A RETRACTATION OF SEPARATION.  
WHEREIN VI Arguments formerly erected for the service of Separation, upon the account of Infant Baptism, are taken down:  
AND VI Other Arguments for Saints general communion, though of different persuasion, are erected in their room.  
TOGETHER WITH A pathetical Swasive to unity, peace, and concord, as our generation-work in special.  
By WILLIAM ALLEN.  
When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, Luk. 22.32.  
Go ye and learn 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 Lombard street into Popes-head-Alley. 1660.   

To the godly READERS, both Anabaptists and Pedobaptists.  
THe scope of this little piece being in special 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 known 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 Baptism, may be held and managed with much humility and sobriety towards them that differ. That reverence which is due to the wisdom, godliness, faithfulness and zeal of so great a number as in former ages have been, and in this present age are of a mind different from them in this point, calls for it. The sense of their own weakness, and that they are no more infallible than 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 mind, and with that inclination to unity, peace, and concord, that aught to rule in the hearts of all Saints: and to give the arguments and considerations which oppose Separation, the same law and fair 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 general 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 dissensions and divisions, and the experience of their ill effects, is a loud 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 help to remove out of the way, what ever keeps 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 weak, 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 own 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 tenderness towards the godly Anabaptists: and not for their different opinion sake in point of Baptism, to set them at naught, and represent them to the people, and that without distinction, as such monsters as some do; nor to make an estimate or representation of the best by the worst, (there being near 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 truly tender of the glory of the Lord, and of the royal authority of his holy Laws; 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 experimental 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 error: yet certainly their opinion about Baptism after faith, cannot reasonably be supposed to be of that nature, if it should be an error, but that it may well consist with an eminent degree of grace, as many I doubt not of different thoughts from them, do 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 proofs) which they have for their opinion; may well bespeak a moderate and sober treatment, from such as descent. As to matter of fact: what can be said to evince Infant Baptism a primitive practice, but may be so fare 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 baptised, is to be buried; and that burial 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 remain, 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 criminal 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 each plead for themselves, and would but have their eyes more upon what is lovely and  in each other, and be ready to own and acknowledge it, and to provide a covering for each others infirmities, (which yet would be no works of supererogation, but their duty;) how soon would they delight in one another, and come closer together, and serve the Lord with one shoulder? and if those of each subdivision among themselves, would do so too; what a heaven upon earth should we have in comparison of what now we have? But if each shall still abound in their own sense, and impose that sense upon one another; and shall still be laying their fingers upon each others sores, and aggravating every small matter, and construing things in the worst sense, and harbouring jealousies and evil surmisings against one another, where there is no visible ground; and in the mean while overlook the praiseworthy things that are visible enough in many on both sides; what can be expected but the banishing of charity, and with it peace and the holy Spirit, but the increase of emulations, contentions, divisions, and with these error, heresy, and apostasy, until we have so fare devoured one another, and our religion too, as at last to expose ourselves and our profession, Gospel, Ordinances and liberties, as a prey to the common Enemy, whose hopes and endeavours of swallowing up all, are doubtless nourished and strengthened by our divisions. And what christian heart can bear the thought of being accessary to such things as these?  
Where then there is any true affection left to the interest of Christ, and safety of souls, which are already so fare endamaged and further endangered by the uncharitable contentions and divisions of professors; let it show itself by a speedy and compassionate endeavour to find out ways and to improve opportunities of reconciling dissenting brethren, upon the account of those many and main things of faith and holiness, wherein they are already one, and which in reason should sway more to hold them fast together, than those few and fare lesser things wherein they differ, should to divide, scatter, and alienate them one from another. And so they would if there were no self-interest, or ignorance about the doctrine of forbearance, or pride, or uncharitableness, to hinder it; which Christians should abhor, not cherish. Alas, shall the sword always devour? is there no balm in Gilead? is there no Phycian there? Must we sit down in despair? or must we wait on miracles to make God's people on●? Surely if men's eyes were but a little more open, every one to see their own sin in making, or not cordially endeavouring the cure of our breaches; reconciliation w●uld be found a work of no such difficulty to effect among those that are steered by Christ's interest, (and those that are not, let them be left out, they will but retard the work;) for they would be so much ashamed of this sin, and the dis-service they have done Christ by it, as that they would not be able to refrain mutual endeavours on every hand to quench the flame that is kindled in the house of God, and to call upon one another to join herein. There's now some hopeful dawnings of such a day by agitations now on foot; yet if while the Sun is but peeping out of one cloud, another should come over it; let no man's heart or hand be weakened upon that account: if you will but follow after peace with all your might, you shall certainly at last overtake it and bring it back again: and I am sure, its company worth running for. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another, Rom: 14.19.  
Septemb. 5th 1659. W. A.   

A Retractation of Separation.  
THe most wise and holy God, at first made and disposed all his creatures in such subordination and order, as that no division either did or could befall them, through any defect in his workmanship. But the Devil, the original Author and founder of division and sinful separation, having himself first left his own place where God had set him, became head of a faction against God; and from that day to this, hath industriously endeavoured to work division between God and men, and among men themselves. And for this cause was Jesus Christ the Son of God, made manifest, that he might destroy the works of the Devil; and counter-work him, in reconciling men to God, and one to another. And therefore the closer men do follow Christ, and the more they are acted by his Spirit, the more they are for unity and concord; for healing of breaches: and reconciling of divided parties. As on the other hand; the more men are acted and influenced by the spirit of Satan, the more they are for dividing work. For these two Princes, the one of light, the other of darkness, carry on their two contrary works of division and union, by the agency of their followers.  
And yet the Devil does not carry on this work only by such as are his, but so out-wits many well meaning men that design serving of Christ and promoting of truth in the main, as to make them think they are building up God's truth and worship by separation, when they are pulling down his house which is the pillar thereof, by division: and so do really accommodate the Devil's design, whilst they intent the advancement of the cause of Christ. They think that some one particular truth which they apprehend to have discovered, will not be seen enough in a crowd of the contrary minded, (though of the same alliance to Christ) and therefore they get out of their company, that by the light of their separation, that truth for which they do separate, might be the better seen and the more taken notice of, and the more prized, whilst communion with them, cannot be had without it. But in the mean while they are not ware how they hinder Christ's work, while they intent to promote it, and befriend the Devil's design, whilst they intent to withstand it.  
1. In hindering the reception of that truth if it be a truth, which they intent to propagate. For by such a separation, they render themselves less acceptable to them from whom they withdraw, than they were before, and more suspected too: and so are at a greater disadvantage to commend any truth to them, than they were before: Prejudice against the Preacher, begetting prejudice against his doctrine. For which cause also, all their other Christian applications to them will be less acceptable and less effectual, unless there be a abundance of grace to prevent it; it faring with them in this case as it doth many times with men who take a kind of conceit against good meat, for the unacceptablenesse of the vessel in which it is dressed, or dish in which it's brought: that's one way by which unawares, as I conceive, they gratify the enemy.  
2. By such divisions and separations of one part of God's people from another, they lay themselves open, and become obnoxious to the temptations and surprisal 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 maintain their ground against the enemy, he immediately directs them to [strive together] for the faith of the Gospel. And if one prevail, yet two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord, is not easily broken, Eccl. 4.12. But by dividing and separating, they lose 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 easy a matter is it for an enemy by his united force to subdue the greatest Army when they shall fight him only in small parties? he will first overcome one party and then another, and so all one after another. And that doubtless is the reason why the enemy hath so mightily prevailed, and taken so many that did wear Christ's colours, prisoners, and led them away captive under the power and command of manned dangerous and destroying errors and heresies, since those unhappy 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 drawn away one other person to become a Quaker, or a Ranter, or the like, he hath drawn 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 stragglers from an Army use to fall into the hands of the enemy, when those that abide in the main body are safe; even so is it with those that straggle from the main body of Christ the universal Church in their communion, they are gathered up by the enemy, here one and there one, when in the mean while those that abide and keep their ranks in the main body, are more generally kept safe. Doubtless it's not much less dangerous for Saints to separate from Saints upon account of their differences, considering what advantage is given the enemy thereby, than it would be for an Army who all engage for the same cause in the main, 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 disarm themselves, at least in great measure, and to put weapons into the enemy's hand. Christian Charity is in great part a Christians security; and the separation I speak of, tends greatly to weaken and by degrees to destroy that charity, as I shall show 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 uncharitableness 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 withdrawn; what can be expected but darkness, weakness, wandering, and the enemies enterin, and taking possession. He that hateth his brother, is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because darkness hath blinded his eyes, 1 John 2.11. Uncharitableness, then, deprives men of God's presence, which is their only safety, and makes way for the enemy, and so betrays them into the hand of error 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 follows the swerving from charity. As love departs, so jangling, error 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 gainful advantages for the Devil to deceive in. Mark and consider that Prophecy 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 Christ's followers fall a hating and so a betraying one another, than the Devil sends forth his Prophets as the fittest season possible to carry away many of those which were grown in distaste with their godly brethren. And because iniquity in this kind, shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold, ver. 12. A great decay of affection to the Gospel takes place, when uncharitableness, error, and Apostasy 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 envy, emmulations, and uncharitableness increased, than the Devil thrusts out a great variety of seducers that have carried away many into ways of dangerous error, especially of those that have proceeded furthest in separation by several subdivisions. Though God hath in the mean while graciously kept such as have retained a general 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 Satan's and hinders Christ's design, (what ever they themselves design by it) is in hindering the success of the Gospel in its converting work. For by it unbelief of the Gospel in ungodly men, is nourished and maintained. The Saints differences, though but in some lesser matters, when made so public and notorious by separations, do gratify the unbelieving thoughts which sinful men have, as if the Gospel were an uncertain thing. When they see those that pretend to so much knowledge of it, to disagree in matters so material, as those that concern their owning one another as Christian Brethren, they think (its like) that they may suspend a thorough belief of the whole. Christ prayed that all those that should believe through his Apostles word, might be one that the world might believe, John 17.21. They are those that bear witness before the world that the Gospel is true: but to what degree (as in all Courts) the witnesses disagree; their testimony is weakened, and their evidence suspected. When their Trumpet by which they should al●●m the world, gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? They know not what religion to be of, they say, and will see professors better agreed, before they will be resolvedly and thoroughly of any. It was the Devil's policy of old to raise up false Prophets in opposition to the true, that while one said one thing, and another another thing in the name of the Lord, the ignorant people might be amused, and not know which to follow. And it's much to be feared, that he gains much of the same advantage by the declared published contradictions among the Saints. Hence is the common complaint touching the paucity of converts, now adays. There's much preaching and much discursive knowledge, but how rare are those effectual conversions that the Word accompanied with the peace, charity, and sincerity of Saints in former times, did produce. Now indeed men are converted from one opinion in Religion to another; but to have stouthearted sinners to fall at the feet of Jesus Christ by the power of his Word, and giantlike transgressors to become like weaned children, I believe (and it's not my thought alone) is a sight fare more rare to behold now, then formerly. And why? Surely not because the Word is less quick and powerful now than it was then; but because it's now more hindered, and clogged by the divisions, separations, and contrary opinions of professors, and scandals concurring, then formerly it was.  
