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 oâ— 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 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 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 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 Iâ— 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
lay themselves open and become obnoxious to the temptations and surprisall of the enemy Their strength to withstand the enemy lies under God in their union and association When the Apostle exhorts the Christians Phil. 1.27 to stand fast and to maintaine their ground against the enemy he immediately directs them to strive together for the faith of the Gospel And if one prevaile yet two shall withstand him and a threefold cord is not easily broken Eccl. 4.12 But by dividing and separating they loose their strength and become a prey to the enemy Gen. 49.7 I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel dividing makes way for scattering and overcoming How easie a matter is it for an enemy by his united force to subdue the greatest Armie when they shall fight him only in small parties he will first overcome one partie and then another and so all one after another And that doubtlesse is the reason why the enemy hath so mightily prevailed and taken so many that did wear Christs colours prisoners and led them away captive under the power and command of mand dangerous and destroying errors and heresies since those unhappie divisions and separations among the people of God have broken out and so abounded in this Nation And therefore I conceive that upon true account it will be found that where the enemy hath drawne away one other person to become a Quaker or a Ranter or the like he hath drawne away many of those that upon one account or other had before separated themselves in their communion from a great part of the people of God As straglers from an Army use to fall into the hands of the enemy when those that abide in the mayne body are safe even so is it with those that stragle from the mayne body of Christ the universall Church in their communion they are gathered up by the enemy here one and there one when in the meane while those that abide and keep their rancks in the mayne body are more generally kept safe Doubtlesse it s not much lesse dangerous for Saints to separate from Saints upon account of their differences considering what advantage is given the enemy thereby then it would be for an Army who all engage for the same cause in the maine to divide and part upon account of difference among them about wearing of Colours or ordering themselves when they have a potent and resolved enemy in the field ready to fight them For besides the danger already hinted by such separation they take course to dis-arme themselves at least in great measure and to put weapons into the enemies hand Christian Charity is in great part a Christians security and the separation I speake of tends greatly to weaken and by degrees to destroy that charity as I shall shew afterward To what degree the enemy draws any of us out of Christian charity he draws us out of our strong hold and place of security If we love one another God dwelleth in us saith the Apostle and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him 1 John 4.12 16. and therefore must needs be safe If God dwell in him it is to govern and guide him to support and uphold him to save and defend him Where God dwells light and strength dwells He that loveth his brother abideth in the light and there is none occasion of stumbling in him 1 John 2.10 But uncharitablenesse is quite contrary to God who is love and where that dwells he takes no pleasure to dwell and if he who is the Christians safety strength and guide be but withdrawne what can be expected but darknesse weaknesse wandering and the enemies enterin and taking possession He that hateth his brother is in darknesse and walketh in darknesse and knoweth not whither he goeth because darknesse hath blinded his eyes 1 John 2.11 Uncharitablenesse then deprives men of Gods presence which is their only safety and makes way for the enemy and so betrayes them into the hand of errour and delusion The end of the Commandment saith the Apostle is charity from which some having swerved have turned aside to vain jangling 1 Tim. 1.5 6. Turning aside to vain langling is that which followes the swerving from charity As love departs so jangling errour and confusion takes place 1 Cor. 11.18 19. I hear there are divisions among you and I partly believe it for there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest The Apostle knowing there must come heresies among them was easily induced to believe the report that brought him news of the divisions in that Church as looking upon those but as preparing and making way for the other If you hear of much contention among brethren once for want of charity expect to hear of heresies among them ere long Seasons of uncharitable contentions among Christian brethren are gainfull advantages for the Devil to deceive in Mark and consider that Prophesie of Christ Mat 24 10 11 12. Then shall many be offended and shall betray one anoeher and shall hate one another And many false Prophets shall rise and shall deceive many When Christs followers fall a hating and so a betraying one another then the Devil sends forth his Prophets as the fittest season possible to carry away many