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, [Page 10]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 wan [...]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 [Page 11]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. Its 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. Its 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 [Page 12]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. Its 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 imposi [...]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 fo [...]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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.

Its 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 aga [...]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 [Page 15]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 Bapti [...]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 [Page 16]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 communi [...]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 [...]id not passe without check and discountenance from the A [...]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 vi [...]bility of a mans Church-member­ship, but obscure it. It is very true, that there may be more of reg [...]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, 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 profess [...]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 [Page 19]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 Pedobaptist [...], 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 [Page 20]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 [...]hrist to his Disciples, yet is not bind­ing to us in the letter of it, because the custome of the places where those Disci [...]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 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 [Page 22]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: [Page 23]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 o [...]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 [Page 25]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 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 he [...]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 pa [...]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 [Page 26] 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 wa [...] 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.

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 [Page 28]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 o [...] 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, [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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 I [...] 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 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 [Page 32]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 en [...]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 [Page 33]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 [Page 34]the Church: and the Scripture saith, that by one Spirit, we are all baptized into o [...]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, [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 [Page 38]Pedobaptists there, as are called to be Saints, and sanctified in Christ Jesus; were hereby meant as well as those that are such among those that have been baptized after profession of faith?

1. The most that I think can rationally be said, is, that the Baptisme of those Christians in the primitive Churches, did beare it; share, and was one ingredient in denominating them persons called to be Saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, &c. but not that it did wholly or mainly constitute it. Not but that the faith, calling, and sanctification of many Pedobaptists is the same in the maine, with those primitive Saints, (they are par­takers of like precious faith, 2 Pet: 1.1.) only it hath not, it may be, all the same ingredients in it to make it altogether so compleat and rich as theirs was. So that if this defect, and the want of this ingredient of regular baptisme, do not nullifie the visibility of the faith, calling, and sanctification of the Pedo­baptists, then they may truely be said to have the same faith, calling, and sanctification in kinde, if not in degree, which the primitive Saints had. Baptisme doth not constitute another kinde of faith and Saintship then the same persons had before they were baptized; all that can be supposed, is, that it tends towards the compleating of these in degrees of being and visi­bility.

2. And yet I doubt not but that taking one thing with ano­ther, comparison may be made between the visibility of Saint­ship as it was in some at least of those primitive Saints, and as it now is in many that are for infant baptisme, and that in point of degree. If the visibility of Saintship in Pedobaptists, be de­fective for want of regular baptisme; may we not well con­ceive that the visibility of the sanctification of some primitive Church-members that were owned as brethren in Christ, was defective much more on another score? Weigh & consider the erronious opinions, superstitious customs, uncharitable contenti­ons & censurings, and other too much sen [...]uall deportment, that was yet remaining and found among those that were owned for brethren; visible Saints, and members of the primitive Church; and then let conscience judge, whether in the whole; advan­tages [Page 39]and disadvantages compared in both, the Christian visi­bility and sanctification of very many Pedobaptists, doe not shine much brighter, and give a far more distinct and indubi­table testimony of their spirituall and internall membership with Christ and his Church, then many of the others did. See 1 Cor: 8.7. with 10.11. Acts 15.5. Rom: 14.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 1 Cor: 1.11. & 3.1, 3. & 11.18, 21.

Argument II.

ALL those whom the Lord now in times of the New Te­stament hath received into communion with himselfe, those his children ought to receive to communion with them.

But some that are for infant Baptisme are such whom the Lord hath received into communion with himselfe. Therefore.

That the Lords receiving persons to communion with him, is now under the New Testament a sufficient reason why his children should receive the same to communion with them, I conceive is sufficiently evident by these Scriptures. Rom: 15.7. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. And againe, Rom: 14.1, 3. Him that is weake in the faith receive you. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not: and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth: [for God hath received him.] The case was this: Some of the believing Jewes and Gentiles stood at too great a distance by reason of their different perswasion touching seve­rall things. That by which the Apostle would convince them of their errour herein, and so bring them to close communi­on, is by laying before them the dissimilitude that was be­tween the Lords carriage and theirs towards the same persons, and the conformity and agreement that ought to be. That they did not receive those whom the Lord had received, was their fault, but to receive such as he had received, was their dutie. The Apostles Argument is built upon this supposition: that the Lord is a pattern unto his people in receiving persons to communion: and if cast into forme, would be this. Those whom the Lord receives to communion, his people ought to [Page 40]receive to communion too: but the Lord receives both Jewes and Gentiles, weake and strong Christians, notwithstanding their different perswasions, therefore you his people ought to doe so too. See the connexion of Rom: 15.7, 8, 9.

