WEE may fitly begin this Discourse, with what the Reverend Elders say (in their Preface to [...] Printed Book) That the Prayer of Ep [...]ph [...]a for the [...], ought to be the Prayer and Labour of us all, viz. That we may [...] perfect and comp [...]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 his will, all his will, and nothing but his will may be done among us. To the Law and to the Testimony we do wholly referre our selves; and if any thing in the following Conclusions be indeed found not to speak according thereunto, [...] it be rejected. This doth encourage me to joyn with them, in seeking, the right path in this unfrequented way▪ so far as the Glory of Gods Holiness and Grace, together with the honour of his Truth, may be manifested to be dearer to us then all Creature­concernments 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 cont [...]o [...]e [...]ted, and how they may be rightly applied: using [...]ere [...]n onely 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 [Page 2] 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 Errour, a sweeter closing of Spirits among good men, and the examining of other mens 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 shill 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.

The whole Scripture, 1. Position. 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, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim.3.16,17.

Jesus Christ, 2. Position. the Apostle and High-Priest of our Profession, is to be considered, by all holy Brethren, partakers of the hea­venly calling, as not inferiour in his Office to Moses: For, as the Office of Moses reached to all the House of God, and all the Service of it under the Law; so Christs 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 Gods appointment; as Moses, by Gods 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 adde thereunto, or to diminish ought therefrom, as it was under the Law, Deut. 12.32. Mat. 28.20.

Christ is not rightly considered, 3 Position. nor duely esteemed, except he be preferred as far above Moses, as the Father hath counted him [Page 3] worthy of more Glory then Moses; and [...]s far above the whole Church, as the Builder is above the House in honour and autho­rity. Mens authority being but Ministerial, as Servants, who are to act onely by direction and appointment; Christs 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 if 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. [...]1.2,3.

The Ordinances of God given by Moses for the Service of God under the first Tabernacle, 4 Position. were imposed on the Jews, until the time of Reformation at the coming of Christ, who being come as the true Melchisedec, 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 easie and sweet Yoke upon them, Acts 15.10. Mat.11.29.

Though the Covenant of Abraham was the same in substance to believing Jews under the Law, 5 Position. and to Believers, both Jews and Gentiles, under the Gospel, Rom. 4. 11, 12. And, though the Kingdome 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 Kingdome 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, I [...]h. 1.17. that was accommodated to the state of the Church being a childe; this to the state of the Church being an [...] grown to full age, Gal.4. 1, to 5.

Though Baptism is come in the place of Circumcision, 6 Position. and therefore infants of Confederates are now to be baptized, as then they were to be circumcised, they both being outward Seals of [Page 4] the same Covenant in substance, Col. 2.11,12. Rom. 4.11. Yet neither 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 [...]ews 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.

The Rules accommodated, 7 Position. by Jesus Christ our Lord, for the manner of applying the Covenant and of administring the King­dome 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 expresly, or by good consequence from the New Testament, in such particulars wherein we have Christs'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 [...]. 28.20. 1 Tim. 3.14.15.

The Rules given of Christ, 8 Position. 1. Concerning The Constitution of Christian Churches, are 1. That the Matter of them must be, if adult, approved Believers, Act. 5.14. if infants, or children in minority, such whose Parents (both or one) are orderly, and visibly joyned 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.

The Rules given by Christ for The Ordering of Christian Chur­ches, are, 9 Position. 1. In general; that all Gospel Ordinances be dispen­sed and administred 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, [...]oh. 10.7,9. 2. That Officers ap­pointed [Page 5] by Christ be regularly chosen and ordained, and that the Elder, both Teaching and Ruling, especially Teaching, be singu­larly loved, and honoured with double honour, and obeyed, 1 Tim. 3. [...] Phil. 1. 1. Act. 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 every one to the whole Body 1 [...] 5.5. 3. That the visible Seals, instituted by Christ for Gospel-Churches, which are onely two, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, 1 Cor. 12. 13. be administred by the Teaching Officers, according to Christs Institution, M [...]t. 28.19. 1. Ba­ptism is to be administred by Christs 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 Parent [...]m 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 Lords Supper is to be administred according to Christ's Institution, in reference both to the Ordinance it self, 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 offences, according to Mat. 18 15 to 18. and in publick criminous Scandals▪ according to 1 Cor 5. 11. Rev. 22.15. but so as the publick judgement be, not by the Elders alone, but, together with them, by the Frater­nity, 1 Cor 5 12.

The Rules given of Christ, 10 Position. for the Propagation and Continuing of Christian Churches, are properly suited to their Congregational [Page 6] and Spiritual state. They are not the same with those before the Law, when the Church was onely 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 Noak, by S [...]e [...]; 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 confession and profession of Faith, both quâ creditur, Rom. 10. 10 and quâ creditur, 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 [...]isteth, Joh. 3. 8. Sometimes in some of the next posterity, yet not in all, 2 Joh 4. sometimes in the Grandmother, and Mo­ther, and childe; as in Timothy, 2 Tom. 1. 5. Accordingly the Church must make a difference of children grown up, where God makes a difference, as he did between Jacob and Esa [...], M [...]. 1. 2. and receive onely such whom Christ receiveth, Rom. 14. 1,2.

The Rules given of Christ, 11 Position. Concerning the Communion of Chri­stian Churches, are, 1. Concerning the Ground of it; which is their Spiritual Union under one Head, Christ, Eph. 1. 22 23. in one Body, one Spirit, one Hope of their calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, and they must endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, Eph. 4. 3,4,5,6. As they have one common Faith, Tit. [...] 4. so they must [Page 7] 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, [...] habet imperium. The giving of Laws to the Churches is Christs Prerogative, I [...]m. 4. 12. who hath also com­mitted the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven to each particular instituted Church, to be exercised by each Church within it self, without dependance upon the Authority of other Churches in re propriâ, Mat. 16. 19. 1 Cor. 5. 12.

3. Concerning the Things, wherein this communion must be exercised, 1. In general; in mutual Helpfulness, according to God, by mutual care one of, and for another, 1 Cor. 10. 24. Phil. 2. 20 21. 2. Particularly, 1. By Spiritual Helpfulness, and care exercised

1. In mutual Prayer, and endeavours for their edification, Cant. 8. 8,9. 1 Cor. 12 7. 1 Pet. 4. 10,11. and for their confirma­tion and establishment in the truth, Acts 15. 41. & 16. 4,5. and for strengthning each other in the regular application of Church-censures to their delinquent Members, 2 Thess. 3. 14. 2. Tim. 4. 15.

2. By outward Supplies unto their Necessities, Acts 11. 29. Rom. 15. 26,27. 2 Cor. 8. 2, &c. throughout that Chapter.

3. By their mutual care to avoid Offences, 1 Cor. [...]0. 32.

4. That, when a Church findeth need (in respect of want of light▪ or of competent consent within it self) it is their duty to seek help by the counsel of some other Church or Churches, and the other Church or Churches ought to give it, in a brotherly [Page 8] way, from the Word of God, not by the Elders apart, but in the presence, and with concurrence of the Brethren, Acts 15. 4,2 [...],23. nor may they bind such a Church to rest in their determi­nation, further then the same shall be found, upon searching the Scriptures, to seem good to the Holy Ghost, as well as to them, Acts 15. 28. or, if Neighbour-Churches finde it necessary, to offer their helpfulness to a Church, in case of the Officers Male-administration, or of Errours, and Scandals, and Schisms, and the like cases, to prevent the infection of themselves, or to re­move corruption from such a Church, which, being obstinate in their way, se [...]keth not for help, the Neighbour-Churches ought to exercise the Communion of Churches, by enquiring to finde out the truth, and by admonishing the offending Church, in a brotherly way; whereunto that Church ought to submit it accord­ing to God, Rom. 16. 17 G [...]d. 2. 11—14. And, if it obstinately persi [...]teth 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.

The Rules given by Christ to Christian Churches, 12 Position. in the Pre­mises, and the like, 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 one Law-giver. In observing whereof, and not otherwise, the Purity and Peace of Christian Churches [...] preser [...]e [...], by the blessing of Christ, [...]am: 4. 12. Ma [...] 28. 20. 1 Cor. 14. 37. 1 Ti [...]. 6 13. G [...] 6: 16.

There and the like, being general Principles of Truth, the par­ticular Denominations of the Synod, in the Two Questions, are to be Examined by them; and so far, and no further, to be Ap­proved and Received 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 comparing them together.

2. The Application of the former These [...] or Positions to the Questions and Answer, as they are stated and expressed by the Reverend Elders, in their Printed Book, followeth.

[Page 9] The first Question propounded to them by the Honoured Ge­neral Court, was,

Reply. I cannot approve the two first Propositions, without some change of the terms. In the first, thus; they that, ac­cording to Christ's Ordinance, are regular, and actual Mem­bers, &c. The second, thus; The actual and regular Members of the visible Church, according to Christs Ordinance, are, &c. The necessity of this alteration with appear, if, either the premised Positions be duely considered, wherewith these Proposition will not otherwise agree: or, if the Proofs alledged by them from Scripture for confirmation of these two Propositions, be duely examined; or, [...]f what is hereafter to be Replied unto the fol­lowing Propositions, shall be duely weighed.

‘Propos. 3. The infant-seed [...]f confederate visible believers, are Members of the same Church with their Parents, and when grown up, are personally under the Watc [...], Discipline and Go­vernment of the Church.’

This Proposition consisteth of two parts, both which they endeavour to prove distinctly.

‘ 1. That they are Members of the same Church with their Pa­rent’] This may pass in a rig [...]t sense, being understood of Meditate Members, in and by their Parents covenanting for them, in their infancy, or minority. I shall not oppose it.

‘ 2. That when they are grow [...], they are personally under that Watch, Discipline and Government of the Church’] This expression calls for serious consideration, and the Proofs of it require due examination. 1. For the Expression the meaning of it seems to be this; That when the children, that were baptized in their [Page 10] minority, are grown up to years of discretion, or become men, they are Members, (or, as they speak afterward, [...] Memory) and by that membership, are under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church. But what membership is this? Their membership in their minority, w [...]s [...], in [...]nd by their Parents covenanting for them, as themselves say in [...] 14. and answerably, they are under the Watch of the Church in and by their Parents, who are immediately, and personally under the Watch, Discipline and Government of the Church, which is to see that the Parents do their duty, and perform their Covenant for them, in b [...]inging them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, Eph. 6. 4, and to help them therein.

But by what right are they personally under the Watch Disci­pline, and Government of the Church? Not by their Parents Covenant: for that was theirs onely in their infancy, and mino­rity; because then they were not capable of covenanting for themselves personally. It remains then, that, when grown up, they must be, either not members of the Church personally▪ or members by their personal covenanting for themselves and theirs, as other adult persons must be who offer themselves to Church-fellowship: Else, though they were members o [...] the same Church with their Parents, in their infancy, and minority; yet they con­tinue not members when grown up, not are personally under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church, by their own fault. But they [...]ay the contrary is manifest. Therefore let us examine their Arguments.

‘Arg. 1. Children were under Patriarchal and Mosaical Di­scipline of o [...]o, Gen. 18. 19. &21. 9,10,12. Gal. 5. 3. and there­fore under [...].’

