Investigation of Truth on Baptism and Consociation of Churches

AN APOLOGETICAL PREFACE TO THE READER.

IT was an Observation (or an Inspiration rather) of h lie Brightman' • , That some faithf lones in a Wilde • ness should have the most clear Discoveries of the Abominations of the Man of Sin: which Prophetick passage of that Reverend and Learned Writer, some have applied unto those worthy Conf • ssors in New-England, who forsook the • r Count • y and Fathers houses, and left a pleasant Land, far dearer to them then their lives, for the Testimony of Jesus; and upon no other account, but only that so they might see the Lord in his Sanctuary, and Worship him whom their Souls love, in the Beauties of Holiness; where indeed they have seen him walking in the midst of his golden Candlesticks. So much the more sad it is to consider, that there should be any Declensions or Contentions amongst a People for whom the Lord hath done such wondrous things. We hope that none will be so injurious and unreasonable, as to impute it unto any defect in the Way (even The good Old Congregational-Way ) of Government, which these Churches have hitherto Professed, that there should such Differences in judgment arise about things of a lesser moment. Do we not know, that even in the Churches Planted by the Apostles themselves, there arose no small dissention? Acts 15.2. Yea, that there was a Paroxysm between a Paul and a Barnabas? Let Rome glory in her Peace against all Reformed Churches, shall we therefore think that all our Foundations are out of course? True it is, our hearts cannot b • t mourn and bleed, that ever it should be told in Gath, or published in the streets of Askelon, that there are any different Apprehensions amongst us: And in that respect we could gladly have forbo • n the Publication of the ensuing Essay. Yet, when we remember, that Variety of Judgments may stand with Unity of Affections, and tha • Disputation is the way to find out Trut • , Ex collisione ingeniorum fit scintilla veritati; and, that He that judgeth a Cause before he hath heard both parties speaking, although he should judge rightly, is not a righteous Judge, We are willing that the World should see what is here presen • ed. Bu • especially, being perswa • e • that t • e Honor of God, and of his Truth, require this as a duty at our hands, We durst not hinder what is here maintai • ed f • om coming into light, l • st we should one day have it laid unto ou • Charge, that we did withhold the Truth in unrighteousness. A • d, in very deed, our Opinion of wh • t is here by the Reverend Author ass • rted, is such, as that we do believe it will tend to our rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus, that ever we were made instrumental to bring the Truth into public view, whereby the World might fare the better for it. We are to follow Peace, but not with the loss of Truth: But when Truth m • y be discovered without any hazard unto Peace, and oneness of Affection, (is we hope the case is so in the publication of this Elaborate Essay ) we sh • uld be very injurious indeed, if we did not what in us lay to forward it. Moreover, what is here held forth, ought to be regarded upon more accounts th • n one. Salvian his Observation is too often found true, that Men in reading Books look more at Quis, then Quid scripsit; who hath written, then what he hath written. If we respect either of these, the following Discourse may be commended to the Reader: The Author is a Commendation of the thing Written; and the thing Written is a Commendation of the Author. As for the Author, His praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches; and indeed, His Works praise him in the Gates. Well did M • . Cotton give this Testimony concerning him, that He is a Man mighty in Judgment, and Learning, and Singular Prudence. And we d ubt not but those that love and honor him far less then we do, yet w • ll say, that He is one of a thousand. It is indeed an evil under the Sun, to have men's persons in admiration, so as to take any man's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a demonstration: yet there are some Writings which are the more to be respected, because of the Writer. Logicians know, that Testimonies are to be more or less valued, according to the person Testifying. And truly, if there be any man amongst us, whose words d • s • rve regarding for his sake that speaks them, th • n so do the words of this Judiciou • , Learned, and Holy man. Furthermore, if we consider the Thing written, it calls for due respect and reverence. As that for-ever famous Dr. Ames said of the most Scholastically-Learned D • . Twisse, so may we much more say, that We are not amongst the number of those who can add anything by our Testimony, unto the esteem of what is here maintained. Nevertheless, having diligently p • rused this Essay, we hold it our duty to declare unto the World, That we fully concur (as to the Sum and Substance thereof) with what is here maintained and managed with great Wisdom and Piety, and irrefragable Strength and Solidity. We shall say no more to Apologize for our Publishing of this Reply: But having this opportunity of speaking unto the World, we deem it meet to add something, in the behalf of those who went under the Notion of Dissenting Brethren, in the late Synod held at Boston. We perceive, that there are many things Objected against them; and therefore, that so their Cause may not thereby be prejudiced, it is needful that something should be said for the removal thereof.

First, it is Objected, That there were but a few in comparison, who Dissented from the major part of the Assembly.

Answ. Suppose it were so; Is Truth bound up to Number? It was, indeed, a sore Temptation to Luther, when it was Objected to him, Tune solus sapis? Is there never a wise man in the world but you? It may be the same thing hath been as great a Temptation to some of us. In the Council of Constance, one of the Prelates said un • o that blessed Martyr John Hus, That he should never show himself so Arrogant, as to prefer his own Opinion above the Judgment of the whole Council. Yet the whole C • uncil (though it were an Universal Council) erred, and this one good man held the Truth against so many. Which we do not mention, as though we would prefer our own Judgments above others; such a thought we abhor. Neither is it in our intention • , any ways to reflect upon those Honoured and Reverend Persons from whom we Dissented; nay, we look upon them as far better then ourselves: only by this I • stance given, we may see, that in a Council (nay, an Oecomenical Council ) a few (nay one ) may dissent from all the rest, and yet neither Ignorance nor Arrogance (but Truth and Conscience ) be the gr und of it. I • the Nicene Council there was but one Paphnutius, who opp • sed all the rest of the Synod, that had concluded upon a gross Err • ur.

And if we look into our own Nation, there were but Five Dissenting Brethren who maintained the Truth (as we cannot but be persuaded) about Church-Government, against Seventy persons, who were also woe • thy of Respect and Honor. N • w though our Ass • mbly was not so Numerous as that, yet there were more then Five twice told, who could not see sufficient Reason to apprehend as others did. And that we are not singular in our apprehensions about these matters of Controversy now in agitation, appears from these following Witnesses. Blessed Mr. Cotton hath these very words: Infants cannot claim right to Baptism, but in the right of one of their Parents or both: where neither of the Parents cannot claim right to the Lord's Supper, there their Infants cannot claim right to Baptism. That Learned man, and Renowned Sufferer for Christ under those Bloody Fathers (as they would needs be styled) the Prelates, even Mr. Burton, writes after this manner: It is not now under the Gospel, as it was from Abraham unto Christ. The Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, so as by virtue hereof all the Male-infants of believing Abraham were and ought to be Circumcised: But now, under the Gospel, those only are accounted Abraham's seed, who profess the Faith of Abraham; so as that the Covenant is Entailed only to Believers now, and so to their children, Acts 2.39. If then the Parents refuse Christ, they cut themselves off from the Covenant, and therewith cut off their children. And Mr. Beverly (a late ingenious Writer) speaking the judgment of the Congregational-men in England, as far as he had knowledge thereof, hath such passages as these: Let me beseech my Presbyterian Brethren to consider, what sad advantage you give to bold Intrenchments upon the Lord's Supper, by your too loose Administring Baptism; methinks you do but contradict yourselves, when you suspend from one Ordinance Signal, and yet allow the other Ordinance of Baptism, which is as Signal, &c. Nor was there ever any such enlargement of Baptism, as is here pleaded for, practiced in any gathered Churches in England, that ever we knew, or could hear of.

Secondly, it is Objected, That we deny all Church-membership unto Infants, which is a Principle of Anabaptism.

Answ. Mr. Rutherford in his Reply to Mr. Hooker, chargeth him with Principles of Anabaptism; yet Mr. Hooker was never guilty of any such Opinions. So are we charged with laying Cornerstones of Anabaptism; but this is injuriously la • d unto • ur cha • ge: Yet let us not for fear of Anabaptism, do worse, even Defile ourselves with Antichristianism. We are willing to profess • , that we look upon it as great a sin to baptize all Children, (for that is no less then a violating of God, as Jerome speak) as to baptize no Children; though both Opinions, we think, are sinful. Neither c • n we plead Guilty unto that Charge, That we deny all Church-membership unto any Infants; we only deny that they are personal and immediate Members. Indeed, as personal Membership is taken subjectively, so we say it is in Infants, i. e. their pe • sons are Recipients of the Adjunct of Church-membership: But as personal Membership is taken formally, i. e. for such as have by themselves in their own persons entered into Covenant with God and his People, so Infants are not capable of personal Church-membership. I • 's strange to us to conceive, that they should have this personal formal Membership, and yet that they should not be subjects capable of formal personal Censures. We neither do, nor ever did deny, That the persons of Infants of Believing Confederate Parents are brought under the Covenant; only we conceive, that their Membership is Conjunct with, and Dependent upon the Membership and Covenant of their Parents, so as to live and die therewith. Hence Mr. Cotton hath these words; The Membership of Children (I mean Infants) is founded in the Faith and Profession of their Parents. Hence the Childes Membership may continue after the Parents decease, because his Parents Faith and Covenant may live, though himself be dead; as 'tis said, Abel being dead, yet speaketh. So the Covenant, and Faith, and Prayers of a godly man, who is dead, yet live. Hence also, when the Parents are Excommunicated, the Membership of the Infant-child is cut off, because Excommunication puts an end to the Outward Covenant, (which Death itself doth not do;) and if the Root be destroyed, the Branches cannot live. True it is, that we have made much use of that distinction of Immediate, and Mediate Members, which seems, to us, to carry a mighty and constraining Evidence of Scripture-light along with it, yea, and so as to s • lve (if rightly understood and managed) the strongest Obj • ct • ons that are brought against the Cause and Truth we plead for. And let it be considered, that Church-members have been commonly distinguished into Compleat, and Incompleat: And Authors who have been Stars of the first Magnitude, if ever there have been such upon Earth, ha • e made use thereof. We might instance in that Incomparable Champion for the Truth, and for the Non-Conformists, against Prelacy, Mr. Robert Parker: so likewise Ames, Voetius, Hornbeck, Dr. Winter, Mr. Hanmer, &c. make use of the same distinction: and the D • ssenters have proved it in their Antisynodalia.

Thirdly, it is Objected against us, That we maintain a strange Opinion, namely, That a person who is a Church-member, may become no Member, by an act (or a defect rather, which may be called an act, as Sins of Omission are termed Actual Sins) of his own, without any Church-act in Censuring of him.

Answ. Most true it is, that we do Maintain this, and must do so, till we see the contrary proved. Neither do we know that this Opinion contains anything in it dissentany from Scripture or good R •• son: Nor see we how some Arguments for the Affirmative can fai • lie be answered. Suppose we an English Fugitive that is become a Priest in Antwerp, or a Cardinal at Rome: Or suppose we a Turk who is an English-man by Birth; this Turk was baptized a Member of some Parish-Church (which those that we dispute against maintain to be true Churches, and we are far from denying of it universally) and he was neve • Censured by any Church for his Apostasy: n • w we dem • nd, Whet • er this Turk be a Member of the Church of Christ yea or no? To affirm it, would be gross; To say that Turks are Members of the Church of Christ, is • n truth to speak Dagg • rs. When the Arch-Flamin Whitgift said, that Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church: M • . Parker tells him, That even a Vorstius would condemn him. An • it is no n • w Doctrine in the Schools, to say, that An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ, then a Wound, a So • e, or a Brand, is a men her of a man; which none •••••• gine. The t • uth of this none can doubt of, that is mediocriter doctus n Schol • s • i • l Divini • y. Ther • fore we conclude, that Church-members may become no Members by their own defection. And we humbly conceive (though with submission, as is fit, to better judgments) That thus much is held forth by these Scriptures, Hebr. 10.25. 1 Joh. 2 19. Jude ver. 19. Again, how came Esau to lose his Membership? We read not that he was Excommunicate: Therefore it remains, that he dis-Covenanted, and so dis-Membered himself. And how came the Children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their Membership? i • was not by Censure. In like sort, when persons under the Gospel, do not come up to the terms of the Covenant, to show themselves to be Abraham's Children, by holding forth his Faith, and walking before the Lord in simplicity and godly sincerity, we suppose that they are justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant, and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents (because of their then personal incapacity to act for themselves) made for them. Alas! that any should look upon us as Maintaining dangerous Opinions, because of this! Wherefore, that all may know, that there is neither Danger nor Singularity in this our Assertion, That a Church-member may possibly become no Member, without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him, give us leave to produce some Testimonies to prove it. Judicious and blessed Dr. Ames saith, That in case of pertinacious Separation, such persons, though they may be of the invisible, yet they are not to be accounted Members of the visible Church: Which words of the Learned Doctors do make the more for our purpose, for that they are Cited and Approved of by The Answer to the XXXII. Questions. Our Congregational Brethren in England, do with one voice say, That some Church-members may be felones de se, such as may destroy their own Membership. Yea, and this was once sound Doctrine in New-England. Blessed Mr. Cotton (whose Name is and will be precious, so long as the Earth shall endur • ) maintains it for a Truth, That many in Churches have cut themselves off. Another Testimony which we would produce, is them Discourse of the Church-Covenant, (of which the Reverend Mr. Richard Mather was the sole Author) and the words are these following: That if men had not promised, and also performed in some measure of truth, the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God, they had not taken hold of the Covenant, but had DISCOVENANTED THEMSELVES, notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers or others. Thus though God prom • sed Abraham to be a God unto him and his seed, in their generations, Gen. 17.7. yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham, were discovenanted, by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience, which God required on the people's part. And the same Truth is held forth by the same Author, in The Answer to the XXXII. Quest • ons bef rementioned. This is • he main thing wh • rein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod. Now, if this were Truth in the Year 1639. (as it then had the Approbation of the Elders hereabout • ) w • see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For, Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem est. Either this was a Mistake then, or else it is a Truth at this day. Here let us add the words of Mr. Cotton, in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church-members, which are these following: Such as are Born and Baptized Members of the Church, are not orderly Continued and Confirmed Members, unless when they grow up to years, they do, before the Lord and his People, profess their Repentance and Faith in Jesus Christ. To say no more of this; Renowned Parker, speaking of the Interpretation of those words [Laying on of Hands] in Heb. 6.2. cites many judicious Writers, whose judgem • nts he expresseth, in words to this purpose: That they who were baptized in their minority, when they are grown up, after that the Church had approved their Faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands, they were admitted Members of the Church. This was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times (as Parker saith.) Now we demand, How they can be admitted as Members, who are already as complete and perfect Members as any in the Church? But the ancient Doctrine w • s, ( Antiquissimum u • issimum) That Children who were baptized in their minority, after they shall come to profess their Faith, so as to be accepted of the Church, may be admitted as Members. Theref • re, according to the ancient D • ctrine, Such children are not as complete and perfect Members as any in the Church. Yea, therefore it follows, That when they are Adult, in case they do not, by holding forth Faith and Repentance, join unto the Church, that then they • o not retain their Membe ship whic • t • ey had in minority.

Fourthly, it hath be • n Ob • cted, That we will not suffer Children to come under the Watch and Care of the Church.

Answ. We are so far from being of that Op • nion, a • th • t we verily fear there is great guilt lies upon th • Churches, •• c • use • hey have neglected their duty towards the Children in questi • n. I • is as clear to us as the Light at Noon, or (to use Tertullian's p • r s • ) as if it were written with the Beams of the Sun, Th •• 〈◊〉 special Care (even Church-care ) and Inspection is due, over thos Children that are Born within the Gates of Zion. H • ppy • ight it be for us all, if the issue of these troublesome Controversies might be only to awaken Churches to stricter Watch and Diligence, in Overseeing those Children that are in minority: Only we conceive, that the Watch over them is to be Mediate, according to the state of their Membership. The Church is to see that the Parents do their duty toward their Children, in bringing them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. And if when they shall be adult, they do not bring forth fruits of Repentance and Faith, then (as the Fig-tree which did not bear fruit, was to be cut down) the Church is to disown them, as having no part in the Lord, and to declare, that they by their unbelief have Discovenanted themselves. But we see not sufficient warrant from the Word of God, to proceed to a formal Excommunication of the Children in question, because that is applicable unto none but those who have been in full Communion. Now if this be all that is striven after, That Church-children might be brought under Church-watch, why s • old the Contentions of Brethren be like the bars of a Castle, that cannot yield?

Lastly, it hath been Objected, That the reason of our Dissenting from the major part of the Synod, was Weakness and Ignorance, and mere Wilfulness, in that we could bring no Arguments, but what were sufficiently refuted.

Answ. The very same thing hath been said of those Worthy Champions, who stood up for the Congregational-Way, in opposition to the Assembly at Westminster, that Their Arguments were weak and ridiculous, and had been Confuted, and sufficiently 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 answered, and that themselves were Self-conceited, and Obstinate. But these Criminations were unworthy Calumniations. It was a common Reproach cast upon the Christians of old, That they were all weak and unlearned men: which made Jerome write that Book De viris Illustribus. So Stapleton makes no bones to call Whitaker, An Ass, and A Fool. And the same hissing of the Serpent have we seen in the Prelates against the Renowned Non-Conformists. But, we suppose, their saying so, did not prove it was so. Nevertheless, we are content to accept of the Charge, when we are charged with Weakness and Folly: Let us be fools for Christ's sake, or for his Truth; Let us fall, so the Truth may rise; let us sit in the dust, so that Truth may sit in the Throne. We deserve not to be otherwise esteemed, then as Weakness and Ignorance itself: Yet let us not be reputed Obstinate, and such as are and will be blind, because we dare not betray the Truth, and sin against our Consciences. For, our weightiest Reasons never were Answered unto any tolerable satisfaction, even to this day. If it be demanded here, What our Reasons were, why we accorded not with the major part of the Synod? We shall by the help of Christ, and in the fear of God, declare what our chief Reasons were, which caused our Dissent; which when they are Answered, we shall lay down our Opinion, as knowing that it is Nullus pudor ad meliora transire.

