then the servant sith in the cafe alledged the servant may trade under the Freeman as well as the childe may we suppose none will say this and therefore in this the Comparison doth not suit the case in hand The Orders and Priviledges of Corporations are various according to the tenour of their several Charters but what the Charter of the Church is we know viz. That in Gen. 17. it takes in children into the Church with their Parents and doth not allow them to be put out till censureable iniquity do appear 2. If in some Corporations one that is free-born do lose his Priviledge when he becomes adult if he do not then enter personally into the Engagement yet it is not certain that it is so in all Sure no such thing is said of Paul who yet pleads his Priviledge of being a Freeman of Rome because he was so born without mention of any personal act of his own for attaining that Priviledge Acts 22. And if Paul being free-born did retain his Freedome when adult without any personal act of his own for that end why may it not be so in respect of Church-membership though in all Civil Corporations it be not so It is evident that the Scripture speaks of the children of bond-servants as bound aâ—so and of the children of the fâ—er as free also without mention of any act of the children to procure that relation or state in the one case or in the other â—euâ— 25.46 54. And we see no reason but it may be so also in the visible Church that if the Parent be a member the childe is so also and so continues 〈◊〉 i. e be cut off not losing his membership by the meer not performinâ— of what might fit him for full Communion 3. If it were so in all Corporations that a Freemans childe doth lose his Freedome when adult if he do not then in his own person enter into the common Engagement and if it were also so in the Church that a Members childe should lose his Membership when adult if he do not then personally Covenâ—nt though this is more then we see proved yet if it were so we see not how this can be prejudicial to the persons spoken of in this fifth Proposition For of them it is expresly said that they do solemnly own the Covenant before the Church and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord c. and therefore though Freedome in a Corporation and Membership in the Church might be lost by not entring personally into the Common Engagement and Covenant yet except we shall say it may be lost though this Personall Engagement and Entring be performed and done except we shall say this we cannot say that the membership of the persons in question is lost at all but doth still continue sith they are such as do thus personally engage and covenant As for that Text Rom. 2.25 If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made no circumcision which is here alledged again we refer the Reader to what hath been said touching this Text before in pag. 33. Lastly whereas the Reverend Author saith Those Texts in Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to infants and children in minority The Answer is that the Synod doth not at all apply them to the adult persons in question and therefore it is a great mistake so to think but having said that these persons are personall immediate and yet-continuing Members they do thence infer that their children are therefore also Members in covenant and holy and consequently are the Subjects of Baptism which Inference and Consequence the Reverend Author we are perswaded will not deny if the ground thereof be good That the Parents in question are Members of the Church as the Synod apprehends that they are And therefore although the Texts alledged be not applicable to the adult persons in question yet if they be applicable to such infants and little children whose Parents are personal immediate and yet-continuing Members they do then sufficiently serve the purpose for which they are here alledged by the Synod So much for Defence of the sixth and last Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition Propos. 6. The sixth Proposition of the Synod is this Such Church-Members who either by death or some extraordinary Providence have been inevitably hindred from publick acting as aforesaid yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified and such as had they been called thereunto would have so acted their children are to be Baptized To this the Reverend Author Answereth That this Proposition may not be granted for it granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members Ans. And yet the Proposition in the very first words of it doth expresly declare that what Church-priviledge is here mentioned is not granted to such as are not Church-members but to such as are Such Church-members saith the Synod who c. their Children are to be Baptized So that though Church-priviledges may not be granted to such who are not Church-members yet to the persons here spoken of the Baptism of their Children may be granted without any such undue granting of Church priviledges sith the Synod doth not say these persons are not Church-members but doth expresly say they are All that can be said against these persons is that they have not acted according to the fifth Proposition and yet it is said they have been inevitably hindred therein and have given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as willing to have so acted and therefore having been Church-members from their birth or minority how can the applying of Baptism to their children be the granting of a Church-priviledge to such as are not Church-members If they had not been hindred from acting as in the fifth Proposition but had indeed so done yet this is not the thing that would have made them members they having been members afore and though they be now adult yet it hath been proved afore in the fifth Proposition Arg. 6. Part. 3. That their membership doth still continue and therefore the granting of Church-priviledges to such as are not Church-members may be yielded to be unwarrantable without any prejudice to the persons here spoken of or to what the Synod here saith concerning them And whereas the Reverend Author doth here lay down two Inferences 1. That an ordinary Minister cannot orderly do an act of Office to such as are not regular and actual Members of the visible Church but if he do it will be usurpation 2. That the Church may not receive into any priviledge of Church-communion such as are not actually in publick Church-order These may both be granted and yet what the Synod here saith not be at all infringed thereby For considering that the persons spoken of were Church-members long ago and have never since been
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. Cotâ—â—ns wordâ— are these Many in other Churches have â—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 Eldeâ—s hereabouts we see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem eâ—t Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Ans. Let the words here cited be câ—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 Obedienâ—e into God they do Discovendat themselves i. e. they do it meritoriously and do what lies in them â—n thâ—â— part to destroy their Membership And â—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 Lorâ—s giving them a Bill of Divorce if you speak of whole Bodies of People as here the Ishâ—â—celâ—â—s 〈◊〉 a Eâ—ountes are spoken of But what is all this to the Children of our Churches deâ—â—ribâ—d in the Synodâ— Fifth Proposition who do promise and do in some â—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 Edoâ—ates and Ishmaelites were or let them appear to be such as do in no measure yea i. â— no measâ—re of truth i. e. as to Church-visibility or charitable hope for the Church â—â—ngâ— no further perfâ—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 thâ—â—â—fth Commandment requireth Special Honour But the intelligent Reader will easily see the vanity of this Conâ—â—dence to bring a Testimony concerning the Discovenanting of the Ishmaelites and Edomites for they are expreâ—ly instanced in as the Explication of the not-promising nor performing the duties of Faâ—â—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 â—trangâ— miâ—reâ—resentation to say that this is the main Poâ—ut of your Dissent For there be them that do â—eartily consent to all the Conclâ—sions of the Synod and yet dâ— 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 aâ—â—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 deserâ—e to have any Church-censure paâ—led upon them This we confess is a main Point wherein you Dissent from the Synod and we suppose from Scriâ—ture and sound Reason too Preface Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church meâ—bers which are these following Such as are born and baptized Memâ—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 Ieâ—us Chrâ—st Answ. It is manifest that by Confirmed Members all along in that Book Mr. Cottonâ—eaneâ— â—eaneâ— such as are admitted to â—uâ— Communiâ—n or to the Lords Supper and Voting and so he dâ—th expressly explain himself pag. 9. and for that it is well known we stand â—ully for the
the other with the term of Members according to Scripture or according to Christs Ordinance if it be granted that such Members are the subjects of Baptisme then the Doctrine of the Synod in this point is granted As for what is here said to that Proposition if this term according to Scripture be not omitted but taken in viz. That according to Scripture the Covenant was differently administred in diffâ—rent times of the Church which different manner of administration is here pag. 22. and in the tenth Position which is here cited said to be this in sum That the Church was once in Families or domestical under Moses National and under Christ Congregational Ans. VVhat if all this were granted Is there any thing in this for we would willingly keep to the Question to overthrow the Synods fâ—â—st Proposition or their saying that is here under debate viz. That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Baptism It seems nothing at all For if according to Scripture there have been different administrations of the Covenant in different times and that the Church was heretofore Domestical afterward National and now Congregational all this may be granted and yet it may be a Truth that is here said That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of Title to Baptism That these Children are in Covenant the Synod saith appears 1. Because if the Parent be in Covenant the Child is so also but the Parents in question are in Covenant To this the Reverend Author Answereth That if this being in Covenant be understood of being in it according to Gâ—spel-rules and that the Childrens being in Covenant be understood of Infant Children or Children in minority then the Proposition is true or else it must be denied Ans. Concerning the one of these Particulars viz. of being in Covenant according to Gospel-rules it may be granted that it is so to be understood and that it is not to be imagined that the Synod meant it any otherwise But for the other particular that the Children in Covenant are only Infants or Children in minority this is a limitation that needs further consideration and will be spoken to afterward Whereas the Synod to prove the Parents in question to be in Covenant alledgeth That they were once in Covenant and never since discovenanted the former because else they had not warrantably been Baptized and the latter because they have not in any way of God been discovenanted cast out or cut off from their Covenant-relation The Reverend Author in his Answer hereunto saith That they are discovenanted by not performing that whereunto they were engaged by the Covenant for which he alledgeth Rom. 2.25 Ans. 1. It seems then the Covenant doth not only reach unto Children during their minority but also when they are become adult for else how could they when adult be faulty in not performing that whereunto the Covenant engageth can men be faulty for not performing Covenant-engagements when they are not comprehended in the Covenant this seems not possible therefore here seems to be a concâ—ssion that the Covenant reacheth further then to Infancy or minority and that they who were in Covenant in their Infancy by meanes of their Parents covenanting for them are also in that Covenant when they are become adult 2. Nor is it clear that mâ—ns not performing what the Covenant requireth of them doth forthwith discovenant them if by being discovenanted be meant their not being in that Church-relation in which they were before for God is wont to be patient and long-suffering toward them that are in Covenant with him and to bear with them long afore be give them a bill of Divorce as it is said in Nehem. 