Anabaptist's onely reason why they dislike Infant baptism is Because they fancy to themselves that the Church would be more pure if we baptized none but the adult and such as hold forth evidences of the Spirit and so they think but a few would have place in Churches But by this means doubtless it would come to pass that many of Christs Sheep would be neglected as Goats neither would all Parents be so careful as they think in educating their Children unto piety And yet this humane thought which savours of too much esteem of our own works doth so possess them that they bring all to this and turn off all that can be said and hereby they run themselves into very great errours I called it an humane thought for no Scripture doth command such a curious circumspection lest any Goats should be received into the Church The Apostles often baptized persons with whom they had scarce had an hours speech concerning Christ because according to the Parable of the Gospel they would bring in all they met with to the Marriage Mat. 22.10 For by Baptism they only took them into the School of Piety and Trained-hand of Christians and they were wont then to cast them out again when it was evidently enough perceived that to labour in teaching them was in vain Ibid. fol. 53. As for Parker his speaking mainly against the admitting or tolerating of Manifestarii peccatores The notoriously wicked and pleading to have them debarred from the Lords Table or cast out by the use of Discipline His frequent approbation of the Principles of the Reformed Churches And in special his approving of their admitting Members not before of their Body upon such like qualifications as are contained in the Synods fifth Proposition Also his earnest and peremptory rejecting the Opinions and Principles of the Anabaptists and Separatists and declaring himself and the Non-Conformists whose Cause he acted to be farre from them These and such like do clearly shew that Worthy man to be no Opponent of such an extent of Baptism as is contained in the Conclusions of the Synod But here our Brethren will needs take notice that the judgment of that worthy and for ever famous Mr. Cotton was as theirs is because he hath these words in Holiness of Church-members pag. 93 I conceive under favour more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old Ans. The Reader will take notice of what hath been before said and cited to shew Mr. Cottons judgement in the Points controverted between our Brethren and the Synod and will easily thereby judge whether Mr. Cottons judgement was as theirs is but It is strange they should make such a Collection from what is here set down Mr. Cotton might say those words that are here expressed and yet his judgement be farre enough from being as theirs is in any of the Points that are controverted for we shall not gainsay this Conception of Mr. Cottons That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church members of the New Testament then of the Old but concur with it in two respects or for two causes 1. Because the Light now is greater and clearer then it was then and where more is given more is required Luke 12.48 2. Because the Discipline appointed under the Old Testament was mostly Ceremonial Ames Medul lib. 1. c. 38. Thes. 41. And whether Excommunication for Moral evils was then used at least out of the National Church is by some doubted As also whether persons were debarred from the holy things simply for Moral evils if they were ceremonially clean as Mr. Cotton in the place here alledged saith It is true that it is a question whether sins very scandalous did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices But under the New Testament we have a plain and undoubted Rule for the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils persisted in hence persons might haply run further into Moral evils and so further off from the fruits of Regeneration then and yet not be put out of the Church yea haply not be debarred from the holy things then they can do now But what is all this to the matter in hand for still it is not secret irregeneration nor the bare want of such and such positive fruits of Regeneration without positive and palpable â—ruits of Irregeneration that will according to any Rule God hath given us put any man out of the Church when he is once in Nay Mr. Cotton in the very place here cited expresly saith that Irregeneration alone will not keep a man out His words are these Neither amongst us doth Irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us not Irregeneration alone I say unles it be accompanied with such fruits as are openly scandalous and do convincingly manifest Irregeneration Moreover still the parallel between the Church of the Old and of the New Testament stands and holds in this that when a person is once by Gods appointment taken into the visible Church whether in adult age or in infancy it comes all to one for that he continues in it and doth not lose his Membership till by some Rule or Appointment of God in his Word he be cut off or cast out What the particular Rules and wayes of cutting off were in the Old Testament we need not here dispute but to be sure the plain Rule in the New Testament for the cutting off of particular persons is by the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils But while we grant that in some respects more positive fruits in regard of degree might be required in the Old Testament let none so understand it as if Regeneration was not required as all unto the Constitution and Continuation of the visible Church in the Old Testament but that a meer carnal succession was then allowed of without regard to Regeneration For they stoâ—d by Faith and were brâ—ken off by Vnbelief as well as we Rom. 11. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteâ—usness of faith as well as Baptism Faith and Repentance do not now more constitute the Covenant of God then it did in the time of Abraham who was the Father of the Faithful saith Dr. Ames Yea our brethren do in their Antisynodalia pag. 17. expresly say That the Covenant made with Abraham and the Circumcision of his seed was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was i. e. that he should walk with God by Faith and Obedience And it is observeable that no where is Regeneration and the fruits thereof required of Gods Covenant people in stricter and fuller terms then in the Old Testament Gen. 17.1 Deut. 10.12 26.16 17. 1 Kings 8.23 Psal. 103.17 18. Isa. 56.4 6. And yet the Lord who is the best interpreter of his own Rules continued them in the Church and accounted them among the number of his holy people till palpallâ— and incorrigible fruits of Irregeneration were found
particular persons and Salvation that Thousands are in the viâ—â—ble Church that shall never see Heaven That outward Priviledges are not to be rested in but improvedâ—s â—s helps and encouragements to the obtaining of internal and special Grace that the Churâ—h is to accept of probable signes but no man for 〈◊〉 is to rest without certain Sâ—gns of Grace Hence the indefinite promise and other general indefinite tokens of a good estate 〈◊〉 such as decypher that sort of persons that are gracious and many of whom are so though many are not â—s Châ—ldren of the Covenant Professors of the Faith c. These are grounds for the Church to proceed upon in the dispensation of outward 〈◊〉 especiâ—lly that of Baptism that is annexed to the first being of Grace but they are not grounds for any to rest oâ— acquieâ—ce in as to the Salvation of their own soules In sum while we keep a due distinction between the outwâ—rd and inward dispensation of the Covenant and between the respective condâ—tiâ—ns and grâ—unds of each there is no tendency unto hardning therein but indeâ—d 〈…〉 and do tye visible Church-interest unto such conditions and qualifications as are reputed enough to Salvation this may tend to harden men and to make them conceit that if once they be got into the Church they are sure of Heaven when 〈◊〉 it may be they are far from it 2. The Scriptures give us a contrary Assertion to this of our Brethren here for they tell us that to deny the Children of the Church to have any part in the Lord hath a strong tendency in it to make them cease from fearing the Lord or to harden their hearts from his fear Iosh. 22.24 25 27. and that on the other hand the incouragements and awful obligations of Covenant-interest do greatly tend to softâ—â— and break the heart and to draw it home unto God Hence the Lord often begins with this that He is their God viz. in outward Covenant and they his People when he would most powerfully win and draw them to Faith and Obedience Psal. 81.8 10. Levit. 19.3 4. Deut. 14.1 2. Hosea 14.1 Act. 2.38 39. and the Experiences of many can through Grace witness unto this of what use the consideration of the Lords preventing Grace in his sealed Covenant and their engagement to him thereby hath been in the day of their turning unto God so Ier. 31.18 3.22 Gal. 1.15 3. There is a natural tendency in mans corrupt heart not in this or any other Truth or Ordinance of God that leads him to turn Grace into wantonness and to abuse outward Priviledges and Ordinances unto a self-hardning security and carnal confidence Ier. 7.4 Mat. 3.9 Rom. 2.17 Phil. 3.4 5 6 7. but is this any Argument against the Lord's or the Churches giving men a portion in his Temple and Ordinances because they are prone so to abuse them Confidence in outward visible qualifications for full communion is but a vain and carnal thing yet men are prone enough to it and had need by the Ministry be taken off from it But shall we therefore deny or scruple their Admission thereunto 4. If one should bring such an Argument as this against the baptizing of Infants viz. That it will harden them and bolster them up in their sinful natural condition we suppose it would be counted a poor Argument and of no validity and yet it holds as well against the baptizing of any Infants as of these in question If it be said that the baptizing of these in question hardens the Parent Ans. Not at all in the way we go any more with reference to his Childes Baptism then in reference to his own Baptism which he received in Infancy For it doth not necessarily affirm that he hath any more then federal Holiness and that he had when he was an Infant on that ground was he Baptized then and on the same ground is his Childe Baptized now If he have any more he may have the more comfort in it but simply to have his Childe Baptized on the grounds we go upon affirms no more but this because we ground all upon federal Holiness or Membership in the visible Church It is true that Baptism is a Seal of the whole Covenant of Grace as well as the Lords Supper But it is as true 1. That it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as dispensed in the visible Church or it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace as clothed with the external dispensation or administration thereof and so it doth nextly and immediately Seal the external dispensation or the Promises and Priviledges that belong thereto which are a part of the whole Covenant of Grace and then it seals the inward and saving benefits of the Covenant as included in that dispensation and upon the Conditions therein propounded Baptism seals the whole Covenant and whole dispensation thereof i. e. 1. The dispensation of it Outwardly to all that have an external standing in the Church 2. The dispensation and communication of it Inwardly Effectually and Savingly to all that truely do believe 2. That Baptism is a Seal of Entrance into the Covenant thus considered It seals the whole Covenant but by way of Initiation so Dr. Ames in the place that is here quoted Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 40. Thes. 5 6. Baptism is the Sacrament of Initiation or Regeneration for although it do at once seal the whole Covenant of Grace to the Faithful yet by a singular appropriation it represents and confirms our very ingrafting into Christ Rom. 6.3 5. 