alone gives Right for God hath made it one Commandment of four to provide for the manner of his Worship requiring that all his holy Ordinances be attended in a Solemn Humble Reverent and Profitable manner and it cannot be denyed to be meet and needful that persons should both know and own the Covenant-state they are in and the state of subjection to Christs Government which the Covenant placeth them in especially when they partake of such a fruit of the Covenant as Baptism for their Children is that they should do Covenant-duties when they come for Covenant priviledges that they should both seek and attend the Lords holy Ordinance though it be their Right never so much in Humility and Fear and it being one Branch of the Covenant that they give up their Children to the Lord and do promise to take care for their Christian Education it must needs be suitable that they be minded of it when they present them to Baptism and the more explicitely they do so promise it is the better Hence all Reformed Churches do in their Directories and Practices require Professions and Promises of Parents or those that present the Childe to Baptism and appoint a solemn manner of Administration and stand upon it as a needful duty Though they unanimously own and grant that the Childe hath a full and clear Right to Baptism by its being born within the visible Church See English Leiturgie of the administration of Baptism Directory pag. 31. Late Petition for Peace pag. 61 c. Zepperi Polit. Ecces pag 128. pag. 147 150. Alasco pag. 121 137. Ratio Discipl Bohem. pag 43. Hence also no man will doubt but that it is a comfortable and desireable thing that the Parent do address himself in the most solemn serious and spiritual manner to draw nig◠to God upon such an occasion as the Baptizing of a Childe by humbling himself before God for all neglects and Breaches of his Covenant by taking hold of the incouraging promises of Grace in Christ in reference unto the Children of the Covenant and by pouring out earnest Prayer to God for his Childe and for an heart to do the duty of a Christian Parent toward his Childe as doth become him c. And such things as these Parents may and ought to be stirred up unto in the Ministry of the Word as their duty But still we must distinguish between what belongs to the manner of Administration or to the better and more comfortable attendance thereof and between what is essentially requisite to give right and title to the Ordinance before the Church This latter meer Membership or Membership alone doth A state of Membership in the visible Church is that unto which the right of Baptism is annexed as not onely the Synod but the Scripture teacheth And so 2. The Assertion before-mentioned viz. That it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism in the sense above given is also Antiscriptural 1. Because it directly overthroweth Infant-baptism which the Scripture establisheth for what have Infants more then Membership or Federal holiness or Covenant-interest to give them right to Baptism i. e. What have they more then this that they are regularly by the Rules of Gods Word and his Institution therein within the visible Church If this will not suffice but there must be some other qualifications besides and superadded unto this what shall become of them For our parts we know no stronger Argument for Infants-baptism then that Church members or Foederati are to be baptized the Infants of the Faithful are Church-members or Foederati Ergo. But if the foresaid Assertion hold this Argument fails and falls short for now Church-membership or to be in Covenant or Federal holiness will not serve the turn but there must be more then this to give right to Baptism How the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for Enlargement of Baptism will fare we know not but sure we are that this cuts in sunder the sinews of the strongest Arguments for Infant-baptism which must fall if this stand But fall it never will through Grace while the Lords Appointment in the Covenant of Abraham stands viz. to have the Initiating Seal run parallel with the Covenant Gen. 17. or Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 viz. to Baptize all Disciples or all Members of the visible Church under the New Testament Let this Assertion therefore fall which makes the extent of the Initiatory Seal shorter then the Covenant and denies Baptism to run parallel with Church-membership under the Gospel Hence 2. It contradicts that which the Harmony of Scripture and all Orthodox Divines acknowledge for a Principle viz. That the whole visible Church i. e. now under the New Testament ought to be baptized or that all Church members are Subjects of Baptism for if not meer Membership or Membership alone but qualified Membership gives right to Baptism then not all Members but some onely viz. those that be so and so qualified are to be baptized If Baptism do not belong to meer Membership or to a Member as such then not to all Members as à quatenus ad omne so à non quatenus ad non omne valet consequentiae This denies not onely in the Fifth but the First Proposition of the late Synod which yet the Antisynodalia pag. 17. seem to consent unto But let the Arguments that are given from Scripture to confirm that First Proposition be duely weighed and they will be found to be of greater weight then to be shaken by this Assertion Now for the Proof of this Assertion viz. Because John 's Baptism which was Christian Baptism might not be applied to some who were standing Members of the visible Church because they were not qualified with Repentance Luke 3.8 7.30 Therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such as stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance Answ. Let this be answered with reference to Infant-baptism which lies upon our Brethren to do as well as on us seeing they above declared Antipoedobaptism to be a sinful Opinion and do profess to hold and maintain the baptizing of Infants though indeed the Reader could not gather so much from these words Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such 〈◊〉 stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance This seems directly to gainsay Infant-baptism for Infants do indeed stand Members of the visible Church but how do they or can they shew that they are qualified with fruits of Repentance for it seems that neither is Repentance it self sufficient without Fruits of Repentance But we are to suppose our Brethren do not intend to oppose Infant-baptism and therefore that their meaning is not to require these fruits of Repentance or qualifications superadded to Membership of the Children or person◠to be baptized but of their Parents though it be not so expressed But let this Argument
the Form or to make it a part thereof It is wont to be said Efficiens non ingreditur Essentiam The act of Covenanting on our part whereby we are brought into the Church is but an Efficient yea but an instrumental Efficient the Book calls it a Precrean cause pag. 37. that is still but an Efficient yet consider it in contradistinction to Divine Institution it can but instrumentally procreate But the form or formalis Ratio of Membership is to be within the Covenant or within the Church 1 Cor. 5.12 Whatever causality our Act in proâ—essing and Covenanting do contribute to bring us in it can be but an Efficient And hence it doth not denominate or constitute the formality of our Membership Object But Formally here is referred to personal not to membership Ans. If so it be yet still the same Answers hold unless it mean no more then every one grants and so be nothing to the purpose If the meaning onely be that Infants do not enter into Covenant by an act of their own proper persons who ever said or thought they did what need we labour in finding out distinctions to deny them that which no body ever challenged for them or to what purpose is that But the Question is Whether Infants be not personal members or personally and formally members although they never yet put forth an Act of covenanting in their own persons we affirm it because they have the forme of Membership or the adjunct of formal membership cleaving to their own persons by Divine Institution And so we say they are personally and formally Members though they have not yet acted any thing in their own proper persons You seem to deny it and bring a distinction to clear your meaning the former Branch of which distinction as your selves explain it grants the thing that we plead for the latter Branch as you also explain it denies no more then we deny viz. That they enter by their own proper personal Act. But the mistake lies in making this viz. Entring by ones own proper Act to be formally personal membership whereas that is formally personal membership that doth formally and properly constitute the person a member and so Being within the Covenant doth the Infants in question though they never yet acted in their own persons The distinction should rather stand thus As personal membership is taken properly and formally so it agrees to Infants i. e. their persons are Recipients of the adjunct of proper formal Church-membership but as personal membership is taken improperly and very improperly indeed i. e. for the membership of such as have by themselves or by their own personal profession entred into Covenant so Infants are not capable of personal membership Thus it might be granted But why should we use personal membership in so improper a sence or insist on a sence that toucheth not the cause in question The sum is that if by Personal membership taken formally be meant onely entring by their own proper personal act then the distinction is needless and not ad Rem But if it be meant so as to deny what we affirm then it is overthrown by your selves in the former Branch Grant them to be personal Members subjectively you therein grant them to be so formally deny them personal membership formally you deny it subjectively These do mutuò so ponere tollere being used in any sence that is proper and pertinent to the present Dispute But consider whether it would sound rationally to say that Paul was not formally a personal Roman or not formally a Roman free-man in his own person because he did not buy his freedome with his own money or that a Childe who hath an Inheritance left him is not formally a personal owner thereof because himself did not purchase it or that Infants are personal Subjects in such a Kingdome Members of such a Family subjectively onely not formally because they did not become such by their own previous personal act These and such like shew how improper and incongruous it is to make ones own personal act to be that which constitutes the formality of personal membership Preface It 's strange to us to conceive that they should have this personal formal membership and yet that they should not be Subjects capable of formal personal Censures Ans. They are capable in regard of their Relation and state in the Church though not in regard of natural Capacity nor in regard of demerit for an Infant cannot Ecclesiastically deserve publick Censure It is not strange to conceive Infants to be Subjects of such a Prince though at present uncapable of civil Tryals and punishments It suffices that Infant-members are in a state of subjection to Church Discipline and ingaged thereto for afterward though at present naturally uncapable of the exercise thereof The new born Infant is not capable of Domestical Discipline either Rod or Rebuke but that hinders not his being a formal personal Member of the Family Preface We neither do nor ever did deny that the persons of Infants of believing confederate Parents are brought under the Covenant onely we conceive that their membership is conjunct with and dependent upon the Membership and Covenant of their Parents so as to live and dye therewith Hence when the Parents are Excommunicated the membership of the Infant-childe is cut off because Excommunication puts an end to the outward Covenant which Death it self doth not do and if the Root be destroyed the Branches cannot live Ans. That the childes membership depends upon the membership of the Parent as the Instrumental Cause or Condition of the childes first Entrance into the Church or becoming a Member we readily grant because Divine Institution admitteth onely the Children of Members to be Members and so much Mr. Cottons words here allâ—dged in the Preface do truly teach But that the childes membership is so wrapt up in the membership of the Parent as to live and dye therewith as if it had no proper and distinct membership of its own is surely a deep mistake and will if followed overthrow that subjective personal membership before granted unto Infants and that which is here also owned viz. that their persons are brought under the Covenant If the persons of the Infants be brought under the Covenant then their persons are within the Covenant or their persons are Confederate then not onely the person of the Parent but the person of the childe hath the formality of membership upon it And as the person of the childe in regard of its natural being though for the first existence thereof it depended under God upon the Parent yet when once it is born into the World it is not so conjunct with and dependent upon the person of the Parent as to live and dye therewith so why should the membership of the childe be thus dependent seeing the Book to which this Preface is prefixed affirmeth p 37. that the Parent is a procreant Cause as of the Childeâ— natural Being
