case of these in question who were in Covenant with God and his Church and had the Seal of Baptism set thereto before Genes 17.7 1 Cor. 12.13 and therefore this Owning of the Covenant is onely a manifestation of their continuance in it And hence this is not the Form of their Membership but a Duty of their Covenant and doth not in it self fit them for full Communion except withall they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God râ—quireth thereunto A Youth that hath the constâ—tuent causes of a Man Soul and Body with some Understanding and Reason is not thereby capable of all Priviledges of a man as To Marry Give good Assurances of Lands and the like An adult person received into the Church by personal Covenant is not fit for the Lords Supper meerly because he hath Covenanted for except he hath suitable qualifications he will Eat judgement to himself Reas 2. Because those that were admitted by personal Covenant in the Primitive Church continued in full Communion Acts 2.41 Ans There is not the same reason for they were admitted in adult age and also indued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost These being admitted in Infancy do onely by Owning the Covenant manifâ—st their continuance therein The Indians newly converted and holding forth so much Faith and Repentance as may admit them into the Church and Baptism might yet need further Preparation to the Lords Supper not having such eminent gifts Reas 3. Because this Doctrine presupposeth that what Knowledge Faith and Repentance is required in adult persons coming to Baptism is not sufficient to the Lords Supper Ans This Doctrine doth not suppose it for it speaketh onely of such adult persons as were Baptized in infancy not to be Baptized in adult age It supposeth onely that persons Baptized in infancy and continuing in the Covenant and visible Church may yet be unable to Examine themselves and discern the Lords Body And hence the Reasons which here follow touch not this case And it is well if some of them do not argue Against the Baptizing of Inâ—ants or That Infants Baptized may partake of the Lords Supper CHAP. VI. Concerning the fifth Proposition Propos 5. CHurch-members who were admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church their children are to be Baptized This Proposition say our Brethren doth stumble us most Their Reasons are Reas 1. Because there being three Expressions propounded this swerveth further then the other from the Scripture Ans Be it granted that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded these onely in conclusion were Assented unto But if our Brethren judge That they all swerved from the Scripture what matter is it which swerved most from it If this swerveth most they have the more advantage of Dispute against it But seeing they stumble so much at this I shall easily remove this Block out of their way Obj. First say they in the former Expressions it was required they should understand the Grounds of Religion here no more then the Doctrine of Faith So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law and so have no knowledge of Sin of the Duties of Holiness Righteousness Sabbaths c. Ans As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion both in the acceptation of Scripture and of Orthodox Divines Phil. 1.27 when the Apostle exhorts them to strive for the Faith of the Gospel might they let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law or any other Grounds of Religion 2 Tim. 4.7 when Paul saith He had kept the Faith did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law and other Grounds of Religion Jude ver 3. Contend for the Faith was not that Faith opposed to the fiâ—â—â—y Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law and therefore surely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Consent with the Assembly of Divines in England in The Doctrine of Faith and the Assembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declaration of their Faith and Order do they not mean by the word Faith all the Grounds of Religion excepting onely matters of Order But what need more Instances when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel I dare not be so uncharitable to think that such persons do not hold fast The Doctrine of the Moral Law and all The Grounds of Religion Surely the Synod intended it so Obj. 2. In the second Expression it was required that they should be Examined of their sense of their need of Christ and desires after him here only of their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith which the Devils may have Aâ—s But if such sense of their need of Christ and desires after him should not upon such Examination appear but this Assent to the Doctrine of Faith with all the other Qualifications Might not this suffice to shew their Continuance in the visible Church What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth it is not free but inforced and they want all the other Qualifications that these have Obj. 3. The former required that they should give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into here onely that they are not Scandalous in life The former viz. Offences comprehend Original Sin or any other committed against God or man Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lifâ— noteth onely Notorious sins and a course therein Ans That they stumble at this must needs arise from a very rigid Principle whereof this Treatise hath too many For who ever took up that of Original Sin as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that or for all such Words or Actions as are Offences to God or man A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alledged Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters for in many things we offend all and therefore pity and bear with one another and be not so rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence If this were not so what use were there of those Rules of Love 1 Cor. 13.7 Love beareth all things Gal. 6.2 Bear one anothers burthens Col. 3.13 Forbearing one another 2. It is evident Luke 17.1 2 3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals Woe to him that scandalizeth one of these little ones and Impenitency in any such Scandal deserveth the highest Censure but repented of ceaseth to be a Scandal or Offence Mat. 18. yea although such a Scandal should not be a notorious sin nor continued in but in one act So that Not to be scandalous in life is full as large
