then my present-practice of free communion with reformed godly Congregations of Pedobaptists but much more to perswade others to joyne with me therein I shall through Gods assistance endeavour these two things 1. To take downe those Arguments by which I once endeavoured to build up Separation 2. Propose some Arguments to evince the lawfulnesse of Church-communion between the godly both Pedobaptists and Anabaptists and the unlawfulnesse of denying their communion one with another upon account of their baptismall difference In the doing of which I suppose I shall have occasion to consider all that is considerable on the other hand either of Arguments or Objections Which done I hope will be of good use to cure and prevent the evill of Separation of godly from godly upon other accounts also as well as this My six former Arguments for Separation taken downe FIrst I would here give notice that my six Arguments formerly published in countenance of Separation of godly from godly upon the account of Infant Baptisme are laid downe for the most part rather Motive-wise then Argument-wise and doe not rationally conclude the thing for which they were brought I shall therefore contract and reduce them in the best of their strength into form of Argument and then discover in what respects they are inconcludent of the position touching Separation which should have been proved by them First Argument for Separation is to this effect Those Churches may not be held communion with in whose constitution such a part of the foundation of Christian Churches as the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wanting But such are the best of the Churches of the Pedobaptists Therefore c. Answ That it is the duty of every Christian so farre as he contributes any thing towards the erecting a house for Christ therein according to the best of his understanding and as much as in him lies to endeavour that it be built according to the pattern in the Mount I mean the Scriptures and that no part of the foundation through his default be left out I easily grant and still assert But that that part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wholly wanting in the Churches of the Pedobaptists I doe deny or if there be some part of it wanâ—ing in them yet that such a partiall defect is any sufficient ground of separation from them I doe also deny and shall here offer something to shew that it is a great mistake so to think 1. That part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme is not totally wanting in the Assemblies of the godly Pedobaptists For about the doctrine of Baptime the Pedobaptists doe agree with the Anabaptists in many weighty points though they differ in some other 1. They both agree that water Baptisme is an ordinance instituted by the Lord. And 2. To be continued in the use of it to the end of the world 3. That all that are converted from another to the Christian religion and profession ought upon such conversion to be baptized as those whose Baptisme after faith is recorded in Scripture were 4. That to be baptized is a professed putting on of Christ and that Baptisme is a badge of Christs professed Disciples distinguishing them from such as doe not own Christ 5. That all that are baptized are thereby obliged to cease living any more to sin but are bound thereby to live a new and holy life unto God 6. That all the Disciples of Christ ought actually to be under this ingagement In all these they both agree 7. As the one hold themselves actually engaged to the lawes of Christ by their Baptisme after faith so doe the other by that which they account a sufficient Baptisme though received before faith 8. As the one doe the things to which Gospel-Baptisme does oblige so doe the other Although then the Pedobaptists be supposed to be defective in the doctrine of Baptisme in relation to some of the subjects of it and it is but some and likewise in relation to the form of administration yet agreeing in so many of the substantiall parts of the doctrine of Baptisme as is before mentioned we cannot say justly that there is an utter failer in them as to this part of the foundation There are two parts of the doctrine of Baptisme the one concernes the putting away of the filth of the flesh the other the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Christ from the dead If they are defective in that part of the doctrine which concernes the putting away the filth of the flesh yet they are orthodox and sound in that part which concernes the answer of a good conscience towards God which according to the Apostle is the greater and better part 1 Pet. 3.21 A partiall defect and that too in the lesser part of the foundation does not make a nullity in it no more then the want of a hand or an eye or a leg makes a man to be no man And if a woman should separate from her husband when wanting any of these upon pretence that he is no man she would not be held innocent Defects in and about holy things though great and notable doe not alwayes cause a privation of the ends of the holy things themselves The manner of Jacobs obtaining the blessing was greatly defective and full of sinfull mixture but yet did not nullifie the blessing it selfe It was a great defect in the Office of high Priesthood when God would have but one high Priest at one time and him during life Num. 35.25 28. Heb. 7.23 for men to set up two or else to make an annuall election Joh. 11.49 51. 18.13 Acts 4.6 but yet whoever thought for all that that all the administrations of such an high Priest were nullities and that no body was the better for them 2. It s a great mistake likewise to think that every partiall defect in the foundation of a compleat Church constitution is a sufficient ground of separation For 1. It s very probable that something of that which is comprized in the doctrine of Baptisme a part of the foundation Heb. 6. is wanting as it was enioyed in the primitive Church in the best constituted and well ordered Church at this day in the world For when the Author of that Epistle speakes of the doctrine of Baptismes in the plurall number what can we so reasonably understand by it besides the Baptisme of water as the Baptisme of the Spirit And however all that are Christs have his Spirit Rom 8.9 Gal. 4.6 yet I have as I think else-where rendred it probable from Mat. Doubt resolved p. 37. 3.11 Acts 1.5 2.3.4 11.16 compared that the Baptisme of the Spirit was a priviledge peculiar to the primitive times and is not now enjoyed by any that we know of Wherein also I know I have the concurrant judgement of many of the Baptists at least So that its
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 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 enâ—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 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 the Church and the Scripture saith that by one Spirit we are all baptized into oâ—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-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
