set down for the substance of them as it seemeth he doth by what he saith pag. 52. why should it be thought a dangerous matter to agree thereunto for the Substance thereof We have indeed found in our Experience much good and benefit by Communion of Churches as the Reverend Author acknowledgeth pag. 58 61. and his acknowledgement thereof we gladly accept but we have also found that the want of ready Agreement timously to attend and exert the Acts of Communion hath hazarded the Peace and Well-being of sundry Churches and exposed them to great Troubles We do not desire by our proposed Consociation to adde any thing to the Communion of Churches but onely a vigorous and timous exercise thereof 3. That we expresly disclaim the subjecting of a Church unto any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction whatsoever Propos. 1. and therefore it is strange that the Reverend Author should put that upon the Consociation by us intended That it is a subjecting of Churches under Classicall Iurisdiction pag. 59. It is not the bare Consent or mutual Agreement of Churches but the nature of the thing consented to as viz. The Power they agree to be stated under that makes it a Classical Combination or puts those Churches under a Classical Iurisdiction What though the voluntary Combination mentioned by by Mr. Rutherfurd in his sense doth inferre a Classical Membership and Iurisdiction Surely it doth not follow that ours does so when as we expresly disclaim it But is it true that where-ever there is a voluntary Combination of Churches they become a Classical or Presbyterian Church and the Members by conseâ—ting thereto become Members of a Classical Church and under the Power of it so as to be Excommunicated by it c. as is said pag. 59 what then shall be thought of that known Position of Dr. Ames Medal Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 27. which is expresly cited and approved by the Reverend Author in his Reply to Paget pag. 224 225 Surely it is no new thing with Congregational-men but their professed Doctrine with one consent to own some kinde of Combination and Consociation of Churches but withall we constantly afirm with Dr. Ames in the same place that This Combination doth neither constitute any new Form of a Church nor ought it to take away or in any measure to diminish that Liberty and Power which Christ hath left to his Churches but onely it serves to direct and promote the same 4. Let the Reader please to peruse and consider the Reverend Author's Eleventh and Twelfth premised Position pag. 6 7 8. and compare them with what the Synod hath published touching Consociation of Churches and we suppose he will finde such an agreement between them as that he will wonder as we do to see the Reverend Author appearing as an Antagonist in this matter It seems strange that Brethren should be willing to contend both where they do differ and where they do not Also it may be considered how many Reflexions here are upon us as if we would cast a Snare upon Churches by straitning them in the use and exercise of their church-Church-power within themselves in re propria as if we would absolutely binde Churches not to administer Censures within themselves c. for which nothing published by the Synod did give any just occasion And whereas Mr. Cotton is represented as being against our Consociation pag. 60.61 Let his Printed words be viewed in the Keyes pag. 54 59. his Solemn Speeches of it to sundry be remembred and his Draught of it a little before his death be considered and the Reader will see whether he can joyn in belief with the Reverend Author about that matter The Lord guide us by his Spirit into all Truth and help us to follow the Truth in Love FINIS It is no very good signe of truth when there are many curious nice dark distinctions used to defend a thing 〈…〉 Enerv. Tom. 2. l. 6. cap. 5 quest ult And his Fresh Suit par 1. pag. 63 83 134 138. Vid. Rivet in Genes 17.14 Ames Medul Lib. 1. cap. 41. Thes. 7. (e) His words are these Any such notorious offender having named Athiests Mockers of Religion Witches Idolaters Papists may have the essence and being of a member of the Church as visit â—e to wit in this sense a corrupt and rotten member fit to be cut off A member of the visible Church though formerly an in offensive professor of the faith may afterwards fall away into any of these notorious scandals and yet for a while still retain the essence and being of a member of the Church as visiâ—le to wit till the Church have orderly proceeded against him otherwiâ—e the Church should want power to proceed to the excommunication of such a notorious delinquent For what hath the Church to do to judge men without 1 Cor. 5.12 But such within the Church are to be cast out 1 Cor. 5.11 (a) Eadem Eeclesia pies habet secumâ—â—â— forma â— interatâ—â— ad se pertinentes impies atque hypocritas se undùm extenam adnascentes Jun. Animad in Bellarm p. 1113. (b) It might afford Parker an Argument as to manifestarii peccatores the notoriously wicked that they should not be tolerated in the Church but as excrementitiâ—us things be purged out by the vigorous use of Discipline as he there discourses but it touches not our question â—oll Enerv. tom 2. lib. 2. cap. 1. (h) Calvin Opuscul pag. 346. Cartwright Catech pag. 185. (k) Disciplina subjacent omnâ—s in Vnitate Frae trum 〈◊〉 oblajante usâ—â—al senem Rat. Disciplin pag. 71. (l) Contradictio caret simpliciter omni medio Keck Log. pag. 281. Hookers Survey pag. 17. Catabaptistae decent non posse Excommunicationem in Ecclesiam reduci nisi ij baptizentur qui Scientes jugo Christi Collum submittant Bucer in Joh. fol â—5 See Mr. Cotton expresly holding forth Excommunication to be applicable to such as the Children in question in Holiness of Church-members pag. 57. (a) Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 13. And see Cap. 40. Thes. 6 10 11 12 16 18. And M. Shepards late Printed Letter pag. 16 17. (c) Catech. Explic in â—uast 81. pag. 426. (a) Ames Medul Lib. 1. cap. 38. Thes. 41. (c) The Scripture order is to â—ake the circumcising of the child part of the Parents fitness for 〈◊〉 Passover and for admission â—ereunto Let all his Males be â—â—â—cumcised and then let him come 〈◊〉 and keep it Exod. 12.48 raâ—â—er then to make his admission to 〈◊〉 Passover a pre-requisite to 〈◊〉 childes Circumcision Gerhard de Sacra Câ—na p. 184. (b) See Ratio Disciplina Fratrum Bobem in Hist. praemissa p. 3 3â— 39 â—3 52 53. Opuscul pag. 37. Syntag. Theolog. pag. 1149. with pag 1167 1168. (a) Lec Com. de Canâ— Dom. quaest 2. pag. 631. (b) 〈◊〉 137. pâ—g 7â— vid. Quaest. 142. pag. 743. (c) De Baptismo Quaest. 33 34. pag 624 625. See the Leyden Divines Synops. Disâ—ut 45. Thes. 14. Disput. 48. Thes. 35 36. Coâ—pâ—red with Dâ—sput 44. Thes. 50. (d) Quaest. Resp. â—â— Saâ—ramentis Quaest. 120 122. (e) Ibid. Quaest. â—45 Syntag. Lib. 6. cap. 36. with cap. 55. (e) Vid. Dutch Annot. on 1 Cor. 11.26 (f) De Sacra 〈◊〉 pag 18â— (g) De Baptismâ— pag. 581 582. (h) Explicat catech in quaest 74. pag. 372 (i) In quaest 75. pag. 380. (k) So much Parkers learned Labours among others shew and our Congregational Brethren in England met at the Savoy in their Preface do well express And see Beverly Examen Hoornb pag. 43. (b) Consider whether it be not a greater detracting from the sacredness of Baptism when we make but a light matter of that Membership and Covenant that was sealed therein If men have been once admitted to the Lords Supper they count their Membership stands firm good through all decayes and degeneracies until excommunicate But the Solemn Covenant Engagement between God and the Baptized that was ratified in holy Baptism wears away and is a kinde of forgotten thing by that time they become adult To be difficult in admissions unto Baptism and yet easie in letting go the benefit of Baptism or the Membership thereby sealed and to alledge the Sacredness of the Ordinance for the former and forget in the latter seem not well to cohere 〈…〉 Lib. 1. â— p. â—2 Examen Hâ—ornb pag. 20. (k) It is not the qualifications of one in full Communion but his Membership that gives his Childe right to Baptism for suppose he decay in qualification and grow formal and loose yet while he continues a Member uncensured he hath his Childe baptized as well as the best in the Church Acts 8.27 28 36 37. 10. â— 22 47 48. Chemnit in Mat. 3.6 (a) Holin of Church-members pag. 41. Bâ—nè auteÌ„ 〈◊〉 nos in genere de iiâ— omnibus qui ex fidelibus noscuntur fâ—e deris formula indefinita jubâ—â— chaâ—itaâ— monet Bez quast de Sacram. â—â— 123. (a) De Polit. Eccles. Lib. 3. pag. 168 169. (b) De Polit. Eccl. Lib. 1. cap. 29. Lib. 3. pag. 167. Protestat before Treat of the Cross. (c) De Polit. Lib. 3. pag. 171. (d) Ibid. Lib. 1. cap. 13. 14. Lib. 3. pag. 166. And of the Cross Cap. 9. sect 2. Holiness of Church-members pag 92. (b) Medul Lib. 1. cap. 40. Thes. 13 (c) Magdeb Cent. 3. pag. 83. (d) Sicut ergo tempere illius Sacramenti de Câ—â—cumcisoÌ„ qui nasceretur circumcideâ—dus â—ait sic nune de Baptizato qui nâ—tus fuerit baptizandus est August tom 7. cont Pelag. Lib. 2. cap. 25. See also Tom. 2. Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Epist. 75. ad Auxilium And De Grat. Lib. Arbitr cap. 22. (e) Ameâ— Medul lib. 1. cap. 40. â—hes â— b) Grounds and Ends of Infant-baptism p. 28 29. Prov. 14 28. Psa. 110.3 * See Essay first pag. 13 4. in â—xam of Prop. 4.
