Never yet been admitted to the Lords Table. Forms [illegible] Ratio Ecclesiast. Minist. in Peregrinor. Ecclesiâ institutâ Lendini, &c. Pag. 117—123, 135. with Pag. 86, 104, 105, 106.
Holy Baynes accounts, that children are a part of the Church, Dioces. Tryall, pag. 84. And the principles pointed to in his Christian Letters; Letter 15. pag. 125, 126. and Letter 24. pag. 199, 202. Edit. 1637. Also in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, on Chap. 1:1. Doct. 5. and on Chap. 2:12. Pag. 276, 277. and other places, may easily be improved to a confirmation of the doctrine of the Synod.
Doctor Ames (whom the Preface calls for-ever Famous, Judicious, &c. and that very deservedly) how large his judgement is as to the subject of baptism, may be seen by any that have his Cases of Conscience, Lib. 4. Cap. 27. He requires no more to the most proper right of a child to baptism, but that the parents or one of them be intra Ecclesiam, within the Church; though he thinks that others also may be baptized, if any godly persons will undertake for their education. And how plainly he holds forth the doctrine of the Synod in his Medulla, Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12, 13. & Cap. 40. Thes. 11, 12, 13. is easy to be collected.
We may well here take up the words of worthy Mr. Cotton, in his Preface before Mr. Norton's Answer to Apollonius, where having named Cartwright, Partus, Baynes, and Ames, those chariots and horsemen of Israel, and leaders in the cause of Reformation, he adds, Ab horum sive vestigiis, sive principiis si novitatis studio cessimus, jure meritò deseremur ut desertores. Quod si in viâ illorum ambulamus nec ultrà pregredimur (quod ad summam rei attinet) quàm ab illorum Lumine Divinitùs collustrati, certè non nos illi sumus, qui causam Reformationis deseruimus, sed illi potiùs (quos lubens nollem dicere) qui nos ut Desertores deserunt & detestantur. So here: If we out of any changeable inclinations, or spirit of innovation, have departed from the footsteps or principles of those blessed patrons of Reformation (such as were now named, and others of the good old Non-Conformists, who both with prayers, tears and sufferings, and with as much judicious learning and piety as the world has yet seen, have handed down to us the work and way of Reformation) then let us be, and well might we be deserted and censured as desertors or apostates (as we are by too many). But if we adhere to the principles, and tread in the steps of those worthies, and go no further than they, or than the light which God has communicated by them does lead us, surely we have not deserted nor departed from the cause of Reformation; but they rather (though unwillingly we speak it) who desert and dislike us as desertors.
The Elders and Messengers of the Congregational Churches in England, in the Preface to the Result of their meeting at the Savoy, do profess a full concurrence throughout in all the substantial parts of church-government with their reverend brethren the old Puritan Non-Conformists, citing in the margin Fox, Dearing, Greenham, Cartwright, Fenner, Fulk, Whitaker, Reynolds, Perkins, &c. Now let the judgement of these (such of them as have left any thing written about this question, by which we may judge of the minds of the rest) be considered; and see if they do not abundantly confirm such latitude of baptism as we plead for. What if our Congregational brethren in England have not yet, by reason of the infancy of their churches, had so much occasion to look into this question (as our selves for a long time had not) nor yet so much need to trouble themselves about the full extent of baptism, in a place where there were enough that would baptize those whom themselves left unbaptized? Yet when the Lord shall incline any of those able and worthy persons to set themselves to the study of this point: why should we think that they will not be willing to receive light from, or that they will be willing easily to go against the judgements of those old Non-Conformists, whom they professedly concur with in other parts of discipline? So much for the discourse upon the first objection.
In answer to the second objection, the Apologist gives this warning, Let us not for fear of Anabaptism, do worse, even defile our selves with Antichristianism. And makes this profession, We are willing to profess that we look upon it as great a sin to baptize all children, as to baptize no children.
Ans. 1. We should not choose to put Anabaptism as contradistinct to Antichristianism. Take Antichristianism for all that which is against Christ his mind, rules and kingdom, so surely Anabaptism is a part of it. Take it for the corruptions of the Papacy, how near a-kin the doctrines and principles of the Papists and Anabaptists are, is showed in a late Preface to Mr. Shepard's Letter. The Anabaptists are indeed ready enough to call every thing that they mislike, Antichristian; as if none were enemies to Antichristianism so much as they. But if to oppose, obstruct, and undermine the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, be an Antichristian thing, let Scripture, reason, and experience speak, whether their tenets and ways be not highly Antichristian. Does not their cutting off so great a part of the subjects of Christ's kingdom, as the children of the faithful are (Matthew 19:14.) their changing the frame of the Covenant, whereby his visible kingdom in his Church is constituted and continued, &c. give (though secretly, and under plausible pretences) a most deep and dangerous wound to the interest and progress of Christ's kingdom? And has not experience showed Anabaptism (with its wonted concomitant errors) to be the vexation and clog of Reformation ever since the beginning of it.
2. To speak here of baptizing the children of Infidels and Pagans, as if any did incline to that, would be a strange absurdity: but if by [All Children] be meant the Children of All that are named Christians, though we think it too great a laxness to baptize all such, yet we are past doubt, that so to do is far nearer the Rule and Mind of Christ, when he says [Disciple all Nations, baptizing them] then to baptize no Children. Let us be far from making Bucan, Zanchy, Calvin, Perkins, and many other Eminent and Worthy Divines, who are for such a Latitude of baptizing, to be equally erroneous with the Anabaptists. Let no one make it a Temptation to himself or others, to run to Antipaedobaptism, because he hears the Assertors of Infant-Baptism plead for a greater Latitude of Baptism then he thinks is (or perhaps then indeed is) meet. Error in particular Applications of the Rule, is far less then error in a Principle. Anabaptism errs in a Principle, and principal Rule of Church-constitution. And he that narrowly observes the frame of Christ's Rules and Dispensations about this matter, will find much of that Maxim in them, Faveres sunt ampliandi. We see the Lord takes in the Children as Holy, if but one of the Parents be a Believer; he appoints us to Receive the weak, as well as the strong. We find not that the Apostles refused any that were willing to come in, and to be Subjects of Christ's visible Kingdom: neither are persons or people utterly Broken off from a portion in the visible Church, till after all means and long patience used, &c. As if Christ studied the Enlargement of his visible Kingdom among men (that is, as much as may be with the honor of his Holiness and Government) rather then the straitning thereof. Many Pious-minded persons among us are very fearful of Enlarging, and of Corruption that way: but why should we not also be afraid of grieving the heart of Christ (Mark 10:14) by too much straitning, and by keeping or putting out those whom Christ takes in? For we may not take away or diminish from the Word of God, no more then we may add thereto (Deuteronomy 12:32). The Lord keep us from extremes on either hand, and guide us in the right middle way that is according to his will. But the Preface goes on;
Neither can we plead Guilty to that Charge, That we deny all Church-membership to any Infants; we only deny that they are Personal and Immediate Members. Indeed as personal Membership is taken subjectively, so we say it is in Infants, that is, their persons are Recipients of the Adjunct of Church membership: but as personal Membership is taken formally, that is, for such as have by them, rites in their own persons entered into Covenant with God and his People, so Infants are not capable of personal Church-membership.
Ans. It is pity to clog and cloud the plain things of Christ with intricate distinctions, which do rather bemist and puzzle the Reader's understanding, then enlighten it. One would think it should suffice men to know that their Children are (by the Lord's rich grace and appointment) in their own persons within the Covenant, and so Members of the Church, without disputing whether they be so subjectively or formally, &c. And should such distinctions pass for current, what other use they would be of, we know not; but sure we are, they would do great service to the Anabaptists, though we believe that is not the Intendment of our Brethren, to comply with, or build up Anabaptism. But we are not now speaking to Intentions or Persons, but to Arguments and Distinctions in themselves; considered. For, suppose one give this Argument for Infant-Baptism (and indeed we know not a better) Members of the visible Church are to be baptized: Infants of Confederate Parents are Members of the visible Church: Ergo. How readily may it be answered, that Personal and Immediate Members (or they that have personal Membership formally) are to be baptized; but not Mediate and Not-personal Members, or they that have it (not formally, but) subjectively only. We have known an Antipaedobaptist fly to this as his Sheet-Anchor [Infants are Members; but how? Why, not personal Members, but Members in their parents; and so let them be baptized (mediately) in their parents, and not in their own persons.] And indeed, why should the Seal of Membership be immediately and formally applied to their own persons, if they be not in their own persons Immediate and formal (or formally) Members?
But let us search a little into this Distinction between Personal Membership as taken subjectively, and the same as taken formally, and see what there is in it, with reference to the matter in hand. For, that Children are personal and immediate Members, is asserted and proved by the Synod, but denied by our Brethren: and this Distinction is here brought to bear up that Denial, or to tell us in what sense they deny personal Membership to Infants. It was sometimes roundly denied, that Infants are personal Members; now it is denied with a Distinction: They are personal Members (say they) subjectively, but not formally.
Answ. 1. If Infants be Members, they are formally so: for, Forma est per quam res est id quod est. If we say, Such an one is a Man, a Father, a Master, &c. we must mean that he is formally a man, or has the form of a man, &c. He is not a Member, that has not the form of a Member. To say he is a Member, and to deny him the form of a Member, is to say and unsay.
It is here said, that, as personal membership is taken subjectively, so it is in Infants, that is, their persons are Recipients of the adjunct of Church-membership. We demand, whether this does not fully yield the cause, and give us as much as we need to the matter in hand? For, if the person of the Infant be recipient of the adjunct of Church-membership, then of formal Church-membership (it is not Church-membership, if it want the form) then formal (or proper) Church-membership, does cleave to the person of the Infant; then the person of this Infant is formally a Church-member, or, he is a personal formal member. He needs no more to render him a personal formal member (or formally a personal member) then to have the adjunct of Church-membership upon him, or cleaving to his person. For membership (as all such [illegible] relations, Fatherhood, Sonship, &c.) is but an adjunct; it enters not into the essence of any man, but cleaves to him as an adjunct. And so no man is more then subjectively a member (the most formally personal member that is, is but subjectively a member in this sense) that is, he is a subject recipient of membership, or one that has the adjunct of membership cleaving to him. If therefore the person of the Infant be recipient of the adjunct of Church-membership, then he is a personal formal member, or formally a personal member, for his person has the form of membership upon it, or cleaving to it.
When it's said, [But as personal membership is taken formally, that is, for such as have by themselves in their own persons entered into Covenant with God and his people, so Infants are not capable of personal membership] what logic is this, to put the efficient for the form, or to make it a part thereof? It is wont to be said, Efficiens non ingreditur Essentiam. The act of covenanting on our part, whereby we are brought into the Church, is but an efficient (yes, but an instrumental efficient: the book calls it a Precrean: cause, pag. 37. that is still but an efficient: yet consider it in contradistinction to Divine Institution, it can but instrumentally procreate). But the form, or formalis Ratio of membership, is to be within the Covenant, or within the Church (1 Corinthians 5:12). Whatever causality our act in professing and covenanting do contribute to bring us in, it can be but an efficient. And hence it does not denominate or constitute the formality of our membership.
Object. But [Formally] here is referred to personal, not to membership.
Ans. If so it be, yet still the same answers hold, unless it mean no more then every one grants, and so be nothing to the purpose. If the meaning only be that Infants do not enter into Covenant by an act of their own proper persons; who ever said or thought they did? What need we labor in finding out distinctions to deny them that which no body ever challenged for them? Or to what purpose is that? But the question is, whether Infants be not personal members (or personally and formally members) although they never yet put forth an act of covenanting in their own persons? We affirm it, because they have the form of membership (or the adjunct of formal membership) cleaving to their own persons by Divine Institution. And so we say they are personally, and formally members, though they have not yet acted any thing in their own proper persons. You seem to deny it, and bring a distinction to clear your meaning: the former branch of which distinction, as your selves explain it, grants the thing that we plead for; the latter branch, as you also explain it, denies no more then we deny, namely, that they enter by their own proper personal act. But the mistake lies in making this [namely, entering by ones own proper act] to be formally personal membership: whereas that is formally personal membership, that does formally and properly constitute the person a member; and so, [being within the Covenant] does the Infants in question, though they never yet acted in their own persons. The distinction should rather stand thus; as personal membership is taken properly and formally, so it agrees to Infants; that is, their persons are recipients of the adjunct of proper formal Church-membership, but as personal membership is taken improperly (and very improperly indeed) that is, for the membership of such as have by themselves or by their own personal profession entered into Covenant, so Infants are not capable of personal membership. Thus it might be granted. But why should we use personal membership in so improper a sense, or insist on a sense that touches not the cause in question? The sum is, that if by [personal membership taken formally] be meant only, entering by their own proper personal act, then the distinction is needless and not ad Rem. But if it be meant so as to deny what we affirm, then it is overthrown by your selves in the former branch. Grant them to be personal members subjectively, you therein grant them to be so formally: deny them personal membership formally, you deny it subjectively. These do mutuò so ponere & tollere, being used in any sense that is proper and pertinent to the present dispute. But consider whether it would sound rationally to say, that Paul was not formally a personal Roman (or not formally a Roman free-man in his own person) because he did not buy his freedom with his own money; or that a child who has an inheritance left him, is not formally a personal owner thereof, because himself did not purchase it: or, that Infants are personal subjects in such a kingdom, members of such a family, subjectively only, not formally, because they did not become such by their own previous personal act. These and such like shew how improper and incongruous it is, to make ones own personal act to be that which constitutes the formality of personal membership.
Preface. It's strange to us to conceive, that they should have this personal formal membership, and yet that they should not be subjects capable of formal personal censures.
Ans. They are capable in regard of their relation and state in the Church, though not in regard of natural capacity, nor in regard of demerit; for an Infant cannot ecclesiastically deserve public censure. It is not strange to conceive Infants to be subjects of such a prince, though at present incapable of civil trials and punishments. It suffices that Infant-members are in a state of subjection to Church discipline, and engaged thereto for afterward, though at present naturally incapable of the exercise thereof. The new born Infant is not capable of domestic discipline (either rod or rebuke) but that hinders not his being a formal personal member of the family.
Preface. We neither do, nor ever did deny, that the persons of infants of believing confederate parents are brought under the Covenant; only we conceive that their membership is conjunct with, and dependent upon the membership and Covenant of their parents, so as to live and die therewith. Hence when the parents are excommunicated, the membership of the infant-child is cut off, because excommunication puts an end to the outward Covenant (which death itself does not do), and if the root be destroyed, the branches cannot live.
That the child's membership depends upon the membership of the parent, as the instrumental cause or condition of the child's first entrance into the church, or becoming a member, we readily grant (because divine institution admitteth only the children of members to be members), and so much Mr. Cotton's words here alleged in the Preface do truly teach. But that the child's membership is so wrapped up in the membership of the parent, as to live and die therewith, as if it had no proper and distinct membership of its own, is surely a deep mistake, and will (if followed) overthrow that subjective personal membership before granted to infants, and that which is here also owned, namely, that their persons are brought under the Covenant. If the persons of the infants be brought under the Covenant, then their persons are within the Covenant, or their persons are confederate, then not only the person of the parent, but the person of the child has the formality of membership upon it. And as the person of the child in regard of its natural being, though for the first existence thereof it depended under God upon the parent, yet when once it is born into the world, it is not so conjunct with, and dependent upon the person of the parent, as to live and die therewith; so why should the membership of the child be thus dependent? Seeing the book (to which this Preface is prefixed) affirms, p. 37, that the parent is a procreant cause, as of the child's natural being by his generating him, so also of his church-membership by his confederating for him, and this by God's institution. And seeing the person of the child has a membership of its own affixed to it (as the foresaid grants import), and that from God (from God's Covenant and institution) as well as the person of the parent; why should we say, that the membership of the child does after this depend upon the membership or Covenant of the parent, and not rather upon God's Covenant and institution, so as to live and die according to the order and appointment thereof, and not otherwise? Hence the membership wherewith the person of the child is clothed by God's institution dies not till either the person of the child die, or till by some institution and appointment of God he be cut off from his membership for his own sin. Neither must it be yielded, that the excommunication of the parent does properly and formally cut off the infant-child that was born before such excommunication. We say, properly and formally, for consequentially and eventually it may bring the child to be cut off also; as in case the parent desperately go away from the church among heretics and infidels, and bring up the child to serve other gods. But so it may be with a wife carried away by such a husband, yet that does not hinder her from having a personal, distinct, proper and immediate membership, nor make his cutting off to be hers also. But suppose a parent and children that live and continue among us; the parent having a company of children, all in their minority, is for his wickedness cast out, and continuing impenitent, dies in that estate: to say that all these children (who were born and baptized in the church) are cut off from membership hereby, is a strange assertion.
For 1. This would make an infant-child to be a subject of excommunication, which was before (and in regard of natural capacity and demerit, rightly) denied.
2. If a parent in Israel was for his sin cut off from his people, were the children that he left behind him therefore excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel? To be sure, in crimes capitally punished (of which cutting off from their people is sometimes plainly meant, Exodus 31:14, 15; Leviticus 17:4 & 18:29 & 20:18) the child was not to die for the father's sin (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20), and is there not the like reason of other punishments, whether ecclesiastical or civil? Yes, that cutting off from their people appointed in the law is conceived by judicious interpreters to be in some places most properly meant of an ecclesiastical death, or cutting off from the people and church of God by excommunication; but however, it held a proportion with excommunication now under the Gospel. The child may be barred from a right or privilege that he never had, by the sin or condition of the parent: so heathen children are unclean and without, because their parents are so. (Hence children born after the parent's excommunication are not of the church.) But to be deprived of a right or privilege which he once had, and was possessed of (which is the case of children formerly born in the church, and owned as members by the seal of baptism), this has in it the nature of a proper formal punishment or censure, and this is inflicted upon none but for his own sin. A parent civilly or naturally dead cannot after that bring forth children to the Commonwealth; nor can a parent ecclesiastically dead (he so continuing) bring forth children to the church. But the children that are already members of the one society or of the other are not to be cut off therefrom for their parent's sin.
3. That, if the root be destroyed, the branches cannot live, is a truth in nature of branches growing on the same tree: but if these branches be taken and set upon a stock and root of their own, (though but as in a Nursery) then they do not die when the old tree dies, or is cut up by the roots. And so is the case in hand. These children are inserted and implanted into the Church, the Body of Christ, in their own persons (as was but now granted, when it was said, The persons of these infants do receive the adjunct of church-membership, and that their persons are brought under the Covenant) and have so far taken root therein, as to receive (not from their parents, but from the Church, and from the soil and fatness thereof) the sap and nourishment of Baptism, which is also a seal of the establishment or rooting of their membership. Branches included and contained in the root (as children yet unborn, or not born till after Excommunication) are broken off (or rather left without) together with their parents: but not such branches as are already severed from the root, and planted in the House of God, in the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, as through the grace of the Covenant our children are (Isaiah 5:7).
