Abrahams seed as well as of himself ver 7 9 10. Deut. 29.10 11 12. The little ones stood to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God Ezek. 16.8 I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine This is the common language of the Scripture In the New Testament besides other places note that 1 Cor. 12.12 13. where the Apostle proves that the Church is one Body consisting of many Members some weak and of less honour c. By Baptism the Seal of the covenant we are all Baptized into one Body and so as that there might be no Schism in the Body But how shall the Body be one if some be Baptized into this Body as actual and personal Members some not actual nor personal some into a parental covenant some personal What a Schism might this make some saying I am not actually of the Body though Baptized with the same Baptism and there is but one Baptism others may say I am of the Body personally You are no actual Members of it It seemeth the Apostle knew not these Distinctions So Gal. 3.27 28. All are Baptized into Christ and are all one in Christ 2. I finde that the Scripture doth clearly own the Church-seed grown up to adult age to be in Covenant with God and so Members of the Church by virtue of Gods Covenant made with them in their Infancy and that before any personal Covenant as they call it See Deut. 5.2 3. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers but with us even us who are all of us here alive this day Now who were these but that generation numbred by Moses and Eleazar when all that were numbred at the first of twenty years old and upward were dead See Numb 26.63 64. with Deut. 1.3 So that multitudes of these now alive were in their infancy and minority when God made that Covenant with them in Horeb and yet it is expresly said God made that Covenant with them even with their own persons that was a Personal not a Parental Covenant as our Brethren phrase it And this is set out with a double Emphasis 1. Negatively Not with our fathers Why so was it not made with their fathers now dead Yes surely but not onely with them or not with us as wrapped up with or in our fathers 2. With us Affirmatively and again Even with us and a third time With us that are now alive in distinction from their fathers that were dead and all this before that second Covenant Deut. 29. for this is said of them before the Repetition of that Covenant at Horeb to provoke them to the obedience thereof Where then is this Parental Covenant distinguished from Personal so as to make two sorts or degrees of Members 3. I observe That when the Scripture calleth this Covenant The Covenant of their fathers or of the Lord God of their fathers it is never so styled to the diminution or abatement of any Blessing Priviledge or Favour that might come to their seed by it but rather for the advantage and greater good of the Children See Exod. 3.15 16. 6.3 4 5. Lev. 26.44 45. I will not abhor them c. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their Ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt So Deut. 4.31 So that in these and divers other Scriptures we see no such disadvantage to the seed by being under Parental Covenant as our Brethren call it who first bring down Gods Covenant to a Parental Covenant and then make a very slight matter of that also that it cannot capacitate their seed to Baptism Is not sufficient to establish their seed to be a people to God Will not reach beyond the minority of their seed and the like Object But it will be Objected That although these Distinctions be not so expresly found in Scripture-phrase yet the nature of the subject doth admit such Distinctions Ans 1. Some of them cannot consist with the nature of the subject as for a person to be a Member but not actually a person in Covenant baptized into the Body of Christ and yet not personally these are plain Contradictions in adjecto as we say To be A Member and yet No Member As for this of Parental and Personal Covenant so much used it maketh not two Covenants the Covenant is but one and that Gods Covenant as is said there is but a differing modus or manner of entring into it 2. As for the rest of Mediate and Immediate Members Perfect and Imperfect and the rest Suppose that in some sense the subject do admit them yet they can never bear up such Consequences as are built upon them for they are but distributions ex adjunctis and those common Adjuncts to many other Subjects which cannot make any essential difference As when we distinguish the Church into Visible and Invisible it is still but one and the same Church So Church-Covenant into Explicite and Implicite there is still but one sort of Churches or Covenants So the Church is either Incompleat without Officers or Compleat with her Officers yet still a true Church and not two sorts of Churches Such is this case if we put twenty such Distinctions upon Members from common Adjuncts they make no essential difference These things besides much more that might be said to me afford this Conclusion That in these Distinctions and the Consequences thereof there is no Scripture-Light but a Mist to darken the Free and Rich Grace of God shining out in his Covenant to the Faithful and their seed I return now to consider the Reasons of our Brethren to prove that Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their seed for Baptism Their first Reason is For so the Covenant should be intailed to a thousand generations Ans What our Brethrens Parental Covenant can do I know not but surely Gods Covenant is An everlasting Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to