it not a vain thing The person whom you are about to Disown is either within the Church or withâ—ut a Member or not a Member If he be within why may you not judge and censure him with the Censure of cutting off or casting out i. e. Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.12 13. there being cause for it If he be without why should you disown him any more then you do Non-members or such as were never joyned to the Church Would it not seem a strange and vain thing if the Church should put forth a solemn publick Act to disown a company of Non-members that are without the Church to what purpose should this be How Acts 8.21 here cited in the Margin should make for this disowning we understand not Peter there tells Simon Magus that he was farre from having any part or lot in the matter of conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which he never had but ambitiously aspired after but doth not declare that he had Discovenanted himself or had lost his Membership which he once had And whatever became of Simon Magus afterward of which the Scripture is silent and stories uncertain there is no ground to think that he was then put out of the Church or lost his Membership But rather the Apostle by grave Apostolical Rebuke and Counsel applies himself to him as to one in the Church to bring him to Repentance and to that sincerity of grace which he yet wanted Versâ— 22 13. As for the Reason here rendred why Excommunication agrees not to the Children in question viz. because It is applicable to none but those who have been in full Communion This is but a begging of the Question and carrieth not Evidence of Truth with it 〈◊〉 Excommunication i. e. the utmost Censure so called doth not properly or nextly debarre or exclude from full Communion but it cutteth off from Membership rendreth a person as an Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 and so from that Communion that belongeth to a Member as such When a person that hath stood for some time Admonished is afterward for his contumacy excommunicated it is not Excommunication that doth immediately and properly put him out of full Communion for that was done by Admonition whereby being Ecclesiastically unclean he was justly suspended from eating of the Holy things but Excommunication cuts him off from Membership which Admonition did not Hence it is not full Communion but Membership that doth properly and formally render a person a subject capable of Excommunication Hence it agrees to all that are Members though they have not been in full Communion and every Member hath some Communion though not full Communion and therefore may be excommunicated Paul when he is speaking of the Churches judicial proceeding and that unto Excommunication makes it applicable to all that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 if in full Communion yet church-Church-judgement fâ—lls upon them not as in full Communion but as within The casting out of Cain and Ishmael the cutting off of the born Members of the Church of Israel from their People an expression often used the casting out of the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 do at least by consequence and by proportion and parity of Reason shew that the Children in question may be cast out and cut off from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication As for that term of Formal Excommunication we know not that we are limited to this or that precise form of words in Excommunicating one sort or other but the formal nature of the thing viz. a putting of one out of the Church that was before in it This well agrees to the persons in question We pass by the fifth and last Objection which chargeth our Dissenting Brethren with Weakness Ignorance c. as containing nothing that is Argumentative to the matter in hand Neither do we own the Objection unless it be against our selves who are as we have acknowledged in our Preface to the Synods conclusions poor feeble frail men desiring not to trust unto or boast of any strength of our own which is none at all but onely to the strength and grace of Jesus Christ withall acknowledging that grace of his whereby he doth vouchsafe sometimes to reveal his Truth unto Babes We tender onely Scriptures and Scripture-arguments for that which we maintan desiring that they may be impartially considered without challenging to our selves or pleading for the Reputation of Strength or Wisdome In Disputes of this nature it is impossible but that eâ—ch part should look upon the Arguments on either hand as strong or weak according as they are perswaded But can we not deal with Arguments without being supposed to reflect upon the Persons each of other We suppose you do not see sufficient strength in our Arguments for then you would judge as we do and in that sense you do impute weakness to them In the like sense do we unto yours but desire to do it without any harsh reflexions upon the Persons of our Brethren and without liftings up in our selves who have cause enough to lye in the dust before God and man But here our Brethren take occasion to set down the Reasons of their Dissent from the Synod which make up a second main Part of this Preface The Consideration whereof we shall now address our selves unto Reason 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational Charity or else the Châ—lâ—e ought not to be baptized But they would not let this which themselves acknowledged be set down though our Vnity lay at the stake for it Answ. The regular receiver of the Truth is one that divides the Hoof as well as chews the Cud one that doth not take all in a Lump but distinguishes and rightly divides between things that differ We are to distinguish here 1. Between Faith in the being or first beginning of it whereby one is or is reputed to be in the state of a Believer the Charitable judgement whereof runs upon a great Latitude and Faith in the special exercise of it whereby one is fit for that special Communion with and active Fruition of Christ which is the scope of the Lords Supper unto the visible discovery whereof more lively Fruits and more experienced Operations of Faith are requisite 2. Distinguish between the internal Grace it self which is required of them that partake of Sacraments in the sight of God and those external signs of that Grace which the Church is to proceed upon in her Admission of persons unto Sacraments These two Distinctions being attended and rightly applied will help to clear both the Truth it self in this matter from mistakes and the Proceedings of the Synod from those uncomfortable Reflexions that are here cast upon them The former of these Distinctions and the application thereof to the matter in hand we have in Dr. Ames Children saith he are not to be admitted to partake of all Church-priviledges
