in the visible Church Clear up these two from the Word of God and the whole Controversie is issued To this end I shall premise three things which being proved by the Word of God will make my way plain and easie through all these Antisynodalia Propos 1 That however the Membership of the seed of the Faithful be conveyed to them by their Parents instrumentally yet it flows from and is grounded upon Gods Institution as the principal Efficient cause thereof who is pleased to extend the Grace of his Covenant not only to the Parents but also to their seed God enters into Covenant with them He is their God They are his People This is evident Gen. 17 7. I will establish my Covenant between Me and Thee and thy seed after thee to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee At eight dayes old they were to be Circumcised as a Token of the Covenant between God and them ver 11 12. Deut. 29 11 12. Their little ones stood before the Lord their God to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God to be established a people to himself What can be spoken more plainly and fully to this purpose Acts 2.39 The Promise is to your Children 1 Cor. 7.14 Your Children are holy And indeed what can be supposed in the Parents Faith Profession or Covenanting to bring in their seed but it dependeth wholly upon Gods Free-grace ordaining his Covenant so to be dispensed And hence it followeth That the Infant-seed are in their own persons actually Members of the Church being actually in this Covenant with God as His People and he Their God and having the Covenant in their flesh the Seal of it applied to their persons And hence they cannot be cut off from their interest in God and his Covenant-Priviledges but in such a way as he hath ordained which in Gospel-times is by Church-censures Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Propos 2 There is a twofold Dispensation of the Covenant of God in his visible Church 1. Outward and visible by which the Lord bestows upon his Church and all the Members thereof the outward Priviledges of the Covenant his Ordinances and Means of Grace as they become capable thereof and wherein he tenders unto them the Saving Benefits thereof with many Means to bring up their hearts to the embracing thereof This is evident they have all the Name and Title of Gods People His Children A Royal Priesthood Holy Nation Saints c. Gen. 6.2 Exod. 19.5 6. Deut. 32.9 Isa 1.1 2. Psal 50.1 2. Mat. 15.26 And the Ordinances and Means of Grace are theirs Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 So in the New-Testament the whole Church of Corinth are called Saints and faithful in Christ The Seven Churches Rev. 1. are called Golden Candlesticks though there were corrupt Members in them And the Ministry of the Word and other Ordinances belong to the visible Church Ephes 4.11 1 Cor. 12.28 Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Whence it is evident That Officers are set in the Church for the edifying of the Body of Christ and for the healing and saving the Members of the visible Church 2. There is a more Inward Spiritual and Saving Dispensation of the Covenant to such as truly Believe and perform the Conditions of the Covenant whose hearts God hath circumcised according to the Promises of the Covenant Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 36. From this different Dispensation it is that the Lord though he requires of all to Fear the Lord their God to Walk in his wayes to Love him with all their hearts c. Deut. 10.12 13. and keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love God and walk with God in faith and obedience but reproveth the wicked for taking his Covenant into their mouthes Psal 50. rejects their Sacrifices Isa 1. 58. calleth them Vncircumcised Ethiopians c. in respect of any inward and saving Benefits of the Covenant yet still he owneth them as His People Saints in Covenant with him Psal 50.1 and followeth them with the Means of Grace till there be no remedy 2 Chron. 36. This is evident in all the story of the Church in the Old and New-Testament as will appear more afterward Propos 3 There is a different Rule and Reason of admitting Members into the visible Church and the continuation of them in it being regularly admitted In Admitting Members into the Church we justly look for such positive Qualifications as the Word of God requireth viz. A visible Profession of Faith and Repentance in adult persons and Foederal Holiness in Infants We well approve that Saying of Chamier quoted by our Brethren No man can disallow such diligence to prevent the profaning of holy things and lest such as Simon Magus should lie hid But to cast out such as are Regularly admitted we must have positive Impenitency in sin as a ground to count them as Heathens and Publicans Mat. 18. and that after due patience towards them for even an Heretick may have two Admonitions before rejection Tit. 3.10 or at least some notorious scandalous sin as some conceive from 1 Cor. 5. These things premised I shall proceed to consider the next thing in order which is our Brethrens Answer to the main Questionâ— viz. Who are the Subjects of Baptism To which their Answer iâ— this That visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized together with their next seed in minority are the proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism as to the receiving of it For the proof of this they referre to the places before alledged Mat. 28.19 20. Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 39. Their large Discourse I pass by though some things might be matter of Dispute but I would decline all impertinencies and come to their Reason gathered out of those Scriptures which is this Those are proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism to whom Christ in the Gospel-institution hath appointed it But visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church are the persons being unbaptized to whom Christ in the Gospel-institution of Baptism hath appointed it Therefore visible Believers c. The greatest weight or stress of this Argument lieth upon that place Acts 2.38 39. and I see our Brethren put much confidence in it affirming That the minor is express Scripture and therefore though many are unwilling it should be true and will cavill against it it will be found true at the Day of Judgement c. Ans God forbid that in searching after the Truth we should Cavill at the Word of God but let us take heed of Adding to it or Taking from it But whether the Minor will prove true or not we need not stay till the Day of Judgement for the holy Scriptures the Judge of all Controversies will easily decide it and I will directly deny the Minor for none of those Scriptures or any other that I know of will prove That full communion with an instituted Church is requisite to the Subject of Baptism much less that
such are the proper Subjects thereof as if such and onely such were to be Baptized This of Full Communion our Brethren thought would advantage their Cause and so have put it in but it is a meer Addition to the Word of God which wholly fails them of any proof yea makes evidently against them In that principal place Acts 2.38 39. it is evident that they were Baptized before their Full Communion For 1. Peter called them to be Baptized upon the ground of the Promise ver 38. 2. They were Baptized and added to the Church before full Communion ver 41 42. 3. It had been very preposterous to put them into full Communion before Vnion with the Church sealed by Baptism for Baptism is a Seal of Vnion with the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 which must go before Communion But they seem to suppose at least that some in full Communion may be unbaptized by that word being unbaptized but the truth is that our Brethrens confidence in this Argument will be found so greatly to fail them that whil'st by it they seek to straiten The Subject of Baptism beyond the Doctrine of the Synod they destroy and take away the whole Subject it self of Baptism because there will never be found any such persons according to Gospel-Rule which they call so much for and appeal unto that are in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I will be a little bold with our Brethren in this case to challenge them to produce any Rule or Example in the Gospel of any person that either was or by Rule might be in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I hope this Answer is plain and no Cavill Yet for the further clearing up of this Answer I shall remove what may be further said by our Brethren Object Though those in Acts 2. were not in full Communion actually before Baptism yet they were admitted to a state and right to full Communion by their Baptism which these Children in question are not Ans 1. The Question is not What state or right the Baptized are partakers of as a consequent fruit of Baptism received but What it is that constitutes a person to be a fit Subject to be Baptized To describe the proper Subject of Baptism by the consequent fruits of it and not by the precedent causes that gives right to Baptism is very improper and preposterous If the Question were Who are the proper Subjects of Church-membership we say Confederating visible Believers and their seed for this makes them fit for and brings them into such a relation But should any answer That the proper Subject of Church-membership is a person in full communion with an instituted Church or One that is under the Teaching and Rule of Church-Officers which are the fruits of Church-membership received Who does not see the weakness of such an Answer and the like is this case Baptism being the Seal of Gods Covenant with his Church whereby we are Baptized into one Body 2. Although the Infant-seed of the Church cannot actually enjoy full Communion in all Ordinances as their Parents do yet the Covenant of God sealed to them in Baptism sets them in a state and right to all the Benefits of the Covenant to be enjoyed by them as they become fit for them as well as their Parents for the Covenant of God with Parents and seed is one and the same All that are in the same Covenant are bound to the same Duties of the Covenant and have the same right to all the Benefits of the Covenant as they come up to perform the Conditions and are fit for the enjoyment of the Blessings In adult Members it is so who being under Admonition for Scandal or in a Frenzy or the like case though they partake not of all the good of the Covenant yet their right remains So here when the seed grow up to perform the Duties of the Covenant they also partake of the Benefits not by any new Covenant or Membership but by the right of that Covenant God made with them and sealed to them in Baptism as will appear more fully afterward 2. I shall adde further It is true that to admit adult persons into the Church and to Baptism visible Faith is required and so much the Texts alledged prove but this is not the case in Dispute between us but About persons already in the Church and Baptized whether in such the ground of Baptizing their seed be Faith and Grace made visible in the same manner or their Interest in the Covenant and therefore the Argument doth not conclude the Question Put case any of those visible Believers and converts Acts 2. should afterward discover by their Worldliness Looseness or other wayes that there is in them no sap or savour of Faith and Grace even to the charitable judgement of most in the Church my Question is Whether yet so long as they continue in the Church their Infant-seed shall not be Baptized If it be granted then it is not such visible Faith and Grace but the Interest in the Church and Covenant that gives Right to Baptism and so to these church-Church-members in question If this be denied let there be one Tittle of Scripture-Rule or Example produced to the contrary Having answered their Reason I shall present an Argument from the same Text to confirm the Doctrine of the Synod It is to be noted That the Promise Acts 2.39 is That Covenant-Promise which God made with Abraham as appeareth by that parallel place Acts 3. where ver 19. Peter exhorts to Repentance as in chap. 2.38 and chap. 3.25 he useth the same Reason in other words You are the children of the Covenant which God made with our fathers the substance whereof all grant to be this I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations although the Apostle there makes use of another branch of the Covenant concerning Christ that feed in whom God is the God of his People Now the Reason stands thus If the Covenant-promise to Abraham and his seed be a ground to Repent and be Baptizsed in the Gospel-dispensation then it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism But the Covenant-promise was a ground to Repent and be Baptized in Gospel-dispensation Acts 2.38 39. with chap. 3.19 25. Therefore it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism which is the Doctrine of the Synod Thus much to their Scripture-Argument To which our Brethren adde the Testimony of Mr. Richard Mather Well agreeing with this say they is the Answer of Reverend Mr. Mather in his Catechism Ans But by their leave it differeth from their Answer in the main thing that toucheth the cause in hand for there is nothing of full communion in his which they put into theirs 2. That Reverend and Learned Author speaketh onely what adult persons should be in joyning to the Church and the seed of such so converted
