Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston, Text 1 (1 of 3)
never yet been admitted to the Lords Table. Forms … Ratio Ecclesiast. Minist. in Peregrinor. Ecclesiâ institutâ Lendini, &c. Pag. 117—123, 135. with Pag. 86, 104, 105, 106.
Holy Baynes accounts, that Children are a part of the Church, Dioces. Tryall, pag. 84. And the Principles pointed to in his Christian Letters; Letter 15. pag. 125, 126. and Letter 24. pag. 199, 202. Edit. 1637. Also in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, on Chap. 1.1. Doct. 5. and on Chap. 2.12. Pag. 276, 277. and other places, may easily be improved unto a Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Synod.
Dr. Ames (whom the Preface calls for-ever Famous, Iudicious, &c. and that very deservedly) how large his Judgement is as to the Subject of Baptism, may be seen by any that have his Cases of Conscience, Lib. 4. Cap. 27. He requires no more unto the most proper right of a Child to Baptism, but that the Parents o… one of them be intra Ecclesiam, within the Church; though he thinks that others also may be baptized, if any godly persons will undertake for their Education. And how plainly he holds forth the Doctrine of the Synod in his Medulla, Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12, 13. & Cap. 40. Thes. 11, 12, 13. is easie to be Collected.
We may well here take up the words of worthy Mr. Cotton, in his Preface before Mr. Nertons Answer to Apollonius, where having named Cartwright, Partus, Baynes, and Ames, those Chariots and Horsemen of Israel, and Leaders in the Cause of Reformation, he addes, Ab borum sive vestigiis, sive principiis si novitatis studio cessimus, jure meritò deseremur ut desertores. Quod si in viâ illorum ambulamus nec ultrà pregredimur (quod ad summam rei attine…) quàm ab illorum Lumine Divinitùs collustrati, cert… non nos illi sumus, qui causam Reformationis deseruimus, sed illi potiùs (quos lubens nollem dicere) qui nos ut Desertores deserunt & de…estantur. So here: If we out of any changeable Inclinations, or Spirit of Innovation, have departed from the footsteps or principles of those Blessed Patrons of Reformation (such as were now named, and others of The good Old Non-Conformists, who both with Prayers, Tears and Sufferings, and with as much judicious Learning and Piety as the World hath yet seen, have handed down to us the Work and way of Reformation) then let us be, and well might we be deserted and censured as Desertors or Apostates (as we are by too many) But if we adhere to the Principles, and tread in the steps of those Worthies, and go no further then they, or then the Light which God hath communicated by them doth lead us, surely we have not deserted nor departed from the Cause of Reformation; But they rather (though unwillingly we speak it) who desert and dislike us as Desertors.
The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in England, in the Preface to the Result of their meeting at the Savoy, do profess a full concurrence throughout in all the substantial parts of Church-government with their Reverend Brethren the Old Puritan Non-Confermists, citing in the Margin Fox, Dearing, Greenbam, Cartwright, Fenner, Fulk, Whitaker, Reynolds, Perkins, &c. Now let the Judgement of these (such of them as have left any thing written about this Question, by which we may judge of the mindes of the rest) be considered; and see if they do not abundantly confirm such … Latitude of Baptism as we plead for. What if our Congregational Brethren in England have not yet, by reason of the Infancy of their Churches, had so much occasion to look into this question (as our selves for a long time had not) nor yet so much need to trouble themselves about the full extent of Baptism, in a place where there were enow that would baptize those whom themselves left unbaptized? yet when the Lord shall incline any of those Able and Worthy Persons to set themselves to the study of this point: why should we think that they will not be willing to receive Light from, or that they will be willing easily to go against the Judgements of those Old Non-Conformists, whom they professedly concurre-with in other parts of Discipline? So much for the Discourse upon the first Objection.
In Answer to to the Second Objection, The Apologist gives this warning, Let us not for fear of Anabaptism, do worse, even defile our selves with Antichristianism. And makes this Profession, We are willing to profess that we look upon it as great a sin to Baptize all Children, as to baptize to Children.
Ans. 1. We should not chuse to put Anabaptism as contradistinct to Antichristianism. Take Antichristianism for all that which is against Christ his Mind, Rules and Kingdome, so surely Anabaptism is a part of it. Take it for the corruptions of the Papacy, how near a-kin the Doctrines and Principles of the Papists and Anabaptists are, is shewed in à late Preface to Mr. Shepard's Letter. The Anabaptists are indeed ready enough to call every thing that they mislike, Antichristian; as if none were Enemies to Antichristianism so much as they. But if to oppose, obstruct, and undermine the Kingdome of our Lord Jesus Christ, be an Antichristian thing, let Scripture, Reason, and Experience speak, whether their Tenents and Wayes be not highly Antichristian. Does not their cutting off so great a part of the Subjects of Christs Kingdome, as the Children of the Faithful are (Mat. 19.14.) their changing the Frame of the Covenant, whereby his vi…ble Kingdome in his Church is constituted and continued, &c. give (though secretly, and under plausible pretences) a most deep and dangerous Wound to the Interest and Progress of Christs Kingdome? And hath not Experience shewed Anabaptism (with its wonted concomitant Errours) to be the Vexation and Clog of Reformation ever since the beginning of it.
2. To speak here of baptizing the children of Infidells and Pagans, as if any did incline to that, would be a strange absurdity: but if by [All Children] be meant the Children of All that are named Christians, though we think it too great a L…xness to baptize all such, yet we are past doubt, that so to do is farre neerer the Rule and Mind of Christ, when he sayes [Dis…ple … Nations, baptizing them] then to baptize no Children. Let us be farre from making Bucan, Zanchy, Calvin, Perkins, and many other Eminent and Worthy Divines, who are for such a Latitude of baptizing, to be equally erroneous with the Anabaptists. Let no one make it a Temptation to himself or others, to run to Antip…d…baptism, because he hears the Assertors of Infant-Baptism plead for a greater Latitude of Baptism then he thinks is (or perhaps then indeed is) meet. Errour in particular Applications of the Rule, is farre less then errour in a Principle. Anabaptism erres in a Principle, and principal Rule of Church-constitution. And he that narrowly observes the frame of Christs Rules and Dispensations about this matter, will find much of that Maxime in them, Faveres sunt ampliandi. We see the Lord takes in the Children as Holy, if but one of the Parents be a Believer; he appoints us to Recei…e the weak, as well as the strong. We find not that the Apostles refused any that were willing to come in, and to be Subjects of Christs visible Kingdome: neither are persons or people utterly Broken off from a portion in the visible Church, till after all means and long patience used, &c. As if Christ studyed the Inlargement of his visible Kingdome among men (i. e. as much as may be with the honour or his Holiness and Government) rather then the straitning thereof. Many Pious-minded persons among us are very fearful of Inlarging, and of Corruption that way: But why should we not also be afraid of grieving the heart of Christ (Mark 10.14) by too much straitning, and by keeping or putting out those whom Christ takes in? For we may not take away or diminish from the Word of God, no more then we may adde thereto, Deut. 12.32. The Lord keep us from extreams on either hand, and guide us in the right middle way that is according to his will. But the Preface goes on;
Neither can we plead Guilty unto that Charge, That we deny all Church-membership unto any In…ants; we onelyonly deny that they are Personal and Immediate Members. Indeed as personal Membership is taken subjectiv…ly, It is no very good signe of truth, when there are many curious, nice, & dark distinctions used to defend a thing … Enerv. Tom. 2. l. 6. cap. 5 quest ult. And his Fresh Suit, par. 1. pag. 63, 83, 134 —138.so we say it is in Infants, i. e. their persons are Recipients of the Ad…unct of Church membership: But as personal Membership is taken formally, i. e. for such as have by them, …tes in their own persons entred into Covenant with God and his People, so Infants are not capable of personal Church-membership.