when Erasmus had said that Châ—lâ—ren beiâ—g grown 〈◊〉 they being askt would not staâ—d to what had been promised in their behalf they â—ere to be leâ—t to themselves Calvin 〈◊〉 it as the saying of a man not wel exercised in Châ—rch-government See also Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Baptis Can. 14. de Confirmat sub Can. 3. whose words in the former of these places the Reaâ—er may find Engliâ—â—ed in the beginning of Mr Shepards Treatise â—bout Childrenâ—â—ely â—â—ely Printed And Cartwright to â—â—at Question What are the Duties of the rest of the Church that are presâ—nt at a Câ—iâ—des Baptisme Answers 1. To Rejoyce and be glad at â—he increase of Gods Church 3 When the Childe comeâ—h to age to do such duties as one Member â—wâ—â—h to another he did not think its Membâ—rship ceased with Infancy but saith he when it cometh to age such duties are to be doâ—e to it as one Member oweth to another Hence we say is it rational so to undâ—râ—tâ—nd Parker or Calvin as if they did think or approved it as sound Doctrine in others to think that they who were Baptized in minority when after they are grown up they have approved their Faith they are then first admitted Meâ—bers as if they were no Members of the Church before as the Reader would think that that were the scope aâ—d sense of the Testimony here cited But to cite shredsâ—f â—f passages in Authers in a sense contrary to those Authâ—rs known and declared judgement is very injurious both to them and to the Reader He that reads what this Preface here saith would think that it is the Iudgement of many judicious Writers cited by Parker that Children do then first enter into Church-membersâ—ip when their Fâ—ith is approved by the Church after they are grown up and that they are not Members at all before that when as it is most certain and evident that neither Parker nor any judicious Writer cited by him nor any one heretofore approved for a judiâ—ious Writer eitâ—er Ancient or Mâ—dern did indeed so judge but the contrary And Parkers words are clearly intended in another sense viz. with reference in full Communion And so speaking of the very same matter in the first book of his Ecclesiast â—elit Cap. 10. he saith That in the Reformed Churches the adult are exâ—mined by the Presbytery approved by the consent of the People and received by the whâ—le Church as Members of theâ—r Communion in a special manner and so are as it were confirmed before they be admitted to the Lâ—rds Supper where Members of their Communion in a special manner is the same with Members in full Communion in our Language and so â—is words together with the known practice of the Reformed Churches do plainly confirm our distinction between Initiated Members and Member in fâ—â— Communion but they are far from intâ—nding or holding forth either a denial of Childrens membership or a cessation thereof as soon as they become adult As for the Inference that is here made from Parkers Teâ—â—imony Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church Anâ— If his words do â—old in the sâ—nse in wâ—ich they are here alledged then Children are not onely Membersâ—s â—s any in the Church but they are not Meâ—bers at all or Non-meâ—bers seeing they are not it seers admitted Membeâ—s till when adult they have made their Prâ—feâ—â—â—on As for their being compleat and perfect Members it s well known we say and hold that they are not compleat or perfect in point of Communion or Priviledge but onely in regard of the Essence or Relation of Membership i. e. they are properly and compleatly within the Church and not half in and half out To be â—ccording to divine Institution within the Church is to be a Member of the Church as the Book before which this Prefâ—ce is set well owns pag. 41 〈…〉 any man â—â—ew us one Orâ—hâ—dox Divine or Judicious Writer before or iâ— Parkers dayes that ever said that the Children of the Faiâ—â—ful are either wâ—ile Infants or when â—dult suppoâ—ing them not excommunicate nor deserving so to be not within the Church But withâ—l we hold and so did Parker and the Reformed Churches that â—â—ere are many within the Church who may not â—ave coâ—pleat or juâ—â— Communion in all the Priviledges â—â—ereof and so are not compleat or perfect Members in that â—ense and â—word Meduâ— Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 13. It is not we but you that will have Children 〈◊〉 lâ—ast all adult Câ—â—ldren to be as compleat aâ—d perfect Members in this sense aâ— any in the Church or else to be no Members at all seeing you acâ—nowlâ—dge none that are adult to be Members unless they be in full Communion It is â—urâ—â—er added That when they are adult in case they do not joyn unto the Church then they do not retain their Membersâ—ip which â—hey 〈…〉 Minority Nâ—w to joyn to the Church is the act of one that is not jâ—yned or is not a Member so that unless they 〈◊〉 themselves to be not Members or unless they own themsâ—lves to â—â—ve lost their Membership they do not retain their Memberâ—â—ip this we confess we do not understand But so much for the discourâ—e upon the third Objection In the Answer to the fourth Objection there is an high Profession of much zeal for Church care and Watch to be extendâ—d towâ—rd Children and much cleâ—rness therein even as the light at Noon and as if it were written with the beams of the Sun so as that the Reader would expect to finde very ample â—â—tisfâ—ction in that matter but when it comes to it â—â—lls flat to no more but this That the watch over them is to be mediate according to the state of their Membership the Church is to see that the Parents â—â— their duty toward their â—hâ—ldâ—en Now we demand whether this be any more then the Church should extend to a Negro or Indian living in the Family of one of their brethren for should they not see that he do his duty toward him and that in reference to the things of Relâ—gion yea we might further ask whether this mediate watch viz. by seeing that the Parents do their duty doth not belong as much to Children when they are rejected and disâ—â—rneâ— by the Church as our Brethren would have them And what shall become of Children when their Parents are dead as how many Fâ—therleâ—s and Motherless Children are amoâ—g us or farre removed and when Children are sui juris and not under the wings of their Parents and why also should not Baptism and Catechizing as well as other Church-benefits be dispensed onely mediatelyâ—nd â—nd not immediately unto Children The Reader may here see that the difference about 〈…〉 and immediate Membership is more then a notion it contains under it a thing of great moment This mediate Membership is made a medium to put our poor Children from
untill first increase of Faith do appear but from those which belong to the beginning of Faith and entrance into the Church they are not to be excluded Where the Doctor distinguisheth between Initium Fidei The beginning of Faith and Incrementum Fidei The increase or growth of Faith and makes the former to suffice unto Baptism but the latter to be requisite to full Communion or to the Lords Supper An initial Faith entitleth to the Seal of Initiation but a grown Faith i. e. a Faith of some growth though yet farre short of Perfection and needing to grow still a Faith growing up unto some sensible and lively exercise is requisite unto the Sacrament of growth and fruition They were Believers yet but initial Believers that Iohn baptized in the first dawning or beginning of the Gospel Mark 1.1 4. The Apostles constantly baptized persons upon the first beginning of their Christianity but the Lords Supper followed after as annexed to some progress in Christianity The latter Distinction also is obvious and necessary Who ought to come and Who ought to be admitted are two distinct Questions say Vrsin and Parem We grant that true saving Faith and Repentance is required by God of those that partake of Sacraments for themselves or for their Children But the Question is what are the external signs and tokens of that Grace which an Ecclesiastical charitable Reputation may proceed upon for we can go no further then the judgement of rational Charity as here our Brethren acknowledge and that proceeds upon outward probable signs leaving the infallible knowledge of the heart