Christ for they came in by the Gospel-Covenant as our Brethren grant from Acts 2.38 39. And is not Christ the Mediator of that Covenant Yea are they not Baptized into Christ Are not the Blood and Benefits of Christ Scaled up to them in Baptism But our Brethren seem wholly to forget that or to make a Nothing of it 2. When this Covenant which is called The covenant of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 is Solemnly owned by them wherein they give up themselves to God and submit to the Government of Christ in the Church Is there nothing of Christ in all this 3. The danger of wanting the Wedding-garment is as great to such as come in with the fairest Profession of Faith as to these and is the Church blameable for admitting such because their danger is so great when such want the Wedding-garment But seeing our Brethren urge so much Joh. 10. let them consider ver 13. The hireling careth not for the sheep We have more cause to fear how we shall answer for our careless Neglect of these Lambs of Christ then for our Receiving them into the Fold of Christ for which we have our Warrant from Christ And withall let us remember that weighty Charge Heb. 12.15 16. Looking diligently lest any fail of the grace of God c. lest there be a profane person as Esau who for a morsell of meat sold his Birthright It seemeth the Apostle did think there was a Precious Birthright and that it was the duty of the Church to look diligently to the preservation and improvement of it Let us then take heed we do not take it from them before the Rule of Christ doth require it By this whole Discourse and by these Ten Reasons we may now fully see upon what Principles our Brethren ground their Anti-Synodalia or their Positions wherein they Dissent from the Synod And therefore seeing the Prefacer complains that Their Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Anabaptism I shall crave leave before I pass on to present unto their serious Consideration what Advantages they put into the hands of the Anabaptists who I fear will make such use hereof as our Brethren would not willingly allow them to do It is true that our Brethren confess with us That the Covenant of God with Abraham and his seed is the Gospel-covenant and doth belong to the Faithfull and their seed Acts 2.38 39. But do they not with their Distinctions in effect take away what they have given them They are Members in generall say they but come to the particular and it is onely as wrapped up in their Parents Covenant they are not actual or personal Members And that Membership in their Parents and their Foederal Holiness reacheth no further then their Minority pag. 37. And what Church-Ordinances are they capable of in that time especially if that were true which some suggest That Ishmael came into the Church by Profession of Faith as an adult Member at thirteen years of age And if at adult age they come not up by Profession of Faith and Grace to Enter into personal Covenant and so to a new Membership hey have no right â—o Church-priviledges And may not a Convert out of Paganism upon such terms enjoy as much as this And as for Church-watch and Government it cannot reach them but by their Parents as it may reach an Infidel-servant and when their Parents be dead and they left to the care of such as are not of the Church how shall it then touch them at all And when their Owning of the Covenant is accounted the Form of their Membership what is this but to make a Nullity of their Covenant sealed in Baptism So that it will I fear seem to the Anabaptists That to Baptize Infants is to set a Seal to a Blank or to a Covenant of no use to them Again when our Brethren so oft deny the visible Covenant and the Priviledges thereof to such as want the inward Grace and affirm That the Covenant and the Priviledges thereof are limited to those that with Abraham walk with God whose heart was faithfull who love God and keep his commandments pag. 29. Will not the Anabaptists be ready to inferre Therefore Infants wanting that Grace c. have no right to the Covenant or to Baptism the Priviledge of it Again when our Brethren so oft confound the Outward and Inward Dispensation of the Covenant alledging the Scandalous sins of church-Church-members in the Scripture to prove that these in question are Self-Excommunicated and have no interest in the Outward Covenant or Priviledges thereof Is not this a Mistake which they will make advantage of Lastly when they say That the Practice of the fifth Proposition exposeth the Blood of Christ to contempt Baptism to be profaned bringeth pollution into the Church c. what are the Reasons For say they it imparteth the Blood of the Covenant to those that are not visible Believers sets the Seal to a Blank severeth Baptism from the stipulation of a good conscience bringeth the uncircumcised in heart into the Sanctuary But they oft confess that Infants have no Faith They are a carnall seed c. And is it not a just fear that the Anabaptists will be ready to inferre Therefore to baptize Infants is to expose the Blood of Christ to contempt c I know our Brethren will say We do not require Faith and Grace in the Infants but in the Parents onely But yet when generally we ground the Baptism of Infants upon the Covenant of God to the Parents and their seed Gen. 17. Acts 2. 1 Cor. 7. and prove they are Disciples Members of the visible Church and therefore to be Baptized I wish our Brethren may consider how greatly this ground is weakned by Denial of Gods Covenant to their Persons and onely as in their Parents and by making it so slight a matter as to wear out with their Minority c. And also let them consider how suitable their Notions and Principles before-named are to the Arguments and Grounds of Denial of Baptism to all Infants as is easie to see in all the Books of Antipoedobaptists These things I mention that our Brethren may keep further off from this danger which themselves count a Reproach I shall now proceed to consider the Answers of our Brethren to the Arguments of the Synod for the proof of the fifth Proposition Arg. 1. These children are partakers of the main ground of baptizing any children whatsoever and neither the parents nor the children do put in any barre to hinder it This ground is the Interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 9 10 11. Acts 2.39 Col. 2.10 11. Ans They answer in general that Faith is the main ground of Baptism Rom. 4.11 Acts 8.37 19.4 Reply 1. Here is no answer to the Scriptures alledged which are very full Gen. 17.10 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep Every Male-childe shall be circumcised It shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you
Esau are not clear that they did Excommunicate themselves but were cast out by the Lord. The Curse of Cain was to be A Vagabond and Fugitive in the earth which he understood of his casting out of the Church From thy face shall I be hid Gen. 4.14 As for Ishmael the case is plain that he was cast out by Abraham the Governour of the Church by the appointment of God And of Esau it is expresly said that when he would have inherited the Blessing he was rejected viz. of Isaac after which rejection he went away from the Church in Isaac's Family Concerning the instance of the Sons of Abraham by Keturah how long they continued to Worship the true God or how they fell off who can say or prove that they Excommunicated themselves without any act of God that had the nature of such a Censure As for Open and Obstinate Hereticks and Apostaâ—es which some call Excommunicati de Jure that hindreth not but that they may and ought to be Excommunicated in Fact also But if we speak of Gospel-times wherein the Lord Jesus hath so expresly instituted Church-censures for the saving of Offenders and purging of his Churches and hath confirmed the same with such Promises to Bâ—nde and Loose in Heaven what is bound and Loosed on Earth Mat. 18. I conceive with due respect to the Authors alledged That no Member of a particular Church having the Power and Exercise of Church-Discipline can so cut off his Relation to that Church actually but that the Church may and ought to dispense the Censures to him as the case shall require My Reasons are Reason 1 1. From the Ends of Church-Discipline viz. To reduce and save Offenders Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5.5 To purge the Church 1 Cor. 5.7 To vindicate the Name and Glory of God in bearing fall testimony against Scandals 2 Sam. 12.14 2 Cor. 7.11 You have approved your selves to be clear in this matter For the Example and Terrour of others 1 Tim. 5.20 Whence the Reason stands thus If the Lord Jesus hath betrusted his Church with the Power of Church-Discipline for these and the like Ends then it is the duty of the Church to put forth this Power whensoever these or any of these ends may be attained with the Edification of the Church But there is no case can befall any Church member wherein these or some of these ends may not be attained For put case a Member be turned Arrian Quaker Turk and what you will yet the Censure denounced will Acquit the Church Vindicate the Name and Glory of God in bearing full testimony against such Scandals and tend to the Terrour of others yea who knoweth how farre the Lord may improve it upon the sinner for his good Reason 2 2. If in Scripture-patterns the worst of Hereticks and Blasphemers were laid under Censures notwithstanding their supposed Self-Excommunication then we ought to follow such Patterns in all such cases But such was the Practice in Scripture-examples Tit. 3.10 1 Tim. 1.20 1 Cor. 16.22 Therefore c. Reason 3 3. That Position that openeth a door for Church-members to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline is not to be admitted But this Position doth open a door to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline For by this means any Member in danger of Church-censures may Withdraw himself Renounce the Church and then