is now binding to us but the reason of it Men that are not under the same reason of counting nothing which they possesse their owne are not under the same obligation of selling their possessions and parting with them as the primitive Saints were Acts 4. Nay which is more this is not only true in respect of practice and example but of some precepts also there were some precepts which were binding to them then which are not so among us now and that upon this very ground because the reason of them is nor in being to us as it was to them As for example Mat. 6.17 18. But thou when thou fastest annoint thine head and wash thy face that thou appeare not unto men to fast This though the expresse command of â—hrist to his Disciples yet is not binding to us in the letter of it because the custome of the places where those Disciâ—les lived and we now live do vary so much as that the reason of the precept would be crossed should the letter of it be observed And surely it is for like reason
lay themselves open and become obnoxious to the temptations and surprisall of the enemy Their strength to withstand the enemy lies under God in their union and association When the Apostle exhorts the Christians Phil. 1.27 to stand fast and to maintaine their ground against the enemy he immediately directs them to strive together for the faith of the Gospel And if one prevaile yet two shall withstand him and a threefold cord is not easily broken Eccl. 4.12 But by dividing and separating they loose their strength and become a prey to the enemy Gen. 49.7 I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel dividing makes way for scattering and overcoming How easie a matter is it for an enemy by his united force to subdue the greatest Armie when they shall fight him only in small parties he will first overcome one partie and then another and so all one after another And that doubtlesse is the reason why the enemy hath so mightily prevailed and taken so many that did wear Christs colours prisoners and led them away captive under the power and command of mand dangerous and destroying errors and heresies since those unhappie divisions and separations among the people of God have broken out and so abounded in this Nation And therefore I conceive that upon true account it will be found that where the enemy hath drawne away one other person to become a Quaker or a Ranter or the like he hath drawne away many of those that upon one account or other had before separated themselves in their communion from a great part of the people of God As straglers from an Army use to fall into the hands of the enemy when those that abide in the mayne body are safe even so is it with those that stragle from the mayne body of Christ the universall Church in their communion they are gathered up by the enemy here one and there one when in the meane while those that abide and keep their rancks in the mayne body are more generally kept safe Doubtlesse it s not much lesse dangerous for Saints to separate from Saints upon account of their differences considering what advantage is given the enemy thereby then it would be for an Army who all engage for the same cause in the maine to divide and part upon account of difference among them about wearing of Colours or ordering themselves when they have a potent and resolved enemy in the field ready to fight them For besides the danger already hinted by such separation they take course to dis-arme themselves at least in great measure and to put weapons into the enemies hand Christian Charity is in great part a Christians security and the separation I speake of tends greatly to weaken and by degrees to destroy that charity as I shall shew afterward To what degree the enemy draws any of us out of Christian charity he draws us out of our strong hold and place of security If we love one another God dwelleth in us saith the Apostle and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him 1 John 4.12 16. and therefore must needs be safe If God dwell in him it is to govern and guide him to support and uphold him to save and defend him Where God dwells light and strength dwells He that loveth his brother abideth in the light and there is none occasion of stumbling in him 1 John 2.10 But uncharitablenesse is quite contrary to God who is love and where that dwells he takes no pleasure to dwell and if he who is the Christians safety strength and guide be but withdrawne what can be expected but darknesse weaknesse wandering and the enemies enterin and taking possession He that hateth his brother is in darknesse and walketh in darknesse and knoweth not whither he goeth because darknesse hath blinded his eyes 1 John 2.11 Uncharitablenesse then deprives men of Gods presence which is their only safety and makes way for the enemy and so betrayes them into the hand of errour and delusion The end of the Commandment saith the Apostle is charity from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling 1 Tim. 1.5 6. Turning aside to vain langling is that which followes the swerving from charity As love departs so jangling errour and confusion takes place 1 Cor. 11.18 19. I hear there are divisions among you and I partly believe it for there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest The Apostle knowing there must come heresies among them was easily induced to believe the report that brought him news of the divisions in that Church as looking upon those but as preparing and making way for the other If you hear of much contention among brethren once for want of charity