Animadversions Upon Antisynodalia Americana, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Concerning our Brethrens Notes upon the firſt and ſecond Propoſition.
IN the firſt Propoſition our Brethren onelyonly give an Explication of the word Viſible Church, taking the word Church as a Genus of all particular Churches; from which we Diſſent not.
In the ſecond Propoſition, viz. That the Members of the viſible Church according to Scripture, are confederate viſible Believers, and their Infant-ſeed: They have made divers Notes upon it.
1. That by viſible Believers, they intend true Believers to the judgement of charity. And herein we agree.
Second Note, That viſible Believers, and their Infant-ſeed, are rightly diſtinguiſhed. And ſo farre we agree alſo, That they are perſons diſtinctly and ſeverally covenanted with by the Lord, not wrapped up in their Parents (as they ſpeak.)
But whereas they diſtinguiſh them from their Parents, as not being Believers, never ſo called in Scripture. How can they believe that know not the right hand from the left? They have no Faith actual or habitual, nor can have, without a Miracle, and we hold Miracles are ceaſed.
Anſ. This is the great Objection of the Anabaptiſts againſt the Baptizing of Infants; and what the ſcope of this Note is here, I know not, except it be to deny them any actual and perſonal Memberſhip in the Church, as in their next Note: I ſhall therefore ſpeak the more fully to it. And firſt it appeareth, the Scripture numbers them amongſt Believers, if it doth not alſo expreſly call them ſo, Mat. 18.6. One of theſe little ones that believe in me; which ſome interpret of Infants. 2 Cor. 6.14, 15. where all in the Church are called Believers, in oppoſition to Infidels: And no doubt Paul would not allow any of theſe to marry with Infidels when grown up, by that Rule of his, and therefore he reckons them as Believers.
2. To make a perſon a Member of the viſible Church, the matter is not whether he hath Faith and Grace really, or not; if he hath ſuch qualifications as the Rule of the Word accepteth for Faith in the viſible Church, we can go no further. This is clear, and will be eaſily granted in reſpect of adult perſons. If a man profeſs he doth believe with all his heart, as the Eunuch, Acts 8. and nothing appears to the contrary: If a man appear Pricked at the heart, Gladly receive the Word, &c. as thoſe Acts 2. Gods Rule accepts of ſuch as Believers, and ſo muſt the Church, though the Lord ſeeth that ſome, it may be many ſuch, have no Faith in truth; for, Many are called, but few choſen. And however they may afterward diſcover themſelves, as Ananias, Simon Magus, &c. yet all will grant theſe were rightly received as viſible Believers. In like manner is the caſe of Infants: The matter is not, whether they have true Faith, or not, in the act or habit, ſo they have ſuch qualifications as God accepts of, to receive their perſons into his Covenant, and to be Members of the Body of Chriſt: This ſufficeth, though they have no Faith or Grace really. Now that the Lord doth ſo accept of them into the number of the Faithful, and as Believers, appeareth, 1. Becauſe he doth account them Holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. be it Foederal or Covenant-Holineſs, this implies that God is their God; and if God gives himſelf unto them, ſurely he accepted them as Believers: He is not the God of Infidels, who are without God, Epheſ. 2.12. The Covenant of God is the ſame with Parents and their ſeed, and therefore God accepteth them as ſuch as are anſwerable to the Terms and Conditions of that Covenant. 2. This appeareth from the Nature of the Seal of the Covenant: Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4. When God appointed this Seal to be ſet upon Infants, ſurely God numbred them with Believers. So when we are ſaid to be Baptized into Chriſt, can there be any Union with Chriſt without Faith? As no real Union without true Faith, ſo no viſible Union without that which is accepted as Faith: And when the Lord Jeſus ſaith, Of ſuch is the Kingdome of God; doth the Kingdome of God belong to Unbelievers? If it be ſaid, It is their Parents Faith that is accepted for them, not any thing in their own perſons: I anſwer, If ſo, that God will accept the Parents Faith and Profeſſion in their name and ſtead, as a Publick Perſon covenanting for them; yet this is Gods free and preventing Grace towards the ſeed and doth engage their perſons to the Duties of the Covenant, to avouch God for their God, &c. and therefore they are actually and perſonally in Covenant with God, as well as their Parents.