they cannot proceed against him for it were in vain to cut off a Member that hath already Excommunicated himself If any shall say It is sufficient punishment and judgement of God to leave a man so to Excommunicate himself Ans But how then shall the Church be discharged of their duty to save the Offender by Excommunication that tends to destroy the flesh and save his Soul I never read that God blessed Self-Excommunication to that end Yea by this Position a wicked Schismatical Member shall take the Keyes out of the hands of the Church and Censure the whole Church as oft they do and the Church hath no Power to lay any Punishment upon him for it And hence those Scriptures alledged Hebr. 10.21 1 John 2.19 may receive a just Answer for that Forsaking of the assembling of themselves and Going out doth not exempt them from Church-censures or prove that they were cut off before Church-censures If the foot saith I am not of the Body is it therefore not of the Body Or can this Withdrawing discharge the Church from using the means of their recovery or exempt themselves from the just Censure and Punishment appointed by Christ for such Offenders Reas 5. These adult persons are Members or Non-members if Non-members then a person admitted a Member and sealed by Baptism not cast out nor deserving so to be may the Church still remaining become a Non-member out of the Church and of the unclean world which the Scripture acknowledgeth not Ans 1. Members and Non-members are not opposites but with taking in the conditions of all opposites as in this case ad idem or in the same respect they may be Non-members in full communion and yet Members in Parental Right Reply 1. This Distinction is not ad idem for the want of full Communion is not such a respect as makes a man a Non-member for so a man under Admonition for some Scandal or in a Frenzy should be a Non-member 2. The question is not Whether these be Members in full Communion but Whether that Membership which was sealed up unto them in Baptism doth continue in adult age And this seems once more here to be granted Ans 2. They may deserve Censures though not put upon them Râ—ply This is not the case of these Members in question And if it were so that they deserved Censures yet no man is actually cut off till the Censure be applied And if they may deserve Censures then are they Personal Members under Church-Discipline CHAP. V. Concerning the fourth Proposition Propos 4. THese adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members without such further Qualifications as the Word of God requireth thereunto Our Brethren granting this Proposition yet in reference to the fifth Proposition are pleased by way of Prevention to state this Question viz. Whether there are or should be in the Church such persons as have publickly and personally Covenanted that are not in full Communion The Negative they prove Reas 1. Because publick and personal Covenanting is the formality of a Church-member such have all the constituent causes and so all the consequences of the Form and all the priviledges of that Subject which in this case is full Communion Hence the Form introduced and the Covenant personally owned doth necessarily imply all the priviledges belongingâ—th reunto Ans Every Publick and Personal Covenanting is not the Form of Church-membership The Covenant was oft renewed publickly owned or Entred into by such as were Members of the Church before as in Deut. 29. and other Scriptures doth appear And this is the
the house of Israeâ— yea the children to whom Bread did belong Mat. 15.24 26. These things were spoken of the Jews in general whereof those Mat. 3. Joh. 8. were a part They were indeed of the Devil not of God in respect of the inward state and saving good of the Covenant yet still in the outward Covenant and under the Means of Grace 2. If those Maâ— 3. Joâ— 8. had been discovenanted of God doth it follow that these in question are so Are these A generation of Vipers Lyars Murtherers c that live without Scandall Submit to the Government of Christ c If the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being Baptized of John do these so that being Bâ—ptized themselves desire it also for their Seed and that in such in way by Owning Gods Covenant Giving up themselves to God Submitting themselves to Discipline c If Mr. Cotton did count such as Ishmael and Esau Self-murtherers doth it follow that these are such that take hold of the Covenant and that in some measure of truth for ought is yet proved to the contrary 3. I must not pass over this Rigid and Dangerous Principle without further Examination The Position of our Brethren is That God himself doth discovenant or cast out of his visible Church such as bring not forth good fruit Mat. 3. that commit sin are Lyars c. Joh. 8. and that without any act of Church-censure Against this I argue 1. That these were not discovenanted of GOd I proved before And it doth appear That the Providence of God continued them under Church-priviledges and Ordinances at least till Gospel-Churches were erected after the Ascension of Christ 2. If the Lord Jesus hath ordained and commanded Church-discipline for the saving of Offenders and the Purging of his Church then he doth not discovenant such without Church-censures But so it is Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5. Therefore he doth it not himself without them The reason of the Consequence is Because if God himself did discovenant them Church-censures were useless and vain To what end should the Church cut off one that is already a Non-member what have they to do with such as are without why should Corinth be blamed for suffering that Leaven if God himself had cast it out 3. This supposed Discovenanting by God himself frustrates the great and chief End of Church discipline viz. To heal and save the Sinner for the Church having now no power over them they must perish being without the Means of their Recovery except God restore them immediately at least they are deprived of that special Means appointed and blessed of God to that end 4. What confusion would this bring into the Church For how shall the Church know when God hath discovenanted this or that man whether so soon as he hath committed such sins or how long Gods patience will bear with him And how shall the Church prove against any such That God hath indeed discovenanted him These things and much more that might be said may put our Brethren to finde some other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1 Joh. 3.10 and such like Scriptures Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either child on of the Covenant or strangers from it Eph. 2.12 Holy or unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 within the Church or without 1 Cor. 5.12 such as have God for their God or without God in the world Eph. 2.12 But he that considereth the terms of the Proposition will not affirm the latter and the former being granted inferreth their right to Baptism Ans The Assumption is denied because the children in question discovenant themselves not keeping the conditions of the Covenant Not walking with God Not loving God c. Deut. 7.9 as they that forsake the Covenant of their fathers Deut. 29.25 And what do these that come not up to the conditions of it God may cast off for sins of Omission 1 Sam. 15. so for not believing in God Reply This being the very Hinge whereupon chiefly this Question doth turn viz. Whether and how these church-Church-members are cut off from their Membership in the visible Church I desire the Reader to observe well the Answer of our Brethren and their Reasons thereof Sometime they say God Discovenanteth them which hath been examined Sometime that They Discovenant themselve which also hath been spoken to before To this Refuge they now again betake themselves Their Reason here alledged I shall consider which standeth thus Church-members which do not come up to the conditions of the Covenant viz. To walk with God Love God keep his Commandments Believe in God c. do Discovenant themselves But thâ—se Church-members described in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God Love God c. Therefore they do Discovenant themselves The Proposition they would prove from Gen. 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psa 105.8 Deut. 29.25 To this I answer 1. By denying the Proposition As for the Proofs Genes 17.1 Deut. 7.9 Psaâ— 105. These Scriptures prove it is the duty of such as enter into Covenant with God to Walk with God To be upright To love God c. and that God performs to such the Saving Benefits of the Covenant but they do not prove that simply by the neglect of thâ—se duties especially without Impenitence added they do actually Dâ—â—covenant themselves out of the visible Church and from the Priviledges thereof and the Means of Grace therein The gross neglect of the duties of the Covenant persisted in obstinately and impenitently may deserve Censures but that the want of such graces and duties of the Covenant doth actually cut off such from the visible Church is an Assertion never heard of in the Book of God nor I think in any the best Reformed Church to this day Surely Ishmael and Esau did not Walk with God Love God Believe in God in our Brethrens sense yet they continued in the Church till for their manifest Profaneness the one was cast out by Gods appointment and the other rejected Heb. 12.17 When Deut. 7.9 Moses said that The Lord keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him c. were there not multitudes in Israel that came not up to these duties of the Covenant in our Brethrens sense that yet were Gods Holy People Royall Nation enjoying all Church-priviledges and so all along through the story of all the Scriptures Deut. 29.25 renders indeed the cause of the great Plagues upon Israel to be their forsaking the Covenant But what was that forsaking of the Covenant was it their not coming up to these terms of it to Walk with God Love God Believe in God with a visible saving Faith Nothing less but because they went and served other gods and worshipped them ver 26. As for the case of Saul 1 Sam. 15. whom the Lord rejected from being King for so gross a disobedience to an express and particular Command yet we reade not that he was cast out of the visible Church Nor doth it
