any Church-censure In the place here cited out of Parker de Pelit Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 16. pag. 169. Verstius condemns Bellarmine because he affirmed such ad Ecclesias Christi propriâ— dicâ—am reuerà pertinerè to be indeed of the true Church How strangely is this misapplied to the matter in hand as if one should say that all that want true sauing Faith have loâ—t their Church-membership without any Censure and then alledge for the Proof of it the Protestants Doctrine that the true mystical or Catholick Church consists onely of Elect Believers how evident is it that this is not at Rem For as for an External Membership in the Church which is the matter that we have in hand what is more known then that all our Divines do unanimously acknowledge it to be the portion of multitudes that have not sâ—ving Graâ—e and that even such as have been born and brought up in the Church if they fall into manifest incorrigible wickedness they should be removed out of the Church by Excommunication but otherwise they are still within although many of them be destitute of those inward qualifications that should render them living and true Members of the Church mystical Falsum est saith Dr. Ames Bel. Enerv. Tom 2. Lib 2. Cap. 1. Internas virâ—utes requirâ— i. e. absolute requiri à nobis ut aliquis sit in ecclesiâ quoad visiblem ejus statum And see Ames Med. Lâ—b 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 11. They that are Christians by proffession onely saith Iunius are truely of the Church according to the external consideration thereof though not according to the internal wherein â—es the truth of Christianity Animad in Bellar. de Eccles. Cap. 10. Art 28. And in Cap. 9. Art 1. he saith We acknowledge there be grievâ—â— sinners in this viz the visible Church in which if they were not we should in vain trouble our selues about their Correctiâ—n and Excommunication vid. Calvin institut Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 7 9 13. Polan 〈◊〉 Lib. 7. Cap. 8. But it were a needless labour to cite many Testimonies in so manifest a case When Whitgift had said that the Church is full of wicked persons Drunkards Idolaters Papists Atheists c Cartwrâ—ght Answers him as Paâ—ker in the very place here quoted notes that that was because the Discipline of Christ was not 〈…〉 â—â—ewing that he would have even such not to be left to their own self-felony if being Church-members they fall to such evils but to be cut off by Christs appointed Discipline And Cartwright in his second Reply Part. 1. p. 246. upon that in 1 Cor. 5.11 among other passages hath these words It is one case of him that hath given his name to the Gospel afterward slideth from that profession to Idolatry and another of him that never gave it but hath been from his Infancy an Idolater for the first cannot be severed from the Church without solemn Sentence of Excommunication see also Pag. 242 247 248. But the Preface addes And we humbly conceiue that thus much is held forth by these Scriptures Heb. 10.25 1 Joh. 2.19 Jud. 19. Ans. That the sin of those who forsake Church-assemblies separate themselves from them wander into wayes of Heresie and Apostacy is grievous and consequently calleth for Church-admonition and incorrigibleness therein for excommunication this may be gathered from those Scriptures but to gather thence that such forsakers separatisie and wanderers do thereby become Non-members so as that the Church should not need not or may not follow them with any Censure is a strange Collection and would if granted at once overthrow all Discipline For what is more easie then for an offender to forsake the Assembly to separate himself c and then the Church shall have no more to do with him so the process of Discipline appointed in Mat. 18. should never take place What though there be no mention of Church-censure in the Texts alledged must we binde the Holy-Ghost to mention all Truths and Rules together in one Text or Context what the sin of such persons is those Texts shew but what Discipline is to be used to Church-sinners this is held forth in other Scriptures If the Apostle in 1 Iob. 2.19 have reference to Ebion and Cerinthus and such like Hereticks as is commonly conceived vid. Magdeburg Centur. 1. Lib. 2. p. 485 surely he was not without care to have due Testimony by Church-censure born against them yea when as he does so strictly injoyn all Christians absolutely to avoid them 2 Iohn ver 7 10. doth not that import an injunction to the Churches unto which they did belong to Excommunicate them if they had not already done it as when Paul forbids them to eat with such an one 1 Cor. 5.11 he means it as a consequent upon and so implying an injunction of Church-censure vid. Dickson in a Thes 3.14 in Rom. 16.17 in 2 Tim. 3 5. Preface Againe how came Esau to lose his Membership We read not that he was excommunicate therefore it remains that he discovenanted and so dis-Membered himself And how came the Children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their Membership It was not by Censure Ans. 1. Should We thus Reason you would call for Gospel-Rules and Proofs which we may with more reason do in this case because proper Excommunication is plainly and expresly ordained under the Gospel Concerning the use of which there is not so much clearness in the Old Testament 2. The particular extraordinary Revelation of Gods minde concerning Esau together with his being denied the Patriarchal Blessing of which the Apostle saith He was rejected Heb. 12.17 may well be looked at as equivalent to an ordinary Excommunication under the Gospel 3. The Posterity of Abraham by Keturah did in process of time lose their Membership by losing the Essentials of true Religion and to expect personal Excommunication when a whole People falls away to Idolatry and so becomes Lo-amâ—â— is a vain thing But it is a great mistake to think that the particular persons mentioned in Genes 25.2 3 4. yea or their next generations did cease to be Members of the visible Church They were Providentially removed out of the Land of Canaan which was reserved for Israel and were permitted by degrees to lose Religion which was by Promise to be continued and established in the line of Isaac and Iacob so as that in the time of Moses the Nations being by that time generally fallen to Idolatry Religion and Worship was so fixed in the Nation and Church of Israel as that all that would serve God aright must become Proselytes to it which before that time was not necessary But Religion and Salvation and consequently Church-membership according to the Domestick way of administration then used did for a considerable time continue among the Children of Abraham by Keturah as the story of Iob intimates he and his Friends being justly conceived to have been partly of that Stock And concerning Iethro who
same qualifications that Mr Cotton intendeth according to Hâ—â—â—erm of Diâ—cipliâ—e Cap. â—2 Sect. 7. The word Continued is indeed added in pag 19. though not so in pag. 〈…〉 that Book but it is added in a Copulative way Continued and Confirmed wâ—ere all the parts must be taken together to make up the truth of such an Axiome Besides that the pâ—râ—ons in question do make soâ—e profession of Faith and Repentance i e. in an Initial and Educational way so as sufficeth to their continuance in the visible Church though it may not at present suffice to full Communion Mr. Cotton was farre from conceiving that such non-scandalous persons as are the Subject of our Question are to be cut off or looked upon as cut off from continuance in the Church as besides what is cited of his in the Synods Preface may appear plainly out of this very Treatise which is well called by our Brethren An Excellent Treatise of the Holiness of Church-members for pag. 3. men â—oning a distinction of Mr. Rutherâ—urds That a Church may be termed no Church no Spouse jure meritò quoad vocationem passivam in respect of bad deserving and their not answering to the Call of God on their parts and yet the same Church remain de 〈◊〉 â—or aliter quoad vocationem Det activam the Spouse and Bride of Câ—rist He saiâ—â— This Distinction I can admit if it be understood of a Church hat hath formerly answered the Call of God and submitted to the Ministry of the Gospel at least in outward propession of the fundamentals of sound Doctrine and pure Worship for such a Churâ—h though they or â—heir children may afterward degenerate and go a wherâ—ng from God in Doctrine and Worship yet God in his patience and bounty is not wont so â—con to cast off â—hem as they cast off him The next generation after 〈◊〉 â—eâ— a â—horing from Goâ— and fâ—rsâ—ck the Lord God of their fathers and served Baalim yet still the Lord accounted them his People and sent them Iudges and Prophets to restore and recover them And pag 19 20. he mentions distinctly by way of Consectary from the Proposition here cited by our Brethren two or three sorts of persons wâ—o are not to be continued in the Churchâ— though born and baptized in it viz. 1. The grosly Ignorant of the first Principles and Foundations of Religion 3. Persons notoriously Scandalous for any gross crime as Iâ—latry Adultery c. but not a word of such an intereâ—ce as our Brethren sâ—em to make viz. the discontinuance or unchurching of such a sort of persons as are the Subject of our Question And it is observable all along in that Book that he pleads not for the un-membering of any that are once in the Church yea though they came in but by a Membership received in Infancy for of such he often expresly speaks and such were the Members of those Churches he disputes upon in Answer to his Opponents but onely such as are scandalous and wicked and deserve Excommunication and he would have them also un-membered by Excommunication and not by a Self-felony onely See pag 8 15 28 32 56 57 60. Preface Renowned Parker steaking of the interpretation of those words Laying on of Hands in Heb 6.2 cites many judicious Writers whose judgement he expresseth in words to this purpose That they who were baptize in minority when they are grown up after that the Church had approved their faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands they were admitted Members of the Church this was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times as Parker saith Now we demand how they can be admitted as Members who are already as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Churâ—h But the Ancient Doctrine was That Children who were baptized in minority after they shall come to proâ—ess their faith so as to be accepted of the Church may be admitted as Members Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church Answ. Whether the words Tanquam membra Admittehantur be Parkers own words or Calvins for he speaks as if he cited only Calvins words yet we â—inde not those expressions used by Calvin either on Heb. 6.2 or in his Institutions De Confirmatione though in both places is the substance of the thing which Parker alledgeth from him the matter is not great It is manifest from the whole discourse that Parker is there speaking of such as are admitted to full communion as we call it If he there used the term Members for Persons admitted to the Lords Table and to all Church-priviledges it is no harder phrase then hath been used in this Country for many years yet that argues not that we do or that Parker did think Children to be no members before It is observed of the Ancients that they spâ—ke more securely before the Rise of Pelagius men are less curious in Expression when they speak about Points of which no Controversie is moved and wherein their judgements are otherwise sufficiently known As what is more abudantly and universâ—lly agreed on among all our Divines then this that The Children of Believers are Members of the Church or a part of it Parker within six Lines of the place cited calls them in Ecclesiâ nati Born in the Church and opposeth them to Extranei i. e. to such as are without Dr. Ames gives it as the Doctrine of the Protestants The Infants of the faithful unless they were to be accounted Members of the Church they cuâ—â— not to be baptiâ—ed Vrsin and Pareus say Omnes iique soli c. All and onely thâ—â—e are to be baptized by Christs Command who are his Disciples Mat. 28.19 i. e. those that are and one to be accounted Members of the visible Church whether they be adult persons professing Faith and Repentance or Infants born in the Church Again The Infants of Christians do as well as the adult belong to the Covenant and Church of God and are therefore to be baptized because the whole Church ought to be baptized C. techet Explicat pag. 367. This truth is joyntly 〈…〉 Protestant aâ—d Reformed Churches as appears in the Harmony of their Confessions The Children of tâ—e faithful are Gods peculiar people and in the Church of God 〈…〉 pag 397. Reckoned in the number of Gods people Bohemian 〈◊〉 pag. 399. God doth together with the Parents account their posterity also to be of the Church Fâ—â—nc C. â—â—mon pâ—g 401. They condemn the Anabaptists who hold tha◠〈◊〉 â—e no◠〈◊〉 the Church â—f God Confession of Auspurg pag. 404. Infants belong to the Covenant anâ— Church of God as well as the adult saith the Palâ—tinate Catechism Queâ—â— â—4 Now â—â—is being so that it is the manifest Doctrine of all our Divines that Children are Meâ—bers â—f the Church and neither did they imagine that when â—dâ—lt they drop â—ff by a Self â—â—lony or we know not how For
