553. Baptism was as much to be reverenced as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Nay in former Ages some Churches have been so far from extending Baptism further then the Lords Supper as that they have committed a grievous Errour in administring the Lords Supper unto Infants So it hath been in the Churches of o Dav. Chytra Bohemia and in p Paul Odâ—rbor de relig Russor Russia And this was maintained by Austin and Innocentius and q See Fulk Annot on Joh. 3.5 all the Churches in their time Which Testimonies we produce to shew that former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Indeed of lâ—te there have been those who have made Baptism of a far larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians whom the Lord unite in the Truth in thâ—t the Congregational-men would baptize the Children of none but such whose Parents were fit for the Lords Supper when-as the Presbyterians would Baptize the Children of such whose Parents were not fit for the Lords Supper and their promiscuous Administration of that Ordinance was very grievous unto their Congregational Brethren See Beverly against Timson 3. The Parents of the children in question are not Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-Rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant To prove which we reason thus If this second Generation do retain their Membership by virtue of their Parents Covenant made for them in minority then in case all the pro-Parents were dead this second Generation would be a true Church of Christ without any further Act or Covenanting But this second Generation are not a true Church of Christ without some further Act. Ergo they do not retain their Membership If they are a true Church of Christ then they have Power to Vote in Church-affairs as to chuse Officers and to cast out Offenders and the like because every true Church hath this power given to them by the Lord Jesus who is the onely Head of his Church But they have no such Power say the Synod who do expresly r See the Answ to 21 Questions exclude the persons in question from the Lords Supper and Voting Therefore we conclude that they are no true Church of Christ Therefore the persons in question do not retain their Membership therefore their children ought not to be Baptized 4. It is not Meer Membership as the Synod speaks but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism For the evincing whereof we argue thus John's Baptism was Christian Baptism as all our Divines maintain against the Papists John's Baptism might not be applied unto some who were standing Members of the visible Church because they were not qualified with Repentance Luke 3.8 7.30 Therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such as stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance This seems to us to cut the Sinews of the strongest Arguments which are brought by the Synod for the Enlargement of Baptism for their strongest Argument is the Membership of the Children in Controversie when-as it seems to us that the Scripture doth not acknowledge any such Meer Membership as they speak â—f And besides that the case is clear in our apprehension from the Instance given That 't is not Meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right unto this Divine and Sacred Ordinance 5. That which will not make a man capable of receiving Baptism himself in case he were unbaptized doth not make him capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his childe It is a Ruled case Å¿ Mr. Hooker Survey paâ—t 3. p. 17. That he that hath not Title himself unto any Priviledge cannot entitle another The Lawyer saith Acts à non habente potestatem are invalid But all that the Synod hath said will not give a man right to Bapâ—ism himself in case he were unbaptized for a man may be an unbeliever and yet come up to all that the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition and more too Ergo all that the Synod hath said is not enough to make a man capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his childe The judgâ—ment of that famous Martin Bucer alledged and approved by Parker is worthy our consideration who maintained that t Bucer de regno Christi in cap. de Confirmatione Parker ubi supra None ought to be confirmed Members of the Church besides those who do hold forth not onely verbal Profession of Faith but apparent Signs of Regeneration Nay these great Divines say Thâ—t if there be not tam necessaria signa fidei quam publica solennis Professio as well such signs and outward appearances of Faith as shall necessarily argue â—s farre as men can judge that there is truth in the heart as a publick solemn Profession the Church ought not to accept of the Professions of such persons so as to confirm them in their Membership If the Synod would but have expressed as much as this there had been no Dissenting on our parts Here also we cannot but take notice that the judgement of that worthy and for-ever famous Mr. Cotton was as ours is for his words are these u Holiness of Church-members p. 93. I conceive more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old 6. The Application of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not true Believers we mean visibly for de occultis non judicat Ecclesiâ is a Profanation thereof and as dreadful a sin as if a man should administer the Lords Supper unto unworthy receivers which is as w Instit l. 4. c. 12. Calvin saith as sacrilegious impiety as if a man should take the Blood or Body of Christ and prostitute it to dogs We marvel that any should think that the Blood of Christ is not as much profaned and vilified by undue Administration of Baptism as by undue Administration of the Lords Supper Yea that saying of Austin's is solemn and serious x August co Fulgent c. 6. Qui indignè accipit Baptisma judicium accipit non salutem He who receives Baptism either for himself or his childe unworthily is guilty of the Blood of Jesus as well as he who receives the Lords Supper unworthily And the same Austin in his Book de Fide operibus pleads for strictness in the Administration of Baptism and so did Tertullian before him 7. It hath in it a natural tendency to the hardening of unregenerate creatures in their sinful natural condition when Life is not onely Promised but Sealed to them by the precious Blood of Jesus Christ y Baptisma totum foedus gratiae obsignat fidelibus Ames Med. l. 1. c. 40. Thes 6. Baptism is a Seal of the whole Covenant of Grace as well as
to covenant for themselves and their seed in their own persons being fitly qualified as their godly Parents did before them If they being grown up to be men perform not this Covenant they cannot fitly be called Children of the Câ—venanâ— but Transgressours of the Covenanâ— and Breakers of it 2. The Argument is fallacious Some children of the Covenant have had the beg nnings of grace manif stly wrought in them in younger years Therefore all persons of this sort shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers This Aâ—gument is to be denied both because it argues from some Particulars to infer a General affirmatively and from that which is positively manifest in some to pâ—ove the same to be in others in whom it is not positively manifest but onely they shew nothing to the contrary which makes them at best but Negative Christians which is not to be Christian indeed 4. They say They that are regularly in the Church as the Parents in question are are visible Saints for the Church is in Scripture account a company of Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 1.2 Re l Both their Assertion and their Proof of it are to be denied 1 The â—ssâ—rtion is not true that the Parents in quest on are regula ly in the Church Infants and children in minority of coâ—f dâ—rate Believers are in the â—hu ch by their Pare t s covenant ng fâ—rtâ—eâ—â— 1 Câ— 7.4 But Parents are not reg lâ—â—ly iâ— the Church t ll being fitly qualified they confedeâ—ate for th mselves and their children und r age Acts 2.30 bâ—ing qâ—alâ—fied according to that Prophesie concern ng these time of the Gospel in 〈◊〉 56.6 7. 2. The Proof is not apposi e fâ—â— Pâ—â—â— wroâ—e that Ep stle to the adult Members regularly admitted unâ—o full communion with the Church at Ch iâ—â— whom he styleth Sanct fi d in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.2 and such were they of whom he spâ—â—ks in all the Churcheâ— of the Saiâ—â— 1 Cor. 14.33 But the Parents in question being â—â—cer Members not in fuâ—l communion are not regularly approved of the Church to be such Therefore this coâ—cerns not them 5. They say Beâ—ng in Covenant and baptized they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise and sealed in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continues valid and so a valid testimony for them wh le â—hey do not reject iâ— R ply Reverend Mr. Câ—tton was wont to say Elect children have the grace of the Covenant viz. Fai h and Repentance c. given to them in and by the Covenanâ— and sealed by Baptism Deut. 30.6 but the rest have only the Covenant of Grace for eternal means â—f grace given in the Promise and sealed by Baptism till they reject them This testimony is true and this distinction is grounded upon Scripture Râ—m 11 7. and it is necessary to prevent that Opinion of Vniversal Baptism-Grace which the Arminians improve to establish their dangerous Errour of the final and total Apostâ—cy of the Saints from Grace But God who hath promised is faithful and will do according to his Promise working effectually in the Elect in his appointed time the grace promised in the Covenant so powerfully that they shall not reject it the rest shall have the outward means of Grace according to his Promise till they reject them as Esâ—u did To these Faith and Repentance are not indefinitely given in the Promise and sealed by outward Baptism as neither was it given in the Promise and sealed by outward Circumcision indefinitely to those who when they became adult brake the Covenant Whereupon Paul distinguish d the jews and Circumc siâ—n Rom. 2.28 29. and answerable thereunto is Peterâ— distinction of Bâ—ptism 1 Pet. 3.24 Therefore such as reject the offers of G ace as all that living under the mâ—aâ—s of Grace remain unb lievers do Mat. â—3 37. cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise in that sense wherein that phrase is used in 2 Pet. 1.4 They adde Yet iâ— doth not necessarily â—oâ—â— that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper c. Reply If they have Faith and Repentance given them under Gods Hand in the Covenant and sealed by Baptism and if they do so receive them that it continues valid and so a valid testimony for them What can hinder regularly such Church-members from partaking of the Lords Supper â—c They say Because though they are in alatâ—â— de of exp ession to be accounted visible Believers or in numero fidelium as even infants in covenant are yet they want that ab lity of examining themselves and that special exercise of Faith which is requisite to that Ordinance as was said upon the fourth Proposition Reply 1. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 The New Testament no where alloweth that latitude of speech to call men visible B lievers who never were regularly joyned to that number nor fitly qualified to take hold of the Covenant personally for themselves and their children 2. Nor can they be accounted Believers or in the number of Believers as infants are who are loâ—ked at onely as in their Parents Covenant being not capable of covenanting for themselves as men are So that there is not par ratio between them 3. Visible want of ability to examine themselves and of that special exercise of Fâ—ith which is requisite to that Ordinance argues a visible want of that Faith wh ch is to be examined and exercised and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership as well as to the Lords Supper c. Arg. 5 The denial of Baptism to the children in question haâ—h a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy because it denies them and so the children of the Church successively to have any part in the Lorâ— which is the way to make them cause from fearing the Lord Josh 22 2â— 25. Reply The children in quâ—stion are children of Parents who are not members in full communion with the hurch and so not regularly personal Members If such their children be denied to have any part in the Lord it is the degenerate Parents not the Churches fault They who a e not in Chuâ—ch-communion cannot regularly communicate unto their infant-seed a right and title to Baptism which is the first visible Seal of Church-commuâ—ion 1 â—or 12.13 2. It is not true that the Churches denying Baptism to the children in question is a denial of the children of the Church to have any paâ—t in the Lorâ— f r such are not according to Scripture Rules child en of the Church succâ—ssively for the Parents have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their seed by their not confederat ng for themselves and theirs regularly 3. That this denial â—a â— a dangerous teâ—dency to Irreligion and Apostacy is not proved by them nor can be That Text
while they are such leaving his adult children to Covenant for themselves if he hath any such children when himself enters into Covenant 2. Adams Covenant was onely with the Lord not with any Church as the Covenant of coâ—federate Parents is and therefore if Adam had stood his posterity had not been Church-members thereby as the infants of Church-confederates 3. Nor doth the Parents breaking his Covenant make his children Heirs of Condemnation as Adams did all Mankinde So that this example of Adam is impertinently produced in this case of infants and their Parents confederating for them not as their publick person but as Undertakers for their infant-seed by Gods Institution Nor indeed is any to be accounted a publick person as Adam was but Jesus Christ for all that are in him Rom. 5.14 to 20. Nor doth their similitude of a Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyal suit the case in question concerning Infants who cannot be visibly disloyal nor that concerning adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church as immediate Members whose Parents were godly when they covenanted for them in their infancy For they have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their Posterity by their personal disloyalty so that nothing is given to them and theirs by their Covenant which they presume to usurp without warrant from God They say true that A member is one who according to Rule or according to divine Institution is within the visible Church But that refutes nothing that I have said concerning mediate and immediate Members for both are within the Church according to Rule and Divine Institution though both have not full communion with the Church in all Ordinances which is the priviledge of all adult persons who are immediate Members by their own personal right 1 Cor. 5.12 They frame an Objection thus Obj. If children be compleat and immediate members as their Parents are then they shall immediately have all Church-priviledges as their Parents have without any further act or qualification And they Answer it thus Ans It followeth not All priviledges that belong to members as such do belong to the children as well as to the parents But all Church-priviledges do not so A member as such or all members may not partake of all priviledges but they are to make progress both in memberly duties and priviledges as their age and capacity and qualifications do fit them for the same Reply The intendment of the Objection as I apprehend is to shew that compleat and immediate Membership as such doth infer compleat and immediate communion in all Church-priviledges But children in minority have not compleat and immediate communion in all Church-priviledges without some further act or qualification Therefore such children are not compleat and immediate Members as such Now to this their Answer is insufficient For the best Members have need to make progress in memberly duties and qualifications to fit them more and more for Church-priviledges Yet all have that communion that suits their Membership Infants in Baptism the Watch Prayers and Blessing of the Church by their Parents covenanting for them Adult persons orderly and regularly joyned by their personal covenanting for themselves in the Seals Voting and Censures which belong to them as such Members Nor doth the Scripture any where allow the Church to admit any one by personal covenanting for themselves and theirs into any other Membership then compleat and immediate But Infants are not capable of such Membership without some further personal act and qualification when they shall become adult Therefore their Infant-membership is not compleat and immediate 3. That their Membership still continues in adult age and ceaseth not with their Infancy appears 1. Because Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief not for growing up to adult age Rom. 11.20 Reply 1. When I affirm that their mediate Membership continueth during their minority while they are under the Institution and Government of Parents c. I deny that that Membership continues in adult age and when they are at their own disposal or have children of their own to covenant for because then the reason of their mediate Membership ceaseth they being by age capable of covenanting for themselves 2. Their first Reason doth not prove that the Membership of all baptized in Infancy continues in adult age For the Text alledged speaketh onely of such as have been received into compleat and immediate membership regularly by their personal Faith and Covenanting with the Church visibly who are broken off either by the just judgement of God as the unbelieving Nation of the Jews are or by the just Censure of the Church Whereas our question is not of such but of adult persons that break off themselves from the Covenant by profane neglect or contempt of the Ordinances or unsuitable Conversation Who ever said that any were broken off for growing up to adult age Such intimations should be forborn by godly men 2. The Jews children circumcised did not cease to be members by growing up but continued in the Church and were by virtue of their membership received in infancy bound unto various duties and in special unto those solemn professions that pertained unto adult members not as then entring into a new membership but as making progress in memberly duties Deut. 26 2-10 16.16 17. with Gal. 5.3 Reply 1. That the Jews children circumcised were bound to various duties and to those solemn professions that pertained to adult members when themselves were grown up is clear enough by the Texts alledged and sundry other Whereunto I willingly adde that Baptism also bindeth the Infant-seed of Confederates to various Gospel-duties and especially this of using all means that Faith may be wrought in their hearts unto obeying the Call of God and then holding forth their Faith unto the Church that they may take hold of the Covenant for themselves and theirs and so become compleat and immediate Members But 2. It is not proved by those Texts that when they were adult they did not enter into a new Membership rather the contrary appears in Deut. 26.17 18. For they entred into that Covenant personally and immediately not in and by their Parents as they did in Infancy Gen. 17.7 If convenanting be the Form of Church-membership which they affirm then a different form of covenanting makes a different kinde of Church-membership Immediate covenanting makes immediate Members Mediate covenanting makes mediate Members Their third Reason is Those relations of Born-servants and Subjects which the Scripture makes use of to set forth the state of children in the Church by Lev. 25.41 42. Ezek. 37.25 do not as all men know cease with infancy but continue in adult age Whence also it follows that one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fit