not to break it 2. Then it is a breach like the great Sea to deny Communion in the Lords Supper to those that have laid hold upon the Covenant and given up themselves to God by solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance which is now strongly pleaded for Reply 1. Whether these be not regularly in the Covenant let the Reader judge by what is said for it and by the Scriptures alledged against it 2. To deny Communion in the Lords Supper to such is not pleaded for much less strongly for Solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance is not in the Proposition All that is affirmed is That the Church-seed manifesting their continuance in the Covenant by such qualifications if they shall still be wanting in ability to Examine themselves and discern the Lords body may be delayed till they give satisfaction therein 3. Our Brethren in this case deal very hardly and partially with us whil'st so oft they compare these with the most scandalous persons reproved in Scripture and with them Discovenanted as they pretend and yet at other times they lay it deeply to our charge that we do not Receive them to the Lords Table upon such terms as are denied by them to be sufficient to continue them in the visible Church Arg. 4. These Parents are confederate visible Believers in some degree and therefore their children are to be Baptized Ans The Parents in question are not such if we speak of true visible Faith which is required Rom. 14.1 Mat. 12.20 Reply Be it granted that we speak of true Faith visibly in some degree yet Rom. 14.1 speaks rather of a perswasion of the lawfulness of eating meats unclean by the Law as ver 2. sheweth That these are visible Believers in some degree is thus proved Reas 1. Charity may observe sundry things for it but nothing evident against it Ans This is said gratis and denied by us Reply If our Brethrens Charity could observe nothing for it they might then shew something evident against it without which the Reason is not answered for in discovenanting of regular Church-members there ought to be such things evident against them as deserve Church-censures Mat. 18.15 16 17. Reas 2. Children of the faithful qualified but as the persons in question are said to be Faithful Tit. 1.6 Ans Every one not accused of Riot to be concluded to be of the Faith is not the Apostles intent nor Orthodox Faithfulness is taken for Fidelity which may be in Morall men Reply Nor do the Synod so conclude There is much more in the Text then Not given to Riot viz. 1. Children of godly Parents 2. Educated in the Faith 3. Not scandalous or Not accused of Riot 4. Not unruly but subject to Government All which do suit well with the Proposition And this sense of the word is given by Orthodox Interpreters Marlorat Expounds the word Faithfull of such as are educated in the sound Doctrine of Piety and in the fear of God Taylor by Faithfull Children understandeth such as being instructed in the Faith are at least in external Conversation answerable to the Profession of the Faith they make And Reason would incline us to conceive that the Apostle would require in the children of Church-Officers something of Piety as well as of Morality Besides the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is frequently and commonly used in the New Testament in the Synods sense viz. for Christian Believers Acts 10.45 2 Cor. 6.15 Eph 1.1 1 Tim. 6.2 4.3 10 12. 5.16 Reas 3. Children of the Covenant have frequently beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years as Scripture-examples and Experience sheweth Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary are in charity or in Ecclesiasticall reputation visible Believers Ans It is extraordinary to have grace in Infancy and therefore no Rule for ordinary Church-proceedings Reply 1. The Synod speaketh not of Infancy but of younger years and that is not so extraordinary as is objected witness the hopeful signs of grace in many that die in minority and the Confessions of divers that hold forth seeds of grace sown in their younget years 2. We build not ordinary Church-proceedings immediately upon this ground yet these being Church-members we may build Church-charity upon this ground that seeing some Church-members of this sort have Faith in reality all of this sort may be so reputed in Church-charity for so we judge of adult professors in the Church we know some have grace in reality and therefore we judge so of all that sort till the contrary appear though in the general we know Many are called Few chosen And what other ground have we of Church-proceedings with Church-members but Church-charity Reas 4. These are regularly in the Church and therefore visible Saints in the account of Scripture which is the account of Truth 1 Cor. 1.2 14.33 Ans 1. The children in question are not regularly in the Church for then the Parents being dead the children surviving should make a Church enjoy Ordinances chuse Officers which is denied and it is incredible to deny them that power when their Parents are alive and they will not be long kept from putting it forth though they may for a while Reply 1. If we may thus argue by putting cases that for ought appeareth never yet hapned in the world viz. That all the Members in a Church should be so taken away that none remain but such as these children By like reason one may prove that women and children are not regularly in the Church for if all the men die they should make a Church chuse Officer◠c. which will be denied Yea thus I will prove That this or that man is not regularly in the Church for if all men die but one or two they cannot make a Church c. 2. Were the Rules of Christ observed such a case could not fall out For as Mr. Cotton answereth the Anabaptist in a case not unlike this Let there be a due watchfulness of the Church over these children to fit them for the Lords Table and either the Lord in the faithfulness of his Covenan◠will sanctifie their hearts to prepare them for it or else he will leave them to discover their hypocrisie and profaneness in the sight of all to prevent the pollution of his Table and the corruption of Discipline Grounds and Ends of Baptism pag. 161 163. And had we thus done through the Blessing of Christ which he hath promised upon his Ordinances such cases could not fall out neither had there been so much need or use of this fifth Proposition that is now so great a matter of Dispute and I fear this Opposition of the Dissenters will increase our Difficulties Neither do I see so much danger of these not being kept from putting forth a power to chuse Officers c. if they were trained up under Church-discipline as in our Brethrens Way who acknowledge them Church-members and cannot rid their hands regularly of
ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANTISYNODALIA AMERICANA A TREATISE Printed in Old England In the Name of the DISSENTING BRETHREN In the SYNOD held at Boston in New England 1662. Tending to Clear the ELDERS and CHURCHES of New England from those Evils and Declinings charged upon many of them in the two Prefaces before the said Book Together with AN ANSVVER UNTO The Reasons alledged for the Opinion of the Dissenters And a REPLY to such Answers as are given to the Arguments of the SYNOD By JOHN ALLIN Pastor of the Church of Christ at Dedham in N. England Rom. 3.1 2. What advantage then hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way chiefly because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God Gal. 3.27 28. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither Bond nor Free there is neither Male nor Female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus Heb. 12.15 16. Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God left any root of bitterness springing up trouble you and thereby many be defiled Lest there be any fornicator or profane person as Esau who for a morsel of meat sold his Birthright Cambridge Printed by S.G. and M. J. for Hezekiah Vsher of Boston 1664. THE PREFACE TO THE READER SVch is the Infirmity and Corruption of Man the Malice and Subtilty of Satan the Enemy of Truth Purity and Peace and the holy and just Dispensation of God Permitting and Ordering all things to his most glorious Ends that frequent Experience sheweth how hard it is for a People desirous to walk in all the wayes of God to steer a right course between the Gulf of Profaning the Ordinances by an over-loose Dispensation thereof on the one hand and the Rocks of Rigid Separation Anabaptism and the like on the other hand And hence it may seem the less strange that notwithstanding the Eminent Lights we have had holding forth The Covenant-interest of the Church-seed and The Duty of Churches to improve the Ordinances for their good yet the Practice hereof hath not obtained in many of our Churches That this Case is now become matter of publick Dispute between the late Synod and some Dissenting Brethren though it be cause of Humiliation yet we desire herein to submit to the onely wise God hoping and waiting upon Him to see the Improvement thereof for good and for the further clearing up unto us what is His good perfect and acceptable Will in this case When these Antisynodalia of our Brethren came to our hands and Another Essay of the same nature was here Published some godly and wise Christians advised the Elders to let them â—ass in silence conceiving that they would not so take with the People as to hinder the Practice of the Doctrine of the Synod and that a Reply would occasion further Disputes and Contests But upon serious consideration of the matter by divers Elders met to that End the Reasons on the other side did preponderate Such as these 1. We being perswaded of the Doctrine of the Synod and not finding any Weight in those Tractates to change our Judgements it seemed to us that by silence we should be sinfully wanting to the Truth of God a present Truth that many godly ones are enquiring into and to the Just Interest of the Church-seed 2. This Truth being asserted in so Solemn an Ordinance viz. The Assembly of the Elders and other Messengers of so many Churches after solemn seeking the Face of God and much search into the Scriptures with large Disputes about the same Our silence in this case would not onely render that Ordinance useless and vain at present but also discourage the Churches in after-times to make use thereof for their necessary Establishment in Truth and Peace 3. We see evidently that the Principles of our Dissenting Brethren give great Advantages to the Antipoedobaptists which if we be silent will tend much to their Encouragement and Encrease to the Hazard of our Churches 4. These Treatises coming into the Peoples hands if no Answer should be returned will much strengthen the hands of such as are Dissenters and discourage the hearts of others from the Practice of the Doctrine of the Synod for the good of Posterity 5. Those unjust Aspersions cast upon many of the Elders and Churches of New-England in the two Prefaces to the Antisynodalia do tend much to weaken the Authority of their Ministry and Dispensations and would lay them under much Scandal in Old-England and New should not a just Apologie and Answer be made thereunto For these and the like Reasons it was thought necessary to return a just Answer to these Books published in Opposition to the Doctrine of the Synod But that my Brethren should have any eye upon my self to undertake this part of the Work viz. To Examine and make Reply to these Antisynodalia was very farre from my thoughts Yet when I could by no Perswasions and Intreaties prevail with them to Call out some other more able for this Work whereof we had choyce I considered that the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets and that the Lord is not wont to deny Assistance to such as he calleth forth to any Service yea that He delighteth to shew His strength in weakness In hope hereof I have by his Grace and Help run through these Antisynodalia in my plain and homely manner loving alwayes to speak to vulgar Capacities wishing heartily it had been done by some better hand that might have performed it more throughly This onely I have to say for my self That I have not willingly declined any seeming strength of Reason nor sought by Shifts and Evasions to darken any seeming Light of Truth held forth in these Antisynodalia but have Candidly according to my measure Searched the Scripture whether those things were so As I have believed so have I spoken As I finde in the Law and Testimony so have I written What weaknesses and defects may be discovered by a more judicious Eye I hope through Grace I shall be willing to see and reform upon intimation thereof onely let no Truth herein held forth be the less esteemed for the Infirmity of the Instrument I shall commit this Case of the Church-seed unto that God who of his rich Grace hath undertaken to be their God Beseeching Him to make his Wayes plain before the face of his People and to improve these Disputes to common Edification according to the good pleasure of his will Thine in the Lord JOHN ALLIN From my Study in Dedham in N.E. 6 day 11 mon. 1663. ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANTISYNODALIA AMERICANA CHAP. I. Being Animadversions upon the two Prefaces The first To the Reader the second To the Honoured General Court IT is no good sign that the Publisher of these Anti-Synodalia doth so foully stumble at the Threshold in his first stepping forth into this Business For where
