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
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
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
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
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
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