Object. These differing Saints who are thus en [...]oyned by the Apostle to receive one another, notwithstanding their diffe­rence, were all baptized persons, and therefore that by which they were obliged to receive one another, can be no rule for such as are baptized, to receive such as are unbaptized, to com­munion.

Answ. Suppose they were all baptized; yet their receiving one another is not urged from their baptisme, but from the Lords receiving them. Their baptisme here, was no further an argument why they should receive one another, then as it was an argument that the Lord had received them. And by the same reason, on the contrary, no errour about Baptisme can be a reason why such erronious persons should not be received, further then it is an argument that the Lord hath not received them: The Lords receiving or not receiving persons, must re­gulate his people in their receiving and refusing to receive them.

Object. These differing Saints were all in communion of the Church already; and therefore their receiving one another to which they are exhorted, cannot import their receiving one another simply to communion, but onely a receiving one ano­ther to a neerer and closer communion: how then can this be a ground for those that are no [...] in Church-communion together at all, to receive one another to such communion?

Answ. Very well, though that which is supposed in the objection, should be granted. For that which is a ground of a further degree of communion, must needs be a ground of com­munion simply considered: a further degree alwayes includes and supposes the first. If it be lawfull for me to goe with one two miles, it cannot be unlawfull for me to goe with him one.

Againe, Consider Acts 15.8, 9. for further proofe of my proposition; And God which knoweth the hearts, bare them wit­nesse, [Page 41]giving them the holy Ghost, even as he did unto us: and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. The question was this; Whether it were needfull to circumcise the believing Gentiles; a thing which some belie­ving Jewes imposed as necessary, not only to their owning them as brethren in communion, but also to salvation, ver. 1, 5. That by which the Apostle Peter would evince the contrary, is this: that God put no difference between them. If God made no difference between the uncircumcised and circumcised be­lievers, then they ought not among themselves: but God made none, but exhibited an equall testimony of respect to both, in giving the holy Ghost alike to both.

It is true the comparison in outward form is not alike be­tween the baptized and not baptized after faith, as is between the circumcised & uncircumcised believers: but yet there is the like reason why they should make no more difference among themselves, as to their owning one another as christian brethren, then was to be made among the circumcised and uncircumci­sed believers. For if Gods purifying their hearts alike by faith, & his giving them his Spirit alike, was conclusive against their disowning one another as brethren upon account of their diffe­rences then in being; then the like equall distribution of Gods grace and Spirit to persons that are not, as well as to those that are baptized after faith, is conclusive too against alike disown­ing one another upon account of other differences now in be­ing. I pray you let it be noted that the Apostles argument for reconciliation, is not fetched from the nature of the things wherein they differed; but from the tenor of Gods carriage towards them that did differ, in giving them an equall interest in his grace, no withstanding their difference: which in all rea­son must be of the same force to the same end now, to wit, the reconciliation of differing godly parties, though their differen­ces are not the same.

Of much what like import is that also Acts 11.17. For as much then as God gave them the like gift, as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could with­stand God? These words are used as an argument to justifie [Page 42]the Apostle Peters going into, and eating with the Gentiles: an action which otherwise was deemed as irregular, as the ad­mission of godly Pedobaptists to communion can be supposed to be, and at which some of the circumcision, though believers, were at first offended, Acts 10.28. & 11.2. His argument constructively, seemes to be this; That if after God had given them an equall share in his love with other believers of the circumcision, testified by giving them the like gift of his grace and Spirit, (if after this) he should have continued the wonted difference in his carriage towards Jewes and Gentiles, he should have withstood God who now made no difference, but shewed the same favour to the one as to the other. To keep at a distance then from those to whom God drawes nigh in his speciall favour and gifts of his grace and holy Spirit, is to steer a course contrary to God; or a practice by which those that are guilty of it withstand God. Is not this cleerly the doctrine of this text? And if so, what shall we then think of those separa­tions that abound in our dayes of Godly men from Godly up­on account of particular differences, when God in the mean time is alike nigh to both in his speciall and gracious communi­cations, and holds communion with both? Is this to be follow­ers of God as dear children? Eph: 5.1.

Obj. But the case of admitting Pedobaptists to communion, is not the same with Peters going into and eating with the Gen­tiles; and therefore the lawfulnesse of the one, cannot be infer­red from the lawfulnesse of the other.