as he pretendeth As a Lover of the Truth to Publish this Treatise without any Commission from the Dissenting Brethren which he desireth them not to be offended with and affirms it as a truth That the persons engaged in this Dissent had much rather this Treatise were suppressed and as an untimely birth to have been buried in everlasting darkness The contrary hereunto is evidently evinced by the whole Preface following which speaketh no more in the person of the Publisher but of the Dissenters and wherein they endeavour to Answer four Objections against the Publishing thereof And in Answer to the first Objection taken from the Ill consequences that might follow they declare a Resolution to have it Published whatever should follow concluding in the words of Esther If I perisâ— I perish Besides it is well known here how earnest and resolute one of the chief of them was to have it Published Concerning the Objections here mentioned The three first from The sâ—a Consequences that may follow The trouble of the Peace of the Churches hereby and from The Novelty of their Opinion I know not of any that made these Objections Surely that language was not heard in the Synod but their own Reason might object such things The fourth Objection is A pretended Concurrence of all other Congregational Churches they know of to countenance their Cause but without any sufficient Proof thereof But seeing it is now Published though uns asonably as is confessed I shall not trouble my self and the Reader about the Answers to the Objections but apply my self to wipe off those uncharitable and unjust Aspersions that in this Preface are cast upon many of the Elders and Churches of New-England Wherein that I may not wrong any of our beloved Brethren the Dissenters I must say this on their behalf That some of them do profess that they had no hand in this first Preface nor in the Publishing thereof nor any knowledge thereof And I have reason to think so of others of them who I hope have other thoughts of their Brethren then this Preface holdeth forth So that so farre as I conceive it is the act of one of them onely or chiefly I take notice of Seven Imputations cast upon us which I shall speak unto 1. The Author of this Preface complaineth of The course Entertainment of their Tenent both in the Synod and in the General Court where they expected more Patrons then did appear Ans That none may hence judge otherwise then the truth is In respect of the Synod it cannot be denied that the matter in question was placidly fully and oft-over Debated all their Arguments weighed all Writings presented were read considered and some publickly answered So that all the course Entertainment was that their Tenent was not embraced by the Synod And as for the Honoured General Court if they were so farre satisfied with the Answers of the Synod to that Question about The Subject of Baptism propounded by them that they did not think fit in their Wisdome to countenance and encourage a Party rising up in Opposition thereto as tending to Divisions and Disturbances amongst us they may thank themselves for such course Entertainment if they will so account of it But to aggravate this course Entertainment he addeth Though it be no other Doctrine then of all the Congregational Churches in Holland England Ireland and New-England and also in New-Haven and Plimouth Jurisdictions yea and also that it hath been the Judgement and general Practice of the Churches in the Bay some few inconsiderable excepted for thirty years Ans Here is a great Pretence of general Concurrence with their Tenent but without Proof and beyond the truth And to make the Number seem the greater besides New-England he addeth And also New-Haven Plimouth c. as if these were not New-England Churches As for those Forreign Churches it doth not appear whether as yet many of them at least have declared their Judgement in this case Yea I have heard from one of good note that knows many of those Churches who upon the question answered That this case hath not as yet been considered in many of those Churches And if their Practice have not yet suited to the Doctrine of the Synod we know by our own experience how many hindrances there may be of that though their Judgement be for it But concerning the Judgement of New-England Elders and Churches let the Preface to the Synod be read by which it will appear That the most Eminent Elders in the most considerable Churches and the Messengers of the Churches of New-England were generally for this Doctrine in the Synod held at Cambridge in the year 1648. I shall mention onely that Passage of famous Hooker whose praise is in the Gospel in all the Churches and who might know as much of the Principles of the Congregational Churches as another It is not the question saith he Whether wicked Members while they are sinfully tolerated in the Church they and their seed may partake of Priviledges for this is beyond question nor do I know or ever heard it denied by any of ours Survey Part 3. Chap. 2. pag. 11. Whereby it doth appear that he took it for a general Confession on all hands That it is the Interest in the Outward Covenant that giveth right to Outward Priviledges of the Church which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of the Synod Whereas the Tenent of our Dissenting Brethren is That Members of the Church admitted in minority and having the Covenant sealed by Baptism if being adult they hold not forth saving Faith and Repentance to the judgement of the Church even so as to come into full Communion neither they nor their seed may partake of Priviledges they are Felones de se Self-mâ—rtherers Discovenanted of God and are not so much as Foederally holy so soon as they be out of their Non-age as will appear after which Tenent I cannot believe will be owned by most of the Churches named if by any of them This Author addeth further That yet now this Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Antichristianism and Anabaptism Ans If an Argument or two were used in the Synod taken from such Consequences is this ground enough to say it is laden with such Reproaches and other ground I know none Yet for that of Anabaptism it will appear the Principles of the Dissenters are so near a Kin if not the same with theirs that we cannot but fear a great tendency thereunto and what encouragement they take from thence we are very sensible Secondly In answering the first Objection this Prefacer takes occasion upon supposition of the Doctrine of the Synod to charge the Bay Churches with a sin which he cannot see how it can stand with peace of Conscience in leaving their former practice in dispensing the Seals and taking up a new manner thereof yea a grievous sin in depriving so many Infants of Baptism for thirty years yea of the same nature and somewhat worse
then that of the Pharâ—sees Luke 7.29 30. disannulling the counsel of God against themselves and so many hundred poor Infants whom the Kingdome of God as we now plead belongs unto and a practical Anabaptism Ans 1. It is indeed a grief of heart to many Elders and Brethren that the practice of the Rule according to the Doctrine of the late Synod cannot yet obtain in their Churches but they are not convinced it is a sin in them that cannot stand with peace of Conscience as the case standeth because all things in the Church must be done to caâ—fication which in this case cannot be put in practice especially in reference to the fifth Proposition with peace and edification by reason of the strong opposition made by these and other like Dissenters When this matter was under Consideration in the Synod 1648. the Author of this Preface knoweth well who it was that professed He would oppose it with all his might by reason whereof and the Dissent of some few more it was laid aside at that time It seemeth to me very hard dealing for Brethren so strongly to oppose others in doing their Duty and then to charge them with a sin that cannot stand with peace of Conscience if they do it not The case standing thus let the Reader judge who are more like the Pharisees that rejected the counsel of God against themselves in not being baptized of John whether such as would practice according to their Judgement or such as oppose and hinder them from so doing 2. This Neglect is not so great for thirty years as is Objected for in the former years of these Plantations till the Church-seed were grown up to Marry and have Children there was not such need of practice according to the fifth Proposition which is now most stumbled at besides some Churches have been in that practice for divers years 3. There is no falling from our former practice as is Objected our Principles are the same this is onely a progress in practising according thereunto as the encrease of the Churches doth require It is the way of Christ in the Gospel to set up the practice of his Institutions as the necessities of the people call for them as appeareth Matth. 9.36 c. with 10.1 c. So Acts 6.1 14.23 1 Cor. 16.1 2. 4. When Circumcision by reason of the travels in the Wilderness was omitted forty years and the Feast of Tabernacles from the dayes of Joshua to the dayes of Nehemiah was neglected so many hundreds of years we do not reade of so deep a charge laid upon the Elders and People by any of the Prophets of God Thirdly We are charged with A greater sin to be trembled at viz. That we admitted all sorts that were personally in Covenant to the Lords Supper which now we deny to many except after Covenanting they make it manifest that they are able to examine themselves and discern the Lords Body If this be regular then the other is irregular and brought guiltiness to many of the Body and Blood of Christ and was eating and drinking judgement to our selves Ans This is a very heavy Imputation laid upon so many Elders and Churches and without any colour of Reason For what matter is it whether Elders and Churches be satisfied of the fitness of their Members for the Lords Supper before their admittance into the Church by the Elders examination of them or at their admittance by their publick Professions which is known to be our constant care and practice or afterward but because we do it not after Covenanting in persons received in adult age as well as in persons received in infancy that therefore we are so deeply guilty this is a gross and irregular Charge Some have objected against our admissions as over-strict but who hath charged us with such a sin to be trembled at in such a manner as to bring guiltiness upon many of the Body and Blood of Christ And it is strange to see such as make so loud a Profession of stedfastness in the Faith and Order of the Gospel to lay so great a Scandal of a sin to be trembled at upon so many Elders before conviction thereof and their impenitency therein and that in the face of Old England and New so contrary to the principal and express Rules of Gospel-order Matth. 18 15 16. 