A Defence of the Answer and Arguments of the Synod, Met at Boston in the Year 1662

A DEFENCE OF THE ANSWER and ARGVMENTS of the SYNOD, Met at Boston in the Year 1662. Concerning The Subject of Baptism, and Consociation of Churches: Against the REPLY made thereto, by the Reverend Mr. Iohn D[•]venpor[•], in his Treatise, Entituled, Another ESSAY for Investigation of the Truth, &c.

THE Reverend Author in this his Essay, before he come to speak to that which the Synod delivered, does premise Eleven or Twelve Positions, by which (he says) the determinations of the Synod are to be Examined, and so far, and no further to be approved and received, as a consent and harmony of them with th[•]se may be cleared, &c. pag. 8.

Concerning which Positions we will not say much, because the Intendment in this Def[•]nce, is only to clear what is said by the Synod, against what this Reverend Author says against the same in his [◊]; and therefore until he speak to what the Synod delivered, we think it not needful to insist long upon these premised Positions. Only this we may say concerning them, That though su[•]dry things in them be sound and good, yet the Posi[•]ions themselves being not Scripture, but his own private Collections, therefore we do not see that we are bound to take these Positions▪ as the Standard and Rule, by which to judge of what the Synod says: But if the Synods Doctrine be agreeable to Scripture, we think that may be sufficient for defence thereof, whether it agree with the premised Positions, or not. And when himself, pag. 1. does commend it as a good Profession in the Synod, that, To the Law and to the Testimony they do wholly referre themselves; had it not been also commendable in him to have done the like, rather then to lay down Positions (though he conceives them rightly deduced from Scripture) and then to say, Nothing is to be approved further then it consents with those Positions? Himself may please to consider of this.

But to leave this of the premised Positions, and to come to the main Business; Concerning The Subject of Baptism, the first Proposition of the Synod is this, namely, They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church, are the Subjects of Baptism:

The second is this: namely, The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are Confederate visible Believers, in particular Churches, and their Infant-seed, that is, Children in [◊]▪ whose next Parents, one or both, are in Covenant.

Now what says the Reverend Author to these? That which he says, is this: I cannot approve the two first Propositions, without some change of the terms: In the first, thus; They that according to Christs Ordinance, are regular and actual Members, &c. The second, thus; The actual and regular Members of the visible Church, according to Christs Ordinance, &c. pag. 9.

Answ. So that the Alteration required, is, That in stead of [Scripture] it be said [Christs Ordinance] and in stead of [Members] [Actual and regular Members.] But a necessity of this Alteration does not appear: for, as for the one particular, can we think that th[•]re i[•] any such difference between the Scripture, and the Ordinance of Christ, that [◊] may be Members of the visible Church, and so Subjects of Baptism, according to the f[••]er, and yet not according to the la[•]ter[•]▪ If it be according to the Scripture, may it not [•]e said to be according to Christs Ordinance? Sure, when Christ himself bids us Search the Scripture (John 5:39), and when the Bereans are commended for searching the Scripture, whether those things were so, which were Preached by Paul (Acts 17:11), and when all the Scripture is for our learning (Romans 15:4), and does contain a perfect Rule in all things that concern Gods Worship, whether Natural, or Instituted, as this Reverend Author says, in the first of his premised Positions; upon these grounds it may seem, that what is according to Scripture, needs not to want our approbation, for fear left it agree not with the Ordinance of Christ. And indeed, how can that be taken for an Ordinance of Christ, which is not according to Scripture? That being considered also, which is said by the Reverend Author in his second Position, That whatever Christ did institute in the Christian Churches, he did it by Gods appointment, as Moses by Gods appointment, gave out what he delivered in the Church of Israel. Now if all that is instituted by Christ, be according to Gods appointment, and that the Scripture contains a perfect Rule concerning all Instituted Worship, and so concerning all Gods appointments; it may seem a needless thing to withhold our approbation from that which is according to Scripture, as if it might be so, and yet not be according to the Ordinance of Christ. Besides, how shall we know a thing to be an Ordinance of Christ, if it be not according to the Scripture?

And for the other Alteration desired, that in stead of [Members] it be [Regular and actual Members] may we think that men may, or can be Members according to Scripture, and not Regular, nor actual Members? If the Scripture be the Rule, and [•] perfect Rule, then they that are Members according to Scripture, are Members according to Rule, and so are Regular members. And if Actual be contradistinct from Potential; then they that are Members according to Scripture, are Actual members, and not only Potential, or potentially such: for, such potential Members the Scripture approveth not. Upon these grounds, we see no necessity of the Alteration fore-mentioned.

Propos. 3. The Infant-seed, &c. when grown up are personally under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church.

Arg. 1. Children were under Patriarchal and Mosaical discipline of old, &c.

Reply. The Text alledged (namely, Genesis 18:19 & 21:9, 10, 12. and Galatians 5:3.) do not prove the Antecedent, namely, That children were under Patriarchal and Mosaical discipline, p. 10.

Ans. And yet for the one of these, the Reverend Author confesseth, in Answer to this Argument, pag. 11.12. That the members of the Church in the Patriarchs Families, were to continue in communion with the Church from their being circumcised, all the dayes of their life, untill they were cast out, as Ishmael — or voluntarily departed from it, as Esau. And does not this sufficiently imply, That children in those Churches, when adult, were under Discipline in those Churches? For, can we think that those Churches had no Church-discipline in them? or that the Members of them were not under that Discipline? or the children, when grown up, were not Members? Sure, if they continued in communion with the Church from their being circumcised, all the dayes of their life, until they were cast out, or did voluntarily go away; then it was not meer growing up to be adult, that caused their Church-relation, or communion with the Church, to cease. And if their communion with the Church did not cease, but continue, how can it be avoided but they were under Church-discipline? Where shall we finde ground from Scripture or good Reason, that these children, when adult, did still continue in communion with the Church, and yet were not under the Church-discipline that then was? It seems to us, that the one of these, which the Reverend Author does expresly affirm, does unavoidably imply the other, which is affirmed by the Synod. There might be many children in those Families of the Patriarchs, who when they were adult, were neither cast out, as Ishmael, nor departed, as Esau; and these continuing in communion with the Church all the dayes of their life, from their being circumcised, as the Reverend Author says they did, they were therefore under the Church-discipline that then was. And if they might be cast out, as Ishmael was (Genesis 21), as the Reverend Author confesseth; it cannot be denied but that there was Discipline in those Churches, and that children, when grown up, were subject thereto: For, as for that which the Reverend Author suggesteth, pag. 11. That Ishmael being thirteen years old when he was circumcised, was then admitted into Church-fellowship and full communion by his personal Covenanting, being at years of discretion. The Answer is, That it is very unusual that children at thirteen years of age should be fit for full communion. And as for Ishmael, there is no such thing testified of him in the Scripture; but on the contrary, when the Lord says, He should be a wilde man, and his hand against every man, and every mans hand against him (Genesis 16), and when as he soon after became such a Mocker and Persecutor (Genesis 21; Galatians 4), as that for it he was cast out (Genesis 21), it is therefore not very probable that he at thirteen years of age had so much goodness in him, as that upon the profession thereof he should then be admitted to full communion. It seems to us more probable, considering the things mentioned, that he was admitted as a childe in minority, by virtue of the Covenant with Abraham and his seed, and yet when grown up, he was so under Discipline, as to be cast out for his wickedness.

And for that other of Mosaical Discipline, the Reverend Author confesseth, p. 11, 12. That all the grown members of the Church of Israel were brought under such Discipline, as was established in that Church by a solemn Covenant, whereof all adult persons were to take hold personally. And if all the grown members of that Church were brought under such discipline as was then established, then the other particular in the Antecedent, That children were under Mosaical discipline, is here also confessed by the Author. Indeed, he conceiveth they were brought under Discipline by Covenanting personally; but that is not clear: but for the thing it self, That they were under Discipline, this we see is by him confessed; which is that which the Synod affirmed. And why may not that Text (Galatians 5:3) be a sufficient proof thereof? If they that were circumcised, were bound to all the duties of the Law, as the Text affirmeth; then they were bound to that Ecclesiastical Discipline that the Law of Moses appointed: and therefore children being circumcised, were so bound, even when they were adult, for then they remained circumcised. There are good Expositors who upon that Text do teach, That Circumcision was an obligation to the keeping of all the Commandments of the Law in the Old Testament, and that Baptism is the like for all the Commandments of the Gospel: See Paraeus, and Perkins in loc. Whereby it appeareth; That what Discipline was under the Old Testament, children circumcised in Infancy were subject thereto, when adult, as being bound by their Circumcision to all the Commandments of the Law.

So much for Defence of the Antecedent in this Argument.

But, says the Reverend Author, though the Antecedent were more manifestly true, yet the Consequent is not good; for there is not par ratio, the like reason of those Patriarchal and Mosaical Churches, and of Congregational Churches under the Gospel, page 11.

Ans. And yet the Reverend Author confesseth in Position the fifth and sixth, That the Covenant of Abraham was the same in substance under the Law, and under the Gospel: and, that the Kingdom of God, is the same in substance which is taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles; yes, and that Baptism is come in the place of Circumcision, and therefore Infants of Confederates are now to be Baptized, as then they were to be circumcised, they being both outward seales of the same Covenant in substance. So that here seems to be a plain acknowledgment that there is par ratio, though in the place in hand it be denied. For, if the Covenant be for Substance the same now as it was then, and that therefore Baptism may be now dispensed to Infants, as circumcision was then, those ordinances being both seales of the same covenant for Substance; is not this an acknowledgment of a par ratio between them? And if so, what should hinder but that Children, when grown up, may as well be under Church-discipline now, as under the Old Testament? For, may they be now Baptized in their infancy, as then they were Circumcised, because there is in both par ratio? and might they be then under Church-discipline, and yet now not so, because here there is not par ratio? Is Poedobaptisme in the new Testament, rightly inferred from the Circumcision of Infants in the old Testament, because here there is par ratio between them? and is not their subjection to Church-discipline, when adult, in the new Testament, rightly inferred from the like subjection in the Old? It does not appear that there is any want of par ratio in the one case, any more then in the other.

As for that which is here immediately brought in pag. 11. to prove that there is not, par ratio; namely, Because the members of the Church, in the Patriarchs families, were to continue in Communion with the Church all the days of their life, until they were cast out, as Ishmael or voluntarily departed from it, as Esau. We conceive this is no proof at all of the disparity alleged; and the reason is, because we say the very same concerning the children of Church-members in these days, namely, that they still continue in the Church all the days of their life, if they be not cast out in a Gospel way, which he does not disprove. And therefore in this there is no want of par ratio.

And for the proof of disparity between the Church of Israel, and our Churches, namely, 1. That we do not read of any Ordinance given them, for casting out members for sins against the Moral Law. And 2. That the grown members of that Church were brought under such discipline as was established in that Church, by a solemn Covenant, whereof all adult persons were to take hold personally.

The Answer is; Touching the former of these, that sundry things may be said to show, that it is very probable that in Israel there was appointed of God an Ordinance of Church-censure or discipline, not only for sins against the Ceremonial Law, but also against the Moral. For, the Lord does so often, and earnestly command holiness and purity to that people, and so often and severely reproves the contrary, and that not only in the offenders themselves, but also in them that suffered it, and this not only in Ceremonial matters, but also in sins against the Moral Law, that it is not very probable that he would have no Church-discipline used for such matters as these, but only for Ceremonial. Is it likely, that if a man should eat leavened bread in the time of the Passover, that for this he must be cut off from the Congregation, as (Exodus 12:15, 19) or if a man should touch a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, etc. that this were such uncleanness, as that he must not then enter into the Tabernacle or Temple, but, if he did, it would be a defiling of the Sanctuary of the Lord, and therefore such offenders must be cut off from their people? And yet nevertheless, if a man had killed another man, or had committed the sin of whoredom, or drunkenness, or other abomination, that yet there was no such uncleanness in these as to defile the Sanctuary, or to cause a man to be kept out, or cut off, or cast out for the same? This seems to us not very probable.

And yet if it were certain and clear, that so it was in those times, the purpose for which this is alleged is not gained thereby, but the Consequence questioned may be sound and good for all this. The Consequence is, That if children were under Mosaical Discipline of old, then they are under Congregational Discipline now: this is the Synod's argument. But, says the Answer, This Consequence is not good, because Mosaical Discipline was not to cast men out for sins against the Moral Law. But, say we, The Argument and Consequence may be good for all this; for, suppose there were this difference between the Mosaical Discipline that was then, and the Congregational Discipline that is now, that the former were only for Ceremonial uncleanness, and the latter for Moral; yet, if children were under the Discipline that was then, we conceive they are therefore under the Church-discipline that is now. And we think this arguing to be better, and more strong, than to say, That because they are not under such Discipline as was then, that therefore now they are under none at all. And plain it is, that the Apostle argues for the maintenance of the Ministry now under the Gospel, from the maintenance of the Ministry that was under Moses (1 Corinthians 9:13) and shows the danger of unworthy receiving our Sacraments, from the evil that befell many who were partakers of the Baptism, and the spiritual meat and drink that was then (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2, etc.). And if he argue from the Ministry and Sacraments that were under Moses; why is not the Argument also good from the Mosaical Discipline? We cannot think the Apostle's Consequence might be denied, because we have now no such holy things; no such Temple and Altar as was then; no such Baptism in the Cloud, and in the Sea; no such Manna, and Water out of the Rock, as they had. To deny the Consequence of the Apostle's Argument upon any such ground, we think were very insufficient; and therefore why may not the Consequence be good, from the subjection of children to Mosaical Discipline, to prove their subjection to New-Testament-discipline; although it were granted, that their Discipline were only for Ceremonial matters, and that we have none such, but only for sins against the moral Law? For ought we see, the Argument and Consequence is good in this case, as well as in the other.

The other particular alleged by the Reverend Author, to show a difference between the Church of Israel, and our Churches, and that therefore children, when adult, might be under Mosaical Discipline, but not under Congregational, is this: Because in that Church grown members were brought under such Discipline as was established in that Church by a solemn Covenant, whereof all adult persons were to take hold personally. p. 12.

Ans. It is not clear, nor at all said in the place alledged, namely Deut. 26:16, 17, 18. that by the entring into covenant there mentioned, they were brought under the church-discipline in that church, but they might be under church-discipline otherwise, even by the commandment and ordinance of God, and not meerly by that covenant, or by means of it. For, if that covenant were entred into in the day of their bringing the tythes of the third year, which is spoken of in the verses immediately preceding, namely ver. 12, 13, 14, 15. then it could not be that covenant that brought all adult persons under discipline: for, a man might be adult, and yet not have any tythes to bring; as not having yet any personal estate or possession of his own, as we see it often is with us; yes, a man might be adult, and have estate and tythes two years afore this, for this that is here spoken of was the tythes of the third year. Now if a man were adult and had personal estate afore this time, or adult and had yet no estate, and that this covenant was onely entred into at that third year of tything, then [illegible] cannot be that by this covenant they were brought under discipline, for they were adult, and so under discipline afore. Or if the covenant here mentioned, were not entred into at the third year of tything; then why might it not be of all the people joyntly together, and not of any particular persons severally by themselves? There is nothing in the text contrary to this, but rather for it, in that the covenancer here spoken of, is avouched that day to be the Lords peculiar people (ver. 18, 19.) which title of [People] is not suitable to any particular person. And sure it is, that covenant (Deut. 29:10, 11, etc.) was of all the people joyntly together, for it was a covenant not onely with men, but with women, yes with little children, and with such as were not there that day, but with posterity that should be afterward born; and therefore this was not onely a covenant of the adult, to bring them under church-discipline as if else they had not been under it, but being also with little ones, that were then in minority, it might suffice to bring them under discipline when they should be grown up. So that nothing does yet appear, to prove that [illegible] adult persons in Israel were not under discipline in that church, but by their taking hold of the covenant personally; but for ought that does yet appear, they might be under discipline afore they had thus done. Therefore we yet see not any such disparity between the Patriarchall and Mosaicall churches formerly, and the Congregationall churches under the New Testament, but that from the subjection of children, when adult, to church-discipline in the former, may be justly inferred their subjection thereto in the latter.

So much for defence of the Synod's first argument, to prove that children of church-members, when adult, are under the watch, discipline, and government of the church.

To the second argument, to prove children when adult subject to church-discipline; namely,

Because they are within the church, or members thereof, and therefore subject to church-judicature (1 Corinthians 5:12).

The answer that is given, is, that the argument is to be denied, and the text alledged does not prove it.

Ans. The words of the text are express and plain, What have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do you not judge them that are within? But them that are without God judges. By which it is plain, and undeniable, that though those that are without be not subject to church-judicature, or church-discipline, yet for those that are within it is otherwise: and therefore, if these children be within, to deny them to be subject to church-judicature, is to deny the words of the Holy Ghost.

As for that which is here said, that by [them within] is meant members in full communion, such as are in full membership, as well of all other ordinances, as of censures:

Our answer is, that this should be proved, as well as affirmed, for, affirmanti incumbit probatio. It was wont to be said, Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit: distinctions should be warranted by the Word; therefore when the Word says, such as are within, are subject to church-judicature, to restrain this being within, to those that are in full communion in all ordinances, and to exempt many others, though adult persons, and within the church, onely because they are not so with[illegible]n, as to be in full communion; we say, to exempt them upon this ground from church-judicature, is more then we see any sufficient proof for.

As for the reason here rendred, that excommunication is a casting out from communion, and therefore how can any be formally excommunicated, who were never in communion, and so within the church?

The answer is, that the Synod does not here expresly speak of Excommunica[illegible]o[illegible], and that the children are subject to that ordinance; but onely says, they are under the watch, discipline and gove[illegible]nment of the church, and therefore there was no need here to answer, that they cannot be excommunicated: for, if that were so, (which we are farre from granting) yet what the Synod here says, may be true f[illegible]r all this.

