in the sense given before yet not so personal as to have right to all Church-priviledges as is confessed by all Reply That sense given before is confuted before 2. If they have right to all Church-priviledges properly belonging to Members as such it is sufficient 3. Their want of actuall enjoyment of some Church-priviledges is not for want of right unto them but for want of such Qualifications as may make them fit for actuall enjoyment of them viz. Such increase of Faith as is requisite as Dr. Ames well expresseth it Medul Lib. 1. Chap. 32. Sect. 13. Proof 4. They are personally by means of the Covenant in a visible state of salvation To say they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents would be as if one should say They are saved in their Parents and not in their own persons Ans It is granted they are in a state of Salvation and nearer the Kingdome of Heaven then Heathens are but they are not visibly at present in a state of Salvation Mark 12.34 But to infer That if they be not Members in their own persons but in their Parents then they shall not be saved in their own persons but in their Parents this is utterly inconsequent unless in should be said that all and onely they that are Members in their own persons shall be saved which were sad and Heterodox Reply To grant they are in a state of Salvation and yet not visibly so at present sheweth that this Argument is greatly mistaken The ground of the Argument is this It is the Priviledge of the Church by Gods Covenant to be the Redeemed and Saved People of the Lord Christ is the Saviour of his Body the Church Eph. 5.23 c. Thus it is with the visible Church visibly And hence saith Christ Salvation is of the Jews Joh. 4.22 And so speaking of the little ones he saith Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven Mark 10.14 And hence the Inference is also much mistaken which is this If their Membership by means of the Covenant setteth them in a visible state of Salvation as it doth upon the grounds laid down then supposing this Membership be in their Parents onely and not in their own persons it would follow that this visible state of Salvation is in their Parents onely and not in their own persons and so if they be saved according to this Covenant it must be in their Parents and not in their own persons And hereby it appeareth how greatly this Opinion bereaveth the Parents of that hope and comfort they take in their dying Infants by reason of Gods Covenant made with their seed Proof 5. When they commit iniquity they personally break the Covenane and therefore they are personal members Jer. 11.2 10. Eze. 16. Ans The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law as the Texts shew which any man never in or cast out of the Church may break Reply Truly this Answer as the rest is far from satisfying the Arguments of the Synod The Texts alledged expresly call their iniquities A breaking of the Covenant and what then if the Texts speak of the Moral Law is not the observation of the Moral Law a duty of the Covenant viz. Tâ— have God for our God To love him Fear him c. Or is the breach of the Moral Law no breach of the Covenant in them that are in Covenant because others not in Covenant may break it What sense and reason is in this When a Master chargeth his Apprentice with breach of his Covenant in Stealing his Masters goods should he answer It was no breach of Covenant because others that were never in Covenant may be guilty of Stealing also Would this answer prove it was no breach of Covenant Just so is the case here When the Lord chargeth the adult Members of the Church with breach of their Covenant in the Moral duties of the Covenant to say The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law which such as were never in or cast out of the Church may break Our Brethren here think fit to make a stand onely concluding in the words of the Presbyterian Ministers wherewith they would seem to be well satisfied But the known Practice of those Reverend Brethren that do Baptize divers Children whose Parents they receive not to the Lords Table doth perswade me that such a Profession as is deseribed in the fifth Proposition would be readily accepted of by them as a credible Profession for the Administration of Baptism to their seed And this is the more evident to me by that which is here alledged in the second Paragraph wherein they describe the persons to be Baptized thus Baptism is an holy Sacrament in which a person professing the Christian Faith or the Infant-seed of such is Baptized c. which is fully answered in the fifth Proposition Concerning the Sixth Proposition which dependeth upon the Fifth our Brethren onely declare their Dissent Concerning the Seventh Proposition they say It is cautelously penned and do not Object against it onely desice Care in the Application thereof with what Churches we have Communion Concerning the second Question About CONSOCIATION OF CHVRCHES they have declared their Consent in all the Propositions laid down by the Synod and here Object nothing And herein I do willingly and gladly acknowledge the ingenuity of our