4. That death does not put an end to the outward Covenant, which Excommunication does, is a notion that we understand not: we should have thought that outward membership (or membership in the visible instituted Church) as well as the use of all outward ordinances, or instituted worship, had everlastingly ceased at death. The ends, duties and enjoyments of outward membership, do then cease, and so the membership itself. The Lord knows how many may from outward membership in the visible Church, drop to Hell; and does not their death put an end to their membership? And if death put an end to outward membership, it puts an end to outward Covenant in the sense of the question, that is, as to the person that dies. Indeed it does not hinder the continuance of the Covenant to others that are in Covenant, and are surviving: and neither does Excommunication so do. But the person of the parent loses his membership in the visible Church when he dies, as well as when he is Excommunicated. And hence if the membership of the child did live and die with the membership of the parent, there would be a cessation of it in the one case, as well as in the other. A parent's faith, prayers, and Covenant may live, though his self be dead: but how? That is, virtually, in the virtue and effect of them: and how is that? Why, the promise made by God to the faith, prayers, and profession (or covenanting) of a godly parent, that lives, and abides, and takes effect. So then it is neither the parent, nor his membership, but God's Covenant that lives, taking in the children that are begotten or born of confederate parents, to be members of his visible Church, and so continuing them, till by some rule or appointment of his they be cut off. In like manner, though the parent by his sin and wickedness have deprived himself of a portion in Israel, and be cut off by the censure of Excommunication; yet the Covenant of God lives, and stands to the children whom he had before taken into Covenant, and planted in his House. To call it the Covenant of their parents, and to say that children's membership is dependent upon that, is too crude a phrase, and too much abused by many, ascribing that to the parents, and to their profession (or act in covenanting) which belongs most properly to God, and his grace. 'Tis God's Covenant that takes in both parents and children. Alas, what are parents! and what could all their profession, and faith, and actings do, if God did not vouchsafe to take them into Covenant? Now God takes the child into his Covenant, as well as the parent: and 'tis God's Covenant and institution that the membership of the child depends upon, and with which alone it lives and dies. But it follows in the Preface:
True it is, that we have made much use of that distinction of Immediate and Mediate Members, which seems to us to carry a mighty and constraining evidence of Scripture-light along with it, &c.
Ans. We must needs say this seems strange to us, when as there is not so much as one Scripture brought (either here, or in the book following) to make good or hold forth such a distinction. In stead of Scriptures, here are some authors straight named, not to attest the distinction of Immediate and Mediate (it seems that cannot be found, no not so much as in authors) but of Complete and Incomplete. To which the answer is ready:
1. If some authors have so distinguished members, yet where is such a distinction of membership? At least purposely so intended, as to make several sorts or kinds of membership specifically differing, as is expressly said of the distinction here pleaded for in the book, page 37. Doctor Ames, in the place here cited, does not say of infants, Non sunt [◈] Membra, but Perfecta Membra: neither does he say, Non sunt perfecta, but Non sunt adeo perfecta Membra: they are not so perfect members (says he) of the Church, as that they can exercise acts of communion, or be admitted to partake of all the privileges thereof: plainly referring the imperfection or incompleteness, not to the essence of their membership, but to the degree of their communion and privileges. Hence,
Their distinction of members into compleat and incompleat, is (being candidly taken) as much as our distinction of members into such as are in full (or compleat) communion, and such as are not yet in full communion; which distinction we have (and we hope justly) made great use of. And for such a distinction Re[illegible]ipsa loquitur. All that are within (of, or belonging to) such a society, whether family, commonwealth, or church, are truly and properly said to be members of that society; but all are not equal in participation of privileges therein. Some have a more full (or compleat) [illegible] and portion therein, and some have less. All Christ's scholars (or disciples) are not of the highest form; nor are all his subjects entrusted with the keys of his kingdom; nor all his children past their non-age, &c. But yet they are all disciples in his school, subjects of his kingdom, children of his family, that is, members of the visible church. But such a distinction as makes several sorts of membership specifically different, we have not yet seen cleared and confirmed, either from Scripture, or authors, or from sound reason. Sundry distinctions or sorts of members, might easily be given; as, some members are in office in the church, some out of office; some partake of the Lord's Supper, but not of the power of voting, (as women) some of both; some have only initial privileges, some all. (Ames Medul. Lib 1. Cap 32. Thes. 3.) But these are but distributions ex Adjunctis, and do not touch or vary the essence of membership, nor make several sorts thereof. Nor do these distinctions and degrees of members in the church, arise simply from the nature of membership, or from any difference therein, but from something superadded to membership. As an officer is not more a member than another; but his dignity and place in the church arises from somewhat superadded to membership, namely, his office. A man is not more a member than a woman, though he has a power and privilege in the church (besides and above bare membership) which the woman has not. So men and women that partake of the Lord's Table, are not more (or more truly, properly, immediately and personally) members of the church, than children are; but they having attained to more and further qualifications, (or to a greater degree of growth in the church) are by rule admitted to more privileges than they. Thus in a kingdom or commonwealth, there are many sorts of subjects: some bear office, some not; some admitted to election of officers, some not; some capable of pleading and answering for themselves in law, some are not: but yet they all agree in the relation of a subject. And whoever made a specifical distinction of that, so as to say (in that sense) some are mediate subjects, and some immediate? The same may be said of a family, where the youngest child is as truly, properly, personally and immediately a member of the family, as the most grown person, though as to power and privileges therein there be a vast difference. So in the natural body: all the parts are not an eye, a hand, &c. but all are members; and the meanest part is as well a member, as the most noble (1 Corinthians 12:12–25). Now there is the like reason, as to the general nature of membership, in [illegible] church-society, which is set forth by that of a kingdom, family, and of the natural body, in the holy Scriptures. And so much for the discourse upon the second objection.
In the third place, our brethren set down this position or opinion, as that which is objected against them, that a person who is a church-member may become no member by an act or defect of his own, without any church-act in censuring of him: and to [illegible] is they say, most true it is that we do maintain this. And for proof thereof, they suppose [illegible] of an English fugitive, of one turned Turk, who was never censured by any church.
The position objected against them, if it be pertinent to the matter in hand, must run thus: that a person who is a Church-member may become no member by an act or defect of his own, without any Church-act in censuring of him, and without [illegible] censure on his part; or though he do not so much as deserve any Church-censure, and be not censurable by any rule of God's Word. For so the words of the Synod in defence of the controverted fifth Proposition do expressly speak, putting that as an instance that a person admitted member, and sealed by Baptism, not cast out, nor deserving so to be, may (the Church whereof he was, still remaining) become a non-member, and out of the Church, and of the unclean world, pag. 26. Now put but this into the objection here mentioned [Without desert of Church-censure] which is manifestly the case of the persons described in the Synod's fifth Proposition; and then all the discourse in answer to this objection (wherein not a little confidence and spirit is expressed) falls to the ground as not reaching the case in hand; though besides there are sundry mistakes in it as may after appear. For, suppose it should be granted, that in Churches where Discipline is not in use, and in a case notorious, wherein a person does apparently lose the essentials of Christianity (as by turning Turk or the like) a man may be cut off from membership by his own apostasy and wickedness, though the Church did not (through her sinful neglect) formally censure him. Yet this on the other hand is also a sure and clear truth, that no act of a man's own will or can cut him off from membership, but that which deserves a cutting off by censure, and for which the Church should cut him off by censure if she did her duty. This is plain, because when a man is once in the Church, he cannot be ousted, till God oust him: God does not oust him, till some rule or appointment of his in his word does oust him: but there is no rule that appoints any man to be put out of the visible Church, or made as a heathen and publican, but for and upon such wickedness of his as is censurable by the Church; and in that case the rule does appoint and enjoin the Church to censure him, or to put him away from among them by censure (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:5, 13). When some divines do so speak as if persons might be broken off from the Church without a formal censure in some extraordinary cases; the meaning is, not that a man does by his own wickedness, be it never so notorious, immediately so become Felo de se, or un-member himself, as that the Church has nothing to do with him to censure him; yes, she may and ought to censure him for his wickedness and apostasy; and so if a Church-member turn Turk or Papist, the Church to which he belongs ought to lay him under censure for it. And for such a one to be a member till censured, that is, a rotten member fit to be cut off, is no contradiction nor absurdity. See Mr. Cotton's Holiness of Church-members, pag. 15. And did all Churches in the world do their duty, there should no man living, that ever was a member of a Church yet in being, be looked upon as a non-member, but he that is so censured or excommunicated, at least unless some extraordinary and rare circumstances of a case do render the Church's cognizance thereof impossible. But the meaning only is, that where men have palpably and notoriously lost the essentials of Christianity, and a Church, through the sinful want or neglect of Discipline, never looks after them (only by her doctrine declares against such) but haply continues in that neglect from age to age, there the notoriousness of the case, and the evidence of the rule, does supply the defect of a judicial sentence, and the Church's doctrinal declaration may be looked at as an implicit excommunication. And hence other Churches may justly carry toward such as non-members: and hence also in the day of the Reformation of such Churches, after deep and long-continued corruptions, such persons may be set by without a formal censure. But what is all this to the children of our Churches? Who being admitted in minority, in stead of notorious wickedness and apostasy, when grown up, do in some measure own the God and Covenant of their fathers, and are neither cast out, nor deserve so to be; whom no rule in all the Scripture appointeth to be put out of the visible Church: and hence they stand and continue regular (that is, according to the appointment and allowance of the rule) members of it, being neither excommunicate, nor by rule to be excommunicated. Where shall we find either Scripture or sound reason to tell us, that these have cut themselves off from membership, or are now become non-members?
But to come to a plain and distinct close in this matter, we assert this position:
That in Churches wanting in the order of the Gospel, and exercising Discipline according to the rules thereof, no person can (while he lives among them) cease to be a member of the visible Church but by excommunication, or, without a Church-act in censuring him with the censure of excommunication. The sum of the proof of this, is, because we find this way of cessation of membership (namely, by excommunication) plainly prescribed and appointed by the Lord in Scripture: and we find not any other, while the Church and the person continues in being [See a more particular proof of it in the Preface to Mr. Shepard's Treatise of Church-membership of Children, lately Published]. But if any do affirm there is another way, it lies on them to show and prove it. Let us now consider whether that be done by all that is here further said.
When Whitgift said, that Papists and Atheists might still remain members of the visible Church, Mr. Parker tells him, that even a Veritius would condemn him. And it is no new doctrine in the schools, to say, that an heretical apostate is no more a member of the Church of Christ, than a wound, a sore, a brand, is a member of a man; as every one knows that is *mediocritèr doctus* in scholastical Divinity. Therefore we conclude, that Church-members may become no members by their own defection.
Surely he that is but mediocriter doctus in Scholastical or Chemical Divinity, may easily know that here is the shew of an argument, or of authority of writers, without the substance of either. For, when our divines against the Papists do so often over say, that wicked or unregenerate persons are but equivocally or improperly members of the Church, as nails, hair, sores, and superfluous humors, or as a wooden leg, a glass eye, &c. are members of the living body of a man; they mean it properly, with reference to the invisible mystical Church, or to the visible Church considered in its internal spiritual living state, not with reference to mens external standing (or membership) in the visible Church. Nor did they ever dream that men are by the want of internal gracious qualifications cut off from membership in the visible Church, without any church-censure. It is well known, that they reckon hypocrites and secretly unregenerate persons (as well as heretical apostates, or the openly-wicked) to be but equivocally of the Church (namely, in comparison and contradistinction to the true and living members of the Body of Christ; and as Paul distinguishes between Israel, and them that are of Israel (Romans 9:6), and says, He is not a Jew, that is, not a Jew indeed, and accepted in the sight of God, who is but outwardly one (Romans 2:28, 29)). But would you therefore say, that a close hypocrite unmembers himself, and falls out of the visible Church without any church-censure? In the place here cited out of Parker de Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. cap. 16. pag. 169. Verstius condemns Bellarmine, because he affirmed such — (ad Ecclesias Christi proprie dictam reverà pertinere) to be indeed of the true Church. How strangely is this misapplied to the matter in hand? As if one should say, that all that want true saving faith have lost their church-membership without any censure, and then alledge for the proof of it the Protestants' doctrine, that the true mystical or Catholic Church consists only of elect believers: how evident is it that this is not ad rem?
For, as for an external membership in the Church (which is the matter that we have in hand) what is more known, than that all our divines do unanimously acknowledge it to be the portion of multitudes that have not saving grace? And that even such as have been born and brought up in the Church, if they fall into manifest incorrigible wickedness, they should be removed out of the Church by excommunication; but otherwise they are still within; although many of them be destitute of those inward qualifications that should render them living and true members of the Church mystical. Falsum est (says Doctor Ames, Bel. Enerv. Tom 2. Lib 2. Cap. 1.) Internas virtutes requiri (that is, absolute requiri) à nobis ut aliquis sit in ecclesiâ quoad visibilem ejus statum. And see Ames Med. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 11. They that are Christians by profession only (says Junius) are truly of the Church, according to the external consideration thereof, though not according to the internal, wherein lies the truth of Christianity. Animad. in Bellar. de Eccles. Cap. 10. Art. 28. And in Cap. 9. Art 1. he says, We acknowledge there be grievous sinners in this (namely the visible) Church, in which if they were not, we should in vain trouble ourselves about their correction and excommunication; vid. Calvin. institut. Lib. 4. Cap. 1. Sect. 7, 9, 13. Polan. [illegible]. Lib. 7. Cap. 8. But it were a needless labor to cite many testimonies in so manifest a case. When Whitgift had said, that the Church is full of wicked persons — drunkards, idolaters, Papists, Atheists &c — Cartwright answers him (as Parker in the very place here quoted notes) that, that was because the discipline of Christ was not [illegible]; showing that he would have even such not to be left to their own self-felony (if, being church-members they fall to such evils) but to be cut off by Christ's appointed discipline. And Cartwright in his second Reply, Part. 1. p. 246. upon that in (1 Corinthians 5:11) among other passages has these words, It is one case of him that has given his name to the Gospel, and afterward slides from that profession to idolatry; and another of him that never gave it, but has been from his infancy an idolater; for the first cannot be severed from the Church without solemn sentence of excommunication, see also Pag. 242, 247, 248. But the Preface adds:
And we humbly conceive that thus much is held forth by these Scriptures (Hebrews 10:25; 1 John 2:19; Jude 19).
That the sin of those who forsake church-assemblies, separate themselves from them, wander into ways of heresy and apostacy, is grievous (and consequently calls for church-admonition, and incorrigibleness therein for excommunication) this may be gathered from those Scriptures; but to gather from there, that such forsakers, separatists, and wanderers, do thereby become non-members, so as that the Church should not, need not, or may not follow them with any censure, is a strange collection; and would (if granted) at once overthrow all discipline. For what is more easy than for an offender to forsake the assembly, to separate himself, &c.? And then the Church shall have no more to do with him; so the process of discipline appointed in (Matthew 18) should never take place. What though there be no mention of church-censure in the texts alledged? Must we bind the Holy Ghost to mention all truths and rules together in one text or context? What the sin of such persons is, those texts show; but what discipline is to be used to church-sinners, this is held forth in other Scriptures. If the Apostle in (1 John 2:19) have reference to Ebion and Cerinthus, and such like heretics (as is commonly conceived: vid. Magdeburg. Centur. 1. Lib. 2. p. 485) surely he was not without care to have due testimony by church-censure born against them. Yes, when as he does so strictly enjoin all Christians absolutely to avoid them (2 John ver. 7–10), does not that import an injunction to the churches to which they did belong, to excommunicate them, if they had not already done it? As when Paul forbids them to eat with such an one (1 Corinthians 5:11) he means it, as a consequent upon (and so implying an injunction of) church-censure. Vid. Dickson in a Thes. 3:14. & in Romans 16:17. & in 2 Timothy 3:5.
Again, how came Esau to lose his membership? We read not that he was excommunicated, therefore it remains that he discovenanted, and so dis-membered himself. And how came the children of Abraham by Keturah to lose their membership? It was not by censure.
Ans. 1. Should we thus reason, you would call for Gospel-rules and proofs; which we may with more reason do in this case, because proper excommunication is plainly and expressly ordained under the Gospel: concerning the use of which, there is not so much clearness in the Old Testament. 2. The particular extraordinary revelation of God's mind concerning Esau, together with his being denied the patriarchal blessing, of which the Apostle says [He was rejected] (Hebrews 12:17), may well be looked at as equivalent to an ordinary excommunication under the Gospel. 3. The posterity of Abraham by Keturah, did in process of time lose their membership, by losing the essentials of true religion; and to expect personal excommunication, when a whole people falls away to idolatry, and so becomes Lo-am[illegible], is a vain thing. But it is a great mistake to think that the particular persons mentioned in Genesis 25:2, 3, 4, yes or their next generations did cease to be members of the visible Church. They were providentially removed out of the land of Canaan, which was reserved for Israel, and were permitted by degrees to lose religion, which was by promise to be continued and established in the line of Isaac and Jacob, so as that in the time of Moses (the nations being by that time generally fallen to idolatry) religion and worship was so fixed in the nation and Church of Israel, as that all that would serve God aright must become proselytes to it, which before that time was not necessary. But religion and salvation, and consequently church-membership, according to the domestic way of administration then used, did for a considerable time continue among the children of Abraham by Keturah, as the story of Job intimates; he and his friends being justly conceived to have been partly of that stock. And concerning Jethro, who was of Midian, and so of Keturah, see Rivet on Exodus 2 and on Exodus 18:12.
Preface. In like sort when persons under the Gospel do not come up to the terms of the Covenant, to show themselves to be Abraham's children, by holding forth his faith, and walking before the Lord in simplicity and godly sincerity, we suppose that they are justly deemed breakers of the Covenant, and have justly put themselves out of that Covenant which their parents made for them.
Ans. 1. The persons in question (that is, the persons described in the Synod's fifth Proposition) do in some degree hold forth their faith and godly walking, while they are professed Christians, or professed believers and followers of the truth and ways of God, wherein they have been educated from their inf[illegible]ncy; do constantly attend the ordinances and worship of God; live under, and do not cast off the government of Christ in his Cour[illegible], and when called thereto do readily profess their assent to the doctrine of Fai[illegible], and consent to the Covenant: do these (putting all this together) in no sort show themselves to be Abraham's children, by holding forth the faith of Abraham and walking in his steps, that is, in charitable and ecclesiastical reputation? Surely Mr. Cotton accounts such as these (yes, all the children of the faithful that do not grow up to apostacy and open scandal, or that are not excommunicable) to continue in a visible profession of the Covenant, faith and religion of their fathers; as in those passages of his that are pointed to in the Preface the l[illegible]e Synod may be seen. And where shall we find ground in all the Scripture to exclude such as these from being within the compass of the visible Church, or the covenants thereof?