desert of Church-censure which is manifestly the case of the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition and then all the discourse in Answer to this Objection wherein not a little confidence and spirit is expressed falls to the ground as not reaching the case in hand though besides there are sundry mistakes in it as may after appear For suppose it should be granted that in Churches where Discipline is not in use and in a case notorious wherein a person does apparently lose the Essentials of Christianity as by turning Turk or the like a man may be cut off from Membership by his own Apostacie and Wickedness though the Church did not through her sinful neglect formally censure him Yet this on the other hand is also a sure and clear Truth that no act of a mans own will or can cut him off from Membership but that which deserves a cutting off by censure and for which the Church should cut him off by censure if she did her Duty This is plain because when a man is once in the Church he cannot be outed till God out him God does not out him till some Rule or appointment of his in his word does out him but there is no Rule that appoints any man to be put out of the visible Church or made as an Heathen and Publican but for and upon such wickedness of his as is Censurable by the Church and in that case the Rule does appoint and injoyn the Church to Censure him or to put him away from among them by censure Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.5 13. When some Divines do so speak as if persons might be broken off from the Church without a formal Censure in some extraordinary cases the meaning is not that a man doth by his own wickedness be it never so notorious immediately so become Felo de se or Vn-member himself as that the Church hath nothing to do with him to Censure him yes she may and ought to censure him for his wickedness and Apostacy and so if a Church-member turn Turk or Papist the Church to which he belongs ought to lay him under Censure for it And for such a one to be a Member till Censured i. e. A rotten Member fit to be cut off is no contradiction nor absurdity See Mr. Cottons Holiness of Church-members pag. 15. And did all Churches in the world do their duty there should no man living that ever was a Member of a Church yet in Being be looked upon as a Non-member but he that is so Censured on Excommunicated at least unless some extraordinary and rare circumstances of a case do render the Churches cognizance thereof impossible But the meaning onely is that where men have palpably and notoriously lost the Essentials of Christianity And a Church through the sinful want or neglect of Discipline never looks after them onely by her Doctrine declares against such but haply continues in that neglect from age to age there the Notoriousness of the Case and the Evidence of the Rule does supply the defect of a Judicial Sentence and the Churches Doctrinal Declaration may be looked at as an implicite Excommunication And hence other Churches may justly carry toward such as Non-members And hence also in the day of the Reformation of such Churches after deep and long-continued Corruptions such persons may be set by without a formal Censure But what is all this to the Children of our Churches who being admitted in minority in stead of notorious Wickedness and Apostacy when grown up do in some measure own the God and Covenant of their fathers and are neither cast out nor deserve so to be whom no Rule in all the Scripture appointeth to be put out of the visible Church And hence tâ—ey stand and continue Regular i. e. according to the Appointment and Allowance of the Rule Members of it being neither Excommunicate nor by Rule to be Excommunicated Where shall we finde either Scripture or sound Reason to tell us that these have cut themselves off from Membership or are nâ—w become Non-members But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter we assert this Position That in Churches waâ—â—ing in the Order of the Gospel and Exercising Discipline according to the Rules thereoâ— no person can while he lives among them cease to be a Member of the visible Church but by Excommunication or without a Church-act in Censuring him with the Censure of Excommunication The sum of the Proof of this is Because we finde this way of cessation of Membership viz. By Excommunication plainly prescribed and appointed by the Lord in Scripture And we finde not any other while the Church and the person continues in Being See a more particular Proof of it in the Preface to Mr. Shepard's Treatise of Churâ—h-membership of Children lately Published But if any do affirm there is another way it lies on them to shew and prove it Let us now consider whether that be done by all that is here further said Preface When Whitgift said That Papists and Atheists might still remain Members of the visible Church Mr. Parker tells him That even a Veritius would condemn him And it is no new Doctrine in the Sâ—hools to say that An Heretical Apostate is no more a Member of the Church of Christ then a Wound a Sâ—re a Brand is a member of a man as eâ—ery one knows that is mediocritèr doctus in Scholasiiâ—al Divinity Therefore we conclude That Church-members may become no Members by their own defection Ans. Surely he that is but mediâ—critèr doctus in Schâ—lastical or â—â—emical Divinity may easily know that here is the shew of an Argument or of Authority of Writers witâ— out the substanâ—e of either For when our Divines against the Papists do so often over say that Wicked or Vnregenerate persons are but equivocally or improperly Members of the Church as Nails Haâ—r Sores and superfluâ—us Hu â—urs or as a wooden Leg. a glass Eye c. are members of the liuing Body of a man they mean it properly with reference to the invisible mystical Church or to the visible Church considered in its internal spiritual living state not with reference to mens external standing or Membership in the visible Church Nor did they ever dream that men are by the want of internal gracious qualifications cut off from Membership in the visible Church without any Church-censure It is well known that they reckon Hypocrites and secretly unregenerate persons as well as â—eretical Apostates or the openly-wicked to be but equivocaliy of the Church viz. in â—omparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ â—nd as â—aul diâ—tinguishes between Israel and them that are of Israel Rom. 9.6 and sayes He is not a Iew i. e. not a Jew indeed and accepted in the sight of God who is â—ut outwarâ—ly â—nâ— Rom. 2.28 29. But would you therefore say that a close Hypocrite unâ—eâ—bers himsâ—lâ— and fâ—lls out of the visible Church without
Baptism is of greater Latitude then the Lords Supper and that all that do bring their Children to partake of the former 〈◊〉 nâ—t therefore themselves presently partake of thâ— latter but that many may have their Châ—ldren Baptized and yet regularly be debarred from the Lords Supper We might also mention the Concurrence of Divines with us in particular Reasons Explications and Assertions relating to â—â—is matter â—â— That Baptism is annexed to the â—eing or beginning of Faith the Lords Supper to the special exercise of it That Baptism belongs to all Members but the Lords Supper to soâ—e onely that are so and so qualified that all visible Believers who in a latitude of Expression and Ecclesiastical reputation are such as are all that are within the Church are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper Vrsin and Pareus answering that Objection against the Baptism of Infants that Then they must be admitted to the Lords Supper have these words Magnum discrimen c. There is a great difference between Baptism and the Supper For 1. Baptism is a Sacrament of Entrance and Râ—ception into the Church But 〈◊〉 Supper is a Sacrament of Continuance in the Church 〈◊〉 Confirmation of the Reception 〈◊〉 made 2. Regeneration by 〈…〉 and not to them presently but after that they have held forth a confession of Faith and Repentance Also it may be minded that it is the currant and constant expression of our Divines that they call and count all that are within the compass of the visible Church whether Infants or adult Fideles Vâ—cati Faithful called c. And they will tell you that they are for Baptizing no Infants but such as are Infantes fidelium the Infants of the Faithful or of Believers Infantes non omnes sed duntaxat fidelium i. e. Baptizatorum sunt Baptizandi Chamier Tom. 4. pag. 130. So Daneus Infantes ex fidelibus i. e. Baptizaâ—â—s nati possunt Baptizari in Ecclesia Lib. 5. De Sacram. pag. 538. And yet they do not look at all these no not at all the adult that come under this denomination and whose Children they Baptize to be regularly admittable to the Lords Supper which plainly shews their judgement to be that all adult Persons who are in a Latitude of expression to be accounted visible Believers or in Ecclesiastical Reputation to be lookt at as Fideles are not therefore to partake of the Lords Supper Dr. Ames accounts that a person may be a Believer on Christ and yet be unfit for the Lords Supper being not sufficiently instructed thereunto Bellar. Enerv. Tom. 3. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. and he expresly saith that Church-children are to be numbred among the Faithful and reckons them to have the beginning of Faith yet not to be admitted to all Ordinances till increase of Faith appear Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12 13. Mr. Hooker takes it for granted as a clear case That one may be a Convert soundly brought home to Christ and yet through his weakness not able to discern the Lords Body aright nor fit to partake of the Supper Survey part 3. pag. 16. And in his Sermons on Gen. 17.23 Pag. 21. He hath these words Baptism is the entrance into Christs Family there is much more to be looked at to make a person capable of the Supper of the Lord a man must be able to Examine himself he must not onely have Grace but growth of Grace he must have so much perfection in Grace as to search his own heart and he must be able to discern the Lords Body or else he is guilty of the Body and blood of Christ so as there is more required in this for there must be a growth But Baptism is our entrance and the lowest degree of Grace will serve here in the judgement of Charity Worthy Hildersam on Psal. 51.5 pag. 257. saith The Infants of the Faithful are said to be Holy not because they are without sin but because in the judgement of the Church they are to be esteemed not Infidels as other Children of Pagans but Christians and Believers and holy and true Members of the Church of God And Hence 1. So soon as they are born they have title to the Seal of Gods Covenant and the Church may not deny it unto then And why may not the Church deny Baptism to any childe of a believing Parent surely because the Church is bound to esteem every such childe not an Infidel but rather a Believer and a true Christian. 2. When they dye we are in Christian Charity to judge that they dye in Gods favour and in the state of Salvation And all this because of the Covenant Gen. 17. as he there addes Yet the same Hildersam would not admit such as these who were born and grew up in the visible Church to the Lords Table without a strict Examination not onely of their Knowledge and Lives but of their Spiritual Estate Doct. of Lords Supper pag. 8 14. All which we produce not as if the Testimony and concurrence of Authors were the Basis that our judgement in this matter stands upon but because this Preface doth both in this place and in other parts of it insinuate to the Reader as if Authority of Writers were for the Dissenters and against the Doctrine of the Synod which is farre from being so the contrary being abundantly and undeniably evident And as we bottom our Faith in this point wholly and onely upon the Scriptures and do referre the decision of this and of all other Theological controversies to the Law and to the Testimony so we acknowledge it to be no small confirmation to us to finde that we have the Concurrence of the Godly-learned The substance of the Congregational-Way may be gathered from the Doctrine Principles of our best and ablest Reforming Divines which doth not a little confirm us in it and delivers it from the Imputation of Novelty or Singularity But should we limit Baptism to so narrow a scantling as our Brethren strive for we should therein go against the whole stream of Divines even of those that have been most eminent in their generations for Learning Holiness and Studiousness of Reformation yea of those from whom our Congregational Leaders have professed to receive their Principles as was abovesaid And we confess our selves conscious to so much of our own weakness that unless we have very clear Light and undeniable Argument constraining us we are slow and fearful to go alone or to go contrary to the concurrent Judgement of our best Divines who if we may use our Brethrens phrase have been Stars of the first Magnitude incomparable Champions for the Truth and have been raised up by Christ to light the Path of Reformation in these later Ages Now as for what is here alledged by our Brethren as favouring their Cause To say That the Catechumeni were not in the Primitive times to be baptized before they were fit for the Lords Supper Consider how it can consist with
the above mentioned practice of Antiquity in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized Indeed as the Darkness and Corruption of the times increased Baptism was not onely deferred till Easter as is here said but till death which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism pag. 182. and we suppose will not be approved by any The Arausiacan Councils 19 Canon doth not concern the matter of Baptism as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists Cent. 5. pag. 907. But however it be it is of small moment The over-long holding off of adult Converts from Baptism that we sometimes reade of in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries was a manifest deviâ—tion from the Apostolical practice We finde also that in Austin's time and some ages after they gave the Lords Supper to Infants yet then we suppose they would give both Sacraments to some Infants whose Parents they debarred from the Lords Supper But if it was indeed a grievous errour to administer the Lords Supper to Infants as is here rightly said by our Brethren how then is Baptism of no greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper Yea let any man shew a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to Infants and not the Lords Supper if the very saâ—e qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other we say absolutely requisite for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receiveth Baptism for himself or for his Children is endued with the better and the more comfortable it is As for that of Iuel That Baptism is as much to be reverenced â—s the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ. And that which follows That former Ages have been farre from looking upon the Lords Supper as being of a more sacred nature then the other Ordinance of Baptism Answ. To assert that Scripture Rules make the Subject of Baptism larger then the Subject of the Lords Supper this doth not detract from the Reverence of Baptism nor render it an Ordinance of a less sacred nature as is here insinuated The Word and Prayer are Ordinances of a very sacred nature and to be highly reverenced and yet many may be admitted unto them that may not be admitted unto Sacraments The Sacredness of every Ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by Divine Institution But the proper ends and uses of one Ordinance may by Divine Institution be such as may admit more to partake of it then of another and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired But the Preface addes Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a farre larger extent then the Lords Supper This hath been one Practical Difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians Answ. Whether it have been onely a late or novell Notion to make Baptism larger then the Lords Supper let the Reader judge when he hath considered the Testimonies before alledged with many more that might have been added thereunto But we are so farre from looking upon a different Latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian Principle or Anti-Congregational as that we perswade our selves the Congregational way cannot long stand without it For if we deny this and administer Baptism to none but those whose Parents do partake of the Lords Supper and so are in full Communion then we must either make full Communion very large which in the Congregational-way where Brethren have so great an interest in Church-transactions will soon ruine all or else make Baptism and consequently the Compass of the visible Church so strait as will never stand before Rational and Scriptural men yea we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church that are in a visible state of Salvation which is absurd for to deny persons Baptism for themselves or Children is to deny them to be within the Compass of the visible Church seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with Church-Membership But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church who were once in and are by no Rule to be put out nay whom God as we may charitably hope taketh into Heaven when they die and that as a fruit of his Covenant-grace which is the case of many of our Children who are not yet come up to full Communion But so much for the second Reason of our Brethrens Dissent The third follows 3. The Parents of the Children in question are not Members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel rules â— because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Which is former proved Because if they be Members then they would be a true Church though all their Parents were dead and then they must have power of Voting in Church-affairs which is denied to them by the Synod Ans. .1 It seems by what is here said that our Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant and that all that never were so are not members of any Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules If this be so then what is become of Childrens Membership which the Apologist before in Answer to Objection Second took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of It seems our Children neither are nor ever were Members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules because they were never under any explicite and personal Covenant Is it come to this that Children are not Members of any Instituted Church How then are they Members of the Catholick visible Church or are they no Members at all the former our Brethren fancy not as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia pag. 19. the latter then remains to be the conclusion Neither will it salve it to say they were Members in Minority though they be not Members now when they are Adult for if all those that were never under any explicite and personal Covenant be no Members of any Instituted Church and if Children were never under any explicite and personal Covenant both which are here said then no Children no not while in Minority are Members of any Instituted Church For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Dr. Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ that Children are Members of an Instituted Church according to Gospel-rules and that they are under personal Covenant i. e. personally 〈◊〉 into Covenant by God according to his Gospel-rules though they have not performed the act of Covenanting in their own persons Yea under explicite Covenant also if the Parents Covenanting was explicite Deut. 29. So Ames They are partakers of the same Covenant and also of the same profession with their Parents Though we take it for a Principle granted by Congregational men with one consent that Implicite Covenant preserves the being of a true Church and so of true Church-membership 2. The Consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd viz. That then in ease all the pro-parents