of those which were growne in distast with their godly brethren And because iniquity in this kinde shall abound the love of many shall wax cold ver 12. A great decay of affection to the Gospel takes place when uncharitablenesse errour and Apostacy among the professors thereof doth abound And may not I say as Christ in another case sometimes said This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears For when the godly among the Episcoparians Presbyterians Independents and Anabaptists fell to siding party against party and envie emmulations and uncharitablenesse increased then the Devill thrusts out a great variety of seducers that have carryed away many into wayes of dangerous errour especially of those that have proceeded furthest in separation by several subdivisions Though God hath in the meane while graciously kept such as have retained a generall love to all the people of God and have managed their differences with more moderation 3. Another way by which Separation of Saints from Saints furthers Satans and hinders Christs designe what ever they themselves designe by it is in hindering the successe of the Gospel in its converting work For by it unbeliefe of the Gospel in ungodly men is nourished and maintained The Saints differences though but in some lesser matters when made so publique and notorious by separations doe gratifie the unbelieving thoughts which sinfull men have as if the Gospel were an uncertain thing When they see those that pretend to so much knowledge of it to diâ—agree in matters so materiall as those that concern their owning one another as Christian Brethren they think its like that they may suspend a thorow beliefe of the whole Christ
probable all Churches this day in being as well of the Anabaptists as of the Pedobaptists are without this part of the foundation 2. It s as probable likewise that this Church of the Hebrews or at least the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem which was the first Christian Church in the world in many of the members of it were without another part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. except the doctrine concerning it and that is that of laying on of hands By which understanding according to the usuall and most commonly received interpretation the imposiâ—ion of hands upon baptized Disciples in order to their receiving the holy Ghost there 's good cause to conceive that many in that Church never had hands layd on them for that end For I conceive no man will think that the Apostles much lesse any others did lay their hands upon any Disciples for their receiving the holy Ghost till the day of Penticost in which they themselves received it And the holy Ghost being then given to all the Disciples then and there in being and that in an extraordinary measure as well as manner Acts 2. I conceive that no man will think that the Apostles or others did afterwards lay their hands on any of those Disciples for their receiving of the holy Ghost which they had upon such excellent termes already And yet of these was that Church first founded unto whom the new converts were afterwards added So that the first Christian Church in the first constitution of it was in all appearance of reason wholly without this part of the foâ—ndation which is called one of the six principles of the doctrine of Christ and afterward so remained in that part of it of which it was first formed The like I suppose may be said of the first Christian Church of the Gentiles at Cesarea Acts 10. who received the holy Ghost in like manner as the first Hebrew Church did Acts 11.15 If then the want or absence of any though a lesser part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. were a sufficient ground or reason of separation from a Church in whose constitution such part is wanting then it had been the duty of the three thousand Acts 2.41 to have kept at a distance from the hundred and twenty Disciples in stead of being added to them since one part of that foundation in the letter of it was not to be found in their constitution And if neither the want of one of the Baptismes nor the want of laying on of hands both which are part of the foundation mentioned Heb. 6. be no sufficient ground of separation it passes my skill I confesse since I considered it to evince a defect in yea or a meer want of the externall part of the doctrine of Baptisme to be a just ground of separation or deniall of communion when such defect or want proceeds not from a disobedient will but from an errour in Judgement coupled with an upright heart and soundnesse of faith in the mayne principles of the Gospel And I would pray our Brethren that it may be considered where the Lord hath commanded separation or deniall of communion any more for the want of the one then for the want of the other and that we make no such hast to withdraw from our brethren unlesse God had bid us to doe so It will be sufficient for us to follow the Lord and to withdraw when he withdraws but it does not become us to goe before him and to withdraw where he abides Where Christ the only foundation is sincerely held in the mayne doctrines of Justification and Sanctification there the Lord dwells in the grace of his presence Joh. 6.56 1 Joh. 4.12 16. though otherwise there may be some spots of deformity and blemishes in respect of the externall form of his house as well as in the conversation otherwise And if God can