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
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
Parish Churches we are no larger then our Dissenting Brethren who concur with us in the seventh Proposition about the first Question which speaks to this case But if it be meant of inlarging the Church to the Bounds of a Parish it is a meer Slander I do not believe that he can prove that any two Elders of these Churches have so declared their Judgement much less so many as are of the Synods minde It lieth upon the Author to make good this charge or to recant his rashness 2. He affirmeth That the general Judgement of the learned Elders and their Practice was as the Dissenters plead but now divers of those Elders do retreat and recant To prove this he alledgeth two Passages out of An Answer to Thirty two Questions Printed 1639. But those Passages are too weak to bear up this Assertion yea do evidence the quite contrary The first is taken out of Page 22. of the said Book the sum whereof is this That such whose Parents are not Believers and sanctâ—fied are not foederally holy Foederal Holiness or Sanctity being limited to the next Parents 1 Cor. 7.14 Ans 1. This Passage doth not agree with the Dissenters for it doth appear that the Author doth account Foederal Holiness to be Sanctity and therefore the next parents being in Covenant with God and so continuing they are Ecclesiastically holy sanctified and visible Believers 2. Do not the same Elders in this Synod deliver the very same Doctrine in the second Proposition and fifth particular viz. It is requisite to the Membership of Children that the next Parents one or both be in Covenant Citing the same Text 1 Cor. 7.14 And where then is the least shew of Recanting The second Proof is Page 23. of the said Book where it is said that We believe that all Members of Churches ought to be Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus none excepted Ephes 1.1 1 Cor. 1.2 Phil. 1.1 Ans 1. This passage speaketh of Members to be admitted in adult age and therefore might be as well alledged to prove a consent with the Anabaptists as with the Dissenters which was farre from the meaning of that Author Besides though they ought to be so yet that denieth not but being regularly admitted they are still Members of the Church till they be regularly cast out though they do not approve themselves to be such 2. Do not those Elders profess the same Doctrine in the Synod Propos 2. viz Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are Confederate visible Believers alledging the same Texts Eph. 1.1 c. Where then is this Recantation Sixthly The Author of this Preface excusing the Paucity of the Dissenters in comparison of the many able learned and godly Magistrates and Ministers that consented He objecteth three things against the Synod consenting 1. That divers of the Elders having Preached and Practised that Doctrine of late years were pre-engaged and it is strange that after Vows they should be called to enquire Ans Were not Paul Barnabas and others as much engaged in the Doctrine of that Synod Acts 15 and did they come after Vâ—ws to enquire 2. Were not the Dissenters as much pre-engaged in their Opinion why then did they come after Vows to enquire 2. It is Objected That divers Messengers being no Logicians to answer Syllogisms and discern Ambiguities were over-born by the many Opposers Ans It is incongruous and too high to make the Body of the Synod the Opâ—osers which more fitly agree to th few Dissenters 2. Though divers were not such Logicians yet Charity might allow the choyce Members of our Churches to be able to judge of Arguments drawn from the Scriptures and so farre consciencious as that discerning the Voice of Christ they would not be born down with number of Opposers To say nothing of the Logick of the Dissenters that might be as little as the others 3. It is Objected That the corruption of man most inclineth to walk in the broadest way though the straiter way be never so clear especially when persons eminent in Place Power Learning and Piety are so linked together Ans Be it so that there is such a corruption in man yet when such persons as the Synod are confessed to be agree in one and that in so Solemn an Ordinance of God where Christ hath promised his Presence Chaâ—â—y that hopeth all things might well conceive that Grace would prevail above such a Corruption 2 If our Brother be not aware of it I can assure him that there is also a Corruption in man and in good men too under the not on of Strictness and Zeal to swerve as much to the other Extreme As when the Disciples would have kept little children from Christ Mark 10.13 14. When out of zeal against the Tares men would hazard to plack up the Wheat also Matth. 