in the sense given before yet not so personal as to have right to all Church-priviledges as is confessed by all Reply That sense given before is confuted before 2. If they have right to all Church-priviledges properly belonging to Members as such it is sufficient 3. Their want of actuall enjoyment of some Church-priviledges is not for want of right unto them but for want of such Qualifications as may make them fit for actuall enjoyment of them viz. Such increase of Faith as is requisite as Dr. Ames well expresseth it Medul Lib. 1. Chap. 32. Sect. 13. Proof 4. They are personally by means of the Covenant in a visible state of salvation To say they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents would be as if one should say They are saved in their Parents and not in their own persons Ans It is granted they are in a state of Salvation and nearer the Kingdome of Heaven then Heathens are but they are not visibly at present in a state of Salvation Mark 12.34 But to infer That if they be not Members in their own persons but in their Parents then they shall not be saved in their own persons but in their Parents this is utterly inconsequent unless in should be said that all and onely they that are Members in their own persons shall be saved which were sad and Heterodox Reply To grant they are in a state of Salvation and yet not visibly so at present sheweth that this Argument is greatly mistaken The ground of the Argument is this It is the Priviledge of the Church by Gods Covenant to be the Redeemed and Saved People of the Lord Christ is the Saviour of his Body the Church Eph. 5.23 c. Thus it is with the visible Church visibly And hence saith Christ Salvation is of the Jews Joh. 4.22 And so speaking of the little ones he saith Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Mark 10.14 And hence the Inference is also much mistaken which is this If their Membership by means of the Covenant setteth them in a visible state of Salvation as it doth upon the grounds laid down then supposing this Membership be in their Parents onely and not in their own persons it would follow that this visible state of Salvation is in their Parents onely and not in their own persons and so if they be saved according to this Covenant it must be in their Parents and not in their own persons And hereby it appeareth how greatly this Opinion bereaveth the Parents of that hope and comfort they take in their dying Infants by reason of Gods Covenant made with their seed Proof 5. When they commit iniquity they personally break the Covenane and therefore they are personal members Jer. 11.2 10. Eze. 16. Ans The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law as the Texts shew which any man never in or cast out of the Church may break Reply Truly this Answer as the rest is far from satisfying the Arguments of the Synod The Texts alledged expresly call their iniquities A breaking of the Covenant and what then if the Texts speak of the Moral Law is not the observation of the Moral Law a duty of the Covenant viz. Tâ— have God for our God To love him Fear him c. Or is the breach of the Moral Law no breach of the Covenant in them that are in Covenant because others not in Covenant may break it What sense and reason is in this When a Master chargeth his Apprentice with breach of his Covenant in Stealing his Masters goods should he answer It was no breach of Covenant because others that were never in Covenant may be guilty of Stealing also Would this answer prove it was no breach of Covenant Just so is the case here When the Lord chargeth the adult Members of the Church with breach of their Covenant in the Moral duties of the Covenant to say The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law which such as were never in or cast out of the Church may break Our Brethren here think fit to make a stand onely concluding in the words of the Presbyterian Ministers wherewith they would seem to be well satisfied But the known Practice of those Reverend Brethren that do Baptize divers Children whose Parents they receive not to the Lords Table doth perswade me that such a Profession as is deseribed in the fifth Proposition would be readily accepted of by them as a credible Profession for the Administration of Baptism to their seed And this is the more evident to me by that which is here alledged in the second Paragraph wherein they describe the persons to be Baptized thus Baptism is an holy Sacrament in which a person professing the Christian Faith or the Infant-seed of such is Baptized c. which is fully answered in the fifth Proposition Concerning the Sixth Proposition which dependeth upon the Fifth our Brethren onely declare their Dissent Concerning the Seventh Proposition they say It is cautelously penned and do not Object against it onely desice Care in the Application thereof with what Churches we have Communion Concerning the second Question About CONSOCIATION OF CHVRCHES they have declared their Consent in all the Propositions laid down by the Synod and here Object nothing And herein I do willingly and gladly acknowledge the ingenuity of our dear Brethren who though they be earnest and quick sometimes in such things wherein they differ yet do freely declare their Consent in other things which giveth me the more hope that after a fair Debate of this Question we may at length meet sweetly in the same Truth which perhaps neither of us do as yet so clearly apprehend as we may through the help of Christ attain unto We know but in part Believe in part and Prophesie in part and are imperfect in all we do and therefore must wait for and endeavour after further discoveries of the minde of God And to this end in case what hath been and is here or what shortly may be Published about this Question should not clear up the Truth to satisfaction but that further Replies should be made My earnest Motion and Desire is 1. That all Reflections upon mens Persons and other impertinent Discourses being laid aside the main issue of the Question in Debate may be closely followed which I perceive is come in a manner to this narrow viz. Whether the Persons described in the fifth Proposition be regularly Church-members for this is all along denied by our Brethren and several wayes alledged whereby they should become Non-members as By their Self-Excommunication By Gods Excommunication c. 2. My Motion and Desire is That the Scriptures alone according to their true sense and scope may be made the Touchstone to discover the Truth These are able to make the man of God fully furnished to every good work I deny not the use of the Concurring Judgement of the godly Learned And it is well known how fully the advantage lieth on the Synods side in that respect yet I see men are too apt to make use of Sentences of Authors that seem to favour their Opinion though indeed contrary to the meaning and judgement of those Authors And this tends to amuse and puzzle the common sort of Readers and enlarge Disputes but doth not tend to clear up the Truth If these two things might be attended I doubt not but this Case would have a speedy and comfortable issue Now the Lord God of Truth Purity and Peace direct all our hearts into the Right Vnderstanding Vnfeigned Love and Vnited Practice of his Holy Will in all things Amen FINIS