3. I adde further, That as we muſt reſt in ſuch Signs of Faith as the Rule requireth, though it ſhould not be there; ſo alſo we muſt in charity judge the beſt, and walk towards ſuch as viſible Believers, till by impenitency in ſin the Church have juſt cauſe to count them as Heathens and Publicans. So Phil. 1.7. It is meet I ſhould think thus of you all, becauſe you are in my heart. Love and Church-charity ſhould reach farre, eſpecially to Members of a Church regularly received, becauſe the Lord doth give Faith to ſome; and who have Faith in truth, who not, is hard for us to judge. And ſo it is in ſuch Members as came in in their Infancy: We know the Lord gives Faith and Grace to ſome betimes, as to Samuel, Timothy, and others; yea, in all Elect Infants that die in minority, no doubt God gives them the Spirit of Faith, and that which is proportionable to the act of Faith; and therefore in charity we are to look at them as Believers, till for impenitency in ſin, the Church ſhall …ount them as Heathens and Publicans.
Their third Note is, That though they be Members in general, yet Infant-ſeed are onelyonly foederally holy; others that have taken hold of the Covenant, are ſanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, 1 Cor. 6.11. Theſe have a Parental and partial Right, nor compleat and perfect. Thus the Lord ſpeaks Deut. 4 37. & 10.15. Acts 2.38, 39. So Dr. Ames diſtinction into Perfect and Imperfect, Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 13.
Anſ. 1. Let it here be applied what was ſaid of their Faith in Gods acceptance, and the reality of it in ſome of them, as well as in ſome admitted by Profeſſion of Faith.
2. Concerning this diſtinction of Foederal Holineſs, and Sanctified in Chriſt Jeſus: It is not ſufficiently conſidered what is contained in Foederal Holineſs; Doth it not include, that They are in Covenant with God, that God is their God, that They are his People, An holy People to himſelf, A Royal Prieſthood, A Choſen Generation, &c? which the Apoſtle applieth to Believers, 1 Pet. 2.9. And what difference is there between Sanctified in Chriſt Jeſus, and Saints, and Faithful in Chriſt Jeſus? which the Apoſtle attributeth to the whole Church, 1 Cor. 1.2. whereof the holy ſeed was a part, 1 Cor. 7.14.
3. To ſay, Theſe have Parental and partial Right, Deut. 4.37. & 10.15. Acts 2.38. doth any of theſe Texts prove, that Parental Right (as they call it) or the Right by the Covenant of God with their Fathers, is a partial Right? If God loved their fathers, and therefore choſe their ſeed after them; was not the feed the object of Gods choyce? and as perfect Members of the Church in all ages, as their Fathers were? It ſeems the Lord did as great things for them, as for their Fathers, out of his love to them, bringing them out of Egypt with great power, Deut. 4.37, 38. And were not their little ones eſtabliſhed to be a People to God, as well as their Fathers? Deut. 29.11, 13.
4. Doctor Ames makes nothing for their Tenent, but agreeth with the Synod. His ſaying (take it intire) is this: Children of the faithful are to be numbred amongst the faithful, as Members of the Church, 1 Cor. 7.14. for they are partakers of the ſame Covenant, and alſo of the ſame Profeſſion with their Parents: yet Infants are not ſo perfect Members of the Church, that they can exerciſe acts of Communion, or be admitted to partake of all Priviledges, untill the increaſe of Faith appeareth; but from thoſe things that pertain to the beginning of Faith, and entrance into the Church, they are not to be excluded. Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 12.13. By this it is evident, that he doth not make them Imperfect Members, in reſpect of the relation of Memberſhip, but in reſpect of acts of Communion: Even as a childe of the family is not ſo perfect to do the work, & enjoy all the Priviledges of the Family, as a grown perſon is; but yet he is as perfectly a Member of the Family, as a grown man. Beſides, that eminent Doctor looked at Infants of the faithful as capable of ſuch things as belong to the beginning of Faith, and to be admitted to acts of Communion, as the increaſe of their Faith appeareth: He thought of no other and new Memberſhip to intitle them to all Ordinances, but that, to come to them by their Covenant in Infancy. What can be more full, to ſhew his concurrence with the Synod?
