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
the Iews of old were under Legal dispensation c. Ans. Suppose that Christian Churches be in a more spiritual and gracious frame then were the Jews under the Legal dispensation yet if then such Parents as the Proposition describes might have the initiatory Seal applied to their Infants and now may not how can it be denied but that now the Christian Churches are in a worse case relating to their children successively then the Church of the Jews was For then such Parents might have their children circumcised but now they may not have them baptized if this Proposition be denied And though the grace of Christ may be now enlarged in other respects yet in respect of children it is not enlarged but strâ—â—tâ—ed by denying this Proposition except we shall say that for Parents to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them and their children is no testimony of gospel-Gospel-grace at all which cannot be said truly and therefore the Synods Argument in this particular stands good 2. Saith the Reverend Author It declareth that the state of the Iews when they shall be called will be far better then it was under Legal dispensations for under the Law their light and holiness was defective but when they shall be called they shall have a farre greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages Ans. Suppose this be granted the question is not about their Holiness and 〈◊〉 but about their children of whom it is evident that if the Parents were qualified as this Proposition expresseth those children might then be circumcised and the Texts alledged viz. 〈◊〉 30.20 Ezek. 37 25 26. do shew that when they shall be called their children shall be in as good estate as formerly but how can this be if the Parents may be qualified as is expressed and yet may not have their children baptized Is not this a rendring of them in respect of their children in a worse condition then formerly For the third Particular the Reverend Author answereth That the dentâ—ll of the Proposition doth not deny in sum what the Synod saith it doth but the contrary Ans. In what the Synod here saith there are three Particulars contained or included 1. That the Mosaicall dispensation and first Institution of the initiatory Seal did appoint that Seal to be applied to such as stood regularly in the Church and Covenant 2. That the children in question dâ— regularly stand in the Church and Covenant 3. That the deniall of the Proposition doth deny the application of the Seaâ— to such as the Mosaicall dispensation appointed it to be applied unto Of these Particulars the first cannot be denied for it is undeniably proved by the Texts alledged viz. Gen. 17.9 10. Joh 7.22 23. and the third Particular is plain of it self all the doubt therefore must be about the second viz. Whether the children in question do regularly stand in the Church and Covenant But for this the Synod hath given divers Proofs in their first and second Arguments which Proofs we do not see taken off by what the Reverend Author hath said thereto The fourth Particular is answered by a plain deniall of what there the Synod affirmeth viz. That to deny the Proposition doth not break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant Ans. Yet nothing can be more plain then that denying Circumcision to them that were in the Covenant was a breaking of Gods Covenant for it is expresly so called Gen. 17.9 10 14. If therefore the children spoken of be in the Covenant how can the deniall of Baptism to them be any other then is said and that they are in the Covenant the Synod gave sundry Proofs in their first and second Arguments So much for Defence of the third Argument The fourth Argument of the Synod for confirming this fifth Proposition is this Câ—nfederate visible Believers though but in the lowest degree such are to have their children baptized But the Parents in question are such at least in some degree For 1. Charity may observe in them sundry positive arguments for it witness the terms of the Proposition and nothing evident against it To this the Reverend Author answereth by denying the minor in the Argument and affirming the contrary to the first Reason here mentioned viz. That all that is said in the Proposition is no sufficient ground for Charity to account these Parents to be Believers in the least degree Ans. But if there be sundry positive arguments for Charity thus to judge of them and nothing evident to the contrary as the Synod argueth why then should we judge otherwise of them When such Church-members as were admitted in their minority do understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto are not scandalous in life but do solemnly own the Covenant wherein they give up themselves to the Lord c. is all this nothing for Charity to go upon in accounting them Believers no not in the least degree we conceive Charity wants sufficient ground to judge otherwise See more in Defence of the first Argument But saith the Reverend Author Let them show how faith