13.28 29. So when we are apt to judge others whom God hath received Rom. 14.3 which I wish our Brother seriously to consider The way of the Anabaptists is a straiter way yet I suppose this Brother doth not judge it his corruption to chuse a way somewhat larger So is the way of the Seekers and others who think their straiter wayes as clear as our Brother thinketh of his Seventhly In Page 5. this Brother answering another Objection That this Discourse may seem needless seeing all other Congregational Churches agree with them that they know of alledging the Savoy Meeting Chap. 29. Of Baptism 4. Yet saith he there needs abundant confirmation for no doubt this temptation will spread further when more then the third part of the Stars of Heaven here are swept down as is Prophesied Rev. 12. c. Furthermore saith he let the world know That the Lord hath still a few Names in New England who hold fast his Name and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel and detest the Abominations of Antichrist Ans 1. This Author glorieth much in the Consent of other Churches We see here his ground which I shall examine The Position of that Meeting of the Churches is this Not onely those that do actually profess Faith in and Obedience unto Christ but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be Baptized and those onely We can well consent with this Doctrine without any prejudice to the Doctrine of the Synod For we profess and prove in the Synod That the children of the Church being in Covenant with God owned by him as holy as his People his Children and manifesting their continuance in the Covenant according to the fifth Proposition these are visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account in Scripture account 1 Cor. 1.1 with 7.14 And I cannot believe but that Reverend and Learned Assembly would acknowledge Regular Church-members to be visible Believers And it doth appear that these are Regular Church-members in their judgement by their Second Position Concerning the Church Chap. 26. where they say All such as profess the Faith of the Gospel and Obedience
and joyned which hath reference to their first joyning to the Church not denying that being once regularly joyned they may after have their seed Baptized though they should not approve themselves to be true Converts As for the Objections and Answers here brought in they are not the Objections of the Synod And what is any way pertinent to our Dispute may sufficiently be taken off by what is said and therefore I shall pass them by And I may the rather so do seeing our Brethren in their third Answer have yielded the Cause For if the Covenant made with Abraham and the Circumcision of his seed was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was Why should not Baptism be continued successively to the seed remaining in the Covenant as well as Circumcision CHAP. III. Concerning our Brethrens Notes upon the first and second Proposition IN the first Proposition our Brethren onely give an Explication of the word Visible Church taking the word Church as a Genus of all particular Churches from which we Dissent not In the second Proposition viz. That the Members of the visible Church according to Scripture are confederate visible Believers and their Infant-seed They have made divers Notes upon it 1. That by visible Believers they intend true Believers to the judgement of charity And herein we agree Second Note That visible Believers and their Infant-seed are rightly distinguished And so farre we agree also That they are persons distinctly and severally covenanted with by the Lord not wrapped up in their Parents as they speak But whereas they distinguish them from their Parents as not being Believers never so called in Scripture How can they believe that know not the right hand from the left They have no Faith actual or habitual nor can have without a Miracle and we hold Miracles are ceased Ans This is the great Objection of the Anabaptists against the Baptizing of Infants and what the scope of this Note is here I know not except it be to deny them any actual and personal Membership in the Church as in their next Note I shall therefore speak the more fully to it And first it appeareth the Scripture numbers them amongst Believers if it doth not also expresly call them so Mat. 18.6 One of these little ones that believe in me which some interpret of Infants 2 Cor. 6.14 15. where all in the Church are called Believers in opposition to Infidels And no doubt Paul would not allow any of these to marry with Infidels when grown up by that Rule of his and therefore he reckons them as Believers 2. To make a person a Member of the visible Church the matter is not whether he hath Faith and Grace really or not if he hath such qualifications as the Rule of the Word accepteth for Faith in the visible Church we can go no further This is clear and will be easily granted in respect of adult persons If a man profess he doth believe with all his heart as the Eunuch Acts 8. and nothing appears to the contrary If a man appear Pricked at the heart Gladly receive the Word c. as those Acts 2. Gods Rule accepts of such as Believers and so must the Church though the Lord seeth that some it may be many such have no Faith in truth for Many are called but few chosen And however they may afterward discover themselves as Ananias Simon Magus c. yet all will grant these were rightly received as visible Believers In like manner is the case of Infants The matter is not whether they have true Faith or not in the act or habit so they have such qualifications as God