Ans. it is pity to clog and cloud the plain things of Car… with intricate distinctions, which do rather bemist and puzzle the Readers understanding, then enlighten it. One would think it should suffice men to know that their Children are (by the Lordsrich grace and appointment) in their own persons within the Covenant, and so Members of the Church, without disputing whether they be so subjectively or f…rmally, &c. And should such distinctions pass for currant, what other use they would be of, we know not; but sure we are, they would do great service to the Anabaptists, though we believe that is not the Intendment of our Brethren, to comply with, or build up Anabaptism. But we are not now speaking to Intentions or Persons, but to Arguments and Distinctions in themselves; considered. For, suppose one give this Argument for Infant-Baptism (and indeed we know not a better) Members of the visible Church are to be baptized: Infants of Confederate Parents are Members of the visible Church: Ergo. How readily may it be answered, that Personal and Immediate Members (or they that have personal Membership formally) are to be baptized; but not Mediate and Not-personal Members, or they that have it (not formally, but) subjectively onelyonly. We have known an Antipoedebaptist flie to this as his Sheat-Anchor [Infants are Members; …ut how? Why, not personal Members, but Members in their parents; and so let them be baptized (mediately) in their parents, and not in their own persons.] And indeed, why should the Seal of Membership be immediately and formally applied to their own persons, if they be not in their own persons Immediate and formal (or formally) Members?
But let us search a little into this Distinction between Personal Membership as taken subjectively, and the same as taken formally, and see what there is in it, with reference to the matter in hand. For, that Children are personal and immediate Members, is asserted and proved by the Synod, but denied by our Brethren: And this Distinction is here brought to bear up that Deniall, or to tell us in what sense they deny personal Membership to Infants. It was sometimes roundly denied, that Infants are personal Members; now it is denied with a Distinction: They are personal Members (say they) subjectively, but not formally.
Answ. 1. If Infants be Members, they are formally so: for, Forma est per quam res est id quod est. If we say, Such an one is a Man, a Father, a Master, &c. we must mean that he is formally a man, or hath the form of a man, &c. He is not a Member, that hath not the form of a Member. To say he is a Member, and to deny him the form of a Member, is to say and unsay.
2. It is here said, that, As personal Membership is taken subjectively, so it is in Infants, i. e. their persons are Recipients of the Adjunct of Church-membership. We demand, whether this does not fully yield the Cause, and give us as much as we need to the matter in hand? For, if the person of the Infant be Recipient of the Adjunct of Church-membership, then of formal Church-membership (it is not Church-membership, if it want the form) then formal (or proper) Church-membership, doth cleave to the person of the Infant; then the person of this Infant is formally a Church-member, or, He is a personal formal Member. He needs no more to render him a personal formal Member (or formally a personal Member) then to have the Adjunct of Church-membership upon him, or cleaving to his person. For Membership (as all such … relations, Fatherhood, Sonship, &c.) is but an Adjunct; it enters not into the Essence of any man, but cleaves to him as an Adjunct. And so no man is more then subjectively a Member (the most formally personal Member that is, is but subjectively a Member in this sense) i. e. He is a subject Recipient of Membership, or one that hath the Adjunct of Membership cleaving to him. If therefore the person of the Infant be Recipient of the Adjunct of Church-membership, then he is a personal formal Member, or formally a personal Member, for his person hath the form of Membership upon it, or cleaving to it.
3. When it's said, [But as personal Membership is taken form…lly, i. e. for such as have by themselves in their own persons entred into Covenant with God and his People, so Infants are not capable of personal Membership] What Logick is this, to put the Efficient for the Form, or to make it a part thereof? It is wont to be said, Efficiens non ingreditur Essentiam. The act of Covenanting on our part, whereby we are brought into the Church, is but an Efficient (yea, but an instrumental Efficient: the Book calls it a Precrean: cause, pag. 37. that is still but an Efficient: yet consider it in contradistinction to Divine Institution, it can but instrumentally procreate) But the form, or formalis Ratio of Membership, is to be within the Covenant, or within the Church, 1 Cor. 5.12. Whatever causality our Act in pro…essing and Covenanting do contribute to bring us in, it can be but an Efficient. And hence it doth not denominate or constitute the formality of our Membership.
Object. But [Formally] here is referred to personal, not to membership.
Ans. If so it be, yet still the same Answers hold, unless it mean no more then every one grants, and so be nothing to the purpose. If the meaning onelyonly be that Infants do not enter into Covenant by an act of their own proper persons; who ever said or thought they did? what need we labour in finding out distinctions to deny them that which no body ever challenged for them? or to what purpose is that? But the Question is, Whether Infants be not personal members (or personally and formally members) although they never yet put forth an Act of covenanting in their own persons? we affirm it, because they have the forme of Membership (or the adjunct of formal membership) cleaving to their own persons by Divine Institution. And so we say they are personally, and formally Members, though they have not yet acted any thing in their own proper persons. You seem to deny it, and bring a distinction to clear your meaning: the former Branch of which distinction, as your selves explain it, grants the thing that we plead for; the latter Branch, as you also explain it, denies no more then we deny, viz. That they enter by their own proper personal Act. But the mistake lies in making this [viz. Entring by ones own proper Act] to be formally personal membership: whereas that is formally personal membership, that doth formally and properly constitute the person a member; and so, [Being within the Covenant] doth the Infants in question, though they never yet acted in their own persons. The distinction should rather stand thus; As personal membership is taken properly and formally, so it agrees to Infants; i. e. their persons are Recipients of the adjunct of proper formal Church-membership, but as personal membership is taken improperly (and very improperly indeed) i. e. for the membership of such as have by themselves or by their own personal profession entred into Covenant, so Infants are not capable of personal membership. Thus it might be granted. But why should we use personal membership in so improper a sence, or insist on a sence that toucheth not the cause in question? The sum is, that if by [Personal membership taken formally] be meant onelyonly, entring by their own proper personal act, then the distinction is needless and not ad Rem. But if it be meant so as to deny what we affirm, then it is overthrown by your selves in the former Branch. Grant them to be personal Members subjectively, you therein grant them to be so formally: deny them personal membership formally, you deny it subjectively. These do mutuò so ponere & tollere, being used in any sence that is proper and pertinent to the present Dispute. But consider whether it would sound rationally to say, that Paul was not formally a personal Roman (or not formally a Roman free-man in his own person) because he did not buy his freedome with his own money; or that a Childe who hath an Inheritance left him, is not formally a personal owner thereof, because himself did not purchase it: or, that Infants are personal Subjects in such a Kingdome, Members of such a Family, subjectively onelyonly, not formally, because they did not become such by their own previous personal act. These and such like shew how improper and incongruous it is, to make ones own personal act to be that which constitutes the formality of personal membership.