dear Brethren who though they be earnest and quick sometimes in such things wherein they differ yet do freely declare their Consent in other things which giveth me the more hope that after a fair Debate of this Question we may at length meet sweetly in the same Truth which perhaps neither of us do as yet so clearly apprehend as we may through the help of Christ attain unto We know but in part Believe in part and Prophesie in part and are imperfect in all we do and therefore must wait for and endeavour after further discoveries of the minde of God And to this end in case what hath been and is here or what shortly may be Published about this Question should not clear up the Truth to satisfaction but that further Replies should be made My earnest Motion and Desire is 1. That all Reflections upon mens Persons and other impertinent Discourses being laid aside the main issue of the Question in Debate may be closely followed which I perceive is come in a manner to this narrow viz. Whether the Persons described in the fifth Proposition be regularly Church-members for this is all along denied by our Brethren and several wayes alledged whereby they should become Non-members as By their Self-Excommunication By Gods Excommunication c. 2. My Motion and Desire is That the Scriptures alone according to their true sense and scope may be made the Touchstone to discover the Truth These are able to make the man of God fully furnished to every good work I deny not the use of the Concurring Judgement of the godly Learned And it is well known how fully the advantage lieth on the Synods side in that respect yet I see men are too apt to make use of Sentences of Authors that seem to favour their Opinion though indeed contrary to the meaning and judgement of those Authors And this tends to amuse and puzzle the common sort of Readers and enlarge Disputes but doth not tend to clear up the Truth If these two things might be attended I doubt not but this Case would have a speedy and comfortable issue Now the Lord God of Truth Purity and Peace direct all our hearts into the Right Vnderstanding Vnfeigned Love and Vnited Practice of his Holy Will in all things Amen FINIS
such are the proper Subjects thereof as if such and onely such were to be Baptized This of Full Communion our Brethren thought would advantage their Cause and so have put it in but it is a meer Addition to the Word of God which wholly fails them of any proof yea makes evidently against them In that principal place Acts 2.38 39. it is evident that they were Baptized before their Full Communion For 1. Peter called them to be Baptized upon the ground of the Promise ver 38. 2. They were Baptized and added to the Church before full Communion ver 41 42. 3. It had been very preposterous to put them into full Communion before Vnion with the Church sealed by Baptism for Baptism is a Seal of Vnion with the Church 1 Cor. 12.13 which must go before Communion But they seem to suppose at least that some in full Communion may be unbaptized by that word being unbaptized but the truth is that our Brethrens confidence in this Argument will be found so greatly to fail them that whil'st by it they seek to straiten The Subject of Baptism beyond the Doctrine of the Synod they destroy and take away the whole Subject it self of Baptism because there will never be found any such persons according to Gospel-Rule which they call so much for and appeal unto that are in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I will be a little bold with our Brethren in this case to challenge them to produce any Rule or Example in the Gospel of any person that either was or by Rule might be in full Communion with an instituted Church being unbaptized I hope this Answer is plain and no Cavill Yet for the further clearing up of this Answer I shall remove what may be further said by our Brethren Object Though those in Acts 2. were not in full Communion actually before Baptism yet they were admitted to a state and right to full Communion by their Baptism which these Children in question are not Ans 1. The Question is not What state or right the Baptized are partakers of as a consequent fruit of Baptism received but What it is that constitutes a person to be a fit Subject to be Baptized To describe the proper Subject of Baptism by the consequent fruits of it and not by the precedent causes that gives right to Baptism is very improper and preposterous If the Question were Who are the proper Subjects of Church-membership we say Confederating visible Believers and their seed for this makes them fit for and brings them into such a relation But should any answer That the proper Subject of Church-membership is a person in full communion with an instituted Church or One that is under the Teaching and Rule of Church-Officers which are the fruits of Church-membership received Who does not see the weakness of such an Answer and the like is this case Baptism being the Seal of Gods Covenant with his Church whereby we are Baptized into one Body 2. Although the Infant-seed of the Church cannot actually enjoy full Communion in all