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
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
which do amount further 3. Whereas the Synod saith Children of the covenant as the Parents in Question are have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years at Scripture and experience shew Instance Joseph Samuel c. hence this sort of Persons shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or to ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers The Reverend Author answereth That the Parents in question were indeed children of the Covenant in their infancy or minority but if when they are adult they do not covenant for themselves and their seed being fitly qualified they cannot then be fiâ—ly called Children of the Covenant but Transgressors of the Covenant and breakers of it Ans. 1. If they be breakers of it then sure they are comprehended in it for how can men break the Covenant whâ—ch they are not in therefore as it is here expresly confessed that they were children of the Covenant in their minoriâ—y so the same is by Consequence confessed of them being adult for otherwise how could they be then said to break the Covenant 2. If the Parents in question were Children of the Covenant in their Infancy and minority as the Reverend Author acknowledgeth they were this suits well enough with the purpose and scope of the Synod in this place which is expresly said to be this that such children have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years and such as had grace begun in them in their younger years why should not charity think it is there still when nothing appears to the contrary for he that once begins that good work of grace is not wont to forsake that work of his own hands but to perfect it untill the day of Christ Psal. 138.8 Phil. 1.6 Further saith the Reverend Author This Argument is fallâ—cious because it argues from some particulars to infer a general affirmatively Some children of the Covenant have had the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years therefore all persons of this sort c. If the Reverend Author had expressed the Synods Argument as they expressed it it would not then have appeared so fallacious as the alteration of their words may make it For whereas they said Children of the Covenant have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years for which they produced eight or nine Instances from Scripture all these Instances and that frequency for Proof of which they were alledged are now all left out and in stead thereof it is rendred some Children of the Covenant c. and whereas the inference which the Synod makes is thus expressed viz. hence this sort of Persons c. now the term All which was not in before is expresly put in thus All Persons of this sort c. which alteration may indeed obscure the strength of the Argument But let it be reduced to what it first was and then let the judicious Reader consider whether it be fallâ—cious or firme whether there be weakness or weight in it Thus it was If Children of the Covenant have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years then this sort of Persons shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or to ecclesiastical reputation visible Believers But so it is Ergo. The Assumption here is manifestly proved by those many Instances in Scripture alledged and by Experience and the Consequence we hope is not fallâ—cious but found and good for if it be frequently thus why should not charity believe it is thus in this sort of persons where nothing appears to the contrary 4. The Synod having said That they that are regularly in the Church as the Parents in question be are visible Saints in the account of Scripture for the Church is in Scripture account 〈◊〉 company of Saints 1 Cor. 14.33 1.2 The Reverend Author Answereth That both the Assertion and the Proof of it are to be denyed The Assertion is not true that the Parents in question are regularly in the Church Infants and Children in minority of confederate believers are in the Church by their Parents Covenanting for them 1 Cor. 7.14 But Parents are not so till c. Ans. It is here again confessed that Infants and Children in minority are regularly in the Church but not so when they are adult and come to be Parents but of their continuing in the Church notwithstanding their coming to be adult something hath been said before and more may in the sixth Argument Partic. 3. But whereas it is said The Proof is to be denied and is not apposite we conceive it cannot be denied to be very apposite for the purpose for which the Synod doth alledge it which is to pâ—ove that they that are Regularly in the Church are in Scripture account visible Saints and the words of the Texts alledged are so plain and apposiâ—e for this purpose as we conceive nothing can be more Whether the Parents in question be such or no regularly in the Church and so Saints or not is another thing for which we conceive much hath and may be said but the Texts alledged were not produced by the Synod for that purpose and therefore though they be not plain for Proof of that yet if they be plain and apt enough for the purpose for which they were produced by the Synod that may sâ—ffice though they prove not this other to which the Reverend Author doth apply them 5. Saith the Synod Being in Covenant and baptized they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise and sealed up in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continues valid and so a valid Testimony for them while they do not rejâ—ct it To this the Reverend Author in his Answer makes mention of a distinction Between the grace of the Covenant and the Covenant of Grace in regard of externall means between the Elect in whom God works the Grace promised in the Covenant so powerfully that they shall not reject it and the rest who have the outward means of grace till they reject them as did Esau and concludes that Such as reject the offers of grace and living under the means of grace do remain unbelievers cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance undefinitely given to them in the Promise Ans. But is there any Proof of the contrary to what the Synod affirmeth It seems none at all For when the Synod saith The Covenant which promiseth Faith and Repentance is a valid Testimony for them while they do not reject it and the Reverend Author saith That such as do reject the offers of grace have not Faith and Repentance given to them in the Promise These are not contrary nor at all inconsistent For the Synod never said nor meant that the grace of Faith and Repentance are given by the Covenant to them that are breakers of the Covenant and reject the offers of grace and living under the means of grace do still remain unbelievers the Synod never said
by his generating him so also of his Church-membership by his confederating for him and this by Gods Institution And seeing the person of the Childe hath a membership of its own affixed to it as the foresaid grants import and that from God from Gods Covenant and Institution as well as the person of the Parent why should we say that the membership of the Childe doth after this depend upon the Membership or Covenant of the Parent and not rather upon Gods Covenant and Institution so as to live and dye according to the Order and appointment thereof and not otherwise hence the Membership wherewith the person of the Childe is clothed by Gods Institution dyes not till either the person of the Childe dye or till by some Institution and Appointment of God he be cut off from his Membership for his own sin Neither must it be yelded that the Excommunication of the Parent doth properly and formally cut off the Infant-childe that was born before such Excommunication We say properly and formally for Consequentially and Eventually it may bring the Childe to be cut off also as in case the Parent desperately go away from the Church among Hereticks and Infidels and bring up the Childe to serve other Gods But so it may be with a wife carried away by such an Husband yet that does not hinder her from having a personal distinct proper and immediate Membership nor make his cutting off to be hers also But suppose a Parent and Children that live and continue among us the Parent having a company of Children all in their minority is for his wickedness cast out and continuing impenitent dyes in that estate to say that all these Children who were Born and Baptized in the Church are cut off from Membership hereby is a strange Assertion For 1. This would make an Infant-childe to be a subject of Excommunication which was before and in regard of natural capacity and demerit rightly denied 2. If a Parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people were the Children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel to be sure in Crimes capitally punished of which cutting off from their People is sometimes plainly meant Exod. 31.14 15. Levit. 17.4 18.29 20.18 the Childe was not to dye for the Fathers sin Deut. 24.16 2 Chron. 25.4 Ier. 31.30 Ezek. 18.20 and is there not the like reason of other punishments whether Ecclesiastical or Civil yea that cutting off from their People appointed in the Law is conceived by judicious Interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an Ecclesiastical Death or cutting off from the People and Church of God by Excommunication But however it held a proportion with Excommunication now under the Gospel The Childe may be barred from a Right or Privilegde that he neâ—er had by the sin or condition of the Parent so Hâ—athen Children are unclean and without because their Parents are so Hence Children born after the Parents Excommunication are not of the Church But to be deprived of a Right or Priviledge which â—e once â—ad and was possessed of which is the case of Children formerly born in the Church and owned as Members by the seal of Baptism this hath in it the nature of a proper formal Punishment or Censure and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin A Parent Civilly or Naturally dead cannot after that bring forth Children to the Commonwealth nor can a Parent Ecclesiastically dead he so continuing bring forth Children to the Church But the Children that are already Members of the one Society or of the other are not to be cut off therefrom for their Parents sin 3. That If the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live is a truth in nature of Branches growing on the same Tree But if these Branches be taken and set upon a Stâ—ck and Root of their own though but as in a Nursery then they do not die when the old Tree dies or is cut up by the Roots And so is the Case in hand These Children are inserted and implanted into the Church the Body of Christ in their own persons as was but now granted when it was said The persons of