Reply 1. The Tex [...]s alledged do not prove the Antecedent. 1 Abraham commanding his children and hou [...]h [...] after him, to keep the w [...]y [...] the Lord, &c. doth not necessarily infer Church-discipline: It being enjoyed to all Fathers of Families, in the National Church of [...] De [...]. 6. 7. & 11. 19. and in the Congregational Church [...]s of Christ, under the Go [...]pel, [...] 6. 4, 9. within their own Families, where they have not power to exercise Church-discipline: or, if any further thing was meant, [Page 11] it may be applied to the command concerning Circumcision, as Gen. 17. 26,27. 2. That in Gen. 21. 9 where Ishmael, who was born after the flesh, persecuted Isaac who was born after the Sp [...]it, and was therefore cast out of the Church, in Abrahams Fa­mily, is improved by the Apostle to another purpose, in Gal. 4. 22—29. nor doth it prove their Proposition. For Ishmael was not circumcised at eight dayes old, but when he was thirteen years old: and therefore may be thought to be circumcised upon his personal taking hold of the Covenant, as other grown persons in the family did, there being nothing said in that story to evince the contrary. To which opinion Polycarpus Lyserus seemeth to in­cline. If it was so, then there is a manifest difference between Ishmaels case, and the children of confederates, baptized in infan­cy: for Ishmael was admitted into Church-fellowship and full communion, by his personal covenanting, whereupon he was circumcised being grown up to years of discretion, and so might be regularly excommunicated, which they who never were in full communion may not be. 2. To prove that children were under Mosaical discipline of ol [...], they produce onely one Text, Gal. 5. 3. where the Apostle speaking of circumcision, (not as it was given of God, and rightly used by Abraham, as a seal off the righteousness which is by [...], Rom. 4. 11. but as it was abused by false Teachers, to establish justification by the works of the Law) [...] to every man [...] is circumcised, that be as a debtor to do the whole Law, and that [...] [...] Christ shall profit them nothing. Because he that seeketh Righteousness in Circumcision, is bound, by like reason, to seek it in other works of the Law. There­fore this text doth not prove that for which it is alledged, viz. that children circumcised in infancy, were, being grown up▪ under the external Mosaical Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church.

R [...]ly 2. Their Argument also is to be denied: Because, if the Antecedent were more manifestly true then it is found to be; yet the Consequent is not good. For there is not [...] [...], the like reason of those Patriarchal, and Mosaical Churches, and Congregational Churches under the Gospel. The members of the Church, in the Patriarchs [...], were to con [...] in com­munion [Page 12] with the Church, from their being circumcised, all the dayes of their life, until they were cast out, as persecuting Ish­mael was, or voluntarily departed from it, as profane Esau did, together with his posterity; which was ordered, by Gods spe­cial Providence, to separate the Ishmaelites and Edomites from the Is [...]a [...]lites, of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Rom. 9. 5. As for the Church of Israel, under Moses, 1. We do not reade of any Ordinance given them for casting out their members for sins against the Moral Law; as we finde it to be commanded and practised under the Gospel, 1 Cor. 5. 4,5,11. 2. The grown members of the Church of Israel, under Moses, were brought under such Discipline as was established in that Church, by a solemn Covenant, whereof all adult persons were, by Gods Ordinance, to take h [...]ld personally, and to have full communion with that Church in all Legal Ordinances, Deut. 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, us meer [...], brought under Church discipline, and Government, in Congregational Churches.

‘Arg. 2. They are within the Church, or Members thereof: and therefore [...] to Church-judicature, 1 Cor. 5 12.’

R [...]ly. The Argument is to be denied, in their sense; nor doth the text prove it: for that text speaketh of men that are mem­bers in full communion. Such an one was that [...] [...], till he was taken away from among them by Excommuni­cation, 1 Cor. 5. 1,2,5. and such were they who were afterward spoken of in ver. 11. who were called Brethren, in respect of their full communion with the Church, before they were put, by the just censure of the Church, into that state, wherein the members are [...] to eat with them. And of that Church-judicature he speaks in v [...]. 12. saying, Do not [...] them that [...]. in full membership, as well of all other Ordi­nances, as of Censures. And indeed, seeing Excommunication is the casting ou [...] from communion▪ How can any be [...] excommunicated, who were never in communion and so within the Church? Now themselves deny such communion to the adult persons, [...] they call [...] members, to distinguish them [...] [Page 13] members in full communion: therefore not subject to Judicature of the Church, according to the meaning of that text.

‘Arg. 3 They are Disciples, and therefore under Discipline in Christs School, Mat 28. 19,20.’

Reply. Though all Church-members are Disciples; infants, foederally, in and by their Parents covenanting for them; and adult persons, personally, by their covenanting for themselves, and therefore both are under the Discipline of the Church suitably to their membership: the first, in and under their Parents; the second, in and by themselves, being in full communion with the Church; Yet I do not finde any where in Scripture, that such ad­ult persons as they call meer Members, are styled D [...]ple, or ac­counted Members. The adult persons in M [...] 28. 20. must ob­serve and do all Christs commandment; therefore the Disciples there intended, with reference to adult persons, are members in full communion.

‘Arg. 4. They are in Church-covenant; therefore subject to Church-power, Gen. 17. 7. with 18. 19.’

Reply. They are not in covenant [...] [...], being adult▪ and not admitted into Church-communion, in all the Ordinances; there­fore are not subject to Church-power. That text in [...] 17. 7. hath respect especially to Isaac, per. 19. for in Isaac was Abra­hams seed to be called, Gen. 2. 12. So the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are accounted for the seed, Rom. 9. 8. and, The Gentiles are adopted through fa [...]h in Christ. Gal. 3. 26. for this in Christ either apprehended by personal faith, as in adult persons or comprehending children in their Parents Covenant) that the Covenant is [...], and so to be perpetually continued in the substance of it; though by mutable signs. [...] The Covenant of Grace is eternal, though it was to be visibly sealed by circumcision, till the coming, of Christ, and after the coming of Christ by Baptism perpe­tually unto the end of the World. There is no difference be­tween us, [...] seed, but onely concerning adult persons, [...], by are in a capacity of [...] them­selves and [...]. Let [...] faith in [...] to the charitable [...] and [...] Co­venant, [Page 14] and Church-communion personally; and then, and not otherwise they are regularly subject to Church-power. Their second proof from Gen. 18. 19. hath been spoken to before, when I examined their first Argument for this third Proposi­tion.

‘Arg. 5. They are Subjects of the Kingdome of Christ; and therefore under the Laws and Government of his Kingdome, Ezek, 37. 25 26.’

Reply. This Argument may justly be retorted against them­selves, and the Proof of it. For, the subjects of Christs King­dome there meant, are voluntary Subject, according to that Pro­phesiein sa [...]. 110 3. and such Subjects have full communion in all priviledges of Christs Kingdome, and [...]o under the Govern­ment of it. But they deny that the meer Members, of whom they speak, have communion in all the priviledges of Christs Kingdome. Therefore, they are not under the Laws and Go­vernment of it, and by Consequence they are not Subjects of it.

‘Arg. 7. Baptism leaves the baptized (of which number these chil­dren are) to a state of subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christs Ministers, and to the observation of all his commandments, Mat. 28. 19,20 and therefore in a state of subjection unto Discipline.’

Reply. This is not another Argument, but the same with the third Argument, though clothed with other words. Therefore the same Answer may serve for this also.

‘Arg. 7. Elders are [...] take h [...]ed unto, and to feed (i. e. [...] to Teach and Rule, compare Ezek 34. 3 4.) all the Flock, or Church, over which the Holy Christ [...] made them [...] [...]. Acts 20. 28. That children are a part of the Flock, was proved before: and so Paul accounts them, writing to the same Flock, or Church of Ephesus, Ep [...]. 6. 1.’

Reply. Be it so that children are part of the Flock▪ which is all that I finde before proved and that Elders are changed to take heed, and to feed ( i. e. both [...] and [...]) all the Flock, suit­ably, to their different capacities; yet all this concerneth not such grown persons, to whom they deny full Church communion For they [...] are of competent age and understanding, must be orderly [Page 15] joyned to the Church, by bolding forth [...] and faith in Christ to the satisfaction of the Church, according to the Rule, and so to be received into fellowship of the Covenant and Com­munion, by their personal right, without which they are not to be accounted of the Flock or Church. Nor did Paul so account such. But those children noted in Eph. 6 1. were either in heir minority and so he puts in their duty in that Epistle as part of their Catechetical instruction; or, if they were adult they were per­sonally joyned to the Church in communion, and so were under the teaching and discipline of the Church.

‘Arg. 8. Otherwise Irreligion and Apostacy would inevitably break into Churches, and no way left by Christ to prevent or heal the s [...]me, which would also bring many Church-members under that dreadful judgement of being let alone in their wickedness, Hos. 4 16,17.’

Reply. 1. There is no cause of fear that Irreligion and Aposta­cy will break into Churches, if the Porter look well unto the D [...]ors of the Lords House, that no adult persons be received into personal Membership, but such as regularly approve their personal [...] for all Church-communion. O [...], if such evils break into the Church, through the hypocrisie of such a creep in unawares, Jude, ve [...]. 4. yet then Christ lath left a clear and plain way to pre­vent and heal the same, by [...] such under the watch, and Discipline, and Government of the Church. But the admitting of such adult persons as are not qualified for Church communion in all Ordinances, will be found, in the issue, the cause of the break­ing in of Irreligion and Apostacy into Churches, by the fault of men, who [...] without Christ, and receive such as he [...]. Nor will the Churches censuring of such, prevent or heal those evils, seeing blesseth onely his own institutions, not [...] De­vices. Humane Inventions usually cause the Evils which they pretend to cure; as we see in the Love-feasts, which brake love among the [...], 1 Cor. 11. 18—23. 2. Though no Church way is left by Christ for preventing or healing such evils in men that should not be of the Church; yet, if they were kept out of the Church; [...] their fitness of Communion should ap­pear; as these evils, and the like, would not inevitably break into [Page 16] Churches, so neither need any Church-members be let alone in their wickedness, seeing Christ hath delegated the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven, to binde and loose, and Directions how to manage them toward delinquent Members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion, Mat. 16. 17,18,19. Nor need they, who are not thus joyned to the Church, be let alone, if the Authority in Families, and in the Common-wealth, be wisely and faith­fully managed by the Rulers of both, to restrain those under their power from evil companies, and courses, and to constrain them to a constant reverent attendance to all Family-duties of Reli­gion, and to the Word publickly Preached in Church-Assemblies, and to the Sanctifying of the Christian Sabbath, as a Day of holy Rest unto the Lord. Such means will be blessed of Christ, to the preventing of the out-breakings, and some of them to the healing of those evils Faith being wrought in their hearts, through the efficacy of the Spirit, in and by the Preaching of the Word; and so they will become fit to be received into Church-member­ship and communion.

Having thus examined their third Proposition. I finde it desti­tute of Scripture proofs, and therefore must leave it, as Irregu­lar, and not agreeing with the Positions formerly given, for Rules of Try [...]l, whether Doctrines and Practises in matter, of Church-Order, agree with the Principles of Truth, or not. I pro­ceed to examine their fourth Proposition, for answer to the first Question.

‘Propos 4. Those adult persons are not therefore to be admitted of all Communion, meerly because they are, and continue Members, without such further qualifications as the Word of God [...] thereunto. The truth hereof, they say, is plain.’

Reply. Though it seems to them plain yet it seems not suf­ficiently cleared by their Proofs. ‘1. From 1 Cor. 11. 28,29. [...] as come to the Lords Supper, be able to [...], and to [...] the Lords Body; else they will [...] unworthily, and eat and drink damnation, or judge­ment [...] they partake of this Ordinance. But meer membership is separable from such ability to examine one's self, [Page 17] and discern the Lords Body, as in the children of the Covenant that grow up to years is too often seen.’

