Answer to the Narration of the Practices of the Churches in New England, Part 8
Anſwer to CHAP. IIII.
HE ſaith, (Art. 1. 2. 6. 7.) That we account a publike vocall and expreſſe Covenant — to be the onelyonly abſolute neceſſary conſtituting forme of a true Church, without which no true Church nor true members, but all … concubine….
…ſw.He utterly miſtakes the ſubject of the queſtion, for thoſe Authors hee quotes, declare not what it is that makes a TRVE Church, but a …V… congregationall Church, as it is refined according to the platforme of the Goſpel: And to ſuch a Church, (ſay they) is required an explicite Covenant. And that they doe intend only ſuch a Church, is plaine.
1. Becauſe there are in the deſcription of that Church they meane, ſuch particulars (as himſelfe layes it downe, Art. 6.) as can belong only to a pure Church, as, 1 That they walke in all the holy ordinances of God; 2 According to the will of God; 3 In one Congregation. All which (wee know) every Church (though true) doth not, (ergo.)
2. If wee hold that to every true Church this explicite Covenant is neceſſary, for the conſtituting of it, then we ſhould denie the Churches of En (for in them is not ſuch an explicite ſolemne publique Church Covenant) to bee true Churches: but that is farre from us, as Diſcourſe of Covenant. p. 36. 37. 38. ergo.
3. The expreſſe words of Anſwer to 32. queſt. 38. 39. (from which he quotes this 1 Article) (if conſulted with) will tell you that a pure Church is the Church intended. Therefore it's cleare, when we make ſuch a Covenant (as W. R. expreſſeth) neceſſary, it is, to a Church, as it's compleated in all her integrals according to the perfection required in the Goſpel, and not to the eſſence of every Church.
This one thing being cleared, what will now become of all his Marginal collections, exclamations, inſultations on the 1. 3. 8. Art. Hee cryes out of our unheard of rigidneſſe, as if we would touch the freehold of the Churches of England, and all the Churches in the world. But all his invectives are as arrowes ſhot into the aire; for we hold no ſuch thing as he exclaimes at.
We hold (ſaith he) That without this ſolemne expreſſe Covenant, no true Church or Church members, but all are harlots and concubines, Art. 1. (the quotes Diſcourſe of Covenant, page 14. 18, 19 20, 21, 24. to prove it.
Anſw. From what wee laſt ſaid this falls to the ground as falſe. I ſay further, (Bleſſed be our God) wee never were acquainted with ſuch Dialect in out Churches there, we hope ſuch ſore cenſures are and ſhall be farre from us. And for the quotations hee makes for theſe words, (I marvaile his paper bluſhed not when he wrote it, becauſe himſelfe did not, for) let any man reade over the pages as wee have done, and ſee if one can bee found ſo much as ſavoring of ſuch a thing.
He reports (Article 1.) that we hold that members are united to Chriſt by the Church Covenant.☞
1. A Paradox we never knew before, or ever heard of in New-England; for wee profeſſe freely wee know no meane or inſtrument of union to Chriſt, but faith in the Covenant of grace.
2. This is a device of his owne braine, for which we boldly againe challenge him as being a thing not poſſibly to be proved in any of our quoted writings in print, let him (if he be able) prove himſelfe honeſt by making it good, or confeſſe his fault (as becomes a Chriſtian;) we profeſſe our hearts are juſtly grieved at this dealing, and the Spirit of Chriſt in heaven alſo is (we feare) made ſad hereby.
3. In this alſo he contradicts his owne relation Art. 3. where he plainly ſaith, that many that be within the Church Covenant are not in the Covenant of Grace (and ſo not in Chriſt;) and yet here he ſaith, that by the Church Covenant a man is united to Chriſt. So the Church Covenant doth unite us to Chriſt, and it doth not unite to Chriſt; how can both theſe be true? This is too frequent with him, to lay things that are contradictory to our charge; and not a word of proofe from the Authors, as any ground of it. This I lay on him as a further charge.
He reports Art. 2. That we hold, that joyning our ſelves in all holy fellowſhip, cannot knit a man as a member of a Church. And quotes Diſ. of Cov. pag. 21. for his proofe.
1. The Authour hath not one word to beare him out.
2. We wonder what the man meanes to affirmes this; Anſw. for [joyning ones ſelfe in holy fellowſhip] (he knowes) is our uſuall and frequent deſcription of the Church Covenant, when wee ſpeake moſt punctually to it,☞ and doe commonly for that end, cite Jer. 50.5. Act. 9.26.