expect to hear of heresies among them ere long Seasons of uncharitable contentions among Christian brethren are gainfull advantages for the Devil to deceive in Mark and consider that Prophesie of Christ Mat 24 10 11 12. Then shall many be offended and shall betray one anoeher and shall hate one another And many false Prophets shall rise and shall deceive many When Christs followers fall a hating and so a betraying one another then the Devil sends forth his Prophets as the fittest season possible to carry away many of those which were growne in distast with their godly brethren And because iniquity in this kinde shall abound the love of many shall wax cold ver 12. A great decay of affection to the Gospel takes place when uncharitablenesse errour and Apostacy among the professors thereof doth abound And may not I say as Christ in another case sometimes said This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears For when the godly among the Episcoparians Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists fell to siding party against party and envie emmulations and uncharitablenesse increased then the Devill thrusts out a great variety of seducers that have carryed away many into wayes of dangerous errour especially of those that have proceeded furthest in separation by several subdivisions Though God hath in the meane while graciously kept such as have retained a generall love to all the people of God and have managed their differences with more moderation 3. Another way by which Separation of Saints from Saints furthers Satans and hinders Christs designe what ever they themselves designe by it is in hindering the successe of the Gospel in its converting work For by it unbeliefe of the Gospel in ungodly men is nourished and maintained The Saints differences though but in some lesser matters when made so publique and notorious by separations doe gratifie the unbelieving thoughts which sinfull men have as if the Gospel were an uncertain thing When they see those that pretend to so much knowledge of it to diâ—agree in matters so materiall as those that concern their owning one another as Christian Brethren they think its like that they may suspend a thorow beliefe of the whole Christ
then my present-practice of free communion with reformed godly Congregations of Pedobaptists but much more to perswade others to joyne with me therein I shall through Gods assistance endeavour these two things 1. To take downe those Arguments by which I once endeavoured to build up Separation 2. Propose some Arguments to evince the lawfulnesse of Church-communion between the godly both Pedobaptists and Anabaptists and the unlawfulnesse of denying their communion one with another upon account of their baptismall difference In the doing of which I suppose I shall have occasion to consider all that is considerable on the other hand either of Arguments or Objections Which done I hope will be of good use to cure and prevent the evill of Separation of godly from godly upon other accounts also as well as this My six former Arguments for Separation taken downe FIrst I would here give notice that my six Arguments formerly published in countenance of Separation of godly from godly upon the account of Infant Baptisme are laid downe for the most part rather Motive-wise then Argument-wise and doe not rationally conclude the thing for which they were brought I shall therefore contract and reduce them in the best of their strength into form of Argument and then discover in what respects they are inconcludent of the position touching Separation which should have been proved by them First Argument for Separation is to this effect Those Churches may not be held communion with in whose constitution such a part of the foundation of Christian Churches as the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wanting But such are the best of the Churches of the Pedobaptists Therefore c. Answ That it is the duty of every Christian so farre as he contributes any thing towards the erecting a house for Christ therein according to the best of his understanding and as much as in him lies to endeavour that it be built according to the pattern in the Mount I mean the Scriptures and that no part of the foundation through his default be left out I easily grant and still assert But that that part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wholly wanting in the Churches of the Pedobaptists I doe deny or if there be some part of it wanâ—ing in them yet that such a partiall defect is any sufficient ground of separation from them I doe also deny and shall here offer something to shew that it is a great mistake so to think 1. That part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme is not totally wanting in the Assemblies of the godly Pedobaptists For about the doctrine of Baptime the Pedobaptists doe agree with the Anabaptists in many weighty points though they differ in some other 1. They both agree that water Baptisme is an ordinance instituted by the Lord. And 2. To be continued in the use of it to the end of the world 3. That all that are converted from another to the Christian religion and profession ought upon such conversion to be baptized as those whose Baptisme after faith is recorded in Scripture were 4. That to be baptized is a professed putting on of Christ and that Baptisme is a badge of Christs professed Disciples distinguishing them from such as doe not own Christ 5. That all that are baptized are thereby obliged to cease living any more to sin but are bound thereby to