was wâ—oughâ— and how it workâ— in them and then the Church will have ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness c. Ans. What proof is there that except this be done there can be no ground for the charitable judgement that is mentioned Sure it is there is no mention that such a thing was performed by the Eunuch nor required of him by Philip Acts 8. and yet he was baptized upon Profession of his Faith in Christ though there is no mention that to shew how his Faith was wrought in him was either done by him or required of him and therefore we see no reason to the contrary but that when that is done which is mentioned in the Proposition there may be ground for Charity to account them Believers though they come not up to what the Reverend Author requireth of declaring how their Faith was wrought in them 2. The Synod saith The children of the godly though qualified but as the persons in the Proposition are said to be Faithfull Tit. 1.6 The Reverend Author answereth Nor are the children of the godly qualified but as in the Proposition said to be Faithfull in Tit. 1. So his Answer is an express deniall of what the Synod here saith But to say the children in Tit. 1. are not called Faithfull is directly to gainsay the Text which doth expâ—esly so call them and that these Children that are called Faithful in Tit. 1. were qualified above what the Proposition requireth is not proved at all For the Text that calls them Faithful saith no more of them but that they are not accused of Riot or unruly And if this be sufficient for accounting them Faithful those whom the Proposition describeth may much more be so accounted because they are not only free from Vnruliness and Riot but partakers of sundry other good qualifications
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
Baptism is of greater Latitude then the Lords Supper and that all that do bring their Children to partake of the former 〈◊〉 nâ—t therefore themselves presently partake of thâ— latter but that many may have their Châ—ldren Baptized and yet regularly be debarred from the Lords Supper We might also mention the Concurrence of Divines with us in particular Reasons Explications and Assertions relating to â—â—is matter â—â— That Baptism is annexed to the â—eing or beginning of Faith the Lords Supper to the special exercise of it That Baptism belongs to all Members but the Lords Supper to soâ—e onely that are so and so qualified that all visible Believers who in a latitude of Expression and Ecclesiastical reputation are such as are all that are within the Church are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Vrsin and Pareus answering that Objection against the Baptism of Infants that Then they must be admitted to the Lords Supper have these words Magnum discrimen c. There is a great difference between Baptism and the Supper For 1. Baptism is a Sacrament of Entrance and Râ—ception into the Church But 〈◊〉 Supper is a Sacrament of Continuance in the Church 〈◊〉 Confirmation of the Reception 〈◊〉 made 2. Regeneration by 〈…〉 and not to them presently but after that they have held forth a confession of Faith and Repentance Also it may be minded that it is the currant and constant expression of our Divines that they call and count all that are within the compass of the visible Church whether Infants or adult Fideles Vâ—cati Faithful called c. And they will tell you that they are for Baptizing no Infants but such as are Infantes fidelium the Infants of the Faithful or of Believers Infantes non omnes sed duntaxat fidelium i. e. Baptizatorum sunt Baptizandi Chamier Tom. 4. pag. 130. So Daneus Infantes ex fidelibus i. e. Baptizaâ—â—s nati possunt Baptizari in Ecclesia Lib. 5. De Sacram. pag. 538. And yet they do not look at all these no not at all the adult that come under this denomination and whose Children they Baptize to be regularly admittable to the Lords Supper which plainly shews their judgement to be that all adult Persons who are in a Latitude of expression to be accounted visible Believers or in Ecclesiastical Reputation to be lookt at as Fideles are not therefore to partake of the Lords Supper Dr. Ames accounts that a person may be a Believer on Christ and yet be unfit for the Lords Supper being not sufficiently instructed thereunto Bellar. Enerv. Tom. 3. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. and he expresly saith that Church-children are to be numbred among the Faithful and reckons them to have the beginning of Faith yet not to be admitted to all Ordinances till increase of Faith appear Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12 13. Mr. Hooker takes it for granted as a clear case That one may be a Convert soundly brought home to Christ and yet through his weakness not able to discern the Lords Body aright nor fit to partake of the Supper Survey part 3. pag. 16. And in his Sermons on Gen. 17.23 Pag. 21. He hath these words Baptism is the entrance into Christs Family there is much more to be looked at to make a person capable of the Supper of the Lord a man must be able to Examine himself he must not onely have Grace but growth of Grace he must have so much perfection in Grace as to search his own heart and he must be able to discern the Lords Body or else he is guilty of the Body and blood of Christ so as there is more required in this for there must be a growth But Baptism is our entrance and the lowest degree of Grace will serve here in the judgement of Charity Worthy Hildersam on Psal. 51.5 pag. 257. saith The Infants of the Faithful are said to be Holy not because they are without sin but because in the judgement of the Church they are to be esteemed not Infidels as other Children of Pagans but Christians and Believers and holy and true Members of the Church of God And Hence 1. So soon as they are born they have title to the Seal of Gods Covenant and the Church may not deny it unto then And why may not the Church deny Baptism to any childe of a believing Parent surely because the Church is bound to esteem every such childe not an Infidel but rather a Believer and a true Christian. 2. When they dye we are in Christian Charity to judge that they dye in Gods favour and in the state of Salvation And all this because of the Covenant Gen. 17. as he there addes Yet the same Hildersam would not admit such as these who were born and grew up in the visible Church to the Lords Table without a strict Examination not onely of their Knowledge and Lives but of their Spiritual Estate Doct. of Lords Supper pag. 8 14. All which we produce not as if the Testimony and concurrence of Authors were the Basis that our judgement in this matter stands upon but because this Preface doth both in this place and in other parts of it insinuate to the Reader as if Authority of Writers were for the Dissenters and against the Doctrine of the Synod which is farre from being so the contrary being abundantly and undeniably evident And as we bottom our Faith in this point wholly and onely upon the Scriptures and do referre the decision of this and of all other Theological controversies to the Law and to the Testimony so we acknowledge it to be no small confirmation to us to finde that we have the Concurrence of the Godly-learned The substance of the Congregational-Way may be gathered from the Doctrine Principles of our best and ablest Reforming Divines which doth not a little confirm us in it and delivers it from the Imputation of Novelty or Singularity But should we limit Baptism to so narrow a scantling as our Brethren strive for we should therein go against the whole stream of Divines even of those that have been most eminent in their generations for Learning Holiness and Studiousness of Reformation yea of those from whom our Congregational Leaders have professed to receive their Principles as was abovesaid And we confess our selves conscious to so much of our own weakness that unless we have very clear Light and undeniable Argument constraining us we are slow and fearful to go alone or to go contrary to the concurrent Judgement of our best Divines who if we may use our Brethrens phrase have been Stars of the first Magnitude incomparable Champions for the Truth and have been raised up by Christ to light the Path of Reformation in these later Ages Now as for what is here alledged by our Brethren as favouring their Cause To say That the Catechumeni were not in the Primitive times to be baptized before they were fit for the Lords Supper Consider how it can consist with
alone gives Right for God hath made it one Commandment of four to provide for the manner of his Worship requiring that all his holy Ordinances be attended in a Solemn Humble Reverent and Profitable manner and it cannot be denyed to be meet and needful that persons should both know and own the Covenant-state they are in and the state of subjection to Christs Government which the Covenant placeth them in especially when they partake of such a fruit of the Covenant as Baptism for their Children is that they should do Covenant-duties when they come for Covenant priviledges that they should both seek and attend the Lords holy Ordinance though it be their Right never so much in Humility and Fear and it being one Branch of the Covenant that they give up their Children to the Lord and do promise to take care for their Christian Education it must needs be suitable that they be minded of it when they present them to Baptism and the more explicitely they do so promise it is the better Hence all Reformed Churches do in their Directories and Practices require Professions and Promises of Parents or those that present the Childe to Baptism and appoint a solemn manner of Administration and stand upon it as a needful duty Though they unanimously own and grant that the Childe hath a full and clear Right to Baptism by its being born within the visible Church See English Leiturgie of the administration of Baptism Directory pag. 31. Late Petition for Peace pag. 61 c. Zepperi Polit. Ecces pag 128. pag. 147 150. Alasco pag. 121 137. Ratio Discipl Bohem. pag 43. Hence also no man will