Preface. It's strange to us to conceive, that they should have this personal formal membership, and yet that they should not be Subjects capable of formal personal Censures.
Ans. They are capable in regard of their Relation and state in the Church, though not in regard of natural Capacity, nor in regard of demerit; for an Infant cannot Ecclesiastically deserve publick Censure. It is not strange to conceive Infants to be Subjects of such a Prince, though at present uncapable of civil Tryals and punishments. It suffices that Infant-members are in a state of subjection to Church Discipline, and ingaged thereto for afterward, though at present naturally uncapable of the exercise thereof. The new born Infant is not capable of Domestical Discipline (either Rod or Rebuke) but that hinders not his being a formal personal Member of the Family.
Preface. We neither do, nor ever did deny, that, the persons of Infants of believing confederate Parents, are brought under the Covenant, onelyonly we conceive that their membership is conjunct with, and dependent upon the Membership and Covenant of their Parents, so as to live and dye therewith—Hence when the Parents are Excommunicated, the membership of the Infant-childe is cut off▪ because Excommunication puts an end to the outward Covenant (which Death it self doth not do) and if the Root be destroyed, the Branches cannot live.
Ans. That the childes membership depends upon the membership of the Parent, as the Instrumental Cause or Condition of the childes first Entrance into the Church, or becoming a Member, we readily grant (because Divine Institution admitteth onelyonly the Children of Members to be Members) and so much Mr. Cottons words here all…dged in the Preface do truly teach. But that the childes membership is so wrapt up in the membership of the Parent, as to live and dye therewith, as if it had no proper and distinct membership of its own, is surely a deep mistake, and will (if followed) overthrow that subjective personal membership before granted unto Infants, and that which is here also owned, viz. that their persons are brought under the Covenant: If the persons of the Infants be brought under the Covenant, then their persons are within the Covenant, or their persons are Confederate, then not onelyonly the person of the Parent, but the person of the childe hath the formality of membership upon it. And as the person of the childe in regard of its natural being, though for the first existence thereof it depended under God upon the Parent, yet when once it is born into the World, it is not so conjunct with, and dependent upon the person of the Parent, as to live and dye therewith; so why should the membership of the childe be thus dependent? seeing the Book (to which this Preface is prefixed) affirmeth, p 37. that the Parent is a procreant Cause, as of the Childe… natural Being by his generating him, so also of his Church-membership by his confederating for him, and this by Gods Institution. And seeing the person of the Childe hath a membership of its own affixed to it (as the foresaid grants import) and that from God (from Gods Covenant and Institution) as well as the person of the Parent; why should we say, that the membership of the Childe doth after this, depend upon the Membership or Covenant of the Parent, and not rather upon Gods Covenant and Institution, so as to live and dye according to the Order and appointment thereof, and not otherwise? hence the Membership wherewith the person of the Childe is clothed by Gods Institution, dyes not till either the person of the Childe dye, or till by some Institution and Appointment of God he be cut off from his Membership for his own sin. Neither must it be yelded, that the Excommunication of the Parent, doth properly and formally cut off the Infant-childe that was born before such Excommunication. We say, properly and formally, for Consequentially and Eventually it may bring the Childe to be cut off also; as in case the Parent desperately go away from the Church among Hereticks and Infidels, and bring up the Childe to serve other Gods: But so it may be with a wife carried away by such an Husband, yet that does not hinder her from having a personal, distinct, proper and immediate Membership, nor make his cutting off to be hers also. But suppose a Parent and Children that live and continue among us; the Parent having a company of Children, all in their minority, is for his wickedness cast out, and continuing impenitent, dyes in that estate: to say that all these Children (who were Born and Baptized in the Church) are cut off from Membership hereby, is a strange Assertion.
For 1. This would make an Infant-childe to be a subject of Excommunication, which was before (and in regard of natural capacity and demerit, rightly) denied.
2. If a Parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people, were the Children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel? to be sure, in Crimes, capitally punished (of which cutting off from their People is sometimes plainly meant, Exod. 31.14, 15. Levit. 17.4. & 18.29. & 20.18.) the Childe was not to dye for the Fathers sin, Deut. 24.16. 2 Chron. 25.4. Ier. 31.30. Ezek. 18.20. and is there not the like reason of other punishments, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil? yea, that cutting off from their People appointed in the Law, is conceived by judicious Interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an Ecclesiastical Death, Vid. Rivet. in Genes. 17.14.or cutting off from the People and Church of God by Excommunication; But however, it held a proportion with Excommunication now under the Gospel. The Childe may be barred from a Right or Privilegde that he ne…er had, by the sin or condition of the Parent: so H…athen Children are unclean and without, because their Parents are so. (Hence Children born after the Parents Excommunication are not of the Church:) But to be deprived of a Right or Priviledge which …e once …ad, and was possessed of (which is the case of Children formerly born in the Church, and owned as Members by the seal of Baptism) this hath in it the nature of a proper formal Punishment or Censure, and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin. A Parent Civilly or Naturally dead, cannot after that bring forth Children to the Commonwealth; nor can a Parent Ecclesiastically dead (he so continuing) bring forth Children to the Church. But the Children that are already Members of the one Society or of the other, are not to be cut off therefrom for their Parents sin.
3. That, If the Root be destroyed, the Branches cannot live, is a truth in nature of Branches growing on the same Tree: But if these Branches be taken and set upon a St…ck and Root of their own, (though but as in a Nursery) then they do not die when the old Tree dies, or is cut up by the Roots. And so is the Case in hand. These Children are inserted and implanted into the Church, the Body of Christ, in their own persons (as was but now granted, when it was said, The persons of these Infants do. receive the Adjunct of of Church-membership, and that their persons are …rought under the Covenant) and have so farre taken root therein, as to receive (not from their Parents, but from the Church, and from the Soil and Fa…ness thereof) the Sap and Nourishment of Baptism, which is also a Seal of the establishment or rooting of their Membership. Branches included and contained in the Root (as Children yet unborn, or not born till after Excommunication) are broken off (or rather left without) together with their Parents: But not such Branches as are already severed from the Root, and planted in the House of God, in the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, as through the grace of the Covenant our Children are, Isa. 5.7.