to God onely The distinction between a Iew outwardly or a visible Jew that hath praise of or approbation among men and inwarâ—lyâ—â—at â—â—at hath praise of God is a Scripture-distinction Rom. 2.28 29. and is necessary to be attended hâ—re for De â—ecultis non judicat Ecclesia 1 Cor. 4.5 And here also we conceive that the same strictness as to outward signs is not necessary unto a charitable probable judâ—ement or hope of the being of Faith or of that initial Faith that entitleth to Bapâ—ism as is unto the like judgement of the speâ—ial exerâ—ise of Faith that is requisite to the Lords Supper there be many things that do both really and in the just reputation of men hinder the exercise of Grace and so hinder from the Lords Supper which yet do not awayâ— charitable hope of the Being of Grace or the state of a Believer If a man be under Offence in the Church he is suspended from the Lords Supper till a renewing or exercise of Repentance do appear yet we still repute him to be in the state of a Believer or to have the Being of Grace Now then to apply this to the Synods proceedings for Answer to what is here sâ—id viz. That the Synod did acknowledge there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent to the judgement oâ— rational Charity or else the Childe ought not to be Baptized yet could not be prevailed with to set this down â—â—r a Conclusion 1. We did and do acknowledge that in Ecclesiastical Charitable Reputation there must be Faith yea true saving Faith those words hurt us not provided they be not so strained as to turn Charity into Râ—gid Seâ—erity i. e. the being of Faith whereby a person is accounted to be in the state of a Believer Baptism being as was in the Synod alledged annexed properly to the state of a Believer or to the Covenant-state of a person and not to the present act or exercise of Faith and hence though there be no Parent alive to act for the Childe and the Childe cannot at present act for it self yet that hinders not its Baptism but we did not acknowledge it was necessary there should be Faith in the lively and special exercise of it such as we justly require an appearance of unto rational Charity in order unto full Communion which is that our Brethren aim at and stand for in all whose Children they will have Baptized And to set down a conclusion in general terms when the nature of the case calls for distinctâ—ess is not rational 2 Our main Work was to consider of and pitch upon such external Signs and Characters as the Churches Charity might and should proceed upon in this case We all own that onely visible Believers or visible Saints are to have their Children Baptized but the Question is Who are to be accounted visible Believers and we say that those described in the fâ—â—â—h Proposition are of that nuâ—bâ—r To have put it in such a general term as Those that profeâ—s or hold forth Faith and Repentance unto the satisfaction of rational Charity had been to leave the matter as obscure as we found it and in stead of giving light to the Churches which is the end of Synods to leave theâ— in the dark without any help to discover their way for still they are to seek who those are that are to be accounted Professors of Faith and Repentance and what Profession that is that Charity may accept in order to their Childrens Baptism Besides it is well known that those expressions Of holding forth Faith and Repentance c. have been constantly so taken in this Country as to hold forth the qualifications required for full Communion and that was it which our Brethren strove for so to screw up the Expreâ—sions for Bapâ—ism as that all that have their Children Baptized must unavoidably be brought to the Lords Table and to a power of Voting in our Churches wherein we cannot consent to them and however we are charged with corrupting the Churches yet we believe time will shew that that Principle that over inlargeth full Communion or that will have all of whom we can have any hope that they have any good in theâ— to come to the Lords Table this we say will prove a Church-corrupting Principle and those that have laboured to keep up the pâ—rtition here will be found to have been sâ—riously Studious of the Parity and safety of the Churches 3. But when it is 〈◊〉 that the Synod could not be brought to express what themselves acknowledge 〈◊〉 that the Parent whose Childe iâ— baptized must have Faith to the judgâ—ent of Charity or which is all one must be a visible believer we desire it may be considered with what Truth this can be 〈◊〉 for it was offered â—gain and again to express it 〈◊〉 plaiâ—ly and particularly if that would have satisfied as thâ—se that were present in those agitations too long here to be inserted may reâ—eâ—ber and the Proposition made â—as refused by some of themselves that dissented but it is competently expressed in the Synods Result as now Printed for when we limit the Baptizable to confederate visible Believers and their Infant-seed in Propos. 1. 2. and then say that those described in Propos. 5 6 7. are to have their Children Baptized doth it not imply that the Parents there described are Confederate visible
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
in them not being the same but distinct for in the one the Argument is from their being disciples or Scholars and therefore under discipline in Christs School but this here is from their being Baptized and that therefore they are in a state of subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christs Ministers and to the observation of all his commandmentâ— and that therefore they are in a state of subjection to discipline for thus the Argument stands They that are Baptized are thereby left in a state of subject on to the authoritative teaching of Christs Ministers and to the observation of all his Commandments and therefore in a state of subjection to Discipline But the adult persons spoken of are persons Baptized Therefore c. The Pâ—opâ—siâ—ion is grounded on the Text Mat. 28.19 20. where Christs Ministers are required to Bapâ—ize and to teach the Baptized to observe all his commandments The Assumption is plain of it self To the seventh Argument viz. That Elders must seed i. e. both Teach and Rule all the Flock and that children are part of the Flock The Reverend Author answereth That this concerneth not such grown persons as are not in full communion for without this they are not to be accounted of the Flock or Church Ans. If this that is here said were sufficiently and clearly proved it would be very acceptable to many Elders in this Country as clearing them from a great part of the burthen which they suppose themselves to be under And when the Holy-Ghost saith that they must take heed to themselves and to all the flock Act. 20 28. and that they must watch for their Souls as they that must give account Heb. 13.17 to say that these Soules and this flock are only such as are in full communiâ—n and Infants or Children in minority and that these last mentioned who then were of the flock do now cease to be of it when they become â—aul and that now the Elders are not charged to watch over them any longer nor to give account of their Soules we fear this would be an undue straitning and limiting of the Texts alledged and would be no good plea before the Lord and therefore without bâ—tâ—er proof we dare not assent unto it For what the Synod alledgeth That the Apostle writing to the Fâ—ock or Church at Ephesus doth also write to children Eph. 6.1 as counting them part of the flock We do not see that this is