Ordinances as their Parents do yet the Covenant of God sealed to them in Baptism sets them in a state and right to all the Benefits of the Covenant to be enjoyed by them as they become fit for them as well as their Parents for the Covenant of God with Parents and seed is one and the same All that are in the same Covenant are bound to the same Duties of the Covenant and have the same right to all the Benefits of the Covenant as they come up to perform the Conditions and are fit for the enjoyment of the Blessings In adult Members it is so who being under Admonition for Scandal or in a Frenzy or the like case though they partake not of all the good of the Covenant yet their right remains So here when the seed grow up to perform the Duties of the Covenant they also partake of the Benefits not by any new Covenant or Membership but by the right of that Covenant God made with them and sealed to them in Baptism as will appear more fully afterward 2. I shall adde further It is true that to admit adult persons into the Church and to Baptism visible Faith is required and so much the Texts alledged prove but this is not the case in Dispute between us but About persons already in the Church and Baptized whether in such the ground of Baptizing their seed be Faith and Grace made visible in the same manner or their Interest in the Covenant and therefore the Argument doth not conclude the Question Put case any of those visible Believers and converts Acts 2. should afterward discover by their Worldliness Looseness or other wayes that there is in them no sap or savour of Faith and Grace even to the charitable judgement of most in the Church my Question is Whether yet so long as they continue in the Church their Infant-seed shall not be Baptized If it be granted then it is not such visible Faith and Grace but the Interest in the Church and Covenant that gives Right to Baptism and so to these Church-members in question If this be denied let there be one Tittle of Scripture-Rule or Example produced to the contrary Having answered their Reason I shall present an Argument from the same Text to confirm the Doctrine of the Synod It is to be noted That the Promise Acts 2.39 is That Covenant-Promise which God made with Abraham as appeareth by that parallel place Acts 3. where ver 19. Peter exhorts to Repentance as in chap. 2.38 and chap. 3.25 he useth the same Reason in other words You are the children of the Covenant which God made with our fathers the substance whereof all grant to be this I will be thy God and the God of thy seed in their generations although the Apostle there makes use of another branch of the Covenant concerning Christ that feed in whom God is the God of his People Now the Reason stands thus If the Covenant-promise to Abraham and his seed be a ground to Repent and be Baptizsed in the Gospel-dispensation then it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism But the Covenant-promise was a ground to Repent and be Baptized in Gospel-dispensation Acts 2.38 39. with chap. 3.19 25. Therefore it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism which is the Doctrine of the Synod Thus much to their Scripture-Argument To which our Brethren adde the Testimony of Mr. Richard Mather Well agreeing with this say they is the Answer of Reverend Mr. Mather in his Catechism Ans But by their leave it differeth from their Answer in the main thing that toucheth the cause in hand for there is nothing of full communion in his which they put into theirs 2. That Reverend and Learned Author speaketh onely what adult persons should be in joyning to the Church and the seed of such so converted
follow that because God may justly cut off a man from the Church for not believing or Sins of Omission that therefore he doth so or that therefore a Church-member by Sins of Omission doth actually cut off himself from the visible Church Surely these are worse then farre-fetched and uncertain Consequences from the Old Testament 2. For the Assumption of this Argument They say but without Proof That these Parents in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God c. according to the conditions of the Covenant I answer These do outwardly and visibly at least so Walk with God Love Him and keep His Commandments as the Rule of God doth account A keeping of the visible Covenant These Profess the Faith are not scandalous in life give up themselves to God submit to his Rules and government and were not such as these all along in the Scripture accepted as the People of God in the visible Covenant Deut. 5. when the people professed to Obey Moses in all things God saw they wanted an heart to fear him and keep his commandments yet he entred into Covenant with them How oft are the Kings of Judah that observed the Ordinances of Worship said to do that which was right in the sight of the Lord and to walk in his wayes though they wanted that upright walking with God and love of God which was required See 2 Chron. 