4. That Death does not put an end to the outward Covenant, which Excommunication does, is a Notion that we understand not: We should have thought that outward Membership (or Membership in the visible instituted Church) as well as the use of all outward Ordinances,Ames. Medul. Lib. 1. cap. 41. Thes. 7. or instituted Wor…hip, had everlastingly ceased at Death. The Ends, Duties and Enjoyments of outward Membership, do then cease, and so the Membership it self. The Lord knows how many may from outward Membership in the visible Church, drop to Hell; and does not their Death put an end to their Membership? And if Death put an end to outward Membership, it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the Question, i. e. as to the person that dies. Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant, and are surviving: And neither does Excommunication so do. But the person of the Parent loses his Membership in the visible Church when he dies, as well as when he is Excommunicated. And hence if the Membership of the Childe did live and die with the Membership of the Parent, there would be a Cessation of it in the one case, as well as in the other. A Parents Faith, Prayers, and Covenant may live, though hi… self be dead: But how? i. e. Virtually, in the virtue and effect of them: And how is that? why, the promise made by God to the Faith, Prayers, and Profession (or Covenanting) of a godly Parent, that lives, and abides, and takes effect. So then it is neither the Parent, nor his Membership, but Gods Covenant that lives, taking in the Children that are begotten or born of Confederate Parents, to be Members of his visible Church, and so continuing them, till by some Rule or Appointment of his they be cut off. In like manner, though the Parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel, and be cut off by the Censure of Excommunication; yet the Covenant of God lives, and stands to the Children whom he had before taken into Covenant, and planted in his House. To call it The Covenant of their Parents, and to say that Childrens Membership is dependent upon that, is too crude a p…r…se, and too much abused by many, ascribing that to the Parents, and to their Profession (or Act in Covenanting) which belongs most properly to God, and his Grace. 'Tis Gods Covenant that takes in both Parents and Children. Alas, what are Parents! and what could all their Profession, and Faith, and Actings do, if God did not vouchsafe to take them into Covenant? Now God taketh the Childe into his Covenant, as well as the Parent: And 'tis Gods Covenant and Institution that the Membership of the Chide depends upon, and with which alone it l…ves and dies. But it follows in the Preface:
True it is, that we have made much use of that Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members▪ which seems to us to carry a mighty and constraining Evidence of Scripture-Light along with it, &c.
Ans. We must needs say this seems strange to us, when as there is not so much as one Scripture brought (either here, or in the Book following) to make good or hold forth such a Distinction. In stead of Scriptures, here are some Authors streight named, not to Attest the Distinction of Immediate and Mediate. (it see…s that cannot be found, no not so much as in Authors) but of Compleat and Incompleat. To which the Answer is ready:
1. If some Authors have so distinguished Members, yet where is such a distinction of Membership? at least purposely so intended, as to mak… several sorts or kindes of Membership specifically differing, as is expresly said of the Distinction here pleaded for in the Book, pag 37. Dr▪ Ames, in the place here cited▪ does not say of Infants. Non sunt … Membra, but Perfecta Membra: Neither does he say, Non sunt perfecta, but Non sunt adeo perfecta Membra: They are not so perfect Members (saith he) of the Church, as that they can exercise acts of Communion, or be admitted to partake of all the Priviledges thereof: Plainly referring the Imperfection or Incompleatness, not to the Essence of their Membership, but to the Degree of their Communion and Priviledges. Hence,
2. Their Distinction of Members into Compleat and Incompleat, is (being candidly taken) as much as our Distinction of Members into such as are in …ull (or compleat) Communion, and such as are not yet in full Communion; which Distinction we have (and we hope justly) made great use of. And for such a distinction Re…ipsa loquitur. All that are within (of, or belonging to) such a Society, whether Family, Commonwealth, or Church, are truely and properly said to be Members of that Society; but all are not equal in participation of Priviledges therein: Some have a more full (or compleat) … and portion therein, and some have less. All Christs Scholars (or Disciples) are not of the Highest Form; nor are all his Subjects betrusted with the Keyes of his Kingdome; nor all his Children past their Non-age, &c. But yet they are all Disciples in his School, Subjects of his Kingdome, Children of his Family, i. e. Members o… the visible Church. But such a Distinction as maketh several sorts of Membership specifically different, we have not yet seen cleared and confirmed, either from Scripture, or Authors, or from sound Reason. Sundry distinctions or sorts of Members, might easily be given; as, Some Members are in Office in the Church, some out of Office; some partake of the Lords Supper, but not of the power of Voting, (as Women) some of both; some have onelyonly Initial Priviledges, some All. (Ames Medul. Lib 1. Cap 32. Thes. … 3.) But these are but distributions ex Adjunctis, and do not touch or vary the Essence of Membership, nor make several sorts thereof. Nor do these Distinctions and Degrees of Members in the Church, arise simply from the nature of Membership, or from any difference therein, but from something superadded unto Membership: As an Officer is not more a Member then another; but his dignity and place in the Church ariseth from somewhat superadded unto Membership, viz. His Office. A man is not more a Member then a woman, though he hath a power and priviledge in the Church (besides and above bare Membership) which the woman hath not. So men and women that partake of the Lords Table, are not more (or more truely, properly, immediately and personally) Members of the Church, then Children are; but they having attained to more and further qualifications, (or to a greater degree of growth in the Church) are by Rule admitted to mor Priviledges then they Thus in a Kingdome or Commonwealth, there are many sorts of Subjects: some bear Office, some not; some admitted to Election of Officers, some not; some capable of Pleading and answering for themselves in Law, some are not: But yet they all agree in the relation of a Subject. And who ever made a specifical distinction of that, so as to say (in that sense) some are Mediate Subjects, and some Immediate? The same may be said of a Family, where the youngest Childe is as truely, properly, personally and immediately a Member of the Family, as the most grown person, though as to power and priviledges therein there be a vast difference. So in the Natural Body: All the parts are not an Eye, an Hand, &c. but all are Members; and the meanest part is as well a Member, as the most noble, 1 Cer. 12. 12—25. Now there is the like reason, as to the general nature of Membership, in … Church-Society, which is set forth by that of a Kingdome. Fa…ly, and of the Natural body, in the holy Scriptures. And so much for the Discourse upon the second Objection.
In the third place, our Brethren set down this Position or Opinion, as that which is objected against them, That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an act or defect of his own, without any Church-act in Censuring of him: and to … is they say, most true it is th…t we do maintain this. And for Proo… ther… …f▪ they suppo…e … of an English Fugitive, of one turned Turk, who was never Censured by any Church.