Object. But Memberſhip is a word of Relation, and therefore cannot admit of degrees of more or leſs.
To this our Brethren Anſwer, That it is a clear exception from the general Rule, That ſuch Relations, the foundation whereof is Quality or Action, do admit of diverſity of degrees; as Similitude is a Relation grounded on ſome Quality; one thing may be more or leſs like another: ſo Calefaction, &c.
Reply. The Authors of this Diſtinction are not ſo authentick, but that it may be examined by the Rules of right Reaſon. And firſt it confoundeth all Logical Arguments, making Cauſe and Effect, yea comparata, to be Relates, which is againſt Reaſon.
2. This Diſtinction will not hold: For, what Relates are there, whoſe foundation is not in Action or Quality? Why is this man a Father, but becauſe he begat a Son? The Relation of Maſter and Servant, Husband and Wife, and the like, is it not by Covenant, which is an Action? So that by this Rule, all Relates ſhould admit Degrees of more or leſs; which is againſt that received Rule of Logicians.
But how is this Exception applied to this caſe?
In both which reſpects (ſay our Brethren) the Memberſhip of the Infants Faith, and act of Confederation being grounded on the Parents Faith, is rightly diſtinguiſhed from the Memberſhip of ſuch as are adult, which is grounded on their own Faith and Confederation.
Reply. What dependance hath this upon the former Diſtinction? where this Relation is ſaid to be founded upon ſuch diverſity of Action, as makes two ſorts of diſtinct Members, as is pretended, and not onelyonly two degrees of Memberſhip?
2. There is no ſuch diverſity of the Foundation of Memberſhip, as ſhould thus diſtinguiſh theſe Members; the Foundation is one and the ſame, viz. The Free-grace of God in his Covenant, extended both to Parent and Childe, Gen. 17.7, 9. I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed: The way of entring into this Covenant on man's part, is onelyonly a differing modus or manner of Covenanting with God. As a Sciens put into the Stock by hand, and the Branches that grow out of it, are all equally parts of the Tree, though the Branches were not ſo put in by hand as the Sciens was. A Father that purchaſeth Lands to himſelf and his Childe, the Childe hath as perfect and good a Right as the Father hath, though he did not make the Bargain and Covenant, as his Father did.
The fourth Note of our Brethren is upon thoſe words, Whoſe next Parents are in Covenant: which they ſay is ambiguous; and therefore they diſtinguiſh between Parental Covenant, (as they call it) and Perſonal with preſuppoſed Faith and Repentance: the former they count inſufficient to capacitate the next ſeed to Baptiſm.
Before I come to Anſwer their Reaſons interwoven in this Diſcourſe: Seeing our Brethren have ſo oft recourſe to their Diſtinctions of Members into actual, not actual; perſonal, not perſonal; by Parental Covenant, and perſonal; immediate, and mediate; perfect, and imperfect: and lay ſo much weight upon them; as, That the Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their ſeed to Baptiſm; That their Memberſhip by Parental Covenant laſts no longer then minority, pag. 37. and, The perſonal Covenant of ſuch, makes them Members; is the Form of their Memberſhip, and the like: I ſhall therefore here, once for all, recall theſe things to the Law and Teſtimony, and try what Light is in them.
And firſt, in my beſt Obſervation, I can finde no ſuch diſtinction of Parental and Perſonal Covenant, that ſhould make two ſorts or kindes of Members, neither in the Name or Thing: but all along in the Scripture, the Covenant is one and the ſame that God makes with his People, and is called by the name of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. where this Covenant was moſt ſolemnly made, and to which the oft-renewed Covenants in the Old Teſtament, and the Covenant or Promiſe in the New Teſtament, hath reference, as Rom. 9. Acts 2.38, 39. with Chap. 3.25. Gal. 3. In that place, I ſay, the Lord calleth it My Covenant, ſeven times, and that in reſpect of Abrahams ſeed, as well as of himſelf, ver. 7, 9, 10. Deut. 29.10, 11, 12. The little ones ſtood to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God. Ezek. 16.8. I entred into Covenant with thee, and thou becameſt mine. This is the common language of the Scripture. In the New Teſtament, beſides other places, note that 1 Cor. 12.12, 13. where the Apoſtle proves that the Church is one Body, conſiſting of many Members (ſome weak, and of leſs honour, &c.) By Baptiſm, the Seal of the covenant, we are all Baptized into one Body; and ſo as that there might be no Schiſm in the Body: But how ſhall the Body be one, if ſome be Baptized into this Body as actual and perſonal Members, ſome not actual nor perſonal; ſome into a parental covenant, ſome perſonal? What a Schiſm might this make? ſome ſaying, I am not actually of the Body, though Baptized with the ſame Baptiſm, (and there is but one Baptiſm;) others may ſay, I am of the Body perſonally, You are no actual Members of it? It ſeemeth the Apoſtle knew not theſe Diſtinctions: So Gal. 3.27, 28. All are Baptized into Chriſt, and are all one in Chriſt.