11.17 2 Kings 11.2 14.3 15.3 34. And Not to walk in the wayes of the Lord is charged upon them when they walked after Baalim In the wayes of Jeroboam and the like To conclude I would demand of our Brethren that hold this way of Self-Excommunication Whether any Member doth Excommunicate himself by any act that is not Excommunicable or matter of Excommunication by the Rule of Church-discipline If so let us have a Rule for it if not surely these in the fifth Proposition do not Excommunicate themselves for no Rule of Christ would allow the Church to cast them out Ans 2. The children in question say they are in a state of Neutrality at present and such Christ accounts to be against him Mat. 12.30 They are neither hot nor cold Rev. 3. Reply Mat. 12.30 speaketh not of such as these for these are for Christ that Profess the Faith of Christ and Submit to his government That Saying of Christ Mark 9.40 suits better with these He that is not against us is for us As for Rev. 3. Christ calls that Luke-warm Church A golden Candlestick holds their Stars in his Right hand offers to come in c. So that Christ is not so quick in discovenanting luke-warm ones as our Brethren seem to be Arg. 3. From the evil consequences of the contrary Opinion as 1. To deny the Proposition would be to straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation and to make the Church in the New Testament times in a worse case relating to their children successively then were the Jews of old Ans 1. This doth not straiten the Gospel-dispensation seeing it is granted to be extended to all Nations and to both Sexes which was not of old Reply This indeed the Anabaptists answer but it doth not reach the case For such inlargement of the grace of God in Gospel-times would argue rather that it should be enlarged in this Point also and not therefore straitned here because enlarged in other respects Were it Objected to a Father That he straitned his wonted favours to his children in putting them out of the Family and he should answer Not so for I have taken in many adopted children would this answer satisfie Or should he say Not so for though I kept my Family with Pulse before I now give them much better fare would not any man say So much is the greater wrong to your children both to put them out of the Family and deprive them of their share in the better fare allowed to the Family Just so is the case here Ans 2. This doth no more straiten the grace of the Covenant then the keeping of Baptized especially covenanting Parents from the Lords Supper seeing the circumcised Jews were not debarred from the passover Reply The circumcised Jews did not partake of the Passover without suitable legal qualifications viz. A state of legal purity and fitness to eat it to the Lord and therefore they were to instruct their children in the meaning of that Service Exod. 12.25 26 27. In like manner we debarre none from the Lords Supper but for want of Gospel qualifications Ans 3. Gospel-times are in many respects Times of Reformation Heb. 9.10 and therefore to build so much upon the largeness of Jewish practices is a great sin seeing it is a stretching of the narrow way that leads to life to be as wide as the broad way that leads most to destruction Reply 1. We build not upon Jewish practices Ceremonial wherein that Reformation Heb. 9.10 did consist as is plain in the Text but upon the Gospel-covenant with Abraham and that in the substantials of it viz. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations exemplified in the seed of Abraham 2. It is a strange speech to say that This is a stretching of the narrow way of life to be as broad c. Surely Gods enlargement of the Covenant to the Posterity of Abraham in their generations was an act of Gods grace tending to bring the more to life by giving to them the means of grace and life and therefore was not the broad way to dâ—struction The straitness of the way to life doth not stand in restraining the means of grace to a few for why then should the Lord enlarge the Gospel to all Nations now more then of old 2d Consequence To deny the Proposition is to render the children of the Jews when they shall be converted in a worse condition then they were under the Legal-dispensation contrary to Jer. 30.20 Ezek. 37.25 26. Ans This is denied any more then that they should be in a worse state if they shall not have an High-Priest and Temple-worship when they shall have in Christ a thousand-fold more So here is like reason in respect of His abundant grace Reply The loss of Shadows is nothing seeing they shall have the Substance in Christ but this being an essential Branch of Gods Covenant with Abraham which is the Gospel-covenant it cannot be taken away without reall loss and the more abundant grace the greater is the loss as was said before Ans 2. This doth no more put them into a worser state then transmitting the Covenant now onely to the next seed which before was transmitted to remote Posterity Reply The Covenant was all along transmitted by the next Parents to their seed in the Old Testament For so long as they were not cast off by the Lord he accounted every generation to be His People even in their worst times So that the transmitting of the Covenant and Church-priviledges was still by