doubt but that it is a comfortable and desireable thing that the Parent do address himself in the most solemn serious and spiritual manner to draw nig◠to God upon such an occasion as the Baptizing of a Childe by humbling himself before God for all neglects and Breaches of his Covenant by taking hold of the incouraging promises of Grace in Christ in reference unto the Children of the Covenant and by pouring out earnest Prayer to God for his Childe and for an heart to do the duty of a Christian Parent toward his Childe as doth become him c. And such things as these Parents may and ought to be stirred up unto in the Ministry of the Word as their duty But still we must distinguish between what belongs to the manner of Administration or to the better and more comfortable attendance thereof and between what is essentially requisite to give right and title to the Ordinance before the Church This latter meer Membership or Membership alone doth A state of Membership in the visible Church is that unto which the right of Baptism is annexed as not onely the Synod but the Scripture teacheth And so 2. The Assertion before-mentioned viz. That it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism in the sense above given is also Antiscriptural 1. Because it directly overthroweth Infant-baptism which the Scripture establisheth for what have Infants more then Membership or Federal holiness or Covenant-interest to give them right to Baptism i. e. What have they more then this that they are regularly by the Rules of Gods Word and his Institution therein within the visible Church If this will not suffice but there must be some other qualifications besides and superadded unto this what shall become of them For our parts we know no stronger Argument for Infants-baptism then that Church members or Foederati are to be baptized the Infants of the Faithful are Church-members or Foederati Ergo. But if the foresaid Assertion hold this Argument fails and falls short for now Church-membership or to be in Covenant or Federal holiness will not serve the turn but there must be more then this to give right to Baptism How the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for Enlargement of Baptism will fare we know not but sure we are that this cuts in sunder the sinews of the strongest Arguments for Infant-baptism which must fall if this stand But fall it never will through Grace while the Lords Appointment in the Covenant of Abraham stands viz. to have the Initiating Seal run parallel with the Covenant Gen. 17. or Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 viz. to Baptize all Disciples or all Members of the visible Church under the New Testament Let this Assertion therefore fall which makes the extent of the Initiatory Seal shorter then the Covenant and denies Baptism to run parallel with Church-membership under the Gospel Hence 2. It contradicts that which the Harmony of Scripture and all Orthodox Divines acknowledge for a Principle viz. That the whole visible Church i. e. now under the New Testament ought to be baptized or that all Church members are Subjects of Baptism for if not meer Membership or Membership alone but qualified Membership gives right to Baptism then not all Members but some onely viz. those that be so and so qualified are to be baptized If Baptism do not belong to meer Membership or to a Member as such then not to all Members as à quatenus ad omne so à non quatenus ad non omne valet consequentiae This denies not onely in the Fifth but the First Proposition of the late Synod which yet the Antisynodalia pag. 17. seem to consent unto But let the Arguments that are given from Scripture to confirm that First Proposition be duely weighed and they will be found to be of greater weight then to be shaken by this Assertion Now for the Proof of this Assertion viz. Because John 's Baptism which was Christian Baptism might not be applied to some who were standing Members of the visible Church because they were not qualified with Repentance Luke 3.8 7.30 Therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such as stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance Answ. Let this be answered with reference to Infant-baptism which lies upon our Brethren to do as well as on us seeing they above declared Antipoedobaptism to be a sinful Opinion and do profess to hold and maintain the baptizing of Infants though indeed the Reader could not gather so much from these words Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such 〈◊〉 stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance This seems directly to gainsay Infant-baptism for Infants do indeed stand Members of the visible Church but how do they or can they shew that they are qualified with fruits of Repentance for it seems that neither is Repentance it self sufficient without Fruits of Repentance But we are to suppose our Brethren do not intend to oppose Infant-baptism and therefore that their meaning is not to require these fruits of Repentance or qualifications superadded to Membership of the Children or person◠to be baptized but of their Parents though it be not so expressed But let this Argument