1. The Synod did acknowledge, That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent, according to the judgment of rational charity, or else the child ought not to be baptized. We entreated, and urged again & again, that this, which they themselves acknowledged was a Principle of Truth, might be set down for a Conclusion, and then we should all agree. But those Reverend Persons against whom we placidly disputed, would not consent to this, though our Unity lay at the Stake for it.

2. We have not Warrant in all the Scripture, to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children, whose Parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper. Those, Acts 2.41. who were Baptized, continued breaking Bread also, ver. 42. 'It is granted, That those Children were Circumcised amongst the Jews, whose Parents were for a time debarred from the Passover, but that was only upon accident of Ceremonial Uncleanness, which alters not the case; for, Unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passover, he was not fit to have his child circumcised. The like may be said concerning the Gospel-Passover, and the Gospel-Circumcision. Neither do we read, that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude, as to the Subject thereof, then the Lord's Supper: but the contrary. The Catechumen were not to be Baptized, before they were fit for the Lord's Supper. And thence, when through the darkness of the times, the Lord's Supper was not administered except at Easter, (as 'tis called) the Baptism of the Catechumen was deferred until then also. In the Dawnings of Reformation in England, our Juell could plead against Harding, that Baptism was as much to be reverenced, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. Nay, in former Ages, some Churches have been so far from extending Baptism, further then the Lord's Supper, as that they have committed a grievous Error, in administering the Lord's Supper unto Infants. So it hath been in the Churches of Bohemia, and in Russia: And this was maintained by Austin, and Innocentius, and all the Churches in their time. Which Testimonies we produce, to show, that former Ages have been far from looking upon the Lord's Supper, as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism. Indeed of l • te there have been those who have made Baptism of a far larger extent then the Lord's Supper. This hath been one practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians (whom the Lord unite in the Truth) in th • t the Congregational-men would baptize the Children of none but such, whose Parents were fit for the Lord's Supper: when-as the Presbyterians would Baptize the Children of such, whose Parents were not fit for the Lord's Supper; and their promiscuous Administration of that Ordinance, was very grievous unto their Congregational Brethren. See Beverly against Timson.

3. The Parents of the children in question, are not Members of any instituted Church, according to Gospel-Rules, because they were never under any explicit and personal Covenant. To prove which, we reason thus: If this second Generation do retain their Membership by virtue of their Parents Covenant made for them in minority; then, in case all the pro-Parents were dead, this second Generation would be a true Church of Christ, without any further Act or Covenanting. But this second Generation are not a true Church of Christ without some further Act. Ergo, they do not retain their Membership. If they are a true Church of Christ, then they have Power to Vote in Church-affairs, as to choose Officers, and to cast out Offenders, and the like; because every true Church hath this power given to them by the Lord Jesus, who is the only Head of his Church. But they have no such Power (say the Synod, who do expressly exclude the persons in question from the Lord's Supper and Voting:) Therefore we conclude that they are no true Church of Christ. Therefore the persons in question do not retain their Membership; therefore their children ought not to be Baptized.

4. It is not Meer Membership, (as the Synod speaks) but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism. For the evincing whereof, we argue thus: John's Baptism was Christian Baptism, (as all our Divines maintain against the Papists) John's Baptism might not be applied unto some, who were standing Members of the visible Church, because they were not qualified with Repentance, Luke 3.8. & 7.30. Therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such as stand Members in the visible Church, if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance. This seems to us to cut the Sinews of the strongest Arguments which are brought by the Synod for the Enlargement of Baptism: for, their strongest Argument, is the Membership of the Children in Controversy; when-as it seems to us, that the Scripture doth not acknowledge any such Meer Membership as they speak • f. And besides that, the case is clear in our apprehension, from the Instance given, That 'tis not Meer Membership, but qualified Membership, that gives right unto this Divine and Sacred Ordinance.

5. That which will not make a man capable of receiving Baptism himself, in case he were unbaptized, doth not make him capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his child. It is a Ruled case, That he that hath not Title himself unto any Privilege, cannot entitle another. The Lawyer saith, Acts (à non habente potestatem) are invalid. But all that the Synod hath said, will not give a man right to Bap • ism himself, in case he were unbaptized; for a man may be an unbeliever, and yet come up to all that the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition, and more too. Ergo, all that the Synod hath said, is not enough to make a man capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his child. The judge • meant of that famous Martin Bucer, alleged and approved by Parker, is worthy our consideration, who maintained, that None ought to be confirmed Members of the Church, besides those who do hold forth not only verbal Profession of Faith, but apparent Signs of Regeneration. Nay, these great Divines say, Th • t if there be not tam necessaria signa fidei quam publica & solennis Professio, as well such signs and outward appearances of Faith, as shall necessarily argue ( • s far as men can judge) that there is truth in the heart, as a public solemn Profession, the Church ought not to accept of the Professions of such persons, so as to confirm them in their Membership. If the Synod would but have expressed as much as this, there had been no Dissenting on our parts. Here also we cannot but take notice, that the judgment of that worthy and for-ever famous Mr. Cotton was as ours is; for his words are these: I conceive more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament, then of the Old.

6. The Application of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not true Believers (we mean visibly, for de occultis non judicat Ecclesiâ) is a Profanation thereof, and as dreadful a sin, as if a man should administer the Lord's Supper unto unworthy receivers; which is (as Calvin saith) as sacrilegious impiety, as if a man should take the Blood or Body of Christ, and prostitute it to dogs. We marvel that any should think, that the Blood of Christ is not as much profaned and vilified by undue Administration of Baptism, as by undue Administration of the Lord's Supper. Yea, that saying of Austin's is solemn and serious, Qui indign accipit Baptisma, judicium accipit non salutem. He who receives Baptism, either for himself or his child, unworthily, is guilty of the Blood of Jesus, as well as he who receives the Lord's Supper unworthily. And the same Austin in his Book de Fide & operibus, pleads for strictness in the Administration of Baptism: and so did Tertullian before him.

7. It hath in it a natural tendency to the hardening of unregenerate creatures in their sinful natural condition, when Life is not only Promised, but Sealed to them by the precious Blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a Seal of the whole Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lord's Supper; and therefore those that are not interested in this Covenant by Faith, ought not to have the Seal thereof applied to them. Thus have we given an Account of the principal Reasons which caused our Dissent from the major part of the Reverend Assembly. We might add to all this, That there is danger of great Corruption and Pollution creeping into the Churches, by the Enlargement of the Subject of Baptism. They are the words of a good man, and faithful Minister of the Gospel now in Europe, in a Letter sent unto one in America: I hope (saith he) some in New-England will with clear light stand up against the Enlarging of Baptism to any, but those whose Parents are admitted unto the Lord's Supper. If ever it be passant Doctrine in the Churches, that others have a right to it, Farewell to New-England 's Peculiar Glory of undefiled Administrations of holy things. These things are Discouragements with me, from hastening to New-England. Thus he. It may be some will think that we do (as it is in the Adagy) Nodum in scirpo quaerere, make scruples to ourselves, and fear where there is no fear: Well it will be for us, and for the Churches, if in the end it prove so.

Now the Lord grant, that his People may have one heart and one way (and that it may be the right way, even the way which is called Holy) to serve him, for the good of them, and of their Children after them. And the God of Truth and Peace, lead us by his Spirit into all Truth, through him who is made unto us of God, the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.

CERTAIN POSITIONS Out of the HOLY SCRIPTURES, Premised to the whole ensuing DISCOURSE.

WEE may fitly begin this Discourse, with what the Reverend Elders say (in their Preface to • h • i • Printed Book) That the Prayer of Ep • phra • for the Co • ssians, ought to be the Prayer and Labor of us all, viz. That we may stand perfect and compl • a • in all the will of God. And it is a good Profession which they make, saying, We trust it is our sincere desire, that • is will, all his will, and nothing but his will may be done among us. To the Law and to the Testimony we do wholly refer ourselves; and if anything in the following Conclusions be indeed found not to speak according thereunto, • et it be rejected. This doth encourage me to join with them, in seeking the right path in this unfrequented way, so far as the Glory of God's Holiness and Grace, together with the honor of his Truth, may be manifested to be dearer to us then all Creature-concernments and Self-respects. In order whereunto, I conceive our principal inquiry should be, what those more general Principles of Truth are, which lie in the things controve ted, and how they may be rightly applied: using herein only such Light as the Scripture affordeth, by comparing one Text with another, and depending on God in Christ for supply and assistance of the Spirit of Truth to lead us into these Principles, and to teach us by them; that thereby we may be brought to an universal harmony of Truth; all the Lines of Truth (however separated in the Circumference) meeting together in these Principles, as in their Centre, and becoming one Point. The finding out of such Principles, and rightly applying them, would make the way to Truth shorter, the mystery of Truth clearer, and the united force of Truth stronger against Error, a sweeter closing of Spirits among good men, and the examining of other men's Opinions easier, then walking after the larger Circumference of the voluminous Writings of men, which lead us further from these Principles, then the Scripture alone. This is that which I would attain, and am pressing after, as in other Controversies, so in these Questions. For clearing the truth wherein, I shall first propound certain Theses, or Positions: Secondly apply them, in a way of Replying to their Propositions.

1. The Theses or Positions propounded shall be these following, and the like.

[Position. 1] The whole Scripture, breathed of God, holdeth forth a perfect Rule, as of Righteousness toward men, so, of Holiness toward God, in all things that concern his Natural and Instituted Worship, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17.

[Position. 2] Jesus Christ, the Apostle and H • gh Priest of our Profession, is to be considered, by all holy Brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, as not inferior in his Office to Moses: For, as t • e Office of Moses reached to all the House of God, and all the Service of it under the Law; so Christ's Office reacheth to all the Church of God, and all the Service of it under the Gospel 2. And whatsoever Christ did institute or abrogate in the Christian Churches, he did it by God's appointment; as Moses, by God's appointment, gave out what he delivered in the Church of Israel. 3. And Christ is no less faithful therein, then Moses was, Heb. 3.2, 3. So that it is as unlawful for men to alter the Ordinances of Christ given to Christian Churches, under the Gospel, or to add thereunto, or to diminish ought therefrom, as it was under the Law, Deut. 12.32. Mat. 28.20.

[Position. 3] Christ is not rightly considered, nor duly esteemed, except he be preferred as far above Moses, as the Father hath counted him worthy of more Glory then Moses; and as far above the whole Church, as the Builder is above the House in honor and authority. Men's authority being but Ministerial, as Servants, who are to act only by direction and appointment; Christ's authority being Magisterial and Despotical, which Prerogative he hath as he is Son of the Eternal Father by eternal generation. Hence the Church is Christ's own House, and he alone may dispose of it, and of the Service thereof, as it pleaseth him, by altering the Mosaical Levitical Ordinances, and appointing a more Spiritual and simple way of Worship in place thereof, Hebr. 3.3, to 7. Joh. 4.23 24. 2 Cor. 11.2, 3.

[Position. 4] The Ordinances of God given by Moses for the Service of God under the first Tabernacle, were imposed on the Jews, until the time of Reformation at the coming of Christ, who being come as the true Melchizedek, changed the Levitical Ordinances into other more suitable to his Royal Priesthood. Heb. 9.9, 10. For, the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the Law, Heb. 7.12. And, having taken away that unsupportable Yoke, calleth Believers under the Gospel to take his easy and sweet Yoke upon them, Acts 15.10. Mat. 11.29.

[Position. 5] Though the Covenant of Abraham was the same in substance to believing Jews under the Law, and to Believers, both Jews and Gentiles, under the Gospel, Rom. 4.11, 12. And, though the Kingdom of God be the same in substance, which is taken from the unbelieving Jews, and given to the believing Gentiles, Matth. 21.43. yet the administration of the Covenant and Kingdom is not the same, in all ages, but varied according to the different times, wherein the Church hath been gathered; the progress thereof, in that variety, being from less perfect, before the coming of Christ, to more perfect, after his coming: the former was more external and carnal, Heb. 9.10. the latter more internal and spiritual, John. 1.17. that was accommodated to the state of the Church being a child; this to the state of the Church being an heir grown to full age, Gal. 4.1, to 5.

[Position. 6] Though Baptism is come in the place of Circumcision, and therefore infants of Confederates are now to be baptized, as then they were to be circumcised, they both being outward Seals of the same Covenant in substance, Col. 2.11, 12. Rom. 4.11. Yet, neither must we look at Circumcision as it was of Moses, but of the Fathers, I h. 7.22 nor at every subject of Circumcision, as the subject of Baptism extensively. Circumcision was extended to all that were born in the house, and bought with money, Gen. 17 12, 13. But Baptism is limited to believing Jews and their children, and to so many as the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Your children are holy; he saith not, Your servants, • c.

[Position. 7] The Rules accommodated, by Jesus Christ our Lord, for the manner of applying the Covenant, and of administering the Kingdom of God, under the Gospel, concern either the constitution and ordering of Christian Churches; or the propagation and continuing of them; or their communion together. In all which, both the Truth, and the Arguments for confirmation of it, must be drawn expressly, or by good consequence, from the New Testament, in such particulars wherein we have Christ's appointment, or the Primitive Churches, planted or approved by the Apostles, for our Patterns. Not from the Old Testament, further then they may be inferred thence by parity of reason, M • t. 28.20. 1 Tim. 3.14, 15.

[Position. 8] The Rules given of Christ, 1. Concerning The Constitution of Christian Ch • rches, are 1. That the Matter of them must be, if adult, approved Believers, Acts 5.14. if infants, or children in minority, such whose Parents (both or one) are orderly, and visibly joined to the Church of Christ, Acts 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14. 2. That the Form of them, must be their visible confederating with the Lord Christ, as the Head of the Church, and one with another mutually, to walk together according to his Rules, for the attainment of the ends of Church communion, 2 Cor. 8.5. 1 Pet. 2.5.

[Position. 9] The Rules given by Christ for The Ordering of Christian Churches, are, 1. In general; that all Gospel Ordinances be dispensed and administered according to Gospel-Precepts and Patterns, Col 2.5, 6. 2. In particular; 1. That fit persons be orderly admitted into this holy Fellowship, by the Door, which is Christ believed on and professed, John. 10.7, 9. 2. That Officers appointed by Christ be regularly chosen and ordained, and that the Elders, both Teaching and Ruling, especially Teaching, be singularly loved, and honored with double honor, and obeyed, 1 Tim. 3. T • t. 1 Ph l. 1.1. Acts 6.6. & 14.23. 1 Thess. 5.12, 13. 1 Tim. 4.17, 18. Heb. 13.17. 2. That the Members exercise mutual Watchfulness one over another, Heb. 10.24, 25. with mutual Submission of one to another, and of everyone to the whole Body, 1 Pet. 5.5. 3. That the visible Seals, instituted by Christ for Gospel-Churches, which are only two, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 12.13. be administered by the Teaching Officers, according to Christ's Institution, Mat. 28.19. 1. Baptism is to be administered by Christ's Ordinance to Disciples, ibid. Viz. 1. To grown persons not before baptized, after their holding forth their Repentance and Faith in Christ, and voluntary taking hold of the Covenant for themselves and their seed, Mat. 3.6. Luke 3.3. Acts 8 37, 38. & 2.38, 39. 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. These, for distinction sake, I call Immediate Members. 2. To their infant-seed or children in minority, who also are members in the right of their Parents covenanting for them, Acts 2.39. 1 Cor. 7.14. these I call Mediate Members; because the membership which they have is Mediante Parentum foedere: therefore, these being grown up, must be admitted into immediate fellowship, and full communion with the Church, by their personal faith held forth to satisfaction of the Churches charitable discretion, and by their taking hold of the Covenant for themselves and their seed, as their Parents before them did; as it is prophesied of Gospel-Churches in Isa. 56.6, 7. & 62 5. 2. The Lord's Supper is to be administered according to Christ's Institution, in reference both to the Ordinance itself, 1 Cor. 11.23, to 27. and to the Communicants, ver. 27 to 32. 4. That Church-censures be applied to delinquent Members, in private offenses, according to Mat. 18 15 to 18. and in public criminous Scandals, according to 1 Cor. 5.11. Rev. 22.15. but so as the public judgment be, not by the Elders alone, but, together with them, by the Fraternity, 1 Cor. 5 12.