the above mentioned practice of Antiquity in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized Indeed as the Darkness and Corruption of the times increased Baptism was not onely deferred till Easter as is here said but till death which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism pag. 182. and we suppose will not be approved by any The Arausiacan Councils 19 Canon doth not concern the matter of Baptism as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists Cent. 5. pag. 907. But however it be it is of small moment The over-long holding off of adult Converts from Baptism that we sometimes reade of in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a manifest deviâ—tion from the Apostolical practice We finde also that in Austin's time and some ages after they gave the Lords Supper to Infants yet then we suppose they would give both Sacraments to some Infants whose Parents they debarred from the Lords Supper But if it was indeed a grievous errour to administer the Lords Supper to Infants as is here rightly said by our Brethren how then is Baptism of no greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper Yea let any man shew a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to Infants and not the Lords Supper if the very saâ—e qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other we say absolutely requisite for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receiveth Baptism for himself or for his Children is endued with the better and the more comfortable it is As for that of Iuel That Baptism is as much to be reverenced â—s the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And that which follows That former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Answ. To assert that Scripture Rules make the Subject of Baptism larger then the Subject of the Lords Supper this doth not detract from the Reverence of Baptism nor render it an Ordinance of a less sacred nature as is here insinuated The Word and Prayer are Ordinances of a very sacred nature and to be highly reverenced and yet many may be admitted unto them that may not be admitted unto Sacraments The Sacredness of every Ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by Divine Institution But the proper ends and uses of one Ordinance may by Divine Institution be such as may admit more to partake of it then of another and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired But the Preface addes Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a farre larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one Practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians Answ. Whether it have been onely a late or novell Notion to make Baptism larger then the Lords Supper let the Reader judge when he hath considered the Testimonies before alledged with many more that might have been added thereunto But we are so farre from looking upon a different Latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian Principle or Anti-Congregational as that we perswade our selves the Congregational way cannot long stand without it For if we deny this and administer Baptism to none but those whose Parents do partake of the Lords Supper and so are in full Communion then we must either make full Communion very large which in the Congregational-way where Brethren have so great an interest in Church-transactions will soon ruine all or else make Baptism and consequently the Compass of the visible Church so strait as will never stand before Rational and Scriptural men yea we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church that are in a visible state of Salvation which is absurd for to deny persons Baptism for themselves or Children is to deny them to be within the Compass of the visible Church seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with Church-Membership But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church who were once in and are by no Rule to be put out nay whom God as we may charitably hope taketh into Heaven when they die and that as a fruit of his Covenant-grace which is the case of many of our Children who are not yet come up to full Communion But so much for the second Reason of our Brethrens Dissent The third follows 3. The Parents of the Children in question are not Members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel rules â— because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Which is former proved Because if they be Members then they would be a true Church though all their Parents were dead and then they must have power of Voting in Church-affairs which is denied to them by the Synod Ans. .1 It seems by what is here said that our Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant and that all that never were so are not members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules If this be so then what is become of Childrens Membership which the Apologist before in Answer to Objection Second took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of It seems our Children neither are nor ever were Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Is it come to this that Children are not Members of any Instituted Church How then are they Members of the Catholick visible Church or are they no Members at all the former our Brethren fancy not as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia pag. 19. the latter then remains to be the conclusion Neither will it salve it to say they were Members in Minority though they be not Members now when they are Adult for if all those that were never under any explicite and personal Covenant be no Members of any Instituted Church and if Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant both which are here said then no Children no not while in Minority are Members of any Instituted Church For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Dr. Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ that Children are Members of an Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules and that they are under personal Covenant i. e. personally 〈◊〉 into Covenant by God according to his Gospel-rules though they have not performed the act of Covenanting in their own persons Yea under explicite Covenant also if the Parents Covenanting was explicite Deut. 29. So Ames They are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same profession with their Parents Though we take it for a Principle granted by Congregational men with one consent that Implicite Covenant preserves the being of a true Church and so of true Church-membership 2. The Consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd viz. That then in ease all the pro-parents