Baptism unto his Childe Whereunto is added somewhat out of Bucer Parker and Mr. Cotton as concurring with the judgement of our Brethren Ans. Taking Capable of receiving Baptism himself or Right to Baptism himself for a state of Baptism-right or Capacity we may grant the Major but the Minor in manifestly to be denied But taking it for a frame of actual fitness to receive Baptism we cannot say that we may grant the Minor but surely the Major will not hold It is true that That which doth not put a man into a state of right to Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized i. e. into a state of Church-membership will not enable him to give Baptism-right to his Childe If the Parent be not a Member or not in a state of Covenant interest none of us plead for the Childes Baptism And if he be a 〈◊〉 surely he is in the state of a Subject of Baptism or in a state of right to it as all the Members of the visible Church are whatever may de facto hinder it But it is possible for an adult person being in the state of a Member and so of right to Baptism to have something fall in which may hinder the actual application of Baptism to himself in case he were unbaptized or his actual fitness for it And yet the same thing may not hinder a person already baptized and standing in a Covenant-state from conveying Baptism-right to his Childe The reason is because the right of the Childe depends upon the state of the Parent that he be in a state of Membership for if so then Divine Institution carrieth or transmitteth Membership and so Baptism-right to the Childe but the Parents regular partaking of this or that Ordinance for himself depends much upon his own actual fitness for it As suppose an unbaptized adult person admitted into the Church who before he is baptized falls into some great Offence though such a case could hardly fall out if Baptism were administred according to the Rule and Apostolical Practice i. e. immediately upon first Admission Matth. 28.19 Acts 16.33 much more is it an harsh and strange supposition for a Parent that ought to have been and was baptized in his Infancy to be supposed to be yet unbaptized but allowing the supposition that a person 〈◊〉 in adult age falls into Offence before he is baptized he may be called to give satisfaction for it and to shew himself in a more serious and penitent frame before himself receive Baptism but suppose he die before he do that and leave Children behinde him shall not they be baptized In like manner if a person already baptized yea or already in full Communion should fall into offence you would say that would put a stop to his own Baptism in case upon an impossible supposition he were yet unbaptized but what Rule or Reason is there for it to make a particular offence in the Parent to cut oâ— the Childes right to Baptism when as the Parent is notwithstanding that offence still a Member and within the Church and doth not shew any such incorrigibleness as that 〈◊〉 is by Rule to be put out when as the offence doth not cut off the Parents Membership is there any reason it should cut off the Membership of the Childe and if it cut not of the Childes Membership it doth not cut off his right to Baptism Whatever may be said for requiring the Parent to confess his sin before his Childes Baptism in reference to the more expedient and comfortable manner of Administration therein we oppose not yet where doth the Scripture allows us to disannull the Childes right to Baptism upon a particular offence in the Parent especially when it is not such as doth touch upon the Essentials of Christianity and notwithstanding which the Parent is regularly and orderly continued a Member of the Church It remains therefore that there may be obstructions to a Parents receiving Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized which do not incapacitate a baptized Parent to transmit if we may attribute transmitting to a Parent which is properly the act of Gods Institution and Covenant right of Baptism unto his Childe But for the Minor or Assumption of the Argument in hand it will not hold in either of the senses of the Proposition above given For 1. We will readily grant that if the Parent be not in a state of Baptism-right himself i. e. in a state of Membership he cannot convey Baptism-right to his Childe but how manifest is it that that which the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition doth render the persons there described in a state of right to Baptism for themselves in case they were unbaptized viz. In a state of Membership in the visible Church for the Proposition speaks of Church-members such as were admitted Members in minority and do orderly and regularly so continue and that a state of Membership is a state of Baptism-right or that all Church-members are in the state of Subjects of Baptism is an evident Truth that cannot be denied by any that grant the Synods first Proposition for which there is Sun-light in Scripture and never was Orthodox Divine heard of that questioned it Hence according to that Ruled Case here mentioned the Parents in question having themselves a title to Baptism may intitle others they have not onely a title to it but regular and actual Possession of it for they are baptized and in case they were yet unbaptized they would being Church-members have a title of right unto it they would stand possessed of an interest in a title to it as Mr. Hooker in the place here alledged speaks whatever might de facto hinder their enjoyment of it And as à non habente potestatem acts are invalid so ab habente potestatem they are valid and good but God hath full power to give forth what Grants he pleaseth and he hath in the order of his Covenant in the visible Church granted a Membership and so Baptism-right unto Children born of Parents that are Members and so the Parent that stands Member of the Church hath as an instrument under God and from his Grant power to 〈◊〉 such a right unto his Childe Children are within the Covenant because they come from Parents within the Covenant in which they were included and so received also by God saith Mr. Hooker in the place that is here cited Survey part 3. pag. 18. 2. It is not to be yielded that the Parents described by the Synod in their fifth Proposition would not have right to Baptism themselvâ—s in case they were unbaptized though you take Right to Baptism for actual and immediate fitness for the same in fero Ecclesia Surely he will have an hard talk who shall undertake out of Scripture or Orthodox Divines to shew that Adult persons understanding and believing the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing the same not scandalous in life and solemnly taking hâ—ld of the Covenant wherein they
said to enter into it Grounds and Ends c. pag. 132 133. and therefore it is a mistake to say or think of such Elders as concurred with the Synod That what is done by them towards the children of Church-members being now adult is an admitting of them into Membership for this those children had afore they were adult and therefore they are not now admitted into it But to leave this Why should the Reverend Author suggest such a thing into the mindes of his Readers That the Elders in their Practice do differ from their Doctrine and teach one thing in the Synod and in their Practice do contrary Were it not more suitable to Love which thinketh not evil 1 Cor. 13. nor receiveth a reproach against ones Neighbour Psal. 15. to endeavour to bring such Elders as are thus faulty if indeed there be any to Repentance for their sailing therein rather then to give occasion of mis-apprehensions against them by writing thus of them It may well be called misapprehension for there are few of the Elders in comparison that have yet put the children of Church-members to a publick owning of the covenant afore the time of their admission to full communion and for those few that have done it as this was not an admitting of them into Membership for that they had before so it would be hard to prove that when this was done that their Infants might be Baptized which is the case the Synod speaks of it would be hard we say to prove that the parents who so did were not qualified according as the fifth Proposition describeth And therefore to give occasion of other thoughts not only against some few of the Elders but even of all for what is here intimated is not of some onely but of all alike without difference what may be thought of this we leave to the further consideration of the Reverend Author To the second Argument of the Synod That the children of the Parents in question are either children of the Covenant or strangers from the Covenant either holy or unclean either within the Church or without either such as have God for their God or are without God in the world but he that considers the Proposition will not affirm the latter concerning these children and the former being granted infers their right to Baptism To this the Reverend Author answereth That the more he considers the Proposition the less he findes in it to evince the former and the more to conclude the latter Ans. Now the latter is that the children of the Parents in question are strangers from the Covenant not holy but unclean and without the Church and such as are without God in the world And if the Reverend Author finde so much to conclude thus of the children of Church-members which Members understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto are not scandalous in life but thus and further qualified as in the Proposition is expressed if he finde much to conclude thus of these children if he be had expressed any part thereof it might have been taken into consideration but nothing being expressed how can it A meer contrary Affirmation how can it go for a sufficient Confutation As for that which he addeth That if a man have no more then the Proposition holds forth he may be a stranger from the Covenant unclean and without the Church c. Is not this spoken of grown persons and therefore how is the Synods Argument hereby touched which speaketh of little children Nor is it easily proved that a grown person who was admitted in minority and is now qualified as the Proposition expresseth that such a grown person is now a stranger from the Covenant and without the Church and without God in tâ—â— world and this is respect of his external state or being in the church-Church-visible we see not that this is proved at all For as for Rom. 9.6 7 8. which is here alledged They are not all Israel which are of Israel c. the Text may prove that they are not all elected of God or sincere Believers who in regard of external relation are Members of the visible Church and this will be easily granted but for Membership in the Church-visible of which is our question that text hath nothing in it at all to prove That men who were members of this Church in their minority being now qualified as the Synod expresseth that these are now without such Membership and externall state this is not proved at all by this Text. For if we shall so say we shall make the Apostle to contradict himself for of these very persons and people of whom â—e saith They are not all Israel not all children not all the children of God c. of these very persons and people he said ver 4. that they are Israelites to whom pertaineth the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the Service of God and the Promises that is they were Gods adopted children in regard of external Covenant and were Members of the Church-visible and yet these were not all Israel that is they were not all Gods Israel by election and spiritual regeneration Thus the Apostles words are easily reconciled But how shall they be reconciled if the latter as well as the former be meant of the Church-visible Can they be Israelites and not Israel in the same respect Can they in respect of external state be partakers of Adoption Gods Covenant and Promises c. and so be Church-members and yet in regard of the same estate be no Church-members at all nor in the Church-covenant at all It is not easie to conceive how this can be and therefore the words in Rom. 9.6 7 8. are not fitly applied to prove that men who were Church-members in their minority may be qualified as the fifth Proposition expresseth and yet now be strangers from the Covenant and without the Church in respect of their visible and externall state Whereas the Synod for a third Argument saith That to deny this Proposition would be 1. To stratten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation and to make the Church in New-Testament-times in worse case relating to their children successively then were the Iews of old 2. To render the Iews when they shall be called in a worse condition then under the Legal administration contrary to Jer. 30.20 Ezek 37.25 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant to whom the Mosaical dispensation nay the first Institution appointed it to be applied Gen. 17.9 10. Joh. 7.22 23. 4. To break the Covenant by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 14. To this the Reverend Author answereth That the contrary to all and every one of these is true for 1. It enlargeth the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame then
