Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston, Text 1 (3 of 3)

Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston · Text 1 (3 of 3)

p. 333. As for our denial of the liberty of Voting in Church-affairs to the persons in question, till they be fitted for, and admitted to the Lords Supper, it stands good and rational without any prejudice to their being a true Church in the case supposed. For there is no difficulty in it, to conceive that the case of a true Church may be such (by degeneracy, or loss of their best Members, &c.) as that they may be at present unfit to put forth or exercise a power of acting in Church-affairs (though it be radically in them) till by the use of needful means they, or a select qualified number among them, be brought up unto a better and fitter capacity for it. And examples hereof are not farre to seek: let that way of reforming corrupt and degenerate Churches be attended which is partly suggested in Mr. Allin's, and Mr. Shepard's Preface, before their Defence of the Nine Positions (which Preface Beverly saith is Instar omnium) Pag. 10, 18, 19, 20. viz. Examen H…ornb. pag. 20.that they be acknowledged true Churches, and called by the powerful Preaching of the word to Humiliation, Repentance, and agreement unto Reformation: and then that such as do so agree, and submit to Discipline, being owned to be of the Church; among them a select number who are found upon tryal able to examine themselves, and discern the Lords body, and do walk according to Christ, do solemnly renew or enter into Covenant, and so electing officers, &c. enjoy full communion, and carry on all Church-affairs in the Congregational way. This shews that a Church may be out of case for the present exercise of a proper Church power, and may need much preparation, and reducement into order before it come up thereunto: and yet this doth not hinder it from being a true Church, nor from having that power radically in it, and which in a way of due order it may come to the exercise of. Have not the late times had experience of many Congregations unto which it was fain to be a publick care to sent Ministers, and they to preach to them many years before they found a number fit for full Communion and management of Church-affairs? and yet they retained the being of true Churches, and Church-members all this while. See also Mr. Shepards late-printed Letter about the Church-membership of Children, pag. 18. We might also ask whether such a member of reasoning as is here used would prove Women to be no Members of an Instituted Church? Because if all the Men were dead, they could not then be a Church, nor Vote in Church-affairs, chuse Officers, &c.

But that which is said may suffice: onelyonly let us adde, that as the case that is supposed, viz. of all the Parents (or all that were in full Communion) being dead, at once, is rarely, if ever heard of; so also the case we added, viz. for the whole body to be fallen into an unfitness for full Communion, by corruption and degeneracy, would be (we may hope) as rare, if Discipline and other Ordinances be kept up, in their use and vigour. God will so bless his own Ordinances, if duely attended, as that a considerable number shall from time to time have such Grace given them as to be fit for full Communion, and to carry on all the things of his House with competent Strength, Beauty, and Edification.

The fourth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent, is this: It is not meer Membership (as the Synod speaks) but qualified Membership that gives right unto Baptism: for John's Baptism might not be applied unto the standing Members of the visible Church, till they were qualified with Repentance. This (say they) seems to us to cut the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for englargeme… …f Baptism: for neither doth the Scripture acknowledge any such meer Membership as they speak of; nor is it meer Membership, but qualified Membership that gives right unto this divine and sacred Ordinance.

Answ. This term or distinction of [Meer Membership] is here, as also in the Book to which this Preface is prefixed, much exagitated, and harshly censured: but let the plain meaning of the Synod therein be attended, and there will appear no cause for such exagitation. When the Synod said, that persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members; and that Meer Membership (or Membership alone) doth not suffice to render men Subjects of the Lords Supper, Propos. 4. p. 17, 18. the meaning is, That full Communion doth not belong to a Member as such, or to a person meerly because he is a Member, for then it would belong to all Members, which it doth not. A person may be a Member (or in memberly Relation) and yet not bein full Communion. Now to say that meer Membership (in this sense) the Scripture acknowledgeth not, is as if p. 34one should say, that the Scripture acknowledgeth not Logical Distinctions between things in their Abstract and general Nature, and the same things as clothed with various Adjuncts and Accessions; which to say, were strangely to forget our selves. But when it is hence inferred and put upon us, That we set up a meer Membership, and a sort of meer Members in the Church; this is an unnecessary Reflexion. As, if we should say that Riches do not belong to men meerly as men, or meerly because they are men; would it be a good inference to say, that we set up a sort of meer men (or a meer Humanity existing alone) or that we distinguish men into Meer men, and Rich men? There is no individual man in the world that is a meer man, i. e. that hath a naked Humanity without Adjuncts; yet Logick distinguisheth between Humanity and its Adjuncts, and between what belongeth to a man as such, and what accreweth to him other wayes,. So in the Church; Membership, or memberly Relation, is not existent in particular persons, without some Communion flowing from it, nor yet without some Qualifications (unto Charity) under it, more or less, at least ordinarily; though it may, and often does exist without those special and peculiar qualifications that fit men for the Lords Table. But surely we may well distinguish, especially between the memberly Rel…tion and those special superadded Qualifications, and between what belongs to persons in the one respect and in the other. For some Priviledges in the Church belong to persons by virtue of their memberly Relation, or meerly because they are Members; they belong to a Member as such: so does Baptism, Matth. 28.19. the Benefit of Church-watch and Discipline (viz. according to Natural capacity in regard of age, there is no other Moral capacity but that of Membership requisite to a Subject thereof) Acts 20.28. 1 Cor. 5.12 and a share in the common Legacies of the Covenant, Rom. 3.1, 2. & 9.4. Acts 3.25, 26. Meer Membership, or Membership alone, gives right to these things. But there be other Priviledges in the Church that do not belong to Members as such (or to persons meerly because they are Members) but to Members as clothed with such and such special qualifications. So the Passover and other holy things of old, and so the Lords Supper now, 1 Cor. 11.28.