the Gospel yet the present defect hereof doth not put the Parent out of the Church nor exclude his Children from Membership or from the Initiatory Seal of it no more then a-like defect did then We might also minde the case of one that hath been in full Communion but falling into Offence is under publick Admonition for it Is not he in a state of unfitness taking it for want of actual fitting qualifications for the Lords Supper yet this will not debarre his Childe from Baptism because he is not yet cut off from Membership Neither doth his having once been in full Communion alter the case or render him more in a state of fitness then the Parent in question is for the one is a Member as well and as truely as the other and to be declined and fallen off from Supper-qualifications and debarred from the Lords Table for open Offence is worse then for a young man simply not to have attained thereunto it is at least Ecclesiasticalâ—y worse We speak not of what the inward state before God may be but that it is worse in foro Ecclesiae appears Because the Church hath had and seen cause to dispense a publick Censure in the one case but not in the other Now if a person may retain his Membership and so derive Baptism-right to his Children notwithstanding his personal unfitness for the Lords Supper in the former case why not as well nay much more in the latter But let it seriously be considered whether there be any warrant in all the Scripture to make the baptizing of the Childe to depend upon the Parents actual fitness for or admission to the Lords Supper What fitness for the Lords Supper had those that were baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christs Disciples at his appointment in the beginning of his publick Ministry What fitness had the Iaylor when himself and all his were baptized after an hours Instinction wherein probably he had not so much as heard any thing of the Lords Supper The teaching of which followed after Discipling and Baptizing as is hinted by that order in Matth. 28.19 20 and by the ancient practice of not teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized as is witnessed by Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 13 14. Albaspinans apud Baxter of Confirmation pag. 132. We constantly read in the story of the Acts that persons were Baptized immediately upon their first entrance into Membership but we never read that they did immediately upon their first Membership receive the Lords Supper which strongly argues that Membership and Baptism the Seal thereof is separable even in the adult from full Communion And that a man may have his Children baptized as the Iaylor and others had and yet not presently come but need further instruction and preparation before he come to the Lords Supper So farre is Baptism from being inseparable from immediate admission to the Lords Supper that we reade of no one no not of the â—dult in all the New Testament thaâ— was admitted to the Lords Supper immediately upon his Baptism from the first Baptism of Iohn to the end of the Acts of the Apostles There is but one place that sounds as if it were quickly after viz. Acts 2.41 42. which is here alledged by our Brethren But to that 1. There is no word about the Lords Supper in Peters Sermon the Heads whereof are in that Chapter set down though tâ—ere is somewhat of the other Sacrament of Baptism ver 38. and upon glad receiving 〈◊〉 is word they were baptized immediately ver 41. 2. Hence there must be some time afterward for instructing them in the doctrine and use of the Lords Supper as Paul nad some time for that aâ— Corinth 1 Cor. 11.23 with Acts 18.11 before their admission tâ—ereunto or participation thereof and so much is â—â—â—imated in the Text when it s said They after their being added and baptized continued in or gave sedulous attendance to the Apostles Doctrine fiâ—st and then Breaking of Bread There was some time of gaining further acquaintance with Christ and with his Wayes and Ordinances and with this in special by the Apostles Doctrine and Instruction between their baptizing and their participation of the Supper some time we say more or less and that that was attained in a very little time then under those plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit requires usually a much longer time now in ordinary Dispensation The Preface proceeds to strengthen their second Reason by Testimonies and the Assertion which they seem to intend the Proof of by these Testimonies is a very strange one viz. this Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary These words as they are here set down do speak as if in the Primitive times Baptism was not extended unto Infants or at least no more nor sooner then the Lords Supper was given unto them which is here presently well acknowledged to have been a grievous Errour Well might the Anabaptist triumph if this could be proved which indeed never was nor can be But we are willing to believe that our Brethrens meaning is though it be not so expressed that the Subject of Baptism in Ancient times was not of a greater Latitude as to the Adult then the Lords Supper i. e. that no adult persons might have Baptism for themselves or for their Children but such as were also admitted to the Lords Supper But of this also we must say That we finde not any thing that proves it but much to the contrary And though we have not met with any that have purposely handled this Point touching the different extent of these two Sacraments yet we finde enough to shew us That the Churches of Christ in all especially in the best Ages and the choicest Lights therein both Ancient and Modern have concurred and met in this Principle as a granted and undoubted Truth that baptism is of larger extent then the Lords Supper so as that many that are within the visible Church may have Baptism for themselves or at least for their Chilâ—ren who yet ought not presently to partake of the Lords Supper or who do at present want actual fitness for it The Witnesses above cited tell us that in Ancient times they did not so much as impart any thing to the Caâ—echumeni about the Lords Supper till after their Baptism And if Hanmer have rightly observed even the Adult after their Baptism must have Confirmation before they partaked of the Lords Supper Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 15 22. And vid. pag. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Perfectus among the Ancients is as much as with us one in full Communion but none were by them recâ—oned to be 〈◊〉 in the Rank of perfect Christians that had not received the holy Ghost either in extraordinary Gifts or in special confirming Grace See Hanmer of Confirmat
the above mentioned practice of Antiquity in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized Indeed as the Darkness and Corruption of the times increased Baptism was not onely deferred till Easter as is here said but till death which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism pag. 182. and we suppose will not be approved by any The Arausiacan Councils 19 Canon doth not concern the matter of Baptism as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists Cent. 5. pag. 907. But however it be it is of small moment The over-long holding off of adult Converts from Baptism that we sometimes reade of in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a manifest deviâ—tion from the Apostolical practice We finde also that in Austin's time and some ages after they gave the Lords Supper to Infants yet then we suppose they would give both Sacraments to some Infants whose Parents they debarred from the Lords Supper But if it was indeed a grievous errour to administer the Lords Supper to Infants as is here rightly said by our Brethren how then is Baptism of no greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper Yea let any man shew a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to Infants and not the Lords Supper if the very saâ—e qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other we say absolutely requisite for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receiveth Baptism for himself or for his Children is endued with the better and the more comfortable it is As for that of Iuel That Baptism is as much to be reverenced â—s the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And that which follows That former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Answ. To assert that Scripture Rules make the Subject of Baptism larger then the Subject of the Lords Supper this doth not detract from the Reverence of Baptism nor render it an Ordinance of a less sacred nature as is here insinuated The Word and Prayer are Ordinances of a very sacred nature and to be highly reverenced and yet many may be admitted unto them that may not be admitted unto Sacraments The Sacredness of every Ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by Divine Institution But the proper ends and uses of one Ordinance may by Divine Institution be such as may admit more to partake of it then of another and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired But the Preface addes Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a farre larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one Practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians Answ. Whether it have been onely a late or novell Notion to make Baptism larger then the Lords Supper let the Reader judge when he hath considered the Testimonies before alledged with many more that might have been added thereunto But we are so farre from looking upon a different Latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian Principle or Anti-Congregational as that we perswade our selves the Congregational way cannot long stand without it For if we deny this and administer Baptism to none but those whose Parents do partake of the Lords Supper and so are in full Communion then we must either make full Communion very large which in the Congregational-way where Brethren have so great an interest in Church-transactions will soon ruine all or else make Baptism and consequently the Compass of the visible Church so strait as will never stand before Rational and Scriptural men yea we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church that are in a visible state of Salvation which is absurd for to deny persons Baptism for themselves or Children is to deny them to be within the Compass of the visible Church seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with Church-Membership But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church who were once in and are by no Rule to be put out nay whom God as we may charitably hope taketh into Heaven when they die and that as a fruit of his Covenant-grace which is the case of many of our Children who are not yet come up to full Communion But so much for the second Reason of our Brethrens Dissent The third follows 3. The Parents of the Children in question are not Members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel rules â— because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Which is former proved Because if they be Members then they would be a true Church though all their Parents were dead and then they must have power of Voting in Church-affairs which is denied to them by the Synod Ans. .1 It seems by what is here said that our Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant and that all that never were so are not members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules If this be so then what is become of Childrens Membership which the Apologist before in Answer to Objection Second took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of It seems our Children neither are nor ever were Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Is it come to this that Children are not Members of any Instituted Church How then are they Members of the Catholick visible Church or are they no Members at all the former our Brethren fancy not as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia pag. 19. the latter then remains to be the conclusion Neither will it salve it to say they were Members in Minority though they be not Members now when they are Adult for if all those that were never under any explicite and personal Covenant be no Members of any Instituted Church and if Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant both which are here said then no Children no not while in Minority are Members of any Instituted Church For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Dr. Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ that Children are Members of an Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules and that they are under personal Covenant i. e. personally 〈◊〉 into Covenant by God according to his Gospel-rules though they have not performed the act of Covenanting in their own persons Yea under explicite Covenant also if the Parents Covenanting was explicite Deut. 29. So Ames They are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same profession with their Parents Though we take it for a Principle granted by Congregational men with one consent that Implicite Covenant preserves the being of a true Church and so of true Church-membership 2. The Consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd viz. That then in ease all the pro-parents were dead this second Generation would be a true Church of Christ without any further act or covenanting is no absurdity but a manifest Truth i.