it not a vain thing The person whom you are about to Disown is either within the Church or withâ—ut a Member or not a Member If he be within why may you not judge and censure him with the Censure of cutting off or casting out i. e. Excommunication 1 Cor. 5.12 13. there being cause for it If he be without why should you disown him any more then you do Non-members or such as were never joyned to the Church Would it not seem a strange and vain thing if the Church should put forth a solemn publick Act to disown a company of Non-members that are without the Church to what purpose should this be How Acts 8.21 here cited in the Margin should make for this disowning we understand not Peter there tells Simon Magus that he was farre from having any part or lot in the matter of conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost which he never had but ambitiously aspired after but doth not declare that he had Discovenanted himself or had lost his Membership which he once had And whatever became of Simon Magus afterward of which the Scripture is silent and stories uncertain there is no ground to think that he was then put out of the Church or lost his Membership But rather the Apostle by grave Apostolical Rebuke and Counsel applies himself to him as to one in the Church to bring him to Repentance and to that sincerity of grace which he yet wanted Versâ— 22 13. As for the Reason here rendred why Excommunication agrees not to the Children in question viz. because It is applicable to none but those who have been in full Communion This is but a begging of the Question and carrieth not Evidence of Truth with it 〈◊〉 Excommunication i. e. the utmost Censure so called doth not properly or nextly debarre or exclude from full Communion but it cutteth off from Membership rendreth a person as an Heathen and Publican Mat. 18.17 and so from that Communion that belongeth to a Member as such When a person that hath stood for some time Admonished is afterward for his contumacy excommunicated it is not Excommunication that doth immediately and properly put him out of full Communion for that was done by Admonition whereby being Ecclesiastically unclean he was justly suspended from eating of the Holy things but Excommunication cuts him off from Membership which Admonition did not Hence it is not full Communion but Membership that doth properly and formally render a person a subject capable of Excommunication Hence it agrees to all that are Members though they have not been in full Communion and every Member hath some Communion though not full Communion and therefore may be excommunicated Paul when he is speaking of the Churches judicial proceeding and that unto Excommunication makes it applicable to all that are within 1 Cor. 5.12 if in full Communion yet Church-judgement fâ—lls upon them not as in full Communion but as within The casting out of Cain and Ishmael the cutting off of the born Members of the Church of Israel from their People an expression often used the casting out of the children of the Kingdome Matth. 8.12 do at least by consequence and by proportion and parity of Reason shew that the Children in question may be cast out and cut off from the Church by the Censure of Excommunication As for that term of Formal Excommunication we know not that we are limited to this or that precise form of words in Excommunicating one sort or other but the formal nature of the thing viz. a putting of one out of the Church that was before in it This well agrees to the persons in question We pass by the fifth and last Objection which chargeth our Dissenting Brethren with Weakness Ignorance c. as containing nothing that is Argumentative to the matter in hand Neither do we own the Objection unless it be against our selves who are as we have acknowledged in our Preface to the Synods conclusions poor feeble frail men desiring not to trust unto or boast of any strength of our own which is none at all but onely to the strength and grace of Jesus Christ withall acknowledging that grace of his whereby he doth vouchsafe sometimes to reveal his Truth unto Babes We tender onely Scriptures and Scripture-arguments for that which we maintan desiring that they may be impartially considered without challenging to our selves or pleading for the Reputation of Strength or Wisdome In Disputes of this nature it is impossible but that eâ—ch part should look upon the Arguments on either hand as strong or weak according as they are perswaded But can we not deal with Arguments without being supposed to reflect upon the Persons each of other We suppose you do not see sufficient strength in our Arguments for then you would judge as we do and in that sense you do impute weakness to them In the like sense do we unto yours but desire to do it without any harsh reflexions upon the Persons of our Brethren and without liftings up in our selves who have cause enough to lye in the dust before God and man But here our Brethren take occasion to set down the Reasons of their Dissent from the Synod which make up a second main Part of this Preface The Consideration whereof we shall now address our selves unto Reason 1. The Synod did acknowledge That there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent according to the judgement of rational Charity or else the Châ—lâ—e ought not to be baptized But they would not let this which themselves acknowledged be set down though our Vnity lay at the stake for it Answ. The regular receiver of the Truth is one that divides the Hoof as well as chews the Cud one that doth not take all in a Lump but distinguishes and rightly divides between things that differ We are to distinguish here 1. Between Faith in the being or first beginning of it whereby one is or is reputed to be in the state of a Believer the Charitable judgement whereof runs upon a great Latitude and Faith in the special exercise of it whereby one is fit for that special Communion with and active Fruition of Christ which is the scope of the Lords Supper unto the visible discovery whereof more lively Fruits and more experienced Operations of Faith are requisite 2. Distinguish between the internal Grace it self which is required of them that partake of Sacraments in the sight of God and those external signs of that Grace which the Church is to proceed upon in her Admission of persons unto Sacraments These two Distinctions being attended and rightly applied will help to clear both the Truth it self in this matter from mistakes and the Proceedings of the Synod from those uncomfortable Reflexions that are here cast upon them The former of these Distinctions and the application thereof to the matter in hand we have in Dr. Ames Children saith he are not to be admitted to partake of all Church-priviledges
untill first increase of Faith do appear but from those which belong to the beginning of Faith and entrance into the Church they are not to be excluded Where the Doctor distinguisheth between Initium Fidei The beginning of Faith and Incrementum Fidei The increase or growth of Faith and makes the former to suffice unto Baptism but the latter to be requisite to full Communion or to the Lords Supper An initial Faith entitleth to the Seal of Initiation but a grown Faith i. e. a Faith of some growth though yet farre short of Perfection and needing to grow still a Faith growing up unto some sensible and lively exercise is requisite unto the Sacrament of growth and fruition They were Believers yet but initial Believers that Iohn baptized in the first dawning or beginning of the Gospel Mark 1.1 4. The Apostles constantly baptized persons upon the first beginning of their Christianity but the Lords Supper followed after as annexed to some progress in Christianity The latter Distinction also is obvious and necessary Who ought to come and Who ought to be admitted are two distinct Questions say Vrsin and Parem We grant that true saving Faith and Repentance is required by God of those that partake of Sacraments for themselves or for their Children But the Question is what are the external signs and tokens of that Grace which an Ecclesiastical charitable Reputation may proceed upon for we can go no further then the judgement of rational Charity as here our Brethren acknowledge and that proceeds upon outward probable signs leaving the infallible knowledge of the heart to God onely The distinction between a Iew outwardly or a visible Jew that hath praise of or approbation among men and inwarâ—lyâ—â—at â—â—at hath praise of God is a Scripture-distinction Rom. 2.28 29. and is necessary to be attended hâ—re for De â—ecultis non judicat Ecclesia 1 Cor. 4.5 And here also we conceive that the same strictness as to outward signs is not necessary unto a charitable probable judâ—ement or hope of the being of Faith or of that initial Faith that entitleth to Bapâ—ism as is unto the like judgement of the speâ—ial exerâ—ise of Faith that is requisite to the Lords Supper there be many things that do both really and in the just reputation of men hinder the exercise of Grace and so hinder from the Lords Supper which yet do not awayâ— charitable hope of the Being of Grace or the state of a Believer If a man be under Offence in the Church he is suspended from the Lords Supper till a renewing or exercise of Repentance do appear yet we still repute him to be in the state of a Believer or to have the Being of Grace Now then to apply this to the Synods proceedings for Answer to what is here sâ—id viz. That the Synod did acknowledge there ought to be true saving Faith in the Parent to the judgement oâ— rational Charity or else the Childe ought not to be Baptized yet could not be prevailed with to set this down â—â—r a Conclusion 1. We did and do acknowledge that in Ecclesiastical Charitable Reputation there must be Faith yea true saving Faith those words hurt us not provided they be not so strained as to turn Charity into Râ—gid Seâ—erity i. e. the being of Faith whereby a person is accounted to be in the state of a Believer Baptism being as was in the Synod alledged annexed properly to the state of a Believer or to the Covenant-state of a person and not to the present act or exercise of Faith and hence though there be no Parent alive to act for the Childe and the Childe cannot at present act for it self yet that hinders not its Baptism but we did not acknowledge it was necessary there should be Faith in the lively and special exercise of it such as we justly require an appearance of unto rational Charity in order unto full Communion which is that our Brethren aim at and stand for in all whose Children they will have Baptized And to set down a conclusion in general terms when the nature of the case calls for distinctâ—ess is not rational 2 Our main Work was to consider of and pitch upon such external Signs and Characters as the Churches Charity might and should proceed upon in this case We all own that onely visible Believers or visible Saints are to have their Children Baptized but the Question is Who are to be accounted visible Believers and we say that those described in the fâ—â—â—h Proposition are of that nuâ—bâ—r To have put it in such a general term as Those that profeâ—s or hold forth Faith and Repentance unto the satisfaction of rational Charity had been to leave the matter as obscure as we found it and in stead of giving light to the Churches which is the end of Synods to leave theâ— in the dark without any help to discover their way for still they are to seek who those are that are to be accounted Professors of Faith and Repentance and what Profession that is that Charity may accept in order to their Childrens Baptism Besides it is well known that those expressions Of holding forth Faith and Repentance c. have been constantly so taken in this Country as to hold forth the qualifications required for full Communion and that was it which our Brethren strove for so to screw up the Expreâ—sions for Bapâ—ism as that all that have their Children Baptized must unavoidably be brought to the Lords Table and to a power of Voting in our Churches wherein we cannot consent to them and however we are charged with corrupting the Churches yet we believe time will shew that that Principle that over inlargeth full Communion or that will have all of whom we can have any hope that they have any good in theâ— to come to the Lords Table this we say will prove a Church-corrupting Principle and those that have laboured to keep up the pâ—rtition here will be found to have been sâ—riously Studious of the Parity and safety of the Churches 3. But when it is 〈◊〉 that the Synod could not be brought to express what themselves acknowledge 〈◊〉 that the Parent whose Childe iâ— baptized must have Faith to the judgâ—ent of Charity or which is all one must be a visible believer we desire it may be considered with what Truth this can be 〈◊〉 for it was offered â—gain and again to express it 〈◊〉 plaiâ—ly and particularly if that would have satisfied as thâ—se that were present in those agitations too long here to be inserted may reâ—eâ—ber and the Proposition made â—as refused by some of themselves that dissented but it is competently expressed in the Synods Result as now Printed for when we limit the Baptizable to confederate visible Believers and their Infant-seed in Propos. 1. 2. and then say that those described in Propos. 5 6 7. are to have their Children Baptized doth it not imply that the Parents there described are Confederate visible
believers unless you will make us to speak inconsistencies Again it is 〈◊〉 made one Argument to prove the fifth Proposition that The Parents there described are Confederate visible believers And do we not then express this that the Parent whose Childâ— is to be Baptized must be a Confederate visible Believer and is not that all one as to have true Faith in the judgement oâ— Charity How then is it here said that the Synod would not let this which themselves acknowledged be expressed though our Vnity lay at the stake for it surely such misrepresentation of things with so much injurious reflexion should be forborn by Godly Brethren If that would have Vnited us to own that the Parent must be a visible Believer it was owned and granted toties quoâ—ies and is contained in the Propositions and Arguments as any Intelligent Reader will easily see But the disagreement lay here that your selves would not consent to any such acceptation or to any such Characters or Expressions of a visible Beâ—â—ever but such as should unavoidably bring Him into full Communion And we diâ—â—ered about this Who are visible Believers Not whether the Parents that have Baptism for their Children must be such In sum the Reason of our disagreement was not because we would not own our own Principle as is here strangely represented but because we could not Consent to yours and because you refused to have a common Principle any way expressed but so as might suit with your own Nation though our Unity lay at the stake for it Reason 2. The second Reason which our Brethren here give of their dissent from the Synod stands thus There is no warrant in all Scripture to apply the Seal of Baptism unto those Children whose Parents are in a state of unfiâ—ness for the Lords Supper But the Parents in question are in a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper therefore there is no warrant in all the Scripture to Baptize their Children this we suppose is the Assumption and Conclusion that is understood if this second Reason be intended as a Reason of their dissent from the Synods fifth Proposition Unless it be intended onely as a dissent from that which is â—â—uched and contained in the Synods Discourse viz. that Some may have their Children Baptized who yet are short of actual fitness for the Lords Supper But the Answer to it will take in both And the Answer will easily be given if once we understand distinctly what is meant by A state of unfitness for the Lords â—upper now by a state of unfitness must be meant either Non-membership and that is indeed a state of unfitness for the Lords Supper which belongs onely to the Church though not to all in the Church yet onely to it and in this sense the Assumption above mentioned is denied for the Parents in question are Members of the Church and in that respect in a state of fitness for the Lords supper i. e. being in the Church or Members thereof to them belong all Church-priviledges according as they shall be capable thereof and appear duely qualified for the same they