time we shall hold to this as conceiving that the admitting of it would be a good means to preserve the Churches in purity to prevent many unprofitable and uâ—coâ—fortable disputes and other great inconveniences which the rejecting of it will unavoidably make way unto IV. This clause in the third Propâ—sition When grown up are pâ—â—sonally under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church had need be warily understood and doth call for some clear explication For if it be meant that they are in the same way and as fully under the Dâ—sâ—ipline and Gâ—vernment of the Church as those who in their own persons have taken hold of the Covenant it cannot be assented unto For then in case of such delinquency as doth call for Excommunication in another Member they are formally to be Excommunicated But this may not be admitted For 1. Formal Excommunication doth not suit their state they are within the Church onely mediately by their Parents confederation Therefore are not to be cast out of the Church immediately and personally by formal Excommunication 2. Besides they are in respect of strength weak and in respect of state dead especially being considered as in this third Proposition without qualifications even such as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which yet are separable from true and saving grace They are too weak to bear the weight and strength of that Censure which is mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 it is to put new wine into old bottles which Christ doth dislike in Spiritual matters Mat. 9. 2. It seemeth to be very injurious to them to lay them open to the highest Censure and not to allow them proportionable priviledges 3. The main end of Excommunication when it passeth upon such is not like to be attained which is the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5.5 The Ordinance doth suppose the Subject of it to be flesh and spirit they who are considered as without qualifications to make them capable of Church-priviledges as in this third Proposition cannot be looked at as other then all flesh V. In the fourth Proposition it is said These adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion because they are and continue Members without such further qualifications as the Word of God requireth thereunto But whether the children of such are to be baptized or not is not said and it is necessary that it should have been expressed that the sense and meaning of the Synod might be rightly understood VI. To the fifth Proposition many things may be said 1. This Proposition may rationally be looked at as holding forth the qualifications wanting to full Communion mentioned in the fourth Proposition And if so then it will follow that such as have these qualifications have right to full Communion if I miss it I would be thankful to him that should shew me my mistake if I am right and do rightly express the sense of that Proposition it were expedient that the Synod should plainly and fully express their meaning therein to the understanding of all 2. The qualifications are Vnderstanding the Doctrine of Faith and professing their Assent thereunto Not scandalous in life 1. There is more required in a Church-member even in point of knowledge then to understand the Doctrine of Faith and assent thereunto He ought in a competent measure to understand Church-Order and Discipline appointed by Christ otherwise he cannot Covenant in judgement or own the Covenant neither doth he know how to behave himself in the House of God as a Member thereof 2. The Devil doth understand the Doctrine of Faith and doth assent thereunto Jam. 2.19 3. Not scandalous in life is wholly Negative and may be said of irrational Animals He onely that doth righteousness positively can be denominated righteous 1 Joh. 3.7 4. Besides all these there must be the work and grace of Faith held forth Acts 8.37 38. 16 31-34 before any medling with the Covenant Isa 19.21 3. It is said And solemnly owning the Covenant c. The Scripture speaketh of Entring into a Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 of Making a Covenant with the Lord 2 Chron. 29.10 and Before the Lord 2 Chron. 34.31 of Taking hold of the Covenant Isa 56 4. Now if their Owning the Covenant be the same then not onely their children are to be baptized but themselves admitted to full Communion if short then it is a meer humane invention not warranted by the Word 4. Upon supposition that the qualifications expressed be found in them it is said Their children are to be baptized But 1. The first and second Propositions are against it The first Proposition doth limit Baptism to the Members of the visible Church The second Proposition doth explain who are meant by Members of the visible Church according to Scripture 1. Confederate visible Believers in particular Churches i. such as have personally and immediately Confederated for themselves as the last clause sheweth And 2. Their Infant-seed i. children in minority whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant Now these mentioned in the fifth Proposition to whom Baptism is allowed are neither the one nor the other Ergo. 2. The grace of Faith is wanting if there be no more then the qualifications before mentioned and that is necessary to give their children right to Baptism Acts 2.38 39. 3. The children of such are not to be baptized who themselves do live under great offence visibly and do not reform Exod. 20.5 But so do these Parents in not taking hold of the Covenant personally and immediately for themselves Ergo. It may easily and abundantly be proved that such as have been baptized in the Church and have lived under precious means and great light untill they are Married and have children and all this while have neglected the main thing that doth concern them which is to Believe and upon their Believing personally and for themselves to take hold of the Covenant are under very great sin and offence But I will onely use one Argument which is this Neglect of taking hold of the Covenant or of entring into Covenant now under Christ and the Gospel is as gross a neglect as great a sin as much displeasing to God as was the neglect of Circumcision the sign of the Covenant before Christ Grounds of it are 1. The thing it self is as weighty that I say not more 2. As fully under command as that 1 Joh. 3.23 Rom. 10.9 10. 3. The neglect of it doth as necessarily and peremptorily infer Gods highest displeasure and everlasting destruction if continued in as that Joh. 3.36 Mark 16.16 Heb. 2.3 But that neglect was gross the sin great and very displeasing to God Gen. 17.14 Exod. 4 24-26 Ergo. 4. If the children of such are to be baptized if their children again thus baptized live to have children themselves not personally taking hold of the Covenant or not entring into Covenant what shall become of them shall they be baptized or not 1.
who is dead yet live Hence also when the Parents are Excommunicated the Membership of the Infant-childe is cut off because Excommunication puts an end to the Outward Covenant which Death it self doth not do and if the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live True it is that we have made much use of that distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members which seems to us to carry a mighty and constraining Evidence of Scripture-light along with it yea and so as to sâ—lve if rightly understood and managed the strongest Objâ—ctâ—ons that are brought against the Cause and Truth we plead for And let it be considered that Church-members have been commonly distinguished into Compleat and Incompleat And Authors who have been Stars of the first Magnitude if ever there have been such upon Earth haâ—e made use thereof We might instance in that Incomparable Champion for the Truth and for the Non-Conformists against Prelacy Mr. Robert r Pâ—rker de â—â—l E les Parker so likewise Å¿ Ames Mâ—d. Tâ—eâ—l l. 1. c. 32. Tiâ— 13 Ames Voetius t H rnâ—eâ—â— Epâ—â—t ad Duraeum p. 356. Hornbeck Dr. u Dr. Winter on Act â— 3â— p 9â— Winter Mr. w Mr. Hâ—nmer Exercit. â—bout Conâ—irmatiâ—n in Postâ—â—r Sâ—cond Edit Hanmer c. make use of the same distinction and the Dâ—ssenters have proved it in their Antisynodalia Thirdly it is Objected against us That we maintain a strange Opinion namely That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an act or a defect rather which may be called an act as Sins of Omission are termed Actual Sins of his own without any Church-act in Censuring of him Answ Most true it is that we do Maintain this and must do so till we see the contrary proved Neither do we know that this Opinion contains any thing in it dissentany from Scripture or good Râ—â—son Nor see we how some Arguments for the Affirmative can faiâ—ly be answered Suppose we an English Fugitive that is become a Priest in Antwerp or a Cardinal at Rome Or suppose we a Turk who is an English-man by Birth this Turk was baptized a Member of some parish-Parish-Church which those that we dispute against maintain to be true Churches and we are farre from denying of it universally and he was neveâ— Censured by any Church for his Apostacy nâ—w we demâ—nd Whetâ—er this Turk be a Member of the Church of Christ yea or no To affirm it would be gross To say that Turks are Members of the Church of Christ is â—n truth to speak Daggâ—rs When the Arch-Flamin Whitgift said that Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church Mâ— Parker x De P 〈…〉 l â— c. â—6 tells him That even a Vorstius would condemn him Anâ— it is no nâ—w Doctrine in the Schools to say that y M rtâ— Aâ—â—â— â—â—tho paâ— 1. l. 1. c. 3. An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Soâ—e or a Brand is a men her of a man which none â—â—â—â—â—â—gine The tâ—uth of this none can doubt of that is mediocritèr doctus n Scholâ—sâ—iâ— l Diviniâ—y Therâ—fore we conclude that Church-members may become no Members by their own defection And we humbly conceive though with submission as is fit to better judgements That thus much is held forth by these Scriptures Hebr. 10.25 1 Joh. 2 19. Jude ver 19. Again how came Esau to lose his Membership We reade not that he was Excommunicate Therefore it remains that he dis-Covenanted and so dis-Membered himself And how came the Children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their Membership iâ— was not by Censure In like sort when persons under the Gospel do not come up to the terms of the Covenant to shew themselves to be Abrahams Children by holding forth his Faith and walking before the Lord in simplicity and godly sincerity we suppose that they are justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents because of their then personal incapacity to act for themselves made for them Alas that any should look upon us as Maintaining dangerous Opinions because of this Wherefore that all may know that there is neither Danger nor Singularity in this our Assertion That a Church-member may possibly become no Member without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him give us leave to produce some Testimonies to prove it Judicious and blessed Dr. Ames z Cas Consâ— l. 5. c. 12. in Resp ad Quaest 4. Th. 8. saith That in case of pertinacious Separation such persons though they may be of the invisible yet they are not to be accounted Members of the visible Church Which words of the Learned Doctors do make the more for our purpose for that they are Cited and Approved of by The a Answ to quest 4. p 17. Answer to the XXXII Questions Our Congregational b Preface to the Declaration of Faith Order at the Savoy Brethren in England do with one voyce say That some Church-members may be felones de se such as may destroy their own Membership Yea and this was once sound Doctrine in New-England Blessed Mr. Cotton whose Name is and will be precious so long as the Earth shall endurâ— maintains it for a Truth That c Way of Churches p. 9. many in Churches have cut themselves off Another Testimony which we would produce is them Discourse of the Church-Covenant of which the Reverend Mr. d See Preface to the Answer to 21 Questions Richard Mather was the sole Author and the words are these following e Discourse of Church-Covenant Printed An. 1639. p. 17. That if men had not promised and also performed in some measure of truth the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God they had not taken hold of the Covenant but had DISCOVENANTED THEMSELVES notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers or others Thus though God promâ—sed Abraham to be a God unto him and his seed in their generations Gen. 17.7 yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham were discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience which God required on the peoples part And the same Truth is held forth by the same Author in The Answer to the XXXII Questâ—ons bef rementioned This is â—he main thing whâ—rein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod Now if this were Truth in the Year 1639. as it then had the Approbation of the Elders hereaboutâ— wâ— see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem est Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church-members which are these following f Mr Cotton Hâ—â—â—neâ—◠〈◊〉 Chur h-members p. 19. â— 41. Such as are Born and
Baptized Members of the Church are not orderly Continued and Confirmed Members unless when they grow up to years they do before the Lord and his People profess their Repentance and Faith in Jesus Christ To say no more of this Renowned Parker speaking of the Interpretation of those words Laying on of Hands in Heb. 6.2 cites many judicious Writers whose judgemâ—nts he expresseth in words to this purpose g Pâ—rker â—e Pâ—â— F â—les in â—ap â—e 〈◊〉 E lesia 〈◊〉 Seâ—â— 9. â— 13. That they who were baptized in their minority when they are grown up after that the Church had approved their Faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands they were admitted Members of the Church This was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times as Parker saith Now we demand How they can be admitted as Members who are already as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church But the ancient Doctrine wâ—s h Tertullian Antiquissimum uâ—issimum That Children who were baptized in their minority after they shall come to profess their Faith so as to be accepted of the Church may be admitted as Members Therefâ—re according to the ancient Dâ—ctrine Such children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church Yea therefore it follows That when they are Adult in case they do not by holding forth Faith and Repentance joyn unto the Church that then they â—o not retain their Membe ship whicâ— tâ—ey had in minority Fourthly it hath beâ—n Obâ— cted That we will not suffer Children to come under the Watch and Care of the Church Answ We are so farre from being of that Opâ—nion aâ— thâ—t we verily fear there is great guilt lies upon thâ— Churches â—â—câ—use â—hey have neglected their duty towards the Children in questiâ—n Iâ— is as clear to us as the Light at Noon or to use Tertullians pâ—r sâ— as if it were written with the Beams of the Sun Thâ—◠〈◊〉 special Care even Church-care and Inspection is due over thos Children that are Born within the Gates of Zion Hâ—ppy â—ight it be for us all if the issue of these troublesome Controversies might be onely to awaken Churches to stricter Watch and Diligence in Overseeing those Children that are in minority Onely we conceive that the Watch over them is to be Mediate according to the state of their Membership The Church is to see that the Parents do their duty toward their Children in bringing them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. i 〈…〉 And if when they shall be adult they do not bring forth fruits of Repentance and Faith then as the Fig-tree which did not bear fruit was to be cut down the Church is to disown them as having no part in the Lord and to declare that they by their unbelief have Discovenanted themselves But we see not sufficient warrant from the Word of God to proceed to a formal Excommunication of the Children in question because that is applicable unto none but those who have been in full Communion Now if this be all that is striven after That Church-children might be brought under Church-watch why sâ—ould the Contentions of Brethren be like the bars of a Castle that cannot yield Lastly it hath been Objected That the reason of our Dissenting from the major part of the Synod was Weakness and Ignorance and meer Wilfulness in that we could bring no Arguments but what were sufficiently refuted Answ The very same thing hath been said of those Worthy Champions who stood up for the Congregational-Way in opposition to the Assembly at Westminster that k See tâ—esâ— wordâ— in The 〈◊〉 aâ—â—inst 〈…〉 P. p 21 â—â— Their Arguments were weak and ridiculous and had been Confuted and sufficiently answered and that themselves were Self-conceited and Obstinate But these Criminations were unworthy Calumniations It was a common Reproach cast upon the Christians of old That they were all weak and unlearned men which made Jerome write that Book De viris Illustribus So Stapleton makes no bones to call Whitaker An Asse and A Fool. And the same hissing of the Serpent have we seen in the Prelates against the Renowned Non-Conformists But we suppose their saying so did not prove it was so Nevertheless we are content to accept of the Charge when we are charged with Weakness and Folly Let us be fools for Christs sake or for his Truth Let us fall so the Truth may rise let us sit in the dust so that Truth may sit in the Throne We deserve not to be otherwise esteemed then as Weakness and Ignorance it self Yet let us not be reputed Obstinate and such as are and will be blinde because we dare not betray the Truth and sin against our Consciences For our weightiest Reasons never were Answered unto any tolerable satisfaction even to this day If it be demanded here What our Reasons were why we accorded not with the major part of the Synod We shall by the help of Christ and in the fear of God declare what our chief Reasons were which caused our Dissent which when they are Answered we shall lay down our Opinion as knowing that it is Nullus pudor ad meliora transire 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational charity or else the childe ought not to be baptized We intreated and urged again again that this which they themselves acknowledged was a Principle of Truth might be set down for a Conclusion and then we should all agree But those Reverend Persons against whom we placidly disputed would not consent to this though our Unity lay at the Stake for it 2. We have not Warrant in all the Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper Those Acts 2.41 who were Baptized continued breaking Bread also ver 42. 'T is granted That those Children were Circumcised amongst the Jews whose Parents were for a time debarred from the Passeover but that was onely upon accident of Ceremonial Uncleanness which alters not the case for Unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his childe circumcised The like may be said concerning the Gospel-Passeover and the Gospel-Circumcision Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary The l Catechun eni ad Baptisterium nunquam admittendi sunt Concil Araus c. 19. Catechumeni were not to be Baptized before they were fit for the Lords Supper And thence when through the darkness of the times the Lords Supper was not administred except at Easter as 't is called the m Concil Gern dist 4. Baptism of the Catechumeni was deferred until then also In the Dawnings of Reformation in England our Juell could plead against Harding that n Juels Reply to Harding p.