Now thus to distinguish, does not distribute Members into meer Members and others, but it distributes Priviledges unto their proper Subjects, and states the immediate Right unto each sort of Priviledges upon its proper Basis. If we say that Government of a Family does not belong to persons meerly because they are Members of the Family; do we thereby set up a sort of meer Members thereof, that have no Family-benefit, but onelyonly a Titulary Relation to it, &c? Indeed such a saying would impor…, that in a Family there are some that are Governours, and some that are not Governours of it; as also that one may be a Member of a Family, and yet have no hand in the Government thereof. So the distinction in hand implies, That in the Church some are in full Communion, and some are not; and that one may be in Memberly Relation, and yet not be in full Communion: and surely the truth of this cannot be doubted of. If Children in minority be Members (as our Brethren acknowledge them to be) then there are some Members that are not in (nor yet fit for) full Communion. And for the Adult, when a man is by Admonition debarred from the Lords Table, and yet not Excommunicated; does he not continue a Member (yea, a personal Member in our Brethrens account) and yet is not in full Communion? This demonstrates that Membership and full Communion are distinct and separable things. It is clear enough, that our Non excommunicable Children do continue Members of the Church; yet many of them are not in full Communi… … will our Brethren say that they are fit for it. So then, neither the Logical distinction between what belongs to persons simply as Members (or by their meer Membership) and what belongs to them as further endued with such and such special qualifications; nor yet the Assertion flowing from it, viz. [That some may be and continue Members, and yet not be in full Communion] can ju…tly be objected against. The sum is; The persons in question have by virtue of their memberly Relation (or meerly by their Membership) a proper right unto the Priviledges that are desired for them; yet withall, they have some qualifications, and some Communion (and so are not meer Members in contradistinction hereunto) though they have not yet such full qualifications as to come into full Communion.

But thus much being s…id concerning that distinction which the Synod useth, and the meaning of it: Proceed we to the Assertion here laid down by our Brethren, and their p. 35Proof thereof. Their Assertion is, That it is not meer Membership, but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism.

Remember here, t…at our …pute properly is of Membership de jure, or regular Membership, (i. e. wherein the Rule appoints or allows one to be, or to be continued a member of the visible Church) not of Membership de facto onelyonly. Now Membership de jure, or regular Membership, implies some qualification, as▪ viz. that a person being a Church-member is not under such gross, and incorrigible Ignorance, Heresie, Scandal or Apostacy, as renders him an immediate Subject of Excommunication; hence meer Membership is not so to be opposed to qualified Membership, as if it were destitute of all qualifications. Those whom the Lord doth, and whom the Church, acting regularly, may own, and continue as Members, they are so farre qualified as that the Rule hath accepted them into Covenant, and doth not appoint us to put them out. Now then, understanding meer Membership f…r [Meerly this, that a man is regularly a Member] and qualified Membership for [Superadded qualifications, over and above what is essentially requisite to regular Membership] the … said Ass…rtion is thus much; It is not sufficient to give a person right to baptism, that he be regularly a Member of the visible Church, but he must have some further qualification then so, or else he hath not right thereunto. This Assertion (or to say, in this sense) that it is not meer Membership, but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism, is indeed an Antisynodalian Assertion, and we doubt not to affirm it is Antiscriptural.

