Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, Chapter 1
CHAP. I. The Queſtion Stated.
IN the Stating of this Queſtion it may be neceſſary to examine how far we diſagree, & wherin we concur with our Diſſenting Brethren, becauſe that will prevent much needleſs Diſcourſe, and lead us to debate the matter in Diſpute only.
The Profeſſors of the Chriſtian Religion, are diſtinguiſhed by certain terms, invented by their oppoſites, to know them by, as Prelatical, Presbyterian, Independant, Anabaptiſt, &c. And it were well if ſuch names were laid aſide, and the Title of Chriſtian Brother reaſſumed, becauſe they agree in Fundamentals. Now of all theſe, our Controverſie in the Caſe in hand is only with ſome on the laſt, who are (though not rightly) called Anabaptiſts. As for the others, their avowed Principle is, To admit none into Church-Fellowſhip or Communion, that are Unbaptized: Yea ſo poſitive are the Papiſts, that they look upon all ſo far from being qualified for Church Commnnion, till they are Baptized, that they ſay they are all damn'd that die without it; but we derive no Authority from their practice. the Church of England receives no Member into their Communion without Baptiſm, neither do Presbyterians, Independants, nor indeed any ſort of Chriſtians that own Ordinances, admit any as a Church-Member without Baptiſm. We ſhall therefore direct this Diſcourſe to our Diſſenting Brethren, of the Baptized way only, who reaſon thus, That there being no Precept, Preſident nor Example in all the Scripture, for our excluding our Holy Brethren that differ in this Point from us, therefore we ought not to dare to do it.
Now how unſafe, unſound, and of what pernicious Conſequence, ſuch a Poſition in its direct tendency is and has been, ſhall appear in the Chapter of Objections; to which at preſent we refer—Only in general we ſay, That if by Precept, Preſident, or Example, is meant ſuch, in expreſs words, viz. ſuch Texts of Scripture asprohibit Practices by name and circumſtance, then Popiſh Purgatory, and Monkery and ten thouſand other things, as Doctor Owen well ſays, may be made Lawful by this Argument, there being not an expreſs word in Scripture that prohibits thoſe things by their very name, becauſe not then in being. If it be meant what may be inferred by direct and plain conſequence in the true Logical Notion of it, without Sophiſtry or Quibble, I am ſatisfied we can produce, Precept, Preſident, and Example, that it is our Duty to withdraw from diſorderly Walkers. And our Diſſenting Brethren grant, that the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, by Rantiſm or Sprinkling in Infancy is diſorderly, as being a Practice without Example or Conſequent Warrant from Scripture, and Adminiſtred to a Subject not capable, or qualified to receive it, nor in an orderly manner. And therefore it is ſo much the more wonderful, that they above any, ſhould blame us for obeying the Solemn Command we read, 2 Theſſ. 3.6, viz. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, that ye withdraw your ſelves from every brother that walketh diſorderly, and not after the Tradition which ye received of us. Which laſt Phraſe*foreign, &c. (the word [Paradoſis] ſignifying not only Doctrine delivered, Matth. 15.2,3. But alſo a Command, Ordinance or Inſtitution, as before, 2 Theſſ. 2.15.) plainly makes out that they were not only to withdraw from perſons of diſorderly Converſation, or defective in Morals, but alſo from ſuch as were corrupt in Doctrine, or diſorderly in their Goſpel-Adminiſtrations, that being as great a violation of Goſpel Order, and as pernicious of Chriſtians as Immorality,which muſt be granted, or elſe there is no Authority given to the Church to deal with Members of corrupt Principles, &c.
Now this Command being General, includes all diſorders of any kind, in Manners, Doctrine, or Practice, and is a ſufficient Warrant (were there no more) for our Obedience, to exclude ſuch as diſorderly practice the Ordinance of Baptiſm, from our immediate Communion at the Lords Table, though not from our Love and Affection, for we hope they walk according to their Light, and the Error being not ſo fundamental as to endanger their Eternal ſtate, we eſteem them Chriſtian Brethren and Saints, for whoſe further illumination we dayly put up our Prayers.
But in regard we are convinced (1.) That it is the Duty of all Belivers to be Baptized in Water uponConfeſſion of their Faith, &c. (2.) That none but ſuch ought to be Baptized. (3.) That ſuch as Practiſe otherwiſe deviate from the Rule of the Goſpel, and the Precedents Recorded there. (4.) That ſuch a Deviation is in it ſelf diſorderly, and in the Conſequence dangerous, as bringing many unregenerate Members into the Church, &c. We conceive our ſelves bound by the indiſpenſable Rule of our Duty, to bear our Teſtimony againſt ſuch a Practice, and in the moſt Healing manner we can, to diſcharge our ſelves from being countenancers, or abettors of it, which we can do no other way (unleſs they will be reclaimed) then by withdrawing from thoſe diſorders; after the Example of the Primitive Saints, of the Ancient Waldenſoe, our Modern Reformers, &c. (5.) We are ſatisfied that we are guilty of no Schiſm in that particular, forwe ſeparate not from any Chriſtian as ſuch, but hold Communion as far as we agree, and where we cannot agree, we dare not but obey the Command before recited, though we expoſe our ſelves to worldly inconveniencies by it; The leaſt particle of Divine Truth being more valuable than any thing the world can preſent: for which our, Brethren ſhould not blame us, but rather ſeriouſly examine our Reaſons and Arguments, and then judge.
The farther proſecution of this matter is referred to its proper Head: And therefore we ſhall propoſe to conſideration the following Inquiry, viz.
Queſtion. Whether Perons Ʋnbaptized may Regularly be admitted to the Communion of the Lords Supper?
To obviate a Cavil, which may be made, the Reader may underſtand that under the term [Ʋnbaptized] we comprehend all perſons that either were never Baptized at all, or ſuch as have been (as they call it) Chriſtned or Baptized (more properly Sprinkled) in their Infancy. Now our Diſſenting Brethren with whom we have to do, look upon this way to be abſolutely invalid, and ſo no Baptiſm (elſe they would not be Baptized themſelves) and conſequently eſteem all ſuch as Unbaptized: ſo that we need not prove what is granted, and ſhall therefore proceed to examine the Queſtion in the following Chapter.