Ans. The Position objected against them, if it be pertinent to the matter in hand, must run thus; That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an a… or defect of his own, without any Church-act in Censuri…g of hi… and without … Censure on his part; or though he do not so much as deserve any Church-censure, and be not censurable by any Rule of Gods Word. For so the words …f the Synod … in defence of the Controverted fifth Proposition) do expresly speak, putting that as an … that A person admitted Member, and Sealed by Baptism, not cast out, nor deserving so to be, may (the Church whereof he was, still remaining) become a Non-member, and out of the Church, and of the unclean world, pag. 26. Now put but this into the Objection here mentioned [Without desert of Church-censure] which is manifestly the case of the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition; and then all the discourse in Answer to this Objection (wherein not a little confidence and spirit is expressed) falls to the ground as not reaching the case in hand; though besides there are sundry mistakes in it as may after appear. For, suppose it should be granted, that in Churches where Discipline is not in use, and in a case notorious, wherein a person does apparently lose the Essentials of Christianity (as by turning Turk or the like) a man may be cut off from Membership by his own Apostacie and Wickedness, though the Church did not (through her sinful neglect) formally censure him. Yet this on the other hand is also a sure and clear Truth, that no act of a mans own, will or can cut him off from Membership, but that which deserves a cutting off by censure, and for which the Church should cut him off by censure if she did her Duty. This is plain, because when a man is once in the Church, he cannot be outed, till God out him: God does not out him, till some Rule or appointment of his in his word does out him: but there is no Rule that appoints any man to be put out of the visible Church, or made as an Heathen and Publican, but for and upon such wickedness of his as is Censurable by the Church; and in that case the Rule does appoint and injoyn the Church to Censure him, or to put him away from among them by censure, Mat. 18.17. 1 Cor. 5.5, 13. When some Divines do so speak as if persons might be broken off from the Church without a formal Censure in some extraordinary cases; the meaning is, not that a man doth by his own wickedness, be it never so notorious, immediately so become Felo de se, or Vn-member himself, as that the Church hath nothing to do with him to Censure him; yes, she may and ought to censure him for his wickedness and Apostacy; and so if a Church-member turn Turk or Papist, the Church to which he belongs ought to lay him under Censure for it. And for such a one to be a Member till Censured, i. e. A rotten Member fit to be cut off, is no contradiction nor absurdity. See Mr. Cottons Holiness of Church-members, pag. 15. (e)His words are these: Any such notorious offender (having named Athiests, Mockers of Religion, Witches, Idolaters, Papists) may have the essence and being of a member of the Church, as visit …e, to wit, in this sense, a corrupt and rotten member, fit to be cut off. A member of the visible Church (though formerly an in offensive professor of the faith) may afterwards fall away into any of these notorious scandals, and yet for a while still retain the essence and being of a member of the Church as visi…le, to wit, till the Church have orderly proceeded against him; otherwi…e the Church should want power to proceed to the excommunication of such a notorious delinquent. For what hath the Church to do to judge men without? 1 Cor. 5.12. But such within the Church are to be cast out, 1 Cor. 5.11.And did all Churches in the world do their duty, there should no man living, that ever was a Member of a Church yet in Being, be looked upon as a Non-member, but he that is so Censured on Excommunicated, at least unless some extraordinary and rare circumstances of a case do render the Churches cognizance thereof impossible. But the meaning onelyonly is, that where men have palpably and notoriously lost the Essentials of Christianity, And a Church, through the sinful want or neglect of Discipline, never looks after them (onelyonly by her Doctrine declares against such) but haply continues in that neglect from age to age, there the Notoriousness of the Case, and the Evidence of the Rule, does supply the defect of a Judicial Sentence, and the Churches Doctrinal Declaration may be looked at as an implicite Excommunication. And hence other Churches may justly carry toward such as Non-members: And hence also in the day of the Reformation of such Churches, after deep and long-continued Corruptions, such persons may be set by without a formal Censure. But what is all this to the Children of our Churches? who being admitted in minority, in stead of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy, when grown up, do in some measure own the God and Covenant of their fathers, and are neither cast out, nor deserve so to be; whom no Rule in all the Scripture appointeth to be put out of the visible Church: And hence t…ey stand and continue Regular (i. e. according to the Appointment and Allowance of the Rule) Members of it, being neither Excommunicate, nor by Rule to be Excommunicated. Where shall we finde either Scripture or sound Reason to tell us, that these have cut themselves off from Membership, or are n…w become Non-members?
But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter, we assert this Position:
That in Churches wa…ing in the Order of the Gospel, and Exercising Discipline according to the Rules thereo…, no person can (while he lives among them)▪ cease to be a Member of the visible Church but by Excommunication, or, without a Church-act in Censuring him with the Censure of Excommunication. The sum of the Proof of this, is, Because we finde this way of cessation of Membership (viz. By Excommunication) plainly prescribed and appointed by the Lord in Scripture: And we finde not any other, while the Church and the person continues in Being [See a more particular Proof of it in the Preface to Mr. Shepard's Treatise of Chur…h-membership of Children, lately Published] But if any do affirm there is another way, it lies on them to shew and prove it. Let us now consider whether that be done by all that is here further said.
Preface. When Whitgift said, That Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church, Mr. Parker tells him, That even a Veritius would condemn him. And it is no new Doctrine in the S…hools, to say, that, An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ, then a Wound, a S…re, a Brand, is a member of a man; as e…ery one knows that is mediocritèr doctus in Scholasii…al Divinity. Therefore we conclude, That Church-members may become no Members by their own defection.
Ans. Surely he that is but medi…critèr doctus in Sch…lastical or …emical Divinity, may easily know that here is the shew of an Argument, or of Authority of Writers, wit… out the substan…e of either. For, when our Divines against the Papists do so often over say, that Wicked or Vnregenerate persons are but equivocally or improperly Members of the Church, as Nails, Ha…r, Sores, and superflu…us Hu …urs, or as a wooden Leg. a glass Eye, &c. are members of the liuing Body of a man; they mean it properly, with reference to the invisible mystical Church, or to the visible Church considered in its internal spiritual living state (a)Eadem Eeclesia & pies habet secum… forma … interat… ad se pertinentes, & impies at que hypocritas se undùm extenam adnascentes. Jun. Animad. in Bellarm. p. 1113., not with reference to mens external standing (or Membership) in the visible Church: Nor did they ever dream that men are by the want of internal gracious qualifications cut off from Membership in the visible Church, without any Church-censure. It is well known, that they reckon Hypocrites and secretly unregenerate persons (as well as …eretical Apostates, or the openly-wicked) to be but equivocaliy of the Church (viz. in …omparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ; …nd as …aul di…tinguishes between Israel, and them that are of Israel, Rom. 9.6. and sayes, He is not a Iew, i. e. not a Jew indeed, and accepted in the sight of God, who is …ut outwar…ly …n…, Rom. 2.28, 29.) But would you therefore say, that a close Hypocrite un…e…bers hims…l…, and f…lls out of the visible Church without any Church-censure? In the place here cited out of Parker de Pelit. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 16. pag. 169. Verstius condemns Bellarmine, because he affirmed such—(ad Ecclesias Christi propri… dic…am reuerà pertinerè) to be indeed of the true Church. How strangely is this misapplied to the matter in hand (b)It might afford Parker an Argument as to (manifestarii peccatores) the notoriously wicked that they should not be tolerated in the Church, but (as excrementiti…us things) be purged out by the vigorous, use of Discipline, as he there discourses: but it touches not our question.? as if one should say, that all that want true sauing. Faith have lo…t their Church-membership without any Censure, and then alledge for the Proof of it the Protestants Doctrine, that the true mystical or Catholick Church consists onelyonly of Elect Believers: how evident is it that this is not at Rem?