1. It is Antisynodalian, or directly opposite to the D…ctrine of the Synod, and we will readily grant that if this could be proved, it cuts asunder the …inews of the Synods strongest Arguments; for this is that which the Synod stand and build upon, That it is Covenant-interest, or Federal holiness, or visible Church-membership (which are but several expressions of the same thing) that properly gives Right to Baptism, or, that Baptism belongs to a Church-member as su…h, and so to all Church-members. And hence by the way, let it be minded that the Synod in their fifth Proposition have comprized both the Right to Baptism, and the manner of administration: the distinstion between which two, was often-over mentioned in the Synod; though they put both together in the Proposition for better concurrence sake, and that they might at once familiarly set down what is to be attended in such a case. The [Right] stands upon [Membership] whereby the parent, and so the Childe is regularly within the visible Church; so as no more qualification in the Parent is simply necessary to give the Childe right to Baptism, but what is essentially requisite unto regular Membership. As for other and further qualifications pointed to in the Proposition (as, Giving account of their assent to the Doctrine of Faith, Solemn owning of the Covenant, &c.) they properly belong to the manner of Administration. Yet these are not therefore needless things, nor may they be disregarded, or boldly slighted and refused by any (because Membership 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 p. 36Parent 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 (k)(k)It is not the qualifications of one in full Communion, but his Membership that gives his Childe right to Baptism; for suppose he decay in qualification, and grow formal and loose, yet while he continues a Member uncensured, he hath his Childe baptized as well as the best in the Church., as not onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 p. 37Repentance.] 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 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 Antipoed…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 (o… Kingdome of Heaven, as 'tis 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 onelyonly 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,Acts 8.27, 28, 36, 37. & 10.…, 22, 47, 48.Acts 8:27Acts 8:28Acts 8:36Acts 8:37Acts 8:10Acts 8:22Acts 8:47Acts 8:48 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-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 'tis 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, p. 38pag. 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, Chemnit. in Mat. 3.6.Matt 3:6and 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 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, p. 39to 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 o… 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 onelyonly 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 themselv…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 h…ld of the Covenant, wherein they give up themselves and theirs to the Lord in his Church, and subject themselves to Christs Government therein; That these (we say) may be denied or debarred from Church-membership or Baptism upon their desire thereof. It is not easie to believe, that the multitudes baptized by Iohn Baptist and by Christ (i. e. by his Disciples at his Order) in the time of their Ministry; or the many thousands of the Iews that were counted Believers, and baptized after Christs Ascension (too much addicted unto Judaism, Acts 21.20. & 15.1.) or the Numbers baptized by Philip in Samaria, and by the Apostles in other places, upon a short time of Instruction, and when they were moved and taken p. 40…, and of whom many proved corrupt and degenerate afterward (as the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and other places sh…w) That they did (we say) (at least many of them) excell the persons described in the Synods fifth Proposition, taking all things together: or that they had more to render them visible Believers upon a just account then those have.

But it is a strange Reason that is here rendred by our Brethren, why that which is set down by the Synod would not render a person a Subject of Baptism, viz. Because [a man may be an unbelie…er, and yet c…me up to all that the Synod hath said in their fifth Proposition] We suppose … Magus, A…ni… and Sapphira, and many others, not onelyonly might be, but were unbelievers, and yet were regularly baptized. We marvel what outward signs and professions of Faith which the Church may proceed upon, can be given, but a man [may …e] an unbeliever, and yet come up unto them? If it be said, that a man may come up to all that the Synod hath said, and yet …e Ecclesiastically judged a visible unbeliever, shew us any ground for such a judgement.

Touching the Opinion of Bucer & Parker, here cited out of Park. de Polit. …cel. lib. 3. p. 181, 182.

1. In the first passage the word [Apparent.] is here added, the words in Parker are onelyonly [Signes of Regeneration] and the other passage in pag. 182. runs thus; A confession of Faith, though publick and solemn, may not be received in Churches, quando nulla necessaria Fidei signs apparent, when as no necessary Signs of Faith do appear: where by necessary Signs of Faith, are not meane such signs as have a necessary Connexion with Faith, or do necessarily (i. e. infallibly, and certainly) Argue that there is▪ Truth of saving Faith in the heart; such Signs men cannot see or judge of, but when there is such an appearance, as that if that be in reality which doth appear to be (on which seems to be in outward appearance) then there is true Faith; this is that appearance of necessary Signes of Faith which he means; hence within seven lines of the place cited, the same thing is thus expressed; qua…diu nullo probabili Argumento, &c. when as we are by no probable Argument given to believe that it is in the Heart.

2. The thing there specially blamed by Bucer and Parker, is, when a bare Verbal Profession is accepted, though accompanied with a Scandalous life; and when there is not regard had to the conversation, as well as to the Oral Confession, as the Discourse in the place cited at large shews.