before taken into Covenant and planted in his House To call it The Covenant of their Parents and to say that Childrens Membership is dependent upon that is too crude a pâ—râ—se and too much abused by many ascribing that to the Parents and to their Profession or Act in Covenanting which belongs most properly to God and his Grace 'T is Gods Covenant that takes in both Parents and Children Alas what are Parents and what could all their Profession and Faith and Actings do if God did not vouchsafe to take them into Covenant Now God taketh the Childe into his Covenant as well as the Parent And 't is Gods Covenant and Institution that the Membership of the Chide depends upon and with which alone it lâ—ves and dies But it follows in the Preface 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 c. Ans. We must needs say this seems strange to us when as there is not so much as one Scripture brought either here or in the Book following to make good or hold forth such a Distinction In stead of Scriptures here are some Authors streight named not to Attest the Distinction of Immediate and Mediate it seeâ—s that cannot be found no not so much as in Authors but of Compleat and Incompleat To which the Answer is ready 1. If some Authors have so distinguished Members yet where is such a distinction of Membership at least purposely so intended as to makâ— several sorts or kindes of Membership specifically differing as is expresly said of the Distinction here pleaded for in the Book pag 37. Dr Ames in the place here cited does not say of Infants Non sunt 〈◊〉 Membra but Perfecta Membra Neither does he say Non sunt perfecta but Non sunt adeo perfecta Membra They are not so perfect Members saith he of the Church as that they can exercise acts of Communion or be admitted to partake of all the Priviledges thereof Plainly referring the Imperfection or Incompleatness not to the Essence of their Membership but to the Degree of their Communion and Priviledges Hence 2. Their Distinction of Members into Compleat and Incompleat is being candidly taken as much as our Distinction of Members into such as are in â—ull or compleat Communion and such as are not yet in full Communion which Distinction we have and we hope justly made great use of And for such a distinction Reâ—â—ipsa loquitur All that are within of or belonging to such a Society whether Family Commonwealth or Church are truely and properly said to be Members of that Society but all are not equal in participation of Priviledges therein Some have a more full or compleat 〈◊〉 and portion therein and some have less All Christs Scholars or Disciples are not of the Highest Form nor are all his Subjects betrusted with the Keyes of his Kingdome nor all his Children past their Non-age c. But yet they are all Disciples in his School Subjects of his Kingdome Children of his Family i. e. Members oâ— the visible Church But such a Distinction as maketh several sorts of Membership specifically different we have not yet seen cleared and confirmed either from Scripture or Authors or from sound Reason Sundry distinctions or sorts of Members might easily be given as Some Members are in Office in the Church some out of Office some partake of the Lords Supper but not of the power of Voting as Women some of both some have onely Initial Priviledges some All. Ames Medul Lib 1. Cap 32. Thes. â— 3. But these are but distributions ex Adjunctis and do not touch or vary the Essence of Membership nor make several sorts thereof Nor do these Distinctions and Degrees of Members in the Church arise simply from the nature of Membership or from any difference therein but from something superadded unto Membership As an Officer is not more a Member then another but his dignity and place in the Church ariseth from somewhat superadded unto Membership viz. His Office A man is not more a Member then a woman though he hath a power and priviledge in the Church besides and above bare Membership which the woman hath not So men and women that partake of the Lords Table are not more or more truely properly immediately and personally Members of the Church then Children are but they having attained to more and further qualifications or to a greater degree of growth in the Church are by Rule admitted to mor Priviledges then they Thus in a Kingdome or Commonwealth there are many sorts of Subjects some bear Office some not some admitted to Election of Officers some not some capable of Pleading and answering for themselves in Law some are not But yet they all agree in the relation of a Subject And who ever made a specifical distinction of that so as to say in that sense some are Mediate Subjects and some Immediate The same may be said of a Family where the youngest Childe is as truely properly personally and immediately a Member of the Family as the most grown person though as to power and priviledges therein there be a vast difference So in the Natural Body All the parts are not an Eye an Hand c. but all are Members and the meanest part is as well a Member as the most noble 1 Cer. 12. 12 25. Now there is the like reason as to the general nature of Membership in â— Church-Society which is set forth by that of a Kingdome Faâ—â—ly and of the Natural body in the holy Scriptures And so much for the Discourse upon the second Objection In the third place our Brethren set down this Position or Opinion as that which is objected against them That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an act or defect of his own without any Church-act in Censuring of him and to 〈◊〉 is they say most true it is thâ—t we do maintain this And for Prooâ— therâ—â—f they suppoâ—e 〈…〉 of an English Fugitive of one turned Turk who was never Censured by any Church Ans. The Position objected against them if it be pertinent to the matter in hand must run thus That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an aâ—â— or defect of his own without any Church-act in Censuriâ—g of hiâ— and without 〈…〉 Censure on his part or though he do not so much as deserve any Church-censure and be not censurable by any Rule of Gods Word For so the words â—f the Synod â— in defence of the Controverted fifth Proposition do expresly speak putting that as an 〈◊〉 that A person admitted Member and Sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving so to be may the Church whereof he was still remaining become a Non-member and out of the Church and of the unclean world pag. 26. Now put but this into the Objection here mentioned Without
was of Midian and so of Keturah see Rivet on Exod. 2. and on Exod. 18.12 Preface 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 Goaly sincerity we suppose that they are justly deemed breakers of the Covenant and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents made for them Ans. 1. The persons in question i. e. the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition do in some degree hold forth their Faith and godly walking while they are professed Christians or professed Believers and followers of the Truth and Wayes of God wherein they have been educated from their Infâ—ncy do constantly attend the Ordinances and Worship of God live under and do not cast off the Government of Christ in his Courâ—â— and when called thereto do readily profess their Assent to the Doctrine of Faiâ—â— and Consent to the Covenant Do these putting all this together in no sort shew themselves to be Abrahams Children by holding forth the Faith of Abraham and walking in his steps i. e. in Charitable and Ecclesiastical Reputation Surely Mr. Cotton accounts such as these yea all the Children of the Faithful that do not grow up to Apostacy and open Scandal or that are not excommunicable to continue in a visible profession of the Covenant Faith and Religion of their Fathers as in those passages of his that are pointed to in the Preface the lâ—â—e Synod may be seen And where shall we finde ground in all the Scripture to exclude such as these from being within the compass of the visible Church or the Covenants thereof 2. If the meaning be that they do not yet hold forth such an Experimental work of Faith or lively discerning and exercise thereof and so much of the Power of Godliness in their life as may fit them for a comfortable approach to the Lords Supper Let it be shewed from the Scripture that the bare defect or want hereof is such a Violation of the terms of the Covenant as puts men out of it We know that every Transgression or falling stort of Duty required in the Covenant is not accounted in Scripture an absolute Breach of the Covenant or a forsaking and rejecting thereof such as for which God gives unto persons or people a bill of Divorce Do but compare these persons in question whom the hasty and rigid Severity of Man here pronounces to be justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant and to have put themselves out of it with those whom the Holy but Merciful and Gracious God does in Scripture call and account such Breakers of the Covenant see Ier. 11.9 10. Ezek. 16.8 59. Deut. 29.25 26.2 Chron 7.22 2 King 17.15 20. and he that would not cut down no not the Barren Fig â—ree till further patience and means were used he that waiâ—ed on the Iews whose entrance into the Church was by a Membership received in Infancy in the Ministry of Christ and the Apostles with as clear light of the Gospel as ever shone till utter incorrigible rejection thereof appeared before he accounted them broken off Rom. 11.16 20. with Act 13.45 46. 18.5 6. 19.8 9. 