the Reverend Author doth more then once acknowledge and testify pag. 23 28 33 43 45. It were too long to transcribe all the words that are to this purpose in the Pages quoted but in sum there is thus much there affirmed and taught That the covenant in which Children are comprehended in their minority leaves them under engagement to duty and obedience when they become adult which if they do not accordingly perform they are then transgressors of the Covenant and breakers of it Now if they be breakers of it is it not thereby clear that they are comprehended in it and so what is here said by the Synod stands good Thus of the first Particular That the Parents in question are personal Members The second is That they are immediate Members as to the Essence of Membership i. e. that they themselves in their own persons are the immediate Subjects of this Adjunct of Church-membership though they come to it by means of their Parents covenanting For Proof whereof one thing alledged by the Synod is that Iohn 22.25 27. where the children are said to have a part in the Lord to which Church-membership is equivalent as well as the Parents and nothing coming between this Subject The Children so as to sever it from the Adjunct A part in the Lord therefore they conclude That the children are immediate Subjects of Church-membership or immediate Members Now what saith the Reverend Author unto this why that which he saith is That though nothing come between to sever that Adjunct from the Subject yet something comes between to bring that Subject and Adjunct together viz. The Parents covenanting for the childe which if it did not come between they would be severed as they are in otheâ— children Ans. But what is there in this to overthrow the Synods Assertion Do not they expresly grant in terms as plain as can be spoken and that more then once That the children come to this Adjâ—nct of Church-membership by means of their Parents covenanting See their words in their pag. 23. and therefore this can be no removing of what they have said being nothing but the very same with that which they have said before The question is not about the way or meanâ— of childrens Membership for it is freely yielded that in this respect it is Mediate that is they come unto it by means of the Parents covenanting but the question is about the Essâ—â—â—â— Nature or Kâ—mâ—e of their Membership whether in this respect it be not the same with the Parents and they as well as the Parents the immediate Subjects of it and the granting of the former is no deniall of this other If a Parent have room or place in such or such an house and his childe be there also though he come thither in the Parents arms yet may it not be said that this childe hath a place and being in the house as truly and as properly as the Parent although he came unto it by the Parents means Even so it is in the case in hand the childe comes to be in Covenant and so in the Church by the Parents covenanting yet now he is in the Church and in the Covenant and hath a room and place therein as truly and as properly as the Parent Again the Synod having said That their visible ingraffing into Christ the Head and so into the Church his Body is sealed in Baptism and that in ingraffing nothing comes between the graft and the stock their union is immediate The Reverend Author answereth That yet it will not follow that they are immediate Members of the visible Church Ans. And why will not this follow If their union with the Church be ingraffing and that in ingraffing nothing comes between the gâ—â—ft and the stock doth it not then follow that their union with the Church is immediate and they immediate Members of it For as for that which is here said That this union is not properly but metaphorically called ingraffing because there is some similitude here but Similitudes do run on four feet it sufficeth that they agree in the main point Ans. But how do they agree therein if for all this in graffing there be something between the stock and them Is it not a main point in ingraffing that the union between the branch and the stock be immediate and that nothing lye between them Who knoweth not that if it be not so but that some stock or stone or something else be between them so that their union be not immediâ—te who knoweth not that in such case the ingrâ—ffing is spoiled and the benefit of the branch interrupted because its union with the stock is not immediate If then the union of Members with the Church be â—â—graffing how can it be avoided but it must be immediate and so they be immediate Members As for that which is here subjoyned That infants and children in minority do partake of Baptism and other Priviledges by means of their Parents covenanting for them but adult persons by their personall covenanting for themselves and their seed This is nothing to the Essence of their Membership but onely speaks to the way and meanâ— how they come to it which is not the thing in question for it may be granted That children come to be Members by their Parents covenanting for them and the Parents by their own covenanting and yet their Membership notwithstanding this different way of attaining it may be one and the same for Essence and Kinde and both have immediate conjunction with the Church For that where the Synod saith That in Deut. 29.11 the children were personally and immediately part of the People of God or Members of the Church of Israel as well as the Parents The Answer of the Reverend Author is That the Text doth not prove it Ans. And yet the words are express and plain that they did all stand before the Lord to enter into covenant with him that he might establish them a people to himself and the persons of whom this is said are not onely the men of Israel but also their wives and their little ones So that if the men of Israel and their wives were personally and immediately Members of that Church their little ones for ought that appears were so also for they are all alike spoken of without difference Whereas the Synod said That to be in Covenant or to be a Covenantee is the formalis ratio of a Church-member and the children being in the Covenant are therefore the immediate Subjects of the formalis ratio of Membership and so immediate Members The Answer of the Reverend Author is That though to be in Covenant be the formalis ratio of a Church-member yet it will not follow that every Covenantee doth immediately covenant for himself nor that every Member of the Church is an immediate Member pag. 39. Ans. For the one of these viz. of Covenanting immediately for themselves the Synod never said nor meant that little children did so covenant nor