3. That very Authour, and page, he cites to prove, we hold, that joyning our ſelves in holy fellowſhip cannot knit a man as a member in Covenant; ſpeakes directly the contrary, in theſe words. When joyning, (ſaith the Authour) is uſed for a mans taking on him voluntarily a new relation, (as in this caſe hee doth) there it alwaies implies a Covenant.
In Art. 3. and 4. he would make as though we our ſelves ſpeak contrary to our ſelves, in the one place (he ſaith) we hold our Church Covenant to be diſtinct from the Covenant of Grace: in the other place, That it is not distinct, but as a part from the whole. But we muſt digeſt groſſer things then this in his narrations: conſult with his Author, and you ſhall ſee nothing to countenance him; yea he quotes the ſame Authors for both.
In Art. 7. He tells us, We hold our Church Covenant muſt be v…call: but proves it not by any one teſtimony, wee can reade, and its contrary (wee are ſure) to our conſtant practiſe that admits members into the Church by a Covenant agreed to by their ſilence only: and as it is contrary to our practiſe, ſo to our writing in the diſcourſe of the Covenant, which expreſsly ſaith, that ſilent conſent is ſufficient, and there proves it by Gen. 17.7. and Deut. 29.10.
Whereas hee had reported before of our rigorous exacting of our Covenant, and how it muſt be vocall, and expreſſe, or it would not ſerve our turne, nay, no Churches at all without this explicit Covenant, &c. Now in Art. 8. he puls downe all he hath built, and tells us that we hold that a bare conſent and agreement to be members will ſerve; And that mens implicit intentions to doe ſuch a thing may ſuffice.
…ſw. 1.Hee groſly falſifies his Authour brought to prove this minſing of the Covenant, Diſcourſe of Covenant. p. 21. 22. where is not one word that way, and (which much aggravates) he ſtill quotes the very ſame Author, and p. for our minſing of the Covenant, that he did (in Art 1.) for our rigorous exacting of it.
2. He ſlandereth us, to make the world beleeve we run contrary waies, ſometimes by over rigorous exacting the Covenant: ſometimes againe, that (after all our rigour) we bring it ſo low, almoſt to nothing: whereas in all our writings (I profeſſe it ſolemnly) there is no ſhew at all of any ſuch differing practiſe.
3. Hence alſo, the ground being rotten, his Marginall conſtruction falls on his owne head.
☞4. Hee doth not only abuſe his Authour and us, but himſelfe alſo, who ſaid in Cap. 1. Art. 2. That New-England Churches walke in the ſame way without any materiall difference; and yet this is the third time he hath taxed us for groſly differing from our ſelves: How can theſe things be? See how many groſſe faulterings in one poore article, what are in all his book?
He ſets downe two of the formes of the Church Covenants which any ſavory and gratious ſpirit viewing over, and ſurveighing the godly ſimplicity of them, cannot (one would! thinke) but approve and reliſh: yet ſee this mans ſpirit (ſo prejudiced againſt us and all things wee doe,) that he cannot chooſe, but (without reaſon) finde fault with divers innocent paſſages therein; As 1 That wee promiſe willingly and meekely to ſubmit to Chriſtian Diſcipline without murmuring.
2. That we willingly will doe nothing to the offence of the Church, but bee willing to take advice for our ſelves and ours, as occaſion ſhall be preſented.
3. That we will not be forward in the congregation to ſhew our owne parts and gifts in ſpeaking or ſcrupling nor diſcover the failings of our brethren.
☞Now what ſpirit (but W. R.) would ſtartle, ſcoffe, and quarrell (as hee doth in his marginalls.) pag. 17. 18. 19. at ſuch plaine-hearted and found expreſſions as theſe, being all clearely grounded on Scripture?
He is angry with us alſo, that we mention not (in our Covenants) more particular ſinnes and duties then we doe, and yet is offended that wee mention any at all; how ſhall we pleaſe him?
☞He tells us againe, that the former of theſe Covenants is us fit for wedding as the conſtitution of a viſible Church.
And then flies from New-England to ſome particular Perſons here, who being Miniſters of Churches there (ſaith he) yet accept of ſettled imployments, even charge of ſoules here, and how can they watch over their Church?
