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-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
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
Supper and to the choice of Officers and to the Censures of the Church either actively or passively for all these are Actions and Ordinances of one general nature and it is meerly his want of Church-order that debars him from them 2. The Church may not receive into any priviledge of church-Church-communion such as Baptism is whatever cause they seem to have in the judgement of charity to think them fit for Church-membership and such as had they been called would have so acted until they be actually in publick Church-order no more then the children of every good Subject of the King may be admitted into the special Prerogatives of a Corporation whereof themselves or their next Parents are not regularly free All things must be done in order 1 Coâ— 14.40 whereunto what is more contrary then that he who is not regularly and personally of a publick Society should have Fellowship in a publick Priviledge proper to that Society Yet they say this which the Proposition holds forth is manifest 1. Because the main foundation of the right of the childe to priviledge remains viz. Gods Institution and the force of his Covenant carrying it to the generations of such as are keepers of the Covenant i. e. not visible breakers of it c. Reply The Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the Covenant which was sealed to them by Baptism in their Infancy and obliged them to service and subjection to Christ in his visible Church having confederated personally and regularly for themselves and theirs as their Parents did before them If they do not this they are out of that order by their own fault wherein they might have given their children right to Baptism according to Christs Institution That right which Parents have nor for themselves unto Baptism if they were unbaptized they cannot â—e to their children They who are not Members in their own personal and immediate right cannot give a right of membership to their children And though their Membership in Infancy was distinct from their Parents yet being onely mediate by their Parents covenanting for them it ceaseth when they become adult by their own fault in that they were not orderly joyned to the Church immediately by their personal covenanting for themselves and theirs regularly 2. Because Parents not doing what is required in the fifth Proposition is through want of opportunity which is not to be imputed as their guilt so as to be a barre of the Childes priviledge Reply 1. It hath been already proved in our examining the fifth Proposition that more is required to fit one that is adult for Church-membership then is there expressed viz. Faith in Christ made visible to the Church without which they are not regularly Church-members Now Baptism administred by ordinary Church-Officers to such as are out of Church-order is profaned as Circumcision was by the Shechemites and would have been by the Ishmaelites and Edomites and the posterity of Abraham by Keturah if it had been administred to their children when their Parents were not joyned to the Church of God or abode not in it in the Families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. For 1. One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 it is a publick Testimony of the Admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit into whose Name he is baptized Mat. 28.20 either immediately if he be adult by his personal Covenanting for himself and his seed or mediately if in his minority by his next immediate Parents Covenanting for him This the Parent in question hath not done Hence the want hereof is a bar to his childes Baptism 2. The regular and lawful use of Bâ—ptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith who is to use it either upon himself or upon his Infant Therefore he that presumeth to use it being not so qualified visibly viz. not having before the Promise of Christ and Faith for Justification with Abraham doth he not treacherously usurp the Great-Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth If not surely it had need to be soundly cleared 3. God reckoneth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it be hindred c Reply We must distinguish between private and publick Service in a publick state and order 1. In private Service God accepts the will for the deed when the actâ—ng of it is hindred either by God himself as Abrahams sacrificing his Son and Davids building the Temple or by the parties inability to do so much as he would as in that case 2 Cor. 8.12 and the like 2. But in publick Service in a publick state and order he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so far as to bring them into that state and order whatsoever their desires and endeavours have been for this were to overthrow and subvert that Order which God hath by his Institution established and to bring in Confusion Will God accept a man in doing acts of Office power proper to a Minister of a Church because he desired and endeavoured to be a Minister when he is not actually and regularly in Office Or may a Church receive unto Fellowship of the outward Seals of the Covenant such as are not actually and regularly joyned to the Church because they desired and endeavoured to be of the Church albeit their joyning with the Church was hindred To be baptized in voto will nothing advantage any to Church-fellowship though a Martyr in voto is accepted of God as a Martyr because though God searcheth and knoweth the heart yet the Church doth not De occultis non judicat Ecclesia secret things belong to God but revealed things to men and things are not manifested to the Church otherwise then by congruous actings nor in this case can they or theirs have a right to Church-priviledges otherwise then by actual joyning with the Church 4. The terms of the Proposition import that in charity that is here done interpretatively which is mentioned to be done in the fifâ—h Proposition expresly Reply 1. It 's an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture or in good Reason 2. If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly is here done interpretatively both being put together will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship in any sense and to give his Infant a right to Baptism thereby For by Christs Ordinance onely adult persons who have true Faith in Him and Holiness are adult Members of the invisible Church and the same persons making holy Profession thereof outwardly in the order of him appointed may be Members of the visible Church and they onely can give their Infant-seed a right unto Baptism For seeing without faith it is impossible to please God in matters of
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
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
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