2. Position 1 The Rules given of Christ Concerning the Communion of Christian Churches are 1. Concerning the Ground of it which is their Spiritual Union under one Head Christ Eph. 1.22 23. in one Body one Spirit one Hope of their calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all and they must endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. As they have one common Faith Tit. 1.4 so they must contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints Jude ver 3. They have also one and the same Rule Gal. 6 16. The same Officers in all Churches Tit. 1.5 The same Ordinances and Decrees 1 Cor. 7.17 16.1 Acts 16.4 The same Order Col. 2.5 The same Doctrine 1 Cor. 4.17 15.11 Gal. 1.7 which all the Churches must hold fast Rev. 3.3 and renounce all other Doctrines Gal. 1.8 9. 1 Tim. 1.3 6.3.14 2. Concerning the Manner of it for as the Church generally considered is the Mother of all the faithful Gal 4.26 so particular Churches are Sisters each to other Cant. 8.8 and there is a Brotherhood of visible Saints throughout the World 1 Pet. 5.9 Hence the manner of their communion must be social as between equals none exercising jurisdiction and authority over another Par in parem non habet imperium The giving of Laws to the Churches is Christs Prerogative Iâ—m 4.12 who hath also committed the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to each particular instituted Church to be exercised by each Church within it self without dependance upon the Authority of other Churches in re propriâ Mat. 16.19 1 Cor. 5.12 3. Concerning the Things wherein this communion must be exercised 1. In general in mutual Helpfulness according to God by mutual care one of and for another 1 Cor. 10.24 Phil. 2.20 21. 2. Particularly 1. By Spiritual Helpfulness and care exercised 1. In mutual Prayer and endeavours for their edification Cant. 8.8 9. 1 Cor. 12 7. 1 Pet. 4.10 11. and for their confirmation and establishment in the truth Acts 15.41 16.4 5. and for strengthning each other in the regular application of Church-censures to their delinquent Members 2 Thess 3.14 2 Tim. 4.15 2. By outward Supplies unto their Necessities Acts 11.29 Rom. 15.26 27. 2 Cor. 8.2 c. throughout that Chapter 3. By their mutual care to avoid Offences 1 Cor. 10.32 4. That when a Church findeth need in respect of want of light or of competent consent within it self it is their duty to seek help by the counsel of some other Church or Churches and the other Church or Churches ought to give it in a brotherly way from the Word of God not by the Elders apart but in the presence and with concurrence of the Brethren Acts 15.4 22 23. nor may they bind such a Câ—urch to rest in their determination further then the same shall be found upon searching the Scriptures to seem gâ—od to the Holy Ghost as well as to them Acts 15.28 or if Neighbour-Churchâ—s finde it neâ—essary to offer their helpfulness to a Church in case of the Officers Male-administration or of Errours and Scandals and Schisms and the like cases to prevent the infection of themselves or to remove corruption from such a Church which being obstinate in their way seeketh not for help the Neighbour-Churches ought to exercise the Commâ—nion of Churches by enquiring to finde out the truth and by admonishing the offending Church in a brotherly way whereunto that Church ought to submit according to God Râ—m 16.17 Gâ—l 2 11-14 And if it obstinately persisteth in scandalous Evils after convincing light held forth the offended Churches may renounce communion with them to avoid fellowship in their sin Eph. 5.11 1 Tim. 5.22 Position 12 The Rules given by Christ to Christiâ—n Churche in the Premises and the lâ—ke are to be Received by all the Churches and the Members of them and to be obeyed as his Laws and Commandments who is our â—ne Law-giver In observing whereof and not otherwise the Purity and Peace of Christian Churches will â—e preserved by the blessing of Câ—rist Iam 4.12 Mat 28.20 1 Câ—â— 14.37 1 Tim. 6 13. Gal 6 16. These and the like being general Principles of Truth the particular Determinations of the Synod in the Two Questionâ— are to be Examined by them and so far and no further to be Approved and Receâ—ved as a consent and harmony of them with these may be cleared to the consciences of men rightly informed which may be manifested by a right application and compariâ—g them together 2. The Application of the former Theses or Posiâ—ions to the Questiâ—ns and Answerâ— as they are stated and expressâ—d by the Reverend Elders in their Printed Book followeth The first Quâ—stion propounded to them by the Honoured General Court was Quest 1. Who are the Subjects of Baptism Answ The Answer may be given in the following Propositions Which are seven in number Propos 1 They that according to Scripture are Members of the visib e Church are the Subjects of Baptism Propos 2. The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers in particulâ—r Churches and their infant-seed i. e. children in mâ—nority whose nexâ— Parents one or both are in Covenant Reply I cannot approve the two first Propositions without some change of the terms In the first thus they that accordâ—ng to Christ's Oâ—dâ—nance are regular and actual Membâ—â— c. The second thus The actual and regular Members of thâ— visible Câ—urch accoâ—ding to Christs Ordinance arâ— c. The necâ—ssity of this alteration will appear if either the p emised Positions be duely co sidered wherewith these Proposit onâ— wâ—ll not otherwâ—se agree or if the Proofs alledged by them from Scripture for coâ—firmation of these two Propositions be duely exâ—mined oâ— if what is hereafter to be Replied unto the following Propâ—sitions shall be duely weighed Propos 3. Thâ— infant-seed f confederate visible believers are Members of the same Church with their Parentâ— and when grown up are person lly under the Watcâ— Discipline and Government of the Churâ—h This Proposition câ—nsisteth of two parts both which they endeavour to prove distinctly 1 Thâ—t â—hey are Members of the same Church wiâ—h heir Parent This may pass in a rig t sense being understood of Mediâ—te Member in and by thâ—ir Parents covenantiâ—g for them in their infancy or minority I shall no oppose it 2 That when hâ—y are g own uâ— hey are pe sâ—n lly under the Wâ—â—ch D scipline aâ—d Government of the Churâ—â— This expressiâ—n câ—llâ— for serious consideration and the Proofs of it â—eâ—uiâ—e due exâ—â—inaâ—ion 1. F r the Expâ—â—ssion the meaning of â—t â—â—â—ms to be this That when the childâ—en that were baptized in their minority are grown up to years of discretion or become men they are Members or as they speak afterwâ—rd 〈◊〉 Membeâ— and by that membership are under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church But what
manner usual with the Prophets wherein the Gospel-Churches and their Officers are forewarned by the example of the Jews under the Old Testament with whom God was highly offended for the like abomination not to admit such as are uncircumcised in heart into Church-fellowship to defile the Lords Sanctuary which is not now as then it was a material House but a Society of Saints called An holy Generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People that they might shew forth the virtues of him who hath called them out of darkne s into his marvellous light 1 Pet. 2.9 Such men therefore as cannot approve themselves to the Churches charitable judgement to answer this description in some measure should not be received into Church-fellowshâ—p Whereas they adde that M re was required to adult persons eating the Passover then meer Membership therefore so there is now to the Lords Supper Reply It is true that more then that Membership which they had in their infâ—ncy or minority was required in adult persons to eat the Passâ—ver For 1. When they became adult they were to covenant solemnly with the Lord and his People in their own persons Deu. 26.17 c. whereunto heart fitness was necessary that their persons and services might be accepted of God in that Church-communion Isa 56 4 5. with Deut. 3.6 2. This heart-fitness was also to be exercised when they wâ—re to eat the Passover suitably to the nature end and use of thâ—t Ordinance 2 Chron. 30 6-9 18 19 c. Thus they were to keep the Passover once every year all the dayes of their life till Ch i st our Pâ—ssover was come Since which time it is spâ—ritually to be kept by Believers under the Gospel particularly in our communicating at the Loâ—ds Table in remembrâ—nce of his Deatâ— and of our Redemption thereby untill he come 1 or 5.7.8 〈◊〉 11.25 26. but all they that did eat the Passâ—ver were Members in full communion The Membership of adult persâ—ns then was not a meer Membeâ—ship but a Membership in full Church-communion So it ought to be now They say Though all Members of the Church are the Subjects of Baptism they and their children yet all Members may not partake of the Lords Supper as is further manifest from the different natuâ—e â—f Baptism and the Lords Supper c. Reply 1. Church-membership infers such Church-communion as is suitable to that Membership The Membership of the ch ldâ—en of Confâ—derates in minority infers Church-communion so far as they are capable of it in and by their Parents covenanting for them being not capable of covenanting for themsâ—lves Hence they have communion with the Chuâ—ch by beiâ—g bapâ—â—zed 1 Câ—â— 12.13 So the Church-membership of adult persâ—ns infers Church-communion in all Ordinances particularly in the Lo ds Supper 1 Cor 12.13 and in Voting and Censures 1 Cor. 5.12 Therefore no adult person may be recâ—ived into mee Memberâ—â— regâ—larly untill he be qualified fitly for other Oâ—dinances and for Voting and judging in Church-affairs 1 Co. 5.12 So â—uch for the fourth Proposition Propos 5. Their fifth â—ropositâ—on is Church-members who were admi ted in minoâ—it understanding the D ctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereunto not scandalous in lifâ— and solemnâ—y owning the C venant before the Church wh â—â—n they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Cor st in the Church their children are to be baptized Reply This Proposition agreeth not with our tenth Position where more is declared from Scripture to be required unto Church-membership in reference both to infants and adult persons then is here expressed Yet say they This is evident from the Arguments fâ—llowing But to him who shâ—ll duely examine their Arguments by the Light of the Word and Spirit of God in the New Testament the Proposition will appear to be not evidenced by them as we shall evince by the help of Christ in examining the particulars Arg. 1. These children are partakers of the which is the main ground of baptizing any children whaâ—soever and neither the Parents nor the children do put in any barre to hinder it This they endeavour to prove in the two parts of it severally 1. That they partake of that which is the main ground of baptizing any they say is clear Because interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Bâ—ptism and this infants have Reply The Parents must be fitly qualified before they may be admitted to Covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and their children Else the Covenant will be profaned and such covenanting cannot regularly give them and their children an interest in the Covenant and title to Baptism The Parents or adult persons regularly admitted to Covenant must be B lievers in Christ effectually called in the charitable judgement of the Church judging according to Rule for to such only and their seed is the Promise or Covenant Act 2.39 If the Primitive Churches had not exactly looked for this qualification in the men whom they admitted unto Church-membership the Apostles neither could nor would have styled those to wâ—om they wrote their Epâ—stles Beloved of Gâ—d called Saints Rom. 1.7 Sanctified in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.2 Faithful in Christ Jâ— us Eph 1.1 Saints in Christ Jesus Phil. 1.1 The Church which is in God t e Father and in the Lord Jeâ—us Ch i st 1 Thess 1.1 which they d d not by the judgement of Infallibility f om Divine Revelation but from the judgement of Charity from what they heard of them and saw in them Rom. 1.8 1 Câ—r 1.4 Eph 1.15 6. Coâ— 1.3 4 5. 〈◊〉 2.5 Phil. 1.3 5 6 7. 1 Thess 1.3 4 5 9. Therefore whereas they say That a Member or one in Covenant as such is the subject of Baptism is further cleared in Prâ—pâ—s 1. R ply The light which that Proposition holdeth forth for clearing this is in one clause which is here omitted viz. According to Sc ipture They that according to Scriptu e are Memcers of the visiâ—lâ— C urch are the subjects of B ptism c. Now according to Scripture the Covenant was differently administred in different times of the Church Under Abâ—ahâ—m it was administred by Circumcision to all that weâ—e of his House and to their seed abiding in his Family For the Church was then onely in Abrahams Family and after him in the Families of Isaac and Jacob until M se yet even then the Circumcision of all Parents did not interest their seed in the Covenant and first Seal of it as may be seen in the Posterity of Esau and of Abraham himself by Keturah 2. Under Moseâ— it was administred to the twelve Tribes suitably unto that Ceremonial and Typical state of the Church which was then National Deut. 4.7 8. and the Proselytes who were then addâ—d to them were to be ordered by the same Laws with the People of Israel for accessorium sequitur naturam
let into tâ—e Soul As Reverend Mr. Hooker was wont to say Such 〈◊〉 profess d Assent as hath a prâ—fessed Consent joyned with it Isa 1.10 Such a manner of knowing and consenting as produceth Obedience flowing from Faith which is the next end of the Ministery of the Gâ—spel Rom. 1.5 16.26 Else they are defiâ—â—â— and unbelieving to whom nothiâ—g is puâ—â— but even their minde and conscience is defiled who profess that they know Goâ— bu in their works they deny hiâ— T it 1.15 16. 3 And though t ey are not scandalous in l fe but solemnâ—y own the Câ—venant bâ—fore tâ—â— Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Governâ—ent of Christ in he Churcâ— yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a so of godlâ—nesâ— bâ—â— deâ—y tâ—e power thereof From such Paâ— who tauâ—ht him how he ought to behave himself in the House of 〈◊〉 which is the Church â—f the living God the pillar and gâ— oâ—nd of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 warned Tâ—mothy to turn away 2 Tim. 3.5 4. But are all the adult persons whom they admit into Membership such as the Proposition describes Do they take a right course to know they are such 1. That they are noâ— scandalous in life What testimony or certain knowledge have they that the Church may confide in that they f equent not loose and vain Company in dâ—sorderly Nâ—ght-meetingâ— at unseasonable hours and in suspected places in unwarrantable Gaming 's and Drinkings c not to speak of other evils 2 Hâ—w do they S lemnly own the Covenanâ— before the Church when some of them having publickly said They do own it being afterward asked â—n private What is the Covenant which you owned answered I do not know 3. As for their Subjecting themselves to the Governme t f Christ in the Church Do they orderly submit to the Government of their Family-Governours Parents and Masters c If the Church know not that How can they expect that they wilâ— really subject themselves to Christ's Government in the Church Yea if they have not been weary and heavy loaden and then came unto Christ they are not fit to take his yoke and burthen upon them Matth. 