9.30 Many years didst thou forbear them and therefore it may seem more rigour then the Word alloweth to think or say that such as were in covenant with God in their infancy or minority are forthwith fallen out of that estate if they do not as soon as ever they become adult perform what that Covenant requireth The long-suffering of God will not allow us so to judge unless we had more clear warrant for such judgement Nor doth the Text alledged viz. Rom. 2 25. prove any such thing but when it is there said Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision the meaning is it shall not profit thee at all in such a state as to eternal benefit and so Baptism may be said in such case to be no Baptism and Covenant and Church-relation to be no Covenant no Church-relation i. e. not to yield any such profit in that estate But yet if such should afterward be brought to Repentance and New-obedience would any say that now such persons must be circumcised again or baptized again as if the former in respect of the external act were become null We suppose this could not be said justly though in respect of any profit to their Souls their Circumcision and Baptism in their former estate was as none and so we may say their Covenant and Church relation is as none in respect of any Spiritual saving benefit to their Souls if they perform not what the Covenant bindes them unto and yet it can no more be said that in respect of their Church-relation and external visible state they are not in the Church or not in the Covenant then in the other particulars it can be said that they are not circumcised or not baptized It is one thing to be in the Covenant and in the Church in respect of external state and another thing to enjoy all the spiritual and eternal benefits of such a relation and though this latter be the portion of none but such as come to be truly regenerate yet the other is and so continues the right of all that have once had it untill in some way of God they be cut off from it and so deprived thereof The Synod having said That persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture sare for notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein which is not the case of these Parents The Reverend Author answereth That if they break off themselves by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and Priviledges of the Covenant and in such case are to be looked at like those in 1 Joh. 2.19 Ans. If by Breaking off themselves were meant no more but that they do this meritoriously i. e. that by their sin they deserve to be broken off then it may be granted that in this sense persons may though not that these do break off themselves from their Covenant-relation and so also may persons that have been in full communion even these by their sins may thus break off themselves in which sense it is said Hos. 13.9 O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self i. e. that their sins were the procuring or meritorious cause of their destruction But if hereby be meant that the persons spoken of do
set down for the substance of them as it seemeth he doth by what he saith pag. 52. why should it be thought a dangerous matter to agree thereunto for the Substance thereof We have indeed found in our Experience much good and benefit by Communion of Churches as the Reverend Author acknowledgeth pag. 58 61. and his acknowledgement thereof we gladly accept but we have also found that the want of ready Agreement timously to attend and exert the Acts of Communion hath hazarded the Peace and Well-being of sundry Churches and exposed them to great Troubles We do not desire by our proposed Consociation to adde any thing to the Communion of Churches but onely a vigorous and timous exercise thereof 3. That we expresly disclaim the subjecting of a Church unto any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction whatsoever Propos. 1. and therefore it is strange that the Reverend Author should put that upon the Consociation by us intended That it is a subjecting of Churches under Classicall Iurisdiction pag. 59. It is not the bare Consent or mutual Agreement of Churches but the nature of the thing consented to as viz. The Power they agree to be stated under that makes it a Classical Combination or puts those Churches under a Classical Iurisdiction What though the voluntary Combination mentioned by by Mr. Rutherfurd in his sense doth inferre a Classical Membership and Iurisdiction Surely it doth not follow that ours does so when as we expresly disclaim it But is it true that where-ever there is a voluntary Combination of Churches they become a Classical or Presbyterian Church and the Members by conseâ—ting thereto become Members of a Classical Church and under the Power of it so as to be Excommunicated by it c. as is said pag. 59 what then shall be thought of that known Position of Dr. Ames Medal Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 27. which is expresly cited and approved by the Reverend Author in his Reply to Paget pag. 224 225 Surely it is no new thing with Congregational-men but their professed Doctrine with one consent to own some kinde of Combination and Consociation of Churches but withall we constantly afirm with Dr. Ames in the same place that This Combination doth neither constitute any new Form of a Church nor ought it to take away or in any measure to diminish that Liberty and Power which Christ hath left to his Churches but onely it serves to direct and promote the same 4. Let the Reader please to peruse and consider the Reverend Author's Eleventh and Twelfth premised Position pag. 6 7 8. and compare them with what the Synod hath published touching Consociation of Churches and we suppose he will finde such an agreement between them as that he will wonder as we do to see the Reverend Author appearing as an Antagonist in this matter It seems strange that Brethren should be willing to contend both where they do differ and where they do not Also it may be considered how many Reflexions here are upon us as if we would cast a Snare upon Churches by straitning them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves in re propria as if we would absolutely binde Churches not to administer Censures within themselves c. for which nothing published by the Synod did give any just occasion And whereas Mr. Cotton is represented as being against our Consociation pag. 60.61 Let his Printed words be viewed in the Keyes pag. 54 59. his Solemn Speeches of it to sundry be remembred and his Draught of it a little before his death be considered and the Reader will see whether he can joyn in belief with the Reverend Author about that matter The Lord guide us by his Spirit into all Truth and help us to follow the Truth in Love FINIS 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. Vid. Rivet in Genes 17.14 Ames Medul Lib. 1. cap. 41. Thes. 7. (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 â—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 visiâ—le to wit till the Church have orderly proceeded against him otherwiâ—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 (a) Eadem Eeclesia pies habet secumâ—â—â— forma â— interatâ—â— ad se pertinentes impies atque hypocritas se undùm extenam adnascentes Jun. Animad in Bellarm p. 1113. (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 excrementitiâ—us things be purged out by the vigorous use of Discipline as he there discourses but it touches not our question â—oll Enerv. tom 2. lib. 2. cap. 1. (h) Calvin Opuscul pag. 346. Cartwright Catech pag. 185. (k) Disciplina subjacent omnâ—s in Vnitate Frae trum 〈◊〉 oblajante usâ—â—al senem Rat. Disciplin pag. 71. (l) Contradictio caret simpliciter omni medio Keck Log. pag. 281. Hookers Survey pag. 17. Catabaptistae decent non posse Excommunicationem in Ecclesiam reduci nisi ij baptizentur qui Scientes jugo Christi Collum submittant Bucer in Joh. fol â—5 See Mr. Cotton expresly holding forth Excommunication to be applicable to such as the Children in question in Holiness of Church-members pag. 57. (a) Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 13. And see Cap. 40. Thes. 6 10 11 12 16 18. And M. Shepards late Printed Letter pag. 16 17. (c) Catech. Explic in â—uast 81. pag. 426. (a) Ames Medul Lib. 1. cap. 38. Thes. 41. (c) The Scripture order is to â—ake the circumcising of the child part of the Parents fitness for 〈◊〉 Passover and for admission â—ereunto Let all his Males be â—â—â—cumcised and then let him come 〈◊〉 and keep it Exod. 12.48 raâ—â—er then to make his admission to 〈◊〉 Passover a pre-requisite to 〈◊〉 childes Circumcision Gerhard de Sacra Câ—na p. 184. (b) See Ratio Disciplina Fratrum Bobem in Hist. praemissa p. 3 3â— 39 â—3 52 53. Opuscul pag. 37. Syntag. Theolog. pag. 1149. with pag 1167 1168. (a) Lec Com. de Canâ— Dom. quaest 2. pag. 631. (b) 〈◊〉 137. pâ—g 7â— vid. Quaest. 142. pag. 743. (c) De Baptismo Quaest. 33 34. pag 624 625. See the Leyden Divines Synops. Disâ—ut 45. Thes. 14. Disput. 48. Thes. 35 36. Coâ—pâ—red with Dâ—sput 44. Thes. 50. (d) Quaest. Resp. â—â— Saâ—ramentis Quaest. 120 122. (e) Ibid. Quaest. â—45 Syntag. Lib. 6. cap. 36. with cap. 55. (e) Vid. Dutch Annot. on 1 Cor. 11.26 (f) De Sacra 〈◊〉 pag 18â— (g) De Baptismâ— pag. 581 582. (h) Explicat catech in quaest 74. pag. 372 (i) In quaest 75. pag. 380. (k) So much Parkers learned Labours among others shew and our Congregational Brethren in England met at the Savoy in their Preface do well express And see Beverly Examen Hoornb pag. 43. (b) Consider whether it be not a greater detracting from the sacredness of Baptism when we make but a light matter of that Membership and Covenant that was sealed therein If men have been once admitted to the Lords Supper they count their Membership stands firm good through all decayes and degeneracies until excommunicate But the Solemn Covenant Engagement between God and the Baptized that was ratified in holy Baptism wears away and is a kinde of forgotten thing by that time they become adult To be difficult in admissions unto Baptism and yet easie in letting go the benefit of Baptism or the Membership thereby sealed and to alledge the Sacredness of the Ordinance for the former and forget in the latter seem not well to cohere 〈…〉 Lib. 1. â— p. â—2 Examen Hâ—ornb pag. 20. (k) It is not the qualifications of one in full Communion but his Membership that gives his Childe right to Baptism for suppose he decay in qualification and grow formal and loose yet while he continues a Member uncensured he hath his Childe baptized as well as the best in the Church Acts 8.27 28 36 37. 10. â— 22 47 48. Chemnit in Mat. 3.6 (a) Holin of Church-members pag. 41. Bâ—nè auteÌ„ 〈◊〉 nos in genere de iiâ— omnibus qui ex fidelibus noscuntur fâ—e deris formula indefinita jubâ—â— chaâ—itaâ— monet Bez quast de Sacram. â—â— 123. (a) De Polit. Eccles. Lib. 3. pag. 168 169. (b) De Polit. Eccl. Lib. 1. cap. 29. Lib. 3. pag. 167. Protestat before Treat of the Cross. (c) De Polit. Lib. 3. pag. 171. (d) Ibid. Lib. 1. cap. 13. 14. Lib. 3. pag. 166. And of the Cross Cap. 9. sect 2. Holiness of Church-members pag 92. (b) Medul Lib. 1. cap. 40. Thes. 13 (c) Magdeb Cent. 3. pag. 83. (d) Sicut ergo tempere illius Sacramenti de Câ—â—cumcisoÌ„ qui nasceretur circumcideâ—dus â—ait sic nune de Baptizato qui nâ—tus fuerit baptizandus est August tom 7. cont Pelag. Lib. 2. cap. 25. See also Tom. 2. Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium Epist. 75. ad Auxilium And De Grat. Lib. Arbitr cap. 22. (e) Ameâ— Medul lib. 1. cap. 40. â—hes â— b) Grounds and Ends of Infant-baptism p. 28 29. Prov. 14 28. Psa. 110.3 * See Essay first pag. 13 4. in â—xam of Prop. 4.
