Animadversions Upon Antisynodalia Americana, Chapter 6

Animadversions Upon Antisynodalia Americana · Chapter 6

p. 47CHAP. VI. Concerning the fifth Propoſition.

Propoſ. 5. CHurch-members who were admitted in minority, underſtanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publickly profeſſing their Aſſent thereto; not ſcandalous in life, and ſolemnly owning the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themſelves and their children to the Lord, and ſubject themſelves to the Government of Chriſt in the Church, their children are to be Baptized.

"This Propoſition (ſay our Brethren) doth ſtumble us moſt. Their Reaſons are:

Reaſ. 1. Becauſe, there being three Expreſſions propounded, this ſwerveth further then the other from the Scripture.

Anſ. Be it granted, that ſeveral terms and expreſſions of theſe Qualifications were propounded; theſe onelyonly in concluſion were Aſſented unto. But if our Brethren judge, That they all ſwerved from the Scripture, what matter is it which ſwerved moſt from it? If this ſwerveth moſt, they have the more advantage of Diſpute againſt it. But ſeeing they ſtumble ſo much at this, I ſhall eaſily remove this Block out of their way.

Obj. Firſt, ſay they, in the former Expreſſions it was required, they ſhould underſtand the Grounds of Religion; here, no more then the Doctrine of Faith: So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law, and ſo have no knowledge of Sin, of the Duties of Holineſs, Righteouſneſs, Sabbaths, &c.

Anſ. As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion, both in the acceptation of Scripture, and of Orthodox Divines. Phil. 1.27. when the Apoſtle exhorts them to ſtrive for the Faith of the Gospel, might they let go the Doctrine of p. 48the Moral Law, or any other Grounds of Religion? 2 Tim. 4.7. when Paul ſaith, He had kept the Faith, did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law, and other Grounds of Religion? Jude ver. 3. Contend for the Faith; was not that Faith oppoſed to the fi…y Dreamers that ſinned againſt the Moral Law? and therefore ſurely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law. When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Conſent with the Aſſembly of Divines in England, in The Doctrine of Faith; and the Aſſembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declaration of their Faith and Order; do they not mean by the word Faith, all the Grounds of Religion, excepting onelyonly matters of Order? But what need more Inſtances, when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are ſtedfaſt in the Faith and Order of the Goſpel? I dare not be ſo uncharitable, to think, that ſuch perſons do not hold faſt The Doctrine of the Moral Law, and all The Grounds of Religion. Surely the Synod intended it ſo.

Obj. 2. In the ſecond Expreſſion it was required, that they ſhould be Examined of their ſenſe of their need of Chriſt, and deſires after him; here, only of their Aſſent to the Doctrine of Faith, which the Devils may have.

A…ſ. But if ſuch ſenſe of their need of Chriſt, and deſires after him, ſhould not, upon ſuch Examination, appear, but this Aſſent to the Doctrine of Faith, with all the other Qualifications; Might not this ſuffice to ſhew their Continuance in the viſible Church? What if the Devils may give an Aſſent to the Truth? it is not free, but inforced; and they want all the other Qualifications, that theſe have.

Obj. 3. The former required, that they ſhould give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into; here, onelyonly that they are not Scandalous in life. The former, viz. Offences, comprehend Original Sin, or any other committed againſt God or man, Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lif…, noteth onelyonly Notorious ſins, and a courſe therein.

Anſ. That they ſtumble at this, muſt needs ariſe from a very rigid Principle (whereof this Treatiſe hath too many) For, who ever took up that of Original Sin, as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it? Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that, or for all ſuch Words or Actions as are Offences to God or p. 49man? A practice that the Apoſtle condemneth in that very place alledged, Jam. 3 1. Be not many maſters; for in many things we offend all: and therefore pity, and bear with one another and be not ſo rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence. If this were not ſo, what uſe were there of thoſe Rules of Love, 1 Cor. 13.7. Love beareth all things. Gal. 6.2. Bear one anothers burthens. Col. 3.13. Forbearing one another?

2. It is evident Luke 17.1, 2, 3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals: Woe to him that ſcandalizeth one of theſe little ones; and Impenitency in any ſuch Scandal deſerveth the higheſt Cenſure, but repented of, ceaſeth to be a Scandal or Offence, Mat. 18. yea, although ſuch a Scandal ſhould not be a notorious ſin, nor continued in but in one act: So that Not to be ſcandalous in life, is full as large as that other Expreſſion, and doth include Satisfaction for Offences that are fallen into.

Obj. 4. In the former was ſaid, They ſhould own the Covenant of their Parents; here, onelyonly the Covenant: which may extend to Grandfathers, &c.

Anſ. I wonder how our Brethren could make to themſelves ſuch a Block as this is to ſtumble upon, when-as the Doctrine of the Synod is ſo expreſs to the contrary in the ſecond Propoſition, which affirmeth, That this right in the Covenant is conveyed onelyonly by the next Parents, 1 Cor. 7.14. If men have a luſt to contend, and raiſe Objections, they might as well have objected againſt the former phraſe, The Covenant of their Parents; for are not Grandfathers Parents alſo?

Theſe things (ſay our Brethren) thus weighed, may ſuffice to diſcover, whether there be not juſt cauſe for us to deny our Conſent to ſuch kinde of Members as theſe.

Anſ. But theſe things weighed over again by the equal Ballance of the Sanctuary, and right Reaſon, I doubt not but the Judicious Reader will ſee how light they are, and unworthy to ſway the Judgements of ſuch as our Brethren are. But they adde (as they had need) other Reaſons of their Deniall.

Reaſ. 2. Becauſe this croſſeth the two former Propoſitions, which make the proper Subjects of Baptiſm, Confederate viſible Believers and p. 50their ſeed: whereas theſe, though ſo qualified, are not (neither Parents nor Children) viſible Believers; for the vileſt perſons may have theſe, Rom. 2.18. & 10 19, 21. yea, they that commit the ſin unto Death may have theſe, Heb. 10.26. There are waſhed Swine, 2 Pet. 2.20, &c.

Anſ. 1. Theſe Parents are Confederate viſible Believers, as hath been proved. They are in Covenant with God, He is their God, God accepteth them as His People, His Children; the Lord hath ſealed to them the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Baptized them into Chriſt, and they Own this God, Submit to his Rules, &c. and therefore in Eccleſiaſtical account they are viſible Believers.

2. Here is a very palpable Fallacy in citing theſe Scriptures to prove the contrary. The vileſt perſons (ſay they) may have theſe: Indeed the Scriptures prove that ſome vile perſons may have ſome one of theſe; as Rom. 2. proveth, that wicked men may have knowledge; but theſe have knowledge, and alſo Not ſcandalous in life, &c. and ſo may be ſaid of the reſt. But which of theſe, or any other, doth prove, That ſuch perſons as have all theſe Qualifications conjunctly, are vile perſons, or not viſible Believers in Eccleſiaſtical account, or in Scripture account, and not true Members of the viſible Church? It is true, that ſuch as theſe may fall away, and become vile, Heb. 10 26. but may not ſuch as come into the Church by the faireſt Profeſſion of Faith, prove ſo vile alſo? and were they therefore no viſible Believers before ſuch a fall?

3. Theſe very Scriptures, or moſt of them here alledged, ſpeak of ſuch perſons (though ſo vile, as is ſaid) who being adult children of the Church, did yet continue Members of the viſible Church, and they and their ſeed partake of Priviledges; and therefore ſuch Scriptures cannot reach this caſe, to diſprove the Memberſhip of theſe in the viſible Church, becauſe they are not viſible Believers, theſe being farre better Members then thoſe were: and I wonder that our Brethren do not obſerve it; or if they do, why ſhould they alledge ſuch Scriptures in this caſe?

Object. But their giving up of themſelves and their children to God, implies Faith, 2 Cor. 8.5.

Anſ. Our Brethren grant, that it may imply Faith, but in perſons p. 51no better qualified it cannot imply it. There is a giving up of the Firſt-born of man and beaſt to God, Exod. 13.2, 12. & 22.29.

