2. Position 1 The Rules given of Christ Concerning the Communion of Christian Churches are 1. Concerning the Ground of it which is their Spiritual Union under one Head Christ Eph. 1.22 23. in one Body one Spirit one Hope of their calling one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of all and they must endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. As they have one common Faith Tit. 1.4 so they must contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints Jude ver 3. They have also one and the same Rule Gal. 6 16. The same Officers in all Churches Tit. 1.5 The same Ordinances and Decrees 1 Cor. 7.17 16.1 Acts 16.4 The same Order Col. 2.5 The same Doctrine 1 Cor. 4.17 15.11 Gal. 1.7 which all the Churches must hold fast Rev. 3.3 and renounce all other Doctrines Gal. 1.8 9. 1 Tim. 1.3 6.3.14 2. Concerning the Manner of it for as the Church generally considered is the Mother of all the faithful Gal 4.26 so particular Churches are Sisters each to other Cant. 8.8 and there is a Brotherhood of visible Saints throughout the World 1 Pet. 5.9 Hence the manner of their communion must be social as between equals none exercising jurisdiction and authority over another Par in parem non habet imperium The giving of Laws to the Churches is Christs Prerogative Iâ—m 4.12 who hath also committed the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to each particular instituted Church to be exercised by each Church within it self without dependance upon the Authority of other Churches in re propriâ Mat. 16.19 1 Cor. 5.12 3. Concerning the Things wherein this communion must be exercised 1. In general in mutual Helpfulness according to God by mutual care one of and for another 1 Cor. 10.24 Phil. 2.20 21. 2. Particularly 1. By Spiritual Helpfulness and care exercised 1. In mutual Prayer and endeavours for their edification Cant. 8.8 9. 1 Cor. 12 7. 1 Pet. 4.10 11. and for their confirmation and establishment in the truth Acts 15.41 16.4 5. and for strengthning each other in the regular application of Church-censures to their delinquent Members 2 Thess 3.14 2 Tim. 4.15 2. By outward Supplies unto their Necessities Acts 11.29 Rom. 15.26 27. 2 Cor. 8.2 c. throughout that Chapter 3. By their mutual care to avoid Offences 1 Cor. 10.32 4. That when a Church findeth need in respect of want of light or of competent consent within it self it is their duty to seek help by the counsel of some other Church or Churches and the other Church or Churches ought to give it in a brotherly way from the Word of God not by the Elders apart but in the presence and with concurrence of the Brethren Acts 15.4 22 23. nor may they bind such a Câ—urch to rest in their determination further then the same shall be found upon searching the Scriptures to seem gâ—od to the Holy Ghost as well as to them Acts 15.28 or if Neighbour-Churchâ—s finde it neâ—essary to offer their helpfulness to a Church in case of the Officers Male-administration or of Errours and Scandals and Schisms and the like cases to prevent the infection of themselves or to remove corruption from such a Church which being obstinate in their way seeketh not for help the Neighbour-Churches ought to exercise the Commâ—nion of Churches by enquiring to finde out the truth and by admonishing the offending Church in a brotherly way whereunto that Church ought to submit according to God Râ—m 16.17 Gâ—l 2 11-14 And if it obstinately persisteth in scandalous Evils after convincing light held forth the offended Churches may renounce communion with them to avoid fellowship in their sin Eph. 5.11 1 Tim. 5.22 Position 12 The Rules given by Christ to Christiâ—n Churche in the Premises and the lâ—ke are to be Received by all the Churches and the Members of them and to be obeyed as his Laws and Commandments who is our â—ne Law-giver In observing whereof and not otherwise the Purity and Peace of Christian Churches will â—e preserved by the blessing of Câ—rist Iam 4.12 Mat 28.20 1 Câ—â— 14.37 1 Tim. 6 13. Gal 6 16. These and the like being general Principles of Truth the particular Determinations of the Synod in the Two Questionâ— are to be Examined by them and so far and no further to be Approved and Receâ—ved as a consent and harmony of them with these may be cleared to the consciences of men rightly informed which may be manifested by a right application and compariâ—g them together 2. The Application of the former Theses or Posiâ—ions to the Questiâ—ns and Answerâ— as they are stated and expressâ—d by the Reverend Elders in their Printed Book followeth The first Quâ—stion propounded to them by the Honoured General Court was Quest 1. Who are the Subjects of Baptism Answ The Answer may be given in the following Propositions Which are seven in number Propos 1 They that according to Scripture are Members of the visib e Church are the Subjects of Baptism Propos 2. The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers in particulâ—r Churches and their infant-seed i. e. children in mâ—nority whose nexâ— Parents one or both are in Covenant Reply I cannot approve the two first Propositions without some change of the terms In the first thus they that accordâ—ng to Christ's Oâ—dâ—nance are regular and actual Membâ—â— c. The second thus The actual and regular Members of thâ— visible Câ—urch accoâ—ding to Christs Ordinance arâ— c. The necâ—ssity of this alteration will appear if either the p emised Positions be duely co sidered wherewith these Proposit onâ— wâ—ll not otherwâ—se agree or if the Proofs alledged by them from Scripture for coâ—firmation of these two Propositions be duely exâ—mined oâ— if what is hereafter to be Replied unto the following