A DEFENCE OF THE ANSWER and ARGUMENTS OF THE SYNOD Met at BOSTON in the Year 1662. Concerning The SVBIECT OF BAPTISM AND CONSOCIATION OF CHVRCHES Against the REPLY made thereto by the Reverend Mr. IOHN DAVENPORT Pastor of the Church at New-Haven in his Treatise Entituled Another ESSAY for Investigation of the Truth c. Together with AN ANSVVER TO THE APOLOGETICAL PREFACE Set before that ESSAY By some of the ELDERS who were Members of the SYNOD above-mentioned 1 Thess. 5.21 Prove all things held fast that which is good 1 Chron. 28.8 Keep and seek for all the Commandments of the Lord yeâ—â— God that â—â— may possess this good Land and leave it for â—n Inheritance for your Children after you for ever CAMBRIDGE Printed by S. Green and M. Iohnson for Hezekiah Vsher of Boston 1664. never yet been admitted to the Lords Table Forms â—â— Ratio Ecclesiast Minist in Peregrinor Ecclesiâ institutâ Lendini c. Pag. 117 123 135. with Pag. 86 104 105 106. Holy Baynes accounts that Children are a part of the Church Dioces Tryall pag. 84. And the Principles pointed to in his Christian Letters Letter 15. pag. 125 126. and Letter 24. pag. 199 202. Edit 1637. Also in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians on Chap. 1.1 Doct. 5. and on Chap. 2.12 Pag. 276 277. and other places may easily be improved unto a Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Synod Dr. Ames whom the Preface calls for-ever Famous Iudicious c. and that very deservedly how large his Judgement is as to the Subject of Baptism may be seen by any that have his Cases of Conscience Lib. 4. Cap. 27. He requires no more unto the most proper right of a Child to Baptism but that the Parents oâ— one of them be intra Ecclesiam within the Church though he thinks that others also may be baptized if any godly persons will undertake for their Education And how plainly he holds forth the Doctrine of the Synod in his Medulla Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12 13. Cap. 40. Thes. 11 12 13. is easie to be Collected We may well here take up the words of worthy Mr. Cotton in his Preface before Mr. Nertons Answer to Apollonius where having named Cartwright Partus Baynes and Ames those Chariots and Horsemen of Israel and Leaders in the Cause of Reformation he addes Ab borum sive vestigiis sive principiis si novitatis studio cessimus jure meritò deseremur ut desertores Quod si in viâ illorum ambulamus nec ultrà pregredimur quod ad summam rei attineâ— quà m ab illorum Lumine Divinitùs collustrati certâ— non nos illi sumus qui causam Reformationis deseruimus sed illi potiùs quos lubens nollem dicere qui nos ut Desertores deserunt deâ—estantur So here If we out of any changeable Inclinations or Spirit of Innovation have departed from the footsteps or principles of those Blessed Patrons of Reformation such as were now named and others of The good Old Non-Conformists who both with Prayers Tears and Sufferings and with as much judicious Learning and Piety as the World hath yet seen have handed down to us the Work and way of Reformation then let us be and well might we be deserted and censured as Desertors or Apostates as we are by too many But if we adhere to the Principles and tread in the steps of those Worthies and go no further then they or then the Light which God hath communicated by them doth lead us surely we have not deserted nor departed from the Cause of Reformation But they rather though unwillingly we speak it who desert and dislike us as Desertors The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in England in the Preface to the Result of their meeting at the Savoy do profess a full concurrence throughout in all the substantial parts of Church-government with their Reverend Brethren the Old Puritan Non-Confermists citing in the Margin Fox Dearing Greenbam Cartwright Fenner Fulk Whitaker Reynolds Perkins c. Now let the Judgement of these such of them as have left any thing written about this Question by which we may judge of the mindes of the rest be considered and see if they do not abundantly confirm such â— Latitude of Baptism as we plead for What if our Congregational Brethren in England have not yet by reason of the Infancy of their Churches had so much occasion to look into this question as our selves for a long time had not nor yet so much need to trouble themselves about the full extent of Baptism in a place where there were enow that would baptize those whom themselves left unbaptized yet when the Lord shall incline any of those Able and Worthy Persons to set themselves to the study of this point why should we think that they will not be willing to receive Light from or that they will be willing easily to go against the Judgements of those Old Non-Conformists whom they professedly concurre-with in other parts of Discipline So much for the Discourse upon the first Objection In Answer to to the Second Objection The Apologist gives this warning Let us not for fear of Anabaptism do worse even defile our selves with Antichristianism And makes this Profession We are willing to profess that we look upon it as great a sin to Baptize all Children as to baptize to Children Ans. 1. We should not chuse to put Anabaptism as contradistinct to Antichristianism Take Antichristianism for all that which is against Christ his Mind Rules and Kingdome so surely Anabaptism is a part of it Take it for the corruptions of the Papacy how near a-kin the Doctrines and Principles of the Papists and Anabaptists are is shewed in à late Preface to Mr. Shepard's Letter The Anabaptists are indeed ready enough to call every thing that they mislike Antichristian as if none were Enemies to Antichristianism so much as they But if to oppose obstruct and undermine the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ be an Antichristian thing let Scripture Reason and Experience speak whether their Tenents and Wayes be not highly Antichristian Does not their cutting off so great a part of the Subjects of Christs Kingdome as the Children of the Faithful are Mat. 19.14 their changing the Frame of the Covenant whereby his viâ—â—ble Kingdome in his Church is constituted and continued c. give though secretly and under plausible pretences a most deep and dangerous Wound to the Interest and Progress of Christs Kingdome And hath not Experience shewed Anabaptism with its wonted concomitant Errours to be the Vexation and Clog of Reformation ever since the beginning of it 2. To speak here of baptizing the children of Infidells and Pagans as if any did incline to that would be a strange absurdity but if by All Children be meant the Children of All that are named Christians though we think it too great a Lâ—xness to baptize all such yet we are past doubt that so to do
by his generating him so also of his Church-membership by his confederating for him and this by Gods Institution And seeing the person of the Childe hath a membership of its own affixed to it as the foresaid grants import and that from God from Gods Covenant and Institution as well as the person of the Parent why should we say that the membership of the Childe doth after this depend upon the Membership or Covenant of the Parent and not rather upon Gods Covenant and Institution so as to live and dye according to the Order and appointment thereof and not otherwise hence the Membership wherewith the person of the Childe is clothed by Gods Institution dyes not till either the person of the Childe dye or till by some Institution and Appointment of God he be cut off from his Membership for his own sin Neither must it be yelded that the Excommunication of the Parent doth properly and formally cut off the Infant-childe that was born before such Excommunication We say properly and formally for Consequentially and Eventually it may bring the Childe to be cut off also as in case the Parent desperately go away from the Church among Hereticks and Infidels and bring up the Childe to serve other Gods But so it may be with a wife carried away by such an Husband yet that does not hinder her from having a personal distinct proper and immediate Membership nor make his cutting off to be hers also But suppose a Parent and Children that live and continue among us the Parent having a company of Children all in their minority is for his wickedness cast out and continuing impenitent dyes in that estate to say that all these Children who were Born and Baptized in the Church are cut off from Membership hereby is a strange Assertion For 1. This would make an Infant-childe to be a subject of Excommunication which was before and in regard of natural capacity and demerit rightly denied 2. If a Parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people were the Children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel to be sure in Crimes capitally punished of which cutting off from their People is sometimes plainly meant Exod. 31.14 15. Levit. 17.4 18.29 20.18 the Childe was not to dye for the Fathers sin Deut. 24.16 2 Chron. 25.4 Ier. 31.30 Ezek. 18.20 and is there not the like reason of other punishments whether Ecclesiastical or Civil yea that cutting off from their People appointed in the Law is conceived by judicious Interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an Ecclesiastical Death or cutting off from the People and Church of God by Excommunication But however it held a proportion with Excommunication now under the Gospel The Childe may be barred from a Right or Privilegde that he neâ—er had by the sin or condition of the Parent so Hâ—athen Children are unclean and without because their Parents are so Hence Children born after the Parents Excommunication are not of the Church But to be deprived of a Right or Priviledge which â—e once â—ad and was possessed of which is the case of Children formerly born in the Church and owned as Members by the seal of Baptism this hath in it the nature of a proper formal Punishment or Censure and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin A Parent Civilly or Naturally dead cannot after that bring forth Children to the Commonwealth nor can a Parent Ecclesiastically dead he so continuing bring forth Children to the Church But the Children that are already Members of the one Society or of the other are not to be cut off therefrom for their Parents sin 3. That If the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live is a truth in nature of Branches growing on the same Tree But if these Branches be taken and set upon a Stâ—ck and Root of their own though but as in a Nursery then they do not die when the old Tree dies or is cut up by the Roots And so is the Case in hand These Children are inserted and implanted into the Church the Body of Christ in their own persons as was but now granted when it was said The persons of these Infants do receive the Adjunct of of Church-membership and that their persons are â—rought under the Covenant and have so farre taken root therein as to receive not from their Parents but from the Church and from the Soil and Faâ—ness thereof the Sap and Nourishment of Baptism which is also a Seal of the establishment or rooting of their Membership Branches included and