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
applied to them In all this therefore we see no sufficient Ground or Reason to necessitate a Dissent from the Synod Our Brethren have one thing more yet to adde viz. That there is Danger of great Corruption and Pollution creeping into the Churches by the Enlargement of the Subject of Baptism Answ. 1. And is there no danger of Corruption by Over-straitning the Subject of Baptism Certainly it is a Corruption to take from the Rule as well as to adde to it and a Corruption that our weakness is in danger of And it is a dangerous thing to be guilty of breaking Gods Covenant by not applying the Initiating Seal unto those it is appointed for even unto all that are in Covenant Gen. 17.9 10 14. Moses found danger in it Exod. 4.24 Is there no danger of putting those out of the visible Church whom Christ would have kept in and depriving them of those Church advantages Rom. 3.1 2. that might help them toward Heaven Even Christs own Disciples may be in danger of incurring His displeasure by keeping poor little oneâ— away from him Mark 10.13 14. To go pluck up all the Tares was a â—ealous motion and had a good intention but the Housholder concludes there 's danger in it of plucking up the Wheat also 2. If the enlargement be beyond the bounds of the Rule it will bring in corruption else not our work is therefore to study the Rule and keep close to that as the onely true way to the Churches Purity and Glory To go aside from that to the Right hand wlll bring corruption as well as to go to the left The way of Anabaptists viz. to admit none to Membership and Baptism but adult Professors is the straitest way and one would think it should be a way of great Purity but Experience hath abundantly shewed the contrary that it hath been an Inlâ—t to great corruption and looseness both in Doctrine and Practice and a troublesome dangerous underminer of Reformation It is the Lords own way and his Institutions onely which he will bless and not mans Inventions though never so plausible neither hath God in his wisdome so instituted the frame of his Covenant and the constitution of the Church thereby as to make a perfect separation between good and bad or to make the work of Conversion and initial Instruction needless in the Churches Conversion 〈◊〉 to the Children of the Covenant a fruit of the Covenant saith Mr Coâ—ton If we do not keep in the way of a Converting Grace-giving Covenant and keep persons under those Church-dispensations wherein Grace is given the Church will dye of a Lingring though not of a Violent death The Lord hath not set up Churches onely that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live and then carry away the Church into the cold grave with them when they dye no but that they might with all the care and with all the Obligations and Advantages to that care that may be 〈◊〉 up still successively another Generation of Subjects to Christ that may stand up in his Kingdome when they are gone that so he might have a People and Kingdome successively continued to him from one Generation to another We may be very injurious to Christ as well as to the Souls of men by too much straitning and narrowing the bounds of his Kingdome or visible Church here on Earth Certainly enlargement so it be a regular enlargement thereof is a very desirable thing it is a great honour to Christ to have many willing Subjects as these are willing and desirous to be under the Government of Christ that we plead for and very suitable to the Spirit and Grace of Christ in the Gospel In Church-reformation it is an observable Truth saith â—areus on the Parable of the Tares That those that are for too much strictness do more buâ—t then profit the Church See Diodaâ—e on Matt. 13.29 Cyprian Epist. 51. 3. There is apparently a greater â—anger of Corruption to the Churches by enlarging the Subjects of full Communion and admitting unqualified or meanly qualified persons to the Lords Table and Voting in the Church whereby the interest of the power of Godliness will soon be prejudiced and Elections Admissions Censures so carried as will be hazardous thereunto Now it is evâ—dent that this is and will be the Temptation viz. to ever-enlarge full Communion it Baptism be limited to the Children of such as are admitted thereunto And it is easie to observe that many of the Reasonings of our Brethren and others are more against the Non-admission of the Parents in question to full Communion then against the Admission of their Children to Baptism How unreasonable is it then to object against us â—s Corrupters of the Churches when we stand for a greater strictness then they in that wherein the main danger of Church-corrupting lyes We doubt not to affirm That that Principle which hath been held forth by our Brethren viz. That if the Church can have any hope of persons that they have any thing of Faith and Grace iâ— them though never so