And th[illegible]ugh [illegible]t be true, that such as were never in church-communion at all, cannot properly be excommunicated; yet the Reverend Author, we suppose, does not, nor will deny, but that many who have never yet been p[illegible]rtakers of all ordinances, or of the Lord's Supper as children in minority, yet may be counted church-members, and so have much church-communion, and enjoy much benefit thereby; as the covenant, and baptism the seal thereof; the prayers, and blessing of the church; church-watchfulness, to excite them, and encourage them to, and in good, and to reclaim them from evil: such church-communion as this, they may be partakers of, who y[illegible] have not been admitted to full communion; and therefore what impossibility is there in it, but that men may be excommunicated, namely from such communion as they had, though they never had such full communion as others. If a parent in full communion be justly, for some delinquency, excommunicated, we suppose the Reverend Author will say, that his children in minority are cut off from their membership with him, and so are excommunicated with the pa[illegible]ent. And if so, then there may be excommunicatio[illegible], where there never was the enjoyment of full communion. And so for all that is here said, [that pe[illegible]sons not in full communion cannot be Excommun[illegible]ca[illegible]ed] yet what the Synod says may be true, that persons not in full communion may be under the watch, and discipline, and government of the church: and how much more if even such persons may be cut off from their church-membership, and so from what church-communion they had?

To the third Argument, to prove Children of Church-members, when adult, to be under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church; namely,

Because they are Disciples, and therefore under Discipline in Christ's School.

The Reverend Author's Answer has in it a Concession, and an Exception: The Concession is, That all Church-members are Disciples, Infants federally, &c. and therefore both are under the Discipline of the Church suitably to their membership. Now if all Church-members be Disciples, and therefore under Discipline, and even Infants so in their way; it is strange, that these that in their infancy are now become adult, should now be no Disciples, nor Church-members, and so not under Church-discipline, which before they were under; when as they have neither been cut off from their Membership and Discipleship, nor deserving any such matter: One would think it were more rational to say, That as they were in Church-relation when Infants, so they continue therein, though adult; except in some way of God they be cut off therefrom, and do so deserve.

But though the Reverend Author yield, as is said, yet he puts in this Exception; That he finds not any where in Scripture, that such adult persons are styled Disciples, or accounted Members.

Ans. Suppose such Term or Title were not found applied to the Persons spoken of, yet since for the thing it is confessed that they were Disciples and Members when Infants, is it not more rational to confess they are so still (except the Scripture said the contrary) and that they so continue (though the Term and Title be not found) until they be upon desert cut off, or cast out, rather than to say, that now being adult, they have lost the Relation and Privilege which they had when they were Infants, though they have not been cut off from it, nor ever so deserved before men? For, if they incur such loss by becoming adult, it may seem it were good for Members' Children to die in their Infancy, and never live to be adult; since in their Infancy they had Church-relation, and Covenant-state, which now they have lost, though without their desert.

The adult Disciples, in (Matthew 28:20) must observe, and do all Christ's Commandments, therefore the Disciples there intended, with reference to adult persons, are Members in full Communion, pag. 13.

Ans. This Arguing is but too like to that of the Antipaedobaptists: for it is well known how they would exclude infants by this Text, from being partakers of Baptism, because they are not Disciples so, made by Teaching, or by being taught to observe all Christ's Commandments; because Infants cannot do this, therefore, say they, they are not Disciples to be Baptized. But the Reverend Author confesses, that Infants are Disciples; and, as such, are to be Baptized. Why then should he say that now, when they are become adult, they are Disciples no longer, as not observing all Christ's Commandments, not being in full communion? The Arguing of the Antipaedobaptists from this Text is to this purpose, namely, All Disciples that are to be Baptized, are taught to observe all Christ's commandments; but this does not agree to Infants: therefore Infants are not Disciples that are to be Baptized. And is not the Arguing of the Reverend Author much like it? namely, All adult persons that are Disciples, do observe all Christ's Commandments: but this does not agree to such adult persons as are not in full communion: therefore adult persons that are not in full communion are not Disciples. The Conclusion in the former arguing, the Reverend Author we are confident will not own; and therefore the Conclusion in the latter, being so like to it, one answer may serve for both the Arguments; which is this, That the major Propositions in both do not universally and absolutely hold but only so far as the persons are capable; so far all Disciples that are to be Baptized, and all adult persons that are Disciples, are to observe all Christ's Commandments: but as this does not exclude Infants from being Disciples, and from being Baptized; so neither are the adult persons spoken of excluded from being Disciples, though neither the one nor the other be yet fit for observing all Christ's Commandments, in full communion, in all the Ordinances.

To the fourth Argument; They are in Church-covenant, therefore subject to Church-power (Genesis 17:7 & 18:19).

The Answer is, That they are not in covenant de jure, being adult, and not admitted into Church-communion in all Ordinances.

Ans. And yet the Text says, the Covenant of Abraham is with him, and his seed in their generations (Genesis 17:7) and this Reverend Author will not deny, but that those that are in the covenant in their Infancy, are thereby left under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church, when they shall be grown up, and that this engagement upon them is strong — To know the God of their Parents, and to serve him with a perfect heart and a willing mind (p. 44) so that if they do it not, but live in neglect or contempt of the Ordinances, or unsuitable conversation, they hereby live in the breach of that covenant, whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy, pag. 43, 44, 45. Now if this be so, it plainly appears hereby, that as they were in the Covenant in their Infancy, they are likewise so when adult; for else, how could their sins of Omission or Commission be breach of that Covenant? Can a man be guilty of breaking covenant, when he is not [illegible] but the sins of these adult persons are breach of covenant, therefore they are in the covenant: therefore that cannot stand which is here said, That these adult persons, that were in covenant in their Infancy, are not now in covenant when adult, until they be admitted into Church-communion in all Ordinances.

To the fifth Argument, namely, They are Subjects of the Kingdom of Christ, and therefore under the Laws and Government of his Kingdom (Ezekiel 37:25, 26).

The Answer is, That this Argument may be retorted against themselves, and the proofs of it, thus: The Subjects of Christ's Kingdom have full communion in all the privileges of Christ's Kingdom, but these adult persons have not so, ex confesso, therefore they are not Subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and so are not under the Laws and Government of it.

Ans. The sum is, The subjects of Christ's Kingdom have full communion in all the privileges of Christ's Kingdom: But the adult persons spoken of have not such communion: Therefore. But is this true, that all the subjects of Christ's Kingdom have full communion in all the privileges of it, even in all, and not in some only, that is, in all ordinances? What shall be said then of little children? Must they have communion in all church-privileges, and all ordinances, as the Lord's Supper, voting in elections, etc., or else be no subjects of Christ's Kingdom? It is plain, that such communion they cannot have; and yet it is as plain, that of such is the Kingdom of God, and of Christ, and therefore he would have them to be brought to him, and rebuked those that would have kept them from him (Mark 10), and therefore persons may be subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and yet not have communion in all the ordinances, or privileges of that Kingdom. And therefore the adult persons spoken of, may be subjects of Christ's Kingdom, though not yet fit for all ordinances; and yet being subjects, must be subject to such laws of that Kingdom as are suitable to their state, as infants and little children to such as are suitable to theirs. Exclude these adult persons from being under the laws and government of Christ's Kingdom, because they have not communion in all the privileges of it, and by the same reason we may exclude infants: allow infants to be subjects of Christ's Kingdom, and partakers of some privileges of it, namely, such as they are capable of, though not of all; and then why may not the like be yielded concerning the adult persons spoken of?

To the sixth Argument, the answer returned, is, That this is the same with the third, and therefore the same answer may serve for this also.

Ans. If this were so, then our defence of the third, may be a defence of this also: nevertheless, it seemeth this argument is not the same with the third, but distinct from it, the mediums in them not being the same, but distinct: for in the one, the argument is from their being disciples, or scholars, and therefore under discipline in Christ's school; but this here is from their being baptized, and that therefore they are in a state of subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christ's ministers, and to the observation of all his commandments, and that therefore they are in a state of subjection to discipline. For thus the argument stands; They that are baptized, are thereby left in a state of subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christ's ministers, and to the observation of all his commandments, and therefore in a state of subjection to discipline: But the adult persons spoken of are persons baptized: Therefore, etc. The proposition is grounded on the text (Matthew 28:19, 20), where Christ's ministers are required to baptize, and to teach the baptized to observe all his commandments. The assumption is plain of it self.

To the seventh Argument, namely, That elders must feed, that is, both teach and rule all the flock; and that children are part of the flock.

The reverend author answers, That this concerns not such grown persons as are not in full communion, for without this they are not to be accounted of the flock or church.

Ans. If this that is here said were sufficiently and clearly proved, it would be very acceptable to many elders in this country, as clearing them from a great part of the burden which they suppose themselves to be under. And when the Holy Ghost says, that they must take heed to themselves and to all the flock (Acts 20:28), and that they must watch for their souls, as they that must give account (Hebrews 13:17), to say, that these souls, and this flock, are only such as are in full communion, and infants or children in minority; and that these last mentioned, who then were of the flock, do now cease to be of it, when they become adult; and that now the elders are not charged to watch over them any longer, nor to give account of their souls, we fear this would be an undue straitening and limiting of the texts alleged, and would be no good plea before the Lord; and therefore without better proof, we dare not assent to it.

For what the Synod alleges, "That the Apostle writing to the flock or church at Ephesus, does also write to children (Ephesians 6:1), as counting them part of the flock."

We do not see that this is sufficiently taken off, by what the reverend author answers, namely, That those children were either children in their minority, or if adult, they were personally joined to the church, and so in full communion. For, let the words and scope of the text be considered, and we conceive it will appear, that this exposition of the place is too narrow; for the children there spoken of, are such as were bound to obey their parents in the Lord, this being right, and such as were under the fifth commandment; the words whereof the Apostle does there allege, Honor your father and mother, etc. Now how shall it appear, that though children in minority, and children when admitted into full communion in the church, are bound to obey their parents, and to honor father and mother, yet other children are not so bound? Is there any ground for it, that children now adult, if not in full communion in the church, are exempted from this commandment of obedience to their parents, and of honoring of them? We conceive there is none: and if there be not, then the children there spoken of, are children adult as well as others, whether in full communion or not. And if so, then these children, as well as others, are part of the flock and church of Ephesus, to whom that epistle is written, and then the whole flock being under the charge of elders to feed them (that is, both to teach and rule them) it appears thereby, that what the Synod here says, That these children are under the watch, and discipline, and government of the church, is sound and good, and so stands, for all that is here alleged to the contrary.

In answer to the eighth Argument, from the danger of irreligion and apostasy breaking into churches, and the want of any church-way to prevent and heal the same, if these children of church-members be not under church-government and discipline, and that through want hereof, many church-members would be brought under that dreadful judgment of being let alone in their wickedness (Hosea 4:16, 17).

The Reverend Author nameth sundry other means for preventing these evils; as, That no adult persons be received into personal membership, till fit for all Church-communion; and that the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, which Christ has left to bind and loose, be rightly managed toward delinquent members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion; and for others that are not thus joined to the Church, that authority in families and commonwealth be wisely and faithfully managed toward such, pag. 15, 16.

Ans. All these we acknowledge may, by the blessing of God, be much available in their way for the purpose alleged: and, Oh that there were due care and watchfulness in Churches, families, and commonwealth, for the faithful and due exercise hereof! Nevertheless, we conceive all these are not sufficient for the purpose desired.

1. Because some of them are not Church-ways at all, of which the Synod's argument speaketh; though it is not so expressed by the Reverend Author: and therefore though government in families and commonwealth were carefully used in the manner expressed, yet Church-way may be wanting for all this.

2. Those Church-ways that are mentioned, namely, care in admitting into the Church, and due managing the keys of discipline to them that are so admitted, these are not sufficient to prevent the evils spoken of; and the reason is, Because there is a great multitude of persons who were either born in the Church, or were admitted thereinto in their infancy or minority, who if they be not under Church-discipline when adult, are let alone in their wickedness, in respect of any Church-way to heal them; and by want of this Church-discipline toward these persons, irreligion and apostacy may break into the Churches, notwithstanding all Church-ways toward others, and all other ways in commonwealth and families toward these: for, Church-way for the good of these there is none, if they be not under Church-government and discipline.

As for that which is here said by the Reverend Author, That the Churches censuring of adult persons, admitted before they be qualified for communion in all ordinances, will not prevent or heal those evils, seeing the Lord blesses only his own institutions, not men's devices; and that human inventions usually cause the evils which they pretend to cure, pag. 15.

This reason may have in it self a truth; namely, that God's institutions, and not men's inventions, are the way wherein men may expect a blessing. But, if such a thing be affirmed of Church-discipline toward the persons spoken of, that such Church-discipline is a human invention, why should this be affirmed and not proved? For, as for the persons spoken of, they were not first admitted when adult, but before they were adult, even in their infancy or minority; and now being adult, and yet never cut off, or cast out from their Church-relation, if by sin they deserve Church-censure, and yet it be not applied to them, but that, in respect thereof, they be let alone, are they not then under that judgement (Hosea 4) of being let alone in their wickedness? And does not this neglect make way for irreligion and apostacy in Churches, no Church-way being used toward these for preventing thereof? For we do not see any ground to think, that the use of Church-discipline toward such is a human invention. For these particulars to us do seem plain:

1. That Church-discipline should be used toward all that are within the Church, as there may be occasion and need of it, and as in respect of understanding and age they are capable.

2. It is plain also, that the persons spoken of were once within the Church, and, as such, were baptized in their infancy; this cannot be denied, but by joining with the Antipaedobaptists, in denying the baptism and Church-membership of little children.

And lastly, it is plain also, that the persons spoken of, though now they be adult, were never yet, in any way of God, cast out, or cut off from the Church, and the relation to it which they formerly had; and many of them are far from deserving any such matter. Now though Church-government and Church-discipline toward such as were never in the Church, might be counted a human device, yet for such as were once according to order and divine institution within it, as members thereof, and never were since shut out of it, or cut off from that relation (which is the case of the persons spoken of) to say, That Church-government and Church-discipline toward such, is a human invention, we see no sufficient reason either so to say or think; but do rather conceive, that this Church-discipline is so far from being a human invention, that the neglect thereof, is a neglect of a divine institution; and that a disowning of such persons, and declaring of them to be non-members, which some speak for, if this be not a Church-censure, what is it other than a human invention and device?

So much for defence of what is said by the Synod in their third Proposition, to prove, That the children of Church-members, when grown up, are under the watch, discipline, and government of the Church.

Proposition 4. The fourth Proposition of the Synod, is, That these adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full communion, merely because they are and continue members, without such further qualifications as the word of God requireth thereunto.

By which Proposition of the Synod, there is a preventing of an usual objection from the danger of polluting the ordinances by unworthy partakers, if the children of Church-members be counted members, and to be (as such) under Church-watchfulness and government when adult; for some may think, that if this their relation to the Church be granted, there will then be danger that they will also come to the Lord's Supper before they be duly qualified for that ordinance: now the scope of this fourth Proposition is to prevent this evil; and therefore it is the more to be admired, that the Proposition should not be granted by the Reverend Author, and by all that desire the Lord's Supper may be preserved from unworthy partakers, as we do not doubt but he does. But why then is this Proposition stuck at? If it may not be granted, that these adult persons are not to be admitted to full communion without such qualifications as the word of God requireth thereunto, which is what the Synod says; must the contrary to this be granted, that they may be admitted thereunto without such qualifications at all? We suppose the Reverend Author would not grant this: and yet he does not consent to the other, but excepts against the proofs of it.

For, says he, Though this Proposition seems to them plain, yet it seems not sufficiently cleared by their Proofs: 1. From 1 Corinthians 11:28, 29. where it is required, that such as come to the Lords Supper, be able to examine themselves, and discerne the Lords body, else they will eat and drink unworthily, and eat and drink judgement to themselves, when they partake of this Ordinance: But this ability is too often seen to be wanting in the children of the covenant that grow up to years, pag. 16, 17.

To this Argument the reply of the Reverend Author is by way of Concession, and of Exception.

His Concessions are two: 1. That the want of such abilities in the children of the covenant, is indeed too often seen, through the too frequent neglect of Parents in their Education, and of Ministers and Churches in their Institution, (or Instruction) and Catechizing, and watching over them, pag. 17.

Ans. It seems then that the children of Church-members, even when they are grown up to years (for it is of such that the Synods Argument here speaketh, and so the Reverend Author does express it) are not only under the Education of Parents, but also under the Institution, Catechizing and watch of the Ministry, and of the Church; how then will that stand which was said before, pag. 10. That when they are grown up, they are not under the watch, discipline and government of the Church? For here it is granted, that they are under the watch of the Church (and if under Church-watch properly as such, then under Discipline) and that the neglect of Ministers and Churches herein, is one cause of their want of ability to examine themselves, and to discern the Lords body. Now can the neglect of Church-watchfulness be a cause of this evil, if the Lord have not appointed them to be under the same? These things seem not well to agree. Again, if the want of such abilities be too often seen in the children of the covenant when grown up, as is here acknowledged; then what the Synod here says seems to be true, and stand good, that such grown persons, though children of the covenant, or Church-members, are not therefore to be admitted to full communion: the reason is, because notwithstanding this, they may want that ability that is requisite to such full communion.

2. The second Concession here is, That Membership is separable from, yes destitute of such ability in the Infant-seed or children of the covenant, in their minority, and therefore they are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper; and that Text (namely, 1 Corinthians 11:28, 29.) proves it.

Ans. Does that Text prove that Infants, and children in minority, though members of the Church, are not yet to be admitted to the Lords Supper, because they are not able to examine themselves and to discerne the Lords body; and does it not also prove the same concerning children when adult, if this disability be found in them also? Sure Infants and Children in minority, are not expresly mentioned in the Text, no more then Children when adult or grown up; and if the Logicians rule be good which says à quatenus ad omne valet conjequentiâ, then if infants and children in minority must not be admitted to full communion, because of their want of the ability spoken of; it will follow, if the like inability be found in the adult, that these also must not be admitted, and that for the like Reason. And if that Text 1 Corinthians 11. be sufficient to prove the one, it is sufficient for proof of the other also; and so this Argument of the Synod stands good.

The Exception he added, is, That yet it may not be granted, that when they are grown up to years, they are, and continue Members regularly, being through want of that ability not fit for Church-communion, (that is, for full communion.)