desert of Church-censure which is manifestly the case of the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition and then all the discourse in Answer to this Objection wherein not a little confidence and spirit is expressed falls to the ground as not reaching the case in hand though besides there are sundry mistakes in it as may after appear For suppose it should be granted that in Churches where Discipline is not in use and in a case notorious wherein a person does apparently lose the Essentials of Christianity as by turning Turk or the like a man may be cut off from Membership by his own Apostacie and Wickedness though the Church did not through her sinful neglect formally censure him Yet this on the other hand is also a sure and clear Truth that no act of a mans own will or can cut him off from Membership but that which deserves a cutting off by censure and for which the Church should cut him off by censure if she did her Duty This is plain because when a man is once in the Church he cannot be outed till God out him God does not out him till some Rule or appointment of his in his word does out him but there is no Rule that appoints any man to be put out of the visible Church or made as an Heathen and Publican but for and upon such wickedness of his as is Censurable by the Church and in that case the Rule does appoint and injoyn the Church to Censure him or to put him away from among them by censure Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.5 13. When some Divines do so speak as if persons might be broken off from the Church without a formal Censure in some extraordinary cases the meaning is not that a man doth by his own wickedness be it never so notorious immediately so become Felo de se or Vn-member himself as that the Church hath nothing to do with him to Censure him yes she may and ought to censure him for his wickedness and Apostacy and so if a Church-member turn Turk or Papist the Church to which he belongs ought to lay him under Censure for it And for such a one to be a Member till Censured i. e. A rotten Member fit to be cut off is no contradiction nor absurdity See Mr. Cottons Holiness of Church-members pag. 15. And did all Churches in the world do their duty there should no man living that ever was a Member of a Church yet in Being be looked upon as a Non-member but he that is so Censured on Excommunicated at least unless some extraordinary and rare circumstances of a case do render the Churches cognizance thereof impossible But the meaning onely is that where men have palpably and notoriously lost the Essentials of Christianity And a Church through the sinful want or neglect of Discipline never looks after them onely by her Doctrine declares against such but haply continues in that neglect from age to age there the Notoriousness of the Case and the Evidence of the Rule does supply the defect of a Judicial Sentence and the Churches Doctrinal Declaration may be looked at as an implicite Excommunication And hence other Churches may justly carry toward such as Non-members And hence also in the day of the Reformation of such Churches after deep and long-continued Corruptions such persons may be set by without a formal Censure But what is all this to the Children of our Churches who being admitted in minority in stead of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy when grown up do in some measure own the God and Covenant of their fathers and are neither cast out nor deserve so to be whom no Rule in all the Scripture appointeth to be put out of the visible Church And hence tâ—ey stand and continue Regular i. e. according to the Appointment and Allowance of the Rule Members of it being neither Excommunicate nor by Rule to be Excommunicated Where shall we finde either Scripture or sound Reason to tell us that these have cut themselves off from Membership or are nâ—w become Non-members But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter we assert this Position That in Churches waâ—â—ing in the Order of the Gospel and Exercising Discipline according to the Rules thereoâ— no person can while he lives among them cease to be a Member of the visible Church but by Excommunication or without a Church-act in Censuring him with the Censure of Excommunication The sum of the Proof of this is Because we finde this way of cessation of Membership viz. By Excommunication plainly prescribed and appointed by the Lord in Scripture And we finde not any other while the Church and the person continues in Being See a more particular Proof of it in the Preface to Mr. Shepard's Treatise of Churâ—h-membership of Children lately Published But if any do affirm there is another way it lies on them to shew and prove it Let us now consider whether that be done by all that is here further said Preface When Whitgift said That Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church Mr. Parker tells him That even a Veritius would condemn him And it is no new Doctrine in the Sâ—hools to say that An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Sâ—re a Brand is a member of a man as eâ—ery one knows that is mediocritèr doctus in Scholasiiâ—al Divinity Therefore we conclude That Church-members may become no Members by their own defection Ans. Surely he that is but mediâ—critèr doctus in Schâ—lastical or â—â—emical Divinity may easily know that here is the shew of an Argument or of Authority of Writers witâ— out the substanâ—e of either For when our Divines against the Papists do so often over say that Wicked or Vnregenerate persons are but equivocally or improperly Members of the Church as Nails Haâ—r Sores and superfluâ—us Hu â—urs or as a wooden Leg. a glass Eye c. are members of the liuing Body of a man they mean it properly with reference to the invisible mystical Church or to the visible Church considered in its internal spiritual living state not with reference to mens external standing or Membership in the visible Church Nor did they ever dream that men are by the want of internal gracious qualifications cut off from Membership in the visible Church without any Church-censure It is well known that they reckon Hypocrites and secretly unregenerate persons as well as â—eretical Apostates or the openly-wicked to be but equivocaliy of the Church viz. in â—omparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ â—nd as â—aul diâ—tinguishes between Israel and them that are of Israel Rom. 9.6 and sayes He is not a Iew i. e. not a Jew indeed and accepted in the sight of God who is â—ut outwarâ—ly â—nâ— Rom. 2.28 29. But would you therefore say that a close Hypocrite unâ—eâ—bers himsâ—lâ— and fâ—lls out of the visible Church without