2. I finde, that the Scripture doth clearly own the Church-ſeed grown up to adult age, to be in Covenant with God, and ſo Members of the Church by virtue of Gods Covenant made with them in their Infancy, and that before any perſonal Covenant, as they call it. See Deut. 5.2, 3. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us; even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Now who were theſe, but that generation numbred by Moſes and Eleazar, when all that were numbred at the firſt, of twenty years old and upward, were dead? See Numb. 26.63, 64. with Deut. 1.3. So that multitudes of theſe now alive, were in their infancy and minority when God made that Covenant with them in Horeb; and yet it is expreſly ſaid, God made that Covenant with them, even with their own perſons: that was a Perſonal, not a Parental Covenant, as our Brethren phraſe it. And this is ſet out with a double Emphaſis: 1. Negatively, Not with our fathers; Why ſo, was it not made with their fathers now dead? Yes ſurely, but not onelyonly with them; or, not with us as wrapped up with, or in our fathers. 2. With us, Affirmatively; and again, Even with us; and a third time, With us that are now alive, in diſtinction from their fathers that were dead: and all this before that ſecond Covenant, Deut. 29. for this is ſaid of them before the Repetition of that Covenant at Horeb, to provoke them to the obedience thereof. Where then is this Parental Covenant diſtinguiſhed from Perſonal, ſo as to make two ſorts or degrees of Members?
3. I obſerve, That when the Scripture calleth this Covenant, The Covenant of their fathers, or of the Lord God of their fathers, it is never ſo ſtyled, to the diminution or abatement of any Bleſſing, Priviledge, or Favour that might come to their ſeed by it, but rather for the advantage, and greater good of the Children: See Exod. 3.15, 16. & 6.3, 4, 5. Lev. 26.44, 45. I will not abhor them, &c. But I will for their ſakes remember the covenant of their Anceſtors, whom I brought out of Egypt: So Deut. 4.31. So that in theſe, and divers other Scriptures, we ſee no ſuch diſadvantage to the ſeed, by being under Parental Covenant, as our Brethren call it; who firſt bring down Gods Covenant to a Parental Covenant, and then make a very ſlight matter of that alſo; that it cannot capacitate their ſeed to Baptiſm; Is not ſufficient to eſtabliſh their ſeed to be a people to God; Will not reach beyond the minority of their ſeed, and the like.
Object. But it will be Objected, That although theſe Diſtinctions be not ſo expreſly found in Scripture-phraſe, yet the nature of the ſubject doth admit ſuch Diſtinctions.
Anſ. 1. Some of them cannot conſiſt with the nature of the ſubject; as for a perſon to be a Member, but not actually; a perſon in Covenant baptized into the Body of Chriſt, and yet not perſonally: theſe are plain Contradictions in adjecto, as we ſay, To be A Member, and yet No Member. As for this of Parental and Perſonal Covenant, ſo much uſed, it maketh not two Covenants, the Covenant is but one, and that Gods Covenant, as is ſaid: there is but a differing modus, or manner of entring into it.