1 Thes. 2.15 16. he that followed Ierusalem with means and dispensations of Grace till they Sâ—oned him away Mat. 23.27 c. can we imagine that he will reckon our poor Children to be broken off as soon as they are adult if then presently they do not bold forth fitness â—â—r the Lords Table yea when many of them are it may be secretly following after God though haply they have not yet attained so much as to make their approach to that Ordinance comfortable or have not yet the confidence to put forth themselves thereunto surely the Lord does not make so light a matter of his holy Covenant and seâ—l whatever men through mis-guided apprehensions may do as to enter into a solemn Covenant with Children take them into his Church and seal up their taking in before Men and Angels and then let them goe out so easily or drop off one knows not how 3. If they have justly i. e. meritoriously put themselves out of the Covenant or so violated the Covenant on their part as to deserve a putting out yet still one might ask how they come to be Actually put out seeing the Church hath not proceeded nor seen cause to proceed to any Censure But if it be indeed so that they do deserue i. e. in foâ—o Ecclesia we speak not of desert in the sight of God to be put out if they may be justly â—â—eâ—ed Breakers of the Covenant and are guilty of that which justly puts them out then it is the Churches duty actually to put them out or cut them off for Ecclesiastical justice as well as Civil reâ—dreth unto all their due and just deserts and those that are Ecclesiastically Breakers of the Covenant ought to be cut off Gen. 17.14 Hence it will follow upon these Principles that we ought to cast out and cut off all the adult Children of our Churches that are not come up to full Communion which thing how horrid it is to think of let the Reader judge or be it that we forbear any formal Censure and Content our selves onely Doctrinaly to declare that all such Children are put out and broken off which Doctrinâ— Declaration is indeed contained in the Assertions of our Brethren yet the harshness and horrid Severity of such a Declaration is liâ—â—le inferiour to the other and very contrary to the Patience and Grace of Jesus Christ expreâ—â—d in the Scriptures Preface 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 wiâ—hout any Act of the Church in formal Censuring of him give us leaâ—e to proâ—uce some Testimonies to prove it Iudicious and blessed Dr. Ames â—aâ—th That in case of pertinaâ—ious separatiâ—n suâ—h persons though they may be of the Invisible yet they are not to be accounted Members of the vâ—siâ—le Church Ans. 1. Suppose you should prove that a Church-member may Possibly become no Member without a Censure yet we are still utterly to seek of Proof that â—â—e Children in question do so 2. How can a Separation be properly pertinacious and incurable or appear so to be till the means of Church discipline have been used 3. Ames his meaning may be that such are not to be accounted lawful and approved Members as in the close of that Chapter De Consc. Lib. 5. Cap. 12. he saith â— Schâ—smatical Church is not to be accounted for a lawful and approved Church 4. We shall not deny but that some good Divines do seem to hold that in some cases of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy and so in case of absolute and universal Schism of which Ames there speâ—ks especially in places and Churches where Discipline is
believers unless you will make us to speak inconsistencies Again it is 〈◊〉 made one Argument to prove the fifth Proposition that The Parents there described are Confederate visible believers And do we not then express this that the Parent whose Childâ— is to be Baptized must be a Confederate visible Believer and is not that all one as to have true Faith in the judgement oâ— Charity How then is it here said that the Synod would not let this which themselves acknowledged be expressed though our Vnity lay at the stake for it surely such misrepresentation of things with so much injurious reflexion should be forborn by Godly Brethren If that would have Vnited us to own that the Parent must be a visible Believer it was owned and granted toties quoâ—ies and is contained in the Propositions and Arguments as any Intelligent Reader will easily see But the disagreement lay here that your selves would not consent to any such acceptation or to any such Characters or Expressions of a visible Beâ—â—ever but such as should unavoidably bring Him into full Communion And we diâ—â—ered about this Who are visible Believers Not whether the Parents that have Baptism for their Children must be such In sum the Reason of our disagreement was not because we would not own our own Principle as is here strangely represented but because we could not Consent to yours and because you refused to have a common Principle any way expressed but so as might suit with your own Nation though our Unity lay at the stake for it Reason 2. The second Reason which our Brethren here give of their dissent from the Synod stands thus There is no warrant in all Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfiâ—ness for the Lords Supper But the Parents in question are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper therefore there is no warrant in all the Scripture to Baptize their Children this we suppose is the Assumption and Conclusion that is understood if this second Reason be intended as a Reason of their dissent from the Synods fifth Proposition Unless it be intended onely as a dissent from that which is â—â—uched and contained in the Synods Discourse viz. that Some may have their Children Baptized who yet are short of actual fitness for the Lords Supper But the Answer to it will take in both And the Answer will easily be given if once we understand distinctly what is meant by A state of unfitness for the Lords â—upper now by a state of unfitness must be meant either Non-membership and that is indeed a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper which belongs onely to the Church though not to all in the Church yet onely to it and in this sense the Assumption above mentioned is denied for the Parents in question are Members of the Church and in that respect in a state of fitness for the Lords supper i. e. being in the Church or Members thereof to them belong all Church-priviledges according as they shall be capable thereof and appear duely qualified for the same they have jus ad rem though not jus in re as a Childe hath a right to all his Fathers Estate though he may not ought not to have the actual use and fruition of it till he become to years and be qualified with abilities to manage it A Free â—an is in a state of fitness to be a Magâ—straâ—e or Deputy or in some other office proper to Freemen though for want of Particulâ—r quâ—lifications or orderly admission by Election he may haply never be one In such a sense every Church-member is in a state of fitness for the Lords Supper Or else by A state of unfitness for the Lords Supper is 〈◊〉 Want of actual qualifications fitting for it whereby a person either is in himself short of actual fitness for the Lords Table or wanteth Church approâ—ation of his fitness and â—o wanteth an orderly admission thereunto Now in this sense we deny the Major or Proposition of the Argument above mentioned and do conceive that there iâ— warrant to be â—â—und in Scripture for the applying of Baptism to Children 〈◊〉 Parents do want actual qualifications fitting them for the Lords Supper Among sundry other Scripture evidences of it one is from the Analogie of the Passeover and Circumcision in the Church of Iâ—rael where the Parâ—nt might want actual fitness for the Passeover by manifold Ceremonial uncleannesses and yet that hindred not the Circumcising of the Childe Now a liberty of arguing from thence to the Gospel passeover and Gospel-circumcision i. e. to the Lords Supper and Baptism is here granted and allowed but 't is Answered that Vnless the Father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his Childe Circumcised Reply Whâ—t state of fitness was the unclean Iewish Parent in but onely a state of membership He was a Member of the Church and so 〈◊〉 the Parents in question and they need not do not enter into a new Membership when they are admitted to the Lords Table no more then the Iewish Parent after his cleansing did But in two things the case of the Ceremonially-unclean Jewish Parent holds proportion with the case in hand 1. He must have other and better qualifications then he hath at present before he eat of the Passover he is at present in a state of Legal impurity and so in regard of actual qualifications in a state of unfitness but he must be in a state of Legal purity and cleanness before he partake of the holy things 2. He must especially after some uncleannesses of a more remarkable nature be judged and Pronounced by the Priest to be clean and so free to partake of the holy things Levit. 13.6 So the Parents in question must have their fitness for the Lords Table judged of and approved by those in the Church to whom the power of such judgement and approbation doth belong And having these two things Personal qualifications and Church-approbation then and not before they are to come to the Lords Table and those two are all they need they do not need a new admittance into Membership as if they were before not of the Church no more then the Israelitish Parent did If any one object that this Legal uncleanness was but an accidental and ceremonial thing and did not import the want of any Moral or Essential fitness for the Passover Let him consider That as the Discipline then was mostly Ceremonial and hence Legal purity was then an essential qualification unto a regular fitness for the Passover and other holy things and the want of it a reall barre so those Ceremonies pointed unto Moral and Spiritual things to be attended by us now Their Legal cleansings washings c. did import and signifie a special exercise of Faith and Repentance which therefore we may well require in those whom we admit unto full Communion in the holy things of