their seed viz. They keeping within the Covenant from generation to generation And if the Lord will intall his Covenant and the Means of Grace thereby to such as keep his Covenant to a thousand generations what hurt is in that Blessed be his Name for it Reas 2. Ishmael and Esau had the Parental Covenant but were not Established thereby Ans This was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant for so I must call it but from their sin that continued not in it By this Reason Personal Covenant by Profession of Faith and Repentance is as insufficient for such by their sin may not be established Reas 3. The immediate Parents Vnbelief breaks off the Covenant from their seed Rom. 11.20 21 22. Ans True such Unbelief whereby they obstinately rejected Christ Acts 13.45 46. Mat. 21.42 43. but this was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant to capacitate their seed to Baptism or Establish a People but from their rejecting of the Covenant in rejecting Christ that Seed in whom all
that hath his Promise annexed should either bring such Youth to Repentance or purge the Church of them But it is as true that this Treatise putteth such a sense and meaning upon that Proposition as renders it useless and vain to the ends aforesaid For if they be not actual personal nor immediate Members whereby acts of Church-government should be put forth immediately upon their persons but onely reach them at the second hand viz by their Parents as was said by some in the Meeting-house to which they referre pag. 23. And if Excommunication that healing Medicine of Christ for the destruction of the flesh and saving of the Soâ—l may not touch them as is in the same Page 23. Yea if the Foederal Holiness of their persons and so their Covenant-interest continue no longer then their minority wherein indeed they are scarce capable of any Church discipline as is affirmed Page 37. These things being so let any man judge how it is possible for Church-government to reform such great many and prevailing corruptions of Youth 2. Page 10. our Brethren say It is apparent to all what a corrupt mass of Vnbelievers shall by this change throng into the fellowship of Gods People and the children of strangers uncircumcised in heart shall be brought into Gods Sanctuary to pollute it contrary to Ezek 44.7 9. Ans 1. Whether these Parents in question be to be counted Vnbelievers or not will appear after But if the Charity of our Brethren will allow them no other term I pray Who let them into the fellowship of Gods People Do not our Brethren with us affirm That the Covenant of Abraham belongs unto them and therefore they are to partake of Baptism the Seal of it And say they there is the whole Churches Communion in Baptism as well as in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 12.13 If then they would keep them out of the fellowship of Gods People they must joyn with those that shut that door against all Infants by which they entred for if they be Vnbelievers that are so qualified as in Proposition the fifth then surely they were so when they were Baptized By this with many other Passages our Brethren may see whither their Principles do carry them So that the difference between the Synod and our Brethren is not about their Admission into the fellowship of Gods People but about The Improvement of the Ordinances of Christ for their good while they continue in that fellowship wherein the Synods Doctrine admits them not to acts of Communion with the rest of Gods People but as they are regularly fit neither do the Synod continue them in that fellowship any longer then they walk orderly without deserving the Censures of the Church Ezek. 44. speaks of strangers amongst the children of Israel such as Tobiah Neh 13.4 c. not of any Israelite ver 9. 3. Our Brethren in their sixth Consideration acknowledging The great Deliverances and Wonders that the Lord hath wrought in former times for New England they adde But since the motion of this Change what the Lords dealing hath been and still is we leave to the prudent to judge We may glory in this New Light but we fear it will prove but glorying in our shame Ans I had thought that Gods gracious answer to the Prayers of the Synod 1662. in sending Rain so speedily and sweetly might not onely have taken off that Imputation of the Drought unto the Synod as if it was for their sakes but also it might have stayed our Brethren from such Applications of the Providences of God to their own ends I remember that when the Popish Cantons imputed the death of Zuinglius and â—ecolampadius to the just Judgement of God upon them for causing their Troubles the Historian hath this Observation upon it It is saith he a pious thought to attribute the disposition of every Event to the Providence of God but to determine to what ends those Events are directed by his high Wisdome is not farre from Presumption Men are so straightly and religiously wedded to their own Opinions that they are perswaded God loveth and favoureth them as much as themselves Hist of the Council of Trent p. 60. But if we must needs take notice of the dealing of God with Non-England in reference to this case Can any prudent man say that the Deliverances of New-England are not as gâ—eat and wonderful in these last years and at this day as in former years And as for those afflicting Providences that have lately bâ—faln us have we not had as heavy Strokes many wayes formerly And have we not Sins enough that are evident to humble us under the Lords hand as deserving these and greater