Propâ—sitions shall be duely weighed Propos 3. Thâ— infant-seed f confederate visible believers are Members of the same Church with their Parentâ— and when grown up are person lly under the Watcâ— Discipline and Government of the Churâ—h This Proposition câ—nsisteth of two parts both which they endeavour to prove distinctly 1 Thâ—t â—hey are Members of the same Church wiâ—h heir Parent This may pass in a rig t sense being understood of Mediâ—te Member in and by thâ—ir Parents covenantiâ—g for them in their infancy or minority I shall no oppose it 2 That when hâ—y are g own uâ— hey are pe sâ—n lly under the Wâ—â—ch D scipline aâ—d Government of the Churâ—â— This expressiâ—n câ—llâ— for serious consideration and the Proofs of it â—eâ—uiâ—e due exâ—â—inaâ—ion 1. F r the Expâ—â—ssion the meaning of â—t â—â—â—ms to be this That when the childâ—en that were baptized in their minority are grown up to years of discretion or become men they are Members or as they speak afterwâ—rd 〈◊〉 Membeâ— and by that membership are under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church But what
who is dead yet live Hence also when the Parents are Excommunicated the Membership of the Infant-childe is cut off because Excommunication puts an end to the Outward Covenant which Death it self doth not do and if the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live True it is that we have made much use of that distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members which seems to us to carry a mighty and constraining Evidence of Scripture-light along with it yea and so as to sâ—lve if rightly understood and managed the strongest Objâ—ctâ—ons that are brought against the Cause and Truth we plead for And let it be considered that Church-members have been commonly distinguished into Compleat and Incompleat And Authors who have been Stars of the first Magnitude if ever there have been such upon Earth haâ—e made use thereof We might instance in that Incomparable Champion for the Truth and for the Non-Conformists against Prelacy Mr. Robert r Pâ—rker de â—â—l E les Parker so likewise Å¿ Ames Mâ—d. Tâ—eâ—l l. 1. c. 32. Tiâ— 13 Ames Voetius t H rnâ—eâ—â— Epâ—â—t ad Duraeum p. 356. Hornbeck Dr. u Dr. Winter on Act â— 3â— p 9â— Winter Mr. w Mr. Hâ—nmer Exercit. â—bout Conâ—irmatiâ—n in Postâ—â—r Sâ—cond Edit Hanmer c. make use of the same distinction and the Dâ—ssenters have proved it in their Antisynodalia Thirdly it is Objected against us That we maintain a strange Opinion namely That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an act or a defect rather which may be called an act as Sins of Omission are termed Actual Sins of his own without any Church-act in Censuring of him Answ Most true it is that we do Maintain this and must do so till we see the contrary proved Neither do we know that this Opinion contains any thing in it dissentany from Scripture or good Râ—â—son Nor see we how some Arguments for the Affirmative can faiâ—ly be answered Suppose we an English Fugitive that is become a Priest in Antwerp or a Cardinal at Rome Or suppose we a Turk who is an English-man by Birth this Turk was baptized a Member of some Parish-Church which those that we dispute against maintain to be true Churches and we are farre from denying of it universally and he was neveâ— Censured by any Church for his Apostacy nâ—w we demâ—nd Whetâ—er this Turk be a Member of the Church of Christ yea or no To affirm it would be gross To say that Turks are Members of the Church of Christ is â—n truth to speak Daggâ—rs When the Arch-Flamin Whitgift said that Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church Mâ— Parker x De P 〈…〉 l â— c. â—6 tells him That even a Vorstius would condemn him Anâ— it is no nâ—w Doctrine in the Schools to say that y M rtâ— Aâ—â—â— â—â—tho paâ— 1. l. 1. c. 3. An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Soâ—e or a Brand is a men her of a man which none â—â—â—â—â—â—gine The tâ—uth of this none can doubt of that is mediocritèr doctus n Scholâ—sâ—iâ— l Diviniâ—y Therâ—fore we conclude that Church-members may become no Members by their own defection And we humbly conceive though with submission as is fit to better judgements That thus much is held forth by these Scriptures Hebr. 10.25 1 Joh. 2 19. Jude ver 19. Again how came Esau to lose his Membership We reade not that he was Excommunicate Therefore it remains that he dis-Covenanted and so dis-Membered himself And how came the Children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their Membership iâ— was not by Censure In like sort when persons under the Gospel do not come up to the terms of the Covenant to shew themselves to be Abrahams Children by holding forth his Faith and walking before the Lord in simplicity and godly sincerity we suppose that they are justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents because of their then personal incapacity to act for themselves made for them Alas that any should look upon us as Maintaining dangerous Opinions because of this Wherefore that all may know that there is neither Danger nor Singularity in this our Assertion That a Church-member may possibly become no Member without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him give us leave to produce some Testimonies to prove it Judicious and blessed Dr. Ames z Cas Consâ— l. 5. c. 12. in Resp ad Quaest 4. Th. 8. saith That in case of pertinacious Separation such persons though they may be of the invisible yet they are not to be accounted Members of the visible Church Which words of the Learned Doctors do make the more for our purpose for that they are Cited and Approved of by The a Answ to quest 4. p 17. Answer