An ansvver to Mr. J.G. his XL. queries, touching the lawfulness, or unlawfulness of holding church-communion, between such who have been baptized after their beleeving, and others who have not otherwise been baptized, then in their infancie. As likewise touching infant, and after baptism. In which answer, the undueness of such mixt communion is declared, the unlawfulness of infant-baptism, and the necessity of after baptism is asserted. By W.A.

X. and XI. Queries contracted.

Whether need a man contract guilt of sinne, by walking in a society of men Christian and holy, though they have some practice a∣mong them which he cannot approve of, in case he openly declare his dislike of it, and be not constrained to communicate in it? Or whether a difference in judgement, in or about a matter of doubt∣full disputation, be a sufficient barre to Church-Commu∣nion?

Respon.

1. There is little question to be made, but that persons who are in and of a Church duly constituted, may continue their Communion there, notwithstanding there may be some opinion or pract••ce among them of a doubtfull disputation; yea, though there be something a mong them which are certaine to them to be of an evil import, provided they faithfully witnesse against such evills: Nay surely it is not onely lawfull, but it is the duty of men in such cases to continue their Communion; that they that are stronger, might helpe the weaker, and be a meanes of purging the Church from that which doth defile.

But then 2. Though this be true, yet what is this to warrant a mans holding Communion with a company of believers, and acting with them as a Church, when he knowes they are no Church according to Gospell-rule? It is not a company of Stones and pieces of Timber lying on a heap together that make a House, till they are put in order, and into the forme of a building: nor can you properly and truly call that heap a House, till the Foundation be first laid, and then the superstru∣cture set upon it. In like manner, neither are a company of Beleevers a Church, because they are a company of Beleevers, nor can they duly act as such, or be called or accounted such in a Gospell sense, and according to order thereof, (which is the rule by which we must judge) till they are built together in an orderly way, the Foundation first (which in primitive Churches was never laid without Baptisme) and the superstru∣cture after. Ye also as lively stones, are built (or be ye built) up

a spirituall House, 1 Pet. 2.5. They were first lively stones, and then built up a spirituall house, they were not a spirituall house because living stones, untill these living stones were built up: and can any man think that there was any one spirituall house in the New Testament, whose Foundation was laid without Baptisme? If not, as it is most certaine he cannot reasonably so think: then give me leave to think, that they build without their rule, and not according to the method of the wise Master-Buliders of the first Churches, who both lay Foundation, and put on the Top-Stone too, without Baptism.

For a man then to hold communion with a company of Be∣lievers, not in Gospell order, and to act with them as if they were, and yet to witnesse against such practice of theirs too, what is it else, then for a man to condemne himselfe in that which he alloweth, Rom. 14.22. yea and to make himselfe a transgressor in building what he destroyes? Gal. 2.18. This errour then of non-baptisme, being an errour, not of Believers in a Church, duly so called, but an errour against the way of their becomming a Church according to Gospell forme; it is not a mans reproving this practice in them will justifie his holding communion with them as a Church, no more then a mans reproving a woman for living with himselfe as his wife, because not duly marryed to him, will priviledge him in that communion with her. If this be not so, I demand of the Querist, why he and others could not have held communion with persons Episcopall and Presbyteriall in their judgements, if Believers though in no such Church-state and order as he now judgeth necessary, if his declaring his d••sl ke of their neglect of that Order he now holds necessary, would have excused the matter?