And as these divisions and separations have hindered the conversion of some, so doubtless have they occasioned the subversion of many others, who have stumbled at this stumbling stone, and forsaken the tents of the Saints of all persuasions; turning, some Quakers, some Ranters, and Libertines, some Papists, and some Atheists. Papists and Atheists there were , but for strict professors of godliness to become such, was, I think, seldom seen before. The frequent interressing the weak in doubtful disputations, hath been like the putting of new wine into old bottles, or the sewing of a new piece of cloth to an old garment; the wine hath been spilt, and the rent made worse: their heads have turned round with the noise of abundance of contrary arguings, of which they have not been able to make judgement. And upon that account have been tempted to taste of every water, to be experiencing every way; trying every thing, till at last they have come to nothing. Such open and violent strive about things of doubtful disputations, as to set one Christian at a distance from another, hath proved a sad occasion of subverting the hearers, 2 Tim. 2.14.  
These and such like have been the effects of the late year's divisions and separations of Saints, though better things than these, I doubt not, have been intended by them. And if there hath been any discovery of truth by our contendings; yet I doubt by the ill managing of our differences, if the account could be cast up, the loss in the total, in relation to the affairs of Christ, would be found much more than the gain. And I must now say, that the experience, observation and serious consideration of such things as these, hath occasioned me to review my Arguments for Separation with a jealous eye; and hath prepared the way for such Arguments and Considerations as plead the cause of general communion among all Saints, to have the readier access to my understanding. And after some month's labour in this search, accompanied with serious seeking of God about this matter, I have at last found cause (as I have verily thought) to accuse myself before the Lord, as one too greatly accessary to the mischievous effects of division and separation; and that not only in practising the way of separation myself, but also in strengthening the hands of others thereto by pleading that cause in print. In the sense of which, together with other my manifold weaknesses, I have through grace humbled myself, and desire to lie low before the Lord all my days. Giving him glory for his great mercy towards me in that presence and those supplies of his which he hath been pleased graciously to vouchsafe me, during the time of this mistake, my weakness and unworthiness notwithstanding: and now at last to deliver me from those crooked thoughts (as I humbly judge them to have been) which caused me to break communion with those Christian Brethren and children of my father, that were not of my mind in the points of Infant and after-baptisme. Shall I say the Lord had mercy on me because I did it ignorantly! for I verily thought myself in a way of serving both God and men, in what I did therein.  
I am not unsencible but that this alteration of thought and way in me; though but in the point of communion, is for the present, matter of offence and grief to many, whose grief upon this account cannot but be grief to me, and whom to please in any thing, in which I should not displease the Lord, would be fare more acceptable to me. I have considered also, that some weak ones will be in danger of stumbling and taking hurt thereby; for whose sakes I have been the more gradual, slow, and tender in discovering and putting in execution my change of thoughts in this particular. And it hath been no small trouble to me, (the Lord knows,) that my former unadvisedness, should put me upon a necessity of running such hazards. But when I have considered that there is a necessity upon him that hath gone out of the right way, more or less, to return into it, when he comes to know it: and that a man may by no means make himself accessary to a certain evil in himself, to prevent a contingent and accidental one in another: and that the probable dangers in relation to others in upholding separation, are more than those that attend the taking it down; and that where one miscarries by the latter, many fall by the former: And considering also, that I am under a published engagement in one of my Epistles, to retract what formerly I have done, upon condition of an after-discovery of vanity therein; I have thought it my duty, not only to make that late retreat; but also to be as public in my return out of the way of separation, as I was in my entrance into it: as judging it not impossible, but that God in time may make use of this declaration to lead or at least to keep as many and many more out of the way of separation, than ever my former writings for separation, led into it. However having herein done what I judged my duty, I shall commit the issue and success to God.  
To vindicate then my present-practice of free communion with reformed godly Congregations of Pedobaptists; but much more to persuade others to join with me therein, I shall through God's assistance endeavour these two things.  
1. To take down those Arguments by which I once endeavoured to build up Separation.  
2. Propose some Arguments to evince the lawfulness of Church-communion between the godly, both Pedobaptists and Anabaptists, and the unlawfulness of denying their communion one with another upon account of their baptismal 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 evil of Separation of godly from godly upon other accounts also as well as this.  

My six former Arguments for Separation, taken down.  
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 Baptism, are laid down for the most part rather Motive-wise, then Argument-wise; and do 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 Baptism mentioned Heb. 6.2. is wanting.  
But such are the best of the Churches of the Pedobaptists. Therefore etc.  
Answ. That it is the duty of every Christian, so fare 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 Baptism, mentioned Heb. 6.2. is wholly wanting in the Churches of the Pedobaptists, I do deny: or if there be some part of it wan●ing in them; yet that such a partial defect is any sufficient ground of separation from them, I do also deny, and shall here offer something to show that it is a great mistake so to think.  
1. That part of the foundation which consists in the [doctrine] of Baptism, is not totally wanting in the Assemblies of the godly Pedobaptists. For about the [doctrine] of Baptism, the Pedobaptists do agree with the Anabaptists in many weighty points, though they differ in some other. 1. They both agree that water Baptism 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, aught upon such conversion, to be baptised, as those whose Baptism after faith is recorded in Scripture were. 4. That to be baptised is a professed putting on of Christ, and that Baptism is a badge of Christ's professed Disciples, distinguishing them from such as do not own Christ. 5. That all that are baptised, 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 engagement. In all these they both agree. 7. As the one hold themselves actually engaged to the laws of Christ by their Baptism after faith, so do the other by that which they account a sufficient Baptism, though received before faith. 8. As the one do the things to which Gospel-Baptisme does oblige, so do the other. Although then the Pedobaptists be supposed to be defective in the doctrine of Baptism 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 substantial parts of the doctrine of Baptism 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 Baptism; the one concerns 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 concerns the putting away the filth of the flesh, yet they are orthodox and sound in that part which concerns the answer of a good conscience towards God; which according to the Apostle, is the greater and better part, 1 Pet. 3.21. A partial defect, and that too in the lesser part of the foundation, does not make a nullity in it; no more than 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, do not always cause a privation of the ends of the holy things themselves. The manner of jacob's obtaining the blessing, was greatly defective, and full of sinful mixture, but yet did not nullify the blessing itself. 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 annual 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 partial defect in the foundation of a complete Church constitution, is a sufficient ground of separation. For  
1. It's very probable that something of that which is comprised in the doctrine of Baptism, a part of the foundation Heb. 6. is wanting (as it was enjoyed 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 speaks of the doctrine of [Baptisms] in the plural number, what can we so reasonably understand by it, besides the Baptism of water, as the Baptism of the Spirit? And however all that are Christ's, have his Spirit, (Rom: 8.9. Gal. 4.6.) yet I have as I think elsewhere rendered it probable from Mat. 
Doubt resolved, p. 37.  3.11. Acts 1.5. & 2.3.4. & 11.16. compared, that the Baptism of the Spirit, was a privilege 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. 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 usual and most commonly received interpretation) the imposition of hands upon baptised Disciples in order to their receiving the holy Ghost, there's good cause to conceive that many in that Church never had hands laid on them for that end. For I conceive no man will think that the Apostles, much less 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 terms 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 foundation 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 form. The like, I suppose, may be said of the first Christian Church of the Gentiles at Caesarea, 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, than 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 Baptisms; 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 confess, since I considered it, to evince a defect in, yea or a mere want of the external part of the doctrine of Baptism, to be a just ground of separation or denial of communion, when such defect or want proceeds not from a disobedient will, but from an error in Judgement coupled with an upright heart and soundness of faith in the main principles of the Gospel. And I would pray our Brethren that it may be considered, where the Lord hath commanded separation or denial of communion any more for the want of the one, then for the want of the other; and that we make no such haste to withdraw from our brethren, unless God had bid us to do so.  
It will be sufficient for us to follow the Lord, and to withdraw when he withdraws: but it does not become us to go before him, and to withdraw where he abides. Where Christ the only foundation is sincerely held in the main 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 external 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 wife's society, because of some bodily or moral infirmities, as long as she is loyal to him in the main, but by his continuance with her, endeavour her help and cure.  