little they ought being adult to be admitted to full Communion this we say will if followed bring corruptions and impurities into Churches for he must abandon all the Rules of Charity that cannot hope this of multitudes of young persons that grow up among us who yet if they were presently admitted to full Communion we should soon feel a change in the management of Churchâ—affairs and the Interest of Formality and common Profession would soon be advanced above the Interest of the power of Godliness Whether we be in the right in this matter of strictness as to full Communion Scripture and Reason must determine and were this the place of that dispute we have much to say in it and to be sure the Practice of these Churches hitherto hath been for it as also their Profession in the Synod in 1648. Platform of Discipline Cap. 12. Sect. 7. Hence to depart from that would be a real departure from our former Practice and Profession Whereas to Enlarge Baptism to the Children of all that stand in the Church is but a progress to that Practice that suits with our Profession But certain it is that we are and stand for the Purity of the Churches when as we stand for such qualifications as we do in those we would admit to full Communion and do withstand those Notions and Reasonings that would inferre a Laxness therein which hath apparent peril in it But we can hardly imagine what hurt it would do or what danger of spoiling the Churches there is in it for poor Children to be taken within the verge of the Church under the wings of Christ in his Ordinances and to be under Church-care and Discipline and Government for their Souls good to be in a state of Initiation and Education in the Church of God and consequently to have Baptism which is the Seal of Initiation when as they shall not
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
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
59.21 Ezek. 37.25 28. Psal. 102.16 28. Ier. 32 39. The Reverend Author applies all these very Texts to the Church of the Iews under the New Jerusalem which Church he saith must consist for the matter of it of elect and sincere Believers onely both they and their children successively to the end of the world for which he alledgeth the Texts afore-mentioned pag. 33. Ans. It is freely granted that the Church of the Jews when they shall be called and converted shall be very holy and glorious and yet it may be questioned whether that Church shall have none in it but onely elect and sincere Believers both they and their children to the end of the world For when Christ shall come the Kingdome of Heaven that is to say the Church though it be compared to Virgins in respect of much Ecclesiastical Purity yet those Virgins are some of them foolish Virgins that had no oyle in their vessels with their lamps and so must have the door of the Marriage-Chamber shut against them Matth. 25. therefore they were not all sincere Believers and elect and therefore it may be a question whether the Church of the Jews at that time will be so free from Hypocrites as is said 2. If these Scriptures Isa. 60.15 59.21 and the rest do prove that when the Iews shall be called it shall be with them as is said then what the Synod here saith is gained and stands good viz. That in holy reforming and most glorious times there shall be a continuation and propagation of the Church from parents to children from generation to generation which is the very thing which is here affirmed by the Synod 3. Though the Reverend Author do here suggest this difference between that Church of the Jews under the New Ierusalem and the Gentile Churches that these latter shall have Close Hypocrites creeping into them and the children of Believers by their degeneracy when adult stopping the successive progress of the Covenant which in the Church of the Iews shall be otherwise yet sith the Scripture saith that the Nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of that New Ierusalem Rev. 21. and that then the Lord shall be King in all the earth and that there shall be one Lord and his Name one Zech. 14. and that the Name of the New Ierusalem shall be written upon Philadelphia a Church of the Gentiles Rev. 3. it may seem upon these considerations and the like that there will at that time be good conformity between the Church of the Jews and Gentile Churches and no such disproportion or difference that in the one there should be a continuation and propagation of the Church and Covenant from Parents and children successively but in the other not so We see no ground for believing such a difference but for ought that doth yet appear if there shall be such a glory in the one as that there shall be a successive pâ—ogress of the Covenant therein there shall or may be the like in the Gentile Churches also And to conceive any essential difference between either Jews or Gentiles then and Gentiles now as to the frame of the Covenant it self whatever difference there may be as to the measures of grace c. as is said in the Synods Result p. 9. is a