dwell there and yet not approve of such defects by his presence with them so may his servants too The Lord vouchsafes his presence in such Churches in order to their help and healing and so should his servants An honest man will not refuse his wifes society because of some bodily or morall infirmities as long as she is loyall to him in the mayne but by his continuance with her endeavour her help and cure It s true it would be more acceptable and pleasant to well-growne Saints to be yoked in their communion only with such as are full of spirituall health and beauty As it cannot but be thought that it would be a thing more delightfull to Christ Jesus to converse onely with creatures of an Angelicall perfection if he had not healing-work to doe But if Christ should please himselfe in the one what would become of us and if the best of Saints should please themselves in the other what would become of the spiritually weak and sickly But behold thus it is written and this is our pattern Wee then that are strong ought to beare the infirmities of the weake and not to please our selves for even Christ pleased not himselfe c. Rom 15.1 3. You may know what 's most acceptable and unacceptable to the Lord hereabout by his complaint Ezek. 34.4 The diseased have ye not strengthened neither have ye healed that which was sick neither have ye bound up that which was broken neither have brought agaâ—ne that which was driven away neither have sought that which was lost Separating from them is not the way to cure them If they have but a spirituall being that which will but denominate them new creatures well may their mistakes and infirmities put them under the greater necessity of your help and you under the greater obligation of abounding so much the more in your tender compassionate and diligent applications for their increase in spirituall light health and strength but are farre from priviledging you to withdraw your communion from them For God hath tempered the body together having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked that there should be no schisme in the body 1 Cor 12.24 25. Second Argument for Separation thus If the primitive believers associated themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith then we may not But the primitive believers did associate themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith Ergo. Answ I doe acknowledge that all such unbaptized persons then in being as the primitive believers would not have or had not communion with we may not now have communion with their like and that what was a reason unto them not to have communion with such ought to be a reason to us of our non-communion in like case And yet I utterly deny the consequence of the Major proposition It will not follow that because the primitive believers had communion with none but such as were baptized after faith therefore we may have communion with none but such as are baptized after profession of
faith And the reason of the inconfecuence is taken from the difference of persons then and now There is a great difference in the qualification of the persons that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion then and many of the persons that have no Baptisme after profession of faith now and so the reason of non-communion varies accordingly Those in the primitive times that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion had no faith nor made confession of any So that the reason of the primitive Saints non-communion with such was not simply their want of Baptiâ—me but their want of faith And the same non-qualification now would be a like reason unto us of non-communion But where persons have faith and this faith visible in their profession and conversation and have also the doctrine of Baptisme in the spirituall part of it both in judgement and practice and are confident they practically have it too in the litterall part which is the case of the godly Pedobaptists there the difference is exceeding broad and large between them and those unbaptized persons with whom the primitive Saints had no communion and so the same reason of non-communion will not suite both If the primitive Saints had no communion with such as the godly Pedobaptists it was not because they judged such unworthy their communion but because there was none such then in being that particular difference between Saints and Saints about Infant Baptisme not being then on foot but if there had I shall offer reason presenly to induce us to believe that communion with them would not have been refused by the best of Saints then in being on that ground In the meane time let it be considered that we have no example of the primitive Saints refusing communiâ—n with such as the godly Pedobaptists are and therefore by their example cannot be obliged to refuse communion with them their example of non-communion with unbaptized unbelievers is forraigne and irrelative to our case and question and therefore it is altogether impertinent in its allegation But if there were or had been any such in the primitive times as the godly Pedobaptists are yet that we may be confident that the best of Saints in those times would not have refused communion with them I shall offer these reasons 1. We have no approved example of their refusing communion with any acknowledged godly Christians whatsoever for any errour in Judgment or errour in practice proceeding meerly