11.28 29. I proceed to their second Argument Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either children of the Covenant or strangers from the Covenant either holy or unclean either within the Church or withouâ— either such as have God for their God or without God in the world But he that considereth the Proposition will not affirm the latter concerning these children and the former being granted infers their right to Baptism Râ—ply The more seriously I consider their Proposition the less I finde in it to evince the former and the more to conclude the latter viz. That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth he may be a stranger from the Covenant unclean and without the Church in Scripture account Râ—m 9 6 7 8. and without God in the world through want of faith in Christ whereby the heart is purified and men have an interest in Christ and in God through Christ Arg. 3. To deny the Proposition would be 1. To straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation c. 2. To render the children of the Iews when they shall be called in a worse condition then under legal Administrations contrary to Jer. 30 10 Ezek. 37.25 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant c. 4. To break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenanâ— Gen. 17.9 10 14. Reply The contrary to all and every one of these is true For 1. It enlargeth the Grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame and staâ—e then the Jews of old were under Legal Dispensations which therefore are not continued and propagated by a natural succession as that National Church was but by Gods â—illing them with an holy calling according to his purpose and gracâ— 2 Tim 1.9 and adding thereby to the Christian Church such as in their charitable judgement shall be saved Acts 2.43 2. It declareth that the state of the Jews when they shall be called will be far better then it was under Legal Dâ—spensations yea then the condition of the Gentiles is now For under the Law their light and holiness was defective and Christian Churches now how careful soever they be in point of admittance cannot avoid the creeping in of Hypocrites but the Jews when they shall be called shall have a far greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages of the Churches and all the Members of the New â—erusalem shall be Elect they and their children successively and no Hypocrite shall be mingled with them Rev. 21. 22. 3. Nor doth the denial of the Proposition infer a denial of the application of the initiatory Seal to such as stand regularly in the Church and Covenant but the contrary 4. Nor doth it break Gods Covenant by denying Baptism to such as are regularly in Covenant These are Accusations without Proof Arg. 4. Confederate visible Believers though but in the lowest degree such are to have their children baptized But the Parents in question are confede ate visible Believers â—t least in some degree Reply The major being granted the minor is denied For 1. All that is said in the Proposition may be affirmed of sundry that have not visible saving Faith in Christ in the lowest degree Therefore these are no sufficient grounds for charity to account them Believers in Christ in the least degree Let them that are to be admitted into Membershâ—p by theâ—r personal right shew how Faith was wrought and how it works in them in the lowest degree then the Church will have some ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness for regular Church-membership and communion 2. Nor are the châ—ldren of the godly qualified but as the persons in the Proposi ions said to be fait ful in â—â—t 1.6 whether we understand that Text in a Moral or Spiritual sense The first is a fâ—uit of Moral Principles and Education these are short of the qualifications in the Proposition The second is a fruit of the Spirit G â— 5.22 These are Believeâ—s in Christ Acts 16.15 3 Epist Ioh. ver 5. and are qualified above what the Proposition requâ—reth 3. They say Chi dren of the Covenant as the Paâ—ents in questionare have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary â—re in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers R pl. 1 It remains to be proved that the Parents in question are children of the Covenant They were children of the Covenant in their infancy and minority and bound thereby when they became adult
in Josh 22.24 25. speaks nothing for their advantage in this case for the men there spoken of were Members in full communion with the Church of Israel and their children when they were grown up were jâ—yned in Covenant personâ—lly and immediately with the Lord and his Church by a solemn Covenant every third year Deu. 26.17 18. which was to continue in Canaan throuâ—hout their generations till the coming of Christ So that they had a part in the Lord successively from which if they had been excluded caustâ—sly it m ght have caused their children to cease from fearing the Lord B t Christ hath not appointed any such Ordinance to continue such a succession in Christian Churches under the Gospel Therefore the Text in Jâ—â—â— doth nothing at all concern the children of Parents in question The tendency of the following Discourse is to prove that The owning of the children of thâ—se that sâ—ccâ—ssively continue in Covenant to be a part of the Church is so far from being destructive to the purity and prosperity of the Church and Religion therein that this imputation belongs to the contrary Tenent Reply They who so conceive have such grounds of that persw siâ—n as w ll not easily be removed nor are so much as shaken by any t ing said in their Book I willâ—ngly grant that to seek to â—â—e more holy than the Rulâ— will ever â—nâ— in impurity in the issue but that cannot be truly applied to those who conceive herein according to Gospel Rules Let them also grant that to increase continue and propagate Churches under the Gospel by means not ordained by Christ under the New Testament but opposite thereunto is to gather without Christ wh ch will ever end in scattering â—n â—he issue and then What will become of the purity and prosperity of Christian Churches It is true that the frame of the Covenaâ—t runs Tâ—ou and to our seâ—d after us in their generaâ—â—ons but it must be understood and applied suitably to the different constitution of Churches under different admin strations of the Covenant under the Old Testament and under the Gospel They say that To keep in the Line and under the influence and efficacy f this Covenant of God is the true way to the Churches glory Reply It is indeed the Churches glory to keep in the Line and under the inflâ—ence and efficacy of this Covenant successively when the Spirit as a free Aâ—ent brings any into that Line and under that efficacy of the Covenant by succession in Faith as he did 〈◊〉 the Grandmother and Eunâ—ce the Daughter and Timoâ—hy her Gâ—andchilde 2 Tim. 1 5. That is the only tru Gospel succession when it is made visible to t e Churches charitable judgâ—ment accordâ—ng to Gospel Rules But that cannot de done by setting up such a Meer Membersâ—ip in Christian Churches whereby the infants shall be baptâ—zed by a right derived to them from Parents who are not in full communion with the â—hurch by their personal Membeâ—shâ—p What influence and efficacy hath the Covenant upon such Parents as aâ—e n such a Membâ—rship wherein the Church judgeth them unfit for communion and that not for any Scandal given by them after their admâ—ssion but for the nature of their Meer Membership To d savow such a Membâ—rship is so far from cutting off the prosperâ—ty of Mâ—n and from hindring it from being as in the most glorious times it shall be An eternal Excellency and the joy of many generations that this imputation belongs to the contrary Tenent which is here asserted But they argue This progress of the Covenant establisheth the Church Deut. 29.13 Jer 30.20 Therefore the contrary doth disestablish it Rep y. The Argument is to be denied For it will not follow that if God did establish the Church of the Jews before the coming of Christ by such a successive progress of the Covenant in Deut. 29.13 therefore he doth so now As for the place Jer. 30 20. where it is said that the children of the Jews shall be as aforetime it is meant only of their outward condition that it shall be as good as before the Captivity See Engl. Annotat. This place then is impertinent to Circumcision or Baptism But there is a manifest difference between the constitution of these Churches The Church of the Jews before Christ was for the matter of it of the Israelites descended from Jacob by successive natural propagation yet this successive progress of the Covenant did not then establish the whole Church of Israel in the twelve Tribes for the ten Tribes fell off under Jeroboam and never returned again The Church of the Jews that shall be under the New Jerusalem must consist for the matter of it of Elect and Sincere Believers onely both they and their children successively to the end of the world according to the Prophesies in Isa 60.15 50.21 Ier. 32.39 Ezek. 37 25-28 Psal 102.16 28. and sundry other places But Christian Churches among the Gentiles now are constituted of visible Believers for the matter of them among whom sundry close Hypocrites creep in The progress of the Covenant in them by Christs Ordinance is thus far successive that the children in minority of confederate visible Believers shall be baptized and thereby bound when they become adult to perform the Covenant in their own persons and to confederate for themselves and theirs as their godly Parents did before them which if they do not those Parents by their degeneracy stop the successive progress of the Covenant In which case Christ doth not allow the Churches to provide for a succession by setting up a Meer Membership of adult persons that are visibly unfit for Church-communion in all Ordinances Such irregular bringing of men into Membership will unavoidably bring in the corrupting of Religion which will end in Apostacy There be better wayes to convey Religion down to after-generations and to continue a Nursery in Christs Vineyard then this way of setting up such a successive Membership which Christ hath not sanctified by his Institution viz. The vigilancy and faithful care and endeavour of Church Elders and Family-Rulers to fit them for regular Church-fellowship in the using of all suitable means with fervent Prayer to God in Jesus Christ for his blessing upon the same leaving the issue to his All-disposing wisdome who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will according whereunto he with-holdeth from and addeth unto the Church whom he will Acts 5.13 2.47 Nor can I but marvel how it comes to pass that they who seem to approve Mr. Cottons Treatise of the Holiness of Church-Members which indeed is worthy to be highly approved do act as they do in setting up such a Meer Membership of adult persons as hath no agreement with his description who are far from personal holiness The young people of this Countrey yea the children of Church-members generally as well as others being commonly known to be Profane Vain Licentious Vicious Disobedient to
his publick Worship and Service whereof Baptism is one and seeing God hath appointed us to Worship him both in it and in all other publick Duties and Services so as we may please him therein It followeth necessarily that he requireth true visible Faith in all whom he priviledgeth to baptize their Infants which yet is not expresly required in the fifth Proposition nor interpretatively in this Propos 7. The Members of Orthodox Churches being sound in the Faith and not scandalous in life and presenting due testimony thereof these occasionally coming from one Church to another may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come by virtue of Communion of Churches But if they remove their habitation they ought orderly to Covenant and to submit themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church where they settle their abode and so their children to be baptized It being the Churches duty to receive such into communion so far as they are regularly fit for the same Reply The regular Communion of approved Churches I look at as the Ordinance of Christ according to the 11th and 12th Posiâ—ions premised but this Proposition is so ambiguously expressed that it leaves me in the dark till some Questions be answered that the extent and compass of the sense and meaning of it may be better cleared They distribute it into two parts which they endeavour to prove severally but neither of them are sufficiently explained In the first part I Enquire What Churches they account Orthodox whether such onely as have the Truth of Doctrine as it is opposed to Heterodoxies and Errours about the Doctrine of Faith viz. Churches that are Heretical or such also which are right in Judgement and Practice in matters of Church-Order For both these the Church at Câ—losse was praised by Paul in Col 2.5 6. 2. What course the Church where the Members of such Churches desire to have their children baptized do take to know that such Members are sâ—und in the Fâ—ith For a Member of an Orthodox Church may hold and maintain dangerous Errours contrary to the Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 3. Whom they account to be not scandalous in life whether onely such as fall not under the censure of Civil Courts or also such as are justly offensive to Gods People by their sinful and disorderly walking For they say in their proof of the second part of this Proposition that to administer Baptism to such as walk in disorder would be to administer Christs Ordinance to such as are in a way of sin and disorder which ought not to be done 2 Thess 3.6 1 Chron 15.13 and would be contrary to that Rule 1 Cor. 14.40 4. What they account due Testimony whether that which is given of them by the Church from whence they come or onely that which they may have from some in the place where they live and have been but a little while whether they be Members of the Church or not 5. What they mean by their occasionally coming from one Church to another whether they take a due course to know that their occasion of coming be approved by the Church whence they come or not 6. When they say They may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come by virtue of the Communion of Churches Quaere 1. Whether they have Letters of Recommendation from the Church whence they come whereby that Church desireth this fruit of Communion with the Church where they would have their children baptized or not That being the orderly way of exercising Communion among Churches Rom. 16.1 2. 2 Cor. 3.1 3 Joh. ver 9 12. and Whether the Infant must be baptized as a Member in and by his Parents covevenanting for him of that Church whence his Parents come or as a Member of the Church where he is baptized and where the Parent is not a Member but onely hath this benefit of the Communion of Churches that himself is admitted to the Lords Supper pro tempore and his children to Baptism in a transient way When these and the like Questions are Answered I shall better know what to say to the first part of the Proposition then now I do In the mean time to the first Proof thereof I have already spoken in my Replies to Propos 1. 2. 5. 8. 2. To clear their meaning in the second part of this Proposition Quaere 1. Whether such Removers have an orderly dismission from the Church whence they come or not 2. Whether the Church where they settle their abode do subject themselves to the Government of Christ or not 3. Whether all refusing to Covenant with any Church whatsoever where they are necessita ed to settle their abode is to be judged to be disorderly walking and to savour of Profaneness and Separation 4. Whether if the Church in that place refuse to receive them into communion so far as they are regularly fit for the same or if they do not joyn in communion with that Church in the place where they dwelt it bâ—ing not to be approved Doth this their not being joyned dâ—bar their children from being baptized in another Church that is approved These and the like Questions being clearly Answered I shall understand the true and full sense of this Proposition and what to say to it So much may suffice for the present for Reply to their Answer to the first Question Quest II. Whether according to the Word of God there ought to be a Consociation of Churches and what should be the manner of it Answ The Answer may be given in the Propositions following Reply The Propositions following are eight As for the first four The first Concerning the full Power and Authority Ecclesiastical within it self of each particular Congregation of visible Saints in Gospel-Order furnished at least with a Teaching Elder and walking together in Truth and Peace And the second concerning The Sisterly Râ—lation of the Churches of Christ each to other And the third concerning The Vnion and Communion of such Churches And the fourth concerning The Acts of Communion I fully close with as well agreeing with the 11th and 12th Positions premised Excepting onely the sixth Act of Communion and that but in one part of it For To admonish one another when there is need and cause for it I confess is an Act of this Communion and which may be proved from Gal. 2.11 24. by proportion But for that other part of it To withdraw from a Church or peccant party therein after due means with patience used obstinately persisting in Errours or Scandals this must be taken with a grain of Salt They referre us to the Platform of Discipline Chap. 15. Sect. 2. Partic. 3. where they fetch a proof for this withdrawing from Mat. 18.15 16 17. by proportion But there seems to be a threefold dispr portiâ—â— between that and this For 1. There the Withdrawing is a consequent and ff ct of tâ—e Câ—urches authoritative Censure of aâ— obstinate offender after the first
