is meant the uncleanness of Infidels is clear by the Rule of Contraries For if to be holy be meant of the holiness of the Covenant then to be unclean is the uncleanness of such as are strangers from the Covenant and so without God in the world that is Infidels Eph. 2.12 And what are the children of such as have both Parents Vnbelievers but Infidels in the Apostles sense But for that inference That by like reason might be inferred from that proposition There is no God else that There may be another God to the Gentiles I confess my shallow understanding cannot see any Comparison between those two propositions but onely that the word Else is in them both the one being a disjunct Axiome Your children are clean or else unclean and the other a simple Axiome where the word Else is of another use and sense then in the former But be it so that it is so sad an Exception from a general proposition Jehovah is God and none else to say Yet there may be another God to the Gentiles or to say The threatnings of Christ to the Churches yet belong not to us Our Brethren may then consider when the Apostle saith of Church-members Your children are holy to make such an Exception and say Not so but onely the children of Members in full Communion are holy whether this be not a sad Exception also Reas 4. The being in Covenant doth not priviledge to Baptism without visible Repentance in Parents Acts. 2.38 39. The Jews were in Covenant and pricked to the heart yet they were openly called to Repent So John Baptist thought Mat. 3.8 9. Ans 1. The Jews being in Covenant did priviledge their children to the Benefits of that Covenant they were in viz. Circumcision the Sacrifices c. Rom. 3.1 2 3. But there was great reason they should be called to Repentance when they were to enter into the Gospel-dispensation of the Covenant because the Church of the Jews was grown so corrupt and those in Acts 2. being guilty of the Blood of the Son of God and hence John was sent to prepare a people for the Lord by the Doctrine of Repentance But when Philip had to do with the Eunuch a godly Proselyte he onely called him to Faith in the Person of Christ as the Son of God 2. Though Faith and Repentance in a visible Profession thereof be required at the first admission into the Church yet these are not required in the same manner in persons regularly admitted to priviledge their seed to Baptism What Rule or Example requireth a Church-member to make Profession of visible Faith and Repentance so oft as he hath a childe to be Baptized Or in case a Church-member declineth and giveth cause of much doubt of the soundness of his Faith and Repentance What Rule will debarre his childe from Baptism so long as he continueth a Member of the Church Now our question is of Persons regularly admitted and continuing in the Church Reas 5. The Covenant is limited to such as obey God and therefore the Priviledges of the Covenant Deut. 7.9 Neh. 1.5 Dan. 9.5 He keepeth Covenant and Mercy to them that love him Ans This is a frequent Mistake to apply that which is spoken of the saving Benefits of the Covenant to the Outward Priviledges thereof the first God performs to such as love and obey him sincerely yet the other he continueth to all such as do not fall away from the Outward Profession of the Covenant Take these Scriptures named Did not Church-priviledges belong to all Israel when Moses spake that word Deut. 7.9 that God keepeth Mercy and Covenant to them that love him and yet he giveth a sad testimony of them Chap. 9.24 You have been rebellious against the Lord ever since I knew you So in Nehemiahs time did not all that were of the holy seed enjoy Church-priviledges when Nehemiah spâ—ke that word Chap. 1.5 and yet the story speaketh of many evils amongst them that shew they were Scandalous in life which these are not and have many other good Qualifications besides that also Reas 6. From the tenour and manner of the Covenant made with Abraham Nehem. 9.8 when God saw his heart faithful before him So Gen. 17.1 7. Walk before me and be upright and I will be a God to thee and thy seed c. Ans This is the same Reason with the former built upon the same Mistake and may have the same Answer I readily grant That all that Enter into Covenant with God ought to Love him Obey him Walk uprightly before him and what is said Gal. 3.7 9. that They that are of the Faith are blessed with faithful Abraham Faith and Holiness is the duty of every Church-member for want whereof he falleth short of all the Saving Blessings of the Covenant But doth it follow that such as are in Church-covenant and do not perform thâ—se Duties are thereby deprived of the Outward Priviledges and the Means of Grace and that before they be regularly cast out of the Church Were there not many corrupt Members in the Church not onely of Israel but also in Gospel-Churches as of Corinth Galatia the Churches of Asia Rev. 2. 3. who did enjoy Church-priviledges till they were cast ouâ— or till God actually Removed their Candlesticks It was indeed a sin reproved to suffer such but so long as they were suffered they regularly enjoyed the Outward Priviledges Here our Brethren endeavour to Answer two Objections Obj 1. The Covenant-Blessing was conveyed with Circumcision successively to the following generations Ans We must consider that Gal. 3.14 that is expressed to be the Blessing of Abraham that should come upon the Gentiles not the Covenant of Jacob as Mr. Cotton hath judicâ—ously noted upon the place Now Abrahams Covenant and the Blessing thereof is confirmed onely to those that walk uprightly with God as Abraham did Reply That difference Mr. Cotton put between the Blessing of Abraham and Jacob may hold in this That God continued all the Sons of Jacob and their Posterity in the Covenant not so of Abraham Ishmael and his seed and the Sons of Keturah were not so and so Esau and his seed being the Posterity of Isaac were rejected And that seemeth to be the meaning of that speech of Jacob Gen. 49.26 that His blessing prevailed above the blessing of his Progenitors But this difference cannot hold in respect of the tenour of the Covenant made with Abraham Isaac and Jacob for Ishmaâ—l though graceless was taken into Abrahams Covenant and continued in it till for his sin he was cast out So Esau in Covenant till for his Profaneness he was rejected Heb. 12. Was not the continuance of the Covenant to the seed of Jacob the performance of Gods Everlasting Covenant made with Abraham to be a God to his seed afâ—er him in their generations as is evident Exod. 3.15 6.3 4. Was there ever any Covenant made with Jacob and his seed upon any other terms then
as he pretendeth As a Lover of the Truth to Publish this Treatise without any Commission from the Dissenting Brethren which he desireth them not to be offended with and affirms it as a truth That the persons engaged in this Dissent had much rather this Treatise were suppressed and as an untimely birth to have been buried in everlasting darkness The contrary hereunto is evidently evinced by the whole Preface following which speaketh no more in the person of the Publisher but of the Dissenters and wherein they endeavour to Answer four Objections against the Publishing thereof And in Answer to the first Objection taken from the Ill consequences that might follow they declare a Resolution to have it Published whatever should follow concluding in the words of Esther If I perisâ— I perish Besides it is well known here how earnest and resolute one of the chief of them was to have it Published Concerning the Objections here mentioned The three first from The sâ—a Consequences that may follow The trouble of the Peace of the Churches hereby and from The Novelty of their Opinion I know not of any that made these Objections Surely that language was not heard in the Synod but their own Reason might object such things The fourth Objection is A pretended Concurrence of all other Congregational Churches they know of to countenance their Cause but without any sufficient Proof thereof But seeing it is now Published though uns asonably as is confessed I shall not trouble my self and the Reader about the Answers to the Objections but apply my self to wipe off those uncharitable and unjust Aspersions that in this Preface are cast upon many of the Elders and Churches of New-England Wherein that I may not wrong any of our beloved Brethren the Dissenters I must say this on their behalf That some of them do profess that they had no hand in this first Preface nor in the Publishing thereof nor any knowledge thereof And I have reason to think so of others of them who I hope have other thoughts of their Brethren then this Preface holdeth forth So that so farre as I conceive it is the act of one of them onely or chiefly I take notice of Seven Imputations cast upon us which I shall speak unto 1. The Author of this Preface complaineth of The course Entertainment of their Tenent both in the Synod and in the General Court where they expected more Patrons then did appear Ans That none may hence judge otherwise then the truth is In respect of the Synod it cannot be denied that the matter in question was placidly fully and oft-over Debated all their Arguments weighed all Writings presented were read considered and some publickly answered So that all the course Entertainment was that their Tenent was not embraced by the Synod And as for the Honoured General Court if they were so farre satisfied with the Answers of the Synod to that Question about The Subject of Baptism propounded by them that they did not think fit in their Wisdome to countenance and encourage a Party rising up in Opposition thereto as tending to Divisions and Disturbances amongst us they may thank themselves for such course Entertainment if they will so account of it But to aggravate this course Entertainment he addeth Though it be no other Doctrine then of all the Congregational Churches in Holland England Ireland and New-England and also in New-Haven and Plimouth Jurisdictions yea and also that it hath been the Judgement and general Practice of the Churches in the Bay some few inconsiderable excepted for thirty years Ans Here is a great Pretence of general Concurrence with their Tenent but without Proof and beyond the truth And to make the Number seem the greater besides New-England he addeth And also New-Haven Plimouth c. as if these were not New-England Churches As for those Forreign Churches it doth not appear whether as yet many of them at least have declared their Judgement in this case Yea I have heard from one of good note that knows many of those Churches who upon the question answered That this case hath not as yet been considered in many of those Churches And if their Practice have not yet suited to the Doctrine of the Synod we know by our own experience how many hindrances there may be of that though their Judgement be for it But concerning the Judgement of New-England Elders and Churches let the Preface to the Synod be read by which it will appear That the most Eminent Elders in the most considerable Churches and the Messengers of the Churches of New-England were generally for this Doctrine in the Synod held at Cambridge in the year 1648. I shall mention onely that Passage of famous Hooker whose praise is in the Gospel in all the Churches and who might know as much of the Principles of the Congregational Churches as another It is not the question saith he Whether wicked Members while they are sinfully tolerated in the Church they and their seed may partake of Priviledges for this is beyond question nor do I know or ever heard it denied by any of ours Survey Part 3. Chap. 2. pag. 11. Whereby it doth appear that he took it for a general Confession on all hands That it is the Interest in the Outward Covenant that giveth right to Outward Priviledges of the Church which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of the Synod Whereas the Tenent of our Dissenting Brethren is That Members of the Church admitted in minority and having the Covenant sealed by Baptism if being adult they hold not forth saving Faith and Repentance to the judgement of the Church even so as to come into full Communion neither they nor their seed may partake of Priviledges they are Felones de se Self-mâ—rtherers Discovenanted of God and are not so much as Foederally holy so soon as they be out of their Non-age as will appear after which Tenent I cannot believe will be owned by most of the Churches named if by any of them This Author addeth further That yet now this Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Antichristianism and Anabaptism Ans If an Argument or two were used in the Synod taken from such Consequences is this ground enough to say it is laden with such Reproaches and other ground I know none Yet for that of Anabaptism it will appear the Principles of the Dissenters are so near a Kin if not the same with theirs that we cannot but fear a great tendency thereunto and what encouragement they take from thence we are very sensible Secondly In answering the first Objection this Prefacer takes occasion upon supposition of the Doctrine of the Synod to charge the Bay Churches with a sin which he cannot see how it can stand with peace of Conscience in leaving their former practice in dispensing the Seals and taking up a new manner thereof yea a grievous sin in depriving so many Infants of Baptism for thirty years yea of the same nature and somewhat worse
Parish Churches we are no larger then our Dissenting Brethren who concur with us in the seventh Proposition about the first Question which speaks to this case But if it be meant of inlarging the Church to the Bounds of a Parish it is a meer Slander I do not believe that he can prove that any two Elders of these Churches have so declared their Judgement much less so many as are of the Synods minde It lieth upon the Author to make good this charge or to recant his rashness 2. He affirmeth That the general Judgement of the learned Elders and their Practice was as the Dissenters plead but now divers of those Elders do retreat and recant To prove this he alledgeth two Passages out of An Answer to Thirty two Questions Printed 1639. But those Passages are too weak to bear up this Assertion yea do evidence the quite contrary The first is taken out of Page 22. of the said Book the sum whereof is this That such whose Parents are not Believers and sanctâ—fied are not foederally holy Foederal Holiness or Sanctity being limited to the next Parents 1 Cor. 7.14 Ans 1. This Passage doth not agree with the Dissenters for it doth appear that the Author doth account Foederal Holiness to be Sanctity and therefore the next parents being in Covenant with God and so continuing they are Ecclesiastically holy sanctified and visible Believers 2. Do not the same Elders in this Synod deliver the very same Doctrine in the second Proposition and fifth particular viz. It is requisite to the Membership of Children that the next Parents one or both be in Covenant Citing the same Text 1 Cor. 7.14 And where then is the least shew of Recanting The second Proof is Page 23. of the said Book where it is said that We believe that all Members of Churches ought to be Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus none excepted Ephes 1.1 1 Cor. 1.2 Phil. 1.1 Ans 1. This passage speaketh of Members to be admitted in adult age and therefore might be as well alledged to prove a consent with the Anabaptists as with the Dissenters which was farre from the meaning of that Author Besides though they ought to be so yet that denieth not but being regularly admitted they are still Members of the Church till they be regularly cast out though they do not approve themselves to be such 2. Do not those Elders profess the same Doctrine in the Synod Propos 2. viz Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers alledging the same Texts Eph. 1.1 c. Where then is this Recantation Sixthly The Author of this Preface excusing the Paucity of the Dissenters in comparison of the many able learned and godly Magistrates and Ministers that consented He objecteth three things against the Synod consenting 1. That divers of the Elders having Preached and Practised that Doctrine of late years were pre-engaged and it is strange that after Vows they should be called to enquire Ans Were not Paul Barnabas and others as much engaged in the Doctrine of that Synod Acts 15 and did they come after Vâ—ws to enquire 2. Were not the Dissenters as much pre-engaged in their Opinion why then did they come after Vows to enquire 2. It is Objected That divers Messengers being no Logicians to answer Syllogisms and discern Ambiguities were over-born by the many Opposers Ans It is incongruous and too high to make the Body of the Synod the Opâ—osers which more fitly agree to th few Dissenters 2. Though divers were not such Logicians yet Charity might allow the choyce Members of our Churches to be able to judge of Arguments drawn from the Scriptures and so farre consciencious as that discerning the Voice of Christ they would not be born down with number of Opposers To say nothing of the Logick of the Dissenters that might be as little as the others 3. It is Objected That the corruption of man most inclineth to walk in the broadest way though the straiter way be never so clear especially when persons eminent in Place Power Learning and Piety are so linked together Ans Be it so that there is such a corruption in man yet when such persons as the Synod are confessed to be agree in one and that in so Solemn an Ordinance of God where Christ hath promised his Presence Chaâ—â—y that hopeth all things might well conceive that Grace would prevail above such a Corruption 2 If our Brother be not aware of it I can assure him that there is also a Corruption in man and in good men too under the not on of Strictness and Zeal to swerve as much to the other Extreme As when the Disciples would have kept little children from Christ Mark 10.13 14. When out of zeal against the Tares men would hazard to plack up the Wheat also Matth. 13.28 29. So when we are apt to judge others whom God hath received Rom. 14.3 which I wish our Brother seriously to consider The way of the Anabaptists is a straiter way yet I suppose this Brother doth not judge it his corruption to chuse a way somewhat larger So is the way of the Seekers and others who think their straiter wayes as clear as our Brother thinketh of his Seventhly In Page 5. this Brother answering another Objection That this Discourse may seem needless seeing all other Congregational Churches agree with them that they know of alledging the Savoy Meeting Chap. 29. Of Baptism 4. Yet saith he there needs abundant confirmation for no doubt this temptation will spread further when more then the third part of the Stars of Heaven here are swept down as is Prophesied Rev. 12. c. Furthermore saith he let the world know That the Lord hath still a few Names in New England who hold fast his Name and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel and detest the Abominations of Antichrist Ans 1. This Author glorieth much in the Consent of other Churches We see here his ground which I shall examine The Position of that Meeting of the Churches is this Not onely those that do actually profess Faith in and Obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those onely We can well consent with this Doctrine without any prejudice to the Doctrine of the Synod For we profess and prove in the Synod That the children of the Church being in Covenant with God owned by him as holy as his People his Children and manifesting their continuance in the Covenant according to the fifth Proposition these are visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account in Scripture account 1 Cor. 1.1 with 7.14 And I cannot believe but that Reverend and Learned Assembly would acknowledge Regular Church-members to be visible Believers And it doth appear that these are Regular Church-members in their judgement by their Second Position Concerning the Church Chap. 26. where they say All such as profess the Faith of the Gospel and Obedience