Ans. If it may not be granted that they continue Members, why should not something be produced to prove the contrary? Why should such a thing be barely affirmed, and not proved? It is sure they were once Members, and, as such, were Baptized; and it is clear, that though now they be adult, or grown up, yet they were never, in any way of God, cut off, or cast out from their Membership: and therefore we think it more rational to say, that they still continue to be Members, then to say that they do not; and this without alledging any proof at all.

As for that which here followeth, That if persons being unbaptized should desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism, they must hold forth faith in Christ wrought in their hearts, before they may be baptized, as Philip required the Eunuch (Acts 8). So, by parity of Reason, from baptized in infancy, being grown up to years, desires to be joyned to the Church, he must hold forth his personall faith in the Son [illegible] God, &c.

The Answer is, That there is not, as is said, parity of Reason between the cases alledged, but great disparity: for, in the one case the persons spoken of are unbaptized; in the other, baptized already: in the one case, the persons desire to have the Covenant and their Church-membership sealed by Baptism; and in the other case there is no such desire, the persons having had the Covenant, and their Membership sealed by Baptism already, even in their infancy or minority long since: in the one case, the persons seem as yet to be Non-members, though they do [illegible] that Priviledge; but in the other case, the persons were Church-members long ago. For, as for that term that is used concerning these [illegible] desiring to be joyned to the Church by their own personall [illegible] conceive this word of [joyning] to the Church if it be meant of their first joyning thereto, is very improper, because these persons are not now to be so joyned, but were joyned to the Church long since: Nor is the Church now to admit them to Church-membership, for they were admitted thereto long since.

The second Argument of the Synod for proof of this fourth Proposition, is From the Old Testament, where though men did continue Members of the Church, yet for ceremoniall uncleanness they were to be kept from full communion in the holy things; yes, and the Priests and Porters had speciall charge that men should not partake in all the holy things, unless duely qualified for the same, notwithstanding their Membership, &c.

To this the Reverend Author Answereth, 1. That the invalidity of Proofes from the Old Testament, being applyed to Gospel-Ordinances, and so this of Baptism under the New Testament, in things whereof there is not the like reason, has been declared in the fourth, sixth, and eighth Positions, with which this proof does not agree.

Ans. To this we Answer, 1. That there is validity, and much weight in proofs from the Old Testament, for confirming and clearing things under the New: for even those Scriptures were written for our learning (Romans 15:4), and Christ himself bids us search them, as those which did testify of him (John 5:39), and brings many proofs out of those Scriptures for confirming and clearing things under the Gospel (Luke 24:44, 45, 46 & 16:29, 31), and so do the Apostles likewise, even in main & fundamental matters (Acts 17:2, 3 & 28:23), and so from the maintenance of the ministry that was under the Old Testament, to the maintenance of the ministry now (1 Corinthians 9:13), from their sacraments to ours; and from the danger of unworthy receiving those, to the danger of unworthy receiving ours (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2 &c.). By which, and much more that might be added, it is plain, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament have much validity in them, for confirming and clearing truths in New Testament-times.

2. The Reverend Author does acknowledge, as was noted before, that the covenant of Abraham is the same for substance, now under the Gospel, as it was under the Law; and that the kingdom of God is the same to the Jews formerly, and to the Gentiles now; and that baptism of infants, under the New Testament, may be rightly proved from the circumcision of infants under the Old. Which passages do sufficiently witness, that in his judgement there is validity in proofs from the Old Testament, for things under the New.

3. It is a great weakness and mistake in sundry of the Antipoedobaptists, that they would limit the proofs for infant-baptism, and for the covenant-interest of children, to the Scriptures of the New Testament, as if the covenant of Abraham, and the circumcision of infants in the Old Testament, were of no validity for the purpose mentioned. And it is not comfortable that the Reverend Author should so often harp upon this string, and so often mention this matter of the invalidity of Old Testament-Scriptures for proof of matters in Gospel times; as if he did concur with them, in their tenet against Poedobaptism, which he frequently professeth against, albeit in this, his language seems but too like theirs, which we could wish were otherwise.

4. For that expression of [Things whereof there is not the like reason] being a limitation, or explanation of the invalidity spoken of, let this be applyed to the case in question, and we conceive it will not weaken the argument in hand, nor shew any invalidity therein, but rather the contrary; for if ceremonial uncleanness did hinder men from full communion in the ordinances in the Old Testament, notwithstanding their membership, is there not the like reason, or rather much more, that membership alone should not suffice for full communion in these days, if moral fitness and spiritual qualifications be wanting? It seems in this case there is the like reason, or rather much more: and therefore the Synod's argument in the present case, and their proof from the Old Testament, cannot be laid aside, or refused, for any invalidity therein, through want of the like reason.

2. The Reverend Author says, if the texts alledged by the Synod were applicable to church-members in Gospel-times, yet they suit not the case in question. And why not? The reason rendred, is, "Because all men that were members of the Jewish Church, had full communion in all legal ordinances, even they that were ceremonially unclean had so before their uncleanness, and after they were healed of their uncleanness, as well as others. So then the unsuitableness is, that ceremonial uncleanness, did debar men from full communion, though they had been partakers of it afore, and might be again after their cleansing: whereas the case in question is of such as yet never had such full communion. But what weight is there in this, to weaken the Synod's argument? If ceremonial uncleanness did then hinder men from full communion, who had formerly had it, is there not as much reason that want of spiritual qualifications should now hinder men from such full communion, who yet have never had it? One would think such a matter as would suffice for the debarring of one from full communion, who had formerly enjoyed it, might suffice for hindring one from such communion who never yet was partaker thereof. And if the priests and porters in Israel had charge, that men should not partake of all the holy things, unless duely qualified for the same, notwithstanding their membership in full communion with the Church (for so the Reverend Author, p. 19. understands that place in 2 Chronicles 23:19), does it not much more follow, that such as yet never had such full communion may justly be kept therefrom, until duely qualified, notwithstanding their membership? For ought we see, this consequence is strong and undeniable, and so the Synod's argument in this place from the Old Testament is not at all overthrown, but rather more strengthned.

As for what the Reverend Author says, pag. 18, 9. to the particular texts here alledged, namely Leviticus 7:20, 21; Numbers 9:6, 7 & 19:13, 20; Ezekiel 44:7, 8, 9, which he understands to signifie and teach, that in Gospel-times men should be removed out of church-communion by excommunication, if they were scandalous and impenitent sinners; and that such scandalous persons, such as were visibly uncircumcised in heart, and spiritually unclean, should not be admitted into the Church: we shall not insist upon these particulars, for it is our desire that no unworthy persons may be admitted into the Church, nor suffered to continue therein.

Only before we leave this second argument, it may be observed, that whereas the Synod had said, more was required to adult persons eating the Passover, than mere membership; therefore so there is now to the Lord's Supper.

The Reverend Author answers, it is true, more than that membership which they had in infancy or minority, was required in adult persons to eat the Passover: for first, when they became adult, they were to covenant solemnly with the Lord and his people in their own persons, whereunto heart-fitness was necessary, that their persons and services might be accepted of God— Secondly, this heart-fitness was also to be exercised when they were to eat the Passover, p. 19, 20.

Wherein there is a consent to what the Synod had said, about more than membership to be requisite to the eating of the Passover. And if this ground of the Synod be true and good, is not their inference from it good also, namely, that more than membership is also requisite to the receiving of the Lord's Supper?

The third Argument of the Synod for confirming this fourth Proposition, is taken from the different nature of Baptism and the Lords Supper; the former firstly and properly sealing covenant-holiness, church-membership, and planting into Christ, and so members as such are the subjects of that Ordinance: but the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of growth in Christ, and of special communion with him, and so supposes a special renewing of faith and repentance in them that partake of that Ordinance.

The Reverend Author making answer to this, says nothing at all touching the different nature of these two Ordinances, on which this Argument of the Synod is built; and so Baptism may be for all church-members as such, and the Lords Supper not for all, but only for some, for anything that the Reverend Author says to the contrary. For, as for the different nature of these two Ordinances, he says nothing thereto at all: but his Answer is about the communion that is inferred from church-membership, namely, that the membership of children in minority infers church-communion, so far as they are capable — and so they are to be baptized; but the church-membership of adult persons infers communion in all Ordinances, and particularly in the Lords Supper.

Which Answer, as it meddles not with the different nature of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, from which the Synod argues; so it is an Answer which being considered in itself, is nothing but a petitio principii, or a begging of the question, affirming that which is the thing to be proved: for, the Synods Proposition is, that these adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full communion, merely because they are and continue Members — and they give three Arguments for this. Now the Reverend Author in Answer to the third of those Arguments, says, as here we see, that the membership of adult persons, infers communion in all Ordinances, the Lords Supper, etc. The Synod says in effect, this membership alone does not infer full communion; and the Answer here given, is an affirming of the contrary, namely, that it does infer it; which Answer cannot go for a sufficient overthrow of the Synods Proposition, unless we shall say, that a mere affirming of the contrary, is sufficient for that purpose. But if a contrary affirmation, be a sufficient confutation, it were easy in that way to confute the things that are most strongly proved.

For a conclusion of this fourth Proposition, and the Arguments for it, the Synod does infer, that if persons when adult may be, and continue Members, and yet be debarred from the Lords Supper, until meet qualifications for the same be found in them, then may they also (until like qualifications) be debarred from that power of voting in the Church, which pertains to males in full communion: — for how can they who are not able to examine and judge themselves, be thought able and fit to discern and judge in the weighty affairs of the House of God?

Now what says the Reverend Author to this? One thing he says, is this, that church-membership in adult persons, infers communion in all Ordinances, in the Lords Supper, and in voting, and in censures; which is nothing but an affirmation of the contrary to the Synods Proposition, which they had confirmed by Arguments, and of their inference therefrom: but until their Arguments be taken away, their Proposition, and their Inference from it, stands good: and therefore this affirmation of the contrary may not be admitted.

Another thing the Reverend Author here says, is this, that no adult person may be received into mere membership regularly, until he be qualified fitly for other Ordinances, and for voting, and judging in church-affairs.

Where, if by receiving such into membership be meant, that they were not members before now, when they are adult, but are now first received into that estate; then the Answer is, that the adult persons spoken of are not now first received into membership, but have been in that estate long since, even from their infancy or minority, and therefore they cannot properly be said to be now received into membership: but if hereby be meant, that they cannot regularly be acknowledged to be members, until they be fitly qualified for all Ordinances; for voting, and for judging in censures, then this is but the same which we had before, even an affirmation contrary to what the Synod had said. But till the Synods Proposition, with their Arguments for [illegible], and their Inference from it, be removed, the Reader may judge what is to be thought of a mere affirmation to the contrary.

So much for defence of the Synods fourth Proposition.

Propos. 5. For the fifth Proposition, namely, church-members who were admitted in minority, understanding the doctrine of faith, and publicly professing their assent thereto; not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the government of Christ in the Church, their children are to be baptized.

The first Argument of the Synod for confirming this Proposition, is; because the children here spoken of are partakers of that which is the main ground of baptizing any children whatever, and neither the parents nor the children do put in any bar to hinder it. Of which the former branch is proved; because interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Baptism, and this these children have; and that interest in the Covenant is the ground of baptizing any, the Synod proves; because in the Old Testament this was the ground of title to Circumcision (Genesis 17:7, 9, 10, 11), to which Baptism now answers (Colossians 2:11, 12), and because in Acts 2:38–39 they are [illegible] ground exhorted to be baptized, because the Promise (that is, the Covenant) was to them and to their children.

Now what says the Reverend Author to these Proofs? Truly nothing at all that does appear; and therefore the Argument and Proofs of it, stand good for ought that is here said to the contrary. And indeed, how can it be otherwise? Sith nothing is more plain, then that the Covenant was the ground of Circumcision; and that they in (Acts 2) are therefore exhorted to be baptized: I will establish my Covenant, says God (Genesis 17), between me and you, and your seed after you — You shall therefore keep my Covenant: and this is my Covenant which you shall keep, Every male among you shall be circumcised: and says Peter, Repent, and be baptized therefore, or on what ground must they be so? Because (says he) the Promise [illegible] to your children: whereby it is undeniably plain, that the Covenant was the ground of Title to Circumcision, and is now of Title to Baptism. Nor can this be denied by the Reverend Author, because he plainly yields in Position fifth and sixth premised, That the Covenant of Abraham was the same in substance under the Law, and [illegible] the Gospel; and that Baptism has come in the place of Circumcision, and therefore Infants of Confederates are now to be baptized, as they were circumcised, they both being outward Seals of the same Covenant in substance, pag. 3, 4. So that in his judgement, Title to Circumcision then was, and to Baptism now is, rightly inferred from interest in the Covenant: which is the very thing here affirmed by the Synod. What then does the Reverend Author here say? Why, that which he says, is this, That men must be duely qualified before they may be admitted to covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and their children — and, that the Primitive Churches looked for this qualification in the [illegible] admitted into Church-membership — which does not at all enervate what the Synod here says. For, suppose men must be duely qualified before they be admitted to Covenant and Membership, does this prove, that interest in the Covenant is not the ground of Title to the Seal? It seems not to prove it at all; and the reason is, Because this speaks not to the thing in question, but to another point. For, whether interest in the Covenant do prove right to the Seal, is one thing; and how men should be qualified afore they be admitted to Covenant, is another; and the former being that which is here affirmed by the Synod, it cannot be overthrown by what the Reverend Author affirmeth concerning the latter, except we shall say, that a thing may be sufficiently confuted by speaking to another point, when one does not speak ad idem. Whether the Parents of the children here spoken of, be duely qualified for Covenant, and to Membership, is not the thing here in question, nor spoken of by the Synod; but here is the thing they affirm, that Interest in the Covenant gives Title to Baptism. Besides, suppose the qualifications here mentioned by the Reverend Author, of being "Saints, Sanctified, and Faithful in Christ Jesus, and the rest, suppose these be requisite in men that are to be admitted to Covenant and Membership, yet this concerns not the Parents of the children here spoken of, because they are not now to be admitted into the Covenant and Church membership, but are therein already, and have been long afore now, even from their minority or birth; and therefore this also is another reason, why that which is here spoken by the Reverend Author is beside the question.

Further, whereas the Synod here addeth, That a Member, or one in Covenant as such, is the Subject of Baptism, was further cleared in Propos. 1.

The Reverend Author answereth, That the light which that Proposition holdeth forth for clearing this, is in one clause, which is here omitted, namely, [According to Scripture] They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church, are the Subjects of Baptism.

Ans. Then let that clause be here added, which was there expressed by the Synod in that first Proposition: if then the Reverend Author do consent thereto, as it may seem by his manner of alledging it, that he does; then what the Synod here affirmeth, is gained, namely, That interest in the Covenant is the ground of Title to Baptism: and indeed the Synod gave five Arguments for clearing of that first Proposition, which the Reverend Author does not there meddle withall, much less remove; and therefore they still stand in force.

Only it may be observed, that whereas here he seems to consent to the Proposition, if that term [according to Scripture] be added, yet when he spake to that first Proposition, he consented not thereto, unless this term [according to Scripture] might be changed into this [according to Christs Ordinance] otherwise he could not then concur with that Proposition, and this term in it, though now it seems he does: But whether it be expressed the one way or the other, with the term of [Members according to Scripture] or [according to Christs Ordinance,] if it be granted that such Members are the subjects of Baptism, then the Doctrine of the Synod in this point is granted. As for what is here said to that Proposition, if this term [according to Scripture] be not omitted, but taken in, namely, That according to Scripture, the Covenant was differently administred in different times of the Church; which different manner of administration is here, pag. 22. and in the tenth Position, which is here cited, said to be this in sum, That the Church was once in Families, or domestical; under Moses, National; and under Christ, Congregational.

Ans. What if all this were granted? Is there any thing in this (for we would willingly keep to the Question) to overthrow the Synod's first Proposition, or their saying that is here under debate, namely, That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of title to Baptism? It seems nothing at all. For, if according to Scripture there have been different administrations of the Covenant in different times, and that the Church was heretofore Domestical, afterward National, and now Congregational; all this may be granted, and yet it may be a Truth that is here said, That Interest in the Covenant is the main ground of Title to Baptism.

That these Children are in Covenant, the Synod says, appears;

1. Because if the Parent be in Covenant, the Child is so also: but the Parents in question are in Covenant.

To this the Reverend Author Answereth, That if this being in Covenant, be understood of being in it according to Gospel-rules, and that the Children's being in Covenant, be understood of Infant Children, or Children in minority, then the Proposition is true, or else it must be denied.

Ans. Concerning the one of these particulars, namely of being in Covenant according to Gospel-rules, it may be granted that it is so to be understood, and that it is not to be imagined, that the Synod meant it any otherwise. But for the other particular, that the children in Covenant are only infants or children in minority, this is a limitation that needs further consideration, and will be spoken to afterward.

Whereas the Synod, to prove the parents in question to be in Covenant, alleges, that they were once in Covenant, and never since discovenanted; the former, because else they had not warrantably been Baptized; and the latter, because they have not in any way of God been discovenanted, cast out, or cut off from their Covenant-relation.

The Reverend Author in his answer hereunto, says, that they are discovenanted, by not performing that whereunto they were engaged by the Covenant — for which he alleges (Romans 2:25).

Ans. 1. It seems then the Covenant does not only reach to children during their minority, but also when they are become adult; for else how could they when adult, be faulty in not performing that whereunto the Covenant engages? Can men be faulty for not performing Covenant-engagements, when they are not comprehended in the Covenant? This seems not possible: therefore here seems to be a concession that the Covenant reaches further than to infancy or minority, and that they who were in Covenant in their infancy by means of their parents covenanting for them, are also in that Covenant when they are become adult.