pag. 17. Now it 's evident that even in the Apostles times sundry were baptized that had not so received the holy Ghost Acts 8 15 16 17. 19 2 6. But there are sundry further Evidences at hand were there room here to insort them which show that in those first Ages of the Church there were many within the Church 〈◊〉 were debarred from the Lords Supper whâ— yet had their Children baptized In after 〈◊〉 how large Baptism was may easily be gathered But that there was though tâ—o much lâ—xness some more restraint in the Lords Supper appears by the Canonists old Verse Ebrius infamiâ— erroneus atque Furentes Cum pueris Domin non debent sumere corpus As for the times since the Reformation it is most evident that Godly Reforming Divines have in their Doctrine unanimously taught and in their Practice many 〈◊〉 then endeavoured a strict Selection of those that should be admitted to the Lords Supper when yet they have been 〈◊〉 large in poiâ—â— of Baptism and they still â—o upon this Principle that Not all Christians nor aâ— baptized and generaâ—â—y-professing Christians but onely such as are able or may be reputed able and careful to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body are to be admitted to the Lords Supper But they reckon that All Christians aâ— that are in their account within the visible Church are to have their Children baptized Be it that in Practice they were many of them too lax and large in both the Sacraments chiefly through want of a due and effectual use of Discipline by defect whereof many were sinfully tolerated in the Church who should have been cast out and cut off and many suffered to come to the Lords Table who should have been debarred and suspended of which themselves do 〈◊〉 sadly complain Yet it shews thus much which is that we aim at that they held a different Latitude of the two Sacraments as to the Subjects thereof even in the very sense of our Question denying the Lords Supper to many Parents whose Children yet they scrupled not to baptize This goes for currant among all our great Divines as a granted Principle whereof many large and full Testimonies might easily be produced Calvin in his Geneva-cateâ—hism to that Question Whether Pasters may give the Sacraments to all Answers â—uod ad Baptisâ—um pertinet quia non nisi Insantibus 〈◊〉 confertur dâ—screâ—â—o â—â—cuâ—â—non habet in Canâ—â—ero tavere dehet Minister ne cui ipsam porrigat quem indignum esse palà m constet If Calvin would Baptize all Children born among them without difference looking upon them as born within the visible Church and yet not give the Lords Supper to all then he would Baptize some Children whose Parents he would not adâ—it to the Lords Supper Luâ—oâ— Crâ—â—ius describing the Subjects of Baptism saith Infantes verò omnes c. All such â—nfants as are either born of Christian Parents or brought into the society of Christians are to be Baptized But of the Lords â—upper Sâ—lt quidem Christians c. Onely Christians are to be admitted to the Holy Supper yet not promisâ—uâ—usty all Christians but onely those who both can and will examine themselves rightly discern the Lords Body and celebrate this Sacrament unto a Commemoration of the Deaâ—h of Chirst but there are many in the Christian Church that either cannot or will not â—o those things and these are not to be admitted 〈◊〉 touching the Lords Supper saith Est Sacramentum c. It is a Sacrament appointed for such in the Christian Church as are already baptized and Adult and do examine themselves And in another place unto this Question To whom is the Lords Supper to be given He answers To all the Faithful Members of the Church who can examine themselves and are instructed in the Ministery of Faith and can 〈◊〉 forth the Lords Death For unto this Mystery there is required examination of ones self and Annunciation of the Lords Death And therefore it is not to be given to Vnbelievers not to Infants not to distracted persons not to those that are ignorant of the mysteries not to the impenitent not to those that are by the orderly judgement of the Church excommunicate not to such as are polluted either with â—anifest errours or with any notorious wickedness until they have first satisfied the Church and gâ—ve Testimony of their Repentance Compare herewith his Latitude for Baptism exoresly grantiâ—g that so sundry of thosâ— sorts to whom he denies the Lords Supper â—ezâ— concerning the Question who are to be Baptized saith All that are comprehended within the Tables of the Covenant c. But to that Question Would you admit all sorts to the Lorâ—s Supper He Anâ—wereth with great zeâ—l for 〈◊〉 and care therein and among other expreâ—â—â—ons Thâ—se saith he whose 〈◊〉 age sheweth them not to be of ability to examine themselves 〈…〉 not as unworthy but as not yet fit â—ut of the adult no one is to be 〈◊〉 except he have one may or other so given account of his Faith at that the Paster may probably gather not onely that he was born in the Church but also that he is indeed a Christian Pelanius touching the Subjects of the Lords Supper saith Vnto the Lords Supper maybe admitted onely Christians 〈◊〉 Baptized and adult and such as can examine their 〈◊〉 with thank 〈…〉 remember Christ and shew forth his death But of Baptism All that are in Covenant with God Infants born of Christian Parents are to be baptized Geâ—kâ—r in his Câ—â—mon Places aâ—â—erts â—hat Soli Christiani c. Onely Christians i. e. such as embrace the Doctrine of Christ as have received the Sacrament of baptism and are implanted into the Christian Church yet not 〈◊〉 Christians are to be admiâ—â—ed to the holy Supper but according to Paulâ—s Rule these onely 〈◊〉 examine themselves 〈◊〉 the Lorâ—s Body aâ—â— shew â—â—rib the Lords 〈◊〉 1 Cor 11.26 28 29. All 〈◊〉 therefore are excluded who either will not 〈…〉 examine themselves Buâ— he extends Baptism to all Children born of one or both Christian Parents oâ— that come into the power of such The like may be observed in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches when as they declare for a special selection of those whom they admit to the Lords Supperâ— see the Confeâ—â—â—â—â— of Bohemia Harmony of confess Pag. 421. of Belgia Pag. 432. of Ausâ—â—ge Pag. 438 440. or Saxony p. 447 44â— â—nd the confession of Scotland in the end of that Harmony Pag. 24. comparing this with the deep silence of them â—ll touching any such Selectioâ— in point of Baptismâ— as to the Children that are born among them and it is knoâ—n to be their ordinary practice to Baptize many Children whose Parents they would not admit to the Lords Supper All which with many more Testimonies that might be alledged do abundantly shew it to have been the concurrent judgement of Protestant Divines that