[Position. 10] The Rules given of Christ, for the Propagation and Cont • nuing of Christian Churches, are properly suited to their Congregational and Spiritual state. They are not the same with those before the Law, when the Church was only in Families, nor with those under the Law given to the Church of the Jews: in both which the Church was to be propagated, and continued by natural generation, in a lineal descent, from Noah, by Shem; and from Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, till the coming of Christ; this way best suiting to a Domestical and National Church, in their respective constitutions. Christian Churches are of neither of these sorts, but are, by Christ's appointment, cast into a Congregational, and more Spiritual Form; and therefore, are not capable of being propagated and continued, in a lineal succession, by natural generation, ordinarily: but must be propagated and continued 1. In adult persons, by Regeneration visibly manifested to the charitable discretion of the Church, Joh. 3.3, 5. being wrought in the working of Faith in Christ, Joh. 1.12, 13. and made visible, by a right conf • ssion and profession of Faith, both quae creditor, Rom. 10.10. and quâ creditor, Gal. 3.26. 2. In their infant-seed, by their Parents covenanting for them; to the end, that such, being engaged to God in their infancy, may be thereby engaged and excited the more to give up themselves to God in Christ, when they come to years of discretion, not by constraint, but willingly, Psal. 110.3. through the operation of God working Faith in their hearts, Col. 2.12. by the Spirit, who is a voluntary Agent, and therefore likened to the wind which bloweth where it listeth, Joh. 3.8. Sometimes in some of the next posterity, yet not in all, 2 Joh. 4. sometimes in the Grandmother, and Mother, and child; as in Timothy, 2 Tim. 1.5. Accordingly the Church must make a difference of children grown up, where God makes a difference, as he did between Jacob and Esau, Mal. 1.2. and receive only such whom Christ receiveth, Rom. 14.1, 2.

[Position. 1] The Rules given of Christ, Concerning the Communion of Christian Churches, are, 1. Concerning the Ground of it; which is their Spiritual Union under one Head, Christ, Eph. 1.22 23. in one Body, one Spirit, one Hope of their calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, and they must endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. As they have one common Faith, Tit. 1.4. so they must contend earnestly for the faith once given to the Saints, Jude, ver. 3. They have also one and the same Rule, Gal. 6 16. The same Officers, in all Churches, Tit. 1.5. The same Ordinances and Decrees, 1 Cor. 7.17. & 16.1. Acts 16.4. The same Order, Col. 2.5. The same Doctrine, 1 Cor. 4.17. & 15.11. Gal. 1.7. which all the Churches must hold fast, Rev. 3.3. and renounce all other Doctrines, Gal. 1.8, 9. 1 Tim. 1.3. & 6.3.14.

2. Concerning the Manner of it; for, as the Church generally considered, is the Mother of all the faithful, Gal 4.26. so particular Churches are Sisters each to other, Cant. 8.8. and there is a Brotherhood of visible Saints throughout the World, 1 Pet. 5.9. Hence the manner of their communion must be social, as between equals, none exercising jurisdiction and authority over another. Par in parem, non habet imperium. The giving of Laws to the Churches is Christ's Prerogative, I • m. 4.12. who hath also committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to each particular instituted Church, to be exercised by each Church within itself, without dependence upon the Authority of other Churches in re propriâ, Mat. 16.19. 1 Cor. 5.12.

3. Concerning the Things, wherein this communion must be exercised, 1. In general; in mutual Helpfulness, according to God, by mutual care one of, and for another, 1 Cor. 10.24. Phil. 2.20 21. 2. Particularly, 1. By Spiritual Helpfulness, and care exercised

1. In mutual Prayer, and endeavors for their edification, Cant. 8.8, 9. 1 Cor. 12 7. 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. and for their confirmation and establishment in the truth, Acts 15.41. & 16.4, 5. and for strengthening each other in the regular application of Church-censures to their delinquent Members, 2 Thess. 3.14. 2 Tim. 4.15.

2. By outward Supplies unto their Necessities, Acts 11.29. Rom. 15.26, 27. 2 Cor. 8.2, &c. throughout that Chapter.

3. By their mutual care to avoid Offences, 1 Cor. 10.32.

4. That, when a Church findeth need (in respect of want of light or of competent consent within itself) it is their duty to seek help by the counsel of some other Church or Churches, and the other Church or Churches ought to give it, in a brotherly way, from the Word of God, not by the Elders apart, but in the presence, and with concurrence of the Brethren, Acts 15.4, 22, 23. nor may they bind such a C • urch to rest in their determination, further then the same shall be found, upon searching the Scriptures, to seem g • od to the Holy Ghost, as well as to them, Acts 15.28. or, if Neighbor-Church • s find it ne • essary, to offer their helpfulness to a Church, in case of the Officers Male-administration, or of Errors, and Scandals, and Schisms, and the like cases, to prevent the infection of themselves, or to remove corruption from such a Church, which, being obstinate in their way, seeketh not for help, the Neighbor-Churches ought to exercise the Comm • nion of Churches, by enquiring to find out the truth, and by admonishing the offending Church, in a brotherly way; whereunto that Church ought to submit according to God, R • m. 16.17 G • l. 2.11-14. And, if it obstinately persisteth in scandalous Evils, after convincing light held forth, the offended Churches may renounce communion with them, to avoid fellowship in their sin, Eph. 5.11 1 Tim. 5.22.

[Position. 12] The Rules given by Christ to Christi • n Church, in the Premises, and the l • ke, are to be Received by all the Churches, and the Members of them, and to be obeyed, as his Laws and Commandments, who is our • ne Law-giver. In observing whereof, and not otherwise, the Purity and Peace of Christian Churches will • e preserved, by the blessing of C • rist, I am: 4.12. Mat: 28.20. 1 C •• : 14.37. 1 Tim. 6 13. Gal: 6:16.

These, and the like, being general Principles of Truth, the particular Determinations of the Synod, in the Two Question • , are to be Examined by them; and so far, and no further, to be Approved and Rece • ved, as a consent and harmony of them with these, may be cleared to the consciences of men rightly informed which may be manifested by a right application, and compari • g them together.

2. The Application of the former Theses or Posi • ions to the Questi • ns and Answer • , as they are stated and express • d by the Reverend Elders, in their Printed Book, followeth.

The first Qu • stion propounded to them by the Honoured General Court, was,

"Quest. 1. Who are the Subjects of Baptism?

"Answ. The Answer may be given in the following Propositions.

Which are seven in number.

Reply. I cannot approve the two first Propositions, without some change of the terms. In the first, thus; they that, accord • ng to Christ's O • d • nance, are regular, and actual Memb •• , &c. The second, thus; The actual and regular Members of th • visible C • urch, acco • ding to Christ's Ordinance, ar • , &c. The nec • ssity of this alteration will appear, if, either the p emised Positions be duly co sidered▪ wherewith these Proposit on • w • ll not otherw • se agree: or, if the Proofs alleged by them from Scripture for co • firmation of these two Propositions, be duly ex • mined; o • , if what is hereafter to be Replied unto the following Prop • sitions, shall be duly weighed.

This Proposition c • nsisteth of two parts, both which they endeavor to prove distinctly.

This expressi • n c • ll • for serious consideration, and the Proofs of it • e • ui • e due ex •• ina • ion. 1. F r the Exp •• ssion the meaning of • t ••• ms to be this; That when the child • en, that were baptized in their minority, are grown up to years of discretion, or become men, they are Members, (or, as they speak afterw • rd, 〈◊〉 Membe • ) and by that membership, are under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church. But what membership is th • s? Their membership, in their minority, w • s m • d •• te, in and by their Parents covenanting for them, as themselves say in pag. 14. and answerably, they are under t • e Watch of the Church in and by their Parents, who are immediately, and personally u • der the Watch, D scipline and Government of the Church, which is to see that the Parents do their d • ty, and perf • rm their Covenant for them, in b i • ging them up in the nurture and admoni • ion of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. and to help them therein.

B • t by what right are they personally under the Watch, D • scipl • n • , and Government of the Church? No • by their Parents Covenant: for that was theirs only in their inf •• cy, and minority; because then they were not capable of covenanting for themselves person • lly. It remains then, that, when grown up, they m • st be, eith • r not members of the Church personally, or members by their personal coven • nting for themselves and theirs, as other adult persons must be, who offer thems • lves to Church-fellowsh • p: Else, though they were members o • the same Church with their Parents, in their inf • ncy, and minority; yet they continue • not members, when grown up, not are p • rsonally under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church, by their ow • fault. But they say the contrary is manifest. Therefore let us examine their Argum • nts.

Reply 1. The Tex s alleged do not prove the Antecedent. 1. Abraham's command ng his ch • ldren and housh • l • after him, to keep the w y of t • e Lord, &c. doth not necess • rily infer Church-d • scipline: It being enjoined to all Fathers of Famil • e • , in the National Church of • r •• ▪ D • ut. 6.7. & 11 19. and in the Congre • ational Church • s of Christ, under the Go pel, 〈◊〉 . 6.4, 9. within t • eir own Families, where they have not power to exercise Church-discipline: or, if any fart • er thing was meant, it may be applied to the command concerning Circumcision, as • en. 17 26, 27. 2. That in Gen. 21 9. where Ishmael, who was bo n after the flesh, persecuted Isa • c w • o was born after the Spitit, and was therefore cast out of the Church, in A • ra •• ms Family, is improved by t • e Apostle to another purpose, in Gal. 4.22-29 nor doth it prove their Proposition. For Ishmael was not circumcised at e • gh • day • old, but when he was thirteen years old: and therefore may be thought to be circumcised upon his p • s na • t • k • ng hold of th • C • vena •• , as other grown persons in the family d d, the • e being nothing said in that story to evince the contrary. To which opinion Poly • a • pus Lys • rus seemeth to incline. If it was so, then there is a man • fest difference between Ishmael • case, and the children of conf • derates, baptized in i • fancy: for Ishmael was admitted into Churc • -f • l owsh • p and full communion, by his personal covenanting, whereupon he was circumcised being grown up to y • ars of discretion, and so might be regularly excom • un cat • d, which they who never were in f • ll communion may not be. 2. To pr • ve that children were under Mos • ical discipline of ol • , they p od • ce only one Text, Gal. 5.3. where the Apostle speaking of ci • cumc • sion, (not as it was given • f God, and rightly used by Ab • aha • , as a seal of t • e righteousness which is by fai •• , R • m 4.11. but as it was abused by false Teachers, to establish Justification by the works of the Law) testifieth to every m • n that is circ • mcis • d, • hat he is a debtor to do he whole Law, and • hat t • er • f • r • Chr • st s • all pr • f • them nothing. Because he that seek • h Righteousness in Circumc • si • n, is bound, by like reason, to se • k it in other works of the Law. Therefore this text doth not prove that, for w • ich it is all • dged, viz. t • at children circumcise • d in infancy, were, being grown up under the external Mosaical Watch, Discipline, and G • vernment of the Chu • ch.

Reply 2. Their Argument also is to be denied: Because, if the Antecedent were more manif • lie true then it is found t • be; yet t • e Consequent is not good. • or there is not • ar • all • , the like reason of those Patriarc all, and Mosaical C • urches, and Congregati • nal Churches under the Gospel. The m • mbe • s of the Church, in the Patriarch • f ••••• , were to conti • u • i • communion with the Church, from their being circumcised all the days of their life, until they were cast out, as pers • cutting • s • mael was, or voluntarily departed from it, as pr • fane Esau did, together with his p • sterity; which was ordered by God's special Providence to separate the Ishmaelites and Edomi •• f om the Is • a • lites, of whom, as concerning the fles • , Christ came, Rom. 9.5. As for the Church of Israel, under Moses, 1. We do not read of any Ordinance g ven them f • r casting out their members for sins against the Moral Law; as we find it to be commanded and pract sed under the Gospel, 1 Cor. 5.4, 5 11. 2. The grown members of the Church of Israe • , under Moses, were brought under such Discipline, as was established in that Church, by a solemn Covenant, whereof all adult persons were, by God's Ordinance, to take hold person lly, and to have full communion with that Church in all Legal Ordinances, D • t. 26.16, 17, 18. But we have no such Ordinance, under the Gospel, whereby the grown children of Christian Churches are members in full communion or, as mere members, brought under Church-discipline, and Government, in Congregational Churches.

R ply. The Argument is to be den • ed, in their sense; nor doth the text prove it: for that text spe • keth of men that are members in full communion. Such an one w • s that • ncestuous Corinth • a • , till he was taken away from amon • them by Excommunication, 1 Co. 5.1, 2, 5. and such were they who were afterward spoken of in ver. 11. who were called Brethre • , in respect • f th • i • f • ll communion w • th t • e Church, before they were put, by the just censure of the Church, into that st • te, wherein the mem • e s are forbidden to eat with • hem. And of that Church-jud • catu e he speaks in v • r. 12. saying, D not y • • d • them that 〈◊〉 wi hin▪ vi • . in full membersh p, as well of all other Ordinances, as • f Censures. And indeed, seeing Excommunication is the casting out from communion; How can any be f • rmally excommunicated, w • o were never in communion and so with • n the Church? Now themselves deny such come • un on to the adult persons, whom they call mere members, to d • st • nguish them fro • members in full communion: therefore not subject to Judicature of the Church according to the meaning of that text.

Reply. Though all Church-members are Disciples; infants, foe • erall, in and by their Parents covenanting for them; and adult p • rsons, pers •• ally, by their covenanting for then selves, and t erefore both are under the Discipline of the Church suitably t • h • ir membersh p: the first, in and under their Parents; the s • cond, in and by th mselves, being in full commun • on with the Church; Yet I do not find anywhere in S • ripped • re, that such adult p • rso s as they call mere Members, are styled Disciple, or accounted Memb •• s. The adult persons in M •• . 8 20. must observe and do all Chr • st commandment • ; th • r • fore the Disciples there intended, with reference to adult persons, are members in full commun • on.

Reply. They are not in covenant • e fu •• , be • ng ad • lt▪ and not admitted into C • urch-communion, in • ll the O • d n nces; therefore are not subject to Church power. That • ext in • en 17.7. hath resp • ct especially to Isaac, v • r • 9. for in Is • c was Abr • hams seed to be called, Ge • . 2 • .12. So the ch • ldren of the fl • sh are not the children of God, but th children of the prom • s • are accounted for the seed, Rom. 9.8. and, The Gentiles are adopted through faith in Christ. Gal. 3.26. for it is in Christ (either apprehended by pe sonal f • ith, as in adult p rsons or co • prehending ch • ldren in t • eir Parents Covenant) that the Covenant is everlasti • g, and so to be perpetu • lly continued in the substance of it; though by mutable si • ns. J •• us. The Covenant of Grace is eternal, though it was to be v • sibly sealed by circumc • si • n, t • ll the coming of C • r • st, and after the comi • g of Christ by Baptism perpt • ally unto t • e end of the World. There is no difference between us, concerning the infant-seed, but only concerning adult pe • sons, who ar • , by age in a capacity of covenant ng for thems • lves and theirs. Let these approve th • n faith in Christ, to the charitable discretion of the Church, and so be r • ceived into Covenant, and Church-communion personally; and then, and not oth • rwise they are r • gularly subject to Ch • rch-power. Their second proof from Gen 18.19. hath been spoken to before, when I examined their fi • st A • gument for this third Propositi •• .

Reply. This A • g • meant may justly be retorted against themselves, and • he Pro f of it. For, th Subjects of Christ's Kingdom there meant, are voluntary Subj • cts, according to that Prophesy in • sal. 110 3. and such Subjects have full communion in all p • iviledg • s of Christ's Kingdom, and so under the Government of • t But they deny that the mere Mem er • , of whom they spe • k, have communion in all the privileges of Christ's Kingdom. Therefore, they are not under the Laws and Government of it, and by Cons • q • ence they are not Subjects of it.

Re • l. This is not another Argumen • , but t • e s • me wit • the third Argument, thou h clothed with other words. Th •• f • re the same Answer may serve for this also.

Rep •• . Be it so that children are part of the Flock which is all that I find b • f • re proved and tha • Elders are cha •• ed to t • ke heed, and to feed ( • e. b • th T • ach and R • l • ) all th • Fl • ck suitably, to their different capacities; yet all this concern • th no such g • own persons, to whom they deny full C • urc • comm • nion For they that are of competent age and understanding, must be orderly joined to t • e Church, by holding forth their calling and faith in Christ to the satisfaction of the Chu • ch, acc • rd • ng to t • e Rule, and so to be received into f • llowsh • p of the Covenant and Communion, by their pe • sonal right, without wh • ch they are not to be accounted • f the Flock or Church. Nor did P ••• so acc • unt such. But t • ose children noted in Ep • . 6 1 were eight • er in their minority and so he puts in their duty in that Epistle as part of their Catechetical i • struction; or, if they were adult they were personally jo • ned to the • hurch in communion, and so were under the teaching and d • scipline of the C • u • ch.