1 Cor. 12.13 And Thesis 10. Those Benefits are sealed by way of Initiation in Baptism And from thence the judicious Doctor makes that Inference that suits and clears the matter in hand Thes. 11. Hence Baptism ought to be administred to all those unto whom the Covenant of Grace belongs because it is the first Seal of the Covenant now first entred into Baptism is the Seal of Entrance into Covenant sealing up unto the party baptized all the good of the Covenant to be in season communicated and enjoyed from step to step through the whole progress of Christianity from this first beginning thereof according to the Tenour and Order of the Covenant Hence it belongs to all that are within the Covenant or that have but a first entrance thereinto Children as well as others though they have not yet such faith and growth as imports that progress in the Covenaâ—t and fruition of the Comfort and â—ruits thereof that is sealed up in the Lords Supper We readily grant and say That â—â—ne ought to have the Seal of Baptism applied in thâ—◠〈◊〉 those that are interested in the Covenant and that by Faith unless you can shew us any other way of Interest in the Covenant but by Faith But withall we affâ—â—m and prove That the Children in question have interest in the Covenant according to the known tenour thereof Gen. 17.7 and therefore that the Seal of Baptism is to be
Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order For the Synod thinks that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority so they still continue therein and the contrary we have not yet seen proved As for the Shechemites c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them and yet Baptism not so when administred to the children in question For if the former were not in the Church yet these are and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives these other are farre from any such thing and therefore there is no comparison between the former and these spoken of but a vast difference And we may adde further That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest and the persons spoken of both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation so in respect of this latter these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Iacob to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred We may instance in Simeon and Levi who committed that odious Cruelty and Blood-shedding for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death Gen. 49. And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these they abiding in the Family of Jacob how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question or be said to be profaned when administred to them sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God and were never cast out nor deserving any such thing but do still continue therein and for life and conversation are farre from any such Scandal and Crime as was found in the Sons of Iacob aforesaid One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit c. Ans. This is no just ground of denying Baptism to the children in question except it could be proved that neither they nor their Parents are in the Church of God nor of his Family which yet we have not seen proved The regular and lawfull use of Baptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith viz. Faith for Iustification with Abraham who is to use it either upon himself or upon his infant To use it being not so qualified visibly is it not a treacherous usurping of the Great Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth Ans. Neither doth this make against the Baptism of the children in question forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God I will be a God to thee and to thy seed in their generations and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition cannot be denied to have Faith visibly as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition and in this Defence formerly Sure it is these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly as the Sons of Iacob afore-mentioned and as many in the Church at Corinth of whom it is said that they were culpable for carnall Dissentions going to Law Fornication Vncleannesses and not repenting thereof 1 Cor. 1. 3. 6. and 2 Cor. 12. and yet being in the Church and professing Christianity we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized and the children of Iacobs Sons circumcised and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition though the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children For it is evident these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians and in Reuben Simeon and Levi but are much more innocent yea commendable So much for Defence of the second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition against what the Reverend Author in his Answer thereto saith in his Digression and turning back to the Proposition foregoing The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition is Because God accepteth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred as in David to build the Temple 1 Kings 8. in Abraham to sacrifice his Son Heb. 11.17 and in that of Alms 2 Cor. 8.12 As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto and Baptized in voto because there was no want of desire that way though