2. If the meaning be, that they do not yet hold forth such an experimental work of faith, or lively discerning and exercise thereof, and so much of the power of godliness in their life, as may fit them for a comfortable approach to the Lord's Supper: let it be showed from the Scripture, that the bare defect or want hereof is such a violation of the terms of the Covenant, as puts men out of it. We know that every transgression, or falling short of duty required in the Covenant, is not accounted in Scripture an absolute breach of the Covenant (or a forsaking and rejecting thereof) such as for which God gives to persons or people a bill of divorce. Do but compare these persons in question, whom the hasty and rigid severity of man here pronounces to be justly deemed breakers of the Covenant, and to have put themselves out of it, with those whom the holy, but merciful and gracious God does in Scripture call and account such breakers of the Covenant: see Jeremiah 11:9, 10; Ezekiel 16:8–59; Deuteronomy 29:25, 26; 2 Chronicles 7:22; 2 Kings 17:15–20. And he that would not cut down (no, not the barren) fig tree, till further patience and means were used: he that waited on the Jews (whose entrance into the Church was by a membership received in infancy) in the ministry of Christ and the Apostles, with as clear light of the Gospel as ever shone, till utter incorrigible rejection thereof appeared, before he accounted them broken off (Romans 11:16–20, with Acts 13:45, 46 and 18:5, 6 and 19:8, 9; 1 Thessalonians 2:15, 16): he that followed Jerusalem with means and dispensations of grace, till they st[illegible]ned him away (Matthew 23:27, &c.), can we imagine that he will reckon our poor children to be broken off as soon as they are adult, if then presently they do not hold forth fitness for the Lord's Table? Yes, when many of them are it may be secretly following after God, though haply they have not yet attained so much as to make their approach to that ordinance comfortable; or have not yet the confidence to put forth themselves thereunto? Surely the Lord does not make so light a matter of his holy Covenant and se[illegible]l (whatever men through misguided apprehensions may do) as to enter into a solemn Covenant with children, take them into his Church, and seal up their taking in before men and angels, and then let them go out so easily, or drop off one knows not how.
3. If they have justly, that is meritoriously put themselves out of the Covenant, or so violated the Covenant on their part, as to deserve a putting out, yet still one might ask, how they come to be actually put out, seeing the Church has not proceeded, nor seen cause to proceed to any censure? But if it be indeed so, that they do deserve (that is, in foro Ecclesia; we speak not of desert in the sight of God) to be put out; if they may be justly called breakers of the Covenant, and are guilty of that which justly puts them out, then it is the Churches duty actually to put them out, or cut them off: for Ecclesiastical justice, as well as civil, renders to all their due and just deserts: and those that are (Ecclesiastically) breakers of the Covenant ought to be cut off (Genesis 17:14). Hence it will follow upon these principles, that we ought to cast out and cut off all the adult children of our Churches that are not come up to full communion; which thing, how horrid it is to think of, let the reader judge: or be it that we forbear any formal censure, and content ourselves only doctrinally to declare, that all such children are put out and broken off, (which doctrinal declaration is indeed contained in the assertions of our brethren) yet the harshness and horrid severity of such a declaration, is little inferior to the other, and very contrary to the patience and grace of Jesus Christ expressed in the Scriptures.
Preface. Therefore that all may know, that there is neither danger nor singularity in this our assertion, that a Church member may possibly become no member, without any act of the Church in formal censuring of him, give us leave to produce some testimonies to prove it. Judicious and blessed Doctor Ames says, that in case of pertinacious separation such persons, though they may be of the invisible, yet they are not to be accounted members of the visible Church.
Ans. 1. Suppose you should prove that a Church-member may [Possibly] become no member without a censure; yet we are still utterly to seek of proof that the children in question do so. 2. How can a separation be properly pertinacious and incurable, or appear so to be, till the means of Church discipline have been used? 3. Ames his meaning may be, that such are not to be accounted lawful and approved members, as in the close of that chapter (De Consc. Lib. 5. Cap. 12.) he says, a schismatical Church is not to be accounted for a lawful and approved Church. 4. We shall not deny but that some good divines do seem to hold, that in some cases of notorious wickedness, and apostacy, and so in case of absolute and universal schism (of which Ames there speaks) especially in places and Churches where discipline is not used; men may be looked at as non-members, though the Church did neglect to pass a formal censure: wherein we shall not trouble ourselves with being their opponents. It sufficeth us, that in Churches regularly using discipline, there is no ordinary way whereby offenders lose Church-membership, but by excommunication: and that none can lose it while they live, that are not guilty of such evil as is censureable, or is matter of excommunication; which the persons in question are not.
Another testimony here alledged, is from Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches, p. 9. where he says, that many in Churches have cut themselves off.
Ans. Had the whole sentence been set down, every reader would have seen the impertinency of the allegation, as to the persons and case in question. Mr. Cotton's words are these: Many in other Churches have cut themselves off from the Covenant by their notorious wickedness and profaneness. And withal in the same place he adds, that a relapsed Church, with all the members of it, are bound to renew their Covenant in order to reformation: which shows, that they were not wholly cut off before, though their membership was but by being born in the Church, and baptized, for of that he there speaks. We doubt not, but among the members of such relapsed Churches might be found many much more degenerate than those described in the Synod's Fifth Proposition; much less therefore are those discovenanted, but being in Covenant, are bound to renew it in order to full communion.
The next testimony here produced, is from those words in the Discourse of Church-Covenant, pag. 17. namely, that if men had not promised, and also performed in some measure of truth, the duties of faith and obedience to God, they had not taken hold of the Covenant, but had discovenanted themselves, notwithstanding all the promises of God to their fathers and others. Thus though God promised Abraham to be a God to him, and to his seed in their generations (Genesis 17:7), yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham, were discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of faith and obedience which God required on the people's part. Now if this (says the Apologist) were truth in the year 1639. (as it then had the approbation of the Elders hereabouts) we see no reason why it should not be truth in the year 1662. For, Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem est. Either this was a mistake then, or else it is a truth at this day.
Let the words here cited be candidly interpreted, and they contain nothing repugnant to the present doctrine of the Synod. For, it is true, that if men do not promise, or do not perform in some measure (yes, in some measure of truth, that is, visibly, and in charitable and ecclesiastical reputation) the duties of faith and obedience to God, they do discovenant themselves, that is, they do it meritoriously, and do what lies in them on their part to destroy their membership. And they so do it, as will infer the absolute loss of their membership, namely, either by formal excommunication, if you speak of particular persons, and if the Church do her duty; or by the Lord's giving them a bill of divorce, if you speak of whole bodies of people, as here the Ishmaelites and Edomites are spoken of. But what is all this to the children of our churches, described in the Synod's Fifth Proposition, who do promise, and do in some measure, though not in so full a measure as were to be desired, perform the duties of faith and obedience. This might be true in 1639, and in 1662 also. And yet our assertion may be true, and yours false notwithstanding. Let our children appear to be such as the Edomites and Ishmaelites were; or let them appear to be such as do in no measure (yes, in no measure of truth, that is, as to church-visibility, or charitable hope; for the Church goes no further) perform the duties of faith and obedience, and we will with you plead, to have them put out of the Church. But till then, that is, as long as they do in some measure (though yet but in a small and initial measure) perform the duties, and retain the essentials of Christianity, or of faith and obedience, they continue (yes, regularly continue) in the Church, for ought that has yet appeared, either in 1639 or in 1662. We are loth to take notice of the insulting expressions that are here used, which are too-too uncomely; especially there where the Fifth Commandment requires special honor. But the intelligent reader will easily see the vanity of this confidence, to bring a testimony concerning the discovenantig of the Ishmaelites and Edomites (for they are expressly instanced in, as the explication of the not-promising, nor performing the duties of faith and obedience intended by the Author) and then to triumph in it, as if that proved the discovenantig of our hopeful and non-excommunicable children, or thwarted the doctrine of the Synod.
When it is here added, [This is the main thing wherein we dissent from the major part of the Synod] — if by [This] be meant the assertion which is before expressed, namely, that a church-member may possibly become no member, without any act of the Church in formal censuring of him: then it is a great and strange misrepresentation to say, that this is the main point of your dissent. For, there be them that do heartily consent to all the conclusions of the Synod, and yet do hold, and did in the Synod express as much, that in some notorious cases, and where the Church neglects her duty (as has been before said) persons may be broken off, and looked at as non-members, though not formally censured; or that a church-member may possibly, in some cases, become no member, without a formal censure. The reader therefore is greatly mis-led, and mis-informed, when he is told that this is the main point of our dissent. But when you assert, that the children in question are become no members, or that persons, who were before members, do become no members as soon as ever they are adult, merely by want of fitness for full communion, though they neither have nor deserve to have any church-censure passed upon them: this we confess is a main point wherein you dissent from the Synod, and (we suppose) from Scripture, and sound reason too.
Here let us add the words of Mr. Cotton, in his excellent treatise of The Holiness of Church Members, which are these following: [Such as are born and baptized members of the Church, are not duly continued and confirmed members, unless when they grow up to years, they do before the Lord and his people profess their repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.]
Answ. It is manifest, that by Confirmed Members, all along in that Book, Mr. Cotton means such as are admitted to full Communion, or to the Lords Supper, and Voting, (and so he does expressly explain himself pag. 9.) and for that, it is well known, we stand fully for the same qualifications that Mr. Cotton intendeth according to the Form of Discipline, Cap. 12 Sect. 7. The word [Continued] is indeed added in pag 19. though not so in pag. [illegible] that Book; but it is added in a Copulative way [Continued and Confirmed] where all the parts must be taken together, to make up the truth of such an Axiome. Besides that the persons in question do make some profession of Faith and Repentance, that is, in an Initial and Educational way, so as sufficeth to their continuance in the visible Church, though it may not at present suffice to full Communion. Mr. Cotton was farre from conceiving that such non-scandalous persons as are the Subject of our Question are to be cut off, or looked upon as cut off from continuance in the Church; as (besides what is cited of his in the Synods Preface) may appear plainly out of this very Treatise (which is well called by our Brethren An Excellent Treatise) of the Holiness of Church-members; for pag. 3. mentioning a distinction of Mr. Rutherfurd's, That a Church may be termed no Church, no Spouse jure & meritò, & quoad vocationem passivam, in respect of bad deserving, and their not answering to the Call of God, on their parts; and yet the same Church remain de [illegible], or aliter, & quoad vocationem Dei activam, the Spouse and Bride of Christ: He says, This Distinction I can admit, if it be understood of a Church that has formerly answered the Call of God, and submitted to the Ministry of the Gospel, at least in outward profession of the fundamentals of sound Doctrine, and pure Worship: for such a Church, though they or their children may afterward degenerate, and go a whoring from God in Doctrine and Worship, yet God in his patience and bounty is not wont so soon to cast off them, as they cast off him. The next generation after [illegible] whoring from God, and forsook the Lord God of their fathers, and served Baalim, yet still the Lord accounted them his People, and sent them Judges and Prophets to restore and recover them. And pag 19, 20. he mentions distinctly by way of Consectary from the Proposition here cited by our Brethren, two or three sorts of persons who are not to be continued in the Church, though born and baptized in it; namely, 1. The grossly Ignorant of the first Principles and Foundations of Religion — 3. Persons notoriously Scandalous for any gross crime, as Idolatry, Adultery, &c. but not a word of such an inference as our Brethren seem to make, namely, the discontinuance or unchurching of such a sort of persons as are the Subject of our Question. And it is observable all along in that Book, that he pleads not for the un-membering of any that are once in the Church, yes though they came in but by a Membership received in Infancy (for of such he often expressly speaks, and such were the Members of those Churches he disputes upon in Answer to his Opponents) but only such as are scandalous and wicked, and deserve Excommunication, and he would have them also un-membered by Excommunication, and not by a Self-felony only: See pag 8, 15, 28, 32, 56, 57, 60.
Preface. Renowned Parker, speaking of the interpretation of those words [Laying on of Hands] in Hebrews 6:2. cites many judicious Writers, whose judgement he expresseth in words to this purpose; That they who were baptized in minority, when they are grown up, after that the Church had approved their faith by the Symbol of Imposition of Hands they were admitted Members of the Church: this was according to sound Doctrine in the Primitive times (as Parker says.) Now we demand, how they can be admitted as Members who are already as compleat, and perfect Members as any in the Church? But the Ancient Doctrine was, That Children who were baptized in minority, after they shall come to profess their faith so as to be accepted of the Church, may be admitted as Members: Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine, such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church.
Answ. Whether the words [Tanquam membra Admittehantur] be Parkers own words or Calvins (for he speaks as if he cited only Calvins words; yet we [illegible]inde not those expressions used by Calvin either on Hebrews 6:2. or in his Institutions, De Confirmatione, though in both places is the substance of the thing which Parker alledgeth from him) the matter is not great. It is manifest from the whole discourse, that Parker is there speaking of such as are admitted to full communion as we call it. If he there used the term [Members] for Persons admitted to the Lords Table, and to all Church-priviledges, it is no harder phrase, then has been used in this Country for many years, yet that argues not that we do, or that Parker did think Children to be no members before. It is observed of the Ancients that they sp[illegible]ke more securely before the Rise of Pelagius; men are less curious in Expression, when they speak about Points of which no Controversie is moved, and wherein their judgements are otherwise sufficiently known. As what is more abundantly and universally agreed on among all our Divines, then this, that The Children of Believers are Members of the Church, or a part of it? Parker, within six Lines of the place cited, calls them [in Ecclesiâ nati] Born in the Church; and opposeth them to [Extranei] that is to such as are without. Doctor Ames gives it as the Doctrine of the Protestants, The Infants of the faithful, unless they were to be accounted Members of the Church, they cu[illegible] not to be bapti[illegible]ed. Vrsin and Pareus say. Omnes iique soli &c. All and only th[illegible]e are to be baptized by Christs Command, who are his Disciples (Matthew 28:19.) that is those that are, and one to be accounted Members of the visible Church, whether they be adult persons professing Faith and Repentance, or Infants born in the Church. Again, The Infants of Christians do as well as the adult belong to the Covenant and Church of God, and are therefore to be baptized, because the whole Church ought to be baptized. C. techet. Explicat. pag. 367. This truth is joyntly [illegible] Protestant and Reformed Churches, as appears in the Harmony of their Confessions; The Children of t[illegible]e faithful are Gods peculiar people and in the Church of God, ([illegible], pag 397.) Reckoned in the number of Gods people, (Bohemian [illegible], pag. 399.) God does together with the Parents account their posterity also to be of the Church, (F[illegible]nc C. [illegible]mon, p[illegible]g 401.) They condemn the Anabaptists, who hold th[illegible] [illegible] no[illegible] [illegible] the Church [illegible]f God, (Confession of Auspurg, pag. 404.) Infants belong to the Covenant and Church of God, as well as the adult, says the Pal[illegible]tinate Catechism, Que[illegible]. [illegible]4.
Now [illegible] being so, that it is the manifest Doctrine of all our Divines, that Children are Me[illegible]bers [illegible]f the Church; and neither did they imagine, that when [illegible]d[illegible]lt they drop [illegible]ff by a Self [illegible]lony, or we know not how: For when Erasmus had said, that Ch[illegible]l[illegible]ren bei[illegible]g grown [illegible] they being askt, would not st[illegible]nd to what had been promised in their behalf, they [illegible]ere to be le[illegible]t to themselves: Calvin [illegible] it as the saying of a man not wel exercised in Ch[illegible]rch-government. See also Chemnit. Exam. Conc. Trid. par. 2. de Baptis. Can. 14. & de Confirmat. sub Can. 3. whose words in the former of these places, the Rea[illegible]er may find Engli[illegible]ed in the beginning of Mr Shepards Treatise [illegible]bout the Church[illegible] membership of Children [illegible]ely Printed. And Cartwright to [illegible] Question, What are the Duties of the rest of the Church that are pres[illegible]nt at a C[illegible]i[illegible]des Baptisme? Answers, 1. To Rejoyce and be glad at [illegible]he increase of Gods Church — 3 When the Childe come[illegible]h to age to do such duties as one Member [illegible]w[illegible][illegible]h to another: he did not think its Memb[illegible]rship ceased with Infancy, but (says he) when it cometh to age, such duties are to be do[illegible]e to it as one Member oweth to another. Hence we say, is it rational so to und[illegible]r[illegible]t[illegible]nd Parker or Calvin, as if they did think (or approved it as sound Doctrine in others to think) that they who were Baptized in minority, when after they are grown up, they have approved their Faith, they are then first admitted Me[illegible]bers, as if they were no Members of the Church before? As the Reader would think that that were the scope and sense of the Testimony here cited. But to cite shreds of passages in Authers in a sense contrary to those Auth[illegible]rs known and declared judgement, is very injurious both to them and to the Reader. He that reads what this Preface here says, would think that it is the Judgement of many judicious Writers cited by Parker, that Children do then first enter into Church-members[illegible]ip when their F[illegible]ith is approved by the Church, after they are grown up, and that they are not Members at all before that: when as it is most certain, and evident, that neither Parker, nor any judicious Writer cited by him, nor any one heretofore approved for a judi[illegible]ious Writer, eit[illegible]er Ancient or M[illegible]dern, did indeed so judge, but the contrary. And Parkers words are clearly intended in another sense, namely with reference in full Communion. And so speaking of the very same matter in the first book of his Ecclesiast. [illegible]elit. Cap. 10. he says, That in the Reformed Churches the adult are ex[illegible]mined by the Presbytery, approved by the consent of the People, and received by the wh[illegible]le Church as Members of the[illegible]r Communion in a special manner, and so are as it were confirmed before they be admitted to the L[illegible]rds Supper; where [Members of their Communion in a special manner] is the same with [Members in full Communion] in our Language: and so [illegible]is words, together with the known practice of the Reformed Churches, do plainly confirm our distinction between Initiated Members and Members in f[illegible]. Communion; but they are far from int[illegible]nding or holding forth either a denial of Childrens membership, or a cessation thereof as soon as they become adult.
As for the Inference that is here made from Parkers Te[illegible]imony; Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church.
An if his words do hold in the sense in which they are here alleged, then children are not only not as complete and perfect members as any in the Church, but they are not members at all, or non-members, seeing they are not (it seems) admitted members, till when adult they have made their profession. As for their being complete and perfect members, it is well known we say and hold that they are not complete or perfect in point of communion, or privilege, but only in regard of the essence or relation of membership, that is, they are properly and completely within the Church, and not half in, and half out. To be (according to divine institution) within the Church, is to be a member of the Church, as the book (before which this preface is set) well owns, pag. 41. [illegible] any man show us one orthodox divine, or judicious writer, before or in Parker's days, that ever said that the children of the faithful are (either while infants, or when adult, supposing them not excommunicate nor deserving so to be) not within the Church. But withal we hold, and so did Parker, and the Reformed Churches, that there are many within the Church, who may not have complete or just communion in all the privileges thereof, and so are not complete or perfect members in that sense, and word Medus. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 13. It is not we but you, that will have children (at least all adult children) to be as complete, and perfect members (in this sense) as any in the Church, or else to be no members at all, seeing you acknowledge none that are adult to be members unless they be in full communion.
It is further added; that when they are adult, in case they do not join to the Church, then they do not retain their membership which they [illegible] minority. Now to join to the Church is the act of one that is not joined, or is not a member; so that unless they acknowledge themselves to be not members (or unless they own themselves to have lost their membership) they do not retain their membership; this we confess we do not understand. But so much for the discourse upon the third objection.
In the answer to the fourth objection, there is a high profession of much zeal for Church care and watch to be extended toward children, and much clearness therein (even as the light at noon, and as if it were written with the beams of the sun) so as that the reader would expect to find very ample satisfaction in that matter; but when it comes to it, it falls flat to no more but this; that the watch over them is to be mediate according to the state of their membership: the Church is to see that the parents do their duty toward their children.