Reply. 1. The want of such abilities in the children of the Covenant, is indeed too often seen, through the too frequent neglect of Parents in their Education, and of Ministers and Churches in their Institution, and Catecl [...]zing, and Watching over them: which should awaken their circumspection in looking narrowly to their fitness for personal Membership when they grow up to years.

2. Though Membership be separable from, yea destitute of such ability in the infant-seed, or children of the Covenant in their minority, and therefore they are not to be admitted unto the Lords Supper, and that text proyes it; yet it may not be granted that, when they are grown up to years, they are, and continue Members regu­larly, being through want of that ability not fit for Church-com­munion personally. For as if adult persons, being unbaptiz [...]d, should desire to have the Covenant, and their Church-member­ship sealed by Baptism, they must hold forth Faith in Christ, wrought in their hearts, as Philip required the Eunuch, before they may be baptized, Acts 8. 36 37. So, by parity of reason, if one baptized in infancy, being grown up to years, desires to be joyned to the Church by his own personal Right he must hold forth his personal Faith in the Son of God, to their charitable sa­tisfaction, that they may know his ability to examine himself, and discern the Lords Body, before they admit him into personal Mem­bership, which infers full communion with the Church.

‘2. They say, that, In the Old Testament, though men did con­tinue members of the Church, yet for ceremonial uncleanness they were to be kept from full communion in the holy things, Lev. 7. 20,21. Numb. 9. 6,7. & 19. 13,20. yea, and the priests and Por­ters had special charge, that men should not partake in all the holy things, unless duely qualified for b [...]same, notwithstanding their membership, 2 Chron. 23. 19. Ezek 22. 26 & 44. 7,8 9,23. and therefore much more in these times, where Moral [...] and Spiritual qualifications are wanting, Membership alone is not suf­ficient for full communion. More was required to adult persons eating the Passover, then meer membership: therefore so there is now to the Lords Supper, &c.’

[Page 18] Reply. 1. The invalidity of Proofs from the Old Testament, under Moses, being applied 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 fourth, sixth, and eighth Positions, with which this Proof doth not agree.

2. If the Texts alledged 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 Ordinances; 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 Levit. 7. 20, 21, & [...]. 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 judgement, 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 Lords Sanctuary, nor into the Lords 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 Lords 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 it, Isa. 52. 1. Anything that 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 ignorantly, he was to bring a sacrifice, Lev. 5. 3—6. because he defiled the Sanctuary by coming into it, be­fore he was purified. This, and the former Texts, figured, in reference to Gospel-Churches, not the distinction between meer Members, and Members in Communion, (for no such distin­ction of adult Members was known or made in that Church) [Page 19] but that they should not admit any that are spiritually unclean (as all that are visibly unregenerate are, T [...]. 1 15,16.) into Church-communion. And that they should put away from Church-communion by Excommunication, such as were in Church-communion before such uncleanness appeared in them, till their healing should be manifested. 4. That which is added, con­cerning the charge given to the Priests and Porters, had been more fully, and so more truly expressed, if they had said, Their charge was, [...] men should not partake of all the holy things, unless duely qualified for the same, not withstanding their (not Membership, in their sense but) Membership in full communion with the Church. For, such Members the men of Israel were, before their Legal uncleanness: and they were also charged to keep out the Heathen uncircumcised in flesh, who never were Members. That text in Ezek. 44 7,8,9. is a Prophesie of the times of the Gospel, expressed under legal phrases, according to the manner usual with the Prophets, where in the Gospel-Churches, and their Officers, are forewarned (by the example of the Jews, under the Old Testament, with whom God was highly offended for the like abomination) not to admit such as are uncircumcised in heart into Church-fellowship, to defile the Lords Sanctuary, which is (not now, as then it was a material House, but) a Society of Saints, called, An holy Genera­tion, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that they might shew forth the virtues of him, who hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous light, 1 Pet. 2. 9. Such men therefore as cannot approve themselves to the Churches charitable judge­ment, to answer this description, in some measure, should not be received into Church-fellowship.

Whereas they adde, that ‘ More was required to adult persons eating the Passover, then meer Membership; therefore so there is now to the Lords Suppe [...].’

Reply. It is true that more then that Membership, which they h [...]d in their infancy, or minority, was required in adult per­sons to eat the Passover. For, 1 When they because adult, they were to covenant solemnly with the Lord, and his People, in their own persons, Den. 26. 17, &c. whereunto heart fitness was necessary, that their persons and services might be accepted [Page 20] of God, in that Church-communion, Isa. 56. 4,5. with Deut. 30. 6. 2. This heart-fitness was also to be exercised, when they were to eat the Passover, suitably to the nature, end, and use of that Ordinance. 2 Chron. 30. 6—9, 18 19, &c. Thus they were to keep the Passover, once every year all the dayes of their life, till Christ [...] Passover was come: Since which time it is spiritu­ally to be kept by Believers under the Gospel, particularly, in our communicating at the Lords Table) in remembrance of his Death, and of our Redemption thereby, until he come, 1 Cor. 5. 7,8 & 11. 25,26. but all they that did eat the Passover, were Members in full communion. The Membership of adult per­sons then was not a meer Membership, but a Membership in full Christ-communion. So it ought to be now.

‘They say, Though all Members of the Church are the Subjects of Baptism, ▪they and their children, yet all Members may not partake of the Lords Supper, as is further manifest from the dif­ferent nature [...] Baptism and he Lords Supper, &c.’

Reply. 1. Church-membership infers such Church-com­munion, as is suitable to that Membership. The Membership of the children of Confederates, 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 themselves: Hence they have communion with the Church by being baptized 1 Cor. 12. 13. So the Church-membership of adult persons, infers Church-communion in all Ordinances, particularly in the Lords Supper, 1 Cor 12. 13. and in Voting and Censures 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore no adult person may be received into meer Membership, regularly, untill he be qualified fitly for other Ordinances, and for Voting and judging in Church-affairs, 1 Cor. 5. 12. So much for the fourth Proposition.

‘Propos. 5. Their fifth Proposition is: Church-members, who were admitted in minority, understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publickly professing their assent hereunto, note scan­dalous in life, and solemnly owning he Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ [...], their children are to be baptized.’

[Page 21] Reply. This Proposition agreeth not with our tenth Position; where more is declared, from Scripture, to be required unto Church-membership in reference both to infants and adult per­sons, then is here expressed. Yet, say they, ‘ This is evident from the Arguments following.’ But to him who shall duely examine their Arguments by the Light of the Word and Spirit of God, in the New Testament, the Proposition will appear to be not evidenced by them, as we shall evince, by the help of Christ, in examining the particulars.

‘Arg. 1. These children are par [...]akers of that which is the main ground of baptizing any children whatsoever; and neither the Parents nor the children do put in any [...]arre to hinder it.’ This they endeavour to prove in the two parts of it, severally.

‘I That they [...] of that which is the main ground of ba­ptizing any, they say, is clea [...]; Because interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title in Baptism: and this infants have.’

Reply. The Parents must be fitly qualified before they may be admitted to Covenant with the Lord and his Church for them­selves and their children: Else the Covenant will be profaned; and such covenanting cannot regularly give them, and their chil­dren, an interest in the Covenant, and title to Baptism. The Pa­rents, or adult persons, regularly admitted to Covenant, must be B [...]lievers in Christ, effectually called in the c [...]aritable judgement of the Church, judging according to Rule: for to such onely, and their seed, is the Promise, or Covenant, [...] 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 whom they wrote their Epistles, beloved of God, called Saints, Rom. 1. 7. Sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1. 2. Faithful in Christ Jesus, Eph 1. 1. Saints in Christ Jesus, Ph [...]. 1. 1. The Church which is in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thess. 1. 1. which they did not by the judgement of Infallibility, from Divine Re­velation, but from the judgement of Charity, from what they heard of them, and saw in them, Rom. 1. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 4. Eph. 1. 1 [...], 6. Cor 1. 3,4,5, & 2. 5. P [...]l. 1. 3,5,6 7. 1 Thess. 1,3,4,5,9. Therefore, whereas they say,

[Page 22] ‘ That a Member, or one in Covenant, at such, [...] the subject of Baptism, is further cleared in Propos. 1.’

Reply. The light which that Proposition holdeth forth for clearing this is in one clause, which is here omitted, viz. Ac­cording to Scripture. "They that according to Scripture are Mem­bers of the visible Church, are the subjects of Baptism, &c. Now, according to Scripture, the Covenant was differently administred, in different times of the Church. Under Abraham it was ad­ministred, by Circumcision to all that were of his House, and to their seed abiding in his Family: For the Church was then onely in Abrahams Family, and after him in the Families of Isaac and Jacob, until Moses; 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 Esa [...], and of Abraham himself of Keturah. 2. Under Mose, it was administred to the twelve Tribes suitably unto that Ceremonial and Typical state of the Church, which was then National. Deut. 4. 7,8. and the Proselytes, who were then added to them, were to be or­dered by the same Laws with the People of Israel; for, Acces­sortum sequitur naturam Principals. This administration of the Covenant was, according to the Scripture of the Old Testa­ment, until Christ came; under Christ the Covenant is admini­stred, according to what hath been expressed in the Positions formerly noted; particularly, the tenth Position.

‘2. That these children have interest in the Covenant, they say, appears; 1. Because if the parent be in Covenant, the childe is also &c. But the parents in question are in Covenant, &c.’

Reply. 1. Adde, According to Gospel-Rules, given by Christ unto Christian Churches for admittance of persons spiritually fit for Church-covenant and communion. Thus; if Parents be in Covenant, according to Gospel-Rules, the infant childe, or childe in mi­nority, is so also; else the Proposition must be denied: That being added, the Assumption is to be denied. Then, according to that addition it may be granted also, that, if the Parent stand in the Church, so doth the childe in infancy, or minority, among the Gentiles now, as well as among the Jews of old, Rom. 11. 16,20—22. They say, ‘ It is unheard of in Scripture, that the [Page 23] progress of the Covenant stops at the infant childe.’ Reply. Nor do we say it doth, but at the adult person, or Parent, who breaks the Covenant; and that the progress of the Covenant stops there from the children also, it is not unheard-of in Scripture: for the Scripture hath told us of the stopping of the Covenant in Ish­mael, Esau, and Abrahams posterity by Keturah, after they were sent away from the Church in Isaac's family. Nor do their Reasons prove the Assumption.

The first is, ‘ Because they were once in Covenant, and never since discovenanted. If they had not been once in Covenant, they had not warrantably been baptized; and they are so still, except in some way of God they have been discovenanted, cast out, or cut off, which these have not been.’

Reply. 1. If they had not spiritual fitness for the Covenant, Parents, or adult persons were not regularly in Covenant, nor are their children in infancy or minority, warrantably baptized. And, when those infants are grown up, though they have not been discovenanted, by being cast out, or cut off, from their Covenant-relation; yet they are discovenanted, by their vio­lating their Parents Covenant for them, through their not per­forming that whereunto they were engaged thereby, in that, when they became adult, they did not regularly enter into Covenant with the Lord and his Church, for themselves and theirs, as their Parents, if they were godly, did, Rom. 2. 25. 2. Though they say, ‘ Persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture, save for notorious sins, and incorrigibleness therein, which is not the case of these Parents.’ Yet if they break off them­selves, by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy, or minority; they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and priviledges of the Covenant, as it hath been proved. And, in such a case, they are to be looked at, like those of whom John speaks, 1 Joh 2. 19.