live a new and holy life unto God 6. That all the Disciples of Christ ought actually to be under this ingagement In all these they both agree 7. As the one hold themselves actually engaged to the lawes of Christ by their Baptisme after faith so doe the other by that which they account a sufficient Baptisme though received before faith 8. As the one doe the things to which Gospel-Baptisme does oblige so doe the other Although then the Pedobaptists be supposed to be defective in the doctrine of Baptisme in relation to some of the subjects of it and it is but some and likewise in relation to the form of administration yet agreeing in so many of the substantiall parts of the doctrine of Baptisme as is before mentioned we cannot say justly that there is an utter failer in them as to this part of the foundation There are two parts of the doctrine of Baptisme the one concernes the putting away of the filth of the flesh the other the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Christ from the dead If they are defective in that part of the doctrine which concernes the putting away the filth of the flesh yet they are orthodox and sound in that part which concernes the answer of a good conscience towards God which according to the Apostle is the greater and better part 1 Pet. 3.21 A partiall defect and that too in the lesser part of the foundation does not make a nullity in it no more then the want of a hand or an eye or a leg makes a man to be no man And if a woman should separate from her husband when wanting any of these upon pretence that he is no man she would not be held innocent Defects in and about holy things though great and notable doe not alwayes cause a privation of the ends of the holy things themselves The manner of Jacobs obtaining the blessing was greatly defective and full of sinfull mixture but yet did not nullifie the blessing it selfe It was a great defect in the Office of high Priesthood when God would have but one high Priest at one time and him during life Num. 35.25 28. Heb. 7.23 for men to set up two or else to make an annuall election Joh. 11.49 51. 18.13 Acts 4.6 but yet whoever thought for all that that all the administrations of such an high Priest were nullities and that no body was the better for them 2. It s a great mistake likewise to think that every partiall defect in the foundation of a compleat Church constitution is a sufficient ground of separation For 1. It s very probable that something of that which is comprized in the doctrine of Baptisme a part of the foundation Heb. 6. is wanting as it was enioyed in the primitive Church in the best constituted and well ordered Church at this day in the world For when the Author of that Epistle speakes of the doctrine of Baptismes in the plurall number what can we so reasonably understand by it besides the Baptisme of water as the Baptisme of the Spirit And however all that are Christs have his Spirit Rom 8.9 Gal. 4.6 yet I have as I think else-where rendred it probable from Mat. Doubt resolved p. 37. 3.11 Acts 1.5 2.3.4 11.16 compared that the Baptisme of the Spirit was a priviledge peculiar to the primitive times and is not now enjoyed by any that we know of Wherein also I know I have the concurrant judgement of many of the Baptists at least So that its
right without Baptisme after faith that being the door of enterance into the Church To this I answer 1. That though its true that Baptisme is necessary by way of duty to give a man an orderly and compleat right to particular Church-fellowship when he hath an opportunity of being baptized yet it will not therefore follow that its absolutely necessary by way of means or under penalty without which such fellowship and communion is not to be had when the reason of the want of such Baptisme is the want of opportunity to enjoy it The truth whereof appears by this undeniable reason Baptisme is no more necessary to Church-communion then it is to salvation For how can the means be more necessary to the subordinate then it is to the principall end If Baptisme be necessary to Church-communion it is because Church-communion is respectively necessary to salvation for neither of them would be necessary if no such thing were as salvation is to which they both relate But now Baptisme is necessary to salvation but by way of duty when opportunity occurs but is not necessary by way of means so as without which salvation is not to be had when opportunity of doing ones duty in this kinde is wanting This is our constant protestant doctrine against the too much rigidity of Popish necessity And therefore if Baptisme be necessary to salvation but upon such termes then surely it cannot be necessary to Church-communion upon higher or more strict termes if any thing may be remitted in the strictnesse of the termes of necessity it would rather be as it relates to its lesse principall then principall end But now that the true reason why the godly Pedobaptists are not baptized after faith is the want of a morall opportunity is a thing not to be doubted For all the while they remaine unconvinced that it is their duty or so much as lawfull for them to be so baptized so long they are clearly under the want of a morall opportunity of receiving such a Baptisme For they can no more lawfully be so baptized during the time of such dissatisfaction then others can who are satisfied whilst they want the opportunity of health water or a meet administrator It was as much the Israelites duty to be circumcised before their admission to communion in any part of congregationall