Now we demand whether this be any more than the Church should extend to a Negro, or Indian living in the family of one of their brethren, for should they not see that he do his duty toward him, and that in reference to the things of religion? Yes, we might further ask whether this mediate watch (namely, by seeing that the parents do their duty) does not belong as much to children when they are rejected and discerned by the Church, as our brethren would have them? And what shall become of children when their parents are dead (as how many fatherless and motherless children are among us?) or far removed, and when children are sui juris, and not under the wings of their parents? And why also should not baptism and catechizing (as well as other Church-benefits) be dispensed only mediately and not immediately to children? The reader may here see that the difference about [illegible] and immediate membership is more than a notion, it contains under it a thing of great moment. This mediate membership is made a medium to put our poor children from under the government of Christ, and to set them (in their own persons) as lamos in a large place. For by this the Church has nothing to do with them, nor can put forth any act (either of watch or censure) immediately upon them, but upon their parents only. But that Church-watch, government, no discipline is to be extended and administered to our children personally and immediately (that is, according as in regard of age, and understanding they are capable thereof; namely, instruction and inspection, and that in an official way, even in younger years, and formal censures when adult, if they fall into such offences as do need and deserve the same) the reader may find confirmed in the Synod's arguments, and in the following defence thereof. Haply the assertion [illegible] mediate Church-care, is sheltered under that clause [Those children that are in minority.] But. 1. Much help (by instructions, counsels, warnings, reproofs, exhortations, etc.) and that in an authoritative way, and upon the account of their memberly relation, may be administered to children themselves immediately in their own persons (besides looking to parents that they do their duties to them) even while they are in their minority, though not yet capable of public censures. 2. They are in the same state and relation to the Church (though not of the same capacity) when in minority and when adult: if therefore (not because of their natural incapacity, but) because of the nature of their membership, only mediate, and no immediate Church-care, watch and government belong to them, while in minority, neither does it belong to them when adult: and therefore this notion excludes all our children, both younger and elder from being under any Church-government immediately in their own persons. So that let them run on in never such vile courses, the Church cannot deal with them but with their parents only; and yet the case may often so be, that the parents are neither blameable for their miscarriages, nor able to reform the same.
But as mediate as their membership is, here is somewhat added, that shall touch these adult children themselves; and what is that? Why, if when they come to be adult they do not bring forth fruits of repentance, and faith, then the Church is to disown them, as having no part in the Lord.
Ans. 1. Is this according to the Spirit of Christ, or like the Lord's proceeding with his Covenant-people in the Scripture, presently to disown them, and cast them off, if some evil fruits, no if want of good fruits be [illegible] in them, then at first step to call them Loammi, and tell them they have no part in the Lord? Has the Lord vouchsafed to take these persons into his glorious Covenant, and to seal it to them in Baptism before men and angels; and does it come but to this? That if poor children, as soon as the day of ripe understanding dawns upon them, do not bring forth the fruits of faith and repentance, yes such fruits as may fit them for full communion, they are then presently declared to be Discovenanted, and to be turned adrift as those who have no part in the Lord? It is true, the most hopeful child, yes the best of us all, might justly be Discovenanted by the Lord, should he strictly mark what is amiss and deal according to our deserts; but he is graciously pleased not to proceed with such severity, but with much patience and long suffering towards those whom he once takes into Covenant. And who or what is man, that he should be more holy than the Lord! Let but that one Scripture be looked upon (among many others) touching the barren fig-tree, which is here cited, as if it gave some countenance to this present disowning, in case of barrenness. The Lord comes in the time and season of fruit, and finds none, and yet he waits another year after that, and a third after that (that is, a long time, and with great demonstration of patience) before he speaks of cutting it down; and then the vine-dresser (acted therein by the Spirit of God) cries (not Cut it down presently, but) Lord, let it alone one year more (that is, till it appear utterly hopeless, and incurable) that I may dig about it, and dung it. He chooses rather to make it a subject of labor and culture, than to ease himself by ridding his hands of it. Also that parable points to the people of the Jews, to and among whom Christ preached: now the following story of the New Testament tells us, that Christ and his Apostles waited on them, till they appeared altogether incurable and incorrigible, and till their incurable barrenness discovered itself by positive fruits of wicked opposing and rejecting the gospel before they were cut down, or broken off. And the Apostles when they preached to the adult, and yet impenitent Jews, did not tell them they had no part in the Lord, but on the contrary expressly told them, they had a part in the Lord, and in his Covenant-dispensations, and urged that as an argument to draw them to repent and believe, though they had not yet done it (Acts 13:19, 25, 26; Acts 3:25, 26). They were far from being an occasion of making them cease from fearing the Lord, by telling them they had no part in him.
2. Suppose any of these children when adult do bring forth some fruits of faith and repentance (as those, described in the Synod's fifth Proposition, can hardly be denied in charitable reputation to do) though not so full and ripe fruits as were to be desired, and perhaps not such, as themselves do find encouragement to approach to the Lord's Table; what shall be done to these? Shall they be owned or disowned? Are they in the Church, or out? If in, why is Baptism denied to their children? If out, how come they so to be? Or where does God in his Word say, or allow us to say to such hopeful young men and women, as through grace many of our children are (though not yet in full communion) that they have no part in the Lord?
3. What is this disowning? And where shall we have Scripture-warrant for such a Church-disowning as is not Excommunication? For that, our brethren see not warrant to proceed to; but lay down this rule [The Church is to disown them, or having no part in the Lord]. If any man speak (especially if he speak rules according to which the Church is to practise) let him speak as the Oracles of God. It were needful that this disowning (contradistinguished to Excommunication) should be cleared from there. Admonition and Excommunication we hear plainly of in the Scripture, and in orthodox divinity; but a disowning, that is a kind of public Church-censure, and yet is neither admonition, nor Excommunication, this seems to be a new invented piece of discipline. We demand, whether this disowning be not a putting one out of the Church, that was before in it? If so, what is it but Excommunication, which the Apostle expresses by that [Put away from among you (1 Corinthians 5:13)]. If not, is it not a vain thing? The person whom you are about to disown is either within the Church, or without; a member, or not a member. If he be within, why may you not judge and censure him with the censure of cutting off, or casting out, that is, Excommunication (1 Corinthians 5:12, 13), there being cause for it? If he be without, why should you disown him, any more than you do non-members, or such as were never joined to the Church? Would it not seem a strange and vain thing, if the Church should put forth a solemn public act to disown a company of non-members that are without the Church? To what purpose should this be? How Acts 8:21, here cited in the margin, should make for this disowning, we understand not. Peter there tells Simon Magus, that he was far from having any part or lot in the matter of conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, which he never had, but ambitiously aspired after; but does not declare that he had Discovenanted himself, or had lost his membership which he once had. And whatever became of Simon Magus afterward (of which the Scripture is silent, and stories uncertain) there is no ground to think, that he was then put out of the Church, or lost his membership. But rather the Apostle (by grave Apostolical rebuke and counsel) applies himself to him, as to one in the Church, to bring him to repentance, and to that sincerity of grace, which he yet wanted (verses 22, 23).
As for the reason here rendered, why excommunication agrees not to the children in question, namely, because it is applicable to none but those who have been in full communion. This is but a begging of the question, and carries not evidence of truth with it. Excommunication (that is, the utmost censure, so called) does not properly or nextly debar or exclude from full communion, but it cuts off from membership (renders a person as an heathen and publican, Matthew 18:17.) and so from that communion that belongs to a member as such. When a person that has stood for some time admonished, is afterward, for his contumacy, excommunicated, it is not excommunication that does immediately and properly put him out of full communion, for that was done by admonition; whereby, being ecclesiastically unclean, he was justly suspended from eating of the holy things: but excommunication cuts him off from membership, which admonition did not. Hence it is not full communion, but membership that does properly, and formally render a person a subject capable of excommunication. Hence it agrees to all that are members though they have not been in full communion; and every member has some communion though not full communion, and therefore may be excommunicated. Paul when he is speaking of the churches' judicial proceeding, and that to excommunication, makes it applicable to all that are within (1 Corinthians 5:12); if in full communion, yet church-judgment falls upon them not as in full communion, but as within. The casting out of Cain and Ishmael, the cutting off of the born members of the church of Israel from their people (an expression often used) the casting out of the children of the kingdom (Matthew 8:12) do at least by consequence, and by proportion, and parity of reason, show that the children in question may be cast out, and cut off from the church by the censure of excommunication.
As for that term of [Formal] excommunication, we know not that we are limited to this or that precise form of words, in excommunicating one sort or other; but the formal nature of the thing (namely, a putting of one out of the church that was before in it) this well agrees to the persons in question.
We pass by the fifth and last objection (which charges our dissenting brethren with weakness, ignorance, &c.) as containing nothing that is argumentative to the matter in hand. Neither do we own the objection, unless it be against our selves, who are (as we have acknowledged in our preface to the Synod's conclusions) poor, feeble, frail men, desiring not to trust to, or boast of any strength of our own (which is none at all) but only to the strength and grace of Jesus Christ, withal acknowledging that grace of his, whereby he does vouchsafe sometimes to reveal his truth to babes. We tender only scriptures and scripture-arguments, for that which we maintain, desiring that they may be impartially considered, without challenging to our selves, or pleading for the reputation of strength or wisdom. In disputes of this nature, it is impossible but that each part should look upon the arguments on either hand, as strong or weak, according as they are persuaded. But can we not deal with arguments, without being supposed to reflect upon the persons each of other? We suppose you do not see sufficient strength in our arguments (for then you would judge as we do) and in that sense you do impute weakness to them. In the like sense do we to yours, but desire to do it without any harsh reflections upon the persons of our brethren, and without liftings up in our selves, who have cause enough to lie in the dust before God and man.
But here our brethren take occasion to set down the reasons of their dissent from the Synod: which make up a second main part of this preface. The consideration whereof we shall now address our selves to.
Reason 1. The Synod did acknowledge, that there ought to be true saving faith in the parent, according to the judgment of rational charity, or else the child ought not to be baptized. But they would not let this (which themselves acknowledged) be set down, though our unity lay at the stake for it.
Answ. The regular receiver of the truth, is one that divides the hoof, as well as chews the cud; one that does not take all in a lump, but distinguishes, and rightly divides between things that differ. We are to distinguish here,
1. Between faith in the being or first beginning of it, whereby one is, or is reputed to be in the state of a believer, the charitable judgment whereof runs upon a great latitude; and faith in the special exercise of it, whereby one is fit for that special communion with, and active fruition of Christ, which is the scope of the Lord's Supper: to the visible discovery whereof, more lively fruits, and more experienced operations of faith are requisite.
2. Distinguish between the internal grace itself, which is required of them that partake of sacraments in the sight of God; and those external signs of that grace which the church is to proceed upon in her admission of persons to sacraments. These two distinctions being attended, and rightly applied, will help to clear both the truth itself in this matter from mistakes, and the proceedings of the Synod from those uncomfortable reflections that are here cast upon them.
The former of these distinctions, and the application thereof to the matter in hand, we have in Doctor Ames; children (says he) are not to be admitted to partake of all church-privileges, until first increase of faith do appear, but from those which belong to the beginning of faith, and entrance into the church, they are not to be excluded. Where the Doctor distinguishes between (Initium Fidei) the beginning of faith; and (Incrementum Fidei) the increase or growth of faith, and makes the former to suffice to baptism, but the latter to be requisite to full communion, or to the Lord's Supper. An initial faith entitles to the seal of initiation, but a grown faith (that is, a faith of some growth, though yet far short of perfection, and needing to grow still) a faith growing up to some sensible and lively exercise, is requisite to the sacrament of growth and fruition. They were believers, yet but initial believers that John baptized, in the first dawning or beginning of the Gospel (Mark 1:1–4). The Apostles constantly baptized persons upon the first beginning of their Christianity, but the Lord's Supper followed after, as annexed to some progress in Christianity.
The latter distinction also is obvious and necessary. Who ought to come, and, who ought to be admitted, are two distinct questions, say Vrsin, and Parem. We grant that true saving faith and repentance is required by God of those that partake of sacraments for themselves, or for their children: but the question is, what are the external signs and tokens of that grace, which an ecclesiastical charitable reputation may proceed upon; for we can go no further then the judgement of rational charity (as here our brethren acknowledge) and that proceeds upon outward probable signs, leaving the infallible knowledge of the heart to God only. The distinction between a Jew outwardly, or a visible Jew that has praise of (or approbation among) men, and a Jew inwardly that has praise of God, is a Scripture-distinction (Romans 2:28, 29), and is necessary to be attended here; for, De occultis non judicat Ecclesia (1 Corinthians 4:5). And here also we conceive, that the same strictness, as to outward signs, is not necessary to a charitable probable judgement or hope of the being of faith, or of that initial faith that entitles to baptism, as is to the like judgement of the special exercise of faith that is requisite to the Lord's Supper; there be many things that do both really, and in the just reputation of men, hinder the exercise of grace, and so hinder from the Lord's Supper, which yet do not take away charitable hope of the being of grace, or the state of a believer. If a man be under offence in the church, he is suspended from the Lord's Supper (till a renewing or exercise of repentance do appear) yet we still repute him to be in the state of a believer, or to have the being of grace.
Now then to apply this to the Synod's proceedings, for answer to what is here said, namely, [That the Synod did acknowledge there ought to be true saving faith in the parent to the judgement of rational charity, or else the child ought not to be baptized; yet could not be prevailed with to set this down for a conclusion.]
1. We did and do acknowledge, that in ecclesiastical charitable reputation, there must be faith, (yes true saving faith; those words hurt us not, provided they be not so strained, as to turn charity into rigid severity) that is, the being of faith whereby a person is accounted to be in the state of a believer (baptism being, as was in the Synod alleged, annexed properly to the state of a believer, or to the covenant-state of a person, and not to the present act or exercise of faith; and hence though there be no parent alive to act for the child, and the child cannot at present act for itself, yet that hinders not its baptism:) but we did not acknowledge, it was necessary there should be faith in the lively and special exercise of it, such as we justly require an appearance of to rational charity, in order to full communion, which is that our brethren aim at, and stand for, in all whose children they will have baptized. And to set down a conclusion in general terms, when the nature of the case calls for distinctness, is not rational.
2. Our main work was to consider of, and pitch upon such external signs and characters, as the churches' charity might and should proceed upon in this case. We all own, that only visible believers, or visible saints, are to have their children baptized; but the question is, who are to be accounted visible believers; and we say that those described in the fifth proposition are of that number. To have put it in such a general term, as [Those that profess, or hold forth faith and repentance to the satisfaction of rational charity] had been to leave the matter as obscure as we found it, and in stead of giving light to the churches (which is the end of Synods) to leave them in the dark without any help to discover their way: for still they are to seek, who those are that are to be accounted professors of faith and repentance, and what profession that is, that charity may accept in order to their children's baptism. Besides, it is well known, that those expressions [Of holding forth faith and repentance, &c.] have been constantly so taken in this country, as to hold forth the qualifications required for full communion: and that was it which our brethren strove for, so to screw up the expressions for baptism, as that all that have their children baptized must unavoidably be brought to the Lord's Table, and to a power of voting in our churches, wherein we cannot consent to them: and however we are charged with corrupting the churches, yet we believe time will show that that principle that over-enlarges full communion, or that will have all of whom we can have any hope that they have any good in them, to come to the Lord's Table; this (we say) will prove a church-corrupting principle, and those that have labored to keep up the partition here will be found to have been seriously studious of the purity and safety of the churches.
But when it is [illegible] that the Synod could not be brought to express what themselves acknowledge [illegible] that the parent whose child i[illegible] baptized must have faith to the judgment of charity, or which is all one must be a visible believer: we desire it may be considered with what truth this can be [illegible] for it was offered [illegible] again and again to express it [illegible] plainly, and particularly, if that would have satisfied as those that were present in those agitations (too long here to be inserted) may remember, and the proposition made [illegible] was refused by some of themselves that dissented. But it is competently expressed in the Synods Result, as now printed; for when we limit the baptizable to confederate visible believers, and their infant-seed, in Propos. 1. & 2. and then say, that those described in Propos. 5, 6, & 7. are to have their children baptized, does it not imply, that the parents, there described are confederate visible believers, unless you will make us to speak inconsistencies? Again, it is [illegible] made one argument to prove the fifth proposition, that the parents there described are confederate visible believers. And do we not then express this, that the parent whose child[illegible] is to be baptized must be a confederate visible believer? And is not that all one, as to have true faith in the judgment o[illegible] charity? How then is it here said, that the Synod would not let this which themselves acknowledged, be expressed, though our unity lay at the stake for it? Surely such misrepresentation of things with so much injurious reflexion should be forborn by godly brethren. If that would have united us, to own that the parent must be a visible believer, it was owned, and granted toties quo[illegible], and is contained in the propositions and arguments, as any intelligent reader will easily see. But the disagreement lay here, that your selves would not consent to any such acceptation, or to any such characters or expressions of a visible be[illegible]ever, but such as should unavoidably bring him into full communion. And we di[illegible]ered about this, who are visible believers? Not whether the parents that have baptism for their children must be such. In sum, the reason of our disagreement, was not because we would not own our own principle (as is here strangely represented) but because we could not consent to yours, and because you refused to have a common principle any way expressed but so as might suit with your own nation, though our unity lay at the stake for it.
Reason 2. The second reason which our brethren here give of their dissent from the Synod, stands thus;
There is no warrant in all Scripture, to apply the seal of baptism to those children, whose parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper. But the parents in question are in a state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper; therefore there is no warrant in all the Scripture to baptize their children: this we suppose is the assumption, and conclusion that is understood, if this second reason be intended as a reason of their dissent from the Synods fifth proposition. Unless it be intended only as a dissent from that which is [illegible] and contained in the Synods discourse, namely, that some may have their children baptized, who yet are short of actual fitness for the Lord's Supper: but the answer to it will take in both. And the answer will easily be given, if once we understand distinctly what is meant by [A state of unfitness] for the Lord's Supper: now by a state of unfitness, must be meant either non-membership, and that is indeed a state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper, which belongs only to the church, (though not to all in the church, yet only to it) and in this sense the assumption above mentioned is denied; for the parents in question are members of the church, and in that respect in a state of fitness for the Lord's Supper: that is, being in the church (or members thereof) to them belong all church-privileges, according as they shall be capable thereof, and appear duly qualified for the same. They have jus ad rem, though not jus in re, as a child has a right to all his father's estate, though he may not (ought not to) have the actual use and fruition of it, till he come to years, and be qualified with abilities to manage it. A freeman is in a state of fitness to be a magistrate or deputy; (or in some other office proper to freemen) though for want of particular qualifications or orderly admission by election, he may haply never be one. In such a sense every church-member is in a state of fitness for the Lord's Supper.
Or else by [A state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper] is [illegible] [want of actual qualifications fitting] for it, whereby a person either is in himself short of actual fitness for the Lord's Table, or wants church approbation of his fitness, and so wants an orderly admission thereunto. Now in this sense we deny the major (or proposition) of the argument above mentioned, and do conceive that there is warrant to be found in Scripture for the applying of baptism to children, [illegible] parents do want actual qualifications fitting them for the Lord's Supper. Among sundry other Scripture evidences of it, one is from the analogy of the Passover, and circumcision in the church of Israel, where the parent might want actual fitness for the Passover, by manifold ceremonial uncleannesses, and yet that hindered not the circumcising of the child.