It's true; it would be more acceptable and pleasant to well-grown Saints, to be yoked in their communion, only with such as are full of spiritual health and beauty. As it cannot but be thought that it would be a thing more delightful to Christ Jesus, to converse only with creatures of an Angelical perfection, if he had not healing-work to do. But if Christ should please himself 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: We then that are strong, aught to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves;— for even Christ pleased not himself, etc. (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 spiritual 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 spiritual light, health, and strength, but are fare from privileging 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 schism 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 baptised after profession of faith, than we may not. But the primitive believers did associate themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptised after profession of faith. Ergo.  
Answ. I do 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, aught 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 baptised after faith, therefore we may have communion with none but such as are baptised 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 Baptism, and so no Church-communion then, and many of the persons that have no Baptism after profession of faith now, and so the reason of non-communion varies accordingly. Those in the primitive times that had no Baptism, 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism in the spiritual part of it, both in judgement and practice, and are confident they practically have, it too in the literal 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 suit 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 Baptism, 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 mean time let it be considered, that we have no example of the primitive Saints refusing communion 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 foreign 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 error in Judgement, or error in practice proceeding merely from an error in Judgement: and therefore this supposed error 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, than all others erring upon like terms, did. And here let it be observed, Note. that our separation of godly from godly upon account of such errors as are not repugnant to godliness, is so fare from being an imitation of the example of the primitive Saints, as that we have the example of the primitive Saints point blank against it which may be a good argument to condemn, but by no means to justify our separation.  
2. When there was any thing stirring among the primitive Saints that did but tend to or look towards a separation upon account of such errors as were not repugnant to godliness, it ●id not pass without check and discountenance from the Apostles, as is visible in the cases of difference about Circumcision, days, and meats, (of which more afterwards) And therefore the supposed error of the Pedobaptists being but of the same nature; that is consistent with godliness as well as theirs, there's no reason to think it would have cast them out of communion then when the look of such a thing in other like cases, was so distasteful to the holy Apostle.  
3. When the Apostle comes to lay down 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 less demerit, than such as do exclude a man the kingdom of God, as is evident by comparing 1 Cor: 5.11. with Chap. 6.9, 10. as by the mere reciting of the words will appear. 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 debar a man the kingdom of God is evident by 1 Cor: 6.9, 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,— nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And where ever withdrawing from, avoiding or rejecting of a professor of the Gospel, is enjoined the Christian brethren, you will still find it is either for crimes of a moral nature, either in kind or end, or heresy; but never for misprision of Judgement about Ordinances, and matters of doubtful 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 aught then that can be gathered from the Apostles writings, an error of that nature which is charged upon the Pedobaptists, would not have deprived godly persons of the communion of Saints in the Apostles days. 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, custom 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 universal Church.  
But none but such as are baptised after faith, which the Pedobaptists are not, are regularly visible members of the universal Church. Therefore etc.  
Answ. That none are in a regular capacity of communion in a particular Church, who are not visibly members of the universal Church, I readily grant. And as to that clause which speaks of men's being regularly visible members of the universal Church, I say thus much: That none can be visibly members of the universal Church, but so fare as they are so, they are regularly so: for no irregularity whatsoever as such, can contribute towards the visibility of a man's Church-membership, but obscure it. It is very true, that there may be more of reg●larnesse in the visibility of sums universal Church-membership, then in others; and so proportionably more of visibleness; but where ever there is this visibleness in a greater or lesser degree, there is so much regularness 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 universal Church-membership, I come now to deny the Minor proposition which does affirm, that none but such as are baptised after faith, are regularly visible members of the universal Church: and do affirm, that the godly Pedobaptists are visibly members of the universal Church, though not baptised after profession 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 universal Church-membership visible. For there are no godly men or holy men, who are not members of Christ's 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 do but know and understand what we judge. But touching the visibility of the universal Church-membership of the godly Pedobaptists, and of their right to communion in particular Churches thereby, I shall have occasion to speak more particularly and fully in my first Argument for general communion among Saints, and therefore shall say no more of it here, but refer you thither.   

Fourth Argument for Separation, stands thus:  
If according to Gospel order, all Christ's Disciples ought first to be baptised before they be admitted unto Church-communion, than the godly Pedobaptist●, although the Disciples of Christ, not being baptised, cannot be admitted to such communion, without breach of Gospel order.  
But according to Gospel order, all Christ's Disciples ought first to be baptised before they be admitted unto Church-communion. Therefore etc.  
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 baptised before they desire or claim communion in a particular Church: For baptising is that which next follows discipling according both to the Commission of Christ, Mat. 28.19. and the constant recorded practice of the primitive times. And so fare the Argument holds good, that if any godly Pedobaptist or other Disciple of Christ, should desire Church-communion before he is baptised as Christ would have him baptised, having opportunity of being so, he should therein make himself 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 do 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 be baptised, than it would be a breach of the Gospel order aforesaid on their part, to claim Church-communion before they are baptised. 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 faithful observing of Gospel order, visible in other parts of the New Testament so to do. For  
There is no Gospel order that I know of, that enjoins baptised believers in no case to admit believers that are not baptised, 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 down, my soul made diligent search for some Scripture forbidding the baptised to hold communion with unbaptized believers. And among all which I thought looked that way, Mat. 28.19. is the chief, Go teach or disciple all nations, baptising them. Which being again looked into, I find that all that can be gathered from it hereabout is only this; that Christ would have all those to be baptised, that should be made Disciples; or at most to be baptised next after discipling. These words contain only a law about discipling and baptising, but nothing at all about communion: they enjoin what shall be done in the one, but forbidden 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 appear that the Lord commanded his Apostles to teach the Disciples when once baptised, not to admit any unbaptized Disciples of his to their communion in no case, than indeed it would be unlawful for them so to do. But till that do appear, we had need to take heed of making void 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 only such into Church-fellowship and communion, as were before baptised? Acts 2.41. 1 Cor: 12.13. And would it not then be a violation of such Gospel order to do otherwise now?  
Answ. I do not know but that it was their constant order as to matter of fact to receive only baptised Disciples into Church-communion: nor do I think but that under the circumstances of their case, what they did in that kind, was a Gospel order; and that under the same circumstances to do 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 bind 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 mere fact and literal 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 possess their own, 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, anoint thine head and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast. This though the express command of ●hrist to his Disciples, yet is not binding to us in the letter of it, because the custom of the places where those Disciples 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 do 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 enjoined, to be so obliging to us as to 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 itself a duty in those times as part of the foundation Heb: 6.2.) then other primitive Saints, but only 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, than their practice cannot be our binding precedent, nor our literal variation, a moral violation of their order.  
See we then whether the reason of the primitive Saints admitting only baptised 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 only 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 styled 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 baptised and only baptised to their communion in the primitive times, was because they had reason to esteem such and only such for Saints. Any man that should then have refused Baptism, (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 cordial Disciple of Christ. To deny Christ and to deny to be baptised in his name, was much the same thing then. Upon which ground the refusing or not desiring of Baptism 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: where the want of a regular Baptism 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 Baptism, 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 itself. If baptism 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 baptism, 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 merely from want of light in the thing; they professing (and I believe in good earnest) that if they did not believe they were baptised already, it should be one of the first things they would seek opportunity to do, to become baptised. You see then upon what ground the primitive practice of holding communion with none but baptised 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 moral 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 otherwise. And why any or our brethren should have their eye so much upon that other piece of Gospel order, and overlook this, and not think themselves as much and much more obliged by this than that, especially considering that there is precept upon precept as well as precedent 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 Baptism bear the same relation to the Supper of the Lord, as Circumcision did to the Passeover, than not unbaptised person may be admitted to the Supper of the Lord, because none uncircumcised might be admitted to the Passeover.  
But Baptism 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 near forty year's intermission of Circumcision in the wilderness; in which time there was one Passeover, to be sure, if not many more: for I have that which will be more satisfactory than this.  
I shall therefore deny the Minor proposition: Baptism does not bear 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 express 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 express Law prohibiting communion in the Lord's Supper to such as upon any account are not baptised.  
I do acknowledge indeed that the New testament does implicitly enjoin Disciples of Christ to be baptised before they participate in the Lord's Supper; but not so as to make the latter act, to wit, communion in the Supper unlawful without the former. Though Baptism be enjoined 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 natural or moral opportunity be deferred 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 knows and acknowledgeth to be his duty. It is as much the duty of Pedobaptists to be baptised 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 baptised before they participate in the Supper; and yet who will say that it is a sin for them to pray, to read, or to hear the word for such an end? And if it be not a sin for them to do 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 do sin, their sin lies not in doing that which they know to be their duty; but in omitting that which is, but is not known by them so to be. And if these duties be lawful in them to do as Christians, can it reasonably be thought unlawful for us to join with them in them? May we not join with them and hold communion with them in that which is lawful (being men having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ) because we may not have communion with them, or join with them in that which is unlawful? 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 room for Christian communion between the weak and strong Christians in the Apostles days; 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 faithful in his house, as Moses was in his? Heb. 3.2. If so; hath not he been as particular and as strict in his laws for communion, as namely that no unbaptized person should taste of his Supper, as Moses was in forbidding the uncircumcised to eat of the Passeover?  
Answ. Christ is and hath been as faithful in his house, as Moses was in his; but how? not in descending to so many particularities about external 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● faithful to the extent of his Commission, so was Christ to the utmost latitude of his. But than it will follow, that if Christ hath no where given a law in like manner, and upon like terms, 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 father's 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 showed, 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, than Baptism does; and consequently that as the literal Circumcision was the boundary of communion in the old Testament Church, so the spiritual Circumcision is the boundary of communion in the New Testament Church: No men being to be known 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 Baptism is an argument that the new creatureship is wanting, so fare 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 only as are baptised after faith, be more safe and more full of Scripture light and evidence, than the practice of holding communion with Pedobaptists is, than such a practice is rather to be chosen then the other.  
