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
time we shall hold to this as conceiving that the admitting of it would be a good means to preserve the Churches in purity to prevent many unprofitable and uâ—coâ—fortable disputes and other great inconveniences which the rejecting of it will unavoidably make way unto IV. This clause in the third Propâ—sition When grown up are pâ—â—sonally under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church had need be warily understood and doth call for some clear explication For if it be meant that they are in the same way and as fully under the Dâ—sâ—ipline and Gâ—vernment of the Church as those who in their own persons have taken hold of the Covenant it cannot be assented unto For then in case of such delinquency as doth call for Excommunication in another Member they are formally to be Excommunicated But this may not be admitted For 1. Formal Excommunication doth not suit their state they are within the Church onely mediately by their Parents confederation Therefore are not to be cast out of the Church immediately and personally by formal Excommunication 2. Besides they are in respect of strength weak and in respect of state dead especially being considered as in this third Proposition without qualifications even such as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which yet are separable from true and saving grace They are too weak to bear the weight and strength of that Censure which is mighty through God 2 Cor. 10.4 it is to put new wine into old bottles which Christ doth dislike in Spiritual matters Mat. 9. 2. It seemeth to be very injurious to them to lay them open to the highest Censure and not to allow them proportionable priviledges 3. The main end of Excommunication when it passeth upon such is not like to be attained which is the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5.5 The Ordinance doth suppose the Subject of it to be flesh and spirit they who are considered as without qualifications to make them capable of Church-priviledges as in this third Proposition cannot be looked at as other then all flesh V. In the fourth Proposition it is said These adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion because they are and continue Members without such further qualifications as the Word of God requireth thereunto But whether the children of such are to be baptized or not is not said and it is necessary that it should have been expressed that the sense and meaning of the Synod might be rightly understood VI. To the fifth Proposition many things may be said 1. This Proposition may rationally be looked at as holding forth the qualifications wanting to full Communion mentioned in the fourth Proposition And if so then it will follow that such as have these qualifications have right to full Communion if I miss it I would be thankful to him that should shew me my mistake if I am right and do rightly express the sense of that Proposition it were expedient that the Synod should plainly and fully express their meaning therein to the understanding of all 2. The qualifications are Vnderstanding the Doctrine of Faith and professing their Assent thereunto Not scandalous in life 1. There is more required in a Church-member even in point of knowledge then to understand the Doctrine of Faith and assent thereunto He ought in a competent measure to understand Church-Order and Discipline appointed by Christ otherwise he cannot Covenant in judgement or own the Covenant neither doth he know how to behave himself in the House of God as a Member thereof 2. The Devil doth understand the Doctrine of Faith and doth assent thereunto Jam. 2.19 3. Not scandalous in life is wholly Negative and may be said of irrational Animals He onely that doth righteousness positively can be denominated righteous 1 Joh. 3.7 4. Besides all these there must be the work and grace of Faith held forth Acts 8.37 38. 16 31-34 before any medling with the Covenant Isa 19.21 3. It is said And solemnly owning the Covenant c. The Scripture speaketh of Entring into a Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 of Making a Covenant with the Lord 2 Chron. 29.10 and Before the Lord 2 Chron. 34.31 of Taking hold of the Covenant Isa 56 4. Now if their Owning the Covenant be the same then not onely their children are to be baptized but themselves admitted to full Communion if short then it is a meer humane invention not warranted by the Word 4. Upon supposition that the qualifications expressed be found in them it is said Their children are to be baptized But 1. The first and second Propositions are against it The first Proposition doth limit Baptism to the Members of the visible Church The second Proposition doth explain who are meant by Members of the visible Church according to Scripture 1. Confederate visible Believers in particular Churches i. such as have personally and immediately Confederated for themselves as the last clause sheweth And 2. Their Infant-seed i. children in minority whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant Now these mentioned in the fifth Proposition to whom Baptism is allowed are neither the one nor the other Ergo. 2. The grace of Faith is wanting if there be no more then the qualifications before mentioned and that is necessary to give their children right to Baptism Acts 2.38 39. 3. The children of such are not to be baptized who themselves do live under great offence visibly and do not reform Exod. 20.5 But so do these Parents in not taking hold of the Covenant personally and immediately for themselves Ergo. It may easily and abundantly be proved that such as have been baptized in the Church and have lived under precious means and great light untill they are Married and have children and all this while have neglected the main thing that doth concern them which is to Believe and upon their Believing personally and for themselves to take hold of the Covenant are under very great sin and offence But I will onely use one Argument which is this Neglect of taking hold of the Covenant or of entring into Covenant now under Christ and the Gospel is as gross a neglect as great a sin as much displeasing to God as was the neglect of Circumcision the sign of the Covenant before Christ Grounds of it are 1. The thing it self is as weighty that I say not more 2. As fully under command as that 1 Joh. 3.23 Rom. 10.9 10. 3. The neglect of it doth as necessarily and peremptorily infer Gods highest displeasure and everlasting destruction if continued in as that Joh. 3.36 Mark 16.16 Heb. 2.3 But that neglect was gross the sin great and very displeasing to God Gen. 17.14 Exod. 4 24-26 Ergo. 4. If the children of such are to be baptized if their children again thus baptized live to have children themselves not personally taking hold of the Covenant or not entring into Covenant what shall become of them shall they be baptized or not 1.
suitably tâ— hâ—ir membersh p the first in and under their Parents the sâ—cond in and by th mselves being in full communâ—on with the Church Yet I do not finde any where in Sâ—riptâ—re that such adult pâ—rso s as they call meer Members are styled Disciple or accounted Membâ—â—s The adult persons in Mâ—â— 8 20. must observe and do all Chrâ—st commandmentâ— thâ—râ—fore the Disciples there intended with reference to adult persons are members in full communâ—on Arg 4. They are in Church-covenant thâ—râ—fore subject to Church-power Gen. 17.7 with 18.19 Reply They are not in covenant â—e fuâ—â— beâ—ng adâ—lt and not admitted into Câ—urch-communion in â—ll the Oâ—d n nces therefore are not subject to Church power That â—ext in â—en 17.7 hath respâ—ct especially to Isaac vâ—r â—9 for in Is â—c was Abrâ—hams seed to be called Geâ— 2â— 12 So the châ—ldren of the flâ—sh are not the children of God but th children of the promâ—sâ— are accounted for the seed Rom. 9.8 and The Gentiles are adopted through faith in Christ Gal. 3.26 for it is in Christ either apprehended by pe sonal fâ—ith as in adult p rsons or coâ—prehending châ—ldren in tâ—eir Parents Covenant that the Covenant is everlastiâ—g and so to be perpetuâ—lly continued in the substance of it though by mutable siâ—ns Jâ—â— us The Covenant of Grace is eternal though it was to be vâ—sibly sealed by circumcâ—siâ—n tâ—ll the coming of Câ—râ—st and after the comiâ—g of Christ by Baptism perptâ—ally unto tâ—e end of the World There is no difference between us concerning the infant-seed but onely concerning adult peâ—sons who arâ— by age in a capacity of covenant ng for themsâ—lves and theirs Let these approve thâ—n faith in Christ to the charitable discretion of the Church and so be râ—ceived into Covenant and Church-communion personally and then and not othâ—rwise they are râ—gularly subject to Châ—rch-power Their second proof from Gen 18.19 hath been spoken to before when I examined their fiâ—st Aâ—gument for this third Propositiâ—â— Aâ—g 5. They aâ—e Subjects of the Kingdome â—f Christ and thâ—â—eforâ— under the Laws and Government of his â—ingdome Ezek. 3 25 26 Reply This Aâ—gâ—ment may justly be retorted against themselves and â—he Pro f of it For th Subjects of Christs Kingdome there meant are voluntary Subjâ—cts according to that Prophesie in â—sal 110 3. and such Subjects have full communion in all pâ—iviledgâ—s of Christs Kingdome and so under the Government of â—t But they deny that the meer Mem erâ— of whom they speâ—k have communion in all the priviledges of Christs Kingdome Therefore they are not under the Laws and Government of it and by Consâ—qâ—ence they are not Subjects of it Arg. 7. Baptism leaves the bâ—ptized of which number these châ—ldren are iâ— a state of subjection to the authoritaâ—ive teaching of Christs Minâ—â—â—ers and to the observation of all his commandments Mat. 28.19 20 and therefore in a state of subjection unto D cipâ—ine Reâ—l This is not another Argumenâ— but tâ—e sâ—me witâ— the third Argument thou h clothed with other words Thâ—â— fâ—re the same Answer may serve for this also Arg. 7. Elders are châ—rged o take hâ—ed â—nto â—nd to feed i. e. bâ—â—h to Teach and Rule compâ—râ— Ezek 34.34 