Reply. To ſay, That in ſuch perſons no better qualified it cannot imply Faith, and that without any Reaſon rendred, is againſt the Rule of Love, that hopeth all things to be hoped, as this is confeſſed to be, viz. that it may imply i…. No doubt, a perſon thus qualified in Knowledge and Converſation, may give up himſelf to God in ſuch a manner, that the moſt diſcerning Church would receive him as a true viſible Believer into full Communion regularly. The Eunuch's Confeſſion, that Jeſus Chriſt is the Son of God, was juſtly taken for true Faith. To ſay, There is a giving up of the Firſt-born of man and beaſt to God (if it be not a Scoff) it argueth a very ſlight thought of ſo ſolemn a Profeſſion before God and his People: for what Compariſon is there between theſe two?

Reaſ. 3. Where there is no Foederal Holineſs, there is no right to Baptiſm. But where neither Parent is a Believer, there is no Covenant-holineſs, 1 Cor. 7.14. where not onelyonly one of the Parents muſt be in Covenant, but a Believer, that the children be foederally holy. Neither is it rightly Objected, That a Believer is oppoſed there to an Infidel: for the children were not upon their ceaſing to be Infidels, Believers: So that themſelves were Believers, or their children foederally holy; They were Catechumeni, and Competentes, before Fideles.

Anſ. 1. Did the Primitive Churches receive any that were not viſible Believers into the Churches? Surely in the Apoſtles account The Church of God, and Sanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, is all one, 1 Cor. 1.2. So the Church of Epheſus and Coloſſe, are called Saints, and Faithfull in Chriſt, Epheſ. 1 1. Col. 1 2. Why th…n is it ſaid, that the Parents muſt be not onelyonly in Church-covenant, but alſo Believers? as if the one did not neceſſarily ſuppoſe and infer the other.

2. That it is rightly ſaid, That in ceaſing to be Infidels they were Believers in Eccleſiaſtical account, is evident, in that Infidels and Unbelievers are the ſame in Scripture-phraſe, and both oppoſed to Believers, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. Be not unequally yoked with Ʋnbelievers, that is, with Infidels, as appeareth ver. 15. What part hath a Believer with an Infidel? Now I appeal to our Brethren, whether this Rule p. 52of the Apoſtle would allow the Parents in queſtion deſcribed in the fifth Propoſition, to Marry with an Heathen, Indian, or like Infidel; if not, then in the Scripture account he is a Believer, for otherwiſe he ſhould not be unequally yoked with ſuch an one.

3. As for that Diſtinction of Catechumeni, Competentes, and Fideles, the Scripture knoweth no ſuch thing; for, Lydia and her houſe were Baptized together, Acts 16.15. and the Jaylor and his houſe ſtraightway. That diſtinction came into the Church afterward, and was applied to new Converts, as well as to the Church-ſeed.

But our Brethren adde further, That elſe, or otherwiſe were your children unclean, cannot be meant onelyonly of Infidels; for ſo we may make mad work of Scripture: as Deut. 4.29. Jehovah is God, and none elſe; if any ſhould ſay, There may be another God to the Gentiles, it would be a ſad Exception: So Rev. 2.15. Repent, or I will come againſt thee; ſhall another Church ſay, It will not be ſo with us?

Anſ. That to be Ʋnclean, is meant the uncleanneſs of Infidels, is clear by the Rule of Contraries. For, if to be holy, be meant of the holineſs of the Covenant; then to be unclean, is the uncleanneſs of ſuch as are ſtrangers from the Covenant, and ſo without God in the world, that is, Infidels, Eph. 2.12. And what are the children of ſuch as have both Parents Ʋnbelievers, but Infidels in the Apoſtles ſenſe? But for that inference, That by like reaſon might be inferred from that propoſition, There is no God elſe, that There may be another God to the Gentiles; I confeſs my ſhallow underſtanding cannot ſee any Compariſon between thoſe two propoſitions, but onelyonly that the word Elſe is in them both; the one being a disjunct Axiome, Your children are clean, or elſe unclean, and the other a ſimple Axiome, where the word Elſe is of another uſe and ſenſe then in the former. But be it ſo, that it is ſo ſad an Exception from a general propoſition, Jehovah is God, and none elſe, to ſay, Yet there may be another God to the Gentiles; or to ſay, The threatnings of Chriſt to the Churches yet belong not to us: Our Brethren may then conſider, when the Apoſtle ſaith of Church-members, Your children are holy, to make ſuch an Exception, and ſay, Not ſo, but onelyonly the children p. 53of Members in full Communion are holy, whether this be not a ſad Exception alſo.

Reaſ 4. The being in Covenant doth not priviledge to Baptiſm, without viſible Repentance in Parents, Acts. 2.38, 39. The Jews were in Covenant, and pricked to the heart, yet they were openly called to Repent: So John Baptiſt thought, Mat. 3.8, 9.

Anſ. 1. The Jews being in Covenant did priviledge their children to the Benefits of that Covenant they were in, viz. Circumciſion, the Sacrifices, &c. Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. But there was great reaſon they ſhould be called to Repentance, when they were to enter into the Goſpel-diſpenſation of the Covenant, becauſe the Church of the Jews was grown ſo corrupt; and thoſe in Acts 2. being guilty of the Blood of the Son of God: and hence John was ſent to prepare a people for the Lord by the Doctrine of Repentance. But when Philip had to do with the Eunuch, a godly Proſelyte, he onelyonly called him to Faith in the Perſon of Chriſt as the Son of God.

2. Though Faith and Repentance, in a viſible Profeſſion thereof, be required at the firſt admiſſion into the Church; yet theſe are not required in the ſame manner in perſons regularly admitted, to priviledge their ſeed to Baptiſm. What Rule or Example requireth a Church-member to make Profeſſion of viſible Faith and Repentance, ſo oft as he hath a childe to be Baptized? Or in caſe a Church-member declineth, and giveth cauſe of much doubt of the ſoundneſs of his Faith and Repentance; What Rule will debarre his childe from Baptiſm, ſo long as he continueth a Member of the Church? Now our queſtion is of Perſons regularly admitted, and continuing in the Church.

Reaſ. 5. The Covenant is limited to ſuch as obey God, and therefore the Priviledges of the Covenant, Deut. 7.9. Neh. 1.5. Dan. 9.5. He keepeth Covenant and Mercy to them that love him.

Anſ. This is a frequent Miſtake, to apply that which is ſpoken of the ſaving Benefits of the Covenant, to the Outward Priviledges thereof; the firſt God performs to ſuch as love and obey him ſincerely, yet the other he continueth to all ſuch as do not fall away from the Outward Profeſſion of the Covenant. Take theſe Scriptures p. 54named: Did not Church-priviledges belong to all Iſrael, when Moſes ſpake that word, Deut. 7.9. that God keepeth Mercy and Covenant to them that love him? and yet he giveth a ſad teſtimony of them, Chap. 9.24. You have been rebellious againſt the Lord ever ſince I knew you. So in Nehemiahs time, did not all that were of the holy ſeed enjoy Church-priviledges, when Nehemiah ſp…ke that word, Chap. 1.5? and yet the ſtory ſpeaketh of many evils amongſt them, that ſhew they were Scandalous in life, which theſe are not, and have many other good Qualifications beſides that alſo.

Reaſ. 6. From the tenour and manner of the Covenant made with Abraham, Nehem. 9.8. when God ſaw his heart faithful before him. So Gen. 17.1, 7. Walk before me, and be upright, and I will be a God to thee and thy ſeed, &c.

Anſ. This is the ſame Reaſon with the former, built upon the ſame Miſtake, and may have the ſame Anſwer. I readily grant, That all that Enter into Covenant with God ought to Love him, Obey him, Walk uprightly before him: and what is ſaid Gal. 3.7, 9. that They that are of the Faith, are bleſſed with faithful Abraham: Faith and Holineſs is the duty of every Church-member, for want whereof he falleth ſhort of all the Saving Bleſſings of the Covenant. But doth it follow, that ſuch as are in Church-covenant, and do not perform th…ſe Duties, are thereby deprived of the Outward Priviledges and the Means of Grace, and that before they be regularly caſt out of the Church? Were there not many corrupt Members in the Church, not onelyonly of Iſrael, but alſo in Goſpel-Churches, as of Corinth, Galatia, the Churches of Aſia, Rev. 2. & 3. who did enjoy Church-priviledges, till they were caſt ou…, or till God actually Removed their Candleſticks? It was indeed a ſin reproved to ſuffer ſuch, but ſo long as they were ſuffered, they regularly enjoyed the Outward Priviledges.

Here our Brethren endeavour to Anſwer two Objections.

Obj 1. The Covenant-Bleſſing was conveyed with Circumciſion ſucceſſively to the following generations.