their desire was not actually accomplished To which the Answer of the Reverend Author is That this may hold in private service so that there God accepts the will for the deed when the acting of it is hindred but in publick service he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so farre as to bring them into publick state and order whatever their desires and endeavours have been And he instanceth in one that desireth to be a Minister and yet may not do the acts of that Office afore he be in Office and in such as desire to joyn to the Church but may not be received to the Seals afore they be so joyned Whereto the answer is That what is here said is insufficient as being not suitable to the case in hand which is not concerning such as are out of Church-state and order as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it though their actual entring were hindred For it is evident that the Synod speaks not of such but of such as are Church-members already onely have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another purpose viz. for the more orderly clear and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children themselves though being in the state and order of Church-members having not yet been received to the Lords Supper It is evident that the Synod speaks of such persons and of actings for such an end viz. of persons already in Church-estate and acting for the end aforesaid and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end though their actings as aforesaid have been inevitably hindred Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all though they do desire it and of them he saith that these desires are not sufficient for their admission unto Church-priviledges when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred between which and those spoken of by the Synod there is great difference so that if what he faith were granted yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby but though desire of office or of Church-estate be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one or
untill first increase of Faith do appear but from those which belong to the beginning of Faith and entrance into the Church they are not to be excluded Where the Doctor distinguisheth between Initium Fidei The beginning of Faith and Incrementum Fidei The increase or growth of Faith and makes the former to suffice unto Baptism but the latter to be requisite to full Communion or to the Lords Supper An initial Faith entitleth to the Seal of Initiation but a grown Faith i. e. a Faith of some growth though yet farre short of Perfection and needing to grow still a Faith growing up unto some sensible and lively exercise is requisite unto the Sacrament of growth and fruition They were Believers yet but initial Believers that Iohn baptized in the first dawning or beginning of the Gospel Mark 1.1 4. The Apostles constantly baptized persons upon the first beginning of their Christianity but the Lords Supper followed after as annexed to some progress in Christianity The latter Distinction also is obvious and necessary Who ought to come and Who ought to be admitted are two distinct Questions say Vrsin and Parem We grant that true saving Faith and Repentance is required by God of those that partake of Sacraments for themselves or for their Children But the Question is what are the external signs and tokens of that Grace which an Ecclesiastical charitable Reputation may proceed upon for we can go no further then the judgement of rational Charity as here our Brethren acknowledge and that proceeds upon outward probable signs leaving the infallible knowledge of the heart to God onely The distinction between a Iew outwardly or a visible Jew that hath praise of or approbation among men and inwarâ—lyâ—â—at â—â—at hath praise of God is a Scripture-distinction Rom. 2.28 29. and is necessary to be attended hâ—re for De â—ecultis non judicat Ecclesia 1 Cor. 4.5 And here also we conceive that the same strictness as to outward signs is not necessary unto a charitable probable judâ—ement or hope of the being of Faith or of that initial Faith that entitleth to Bapâ—ism as is unto the like judgement of the speâ—ial exerâ—ise of Faith that is requisite to the Lords Supper there be many things that do both really and in the just reputation of men hinder the exercise of Grace and so hinder from the Lords Supper which yet do not awayâ— charitable hope of the Being of Grace or the state of a Believer If a man be under Offence in the Church he is suspended from the Lords Supper till a renewing or exercise of Repentance do appear yet we still repute him to be in the state of a Believer or to have the Being of Grace Now then to apply this to the Synods proceedings for Answer to what is here sâ—id viz. That the Synod did acknowledge there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent to the judgement oâ— rational Charity or else the Childe ought not to be Baptized yet could not be prevailed with to set this down â—â—r a Conclusion 1. We did and do acknowledge that in Ecclesiastical Charitable Reputation there must be Faith yea true saving Faith those words hurt us not provided they be not so strained as to turn Charity into Râ—gid Seâ—erity i. e. the being of Faith whereby a person is accounted to be in the state of a Believer Baptism being as was in the Synod alledged annexed properly to the state of a Believer or to the Covenant-state of a person and not to the present act or exercise of Faith and hence though there be no Parent alive to act for the Childe and the Childe cannot at present act for it self yet that hinders not its Baptism but we did not acknowledge it was necessary there should be Faith in the lively and special exercise of it such as we justly require