these Infants do receive the Adjunct of of Church-membership and that their persons are â—rought under the Covenant and have so farre taken root therein as to receive not from their Parents but from the Church and from the Soil and Faâ—ness thereof the Sap and Nourishment of Baptism which is also a Seal of the establishment or rooting of their Membership Branches included and contained in the Root as Children yet unborn or not born till after Excommunication are broken off or rather left without together with their Parents But not such Branches as are already severed from the Root and planted in the House of God in the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts as through the grace of the Covenant our Children are Isa. 5.7 4. That Death does not put an end to the outward Covenant which Excommunication does is a Notion that we understand not We should have thought that outward Membership or Membership in the visible instituted Church as well as the use of all outward Ordinances or instituted Worâ—hip had everlastingly ceased at Death The Ends Duties and Enjoyments of outward Membership do then cease and so the Membership it self The Lord knows how many may from outward Membership in the visible Church drop to Hell and does not their Death put an end to their Membership And if Death put an end to outward Membership it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the Question i. e. as to the person that dies Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant and are surviving And neither does Excommunication so do But the person of the Parent loses his Membership in the visible Church when he dies as well as when he is Excommunicated And hence if the Membership of the Childe did live and die with the Membership of the Parent there would be a Cessation of it in the one case as well as in the other A Parents Faith Prayers and Covenant may live though hiâ— self be dead But how i. e. Virtually in the virtue and effect of them And how is that why the promise made by God to the Faith Prayers and Profession or Covenanting of a godly Parent that lives and abides and takes effect So then it is neither the Parent nor his Membership but Gods Covenant that lives taking in the Children that are begotten or born of Confederate Parents to be Members of his visible Church and so continuing them till by some Rule or Appointment of his they be cut off In like manner though the Parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel and be cut off by the Censure of Excommunication yet the Covenant of God lives and stands to the Children whom he had
before taken into Covenant and planted in his House To call it The Covenant of their Parents and to say that Childrens Membership is dependent upon that is too crude a pâ—râ—se and too much abused by many ascribing that to the Parents and to their Profession or Act in Covenanting which belongs most properly to God and his Grace 'T is Gods Covenant that takes in both Parents and Children Alas what are Parents and what could all their Profession and Faith and Actings do if God did not vouchsafe to take them into Covenant Now God taketh the Childe into his Covenant as well as the Parent And 't is Gods Covenant and Institution that the Membership of the Chide depends upon and with which alone it lâ—ves and dies But it follows in the Preface True it is that we have made much use of that Distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members which seems to us to carry a mighty and constraining Evidence of Scripture-Light along with it c. Ans. We must needs say this seems strange to us when as there is not so much as one Scripture brought either here or in the Book following to make good or hold forth such a Distinction In stead of Scriptures here are some Authors streight named not to Attest the Distinction of Immediate and Mediate it seeâ—s that cannot be found no not so much as in Authors but of Compleat and Incompleat To which the Answer is ready 1. If some Authors have so distinguished Members yet where is such a distinction of Membership at least purposely so intended as to makâ— several sorts or kindes of Membership specifically differing as is expresly said of the Distinction here pleaded for in the Book pag 37. Dr Ames in the place here cited does not say of Infants Non sunt 〈◊〉 Membra but Perfecta Membra Neither does he say Non sunt perfecta but Non sunt adeo perfecta Membra They are not so perfect Members saith he of the Church as that they can exercise acts of Communion or be admitted to partake of all the Priviledges thereof Plainly referring the Imperfection or Incompleatness not to the Essence of their Membership but to the Degree of their Communion and Priviledges Hence 2. Their Distinction of Members into Compleat and Incompleat is being candidly taken as much as our Distinction of Members into such as are in â—ull or compleat Communion and such as are not yet in full Communion which Distinction we have and we hope justly made great use of And for such a distinction Reâ—â—ipsa loquitur All that are within of or belonging to such a Society whether Family Commonwealth or Church are truely and properly said to be Members of that Society but all are not equal in participation of Priviledges therein Some have a more full or compleat 〈◊〉 and portion therein and some have less All Christs Scholars or Disciples are not of the Highest Form nor are all his Subjects betrusted with the Keyes of his Kingdome nor all his Children past their Non-age c. But yet they are all Disciples in his School Subjects of his Kingdome Children of his Family i. e. Members oâ— the visible Church But such a Distinction as maketh several sorts of Membership specifically different we have not yet seen cleared and confirmed either from Scripture or Authors or from sound Reason Sundry distinctions or sorts of Members might easily be given as Some Members are in Office in the Church some out of Office some partake of the Lords Supper but not of the power of Voting as Women some of both some have onely Initial Priviledges some All. Ames Medul Lib 1. Cap 32. Thes. â— 3. But these are but distributions ex Adjunctis and do not touch or vary the Essence of Membership nor make several sorts thereof Nor do these Distinctions and Degrees of Members in the Church arise simply from the nature of Membership or from any difference therein but from something superadded unto Membership As an Officer is not more a Member then another but his dignity and place in the Church ariseth from somewhat superadded unto Membership viz. His Office A man is not more a Member then a woman though he hath a power and priviledge in the Church besides and above bare Membership which the woman hath not So men and women that partake of the Lords Table are not more or more truely properly immediately and personally Members of the Church then Children are but they having attained to more and further qualifications or to a greater degree of growth in the Church are by Rule admitted to mor Priviledges then they Thus in a Kingdome or Commonwealth there are many sorts of Subjects some bear Office some not some admitted to Election of Officers some not some capable of Pleading and answering for themselves in Law some are not But yet they all agree in the relation of a Subject And who ever made a specifical distinction of that so as to say in that sense some are Mediate Subjects and some Immediate The same may be said of a Family where the youngest Childe is as truely properly personally and immediately a Member of the Family as the most grown person though as to power and priviledges therein there be a vast difference So in the Natural Body All the parts are not an Eye an Hand c. but all are Members and the meanest part is as well a Member as the most noble 1 Cer. 12. 12 25. Now there is the like reason as to the general nature of Membership in â— Church-Society which is set forth by that of a Kingdome Faâ—â—ly and of the Natural body in the holy Scriptures And so much for the Discourse upon the second Objection In the third place our Brethren set down this Position or Opinion as that which is objected against them That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an act or defect of his own without any Church-act in Censuring of him and to 〈◊〉 is they say most true it is thâ—t we do maintain this And for Prooâ— therâ—â—f they suppoâ—e 〈…〉 of an English Fugitive of one turned Turk who was never Censured by any Church Ans. The Position objected against them if it be pertinent to the matter in hand must run thus That a person who is a Church-member may become no Member by an aâ—â— or defect of his own without any Church-act in Censuriâ—g of hiâ— and without 〈…〉 Censure on his part or though he do not so much as deserve any Church-censure and be not censurable by any Rule of Gods Word For so the words â—f the Synod â— in defence of the Controverted fifth Proposition do expresly speak putting that as an 〈◊〉 that A person admitted Member and Sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving so to be may the Church whereof he was still remaining become a Non-member and out of the Church and of the unclean world pag. 26. Now put but this into the Objection here mentioned Without