But the practice of holding communion with such only as are baptised after faith, is more safe, and more full of Scripture-light and evidence, than the other is: Therefore etc.  
Answ. Here the Minor is again denied: It is not more safe nor more full of Scripture-light and evidence to hold communion with such only as are baptised after faith, when in the doing of it, communion with other godly Christians of different persuasion, is rejected. There is no Scripture-light or evidence for this, neither of precept or example, (as will be further showed afterwards) but is a practice attended with danger and inconvenience both to themselves and others, and to the affairs of Jesus Christ now abroad in the world, as hath already been showed, and needs not here to be repeated, and will be further touched on afterward.  
And this much shall suffice for the taking down 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 room, which as I judge, will be more substantial, beautiful, and serviceable, than the other was.    

Six Arguments for the lawfulness of Church-Communion, between the godly Pedobaptists and Anabaptists, notwithstanding their different persuasion touching infant and after Baptism.  

I. Argument.  
ALL those that are visibly of Christ's universal body, have thereby a right to communion in particular Churches: but some which are for infant Baptism, are visibly of Christ's universal body: therefore some which are for infant baptism, have a right to communion in particular Churches.  
Before I endeavour the proof of the proposition, take a word for explication of some of the terms of it.  
By the universal body of Christ, I mean all those that are actually united to him, and are thereby in an actual and present capacity of being saved by him. Those in Scripture are called the body of Christ; his body the Church; the whole body; and the general assembly and Church of the firstborn, 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 Christ's body, and yet not visibly so, are such as are united to Christ by internal 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 spiritual union. And of this number are many of those that are for infant baptism. Thus much for explication; now to our proof of the proposition.  
It is affirmed in the Major proposition, that all those that are visibly of Christ's universal 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 essential to communion, as union? In all bodies whether natural, mystical, or political, communion of parts flows from union with the whole. Christ being the common head of Christians, and centre 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 mutual help, is the natural effect and common right of such union. It would be monstrous 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 own 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 forbidden!  
2. Communion is the end of union, or that for the sake of which union is made. Christ took our nature into union with himself, that by communication he might become Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption to us. And he hath knit together the several parts, that the whole body might increase and be edified by that which every joint supplieth by the effectual 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 cross 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 rendered) 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 Christ's, 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 Christ's flock, belongs to every one that by Christ enters into his own sheepfold, John 10.9. To conclude then; what better, stronger, or more rightful claim, can any have to communion in a particular Church, than his membership in the universal?  
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 bar to ones communion with the Church, at such time as his union with it, is not denied. The Apostle commands to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, not working at all, but walking as a busybody; 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 less than to acknowledge him as yet a brother in the universal Church, and yet to deny him communion in their particular society? 2 Thes: 3. 6-15.  
Answ. When such scandals in life or doctrine are found in a person that hath been owned for one of Christ's Church, as does so fare contradict that christian profession by which he was first received into communion with the Church, as to give just ground of suspicion that there was never that internal 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 doubtful & suspicious posture, and in a way of ripening for a final judgement of the Church about his cutting off; such a carriage of the Church towards such a Delinquent, seems most suitable, as by which he shall be declared neither clearly on, nor clearly off the Church, but hanging in suspense; 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 seems clearly to be the case of those whom the Apostolical rule in 2 Thes: 3. 6-15 concerns. But then this will not be found of force against the admission of such godly Pedobaptists to Church-communion, who hold their supposed error upon such terms, as does not at all render their spiritual and internal union with Christ, & so with his Church, justly suspected in the account of sober, impartial, 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 withdrawing 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 days 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 merely through weakness and want of conviction, were found in these things disorderly and non-obedient to those Apostolical 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 moral nature, and of public scandal to those without as well as those within the Church, and not matter of doubtful 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 enjoins withdrawing from in 2 Thes: 3. Yea it was an evil of that nature, and so contradictious to the Christian profession, that according to the same Apostles own account, whosoever made himself guilty of it, denied the faith, and rendered himself worse than an I● fiddle, 1 Tim: 5.8. And therefore no marvel if not meet to be continued in communion, when the profession and conversation, the only visible witness of internal union, is rendered invalid by so mighty a contradiction.  
But what's this to the godly Pedobaptists case? whose supposed error is not of a moral nature, nor of public scandal to those without, nor such as does invalidate the testimony of their profession and conversation, as witnessing their internal union with Christ and his Church; nor so much as rendering it doubtful, nor justly to be suspected; but a matter of doubtful disputation among many of those that are truly godly, and not of least discerning in spiritual affairs.  
Obj. 2. It may be yet further objected; that though its true that membership with Christ, and in the Church universal, gives a remote right to communion in particular Churches, yet none can have an immediate right without Baptism after faith, that being the door of entrance into the Church.  
To this I answer; 1. That though its true that Baptism is necessary by way of duty to give a man an orderly and complete right to particular Church-fellowship, when he hath an opportunity of being baptised, 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 Baptism, is the want of opportunity to enjoy it. The truth whereof appears by this undeniable reason: Baptism is no more necessary to Church-communion, than it is to salvation. For how can the means be more necessary to the subordinate, than it is to the principal end? If Baptism 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 Baptism 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 one's duty in this kind is wanting. This is our constant protestant doctrine, against the too much rigidity of Popish necessity. And therefore if Baptism be necessary to salvation but upon such terms, then surely it cannot be necessary to Church-communion upon higher or more strict terms; if any thing may be remitted in the strictness of the terms of necessity, it would rather be as it relates to its less principal than principal end.  
But now that the true reason why the godly Pedobaptists are not baptised after faith, is the want of a moral opportunity, is a thing not to be doubted. For all the while they remain unconvinced that it is their duty, or so much as lawful for them to be so baptised, so long they are clearly under the want of a moral opportunity of receiving such a Baptism. For they can no more lawfully be so baptised during the time of such dissatisfaction, than 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 congregational worship, (the time prescribed for Circumcision considered) as it is the duty of believers to be baptised before admission to Church communion, (yea the Law was more express in that point then the Gospel is in this,) and yet for want of opportunity of performing the one, the other was enjoyed without it for a certain season in the wilderness. The want then of a moral opportunity of doing that which in order of nature should go before, is not a bar against the doing of all hat which according to common order should follow after; for than it would as well be unlawful for the godly Pedobaptists to proceed in a long continued course of hearing, praying, etc. for their edification in the grace they have received, as it would be for them to break bread in remembrance of the Lords death; because their baptism after faith, aught 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, until 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 break bread and perform other Christian duties before they are baptised; but in this, that they omit Baptism after the proper season of it. And it does not follow that communion may not be held with them in that which is lawful, yea their duty, because it may not be held with them in that which is their supposed weakness 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 internal union with the Church, to give only a remote right to Church-communion, but Baptism the immediate right, I further answer thus; Baptism does not of itself constitute a right to Church-communion, but is declarative of that which does: it is the union by grace which constitutes a man's right when made visible, and not Baptism otherwise then as it is declarative of this. That this is so, appears thus: When such a heresy or scandalous life does occur a man that hath been baptised, as does totally obscure the grace of union, or declare the nonbeing of it; his Baptism cannot protect him from being cut off communion with the Church, as it would do, if of itself it did constitute a man's right. And is there not the same reason why the involuntary want of regular Baptism should not deprive a man of communion, if the grace of union which does constitute his right to it be apparently visible otherwise? If baptism 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, Baptism is reputed the door of entrance into the Church: and the Scripture saith, that by one Spirit, we are all baptised into o●e body, 1 Cor: 12.13. But how? Surely not by original constitution, but by way of sign and solemnisation. Which agrees to the nature and usual description of Sacraments, as they are called, as consisting of outward sign, and inward grace: the letter of the ordinance as to this use of it, being but the sign of the spiritual union and communion which by it is professedly declared to be between him that is baptised, and the rest of Christ's body. So that men's actual, real, and spiritual union and membership with Christ, and so with the Church (which is the ground of communion) is supposed and ought to precede the solemnisation of it by way of sign. The sign, to wit, Baptism with water, delivers the baptised into the visible union and communion of the Church, by pointing to and declaring their inward and spiritual union and communion with it, as that which gives them right to outward and visible communion. If then the grace of spiritual union which fundamentally gives a man right to Church-communion, may be evidenced and declared by other means without regular Baptism, (though its every Christians duty to have his baptism concur in such declaration, when he hath opportunity so to do,) it will not follow then, that the want of such baptism betiding a man through unavoidable necessity in the want of opportunity, will deprive him of an immediate right to such communion. But that the grace of spiritual union which many that are for infant baptism, have with Christ the head, and his body the Church, is clearly evidenced, though they not baptised after faith, is that which in the next place I am to undertake the proof of.  
My Minor proposition then, was this: But some which are for infant baptism, are visibly of Christ's universal body: which I prove thus.  
1. If those essential and constitutive properties and marks, by which the visible members of the primitive Churches which were of Christ's universal body, were described and distinguished from those that were not, are visibly in some that are for infant baptism, than some that are for infant baptism, are visibly of Christ's universal body.  
But those essential and constitutive properties and marks by which the visible members of the primitive Churches that were of Christ's universal body, were described and distinguished, are visible in some that are for infant baptism. Therefore, etc.  
I suppose the consequence of the Major proposition, will not be denied, viz. that if the same things which essentially made the sound members of the primitive Churches to be visibly of the universal 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 formal differences which are argumentative and declarative of the kind, do argue and declare all to be of that kind, in whom those properties and formal differences are found. If a humane body and reasonable soul be essential to mankind, and that by which that kind of creature doth formally differ from all other; than it must needs follow that all that have a humane body and reasonable soul, (what ever other defects in nature they have,) are of mankind.  