from an errour in Judgment and therefore this supposed errour of the godly Pedobaptists being but of that nature we have no reason to think that they would have found harder measure if they had then lived amongst them then all others erring upon like termes did And here let it be observed Note that our separation of godly from godly upon account of such errours as are not repugnant to godlinesse is so farre from being an imitation of the example of the primitive Saints as that we have the example of the primitive Saints point blanck against it which may be a good argument to condemne but by no meanes to justifie our separation 2. When there was any thing stirring among the primitive Saints that did but tend to or looke towards a separation upon account of such errours as were not repugnant to godlinesse it â—id not passe without check and discountenance from the Aâ—ostles as is visible in the cases of difference about Circumcision dayes and meats of which more afterwards And therefore the supposed errour of the Pedobaptists being but of the same nature that is consistent with godlinesse as well as theirs there 's no reason to think it would have cast them out of communion then when the looke of such a thing in other like cases was so distastfull to the holy Apostle 3. When the Apostle comes to lay downe and ennumerate the causes and things for which communion with a professor of Christianity is to be refused there is none of them of a lower nature or lesse demerit then such as doe exclude a man the kingdome of God as is evident by comparing 1 Cor 5.11 with Chap. 6.9 10. as by the meer reciting of the words will appeare 1 Cor 5.11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one no not to eat That every one of these crimes debarre a man the kingdome of God is evident by 1 Cor 6.9 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God And where ever withdrawing from avoiding or rejecting of a professor of the Gospel is enjoyned the Christian brethren you will still finde it is either for crimes of a morall nature either in kinde or end or heresie but never for misprision of Judgment about Ordinances and matters of doubtfull disputation among the Saints Peruse for this 2 Tim. 3.1 5. 1 Tim. 6.5 Rom 16.17 18. 2 Thess 3.6.11 Tit. 3.10 11. By ought then that can be gathered from the Apostles writings an errour of that nature which is charged upon the Pedobaptists would not have deprived godly persons of the communion of Saints in the Apostles dayes Which is a thing seriously to be laid to heart by them that are accessary to the keeping up a separation contrary to the doctrine custome and example of the primitive times Third Argument for Separation runs thus None are in a regular capacity of holding Church communion with a particular Church who are not regularly visible members of the universall Church But none but such as are baptized after faith which the Pedobaptists are not are regularly visible members of the universall Church Therefore c. Answ That none are in a regular capacity of communion in a particular Church who are not visibly members of the universall Church I readily grant And as to that clause which speakes of mens being regularly visible members of the universall Church I say thus much That none can be visibly members of the universall Church but so farre as they are so they are regularly so for no irregularity whatsoever as such can contribute towards the viâ—â—bility of a mans Church-membership but obscure it It is very true that there may be more of regâ—larnesse in the visibility of somes universall Church-membership then in others and so proportionably more of visiblenesse but where ever there is this visiblenesse in a greater or lesser degree there is so much regularnesse of that visibility Having said thus much by way of concession to the major proposition and that much for the explication of an impertinent expression touching the regular visibility of universall Church-membership I come now to deny the Minor proposition which does affirm that none but such as are baptized after faith
this But some which are for infant baptisme are visibly of Christs universall body which I prove thus 1. If those essentiall and constitutive properties and marks by which the visible members of the primitive Churches which were of Christs universall body were described and distinguished from those that were not are visibly in some that are for infant baptisme then some that are for infant baptisme are visibly of Christs universall body But those essentiall and constitutive properties and markes by which the visible members of the primitive Churches that were of Christs universall body were described and distinguished are visible in some that are for infant baptisme Therefore c. I suppose the consequence of the Major proposition will not be denyed viz. that if the same things which essentially made the sound members of the primitive Churches to be visibly of the universall body of Christ be found in Pedobaptists that then there is all reason to conclude them to be of the same body what ever defects otherwise may be found in them For those properties and formall differences which are argumentative and declarative of the kinde doe argue and declare all to be of that kinde in whom those properties and formall differences are found If a humane body and reasonable soule be essentiall to mankinde and that by which that