R • lie. 1. There is no cause of fear that Irreligion and Apostasy will break into Churches, if t • e Po • ter look well unto the D ors of the Lord's House • , that no adult persons be r • ce • ved into pe • s • nal Membership, but such as reg • larly approve their personal fi nes for all Church-communion O • , if such ev • ls break into the Church, th • ough the hypocrisi • of such a • creep in u • awares, J • de, ve. 4. yet then Christ • ath l • ft a clear and plain way to prevent and heal the same, by su • jecting such u • d • r • he W • tch, and D scipl ne, and G • vernment of the Chu • c • . But the admitting of such adult persons, as are not qual • fied for Church communion in all O dinances, will be found, in the • ss • e, the cause of the breaking in of Irreligion and Apostasy into Churches, by the fault of men, who ga • he • wi hout Chr • st, and ••• ive su • h as he rej ct • t • . Nor w ll the Churc • es censuring of such, prevent or heal those ev • ls, s • eing • e bl • ss • th only his own Inst • tutions, not men's Devices. Human Inventions usually cause the Evils wh ch they pretend to cure; as we see in the Lov-feasts, which brake love among the Co • in • hians, 1 Cor. 11.18-22. 2 Though no Chu • ch-way is left by Chr • st for preventing or healing such evils in men that should not be of the Chu • ch; yet, if they were kept out of the Church, till their fitness of communion should appear; as these evils, and the like, would not inevitably break into Churches, so neither need any Church-members be let alone in their wickedness, s • eing Christ hath delegated the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to bind and •• s • , and Di • ections how t • manage them toward delinquent Members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion, Mat. 16.17, 18, 19. Nor need they who are not thus joined to the Church, be let alon • , if the Authority in Famil • es and in the Common-wealth, be wisely a • d faithf • lly managed by the Rulers of both, to restrain t • ose under their power f om evil companies, and courses, and to constrain them to a constant reverent attendance to all Family duties of Relig on, and to the Word publicly Preach • d in Church-Assembl • es, and to the Sanct f • i g of the Christian Sabb • th, as a Day of holy Rest unto the Lord. Such means will b • blessed of Christ, to th • preventi • g of the • ut-breakings, and some of them to the healing o • those evils Fai h being w • ou ht in their hearts, through the efficacy of the Spirit, in and by the Preaching of the Word; and so th • y will become fit to be received into Church-membership and commun on.

Hav • ng thus examined their third Prop • sition. I find it d • stitute of Scripture-p • oofs, and therefore must leave it, as Irregular, a d not agreeing with the Posi • ions formerly g • ven, for Rules of Trial, whether Doctrines and Pr • ct s • s in mat • er, of Church-Order, • gree wi • h the Princ • ples of Truth, or not. I proceed to examine their fourth Proposition, for answer to the fi • st Question.

Reply. Though it seems to them plain yet it seems not suffic • ently cleared by their Pro • fs.

Re • l. 1. The want of such abil ties in the children of the Covenant, is indeed too • ften se n, through the too frequent neglect of Pa • ents in their Education, and of Ministers and Churches in their Institution, and Catec •• zing, and Watc • ing over them: whic • sh • uld • w ken their circumspection in look ng narrowly to their fitness for personal Membership when they grow up to years.

2. Though Membersh • p be s • parable f • om, yea d • st • tute of such ability in the infant-seed, or c ildren • f the Covenant in their minority, and therefore they are n • t to be admitted unto the Lord's S pp •• , and that text proves it; yet it may not be granted tha • , when they are grown up to years, they are, and continue Menbers r • gularly, being through want of that ability n • t fit fo • Chur • h-commun • on personally. For as if adult persons, being unbaptized, should d • sire to have the Coven • nt, and their Church-me • bership sealed by Baptism, th • y must hold forth Faith in Chr st, wrought in their hearts, as P • il •• required the Eunuch, before th • y may be b • ptized, Acts 8 36 37. So, by parity • f reason, if one baptized in infancy, bein • grown up to years, desires to be joined to the • hurch by his own personal Rig • t • e must h • ld fo • th his personal Faith in the Son of God, to their charitable satisfaction, that they may know his ability to examine himself, and discern the Lord's Body, b fore they admit him into personal Membership, which infers full communion with the Church.

R • ply. 1. The invalidity of Proofs from the Old Testament, under Mose • , being appl • ed to Gospel-Ordinances under Christ, and so this of Baptism under the New Testament, in things whereof there is not the like reason, hath been declared in the f urth, sixth, and eighth Positions, with which this Proof doth not agree.

2. If the Texts alleged were applicable to Church-members in the times of the Gospel; yet they suit not the case in question. For, all men, that were accounted Members of that Jewish Church had full communion with that Church in all Legal Ord • nances; even they that were ceremonially unclean had so, before their uncleanness, and after they were healed of their uncleannesses, as well as others.

3. Particularly: 1. The typical uncleanness in Levite. 7.20, 21, &c. signified, that all Unbelievers, Hypocrites, and Wicked ones, that, professing the Gospel, partake of the outward Signs and Seals of Grace unworthily, do eat and drink condemnation, or judgment, to themselves; according to 1 Corinth. 11.28, 29. 2. Those in Numb. 9.6. who were unclean by the dead, might not come into the Lord's Sanctuary, nor into the Lord's Camp, as also every Leper, or one that hath an Issue, Numb. 5.2. Those legal pollutions signified sin of all sorts, and the removal of such out of the Lord's Sanctuary and Camp, figured the removal of scandalous and impenitent sinners out of Church-communion, though they were in it before, and the keeping them from admittance into Church-fellowship, if they were not in before: for, The unclean may not come into i • , Isa. 52.1. Any thing th • t defileth, may in no wise enter into it, Rev. 21.27. 3. That Text in Numb. 19.13, 20. concerns one who, being defiled by the dead, yet presumptuously came into the Tabernacle, that is, into the Court of it, in his uncleanness, that man must be cut off: Otherwise, if he did it igno antly, he was to bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5.3-6. because he defiled the Sanctuary by coming into it, before he was pu • ified. This, and the former Texts, figured, in reference to G • sp • l-Churches, not the distinction between mere M mb • rs, and Members in Communion, (for no such distinctions of adult Members was known or made in that Church) but that they should not admit any that are spiritually unclean (as all that are v • sibly unregenerate are, Tit. 1.15, 16.) into Church-communion. And that they should put away from Church-commun on, by Excommunication such as were in Church-communion before such uncl • anness appea ed in them, till their healing should be n an f stead. 4. That which is added, concerning the charge given to the • r ests and Por ers, had been more fully, and so more truly expressed, if they had said, Their c • a • ge was, that men should not partake of all the holy •• ing • , unless ••• y qualified for the same, notwi • standing thei • (not Membe • ship, in their sense but) Membership in full comm • ni • n with the Chu • c • , For, such Members the men of • srae were, b fore their Legal uncleanness: and they were also charged to keep out the Heathen uncircumc • sed in flesh, who never were Members. That text in E ••• . 44 7 8, 9. is a Prophesy of the times of the Gospel, expressed under legal phrases, according to the manner usual with the Prophets, wherein the Gospel-Churches, and their Officers, are forewarned (by the example of the Jews, under the Old Testament, with whom God was highly offended for the like abomination) not to admit such as are uncircumcised in heart into Church-fellowship, to defile the Lord's Sanctuary, which is (not now, as then it was, a material House, but) a Society of Saints, called, An holy Generation, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that they might show forth the virtues of him, who hath called them out of darkne s into his marvelous light, 1 Pet. 2.9. Such men therefore as cannot approve themselves to the Churches charitable judgment, to answer this description, in some measure, should not be received into Church-fellowsh • p.

Whereas they add, that

Reply. It is true that more then that Membership, which they had in their inf • ncy, or minority, was required in adult persons to eat the Pass • ver. For, 1. When they became adult, they were to covenant solemnly with the Lord, and his People, in their own persons, Deu. 26.17, &c. whereunto heart fitness was necessary, that their persons and services might be accepted of God, in that Church-communion, Isa. 56 4, 5. with Deut. 3.6. 2. This heart-fitness was also to be exercised, when they w • re to eat the Passover, suitably to the nature, end, and use of th • t Ordinance, 2 Chron. 30.6-9, 18, 19, &c. Thus they were to keep the Passover, once every year, all the days of their life, till Ch ist our P • ssover was come: Since which time it is sp • ritually to be kept by Believers under the Gospel particularly, in our communicating at the Lo • ds Table) in remembr • nce of his Deat • , and of our Redemption thereby, until he come, 1 or. 5.7.8 〈◊〉 11.25, 26. but all they that did eat the Pass • ver, were Members in full communion. The Membership of adult pers • ns then was not a mere Membe • ship, but a Membership in full Church-communion. So it ought to be now.

Reply. 1. Church-membership infers such Church-communion, as is suitable to that Membership. The Membership of the ch ld • en of Conf • derates, in minority, infers Church-communion, so far as they are capable of it, in and by their Parents covenanting for them being not capable of covenanting for thems • lves: Hence they have communion with the Chu • ch by bei • g bap •• zed 1 C •• . 12.13. So the Church-membership of adult pers • ns, infers Church-communion in all Ordinances, particularly in the Lo ds Supper, 1 Cor 12.13. and in Voting and Censures. 1 Cor. 5.12. Therefore no adult person may be rec • ived into me Member •• , reg • larly, until he be qualified fitly for other O • dinances and for Voting and judging in Church-affairs, 1 Co. 5.12. So • uch for the fourth Proposition.

Reply. This Proposition agreeth not with our tenth Position, where more is declared, from Scripture, to be required unto Church-membership, in reference both to infants and adult persons, then is here expressed. Yet, say they,

But to him who sh • ll duly examine their Arguments by the Light of the Word and Spirit of God, in the New Testament, the Proposition will appear to be not evidenced by them, as we shall evince, by the help of Christ, in examining the particulars.

This they endeavor to prove in the two parts of it, severally.

Reply. The Parents must be fitly qualified before they may be admitted to Covenant with the Lord, and his Church, for themselves and their children: Else the Covenant will be profaned; and such covenanting cannot regularly give them, and their children, an interest in the Covenant, and title to Baptism. The Parents, or adult persons, regularly admitted to Covenant, must be B lievers in Christ, effectually called, in the charitable judgment of the Church, judging according to Rule for to such only, and their seed, is the Promise, or Covenant, Act 2.39 If the Primitive Churches had not exactly looked for this qualification in the men whom they admitted unto Church-membership, the Apostles neither could, nor would have styled those to w • om they wrote their Ep • stles, Beloved of G • d, called Saints, Rom. 1.7. Sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1.2. Faithful in Christ J • us, Eph 1.1. Saints in Christ Jesus, Phil. 1.1. The Church which is in God t e Father, and in the Lord Je • us Ch ist. 1 Thess 1.1 which they d d not by the judgment of Infallibility, f om Divine Revelation, but from the judgment of Charity, from what they heard of them, and saw in them, Rom. 1.8. 1 C • r 1.4. Eph 1.15, 6. Co • . 1.3, 4, 5. 〈◊〉 2.5. Phil. 1.3, 5, 6 7. 1 Thess. 1.3, 4, 5, 9. Therefore, whereas they say,

R ply. The light which that Proposition holdeth forth for clearing this is in one clause, which is here omitted, viz. According to Sc ipture. "They that according to Scriptu e are Memcers of the visi • l • C urch, are the subjects of B ptism, &c. Now, according to Scripture, the Covenant was differently administered, in different times of the Church. Under Ab • ah • m it was administered by Circumcision to all that we • e of his House, and to their seed abiding in his Family: For the Church was then only in Abraham's Family, and after him in the Families of Isaac and Jacob, until M se; yet even then the Circumcision of all Parents did not interest their seed in the Covenant and first Seal of it, as may be seen in the Posterity of Esau, and of Abraham himself by Keturah. 2. Under Mose • , it was administered to the twelve Tribes suitably unto that Ceremonial and Typical state of the Church, which was then National, Deut. 4.7, 8. and the Proselytes, who were then add • d to them, were to be ordered by the same Laws with the People of Israel; for, accessorium sequitur naturam Principalis. This administration of the Covenant was, according to the Scripture of the Old Testament, until Christ came; under Christ the Covenant is administered, according to what hath been exp essed in the Positions formerly noted; particularly, the tenth Position.

Reply. 1. Add, According to Gospel-Rules, given by Christ unto Christian Churches for admittance of persons spiritually fit for Church-covenant and communion. Thus; if Parents be in Covenant, according to Gospel-Rules, the i • fant child or child in minority, is so also; else the Prop sition must be denied: That being added, the Assumption is to be denied. Then, according to that addit • on it may be granted also, that, if the Parent stand in the Church, so doth the child in infancy, or minority, among the Gentiles now, as well as among the Jews of old, Rom. 11.16, 20-22. They say,

Reply. Nor do we say it doth, but at the adult person, or Parent, who breaks the Covenant; and that the progress of the Covenant stops there f o • the children also, it is not unheard-of in Scripture: for the Scrip • ure hath told us of the stopping of the Covenant in Ishmael, Esau, and Abraham's posterity by Keturah, after they were sent away from the Church in Isaac 's family. Nor do their Reasons prove the Assumption.

The first is,

Reply. 1. If they had not spiritual fitness for the Covenant, Parents, or adult persons were not regularly in Covenant, nor are their children in infancy, or minority, warrantably baptized. And, when those infants are grown up, though they have not been discovenanted, by being cast out, or cut off from their Covenant-relation; yet they are discovenanted, by their violating their Parents Covenant for them, through their not performing that whereunto they were engaged thereby, in that, when they became adult, they did not regularly enter into Covenant with the Lord and his Church, for themselves and theirs, as their Parents, if they were godly, did, Rom. 2 25. 2. Thoug • they say,

Yet if they break off themselves, by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy, or minority; they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and privileges of the Covenant, as it hath been proved. And, in such a case, they are to be looked at, like those of whom John speaks, 1 Joh. 2.19.

Reply. 1. The tenor of the Covenant 〈◊〉 . 17.7 had (as it hath been formerly noted) a special resp • ct unto Isaac v • r. 19. for in Isaac was Abraham's seed to be called, • en. 21.12. So the children of the flesh are not the children of G •• , but t •• children of the prom se are accounted for the s •• , Rom. 9.8. The sealing f this Covenant to the Posterity of Isaac and Jacob, by Circumcision, was to continue throughout their generations, till th • coming of Christ. The Covenant • n the tenor of it, is, for substance, the same to us as it was to them ( • hough the outward Signs. and manner of dispensing it, d • ffer) it being establ shed by the blood o • Christ, Luke 1.69, 71, 73. Heb. 13.20. The extending the Covenant to a thousand generation • , themselves say, is conditiona • , provided that the Parents s ccessively do c ntinue to be keepers of the C • venan • . Such a succession in the Covenant, through Faith is not to be found even in the best Churches th • t ever were in the world for a thousand, o an hundred generat • ons: But such the Parents in question are not. For though they are not such forsakers and • ej • cters of God, and the Covenant of their fathers, as they who are sp ken of in Deut. • 9 25 26 2 Kings 17 15-20 2 Chron. 7.22. Yet, besides that g oss Idolatry, there is a spiritu • l Idolatry in scandalous Covetousness, C ••• st 3.5. and Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject G • d and his Covenant, to serve the World, M • 6.24. 1 Tim. 6.17. 1 I h. 2.15. to these, the text alleged by them in Deu 7.10. m • y fi • lie be applied; and they forsake the Covenant of God, as I n. 4 4. and such may they b, who answer all the erms of then fif h P • oposition, externally and visibly. Now, t e Rel • gion of such is no better then that of the Sh • chern • e, who took upon then the Religion of the Jews and were circumcised only for worldly ends, en 34.22, 23, 24. Such Religion will end in Apostasy, in times of Persecution for the Truth, 〈◊〉 . 13 21.

Reply. 1. Notwithstanding what is said in the Proposition, Parents may put a bar to hinder their children from being baptized regularly. A man may do and be all that is there required, yet have not Faith in Christ, but be an unregenerate person; and that will put a bar to hinder himself and his infant-seed from entering into the Kingdom of God, Joh. 3.3, 5. and, by consequence, from the Seal of entrance. 2. Nor can they prove that all adult persons, whom they admit into personal and immediate Membership, are such as the Proposition describeth. For, I demand, Doth y all understand the Doctrine of Faith? What course do they take to k • ow it? If they do not, their publicly pr • fessing their assent thereunto, is a mere mockery. A Parret-like saying the D • ctrine of Faith, and an ignorant assent thereunto, may justly be a bar of gross Ignorance, Atheism, and Infidel • ty, and Hypocrisy. P • t •• b • ought the Eunuch to understand what he read, before it could become a word of faith to him, • ct • 8. 2. Nor is literal understanding what they assent to, sufficient to remove all bars: These the Devils do, Jan. 2.19. Arig •• m • n • er f knowing and assenting, must be added. Such a manner of knowing, whereby the Church may judge that Christ is let into t • e Soul. As Reverend Mr. Hooker was wont to say, Such 〈◊〉 profess d Assent, as hath a pr • fessed Consent joined with it, Isa. 1.10. Such a manner of knowing and consenting, as produceth Obedience flowing from Faith: which is the next end of the Ministry of the G • spel, Rom. 1.5. & 16.26. Else, they are defi ••• , and unbelieving, to whom nothi • g is pu •• , but even their mind and conscience is defiled, who profess that they know Go • , bu in their works they deny hi • , Tit 1.15 16. 3 And though t ey are not scandalous in l fe, but solemn • y own the C • venant b • fore t •• Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Govern • ent of Christ in he Churc • ; yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a so of godl • nes • , b •• de • y t • e power thereof: From such, Pa • . (who tau • ht him how he ought to behave himself in the House of 〈◊〉 , which is the Church • f the living God, the pillar and g • o • nd of Truth, 1 Tim. 3.15.) warned T • mothy to turn away, 2 Tim. 3.5. 4. But are all the adult persons, whom they admit into Membership, such as the Proposition describes? Do they take a right course to know they are such? 1. That they are no • scandalous in life: What testimony or certain knowledge have they, that the Church may confide in, that they f equent not loose and vain Company in d • sorderly N • ght-meeting • at unseasonable hours, and in suspected places, in unwarrantable Gamings and Drinkings, &c? not to speak of other evils. 2 H • w do they S lemnly own the Covenan • before the Church? when some of them having publicly said, They do own it; being afterward asked • n private, What is the Covenant which you owned? answered, I do not know. 3. As for their Subjecting themselves to the Governme t f Christ in the Church; Do they orderly submit to the Government of their Family-Governors, Parents and Masters, &c? If the Church know not that, How can they expect that they will • really subject themselves to Christ's Government in the Church? Yea, if they have not been weary and heavy loaden, and then came unto Christ, they are not fit to take his yoke and burden upon them, Matth. 11.28, 29. I proceed to their second Argument.