have jus ad rem though not jus in re as a Childe hath a right to all his Fathers Estate though he may not ought not to have the actual use and fruition of it till he become to years and be qualified with abilities to manage it A Free â—an is in a state of fitness to be a Magâ—straâ—e or Deputy or in some other office proper to Freemen though for want of Particulâ—r quâ—lifications or orderly admission by Election he may haply never be one In such a sense every Church-member is in a state of fitness for the Lords Supper Or else by A state of unfitness for the Lords Supper is 〈◊〉 Want of actual qualifications fitting for it whereby a person either is in himself short of actual fitness for the Lords Table or wanteth Church approâ—ation of his fitness and â—o wanteth an orderly admission thereunto Now in this sense we deny the Major or Proposition of the Argument above mentioned and do conceive that there iâ— warrant to be â—â—und in Scripture for the applying of Baptism to Children 〈◊〉 Parents do want actual qualifications fitting them for the Lords Supper Among sundry other Scripture evidences of it one is from the Analogie of the Passeover and Circumcision in the Church of Iâ—rael where the Parâ—nt might want actual fitness for the Passeover by manifold Ceremonial uncleannesses and yet that hindred not the Circumcising of the Childe Now a liberty of arguing from thence to the Gospel passeover and Gospel-circumcision i. e. to the Lords Supper and Baptism is here granted and allowed but 't is Answered that Vnless the Father were in a state of fitness for the Passeover he was not fit to have his Childe Circumcised Reply Whâ—t state of fitness was the unclean Iewish Parent in but onely a state of membership He was a Member of the Church and so 〈◊〉 the Parents in question and they need not do not enter into a new Membership when they are admitted to the Lords Table no more then the Iewish Parent after his cleansing did But in two things the case of the Ceremonially-unclean Jewish Parent holds proportion with the case in hand 1. He must have other and better qualifications then he hath at present before he eat of the Passover he is at present in a state of Legal impurity and so in regard of actual qualifications in a state of unfitness but he must be in a state of Legal purity and cleanness before he partake of the holy things 2. He must especially after some uncleannesses of a more remarkable nature be judged and Pronounced by the Priest to be clean and so free to partake of the holy things Levit. 13.6 So the Parents in question must have their fitness for the Lords Table judged of and approved by those in the Church to whom the power of such judgement and approbation doth belong And having these two things Personal qualifications and Church-approbation then and not before they are to come to the Lords Table and those two are all they need they do not need a new admittance into Membership as if they were before not of the Church no more then the Israelitish Parent did If any one object that this Legal uncleanness was but an accidental and ceremonial thing and did not import the want of any Moral or Essential fitness for the Passover Let him consider That as the Discipline then was mostly Ceremonial and hence Legal purity was then an essential qualification unto a regular fitness for the Passover and other holy things and the want of it a reall barre so those Ceremonies pointed unto Moral and Spiritual things to be attended by us now Their Legal cleansings washings c. did import and signifie a special exercise of Faith and Repentance which therefore we may well require in those whom we admit unto full Communion in the holy things of
the Gospel yet the present defect hereof doth not put the Parent out of the Church nor exclude his Children from Membership or from the Initiatory Seal of it no more then a-like defect did then We might also minde the case of one that hath been in full Communion but falling into Offence is under publick Admonition for it Is not he in a state of unfitness taking it for want of actual fitting qualifications for the Lords Supper yet this will not debarre his Childe from Baptism because he is not yet cut off from Membership Neither doth his having once been in full Communion alter the case or render him more in a state of fitness then the Parent in question is for the one is a Member as well and as truely as the other and to be declined and fallen off from Supper-qualifications and debarred from the Lords Table for open Offence is worse then for a young man simply not to have attained thereunto it is at least Ecclesiasticalâ—y worse We speak not of what the inward state before God may be but that it is worse in foro Ecclesiae appears Because the Church hath had and seen cause to dispense a publick Censure in the one case but not in the other Now if a person may retain his Membership and so derive Baptism-right to his Children notwithstanding his personal unfitness for the Lords Supper in the former case why not as well nay much more in the latter But let it seriously be considered whether there be any warrant in all the Scripture to make the baptizing of the Childe to depend upon the Parents actual fitness for or admission to the Lords Supper What fitness for the Lords Supper had those that were baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christs Disciples at his appointment in the beginning of his publick Ministry What fitness had the Iaylor when himself and all his were baptized after an hours Instinction wherein probably he had not so much as heard any thing of the Lords Supper The teaching of which followed after Discipling and Baptizing as is hinted by that order in Matth. 28.19 20 and by the ancient practice of not teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lords Supper till after they were baptized as is witnessed by Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 13 14. Albaspinans apud Baxter of Confirmation pag. 132. We constantly read in the story of the Acts that persons were Baptized immediately upon their first entrance into Membership but we never read that they did immediately upon their first Membership receive the Lords Supper which strongly argues that Membership and Baptism the Seal thereof is separable even in the adult from full Communion And that a man may have his Children baptized as the Iaylor and others had and yet not presently come but need further instruction and preparation before he come to the Lords Supper So farre is Baptism from being inseparable from immediate admission to the Lords Supper that we reade of no one no not of the â—dult in all the New Testament thaâ— was admitted to the Lords Supper immediately upon his Baptism from the first Baptism of Iohn to the end of the Acts of the Apostles There is but one place that sounds as if it were quickly after viz. Acts 2.41 42. which is here alledged by our Brethren But to that 1. There is no word about the Lords Supper in Peters Sermon the Heads whereof are in that Chapter set down though tâ—ere is somewhat of the other Sacrament of Baptism ver 38. and upon glad receiving 〈◊〉 is word they were baptized immediately ver 41. 2. Hence there must be some time afterward for instructing them in the doctrine and use of the Lords Supper as Paul nad some time for that aâ— Corinth 1 Cor. 11.23 with Acts 18.11 before their admission tâ—ereunto or participation thereof and so much is â—â—â—imated in the Text when it s said They after their being added and baptized continued in or gave sedulous attendance to the Apostles Doctrine fiâ—st and then Breaking of Bread There was some time of gaining further acquaintance with Christ and with his Wayes and Ordinances and with this in special by the Apostles Doctrine and Instruction between their baptizing and their participation of the Supper some time we say more or less and that that was attained in a very little time then under those plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit requires usually a much longer time now in ordinary Dispensation The Preface proceeds to strengthen their second Reason by Testimonies and the Assertion which they seem to intend the Proof of by these Testimonies is a very strange one viz. this Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater Latitude as to the Subject thereof then the Lords Supper but the contrary These words as they are here set down do speak as if in the Primitive times Baptism was not extended unto Infants or at least no more nor sooner then the Lords Supper was given unto them which is here presently well acknowledged to have been a grievous Errour Well might the Anabaptist triumph if this could be proved which indeed never was nor can be But we are willing to believe that our Brethrens meaning is though it be not so expressed that the Subject of Baptism in Ancient times was not of a greater Latitude as to the Adult then the Lords Supper i. e. that no adult persons might have Baptism for themselves or for their Children but such as were also admitted to the Lords Supper But of this also we must say That we finde not any thing that proves it but much to the contrary And though we have not met with any that have purposely handled this Point touching the different extent of these two Sacraments yet we finde enough to shew us That the Churches of Christ in all especially in the best Ages and the choicest Lights therein both Ancient and Modern have concurred and met in this Principle as a granted and undoubted Truth that baptism is of larger extent then the Lords Supper so as that many that are within the visible Church may have Baptism for themselves or at least for their Chilâ—ren who yet ought not presently to partake of the Lords Supper or who do at present want actual fitness for it The Witnesses above cited tell us that in Ancient times they did not so much as impart any thing to the Caâ—echumeni about the Lords Supper till after their Baptism And if Hanmer have rightly observed even the Adult after their Baptism must have Confirmation before they partaked of the Lords Supper Hanmer of Confirmation pag. 15 22. And vid. pag. 59. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Perfectus among the Ancients is as much as with us one in full Communion but none were by them recâ—oned to be 〈◊〉 in the Rank of perfect Christians that had not received the holy Ghost either in extraordinary Gifts or in special confirming Grace See Hanmer of Confirmat
from Iohn's requiring of qualifications over and above Membership be answered with reference to Infant-baptism and that will answer it as to the case in hand We remember in Debates between the Elders and an Antipoedâ—baptist many years since this very Argument was urged by him and the same Answer that was given then we shall give here Viz. 1. That meerly to be a Member of the Old-Testament Iewish Church or simply to be in Covenant or Confederate under the Old-Testament manner of Administration sufficeth not to Baptism but to be in the Church and Covenant of the New-Testament to be a Member of a Gospel Church stated and setled under the Gospel manner of Administration this is that which Right to Baptism stands upon and here Membership alone sufficeth thereunto When we say that Members of the visible Church Confederates c. are to be Baptized we must needs be understood to speak of the visible Church or of Covenant-interest under the New Testament and Gospel-administration which is founded upon Christ already come And it were most absurd and irrational to understand us otherwise we having now no other Church or Covenant to speak of but that Old Testament-Church-membership gave right to Circumcision New-Testament Church-membership gives right to Baptism But at the transition from Old to New or at the first setting up of the Gospel-administration oâ— Kingdome of Heaven as 't is called and of Baptism the entring seal thereof in Iohn Baptists's and Christ's time well might more be required then bare Membership in the Iewish Church which was then also under great corruption and degeneracy Hence all the Members of the Church of the Iews were not Baptized but onely those that in some degree embraced the new and reformed Administration in order to which a special Repentance was then necessary Mat. 3.2 But to inferre from hence a necessity of qualifications superadded unto Membership in stated Christian or Gospel-Churches in order to Baptism-right will not hold there is a wide difference between the case of Ecclesia Christiana Constituenda and Constituta In those first beginnings of the Gospel even Pious persons and men fearing God such as the Eunuch and Cornelius must have further Instruction and preparation before they could be Baptized may a man thence inferre that now in the Christian Church Constituted a Christian or Church-member that feareth God is not Baptizable without further qualifications 2. Much of what was required by Iohn Baptist of the Members of the Iewish Church before he Baptized them may be referred to the manner of Administration and was upon that account attended in a case so circumstanced as that was for that by reason of their church-Church-state though so degenerate as they were they were in a farre other and neerer capacity then Non-members and that thereby they had a Right to the ministrations of Iohn and Christ among them is plain from many Scriptures Luk. 1.16 Iohn 1.11 Mat. 10.6 15.24 26. Rom. 15.8 But those that were then to be Baptized at that first Institution of Baptism and beginning of the Gospel-administration being adult persons and they defiled with Scandal and Degeneracy yea having much lost the Truth of Doctrine in many poinst hence they could not be brought to entertain that beginning of the Gospel as 't is called Mark 1.1 2. and Baptism the Sign and Seal thereof without previous convictions and penitential preparations by the powerful Ministry of the Baptist. But it doth not appear that more was pre-required of them then what was necessary to an humble submitting to the Ordinance and to that new and reforming Administration then on foot which was betokened and sealed thereby And he that shall consider the multitudes that were Baptized by Iohn Mat. 3.5 6. Luk. 3.7 21. in the short time of his Ministry and in those glimmerings of Gospel-light that they then had together with the great weakness and rawness of some that he Baptized Iohn 3.25 26. Act. 19.1 5. will not think that the persons Baptized by Iohn did excell those whom the Synod describeth in their fifth Proposition of which our Brethren were so sensible in their Anti-synodalia pag. 18. that there they chose rather to wave Iohns Practice and to seek for stricter presidents though here they plead and that rightly and truely that Iohn's Baptism was Christian Baptism and holds forth a Rule unto us As for that Confession of sins in Mat. 3.6 when our Children do in their Assens to the Doctrine of Faith and Consent to the Covenant acknowledge their sin and misery by nature their perishing condition without Christ c. are willing to submit to Instruction and Government for the Reformation of their sins as those that were Baptized by Iohn shewed their penitential frame by that viz. a submission to his Instructions and Counsels Luk. 3.10 14. they cannot be denyed to have somewhat of that confession of sin So Chemnit on the place They acknowledged themselves to be sinners and both in words and by their action in desiring to be baptized they professed their fear of the wrath of God and desire to escape it But if any do stand guilty of Open Scandals we know not why they should not make particular Confession of their sin therein when they come to present themselves before God and desire Baptism for their Children if they have not done it before so saith the same Chemnitius in the same place of them Moreover such as stood guilty of more grievous falls did also confess them in particular To be sure they should by the Discipline of the Church be brought to that whether they had Children to be baptized or no but then may be a fitting season for it Thus there may be cause and call for a special Repentance in special cases when persons have so carried it as to shake their standing in the visible Church and although the Rule owns the Childe to be a Member of the Church and so a Subject of Baptism while it allows the Parent to be a Member not cut off yet it is a Covenant-duty of the Parent to confess his sin in such a case and so shall Baptism be administred with greater honour to God and comfort to all that are concerned But otherwise while the Parent that was born in the Church regularly continues in it without Scandal he is Ecclesiastically accounted to have the being of Repentance and so to have the thing which Iohn required of them though not the same modus of Manifestation and discovery thereof Now follows the fifth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent which is this That which will not make a man capable of receiving Baptism himself in case he were unbaptized doth not make him capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his Childe but all that the Synod hath said will not give a man Right to Baptism himself in case he were unbaptized therefore all that the Synod hath said is not enough to make a man capable of transmitting right of