by his generating him so also of his Church-membership by his confederating for him and this by Gods Institution And seeing the person of the Childe hath a membership of its own affixed to it as the foresaid grants import and that from God from Gods Covenant and Institution as well as the person of the Parent why should we say that the membership of the Childe doth after this depend upon the Membership or Covenant of the Parent and not rather upon Gods Covenant and Institution so as to live and dye according to the Order and appointment thereof and not otherwise hence the Membership wherewith the person of the Childe is clothed by Gods Institution dyes not till either the person of the Childe dye or till by some Institution and Appointment of God he be cut off from his Membership for his own sin Neither must it be yelded that the Excommunication of the Parent doth properly and formally cut off the Infant-childe that was born before such Excommunication We say properly and formally for Consequentially and Eventually it may bring the Childe to be cut off also as in case the Parent desperately go away from the Church among Hereticks and Infidels and bring up the Childe to serve other Gods But so it may be with a wife carried away by such an Husband yet that does not hinder her from having a personal distinct proper and immediate Membership nor make his cutting off to be hers also But suppose a Parent and Children that live and continue among us the Parent having a company of Children all in their minority is for his wickedness cast out and continuing impenitent dyes in that estate to say that all these Children who were Born and Baptized in the Church are cut off from Membership hereby is a strange Assertion For 1. This would make an Infant-childe to be a subject of Excommunication which was before and in regard of natural capacity and demerit rightly denied 2. If a Parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people were the Children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel to be sure in Crimes capitally punished of which cutting off from their People is sometimes plainly meant Exod. 31.14 15. Levit. 17.4 18.29 20.18 the Childe was not to dye for the Fathers sin Deut. 24.16 2 Chron. 25.4 Ier. 31.30 Ezek. 18.20 and is there not the like reason of other punishments whether Ecclesiastical or Civil yea that cutting off from their People appointed in the Law is conceived by judicious Interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an Ecclesiastical Death or cutting off from the People and Church of God by Excommunication But however it held a proportion with Excommunication now under the Gospel The Childe may be barred from a Right or Privilegde that he neâ—er had by the sin or condition of the Parent so Hâ—athen Children are unclean and without because their Parents are so Hence Children born after the Parents Excommunication are not of the Church But to be deprived of a Right or Priviledge which â—e once â—ad and was possessed of which is the case of Children formerly born in the Church and owned as Members by the seal of Baptism this hath in it the nature of a proper formal Punishment or Censure and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin A Parent Civilly or Naturally dead cannot after that bring forth Children to the Commonwealth nor can a Parent Ecclesiastically dead he so continuing bring forth Children to the Church But the Children that are already Members of the one Society or of the other are not to be cut off therefrom for their Parents sin 3. That If the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live is a truth in nature of Branches growing on the same Tree But if these Branches be taken and set upon a Stâ—ck and Root of their own though but as in a Nursery then they do not die when the old Tree dies or is cut up by the Roots And so is the Case in hand These Children are inserted and implanted into the Church the Body of Christ in their own persons as was but now granted when it was said The persons of these Infants do receive the Adjunct of of Church-membership and that their persons are â—rought under the Covenant and have so farre taken root therein as to receive not from their Parents but from the Church and from the Soil and Faâ—ness thereof the Sap and Nourishment of Baptism which is also a Seal of the establishment or rooting of their Membership Branches included and contained in the Root as Children yet unborn or not born till after Excommunication are broken off or rather left without together with their Parents But not such Branches as are already severed from the Root and planted in the House of God in the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts as through the grace of the Covenant our Children are Isa. 5.7 4. That Death does not put an end to the outward Covenant which Excommunication does is a Notion that we understand not We should have thought that outward Membership or Membership in the visible instituted Church as well as the use of all outward Ordinances or instituted Worâ—hip had everlastingly ceased at Death The Ends Duties and Enjoyments of outward Membership do then cease and so the Membership it self The Lord knows how many may from outward Membership in the visible Church drop to Hell and does not their Death put an end to their Membership And if Death put an end to outward Membership it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the Question i. e. as to the person that dies Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant and are surviving And neither does Excommunication so do But the person of the Parent loses his Membership in the visible Church when he dies as well as when he is Excommunicated And hence if the Membership of the Childe did live and die with the Membership of the Parent there would be a Cessation of it in the one case as well as in the other A Parents Faith Prayers and Covenant may live though hiâ— self be dead But how i. e. Virtually in the virtue and effect of them And how is that why the promise made by God to the Faith Prayers and Profession or Covenanting of a godly Parent that lives and abides and takes effect So then it is neither the Parent nor his Membership but Gods Covenant that lives taking in the Children that are begotten or born of Confederate Parents to be Members of his visible Church and so continuing them till by some Rule or Appointment of his they be cut off In like manner though the Parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel and be cut off by the Censure of Excommunication yet the Covenant of God lives and stands to the Children whom he had