R • ply. The more seriously I consider their Proposition, the less I find in it, to evince the former, and the more, to conclude the latter; viz. That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth, he may be a stranger from the Covenant, unclean, and without the Church, in Scripture account R • m 9 6, 7 8. and without God in the world, through want of faith in Christ, whereby the heart is purified, and men have an interest in Christ and in God through Christ.

Reply. The contrary to all, and everyone of these, is true. For, 1. It enlargeth the Grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by showing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame and sta • e, then the Jews of old were, under Legal Dispensations: which therefore are not continued and propagated by a natural succession, as that National Church was, but by God's • illing them with an holy calling, according to his purpose and grac • , 2 Tim 1.9. and adding thereby to the Christian Church such as, in their charitable judgment, shall be saved, Acts 2.43. 2. It declareth that the state of the Jews, when they shall be called, will be far better then it was under Legal D • spensations, yea, then the condition of the Gentiles is now. For, under the Law, their light and holiness was defective, and Christian Churches now, how careful soever they be in point of admittance, cannot avoid the creeping in of Hypocrites: but the Jews, when they shall be called, shall have a far greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages of the Churches, and all the Members of the New • erusalem shall be Elect, they and their children successively; and no Hypocrite shall be mingled with them, Rev. 21. & 22. 3. Nor doth the denial of the Proposition, infer a denial of the application of the initiatory Seal to such as stand regularly in the Church and Covenant: but the contrary. 4. Nor doth it break God's Covenant, by denying Baptism to such as are regularly in Covenant. These are Accusations without Proof.

Reply. The major being granted; the minor is denied For, 1. All that is said in the Proposition, may be affirmed of sundry that have not visible saving Faith in Christ, in the lowest degree. Therefore these are no sufficient grounds for charity to account them Believers in Christ, in the least degree. Let them that are to be admitted into Membersh • p, by the • r personal right, show how Faith was wrought, and how it works in them, in the lowest degree: then the Church will have some ground for their charitable judgment concerning their fitness for regular Church-membership and communion. 2. Nor are the ch • ldren of the godly, qualified but as the persons in the Proposi ions, said to be fait full in •• t. 1.6. whether we understand that Text in a Moral, or Spiritual sense: The first, is a f • uit of Moral Principles and Education; these are short of the qualifications in the Proposition: The second, is a fruit of the Spirit G • . 5.22. These are Believe • s in Christ, Acts 16.15. 3 Epist John. ver. 5. and are qualified above what the Proposition requ • reth.

R pl. 1 It remains to be proved, that the Parents in question are children of the Covenant: They were children of the Covenant in their infancy and minority, and bound thereby, when they became adult, to covenant for themselves and their seed, in their own persons, being fitly qualified, as their godly Parents did before them: If they, being grown up to be men, perform not this Covenant, they cannot fitly be called Children of the C • venan • , but Transgressours of the Covenan • , and Breakers of it. 2. The Argument is fallacious: Some children of the Covenant have had the beg nnings of grace manif stly wrought in them in younger years. Therefore all persons of this sort, showing nothing to the contrary, are, in charity, or to Ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers. This A • gument is to be denied: both because it argues from some Particulars, to infer a General affirmatively; and from that which is positively manifest, in some, to p • ove the same to be in others, in whom it is not positively manifest, but only they show nothing to the contrary: which makes them at best but Negative Christians, which is not to be Christian indeed.

Re l Both their Assertion, and their Proof of it, are to be denied. 1 The • ss • rtion is not true, that the Parents in quest on are regula lie in the Church. Infants and children in minority of co • f d • rate Believers, are in the • hu ch, by their Pare ts covenant ng f • rt • e •• , 1 C • . 7.4. But Parents are not reg l •• lie i • the Church, t ll, being fitly qualified they confede • ate for th mselves, and their children und r age, Acts 2.30 b • ing q • all • fied according to that Prophesy concern ng these time of the Gospel, in 〈◊〉 . 56.6, 7. 2. The Proof is not apposi e: f •• , P ••• wro • e that Ep stle to the adult Members regularly admitted un • o full communion with the Church at Ch i •• , whom he styleth, Sanct fi d in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1.2. and such were they of whom he sp •• ks in all the Church • of the Sai •• , 1 Cor. 14.33. But the Parents in question, being •• cer Members, not in fu • l communion, are not regularly approved of the Church to be such. Therefore this co • cerns not them.

R ply. Reverend Mr. C • tton was wont to say, Elect children have the grace of the Covenant, viz. Fai h and Repentance &c. given to them, in and by the Covenan • , and sealed by Baptism, Deut. 30.6. but the rest have only the Covenant of Grace, for eternal means • f grace, given in the Promise, and sealed by Baptism, till they reject them. This testimony is true, and this distinction is grounded upon Scripture, R • m. 11 7. and it is necessary, to prevent that Opinion of Universal Baptism-Grace, which the Arminians improve to establish their dangerous Error of the final and total Apost • cy of the Saints from Grace. But God, who hath promised, is faithful, and will do according to his Promise, working effectually in the Elect, in his appointed time, the grace promised in the Covenant, so powerfully that they shall not reject it; the rest shall have the outward means of Grace, according to his Promise, till they reject them, as Es • u did. To these, Faith and Repentance are not indefinitely given in the Promise, and sealed by outward Baptism; as neither was it given in the Promise, and sealed by outward Circumcision indefinitely to those who, when they became adult, brake the Covenant. Whereupon Paul distinguish d the jews and Circumc si • n, Rom. 2.28 29. and answerable thereunto is Peter • distinction of B • ptism 1 Pet. 3.24. Therefore such as reject the offers of G ace as all that living under the m • a • s of Grace remain unb lievers, do Mat. • 3 37. cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise, in that sense, wherein that phrase is used in 2 Pet. 1.4.

Reply. If they have Faith and Repentance given them under God's Hand in the Covenant, and sealed by Baptism; and if they do so receive them, that it continues valid, and so a valid testimony for them: What can hinder regularly such Church-members from partaking of the Lord's Supper, • c?

Reply. 1. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. The New Testament nowhere alloweth that latitude of speech to call men visible B lievers, who never were regularly joined to that number, nor fitly qualified to take hold of the Covenant personally for themselves and their children. 2. Nor can they be accounted Believers, or in the number of Believers, as infants are, who are lo • ked at only as in their Parents Covenant, being not capable of covenanting for themselves, as men are: So that there is not par ratio between them. 3. Visible want of ability to examine themselves, and of that special exercise of F • ith which is requisite to that Ordinance, argues a visible want of that Faith wh ch is to be examined and exercised, and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership, as well as to the Lord's Supper, &c.

Reply. The children in qu • stion, are children of Parents who are not members in full communion with the hurch, and so not regularly personal Members. If such & their children, be denied to have any part in the Lord, it is the degenerate Parents, not the Churches fault. They who a e not in Chu • ch-communion, cannot regularly communicate unto their infant-seed a right and title to Baptism, which is the first visible Seal of Church-commu • ion, 1 • or. 12.13. 2. It is not true, that the Churches denying Baptism to the children in question, is a denial of the children of the Church to have any pa • t in the Lor • ; f r such are not, according to Scripture Rules child en of the Church succ • ssively: for the Parents have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their seed, by their not confederate ng for themselves and theirs regularly. 3. That this denial • a • a dangerous te • dency to Irreligion and Apostasy, is not proved by them, nor can be. That Text in Josh. 22.24, 25. speaks nothing for their advantage in this case; for the men there spoken of, were Members in full communion with the Church of Israel, and their children, when they were grown up, were j • yned in Covenant person • lly, and immediately with the Lord and his Church, by a solemn Covenant, every third year, Deu. 26.17, 18. which was to continue in Canaan, throu • hout their generations, till the coming of Christ. So that they had a part in the Lord successively, from which if they had been excluded caust • sly, it m ght have caused their children to cease from fearing the Lord B t Christ hath not appointed any such Ordinance to continue such a succession in Christian Churches under the Gospel. Therefore the Text in J ••• doth nothing at all concern the children of Parents in question.

The tendency of the following Discourse is to prove, that

Reply. They, who so conceive, have such grounds of that persw si • n, as w ll not easily be removed nor are so much as shaken by any t ing said in their Book. I will • ngly grant, that to seek to •• e more holy than the Rul • , will ever • n • in impurity in the issue: but that cannot be truly applied to those who conceive herein according to Gospel Rules. Let them also grant, that to increase, continue, and propagate Churches under the Gospel, by means not ordained by Christ under the New Testament, but opposite thereunto, is to gather without Christ, wh ch will ever end in scattering • n • he issue, and then, What will become of the purity and prosperity of Christian Churches? It is true, that the frame of the Covena • t runs, T • ou, and to our se • d after us in their genera •• ons; but it must be understood and applied suitably to the different constitution of Churches, under different admin strations of the Covenant, under the Old Testament, and under the Gospel.

Reply. It is indeed the Churches glory to keep in the Line, and under the infl • ence and efficacy of this Covenant, successively, when the Spirit, as a free A • ent, brings any into that Line, and under that efficacy of the Covenant by succession in Faith, as he did 〈◊〉 the Grandmother, and Eun • ce the Daughter, and Timo • hy her G • andchilde, 2 Tim. 1 5. That is the only true Gospel succession, when it is made visible to t e Churches charitable judge • meant, accord • ng to Gospel Rules. But that cannot de done, by setting up such a Meer Members • ip in Christian Churches, whereby the infants shall be bapt • zed, by a right derived to them from Parents, who are not in full communion with the • hurch by their personal Membe • sh • p. What influence and efficacy hath the Covenant upon such Parents as a • e n such a Memb • rship, wherein the Church judgeth them unfit for communion? and that, not for any Scandal given by them, after their adm • ssion, but for the nature of their Meer Membership. To d savow such a Memb • rship, is so far from cutting off the prosper • ty of M • n, and from hindering it from being, as in the most glorious times it shall be, An eternal Excellency, and the joy of many generations, that this imputation belongs to the contrary Tenent, which is here asserted.

But they argue;

Rep y. The Argument is to be denied. For, it will not follow, that, if God did establish the Church of the Jews, before the coming of Christ, by such a successive progress of the Covenant in Deut. 29.13. therefore he doth so now. As for the place Jer. 30 20. where it is said, that the children of the Jews shall be as aforetime; it is meant only of their outward condition, that it shall be as good as before the Captivity. See Engl. Annotat. This place then is impertinent to Circumcision or Baptism. But there is a manifest difference between the constitution of these Churches. The Church of the Jews before Christ, was, for the matter of it, of the Israelites descended from Jacob, by successive natural propagation; yet this successive progress of the Covenant, did not then establish the whole Church of Israel in the twelve Tribes: for the ten Tribes fell off under Jeroboam, and never returned again. The Church of the Jews that shall be under the New Jerusalem, must consist, for the matter of it, of Elect and Sincere Believers only, both they and their children successively to the end of the world, according to the Prophesies in Isa. 60.15. & 50.21. Ier. 32.39. Ezek. 37.25-28. Psal. 102.16, 28. and sundry other places. But Christian Churches among the Gentiles now are constituted of visible Believers, for the matter of them, among whom sundry close Hypocrites creep in. The progress of the Covenant in them, by Christ's Ordinance, is thus far successive, that the children in minority of confederate visible Believers shall be baptized, and thereby bound, when they become adult, to perform the Covenant in their own persons, and to confederate for themselves and theirs, as their godly Parents did before them: which if they do not, those Parents by their degeneracy stop the successive progress of the Covenant: In which case, Christ doth not allow the Churches to provide for a succession, by setting up a Meer Membership of adult persons, that are visibly unfit for Church-communion in all Ordinances. Such irregular bringing of men into Membership, will unavoidably bring in the corrupting of Religion, which will end in Apostasy. There be better ways to convey Religion down to after-generations, and to continue a Nursery in Christ's Vineyard, then this way of setting up such a successive Membership, which Christ hath not sanctified by his Institution; viz. The vigilancy and faithful care and endeavor of Church Elders, and Family-Rulers, to fit them for regular Church-fellowship, in the using of all suitable means, with fervent Prayer to God in Jesus Christ for his blessing upon the same, leaving the issue to his All-disposing wisdom, who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will; according whereunto, he with-holdeth from, and addeth unto the Church whom he will, Acts 5.13. & 2.47. Nor can I but marvel how it comes to pass, that they who seem to approve Mr. Cottons Treatise of the Holiness of Church-Members, (which indeed is worthy to be highly approved) do act as they do, in setting up such a Meer Membership of adult persons (as hath no agreement with his description) who are far from personal holiness: The young people of this Country, yea, the children of Church-members generally, as well as others, being commonly known to be Profane, Vain, Licentious, Vicious, Disobedient to Parents, Unfaithful to Masters, Stubborn, Proud, Self-willed, and yet these shall be accepted into immediate personal Membership, whereby they become Covenanters for themselves and theirs; to whom the Lord justly saith, as in Psa. 50.16, to 23. What hast thou to do to take my Covenant into thy mouth?

Obj. They have the more need to be under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church.

Answ. Their unfitness for such an holy Fellowship, as Christian Churches are, being so manifest, how can it be rationally expected that they who submit not themselves to the Yoke of Family-Government, will orderly submit themselves to Christ's Yoke in Church-censure? But, as the admission of such, is without due regard to their Spiritual Fitness; so the application of Church-censures to them, will be disregarded and slighted by them. The Churches will have trouble enough with them, and dishonor, and infection, and disturbance by them, without any acceptance with God, who will say, Who hath required these things at your hands? and without any blessed fruit, either to the Church, or to such Meer Members. For, God limits his Blessing to his own Appointments. When Uzzah put forth his hand to take hold of the Ark of God (for the Oxen shook it) the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he made a breach upon Uzzah, 2 Sam. 6.6, 7, 8. because they sought not the Lord in the due order, 1 Chron. 15.2, 13. The application is easy. I proceed to examine their sixth Argument.

This they endeavor to prove in the terms severally.

Reply. The Argument hath Parents for its Subject, but most of the Proofs belong only to Infants; viz. three of them; the other two belong only to adult persons, regularly admitted into Church-membership, which therefore doth not concern the Parents in question. There are two sorts of Church-members, and both are accounted holy: 1. Children of Confederates in their minority, whose right to Membership is from their relation to confederate Parents covenanting for them; whence they are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. though not in their persons, yet foederally & relatively. 2. Are Baptized, though in their persons, yet by and for their Parents covenanting for them, being incapable of covenanting for themselves. 3. They are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own persons. This is answered before, when the third Proposition was examined. 4. By means of the Covenant, their persons are in a visib e state of Salvation; while nothing appears to the contrary 2. Adult persons, whose Membership is founded in their own personal Faith, made visible to the regular satisfaction of the Church. To these the other two properties do agree: 1. That they are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own pe • sons. See Propos 3. examined. 2. When they personally commit iniquity, they personally break the Covenant. This is not proved concerning infants, nor can be; for that in Ier. 11.2, 10. is spoken by the Prophet to the men of Judah: so that in Ezek. 16.

Reply. By what is answered to the former, it appears, that personal Membership is of two sorts; 1. Purely, or merely Personal; such is the Membership of adult persons regularly admitted: for their Membership is both subjectively, and formally personal, by their orderly covenanting for themselves. 2. Mixtly Personal; such is the Membership of the infants and children in minority of confederate Parents. For their Membership is only subjectively Personal, but formally Relative, by their Parents covenanting for them, they being unable to covenant for themselves. To apply this to children's Membership, which they unfitly style Immediate: I say, unfitly; for two things are requisite to the denominating of a Member, Mediate or Immediate. 1. To an Immediate Member, that his Membership arise 1. From his personal Faith, made visible to the Church. 2. From his personal Confederating with the Lord and his Church, for himself and his seed. Such an one is an Immediate Member, because his Membership is from himself, as well as in himself. 2. To a Mediate Member, 1. That is Membership ariseth, not from his personal Faith made visible to the Church, whereof he is not capable, but from his believing confederate Parents. 2. That it is from such Parents covenanting for him. Such an one is a Mediate Member, because his Membership, though it is subjectively in himself, yet it is relatively from his Parents. Whence it will follow, that this kind of Membership is peculiar to such infants and children in minority, only during their non-age. This distinction of Mediate and Immediate Church-members, the Writers of that Book exagitate causelessly, saying,

Reply. I look at believing confederate Parents, not as the instrumental, but as the procreant cause, as of the childes natural being, by his generating him; so also of his Church-membership, by his confederating for him, and this by God's Institution: therefore I choose rather to call him a mediate membe • , then to say he is a member immediately; to show, that the childes Membership differs from the Parents specifically, or in the kind of Membership. For, the childes Membership is Relative, in it Essence, though Personal, in its Subject; which doth vary the Essence, or Nature of it, from the Parents, which is both in its Essence and Subject merely Personal. Divine Institution giveth a real, and mixedly personal membership to such children by their Parents covenanting for them, as the immediate procreant cause of their membership, whereby the children become mediate Members, i. e. mediante Parentum foedere, which gives Being to the Membership of such children, and differenceth it from the Membership of adult persons. Divine Institution, though it doth not make every Parent a Public Person, against which Title I excepted in my first Essay, and whereunto I find no Answer here: Yet it makes such Parents Covenant to be Obligatory to such children, and the Parents act in covenanting for the child, to be the childes act interpretatively, not formally, so as to make the child an immediate Member thereby.