an appearance of unto rational Charity in order unto full Communion which is that our Brethren aim at and stand for in all whose Children they will have Baptized And to set down a conclusion in general terms when the nature of the case calls for distinctâ—ess is not rational 2 Our main Work was to consider of and pitch upon such external Signs and Characters as the Churches Charity might and should proceed upon in this case We all own that onely visible Believers or visible Saints are to have their Children Baptized but the Question is Who are to be accounted visible Believers and we say that those described in the fâ—â—â—h Proposition are of that nuâ—bâ—r To have put it in such a general term as Those that profeâ—s or hold forth Faith and Repentance unto the satisfaction of rational Charity had been to leave the matter as obscure as we found it and in stead of giving light to the Churches which is the end of Synods to leave theâ— in the dark without any help to discover their way for still they are to seek who those are that are to be accounted Professors of Faith and Repentance and what Profession that is that Charity may accept in order to their Childrens Baptism Besides it is well known that those expressions Of holding forth Faith and Repentance c. have been constantly so taken in this Country as to hold forth the qualifications required for full Communion and that was it which our Brethren strove for so to screw up the Expreâ—sions for Bapâ—ism as that all that have their Children Baptized must unavoidably be brought to the Lords Table and to a power of Voting in our Churches wherein we cannot consent to them and however we are charged with corrupting the Churches yet we believe time will shew that that Principle that over inlargeth full Communion or that will have all of whom we can have any hope that they have any good in theâ— to come to the Lords Table this we say will prove a Church-corrupting Principle and those that have laboured to keep up the pâ—rtition here will be found to have been sâ—riously Studious of the Parity and safety of the Churches 3. But when it is 〈◊〉 that the Synod could not be brought to express what themselves acknowledge 〈◊〉 that the Parent whose Childe iâ— baptized must have Faith to the judgâ—ent of Charity or which is all one must be a visible believer we desire it may be considered with what Truth this can be 〈◊〉 for it was offered â—gain and again to express it 〈◊〉 plaiâ—ly and particularly if that would have satisfied as thâ—se that were present in those agitations too long here to be inserted may reâ—eâ—ber and the Proposition made â—as refused by some of themselves that dissented but it is competently expressed in the Synods Result as now Printed for when we limit the Baptizable to confederate visible Believers and their Infant-seed in Propos. 1. 2. and then say that those described in Propos. 5 6 7. are to have their Children Baptized doth it not imply that the Parents there described are Confederate visible
with them and so he doth now In the sixth Place The Application saith the Preface of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not true Believers we mean visibly for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia is a profanation thereof and as dreadful a sin as if a man should administer the Lords Supper unto unworthy receivers We marvel that any should think that the Blood of Christ is not as muâ—h profaned and vilified by undue Administration of Baptism as by undue administration of the Lords Supper Ans It will be hard for the Redder to gather out of all that is here said a Reason of dissent from the Synod for we readily grant and say that Baptism is not to be applied to any but visible Believers taking visible Believers as a term equivalent to Federally Holy as the term Believer or Faithful is sometimes in Scripture so taken Isaâ— 1.21 2 Cor. 6.15 and often in Authors but that the persons in question both Parents and Children are visible Believers is also by the Synod asserted and proved and here is nothing said to disprove it But when as our Brethren here say that the Application of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not visibly true Believers is a profanation thereof in which being rightly explained we gainsay them not and yet in their 〈◊〉 pag. 20. do hold forth That Infants neither have nor can have Faith it will lye upon them to shew how they apply the seal of Baptism to Infants without a profanation thereof It is pity that so many passages are dropt here and there that do though we hope not in their Intention clasâ— with the baptizing of Iâ—fants Here is also exprest a marvel that any should think c. But we may Answer with a mâ—rvel that any should speak as if any of us did think that the Blood of Christ is not profaned by undue administration of Baptism as well as by undue administration of the Lords Supper whether as much or no in point of degree we will not trouble our selves to dispute though we suppose the degree of sinful pollution or profanation of the Lords Name in any Ordinance will be intended by the degree of special Communion that we have with Christ in that Ordinance and by the danger that such pollution infers to the whole Church as well as to the particular partaker which will hardly be denied to be more in the Lords Supper then in Baptism But whether the profanation be as great or no to be sure it is very great and so great as that every Pious Conscientious person should fear to have any hand in the undue administration of Baptism But where is there any thing to shew that the administration of Baptism pointed to by the Synod is undue or that it is an undue Administration of Bâ—ptism to extend it further then the Lords Supper or to administer Baptism to some unto whom we