was of Midian and so of Keturah see Rivet on Exod. 2. and on Exod. 18.12 Preface In like sort when persons under the Gospel do not come up to the terms of the Covenant to shew themselves to be Abrahams Children by holding forth his Faith and walking before the Lord in simplicity and Goaly sincerity we suppose that they are justly deemed breakers of the Covenant and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their Parents made for them Ans. 1. The persons in question i. e. the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition do in some degree hold forth their Faith and godly walking while they are professed Christians or professed Believers and followers of the Truth and Wayes of God wherein they have been educated from their Infâ—ncy do constantly attend the Ordinances and Worship of God live under and do not cast off the Government of Christ in his Courâ—â— and when called thereto do readily profess their Assent to the Doctrine of Faiâ—â— and Consent to the Covenant Do these putting all this together in no sort shew themselves to be Abrahams Children by holding forth the Faith of Abraham and walking in his steps i. e. in Charitable and Ecclesiastical Reputation Surely Mr. Cotton accounts such as these yea all the Children of the Faithful that do not grow up to Apostacy and open Scandal or that are not excommunicable to continue in a visible profession of the Covenant Faith and Religion of their Fathers as in those passages of his that are pointed to in the Preface the lâ—â—e Synod may be seen And where shall we finde ground in all the Scripture to exclude such as these from being within the compass of the visible Church or the Covenants thereof 2. If the meaning be that they do not yet hold forth such an Experimental work of Faith or lively discerning and exercise thereof and so much of the Power of Godliness in their life as may fit them for a comfortable approach to the Lords Supper Let it be shewed from the Scripture that the bare defect or want hereof is such a Violation of the terms of the Covenant as puts men out of it We know that every Transgression or falling stort of Duty required in the Covenant is not accounted in Scripture an absolute Breach of the Covenant or a forsaking and rejecting thereof such as for which God gives unto persons or people a bill of Divorce Do but compare these persons in question whom the hasty and rigid Severity of Man here pronounces to be justly deemed Breakers of the Covenant and to have put themselves out of it with those whom the Holy but Merciful and Gracious God does in Scripture call and account such Breakers of the Covenant see Ier. 11.9 10. Ezek. 16.8 59. Deut. 29.25 26.2 Chron 7.22 2 King 17.15 20. and he that would not cut down no not the Barren Fig â—ree till further patience and means were used he that waiâ—ed on the Iews whose entrance into the Church was by a Membership received in Infancy in the Ministry of Christ and the Apostles with as clear light of the Gospel as ever shone till utter incorrigible rejection thereof appeared before he accounted them broken off Rom. 11.16 20. with Act 13.45 46. 18.5 6. 19.8 9. 1 Thes. 2.15 16. he that followed Ierusalem with means and dispensations of Grace till they Sâ—oned him away Mat. 23.27 c. can we imagine that he will reckon our poor Children to be broken off as soon as they are adult if then presently they do not bold forth fitness â—â—r the Lords Table yea when many of them are it may be secretly following after God though haply they have not yet attained so much as to make their approach to that Ordinance comfortable or have not yet the confidence to put forth themselves thereunto surely the Lord does not make so light a matter of his holy Covenant and seâ—l whatever men through mis-guided apprehensions may do as to enter into a solemn Covenant with Children take them into his Church and seal up their taking in before Men and Angels and then let them goe out so easily or drop off one knows not how 3. If they have justly i. e. meritoriously put themselves out of the Covenant or so violated the Covenant on their part as to deserve a putting out yet still one might ask how they come to be Actually put out seeing the Church hath not proceeded nor seen cause to proceed to any Censure But if it be indeed so that they do deserue i. e. in foâ—o Ecclesia we speak not of desert in the sight of God to be put out if they may be justly â—â—eâ—ed Breakers of the Covenant and are guilty of that which justly puts them out then it is the Churches duty actually to put them out or cut them off for Ecclesiastical justice as well as Civil reâ—dreth unto all their due and just deserts and those that are Ecclesiastically Breakers of the Covenant ought to be cut off Gen. 17.14 Hence it will follow upon these Principles that we ought to cast out and cut off all the adult Children of our Churches that are not come up to full Communion which thing how horrid it is to think of let the Reader judge or be it that we forbear any formal Censure and Content our selves onely Doctrinaly to declare that all such Children are put out and broken off which Doctrinâ— Declaration is indeed contained in the Assertions of our Brethren yet the harshness and horrid Severity of such a Declaration is liâ—â—le inferiour to the other and very contrary to the Patience and Grace of Jesus Christ expreâ—â—d in the Scriptures Preface Wherefore that all may know that there is neither Danger nor Singularity in this our Assertion That a Church member may possibly become no Member wiâ—hout any Act of the Church in formal Censuring of him give us leaâ—e to proâ—uce some Testimonies to prove it Iudicious and blessed Dr. Ames â—aâ—th That in case of pertinaâ—ious separatiâ—n suâ—h persons though they may be of the Invisible yet they are not to be accounted Members of the vâ—siâ—le Church Ans. 1. Suppose you should prove that a Church-member may Possibly become no Member without a Censure yet we are still utterly to seek of Proof that â—â—e Children in question do so 2. How can a Separation be properly pertinacious and incurable or appear so to be till the means of Church discipline have been used 3. Ames his meaning may be that such are not to be accounted lawful and approved Members as in the close of that Chapter De Consc. Lib. 5. Cap. 12. he saith â— Schâ—smatical Church is not to be accounted for a lawful and approved Church 4. We shall not deny but that some good Divines do seem to hold that in some cases of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy and so in case of absolute and universal Schism of which Ames there speâ—ks especially in places and Churches where Discipline is
not used men may be looked at as Non-members though the Church did neglect to pass a formal Censure wherein we shall not trouble our selves with being their Opponents It sufficeth us that in Churches regularly using Discipline there is no ordinary way whereby offenders lose Church-membership but by Excommunication And that none can lose it while they live that are not guilty of such evil as is censureable or is matter of Excommunication which the persons in question are not Another Testimony here alledged is from Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches p. 9. where he saith that Many in Churches have cut themselves off Ans. Had the whole sentence been set down every Reader would have seen the impertinency of the Allegation as to the Persons and Case in question Mr. Cotâ—â—ns wordâ— are these Many in other Churches have â—ut themselves off from the Covenant by their notorious wickedness and profaneness And withall in the same place he addes that Arelapsed Church with all the Members of it are bound to renew their Covenant in order to Reformation which shews that they were not wholly cut off before though their Membership was but by being born in the Church and baptized for of that he there speaks We doubt not but among the Members of such Relapsed Churches might be found many much more degenerate then those described in the Synods Fifth Preposition much less therefore are those Discovenanted but being in Covenant are bound to renew it in order to full Communion The next Testimony here produced is from those words in the Discourse of church-Church-Covenant pag. 17. viz. That if men had not promised and also performed in some measure of truth the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God they had not taken hold of the Covenant but had Discovenanted themselves notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers and others Thus though God promised Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed in their generations Genes 17 7. yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham were Discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience which God required on the peoples part Now if this saith the Apologist were Truth in the Year 1639. as it then had the Approbation of the Eldeâ—s hereabouts we see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem eâ—t Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Ans. Let the words here cited be câ—ndidly interpreted and they contain nothing repugnant to the present Doctrine of the Synod For it is true that if men do not promise or do not perform in some measure yea in some measure of truth i. e. visibly and in Charitable and Ecclesiastical reputation the duties of Faith and Obedienâ—e into God they do Discovendat themselves i. e. they do it meritoriously and do what lies in them â—n thâ—â— part to destroy their Membership And â—hey so do it as will inferre the absolute loss of their Membership viz. either by formal Excommunication if you speak of particular persons and if the Church do her duty or by the Lorâ—s giving them a Bill of Divorce if you speak of whole Bodies of People as here the Ishâ—â—celâ—â—s 〈◊〉 a Eâ—ountes are spoken of But what is all this to the Children of our Churches deâ—â—ribâ—d in the Synodâ— Fifth Proposition who do promise and do in some â—easure though not in so full a measure as were to be desired perform the duties of Faith and Obedience This might be true in 1639. and in 1662. also And yet our Assertion may be true and yours false notwithstanding Let our Children appear to be such as the Edoâ—ates and Ishmaelites were or let them appear to be such as do in no measure yea i. â— no measâ—re of truth i. e. as to Church-visibility or charitable hope for the Church â—â—ngâ— no further perfâ—rm the duties of Faith and Obedience and we will with you plead to have them put out of the Church But till then i. e. as long as they do in some measure though yet but in a small and initiall measure perform the Duties and retain the Essentials of Christianity or of Faith and Obedience they continue yea regularly continue in the Church for ought that hath yet appeared either in 1639. or in 1662. We are loth to take notice of the insulting Expressions that are here used which are too-too uncomely especially there where thâ—â—â—fth Commandment requireth Special Honour But the intelligent Reader will easily see the vanity of this Conâ—â—dence to bring a Testimony concerning the Discovenanting of the Ishmaelites and Edomites for they are expreâ—ly instanced in as the Explication of the not-promising nor performing the duties of Faâ—â—rand Obedience intended by the Author and then to triumph in it as if that proved the Discovenanting of our Hopefull and Non-excommunicable Children or thwarted the Doctrine of the Synod When it is here added This is the main thing wherein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod If by This be meant the Assertion which is before expressed viz. that A church-member may possibly become no Member without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him then it is a great and â—trangâ— miâ—reâ—resentation to say that this is the main Poâ—ut of your Dissent For there be them that do â—eartily consent to all the Conclâ—sions of the Synod and yet dâ— hold and did in the Synod express as much That in some notorious cases and where the Church neglects her duty as hath been before said persons may be broken off and looked at as Non-members though not formally Censured or that a Church-member may possibly in some cases become no Member without a formal Censure the Reader therefore is greatly mis-led and mis-informed when he is told that This is the main Point of our Dissent But when you aâ—â—ert that the Children in question are become no Members or that persons who were before Members do become no Members as soon as ever they are adult meerly by want of fitness for full Communion though they neither have not deserâ—e to have any Church-censure paâ—led upon them This we confess is a main Point wherein you Dissent from the Synod and we suppose from Scriâ—ture and sound Reason too Preface Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church meâ—bers which are these following Such as are born and baptized Memâ—ers of the Church are not cruelty continued and confirmed Members unless when they grow up to years they do before the Lord and his People prayes their Repentance and Faith in Ieâ—us Chrâ—st Answ. It is manifest that by Confirmed Members all along in that Book Mr. Cottonâ—eaneâ— â—eaneâ— such as are admitted to â—uâ— Communiâ—n or to the Lords Supper and Voting and so he dâ—th expressly explain himself pag. 9. and for that it is well known we stand â—ully for the