Answ. No more was the not muzzling the mouth of the Ox which trode out the Corne, the same with maintaining the Elders that rule well and labour in the word and doctrine, 1 Tim: 5.17, 18. Nor was the Disciples plucking the eares of Corne on the Sabbath day, the same with Davids eating of the Shew-bread, and the Priests slaying of sacrifice on the Sab­bath, Math: 12.3, 4, 5. and yet the generall equity and con­gruity of the things compared, made the legality of the one practice argumentative of the legality of the other. And so I say in these two cases of Peters going into the Gentiles, and of admitting Pedobaptists to communion; though in other things [Page 43]they differ, yet in this they agree, viz. in that Peters action had been as much scrupled by him (Acts 10.28.) as this way of com­munion is by some; and likewise in that there is a like equall share of speciall grace vouchsafed by God to the differing par­ties now, as well as was then. And therefore why should not this consideration, serve to satisfie this doubt, and remove this scruple of ours, as well as it did theirs; and to cause us with Peter to think, that under such circumstances, a maintaining our former distance in this case, would be a withstanding of God who hath taught us to doe otherwise, by his example of vouch­safing equall communion to both. Gods equall distribution of speciall grace to parties that differ, seemes to be so good a ground of communion one with another, as swallows up and beares downe, all lesser differences that stand in the way.

III. Argument.

IF Church-communion between the Godly Pedobaptists and Anabaptists, be more for common edification, their differ­ence notwithstanding, then their separation upon account of their difference can be; Then their communion is to be chosen before separation, their difference notwithstanding.

But the communion of such is more for their edification then their separation would be.

The reason of the consequence why communion is to be pre­ferred before separation, where common edification is better provided for by it then by separation, is taken from the end of ordinances, and Church-order, and communion in these; which is edification. Edification is that for the sake of which the work of the ministery (which consists in the ministration of word, or­dinances, discipline & order) is given and ordained, Eph: 4.11, 12. 2 Cor: 10.8. & 12.19. & 13.10. And edification is the marke at which all Church-transactions are to aim, and to which to be levelled, 1 Cor: 14.26. Let all things be done to edifying. And the management of these holy things themselves, must be regulated by their end, edification, to which they are subservient; to be used, or their use suspended; to be strained [Page 44]higher or lower, so as edification may best be provided for, Mat: 9.14-17. Mark 4.33. John 16.12. 1 Cor: 3.1, 2. Reason and Scripture teach us still to subject the means unto the end: and is not the contrary preposterous▪ The holy rest of the Sabbath in a cesation from servile worke and bodily la­bour, was an ordinance of God: and yet when a strict observa­tion of this ordinance in the letter of it in such a cesation, did crosse but one end of it, which was the bodily rest and refresh­ment of such as were to keep it, (Exod: 23.12. Deut: 5.14.) then such an observation of it, might lawfully be waved, ac­cording to Christs doctrine in the case, as I understand it Mark 2.25, 26, 27. Spirituall gifts also, and in particular that of tongues, were given for the same generall end as the ordinances themselves are, to wit, profit and edification, 1 Cor: 12.7, 10. And yet when the use of this gift by circum­stances in the case, was rendered unusefull as to its end, viz. edification; the suspention of its exercise was injoyned, 1 Cor: 14.5, 28. So though regular Baptisme, according to ones opinion in the case, ought indeed to be insisted on as pre-requisite to communion, where common edification among the godly may be accommodated and not hindered thereby: yet where a severe insisting on such a regular Baptisme in order to communion, shall crosse edification by drawing on separati­on of godly from godly, why should not such severity there be waved?

Touching the Minor proposition, to wit, that Church-com­munion between such differing Saints as aforesaid, does tend more to their edification then their separation can doe, is easie to apprehend, upon a double account.

1. Because union and communion between Saints and Saints, gives them an opportunity of a free and full trade in their gifts and graces, by which they grow spiritually rich. And there­fore well doth the Apo [...]tle make the increase of the body to the edifying of it selfe in love, to depend upon the joyning to­gether of the parts, and the supply of every joynt, and the effe­ctuall working of the measure of every part, Eph: 4.16. Whereas on the contrary, distance and separation, deprives [Page 45]them of that spirituall commerce, and so tends to their impo­verishing. Just as it is between Country and Country; when differences breake out that obstruct their wonted trade, they grow poor upon it. Or as it is with the naturall body, which weakens, wasts and consumes, when the nutrimentall inter­course between part and part is obstructed. And the sad de­cayes among professors since their many differences in opinion have multiplied their separations, doth wofully experience the truth hereof. How many are fallen, and are dead upon this ac­count? and how many more are sick and ready to die? and shall we then for all this proceed on in so impoverishing and destructive a course!