that hath his Promise annexed should either bring such Youth to Repentance or purge the Church of them But it is as true that this Treatise putteth such a sense and meaning upon that Proposition as renders it useless and vain to the ends aforesaid For if they be not actual personal nor immediate Members whereby acts of Church-government should be put forth immediately upon their persons but onely reach them at the second hand viz by their Parents as was said by some in the Meeting-house to which they referre pag. 23. And if Excommunication that healing Medicine of Christ for the destruction of the flesh and saving of the Soâ—l may not touch them as is in the same Page 23. Yea if the Foederal Holiness of their persons and so their Covenant-interest continue no longer then their minority wherein indeed they are scarce capable of any Church discipline as is affirmed Page 37. These things being so let any man judge how it is possible for Church-government to reform such great many and prevailing corruptions of Youth 2. Page 10. our Brethren say It is apparent to all what a corrupt mass of Vnbelievers shall by this change throng into the fellowship of Gods People and the children of strangers uncircumcised in heart shall be brought into Gods Sanctuary to pollute it contrary to Ezek 44.7 9. Ans 1. Whether these Parents in question be to be counted Vnbelievers or not will appear after But if the Charity of our Brethren will allow them no other term I pray Who let them into the fellowship of Gods People Do not our Brethren with us affirm That the Covenant of Abraham belongs unto them and therefore they are to partake of Baptism the Seal of it And say they there is the whole Churches Communion in Baptism as well as in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 12.13 If then they would keep them out of the fellowship of Gods People they must joyn with those that shut that door against all Infants by which they entred for if they be Vnbelievers that are so qualified as in Proposition the fifth then surely they were so when they were Baptized By this with many other Passages our Brethren may see whither their Principles do carry them So that the difference between the Synod and our Brethren is not about their Admission into the fellowship of Gods People but about The Improvement of the Ordinances of Christ for their good while they continue in that fellowship wherein the Synods Doctrine admits them not to acts of Communion with the rest of Gods People but as they are regularly fit neither do the Synod continue them in that fellowship any longer then they walk orderly without deserving the Censures of the Church Ezek. 44. speaks of strangers amongst the children of Israel such as Tobiah Neh 13.4 c. not of any Israelite ver 9. 3. Our Brethren in their sixth Consideration acknowledging The great Deliverances and Wonders that the Lord hath wrought in former times for New England they adde But since the motion of this Change what the Lords dealing hath been and still is we leave to the prudent to judge We may glory in this New Light but we fear it will prove but glorying in our shame Ans I had thought that Gods gracious answer to the Prayers of the Synod 1662. in sending Rain so speedily and sweetly might not onely have taken off that Imputation of the Drought unto the Synod as if it was for their sakes but also it might have stayed our Brethren from such Applications of the Providences of God to their own ends I remember that when the Popish Cantons imputed the death of Zuinglius and â—ecolampadius to the just Judgement of God upon them for causing their Troubles the Historian hath this Observation upon it It is saith he a pious thought to attribute the disposition of every Event to the Providence of God but to determine to what ends those Events are directed by his high Wisdome is not farre from Presumption Men are so straightly and religiously wedded to their own Opinions that they are perswaded God loveth and favoureth them as much as themselves Hist of the Council of Trent p. 60. But if we must needs take notice of the dealing of God with Non-England in reference to this case Can any prudent man say that the Deliverances of New-England are not as gâ—eat and wonderful in these last years and at this day as in former years And as for those afflicting Providences that have lately bâ—faln us have we not had as heavy Strokes many wayes formerly And have we not Sins enough that are evident to humble us under the Lords hand as deserving these and greater evils but we must needs apply them as Judgements of God to this falsly so called Change and brand the constant Doctrine of Gods eminent Messengers amongst us as a New Light that will turn to our shame The Lord forgive these many harsh Censures of the Brethren Thus have I passed through this unpleasing part of my Work wherein if by clearing the innocent any thing doth reflect upon the Accusers I hope the equal-minded Reader will excuse me considering that the Name of God is named upon the Elders and Churches of New-England and would have suffered in them should not such unjust Aspersions be wiped off them by a just Apologie Had our Brethren followed the Example of the Synod with like Love Tenderness and Moderation as is expressed towards them in their Preface the world had not been so Scandalized as I fear it is by these Contests and I had spared much of this labour Oh! when shall we see Brethren manage such Disputes with that Brotherly Love Ingenuity and Endeavours to finde out the Truth as becometh the Cause of CHRIST and without such harsh Reflections upon mens persons The want of this is a Lamentation and shall be for a Lamentation CHAP. II. Concerning our Brethrens Answer to the main Question COncerning The Order of this Treatise I need not trouble the Reader nor concerning their two Propositions premised Who doubteth that Baptism is a Seal of the Gospel and to be administred according to Gospel-Rules Or that the surest way to end Controversies is to finde out how it was in the beginning Onely these Rules are too general and have a like influence into all Controversies about Gospel-Ordinances I shall therefore endeavour to clear up from Scripture two or three Propositions that have a more near and immediate respect to the Question now in debate It is no question between us Whether adult persons to be joyned to the Church and to be Baptized should hold forth Faith and Repentance to the judgement of Charity and that in some particular visible Church nor Whether the Infant-seed of such are to be Baptized But the very Hinge whereupon our Debate turneth lieth in these two things 1. Whether the Infant-seed of all Church-members ought to be Baptized 2. What it is that Cuts off any from his Membership
such are the proper Subjects thereof as if such and onely such were to be Baptized This of Full Communion our Brethren thought would advantage their Cause and so have put it in but it is a meer Addition to the Word of God which wholly fails them of any proof yea makes evidently against them In that principal place Acts 2.38 39. it is evident that they were Baptized before their Full Communion For 1. Peter called them to be Baptized upon the ground of the Promise ver 38. 2. They were Baptized and added to the Church before full Communion ver 41 42. 3. It had been very preposterous to put them into full Communion before Vnion with the Church sealed by Baptism for Baptism is a Seal of Vnion with the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 which must go before Communion But they seem to suppose at least that some in full Communion may be unbaptized by that word being unbaptized but the truth is that our Brethrens confidence in this Argument will be found so greatly to fail them that whil'st by it they seek to straiten The Subject of Baptism beyond the Doctrine of the Synod they destroy and take away the whole Subject it self of Baptism because there will never be found any such persons according to Gospel-Rule which they call so much for and appeal unto that are in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I will be a little bold with our Brethren in this case to challenge them to produce any Rule or Example in the Gospel of any person that either was or by Rule might be in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I hope this Answer is plain and no Cavill Yet for the further clearing up of this Answer I shall remove what may be further said by our Brethren Object Though those in Acts 2. were not in full Communion actually before Baptism yet they were admitted to a state and right to full Communion by their Baptism which these Children in question are not Ans 1. The Question is not What state or right the Baptized are partakers of as a consequent fruit of Baptism received but What it is that constitutes a person to be a fit Subject to be Baptized To describe the proper Subject of Baptism by the consequent fruits of it and not by the precedent causes that gives right to Baptism is very improper and preposterous If the Question were Who are the proper Subjects of Church-membership we say Confederating visible Believers and their seed for this makes them fit for and brings them into such a relation But should any answer That the proper Subject of Church-membership is a person in full communion with an instituted Church or One that is under the Teaching and Rule of Church-Officers which are the fruits of Church-membership received Who does not see the weakness of such an Answer and the like is this case Baptism being the Seal of Gods Covenant with his Church whereby we are Baptized into one Body 2. Although the Infant-seed of the Church cannot actually enjoy full Communion in all Ordinances as their Parents do yet the Covenant of God sealed to them in Baptism sets them in a state and right to all the Benefits of the Covenant to be enjoyed by them as they become fit for them as well as their Parents for the Covenant of God with Parents and seed is one and the same All that are in the same Covenant are bound to the same Duties of the Covenant and have the same right to all the Benefits of the Covenant as they come up to perform the Conditions and are fit for the enjoyment of the Blessings In adult Members it is so who being under Admonition for Scandal or in a Frenzy or the like case though they partake not of all the good of the Covenant yet their right remains So here when the seed grow up to perform the Duties of the Covenant they also partake of the Benefits not by any new Covenant or Membership but by the right of that Covenant God made with them and sealed to them in Baptism as will appear more fully afterward 2. I shall adde further It is true that to admit adult persons into the Church and to Baptism visible Faith is required and so much the Texts alledged prove but this is not the case in Dispute between us but About persons already in the Church and Baptized whether in such the ground of Baptizing their seed be Faith and Grace made visible in the same manner or their Interest in the Covenant and therefore the Argument doth not conclude the Question Put case any of those visible Believers and converts Acts 2. should afterward discover by their Worldliness Looseness or other wayes that there is in them no sap or savour of Faith and Grace even to the charitable judgement of most in the Church my Question is Whether yet so long as they continue in the Church their Infant-seed shall not be Baptized If it be granted then it is not such visible Faith and Grace but the Interest in the Church and Covenant that gives Right to Baptism and so to these Church-members in question If this be denied let there be one Tittle of Scripture-Rule or Example produced to the contrary Having answered their Reason I shall present an Argument from the same Text to confirm the Doctrine of the Synod It is to be noted That the Promise Acts 2.39 is That Covenant-Promise which God made with Abraham as appeareth by that parallel place Acts 3. where ver 19. Peter exhorts to Repentance as in chap. 2.38 and chap. 3.25 he useth the same Reason in other words You are the children of the Covenant which God made with our fathers the substance whereof all grant to be this I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations although the Apostle there makes use of another branch of the Covenant concerning Christ that feed in whom God is the God of his People Now the Reason stands thus If the Covenant-promise to Abraham and his seed be a ground to Repent and be Baptizsed in the Gospel-dispensation then it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism But the Covenant-promise was a ground to Repent and be Baptized in Gospel-dispensation Acts 2.38 39. with chap. 3.19 25. Therefore it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism which is the Doctrine of the Synod Thus much to their Scripture-Argument To which our Brethren adde the Testimony of Mr. Richard Mather Well agreeing with this say they is the Answer of Reverend Mr. Mather in his Catechism Ans But by their leave it differeth from their Answer in the main thing that toucheth the cause in hand for there is nothing of full communion in his which they put into theirs 2. That Reverend and Learned Author speaketh onely what adult persons should be in joyning to the Church and the seed of such so converted
Faith in Gods acceptance and the reality of it in some of them as well as in some admitted by Profession of Faith 2. Concerning this distinction of Foederal Holiness and Sanctified in Christ Jesus It is not sufficiently considered what is contained in Foederal Holiness Doth it not include that They are in Covenant with God that God is their God that They are his People An holy People to himself A Royal Priesthood A Chosen Generation c which the Apostle applieth to Believers 1 Pet. 2.9 And what difference is there between Sanctified in Christ Jesus and Saints and Faithful in Christ Jesus which the Apostle attributeth to the whole Church 1 Cor. 1.2 whereof the holy seed was a part 1 Cor. 7.14 3. To say These have Parental and partial Right Deut. 4.37 10.15 Acts 2.38 doth any of these Texts prove that Parental Right as they call it or the Right by the Covenant of God with their Fathers is a partial Right If God loved their fathers and therefore chose their seed after them was not the feed the object of Gods choyce and as perfect Members of the Church in all ages as their Fathers were It seems the Lord did as great things for them as for their Fathers out of his love to them bringing them out of Egypt with great power Deut. 4.37 38. And were not their little ones established to be a People to God as well as their Fathers Deut. 29.11 13. 4. Doctor Ames makes nothing for their Tenent but agreeth with the Synod His saying take it intire is this Children of the faithful are to be numbred amongst the faithful as Members of the Church 1 Cor. 7.14 for they are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same Profession with their Parents yet Infants are not so perfect Members of the Church that they can exercise acts of Communion or be admitted to partake of all Priviledges untill the increase of Faith appeareth but from those things that pertain to the beginning of Faith and entrance into the Church they are not to be excluded Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 12.13 By this it is evident that he doth not make them Imperfect Members in respect of the relation of Membership but in respect of acts of Communion Even as a childe of the family is not so perfect to do the work enjoy all the Priviledges of the Family as a grown person is but yet he is as perfectly a Member of the Family as a grown man Besides that eminent Doctor looked at Infants of the faithful as capable of such things as belong to the beginning of Faith and to be admitted to acts of Communion as the increase of their Faith appeareth He thought of no other and new Membership to intitle them to all Ordinances but that to come to them by their Covenant in Infancy What can be more full to shew his concurrence with the Synod Object But Membership is a word of Relation and therefore cannot admit of degrees of more or less To this our Brethren Answer That it is a clear exception from the general Rule That such Relations the foundation whereof is Quality or Action do admit of diversity of degrees as Similitude is a Relation grounded on some Quality one thing may be more or less like another so Calefaction c. Reply The Authors of this Distinction are not so authentick but that it may be examined by the Rules of right Reason And first it confoundeth all Logical Arguments making Cause and Effect yea comparata to be Relates which is against Reason 2. This Distinction will not hold For what Relates are there whose foundation is not in Action or Quality Why is this man a Father but because he begat a Son The Relation of Master and Servant Husband and Wife and the like is it not by Covenant which is an Action So that by this Rule all Relates should admit Degrees of more or less which is against that received Rule of Logicians But how is this Exception applied to this case In both which respects say our Brethren the Membership of the Infants Faith and act of Confederation being grounded on the Parents Faith is rightly distinguished from the Membership of such as are adult which is grounded on their own Faith and Confederation Reply What dependance hath this upon the former Distinction where this Relation is said to be founded upon such diversity of Action as makes two sorts of distinct Members as is pretended and not onely two degrees of Membership 2. There is no such diversity of the Foundation of Membership as should thus distinguish these Members the Foundation is one and the same viz. The Free-grace of God in his Covenant extended both to Parent and Childe Gen. 17.7 9. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed The way of entring into this Covenant on man's part is onely a differing modus or manner of Covenanting with God As a Sciens put into the Stock by hand and the Branches that grow out of it are all equally parts of the Tree though the Branches were not so put in by hand as the Sciens was A Father that purchaseth Lands to himself and his Childe the Childe hath as perfect and good a Right as the Father hath though he did not make the Bargain and Covenant as his Father did The fourth Note of our Brethren is upon those words Whose next Parents are in Covenant which they say is ambiguous and therefore they distinguish between Parental Covenant as they call it and Personal with presupposed Faith and Repentance the former they count insufficient to capacitate the next seed to Baptism Before I come to Answer their Reasons interwoven in this Discourse Seeing our Brethren have so oft recourse to their Distinctions of Members into actual not actual personal not personal by Parental Covenant and personal immediate and mediate perfect and imperfect and lay so much weight upon them as That the Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their seed to Baptism That their Membership by Parental Covenant lasts no longer then minority pag. 37. and The personal Covenant of such makes them Members is the Form of their Membership and the like I shall therefore here once for all recall these things to the Law and Testimony and try what Light is in them And first in my best Observation I can finde no such distinction of Parental and Personal Covenant that should make two sorts or kindes of Members neither in the Name or Thing but all along in the Scripture the Covenant is one and the same that God makes with his People and is called by the name of Gods Covenant Gen. 17. where this Covenant was most solemnly made and to which the oft-renewed Covenants in the Old Testament and the Covenant or Promise in the New Testament hath reference as Rom. 9. Acts 2.38 39. with Chap. 3.25 Gal. 3. In that place I say the Lord calleth it My Covenant seven times and that in respect of
were to be blessed Reas 4. Baptism is as Circumcision was A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 which is invisible in those children that should transmit Baptism Ans This is true that as Circumcision so Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith And thence I infer that when God by his Institution appointed that Seal to be transmitted to the seed of Abraham so long as they continued in the visible Covenant they were accepted of God as Believers in Ecclesiastical account and so it is in respect of transmitting Baptism so long as the seed of the Faithful continue in the visible Church they are visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account and may so transmit Baptism to their seed Reas 5. They alledge Acts 2.38 39. which they say restrains Baptism to the next seed of such Parents as manifest Repentance and Effectual calling and is of more weight then any Argument from far-fetched and uncertain consequences out of the Old Testament Ans To this Text is fully answered before and as was said it favours the Doctrine of the Synod That the Promise or Covenant is the ground of Baptism And that this Text hath no such Restraint it may appear thus Let all be granted that is here said yet suppose such visible Converts discover afterward no sap or savour of Grace to the fairest Charity but continue still in the Church shall not their seed be Baptized or must every Church-member hold forth a Profession of Repentance at the Baptism of every childe I suppose our Brethren will not so affirm and if so then a Church-member though not apparently a true Penitent may have his seed Baptized As for far-fetched Consequences from the Old Testament the following Discourse will shew that none use them so much as our Brethren do Concerning the Answers here given to an Objection from Exod. 20. The Synod doth not make that Objection but agreeth with this Interpretation given in the third and fourth Answer viz. So that the Priviledges are onely continued to the seed of the next Parents that continue in the Covenant and are not broken off CHAP. IV. Concerning the third Proposition Propos 3. THat the Infant-seed of Confederate visible Believers are Members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch and Government of that Church Our Dissenting Brethren by their dilute interpretations of this Proposition seem to recede from their own Concessions For this Proposition was propounded and earnestly promoted by one of the chief of them as tending to issue other Difficulties amongst us and to Reform the corruptions of Youth and there were not above three noted that dissented from it But when it was observed as is here said that the other Propositions would be inferred from it and so strongly that some said The whole Cause was given up in that Proposition Our Brethren therefore now think to ease the matter by their interpretations but such they are as cannot consist with the terms of the Proposition as will appear First say they when it is said They are personally under the Watch of the Church the meaning is not that they have an actual personal and immediate Membership which is proper to those in full communion but onely that the Church-watch in the dispensation of it should reach unto their persons which was publickly expressed in the Meeting-house by us Ans How inconsistent are these things 1. These persons are Members of the Church but not actually How then are they Members potentially so are many that are fit matter for a Church that yet are no Members or are they so habitually surely they are actually Baptized into the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 And shall we Baptize actually such as are not actually in the Covenant 2. They are personally under the Watch and Government of the Church yet the Church must not deal with their persons but reach their persons at the second hand viz. by their Parents So indeed some expressed themselves but I thought it would not have been owned by the rest But thus to reach their persons is not to touch them with any act of Church-government but of Family-government onely Yea thus to reach their persons is no more then the Church may reach an Heathen servant for the Church may Censure the Master if he restrain not the evils of his Servant as well as a Father for the evils of his Childe Secondly say they By Discipline we do not intend Excommunication which is proper to Offenders in full communion for how can they be cast out of full communion that were never in it Ans Then they must suppose that Excommunication is no part of Discipline or intend a Discipline ineffectual to Christs ends for what are Admonitions unregarded without that Censure to set them home Mat. 18. Excommunication is not to cast out of full communion onely but out of all communion Let him be as an Heathen and Publican It is a giving up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirit may be saved 1 Cor. 5.5 and this soveraign Medicine all that are within are capable of and may stand in need of it Nevertheless say they the Church may disown them and declare them to be no Members upon their deserting of the Church and the Covenant of their fathers by such a Sentence as Peter pronounced to Simon Magus Acts 8.21 Ans 1. This disowning such as no Members is a meer invention of man never ordained of Christ nor tending to reach the ends of his Discipline for though it seems to agree with Excommunication in not owning them as Members yet it wanteth that awfull dread of Excommunication to humble the sinner and bring him in Yea thus to disown them as no Members is to rid the Church of any further care of them as those without But all acts of Christs Discipline are acts of the love and compassion of Christ and his Church to the Souls of offenders to seek their Repentance and Salvation 1 Cor. 5.2 2 Cor. 2.6 7 c. 2. Acts 8.21 giveth no ground of this Practice For 1. Peter did not presently disown him as no Member neither indeed doth the place referre to Membership but to the power of giving the Holy Ghost but declaring his sin and danger he exhorteth him to Repentance and to pray to God for pardon ver 22. which implies that upon his Repentance he was ready to promise pardon according to the end of Christs Discipline but persisting impenitently in his sin he might then be cast out Besides 2. This Sentence was upon one that came in by Profession of Faith and if that were Peters meaning to disown him as no Member of the visible Church and it be an Example to be imitated then any Member discovering Hypocrifie to a discerning Spirit might presently be disowned as no Member which would make sad work in Churches 3. If the Church may disown them when they desert the Church and Covenant then
they may yea ought to own them as Members when they own the Covenant and do not desert the Church I cannot but make a little pause here before I pass on and seriously intreat our dear Brethren and all of their minde to consider well how the Lord is wont to deal with his visible Church and all the Members thereof in the Old and New Testament and compare therewith this their respect and care of the Lambs of Christs Flock When the Lord hath once stricken a Covenant with his People taking in their seed with the Parents Gen. 17.7 Deut. 29.10 11. 1. What Abundant Means of their Salvation doth he ordain and cause diligently to be improved to that end Cain and Abel both admitted to Sacrifice Abraham's Commands were to his whole family-Family-Church Gen. 18. The daily ordinary Sacrifices and the more solemn and extraordinary were for the whole Congregation Lev. 4.14 21. Numb 15.24 25. To Israel pertain the Adoption the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Rom. 94. And how did the Lord follow his Church in all ages by his Prophets to bring them to Repentance yea when gone after Baal to reduce them by Elijah How affectionately doth the Lord by them plead with his People Jer. 2. 3. Micah 6. Psal 81.8 c. So in the New Testament the Ministry of the Word and other Ordinances are given to the Visible Church for their Salvation 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes 4.11 c. and Discipline to reduce and save offenders 2. Consider the Wonderfull Patience of God in seeking the Salvation of his visible Church When the children of God were so corrupt that God resolved to destroy all flesh yet he spared them an hundred and twenty years sending Noah a Preacher of Righteousness to seek their good Genes 6. And how great was his Patience to Israel and Judah sending his Prophets early and late out of his compassion till there was no remedy 2 Chron. 36. So the Lord Jesus sent his Epistles To the seven Churches of Asia to heal their corruptions and though he threatned to Come quickly yet spared them many years 3. See with what Compassion and Bowels of humane Affections as it were the Lord expresseth himself when he is about to cast off a People he hath been in Covenant with How shall I give thee up O Ephraim c. my Repentings are kindled together Hos 11.8 So Christ O Jerusalem how oft would I have gathered thee as an Hen her Chickens c. Mat. 23.37 How did he Weepover Jerusalem saying O that thou hadst known at least in this thy day c. Luke 19.41 This is Gods way But what is our Brethrens Way to these Members of the visible Church to whom they confess the Promise doth belong Acts 2.39 1. Though God have stricken his Covenant with them and Sealed it To be their God and own them to be His People yet they will not acknowledge them Actual personal Members but in effect Distinguish them out of the Church 2. They allow them no more acts of Church-watch and Discipline then may reach an Infidel-servant and Excommunication the most effectual Ordinance of Christ to Destroy the Flesh and Save the Soul must not touch them 3. So quick they are that if the Lord be not pleased to give them Saving Faith and Grace so soon as they come to adult age Disown them as No Members and so let them go Now how farre unlike this is to Gods Way who doth not see And I must confess this is to me one great Argument That the Way of these Brethren is not the Way of God To proceed Our Brethren to clear this Coast think fit to Answer The Reasons of the Synod to prove their Continuance in the Church But the Reader must note That those Arguments are not applied to this Proposition in hand here being Eight Reasons to prove They are personally under the Watch and Discipline of the Church which are not touched by them But the Reasons that our Brethren here speak unto are those brought by the Synod to prove the last Branch of the sixth Argument for the fifth Proposition viz. That Church-members admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church That their Membership still continueth in adult age and ceaseth not with their Infancy And this is the rather to be noted because if their Answers suit not the case of such persons then they are not pertinent to take off the Reasons of the Synod But let us see what is answered to these Reasons though out of their place Reas 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief not for growing up to adult age Rom 11.20 Ans Our Brethren answer Not simply for growing up but for such accessaries as may attend adult age Rom. 11.20 doth not say onely for notorious sins c. Negative unbelief Neglecting the means of Grace Not Professing the Faith and the fruits thereof may give cause of breaking off And to such though our patience and expectation ought to be large and long yet it may be tired out at last and come to a period Reply 1. If our Brethren would out hold to this it would tend much to our desired Unity For hence it will follow That their Membership received in infancy doth continue in adult age untill such Accessaries do appear and till the Patience of the Church be tired out 2. If it were granted that Negative unbelief manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace Not professing of the Faith and the fruits thereof might after long patience give just cause to break them off yet by this Rule the persons described in the fifth Proposition cannot be said to be broken off for they do Profess the Faith and the fruits thereof by a life free from Scandal giving up themselves to God and submitting to the Government of Christ in his Church Or at least such as these are still objects of the Churches Patience and therefore not broken off And seeing our Brethren come thus farre I shall willingly meet them here and confess That if Negative unbelief be manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace Not professing of the Faith being orderly called thereunto by the Church and Continuance impenâ—tently in such Neglects after due means with due patience used by the Church this would give the Church just cause to cast them out for this were Incorrigible Impenitency in sin And Oh that we might meet here But when I consider many other Expressions in this Treatise I fear my desires will fail For if no act of Church-governmeÌ„t may be put forth upon their persons immediately but by their Parents how shall the Church come
