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
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-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-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
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
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
Christ for they came in by the gospel-Gospel-Covenant as our Brethren grant from Acts 2.38 39. And is not Christ the Mediator of that Covenant Yea are they not Baptized into Christ Are not the Blood and Benefits of Christ Scaled up to them in Baptism But our Brethren seem wholly to forget that or to make a Nothing of it 2. When this Covenant which is called The covenant of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 is Solemnly owned by them wherein they give up themselves to God and submit to the Government of Christ in the Church Is there nothing of Christ in all this 3. The danger of wanting the Wedding-garment is as great to such as come in with the fairest Profession of Faith as to these and is the Church blameable for admitting such because their danger is so great when such want the Wedding-garment But seeing our Brethren urge so much Joh. 10. let them consider ver 13. The hireling careth not for the sheep We have more cause to fear how we shall answer for our careless Neglect of these Lambs of Christ then for our Receiving them into the Fold of Christ for which we have our Warrant from Christ And withall let us remember that weighty Charge Heb. 12.15 16. Looking diligently lest any fail of the grace of God c. lest there be a profane person as Esau who for a morsell of meat sold his Birthright It seemeth the Apostle did think there was a Precious Birthright and that it was the duty of the Church to look diligently to the preservation and improvement of it Let us then take heed we do not take it from them before the Rule of Christ doth require it By this whole Discourse and by these Ten Reasons we may now fully see upon what Principles our Brethren ground their Anti-Synodalia or their Positions wherein they Dissent from the Synod And therefore seeing the Prefacer complains that Their Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Anabaptism I shall crave leave before I pass on to present unto their serious Consideration what Advantages they put into the hands of the Anabaptists who I fear will make such use hereof as our Brethren would not willingly allow them to do It is true that our Brethren confess with us That the Covenant of God with Abraham and his seed is the Gospel-covenant and doth belong to the Faithfull and their seed Acts 2.38 39. But do they not with their Distinctions in effect take away what they have given them They are Members in generall say they but come to the particular and it is onely as wrapped up in their Parents Covenant they are not actual or personal Members And that Membership in their Parents and their Foederal Holiness reacheth no further then their Minority pag. 37. And what Church-Ordinances are they capable of in that time especially if that were true which some suggest That Ishmael came into the Church by Profession of Faith as an adult Member at thirteen years of age And if at adult age they come not up by Profession of Faith and Grace to Enter into personal Covenant and so to a new Membership hey have no right â—o Church-priviledges And may not a Convert out of Paganism upon such terms enjoy as much as this And as for Church-watch and Government it cannot reach them but by their Parents as it may reach an Infidel-servant and when their Parents be dead and they left to the care of such as are not of the Church how shall it then touch them at all And when their Owning of the Covenant is accounted the Form of their Membership what is this but to make a Nullity of their Covenant sealed in Baptism So that it will I fear seem to the Anabaptists That to Baptize Infants is to set a Seal to a Blank or to a Covenant of no use to them Again when our Brethren so oft deny the visible Covenant and the Priviledges thereof to such as want the inward Grace and affirm That the Covenant and the Priviledges thereof are limited to those that with Abraham walk with God whose heart was faithfull who love God and keep his commandments pag. 29. Will not the Anabaptists be ready to inferre Therefore Infants wanting that Grace c. have no right to the Covenant or to Baptism the Priviledge of it Again when our Brethren so oft confound the Outward and Inward Dispensation of the Covenant alledging the Scandalous sins of Church-members in the Scripture to prove that these in question are Self-Excommunicated and have no interest in the Outward Covenant or Priviledges thereof Is not this a Mistake which they will make advantage of Lastly when they say That the Practice of the fifth Proposition exposeth the Blood of Christ to contempt Baptism to be profaned bringeth pollution into the Church c. what are the Reasons For say they it imparteth the Blood of the Covenant to those that are not visible Believers sets the Seal to a Blank severeth Baptism from the stipulation of a good conscience bringeth the uncircumcised in heart into the Sanctuary But they oft confess that Infants have no Faith They are a carnall seed c. And is it not a just fear that the Anabaptists will be ready to inferre Therefore to baptize Infants is to expose the Blood of Christ to contempt c I know our Brethren will say We do not require Faith and Grace in the Infants but in the Parents onely But yet when generally we ground the Baptism of Infants upon the Covenant of God to the Parents and their seed Gen. 17. Acts 2. 1 Cor. 7. and prove they are Disciples Members of the visible Church and therefore to be Baptized I wish our Brethren may consider how greatly this ground is weakned by Denial of Gods Covenant to their Persons and onely as in their Parents and by making it so slight a matter as to wear out with their Minority c. And also let them consider how suitable their Notions and Principles before-named are to the Arguments and Grounds of Denial of Baptism to all Infants as is easie to see in all the Books of Antipoedobaptists These things I mention that our Brethren may keep further off from this danger which themselves count a Reproach I shall now proceed to consider the Answers of our Brethren to the Arguments of the Synod for the proof of the fifth Proposition Arg. 1. These children are partakers of the main ground of baptizing any children whatsoever and neither the parents nor the children do put in any barre to hinder it This ground is the Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 9 10 11. Acts 2.39 Col. 2.10 11. Ans They answer in general that Faith is the main ground of Baptism Rom. 4.11 Acts 8.37 19.4 Reply 1. Here is no answer to the Scriptures alledged which are very full Gen. 17.10 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep Every male-Male-childe shall be circumcised It shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you
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
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