2. Communion increaseth love, and love edifies, 1 Cor: 8.1. It edifies actively by inclining and disposing men willingly and cheerfully to lay out themselves in such services by which their brethren may be edified and comforted; according to that counsell, Gal: 5.13. By love serve one another. And like­wise by enabling them for edification sake to bear burdens; that is, the infirmities and mistakes of brethren, which are a burden, as is enjoyned Rom: 15.1, 2. For charity beareth all things, indureth all things, 1 Cor: 13.7. It edifieth passively too, by rendering the christian applications of brethren, and acts of service, the more acceptable, and so the more profita­ble; taking all in the best part: It thinketh no evill, but believeth all things, hopeth all things, and rejoyceth in the truth, 1 Cor: 13.6, 7. But separation breeds alienation and diminution of af­fection, more or lesse, and so weakens endeavours of edificati­on, and turnes them into ano [...]her channell. For to what degree the spring of motion growes weake, to that degree motion it selfe will be slow. And to what degree love decreaseth, pre­judice, jealousies, and evill su [...]mises, will increase: and these dispose persons to suck poison from the sweetest flower: and poison will not nourish. Therefore separation of Saints from Saints, upon account of differences, is against edification.

Ob [...]ect. But can two walk together except they are agreed? their different opinions and different practises, will occasion cotentions, and those contentions will hinder edification and [Page 46]comfort: and therefore communion on such termes, may be as much and more against edification, then separation.

Answ. I have sometimes thought so indeed. But

1. Two that are agreed in the most and greatest matters, may and ought to walke together, though in some fewer and lesser things they disagree. Whereto we have already at­tained, let us walke by the same rule, let us minde the same thing, with humble expectation concerning such that in any thing are otherwise minded, that God shall reveale even this unto them, Phil: 3.15, 16. The 14 and 15 Chap: Rom: is cleare for this.

2. Whereas its said those differences will occasion conten­tions, and those contentions will hinder edification and com­fort: That they may doe so through mens weaknesse, I grant, but that they must necessarily so doe I deny, and doe affirme that when ever such contentions doe arise between the godly, as doe hinder edification; it is from want of wisdome, humili­ty and moderation, in one or both parties: and to what is ob­jected, is no more an argument against the communion we speak of, then mens insidence to infirmities and fleshly mix­tures in prayer, or any other holy-duty, is an argument against the use of the duty it selfe. It is true, the difference among the Christians at Rome, did oocasion through intemperate zeal, carnall contentions, despisings and judgings one of another, but it was their sin and shame that they did so, and that for which they were justly blamed by the Apostle, Rom: 14. Such unchristian distempers must be mortified, not indulged; pray­ed against, and not improved against a duty: for that would be but to justifie one fault by another.

Object. But for those that cannot hold Church-communion in breaking of bread with those that are not baptized after faith, yet if they can hold an occasionall communion with them in gifts and graces, in the word, prayer and conference, shall they not hereby sufficiently free themselves from the blame of hindering edification by their separation?

Answ. 1. Its confessed that those that goe thus farre, have offered faire towards the demolishing of the wall of se­paration, [Page 47]and so of freeing themselves of the evils occasioned by its standing.

2. But though such a partiall separation as this, is not so much an enemy to edification as a totall one is, yet if separati­on of godly from godly in the simple nature of it be a necessa­ry hinderance of edification, (and whether it be nor, judge by what's said in my argument) then every degree of such separa­tion, must to a degree be guilty of the same evil. Without all doubt this partiall separation, is to a degree a hinderance to charity, and consequently to the same degree a hinderance of edification. Though there may be much love between parties that come so neer together as to hold communion in gifts and graces, yet questionlesse there would be yet more, if that which keepes them as yet at some distance, were also removed. Its well worthy consideration, that the Law of Commandements contained in ordinances, which were the wall of separation be­tween Jewes and Gentiles, are by the Apostle, Ephes. 2.15. stiled the [enmity] and the breaking downe of this wall, the abolishing the enmity. And how were they the enmity? but as they were a means of separation; for so they were an occasion of enmity between those people. And does not this clearely let us see, that separation as such, is attended with enmity, more or lesse?

3. Me thinks that which satisfies them to hold communion in gifts and graces, word and prayer, with their differing bre­thren, would lead them to satisfaction about the lawfulnesse of communion with them in breaking of bread also, if they would but follow it. For doe they not by joyning in prayer with them, and saying our father which art in heaven, plainly acknowledge them to be children of the same father, and so their holy bre­thren: and if children of God, then believers in Christ, by which beliefe they are made the 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 [Page 48]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, [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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 [Page 51]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 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 i [...], 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 [Page 53]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 [Page 54]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 its 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 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 [Page 55]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 its 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 [Page 56]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 unde [...] 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 its 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 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 [Page 58]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. Its 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.