contained in the Root as Children yet unborn or not born till after Excommunication are broken off or rather left without together with their Parents But not such Branches as are already severed from the Root and planted in the House of God in the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts as through the grace of the Covenant our Children are Isa. 5.7 4. That Death does not put an end to the outward Covenant which Excommunication does is a Notion that we understand not We should have thought that outward Membership or Membership in the visible instituted Church as well as the use of all outward Ordinances or instituted Worâ—hip had everlastingly ceased at Death The Ends Duties and Enjoyments of outward Membership do then cease and so the Membership it self The Lord knows how many may from outward Membership in the visible Church drop to Hell and does not their Death put an end to their Membership And if Death put an end to outward Membership it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the Question i. e. as to the person that dies Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant and are surviving And neither does Excommunication so do But the person of the Parent loses his Membership in the visible Church when he dies as well as when he is Excommunicated And hence if the Membership of the Childe did live and die with the Membership of the Parent there would be a Cessation of it in the one case as well as in the other A Parents Faith Prayers and Covenant may live though hiâ— self be dead But how i. e. Virtually in the virtue and effect of them And how is that why the promise made by God to the Faith Prayers and Profession or Covenanting of a godly Parent that lives and abides and takes effect So then it is neither the Parent nor his Membership but Gods Covenant that lives taking in the Children that are begotten or born of Confederate Parents to be Members of his visible Church and so continuing them till by some Rule or Appointment of his they be cut off In like manner though the Parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel and be cut off by the Censure of Excommunication yet the Covenant of God lives and stands to the Children whom he had
desert of Church-censure which is manifestly the case of the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition and then all the discourse in Answer to this Objection wherein not a little confidence and spirit is expressed falls to the ground as not reaching the case in hand though besides there are sundry mistakes in it as may after appear For suppose it should be granted that in Churches where Discipline is not in use and in a case notorious wherein a person does apparently lose the Essentials of Christianity as by turning Turk or the like a man may be cut off from Membership by his own Apostacie and Wickedness though the Church did not through her sinful neglect formally censure him Yet this on the other hand is also a sure and clear Truth that no act of a mans own will or can cut him off from Membership but that which deserves a cutting off by censure and for which the Church should cut him off by censure if she did her Duty This is plain because when a man is once in the Church he cannot be outed till God out him God does not out him till some Rule or appointment of his in his word does out him but there is no Rule that appoints any man to be put out of the visible Church or made as an Heathen and Publican but for and upon such wickedness of his as is Censurable by the Church and in that case the Rule does appoint and injoyn the Church to Censure him or to put him away from among them by censure Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.5 13. When some Divines do so speak as if persons might be broken off from the Church without a formal Censure in some extraordinary cases the meaning is not that a man doth by his own wickedness be it never so notorious immediately so become Felo de se or Vn-member himself as that the Church hath nothing to do with him to Censure him yes she may and ought to censure him for his wickedness and Apostacy and so if a Church-member turn Turk or Papist the Church to which he belongs ought to lay him under Censure for it And for such a one to be a Member till Censured i. e. A rotten Member fit to be cut off is no contradiction nor absurdity See Mr. Cottons Holiness of Church-members pag. 15. And did all Churches in the world do their duty there should no man living that ever was a Member of a Church yet in Being be looked upon as a Non-member but he that is so Censured on Excommunicated at least unless some extraordinary and rare circumstances of a case do render the Churches cognizance thereof impossible But the meaning onely is that where men have palpably and notoriously lost the Essentials of Christianity And a Church through the sinful want or neglect of Discipline never looks after them onely by her Doctrine declares against such but haply continues in that neglect from age to age there the Notoriousness of the Case and the Evidence of the Rule does supply the defect of a Judicial Sentence and the Churches Doctrinal Declaration may be looked at as an implicite Excommunication And hence other Churches may justly carry toward such as Non-members And hence also in the day of the Reformation of such Churches after deep and long-continued Corruptions such persons may be set by without a formal Censure But what is all this to the Children of our Churches who being admitted in minority in stead of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy when grown up do in some measure own the God and Covenant of their fathers and are neither cast out nor deserve so to be whom no Rule in all the Scripture appointeth to be put out of the visible Church And hence tâ—ey stand and continue Regular i. e. according to the Appointment and Allowance of the Rule Members of it being neither Excommunicate nor by Rule to be Excommunicated Where shall we finde either Scripture or sound Reason to tell us that these have cut themselves off from Membership or are nâ—w become Non-members But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter we assert this Position That in Churches waâ—â—ing in the Order of the Gospel and Exercising Discipline according to the Rules thereoâ— no person can while he lives among them cease to be a Member of the visible Church but by Excommunication or without a Church-act in Censuring him with the Censure of Excommunication The sum of the Proof of this is Because we finde this way of cessation of Membership viz. By Excommunication plainly prescribed and appointed by the Lord in Scripture And we finde not any other while the Church and the person continues in Being See a more particular Proof of it in the Preface to Mr. Shepard's Treatise of Churâ—h-membership of Children lately Published But if any do affirm there is another way it lies on them to shew and prove it Let us now consider whether that be done by all that is here further said Preface When Whitgift said That Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church Mr. Parker tells him That even a Veritius would condemn him And it is no new Doctrine in the Sâ—hools to say that An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Sâ—re a Brand is a member of a man as eâ—ery one knows that is mediocritèr doctus in Scholasiiâ—al Divinity Therefore we conclude That Church-members may become no Members by their own defection Ans. Surely he that is but mediâ—critèr doctus in Schâ—lastical or â—â—emical Divinity may easily know that here is the shew of an Argument or of Authority of Writers witâ— out the substanâ—e of either For when our Divines against the Papists do so often over say that Wicked or Vnregenerate persons are but equivocally or improperly Members of the Church as Nails Haâ—r Sores and superfluâ—us Hu â—urs or as a wooden Leg. a glass Eye c. are members of the liuing Body of a man they mean it properly with reference to the invisible mystical Church or to the visible Church considered in its internal spiritual living state not with reference to mens external standing or Membership in the visible Church Nor did they ever dream that men are by the want of internal gracious qualifications cut off from Membership in the visible Church without any Church-censure It is well known that they reckon Hypocrites and secretly unregenerate persons as well as â—eretical Apostates or the openly-wicked to be but equivocaliy of the Church viz. in â—omparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ â—nd as â—aul diâ—tinguishes between Israel and them that are of Israel Rom. 9.6 and sayes He is not a Iew i. e. not a Jew indeed and accepted in the sight of God who is â—ut outwarâ—ly â—nâ— Rom. 2.28 29. But would you therefore say that a close Hypocrite unâ—eâ—bers himsâ—lâ— and fâ—lls out of the visible Church without
it not a vain thing The person whom you are about to Disown is either within the Church or withâ—ut a Member or not a Member If he be within why may you not judge and censure him with the Censure of cutting off or casting out i. e. Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.12 13. there being cause for it If he be without why should you disown him any more then you do Non-members or such as were never joyned to the Church Would it not seem a strange and vain thing if the Church should put forth a solemn publick Act to disown a company of Non-members that are without the Church to what purpose should this be How Acts 8.21 here cited in the Margin should make for this disowning we understand not Peter there tells Simon Magus that he was farre from having any part or lot in the matter of conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which he never had but ambitiously aspired after but doth not declare that he had Discovenanted himself or had lost his Membership which he once had And whatever became of Simon Magus afterward of which the Scripture is silent and stories uncertain there is no ground to think that he was then put out of the Church or lost his Membership But rather the Apostle by grave Apostolical Rebuke and Counsel applies himself to him as to one in the Church to bring him to Repentance and to that sincerity of grace which he yet wanted Versâ— 22 13. As for the Reason here rendred why Excommunication agrees not to the Children in question viz. because It is applicable to none but those who have been in full Communion This is but a begging of the Question and carrieth not Evidence of Truth with it 〈◊〉 Excommunication i. e. the utmost Censure so called doth not properly or nextly debarre or exclude from full Communion but it cutteth off from Membership rendreth a person as an Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 and so from that Communion that belongeth to a Member as such When a person that hath stood for some time Admonished is afterward for his contumacy excommunicated it is not Excommunication that doth immediately and properly put him out of full Communion for that was done by Admonition whereby being Ecclesiastically unclean he was justly suspended from eating of the Holy