applied to them In all this therefore we see no sufficient Ground or Reason to necessitate a Dissent from the Synod Our Brethren have one thing more yet to adde viz. That there is Danger of great Corruption and Pollution creeping into the Churches by the Enlargement of the Subject of Baptism Answ. 1. And is there no danger of Corruption by Over-straitning the Subject of Baptism Certainly it is a Corruption to take from the Rule as well as to adde to it and a Corruption that our weakness is in danger of And it is a dangerous thing to be guilty of breaking Gods Covenant by not applying the Initiating Seal unto those it is appointed for even unto all that are in Covenant Gen. 17.9 10 14. Moses found danger in it Exod. 4.24 Is there no danger of putting those out of the visible Church whom Christ would have kept in and depriving them of those Church advantages Rom. 3.1 2. that might help them toward Heaven Even Christs own Disciples may be in danger of incurring His displeasure by keeping poor little oneâ— away from him Mark 10.13 14. To go pluck up all the Tares was a â—ealous motion and had a good intention but the Housholder concludes there 's danger in it of plucking up the Wheat also 2. If the enlargement be beyond the bounds of the Rule it will bring in corruption else not our work is therefore to study the Rule and keep close to that as the onely true way to the Churches Purity and Glory To go aside from that to the Right hand wlll bring corruption as well as to go to the left The way of Anabaptists viz. to admit none to Membership and Baptism but adult Professors is the straitest way and one would think it should be a way of great Purity but Experience hath abundantly shewed the contrary that it hath been an Inlâ—t to great corruption and looseness both in Doctrine and Practice and a troublesome dangerous underminer of Reformation It is the Lords own way and his Institutions onely which he will bless and not mans Inventions though never so plausible neither hath God in his wisdome so instituted the frame of his Covenant and the constitution of the Church thereby as to make a perfect separation between good and bad or to make the work of Conversion and initial Instruction needless in the Churches Conversion 〈◊〉 to the Children of the Covenant a fruit of the Covenant saith Mr Coâ—ton If we do not keep in the way of a Converting Grace-giving Covenant and keep persons under those Church-dispensations wherein Grace is given the Church will dye of a Lingring though not of a Violent death The Lord hath not set up Churches onely that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live and then carry away the Church into the cold grave with them when they dye no but that they might with all the care and with all the Obligations and Advantages to that care that may be 〈◊〉 up still successively another Generation of Subjects to Christ that may stand up in his Kingdome when they are gone that so he might have a People and Kingdome successively continued to him from one Generation to another We may be very injurious to Christ as well as to the Souls of men by too much straitning and narrowing the bounds of his Kingdome or visible Church here on Earth Certainly enlargement so it be a regular enlargement thereof is a very desirable thing it is a great honour to Christ to have many willing Subjects as these are willing and desirous to be under the Government of Christ that we plead for and very suitable to the Spirit and Grace of Christ in the Gospel In Church-reformation it is an observable Truth saith â—areus on the Parable of the Tares That those that are for too much strictness do more buâ—t then profit the Church See Diodaâ—e on Matt. 13.29 Cyprian Epist. 51. 3. There is apparently a greater â—anger of Corruption to the Churches by enlarging the Subjects of full Communion and admitting unqualified or meanly qualified persons to the Lords Table and Voting in the Church whereby the interest of the power of Godliness will soon be prejudiced and Elections Admissions Censures so carried as will be hazardous thereunto Now it is evâ—dent that this is and will be the Temptation viz. to ever-enlarge full Communion it Baptism be limited to the Children of such as are admitted thereunto And it is easie to observe that many of the Reasonings of our Brethren and others are more against the Non-admission of the Parents in question to full Communion then against the Admission of their Children to Baptism How unreasonable is it then to object against us â—s Corrupters of the Churches when we stand for a greater strictness then they in that wherein the main danger of Church-corrupting lyes We doubt not to affirm That that Principle which hath been held forth by our Brethren viz. That if the Church can have any hope of persons that they have any thing of Faith and Grace iâ— them though never so little they ought being adult to be admitted to full Communion this we say will if followed bring corruptions and impurities into Churches for he must abandon all the Rules of Charity that cannot hope this of multitudes of young persons that grow up among us who yet if they were presently admitted to full Communion we should soon feel a change in the management of Churchâ—affairs and the Interest of Formality and common Profession would soon be advanced above the Interest of the power of Godliness Whether we be in the right in this matter of strictness as to full Communion Scripture and Reason must determine and were this the place of that dispute we have much to say in it and to be sure the Practice of these Churches hitherto hath been for it as also their Profession in the Synod in 1648. Platform of Discipline Cap. 12. Sect. 7. Hence to depart from that would be a real departure from our former Practice and Profession Whereas to Enlarge Baptism to the Children of all that stand in the Church is but a progress to that Practice that suits with our Profession But certain it is that we are and stand for the Purity of the Churches when as we stand for such qualifications as we do in those we would admit to full Communion and do withstand those Notions and Reasonings that would inferre a Laxness therein which hath apparent peril in it But we can hardly imagine what hurt it would do or what danger of spoiling the Churches there is in it for poor Children to be taken within the verge of the Church under the wings of Christ in his Ordinances and to be under Church-care and Discipline and Government for their Souls good to be in a state of Initiation and Education in the Church of God and consequently to have Baptism which is the Seal of Initiation when as they shall not
the other with the term of Members according to Scripture or according to Christs Ordinance if it be granted that such Members are the subjects of Baptisme then the Doctrine of the Synod in this point is granted As for what is here said to that Proposition if this term according to Scripture be not omitted but taken in viz. That according to Scripture the Covenant was differently administred in diffâ—rent times of the Church which different manner of administration is here pag. 22. and in the tenth Position which is here cited said to be this in sum That the Church was once in Families or domestical under Moses National and under Christ Congregational Ans. VVhat if all this were granted Is there any thing in this for we would willingly keep to the Question to overthrow the Synods fâ—â—st Proposition or their saying that is here under debate viz. That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Baptism It seems nothing at all For if according to Scripture there have been different administrations of the Covenant in different times and that the Church was heretofore Domestical afterward National and now Congregational all this may be granted and yet it may be a Truth that is here said That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of Title to Baptism That these Children are in Covenant the Synod saith appears 1. Because if the Parent be in Covenant the Child is so also but the Parents in question are in Covenant To this the Reverend Author Answereth That if this being in Covenant be understood of being in it according to Gâ—spel-rules and that the Childrens being in Covenant be understood of Infant Children or Children in minority then the Proposition is true or else it must be denied Ans. Concerning the one of these Particulars viz. of being in Covenant according to Gospel-rules it may be granted that it is so to be understood and that it is not to be imagined that the Synod meant it any otherwise But for the other particular that the Children in Covenant are only Infants or Children in minority this is a limitation that needs further consideration and will be spoken to afterward Whereas the Synod to prove the Parents in question to be in Covenant alledgeth That they were once in Covenant and never since discovenanted the former because else they had not warrantably been Baptized and the latter because they have not in any way of God been discovenanted cast out or cut off from their Covenant-relation The Reverend Author in his Answer hereunto saith That they are discovenanted by not performing that whereunto they were engaged by the Covenant for which he alledgeth Rom. 2.25 Ans. 1. It seems then the Covenant doth not only reach unto Children during their minority but also when they are become adult for else how could they when adult be faulty in not performing that whereunto the Covenant engageth can men be faulty for not performing Covenant-engagements when they are not comprehended in the Covenant this seems not possible therefore here seems to be a concâ—ssion that the Covenant reacheth further then to Infancy or minority and that they who were in Covenant in their Infancy by meanes of their Parents covenanting for them are also in that Covenant when they are become adult 2. Nor is it clear that mâ—ns not performing what the Covenant requireth of them doth forthwith discovenant them if by being discovenanted be meant their not being in that Church-relation in which they were before for God is wont to be patient and long-suffering toward them that are in Covenant with him and to bear with them long afore be give them a bill of Divorce as it is said in Nehem. 9.30 Many years didst thou forbear them and therefore it may seem more rigour then the Word alloweth to think or say that such as were in covenant with God in their infancy or minority are forthwith fallen out of that estate if they do not as soon as ever they become adult perform what that Covenant requireth The long-suffering of God will not allow us so to judge unless we had more clear warrant for such judgement Nor doth the Text alledged viz. Rom. 2 25. prove any such thing but when it is there said Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision the meaning is it shall not profit thee at all in such a state as to eternal benefit and so Baptism may be said in such case to be no Baptism and Covenant and Church-relation to be no Covenant no Church-relation i. e. not to yield any such profit in that estate But yet if such should afterward be brought to Repentance and New-obedience would any say that now such persons must be circumcised again or baptized again as if the former in respect of the external act were become null We suppose this could not be said justly though in respect of any profit to their Souls their Circumcision and Baptism in their former estate was as none and so we may say their Covenant and Church relation is as none in respect of any Spiritual saving benefit to their Souls if they perform not what the Covenant bindes them unto and yet it can no more be said that in respect of their Church-relation and external visible state they are not in the Church or not in the Covenant then in the other particulars it can be said that they are not circumcised or not baptized It is one thing to be in the Covenant and in the Church in respect of external state and another thing to enjoy all the spiritual and eternal benefits of such a relation and though this latter be the portion of none but such as come to be truly regenerate yet the other is and so continues the right of all that have once had it untill in some way of God they be cut off from it and so deprived thereof The Synod having said That persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it according to Scripture sare for notorious sins and incorrigibleness therein which is not the case of these Parents The Reverend Author answereth That if they break off themselves by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and Priviledges of the Covenant and in such case are to be looked at like those in 1 Joh. 2.19 Ans. If by Breaking off themselves were meant no more but that they do this meritoriously i. e. that by their sin they deserve to be broken off then it may be granted that in this sense persons may though not that these do break off themselves from their Covenant-relation and so also may persons that have been in full communion even these by their sins may thus break off themselves in which sense it is said Hos. 13.9 O Israel thou hast destroyed thy self i. e. that their sins were the procuring or meritorious cause of their destruction But if hereby be meant that the persons spoken of do