2. Nor is it clear, that men's not performing what the Covenant requires of them, does forthwith discovenant them, if by being discovenanted, be meant their not being in that Church-relation in which they were before, for God is wont to be patient, and long-suffering toward them that are in Covenant with him, and to bear with them long afore he give them a bill of divorce, as it is said in Nehemiah 9:30. Many years did you forbear them; and therefore it may seem more rigour than the Word allows, to think or say, that such as were in covenant with God in their infancy or minority, are forthwith fallen out of that estate, if they do not, as soon as ever they become adult, perform what that Covenant requires. The long-suffering of God will not allow us so to judge, unless we had more clear warrant for such judgement: nor does the text alleged, namely Romans 2:25, prove any such thing; but when it is there said, Your circumcision is made uncircumcision, the meaning is it shall not profit you at all in such a state, as to eternal benefit: and so Baptism may be said in such case to be no Baptism; and Covenant, and Church-relation, to be no Covenant, no Church-relation, that is not to yield any such profit in that estate. But yet if such should afterward be brought to repentance and new-obedience, would any say, that now such persons must be circumcised again, or baptized again, as if the former, in respect of the external act, were become null? We suppose this could not be said justly, though in respect of any profit to their souls, their circumcision and Baptism in their former estate was as none: and so we may say their Covenant and Church-relation is as none, in respect of any spiritual saving benefit to their souls, if they perform not what the Covenant binds them to; and yet it can no more be said, that in respect of their Church-relation, and external visible state, they are not in the Church, or not in the Covenant, than in the other particulars it can be said, that they are not circumcised, or not baptized. It is one thing to be in the Covenant, and in the Church, in respect of external state, and another thing to enjoy all the spiritual and eternal benefits of such a relation; and though this latter be the portion of none but such as come to be truly regenerate, yet the other is, and so continues, the right of all that have once had it, until in some way of God they be cut off from it, and so deprived thereof.

The Synod having said, that persons once in Covenant are not broken off from it, according to Scripture, save for notorious sins, and incorrigibleness therein, which is not the case of these parents.

The Reverend Author answers, that if they break off themselves, by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority, they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and privileges of the Covenant, and in such case are to be looked at like those in (1 John 2:19).

Ans. If by Breaking off themselves, were meant no more, but that they do this meritoriously, that is, that by their sin they deserve to be broken off, then it may be granted, that in this sense persons may (though not that these do) break off themselves from their covenant-relation; and so also may persons that have been in full communion, even these by their sins may thus break off themselves, in which sense it is said (Hosea 13:9), O Israel, you have destroyed your self, that is, that their sins were the procuring or meritorious cause of their destruction. But if hereby be meant, that the persons spoken of do break off themselves from their church-relation not only meritoriously, but actually and really, then it may be justly questioned, whether church-members can thus break off themselves. Sure Israel did not thus destroy themselves, because all judgement and punishment is from the Lord, whose work it is to kill, and make alive, to wound, and to heal, to create peace and evil; so that there is no evil in the city, but the Lord does it, even the Lord does all these things (Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6). And therefore, if breaking off from church-estate, be an evil of punishment, men cannot in this sense break off themselves without God. Besides, men cannot of themselves alone bring in themselves into the Church, but there is requisite the consent of the Church thereto; and therefore if they cannot, of themselves alone, bring in themselves into the Church, how is it credible that of themselves alone they should break themselves off from the Church? One would think, that such as cannot of themselves alone open the door for their entrance into the Church, should no more be able to open it for their going out. And further, it seems not rational, that delinquents in the Church should have it in their power, whether they will be censured with church-censure, or no; and yet it must be so, if men that have been church-members may un-member themselves at their pleasure: for sure it is, church censures cannot be dispensed to any, but to such as are within the Church (1 Corinthians 5:12). If therefore a church-member, suppose one that has been in full communion, shall commit the most enormous and scandalous wickedness that can be named; yet if men may break off themselves from church-relation at their pleasure, such an one may have it in his choice whether he will be censured, or no: for, if he can but say, I am no member of your Church, nor will be, but do forsake the church-relation in which I was, it shall then be in the power of such a notorious delinquent to bind the churches hands from censuring him, and so make the rule of Christ to be of none effect, which says, Deliver such a man to Satan (1 Corinthians 5), which makes it very improbable, that men can of themselves break off themselves from the covenant and church-relation. As for them in 1 John 2:19, of whom it is said, They went out from us, but they were not of us, &c. why may not this going out be understood of a local departure, or of a departing from the company, and communion of the saints, and such duties and acts of love as that church-relation requireth, rather than of a going out from the relation it self? It is plain, men may of themselves (if they have no more grace) neglect the duties which their nearest relations require, and depart from them in respect of place and duties; as David and Job were thus forsaken by their kindred, brethren, and mothers children, &c. (Psalm 38:11; Psalm 69:8; Job 19:13, 14). But does this prove, that those brethren and mothers children, who thus neglected the duties which their relation required, were now no longer in the relation at all? Were these brethren and mothers children, now become mothers children no longer, nor brethren any longer, because now they were gone from the duties which they should have performed? This does not follow at all: how then does it follow, that those who went out from the saints in respect of place and performance of duties, were thereby gone out from their church-relation? They might by this departure of theirs deserve to be cut off by church-censure from their church-estate; but that by this their departing they did cut off, or break off themselves from their church-estate, any otherwise than meritoriously, does not appear.

The Synod having said, That the parents in question are in covenant, because the tenor of the covenant is to the faithful and their seed after them in their generations (Genesis 17:7).

The Reverend Author in his answer hereto, pag. 24. says, That the sealing of this covenant to the posterity of Isaac and Jacob by circumcision, was to continue throughout their generations, till the coming of Christ; and that the covenant is for the substance the same to us as it was to them, it being established by the blood of Christ (Luke 1:69, 72, 73; Hebrews 13:20).

Ans. Here is then a consent to the Synod's argument, and the proof of it: for, if the covenant be for substance the same to us as it was to them, and was then to the faithful and their seed in their generations; does it not then follow, that these parents being the seed of the faithful, are hereby proved to be in the covenant? This seems a plain granting of the Synod's saying, and of their proof of it.

Whereas the Synod said, That the parents in question are keepers of the covenant, because they are not forsakers, and rejecters of the God, and covenant of their fathers; and alleged for this (Deuteronomy 29:25, 26; 2 Kings 17:15–20; 2 Chronicles 7:22; Deuteronomy 7:10).

The Reverend Author answers, That keepers of the covenant, the parents in question are not; for though they are not such forsakers, and rejecters of it, as they who are spoken of in the texts alleged; yet besides that gross idolatry, there is a spiritual idolatry in scandalous covetousness (Colossians 3:5), worldly-mindedness, whereby men forsake and reject God and his covenant to serve the world — and such may they be who answer all the terms of their fifth proposition, externally and visibly.

Ans. Now herein is a marvellous thing, and not easie to be understood; for the Proposition says expresly, that the persons spoken of are not scandalous in life; and the Answer is, That men may Answer that, and all the other terms of the Proposition externally, and visibly, and yet be guilty of scandalous covetousness; and worldly-mindedness. Now that men may be not scandalous in life, and yet guilty of scandalous covetousness; guilty of scandalous covetousness and worldly-mindedness, and yet not scandalous in life; these things seem contradictory and inconsistent, C[•]piat qui capere porest. It seems to us more rational to think and say, That though it be possible for men to be not scandalous in life, and yet to be guilty of worldly-mindedness, and other secret sins, and heart-wickedness; yet if they answer this and all the terms of the Proposition, it seems not improbable but they may be truely godly, and sincere, sith they are not only not scandalous in life, but do give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church; and all this not ignorantly, but with understanding; not slightingly, but solemnly and publickly before the Church: for, does not all this make their sincerity hopeful? We conceive it may. But that they should do all this, and in such manner as is said, and yet for all this to be so far from probability of grace, as to be forsakers and rejecters of God and his covenant, to serve the world, and this not onely secretly, and in heart, but so outwardly, and visibly, as to be scandalous therein; how this can be, we must confess we do not understand.

To that of the Synod, where they say, That the parents in question do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism: and that this is plain from the words of the Proposition, where they are described to be such as understand the doctrine of faith, &c.

The Reverend Author in his Answer, says That notwithstanding this, the parents may put in a barre to hinder their children from Baptism, because a man may do and be all that is required in that Proposition, and yet have no faith in Christ, but be an unregenerate person—

Ans. It is one thing what a man may do, and yet be an unregenerate person really and in the sight of God, who knoweth the heart; and another thing to be visibly so in the view of men, and in their rationall judgement. For it is granted, that a man may be and do outwardly and visibly all that the Proposition mentioneth, yea and all that can be named further, and yet be really, and in the sight of God, an unregenerate person; but yet this needs not to hinder his childe from Baptism before the Church: for such was the case of Iudas, Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, and others, who had a name to live, and yet were dead (Revelation 3:1), and yet for all this deadness and unregeneracy of theirs, the Church did warrantably admit them and theirs to Baptism, because visibly, and for ought that the Church could discern, they were regenerate, sith De occultis non judicat Ecclesia. But that a man may do, and be all that the Proposition mentioneth, and yet be unregenerate, and without faith, not onely in the sight of God, but also visibly, and to the Churches judgement; this seems not very probable. Even one of the particulars which the Proposition mentioneth, namely that of [Giving up themselves to the Lord] is spoken of by the Apostle, as a token of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1, 5). And when the Synod mentioneth not onely this particular but five or six others in the Proposition, must we for all this say, That men may do this, and all that is mentioned in that Proposition, and yet have no grace of God bestowed on them, but be, even quoad nos, without all faith in Christ, and in an unregenerate estate, and so put in a barre to hinder the Baptism of their children? We cannot but fear such judgement is more rigorous then Charity will allow; for the Scripture tells us, that the tree is known by its fruit (Matthew 12 & 7), and, that even a childe is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right (Proverbs 20:11), and therefore when there are so many things for the parents in question, as are mentioned in the Proposition, and nothing appearing to the contrary, we think such parents, having been members of the Church in their minority, may justly be looked at as those who do not put in any barre to hinder their children from Baptism.

The Reverend Author further says, pag. 25. Though these parents are not scandalous in life, but solemnly own the covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church, yet all these may be affirmed of many who have a form of godliness, and deny the power thereof: from such Paul warned Timothy to turn away (2 Timothy 3:5).

Ans. But is it credible, that those in 2 Tim. 3. could answer all that is said in this Proposition? Were they not scandalous in life, but did give up themselves to the Lord, and subject themselves to the government of Christ in his Church? What then means the many scandalous sins mentioned ver. 2, 3, 4. and what was this denying the power of godliness that is charged upon them? It is most like it was such a denying as that in Tit. 1:16. where they are said to profess to know God, but by works to deny him, being abominable, disobedient, and to every good work reprobate; and if so, then they were far from answering what is said of these parents: for, these parents are not scandalous in life; but those the Apostle speaks of are scandalous, and abominable for wickedness: these parents are commendable for sundry good things in them, and good duties done by them; whereas those the Apostle speaks of are not so, but disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. And when the Apostle bids Timothy, turn away from such; does not this simply that they were scandalous persons, and apparently wicked? It is not likely that the Apostle would else have commanded to turn from them, sith he himself did so lovingly converse with so many sorts of men, that he might gain them to the Lord (1 Cor. 9:19, 20, &c.) and gives commandment to receive the weak (Romans 14:1) and to instruct with meekness such as oppose themselves, if God peradventure may give them repentance, &c. (2 Tim. 2:25) which things do strongly argue, that those whom he commands in 2 Tim. 3. to turn away from, were not such as are described in the Proposition, but far worse, being apparently and grosly wicked. For otherwise, how could the Apostle in commanding to turn away from them, be cleared from direct contradicting both his own doctrine and his own practice? But let those in 2 Tim. 3. whom he commands to turn away from, be understood of persons grosly vicious and scandalous, and then the appearance of contradiction is easily cleared, and so the parents in question cleared from being such persons, as must be turned away from.

So much for defence of the first Argument.

But before the Reverend Author proceed to the next, he is something large in suggesting, that the Elders do admit persons into membership, who are not qualified according to what is said in this Proposition, so that if their doctrine in this matter were right, yet it is here pag. 25, 26. frequently intimated that their practice is otherwise. For, says he, they cannot prove that all adult persons whom they admit into personal and immediate membership, are such as the Proposition describeth: For, I demand, do they all understand the doctrine of faith? What course do they take to know it? Are all the adult persons, whom they admit into membership, such as the Proposition describes? Do they take a right course to know they are such? That they are not scandalous in life, &c.

Ans. The Proposition speaks of such as were admitted in minority, and therefore what is done towards these when they are adult, is not fitly called admitting into membership. For, as Mr. Cotton says, It is one thing to enter into the Church, (for that agreeth to such as were sometime without) another thing to speak of the infants of believers, who were never out of the Church, and so cannot be said to enter into it. Grounds and Ends, &c. pag. 132, 133. and therefore it is a mistake to say or think of such Elders, as concurred with the Synod, that what is done by them towards the children of Church-members, being now adult, is an admitting of them into membership, for this those children had afore they were adult, and therefore they are not now admitted into it.

But to leave this: Why should the Reverend Author suggest such a thing into the minds of his readers, that the Elders in their practice do differ from their doctrine, and teach one thing in the Synod, and in their practice do contrary? Were it not more suitable to love (which thinks not evil (1 Cor. 13) nor receives a reproach against one's neighbor (Psal. 15)) to endeavour to bring such Elders, as are thus faulty (if indeed there be any) to repentance for their sailing therein, rather than to give occasion of mis-apprehensions against them, by writing thus of them? It may well be called misapprehension; for there are few of the Elders, in comparison, that have yet put the children of Church-members to a public owning of the covenant, afore the time of their admission to full communion: and for those few that have done it, as this was not an admitting of them into membership, for that they had before; so it would be hard to prove, that when this was done, that their infants might be baptized, which is the case the Synod speaks of; it would be hard (we say) to prove that the parents, who so did, were not qualified according as the fifth Proposition describeth. And therefore to give occasion of other thoughts, not only against some few of the Elders, but even of all, for what is here intimated, is not of some only, but of all alike without difference; what may be thought of this, we leave to the further consideration of the Reverend Author.

To the second Argument of the Synod, that the children of the parents in question, are either children of the Covenant, or strangers from the Covenant; either holy, or unclean; either within the Church, or without; either such as have God for their God, or are without God in the world: but he that considers the Proposition, will not affirm the latter concerning these children; and the former being granted, infers their right to Baptism.

To this the Reverend Author answers, that the more he considers the Proposition, the less he finds in it to evince the former, and the more to conclude the latter.

Ans. Now the latter is, that the children of the parents in question, are strangers from the Covenant, not holy, but unclean, and without the Church, and such as are without God in the world: and if the Reverend Author find so much to conclude thus of the children of Church-members, which members understand the doctrine of faith, and publicly assent thereto; are not scandalous in life, but thus and further qualified, as in the Proposition is expressed: if he find much to conclude thus of these children, if he be had expressed any part thereof, it might have been taken into consideration; but nothing being expressed, how can it? A mere contrary affirmation, how can it go for a sufficient confutation?

As for that which he addeth, That if a man have no more than the Proposition holds forth, he may be a stranger from the Covenant, unclean, and without the Church, &c. Is not this spoken of grown persons, and therefore how is the Synod's Argument hereby touched, which speaketh of little children? Nor is it easily proved, that a grown person, who was admitted in minority, and is now qualified as the Proposition expresseth, that such a grown person is now a stranger from the Covenant, and without the Church, and without God in the world, and this in respect of his external state, or being in the Church-visible; we see not that this is proved at all. For, as for Romans 9:6, 7, 8. which is here alledged, They are not all Israel, which are of Israel, &c. the Text may prove, that they are not all elected of God, or sincere Believers, who in regard of external relation are Members of the visible Church; and this will be easily granted: but for Membership in the Church-visible, of which is our question, that text has nothing in it at all to prove, That men who were members of this Church in their minority, being now qualified as the Synod expresseth, that these are now without such Membership and external state; this is not proved at all by this Text. For, if we shall so say, we shall make the Apostle to contradict himself; for, of these very persons and people, of whom he says, They are not all Israel, not all children, not all the children of God, &c. of these very persons and people he said, ver. 4. that they are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises; that is, they were God's adopted children in regard of external Covenant, and were Members of the Church-visible, and yet these were not all Israel, that is, they were not all God's Israel by election and spiritual regeneration. Thus the Apostle's words are easily reconciled. But how shall they be reconciled, if the latter, as well as the former, be meant of the Church-visible? Can they be Israelites, and not Israel, in the same respect? Can they in respect of external state be partakers of Adoption, God's Covenant and Promises, &c. and so be Church-members, and yet in regard of the same estate, be no Church-members at all, nor in the Church-covenant at all? It is not easy to conceive how this can be; and therefore the words in Romans 9:6, 7, 8. are not fitly applied to prove that men, who were Church-members in their minority, may be qualified as the fifth Proposition expresseth, and yet now be strangers from the Covenant, and without the Church, in respect of their visible and external state.

Whereas the Synod for a third Argument, says, That to deny this Proposition, would be 1. To straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation, and to make the Church in New-Testament-times, in worse case, relating to their children successively, than were the Jews of old. 2. To render the Jews, when they shall be called, in a worse condition than under the Legal administration: contrary to Jeremiah 30:20. Ezekiel 37:25, 26. 3. To deny the application of the initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant, to whom the Mosaical dispensation, yes the first Institution appointed it to be applied Genesis 17:9, 10. John 7:22, 23. 4. To break the Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenant (Genesis 17:9, 10, 14).

To this the Reverend Author answereth, That the contrary to all and every one of these is true: for, 1. It enlargeth the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation, by shewing that Christian Churches are in a more spiritual and gracious frame than the Jews of old were, under Legal dispensation, &c.

Ans. Suppose that Christian Churches be in a more spiritual and gracious frame than were the Jews under the Legal dispensation, yet if then such Parents as the Proposition describes, might have the initiatory Seal applied to their Infants, and now may not; how can it be denied but that now the Christian Churches are in a worse case, relating to their children successively, than the Church of the Jews was? For then such Parents might have their children circumcised, but now they may not have them baptized, if this Proposition be denied. And though the grace of Christ may be now enlarged in other respects, yet in respect of children it is not enlarged, but straitened, by denying this Proposition: except we shall say, that for Parents to have the Seal of the Covenant applied to them and their children, is no testimony of Gospel-grace at all, which cannot be said truly; and therefore the Synod's Argument in this particular stands good.

