faith And the reason of the inconfecuence is taken from the difference of persons then and now There is a great difference in the qualification of the persons that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion then and many of the persons that have no Baptisme after profession of faith now and so the reason of non-communion varies accordingly Those in the primitive times that had no Baptisme and so no Church-communion had no faith nor made confession of any So that the reason of the primitive Saints non-communion with such was not simply their want of Baptiâ—me but their want of faith And the same non-qualification now would be a like reason unto us of non-communion But where persons have faith and this faith visible in their profession and conversation and have also the doctrine of Baptisme in the spirituall part of it both in judgement and practice and are confident they practically have it too in the litterall part which is the case of the godly Pedobaptists there the difference is exceeding broad and large between them and those unbaptized persons with whom the primitive Saints had no communion and so the same reason of non-communion will not suite both If the primitive Saints had no communion with such as the godly Pedobaptists it was not because they judged such unworthy their communion but because there was none such then in being that particular difference between Saints and Saints about Infant Baptisme not being then on foot but if there had I shall offer reason presenly to induce us to believe that communion with them would not have been refused by the best of Saints then in being on that ground In the meane time let it be considered that we have no example of the primitive Saints refusing communiâ—n with such as the godly Pedobaptists are and therefore by their example cannot be obliged to refuse communion with them their example of non-communion with unbaptized unbelievers is forraigne and irrelative to our case and question and therefore it is altogether impertinent in its allegation But if there were or had been any such in the primitive times as the godly Pedobaptists are yet that we may be confident that the best of Saints in those times would not have refused communion with them I shall offer these reasons 1. We have no approved example of their refusing communion with any acknowledged godly Christians whatsoever for any errour in Judgment or errour in practice proceeding meerly from an errour in Judgment and therefore this supposed errour of the godly Pedobaptists being but of that nature we have no reason to think that they would have found harder measure if they had then lived amongst them then all others erring upon like termes did And here let it be observed Note that our separation of godly from godly upon account of such errours as are not repugnant to godlinesse is so farre from being an imitation of the example of the primitive Saints as that we have the example of the primitive Saints point blanck against it which may be a good argument to condemne but by no meanes to justifie our separation 2. When there was any thing stirring among the primitive Saints that did but tend to or looke towards a separation upon account of such errours as were not repugnant to godlinesse it â—id not passe without check and discountenance from the Aâ—ostles as is visible in the cases of difference about Circumcision dayes and meats of which more afterwards And therefore the supposed errour of the Pedobaptists being but of the same nature that is consistent with godlinesse as well as theirs there 's no reason to think it would have cast them out of communion then when the looke of such a thing in other like cases was so distastfull to the holy Apostle 3. When the Apostle comes to lay downe and ennumerate the causes and things for which communion with a professor of Christianity is to be refused there is none of them of a lower nature or lesse demerit then such as doe exclude a man the kingdome of God as is evident by comparing 1 Cor 5.11 with Chap. 6.9 10. as by the meer reciting of the words will appeare 1 Cor 5.11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator or covetous or an idolater or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner with such an one no not to eat That every one of these crimes debarre a man the kingdome of God is evident by 1 Cor 6.9 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor covetous nor drunkards nor revilers nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdome of God And where ever withdrawing from avoiding or rejecting of a professor of the Gospel is enjoyned the Christian brethren you will still finde it is either for crimes of a morall nature either in kinde or end or heresie but never for misprision of Judgment about Ordinances and matters of doubtfull disputation among the Saints Peruse for this 2 Tim. 3.1 5. 1 Tim. 6.5 Rom 16.17 18. 