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
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
probable all Churches this day in being as well of the Anabaptists as of the Pedobaptists are without this part of the foundation 2. It s as probable likewise that this Church of the Hebrews or at least the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem which was the first Christian Church in the world in many of the members of it were without another part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. except the doctrine concerning it and that is that of laying on of hands By which understanding according to the usuall and most commonly received interpretation the imposiâ—ion of hands upon baptized Disciples in order to their receiving the holy Ghost there 's good cause to conceive that many in that Church never had hands layd on them for that end For I conceive no man will think that the Apostles much lesse any others did lay their hands upon any Disciples for their receiving the holy Ghost till the day of Penticost in which they themselves received it And the holy Ghost being then given to all the Disciples then and there in being and that in an extraordinary measure as well as manner Acts 2. I conceive that no man will think that the Apostles or others did afterwards lay their hands on any of those Disciples for their receiving of the holy Ghost which they had upon such excellent termes already And yet of these was that Church first founded unto whom the new converts were afterwards added So that the first Christian Church in the first constitution of it was in all appearance of reason wholly without this part of the foâ—ndation which is called one of the six principles of the doctrine of Christ and afterward so remained in that part of it of which it was first formed The like I suppose may be said of the first Christian Church of the Gentiles at Cesarea Acts 10. who received the holy Ghost in like manner as the first Hebrew Church did Acts 11.15 If then the want or absence of any though a lesser part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. were a sufficient ground or reason of separation from a Church in whose constitution such part is wanting then it had been the duty of the three thousand Acts 2.41 to have kept at a distance from the hundred and twenty Disciples in stead of being added to them since one part of that foundation in the letter of it was not to be found in their constitution And if neither the want of one of the Baptismes nor the want of laying on of hands both which are part of the foundation mentioned Heb. 6. be no sufficient ground of separation it passes my skill I confesse since I considered it to evince a defect in yea or a meer want of the externall part of the doctrine of Baptisme to be a just ground of separation or deniall of communion when such defect or want proceeds not from a disobedient will but from an errour in Judgement coupled with an upright heart and soundnesse of faith in the mayne principles of the Gospel And I would pray our Brethren that it may be considered where the Lord hath commanded separation or deniall of communion any more for the want of the one then for the want of the other and that we make no such hast to withdraw from our brethren unlesse God had bid us to doe so It will be sufficient for us to follow the Lord and to withdraw when he withdraws but it does not become us to goe before him and to withdraw where he abides Where Christ the only foundation is sincerely held in the mayne doctrines of Justification and Sanctification there the Lord dwells in the grace of his presence Joh. 6.56 1 Joh. 4.12 16. though otherwise there may be some spots of deformity and blemishes in respect of the externall form of his house as well as in the conversation otherwise And if God can dwell there and yet not approve of such defects by his presence with them so may his servants too The Lord vouchsafes his presence in such Churches in order to their help and healing and so should his servants An honest man will not refuse his wifes society because of some bodily or morall infirmities as long as she is loyall to him in the mayne but by his continuance with her endeavour her help and cure It s true it would be more acceptable and pleasant to well-growne Saints to be yoked in their communion only with such as are full of spirituall health and beauty As it cannot but be thought that it would be a thing more delightfull to Christ Jesus to converse onely with creatures of an Angelicall perfection if he had not healing-work to doe But if Christ should please himselfe in the one what would become of us and if the best of Saints should please themselves in the other what would become of the spiritually weak and sickly But behold thus it is written and this is our pattern Wee then that are strong ought to beare the infirmities of the weake and not to please our selves for even Christ pleased not himselfe c. Rom 15.1 3. You may know what 's most acceptable and unacceptable to the Lord hereabout by his complaint Ezek. 34.4 The diseased have ye not strengthened neither have ye healed that which was sick neither have ye bound up that which was broken neither have brought agaâ—ne that which was driven away neither have sought that which was lost Separating from them is not the way to cure them If they have but a spirituall being that which will but denominate them new creatures well may their mistakes and infirmities put them under the greater necessity of your help and you under the greater obligation of abounding so much the more in your tender compassionate and diligent applications for their increase in spirituall light health and strength but are farre from priviledging you to withdraw your communion from them For 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 1 Cor 12.24 25. Second Argument for Separation thus If the primitive believers associated themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith then we may not But the primitive believers did associate themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith Ergo. Answ I doe acknowledge that all such unbaptized persons then in being as the primitive believers would not have or had not communion with we may not now have communion with their like and that what was a reason unto them not to have communion with such ought to be a reason to us of our non-communion in like case And yet I utterly deny the consequence of the Major proposition It will not follow that because the primitive believers had communion with none but such as were baptized after faith therefore we may have communion with none but such as are baptized after profession of