2. Says the Reverend Author, It declareth that the state of the Jews, when they shall be called, will be far better than it was under Legal dispensations — for under the Law their light and holiness was defective — but when they shall be called, they shall have a far greater measure of light and holiness than was to be found in former ages —

Ans. Suppose this be granted, the question is not about their holiness and [illegible], but about their children, of whom it is evident, that if the Parents were qualified as this Proposition expresseth, those children might then be circumcised: and the Texts alledged, namely [illegible] 30:20. Ezekiel 37:25, 26. do shew, that when they shall be called, their children shall be in as good estate as formerly: but how can this be, if the Parents may be qualified as is expressed, and yet may not have their children baptized? Is not this a rendering of them, in respect of their children, in a worse condition than formerly?

For the third Particular, the Reverend Author answereth, That the denial of the Proposition does not deny (in sum) what the Synod says it does, but the contrary.

Ans. In what the Synod here says, there are three Particulars contained or included: 1. That the Mosaical dispensation, and first Institution of the initiatory Seal, did appoint that Seal to be applied to such as stood regularly in the Church and Covenant. 2. That the children in question do regularly stand in the Church and Covenant. 3. That the denial of the Proposition, does deny the application of the Seal to such as the Mosaical dispensation appointed it to be applied to. Of these Particulars, the first cannot be denied; for it is undeniably proved by the Texts alledged, namely Genesis 17:9, 10. John 7:22, 23. and the third Particular is plain of it self: all the doubt therefore must be about the second, namely whether the children in question do regularly stand in the Church and Covenant: but for this the Synod has given divers Proofs in their first and second Arguments; which Proofs we do not see taken off by what the Reverend Author has said thereto.

The fourth Particular is answered by a plain denial of what there the Synod affirms, namely, that to deny the Proposition does not break God's Covenant, by denying the initiatory seal to those that are in Covenant.

Yet nothing can be more plain, than that denying Circumcision to them that were in the Covenant, was a breaking of God's Covenant; for it is expressly so called (Genesis 17:9, 10, 14). If therefore the children spoken of be in the Covenant, how can the denial of Baptism to them be any other than is said? And that they are in the Covenant, the Synod gave sundry proofs in their first and second Arguments.

So much for defence of the third Argument.

The fourth Argument of the Synod for confirming this fifth Proposition, is this: Confederate visible Believers, though but in the lowest degree such, are to have their children baptized: But the Parents in question are such, at least in some degree. For, 1. Charity may observe in them sundry positive arguments for it, witness the terms of the Proposition, and nothing evident against it.

To this the Reverend Author answers, by denying the minor in the Argument, and affirming the contrary to the first reason here mentioned; namely, that all that is said in the Proposition, is no sufficient ground for Charity to account these Parents to be Believers in the least degree.

But if there be sundry positive arguments for Charity thus to judge of them, and nothing evident to the contrary, as the Synod argues; why then should we judge otherwise of them? When such church-members, as were admitted in their minority, do understand the doctrine of Faith, and publicly assent thereto, are not scandalous in life, but do solemnly own the Covenant, wherein they give up themselves to the Lord, &c. is all this nothing for Charity to go upon in accounting them Believers? No, not in the least degree? We conceive Charity wants sufficient ground to judge otherwise. See more in defence of the first Argument.

But, says the Reverend Author, Let them show how faith was wrought, and how it works in them, and then the Church will have ground for their charitable judgment concerning their fitness, &c.

What proof is there, that except this be done, there can be no ground for the charitable judgment that is mentioned? Sure it is, there is no mention that such a thing was performed by the Eunuch, nor required of him by Philip (Acts 8), and yet he was baptized upon profession of his Faith in Christ, though there is no mention, that to show how his Faith was wrought in him, was either done by him, or required of him. And therefore we see no reason to the contrary, but that when that is done which is mentioned in the Proposition, there may be ground for Charity to account them Believers, though they come not up to what the Reverend Author requires, of declaring how their Faith was wrought in them.

2. The Synod says, The children of the godly, though qualified but as the persons in the Proposition, are said to be faithful (Titus 1:6).

The Reverend Author answers, Nor are the children of the godly, qualified but as in the Proposition, said to be faithful in Titus 1. So his answer is an express denial of what the Synod here says. But to say the children in Titus 1 are not called faithful, is directly to gainsay the text, which does expressly so call them. And that these children that are called faithful in Titus 1 were qualified above what the Proposition requires, is not proved at all. For the text that calls them faithful, says no more of them, but that they are not accused of riot, or unruly. And if this be sufficient for accounting them faithful, those whom the Proposition describes may much more be so accounted; because they are not only free from unruliness and riot, but partakers of sundry other good qualifications, which do amount further.

3. Whereas the Synod says, Children of the Covenant, as the Parents in question are, have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years, as Scripture and experience show. Instance Joseph, Samuel, &c. hence this sort of persons showing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or to ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers.

The Reverend Author answers, That the Parents in question were indeed children of the Covenant in their infancy or minority, but if when they are adult, they do not covenant for themselves and their seed, being fitly qualified, they cannot then be fitly called children of the Covenant, but transgressors of the Covenant, and breakers of it.

1. If they be breakers of it, then sure they are comprehended in it: for, how can men break the Covenant, which they are not in? Therefore, as it is here expressly confessed, that they were children of the Covenant in their minority, so the same is by consequence confessed of them being adult; for otherwise, how could they be then said to break the Covenant?

2. If the Parents in question were children of the Covenant in their infancy and minority, as the Reverend Author acknowledges they were, this suits well enough with the purpose and scope of the Synod in this place, which is expressly said to be this, that such children have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years. And such as had grace begun in them in their younger years, why should not charity think it is there still, when nothing appears to the contrary? For he that once begins that good work of grace, is not wont to forsake that work of his own hands, but to perfect it until the day of Christ (Psalm 138:8; Philippians 1:6).

Further, says the Reverend Author, This Argument is fallacious, because it argues from some particulars, to infer a general affirmatively. Some children of the Covenant have had the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years, therefore all persons of this sort, &c. If the Reverend Author had expressed the Synod's Argument as they expressed it, it would not then have appeared so fallacious, as the alteration of their words may make it.

For, whereas they said, Children of the Covenant have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years, for which they produced eight or nine instances from Scripture: all these instances, and that frequency, for proof of which they were alleged, are now all left out, and in stead thereof it is rendered some Children of the Covenant, &c. and whereas the inference which the Synod makes is thus expressed, namely, hence this sort of persons &c. now the term All, which was not in before, is expressly put in thus, All Persons of this sort, &c. which alteration may indeed obscure the strength of the argument. But let it be reduced to what it first was, and then let the judicious reader consider whether it be fallacious, or firm, whether there be weakness or weight in it. Thus it was; If Children of the Covenant have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in their younger years, then this sort of persons showing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or to ecclesiastical reputation, visible believers: But so it is. Ergo. The assumption here is manifestly proved by those many instances in Scripture alleged and by experience; and the consequence we hope is not fallacious, but sound and good: for if it be frequently thus, why should not charity believe it is thus in this sort of persons, where nothing appears to the contrary.

4. The Synod having said, That they that are regularly in the Church, (as the parents in question be) are visible saints in the account of Scripture: for the Church is in Scripture's account a company of saints (1 Corinthians 14:33 & 1:2).

The Reverend Author answers, That both the assertion and the proof of it are to be denied. The assertion is not true, that the parents in question are regularly in the Church: Infants, and children in minority of confederate believers, are in the Church by their parents' covenanting for them (1 Corinthians 7:14). But parents are not so, till &c.

Ans. It is here again confessed, that infants and children in minority, are regularly in the Church, but not so when they are adult and come to be parents: but of their continuing in the Church, notwithstanding their coming to be adult, something has been said before, and more may in the sixth argument, Partic. 3.

But whereas it is said, "The proof is to be denied, and is not apposite:" we conceive, it cannot be denied to be very apposite for the purpose for which the Synod does allege it, which is to prove, that they that are regularly in the Church, are in Scripture account visible saints; and the words of the texts alleged, are so plain and apposite for this purpose, as we conceive nothing can be more. Whether the parents in question be such, or no; regularly in the Church, and so saints, or not, is another thing, for which we conceive much has and may be said: but the texts alleged were not produced by the Synod for that purpose, and therefore though they be not plain for proof of that, yet if they be plain and apt enough for the purpose for which they were produced by the Synod, that may suffice, though they prove not this other, to which the Reverend Author does apply them.

5. Says the Synod, Being in Covenant and baptized, they have faith and repentance indefinitely given to them in the promise, and sealed up in Baptism (Deuteronomy 30:6), which continues valid, and so a valid testimony for them, while they do not reject it.

To this the Reverend Author in his answer makes mention of a distinction between the grace of the Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace, in regard of external means; between the elect, in whom God works the grace promised in the Covenant so powerfully, that they shall not reject it, and the rest who have the outward means of grace till they reject them, as did Esau — and concludes, that such as reject the offers of grace, and living under the means of grace, do remain unbelievers, cannot be said to have faith and repentance indefinitely given to them in the promise.

Ans. But is there any proof of the contrary to what the Synod affirms? It seems none at all. For, when the Synod says, The Covenant which promises faith and repentance is a valid testimony for them, while they do not reject it; and the Reverend Author says, That such as do reject the offers of grace, have not faith and repentance given to them in the promise: these are not contrary, nor at all inconsistent. For the Synod never said nor meant, that the grace of faith and repentance are given by the Covenant to them that are breakers of the Covenant, and reject the offers of grace, and living under the means of grace, do still remain unbelievers: the Synod never said, that the grace of faith and repentance are given to these by the promise; but by that word, while they do not reject it, do plainly imply the contrary. And therefore what the Synod here says, may be sound and good, for all that the Reverend Author alleges. If their doctrine here be not right, then it must be said, that the Covenant, in which God promises to circumcise the hearts of his people, and of their seed (Deuteronomy 30:6), is no promise that God will give them faith and repentance, nor any valid testimony for them that he will do it, though they for their parts do not reject it. And we suppose none will say this. What may be said of them, who when adult, are breakers of the Covenant, and do reject the offers of grace, is one thing; and what may be hoped and said of them who do not so reject, is another. The Synod speaks of these latter, and the Reverend Author of the former; and therefore the one cannot overthrow the other.

The Synod concludes this fourth argument, by adding as follows; namely, Yet it does not necessarily follow, that these persons are immediately fit for the Lord's Supper; the reason rendered, is, Because though in a latitude of expression they are to be accounted believers, or in numero fidelium, as even infants in covenant are; yet they may want that ability to examine themselves, and that special exercise of faith, which is requisite to that ordinance, as was said upon Propos. 4.

To this the Reverend Author says, 1. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11). The New Testament no where allows that latitude of expression, to call men believers, who, &c.

Though it be the duty of all, if they speak, to speak as the Oracles of God, yet it does not follow from there, that none may have the term Believers applied to them, except the term be found so applied in the New Testament: for then the name Trinity, Sacrament, and many other, would be unlawful, as not being found in the New Testament, no nor in the Old; yet we suppose the Reverend Author would not count the use of these terms unlawful. How often does himself use the terms of Par ratio, Personall membership, Mediate, and Immediate members, and others, and yet they are terms not found in all the Scripture: and therefore if the term Believers be not found applied in the New Testament to the persons spoken of, yet if the thing it self be found, and the matter be so delivered as becomes the Oracles of God, that is, with such reverence, purity, &c. as is meet, we suppose that Rule of speaking as the Oracles of God, is not violated, though the term it self were not so used in the New Testament, nor yet in the Old. And for the thing it self, the Synod has given four or five arguments to prove, that the persons spoken of are visible Believers; which arguments we do not see satisfied by what the Reverend Author says thereto.

2. The Synod having said, That the persons spoken of may be counted in numero fidelium, as even Infants in Covenant are.

The Reverend Author answers, They cannot be so accounted, because Infants are looked at only in the Parents covenant, being not capable of covenanting for themselves, as men are: so that there is not par ratio between them.

Though Infants be not capable of covenanting for themselves, as men are, yet their covenanting, or being in Covenant, is not the thing here intended by the Synod, but their being Believers, or in numero fidelium; of which the Reverend Author says nothing. But the thing the Synod here intimates, is this, that as even Infants in Covenant are counted Believers, or in numero fidelium, so may the Parents spoken of.

3. Whereas the Synod says, They may want that ability to examine themselves, and that special exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance.

The Reverend Author answers, That visible want of this ability, and of this exercise of faith, does argue a visible want of that faith which is to be examined and exercised, and is a just bar to the admittance of such into immediate and personal Church-membership, as well as to the Lords Supper.

Admittance into membership is not here spoken of at all by the Synod: for the persons spoken of, are counted by the Synod to have been in the state of membership long afore now, even in their infancy or minority; and therefore if the want of the ability mentioned, were a just bar to such admittance, yet this concerns not the persons spoken of. But is this which is here affirmed certain and clear, that want of the ability and exercise spoken of, does argue want of the very being of faith? May there not be the being and truth of that grace, even there where the exercise of it is much wanting? Plain it is, that our Savior blames his Disciples, and Peter, for the want of the exercise of faith (Matthew 8 & 14; Mark 4; Luke 8:25), and yet it were hard to say, that the being of faith was now wanting in them: for then we must say, either that faith once had, may afterwards be lost and gone, or else that these Disciples before this time never had faith; neither of which, we conceive, can be said truly. How plain is it, that some for their weakness and small ability in grace, and the exercise of it, are compared to a bruised Reed, and to smoking Flax (Matthew 12:20), and yet when it is said, Christ will not break such Reeds, nor quench such Flax, it appears thereby, that notwithstanding all this weakness, there may be the being and truth of the thing in such Souls. And for ability to examine themselves, cannot this be wanting but the want of the being of faith must be inferred from there? What shall we then say to Souls in such a case as Heman's (Psalm 88), who complains, that God's wrath lay hard upon him, and that he was shut up, and could not come forth; that God seemed to cast off his Soul, and to hide his face from him; that God's fierce wrath went over him; that God's terrors had cut him off; and that hereby he was as distracted, and this even from his youth up? Nor can we think that in such case he was able to examine himself? Can distracted persons do so? It seems not: and yet this Heman was not without the grace of faith for all this. And therefore we cannot say that want of ability to examine one's self, or of the special exercise of faith, does always argue the want of that faith which is to be examined and exercised: and therefore what the Synod here says may still stand, That the persons spoken of may be Believers, and yet want that ability to examine themselves, and that special exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance of the Lords Supper.

So much for Defence of the fourth Argument for confirming the fifth Proposition.

The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this fifth Proposition is this: That the denial of Baptism to the children in question, has a dangerous tendency in it to Irreligion and Apostacy; because to deny them to have any part in the Lord, is the way to cause them to cease from fearing the Lord; witness (Joshua 22:24, 25, 27). But to deny them, and so their children successively, to be in the Church, or members of it, and so to have right to Baptism, is to deny them to have any part in the Lord; and therefore it tends to cause a ceasing from fearing the Lord, and so tends to Irreligion and Apostacy.

Now what says the Reverend Author to this in his Reply? That which he says, is 1. The children in question, being children of Parents who are not in full communion with the Church, if such be denied to have any part in the Lord, it is the degenerate Parents fault, and not the Churches. 2. The children in question are not children of the Church, for the Parents have cut off the entail of the Covenant from themselves and their seed, by not confederating for themselves and theirs regularly.

1. Here then is an acknowledgement, that the children in question, when Baptism and Church-membership is denied them, are thereby acknowledged to have no part in the Lord, and so to be in a way of ceasing from fearing the Lord: and is not this the very thing affirmed by the Synod?

2. Whereas the Reverend Author says, That these children are now in such a state, through the fault of the degenerate Parents, who do not regularly enter into full communion: It has been shewed before, That these Parents, though not yet in full communion, [illegible] in any barrier the [illegible] Baptism of their children: and indeed, when the Parents are such as the Proposition describeth, namely, Not [illegible], but understanding and [illegible] to the doctrine of faith, and solemnly owning the Covenant, and therein giving up themselves and their children to the Lord, &c. how, for all this, these Parents should be the cause that their children have no part in the Lord, but do cease from fearing him; how this can be, we confess we do not understand. Can Parents, by giving up themselves and their children to the Lord, be notwithstanding the cause that their children have no part in the Lord, though they be Parents that [illegible], and be qualified for it, as in the Proposition is expressed? Is their giving up themselves and their children to the Lord, a cause to cut off their children from having any part in the Lord? Or is their present unfitness for full [illegible], a cause of such loss and misery though they be and do what is mentioned and all that the Proposition expresseth? We see no sufficient ground to apprehend so: but when the Parents are and do as is mentioned, we fear it is not they that are the cause of their childrens loss and misery expressed, but they rather, who deny their Baptism and Church-membership.

3. Says the Reverend Author, That this denial has a dangerous tendency to irreligion and apostacy, is not proved by them, nor can be.

Ans. But if this denial do deny them to have any part in the Lord, and so make them cease from fearing the Lord, how can it be but as is said? Can men cease from fearing the Lord, and from having any part in him, and yet this not tend to apostacy and irreligion? Now the Reverend Author confesseth, that these children have no part in the Lord, though he say it is through the Parents faith; though if the Parents be so qualified as is said, it will be hard to prove that this comes to pass through their fault; and then from where is it, but from them that causelessly deny their Baptism and Church-membership? And if his denial do cause that they have no part in the Lord, does it not also cause their irreligion and apostacy?

That Text Joshua 22:24, 25. says the Reverend Author, speaks nothing for their advantage in this case.

Ans. Let it be considered for what purpose the Synod alledgeth that Text, and then it will appear that it speaks for them. Now the purpose of the Synod in producing that text, is plainly this, that to deny such children to have a part in the Lord, is the way to make them cease from fearing the Lord: and what can be more plainly spoken, then this is spoken in that Text? But why does this Text speak nothing for the advantage of the Synod? The reason that is given for this, is, Because the men there spoken of, were members in full Communion; and their children, when they were grown up, were joined in Covenant by a solemn Covenant every third year (Deuteronomy 26:17, 18) so that they had a part in the Lord successively, from which if they had been excluded causelessly, it might have caused their children to cease from fearing the Lord.