kinde of creature doth formally differ from all other then it must needs follow that all that have a humane body and reasonable soule what ever other defects in nature they have are of mankinde For the examination of the truth of the Minor we will consider what those essentiall and constitutive properties and marks were by which those of the primitive Churches were discerned to be of Christs universall body and distinguished from those that were not and then consider whether the same things properties and marks be not visible in many that are for infant baptisme Those that were of Christs body in Rome you have distinguished from the rest in Rome that were not by this propertie called to be Saints Rom 1.7 Those in Corinth in like manner by these Sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints and others of the same body else-where described by this that they are such as call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours to wit believingly and sincerely 1 Cor 1.2 Those of the Church of Christ at Ephesus thus The Saints which are at Ephesus the faithfull in Christ Jesus Eph 1.1 Those at Philippi thus All the Saints in Christ Jesus Phii 1.1 Those at Colosse thus The Saints and faithfull brethren in Christ Col 1.2 Now that there are many of those that are for infant baptisme concerning whom it is meet for us and for all Saints to think that they are called to be Saints sanctified in Christ Jesus are faithfull in Christ Jesus are faithfull brethren in Christ and such as call and that in faith upon the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ both theirs and ours I hope no sober Christian will deny and to thinke otherwise would argue little skill in Christianity and an extraordinary deep poverty in charity 2. I further prove that some that are for infant baptisme are of the universall body of Christ thus All that doe truely believe in Jesus Christ are members of that universall body whereof he is the head but some for infant baptisme doe so believe Ergo c. The Minor needs no proof The Major viz. that so many of those that are for infant baptisme as doe unfeignedly believe in Jesus Christ are members of his body or which is the same are of his Church I prove from Heb 3.6 But Christ as a Son over his owne house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoycing of the hope firme unto the end Againe ver 14. For we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end It was their faith and confidence in Christ we see that made them partakers of Christ and to be of his house which is the Church 1 Tim 3.15 and upon their perseverance in this confidence did depend their perseverance in this priviledge And the same faith which did make them partakers of Christ and to be of his house when found in those that are for infant baptisme will produce the same effect and procure them the same priviledge The Saints are called the houshold of faith Gal 6.10 as receiving that denomination from their faith which makes them of Gods house They are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus that have faith Gal. 3.26 and such as are Sons abide in Gods house for ever as members of his family Joh. 8.35 For God hath no children that are not of his houshold 3. If some that are for infant baptisme are reconciled to God by Christs death on the crosse upon their believing and so through Christ and by the Spirit have an accesse unto the father then such are no more strangers and forrainers but fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Ephes 2 16-19 But some that are for infant baptisme are so reconciled and have such an accesse to the father This is not without the concession of the Antipedobaptists and therefore needs no farther proofe Therefore we may well conclude that some that are for infant baptisme are no more strangers and forreiners but fellow-citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God Object Against the pertinency of the forecited proofes to conclude Pedobaptists to be visibly of the body of Christ it may perhaps be objected that all those Christians of the severall Churches of which the forecited Scriptures make mention were all baptized after the profession of faith and that it will not follow that because faith sanctification and the rest of those qualifications did denominate such as were baptized after faith to be of the Church that therefore they must denominate such as are not baptized after faith to be of the Church likewise For as they had one faith so they had one baptisme Eph 4.5 and this did beare its share in their Christian denomination and distinction as well as any other qualification To this I answer That it was the faith calling and sanctification as such and the visibility of these by which those Christians were described and denominated to be of the Church and distinguished from those that were not and therefore those that are under the same qualifications essentially as some Pedobaptists are though perhaps not circumstantially must needs come under the same denomination of membership in the Church of Christ If the Apostle Paul were now alive and should write an Epistle to the Church of God in London inscribing and directing it to all in London that are called to be Saints or sanctified in Christ Jesus or the faithfull in Christ would it not be reasonable to think that all such Pedobaptists there as are called to be Saints and sanctified in