things but Excommunication cuts him off from Membership which Admonition did not Hence it is not full Communion but Membership that doth properly and formally render a person a subject capable of Excommunication Hence it agrees to all that are Members though they have not been in full Communion and every Member hath some Communion though not full Communion and therefore may be excommunicated Paul when he is speaking of the Churches judicial proceeding and that unto Excommunication makes it applicable to all that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 if in full Communion yet Church-judgement fâ—lls upon them not as in full Communion but as within The casting out of Cain and Ishmael the cutting off of the born Members of the Church of Israel from their People an expression often used the casting out of the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 do at least by consequence and by proportion and parity of Reason shew that the Children in question may be cast out and cut off from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication As for that term of Formal Excommunication we know not that we are limited to this or that precise form of words in Excommunicating one sort or other but the formal nature of the thing viz. a putting of one out of the Church that was before in it This well agrees to the persons in question We pass by the fifth and last Objection which chargeth our Dissenting Brethren with Weakness Ignorance c. as containing nothing that is Argumentative to the matter in hand Neither do we own the Objection unless it be against our selves who are as we have acknowledged in our Preface to the Synods conclusions poor feeble frail men desiring not to trust unto or boast of any strength of our own which is none at all but onely to the strength and grace of Jesus Christ withall acknowledging that grace of his whereby he doth vouchsafe sometimes to reveal his Truth unto Babes We tender onely Scriptures and Scripture-arguments for that which we maintan desiring that they may be impartially considered without challenging to our selves or pleading for the Reputation of Strength or Wisdome In Disputes of this nature it is impossible but that eâ—ch part should look upon the Arguments on either hand as strong or weak according as they are perswaded But can we not deal with Arguments without being supposed to reflect upon the Persons each of other We suppose you do not see sufficient strength in our Arguments for then you would judge as we do and in that sense you do impute weakness to them In the like sense do we unto yours but desire to do it without any harsh reflexions upon the Persons of our Brethren and without liftings up in our selves who have cause enough to lye in the dust before God and man But here our Brethren take occasion to set down the Reasons of their Dissent from the Synod which make up a second main Part of this Preface The Consideration whereof we shall now address our selves unto Reason 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational Charity or else the Châ—lâ—e ought not to be baptized But they would not let this which themselves acknowledged be set down though our Vnity lay at the stake for it Answ. The regular receiver of the Truth is one that divides the Hoof as well as chews the Cud one that doth not take all in a Lump but distinguishes and rightly divides between things that differ We are to distinguish here 1. Between Faith in the being or first beginning of it whereby one is or is reputed to be in the state of a Believer the Charitable judgement whereof runs upon a great Latitude and Faith in the special exercise of it whereby one is fit for that special Communion with and active Fruition of Christ which is the scope of the Lords Supper unto the visible discovery whereof more lively Fruits and more experienced Operations of Faith are requisite 2. Distinguish between the internal Grace it self which is required of them that partake of Sacraments in the sight of God and those external signs of that Grace which the Church is to proceed upon in her Admission of persons unto Sacraments These two Distinctions being attended and rightly applied will help to clear both the Truth it self in this matter from mistakes and the Proceedings of the Synod from those uncomfortable Reflexions that are here cast upon them The former of these Distinctions and the application thereof to the matter in hand we have in Dr. Ames Children saith he are not to be admitted to partake of all Church-priviledges
e. taking that Phrase Further act or covenanting to be meant of a particular formal act of Explicite Verbal covenanting For otherwise there is a further act yea an act of implicite covenanting in their constant and publick profession of the Religion of their Fathers But we say this second Generation continuing to use Mr. Cottons Phrase in Grounds of Baptism pag. 106. in a visible profession of the Covenant Faith and Religion of their Fathers are a true Church of Christ though they have not yet made any explicite personal expression of their engagement as their Fathers did Even as the Israelites that were numbred in the Plains of Moab were a true Church and under the Covenant of God made with them in Horeb though their Parents with whom it was first made in Horeb were all dead and that before the solemn renewing of the Covenant with them in the plains of Moab Deut. 29. see Deut. 5.2 3. with Numb 26.63 64 65. and so Mr. Hooker roundly and expresly affirms this which is here by our Brethren denied Survey Part. 1. pag. 48. 3. As for our denial of the liberty of Voting in Church-affairs to the persons in question till they be fitted for and admitted to the Lords Supper it stands good and rational without any prejudice to their being a true Church in the case supposed For there is no difficulty in it to conceive that the case of a true Church may be such by degeneracy or loss of their best Members c. as that they may be at present unfit to put forth or exercise a power of acting in Church-affairs though it be radically in them till by the use of needful means they or a select qualified number among them be brought up unto a better and fitter capacity for it And examples hereof are not farre to seek let that way of reforming corrupt and degenerate Churches be attended which is partly suggested in Mr. Allin's and Mr. Shepard's Preface before their Defence of the Nine Positions which Preface Beverly saith is Instar omnium Pag. 10 18 19 20. viz. that they be acknowledged true Churches and called by the powerful Preaching of the word to Humiliation Repentance and agreement unto Reformation and then that such as do so agree and submit to Discipline being owned to be of the Church among them a select number who are found upon tryal able to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and do walk according to Christ do solemnly renew or enter into Covenant and so electing officers c. enjoy full communion and carry on all Church-affairs in the Congregational way This shews that a Church may be out of case for the present exercise of a proper Church power and may need much preparation and reducement into order before it come up thereunto and yet this doth not hinder it from being a true Church nor from having that power radically in it and which in a way of due order it may come to the exercise of Have not the late times had experience of many Congregations unto which it was fain to be a publick care to sent Ministers and they to preach to them many years before they found a number fit for full Communion and management of Church-affairs and yet they retained the being of true Churches and Church-members all this while See also Mr. Shepards late-printed Letter about the Church-membership of Children pag. 18. We might also ask whether such a member of reasoning as is here used would prove Women to be no Members of an Instituted Church Because if all the Men were dead they could not then be a Church nor Vote in Church-affairs chuse Officers c. But that which is said may suffice onely let us adde that as the case that is supposed viz. of all the Parents or all that were in full Communion being dead at once is rarely if ever heard of so also the case we added viz. for the whole body to be fallen into an unfitness for full Communion by corruption and degeneracy would be we may hope as rare if Discipline and other Ordinances be kept up in their use and vigour God will so bless his own Ordinances if duely attended as that a considerable number shall from time to time have such Grace given them as to be fit for full Communion and to carry on all the things of his House with competent Strength Beauty and Edification The fourth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent is this It is not meer Membership as the Synod speaks but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism for John 's Baptism might not be applied unto the standing Members of the visible Church till they were qualified with Repentance This say they seems to us to cut the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for englargemeâ—â—â—f Baptism for neither doth the Scripture acknowledge any such meer Membership as they speak of nor is it meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right unto this divine and sacred Ordinance Answ. This term or distinction of Meer Membership is here as also in the Book to which this Preface is prefixed much exagitated and harshly censured but let the plain meaning of the Synod therein be attended and there will appear no cause for such exagitation When the Synod said that persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members and that Meer Membership or Membership alone doth not suffice to render men Subjects of the Lords Supper Propos. 4. p. 17 18. the meaning is That full Communion doth not belong to a Member as such or to a person meerly because he is a Member for then it would belong to all Members which it doth not A person may be a Member or in memberly Relation and yet not bein full Communion Now to say that meer Membership in this sense the Scripture acknowledgeth not is as if one should say that the Scripture acknowledgeth not Logical Distinctions between things in their Abstract and general Nature and the same things as clothed with various Adjuncts and Accessions which to say were strangely to forget our selves But when it is hence inferred and put upon us That we set up a meer Membership and a sort of meer Members in the Church this is an unnecessary Reflexion As if we should say that Riches do not belong to men meerly as men or meerly because they are men would it be a good inference to say that we set up a sort of meer men or a meer Humanity existing alone or that we distinguish men into Meer men and Rich men There is no individual man in the world that is a meer man i. e. that hath a naked Humanity without Adjuncts yet Logick distinguisheth between Humanity and its Adjuncts and between what belongeth to a man as such and what accreweth