and second and third Admonition the offender being a Member and so under the Power and Authority of the Church and to be so censured by the Church to whom Christ hath given â—he Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and hath ordained that such an one shall be Excommunicated for his obstâ—nacy in offâ—nces whâ—ch were materially of a lesser kinde but by obstâ—nacy of the delinquent after secret priva e and publick Admonition against the Ordinance of Christ for his reclaiming becomes formally an heinous Scandal But the Wi hdrawing of other Churches from a Church which they account peccant is an act of different nature and kinde For it is not an act of publick Auâ—hority of such Churches over that Church by virtue of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven given to any Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches as they themselves confess in their first Proposition for Answer to this second Question 2. The steps whereby they proceed to this Withdrawing are 1. That one Church Admonish another 2. If the Church under offence doth not hearken to that Admonition the offended Church is to acquaint other Neighbour-Churches with that offence and with their neglâ—ct of that Admonition whereunto those other Churches are to joyn in seconding the Admonition formerly given and if stâ—ll the offending Church continue in obstinacy and impenitency they may forbear communion with them Reply This is not by proportion according to Matth. 18. For there Christ doth not allow them who have proceeded in Admonishing but to the second step to forbear communion with the delinquent whereas these Neighbour-Churches are but in the second step Yet they say they may forbear communion with them Then they ascend to the third step To proceed to make use of a Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches walking orderly if a greater cannot conveniently be had for their conviction If they hear not the Synod the Synod having declared them to be Obstinate particular Churches approving and accepting the judgement of the Synod are to declare the sentence of Non-communion respectively concerning them and thereupon out of a Religious care to keep their own communion pure they may justly withdraw themselves from participation with them at the Lords Table and from such other acts of holy communion as the Communion of Churches doth otherwise allow and require Thus they speak in that Platform But is this in proportion according to Mat. 18. that the Neighbour-Churches may first withdraw and then a Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches must be made use of for their conviction and if the Synod declare them to be Obstinate particular Churches are to declare the sentence of Non-communion and then to withdraw themselves from all acts of holy communion Till they can produce a clear Rule for warrant of such a proceeding I cannot look at this otherwise then as a meer humane Invention 3. Though Churches may withdraw from a Church that is obstinate and impenitent in some cases without any such solemn sentence of Non-communion declared by a Synod yet not for such causes as a delinquent Brother may be Excommunicated by a Church according to Mat. 18. For there though the Offence was in some lesser matter and private between two at first yet by obstinacy against convincing light held forth in those three steps of proceeding it becomes a publick and heinous Scandal and so the Delinquent must be at last Excommunicated by the command of Christ and the Sentence of the Church in obedience to Christ who hath for such ends given the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven unto them But Neighbour-Churches may not withdraw from a true Church for every Errour and Scandal though persisted in and in their opinion obstinately For 1. It may be the Errour of Neighbour-Churches to think that to be light from Scripture which they hold forth for their conviction when it is not from Scripture rightly understood and rightly applied If the Synod by whom this Book is published should conclude any Church to walk in Errour and Scandal and Obstinately which shall not be convinced from what light they have here held forth nor practise accordingly till what is Replied ad oppositum be soundly Refuted and their Allegations and Applications of Scripture more convincingly and irrefragably cleared and Withdraw communion from them after the first second and third Admonition and If any Neighbour-Churches for this or the like cause should Withdraw from communion with them after the Admonition of one Church and after that of other Neighbour-Churches They should greatly sin in so doing and act contrary to their own Doctrine in their second Proof of their 7th Proposition for Answer to this second Question pag. 28. where they say To refuse communion with a true Church in lawful and pious actions is unlawful and justly accounted Schismatical For if the Church be true Christ holdeth some communion with it therefore so must we Now the Churches in New-England were approved by their Neighbour-Churches to be true Churches by their giving unto them the right hand of fellowship and an Errour in lesser matters though persisted in against their Admonitions which may be from want of convincing light doth not make any of them cease to be a true Church But to Withdraw themselves from all holy communion with such a Church for such a cause is Total separation from a true Church which themselves say is unlawful Ibid. 2. The cases wherein communion may be regularly Withdrawn from a Church or Person are onely such as Subvert the Fundamentals of Religion and are obstinately persisted in against due means regularly used with patience for their conviction being contrary to the Faith once given to the Saints from whence they may be justly denominated Heretical Tit. 3.10 11. 2 Joh. ver 10 11. Or to the communion of Saints from whence they may be justly styled Schismatical Rom. 16.17 18. Or to both being fallen from the Truth once received from whence they be justly called Apostatical 2 Tim 4.10 Or if there be any other case of like heinousness But in cases of lesser importance Churches and Christians are to be exhorted to walk worthy of their calling with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in love Endevouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace c Eph. 4.1 2 3 c. concluding with blessed Paul that the main things of Religion being provided for and secured for lesser matters if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Phil. 3.15 For in such matters godly men do frequently differ and are not easily convinced some from the strength others f om the weakness of their Intellectuals and the bâ—st â—now â—ut in part I have been the larger in clearing this Point for necessary causes Having thus spâ—ken to tâ—e four first Propositions I proceed to tâ—e fifâ—h and sixâ—h Propositions Propos 5. Câ—nsociâ—tion of Churches is their mutual and solemn Agreement to exercise communion in such acts as
become a Classical or Presbyterian Church and the Members by consenting thereunto become Members of a Classical Church and under the power of it so as to be Excommunicated by it And is not this Consociation to be looked at as a Snare to the Churches which 1. Transforms them from Congregational Churches into a Classical Church And 2. Subjects them under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Classical Church And 3. Without any warrant of Christs Institution Let us see if there be more in their second Proof 2. Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference concurrence and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles and ordinary Elders and Churches have not less need each of other to prevent their running in vain Gal. 2.2 6 9. Reply 1. This necessity was proper to Paul's case who did not converse with Christ on earth as the other Apostles did but was as one born out of due time 1 Cor. 15.8 and so was more liable to be objected and excepted against then the other Apostles and therefore had more need to be countenanced among men by them then they by him Whence he wisely sought approbation from them But this is not the case of the Churches in New-England each of them having been approved by the right hand of fellowship given to them by other Churches at their first gathering and at the Ordination of their Teaching and Ruling-Elders 2. Paul did thus not by reason of such a consociation of Churches as is here described but for other Reasons 3. The running in vain of any Elders and Churches hath been hitherto prevented by the communion of Churches regularly exercised and still may be 3. Those general Rules touching the need and use of counsel and help in weighty cases concern all Societies and Polities Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Prov. 11.14 15.22 c. R ply It is true and it is their duty to make use of them in obedience and with thankfulness to God as need requires when they want light or consent within themselves by virtue of the communion of Churches without such a Consociation as they describe 4. The pattern in Acts 15. holds forth a warrant for Councils which may be greater or lesser as the matter shall require Reply But 1. Not with special respect to the vicinity of Churches for Paul and Barnabas and the Messengers fâ—om the Church of Antioch passed through other Churches nearer to go to Jerusalem for counsel 2. Nor by virtue of such a Consociation of the Church at Antioch with that at Jerusalem but of the communion of Churches 5. Concurrence and communion of Churches in Gospel-times is not obscurely held forth in Isa 19 23 24 25. Zeph. 3.9 1 Cor. 11.16 14.32 36. R ply Some of those Texts note onely a communion of Saints in one and the same Church 2. None of them hold forth a Consociation of Churches as they describe 6. There hath constantly been in these Churches a profession of Communion in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of Churches and Ordination of Elders which importeth a Consociation and obligeth to the practice thereof Reply Together with the profession of communion hath been the practice of it in these Churches But that this communion importeth such a Consociation as they describe and obligation to the practice thereof was not expressed nor understood Worthy Mr. Cotton whose Name ought to be honourable among the Saints both in Old England and New in that Book which he entituled The Way of the Churches in New-England the sixth chapter speaketh of the Communion of Churches and sheweth seven wayes whereby it ought to be and is in these Churches exercised They do as I apprehend reach all the Duties to be performed by virtue of Church-communion mutually by each other But of this Consociation as it is here described he speaketh not a word nor I believe did apprehend any Necessity of it or Rule in Scripture for it Therefore when they say Without this we shall want an expedient and sufficient cure for emergent Church-difficulties and differences the constant experience of these Churches from their beginning to this day evinceth the contrary And though our Way is charged with the want hereof yet it is unjustly and by such as would bring us into their Way of Classical Churches which is not proved to be the Ordinance of Christ as this of the Communion of Churches is and hath been found effectual by the blessing of Christ and so will be still And though this part of the Doctrine of the Church as they call it concerning such a consociation it being not proved to be the Doctrine of Christ was never practised in these Churches For without it the Churches either have been or might have been and may be hereafter kept in purity and peace with Brotherly love among themselves mutually by the regular improving the communion of Churches which is manifested to be the Ordinance of Christ who hath given us perfect Rules in the New Testament for the ordering of the communion of Christian Churches which are sufficient for attainment of the ends for which Christ hath appointed it according to the second third fourth eleventh and twelfth Positions premised With which if this way of Consociation of Churches shall be clearly proved to agree which I do not finde to be yet done I shall readily and heartily close with it and submit unto it For it is onely the Truth that I search for and desire to bear witness unto that when my time shall come to lay down this earthly tabernacle which I expect daily I may give up my account with joy 2. And if any Church be refractory we have the help of the Civil Power which is ordained of God for the just punishment of those that do evil whether in Church or Common-wealth Rom. 13. Every Oâ—dinance of God hath Gods blessing annexed which we cannot expect in this way till it be proved to be Gods Ordinance which yet is not done Propos 7. The manner of the Churches agreement herein may be by the Churches open consenting unto the things here declared in Answer to this second Question as also to what is said thereabout in Chap. 15 16. of the Platform of Discipline with reference to what is before expressed in Proposition 5th Reply If the Churches do express their Agreement herein openly they do voluntarily engage themselves and covenant to practise according to the things declared not onely in the point of Church-communion but also of such consociation as is here expressed which they have need to see to be warranted by the Word if they will act accordingly in faith knowing that whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14.23 What is said in the Platform chap. 15 hath been in part examined before in chap. 16.5 They say The Synods Directions and Determinations so farre as consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission not onely for their agreement therewith
c. but also secondarily for the power whereby they are made c. Reply I grant that the Synods Directions and Determinations so farre as consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission But what if the Members of Churches to which they are sent do not finde them consonant to the Word rightly understood and applied Are they nevertheless still bound to practise according to the Synods Directions and Determinations because the Synod coucludeth that they are consonant to the Word I suppose no Orthodox Synod in these times will arrogate to it self such infallible Assistance as the Apostles being assembled with the Church at Jerusalem had Acts 15. though they argued and concluded onely from Scripture yet that Council could not erre in their understanding and applying Scripture having such guides as the Apostles were but will confess that they may erre in their understanding and applying the Scriptures whereupon they seem to gâ—ound their Directions and Determinations And if so it is the duty of every Church and the Members thereof to examine by the Scriptures whatsoever Direction or Determination is propounded by the Synod If they finde that they are consonant to the Word of God they are bound by Gods Authority to receive them with reverence and submission If otherwise wrought to obey God rather then man Acts 5.29 2. This power of the Synod though they say it is but secondary and that it is for their agreement with the Word which is the principal ground thereof and without which their Directions and Determinations binde not at all yet they make so binding that if any Churches shall refuse to practise according to the Directions and Determinations of the Synod though they have strong grounds of dis-satisfaction about the Synods interpretation and application of the Scriptures alledged by them they will withdraw themselves from communion with them Whether such an authoritative urging their counsels upon Churches be warranted by Scripture let the Reader enquire and consider and Whether it will agree with what themselves before declared concerning the unlawfulness of a total Separation from a true Church and Whether there be need of it to cure emergent Church-difficulties and differences seeing all that are godly will readily close with such Directions and Determinations of Synods as are clearly consonant to the Word of God and if any obstinately will persist in their own wayes contrary to the Word held forth to them by the Synod the Civil Power is Gods Ordinance for punishment of such evil doers that the Churches may be kept pure and peaceable in the exercise of Church-communion among themselves in a Brotherly way Which yet is no impediment to the Churches and that by the declaratory Sentence