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
Baptism unto his Childe Whereunto is added somewhat out of Bucer Parker and Mr. Cotton as concurring with the judgement of our Brethren Ans. Taking Capable of receiving Baptism himself or Right to Baptism himself for a state of Baptism-right or Capacity we may grant the Major but the Minor in manifestly to be denied But taking it for a frame of actual fitness to receive Baptism we cannot say that we may grant the Minor but surely the Major will not hold It is true that That which doth not put a man into a state of right to Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized i. e. into a state of Church-membership will not enable him to give Baptism-right to his Childe If the Parent be not a Member or not in a state of Covenant interest none of us plead for the Childes Baptism And if he be a 〈◊〉 surely he is in the state of a Subject of Baptism or in a state of right to it as all the Members of the visible Church are whatever may de facto hinder it But it is possible for an adult person being in the state of a Member and so of right to Baptism to have something fall in which may hinder the actual application of Baptism to himself in case he were unbaptized or his actual fitness for it And yet the same thing may not hinder a person already baptized and standing in a Covenant-state from conveying Baptism-right to his Childe The reason is because the right of the Childe depends upon the state of the Parent that he be in a state of Membership for if so then Divine Institution carrieth or transmitteth Membership and so Baptism-right to the Childe but the Parents regular partaking of this or that Ordinance for himself depends much upon his own actual fitness for it As suppose an unbaptized adult person admitted into the Church who before he is baptized falls into some great Offence though such a case could hardly fall out if Baptism were administred according to the Rule and Apostolical Practice i. e. immediately upon first Admission Matth. 28.19 Acts 16.33 much more is it an harsh and strange supposition for a Parent that ought to have been and was baptized in his Infancy to be supposed to be yet unbaptized but allowing the supposition that a person 〈◊〉 in adult age falls into Offence before he is baptized he may be called to give satisfaction for it and to shew himself in a more serious and penitent frame before himself receive Baptism but suppose he die before he do that and leave Children behinde him shall not they be baptized In like manner if a person already baptized yea or already in full Communion should fall into offence you would say that would put a stop to his own Baptism in case upon an impossible supposition he were yet unbaptized but what Rule or Reason is there for it to make a particular offence in the Parent to cut oâ— the Childes right to Baptism when as the Parent is notwithstanding that offence still a Member and within the Church and doth not shew any such incorrigibleness as that 〈◊〉 is by Rule to be put out when as the offence doth not cut off the Parents Membership is there any reason it should cut off the Membership of the Childe and if it cut not of the Childes Membership it doth not cut off his right to Baptism Whatever may be said for requiring the Parent to confess his sin before his Childes Baptism in reference to the more expedient and comfortable manner of Administration therein we oppose not yet where doth the Scripture allows us to disannull the Childes right to Baptism upon a particular offence in the Parent especially when it is not such as doth touch upon the Essentials of Christianity and notwithstanding which the Parent is regularly and orderly continued a Member of the Church It remains therefore that there may be obstructions to a Parents receiving Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized which do not incapacitate a baptized Parent to transmit if we may attribute transmitting to a Parent which is properly the act of Gods Institution and Covenant right of Baptism unto his Childe But for the Minor or Assumption of the Argument in hand it will not hold in either of the senses of the Proposition above given For 1. We will readily grant that if the Parent be not in a state of Baptism-right himself i. e. in a state of Membership he cannot convey Baptism-right to his Childe but how manifest is it that that which the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition doth render the persons there described in a state of right to Baptism for themselves in case they were unbaptized viz. In a state of Membership in the visible Church for the Proposition speaks of Church-members such as were admitted Members in minority and do orderly and regularly so continue and that a state of Membership is a state of Baptism-right or that all Church-members are in the state of Subjects of Baptism is an evident Truth that cannot be denied by any that grant the Synods first Proposition for which there is Sun-light in Scripture and never was Orthodox Divine heard of that questioned it Hence according to that Ruled Case here mentioned the Parents in question having themselves a title to Baptism may intitle others they have not onely a title to it but regular and actual Possession of it for they are baptized and in case they were yet unbaptized they would being Church-members have a title of right unto it they would stand possessed of an interest in a title to it as Mr. Hooker in the place here alledged speaks whatever might de facto hinder their enjoyment of it And as à non habente potestatem acts are invalid so ab habente potestatem they are valid and good but God hath full power to give forth what Grants he pleaseth and he hath in the order of his Covenant in the visible Church granted a Membership and so Baptism-right unto Children born of Parents that are Members and so the Parent that stands Member of the Church hath as an instrument under God and from his Grant power to 〈◊〉 such a right unto his Childe Children are within the Covenant because they come from Parents within the Covenant in which they were included and so received also by God saith Mr. Hooker in the place that is here cited Survey part 3. pag. 18. 2. It is not to be yielded that the Parents described by the Synod in their fifth Proposition would not have right to Baptism themselvâ—s in case they were unbaptized though you take Right to Baptism for actual and immediate fitness for the same in fero Ecclesia Surely he will have an hard talk who shall undertake out of Scripture or Orthodox Divines to shew that Adult persons understanding and believing the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing the same not scandalous in life and solemnly taking hâ—ld of the Covenant wherein they