to him other wayes So in the Church Membership or memberly Relation is not existent in particular persons without some Communion flowing from it nor yet without some Qualifications unto Charity under it more or less at least ordinarily though it may and often does exist without those special and peculiar qualifications that fit men for the Lords Table But surely we may well distinguish especially between the memberly Relâ—tion and those special superadded Qualifications and between what belongs to persons in the one respect and in the other For some Priviledges in the Church belong to persons by virtue of their memberly Relation or meerly because they are Members they belong to a Member as such so does Baptism Matth. 28.19 the Benefit of Church-watch and Discipline viz. according to Natural capacity in regard of age there is no other Moral capacity but that of Membership requisite to a Subject thereof Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 5.12 and a share in the common Legacies of the Covenant Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Acts 3.25 26. Meer Membership or Membership alone gives right to these things But there be other Priviledges in the Church that do not belong to Members as such or to persons meerly because they are Members but to Members as clothed with such and such special qualifications So the Passover and other holy things of old and so the Lords Supper now 1 Cor. 11.28 Now thus to distinguish does not distribute Members into meer Members and others but it distributes Priviledges unto their proper Subjects and states the immediate Right unto each sort of Priviledges upon its proper Basis. If we say that Government of a Family does not belong to persons meerly because they are Members of the Family do we thereby set up a sort of meer Members thereof that have no Family-benefit but onely a Titulary Relation to it c Indeed such a saying would imporâ— that in a Family there are some that are Governours and some that are not Governours of it as also that one may be a Member of a Family and yet have no hand in the Government thereof So the distinction in hand implies That in the Church some are in full Communion and some are not and that one may be in Memberly Relation and yet not be in full Communion and surely the truth of this cannot be doubted of If Children in minority be Members as our Brethren acknowledge them to be then there are some Members that are not in nor yet fit for full Communion And for the Adult when a man is by Admonition debarred from the Lords Table and yet not Excommunicated does he not continue a Member yea a personal Member in our Brethrens account and yet is not in full Communion This demonstrates that Membership and full Communion are distinct and separable things It is clear enough that our Non excommunicable Children do continue Members of the Church yet many of them are not in full Communiâ—◠〈◊〉 will our Brethren say that they are fit for it So then neither the Logical distinction between what belongs to persons simply as Members or by their meer Membership and what belongs to them as further endued with such and such special qualifications nor yet the Assertion flowing from it viz. That some may be and continue Members and yet not be in full Communion can juâ—tly be objected against The sum is The persons in question have by virtue of their memberly Relation or meerly by their Membership a proper right unto the Priviledges that are desired for them yet withall they have some qualifications and some Communion and so are not meer Members in contradistinction hereunto though they have not yet such full qualifications as to come into full Communion But thus much being sâ—id concerning that distinction which the Synod useth and the meaning of it Proceed we to the Assertion here laid down by our Brethren and their Proof thereof Their Assertion is That it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism Remember here tâ—at our â—â—â—pute properly is of Membership de jure or regular Membership i. e. wherein the Rule appoints or allows one to be or to be continued a member of the visible Church not of Membership de facto onely Now Membership de jure or regular Membership implies some qualification as viz. that a person being a Church-member is not under such gross and incorrigible Ignorance Heresie Scandal or Apostacy as renders him an immediate Subject of Excommunication hence meer Membership is not so to be opposed to qualified Membership as if it were destitute of all qualifications Those whom the Lord doth and whom the Church acting regularly may own and continue as Members they are so farre qualified as that the Rule hath accepted them into Covenant and doth not appoint us to put them out Now then understanding meer Membership fâ—r Meerly this that a man is regularly a Member and qualified Membership for Superadded qualifications over and above what is essentially requisite to regular Membership the 〈◊〉 said Assâ—rtion is thus much It is not sufficient to give a person right to baptism that he be regularly a Member of the visible Church but he must have some further qualification then so or else he hath not right thereunto This Assertion or to say in this sense that it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism is indeed an Antisynodalian Assertion and we doubt not to affirm it is Antiscriptural 1. It is Antisynodalian or directly opposite to the Dâ—ctrine of the Synod and we will readily grant that if this could be proved it cuts asunder the â—inews of the Synods strongest Arguments for this is that which the Synod stand and build upon That it is Covenant-interest or Federal holiness or visible Church-membership which are but several expressions of the same thing that properly gives Right to Baptism or that Baptism belongs to a Church-member as suâ—h and so to all Church-members And hence by the way let it be minded that the Synod in their fifth Proposition have comprized both the Right to Baptism and the manner of administration the distinstion between which two was often-over mentioned in the Synod though they put both together in the Proposition for better concurrence sake and that they might at once familiarly set down what is to be attended in such a case The Right stands upon Membership whereby the parent and so the Childe is regularly within the visible Church so as no more qualification in the Parent is simply necessary to give the Childe right to Baptism but what is essentially requisite unto regular Membership As for other and further qualifications pointed to in the Proposition as Giving account of their assent to the Doctrine of Faith Solemn owning of the Covenant c. they properly belong to the manner of Administration Yet these are not therefore needless things nor may they be disregarded or boldly slighted and refused by any because Membership
Baptism unto his Childe Whereunto is added somewhat out of Bucer Parker and Mr. Cotton as concurring with the judgement of our Brethren Ans. Taking Capable of receiving Baptism himself or Right to Baptism himself for a state of Baptism-right or Capacity we may grant the Major but the Minor in manifestly to be denied But taking it for a frame of actual fitness to receive Baptism we cannot say that we may grant the Minor but surely the Major will not hold It is true that That which doth not put a man into a state of right to Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized i. e. into a state of Church-membership will not enable him to give Baptism-right to his Childe If the Parent be not a Member or not in a state of Covenant interest none of us plead for the Childes Baptism And if he be a 〈◊〉 surely he is in the state of a Subject of Baptism or in a state of right to it as all the Members of the visible Church are whatever may de facto hinder it But it is possible for an adult person being in the state of a Member and so of right to Baptism to have something fall in which may hinder the actual application of Baptism to himself in case he were unbaptized or his actual fitness for it And yet the same thing may not hinder a person already baptized and standing in a Covenant-state from conveying Baptism-right to his Childe The reason is because the right of the Childe depends upon the state of the Parent that he be in a state of Membership for if so then Divine Institution carrieth or transmitteth Membership and so Baptism-right to the Childe but the Parents regular partaking of this or that Ordinance for himself depends much upon his own actual fitness for it As suppose an unbaptized adult person admitted into the Church who before he is baptized falls into some great Offence though such a case could hardly fall out if Baptism were administred according to the Rule and Apostolical Practice i. e. immediately upon first Admission Matth. 28.19 Acts 16.33 much more is it an harsh and strange supposition for a Parent that ought to have been and was baptized in his Infancy to be supposed to be yet unbaptized but allowing the supposition that a person 〈◊〉 in adult age falls into Offence before he is baptized he may be called to give satisfaction for it and to shew himself in a more serious and penitent frame before himself receive Baptism but suppose he die before he do that and leave Children behinde him shall not they be baptized In like manner if a person already baptized yea or already in full Communion should fall into offence you would say that would put a stop to his own Baptism in case upon an impossible supposition he were yet unbaptized but what Rule or Reason is there for it to make a particular offence in the Parent to cut oâ— the Childes right to Baptism when as the Parent is notwithstanding that offence still a Member and within the Church and doth not shew any such incorrigibleness as that 〈◊〉 is by Rule to be put out when as the offence doth not cut off the Parents Membership is there any reason it should cut off the Membership of the Childe and if it cut not of the Childes Membership it doth not cut off his right to Baptism Whatever may be said for requiring the Parent to confess his sin before his Childes Baptism in reference to the more expedient and comfortable manner of Administration therein we oppose not yet where doth the Scripture allows us to disannull the Childes right to Baptism upon a particular offence in the Parent especially when it is not such as doth touch upon the Essentials of Christianity and notwithstanding which the Parent is regularly and orderly continued a Member of the Church It remains therefore that there may be obstructions to a Parents receiving Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized which do not incapacitate a baptized Parent to transmit if we may attribute transmitting to a Parent which is properly the act of Gods Institution and Covenant right of Baptism unto his Childe But for the Minor or Assumption of the Argument in hand it will not hold in either of the senses of the Proposition above given For 1. We will readily grant that if the Parent be not in a state of Baptism-right himself i. e. in a state of Membership he cannot convey Baptism-right to his Childe but how manifest is it that that which the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition doth render the persons there described in a state of right to Baptism for themselves in case they were unbaptized viz. In a state of Membership in the visible Church for the Proposition speaks of Church-members such as were admitted Members in minority and do orderly and regularly so continue and that a state of Membership is a state of Baptism-right or that all Church-members are in the state of Subjects of Baptism is an evident Truth that cannot be denied by any that grant the Synods first Proposition for which there is Sun-light in Scripture and never was Orthodox Divine heard of that questioned it Hence according to that Ruled Case here mentioned the Parents in question having themselves a title to Baptism may intitle others they have not onely a title to it but regular and actual Possession of it for they are baptized and in case they were yet unbaptized they would being Church-members have a title of right unto it they would stand possessed of an interest in a title to it as Mr. Hooker in the place here alledged speaks whatever might de facto hinder their enjoyment of it And as à non habente potestatem acts are invalid so ab habente potestatem they are valid and good but God hath full power to give forth what Grants he pleaseth and he hath in the order of his Covenant in the visible Church granted a Membership and so Baptism-right unto Children born of Parents that are Members and so the Parent that stands Member of the Church hath as an instrument under God and from his Grant power to 〈◊〉 such a right unto his Childe Children are within the Covenant because they come from Parents within the Covenant in which they were included and so received also by God saith Mr. Hooker in the place that is here cited Survey part 3. pag. 18. 2. It is not to be yielded that the Parents described by the Synod in their fifth Proposition would not have right to Baptism themselvâ—s in case they were unbaptized though you take Right to Baptism for actual and immediate fitness for the same in fero Ecclesia Surely he will have an hard talk who shall undertake out of Scripture or Orthodox Divines to shew that Adult persons understanding and believing the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing the same not scandalous in life and solemnly taking hâ—ld of the Covenant wherein they
give up themselves and theirs to the Lord in his Church and subject themselves to Christs Government therein That these we say may be denied or debarred from Church-membership or Baptism upon their desire thereof It is not easie to believe that the multitudes baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christ i. e. by his Disciples at his Order in the time of their Ministry or the many thousands of the Iews that were counted Believers and baptized after Christs Ascension too much addicted unto Judaism Acts 21.20 15.1 or the Numbers baptized by Philip in Samaria and by the Apostles in other places upon a short time of Instruction and when they were moved and taken 〈…〉 and of whom many proved corrupt and degenerate afterward as the Epistles to the Galatians Corinthians and other places shâ—w That they did we say at least many of them excell the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition taking all things together or that they had more to render them visible Believers upon a just account then those have But it is a strange Reason that is here rendred by our Brethren why that which is set down by the Synod would not render a person a Subject of Baptism viz. Because a man may be an unbelieâ—er and yet câ—me up to all that the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition We suppose 〈◊〉 Magus Aâ—â—niâ— and Sapphira and many others not onely might be but were unbelievers and yet were regularly baptized We marvel what outward signs and professions of Faith which the Church may proceed upon can be given but a man may â—e an unbeliever and yet come up unto them If it be said that a man may come up to all that the Synod hath said and yet â—e Ecclesiastically judged a visible unbeliever shew us any ground for such a judgement Touching the Opinion of Bucer Parker here cited out of Park de Polit. â—cel lib. 3. p. 181 182. 1. In the first passage the word Apparent is here added the words in Parker are onely Signes of Regeneration and the other passage in pag. 182. runs thus A confession of Faith though publick and solemn may not be received in Churches quando nulla necessaria Fidei signs apparent when as no necessary Signs of Faith do appear where by necessary Signs of Faith are not meane such signs as have a necessary Connexion with Faith or do necessarily i. e. infallibly and certainly Argue that there is Truth of saving Faith in the heart such Signs men cannot see or judge of but when there is such an appearance as that if that be in reality which doth appear to be on which seems to be in outward appearance then there is true Faith this is that appearance of necessary Signes of Faith which he means hence within seven lines of the place cited the same thing is thus expressed quaâ—diu nullo probabili Argumento c. when as we are by no probable Argument given to believe that it is in the Heart 2. The thing there specially blamed by Bucer and Parker is when a bare Verbal Profession is accepted though accompanied with a Scandalous life and when there is not regard had to the conversation as well as to the Oral Confession as the Discourse in the place cited at large shews 3. But that which we would chiefly insist on for Answer is That Bucer and Parker do there plainly speak of such a Confirmation or owning men as confirmed Members as doth import their Admission to the Lords Table or into full Communion as we Phrase it and hence do blame the Prelatical way for so much slightness therein so Mr. Cotton cites this place of Bucer And so Parker a little before this his citation of Bucer complains That although by the English order if I mistake not saith he he that is confirmed is capable of the Lords Supper yet notwithstanding such are confirmed if they can but say the Catecâ—ism who cannot examine themselues nor rightly prepare themselues for the Table of the Lord. Now it is well known that in our Admissions unto full Communion we are not behind in any thing that Bucer and Parker do require but do expect positive comfortable Signes of Regeneration already wrought and some experienced fruits thereof whereby persons may be in some measure fit for that special and comfortable Exercise of Grace that is required in preparation for and participation of the Lords Table But suppose that persons born in the Church and baptized be not yet come up to this is there any word to be found in Bucer or Parker or in any Judicious Orthodox Divine that they lose their Membership and are put out of the Church meerly because they are not come up to this when as no censurable wickedness is found in them And while the Parent stands in the Church his Infant-childe is in the Church also and therefore Baptizable Yet withal we say with the consent of Judicious Divines that while persons have a regular standing in the Church they are in Ecclesiastical account to be looked upon as having the Being of Regeneration or as Fideleâ— vocati and so regenerati i. e. by reason of their federal Holiness though not by partâ—cular present evident Signs of a work of Grace already wrought in them in this case we take their Covenant-estate Christian Education Hopeful Carriage general Profession c. for Signs of Regeneration in this sense i. e. such as shew that there may be Grace there is nothing inconsistent with Grace and none knows but â— seed of Grace which in the first infusion and beginnings of it is marvellous secret and small may lye at bottom and hence the Church is to carry toward them as Heires of Grace But it is a further thing for Grace to appear above-ground in such Exercise and sensible Signs Evidences and Experiences as may fit them for comfortable Communion wâ—th Christ in the Supper But Fourthly if the judgement of Bucer and Parker may be taken in this Controversie it will 〈…〉 for notwithstanding all that is here or can be cited of theirs it is evident enough that Famous Martin Bucer and Renowned Parker as the Preface styleth them and that deservedly do fully concurre with the Synod in extending Baptism to such as the Synod describes or to more then so Vid. Bucer de regno Christi Lib. 1. Cap. 2. pag. 14. And in his Commentary upon Iohn in an excellent discourse concerning Infant Baptism among many other useful Passages he hath these following Sunt quidem saâ—e inter pueros Reprobi c. There are indeed often among Children some that be Reprobates but while that does not appear to us we ought nevertheless to reckon them among the People of God and we shall time enough cast them out when by their evil fruits they shall openly shew us what they are Bucer in Joh. fol. 43. And in another place Quantum equidem assequi possum c. As far as I can gather saith he the
come to the Lords Table nor have any hand in the Management of Church-affairs as Elections of Officers Admissions and Censures of Members untill as a fruit of the foresaid help and means they attain to such qualifications as may render their admission into full Communion safe and comfortable both to their own Souls and to the Churches In sum we make account that if we keep Baptism within the compass of the Non-excommunicable and the Lords Supper within the compass of those that have unto Charity somewhat of the Power of Godliness or Grace in exercise we shall be near about the right Middle-way of Church-Reformation And as for the Preservation of due Purity in the Church it is the due Exercise of Discipline that must do that as our Divines unanimously acknowledge for that is Gods own appointed way and the Lord make and keep us all careful and faithul therein not the Curtailing of the Covenant which may be man's way but is not the way of God wherein alone we may expect his Blessing The good Lord pardon the Imperfections and Failings that attend us in these Debates accept of what is according to his Will and establish it save us from corrupting Extremes on either hand and give unto his People one Heart and one Way to fear Him for ever for the good of them and of their Children after them ERRATA in the Book following PAge 12. Line 18. their Infancy reade from Infancy pag. 22. lin 16. he added r. here added pag. 49. lin 4. there r. here pag. 53. lin 35. his r. this pag. 60. lin 7. of that r. of the pag. 66. lin 1. do run r. do not run pag. 98. lin 11. do administer r. so administer In Answ. to the Preface Pag. 11. lin 33. mor r. more pag. 16. lin ult into r. unto A DEFENCE OF THE ANSWER and ARGVMENTS of the SYNOD Met at Boston in the Year 1662. Concerning The Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches Against the REPLY made thereto by the Reverend Mr. Iohn Dâ—venporâ— in his Treatise Entituled Another ESSAY for Investigation of the Truth c. THE Reverend Author in this his Essay before he come to speak to that which the Synod delivered doth premise Eleven or Twelve Positions by which he saith the determinations of