at them to put them upon such Duties and deal with them for their Neglect thereof and when their Parents be dead what shall the Church do then and when their Membership is owned onely in general as wrapped up in their Parents not actual or personal yea when their Personal or Foederal Holiness is denied to continue in adult age These and the like Passages Pag. 23 25 37. and in other places do make me fear that our Brethren will not hold to their Expressions in this place Reply 2. Although Rom. 11.20 saith Not onely for notorious sins c. yet it sheweth how the Jews were broken off which we know was for Notorious sins and Incorrigible Impenitency and Vnbelief And let any shew that any have been broken off or by Rule may be so for Negative unbelief without Impenitency added The contrary we finde 2 Chron. 36.16 Mat. 21.43 Acts 13.45 46. 18.6 19.8 Reas 2. The Jewish children circumcised did not cease to be Members by growing up to adult age but continued in the Church and were bound to the Duties of Members Deut. 26 2-10 16 16-17 Gal. 53. Ans The circumcised Jews did not cease to be Members simply for growing up but for growing out of kinde Jer. 2.21 They became degenerate Plants Amos 9.7 Children of the Negroes Bastard Branches to be cut off Joh. 15.2 Reply There is a double great mistake in applying these Scriptures 1. They do not speak of persons ceasing to be Members As for Jer. 2. it was the Word of the Lord to Jerusalem ver 2. and that in the thirteenth year of Josiah after the Covenant was renewed and Religion greatly Reformed and God calls them His People ver 11 13 and therefore their Membership ceased not at that time So Amos 9. He Prophesied in the dayes of Vzziah King of Judah and Joash the son of Jeroboam King of Israel in whose dayes God had not yet removed Israel out of his sight As for Joh. 15.2 though the Lord doth in his time cut off unfruitful Branches by Death or Church-censures yet till he doth so they are expresly said to be in Christ So that these places speak nothing of the ceasing of Church-membership in adult age 2. These places do not suit the persons in the fifth Proposition Jer. 2. speaketh of such as Prophesied by Baal That played the harlot on every high hill ver 20. and are therefore called A degenerate plant ver 21. Amos speaketh of Israel in the corrupt times of Idolatry and reproves their great Covetousness and Oppression Chap. 8.4 5. And therefore if such as those had ceased to be Members in adult age it doth not follow that the Membership of these in question doth cease What is here added about the phrase of Entring into Covenant is a mistake for the Synod speaks of Entring into a new Membership not denying the phrase of Entring into or Renewing the Covenant Reas 3. Those Relations of Bond-servants and Subjects which the Scripture maketh use of to set forth the state of the children of the Church by Levit. 25.41 42. Ezek. 37.25 do not cease with Infancy but continue in adult age whereby they are engaged to duty when they are most fit for it So here Ans 1. The Relation of the Son of the Bond-woman may cease in adult age as Ishmael much more of the Bond-servant Reply The Relation of Ishmael ceased not by growing up to adult age nor till he was cast out for his sin These in question are not cast out or deserving so to be and therefore this Answer is impertinent Ans 2. By this Reason Moral wickedness should not cut off adult Members for that doth not cut off the Relation of Bond-servants Reply This Argument taken from the common nature of Civil and Church-Societies doth not require they should hold in all things as that they should be governed by the same Laws and subject to the same Punishments that were indeed to make Similitudes run on all four as we say It is enough if they agree in that thing wherein they are applied And this Application of the Synod is clear in Levit. 25.41 42. where the children of the Israelitish Servants were to serve with their parents unto the year oâ— Jubile which being every Fiftieth Year they were oft grown up to adult age before that time And the reason why they should then go out is Because they that is Parents and Children are my Servants saith the Lord. So that there is the like reason in Gods Service as in that Relation And we see David delighteth to own himself the Servant of the Lord in this very Relation I am thy Servant the Son of thine Handmaid Psal 116.16 that is engaged to the Service of God from his Birth and so for ever as the Son of the Handmaid was Exod. 21.4 And yet if the Similitude should be pressed so farre we know that the Moral Wickedness of Murther Adultery and the like would cut off Servants and Subjects by Death according to the Law of God Reas 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of Church-membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the children in question Ans 1. This is to be understood of Members in full communion which these adult children are not Reply If none of these belong to such adult children to cause their Membership to cease then by their judgement it seems they have no Membership at all if neither Death nor Dissolution of the Society can cause it to cease which before they seemed not to own Ans 2. There are many other wayes of the cessation of Church-members they may Excommunicate themselves as Mr. Cotton The Assembly at the Savoy and Dr. Ames affirm Also by Withdrawing sometimes commanded of God 2 Tim. 3.5 Rom 16.17 Also by Apostacy 1 Joh. 2.19 By Heresie as Arrians Quakers c. Reply 1. If these adult children may Excommunicate themselves then it is yielded that they are Members in adult age But if all these were granted yet none of them is the case of these in the fifth Proposition 2. Here is a needless multiplying of particulars All but a supposed Lawful Withdrawing are Subjects of Excommunication as shall be proved Concerning a Lawful Withdrawing that Turning away from such 2 Tim. 3.5 and Avoiding those Rom. 16.17 may more fitly be understood to be done by not admitting them into the Church or casting them out if they be in rather then by Withdrawing from the Church it self for their sakes which cannot be done without Schism except many Cautions be used Neither can such Withdrawing loosen a man's Relation to the Church which no doubt may call him to account for it and he is bound to render a reason thereof else all Discipline may hereby be made frustrate Now if his Reasons be found just it will be all one with a Dismission 3. Concerning this Self-Excommunication 1. The ordinary instances of Cain Ishmael
Esau are not clear that they did Excommunicate themselves but were cast out by the Lord. The Curse of Cain was to be A Vagabond and Fugitive in the earth which he understood of his casting out of the Church From thy face shall I be hid Gen. 4.14 As for Ishmael the case is plain that he was cast out by Abraham the Governour of the Church by the appointment of God And of Esau it is expresly said that when he would have inherited the Blessing he was rejected viz. of Isaac after which rejection he went away from the Church in Isaac's Family Concerning the instance of the Sons of Abraham by Keturah how long they continued to Worship the true God or how they fell off who can say or prove that they Excommunicated themselves without any act of God that had the nature of such a Censure As for Open and Obstinate Hereticks and Apostaâ—es which some call Excommunicati de Jure that hindreth not but that they may and ought to be Excommunicated in Fact also But if we speak of Gospel-times wherein the Lord Jesus hath so expresly instituted Church-censures for the saving of Offenders and purging of his Churches and hath confirmed the same with such Promises to Bâ—nde and Loose in Heaven what is bound and Loosed on Earth Mat. 18. I conceive with due respect to the Authors alledged That no Member of a particular Church having the Power and Exercise of Church-Discipline can so cut off his Relation to that Church actually but that the Church may and ought to dispense the Censures to him as the case shall require My Reasons are Reason 1 1. From the Ends of Church-Discipline viz. To reduce and save Offenders Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5.5 To purge the Church 1 Cor. 5.7 To vindicate the Name and Glory of God in bearing fall testimony against Scandals 2 Sam. 12.14 2 Cor. 7.11 You have approved your selves to be clear in this matter For the Example and Terrour of others 1 Tim. 5.20 Whence the Reason stands thus If the Lord Jesus hath betrusted his Church with the Power of Church-Discipline for these and the like Ends then it is the duty of the Church to put forth this Power whensoever these or any of these ends may be attained with the Edification of the Church But there is no case can befall any Church member wherein these or some of these ends may not be attained For put case a Member be turned Arrian Quaker Turk and what you will yet the Censure denounced will Acquit the Church Vindicate the Name and Glory of God in bearing full testimony against such Scandals and tend to the Terrour of others yea who knoweth how farre the Lord may improve it upon the sinner for his good Reason 2 2. If in Scripture-patterns the worst of Hereticks and Blasphemers were laid under Censures notwithstanding their supposed Self-Excommunication then we ought to follow such Patterns in all such cases But such was the Practice in Scripture-examples Tit. 3.10 1 Tim. 1.20 1 Cor. 16.22 Therefore c. Reason 3 3. That Position that openeth a door for Church-members to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline is not to be admitted But this Position doth open a door to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline For by this means any Member in danger of Church-censures may Withdraw himself Renounce the Church and then they cannot proceed against him for it were in vain to cut off a Member that hath already Excommunicated himself If any shall say It is sufficient punishment and judgement of God to leave a man so to Excommunicate himself Ans But how then shall the Church be discharged of their duty to save the Offender by Excommunication that tends to destroy the flesh and save his Soul I never read that God blessed Self-Excommunication to that end Yea by this Position a wicked Schismatical Member shall take the Keyes out of the hands of the Church and Censure the whole Church as oft they do and the Church hath no Power to lay any Punishment upon him for it And hence those Scriptures alledged Hebr. 10.21 1 John 2.19 may receive a just Answer for that Forsaking of the assembling of themselves and Going out doth not exempt them from Church-censures or prove that they were cut off before Church-censures If the foot saith I am not of the Body is it therefore not of the Body Or can this Withdrawing discharge the Church from using the means of their recovery or exempt themselves from the just Censure and Punishment appointed by Christ for such Offenders Reas 5. These adult persons are Members or Non-members if Non-members then a person admitted a Member and sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving so to be may the Church still remaining become a Non-member out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Ans 1. Members and Non-members are not opposites but with taking in the conditions of all opposites as in this case ad idem or in the same respect they may be Non-members in full communion and yet Members in Parental Right Reply 1. This Distinction is not ad idem for the want of full Communion is not such a respect as makes a man a Non-member for so a man under Admonition for some Scandal or in a Frenzy should be a Non-member 2. The question is not Whether these be Members in full Communion but Whether that Membership which was sealed up unto them in Baptism doth continue in adult age And this seems once more here to be granted Ans 2. They may deserve Censures though not put upon them Râ—ply This is not the case of these Members in question And if it were so that they deserved Censures yet no man is actually cut off till the Censure be applied And if they may deserve Censures then are they Personal Members under Church-Discipline CHAP. V. Concerning the fourth Proposition Propos 4. THese adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members without such further Qualifications as the Word of God requireth thereunto Our Brethren granting this Proposition yet in reference to the fifth Proposition are pleased by way of Prevention to state this Question viz. Whether there are or should be in the Church such persons as have publickly and personally Covenanted that are not in full Communion The Negative they prove Reas 1. Because publick and personal Covenanting is the formality of a Church-member such have all the constituent causes and so all the consequences of the Form and all the priviledges of that Subject which in this case is full Communion Hence the Form introduced and the Covenant personally owned doth necessarily imply all the priviledges belongingâ—th reunto Ans Every Publick and Personal Covenanting is not the Form of Church-membership The Covenant was oft renewed publickly owned or Entred into by such as were Members of the Church before as in Deut. 29. and other Scriptures doth appear And this is the
case of these in question who were in Covenant with God and his Church and had the Seal of Baptism set thereto before Genes 17.7 1 Cor. 12.13 and therefore this Owning of the Covenant is onely a manifestation of their continuance in it And hence this is not the Form of their Membership but a Duty of their Covenant and doth not in it self fit them for full Communion except withall they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God râ—quireth thereunto A Youth that hath the constâ—tuent causes of a Man Soul and Body with some Understanding and Reason is not thereby capable of all Priviledges of a man as To Marry Give good Assurances of Lands and the like An adult person received into the Church by personal Covenant is not fit for the Lords Supper meerly because he hath Covenanted for except he hath suitable qualifications he will Eat judgement to himself Reas 2. Because those that were admitted by personal Covenant in the Primitive Church continued in full Communion Acts 2.41 Ans There is not the same reason for they were admitted in adult age and also indued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost These being admitted in Infancy do onely by Owning the Covenant manifâ—st their continuance therein The Indians newly converted and holding forth so much Faith and Repentance as may admit them into the Church and Baptism might yet need further Preparation to the Lords Supper not having such eminent gifts Reas 3. Because this Doctrine presupposeth that what Knowledge Faith and Repentance is required in adult persons coming to Baptism is not sufficient to the Lords Supper Ans This Doctrine doth not suppose it for it speaketh onely of such adult persons as were Baptized in infancy not to be Baptized in adult age It supposeth onely that persons Baptized in infancy and continuing in the Covenant and visible Church may yet be unable to Examine themselves and discern the Lords Body And hence the Reasons which here follow touch not this case And it is well if some of them do not argue Against the Baptizing of Inâ—ants or That Infants Baptized may partake of the Lords Supper CHAP. VI. Concerning the fifth Proposition Propos 5. CHurch-members who were admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church their children are to be Baptized This Proposition say our Brethren doth stumble us most Their Reasons are Reas 1. Because there being three Expressions propounded this swerveth further then the other from the Scripture Ans Be it granted that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded these onely in conclusion were Assented unto But if our Brethren judge That they all swerved from the Scripture what matter is it which swerved most from it If this swerveth most they have the more advantage of Dispute against it But seeing they stumble so much at this I shall easily remove this Block out of their way Obj. First say they in the former Expressions it was required they should understand the Grounds of Religion here no more then the Doctrine of Faith So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law and so have no knowledge of Sin of the Duties of Holiness Righteousness Sabbaths c. Ans As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion both in the acceptation of Scripture and of Orthodox Divines Phil. 1.27 when the Apostle exhorts them to strive for the Faith of the Gospel might they let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law or any other Grounds of Religion 2 Tim. 4.7 when Paul saith He had kept the Faith did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law and other Grounds of Religion Jude ver 3. Contend for the Faith was not that Faith opposed to the fiâ—â—â—y Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law and therefore surely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Consent with the Assembly of Divines in England in The Doctrine of Faith and the Assembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declaration of their Faith and Order do they not mean by the word Faith all the Grounds of Religion excepting onely matters of Order But what need more Instances when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel I dare not be so uncharitable to think that such persons do not hold fast The Doctrine of the Moral Law and all The Grounds of Religion Surely the Synod intended it so Obj. 2. In the second Expression it was required that they should be Examined of their sense of their need of Christ and desires after him here only of their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith which the Devils may have Aâ—s But if such sense of their need of Christ and desires after him should not upon such Examination appear but this Assent to the Doctrine of Faith with all the other Qualifications Might not this suffice to shew their Continuance in the visible Church What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth it is not free but inforced and they want all the other Qualifications that these have Obj. 3. The former required that they should give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into here onely that they are not Scandalous in life The former viz. Offences comprehend Original Sin or any other committed against God or man Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lifâ— noteth onely Notorious sins and a course therein Ans That they stumble at this must needs arise from a very rigid Principle whereof this Treatise hath too many For who ever took up that of Original Sin as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that or for all such Words or Actions as are Offences to God or man A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alledged Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters for in many things we offend all and therefore pity and bear with one another and be not so rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence If this were not so what use were there of those Rules of Love 1 Cor. 13.7 Love beareth all things Gal. 6.2 Bear one anothers burthens Col. 3.13 Forbearing one another 2. It is evident Luke 17.1 2 3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals Woe to him that scandalizeth one of these little ones and Impenitency in any such Scandal deserveth the highest Censure but repented of ceaseth to be a Scandal or Offence Mat. 18. yea although such a Scandal should not be a notorious sin nor continued in but in one act So that Not to be scandalous in life is full as large