I know but two Miniſters of the Churches there, Anſw. that are in England at this time, and how far both thoſe are from ſetled imployment, much more from taking livings (as theſe words [charge of ſoules] imply) God, their owne conſciences, and the people (to whom they at preſent preach) can teſtifie (little to the comfort and credit of any that thus ſlaunder them, I adviſe him to reflect upon his words, and ſee if there be not ſomthing in them to be repented of, and recalled.
But how can ſuch (ſo far diſtant) watch over their Church; and é contrà. Object.
That hand of Providence, that, upon weighty cauſes, and with their Anſw. peoples conſent, firſt led them hither, and upon like neceſſary grounds (beyond expectation) ſtill detains them here, takes them off at preſent from performing that duty of watchfulneſſe over their people,☜ as in like manner it doth to other Perſons, that are abſent from their Families and Churches by long ſea-voyages, warres, &c.
And yet note, that W. R. is the more blamable in theſe carpings at the Covenants mentioned, becauſe he is convinced in his conſcience (as his own words are, Pag. 17.)
1. That all things in thoſe two formes of the Covenant (in a faire conſtruction) [are very good.]
2. That if any other interpretation be made of any thing therein, it is no better then [an harſh conſtuction.] It is not without a ſpeciall finger of God, that himſelfe ſhould firſt commend, the matter of the Covenants; to be very good; and blame any other conſtruction that ſhould be made of it, as harſh. And yet ſhould imediately, in his very next words, fall upon ſuch harſh conſtructions in ſundry particulars, as he hath done.
He reports in Art. 11. as ſtrange and groſſe an untruth (to call it by the faireſt terme) and that without any ground at all: i. e. That we hold [that this our Church Covenant (as it is diſtinguiſhed from the covenant of Grace) is that Covenant which is ſealed by the Sacraments, and for the ſealing and ratifying of which the Sacraments were principally ordained of God.]
I ſtand amazed at this report, wherein theſe 4. things lie plaine, Anſ. which he muſt prove, we hold.
1. That our Church-Covenant is that covenant which is ſealed by both Sacraments.
2. That this Church Covenant, (thus diſtinguiſhed from the covenant of Grace) is ſealed by the Sacraments.
3. That the ſealing of this Church Covenant was the end of Gods ordaining the Sacraments.
4. The principall end. W. R. Now prove all theſe, elſe you will prove your ſelfe unfaithfull.
All his proofe we can ſee is Anſ. to 9. Poſ. p. 63. 66. I'le relate the very words, that he may have nothing to alleadge. [Baptiſme (ſaith the Author) ſerves to ſeale to our Juſtification, as circumciſion did; yet not that alone, but alſo the whole covenant (i. e. of Grace) with all the priviledges, as Adoption, Act. 2.38. and ſanctification, Gal. 3.26.27. Tit. 3.5. fellowſhip with Chriſt, Tit. 3.5. The ſalvation of our Soules, Mat. 20.23. and the reſurrection of our Bodies, 1 Pet. 3.21. and not only the covenant of Grace, which is common to all beleevers, but Church covenant alſo, which is peculiar to confederates, according to 1 Cor. 2.15.29.]
Now here is not ſaid, that the Church Covenant is [the thing] ſealed, much leſſe the principall end of this ordaining the Sacraments, leaſt of all that the Church Covenant (as diſtinguiſhed from the covenant of Grace) is the principall end of the Sacraments; but all that is ſaid, is this, that though Juſtification and the whole Covenant of Grace be the principall things ſealed in their circumciſion, and our Baptiſm, yet all the priviledges of the covenant of Grace, and the Church covenant alſo are not without their ſhare and benefit in the Sacrament. How far this expreſſion comes ſhort of his aſſertion, let others judge.
Now ſee his marginal note upon this Art. [Here is (ſaith this commenter) a peece or two of ſuch Divinitie, as I never read, but Ʋno abſurdo dato mille ſequuntur I could reſort, Here is ſuch an abſurd foyſting in of untruths as I never hardly read in Heathen or Chriſt…an writers: and having taken libertie in a few things at firſt now they come in by troopes. As he hath had very ill ſucceſſe hitherto all the chapter through, let us ſee if he will ſpeed any better at the laſt cloſe.
He ſaith Art. 12. Infants that were admitted Members by the covenant of their Parents, are not yet permitted to receive the Lords Supper, when they are come to yeeres, untill, 1. They have run through all the foreſaid courſe of publike, & private examination, 2. Profeſſion of their faith, 3. Declaration of the manner of their confeſſion. 4. Perſonall, vocall, and expreſſe entering into the ſame covenant as others of yeers have done before them, and as if they never had beene made Members before.