evils but we must needs apply them as Judgements of God to this falsly so called Change and brand the constant Doctrine of Gods eminent Messengers amongst us as a New Light that will turn to our shame The Lord forgive these many harsh Censures of the Brethren Thus have I passed through this unpleasing part of my Work wherein if by clearing the innocent any thing doth reflect upon the Accusers I hope the equal-minded Reader will excuse me considering that the Name of God is named upon the Elders and Churches of New-England and would have suffered in them should not such unjust Aspersions be wiped off them by a just Apologie Had our Brethren followed the Example of the Synod with like Love Tenderness and Moderation as is expressed towards them in their Preface the world had not been so Scandalized as I fear it is by these Contests and I had spared much of this labour Oh! when shall we see Brethren manage such Disputes with that Brotherly Love Ingenuity and Endeavours to finde out the Truth as becometh the Cause of CHRIST and without such harsh Reflections upon mens persons The want of this is a Lamentation and shall be for a Lamentation CHAP. II. Concerning our Brethrens Answer to the main Question COncerning The Order of this Treatise I need not trouble the Reader nor concerning their two Propositions premised Who doubteth that Baptism is a Seal of the Gospel and to be administred according to Gospel-Rules Or that the surest way to end Controversies is to finde out how it was in the beginning Onely these Rules are too general and have a like influence into all Controversies about Gospel-Ordinances I shall therefore endeavour to clear up from Scripture two or three Propositions that have a more near and immediate respect to the Question now in debate It is no question between us Whether adult persons to be joyned to the Church and to be Baptized should hold forth Faith and Repentance to the judgement of Charity and that in some particular visible Church nor Whether the Infant-seed of such are to be Baptized But the very Hinge whereupon our Debate turneth lieth in these two things 1. Whether the Infant-seed of all Church-members ought to be Baptized 2. What it is that Cuts off any from his Membership
case of these in question who were in Covenant with God and his Church and had the Seal of Baptism set thereto before Genes 17.7 1 Cor. 12.13 and therefore this Owning of the Covenant is onely a manifestation of their continuance in it And hence this is not the Form of their Membership but a Duty of their Covenant and doth not in it self fit them for full Communion except withall they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God râ—quireth thereunto A Youth that hath the constâ—tuent causes of a Man Soul and Body with some Understanding and Reason is not thereby capable of all Priviledges of a man as To Marry Give good Assurances of Lands and the like An adult person received into the Church by personal Covenant is not fit for the Lords Supper meerly because he hath Covenanted for except he hath suitable qualifications he will Eat judgement to himself Reas 2. Because those that were admitted by personal Covenant in the Primitive Church continued in full Communion Acts 2.41 Ans There is not the same reason for they were admitted in adult age and also indued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost These being admitted in Infancy do onely by Owning the Covenant manifâ—st their continuance therein The Indians newly converted and holding forth so much Faith and Repentance as may admit them into the Church and Baptism might yet need further Preparation to the Lords Supper not having such eminent gifts Reas 3. Because this Doctrine presupposeth that what Knowledge Faith and Repentance is required in adult persons coming to Baptism is not sufficient to the Lords Supper Ans This Doctrine doth not suppose it for it speaketh onely of such adult persons as were Baptized in infancy not to be Baptized in adult age It supposeth onely that persons Baptized in infancy and continuing in the Covenant and visible Church may yet be unable to Examine themselves and discern the Lords Body And hence the Reasons which here follow touch not this case And it is well if some of them do not argue Against the Baptizing of Inâ—ants or That Infants Baptized may partake of the Lords Supper CHAP. VI. Concerning the fifth Proposition Propos 5. CHurch-members who were admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church their children are to be Baptized This Proposition say our Brethren doth stumble us most Their Reasons are Reas 1. Because there being three Expressions propounded this swerveth further then the other from the Scripture Ans Be it granted that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded these onely in conclusion were Assented unto But if our Brethren judge That they all swerved from the Scripture what matter is it which swerved most from it If this swerveth most they have the more advantage of Dispute against it But seeing they stumble so much at this I shall easily remove this Block out of their way Obj. First say they in the former Expressions it was required they should understand the Grounds of Religion here no more then the Doctrine of Faith So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law and so have no knowledge of Sin of the Duties of Holiness Righteousness Sabbaths c. Ans As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion both in the acceptation of Scripture and of Orthodox Divines Phil. 1.27 when the Apostle