all the Flock r Church over which the Holy Ghâ—st â—a h mâ—dâ— them Oâ—e s ers Acts 20.28 Thâ—t childâ—en are a part of the â—lâ—â—k was pâ—oved bef re anâ— sâ— Pâ—ul â—ccoâ—nts then writing to the same Flâ—ck or Church of Ephesus Ep. 6.1 Repâ—â— Be it so that children are part of the Flock which is all that I finde bâ—fâ—re proved and thaâ— Elders are chaâ—â—ed to tâ—ke heed and to feed â— e. bâ—th Tâ—ach and Râ—lâ— all thâ— Flâ—ck suitably to their different capacities yet all this concernâ—th no such gâ—own persons to whom they deny full Câ—urcâ— commâ—nion For they that are of competent age and understanding must be orderly joyned to tâ—e Church by holding forth their calling and faith in Christ to the satisfaction of the Chuâ—ch accâ—rdâ—ng to tâ—e Rule and so to be received into fâ—llowshâ—p of the Covenant and Communion by their peâ—sonal right without whâ—ch they are not to be accounted â—f the Flock or Church Nor did Pâ—â—â— so accâ—unt such But tâ—ose children noted in Epâ— 6 1 were eitâ—er in their minority and so he puts in their duty in that Epistle as part of their Catechetical iâ—struction or if they were adult they were personally joâ—ned to the â—hurch in communion and so were under the teaching and dâ—scipline of the Câ—uâ—ch Arg. 8 â—t eâ—wise Iâ—â—eligion and Apostacy would inevitably break into Churches and no wâ—y lâ—fâ— by Chrâ—sâ— to prevent or heal the sâ—me which wâ—uâ—d also bring maâ—y Câ—â—rch-members under â—hat dreadfulâ— jâ—dgement of being let alone in their wickedness Hos 4 16 17. R â—ly 1. There is no cause of fear that Irreligion and Apostacy will break into Churches if tâ—e Poâ—ter look well unto the D ors of the Lords Housâ— that no adult persons be râ—ceâ—ved into peâ—sâ—nal Membership but such as regâ—larly approve their personal fi nes for all Church-communion Oâ— if such evâ—ls break into the Church thâ—ough the hypocrisiâ— of such aâ— creep in uâ— awares Jâ—de ve 4. yet then Christ â—ath lâ—ft a clear and plain way to prevent and heal the same by suâ—jecting such uâ—dâ—r â—he Wâ—tch and D scipl ne and Gâ—vernment of the Chuâ—câ— But the admitting of such adult persons as are not qualâ—fied for Church communion in all O dinances will be found in the â—ssâ—e the cause of the breaking in of Irreligion and Apostacy into Churches by the fault of men who gaâ—heâ— wi hout Chrâ—st and â—â—â—ive suâ—h as he rej ctâ—tâ— Nor w ll the Churcâ—es censuring of such prevent or heal those evâ—ls sâ—eing â—e blâ—ssâ—th onely his own Instâ—tutions not mens Devices Humane Inventions usually cause the Evils wh ch they pretend to cure as we see in the Lov-feasts which brake love among the Coâ—inâ—hians 1 Cor. 11 18-22 2 Though no Chuâ—ch-way is left by Chrâ—st for preventing or healing such evils in men that should not be of the Chuâ—ch yet if they were kept out of the Church till their fitness of communion should appear as these evils and the like would not inevitably break into Churches so neither need any Church-members be let alone in their wickedness sâ—eing Christ hath delegated the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven to binde and â—â—sâ— and Diâ—ections how tâ— manage them toward delinquent Members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion Mat. 16.17 18 19. Nor need they who are not thus joyned to the Church be let alonâ— if the Authority in Familâ—es and in the Common-wealth be wisely aâ—d faithfâ—lly managed by the Rulers of both to restrain tâ—ose under their power f om evil companies and courses and to constrain them to a constant reverent attendance to all Family duties of Relig on and to the Word publickly Preachâ—d in Church-Assemblâ—es and to the Sanct fâ—i g of the Christian Sabbâ—th
manner usual with the Prophets wherein the Gospel-Churches and their Officers are forewarned by the example of the Jews under the Old Testament with whom God was highly offended for the like abomination not to admit such as are uncircumcised in heart into Church-fellowship to defile the Lords Sanctuary which is not now as then it was a material House but a Society of Saints called An holy Generation a Royal Priesthood an holy Nation a peculiar People that they might shew forth the virtues of him who hath called them out of darkne s into his marvellous light 1 Pet. 2.9 Such men therefore as cannot approve themselves to the Churches charitable judgement to answer this description in some measure should not be received into Church-fellowshâ—p Whereas they adde that M re was required to adult persons eating the Passover then meer Membership therefore so there is now to the Lords Supper Reply It is true that more then that Membership which they had in their infâ—ncy or minority was required in adult persons to eat the Passâ—ver For 1. When they became adult they were to covenant solemnly with the Lord and his People in their own persons Deu. 26.17 c. whereunto heart fitness was necessary that their persons and services might be accepted of God in that Church-communion Isa 56 4 5. with Deut. 3.6 2. This heart-fitness was also to be exercised when they wâ—re to eat the Passover suitably to the nature end and use of thâ—t Ordinance 2 Chron. 30 6-9 18 19 c. Thus they were to keep the Passover once every year all the dayes of their life till Ch i st our Pâ—ssover was come Since which time it is spâ—ritually to be kept by Believers under the Gospel particularly in our communicating at the Loâ—ds Table in remembrâ—nce of his Deatâ— and of our Redemption thereby untill he come 1 or 5.7.8 〈◊〉 11.25 26. but all they that did eat the Passâ—ver were Members in full communion The Membership of adult persâ—ns then was not a meer Membeâ—ship but a Membership in full Church-communion So it ought to be now They say Though all Members of the Church are the Subjects of Baptism they and their children yet all Members may not partake of the Lords Supper as is further manifest from the different natuâ—e â—f Baptism and the Lords Supper c. Reply 1. Church-membership infers such Church-communion as is suitable to that Membership The Membership of the ch ldâ—en of Confâ—derates in minority infers Church-communion so far as they are capable of it in and by their Parents covenanting for them being not capable of covenanting for themsâ—lves Hence they have communion with the Chuâ—ch by beiâ—g bapâ—â—zed 1 Câ—â— 12.13 So the Church-membership of adult persâ—ns infers Church-communion in all Ordinances particularly in the Lo ds Supper 1 Cor 12.13 and in Voting and Censures 1 Cor. 5.12 Therefore no adult person may be recâ—ived into mee Memberâ—â— regâ—larly untill he be qualified fitly for other Oâ—dinances and for Voting and judging in Church-affairs 1 Co. 5.12 So â—uch for the fourth Proposition Propos 5. Their fifth â—ropositâ—on is Church-members who were admi ted in minoâ—it understanding the D ctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereunto not scandalous in lifâ— and solemnâ—y owning the C venant before the Church wh â—â—n they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Cor st in the Church their children are to be baptized Reply This Proposition agreeth not with our tenth Position where more is declared from Scripture to be required unto Church-membership in reference both to infants and adult persons then is here expressed Yet say they This is evident from the Arguments fâ—llowing But to him who shâ—ll duely examine their Arguments by the Light of the Word and Spirit of God in the New Testament the Proposition will appear to be not evidenced by them as we shall evince by the help of Christ in examining the particulars Arg. 1. These children are partakers of the which is the main ground of baptizing any children whaâ—soever and neither the Parents nor the children do put in any barre to hinder it This they endeavour to prove in the two parts of it severally 1. That they partake of that which is the main ground of baptizing any they say is clear Because interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Bâ—ptism and this infants have Reply The Parents must be fitly qualified before they may be admitted to Covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and their children Else the Covenant will be profaned and such covenanting cannot regularly give them and their children an interest in the Covenant and title to Baptism The Parents or adult persons regularly admitted to Covenant must be B lievers in Christ effectually called in the charitable judgement of the Church judging according to Rule for to such only and their seed is the Promise or Covenant Act 2.39 If the Primitive Churches had not exactly looked for this qualification in the men whom they admitted unto Church-membership the Apostles neither could nor would have styled those to wâ—om they wrote their Epâ—stles Beloved of Gâ—d called Saints Rom. 1.7 Sanctified in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.2 Faithful in Christ Jâ— us Eph 1.1 Saints in Christ Jesus Phil. 1.1 The Church which is in God t e Father and in the Lord Jeâ—us Ch i st 1 Thess 1.1 which they d d not by the judgement of Infallibility f om Divine Revelation but from the judgement of Charity from what they heard of them and saw in them Rom. 1.8 1 Câ—r 1.4 Eph 1.15 6. Coâ— 1.3 4 5. 〈◊〉 2.5 Phil. 1.3 5 6 7. 1 Thess 1.3 4 5 9. Therefore whereas they say That a Member or one in Covenant as such is the subject of Baptism is further cleared in Prâ—pâ—s 1. R ply The light which that Proposition holdeth forth for clearing this is in one clause which is here omitted viz. According to Sc ipture They that according to Scriptu e are Memcers of the visiâ—lâ— C urch are the subjects of B ptism c. Now according to Scripture the Covenant was differently administred in different times of the Church Under Abâ—ahâ—m it was administred by Circumcision to all that weâ—e of his House and to their seed abiding in his Family For the Church was then onely in Abrahams Family and after him in the Families of Isaac and Jacob until M se yet even then the Circumcision of all Parents did not interest their seed in the Covenant and first Seal of it as may be seen in the Posterity of Esau and of Abraham himself by Keturah 2. Under Moseâ— it was administred to the twelve Tribes suitably unto that Ceremonial and Typical state of the Church which was then National Deut. 4.7 8. and the Proselytes who were then addâ—d to them were to be ordered by the same Laws with the People of Israel for accessorium sequitur naturam