2 Thess 3.6.11 Tit. 3.10 11. By ought then that can be gathered from the Apostles writings an errour of that nature which is charged upon the Pedobaptists would not have deprived godly persons of the communion of Saints in the Apostles dayes Which is a thing seriously to be laid to heart by them that are accessary to the keeping up a separation contrary to the doctrine custome and example of the primitive times Third Argument for Separation runs thus None are in a regular capacity of holding Church communion with a particular Church who are not regularly visible members of the universall Church But none but such as are baptized after faith which the Pedobaptists are not are regularly visible members of the universall Church Therefore c. Answ That none are in a regular capacity of communion in a particular Church who are not visibly members of the universall Church I readily grant And as to that clause which speakes of mens being regularly visible members of the universall Church I say thus much That none can be visibly members of the universall Church but so farre as they are so they are regularly so for no irregularity whatsoever as such can contribute towards the viâ—â—bility of a mans Church-membership but obscure it It is very true that there may be more of regâ—larnesse in the visibility of somes universall Church-membership then in others and so proportionably more of visiblenesse but where ever there is this visiblenesse in a greater or lesser degree there is so much regularnesse of that visibility Having said thus much by way of concession to the major proposition and that much for the explication of an impertinent expression touching the regular visibility of universall Church-membership I come now to deny the Minor proposition which does affirm that none but such as are baptized after faith
probable all Churches this day in being as well of the Anabaptists as of the Pedobaptists are without this part of the foundation 2. It s as probable likewise that this Church of the Hebrews or at least the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem which was the first Christian Church in the world in many of the members of it were without another part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. except the doctrine concerning it and that is that of laying on of hands By which understanding according to the usuall and most commonly received interpretation the imposiâ—ion of hands upon baptized Disciples in order to their receiving the holy Ghost there 's good cause to conceive that many in that Church never had hands layd on them for that end For I conceive no man will think that the Apostles much lesse any others did lay their hands upon any Disciples for their receiving the holy Ghost till the day of Penticost in which they themselves received it And the holy Ghost being then given to all the Disciples then and there in being and that in an extraordinary measure as well as manner Acts 2. I conceive that no man will think that the Apostles or others did afterwards lay their hands on any of those Disciples for their receiving of the holy Ghost which they had upon such excellent termes already And yet of these was that Church first founded unto whom the new converts were afterwards added So that the first Christian Church in the first constitution of it was in all appearance of reason wholly without this part of the foâ—ndation which is called one of the six principles of the doctrine of Christ and afterward so remained in that part of it of which it was first formed The like I suppose may be said of the first Christian Church of the Gentiles at Cesarea Acts 10. who received the holy Ghost in like manner as the first Hebrew Church did Acts 11.15 If then the want or absence of any though a lesser part of the foundation mentioned Heb 6. were a sufficient ground or reason of separation from a Church in whose constitution such part is wanting then it had been the duty of the three thousand Acts 2.41 to have kept at a distance from the hundred and twenty Disciples in stead of being added to them since one part of that foundation in the letter of it was not to be found in their constitution And if neither the want of one of the Baptismes nor the want of laying on of hands both which are part of the foundation mentioned Heb. 6. be no sufficient ground of separation it passes my skill I confesse since I considered it to evince a defect in yea or a meer want of the externall part of the doctrine of Baptisme to be a just ground of separation or deniall of communion when such defect or want proceeds not from a disobedient will but from an errour in Judgement coupled with an upright heart and soundnesse of faith in the mayne principles of the Gospel And I would pray our Brethren that it may be considered where the Lord hath commanded separation or deniall of communion any more for the want of the one then for the want of the other and that we make no such hast to withdraw from our brethren unlesse God had bid us to doe so It will be sufficient for us to follow the Lord and to withdraw when he withdraws but it does not become us to goe before him and to withdraw where he abides Where Christ the only foundation is sincerely held in the mayne doctrines of Justification and Sanctification there the Lord dwells in the grace of his presence Joh. 6.56 1 Joh. 4.12 16. though otherwise there may be some spots of deformity and blemishes in respect of the externall form of his house as well as in the conversation otherwise And if God can dwell there and yet not approve of such defects by his presence with them so may his servants too The Lord vouchsafes his presence in such Churches in order to their help and healing and so should his servants An honest man will not refuse his wifes society because of some bodily or morall infirmities