‘2. Because the tenour of the Covenant is to the faithful and their seed after them in their generations, Gen. 17. 7. even to a hous and generation, i. e. conditionally, provided that the Pa­rents successively do continue to be keepers of the Covenant, Exod. 20 6. Deut. 7. 9,11. Psal. 105,8. which the Parents in question [Page 24] are, because they are not (in Scripture account in this case) forsakers or rejecters of the God and Covenant of their fathers: see Deut. 29. 25 26. 2 Kings 17. 15—20 2 Chron. 7 22. Deut 7, 10.’

Reply. 1. The tenour of the Covenant in Gen. 17. 7 had (as it hath been formerly noted) a special respect unto Isaac ver. 19. for in Isaac was Abrahams seed to be called, [...]en. 21. 12. So the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are accounted for the [...], Rom. 9. 8. The sealing of this Covenant to the Posterity of Isaac and Jacob, by Circumci­sion, was to continue throughout their generations, till the coming of Christ. The Covenant in the tenour of it, is, for substance, the same to us as it was to them (though the outward Signs, and manner of dispensing it, differ) it being established by the blood of Christ, Luke 1. 69,71,73. Heb 13. 20. The extending the Covenant to a thousand generation, themselves say, is conditional, provided that the Parents successively do continue to be keepers of the covenant. Such a succession in the Covenant, through Faith, is not to be found even in the best Churches that ever were in the world for a thousand, or an hundred generations: But such the Parents in question are not. For though they are not such for­sakers and rejecters of God, and the Covenant of their fathers, as they who are spoken of in Deut. 29. 25 26 2 Kings 17. 15—20 2 Chron. 7, 22. Yet, besides that gross Idolatry, there is a spiritual Idolatry, in scandalous Covetousness, [...] 3. 5. and Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject God and his Covenant, to serve the World, Mat. 6. 24. 1 Tim. 6. 17. 1 [...] 2. 15. to these, the text alledged by them in [...] 7. 10. may fitly be applied; and they forsake the Covenant of God, as [...] 4 4. and such may they be, who answer all the terms of their fifth Proposition, externally and visibly. Now, the Re­ligion of such is no better then that of the [...], who took upon them the Religion of the Jews and were circumcised only for worldly ends, [...] 34. 22. 23,24. Such Religion will end in Apostacy, in times of Persecution for the Truth, [...] 13 21.

‘2. That the Parents in question as not put a [...]arre to hinder their children from Baptism, they say, is plain from the words of the Proposition, &c.’

[Page 25] 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 no Faith in Christ, but be an unregenerate person; and that will put a bar to hinder himself and his infant-seed from entring into the Kingdome of God, Joh. 3. 3,5. and, by conse­quence, from the Seal of entrance. 2. Nor can they prove that all adult persons, whom they admit into personal and imme­diate Membership, are such as the Proposition describeth. For, I demand, Do they all understand the Doctrine of Faith? What course do they take to know it? If they do not, their publickly professing their assent thereunto, is a meer mockery. A Pa [...]e [...]-like saying the Doctrine of Faith, and an ignorant assent there­unto, may justly be a bar of gross Ignorance, Athelsin, and In­fidelity, and Hypocrisie. P [...]lip brought the Eunuch to under­stand what he read, before it could become a word of faith to him, Acts 8. 2. Nor is literal understanding what they assent to, sufficient to remove all bars: These the Devils do, Jam. 2. 19. A right manner of knowing and assenting, must be added. Such a manner of knowing, whereby the Church may judge that Christ is let into the Soul. As Reverend Mr. Hooker was wont to say, Such a professed Assent, as hath a professed Consent joyned with it, Isa. 1. 19. Such a manner of knowing and consenting, as produ­ceth Obedience flowing from Faith: which is the next end of the Ministery of the Gospel, Rom. 1. 5. & 16. 26. Else, they are defiled, and unbelieving, to whom nothing is pure, but even their minde and conscience is defiled, who profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him, Tit 1. 15. 16. 3. And though they are not scandalous in life, but solemnly own the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in [...] Church; Yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a for [...] of godliness, but deny the power thereof: From such, Pa [...] (who taught him how he ought [...] behave himself in the House of [...] which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3. 15) warned Timothy to turn away, 2 Tim. 3. 5. 4. But are all the adult persons, whom they admit into Member­ship, [Page 26] ship, such as the P [...]sition describes? Do they take a right course to know they [...] such? 1. That they are not scand [...] in life: What testimony or certain knowledge have they, that the Church may confide in, that they frequent not loose and vain Company in disorderly Night-meeting, at unseasonable hours, and in suspected places, in unwarrantable Gamings and Drink­ings, &c? not to speak of other evils. 2. How do they Solemnly own the Covenant before the Church? when some of them having publickly said, They do own it; being afterward asked in pri­vate, What is the Covenant which you owned? answered, I do not know. 3. As for their Subjecting themselves to the Govern­ment of Christ in the Church; Do they orderly submit to the Go­vernment of their Family-Governours, Parents and Masters. &c? If the Church know not that, How can they expect that they will really subject themselves to Christ's Government in the Church? Yea, if they have not been weary and heavy leader, and then came unto Christ, they are not fit to take his yoke and bur­then upon them, Matth. 11. 28,29. I proceed to their second Argument.

‘Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either chil­dren of the Covenant, or strangers from the Covenant; either holy or unclean, either within the Church or without, either such as have God for their God, or without God in the world. But he that con­sidereth the Proposition, will not affirm the latter concerning these children: and the former being granted, infers their right to Ba­ptism.’

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

‘Arg. 3. To deny the Proposition, would be 1. To straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation, &c. 2. To render the children of the dews, when they shall be called, in a worse condition [Page 27] then under legal Administrations, contrary to Jer. 30 10. Ezek. 37▪ 25,26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant, &c. 4. To break Gods Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenant, Gen. 17. 9,10,14.’

Reply. The contrary to all, and every one of these, is true. For, 1. It enlargeth the Grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensa­tion by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious f [...]ame and state, then the Jews of old were, under Legal Dispensations: which therefore are not continued and propagated by a natural succession, as that National Church was, but by Gods [...]lling them with an holy calling, according to his purpose and grace, 2 Tim. 1. 9. and adding thereby to the Christian Church such as, in their charitable judgement, shall be saved, Acts 2. 43. 2. It declareth that the state of the Jews, when they shall be called, will be far better then it was under Legal Dispensations, 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 Jerusalem shall be Elect, they and their children successively; and no Hypocrite shall be mingled with them, Rev. 21. & 22. 3. Nor doth the denial of the Propo­sition, infer a denial of the application of the initiatory Seal to such as stand regularly in the Church and Covenant: but the contrary. 4. Nor doth it break Gods Covenant, by denying Baptism to such as are regularly in Covenant. These are Accusations without Proof.

‘Arg. 4. Confederate visible Believers, though but in the lowest degree, such are to have their children baptized: But the Parents in question are confederate visible Believers, at least in some degree.’

Reply. The major being granted, the minor is denied For, 1. All that is said in the Proposition, may be affirmed of sundry that have not visible saving Faith in Christ, in the lowest degree. Therefore these are no sufficient [...] [...] for charity to account them Believers in Christ, in the least degree. Let them that are [Page 28] to be admitted into Membership, by their personal right, shew how Faith was wrought, and how it works in them, in the lowest degree: then the Church will have some ground for their cha­ritable judgement concerning their fitness for regular Church-membership and communion. 2. Nor are the children of the godly, qualified but as the persons in the Propositions, said to be faithful in [...]t. 1. 6. whether we understand that Text in a Moral, or Spiritual sense: The first, is a fruit of Moral Principles and Education; these are short of the qualifications in the Propo­sition: The second, is a fruit of the Spirit. Gal. 5. 22. These are Believers in Christ, Acts 16. 15. 3 Epist Ioh. ver. 5. and are qualified above what the Proposition requireth. 3. They say, ‘ Children of the Covenant, as the Parents in question are, have fre­quently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years: Hence this sort of persons, shewing nothing to the contrary, are in cha­rity, or to Ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers.’

Reply. 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 a [...]ul [...], 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 Covenant, but Transgressours of the Covenant, and Breakers of it. 2. The Argument is fallacious: Some children of the Covenant have had the beginnings of grace manifestly wrought in them in younger years. Therefore all persons of this sort, shewing nothing to the con­trary, are, in charity, or to Ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers. This Argument 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 prove the same to be in others, in whom it is not positively manifest, but o [...]el [...] they shew nothing to the contrary: which makes them at best but Nega­tive Christians, which is not to be Christian indeed.

‘4. They say, They that are regularly in the Church (as the Parents in quest on are) are visible Saints: for the Church is (in Scripture account) a company of Saints, 1 Cor. 14 33. & 1. 2.’

[Page 29] Reply. Both their Assertion, and their Proof of it, are to be denied. 1. The Assertion is not true, that the Parents in que­stion are regularly in the Church. Infants, and children in mi­nority of confederate Believers, are in the Church, by their Pa­rents covenanting for them, 1 Cor. 7. 14. But Parents are not re­gularly in the Church, t [...]ll, being fitly qualified they confederate for themselves, and their children under age, Acts 2. 39 being qualified according to that Prophesie concerning these times of the Gospel, in [...]. 56. 6,7. 2. The Proof is not apposite: for, Paul wrote that Ep [...]stle to the adult Members regularly ad­mitted unto full communion with the Church at Corin [...]h, whom he styleth, Sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 1. 2. and such were they of whom he speaks in all the Churches of the Saints, 1 Cor. 14. 33. But the Parents in question, being meer Members, not in full communion, are not regularly approved of the Church to be such. Therefore this concerns not them.

‘5. They say, Being in Covenant, and baptized, they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise, and sealed in Baptism, Deut. 30. 6. which continues valid, and so a va­lid testimony for the [...] they do not reject it.’

Reply. Reverend Mr. Cotton was wont to say, Elect children have the grace of the Covenant, viz Faith and Repentance &c. given to them, in and by the Covenant, and sealed by Baptism, Deut. 30. 6. but the rest have onely the Covenant of Grace, for external 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, Rom. 11 7. and it is necessary, to prevent that Opinion of Uni­versal Baptism-Grace, which the [...] improve to establish their dangerous Errour of the final and total Apostacy 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 the [...], 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 [Page 30] indefinitely to those who, when they became adult, brake the Covenant. Whereupon Paul distinguished the Jews and Circumcision, Rom. 2. 28 29. and answerable thereunto is P [...]ter [...] distinction of Baptism 1 Pet. 3. 24. Therefore such as reject the offers of Grace▪ as all that living under the means of Grace remain unbelievers, do Mat. 23. 37. cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Pro­mise, in that sense, wherein that phrase is used in 2 Pet. 1. 4.

They adde, ‘ Yet it doth not necessarily follow, that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper, &c.’

Reply. If they have Faith and Repentance given them under Gods Hand in the Covenant, and sealed by Baptism; and if they do so receive them, that it continues valid, and so a valid testimony for them: What can hinder regularly such Church-members from partaking of the Lords Supper, &c▪ They say, ‘ Because, though they are in a latitude of expression, to be accounted visible Believers, or in numero fidelium, as even infants in covenant are, yet they want that ability of examining themselves, and that special exercise of Faith, which is requisite to that Ordinance, as was said upon the fourth Proposition.’