Now a liberty of arguing from these to the gospel Passover, and gospel-circumcision (that is, to the Lord's Supper and baptism) is here granted and allowed: but 'tis answered, that unless the father were in a state of fitness for the Passover, he was not fit to have his child circumcised.
Reply. What state of fitness was the unclean Jewish parent in, but only a state of membership? He was a member of the church, and so [illegible] the parents in question; and they need not, do not enter into a new membership when they are admitted to the Lord's Table, no more than the Jewish parent after his cleansing did. But in two things the case of the ceremonially-unclean Jewish parent, holds proportion with the case in hand.
1. He must have other, and better qualifications than he has at present, before he eat of the Passover; he is at present in a state of legal impurity (and so, in regard of actual qualifications, in a state of unfitness) but he must be in a state of legal purity and cleanness, before he partake of the holy things.
He must (especially after some uncleannesses of a more remarkable nature) be judged and pronounced by the Priest to be clean, and so free to partake of the holy things (Leviticus 13:6). So the parents in question must have their fitness for the Lord's Table judged of, and approved by those in the Church, to whom the power of such judgment and approbation does belong: and having these two things (personal qualifications, and Church-approbation) then (and not before) they are to come to the Lord's Table; and those two are all they need. They do not need a new admittance into membership (as if they were before not of the Church) no more than the Israelitish parent did. If any one object, that this legal uncleanness was but an accidental and ceremonial thing, and did not import the want of any moral or essential fitness for the Passover: let him consider, that as the discipline then was mostly ceremonial, and hence legal purity was then an essential qualification to a regular fitness for the Passover, and other holy things, and the want of it a real bar; so those ceremonies pointed to moral and spiritual things to be attended by us now. Their legal cleansings, washings, &c. did import, and signify a special exercise of faith and repentance; which therefore we may well require in those whom we admit to full communion in the holy things of the Gospel; yet the present defect thereof does not put the parent out of the Church, nor exclude his children from membership, or from the initiatory seal of it, no more than a like defect did then. We might also mind the case of one that has been in full communion, but falling into offence is under public admonition for it; is not he in a state of unfitness (taking it for want of actual fitting qualifications) for the Lord's Supper? Yet this will not debar his child from Baptism, because he is not yet cut off from membership. Neither does his having once been in full communion alter the case, or render him more [in a state of fitness] than the parent in question is; for the one, is a member as well and as truly as the other: and to be declined, and fallen off from Supper-qualifications, and debarred from the Lord's Table for open offence, is worse than for a young man simply not to have attained thereunto (it is, at least, ecclesiastically worse — we speak not of what the inward state before God may be; but that it is worse in foro Ecclesiae, appears, because the Church has had and seen cause to dispense a public censure in the one case, but not in the other). Now if a person may retain his membership, and so derive Baptism-right to his children, notwithstanding his personal unfitness for the Lord's Supper in the former case, why not as well, yes much more in the latter?
But let it seriously be considered whether there be any warrant in all the Scripture to make the baptizing of the child to depend upon the parents' actual fitness for, or admission to the Lord's Supper. What fitness for the Lord's Supper had those that were baptized by John Baptist, and by Christ's Disciples at his appointment in the beginning of his public ministry? What fitness had the jailer, when himself and all his were baptized after an hour's instruction; wherein (probably) he had not so much as heard any thing of the Lord's Supper? The teaching of which followed after discipling and baptizing, as is hinted by that order in Matthew 28:19, 20 and by the ancient practice of not teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lord's Supper till after they were baptized, as is witnessed by Hanmer of Confirmation, pag. 13, 14, Albaspinans apud Baxter of Confirmation, pag. 132.
We constantly read in the story of the Acts that persons were baptized immediately upon their first entrance into membership, but we never read that they did immediately upon their first membership receive the Lord's Supper, which strongly argues that membership, and Baptism the seal thereof, is separable even in the adult from full communion. And that a man may have his children baptized (as the jailer, and others had) and yet not presently come (but need further instruction and preparation before he come) to the Lord's Supper. So far is Baptism from being inseparable from immediate admission to the Lord's Supper, that we read of no one, (no not of the adult) in all the New Testament that was admitted to the Lord's Supper immediately upon his Baptism, from the first Baptism of John, to the end of the Acts of the Apostles. There is but one place that sounds as if it were quickly after, namely, Acts 2:41, 42, which is here alleged by our brethren: but to that; 1. There is no word about the Lord's Supper in Peter's Sermon, the heads whereof are in that chapter set down, though there is somewhat of the other Sacrament of Baptism (verse 38), and upon glad receiving [illegible] is word they were baptized immediately (verse 41). 2. Hence there must be some time afterward for instructing them in the doctrine and use of the Lord's Supper (as Paul had some time for that at Corinth, 1 Corinthians 11:23, with Acts 18:11) before their admission thereunto, or participation thereof; and so much is intimated in the text, when it is said, They (after their being added, and baptized) continued in (or gave sedulous attendance to) the Apostles' [Doctrine] first, and then [Breaking of Bread]. There was some time of gaining further acquaintance with Christ, and with his ways and ordinances (and with this in special) by the Apostles' doctrine and instruction, between their baptizing, and their participation of the Supper: some time (we say) more or less, and that that was attained in a very little time then under those plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit, requires usually a much longer time now in ordinary dispensation.
The Preface proceeds to strengthen their second reason by testimonies; and the assertion which they seem to intend the proof of by these testimonies, is a very strange one; namely, this: [Neither do we reade that in the Primitive times Baptism was of a greater latitude, as to the subject thereof, then the Lords Supper, but the contrary] These words, as they are here set down, do speak as if in the Primitive times Baptism was not extended to Infants; or at least no more, nor sooner then the Lords Supper was given to them (which is here presently well acknowledged to have been a grievous error). Well might the Anabaptist triumph if this could be proved, which indeed never was, nor can be: But we are willing to believe that our brethren's meaning is (though it be not so expressed) that the subject of Baptism in Ancient times was not of a greater latitude [as to the Adult] then the Lords Supper, that is, that no adult persons might have Baptism for themselves or for their Children, but such as were also admitted to the Lords Supper. But of this also we must say, That we find not any thing that proves it, but much to the contrary. And though we have not met with any that have purposely handled this point touching the different extent of these two Sacraments, yet we find enough to show us, That the Churches of Christ in all, especially in the best ages, and the choicest lights therein, both Ancient and Modern, have concurred and met in this principle (as a granted and undoubted truth) that baptism is of larger extent then the Lords Supper: so as that many that are within the visible Church may have Baptism for themselves, or at least for their Children, who yet ought not presently to partake of the Lords Supper, or who do at present want actual fitness for it. The witnesses above cited, tell us that in Ancient times they did not so much as impart any thing to the Catechumeni about the Lords Supper, till after their Baptism: And, if Hanmer have rightly observed, even the Adult, after their Baptism, must have Confirmation before they partaked of the Lords Supper. Hanmer of Confirmation, pag. 15–22. And vid. pag. 59. [illegible] or Perfectus among the Ancients, is as much as (with us) one in full Communion; but none were by them reckoned to be [illegible] (in the rank of perfect Christians) that had not received the Holy Ghost either in extraordinary gifts, or in special confirming grace. See Hanmer of Confirmat. pag. 17. Now it's evident, that even in the Apostles times sundry were baptized that had not so received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:15, 16, 17 & 19:2–6).
But there are sundry further evidences at hand (were there room here to insert them) which show that in those first ages of the Church, there were many within the Church, [illegible] were debarred from the Lords Supper: who yet had their Children baptized. In after [illegible] how large Baptism was, may easily be gathered: But that there was (though too much laxness) some more restraint in the Lords Supper, appears by the Canonists old verse, Ebrius, infamis, erroneus, atque Furentes, Cum pueris, Domin. non debent sumere corpus. As for the times since the Reformation, it is most evident that godly Reforming divines have in their doctrine unanimously taught, and in their practice (many [illegible] then) endeavoured a strict selection of those that should be admitted to the Lords Supper, when yet they have been [illegible] large in point of Baptism; and they still go upon this principle, that not all Christians, nor all baptized and generally-professing Christians, but only such as are able (or may be reputed able and careful) to examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body, are to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But they reckon that all Christians (all that are, in their account, within the visible Church) are to have their Children baptized. Be it that in practice they were, many of them, too lax and large in both the Sacraments, chiefly through want of a due and effectual use of discipline (by defect whereof many were sinfully tolerated in the Church, who should have been cast out and cut off, and many suffered to come to the Lords Table, who should have been debarred and suspended) of which themselves do [illegible] sadly complain. Yet it shows thus much (which is that we aim at) that they held a different latitude of the two Sacraments, as to the subjects thereof (even in the very sense of our question) denying the Lords Supper to many parents, whose Children yet they scrupled not to baptize: This goes for current among all our great divines as a granted principle, whereof many large and full testimonies might easily be produced.
Calvin in his Geneva-catechism, to that question, Whether pastors may give the Sacraments to all? Answers, Quod ad Baptismum pertinet, quia non nisi Infantibus [illegible] confertur, discretio [illegible] locum non habet: in Coenâ verò cavere debet Minister ne cui ipsam porrigat, quem indignum esse palàm constet. If Calvin would Baptize all Children born among them without difference (looking upon them as born within the visible Church) and yet not give the Lords Supper to all, then he would Baptize some Children whose Parents he would not admit to the Lords Supper.
[illegible] describing the subjects of Baptism, says, Infantes verò omnes, &c. All such infants as are either born of Christian parents, or brought into the society of Christians are to be Baptized. But of the Lords Supper, Sint quidem Christiani, &c. Only Christians are to be admitted to the Holy Supper, yet not promiscuously all Christians; but only those who both can and will examine themselves, rightly discern the Lords Body, and celebrate this Sacrament to a Commemoration of the Death of Christ — but there are many in the Christian Church that either cannot or will not do those things and these are not to be admitted.
[illegible], touching the Lords Supper, says, Est Sacramentum, &c. It is a Sacrament appointed for such in the Christian Church as are already baptized and Adult, and do examine themselves. And in another place to this question, To whom is the Lords Supper to be given? He answers, To all the faithful members of the Church, who can examine themselves, and are instructed in the ministry of faith, and can [illegible] forth the Lords Death. For to this mystery there is required examination of one's self, and annunciation of the Lords Death. And therefore it is not to be given to unbelievers, not to Infants, not to distracted persons, not to those that are ignorant of the mysteries, not to the impenitent, not to those that are by the orderly judgement of the Church excommunicate, not to such as are polluted either with manifest errors, or with any notorious wickedness, until they have first satisfied the Church, and gave testimony of their repentance. Compare herewith his latitude for Baptism, expressly granting that so sundry of those sorts, to whom he denies the Lords Supper [illegible].
[illegible], concerning the question who are to be baptized, says: "All that are comprehended within the tables of the covenant, &c." But to that question, Would you admit all sorts to the Lord's Supper? He answers with great zeal for [illegible] and care therein, and among other expressions, "Those (says he) whose [illegible] age shows them not to be of ability to examine themselves [illegible] not as unworthy, but as not yet fit." But of the adult no one is to be [illegible] except he have one way or other so given account of his faith that the pastor may probably gather (not only that he was born in the Church but also) that he is indeed a Christian.
Pelanius, touching the subjects of the Lord's Supper, says, To the Lord's Supper may be admitted only Christians [illegible] baptized and adult, and such as can examine their [illegible], with thanksgiving remember Christ and show forth his death. But of Baptism, All that are in covenant with God — infants born of Christian parents are to be baptized.
[illegible] in his common places asserts that Soli Christiani, &c. Only Christians (that is, such as embrace the doctrine of Christ, as have received the sacrament of baptism, and are implanted into the Christian Church) yet not [illegible] Christians are to be admitted to the holy Supper; but according to Paul's rule these only [illegible] examine themselves, [illegible] the Lord's body, and show [illegible] the Lord's [illegible] (1 Corinthians 11:26, 28, 29). All [illegible] therefore are excluded, who either will not [illegible] examine themselves. But he extends Baptism to all children born of (one or both) Christian parents, or that come into the power of such.
The like may be observed in the confessions of the Reformed Churches, when as they declare for a special selection of those whom they admit to the Lord's Supper — see the Confession of Bohemia, Harmony of Confessions, pag. 421; of Belgia, pag. 432; of Ausburg, pag. 438, 440; of Saxony, pag. 447, 44[illegible]; and the Confession of Scotland in the end of that Harmony, pag. 24 — comparing this with the deep silence of them all touching any such selection in point of Baptism as to the children that are born among them; and it is known to be their ordinary practice to baptize many children, whose parents they would not admit to the Lord's Supper.
All which, with many more testimonies that might be alleged, do abundantly show it to have been the concurrent judgement of Protestant divines, that Baptism is of greater latitude than the Lord's Supper: and that all that do bring their children to partake of the former, [illegible] not therefore themselves presently partake of the latter; but that many may have their children baptized, and yet regularly be debarred from the Lord's Supper.
We might also mention the concurrence of divines with us in particular reasons, explications, and assertions relating to this matter: [illegible], that Baptism is annexed to the being or beginning of faith, the Lord's Supper to the special exercise of it. That Baptism belongs to all members, but the Lord's Supper to some only that are so and so qualified: that all visible believers, (who in a latitude of expression, and ecclesiastical reputation are such, as are all that are within the Church) are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper.
Vrsin and Pareus, answering that objection against the Baptism of infants, that then they must be admitted to the Lord's Supper, have these words: Magnum discrimen, &c. There is a great difference between Baptism and the Supper. For, 1. Baptism is a sacrament of entrance and reception into the Church; but the Supper is a sacrament of continuance in the Church and confirmation of the reception made. 2. Regeneration by [illegible] and not to them presently, but after that they have held forth a confession of faith and repentance.
Also it may be minded, that it is the current and constant expression of our divines, that they call, and count all that are within the compass of the visible Church (whether infants, or adult) Fideles, Vocati, (faithful, called, &c.). And they will tell you that they are for baptizing no infants but such as are (Infantes fidelium) the infants of the faithful or of believers, Infantes non omnes, sed duntaxat fidelium, i. e. Baptizatorum, sunt Baptizandi. Chamier, Tom. 4. pag. 130. So Daneus, Infantes ex fidelibus, i. e. Baptizatis nati, possunt Baptizari in Ecclesia. Lib. 5. De Sacram. pag. 538.
And yet they do not look at all these (no not at all the adult that come under this denomination, and whose children they baptize) to be regularly admittable to the Lord's Supper, which plainly shows their judgement to be that all adult persons who are in a latitude of expression to be accounted visible believers (or in ecclesiastical reputation to be looked at as Fideles) are not therefore to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Doctor Ames accounts that a person may be a believer on Christ and yet be unfit for the Lord's Supper, being not sufficiently instructed thereunto (Bellar. Enerv. Tom. 3. Lib. 4. Cap. 1); and he expressly says that church-children are to be numbered among the faithful, and reckons them to have the beginning of faith, yet not to be admitted to all ordinances till increase of faith appear (Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 12, 13).
Mr. Hooker takes it for granted as a clear case, that one may be a convert soundly brought home to Christ, and yet through his weakness not able to discern the Lord's body aright, nor fit to partake of the Supper (Survey, part. 3. pag. 16).
And in his Sermons on Genesis 17:23, pag. 21, he has these words: "Baptism is the entrance into Christ's family; there is much more to be looked at to make a person capable of the Supper of the Lord, a man must be able to examine himself, he must not only have grace, but growth of grace; he must have so much perfection in grace as to search his own heart, and he must be able to discern the Lord's body, or else he is guilty of the body and blood of Christ; so as there is more required in this, for there must be a growth. But Baptism is our entrance, and the lowest degree of grace will serve here in the judgement of charity."
Worthy Hildersam on Psalm 51:5, pag. 257, says, The infants of the faithful are said to be holy, not because they are without sin, but because (in the judgement of the Church) they are to be esteemed not infidels as other children of pagans, but Christians and believers, and holy and true members of the Church of God. And hence 1. So soon as they are born they have title to the seal of God's Covenant, and the Church may not deny it to them. And why may not the Church deny Baptism to any child of a believing parent? Surely because the Church is bound to esteem every such child not an infidel, but rather a believer and a true Christian. 2. When they die we are in Christian charity to judge that they die in God's favor, and in the state of salvation. And all this because of the Covenant (Genesis 17), as he there adds. Yet the same Hildersam would not admit such as these (who were born and grew up in the visible Church) to the Lord's Table, without a strict examination not only of their knowledge and lives, but of their spiritual estate. Doct. of Lords Supper, pag. 8–14.
All which we produce, not as if the testimony and concurrence of authors were the basis that our judgement in this matter stands upon, but because this Preface does, both in this place and in other parts of it, insinuate to the reader as if authority of writers were for the Dissenters, and against the doctrine of the Synod, which is far from being so: the contrary being abundantly, and undeniably evident. And as we bottom our faith in this point, wholly and only upon the Scriptures, and do refer the decision of this and of all other theological controversies to the Law and to the Testimony: so we acknowledge it to be no small confirmation to us, to find that we have the concurrence of the godly-learned. The substance of the Congregational Way may be gathered from the doctrine and principles of our best and ablest reforming divines: which does not a little confirm us in it, and delivers it from the imputation of novelty or singularity. But should we limit Baptism to so narrow a scantling as our brethren strive for, we should therein go against the whole stream of divines, even of those that have been most eminent in their generations for learning, holiness, and studiousness of reformation; yes, of those from whom our Congregational leaders have professed to receive their principles, as was abovesaid. And we confess ourselves conscious to so much of our own weakness, that unless we have very clear light, and undeniable argument constraining us, we are slow and fearful to go alone, or to go contrary to the concurrent judgement of our best divines, who (if we may use our brethren's phrase) have been stars of the first magnitude, incomparable champions for the truth, and have been raised up by Christ to light the path of Reformation in these later ages.
Now as for what is here alleged by our brethren as favoring their cause; to say, that the Catechumeni were not (in the primitive times) to be baptized, before they were fit for the Lord's Supper — consider how it can consist with the above mentioned practice of antiquity, in not so much as teaching the Catechumeni any thing about the Lord's Supper, till after they were baptized. Indeed, as the darkness and corruption of the times increased, Baptism was not only deferred till Easter (as is here said) but till death, which is justly taxed as an abuse by Cartwright in his Catechism, pag. 182, and we suppose will not be approved by any. The Arausiacan Council's 19 Canon does not concern the matter of Baptism, as it is set down by the Magdeburg Centurists (Cent. 5, pag. 907). But however it be, it is of small moment. The over-long holding off of adult converts from Baptism, that we sometimes read of in the fourth and fifth centuries, was a manifest deviation from the apostolical practice. We find also that in Austin's time, and some ages after, they gave the Lord's Supper to infants, yet then we suppose they would give both sacraments to some infants, whose parents they debarred from the Lord's Supper. But if it was indeed a grievous error to administer the Lord's Supper to infants (as is here rightly said by our brethren) how then is Baptism of no greater latitude, as to the subject thereof, than the Lord's Supper? Yea, let any man show a reason why Baptism should be regularly extendible to infants, and not the Lord's Supper, if the very same qualifications be absolutely requisite to the one as to the other; we say, absolutely requisite — for no man doubts but that the better qualifications a person who receives Baptism for himself, or for his children, is endued with, the better and the more comfortable it is.