to the XXXII Questions Our Congregational b Preface to the Declaration of Faith Order at the Savoy Brethren in England do with one voyce say That some Church-members may be felones de se such as may destroy their own Membership Yea and this was once sound Doctrine in New-England Blessed Mr. Cotton whose Name is and will be precious so long as the Earth shall endurâ— maintains it for a Truth That c Way of Churches p. 9. many in Churches have cut themselves off Another Testimony which we would produce is them Discourse of the Church-Covenant of which the Reverend Mr. d See Preface to the Answer to 21 Questions Richard Mather was the sole Author and the words are these following e Discourse of Church-Covenant Printed An. 1639. p. 17. That if men had not promised and also performed in some measure of truth the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God they had not taken hold of the Covenant but had DISCOVENANTED THEMSELVES notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers or others Thus though God promâ—sed Abraham to be a God unto him and his seed in their generations Gen. 17.7 yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham were discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience which God required on the peoples part And the same Truth is held forth by the same Author in The Answer to the XXXII Questâ—ons bef rementioned This is â—he main thing whâ—rein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod Now if this were Truth in the Year 1639. as it then had the Approbation of the Elders hereaboutâ— wâ— see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem est Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church-members which are these following f Mr Cotton Hâ—â—â—neâ—◠〈◊〉 Chur h-members p. 19. â— 41. Such as are Born and
Baptized Members of the Church are not orderly Continued and Confirmed Members unless when they grow up to years they do before the Lord and his People profess their Repentance and Faith in Jesus Christ To say no more of this Renowned Parker speaking of the Interpretation of those words Laying on of Hands in Heb. 6.2 cites many judicious Writers whose judgemâ—nts he expresseth in words to this purpose g Pâ—rker â—e Pâ—â— F â—les in â—ap â—e 〈◊〉 E lesia 〈◊〉 Seâ—â— 9. â— 13. That they who were baptized in their minority when they are grown up after that the Church had approved their Faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands they were admitted Members of the Church This was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times as Parker saith Now we demand How they can be admitted as Members who are already as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church But the ancient Doctrine wâ—s h Tertullian Antiquissimum uâ—issimum That Children who were baptized in their minority after they shall come to profess their Faith so as to be accepted of the Church may be admitted as Members Therefâ—re according to the ancient Dâ—ctrine Such children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church Yea therefore it follows That when they are Adult in case they do not by holding forth Faith and Repentance joyn unto the Church that then they â—o not retain their Membe ship whicâ— tâ—ey had in minority Fourthly it hath beâ—n Obâ— cted That we will not suffer Children to come under the Watch and Care of the Church Answ We are so farre from being of that Opâ—nion aâ— thâ—t we verily fear there is great guilt lies upon thâ— Churches â—â—câ—use â—hey have neglected their duty towards the Children in questiâ—n Iâ— is as clear to us as the Light at Noon or to use Tertullians pâ—r sâ— as if it were written with the Beams of the Sun Thâ—◠〈◊〉 special Care even Church-care and Inspection is due over thos Children that are Born within the Gates of Zion Hâ—ppy â—ight it be for us all if the issue of these troublesome Controversies might be onely to awaken Churches to stricter Watch and Diligence in Overseeing those Children that are in minority Onely we conceive that the Watch over them is to be Mediate according to the state of their Membership The Church is to see that the Parents do their duty toward their Children in bringing them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. i 〈…〉 And if when they shall be adult they do not bring forth fruits of Repentance and Faith then as the Fig-tree which did not bear fruit was to be cut down the Church is to disown them as having no part in the Lord and to declare that they by their unbelief have Discovenanted themselves But we see not sufficient warrant from the Word of God to proceed to a formal Excommunication of the Children in question because that is applicable unto none but those who have been in full Communion Now if this be all that is striven after That Church-children might be brought under Church-watch why sâ—ould the Contentions of Brethren be like the bars of a Castle that cannot yield Lastly it hath been Objected That the reason of our Dissenting from the major part of the Synod was Weakness and Ignorance and meer Wilfulness in that we could bring no Arguments but what were sufficiently refuted Answ The very same thing hath been said of those Worthy Champions who stood up for the Congregational-Way in opposition to the Assembly at Westminster that k See tâ—esâ— wordâ— in The 〈◊〉 aâ—â—inst 〈…〉 P. p 21 â—â— Their Arguments were weak and ridiculous and had been Confuted and sufficiently answered and that themselves were Self-conceited and Obstinate But these Criminations were unworthy Calumniations It was a common Reproach cast upon the Christians of old That they were all weak and unlearned men which made Jerome write that