do not administer the Lords Supper If the Rule and Institution concerning these two Sacraments do extend the one further then the other as it plainly doth when it appoints Baptism to all Disciples or to run parallel with federal Holiness Mat. 28.19 but the Lords Supper onely to Self-examining Disciples 1 Cor. 11.28 then the one may be extended further then the other and yet the administration of the one no more undue or irregular and polluting then the Administration of the other Surely he that holds That Baptism may and the Lords Supper may not be administred unto Infants as we suppose our Brethren do he grants that Baptism may be extended further then the Lords Supper without any such sacrilegioâ—â— impiety dreadful profâ—rtation or prostitution of the Blood of Christ as is here harshly enough exprest Neither did judicious Calvin part of whose zealous expression against the promiscuous Administration of the Lords Supper is here cited in the Preface ever imagine or conceive that it was any such profanation to extend Baptism further then the Lords Supper yea and further then the Synod doth when as he set down that Answer in his Catecâ—ism that is above alledged and practised accordingly It is well known the Synod doth not pleâ—d for that largeness in either of the Sacraments that Calvin allowed But to extend the one further then the other was never accounted sacrilegious impiety in Orthodox Divinity It is here added that Austin pleads for strictness in the Administration of Baptism and Tertullian beâ—ore him But did either of them pleâ—d for greater strictness then the Synod doth unless where Tertullian erroneously and weakly pleads for the delaying of Baptism which is noted for one of his navi Certainly men will say when they look upon what is published by the Synod and their wary qualifying of the fifth Proposition about which the controversy is that they were for much strictness in the administration of Baptism and many will think us too strict We doubt not but we may safely say that no man can shew any thing out of Austin that will speak him to be against the baptizing of such as the Synod pleadeth for yea he requireth not more of adult Converts from Heathenism for their own Baptism then is in the Parents who are described by the Synod That Book of his de Fide Operibus is against the baptizing of notorious scandalous livers whom he would not have baptized though seemingly turned from Heathenism till they seriously promised reformation But that Austin in stead of being for more strictness holdeth for a larger extent of Baptism then the Synod doth might easily be evinced How strange is it to see their Authority still alledged against us who are not onely fully with us in this matter but go further then we The seventh Reason of our Brethrens dissent is this It hath in it a natural tendency to the â—ardning of unregenerate Creatures in their sinful natural condition when Life is not onely promised but sealed to them by the precious Blood of Iesus Christ. Baptism is a Seal of the whole Coâ—enant of Grace as well as the Lords Supper and therefore those that are not interested in this Covenant by Faith ought not to have the Seal thereof applyed to them Ans. 1. The Lords Truth and Grace however it may be abused by the corruption of mans perverse and â—inful nature hath not in it self any natural tendency to harden any but the contrary And how can the Doctrine in hand have any such natural tendency when as men are told over and over that onely outward advantages and dispensations are sealed to them in Baptism more absolutely Rom. 3.1 2. â— 9.4 but the saving benefits of the Covenant or Life Eternal conditionally see Mr. Shepards late Printed Letter pag. 3 6. so that if they fail of the condition viz. effâ—ctual and unfeigned faith they miss of Salvation notwithstanding their Baptism and external Covenant-estate And hence that there is no certaâ—n but onely a probable connexion between federal Holyness as applied to
believers unless you will make us to speak inconsistencies Again it is 〈◊〉 made one Argument to prove the fifth Proposition that The Parents there described are Confederate visible believers And do we not then express this that the Parent whose Childâ— is to be Baptized must be a Confederate visible Believer and is not that all one as to have true Faith in the judgement oâ— Charity How then is it here said that the Synod would not let this which themselves acknowledged be expressed though our Vnity lay at the stake for it surely such misrepresentation of things with so much injurious reflexion should be forborn by Godly Brethren If that would have Vnited us to own that the Parent must be a visible Believer it was owned and granted toties quoâ—ies and is contained in the Propositions and Arguments as any Intelligent Reader will easily see But the disagreement lay here that your selves would not consent to any such acceptation or to any such Characters or Expressions of a visible Beâ—â—ever but such as should unavoidably bring Him into full Communion And we diâ—â—ered about this Who are visible Believers Not whether the Parents that have Baptism for their Children must be such In sum the Reason of our disagreement was not because we would not own our own Principle as is here strangely represented but because we could not Consent to yours and because you refused to have a common Principle any way expressed but so as might suit with your own Nation though our Unity lay at the stake for it Reason 2. The second Reason which our Brethren here give of their dissent from the Synod stands thus There is no warrant in all Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfiâ—ness for the Lords Supper But the Parents in question are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper therefore there is no warrant in all the Scripture to Baptize their Children this we suppose is the Assumption and Conclusion that is understood if this second Reason be intended as a Reason of their dissent from the Synods fifth Proposition Unless it be intended onely as a dissent from that which is â—â—uched and contained in the Synods Discourse viz. that Some may have their Children Baptized who yet are short of actual fitness for the Lords Supper But the Answer to it will take in both And the Answer will easily be given if once we understand distinctly what is meant by A state of unfitness for the Lords â—upper now by a state of unfitness must be meant either Non-membership and that is indeed a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper which belongs onely to the Church though not to all in the Church yet onely to it and in this sense the Assumption above mentioned is denied for the Parents in question are Members of the Church and in that respect in a state of fitness for the Lords supper i. e. being in the Church or Members thereof to them belong all Church-priviledges according as they shall be capable thereof and appear duely qualified for the same they have jus ad rem though not jus in re as a Childe hath a right to all his Fathers Estate though he may not ought not to have the actual use and fruition of it till he become to years and be qualified with abilities to manage it A Free â—an is in a state of fitness to be a Magâ—straâ—e or Deputy or in some other office proper to Freemen though for want of Particulâ—r quâ—lifications or orderly admission by Election he may haply never be one In such a sense every Church-member is in a state of fitness for the Lords Supper Or else by A state of unfitness for the Lords Supper is 〈◊〉 Want of actual qualifications fitting for it whereby a person either is in himself short of actual fitness for the Lords Table or wanteth Church approâ—ation of his fitness and â—o wanteth an orderly admission thereunto Now in this sense we deny the Major or Proposition of the Argument above mentioned and do conceive that there iâ— warrant to be â—â—und in Scripture for the applying of Baptism to Children 〈◊〉 Parents do want actual qualifications fitting them for the Lords Supper Among sundry other Scripture evidences of it one is from the Analogie of the Passeover and Circumcision in the Church of Iâ—rael where the Parâ—nt might want actual fitness for the Passeover by manifold Ceremonial uncleannesses and yet that hindred not the Circumcising of the Childe Now a liberty of arguing from thence to the Gospel passeover and Gospel-circumcision i. e. to the Lords Supper and Baptism is here granted and allowed but 't is Answered that Vnless the Father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his Childe Circumcised Reply Whâ—t state of fitness was the unclean Iewish Parent in but onely a state of membership He was a Member of the Church and so 〈◊〉 the Parents in question and they need not do not enter into a new Membership when they are admitted to the Lords Table no more then the Iewish Parent after his cleansing did But in two things the case of the Ceremonially-unclean Jewish Parent holds proportion with the case in hand 1. He must have other and better qualifications then he hath at present before he eat of the Passover he is at present in a state of Legal impurity and so in regard of actual qualifications in a state of unfitness but he must be in a state of Legal purity and cleanness before he partake of the holy things 2. He must especially after some uncleannesses of a more remarkable nature be judged and Pronounced by the Priest to be clean and so free to partake of the holy things Levit. 13.6 So the Parents in question must have their fitness for the Lords Table judged of and approved by those in the Church to whom the power of such judgement and approbation doth belong And having these two things Personal qualifications and Church-approbation then and not before they are to come to the Lords Table and those two are all they need they do not need a new admittance into Membership as if they were before not of the Church no more then the Israelitish Parent did If any one object that this Legal uncleanness was but an accidental and ceremonial thing and did not import the want of any Moral or Essential fitness for the Passover Let him consider That as the Discipline then was mostly Ceremonial and hence Legal purity was then an essential qualification unto a regular fitness for the Passover and other holy things and the want of it a reall barre so those Ceremonies pointed unto Moral and Spiritual things to be attended by us now Their Legal cleansings washings c. did import and signifie a special exercise of Faith and Repentance which therefore we may well require in those whom we admit unto full Communion in the holy things of
the Gospel yet the present defect hereof doth not put the Parent out of the Church nor exclude his Children from Membership or from the Initiatory Seal of it no more then a-like defect did then We might also minde the case of one that hath been in full Communion but falling into Offence is under publick Admonition for it Is not he in a state of unfitness taking it for want of actual fitting qualifications for the Lords Supper yet this will not debarre his Childe from Baptism because he is not yet cut off from Membership Neither doth his having once been in full Communion alter the case or render him more in a state of fitness then the Parent in question is for the one is a Member as well and as truely as the other and to be declined and fallen off from Supper-qualifications and debarred from the Lords Table for open Offence is worse then for a young man simply not to have attained thereunto