as long as she is loyall to him in the mayne but by his continuance with her endeavour her help and cure It s true it would be more acceptable and pleasant to well-growne Saints to be yoked in their communion only with such as are full of spirituall health and beauty As it cannot but be thought that it would be a thing more delightfull to Christ Jesus to converse onely with creatures of an Angelicall perfection if he had not healing-work to doe But if Christ should please himselfe in the one what would become of us and if the best of Saints should please themselves in the other what would become of the spiritually weak and sickly But behold thus it is written and this is our pattern Wee then that are strong ought to beare the infirmities of the weake and not to please our selves for even Christ pleased not himselfe c. Rom 15.1 3. You may know what 's most acceptable and unacceptable to the Lord hereabout by his complaint Ezek. 34.4 The diseased have ye not strengthened neither have ye healed that which was sick neither have ye bound up that which was broken neither have brought agaâ—ne that which was driven away neither have sought that which was lost Separating from them is not the way to cure them If they have but a spirituall being that which will but denominate them new creatures well may their mistakes and infirmities put them under the greater necessity of your help and you under the greater obligation of abounding so much the more in your tender compassionate and diligent applications for their increase in spirituall light health and strength but are farre from priviledging you to withdraw your communion from them For God hath tempered the body together having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked that there should be no schisme in the body 1 Cor 12.24 25. Second Argument for Separation thus If the primitive believers associated themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith then we may not But the primitive believers did associate themselves in Church-communion with none but such as were baptized after profession of faith Ergo. Answ I doe acknowledge that all such unbaptized persons then in being as the primitive believers would not have or had not communion with we may not now have communion with their like and that what was a reason unto them not to have communion with such ought to be a reason to us of our non-communion in like case And yet I utterly deny the consequence of the Major proposition It will not follow that because the primitive believers had communion with none but such as were baptized after faith therefore we may have communion with none but such as are baptized after profession of
Congregation of Pedobaptists Object Though we doe owne the godly Pedobaptists to be members of Christs-body yet withall because their visible Church-state and ministery is founded in infant baptisme 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 schisme from them respects not their christian but their harlot or antichristian state Answ 1. When you owne the godly Pedobaptists to be of Christs body it is because they are visibly so for upon no other account can they be knowne 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 Christs body and yet to affirme 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 bodyes at once As by the same actions by which a man makes himselfe a friend of the world he makes himselfe an enemy to God James 4.4 So by the same actions by which a man makes himselfe a member of the harlot Church he for ought I know cuts himselfe off from the body of Christ or true Church And the reason is clearly this because the mysticall 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 wholenesse only excepted if the harlot be under divorcement as such then all that make up that harlot state are so And therefore whilst you acknowledge them members of Christs body you cannot rationally repute them of the whorish state 2. It is not every erronious 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 loyall to Christ in the mayne no more then every wanton or immodest word looke or gesture will denominate a woman to be a whore who is otherwise loyall to her husband in the mayne The good Kings Solomon Asa and Jehosaphat were guilty of a little spirituall immodesty in using or at least tolerating the high places but did not come under a spirituall 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 Gods worship There 's a great deal of difference between that which is essentiall to the constituting of a state and other things which enter not the definition thereof A bad man may doe many good things and a good man many evill by which neither are to be denominated good or bad but by what they are and doe in the mayne by what is predominant in them So those that are of the whorish state may hold many of the same truths and doe some of the same good deeds which a sound member of Christs Church may doe and yet not thereby be worthy the denomination of such a member as long as their corruptions in doctrine worship and life out-weigh these And it s as true that some that are not of the whorish state may be tainted with some of her errours and superstitions which as to matter of constitution of state may be much over-ballanced by soundnesse of faith purity of worship and sincerity of life in the mayne 