Book De viris Illustribus So Stapleton makes no bones to call Whitaker An Asse and A Fool. And the same hissing of the Serpent have we seen in the Prelates against the Renowned Non-Conformists But we suppose their saying so did not prove it was so Nevertheless we are content to accept of the Charge when we are charged with Weakness and Folly Let us be fools for Christs sake or for his Truth Let us fall so the Truth may rise let us sit in the dust so that Truth may sit in the Throne We deserve not to be otherwise esteemed then as Weakness and Ignorance it self Yet let us not be reputed Obstinate and such as are and will be blinde because we dare not betray the Truth and sin against our Consciences For our weightiest Reasons never were Answered unto any tolerable satisfaction even to this day If it be demanded here What our Reasons were why we accorded not with the major part of the Synod We shall by the help of Christ and in the fear of God declare what our chief Reasons were which caused our Dissent which when they are Answered we shall lay down our Opinion as knowing that it is Nullus pudor ad meliora transire 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational charity or else the childe ought not to be baptized We intreated and urged again again that this which they themselves acknowledged was a Principle of Truth might be set down for a Conclusion and then we should all agree But those Reverend Persons against whom we placidly disputed would not consent to this though our Unity lay at the Stake for it 2. We have not Warrant in all the Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper Those Acts 2.41 who were Baptized continued breaking Bread also ver 42. 'T is granted That those Children were Circumcised amongst the Jews whose Parents were for a time debarred from the Passeover but that was onely upon accident of Ceremonial Uncleanness which alters not the case for Unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his childe circumcised The like may be said concerning the Gospel-Passeover and the Gospel-Circumcision Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary The l Catechun eni ad Baptisterium nunquam admittendi sunt Concil Araus c. 19. Catechumeni were not to be Baptized before they were fit for the Lords Supper And thence when through the darkness of the times the Lords Supper was not administred except at Easter as 't is called the m Concil Gern dist 4. Baptism of the Catechumeni was deferred until then also In the Dawnings of Reformation in England our Juell could plead against Harding that n Juels Reply to Harding p.
his publick Worship and Service whereof Baptism is one and seeing God hath appointed us to Worship him both in it and in all other publick Duties and Services so as we may please him therein It followeth necessarily that he requireth true visible Faith in all whom he priviledgeth to baptize their Infants which yet is not expresly required in the fifth Proposition nor interpretatively in this Propos 7. The Members of Orthodox Churches being sound in the Faith and not scandalous in life and presenting due testimony thereof these occasionally coming from one Church to another may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come by virtue of Communion of Churches But if they remove their habitation they ought orderly to Covenant and to submit themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church where they settle their abode and so their children to be baptized It being the Churches duty to receive such into communion so far as they are regularly fit for the same Reply The regular Communion of approved Churches I look at as the Ordinance of Christ according to the 11th and 12th Posiâ—ions premised but this Proposition is so ambiguously expressed that it leaves me in the dark till some Questions be answered that the extent and compass of the sense and meaning of it may be better cleared They distribute it into two parts which they endeavour to prove severally but neither of them are sufficiently explained In the first part I Enquire What Churches they account Orthodox whether such onely as have the Truth of Doctrine as it is opposed to Heterodoxies and Errours about the Doctrine of Faith viz. Churches that are Heretical or such also which are right in Judgement and Practice in matters of Church-Order For both these the Church at Câ—losse was praised by Paul in Col 2.5 6. 2. What course the Church where the Members of such Churches desire to have their children baptized do take to know that such Members are sâ—und in the Fâ—ith For a Member of an Orthodox Church may hold and maintain dangerous Errours contrary to the Faith 1 Cor. 15.12 3. Whom they account to be not scandalous in life whether onely such as fall not under the censure of Civil Courts or also such as are justly offensive to Gods People by their sinful and disorderly walking For they say in their proof of the second part of this Proposition that to administer Baptism to such as walk in disorder would be to administer Christs Ordinance to such as are in a way of sin and disorder which ought not to be done 2 Thess 3.6 1 Chron 15.13 and would be contrary to that Rule 1 Cor. 14.40 4. What they account due Testimony whether that which is given of them by the Church from whence they come or onely that which they may have from some in the place where they live and have been but a little while whether they be Members of the Church or not 5. What they mean by their occasionally coming from one Church to another whether they take a due course to know that their occasion of coming be approved by the Church whence they come or not 6. When they say They may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come by virtue of the Communion of Churches Quaere 1. Whether they have Letters of Recommendation from the Church whence they come whereby that Church desireth this fruit of Communion with the Church where they would have their children baptized or not That being the orderly way of exercising Communion among Churches Rom. 16.1 2. 