accepts of to receive their persons into his Covenant and to be Members of the Body of Christ This sufficeth though they have no Faith or Grace really Now that the Lord doth so accept of them into the number of the Faithful and as Believers appeareth 1. Because he doth account them Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 be it Foederal or Covenant-Holiness this implies that God is their God and if God gives himself unto them surely he accepted them as Believers He is not the God of Infidels who are without God Ephes 2.12 The Covenant of God is the same with Parents and their seed and therefore God accepteth them as such as are answerable to the Terms and Conditions of that Covenant 2. This appeareth from the Nature of the Seal of the Covenant Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. When God appointed this Seal to be set upon Infants surely God numbred them with Believers So when we are said to be Baptized into Christ can there be any Union with Christ without Faith As no real Union without true Faith so no visible Union without that which is accepted as Faith And when the Lord Jesus saith Of such is the Kingdome of God doth the Kingdome of God belong to Unbelievers If it be said It is their Parents Faith that is accepted for them not any thing in their own persons I answer If so that God will accept the Parents Faith and Profession in their name and stead as a Publick Person covenanting for them yet this is Gods free and preventing Grace towards the seed and doth engage their persons to the Duties of the Covenant to avouch God for their God c. and therefore they are actually and personally in Covenant with God as well as their Parents 3. I adde further That as we must rest in such Signs of Faith as the Rule requireth though it should not be there so also we must in charity judge the best and walk towards such as visible Believers till by impenitency in sin the Church have just cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans So Phil. 1.7 It is meet I should think thus of you all because you are in my heart Love and Church-charity should reach farre especially to Members of a Church regularly received because the Lord doth give Faith to some and who have Faith in truth who not is hard for us to judge And so it is in such Members as came in in their Infancy We know the Lord gives Faith and Grace to some betimes as to Samuel Timothy and others yea in all Elect Infants that die in minority no doubt God gives them the Spirit of Faith and that which is proportionable to the act of Faith and therefore in charity we are to look at them as Believers till for impenitency in sin the Church shall â—ount them as Heathens and Publicans Their third Note is That though they be Members in general yet Infant-seed are onely foederally holy others that have taken hold of the Covenant are sanctified in Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 6.11 These have a Parental and partial Right nor compleat and perfect Thus the Lord speaks Deut. 4 37. 10.15 Acts 2.38 39. So Dr. Ames distinction into Perfect and Imperfect Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 13. Ans 1. Let it here be applied what was said of their
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
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
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-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
the next Parents and when the Parents were broken off their seed were broken off also Rom. 11.20 So that there is no such difference Ans 3. To the Scriptures say they that in Jer. 30. speaketh of their return from Babylon Ezek. 37. speaketh of their Calling when they shall be all righteous and nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant Isa 60.21 Joel 3.17 c. Reply If Jer. 30. hath any reference to their return from Babylon yet it appeareth to look further even to the latter times For Ver. 9. it speaketh of David their King whom God will raise up to them and v. 24. of the latter dayes and Chap. 31.1 At the same time I will be the God of all the families of Israel As for those places Isa 60.21 Joel 3. that say They shall be all righteous no stranger shall pass through them so that nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant The Covenant then shall be continued according to the Promise of God to Abrahams seed in their generations which is enough to the scope of this Argument Besides this continuance of the Covenant shall be by visible Faith and Righteousness not alwayes by reall Faith for to think there shall be no Sin no Hypocrites then is groundless There is none righteous that sinneth not is the general state of all men in this world till we come to Heaven And it is evident Ezek 37.25 Zech. 10.7 9. that their seed are part of that righteous Nation 3d Consequence The deniall of the Proposition denieth the initiatory Seal to such as are regularly in the Church and Covenant to whom the Mosaicall dispensation nay the first Institution in the Covenant of Abraham appointed it to be applied Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. Ans This is a begging of the Question The children in