sufficiently taken off by what the Reverend Author answereth viz. That those Children were either Children in their Minority or if adult they were personally joyned to the Church and so in full Communion For let the words and scope of the Text be considered and we conceive it will appear that this exposition of the place is too narrow for the Children there spoken of are such as were bound to obey their Parents in the Lord this being right and such as were under the fifth Commandment the words whereof the Apostle doth there alledge Honour thy Father and Mother c. Now how shall it appear that though Children in minority and children when admitted into full communion in the Church are bound to obey their Parents and to Honour Father and Mother yet other children are not so bound Is there any ground for it that children now adult if not in full communion in the Church are exempted from this Commandment of Obedience to their Parents and of Hoâ—ouring of them we conceive there is none and if there be not then the children there spoken of are children adult as well as others wâ—ether in full communion or not And if so then these children as well as others are part of the Flock and Church of Ephesus to whom that Epistle is written and then the whole Flock being under the charge of Elders to feed them i. e. both to Teach and kâ—lâ— them it appeareth thereby that what the Synod here saith That these children are under the Watch and Discipline and Government of the Church is sound and good and so stands for all that is here alledged to the contrary In Answer to the Eighth Argument From the danger of Irreligion and Apostacy breaking into Churches and the want of any Church-way to prevent and heal the same if these children of church-Church-members be not under Church-government and Discipline and that through want hereof many church-Church-members would be brought under that dreadfull judgement of being let-alone in their wickedness Hos. 4.16 17. The Reverend Author nameth sundry other means for preventing these evils as That no adult personâ— be received into personal membership till fit for all Church-communion and that the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven which Christ hath left to binde and loose be rightly managed toward delinquent-Delinquent-members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion and for others that are not thus joyned to the Church that authority in Families and Common-wealth be wisely and faithfully managed toward such pag. 15 16. Ans. All these we acknowledge may by the blessing of God be much available in their way for â—he puâ—pose â—lledged and Oh that there were due care and waâ—châ—â—â—lnesâ— in Churcheâ— Families and Common-wealth for the faithful and due exercise hereof Nevertheless we conceive all these are not â—â—fficienâ— for the purpose desired 1. Because some of them are not Church-wayes at all of which the Synods Argument speaketh though it is not so expressed by the Reverend Author and therefore tâ—ough government in Families and Common-wealth were carefully used in the manner expressed yet Church-way may be wanting for all this 2. Those Church-wayes that are mentioned viz. Care in admitting into the Church and due managing the Keyes of Discipline to them that are so admitted these are not sufficient to prevent the evils spoken of and the reason is Because there is a great multitude of persons who were either born in the Church or were admitted thereinto in their infancy or minority who if they be not under Church-discipline when adult are let alone in their wickedness in respect of any Church-way to heal them and by want of this Church-discipline toward these persons Iâ—religion and Apostacy may break into the Churches notwithstanding all Church-wayes toward others and all other wayes in Common-wealth and Families toward these for Church-way for the good of these there is none if they be not under Church-government and Discipline As for that which is here said by the Reverend Author That the Churches censuring of adult persons admitted before they be qualified for communion in all Ordinances will not prevent or heal those evils seeing the Lord blesseth onely his own Institutions not mens Devices and that Humane Inventions usually cause the evils which they pretend to cure pag. 15. This Reason may have in it self a truth viz. that Gods Institutions and not mens Inventions are the way wherein men may expect a Blessing But if such a thing be affirmed of Church-discipline toward the persons spoken of that such Church-discipline is an Humane
then the servant sith in the cafe alledged the servant may trade under the Freeman as well as the childe may we suppose none will say this and therefore in this the Comparison doth not suit the case in hand The Orders and Priviledges of Corporations are various according to the tenour of their several Charters but what the Charter of the Church is we know viz. That in Gen. 17. it takes in children into the Church with their Parents and doth not allow them to be put out till censureable iniquity do appear 2. If in some Corporations one that is free-born do lose his Priviledge when he becomes adult if he do not then enter personally into the Engagement yet it is not certain that it is so in all Sure no such thing is said of Paul who yet pleads his Priviledge of being a Freeman of Rome because he was so born without mention of any personal act of his own for attaining that Priviledge Acts 22. And if Paul being free-born did retain his Freedome when adult without any personal act of his own for that end why may it not be so in respect of Church-membership though in all Civil Corporations it be not so It is evident that the Scripture speaks of the children of bond-servants as bound aâ—so and of the children of the fâ—er as free also without mention of any act of the children to procure that relation or state in the one case or in the other â—euâ— 25.46 54. And we see no reason but it may be so also in the visible Church that if the Parent be a member the childe is so also and so continues 〈◊〉 i. e be cut off not losing his membership by the meer not performinâ— of what might fit him for full Communion 3. If it were so in all Corporations that a Freemans childe doth lose his Freedome when adult if he do not then in his own person enter into the common Engagement and if it were also so in the Church that a Members childe should lose his Membership when adult if he do not then personally Covenâ—nt though this is more then we see proved yet if it were so we see not how this can be prejudicial to the persons spoken of in this fifth Proposition For of them it is expresly said that they do solemnly own the Covenant before the Church and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord c. and therefore though Freedome in a Corporation and Membership in the Church might be lost by not entring personally into the Common Engagement and Covenant yet except we shall say it may be lost though this Personall Engagement and Entring be performed and done except we shall say this we cannot say that the membership of the persons in question is lost at all but doth still continue sith they are such as do thus personally engage and covenant As for that Text Rom. 2.25 If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made no circumcision which is here alledged again we refer the Reader to what hath been said touching this Text before in pag. 33. Lastly whereas the Reverend Author saith Those Texts in Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to infants and children in minority The Answer is that the Synod doth not at all apply them to the adult persons in question and therefore it is a great mistake so to think but having said that these persons are personall immediate and yet-continuing Members they do thence infer that their children are therefore also Members in covenant and holy and consequently are the Subjects of Baptism which Inference and Consequence the Reverend Author we are perswaded will not deny if the ground thereof be good That the Parents in question are Members of the Church as the Synod apprehends that they are And therefore although the Texts alledged be not applicable to the adult persons in question yet if they be applicable to such infants and little children whose Parents are personal immediate and yet-continuing Members they do then sufficiently serve the purpose for which they are here alledged by the Synod So much for Defence of the sixth and last Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition Propos. 