Reply. The interest in the Covenant, and thereby a place and portion in the visible Church, is twofold: 1. A Childes interest and portion; which is in and by the Parents covenanting for him, and so is mediate. 2. A Mans interest and portion; which is by his own covenanting for himself and his child, and so is immediate. Though nothing comes between to sever the Adjunct from the Subject; The Child, from A portion in the Lord: yet something comes between to bring that Adjunct and Subject together; viz. The Parents covenanting for the Child; which if it did not come between, they would be severed, as they are in other children, who have no such portion in the Lord, through their want of such Parents to covenant for them. Therefore the Membership of the Infants of confederates is truly and properly said to be mediate.

Reply. Yet it will not follow, that they are immediate members of the visible Church: For, the union between Christ and the Church, and all visible Church-members, is not properly, but Metaphorically called Ingraffing, because there is some similitude of this Spiritual Union in Material and Corporal Ingraffing, Now similitudes do not run on four feet (as we commonly say) it sufficeth that they agree in the main point of Union: Whether that Spiritual Union, which is likened to corporal engraffing of a graft to the stock of a Tree, be mediate, as that of confederate Infants is, or immediate, as that of Parents and adult persons is; both may be called Ingraffing, in respect of the event, which the Apostle notes in Rom. 11.17. that both, together with other branches or members, partake of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree, suitably to their union with it. Mediate Members, as Infants, and children in minority, partake of Baptism, and the special Instruction, Prayers, Blessing, and Watch of the Church, by their Parents covenanting for them: But Parents and adult persons, being immediate Members by their personal covenanting for themselves and their seed, partake of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree • , in all Ordinances, as, The Lord's Supper, and liberty of Voting in all Church-affairs, and are liable to Church-censures immediately in their own persons. Paul knew no such mere membership as they set up, who shall by their personal Membership be under the Watch, Discipline, and Censures of the Church, and have their children Baptized, but not partake of other Privileges together with other adult Members, no offense intervening after their admission to put them under Church-censure, and so to debar them regularly as delinquent Members, from full communion. So that this Text makes nothing for them in the case of Infants, but much against them, in the case of adult persons mere Membership. Nor doth that Text in D ut 20.11. prove, that the little children were immediate Members of the Church of Israel so as their Parents were. And though to be in Covenan • , is the formalis ratio of a Church-member; yet it will not thence follow, that every Covenantee doth covenant immediately for himself; nor that every Member of the Church is an immediate Member.

Reply. The Parents acting in Covenant for their Infant-seed, hath been before proved to be the Procreant cause of the childes Membership: not are the children said to enter int • Covenant, Deut. 29.11. otherwise then in and by their Parents Covenant. Yet, as if all they have said were clear, they demand,

Reply. All that they have here expressed, doth not supply what is wanting to little children, to invest them with an actual, complete, proper, absolute, and immediate membership. For, though they are in Covenant, which is the formalis ratio of their Membership, yet it is mediately, (i. e. mediance Parentum foedere ) and so their Membership is mediate. 2. Divine Institution grants unto the little children of his people such a portion in his Church as they are capable of, during their minority, and appoints them to be such Members, as such covenanting of Parents for them can make them. 3. This Divine Institution makes their Parents Undertakers for such children, and them bound, by their Parents acting, to perform that Covenant, when they shall become capable, and when they grow fit, to covenant with the Lord and his people for themselves and theirs, and so to be regularly, in their own persons, by their personal act, immediate Members. So that there is wanting unto children in minority, to make them actual, complete, proper, absolute, and immediate Members, A personal fitness in themselves, to act in orderly covenanting for themselves, which is required in all adult persons unto immediate Membership. When one comes to be in Covenant in one way, and other in another way; though both are in Covenant, yet these different ways makes their being in the Covenant different, and so their Membership. He that comes to be in the Covenant by his own immediate acting, is an immediate Member: He that comes into it by another's acting for him, is a mediate Member. For, though we are as truly, personally, and immediately Members of the Body of fallen Mankind, and by Nature Heirs of Condemnation, as Adam was, though he came to it by his own personal act, and we by the act of our public person; yet that doth not suit the case of Infants in question: for, 1. Adam stood as a public person, in whose loins all Mankind were under the first Covenant, and to be happy or condemned, by his standing or falling. No Parent is such a public person covenanting for all his Posterity, but for his Infants, and children in minority, while they are such, leaving his adult children to Covenant for themselves, if he hath any such children, when himself enters into Covenant. 2. Adams Covenant was only with the Lord, not with any Church, as the Covenant of co • federate Parents is; and therefore, if Adam had stood, his posterity had not been Church-members thereby, as the infants of Church-confederates. 3. Nor doth the Parents breaking his Covenant, make his children Heirs of Condemnation, as Adams did all Mankind. So that this example of Adam is impertinently produced in this case of infants, and their Parents confederating for them, not as their public person, but as Undertakers for their infant-seed by God's Institution. Nor indeed is any to be accounted a public person, as Adam was, but Jesus Christ, for all that are in him, Rom. 5.14, to 20. Nor doth their similitude of a Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively, while they continue loyal, suit the case in question, concerning Infants, who cannot be visibly disloyal; nor that, concerning adult persons not regularly joined to the Church, as immediate Members, whose Parents were godly when they covenanted for them in their infancy. For, they have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their Posterity, by their personal disloyalty: so that nothing is given to them and theirs by their Covenant which they presume to usurp, without warrant from God. They say true, that

But that refutes nothing that I have said, concerning mediate and immediate Members; for both are within the Church according to Rule and Divine Institution, though both have not full communion with the Church in all Ordinances, which is the privilege of all adult persons, who are immediate Members by their own personal right, 1 Cor. 5.12. They frame an Objection thus:

And they Answer it thus:

Reply. The intendment of the Objection (as I apprehend) is to show, that complete and immediate Membership, as such, doth infer complete and immediate communion in all Church-privileges: But children in minority have not complete and immediate communion in all Church-privileges without some further act or qualification: Therefore such children are not complete and immediate Members, as such. Now to this, their Answer is insufficient: For, the best Members have need to make progress in memberly duties and qualifications, to fit them more and more for Church-privileges. Yet all have that communion that suits their Membership: Infants, in Baptism, the Watch, Prayers, and Blessing of the Church, by their Parents covenanting for them: Adult persons, orderly and regularly joined by their personal covenanting for themselves, in the Seals, Voting, and Censures, which belong to them, as such Members. Nor doth the Scripture anywhere allow the Church to admit any one by personal covenanting for themselves and theirs, into any other Membership then complete and immediate. But Infants are not capable of such Membership, without some further personal act and qualification, when they shall become adult. Therefore their Infant-membership is not complete and immediate.

Reply. 1. When I affirm, that their mediate Membership continueth during their minority, while they are under the Institution and Government of Parents, &c. I deny that that Membership continues in adult age, and when they are at their own disposal, or have children of their own to covenant for: because then the reason of their mediate Membership ceaseth, they being by age capable of covenanting for themselves. 2. Their first Reason doth not prove, that the Membership of all baptized in Infancy, continues in adult age: For the Text alleged speaketh only of such as have been received into complete and immediate membership regularly, by their personal Faith and Covenanting with the Church visibly, who are broken off, either by the just judgment of God, as the unbelieving Nation of the Jews are, or by the just Censure of the Church. Whereas our question is, not of such, but of adult persons, that break off themselves from the Covenant, by profane neglect, or contempt of the Ordinances, or unsuitable Conversation. Who ever said, that any were broken off for growing up to adult age? Such intimations should be forborne by godly men.

Reply. 1. That the Jews children circumcised were bound to various duties, and to those solemn professions that pertained to adult members, when themselves were grown up, is clear enough by the Texts alleged, and sundry other. Whereunto I willingly add, that Baptism also bindeth the Infant-seed of Confederates to various Gospel-duties, and especially this, of using all means that Faith may be wrought in their hearts, unto obeying the Call of God, and then holding forth their Faith unto the Church, that they may take hold of the Covenant for themselves and theirs, and so become complete and immediate Members. But 2. It is not proved, by those Texts, that when they were adult, they did not enter into a new Membership; rather the contrary appears in Deut. 26.17, 18. For, they entered into that Covenant personally and immediately, not in and by their Parents, as they did in Infancy, Gen. 17.7. If convenanting be the Form of Church-membership, (which they affirm) then a different form of covenanting, makes a different kind of Church-membership. Immediate covenanting, makes immediate Members; Mediate covenanting, makes mediate Members.

Their third Reason is,

Reply. 1. Those Relations of born Servants and Subjects in the Text allege d, have d fferent respects. That Lev. 25. was typical, figurin the time of Grace, whereby now Christ hath freed u f o the servitude of Sin and Satan, 〈◊〉 8.32, 36. R •• . 6.14, 18. to b • come the Servants of God in Christ, Rom. 6 22. 1 C r. 7.23. Parents and children, so far a • they have in •• r • st in the Redemption wrought by Christ, as they are freed by him from other Lord, so they are bound thereby serve him all the day • of their l • f • , Luke 1.74, 75. Therefore this relat • on doth not cease with infancy, but continueth in adult age. But this doth nothing concern the thing in question, concerning M diate Membershi. The other Text, in Ezek. 37.25. is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect Nation of the Jews, and of the state of the Church under the New Jerusalem; the difference between which, and the Chr • stian Gentiles now, I have formerly shewn: so that neither doth • hat fit the question. But 2. I grant, (though not as following thence) That one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement, to service and subjection to Christ in his Church, when grown up, when they are fittest for it, and have m • st need of it. The engagement is strong, both on the Parents, To train up their children, from their Infancy, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6.4. and upon the Children, To know the God of their Parents, and to serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind, 1 Chron. 28.9. and upon the Church, To exercise their Watchfulness, that both Parents and Children do their duty, helping them also therein with their Instructions, and Prayers, and Power, which is given for Edification, as the case may require. Yet, when all this is done, neither can the Parents nor the Church give Grace unto the Children, that, when they become adult, they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate Membership; and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly, is to profane the Ordinances, and to pollute the Lord's Sanctuary.

Reply. This enumeration is insufficient; there is another ordinary way of cessation of Membership, i. e. Desertion. Thus Esau 's Membe sh p cea • ed, and so may the Membership of others, though they abide in the place where the • hurch • s; yet, if being adult, they regard n • t to join with the Church by their personal • nd immediate Confeder • tion, nor to fit themselves for it, these despise the Chu • ch of God. And, if that is sufficient to deprive th • se of all hurch priv ledg s who were before in personal and immediate Church fellowsh p when they forsake it. 1 Job. 2.19 much more those who never had such Membership, nor have approved their Spiritu • l fitness for it, to the Churches charitable judgment, nor truly desire and end a • our so to do. What can the mediate Membersh • p, wh • ch such had in Infancy, advantage them for continuing thereby still in Membership, when being adult, they live in the breach of that Covenant, whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church?

Reply. A Freemans child (suppose of London, or any other Corporation) was free-born, and might, in his minority, trade under his father; yet, being grown up, he must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen, and be accepted of the Company, as his father was, unto all Duties and Liberties of that Society in his own person; else he may not trade for himself. If it be said, Why so? either he is a Freeman, or a Non-freeman. It will be readily answered, He is a Non-freeman, and that by his own defaul • . If it be said, He was Free by his Fathers Copy, and is not dis-franchised by any public Censure, nor hath deserved so to be; may such an one (the Society whereof he was, still remaining) become a Non-freeman, and out of that Society, &c? The answer will easily and readily be given, He hath lost his Freedom, by not entering, in his own person, into the common Engagement of Freemen, to the Duties whereunto all Freemen are personally bound. So, and much more justly it is in this case. An adult person makes himself to become a Non-member, as to privileges, by not performing the Duties whereunto he was bound by his Parents Covenant for him in his minority, and by his not regularly covenanting, as his Parents did. And his is according to Scripture, which tells us, that Circumcision received in Baptism may become, by his own fault, being adult, no Circumcision, Rom. 2.25. Those Texts in Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7. are not applicable to the adult persons in question, but only to Infants, and Children in minority.

Reply. This Proposition may not be granted. For, 1. It granteth the privilege of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members, which is contrary to Christ's Ordinance, whereby Baptism, being a public Church-Ordinance, is due only to them who have a public state and Interest, such are only the Members of the public Ecclesiastical Body, the Church. Hence 1. An ordinary Minister cannot orderly perform an act proper to his Office, in reference to Church-communion, to any that are not regularly and actually Members of the visible Church, without great usurpation: as, if a man do a work proper to Magistracy, to one that is not under his Magistratical Power, he is an Usurper. So it is in this case of a Minister. To administer Baptism, is an act of his Office-power: If he administer Baptism to children, whose Parents are not regularly in Church-order; in so doing, why may not the Lord say, He is an Usurper? Suppose an unbaptized person, professing his Faith, and qualified according to the description in the sixth Proposition; yet deferring, for some probable causes, to adjoin himself to the Church, for the present, should desire Baptism of any of these Ministers who framed this Proposition; Should they administer it to him, and so do a proper work of their Office upon him? If yea; if they admit him to Baptism, why not to the Lord's Supper, and to the choice of Officers, and to the Censures of the Church, either actively or passively? for all these are Actions and Ordinances of one general nature: and it is merely his want of Church-order that debars him from them. 2. The Church may not receive into any privilege of Church-communion, such as Baptism is, (whatever cause they seem to have, in the judgment of charity, to think them fit for Church-membership, and such as had they been called, would have so acted ) until they be actually in public Church-order; no more then the children of every good Subject of the King, may be admitted into the special Prerogatives of a Corporation, whereof themselves, or their next Parents are not regularly free. All things must be done in order, 1 Co • . 14.40. whereunto, what is more contrary, then that he, who is not regularly and personally of a public Society, should have Fellowship in a public Privilege, proper to that Society? Yet they say this, which the Proposition holds forth, is manifest:

Reply. The Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the Covenant, which was sealed to them by Baptism, in their Infancy, and obliged them to service and subjection to Christ in his visible Church, having confederated personally and regularly for themselves and theirs, as their Parents did before them. If they do not this, they are out of that order, by their own fault, wherein they might have given their children right to Baptism, according to Christ's Institution. That right which Parents have nor for themselves unto Baptism if they were unbaptized, they cannot • e to their children. They who are not Members in their own personal and immediate right, cannot give a right of membership to their children. And though their Membership in Infancy was distinct from their Parents, yet being only mediate, by their Parents covenanting for them, it ceaseth, when they become adult, by their own fault, in that they were not orderly joined to the Church, immediately, by their personal covenanting for themselves and theirs, regularly.

Reply. 1. It hath been already proved, in our examining the fifth Proposition, that more is required to fit one that is adult, for Church-membership, then is there expressed, viz. Faith in Christ made visible to the Church, without which they are not regularly Church-members. Now Baptism administered by ordinary Church-Officers, to such as are out of Church-order, is profaned, as Circumcision was by the Shechemites, and would have been by the Ishmaelites, and Edomites, and the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, if it had been administered to their children, when their Parents were not joined to the Church of God, or abode not in it, in the Families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For, 1. One end of Baptism now, (as it was of Circumcision then) is to seal Church-communion, 1 Cor. 12.13. it is a public Testimony of the Admission of the party baptized into the Family of God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into whose Name he is baptized, Mat. 28.20. either immediately, if he be adult, by his personal Covenanting for himself and his seed; or mediately, if in his minority, by his next immediate Parents Covenanting for him. This the Parent in question hath not done. Hence the want hereof is a bar to his childes Baptism. 2. The regular and lawful use of B • ptism now (as of Circumcision of old) presupposeth both God's Promise, and his Faith, who is to use it, either upon himself or upon his Infant. Therefore he that presumeth to use it, being not so qualified visibly, ( viz. not having before the Promise of Christ, and Faith for Justification with Abraham ) doth he not treacherously usurp the Great-Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth? If not, surely it had need to be soundly cleared.

Reply. We must distinguish between private and public Service in a public state and order. 1. In private Service, God accepts the will for the deed, when the act • ng of it is hindered, either by God himself, as Abraham's sacrificing his Son, and David's building the Temple; or by the parties inability to do so much as he would, as in that case 2 Cor. 8.12. and the like. 2. But in public Service in a public state and order, he doth not accept of that as done which is not done, so far as to bring them into that state and order, whatsoever their desires and endeavors have been; for this were to overthrow and subvert that Order, which God hath by his Institution established, and to bring in Confusion. Will God accept a man in doing acts of Office power proper to a Minister of a Church, because he desired and endeavored to be a Minister, when he is not actually and regularly in Office? Or may a Church receive unto Fellowship of the outward Seals of the Covenant, such as are not actually and regularly joined to the Church, because they desired and endeavored to be of the Church, albeit their joining with the Church was hindered? To be baptized, in voto, will nothing advantage any to Church-fellowship, though a Martyr, in voto, is accepted of God as a Martyr, because though God searcheth and knoweth the heart, yet the Church doth not: De occultis non judicat Ecclesia; secret things belong to God, but revealed things to men, and things are not manifested to the Church, otherwise then by congruous actings: nor, in this case, can they or theirs have a right to Church-privileges, otherwise then by actual joining with the Church.