Anſ. We muſt conſider, that Gal. 3.14. that is expreſſed to be the Bleſſing of Abraham that ſhould come upon the Gentiles, not the Covenant of Jacob (as Mr. Cotton hath judic…ouſly noted upon the p. 55place.) Now Abrahams Covenant, and the Bleſſing thereof, is confirmed onelyonly to thoſe that walk uprightly with God, as Abraham did.

Reply. That difference Mr. Cotton put between the Bleſſing of Abraham and Jacob, may hold in this, That God continued all the Sons of Jacob, and their Poſterity, in the Covenant; not ſo of Abraham: Iſhmael and his ſeed, and the Sons of Keturah, were not ſo; and ſo Eſau and his ſeed, being the Poſterity of Iſaac, were rejected. And that ſeemeth to be the meaning of that ſpeech of Jacob, Gen. 49.26. that His bleſſing prevailed above the bleſſing of his Progenitors. But this difference cannot hold in reſpect of the tenour of the Covenant made with Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob; for Iſhma…l, though graceleſs, was taken into Abrahams Covenant, and continued in it, till for his ſin he was caſt out. So Eſau in Covenant, till for his Profaneneſs he was rejected, Heb. 12. Was not the continuance of the Covenant to the ſeed of Jacob, the performance of Gods Everlaſting Covenant made with Abraham, to be a God to his ſeed af…er him in their generations? as is evident, Exod. 3.15. & 6.3, 4. Was there ever any Covenant made with Jacob and his ſeed, upon any other terms then the Covenant of Abraham? Did not the Lord require Faith and Holineſs of the Poſterity of Jacob, as he did of the ſeed of Abraham? and therefore this is nothing to hinder the continual ſucceſſion of the Covenant of Abraham in the Gentile Churches.

Obj. 2. It will be ſaid, God promiſed that he would be a God to him and his ſeed in their generations, for an everlaſting Covenant.

Anſ. Is it that all the carnall ſeed of Abraham, in all ſucceeding generations, ſhould have God to be their God? Then the Jews are not yet broken off; contrary to Rom. 11. This ſeed is 1. OnelyOnly ſuch of the carnall ſeed with whom the Covenant was eſtabliſhed, by walking in the ſteps of Abrahams Faith. 2. His ſpirituall ſeed, who are onelyonly meant in that Everlaſting covenant.

Reply. 1. It is granted, that the Outward Diſpenſation of the Covenant is not Abſolute, but Conditionall, in reſpect of the ſucceſſion thereof: The Lord is ever mindful of his Covenant, and that everlaſtingly; till his People break his Covenant, he never caſts them out. But there are many tranſgreſſions againſt the Covenant, that p. 56do not break off a People from the viſible Covenant, and the Priviledges thereof: and therefore ſo long as the Lord doth not caſt them out of the viſible Church (wherein his patience is very long) the Priviledges thereof continue to their ſucceeding generations everlaſtingly, even to ſuch as are here called the Carnall ſeed.

2. It doth not ſavour well, that our Brethren ſo frequently call the Church-ſeed A Carnall ſeed: We know whoſe Phraſe it is, and to what it tendeth, even To deny Baptiſm to them. The Scripture calls them The holy Seed, An holy Nation, Royall Prieſthood, &c. Your children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. God never enters into covenant with any as a Carnall ſeed, but as an…holy People to the Lord.

3. What difference is there between the Carnall ſeed walking in the Faith of Abraham, and his Spirituall ſeed? If the Everlaſting Covenant belong onelyonly to ſuch, then the Priviledges of the Covenant belong not to any Church-member, till he come up to Walk in the Faith of Abraham, which is the Tenent of (we know whom.)

Reaſ. 7. It is irregular to receive perſons with no better Qualifications into Covenant; we mean, Ignorant, unbelieving, and impenitent perſons, into Publick and Perſonal Covenant. Church-covena… ters muſt be viſible Saints, Pſal. 50.5, 16. Faith, Repentance and Obedience are required to Covenant with God. It is a palpable untruth for an Ʋnbeliever to engage himſelf to keep the Lords Covenant, whereof Faith is the condition, Joh. 3.16.

Anſ. 1. It is a great Miſtake, to think theſe in queſtion are to be received into the Covenant, when they come to own their Baptiſmal Covenant publickly. Our Brethren confeſs they are in Covenant, Acts 2. which is Sealed up to themby Baptiſm, and that in their own perſons, as was before proved from Deut. 5.2, 3. & 29.10, 11, 12. This Publick Owning of the Covenant, is but the manifeſtation of their continuance in it, or a renewing of it.

2. To cenſure theſe for Ignorant perſons, that underſtand the Doctrine of Faith (which contains all the Grounds of Religion, as is before proved) and for Impenitent ſinners, and Ʋnbelievers, whom God hath received, owned as His children, and Believers, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. who live without Scandall (which implieth regular Satisfaction for p. 57offences) who give up themſelves to God, Submit to his Government; to lay all this upon them without Proof, is farre from the Rule of Charity. Surely, they are better Saints then thoſe mentioned by our Brethren Pſa. 50.5, 16. Neither do theſe viſibly hate inſtruction, in the ſenſe there ſpoken of, verſ. 17. for they are charged to conſent with Thieves, to partake with Adulterers, to give their mouthes to evill, &c. which cannot be ſaid of theſe.

3. What though Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and that in truth, be required of all Covenanters with God; doth it follow, that ſuch as being in Church-covenant want theſe things, or do not ſo clearly and ſully hold forth theſe by a viſible Profeſſion, that all ſuch have no right to the outward Priviledges? This indeed is the manner of their Reaſoning all along; but the inconſequence thereof who doth not ſee, that is acquainted with the Scripture ſtory?

Reaſ. 8. That Practice that expoſeth the Blood of Chriſt to contempt, Baptiſm to profanation, the Church to pollution, &c. is not to be admitted. But the Baptizing of the children of ſuch as are not viſible Believers doth all this. Therefore it is not to be admitted.

Anſ. 1. I might grant the Argument: It doth not conclude againſt theſe whom God hath received as holy, as viſible Believers, Baptized into Chriſt, as hath been oft proved from 1 Cor. 1.2. with chap. 7.14. & 12.13. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15.

2. By this Reaſon, when Members received by Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance in adult age, do decline, and appear to have as little Faith as theſe are ſuppoſed to have, though under no cenſure, ſuch muſt not have their childrne Baptized; or elſe all thoſe conſequences will follow. This may ſuffice to Anſwer the Reaſon itſelf. The Proofs I ſhall touch afterward.

Reaſ. 9. Becauſe theſe adult children, if they were not Baptized themſelves, might not be Baptized in this eſtate, and therefore cannot intitle their ſeed unto it. A man muſt ſtand poſſeſſed of a right, before he can make it over to another. Acts a non habente poteſtatem, are void in Law.

Anſ. This is a ſtrange kinde of Reaſoning: By ſuppoſing that a man hath not that thing which indeed he hath, and therefore he cannot convey that which he hath. Let me take away a man's Evidences, p. 58and Poſſeſſion of his Lands, and it is true he cannot make a good Conveyance; but may he not then convey what he hath Evidences and Poſſeſſion of? There are ſome Members in Churches, who ſuppoſe they were not admitted, would not now be admitted; doth it therefore follow, that their children may not be Baptized? If acts of ſuch as have no right and power themſelves, are void; then acts of ſuch as have a right and power, are valid: Now theſe are Church-members, and Baptized, and therefore their conveyance of Baptiſm is valid, by this Argument. And yet it would be hard for our Brethren to prove, that theſe being Churchmembers ſo qualified, might not be Baptized, if they had not been Baptized.

Reaſ. 10. Becauſe there is but one way of Entrance into the Church for all ſorts of perſons, which way is not here mentioned, and this way is Chriſt, Joh. 10.7. But this Propoſition holdeth forth no perſonall Entrance by Chriſt: if they be gotten in ſome other way, they are Thieves and Robbers. The danger is ſeen in him that had not on the Wedding-garment, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt: which being ſo pernicious, how can the Church be blameleſs in bringing them in this way?

Anſ. Let the interpretation of Joh. 10. be granted at preſent; I Anſwer, That theſe children came into the Church by Chriſt, for they came in by the Goſpel-Covenant, as our Brethren grant from Acts 2.38, 39. And is not Chriſt the Mediator of that Covenant? Yea are they not Baptized into Chriſt? Are not the Blood and Benefits of Chriſt Scaled up to them in Baptiſm? But our Brethren ſeem wholly to forget that, or to make a Nothing of it.