For, as for an External Membership in the Church (which is the matter that we have in hand) what is more known, then that all our Divines do unanimously acknowledge it to be the portion of multitudes that have not s…ving Gra…e? and that even such as have been born and brought up in the Church, if they fall into manifest incorrigible wickedness, they should be removed out of the Church by Excommunication; but otherwise they are still within; although many of them be destitute of those inward qualifications that should render them living and true Members of the Church mystical. Falsum est (saith Dr. Ames, Bel. Enerv. Tom 2. Lib 2. Cap. 1.) Internas vir…utes requir… (i. e. absolute requiri) à nobis ut aliquis sit in ecclesiâ quoad visiblem ejus statum. And see Ames Med. L…b. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 11. They that are Christians by proffession onelyonly (saith Iunius) are truely of the Church, according to the external consideration thereof, though not according to the internal, wherein …es the truth of Christianity. Animad. in Bellar. de Eccles. Cap. 10. Art. 28. And in Cap. 9. Art 1. he saith, We acknowledge there be griev… sinners in this (viz the visible) Church, in which if they were not▪ we should in vain trouble our selues about their Correcti…n and Excommunication; vid. Calvin. institut. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 7, 9, 13. Polan. …. Lib. 7. Cap. 8. But it were a needless labour to cite many Testimonies in so manifest a case. When Whitgift had said, that the Church is full of wicked persons Drunkards, Idolaters, Papists, Atheists &c Cartwr…ght Answers him (as Pa…ker in the very place here quoted notes) that, that was because the Discipline of Christ was not … ; …ewing that he would have even such not to be left to their own self-felony (if, being Church-members they fall to such evils) but to be cut off by Christs appointed Discipline. And Cartwright in his second Reply, Part. 1. p. 246. upon that in 1 Cor. 5.11. among other passages hath these words, It is one case of him that hath given his name to the Gospel, & afterward slideth from that profession to Idolatry; and another of him that never gave it, but hath been from his Infancy an Idolater; for the first cannot be severed from the Church without solemn Sentence of Excommunication, see also Pag. 242, 247, 248. But the Preface addes:
And we humbly conceiue that thus much is held forth by these Scriptures, Heb. 10.25. 1 Joh. 2.19. Jud. 19.
Ans. That the sin of those who forsake Church-assemblies, separate themselves from them, wander into wayes of Heresie and Apostacy, is grievous (and consequently calleth for Church-admonition, and incorrigibleness therein for excommunication) this may be gathered from those Scriptures; but to gather thence, that such forsakers, separatisie and wanderers, do thereby become Non-members, so as that the Church should not, need not, or may not follow them with any Censure, is a strange Collection; and would (if granted) at once overthrow all Discipline. For what is more easie then for an offender to forsake the Assembly, to separate himself, &c? and then the Church shall have no more to do with him; so the process of Discipline appointed in Mat. 18. should never take place. What though there be no mention of Church-censure in the Texts alledged? must we binde the Holy-Ghost to mention all Truths and Rules together in one Text or Context? what the sin of such persons is, those Texts shew; but what Discipline is to be used to Church-sinners, this is held forth in other Scriptures. If the Apostle in 1 Iob. 2.19. have reference to Ebion and Cerinthus, and such like Hereticks (as is commonly conceived: vid. Magdeburg. Centur. 1. Lib. 2. p. 485) surely he was not without care to have due Testimony by Church-censure born against them, yea when as he does so strictly injoyn all Christians absolutely to avoid them, 2 Iohn ver. 7—10. doth not that import an injunction to the Churches unto which they did belong, to Excommunicate them, if they had not already done it? as when Paul forbids them to eat with such an one, 1 Cor. 5.11. he means it, as a consequent upon (and so implying an injunction of) Church-censure. vid. Dickson in a Thes 3.14. & in Rom. 16.17. & in 2 Tim. 3 5.
Preface. Againe, how came Esau to lose his Membership? We read not that he was excommunicate, therefore it remains that he discovenanted, and so dis-Membered himself. And how came the Children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their Membership? It was not by Censure.
Ans. 1. Should We thus Reason, you would call for Gospel-Rules and Proofs; which we may with more reason do in this case, because proper Excommunication is plainly and expresly ordained under the Gospel: Concerning the use of which, there is not so much clearness in the Old Testament. 2. The particular extraordinary Revelation of Gods minde concerning Esau, together with his being denied the Patriarchal Blessing, of which the Apostle saith [He was rejected] Heb. 12.17. may well be looked at as equivalent to an ordinary Excommunication under the Gospel. 3. The Posterity of Abraham by Keturah, did in process of time lose their Membership, by losing the Essentials of true Religion; and to expect personal Excommunication, when a whole People falls away to Idolatry, and so becomes Lo-am…, is a vain thing. But it is a great mistake to think that the particular persons mentioned in Genes. 25.2, 3, 4. yea or their next generations did cease to be Members of the visible Church. They were Providentially removed out of the Land of Canaan, which was reserved for Israel, and were permitted by degrees to lose Religion, which was by Promise to be continued and established in the line of Isaac and Iacob, so as that in the time of Moses (the Nations being by that time generally fallen to Idolatry) Religion and Worship was so fixed in the Nation and Church of Israel, as that all that would serve God aright must become Proselytes to it, which before that time was not necessary. But Religion and Salvation, and consequently Church-membership, according to the Domestick way of administration then used, did for a considerable time continue among the Children of Abraham by Keturah, as the story of Iob intimates; he and his Friends being justly conceived to have been partly of that Stock. And concerning Iethro, who was of Midian, and so of Keturah, see Rivet on Exod. 2. and on Exod. 18.12.
Preface. In like sort when persons under the Gospel do not come up to the terms of the Covenant, to shew themselves to be Abrahams Children, by holding forth his Faith, and walking before the Lord in simplicity and Goaly sincerity, we suppose that they are justly deemed breakers of the Covenant, and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents made for them.
Ans. 1. The persons in question (i. e. the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition) do in some degree hold forth their Faith and godly walking, while they are professed Christians, or professed Believers and followers of the Truth and Wayes of God, wherein they have been educated from their Inf…ncy; do constantly attend the Ordinances and Worship of God; live under, and do not cast off the Government of Christ in his Cour…, and when called thereto do readily profess their Assent to the Doctrine of Fai…, and Consent to the Covenant: Do these (putting all this together) in no sort shew themselves to be Abrahams Children, by holding forth the Faith of Abraham and walking in his steps, i. e. in Charitable and Ecclesiastical Reputation? Surely Mr. Cotton accounts such as these (yea all the Children of the Faithful that do not grow up to Apostacy and open Scandal, or that are not excommunicable) to continue in a visible profession of the Covenant, Faith and Religion of their Fathers; as in those passages of his that are pointed to in the Preface the l…e Synod may be seen. And where shall we finde ground in all the Scripture to exclude such as these from being within the compass of the visible Church, or the Covenants thereof?
2. If the meaning be, that they do not yet hold forth such an Experimental work of Faith, or lively discerning and exercise thereof, and so much of the Power of Godliness in their life, as may fit them for a comfortable approach to the Lords Supper: Let it be shewed from the Scripture, that the bare defect or want hereof is such a Violation of the terms of the Covenant, as puts men out of it. We know that every Transgression, or falling stort of Duty required in the Covenant, is not accounted in Scripture an absolute Breach of the Covenant (or a forsaking and rejecting thereof) such as for which God gives unto persons or people a bill of Divorce. Do but compare these persons in question, whom the hasty and rigid Severity of Man here pronounces to be justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant, and to have put themselves out of it, with those whom the Holy, but Merciful and Gracious God does in Scripture call and account such Breakers of the Covenant: see Ier. 11.9, 10. Ezek. 16.8—59. Deut. 29.25, 26.2 Chron 7.22. 2 King. 17.15—20. and he that would not cut down (no not the Barren) Fig …ree, till further patience and means were used: he that wai…ed on the Iews (whose entrance into the Church was by a Membership received in Infancy) in the Ministry of Christ and the Apostles, with as clear light of the Gospel as ever shone, till utter incorrigible rejection thereof appeared, before he accounted them broken off, Rom. 11.16—20. with Act 13.45, 46. & 18.5, 6. & 19.8, 9. 1 Thes. 2.15, 16. he that followed Ierusalem with means and dispensations of Grace, till they S…oned him away, Mat. 23.27, &c. can we imagine that he will reckon our poor Children to be broken off as soon as they are adult, if then presently they do not bold forth fitness …r the Lords Table? yea, when many of them are it may be secretly following after God, though haply they have not yet attained so much as to make their approach to that Ordinance comfortable; or have not yet the confidence to put forth themselves thereunto? surely the Lord does not make so light a matter of his holy Covenant and se…l (whatever men through mis-guided apprehensions may do) as to enter into a solemn Covenant with Children, take them into his Church, and seal up their taking in before Men and Angels, and then let them goe out so easily, or drop off one knows not how.