it is at least Ecclesiasticalâ—y worse We speak not of what the inward state before God may be but that it is worse in foro Ecclesiae appears Because the Church hath had and seen cause to dispense a publick Censure in the one case but not in the other Now if a person may retain his Membership and so derive Baptism-right to his Children notwithstanding his personal unfitness for the Lords Supper in the former case why not as well nay much more in the latter But let it seriously be considered whether there be any warrant in all the Scripture to make the baptizing of the Childe to depend upon the Parents actual fitness for or admission to the Lords Supper What fitness for the Lords Supper had those that were baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christs Disciples at his appointment in the beginning of his publick Ministry What fitness had the Iaylor when himself and all his were baptized after an hours Instinction wherein probably he had not so much as heard any thing of the Lords Supper The teaching of which followed after Discipling and Baptizing as is hinted by that order in Matth. 28.19 20 and by the ancient practice of not teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized as is witnessed by Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 13 14. Albaspinans apud Baxter of Confirmation pag. 132. We constantly read in the story of the Acts that persons were Baptized immediately upon their first entrance into Membership but we never read that they did immediately upon their first Membership receive the Lords Supper which strongly argues that Membership and Baptism the Seal thereof is separable even in the adult from full Communion And that a man may have his Children baptized as the Iaylor and others had and yet not presently come but need further instruction and preparation before he come to the Lords Supper So farre is Baptism from being inseparable from immediate admission to the Lords Supper that we reade of no one no not of the â—dult in all the New Testament thaâ— was admitted to the Lords Supper immediately upon his Baptism from the first Baptism of Iohn to the end of the Acts of the Apostles There is but one place that sounds as if it were quickly after viz. Acts 2.41 42. which is here alledged by our Brethren But to that 1. There is no word about the Lords Supper in Peters Sermon the Heads whereof are in that Chapter set down though tâ—ere is somewhat of the other Sacrament of Baptism ver 38. and upon glad receiving 〈◊〉 is word they were baptized immediately ver 41. 2. Hence there must be some time afterward for instructing them in the doctrine and use of the Lords Supper as Paul nad some time for that aâ— Corinth 1 Cor. 11.23 with Acts 18.11 before their admission tâ—ereunto or participation thereof and so much is â—â—â—imated in the Text when it s said They after their being added and baptized continued in or gave sedulous attendance to the Apostles Doctrine fiâ—st and then Breaking of Bread There was some time of gaining further acquaintance with Christ and with his Wayes and Ordinances and with this in special by the Apostles Doctrine and Instruction between their baptizing and their participation of the Supper some time we say more or less and that that was attained in a very little time then under those plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit requires usually a much longer time now in ordinary Dispensation The Preface proceeds to strengthen their second Reason by Testimonies and the Assertion which they seem to intend the Proof of by these Testimonies is a very strange one viz. this Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary These words as they are here set down do speak as if in the Primitive times Baptism was not extended unto Infants or at least no more nor sooner then the Lords Supper was given unto them which is here presently well acknowledged to have been a grievous Errour Well might the Anabaptist triumph if this could be proved which indeed never was nor can be But we are willing to believe that our Brethrens meaning is though it be not so expressed that the Subject of Baptism in Ancient times was not of a greater Latitude as to the Adult then the Lords Supper i. e. that no adult persons might have Baptism for themselves or for their Children but such as were also admitted to the Lords Supper But of this also we must say That we finde not any thing that proves it but much to the contrary And though we have not met with any that have purposely handled this Point touching the different extent of these two Sacraments yet we finde enough to shew us That the Churches of Christ in all especially in the best Ages and the choicest Lights therein both Ancient and Modern have concurred and met in this Principle as a granted and undoubted Truth that baptism is of larger extent then the Lords Supper so as that many that are within the visible Church may have Baptism for themselves or at least for their Chilâ—ren who yet ought not presently to partake of the Lords Supper or who do at present want actual fitness for it The Witnesses above cited tell us that in Ancient times they did not so much as impart any thing to the Caâ—echumeni about the Lords Supper till after their Baptism And if Hanmer have rightly observed even the Adult after their Baptism must have Confirmation before they partaked of the Lords Supper Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 15 22. And vid. pag. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Perfectus among the Ancients is as much as with us one in full Communion but none were by them recâ—oned to be 〈◊〉 in the Rank of perfect Christians that had not received the holy Ghost either in extraordinary Gifts or in special confirming Grace See Hanmer of Confirmat