Principalis This administration of the Covenant was according to the Scripture of the Old Testament until Christ came under Christ the Covenant is administred according to what hath been exp essed in the Positions formerly noted particularly the tenth Position 2. That these children have interest in the Covenant they say appears 1. Because if the parent be in Covenant the chude is also c. But the parents in question are in Covenant c. Reply 1. Adde According to Gospel-Rules given by Christ unto Christian Churches for admittance of persons spiritually fit for Church-covenant and communion Thus if Parents be in Covenant according to Gospel-Rules the iâ—fant childe or childe in minority is so also else the Prop sition must be denied That being added the Assumption is to be denied Then according to that additâ—on it may be granted also that if the Parent stand in the Church so doth the childe in infancy or minority among the Gentiles now as well as among the Jews of old Rom. 11.16 20-22 They say It is unheard of in Scripture that the progress of the Covenant stops at the infant childe Reply Nor do we say it doth but at the adult person or Parent who breaks the Covenant and that the progress of the Covenant stops there f oâ— the children also it is not unheard-of in Scripture for the Scripâ—ure hath told us of the stopping of the Covenant in Ishmael Esau and Abrahams posterity by Keturah after they were sent away from the Church in Isaac's family Nor do their Reasons prove the Assumption The first is Because they were once in Covenant and never since discovenanted If they had not been once in Covenant they had not warrantably been baptized and they are so still except in some way of God they have been discovenanted cast out or cut off which these have not been Reply 1. If they had not spiritual fitness for the Covenant Parents or adult persons were not regularly in Covenant nor are their children in infancy or minority warrantably baptized And when those infants are grown up though they have not been discovenanted by being cast out or cut off from their Covenant-relation yet they are discovenanted by their violating their Parents Covenant for them through their not performing that whereunto they were engaged thereby in that when they became adult they did not regularly enter into Covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and theirs as their Parents if they were godly did Rom. 2 25. 2. Thougâ— they say Persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture save for notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein which is not the case of these Parents Yet if they break off themselves by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and priviledges of the Covenant as it hath been proved And in such a case they are to be looked at like those of whom John speaks 1 Joh. 2.19 2. Becausâ— the tenour of the Covenant is to the faithful and their seed after them in their generations Gen. 17.7 even to a thousand generation i. e. conditionally provided that the Parents sâ—ccessively do continue to be keepers of the Covenant Exod. 20 6. Deut. 7.9 11. Psal 105.8 which the Parents in question are because they are not in Scrip ure account in this case forsakers or rejecters of the God and Covenant of their fathers see Deut. 29.25 26. 2 Kings 17 15-20 2 Chron 7.22 Deut 7.10 Reply 1. The tenour of the Covenant 〈◊〉 17.7 had as it hath been formerly noted a special respâ—ct unto Isaac vâ—r 19. for in Isaac was Abrahams seed to be called â—en 21.12 So the children of the flesh are not the children of Gâ—â— but tâ—â— children of the prom se are accounted for the sâ—â— Rom. 9.8 The sealing f this Covenant to the Posterity of Isaac and Jacob by Circumcision was to continue throughout their generations till thâ— coming of Christ The Covenant â—n the tenour of it is for substance the same to us as it was to them â—hough the outward Signs and manner of dispensing it dâ—ffer it being establ shed by the blood oâ— Christ Luke 1.69 71 73. Heb. 13.20 The extending the Covenant to a thousand generationâ— themselves say is conditionaâ— provided that the Parents s ccessively do c ntinue to be keepers of the Câ—venanâ— Such a succession in the Covenant through Faith is not to be found even in the best Churches thâ—t ever were in the world for a thousand o an hundred generatâ—ons But such the Parents in question are not For though they are not such forsakers and â—ejâ—cters of God and the Covenant of their fathers as they who are sp ken of in Deut. â—9 25 26 2 Kings 17 15-20 2 Chron. 7.22 Yet besides that g oss Idolatry there is a spirituâ—l Idolatry in scandalous Covetousness Câ—â—â—st 3.5 and Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject Gâ—d and his Covenant to serve the World Mâ— 6.24 1 Tim. 6.17 1 I h. 2.15 to these the text alledged by them in Deu 7.10 mâ—y fiâ—ly be applied and they forsake the Covenant of God as I n. 4 4. and such may they b who answer all the erms of then fif h Pâ—oposition externally and visibly Now t e Relâ—gion of such is no better then that of the Shâ—chernâ—e who took upon then the Religion of the Jews and were circumcised only for worldly ends en 34.22 23 24. Such Religion will end in Apostacy in times of Persecution for the Truth 〈◊〉 13 21. 2. That the Parents in question do not put a barre to h nder their châ—ldren from Baptism they say is plain from the words of the Proposition c. Reply 1. Notwithstanding what is said in the Proposition Parents may put a bar to hinder their children from being baptized regularly A man may do and be all that is there required yet have not Faith in Christ but be an unregenerate person and that will put a bar to hinder himself and his infant-seed from entring into the Kingdome of God Joh. 3.3 5. and by consequence from the Seal of entrance 2. Nor can they prove that all adult persons whom they admit into personal and immediate Membership are such as the Proposition describeth For I demand Doth y all understand the Doctrine of Faith What course do they take to kâ—ow it If they do not their publickly prâ—fessing their assent thereunto is a meer mockery A Parret-like saying the Dâ—ctrine of Faith and an ignorant assent thereunto may justly be a bar of gross Ignorance Atheism and Infidelâ—ty and Hypocrisie Pâ—tâ—â— bâ—ought the Eunuch to understand what he read before it could become a word of faith to him â—ctâ— 8. 2. Nor is literal understanding what they assent to sufficient to remove all bars These the Devils do Jan. 2.19 Arigâ—â— mâ—nâ—er f knowing and assenting must be added Such a manner of knowing whereby the Church may judge that Christ is
let into tâ—e Soul As Reverend Mr. Hooker was wont to say Such 〈◊〉 profess d Assent as hath a prâ—fessed Consent joyned with it Isa 1.10 Such a manner of knowing and consenting as produceth Obedience flowing from Faith which is the next end of the Ministery of the Gâ—spel Rom. 1.5 16.26 Else they are defiâ—â—â— and unbelieving to whom nothiâ—g is puâ—â— but even their minde and conscience is defiled who profess that they know Goâ— bu in their works they deny hiâ— T it 1.15 16. 3 And though t ey are not scandalous in l fe but solemnâ—y own the Câ—venant bâ—fore tâ—â— Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Governâ—ent of Christ in he Churcâ— yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a so of godlâ—nesâ— bâ—â— deâ—y tâ—e power thereof From such Paâ— who tauâ—ht him how he ought to behave himself in the House of 〈◊〉 which is the Church â—f the living God the pillar and gâ— oâ—nd of Truth 1 Tim. 3.15 warned Tâ—mothy to turn away 2 Tim. 3.5 4. But 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 1. That they are noâ— scandalous in life What testimony or certain knowledge have they that the Church may confide in that they f equent not loose and vain Company in dâ—sorderly Nâ—ght-meetingâ— at unseasonable hours and in suspected places in unwarrantable Gaming 's and Drinkings c not to speak of other evils 2 Hâ—w do they S lemnly own the Covenanâ— before the Church when some of them having publickly said They do own it being afterward asked â—n private What is the Covenant which you owned answered I do not know 3. As for their Subjecting themselves to the Governme t f Christ in the Church Do they orderly submit to the Government of their Family-Governours Parents and Masters c If the Church know not that How can they expect that they wilâ— really subject themselves to Christ's Government in the Church Yea if they have not been weary and heavy loaden and then came unto Christ they are not fit to take his yoke and burthen upon them Matth. 