As for that of Jewel, that Baptism is as much to be reverenced as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, and that which follows, that former ages have been far from looking upon the Lord's Supper as being of a more sacred nature than the other ordinance of Baptism.
Answer: To assert that Scripture rules make the subject of Baptism larger than the subject of the Lord's Supper, this does not detract from the reverence of Baptism, nor render it an ordinance of a less sacred nature, as is here insinuated. The Word and Prayer are ordinances of a very sacred nature, and to be highly reverenced, and yet many may be admitted to them, that may not be admitted to sacraments. The sacredness of every ordinance lies in the holy and religious application of it to its proper ends and uses by divine institution: but the proper ends and uses of one ordinance may, by divine institution, be such as may admit more to partake of it than of another, and yet the sacred nature thereof be no whit impaired.
But the Preface adds: Indeed of late there have been those who have made Baptism of a far larger extent than the Lord's Supper: this has been one practical difference between Congregational-men and Presbyterians.
Whether it have been only a late or novel notion, to make Baptism larger than the Lord's Supper, let the reader judge, when he has considered the testimonies before alleged, with many more that might have been added thereunto. But we are so far from looking upon a different latitude of these two Sacraments to be a Presbyterian principle, or Anti-Congregational, as that we persuade ourselves, the Congregational way cannot long stand without it. For, if we deny this, and administer Baptism to none but those whose parents do partake of the Lord's Supper, and so are in full communion — then we must either make full communion very large, which in the Congregational way, where brethren have so great an interest in church-transactions, will soon ruin all: or else make Baptism, and consequently the compass of the visible Church so strait, as will never stand before rational and scriptural men; yes, we shall put multitudes out of the visible Church, that are in a visible state of salvation, which is absurd. For to deny persons Baptism for themselves or children, is to deny them to be within the compass of the visible Church, seeing Baptism ought to run parallel with church-membership. But how shall we deny them a room in the visible Church, who were once in, and are by no rule to be put out, no, whom God (as we may charitably hope) takes into Heaven when they die, and that as a fruit of his covenant-grace? Which is the case of many of our children who are not yet come up to full communion. But so much for the second reason of our brethren's dissent. The third follows.
3. The parents of the children in question, are not members of any instituted Church, according to Gospel rules, because they were never under any explicit and personal covenant. Which is former proved; because if they be members, then they would be a true Church though all their parents were dead, and then they must have power of voting in church-affairs, which is denied to them by the Synod.
1. It seems, by what is here said, that our children were never under any explicit and personal covenant, and that all that never were so, are not members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules. If this be so, then what is become of children's membership, which the Apologist before, in answer to Objection Second, took it as an injury to be charged with the denial of? It seems our children neither are nor ever were members of any instituted Church according to Gospel-rules, because they were never under any explicit and personal covenant. Is it come to this, that children are not members of any instituted Church? How then? Are they members of the Catholic visible Church? Or are they no members at all? The former our brethren fancy not, as it seems by their Anti-Synodalia, pag. 19. The latter then remains to be the conclusion. Neither will it salve it to say, they were members in minority, though they be not members now when they are adult; for if all those that were never under any explicit and personal covenant, be no members of any instituted Church, and if children were never under any explicit and personal covenant (both which are here said) then no children (no, not while in minority) are members of any instituted Church. For our parts we doubt not to affirm with Doctor Ames in his Chapter de Ecclesia institutâ, that children are members of an instituted Church according to Gospel-rules, and that they are under personal covenant, that is, personally taken into covenant by God, according to his Gospel-rules, though they have not performed the act of covenanting in their own persons. Yes, under explicit covenant also, if the parents' covenanting was explicit (Deuteronomy 29). So Ames, they are partakers of the same covenant, and also of the same profession with their parents. Though we take it for a principle granted by Congregational men, with one consent, that implicit covenant preserves the being of a true Church, and so of true church-membership.
2. The consequent of our assertion here urged as absurd, namely, that then, in case all the pro-parents were dead, this second generation would be a true Church of Christ without any further act or covenanting, is no absurdity but a manifest truth, that is, taking that phrase 'further act, or covenanting' to be meant of a particular formal act of explicit verbal covenanting. For otherwise, there is a further act, yes, an act of (implicit) covenanting in their constant and public profession of the religion of their fathers. But we say this second generation, continuing (to use Mr. Cotton's phrase in Grounds of Baptism, pag. 106.) in a visible profession of the covenant, faith, and religion of their fathers, are a true Church of Christ, though they have not yet made any explicit personal expression of their engagement, as their fathers did. Even as the Israelites that were numbered in the plains of Moab were a true Church, and under the covenant of God made with them in Horeb, though their parents with whom it was first made in Horeb, were all dead, and that before the solemn renewing of the covenant with them in the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy 29); see (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3) with (Numbers 26:63, 64, 65). And so Mr. Hooker roundly and expressly affirms this which is here by our brethren denied, Survey. Part. 1. pag. 48.
3. As for our denial of the liberty of voting in church-affairs to the persons in question, till they be fitted for, and admitted to the Lords Supper, it stands good and rational without any prejudice to their being a true Church in the case supposed. For there is no difficulty in it, to conceive that the case of a true Church may be such (by degeneracy, or loss of their best members, &c.) as that they may be at present unfit to put forth or exercise a power of acting in church-affairs (though it be radically in them) till by the use of needful means they, or a select qualified number among them, be brought up to a better and fitter capacity for it. And examples hereof are not farre to seek: let that way of reforming corrupt and degenerate Churches be attended which is partly suggested in Mr. Allin's, and Mr. Shepard's Preface, before their Defence of the Nine Positions (which Preface Beverly says is Instar omnium) Pag. 10, 18, 19, 20; namely, that they be acknowledged true Churches, and called by the powerful preaching of the word to humiliation, repentance, and agreement to reformation: and then that such as do so agree, and submit to discipline, being owned to be of the Church; among them a select number who are found upon tryal able to examine themselves, and discern the Lords body, and do walk according to Christ, do solemnly renew or enter into covenant, and so electing officers, &c. enjoy full communion, and carry on all church-affairs in the congregational way. This shews that a Church may be out of case for the present exercise of a proper church power, and may need much preparation, and reducement into order before it come up thereunto: and yet this does not hinder it from being a true Church, nor from having that power radically in it, and which in a way of due order it may come to the exercise of. Have not the late times had experience of many congregations to which it was fain to be a public care to send ministers, and they to preach to them many years before they found a number fit for full communion and management of church-affairs? And yet they retained the being of true Churches, and church-members all this while. See also Mr. Shepard's late-printed Letter about the church-membership of children, pag. 18. We might also ask whether such a member of reasoning as is here used would prove women to be no members of an instituted Church? Because if all the men were dead, they could not then be a Church, nor vote in church-affairs, choose officers, &c.
But that which is said may suffice: only let us add, that as the case that is supposed, namely, of all the parents (or all that were in full communion) being dead, at once, is rarely, if ever heard of; so also the case we added, namely, for the whole body to be fallen into an unfitness for full communion, by corruption and degeneracy, would be (we may hope) as rare, if discipline and other ordinances be kept up, in their use and vigor. God will so bless his own ordinances, if duely attended, as that a considerable number shall from time to time have such grace given them as to be fit for full communion, and to carry on all the things of his house with competent strength, beauty, and edification.
The fourth reason of our brethrens dissent, is this: It is not mere membership (as the Synod speaks) but qualified membership that gives right to baptism: for John's baptism might not be applied to the standing members of the visible Church, till they were qualified with repentance. This (say they) seems to us to cut the sinews of the strongest arguments of the Synod for enlargement of baptism: for neither does the Scripture acknowledge any such mere membership as they speak of; nor is it mere membership, but qualified membership that gives right to this divine and sacred ordinance.
Answ. This term or distinction of [Meer Membership] is here, as also in the Book to which this Preface is prefixed, much exagitated, and harshly censured: but let the plain meaning of the Synod therein be attended, and there will appear no cause for such exagitation. When the Synod said, that persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion meerly because they are and continue Members; and that Meer Membership (or Membership alone) does not suffice to render men Subjects of the Lords Supper, Propos. 4. p. 17, 18. the meaning is, That full Communion does not belong to a Member as such, or to a person meerly because he is a Member, for then it would belong to all Members, which it does not. A person may be a Member (or in memberly Relation) and yet not be in full Communion. Now to say that meer Membership (in this sense) the Scripture acknowledgeth not, is as if one should say, that the Scripture acknowledgeth not Logical Distinctions between things in their Abstract and general Nature, and the same things as clothed with various Adjuncts and Accessions; which to say, were strangely to forget our selves. But when it is hence inferred and put upon us, That we set up a meer Membership, and a sort of meer Members in the Church; this is an unnecessary Reflexion. As, if we should say that Riches do not belong to men meerly as men, or meerly because they are men; would it be a good inference to say, that we set up a sort of meer men (or a meer Humanity existing alone) or that we distinguish men into Meer men, and Rich men? There is no individual man in the world that is a meer man, that is, that has a naked Humanity without Adjuncts; yet Logick distinguisheth between Humanity and its Adjuncts, and between what belongeth to a man as such, and what accreweth to him other wayes. So in the Church; Membership, or memberly Relation, is not existent in particular persons, without some Communion flowing from it, nor yet without some Qualifications (to Charity) under it, more or less, at least ordinarily; though it may, and often does exist without those special and peculiar qualifications that fit men for the Lords Table. But surely we may well distinguish, especially between the memberly Relation and those special superadded Qualifications, and between what belongs to persons in the one respect and in the other. For some Priviledges in the Church belong to persons by virtue of their memberly Relation, or meerly because they are Members; they belong to a Member as such: so does Baptism (Matthew 28:19), the Benefit of Church-watch and Discipline (namely, according to Natural capacity in regard of age, there is no other Moral capacity but that of Membership requisite to a Subject thereof) (Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 5:12) and a share in the common Legacies of the Covenant (Romans 3:1, 2; 9:4; Acts 3:25, 26). Meer Membership, or Membership alone, gives right to these things. But there be other Priviledges in the Church that do not belong to Members as such (or to persons meerly because they are Members) but to Members as clothed with such and such special qualifications. So the Passover and other holy things of old, and so the Lords Supper now (1 Corinthians 11:28).
Now thus to distinguish, does not distribute Members into meer Members and others, but it distributes Priviledges to their proper Subjects, and states the immediate Right to each sort of Priviledges upon its proper Basis. If we say that Government of a Family does not belong to persons meerly because they are Members of the Family; do we thereby set up a sort of meer Members thereof, that have no Family-benefit, but onely a Titulary Relation to it, &c? Indeed such a saying would import, that in a Family there are some that are Governours, and some that are not Governours of it; as also that one may be a Member of a Family, and yet have no hand in the Government thereof. So the distinction in hand implies, That in the Church some are in full Communion, and some are not; and that one may be in Memberly Relation, and yet not be in full Communion: and surely the truth of this cannot be doubted of. If Children in minority be Members (as our Brethren acknowledge them to be) then there are some Members that are not in (nor yet fit for) full Communion. And for the Adult, when a man is by Admonition debarred from the Lords Table, and yet not Excommunicated; does he not continue a Member (yes, a personal Member in our Brethrens account) and yet is not in full Communion? This demonstrates that Membership and full Communion are distinct and separable things. It is clear enough, that our Non excommunicable Children do continue Members of the Church; yet many of them are not in full Communion, nor will our Brethren say that they are fit for it. So then, neither the Logical distinction between what belongs to persons simply as Members (or by their meer Membership) and what belongs to them as further endued with such and such special qualifications; nor yet the Assertion flowing from it, namely, [That some may be and continue Members, and yet not be in full Communion] can justly be objected against. The sum is; The persons in question have by virtue of their memberly Relation (or meerly by their Membership) a proper right to the Priviledges that are desired for them; yet withall, they have some qualifications, and some Communion (and so are not meer Members in contradistinction hereunto) though they have not yet such full qualifications as to come into full Communion.
But thus much being said concerning that distinction which the Synod useth, and the meaning of it: Proceed we to the Assertion here laid down by our Brethren, and their Proof thereof. Their Assertion is, That it is not meer Membership, but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism.
Remember here, that our dispute properly is of Membership de jure, or regular Membership (that is, wherein the Rule appoints or allows one to be, or to be continued a member of the visible Church) not of Membership de facto only. Now Membership de jure, or regular Membership, implies some qualification, namely that a person being a Church-member is not under such gross, and incorrigible ignorance, heresy, scandal or apostacy, as renders him an immediate subject of excommunication; hence mere Membership is not so to be opposed to qualified Membership, as if it were destitute of all qualifications. Those whom the Lord does, and whom the Church, acting regularly, may own, and continue as Members, they are so far qualified as that the Rule has accepted them into Covenant, and does not appoint us to put them out. Now then, understanding mere Membership for [Merely this, that a man is regularly a Member] and qualified Membership for [Superadded qualifications, over and above what is essentially requisite to regular Membership] the said Assertion is thus much; It is not sufficient to give a person right to baptism, that he be regularly a Member of the visible Church, but he must have some further qualification then so, or else he has not right thereunto. This Assertion (or to say, in this sense) that it is not mere Membership, but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism, is indeed an Antisynodalian Assertion, and we doubt not to affirm it is Antiscriptural.
1. It is Antisynodalian, or directly opposite to the Doctrine of the Synod, and we will readily grant that if this could be proved, it cuts asunder the sinews of the Synods strongest Arguments; for this is that which the Synod stand and build upon, That it is Covenant-interest, or Federal holiness, or visible Church-membership (which are but several expressions of the same thing) that properly gives Right to Baptism, or, that Baptism belongs to a Church-member as such, and so to all Church-members. And hence by the way, let it be minded that the Synod in their fifth Proposition have comprized both the Right to Baptism, and the manner of administration: the distinction between which two, was often-over mentioned in the Synod; though they put both together in the Proposition for better concurrence sake, and that they might at once familiarly set down what is to be attended in such a case. The [Right] stands upon [Membership] whereby the parent, and so the Childe is regularly within the visible Church; so as no more qualification in the Parent is simply necessary to give the Childe right to Baptism, but what is essentially requisite to regular Membership. As for other and further qualifications pointed to in the Proposition (as, Giving account of their assent to the Doctrine of Faith, Solemn owning of the Covenant, &c.) they properly belong to the manner of Administration. Yet these are not therefore needless things, nor may they be disregarded, or boldly slighted and refused by any (because Membership alone gives Right) for God has made it one Commandment of four, to provide for the manner of his Worship, requiring that all his holy Ordinances be attended in a solemn, humble, reverent and profitable manner: and it cannot be denied to be meet and needful, that persons should both know and own the Covenant-state they are in, and the state of subjection to Christs Government, which the Covenant placeth them in, especially when they partake of such a fruit of the Covenant as Baptism for their Children is: that they should do Covenant-duties, when they come for Covenant priviledges; that they should both seek and attend the Lords holy Ordinance (though it be their Right never so much) in humility and fear: and it being one branch of the Covenant, that they give up their Children to the Lord, and do promise to take care for their Christian Education, it must needs be suitable that they be minded of it when they present them to Baptism, and the more explicitely they do so promise, it is the better. Hence all Reformed Churches do in their Directories, and Practices, require Professions, and Promises of Parents, or those that present the Childe to Baptism, and appoint a solemn manner of Administration, and stand upon it as a needful duty. Though they unanimously own and grant, that the Childe has a full and clear Right to Baptism by its being born within the visible Church. See English Leiturgie of the administration of Baptism. Directory, pag. 31. Late Petition for Peace, pag. 61, &c. Zepperi Polit. Ecces. pag 128. & pag. 147—150. Alasco, pag. 121—137. Ratio Discipl. Bohem. pag 43. Hence also no man will doubt but that it is a comfortable and desireable thing, that the Parent do address himself in the most solemn, serious, and spiritual manner to draw nigh to God upon such an occasion as the Baptizing of a Childe, by humbling himself before God for all neglects and Breaches of his Covenant, by taking hold of the incouraging promises of grace in Christ, in reference to the Children of the Covenant; and by pouring out earnest Prayer to God for his Childe, and for an heart to do the duty of a Christian Parent toward his Childe, as does become him, &c. And such things as these, Parents may and ought to be stirred up to in the Ministry of the Word, as their duty. But still we must distinguish between what belongs to the manner of Administration, or to the better and more comfortable attendance thereof, and between what is essentially requisite to give right and title to the Ordinance before the Church. This latter, mere Membership (or Membership alone) does. A state of Membership in the visible Church, is that to which the right of Baptism is annexed, as not only the Synod, but the Scripture teacheth. And so,
2. The assertion before-mentioned (namely, that it is not mere membership, but qualified membership that gives right to Baptism: in the sense above given) is also antiscriptural; 1. Because it directly overthrows infant-baptism, which the Scripture establishes: for what have infants more than membership (or federal holiness, or covenant-interest) to give them right to Baptism? That is, what have they more than this, that they are regularly (by the rules of God's Word, and his institution therein) within the visible Church? If this will not suffice, but there must be some other qualifications besides, and superadded to this, what shall become of them? For our parts, we know no stronger argument for infant-baptism than that; Church members, or Foederati, are to be baptized: the infants of the faithful are Church members, or Foederati: therefore. But if the foresaid assertion hold, this argument fails, and falls short: for now Church membership, or to be in covenant, or federal holiness, will not serve the turn, but there must be more than this to give right to Baptism. How the sinews of the strongest arguments of the Synod for enlargement of Baptism will fare, we know not; but sure we are, that this cuts in sunder the sinews of the strongest arguments for infant-baptism, which must fall if this stand. But fall it never will (through grace) while the Lord's appointment in the Covenant of Abraham stands, namely, to have the initiating seal run parallel with the covenant (Genesis 17), or Christ's commission (Matthew 28:19), namely, to baptize all disciples, or all members of the visible Church under the New Testament. Let this assertion therefore fall, which makes the extent of the initiatory seal shorter than the covenant, and denies Baptism to run parallel with Church membership under the Gospel. Hence, 2. It contradicts that which the harmony of Scripture, and all orthodox divines acknowledge for a principle, namely, that the whole visible Church (that is, now under the New Testament) ought to be baptized; or that all Church members are subjects of Baptism: for, if not mere membership (or membership alone) but qualified membership gives right to Baptism; then not all members, but some only, namely, those that be so and so qualified, are to be baptized. If Baptism does not belong to mere membership, or to a member as such, then not to all members: as à quatenus ad omne, so à non quatenus ad non omne valet consequentiae. This denies not only in the fifth, but the first proposition of the late Synod (which yet the Antisynodalia, pag. 17. seem to consent to.) But let the arguments that are given from Scripture to confirm that first proposition, be duly weighed, and they will be found to be of greater weight than to be shaken by this assertion.
Now for the proof of this assertion; namely, because John's Baptism, which was Christian Baptism, might not be applied to some who were standing members of the visible Church, because they were not qualified with repentance (Luke 3:8 & 7:30), therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied to such as stand members in the visible Church, if they be not qualified with fruits of repentance.