in the visible Church Clear up these two from the Word of God and the whole Controversie is issued To this end I shall premise three things which being proved by the Word of God will make my way plain and easie through all these Antisynodalia Propos 1 That however the Membership of the seed of the Faithful be conveyed to them by their Parents instrumentally yet it flows from and is grounded upon Gods Institution as the principal Efficient cause thereof who is pleased to extend the Grace of his Covenant not only to the Parents but also to their seed God enters into Covenant with them He is their God They are his People This is evident Gen. 17 7. I will establish my Covenant between Me and Thee and thy seed after thee to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee At eight dayes old they were to be Circumcised as a Token of the Covenant between God and them ver 11 12. Deut. 29 11 12. Their little ones stood before the Lord their God to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God to be established a people to himself What can be spoken more plainly and fully to this purpose Acts 2.39 The Promise is to your Children 1 Cor. 7.14 Your Children are holy And indeed what can be supposed in the Parents Faith Profession or Covenanting to bring in their seed but it dependeth wholly upon Gods Free-grace ordaining his Covenant so to be dispensed And hence it followeth That the Infant-seed are in their own persons actually Members of the Church being actually in this Covenant with God as His People and he Their God and having the Covenant in their flesh the Seal of it applied to their persons And hence they cannot be cut off from their interest in God and his Covenant-Priviledges but in such a way as he hath ordained which in Gospel-times is by Church-censures Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Propos 2 There is a twofold Dispensation of the Covenant of God in his visible Church 1. Outward and visible by which the Lord bestows upon his Church and all the Members thereof the outward Priviledges of the Covenant his Ordinances and Means of Grace as they become capable thereof and wherein he tenders unto them the Saving Benefits thereof with many Means to bring up their hearts to the embracing thereof This is evident they have all the Name and Title of Gods People His Children A Royal Priesthood Holy Nation Saints c. Gen. 6.2 Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 32.9 Isa 1.1 2. Psal 50.1 2. Mat. 15.26 And the Ordinances and Means of Grace are theirs Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 So in the New-Testament the whole Church of Corinth are called Saints and faithful in Christ The Seven Churches Rev. 1. are called Golden Candlesticks though there were corrupt Members in them And the Ministry of the Word and other Ordinances belong to the visible Church Ephes 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Whence it is evident That Officers are set in the Church for the edifying of the Body of Christ and for the healing and saving the Members of the visible Church 2. There is a more Inward Spiritual and Saving Dispensation of the Covenant to such as truly Believe and perform the Conditions of the Covenant whose hearts God hath circumcised according to the Promises of the Covenant Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 36. From this different Dispensation it is that the Lord though he requires of all to Fear the Lord their God to Walk in his wayes to Love him with all their hearts c. Deut. 10.12 13. and keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love God and walk with God in faith and obedience but reproveth the wicked for taking his Covenant into their mouthes Psal 50. rejects their Sacrifices Isa 1. 58. calleth them Vncircumcised Ethiopians c. in respect of any inward and saving Benefits of the Covenant yet still he owneth them as His People Saints in Covenant with him Psal 50.1 and followeth them with the Means of Grace till there be no remedy 2 Chron. 36. This is evident in all the story of the Church in the Old and New-Testament as will appear more afterward Propos 3 There is a different Rule and Reason of admitting Members into the visible Church and the continuation of them in it being regularly admitted In Admitting Members into the Church we justly look for such positive Qualifications as the Word of God requireth viz. A visible Profession of Faith and Repentance in adult persons and Foederal Holiness in Infants We well approve that Saying of Chamier quoted by our Brethren No man can disallow such diligence to prevent the profaning of holy things and lest such as Simon Magus should lie hid But to cast out such as are Regularly admitted we must have positive Impenitency in sin as a ground to count them as Heathens and Publicans Mat. 18. and that after due patience towards them for even an Heretick may have two Admonitions before rejection Tit. 3.10 or at least some notorious scandalous sin as some conceive from 1 Cor. 5. These things premised I shall proceed to consider the next thing in order which is our Brethrens Answer to the main Questionâ— viz. Who are the Subjects of Baptism To which their Answer iâ— this That visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized together with their next seed in minority are the proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism as to the receiving of it For the proof of this they referre to the places before alledged Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 39. Their large Discourse I pass by though some things might be matter of Dispute but I would decline all impertinencies and come to their Reason gathered out of those Scriptures which is this Those are proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism to whom Christ in the Gospel-institution hath appointed it But visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church are the persons being unbaptized to whom Christ in the Gospel-institution of Baptism hath appointed it Therefore visible Believers c. The greatest weight or stress of this Argument lieth upon that place Acts 2.38 39. and I see our Brethren put much confidence in it affirming That the minor is express Scripture and therefore though many are unwilling it should be true and will cavill against it it will be found true at the Day of Judgement c. Ans God forbid that in searching after the Truth we should Cavill at the Word of God but let us take heed of Adding to it or Taking from it But whether the Minor will prove true or not we need not stay till the Day of Judgement for the holy Scriptures the Judge of all Controversies will easily decide it and I will directly deny the Minor for none of those Scriptures or any other that I know of will prove That full communion with an instituted Church is requisite to the Subject of Baptism much less that
Abrahams seed as well as of himself ver 7 9 10. Deut. 29.10 11 12. The little ones stood to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God Ezek. 16.8 I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine This is the common language of the Scripture In the New Testament besides other places note that 1 Cor. 12.12 13. where the Apostle proves that the Church is one Body consisting of many Members some weak and of less honour c. By Baptism the Seal of the covenant we are all Baptized into one Body and so as that there might be no Schism in the Body But how shall the Body be one if some be Baptized into this Body as actual and personal Members some not actual nor personal some into a parental covenant some personal What a Schism might this make some saying I am not actually of the Body though Baptized with the same Baptism and there is but one Baptism others may say I am of the Body personally You are no actual Members of it It seemeth the Apostle knew not these Distinctions So Gal. 3.27 28. All are Baptized into Christ and are all one in Christ 2. I finde that the Scripture doth clearly own the Church-seed grown up to adult age to be in Covenant with God and so Members of the Church by virtue of Gods Covenant made with them in their Infancy and that before any personal Covenant as they call it See Deut. 5.2 3. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers but with us even us who are all of us here alive this day Now who were these but that generation numbred by Moses and Eleazar when all that were numbred at the first of twenty years old and upward were dead See Numb 26.63 64. with Deut. 1.3 So that multitudes of these now alive were in their infancy and minority when God made that Covenant with them in Horeb and yet it is expresly said God made that Covenant with them even with their own persons that was a Personal not a Parental Covenant as our Brethren phrase it And this is set out with a double Emphasis 1. Negatively Not with our fathers Why so was it not made with their fathers now dead Yes surely but not onely with them or not with us as wrapped up with or in our fathers 2. With us Affirmatively and again Even with us and a third time With us that are now alive in distinction from their fathers that were dead and all this before that second Covenant Deut. 29. for this is said of them before the Repetition of that Covenant at Horeb to provoke them to the obedience thereof Where then is this Parental Covenant distinguished from Personal so as to make two sorts or degrees of Members 3. I observe That when the Scripture calleth this Covenant The Covenant of their fathers or of the Lord God of their fathers it is never so styled to the diminution or abatement of any Blessing Priviledge or Favour that might come to their seed by it but rather for the advantage and greater good of the Children See Exod. 3.15 16. 6.3 4 5. Lev. 26.44 45. I will not abhor them c. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their Ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt So Deut. 4.31 So that in these and divers other Scriptures we see no such disadvantage to the seed by being under Parental Covenant as our Brethren call it who first bring down Gods Covenant to a Parental Covenant and then make a very slight matter of that also that it cannot capacitate their seed to Baptism Is not sufficient to establish their seed to be a people to God Will not reach beyond the minority of their seed and the like Object But it will be Objected That although these Distinctions be not so expresly found in Scripture-phrase yet the nature of the subject doth admit such Distinctions Ans 1. Some of them cannot consist with the nature of the subject as for a person to be a Member but not actually a person in Covenant baptized into the Body of Christ and yet not personally these are plain Contradictions in adjecto as we say To be A Member and yet No Member As for this of Parental and Personal Covenant so much used it maketh not two Covenants the Covenant is but one and that Gods Covenant as is said there is but a differing modus or manner of entring into it 2. As for the rest of Mediate and Immediate Members Perfect and Imperfect and the rest Suppose that in some sense the subject do admit them yet they can never bear up such Consequences as are built upon them for they are but distributions ex adjunctis and those common Adjuncts to many other Subjects which cannot make any essential difference As when we distinguish the Church into Visible and Invisible it is still but one and the same Church So Church-Covenant into Explicite and Implicite there is still but one sort of Churches or Covenants So the Church is either Incompleat without Officers or Compleat with her Officers yet still a true Church and not two sorts of Churches Such is this case if we put twenty such Distinctions upon Members from common Adjuncts they make no essential difference These things besides much more that might be said to me afford this Conclusion That in these Distinctions and the Consequences thereof there is no Scripture-Light but a Mist to darken the Free and Rich Grace of God shining out in his Covenant to the Faithful and their seed I return now to consider the Reasons of our Brethren to prove that Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their seed for Baptism Their first Reason is For so the Covenant should be intailed to a thousand generations Ans What our Brethrens Parental Covenant can do I know not but surely Gods Covenant is An everlasting Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to their seed viz. They keeping within the Covenant from generation to generation And if the Lord will intall his Covenant and the Means of Grace thereby to such as keep his Covenant to a thousand generations what hurt is in that Blessed be his Name for it Reas 2. Ishmael and Esau had the Parental Covenant but were not Established thereby Ans This was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant for so I must call it but from their sin that continued not in it By this Reason Personal Covenant by Profession of Faith and Repentance is as insufficient for such by their sin may not be established Reas 3. The immediate Parents Vnbelief breaks off the Covenant from their seed Rom. 11.20 21 22. Ans True such Unbelief whereby they obstinately rejected Christ Acts 13.45 46. Mat. 21.42 43. but this was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant to capacitate their seed to Baptism or Establish a People but from their rejecting of the Covenant in rejecting Christ that Seed in whom all
as that other Expression and doth include Satisfaction for Offences that are fallen into Obj. 4. In the former was said They should own the Covenant of their Parents here onely the Covenant which may extend to Grandfathers c. Ans I wonder how our Brethren could make to themselves such a Block as this is to stumble upon when-as the Doctrine of the Synod is so express to the contrary in the second Proposition which affirmeth That this right in the Covenant is conveyed onely by the next Parents 1 Cor. 7.14 If men have a lust to contend and raise Objections they might as well have objected against the former phrase The Covenant of their Parents for are not Grandfathers Parents also These things say our Brethren thus weighed may suffice to discover whether there be not just cause for us to deny our Consent to such kinde of Members as these Ans But these things weighed over again by the equal Ballance of the Sanctuary and right Reason I doubt not but the Judicious Reader will see how light they are and unworthy to sway the Judgements of such as our Brethren are But they adde as they had need other Reasons of their Deniall Reas 2. Because this crosseth the two former Propositions which make the proper Subjects of Baptism Confederate visible Believers and their seed whereas these though so qualified are not neither Parents nor Children visible Believers for the vilest persons may have these Rom. 2.18 10 19 21. yea they that commit the sin unto Death may have these Heb. 10.26 There are washed Swine 2 Pet. 2.20 c. Ans 1. These Parents are Confederate visible Believers as hath been proved They are in Covenant with God He is their God God accepteth them as His People His Children the Lord hath sealed to them the Righteousness of Faith Baptized them into Christ and they Own this God Submit to his Rules c. and therefore in Ecclesiastical account they are visible Believers 2. Here is a very palpable Fallacy in citing these Scriptures to prove the contrary The vilest persons say they may have these Indeed the Scriptures prove that some vile persons may have some one of these as Rom. 2. proveth that wicked men may have knowledge but these have knowledge and also Not scandalous in life c. and so may be said of the rest But which of these or any other doth prove That such persons as have all these Qualifications conjunctly are vile persons or not visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account or in Scripture account and not true Members of the visible Church It is true that such as these may fall away and become vile Heb. 10 26. but may not such as come into the Church by the fairest Profession of Faith prove so vile also and were they therefore no visible Believers before such a fall 3. These very Scriptures or most of them here alledged speak of such persons though so vile as is said who being adult children of the Church did yet continue Members of the visible Church and they and their seed partake of Priviledges and therefore such Scriptures cannot reach this case to disprove the Membership of these in the visible Church because they are not visible Believers these being farre better Members then those were and I wonder that our Brethren do not observe it or if they do why should they alledge such Scriptures in this case Object But their giving up of themselves and their children to God implies Faith 2 Cor. 8.5 Ans Our Brethren grant that it may imply Faith but in persons no better qualified it cannot imply it There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God Exod. 13.2 12. 22.29 Reply To say That in such persons no better qualified it cannot imply Faith and that without any Reason rendred is against the Rule of Love that hopeth all things to be hoped as this is confessed to be viz. that it may imply iâ— No doubt a person thus qualified in Knowledge and Conversation may give up himself to God in such a manner that the most discerning Church would receive him as a true visible Believer into full Communion regularly The Eunuch's Confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God was justly taken for true Faith To say There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God if it be not a Scoff it argueth a very slight thought of so solemn a Profession before God and his People for what Comparison is there between these two Reas 3. Where there is no Foederal Holiness there is no right to Baptism But where neither Parent is a Believer there is no Covenant-holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 where not onely one of the Parents must be in Covenant but a Believer that the children be foederally holy Neither is it rightly Objected That a Believer is opposed there to an Infidel for the children were not upon their ceasing to be Infidels Believers So that themselves were Believers or their children foederally holy They were Catechumeni and Competentes before Fideles Ans 1. Did the Primitive Churches receive any that were not visible Believers into the Churches Surely in the Apostles account The Church of God and Sanctified in Christ Jesus is all one 1 Cor. 1.2 So the Church of Ephesus and Colosse are called Saints and Faithfull in Christ Ephes 1 1. Col. 1 2. Why thâ—n is it said that the Parents must be not onely in Church-covenant but also Believers as if the one did not necessarily suppose and infer the other 2. That it is rightly said That in ceasing to be Infidels they were Believers in Ecclesiastical account is evident in that Infidels and Unbelievers are the same in Scripture-phrase and both opposed to Believers 2 Cor. 6.14 15. Be not unequally yoked with Vnbelievers that is with Infidels as appeareth ver 15. What part hath a Believer with an Infidel Now I appeal to our Brethren whether this Rule of the Apostle would allow the Parents in question described in the fifth Proposition to Marry with an Heathen Indian or like Infidel if not then in the Scripture account he is a Believer for otherwise he should not be unequally yoked with such an one 3. As for that Distinction of Catechumeni Competentes and Fideles the Scripture knoweth no such thing for Lydia and her house were Baptized together Acts 16.15 and the Jaylor and his house straightway That distinction came into the Church afterward and was applied to new Converts as well as to the Church-seed But our Brethren adde further That else or otherwise were your children unclean cannot be meant onely of Infidels for so we may make mad work of Scripture as Deut. 4.29 Jehovah is God and none else if any should say There may be another God to the Gentiles it would be a sad Exception So Rev. 2.15 Repent or I will come against thee shall another Church say It will not be so with us Ans That to be Vnclean