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 spirituall lightnesse that our consciences tell us are in the state of grace and Spouse-like love Christ more then they doe any other It would provoke even a good man to have his wife called whore whom he knowes guilty onely of some lesser faults and surely it does no lesse displease the Lord to have such as are espoused to him to be so dealt with 3. It remains then that I adde one thing more for the compleating my answer to the objection and that is That communion with Saints that are in some things erronious and superstitious does not inferre a communion in the errour or superstition it selfe whilst you bear your witnesse against it This is plaine otherwise the strong must have been guilty of the errour 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 undeâ— led in holding communion with persons so much defiled as the rest there were which yet they did Rev 3.4 It followes then that such involuntary errours in persons as doe consist with the visibility of true grace doe not render communion with them unlawfull in such things which are not of themselve unlawfull we may hold communion with them in their graces and in their duties though not in their errours Though you may and ought to withdraw your communion in such acts wherein you are sure they have not communion with Christ yet you may not doe so in those in which you know they have VI Argument IF the godly Anabaptists doe hold communion with the godly Pedobaptists in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lords Supper Then it is not unlawfull but their duty for them to hold communion in breaking of bread it selfe which is the signe But the godly Anabaptists and godly Pedobaptists doe hold communion one with another in that which is signified by breaking of bread in the Lords Supper Therefore c. That which is signified by the use of the bread and cup in the Lords Supper is shewed 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 spirituall meat and drinking the same spirituall drink I think will not be denyed and therefore needs no proofe But that which requires a further demonstration is the Major proposition The reason then why it s not unlawfull but a duty for those to hold communion in the signe that have communion in the substance or thing signified is 1. Because so to doe answers the end of the ordinance whereas a denyall of communion in the signe where it is held in substance would crosse the very end of the ordinance The signe is ordained but for the thing sake unto which it does relate the outward communion in the signe bread and wine is appointed to signifie and increase the communicants inward and spirituall communion in the body blood of
then my present-practice of free communion with reformed godly Congregations of Pedobaptists but much more to perswade others to joyne with me therein I shall through Gods assistance endeavour these two things 1. To take downe those Arguments by which I once endeavoured to build up Separation 2. Propose some Arguments to evince the lawfulnesse of Church-communion between the godly both Pedobaptists and Anabaptists and the unlawfulnesse of denying their communion one with another upon account of their baptismall difference In the doing of which I suppose I shall have occasion to consider all that is considerable on the other hand either of Arguments or Objections Which done I hope will be of good use to cure and prevent the evill of Separation of godly from godly upon other accounts also as well as this My six former Arguments for Separation taken downe FIrst I would here give notice that my six Arguments formerly published in countenance of Separation of godly from godly upon the account of Infant Baptisme are laid downe for the most part rather Motive-wise then Argument-wise and doe not rationally conclude the thing for which they were brought I shall therefore contract and reduce them in the best of their strength into form of Argument and then discover in what respects they are inconcludent of the position touching Separation which should have been proved by them First Argument for Separation is to this effect Those Churches may not be held communion with in whose constitution such a part of the foundation of Christian Churches as the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wanting But such are the best of the Churches of the Pedobaptists Therefore c. Answ That it is the duty of every Christian so farre as he contributes any thing towards the erecting a house for Christ therein according to the best of his understanding and as much as in him lies to endeavour that it be built according to the pattern in the Mount I mean the Scriptures and that no part of the foundation through his default be left out I easily grant and still assert But that that part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme mentioned Heb. 6.2 is wholly wanting in the Churches of the Pedobaptists I doe deny or if there be some part of it wanâ—ing in them yet that such a partiall defect is any sufficient ground of separation from them I doe also deny and shall here offer something to shew that it is a great mistake so to think 1. That part of the foundation which consists in the doctrine of Baptisme is not totally wanting in the Assemblies of the godly Pedobaptists For about the doctrine of Baptime the Pedobaptists