6. The sixth Proposition of the Synod is this Such church-Church-Members who either by death or some extraordinary Providence have been inevitably hindred from publick acting as aforesaid yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified and such as had they been called thereunto would have so acted their children are to be Baptized To this the Reverend Author Answereth That this Proposition may not be granted for it granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members Ans. And yet the Proposition in the very first words of it doth expresly declare that what Church-priviledge is here mentioned is not granted to such as are not Church-members but to such as are Such Church-members saith the Synod who c. their Children are to be Baptized So that though Church-priviledges may not be granted to such who are not Church-members yet to the persons here spoken of the Baptism of their Children may be granted without any such undue granting of Church priviledges sith the Synod doth not say these persons are not church-Church-members but doth expresly say they are All that can be said against these persons is that they have not acted according to the fifth Proposition and yet it is said they have been inevitably hindred therein and have given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as willing to have so acted and therefore having been church-Church-members from their birth or minority how can the applying of Baptism to their children be the granting of a Church-priviledge to such as are not Church-members If they had not been hindred from acting as in the fifth Proposition but had indeed so done yet this is not the thing that would have made them members they having been members afore and though they be now adult yet it hath been proved afore in the fifth Proposition Arg. 6. Part. 3. That their membership doth still continue and therefore the granting of Church-priviledges to such as are not Church-members may be yielded to be unwarrantable without any prejudice to the persons here spoken of or to what the Synod here saith concerning them And whereas the Reverend Author doth here lay down two Inferences 1. That an ordinary Minister cannot orderly do an act of Office to such as are not regular and actual Members of the visible Church but if he do it will be usurpation 2. That the Church may not receive into any priviledge of Church-communion such as are not actually in publick Church-order These may both be granted and yet what the Synod here saith not be at all infringed thereby For considering that the persons spoken of were Church-members long ago and have never since been
believers unless you will make us to speak inconsistencies Again it is 〈◊〉 made one Argument to prove the fifth Proposition that The Parents there described are Confederate visible believers And do we not then express this that the Parent whose Childâ— is to be Baptized must be a Confederate visible Believer and is not that all one as to have true Faith in the judgement oâ— Charity How then is it here said that the Synod would not let this which themselves acknowledged be expressed though our Vnity lay at the stake for it surely such misrepresentation of things with so much injurious reflexion should be forborn by Godly Brethren If that would have Vnited us to own that the Parent must be a visible Believer it was owned and granted toties quoâ—ies and is contained in the Propositions and Arguments as any Intelligent Reader will easily see But the disagreement lay here that your selves would not consent to any such acceptation or to any such Characters or Expressions of a visible Beâ—â—ever but such as should unavoidably bring Him into full Communion And we diâ—â—ered about this Who are visible Believers Not whether the Parents that have Baptism for their Children must be such In sum the Reason of our disagreement was not because we would not own our own Principle as is here strangely represented but because we could not Consent to yours and because you refused to have a common Principle any way expressed but so as might suit with your own Nation though our Unity lay at the stake for it Reason 2. The second Reason which our Brethren here give of their dissent from the Synod stands thus There is no warrant in all Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfiâ—ness for the Lords Supper But the Parents in question are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper therefore there is no warrant in all the Scripture to Baptize their Children this we suppose is the Assumption and Conclusion that is understood if this second Reason be intended as a Reason of their dissent from the Synods fifth Proposition Unless it be intended onely as a dissent from that which is â—â—uched and contained in the Synods Discourse viz. that Some may have their Children Baptized who yet are short of actual fitness for the Lords Supper But the Answer to it will take in both And the Answer will easily be given if once we understand distinctly what is meant by A state of unfitness for the Lords â—upper now by a state of unfitness must be meant either Non-membership and that is indeed a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper which belongs onely to the Church though not to all in the Church yet onely to it and in this sense the Assumption above mentioned is denied for the Parents in question are Members of the Church and in that respect in a state of fitness for the Lords supper i. e. being in the Church or Members thereof to them belong all Church-priviledges according as they shall be capable thereof and appear duely qualified for the same they have jus ad rem though not jus in re as a Childe hath a right to all his Fathers Estate though he may not ought not to have the actual use and fruition of it till he become to years and be qualified with abilities to manage it A Free â—an is in a state of fitness to be a Magâ—straâ—e or Deputy or in some other office proper to Freemen though for want of Particulâ—r quâ—lifications or orderly admission by Election he may haply never be one In such a sense every Church-member is in a state of fitness for the Lords Supper Or else by A state of unfitness for the Lords Supper is 〈◊〉 Want of actual qualifications fitting for it whereby a person either is in himself short of actual fitness for the Lords Table or wanteth Church approâ—ation of his fitness and â—o wanteth an orderly admission thereunto Now in this sense we deny the Major or Proposition