And for this practiſe he cites only Anſ. to 32. q. p. 20. 21.
How he deales herein, ſee that place. If there be not more in his promiſes, then are in his proofe. All that the Author ſaith is this, That there ought to be a renewing of their covenant, or a new profeſſion of their intereſt in the covenant, and walking according to it; and profeſſeth modeſtly too, theſe are but their preſent thoughts not ſettled determinatively, for want of occaſion to bring it into practiſe, yet he brings him in, as ſpeaking concluſively; and with a lumber of additions, deviations, alterations of his own putting in, for where is now his running through all the foreſaid courſes of private and publike examination (he mentions) where is his declaraition of the manner of their converſion? Where is his perſonall, vocall and expreſſe entering intr the ſame covenant, as if they had never beene received Members before? Whoſe words are all theſe? Nay, the Author expreſly tells us, that children are entered into Church covenant already, and doe but renew their covenant, and he ſaith they muſt enter in afreſh, as if they had never yet beene received at all.
This we muſt tell him, is not faire dealing, and what will now become of his marginall note upon the Article ſo miſtaken?
Many other collections (beſides what we have anſwered to already) he makes in his marginall notes on this chapter, by way of objection againſt us, which deſerve a little anſwering: as,
In his margent to Article 2. A ſtrange yet bold aſſertion (ſaith he▪) ſpoken—without good ſhow of reaſon: but what is this bold aſſertion? That Job and Melchiſedec were no Members of the viſible Church.
I intreat the Reader to ſee if his Authors quoted for theſe words, Anſw. will beare him out in theſe [bold] accuſations of us or no: All that Anſ. to 34 37. ſaith is this. We make no queſtion of the ſalvation of Job and his friends, yet it is a great queſtion whether they were of any viſible Church or no, (and gives his reaſon) ſeeing the viſible Church in thoſe times ſeemed to be appropriated to the poſterity of Abraham, &c. of whoſe line it cannot eaſily be proved that all theſe men did come. And all the other cited Author (Cnſ. to 9. Poſ. 66.) ſaith, is this. We no where read (there is this reaſon) that Milchiſedec, Job and his four friends were circumciſed, neither doe we believe they were: Now ſee whether 1. we ſay and conclude, that theſe holy men were in no Church, 2. if we boldly aſſert it, 3. without good ſhew of reaſon, 4. if there needs a marginall confutation.
He ſaith, that Baptiſme, though it doth not really admit infants into the viſible Church, yet formally it doth, &c.
He ſpeakes beſides the point, for the queſtion is, not 1. Anſwer. What doth formally and in the ceremony, but really, admit Members: 2. not Infants but men of yeers: 3. not into the viſible Church, but a particular congregation; ſo he might have ſpared this labour, which makes nothing for him, or againſt us.
To his long Margent to the 3. Article, wherein he grants a covenant in a four-fold ſenſe, but denies and inveys againſt the ſtrictneſſe of our Church covenant, I ſhould have anſwered, but becauſe he builds all upon a groſſe miſtake (which was anſwered already in Article 1.) i. e. that we make this vocall and expreſſe covenant neceſſarily for that conſtituting of a true Church, and ſay that all ſocieties are whores and Concubines without it (a ſpeech abhorted of us) I paſſe it by, and tell him that what he builds upon ſuch rotten foundations, will ruere mole ſuâ.
He makes foure falſe ſuppoſitions, and then drawes ſundry concluſions of his own from them, and ſo fights with his own ſhadow, pag. 15. 16.
As firſt that we hold the Church Covenant is the Covenant of grace.
2. That in our Church Covenant we hold it neceſſary and a thing eſſentiall to the Covenant, to make repetition of the whole covenant of grace.
3. That our covenanting to performe duties to our owne Church hinders our communion with, and care of all other Churches: Which things being nothing ſo, but meere miſtakes, all his collections from them vaniſh in the aire.
4. That ſome men doe enter into this Covenant, and yet are unſatisfied, that it is a way of God, and ſo cannot ſafely engage themſelves by this covenant. Which alſo (being a meere fancie of his owne) I paſſe by.