doe agree with the Anabaptists in many weighty points though they differ in some other 1. They both agree that water Baptisme is an ordinance instituted by the Lord. And 2. To be continued in the use of it to the end of the world 3. That all that are converted from another to the Christian religion and profession ought upon such conversion to be baptized as those whose Baptisme after faith is recorded in Scripture were 4. That to be baptized is a professed putting on of Christ and that Baptisme is a badge of Christs professed Disciples distinguishing them from such as doe not own Christ 5. That all that are baptized are thereby obliged to cease living any more to sin but are bound thereby to live a new and holy life unto God 6. That all the Disciples of Christ ought actually to be under this ingagement In all these they both agree 7. As the one hold themselves actually engaged to the lawes of Christ by their Baptisme after faith so doe the other by that which they account a sufficient Baptisme though received before faith 8. As the one doe the things to which Gospel-Baptisme does oblige so doe the other Although then the Pedobaptists be supposed to be defective in the doctrine of Baptisme in relation to some of the subjects of it and it is but some and likewise in relation to the form of administration yet agreeing in so many of the substantiall parts of the doctrine of Baptisme as is before mentioned we cannot say justly that there is an utter failer in them as to this part of the foundation There are two parts of the doctrine of Baptisme the one concernes the putting away of the filth of the flesh the other the answer of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Christ from the dead If they are defective in that part of the doctrine which concernes the putting away the filth of the flesh yet they are orthodox and sound in that part which concernes the answer of a good conscience towards God which according to the Apostle is the greater and better part 1 Pet. 3.21 A partiall defect and that too in the lesser part of the foundation does not make a nullity in it no more then the want of a hand or an eye or a leg makes a man to be no man And if a woman should separate from her husband when wanting any of these upon pretence that he is no man she would not be held innocent Defects in and about holy things though great and notable doe not alwayes cause a privation of the ends of the holy things themselves The manner of Jacobs obtaining the blessing was greatly defective and full of sinfull mixture but yet did not nullifie the blessing it selfe It was a great defect in the Office of high Priesthood when God would have but one high Priest at one time and him during life Num. 35.25 28. Heb. 7.23 for men to set up two or else to make an annuall election Joh. 11.49 51. 18.13 Acts 4.6 but yet whoever thought for all that that all the administrations of such an high Priest were nullities and that no body was the better for them 2. It s a great mistake likewise to think that every partiall defect in the foundation of a compleat Church constitution is a sufficient ground of separation For 1. It s very probable that something of that which is comprized in the doctrine of Baptisme a part of the foundation Heb. 6. is wanting as it was enioyed in the primitive Church in the best constituted and well ordered Church at this day in the world For when the Author of that Epistle speakes of the doctrine of Baptismes in the plurall number what can we so reasonably understand by it besides the Baptisme of water as the Baptisme of the Spirit And however all that are Christs have his Spirit Rom 8.9 Gal. 4.6 yet I have as I think else-where rendred it probable from Mat. Doubt resolved p. 37. 3.11 Acts 1.5 2.3.4 11.16 compared that the Baptisme of the Spirit was a priviledge peculiar to the primitive times and is not now enjoyed by any that we know of Wherein also I know I have the concurrant judgement of many of the Baptists at least So that its
be imagined to be so essentiall to communion as union In all bodyes whether naturall mysticall or politicall communion of parts flowes from union with the whole Christ being the common head of Christians and center of union hence it is that all that are united to him are united one to another or according to the Apostles phrase are members one of another Rom 12.5 And being so communion in giving and receiving mutuall help is the naturall effect and common right of such union It would be monsterous in nature and can it be otherwise in grace for one member of the same body to deny the communication of comfort to the other No man saith the Apostle ever hated his owne flesh but nourisheth and cherisheth it as the Lord doth the Church Eph. 5.29 And does the Lord nourish and cherish such because they are his members and shall it be denied amongst those that are members one oâ— another God forbid 2. Communion is the end of union or that for the sake of which union is made Christ tooke our nature into union with himselfe that by communication he might become Wisdome Righteousnesse Sanctification and Redemption to us And he hath knit together the severall parts that the whole body might increase and be edified by that which every joynt supplieth by the effectuall working of the measure of every part Eph 4.16 Col 2.19 And therefore to deny communion to those