conception that we see no ground for in Scripture Whereas the Reverend Author saith pag. 34. That the children of Church-members in this Country are commonly known to be Profâ—nâ— Vaâ—â— Licentious Vicious Stubborn Proud c. and complains That yet these are accepted into immediate Personall Membership The Answer is 1. As before That we think there is no accepting of Members children when adult into Membership but an accepting of them unto full Communion when they are fit for it and an acknowledâ—ing of such and others to be Members already as having had it from their birth or minority and having not since been regularly in any way of God cut off from the same To call this an accepting of thâ—m into Membership we think is very improper 2. If the children of Church-members generally were commonly known to be so Vicious and Profane as is said this were matter of great humiliation and grief to us all but we hope it is too much to say so of the generality or greatest part of them there being better things appearing in many 3. Be it that they are so Vâ—cious or not we think there is great reason that they should be carefully watched over by Elders of Churches and all Superiours that so their corruptions and sins might be mortified and they furthered to the attainment of that saving grace of God in Christ Jesus And whereas the Reverend Author makes an Objection That if they be so Vicious they have the more need to be under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church And in Answer thereto saith That it cannot rationally be expected that they will submit themselves thereto but will disregard and slight the same and that acceptance with God or blessing on such means cannot be expected because God limits his Blessing to his own Appointments p. 34 35. The Answer is That it hath been proved afore by seven or eight Arguments in Propos. 3. That these children are by Gods appointment under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church which Arguments have been formerly vindicated and cleared from what the Reverend Author hath said against the same and therefore for what is here said That the exercise of Church-discipline towards such cannot be expected to be accepted of God or blessed by him because it wants his Appointment we know not how to entertain this saying except there were some better proof for it which here is but nakedly delivered without any proof at all and therefore the exercise of Church-discipline towards the children spoken of may be appointed of God accepted of him and blessed by him for ought that is here said to the contrary And whereas it is said That it cannot rationally be expected that such persons will submit themselves to Church-discipline Though we know but little of the exercise of Church-discipline towards such yet experience doth testify that to some it hath by the blessing of God been profitable and that they have submitted to it and been bettered by it Lastly The Reverend Author did a little afore in this same Page pag. 34. mention the Vigilancy and Faithful Care and Endeavour of Church-Elders towards the Children mentioned as a way or means for conveying Religion down to after-Generations which we for our parts conceive to be sound and good But then how can this stand which is there said that such persons are not under the Watch Discipline and Government of the Church For doth not the Vigilancy of Church-Elders import some kinde of Church-watchfulness Can there be such Vigilancy Care and Endeavours towards such as are noâ— under the watch of the Church at all or can such Vigilancy Care and Endeavour of Church-Elders
appears by Deut. 26.17 18. Ans. If so then they did every third Year enter into a new membership for the Reverend Author conceives that what is said to be done in Deut. 26 17 18. was done every third Year as before â— 31 but who knows not that the same persons or people may many a time enter into covenant or renew their covenant with God and yet not thereby enter into so many new memberships It seems by Psal. 50.5 where it is said They have made a covenant with me by sacrifice that so oft as sacrifice was offered so oft there was a covenant made between God and them and yet it will not follow that at every time of sacrificing there was an entring into a new membership it may suffice to say as the Synod doth that at all such times there was a progâ—â—sâ— in memberly duties But why should we think that the Covenant in Deut. 26. was entring into a new Membership The Reason rendred is this Because they entred into the Covenant personally and immediately not in and by their Parents as they did in infancy Gen. 17.7 And if Covenanting be the Form of Church-membership then a different Form of Covenanting makes a different kinde of Membership Mediate and Immediate Covenanting makes Mediate and Immediate Members Ans. But is this certain that a different way of covenanting makes a different kinde of membership In Gen. 15. there is covenanting by diviâ—ing the heâ—feâ— the goâ— c. in the midst and passing between the pieces or parts and so in Jer. 34. In Gen. 17. there is covenanting by silence and falling upon the face in Nehem. 