not used men may be looked at as Non-members though the Church did neglect to pass a formal Censure wherein we shall not trouble our selves with being their Opponents It sufficeth us that in Churches regularly using Discipline there is no ordinary way whereby offenders lose Church-membership but by Excommunication And that none can lose it while they live that are not guilty of such evil as is censureable or is matter of Excommunication which the persons in question are not Another Testimony here alledged is from Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches p. 9. where he saith that Many in Churches have cut themselves off Ans. Had the whole sentence been set down every Reader would have seen the impertinency of the Allegation as to the Persons and Case in question Mr. Cotâ—â—ns wordâ— are these Many in other Churches have â—ut themselves off from the Covenant by their notorious wickedness and profaneness And withall in the same place he addes that Arelapsed Church with all the Members of it are bound to renew their Covenant in order to Reformation which shews that they were not wholly cut off before though their Membership was but by being born in the Church and baptized for of that he there speaks We doubt not but among the Members of such Relapsed Churches might be found many much more degenerate then those described in the Synods Fifth Preposition much less therefore are those Discovenanted but being in Covenant are bound to renew it in order to full Communion The next Testimony here produced is from those words in the Discourse of Church-Covenant pag. 17. viz. 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 and others Thus though God promised Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed in their generations Genes 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 Now if this saith the Apologist were Truth in the Year 1639. as it then had the Approbation of the Eldeâ—s hereabouts we see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem eâ—t Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Ans. Let the words here cited be câ—ndidly interpreted and they contain nothing repugnant to the present Doctrine of the Synod For it is true that if men do not promise or do not perform in some measure yea in some measure of truth i. e. visibly and in Charitable and Ecclesiastical reputation the duties of Faith and Obedienâ—e into God they do Discovendat themselves i. e. they do it meritoriously and do what lies in them â—n thâ—â— part to destroy their Membership And â—hey so do it as will inferre the absolute loss of their Membership viz. either by formal Excommunication if you speak of particular persons and if the Church do her duty or by the Lorâ—s giving them a Bill of Divorce if you speak of whole Bodies of People as here the Ishâ—â—celâ—â—s 〈◊〉 a Eâ—ountes are spoken of But what is all this to the Children of our Churches deâ—â—ribâ—d in the Synodâ— Fifth Proposition who do promise and do in some â—easure though not in so full a measure as were to be desired perform the duties of Faith and Obedience This might be true in 1639. and in 1662. also And yet our Assertion may be true and yours false notwithstanding Let our Children appear to be such as the Edoâ—ates and Ishmaelites were or let them appear to be such as do in no measure yea i. â— no measâ—re of truth i. e. as to Church-visibility or charitable hope for the Church â—â—ngâ— no further perfâ—rm the duties of Faith and Obedience and we will with you plead to have them put out of the Church But till then i. e. as long as they do in some measure though yet but in a small and initiall measure perform the Duties and retain the Essentials of Christianity or of Faith and Obedience they continue yea regularly continue in the Church for ought that hath yet appeared either in 1639. or in 1662. We are loth to take notice of the insulting Expressions that are here used which are too-too uncomely especially there where thâ—â—â—fth Commandment requireth Special Honour But the intelligent Reader will easily see the vanity of this Conâ—â—dence to bring a Testimony concerning the Discovenanting of the Ishmaelites and Edomites for they are expreâ—ly instanced in as the Explication of the not-promising nor performing the duties of Faâ—â—rand Obedience intended by the Author and then to triumph in it as if that proved the Discovenanting of our Hopefull and Non-excommunicable Children or thwarted the Doctrine of the Synod When it is here added This is the main thing wherein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod If by This be meant the Assertion which is before expressed viz. that A church-member may possibly become no Member without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him then it is a great and â—trangâ— miâ—reâ—resentation to say that this is the main Poâ—ut of your Dissent For there be them that do â—eartily consent to all the Conclâ—sions of the Synod and yet dâ— hold and did in the Synod express as much That in some notorious cases and where the Church neglects her duty as hath been before said persons may be broken off and looked at as Non-members though not formally Censured or that a Church-member may possibly in some cases become no Member without a formal Censure the Reader therefore is greatly mis-led and mis-informed when he is told that This is the main Point of our Dissent But when you aâ—â—ert that the Children in question are become no Members or that persons who were before Members do become no Members as soon as ever they are adult meerly by want of fitness for full Communion though they neither have not deserâ—e to have any Church-censure paâ—led upon them This we confess is a main Point wherein you Dissent from the Synod and we suppose from Scriâ—ture and sound Reason too Preface Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church meâ—bers which are these following Such as are born and baptized Memâ—ers of the Church are not cruelty continued and confirmed Members unless when they grow up to years they do before the Lord and his People prayes their Repentance and Faith in Ieâ—us Chrâ—st Answ. It is manifest that by Confirmed Members all along in that Book Mr. Cottonâ—eaneâ— â—eaneâ— such as are admitted to â—uâ— Communiâ—n or to the Lords Supper and Voting and so he dâ—th expressly explain himself pag. 9. and for that it is well known we stand â—ully for the