of a Synod that is after due conviction of a Church that is Heretical Schismatical Apostatical or the like with due patience exercised to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such as make themselves worthy by their obstinacy against the light clearly held forth from Scripture to be rejected as not true Churches of Christ Yet this they may not regularly do meerly for their Dissenting from the Determinations of the Synod upon conscientious grounds and in lesser matters What is before expressed in the fifth Proposition hath been already examined Propos 8. concerneth The manner of exercising and practising that Communion which this consent and agreement specially tendeth unto which they say may be by making use occasionally of Elders or able Brethren of other Churches or by the more solemn Meetings of both Elders and Messengers in lesser or greater Councils as the matter shall require Such Meetings for the end specified being rightly ordered and carried on in a Brotherly way by men sincerely affected to establish Truth with Peace in the Churches of the Saints according to the Rules given unto us by Jesus Christ our Lord and Law-giver I do fully approve as of profitable use by the Blessing of Christ for the good of the Churches The Reverend Author's POSTSCRIPT Christian Reader THese Lines and Labours of Love I trust to the King of Saints and his Subjects and Laws I leave with thee with the wise perusall and consideration of them The issue and success I commit unto the onely wise God and our Father in Jesus Christ desiring all those into whose hands it may come to receive nothing said by me further then they shall finde it consonant to the Word of God in the Scripture specially of the New Testament And that if they dissent in any particulars they will gratifie me with notice thereof together with their Reasons whom they shall finde thankful for such help and ready to embrace any Truth that is yet hidden from me and that no man will suspect that I seek any thing in this Essay but Truth with Peace lest they become judges of evil thoughts Farewell in our Lord Jesus who is the Truth Let his good Spirit lead us and all his Churches and People into wayes of Truth and Peace and establish our goings in those wayes Amen Your assured Friend and Brother J. D. CONSIDERATIONS UPON THE SEVEN PROPOSITIONS Concluded by the SYNOD sitting at BOSTON June 10th 1662. By the Reverend Mr. NICHOLAS STREET Teacher of the Church of Christ at New-haven I. THis Phrase Members of the visible Church in the first Proposition I take to be explained in the second Proposition II. By this Phrase in the second Proposition Their Infant-seed I suppose is meant onely their legitimate infant-seed and is not to be extended to illegitimate children against which a strong Argument may be gathered from Deut. 23.2 III. The second Proposition doth seem to distinguish of Members in particular Churches Some are said to be Confederate visible Believers whereby I suppose is meant such as have immediately and personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves both for themselves and for their seed for it is manifest that it is spoken of such as are made contradistinct to an infant-seed that cannot thus do Some are said to be Their infant-seed i. children in minority c. And how come these to be Members The last words in the Proposition do shew which are Whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant which doth imply at least that they become Members in and by their next Parents covenanting for them Hence the ground of the distinction of Membership into Immediate and Mediate is very clear The Argument may be thus framed Such as is the ratio formaliâ— of the Membership such is the Membership so may it be distinguished and denominated But Confederation which is the ratio formaliâ— of the Membership is immediate in the Parent in the Childemediate Ergo. A difference in Membership is granted both in this second Proposition and some others after and if this distinction to express the difference be not proper let some better be laid down that doth more aptly and fully suit the nature of the thing and we shall receive it In the mean
If not it is needful that it should be declared that all may know where to stop and to understand that this Priviledge is not to exceed the Third Generation Again if not it is strange that a childe should be begotten or born of a Member and yet it self be no Member or if a Member have no right to Baptism 2. If so it may be demanded By what right or Where is the ground of their right to Baptism Not in the Grandfather or Great-Grandfather that is generally disliked and the second Proposition doth limit it otherwise but in the immediate Parent I suppose But how is the right of these childrens Baptism founded upon him Not upon his personal Confederating for it is supposed there is none Nor upon his owning the Covenant of his father for his father made no Covenant he did onely own the Covenant of his Parents and that gave the right of Baptism to his children as is held forth in the fifth Proposition It remaineth therefore that this Parent of the third Generation doth own what his Parent of the second Generation he can go no higher hath done and what is that He entred not into Covenant but onely owned the Covenant that his father entred into And thus these last children who are of the fourth Generation do come to have right to Baptism not by their Parents Confederation as the second sort mentioned in the second Proposition nor by their Parents owning their fathers Covenant as the third sort spoken of in the fifth Proposition but by these Parents of the third Generation owning their Parents of the second Generation owning the Covenant of their fathers of the first This seemeth to be an uncouth way and very unpleasant Divinity VII The sixth Proposition I look at as an Exception to the fifth otherwise it is cross unto it and against it To this I say 1. If there be any weight in the Arguments used under the sixth Consideration against the baptizing of children to whom the fifth Proposition doth allow Baptism then they are likewise of force against the baptizing of children mentioned in this sixth Proposition 2. I cannot but take notice of the several sorts of Membership all giving right to Baptism Two in the second Proposition a Third in the fifth a Fourth in the sixth and if Membership without personal Confederation by the seed of Confederate visible Believers doth not end in the third Generation then there is a Fifth and a Sixth sort of Membership and all these are differing one from the other The two first are of God and according to his Word the rest are not VIII The last Proposition seemeth to open a very wide gate in the Church wider then God doth allow Isa 26.2 for though it requireth qualifications in such Members who claim right to Baptism for their children in other Churches by virtue of Church-communion yet it is altogether silent of the qualifications of such Churches themselves onely they must be Orthodox that respects the Doctrine of Faith alone There is much more to be attended A Church may be Orthodox in matters of Faith yet Scandalous in Practice A whole Church may be under Scandal as well as a particular person and in that case another Church may withdraw from it and have no communion either with it or its Members And this was not long since the Judgement and Practice of some of the chief Churches and Elders in the Bay Again a Church may believe the main Articles of Faith yet be so defective in Discipline yea so opposite to Christs Government as to lay aside his Laws and Institutions and set up the Inventions and Traditions of men And likewise may have such a corrupt Constitution both in regard of Matter Open scandalous livers and likewise of Form No visible express Covenant according to the Rules of the Gospel that there can be no such communion held and maintained with such a Church or her Members holding communion with it as is expressed in this seventh Proposition without manifest disobedience to the Word of God in these and many other places Rev. 18.4 2 Cor. 6.17 Eph. 5.11 If the Members of Orthodox Churches may upon the terms expressed in the seventh Proposition claim Baptism for their children in our Churches by virtue of Church-communion then themselves have right to communicate with us in the Lords Supper and then what should hinder but that we may by virtue of Church-communion occasionally coming to any of these Orthodox Churches have our children baptized in such a Church and our selves partake in the Supper of the Lord Or if we should have occasion to remove our Habitation to such a place where such an Orthodox Church is why may we not joyn unto it and have fellowship with it And if we may so do New-England Christians are of all Christians in the world most miserable and foolish We have suffered many things in vain in leaving such a Countrey for this our Estates Friends Comforts there to enjoy God and Christ and our Consciences in the Congregational-Way in a low afflicted condition in the Wilderness for so many years together and now we must lose those things which we have wrought and may return to our former state when we please which the Lord preserveus from FINIS THere is now in the Press a small Treatise Entituled A Discourse of the Last Judgement on Matth. 25.31 to the end c. By Mr. SAMVEL WHITING Pastor of the Church of Christ at Lynne which will shortly be extant
ANOTHER ESSAY For Investigation of the Truth IN ANSVVER TO TWO QUESTIONS Concerning I. THE SVBJECT of BAPTISM II. THE CONSOCIATION of CHVRCHES By JOHN DAVENPORT B. of D. and Pastor of the Church of Christ at New-Haven in NEW-ENGLAND Matth. 17.5 This is my beloved Son â—eâ—r hâ—m 2 Cor. 13.8 We can do nothiâ—g â—gainst the Truth but for the Truâ—h 1 Thess 5.21 Prâ—ve all things holâ— fast that wâ—iâ—â— is good Tertul. de Vel. Virg. Veritati nemo praescribere potest non spatium temporum non Pâ—trocinium Peâ—sonarum non Privilegium Regionum ex his enim fere Consuetudo initium ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplicitate sortita in usum per successiâ—neâ— â—â—râ—oboratur ita adversus vâ—ritatem vindicatur Sed Dominus noster Chrâ—stâ—â— Verâ—â—â—tem se non consuâ—tudinem Câ—gnominavit Si semper Christus prior omnibuâ— aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res est Viderint ergo quibus novum est quod sibi vetus est Cypr. Caecilio Epistâ—la Si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid aliquis artenes fâ—ciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus Prior fecerit faâ—iâ—â—dum praeceperit Iâ—em caeteri in Concil Carthag Stephano Scimus quosdam quod semel in biberint nolle depâ—nâ—re nec propositum suum sâ—cilâ— mutare sed salvâ— inter Collegas pacis concordie vinculo quaeda â—ro riâ— qâ—â—e apud se semel sint usurpata retinere Qâ—á in re nec nos cuiquâ—â— f â—imus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae adâ—inistratione vâ—luntatâ—s suae arbitrium li e rum unusquisque Prâ—epoâ—itus râ—tionâ—m aâ—tus sâ—i Doâ—ino redditurus Amicus Sâ—â—rates aâ—icus â—lato magis amica Veritas Non eadem sentire boneâ— de rebus iâ—sdem inâ—clumi l â—uit semper amiâ—â—tâ—â CAMBRIDGE Printed by Samuel Green and Marmaduke Johnson 1663. AN APOLOGETICAL PREFACE TO THE READER IT was an Observation or an Inspiration rather of h ly a Cleâ—â—â—em a 〈…〉 â—â—tuâ—o 〈…〉 Bright in Apoc. 17. â— Brightman'â— That some faithf lones in a Wildeâ—ness should have the most clear Discoveries of the Abominations of the Man of Sin which Prophetick passage of that Reverend and Learned Writer some have applied unto those worthy Confâ—ssors in New-England who forsook theâ—r Countâ—y and Fathers houses and left a pleasant Land farre dearer to them then their lives for the Testimony of Jesus and upon no other account but onely that so they might see the Lord in his Sanctuary and Worship him whom their Souls love in the Beauties of Holiness where indeed they have seen him walking in the midst of his golden Candlesticks So much the more sad it is to consider that there should be any Declensions or Contentions amongst a People for whom the Lord hath done such wondrous things We hope that none will be so injurious and unreasonable as to impute it unto any defect in the Way even The good Old Congregational-Way of Government which these Churches have hitherto Professed that there should such Differences in judgement arise about things of a lesser moment Do we not know that even in the Churches Planted by the Apostles themselves there arose no small dissention Acts 15.2 Yea that there was a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. â— 39 Paroxysm between a Paul and a Barnabas Let Rome glory in her Peace against all Reformed Churches shall we therefore think that all our Foundations are out of course True it is our hearts cannot bâ—t mourn and bleed that ever it should be told in Gath or published in the streets of Askelon that there are any different Apprehensions amongst us And in that respect we could gladly have forboâ—n the Publication of the ensuing Essay Yet when we remember that b Opinionum vâ—rieâ—as 〈◊〉 oâ—inantâ—uâ—â—â—ntas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Variety of Judgements may stand with Unity of Affections and thaâ— Disputation is the way to finde out Trutâ— Ex collisione ingeniorum fit scintilla veritati and that d â—ui statuit alâ—â—â— pâ—â—â—e 〈…〉 stâ—tu 〈…〉 â—â—erit Sâ—n. Tâ—â—g He that judgeth a Cause before he hath heard both parties speaking although he should judge rightly is not a righteous Judge We are willing that the World should see what is here presenâ—ed Buâ— especially being perswaâ—eâ— that tâ—e Honour of God and of his Truth require this as a duty at our hands We durst not hinder what is here maintaiâ—ed fâ—om coming into light lâ—st we should one day have it laid unto ouâ— Charge that we did withhold the Truth in unrighteousness Aâ—d in very deed our Opinion of whâ—t is here by the Reverend Author assâ—rted is such as that we do believe it will tend to our rejoycing in the day of the Lord Jesus that ever we were made instrumental to bring the Truth into publick view whereby the World might fare the better for it We are to follow Peace but not with the loss of Truth But when Truth mâ—y be discovered without any hazard unto Peace and oneness of Affection is we hope the case is so in the publication of this Elaborate Essay we shâ—uld be very injurious indeed if we did not what in us lay to forward it Moreover what is here held forth ought to be regarded upon more accounts thâ—n one Salvian his Observation is too often found true that Men in reading Books look more at e â—alvâ—â—n de Aâ—crâ— l. 1. Quis then Quid scripsit who hath written then what he hath written If we respect either of these the following Discourse may be commended to the Reader The Author is a Commendation of the thing Written and the thing Written is a Commendation of the Author As for the Author His praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches and indeed His Works praise him in the Gates Well did Mâ— Cotton give this Testimony concerning him that He is a f Paventâ—rtus Judiciâ— â—â—â—dâ—tione 〈◊〉 sâ—â—gulâ—ri â—ruâ—â—ntia Cottâ—n 〈…〉 Apol. ad â—oâ—tâ—n Râ—ip Apollon Man mighty in Judgement and Learning and Singular Prudence And we d ubt not but those that love and honour him farre less then we do yet wâ—ll say that He is one of a thousand It is indeed an evil under the Sun to have men's persons in admiration so as to take any man's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a demonstration yet there are some Writings which are the more to be respected because of the Writer Logicians know that Testimonies are to be more or less valued according to the person Testifying And truly if there be any man amongst us whose words dâ—sâ—rve regarding for his sake that speaks them thâ—n so do the words of this Judiciouâ— Learned and Holy man Furthermore if we consider the Thing written it calls for due respect and reverence As that for-ever famous Dr. g Aâ—es ad 〈◊〉 in Twâ—ss 〈◊〉 c. contra Arâ—â—n Ames said of the most Scholastically-Learned Dâ— Twisse so may we