of the Argument above mentioned and do conceive that there iâ— warrant to be â—â—und in Scripture for the applying of Baptism to Children 〈◊〉 Parents do want actual qualifications fitting them for the Lords Supper Among sundry other Scripture evidences of it one is from the Analogie of the Passeover and Circumcision in the Church of Iâ—rael where the Parâ—nt might want actual fitness for the Passeover by manifold Ceremonial uncleannesses and yet that hindred not the Circumcising of the Childe Now a liberty of arguing from thence to the Gospel passeover and Gospel-circumcision i. e. to the Lords Supper and Baptism is here granted and allowed but 't is Answered that Vnless the Father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his Childe Circumcised Reply Whâ—t state of fitness was the unclean Iewish Parent in but onely a state of membership He was a Member of the Church and so 〈◊〉 the Parents in question and they need not do not enter into a new Membership when they are admitted to the Lords Table no more then the Iewish Parent after his cleansing did But in two things the case of the Ceremonially-unclean Jewish Parent holds proportion with the case in hand 1. He must have other and better qualifications then he hath at present before he eat of the Passover he is at present in a state of Legal impurity and so in regard of actual qualifications in a state of unfitness but he must be in a state of Legal purity and cleanness before he partake of the holy things 2. He must especially after some uncleannesses of a more remarkable nature be judged and Pronounced by the Priest to be clean and so free to partake of the holy things Levit. 13.6 So the Parents in question must have their fitness for the Lords Table judged of and approved by those in the Church to whom the power of such judgement and approbation doth belong And having these two things Personal qualifications and Church-approbation then and not before they are to come to the Lords Table and those two are all they need they do not need a new admittance into Membership as if they were before not of the Church no more then the Israelitish Parent did If any one object that this Legal uncleanness was but an accidental and ceremonial thing and did not import the want of any Moral or Essential fitness for the Passover Let him consider That as the Discipline then was mostly Ceremonial and hence Legal purity was then an essential qualification unto a regular fitness for the Passover and other holy things and the want of it a reall barre so those Ceremonies pointed unto Moral and Spiritual things to be attended by us now Their Legal cleansings washings c. did import and signifie a special exercise of Faith and Repentance which therefore we may well require in those whom we admit unto full Communion in the holy things of
give up themselves and theirs to the Lord in his Church and subject themselves to Christs Government therein That these we say may be denied or debarred from Church-membership or Baptism upon their desire thereof It is not easie to believe that the multitudes baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christ i. e. by his Disciples at his Order in the time of their Ministry or the many thousands of the Iews that were counted Believers and baptized after Christs Ascension too much addicted unto Judaism Acts 21.20 15.1 or the Numbers baptized by Philip in Samaria and by the Apostles in other places upon a short time of Instruction and when they were moved and taken 〈…〉 and of whom many proved corrupt and degenerate afterward as the Epistles to the Galatians Corinthians and other places shâ—w That they did we say at least many of them excell the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition taking all things together or that they had more to render them visible Believers upon a just account then those have But it is a strange Reason that is here rendred by our Brethren why that which is set down by the Synod would not render a person a Subject of Baptism viz. Because a man may be an unbelieâ—er and yet câ—me up to all that the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition We suppose 〈◊〉 Magus Aâ—â—niâ— and Sapphira and many others not onely might be but were unbelievers and yet were regularly baptized We marvel what outward signs and professions of Faith which the Church may proceed upon can be given but a man may â—e an unbeliever and yet come up unto them If it be said that a man may come up to all that the Synod hath said and yet â—e Ecclesiastically judged a visible unbeliever shew us any ground for such a judgement Touching the Opinion of Bucer Parker here cited out of Park de Polit. â—cel lib. 3. p. 181 182. 1. In the first passage the word Apparent is here added the words in Parker are onely Signes of Regeneration and the other passage in pag. 182. runs thus A confession of Faith though publick and solemn may not be received in Churches quando nulla necessaria Fidei signs apparent when as no necessary Signs of Faith do appear where by necessary Signs of Faith are not meane such signs as have a necessary Connexion with Faith or do necessarily i. e. infallibly and certainly Argue that there is Truth of saving Faith in the heart such Signs men cannot see or judge of but when there is such an appearance as that if that be in reality which doth appear to be on which seems to be in outward appearance then there is true Faith this is that appearance of necessary Signes of Faith which he means hence within seven lines of the place cited the same thing is thus expressed quaâ—diu nullo probabili Argumento c. when as we are by no probable Argument given to believe that it is in the Heart 2. The thing there specially blamed by Bucer and Parker is when a bare Verbal Profession is accepted though accompanied with a Scandalous life and when there is not regard had to the conversation as well as to the Oral Confession as the Discourse in the place cited at large shews 3. But that which we would chiefly insist on for Answer is That Bucer and Parker do there plainly speak of such a Confirmation or owning men as confirmed Members as doth import their Admission to the Lords Table or into full Communion as we Phrase it and hence do blame the Prelatical way for so much slightness therein so Mr. Cotton cites this place of Bucer And so Parker a little before this his citation of Bucer complains That although by the English order if I mistake not saith he he that is confirmed is capable of the Lords Supper yet notwithstanding such are confirmed if they can but say the Catecâ—ism who cannot examine themselues nor rightly prepare themselues for the Table of the Lord. Now it is well known that in our Admissions unto full Communion we are not behind in any thing that Bucer and Parker do require but do expect positive comfortable Signes of Regeneration already wrought and some experienced fruits thereof whereby persons may be in some measure fit for that special and comfortable Exercise of Grace that is required in preparation for and participation of the Lords Table But suppose that persons born in the Church and baptized be not yet come up to this is there any word to be found in Bucer or Parker or in any Judicious Orthodox Divine that they lose their Membership and are put out of the Church meerly because they are not come up to this when as no censurable wickedness is found in them And while the Parent stands in the Church his Infant-childe is in the Church also and therefore Baptizable Yet withal we say with the consent