2 Cor. 3.1 3 Joh. ver 9 12. and Whether the Infant must be baptized as a Member in and by his Parents covevenanting for him of that Church whence his Parents come or as a Member of the Church where he is baptized and where the Parent is not a Member but onely hath this benefit of the Communion of Churches that himself is admitted to the Lords Supper pro tempore and his children to Baptism in a transient way When these and the like Questions are Answered I shall better know what to say to the first part of the Proposition then now I do In the mean time to the first Proof thereof I have already spoken in my Replies to Propos 1. 2. 5. 8. 2. To clear their meaning in the second part of this Proposition Quaere 1. Whether such Removers have an orderly dismission from the Church whence they come or not 2. Whether the Church where they settle their abode do subject themselves to the Government of Christ or not 3. Whether all refusing to Covenant with any Church whatsoever where they are necessita ed to settle their abode is to be judged to be disorderly walking and to savour of Profaneness and Separation 4. Whether if the Church in that place refuse to receive them into communion so far as they are regularly fit for the same or if they do not joyn in communion with that Church in the place where they dwelt it bâ—ing not to be approved Doth this their not being joyned dâ—bar their children from being baptized in another Church that is approved These and the like Questions being clearly Answered I shall understand the true and full sense of this Proposition and what to say to it So much may suffice for the present for Reply to their Answer to the first Question Quest II. Whether according to the Word of God there ought to be a Consociation of Churches and what should be the manner of it Answ The Answer may be given in the Propositions following Reply The Propositions following are eight As for the first four The first Concerning the full Power and Authority Ecclesiastical within it self of each particular Congregation of visible Saints in Gospel-Order furnished at least with a Teaching Elder and walking together in Truth and Peace And the second concerning The Sisterly Râ—lation of the Churches of Christ each to other And the third concerning The Vnion and Communion of such Churches And the fourth concerning The Acts of Communion I fully close with as well agreeing with the 11th and 12th Positions premised Excepting onely the sixth Act of Communion and that but in one part of it For To admonish one another when there is need and cause for it I confess is an Act of this Communion and which may be proved from Gal. 2.11 24. by proportion But for that other part of it To withdraw from a Church or peccant party therein after due means with patience used obstinately persisting in Errours or Scandals this must be taken with a grain of Salt They referre us to the Platform of Discipline Chap. 15. Sect. 2. Partic. 3. where they fetch a proof for this withdrawing from Mat. 18.15 16 17. by proportion But there seems to be a threefold dispr portiâ—â— between that and this For 1. There the Withdrawing is a consequent and ff ct of tâ—e Câ—urches authoritative Censure of aâ— obstinate offender after the first
and second and third Admonition the offender being a Member and so under the Power and Authority of the Church and to be so censured by the Church to whom Christ hath given â—he Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and hath ordained that such an one shall be Excommunicated for his obstâ—nacy in offâ—nces whâ—ch were materially of a lesser kinde but by obstâ—nacy of the delinquent after secret priva e and publick Admonition against the Ordinance of Christ for his reclaiming becomes formally an heinous Scandal But the Wi hdrawing of other Churches from a Church which they account peccant is an act of different nature and kinde For it is not an act of publick Auâ—hority of such Churches over that Church by virtue of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven given to any Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches as they themselves confess in their first Proposition for Answer to this second Question 2. The steps whereby they proceed to this Withdrawing are 1. That one Church Admonish another 2. If the Church under offence doth not hearken to that Admonition the offended Church is to acquaint other Neighbour-Churches with that offence and with their neglâ—ct of that Admonition whereunto those other Churches are to joyn in seconding the Admonition formerly given and if stâ—ll the offending Church continue in obstinacy and impenitency they may forbear communion with them Reply This is not by proportion according to Matth. 