under the Governâ—eâ—t of Christ aâ—d to set them in their own persons as Lamos in a large place For by this the Church hath nothing to do with them nor can put forth any act eâ—â—er of Watch or Censure immedâ—ately upon them but upon their Parents onely But that Church-watch Government no Discipline is to be extended and administred to our Children personâ—lly and immediâ—aâ—ly i. e. according as in regard of age and understanding they are capable there f viz. Instruction and Inspection and that in an official way even in younger years aâ—d formal Censures when adult if they fâ—ll into such offences as do need â—nd deserve the same the Reader may finde confirmed in the Syâ—â—ds Arguments and in the following Defence thereof Haply the Aâ—sertion 〈…〉 mediate Church-care is â—â—eltered uâ—dâ—r that clause Those Châ—ldren that are in Minority Bâ—â— 1. Much help by Instructions Counsels Warnings Reproâ—fs Exhortations c. and that in an Authoritative way and upon the account of their Memberly Relation may be administred unto Children themsâ—lves immediately in their own pâ—rsons besides looking to Parents that they do their duâ—ies to them even while they are in their Minoriâ—y though not yet capable of publick Censures 2. They are in the same state and Relation to the Church though not of the same capacity when in minority and when adult If therefore not because of their natural incapacity but because of the nature of their Membership onely mediate and no Immediate Church-care Watch and Government belong to them while in minority neither doth it belong to them when adult and therefore this notion excludes all our Children both younger and elder from being under any Church-government immediately in their own persons So that let them run on in never such vile courses the Church cannot deal with them but with their Parents onely and yet the case may often so be that the Parents are neither blameable for their miscâ—rriages nor able to reform the same But as mediate as their Memberâ—â—ip is here is somewhat added that shall touch these adult Children themselves and what is that Why Iâ— when they 〈◊〉 be adult they do not bring forth fruits of Repentance and Faith then the Church is to disâ—wn them at having no part in the Lord. Ans. 1. Is this according to the Spirit of Christ or like the Lords proceeding with his Covenant-people in the Scripture presently to disown them and cast them off if some evil fruits nay if want of gâ—od fruits be 〈◊〉 in them then at first step to call them Loamâ—i and tell them they have no part in the Lord Hath the Lord vouchsâ—fed to take these persons into his gâ—orious Coveâ—â—nt and â—o real it to them in Baptism before Men and Angels and doth it come but to this that if poor Childreâ— as soon as the day of ripe understanding dâ—wns upon them do not bring 〈◊〉 the fruits of Faith and Repentance yea such fruits as may sit them for felâ— Communion they are then presently declared to be Discovenanted and to be turned dâ—ift as those who have no part in the Lord It is true the most hopeful Childe yea the best of us all might justly be Discovenanted by the Lord should he strictly mark what is amisâ— and deal accâ—rding to our deserts but he is graciously pleased not to proceed with 〈◊〉 severity but with much patience and long suffering towards those whom he once take into Covenant And who or what is man that he should be more holy then the Lord Let but that one Scripture be looked upon among many other touching the barren Fig-tree which is here cited as if it gave some countenance to this present Disowning in case of barrenness The Lord comes in the time and season of fruit and findes none and yet he waits another year after that and a third after that i. e. a long time and with great demonstration of patience before he speaks of cutting it down and then the Vine-dresser acted therein by the Spirit of God cries not Cut it down presently but Lord let it alone one year more i. e. till it appear utterly hopeless and incureable that I may dig about it and dung it He chooseth rather to make it a subject of Labour and Culture then to case himself by ridâ—â—ng his hands of it Also that Parable points to the People of the Iews to and among whom Chrâ—st preached Now the following story of the New Testament tells us that Christ and his Apostles wâ—ited on them till they appeared altogether incureable and incâ—rrigâ—â—e and till their incureable Barreâ—ness disâ—overed it self by pâ—sitive fruits of wicked opposing and rejecting the Gosâ—el before they were cut down or broken off And the Apâ—â—tles when they preached to the Adult and yet impenitent Iews did not tell them they had no part in the Lord but on the contrary expressly told them they had a part in the Lord and in his Covenant-dispensations and urged that as an Argument to â—raw them to repent and believe though they had not yet done it Acts 13.19.25 26. Acts 3.26 26. They were farre from being an occasion of making them cease from fearing the Lord by telling them they had no part in him 2. Suppose any of these Children when adult do bring forth some fruits of Faith and Repentance as those desâ—ribed in the Synods fifth Proposition can hardly be denied in charitable reputation to do though not so full and ripe fruits as were to be desired and haply not such as themselves do finde encourageâ—ent to approach to the Lords Table what shall be done to these shall they be Owned or Disowned are they In the Church or Out If In why is Baptism denied to their Children If Out how coâ—e they so to be or where doth God in his Word say or allow us to say to such hopeful young men and women as through grace many of our Children are though not yet in full Communion That they have no part in the Lord 3. Wâ—at is tâ—is Disowâ—ing and where shall we have Scripture-warrant for such a Church-disowning as is not Excommuniâ—ation for That our Bretâ—ren see not warrant to procâ—ed unto but 〈◊〉 down this Rule The Church is to disown them or having no part in the Lord If any man speak especiâ—lly if he speak Rules according to wâ—icâ— the Church is to practise let him speak as the Oracles of God It were needful that this disowning contradistinguished to Excommunication should be cleared from thence Admonition and Excommunication we hear plainly of in the Scripture and in Orthodox Divinity but a Disowning that is a kinde of publick Church-censure and yet is neither Admonition nor Excommunication this seems to be a new invented piece of Discipline We demand whether this Disowning be not a putting one out of the Church that was before in it If so what is it but Excommunication which the Apostle expresseth by that Put away from among you 1 Cor. 5.13 if not is
were dead this second Generation would be a true Church of Christ without any further act or covenanting is no absurdity but a manifest Truth i. e. taking that Phrase Further act or covenanting to be meant of a particular formal act of Explicite Verbal covenanting For otherwise there is a further act yea an act of implicite covenanting in their constant and publick profession of the Religion of their Fathers But we say this second Generation continuing to use Mr. Cottons Phrase in Grounds of Baptism pag. 106. in a visible profession of the Covenant Faith and Religion of their Fathers are a true Church of Christ though they have not yet made any explicite personal expression of their engagement as their Fathers did Even as the Israelites that were numbred in the Plains of Moab were a true Church and under the Covenant of God made with them in Horeb though their Parents with whom it was first made in Horeb were all dead and that before the solemn renewing of the Covenant with them in the plains of Moab Deut. 29. see Deut. 5.2 3. with Numb 26.63 64 65. and so Mr. Hooker roundly and expresly affirms this which is here by our Brethren denied Survey Part. 1. pag. 48. 3. As for our denial of the liberty of Voting in Church-affairs to the persons in question till they be fitted for and admitted to the Lords Supper it stands good and rational without any prejudice to their being a true Church in the case supposed For there is no difficulty in it to conceive that the case of a true Church may be such by degeneracy or loss of their best Members c. as that they may be at present unfit to put forth or exercise a power of acting in Church-affairs though it be radically in them till by the use of needful means they or a select qualified number among them be brought up unto a better and fitter capacity for it And examples hereof are not farre to seek let that way of reforming corrupt and degenerate Churches be attended which is partly suggested in Mr. Allin's and Mr. Shepard's Preface before their Defence of the Nine Positions which Preface Beverly saith is Instar omnium Pag. 10 18 19 20. viz. that they be acknowledged true Churches and called by the powerful Preaching of the word to Humiliation Repentance and agreement unto Reformation and then that such as do so agree and submit to Discipline being owned to be of the Church among them a select number who are found upon tryal able to examine themselves and discern the Lords body and do walk according to Christ do solemnly renew or enter into Covenant and so electing officers c. enjoy full communion and carry on all Church-affairs in the Congregational way This shews that a Church may be out of case for the present exercise of a proper Church power and may need much preparation and reducement into order before it come up thereunto and yet this doth not hinder it from being a true Church nor from having that power radically in it and which in a way of due order it may come to the exercise of Have not the late times had experience of many Congregations unto which it was fain to be a publick care to sent Ministers and they to preach