faith And the reason of the inconfecuence is taken from the difference of persons then and now There is a great difference in the qualification of the persons that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion then and many of the persons that have no Baptisme after profession of faith now and so the reason of non-communion varies accordingly Those in the primitive times that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion had no faith nor made confession of any So that the reason of the primitive Saints non-communion with such was not simply their want of Baptiâ—me but their want of faith And the same non-qualification now would be a like reason unto us of non-communion But where persons have faith and this faith visible in their profession and conversation and have also the doctrine of Baptisme in the spirituall part of it both in judgement and practice and are confident they practically have it too in the litterall part which is the case of the godly Pedobaptists there the difference is exceeding broad and large between them and those unbaptized persons with whom the primitive Saints had no communion and so the same reason of non-communion will not suite both If the primitive Saints had no communion with such as the godly Pedobaptists it was not because they judged such unworthy their communion but because there was none such then in being that particular difference between Saints and Saints about Infant Baptisme not being then on foot but if there had I shall offer reason presenly to induce us to believe that communion with them would not have been refused by the best of Saints then in being on that ground In the meane time let it be considered that we have no example of the primitive Saints refusing communiâ—n with such as the godly Pedobaptists are and therefore by their example cannot be obliged to refuse communion with them their example of non-communion with unbaptized unbelievers is forraigne and irrelative to our case and question and therefore it is altogether impertinent in its allegation But if there were or had been any such in the primitive times as the godly Pedobaptists are yet that we may be confident that the best of Saints in those times would not have refused communion with them I shall offer these reasons 1. We have no approved example of their refusing communion with any acknowledged godly Christians whatsoever for any errour in Judgment or errour in practice proceeding meerly from an errour in Judgment and therefore this supposed errour of the godly Pedobaptists being but of that nature we have no reason to think that they would have found harder measure if they had then lived amongst them then all others erring upon like termes did And here let it be observed Note that our separation of godly from godly upon account of such errours as are not repugnant to godlinesse is so farre from being an imitation of the example of the primitive Saints as that we have the example of the primitive Saints point blanck against it which may be a good argument to condemne but by no meanes to justifie our separation 2. When there was any thing stirring among the primitive Saints that did but tend to or looke towards a separation upon account of such errours as were not repugnant to godlinesse it â—id not passe without check and discountenance from the Aâ—ostles as is visible in the cases of difference about Circumcision dayes and meats of which more afterwards And therefore the supposed errour of the Pedobaptists being but of the same nature that is consistent with godlinesse as well as theirs there 's no reason to think it would have cast them out of communion then when the looke of such a thing in other like cases was so distastfull to the holy Apostle 3. When the Apostle comes to lay downe and ennumerate the causes and things for which communion with a professor of Christianity is to be refused there is none of them of a lower nature or lesse demerit then such as doe exclude a man the kingdome of God as is evident by comparing 1 Cor 5.11 with Chap. 6.9 10. as by the meer reciting of the words will appeare 1 Cor 5.11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one no not to eat That every one of these crimes debarre a man the kingdome of God is evident by 1 Cor 6.9 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God And where ever withdrawing from avoiding or rejecting of a professor of the Gospel is enjoyned the Christian brethren you will still finde it is either for crimes of a morall nature either in kinde or end or heresie but never for misprision of Judgment about Ordinances and matters of doubtfull disputation among the Saints Peruse for this 2 Tim. 3.1 5. 1 Tim. 6.5 Rom 16.17 18. 2 Thess 3.6.11 Tit. 3.10 11. By ought then that can be gathered from the Apostles writings an errour of that nature which is charged upon the Pedobaptists would not have deprived godly persons of the communion of Saints in the Apostles dayes Which is a thing seriously to be laid to heart by them that are accessary to the keeping up a separation contrary to the doctrine custome and example of the primitive times Third Argument for Separation runs thus None are in a regular capacity of holding Church communion with a particular Church who are not regularly visible members of the universall Church But none but such as are baptized after faith which the Pedobaptists are not are regularly visible members of the universall Church Therefore c. Answ That none are in a regular capacity of communion in a particular Church who are not visibly members of the universall Church I readily grant And as to that clause which speakes of mens being regularly visible members of the universall Church I say thus much That none can be visibly members of the universall Church but so farre as they are so they are regularly so for no irregularity whatsoever as such can contribute towards the viâ—â—bility of a mans Church-membership but obscure it It is very true that there may be more of regâ—larnesse in the visibility of somes universall Church-membership then in others and so proportionably more of visiblenesse but where ever there is this visiblenesse in a greater or lesser degree there is so much regularnesse of that visibility Having said thus much by way of concession to the major proposition and that much for the explication of an impertinent expression touching the regular visibility of universall Church-membership I come now to deny the Minor proposition which does affirm that none but such as are baptized after faith
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