Reply. 1. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4. 11. The New Testament [...] where alloweth that lati­tude of speech to call men visible Believers, who never were re­gularly joyned to that number, nor fitly qualified to take hold of the Covenant personally for themselves and their children. 2. Nor can they be accounted Believers, or in the number of Be­lievers, as infants are, who are looked at onely as in their Parents Covenant, being not capable of covenanting for themselves, as men are: So that there is not par r [...]o between them. 3. Visi­ble want of ability to examine themselves, and of that special exercise of Faith which is requisite to that Ordinance, argues a visible want of that Faith which is to be examined and exercised, and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership, as well as to the Lords Sup­per, &c.

‘Arg. 5: The denial of Baptism to the children in question, hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy; because it denies [Page 31] them, and so the children of the Church successively, to have any part in the Lord, which is he way to make them cease from fearing the Lord, Josh. 22. 24,25.’

Reply. The children in question, are children of Parents who are not members in full communion with the Church, 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 are not in Church-communion, cannot regularly communicate unto their infant-seed a right and title to Baptism, which is the first visible Seal of Church-communion, 1 Cor. 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 part in the Lord; for such are not, accord­ing to Scripture Rules▪ children of the Church successively: for the Parents have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from them­selves and their seed, by their not confederating for themselves and theirs regularly. 3. That this denial hath a dangerous ten­dency to I religion and Apostacy, 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 joyned in Covenant personally, and immediately with the Lord and his Church, by a solemn Cove­nant, every third year, Deut. 26. 17,18. which was to continue in Canaan, throughout their generations, till the coming of Christ. So that they had a part in the Lord successively, from which if they had been excluded causl [...]sly, it might have caused their chil­dren to cease from fearing the Lord. But Christ hath not ap­pointed any such Ordinance▪ to continue such a succession in Christian Churches under the Gospel. Therefore the Text in Jo [...]ua doth nothing at all concern the children of Parents in question.

The tendency of the following Discourse is to prove, that ‘ The owning of the children of those that successively continue in Co­venant to be a part of the Church, is so far from being destructive to the purity and prosperity of the Church, and Religion therein, that this imputa [...] belongs to the contrary Tenent.’

[Page 32] Reply. They, who so conceive, have such grounds of that per­swasion, as will not easily be removed, nor are so much as shaken by any thing said in their Book. I willingly grant, that to seek to be more holy then the Rule, will ever end 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, which will ever end in scattering in the issue, and then, What will become of the purity and prosperity of Christian Churches? It is true, that the frame of the Covenant runs, To us, and to our seed after us in their gene­rations; but it must be understood and applied suitably to the dif­ferent constitution of Churches, under different administrations of the Covenant, under the Old Testament, and under the Gospel.

‘They say, that, To keep in the Line, and under the influence and efficacy of this Covenant of God, is the true way to the Chur­ches glory.’

Reply. It is indeed the Churches glory to keep in the Line, and under the influence and efficacy of this Covenant, successively, when the Spirit, as a free Agent, brings any into that Line, and under that efficacy of the Covenant, by succession in Faith, as he did Lois the Grandmother, and Eunice the Daughter, and Ti­mothy her Grandchilde, 2 Tim. 1. 5. That is the only true Gospel succession, when it is made visible to the Churches charitable judgement, according to Gospel Rules. But that cannot de done, by setting up such a Meer Membership in Christian Churches, whereby the infants shall be baptized, by a right derived to them from Parents, who are not in full communion with the Church by their personal Membership. What influence and efficacy hath the Covenant upon such Parents as are in such a Membership, wherein the Church judgeth them unfit for communion? and that, not for any Scandal given by them, after their admission, but for the nature of their Meer Membership. To disavow such a Membership, is so far from cutting off the prosperity of S [...]on, and from hind [...]ing it from being, as in the most glorious times it [Page 33] shall be, An eternal Excell [...], [...] the joy of many generations, that this in putation belongs to the contrary Tenent, which is here as­serted.

But they argue; ‘ T is progress of the Covenant establisheth the Church, Deut. 29 13. Jer 30 20. Therefore the contrary doth dis­establish it.’

Reply. 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. Annot [...]. 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 f [...]ll off under [...]eroboan, 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 onely, both they and their children successively to the end of the world, according to the Prophesies in Isa. 6 [...]. 15. & 50. 21. Jer. 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 Christs 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 [Page 34] in all Ordinances. Such irregular bringing of men into Membership, will unavoidably bring in the corrupting of Reli­gion, which will end in Apostacy. There be better wayes to convey Religion down to after-generations, and to continue a Nursery in Christs 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 endeavour 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 wisdome, 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 Countrey, 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 Christs▪ Yoke in Church-censures? 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 [Page 35] dishonour, 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 easie. I proceed to ex­amine their sixth Argument.

‘Arg. 6. The Parents in question are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members of the Church. This they endeavour to prove in the terms severally. 1. That they are personal Mem­bers, or Members in their own persons, appears, 1. Because they are personally holy. 2. Because they are personally baptized. 3. They are personally liable to Church-censures. 4. They are personally, by means of the Covenant, in a visible state of Salvation. 5. When they commit iniquity, they personally break the Cove­nant.’

Reply. The Argument hath Parents for its Subject, but most of the Proofs belong onely to Infants; viz. three of them; the other two belong onely 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 [...] 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 visible 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 [Page 36] properties do agree: 1. That they are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own persons. 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 Jer. 11. 2,10. is spoken by the Prophet to the men of Iudah: so that in Ezek. 16.

‘2. They say, that Children are immediate Members, as to the essence of Membership; i. e. they themselves in their own per­sons are the immediate Subjects of this Adjunct, Membership, though they came to it by means of their Parents covenanting. This, they say, appears by like Reasons as the former.’

Reply. By what is answered to the former, it appears, that personal Membership is of two sorts; 1. Purely, or meerly 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 onely subjectively Personal, but formally Relative, by their Pa­rents covenanting for them, they being unable to covenant for themselves. To apply this to childrens 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 kinde of Membership is peculiar to such infants and children in minority, onely during their non-age. This di­stinction of Mediate and Immediate Church-members, the Writers [Page 37] of that Book exagitate causlesly, saying, ‘ As touching that distinction of Mediate and Immediate, as applied to Membership, (which some urge) we are to distinguish 1. Between the Efficient and Essence of Membership. 2. Between the Instrumental Efficient and Means thereof, which is the Parents profession and covenant­ing, and the Principal Efficient, which is Divine Institution. They may be said to be mediate (or rather mediately) members, as they become members by means of their Parents covenanting, as an in­strumental cause thereof.’

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 Gods Institution: therefore I chuse rather to call him a mediate member, then to say he is a member immediately; to shew, that the childes Member­ship differs from the Parents specifically, or in the kinde 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 meerly Personal. Divine Institution giveth a real, and mixtly 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 Publick Person, against which Title I excepted in my first Essay, and whereunto I finde no Answer here: Yet it makes such Parents Covenant to be Obligatory to such children▪ and the Parents act in covenanting for the childe, to be the childes act interpretatively, not formally, so as to make the childe an imme­diate Member thereby.

‘They adde, Hence the Essence of membership, i. e. Covenant-interest, or a place and portion within the visible Church, is really, properly, personally and immediately the portion of the childe by Divine Gift and Grant, Josh. 22. 25,27.’

Reply. The interest in the Covenant, and thereby a place and [Page 38] 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 childe, and so is imme­diate. Though nothing comes between to sever the Adjunct from the Subject; The Childe, from A portion in the Lord: yet something comes between to bring that Adjunct and Subject to­gether; viz. The Parents covenanting for the Childe; 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.

‘ Again, though their visible ingraffing into Christ the Head, and so into the Church his Body, is sealed in their Baptism: and though in ingraffing, nothing comes between the graft and the stock; Their union is immediate.’

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 ingraffing 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 f [...]ness of the Olive-tree, in all Ordinances, as, The Lords Supper, and liberty of [Page 39] Voting in all Church-affairs, and are liable to Church-censures imme­diately in their own persons. Paul knew no such meer 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 Priviledges to­gether with other adult Members, no offence 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 meer Membership. Nor doth that Text in Deut 2 [...]. 11. Prove▪ that the little children were immediate Members of the Church of Israel; so as their Parents were. And though to be in Covenant, 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.

‘They say, To act in Covenant, is but the instrumental means of membership, and yet children are not without this neither. For the act of the Parent (their publick person) is accounted theirs, and they are said to enter into Covenant, Deut. 29. 11 12.’

Reply. The Parents acting in Covenant for their Infant-seed, hath been before proved to be the Procreant cause of the childes Membership: nor are the children said to enter into Covenant, Deut. 29. 11. otherwise then in and by their Parents Covenant. Yet, as if all they have said were clear, they demand,

‘ What is it that children w [...]nt unto [...] actual, compleat, proper, absolute, and immediate Membership, &c? Is it Covenant-interest, which is the formalis ratio of membership? No, they are in Cove­nant. Is it Divine Grant and Institution, which is the Principal Efficient? No; he hath clearly declared himself, that he grants unto the children of his people a portion in his Church, and appoints them to be members thereof. Is it an act of Covenanting, which is the Instrumental Means? No; they have this also reputatively, by Divine Appointment, making the Parent a publick person, and accounting them to Covenant in his covenanting.’

Reply. All that they have here expressed, doth not supply [Page 40] what is wanting to little children, to invest them with an actual, compleat, 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. mediante Parentum foedere) and so their Membership is mediate. 2. Divine Institution giants 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, compleat, 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, an [...] her in another way; though both are in Co­venant, yet these different wayes 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 anothers acting for him, is a mediate Member. For, though we are as truly, personally, and immediately Members of the Body of faln Mankinde, 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 publick person; yet that doth not suit the case of Infants in que­stion: for, 1. Adam stood as a publick person, in whose loyns all Mankinde were under the first Covenant, and to be happy or condemned, by his standing or falling. No Parent is such a publick 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 onely with the Lord, not with any Church, as the Co­venant [Page 41] of confederate Parents is; and therefore, if Adam had stood, his posterity had not been Church-members thereby, as the infants of Church-confederates. 3. Nor doth the Parents breaking his Covenant, make his children Heirs of Condemna­tion, as Adams did all Mankinde. So that this example of Adam is impertinently produced in this case of infants, and their Parents confederating for them, not as their publick person, but as Undertakers for their infant-seed by Gods Institution. Nor indeed is any to be accounted a publick person, as Adam was, but Jesus Christ, for all that are in him, Rom. 5. 14,to 20. Nor doth their similitude of a Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs suc­cessively, while they continue loyal, suit the case in question, concern­ing Infants, who cannot be visibly disloyal; nor that, concerning adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church, as immediate Members, whose Parents were godly when they covenanted for them in their infancy. For, they have cut off the Entail of the Covenant from themselves and their Posterity, by their personal disloyalty: so that nothing is given to them and theirs by their Covenant which they presume to usurp, without warrant from God. They say true, that ‘ A member is one, who, according to Rule (or according to divine Institution) is within the visible Church:’ But that refutes nothing that I have said, concerning mediate and immediate Members; for both are within the Church, according to Rule and Divine Institution, though both have not full commu­nion with the Church in all Ordinances, which is the priviledge of all adult persons, who are immediate Members by their own personal right, 1 Cor. 5. 12. They frame an Objection thus:

‘Obj. If children [...]e compleat and immediate members, as their Parents are, then they shall immediately have all Church-priviledges as their Parents have, without any further act or qualification.’ And they Answer it thus: ‘Ans. It followeth not. All priviledges that belong to members, as such, do belong to the children as well as to the parents: But all Church-priviledges do not so. A member, as such, (or all member) may not partake of all priviledges, but they are to make progress, both in memberly duties and priviledges, as their age, and capacity, and qualifications do fit them for the same.’