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 proâ—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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely 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 onely the Children of Members to be Members and so much Mr. Cottons words here allâ—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 onely 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 Childeâ— natural Being
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 pâ—râ—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 'T is 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 't is Gods Covenant and Institution that the Membership of the Chide depends upon and with which alone it lâ—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 seeâ—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 makâ— 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 â—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 Reâ—â—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 oâ— 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 onely Initial Priviledges some All. Ames Medul Lib 1. Cap 32. Thes. â— 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 â— Church-Society which is set forth by that of a Kingdome Faâ—â—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-Church-act in Censuring of him and to 〈◊〉 is they say most true it is thâ—t we do maintain this And for Prooâ— therâ—â—f they suppoâ—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 aâ—â— or defect of his own without any Church-act in Censuriâ—g of hiâ— 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 â—f the Synod â— 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. 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 onely 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 onely 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 tâ—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 nâ—w become Non-members But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter we assert this Position That in Churches waâ—â—ing in the Order of the Gospel and Exercising Discipline according to the Rules thereoâ— no person can while he lives among them cease to be a Member of the visible Church but by Excommunication or without a church-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 Churâ—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 Sâ—hools to say that An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Sâ—re a Brand is a member of a man as eâ—ery one knows that is mediocritèr doctus in Scholasiiâ—al Divinity Therefore we conclude That Church-members may become no Members by their own defection Ans. Surely he that is but mediâ—critèr doctus in Schâ—lastical or â—â—emical Divinity may easily know that here is the shew of an Argument or of Authority of Writers witâ— out the substanâ—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 Haâ—r Sores and superfluâ—us Hu â—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 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 â—eretical Apostates or the openly-wicked to be but equivocaliy of the Church viz. in â—omparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ â—nd as â—aul diâ—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 â—ut outwarâ—ly â—nâ— Rom. 2.28 29. But would you therefore say that a close Hypocrite unâ—eâ—bers himsâ—lâ— and fâ—lls out of the visible Church without
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 Infâ—ncy do constantly attend the Ordinances and Worship of God live under and do not cast off the Government of Christ in his Courâ—â— and when called thereto do readily profess their Assent to the Doctrine of Faiâ—â— 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 lâ—â—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 â—ree till further patience and means were used he that waiâ—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 Sâ—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 â—â—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 seâ—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 foâ—o Ecclesia we speak not of desert in the sight of God to be put out if they may be justly â—â—eâ—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 reâ—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 onely Doctrinaly to declare that all such Children are put out and broken off which Doctrinâ— Declaration is indeed contained in the Assertions of our Brethren yet the harshness and horrid Severity of such a Declaration is liâ—â—le inferiour to the other and very contrary to the Patience and Grace of Jesus Christ expreâ—â—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 wiâ—hout any Act of the Church in formal Censuring of him give us leaâ—e to proâ—uce some Testimonies to prove it Iudicious and blessed Dr. Ames â—aâ—th That in case of pertinaâ—ious separatiâ—n suâ—h persons though they may be of the Invisible yet they are not to be accounted Members of the vâ—siâ—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 â—â—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 â— Schâ—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 speâ—ks especially in places and Churches where Discipline is
it not a vain thing The person whom you are about to Disown is either within the Church or withâ—ut a Member or not a Member If he be within why may you not judge and censure him with the Censure of cutting off or casting out i. e. Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.12 13. there being cause for it If he be without why should you disown him any more then you do Non-members or such as were never joyned to the Church Would it not seem a strange and vain thing if the Church should put forth a solemn publick Act to disown a company of Non-members that are without the Church to what purpose should this be How Acts 8.21 here cited in the Margin should make for this disowning we understand not Peter there tells Simon Magus that he was farre from having any part or lot in the matter of conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which he never had but ambitiously aspired after but doth not declare that he had Discovenanted himself or had lost his Membership which he once had And whatever became of Simon Magus afterward of which the Scripture is silent and stories uncertain there is no ground to think that he was then put out of the Church or lost his Membership But rather the Apostle by grave Apostolical Rebuke and Counsel applies himself to him as to one in the Church to bring him to Repentance and to that sincerity of grace which he yet wanted Versâ— 22 13. As for the Reason here rendred why Excommunication agrees not to the Children in question viz. because It is applicable to none but those who have been in full Communion This is but a begging of the Question and carrieth not Evidence of Truth with it 〈◊〉 Excommunication i. e. the utmost Censure so called doth not properly or nextly debarre or exclude from full Communion but it cutteth off from Membership rendreth a person as an Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 and so from that Communion that belongeth to a Member as such When a person that hath stood for some time Admonished is afterward for his contumacy excommunicated it is not Excommunication that doth immediately and properly put him out of full Communion for that was done by Admonition whereby being Ecclesiastically unclean he was justly suspended from eating of the Holy things but Excommunication cuts him off from Membership which Admonition did not Hence it is not full Communion but Membership that doth properly and formally render a person a subject capable of Excommunication Hence it agrees to all that are Members though they have not been in full Communion and every Member hath some Communion though not full Communion and therefore may be excommunicated Paul when he is speaking of the Churches judicial proceeding and that unto Excommunication makes it applicable to all that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 if in full Communion yet Church-judgement fâ—lls upon them not as in full Communion but as within The casting out of Cain and Ishmael the cutting off of the born Members of the Church of Israel from their People an expression often used the casting out of the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 do at least by consequence and by proportion and parity of Reason shew that the Children in question may be cast out and cut off from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication As for that term of Formal Excommunication we know not that we are limited to this or that precise form of words in Excommunicating one sort or other but the formal nature of the thing viz. a putting of one out of the Church that was before in it This well agrees to the persons in question We pass by the fifth and last Objection which chargeth our Dissenting Brethren with Weakness Ignorance c. as containing nothing that is Argumentative to the matter in hand Neither do we own the Objection unless it be against our selves who are as we have acknowledged in our Preface to the Synods conclusions poor feeble frail men desiring not to trust unto or boast of any strength of our own which is none at all but onely to the strength and grace of Jesus Christ withall acknowledging that grace of his whereby he doth vouchsafe sometimes to reveal his Truth unto Babes We tender onely Scriptures and Scripture-arguments for that which we maintan desiring that they may be impartially considered without challenging to our selves or pleading for the Reputation of Strength or Wisdome In Disputes of this nature it is impossible but that eâ—ch part should look upon the Arguments on either hand as strong or weak according as they are perswaded But can we not deal with Arguments without being supposed to reflect upon the Persons each of other We suppose you do not see sufficient strength in our Arguments for then you would judge as we do and in that sense you do impute weakness to them In the like sense do we unto yours but desire to do it without any harsh reflexions upon the Persons of our Brethren and without liftings up in our selves who have cause enough to lye in the dust before God and man But here our Brethren take occasion to set down the Reasons of their Dissent from the Synod which make up a second main Part of this Preface The Consideration whereof we shall now address our selves unto Reason 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational Charity or else the Châ—lâ—e ought not to be baptized But they would not let this which themselves acknowledged be set down though our Vnity lay at the stake for it Answ. The regular receiver of the Truth is one that divides the Hoof as well as chews the Cud one that doth not take all in a Lump but distinguishes and rightly divides between things that differ We are to distinguish here 1. Between Faith in the being or first beginning of it whereby one is or is reputed to be in the state of a Believer the Charitable judgement whereof runs upon a great Latitude and Faith in the special exercise of it whereby one is fit for that special Communion with and active Fruition of Christ which is the scope of the Lords Supper unto the visible discovery whereof more lively Fruits and more experienced Operations of Faith are requisite 2. Distinguish between the internal Grace it self which is required of them that partake of Sacraments in the sight of God and those external signs of that Grace which the Church is to proceed upon in her Admission of persons unto Sacraments These two Distinctions being attended and rightly applied will help to clear both the Truth it self in this matter from mistakes and the Proceedings of the Synod from those uncomfortable Reflexions that are here cast upon them The former of these Distinctions and the application thereof to the matter in hand we have in Dr. Ames Children saith he are not to be admitted to partake of all Church-priviledges