9.38 there is covenanting by Writing and Sealing of it in 2 Chron. 15. by Swearing with a loud voice and by engaging that â—hosoever should not do as is there promised should be put to death Here we see are various wayes of covenanting but shall we say that these do infer divers kinds of membership then it would follow that if the same persons or people should divers times enter into Covenant or renew their Covenant and this sometimes in one of these wayes and sometimes in another if a different form of covenanting do make a different kind of membership it would follow that the same persons and people might many times over again and again enter into a new kinâ— of membership which we suppose none will affirm and therefore this that is here said will not hold the thing for essence and Kind may be the same when the way and manner of doing may be various Moreover covenanting taken for our act in making or renewing the covenant is not the form of membership this is but the instrumental efficient but covenant-interest or to be in covenant is the formalis ratio of membership that is it which the Synod affirms pag. 24. and that is the immediate actual and proper portion of the children as well as of the Parents The third Argument of the Synod is From the Relation of born Servants and Subjects by which the Scripture sâ—â—s forth the state of children in the Church Levit. 25 41 42. Ezek. 37.25 which relations as all men know do noâ—â—easâ— with infancy but do continue in adult age and â—ince it also follows that one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when growâ— up c. pag. 25 26. The Answer to this is That the one of these Texts is typical figuring the tâ—â—e of grace whereby now Christ hath freed us from the servitude of Sin and Satan c. the other Text is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect nation of the Iews and of the state of the Church under the New Ierusalem and therefore these do neither of them suit the thing in question Ans. But for the present nothing appears to the contrary but they may be suitable yet if the thing it self for which those Texts are alledged be sound and good the Inference which the Synod makes is so also though the Texts were not so apt For if the children in the Church be in state as born Servants and Subjects to Christ then this state and relation and so their membership doth not cease with infancy but continues in adult age And we hope the Reverend Author will not deny but for state they are as born Servants and Subjects to Christ though he thinks the Texts quoted are not apt Proofs for it but if the thing be not denied the Argument of the Synod stands good for the continuance of their membership Grant them to be in the state of born Servants and Subjects in their infancy and then it must be granted that this state continueth when they are adult and so their membership doth not cease with their infancy deny that their membership continueth when adult and then it must be said either that their state in infancy is not as born Servants and Subjects or that such relations do cease with infancy But for the Reverend Author he expresly grants That one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fittest for it and have most need of it pag 43. which is the very same that is here affirmed by the Synod and doth not that hence follow which the Synod inferreth That therefore their membership did not cease with infancy but doth still continue It seems to follow unavoidably for how can they when adult or grown up be under engagement to service and subjection as the end of membership received in infancy if that membership do not still continue but together with their infancy be now past and gone If they be still under engagement then their Covenant doth still continue and consequently their Membership Yet when all this is done neither can the Parents nor the Church give grace unto the children that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate membership and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly is to prophane the Ordinances and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary pag 44. Ans. It is true none can give grace but God who is the God of all grace but for bringing the adult persons spoken of into membership we conceive there is no such thing here intended by the Synod nor can be spoken of in any propriety of speech concerning the persons in question they being such as were Members from their infancy and are accounted by the Synod still to continue members now when adult and therefore there is no bringing of them into membership That which is here spoken of were more aptly called an acknowledging of them to be members and how the acknowledging of such persons as the Proposition describes to be and continue members can be judged a prophanation of the Ordinances or a polluting of the Lords Sanctuary we confess we do not understand for we