11.28 29. I proceed to their second Argument Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either children of the Covenant or strangers from the Covenant either holy or unclean either within the Church or withouâ— either such as have God for their God or without God in the world But he that considereth the Proposition will not affirm the latter concerning these children and the former being granted infers their right to Baptism Râ—ply The more seriously I consider their Proposition the less I finde in it to evince the former and the more to conclude the latter viz. That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth he may be a stranger from the Covenant unclean and without the Church in Scripture account Râ—m 9 6 7 8. and without God in the world through want of faith in Christ whereby the heart is purified and men have an interest in Christ and in God through Christ Arg. 3. To deny the Proposition would be 1. To straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation c. 2. To render the children of the Iews when they shall be called in a worse condition then under legal Administrations contrary to Jer. 30 10 Ezek. 37.25 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant c. 4. To break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenanâ— Gen. 17.9 10 14. Reply The contrary to all and every one of these is true For 1. It enlargeth the Grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame and staâ—e then the Jews of old were under Legal Dispensations which therefore are not continued and propagated by a natural succession as that National Church was but by Gods â—illing them with an holy calling according to his purpose and gracâ— 2 Tim 1.9 and adding thereby to the Christian Church such as in their charitable judgement shall be saved Acts 2.43 2. It declareth that the state of the Jews when they shall be called will be far better then it was under Legal Dâ—spensations yea then the condition of the Gentiles is now For under the Law their light and holiness was defective and Christian Churches now how careful soever they be in point of admittance cannot avoid the creeping in of Hypocrites but the Jews when they shall be called shall have a far greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages of the Churches and all the Members of the New â—erusalem shall be Elect they and their children successively and no Hypocrite shall be mingled with them Rev. 21. 22. 3. Nor doth the denial of the Proposition infer a denial of the application of the initiatory Seal to such as stand regularly in the Church and Covenant but the contrary 4. Nor doth it break Gods Covenant by denying Baptism to such as are regularly in Covenant These are Accusations without Proof Arg. 4. Confederate visible Believers though but in the lowest degree such are to have their children baptized But the Parents in question are confede ate visible Believers â—t least in some degree Reply The major being granted the minor is denied For 1. All that is said in the Proposition may be affirmed of sundry that have not visible saving Faith in Christ in the lowest degree Therefore these are no sufficient grounds for charity to account them Believers in Christ in the least degree Let them that are to be admitted into Membershâ—p by theâ—r personal right shew how Faith was wrought and how it works in them in the lowest degree then the Church will have some ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness for regular Church-membership and communion 2. Nor are the châ—ldren of the godly qualified but as the persons in the Proposi ions said to be fait ful in â—â—t 1.6 whether we understand that Text in a Moral or Spiritual sense The first is a fâ—uit of Moral Principles and Education these are short of the qualifications in the Proposition The second is a fruit of the Spirit G â— 5.22 These are Believeâ—s in Christ Acts 16.15 3 Epist Ioh. ver 5. and are qualified above what the Proposition requâ—reth 3. They say Chi dren of the Covenant as the Paâ—ents in questionare have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary â—re in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers R pl. 1 It remains to be proved that the Parents in question are children of the Covenant They were children of the Covenant in their infancy and minority and bound thereby when they became adult
to covenant for themselves and their seed in their own persons being fitly qualified as their godly Parents did before them If they being grown up to be men perform not this Covenant they cannot fitly be called Children of the Câ—venanâ— but Transgressours of the Covenanâ— and Breakers of it 2. The Argument is fallacious Some children of the Covenant have had the beg nnings of grace manif stly wrought in them in younger years Therefore all persons of this sort shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or to Ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers This Aâ—gument is to be denied both because it argues from some Particulars to infer a General affirmatively and from that which is positively manifest in some to pâ—ove the same to be in others in whom it is not positively manifest but onely they shew nothing to the contrary which makes them at best but Negative Christians which is not to be Christian indeed 4. They say They that are regularly in the Church as the Parents in question are are visible Saints for the Church is in Scripture account a company of Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 1.2 Re l Both their Assertion and their Proof of it are to be denied 1 The â—ssâ—rtion is not true that the Parents in quest on are regula ly in the Church Infants and children in minority of coâ—f dâ—rate Believers are in the â—hu ch by their Pare t s covenant ng fâ—rtâ—eâ—â— 1 Câ— 7.4 But Parents are not reg lâ—â—ly iâ— the Church t ll being fitly qualified they confedeâ—ate for th mselves and their children und r age Acts 2.30 bâ—ing qâ—alâ—fied according to that Prophesie concern ng these time of the Gospel in 〈◊〉 56.6 7. 2. The Proof is not apposi e fâ—â— Pâ—â—â— wroâ—e that Ep stle to the adult Members regularly admitted unâ—o full communion with the Church at Ch iâ—â— whom he styleth Sanct fi d in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 1.2 and such were they of whom he spâ—â—ks in all the Churcheâ— of the Saiâ—â— 1 Cor. 14.33 But the Parents in question being â—â—cer Members not in fuâ—l communion are not regularly approved of the Church to be such Therefore this coâ—cerns not them 5. They say Beâ—ng in Covenant and baptized they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise and sealed in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continues valid and so a valid testimony for them wh le â—hey do not reject iâ— R ply Reverend Mr. Câ—tton was wont to say Elect children have the grace of the Covenant viz. Fai h and Repentance c. given to them in and by the Covenanâ— and sealed by Baptism Deut. 30.6 but the rest have only the Covenant of Grace for eternal means â—f grace given in the Promise and sealed by Baptism till they reject them This testimony is true and this distinction is grounded upon Scripture Râ—m 11 7. and it is necessary to prevent that Opinion of Vniversal Baptism-Grace which the Arminians improve to establish their dangerous Errour of the final and total Apostâ—cy of the Saints from Grace But God who hath promised is faithful and will do according to his Promise working effectually in the Elect in his appointed time the grace promised in the Covenant so powerfully that they shall not reject it the rest shall have the outward means of Grace according to his Promise till they reject them as Esâ—u did To these Faith and Repentance are not indefinitely given in the Promise and sealed by outward Baptism as neither was it given in the Promise and sealed by outward Circumcision indefinitely to those who when they became adult brake the Covenant Whereupon Paul distinguish d the jews and Circumc siâ—n Rom. 2.28 29. and answerable thereunto is Peterâ— distinction of Bâ—ptism 1 Pet. 3.24 Therefore such as reject the offers of G ace as all that living under the mâ—aâ—s of Grace remain unb lievers do Mat. â—3 37. cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise in that sense wherein that phrase is used in 2 Pet. 1.4 They adde Yet iâ— doth not necessarily â—oâ—â— that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper c. Reply If they have Faith and Repentance given them under Gods Hand in the Covenant and sealed by Baptism and if they do so receive them that it continues valid and so a valid testimony for them What can hinder regularly such Church-members from partaking of the Lords Supper â—c They say Because though they are in alatâ—â— de of exp ession to be accounted visible Believers or in numero fidelium as even infants in covenant are yet they want that ab lity of examining themselves and that special exercise of Faith which is requisite to that Ordinance as was said upon the fourth Proposition Reply 1. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 The New Testament no where alloweth that latitude of speech to call men visible B lievers who never were regularly joyned to that number nor fitly qualified to take hold of the Covenant personally for themselves and their children 2. Nor can they be accounted Believers or in the number of Believers as infants are who are loâ—ked at onely as in their Parents Covenant being not capable of covenanting for themselves as men are So that there is not par ratio between them 3. Visible want of ability to examine themselves and of that special exercise of Fâ—ith which is requisite to that Ordinance argues a visible want of that Faith wh ch is to be examined and exercised and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership as well as to the Lords Supper c. Arg. 5 The denial of Baptism to the children in question haâ—h a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy because it denies them and so the children of the Church successively to have any part in the Lorâ— which is the way to make them cause from fearing the Lord Josh 22 2â— 25. Reply The children in quâ—stion are children of Parents who are not members in full communion with the hurch and so not regularly personal Members If such their children be denied to have any part in the Lord it is the degenerate Parents not the Churches fault They who a e not in Chuâ—ch-communion cannot regularly communicate unto their infant-seed a right and title to Baptism which is the first visible Seal of Church-commuâ—ion 1 â—or 12.13 2. It is not true that the Churches denying Baptism to the children in question is a denial of the children of the Church to have any paâ—t in the Lorâ— f r such are not according to Scripture Rules child en of the Church succâ—ssively for the Parents have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their seed by their not confederat ng for themselves and theirs regularly 3. That this denial â—a â— a dangerous teâ—dency to Irreligion and Apostacy is not proved by them nor can be That Text