1 Tim. 5.19 Fourthly In the Answer to the second Objection viz. That by Publishing this Treatise they shall disturb the peace c. The Author pleading possession of another manner of dispensing the Ordinances and that bought at a great rate The loss of Native Land Fathers Houses c. he saith That the disturbers of the peace the troublers of Israel are those that would rob them of their possession or question their right especially having enjoyed them so long before this pleaded-for Conversion of New England Ans 1. But did we indeed come to New England to put our Posterity under the wings of Gods gracious Covenant and Ordinances and then to deny them and their seed the Benefits thereof to leave them at a loose end without the Discipline of Christ the Means to prevent sin or to reduce them to Repentance unto life Certainly the Profession of very many gracious and serious hearts and their hopes for their Children was farre otherwise Yea of these that now Dissent amongst us some I know and many more I may suppose left Old England for the good of their seed in this respect 2. Are not our Children in possession of the House Members of the Church by the confession of the Dissenters The Synod pleadeth onely that they may enjoy the Priviledges of the House it is the Dissenters therefore that would rob them of their possession and disturb the peace 3. The Synod as appeareth in their Preface doth leave them to their liberty to practise according to their Judgement If they will not own or Baptize such as in the fifth Proposition are described if they will have their Children accounted Self-murtherers Discovenanted of God if the Lord have not wrought Faith and Repentance visibly in them when they come to adult age there is none that offereth to disturb their possession in these things And why then should they disturb and oppose the Right and Possession of so many others who assert the Rights of the Church-seed which are in Covenant with God in possession of the House whose advantage the Apostle saith and profit is much every way Rom. 3.1 2. Fifthly In Answer to the third Objection viz. That they are Innovators and that the most learned Mâ—nisters were of the Synods minde This Author of the Preface granting this to be true of Some which is a large Some as is manifest in the Preface to the Synod he must needs cast a double Aspersion upon the Elders affirming 1. That as many of them are so large in Judgement as to soulder with Parish Churches Ans If this be meant in respect of Communion with Orthodox
they may yea ought to own them as Members when they own the Covenant and do not desert the Church I cannot but make a little pause here before I pass on and seriously intreat our dear Brethren and all of their minde to consider well how the Lord is wont to deal with his visible Church and all the Members thereof in the Old and New Testament and compare therewith this their respect and care of the Lambs of Christs Flock When the Lord hath once stricken a Covenant with his People taking in their seed with the Parents Gen. 17.7 Deut. 29.10 11. 1. What Abundant Means of their Salvation doth he ordain and cause diligently to be improved to that end Cain and Abel both admitted to Sacrifice Abraham's Commands were to his whole Family-Church Gen. 18. The daily ordinary Sacrifices and the more solemn and extraordinary were for the whole Congregation Lev. 4.14 21. Numb 15.24 25. To Israel pertain the Adoption the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises Rom. 94. And how did the Lord follow his Church in all ages by his Prophets to bring them to Repentance yea when gone after Baal to reduce them by Elijah How affectionately doth the Lord by them plead with his People Jer. 2. 3. Micah 6. Psal 81.8 c. So in the New Testament the Ministry of the Word and other Ordinances are given to the Visible Church for their Salvation 1 Cor. 12.28 Ephes 4.11 c. and Discipline to reduce and save offenders 2. Consider the Wonderfull Patience of God in seeking the Salvation of his visible Church When the children of God were so corrupt that God resolved to destroy all flesh yet he spared them an hundred and twenty years sending Noah a Preacher of Righteousness to seek their good Genes 6. And how great was his Patience to Israel and Judah sending his Prophets early and late out of his compassion till there was no remedy 2 Chron. 36. So the Lord Jesus sent his Epistles To the seven Churches of Asia to heal their corruptions and though he threatned to Come quickly yet spared them many years 3. See with what Compassion and Bowels of humane Affections as it were the Lord expresseth himself when he is about to cast off a People he hath been in Covenant with How shall I give thee up O Ephraim c. my Repentings are kindled together Hos 11.8 So Christ O Jerusalem how oft would I have gathered thee as an Hen her Chickens c. Mat. 23.37 How did he Weepover Jerusalem saying O that thou hadst known at least in this thy day c. Luke 19.41 This is Gods way But what is our Brethrens Way to these Members of the visible Church to whom they confess the Promise doth belong Acts 2.39 1. Though God have stricken his Covenant with them and Sealed it To be their God and own them to be His People yet they will not acknowledge them Actual personal Members but in effect Distinguish them out of the Church 2. They allow them no more acts of Church-watch and Discipline then may reach an Infidel-servant and Excommunication the most effectual Ordinance of Christ to Destroy the Flesh and Save the Soul must not touch them 3. So quick they are that if the Lord be not pleased to give them Saving Faith and Grace so soon as they come to adult age Disown them as No Members and so let them go Now how farre unlike this is to Gods Way who doth not see And I must confess this is to me one great Argument That the Way of these Brethren is not the Way of God To proceed Our Brethren to clear this Coast think fit to Answer The Reasons of the Synod to prove their Continuance in the Church But the Reader must note That those Arguments are not applied to this Proposition in hand here being Eight Reasons to prove They are personally under the Watch and Discipline of the Church which are not touched by them But the Reasons that our Brethren here speak unto are those brought by the Synod to prove the last Branch of the sixth Argument for the fifth Proposition viz. That Church-members admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church That their Membership still continueth in adult age and ceaseth not with their Infancy And this is the rather to be noted because if their Answers suit not the case of such persons then they are not pertinent to take off the Reasons of the Synod But let us see what is answered to these Reasons though out of their place Reas 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief not for growing up to adult age Rom 11.20 Ans Our Brethren answer Not simply for growing up but for such accessaries as may attend adult age Rom. 11.20 doth not say onely for notorious sins c. Negative unbelief Neglecting the means of Grace Not Professing the Faith and the fruits thereof may give cause of breaking off And to such though our patience and expectation ought to be large and long yet it may be tired out at last and come to a period Reply 1. If our Brethren would out hold to this it would tend much to our desired Unity For hence it will follow That their Membership received in infancy doth continue in adult age untill such Accessaries do appear and till the Patience of the Church be tired out 2. If it were granted that Negative unbelief manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace Not professing of the Faith and the fruits thereof might after long patience give just cause to break them off yet by this Rule the persons described in the fifth Proposition cannot be said to be broken off for they do Profess the Faith and the fruits thereof by a life free from Scandal giving up themselves to God and submitting to the Government of Christ in his Church Or at least such as these are still objects of the Churches Patience and therefore not broken off And seeing our Brethren come thus farre I shall willingly meet them here and confess That if Negative unbelief be manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace Not professing of the Faith being orderly called thereunto by the Church and Continuance impenâ—tently in such Neglects after due means with due patience used by the Church this would give the Church just cause to cast them out for this were Incorrigible Impenitency in sin And Oh that we might meet here But when I consider many other Expressions in this Treatise I fear my desires will fail For if no act of Church-governmeÌ„t may be put forth upon their persons immediately but by their Parents how shall the Church come
at them to put them upon such Duties and deal with them for their Neglect thereof and when their Parents be dead what shall the Church do then and when their Membership is owned onely in general as wrapped up in their Parents not actual or personal yea when their Personal or Foederal Holiness is denied to continue in adult age These and the like Passages Pag. 23 25 37. and in other places do make me fear that our Brethren will not hold to their Expressions in this place Reply 2. Although Rom. 11.20 saith Not onely for notorious sins c. yet it sheweth how the Jews were broken off which we know was for Notorious sins and Incorrigible Impenitency and Vnbelief And let any shew that any have been broken off or by Rule may be so for Negative unbelief without Impenitency added The contrary we finde 2 Chron. 36.16 Mat. 21.43 Acts 13.45 46. 18.6 19.8 Reas 2. The Jewish children circumcised did not cease to be Members by growing up to adult age but continued in the Church and were bound to the Duties of Members Deut. 26 2-10 16 16-17 Gal. 53. Ans The circumcised Jews did not cease to be Members simply for growing up but for growing out of kinde Jer. 2.21 They became degenerate Plants Amos 9.7 Children of the Negroes Bastard Branches to be cut off Joh. 15.2 Reply There is a double great mistake in applying these Scriptures 1. They do not speak of persons ceasing to be Members As for Jer. 2. it was the Word of the Lord to Jerusalem ver 2. and that in the thirteenth year of Josiah after the Covenant was renewed and Religion greatly Reformed and God calls them His People ver 11 13 and therefore their Membership ceased not at that time So Amos 9. He Prophesied in the dayes of Vzziah King of Judah and Joash the son of Jeroboam King of Israel in whose dayes God had not yet removed Israel out of his sight As for Joh. 15.2 though the Lord doth in his time cut off unfruitful Branches by Death or Church-censures yet till he doth so they are expresly said to be in Christ So that these places speak nothing of the ceasing of Church-membership in adult age 2. These places do not suit the persons in the fifth Proposition Jer. 2. speaketh of such as Prophesied by Baal That played the harlot on every high hill ver 20. and are therefore called A degenerate plant ver 21. Amos speaketh of Israel in the corrupt times of Idolatry and reproves their great Covetousness and Oppression Chap. 8.4 5. And therefore if such as those had ceased to be Members in adult age it doth not follow that the Membership of these in question doth cease What is here added about the phrase of Entring into Covenant is a mistake for the Synod speaks of Entring into a new Membership not denying the phrase of Entring into or Renewing the Covenant Reas 3. Those Relations of Bond-servants and Subjects which the Scripture maketh use of to set forth the state of the children of the Church by Levit. 