were dead this second Generation would be a true Church of Christ without any further act or covenanting is no absurdity but a manifest Truth i. e. taking that Phrase Further act or covenanting to be meant of a particular formal act of Explicite Verbal covenanting For otherwise there is a further act yea an act of implicite covenanting in their constant and publick profession of the Religion of their Fathers But we say this second Generation continuing to use Mr. Cottons Phrase in Grounds of Baptism pag. 106. in a visible profession of the Covenant Faith and Religion of their Fathers are a true Church of Christ though they have not yet made any explicite personal expression of their engagement as their Fathers did Even as the Israelites that were numbred in the Plains of Moab were a true Church and under the Covenant of God made with them in Horeb though their Parents with whom it was first made in Horeb were all dead and that before the solemn renewing of the Covenant with them in the plains of Moab Deut. 29. see Deut. 5.2 3. with Numb 26.63 64 65. and so Mr. Hooker roundly and expresly affirms this which is here by our Brethren denied Survey Part. 1. pag. 48. 3. As for our denial of the liberty of Voting in Church-affairs to the persons in question till they be fitted for and admitted to the Lords Supper it stands good and rational without any prejudice to their being a true Church in the case supposed For there is no difficulty in it to conceive that the case of a true Church may be such by degeneracy or loss of their best Members c. as that they may be at present unfit to put forth or exercise a power of acting in Church-affairs though it be radically in them till by the use of needful means they or a select qualified number among them be brought up unto a better and fitter capacity for it And examples hereof are not farre to seek let that way of reforming corrupt and degenerate Churches be attended which is partly suggested in Mr. Allin's and Mr. Shepard's Preface before their Defence of the Nine Positions which Preface Beverly saith is Instar omnium Pag. 10 18 19 20. viz. that they be acknowledged true Churches and called by the powerful Preaching of the word to Humiliation Repentance and agreement unto Reformation and then that such as do so agree and submit to Discipline being owned to be of the Church among them a select number who are found upon tryal able to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and do walk according to Christ do solemnly renew or enter into Covenant and so electing officers c. enjoy full communion and carry on all Church-affairs in the Congregational way This shews that a Church may be out of case for the present exercise of a proper Church power and may need much preparation and reducement into order before it come up thereunto and yet this doth not hinder it from being a true Church nor from having that power radically in it and which in a way of due order it may come to the exercise of Have not the late times had experience of many Congregations unto which it was fain to be a publick care to sent Ministers and they to preach to them many years before they found a number fit for full Communion and management of Church-affairs and yet they retained the being of true Churches and Church-members all this while See also Mr. Shepards late-printed Letter about the Church-membership of Children pag. 18. We might also ask whether such a member of reasoning as is here used would prove Women to be no Members of an Instituted Church Because if all the Men were dead they could not then be a Church nor Vote in Church-affairs chuse Officers c. But that which is said may suffice onely let us adde that as the case that is supposed viz. of all the Parents or all that were in full Communion being dead at once is rarely if ever heard of so also the case we added viz. for the whole body to be fallen into an unfitness for full Communion by corruption and degeneracy would be we may hope as rare if Discipline and other Ordinances be kept up in their use and vigour God will so bless his own Ordinances if duely attended as that a considerable number shall from time to time have such Grace given them as to be fit for full Communion and to carry on all the things of his House with competent Strength Beauty and Edification The fourth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent is this It is not meer Membership as the Synod speaks but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism for John 's Baptism might not be applied unto the standing Members of the visible Church till they were qualified with Repentance This say they seems to us to cut the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for englargemeâ—â—â—f Baptism for neither doth the Scripture acknowledge any such meer Membership as they speak of nor is it meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right unto this divine and sacred Ordinance Answ. This term or distinction of Meer Membership is here as also in the Book to which this Preface is prefixed much exagitated and harshly censured but let the plain meaning of the Synod therein be attended and there will appear no cause for such exagitation When the Synod said that persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members and that Meer Membership or Membership alone doth not suffice to render men Subjects of the Lords Supper Propos. 4. p. 17 18. the meaning is That full Communion doth not belong to a Member as such or to a person meerly because he is a Member for then it would belong to all Members which it doth not A person may be a Member or in memberly Relation and yet not bein full Communion Now to say that meer Membership in this sense the Scripture acknowledgeth not is as if one should say that the Scripture acknowledgeth not Logical Distinctions between things in their Abstract and general Nature and the same things as clothed with various Adjuncts and Accessions which to say were strangely to forget our selves But when it is hence inferred and put upon us That we set up a meer Membership and a sort of meer Members in the Church this is an unnecessary Reflexion As if we should say that Riches do not belong to men meerly as men or meerly because they are men would it be a good inference to say that we set up a sort of meer men or a meer Humanity existing alone or that we distinguish men into Meer men and Rich men There is no individual man in the world that is a meer man i. e. that hath a naked Humanity without Adjuncts yet Logick distinguisheth between Humanity and its Adjuncts and between what belongeth to a man as such and what accreweth