question do not stand regularly under the Church-covenant the contrary is plain Jer. 9.26 Rom. 2.28 Ezek. 34.7 9. Reply The Question is not begged but the ground of the Argument is proved Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. to which no answer is returned 2. Seeing these Scriptures Jer. 9. Rom. 2. Ezek. 44. and such like are so oft alledged and here with so much confidence in the present case I shall Examine them more distinctly The Question is Whether children received into the Church and Baptized in Infancy and being grown up do understand the Doctrine of Faith publickly Profess their Assent thereto are not scandalous in life solemnly own the Covenant before the Church wherein they give up themselves to God and submit to the government of Christ in the Church Whether I say such do not stand regularly in the Church and Whether the Scriptures named do plainly prove the contrary Now for the first Jer. 9.26 where the Lord threatneth to punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised for all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart To this I answer 1. That this punishment was not Discovenanting them but the Sword 2. But suppose Discovenanting be included in the other what were the causes thereof by which they were proved to be uncircumcised in heart and therefore so to be punished They were all Aduâ—erers ver 2. Lyars ver 3. Slanderers ver 4. Deceivers ver 5. yea they walked after Baal ver 14. And how then doth this place plainly prove that the persons described in the Proposition stand not regularly in the Church As for Rom. 2.28 so oft alledged however it may have some reference to the Doctrine of Justification before spoken to yet it seems the particular occasion and scope of that discourse of the Jew and Gentile is to prove that God distributeth rewards and punishments without respect of persons ver 9 10 11 and to take off the Iews confidence in Legal-priviledges in that respect ver 13 17 18 19 20. but however it cannot be spoken with any reference to Church-membership Now in respect of Gods distribution of rewards and punishments Circumcision profited if they kept the Law else not and in this respect the Vncircumcision that kept the Law was counted Circumcision and so in this respect He is not a Jew that is one outwardly c. But to infer that every lew that was so outwardly onely wanting the inward circumcision of the heart was there by discovenanted out of the visible Church this were a strange Doctrine to Scripture-ears To clear this further 1. In what respect the circumcision is made uncircumcision by breaking the Law in the same respect the uncircumcision is counted for circumcision in them that kept the Law but this was never so accounted in respect of Church-membership and Priviledges witness the case of the Centurion Cornelius and his devout Souldiers and others and therefore not so in the former 2. He speaketh of the inward circumcision as having its praise of God not of men but we know the outward Circumcision is approved of the Church though without the inward in respect of Church-standing and Priviledges and that according to Gods Rules 3. The Apostle fully cleareth his meaning Chap. 3.1 2 3. affirming That the advantage of the Jew and profit of circumcision was much every way and that in the committing the Oracles of God to them which was a Church-priviledge Lastly Concerning this place let it be noted what were the evidences of uncircumcised hearts there alledged viz. Stealing Adultery Sacriledge c. ver 21 22. which how well it suits to prove plainly That these in question are not regularly in the Church let every one judge Concerning Ezek. 44.7 9. This place speaketh of bringing in the heathen strangers that were amongst the children of Israel as sâ—evident in that it is called an Abomination so to do but to bring in an Israelite circumcised in flesh not in heart was never counted an Abomination Again he speaketh of strangers uncircumcised in heart and flesh which these children are not 2. Put case this place may by allusion 〈◊〉 applied to receiving of Members into the visible Church we agree that none visibly unholy should be received into the Church But our Question is of such as being holy were regularly received into the Church and do not deserve to be cast out to which case this place speaks nothing Thus we see how little footing there is for our Brethrens Tenent in these or any other Scriptures they have alledged as Jer. 2.21 Amos 9.7 Mat. 3. Ioh. 8. 15. which have been considered in their place And I am the more perswaded that this Way of our Brethren is not the Way of God being built upon so manifold mistaken and misapplied Scriptures whereof many of them being Old Testament Proofs it appears our Brethren make use not onely of far-fetched Consequences but of plain Inconsequences from the Old Testament 4th Consequence That to deny the Proposition is to break Gods Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant Gen 17 9 10 14. Ans 1. To refuse to Baptize one that is not regularly in Covenant is
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
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