Reply. The intendment of the Objection (as I apprehend) is to [Page 42] shew, that compleat and immediate Membership, as such, doth infer compleat and immediate communion in all Church-privi­ledges: But children in minority have not compleat and immediate communion in all Church-priviledges, without some further act or qualification: Therefore such children are not compleat and immediate Members, as such. Now to this, their Answer is insufficient: For, the best Members have need to make pro­gress in memberly duties and qualifications, to fit them more and more for Church-priviledges. Yet all have that communion that suits their Membership: Infants, in Baptism, the Watch, Prayers, and Blessing of the Church, by their Parents covenanting for them: Adult persons, orderly and regularly joyned by their per­sonal covenanting for themselves, in the Seals, Voting, and Censures, which belong to them, as such Members. Nor doth the Scripture any where allow the Church to admit any one by personal cove­nanting for themselves and theirs, into any other Membership then compleat and immediate. But Infants are not capable of such Membership, without some further personal act and qualification, when they shall become adult. Therefore their Infant-mem­bership is not compleat and immediate.

‘3. That their Membership still continues in adult age, and ceaseth not with their Infancy, appears, 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins, or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief, not for growing up to adult age, Rom. 11. 20.’

Reply. 1. When I affirm, that their mediate Membership con­tinueth during their minority, while they are under the Institution and Government of Parents, &c. I deny that that Membership continues in adult age, and when they are at their own disposal, or have children of their own to covenant for: because then the reason of their mediate Membership ceaseth, they being by age capable of covenanting for themselves. 2. Their first Reason doth not prove, that the Membership of all baptized in Infancy, continues in adult age: For the Text alledged, speaketh onely of such as have been received into compleat and immediate member­ship regularly, by their personal Faith and Covenanting with the Church visibly, who are broken off, either by the just judgement of God, as the unbelieving Nation of the Jews are, or by the [Page 43] just Censure of the Church. Whereas our question is, not of such, but of adult persons, that break off themselves from the Covenant, by profane neglect, or contempt of the Ordinances, or unsuitable Conversation. Who ever said, that any were broken off for growing up to adult age? Such intimations should be forborn by godly men.

‘2. The Jews children circumcised did not cease to be members by growing up, but continued in the Church, and were by virtue of their membership received in infancy, bound unto various duties, and in special unto those solemn professions that pertained unto adult mem­bers, not as then entring into a new membership, but as making pro­gress in memberly duties, Deut. 26. 2—10. & 16. 16,17. with Gal. 5. 3.’

Reply. 1. That the Jews children circumcised were bound to various duties, and to those solemn professions that pertained to adult members, when themselves were grown up, is clear enough by the Texts alledged, and sundry other. Whereunto I willingly adde, that Baptism also bindeth the Infant-seed of Confederates to various Gospel-duties, and especially this, of using all means that Faith may be wrought in their hearts, unto obeying the Call of God, and then holding forth their Faith unto the Church, that they may take hold of the Co­venant for themselves and theirs, and so become compleat and imme­diate Members. But 2. It is not proved, by those Texts, that when they were adult, they did not enter into a new Member­ship; rather the contrary appears in Deut. 26. 17,18. For, they entred into that Covenant personally and immediately, not in and by their Parents, as they did in Infancy, Gen. 17. 7. If covenant­ing be the Form of Church-membership, (which they affirm) then a different form of covenanting, makes a different kinde of Church-membership. Immediate covenanting, makes immediate Members; Mediate covenanting, makes mediate Members.

Their third Reason is, ‘ Those relations of Born-servants and Subjects, which the Scripture makes use of to set forth the state of children in the Church by, Lev. 25. 41,42. Ezek. 37. 25. do not (as all men know) cease with infancy, but continue in adult age. Whence also it follows, that one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement, to service and subjection to [Page 44] Christ in his Church, when grown up, when they are fit for it, and have most need of it.’

Reply. 1. Those Relations of born Servants and Subjects in the Text alledged, have different respects. That Lev. 25. was typical, figuring the time of Grace, whereby now Christ hath freed us from the servitude of Sin and Satan, Joh. 8. 32,36. Rom. 6. 14,18. to become the Servants of God in Christ, Rom. 6 22. 1 Cor. 7. 23. Parents and children, so far as they have interest in the Redemption wrought by Christ, as they are freed by him from other Lords, so they are bound thereby to serve him all the dayes of their life, Luke 1. 74,75. Therefore this relation doth not cease with infancy, but continueth in adult age. But this doth nothing concern the thing in question, concerning Mediate Membership. 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 Christian Gentiles now, I have formerly shewn: so that neither doth that 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 most 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 kn [...]w the God of their Parents, and to serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing minde, 1 Chron. 28. 9. and upon the Church, To exercise their Watchfulness, that both Parent: and Children do their duty, helping them also therein with their Instructions, and Prayers, and Power, which is given for Edification, as the case may require.▪ Yet, when all this is done, neither can the Parents nor the Church give Grace unto the Children, that, when they become adult, they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate Member­ship; and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly, is to profane the Ordinances, and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary.

"Reas. 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of membership, but by Death, Dismission, Excommunication, or Dissolution of the So­ciety: none of which is the case of the persons in question.

[Page 45] Reply. This enumeration is insufficient; there is another or­dinary way of cessation of Membership, i. e. Desertion. Thus Esau's Membership ceased, and so may the Membership of others, though they abide in the place where the Church is; yet, if being adult, they regard not to joyn, with the Church by their personal and immediate Confederation, nor to fit themselves for it, these despise the Church of God. And, if that is sufficient to deprive those of all Church-priviledges, who were before in personal and immediate Church-fellowship, when they forsake it, 1 Job. 2. 19. much more those who never had such Member­ship, nor have approved their Spiritual fitness for it, to the Chur­ches charitable judgement, nor truly desire and endeavour so to do. What can the mediate Membership, which such had in In­fancy, advantage them for continuing thereby still in Member­ship, when being adult, they live in the breach of that Cove­nant, whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church?

‘Reas. 5. Either they are when adult, Members, or Non-members; if Non-members, then a person admitted a Member and sealed by Baptism, not cast out, nor deserving to be, may (it Church whereof he was, still remaining) become a Non-member, and out of the Church, and of the unclean world, which the Scripture acknowledgeth not.’

Reply. A Freemans childe (suppose of London, or any other Corporation) was free-born, and might, in his minority, trade un­der his father; yet, being grown up, he must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen, and be accepted of the Company, as his father was, unto all Duties and Liberties of that Society in his own person; else he may not trade for himself. If it be said, Why so? either he is a Freeman, or a Non-freeman. It will be readily answered, He is a Non-freeman, and that by his own default. If it be said, He was Free by his Fathers Copy, and is not dis-franchised by any publick Censure, nor hath de­served so to be; may such an one (the Society whereof he was, still remaining) become a Non-freeman, and out of that So­ciety, &c? The answer will easily and readily be given, He hath lost his Freedome, by not entring, in his own person, unto the common [Page 46] Engagement of Freemen, to the Duties whereunto all Freemen are per­sonally bound. So, and much more justly it is in this case. An adult person makes himself to become a Non-member, as to pri­viledges, by not performing the Duties whereunto he was bound by his Patents Covenant for him in his minority, and by his not regularly covenanting, as his Parents did. And this is according to Scripture, which tells us, that Circumcision received in Baptism may become, by his own fault, being adult, no Circumcision, Rom. 2.25. Those Texts in Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7. are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to Infants, and Children in minority.

‘Propos. 6. Such Church-members, who, either by death, or some other extraordinary Providence, have been inevitably hindred from publick acting, as aforesaid, yet, having given the Church cause, in judgement of charity, to look at them as so qualified, and such as had they been called thereunto, would so have acted, their children are to be baptized.’

Reply. This Proposition may not be granted. For, 1. It granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members, which is contrary to Christs Ordinance, whereby Baptism, being a publick Church-Ordinance, is due onely to them who have a publick state and Interest, such are onely the Members of the publick Ecclesiastical Body, the Church. Hence 1. An ordinary Minister cannot orderly per­form an act proper to his Office, in reference to Church-com­munion, to any that are not regularly and actually Members of the visible Church, without great usurpation: as, if a man do a work proper to Magistracy, to one that is not under his Magistra­tical Power, he is an Usurper. So it is in this case of a Minister. To administer Baptism, is an act of his Office-power: If he ad­minister Baptism to children, whose Parents are not regularly in Church-order; in so doing, why may not the Lord say, He is an Usurper? Suppose an unbaptized person, professing his Faith, and qualified according to the description in the sixth Proposition; yet deferring for some probable causes, to adjoyn himself to the Church, for the present, should desire Baptism of any of these Ministers who framed this Proposition; Should they administer [Page 47] it to him, and so do a proper work of their Officè upon him? If yea; if they admit him to Baptism, why not to the Lords Sup­per, and to the choice of Officers, and to the Censures of the Church, either actively or passively? for all these are Actions and Ordinances of one general nature: and it is meerly his want of Church-order that debars him from them. 2. The Church may not receive into any priviledge of Church-communion, such as Baptism is, (whatever cause they seem to have, in the judgement of charity, to think them fit for Church-membership, and such as had they been called, would have so acted) until they be actually in publick Church-order; no more then the Children of every good Subject of the King, may be admitted into the special Pre­rogatives of a Corporation, whereof themselves, or their next Parents are not regularly free. All things must be done in order, 1 Cor. 14.40. whereunto, what is more contrary, then that he, who is not regularly and personally of a publick Society, should have Fellowship in a publick Priviledge, proper to that Society? Yet they say this, which the Proposition holds forth, is manifest:

‘1. Because the main foundation of the right of the childe to pri­viledge, remains; viz. Gods Institution: and the force of his Co­venant, carrying it to the generations of such as are keepers of the Covenant, i. e. not visible breakers of it, &c.’

Reply. The Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the Covenant, which was sealed to them by Baptism, in their Infancy, and obliged them to service and subjection to Christ in his visible Church, having confederated personally and regularly for themselves and theirs, as their Parents did before them. If they do not this, they are out of that order, by their own fault, wherein they might have given their children right to Baptism, according to Christs Institution. That right which Pa­rents have not for themselves unto Baptism if they were unbaptized, they cannot give to their children. They who are not Members in their own personal and immediate right, cannot give a right of membership to their children. And though their Member­ship in Infancy was distinct from their Parents, yet being onely mediate, by their Parents covenanting for them, it ceaseth, when they become adult, by their own fault, in that they were not or­derly [Page 48] joyned to the Church, immediately, by their personal cove­nanting for themselves and theirs, regularly.

‘2. Because Parents not doing what is required in the fifth Pro­position, is through want of opportunity; which is not to be imputed as their guilt, so as to be a barre of the Childes priviledge.’

Reply. 1. It hath been already proved, in our examining the fifth Proposition, that more is required to fit one that is adult, for Church-membership, then is there expressed, viz. Faith in Christ made visible to the Church, without which they are not regularly Church-members. Now Baptism administred by ordinary Church-Officers, to such as are out of Church-order, is profaned, as Circumcision was by the Shechemites, and would have been by the Ishmaelites, and Edemites, and the posterity of Abraham by Keturah, if it had been administred to their children, when their Parents were not joyned to the Church of God, or abode not in it, in the Families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For, 1. One end of Baptism now, (as it was of Circumcision then) is to seal Church communion, 1 Cor. 12. 13. it is a publick Testimony of the Admission of the party baptized into the Family of God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into whose Name he is baptized, Mat. 28.20. either immediately, if he be adult, by his personal Covenanting for himself and his seed; or mediately, if in his mi­nority, by his next immediate Parents Covenanting for him. This the Parent in question hath not done. Hence the want hereof is a bar to his childes Baptism. 2. The regular and lawful use of Baptism now (as of Circumcision of old) presupposeth both Gods Promise, and his Faith, who is to use it, either upon him­self▪ [...] 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 King of Heaven and Earth? If not, surely it had need to be soundly cleared.