2. When this Covenant (which is called The covenant of God in Chriſt, Gal. 3.17.) is Solemnly owned by them, wherein they give up themſelves to God, and ſubmit to the Government of Chriſt in the Church; Is there nothing of Chriſt in all this?

3. The danger of wanting the Wedding-garment, is as great to ſuch as come in with the faireſt Profeſſion of Faith, as to theſe; and is the Church blameable for admitting ſuch, becauſe their danger is ſo great, when ſuch want the Wedding-garment? But ſeeing our Brethren urge ſo much Joh. 10. let them conſider ver. 13. The p. 59hireling careth not for the ſheep. We have more cauſe to fear how we ſhall anſwer for our careleſs Neglect of theſe Lambs of Chriſt, then for our Receiving them into the Fold of Chriſt, for which we have our Warrant from Chriſt. And withall, let us remember that weighty Charge Heb. 12.15, 16. Looking diligently, leſt any fail of the grace of God, &c. leſt there be a profane perſon, as Eſau, who for a morſell of meat ſold his Birthright. It ſeemeth the Apoſtle did think there was a Precious Birthright, and that it was the duty of the Church to look diligently to the preſervation and improvement of it. Let us then take heed we do not take it from them, before the Rule of Chriſt doth require it.

By this whole Diſcourſe, and by theſe Ten Reaſons, we may now fully ſee upon what Principles our Brethren ground their Anti-Synodalia, or their Poſitions wherein they Diſſent from the Synod. And therefore, ſeeing the Prefacer complains that Their Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Anabaptiſm, I ſhall crave leave (before I paſs on) to preſent unto their ſerious Conſideration, what Advantages they put into the hands of the Anabaptiſts, who, I fear, will make ſuch uſe hereof as our Brethren would not willingly allow them to do. It is true, that our Brethren confeſs with us, That the Covenant of God with Abraham and his ſeed, is the Goſpel-covenant, and doth belong to the Faithfull and their ſeed, Acts 2.38, 39. But do they not with their Diſtinctions, in effect, take away what they have given them? They are Members in generall (ſay they) but come to the particular, and it is onelyonly as wrapped up in their Parents Covenant; they are not actual or perſonal Members. And that Memberſhip in their Parents, and their Foederal Holineſs, reacheth no further then their Minority, pag. 37. And what Church-Ordinances are they capable of in that time, eſpecially if that were true which ſome ſuggeſt, That Iſhmael came into the Church by Profeſſion of Faith as an adult Member at thirteen years of age? And, if at adult age they come not up by Profeſſion of Faith and Grace, to Enter into perſonal Covenant, and ſo to a new Memberſhip, hey have no right …o Church-priviledges. And may not a Convert out of Paganiſm, upon ſuch terms, enjoy as much as this? And as for Church-watch and Government, it cannot reach them, but by their Parents, as it may reach an Infidel-ſervant: and when their p. 60Parents be dead, and they left to the care of ſuch as are not of the Church, how ſhall it then touch them at all? And when their Owning of the Covenant is accounted the Form of their Memberſhip; what is this, but to make a Nullity of their Covenant ſealed in Baptiſm? So that it will, I fear, ſeem to the Anabaptiſts, That to Baptize Infants, is to ſet a Seal to a Blank, or to a Covenant of no uſe to them. Again, when our Brethren ſo oft deny the viſible Covenant, and the Priviledges thereof, to ſuch as want the inward Grace; and affirm, That the Covenant, and the Priviledges thereof, are limited to thoſe that with Abraham walk with God, whoſe heart was faithfull; who love God, and keep his commandments, pag. 29. Will not the Anabaptiſts be ready to inferre, Therefore Infants wanting that Grace, &c. have no right to the Covenant, or to Baptiſm the Priviledge of it? Again, when our Brethren ſo oft confound the Outward and Inward Diſpenſation of the Covenant, alledging the Scandalous ſins of Churchmembers in the Scripture, to prove that theſe in queſtion are Self-Excommunicated, and have no intereſt in the Outward Covenant, or Priviledges thereof; Is not this a Miſtake which they will make advantage of? Laſtly, when they ſay, That the Practice of the fifth Propoſition expoſeth the Blood of Chriſt to contempt, Baptiſm to be profaned, bringeth pollution into the Church, &c. what are the Reaſons? For (ſay they) it imparteth the Blood of the Covenant to thoſe that are not viſible Believers, ſets the Seal to a Blank, ſevereth Baptiſm from the ſtipulation of a good conſcience, bringeth the uncircumciſed in heart into the Sanctuary. But they oft confeſs, that Infants have no Faith, They are a carnall ſeed, &c. And is it not a juſt fear, that the Anabaptiſts will be ready to inferre, Therefore to baptize Infants, is to expoſe the Blood of Chriſt to contempt, &c?

I know our Brethren will ſay, We do not require Faith and Grace in the Infants, but in the Parents onelyonly: But yet when generally we ground the Baptiſm of Infants upon the Covenant of God to the Parents and their ſeed, Gen. 17. Acts 2. 1 Cor. 7. and prove they are Diſciples, Members of the viſible Church, and therefore to be Baptized; I wiſh our Brethren may conſider, how greatly this ground is weakned by Denial of Gods Covenant to their Perſons, and onelyonly as in their Parents; and by making it ſo ſlight a matter, as to wear out p. 61with their Minority, &c. And alſo let them conſider, how ſuitable their Notions and Principles before-named, are to the Arguments and Grounds of Denial of Baptiſm to all Infants, as is eaſie to ſee in all the Books of Antipoedobaptiſts. Theſe things I mention, that our Brethren may keep further off from this danger, which themſelves count a Reproach.

I ſhall now proceed to conſider the Anſwers of our Brethren to the Arguments of the Synod for the proof of the fifth Propoſition.

Arg. 1. Theſe children are partakers of the main ground of baptizing any children whatſoever, and neither the parents nor the children do put in any barre to hinder it. This ground is the Intereſt in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 11. Acts 2.39. Col. 2.10, 11.

"Anſ. They anſwer in general, that Faith is the main ground of Baptiſm, Rom. 4.11. Acts 8.37 & 19.4.

Reply. 1. Here is no anſwer to the Scriptures alledged, which are very full: Gen. 17.10, 11. This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep, Every Male-childe ſhall be circumciſed: It ſhall be a token of the Covenant between me and you. So Acts 2.38, 39. The Promiſe is to you and your children.

2. Faith is the Condition of the Covenant; yet the outward Seal had reference to the outward Covenant it ſelf: for Lo, and other Believers, could not partake of Circumciſion, but by entring into that viſible Covenant with Abraham. And our Brethren afterward do grant, That the Church-covenant is the next ground of the dispenſation of the Seals: Now they that have the next ground, are ſuppoſed to have the more remote.

Anſ. 2. More particularly, they ſay, the Covenant is not the main ground of Baptiſm. For, 1. though they had Abraham for their father, yet John's Baptiſm takes away that Plea, Mat. 3.8, 9. and calls for Repentance.

Reply. John took away their vain confidence in Abraham's Covenant for Righteouſneſs and Life, as the Prophets alſo frequently did, Iſa. 1. & 58. Jer. 7. Mic. 6. But he took not away the outward Priviledges of Abraham's Covenant, as Circumciſion, Sacrifices, &c.

2. John indeed calls for Repentance in a people ſo corrupt, to fit them for a more Goſpel-diſpenſation, to make them a People prepared p. 62for the Lord. But that is not the caſe of theſe in the fifth Propoſition, who are in the Goſpel covenant, and have the Seal of Baptiſm.

2. We muſt diſtinguiſh (ſay they) between the Covenant of Grace, and the Church-covenant, which differ very much: for the Covenant of Grace belongeth onelyonly to the Elect, and true Believers, which the Church cannot infallibly judge who they are. But the Church-covenant (which is the next ground of the diſpenſation of the Seal…) requireth mutuall conſent of them that are admitted into communion, to walk with God according to the Gospel. The Covenant of Grace is made to the children in the Parents, but is eſtabliſhed onelyonly by the reſtipulation of Faith and Repentance, Gen. 17.7, 9. Rom. 11.20. Thou ſtandeſt by Faith.