3. But that which we would chiefly insist on for Answer, is, That Bucer and Parker do there plainly speak of such a Confirmation (or owning men as confirmed Members) as doth import their Admission to the Lords Table, or into full Communion (as we Phrase it) and hence do blame the Prelatical way for so much slightness therein: so Mr. Cotton cites this place of Bucer (a)(a)Holin. of Church-members, pag. 41.. And so Parker a little before this his citation of Bucer complains, That although by the English order (if I mistake not, saith he) he that is confirmed, is capable of the Lords Supper; yet notwithstanding▪ such are confirmed, if they can but say the Catec…ism, who cannot examine themselues, nor rightly prepare themselues for the Table of the Lord. Now it is well known, that in our Admissions unto full Communion, we are not behind in any thing that Bucer and Parker do require, but do expect positive comfortable Signes of Regeneration already wrought, and some experienced fruits thereof; whereby persons may be in some measure fit for that special and comfortable Exercise of Grace that is required in preparation for, and participation of the Lords Table. But suppose that persons born in the Church, and baptized, be not yet come up to this, is there any word to be found in Bucer or Parker, or in any Judicious Orthodox Divine, that they lose their Membership, and are put out of the Church meerly because they are not come up to this,B…nè autē … nos in genere, de ii… omnibus qui ex fidelibus noscuntur, & f…e deris formula indefinita jub…, & cha…ita… monet Bez quast. de Sacram. …. 123. when as no censurable wickedness is found in them? And while the Parent stands in the Church, his Infant-childe is in the Church also, and therefore Baptizable. Yet withal we say, with the consent of Judicious Divines, that while persons have a regular standing in the Church, they are in Ecclesiastical account to be looked upon as having the Being of Regeneration, or as Fidele…, vocati, and so regenerati, i. e. by reason of their federal Holiness, though not by part…cular, present, evident Signs of a work of Grace already wrought in them: in this case we take their Covenant-estate, Christian Education, Hopeful Carriage, general Profession, &c. for Signs of Regeneration in this sense, i. e. such as shew that there may be Grace, there is nothing inconsistent with Grace, and none knows but … seed of Grace (which in the first infusion, and beginnings of it, is marvellous secret and small) may lye at bottom: and hence the Church is to carry toward them as Heires of Grace. But it is a further thing for Grace to appear above-ground in such Exercise and sensible Signs, Evidences and Experiences, as may fit them for comfortable Communion w…th Christ in the Supper.

But Fourthly, if the judgement of Bucer and Parker may be taken in this Controversie, it will p. 41…: for, notwithstanding all that is here, or can be cited of theirs, it is evident enough that Famous Martin Bucer, and Renowned Parker, (as the Preface styleth them, and that deservedly) do fully concurre with the Synod in extending Baptism to such as the Synod describes, or to more then so. Vid. Bucer de regno Christi, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. pag. 14. And in his Commentary upon Iohn, in an excellent discourse concerning Infant Baptism, among many other useful Passages, he hath these following. Sunt quidem sa…e inter pueros Reprobi, &c. There are indeed often among Children some that be Reprobates, but while that does not appear to us, we ought nevertheless to reckon them among the People of God; and we shall time enough cast them out, when by their evil fruits they shall openly shew us what they are: Bucer in Joh. fol. 43. And in another place, Quantum equidem assequi possum, &c. As far as I can gather (saith he) the Anabaptist's onelyonly reason why they dislike Infant baptism, is, Because they fancy to themselves that the Church would be more pure, if we baptized none but the adult, and such as hold forth evidences of the Spirit: and so they think but a few would have place in Churches. But by this means doubtless it would come to pass, that many of Christs Sheep would be neglected as Goats: neither would all Parents be so careful as they think, in educating their Children unto piety. And yet this humane thought (which savours of too much esteem of our own works) doth so possess them, that they bring all to this, and turn off all that can be said, and hereby they run themselves into very great errours. I called it an humane thought, for no Scripture doth command such a curious circumspection, lest any Goats should be received into the Church. The Apostles often baptized persons with whom they had scarce had an hours speech concerning Christ; because, according to the Parable of the Gospel, they would bring in all they met with to the Marriage (Mat. 22.10.) For by Baptism they only took them into the School of Piety, and Trained-hand of Christians; and they were wont then to cast them out again, when it was evidently enough perceived that to labour in teaching them was in vain. Ibid. fol. 53.