while they are such leaving his adult children to Covenant for themselves if he hath any such children when himself enters into Covenant 2. Adams Covenant was onely with the Lord not with any Church as the Covenant of coâ—federate Parents is and therefore if Adam had stood his posterity had not been Church-members thereby as the infants of Church-confederates 3. Nor doth the Parents breaking his Covenant make his children Heirs of Condemnation as Adams did all Mankinde So that this example of Adam is impertinently produced in this case of infants and their Parents confederating for them not as their publick person but as Undertakers for their infant-seed by Gods Institution Nor indeed is any to be accounted a publick person as Adam was but Jesus Christ for all that are in him Rom. 5.14 to 20. Nor doth their similitude of a Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyal suit the case in question concerning Infants who cannot be visibly disloyal nor that concerning adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church as immediate Members whose Parents were godly when they covenanted for them in their infancy For they have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their Posterity by their personal disloyalty so that nothing is given to them and theirs by their Covenant which they presume to usurp without warrant from God They say true that A member is one who according to Rule or according to divine Institution is within the visible Church But that refutes nothing that I have said concerning mediate and immediate Members for both are within the Church according to Rule and Divine Institution though both have not full communion with the Church in all Ordinances which is the priviledge of all adult persons who are immediate Members by their own personal right 1 Cor. 5.12 They frame an Objection thus Obj. If children be compleat and immediate members as their Parents are then they shall immediately have all Church-priviledges as their Parents have without any further act or qualification And they Answer it thus Ans It followeth not All priviledges that belong to members as such do belong to the children as well as to the parents But all Church-priviledges do not so A member as such or all members may not partake of all priviledges but they are to make progress both in memberly duties and priviledges as their age and capacity and qualifications do fit them for the same Reply The intendment of the Objection as I apprehend is to shew that compleat and immediate Membership as such doth infer compleat and immediate communion in all Church-priviledges But children in minority have not compleat and immediate communion in all Church-priviledges without some further act or qualification Therefore such children are not compleat and immediate Members as such Now to this their Answer is insufficient For the best Members have need to make progress in memberly duties and qualifications to fit them more and more for Church-priviledges Yet all have that communion that suits their Membership Infants in Baptism the Watch Prayers and Blessing of the Church by their Parents covenanting for them Adult persons orderly and regularly joyned by their personal covenanting for themselves in the Seals Voting and Censures which belong to them as such Members Nor doth the Scripture any where allow the Church to admit any one by personal covenanting for themselves and theirs into any other Membership then compleat and immediate But Infants are not capable of such Membership without some further personal act and qualification when they shall become adult Therefore their Infant-membership is not compleat and immediate 3. That their Membership still continues in adult age and ceaseth not with their Infancy appears 1. Because Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief not for growing up to adult age Rom. 11.20 Reply 1. When I affirm that their mediate Membership continueth during their minority while they are under the Institution and Government of Parents c. I deny that that Membership continues in adult age and when they are at their own disposal or have children of their own to covenant for because then the reason of their mediate Membership ceaseth they being by age capable of covenanting for themselves 2. Their first Reason doth not prove that the Membership of all baptized in Infancy continues in adult age For the Text alledged speaketh onely of such as have been received into compleat and immediate membership regularly by their personal Faith and Covenanting with the Church visibly who are broken off either by the just judgement of God as the unbelieving Nation of the Jews are or by the just Censure of the Church Whereas our question is not of such but of adult persons that break off themselves from the Covenant by profane neglect or contempt of the Ordinances or unsuitable Conversation Who ever said that any were broken off for growing up to adult age Such intimations should be forborn by godly men 2. The Jews children circumcised did not cease to be members by growing up but continued in the Church and were by virtue of their membership received in infancy bound unto various duties and in special unto those solemn professions that pertained unto adult members not as then entring into a new membership but as making progress in memberly duties Deut. 26 2-10 16.16 17. with Gal. 5.3 Reply 1. That the Jews children circumcised were bound to various duties and to those solemn professions that pertained to adult members when themselves were grown up is clear enough by the Texts alledged and sundry other Whereunto I willingly adde that Baptism also bindeth the Infant-seed of Confederates to various Gospel-duties and especially this of using all means that Faith may be wrought in their hearts unto obeying the Call of God and then holding forth their Faith unto the Church that they may take hold of the Covenant for themselves and theirs and so become compleat and immediate Members But 2. It is not proved by those Texts that when they were adult they did not enter into a new Membership rather the contrary appears in Deut. 26.17 18. For they entred into that Covenant personally and immediately not in and by their Parents as they did in Infancy Gen. 17.7 If convenanting be the Form of Church-membership which they affirm then a different form of covenanting makes a different kinde of Church-membership Immediate covenanting makes immediate Members Mediate covenanting makes mediate Members Their third Reason is Those relations of Born-servants and Subjects which the Scripture makes use of to set forth the state of children in the Church by Lev. 25.41 42. Ezek. 37.25 do not as all men know cease with infancy but continue in adult age Whence also it follows that one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fit
for it and have most need â—f it Reply 1. Those Relations of born Servants and Subjects in the Text alledg d have d fferent respects That Lev. 25. was typical figurin the time of Grace whereby now Christ hath freed u f o the servitude of Sin and Satan 〈◊〉 8.32 36. Râ—â— 6.14 18. to bâ—come the Servants of God in Christ Rom. 6 22. 1 C r. 7.23 Parents and children so far aâ— they have inâ—â—râ—st in the Redemption wrought by Christ as they are freed by him from other Lord so they are bound thereby serve him all the dayeâ— of their lâ—fâ— Luke 1.74 75. Therefore this relatâ—on doth not cease with infancy but continueth in adult age But this doth nothing concern the thing in question concerning M diate Membershi The other Text in Ezek. 37.25 is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect Nation of the Jews and of the state of the Church under the New Jerusalem the difference between which and the Chrâ—stian Gentiles now I have formerly shewn so that neither doth â—hat fit the question But 2. I grant though not as following thence That one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fittest for it and have mâ—st need of it The engagement is strong both on the Parents To train up their children from their Infancy in the nurture and admonition of the Lord Eph. 6.4 and upon the Children To know the God of their Parents and to serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing minde 1 Chron. 28.9 and upon the Church To exercise their Watchfulness that both Parents and Children do their duty helping them also therein with their Instructions and Prayers and Power which is given for Edification as the case may require Yet when all this is done neither can the Parents nor the Church give Grace unto the Children that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate Membership and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly is to profane the Ordinances and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary Reas 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the persons in question Reply This enumeration is insufficient there is another ordinary way of cessation of Membership i. e. Desertion Thus Esau's Membe sh p ceaâ—ed and so may the Membership of others though they abide in the place where the â—hurch â—s yet if being adult they regard nâ—t to joyn with the Church by their personal â—nd immediate Confederâ—tion nor to fit themselves for it these despise the Chuâ—ch of God And if that is sufficient to deprive thâ—se of all hurch priv ledg s who were before in personal and immediate Church fellowsh p when they forsake it 1 Job 2.19 much more those who never had such Membership nor have approved their Spirituâ—l fitness for it to the Churches charitable judgement nor truly desire and end aâ—our so to do What can the mediate Membershâ—p whâ—ch such had in Infancy advantage them for continuing thereby still in Membership when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church Reas 5. Either they are when adult Members or Non-members if Non-members then a person admitted a Member and sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving to be may the Church whereof he was still remaining become a Non-member and out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Reply A Freemans childe suppose of London or any other Corporation was free-born and might in his minority trade under his father yet being grown up he must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen and be