Answ. Let this be answered with reference to infant-baptism, which lies upon our brethren to do, as well as on us, seeing they above declared Antipaedobaptism to be a sinful opinion, and do profess to hold and maintain the baptizing of infants: though indeed the reader could not gather so much from these words [Christian Baptism is not to be applied to such [◊] stand members in the visible Church, if they be not qualified with fruits of repentance.] This seems directly to gainsay infant-baptism; for infants do indeed stand members of the visible Church, but how do they or can they show that they are qualified with fruits of repentance? For it seems that neither is repentance itself sufficient without [fruits] of repentance. But we are to suppose our brethren do not intend to oppose infant-baptism, and therefore that their meaning is not to require these fruits of repentance (or qualifications superadded to membership) of the children or person[s] to be baptized, but of their parents; though it be not so expressed. But, let this argument from John's requiring of qualifications over and above membership, be answered, with reference to infant-baptism, and that will answer it as to the case in hand. We remember in debates between the elders and an Antipaed[o]baptist many years since, this very argument was urged by him, and the same answer that was given then, we shall give here; namely,
1. That merely to be a member of the Old-Testament Jewish Church, or simply to be in covenant (or confederate) under the Old-Testament manner of administration, suffices not to Baptism: but to be in the Church and covenant of the New Testament, to be a member of a Gospel Church, stated and settled under the Gospel manner of administration, this is that which right to Baptism stands upon, and here membership alone suffices thereunto. When we say, that members of the visible Church, confederates &c. are to be baptized, we must needs be understood to speak of the visible Church (or of covenant-interest) under the New Testament, and Gospel administration, which is founded upon Christ already come. And it were most absurd and irrational to understand us otherwise; we having now no other Church or covenant to speak of, but that. Old Testament Church membership gave right to circumcision; New Testament Church membership gives right to Baptism. But at the transition from Old to New, or at the first setting up of the Gospel administration (or kingdom of Heaven, as 'tis called) and of Baptism, the entering seal thereof in John Baptist's and Christ's time, well might more be required than bare membership in the Jewish Church (which was then also under great corruption, and degeneracy). Hence all the members of the Church of the Jews were not baptized, but only those that in some degree embraced the new and reformed administration: in order to which, a special repentance was then necessary (Matthew 3:2). But to infer from hence, a necessity of qualifications superadded to membership in stated Christian or Gospel Churches, in order to Baptism-right, will not hold; there is a wide difference between the case of Ecclesia Christiana Constituenda, and Constituta. In those first beginnings of the Gospel, even pious persons, and men fearing God, such as the Eunuch, and Cornelius, must have further instruction, and preparation, before they could be baptized: may a man from there infer, that now in the Christian Church constituted, a Christian or Church member that fears God, is not baptizable without further qualifications?
Much of what was required by John Baptist of the members of the Jewish Church before he baptized them, may be referred to the manner of administration, and was upon that account attended in a case so circumstanced, as that was; for that by reason of their church-state (though so degenerate as they were) they were in a far other and nearer capacity than non-members; and that thereby they had a right to the ministrations of John and Christ among them, is plain from many Scriptures (Luke 1:16; John 1:11; Matthew 10:6; 15:24, 26; Romans 15:8). But those that were then to be baptized (at that first institution of baptism, and beginning of the gospel-administration) being adult persons, and they defiled with scandal, and degeneracy, yes having much lost the truth of doctrine in many points — hence they could not be brought to entertain that beginning of the Gospel (as 'tis called, Mark 1:1, 2.) and baptism the sign and seal thereof, without previous convictions, and penitential preparations by the powerful ministry of the Baptist. But it does not appear that more was pre-required of them, than what was necessary to a humble submitting to the ordinance, and to that new and reforming administration then on foot, which was betokened and sealed thereby. And he that shall consider the multitudes that were baptized by John (Matthew 3:5, 6; Luke 3:7, 21) in the short time of his ministry, and in those glimmerings of gospel-light that they then had, together with the great weakness, and rawness of some that he baptized (John 3:25, 26; Acts 19:1–5) will not think that the persons baptized by John did excell those whom the Synod describeth in their fifth Proposition, of which our brethren were so sensible in their Anti-synodalia, pag. 18. that there they chose rather to wave John's practice, and to seek for stricter presidents, though here they plead, (and that rightly and truly) that John's Baptism was Christian Baptism, and holds forth a rule to us. As for that confession of sins in Matthew 3:6. when our children do in their assent to the doctrine of faith, and consent to the covenant, acknowledge their sin, and misery by nature, their perishing condition without Christ, &c. are willing to submit to instruction, and government, for the reformation of their sins (as those that were baptized by John shewed their penitential frame by that, namely a submission to his instructions and counsels (Luke 3:10–14)) they cannot be denied to have somewhat of that confession of sin. So Chemnit. on the place, They acknowledged themselves to be sinners, and both in words, and by their action in desiring to be baptized, they professed their fear of the wrath of God, and desire to escape it. But if any do stand guilty of open scandals, we know not why they should not make particular confession of their sin therein, when they come to present themselves before God, and desire baptism for their children, if they have not done it before (so says the same Chemnitius in the same place of them; Moreover, such as stood guilty of more grievous falls, did also confess them in particular.) To be sure, they should by the discipline of the Church be brought to that, whether they had children to be baptized or no, but then may be a fitting season for it.
Thus there may be cause and call for a special repentance in special cases (when persons have so carried it, as to shake their standing in the visible Church) and although the rule owns the child to be a member of the Church, and so a subject of baptism, while it allows the parent to be a member not cut off; yet it is a covenant-duty of the parent to confess his sin in such a case: and so shall baptism be administered with greater honor to God, and comfort to all that are concerned. But otherwise, while the parent that was born in the Church, regularly continues in it, without scandal, he is ecclesiastically accounted to have the being of repentance, and so to have the thing which John required of them, though not the same modus of manifestation, and discovery thereof.
Now follows the fifth reason of our brethren's dissent, which is this; That which will not make a man capable of receiving baptism himself, in case he were unbaptized, does not make him capable of transmitting right of baptism to his child: but all that the Synod has said will not give a man right to baptism himself in case he were unbaptized; therefore all that the Synod has said is not enough to make a man capable of transmitting right of baptism to his child. Whereunto is added somewhat out of Bucer, Parker and Mr. Cotton, as concurring with the judgement of our brethren.
Ans. Taking [Capable of receiving baptism himself, or Right to baptism himself] for a state of baptism-right, or capacity, we may grant the Major, but the Minor is manifestly to be denied. But taking it for a frame of actual fitness to receive baptism, we cannot say that we may grant the Minor, but surely the Major will not hold.
It is true, that that which does not put a man into a state of right to Baptism for himself in case he were unbaptized (that is, into a state of Church-membership) will not enable him to give Baptism-right to his child. If the parent be not a member, or not in a state of covenant interest, none of us plead for the child's Baptism. And if he be a [illegible] surely he is in the state of a subject of Baptism, or in a state of right to it (as all the members of the visible Church are) whatever may de facto hinder it. But it is possible for an adult person, being in the state of a member, and so of right to Baptism, to have something fall in which may hinder the actual application of Baptism to himself (in case he were unbaptized) or his actual fitness for it: and yet the same thing may not hinder a person already baptized, and standing in a covenant-state, from conveying Baptism-right to his child. The reason is, because the right of the child depends upon the state of the parent (that he be in a state of membership: for if so, then divine institution carries or transmits membership, and so Baptism-right to the child) but the parent's regular partaking of this or that ordinance for himself, depends much upon his own actual fitness for it. As suppose an unbaptized adult person admitted into the Church, who before he is baptized falls into some great offence (though such a case could hardly fall out, if Baptism were administered according to the rule, and Apostolical practice, that is, immediately upon first admission (Matthew 28:19; Acts 16:33) much more is it a harsh and strange supposition for a parent that ought to have been, and was baptized in his infancy, to be supposed to be yet unbaptized — but allowing the supposition, that a person [illegible] in adult age falls into offence before he is baptized) he may be called to give satisfaction for it, and to show himself in a more serious and penitent frame before himself receive Baptism; but suppose he die before he do that, and leave children behind him, shall not they be baptized? In like manner, if a person already baptized, yes or already in full communion, should fall into offence, you would say that would put a stop to his own Baptism, in case (upon an impossible supposition) he were yet unbaptized; but what rule or reason is there for it, to make a particular offence in the parent, to cut off the child's right to Baptism, when as the parent is (notwithstanding that offence) still a member, and within the Church, and does not show any such incorrigibleness, as that [illegible] is by rule to be put out? When as the offence does not cut off the parent's membership, is there any reason it should cut off the membership of the child? And if it cut not off the child's membership, it does not cut off his right to Baptism. Whatever may be said for requiring the parent to confess his sin before his child's Baptism, in reference to the more expedient and comfortable manner of administration (therein we oppose not) yet where does the Scripture allow us to disannul the child's right to Baptism upon a particular offence in the parent, especially when it is not such as does touch upon the essentials of Christianity, and notwithstanding which, the parent is regularly and orderly continued a member of the Church? It remains therefore that there may be obstructions to a parent's receiving Baptism for himself, in case he were unbaptized, which do not incapacitate a baptized parent to transmit (if we may attribute transmitting to a parent, which is properly the act of God's institution and covenant) right of Baptism to his child.
But for the minor or assumption of the argument in hand, it will not hold in either of the senses of the proposition above given. For,
1. We will readily grant, that if the parent be not in a state of Baptism-right himself, that is, in a state of membership, he cannot convey Baptism-right to his child; but how manifest is it, that that which the Synod has said in their fifth proposition, does render the persons there described in a state of right to Baptism for themselves, in case they were unbaptized, namely, in a state of membership in the visible Church; for the proposition speaks of Church-members, such as were admitted members in minority, and do orderly and regularly so continue: and that a state of membership is a state of Baptism-right, or that all Church-members are in the state of subjects of Baptism, is an evident truth that cannot be denied by any that grant the Synod's first proposition; for which there is sun-light in Scripture, and never was orthodox divine heard of that questioned it. Hence according to that ruled case here mentioned, the parents in question having themselves a title to Baptism, may entitle others; they have not only a title to it, but regular and actual possession of it, for they are baptized, and in case they were yet unbaptized, they would, being Church-members, have a title of right to it (they would stand possessed of an interest in a title to it, as Mr. Hooker in the place here alleged speaks) whatever might de facto hinder their enjoyment of it. And as à non habente potestatem, acts are invalid; so ab habente potestatem they are valid and good: but God has full power to give forth what grants he pleases, and he has in the order of his covenant in the visible Church, granted a membership, and so Baptism-right to children born of parents that are members, and so the parent that stands member of the Church, has as an instrument under God, and from his grant, power to [illegible] such a right to his child. Children are within the covenant, because they come from parents within the covenant, in which they were included, and so received also by God, says Mr. Hooker in the place that is here cited (Survey, part. 3. pag. 18).
2. It is not to be yielded, that the parents described by the Synod in their fifth Proposition, would not have right to Baptism themselves in case they were unbaptized, though you take [Right to Baptism] for actual and immediate fitness for the same in fero Ecclesia. Surely he will have an hard talk, who shall undertake out of Scripture, or orthodox Divines, to shew, that adult persons understanding and believing the doctrine of faith, and publickly professing the same, not scandalous in life, and solemnly taking hold of the Covenant, wherein they give up themselves and theirs to the Lord in his Church, and subject themselves to Christ's government therein; that these (we say) may be denied or debarred from church-membership or Baptism upon their desire thereof. It is not easie to believe, that the multitudes baptized by John Baptist and by Christ (that is, by his Disciples at his Order) in the time of their Ministry; or the many thousands of the Jews that were counted believers, and baptized after Christ's Ascension (too much addicted to Judaism, Acts 21:20 & 15:1); or the numbers baptized by Philip in Samaria, and by the Apostles in other places, upon a short time of instruction, and when they were moved and taken [illegible], and of whom many proved corrupt and degenerate afterward (as the Epistles to the Galatians, Corinthians, and other places shew); that they did (we say) (at least many of them) excell the persons described in the Synod's fifth Proposition, taking all things together: or that they had more to render them visible believers upon a just account then those have.
But it is a strange reason that is here rendred by our brethren, why that which is set down by the Synod would not render a person a subject of Baptism, namely, because [a man may be an unbeliever, and yet come up to all that the Synod has said in their fifth Proposition]. We suppose [illegible] Magus, Ananias and Sapphira, and many others, not only might be, but were unbelievers, and yet were regularly baptized. We marvel what outward signs and professions of faith which the Church may proceed upon, can be given, but a man may be an unbeliever, and yet come up to them? If it be said, that a man may come up to all that the Synod has said, and yet be ecclesiastically judged a visible unbeliever, shew us any ground for such a judgement.
Touching the opinion of Bucer & Parker, here cited out of Park. de Polit. Eccl. lib. 3. p. 181, 182.
1. In the first passage the word [Apparent.] is here added, the words in Parker are only [Signs of Regeneration] and the other passage in pag. 182. runs thus; A confession of faith, though public and solemn, may not be received in Churches, quando nulla necessaria Fidei signa apparent, when as no necessary signs of faith do appear: where by necessary signs of faith, are not meant such signs as have a necessary connexion with faith, or do necessarily (that is, infallibly, and certainly) argue that there is a truth of saving faith in the heart; such signs men cannot see or judge of, but when there is such an appearance, as that if that be in reality which does appear to be (on which seems to be in outward appearance) then there is true faith; this is that appearance of necessary signs of faith which he means; hence within seven lines of the place cited, the same thing is thus expressed; quamdiu nullo probabili Argumento, &c. when as we are by no probable argument given to believe that it is in the heart.
2. The thing there specially blamed by Bucer and Parker, is, when a bare verbal profession is accepted, though accompanied with a scandalous life; and when there is not regard had to the conversation, as well as to the oral confession, as the discourse in the place cited at large shews.
3. But that which we would chiefly insist on for answer, is, that Bucer and Parker do there plainly speak of such a confirmation (or owning men as confirmed members) as does import their admission to the Lord's Table, or into full communion (as we phrase it) and hence do blame the Prelatical way for so much slightness therein: so Mr. Cotton cites this place of Bucer. And so Parker a little before this his citation of Bucer complains, that although by the English order (if I mistake not, says he) he that is confirmed, is capable of the Lord's Supper; yet notwithstanding such are confirmed, if they can but say the Catechism, who cannot examine themselves, nor rightly prepare themselves for the Table of the Lord. Now it is well known, that in our admissions to full communion, we are not behind in any thing that Bucer and Parker do require, but do expect positive comfortable signs of regeneration already wrought, and some experienced fruits thereof; whereby persons may be in some measure fit for that special and comfortable exercise of grace that is required in preparation for, and participation of the Lord's Table. But suppose that persons born in the Church, and baptized, be not yet come up to this, is there any word to be found in Bucer or Parker, or in any judicious orthodox Divine, that they lose their membership, and are put out of the Church meerly because they are not come up to this, when as no censurable wickedness is found in them? And while the parent stands in the Church, his infant-child is in the Church also, and therefore baptizable. Yet withal we say, with the consent of judicious Divines, that while persons have a regular standing in the Church, they are in ecclesiastical account to be looked upon as having the being of regeneration, or as Fideles, vocati, and so regenerati, that is, by reason of their federal holiness, though not by particular, present, evident signs of a work of grace already wrought in them: in this case we take their covenant-estate, Christian education, hopeful carriage, general profession, &c. for signs of regeneration in this sense, that is, such as shew that there may be grace, there is nothing inconsistent with grace, and none knows but a seed of grace (which in the first infusion, and beginnings of it, is marvellous secret and small) may lye at bottom: and hence the Church is to carry toward them as heirs of grace. But it is a further thing for grace to appear above-ground in such exercise and sensible signs, evidences and experiences, as may fit them for comfortable communion with Christ in the Supper.
But Fourthly, if the judgement of Bucer and Parker may be taken in this Controversie, it will [...]: for, notwithstanding all that is here, or can be cited of theirs, it is evident enough that Famous Martin Bucer, and Renowned Parker, (as the Preface styleth them, and that deservedly) do fully concurre with the Synod in extending Baptism to such as the Synod describes, or to more then so. Vid. Bucer de regno Christi, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. pag. 14. And in his Commentary upon John, in an excellent discourse concerning Infant Baptism, among many other useful passages, he has these following. Sunt quidem sa[•]e inter pueros Reprobi, &c. There are indeed often among Children some that be Reprobates, but while that does not appear to us, we ought nevertheless to reckon them among the People of God; and we shall time enough cast them out, when by their evil fruits they shall openly shew us what they are: Bucer in Joh. fol. 43. And in another place, Quantum equidem assequi possum, &c. As far as I can gather (says he) the Anabaptist's only reason why they dislike Infant baptism, is, Because they fancy to themselves that the Church would be more pure, if we baptized none but the adult, and such as hold forth evidences of the Spirit: and so they think but a few would have place in Churches. But by this means doubtless it would come to pass, that many of Christ's Sheep would be neglected as Goats: neither would all Parents be so careful as they think, in educating their Children to piety. And yet this humane thought (which savours of too much esteem of our own works) does so possess them, that they bring all to this, and turn off all that can be said, and hereby they run themselves into very great errours. I called it an humane thought, for no Scripture does command such a curious circumspection, lest any Goats should be received into the Church. The Apostles often baptized persons with whom they had scarce had an hours speech concerning Christ; because, according to the Parable of the Gospel, they would bring in all they met with to the Marriage (Matthew 22:10.) For by Baptism they only took them into the School of Piety, and Trained-hand of Christians; and they were wont then to cast them out again, when it was evidently enough perceived that to labor in teaching them was in vain. Ibid. fol. 53.
As for Parker, his speaking mainly against the admitting or tolerating of [Manifestarii peccatores] the notoriously wicked, and pleading to have them debarred from the Lords Table, or cast out by the use of Discipline; his frequent approbation of the Principles of the Reformed Churches; and in special his approving of their admitting Members (not before of their Body) upon such like qualifications as are contained in the Synod's fifth Proposition; also his earnest and peremptory rejecting the Opinions and Principles of the Anabaptists and Separatists, and declaring himself and the Non-Conformists, whose Cause he acted, to be farre from them — these and such like do clearly shew that Worthy man to be no Opponent of such an extent of Baptism as is contained in the Conclusions of the Synod.
But here our Brethren will needs take notice, that the judgment of that worthy and for ever famous Mr. Cotton was as theirs is, because he has these words, (in Holiness of Church-members, pag. 93) I conceive (under favor) more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church-members of the New Testament then of the Old.