be a means to convey Religion down to after-generations and yet Church-watchfulness toward such be without acceptance with God and without any blessed fruit either to the Church or to the persons spoken of It seems tâ—ese things do not well cohere So much for Defence of the fifth Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition The sixth Argument which the Synod here useth is Because the Parents in question are personal immediate and yet-continuing Members of the Church 1. That they are personall Members or Members in their own persons they say appears 1. Because they are personally holy 1 Cor. 7.14 2. Are Baptized in their own persons 3. Are personally under Discipline 4. Are personally by means of the Covenant in a visible state of Salvation 5. When they commit iniquity they personally break the covenant Jer. 11.2 10. Ezek. 16. therefore they are personally in it To this the Reverend Author answereth That three of these Proofs belong onely to infants and the other two to adult Persons regularly admitted into Church-membership which therefore do not concern the Parents in question which two he saith are 1. That they are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons 2. That when they commit iniquity they personally break the Covenant Ans. Let us then consider the Particulars For the first that they are personally Holy according to 1 Cor. 7.14 though this be meant as the Reverend Author saith that they are thus Holy federally and relatively yet it is as he acknowledgeth in their own persons and if so doth it not then follow that they are Church-members in their own persons Can persons be truly called Holy as in the Text alledged or an Holy seed as Ezra 9. and yet not be Members of the visible Church whether this holiness be inherent or only federal and relative yet sith they are thus Holy in their own persons we conceive they must therefore be granted to be Church-members in their own persons And though they first received this holiness in their minority yet for ought we see their persons are still partakers of it until in some way of God they be cut off from the same which the Parents in question have not been but being qualified as the Proposition expresseth are far from deserving any such matter For the Second That they are Baptized in their own Persons though this be as the Reverend Author saith By and for their Parents Covenanting for them they being uncapable of Covenanting for themselves yet this being regularly done how can it be avoided but as the Synod saith It is a divine Testimony that they are in their own persons Members of the Church For we conceive the Lord hath not appointed Baptism the Seal of Membership to be applied to such as are not Members And to say They are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents would infer That they should not have been baptized in their own persons but in their Parents their Parents receiving Baptism for them which the Reverend Author we are perswaded is far from affirming And therefore they being regularly baptized in their own persons how can it be avoided but that they are Church-members in their own persons untill they be regularly cut off from the same For that other Particular That by meanes of the Covenant they are personally in a visible state of Salvation The Reverend Author saith nothing hereto but onely repeats it with this addition or explanation While nothing appears to the contrary which clause may be added and yet the purpose of the Synod in this Particular not at all hindred thereby For if the persons spoken of be in their own persons in a visible state of Salvation whiâ—â— nothing appears to the contrary doth it not then follow that so long they are visible Church-Members in their own persons will any body say that they are saved in their Parents and not in their own persons The Synod conceived that none would so say and that therefore it could not be said that they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents whereto the Reverend Author saith nothing As for that Clause While nothing appears to the contrary let the terms of the Proposition be considered and we conceive it cannot rationally and charitably be denied but that the persons spoken of as they were in a state of Salvation when Infant so they are so still for ought appears to the contrary For the contrary cannot be evinced and evidenced against them either by Ignorance or Scandal or forsaking the Covenant or any such thing they being such as understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly assent thereto not Scandalous in life but commendably further qualified as is there expressed so that for ought that appears to the contrary they are in a visible state of Salvation and consequently they are personally Church-members and so herein the purpose of the Synod is gained For the other two Particulars which the Reverend Author saith Do belong to adult persons regularly admitted into Church-membership and so do not concern the Parents in question the one is That they are personally under Discipline and liable to Church-censures in their own persons For Answer to this he refers to his Examination of Propos. 3. and we refer the Reader to our defence of that Proposition against what he there said The other Particular which is the last here mentioned viz. That when they commit Iniquity they personally break the Covenant his answer to it is That this is not proved concerning Infants nor can be Ans. Suppose it cannot yet if that be proved for which the Synod brings it why may not that suffice though this other be not proved to which the Reverend Author applies it Plain it is that the Synod neither spake nor meant this of Infants but of such as are now Parents and therefore past their Infancy and therefore if these Parents when they commit iniquity do break the covenant then the purpose of the Synod is gained though such a thing could not be affirmed of Infants But if proofs for this or that may not be accepted because they are not sufficient for confirming some other things whereto they were neither alledged nor intended let the judicious and impartial Reader consider whether this be equal and fair and whether Arguments in such a way be sufficiently answered For the Particular in hand the Synod argueth That the Parents in question are personally in the covenant because when they commit iniquity they personally break the covenant alledging for this Ier. 11.2 10. Ezek. 16. where breaking of covenant is expresly charged upon the persons there spoken of Now doth not this prove the thing intended sure if their committing iniquity be breaking of covenant either such persons were in the covenant or else we must say a man may be guilty of breach of covenant when he was not in it And that the committing iniquity by the persons spoken of is a breaking of Covenant
appears by Deut. 26.17 18. Ans. If so then they did every third Year enter into a new membership for the Reverend Author conceives that what is said to be done in Deut. 26 17 18. was done every third Year as before â— 31 but who knows not that the same persons or people may many a time enter into covenant or renew their covenant with God and yet not thereby enter into so many new memberships It seems by Psal. 50.5 where it is said They have made a covenant with me by sacrifice that so oft as sacrifice was offered so oft there was a covenant made between God and them and yet it will not follow that at every time of sacrificing there was an entring into a new membership it may suffice to say as the Synod doth that at all such times there was a progâ—â—sâ— in memberly duties But why should we think that the Covenant in Deut. 26. was entring into a new Membership The Reason rendred is this Because they entred into the Covenant personally and immediately not in and by their Parents as they did in infancy Gen. 17.7 And if Covenanting be the Form of Church-membership then a different Form of Covenanting makes a different kinde of Membership Mediate and Immediate Covenanting makes Mediate and Immediate Members Ans. But is this certain that a different way of covenanting makes a different kinde of membership In Gen. 15. there is covenanting by diviâ—ing the heâ—feâ— the goâ— c. in the midst and passing between the pieces or parts and so in Jer. 34. In Gen. 17. there is covenanting by silence and falling upon the face in Nehem. 9.38 there is covenanting by Writing and Sealing of it in 2 Chron. 15. by Swearing with a loud voice and by engaging that â—hosoever should not do as is there promised should be put to death Here we see are various wayes of covenanting but shall we say that these do infer divers kinds of membership then it would follow that if the same persons or people should divers times enter into Covenant or renew their Covenant and this sometimes in one of these wayes and sometimes in another if a different form of covenanting do make a different kind of membership it would follow that the same persons and people might many times over again and again enter into a new kinâ— of membership which we suppose none will affirm and therefore this that is here said will not hold the thing for essence and Kind may be the same when the way and manner of doing may be various Moreover covenanting taken for our act in making or renewing the covenant is not the form of membership this is but the instrumental efficient but covenant-interest or to be in covenant is the formalis ratio of membership that is it which the Synod affirms pag. 24. and that is the immediate actual and proper portion of the children as well as of the Parents The third Argument of the Synod is From the Relation of born Servants and Subjects by which the Scripture sâ—â—s forth the state of children in the Church Levit. 25 41 42. Ezek. 37.25 which relations as all men know do noâ—â—easâ— with infancy but do continue in adult age and â—ince it also follows that one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when growâ— up c. pag. 25 26. The Answer to this is That the one of these Texts is typical figuring the tâ—â—e of grace whereby now Christ hath freed us from the servitude of Sin and Satan c. the other Text is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect nation of the Iews and of the state of the Church under the New Ierusalem and therefore these do neither of them suit the thing in question Ans. But for the present nothing appears to the contrary but they may be suitable yet if the thing it self for which those Texts are alledged be sound and good the Inference which the Synod makes is so also though the Texts were not so apt For if the children in the Church be in state as born Servants and Subjects to Christ then this state and relation and so their membership doth not cease with infancy but continues in adult age And we hope the Reverend Author will not deny but for state they are as born Servants and Subjects to Christ though he thinks the Texts quoted are not apt Proofs for it but if the thing be not denied the Argument of the Synod stands good for the continuance of their membership Grant them to be in the state of born Servants and Subjects in their infancy and then it must be granted that this state continueth when they are adult and so their membership doth not cease with their infancy deny that their membership continueth when adult and then it must be said either that their state in infancy is not as born Servants and Subjects or that such relations do cease with infancy But for the Reverend Author he expresly grants That one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fittest for it and have most need of it pag 43. which is the very same that is here affirmed by the Synod and doth not that hence follow which the Synod inferreth That therefore their membership did not cease with infancy but doth still continue It seems to follow unavoidably for how can they when adult or grown up be under engagement to service and subjection as the end of membership received in infancy if that membership do not still continue but together with their infancy be now past and gone If they be still under engagement then their Covenant doth still continue and consequently their Membership Yet when all this is done neither can the Parents nor the Church give grace unto the children that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate membership and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly is to prophane the Ordinances and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary pag 44. Ans. It is true none can give grace but God who is the God of all grace but for bringing the adult persons spoken of into membership we conceive there is no such thing here intended by the Synod nor can be spoken of in any propriety of speech concerning the persons in question they being such as were Members from their infancy and are accounted by the Synod still to continue members now when adult and therefore there is no bringing of them into membership That which is here spoken of were more aptly called an acknowledging of them to be members and how the acknowledging of such persons as the Proposition describes to be and continue members can be judged a prophanation of the Ordinances or a polluting of the Lords Sanctuary we confess we do not understand for we
then the servant sith in the cafe alledged the servant may trade under the Freeman as well as the childe may we suppose none will say this and therefore in this the Comparison doth not suit the case in hand The Orders and Priviledges of Corporations are various according to the tenour of their several Charters but what the Charter of the Church is we know viz. That in Gen. 17. it takes in children into the Church with their Parents and doth not allow them to be put out till censureable iniquity do appear 2. If in some Corporations one that is free-born do lose his Priviledge when he becomes adult if he do not then enter personally into the Engagement yet it is not certain that it is so in all Sure no such thing is said of Paul who yet pleads his Priviledge of being a Freeman of Rome because he was so born without mention of any personal act of his own for attaining that Priviledge Acts 22. And if Paul being free-born did retain his Freedome when adult without any personal act of his own for that end why may it not be so in respect of Church-membership though in all Civil Corporations it be not so It is evident that the Scripture speaks of the children of bond-servants as bound aâ—so and of the children of the fâ—er as free also without mention of any act of the children to procure that relation or state in the one case or in the other â—euâ— 25.46 54. And we see no reason but it may be so also in the visible Church that if the Parent be a member the childe is so also and so continues 〈◊〉 i. e be cut off not losing his membership by the meer not performinâ— of what might fit him for full Communion 3. If it were so in all Corporations that a Freemans childe doth lose his Freedome when adult if he do not then in his own person enter into the common Engagement and if it were also so in the Church that a Members childe should lose his Membership when adult if he do not then personally Covenâ—nt though this is more then we see proved yet if it were so we see not how this can be prejudicial to the persons spoken of in this fifth Proposition For of them it is expresly said that they do solemnly own the Covenant before the Church and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord c. and therefore though Freedome in a Corporation and Membership in the Church might be lost by not entring personally into the Common Engagement and Covenant yet except we shall say it may be lost though this Personall Engagement and Entring be performed and done except we shall say this we cannot say that the membership of the persons in question is lost at all but doth still continue sith they are such as do thus personally engage and covenant As for that Text Rom. 2.25 If thou be a breaker of the Law thy Circumcision is made no circumcision which is here alledged again we refer the Reader to what hath been said touching this Text before in pag. 33. Lastly whereas the Reverend Author saith Those Texts in Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 Gen. 17.7 are not applicable to the adult persons in question but onely to infants and children in minority The Answer is that the Synod doth not at all apply them to the adult persons in question and therefore it is a great mistake so to think but having said that these persons are personall immediate and yet-continuing Members they do thence infer that their children are therefore also Members in covenant and holy and consequently are the Subjects of Baptism which Inference and Consequence the Reverend Author we are perswaded will not deny if the ground thereof be good That the Parents in question are Members of the Church as the Synod apprehends that they are And therefore although the Texts alledged be not applicable to the adult persons in question yet if they be applicable to such infants and little children whose Parents are personal immediate and yet-continuing Members they do then sufficiently serve the purpose for which they are here alledged by the Synod So much for Defence of the sixth and last Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition Propos. 