to them many years before they found a number fit for full Communion and management of Church-affairs and yet they retained the being of true Churches and Church-members all this while See also Mr. Shepards late-printed Letter about the Church-membership of Children pag. 18. We might also ask whether such a member of reasoning as is here used would prove Women to be no Members of an Instituted Church Because if all the Men were dead they could not then be a Church nor Vote in Church-affairs chuse Officers c. But that which is said may suffice onely let us adde that as the case that is supposed viz. of all the Parents or all that were in full Communion being dead at once is rarely if ever heard of so also the case we added viz. for the whole body to be fallen into an unfitness for full Communion by corruption and degeneracy would be we may hope as rare if Discipline and other Ordinances be kept up in their use and vigour God will so bless his own Ordinances if duely attended as that a considerable number shall from time to time have such Grace given them as to be fit for full Communion and to carry on all the things of his House with competent Strength Beauty and Edification The fourth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent is this It is not meer Membership as the Synod speaks but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism for John 's Baptism might not be applied unto the standing Members of the visible Church till they were qualified with Repentance This say they seems to us to cut the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for englargemeâ—â—â—f Baptism for neither doth the Scripture acknowledge any such meer Membership as they speak of nor is it meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right unto this divine and sacred Ordinance Answ. This term or distinction of Meer Membership is here as also in the Book to which this Preface is prefixed much exagitated and harshly censured but let the plain meaning of the Synod therein be attended and there will appear no cause for such exagitation When the Synod said that persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members and that Meer Membership or Membership alone doth not suffice to render men Subjects of the Lords Supper Propos. 4. p. 17 18. the meaning is That full Communion doth not belong to a Member as such or to a person meerly because he is a Member for then it would belong to all Members which it doth not A person may be a Member or in memberly Relation and yet not bein full Communion Now to say that meer Membership in this sense the Scripture acknowledgeth not is as if one should say that the Scripture acknowledgeth not Logical Distinctions between things in their Abstract and general Nature and the same things as clothed with various Adjuncts and Accessions which to say were strangely to forget our selves But when it is hence inferred and put upon us That we set up a meer Membership and a sort of meer Members in the Church this is an unnecessary Reflexion As if we should say that Riches do not belong to men meerly as men or meerly because they are men would it be a good inference to say that we set up a sort of meer men or a meer Humanity existing alone or that we distinguish men into Meer men and Rich men There is no individual man in the world that is a meer man i. e. that hath a naked Humanity without Adjuncts yet Logick distinguisheth between Humanity and its Adjuncts and between what belongeth to a man as such and what accreweth
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
minority are not expresly mentioned in the Text no more then Children when adult or grown up and if the Logicians rule be good which saith à quatenus ad omne valet conjâ—quentiâ— then if infants and children in minority must not be admitted to full communion because of their want of the ability spoken of it will follow if the like inability be found in the adult that these also must not be admitted and that for the like Reason And â—f that Text 1 Cor. 11. be sufficient to prove the one it is sufficient for proof of the other also and so this Argument of the Synod stands good The Exception he added is That yet it may not be granted that when they are grown up to years they are and continue Members regularly being through want of that ability not fit for Church-communion i. e. for full communion Ans. If it may not be granted that they continue Members why should not something be produced to prove the contrary Why should such a thing be barely affirmed and not proved It is sure they were once Members and as such were Baptized and it is clear that though now they be adult or grown up yet they were never in any way of God cut off or cast out from their Membership and therefore we think it more rational to say that they stâ—ll câ—ntinue to be Members then to say that they do not and this without alledging any proof at all As for that which here followeth That if persons being unbaptized should desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism they must hold fâ—rth faith in Christ wrought in their hearts before they may be baptized as Philip required the Eunuch Acts 8. So by parity of Reason fâ—om baptized in infancy being grown up to years desires to be joyned to the Church he must hold forth his personall faith in the Son 〈◊〉 God c The Answer is That there is not as is said parity of Reason between the cases alledged but great disparity for in the one case the persons spoken of are unbaptized in the other baptized already in the one case the persons desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism and in the other case there is no such dâ—siâ—e the persons having had the Covenant and their Membership sealed by Baptâ—sm already even in their infancy or minority long since in the one case the persons seem as yet to be Non-members though they do 〈◊〉 that Priviledge but in the other case the persons were Church-members long ago For as for that term that is used concerning these 〈◊〉 dâ—â—ring to be joyned to the Church by their own personall 〈…〉 câ—â—ve this word of joyning to the Church if it be meant of their first joyning thereto is very improper because theâ—â— persons are not now to be so joyned but were joyned to the Church long since Nor is the Church now to admit them to Church-membership for they were admitted thereto long since The second Argument of the Synod for proof of this fourth Proposition is From the Old Testament where though men did continue Members of the Church yet for ceremoniall uncleanness they were to be kept from full communion in the holy things yea and the Priests and Porters had speciall charge that men should not partake in all the holy things unless duely qualified for the same notwiâ—hstanding their Membership c. To this the Reverend Author Answereth 1. That the invalidity of Proofes from the Old Testament being applyed to Gospel-Ordinances and so this of Baptism under the New Testament in things whereof there is not the like reason hath been declared in the fourth sixth and eighth Positions with which this proof doth not agree Ans. To this we Answer 1. That there is validity and much weight in proofs from the Old Testament for confirming and clearing things under the New for even those Scriptures were written for our learning Rom. 15.4 and Christ himself bids us search them as those which did Testifie of Him Joh. 5.39 and brings many Proofs out of those Scriptures for confirming and clearing things under the Gospel Luk. 24.44 45 46. 16.29 31. and so do the Apostles likewise even in main fundamental matters Act. 17.2 3. 28.23 and so from the maintenance of the Ministry that was under the Old Testament to the maintenance of the Ministry now 1 Cor. 9.13 from their Sacraments to ours and from the danger of unworthy receiving those to the danger of unworthy receiving ours 1 Cor. 10.1 2. c. By which and much more that might be added it is plain that the Scriptures of the Old Testament have much validity in them for confirming and clearing Truths in New Testament-times 2. The Reverend Author doth acknowledge as was noted before That the covenant of Abraham is the same for substance now under the Gospel as it was under the Law and that the Kingdome of God is the same to the Iews formerly and to the Gentiles now and that Baptisme of Infants under the New Testament may be rightly proved from the Circumcision of Infâ—nts under the Old Which passages do sufficiently witness that in his judgement there is validity in Proofs from the Old Testament for things under the New 3. It is a great weakness and mistake in sundry of the Antipoedobaptists that they would limit the Proofs for Infant-Baptism and for the Covenant-interest of children unto the Scriptures of the New Testament as if the Covenant of Abraham and the Circumcision of Infants in the Old Testament were of no validity for the purpose mentioned And it is not comfortable that the Reverend Author should so often harp upon this string and so often mention this matter of the invalidity of Old Testament-Scriptures for proof of matters in Gospel times as if he did concur with them in their Tenet against â—oedobaptism which he frequently professeth against albeit in this his language seems but too like theirs which we could wish were otherwise 4. For that expression of Things whereof there is not the like reason being a limitation or explanation of the invalidity spoken of let this be applyed to the case in question and we conceive it will not weaken the Argument in hand nor shew any Invalidity therein but rather the contrary for if Ceremonial uncleanness did hinder men from full communion in the Ordinances in the Old Testament notwithstanding their Membership is there not the like reason or rather much more that Membership alone should not suffice for full communion in these dayes if Moral fitness and Spiritual qualifications be wanting It seems in this case there is the like reason or rather much more and therefore the Synods Argument in the present case and their proof from the Old Testament cannot be laid aside or refused for any invalidity therein through want of the like Reason 2. The Reverend Author saith If the Texts alledged by the Synod were applicable to Church-members in Gospel-times