worship the time prescribed for Circumcision considered as it is the duty of believers to be baptized before admission to Church communion yea the Law was more expresse in that poynt then the Gospel is in this and yet for want of opportunity of performing the one the other was enâ—oyed without it for a certaine season in the wildernesse The want then of a morall opportunity of doing that which in order of nature should goe before is not a barr against the doing of all hat which according to common order should follow after for then it would as well be unlawfull for the godly Pedobaptists to proceed in a long continued course of hearing praying c. for their edification in the grace they have received as it would be for them to breake bread in remembrance of the Lords death because their baptisme after faith ought as well to precede the one as the other But surely it is not in the heart of any tender Christian to suspend them the exercise of these untill they are satisfied touching the other And I query by what law or rule they come under suspension any more in the one then in the other Their supposed sin then lies not in this that they breake bread and performe other Christian duties before they are baptized but in this that they omit Baptisme after the proper season of it And it does not follow that communion may not be held with them in that which is lawfull yea their duty because it may not be held with them in that which is their supposed weaknesse in omitting a duty a consent in the one and a declared disapprobation of the other may well consist 2. To the objection which supposeth internall union with the Church to give only a remote right to Church-communion but Baptisme the immediate right I further answer thus Baptisme does not of it selfe constitute a right to Church-communion but is declarative of that which does it is the union by grace which constitutes a mans right when made visible and not Baptisme otherwise then as it is declarative of this That this is so appeares thus When such a heresie or scandalous life does occurre a man that hath been baptized as does totally obscure the grace of union or declare the non-being of it his Baptisme cannot protect him from being cut off communion with the Church as it would doe if of it selfe it did constitute a mans right And is there not the same reason why the involuntary want of regular Baptisme should not deprive a man of communion if the grace of union which does constitute his right to it be apparently visible otherwise If baptisme cannot give a man right in the absence of visible grace why should the involuntary want of it deprive him of it in the presence of visible grace It is true Baptisme is reputed the doore of enterance into the Church and the Scripture saith that by one Spirit we are all baptized into oâ—e body 1 Cor 12.13 But how Surely not by originall constitution but by way of signe and solemnization Which agrees to the nature and usuall description of Sacraments as they are called as consisting of outward signe and inward grace the letter of the ordinance as to this use of it being but the signe of the spirituall union and communion which by it is professedly declared to be between him that is baptized and the rest of Christs body So that mens actuall reall and spirituall union and membership with Christ and so with the Church which is the ground of communion is supposed and ought to precede the solemnization of it by way of signe The signe to wit Baptisme with water delivers the baptized into the visible union and communion of the Church by pointing to and declaring their inward and spirituall union and communion with it as that which gives them right to outward and visible communion If then the grace of spirituall union which fundamentally gives a man right to Church-communion may be evidenced and declared by other means without regular Baptisme though its every Christians duty to have his baptisme concurre in such declaration when he hath opportunity so to doe it will not follow then that the want of such baptisme betiding a man through unavoydable necessity in the want of opportunity will deprive him of an immediate right to such communion But that the grace of spirituall union which many that are for infant baptisme have with Christ the head and his body the Church is clearly evidenced though they not baptized after faith is that which in the next place I am to undertake the proofe of My Minor proposition then was
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
children of God and if believers in Christ then members of Christ and if members of Christ then of his body the Church and if of Christs body then that they have communion with him in his flesh blood and Spirit and what can they acknoweldge that amounts to more then this by having communion with them in the Lords Supper Or have they any example or direction in Scripture to joyne with them in prayer with whom they may not joyne in breaking of bread IV Argument IF separation of Saints from Saints upon any account of difference that does not unsaint them or render their Saintship justly suspected be voyd of Scripture-precept and of approved Scripture-president Then the godly Anabaptists and godly Pedobaptists need not separate one from another upon account of their difference about Baptisme for all conscience of duty arises from precept or president But separation of Saints from Saints upon any account of difference that does not unsaint them or render their Saintship justly suspected is voyd of Scripture-precept and of approved Scripture-president Ergo. That such separation is voyd of Scripture-precept and of approved Scripture-president I take for granted till the contrary doe appeare which I never expect We read of many differences both of opinion and practice and of divisions thereupon that were in the primitive Churches but of no approved separations from those Churches upon account of those differences There were indeed that did forsake the Saints assemblies upon a carnall account Heb 10.25 that went out from them because they were not of them 1 Joh 2.19 but they were sensuall not having the Spirit Jude 19. There were others not so bad that did not proceed so farre that upon account of difference stood at some distance one from another but how were they disallowed and blamed for so doing Acts 15. Rom 14. 