Reply. 1. I cannot ſee how theſe things can conſiſt one with another. For, if the Covenant of Grace belongeth onelyonly to the Elect and true Believers; and this Covenant of Grace be made with the childe in the Parents: then the childe and Parents muſt be Elect, and true Believers; which will not be granted. Again, if the difference of the Church-covenant ſtands in this, That it requrreth mutuall conſent to walk with God; how ſhall Infants partake of the Churchcovenant and Baptiſm, whereof it is the next ground.

2. This Diſtinction, as here laid down, doth not prove the thing it was brought for, but rather yield the ſame: For, 1. It is yielded that the Church-covenant is the next ground of Baptiſm; and that which is the next ground and immediate, is the chief for it ſuppoſeth the remote; and the remote grounds, without the next, could not give right to Baptiſm, and therefore this is the chief ground. Beſides, when it is ſaid, that the Covenant of Grace is made to the childe in the Parents, then ſtill the Covenant, even of Grace alſo, is the ground of Baptiſm. But (ſay they) the eſtabliſhment is upon the reſtipulation of Faith: Thou ſtandeſt by Faith, Rom. 11.20. Be it ſo, in reſpect of the Covenant of Grace, and the ſaving Benefits thereof; yet the viſible Covenant, and Diſpenſation of the Ordinances, and Means of Grace, remains to ſuch in the Covenant as do continue in the viſible Profeſſion thereof, as hath been oft proved. That Faith by which the Gentile-Churches ſtand, Rom. 11.20. is p. 63ſuch a Faith as is oppoſed to that Unbelief for which the Jews were broken off: but they were not broken off for want of holding forth poſitive Saving Faith to the judgement of Charity, but for poſitive Unbelief, whereby they obſtinately rejected Chriſt, Rom. 10.21. They were a diſobedient and gainſaying people. Acts 13.45. The Apoſtle turned from them to the Gentiles, becauſe they contradicted and blaſphemed. Mat. 21.42, 43. The Kingdome of God was taken from them, becauſe they rejected Chriſt the Corner ſtone: See alſo Acts 18.5, 6. & 19.8, 9. And therefore ſo long as the Gentile Churches do profeſs Jeſus Chriſt, and his Goſpel and Ordinances, they may ſtand in the viſible Covenant, (through the patience of God) though they, or many of their Members, do not hold out ſuch a Profeſſion of Saving Faith viſibly to the judgement of Charity: otherwiſer we muſt Unchurch many ſuch Societies of Chriſtians whom the Lord hath not Unchurched, but continueth to them the Means and Ordinances of Grace.

3. I deny that there is ſuch a difference between the Churchcovenant and that of Grace: for, as was ſaid in the ſecond Propoſition premiſed, Chap. 2. there is indeed a differing diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace in the Church, viz. Outwardly, in the Priviledges, Ordinances, and Means of Grace to the whole viſible Church; or Inwardly, in the Saving Benefits thereof to true Believers. Now that the Diſpenſation of the Covenant of God to the whole viſible Church, is the Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace, is proved: 1. Becauſe God giveth himſelf to be the God of all the viſible Church, Gen. 17. I will be thy God; and he avoucheth them to be His People, and they avouch him to be Their God, Deut. 26.17, 18. Now this is the firſt and chief Benefit of the Covenant of Grace, and containeth all the reſt, as Mr. Cotton noteth upon that Covenant. 2. Becauſe the Means of Grace and Life, and the offer of Chriſt and Grace, is given to all in the viſible Church, Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. & 9.4. 3. Becauſe all in Church-covenant ſtand bound thereby to Believe, Repent, and perform the conditions of the Covenant of Grace: and this our Brethren confeſs, that Church-covenant requires they ſhould walk with God according to the Goſpel; which is the Covenant of Grace. I have the more inſiſted on this Paſſage, becauſe p. 64the right underſtanding hereof, is of much uſe to the main Queſtion in debate.

That theſe in the fifth Propoſition are ſtill in Covenant, the Synod proveth, Becauſe they were once in Covenant, and never cut off from it.

Anſ. To this our Brethren Anſwer, The Lord himſelf diſcovenants them, Mat. 3. Joh. 8.39, 40, 41, 42. where the Lord takes away their Plea of the Covenant, and tells them they have the Devil for their Father. And that without any act of Church-diſcipline, &c. They may reject the counſel of God againſt themſelves, as the Phariſees, Luke 7. They may be Felones de ſe, as Mr. Cotton ſpeaks, &c. There are other grounds of breaking off the Covenant, beſides notorious ſins, and incorrigibleneſs therein; as, Not ſtanding by Faith, Not bringing forth f…uit, Mat. 3.10. Not doing Righteouſneſs, 1 Joh. 3.10.

Reply. I have many things to Reply here. 1. Did the Lord himſelf diſcovenant all thoſe out of his viſible Church, ſpoken of M…. 3 Joh. 8? Were their ſeed thereby cut off from Circu…ciſion? Were they excluded from the Sacrifices and Temple-worſhip? Who can believe this? when we ſee the Lord Jeſus ſo oft communicated with them in the Worſhip of God; when he calleth them ſtill The loſt ſheep of the houſe of Iſrae…; yea, the children to whom Bread did belong, Mat. 15.24, 26. Theſe things were ſpoken of the Jews in general, whereof thoſe Mat. 3. Joh. 8. were a part. They were indeed of the Devil, not of God, in reſpect of the inward ſtate, and ſaving good of the Covenant; yet ſtill in the outward Covenant, and under the Means of Grace.

2. If thoſe Ma…. 3. Jo…. 8. had been diſcovenanted of God, doth it follow that theſe in queſtion are ſo? Are theſe A generation of Vipers, Lyars, Murtherers, &c that live without Scandall, Submit to the Government of Chriſt, &c? If the Lawyers and Phariſees rejected the counſel of God againſt themſelves, in not being Baptized of John; do theſe ſo, that being B…ptized themſelves, deſire it alſo for their Seed, and that in ſuch in way, by Owning Gods Covenant, Giving up themſelves to God, Submitting themſelves to Diſcipline, &c? If Mr. Cotton did count ſuch as Iſhmael and Eſau Self-murtherers, doth it follow that theſe are ſuch, that take hold of the Covenant, and that p. 65in ſome meaſure of truth, for ought is yet proved to the contrary?

3. I muſt not paſs over this Rigid and Dangerous Principle, without further Examination. The Poſition of our Brethren is, That God himſelf doth diſcovenant, or caſt out of his viſible Church, ſuch as bring not forth good fruit, Mat. 3. that commit ſin, are Lyars, &c. Joh. 8. and that without any act of Church-cenſure. Againſt this I argue:

1. That theſe were not diſcovenanted of GOd, I proved before. And it doth appear, That the Providence of God continued them under Church-priviledges and Ordinances, at leaſt till Goſpel-Churches were erected, after the Aſcenſion of Chriſt.

2. If the Lord Jeſus hath ordained and commanded Church-diſcipline for the ſaving of Offenders, and the Purging of his Church, then he doth not diſcovenant ſuch without Church-cenſures. But ſo it is, Mat. 18.1 Cor. 5. Therefore he doth it not himſelf without them. The reaſon of the Conſequence is, Becauſe if God himſelf did diſcovenant them, Church-cenſures were uſeleſs and vain. To what end ſhould the Church cut off one that is already a Non-member? what have they to do with ſuch as are without? why ſhould Corinth be blamed for ſuffering that Leaven, if God himſelf had caſt it out?

3. This ſuppoſed Diſcovenanting by God himſelf, fruſtrates the great and chief End of Church diſcipline, viz. To heal and ſave the Sinner: for, the Church having now no power over them, they muſt periſh, being without the Means of their Recovery, except God reſtore them immediately; at leaſt they are deprived of that ſpecial Means appointed and bleſſed of God to that end.

4. What confuſion would this bring into the Church? For, how ſhall the Church know when God hath diſcovenanted this or that man? whether ſo ſoon as he hath committed ſuch ſins, or how long Gods patience will bear with him? And how ſhall the Church prove againſt any ſuch, That God hath indeed diſcovenanted him? Theſe things, and much more that might be ſaid, may put our Brethren to finde ſome other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1 Joh. 3.10. and ſuch like Scriptures.

Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in queſtion are either child on p. 66of the Covenant, or ſtrangers from it, Eph. 2.12. Holy, or unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. within the Church, or without, 1 Cor. 5.12. ſuch as have God for their God, or without God in the world, Eph. 2.12. But he that conſidereth the terms of the Propoſition, will not affirm the latter; and the former being granted, inferreth their right to Baptiſm.

Anſ. The Aſſumption is denied, becauſe the children in queſtion diſcovenant themſelves, not keeping the conditions of the Covenant; Not walking with God, Not loving God, &c. Deut. 7.9. as they that forſake the Covenant of their fathers, Deut. 29.25. And what do theſe that come not up to the conditions of it? God may caſt off for ſins of Omiſſion, 1 Sam. 15. ſo for not believing in God.

Reply. This being the very Hinge whereupon chiefly this Queſtion doth turn, viz. Whether, and how theſe Church-members are cut off from their Memberſhip in the viſible Church? I deſire the Reader to obſerve well the Anſwer of our Brethren, and their Reaſons thereof. Sometime they ſay, God Diſcovenanteth them; which hath been examined: Sometime, that They Diſcovenant themſelve; which alſo hath been ſpoken to before. To this Refuge they now again betake themſelves. Their Reaſon here alledged I ſhall conſider, which ſtandeth thus: Church-members which do not come up to the conditions of the Covenant, viz. To walk with God, Love God, keep his Commandments, Believe in God, &c. do Diſcovenant themſelves. But th…ſe Church-members deſcribed in the fifth Propoſition, do not walk with God, Love God, &c. Therefore they do Diſcovenant themſelves. The Propoſition they would prove from Gen. 17.1. Deut. 7.9. Pſa. 105.8. Deut. 29.25. To this I anſwer:

1. By denying the Propoſition. As for the Proofs, Geneſ. 17.1. Deut. 7.9. Pſa…. 105. Theſe Scriptures prove it is the duty of ſuch as enter into Covenant with God, to Walk with God. To be upright, To love God, &c. and that God performs to ſuch the Saving Benefits of the Covenant: but they do not prove, that ſimply by the neglect of th…ſe duties eſpecially without Impenitence added, they do actually D…covenant themſelves out of the viſible Church and from the Priviledges thereof, and the Means of Grace therein. The groſs neglect of the duties of the Covenant perſiſted in obſtinately and impenitently, p. 67may deſerve Cenſures: but that the want of ſuch graces, and duties of the Covenant, doth actually cut off ſuch from the viſible Church, is an Aſſertion never heard of in the Book of God, nor I think in any the beſt Reformed Church to this day. Surely Iſhmael and Eſau did not Walk with God, Love God, Believe in God, in our Brethrens ſenſe; yet they continued in the Church, till for their manifeſt Profaneneſs the one was caſt out by Gods appointment, and the other rejected, Heb. 12.17. When Deut. 7.9. Moſes ſaid, that The Lord keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him, &c. were there not multitudes in Iſrael that came not up to theſe duties of the Covenant, in our Brethrens ſenſe, that yet were Gods Holy People, Royall Nation, enjoying all Church-priviledges? and ſo all along through the ſtory of all the Scriptures. Deut. 29.25. renders indeed the cauſe of the great Plagues upon Iſrael, to be their forſaking the Covenant: But what was that forſaking of the Covenant? was it their not coming up to theſe terms of it, to Walk with God, Love God, Believe in God with a viſible ſaving Faith? Nothing leſs: but becauſe they went and ſerved other gods, and worſhipped them, ver. 26. As for the caſe of Saul, 1 Sam. 15. whom the Lord rejected from being King, for ſo groſs a diſobedience to an expreſs and particular Command; yet we reade not that he was caſt out of the viſible Church: Nor doth it 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. p. 68when 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, p. 69would 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 d…ſtruction. The ſtraitneſs of the way to life, doth not ſtand in reſtraining the means of grace to a few; for why then p. 70ſhould the Lord enlarge the Goſpel to all Nations now, more then of old?

2^d 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 onelyonly 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 the next Parents; and when the Parents were broken off, their ſeed were broken off alſo, Rom. 11.20. So that there is no ſuch difference.

Anſ. 3. To the Scriptures, (ſay they) that in Jer. 30. ſpeaketh of their return from Babylon: Ezek. 37. speaketh of their Calling, when they ſhall be all righteous, and nothing ſhall hinder the continuance of the Covenant, Iſa. 60.21. Joel 3.17, &c.

Reply. If Jer. 30. hath any reference to their return from Babylon, yet it appeareth to look further, even to the latter times. For Ver. 9. it ſpeaketh of David their King, whom God will raiſe up to them; and v. 24. of the latter dayes: and Chap. 31.1. At the ſame time I will be the God of all the families of Iſrael. As for thoſe places, Iſa. 60.21. Joel 3. that ſay, They ſhall be all righteous, no ſtranger ſhall paſs through them; ſo that nothing ſhall hinder the continuance of the Covenant: The p. 71Covenant then ſhall be continued, according to the Promiſe of God, to Abrahams ſeed in their generations, which is enough to the ſcope of this Argument. Beſides, this continuance of the Covenant ſhall be by viſible Faith and Righteouſneſs, not alwayes by reall Faith; for to think there ſhall be no Sin, no Hypocrites then, is groundleſs. There is none righteous that ſinneth not, is the general ſtate of all men in this world, till we come to Heaven. And it is evident Ezek 37.25. Zech. 10.7, 9. that their ſeed are part of that righteous Nation.

3^d Conſequence. The deniall of the Propoſition, denieth the initiatory Seal to ſuch as are regularly in the Church and Covenant, to whom the Moſaicall diſpenſation, nay the firſt Inſtitution in the Covenant of Abraham, appointed it to be applied, Gen. 17.9, 10. Joh. 7.22, 23.

Anſ. This is a begging of the Queſtion: The children in queſtion do not ſtand regularly under the Church-covenant; the contrary is plain Jer. 9.26. Rom. 2.28. Ezek. 34.7, 9.

Reply. The Queſtion is not begged, but the ground of the Argument is proved, Gen. 17.9, 10. Joh. 7.22, 23. to which no anſwer is returned.

2. Seeing theſe Scriptures Jer. 9. Rom. 2. Ezek. 44. and ſuch like, are ſo oft alledged, and here with ſo much confidence in the preſent caſe, I ſhall Examine them more diſtinctly.

The Queſtion is, Whether children received into the Church, and Baptized in Infancy, and being grown up, do underſtand the Doctrine of Faith, publickly Profeſs their Aſſent thereto, are not ſcandalous in life, ſolemnly own the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themſelves to God, and ſubmit to the government of Chriſt in the Church; Whether (I ſay) ſuch do not ſtand regularly in the Church: and, Whether the Scriptures named do plainly prove the contrary.

Now for the firſt, Jer. 9.26. where the Lord threatneth to puniſh the circumciſed with the uncircumciſed; for, all the houſe of Iſrael are uncircumciſed in heart. To this I anſwer, 1. That this puniſhment was not Diſcovenanting them, but the Sword. 2. But ſuppoſe Diſcovenanting be included in the other; what were the cauſes thereof, by which they were proved to be uncircumciſed in heart, and therefore ſo to be puniſhed? They were all Adu…erers, ver. 2. Lyars, p. 72ver. 3. Slanderers, ver. 4. Deceivers, ver. 5. yea, they walked after Baal, ver. 14. And how then doth this place plainly prove, that the perſons deſcribed in the Propoſition ſtand not regularly in the Church? As for Rom. 2.28. ſo oft alledged, however it may have ſome reference to the Doctrine of Juſtification, before ſpoken to, yet it ſeems the particular occaſion and ſcope of that diſcourſe of the Jew and Gentile, is to prove, that God diſtributeth rewards and puniſhments without reſpect of perſons, ver. 9, 10, 11 and to take off the Iews confidence in Legal-priviledges in that reſpect, ver. 13, 17, 18, 19, 20. but however, it cannot be ſpoken with any reference to Church-memberſhip. Now in reſpect of Gods diſtribution of rewards and puniſhments, Circumciſion profited if they kept the Law, elſe not; and in this reſpect, the Ʋncircumciſion that kept the Law, was counted Circumciſion: and ſo in this reſpect, He is not a Jew that is one outwardly. &c. But to infer, that every lew that was ſo outwardly onelyonly, wanting the inward circumciſion of the heart, was there by diſcovenanted out of the viſible Church, this were a ſtrange Doctrine to Scripture-ears. To clear this further: 1. In what reſpect the circumciſion is made uncircumciſion, by breaking the Law; in the ſame reſpect the uncircumciſion is counted for circumciſion, in them that kept the Law: but this was never ſo accounted in reſpect of Church-memberſhip and Priviledges; witneſs the caſe of the Centurion Cornelius, and his devout Souldiers, and others, and therefore not ſo in the former. 2. He ſpeaketh of the inward circumciſion, as having its praiſe of God, not of men: but we know the outward Circumciſion is approved of the Church, though without the inward, in reſpect of Church-ſtanding and Priviledges, and that according to Gods Rules. 3. The Apoſtle fully cleareth his meaning, Chap. 3.1, 2, 3. affirming, That the advantage of the Jew, and profit of circumciſion, was much every way, and that in the committing the Oracles of God to them, which was a Church-priviledge.