3. If they have justly, i. e. meritoriously put themselves out of the Covenant, or so violated the Covenant on their part, as to deserve a putting out, yet still one might ask, how they come to be Actually put out, seeing the Church hath not proceeded, nor seen cause to proceed to any Censure? But if it be indeed so, that they do deserue (i. e. in fo…o Ecclesia; we speak not of desert in the sight of God) to be put out; if they may be justly …e…ed Breakers of the Covenant, and are guilty of that which justly puts them out, then it is the Churches duty actually to put them out, or cut them off: for Ecclesiastical justice, as well as Civil, re…dreth unto all their due and just deserts: and those that are (Ecclesiastically) Breakers of the Covenant ought to be cut off, Gen. 17.14. Hence it will follow upon these Principles, that we ought to cast out and cut off all the adult Children of our Churches that are not come up to full Communion; which thing, how horrid it is to think of, let the Reader judge: or be it that we forbear any formal Censure, and Content our selves onelyonly Doctrinaly to declare, that all such Children are put out and broken off, (which Doctrin…, Declaration is indeed contained in the Assertions of our Brethren) yet the harshness and horrid Severity of such a Declaration, is li…le inferiour to the other, and very contrary to the Patience and Grace of Jesus Christ expre…d in the Scriptures.
Preface. Wherefore that all may know, that there is neither Danger nor Singularity in this our Assertion, That a Church member may possibly become no Member, wi…hout any Act of the Church in formal Censuring of him, give us lea…e to pro…uce some Testimonies to prove it. Iudicious and blessed Dr. Ames …a…th, That in case of pertina…ious separati…n su…h persons, though they may be of the Invisible, yet they are not to be accounted Members of the v…si…le Church.
Ans. 1. Suppose you should prove that a Church-member may [Possibly] become no Member without a Censure; yet we are still utterly to seek of Proof that …e Children in question do so. 2. How can a Separation be properly pertinacious and incurable, or appear so to be, till the means of Church discipline have been used? 3. Ames his meaning may be, that such are not to be accounted lawful and approved Members, as in the close of that Chapter (De Consc. Lib. 5. Cap. 12.) he saith, … Sch…smatical Church is not to be accounted for a lawful and approved Church. 4. We shall not deny but that some good Divines do seem to hold, that in some cases of notorious Wickedness, and Apostacy, and so in case of absolute and universal Schism (of which Ames there spe…ks) especially in places and Churches where Discipline is not used; men may be looked at as Non-members, though the Church did neglect to pass a formal Censure: wherein we shall not trouble our selves with being their Opponents. It sufficeth us, that in Churches regularly using Discipline, there is no ordinary way whereby offenders lose Church-membership, but by Excommunication: And that none can lose it while they live, that are not guilty of such evil as is censureable, or is matter of Excommunication; which the persons in question are not.
Another Testimony here alledged, is from Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches, p. 9. where he saith, that Many in Churches have cut themselves off.
Ans. Had the whole sentence been set down, every Reader would have seen the impertinency of the Allegation, as to the Persons and Case in question. Mr. Cot…ns word… are these: Many in other Churches have …ut themselves off from the Covenant by their notorious wickedness and profaneness. And withall in the same place he addes, that Arelapsed Church, with all the Members of it, are bound to renew their Covenant in order to Reformation: which shews, that they were not wholly cut off before, though their Membership was but by being born in the Church, and baptized, for of that he there speaks. We doubt not, but among the Members of such Relapsed Churches might be found many much more degenerate; then those described in the Synods Fifth Preposition; much less therefore are those Discovenanted, but being in Covenant, are bound to renew it in order to full Communion.
The next Testimony here produced, is from those words in the Discourse of Church-Covenant, pag. 17. viz. That if men had not promised, and also performed in some measure of truth, the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God, they had not taken hold of the Covenant, but had Discovenanted themselves, notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers and others. Thus though God promised Abraham to be a God to him, and to his seed in their generations, Genes. 17 7. yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham, were Discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience which God required on the peoples part. Now if this (saith the Apologist) were Truth in the Year 1639. (as it then had the Approbation of the Elde…s hereabouts) we see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For, Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem e…t. Either this was a Mistake then, or else it is a Truth at this day.
Ans. Let the words here cited, be c…ndidly interpreted, and they contain nothing repugnant to the present Doctrine of the Synod. For, it is true, that if men do not promise, or do not perform in some measure (yea in some measure of truth, i. e. visibly, and in Charitable and Ecclesiastical reputation) the duties of Faith▪ and Obedien…e into God, they do Discovendat themselves, i. e. they do it meritoriously, and do what lies in them …n th… part to destroy their Membership: And …hey so do it, as will inferre the absolute loss of their Membership, viz. either by formal Excommunication, if you speak of particular persons, and if the Church do her duty; or by the Lor…s giving them a Bill of Divorce, if you speak of whole Bodies of People, as here the Ish…cel…s … a E…ountes are spoken of. But what is all this to the Children of our Churches, de…rib…d in the Synod… Fifth Proposition, who do promise, and do in some …easure though not in so full, a measure as were to be desired) perform the duties of Faith and Obedience. This might be true in 1639. and in 1662. also. And yet our Assertion may be true, and yours false notwithstanding. Let our Children appear to be such as the Edo…ates and Ishmaelites were; or let them appear to be such as do in no measure (yea, i.… no meas…re of truth, i. e. as to Church-visibility, or charitable hope; for the Church …ng… no further) perf…rm the duties of Faith and Obedience, and we will with you plead, to have them put out of the Church. But till then, i. e. as long as they do in some measure (though yet but in a small and initiall measure) perform the Duties, and retain the Essentials of Christianity, or of Faith and Obedience; they continue (yea regularly continue) in the Church, for ought that hath yet appeared, either in 1639. or in 1662. We are loth to take notice of the insulting Expressions that are here used, which are too-too uncomely; especially there where th…fth Commandment requireth Special Honour: But the intelligent Reader will easily see the vanity of this Con…dence, to bring a Testimony concerning the Discovenanting of the Ishmaelites and Edomites, (for they are expre…ly instanced in, as the Explication of the not-promising, nor performing the duties of Fa…rand Obedience intended by the Author) and then to triumph in it, as if that proved the Discovenanting of our Hopefull and Non-excommunicable Children, or thwarted the Doctrine of the Synod.