the Synod are to be Examined and so far and no further to be approved and received as a consent and harmony of them with thâ—se may be cleared c. pag. 8. Concerning which Positions we will not say much because the Intendment in this Defâ—nce is onely to clear what is said by the Synod against what this Reverend Author saith against the same in his 〈◊〉 and therefore untill he speak to what the Synod delivered we think it not needful to insist long upon these premised Positions Onely this we may say concerning them That though suâ—dry things in them be sound and good yet the Posiâ—ions themselves being not Scripture but his own private Collections therefore we do not see that we are bound to take these Positions as the Standard and Rule by which to judge of what the Synod saith But if the Synods Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture we think that may be sufficient for defence thereof whether it agree with the premised Positions or not And when himself pag. 1. doth commend it as a good Profession in the Synod that To the Law and to the Testimony they do wholly referre themselves had it not been also commendable in him to have done the like rather then to lay down Positions though he conceives them rightly deduced from Scripture and then to say Nothing is to be approved further then it consents with those Positions Himself may please to consider of this But to leave this of the premised Positions and to come to the main Business Concerning The Subject of Baptism the first Proposition of the Synod is this viz. They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church are the Subjects of Baptism The second is this viz. The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers in particular Churches and their Infant-seed i. e. Children in 〈◊〉 whose next Parents one or both are in Covenant Now what saith the Reverend Author to these That which he saith is this I cannot approve the two first Propositions without some change of the terms In the first thus They that according to Christs Ordinance are regular and actuall Members c. The second thus The actuall and regular Members of the visible Church according to Christs Ordinance c. pag. 9. Answ. So that the Alteration required is That in stead of Scripture it be said Christs Ordinance and in stead of Members Actuall and regular Members But a necessity of this Alteration doth not appear for as for the one particular can we think that thâ—re iâ— any such difference between the Scripture and the Ordinance of Christ that 〈◊〉 may be Members of the visible Church and so Subjects of Baptism according to the fâ—â—er and yet not according to the laâ—terâ— If it be according to the Scripture may it not â—e said to be according to Christs Ordinance Sure when Christ himself bids us Search the Scripture Job 5.39 and when the Bereans are commended for searching the Scripture whether those things were so which were Preached by Paul Acts 17.11 and when all the Scripture is for our learning Rom. 15.4 and doth contain a perfect Rule in all things that concern Gods Worship whether Natural or Instituted as this Reverend Author saith in the first of his premised Positions upon these grounds it may seem that what is according to Scripture needs not to want our approbation for fear left it agree not with the Ordinance of Christ. And indeed how can that be taken for an Ordinance of Christ which is not according to Scripture that being considered also which is said by the Reverend Author in his second Position That whatsoever Christ did institute in the Christian Churches he did it by Gods appointment as Moses by Gods appointment gave out what he delivered in the Church of Israel Now if all that is instituted by Christ be according to Gods appointment and that the Scripture contains a perfect Rule concerning all Instituted Worship and so concerning all Gods appointments it may seem a needless thing to withhold our approbation from that which is according to Scripture as if it might be so and yet not be according to the Ordinance of Christ. Besides how shall we know a thing to be an Ordinance of Christ if it be not according to the Scripture And for the other Alteration desired that in stead of Members it be Regular and actuall Members may we think that men may or can be Members according to Scripture and not Regular nor actuall Members If the Scripture be the Rule and â— perfect Rule then they that are Members according to Scripture are Members according to Rule and so are Regular members And
the other with the term of Members according to Scripture or according to Christs Ordinance if it be granted that such Members are the subjects of Baptisme then the Doctrine of the Synod in this point is granted As for what is here said to that Proposition if this term according to Scripture be not omitted but taken in viz. That according to Scripture the Covenant was differently administred in diffâ—rent times of the Church which different manner of administration is here pag. 22. and in the tenth Position which is here cited said to be this in sum That the Church was once in Families or domestical under Moses National and under Christ Congregational Ans. VVhat if all this were granted Is there any thing in this for we would willingly keep to the Question to overthrow the Synods fâ—â—st Proposition or their saying that is here under debate viz. That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Baptism It seems nothing at all For if according to Scripture there have been different administrations of the Covenant in different times and that the Church was heretofore Domestical afterward National and now Congregational all this may be granted and yet it may be a Truth that is here said That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of Title to Baptism That these Children are in Covenant the Synod saith appears 1. Because if the Parent be in Covenant the Child is so also but the Parents in question are in Covenant To this the Reverend Author Answereth That if this being in Covenant be understood of being in it according to Gâ—spel-rules and that the Childrens being in Covenant be understood of Infant Children or Children in minority then the Proposition is true or else it must be denied Ans. Concerning the one of these Particulars viz. of being in Covenant according to Gospel-rules it may be granted that it is so to be understood and that it is not to be imagined that the Synod meant it any otherwise But for the other particular that the Children in Covenant are only Infants or Children in minority this is a limitation that needs further consideration and will be spoken to afterward Whereas the Synod to prove the Parents in question to be in Covenant alledgeth That they were once in Covenant and never since discovenanted the former because else they had not warrantably been Baptized and the latter because they have not in any way of God been discovenanted cast out or cut off from their Covenant-relation The Reverend Author in his Answer hereunto saith That they are discovenanted by not performing that whereunto they were engaged by the Covenant for which he alledgeth Rom. 2.25 Ans. 1. It seems then the Covenant doth not only reach unto Children during their minority but also when they are become adult for else how could they when adult be faulty in not performing that whereunto the Covenant engageth can men be faulty for not performing Covenant-engagements when they are not comprehended in the Covenant this seems not possible therefore here seems to be a concâ—ssion that the Covenant reacheth further then to Infancy or minority and that they who were in Covenant in their Infancy by meanes of their Parents covenanting for them are also in that Covenant when they are become adult 2. Nor is it clear that mâ—ns not performing what the Covenant requireth of them doth forthwith discovenant them if by being discovenanted be meant their not being in that Church-relation in which they were before for God is wont to be patient and long-suffering toward them that are in Covenant with him and to bear with them long afore be give them a bill of Divorce as it is said in Nehem. 9.30 Many years didst thou forbear them and therefore it may seem more rigour then the Word alloweth to think or say that such as were in covenant with God in their infancy or minority are forthwith fallen out of that estate if they do not as soon as ever they become adult perform what that Covenant requireth The long-suffering of God will not allow us so to judge unless we had more clear warrant for such judgement Nor doth the Text alledged viz. Rom. 2 25. prove any such thing but when it is there said Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision the meaning is it shall not profit thee at all in such a state as to eternal benefit and so Baptism may be said in such case to be no Baptism and Covenant and Church-relation to be no Covenant no Church-relation i. e. not to yield any such profit in that estate But yet if such should afterward be brought to Repentance and New-obedience would any say that now such persons must be circumcised again or baptized again as if the former in respect of the external act were become null We suppose this could not be said justly though in respect of any profit to their Souls their Circumcision and Baptism in their former estate was as none and so we may say their Covenant and Church relation is as none in respect of any Spiritual saving benefit to their Souls if they perform not what the Covenant bindes them unto and yet it can no more be said that in respect of their Church-relation and external visible state they are not in the Church or not in the Covenant then in the other particulars it can be said that they are not circumcised or not baptized It is one thing to be in the Covenant and in the Church in respect of external state and another thing to enjoy all the spiritual and eternal benefits of such a relation and though this latter be the portion of none but such as come to be truly regenerate yet the other is and so continues the right of all that have once had it untill in some way of God they be cut off from it and so deprived thereof The Synod having said That persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture sare for notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein which is not the case of these Parents The Reverend Author answereth That 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 and in such case are to be looked at like those in 1 Joh. 2.19 Ans. If by Breaking off themselves were meant no more but that they do this meritoriously i. e. that by their sin they deserve to be broken off then it may be granted that in this sense persons may though not that these do break off themselves from their Covenant-relation and so also may persons that have been in full communion even these by their sins may thus break off themselves in which sense it is said Hos. 13.9 O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self i. e. that their sins were the procuring or meritorious cause of their destruction But if hereby be meant that the persons spoken of do