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
that we doe not hold the holy kiss 1 Thes 5.26 and the washing of Saints feet John 13. and some other things of like nature though expressly enjoyned to be so obliging to us as to the primitive Saints And upon what other ground else could the 120 Disciples Acts 1. be any more excused from having hands laid on them supposing it in it selfe a duty in those times as part of the foundation Heb 6.2 then other primitive Saints but onely that the end and reason of it was not in being to them as it was to others Upon like ground therefore I think we may safely conclude that if the primitive Saints reason of not admitting unbaptized persons to their communion be not our reason or is not in being to us in relation to the godly Pedobaptists then their practice cannot be our binding president nor our literall variation a morall violation of their order See we then whether the reason of the primitive Saints admitting onely baptized Disciples to their communion be a reason to us to exclude the godly Pedobaptists or rather whether it be not a binding reason to us why they should be admitted to communion The reason of admitting such and such onely as they did to the communion of Saints must needs be their appearance to be Saints The saintly qualification of the person must needs be the adequate reason of his admission to Saints communion When those in Church-communion were still stiled Saints in the inscriptions of the Epistles sent them they received that denomination from that which was the ground and reason of their communion See Rom 1.7 1 Cor 1.2 Ephes 1.1 Phil 1.1 Col 1.1 The reason therefore why they admitted baptized and onely baptized to their communion in the primitive times was because they had reason to esteem such and onely such for Saints Any man that should then have refused Baptisme supposing no conscientious scruple about it then in being among the Saints it would have been and indeed was argument sufficient against his Saintship or being a cordiall Disciple of Christ To deny Christ and to deny to be baptized in his name was much the same thing then Upon which ground the refusing or not desiring of Baptisme in whomsoever found was ground to the Saints then to refuse or not desire communion with them And as it was then so it is now in like case where the want of a regular Baptisme now is as much an argument of no grace as it was in the primitive times there it is as much an argument of non-communion with such persons now as then But where the want of any thing which belongs to a regular Baptisme is no argument of non-Saintship there I think it can be no argument of non-communion with Saints They having that upon which the communion of Saints is sounded to wit Saintship must needs have a right to the communion it selfe If baptisme in the primitive times was a reason subordinately of communion as it was an argument of Saintship then by the rule of contraries the want of it can be no argument against communion but as such a want is an argument of non-Saintship Of this more afterwards But most certain it is that the want of regular baptisme which is laid to the Pedobaptists charge is no argument of non-Saintship in many of them it proceeding not from want of a sincere love to Christ of which love many of them have given an ample testimony otherwise both in doing and suffering for him but meerly from want of light in the thing they professing and I believe in good earnest that if they did not believe they were baptized already it should be one of the first things they would seeke opportunitie to doe to become baptized You see then upon what ground the primitive practice of holding communion with none but baptized Disciples is not binding to us but in like cases But what ever the other was to be sure this was a Gospel order among the primitive Saints the morall reason whereof does as well oblige us as them to wit Saints holding communion with such in whom there was the appearance of Saints notwithstanding all ignorances errings and mistakes oâ—herwise And why any or our brethren should have their eye so much upon that other piece of Gospel order and overlooke this and not thinke themselves as much and much more obliged by this then that especially considering that there is precept upon precept as well as president in this case but not so in the other I am sure I not to say they can give no good reason But of this more afterward Fifth Argument for Separation comes out thus If Baptisme bear the same relation to the Supper of the Lord as Circumcision did to the Passeover then no unbaptized person may be admitted to the Supper of the Lord because none uncircumcised might be admitted to the Passeover But Baptisme does bear the same relation to the Supper of the Lord as Circumcision did to the Passeover Therefore Answ I shall not insist upon the undermining the basis of this proposition by asserting that Circumcision was not in all cases absolutely previously necessary to communion in the Passeover as in the case of women who were communicants in that ordinance though not circumcised and likewise in the case of neer forty yeares intermission of Circumcision in the wildernesse in which time there was one Passeover to be sure if not many more for I have that which will be more satisfactory then this I shall therefore deny the Minor proposition Baptisme does not beare the same relation to the Lords Supper as Circumcision did to the Passeover That relation which Circumcision did bear to the Passeover as to make the former a necessary qualification in a person for the enjoyment of the latter was the relation of an expresse command of God making the one so necessary in relation to the other as that the Lord did expressly prohibit any uncircumcised male to eat thereof Exod. 12.48 But now the New Testament affords us no such expresse Law prohibiting communion in the Lords Supper to such as upon any account are not baptized I doe acknowledge indeed that the New Testement does implicitly enjoyne Disciples of Christ to be baptized before they participate in the Lords Supper but not so as to make the latter act to wit communion in the Supper unlawfull without the former Though Baptisme be enjoyned to be received in its proper place and season yet all other after duties of Christianity are not forbidden in case the other should unknowingly or for want of a naturall or morall opportunity be deferred or omitted If a man omits one previous duty as not knowing it to be his duty or as thinking he hath already done it when he hath not it will not follow that he is hereupon bound to omit all other after duties which he knowes and acknowledgeth to be his dutie It is as much the duty of Pedobaptists to be baptized before