of Judicious Divines that while persons have a regular standing in the Church they are in Ecclesiastical account to be looked upon as having the Being of Regeneration or as Fideleâ— vocati and so regenerati i. e. by reason of their federal Holiness though not by partâ—cular present evident Signs of a work of Grace already wrought in them in this case we take their Covenant-estate Christian Education Hopeful Carriage general Profession c. for Signs of Regeneration in this sense i. e. such as shew that there may be Grace there is nothing inconsistent with Grace and none knows but â— seed of Grace which in the first infusion and beginnings of it is marvellous secret and small may lye at bottom and hence the Church is to carry toward them as Heires of Grace But it is a further thing for Grace to appear above-ground in such Exercise and sensible Signs Evidences and Experiences as may fit them for comfortable Communion wâ—th Christ in the Supper But Fourthly if the judgement of Bucer and Parker may be taken in this Controversie it will 〈…〉 for notwithstanding all that is here or can be cited of theirs it is evident enough that Famous Martin Bucer and Renowned Parker as the Preface styleth them and that deservedly do fully concurre with the Synod in extending Baptism to such as the Synod describes or to more then so Vid. Bucer de regno Christi Lib. 1. Cap. 2. pag. 14. And in his Commentary upon Iohn in an excellent discourse concerning Infant Baptism among many other useful Passages he hath these following Sunt quidem saâ—e inter pueros Reprobi c. There are indeed often among Children some that be Reprobates but while that does not appear to us we ought nevertheless to reckon them among the People of God and we shall time enough cast them out when by their evil fruits they shall openly shew us what they are Bucer in Joh. fol. 43. And in another place Quantum equidem assequi possum c. As far as I can gather saith he the
and this not onely secretly and in heart but so outwardly and visibly as to be scandalous therein how this can be we must confess we do not understand To that of the Synod where they say That the Parents in question do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism and that this is plain from the words of the Proposition where they are described to be such as understand the Doctrine of Faiâ—h c. The Reverend Author in his Answer saith That notwithstanding this the Parents may put in a barre to hinder their children from Bapâ—â—sm because a man may do and be all that is required in that Proposition and yet have no faith in Christ but be an unregenerate person Ans. It is one thing what a man may do and yet be an unregenerate person really and in the sight of God who knoweth the heart and another thing to be visibly so in the view of men and in their rationall judgement for it is granted that a man may be and do outwardly and visibly all that the Proposition mentioneth yea and all that can be named further and yet be really and in the sight of God an unregenerate person but yet this needs not to hinder his childe from Baptism before the Church for such was the case of Iudas Ananias and Sapphira Simon Magus and others who had a name to live and yet were dead Rev. 3.1 and yet for all this deadness and unregeneracy of theirs the Church did warrantably admit them and theirs to Baptism because visibly and for ought that the Church could discern they were regenerate sith De occultis non judicat Ecclesia But that a man may do and be all that the Proposition mentioneth and yet be unregenerate and without Faith not onely in the sight of God but also visibly and to the Churches judgement this seems not very probable Even one of the particulars which the Proposition mentioneth viz. that of Giving up themselves to the Lord is spoken of by the Apostle as a token of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 8.1 5. And when the Synod mentioneth not onely this particular but five or six others in the Proposition must we for all this say That men may do this and all that is mentioned in that Proposition and yet have no grace of God bestowed on them but be even quoad nos without all faith in Christ and in an unregenerate estate and so put in a barre to hinder the Baptism of their children we cannot but fear such judgement is more rigorous then Charity will allow for the Scripture tells us that the tree is known by its fruit Mat. 12. 7. and that even a childe is known by his doings whether his work be pure and whether it be right Prov. 20.11 and therefore when there are so many things for the Parents in question as are mentioned in the Proposition and nothing appearing to the contrary we think such Parents having been Members of the Church in their minority may justly be looked at as those who do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism The Reverend Author further saith pag. 25. Though these Parents are not Scandalous in life but Solemnly own the covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a form of Godliness and deny the power thereof from such Paul warned Timothy to Turn away 2 Tim. 3.5 Ans. But is it credible that those in 2 Tim. 3. could answer all that is said in this Proposition were they not Scandalous in life but did give up themselves to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church what then means the many Scandalous sins mentioned ver 2 3 4. and what was this denying the Power of Godliness that is charged upon them it is most like it was such a denying as that in Tit. 1.16 where they are said to profess to know God but by works to deny him being abominable disobedient and to every good work reprobate and if so then they were far from answering what is said of these Parents for these Parents are not Scandalous in life but those the Apostle speaks of are Scandalous and abominable for wickedness these Parents are commendable for sundry good things in them and good duties done by them whereas those the Apostle speaks of are not so but disobedient and to every good work reprobate And when the Apostle bids Timothy turn away from such doth not this simply that they were Scandalous persons and apparently wicked it is not likely that the Apostle would else have commanded to turn from them sith he himself did so lovingly converse with so many sorts of men that he might gain them to the Lord 1 Cor. 9.19 20 c. and gives Commandment to receive the weak Rom. 14.1 and to instruct with meekness such as oppose themselves if God peradventure may give them Repentance c. 2 Tim. 2.25 which things do strongly argue that those whom he Commands in 2 Tim. 3. to turn away from were not such as are described in the Proposition but far worse being apparently and grosly wicked For otherwise how could the Apostle in commanding to Turn away from them be cleared from direct contradicting both his own Doctrine and his own Practice But let those in 2 Tim. 3. whom he commands to Turn away from be understood of persons grosly vicious and Scandalous and then the appearance of contradiction is easily cleared and so the Parents in question cleared from being such persons as must be Turned away from So much for Defence of the first Argument But before the Reverend Author proceed to the next he is something large in suggesting that the Elders do admit persons into Membership who are not qualified according to what is said in this Proposition so that if their Doctrine in this matter were right yet it is here pag. 25 26. frequently intimated that their Practice is otherwise For saith he they cannot prove that all adult persons whom they admit into personal and immediate Membership are such as the Proposition describeth For I demand do they all understand the Doctrine of Faith what course do they take to know it Are all the adult persons whom they admit into Membership such as the Proposition describes do they take a right course to know they are such that they are not Scandalous in life c. Ans. The Proposition speaks of such as were admitted in minority and therefore what is done towards these when they are adult is not fitly called admitting into Membership For as Mr. Cotton saith It is one thing to enter into the Church for that agreeth to such as were sometime without another thing to speak of the Infants of Believers who were never out of the Church and so cannot be