accepted of the Company as his father was unto all Duties and Liberties of that Society in his own person else he may not trade for himself If it be said Why so either he is a Freeman or a Non-freeman It will be readily answered He is a Non-freeman and that by his own defaulâ— If it be said He was Free by his Fathers Copy and is not dis-franchised by any publick Censure nor hath deserved so to be may such an one the Society whereof he was still remaining become a Non-freeman and out of that Society c The answer will easily and readily be given He hath lost his Freedome by not entring in his own person into the common Engagement of Freemen to the Duties whereunto all Freemen are personally bound So and much more justly it is in this case An adult person makes himself to become a Non-member as to priviledges by not performing the Duties whereunto he was bound by his Parents Covenant for him in his minority and by his not regularly covenanting as his Parents did And his is according to Scripture which tells us that Circumcision received in Baptism may become by his own fault being adult no Circumcision Rom. 2.25 Those Texts in Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to Infants and Children in minority Propos 6. Such Church-members who either by death or some other extraordinary Providence have been inevitably hindred from publick acting as aforesaid yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified and such as had they been called thereunto would so have acted their children are to be baptized Reply This Proposition may not be granted For 1. It granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members which is contrary to Christs Ordinance whereby Baptism being a publick Church-Ordinance is due onely to them who have a publick state and Interest such are onely the Members of the publick Ecclesiastical Body the Church Hence 1. An ordinary Minister cannot orderly perform an act proper to his Office in reference to Church-communion to any that are not regularly and actually Members of the visible Church without great usurpation as if a man do a work proper to Magistracy to one that is not under his Magistratical Power he is an Usurper So it is in this case of a Minister To administer Baptism is an act of his Office-power If he administer Baptism to children whose Parents are not regularly in Church-order in so doing why may not the Lord say He is an Usurper Suppose an unbaptized person professing his Faith and qualified according to the description in the sixth Proposition yet deferring for some probable causes to adjoyn himself to the Church for the present should desire Baptism of any of these Ministers who framed this Proposition Should they administer it to him and so do a proper work of their Office upon him If yea if they admit him to Baptism why not to the Lords
Supper and to the choice of Officers and to the Censures of the Church either actively or passively for all these are Actions and Ordinances of one general nature and it is meerly his want of Church-order that debars him from them 2. The Church may not receive into any priviledge of Church-communion such as Baptism is whatever cause they seem to have in the judgement of charity to think them fit for Church-membership and such as had they been called would have so acted until they be actually in publick Church-order no more then the children of every good Subject of the King may be admitted into the special Prerogatives of a Corporation whereof themselves or their next Parents are not regularly free All things must be done in order 1 Coâ— 14.40 whereunto what is more contrary then that he who is not regularly and personally of a publick Society should have Fellowship in a publick Priviledge proper to that Society Yet they say this which the Proposition holds forth is manifest 1. Because the main foundation of the right of the childe to priviledge remains viz. Gods Institution and the force of his Covenant carrying it to the generations of such as are keepers of the Covenant i. e. not visible breakers of it c. Reply The Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the Covenant which was sealed to them by Baptism in their Infancy and obliged them to service and subjection to Christ in his visible Church having confederated personally and regularly for themselves and theirs as their Parents did before them If they do not this they are out of that order by their own fault wherein they might have given their children right to Baptism according to Christs Institution That right which Parents have nor for themselves unto Baptism if they were unbaptized they cannot â—e to their children They who are not Members in their own personal and immediate right cannot give a right of membership to their children And though their Membership in Infancy was distinct from their Parents yet being onely mediate by their Parents covenanting for them it ceaseth when they become adult by their own fault in that they were not orderly joyned to the Church immediately by their personal covenanting for themselves and theirs regularly 2. Because Parents not doing what is required in the fifth Proposition is through want of opportunity which is not to be imputed as their guilt so as to be a barre of the Childes priviledge Reply 1. It hath been already proved in our examining the fifth Proposition that more is required to fit one that is adult for Church-membership then is there expressed viz. Faith in Christ made visible to the Church without which they are not regularly Church-members Now Baptism administred by ordinary Church-Officers to such as are out of Church-order is profaned as Circumcision was by the Shechemites and would have been by the Ishmaelites and Edomites and the posterity of Abraham by Keturah if it had been administred to their children when their Parents were not joyned to the Church of God or abode not in it in the Families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. For 1. One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 it is a publick Testimony of the Admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit into whose Name he is baptized Mat. 28.20 either immediately if he be adult by his personal Covenanting for himself and his seed or mediately if in his minority by his next immediate Parents Covenanting for him This the Parent in question hath not done Hence the want hereof is a bar to his childes Baptism 2. The regular and lawful use of Bâ—ptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith who is to use it either upon himself or upon his Infant Therefore he that presumeth to use it being not so qualified visibly viz. not having before the Promise of Christ and Faith for Justification with Abraham doth he not treacherously usurp the Great-Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth If not surely it had need to be soundly cleared 3. God reckoneth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it be hindred c Reply We must distinguish between private and publick Service in a publick state and order 1. In private Service God accepts the will for the deed when the actâ—ng of it is hindred either by God himself as Abrahams sacrificing his Son and Davids building the Temple or by the parties inability to do so much as he would as in that case 2 Cor. 8.12 and the like 2. But in publick Service in a publick state and order he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so far as to bring them into that state and order whatsoever their desires and endeavours have been for this were to overthrow and subvert that Order which God hath by his Institution established and to bring in Confusion Will God accept a man in doing acts of Office power proper to a Minister of a Church because he desired and endeavoured to be a Minister when he is not actually and regularly in Office Or may a Church receive unto Fellowship of the outward Seals of the Covenant such as are not actually and regularly joyned to the Church because they desired and endeavoured to be of the Church albeit their joyning with the Church was hindred To be baptized in voto will nothing advantage any to Church-fellowship though a Martyr in voto is accepted of God as a Martyr because though God searcheth and knoweth the heart yet the Church doth not De occultis non judicat Ecclesia secret things belong to God but revealed things to men and things are not manifested to the Church otherwise then by congruous actings nor in this case can they or theirs have a right to Church-priviledges otherwise then by actual joyning with the Church 4. The terms of the Proposition import that in charity that is here done interpretatively which is mentioned to be done in the fifâ—h Proposition expresly Reply 1. It 's an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture or in good Reason 2. If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly is here done interpretatively both being put together will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship in any sense and to give his Infant a right to Baptism thereby For by Christs Ordinance onely adult persons who have true Faith in Him and Holiness are adult Members of the invisible Church and the same persons making holy Profession thereof outwardly in the order of him appointed may be Members of the visible Church and they onely can give their Infant-seed a right unto Baptism For seeing without faith it is impossible to please God in matters of
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