applied to them In all this therefore we see no sufficient Ground or Reason to necessitate a Dissent from the Synod Our Brethren have one thing more yet to adde viz. That there is Danger of great Corruption and Pollution creeping into the Churches by the Enlargement of the Subject of Baptism Answ. 1. And is there no danger of Corruption by Over-straitning the Subject of Baptism Certainly it is a Corruption to take from the Rule as well as to adde to it and a Corruption that our weakness is in danger of And it is a dangerous thing to be guilty of breaking Gods Covenant by not applying the Initiating Seal unto those it is appointed for even unto all that are in Covenant Gen. 17.9 10 14. Moses found danger in it Exod. 4.24 Is there no danger of putting those out of the visible Church whom Christ would have kept in and depriving them of those Church advantages Rom. 3.1 2. that might help them toward Heaven Even Christs own Disciples may be in danger of incurring His displeasure by keeping poor little oneâ— away from him Mark 10.13 14. To go pluck up all the Tares was a â—ealous motion and had a good intention but the Housholder concludes there 's danger in it of plucking up the Wheat also 2. If the enlargement be beyond the bounds of the Rule it will bring in corruption else not our work is therefore to study the Rule and keep close to that as the onely true way to the Churches Purity and Glory To go aside from that to the Right hand wlll bring corruption as well as to go to the left The way of Anabaptists viz. to admit none to Membership and Baptism but adult Professors is the straitest way and one would think it should be a way of great Purity but Experience hath abundantly shewed the contrary that it hath been an Inlâ—t to great corruption and looseness both in Doctrine and Practice and a troublesome dangerous underminer of Reformation It is the Lords own way and his Institutions onely which he will bless and not mans Inventions though never so plausible neither hath God in his wisdome so instituted the frame of his Covenant and the constitution of the Church thereby as to make a perfect separation between good and bad or to make the work of Conversion and initial Instruction needless in the Churches Conversion 〈◊〉 to the Children of the Covenant a fruit of the Covenant saith Mr Coâ—ton If we do not keep in the way of a Converting Grace-giving Covenant and keep persons under those Church-dispensations wherein Grace is given the Church will dye of a Lingring though not of a Violent death The Lord hath not set up Churches onely that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live and then carry away the Church into the cold grave with them when they dye no but that they might with all the care and with all the Obligations and Advantages to that care that may be 〈◊〉 up still successively another Generation of Subjects to Christ that may stand up in his Kingdome when they are gone that so he might have a People and Kingdome successively continued to him from one Generation to another We may be very injurious to Christ as well as to the Souls of men by too much straitning and narrowing the bounds of his Kingdome or visible Church here on Earth Certainly enlargement so it be a regular enlargement thereof is a very desirable thing it is a great honour to Christ to have many willing Subjects as these are willing and desirous to be under the Government of Christ that we plead for and very suitable to the Spirit and Grace of Christ in the Gospel In Church-reformation it is an observable Truth saith â—areus on the Parable of the Tares That those that are for too much strictness do more buâ—t then profit the Church See Diodaâ—e on Matt. 13.29 Cyprian Epist. 51. 3. There is apparently a greater â—anger of Corruption to the Churches by enlarging the Subjects of full Communion and admitting unqualified or meanly qualified persons to the Lords Table and Voting in the Church whereby the interest of the power of Godliness will soon be prejudiced and Elections Admissions Censures so carried as will be hazardous thereunto Now it is evâ—dent that this is and will be the Temptation viz. to ever-enlarge full Communion it Baptism be limited to the Children of such as are admitted thereunto And it is easie to observe that many of the Reasonings of our Brethren and others are more against the Non-admission of the Parents in question to full Communion then against the Admission of their Children to Baptism How unreasonable is it then to object against us â—s Corrupters of the Churches when we stand for a greater strictness then they in that wherein the main danger of Church-corrupting lyes We doubt not to affirm That that Principle which hath been held forth by our Brethren viz. That if the Church can have any hope of persons that they have any thing of Faith and Grace iâ— them though never so little they ought being adult to be admitted to full Communion this we say will if followed bring corruptions and impurities into Churches for he must abandon all the Rules of Charity that cannot hope this of multitudes of young persons that grow up among us who yet if they were presently admitted to full Communion we should soon feel a change in the management of Churchâ—affairs and the Interest of Formality and common Profession would soon be advanced above the Interest of the power of Godliness Whether we be in the right in this matter of strictness as to full Communion Scripture and Reason must determine and were this the place of that dispute we have much to say in it and to be sure the Practice of these Churches hitherto hath been for it as also their Profession in the Synod in 1648. Platform of Discipline Cap. 12. Sect. 7. Hence to depart from that would be a real departure from our former Practice and Profession Whereas to Enlarge Baptism to the Children of all that stand in the Church is but a progress to that Practice that suits with our Profession But certain it is that we are and stand for the Purity of the Churches when as we stand for such qualifications as we do in those we would admit to full Communion and do withstand those Notions and Reasonings that would inferre a Laxness therein which hath apparent peril in it But we can hardly imagine what hurt it would do or what danger of spoiling the Churches there is in it for poor Children to be taken within the verge of the Church under the wings of Christ in his Ordinances and to be under Church-care and Discipline and Government for their Souls good to be in a state of Initiation and Education in the Church of God and consequently to have Baptism which is the Seal of Initiation when as they shall not
come to the Lords Table nor have any hand in the Management of Church-affairs as Elections of Officers Admissions and Censures of Members untill as a fruit of the foresaid help and means they attain to such qualifications as may render their admission into full Communion safe and comfortable both to their own Souls and to the Churches In sum we make account that if we keep Baptism within the compass of the Non-excommunicable and the Lords Supper within the compass of those that have unto Charity somewhat of the Power of Godliness or Grace in exercise we shall be near about the right Middle-way of Church-Reformation And as for the Preservation of due Purity in the Church it is the due Exercise of Discipline that must do that as our Divines unanimously acknowledge for that is Gods own appointed way and the Lord make and keep us all careful and faithul therein not the Curtailing of the Covenant which may be man's way but is not the way of God wherein alone we may expect his Blessing The good Lord pardon the Imperfections and Failings that attend us in these Debates accept of what is according to his Will and establish it save us from corrupting Extremes on either hand and give unto his People one Heart and one Way to fear Him for ever for the good of them and of their Children after them ERRATA in the Book following PAge 12. Line 18. their Infancy reade from Infancy pag. 22. lin 16. he added r. here added pag. 49. lin 4. there r. here pag. 53. lin 35. his r. this pag. 60. lin 7. of that r. of the pag. 66. lin 1. do run r. do not run pag. 98. lin 11. do administer r. so administer In Answ. to the Preface Pag. 11. lin 33. mor r. more pag. 16. lin ult into r. unto A DEFENCE OF THE ANSWER and ARGVMENTS of the SYNOD Met at Boston in the Year 1662. Concerning The Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches Against the REPLY made thereto by the Reverend Mr. Iohn Dâ—venporâ— in his Treatise Entituled Another ESSAY for Investigation of the Truth c. THE Reverend Author in this his Essay before he come to speak to that which the Synod delivered doth premise Eleven or Twelve Positions by which he saith the determinations of the Synod are to be Examined and so far and no further to be approved and received as a consent and harmony of them with thâ—se may be cleared c. pag. 8. Concerning which Positions we will not say much because the Intendment in this Defâ—nce is onely to clear what is said by the Synod against what this Reverend Author saith against the same in his 〈◊〉 and therefore untill he speak to