but varied according to the different times wherein the Church hath been gathered the progress thereof in that variety being from less perfect before the coming of Christ to more perfect after his coming the former was more external and carnal Heb. 9.10 the latter more internal and spiritual Ioh. 1.17 that was accommodated to the state of the Church being a childe this to the state of the Church being an heir grown to full age Gal. 4.1 to 5. Position 6 Though Baptism is come in the place of Circumcision and therefore infants of Confederates are now to be baptized as then they were to be circumcised they both being outward Seals of the same Covenant in substance Col. 2.11 12. Rom. 4.11 Yet neither must we look at Circumcision as it was of Moses but of the Fathers I h. 7.22 nor at every subject of Circumcision as the subject of Baptism extensively Circumcision was extended to all that were born in the house and bought with money Gen. 17 12 13. But Baptism is limited to believing Iews and their children and to so many as the Lord our God shall call Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 Your children are holy he saith not Your servants â—c Position 7 The Rules accommodated by Iesus Christ our Lord for the manner of applying the Covenant and of administring the Kingdome of God under the Gospel concern either the constitution and ordering of Christian Churches or the propagation and continuing of them or their communion together In all which both the Truth and the Arguments for confirmation of it must be drawn expresly or by good consequence from the New Testament in such particulars wherein we have Christ's appointment or the Primitive Churches planted or approved by the Apostles for our Patterns Not from the Old Testament further then they may be inferred thence by parity of reason Mâ—t. 28.20 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Position 8 The Rules given of Christ 1. Concerning The Constitution of Christian Châ—rches are 1. That the Matter of them must be if adult approved Believers Acts 5.14 if infants or children in minority such whose Parents both or one are orderly and visibly joyned to the Church of Christ Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 2. That the Form of them must be their visible confederating with the Lord Christ as the Head of the Church and one with another mutually to walk together according to his Rules for the attainment of the ends of Church communion 2 Cor. 8.5 1 Pet. 2.5 Position 9 The Rules given by Christ for The Ordering of Christian Churches are 1. In general that all Gospel Ordinances be dispensed and administred according to Gospel-Precepts and Patterns Col 2.5 6. 2. In particular 1. That fit persons be orderly admitted into this holy Fellowship by the Door which is Christ believed on and professed Ioh. 10.7 9. 2. That Officers appointed by Christ be regularly chosen and ordained and that the Elders both Teaching and Ruling especially Teaching be singularly loved and honoured with double honour and obeyed 1 Tim. 3. Tâ—t 1 Ph l. 1.1 Acts 6.6 14.23 1 Thess 5.12 13. 1 Tim. 4.17 18. Heb. 13.17 2. That the Members exercise mutual Watchfulness one over another Heb. 10.24 25. with mutual Submission of one to another and of every one to the whole Body 1 Pet. 5.5 3. That the visible Seals instituted by Christ for Gospel-Churches which are onely two Baptism and the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 12.13 be administred by the Teaching Officers according to Christs Institution Mat. 28.19 1. Baptism is to be administred by Christs Ordinance to Disciples ibid. Viz. 1. To grown persons not before baptized after their holding forth their Repentance and Faith in Christ and voluntary taking hold of the Covenant for themselves and their seed Mat. 3.6 Luke 3.3 Acts 8 37 38. 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 12.12 13. These for distinction sake I call Immediate Members 2. To their infant-seed or children in minority who also are members in the right of their Parents covenanting for them Acts 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 these I call Mediate Members because the membership which they have is Mediante Parentum foedere therefore these being grown up must be admitted into immediate fellowship and full communion with the Church by their personal faith held forth to satisfaction of the Churches charitable discretion and by their taking hold of the Covenant for themselves and their seed as their Parents before them did as it is prophesied of Gospel-Churches in Isa 56.6 7. 62 5. 2. The Lords Supper is to be administred according to Christ's Institution in reference both to the Ordinance it self 1 Cor. 11.23 to 27. and to the Communicants ver 27 to 32. 4. That Church-censures be applied to delinquent Members in private offences according to Mat. 18 15 to 18. and in publick criminous Scandals according to 1 Cor. 5.11 Rev. 22.15 but so as the publick judgement be not by the Elders alone but together with them by the Fraternity 1 Cor. 5 12. Position 10 The Rules given of Christ for the Propagation and Contâ—nuing of Christian Churches are properly suited to their Congregational and Spiritual state They are not the same with those before the Law when the Church was onely in Families nor with those under the Law given to the Church of the Jews in both which the Church was to be propagated and continued by natural generation in a lineal descent from Noah by Shem and from Abraham by Isaac and Jacob till the coming of Christ this way best suiting to a Domestical and National Church in their respective constitutions Christian Churches are of neither of these sorts but are by Christ's appointment cast into a Congregational and more Spiritual Form and therefore are not capable of being propagated and continued in a lineal succession by natural generation ordinarily but must be propagated and continued 1. In adult persons by Regeneration visibly manifested to the charitable discretion of the Church Joh. 3.3 5. being wrought in the working of Faith in Christ Joh. 1.12 13. and made visible by a right confâ—ssion and profession of Faith both quae creditur Rom. 10.10 and quâ creditur Gal. 3.26 2. In their infant-seed by their Parents covenanting for them to the end that such being engaged to God in their infancy may be thereby engaged and excited the more to give up themselves to God in Christ when they come to years of discretion not by constraint but willingly Psal 110.3 through the operation of God working Faith in their hearts Col. 2.12 by the Spirit who is a voluntary Agent and therefore likened to the wind which bloweth where it listeth Joh. 3.8 Sometimes in some of the next posterity yet not in all 2 Joh. 4. sometimes in the Grandmother and Mother and childe as in Timothy 2 Tim. 1.5 Accordingly the Church must make a difference of children grown up where God makes a difference as he did between Jacob and Esau Mal. 1.2 and receive onely such whom Christ receiveth Rom. 14.1
membership is thâ—s Their membership in their minority wâ—s mâ—dâ—â—te in and by their Parents covenanting for them as themselves say in pag. 14. and answerably they are under tâ—e Watch of the Church in and by their Parents who are immediately and personally uâ—der the Watch D scipline and Government of the Church which is to see that the Parents do their dâ—ty and perfâ—rm their Covenant for them in b iâ—ging them up in the nurture and admoniâ—ion of the Lord Eph. 6.4 and to help them therein Bâ—t by what right are they personally under the Watch Dâ—sciplâ—nâ— and Government of the Church Noâ— by their Parents Covenant for that was theirs onely in their infâ—â—cy and minority because then they were not capable of covenanting for themselves personâ—lly It remains then that when grown up they mâ—st be eithâ—r not members of the Church personally or members by their personal covenâ—nting for themselves and theirs as other adult persons must be who offer themsâ—lves to Church-fellowshâ—p Else though they were members oâ— the same Church with their Parents in their infâ—ncy and minority yet they continuâ— not members when grown up not are pâ—rsonally under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church by their owâ— fault But they say the contrary is manifest Therefore let us examine their Argumâ—nts Arg. 1. Chiâ—dren wâ—â—e under Patriarchal and Mosaical Diâ—câ—pl ne of olâ— Gen. 18.19 21.9 10 12. Gal. 5.3 and therefâ—â—e under Congâ—egâ—â—â—naâ— D câ—pâ—ine now Reply 1. The Tex s alledged do not prove the Antecedent 1. Abrahams command ng his châ—ldren and houshâ—lâ— after him to keep the w y of tâ—e Lord c. doth not necessâ—rily infer Church-dâ—scipline It being enjoyned to all Fathers of Familâ—eâ— in the National Church of â—râ—â— Dâ—ut 6.7 11 19. and in the Congreâ—ational Churchâ—s of Christ under the Go pel 〈◊〉 6.4 9. within tâ—eir own Families where they have not power to exercise Church-discipline or if any fartâ—er thing was meant it may be applied to the command concerning Circumcision as â—en 17 26 27. 2. That in Gen. 21 9. where Ishmael who was bo n after the flesh persecuted Isaâ—c wâ—o was born after the Spitit and was therefore cast out of the Church in Aâ—raâ—â—ms Family is improved by tâ—e Apostle to another purpose in Gal. 4 22-29 nor doth it prove their Proposition For Ishmael was not circumcised at eâ—ghâ— dayeâ— old but when he was thirteen years old and therefore may be thought to be circumcised upon his pâ— s naâ— tâ—kâ—ng hold of thâ— Câ—venaâ—â— as other grown persons in the family d d theâ—e being nothing said in that story to evince the contrary To which opinion Polyâ—aâ—pus Lysâ—rus seemeth to incline If it was so then there is a manâ—fest difference between Ishmaelâ— case and the children of confâ—derates baptized in iâ—fancy for Ishmael was admitted into Churcâ—-fâ—l owshâ—p and full communion by his personal covenanting whereupon he was circumcised being grown up to yâ—ars of discretion and so might be regularly excomâ—un catâ—d which they who never were in fâ—ll communion may not be 2. To prâ—ve that children were under Mosâ—ical discipline of olâ— they p odâ—ce onely one Text Gal. 5.3 where the Apostle speaking of ciâ—cumcâ—sion not as it was given â—f God and rightly used by Abâ—ahaâ— as a seal of tâ—e righteousness which is by faiâ—â— Râ—m 4.11 but as it was abused by false Teachers to establish Justification by the works of the Law testifieth to every mâ—n that is circâ—mcisâ—d â—hat he is a debtor to do he whole Law and â—hat tâ—erâ—fâ—râ— Chrâ—st sâ—all prâ—fâ— them nothing Because he that seekeâ—h Righteousness in Circumcâ—siâ—n is bound by like reason to seâ—k it in other works of the Law Therefore this text doth not prove that for wâ—ich it is allâ—dged viz. tâ—at children circumcisâ—d in infancy were being grown up under the external Mosaical Watch Discipline and Gâ—vernment of the Chuâ—ch Reply 2. Their Argument also is to be denied Because if the Antecedent were more manif â— ly true then it is found tâ— be yet tâ—e Consequent is not good â—or there is not â—ar â—allâ— the like reason of those Patriarc al and Mosaical Câ—urches and Congregatiâ—nal Churches under the Gospel The mâ—mbeâ—s of the Church in the Patriarchâ— fâ—â—â—â—â— were to contiâ—uâ— iâ— communion with the Church from their being circumcised all the dayes of their life until they were cast out as persâ—cuting â—sâ—mael was or voluntarily departed from it as prâ—fane Esau did together with his pâ—sterity which was ordered by Gods special Providence to separate the Ishmaelites and Edomiâ—â— f om the Isâ—aâ—lites of whom as concerning the flesâ— Christ came Rom. 9.5 As for the Church of Israel under Moses 1. We do not reade of any Ordinance g ven them fâ—r casting out their members for sins against the Moral Law as we finde it to be commanded and pract sed under the Gospel 1 Cor. 5.4 5 11. 2. The grown members of the Church of Israeâ— under Moses were brought under such Discipline as was established in that Church by a solemn Covenant whereof all adult persons were by Gods Ordinance to take hold person lly and to have full communion with that Church in all Legal Ordinances D â—t 26.16 17 18. But we have no such Ordinance under the Gospel whereby the grown children of Christian Churches are members in full communion or as meer members brought under Church-discipline and Government in Congregational Churches Arg. 2. They are within the Church or Members thereof and therefore subject to Church-judicaâ—ure 1 Cor. 5.12 R ply The Argument is to be denâ—ed in their sense nor doth the text prove it for that text speâ—keth of men that are members in full communion Such an one wâ—s that â—ncestuous Corinthâ—aâ— till he was taken away from amonâ— them by Excommunication 1 Co. 5.1 2 5. and such were they who were afterward spoken of in ver 11. who were called Brethreâ— in respect â—f thâ—iâ— fâ—ll communion wâ—th tâ—e Church before they were put by the just censure of the Church into that stâ—te wherein the memâ—e s are forbidden to eat with â—hem And of that Church-judâ—catu e he speaks in vâ—r 12. saying D not yâ—â—dâ— them that 〈◊〉 wi hin viâ— in full membersh p as well of all other Ordinances as â—f Censures And indeed seeing Excommunication is the casting out from communion How can any be fâ—rmally excommunicated wâ—o were never in communion and so withâ—n the Church Now themselves deny such comâ—un on to the adult persons whom they call meer members to dâ—stâ—nguish them froâ— members in full communion therefore not subject to Judicature of the Church according to the meaning of that text Arg. 3 They are Di cipâ—â—â— and therefore under D scipline in Châ—â—sts School Mat 28.19 20. Reply Though all Church-members are Disciples infants foeâ—erall in and by their Parents covenanting for them and adult pâ—rsons persâ—â—ally by their covenanting for then selves and t erefore both are under the Discipline of the Church
Principalis This administration of the Covenant was according to the Scripture of the Old Testament until Christ came under Christ the Covenant is administred according to what hath been exp essed in the Positions formerly noted particularly the tenth Position 2. That these children have interest in the Covenant they say appears 1. Because if the parent be in Covenant the chude is also c. But the parents in question are in Covenant c. Reply 1. Adde According to Gospel-Rules given by Christ unto Christian Churches for admittance of persons spiritually fit for Church-covenant and communion Thus if Parents be in Covenant according to Gospel-Rules the iâ—fant childe or childe in minority is so also else the Prop sition must be denied That being added the Assumption is to be denied Then according to that additâ—on it may be granted also that if the Parent stand in the Church so doth the childe in infancy or minority among the Gentiles now as well as among the Jews of old Rom. 11.16 20-22 They say It is unheard of in Scripture that the progress of the Covenant stops at the infant childe Reply Nor do we say it doth but at the adult person or Parent who breaks the Covenant and that the progress of the Covenant stops there f oâ— the children also it is not unheard-of in Scripture for the Scripâ—ure hath told us of the stopping of the Covenant in Ishmael Esau and Abrahams posterity by Keturah after they were sent away from the Church in Isaac's family Nor do their Reasons prove the Assumption The first is Because they were once in Covenant and never since discovenanted If they had not been once in Covenant they had not warrantably been baptized and they are so still except in some way of God they have been discovenanted cast out or cut off which these have not been Reply 1. If they had not spiritual fitness for the Covenant Parents or adult persons were not regularly in Covenant nor are their children in infancy or minority warrantably baptized And when those infants are grown up though they have not been discovenanted by being cast out or cut off from their Covenant-relation yet they are discovenanted by their violating their Parents Covenant for them through their not performing that whereunto they were engaged thereby in that when they became adult they did not regularly enter into Covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and theirs as their Parents if they were godly did Rom. 2 25. 2. Thougâ— they say Persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture save for notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein which is not the case of these Parents Yet if they break off themselves by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and priviledges of the Covenant as it hath been proved And in such a case they are to be looked at like those of whom John speaks 1 Joh. 2.19 2. Becausâ— the tenour of the Covenant is to the faithful and their seed after them in their generations Gen. 17.7 even to a thousand generation i. e. conditionally provided that the Parents sâ—ccessively do continue to be keepers of the Covenant Exod. 20 6. Deut. 7.9 11. Psal 105.8 which the Parents in question are because they are not in Scrip ure account in this case forsakers or rejecters of the God and Covenant of their fathers see Deut. 29.25 26. 