exhorts them to strive for the Faith of the Gospel might they let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law or any other Grounds of Religion 2 Tim. 4.7 when Paul saith He had kept the Faith did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law and other Grounds of Religion Jude ver 3. Contend for the Faith was not that Faith opposed to the fiâ—â—â—y Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law and therefore surely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Consent with the Assembly of Divines in England in The Doctrine of Faith and the Assembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declaration of their Faith and Order do they not mean by the word Faith all the Grounds of Religion excepting onely matters of Order But what need more Instances when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel I dare not be so uncharitable to think that such persons do not hold fast The Doctrine of the Moral Law and all The Grounds of Religion Surely the Synod intended it so Obj. 2. In the second Expression it was required that they should be Examined of their sense of their need of Christ and desires after him here only of their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith which the Devils may have Aâ—s But if such sense of their need of Christ and desires after him should not upon such Examination appear but this Assent to the Doctrine of Faith with all the other Qualifications Might not this suffice to shew their Continuance in the visible Church What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth it is not free but inforced and they want all the other Qualifications that these have Obj. 3. The former required that they should give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into here onely that they are not Scandalous in life The former viz. Offences comprehend Original Sin or any other committed against God or man Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lifâ— noteth onely Notorious sins and a course therein Ans That they stumble at this must needs arise from a very rigid Principle whereof this Treatise hath too many For who ever took up that of Original Sin as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that or for all such Words or Actions as are Offences to God or man A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alledged Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters for in many things we offend all and therefore pity and bear with one another and be not so rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence If this were not so what use were there of those Rules of Love 1 Cor. 13.7 Love beareth all things Gal. 6.2 Bear one anothers burthens Col. 3.13 Forbearing one another 2. It is evident Luke 17.1 2 3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals Woe to him that scandalizeth one of these little ones and Impenitency in any such Scandal deserveth the highest Censure but repented of ceaseth to be a Scandal or Offence Mat. 18. yea although such a Scandal should not be a notorious sin nor continued in but in one act So that Not to be scandalous in life is full as large
the house of Israeâ— yea the children to whom Bread did belong Mat. 15.24 26. These things were spoken of the Jews in general whereof those Mat. 3. Joh. 8. were a part They were indeed of the Devil not of God in respect of the inward state and saving good of the Covenant yet still in the outward Covenant and under the Means of Grace 2. If those Maâ— 3. Joâ— 8. had been discovenanted of God doth it follow that these in question are so Are these A generation of Vipers Lyars Murtherers c that live without Scandall Submit to the Government of Christ c If the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptized of John do these so that being Bâ—ptized themselves desire it also for their Seed and that in such in way by Owning Gods Covenant Giving up themselves to God Submitting themselves to Discipline c If Mr. Cotton did count such as Ishmael and Esau Self-murtherers doth it follow that these are such that take hold of the Covenant and that in some measure of truth for ought is yet proved to the contrary 3. I must not pass over this Rigid and Dangerous Principle without further Examination The Position of our Brethren is That God himself doth discovenant or cast out of his visible Church such as bring not forth good fruit Mat. 3. that commit sin are Lyars c. Joh. 8. and that without any act of Church-censure Against this I argue 1. That these were not discovenanted of GOd I proved before And it doth appear That the Providence of God continued them under Church-priviledges and Ordinances at least till Gospel-Churches were erected after the Ascension of Christ 2. If the Lord Jesus hath ordained and commanded Church-discipline for the saving of Offenders and the Purging of his Church then he doth not discovenant such without Church-censures But so it is Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5. Therefore he doth it not himself without them The reason of the Consequence is Because if God himself did discovenant them Church-censures were useless and vain To what end should the Church cut off one that is already a Non-member what have they to do with such as are without why should Corinth be blamed for suffering that Leaven if God himself had cast it out 3. This supposed Discovenanting by God himself frustrates the great and chief End of Church discipline viz. To heal and save the Sinner for the Church having now no power over them they must perish being without the