25.41 42. Ezek. 37.25 do not cease with Infancy but continue in adult age whereby they are engaged to duty when they are most fit for it So here Ans 1. The Relation of the Son of the Bond-woman may cease in adult age as Ishmael much more of the Bond-servant Reply The Relation of Ishmael ceased not by growing up to adult age nor till he was cast out for his sin These in question are not cast out or deserving so to be and therefore this Answer is impertinent Ans 2. By this Reason Moral wickedness should not cut off adult Members for that doth not cut off the Relation of Bond-servants Reply This Argument taken from the common nature of Civil and Church-Societies doth not require they should hold in all things as that they should be governed by the same Laws and subject to the same Punishments that were indeed to make Similitudes run on all four as we say It is enough if they agree in that thing wherein they are applied And this Application of the Synod is clear in Levit. 25.41 42. where the children of the Israelitish Servants were to serve with their parents unto the year oâ— Jubile which being every Fiftieth Year they were oft grown up to adult age before that time And the reason why they should then go out is Because they that is Parents and Children are my Servants saith the Lord. So that there is the like reason in Gods Service as in that Relation And we see David delighteth to own himself the Servant of the Lord in this very Relation I am thy Servant the Son of thine Handmaid Psal 116.16 that is engaged to the Service of God from his Birth and so for ever as the Son of the Handmaid was Exod. 21.4 And yet if the Similitude should be pressed so farre we know that the Moral Wickedness of Murther Adultery and the like would cut off Servants and Subjects by Death according to the Law of God Reas 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of Church-membership but by Death Dismission Excommunication or Dissolution of the Society none of which is the case of the children in question Ans 1. This is to be understood of Members in full communion which these adult children are not Reply If none of these belong to such adult children to cause their Membership to cease then by their judgement it seems they have no Membership at all if neither Death nor Dissolution of the Society can cause it to cease which before they seemed not to own Ans 2. There are many other wayes of the cessation of Church-members they may Excommunicate themselves as Mr. Cotton The Assembly at the Savoy and Dr. Ames affirm Also by Withdrawing sometimes commanded of God 2 Tim. 3.5 Rom 16.17 Also by Apostacy 1 Joh. 2.19 By Heresie as Arrians Quakers c. Reply 1. If these adult children may Excommunicate themselves then it is yielded that they are Members in adult age But if all these were granted yet none of them is the case of these in the fifth Proposition 2. Here is a needless multiplying of particulars All but a supposed Lawful Withdrawing are Subjects of Excommunication as shall be proved Concerning a Lawful Withdrawing that Turning away from such 2 Tim. 3.5 and Avoiding those Rom. 16.17 may more fitly be understood to be done by not admitting them into the Church or casting them out if they be in rather then by Withdrawing from the Church it self for their sakes which cannot be done without Schism except many Cautions be used Neither can such Withdrawing loosen a man's Relation to the Church which no doubt may call him to account for it and he is bound to render a reason thereof else all Discipline may hereby be made frustrate Now if his Reasons be found just it will be all one with a Dismission 3. Concerning this Self-Excommunication 1. The ordinary instances of Cain Ishmael
case of these in question who were in Covenant with God and his Church and had the Seal of Baptism set thereto before Genes 17.7 1 Cor. 12.13 and therefore this Owning of the Covenant is onely a manifestation of their continuance in it And hence this is not the Form of their Membership but a Duty of their Covenant and doth not in it self fit them for full Communion except withall they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God râ—quireth thereunto A Youth that hath the constâ—tuent causes of a Man Soul and Body with some Understanding and Reason is not thereby capable of all Priviledges of a man as To Marry Give good Assurances of Lands and the like An adult person received into the Church by personal Covenant is not fit for the Lords Supper meerly because he hath Covenanted for except he hath suitable qualifications he will Eat judgement to himself Reas 2. Because those that were admitted by personal Covenant in the Primitive Church continued in full Communion Acts 2.41 Ans There is not the same reason for they were admitted in adult age and also indued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost These being admitted in Infancy do onely by Owning the Covenant manifâ—st their continuance therein The Indians newly converted and holding forth so much Faith and Repentance as may admit them into the Church and Baptism might yet need further Preparation to the Lords Supper not having such eminent gifts Reas 3. Because this Doctrine presupposeth that what Knowledge Faith and Repentance is required in adult persons coming to Baptism is not sufficient to the Lords Supper Ans This Doctrine doth not suppose it for it speaketh onely of such adult persons as were Baptized in infancy not to be Baptized in adult age It supposeth onely that persons Baptized in infancy and continuing in the Covenant and visible Church may yet be unable to Examine themselves and discern the Lords Body And hence the Reasons which here follow touch not this case And it is well if some of them do not argue Against the Baptizing of Inâ—ants or That Infants Baptized may partake of the Lords Supper CHAP. VI. Concerning the fifth Proposition Propos 5. CHurch-members who were admitted in minority understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their Assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church their children are to be Baptized This Proposition say our Brethren doth stumble us most Their Reasons are Reas 1. Because there being three Expressions propounded this swerveth further then the other from the Scripture Ans Be it granted that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded these onely in conclusion were Assented unto But if our Brethren judge That they all swerved from the Scripture what matter is it which swerved most from it If this swerveth most they have the more advantage of Dispute against it But seeing they stumble so much at this I shall easily remove this Block out of their way Obj. First say they in the former Expressions it was required they should understand the Grounds of Religion here no more then the Doctrine of Faith So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law and so have no knowledge of Sin of the Duties of Holiness Righteousness Sabbaths c. Ans As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion both in the acceptation of Scripture and of Orthodox Divines Phil. 1.27 when the Apostle exhorts them to strive for the Faith of the Gospel might they let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law or any other Grounds of Religion 2 Tim. 4.7 when Paul saith He had kept the Faith did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law and other Grounds of Religion Jude ver 3. Contend for the Faith was not that Faith opposed to the fiâ—â—â—y Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law and therefore surely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Consent with the Assembly of Divines in England in The Doctrine of Faith and the Assembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declaration of their Faith and Order do they not mean by the word Faith all the Grounds of Religion excepting onely matters of Order But what need more Instances when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel I dare not be so uncharitable to think that such persons do not hold fast The Doctrine of the Moral Law and all The Grounds of Religion Surely the Synod intended it so Obj. 2. In the second Expression it was required that they should be Examined of their sense of their need of Christ and desires after him here only of their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith which the Devils may have Aâ—s But if such sense of their need of Christ and desires after him should not upon such Examination appear but this Assent to the Doctrine of Faith with all the other Qualifications Might not this suffice to shew their Continuance in the visible Church What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth it is not free but inforced and they want all the other Qualifications that these have Obj. 3. The former required that they should give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into here onely that they are not Scandalous in life The former viz. Offences comprehend Original Sin or any other committed against God or man Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lifâ— noteth onely Notorious sins and a course therein Ans That they stumble at this must needs arise from a very rigid Principle whereof this Treatise hath too many For who ever took up that of Original Sin as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that or for all such Words or Actions as are Offences to God or man A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alledged Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters for in many things we offend all and therefore pity and bear with one another and be not so rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence If this were not so what use were there of those Rules of Love 1 Cor. 13.7 Love beareth all things Gal. 6.2 Bear one anothers burthens Col. 3.13 Forbearing one another 2. It is evident Luke 17.1 2 3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals Woe to him that scandalizeth one of these little ones and Impenitency in any such Scandal deserveth the highest Censure but repented of ceaseth to be a Scandal or Offence Mat. 18. yea although such a Scandal should not be a notorious sin nor continued in but in one act So that Not to be scandalous in life is full as large
as that other Expression and doth include Satisfaction for Offences that are fallen into Obj. 4. In the former was said They should own the Covenant of their Parents here onely the Covenant which may extend to Grandfathers c. Ans I wonder how our Brethren could make to themselves such a Block as this is to stumble upon when-as the Doctrine of the Synod is so express to the contrary in the second Proposition which affirmeth That this right in the Covenant is conveyed onely by the next Parents 1 Cor. 7.14 If men have a lust to contend and raise Objections they might as well have objected against the former phrase The Covenant of their Parents for are not Grandfathers Parents also These things say our Brethren thus weighed may suffice to discover whether there be not just cause for us to deny our Consent to such kinde of Members as these Ans But these things weighed over again by the equal Ballance of the Sanctuary and right Reason I doubt not but the Judicious Reader will see how light they are and unworthy to sway the Judgements of such as our Brethren are But they adde as they had need other Reasons of their Deniall Reas 2. Because this crosseth the two former Propositions which make the proper Subjects of Baptism Confederate visible Believers and their seed whereas these though so qualified are not neither Parents nor Children visible Believers for the vilest persons may have these Rom. 2.18 10 19 21. yea they that commit the sin unto Death may have these Heb. 10.26 There are washed Swine 2 Pet. 2.20 c. Ans 1. These Parents are Confederate visible Believers as hath been proved They are in Covenant with God He is their God God accepteth them as His People His Children the Lord hath sealed to them the Righteousness of Faith Baptized them into Christ and they Own this God Submit to his Rules c. and therefore in Ecclesiastical account they are visible Believers 2. Here is a very palpable Fallacy in citing these Scriptures to prove the contrary The vilest persons say they may have these Indeed the Scriptures prove that some vile persons may have some one of these as Rom. 2. proveth that wicked men may have knowledge but these have knowledge and also Not scandalous in life c. and so may be said of the rest But which of these or any other doth prove That such persons as have all these Qualifications conjunctly are vile persons or not visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account or in Scripture account and not true Members of the visible Church It is true that such as these may fall away and become vile Heb. 10 26. but may not such as come into the Church by the fairest Profession of Faith prove so vile also and were they therefore no visible Believers before such a fall 3. These very Scriptures or most of them here alledged speak of such persons though so vile as is said who being adult children of the Church did yet continue Members of the visible Church and they and their seed partake of Priviledges and therefore such Scriptures cannot reach this case to disprove the Membership of these in the visible Church because they are not visible Believers these being farre better Members then those were and I wonder that our Brethren do not observe it or if they do why should they alledge such Scriptures in this case Object But their giving up of themselves and their children to God implies Faith 2 Cor. 8.5 Ans Our Brethren grant that it may imply Faith but in persons no better qualified it cannot imply it There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God Exod. 13.2 12. 