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
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
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