Ans. Suppose all this be so, this seems not to weaken the intent of the Synod in producing this Text, but to strengthen it: For, if denying them that have been in full Communion to have any part in the Lord, may cause even such to cease from fearing the Lord, how much more may this be caused in them that have not yet had this full Communion? May not one think, that such as have enjoyed Communion with God in all his Ordinances, will not be so easily drawn away from fearing the Lord, as those that never had such full Communion? And yet the Reverend Author does acknowledge this might have befallen the former, and therefore how much more may this be found in the other, of whom the Synod speaketh? Which things considered, it seems plain that when it is said, that Text Joshua 22. speaks nothing for the Synod's advantage in this case, that this saying will not hold.

The Synod having said, That the owning of the children of those that successively continue in Covenant to be a part of the Church, is far from being destructive to the purity and prosperity of the Church, and religion therein, as some conceive.

The Reverend Author answereth, That they who so conceive, have such grounds of that perswasion, as will not easily be removed, nor are so much as shaken by any thing said by the Synod.

Ans. If such a perswasion, That the children of those who continue in Covenant, are no part of the Church, be a perswasion upon grounds that cannot be removed nor shaken; then it must follow, that the Church and the Covenant, which is the formalis ratio of the Church, comprehends not children, but Parents only, or grown persons: and then the Antipoedobaptists have won the day; for by what right can children be Baptized, if they be not in the Covenant, nor any part of the Church, though their Parents be? Sure to us it seems a well-grounded perswasion, that if the Parents be and continue in Covenant, the children of such are part of the Church, and ought to be so owned, and that this is no ways destructive to the purity and prosperity of the Church, and religion therein. If the Parents did not continue in the Covenant, then there might be some question, whether the children be part of the Church: but it is plain, that the Synod speaks of the children of those that continue in the Covenant; and if any think it to be a well-grounded perswasion, that the Parents may continue in the Covenant, and yet the children of such Parents are no part of the Church, we confess we see no sufficient grounds for such a perswasion. For, the Reverend Author does here confess, That it is true, that the frame of the Covenant runs to us, and to our Seed after us in their Generations, pag. 32. And if this be true, is it not then true, that if the Parents continue in the Covenant, the Seed of such Parents are also part of the Church? For how can they be said to be in the Covenant, which is the constituting form of the Church, and yet be no part of the Church, which is constituted thereby.

But, says the Reverend Author, This must be understood and applied suitably to the different constitution of Churches, under different administrations of the Covenant, under the Old Testament, and under the Gospel.

Ans. Let this be granted, yet as long as the thing it self is not denied, which must not be denied, for he confesses it to be true, namely, that the covenant runs to us, and to our seed after us in their generations: so long as this is not denied, the difference in other things between the Old Testament and the New, will not weaken our cause at all. For, though for constitution of churches, the church was then national, and now congregational; and though the administration of the covenant was then under many types and ceremonies, which are now removed: and notwithstanding any other difference that can be named, yet if there be not this difference also, that the covenant did run to them, and their seed in their generations, but not to us, and our seed in like sort; if this difference also be not asserted, we see not how it can be avoided, but even now as well as then, if the parents continue in covenant, the children do so also, and so are part of the church: and so what the Synod affirms is gained. For it cannot be said, that though it was so then, yet it is not so now, except we shall deny what the Reverend Author confesses to be true, that the frame of the covenant (did not only run to them and to their seed, but also) runs to us, and our seed in their generations. And if this be true, then what the Synod gathers from it is true also, that God has so framed his covenant, and the constitution of his church thereby, as to design a continuation and propagation of his kingdom therein, from one generation to another. For it must needs be so, if the covenant runs to us, and to our seed after us in their generations.

Whereas the Synod says, that to keep in the line, and under the influence and efficacy of this covenant of God, in the true way to the churches glory.

The answer of the Reverend Author, in sum, is this, that it is so indeed, when there is a succession of faith made visible to the churches charitable judgment; but not so, when such a membership is set up in Christian churches, whereby infants shall be baptized by right from such parents as are not in full communion: for what influence and efficacy has the covenant upon such parents?

Whereto the answer is, that if the parents be qualified as this proposition expresseth, there is manifest influence of the covenant upon them, though yet they be not come so far as to be fit for full communion. For, when they being admitted in minority, are now, when adult, not only free from scandal in life, but also endowed with a competency of knowledge in the doctrine of faith, and solemnly assent thereto, and own the covenant, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord; we conceive all this does import some influence and efficacy of the covenant upon them: but if for all this, they shall be disowned from having any part in the church and covenant of God, how then can that be denied which the Synod here says, that by this cutting off, and disavowing the covenant, Sion is hindered from being an eternal excellency, and the joy of many generations? For, whatever joy it may be to the first generation, yet if all that follow, though qualified as the proposition expresseth, be nevertheless denied to have any part in the covenant and church of God, till fit for full communion, we do not see how such following generations can be any great excellency or joy at all.

The Synod having said, that this progress of the covenant establishes the church (Deuteronomy 29:13; Jeremiah 30:20), and that therefore the contrary does disestablish it.

The Reverend Author answers, that the argument is to be denied; for it will not follow, that if God did establish the church of the Jews by such a successive progress of the covenant (Deuteronomy 29:13), therefore he does so now, pag. 33.

A. Why does it not follow, that if God did establish the church of the Jews by a progress of the covenant, that therefore he does so now? Is not that true, which the Reverend Author confesses to be true, that the frame of the covenant runs to us, and our seed after us in their generations? And is not that true also which the Synod here says, (though the Reverend Author says nothing to it) that God was a holy God, and loved the purity and glory of the church in the Old Testament, when he went in this way of a successive progress of the covenant? We suppose this cannot be denied; and therefore if a progress of the covenant did establish the church then, why not so now? Shall we think that the holy God did not so regard the purity of his church in those times, and therefore did then establish the church in this way, which now he will not do, as being now more careful of the purity of his church? We fear that to say this, would be to the dishonor of God's holiness and glory. And plain it is, that it is the same kingdom of God, that is, the same church-estate for substance and kind, which is taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:43), and therefore the Gentiles are said to be fellow-heirs, and of the same body with them (Ephesians 3:6). And therefore what should hinder, but that if a progress of the covenant was a means to establish the church, then, it may be the same in these [illegible] also?

The Synod having said in the conclusion of their fifth argument for confirming this fifth proposition, that the more holy, reforming, and glorious that the [illegible] are or shall be, the more eminently is a successive continuation, and propagation of the church therein designed, promised, and intended. And having for this alleged these scriptures, Isaiah 60:15 and 59:21; Ezekiel 37:25–28; Psalm 102:16–28; Jeremiah 32 [illegible] 39.

The Reverend Author applies all these very texts to the church of the Jews under the New Jerusalem; which church, he says, must consist, for the matter of it, of elect and sincere believers only, both they and their children successively to the end of the world: for which he alleges the texts afore-mentioned, pag. 33.

Ans. It is freely granted, that the Church of the Jews, when they shall be called and converted, shall be very holy and glorious; and yet it may be questioned, whether that Church shall have none in it, but only elect and sincere Believers, both they and their children to the end of the world. For, when Christ shall come, the Kingdom of Heaven, that is to say, the Church, though it be compared to Virgins, in respect of much ecclesiastical purity, yet those Virgins are some of them foolish Virgins, that had no oil in their vessels with their lamps, and so must have the door of the Marriage-Chamber shut against them (Matthew 25). Therefore they were not all sincere Believers and elect: and therefore it may be a question, whether the Church of the Jews at that time will be so free from Hypocrites, as is said.

2. If these Scriptures (Isaiah 60:15 and 59:21) and the rest, do prove, that when the Jews shall be called, it shall be with them as is said; then what the Synod here says is gained, and stands good, namely that in holy, reforming, and most glorious times, there shall be a continuation and propagation of the Church from parents to children, from generation to generation; which is the very thing which is here affirmed by the Synod.

3. Though the Reverend Author do here suggest this difference between that Church of the Jews under the New Jerusalem, and the Gentile Churches; that these latter shall have close Hypocrites creeping into them, and the children of Believers, by their degeneracy when adult, stopping the successive progress of the Covenant, which in the Church of the Jews shall be otherwise: yet since the Scripture says, that the Nations of them that are saved, shall walk in the light of that New Jerusalem (Revelation 21), and that then the Lord shall be King in all the earth; and that there shall be one Lord, and his Name one (Zechariah 14), and that the Name of the New Jerusalem shall be written upon Philadelphia, a Church of the Gentiles (Revelation 3), it may seem upon these considerations and the like, that there will at that time be good conformity between the Church of the Jews, and Gentile Churches, and no such disproportion or difference, that in the one there should be a continuation and propagation of the Church and Covenant from Parents and children successively, but in the other not so. We see no ground for believing such a difference, but for ought that does yet appear, if there shall be such a glory in the one, as that there shall be a successive progress of the Covenant therein, there shall or may be the like in the Gentile Churches also. And to conceive any essential difference between either Jews or Gentiles then, and Gentiles now, as to the frame of the Covenant itself (whatever difference there may be as to the measures of grace, etc. as is said in the Synod's Result, p. 9.) is a conception that we see no ground for in Scripture.

Whereas the Reverend Author says, pag. 34. That the children of Church-members in this Country are commonly known to be Profane, Vain, Licentious, Vicious, Stubborn, Proud, etc. and complains, That yet these are accepted into immediate Personal Membership.

The Answer is, 1. As before, That we think there is no accepting of Members children, when adult, into Membership, but an accepting of them to full Communion, when they are fit for it; and an acknowledging of such and others to be Members already, as having had it from their birth or minority, and having not since been regularly, in any way of God, cut off from the same. To call this an accepting of them into Membership, we think is very improper.

2. If the children of Church-members generally were commonly known to be so Vicious and Profane, as is said; this were matter of great humiliation and grief to us all: but we hope it is too much to say so of the generality, or greatest part of them, there being better things appearing in many.

3. Be it that they are so Vicious, or not, we think there is great reason that they should be carefully watched over by Elders of Churches, and all Superiors, that so their corruptions and sins might be mortified, and they furthered to the attainment of that saving grace of God in Christ Jesus.

And whereas the Reverend Author makes an Objection, That if they be so Vicious, they have the more need to be under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church. And in Answer thereto, says, That it cannot rationally be expected that they will submit themselves thereto, but will disregard and slight the same; and that acceptance with God, or blessing on such means cannot be expected, because God limits his Blessing to his own Appointments, p. 34, 35.

The Answer is, That it has been proved afore by seven or eight Arguments in Propos. 3. That these children are by God's appointment under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church; which Arguments have been formerly vindicated and cleared from what the Reverend Author has said against the same: and therefore for what is here said, That the exercise of Church-discipline towards such, cannot be expected to be accepted of God, or blessed by him, because it wants his Appointment; we know not how to entertain this saying, except there were some better proof for it, which here is but nakedly delivered, without any proof at all: and therefore the exercise of Church-discipline towards the children spoken of, may be appointed of God, accepted of him, and blessed by him, for ought that is here said to the contrary.

And whereas it is said, That it cannot rationally be expected, that such persons will submit themselves to Church-discipline.

Though we know but little of the exercise of Church-discipline towards such, yet experience does testify, that to some it has, by the blessing of God, been profitable, and that they have submitted to it, and been bettered by it.

Lastly, The Reverend Author did a little afore in this same Page, pag. 34. mention the Vigilancy and Faithful Care and Endeavour of Church-Elders towards the Children mentioned, as a way or means for conveying Religion down to after-Generations, which we for our parts conceive to be sound and good. But then how can this stand which is there said, that such persons are not under the Watch, Discipline and Government of the Church? For, does not the Vigilancy of Church-Elders, import some kind of Church-watchfulness? Can there be such Vigilancy, Care and Endeavours towards such as are not under the watch of the Church at all? Or can such Vigilancy, Care and Endeavour of Church-Elders, be a means to convey Religion down to after-generations, and yet Church-watchfulness toward such be without acceptance with God, and without any blessed fruit, either to the Church or to the persons spoken of? It seems these things do not well cohere.

So much for defence of the fifth Argument, for confirming this fifth Proposition.

The sixth Argument which the Synod here useth, is, Because the Parents in question are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members of the Church. 1. That they are personal Members, or Members in their own persons, they say appears, 1. Because they are personally holy (1 Corinthians 7:14). 2. Are Baptized in their own persons. 3. Are personally under Discipline. 4. Are personally, by means of the Covenant, in a visible state of Salvation. 5. When they commit iniquity, they personally break the covenant (Jeremiah 11:2, 10; Ezekiel 16), therefore they are personally in it.

To this the Reverend Author answereth, That three of these Proofs belong only to infants, and the other two to adult Persons regularly admitted into Church-membership: which therefore do not concern the Parents in question: which two he says are, 1. That they are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own persons. 2. That when they commit iniquity, they personally break the Covenant.

Ans. Let us then consider the Particulars. For the first, that they are personally holy, according to 1 Corinthians 7:14, though this be meant, as the Reverend Author says, that they are thus holy federally and relatively, yet it is, as he acknowledgeth, in their own persons; and if so, does it not then follow, that they are Church-members in their own persons? Can persons be truly called holy, as in the Text alledged, or an holy seed, as Ezra 9, and yet not be Members of the visible Church? Whether this holiness be inherent, or only federal and relative, yet sith they are thus holy in their own persons, we conceive they must therefore be granted to be Church-members in their own persons. And though they first received this holiness in their minority, yet for ought we see their persons are still partakers of it, until in some way of God they be cut off from the same: which the Parents in question have not been, but being qualified as the Proposition expresseth, are far from deserving any such matter.

For the Second, That they are Baptized in their own Persons; though this be, as the Reverend Author says, By and for their Parents Covenanting for them, they being uncapable of Covenanting for themselves; yet this being regularly done, how can it be avoided, but, as the Synod says, It is a divine testimony that they are in their own persons Members of the Church. For, we conceive, the Lord has not appointed Baptism, the Seal of Membership, to be applied to such as are not Members: and to say, They are not Members in their own persons, but in their Parents, would infer, That they should not have been baptized in their own persons, but in their Parents, their Parents receiving Baptism for them; which the Reverend Author, we are perswaded, is far from affirming. And therefore they being regularly baptized in their own persons, how can it be avoided but that they are Church-members in their own persons, until they be regularly cut off from the same?

For that other Particular, That by means of the Covenant they are personally in a visible state of Salvation; the Reverend Author says nothing hereto, but only repeats it with this addition or explanation, "While nothing appears to the contrary": which clause may be added, and yet the purpose of the Synod in this Particular not at all hindred thereby. For if the persons spoken of be in their own persons in a visible state of Salvation, while nothing appears to the contrary; does it not then follow, that so long they are visible Church-Members in their own persons? Will any body say that they are saved in their Parents, and not in their own persons? The Synod conceived that none would so say: and that therefore it could not be said, that they are not Members in their own persons but in their Parents: whereto the Reverend Author says nothing. As for that Clause, "While nothing appears to the contrary," let the terms of the Proposition be considered, and we conceive it cannot rationally and charitably be denied, but that the persons spoken of, as they were in a state of Salvation when Infant, so they are so still for ought appears to the contrary. For the contrary cannot be evinced and evidenced against them, either by Ignorance, or Scandal, or forsaking the Covenant, or any such thing, they being such as understand the Doctrine of Faith, and publickly assent thereto, not Scandalous in life, but commendably further qualified, as is there expressed; so that for ought that appears to the contrary, they are in a visible state of Salvation, and consequently they are personally Church-members, and so herein the purpose of the Synod is gained.

For the other two Particulars, which the Reverend Author says, Do belong to adult persons regularly admitted into Church-membership, and so do not concern the Parents in question; the one is, That they are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own persons. For Answer to this, he refers to his Examination of Proposition 3, and we refer the Reader to our defence of that Proposition against what he there said.

The other Particular, which is the last here mentioned, namely, That when they commit Iniquity, they personally break the Covenant; his answer to it is, That this is not proved concerning Infants, nor can be.

Ans. Suppose it cannot, yet if that be proved for which the Synod brings it, why may not that suffice, though this other be not proved, to which the Reverend Author applies it? Plain it is that the Synod neither spake nor meant this of Infants, but of such as are now Parents, and therefore past their Infancy: and therefore if these Parents, when they commit iniquity, do break the covenant, then the purpose of the Synod is gained, though such a thing could not be affirmed of Infants. But if proofs for this or that may not be accepted, because they are not sufficient for confirming some other things whereto they were neither alledged nor intended, let the judicious and impartial Reader consider whether this be equal and fair, and whether Arguments in such a way be sufficiently answered.

For the particular in hand the Synod argueth, that the parents in question are personally in the covenant, because when they commit iniquity, they personally break the covenant; alledging for this (Jeremiah 11:2, 10; Ezekiel 16), where breaking of covenant is expresly charged upon the persons there spoken of. Now does not this prove the thing intended? Sure, if their committing iniquity be breaking of covenant, either such persons were in the covenant, or else we must say a man may be guilty of breach of covenant, when he was not in it. And that the committing iniquity by the persons spoken of, is a breaking of covenant, the Reverend Author does more than once acknowledge and testify (pag. 23, 28, 33, 43, 45). It were too long to transcribe all the words that are to this purpose in the pages quoted, but, in sum, there is thus much there affirmed and taught, that the covenant in which children are comprehended in their minority, leaves them under engagement to duty and obedience, when they become adult, which if they do not accordingly perform, they are then transgressors of the covenant, and breakers of it. Now if they be breakers of it, is it not thereby clear that they are comprehended in it? And so what is here said by the Synod stands good.

Thus of the first particular, that the parents in question are personal members.