Reply. 1. It's an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation; for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture, or in good Reason. 2. If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expressly, is here done interpretatively, both being put together, will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship, in any sense, and to give his Infant a right to Baptism thereby. For, by Christ's Ordinance, only adult persons, who have true Faith in Him, and Holiness, are adult Members of the invisible Church, and the same persons, making holy Profession thereof outwardly in the order of him appointed, may be Members of the visible Church; and they only can give their Infant-seed a right unto Baptism. For, seeing without faith it is impossible to please God, in matters of his public Worship and Service, whereof Baptism is one; and seeing God hath appointed us to Worship him, both in it, and in all other public Duties and Services, so as we may please him therein: It followeth necessarily, that he requireth true visible Faith in all whom he priviledgeth to baptize their Infants, which yet is not expressly required in the fifth Proposition, nor interpretatively in this.

Reply. The regular Communion of approved Churches, I look at as the Ordinance of Christ, according to the 11 ^th and 12 ^th Posi • ions premised: but this Proposition is so ambiguously expressed, that it leaves me in the dark, till some Questions be answered, that the extent and compass of the sense and meaning of it may be better cleared. They distribute it into two parts, which they endeavor to prove severally: but neither of them are sufficiently explained. In the first part, I Enquire; What Churches they account Orthodox? whether such only as have the Truth of Doctrine, as it is opposed to Heterodoxies and Errors about the Doctrine of Faith, viz. Churches that are Heretical; or such also which are right in Judgment and Practice in matters of Church-Order. For both these the Church at C • loss was praised by Paul, in Col 2.5, 6. 2. What course the Church, where the Members of such Churches desire to have their children baptized, do take to know that such Members are s • und in the F • ith For a Member of an Orthodox Church may hold and maintain dangerous Errors, contrary to the Faith, 1 Cor. 15.12. 3. Whom they account to be not scandalous in life? whether only such as fall not under the censure of Civil Courts, or also such as are justly offensive to God's People by their sinful and disorderly walking? For they say, in their proof of the second part of this Proposition, that, to administer Baptism to such as walk in disorder, would be to administer Christ's Ordinance to such as are in a way of sin and disorder, which ought not to be done, 2 Thess. 3.6. 1 Chron 15.13. and would be contrary to that Rule, 1 Cor. 14.40. 4. What they account due Testimony? whether that which is given of them by the Church, from whence they come, or only that which they may have from some in the place where they live, and have been but a little while, whether they be Members of the Church or not? 5. What they mean by their occasionally coming from one Church to another? whether they take a due course to know that their occasion of coming be approved by the Church whence they come, or not? 6. When they say, They may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come, by virtue of the Communion of Churches? Quaere; 1. Whether they have Letters of Recommendation from the Church whence they come, whereby that Church desireth this fruit of Communion with the Church where they would have their children baptized, or not? That being the orderly way of exercising Communion among Churches, Rom. 16.1, 2. 2 Cor. 3.1. 3 Joh. ver. 9, 12. and, Whether the Infant must be baptized as a Member (in and by his Parents covevenanting for him) of that Church, whence his Parents come, or as a Member of the Church where he is baptized, and where the Parent is not a Member, but only hath this benefit of the Communion of Churches, that himself is admitted to the Lord's Supper, pro tempore, and his children to Baptism in a transient way? When these and the like Questions are Answered, I shall better know what to say to the first part of the Proposition, then now I do. In the mean time, to the first Proof thereof I have already spoken in my Replies to Propos. 1. & 2. & 5. & 8.

2. To clear their meaning in the second part of this Proposition: Quaere; 1. Whether such Removers have an orderly dismission from the Church whence they come, or not? 2. Whether the Church where they settle their abode, do subject themselves to the Government of Christ, or not? 3. Whether all refusing to Covenant with any Church whatsoever, where they are necessita ed to settle their abode, is to be judged to be disorderly walking, and to savor of Profaneness and Separation? 4. Whether if the Church in that place refuse to receive them into communion, so far as they are regularly fit for the same, or if they do not join in communion with that Church in the place where they dwelt, it b • ing not to be approved; Doth this their not being joined, d • bar their children from being baptized in another Church that is approved? These, and the like Questions, being clearly Answered, I shall understand the true and full sense of this Proposition, and what to say to it. So much may suffice, for the present, for Reply to their Answer to the first Question.

Reply. The Propositions following are eight. As for the first four: The first, Concerning the full Power and Authority Ecclesiastical, within itself, of each particular Congregation of visible Saints, in Gospel-Order, furnished, at least, with a Teaching Elder, and walking together in Truth and Peace. And the second, concerning The Sisterly R • lation of the Churches of Christ each to other. And the third, concerning The Union and Communion of such Churches. And the fourth, concerning The Acts of Communion; I fully close with, as well agreeing with the 11 ^th and 12 ^th Positions premised. Excepting only the sixth Act of Communion, and that, but in one part of it. For, To admonish one another, when there is need and cause for it, I confess is an Act of this Communion, and which may be proved from Gal. 2.11, 24. by proportion. But, for that other part of it, To withdraw from a Church, or peccant party therein, after due means, with patience used, obstinately persisting in Errors or Scandals; this must be taken with a grain of Salt. They refer us to the Platform of Discipline, (Chap. 15. Sect. 2. Partic. 3.) where they fetch a proof for this withdrawing, from Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. by proportion. But there seems to be a threefold dispr porti •• between that and this For, 1. There the Withdrawing is a consequent and ff ct of t • e C • urches authoritative Censure of a • obstinate offender after the first, and second, and third Admonition, the offender being a Member, and so under the Power and Authority of the Church, and to be so censured by the Church, to whom Christ hath given • he Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and hath ordained, that such an one shall be Excommunicated for his obst • nacy in off • nces, wh • ch were materially of a lesser kind, but, by obst • nacy of the delinquent, (after secret, priva e, and public Admonition) against the Ordinance of Christ for his reclaiming, becomes formally an heinous Scandal. But the Wi hdrawing of other Churches from a Church which they account peccant, is an act of different nature and kind. For, it is not an act of public Au • hority of such Churches over that Church, by virtue of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven given to any Synod, or Council of Neighbor-Churches, as they themselves confess in their first Proposition, for Answer to this second Question.

2. The steps, whereby they proceed to this Withdrawing, are,

Reply. This is not, by proportion, according to Matth. 18. For, there Christ doth not allow them, who have proceeded in Admonishing, but to the second step, to forbear communion with the delinquent: whereas these Neighbor-Churches are but in the second step Yet, they say, they may forbear communion with them. Then they ascend to the third step;

Thus they speak, in that Platform. But, is this, in proportion, according to Mat. 18. that the Neighbor-Churches may first withdraw, and then a Synod or Council of Neighbor-Churches must be made use of for their conviction? and, if the Synod declare them to be Obstinate, particular Churches are to declare the sentence of Non-communion, and then to withdraw themselves from all acts of holy communion? Till they can produce a clear Rule for warrant of such a proceeding, I cannot look at this otherwise, then as a mere human Invention.

3. Though Churches may withdraw from a Church that is obstinate and impenitent in some cases, (without any such solemn sentence of Non-communion declared by a Synod ) yet, not for such causes as a delinquent Brother may be Excommunicated by a Church, according to Mat. 18. For there, though the Offence was in some lesser matter, and private between two at first; yet, by obstinacy against convincing light, held forth in those three steps of proceeding, it becomes a public and heinous Scandal, and so the Delinquent must be at last Excommunicated by the command of Christ, and the Sentence of the Church, in obedience to Christ, who hath for such ends given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unto them. But Neighbor-Churches may not withdraw from a true Church for every Error and Scandal, though persisted in, and, in their opinion, obstinately. For 1. It may be the Error of Neighbor-Churches, to think that to be light from Scripture, which they hold forth for their conviction, when it is not from Scripture, rightly understood, and rightly applied If the Synod, by whom this Book is published, should conclude any Church to walk in Error, and Scandal, and Obstinately, which shall not be convinced from what light they have here held forth, nor practice accordingly, till what is Replied ad oppositum, be soundly Refuted, and their Allegations and Applications of Scripture, more convincingly and irrefragably cleared, and Withdraw communion from them, after the first, second, and third Admonition; and, If any Neighbor-Churches, for this or the like cause, should Withdraw from communion with them, after the Admonition of one Church, and, after that, of other Neighbor-Churches; They should greatly sin in so doing, and act contrary to their own Doctrine in their second Proof of their 7 ^th Proposition for Answer to this second Question, pag. 28. where they say, To refuse communion with a true Church, in lawful and pious actions, is unlawful, and justly accounted Schismatical. For, if the Church be true, Christ holdeth some communion with it; therefore so must we. Now the Churches in New-England were approved by their Neighbor-Churches to be true Churches, by their giving unto them the right hand of fellowship: and an Error in lesser matters, though persisted in against their Admonitions, (which may be from want of convincing light) doth not make any of them cease to be a true Church. But to Withdraw themselves from all holy communion with such a Church for such a cause, is Total separation from a true Church, which, themselves say, is unlawful, Ibid. 2. The cases, wherein communion may be regularly Withdrawn from a Church or Person, are only such as Subvert the Fundamentals of Religion, and are obstinately persisted in, against due means regularly used with patience for their conviction, being contrary to the Faith once given to the Saints; from whence they may be justly denominated Heretical, Tit. 3.10, 11. 2 Joh. ver. 10, 11. Or to the communion of Saints; from whence they may be justly styled Schismatical, Rom. 16.17, 18. Or to both, being fallen from the Truth once received; from whence they be justly called Apostatical, 2 Tim 4.10. Or, if there be any other case of like heinousness. But in cases of lesser importance, Churches and Christians are to be exhorted to walk worthy of their calling, with all lowliness, and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love: Endevouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, &c Eph. 4.1 2, 3, &c. concluding with blessed Paul, that (the main things of Religion being provided for, and secured, for lesser matters) if in anything ye be otherwise minded; God shall reveal even this unto you, Phil. 3.15. For, in such matters, godly men do frequently differ, and are not easily convinced; some from the strength, others f om the weakness of their Intellectuals: and the b • st • now • ut in part.

I have been the larger in clearing this Point for necessary causes. Having thus sp • ken to t • e four first Propositions, I proceed to t • e fif • h and six • h Propositions.

Reply. Before I proceed to argue upon these Propositions, some things should be premised, in way of Enquiry, that the terms may be rightly understood. Quaere. Whether by mutual and solemn Agreement, they mean a Vow? It seems by the Texts alleged by them, in the first Proof of the sixth Proposition, that they mean so; and therefore I shall take it for granted that that is their meaning. 2. When they say, This solemn Agreement or Covenant must • e made with special reference to Churches in vicinity: Quaere. 1. How many Churches in Vicinity or Neighbor-Churches, must thus Covenant together? 2. Whether they must have set times of Meeting for this purpose? and who are to meet? Whether Elders alone? or others also sent from the Churches with them? and how frequent these Meetings must be? and whether the set times must be kept constantly, though they have no present need of counsel from another? 3. Whereas they speak of Liberty reserved, without offense, to make use of others, as the nature of the case, &c. may lead thereunto. Quaere. How they may avoid giving offense to Neighbor-Churches, if they use the help of Churches more remote? Whether they must have their consent thereunto before they use them? 4. Concerning the end and issue of this Consociation of Churches; Whether they are bound thereby to acquiesce in the judgment and determinations of those Neighbor-Churches, and to practice accordingly, whether they see convincing light in the Scriptures, or Arguments propounded to them, or not, under a Penalty of being judged by the rest to be Obstinate in Error and Scandal, and accordingly in time to have all holy communion with them withdrawn from them? It seemeth, by what was before said in the fixth Act of Communion for Answer to the first Question, pag. 31. that this will be the end and issue of this Consociation unto any Church that shall dissent from the rest. This Consociation they endeavor to prove to be a duty incumbent upon the Churches in New-England. I shall briefly weigh their Reasons.

Reply. It doth not necessarily follow, till they have proved that Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Covenant is commanded, as Communion of Churches is. Nor do the Texts alleged prove it in Psal. 119.106. David swore to keep God's righteous judgments, and would perform it; because, though he was not bound to swear, yet he had voluntarily sworn it, and so was under a double bond to perform it: for, both his keeping God's righteous judgments, and his performing that Vow, were commanded of God, Deut. 10.13. with Psal. 76.11. 2. And his Vow was private, betwixt God and himself. Hence it will not follow, that Churches are bound to consociate with a Vow or Covenant, after the manner here described, which is not proved to be a duty, and may be unsafe for particular Churches. That Cove • ant, in Neh. 10.28, 29. was their Church-covenant renewed and explained, and so was a mutual solemn Engagement, by entering into a Curse, and into an Oath (to which form we are not bound) and Church-covenanting is God's Ordinance, Isa. 19.21. & 56.4, to 8. & 62.5. all which are Prophesies of the Churches under the Gospel. But between the covenanting of a Church within itself, and such a covenanting as this for the consociating of Churches, there are considerable differences. 1. Because this wants Warrant from the Scripture, which that hath; there being neither any Precept in Scripture commanding it, nor any Pattern among the Primitive Churches, planted or approved by the Apostles, commanding it unto us. 2. Nor is there like Reason for such Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Agreement or Covenant between Churches in a vicinity, as is for a Church-covenant within itself. For, the Church-covenant is necessary, because, without it, the ends of Church-fellowship cannot be attained. For, 1. Each particular Church is a Spiritual Corporation; which therefore must receive its being from a Spiritual Combination, or Federal Engagement. 2. By virtue hereof, they that had no natural impression to subject them to others, or to give them power over them, have mutual power each over other, to command, & constrain, as the case requires; of which power they could not have been made partakers without mutual Agreement and Engagement. 3. Hereby they come to enjoy such Spiritual and Ecclesiastic Privileges, unto which none can be admitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole; which necessarily requires this Engagement to the whole, which is by Covenant. Thus Mr. Hooker argues, to prove the necessity of a Church-covenant, Survey, part. 1. chap. 4. p. 50, to 55. But the ends of Church-communion, (which is mutual helpfulness by counsel) may be attained (without such a Consociation by mutual Engagement) by the Communion of Churches, which of itself, without any other Engagement, gives Churches a right and interest in another way mutually for their help by counsel, when their needs require it. The Churches in New-England have, by the blessing of Christ, found the benefit of the Communion of Churches for settling Truth and Peace among them, without such a Consociation, and may so still. 3. Such an Agreement between Churches will become a Snare unto them, by straitening them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves, in re propriâ. 1. If, by virtue hereof, they may not administer Church-censures within themselves, without concurrence of Neighbor-Churches, or Elders approbation sought and attained thereunto before: Or, 2. If thereby they stand bound under the fore-noted Penalty, to rest in, and practice according to the judgment and advice of such Churches, having sufficient light and consent within themselves without them. 3. Mr. Rutherford affirms, That a convenient number of Churches, having ordinarily conversing one with another, shall voluntarily combine themselves in one Society; this last gives in the formality of Classical Membership, Lib. 2. p. 320. He adds: When God hath made him a combined Member, now, by institution, of one Presbyterian Church, not of another, though by ordinary converse with other Churches, in case of scandal, his example may prove prejudicial and infestuous to others, yet this Presbytery must proceed in Excommunication against him, because he is combined with them. Thus, you see, by this voluntary combination of Churches, a Church become a Classical or Presbyterian Church, and the Members, by consenting thereunto, become Members of a Classical Church, and under the power of it, so as to be Excommunicated by it. And is not this Consociation to be looked at as a Snare to the Churches? which 1. Transforms them from Congregational Churches into a Classical Church? And 2. Subjects them under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Classical Church? And 3. Without any warrant of Christ's Institution? Let us see if there be more in their second Proof.

Reply. 1. This necessity was proper to Paul 's case, who did not converse with Christ on earth, as the other Apostles did, but was as one born out of due time, 1 Cor. 15.8. and so was more liable to be objected and excepted against, then the other Apostles; and therefore had more need to be countenanced among men, by them, then they by him: Whence he wisely sought approbation from them. But this is not the case of the Churches in New-England, each of them having been approved by the right hand of fellowship given to them by other Churches at their first gathering, and at the Ordination of their Teaching and Ruling-Elders. 2. Paul did thus, not by reason of such a consociation of Churches, as is here described, but for other Reasons. 3. The running in vain of any Elders and Churches, hath been hitherto prevented by the communion of Churches regularly exercised, and still may be.

R ply. It is true, and it is their duty to make use of them, in obedience, and with thankfulness to God, as need requires, when they want light or consent within themselves, by virtue of the communion of Churches, without such a Consociation as they describe.

Reply. But, 1. Not with special respect to the vicinity of Churches: for Paul and Barnabas, and the Messengers f • om the Church of Antioch, passed through other Churches nearer, to go to Jerusalem for counsel. 2. Nor by virtue of such a Consociation of the Church at Antioch with that at Jerusalem, but of the communion of Churches.