For the examination of the truth of the Minor; we will consider what those essential and constitutive properties and marks were, by which those of the primitive Churches were discerned to be of Christ's universal 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 baptism. Those that were of Christ's body in Rome, you have distinguished from the rest in Rome that were not, by this property; 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 elsewhere, 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 faithful 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 faithful brethren in Christ, Col: 1.2.  
Now that there are many of those that are for infant baptism, 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 faithful in Christ Jesus; are faithful 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 think otherwise would argue little skill in Christianity, and an extraordinary deep poverty in charity.  
2. I further prove that some that are for infant baptism, are of the universal body of Christ, thus. All that do truly believe in Jesus Christ, are members of that universal body whereof he is the head: but some for infant baptism do so believe, Ergo, etc. The Minor needs no proof. The Major, viz. that so many of those that are for infant baptism as do 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 own house: whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. Again, ver: 14. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast 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 privilege. 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 baptism, will produce the same effect, and procure them the same privilege. The Saints are called the household of faith, (Gal: 6.10.) as receiving that denomination from their faith which makes them of God's 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 God's house for ever, as members of his family, Joh. 8.35. For God hath no children that are not of his household.  
3. If some that are for infant baptism are reconciled to God by Christ's death on the cross, upon their believing, and so through Christ, and by the Spirit, have an access unto the father, than such are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-Citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God, Ephes: 2. 16-19.  
But some that are for infant baptism, are so reconciled, and have such an access to the father: This is not without the concession of the Antipedobaptists, and therefore needs no farther proof. Therefore we may well conclude, that some that are for infant baptism, are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God.  
Object. Against the pertinency of the forecited proofs to conclude Pedobaptists to be visibly of the body of Christ, it may perhaps be objected; that all those Christians of the several Churches, of which the forecited Scriptures make mention, were all baptised 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 baptised after faith, to be of the Church, that therefore they must denominate such as are not baptised after faith, to be of the Church likewise. For as they had one faith, so they had one baptism (Eph: 4.5.) and this did bear 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 faithful in Christ; would it not be reasonable to think that all such 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 baptised after profession of faith?  
1. The most that I think can rationally be said, is, that the Baptism of those Christians in the primitive Churches, did bear it; share, and was one ingredient in denominating them persons called to be Saints, sanctified in Christ Jesus, etc. 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 main, 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 complete and rich as theirs was. So that if this defect, and the want of this ingredient of regular baptism, do not nullify the visibility of the faith, calling, and sanctification of the Pedobaptists, than they may truly be said to have the same faith, calling, and sanctification in kind, if not in degree, which the primitive Saints had. Baptism doth not constitute another kind of faith and Saintship than the same persons had before they were baptised; all that can be supposed, is, that it tends towards the completing 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 baptism, and that in point of degree. If the visibility of Saintship in Pedobaptists, be defective for want of regular baptism; 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 erroneous opinions, superstitious customs, uncharitable contentions & censurings, and other too much sensual 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, do not shine much brighter, and give a far more distinct and indubitable testimony of their spiritual and internal membership with Christ and his Church, than 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 himself, those his children ought to receive to communion with them.  
But some that are for infant Baptism are such whom the Lord hath received into communion with himself. 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 again, Rom: 14.1, 3. Him that is weak 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 Jew's and Gentiles stood at too great a distance by reason of their different persuasion touching several things. That by which the Apostle would convince them of their error herein, and so bring them to close communion, is by laying before them the dissimilitude that was between the Lord's 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 duty. 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 form, would be this. Those whom the Lord receives to communion, his people ought to receive to communion too: but the Lord receives both Jews and Gentiles, weak and strong Christians, notwithstanding their different persuasions, therefore you his people ought to do 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 baptised persons, and therefore that by which they were obliged to receive one another, can be no rule for such as are baptised, to receive such as are unbaptised, to communion.  
Answ. Suppose they were all baptised; yet their receiving one another is not urged from their baptism, but from the Lords receiving them. Their baptism 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 error about Baptism can be a reason why such erroneous persons should not be received, further than 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 only a receiving one another to a nearer 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 always includes and supposes the first. If it be lawful for me to go with one two miles, it cannot be unlawful for me to go with him one.  
Again, Consider Acts 15.8, 9 for further proof of my proposition; And God which knoweth the hearts, bore them witness, 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 needful to circumcise the believing Gentiles; a thing which some believing Jews 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, than they ought not among themselves: but God made none, but exhibited an equal 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 baptised and not baptised 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, than was to be made among the circumcised and uncircumcised believers. For if God's 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 equal distribution of God's grace and Spirit to persons that are not, as well as to those that are baptised 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 God's carriage towards them that did differ, in giving them an equal 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 justify the Apostle Peter's 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, seems to be this; That if after God had given them an equal 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 wont difference in his carriage towards Jews and Gentiles, he should have withstood God who now made no difference, but shown the same favour to the one as to the other. To keep at a distance then from those to whom God draws nigh in his special 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 clearly the doctrine of this text? And if so, what shall we then think of those separations that abound in our days of Godly men from Godly upon account of particular differences, when God in the mean time is alike nigh to both in his special 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 Peter's going into and eating with the Gentiles; and therefore the lawfulness of the one, cannot be inferred from the lawfulness of the other.  
Answ. No more was the not muzzling the mouth of the Ox which trod out the Corn, 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 ears of Corn on the Sabbath day, the same with David's eating of the Shewbread, and the Priests slaying of sacrifice on the Sabbath, Math: 12.3, 4, 5. and yet the general 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 Peter's going into the Gentiles, and of admitting Pedobaptists to communion; though in other things they differ, yet in this they agree, viz. in that Peter's 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 equal share of special grace vouchsafed by God to the differing parties now, as well as was then. And therefore why should not this consideration, serve to satisfy 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 do otherwise, by his example of vouchsafing equal communion to both. God's equal distribution of special grace to parties that differ, seems to be so good a ground of communion one with another, as swallows up and bears down, 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, than 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 ministry (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 mark at which all Church-transactions are to aim, and to which to be leveled, 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 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 work 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 cross 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 Christ's doctrine in the case, as I understand it Mark 2.25, 26, 27. Spiritual gifts also, and in particular that of tongues, were given for the same general 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 unuseful as to its end, viz. edification; the suspension of its exercise was enjoined, 1 Cor: 14.5, 28. So though regular Baptism, according to one's 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 Baptism in order to communion, shall cross 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 do, is easy 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 Apostle make the increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love, to depend upon the joining together of the parts, and the supply of every joint, and the effectual working of the measure of every part, Eph: 4.16. Whereas on the contrary, distance and separation, deprives them of that spiritual commerce, and so tends to their impoverishing. Just as it is between Country and Country; when differences break out that obstruct their wont trade, they grow poor upon it. Or as it is with the natural body, which weakens, wastes and consumes, when the nutrimental intercourse between part and part is obstructed. And the sad decays among professors since their many differences in opinion have multiplied their separations, doth woefully 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 counsel, 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 enjoined Rom: 15.1, 2. For charity beareth all things, endureth 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 evil, but believeth all things, hopeth all things, and rejoiceth in the truth, 1 Cor: 13.6, 7. But separation breeds alienation and diminution of affection, more or less, and so weakens endeavours of edification, and turns them into another channel. For to what degree the spring of motion grows weak, to that degree motion itself will be slow. And to what degree love decreaseth, prejudice, jealousies, and evil surmises, 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 practices, will occasion cotentions, and those contentions will hinder edification and comfort: and therefore communion on such terms, may be as much and more against edification, than separation.  
Answ. I have sometimes thought so indeed. But  
1. Two that are agreed in the most and greatest matters, may and aught to walk together, though in some fewer and lesser things they disagree. Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, with humble expectation concerning such that in any thing are otherwise minded, that God shall reveal even this unto them, Phil: 3.15, 16. The 14 and 15 Chap: Rom: is clear for this.  
2. Whereas it's said those differences will occasion contentions, and those contentions will hinder edification and comfort: That they may do so through men's weakness, I grant, but that they must necessarily so do I deny, and do affirm that when ever such contentions do arise between the godly, as do hinder edification; it is from want of wisdom, humility and moderation, in one or both parties: and to what is objected, is no more an argument against the communion we speak of, than men's insidence to infirmities and fleshly mixtures in prayer, or any other holy-duty, is an argument against the use of the duty itself. It is true, the difference among the Christians at Rome, did oocasion through intemperate zeal, carnal contentions, despisings and judge 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 justify one fault by another.  
Object. But for those that cannot hold Church-communion in breaking of bread with those that are not baptised after faith, yet if they can hold an occasional 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. It's confessed that those that go thus fare, have offered fair towards the demolishing of the wall of separation, and so of freeing themselves of the evils occasioned by its standing.  
2. But though such a partial separation as this, is not so much an enemy to edification as a total one is, yet if separation of godly from godly in the simple nature of it be a necessary hindrance of edification, (and whether it be nor, judge by what's said in my argument) than every degree of such separation, must to a degree be guilty of the same evil. Without all doubt this partial separation, is to a degree a hindrance to charity, and consequently to the same degree a hindrance of edification. Though there may be much love between parties that come so near together as to hold communion in gifts and graces, yet questionless there would be yet more, if that which keeps them as yet at some distance, were also removed. It's well worthy consideration, that the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances, which were the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles, are by the Apostle, Ephes. 2.15. styled the [enmity] and the breaking down 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 clearly let us see, that separation as such, is attended with enmity, more or less?  