the Covenant of Abraham Did not the Lord require Faith and Holiness of the Posterity of Jacob as he did of the seed of Abraham and therefore this is nothing to hinder the continual succession of the Covenant of Abraham in the Gentile Churches Obj. 2. It will be said God promised that he would be a God to him and his seed in their generations for an everlasting Covenant Ans Is it that all the carnall seed of Abraham in all succeeding generations should have God to be their God Then the Jews are not yet broken off contrary to Rom. 11. This seed is 1. Onely such of the carnall seed with whom the Covenant was established by walking in the steps of Abrahams Faith 2. His spirituall seed who are onely meant in that Everlasting covenant Reply 1. It is granted that the Outward Dispensation of the Covenant is not Absolute but Conditionall in respect of the succession thereof The Lord is ever mindful of his Covenant and that everlastingly till his People break his Covenant he never casts them out But there are many transgressions against the Covenant that do not break off a People from the visible Covenant and the Priviledges thereof and therefore so long as the Lord doth not cast them out of the visible Church wherein his patience is very long the Priviledges thereof continue to their succeeding generations everlastingly even to such as are here called the Carnall seed 2. It doth not savour well that our Brethren so frequently call the Church-seed A Carnall seed We know whose Phrase it is and to what it tendeth even To deny Baptism to them The Scripture calls them The holy Seed An holy Nation Royall Priesthood c. Your children are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 God never enters into covenant with any as a Carnall seed but as anâ—holy People to the Lord. 3. What difference is there between the Carnall seed walking in the Faith of Abraham and his Spirituall seed If the Everlasting Covenant belong onely to such then the Priviledges of the Covenant belong not to any Church-member till he come up to Walk in the Faith of Abraham which is the Tenent of we know whom Reas 7. It is irregular to receive persons with no better Qualifications into Covenant we mean Ignorant unbelieving and impenitent persons into Publick and Personal Covenant Church-covenaâ—ters must be visible Saints Psal 50.5 16. Faith Repentance and Obedience are required to Covenant with God It is a palpable untruth for an Vnbeliever to engage himself to keep the Lords Covenant whereof Faith is the condition Joh. 3.16 Ans 1. It is a great Mistake to think these in question are to be received into the Covenant when they come to own their Baptismal Covenant publickly Our Brethren confess they are in Covenant Acts 2. which is Sealed up to themby Baptism and that in their own persons as was before proved from Deut. 5.2 3. 29.10 11 12. This Publick Owning of the Covenant is but the manifestation of their continuance in it or a renewing of it 2. To censure these for Ignorant persons that understand the Doctrine of Faith which contains all the Grounds of Religion as is before proved and for Impenitent sinners and Vnbelievers whom God hath received owned as His children and Believers 2 Cor. 6.14 15. who live without Scandall which implieth regular Satisfaction for offences who give up themselves to God Submit to his Government to lay all this upon them without Proof is farre from the Rule of Charity Surely they are better Saints then those mentioned by our Brethren Psa 50.5 16. Neither do these visibly hate instruction in the sense there spoken of vers 17. for they are charged to consent with Thieves to partake with Adulterers to give their mouthes to evill c. which cannot be said of these 3. What though Faith Repentance and Obedience and that in truth be required of all Covenanters with God doth it follow that such as being in Church-covenant want these things or do not so clearly and sully hold forth these by a visible Profession that all such have no right to the outward Priviledges This indeed is the manner of their Reasoning all along but the inconsequence thereof who doth not see that is acquainted with the Scripture story Reas 8. That Practice that exposeth the Blood of Christ to contempt Baptism to profanation the Church to pollution c. is not to be admitted But the Baptizing of the children of such as are not visible Believers doth all this Therefore it is not to be admitted Ans 1. I might grant the Argument It doth not conclude against these whom God hath received as holy as visible Believers Baptized into Christ as hath been oft proved from 1 Cor. 1.2 with chap. 7.14 12.13 2 Cor. 6.14 15. 2. By this Reason when Members received by Profession of Faith and Repentance in adult age do decline and appear to have as little Faith as these are supposed to have though under no censure such must not have their childrne Baptized or else all those consequences will follow This may suffice to Answer the Reason itself The Proofs I shall touch afterward Reas 9. Because these adult children if they were not Baptized themselves might not be Baptized in this estate and therefore cannot intitle their seed unto it A man must stand possessed of a right before he can make it over to another Acts a non habente potestatem are void in Law Ans This is a strange kinde of Reasoning By supposing that a man hath not that thing which indeed he hath and therefore he cannot convey that which he hath Let me take away a man's Evidences and Possession of his Lands and it is true he cannot make a good Conveyance but may he not then convey what he hath Evidences and Possession of There are some Members in Churches who suppose they were not admitted would not now be admitted doth it therefore follow that their children may not be Baptized If acts of such as have no right and power themselves are void then acts of such as have a right and power are valid Now these are Church-members and Baptized and therefore their conveyance of Baptism is valid by this Argument And yet it would be hard for our Brethren to prove that these being Church-members so qualified might not be Baptized if they had not been Baptized Reas 10. Because there is but one way of Entrance into the Church for all sorts of persons which way is not here mentioned and this way is Christ Joh. 10.7 But this Proposition holdeth forth no personall Entrance by Christ if they be gotten in some other way they are Thieves and Robbers The danger is seen in him that had not on the Wedding-garment the Righteousness of Christ which being so pernicious how can the Church be blameless in bringing them in this way Ans Let the interpretation of Joh. 10. be granted at present I Answer That these children came into the Church by
So Acts 2.38 39. The Promise is to you and your children 2. Faith is the Condition of the Covenant yet the outward Seal had reference to the outward Covenant it self for Lo and other Believers could not partake of Circumcision but by entring into that visible Covenant with Abraham And our Brethren afterward do grant That the Church-covenant is the next ground of the dispensation of the Seals Now they that have the next ground are supposed to have the more remote Ans 2. More particularly they say the Covenant is not the main ground of Baptism For 1. though they had Abraham for their father yet John 's Baptism takes away that Plea Mat. 3.8 9. and calls for Repentance Reply John took away their vain confidence in Abraham's Covenant for Righteousness and Life as the Prophets also frequently did Isa 1. 58. Jer. 7. Mic. 6. But he took not away the outward Priviledges of Abraham's Covenant as Circumcision Sacrifices c. 2. John indeed calls for Repentance in a people so corrupt to fit them for a more Gospel-dispensation to make them a People prepared for the Lord. But that is not the case of these in the fifth Proposition who are in the Gospel covenant and have the Seal of Baptism 2. We must distinguish say they between the Covenant of Grace and the Church-covenant which differ very much for the Covenant of Grace belongeth onely to the Elect and true Believers which the Church cannot infallibly judge who they are But the Church-covenant which is the next ground of the dispensation of the Sealâ— requireth mutuall consent of them that are admitted into communion to walk with God according to the Gospel The Covenant of Grace is made to the children in the Parents but is established onely by the restipulation of Faith and Repentance Gen. 17.7 9. Rom. 11.20 Thou standest by Faith Reply 1. I cannot see how these things can consist one with another For if the Covenant of Grace belongeth onely to the Elect and true Believers and this Covenant of Grace be made with the childe in the Parents then the childe and Parents must be Elect and true Believers which will not be granted Again if the difference of the Church-covenant stands in this That it requrreth mutuall consent to walk with God how shall Infants partake of the Church-covenant and Baptism whereof it is the next ground 2. This Distinction as here laid down doth not prove the thing it was brought for but rather yield the same For 1. It is yielded that the Church-covenant is the next ground of Baptism and that which is the next ground and immediate is the chief for it supposeth the remote and the remote grounds without the next could not give right to Baptism and therefore this is the chief ground Besides when it is said that the Covenant of Grace is made to the childe in the Parents then still the Covenant even of Grace also is the ground of Baptism But say they the establishment is upon the restipulation of Faith Thou standest by Faith Rom. 11.20 Be it so in respect of the Covenant of Grace and the saving Benefits thereof yet the visible Covenant and Dispensation of the Ordinances and Means of Grace remains to such in the Covenant as do continue in the visible Profession thereof as hath been oft proved That Faith by which the Gentile-Churches stand Rom. 11.20 is such a Faith as is opposed to that Unbelief for which the Jews were broken off but they were not broken off for want of holding forth positive Saving Faith to the judgement of Charity but for positive Unbelief whereby they obstinately rejected Christ Rom. 10.21 They were a disobedient and gainsaying people Acts 13.45 The Apostle turned from them to the Gentiles because they contradicted and blasphemed Mat. 21.42 43. The Kingdome of God was taken from them because they rejected Christ the Corner stone See also Acts 18.5 6. 19.8 9. And therefore so long as the Gentile Churches do profess Jesus Christ and his Gospel and Ordinances they may stand in the visible Covenant through the patience of God though they or many of their Members do not hold out such a Profession of Saving Faith visibly to the judgement of Charity otherwiser we must Unchurch many such Societies of Christians whom the Lord hath not Unchurched but continueth to them the Means and Ordinances of Grace 3. I deny that there is such a difference between the Church-covenant and that of Grace for as was said in the second Proposition premised Chap. 2. there is indeed a differing dispensation of the Covenant of Grace in the Church viz. Outwardly in the Priviledges Ordinances and Means of Grace to the whole visible Church or Inwardly in the Saving Benefits thereof to true Believers Now that the Dispensation of the Covenant of God to the whole visible Church is the Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace is proved 1. Because God giveth himself to be the God of all the visible Church Gen. 17. I will be thy God and he avoucheth them to be His People and they avouch him to be Their God Deut. 26.17 18. Now this is the first and chief Benefit of the Covenant of Grace and containeth all the rest as Mr. Cotton noteth upon that Covenant 2. Because the Means of Grace and Life and the offer of Christ and Grace is given to all in the visible Church Rom. 3.1 2 3. 9.4 3. Because all in Church-covenant stand bound thereby to Believe Repent and perform the conditions of the Covenant of Grace and this our Brethren confess that Church-covenant requires they should walk with God according to the Gospel which is the Covenant of Grace I have the more insisted on this Passage because the right understanding hereof is of much use to the main Question in debate That these in the fifth Proposition are still in Covenant the Synod proveth Because they were once in Covenant and never cut off from it Ans To this our Brethren Answer The Lord himself discovenants them Mat. 3. Joh. 8.39 40 41 42. where the Lord takes away their Plea of the Covenant and tells them they have the Devil for their Father And that without any act of Church-discipline c. They may reject the counsel of God against themselves as the Pharisees Luke 7. They may be Felones de se as Mr. Cotton speaks c. There are other grounds of breaking off the Covenant besides notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein as Not standing by Faith Not bringing forth fâ—uit Mat. 3.10 Not doing Righteousness 1 Joh. 3.10 Reply I have many things to Reply here 1. Did the Lord himself discovenant all those out of his visible Church spoken of Mâ—â— 3 Joh. 8 Were their seed thereby cut off from Circuâ—cision Were they excluded from the Sacrifices and Temple-worship Who can believe this when we see the Lord Jesus so oft communicated with them in the Worship of God when he calleth them still The lost sheep of
the house of Israeâ— yea the children to whom Bread did belong Mat. 15.24 26. These things were spoken of the Jews in general whereof those Mat. 3. Joh. 8. were a part They were indeed of the Devil not of God in respect of the inward state and saving good of the Covenant yet still in the outward Covenant and under the Means of Grace 2. If those Maâ— 3. Joâ— 8. had been discovenanted of God doth it follow that these in question are so Are these A generation of Vipers Lyars Murtherers c that live without Scandall Submit to the Government of Christ c If the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptized of John do these so that being Bâ—ptized themselves desire it also for their Seed and that in such in way by Owning Gods Covenant Giving up themselves to God Submitting themselves to Discipline c If Mr. Cotton did count such as Ishmael and Esau Self-murtherers doth it follow that these are such that take hold of the Covenant and that in some measure of truth for ought is yet proved to the contrary 3. I must not pass over this Rigid and Dangerous Principle without further Examination The Position of our Brethren is That God himself doth discovenant or cast out of his visible Church such as bring not forth good fruit Mat. 3. that commit sin are Lyars c. Joh. 8. and that without any act of Church-censure Against this I argue 1. That these were not discovenanted of GOd I proved before And it doth appear That the Providence of God continued them under Church-priviledges and Ordinances at least till Gospel-Churches were erected after the Ascension of Christ 2. If the Lord Jesus hath ordained and commanded Church-discipline for the saving of Offenders and the Purging of his Church then he doth not discovenant such without Church-censures But so it is Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5. Therefore he doth it not himself without them The reason of the Consequence is Because if God himself did discovenant them Church-censures were useless and vain To what end should the Church cut off one that is already a Non-member what have they to do with such as are without why should Corinth be blamed for suffering that Leaven if God himself had cast it out 3. This supposed Discovenanting by God himself frustrates the great and chief End of Church discipline viz. To heal and save the Sinner for the Church having now no power over them they must perish being without the Means of their Recovery except God restore them immediately at least they are deprived of that special Means appointed and blessed of God to that end 4. What confusion would this bring into the Church For how shall the Church know when God hath discovenanted this or that man whether so soon as he hath committed such sins or how long Gods patience will bear with him And how shall the Church prove against any such That God hath indeed discovenanted him These things and much more that might be said may put our Brethren to finde some other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1 Joh. 3.10 and such like Scriptures Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either child on of the Covenant or strangers from it Eph. 2.12 Holy or unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 within the Church or without 1 Cor. 5.12 such as have God for their God or without God in the world Eph. 2.12 But he that considereth the terms of the Proposition will not affirm the latter and the former being granted inferreth their right to Baptism Ans The Assumption is denied because the children in question discovenant themselves not keeping the conditions of the Covenant Not walking with God Not loving God c. Deut. 7.9 as they that forsake the Covenant of their fathers Deut. 29.25 And what do these that come not up to the conditions of it God may cast off for sins of Omission 1 Sam. 15. so for not believing in God Reply This being the very Hinge whereupon chiefly this Question doth turn viz. Whether and how these Church-members are cut off from their Membership in the visible Church I desire the Reader to observe well the Answer of our Brethren and their Reasons thereof Sometime they say God Discovenanteth them which hath been examined Sometime that They Discovenant themselve which also hath been spoken to before To this Refuge they now again betake themselves Their Reason here alledged I shall consider which standeth thus Church-members which do not come up to the conditions of the Covenant viz. To walk with God Love God keep his Commandments Believe in God c. do Discovenant themselves But thâ—se Church-members described in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God Love God c. Therefore they do Discovenant themselves The Proposition they would prove from Gen. 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psa 105.8 Deut. 29.25 To this I answer 1. By denying the Proposition As for the Proofs Genes 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psaâ— 105. These Scriptures prove it is the duty of such as enter into Covenant with God to Walk with God To be upright To love God c. and that God performs to such the Saving Benefits of the Covenant but they do not prove that simply by the neglect of thâ—se duties especially without Impenitence added they do actually Dâ—â—covenant themselves out of the visible Church and from the Priviledges thereof and the Means of Grace therein The gross neglect of the duties of the Covenant persisted in obstinately and impenitently may deserve Censures but that the want of such graces and duties of the Covenant doth actually cut off such from the visible Church is an Assertion never heard of in the Book of God nor I think in any the best Reformed Church to this day Surely Ishmael and Esau did not Walk with God Love God Believe in God in our Brethrens sense yet they continued in the Church till for their manifest Profaneness the one was cast out by Gods appointment and the other rejected Heb. 12.17 When Deut. 7.9 Moses said that The Lord keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him c. were there not multitudes in Israel that came not up to these duties of the Covenant in our Brethrens sense that yet were Gods Holy People Royall Nation enjoying all Church-priviledges and so all along through the story of all the Scriptures Deut. 29.25 renders indeed the cause of the great Plagues upon Israel to be their forsaking the Covenant But what was that forsaking of the Covenant was it their not coming up to these terms of it to Walk with God Love God Believe in God with a visible saving Faith Nothing less but because they went and served other gods and worshipped them ver 26. As for the case of Saul 1 Sam. 15. whom the Lord rejected from being King for so gross a disobedience to an express and particular Command yet we reade not that he was cast out of the visible Church Nor doth it