22.29 Reply To say That in such persons no better qualified it cannot imply Faith and that without any Reason rendred is against the Rule of Love that hopeth all things to be hoped as this is confessed to be viz. that it may imply iâ— No doubt a person thus qualified in Knowledge and Conversation may give up himself to God in such a manner that the most discerning Church would receive him as a true visible Believer into full Communion regularly The Eunuch's Confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God was justly taken for true Faith To say There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God if it be not a Scoff it argueth a very slight thought of so solemn a Profession before God and his People for what Comparison is there between these two Reas 3. Where there is no Foederal Holiness there is no right to Baptism But where neither Parent is a Believer there is no Covenant-holiness 1 Cor. 7.14 where not onely one of the Parents must be in Covenant but a Believer that the children be foederally holy Neither is it rightly Objected That a Believer is opposed there to an Infidel for the children were not upon their ceasing to be Infidels Believers So that themselves were Believers or their children foederally holy They were Catechumeni and Competentes before Fideles Ans 1. Did the Primitive Churches receive any that were not visible Believers into the Churches Surely in the Apostles account The Church of God and Sanctified in Christ Jesus is all one 1 Cor. 1.2 So the Church of Ephesus and Colosse are called Saints and Faithfull in Christ Ephes 1 1. Col. 1 2. Why thâ—n is it said that the Parents must be not onely in Church-covenant but also Believers as if the one did not necessarily suppose and infer the other 2. That it is rightly said That in ceasing to be Infidels they were Believers in Ecclesiastical account is evident in that Infidels and Unbelievers are the same in Scripture-phrase and both opposed to Believers 2 Cor. 6.14 15. Be not unequally yoked with Vnbelievers that is with Infidels as appeareth ver 15. What part hath a Believer with an Infidel Now I appeal to our Brethren whether this Rule of the Apostle would allow the Parents in question described in the fifth Proposition to Marry with an Heathen Indian or like Infidel if not then in the Scripture account he is a Believer for otherwise he should not be unequally yoked with such an one 3. As for that Distinction of Catechumeni Competentes and Fideles the Scripture knoweth no such thing for Lydia and her house were Baptized together Acts 16.15 and the Jaylor and his house straightway That distinction came into the Church afterward and was applied to new Converts as well as to the Church-seed But our Brethren adde further That else or otherwise were your children unclean cannot be meant onely of Infidels for so we may make mad work of Scripture as Deut. 4.29 Jehovah is God and none else if any should say There may be another God to the Gentiles it would be a sad Exception So Rev. 2.15 Repent or I will come against thee shall another Church say It will not be so with us Ans That to be Vnclean
them without acts of Church-discipline which yet they deny to belong to their persons immediately 3. If such a case should fall out it is not impossible not absurd to say That a people retaining the Essentials of a true Church may fall into such a degeneracy or decay as to be unfit for Ordinances or to thuse Officers untill they be further prepared by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them Ans 2. To the Scriptures 1 Cor. 1.2 14.33 they say That by a Church of Saints primarily the better part of Saints are understood the rest Synecdochically though not so in truth yet so called Reply If all be so called though some be not so in truth then the Argument is yielded That in Scripture Ecclesiastical account all Church-members are Saints and who shall tell us which are so in truth and which not till impenitency in sin gives us cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans Reas 5. Being in the Covenant and Baptized they have faith given them indefinitely in the Promise and sealed to them in Baptism Deut. 30.6 which continueth valid and is a valid Testimony for them whil'st they do not reject it Ans The Promise is indefinite not universal whence the Argument must be Some circumcised or baptized ones are Believers But hese in question are circumcised or baptized ones Therefore c. or thus The Roman Catholicks are baptized Therefore c. Reply 1. I see our Brethren can make a false Syllogism to decline the force of an Argument that would rightly conclude Thus If some children being under that indefinite Promise be Believers for God is true of his Promise then all such children are not to be rejected as unbelievers as our Brethren would But some baptized ones being under that indefinite Promise are Believers Therefore Now who can say who are such and who are not till they reject the grace of the Promise and by impenitency in sin are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans For though the Promise of Heart-circumcision being but indefinite is effectually performed to some onely not to all yet they are all alike to the Church till the difference doth some way openly appear 2 To apply this to the Roman Catholicks savours not of ingenuity for are they the seed of Confederate visible Believers of whom our Dispute is or are they Regularly Baptized or do they shew nothing to the contrary that profess Popery Ans 2. It is not an indefinite Promise there because it is certainly made good to such as return with their Souls ver 1 2. Reply This doth not hinder the indefiniteness of the Promise but confirmeth it And their effectual return to God is the fruit of that Promise and indefinite also Ans 3. An indefinite Promise doth not capacitate all children to receive the Seals Reply Neither is so much affirmed but this with the other Considerations doth render them visible Believers in Ecclesiasticall reputation which is the scope of this fourth Argument Arg. 5. The deniall of Baptism to these hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy because it denieth the children of the Church to have any part in the Lord Josh 22.24 25 26. Ans The Brethren deny the Consequence affirming That thirty or fourty years experience in New-England through the mercy of God sheweth the contrary Reply This is a bare deniall without answering the Reason from Josh 22. Surely that religious generation had a deeper sense of that danger and more solicitous care to prevent it then they have 2. When our Brethren in their Preface To the Generall Court take notice of the Many Great and Prevailing Corruptions of Youth that need Reformation by Church-discipline this might abate our glorying of contrary Experience for thirty or fourty years in respect of the danger of Irreligion and Apostacy in the seed of the Church But if this be so it seemeth our Brethren do think that there are many more then A few Names in N. England that hold fast the Name of Christ and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel and do not own so great an Apostacy of Elders and People as the Author of the Preface presents to the World Arg. 6. The persons in question are personall immediate and yet-continuing Members of the Church and therefore their children are to be Baptized Our Brethren here only speak to the first Branch concerning their personal membership having spoken to the third Branch before But the second Branch about their immediate membership they leave untouch'd Ans If the meaning be that the Promise to their believing Parents reacheth them and that they are wrapped up together with them the Assertion is granted as far as concerneth the seed of Confederating Believers in their minority But if the meaning be that they are Members by their own Personall act then it is denied Reply This distinction of Members wrapped up in their Parents and Members by their own Personall act is a Riddle that no Scripture doth unfold Let us hold to Scripture-phrases and the meaning will be plain and easie viz. They are Members in their own persons by the Lords actuall entring into Covenant with their persons distinct from their Parents and setting the Seal of the Covenant upon their persons as hath been proved from Gen. 17.7 9. Deut. 5.2 3. 29.10 11. Proof 1. They are personally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 therefore Members in their own persons Ans This concerns children in minority or the seed of Believers and Members in full Communion and therefore it reacheth them not when adult and grown Reply Here our Brethren speak out That the foederal holiness and Charch-membership of the church seed weareth quite out with their infancy or minority though sometime they speak otherwise as was noted upon their Concession in their Answer to the Argument of the Synod pag. 23. in the end But no Scripture will prove this yea the whole tenour of Scripture-stories of the Church convinceth the contrary See Deut. 5.2 3. Rom. 3.1 2 3. 9.4 Proof 2. They are personally Baptized the Seal of Membership is applied to their own persons which being regularly done is a divine testimony that they are in their own persons members of the Church Ans So are the Papists in Rome and are they personal Members The Shechemites and Edomites were circumcised there is par ratio Reply This is a very slight evading of the Argument which speaketh of Baptism regularly done I had thought our Brethren did not think Baptism regularly done in Rome or Circumcision regularly applied to the Shechemites and Edomites Or if not could they suppose that there is par ratio a like reason between Baptism regularly done and not regularly done Except they should mean that there is like reason between Baptism in Rome and the Circumcision of the Shechemites and Edomites and that is granted Proof 3. They are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons See Propos 3. Ans This is granted