therefore where there is not the same or like cause of separation there cannot be the same or like reason for separating In the one you cannot hold communion with the supposed good but you must have communion also with the intollerably bad and there the separation is properly and directly from the intollerably bad and but accidentally from the supposed good But what is this to a separation from or a non-communion with reformed Congregations where no such intollerably evill-doers are to be found from whom to withdraw or with whom to deny communion would be a separation properly directly and only from the visibly good 2. The case differs as much or rather much more in respect of the communion it selfe For in the Popish Assemblies you cannot have communion in the Lords Supper it selfe which is so essentiall a part of Church-communion but you must communicate in the superstition or Idolatry which is with them inseparably annexed to it He that eats of the sacrifice is partaker of the Altar 1 Cor 10.18 But in having communion with reformed Congregations of the Pedobaptists there 's no necessity of an actuall participation in any one act of superstition For he that deemeth the sprinkling or baptizing of an infant superstitious may suspend his communion in that action and yet continue it in others As our Lord Christ kept the Passeover a day or two before the generality of the Jewes for the day of his crucifixion was but the day of their preparation to the Passeover Joh 19.14 31. they missing as is conceived the punctuall time of that feast and yet denyed not his communion with them in other things wherein he and they were agreed So that neither doth this Rev 18.4 any wayes appeare to me a sufficient ground for one godly Congregation to deny communion with another upon account of the difference before specified or any other like it Object But for such as are baptized after faith to hold communion with such who have not been baptized otherwise then by infant sprinkling is as voyd of Scripture-precept and Scripture-president as is the separation of godly from godly and why then is not the one as unlawfull as the other Answ 1. Be it so as to particularity of precept or example yet in this or any like case when any are in doubt between two difficulties the way to come to a satisfactory resolution which to incline to is by discovering by which the peace love and edification of the Church of Christ will be best promoted for these ought to sway us and carry us along with them in all such cases wherein we are not bound to the contrary by an expresse rule Let the peace of God rule in your hearts to which you are called in one body Col 3.15 Let it rule reigne or umpire as the word is rendered It must then have the casting voyce when things otherwise are in an equapoiz and as a King give Lawes in such cases The law of love is the royall Law James 2.8 it hath the soveraigne and commanding power over inferiour lawes of particular order And edification must over-rule us in many cases as being that to which Church-ordinances and order are subordinate as I shewed in my former argument Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace and the things by which we may edifie one another Rom 14.19 If we are in doubt which to follow this or that here 's our direction But now that the communion of differing Saints notwithstanding their difference when managed with a christian spirit tends abundantly more to peace love and edification then their separation for their difference sake would doe is a thing that shines by its own light and is evidenced in my former argument 2. Though we have no particular precept or president in the case objected yet we have generall rules that reach iâ— and such are they already named and so is Mat 12.7 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Gal 6.2 Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ Rom 14. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye Rom 15. We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weake and not to please our selves and to receive one another as Christ hath received us ver 7. 1 Cor 14.26 Let all things be done to edifying and the like the face of which is set against dividing separating and rejecting one another for such errours as are but Saints infirmities amongst which the mistakes about Baptisme in controversie between them must certainly be numbered V Argument THat practice which necessarily makes a schisme in the body of Christ is sinfull But separation of Saints from Saints upon account of difference between them necessarily makes a schisme in the body of Christ Therefore c. That to make a schisme in the body of Christ is a sinfull act in whomsoever found is evident because its contrary to the declared will of the Lord who would have no schisme in the body 1 Cor 12.24 25. God hath tempered the body together having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked that there should be no schisme in the body but that all should be one Joh 17.21 Keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace Eph 4.3 That for Saints to divide and separate from Saints is to make a schisme in the body of Christ is easie to understand For those that are indeed Saints are all of them of the body of Christ what ever their difference otherwise may be and therefore for them to separate and rend one from another is surely to make a schisme in the body if any thing be And so they doe more especially when they refuse communion with one another in the Supper of the Lord. For as by their mutuall communion therein their onenesse is in speciall signified and professed 1 Cor 10.17 so by their deniall of communion therein that onenesse is denied and what 's this but schisme in the formality of it Object When the godly are in their communion mixt with others that are ungodly and such with whom communion is forbidden then either to withdraw from such godly ones is no sinfull schisme or else other of the Saints are necessitated to sin either in withdrawing from the Saints in such mixt assemblies or in holding communion with those with whom communion is forbidden which is an absurdity not to be imagined Answ Such a separation is not made from the godly as scrupling their communion could they have communion with them alone but it s made from those communion with whom is forbidden and for their sake only And in all reason the separation must receive its denominatien from the cause whence it proceeds and so it is not a separation from those that are of the body but from those that are not But however this objection is irrelative to our question touching the lawfulnesse of communion between a godly Congregation of Anabaptists and a godly and reformed