When it is here added, [This is the main thing wherein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod] If by [This] be meant the Assertion which is before expressed; viz. that A church-member may possibly become no Member, without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him: then it is a great and …trang… mi…re…resentation to say, that this is the main Po…ut of your Dissent. For, there be them that do …eartily consent to all the Concl…sions of the Synod, and yet d… hold, and did in the Synod express as much, That in some notorious cases, and where the Church neglects her duty (as hath been before said) persons may be broken off, and looked at as Non-members, though not formally Censured; or that a Church-member may possibly, in some cases, become no Member, without a formal Censure: the Reader therefore is greatly mis-led, and mis-informed, when he is told that This is the main Point of our Dissent. But when you a…ert, that the Children in question are become no Members, or that persons, who were before Members, do become no Members as soon as ever they are adult, meerly by want of fitness for full Communion, though they neither have not deser…e to have any Church-censure pa…led upon them: This we confess is a main Point wherein you Dissent from the Synod, and (we suppose) from Scri…ture, and sound Reason too.
Preface. Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton, in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church me…bers, which are these following: [Such as are born and baptized Mem…ers of the Church, are not cruelty continued and confirmed Members, unless when they grow up to years, they do before the Lord and his People prayes their Repentance and Faith in Ie…us Chr…st]
Answ. It is manifest, that by Confirmed Members, all along in that Book, Mr. Cotton …eane… such as are admitted to …u… Communi…n, or to the Lords Supper, and Voting, (and so he d…th expressly explain himself pag. 9.) and for that, it is well known, we stand …ully for the same qualifications that Mr Cotton intendeth according to H…erm of Di…cipli…e, Cap. …2 Sect. 7. The word [Continued] is indeed added in pag 19. (though not so in pag. … that Book; but it is added in a Copulative way [Continued and Confirmed] w…ere all the parts must be taken together, to make up the truth of such an Axiome. Besides that the p…r…ons in question do make so…e profession of Faith and Repentance, i e. in an Initial and Educational way, so as sufficeth to their continuance in the visible Church, though it may not at present suffice to full Communion. Mr. Cotton was farre from conceiving that such non-scandalous persons as are the Subject of our Question are to be cut off, or looked upon as cut off from continuance in the Church; as (besides what is cited of his in the Synods Preface) may appear plainly out of this very Treatise (which is well called by our Brethren An Excellent Treatise) of the Holiness of Church-members; for pag. 3. men▪ …oning a distinction of Mr. Ruther…urds, That a Church may be termed no Church, no Spouse jure & meritò, & quoad vocationem passivam, in respect of bad deserving, and their not answering to the Call of God, on their parts; and yet the same Church remain de …, …or aliter, & quoad vocationem Det activam, the Spouse and Bride of C…rist: He sai…, This Distinction I can admit, if it be understood of a Church hat hath formerly answered the Call of God, and submitted to the Ministry of the Gospel, at least in outward propession of the fundamentals of sound Doctrine, and pure Worship: for such a Chur…h, though they or …heir children may afterward degenerate, and go a wher…ng from God in Doctrine and Worship, yet God in his patience and bounty is not wont so …con to cast off …hem, as they cast off him The next generation after … …e…, a …horing from Go…, and f…rs…ck the Lord God of their fathers, and served Baalim, yet still the Lord accounted them his People, and sent them Iudges and Prophets to restore and recover them. And pag 19, 20. he mentions distinctly by way of Consectary from the Proposition here cited by our Brethren, two or three sorts of persons w…o are not to be continued in the Church… though born and baptized in it; viz. 1. The grosly Ignorant of the first Principles and Foundations of Religion— 3. Persons notoriously Scandalous for any gross crime, as I…latry, Adultery, &c. but not a word of such an intere…ce as our Brethren s…em to make, viz. the discontinuance or unchurching of such a sort of persons as are the Subject of our Question. And it is observable all along in that Book, that he pleads not for the un-membering of any that are once in the Church, yea though they came in but by a Membership received in Infancy (for of such he often expresly speaks, and such were the Members of those Churches he disputes upon in Answer to his Opponents) but onelyonly such as are scandalous and wicked, and deserve Excommunication, and he would have them also un-membered by Excommunication, and not by a Self-felony onelyonly: See pag 8, 15, 28, 32, 56, 57, 60.
Preface. Renowned Parker, steaking of the interpretation of those words [Laying on of Hands] in Heb 6.2. cites many judicious Writers, whose judgement he expresseth in words to this purpose; That they who were baptize in minority, when they are grown up, after that the Church had approved their faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands they were admitted Members of the Church: this was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times (as Parker saith.) Now we demand, how they can be admitted as Members▪ who are already as compleat, and perfect Members as any in the Chur…h? But the Ancient Doctrine was, That Children who were baptized in minority, after they shall come to pro…ess their faith so as to be accepted of the Church, may be admitted as Members: Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine, such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church.
Answ. Whether the words [Tanquam membra Admittehantur] be Parkers own words or Calvins (for he speaks as if he cited only Calvins words; yet we …inde not those expressions used by Calvin either on Heb. 6.2. or in his Institutions, De Confirmatione, though in both places is the substance of the thing which Parker alledgeth from him) the matter is not great. It is manifest from the whole discourse, that Parker is there speaking of such as are admitted to full communion ▪ as we call it. If he there used the term [Members] for Persons admitted to the Lords Table, and to all Church-priviledges, it is no harder phrase, then hath been used in this Country for many years, yet that argues not that we do, or that Parker did think Children to be no members before. It is observed of the Ancients. that they sp…ke more securely before the Rise of Pelagius; men are less curious in Expression, when they speak about Points of which no Controversie is moved, and wherein their judgements are otherwise sufficiently known. As what is more abudantly and univers…lly agreed on among all our Divines, then this, that The Children of Believers are Members of the Church, or a part of it? Parker, within six Lines of the place cited, calls them [in Ecclesiâ nati] Born in the Church; and opposeth them to [Extranei] i. e. to such as are without ▪ Dr. Ames gives it as the Doctrine of the Protestants, The Infants of the faithful, …oll. Enerv. tom. 2. lib. 2. cap. 1.unless they were to be accounted Members of the Church, they cu… not to be bapti…ed, Vrsin and Pareus say. Omnes ii que soli &c. All and onelyonly th…e are to be baptized by Christs Command, who are his Disciples (Mat. 28.19.) i. e. those that are, and one to be accounted Members of the visible Church, whether they be adult persons professing Faith and Repentance, or Infants born in the Church. Again, The Infants of Christians do as well as the adult belong to the Covenant and Church of God, and are therefore to be baptized, because the whole Church ought to be baptized. C. techet. Explicat. pag. 367. This truth is joyntly … Protestant a…d Reformed Churches, as appears in the Harmony of their Confessions; The Children of t…e faithful are Gods peculiar people and in the Church of God, (…, pag 397.) Reckoned in the number of Gods people, (Bohemian …, pag. 399.) God doth together with the Parents account their posterity also to be of the Church, (F…nc C. …mon, p…g 401.) They condemn the Anabaptists, who hold tha… … …e no… … the Church …f God, (Confession of Auspurg, pag. 404.) Infants belong to the Covenant an… Church of God, as well as the adult, saith the Pal…tinate Catechism, Que…. …4.