aforesaid among themselves with special reference to those Churches which by Providence are planted in a convenient viciniâ—y though with liberty reserved without offence to make use of others as the nature of the case or the advantage of the opportunity may lead thâ—reunto Propos 6. The Churches of Christ in this Country having so good opportunity for it it is meet to be commended to them as their duty thus to consociate For 1. Communion of Churches being commanded and Consociation being an Agreement to Practise it this must needs be a Duty also Psal 119.106 Neh. 10 28 29. Reply Before I proceed to argue upon these Propositions some things should be premised in way of Enquiry that the terms may be rightly understood Quaere Whether by mutual and solemn Agreement they mean a Vow It seems by the Texts alledged by them in the first Proof of the sixth Proposition that they mean so and therefore I shall take it for granted that that is their meaning 2. When they say This solemn Agreement or Covenant must â—e made with special reference to Churches in vicinity Quaere 1. How many Churches in Vicinity or Neighbour-Churches must thus Covenant together 2. Whether they must have set times of Meeting for this purpose and who are to meet Whether Elders alone or others also sent from the Churches with them and how frequent these Meetings must be and whether the set times must be kept constantly though they have no present need of counsel from another 3. Whereas they speak of Liberty reserved without offence to make use of others as the nature of the case c. may lead thereunto Quaere How they may avoid giving offence to Neighbour-Churches if they use the help of Churches more remote Whether they must have their consent thereunto before they use them 4. Concerning the end and issue of this Consociation of Churches Whether they are bound thereby to acquiesce in the judgement and determinations of those Neighbour-Churches and to practise accordingly whether they see convincing light in the Scriptures or Arguments propounded to them or not under a Penalty of being judged by the rest to be Obstinate in Errour and Scandal and accordingly in time to have all holy communion with them withdrawn from them It seemeth by what was before said in the fixth Act of Communion for Answer to the first Question pag. 31. that this will be the end and issue of this Consociation unto any Church that shall dissent from the rest This Consociation they endeavour to prove to be a duty incumbent upon the Churches in New-England I shall briefly weigh their Reasons For 1. Communion of Churches being commanded and Consociation being but an Agreement to practise it this must needs be a duty also Psal 119.106 Nehem. 10.28 29. Reply It doth not necessarily follow till they have proved that Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Covenant is commanded as Communion of Churches is Nor do the Texts alledged prove it in Psal 119.106 David swore to keep Gods righteous judgements and would perform it because though he was not bound to swear yet he had voluntarily sworn it and so was under a double bond to perform it for both his keeping Gods righteous judgements and his performing that Vow were commanded of God Deut. 10.13 with Psal 76.11 2. And his Vow was private betwixt God and himself Hence it will not follow that Churches are bound to consociate with a Vow or Covenant after the manner here described which is not proved to be a duty and may be unsafe for particular Churches That Coveâ—ant in Neh. 10.28 29. was their Church-covenant renewed and explained and so was a mutual solemn Engagement by entring into a Curse and into an Oath to which form we are not bound and Church-covenanting is Gods Ordinance Isa 19.21 56.4 to 8. 62.5 all which are Prophesies of the Churches under the Gospel But between the covenanting of a Church within it self and such a covenanting as this for the consociating of Churches there are considerable differences 1. Because this wants Warrant from the Scripture which that hath there being neither any Precept in Scripture commanding it nor any Pattern among the Primitive Churches planted or approved by the Apostles commanding it unto us 2. Nor is there like Reason for such Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Agreement or Covenant between Churches in a vicinity as is for a Church-covenant within it self For the Church-covenant is necessary because without it the ends of Church-fellowship cannot be attained For 1. Each particular Church is a Spiritual Corporation which therefore must receive its being from a Spiritual Combination or Foederal Engagement 2. By virtue hereof they that had no natural impression to subject them to others or to give them power over them have mutual power each over other to command constrain as the case requires of which power they could not have been made partakers without mutual Agreement and Engagement 3. Hereby they come to enjoy such Spiritual and Ecclesiastick Priviledges unto which none can be admitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole which necessarily requires this Engagement to the whole which is by Covenant Thus Mr. Hooker argues to prove the necessity of a Church-covenant Survey part 1. chap. 4. p. 50 to 55. But the ends of Church-communion which is mutual helpfulness by counsel may be attained without such a Consociation by mutual Engagement by the Communion of Churches which of it self without any other Engagement gives Churches a right and interest in another way mutually for their help by counsel when their needs require it The Churches in New-England have by the blessing of Christ found the benefit of the Communion of Churches for setling Truth and Peace among them without such a Consociation and may so still 3. Such an Agreement between Churches will become a Snare unto them by straitning them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves in re propriâ 1. If by virtue hereof they may not administer Church-censures within themselves without concurrence of Neighbour-Churches or Elders approbation sought and attained thereunto before Or 2. If thereby they stand bound under the fore-noted Penalty to rest in and practise according to the judgement and advice of such Churches having sufficient light and consent within themselves without them 3. Mr. Rutherfurd affirms That a convenient number of Churches having ordinarily conversing one with another shall voluntarily combine themselves in one Society this last gives in the formality of Classical Membership Lib. 2. p. 320. He addes When God hath made him a combined Member now by institution of one Presbyterian Church not of another though by ordinary converse with other Churches in case of scandal his example may prove prejudicial and infestuous to others yet this Presbytery must proceed in Excommunication against him because he is combined with them Thus you see by this voluntary combination of Churches a Church
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
c. but also secondarily for the power whereby they are made c. Reply I grant that the Synods Directions and Determinations so farre as consonant to the Word of God are to be received with reverence and submission But what if the Members of Churches to which they are sent do not finde them consonant to the Word rightly understood and applied Are they nevertheless still bound to practise according to the Synods Directions and Determinations because the Synod coucludeth that they are consonant to the Word I suppose no Orthodox Synod in these times will arrogate to it self such infallible Assistance as the Apostles being assembled with the Church at Jerusalem had Acts 15. though they argued and concluded onely from Scripture yet that Council could not erre in their understanding and applying Scripture having such guides as the Apostles were but will confess that they may erre in their understanding and applying the Scriptures whereupon they seem to gâ—ound their Directions and Determinations And if so it is the duty of every Church and the Members thereof to examine by the Scriptures whatsoever Direction or Determination is propounded by the Synod If they finde that they are consonant to the Word of God they are bound by Gods Authority to receive them with reverence and submission If otherwise wrought to obey God rather then man Acts 5.29 2. This power of the Synod though they say it is but secondary and that it is for their agreement with the Word which is the principal ground thereof and without which their Directions and Determinations binde not at all yet they make so binding that if any Churches shall refuse to practise according to the Directions and Determinations of the Synod though they have strong grounds of dis-satisfaction about the Synods interpretation and application of the Scriptures alledged by them they will withdraw themselves from communion with them Whether such an authoritative urging their counsels upon Churches be warranted by Scripture let the Reader enquire and consider and Whether it will agree with what themselves before declared concerning the unlawfulness of a total Separation from a true Church and Whether there be need of it to cure emergent Church-difficulties and differences seeing all that are godly will readily close with such Directions and Determinations of Synods as are clearly consonant to the Word of God and if any obstinately will persist in their own wayes contrary to the Word held forth to them by the Synod the Civil Power is Gods Ordinance for punishment of such evil doers that the Churches may be kept pure and peaceable in the exercise of Church-communion among themselves in a Brotherly way Which yet is no impediment to the Churches and that by the declaratory Sentence of a Synod that is after due conviction of a Church that is Heretical Schismatical Apostatical or the like with due patience exercised to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such as make themselves worthy by their obstinacy against the light clearly held forth from Scripture to be rejected as not true Churches of Christ Yet this they may not regularly do meerly for their Dissenting from the Determinations of the Synod upon conscientious grounds and in lesser matters What is before expressed in the fifth Proposition hath been already examined Propos 8. concerneth The manner of exercising and practising that Communion which this consent and agreement specially tendeth unto which they say may be by making use occasionally of Elders or able Brethren of other Churches or by the more solemn Meetings of both Elders and Messengers in lesser or greater Councils as the matter shall require Such Meetings for the end specified being rightly ordered and carried on in a Brotherly