Church Concord, Chapter 4
Chap. IV. Difference II.
THE second Point supposed to be a Difference, is about the Necessity of a Church Covenant. Here is no Difference at all between the Learned of each Party, that I am able to discover. We are Agreed, 1. That our consent toNorton. Resp. P. 28. …3. De Veritate talis Ecclesiae to nomine dubitare peccatum ducimus. Q. 3. Quale saedus sufficit ad formam Ecclesiae? R. Faedus implicitum sufficit ad esse: faedus explicitam ad magis ordinatum esse desideratur. the Covenant of Grace is it that makes us Christians, and so Members of the Universal Church; and the Profession of that Consent (which regularly is to be done in Baptism, Parents professing their ConsentRutherford Plea, Pag. 85, 86. An explicite Vocal Covenant whereby we bind our selves—by entring in a new Relation to such a Pastor, and to such a Flock, we deny not, as if the thing were unlawful—Nor deny we that at the Election of a Pastor, the Pastor and People tye themselves by reciprocation of Oaths to each other; the one to fulfil faithfully the Ministry he hath received of the Lord; the other to submit to his Ministry in the Lord:—5. Any Professor removing from one Congregation to another, and so coming under a new Relation to such a Church, or such a Ministry, is in a tacite and virtual Covenant to discharge himself in all the Duties of a Member of that Congregation.— for their Infants benefit; and the Adult professing their own Consent, doth instate them in their Visible Membership, 1. The baptized Person being Offered to God, and so solemnizing his own Covenant Act; and God by his Minister accepting him into his Church.
2. And we are Agreed that a signified Consent is necessary to Membership in a particular Church: that is, A Consent to the Relation of a Member; which includeth a Consent to the necessary Duties of that Relation, and an acceptance of the Benefits.
3. And we are Agreed that any tolerable signification of this Consent is all that is absolutely necessary. And that an express Church Covenant is not necessary to the Being of a Church or Member: but that one that by actual Submission and Communion hath signified his Consent, may be truly a Member.
4. And yet we are Agreed, (because Ignorantis non est Consensus, and for many other weighty Reasons, expressed in my Book of Confirmation) that where we can require and procure it, without a greater accidental Detriment to the Church, it is needful ad bene esse to the Churches Reformation, and to the Persons firmer engagement, to the satisfaction of others, and the due execution of Discipline, &c. that the Consent be as open and express as may be: As nothing is more necessary, excellent, honourable, reasonable, than a Holy Life, and nothing that less feareth the light than the Cause of God, so he would have his Cause to be openly owned, and managed above board, and would be confessed before men, and have all men know what they do, that take him for their Master. It is an honour to God and the Gospel, and an excellent advantage to the ordering of the Church, and the saving of the People, to have all brought to as serious and solemn an Engagement to the Living God, as conveniently can be procured. I doubt not but the Presbyterians would joyn with their Brethren, to Petition the Soveraign Rulers that all our People may be brought to this. Let no man think so uncharitably of them, as if they desired that Christ should be but darkly and implicitely owned by the Churches, and as if they would not have Church Members know what they do; Doubtless they cannot but be sensible how much it would further their Ministry with the People, if Magistracy would but assist them herein against the stubborness of ignorant and wilful men; that men might be compelled to submit to Instruction and Approbation, and make a credible Profession of Christianity, owning their Baptismal Covenant, and by this engage themselves to submit to the Officers, Discipline and Ordinances of Christ, in the Churches where they desire Communion. The thing that the Presbyterians have stood upon is no more, but to vindicate the Truth of our Churches against Separatists, that have denyed them to be true Churches, because they had not an explicite Covenant. They deny not that such a Covenant may conduce much to the well-being of the Church; especially if we have the Magistrates help to take off the Peoples prejudice.
Note here also, that by [a Covenant] we mean nothing but [exprest Consent] and that [exprest Consent] is indeed [a Covenant]. And that by [an▪ Implicite Covenant] we mean but [a Consent that is less express] and not [that is not exprest at all]: For Consent cannot be known to the Church without some Expression.
I conclude therefore, that (whatever some particular persons may be guilty of) there is no real difference between the Presbyterians and Independents in the Point of a Church Covenant: and therefore here is no work for a Reconciler.
God forbid that any faithful Ministers of Christ should fight against that much which is profitable to the well being of the Church, meerly because without it the Church may have a Being. Then must we Plead for hunger and want and calamitous Diseases that leave us but the being of men. Nature and the Scripture Presidents in the Old Testament, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, and ancient Practice of the Churches, do satisfie us of the usefulness of Holy Covenants, prudently, seasonably and seriously made. Of this I have said more in my Treatise of Confirmation.