18. For there Christ doth not allow them who have proceeded in Admonishing but to the second step to forbear communion with the delinquent whereas these Neighbour-Churches are but in the second step Yet they say they may forbear communion with them Then they ascend to the third step To proceed to make use of a Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches walking orderly if a greater cannot conveniently be had for their conviction If they hear not the Synod the Synod having declared them to be Obstinate particular Churches approving and accepting the judgement of the Synod are to declare the sentence of Non-communion respectively concerning them and thereupon out of a Religious care to keep their own communion pure they may justly withdraw themselves from participation with them at the Lords Table and from such other acts of holy communion as the Communion of Churches doth otherwise allow and require Thus they speak in that Platform But is this in proportion according to Mat. 18. that the Neighbour-Churches may first withdraw and then a Synod or Council of Neighbour-Churches must be made use of for their conviction and if the Synod declare them to be Obstinate particular Churches are to declare the sentence of Non-communion and then to withdraw themselves from all acts of holy communion Till they can produce a clear Rule for warrant of such a proceeding I cannot look at this otherwise then as a meer humane Invention 3. Though Churches may withdraw from a Church that is obstinate and impenitent in some cases without any such solemn sentence of Non-communion declared by a Synod yet not for such causes as a delinquent Brother may be Excommunicated by a Church according to Mat. 18. For there though the Offence was in some lesser matter and private between two at first yet by obstinacy against convincing light held forth in those three steps of proceeding it becomes a publick and heinous Scandal and so the Delinquent must be at last Excommunicated by the command of Christ and the Sentence of the Church in obedience to Christ who hath for such ends given the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven unto them But Neighbour-Churches may not withdraw from a true Church for every Errour and Scandal though persisted in and in their opinion obstinately For 1. It may be the Errour of Neighbour-Churches to think that to be light from Scripture which they hold forth for their conviction when it is not from Scripture rightly understood and rightly applied If the Synod by whom this Book is published should conclude any Church to walk in Errour and Scandal and Obstinately which shall not be convinced from what light they have here held forth nor practise accordingly till what is Replied ad oppositum be soundly Refuted and their Allegations and Applications of Scripture more convincingly and irrefragably cleared and Withdraw communion from them after the first second and third Admonition and If any Neighbour-Churches for this or the like cause should Withdraw from communion with them after the Admonition of one Church and after that of other Neighbour-Churches They should greatly sin in so doing and act contrary to their own Doctrine in their second Proof of their 7th Proposition for Answer to this second Question pag. 28. where they say To refuse communion with a true Church in lawful and pious actions is unlawful and justly accounted Schismatical For if the Church be true Christ holdeth some communion with it therefore so must we Now the Churches in New-England were approved by their Neighbour-Churches to be true Churches by their giving unto them the right hand of fellowship and an Errour in lesser matters though persisted in against their Admonitions which may be from want of convincing light doth not make any of them cease to be a true Church But to Withdraw themselves from all holy communion with such a Church for such a cause is Total separation from a true Church which themselves say is unlawful Ibid. 2. The cases wherein communion may be regularly Withdrawn from a Church or Person are onely such as Subvert the Fundamentals of Religion and are obstinately persisted in against due means regularly used with patience for their conviction being contrary to the Faith once given to the Saints from whence they may be justly denominated Heretical Tit. 3.10 11. 2 Joh. ver 10 11. Or to the communion of Saints from whence they may be justly styled Schismatical Rom. 16.17 18. Or to both being fallen from the Truth once received from whence they be justly called Apostatical 2 Tim 4.10 Or if there be any other case of like heinousness But in cases of lesser importance Churches and Christians are to be exhorted to walk worthy of their calling with all lowliness and meekness with long-suffering forbearing one another in love Endevouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace c Eph. 4.1 2 3 c. concluding with blessed Paul that the main things of Religion being provided for and secured for lesser matters if in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you Phil. 3.15 For in such matters godly men do frequently differ and are not easily convinced some from the strength others f om the weakness of their Intellectuals and the bâ—st â—now â—ut in part I have been the larger in clearing this Point for necessary causes Having thus spâ—ken to tâ—e four first Propositions I proceed to tâ—e fifâ—h and sixâ—h Propositions Propos 5. Câ—nsociâ—tion of Churches is their mutual and solemn Agreement to exercise communion in such acts as