and joyned which hath reference to their first joyning to the Church not denying that being once regularly joyned they may after have their seed Baptized though they should not approve themselves to be true Converts As for the Objections and Answers here brought in they are not the Objections of the Synod And what is any way pertinent to our Dispute may sufficiently be taken off by what is said and therefore I shall pass them by And I may the rather so do seeing our Brethren in their third Answer have yielded the Cause For if the Covenant made with Abraham and the Circumcision of his seed was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was Why should not Baptism be continued successively to the seed remaining in the Covenant as well as Circumcision CHAP. III. Concerning our Brethrens Notes upon the first and second Proposition IN the first Proposition our Brethren onely give an Explication of the word Visible Church taking the word Church as a Genus of all particular Churches from which we Dissent not In the second Proposition viz. That the Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are confederate visible Believers and their Infant-seed They have made divers Notes upon it 1. That by visible Believers they intend true Believers to the judgement of charity And herein we agree Second Note That visible Believers and their Infant-seed are rightly distinguished And so farre we agree also That they are persons distinctly and severally covenanted with by the Lord not wrapped up in their Parents as they speak But whereas they distinguish them from their Parents as not being Believers never so called in Scripture How can they believe that know not the right hand from the left They have no Faith actual or habitual nor can have without a Miracle and we hold Miracles are ceased Ans This is the great Objection of the Anabaptists against the Baptizing of Infants and what the scope of this Note is here I know not except it be to deny them any actual and personal Membership in the Church as in their next Note I shall therefore speak the more fully to it And first it appeareth the Scripture numbers them amongst Believers if it doth not also expresly call them so Mat. 18.6 One of these little ones that believe in me which some interpret of Infants 2 Cor. 6.14 15. where all in the Church are called Believers in opposition to Infidels And no doubt Paul would not allow any of these to marry with Infidels when grown up by that Rule of his and therefore he reckons them as Believers 2. To make a person a Member of the visible Church the matter is not whether he hath Faith and Grace really or not if he hath such qualifications as the Rule of the Word accepteth for Faith in the visible Church we can go no further This is clear and will be easily granted in respect of adult persons If a man profess he doth believe with all his heart as the Eunuch Acts 8. and nothing appears to the contrary If a man appear Pricked at the heart Gladly receive the Word c. as those Acts 2. Gods Rule accepts of such as Believers and so must the Church though the Lord seeth that some it may be many such have no Faith in truth for Many are called but few chosen And however they may afterward discover themselves as Ananias Simon Magus c. yet all will grant these were rightly received as visible Believers In like manner is the case of Infants The matter is not whether they have true Faith or not in the act or habit so they have such qualifications as God accepts of to receive their persons into his Covenant and to be Members of the Body of Christ This sufficeth though they have no Faith or Grace really Now that the Lord doth so accept of them into the number of the Faithful and as Believers appeareth 1. Because he doth account them Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 be it Foederal or Covenant-Holiness this implies that God is their God and if God gives himself unto them surely he accepted them as Believers He is not the God of Infidels who are without God Ephes 2.12 The Covenant of God is the same with Parents and their seed and therefore God accepteth them as such as are answerable to the Terms and Conditions of that Covenant 2. This appeareth from the Nature of the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. When God appointed this Seal to be set upon Infants surely God numbred them with Believers So when we are said to be Baptized into Christ can there be any Union with Christ without Faith As no real Union without true Faith so no visible Union without that which is accepted as Faith And when the Lord Jesus saith Of such is the Kingdome of God doth the Kingdome of God belong to Unbelievers If it be said It is their Parents Faith that is accepted for them not any thing in their own persons I answer If so that God will accept the Parents Faith and Profession in their name and stead as a Publick Person covenanting for them yet this is Gods free and preventing Grace towards the seed and doth engage their persons to the Duties of the Covenant to avouch God for their God c. and therefore they are actually and personally in Covenant with God as well as their Parents 3. I adde further That as we must rest in such Signs of Faith as the Rule requireth though it should not be there so also we must in charity judge the best and walk towards such as visible Believers till by impenitency in sin the Church have just cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans So Phil. 1.7 It is meet I should think thus of you all because you are in my heart Love and Church-charity should reach farre especially to Members of a Church regularly received because the Lord doth give Faith to some and who have Faith in truth who not is hard for us to judge And so it is in such Members as came in in their Infancy We know the Lord gives Faith and Grace to some betimes as to Samuel Timothy and others yea in all Elect Infants that die in minority no doubt God gives them the Spirit of Faith and that which is proportionable to the act of Faith and therefore in charity we are to look at them as Believers till for impenitency in sin the Church shall â—ount them as Heathens and Publicans Their third Note is That though they be Members in general yet Infant-seed are onely foederally holy others that have taken hold of the Covenant are sanctified in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6.11 These have a Parental and partial Right nor compleat and perfect Thus the Lord speaks Deut. 4 37. 10.15 Acts 2.38 39. So Dr. Ames distinction into Perfect and Imperfect Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 13. Ans 1. Let it here be applied what was said of their
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