the above mentioned practice of Antiquity in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized Indeed as the Darkness and Corruption of the times increased Baptism was not onely deferred till Easter as is here said but till death which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism pag. 182. and we suppose will not be approved by any The Arausiacan Councils 19 Canon doth not concern the matter of Baptism as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists Cent. 5. pag. 907. But however it be it is of small moment The over-long holding off of adult Converts from Baptism that we sometimes reade of in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a manifest deviâ—tion from the Apostolical practice We finde also that in Austin's time and some ages after they gave the Lords Supper to Infants yet then we suppose they would give both Sacraments to some Infants whose Parents they debarred from the Lords Supper But if it was indeed a grievous errour to administer the Lords Supper to Infants as is here rightly said by our Brethren how then is Baptism of no greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper Yea let any man shew a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to Infants and not the Lords Supper if the very saâ—e qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other we say absolutely requisite for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receiveth Baptism for himself or for his Children is endued with the better and the more comfortable it is As for that of Iuel That Baptism is as much to be reverenced â—s the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And that which follows That former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Answ. To assert that Scripture Rules make the Subject of Baptism larger then the Subject of the Lords Supper this doth not detract from the Reverence of Baptism nor render it an Ordinance of a less sacred nature as is here insinuated The Word and Prayer are Ordinances of a very sacred nature and to be highly reverenced and yet many may be admitted unto them that may not be admitted unto Sacraments The Sacredness of every Ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by Divine Institution But the proper ends and uses of one Ordinance may by Divine Institution be such as may admit more to partake of it then of another and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired But the Preface addes Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a farre larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one Practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians Answ. Whether it have been onely a late or novell Notion to make Baptism larger then the Lords Supper let the Reader judge when he hath considered the Testimonies before alledged with many more that might have been added thereunto But we are so farre from looking upon a different Latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian Principle or Anti-Congregational as that we perswade our selves the Congregational way cannot long stand without it For if we deny this and administer Baptism to none but those whose Parents do partake of the Lords Supper and so are in full Communion then we must either make full Communion very large which in the Congregational-way where Brethren have so great an interest in Church-transactions will soon ruine all or else make Baptism and consequently the Compass of the visible Church so strait as will never stand before Rational and Scriptural men yea we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church that are in a visible state of Salvation which is absurd for to deny persons Baptism for themselves or Children is to deny them to be within the Compass of the visible Church seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with Church-Membership But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church who were once in and are by no Rule to be put out nay whom God as we may charitably hope taketh into Heaven when they die and that as a fruit of his Covenant-grace which is the case of many of our Children who are not yet come up to full Communion But so much for the second Reason of our Brethrens Dissent The third follows 3. The Parents of the Children in question are not Members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel rules â— because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Which is former proved Because if they be Members then they would be a true Church though all their Parents were dead and then they must have power of Voting in Church-affairs which is denied to them by the Synod Ans. .1 It seems by what is here said that our Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant and that all that never were so are not members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules If this be so then what is become of Childrens Membership which the Apologist before in Answer to Objection Second took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of It seems our Children neither are nor ever were Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Is it come to this that Children are not Members of any Instituted Church How then are they Members of the Catholick visible Church or are they no Members at all the former our Brethren fancy not as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia pag. 19. the latter then remains to be the conclusion Neither will it salve it to say they were Members in Minority though they be not Members now when they are Adult for if all those that were never under any explicite and personal Covenant be no Members of any Instituted Church and if Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant both which are here said then no Children no not while in Minority are Members of any Instituted Church For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Dr. Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ that Children are Members of an Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules and that they are under personal Covenant i. e. personally 〈◊〉 into Covenant by God according to his Gospel-rules though they have not performed the act of Covenanting in their own persons Yea under explicite Covenant also if the Parents Covenanting was explicite Deut. 29. So Ames They are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same profession with their Parents Though we take it for a Principle granted by Congregational men with one consent that Implicite Covenant preserves the being of a true Church and so of true Church-membership 2. The Consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd viz. That then in ease all the pro-parents
to him other wayes So in the Church Membership or memberly Relation is not existent in particular persons without some Communion flowing from it nor yet without some Qualifications unto Charity under it more or less at least ordinarily though it may and often does exist without those special and peculiar qualifications that fit men for the Lords Table But surely we may well distinguish especially between the memberly Relâ—tion and those special superadded Qualifications and between what belongs to persons in the one respect and in the other For some Priviledges in the Church belong to persons by virtue of their memberly Relation or meerly because they are Members they belong to a Member as such so does Baptism Matth. 28.19 the Benefit of Church-watch and Discipline viz. according to Natural capacity in regard of age there is no other Moral capacity but that of Membership requisite to a Subject thereof Acts 20.28 1 Cor. 5.12 and a share in the common Legacies of the Covenant Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Acts 3.25 26. Meer Membership or Membership alone gives right to these things But there be other Priviledges in the Church that do not belong to Members as such or to persons meerly because they are Members but to Members as clothed with such and such special qualifications So the Passover and other holy things of old and so the Lords Supper now 1 Cor. 11.28 Now thus to distinguish does not distribute Members into meer Members and others but it distributes Priviledges unto their proper Subjects and states the immediate Right unto each sort of Priviledges upon its proper Basis. If we say that Government of a Family does not belong to persons meerly because they are Members of the Family do we thereby set up a sort of meer Members thereof that have no Family-benefit but onely a Titulary Relation to it c Indeed such a saying would imporâ— that in a Family there are some that are Governours and some that are not Governours of it as also that one may be a Member of a Family and yet have no hand in the Government thereof So the distinction in hand implies That in the Church some are in full Communion and some are not and that one may be in Memberly Relation and yet not be in full Communion and surely the truth of this cannot be doubted of If Children in minority be Members as our Brethren acknowledge them to be then there are some Members that are not in nor yet fit for full Communion And for the Adult when a man is by Admonition debarred from the Lords Table and yet not Excommunicated does he not continue a Member yea a personal Member in our Brethrens account and yet is not in full Communion This demonstrates that Membership and full Communion are distinct and separable things It is clear enough that our Non excommunicable Children do continue Members of the Church yet many of them are not in full Communiâ—◠〈◊〉 will our Brethren say that they are fit for it So then neither the Logical distinction between what belongs to persons simply as Members or by their meer Membership and what belongs to them as further endued with such and such special qualifications nor yet the Assertion flowing from it viz. That some may be and continue Members and yet not be in full Communion can juâ—tly be objected against The sum is The persons in question have by virtue of their memberly Relation or meerly by their Membership a proper right unto the Priviledges that are desired for them yet withall they have some qualifications and some Communion and so are not meer Members in contradistinction hereunto though they have not yet such full qualifications as to come into full Communion But thus much being sâ—id concerning that distinction which the Synod useth and the meaning of it Proceed we to the Assertion here laid down by our Brethren and their Proof thereof Their Assertion is That it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism Remember here tâ—at our â—â—â—pute properly is of Membership de jure or regular Membership i. e. wherein the Rule appoints or allows one to be or to be continued a member of the visible Church not of Membership de facto onely Now Membership de jure or regular Membership implies some qualification as viz. that a person being a Church-member is not under such gross and incorrigible Ignorance Heresie Scandal or Apostacy as renders him an immediate Subject of Excommunication hence meer Membership is not so to be opposed to qualified Membership as if it were destitute of all qualifications Those whom the Lord doth and whom the Church acting regularly may own and continue as Members they are so farre qualified as that the Rule hath accepted them into Covenant and doth not appoint us to put them out Now then understanding meer Membership fâ—r Meerly this that a man is regularly a Member and qualified Membership for Superadded qualifications over and above what is essentially requisite to regular Membership the 〈◊〉 said Assâ—rtion is thus much It is not sufficient to give a person right to baptism that he be regularly a Member of the visible Church but he must have some further qualification then so or else he hath not right thereunto This Assertion or to say in this sense that it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism is indeed an Antisynodalian Assertion and we doubt not to affirm it is Antiscriptural 1. It is Antisynodalian or directly opposite to the Dâ—ctrine of the Synod and we will readily grant that if this could be proved it cuts asunder the â—inews of the Synods strongest Arguments for this is that which the Synod stand and build upon That it is Covenant-interest or Federal holiness or visible Church-membership which are but several expressions of the same thing that properly gives Right to Baptism or that Baptism belongs to a Church-member as suâ—h and so to all Church-members And hence by the way let it be minded that the Synod in their fifth Proposition have comprized both the Right to Baptism and the manner of administration the distinstion between which two was often-over mentioned in the Synod though they put both together in the Proposition for better concurrence sake and that they might at once familiarly set down what is to be attended in such a case The Right stands upon Membership whereby the parent and so the Childe is regularly within the visible Church so as no more qualification in the Parent is simply necessary to give the Childe right to Baptism but what is essentially requisite unto regular Membership As for other and further qualifications pointed to in the Proposition as Giving account of their assent to the Doctrine of Faith Solemn owning of the Covenant c. they properly belong to the manner of Administration Yet these are not therefore needless things nor may they be disregarded or boldly slighted and refused by any because Membership