Means of their Recovery except God restore them immediately at least they are deprived of that special Means appointed and blessed of God to that end 4. What confusion would this bring into the Church For how shall the Church know when God hath discovenanted this or that man whether so soon as he hath committed such sins or how long Gods patience will bear with him And how shall the Church prove against any such That God hath indeed discovenanted him These things and much more that might be said may put our Brethren to finde some other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1 Joh. 3.10 and such like Scriptures Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either child on of the Covenant or strangers from it Eph. 2.12 Holy or unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 within the Church or without 1 Cor. 5.12 such as have God for their God or without God in the world Eph. 2.12 But he that considereth the terms of the Proposition will not affirm the latter and the former being granted inferreth their right to Baptism Ans The Assumption is denied because the children in question discovenant themselves not keeping the conditions of the Covenant Not walking with God Not loving God c. Deut. 7.9 as they that forsake the Covenant of their fathers Deut. 29.25 And what do these that come not up to the conditions of it God may cast off for sins of Omission 1 Sam. 15. so for not believing in God Reply This being the very Hinge whereupon chiefly this Question doth turn viz. Whether and how these Church-members are cut off from their Membership in the visible Church I desire the Reader to observe well the Answer of our Brethren and their Reasons thereof Sometime they say God Discovenanteth them which hath been examined Sometime that They Discovenant themselve which also hath been spoken to before To this Refuge they now again betake themselves Their Reason here alledged I shall consider which standeth thus Church-members which do not come up to the conditions of the Covenant viz. To walk with God Love God keep his Commandments Believe in God c. do Discovenant themselves But thâ—se Church-members described in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God Love God c. Therefore they do Discovenant themselves The Proposition they would prove from Gen. 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psa 105.8 Deut. 29.25 To this I answer 1. By denying the Proposition As for the Proofs Genes 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psaâ— 105. These Scriptures prove it is the duty of such as enter into Covenant with God to Walk with God To be upright To love God c. and that God performs to such the Saving Benefits of the Covenant but they do not prove that simply by the neglect of thâ—se duties especially without Impenitence added they do actually Dâ—â—covenant themselves out of the visible Church and from the Priviledges thereof and the Means of Grace therein The gross neglect of the duties of the Covenant persisted in obstinately and impenitently may deserve Censures but that the want of such graces and duties of the Covenant doth actually cut off such from the visible Church is an Assertion never heard of in the Book of God nor I think in any the best Reformed Church to this day Surely Ishmael and Esau did not Walk with God Love God Believe in God in our Brethrens sense yet they continued in the Church till for their manifest Profaneness the one was cast out by Gods appointment and the other rejected Heb. 12.17 When Deut. 7.9 Moses said that The Lord keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him c. were there not multitudes in Israel that came not up to these duties of the Covenant in our Brethrens sense that yet were Gods Holy People Royall Nation enjoying all Church-priviledges and so all along through the story of all the Scriptures Deut. 29.25 renders indeed the cause of the great Plagues upon Israel to be their forsaking the Covenant But what was that forsaking of the Covenant was it their not coming up to these terms of it to Walk with God Love God Believe in God with a visible saving Faith Nothing less but because they went and served other gods and worshipped them ver 26. As for the case of Saul 1 Sam. 15. whom the Lord rejected from being King for so gross a disobedience to an express and particular Command yet we reade not that he was cast out of the visible Church Nor doth it
to God by Christ according to it not destroying their Profession by Errours everting the Foundation or unholiness of Conversation are Members of the visible Church Now it cannot be denied that the persons described in the fifth Proposition of the Synod are such for they profess their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith and subjection to the Rules and Discipline of Christ they give up themselves to God own the Covenant do not destroy their Profession by Errours nor unholiness of life holding the Doctrine of Faith and not being scandalous in life So that for ought that appears that Assembly agreeth rather with the Synod then with the Dissenters 2. In that our Brother maketh such a distinction between the third part of the Stars of New-England swept down and A few Names in New-England that hold fast the Name of God and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel How well this Comparison aâ—reeth with the Rules of Charity Humility and Modesty I shall leave to the judgement of others 3. I must enquire into the Truth and Grounds of so deep a Charge laid upon more then the third part of the Stars the