The next is as ſtrange as weake, p. 17 i. e. That if we have a ſet fo… of a Church-covenant impoſed upon all that enter into the Church, ☞and this read in a booke, why may we not as well have a ſet forme of Prayer and leiturgie to be read in Churches?
…ſw.The Narratour ſhewes ſtill a good minde to ſet formes, it is the third time he hath been harping on this ſtring.
Firſt, for Overtures and ſhewes in members, then for ſet and ſtanding rules (or formes) in admiſſions, now for ſet formes of prayer, and that in Churches, are to be read alſo in a booke. He was hard driven for arguments, elſe he would never have produced this as a ground for ſet formes of prayer in Churches. For (he might know) there is a large breadth of difference betwixt a Covenant and a prayer. For 1 the one is preſented to God himſelfe only. The other to man alſo.
2. The ſeverall Articles and all branches of the one had neede bee certainely knowne and agreed on beforehand, that they may punctually and deliberately know what the particulars are they engage themſelves to God in; no ſuch ground for our Petitions in prayer.
3. The one had neede to bee written for remembrance, leſt we ſhould forget, (in tract of time) what the ſeverall branches were we bound our ſelves unto, according to Jer. 50.5. [A perpetuall Covenant not to bee forgotten.] I know no ſuch ground for our Petitions in Prayer, nay it is impoſſible to doe it.
4. Set formes of prayer are a ſtinting of the Spirit, who hath promiſed to enlarge our ſpirits, by helping our infirmities in prayer, as well in matter as manner, in What, as well as How to Pray. Rom. 8.26. Wee know no ſuch promiſe for extemporary aſſiſtance in the matter and forme of a Covenant.
5. Reading prayer in a booke hinders the affection (which is one principall thing in prayer,) but our maine worke, whiles the Covenant (which we take) is rehearſing, is attention, judgment, conſideration, all which are not hindred, but much furthered and helped by diſtinct reading of it.
6. By reading of a ſet forme of prayer in the Church, the Miniſters gifts (which Chriſt hath given him for that end. Eph. 4.8.11.) are obſcured, and in great degree buryed, and the preſenting to God the ſeveral and continuall neceſſities of the congregation extreamely hindred and reſtrained: Neither of which are done by a ſet forme of a Covenant agreed unto, and read at the taking of it.
7. We have expreſſe warrant in Scripture for a forme of words and writing of a Covenant, (wch is the very thing we are blamed for) ſee (Neh. 9.38. And becauſe of all this we make a ſure Covenant, and write it & ſeale to it. And Nehem. 10.29. to the end of the chap. there are ſet downe the expreſſe Articles, forme and words of the Covenant that was written and ſubſcribed and ſealed by them. Let him ſhew us the like warrant in the word for a Liturgie or ſet forme of booke prayer for a congregation. I much wonder that a grave learned man, (eſpeciall in ſuch reforming times as theſe ſhould ſo farre forget himſelfe as to make ſuch parallels, and talke ſtill of Liturgies.
He ſaith 1. in this Marginall, that the Church impoſeth that ſet forme of Covenant (invented by one or more) upon all the Members of that Church.
Hee reports in the 9. Article (to which this Marginall belongs,) That the Covenant is ever in one and the ſame forme of words, as well as matter, in the ſame Church.
Both which are great miſtakes. 1 To the former, Anſw. though the forming of the Covenant be the worke of ſome one or two at firſt, for how can it otherwiſe be? yet it is never impoſed on any, but all that are to enter into Covenant have full liberty to conſider and conſult about the matter, or forme of it, or give reaſons for addition or alteration of any thing in it. So that the forme of it, as well as the matter, is by his owne act or conſent at leaſt; and after all, if hee hath not light and ground, he is (in no caſe) forced to it. If this be ſo, he ſhould not have called it an impoſing of the covenant upon the members.
2. The other is miſtaken likewiſe. For any Church hath and taketh liberty as they ſhall ſee juſt cauſe (if there be a defect or error in the matter or forme of their Covenant made at firſt) to alter it, and renew it before the Lord, and bind not themſelves to continue in any overſight, becauſe they once fell into it: and ſome Churches have ſo done.
But w… may here ſee what a taske W. R. hath undertaken to make Narratives of Church-courſes in ſuch places, where himſelfe never came, but reſts upon uncertaine and various relations; This is one reaſon why he ſo often ſtumbles in the darke, and ruſheth upon ſo many foule miſtakes in every Chapter. I hope it will inſtruct him for future times. Semel inſanivimus omnes.