Baptism unto his Childe Whereunto is added somewhat out of Bucer Parker and Mr. Cotton as concurring with the judgement of our Brethren Ans. Taking Capable of receiving Baptism himself or Right to Baptism himself for a state of Baptism-right or Capacity we may grant the Major but the Minor in manifestly to be denied But taking it for a frame of actual fitness to receive Baptism we cannot say that we may grant the Minor but surely the Major will not hold It is true that That which doth not put a man into a state of right to Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized i. e. into a state of Church-membership will not enable him to give Baptism-right to his Childe If the Parent be not a Member or not in a state of Covenant interest none of us plead for the Childes Baptism And if he be a 〈◊〉 surely he is in the state of a Subject of Baptism or in a state of right to it as all the Members of the visible Church are whatever may de facto hinder it But it is possible for an adult person being in the state of a Member and so of right to Baptism to have something fall in which may hinder the actual application of Baptism to himself in case he were unbaptized or his actual fitness for it And yet the same thing may not hinder a person already baptized and standing in a Covenant-state from conveying Baptism-right to his Childe The reason is because the right of the Childe depends upon the state of the Parent that he be in a state of Membership for if so then Divine Institution carrieth or transmitteth Membership and so Baptism-right to the Childe but the Parents regular partaking of this or that Ordinance for himself depends much upon his own actual fitness for it As suppose an unbaptized adult person admitted into the Church who before he is baptized falls into some great Offence though such a case could hardly fall out if Baptism were administred according to the Rule and Apostolical Practice i. e. immediately upon first Admission Matth. 28.19 Acts 16.33 much more is it an harsh and strange supposition for a Parent that ought to have been and was baptized in his Infancy to be supposed to be yet unbaptized but allowing the supposition that a person 〈◊〉 in adult age falls into Offence before he is baptized he may be called to give satisfaction for it and to shew himself in a more serious and penitent frame before himself receive Baptism but suppose he die before he do that and leave Children behinde him shall not they be baptized In like manner if a person already baptized yea or already in full Communion should fall into offence you would say that would put a stop to his own Baptism in case upon an impossible supposition he were yet unbaptized but what Rule or Reason is there for it to make a particular offence in the Parent to cut oâ— the Childes right to Baptism when as the Parent is notwithstanding that offence still a Member and within the Church and doth not shew any such incorrigibleness as that 〈◊〉 is by Rule to be put out when as the offence doth not cut off the Parents Membership is there any reason it should cut off the Membership of the Childe and if it cut not of the Childes Membership it doth not cut off his right to Baptism Whatever may be said for requiring the Parent to confess his sin before his Childes Baptism in reference to the more expedient and comfortable manner of Administration therein we oppose not yet where doth the Scripture allows us to disannull the Childes right to Baptism upon a particular offence in the Parent especially when it is not such as doth touch upon the Essentials of Christianity and notwithstanding which the Parent is regularly and orderly continued a Member of the Church It remains therefore that there may be obstructions to a Parents receiving Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized which do not incapacitate a baptized Parent to transmit if we may attribute transmitting to a Parent which is properly the act of Gods Institution and Covenant right of Baptism unto his Childe But for the Minor or Assumption of the Argument in hand it will not hold in either of the senses of the Proposition above given For 1. We will readily grant that if the Parent be not in a state of Baptism-right himself i. e. in a state of Membership he cannot convey Baptism-right to his Childe but how manifest is it that that which the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition doth render the persons there described in a state of right to Baptism for themselves in case they were unbaptized viz. In a state of Membership in the visible Church for the Proposition speaks of Church-members such as were admitted Members in minority and do orderly and regularly so continue and that a state of Membership is a state of Baptism-right or that all Church-members are in the state of Subjects of Baptism is an evident Truth that cannot be denied by any that grant the Synods first Proposition for which there is Sun-light in Scripture and never was Orthodox Divine heard of that questioned it Hence according to that Ruled Case here mentioned the Parents in question having themselves a title to Baptism may intitle others they have not onely a title to it but regular and actual Possession of it for they are baptized and in case they were yet unbaptized they would being Church-members have a title of right unto it they would stand possessed of an interest in a title to it as Mr. Hooker in the place here alledged speaks whatever might de facto hinder their enjoyment of it And as à non habente potestatem acts are invalid so ab habente potestatem they are valid and good but God hath full power to give forth what Grants he pleaseth and he hath in the order of his Covenant in the visible Church granted a Membership and so Baptism-right unto Children born of Parents that are Members and so the Parent that stands Member of the Church hath as an instrument under God and from his Grant power to 〈◊〉 such a right unto his Childe Children are within the Covenant because they come from Parents within the Covenant in which they were included and so received also by God saith Mr. Hooker in the place that is here cited Survey part 3. pag. 18. 2. It is not to be yielded that the Parents described by the Synod in their fifth Proposition would not have right to Baptism themselvâ—s in case they were unbaptized though you take Right to Baptism for actual and immediate fitness for the same in fero Ecclesia Surely he will have an hard talk who shall undertake out of Scripture or Orthodox Divines to shew that Adult persons understanding and believing the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing the same not scandalous in life and solemnly taking hâ—ld of the Covenant wherein they
the Iews of old were under Legal dispensation c. Ans. Suppose that Christian Churches be in a more spiritual and gracious frame then were the Jews under the Legal dispensation yet if then such Parents as the Proposition describes might have the initiatory Seal applied to their Infants and now may not how can it be denied but that now the Christian Churches are in a worse case relating to their children successively then the Church of the Jews was For then such Parents might have their children circumcised but now they may not have them baptized if this Proposition be denied And though the grace of Christ may be now enlarged in other respects yet in respect of children it is not enlarged but strâ—â—tâ—ed by denying this Proposition except we shall say that for Parents to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them and their children is no testimony of Gospel-grace at all which cannot be said truly and therefore the Synods Argument in this particular stands good 2. Saith the Reverend Author It declareth that the state of the Iews when they shall be called will be far better then it was under Legal dispensations for under the Law their light and holiness was defective but when they shall be called they shall have a farre greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages Ans. Suppose this be granted the question is not about their Holiness and 〈◊〉 but about their children of whom it is evident that if the Parents were qualified as this Proposition expresseth those children might then be circumcised and the Texts alledged viz. 〈◊〉 30.20 Ezek. 37 25 26. do shew that when they shall be called their children shall be in as good estate as formerly but how can this be if the Parents may be qualified as is expressed and yet may not have their children baptized Is not this a rendring of them in respect of their children in a worse condition then formerly For the third Particular the Reverend Author answereth That the dentâ—ll of the Proposition doth not deny in sum what the Synod saith it doth but the contrary Ans. In what the Synod here saith there are three Particulars contained or included 1. That the Mosaicall dispensation and first Institution of the initiatory Seal did appoint that Seal to be applied to such as stood regularly in the Church and Covenant 2. That the children in question dâ— regularly stand in the Church and Covenant 3. That the deniall of the Proposition doth deny the application of the Seaâ— to such as the Mosaicall dispensation appointed it to be applied unto Of these Particulars the first cannot be denied for it is undeniably proved by the Texts alledged viz. Gen. 17.9 10. Joh 7.22 23. and the third Particular is plain of it self all the doubt therefore must be about the second viz. Whether the children in question do regularly stand in the Church and Covenant But for this the Synod hath given divers Proofs in their first and second Arguments which Proofs we do not see taken off by what the Reverend Author hath said thereto The fourth Particular is answered by a plain deniall of what there the Synod affirmeth viz. That to deny the Proposition doth not break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant Ans. Yet nothing can be more plain then that denying Circumcision to them that were in the Covenant was a breaking of Gods Covenant for it is expresly so called Gen. 17.9 10 14. If therefore the children spoken of be in the Covenant how can the deniall of Baptism to them be any other then is said and that they are in the Covenant the Synod gave sundry Proofs in