among whom there is union is to crosse and frustrate the very end of union 3. That which is given and belongs to the whole body is given and belongs to every part But the work of ministration as the word is rendred to wit of the ordinances of Christ is ordained for the edification of the whole body Eph 4.12 and consequently for every part All that in common is given to the Church as the ordinances as well as other things are is given to every one that is Christs as all those are who are united to him 1 Cor 3.21 22 23. And the pasture that is provided for the sheep of Christs flock belongs to every one that by Christ enters into his owne sheepfold John 10.9 To conclude then what better stronger or more rightfull claime can any have to communion in a particular Church then his membership in the universall Obj. 1. Against this it may be some will object that union with the Church does not give such a right to communion in it but that some unworthy and unchristian behaviour may be a just barr to ones communion with the Church at such time as his union with it is not denyed The Apostle commands to withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly not working at all but walking as a busie-body and yet during the time of this withdrawing he would have such an one to be admonished as a brother and not counted as an enemy and what is this lesse then to acknowledge him as yet a brother in the universall Church and yet to deny him communion in their particular society 2 Thes 3 6-15 Answ When such scandalls in life or doctrine are found in a person that hath been owned for one of Christs Church as does so farre contradict that christian profession by which he was first received into communion with the Church as to give just ground of suspition that there was never that internall union with Christ and his Church which such profession did seem to import or if there were that it hath been since dissolved by such an offensive walking as is justly suspected to be inconsistent with true grace I say while things are in such a doubtfull suspitious posture and in a way of ripening for a finall judgment of the Church about his cutting off such a carriage of the Church towards such a Delinquent seemes most suitable as by which he shall be declared neither clearly on nor clearly off the Church but hanging in suspence as namely by suspending him communion as one going off the Church if not recovered and yet to be admonished as a brother not yet totally cast off And this seemes clearly to be the case of those whom the Apostolicall rule in 2 Thes 3 6-15 concernes But then this will not be found of force against the admission of such godly Pedobaptists to Church-communion who hold their supposed errour upon such termes as does not at all render their spirituall and internall union with Christ so with his Church justly suspected in the account of sober impartiall and judicious Christians 1. The disorderly walking in 2 Thes 3. contrary to the tradition of the Apostles which was to be proceeded against by with-drawing from such as were guilty of it was not every disorder that was contrary to Apostolical tradition or institution as is most evident For the Apostles clearly taught such meats might lawfully be eaten which some scrupled 1 Tim 4.3 4 5. and likewise some dayes to be common which some Christians did count sacred Col 2.16 17. Gal 4.10 11. and Circumcision to be unnecessary which some Christians thought necessary 1 Cor 7.19 Gal 5.6 and yet for all that allowed yea required the admission of such godly Christians to communion who meerly through weaknesse and want of conviction were found in these things disorderly and non-obedient to those Apostolicall traditions or institutions Rom 14 1.-6 15.1 7. Acts 21. 2. The disorderly walking in 2 Thes 3. to be proceeded against by withdrawing from such as were guilty of it was of a morall nature and of publick scandall to those without as well as those within the Church and not matter of doubtfull disputation among good Christians as the other things were For such was not working and playing the busie-bodyes 1 Thes 4.11 12. 1 Tim 5.13 14. 1 Pet 4.15 which yet was the disorder precisely for which the Apostle enjoynes withdrawing from in 2 Thes 3. Yea it was an evill of that nature and so contradictious to the Christian profession that according to the same Apostles own account whosoever made himselfe guilty of it denyed the faith and rendred himselfe worse then an Iâ— fidell 1 Tim 5.8 And therefore no marvell if not meet to be continued in communion when the profession and conversation the only visible witnesse of internall union is rendred invalid by so mighty a contradiction But what 's this to the godly Pedobaptists case whose supposed errour is not of a morall nature nor of publick scandall to those without nor such as does invalidate the testimony of their profession and conversation as witnessing their internall union with Christ and his Church nor so much as rendering it doubtfull nor justly to be suspected but a matter of doubtfull disputation among many of those that are truely godly and not of least discerning in spirituall affaires Obj. 2. It may be yet further objected that though its true that membership with Christ and in the Church universall gives a remote right to communion in particular Churches yet none can have an immediate