said to enter into it Grounds and Ends c. pag. 132 133. and therefore it is a mistake to say or think of such Elders as concurred with the Synod That what is done by them towards the children of Church-members being now adult is an admitting of them into Membership for this those children had afore they were adult and therefore they are not now admitted into it But to leave this Why should the Reverend Author suggest such a thing into the mindes of his Readers That the Elders in their Practice do differ from their Doctrine and teach one thing in the Synod and in their Practice do contrary Were it not more suitable to Love which thinketh not evil 1 Cor. 13. nor receiveth a reproach against ones Neighbour Psal. 15. to endeavour to bring such Elders as are thus faulty if indeed there be any to Repentance for their sailing therein rather then to give occasion of mis-apprehensions against them by writing thus of them It may well be called misapprehension for there are few of the Elders in comparison that have yet put the children of Church-members to a publick owning of the covenant afore the time of their admission to full communion and for those few that have done it as this was not an admitting of them into Membership for that they had before so it would be hard to prove that when this was done that their Infants might be Baptized which is the case the Synod speaks of it would be hard we say to prove that the parents who so did were not qualified according as the fifth Proposition describeth And therefore to give occasion of other thoughts not only against some few of the Elders but even of all for what is here intimated is not of some onely but of all alike without difference what may be thought of this we leave to the further consideration of the Reverend Author To the second Argument of the Synod That the children of the Parents in question are either children of the Covenant or strangers from the Covenant either holy or unclean either within the Church or without either such as have God for their God or are without God in the world but he that considers the Proposition will not affirm the latter concerning these children and the former being granted infers their right to Baptism To this the Reverend Author answereth That the more he considers the Proposition the less he findes in it to evince the former and the more to conclude the latter Ans. Now the latter is that the children of the Parents in question are strangers from the Covenant not holy but unclean and without the Church and such as are without God in the world And if the Reverend Author finde so much to conclude thus of the children of Church-members which Members understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto are not scandalous in life but thus and further qualified as in the Proposition is expressed if he finde much to conclude thus of these children if he be had expressed any part thereof it might have been taken into consideration but nothing being expressed how can it A meer contrary Affirmation how can it go for a sufficient Confutation As for that which he addeth That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth he may be a stranger from the Covenant unclean and without the Church c. Is not this spoken of grown persons and therefore how is the Synods Argument hereby touched which speaketh of little children Nor is it easily proved that a grown person who was admitted in minority and is now qualified as the Proposition expresseth that such a grown person is now a stranger from the Covenant and without the Church and without God in tâ—â— world and this is respect of his external state or being in the Church-visible we see not that this is proved at all For as for Rom. 9.6 7 8. which is here alledged They are not all Israel which are of Israel c. the Text may prove that they are not all elected of God or sincere Believers who in regard of external relation are Members of the visible Church and this will be easily granted but for Membership in the Church-visible of which is our question that text hath nothing in it at all to prove That men who were members of this Church in their minority being now qualified as the Synod expresseth that these are now without such Membership and externall state this is not proved at all by this Text. For if we shall so say we shall make the Apostle to contradict himself for of these very persons and people of whom â—e saith They are not all Israel not all children not all the children of God c. of these very persons and people he said ver 4. that they are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises that is they were Gods adopted children in regard of external Covenant and were Members of the Church-visible and yet these were not all Israel that is they were not all Gods Israel by election and spiritual regeneration Thus the Apostles words are easily reconciled But how shall they be reconciled if the latter as well as the former be meant of the Church-visible Can they be Israelites and not Israel in the same respect Can they in respect of external state be partakers of Adoption Gods Covenant and Promises c. and so be Church-members and yet in regard of the same estate be no Church-members at all nor in the Church-covenant at all It is not easie to conceive how this can be and therefore the words in Rom. 9.6 7 8. are not fitly applied to prove that men who were Church-members in their minority may be qualified as the fifth Proposition expresseth and yet now be strangers from the Covenant and without the Church in respect of their visible and externall state Whereas the Synod for a third Argument saith That to deny this Proposition would be 1. To stratten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation and to make the Church in New-Testament-times in worse case relating to their children successively then were the Iews of old 2. To render the Iews when they shall be called in a worse condition then under the Legal administration contrary to Jer. 30.20 Ezek 37.25 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant to whom the Mosaical dispensation nay the first Institution appointed it to be applied Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. 4. To break the Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 14. To this the Reverend Author answereth That the contrary to all and every one of these is true for 1. It enlargeth the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame then
that the grace of Faith and Repentance are given to these by the Promise but by that word 〈◊〉 they do not reject it do plainly imply the contrary And therefore what the Synod here saith may be sound and good for all that the Reverend Author alledgeth If their Doctrine here be not right then it must be said that the Covenant in which God promiseth to circumcise the hearts of his people and of their seed Deut. 30.6 is no Promise that God will give them Faith and Repentance nor any valid Testimony for them that he will do it though they for their parts do not reject it And we suppose none will say this What may be said of them who when adult are Breakers of the Covenant and do reject the offers of grace is one thing and what may be hoped and said of them who do not so reject is another The Synod speaks of these latter and the Reverend Author of the former and therefore the one cannot overthrow the other The Synod concludes this fourth Argument by adding as followeth viz. Yet it doth not necessarily follow that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper the Reason rendred is Because though in a latitude of expression they are to be accounted Believers or in numero fidelium as even Infants in covenant are yet they may want that ability to examine themselves and that speciall exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance as was said upon Propos. 4. To this the Reverend Author saith 1. If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 The New-Testament no where alloweth that latitude of expression to call men Believers who c. Ans. Though it be the duty of all if they speak to speak as the Oracles of God yet it doth not follow from thence that none may have the term Believers applied to them except the term be found so applied in the New Testament for then the name Trinity Sacrament and many other would be unlawful as not being found in the New Testament no nor in the Old yet we suppose the Reverend Author would not count the use of these terms unlawful How often doth himself use the terms of Par ratio Personall membership Mediate and Immediate members and others and yet they are terms not found in all the Scripture and therefore if the term Believers be not found applied in the New Testament to the persons spoken of yet if the thing it self be found and the matter be so delivered as becomes the Oracles of God that is with such reverence purity c. as is meet we suppose that Rule of speaking as the Oracles of God is not violated though the term it self were not so used in the New Testament nor yet in the Old And for the thing it self the Synod hath given four or five Arguments to prove that the persons spoken of are visible Believers which Arguments we do not see satisfied by what the Reverend Author saith thereto 2. The Synod having said That the persons spoken of may be counted in numero fidelium as even Infants in Covenant are The Reverend Author answereth They cannot be so accounted because Infants are looked at onely in the Parents covenant being not capable of covenanting for themselves as men are so that there is not par ratio between them Ans. Though Infants be not capable of covenanting for themselves as men are yet their covenanting or being in Covenant is not the thing here intended by the Synod but their being Beâ—â—evers or in numero fiâ—â—lium of which the Reverend Author saith nothing But the thing the Synod here intimateth is this that as even Infaâ—ts in Covenanâ— are counted Believers or in numero fiâ—elium so may the Parents spoken of 3. Whereas the Synod saith They may want that ability to examine themselves and that speciall exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance The Reverend Author answereth That visible want of this ability and of this exercise of faith doth argue a visible want of that faith which is to be examined and exercised and is a just barre to the admiâ—tance of such into immediate and personall Church-membership as well as to the Lords Supper Ans. Admittance into Membership is not here spoken of at all by the Synod for the persons spoken of are counted by the Synod to have been in the state of Membership long afore now even in their infancy or minority and therefore if the want of the ability mentioned were a just barre to such admittance yet this concerns not the persons spoken of But is this which is here affirmed certain and clear that want of the ability and exercise spoken of doth argue want of the very being of Faith May there not be the being and truth of that grace even there where the exercise of it is much wanting Plain it is that our Saviour blames his Disciples and Peter for the want of the exercise of faith Mat. 8. 