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 lawfulness of communion with them in breaking of bread also, if they would but follow it. For do they not by joining 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, than believers in Christ, by which belief they are made the children of God: and if believers in Christ, than members of Christ; and if members of Christ, then of his body the Church; and if of Christ's body, then that they have communion with him in his flesh, & blood, and Spirit, and what can they acknoweldge that amounts to more than this, by having communion with them in the Lord's Supper? Or have they any example or direction in Scripture to join with them in prayer, with whom they may not join 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 void 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 Baptism, (for all conscience of duty, arises from precept or precedent.)  
But separation of Saints from Saints upon any account of difference that does not unsaint them, or render their Saintship justly suspected, is void of Scripture-precept and of approved Scripture-president. Ergo.  
That such separation is void of Scripture-precept and of approved Scripture-president, I take for granted, till the contrary do appear, 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 carnal account, Heb: 10.25. that went out from them, because they were not of them, 1 Joh: 2.19. but they were sensual, not having the Spirit, Judas 19 There were others not so bad that did not proceed so fare, 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 alleged for Scripture-precept in the case; I take to be impertinent, and to fall short in proof 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 avoid them. 1. These were not Saints which they were to avoid, but such as served not the Lord Jesus, but their own bellies, ver. 18. 2. The divisions and offences caused by them, for the sake of which they were to be avoided, were not about lesser matters, or such offences as would consist with Saintship; for it was so fare from being a duty to avoid 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 avoided; then they were not to be avoided for causing such divisions simply, (for so the Saints did which were to be received, Rom: 14.) but for causing them out of a carnal design to serve their own bellies.  
Another is, 2 Thes: 3.6. Withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, etc. But to this I have spoken already in my first Argument, to which I refer you.  
A third Scripture alleged for separation, is, 2 Cor: 6.17. Wherefore come out from among them, etc. But this does not call Saints from Saints, but Saints from infidel 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 find some to lay the greatest stress, 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 Mystical 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 behind, the rest that understand it, and have a mind to obey it, must leave them behind 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 speak, 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 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 voice. The saying of Christ doth not import that those other sheep which he calls his, were then his by calling when he spoke those words, but were afterwards to become his, when he should bring them to hear his voice.  
2. Or secondly, if the words do import a people that are Gods by call and covenant, that live in Babylon, then come out of her my people, etc. may import Gods call to them for a local remove, though in no actual communion with her, partly to avoid 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 ruin to those Cities. And then the words will no more imply a Church-separation, than 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 God's people, even then while as yet they are in superstitious communion with such Idolaters or others in Babylon, as are none of God's 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 Roman Babylon, that in the midst of so much wood, hay and stubble of error 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 that are in some of their tenants heretical, 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 Presbyterial, 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 intolerably bad; and there the separation is properly and directly from the intolerably 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 intolerably evil-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 itself. For in the Popish Assemblies, you cannot have communion in the Lord's Supper itself (which is so essential 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 actual participation in any one act of superstition. For he that deemeth the sprinkling or baptising 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 Jews, (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 punctual time of that feast; and yet denied not his communion with them in other things wherein he and they were agreed. So that neither doth this Rev: 18.4. any ways appear 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 baptised after faith, to hold communion with such who have not been baptised otherwise then by infant sprinkling, is as void of Scripture-precept and Scripture-president, as is the separation of godly from godly: and why then is not the one as unlawful 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 aught to sway us and carry us along with them, in all such cases wherein we are not bound to the contrary by an express rule. Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which you are called in one body, Col: 3.15. Let it rule, reign, or umpire, as the word is rendered. It must then have the casting voice when things otherwise are in an equapoiz; and as a King give Laws in such cases. The law of love is the royal Law, James 2.8 it hath the sovereign and commanding power over inferior laws of particular order. And edification must overrule us in many cases, as being that to which Church-ordinances and order are subordinate; as I shown in my former argument. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and the things by which we may edify 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, than their separation for their difference sake would do, is a thing that shines by its own light, and is evidenced in my former argument.  
2. Though we have no particular precept or precedent in the case objected, yet we have general 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 another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Rom: 14. Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye. Rom: 15. We that are strong, aught to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves: 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 errors as are but Saints infirmities, amongst which the mistakes about Baptism in controversy between them, must certainly be numbered.   

V Argument.  
THat practice which necessarily makes a schism in the body of Christ, is sinful.  
But separation of Saints from Saints upon account of difference between them, necessarily makes a schism in the body of Christ. Therefore etc.  
That to make a schism in the body of Christ, is a sinful act in whomsoever found, is evident, because its contrary to the declared will of the Lord, who would have no schism 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 schism 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 schism in the body of Christ, is easy 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 schism in the body, if any thing be. And so they do more especially, when they refuse communion with one another, in the Supper of the Lord. For as by their mutual communion therein, their oneness is in special signified and professed, 1 Cor: 10.17. so by their denial of communion therein, that oneness is denied: and what's this but schism in the formality of it?  
Object. When the godly are in their communion, mixed with others that are ungodly, and such with whom communion is forbidden, then either to withdraw from such godly ones, is no sinful schism; or else other of the Saints are necessitated to sin, either in withdrawing from the Saints in such mixed 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 it's 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 lawfulness of communion between a godly Congregation of Anabaptists, and a godly and reformed Congregation of Pedobaptists.  
Object. Though we do own the godly Pedobaptists to be members of Christs-body, yet withal because their visible Church-state and ministry, is founded in infant baptism, 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 schism from them, respects not their christian, but their harlot or antichristian state.  
Answ. 1. When you own the godly Pedobaptists to be of Christ's body, it is because they are visibly so, for upon no other account can they be known 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 Christ's body, and yet to affirm 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 bodies at once. As by the same actions by which a man makes himself a friend of the world, he makes himself an enemy to God, James 4.4. So by the same actions by which a man makes himself a member of the harlot Church, he (for aught I know) cuts himself off from the body of Christ, or true Church. And the reason is clearly this; because the mystical 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 wholeness only excepted: if the harlot be under divorcement as such, than all that make up that harlot state are so. And therefore whilst you acknowledge them members of Christ's body, you cannot rationally repute them of the whorish state.  
2. It is not every erroneous 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 loyal to Christ in the main; no more than every wanton or immodest word, look, or gesture, will denominate a woman to be a whore, who is otherwise loyal to her husband in the main. The good Kings, Solomon, Asa, and Jehosaphat, were guilty of a little spiritual immodesty, in using, or at least tolerating the high places, but did not come under a spiritual 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 God's worship. There's a great deal of difference between that which is essential to the constituting of a state, and other things which enter not the definition thereof. A bad man may do many good things, and a good man many evil, by which neither are to be denominated good or bad, but by what they are and do in the main, by what is predominant in them. So those that are of the whorish state, may hold many of the same truths, and do some of the same good deeds which a sound member of Christ's Church may do, and yet not thereby be worthy the denomination of such a member as long as their corruptions in doctrine, worship, and life, outweigh these. And it's as true that some that are not of the whorish state, may be tainted with some of her errors and superstitions, which as to matter of constitution of state, may be much overbalanced by soundness of faith, purity of worship, and sincerity of life in the main. 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 spiritual lightness, that our consciences tell us, are in the state of grace, and Spouse-like, love Christ more than they do any other. It would provoke even a good man to have his wife called whore, whom he knows guilty only of some lesser faults: and surely it does no less displease the Lord to have such as are espoused to him, to be so dealt with.  
3. It remains then that I add one thing more for the completing my answer to the objection, and that is; That communion with Saints that are in some things erroneous and superstitious, does not infer a communion in the error or superstition itself, whilst you bear your witness against it. This is plain, otherwise the strong must have been guilty of the error 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 follows then, that such involuntary errors in persons as do consist with the visibility of true grace, do not render communion with them unlawful, in such things which are not of themselves unlawful: we may hold communion with them in their graces, and in their duties, though not in their errors. Though you may and aught to withdraw your communion in such acts wherein you are sure they have not communion with Christ, yet you may not do so in those in which you know they have.   

VI Argument.  
IF the godly Anabaptists, do hold communion with the godly Pedobaptists, in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper, Than it is not unlawful but their duty for them to hold communion in breaking of bread itself which is the sign.  
But the godly Anabaptists and godly Pedobaptists, do hold communion one with another in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lord's Supper. Therefore etc.  
That which is signified by the use of the bread and cup in the Lord's Supper, is showed 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 spiritual meat, and drinking the same spiritual drink, I think will not be denied, and therefore needs no proof. But that which requires a further demonstration, is the Major proposition. The reason then why it's not unlawful but a duty for those to hold communion in the sign, that have communion in the substance, or thing signified, is  
1. Because so to do answers the end of the ordinance: whereas a denial of communion in the sign where it is held in substance, would cross the very end of the ordinance. The sign is ordained but for the thing sake unto which it does relate: the outward communion in the sign bread and wine, is appointed to signify and increase the communicants inward and spiritual 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 Christ's body and blood) there to deny the use and enjoyment of the means appointed by God to signify it, (to wit, communion in the Supper) would be to cross the very end of that ordinance. If partners that have a joint stock in trade, and so a joint interest in it, should refuse to acknowledge and declare to each other their respective interests, by such signs as are customary among men in such cases, it would be accounted a great piece of injustice. And is it any less than a piece of spiritual injustice for those that have a joint interest in Christ's body and blood, to refuse to acknowledge and declare it to each other, and before all, by such a sign which the Lord hath appointed for that purpose?  
2. Because men's right to the sign, proceeds from their right to the thing signified. As those that have a right to such 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 sign thereof, would be an injury likewise. And as spiritual things are of more value then temporal, so an injury in them is greater than an injury in the other.  