Laſtly, Concerning this place, let it be noted what were the evidences of uncircumciſed hearts there alledged, viz. Stealing, Adultery, Sacriledge, &c. ver. 21, 22. which how well it ſuits to prove plainly, That theſe in queſtion are not regularly in the Church, let every one judge.

Concerning Ezek. 44.7, 9. This place ſpeaketh of bringing in the p. 73heathen ſtrangers that were amongſt the children of Iſrael, as s…evident, in that it is called an Abomination ſo to do: but to bring in an Iſraelite circumciſed in fleſh, not in heart, was never counted an Abomination. Again, he ſpeaketh of ſtrangers uncircumciſed in heart and fleſh, which theſe children are not. 2. Put caſe this place may by alluſion … applied to receiving of Members into the viſible Church; we agree, that none viſibly unholy ſhould be received into the Church: But our Queſtion is of ſuch as being holy, were regularly received into the Church, and do not deſerve to be caſt out; to which caſe this place ſpeaks nothing.

Thus we ſee how little footing there is for our Brethrens Tenent, in theſe, or any other Scriptures they have alledged; as Jer. 2.21. Amos 9.7. Mat. 3. Ioh. 8. & 15. which have been conſidered in their place. And I am the more perſwaded that this Way of our Brethren is not the Way of God, being built upon ſo manifold miſtaken and miſapplied Scriptures; whereof many of them being Old Teſtament Proofs, it appears our Brethren make uſe not onelyonly of far-fetched Conſequences, but of plain Inconſequences from the Old Teſtament.

4^th Conſequence. That to deny the Propoſition, is to break Gods Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to thoſe that are in Covenant, Gen 17 9, 10, 14.

Anſ. 1. To refuſe to Baptize one that is not regularly in Covenant, is not to break it. 2. Then it is a breach like the great Sea, to deny Communion in the Lords Supper to thoſe that have laid hold upon the Covenant, and given up themſelves to God by ſolemn Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, which is now ſtrongly pleaded for.

Reply. 1. Whether theſe be not regularly in the Covenant, let the Reader judge by what is ſaid for it, and by the Scriptures alledged againſt it.

2. To deny Communion in the Lords Supper to ſuch, is not pleaded for, much leſs ſtrongly; for, Solemn Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance is not in the Propoſition. All that is affirmed, is, That the Church-ſeed, manifeſting their continuance in the Covenant by ſuch qualifications, if they ſhall ſtill be wanting in ability to Examine themſelves, and diſcern the Lords body, may be delayed till they give ſatisfaction therein.

3. Our Brethren in this caſe deal very hardly and partially with p. 74us, whil'ſt ſo oft they compare theſe with the moſt ſcandalous perſons reproved in Scripture, and with them Diſcovenanted, as they pretend: and yet at other times they lay it deeply to our charge, that we do not Receive them to the Lords Table, upon ſuch terms as are denied by them to be ſufficient to continue them in the viſible Church.

Arg. 4. Theſe Parents are confederate viſible Believers in ſome degree, and therefore their children are to be Baptized.

Anſ. The Parents in queſtion are not ſuch, if we speak of true viſible Faith, which is required Rom. 14.1. Mat. 12.20.

Reply. Be it granted, that we ſpeak of true Faith viſibly in ſome degree, yet Rom. 14.1. ſpeaks rather of a perſwaſion of the lawfulneſs of eating meats unclean by the Law, as ver. 2. ſheweth.

That theſe are viſible Believers in ſome degree; is thus proved:

Reaſ. 1. Charity may obſerve ſundry things for it, but nothing evident againſt it.

Anſ. This is ſaid gratis, and denied by us.

Reply. If our Brethrens Charity could obſerve nothing for it, they might then ſhew ſomething evident againſt it, without which the Reaſon is not anſwered: for, in diſcovenanting of regular Church-members, there ought to be ſuch things evident againſt them as deſerve Church-cenſures, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.

Reaſ. 2. Children of the faithful, qualified but as the perſons in queſtion, are ſaid to be Faithful, Tit. 1.6.

Anſ. Every one not accuſed of Riot, to be concluded to be of the Faith, is not the Apoſtles intent, nor Orthodox: Faithfulneſs is taken for Fidelity, which may be in Morall men.

Reply. Nor do the Synod ſo conclude: There is much more in the Text, then Not given to Riot, viz. 1. Children of godly Parents: 2. Educated in the Faith: 3. Not ſcandalous, or Not accuſed of Riot: 4. Not unruly, but ſubject to Government: All which do ſuit well with the Propoſition. And this ſenſe of the word is given by Orthodox Interpreters: Marlorat Expounds the word Faithfull, of ſuch as are educated in the ſound Doctrine of Piety, and in the fear of God. Taylor, by Faithfull Children, underſtandeth ſuch as being inſtructed in the Faith, are at leaſt in external Converſation anſwerable to the Profeſſion of the Faith they make. And Reaſon would incline us p. 75to conceive, that the Apoſtle would require in the children of Church-Officers ſomething of Piety, as well as of Morality. Beſides, the word foreign here uſed, is frequently and commonly uſed in the New Teſtament, in the Synods ſenſe, viz. for Chriſtian Believers, Acts 10.45. 2 Cor. 6.15. Eph 1.1. 1 Tim. 6.2. & 4.3, 10, 12. & 5.16.

Reaſ. 3. Children of the Covenant have frequently beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years, as Scripture-examples and Experience ſheweth. Hence this ſort of perſons ſhewing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or in Eccleſiaſticall reputation, viſible Believers.

Anſ. It is extraordinary to have grace in Infancy, and therefore no Rule for ordinary Church-proceedings.

Reply. 1. The Synod ſpeaketh not of Infancy, but of younger years, and that is not ſo extraordinary as is objected: witneſs the hopeful ſigns of grace in many that die in minority, and the Confeſſions of divers, that hold forth ſeeds of grace ſown in their younget years. 2. We build not ordinary Church-proceedings immediately upon this ground; yet theſe being Church-members, we may build Church-charity upon this ground, that ſeeing ſome Church-members of this ſort have Faith in reality, all of this ſort may be ſo reputed in Church-charity: for ſo we judge of adult profeſſors in the Church; we know ſome have grace in reality, and therefore we judge ſo of all that ſort, till the contrary appear, though in the general we know Many are called, Few choſen: And what other ground have we of Church-proceedings with Church-members, but Church-charity?

Reaſ. 4. Theſe are regularly in the Church, and therefore viſible Saints in the account of Scripture, which is the account of Truth, 1 Cor. 1.2. & 14.33.

Anſ. 1. The children in queſtion are not regularly in the Church, for then the Parents being dead, the children ſurviving ſhould make a Church, enjoy Ordinances, chuſe Officers, which is denied; and it is incredible to deny them that power when their Parents are alive, and they will not be long kept from putting it forth, though they may for a while.

Reply. 1. If we may thus argue, by putting caſes, that for ought appeareth, never yet hapned in the world, viz. That all the Members in p. 76a Church ſhould be ſo taken away, that none remain but ſuch as theſe children. By like reaſon one may prove that women and children are not regularly in the Church: for, if all the men die, they ſhould make a Church, chuſe Officer…, &c. which will be denied. Yea, thus I will prove, That this or that man is not regularly in the Church; for, if all men die but one or two, they cannot make a Church, &c.