As for Parker, his speaking mainly against the admitting or tolerating of [Manifestarii peccatores] The notoriously wicked, and pleading to have them debarred from the Lords Table, or cast out by the use of Discipline (a)(a)De Polit. Eccles. Lib. 3. pag. 168, 169.: His frequent approbation of the Principles of the Reformed Churches (b)(b)De Polit. Eccl. Lib. 1. cap. 29. & Lib. 3. pag. 167. Protestat. before Treat. of the Cross.; And in special his approving of their admitting Members (not before of their Body) upon such like qualifications as are contained in the Synods fifth Proposition (c)(c)De Polit. Lib. 3. pag. 171.. Also his earnest and peremptory rejecting the Opinions and Principles of the Anabaptists and Separatists, and declaring himself and the Non-Conformists, whose Cause he acted, to be farre from them (d)(d)Ibid. Lib. 1. cap. 13. & 14. & Lib. 3. pag. 166. And of the Cross, Cap. 9. sect. 2.. These and such like do clearly shew that Worthy man to be no Opponent of such an extent of Baptism as is contained in the Conclusions of the Synod.

But here our Brethren will needs take notice, that the judgment of that worthy and for ever famous Mr. Cotton was as theirs is, because he hath these words, (in Holiness of Church-members, pag. 93) I conceive (under favour) more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old.

Ans. The Reader will take notice of what hath been before said, and cited to shew Mr. Cottons judgement in the Points controverted between our Brethren and the Synod, and will easily thereby judge whether Mr. Cottons judgement was as theirs is: but It is strange they should make such a Collection from what is here set down. Mr. Cotton might say those words that are here expressed, and yet his judgement be farre enough from being as theirs is in any of the Points that are controverted: for we shall not gainsay this Conception of Mr. Cottons [That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church members of the New Testament, then of the Old] but concur with it in two respects, or for two causes: 1. Because the Light now is greater and clearer then it was then, and where more is given, more is required, Luke 12.48. 2. Because the Discipline appointed under the Old Testament was mostly Ceremonial (Ames Medul. lib. 1. c. 38. Thes. 41.) And whether Excommunication for Moral evils, was then used, at least out of the National Church, is by some doubted: As also whether persons were debarred from the holy things simply for Moral evils, if they were ceremonially clean; as Mr. Cotton in the place here alledged saith, It is true, that it is a question whether sins very scandalous did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices: But under the New Testament we have a plain and undoubted Rule, for the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils persisted in: hence persons might haply run further into Moral evils (and so further off from the fruits of Regeneration) then, and yet not be put out of the Church (yea haply not be debarred from the holy things) then they can do now. But what is all this to the matter in hand? for still it is not secret irregeneration, nor the bare want of such and such positive fruits of Regeneration, without positive and palpable …ruits of Irregeneration, that will (according to any Rule God hath given us) put any man out of p. 42the Church, when he is once in. Nay, Mr. Cotton in the very place here cited, expresly saith, that Irregeneration alone will not keep a man out:Holiness of Church-members, pag 92. His words are these [Neither amongst us doth Irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us: not Irregeneration alone (I say) unles it be accompanied with such fruits as are openly scandalous, and do convincingly manifest Irregeneration.] Moreover, still the parallel between the Church of the Old and of the New Testament; stands and holds in this, that when a person is once by Gods appointment taken into the visible Church (whether in adult age or in infancy, it comes all to one for that) he continues in it, and doth not lose his Membership, till by some Rule or Appointment of God in his Word he be cut off or cast out. What the particular Rules and wayes of cutting off were in the Old Testament, we need not here dispute, but to be sure the plain Rule in the New Testament for the cutting off of particular persons, is by the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils.

But while we grant that in some respects more positive fruits in regard of degree might be required in the Old Testament, let none so understand it, as if Regeneration was not required as all unto the Constitution and Continuation of the visible Church in the Old Testament, but that a meer carnal succession was then allowed of without regard to Regeneration. For they sto…d by Faith, and were br…ken off by Vnbelief as well as we, Rom. 11. Circumcision was a Seal of the Righte…usness of faith, as well as Baptism. Faith and Repentance do not now more constitute the Covenant of God, then it did in the time of Abraham, who was the Father of the Faithful, saith Dr. Ames (b)(b)Medul. Lib. 1. cap. 40. Thes. 13. Yea, our brethren do in their Antisynodalia, pag. 17. expresly say, That the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Circumcision of his seed, was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was, i. e. that he should walk with God by Faith and Obedience. And it is observeable, that no where is Regeneration, and the fruits thereof, required of Gods Covenant people in stricter and fuller terms then in the Old Testament, Gen. 17.1. Deut. 10.12. & 26.16, 17. 1 Kings 8.23. Psal. 103.17, 18. Isa. 56.4, 6. And yet the Lord, who is the best interpreter of his own Rules, continued them in the Church, and accounted them among the number of his holy people, till palpall…, and incorrigible fruits of Irregeneration were found with them: and so he doth now.