The second is, that they are immediate members, as to the essence of membership (that is, that they themselves in their own persons are the immediate subjects of this adjunct of church-membership) though they come to it by means of their parents covenanting. For proof whereof, one thing alledged by the Synod, is that (John 22:25, 27), where the children are said to have a part in the Lord, (to which church-membership is equivalent) as well as the parents; and nothing coming between this subject (the children) so as to sever it from the adjunct (a part in the Lord) therefore they conclude, that the children are immediate subjects of church-membership, or immediate members.

Now what says the Reverend Author to this? Why, that which he says, is, that though nothing come between to sever that adjunct from the subject, yet something comes between to bring that subject and adjunct together, namely, the parents covenanting for the child: which if it did not come between, they would be severed, as they are in other children.

Ans. But what is there in this to overthrow the Synod's assertion? Do not they expresly grant, in terms as plain as can be spoken, and that more than once, that the children come to this adjunct of church-membership by means of their parents covenanting? See their words in their pag. 23, and therefore this can be no removing of what they have said, being nothing but the very same with that which they have said before. The question is not about the way or means of children's membership, for it is freely yielded that in this respect it is mediate, that is, they come to it by means of the parents covenanting; but the question is about the essence, nature or kind of their membership: whether in this respect it be not the same with the parents, and they as well as the parents the immediate subjects of it; and the granting of the former, is no denial of this other. If a parent have room or place in such or such an house, and his child be there also, though he come there in the parent's arms, yet may it not be said that this child has a place and being in the house, as truly and as properly as the parent, although he came to it by the parent's means? Even so it is in the case in hand; the child comes to be in covenant, and so in the church, by the parents covenanting, yet now he is in the church, and in the covenant, and has a room and place therein, as truly and as properly as the parent.

Again, the Synod having said, that their visible ingraffing into Christ the Head, and so into the church his body, is sealed in Baptism: and that in ingraffing, nothing comes between the graft and the stock; their union is immediate.

The Reverend Author answereth, that yet it will not follow that they are immediate members of the visible church.

Ans. And why will not this follow? If their union with the church be ingraffing, and that in ingraffing, nothing comes between the graft and the stock, does it not then follow, that their union with the church is immediate, and they immediate members of it?

For, as for that which is here said, that this union is not properly, but metaphorically called ingraffing, because there is some similitude here, but similitudes do run on four feet: it sufficeth that they agree in the main point.

Ans. But how do they agree therein, if for all this ingraffing there be something between the stock and them? Is it not a main point in ingraffing, that the union between the branch and the stock be immediate, and that nothing lye between them? Who knoweth not that if it be not so, but that some stock or stone, or something else be between them, so that their union be not immediate; who knoweth not that in such case the ingraffing is spoiled, and the benefit of the branch interrupted, because its union with the stock is not immediate? If then the union of members with the church be ingraffing, how can it be avoided but it must be immediate, and so they be immediate members?

As for that which is here subjoyned, that infants and children in minority do partake of Baptism and other privileges, by means of their parents covenanting for them, but adult persons by their personal covenanting for themselves and their seed. This is nothing to the essence of their membership, but only speaks to the way and means how they come to it, which is not the thing in question: for it may be granted, that children come to be members by their parents covenanting for them, and the parents by their own covenanting, and yet their membership, notwithstanding this different way of attaining it, may be one and the same for essence and kind, and both have immediate conjunction with the church.

For that where the Synod says, "That in Deuteronomy 29:11, the children were personally and immediately part of the people of God, or members of the church of Israel, as well as the parents.

The answer of the Reverend Author is, that the text does not prove it.

And yet the words are express and plain, that they did all stand before the Lord, to enter into covenant with him, that he might establish them a people to himself; and the persons of whom this is said, are not only the men of Israel, but also their wives, and their little ones. So that if the men of Israel, and their wives, were personally and immediately members of that Church, their little ones, for ought that appears, were so also: for they are all alike spoken of without difference.

Whereas the Synod said, that to be in covenant, or to be a covenantee, is the formalis ratio of a church-member; and the children being in the covenant, are therefore the immediate subjects of the formalis ratio of membership, and so immediate members.

The answer of the Reverend Author is, that though to be in covenant be the formalis ratio of a church-member, yet it will not follow, that every covenantee does immediately covenant for himself, nor that every member of the Church is an immediate member, pag. 39.

For the one of these, namely of covenanting immediately for themselves, the Synod never said nor meant that little children did so covenant, nor inferred any such thing from their being in covenant, and so being partakers of the formalis ratio of church-membership; but a little afore, and also in this very place do acknowledge, that one may come to be in covenant one way, and another in another: and therefore though children do not covenant immediately for themselves, yet what the Synod inferreth from their being partakers of the formalis ratio of church-membership, is not at all infringed by this branch of the reply.

But for the other, of being immediate members, why does not this follow from their being partakers of the covenant, the formalis ratio of membership? Can one be partaker of the form, or formalis ratio of this or that, and yet not be immediately partaker of the effect, or thing formed, but something must first intervene and come between? If the reasonable soul, and its conjunction with the body, be the formalis ratio of a man; can there be this, and yet no man immediately, but something more must come between to make a man? We suppose it cannot be denied but here is a man immediately, as being partaker of the formalis ratio of a man. And even so it may be said in the present case, that children being partakers of the covenant, the formalis ratio of church-members, they are therefore immediate members.

The Synod having said, that to act in covenant, is but the instrumental means of membership, and yet children are not without this neither: for the act of the parent (their public person) is accounted theirs—

The Reverend Author answers, that the parents acting in [illegible] for their infant-[illegible], has been before proved to be the procreant cause of [illegible], pag 39.

It was indeed before said, namely pag 37. that he looked at believing confederating [illegible], not as the instrumental, but as the procreant cause; as of the child's being, by his generating of him, so also of his church-membership, by his confederating for him. This was said indeed in the page mentioned, but that it was so proved, we cannot say; if this word [Procreating] be taken as it is expressed, not only as contradistinct from the instrumental cause, but as a denial thereof, for so his expression runs, namely, not as the instrumental, but as the procreant cause, &c. Now that it has been proved, that the parents act in covenanting is not the instrumental cause, but the procreant of the child's membership, this indeed has been said once and again but we do not see it proved at all. And indeed how can it? for this procreant cause, since it is not an instrumental, must then be the principal cause: and is this proved, that the parents act in covenanting is not the instrumental, but the principal cause of the child's membership? What shall then become of God's institution in this matter? If the parents act herein be such a procreant cause as is not instrumental, then it must be the principal; and then what place is there left for God's institution? And how does the Reverend Author agree with himself, who says, this is the procreant cause, and that by God's institution, and yet is not the cause instrumental? If the parents act be the cause of the child's membership by God's institution, how can it be avoided but it must be instrumental, as the Synod said: but if it be so procreant, as not to be instrumental, how then can it be by God's institution, as he says it is. These things need reconciling. For our parts, we see no reason to the contrary, but that that of logicians is right, who place the procreant cause under the head of the efficient, and this act of the parents that is here spoken of, being not the principal efficient of the child's membership, must needs be the instrumental, as the Synod has said; and therefore such a procreant as is not instrumental, nor yet principal, we confess we know not where to place it.

Besides, when the Reverend Author in pag. 37. makes this covenant-act of the parent to be the procreant cause of the child's membership, even as the parent is the cause of the child's being, by his generation of him; does not this plainly infer that which yet he denies, that such a parent is the instrumental cause of the child's membership? For, is any parent such a procreant cause of his child's being by generation, as not to be instrumental under God therein? How then are children said to be by the gift and blessing of God (Psalms 127:3; Genesis 29:31 & 30:22 & 33:5), and the want of children even in married persons to be by God's restraining hand, and shutting up the womb (Genesis 16:2 & 20:18 & 30:2)? Does not this plainly show, that parents are but instrumental under God in the begetting of children? And therefore if the parent be the cause of the child's membership in like sort, as of the child's natural being by his generating of him, then it must be granted, that in this of his church-membership he is no otherwise a procreant cause of it, but as instrumental; for in that of the child's natural being it is certainly so: and that of membership being, as the Reverend Author says, like to this other, therefore in this of the child's membership it is so also. Moreover, if this well hold, that the parent is such a procreant cause of the child's membership by confederating for him, as he is of the child's natural being by [illegible]; then look as the child which the parent generates, is personally, immediately formally and actually a man for one of mankind as well as the parent; so by the membership which the parents confederating procreates for him, he is a personal, immediate, formal and actual church-member.

The Synod, to shew that Children are actual, complete, and immediate members, asketh, what do they want hereunto? Is it covenant-interest, which is the formalis ratio of membership? No, they are in covenant. Is it divine grant, and institution, which is the principal efficient? No, God has clearly declared that he grants them a portion in his Church, and appoints them to be members thereof. Is it an act of covenanting, which is the instrumental means? No, they have this also reputatively by divine appointment, making the Parent a public person, and accounting them to covenant in his covenanting. The sum is, they want nothing that is requisite to complete and immediate membership.

Now what says the Reverend Author to this? That which he says, is this, That all that is here expressed, does not supply what is wanting to invest little children with such membership. For, though they are in covenant, which is the formalis ratio of their membership, yet it is mediante parentum foedere, and so their membership is mediate.

Ans. But this speaks nothing to the nature and kind of their membership, but only to the way and means of attaining it, which may be different from that of adult persons, and yet the thing be the same. If the chief Captain obtain by a great sum to be a freeman of Rome, and Paul be free born (Acts 22:28), yet Paul's freedom is either better than the other, or at least no worse; and so it may be said of the church-membership of little children.

There is wanting to children in minority to make them such members, a personal fitness to act in covenant for themselves.

Ans. But this is nothing to the nature of their membership, but only speaks of the way of attaining it by their own act. But shall we say that Paul wanted something to make him a free Roman, because he had no personal fitness nor ability to procure that freedom to himself by his own act, but only was so born? Or shall we say that David and others mentioned in (Psalm 22:10; Isaiah 46:4) wanted something of complete, proper and immediate interest in God, because they had their interest from their mothers womb, and did not attain it by their own personal act? For our parts we dare not so say, and by like reason dare not deny, but that the interest of little children in the visible Church, may be proper, complete and immediate, though they have not come to it by their own act, but have had it from their minority or birth. For, to have God for their God is as great a blessing, as to be an actual and immediate member of the visible Church; and yet we see want of personal fitness to act for themselves, did not hinder from the one, and why then should it hinder from the other?

Synod. A different manner and means of conveying the covenant to us, or of making us members, does not make a different sort of members; we are as truly, personally and immediately members of the body of fallen mankind, and by nature heirs of the condemnation pertaining thereto, as Adam was, though he came to be so by his own personal act, and we by the act of our public person, pag. 24.25.

The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto grants, That in the case of Adam it is so, as is said; but, says he, this does not suit the case of Infants in question. For, 1. Adam stood as a public person for all mankind; no Parent is so for all his posterity, but for his infants and children in minority. 2. Adam's covenant was only with the Lord, and not with any Church, as the covenant of confederate Parents is. 3. The Parents breaking the covenant does not make his children heirs of condemnation, as Adam's did all mankind, pag. 40.41.

For Answer whereto, we may remember what himself did formerly express, that Similitudes do not run on four feet; if they agree in the main point that may suffice, though in other things they differ. If therefore there were these three differences, and as many more, between the cases alledged, yet where is there any difference in the main point? Are not we as truly, personally, and immediately members of the body of fallen mankind, as Adam was? This the Reverend Author does not deny, but in plain words does grant it: And is not then the purpose of the Synod, in alledging this instance, clearly gained? Does it not plainly appear thereby, that a different way and means of being in covenant, does not make a different sort of membership? Adam was a member of fallen mankind, and so are we, though he came to be so by his own personal act, and we by him, or by his act for us? Which does clearly shew what the Synod says, That a different way and means of being members, does not alter the nature and kind of membership; which we see does hold as touching being a member of fallen mankind, and we see no reason but it may also hold as touching being a member of a visible Church.

There is not any to be accounted a public person, as Adam was, but only Jesus Christ for all that are in him (Romans 5:14, to 20), pag. 41.

Ans. Yet it is evident, though Jesus Christ was a public person for all that are in him, as Adam was, yet in the number of persons there is difference; Adam standing for all mankind, and Christ standing only for his Redeemed, the Elect. Now if Christ may be truly called a public person for all his, as Adam was, though Adam was for them that were far more in number; why may not then a confederating Parent be counted a public person for his children though they be far less in number than the other? But herein the cases seem parallel; Adam for all in him, Christ Jesus for all in him, and the confederating Parent for all in him. We see not how this can justly be denied by the Reverend Author, since he calls these Parents "Undertakers for their children, pag. 40. And again, pag. 41. And such undertakers, that the children are bound by their Parents acting to perform that covenant, when they shall become capable: which seems to us to be the same, or as much as is meant, when they are called public persons for their children.

Another similitude used by the Synod to illustrate the thing in question, is, from a Prince giving lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyal; in which case the following heir is a true and immediate owner of that land, and may be personally disinherited, if disloyal, as well as his father before him.

To this the Answer is, That this similitude does not sort the case in question; for, as for infants, they cannot be visibly disloyal, and adult persons not regularly joined to the Church, have cut off the entail of the Covenant from themselves and their posterity by their personal disloyalty.

But for all this, the similitude may suit the case in question, though the Reverend Author say it does not. For, as the following heir is an immediate owner of that land, till for disloyalty he be disinherited; so the following children are immediate church-members, till some of them for their sin be cut off from their membership. Is not here plain suitableness in the similitude? We conceive it is apparent and manifest. For, if infants cannot be disloyal, and if adult persons be cut off for disloyalty, is it not manifest, that both are immediate owners till they be cut off? Which is the thing the Synod affirms. Concerning infants, it seems they are such true and immediate owners of church-membership, as that they cannot be cut off therefrom, because they cannot be so disloyal as to deserve such a thing: and for the adult persons, if the entail of the covenant be cut off from them and their posterity by their personal disloyalty; does not this clearly show, that they were truly and immediately in the Covenant, till their disloyalty cut them off? And so the similitude stands suitable and good for the purpose for which the Synod brings it.

But as for this "cutting off the entail of the Covenant," which is here spoken of; we must confess we do not see how such a thing can justly be charged upon the persons spoken of in this Proposition: For, they understand the doctrine of faith, and give their assent thereto; they are not scandalous in life, they solemnly own the Covenant, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord: and is this such disloyalty, as to be a cutting off the Covenant and entail of it? We think it were hard to prove such a thing, and do fear that charity will not allow to affirm it. Nor that which is here said in this pag. 41. That nothing is given to them and theirs by the Covenant, which they presume to usurp without warrant from God. For,

1. By the Covenant God gives himself to be a God to his people, and to their seed in their generations (Genesis 17), and shall we say this is nothing? God is Almighty, and All-sufficient, and is it nothing to have such a God to be a God to us, and to our seed?

2. And when the persons in question are such as were regularly in Covenant in their infancy, by means of their parents covenanting for them, as the Reverend Author does acknowledge, how can their owning this Covenant, when they become adult, be justly counted a presuming to usurp the Covenant without warrant from God? We read of them that are blamed, and that justly, for forsaking the Covenant which God made with their fathers (Deuteronomy 29:25; Judges 2:20), but that owning this Covenant should be a forsaking of it, and an usurping of it without warrant from God, and a presuming — we do not see how this can be proved. To some indeed the Lord says, What have you to do to take my covenant in your mouth (Psalm 50:16), but does the Lord say this to such as were qualified as in this fifth Proposition? The contrary is most clear: for these in Psalm 50 are expressly called Wicked, such as did hate to be instructed and reformed, were culpable for consenting with thieves, partaking with adulterers, slandering, and all evil speaking, &c. Whereas the persons in question are not culpable for any such thing, being expressly said to be not scandalous in life; but on the contrary furnished with many good and commendable qualifications, and were regularly admitted into the Covenant in their minority: and therefore being so unlike the persons that are blamed for taking God's Covenant into their mouth, we see no ground to say they have [illegible] off the entail of the Covenant by their disloyalty, and that nothing is given to them and theirs by it, but that they presume to usurp it without warrant from God: we see no warrant from God so to say or think of such persons.

A Member (says the Synod) is one that according to rule, or divine institution, is within the visible Church.

They say true, says the Reverend Author: but that refutes nothing that I have said concerning mediate and immediate members, for both are within the Church, though both have not full communion with the Church in all ordinances.

The Synod never said, that all that are within the Church have such full communion, and therefore this is nothing against them: but if all members be within the Church according to divine institution, how can it be avoided but they are all immediate members of the Church? For, if they be all within the Church, then there is nothing as a medium between the Church and them, or any of them, and so they are all immediate members, as the Synod says. Whether all have full communion, is one thing, and whether all be immediate members, is another; and the denying of the former, is no infringing of the latter.

The Synod having mentioned an Objection, That if children be complete and immediate members as their parents, they shall then immediately have all church-privileges as their parents have: And making this Answer, That it follows not; all privileges that belong to members as such, do belong to the children as well as the parents: but all privileges do not so. A member as such (or all members) may not partake of all privileges, but they are to make progress both in memberly duties and privileges, as their age, capacity, and qualifications do fit them for the same.

To this the Reverend Author answers, That their Answer to the Objection is insufficient; for the best members have need to make progress in memberly duties and qualifications, yet all have that communion that suits their membership: Infants in Baptism, &c. and adult persons in the Seals, Voting, &c. pag. 41, 42.

Ans. By this it seems the difference lies here, that whereas some church-members have communion in all church-privileges, and others not in all, but only in some; the Synod apprehends the reason of this difference to be, because some are yet defective in qualifications, and fitness for such full communion, though not wanting complete and immediate membership: But the Reverend Author makes the reason of the difference to be from the different kind of membership, the one sort being only mediate members, and the other immediate. All have that communion for which they are qualified, says the Synod: All have that communion which suits their membership, says the Reverend Author. For clearing of which point, it may not be amiss to consider of other societies, and how it is in them; as that of the family, and of the civil state: in both which it is clear, that all have not like communion in privileges; but who can say that this arises from their different membership in the societies of which they are? Or how can it be denied, but that this arises from their different qualifications? An infant, an idiot, one distracted, or distempered with frenzy, etc. such cannot enjoy all privileges in the family, or civil state, as others may; and the reason is, because they are not fitly qualified: but who can say they are not complete, and proper, and immediate members of the family or state, as well as others? He that does injury to such an one, does injury to one that is as truly and properly a member of the society, as those that are better qualified; and such injuries are punishable with death, or otherwise, as the nature of the offence does require, as being injuries to one that is truly and properly a personal and immediate subject and member of the commonwealth, though there might be many other subjects better qualified? In like sort in church-society, some may enjoy more full communion than others, and yet not as being more truly partakers of proper personal, and immediate membership, but because they are better qualified.