14. Mark 4. Luke 8.25 and yet it were hard to say that the being of faith was now wanting in them for then we must say either that faith once had may afterwards be lost and gone or else that these Disciples before this time never had faith neither of which we conceive can be said truely How plain is it that some for their weakness and small ability in grace and the exercise of it are compared to a bruised Râ—ed and to smoaking Flax Mat. 12 20. and yet when it is said Christ will not breakâ— such Reedâ— nor quench such Flax it appeareth thereby that notwithstanding all this weakness there may be the â—eâ—ng and truth of the thing in such Souls And for ability to examine themselves cannot this be wanting but the want of the being of faith must be inferred thence What shall we then say to Souls in such a case as Heman's Psal. 88. who complains that Gods wâ—â—th lay hard upon him and that he was shut up and could not come forth that God seemed to cast off his Soul and to hide his face from him that Gods fierce wâ—ath went over him that Gods terrours had cut him off and that hereby he was as distracted and this even from his youth up Noâ— can we think that in such case he was able to examine himself Can distracted persons do so it seems not and yet this Heman was not without the graâ—e of faâ—â—â— for all this And therefore we cannot say that wanâ— of ability to examine one's self or of the â—â—eciall exercise of faith doth alwayes argue the want of that faith which is to be examined and â—xerciâ—ed and therefore what the Synod here saith may still stand That â—he persons spoken â—f may be Believers and yet want that abiâ—ity to examine themselves and that speciall exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance of the Lords Supper So much for Dâ—fence of the fourth Argument for confirming the fifth Proposition The fifth Argument of the
of the Church and Religion therein If the Parents did not continue in the Covenant then there might be some question whether the Children be part of the Church but it is plain that the Synod speaks of the Children of those that continue in the Covenant and if any think it to be a well-grounded perswasion that the Parents may continue in the Covenant and yet the Children of such Parents are no part of the Church we confess we see no sufficient grounds for such a perswasion For the Reverend Author doth here confess That it is true that the frame of the Covenant runs to us and to our Seed after us in their Generations pag. 32. And if this be true is it not then true that if the Parents continue in the Covenant the Seed of such Parents are also part of the Church for how can they be said to be in the Covenant which is the constituting Form of the Church and yet be no part of the Church which is constituted thereby But saith the Reverend Author This must be understood and applied suitaâ—ly to the different constitution of Churches under different administrations of the Covenant under the Old-Testament and under the Gospel Ans. Let this be granted yet as long as the thing it self is not denied which must not be denied for he confesseth it to be true viz. That the covenant runs to us and to our Seed after us in their Generations So long as this is not denied the dâ—fference in other things between the Old-Testament and the New will not weaken our Cause at all For though for constitution of Churches the Church was then National and now Congregational and though the administration of the Covenant was then under many Types and Ceremonies which are now removed and notwithstanding any other difference that can be named yet if there be not this difference also that the Covenant did run to them and their Seed in their Generations but not to us and our Seed in like sort if this difference also be not asserted we see not how it can be avoided but even now as well as then if the Parents continue in covenant the Children do so also and so are part of the Church and so what the Synod affirmeth is gained For it cannot be said that though it was so then yet it is not so now except we shall deny what the Reverend Author confesseth to be true that the frame of the covenant did not onely run to them and to their Seed but also runâ— to us and our Seed in their Generations And if this be true then what the Synod gathereth from it is true also that God hath so framed his covenant and the constitution of his Church thereby as to design a continuation and propagation of his Kingdome therein from one Generation to another For it must needs be so if the Covenant runs to us and to our Seed after us in their Generations Whereas the Synod saith That to keep in the line and under the influence and efficacy of this covenant of God in the true way to the Churches glory The Answer of the Reverend Author in sum is this That it is so indeed when there is a succession of Faith made visible to the Churches charitable judgement but not so when such a Membership is set uâ— in Christian Churches whereby Infants shall be Baptized by right from such Parents as are not in fâ—ll communion for what influence and efficacy hâ—th the covenant upon such Parents Whereto the answer is That if the Parents be qualified as this Proposition expresseth there is manifest influence of the Covenant upon them though yet they be not come so far as to be fit for full communion For when they being admitted in minority are now when adult not onely free from scandal in life but also endowed with a competency of knowledge in the Doctrine of faith and solemnly assent thereto and own the Covenant and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord we conceive all this doth import some influence and efficacy of the Covenant upon them but if for all this they shall be disowned from having any part in the Church and Covenant of God how then can that be denied which the Synod here saith That by this cutting off and disavowing the Covenant Sion is hindred from being an Eternall Excellency and the joy of many generations For whatever joy it may be to the first generation yet if all that follow though qualified as the Proposition expresseth be nevertheless denied to have any part in the Covenant and Church of God till fit for full communion we do not see how such following generations can be any great excellency or joy at all The Synod having said That this progress of the Covenant establisheth the Church Deut. 29.13 Jer. 30.20 and that therefore the contrary doth disestablish it The Reverend Author answereth That the Argument is to be denied for it will not follow that if God did establish the Church of the Iews by such a successive progress of the Covenant Deut. 29.13 therefore he doth so now pag. 33. A. Why doth it not follow that if God did establish the Church of the Iews by a progress of the Covenant that therefore he doth so now Is not that true which the Reverend Author confesseth to be true That the frame of the Covenant runs to us and our seed after us in their generations and is not that true also which the Synod here saith though the Reverend Author saith nothing to it That God was an holy God and loved the purity and glory of the Church in the Old Testament when he went in this way of a successive progress of the Covenant we suppose this cannot be denied and therefore if a progress of the Covenant did establish the Church then why not so now Shall we think that the holy God did not so regard the purity of his Church in those times and therefore did then establish the Church in this way which now he will not do as being now more carefull of the purity of his Church we fear that to say this would be to the dishonour of Gods Holiness and Glory And plain it is that it is the same Kingdome of God that is the same Church-estate for substance and kindâ— which is taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles Mat. 21.43 and therefore the Gentiles are said to be fellow-heâ—rs and of the same Body with them Ephes. 3.6 And therefore what should hinder but that if a progress of the Covenant was a means to establish the Church then it may be the same in â—hese 〈◊〉 also The Synod having said in the conclusion of their fifth Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition That the more holy reforming and glorious that the â—â—mâ—s are or shall be the more eminently is a successive continuation and propagation of the Church therein designed promised and intended And having for this alledged these Scriptures Isa. 60.15
be a means to convey Religion down to after-generations and yet Church-watchfulness toward such be without acceptance with God and without any blessed fruit either to the Church or to the persons spoken of It seems tâ—ese things do not well cohere So much for Defence of the fifth Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition The sixth Argument which the Synod here useth is Because the Parents in question are personal immediate and yet-continuing Members of the Church 1. That they are personall Members or Members in their own persons they say appears 1. Because they are personally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 2. Are Baptized in their own persons 3. Are personally under Discipline 4. Are personally by means of the Covenant in a visible state of Salvation 5. When they commit iniquity they personally break the covenant Jer. 11.2 10. Ezek. 16. therefore they are personally in it To this the Reverend Author answereth That three of these Proofs belong onely to infants and the other two to adult Persons regularly admitted into Church-membership which therefore do not concern the Parents in question which two he saith are 1. That they are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons 2. That when they commit iniquity they personally break the Covenant Ans. Let us then consider the Particulars For the first that they are personally Holy according to 1 Cor. 7.14 though this be meant as the Reverend Author saith that they are thus Holy federally and relatively yet it is as he acknowledgeth in their own persons and if so doth it not then follow that they are Church-members in their own persons Can persons be truly called Holy as in the Text alledged or an Holy seed as Ezra 9. and yet not be Members of the visible Church whether this holiness be inherent or only federal and relative yet sith they are thus Holy in their own persons we conceive they must therefore be granted to be Church-members in their own persons And though they first received this holiness in their minority yet for ought we see their persons are still partakers of it until in some way of God they be cut off from the same which the Parents in question have not been but being qualified as the Proposition expresseth are far from deserving any such matter For the Second That they are Baptized in their own Persons though this be as the Reverend Author saith By and for their Parents Covenanting for them they being uncapable of Covenanting for themselves yet this being regularly done how can it be avoided but as the Synod saith It is a divine Testimony that they are in