follow that because God may justly cut off a man from the Church for not believing or Sins of Omission that therefore he doth so or that therefore a Church-member by Sins of Omission doth actually cut off himself from the visible Church Surely these are worse then farre-fetched and uncertain Consequences from the Old Testament 2. For the Assumption of this Argument They say but without Proof That these Parents in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God c. according to the conditions of the Covenant I answer These do outwardly and visibly at least so Walk with God Love Him and keep His Commandments as the Rule of God doth account A keeping of the visible Covenant These Profess the Faith are not scandalous in life give up themselves to God submit to his Rules and government and were not such as these all along in the Scripture accepted as the People of God in the visible Covenant Deut. 5. when the people professed to Obey Moses in all things God saw they wanted an heart to fear him and keep his commandments yet he entred into Covenant with them How oft are the Kings of Judah that observed the Ordinances of Worship said to do that which was right in the sight of the Lord and to walk in his wayes though they wanted that upright walking with God and love of God which was required See 2 Chron. 11.17 2 Kings 11.2 14.3 15.3 34. And Not to walk in the wayes of the Lord is charged upon them when they walked after Baalim In the wayes of Jeroboam and the like To conclude I would demand of our Brethren that hold this way of Self-Excommunication Whether any Member doth Excommunicate himself by any act that is not Excommunicable or matter of Excommunication by the Rule of Church-discipline If so let us have a Rule for it if not surely these in the fifth Proposition do not Excommunicate themselves for no Rule of Christ would allow the Church to cast them out Ans 2. The children in question say they are in a state of Neutrality at present and such Christ accounts to be against him Mat. 12.30 They are neither hot nor cold Rev. 3. Reply Mat. 12.30 speaketh not of such as these for these are for Christ that Profess the Faith of Christ and Submit to his government That Saying of Christ Mark 9.40 suits better with these He that is not against us is for us As for Rev. 3. Christ calls that Luke-warm Church A golden Candlestick holds their Stars in his Right hand offers to come in c. So that Christ is not so quick in discovenanting luke-warm ones as our Brethren seem to be Arg. 3. From the evil consequences of the contrary Opinion as 1. To deny the Proposition would be to straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation and to make the Church in the New Testament times in a worse case relating to their children successively then were the Jews of old Ans 1. This doth not straiten the Gospel-dispensation seeing it is granted to be extended to all Nations and to both Sexes which was not of old Reply This indeed the Anabaptists answer but it doth not reach the case For such inlargement of the grace of God in Gospel-times would argue rather that it should be enlarged in this Point also and not therefore straitned here because enlarged in other respects Were it Objected to a Father That he straitned his wonted favours to his children in putting them out of the Family and he should answer Not so for I have taken in many adopted children would this answer satisfie Or should he say Not so for though I kept my Family with Pulse before I now give them much better fare would not any man say So much is the greater wrong to your children both to put them out of the Family and deprive them of their share in the better fare allowed to the Family Just so is the case here Ans 2. This doth no more straiten the grace of the Covenant then the keeping of Baptized especially covenanting Parents from the Lords Supper seeing the circumcised Jews were not debarred from the passover Reply The circumcised Jews did not partake of the Passover without suitable legal qualifications viz. A state of legal purity and fitness to eat it to the Lord and therefore they were to instruct their children in the meaning of that Service Exod. 12.25 26 27. In like manner we debarre none from the Lords Supper but for want of Gospel qualifications Ans 3. Gospel-times are in many respects Times of Reformation Heb. 9.10 and therefore to build so much upon the largeness of Jewish practices is a great sin seeing it is a stretching of the narrow way that leads to life to be as wide as the broad way that leads most to destruction Reply 1. We build not upon Jewish practices Ceremonial wherein that Reformation Heb. 9.10 did consist as is plain in the Text but upon the Gospel-covenant with Abraham and that in the substantials of it viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations exemplified in the seed of Abraham 2. It is a strange speech to say that This is a stretching of the narrow way of life to be as broad c. Surely Gods enlargement of the Covenant to the Posterity of Abraham in their generations was an act of Gods grace tending to bring the more to life by giving to them the means of grace and life and therefore was not the broad way to dâ—struction The straitness of the way to life doth not stand in restraining the means of grace to a few for why then should the Lord enlarge the Gospel to all Nations now more then of old 2d Consequence To deny the Proposition is to render the children of the Jews when they shall be converted in a worse condition then they were under the Legal-dispensation contrary to Jer. 30.20 Ezek. 37.25 26. Ans This is denied any more then that they should be in a worse state if they shall not have an High-Priest and Temple-worship when they shall have in Christ a thousand-fold more So here is like reason in respect of His abundant grace Reply The loss of Shadows is nothing seeing they shall have the Substance in Christ but this being an essential Branch of Gods Covenant with Abraham which is the Gospel-covenant it cannot be taken away without reall loss and the more abundant grace the greater is the loss as was said before Ans 2. This doth no more put them into a worser state then transmitting the Covenant now onely to the next seed which before was transmitted to remote Posterity Reply The Covenant was all along transmitted by the next Parents to their seed in the Old Testament For so long as they were not cast off by the Lord he accounted every generation to be His People even in their worst times So that the transmitting of the Covenant and Church-priviledges was still by
the next Parents and when the Parents were broken off their seed were broken off also Rom. 11.20 So that there is no such difference Ans 3. To the Scriptures say they that in Jer. 30. speaketh of their return from Babylon Ezek. 37. speaketh of their Calling when they shall be all righteous and nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant Isa 60.21 Joel 3.17 c. Reply If Jer. 30. hath any reference to their return from Babylon yet it appeareth to look further even to the latter times For Ver. 9. it speaketh of David their King whom God will raise up to them and v. 24. of the latter dayes and Chap. 31.1 At the same time I will be the God of all the families of Israel As for those places Isa 60.21 Joel 3. that say They shall be all righteous no stranger shall pass through them so that nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant The Covenant then shall be continued according to the Promise of God to Abrahams seed in their generations which is enough to the scope of this Argument Besides this continuance of the Covenant shall be by visible Faith and Righteousness not alwayes by reall Faith for to think there shall be no Sin no Hypocrites then is groundless There is none righteous that sinneth not is the general state of all men in this world till we come to Heaven And it is evident Ezek 37.25 Zech. 10.7 9. that their seed are part of that righteous Nation 3d Consequence The deniall of the Proposition denieth the initiatory Seal to such as are regularly in the Church and Covenant to whom the Mosaicall dispensation nay the first Institution in the Covenant of Abraham appointed it to be applied Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. Ans This is a begging of the Question The children in question do not stand regularly under the Church-covenant the contrary is plain Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 Ezek. 34.7 9. Reply The Question is not begged but the ground of the Argument is proved Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. to which no answer is returned 2. Seeing these Scriptures Jer. 9. Rom. 2. Ezek. 44. and such like are so oft alledged and here with so much confidence in the present case I shall Examine them more distinctly The Question is Whether children received into the Church and Baptized in Infancy and being grown up do understand the Doctrine of Faith publickly Profess their Assent thereto are not scandalous in life solemnly own the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves to God and submit to the government of Christ in the Church Whether I say such do not stand regularly in the Church and Whether the Scriptures named do plainly prove the contrary Now for the first Jer. 9.26 where the Lord threatneth to punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised for all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart To this I answer 1. That this punishment was not Discovenanting them but the Sword 2. But suppose Discovenanting be included in the other what were the causes thereof by which they were proved to be uncircumcised in heart and therefore so to be punished They were all Aduâ—erers ver 2. Lyars ver 3. Slanderers ver 4. Deceivers ver 5. yea they walked after Baal ver 14. And how then doth this place plainly prove that the persons described in the Proposition stand not regularly in the Church As for Rom. 2.28 so oft alledged however it may have some reference to the Doctrine of Justification before spoken to yet it seems the particular occasion and scope of that discourse of the Jew and Gentile is to prove that God distributeth rewards and punishments without respect of persons ver 9 10 11 and to take off the Iews confidence in Legal-priviledges in that respect ver 13 17 18 19 20. but however it cannot be spoken with any reference to Church-membership Now in respect of Gods distribution of rewards and punishments Circumcision profited if they kept the Law else not and in this respect the Vncircumcision that kept the Law was counted Circumcision and so in this respect He is not a Jew that is one outwardly c. But to infer that every lew that was so outwardly onely wanting the inward circumcision of the heart was there by discovenanted out of the visible Church this were a strange Doctrine to Scripture-ears To clear this further 1. In what respect the circumcision is made uncircumcision by breaking the Law in the same respect the uncircumcision is counted for circumcision in them that kept the Law but this was never so accounted in respect of Church-membership and Priviledges witness the case of the Centurion Cornelius and his devout Souldiers and others and therefore not so in the former 2. He speaketh of the inward circumcision as having its praise of God not of men but we know the outward Circumcision is approved of the Church though without the inward in respect of Church-standing and Priviledges and that according to Gods Rules 3. The Apostle fully cleareth his meaning Chap. 3.1 2 3. affirming That the advantage of the Jew and profit of circumcision was much every way and that in the committing the Oracles of God to them which was a Church-priviledge Lastly Concerning this place let it be noted what were the evidences of uncircumcised hearts there alledged viz. Stealing Adultery Sacriledge c. ver 21 22. which how well it suits to prove plainly That these in question are not regularly in the Church let every one judge Concerning Ezek. 44.7 9. This place speaketh of bringing in the heathen strangers that were amongst the children of Israel as sâ—evident in that it is called an Abomination so to do but to bring in an Israelite circumcised in flesh not in heart was never counted an Abomination Again he speaketh of strangers uncircumcised in heart and flesh which these children are not 2. Put case this place may by allusion 〈◊〉 applied to receiving of Members into the visible Church we agree that none visibly unholy should be received into the Church But our Question is of such as being holy were regularly received into the Church and do not deserve to be cast out to which case this place speaks nothing Thus we see how little footing there is for our Brethrens Tenent in these or any other Scriptures they have alledged as Jer. 2.21 Amos 9.7 Mat. 3. Ioh. 8. 15. which have been considered in their place And I am the more perswaded that this Way of our Brethren is not the Way of God being built upon so manifold mistaken and misapplied Scriptures whereof many of them being Old Testament Proofs it appears our Brethren make use not onely of far-fetched Consequences but of plain Inconsequences from the Old Testament 4th Consequence That to deny the Proposition is to break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant Gen 17 9 10 14. Ans 1. To refuse to Baptize one that is not regularly in Covenant is