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 senâ—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 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 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 enâ—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 noâ— 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 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
A RETRACTATION OF SEPARATION WHEREIN VI Arguments formerly erected for the service of Separation upon the account of Infant Baptisme are taken down AND VI Other Arguments for Saints generall communion though of different perswasion are erected in their room TOGETHER WITH A patheticall Swasive to unity peace and concord as our generation-work in speciall By WILLIAM ALLEN When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren Luk. 22.32 Goe ye and learne what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 Whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule Phil. 3.16 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace Ro 14.19 LONDON Printed by M. S. for Henry Crips and are to be sold at his Shop at the entrance out of Lumbard streete into Popes-head-Alley 1660. To the godly READERS both Anabaptists and Pedobaptists THe scope of this little piece being in speciall to close the wound of division that hath been made in the Church of God about Baptism I shall here offer a word to both parts divided First to the Anabaptists for so I call them as being that name whether proper or improper by which they are best knowne among men That which I would briefly say to them partly respects their opinion and partly their separation about it My humble request to them First is That their dissent from other godly Christians in the point of Infant Baptisme may be held and managed with much humility and sobriety towards them that differ That reverence which is due to the wisdome godlinesse faithfulnesse and zeal of so great a number as in former ages have been and in this present age are of a minde different from them in this point calls for it The sence of their owne weaknesse and that they are no more infallible then other men calls for it And the peace and undisturbed state of the Church and people of God which every Christian is bound as much as in him lies to preserve calls for it likewise As for those of them that Judge it their duty to uphold a separate state upon account of this difference my humble motion to them is That they would read the ensuing Discourse or any other of like nature with an open and free minde and with that inclination to unity peace and concord that ought to rule in the hearts of all Saints and to give the arguments and considerations which oppose Separation the same law and faire play in their judgements which they have been wont to allow to their contrary and that they would make as much if not much more conscience to lay out and engage their thoughts how to remove objections against generall communion of Saints as to make them Certainly the great cry of the Scripture for unity peace concord and forbearance among Saints and against their dissentions and divisions and the experience of their ill effects is a lowd call to this And so is the law of true Evangelicall brotherly love and the principle of it in whom soever found which is still working if not obstructed towards a kindly closure with all that have the like precious faith and seed of God remaining in them and which makes them desirous and glad of any helpe to remove out of the way what ever keepes them from the closest communion And for those that are or shall be convinced of the unduenesse of this Separation and yet for fear of offending the weake conceal their Judgement my desire and advice is that they would set before them the blame which the Apostle Peter incurred by dissembling his Judgement for fear of offending that sort of believers which were of the Circumcision Gal 2.11 12 13. besides the account which I afterwards give of my owne practice in the contrary My prayer on the other hand to the godly Pedobaptists both Ministers and people is That they would use like moderation and tendernesse towards the godly Anabaptists and not for their different opinion sake in point of Baptisme to set them at naught and represent them to the people and that without distinction as such monsters as some doe nor to make an estimate or representation of the best by the worst there being neer as much difference between Anabaptists and Anabaptists as there is between Pedobaptists and Pedobaptists but to think and speak of them as such who for a considerable part of them at least are truely tender of the glory of the Lord and of the royall authority of his holy Lawes and as desirous to approve themselves with all good conscience both to God and men and as such among whom there are as savoury and experimentall Christians as most in their generation The want of this moderation in many of the Pedobaptists I believe hath had a great hand in the divisions and separations of our times partly by setting them of the other Judgement at a further distance from them then otherwise they would have been and partly by inclining many who have thought them wronged to fall in with them and off from the other Suppose the Anabaptists should be in an errour yet certainly their opinion about Baptisme after faith cannot reasonably be supposed to be of that nature if it should be an errour but that it may well consist with an eminent degree of grace as many I doubt not of different thoughts from them doe sufficiently experience And with what heart then can any who know the worth of grace and how to value persons by it make such to be a gazing stock to the people for a supposed infirmity in judgement Besides the strong probabilities not now to say proofes which they have for their opinion may well bespeake a moderate and sober treatment from such as dissent As to matter of fact what can be said to evince Infant Baptisme a primitive practice but may be so farre counter-argued as to leave an enlightened and tender conscience without conviction in the case And as to the reason of the thing when it shall be argued that to be baptized is to be buried and that buriall betokens or supposeth the person buried to be dead viz. unto sin and how incompetent such a death is to an infant state and how prepostercus it is to bury persons before they are dead is it not very possible that when all is said that can be said to take away the strength of such a consideration that yet so much may be apprehended to remayne by many a wise and holy man as may hold his conscience fast And therefore why should such an opinion that hath so much to be said for it and hard to be answered render its friends so criminall in the eyes in the reports of their brethren as sometimes it does Or if some that be of that opinion have espoused any other opinions of worse import yet why should this be charged upon the whole Tribe See Revel 2.24 3.4 In a word if the godly Pedobaptists and Anabaptists would but charitably consider what
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
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