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-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
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
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.
suitably tâ— hâ—ir membersh p the first in and under their Parents the sâ—cond in and by th mselves being in full communâ—on with the Church Yet I do not finde any where in Sâ—riptâ—re that such adult pâ—rso s as they call meer Members are styled Disciple or accounted Membâ—â—s The adult persons in Mâ—â— 8 20. must observe and do all Chrâ—st commandmentâ— thâ—râ—fore the Disciples there intended with reference to adult persons are members in full communâ—on Arg 4. They are in Church-covenant thâ—râ—fore subject to Church-power Gen. 17.7 with 18.19 Reply They are not in covenant â—e fuâ—â— beâ—ng adâ—lt and not admitted into Câ—urch-communion in â—ll the Oâ—d n nces therefore are not subject to Church power That â—ext in â—en 17.7 hath respâ—ct especially to Isaac vâ—r â—9 for in Is â—c was Abrâ—hams seed to be called Geâ— 2â— 12 So the châ—ldren of the flâ—sh are not the children of God but th children of the promâ—sâ— are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.8 and The Gentiles are adopted through faith in Christ Gal. 3.26 for it is in Christ either apprehended by pe sonal fâ—ith as in adult p rsons or coâ—prehending châ—ldren in tâ—eir Parents Covenant that the Covenant is everlastiâ—g and so to be perpetuâ—lly continued in the substance of it though by mutable siâ—ns Jâ—â— us The Covenant of Grace is eternal though it was to be vâ—sibly sealed by circumcâ—siâ—n tâ—ll the coming of Câ—râ—st and after the comiâ—g of Christ by Baptism perptâ—ally unto tâ—e end of the World There is no difference between us concerning the infant-seed but onely concerning adult peâ—sons who arâ— by age in a capacity of covenant ng for themsâ—lves and theirs Let these approve thâ—n faith in Christ to the charitable discretion of the Church and so be râ—ceived into Covenant and Church-communion personally and then and not othâ—rwise they are râ—gularly subject to Châ—rch-power Their second proof from Gen 18.19 hath been spoken to before when I examined their fiâ—st Aâ—gument for this third Propositiâ—â— Aâ—g 5. They aâ—e Subjects of the Kingdome â—f Christ and thâ—â—eforâ— under the Laws and Government of his â—ingdome Ezek. 3 25 26 Reply This Aâ—gâ—ment may justly be retorted against themselves and â—he Pro f of it For th Subjects of Christs Kingdome there meant are voluntary Subjâ—cts according to that Prophesie in â—sal 110 3. and such Subjects have full communion in all pâ—iviledgâ—s of Christs Kingdome and so under the Government of â—t But they deny that the meer Mem erâ— of whom they speâ—k have communion in all the priviledges of Christs Kingdome Therefore they are not under the Laws and Government of it and by Consâ—qâ—ence they are not Subjects of it Arg. 7. Baptism leaves the bâ—ptized of which number these châ—ldren are iâ— a state of subjection to the authoritaâ—ive teaching of Christs Minâ—â—â—ers and to the observation of all his commandments Mat. 28.19 20 and therefore in a state of subjection unto D cipâ—ine Reâ—l This is not another Argumenâ— but tâ—e sâ—me witâ— the third Argument thou h clothed with other words Thâ—â— fâ—re the same Answer may serve for this also Arg. 7. Elders are châ—rged o take hâ—ed â—nto â—nd to feed i. e. bâ—â—h to Teach and Rule compâ—râ— Ezek 34.34 all the Flock r Church over which the Holy Ghâ—st â—a h mâ—dâ— them Oâ—e s ers Acts 20.28 Thâ—t childâ—en are a part of the â—lâ—â—k was pâ—oved bef re anâ— sâ— Pâ—ul â—ccoâ—nts then writing to the same Flâ—ck or Church of Ephesus Ep. 6.1 Repâ—â— Be it so that children are part of the Flock which is all that I finde bâ—fâ—re proved and thaâ— Elders are chaâ—â—ed to tâ—ke heed and to feed â— e. bâ—th Tâ—ach and Râ—lâ— all thâ— Flâ—ck suitably to their different capacities yet all this concernâ—th no such gâ—own persons to whom they deny full Câ—urcâ— commâ—nion For they that are of competent age and understanding must be orderly joyned to tâ—e Church by holding forth their calling and faith in Christ to the satisfaction of the Chuâ—ch accâ—rdâ—ng to tâ—e Rule and so to be received into fâ—llowshâ—p of the Covenant and Communion by their peâ—sonal right without whâ—ch they are not to be accounted â—f the Flock or Church Nor did Pâ—â—â— so accâ—unt such But tâ—ose children noted in Epâ— 6 1 were eitâ—er in their minority and so he puts in their duty in that Epistle as part of their Catechetical iâ—struction or if they were adult they were personally joâ—ned to the â—hurch in communion and so were under the teaching and dâ—scipline of the Câ—uâ—ch Arg. 8 â—t eâ—wise Iâ—â—eligion and Apostacy would inevitably break into Churches and no wâ—y lâ—fâ— by Chrâ—sâ— to prevent or heal the sâ—me which wâ—uâ—d also bring maâ—y Câ—â—rch-members under â—hat dreadfulâ— jâ—dgement of being let alone in their wickedness Hos 4 16 17. R â—ly 1. There is no cause of fear that Irreligion and Apostacy will break into Churches if tâ—e Poâ—ter look well unto the D ors of the Lords Housâ— that no adult persons be râ—ceâ—ved into peâ—sâ—nal Membership but such as regâ—larly approve their personal fi nes for all Church-communion Oâ— if such evâ—ls break into the Church thâ—ough the hypocrisiâ— of such aâ— creep in uâ— awares Jâ—de ve 4. yet then Christ â—ath lâ—ft a clear and plain way to prevent and heal the same by suâ—jecting such uâ—dâ—r â—he Wâ—tch and D scipl ne and Gâ—vernment of the Chuâ—câ— But the admitting of such adult persons as are not qualâ—fied for Church communion in all O dinances will be found in the â—ssâ—e the cause of the breaking in of Irreligion and Apostacy into Churches by the fault of men who gaâ—heâ— wi hout Chrâ—st and â—â—â—ive suâ—h as he rej ctâ—tâ— Nor w ll the Churcâ—es censuring of such prevent or heal those evâ—ls sâ—eing â—e blâ—ssâ—th onely his own Instâ—tutions not mens Devices Humane Inventions usually cause the Evils wh ch they pretend to cure as we see in the Lov-feasts which brake love among the Coâ—inâ—hians 1 Cor. 11 18-22 2 Though no Chuâ—ch-way is left by Chrâ—st for preventing or healing such evils in men that should not be of the Chuâ—ch yet if they were kept out of the Church till their fitness of communion should appear as these evils and the like would not inevitably break into Churches so neither need any Church-members be let alone in their wickedness sâ—eing Christ hath delegated the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven to binde and â—â—sâ— and Diâ—ections how tâ— manage them toward delinquent Members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion Mat. 16.17 18 19. Nor need they who are not thus joyned to the Church be let alonâ— if the Authority in Familâ—es and in the Common-wealth be wisely aâ—d faithfâ—lly managed by the Rulers of both to restrain tâ—ose under their power f om evil companies and courses and to constrain them to a constant reverent attendance to all Family duties of Relig on and to the Word publickly Preachâ—d in Church-Assemblâ—es and to the Sanct fâ—i g of the Christian Sabbâ—th
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