‘3. God reckoneth that as done in his service, to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it be hin­dred, &c.’

Reply. We must distinguish between private and publick Ser­vice in a publick state and order. 1. In private Service, God [Page 49] accepts the will for the deed, when the acting of it is hindred, ei­ther by God himself, as Abrahams sacrificing his Son, and Davids building [...] by the parties inability to do so much as he wo [...]ld, as in hat case 2 Cor. 8. 12. and the like. 2. But in publick Service in a publick state and order, he doth not accept of that as done which is not done, so far as to bring them into that state and order, whatsoever their desires and endeavours have been; for this were to overthrow and subvert that Order, which God hath by his Instruction established, and to bring in Confusion. Will God accept a man in doing acts of Office power proper to a Minister of a Church, because he desired and endeavoured to be a Minister, when he is not actually and regularly in Office? Or may a Church receive unto Fellowship of the outward Seals of the Covenant such as are not actually and regularly joyned to the Church, because they desired and endeavoured to be of the Church, albeit their joyning with the Church was hindred? To be baptized, in voto, will nothing advantage any to Church-fellowship, though a Martyr, in voto, is accepted of God as a Martyr, because though God searcheth and knoweth the heart, yet the Church doth not: De occul [...]is 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 Church­priviledges, otherwise then by actual joyning with the Church.

‘4. The terms of the Proposition import that in charity, that is here done interpretatively, which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly.’

Reply. 1. It's an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation; for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture, or in good Reason. 2. If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly, is here done interpretatively, both being put together, will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship, in any sense, and to give his Infant a right to Baptism thereby. For, by Christs Ordinance, onely adult per­sons, who have true Faith in Him, and Holiness, are adult Mem­bers of the invisible Church, and the same persons, making holy Profession thereof outwardly in the order of him appointed, [Page 50] may be Members of the visible Church; and they onely can give their Infant-seed a right unto Baptism. For, seeing without faith it is impossible to please God, in matters of his publick Worship and Service, whereof Baptism is one; and seeing God hath appoint­ed us to Worship him, both in it, and in all other publick 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 expresly required in the fifth Proposition, nor interpretatively in this.

‘Propos. 7. The Members of Orthodox Churches, being [...] in the Faith, and not scandalous in life, and presenting [...] testimony thereof, these occasionally coming from one Church to another, may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come, by virtue of Communion of Churches. But if they remove their habitation, they ought orderly to Co­venant, and to submit themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church-where they settle their abode, and so their chil­dren to be baptized: It being the Churches duty to receive such into communion, so far as they are regularly sit for the same.’

Reply. The regular Communion of approved Churches, I look at as the Ordinance of Christ, according to the 11 ^th and 12 ^th Positions 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 endeavour to prove severally: but neither of them are sufficiently explained. In the first part, I Enquire; What Churches they account Orthodox? whether such onely as have the Truth of Doctrine, as it is opposed to Heterodoxies and Errours about the Doctrine of Faith, viz. Churches that are Heretical; or such also which are right in Judgement and Practice in matters of Church Order. For both these the Church at C [...]osse 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 sound in the Faith? For a Member of an Orthodox Church may hold and maintain dange­rous Errours, contrary to the Faith, 1 Cor. 15.12. 3. Whom [Page 51] they account to be not scandalous in life? whether onely such as fall not under the censure of Civil Courts, or also such as are justly offensive to Gods 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 Christs 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 onely 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, o [...] as a Member of the Church where he is baptized, and where the Parent is not a Member, but onely hath this benefit of the Com­munion of Churches, that himself is admitted to the Lords 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: [...] 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 [Page 52] to the Government of Christ, or not? 3. Whether all refusing to Covenant with any Church whatsoever, where they are necessitated to settle their abode, is to be judged to be dis­orderly walking, and to savour 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 joyn in communion with that Church in the place where they dwelt, it being not to be approved; Doth this their not being joyned, debar 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.

‘Quest. II. Whether according to the Word of God, there ought to be a Consociation of Churches? and what should be the manner of it?’

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

Reply. The Propositions following are eight. As for the first four: The first, Concerning the full Power and Authority Eccle­siastical, within it self, 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 Relation 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 onely 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 Errours or Scandals; this must be taken with a grain of Salt. They referre us to the Platform of Discipline, (Chap. 15. Sect. [...]. Partic.3.) where they fetch a proof for this withdrawing, from [Page 53] Mat. 18.15,16,17. by proportion. But there seems to be a threefold disproportion between that and this. For, 1. There the Withdrawing is a consequent and effect of the Churches authori­tative Censure of an 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 the Keyes of the King­dome of Heaven, and hath ordained, that such an one shall be Ex­communicated for his obstinacy in offences, which were material­ly of a lesser kinde, but, by obstinacy of the delinquent, (after secret, private, and publick Admonition) against the Ordinance of Christ for his reclaiming, becomes formally an heinous Scandal. But the Withdrawing of other Churches from a Church which they account peccant, is an act of different nature and kinde. For, it is not an act of publick Authority of such Churches over that Church, by virtue of the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven given to any Synod, or Council of Neighbour-Churches, as they them­selves confess in their first Proposition, for Answer to this second Question.

2. The steps, whereby they proceed to this Withdrawing, are, ‘1. That one Church Admonish another. 2. If the Church under offence, doth not hearken to that Admonition; the offended Church is to acquaint other Neighbour-Churches with that offence, and with their neglect of that Admonition: whereunto those other Churches are to joyn, in seconding the Admonition formerly given: and if still the offending Church continue in obstinacy and impenitency, they may forbear communion with them.’

Reply. This is not, by proportion, according to Matth. 18. For, there Christ doth not allow them, who have proceeded in Admonishing but to the second step, to forbear communion with the delinquent: whereas these Neighbour-Churches are but in the second step. Yet, they say, he [...] may to hear communion with them. Then they ascend to the third step; ‘ To proceed to make use of a Synod, or Council of Neighbour-Churches walking orderly ( [...]f a greater cannot conveniently be had) for their conviction. If they hear not the Synod, the Synod, having declared them to be Obstinate, particular Churches, approving and accepting the judgement of the [Page 54] Synod, are to declare the sentence of Non-communion respectively concerning them; and thereupon, out of a Religious care to keep their own communion pure, they may justly withdraw themselves from participation with the [...] at the Lords Table, and from such other acts of holy communion, as the Communion of Churches doth otherwise allow and require.’ Thus they speak, in that Platform. But, is this, in proportion, according to Mat. 18. that the Neighbour-Churches may first withdraw, and then a Synod or Council of Neigh­bour-Churches must be made use of for their conviction? and, if the Synod declare them to be Obstinate, particular Churches are to declare the sentence of Non-communion, and then to withdraw themselves from all acts of holy communion? Till they can produce a clear Rule for warrant of such a proceeding, I cannot look at this otherwise, then as a meer humane Invention.

3. Though Churches may withdraw from a Church that is ob­stinate and impenitent in some cases, (without any such solemn sen­tence of Non-communion declared by a Synod) yet, not for such causes as a delinquent Brother may be Excommunicated by a Church, according to Mat. 18. For there, though the Offence was in some lesser matter, and private between two at first; yet, by obstinacy against convincing light, held forth in those three steps of proceeding, it becomes a publick and heinous Scandal, and so the Delinquent must be at last Excommunicated by the command of Christ, and the Sentence of the Church, in obedi­ence to Christ, who hath for such ends given the Keyes of the King­dome of Heaven unto them. But Neighbour-Churches may not withdraw from a true Church for every Errour and Scandal, though persisted in, and, in their opinion, obstinately. For 1. It may be the Errour of Neighbour-Churches, to think that to be light from Scripture, which they hold forth for their conviction, when it is not from Scripture, rightly understood, and rightly applied▪ If the Synod, by whom this Book is published, should conclude any Church to walk in Errour, and Scandal, and Obstinately, which shall not be convinced from what light they have here held forth, nor practise accordingly, till what is Replied ad opposi [...] ▪ be soundly Refuted, and their Allegations and Applications of Scri­pture, more convincingly and irrefragably cleared, and Withdraw [Page 55] communion from them, after the first, second, and third Admoni­tion; and, If any Neighbour-Churches, for this or the like cause, should Withdraw from communion with them, after the Admoni­tion of one Church, and, after that, of other Neighbour-Chur­ches; They should greatly sin in so doing, and act contrary to their own Doctrine in their second Proof of their 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 Neighbour-Churches to be true Churches, by their giving unto them the right hand of fellowship: and an Errour in lesser matters, though persisted in against their Admonitions, (which may be from want of convincing light) doth not make any of them cease to be a true Church. But to Withdraw themselves from all holy communion with such a Church for such a cause▪ is Total se­paration from a true Church, which, themselves say, is unlawful, Ibid. 2. The cases, wherein communion may be regularly Withdrawn from a Church or Person, are onely such as Subvert the Funda­mentals of Religion, and are obstinately persisted in, against due means regularly used with patience for their conviction, being contrary to the Faith once given to the Saints; from whence they may be justly denominated Heretical, Tit.3.10,11. 2 Joh. ver. 10,11. Or to the communion of Saints; from whence they may be justly styled Schismatical, Rom.16▪17,18. Or to both, being fallen from the Truth once received; from whence they be justly called. Apostatical, 2 Tim 4.10. Or, if there be any other case of like heinousness. But in cases of lesser importance, Churches and Christians are to be exhorted to walk worthy of their calling, with all lowliness, and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one an­other in love: Endevouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bo [...]d of peace, &c. Eph. 4. 1.2,2, &c. concluding with blessed Paul, that (the main things of Religion being provided for, and secured, for lesser matters) if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you, Phil.3.15. For, in such matters, godly men do frequently differ, and are not easily convinced; some from [Page 56] the strength, others from the weakness of their Intellectuals: and the best know but in part.

I have been the larger in clearing this Point for necessary causes. Having thus spoken to the four first Propositions, I proceed to the fifth and sixth 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. Qu [...]re. Whether, by mutual and solemn Agreement, they mean a Vow? It seems by the Texts al­ledged by them, in the first Proof of the sixth Proposition, that they mean so; and therefore I shall take it for granted that that is their meaning. 2. When they say, This solemn Agreement or Covenant must be made with special reference to Churches in vicinity: Qu [...]re. 1. How many Churches in Vicinity or Neighbour-Churches, must thus Covenant together? 2. Whether they must have set times of Meeting for this purpose? and who are to meet? Whether Elders alone? or others also sent from the Chur­ches with them? and how frequent these Meetings must be? and whether the set times must be kept constantly, though they have no present need of counsel from another? 3. Whereas they speak of Liberty reserved, without offence, to make use of others, as the nature of the case, &c. may lead thereunto. Qu [...]re. How they may avoid giving offence to Neighbour-Churches, if they use the help of Churches more remote? Whether they must have their consent thereunto before they use them? 4. Concern­ing the end and issue of this Consociation of Churches; Whe­ther [Page 57] they are bound thereby to acquiesce in the judgement and de­terminations of those Neighbour-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 Errour and Scandal, and accordingly in time to have all holy communion with them withdrawn from them? It seemeth, by what was before said in the sixth Act of Communion for Answer to the first Question, pag. 31. that this will be the end and issue of this Consociation unto any Church that shall dissent from the rest. This Consociation they endea­vour to prove to be a duty incumbent upon the Churches in New-England. I shall briefly weigh their Reasons.