R ply. Some of those Texts note only a communion of Saints in one and the same Church. 2. None of them hold forth a Consociation of Churches as they describe.

Reply. Together with the profession of communion, hath been the practice of it in these Churches. But that this communion importeth such a Consociation, as they describe, and obligation to the practice thereof, was not expressed, nor understood. Worthy Mr. Cotton, (whose Name ought to be honorable among the Saints, both in Old England and New ) in that Book which he entitled, The Way of the Churches in New-England, the sixth chapter, speaketh of the Communion of Churches, and showeth seven ways, whereby it ought to be, and is, in these Churches, exercised. They do (as I apprehend) reach all the Duties to be performed, by virtue of Church-communion, mutually, by each other: But of this Consociation (as it is here described) he speaketh not a word; nor, I believe, did apprehend any Necessity of it, or Rule in Scripture for it. Therefore, when they say, Without this, we shall want an expedient and sufficient cure for emergent Church-difficulties and differences; the constant experience of these Churches, from their beginning, to this day, evinceth the contrary. And though our Way is charged with the want hereof; yet it is unjustly, and by such as would bring us into their Way of Classical Churches, which is not proved to be the Ordinance of Christ, as this of the Communion of Churches is, and hath been found effectual, by the blessing of Christ, and so will be still. And though this part of the Doctrine of the Church, as they call it, concerning such a consociation, it being not proved to be the Doctrine of Christ, was never practiced in these Churches: For without it, the Churches either have been, or might have been, and may be hereafter, kept in purity and peace with Brotherly love among themselves mutually, by the regular improving the communion of Churches, which is manifested to be the Ordinance of Christ, who hath given us perfect Rules in the New Testament, for the ordering of the communion of Christian Churches, which are sufficient for attainment of the ends, for which Christ hath appointed it, according to the second, third, fourth, eleventh, and twelfth Positions premised. With which, if this way of Consociation of Churches shall be clearly proved to agree (which I do not find to be yet done) I shall readily and heartily close with it, and submit unto it. For it is only the Truth that I search for, and desire to bear witness unto, that, when my time shall come to lay down this earthly tabernacle (which I expect daily) I may give up my account with joy. 2. And, if any Church be refractory, we have the help of the Civil Power, which is ordained of God for the just punishment of those that do evil, whether in Church or Common-wealth, Rom. 13. Every O • dinance of God hath God's blessing annexed; which we cannot expect in this way, till it be proved to be God's Ordinance, which yet is not done.

Reply. If the Churches do express their Agreement herein openly, they do voluntarily engage themselves, and covenant to practice according to the things declared, not only in the point of Church-communion, but also of such consociation as is here expressed, which they have need to see to be warranted by the Word, if they will act accordingly in faith, knowing that whatsoever is not of faith, is sin, Rom. 14.23. What is said in the Platform, chap. 15 hath been, in part, examined before in chap. 16.5.

Reply. I grant, that the Synods Directions and Determinations, so far as consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. But what if the Members of Churches, to which they are sent, do not find them consonant to the Word rightly understood and applied? Are they nevertheless still bound to practice according to the Synods Directions and Determinations, because the Synod coucludeth that they are consonant to the Word? I suppose, no Orthodox Synod, in these times, will arrogate to itself such infallible Assistance, as the Apostles, being assembled with the Church at Jerusalem, had, Acts 15. (though they argued and concluded only from Scripture, yet that Council could not err in their understanding and applying Scripture, having such guides as the Apostles were) but will confess that they may err in their understanding and applying the Scriptures, whereupon they seem to g • ound their Directions and Determinations. And if so it is the duty of every Church, and the Members thereof, to examine by the Scriptures whatsoever Direction or Determination is propounded by the Synod. If they find that they are consonant to the Word of God, they are bound by God's Authority to receive them with reverence and submission. If otherwise, wrought to obey God, rather then man, Acts 5.29. 2. This power of the Synod (though they say it is but secondary, and that it is for their agreement with the Word, which is the principal ground thereof, and without which their Directions and Determinations bind not at all, yet) they make so binding, that, if any Churches shall refuse to practice according to the Directions and Determinations of the Synod, (though they have strong grounds of dis-satisfaction about the Synods interpretation and application of the Scriptures alleged by them) they will withdraw themselves from communion with them. Whether such an authoritative urging their counsels upon Churches be warranted by Scripture, let the Reader inquire and consider: and, Whether it will agree with what themselves before declared, concerning the unlawfulness of a total Separation from a true Church: and, Whether there be need of it to cure emergent Church-difficulties and differences; seeing all that are godly will readily close with such Directions and Determinations of Synods, as are clearly consonant to the Word of God: and, if any obstinately will persist in their own ways, contrary to the Word held forth to them by the Synod, the Civil Power is God's Ordinance for punishment of such evil doers, that the Churches may be kept pure and peaceable, in the exercise of Church-communion among themselves in a Brotherly way. Which yet is no impediment to the Churches (and that by the declaratory Sentence of a Synod, that is, after due conviction of a Church that is Heretical, Schismatical, Apostatical, or the like, with due patience exercised ) to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such as make themselves worthy, by their obstinacy against the light clearly held forth from Scripture, to be rejected, as not true Churches of Christ. Yet this they may not regularly do, merely for their Dissenting from the Determinations of the Synod, upon conscientious grounds, and in lesser matters. What is before expressed in the fifth Proposition, hath been already examined.

Such Meetings, for the end specified, being rightly ordered, and carried on in a Brotherly way, by men sincerely affected to establish Truth with Peace in the Churches of the Saints, according to the Rules given unto us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Law-giver, I do fully approve, as of profitable use, by the Blessing of Christ, for the good of the Churches.

CONSIDERATIONS UPON THE SEVEN PROPOSITIONS Concluded by the SYNOD sitting at BOSTON, June 10 ^th . 1662. By the Reverend, Mr. NICHOLAS STREET, Teacher of the Church of Christ at New-haven.

I.THis Phrase, Members of the visible Church, in the first Proposition, I take to be explained in the second Proposition.

II. By this Phrase in the second Proposition, Their Infant-seed, I suppose is meant only their legitimate infantseed, and is not to be extended to illegitimate children; against which a strong Argument may be gathered from Deut. 23.2.

III. The second Proposition doth seem to distinguish of Members in particular Churches: Some are said to be Confederate visible Believers; whereby, I suppose, is meant, such as have immediately and personally taken hold of the Covenant themselves, both for themselves, and for their seed: for it is manifest, that it is spoken of such as are made contradistinct to an infant-seed, that cannot thus do. Some are said to be Their infant-seed, (i.) children in minority &c. And how come these to be Members? The last words in the Proposition do show; which are, Whose next Parents, one or both, are in Covenant; which doth imply at least, that they become Members in and by their next Parents covenanting for them. Hence the ground of the distinction of Membership into Immediate and Mediate is very clear. The Argument may be thus framed: Such as is the ratio formali • of the Membership, such is the Membership, so may it be distinguished and denominated. But Confederation, which is the ratio formali • of the Membership, is immediate in the Parent, in the Childemediate. Ergo.

A difference in Membership is granted, both in this second Proposition, and some others after; and if this distinction to express the difference be not proper, let some better be laid down, that doth more aptly and fully suit the nature of the thing, and we shall receive it. In the mean time we shall hold to this, as conceiving, that the admitting of it would be a good means to preserve the Churches in purity, to prevent many unprofitable and u • co • fortable disputes, and other great inconveniences, which, the rejecting of it will unavoidably make way unto.

IV. This clause in the third Prop • sition, When grown up, are p •• sonally under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church; had need be warily understood, and doth call for some clear explication For, if it be meant that they are in the same way, and as fully under the D • s • ipline and G • vernment of the Church, as those who in their own persons have taken hold of the Covenant, it cannot be assented unto: For then, in case of such delinquency, as doth call for Excommunication in another Member, they are formally to be Excommunicated. But this may not be admitted. For,

1. Formal Excommunication doth not suit their state; they are within the Church only mediately, by their Parents confederation: Therefore are not to be cast out of the Church immediately and personally by formal Excommunication. 2. Besides, they are, in respect of strength, weak; and in respect of state, dead: especially being considered as in this third Proposition, without qualifications, even such as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition, which yet are separable from true and saving grace: They are too weak to bear the weight and strength of that Censure, which is mighty through God, 2 Cor. 10.4. it is to put new wine into old bottles, which Christ doth dislike in Spiritual matters, Mat. 9.

2. It seemeth to be very injurious to them, to lay them open to the highest Censure, and not to allow them proportionable privileges.

3. The main end of Excommunication, when it passeth upon such, is not like to be attained, which is, the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved, 1 Cor. 5.5. The Ordinance doth suppose the Subject of it to be flesh and spirit; they who are considered as without qualifications to make them capable of Church-privileges, as in this third Proposition, cannot be looked at as other then all flesh.

V. In the fourth Proposition it is said, These adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion, because they are and continue Members, without such further qualifications as the Word of God requireth thereunto. But whether the children of such are to be baptized, or not, is not said; and it is necessary that it should have been expressed, that the sense and meaning of the Synod might be rightly understood.

VI. To the fifth Proposition many things may be said.

1. This Proposition may rationally be looked at, as holding forth the qualifications wanting to full Communion, mentioned in the fourth Proposition: And if so, then it will follow, that such as have these qualifications, have right to full Communion: if I miss it, I would be thankful to him that should show me my mistake; if I am right, and do rightly express the sense of that Proposition, it were expedient that the Synod should plainly and fully express their meaning therein, to the understanding of all.

2. The qualifications are, Understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and professing their Assent thereunto; Not scandalous in life.

1. There is more required in a Church-member, even in point of knowledge, then to understand the Doctrine of Faith, and assent thereunto. He ought, in a competent measure, to understand Church-Order and Discipline appointed by Christ, otherwise he cannot Covenant in judgment, or own the Covenant; neither doth he know how to behave himself in the House of God, as a Member thereof.

2. The Devil doth understand the Doctrine of Faith, and doth assent thereunto, Jam. 2.19.

3. Not scandalous in life, is wholly Negative, and may be said of irrational Animals. He only that doth righteousness, positively, can be denominated righteous, 1 Joh. 3.7.

4. Besides all these, there must be the work and grace of Faith held forth, Acts 8.37, 38. & 16.31-34. before any meddling with the Covenant, Isa. 19.21.

3. It is said, And solemnly owning the Covenant, &c. The Scripture speaketh of Entring into a Covenant, 2 Chron. 15.12. of Making a Covenant with the Lord, 2 Chron. 29.10. and, Before the Lord, 2 Chron. 34.31. of Taking hold of the Covenant, Isa. 56 4. Now if their Owning the Covenant be the same; then, not only their children are to be baptized, but themselves admitted to full Communion; if short, then it is a mere human invention, not warranted by the Word.

4. Upon supposition, that the qualifications expressed be found in them, it is said, Their children are to be baptized. But

1. The first and second Propositions are against it. The first Proposition doth limit Baptism to the Members of the visible Church: The second Proposition doth explain who are meant by Members of the visible Church according to Scripture; 1. Confederate visible Believers in particular Churches, (i.) such as have personally and immediately Confederated for themselves, as the last clause showeth. And 2. Their Infant-seed, (i.) children in minority, whose next Parents, one or both, are in Covenant. Now these mentioned in the fifth Proposition, to whom Baptism is allowed, are neither the one nor the other. Ergo.

2. The grace of Faith is wanting, if there be no more then the qualifications before mentioned, and that is necessary to give their children right to Baptism, Acts 2.38, 39.

3. The children of such are not to be baptized, who themselves do live under great offense visibly, and do not reform, Exod. 20.5.

But so do these Parents, in not taking hold of the Covenant personally and immediately, for themselves. Ergo.

It may easily and abundantly be proved, that such as have been baptized in the Church, and have lived under precious means and great light, until they are Married, and have children, and all this while have neglected the main thing that doth concern them, which is to Believe, and upon their Believing, personally, and for themselves, to take hold of the Covenant, are under very great sin and offense. But I will only use one Argument, which is this:

Neglect of taking hold of the Covenant, or of entering into Covenant now under Christ and the Gospel, is as gross a neglect, as great a sin, as much displeasing to God, as was the neglect of Circumcision, the sign of the Covenant before Christ. Grounds of it are:

1. The thing itself is as weighty, that I say not, more.

2. As fully under command as that, 1 Joh. 3.23. Rom. 10.9, 10.

3. The neglect of it doth as necessarily and peremptorily infer God's highest displeasure, and everlasting destruction, if continued in, as that, Joh. 3.36. Mark 16.16. Heb. 2.3.

But that neglect was gross, the sin great, and very displeasing to God, Gen. 17.14. Exod. 4.24-26. Ergo.

4. If the children of such are to be baptized; if their children again thus baptized, live to have children, themselves not personally taking hold of the Covenant, or not entering into Covenant, what shall become of them? shall they be baptized, or not?

1. If not; it is needful that it should be declared, that all may know where to stop, and to understand, that this Privilege is not to exceed the Third Generation. Again, if not, it is strange that a child should be begotten or born of a Member, and yet itself be no Member; or, if a Member, have no right to Baptism.

2. If so; it may be demanded, By what right? or, Where is the ground of their right to Baptism? Not in the Grandfather, or Great-Grandfather; that is generally disliked: and the second Proposition doth limit it otherwise; but in the immediate Parent, I suppose. But, how is the right of these children's Baptism founded upon him? Not upon his personal Confederating; for it is supposed there is none: Nor upon his owning the Covenant of his father; for his father made no Covenant: he did only own the Covenant of his Parents, and that gave the right of Baptism to his children, as is held forth in the fifth Proposition, It remaineth therefore, that this Parent of the third Generation doth own what his Parent of the second Generation (he can go no higher) hath done, and what is that? He entered not into Covenant, but only owned the Covenant that his father entered into. And thus these last children, who are of the fourth Generation, do come to have right to Baptism, not by their Parents Confederation, as the second sort mentioned in the second Proposition; nor by their Parents owning their fathers Covenant, as the third sort spoken of in the fifth Proposition; but by these Parents (of the third Generation) owning their Parents (of the second Generation) owning the Covenant of their fathers, of the first. This seemeth to be an uncouth way, and very unpleasant Divinity.

VII. The sixth Proposition I look at as an Exception to the fifth; otherwise it is cross unto it, and against it. To this I say,

1. If there be any weight in the Arguments used under the sixth Consideration, against the baptizing of children, to whom the fifth Proposition doth allow Baptism; then they are likewise of force against the baptizing of children mentioned in this sixth Proposition.

2. I cannot but take notice of the several sorts of Membership, all giving right to Baptism: Two in the second Proposition, a Third in the fifth; a Fourth in the sixth: and if Membership, without personal Confederation by the seed of Confederate visible Believers, doth not end in the third Generation, then there is a Fifth, and a Sixth sort of Membership; and all these are differing one from the other. The two first are of God, and according to his Word, the rest are not.

VIII. The last Proposition seemeth to open a very wide gate in the Church, wider then God doth allow, Isa. 26.2. for though it requireth qualifications in such Members who claim right to Baptism for their children in other Churches, by virtue of Church-communion, yet it is altogether silent of the qualifications of such Churches themselves, only they must be Orthodox; that respects the Doctrine of Faith alone. There is much more to be attended: A Church may be Orthodox in matters of Faith, yet Scandalous in Practice: A whole Church may be under Scandal, as well as a particular person; and in that case another Church may withdraw from it, and have no communion either with it, or its Members. And this was, not long since, the Judgment and Practice of some of the chief Churches and Elders in the Bay.

Again, a Church may believe the main Articles of Faith, yet be so defective in Discipline, yea, so opposite to Christ's Government, as to lay aside his Laws and Institutions, and set up the Inventions and Traditions of men: And likewise may have such a corrupt Constitution, both in regard of Matter, Open scandalous livers; and likewise of Form, No visible express Covenant according to the Rules of the Gospel, that there can be no such communion held and maintained with such a Church, or her Members holding communion with it, as is expressed in this seventh Proposition, without manifest disobedience to the Word of God, in these, and many other places, Rev. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17. Eph. 5.11.

If the Members of Orthodox Churches may, upon the terms expressed in the seventh Proposition, claim Baptism for their children in our Churches, by virtue of Church-communion, then themselves have right to communicate with us in the Lord's Supper; and then what should hinder but that we may, by virtue of Church-communion, occasionally coming to any of these Orthodox Churches, have our children baptized in such a Church, and ourselves partake in the Supper of the Lord? Or, if we should have occasion to remove our Habitation to such a place where such an Orthodox Church is, why may we not join unto it, and have fellowship with it? And if we may so do, New-England Christians are of all Christians in the world most miserable and foolish. We have suffered many things in vain, in leaving such a Country for this; our Estates, Friends, Comforts there, to enjoy God, and Christ, and our Consciences in the Congregational-Way, in a low afflicted condition in the Wilderness, for so many years together; and now we must lose those things which we have wrought, and may return to our former state when we please: which the Lord preserveus from.

THere is now in the Press a small Treatise, Entituled, A Discourse of the Last Judgment, on Matth. 25.31. to the end, &c. By Mr. SAMUEL WHITING, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Lynne; which will shortly be extant.