15. What is wont to be alledged for Scripture-precept in the case I take to be impertinent and to fall short in proofe of what its brought for That 's one in Rom 16.17 Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoyd them 1. These were not Saints which they were to avoyd but such as served not the Lord Jesus but their owne bellies ver 18. 2. The divisions and offences caused by them for the sake of which they were to be avoyded were not about lesser matters or such offences as would consist with Saintship for it was so farre from being a duty to avoyd one another upon that account as that it was their sin for which they were blamed when they did so Chap. 14. 15. Or 3. if they were divisions and offences about lesser matters for causing of which they were to be avoyded then they were not to be avoyded for causing such divisions simply for so the Saints did which were to be received Rom 14. but for causing them out of a carnall designe to serve their own bellies Another is 2 Thes 3.6 Withdraw from every brother that walkes disorderly c. But to this I have spoken already in my first Argument to which I referre you A third Scripture alledged for separation is 2 Cor 6.17 Wherefore come out from among them c. But this does not call Saints from Saints but Saints from infidell Idolaters as ver 14 15 16. With whom some of that Church had communion in eating of their Idol-sacrifices in their Idols Temple 1 Cor 8.7 10. But that Scripture on which I finde some to lay the greatest stresse is Rev. 18.4 Come out of her my people that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues From which they argue that God hath of his people in Mysticall Babylon to wit Rome and that having hereby given a call to them all to come out of her if some will not at first obey the call but stay behinde the rest that understand it and have a mind to obey it must leave them behinde and separate from them 1. To which first I might say the passage doth not necessarily suppose that God hath in Babylon a people that are by conversion actually his in Covenant but a people that in obeying his call shall become such As when the Lord said to Paul Acts 18.9 10. Be not afraid but speake and hold not thy peace for I am with thee and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee for I have much people in this City His much people were not those that did already believe at least not all of them such but such whom the Lord knew should believe upon his continuing to preach the Gospel there In like manner when Christ saith John 10.16 Other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voyce The saying of Christ doth not import that those other sheep which he calls his were then his by calling when he spake those words but were afterwards to become his when he should bring them to heare his voyce 2. Or secondly if the words doe import a people that are Gods by call and covenant that live in Babylon then come out of her my people c. may import Gods call to them for a locall remove though in no actuall communion with her partly to avoyd the temptations of so wicked a place noted in those words that ye be not partakers of her sins and partly to escape her Judgements noted in those words that ye receive not of her plagues As God sometimes called Lot out of Sodom and his people out of Jerusalem at the approach of ruine to those Cities And then the words will no more imply a Church-separation then it would do for a man that lives in Paris to remove to London for better opportunities of grace as the late converted Turk did 3. But thirdly suppose the words to be understood of such as are actually Gods people even then while as yet they are in superstitious communion with such Idolaters or others in Babylon as are none of Gods people by Gospel call and Covenant grace yet this would be no ground for to withdraw from or deny communion with a Congregation of godly Pedobaptists that are separated in their communion from the ungodly of the world which is our case because the case between the other and them wholly differs 1. For first if there should be any in the assemblies of the Romane Babylon that in the midst of so much wood hay and stubble of errour and superstition should have so much of the gold silver and precious stones of sound doctrine right faith and true grace as would denominate them Gods people yet these are in their Church-worship involved among persons that are in some of their tenents hereticall in their worship idolatrous and in their conversations openly profane Which are such causes of non-communion as are not to be found in the well reformed Congregations of godly Pedobaptists whether Presbyteriall or Independent And
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