The Reader will take notice of what has been before said, and cited to shew Mr. Cotton's judgement in the Points controverted between our Brethren and the Synod, and will easily thereby judge whether Mr. Cotton's judgement was as theirs is: but it is strange they should make such a Collection from what is here set down. Mr. Cotton might say those words that are here expressed, and yet his judgement be farre enough from being as theirs is in any of the Points that are controverted: for we shall not gainsay this Conception of Mr. Cotton's [That more positive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church members of the New Testament, then of the Old] but concur with it in two respects, or for two causes. 1. Because the light now is greater and clearer then it was then, and where more is given, more is required (Luke 12:48). 2. Because the Discipline appointed under the Old Testament was mostly Ceremonial (Ames Medul. lib. 1. c. 38. Thes. 41.) And whether Excommunication for Moral evils, was then used, at least out of the National Church, is by some doubted: as also whether persons were debarred from the holy things simply for Moral evils, if they were ceremonially clean; as Mr. Cotton in the place here alledged says, It is true, that it is a question whether sins very scandalous did keep men ceremonially clean from the Temple and Sacrifices. But under the New Testament we have a plain and undoubted Rule, for the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils persisted in: hence persons might haply run further into Moral evils (and so further off from the fruits of Regeneration) then, and yet not be put out of the Church (yes, haply not be debarred from the holy things) then they can do now. But what is all this to the matter in hand? For still it is not secret irregeneration, nor the bare want of such and such positive fruits of Regeneration, without positive and palpable [•]ruits of Irregeneration, that will (according to any Rule God has given us) put any man out of the Church, when he is once in. No, Mr. Cotton in the very place here cited, expresly says, that Irregeneration alone will not keep a man out: his words are these [Neither among us does Irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us: not Irregeneration alone (I say) unless it be accompanied with such fruits as are openly scandalous, and do convincingly manifest Irregeneration.] Moreover, still the parallel between the Church of the Old and of the New Testament stands and holds in this, that when a person is once by God's appointment taken into the visible Church (whether in adult age or in infancy, it comes all to one for that) he continues in it, and does not lose his Membership, till by some Rule or Appointment of God in his Word he be cut off or cast out. What the particular Rules and ways of cutting off were in the Old Testament, we need not here dispute, but to be sure the plain Rule in the New Testament for the cutting off of particular persons, is by the Censure of Excommunication for Moral evils.
But while we grant that in some respects more positive fruits in regard of degree might be required in the Old Testament, let none so understand it, as if Regeneration was not required at all to the constitution and continuation of the visible Church in the Old Testament, but that a mere carnal succession was then allowed of without regard to Regeneration. For they stood by faith, and were broken off by unbelief as well as we (Romans 11). Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, as well as Baptism. Faith and Repentance do not now more constitute the Covenant of God, than it did in the time of Abraham, who was the Father of the Faithful, says Doctor Ames. Yes, our brethren do in their Antisynodalia, pag. 17. expressly say, that the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Circumcision of his seed, was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was, that is, that he should walk with God by faith and obedience. And it is observable, that nowhere is Regeneration, and the fruits thereof, required of God's Covenant people in stricter and fuller terms than in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; Deuteronomy 10:12 and 26:16, 17; 1 Kings 8:23; Psalm 103:17, 18; Isaiah 56:4, 6). And yet the Lord, who is the best interpreter of his own rules, continued them in the Church, and accounted them among the number of his holy people, till palpable and incorrigible fruits of Irregeneration were found with them: and so he does now.
In the sixth place: the application (says the Preface) of the seal of Baptism to those who are not true believers (we mean visibly, for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia) is a profanation thereof, and as dreadful a sin as if a man should administer the Lord's Supper to unworthy receivers — we marvel that any should think that the blood of Christ is not as much profaned and vilified by undue administration of Baptism, as by undue administration of the Lord's Supper.
Ans. It will be hard for the reader to gather out of all that is here said, a reason of dissent from the Synod: for we readily grant and say, that Baptism is not to be applied to any but visible believers (taking visible believers as a term equivalent to [Federally Holy] as the term Believer or Faithful is sometimes in Scripture so taken (Isaiah 1:21; 2 Corinthians 6:15) and often in Authors) but that the persons in question, both parents and children, are visible believers, is also by the Synod asserted and proved; and here is nothing said to disprove it. But when as our brethren here say, that the application of the seal of Baptism to those who are not visibly true believers, is a profanation thereof (in which, being rightly explained, we gainsay them not) and yet in their [illegible], pag. 20. do hold forth, that infants neither have nor can have faith; it will lie upon them to show how they apply the seal of Baptism to infants without a profanation thereof. It is pity that so many passages are dropped here and there, that do (though we hope not in their intention) clash with the baptizing of infants. Here is also expressed a marvel, that any should think, etc. But we may answer with a marvel that any should speak as if any of us did think that the blood of Christ is not profaned by undue administration of Baptism, as well as by undue administration of the Lord's Supper: whether as much or no in point of degree, we will not trouble ourselves to dispute; though we suppose the degree of sinful pollution or profanation of the Lord's name in any ordinance, will be intended by the degree of special communion that we have with Christ in that ordinance, and by the danger that such pollution infers to the whole Church, as well as to the particular partaker, which will hardly be denied to be more in the Lord's Supper than in Baptism. But whether the profanation be as great or no, to be sure it is very great, and so great as that every pious conscientious person should fear to have any hand in the undue administration of Baptism. But where is there anything to show that the administration of Baptism, pointed to by the Synod, is undue? Or that it is an undue administration of Baptism to extend it further than the Lord's Supper? Or to administer Baptism to some to whom we do not administer the Lord's Supper? If the rule and institution concerning these two Sacraments do extend the one further than the other, as it plainly does, when it appoints Baptism to all disciples, or to run parallel with federal holiness (Matthew 28:19) but the Lord's Supper only to self-examining disciples (1 Corinthians 11:28) then the one may be extended further than the other, and yet the administration of the one no more undue, or irregular, and polluting than the administration of the other. Surely he that holds, that Baptism may, and the Lord's Supper may not be administered to infants (as we suppose our brethren do) he grants that Baptism may be extended further than the Lord's Supper, without any such sacrilegious impiety, dreadful profanation or prostitution of the blood of Christ, as is here (harshly enough) expressed. Neither did judicious Calvin (part of whose zealous expression against the promiscuous administration of the Lord's Supper, is here cited in the Preface) ever imagine or conceive that it was any such profanation to extend Baptism further than the Lord's Supper, yes and further than the Synod does, when as he set down that answer in his Catechism that is above alleged, and practised accordingly. It is well known the Synod does not plead for that largeness in either of the Sacraments that Calvin allowed: but to extend the one further than the other, was never accounted sacrilegious impiety in orthodox divinity.
It is here added that Austin pleads for strictness in the administration of Baptism, and Tertullian before him. But did either of them plead for greater strictness than the Synod does? Unless where Tertullian erroneously and weakly pleads for the delaying of Baptism, which is noted for one of his [illegible]. Certainly men will say when they look upon what is published by the Synod, and their wary qualifying of the fifth Proposition (about which the controversy is) that they were for much strictness in the administration of Baptism, and many will think us too strict. We doubt not but we may safely say, that no man can show any thing out of Austin that will speak him to be against the baptizing of such as the Synod pleadeth for: yes, he requireth not more of adult converts from Heathenism, for their own Baptism, than is in the parents who are described by the Synod. That book of his de Fide & Operibus, is against the baptizing of notorious scandalous livers, whom he would not have baptized (though seemingly turned from Heathenism) till they seriously promised reformation. But that Austin (in stead of being for more strictness) holdeth for a larger extent of Baptism than the Synod does, might easily be evinced.
How strange is it to see their authority still alleged against us, who are not only fully with us in this matter, but go further than we!
The seventh reason of our brethren's dissent, is this: It has in it a natural tendency to the hardening of unregenerate creatures, in their sinful natural condition, when life is not only promised, but sealed to them by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a seal of the whole Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lord's Supper, and therefore those that are not interested in this Covenant by faith, ought not to have the seal thereof applied to them.
The Lord's truth and grace, however it may be abused by the corruption of man's perverse and sinful nature, has not in itself any natural tendency to harden any, but the contrary. And how can the doctrine in hand have any such natural tendency? When as men are told over and over, that only outward advantages and dispensations are sealed to them in Baptism more absolutely (Romans 3:1, 2; Romans 9:4) but the saving benefits of the Covenant (or life eternal) conditionally (see Mr. Shepard's late printed letter, pag. 3–6) so that if they fail of the condition (namely, effectual and unfeigned faith) they miss of salvation, notwithstanding their Baptism, and external covenant-estate: and hence, that there is no certain, but only a probable connexion between federal holiness (as applied to particular persons) and salvation; that thousands are in the visible church that shall never see Heaven; that outward privileges are not to be rested in, but improved as helps and encouragements to the obtaining of internal and special grace: that the church is to accept of probable signs, but no man [illegible] is to rest without certain signs of grace: hence the indefinite promise, and other general indefinite tokens of a good estate, [illegible] such as describe that sort of persons that are gracious, and many of whom are so, though many are not, (as children of the Covenant, professors of the faith, &c.) these are grounds for the church to proceed upon in the dispensation of outward [illegible], especially that of Baptism, that is annexed to the first being of grace; but they are not grounds for any to rest or acquiesce in, as to the salvation of their own souls. In sum, while we keep a due distinction between the outward and inward dispensation of the Covenant, and between the respective conditions and grounds of each, there is no tendency to hardening therein: but indeed [illegible], and do tie visible church-interest to such conditions and qualifications, as are reputed enough to salvation, this may tend to harden men, and to make them conceit, that if once they be got into the church, they are sure of Heaven, when [illegible] it may be they are far from it.
The Scriptures give us a contrary assertion to this of our brethren here; for they tell us, that to deny the children of the church, to have any part in the Lord, has a strong tendency in it, to make them cease from fearing the Lord, or to harden their hearts from his fear (Joshua 22:24, 25, 27) and that on the other hand, the encouragements and awful obligations of covenant-interest do greatly tend to soften and break the heart, and to draw it home to God. Hence the Lord often begins with this, that he is their God (namely, in outward Covenant) and they his people, when he would most powerfully win and draw them to faith and obedience (Psalm 81:8, 10; Leviticus 19:3, 4; Deuteronomy 14:1, 2; Hosea 14:1; Acts 2:38, 39) and the experiences of many can through grace witness to this, of what use the consideration of the Lord's preventing grace in his sealed Covenant, and their engagement to him thereby has been in the day of their turning to God, so (Jeremiah 31:18; Jeremiah 3:22; Galatians 1:15).
There is a natural tendency in man's corrupt heart (not in this, or any other truth or ordinance of God) that leads him to turn grace into wantonness, and to abuse outward privileges and ordinances, to a self-hardening security and carnal confidence (Jeremiah 7:4; Matthew 3:9; Romans 2:17; Philippians 3:4, 5, 6, 7) but is this any argument against the Lord's or the churches giving men a portion in his temple and ordinances, because they are prone so to abuse them? Confidence in outward visible qualifications for full communion, is but a vain and carnal thing; yet men are prone enough to it, and had need by the ministry be taken off from it. But shall we therefore deny or scruple their admission thereunto?
If one should bring such an argument as this against the baptizing of infants, namely, that it will harden them, and bolster them up in their sinful natural condition; we suppose it would be counted a poor argument, and of no validity; and yet it holds as well against the baptizing of any infants, as of these in question. If it be said, that the baptizing of these in question hardens the parent? Not at all (in the way we go) any more with reference to his child's Baptism, than in reference to his own Baptism which he received in infancy. For it does not necessarily affirm that he has any more than federal holiness, and that he had, when he was an infant, on that ground was he baptized then, and on the same ground is his child baptized now. If he have any more, he may have the more comfort in it; but simply to have his child baptized, on the grounds we go upon, affirms no more but this, because we ground all upon federal holiness, or membership in the visible church.
It is true, that Baptism is a seal of the whole Covenant of Grace, as well as the Lord's Supper. But it is as true, 1. That it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, as dispensed in the visible Church, or it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, as clothed with the external dispensation or administration thereof, and so it does nextly and immediately seal the external dispensation, or the promises and privileges that belong thereto (which are a part of the whole Covenant of Grace) and then it seals the inward and saving benefits of the Covenant as included in that dispensation, and upon the conditions therein propounded. Baptism seals the whole Covenant, and whole dispensation thereof, that is, 1. The dispensation of it outwardly, to all that have an external standing in the Church. 2. The dispensation and communication of it inwardly, effectually and savingly to all that truly do believe.
2. That Baptism is a seal of entrance into the Covenant thus considered. It seals the whole Covenant, but by way of initiation; so Doctor Ames in the place that is here quoted, Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 40. Thes. 5, 6. Baptism is the Sacrament of Initiation, or Regeneration, for although it do at once seal the whole Covenant of Grace to the faithful, yet by a singular appropriation it represents and confirms our very ingrafting into Christ (Romans 6:3, 5; 1 Corinthians 12:13). And Thesis 10. Those benefits are sealed by way of initiation, in Baptism. And from there the judicious Doctor makes that inference that suits and clears the matter in hand, Thes. 11. Hence Baptism ought to be administered to all those, to whom the Covenant of Grace belongs, because it is the first seal of the Covenant now first entered into. Baptism is the seal of entrance into Covenant, sealing up to the party baptized, all the good of the Covenant to be in season communicated and enjoyed, from step to step, through the whole progress of Christianity, from this first beginning thereof, according to the tenor and order of the Covenant. Hence it belongs to all that are within the Covenant, or that have but a first entrance thereinto, children as well as others, though they have not yet such faith and growth, as imports that progress in the Covenant, and fruition of the comfort and fruits thereof that is sealed up in the Lord's Supper.
We readily grant, and say that [illegible] none ought to have the seal of Baptism applied in those that are interested in the Covenant, and that by faith, unless you can show us any other way of interest in the Covenant, but by faith. But withal, we affirm and prove, that the children in question have interest in the Covenant, according to the known tenor thereof (Genesis 17:7), and therefore that the seal of Baptism is to be applied to them. In all this therefore we see no sufficient ground or reason to necessitate a dissent from the Synod.
Our brethren have one thing more yet to add; namely, that there is danger of great corruption and pollution creeping into the Churches, by the enlargement of the subject of Baptism.
Answ. 1. And is there no danger of corruption by over-straitening the subject of Baptism? Certainly it is a corruption to take from the rule, as well as to add to it; and a corruption that our weakness is in danger of. And it is a dangerous thing to be guilty of breaking God's Covenant, by not applying the initiating seal to those it is appointed for, even to all that are in Covenant (Genesis 17:9, 10, 14). Moses found danger in it (Exodus 4:24). Is there no danger of putting those out of the visible Church, whom Christ would have kept in? And depriving them of those Church-advantages (Romans 3:1, 2) that might help them toward Heaven? Even Christ's own disciples may be in danger of incurring his displeasure, by keeping poor little ones away from him (Mark 10:13, 14). To go pluck up all the tares was a zealous motion, and had a good intention, but the householder concludes, there's danger in it of plucking up the wheat also.
2. If the enlargement be beyond the bounds of the rule, it will bring in corruption, else not; our work is therefore to study the rule and keep close to that, as the only true way to the Churches' purity and glory. To go aside from that to the right hand will bring corruption as well as to go to the left. The way of Anabaptists, namely, to admit none to membership and Baptism but adult professors, is the straitest way, and one would think it should be a way of great purity, but experience has abundantly showed the contrary; that it has been an inlet to great corruption, and looseness both in doctrine and practice, and a troublesome dangerous underminer of Reformation. It is the Lord's own way, and his institutions only, which he will bless, and not man's inventions, though never so plausible. Neither has God (in his wisdom) so instituted the frame of his Covenant, and the constitution of the Church thereby, as to make a perfect separation between good and bad, or to make the work of conversion, and initial instruction needless in the Churches. Conversion [illegible] to the children of the Covenant a fruit of the Covenant, says Mr. Cotton. If we do not keep in the way of a converting grace-giving Covenant, and keep persons under those Church-dispensations wherein grace is given, the Church will die of a lingering, though not of a violent death. The Lord has not set up Churches only that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live, and then carry away the Church into the cold grave with them when they die: no, but that they might, with all the care, and with all the obligations, and advantages to that care that may be, [illegible] up still successively another generation of subjects to Christ that may stand up in his kingdom when they are gone, that so he might have a people and kingdom successively continued to him from one generation to another. We may be very injurious to Christ as well as to the souls of men, by too much straitening, and narrowing the bounds of his kingdom or visible Church here on earth. Certainly enlargement, so it be a regular enlargement thereof, is a very desirable thing: it is a great honor to Christ to have many willing subjects (as these are willing and desirous to be under the government of Christ that we plead for) and very suitable to the Spirit and grace of Christ in the Gospel. In Church-reformation, it is an observable truth (says [illegible] on the Parable of the Tares) that those that are for too much strictness, do more hurt than profit the Church. See Diodati on Matthew 13:29. Cyprian Epist. 51.
3. There is apparently a greater danger of corruption to the churches by enlarging the subjects of full communion, and admitting unqualified, or meanly qualified persons to the Lord's Table and voting in the church, whereby the interest of the power of godliness will soon be prejudiced, and elections, admissions, censures, so carried, as will be hazardous thereunto. Now it is evident, that this is, and will be the temptation, namely, to ever-enlarge full communion, if Baptism be limited to the children of such as are admitted thereunto. And it is easy to observe, that many of the reasonings of our brethren, and others are more against the non-admission of the parents in question to full communion, than against the admission of their children to Baptism. How unreasonable is it then to object against us as corrupters of the churches, when we stand for a greater strictness than they in that wherein the main danger of church-corrupting lies? We doubt not to affirm, that that principle which has been held forth by our brethren, namely, [That if the church can have any hope of persons, that they have any thing of faith and grace in them, though never so little, they ought, being adult, to be admitted to full communion] this we say will, if followed, bring corruptions and impurities into churches: for he must abandon all the rules of charity, that cannot hope this of multitudes of young persons that grow up among us, who yet if they were presently admitted to full communion, we should soon feel a change in the management of church-affairs; and the interest of formality and common profession, would soon be advanced above the interest of the power of godliness. Whether we be in the right in this matter of strictness as to full communion, Scripture and reason must determine (and were this the place of that dispute, we have much to say in it, and to be sure, the practice of these churches hitherto has been for it, as also their profession in the Synod in 1648, Platform of Discipline, Cap. 12. Sect. 7. Hence to depart from that, would be a real departure from our former practice and profession: whereas to enlarge Baptism to the children of all that stand in the church, is but a progress to that practice that suits with our profession) but certain it is that we are, and stand for the purity of the churches, when as we stand for such qualifications as we do, in those we would admit to full communion; and do withstand those notions and reasonings that would infer a laxness therein, which has apparent peril in it. But we can hardly imagine what hurt it would do, or what danger of spoiling the churches there is in it, for poor children to be taken within the verge of the church, under the wings of Christ in his ordinances, and to be under church-care, and discipline and government for their souls' good; to be in a state of initiation and education in the church of God, and consequently to have Baptism, which is the seal of initiation; when as they shall not come to the Lord's Table, nor have any hand in the management of church-affairs (as elections of officers, admissions, and censures of members) until as a fruit of the foresaid help and means, they attain to such qualifications as may render their admission into full communion safe and comfortable, both to their own souls, and to the churches.
In sum, we make account, that if we keep Baptism within the compass of the non-excommunicable, and the Lord's Supper within the compass of those that have (to charity) somewhat of the power of godliness (or grace in exercise) we shall be near about the right middle-way of church-reformation. And as for the preservation of due purity in the church, it is the due exercise of discipline that must do that, as our divines unanimously acknowledge, for that is God's own appointed way (and the Lord make and keep us all careful and faithful therein) not the curtailing of the covenant, which may be man's way; but is not the way of God wherein alone we may expect his blessing.
The good Lord pardon the imperfections and failings that attend us in these debates; accept of what is according to his will, and establish it; save us from corrupting extremes on either hand, and give to his people one heart and one way to fear him for ever, for the good of them and of their children after them.