not to break it 2. Then it is a breach like the great Sea to deny Communion in the Lords Supper to those that have laid hold upon the Covenant and given up themselves to God by solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance which is now strongly pleaded for Reply 1. Whether these be not regularly in the Covenant let the Reader judge by what is said for it and by the Scriptures alledged against it 2. To deny Communion in the Lords Supper to such is not pleaded for much less strongly for Solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance is not in the Proposition All that is affirmed is That the Church-seed manifesting their continuance in the Covenant by such qualifications if they shall still be wanting in ability to Examine themselves and discern the Lords body may be delayed till they give satisfaction therein 3. Our Brethren in this case deal very hardly and partially with us whil'st so oft they compare these with the most scandalous persons reproved in Scripture and with them Discovenanted as they pretend and yet at other times they lay it deeply to our charge that we do not Receive them to the Lords Table upon such terms as are denied by them to be sufficient to continue them in the visible Church Arg. 4. These Parents are confederate visible Believers in some degree and therefore their children are to be Baptized Ans The Parents in question are not such if we speak of true visible Faith which is required Rom. 14.1 Mat. 12.20 Reply Be it granted that we speak of true Faith visibly in some degree yet Rom. 14.1 speaks rather of a perswasion of the lawfulness of eating meats unclean by the Law as ver 2. sheweth That these are visible Believers in some degree is thus proved Reas 1. Charity may observe sundry things for it but nothing evident against it Ans This is said gratis and denied by us Reply If our Brethrens Charity could observe nothing for it they might then shew something evident against it without which the Reason is not answered for in discovenanting of regular Church-members there ought to be such things evident against them as deserve Church-censures Mat. 18.15 16 17. Reas 2. Children of the faithful qualified but as the persons in question are said to be Faithful Tit. 1.6 Ans Every one not accused of Riot to be concluded to be of the Faith is not the Apostles intent nor Orthodox Faithfulness is taken for Fidelity which may be in Morall men Reply Nor do the Synod so conclude There is much more in the Text then Not given to Riot viz. 1. Children of godly Parents 2. Educated in the Faith 3. Not scandalous or Not accused of Riot 4. Not unruly but subject to Government All which do suit well with the Proposition And this sense of the word is given by Orthodox Interpreters Marlorat Expounds the word Faithfull of such as are educated in the sound Doctrine of Piety and in the fear of God Taylor by Faithfull Children understandeth such as being instructed in the Faith are at least in external Conversation answerable to the Profession of the Faith they make And Reason would incline us to conceive that the Apostle would require in the children of Church-Officers something of Piety as well as of Morality Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is frequently and commonly used in the New Testament in the Synods sense viz. for Christian Believers Acts 10.45 2 Cor. 6.15 Eph 1.1 1 Tim. 6.2 4.3 10 12. 5.16 Reas 3. Children of the Covenant have frequently beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years as Scripture-examples and Experience sheweth Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or in Ecclesiasticall reputation visible Believers Ans It is extraordinary to have grace in Infancy and therefore no Rule for ordinary Church-proceedings Reply 1. The Synod speaketh not of Infancy but of younger years and that is not so extraordinary as is objected witness the hopeful signs of grace in many that die in minority and the Confessions of divers that hold forth seeds of grace sown in their younget years 2. We build not ordinary Church-proceedings immediately upon this ground yet these being Church-members we may build Church-charity upon this ground that seeing some Church-members of this sort have Faith in reality all of this sort may be so reputed in Church-charity for so we judge of adult professors in the Church we know some have grace in reality and therefore we judge so of all that sort till the contrary appear though in the general we know Many are called Few chosen And what other ground have we of Church-proceedings with Church-members but Church-charity Reas 4. These are regularly in the Church and therefore visible Saints in the account of Scripture which is the account of Truth 1 Cor. 1.2 14.33 Ans 1. The children in question are not regularly in the Church for then the Parents being dead the children surviving should make a Church enjoy Ordinances chuse Officers which is denied and it is incredible to deny them that power when their Parents are alive and they will not be long kept from putting it forth though they may for a while Reply 1. If we may thus argue by putting cases that for ought appeareth never yet hapned in the world viz. That all the Members in a Church should be so taken away that none remain but such as these children By like reason one may prove that women and children are not regularly in the Church for if all the men die they should make a Church chuse Officer◠c. which will be denied Yea thus I will prove That this or that man is not regularly in the Church for if all men die but one or two they cannot make a Church c. 2. Were the Rules of Christ observed such a case could not fall out For as Mr. Cotton answereth the Anabaptist in a case not unlike this Let there be a due watchfulness of the Church over these children to fit them for the Lords Table and either the Lord in the faithfulness of his Covenan◠will sanctifie their hearts to prepare them for it or else he will leave them to discover their hypocrisie and profaneness in the sight of all to prevent the pollution of his Table and the corruption of Discipline Grounds and Ends of Baptism pag. 161 163. And had we thus done through the Blessing of Christ which he hath promised upon his Ordinances such cases could not fall out neither had there been so much need or use of this fifth Proposition that is now so great a matter of Dispute and I fear this Opposition of the Dissenters will increase our Difficulties Neither do I see so much danger of these not being kept from putting forth a power to chuse Officers c. if they were trained up under Church-discipline as in our Brethrens Way who acknowledge them Church-members and cannot rid their hands regularly of
them without acts of Church-discipline which yet they deny to belong to their persons immediately 3. If such a case should fall out it is not impossible not absurd to say That a people retaining the Essentials of a true Church may fall into such a degeneracy or decay as to be unfit for Ordinances or to thuse Officers untill they be further prepared by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them Ans 2. To the Scriptures 1 Cor. 1.2 14.33 they say That by a Church of Saints primarily the better part of Saints are understood the rest Synecdochically though not so in truth yet so called Reply If all be so called though some be not so in truth then the Argument is yielded That in Scripture Ecclesiastical account all Church-members are Saints and who shall tell us which are so in truth and which not till impenitency in sin gives us cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans Reas 5. Being in the Covenant and Baptized they have faith given them indefinitely in the Promise and sealed to them in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continueth valid and is a valid Testimony for them whil'st they do not reject it Ans The Promise is indefinite not universal whence the Argument must be Some circumcised or baptized ones are Believers But hese in question are circumcised or baptized ones Therefore c. or thus The Roman Catholicks are baptized Therefore c. Reply 1. I see our Brethren can make a false Syllogism to decline the force of an Argument that would rightly conclude Thus If some children being under that indefinite Promise be Believers for God is true of his Promise then all such children are not to be rejected as unbelievers as our Brethren would But some baptized ones being under that indefinite Promise are Believers Therefore Now who can say who are such and who are not till they reject the grace of the Promise and by impenitency in sin are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans For though the Promise of Heart-circumcision being but indefinite is effectually performed to some onely not to all yet they are all alike to the Church till the difference doth some way openly appear 2 To apply this to the Roman Catholicks savours not of ingenuity for are they the seed of Confederate visible Believers of whom our Dispute is or are they Regularly Baptized or do they shew nothing to the contrary that profess Popery Ans 2. It is not an indefinite Promise there because it is certainly made good to such as return with their Souls ver 1 2. Reply This doth not hinder the indefiniteness of the Promise but confirmeth it And their effectual return to God is the fruit of that Promise and indefinite also Ans 3. An indefinite Promise doth not capacitate all children to receive the Seals Reply Neither is so much affirmed but this with the other Considerations doth render them visible Believers in Ecclesiasticall reputation which is the scope of this fourth Argument Arg. 5. The deniall of Baptism to these hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy because it denieth the children of the Church to have any part in the Lord Josh 22.24 25 26. Ans The Brethren deny the Consequence affirming That thirty or fourty years experience in New-England through the mercy of God sheweth the contrary Reply This is a bare deniall without answering the Reason from Josh 22. Surely that religious generation had a deeper sense of that danger and more solicitous care to prevent it then they have 2. When our Brethren in their Preface To the Generall Court take notice of the Many Great and Prevailing Corruptions of Youth that need Reformation by Church-discipline this might abate our glorying of contrary Experience for thirty or fourty years in respect of the danger of Irreligion and Apostacy in the seed of the Church But if this be so it seemeth our Brethren do think that there are many more then A few Names in N. England that hold fast the Name of Christ and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel and do not own so great an Apostacy of Elders and People as the Author of the Preface presents to the World Arg. 6. The persons in question are personall immediate and yet-continuing Members of the Church and therefore their children are to be Baptized Our Brethren here only speak to the first Branch concerning their personal membership having spoken to the third Branch before But the second Branch about their immediate membership they leave untouch'd Ans If the meaning be that the Promise to their believing Parents reacheth them and that they are wrapped up together with them the Assertion is granted as far as concerneth the seed of Confederating Believers in their minority But if the meaning be that they are Members by their own Personall act then it is denied Reply This distinction of Members wrapped up in their Parents and Members by their own Personall act is a Riddle that no Scripture doth unfold Let us hold to Scripture-phrases and the meaning will be plain and easie viz. They are Members in their own persons by the Lords actuall entring into Covenant with their persons distinct from their Parents and setting the Seal of the Covenant upon their persons as hath been proved from Gen. 17.7 9. Deut. 5.2 3. 29.10 11. Proof 1. They are personally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore Members in their own persons Ans This concerns children in minority or the seed of Believers and Members in full Communion and therefore it reacheth them not when adult and grown Reply Here our Brethren speak out That the foederal holiness and Charch-membership of the church seed weareth quite out with their infancy or minority though sometime they speak otherwise as was noted upon their Concession in their Answer to the Argument of the Synod pag. 23. in the end But no Scripture will prove this yea the whole tenour of Scripture-stories of the Church convinceth the contrary See Deut. 5.2 3. Rom. 3.1 2 3. 9.4 Proof 2. They are personally Baptized the Seal of Membership is applied to their own persons which being regularly done is a divine testimony that they are in their own persons members of the Church Ans So are the Papists in Rome and are they personal Members The Shechemites and Edomites were circumcised there is par ratio Reply This is a very slight evading of the Argument which speaketh of Baptism regularly done I had thought our Brethren did not think Baptism regularly done in Rome or Circumcision regularly applied to the Shechemites and Edomites Or if not could they suppose that there is par ratio a like reason between Baptism regularly done and not regularly done Except they should mean that there is like reason between Baptism in Rome and the Circumcision of the Shechemites and Edomites and that is granted Proof 3. They are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons See Propos 3. Ans This is granted
in the sense given before yet not so personal as to have right to all Church-priviledges as is confessed by all Reply That sense given before is confuted before 2. If they have right to all Church-priviledges properly belonging to Members as such it is sufficient 3. Their want of actuall enjoyment of some Church-priviledges is not for want of right unto them but for want of such Qualifications as may make them fit for actuall enjoyment of them viz. Such increase of Faith as is requisite as Dr. Ames well expresseth it Medul Lib. 1. Chap. 32. Sect. 13. Proof 4. They are personally by means of the Covenant in a visible state of salvation To say they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents would be as if one should say They are saved in their Parents and not in their own persons Ans It is granted they are in a state of Salvation and nearer the Kingdome of Heaven then Heathens are but they are not visibly at present in a state of Salvation Mark 12.34 But to infer That if they be not Members in their own persons but in their Parents then they shall not be saved in their own persons but in their Parents this is utterly inconsequent unless in should be said that all and onely they that are Members in their own persons shall be saved which were sad and Heterodox Reply To grant they are in a state of Salvation and yet not visibly so at present sheweth that this Argument is greatly mistaken The ground of the Argument is this It is the Priviledge of the Church by Gods Covenant to be the Redeemed and Saved People of the Lord Christ is the Saviour of his Body the Church Eph. 5.23 c. Thus it is with the visible Church visibly And hence saith Christ Salvation is of the Jews Joh. 4.22 And so speaking of the little ones he saith Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Mark 10.14 And hence the Inference is also much mistaken which is this If their Membership by means of the Covenant setteth them in a visible state of Salvation as it doth upon the grounds laid down then supposing this Membership be in their Parents onely and not in their own persons it would follow that this visible state of Salvation is in their Parents onely and not in their own persons and so if they be saved according to this Covenant it must be in their Parents and not in their own persons And hereby it appeareth how greatly this Opinion bereaveth the Parents of that hope and comfort they take in their dying Infants by reason of Gods Covenant made with their seed Proof 5. When they commit iniquity they personally break the Covenane and therefore they are personal members Jer. 11.2 10. Eze. 16. Ans The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law as the Texts shew which any man never in or cast out of the Church may break Reply Truly this Answer as the rest is far from satisfying the Arguments of the Synod The Texts alledged expresly call their iniquities A breaking of the Covenant and what then if the Texts speak of the Moral Law is not the observation of the Moral Law a duty of the Covenant viz. Tâ— have God for our God To love him Fear him c. Or is the breach of the Moral Law no breach of the Covenant in them that are in Covenant because others not in Covenant may break it What sense and reason is in this When a Master chargeth his Apprentice with breach of his Covenant in Stealing his Masters goods should he answer It was no breach of Covenant because others that were never in Covenant may be guilty of Stealing also Would this answer prove it was no breach of Covenant Just so is the case here When the Lord chargeth the adult Members of the Church with breach of their Covenant in the Moral duties of the Covenant to say The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law which such as were never in or cast out of the Church may break Our Brethren here think fit to make a stand onely concluding in the words of the Presbyterian Ministers wherewith they would seem to be well satisfied But the known Practice of those Reverend Brethren that do Baptize divers Children whose Parents they receive not to the Lords Table doth perswade me that such a Profession as is deseribed in the fifth Proposition would be readily accepted of by them as a credible Profession for the Administration of Baptism to their seed And this is the more evident to me by that which is here alledged in the second Paragraph wherein they describe the persons to be Baptized thus Baptism is an holy Sacrament in which a person professing the Christian Faith or the Infant-seed of such is Baptized c. which is fully answered in the fifth Proposition Concerning the Sixth Proposition which dependeth upon the Fifth our Brethren onely declare their Dissent Concerning the Seventh Proposition they say It is cautelously penned and do not Object against it onely desice Care in the Application thereof with what Churches we have Communion Concerning the second Question About CONSOCIATION OF CHVRCHES they have declared their Consent in all the Propositions laid down by the Synod and here Object nothing And herein I do willingly and gladly acknowledge the ingenuity of our dear Brethren who though they be earnest and quick sometimes in such things wherein they differ yet do freely declare their Consent in other things which giveth me the more hope that after a fair Debate of this Question we may at length meet sweetly in the same Truth which perhaps neither of us do as yet so clearly apprehend as we may through the help of Christ attain unto We know but in part Believe in part and Prophesie in part and are imperfect in all we do and therefore must wait for and endeavour after further discoveries of the minde of God And to this end in case what hath been and is here or what shortly may be Published about this Question should not clear up the Truth to satisfaction but that further Replies should be made My earnest Motion and Desire is 1. That all Reflections upon mens Persons and other impertinent Discourses being laid aside the main issue of the Question in Debate may be closely followed which I perceive is come in a manner to this narrow viz. Whether the Persons described in the fifth Proposition be regularly Church-members for this is all along denied by our Brethren and several wayes alledged whereby they should become Non-members as By their Self-Excommunication By Gods Excommunication c. 2. My Motion and Desire is That the Scriptures alone according to their true sense and scope may be made the Touchstone to discover the Truth These are able to make the man of God fully furnished to every good work I deny not the use of the Concurring Judgement of the godly Learned And it is well known how fully the advantage lieth on the Synods side in that respect yet I see men are too apt to make use of Sentences of Authors that seem to favour their Opinion though indeed contrary to the meaning and judgement of those Authors And this tends to amuse and puzzle the common sort of Readers and enlarge Disputes but doth not tend to clear up the Truth If these two things might be attended I doubt not but this Case would have a speedy and comfortable issue Now the Lord God of Truth Purity and Peace direct all our hearts into the Right Vnderstanding Vnfeigned Love and Vnited Practice of his Holy Will in all things Amen FINIS