what the Synod delivered we think it not needful to insist long upon these premised Positions Onely this we may say concerning them That though suâ—dry things in them be sound and good yet the Posiâ—ions themselves being not Scripture but his own private Collections therefore we do not see that we are bound to take these Positions as the Standard and Rule by which to judge of what the Synod saith But if the Synods Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture we think that may be sufficient for defence thereof whether it agree with the premised Positions or not And when himself pag. 1. doth commend it as a good Profession in the Synod that To the Law and to the Testimony they do wholly referre themselves had it not been also commendable in him to have done the like rather then to lay down Positions though he conceives them rightly deduced from Scripture and then to say Nothing is to be approved further then it consents with those Positions Himself may please to consider of this But to leave this of the premised Positions and to come to the main Business Concerning The Subject of Baptism the first Proposition of the Synod is this viz. They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church are the Subjects of Baptism The second is this viz. The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers in particular Churches and their Infant-seed i. e. Children in 〈◊〉 whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant Now what saith the Reverend Author to these That which he saith is this I cannot approve the two first Propositions without some change of the terms In the first thus They that according to Christs Ordinance are regular and actuall Members c. The second thus The actuall and regular Members of the visible Church according to Christs Ordinance c. pag. 9. Answ. So that the Alteration required is That in stead of Scripture it be said Christs Ordinance and in stead of Members Actuall and regular Members But a necessity of this Alteration doth not appear for as for the one particular can we think that thâ—re iâ— any such difference between the Scripture and the Ordinance of Christ that 〈◊〉 may be Members of the visible Church and so Subjects of Baptism according to the fâ—â—er and yet not according to the laâ—terâ— If it be according to the Scripture may it not â—e said to be according to Christs Ordinance Sure when Christ himself bids us Search the Scripture Job 5.39 and when the Bereans are commended for searching the Scripture whether those things were so which were Preached by Paul Acts 17.11 and when all the Scripture is for our learning Rom. 15.4 and doth contain a perfect Rule in all things that concern Gods Worship whether Natural or Instituted as this Reverend Author saith in the first of his premised Positions upon these grounds it may seem that what is according to Scripture needs not to want our approbation for fear left it agree not with the Ordinance of Christ. And indeed how can that be taken for an Ordinance of Christ which is not according to Scripture that being considered also which is said by the Reverend Author in his second Position That whatsoever Christ did institute in the Christian Churches he did it by Gods appointment as Moses by Gods appointment gave out what he delivered in the Church of Israel Now if all that is instituted by Christ be according to Gods appointment and that the Scripture contains a perfect Rule concerning all Instituted Worship and so concerning all Gods appointments it may seem a needless thing to withhold our approbation from that which is according to Scripture as if it might be so and yet not be according to the Ordinance of Christ. Besides how shall we know a thing to be an Ordinance of Christ if it be not according to the Scripture And for the other Alteration desired that in stead of Members it be Regular and actuall Members may we think that men may or can be Members according to Scripture and not Regular nor actuall Members If the Scripture be the Rule and â— perfect Rule then they that are Members according to Scripture are Members according to Rule and so are Regular members And
break off themselves from their Church-relation not onely meritoriously but actually and really then it may be justly questioned whether Church-members can thus break off themselves Sure Israel did not thus destroy themselves because all judgement and punishment is from the Lord whose work it is to kill and make alive to wound and to heal to create peace and evil so that there is no evil in the city but the Lord doth it even the Lord doth all these things Deut. 32.39 Isa. 45.7 Amos 3.6 And therefore if breaking off from Church-estate be an evil of Punishment men cannot in this sense break off themselves without God Besides men cannot of themselves alone bring in themselves into the Church but there is requisite the Consent of the Church thereto and therefore if they cannot of themselves alone bring in themselves into the Church how is it credible that of themselves alone they should break themselves off from the Church One would think that such as cannot of themselves alone open the door for their Entrance into the Church should no more be able to open it for their going out And further it seems not rational that Delinquents in the Church should have it in their power whether they will be censured with Church-censure or no and yet it must be so if men that have been Church-members may un-Member themselves at their pleasure for sure it is Church censures cannot be dispensed to any but to such as are within the Church 1 Cor. 5.12 If therefore a Church-member suppose one that hath been in full communion shall commit the most enormous and scandalous wickedness that can be named yet if men may break off themselves from Church-relation at their pleasure such an one may have it in his choice whether he will be censured or no for if he can but say I am no Member of your Church nor will be but do forsâ—ke the Church-relation in which I was it shall then be in the power of such a notorious Delinquent to bind the Churches hands from censuring him and so make the Rule of Christ to be of none effect which saith Dâ—liver such a man to Satan 1 Cor. 5. which makes it very improbable that men can of themselves break off themselves from the Covenant and Church-relation As for them in 1 Ioh. 2.19 of whom it is said They went out from us but they were not of us c. why may not this going oâ—t be understood of a local departure or of a departing from the company and communion of the Saints and such Duties and acts of Love as that Church-relation requireth rather then of a going out from the relation it self It is plain men may of themselves if they have no more grace neglect the duties which their nearest relations require and depart from them in respect of place and duties as David and Iob were thus forsaken by their kindred bâ—ethren and mothers children c. Psal. 38.11 69.8 Iob 19.13 14. but doth this prove that those brethren and mothers children who thus neglected the duties which their relation required were now no longer in the relation at all were these brethren and mothers children now become mothers children no longer nor brethren any longer because now they were gone from the duties which they should have performed This doth not follow at all How then doth it follow that those who wenâ— out from the Saints in respect of place and performance of duties were thereby gone out from their Church-relation they might by this departure of theirs deserve to be cut off by Church-censure from their Church-estate but that by this their departing they did cut off or break off themselves from their Church-estate any otherwise then meritoriously doth not appear The Synod having said That the Parents in Question are in Covenant because the Tenor of the Covenant is to the Faithful and their seed after them in their Generations Gen. 17.7 The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto pag. 24. saith That the seaâ—ing of this covenant to the posterity of Isaac and Jacob by circumcision was to continue throughout their Generations till the coming of Christ and that the Covenant is for the substance the same to us as it was to them it being â—stablished by the Blood of Christ Luk. 1.69 72.73 Heb. 13.20 Ans. Here is then a consent to the Synods Argument and the Proof of it for if the Covenant be for substance the same to us as it was to them and was then to the Faithful and their seed in their Generations doth it not then follow that these Parents being the Seed of the Faithful are hereby proved to be in the covenant this seems a plain granting of the Synods saying and of their Proof of it Whereas the Synod said That the Parents in Qâ—estion are keepers of the Covenant because they are not forsâ—kerâ— and rejecters of the God and Covenant of their Fathers and alledged for this Deut. 29.25 26. 