2 Kings 17 15-20 2 Chron 7.22 Deut 7.10 Reply 1. The tenour of the Covenant 〈◊〉 17.7 had as it hath been formerly noted a special respâ—ct unto Isaac vâ—r 19. for in Isaac was Abrahams seed to be called â—en 21.12 So the children of the flesh are not the children of Gâ—â— but tâ—â— children of the prom se are accounted for the sâ—â— Rom. 9.8 The sealing f this Covenant to the Posterity of Isaac and Jacob by Circumcision was to continue throughout their generations till thâ— coming of Christ The Covenant â—n the tenour of it is for substance the same to us as it was to them â—hough the outward Signs and manner of dispensing it dâ—ffer it being establ shed by the blood oâ— Christ Luke 1.69 71 73. Heb. 13.20 The extending the Covenant to a thousand generationâ— themselves say is conditionaâ— provided that the Parents s ccessively do c ntinue to be keepers of the Câ—venanâ— Such a succession in the Covenant through Faith is not to be found even in the best Churches thâ—t ever were in the world for a thousand o an hundred generatâ—ons But such the Parents in question are not For though they are not such forsakers and â—ejâ—cters of God and the Covenant of their fathers as they who are sp ken of in Deut. â—9 25 26 2 Kings 17 15-20 2 Chron. 7.22 Yet besides that g oss Idolatry there is a spirituâ—l Idolatry in scandalous Covetousness Câ—â—â—st 3.5 and Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject Gâ—d and his Covenant to serve the World Mâ— 6.24 1 Tim. 6.17 1 I h. 2.15 to these the text alledged by them in Deu 7.10 mâ—y fiâ—ly be applied and they forsake the Covenant of God as I n. 4 4. and such may they b who answer all the erms of then fif h Pâ—oposition externally and visibly Now t e Relâ—gion of such is no better then that of the Shâ—chernâ—e who took upon then the Religion of the Jews and were circumcised only for worldly ends en 34.22 23 24. Such Religion will end in Apostacy in times of Persecution for the Truth 〈◊〉 13 21. 2. That the Parents in question do not put a barre to h nder their châ—ldren from Baptism they say is plain from the words of the Proposition c. Reply 1. Notwithstanding what is said in the Proposition Parents may put a bar to hinder their children from being baptized regularly A man may do and be all that is there required yet have not Faith in Christ but be an unregenerate person and that will put a bar to hinder himself and his infant-seed from entring into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3.3 5. and by consequence from the Seal of entrance 2. Nor can they prove that all adult persons whom they admit into personal and immediate Membership are such as the Proposition describeth For I demand Doth y all understand the Doctrine of Faith What course do they take to kâ—ow it If they do not their publickly prâ—fessing their assent thereunto is a meer mockery A Parret-like saying the Dâ—ctrine of Faith and an ignorant assent thereunto may justly be a bar of gross Ignorance Atheism and Infidelâ—ty and Hypocrisie Pâ—tâ—â— bâ—ought the Eunuch to understand what he read before it could become a word of faith to him â—ctâ— 8. 2. Nor is literal understanding what they assent to sufficient to remove all bars These the Devils do Jan. 2.19 Arigâ—â— mâ—nâ—er f knowing and assenting must be added Such a manner of knowing whereby the Church may judge that Christ is
for it and have most need â—f it Reply 1. Those Relations of born Servants and Subjects in the Text alledg d have d fferent respects That Lev. 25. was typical figurin the time of Grace whereby now Christ hath freed u f o the servitude of Sin and Satan 〈◊〉 8.32 36. Râ—â— 6.14 18. to bâ—come the Servants of God in Christ Rom. 6 22. 1 C r. 7.23 Parents and children so far aâ— they have inâ—â—râ—st in the Redemption wrought by Christ as they are freed by him from other Lord so they are bound thereby serve him all the dayeâ— of their lâ—fâ— Luke 1.74 75. Therefore this relatâ—on doth not cease with infancy but continueth in adult age But this doth nothing concern the thing in question concerning M diate Membershi The other Text in Ezek. 37.25 is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect Nation of the Jews and of the state of the Church under the New Jerusalem the difference between which and the Chrâ—stian Gentiles now I have formerly shewn so that neither doth â—hat fit the question But 2. I grant though not as following thence That one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fittest for it and have mâ—st need of it The engagement is strong both on the Parents To train up their children from their Infancy in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 and upon the Children To know the God of their Parents and to serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28.9 and upon the Church To exercise their Watchfulness that both Parents and Children do their duty helping them also therein with their Instructions and Prayers and Power which is given for Edification as the case may require Yet when all this is done neither can the Parents nor the Church give Grace unto the Children that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate Membership and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly is to profane the Ordinances and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary Reas 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the persons in question Reply This enumeration is insufficient there is another ordinary way of cessation of Membership i. e. Desertion Thus Esau's Membe sh p ceaâ—ed and so may the Membership of others though they abide in the place where the â—hurch â—s yet if being adult they regard nâ—t to joyn with the Church by their personal â—nd immediate Confederâ—tion nor to fit themselves for it these despise the Chuâ—ch of God And if that is sufficient to deprive thâ—se of all hurch priv ledg s who were before in personal and immediate Church fellowsh p when they forsake it 1 Job 2.19 much more those who never had such Membership nor have approved their Spirituâ—l fitness for it to the Churches charitable judgement nor truly desire and end aâ—our so to do What can the mediate Membershâ—p whâ—ch such had in Infancy advantage them for continuing thereby still in Membership when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church Reas 5. Either they are when adult Members or Non-members if Non-members then a person admitted a Member and sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving to be may the Church whereof he was still remaining become a Non-member and out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Reply A Freemans childe suppose of London or any other Corporation was free-born and might in his minority trade under his father yet being grown up he must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen and be accepted of the Company as his father was unto all Duties and Liberties of that Society in his own person else he may not trade for himself If it be said Why so either he is a Freeman or a Non-freeman It will be readily answered He is a Non-freeman and that by his own defaulâ— If it be said He was Free by his Fathers Copy and is not dis-franchised by any publick Censure nor hath deserved so to be may such an one the Society whereof he was still remaining become a Non-freeman and out of that Society c The answer will easily and readily be given He hath lost his Freedome by not entring in his own person into the common Engagement of Freemen to the Duties whereunto all Freemen are personally bound So and much more justly it is in this case An adult person makes himself to become a Non-member as to priviledges by not performing the Duties whereunto he was bound by his Parents Covenant for him in his minority and by his not regularly covenanting as his Parents did And his is according to Scripture which tells us that Circumcision received in Baptism may become by his own fault being adult no Circumcision Rom. 2.25 Those Texts in Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to Infants and Children in minority Propos 6. Such Church-members who either by death or some other extraordinary Providence have been inevitably hindred from publick acting as aforesaid yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified and such as had they been called thereunto would so have acted their children are to be baptized Reply This Proposition may not be granted For 1. It granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members which is contrary to Christs Ordinance whereby Baptism being a publick Church-Ordinance is due onely to them who have a publick state and Interest such are onely the Members of the publick Ecclesiastical Body the Church Hence 1. An ordinary Minister cannot orderly perform an act proper to his Office in reference to Church-communion to any that are not regularly and actually Members of the visible Church without great usurpation as if a man do a work proper to Magistracy to one that is not under his Magistratical Power he is an Usurper So it is in this case of a Minister To administer Baptism is an act of his Office-power If he administer Baptism to children whose Parents are not regularly in Church-order in so doing why may not the Lord say He is an Usurper Suppose an unbaptized person professing his Faith and qualified according to the description in the sixth Proposition yet deferring for some probable causes to adjoyn himself to the Church for the present should desire Baptism of any of these Ministers who framed this Proposition Should they administer it to him and so do a proper work of their Office upon him If yea if they admit him to Baptism why not to the Lords
aforesaid among themselves with special reference to those Churches which by Providence are planted in a convenient viciniâ—y though with liberty reserved without offence to make use of others as the nature of the case or the advantage of the opportunity may lead thâ—reunto Propos 6. The Churches of Christ in this Country having so good opportunity for it it is meet to be commended to them as their duty thus to consociate For 1. Communion of Churches being commanded and Consociation being an Agreement to Practise it this must needs be a Duty also Psal 119.106 Neh. 10 28 29. Reply Before I proceed to argue upon these Propositions some things should be premised in way of Enquiry that the terms may be rightly understood Quaere Whether by mutual and solemn Agreement they mean a Vow It seems by the Texts alledged by them in the first Proof of the sixth Proposition that they mean so and therefore I shall take it for granted that that is their meaning 2. When they say This solemn Agreement or Covenant must â—e made with special reference to Churches in vicinity Quaere 1. How many Churches in Vicinity or Neighbour-Churches must thus Covenant together 2. Whether they must have set times of Meeting for this purpose and who are to meet Whether Elders alone or others also sent from the Churches with them and how frequent these Meetings must be and whether the set times must be kept constantly though they have no present need of counsel from another 3. Whereas they speak of Liberty reserved without offence to make use of others as the nature of the case c. may lead thereunto Quaere How they may avoid giving offence to Neighbour-Churches if they use the help of Churches more remote Whether they must have their consent thereunto before they use them 4. Concerning the end and issue of this Consociation of Churches Whether they are bound thereby to acquiesce in the judgement and determinations of those Neighbour-Churches and to practise accordingly whether they see convincing light in the Scriptures or Arguments propounded to them or not under a Penalty of being judged by the rest to be Obstinate in Errour and Scandal and accordingly in time to have all holy communion with them withdrawn from them It seemeth by what was before said in the fixth Act of Communion for Answer to the first Question pag. 31. that this will be the end and issue of this Consociation unto any Church that shall dissent from the rest This Consociation they endeavour to prove to be a duty incumbent upon the Churches in New-England I shall briefly weigh their Reasons For 1. Communion of Churches being commanded and Consociation being but an Agreement to practise it this must needs be a duty also Psal 119.106 Nehem. 10.28 29. Reply It doth not necessarily follow till they have proved that Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Covenant is commanded as Communion of Churches is Nor do the Texts alledged prove it in Psal 119.106 David swore to keep Gods righteous judgements and would perform it because though he was not bound to swear yet he had voluntarily sworn it and so was under a double bond to perform it for both his keeping Gods righteous judgements and his performing that Vow were commanded of God Deut. 10.13 with Psal 76.11 2. And his Vow was private betwixt God and himself Hence it will not follow that Churches are bound to consociate with a Vow or Covenant after the manner here described which is not proved to be a duty and may be unsafe for particular Churches That Coveâ—ant in Neh. 10.28 29. was their Church-covenant renewed and explained and so was a mutual solemn Engagement by entring into a Curse and into an Oath to which form we are not bound and Church-covenanting is Gods Ordinance Isa 19.21 56.4 to 8. 62.5 all which are Prophesies of the Churches under the Gospel But between the covenanting of a Church within it self and such a covenanting as this for the consociating of Churches there are considerable differences 1. Because this wants Warrant from the Scripture which that hath there being neither any Precept in Scripture commanding it nor any Pattern among the Primitive Churches planted or approved by the Apostles commanding it unto us 2. Nor is there like Reason for such Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Agreement or Covenant between Churches in a vicinity as is for a Church-covenant within it self For the Church-covenant is necessary because without it the ends of Church-fellowship cannot be attained For 1. Each particular Church is a Spiritual Corporation which therefore must receive its being from a Spiritual Combination or Foederal Engagement 2. By virtue hereof they that had no natural impression to subject them to others or to give them power over them have mutual power each over other to command constrain as the case requires of which power they could not have been made partakers without mutual Agreement and Engagement 3. Hereby they come to enjoy such Spiritual and Ecclesiastick Priviledges unto which none can be admitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole which necessarily requires this Engagement to the whole which is by Covenant Thus Mr. Hooker argues to prove the necessity of a Church-covenant Survey part 1. chap. 4. p. 50 to 55. But the ends of Church-communion which is mutual helpfulness by counsel may be attained without such a Consociation by mutual Engagement by the Communion of Churches which of it self without any other Engagement gives Churches a right and interest in another way mutually for their help by counsel when their needs require it The Churches in New-England have by the blessing of Christ found the benefit of the Communion of Churches for setling Truth and Peace among them without such a Consociation and may so still 3. Such an Agreement between Churches will become a Snare unto them by straitning them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves in re propriâ 1. If by virtue hereof they may not administer Church-censures within themselves without concurrence of Neighbour-Churches or Elders approbation sought and attained thereunto before Or 2. If thereby they stand bound under the fore-noted Penalty to rest in and practise according to the judgement and advice of such Churches having sufficient light and consent within themselves without them 3. Mr. Rutherfurd affirms That a convenient number of Churches having ordinarily conversing one with another shall voluntarily combine themselves in one Society this last gives in the formality of Classical Membership Lib. 2. p. 320. He addes When God hath made him a combined Member now by institution of one Presbyterian Church not of another though by ordinary converse with other Churches in case of scandal his example may prove prejudicial and infestuous to others yet this Presbytery must proceed in Excommunication against him because he is combined with them Thus you see by this voluntary combination of Churches a Church