In the sixth Place: The Application (saith the Preface) of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not true Believers (we mean visibly, for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia) is a profanation thereof, and as dreadful a sin as if a man should administer the Lords Supper unto unworthy receivers—We marvel that any should think that the Blood of Christ is not as mu…h profaned and vilified by undue Administration of Baptism, as by undue administration of the Lords Supper.

Ans It will be hard for the Redder to gather out of all that is here said, a Reason of dissent from the Synod: for we readily grant and say, that Baptism is not to be applied to any but visible Believers (taking visible Believers ▪ as a term equivalent to [Federally Holy] as the term Believer or Faithful is sometimes in Scripture so taken, Isa…. 1.21. 2 Cor. 6.15. and often in Authors) but that the persons in question, both Parents and Children, are visible Believers, is also by the Synod asserted and proved; and here is nothing said to disprove it. But when as our Brethren here say, that the Application of the Seal of Baptism unto those who are not visibly true Believers, is a profanation thereof (in which, being rightly explained, we gainsay them not) and yet in their …, pag. 20. do hold forth, That Infants neither have nor can have Faith; it will lye upon them to shew how they apply the seal of Baptism to Infants without a profanation thereof. It is pity that so many passages are dropt here and there, that do (though we hope not in their Intention) clas… with the baptizing of I…fants. Here is also exprest a marvel, that any should think, &c. But we may Answer with a m…rvel that any should speak as if any of us did think that the Blood of Christ is not profaned by undue administration of Baptism, as well as by undue administration of the Lords Supper: whether as much or no in point of degree, we will not trouble our selves to dispute; though we suppose the degree of sinful, pollution or profanation of the Lords Name in any Ordinance, will be intended by the degree of special Communion that we have with Christ in that Ordinance, and by the danger that such pollution infers to the whole Church, as well as to the particular partaker, which will hardly be denied to be more in the Lords Supper then in Baptism. But whether the profanation be as great or no, to be sure it is very great▪ and so great as that every Pious Conscientious person should fear to have any hand in the undue administration of Baptism. But where is there any thing to shew that the administration of Baptism, pointed to by the Synod, is undue? or that it is an undue Administration of B…ptism to extend it further then the Lords Supper? or to administer Baptism to some unto whom we do not administer the Lords Supper? If the Rule and Institution concerning these two Sacraments p. 43do extend the one further then the other, as it plainly doth, when it appoints Baptism to all Disciples, or to run parallel with federal Holiness, Mat. 28.19. but the Lords Supper onelyonly to Self-examining Disciples, 1 Cor. 11.28. then the one may be extended further then the other, and yet the administration of the one no more undue, or irregular, and polluting then the Administration of the other. Surely he that holds, That Baptism may, and the Lords Supper may not be administred unto Infants (as we suppose our Brethren do) he grants that Baptism may be extended further then the Lords Supper, without any such sacrilegio… impiety, dreadful prof…rtation or prostitution of the Blood of Christ, as is here (harshly enough) exprest. Neither did judicious Calvin (part of whose zealous expression against the promiscuous Administration of the Lords Supper, is here cited in the Preface) ever imagine or conceive that it was any such profanation to extend Baptism further then the Lords Supper, yea and further then the Synod doth, when as he set down that Answer in his Catec…ism that is above alledged, and practised accordingly. It is well known the Synod doth not ple…d for that largeness in either of the Sacraments that Calvin allowed: But to extend the one further then the other, was never accounted sacrilegious impiety in Orthodox Divinity.

It is here added; that Austin pleads for strictness in the Administration of Baptism, and Tertullian be…ore him. But did either of them ple…d for greater strictness then the Synod doth? unless where Tertullian erroneously and weakly pleads for the delaying of Baptism, which is noted (c)(c)Magdeb. Cent. 3. pag. 83.for one of his navi. Certainly men will say when they look upon what is published by the Synod, and their wary qualifying of the fifth Proposition (about which the controversy is) that they were for much strictness in the administration of Baptism, and many will think us too strict. We doubt not but we may safely say, that no man can shew any thing out of Austin that will speak him to be against the baptizing of such as the Synod pleadeth for: yea, he requireth not more of adult Converts from Heathenism, for their own Baptism, then is in the Parents who are described by the Synod. That Book of his de Fide & Operibus, is against the baptizing of notorious scandalous livers, whom he would not have baptized (though seemingly turned from Heathenism) till they seriously promised reformation. But that Austin (in stead of being for more strictness) holdeth for a larger extent of Baptism then the Synod doth, might easily be evinced (d)(d)Sicut ergo tempere illius Sacramenti, de C…cumcisō qui nasceretur circumcide…dus …ait; sic nune de Baptizato qui n…tus fuerit, baptizandus est. August. tom. 7. cont. Pelag. Lib. 2. cap. 25. See also Tom. 2. Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium; & Epist. 75. ad Auxilium. And De Grat. & Lib. Arbitr. cap. 22..