way by men sincerely affected to establish Truth with Peace in the Churches of the Saints according to the Rules given unto us by Jesus Christ our Lord and Law-giver I do fully approve as of profitable use by the Blessing of Christ for the good of the Churches The Reverend Author's POSTSCRIPT Christian Reader THese Lines and Labours of Love I trust to the King of Saints and his Subjects and Laws I leave with thee with the wise perusall and consideration of them The issue and success I commit unto the onely wise God and our Father in Jesus Christ desiring all those into whose hands it may come to receive nothing said by me further then they shall finde it consonant to the Word of God in the Scripture specially of the New Testament And that if they dissent in any particulars they will gratifie me with notice thereof together with their Reasons whom they shall finde thankful for such help and ready to embrace any Truth that is yet hidden from me and that no man will suspect that I seek any thing in this Essay but Truth with Peace lest they become judges of evil thoughts Farewell in our Lord Jesus who is the Truth Let his good Spirit lead us and all his Churches and People into wayes of Truth and Peace and establish our goings in those wayes Amen Your assured Friend and Brother J. D. CONSIDERATIONS UPON THE SEVEN PROPOSITIONS Concluded by the SYNOD sitting at BOSTON June 10th 1662. By the Reverend Mr. NICHOLAS STREET Teacher of the Church of Christ at New-haven I. THis Phrase Members of the visible Church in the first Proposition I take to be explained in the second Proposition II. By this Phrase in the second Proposition Their Infant-seed I suppose is meant onely their legitimate infant-seed and is not to be extended to illegitimate children against which a strong Argument may be gathered from Deut. 23.2 III. The second Proposition doth seem to distinguish of Members in particular Churches Some are said to be Confederate visible Believers whereby I suppose is meant such as have immediately and personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves both for themselves and for their seed for it is manifest that it is spoken of such as are made contradistinct to an infant-seed that cannot thus do Some are said to be Their infant-seed i. children in minority c. And how come these to be Members The last words in the Proposition do shew which are Whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant which doth imply at least that they become Members in and by their next Parents covenanting for them Hence the ground of the distinction of Membership into Immediate and Mediate is very clear The Argument may be thus framed Such as is the ratio formaliâ— of the Membership such is the Membership so may it be distinguished and denominated But Confederation which is the ratio formaliâ— of the Membership is immediate in the Parent in the Childemediate Ergo. A difference in Membership is granted both in this second Proposition and some others after and if this distinction to express the difference be not proper let some better be laid down that doth more aptly and fully suit the nature of the thing and we shall receive it In the mean
membership is thâ—s Their membership in their minority wâ—s mâ—dâ—â—te in and by their Parents covenanting for them as themselves say in pag. 14. and answerably they are under tâ—e Watch of the Church in and by their Parents who are immediately and personally uâ—der the Watch D scipline and Government of the Church which is to see that the Parents do their dâ—ty and perfâ—rm their Covenant for them in b iâ—ging them up in the nurture and admoniâ—ion of the Lord Eph. 6.4 and to help them therein Bâ—t by what right are they personally under the Watch Dâ—sciplâ—nâ— and Government of the Church Noâ— by their Parents Covenant for that was theirs onely in their infâ—â—cy and minority because then they were not capable of covenanting for themselves personâ—lly It remains then that when grown up they mâ—st be eithâ—r not members of the Church personally or members by their personal covenâ—nting for themselves and theirs as other adult persons must be who offer themsâ—lves to Church-fellowshâ—p Else though they were members oâ— the same Church with their Parents in their infâ—ncy and minority yet they continuâ— not members when grown up not are pâ—rsonally under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church by their owâ— fault But they say the contrary is manifest Therefore let us examine their Argumâ—nts Arg. 1. Chiâ—dren wâ—â—e under Patriarchal and Mosaical Diâ—câ—pl ne of olâ— Gen. 18.19 21.9 10 12. Gal. 5.3 and therefâ—â—e under Congâ—egâ—â—â—naâ— D câ—pâ—ine now Reply 1. The Tex s alledged do not prove the Antecedent 1. Abrahams command ng his châ—ldren and houshâ—lâ— after him to keep the w y of tâ—e Lord c. doth not necessâ—rily infer Church-dâ—scipline It being enjoyned to all Fathers of Familâ—eâ— in the National Church of â—râ—â— Dâ—ut 6.7 11 19. and in the Congreâ—ational Churchâ—s of Christ under the Go pel 〈◊〉 6.4 9. within tâ—eir own Families where they have not power to exercise Church-discipline or if any fartâ—er thing was meant it may be applied to the command concerning Circumcision as â—en 17 26 27. 2. That in Gen. 21 9. where Ishmael who was bo n after the flesh persecuted Isaâ—c wâ—o was born after the Spitit and was therefore cast out of the Church in Aâ—raâ—â—ms Family is improved by tâ—e Apostle to another purpose in Gal. 4 22-29 nor doth it prove their Proposition For Ishmael was not circumcised at eâ—ghâ— dayeâ— old but when he was thirteen years old and therefore may be thought to be circumcised upon his pâ— s naâ— tâ—kâ—ng hold of thâ— Câ—venaâ—â— as other grown persons in the family d d theâ—e being nothing said in that story to evince the contrary To which opinion Polyâ—aâ—pus Lysâ—rus seemeth to incline If it was so then there is a manâ—fest difference between Ishmaelâ— case and the children of confâ—derates baptized in iâ—fancy for Ishmael was admitted into Churcâ—-fâ—l owshâ—p and full communion by his personal covenanting whereupon he was circumcised being grown up to yâ—ars of discretion and so might be regularly excomâ—un catâ—d which they who never were in fâ—ll communion may not be 2. To prâ—ve that children were under Mosâ—ical discipline of olâ— they p odâ—ce onely one Text Gal. 5.3 where the Apostle speaking of ciâ—cumcâ—sion not as it was given â—f God and rightly used by Abâ—ahaâ— as a seal of tâ—e righteousness which is by faiâ—â— Râ—m 4.11 but as it was abused by false Teachers to establish Justification by the works of the Law testifieth to every mâ—n that is circâ—mcisâ—d â—hat he is a debtor to do he whole Law and â—hat tâ—erâ—fâ—râ— Chrâ—st sâ—all prâ—fâ— them nothing Because he that seekeâ—h Righteousness in Circumcâ—siâ—n is bound by like reason to seâ—k it in other works of the Law Therefore this text doth not prove that for wâ—ich it is allâ—dged viz. tâ—at children circumcisâ—d in infancy were being grown up under the external Mosaical Watch Discipline and Gâ—vernment of the Chuâ—ch Reply 2. Their Argument also is to be denied Because if the Antecedent were more manif â— ly true then it is found tâ— be yet tâ—e Consequent is not good â—or there is not â—ar â—allâ— the like reason of those Patriarc al and Mosaical Câ—urches and Congregatiâ—nal Churches under the Gospel The mâ—mbeâ—s of the Church in the Patriarchâ— fâ—â—â—â—â— were to contiâ—uâ— iâ— communion with the Church from their being circumcised all the dayes of their life until they were cast out as persâ—cuting â—sâ—mael was or voluntarily departed from it as prâ—fane Esau did together with his pâ—sterity which was ordered by Gods special Providence to separate the Ishmaelites and Edomiâ—â— f om the Isâ—aâ—lites of whom as concerning the flesâ— Christ came Rom. 9.5 As for the Church of Israel under Moses 1. We do not reade of any Ordinance g ven them fâ—r casting out their members for sins against the Moral Law as we finde it to be commanded and pract sed under the Gospel 1 Cor. 5.4 5 11. 2. The grown members of the Church of Israeâ— under Moses were brought under such Discipline as was established in that Church by a solemn Covenant whereof all adult persons were by Gods Ordinance to take hold person lly and to have full communion with that Church in all Legal Ordinances D â—t 26.16 17 18. But we have no such Ordinance under the Gospel whereby the grown children of Christian Churches are members in full communion or as meer members brought under Church-discipline and Government in Congregational Churches Arg. 2. They are within the Church or Members thereof and therefore subject to Church-judicaâ—ure 1 Cor. 5.12 R ply The Argument is to be denâ—ed in their sense nor doth the text prove it for that text speâ—keth of men that are members in full communion Such an one wâ—s that â—ncestuous Corinthâ—aâ— till he was taken away from amonâ— them by Excommunication 1 Co. 5.1 2 5. and such were they who were afterward spoken of in ver 11. who were called Brethreâ— in respect â—f thâ—iâ— fâ—ll communion wâ—th tâ—e Church before they were put by the just censure of the Church into that stâ—te wherein the memâ—e s are forbidden to eat with â—hem And of that Church-judâ—catu e he speaks in vâ—r 12. saying D not yâ—â—dâ— them that 〈◊〉 wi hin viâ— in full membersh p as well of all other Ordinances as â—f Censures And indeed seeing Excommunication is the casting out from communion How can any be fâ—rmally excommunicated wâ—o were never in communion and so withâ—n the Church Now themselves deny such comâ—un on to the adult persons whom they call meer members to dâ—stâ—nguish them froâ— members in full communion therefore not subject to Judicature of the Church according to the meaning of that text Arg. 3 They are Di cipâ—â—â— and therefore under D scipline in Châ—â—sts School Mat 28.19 20. Reply Though all Church-members are Disciples infants foeâ—erall in and by their Parents covenanting for them and adult pâ—rsons persâ—â—ally by their covenanting for then selves and t erefore both are under the Discipline of the Church