become a Classical or Presbyterian Church and the Members by consenting thereunto become Members of a Classical Church and under the power of it so as to be Excommunicated by it And is not this Consociation to be looked at as a Snare to the Churches which 1. Transforms them from Congregational Churches into a Classical Church And 2. Subjects them under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Classical Church And 3. Without any warrant of Christs Institution Let us see if there be more in their second Proof 2. Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference concurrence and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles and ordinary Elders and Churches have not less need each of other to prevent their running in vain Gal. 2.2 6 9. Reply 1. This necessity was proper to Paul's case who did not converse with Christ on earth as the other Apostles did but was as one born out of due time 1 Cor. 15.8 and so was more liable to be objected and excepted against then the other Apostles and therefore had more need to be countenanced among men by them then they by him Whence he wisely sought approbation from them But this is not the case of the Churches in New-England each of them having been approved by the right hand of fellowship given to them by other Churches at their first gathering and at the Ordination of their Teaching and Ruling-Elders 2. Paul did thus not by reason of such a consociation of Churches as is here described but for other Reasons 3. The running in vain of any Elders and Churches hath been hitherto prevented by the communion of Churches regularly exercised and still may be 3. Those general Rules touching the need and use of counsel and help in weighty cases concern all Societies and Polities Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Prov. 11.14 15.22 c. R ply It is true and it is their duty to make use of them in obedience and with thankfulness to God as need requires when they want light or consent within themselves by virtue of the communion of Churches without such a Consociation as they describe 4. The pattern in Acts 15. holds forth a warrant for Councils which may be greater or lesser as the matter shall require Reply But 1. Not with special respect to the vicinity of Churches for Paul and Barnabas and the Messengers fâ—om the Church of Antioch passed through other Churches nearer to go to Jerusalem for counsel 2. Nor by virtue of such a Consociation of the Church at Antioch with that at Jerusalem but of the communion of Churches 5. Concurrence and communion of Churches in Gospel-times is not obscurely held forth in Isa 19 23 24 25. Zeph. 3.9 1 Cor. 11.16 14.32 36. R ply Some of those Texts note onely a communion of Saints in one and the same Church 2. None of them hold forth a Consociation of Churches as they describe 6. There hath constantly been in these Churches a profession of Communion in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of Churches and Ordination of Elders which importeth a Consociation and obligeth to the practice thereof Reply Together with the profession of communion hath been the practice of it in these Churches But that this communion importeth such a Consociation as they describe and obligation to the practice thereof was not expressed nor understood Worthy Mr. Cotton whose Name ought to be honourable among the Saints both in Old England and New in that Book which he entituled The Way of the Churches in New-England the sixth chapter speaketh of the Communion of Churches and sheweth seven wayes whereby it ought to be and is in these Churches exercised They do as I apprehend reach all the Duties to be performed by virtue of Church-communion mutually by each other But of this Consociation as it is here described he speaketh not a word nor I believe did apprehend any Necessity of it or Rule in Scripture for it Therefore when they say Without this we shall want an expedient and sufficient cure for emergent Church-difficulties and differences the constant experience of these Churches from their beginning to this day evinceth the contrary And though our Way is charged with the want hereof yet it is unjustly and by such as would bring us into their Way of Classical Churches which is not proved to be the Ordinance of Christ as this of the Communion of Churches is and hath been found effectual by the blessing of Christ and so will be still And though this part of the Doctrine of the Church as they call it concerning such a consociation it being not proved to be the Doctrine of Christ was never practised in these Churches For without it the Churches either have been or might have been and may be hereafter kept in purity and peace with Brotherly love among themselves mutually by the regular improving the communion of Churches which is manifested to be the Ordinance of Christ who hath given us perfect Rules in the New Testament for the ordering of the communion of Christian Churches which are sufficient for attainment of the ends for which Christ hath appointed it according to the second third fourth eleventh and twelfth Positions premised With which if this way of Consociation of Churches shall be clearly proved to agree which I do not finde to be yet done I shall readily and heartily close with it and submit unto it For it is onely the Truth that I search for and desire to bear witness unto that when my time shall come to lay down this earthly tabernacle which I expect daily I may give up my account with joy 2. And if any Church be refractory we have the help of the Civil Power which is ordained of God for the just punishment of those that do evil whether in Church or Common-wealth Rom. 13. Every Oâ—dinance of God hath Gods blessing annexed which we cannot expect in this way till it be proved to be Gods Ordinance which yet is not done Propos 7. The manner of the Churches agreement herein may be by the Churches open consenting unto the things here declared in Answer to this second Question as also to what is said thereabout in Chap. 15 16. of the Platform of Discipline with reference to what is before expressed in Proposition 5th Reply If the Churches do express their Agreement herein openly they do voluntarily engage themselves and covenant to practise according to the things declared not onely in the point of Church-communion but also of such consociation as is here expressed which they have need to see to be warranted by the Word if they will act accordingly in faith knowing that whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14.23 What is said in the Platform chap. 15 hath been in part examined before in chap. 16.5 They say The Synods Directions and Determinations so farre as consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission not onely for their agreement therewith