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-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
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
obtaining the priviledges of the other when actual entring into that office and state is hindred yet when such as are in Church-estate already do desire to act as in the fifth Proposition but are inevitably hindred from so acting what should hinder but they may have their children Baptized as if they had so acted indeed And why may not the instances of Gods accepting of Abrahams offering his Son of Davids building the Temple and the other mentioned by the Synod be sufficient Proofs hereof we see nothing to the contrary but they may Whereto may be added that in 2 Chron. 30. where the people that prepared their hearts to seek God are accepted of God in the Passeover though they were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary yet whatever it was that hindred their cleansing their preparing their hearts did imply that they did desire it and hereupon at the Prayer of Hezekiah they are accepted And in 1 Sam. 30. when two hundred of Davids men were by faintness hindred that they could not go over the brook Besor as he and others did yet he will not yield but that they shall have part of the spoil as well as others that went down to the Battell considering that it was not want of will but want of ability that hindred their acting as others did and He as he was in other things a man after Gods own heart even so he was in this and they that would not have had the will of these two hundred accepted when their deed was so inevitably hindred are called wicked men and men of Belial By all which the Argument of the Synod is further confirmed and cleared when they say in this their third Reason that God accepts that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred And if God accept those as Martyrs who are such onely in voto as the Reverend Author seemeth to acknowledge pag. 49 why may not the like be said of those who are onely Baptized in voto we see no reason but that if in the one case God accept them as Martyrs he doth also in the other as persons Baptizeâ— And whereas he saith To be Baptized in voto will nothing advantage any as to Church-fellowship because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia and things are not manifested to the Church otherwise then by congruous actings The Answer is 1. That the thing here spoken of by the Synod is not at all of receiving into Church-fellowship as the Reverend Author carries it but of Baptizing the Children of such as are in Church-estate already and have been so even from their minority 2. Nor is the desire they speak of so hidden and unknown that the Church cannot judge of it but so manifest that they have given the Church cause in the judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified as is said and that had they been called thereto they would have so acted So that if it were true that men could not be received into Church-fellowship by meer desire of such state when that desire is secret and not manifest to the Church yet men that are in Church-estate already may have their Children Baptized when their desires to act as is mentioned are sufficiently known to the Church though their acting hath been ineviâ—ably hindred For these cases do apparently differ so that what the Synod saith in the one is not overthrown by what the Reverend Author saith in thâ— other 3. It is conceived by some that those who of the Ancients are said to be Baptized in voto were so spoken of because they were Martyred before they could actually receive Baptism and yet that their children were after the death of the Parents actually Baptized and accounted of the Church which if so doth testifie That they counted it a great matter to be Baptized in voto sith in such case they would actually apply Baptism to the children when the Parents had not received it actually but onely in voto or in desire And how much more may Baptism be applyed to the children in question whose Parents are not onely Baptized actually and not in dâ—sire onely but have been actually members of the Church even from their birth or minority onely they have not acted as in the fifth Proposition but have been inevitably hindred therein though they have been known to the Church to desire so to have acted Fourthly Saith the Synod The termes of the Proposition import that in charity that is here done interpretatively which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly The Reverend Author Answereth It s an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture or in good Reason Ans. But is this certain that neither Rule in Scripture nor good Reason will give warrant for such charity as is mentioned If men have been by death or some extraordinary providence inevitably hindred from so acting as in the fifth Proposition and yet have given the Church cause to look at them as such as would have so acted if they had been thereunto called and not inevitably hindred is there yet for all this no warrant in Scripture or good Reason for such charity as is spoken of For our parts when God Almighty accepts the will for the deed when the parties inability hinders from doing so much as he would 2 Cor. 8.12 and when Scripture tells us that Charity thinketh not evil but believeth all things hopeth all things c. 1 Cor. 13.5 7. we cannot but think it better to retain and exercise such charity as is here spoken of then to be driven or depart from it as if no Rule of Scripture or good Reason would warrant it If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly is here done interpretatively both being put together will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship in any sense and to give the infant a right to Baptism thereby Ans. For putting into Church-fellowship the things here mentioned by the Synod are not by them alledged for that end and therefore if this that is said by the Reverend Author were granted the Doctrine of the Synod is not at all weakned thereby But if the things mentioned be sufficient for the Baptizing of the children of Parents who are in Church-fellowship already the purpose of the Synod is sufficiently gained But why do not the things mentioned avail to put the Parent into Church-fellowship The Reason rendred is Because by Christs Ordinance onely adult persons who have true Faith and Holiness are adult Members of the invisible Church and the same persons making profession thereof outwardly in the Order by him appointed may be Members of the visible Church and they onely can give their infant-seed a right unto Baptism Ans. And is this certain and clear that onely they who have true Faith and Holiness and so are