2. As for the reſt, of Mediate and Immediate Members, Perfect and Imperfect, and the reſt: Suppoſe that in ſome ſenſe the ſubject do admit them, yet they can never bear up ſuch Conſequences as are built upon them: for, they are but diſtributions ex adjunctis, and thoſe common Adjuncts to many other Subjects, which cannot make any eſſential difference: As when we diſtinguiſh the Church into Viſible and Inviſible, it is ſtill but one and the ſame Church: So Church-Covenant into Explicite and Implicite, there is ſtill but one ſort of Churches or Covenants: So the Church is either Incompleat, without Officers, or Compleat, with her Officers; yet ſtill a true Church, and not two ſorts of Churches. Such is this caſe, if we put twenty ſuch Diſtinctions upon Members from common Adjuncts, they make no eſſential difference. Theſe things, beſides much more that might be ſaid, to me afford this Concluſion, That in theſe Diſtinctions, and the Conſequences thereof, there is no Scripture-Light, but a Miſt to darken the Free and Rich Grace of God, ſhining out in his Covenant to the Faithful and their ſeed.
I return now to conſider the Reaſons of our Brethren, to prove, that Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their ſeed for Baptiſm.
Their firſt Reaſon is, For ſo the Covenant ſhould be intailed to a thouſand generations.
Anſ. What our Brethrens Parental Covenant can do, I know not, but ſurely Gods Covenant is An everlaſting Covenant, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to their ſeed, viz. They keeping within the Covenant, from generation to generation: And if the Lord will intall his Covenant, and the Means of Grace thereby, to ſuch as keep his Covenant, to a thouſand generations, what hurt is in that? Bleſſed be his Name for it.
Reaſ. 2. Iſhmael and Eſau had the Parental Covenant, but were not Eſtabliſhed thereby.
Anſ. This was not from any inſufficiency in Gods Covenant (for ſo I muſt call it) but from their ſin that continued not in it. By this Reaſon, Perſonal Covenant by Profeſſion of Faith and Repentance, is as inſufficient; for ſuch, by their ſin, may not be eſtabliſhed.
Reaſ. 3. The immediate Parents Ʋnbelief breaks off the Covenant from their ſeed, Rom. 11.20, 21, 22.
Anſ. True; ſuch Unbelief whereby they obſtinately rejected Chriſt, Acts 13.45, 46. Mat. 21.42, 43. but this was not from any inſufficiency in Gods Covenant to capacitate their ſeed to Baptiſm, or Eſtabliſh a People, but from their rejecting of the Covenant, in rejecting Chriſt, that Seed in whom all were to be bleſſed.
Reaſ. 4. Baptiſm is, as Circumciſion was, A Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4.11. which is inviſible in thoſe children that ſhould tranſmit Baptiſm.
Anſ. This is true, that as Circumciſion, ſo Baptiſm is a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith: And thence I infer, that when God by his Inſtitution appointed that Seal to be tranſmitted to the ſeed of Abraham, ſo long as they continued in the viſible Covenant, they were accepted of God as Believers in Eccleſiaſtical account: and ſo it is in reſpect of tranſmitting Baptiſm; ſo long as the ſeed of the Faithful continue in the viſible Church, they are viſible Believers in Eccleſiaſtical account, and may ſo tranſmit Baptiſm to their ſeed.
Reaſ. 5. They alledge Acts 2.38, 39. which, they ſay, reſtrains Baptiſm to the next ſeed of ſuch Parents as manifeſt Repentance and Effectual calling, and is of more weight then any Argument from farfetched and uncertain conſequences out of the Old Teſtament.
Anſ. To this Text is fully anſwered before; and, as was ſaid, it favours the Doctrine of the Synod, That the Promiſe or Covenant is the ground of Baptiſm. And that this Text hath no ſuch Reſtraint, it may appear thus: Let all be granted that is here ſaid, yet ſuppoſe ſuch viſible Converts diſcover afterward no ſap or ſavour of Grace, to the faireſt Charity, but continue ſtill in the Church, ſhall not their ſeed be Baptized? or muſt every Church-member hold forth a Profeſſion of Repentance at the Baptiſm of every childe? I ſuppoſe our Brethren will not ſo affirm; and if ſo, then a Church-member, though not apparently a true Penitent, may have his ſeed Baptized. As for far-fetched Conſequences from the Old Teſtament, the following Diſcourſe will ſhew, that none uſe them ſo much as our Brethren do.
Concerning the Anſwers here given to an Objection from Exod. 20. The Synod doth not make that Objection, but agreeth with this Interpretation given in the third and fourth Anſwer; viz. So that the Priviledges are onelyonly continued to the ſeed of the next Parents, that continue in the Covenant, and are not broken off.