If not it is needful that it should be declared that all may know where to stop and to understand that this Priviledge is not to exceed the Third Generation Again if not it is strange that a childe should be begotten or born of a Member and yet it self be no Member or if a Member have no right to Baptism 2. If so it may be demanded By what right or Where is the ground of their right to Baptism Not in the Grandfather or Great-Grandfather that is generally disliked and the second Proposition doth limit it otherwise but in the immediate Parent I suppose But how is the right of these childrens Baptism founded upon him Not upon his personal Confederating for it is supposed there is none Nor upon his owning the Covenant of his father for his father made no Covenant he did onely own the Covenant of his Parents and that gave the right of Baptism to his children as is held forth in the fifth Proposition It remaineth therefore that this Parent of the third Generation doth own what his Parent of the second Generation he can go no higher hath done and what is that He entred not into Covenant but onely owned the Covenant that his father entred into And thus these last children who are of the fourth Generation do come to have right to Baptism not by their Parents Confederation as the second sort mentioned in the second Proposition nor by their Parents owning their fathers Covenant as the third sort spoken of in the fifth Proposition but by these Parents of the third Generation owning their Parents of the second Generation owning the Covenant of their fathers of the first This seemeth to be an uncouth way and very unpleasant Divinity VII The sixth Proposition I look at as an Exception to the fifth otherwise it is cross unto it and against it To this I say 1. If there be any weight in the Arguments used under the sixth Consideration against the baptizing of children to whom the fifth Proposition doth allow Baptism then they are likewise of force against the baptizing of children mentioned in this sixth Proposition 2. I cannot but take notice of the several sorts of Membership all giving right to Baptism Two in the second Proposition a Third in the fifth a Fourth in the sixth and if Membership without personal Confederation by the seed of Confederate visible Believers doth not end in the third Generation then there is a Fifth and a Sixth sort of Membership and all these are differing one from the other The two first are of God and according to his Word the rest are not VIII The last Proposition seemeth to open a very wide gate in the Church wider then God doth allow Isa 26.2 for though it requireth qualifications in such Members who claim right to Baptism for their children in other Churches by virtue of Church-communion yet it is altogether silent of the qualifications of such Churches themselves onely they must be Orthodox that respects the Doctrine of Faith alone There is much more to be attended A Church may be Orthodox in matters of Faith yet Scandalous in Practice A whole Church may be under Scandal as well as a particular person and in that case another Church may withdraw from it and have no communion either with it or its Members And this was not long since the Judgement and Practice of some of the chief Churches and Elders in the Bay Again a Church may believe the main Articles of Faith yet be so defective in Discipline yea so opposite to Christs Government as to lay aside his Laws and Institutions and set up the Inventions and Traditions of men And likewise may have such a corrupt Constitution both in regard of Matter Open scandalous livers and likewise of Form No visible express Covenant according to the Rules of the Gospel that there can be no such communion held and maintained with such a Church or her Members holding communion with it as is expressed in this seventh Proposition without manifest disobedience to the Word of God in these and many other places Rev. 18.4 2 Cor. 6.17 Eph. 5.11 If the Members of Orthodox Churches may upon the terms expressed in the seventh Proposition claim Baptism for their children in our Churches by virtue of Church-communion then themselves have right to communicate with us in the Lords Supper and then what should hinder but that we may by virtue of Church-communion occasionally coming to any of these Orthodox Churches have our children baptized in such a Church and our selves partake in the Supper of the Lord Or if we should have occasion to remove our Habitation to such a place where such an Orthodox Church is why may we not joyn unto it and have fellowship with it And if we may so do New-England Christians are of all Christians in the world most miserable and foolish We have suffered many things in vain in leaving such a Countrey for this our Estates Friends Comforts there to enjoy God and Christ and our Consciences in the Congregational-Way in a low afflicted condition in the Wilderness for so many years together and now we must lose those things which we have wrought and may return to our former state when we please which the Lord preserveus from FINIS THere is now in the Press a small Treatise Entituled A Discourse of the Last Judgement on Matth. 25.31 to the end c. By Mr. SAMVEL WHITING Pastor of the Church of Christ at Lynne which will shortly be extant