2 King 17.15 20. 2 Chron. 7.22 Deu. 7.10 The Reverend Author Answereth That keepers of the covenant the Parents in Question are not for though they are not such forsakers and rejecters of it as they who are spoken of in the Texts alledged yet besides that gross Idolatry there is a spiritual Idolatry in scandalous covetousness Col. 3.5 Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject God and his Covenant to serve the World and such may they be who answer all the terms of their fifth Proposition externally and visibly Ans. Now herein is a marvellous thing and not easie to be understood for the Proposition saith expresly that the persons spoken of are not scandalous in life and the Answer is That men may Answer that and all the other terms of the Proposition externally and visibly and yet be guilty of Scandalous coveâ—ousness and Worldly-mindedness Now that men may be not Scandalous in life and yet guilty of Scandalous covetousness guilty of Scandalous covetousness and worldly-mindedness and yet not Scandalous in life these things seem contradictory and inconsistent Câ—piat qui capere porest It seems to us more rational to think and say That though it be possible for men to be not Scandalous in life and yet to be guilty of Worldly-mindedness and other secret sins and heart-wickednesâ— yet if they answer this and all the terms of the Proposition it seems not improbable but they may be truely godly and sincere sith they are not only not Scandalous in life but do give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church and all this not Ignorantly but with understanding not slâ—ghtly but Solemnly and Publickly before the Church for doth not all this make their sincerity hopeful we conceive it may But that they should do all this and in such manner as is said and yet for all this to be so far from probability of grace as to be Forsakers and Rejâ—cters of God and his covenant to serve the VVorld
and this not onely secretly and in heart but so outwardly and visibly as to be scandalous therein how this can be we must confess we do not understand To that of the Synod where they say That the Parents in question do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism and that this is plain from the words of the Proposition where they are described to be such as understand the Doctrine of Faiâ—h c. The Reverend Author in his Answer saith That notwithstanding this the Parents may put in a barre to hinder their children from Bapâ—â—sm because a man may do and be all that is required in that Proposition and yet have no faith in Christ but be an unregenerate person Ans. It is one thing what a man may do and yet be an unregenerate person really and in the sight of God who knoweth the heart and another thing to be visibly so in the view of men and in their rationall judgement for it is granted that a man may be and do outwardly and visibly all that the Proposition mentioneth yea and all that can be named further and yet be really and in the sight of God an unregenerate person but yet this needs not to hinder his childe from Baptism before the Church for such was the case of Iudas Ananias and Sapphira Simon Magus and others who had a name to live and yet were dead Rev. 3.1 and yet for all this deadness and unregeneracy of theirs the Church did warrantably admit them and theirs to Baptism because visibly and for ought that the Church could discern they were regenerate sith De occultis non judicat Ecclesia But that a man may do and be all that the Proposition mentioneth and yet be unregenerate and without Faith not onely in the sight of God but also visibly and to the Churches judgement this seems not very probable Even one of the particulars which the Proposition mentioneth viz. that of Giving up themselves to the Lord is spoken of by the Apostle as a token of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8.1 5. And when the Synod mentioneth not onely this particular but five or six others in the Proposition must we for all this say That men may do this and all that is mentioned in that Proposition and yet have no grace of God bestowed on them but be even quoad nos without all faith in Christ and in an unregenerate estate and so put in a barre to hinder the Baptism of their children we cannot but fear such judgement is more rigorous then Charity will allow for the Scripture tells us that the tree is known by its fruit Mat. 12. 7. and that even a childe is known by his doings whether his work be pure and whether it be right Prov. 20.11 and therefore when there are so many things for the Parents in question as are mentioned in the Proposition and nothing appearing to the contrary we think such Parents having been Members of the Church in their minority may justly be looked at as those who do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism The Reverend Author further saith pag. 25. Though these Parents are not Scandalous in life but Solemnly own the covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a form of Godliness and deny the power thereof from such Paul warned Timothy to Turn away 2 Tim. 3.5 Ans. But is it credible that those in 2 Tim. 3. could answer all that is said in this Proposition were they not Scandalous in life but did give up themselves to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church what then means the many Scandalous sins mentioned ver 2 3 4. and what was this denying the Power of Godliness that is charged upon them it is most like it was such a denying as that in Tit. 1.16 where they are said to profess to know God but by works to deny him being abominable disobedient and to every good work reprobate and if so then they were far from answering what is said of these Parents for these Parents are not Scandalous in life but those the Apostle speaks of are Scandalous and abominable for wickedness these Parents are commendable for sundry good things in them and good duties done by them whereas those the Apostle speaks of are not so but disobedient and to every good work reprobate And when the Apostle bids Timothy turn away from such doth not this simply that they were Scandalous persons and apparently wicked it is not likely that the Apostle would else have commanded to turn from them sith he himself did so lovingly converse with so many sorts of men that he might gain them to the Lord 1 Cor. 9.19 20 c. and gives Commandment to receive the weak Rom. 14.1 and to instruct with meekness such as oppose themselves if God peradventure may give them Repentance c. 2 Tim. 2.25 which things do strongly argue that those whom he Commands in 2 Tim. 3. to turn away from were not such as are described in the Proposition but far worse being apparently and grosly wicked For otherwise how could the Apostle in commanding to Turn away from them be cleared from direct contradicting both his own Doctrine and his own Practice But let those in 2 Tim. 3. whom he commands to Turn away from be understood of persons grosly vicious and Scandalous and then the appearance of contradiction is easily cleared and so the Parents in question cleared from being such persons as must be Turned away from So much for Defence of the first Argument But before the Reverend Author proceed to the next he is something large in suggesting that the Elders do admit persons into Membership who are not qualified according to what is said in this Proposition so that if their Doctrine in this matter were right yet it is here pag. 25 26. frequently intimated that their Practice is otherwise For saith he they cannot prove that all adult persons whom they admit into personal and immediate Membership are such as the Proposition describeth For I demand do they all understand the Doctrine of Faith what course do they take to know it Are all the adult persons whom they admit into Membership such as the Proposition describes do they take a right course to know they are such that they are not Scandalous in life c. Ans. The Proposition speaks of such as were admitted in minority and therefore what is done towards these when they are adult is not fitly called admitting into Membership For as Mr. Cotton saith It is one thing to enter into the Church for that agreeth to such as were sometime without another thing to speak of the Infants of Believers who were never out of the Church and so cannot be