‘ For 1. Communion of Churches being commanded, and Conso­ciation being but an Agreement to practise it, this must needs be a duty also, Psal.119.106. Nehem. 10.28,29.’

Reply. It doth not necessarily follow, till they have proved that Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Covenant is commanded, as Communion of Churches is. Nor do the Texts alledged prove it in Psal. 119. 106. David swore to keep Gods righteous judgements, and would perform it; because, though he was not bound to swear, yet he had voluntarily sworn it, and so was under a double bond to perform it: for, both his keeping Gods righteous judgements, and his performing that Vow, were command­ed of God, Deut. 10.13. with Psal. 76.11. 2. And his Vow was private, betwixt God and himself. Hence it will not fol­low, that Churches are bound to consociate with a Vow or Co­venant, after the manner here described, which is not proved to be a duty, and may be unsafe for particular Churches. That Cove­vant, in Neh. 10.28,29. was their Church-covenant renewed and explained, and so was a mutual solemn Engagement, by entring in­to a Curse, and into an Oath (to which form we are not bound) and Church-covenanting is Gods Ordinance, Isa. 19.21. & 56.4, to 8. & 62.5. all which are Prophesies of the Churches under the Go­spel. But between the covenanting of a Church within it self, and such a covenanting as this for the consociating of Churches, there are considerable differences. 1. Because this wants Warrant from the Scripture, which that hath; there being neither any Precept in Scri­pture [Page 58] commanding it, nor any Pattern among the Primitive Churches, planted or approved by the Apostles, commanding it unto us. 2. Nor is there like Reason for such Consociation of Churches by a mutual and solemn Agreement or Covenant between Churches in a vicinity, as is for a Church-covenant within it self. For, the Church-covenant is ne­cessary, because, without it, the ends of Church-fellowship can­not be attained. For, 1. Each particular Church is a Spiritual Corporation; which therefore must receive its being from a Spi­ritual Combination, or Foederal Engagement. 2. By virtue here­of, they that had no natural impression to subject them to others, or to give them power over them, have mutual power each over o­ther, to command, & constrain, as the case requires; of which power they could not have been made partakers without mutual Agree­ment and Engagement. 3. Hereby they come to enjoy such Spiritual and Ecclesiastick Priviledges unto which none can be ad­mitted without the approbation and allowance of the whole; which necessarily requires this Engagement to the whole, which is by Covenant. Thus Mr. Hooker argues, to prove the necessity of a Church-covenant, Survey, part. 1. chap. 4. [...]. 50, to 55. But the ends of Church-communion, (which is mutual helpfulness by counsel) may be attained (without such a Consociation by mutual Engagement) by the Communion of Churches, which of it self, without any other Engagement, gives Churches a right and interest in another way mutually for their help by counsel, when their needs require it. The Churches in New-England have, by the blessing of Christ, found the benefit of the Communion of Chur­ches for setling Truth and Peace among them, without such a Con­sociation, and may so still. 3. Such an Agreement between Churches will become a Snare unto them, by straitning them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves, in re propr [...] ▪ 1. If, by virtue hereof, they may not administer Church-censures within themselves, without concurrence of Neighbour-Churches, or Elders approbation sought and attained thereunto before: Or, 2. If thereby they stand bound under the fore-noted Penalty, to rest in, and practise according to the judgement and advice of such Churches, having sufficient light and consent within them­selves without them. 3. Mr. Rutherfurd affirms, That a conve­nient [Page 59] number of Churches, having ordinarily conversing one with an­other, shall voluntarily combine themselves in one Society; this last gives in the formality of Classical Membership, Lib 2. p. 320. He addes: When God hath made him a combined Member, now, by insti­tution, of one Presbyterian Church, not of another, though by ordinary converse with other Churches, in case of scandal, his example may prove prejudicial and infestuous to others, yet this Presbytery must proceed in Excommunication against him, because he is combined with them. Thus, you see, by this voluntary combination of Churches, a Church become a Classical or Presbyterian Church, and the Members, by consenting thereunto, become Members of a Classical Church, and under the power of it, so as to be Excom­municated by it. And is not this Consociation to be looked at as a Snare to the Churches? which 1. Transforms them from Congregational Churches into a Classical Church? And 2. Sub­jects them under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Classical Church? And 3. Without any warrant of Christs Institution? Let us see if there be more in their second Proof.

‘2. Paul an Apostle sought with much labour the conference, concurrence, and right hand of fellowship of other Apostles: and ordinary Elders and Churches have not less need each of other, to pre­vent their running in vain, Gal. 2.2,6,9.’

Reply. 1. This necessity was proper to Paul's case, who did not converse with Christ on earth, as the other Apostles did, but was as one born out of due time, 1 Cor. 15. 8. and so was more liable to be objected and excepted against, then the other Apostles; and therefore had more need to be countenanced among men, by them, then they by him: Whence he wisely sought approbation from them. But this is not the case of the Churches in New-England, each of them having been approved by the right hand of fellowship given to them by other Churches at their first ga­thering, and at the Ordination of their Teaching and Ruling­Elders 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.

[Page 60] ‘3. Those general Rules, touching the need and use of counsel and help in weighty cases, concern all Societies and Polities Ecclesiastical, as well as [...], Prov.11.14. & 15.22, &c.’

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

‘4. The pattern, in Acts 15. holds forth a warrant for Coun­cils, which may be greater or lesser, as the matter shall require.’

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

‘5. Concurrence and communion of Churches, in Gospel-times, is not obscurely held forth in Isa.19 23,24,25. Zeph. [...].9. 1 Cor.11.16. & 14.32,36.’

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

‘6. There hath constantly been in these Churches a profession of Communion, in giving the right hand of fellowship at the gathering of Churches, and Ordination of Elders; which importeth a Con­sociation, and obligeth to the practice thereof.’

Reply. Together with the profession of communion, hath been the practice of it in these Churches. But that this communion importeth such a Consociation, as they describe, and obligation to the practice thereof, was not expressed, nor understood. Worthy Mr. Cotton, (whose Name ought to be honourable a­mong the Saints, both in Old England and New) in that Book which he entituled, The Way of the Churches in New-England, the sixth chapter, speaketh of the Communion of Churches, and sheweth seven wayes, whereby it ought to be, and is, in these Churches, exercised. They do (as I apprehend) reach all the Duties to be performed, by virtue of Church-communion, mu­tually, by each other: But of this Consociation (as it is here [Page 61] 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 w [...]nt an expedient and suf­ficient cure for emergent Church-difficulties and differences; the con­stant experience of these Churches, from their beginning, to this day, evinceth the contrary. And though our Way is charged with the want hereof; yet it is unjustly, and by such as would bring us into their Way of Classical Churches, which is not proved to be the Ordinance of Christ, as this of the Communion of Churches is, and hath been found effectual, by the blessing of Christ, and so will be still. And though this part of the Doctrine of the Church, as they call it, concerning such a consociation, it being not proved to be the Doctrine of Christ, was never practised in these Chur­ches: For without it, the Churches either have been, or might have been, and may be hereafter, kept in purity and peace with Brotherly love among themselves mutually, by the regular im­proving the communion of Churches, which is manifested to be the Ordinance of Christ, who hath given us perfect Rules in the New Testament, for the ordering of the communion of Christian Churches, which are sufficient for attainment of the ends, for which Christ hath appointed it, according to the second, third, fourth, eleventh, and twelfth Positions premised. With which, if this way of Consociation of Churches shall be clearly proved to agree (which I do not finde to be yet done) I shall readily and heartily close with it, and submit unto it. For it is onely the Truth that I search for, and desire to bear witness unto, that, when my time shall come to lay down this earthly tabernacle (which I expect daily) I may give up my account with joy. 2. And, if any Church be refractory, we have the help of the Civil Power, which is ordained of God for the just punishment of those that do evil, whether in Church or Common-wealth, Rom. 13. Every Ordinance of God hath Gods blessing annexed; which we can­not expect in this way, till it be proved to be Gods Ordinance, which yet is not done.

‘Propos. 7. The manner of the Churches agreement-herein, may be by the Churches open consenting unto the things her-declared, in Answer to this second Question; as also to what is said there­about, [Page 62] in Chap. 15,16. of the Platform Discipline, with refe­rence to what is before expressed in Proposition 5 ^th.’

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

‘They say, The Synods Directions and Determinations, so farre as consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not onely for their agreement therewith, &c. but also secondarily, for the power whereby they are made, &c.’

Reply. I grant, that the Synods Directions and Determinations, so farre as consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission. But what if the Members of Churches, to which they are sent, do not finde them consonant to the Word rightly understood and applied? Are they nevertheless still bound to pra­ctise according to the Synods Directions and Determinations, be­cause the Synod coucludeth that they are consonant to the Word? I suppose, no Orthodox Synod, in these times, will arrogate to it self such infallible Assistance, as the Apostles, being assembled with the Church at Jerusalem, had, Acts 15. (though they argued and concluded onely from Scripture, yet that Council could not erre in their understanding and applying Scripture, having such guides as the Apostles were) but will confess that they may erre in their understanding and applying the Scriptures, whereupon they seem to ground their Directions and Determinations. And if so, it is the duty of every Church, and the Members thereof, to examine by the Scriptures whatsoever Direction or Determination is pro­pounded by the Synod. If they finde that they are consonant to the Word of God, they are bound by Gods Authority to receive them with reverence and submission. It otherwise, we ought 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 [Page 63] without which their Directions and Determinations [...]inde not at all, yet) they make so binding, that, if any Churches shall refuse to practise according to the Directions and Determinations of the Synod, (though they have strong grounds of dis-satisfaction a­bout the Synods interpretation and application of the Scriptures alledged by them) they will withdraw themselves from communion with them. Whether such an authoritative urging their counsels upon Churches be warranted by Scripture, let the Reader enquire and consider: and, Whether it will agree with what themselves before declared, concerning the unlawfulness of a total Separation from a true Church: and, Whether there be need of it to cure emer­gent Church-difficulties and differences; seeing all that are godly will readily close with such Directions and Determinations of Sy­nods, as are clearly consonant to the Word of God: and, if any obstinately will persist in their own wayes, contrary to the Word held forth to them by the Synod, the Civil Power is Gods Ordi­nance for punishment of such evil doers, that the Churches may be kept pure and peaceable, in the exercise of Church-communion among themselves in a Brotherly way. Which yet is no impedi­ment to the Churches (and that by the declaratory Sentence of a Synod, that is, after due conviction of a Church that is Hereti­cal, Schismatical, Apostatical, or the like, with due patience ex­ercised) to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such as make themselves worthy, by their obstinacy against the light clearly held forth from Scripture, to be rejected, as not true Churches of Christ. Yet this they may not regularly do, meerly for their Dis­senting from the Determinations of the Synod, upon conscien­tious grounds, and in lesser matters. What is before expressed in the fifth Proposition, hath been already examined.

‘Propos. 8. concerneth The manner of exercising and practising that Communion, which this cousin [...] and agreement specially tendeth unto, which, they say, may be, by making use occasionally of Elders, or able Brethren of other Churches; or by the more solemn Meet­ings of both Elders and Messengers, in lesser or greater Councils, as the matter shall require.’ Such Meetings, for the end speci­fied, being rightly ordered, and carried on in a Brotherly way, by men sincerely affected to establish Truth with Peace in the [Page 64] 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.