their first and second Arguments So much for Defence of the third Argument The fourth Argument of the Synod for confirming this fifth Proposition is this Câ—nfederate visible Believers though but in the lowest degree such are to have their children baptized But the Parents in question are such at least in some degree For 1. Charity may observe in them sundry positive arguments for it witness the terms of the Proposition and nothing evident against it To this the Reverend Author answereth by denying the minor in the Argument and affirming the contrary to the first Reason here mentioned viz. That all that is said in the Proposition is no sufficient ground for Charity to account these Parents to be Believers in the least degree Ans. But if there be sundry positive arguments for Charity thus to judge of them and nothing evident to the contrary as the Synod argueth why then should we judge otherwise of them When such Church-members as were admitted in their minority do understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto are not scandalous in life but do solemnly own the Covenant wherein they give up themselves to the Lord c. is all this nothing for Charity to go upon in accounting them Believers no not in the least degree we conceive Charity wants sufficient ground to judge otherwise See more in Defence of the first Argument But saith the Reverend Author Let them show how faith was wâ—oughâ— and how it workâ— in them and then the Church will have ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness c. Ans. What proof is there that except this be done there can be no ground for the charitable judgement that is mentioned Sure it is there is no mention that such a thing was performed by the Eunuch nor required of him by Philip Acts 8. and yet he was baptized upon Profession of his Faith in Christ though there is no mention that to shew how his Faith was wrought in him was either done by him or required of him and therefore we see no reason to the contrary but that when that is done which is mentioned in the Proposition there may be ground for Charity to account them Believers though they come not up to what the Reverend Author requireth of declaring how their Faith was wrought in them 2. The Synod saith The children of the godly though qualified but as the persons in the Proposition are said to be Faithfull Tit. 1.6 The Reverend Author answereth Nor are the children of the godly qualified but as in the Proposition said to be Faithfull in Tit. 1. So his Answer is an express deniall of what the Synod here saith But to say the children in Tit. 1. are not called Faithfull is directly to gainsay the Text which doth expâ—esly so call them and that these Children that are called Faithful in Tit. 1. were qualified above what the Proposition requireth is not proved at all For the Text that calls them Faithful saith no more of them but that they are not accused of Riot or unruly And if this be sufficient for accounting them Faithful those whom the Proposition describeth may much more be so accounted because they are not only free from Vnruliness and Riot but partakers of sundry other good qualifications
Rome and Paul be free born Act. 22.28 yet Pauls freedome is either better then the other or at least no worse and so it may be said of the Church-membership of little children There is wanting unto children in minority to make them such members a personal fitness to act in covenant for themselves Ans. But this is nothing to the nature of their membership but onely speaks of the way of attaining it by their own act But shall we say that Paul wanted something to make him a free Roman because he had no personal fitness nor ability to procure that freedome to himself by his own act but onely was so born or shall we say that David and others mentioned in Psal. 22.10 Isai. 46.4 wanted something of compleat proper and immediate interest in God because they had their interest from their mothers womb and did not attain it by their own personal act for our parts we dare not so say and by like reason dare not deny but that the interest of little children in the visible Church may be proper compleat and immediate though they have not come to it by their own act but have had it from their minority or birth For to have God for their God is as great a blessing as to be an actual and immediate member of the visible Church and yet we see want of personall fitness to act for themselves did not hinder from the one and why then should it hinder from the other Synod A different manner and means of conveying the covenant to us or of making us members doth not make a different sort of members we are as truly personally and immediately members of the body of fallen mankind and by nature heirs of the condemnation pertaining thereto as Adam was though he came to â—e so by his own persâ—nâ—l act and we by the act of our publick person Pag. 24.25 The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto grants That in the case of Adam it is so as is said but saith he this doth not suit the the case of Iâ—fanâ—s in question For 1. Adam stood as a publick person for all mankind no Parent is so for all his posterity but for his infants and children in minority 2. Adams covenant was onely with the Lord and not with any Church as the covenant of confederate Parents is 3. The Parents breaking the covenant doth not make his children heirs of condemnation as Adams did all mankind pag. 40.41 For Answer whereto we may remember what himself did formerly express that Similitudes do not run on four feet if they agree in the main point that may suffâ—â— though in other things they dâ—ffer If therefore there were these three differences and as many more between the cases alledged yet where is there any difference in the main point Are not we as truely personally and immediately Members of the Body of fallen Mankinde as Adam was This the Reverend Author doth not deny but in plain words doth grant it And is not then the purpose of the Synod in alledging this instance clearly gained Doth it not plainly appear thereby that a different way and means of being in Covenant doth not make a different sort of Membership Adam was a Member of fallen Mankinde and so are we though he came to be so by his own personal act and we by him or by his act for us which doth clearly shew what the Synod saith That a different way and means of being Members doth not alter the nature and kinde of Membership which we see doth hold as touching being a Member of fallen Mankinde and we see no reason but it may also hold as touching being a Member of a visible Church There is not any to be accounted a publick person as Adam was but onely Iesus Christ for all that are in him Rom. 5.14 to 20. pag. 41. Ans. Yet it is evident though Jesus Christ was a Publick Person for all that are in him as Adam was yet in the number of persons there is difference Adam standing for all mankinde and Christ standing onely for his Redeemed the Elect. Now if Christ may be truely called a Publick Person for all his as Adam was though Adam was for them that were farre more in number why may not then a consederating Parent be counted a Publick Person for his children though they be farre less in number then the other But herein the cases seem parallel Adam for all in him Christ Jesus for all in him and the confederating Parent for all in him We see not how this can justly be denied by the Reverend Author siâ—h he calls these Parents Vâ—dertakers for their children pag. 40. And again pag. 41. And such undertakers that the children are bound by their Parents acting to perform that Covenant when they shall become capable which seems to us to be the same or as much as is meant when they are called Publick persons for their children Another Similitude used by the Synod to illustrate the thing in question is from A Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyall in which case the following heir is a true and immediate Owner of that Land and may be personally disinherited if dâ—sloyall as well as his father before him To this the Answer is That this Similitude doth not sort the case in question fâ—r as for infants they cannot be visibly dislâ—yall and adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church have cut off the entail of the Covenant from themselves and their posterity by their personall disloyalty Ans. But for all this the Similitude may suit the case in question though the Reverend Author say it doth not For as the following heir is an immediate Owner of that Land till for disloyalty he be disinherited so the following children are immediate Church-members till some of them for their sin be cut off from their Membership Is not here plain suitableness in the Similitude we conceive it is apparent and manifest For if infants cannot be dislâ—yal and if adult persons be cut off for disloyalty is it not manifest that both are immediate owners till they be cut off which is the thing the Synod affirms Concerning infants it seems they are such true and immediate owners of Church-membership as that they cannot be cut off therefrom because they cannot be so disloyal as to deserve such a thing and for the adult persons if the entaile of the covenant be cut off from them and their posterity by their personal disloyalty doth not this clearly shew that they were truely and immediately in the Covenant till their disloyalty cut them off And so the Similitude stands suitable and good for the purpose for which the Synod brings it But as for this cutting off the entail of the Covenant which is here spoken of we must confess we do not see how such a thing can justly be charged upon the persons spoken of in this Proposition For they understand the Doctrine of Faith and give
know they were brought into membership by Gods own Institution and Appointment and we do not know that they have in any way of God been put from it nor considering the term in the Proposition can be justly judged to deserve any such matter but the contrary and therefore the acknowledging of them to be members can be no such prophaning and polluting as is spoken of The fourth Argument of the Synod to shew that the persons spoken of do still continue members is this Because there is no ordinary way of cessation of membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the persons in question Whereto the Reverend Author answereth That the ennumeration is insufficient there is another ordinary way i. e. Desertion Thus Esau's membership ceased and so many theirs who being adult regard not to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation c. And if forsaking the Church may suffice to deprive those of Church-priviledges who were before in personal and immediate Church-fellâ—wship 1 Joh. 2.19 how much more those who never had such membership c. What can the mediate membership which such had in infancy advantage them for continuing in membership when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant whereby they were left under engagement in their infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church Ans. If the Ennumeration were not sufficient but that that of Desertion were needful to be added yet this would not avail to prove the contrary to what the Synod here saith but the membership of the persons in question may still continue for all this for being qualified as the Proposition expresseth they are farre from being guilty of such Desertion or forsaking of the Church of God and therefore it is not this though it were added to the Particulars in the Argument that can hinder their still continuing to be Members Nor can they be justly charged as guilty of such things as are here expressed viz. Not regarding to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation nor to fit themselves for it but to despise the Church of God not desiring nor endeavouring after spiritual fitness but living in the breach of that Covenant c. These