3. It's 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 less; the greater still including the less. 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 do, is certainly to have, hold, and enjoy communion together in the greater, better, more spiritual and more substantial part of it; and therefore to deny it in the outside and letter of it, which is fare less considerable, seems very incongruous and contradictious.    

An exhortation to unity, peace, and concord.  
HAving said this much by way of Argument touching the unlawfulness of Separation, and the lawfulness of communion between Saints, though of different persuasion; I shall now add a little more to quicken the brethren on both sides, to unity, concord, and peace; which have been too long divided and too much estranged one from another. For this end let it be seriously considered;  
1. That the heart and soul of our Lord Jesus, is exceedingly set upon the unity, not only of the Saints of this or that particular and different persuasion, but of all those that believe through his Apostles word, how different soever in opinion and persuasion, they otherwise may be. And this appears; 1. In that Christ made it matter of his solemn address unto his father, that so it might be. John 17.20, 21. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: that they [all] may be one. 2. In that it was the subject matter of one of his last requests to his father now he was about to leave the world. Those things usually are most upon the heart, which men bring forth at such a time when they are ready to die. 3. And which is yet more: among all the things which concern the Saints here in this world, he singles out this of their unity, as that which was most upon his heart to form into a solemn request unto his father on their behalf. There are upon the matter but two things which he prayed for in the behalf of all those that should believe, contained in that part of his prayer which you have from v. 20. to the end of John 17. the one of which respecting their future condition in the other world; and that is that they might be with him where he is, to behold his glory: and the other respecting their present condition in this world; and that is that they all might be one. So than although there be many other things wherein the comfort and welfare of the Saints in this world are concerned, yet their unity and agreement is that which Christ singles out from among all the rest, as being most upon his heart, and as one would think, should therefore be that thing wherein their peace and welfare is most concerned. 4. It's further most worthy observation, that among all the things which Christ prayed for in this prayer recorded in John 17. he does not insist so much upon any one thing as this of unity among the Saints. And therefore you have him redoubling this petition again and again, and mentioning it a third and a fourth time also, as you may see in ver. 11, 21, 22, 23. As if his heart were so full of it, as that it could not be all brought out at once but by degrees: it was out of the abundance of his heart, that he abounded so much in this one petition.  
And is the heart of our dear Lord so much in it? and shall not the heart of every one to whom he is dear, be much in it too! Can you follow a better pattern, or write after a better copy? It is without all doubt that the more you have of the same Spirit that dwelled in him, the more it will enlarge your hearts this way in conformity to this heavenly temper that was so eminent in him. And the more you shall find your hearts run out to this thing, as Christ's did, the more shall you be enriched with an assurance of your dwelling in him and he in you, 1 John 4.13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And what way is there in all the world for you to indeer yourselves to Christ more, then in being found according to his own heart? Do not good dispositioned parents, take most pleasure in those children that are most of their own temper? and so does Christ in those that are most like him. How great a praise was it to David to be said to be a man after Gods own heart! (Acts 13.22.) and I am sure it will be your glory in this, to be men after Christ's own heart. Did Christ pray and pray so earnestly for this thing, that all that are believers should be one? why then let those that would be like him, and profess to be learners of him, do so too. And not only pray, but earnestly endeavour by use of means to bring that to pass which we earnestly pray for. If men were but as willing and desirous to please Christ Jesus, and to gratify the desire of his soul in this, as they seem to be in some other things towards which he hath given no such apparent manifestation of his affection, we should certainly have things at another pass among the people of God, then now they are. And I pray you why should we not be most for that in which he most delights?  
2. And therefore consider further, that love and kindness and cleaving of heart, and affection of Saints to Saints, is that which Christ among other things most desires, as being that grace wherein he hath most abounded towards them, and by which they will be most Christ-like, and so most Christian. As the greatness of his affection to union among the Saints, was expressed by his praying for it again and again in the same prayer, so does his great longing after love among all his Disciples, manifestly appear by his fervent and importunate pressing and enjoining it again and again and again in one and the same speech or Sermon, and in that also which was his farewell Sermon when he was now leaving them and the world, wherein to be sure he would insist most upon that which lay most at his heart. And this he did with a note or sign of special appropriation fixed upon it, [my commandment] as if that were more especially his and had more of his heart in it than others. John 15.12. This is [my commandment,] that ye love one another, as I have loved you. John 13.34. A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another, John 15.17. These things I command you that ye love one another.  
And if Christ's heart ran most upon this, they are in no wise like to please him, that by contending for some particular point, which hath not it may be the tenth (if any) of the evidence of his mind, will and affection in it, which this hath, do make a breach upon and hinder this. It was said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? 1 Sam: 15.22. And may be said, hath Christ Jesus any such delight in your sacrificing a great part of the peace, charity, and comfort of the Saints, upon some controverted order or doctrine in the Church, as he hath in obeying him in this great command of his, that carries so much of his heart in it? For them that think so, let them again hearken to what he saith, Mat: 9.13. Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. And to love him with all the heart— and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices, Mark 12.33. And yet sacrifice was more expressly commanded, than most of those things that are the bone of contention among the people of God at this day. Love, mercy, and judgement, are the weightier matters of the Law, and therefore may by no means be thrust out by those that are less, as too commonly they are. What ever goes up, to be sure Religion and Christianity goes down when charity goes down. Therefore [above all these things] put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness, Col: 3.14.  
3. Add hereto another very weighty consideration, which is, That what ever knowledge you have of the mind of God, and what ever zeal you express for any truth of God, either concerning faith or practice, yet if while you hold fast other things, you let go charity, your knowledge, your zeal, though it were to the losing of your life for truth, will profit you nothing. 1 Cor: 13.2, 3. Though I understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. And left you should think it meant of that charity which consists in relieving of the poor, and not of that which consists in cleaving to and delighting in Saints as Saints, brethren as brethren; he saith also; Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing, 1 Cor: 13.3. All which nearly concerns such to mind, that are more careful and tender lest some other controverted truth should suffer, than charity, brotherly love and concord, should suffer; and care not what rents and divisions they make among the people of God, so that they may but propagate their particular opinion. If there be bitter zeal (as the Dutch translation hath it) glory not of thy knowledge, and lie not against the truth, as if thou wert the Gospel's friend, when by such a carriage thou art an enemy to it, James 3.14.  
4. Your contentions and divisions, if you maintain them, they will destroy you in your spiritual trade, and keep you from thriving by the means and opportunities of grace you enjoy. It was a sad thing wherewith the Apostle charged the Corinthian Christians, that when they came together to exercise themselves in the holy ordinances of the Lord, it proved to be not for the better, but for the worse, 1 Cor: 11.17. But upon what doth he charge this dreadful miscarriage of their going backward in their trade, and of growing worse and worse by what was provided for their welfare? Verily it was their divisions that was the cause of all this mischief. Ver. 18. Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse. How does that appear? For first of all, when ye come together in the Church, I hear that there be divisions among you. Concluding that so it must be that their divisions would occasion their decay and loss under the richest enjoyments otherwise; for they abounded exceedingly with spiritual gifts, Chap: 1.5, 7. Chap. 14. The truth is, they eat out the very heart of Religion: men may grow rich in a form of knowledge, and express a great deal of zeal for the outside of Religion; and in the mean while be languishing in the very vitals of Christianity, while they live in division and strife: For where envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work, James 3.16. This will be as a worm at the root of your tree that will keep it from prospering, what ever cost you otherwise bestow upon it.  
If then you have any mind to keep up Religion in heart among you, and not to have your wine to become as water, having lost its heart and spirit: If you would have the Gospel ordinances to yield you their increase, and all your Religion not to degenerate into form: If you would yield God an acceptable and pleasant fruit of all his cost, and not such as is starvie, harsh, and unsavoury: If you would not turn the fruit of righteousness into hemlock: If you would be freed from such a predominant distemper, as will hinder your spiritual relish, and convert your food into a noxious humour, and subject you to a languishing disease in the midst of plenty; Then abandon contention, and lay aside division, and with a spirit of love, meekness, and peace, communicate your different thoughts, and patiently bear with a conscientious dissent.  
5. If you would secure the Protestant Religion and Cause from being a prey to the lurking Papist, and from being swollowed up of Atheists, Libertines, Apostates, Quakers, by all which it is at this day sorely assaulted and dangerously beset, then unite heart, and head, and hand, to make one strength to withstand them, that no man take your Crown. For your divisions encourageth them in their designs, invites them to attempt upon you, and prepares many to fall in with them. So that as long as you keep up your divisions, they will grow upon you, and get ground, and by little and little draw away your strength, and in conclusion overmaster you, if by uniting you prevent them not: A kingdom divided against itself, cannot stand, Mat: 12.25. And therefore if you shall so labour to maintain one particular Fort, as in doing it you lose the whole Nation; I mean so maintain a particular opinion in Religion, as by dividing about it, to endanger the loss of the whole; you will show yourselves (according to the proverb) to be penny wise and pound foolish: and will Christ ever thank you for such a service?  
6. The more you knit together in love for the great truth sake that dwelleth in you, the greater and richer [assurance of understanding] shall you have in the Mystery of the Father and of Christ. Col: 2.2. Being knit together in love, unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, etc. Being knit together in love, bears the relation of a means, to the full assurance of understanding, as the end. It's one thing to know what the Gospel treats of; and another thing to know assuredly that all that which the Gospel treats of, is true and is no lie: Many have much of the former, which as it is to be feared, have little of the latter. And yet some too, that have less of the former than others, but more love, have more of the latter than they. The Lord takes such pleasure in the close cleaving of the hearts of his servants one to another, as that he crownes it with this assurance of understanding: rooting and grounding them in love; and establishing them in the present truth. Hence I suppose it is that you have many who though they have less knowledge, yet having more love, stand fast in the truth, whilst others that have a great deal more knowledge but little or no charity, are turned up by the roots. It's therefore prescribed by way of remedy or prevention against being tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, and slight of men that lie in wait to deceive, that the truth be spoken in love: that love, which is a uniting grace, accompany men's knowledge and profession of truth, Eph. 4.14, 15. And truly the full assurance of understanding, and to have the mind and conscience established in the truth in these shaking and declining times, is a prize worth the running for, especially in so pleasant a path, as love and union of heart and affection is.  