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
Jesus Christ and their unity thereby 1 Cor 10.16 17. And therefore where the thing to be signified is in being which is communion in Christs body and blood there to deny the use and enjoyment of the meanes appointed by God to signifie it to wit communion in the Supper would be to crosse the very end of that ordinance If partners that have a joynt stock in trade and so a joynt interest in it should refuse to acknowledge and declare to each other their respective interests by such signes as are customary among men in such cases it would be accounted a great piece of injustice And is it any lesse then a piece of spirituall injustice for those that have a joynt interest in Christs body and blood to refuse to acknowledge and declare it to each other and before all by such a signe which the Lord hath appointed for that purpose 2. Because mens right to the signe proceeds from their right to the thing signified As those that have a right to such or such an estate in land have thereby a right to the deeds and evidences by which such a right is to be declared so those that have a right to the body and blood of Christ in their saving effects have thereby right to the Lords Supper as an evidence appointed by God by which such their right is to be declared and acknowledged And therefore as a detaining of such evidence from him who by having right to the Land hath right to the evidence would be an injury even so a detaining the Lords Supper from him who by having right to the body and blood of Christ hath right to the Lords Supper as an evidence and signe thereof would be an injury likewise And as spirituall things are of more value then temporall so an injury in them is greater then an injury in the other 3. It s against common reason and equity to grant them to have communion with us in the greater and better part and to deny it them in the lesse the greater still including the lesse But to be partakers of like precious faith with us and by that to eat of that flesh which is meat indeed and to drink of that blood which is drink indeed and to drink into one and the same Spirit as both sorts of godly ones doe is certainly to have hold and enjoy communion together in the greater better more spirituall and more substantiall part of it and therefore to deny it in the outside and letter of it which is farre lesse considerable seemes very incongruous and contradictious An exhortation to unity peace and concord HAving said this much by way of Argument touching the unlawfulnesse of Separation and the lawfulnesse of communion between Saints though of different perswasion I shall now adde a little more to quicken the brethren on both sides to unity concord and peace which have been too long divided and too much estranged one from another For this end let it be seriously considered 1. That the heart and soule of our Lord Jesus is exceedingly set upon the unity not onely of the Saints of this or that particular and different perswasion but of all those that believe through his Apostles word how different soever in opinion and perswasion they otherwise may be And this appeares 1. In that Christ made it matter of his solemne addresse unto his father that so it might be John 17.20 21. Neither pray I for these alone but for them also which shall believe on me through their word that they all may be one 2. In that it was the subject matter of one of his last requests to his father now he was about to leave the world Those things usually are most upon the heart which men bring forth at such a time when they are ready to die 3. And which is yet more among all the things which concerne the Saints here in this world he singles out this of their unity as that which was most upon his heart to form into a solemne request unto his father on their behalfe There are upon the matter but two things which he prayed for in the behalfe of all those that should believe contained in that part of his prayer which you have from v. 20. to the end of John 17. the one of which respecting their future condition in the other world and that is that they might be with him where he is to behold his glory and the other respecting their present condition in this world and that is that they all might be one So then although there be many other things wherein the comfort and welfare of the Saints in this world are concerned yet their unity and agreement is that which Christ singles out from among all the rest as being most upon his heart and as one would think should therefore be that thing wherein their peace and welfare is most concerned 4. It s further most worthy observation that among all the things which Christ prayed for in this prayer recorded in John 17. he does not insist so much upon any one thing as this of unity among the Saints And therefore you have him redoubling this petition againe and againe and mentioning it a third and a fourth time also as you may see in ver 11 21 22 23. As if his heart were so full of it as that it could not be all brought out at once but by degrees it was out of the abundance of his heart that he abounded so much in this one petition And is the heart of our dear Lord so much in it and shall not the heart of every one to whom he is dear be much in it too Can you follow a better pattern or write after a better copie It is without all doubt that the more you have of the same Spirit that dwelt in him the more it will enlarge your hearts this way in conformity to this heavenly temper that was so eminent in him And the more you shall finde your hearts run out to this thing as Christs did the more shall you be inriched with an assurance of your dwelling in him and he in you 1 John 4.13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit And what way is there in all the world for you to indeer your selves to Christ more then in being found according to his owne heart Doe not good disposition'd parents take most pleasure in those children that are most of their own temper and so does Christ in those that are most like him How great a praise was it to David to be said to be a man after Gods owne heart Acts 13.22 and I am sure it will be your glory in this to be men after Christs owne heart Did Christ pray and pray so earnestly for this thing that all that are believers should be one why then let those that would be like him and professe to be learners of him doe so too And not