2. Were the Rules of Chriſt obſerved, ſuch a caſe could not fall out: For, (as Mr. Cotton anſwereth the Anabaptiſt in a caſe not unlike this) Let there be a due watchfulneſs of the Church over theſe children to fit them for the Lords Table, and either the Lord, in the faithfulneſs of his Covenan…, will ſanctifie their hearts to prepare them for it; or elſe he will leave them to diſcover their hypocriſie and profaneneſs in the ſight of all, to prevent the pollution of his Table, and the corruption of Diſcipline. Grounds and Ends of Baptiſm, pag. 161, 163. And had we thus done, through the Bleſſing of Chriſt, which he hath promiſed upon his Ordinances, ſuch caſes could not fall out; neither had there been ſo much need or uſe of this fifth Propoſition, that is now ſo great a matter of Diſpute; and I fear this Oppoſition of the Diſſenters will increaſe our Difficulties. Neither do I ſee ſo much danger of theſe not being kept from putting forth a power to chuſe Officers, &c. if they were trained up under Church-diſcipline, as in our Brethrens Way; who acknowledge them Church-members, and cannot rid their hands regularly of them, without acts of Church-diſcipline, which yet they deny to belong to their perſons immediately.

3. If ſuch a caſe ſhould fall out, it is not impoſſible not abſurd to ſay, That a people retaining the Eſſentials of a true Church, may fall into ſuch a degeneracy or decay, as to be unfit for Ordinances, or to thuſe Officers, untill they be further prepared by the Preaching of the Goſpel unto them.

Anſ. 2. To the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 1.2. & 14.33. they ſay, That by a Church of Saints primarily, the better part of Saints are underſtood, the reſt Synecdochically, though not ſo in truth, yet ſo called.

Reply. If all be ſo called, though ſome be not ſo in truth, then the Argument is yielded, That in Scripture & Eccleſiaſtical account, all Churchmembers are Saints: and who ſhall tell us which are ſo in truth, and which not, till impenitency in ſin gives us cauſe to count them as Heathens and Publicans?

p. 77Reaſ. 5. Being in the Covenant, and Baptized, they have faith given them indefinitely in the Promiſe, and ſealed to them in Baptiſm, Deut. 30.6. which continueth valid, and is a valid Teſtimony for them, whil'ſt they do not reject it.

Anſ. The Promiſe is indefinite, not univerſal: whence the Argument muſt be, Some circumciſed or baptized ones are Believers: But heſe in queſtion are circumciſed or baptized ones: Therefore, &c. or thus, The Roman Catholicks are baptized: Therefore, &c.

Reply. 1. I ſee our Brethren can make a falſe Syllogiſm, to decline the force of an Argument that would rightly conclude. Thus; If ſome children, being under that indefinite Promiſe, be Believers (for God is true of his Promiſe) then all ſuch children are not to be rejected as unbelievers, as our Brethren would: But ſome baptized ones being under that indefinite Promiſe, are Believers: Therefore. Now who can ſay who are ſuch, and who are not, till they reject the grace of the Promiſe, and by impenitency in ſin are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans? For, though the Promiſe of Heart-circumciſion being but indefinite, is effectually performed to ſome onelyonly, not to all; yet they are all alike to the Church, till the difference doth ſome way openly appear. 2 To apply this to the Roman Catholicks, ſavours not of ingenuity: for are they the ſeed of Confederate viſible Believers, of whom our Diſpute is? or are they Regularly Baptized? or do they ſhew nothing to the contrary, that profeſs Popery?

Anſ. 2. It is not an indefinite Promiſe there, becauſe it is certainly made good to ſuch as return with their Souls, ver. 1, 2.

Reply. This doth not hinder the indefiniteneſs of the Promiſe, but confirmeth it. And their effectual return to God, is the fruit of that Promiſe, and indefinite alſo.

Anſ. 3. An indefinite Promiſe doth not capacitate all children to receive the Seals.

Reply. Neither is ſo much affirmed; but this, with the other Conſiderations, doth render them viſible Believers in Eccleſiaſticall reputation, which is the ſcope of this fourth Argument.

Arg. 5. The deniall of Baptiſm to theſe, hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apoſtacy, becauſe it denieth the children of the Church to have any part in the Lord, Joſh. 22.24, 25, 26.

p. 78Anſ. The Brethren deny the Conſequence, affirming, That thirty or fourty years experience in New-England, through the mercy of God, ſheweth the contrary.

Reply. This is a bare deniall, without anſwering the Reaſon from Joſh. 22. Surely that religious generation had a deeper ſenſe of that danger, and more ſolicitous care to prevent it, then they have.

2. When our Brethren in their Preface To the Generall Court, take notice of the Many, Great, and Prevailing Corruptions of Youth, that need Reformation by Church-diſcipline, this might abate our glorying of contrary Experience for thirty or fourty years, in reſpect of the danger of Irreligion and Apoſtacy in the ſeed of the Church. But if this be ſo, it ſeemeth our Brethren do think that there are many more then A few Names in N. England, that hold faſt the Name of Chriſt, and are ſtedfaſt in the Faith and Order of the Goſpel, and do not own ſo great an Apoſtacy of Elders and People, as the Author of the Preface preſents to the World.

Arg. 6. The perſons in queſtion are perſonall, immediate, and yetcontinuing Members of the Church, and therefore their children are to be Baptized.

Our Brethren here only ſpeak to the firſt Branch, concerning their perſonal memberſhip, having ſpoken to the third Branch before. But the ſecond Branch about their immediate memberſhip they leave untouch'd.

Anſ. If the meaning be, that the Promiſe to their believing Parents reacheth them, and that they are wrapped up together with them; the Aſſertion is granted, as far as concerneth the ſeed of Confederating Believers in their minority: But if the meaning be, that they are Members by their own Perſonall act, then it is denied.

Reply. This diſtinction of Members wrapped up in their Parents, and Members by their own Perſonall act, is a Riddle that no Scripture doth unfold. Let us hold to Scripture-phraſes, and the meaning will be plain and eaſie, viz. They are Members in their own perſons, by the Lords actuall entring into Covenant with their perſons diſtinct from their Parents, and ſetting the Seal of the Covenant upon their perſons; as hath been proved from Gen. 17.7, 9. Deut. 5.2, 3. & 29.10, 11.

Proof 1. They are perſonally holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore Members in their own perſons.

p. 79Anſ. This concerns children in minority, or the ſeed of Believers and Members in full Communion, and therefore it reacheth them not when adult and grown.

Reply. Here our Brethren ſpeak out; That the foederal holineſs and Charch-memberſhip of the church ſeed, weareth quite out with their infancy or minority: though ſometime they ſpeak otherwiſe, as was noted upon their Conceſſion in their Anſwer to the Argument of the Synod, pag. 23. in the end. But no Scripture will prove this; yea, the whole tenour of Scripture-ſtories of the Church, convinceth the contrary. See Deut. 5.2, 3. Rom. 3.1, 2, 3. & 9.4.

Proof 2. They are perſonally Baptized, the Seal of Memberſhip is applied to their own perſons, which being regularly done, is a divine teſtimony that they are in their own perſons members of the Church.

Anſ. So are the Papiſts in Rome; and are they perſonal Members? The Shechemites and Edomites were circumciſed: there is par ratio.

Reply. This is a very ſlight evading of the Argument, which ſpeaketh of Baptiſm regularly done. I had thought our Brethren did not think Baptiſm regularly done in Rome, or Circumciſion regularly applied to the Shechemites and Edomites: Or if not, could they ſuppoſe that there is par ratio a like reaſon between Baptiſm regularly done, and not regularly done? Except they ſhould mean, that there is like reaſon between Baptiſm in Rome, and the Circumciſion of the Shechemites and Edomites; and that is granted.

Proof 3. They are perſonally under Diſcipline, and liable to Church-cenſures in their own perſons. See Propoſ. 3.

Anſ. This is granted 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, p. 80but 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, and not in their own perſons, it would follow, that this viſible ſtate of Salvation is in their Parents onelyonly, 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 p. 81duty of the Covenant, viz. T… 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; onelyonly 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 onelyonly declare their Diſſent.

Concerning the Seventh Propoſition, they ſay, It is cautelouſly penned, and do not Object againſt it: onelyonly deſice Care in the Application thereof, with what Churches we have Communion.

Concerning the ſecond Queſtion, About CONSOCIATION OF CHƲRCHES, 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 p. 82Conſent 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 Ʋnderſtanding, Ʋnfeigned Love, and Ʋnited Practice of his Holy Will in all things. Amen.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Allin, Animadversions Upon Antisynodalia Americana (1664)