How strange is it to see their Authority still alledged against us, who are not onelyonly fully with us in this matter, but go further then we!

The seventh Reason of our Brethrens dissent, is this; It hath in it a natural tendency to the …ardning of unregenerate Creatures, in their sinful natural condition, when Life is not onelyonly promised, but sealed to them by the precious Blood of Iesus Christ. Baptism is a Seal of the whole Co…enant of Grace, (e)(e)Ame… Medul. lib. 1. cap. 40. …hes. ….as well as the Lords Supper and therefore those that are not interested in this Covenant by Faith, ought not to have the Seal thereof applyed to them.

Ans. 1. The Lords Truth and Grace, however it may be abused by the corruption of mans perverse and …inful nature, hath not in it self any natural tendency to harden any, but the contrary. And how can the Doctrine in hand have any such natural tendency? when as men are told over and over, that onelyonly outward advantages and dispensations are sealed to them in Baptism more absolutely (Rom. 3.1, 2. … 9.4.) but the saving benefits of the Covenant (or Life Eternal) conditionally (see Mr. Shepards late Printed Letter, pag. 3—6.) so that if they fail of the condition (viz. eff…ctual and unfeigned faith) they miss of Salvation, notwithstanding their Baptism, and external Covenant-estate: And hence, that there is no certa…n, but onelyonly a probable connexion between federal Holyness (as applied to particular persons) and Salvation; that Thousands are in the vi…ble Church that shall never see Heaven; That outward Priviledges are not to be rested in, but improved …s helps and encouragements to the obtaining of internal and special Grace: that the Chur…h is to accept of probable signes, but no man for … is to rest without certain S…gns of Grace: Hence the indefinite promise, and other general indefinite tokens of a good estate, … such as decypher that sort of persons that are gracious, and many of whom are so▪ though many are not, (…s Ch…ldren of the Covenant, Professors of the Faith &c.) These are grounds for the Church to proceed upon in the dispensation of outward …, especi…lly that of Baptism, that is annexed to the first being of Grace; but they are not grounds for any to rest o… acquie…ce in, as to the Salvation of their own soules. In sum, while we keep a due distinction between the outw…rd and inward dispensation of the Covenant, and between the respective cond…ti…ns and gr…unds of each, there is no tendency unto hardning therein: but inde…d▪ p. 44…, and do tye visible Church-interest unto such conditions and qualifications, as are reputed enough to Salvation, this may tend to harden men, and to make them conceit, that if once they be got into the Church, they are sure of Heaven, when … it may be they are far from it.

2. The Scriptures give us a contrary Assertion to this of our Brethren here; for they tell us, that to deny the Children of the Church, to have any part in the Lord, hath a strong tendency in it, to make them cease from fearing the Lord, or to harden their hearts from his fear, Iosh. 22.24, 25, 27. and that on the other hand, the incouragements and awful obligations of Covenant-interest do greatly tend to soft… and break the heart, and to draw it home unto God. Hence the Lord often begins with this, that He is their God (viz. in outward Covenant) and they his People, when he would most powerfully win and draw them to Faith and Obedience, Psal. 81.8, 10. Levit. 19.3, 4. Deut. 14.1, 2. Hosea 14.1. Act. 2.38, 39. and the Experiences of many can through Grace witness unto this, of what use the consideration of the Lords preventing Grace in his sealed Covenant, and their engagement to him thereby hath been in the day of their turning unto God, so Ier. 31.18. & 3.22. Gal. 1.15.

3. There is a natural tendency in mans corrupt heart (not in this, or any other Truth or Ordinance of God) that leads him to turn Grace into wantonness, and to abuse outward Priviledges and Ordinances, unto a self-hardning security and carnal confidence, Ier. 7.4. Mat. 3.9. Rom. 2.17. Phil. 3.4, 5, 6, 7. but is this any Argument against the Lord's or the Churches giving men a portion in his Temple and Ordinances, because they are prone so to abuse them? Confidence in outward visible qualifications for full communion, is but a vain and carnal thing; yet men are prone enough to it, and had need by the Ministry be taken off from it. But shall we therefore deny or scruple their Admission thereunto?