Anabaptist's onely reason why they dislike Infant baptism is Because they fancy to themselves that the Church would be more pure if we baptized none but the adult and such as hold forth evidences of the Spirit and so they think but a few would have place in Churches But by this means doubtless it would come to pass that many of Christs Sheep would be neglected as Goats neither would all Parents be so careful as they think in educating their Children unto piety And yet this humane thought which savours of too much esteem of our own works doth so possess them that they bring all to this and turn off all that can be said and hereby they run themselves into very great errours I called it an humane thought for no Scripture doth command such a curious circumspection lest any Goats should be received into the Church The Apostles often baptized persons with whom they had scarce had an hours speech concerning Christ because according to the Parable of the Gospel they would bring in all they met with to the Marriage Mat. 22.10 For by Baptism they only took them into the School of Piety and Trained-hand of Christians and they were wont then to cast them out again when it was evidently enough perceived that to labour in teaching them was in vain Ibid. fol. 53. As for Parker his speaking mainly against the admitting or tolerating of Manifestarii peccatores The notoriously wicked and pleading to have them debarred from the Lords Table or cast out by the use of Discipline His frequent approbation of the Principles of the Reformed Churches And in special his approving of their admitting Members not before of their Body upon such like qualifications as are contained in the Synods fifth Proposition Also his earnest and peremptory rejecting the Opinions and Principles of the Anabaptists and Separatists and declaring himself and the Non-Conformists whose Cause he acted to be farre from them These and such like do clearly shew that Worthy man to be no Opponent of such an extent of Baptism as is contained in the Conclusions of the Synod But here our Brethren will needs take notice that the judgment of that worthy and for ever famous Mr. Cotton was as theirs is because he hath these words in Holiness of Church-members pag. 93 I conceive under favour more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old Ans. The Reader will take notice of what hath been before said and cited to shew Mr. Cottons judgement in the Points controverted between our Brethren and the Synod and will easily thereby judge whether Mr. Cottons judgement was as theirs is but It is strange they should make such a Collection from what is here set down Mr. Cotton might say those words that are here expressed and yet his judgement be farre enough from being as theirs is in any of the Points that are controverted for we shall not gainsay this Conception of Mr. Cottons That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church members of the New Testament then of the Old but concur with it in two respects or for two causes 1. Because the Light now is greater and clearer then it was then and where more is given more is required Luke 12.48 2. Because the Discipline appointed under the Old Testament was mostly Ceremonial Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 38. Thes. 41. And whether Excommunication for Moral evils was then used at least out of the National Church is by some doubted As also whether persons were debarred from the holy things simply for Moral evils if they were ceremonially clean as Mr. Cotton in the place here alledged saith It is true that it is a question whether sins very scandalous did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices But under the New Testament we have a plain and undoubted Rule for the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils persisted in hence persons might haply run further into Moral evils and so further off from the fruits of Regeneration then and yet not be put out of the Church yea haply not be debarred from the holy things then they can do now But what is all this to the matter in hand for still it is not secret irregeneration nor the bare want of such and such positive fruits of Regeneration without positive and palpable â—ruits of Irregeneration that will according to any Rule God hath given us put any man out of the Church when he is once in Nay Mr. Cotton in the very place here cited expresly saith that Irregeneration alone will not keep a man out His words are these Neither amongst us doth Irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us not Irregeneration alone I say unles it be accompanied with such fruits as are openly scandalous and do convincingly manifest Irregeneration Moreover still the parallel between the Church of the Old and of the New Testament stands and holds in this that when a person is once by Gods appointment taken into the visible Church whether in adult age or in infancy it comes all to one for that he continues in it and doth not lose his Membership till by some Rule or Appointment of God in his Word he be cut off or cast out What the particular Rules and wayes of cutting off were in the Old Testament we need not here dispute but to be sure the plain Rule in the New Testament for the cutting off of particular persons is by the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils But while we grant that in some respects more positive fruits in regard of degree might be required in the Old Testament let none so understand it as if Regeneration was not required as all unto the Constitution and Continuation of the visible Church in the Old Testament but that a meer carnal succession was then allowed of without regard to Regeneration For they stoâ—d by Faith and were brâ—ken off by Vnbelief as well as we Rom. 11. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteâ—usness of faith as well as Baptism Faith and Repentance do not now more constitute the Covenant of God then it did in the time of Abraham who was the Father of the Faithful saith Dr. Ames Yea our brethren do in their Antisynodalia pag. 17. expresly say That the Covenant made with Abraham and the Circumcision of his seed was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was i. e. that he should walk with God by Faith and Obedience And it is observeable that no where is Regeneration and the fruits thereof required of Gods Covenant people in stricter and fuller terms then in the Old Testament Gen. 17.1 Deut. 10.12 26.16 17. 1 Kings 8.23 Psal. 103.17 18. Isa. 56.4 6. And yet the Lord who is the best interpreter of his own Rules continued them in the Church and accounted them among the number of his holy people till palpallâ— and incorrigible fruits of Irregeneration were found