7. The more unanimous and harmonious you are, the more perfect you will be. You have much talk of perfection, and many pretend to it that are fare from it; but to be sure, it's the mark and aim of every sincere Christian, and I think does consist in nothing more next our love to God, then in the Saint's love and unity. This is the cry of the Scripture: That they may be made [perfect in one] John 17.23. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace, 2 Cor: 13.11. Above all these, put on charity, which is the bond of [perfectness,] Col: 3.14. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is [perfected in us] 1 John 4.12. And love is the fulfilling of the Law, Rom: 13.10. Which is more than can be said of any controverted opinion among the Saints: and therefore you mistake your way, if in your pursuit of perfection, you turn aside from love and unity, and make a faction to cry up some single opinion which is not of the essence of Christianity.  
8. The harmony and unity of the Saints, is a lovely object to behold, and an excellent ornament of your Christian profession, and very taking with others. Behold, how good, and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! Psal. 133.1. And while the believers were of one heart, and of one soul, great grace was upon them all: and the Lord added to the Church daily, such as should be saved, Acts 4.32, 33. & 2.47. Which cannot be said of any particular opinion extra-essentiall to Christianity: and therefore there's not that weight to be laid on it, as is to be in preserving the harmony, unity, and community of the Saints. But alas the contrary, works the quite contrary effect of disgrace and disparagement to our holy profession, and rendering it and the friends of it, less ; of which these days afford us more of the experience, then of the lovely, beautiful, and  effects of the Saints harmony.  
9 If you prise your comfort, prise agreement: for those that are living and not dead or benumbed members of Christ's body, cannot but be pained with the rending of one member from another of that body of which they are: If one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, 1 Cor: 12.26. Was it not a sorrowful sight to see the man in Mark 5.5. cutting himself with stones, and an argument that he was possessed with an evil spirit? Every one will grant it. And pray you how much less doleful is it to see the Saints, children of the living God, cutting and wounding themselves; for so they do, when they cut and wound one another; for they are members one of another, Rom: 12.5. Alas, how unnatural is it! for who ever hated his own flesh? Eph: 5.29. Certainly where thus it is, it's an argument they are under a spiritual frenzy and madness, and so are objects of very great commiseration, and are an occasion of much trouble and disturbance in their Father's house. But O the comfort of love, (as the Apostle phraseth it, Phil: 2.1.) the pleasure of peace, and the delight of harmony; like a well tuned Instrument, where there is no Jarring. Behold how good and how [pleasant] a thing it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity. It's not only good and profitable, but pleasant and comfortable also, Psal: 33.1. A great part of a Christians comfort in this world, lies in his communion with Saints. David saith, The Saints and excellent, were all his delight, Psal: 16.3. And therefore a breach in this, must needs make a great breach upon a Christians comfort.  
10. The more you are for union and reconciliation, and making of peace, the more you will be like God, whose infinite goodness and grace inclines him to seek after those that are at a fare greater distance from him, than any of the Saints are from one another: He is in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor: 5.19. Yea this is that good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one, all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him, Eph: 1.9, 10. Sin had divided and scattered his creatures in their affections as well from one another as from him; but the soul of the Almighty was so set upon their reconciliation and reunion, that he sends his Son Jesus Christ in due time, to gather them together into one in Christ as their common head. And for that end also he appointed the ministry, and from time to time furnisheth them with gifts, First, to persuade men to be reconciled unto God, (2 Cor: 5.19.) and then to bring them all to unity in the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. This God hath done to procure reconciliation and peace. And therefore blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God, Mat: 5.9. They whose hearts, and heads, and hands, are in it, that labour at it with desire to effect it, to bring men, especially the Saints to terms of peace and good agreement, they tread in their father's steps, follow the same work, design, affect, and labour at the same thing; and therefore well may they be called his children; and followers of God as dear children, Ephes. 5.1. And being his children, come under a great blessedness indeed, having such a father, whose affection and power for their advancement, hath no bounds but what an infinite wisdom sets. And truly if this will not set our hearts on fire to be at this work, I know not what will. If then you desire to make good unto your own souls the evidence of your Sonship and relation to God upon the best terms, it will not be enough for you to be yourselves persuaded to reconciliation and agreement with your dissenting brethren, but to be active and busy in procuring it in others where its wanting. For otherwise though you may be peace-keepers, yet you will have little to denominate you [peacemakers.]  
11. It's the way to have God with you and delight in you. He is so great a lover of peace and concord, that he will always make one at this work; you shall be sure to have his company and presence, both whilst you abide in it, and when you lift up your heart, hand, and tongue to promote it. Live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you, 2 Cor: 13.11. Such shall have God with them as a God of peace, speaking peace to them, evidencing himself to be at peace with them. I appeal to their consciences who have known the difference of living in a divided state, and of living in unity with all Saints, and of making themselves servants to so good a work as to reconcile Saints, whether they have not more inward peace from God, and a richer testimony of his love in the time of their reconciliation, union and professed conjunction with all Saints, than they had in the time of their distance from many of them. It's most true that he that dwells most in love, dwells most with God and God with him, 1 Joh: 4.12, 16. And how they can expect peace from God, that do not live in peace with all those with whom God is at peace, I know not. Especially considering that Christ hath told them, that if they from their heart, do not forgive their brother's trespasses, that then neither will their heavenly father forgive theirs, Mat. 6.14. & 18.35. And what kind of forgiveness that is that can stand with punishing their brethren for involuntary misprisions, with rejecting them from their communion, and carrying themselves towards them as if they were none of the same house, but children of another father, I desire may be deeply pondered by those whom it concerns.  
The Apostle exhorting the Ephesians to this very duty, backs it with no less than seven motives or reason, Eph: 4.3, 4, 5, 6. Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. For 1. There is one body; and 2. one Spirit, even as 3. ye are called in one hope of your calling: 4. One Lord; 5. one faith; 6. one Baptism; 7. one God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Each of which have very much in them to prevail with the divided hearts and unpeaceable spirits of professors, to lay aside their wars and contentions, which are but the offspring of their own lusts. James 4.1. & 3.15. 1 Cor: 3.3. Gal: 5.20. But I would not be tedious, and therefore shall not enlarge upon them, hoping that what hath been already said, cannot but come home to the conscience of all those whose uncharitableness hath not exceedingly hardened their heart.  
Neither do I doubt but that every one will be ready to acknowledge this which I have been exhorting to, to be every Christians duty, and will profess their great affection to unity and peace. But alas, experience shows, that it is too commonly with this proviso, or inward reserve, viz. so as that they may have unity and peace upon their own terms: unity in the truth, as they call it, and that truth, their particular opinion, upon which division is built. The meaning of which is, that they would maintain peace with all, provided that none would oppose them in their opinion, but say as they say: having that in their mouths, Jer: 15.19. Let them return to thee, but return not thou unto them; which they woefully abuse whiles they apply it to lesser differences. But if unity and peace, and communion too, were not to be had and held but upon such terms, what use would there be (in relation to different opinions in lesser matters,) of those many exhortations of bearing the infirmities of the weak; of long-suffering and forbearing one another in love; of bearing one another's burdens; of not looking every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others? Rom: 15.1. Ephes: 4.2. Col: 3.13. Gal: 6.2. Phil: 2.4. A cordial and peaceable communion, and forbearance are not inconsistent. Union, communion, and peace, must be kept and maintained upon Christians agreement in fundamentals of faith and holiness, when in the mean while, bearing and forbearing must be exercised in relation to those things wherein they otherwise differ. Which being the plain Scripture-road, it's much to be lamented that so many who seem zealous of the Scripture-pattern, should miss it.  
Therefore I beseech all those that love the Lord Jesus, and that love to do that which pleaseth him, that you suffer not those few and lesser things wherein you differ, to prevail more with you to keep at a distance, and to deny your communion to one another, than those many, great and precious things wherein you are agreed, to bring and bind you close together, and freely to afford your Christian communion one to another. Is it reasonable or hath such a thing been heard of in other cases, that the minor vote should carry it against the major? Lay aside then all prejudice, stiffness, and selfe-will'dnesse, and count it your glory that you can seek to others to receive you into closer communion, before they seek to you. And in your prosecution of this work of reconciling distant brethren, do not be beaten off, by others hanging off; but reckon it so choice a piece of generation-work in these dividing times, as that you can hardly lift up your heart, your tongue, your hand, to such another.  
And you that are Ministers of Christ, who is the Prince of peace, and of the Gospel, which is the Gospel of peace, and whose work is to guide men's feet into the way of peace, and the end of whose calling is, to bring all to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God: be entreated Reverend and beloved, to take heed of making the breach wider, and by any undue representations or aggravations, to frighten Saints of different persuasions, from coming near one another: but to persuade to christian moderation and forbearance, to a treating one another with a spirit of meekness, and an overcoming of one another with love, and herein to approve yourselves as patterns. And in so doing, you shall find more peace in your own souls, and procure more in the Churches, and find a greater success in your Ministry, make better tempered Christians, and set a more glorious Crown upon the head of the Gospel, than otherwise you are ever like to do.   
FINIS.