Lights set up in the Churches of New-England Is it the present Doctrine of this Synod inlarging the Subject of Baptism beyond the Opinion of the Dissenters that is their fall from Heaven And the more strict Opinion of our Brethren the Character of those few Names remaining that hold fast the Faith and Order of the Gospel as indeed it seemeth to be so For 1. This is the occasion taken up to make this Comparison And 2. Those other Imputations of Forsaking former Pâ—actices Recanting of Elders New Conversion of New-England in reference to this Doctrine seem to intimate as much 3. And that Expression of a few Names holding fast the Faith and Order of the Gospel doth plainly intimate that not only more then a third part of the Stars but also the generality of New England are greatly departed from the Faith and Order of the Gospel and that at the present in the judgement of this Author which is so high a strain that I am loth to say what might be spoken of it Now if this be our Fall from Heaven it is our comfort that we are not yet faln so farre as many bright Stars of the first Magnitude that have shined gloriously in the Churches such as Calvin Cartwright Perkins Ames and hundreds more whose judgement is well known to be larger in this Point then the Synod doth hold forth And we are faln no further then blessed Câ—ton Thâ—lip Shepard Roâ—ers and others of the Bay Churches Famous Hooker and Stone of Connecticoâ— Prudden of New-Haven Partridge and Newman of Plimouth with divers other Lights in Nâ—w-England of whom I am perswaded that they are gotten to Heaven in that Opinion whereby we are supposed to be swept down from Heaven But let this Brother beware lest himself and his few Names be not judged by some to be swept down from Heaven also who hold an Opinion That Infants of the Church are to be Baptized which is not so strict a Tenent as they would have 4. But if this so great a Charge be laid upon more then the third part of the Stars upon any other ground let it be considered whether the Rules of Charity and Gospel-Order would not require that he should first have Convinced his Brethren of their Faâ— yea indeed of their supposed Errour about the Subject of Baptism before he should cast so great a Scandal upon them before the face of the world even an Heretick may have two Admonitions before rejection However whether it be this or that ground surely this course doth not a little darken that loud Profession of our Brother's holding fast to the Order of the Gospel It hath been our portion all along to go through evil Reports from the mouthes of many discontented persons and corrupt Opinionists Familists Anabaptists Quakers and the like but I little expected such things as these from so near a Friend and Brother I will not deny or excuse the Declining of many Professors to corrupt Opinions to the World Loose Wayes and the like Neither will I justifie all things in all the Elders of New-England failings may be found in Judgement and Practice and perhaps some may be larger in their Judgement concerning The Subject of Baptism then the Synod doth hold forth But God forbid we should judge them to be swept down from Heaven that differ from us in greater matters then these or for such Blemishes as are incident to good men But whether the generality of the Stars in New-England Churches be not yet in the right hand of Christ shining in their Orbs with the light of Heavenly Doctrine and Christian Conversation I appeal to the Consciences of all the sober-minded People of God in the Country yea and also to the Conscience of the Author of this Preface himself who gives this Testimony of the Elders in the Synod being more then half the Elders of all the Churches of New-England pag. 5. viz. That they were able learned and godly and again Eminent in Learning and Piety However it be it is a very little thing to be judged of men whether approved or condemned Concerning that which is said of Mr. Parker by name for Publishing a Book in favour of Episcopacy our Brother doth or might know that the Book is distastful also to his Brethren as well as to himself yet the approved Learning and Piety of the person might have called for better language As for that Imputation That the Common-Prayer-Book findeth some Advocates in New-England who can finde Stakes and Materials to edifie Gods People in a Congregational Church as is said I wonder that a man of Piety and Gravity should venture to publish such things to the world upon As is said and to what end is it except to cast dirt upon his Brethren Much more then is true is said of that and other things The Lord help such as profess such stedfastness in the Faith and Order of the Gospel to walk up to the Rules of Gospel-Order and Charity more then this Brother hath done Thus much to the first Preface Concerning the second To the General Court I shall Animadvert onely upon two or three Passages of it And 1. Whereas pag. 8. they tell the Honoured Court That they have yielded and voted with the rest so farre that rightly considered and practised it would silence all sad Complaints against the many great and prevailing corruptions of Youth amongst us Ans It is true that one of the chief of our Dissenting Brethren did propound and earnestly promote the third Proposition viz. That the Infant-seed of the Church are Members of the same Church with their Parents and when they are grown up are personally under the Watch and Government of the Church and this rightly practised would indeed tend much to the end aforesaid for so the Church by an Ordinance of Christ