6. The sixth Proposition of the Synod is this Such Church-Members who either by death or some extraordinary Providence have been inevitably hindred from publick acting as aforesaid yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified and such as had they been called thereunto would have so acted their children are to be Baptized To this the Reverend Author Answereth That this Proposition may not be granted for it granteth the priviledge of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members Ans. And yet the Proposition in the very first words of it doth expresly declare that what Church-priviledge is here mentioned is not granted to such as are not Church-members but to such as are Such Church-members saith the Synod who c. their Children are to be Baptized So that though Church-priviledges may not be granted to such who are not Church-members yet to the persons here spoken of the Baptism of their Children may be granted without any such undue granting of Church priviledges sith the Synod doth not say these persons are not Church-members but doth expresly say they are All that can be said against these persons is that they have not acted according to the fifth Proposition and yet it is said they have been inevitably hindred therein and have given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as willing to have so acted and therefore having been Church-members from their birth or minority how can the applying of Baptism to their children be the granting of a Church-priviledge to such as are not Church-members If they had not been hindred from acting as in the fifth Proposition but had indeed so done yet this is not the thing that would have made them members they having been members afore and though they be now adult yet it hath been proved afore in the fifth Proposition Arg. 6. Part. 3. That their membership doth still continue and therefore the granting of Church-priviledges to such as are not Church-members may be yielded to be unwarrantable without any prejudice to the persons here spoken of or to what the Synod here saith concerning them And whereas the Reverend Author doth here lay down two Inferences 1. That an ordinary Minister cannot orderly do an act of Office to such as are not regular and actual Members of the visible Church but if he do it will be usurpation 2. That the Church may not receive into any priviledge of Church-communion such as are not actually in publick Church-order These may both be granted and yet what the Synod here saith not be at all infringed thereby For considering that the persons spoken of were Church-members long ago and have never since been
Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order For the Synod thinks that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority so they still continue therein and the contrary we have not yet seen proved As for the Shechemites c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them and yet Baptism not so when administred to the children in question For if the former were not in the Church yet these are and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives these other are farre from any such thing and therefore there is no comparison between the former and these spoken of but a vast difference And we may adde further That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest and the persons spoken of both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation so in respect of this latter these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Iacob to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred We may instance in Simeon and Levi who committed that odious Cruelty and Blood-shedding for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death Gen. 49. And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these they abiding in the Family of Jacob how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question or be said to be profaned when administred to them sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God and were never cast out nor deserving any such thing but do still continue therein and for life and conversation are farre from any such Scandal and Crime as was found in the Sons of Iacob aforesaid One end of Baptism now as it was of Circumcision then is to seal Church-communion 1 Cor. 12.13 and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God The Father Son and Holy Spirit c. Ans. This is no just ground of denying Baptism to the children in question except it could be proved that neither they nor their Parents are in the Church of God nor of his Family which yet we have not seen proved The regular and lawfull use of Baptism now as of Circumcision of old presupposeth both Gods Promise and his Faith viz. Faith for Iustification with Abraham who is to use it either upon himself or upon his infant To use it being not so qualified visibly is it not a treacherous usurping of the Great Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth Ans. Neither doth this make against the Baptism of the children in question forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God I will be a God to thee and to thy seed in their generations and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition cannot be denied to have Faith visibly as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition and in this Defence formerly Sure it is these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly as the Sons of Iacob afore-mentioned and as many in the Church at Corinth of whom it is said that they were culpable for carnall Dissentions going to Law Fornication Vncleannesses and not repenting thereof 1 Cor. 1. 3. 6. and 2 Cor. 12. and yet being in the Church and professing Christianity we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized and the children of Iacobs Sons circumcised and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition though the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children For it is evident these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians and in Reuben Simeon and Levi but are much more innocent yea commendable So much for Defence of the second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition against what the Reverend Author in his Answer thereto saith in his Digression and turning back to the Proposition foregoing The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition is Because God accepteth that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred as in David to build the Temple 1 Kings 8. in Abraham to sacrifice his Son Heb. 11.17 and in that of Alms 2 Cor. 8.12 As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto and Baptized in voto because there was no want of desire that way though their desire was not actually accomplished To which the Answer of the Reverend Author is That this may hold in private service so that there God accepts the will for the deed when the acting of it is hindred but in publick service he doth not accept of that as done which is not done so farre as to bring them into publick state and order whatever their desires and endeavours have been And he instanceth in one that desireth to be a Minister and yet may not do the acts of that Office afore he be in Office and in such as desire to joyn to the Church but may not be received to the Seals afore they be so joyned Whereto the answer is That what is here said is insufficient as being not suitable to the case in hand which is not concerning such as are out of church-Church-state and order as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it though their actual entring were hindred For it is evident that the Synod speaks not of such but of such as are Church-members already onely have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another purpose viz. for the more orderly clear and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children themselves though being in the state and order of Church-members having not yet been received to the Lords Supper It is evident that the Synod speaks of such persons and of actings for such an end viz. of persons already in Church-estate and acting for the end aforesaid and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end though their actings as aforesaid have been inevitably hindred Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all though they do desire it and of them he saith that these desires are not sufficient for their admission unto Church-priviledges when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred between which and those spoken of by the Synod there is great difference so that if what he faith were granted yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby but though desire of office or of Church-estate be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one or
obtaining the priviledges of the other when actual entring into that office and state is hindred yet when such as are in Church-estate already do desire to act as in the fifth Proposition but are inevitably hindred from so acting what should hinder but they may have their children Baptized as if they had so acted indeed And why may not the instances of Gods accepting of Abrahams offering his Son of Davids building the Temple and the other mentioned by the Synod be sufficient Proofs hereof we see nothing to the contrary but they may Whereto may be added that in 2 Chron. 30. where the people that prepared their hearts to seek God are accepted of God in the Passeover though they were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary yet whatever it was that hindred their cleansing their preparing their hearts did imply that they did desire it and hereupon at the Prayer of Hezekiah they are accepted And in 1 Sam. 30. when two hundred of Davids men were by faintness hindred that they could not go over the brook Besor as he and others did yet he will not yield but that they shall have part of the spoil as well as others that went down to the Battell considering that it was not want of will but want of ability that hindred their acting as others did and He as he was in other things a man after Gods own heart even so he was in this and they that would not have had the will of these two hundred accepted when their deed was so inevitably hindred are called wicked men and men of Belial By all which the Argument of the Synod is further confirmed and cleared when they say in this their third Reason that God accepts that as done in his service to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour albeit the acting of it were hindred And if God accept those as Martyrs who are such onely in voto as the Reverend Author seemeth to acknowledge pag. 49 why may not the like be said of those who are onely Baptized in voto we see no reason but that if in the one case God accept them as Martyrs he doth also in the other as persons Baptizeâ— And whereas he saith To be Baptized in voto will nothing advantage any as to Church-fellowship because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia and things are not manifested to the Church otherwise then by congruous actings The Answer is 1. That the thing here spoken of by the Synod is not at all of receiving into Church-fellowship as the Reverend Author carries it but of Baptizing the Children of such as are in Church-estate already and have been so even from their minority 2. Nor is the desire they speak of so hidden and unknown that the Church cannot judge of it but so manifest that they have given the Church cause in the judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified as is said and that had they been called thereto they would have so acted So that if it were true that men could not be received into Church-fellowship by meer desire of such state when that desire is secret and not manifest to the Church yet men that are in Church-estate already may have their Children Baptized when their desires to act as is mentioned are sufficiently known to the Church though their acting hath been ineviâ—ably hindred For these cases do apparently differ so that what the Synod saith in the one is not overthrown by what the Reverend Author saith in thâ— other 3. It is conceived by some that those who of the Ancients are said to be Baptized in voto were so spoken of because they were Martyred before they could actually receive Baptism and yet that their children were after the death of the Parents actually Baptized and accounted of the Church which if so doth testifie That they counted it a great matter to be Baptized in voto sith in such case they would actually apply Baptism to the children when the Parents had not received it actually but onely in voto or in desire And how much more may Baptism be applyed to the children in question whose Parents are not onely Baptized actually and not in dâ—sire onely but have been actually members of the Church even from their birth or minority onely they have not acted as in the fifth Proposition but have been inevitably hindred therein though they have been known to the Church to desire so to have acted Fourthly Saith the Synod The termes of the Proposition import that in charity that is here done interpretatively which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly The Reverend Author Answereth It s an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture or in good Reason Ans. But is this certain that neither Rule in Scripture nor good Reason will give warrant for such charity as is mentioned If men have been by death or some extraordinary providence inevitably hindred from so acting as in the fifth Proposition and yet have given the Church cause to look at them as such as would have so acted if they had been thereunto called and not inevitably hindred is there yet for all this no warrant in Scripture or good Reason for such charity as is spoken of For our parts when God Almighty accepts the will for the deed when the parties inability hinders from doing so much as he would 2 Cor. 8.12 and when Scripture tells us that Charity thinketh not evil but believeth all things hopeth all things c. 1 Cor. 13.5 7. we cannot but think it better to retain and exercise such charity as is here spoken of then to be driven or depart from it as if no Rule of Scripture or good Reason would warrant it If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly is here done interpretatively both being put together will not avail to put the Parent regularly into Church-fellowship in any sense and to give the infant a right to Baptism thereby Ans. For putting into Church-fellowship the things here mentioned by the Synod are not by them alledged for that end and therefore if this that is said by the Reverend Author were granted the Doctrine of the Synod is not at all weakned thereby But if the things mentioned be sufficient for the Baptizing of the children of Parents who are in Church-fellowship already the purpose of the Synod is sufficiently gained But why do not the things mentioned avail to put the Parent into Church-fellowship The Reason rendred is Because by Christs Ordinance onely adult persons who have true Faith and Holiness are adult Members of the invisible Church and the same persons making profession thereof outwardly in the Order by him appointed may be Members of the visible Church and they onely can give their infant-seed a right unto Baptism Ans. And is this certain and clear that onely they who have true Faith and Holiness and so are