their own persons Members of the Church For we conceive the Lord hath not appointed Baptism the Seal of Membership to be applied to such as are not Members And to say They are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents would infer That they should not have been baptized in their own persons but in their Parents their Parents receiving Baptism for them which the Reverend Author we are perswaded is far from affirming And therefore they being regularly baptized in their own persons how can it be avoided but that they are Church-members in their own persons untill they be regularly cut off from the same For that other Particular That by meanes of the Covenant they are personally in a visible state of Salvation The Reverend Author saith nothing hereto but onely repeats it with this addition or explanation While nothing appears to the contrary which clause may be added and yet the purpose of the Synod in this Particular not at all hindred thereby For if the persons spoken of be in their own persons in a visible state of Salvation whiâ—â— nothing appears to the contrary doth it not then follow that so long they are visible Church-Members in their own persons will any body say that they are saved in their Parents and not in their own persons The Synod conceived that none would so say and that therefore it could not be said that they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents whereto the Reverend Author saith nothing As for that Clause While nothing appears to the contrary let the terms of the Proposition be considered and we conceive it cannot rationally and charitably be denied but that the persons spoken of as they were in a state of Salvation when Infant so they are so still for ought appears to the contrary For the contrary cannot be evinced and evidenced against them either by Ignorance or Scandal or forsaking the Covenant or any such thing they being such as understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto not Scandalous in life but commendably further qualified as is there expressed so that for ought that appears to the contrary they are in a visible state of Salvation and consequently they are personally Church-members and so herein the purpose of the Synod is gained For the other two Particulars which the Reverend Author saith Do belong to adult persons regularly admitted into Church-membership and so do not concern the Parents in question the one is That they are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons For Answer to this he refers to his Examination of Propos. 3. and we refer the Reader to our defence of that Proposition against what he there said The other Particular which is the last here mentioned viz. That when they commit Iniquity they personally break the Covenant his answer to it is That this is not proved concerning Infants nor can be Ans. Suppose it cannot yet if that be proved for which the Synod brings it why may not that suffice though this other be not proved to which the Reverend Author applies it Plain it is that the Synod neither spake nor meant this of Infants but of such as are now Parents and therefore past their Infancy and therefore if these Parents when they commit iniquity do break the covenant then the purpose of the Synod is gained though such a thing could not be affirmed of Infants But if proofs for this or that may not be accepted because they are not sufficient for confirming some other things whereto they were neither alledged nor intended let the judicious and impartial Reader consider whether this be equal and fair and whether Arguments in such a way be sufficiently answered For the Particular in hand the Synod argueth That the Parents in question are personally in the covenant because when they commit iniquity they personally break the covenant alledging for this Ier. 11.2 10. Ezek. 16. where breaking of covenant is expresly charged upon the persons there spoken of Now doth not this prove the thing intended sure if their committing iniquity be breaking of covenant either such persons were in the covenant or else we must say a man may be guilty of breach of covenant when he was not in it And that the committing iniquity by the persons spoken of is a breaking of Covenant
Rome and Paul be free born Act. 22.28 yet Pauls freedome is either better then the other or at least no worse and so it may be said of the Church-membership of little children There is wanting unto children in minority to make them such members a personal fitness to act in covenant for themselves Ans. But this is nothing to the nature of their membership but onely speaks of the way of attaining it by their own act But shall we say that Paul wanted something to make him a free Roman because he had no personal fitness nor ability to procure that freedome to himself by his own act but onely was so born or shall we say that David and others mentioned in Psal. 22.10 Isai. 46.4 wanted something of compleat proper and immediate interest in God because they had their interest from their mothers womb and did not attain it by their own personal act for our parts we dare not so say and by like reason dare not deny but that the interest of little children in the visible Church may be proper compleat and immediate though they have not come to it by their own act but have had it from their minority or birth For to have God for their God is as great a blessing as to be an actual and immediate member of the visible Church and yet we see want of personall fitness to act for themselves did not hinder from the one and why then should it hinder from the other Synod A different manner and means of conveying the covenant to us or of making us members doth not make a different sort of members we are as truly personally and immediately members of the body of fallen mankind and by nature heirs of the condemnation pertaining thereto as Adam was though he came to â—e so by his own persâ—nâ—l act and we by the act of our publick person Pag. 24.25 The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto grants That in the case of Adam it is so as is said but saith he this doth not suit the the case of Iâ—fanâ—s in question For 1. Adam stood as a publick person for all mankind no Parent is so for all his posterity but for his infants and children in minority 2. Adams covenant was onely with the Lord and not with any Church as the covenant of confederate Parents is 3. The Parents breaking the covenant doth not make his children heirs of condemnation as Adams did all mankind pag. 40.41 For Answer whereto we may remember what himself did formerly express that Similitudes do not run on four feet if they agree in the main point that may suffâ—â— though in other things they dâ—ffer If therefore there were these three differences and as many more between the cases alledged yet where is there any difference in the main point Are not we as truely personally and immediately Members of the Body of fallen Mankinde as Adam was This the Reverend Author doth not deny but in plain words doth grant it And is not then the purpose of the Synod in alledging this instance clearly gained Doth it not plainly appear thereby that a different way and means of being in Covenant doth not make a different sort of Membership Adam was a Member of fallen Mankinde and so are we though he came to be so by his own personal act and we by him or by his act for us which doth clearly shew what the Synod saith That a different way and means of being Members doth not alter the nature and kinde of Membership which we see doth hold as touching being a Member of fallen Mankinde and we see no reason but it may also hold as touching being a Member of a visible Church There is not any to be accounted a publick person as Adam was but onely Iesus Christ for all that are in him Rom. 5.14 to 20. pag. 41. Ans. Yet it is evident though Jesus Christ was a Publick Person for all that are in him as Adam was yet in the number of persons there is difference Adam standing for all mankinde and Christ standing onely for his Redeemed the Elect. Now if Christ may be truely called a Publick Person for all his as Adam was though Adam was for them that were farre more in number why may not then a consederating Parent be counted a Publick Person for his children though they be farre less in number then the other But herein the cases seem parallel Adam for all in him Christ Jesus for all in him and the confederating Parent for all in him We see not how this can justly be denied by the Reverend Author siâ—h he calls these Parents Vâ—dertakers for their children pag. 40. And again pag. 41. And such undertakers that the children are bound by their Parents acting to perform that Covenant when they shall become capable which seems to us to be the same or as much as is meant when they are called Publick persons for their children Another Similitude used by the Synod to illustrate the thing in question is from A Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyall in which case the following heir is a true and immediate Owner of that Land and may be personally disinherited if dâ—sloyall as well as his father before him To this the Answer is That this Similitude doth not sort the case in question fâ—r as for infants they cannot be visibly dislâ—yall and adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church have cut off the entail of the Covenant from themselves and their posterity by their personall disloyalty Ans. But for all this the Similitude may suit the case in question though the Reverend Author say it doth not For as the following heir is an immediate Owner of that Land till for disloyalty he be disinherited so the following children are immediate Church-members till some of them for their sin be cut off from their Membership Is not here plain suitableness in the Similitude we conceive it is apparent and manifest For if infants cannot be dislâ—yal and if adult persons be cut off for disloyalty is it not manifest that both are immediate owners till they be cut off which is the thing the Synod affirms Concerning infants it seems they are such true and immediate owners of Church-membership as that they cannot be cut off therefrom because they cannot be so disloyal as to deserve such a thing and for the adult persons if the entaile of the covenant be cut off from them and their posterity by their personal disloyalty doth not this clearly shew that they were truely and immediately in the Covenant till their disloyalty cut them off And so the Similitude stands suitable and good for the purpose for which the Synod brings it But as for this cutting off the entail of the Covenant which is here spoken of we must confess we do not see how such a thing can justly be charged upon the persons spoken of in this Proposition For they understand the Doctrine of Faith and give