Invention why should this be affirmed and not proved for as for the persons spoken of they were not first admitted when adult but before they were adult even in their infancy or minority and now being adult and yet never cut off or cast out from their Church-relation if by sin they deserve Church-censure and yet it be not applied to them but that in respect thereof they be let alone are they not then under that judgement Hos. 4 of being â—eâ— alone in their wickedness And doth not this Neglect make way for Iâ—religion and Apostacy in Churches no Church-way being used toward these for preventâ—ng thereof for we do not see any ground to think that the use of Church discâ—pline toward such is an Humane Invention For these particulars to us do seem plain 1. That Church-discipline should be used toward all that are within the Church as there may be occasion and need of it and as in respect of understanding and age they are capable 2. It is plain also that the persons spoken of were once within the Church and as such were baptized in their infancy this cannot be denied but by joyning with the Antipoedobaptists in denying the Baâ—â—â—sm and Church-membâ—rship of little children And lastly it is plain also that the persons spoken of though now they be adult were never yet in any way of God cast out or cut off from the Church and the relation to it which they formerly had and many of them are far from deserving any such matter Now though Church-government and Church-discipline toward such as were never in the Church might be counted an Humane Dâ—vicâ— yet for such as were once according to Order and Divine Institution within it as Members thereof and never were since stâ—out of 〈◊〉 or cut off fâ—om that relation which is the case of the persons spoken of to say That Church-government and Church-discipline toward such is an Humane Invenâ—ioâ— we see no sufficient Reason either so to say or think but do rather conceive that this Church-discipline is so far from being an Humane Invention that the neglect thereof is a neglect of a Divine Institution and that aâ— sowning of 〈◊〉 personspunc and declaring of them to be Non-members which some speak for if this be not a Church-censure what is it other then an Humane invention and Device So much for Defence of what is said by the Synod in their third Proposition to prove That the children of Church-members when grown up are under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church Propose 4. The fourth Proposition of the Synod is That these adult Persons are not therefore to be admitted to full communion meerly because they are and continue Members without such further qualifications as the word of God requireth thereunto By which Proposition of the Synod there is a preventing of an usual objection from the danger of polluting the Ordinances by unworthy partakers if the children of Church-members be counted members and to be as such under Church-watchfulness and government when adult for some may think that if this their relation to the Church be granted there will then be danger that they will also come to the Lords Supper afore they be duely qualified for that Ordinance now the scope of this fourth Proposition is to prevent this evil and therefore it is the more to be admired that the Proposition should not be granted by the Reverend Author and by all that desire the Lords Supper may be preserved from unworthy partakers as we do not doubt but he doth But why then is this Proposition stuck at if it may not be granted that these adult persons are not to be admitted to fâ—ll communion without such qualifications as the word of God requireth thereunto which is what the Synod saith must the contrary to this be granted that they may be admitted thereunto without such qualifications at all we suppose the Reverend Author would not grant this and yet he doth not consent to the other but excepts against the proofs of it For saith he Though this Proposition seems to them plain yet it seems not sufficiently cleared by their Proofs 1. From 1 Cor. 11.28 29. where it is required that such as come to the Lords Supper be able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body else they will eat and drink unworthily and eat and drink judgement to themselves when they partake of this Ordinance But this ability is too ofâ—â—n seen to be wanting in the câ—ildren of the covenant that grow up to years pag. 16 17. To this Argument the reply of the Reverend Author is by way of Concession and of Exception His Concessions are two 1. That the want of such abilities in the children of the covenant is indeed too often seen through the too frequent neglect of Parents in their Education and of Ministers and Churches in their Institution or Instruction and Catechizing and watching over them pag. 17. Ans. It seems then that the children of Church-members even when they are grown up to years for it is of such that the Synods Argument here speaketh and so the Reverend Author doth express it are not only under the Education of Parents but also under the Institution Catechizing and watch of the Ministry and of the Church how then will that stand which was said before pag. 10. That when they are grown up they are not under the watch discipline and government of the Church for here it is granted that they are under the watch of the Church and if under Church-watch properly as such then under Discipline and that the neglect of Ministers and Churches herein is one cause of their want of ability to examine themselves and to discern the Lords body Now can the neglect of Church-watchfulness be a cause of this evil if the Lord have not appointed them to be under the same these things seem not well to agree Again if the want of such abilities be too often seen in the children of the covenant when grown up as is here acknowledged then what the Synod here saith seems to be true and stand good that such grown persons though children of the covenant or Church-members are not therefore to be admitted to full communion the reason is because notwithstanding this they may want that ability that is requisite to such full communion 2. The second Concession here is That Membership is separable from yea destitute of such-ability in the Infant-seed or children of the covenant in their minority and therefore they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper and that Text viz. 1 Cor. 1â— 28 29. proves it Ans. Doth that Text prove that Infants and children in minority though members of the Church are not yet to be admitted to the Lords Supper because they are not able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lords body and doth it not also prove the same concerning children when adult if this disability be found in them also Sure Infants and Children in