things we cannot see how they can justly be imputed to the persons qualified as the Proposition expresseth but they may still continue to be members as not being culpable of any such things as these here mentioned to un-Member them Here also it may be observed how the Reverend Author doth again acknowledge That the sins of adult persons who were admitted in infancy are a breach of that Covenant in which they were then comprehended and which left them under engagement unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church which sheweth that they are still in the Covenant though now they be adult for otherwise how could their sins be breach of covenant and if they be still in Covenant then they still continue members and their membership did not cease with their infancy which is the thing here affirmed by the Synod For that of Esau whose membership is said to cease by Desertion the Reverend Author may remember that he hath more then one told us of invalidity of Proofs from the Old Testaments for things 〈◊〉 Gospel-times which Proofs though we cannot say but they may bâ— valid yet why should himself use them against us for this of Esau is from the Old Testament if his apprehension be right that such Proofs are not valid But for the thing it self of the cessation of membership by a mans own act this hath been spoken unto before pag. 34.35 in Defence of the first Argument for this fifth Proposition Where also was considered that Text 1 Ioh. 2.19 which is here alledged again To which former place we refer the Reader onely adding thus much that the cessation of membersip which the Synod here speaks of is such cessation as is ordinary but if Esau ' were by his own act alone why may we not say that there was something in it extraordinary Though it is not any where said that it was by his own act if any afffirm that it was it stands upon them to prove it for affirmanti incumbit probatie And though it be not said that the Church had any hand in it yet negative Arguments in matter of Fact are not cogent though in matters of Faith they be but for matter of Fact we know many things were done that are not written Ioh. 20.30 21.25 and therefore though this be not written that there was any Church-proceedings against Esau for his departing from the Church and therefore we do not say there was yet they that say there was not must prove there was not because the meer not mentioning that there was is no sufficient Proof that there was not And for any further Proof that Esau's falling off from his Church-membership was by his own act alone any further Proof for this then meerly the not expressing of any Church-proceedings against him we finde none The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this Particular That the persons spoken of do still continue Members is this Because otherwise a person admitted a 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 out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Whereto the answer in sum is this That as a Freemans childe of some Corporation is free-born and may in his minority trade under his father yet being grown up must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen or else may not trade for himself but is a Non-freeman by his own default and hath lost his Freedom by not entring in his own person into the common Engagement c. So and much more justly an adult person makes himself to become a Non-member by not covenanting personally as his father did Ans. It may be justly questioned whether this Comparison do suit the case in hand For 1. All the priviledge of this Freemans childe that is mentioned is this that he may in his minority trade under his Father which priviledge doth not at all arise from his being the childe of a Freeman and the reason is because one that is not a childe but onely a servant of such a Freeman may trade under the Freeman as his Master This being the priviledge of such Freemen that their Servants and others belonging to them though they are not free yet may trade for them and in their names which is upon then atter no priviledge at all to the childe or servant but onely to the Freeman himself under whom they trade But will any say that to be a childe of a Church-member is no priviledge at all to a childe but onely to the Father or will any say that the childe hath no more priviledge
cut off or cast out from that Relation nor deserve any such matter but do still continue therein as was shewed in the fifth Proposition therefore we cannot see how it can be any usurpation in the Minister to do acts of his office towards them nor unlawful in the Church to receive them to such a priviledge of Church-communion as is spoken of nay rather the persons being and still continuing Members the performance of the thing in question may seem to be so far from being usurpation as that the neglect thereof may be counted an unwarrantable omission or transgression The first Reason of the Synod for confirming this Proposition is Because the main foundation of the right of the childe to priviledge remains viz. Gods Institution and the force of his covenant carrying it to the Generations of such as are keepers of the covenant i. e. not visibly breakers of it c. Whereunto the Answer of the Reverend Author is That the Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the covenant which was sealed to them by Baptism in their Infancy which obliged them to covenant personally for themselves and theirs c. p. 47 48. Ans. But is this certain that the Parents in question are visibly breakers of the covenant sure this if it be affirmed had need to be soundly cleared For either they be such as do personally own the covenant being qualified with knowledge and blameless life c. as in the fifth Proposition or else if they have not so acted they have been inevitably hindred therein as is said in the sixth Proposition and is it reasonable that for all this they must be counted visibly breakers of the Covenant Are they such breakers of it who do publickly own it and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord being not culpable for any contrary practice in their conversation or are they such breakers of it who if they have not publickly acted as aforesaid the reason hath been because they have been inevitably hindred we cannot see that Rule or Reason will allow or give warrant for such apprehensions Put case a person who was born a Church-member and hath been sound in judgement and unblameable and commendable in his conversation all his dayes but hath been like Ioseph sold for a slave and kept in bondage suppose to the Turks or others for many a year suppose also that after a time he be restored to his liberty and thereupon do return homeward with his childe or children born to him in his exile and bondage intending to present himself and his children to the Lord in the Church where he was born but before he reach home he dieth by the way this man is inevitably hindred from entring into Covenant personally though willing to have done it and fit for it But will any Reason or Charity permit to count this man a visible breaker of the Covenant because he did not personally enter thereinto we suppose this cannot be said he being inevitably hindred from so acting Why then should the Parents in question be judged to be visibly Covenant-breakers for not entring into Covenant personally when it is expresly said they have herein been inevitably hindred though willing to have done it if there had been opportunity For our parts we dare not judge them to be visibly Covenant-breakers as not seeing any ground or warrant so to do The second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition is Because the Parents not doing what is required in the fifth Proposition is through want of opportunity which is not to be imputed as their guilt so as to be a barre to the childes Priviledge Now what saith the Reverend Author unto this Doth he deny that it is want of opportunity that hinders the Parents from doing what is required in the fifth Proposition No we do not see that he denieth this at all Doth he then say that though want of opportunity hindred yet for all this want of opportunity the not doing though through â—hat want of opportunity is nevertheless a barre to the childes Priviledge Not so neither we do not finde that he so saith any more then the former And therefore what was said in the former Reason about being inevitably hindred may be applied to this particular for want of opportunity viz. That such not doing what is mentioned in the fifth Proposition can be no barre to the childes Priviledge But if the Reverend Author saith nothing touching this want of opportunity which is the main thing which is mentioned by the Synod in this their second Reason what then doth he say in his Answer to this Reason That which he first saith is That it hath been already proved in his Examining the fifth Proposition That more is required to fit one that is adult for Church-membership then is there expressed viz. Faith in Christ made visible to the Church without which they are not regularly Church-members Ans. But the Question here is not Whether more be required to Membership then is expressd in that Proposition but Whether want of opportunity in Parents to do what is there expressed be a just barre to the childes Priviledge It is evident that this is the question here in hand whereto the Answer of the Synod is Negative That this want of opportunity is not a just barre But whether it be â— just barre or be not the Reverend Author saith nothing at all to that but speaks to another thing That more is required to Church-membership then that Proposition doth express so that the thing in question seems not to be touched Yet let us a little consider of this other whereto he leads us and return back with him to the fifth Proposition Concerning which first here seems to be a manifest mistake concerning the scope of that fifth Proposition which is not at all as is here intimated whether what is there expressed be enough to fit one that is adult for Church-membership but the scope of it is plainly this to shew That such Church-members as were admitted in minority if they be qualified as is there expressed may have their children Baptized but for fitness for Membership that Proposition doth not discuss that Point at all but expresly speaks of such as are Members already and were admitted long ago even in their minority As for that which is here said concerning his Examining that fifth Proposition we referre the Reader to what hath been formerly there said in Defence of that Proposition Further the Reverend Author saith That Baptism administred by ordinary Officers to such as are out of Church-order is profaned as Circumcision was by the Shechemites and would have been by the Ishmaelites and Edomites if it had been administred to their children when their Parents were not jâ—yned to the Church or abode not in it in the Families of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Ans. Still this makes nothing against administring Baptism to the children spoken of in this fifth and sixth
Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order For the Synod thinks that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority so they still continue therein and the contrary we have not yet seen proved As for the Shechemites c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them and yet Baptism not so when administred to the children in question For if the former were not in the Church yet these are and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives these other are farre from any such thing and therefore there is no comparison between the former and these spoken of but a vast difference And we may adde further That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest and the persons spoken of both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation so in respect of this latter these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Iacob to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred We may instance in Simeon and Levi who committed that odious Cruelty and Blood-shedding for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death Gen. 49. And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these they abiding in the Family of Jacob how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question or be said to be profaned when administred to them sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God and were never cast out nor deserving any such thing but do still continue therein and for life and conversation are farre from any such Scandal and Crime as was found in the Sons of Iacob aforesaid One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit c. Ans. This is no just ground of denying Baptism to the children in question except it could be proved that neither they nor their Parents are in the Church of God nor of his Family which yet we have not seen proved The regular and lawfull use of Baptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith viz. Faith for Iustification with Abraham who is to use it either upon himself or upon his infant To use it being not so qualified visibly is it not a treacherous usurping of the Great Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth Ans. Neither doth this make against the Baptism of the children in question forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God I will be a God to thee and to thy seed in their generations and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition cannot be denied to have Faith visibly as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition and in this Defence formerly Sure it is these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly as the Sons of Iacob afore-mentioned and as many in the Church at Corinth of whom it is said that they were culpable for carnall Dissentions going to Law Fornication Vncleannesses and not repenting thereof 1 Cor. 1. 3. 6. and 2 Cor. 12. and yet being in the Church and professing Christianity we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized and the children of Iacobs Sons circumcised and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition though the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children For it is evident these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians and in Reuben Simeon and Levi but are much more innocent yea commendable So much for Defence of the second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition against what the Reverend Author in his Answer thereto saith in his Digression and turning back to the Proposition foregoing The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition is Because God accepteth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred as in David to build the Temple 1 Kings 8. in Abraham to sacrifice his Son Heb. 11.17 and in that of Alms 2 Cor. 8.12 As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto and Baptized in voto because there was no want of desire that way though their desire was not actually accomplished To which the Answer of the Reverend Author is That this may hold in private service so that there God accepts the will for the deed when the acting of it is hindred but in publick service he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so farre as to bring them into publick state and order whatever their desires and endeavours have been And he instanceth in one that desireth to be a Minister and yet may not do the acts of that Office afore he be in Office and in such as desire to joyn to the Church but may not be received to the Seals afore they be so joyned Whereto the answer is That what is here said is insufficient as being not suitable to the case in hand which is not concerning such as are out of Church-state and order as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it though their actual entring were hindred For it is evident that the Synod speaks not of such but of such as are Church-members already onely have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another purpose viz. for the more orderly clear and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children themselves though being in the state and order of Church-members having not yet been received to the Lords Supper It is evident that the Synod speaks of such persons and of actings for such an end viz. of persons already in Church-estate and acting for the end aforesaid and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end though their actings as aforesaid have been inevitably hindred Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all though they do desire it and of them he saith that these desires are not sufficient for their admission unto Church-priviledges when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred between which and those spoken of by the Synod there is great difference so that if what he faith were granted yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby but though desire of office or of Church-estate be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one or
Members of the invisible Church may be Members of the visible Church and so their infant-seed have right to Baptism If this were so we may question whether it can be lawful for Ministers or any men to dispense Baptism to any persons at all and the reason is Because they cannot certainly know who have such true Faith and Holiness and so are Church-members For what the Reverend Author said a little before in pag. 49. That though God search and know the heart yet the Church doth not de occultis non judicat Ecclesia this we believe to be very true and therefore if this hold that none may be Members of the visible Church and give right to their seed unto Baptism but onely they who have true Faith and Holiness and so are Members of the Church invisible we say if this hold how can we know who are to the Baptized sith none can certainly know but God onely whether men have this true Faith and Holiness in their hearts and souls Therefore we think it more safe to say that where there is a profession of true Faith and Holiness and nothing contrary thereto appearing whereby that profession can be disproved such persons may be Members of the visible Church and so have Baptism for their children whether they be of the invisible Church or no. And if the persons described in the fifth Proposition be tried by this Rule we cannot see but as they were in Church-fellowship from their minority so they still continue therein and so may have their Children baptized in as much as now they make a good profession before many witnesses even the whole Church and do no way contradict their profession by any Scandalous practice in their lives And therefore though that be true which the Reverend Author here saith pag. 50. That without Faith it is impossible to please God and that therefore there must be true Faith in them whom he priviledgeth to baptize their Infants that is as we understand him whom he priviledgeth to present their Infants to Baptism yet for all this it may be lawful enough to administer Baptism to the Children of Parents qualified as in the fifth and sixth Propos. and they that do administer may have Faith to please God therein because of the Church-relation and good profession of the Parents though the Parents cannot please God in presenting their children to that ordinance if themselves be destitute of the grace of Faith yet this we must still say that for any that are so qualified as is said we see no Scripture-Rule or Reason that will warrant us to judge them so destitute So much for Defence of the sixth Proposition Propos. 7. The Members of Orthodox Churches being sound in the Faith and not Scandalous in life and presenting due testimony thereof these occasionally coming from one Church to another may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come by vertue of communion of Churches But if they remove their habitation they ought orderly to covenant and subject themselves to the government of Christ in his Church where they settle their abode and so their Children to be baptized In being the Churches duly to receive such unto communion so far as they are regularly fit foâ— the same For confirming of this Proposition in both the Parts or Branches of it the Synod giveth sundry reasons whereto the Reverend Author saith nothing in the particulars but in general That he locketh at the regular communion of approved Churches as an Ordinance of Christ But further then so he saith nothing either by objection against the Proposition or by consent unto it But all he saith is by way of propounding Quaeriâ—s to the number of half a score or more and then concludes That when these and the like Questions are clearly Answered he shall then understand the true and full sense of this Proposition and what to say to it But when the Synod shall come together to Answer these Questions whether ever or never we do not know nor do see any great probability of such a thing and therefore no more being here said against this Proposition we may conclude that it yet stands firm and good And as he concludes that Thus much may suffice for the present for Reply to the Synods Answer to the first Question So may we conclude That thus much may suffice for the present for Defence of the Synods Answer against what he saith to the contrary in his Reply COncerning the Reverend Author's Discourse upon the second Question touching Consociation of Churches we shall not trouble the Reader with any large Reply and we hope it needeth nor because there appeared no Dissent or Dissatisfaction in the Synod about that matter Our Brethren that Dissented in the former Question readily and fully Concurred in this as themselves declare in Antisynodâ—liâ— pag. 12. Besides part of the Reverend Author's Exceptions referring to the Platform of Discipline concluded on with great Unanimity in the Synod held at Cambridge Anno 1648. sundry Principal Members whereof as Mr. Cotton Shepard Rogers Norton c. are now at rest with God we shall not now after so many years wherein we heard of no Opposition make that a subject of Debate But if the Reader please to take along with him these three or four Considerations they may serve to take off what is here Objected against us by the Reverend Author 1. That we never said nor thought that there should be a Withdrawing from other Churches upon Differences Errours or Offences of an inferiour and dubious nature yea though continued in We are farre enough from Hastiness or Harshness in that matter being professed Adversaries to a Spirit of Sinfull and Rigid Separation we hope there is no word in the Synods Conclusions that savoureth thereof if candidly interpreted And for Withdrawing from Brethren because of Dissent from what is here held forth by this Synod both our Practice and our Profession in the Preface to that Book do sufficiently shew us to be farre from it This may answer what is said this way in Pag. 54 55 57 63. 2. That we account not Consociation of Churches to be another thing thâ—n Communion of Churches but onely an Agreement to Practise that Communion as is expresly said in Propos. 5th 6th And therefore we understand not why the Reverend Author should so often praise Communion of Churches as pag. 58 59 60 61. and yet dispraise and dislâ—ke Consociation Is Regular Communion so good and excellent and can it be hurtful for Churches to agree and consent to Practise it Neither do we mean by that Agreement a Vow as is suggested pag. 56 57. or a formall Covenant in a strict sense though Mr. Cotton doth not refuse to call it a Covenant in Keyes p. 54.59 but onely a declared Consent as is expressed Propos. 7. of each Church to walk in Regular Communion with their Neighbour-Churches And if the Reverend Author doth approve of the Acts of Communion here