4. If one should bring such an Argument as this against the baptizing of Infants, viz. That it will harden them, and bolster them up in their sinful natural condition; we suppose it would be counted a poor Argument, and of no validity; and yet it holds as well against the baptizing of any Infants, as of these in question. If it be said, that the baptizing of these in question hardens the Parent? Ans. Not at all (in the way we go) any more with reference to his Childes Baptism, then in reference to his own Baptism which he received in Infancy. For it doth not necessarily affirm that he hath any more then federal Holiness, and that he had, when he was an Infant, on that ground was he Baptized then, and on the same ground is his Childe Baptized now. If he have any more, he may have the more comfort in it; but simply to have his Childe Baptized, on the grounds we go upon, affirms no more but this, because we ground all upon federal Holiness, or Membership in the visible Church.

It is true, that Baptism is a Seal of the whole Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lords Supper: But it is as true, 1. That it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, as dispensed in the visible Church, or it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, as clothed with the external dispensation or administration thereof, and so it doth nextly and immediately Seal the external dispensation, or the Promises and Priviledges that belong thereto (which are a part of the whole Covenant of Grace) and then it seals the inward and saving benefits of the Covenant as included in that dispensation, and upon the Conditions therein propounded. Baptism seals the whole Covenant, and whole dispensation thereof, i. e. 1. The dispensation of it Outwardly, to all that have an external standing in the Church. 2. The dispensation and communication of it Inwardly, Effectually and Savingly to all that truely do believe.

2. That Baptism is a Seal of Entrance into the Covenant thus considered. It seals the whole Covenant, but by way of Initiation; so Dr. Ames in the place that is here quoted, Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 40. Thes. 5, 6. Baptism is the Sacrament of Initiation, or Regeneration, for although it do at once seal the whole Covenant of Grace to the Faithful, yet by a singular appropriation it represents and confirms our very ingrafting into Christ, Rom. 6.3, 5. 1 Cor. 12.13. And Thesis 10. Those Benefits are sealed by way of Initiation, in Baptism: And from thence the judicious Doctor makes that Inference that suits and clears the matter in hand, Thes. 11. Hence Baptism ought to be administred to all those, unto whom the Covenant of Grace belongs, because it is the first Seal of the Covenant now first entred into. Baptism is the Seal of Entrance into Covenant, sealing up unto the party baptized, all the good of the Covenant to be in season communicated and enjoyed, from step to step, through the whole progress of Christianity, from this first beginning thereof, according to the Tenour and Order of the Covenant. Hence it belongs to all that are within the Covenant, or that have but a first entrance thereinto, Children as well as others, though they have not yet such faith and growth, as imports that progress in the Covena…t, and fruition p. 45of the Comfort and …ruits thereof that is sealed up in the Lords Supper.

We readily grant, and say [That …ne ought to have the Seal of Baptism applied in th…, … those that are interested in the Covenant] and that by Faith, unless you can shew us any other way of Interest in the Covenant, but by Faith. But withall, we aff…m and prove, That the Children in question have interest in the Covenant, according to the known tenour thereof, Gen. 17.7. and therefore that the Seal of Baptism is to be 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 one… away from him, Mark 10.13, 14. To go pluck up all the Tares was a …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 onelyonly 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 Inl…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 onelyonly, 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 Co…ton b)b)Grounds and Ends of Infant-baptism, p. 28, 29.. 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 onelyonly 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.Prov. 14, 28. Psa. 110.3.Prov 14:28Ps 110:3 In Church-reformation, it is an observable Truth (saith …areus on the Parable of the Tares) That those that are for too much strictness, do more bu…t then profit the Church. See Dioda…e on Matt. 13.29. Cyprian Epist. 51.

3. There is apparently a greater▪ …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 ev…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 …s Corrupters of the Churches, when we stand for p. 46a 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 i… 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 Church…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 come to the Lords Table, nor have any hand in the Management of Church-affairs (as Elections of Officers, Admissions, and Censures of Members) untill as a fruit of the foresaid help and means, they attain to such qualifications as may render their admission into full Communion safe and comfortable, both to their own Souls, and to the Churches.

In sum, we make account, that if we keep Baptism within the compass of the Non-excommunicable, and the Lords Supper within the compass of those that have (unto Charity) somewhat of the Power of Godliness (or Grace in exercise) we shall be near about the right Middle-way of Church-Reformation. And as for the Preservation of due Purity in the Church, it is the due Exercise of Discipline that must do that, as our Divines unanimously acknowledge, for that is Gods own appointed way (and the Lord make and keep us all careful and faithul therein) not the Curtailing of the Covenant, which may be man's way; but is not the way of God wherein alone we may expect his Blessing.

The good Lord pardon the Imperfections and Failings that attend us in these Debates; accept of what is according to his Will, and establish it; save us from corrupting Extremes on either hand, and give unto his People one Heart and one Way to fear Him for ever, for the good of them and of their Children after them.