Thus of the second particular, that the parents in question are immediate members.

The third is, that their membership still continues in adult age, and ceases not with their infancy; 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off only for notorious sin, or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief, not for growing up to adult age (Romans 11:20).

The Reverend Author answers, that this reason does not prove, that the membership of all baptized in infancy continues in adult age.

Ans. Nor did the Synod so say, nor produce that reason and Scripture for such purpose; but their purpose therein was this, namely, to prove that the parents in question do still continue members: which may be true, though all who are baptized in infancy do not. For thus their argument lies: If persons be not broken off but for notorious sin, or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief; then the parents in question are not broken off, but do still continue members: for any such notorious sin etc. cannot justly be charged upon them, witness the terms of the proposition. To this purpose is this reason alleged by the Synod; and therefore though the membership of all baptized in infancy do not continue in adult age, the Synod loses nothing thereby, as having never affirmed any such thing.

But why does not this reason and text prove the thing intended by the Synod? The Reverend Author gives this reason; because that text (Romans 11:20) speaks only of such as have been received into membership by their personal faith, and covenanting with the Church visibly.

A. The text clearly speaks of the people or nation of the Jews, of whom it is said, that they were a disobedient and gainsaying people (Romans 10:21), that they, as concerning the Gospel, were enemies (Romans 11:28), that they killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and persecuted the Apostles, pleased not God, and were contrary to all men, etc. (1 Thessalonians 2:15, 16); and shall we say, that notwithstanding all this, they were received into complete and immediate membership by their personal faith, etc.? Besides, it is not very credible, that all the members of the Jewish Church were received into complete and immediate membership by their personal faith, if that be true which the Reverend Author said, pag. 6. that that Church was to be propagated and continued by natural generation in a lineal descent from Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, till the coming of Christ; and that there was no ordinance for casting out their members for sins against the moral law, as there is under the Gospel, pag. 12. Which things (if true) do import, that visible faith was not the thing looked for in receiving the members of that Church, nor in continuing of them, but their natural generation, and lineal descent, might suffice: How then can that stand which is here said, that the persons spoken of in Romans 11:20 were such as were received into membership [illegible], when as that text speaks of the members of the Church of the Jews, who (if the Reverend Author's apprehension be right) were not so received, but by lineal succession, by natural generation; Christian Churches differing from that Church, and being of another sort, as being to be propagated and continued by regeneration, made visible by a right confession, and profession of faith, pag. 6. The sum is this, in the one place he makes it peculiar to Christian Churches to be propagated by regeneration, and visibly professed; and that in the Church of the Jews it was otherwise: and in the other place, which certainly speaks of the Church of the Jews, he says it speaks of members received by their personal faith; wherein there seems to be a repugnancy.

Our [illegible] of adult persons that break off themselves from the covenant by profane neglect or contempt of the ordinances, or unsuitable conversation, pag. 43.

Ans. Then the parents in question are not broken off at all, but their membership continues, as the Synod says; for the terms of the proposition will not suffer such profaneness and contempt of ordinances, and [illegible] conversation, to be justly charged upon them; and if there be the causes for which men are broken off, is not then this reason of the Synod plainly confirmed and made good? For they argue, that the persons in question do still continue members, because [illegible] notorious sin, impenitency, incorrigibleness, and the like; and here it is said, that men are broken off by profaneness, contempt of the ordinances, and unsuitable conversation; which sayings are in effect the same, or little different, and both of them do witness that the persons spoken of are not broken off, as not being guilty of any such wickedness or misdemeanors.

Who ever said that any were broken off for growing up to adult age?

Ans. If the persons described in the Proposition be said to be broken off, what is this less than the thing that is so disowned? It cannot be denied but they were once within the Church, and it cannot be said that they are broken off for any scandal in their conversation; but coming up to the terms in the Proposition are far from such evil, and on the contrary are furnished with many good and commendable qualifications, as knowledge, profession, subjection to Christ's government, owning the covenant, and the like. Now if notwithstanding all this, they be declared to be no members of the Church, but broken off from it, though they were once in it; what is this less than to say, they are broken off by growing up to adult age? And see reply of the Reverend Author to this Argument, p. 42.

2. Says the Synod, The Jews' children circumcised did not cease to be members by growing up, but continued in the Church, and were by virtue of their membership received in infancy, bound to various duties, and in special to those solemn personal professions that pertained to adult members, not as then entering into a new membership, but as making a progress in memberly duties (Deuteronomy 26:2–10 & 16:16, 17; Galatians 5:3).

To this the answer is, 1. That the Jews' children circumcised were bound to various duties, and to those solemn professions mentioned, is clear enough by the texts alleged, and sundry other: whereunto I willingly add, that baptism also binds the infant-seed of confederates to various gospel-duties, and especially this of using all means, &c.

Ans. And do not both these show that which the Synod expresses, that children do not cease to be members by growing up, but do still continue in the Church? For if it was so with the Jews' children, is it not also so with ours, according to the Synod's arguing? And if by virtue of that membership received in infancy, the circumcised then did, and the baptized now do stand bound to various duties when adult, how can it be avoided, but that membership received in infancy then did, and now does continue in adult age? For, when and as long as one stands bound by a covenant, then and so long that covenant must needs remain in being, for otherwise how could one stand bound by it? Can one be bound by that which is not in being? One would think this were not possible. Therefore by this being bound by the covenant and membership received in infancy, to various duties when adult, it appears, that the covenant and membership received in infancy does still continue in adult age, and so the purpose of the Synod is gained.

But 2. says the Reverend Author, It is not proved by those texts, that when they were adult they did not enter into a new membership; rather the contrary appears by Deuteronomy 26:17, 18.

Ans. If so, then they did every third year enter into a new membership: for the Reverend Author conceives that what is said to be done in Deuteronomy 26:17, 18 was done every third year, as before [illegible]; but who knows not that the same persons or people may many a time enter into covenant, or renew their covenant with God, and yet not thereby enter into so many new memberships? It seems by Psalm 50:5, where it is said, They have made a covenant with me by sacrifice, that so often as sacrifice was offered, so often there was a covenant made between God and them; and yet it will not follow, that at every time of sacrificing there was an entering into a new membership: it may suffice to say, as the Synod does, that at all such times there was a progress in memberly duties.

But why should we think that the covenant in Deuteronomy 26 was entering into a new membership? The reason rendered is this: because they entered into the covenant personally and immediately, not in and by their parents, as they did in infancy (Genesis 17:7). And if covenanting be the form of church-membership, then a different form of covenanting makes a different kind of membership; mediate and immediate covenanting makes mediate and immediate members.

Ans. But is this certain, that a different way of covenanting makes a different kind of membership? In Genesis 15 there is covenanting by dividing the heifer, the goat, &c. in the midst, and passing between the pieces or parts; and so in Jeremiah 34. In Genesis 17 there is covenanting by silence, and falling upon the face: in Nehemiah 9:38 there is covenanting by writing and sealing of it; in 2 Chronicles 15 by swearing with a loud voice, and by engaging, that whoever should not do as is there promised, should be put to death. Here we see are various ways of covenanting; but shall we say that these do infer diverse kinds of membership? Then it would follow, that if the same persons or people should diverse times enter into covenant, or renew their covenant, and this sometimes in one of these ways, and sometimes in another, if a different form of covenanting do make a different kind of membership, it would follow, that the same persons and people might many times over, again and again enter into a new kind of membership; which we suppose none will affirm, and therefore this that is here said will not hold: the thing for essence and kind may be the same, when the way and manner of doing may be various. Moreover, covenanting taken for our act in making or renewing the covenant, is not the form of membership (this is but the instrumental efficient) but covenant-interest, or to be in covenant, is the formalis ratio of membership (that is it which the Synod affirms pag. 24.) and that is the immediate, actual, and proper portion of the children, as well as of the parents.

The third argument of the Synod is from the relation of born servants and subjects, by which the Scripture sets forth the state of children in the Church (Leviticus 25:41, 42; Ezekiel 37:25), which relations (as all men know) do not cease with infancy, but do continue in adult age: and since it also follows, that one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up, &c. pag. 25, 26.

The answer to this is, that the one of these texts is typical, figuring the time of grace, whereby now Christ has freed us from the servitude of sin and Satan, &c.; the other text is a prophecy of the calling of the elect nation of the Jews, and of the state of the Church under the New Jerusalem: and therefore these do neither of them suit the thing in question.

Ans. But for the present nothing appears to the contrary, but they may be suitable; yet, if the thing it self for which those Texts are alledged, be sound and good, the Inference which the Synod makes is so also, though the Texts were not so apt. For, if the children in the Church be in state as born Servants and Subjects to Christ, then this state and relation, and so their membership, does not cease with infancy, but continues in adult age. And we hope the Reverend Author will not deny, but for state they are as born Servants, and Subjects to Christ, though he thinks the Texts quoted are not apt Proofs for it; but if the thing be not denied, the Argument of the Synod stands good for the continuance of their membership. Grant them to be in the state of born Servants and Subjects in their infancy, and then it must be granted, that this state continueth when they are adult, and so their membership does not cease with their infancy: deny that their membership continueth when adult, and then it must be said, either that their state in infancy is not as born Servants and Subjects, or that such relations do cease with infancy. But for the Reverend Author, he expresly grants, That one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up, when they are fittest for it, and have most need of it, pag 43. which is the very same that is here affirmed by the Synod: and does not that hence follow which the Synod inferreth, That therefore their membership did not cease with infancy, but does still continue? It seems to follow unavoidably: for how can they when adult, or grown up, be under engagement to service and subjection, as the end of membership received in infancy, if that membership do not still continue, but together with their infancy be now past and gone? If they be still under engagement, then their Covenant does still continue, and consequently their Membership.

Yet, when all this is done, neither can the Parents nor the Church give grace to the children, that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate membership: and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly, is to prophane the Ordinances, and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary, pag 44.

Ans. It is true, none can give grace but God, who is the God of all grace: but for bringing the adult persons spoken of into membership, we conceive there is no such thing here intended by the Synod, nor can be spoken of in any propriety of speech concerning the persons in question; they being such as were Members from their infancy, and are accounted by the Synod still to continue members now when adult, and therefore there is no bringing of them into membership. That which is here spoken of, were more aptly called an acknowledging of them to be members: and how the acknowledging of such persons, as the Proposition describes, to be and continue members, can be judged a prophanation of the Ordinances, or a polluting of the Lords Sanctuary, we confess we do not understand: for we know they were brought into membership by Gods own Institution and Appointment, and we do not know that they have in any way of God been put from it; nor, considering the term in the Proposition, can be justly judged to deserve any such matter, but the contrary: and therefore the acknowledging of them to be members, can be no such prophaning and polluting, as is spoken of.

The fourth Argument of the Synod, to shew that the persons spoken of do still continue members, is this: Because there is no ordinary way of cessation of membership, but by Death, Dismission, Excommunication, or Dissolution of the Society; none of which is the case of the persons in question.

Whereto the Reverend Author answereth, That the ennumeration is insufficient; there is another ordinary way, that is, Desertion. Thus Esau's membership ceased; and so many theirs, who being adult, regard not to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation, &c. And if forsaking the Church may suffice to deprive those of Church-priviledges, who were before in personal and immediate Church-fellowship (1 John 2:19), how much more those who never had such membership? &c. What can the mediate membership which such had in infancy, advantage them for continuing in membership, when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant, whereby they were left under engagement in their infancy to service and subjection to Christ in the Church?

Ans. If the Ennumeration were not sufficient, but that that of Desertion were needful to be added, yet this would not avail to prove the contrary to what the Synod here says, but the membership of the persons in question may still continue for all this: for, being qualified as the Proposition expresseth, they are farre from being guilty of such Desertion, or forsaking of the Church of God; and therefore it is not this, though it were added to the Particulars in the Argument, that can hinder their still continuing to be Members. Nor can they be justly charged as guilty of such things as are here expressed, namely, Not regarding to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation, nor to fit themselves for it, but to despise the Church of God, not desiring nor endeavouring after spiritual fitness, but living in the breach of that Covenant, &c. These things we cannot see how they can justly be imputed to the persons qualified as the Proposition expresseth, but they may still continue to be members, as not being culpable of any such things, as these here mentioned, to un-Member them.

Here also it may be observed, how the Reverend Author does again acknowledge, That the sins of adult persons, who were admitted in infancy, are a breach of that Covenant in which they were then comprehended, and which left them under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in the Church: which sheweth that they are still in the Covenant, though now they be adult; for otherwise, how could their sins be breach of covenant? And if they be still in Covenant, then they still continue members, and their membership did not cease with their infancy, which is the thing here affirmed by the Synod.

For that of Esau, whose membership is said to cease by Desertion, the Reverend Author may remember, that he has more than one told us of invalidity of proofs from the Old Testament for things [illegible] Gospel-times: which proofs, though we cannot say but they may be valid, yet why should himself use them against us, (for this of Esau is from the Old Testament) if his apprehension be right, that such proofs are not valid? But for the thing itself, of the cessation of membership by a man's own act, this has been spoken to before, pag. 34.35. in defence of the first Argument for this fifth Proposition: where also was considered that text (1 John 2:19) which is here alleged again: to which former place we refer the Reader; only adding thus much, that the cessation of membership which the Synod here speaks of, is such cessation as is ordinary, but if Esau's were by his own act alone, why may we not say that there was something in it extraordinary? Though it is not anywhere said that it was by his own act: if any affirm that it was, it stands upon them to prove it, for affirmanti incumbit probatie. And though it be not said that the Church had any hand in it, yet negative arguments in matter of fact are not cogent, though in matters of faith they be: but for matter of fact, we know many things were done that are not written (John 20:30 and 21:25), and therefore though this be not written, that there was any Church-proceedings against Esau for his departing from the Church, and therefore we do not say there was; yet they that say there was not, must prove there was not, because the mere not mentioning that there was, is no sufficient proof that there was not. And for any further proof, that Esau's falling off from his Church-membership was by his own act alone; any further proof for this, than merely the not expressing of any Church-proceedings against him, we find none.

The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this Particular, That the persons spoken of do still continue members, is this: Because otherwise a person admitted a 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, out of the Church, and of the unclean world; which the Scripture acknowledges not.

Whereto the answer in sum is this, That as a Freeman's child of some Corporation is free-born, and may in his minority trade under his father; yet being grown up, must personally enter into the common Engagement of Freemen, or else may not trade for himself, but is a Non-freeman by his own default, and has lost his Freedom by not entering in his own person into the common Engagement, etc. So, and much more justly, an adult person makes himself to become a Non-member by not covenanting personally as his father did.

It may be justly questioned, whether this Comparison does suit the case in hand. For, 1. All the privilege of this Freeman's child that is mentioned, is this, that he may in his minority trade under his Father; which privilege does not at all arise from his being the child of a Freeman; and the reason is, because one that is not a child, but only a servant of such a Freeman, may trade under the Freeman as his Master. This being the privilege of such Freemen, that their servants, and others belonging to them, though they are not free, yet may trade for them, and in their names: which is upon the matter no privilege at all to the child or servant, but only to the Freeman himself under whom they trade. But will any say, that to be a child of a Church-member is no privilege at all to a child, but only to the Father? Or will any say, that the child has no more privilege than the servant, since in the case alleged, the servant may trade under the Freeman, as well as the child may? We suppose none will say this; and therefore in this the Comparison does not suit the case in hand. The orders and privileges of Corporations are various, according to the tenor of their several Charters; but what the Charter of the Church is, we know, namely, that in Genesis 17 it takes in children into the Church with their Parents, and does not allow them to be put out, till censurable iniquity does appear.

2. If in some Corporations one that is free-born does lose his privilege when he becomes adult, if he does not then enter personally into the Engagement, yet it is not certain that it is so in all. Sure no such thing is said of Paul, who yet pleads his privilege of being a Freeman of Rome, because he was so born, without mention of any personal act of his own for attaining that privilege (Acts 22). And if Paul, being free-born, did retain his Freedom when adult, without any personal act of his own for that end, why may it not be so in respect of Church-membership, though in all Civil Corporations it be not so? It is evident, that the Scripture speaks of the children of bond-servants, as bound also, and of the children of the free, as free also, without mention of any act of the children to procure that relation or state, in the one case or in the other (Leviticus 25:46, 54). And we see no reason but it may be so also in the visible Church, that if the Parent be a member, the child is so also, and so continues, [illegible] that is, be cut off, not losing his membership by the mere not performing of what might fit him for full Communion.

3. If it were so in all Corporations, that a Freeman's child does lose his Freedom when adult, if he does not then in his own person enter into the common Engagement; and if it were also so in the Church, that a member's child should lose his membership when adult, if he does not then personally covenant, (though this is more than we see proved) yet if it were so, we see not how this can be prejudicial to the persons spoken of in this fifth Proposition. For of them it is expressly said, that they do solemnly own the Covenant before the Church, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord, etc. And therefore though Freedom in a Corporation, and membership in the Church, might be lost by not entering personally into the common Engagement and Covenant; yet, except we shall say it may be lost, though this personal Engagement and Entering be performed and done, except we shall say this, we cannot say that the membership of the persons in question is lost at all, but does still continue, since they are such as do thus personally engage and covenant.

As for that Text (Romans 2:25), "If you be a breaker of the Law, your Circumcision is made no circumcision," which is here alleged again: we refer the Reader to what has been said touching this Text before in pag. 33.

Lastly, whereas the Reverend Author says, those Texts in (Romans 11:16), (1 Corinthians 7:14), (Genesis 17:7) are not applicable to the adult persons in question, but only to infants and children in minority.

The Answer is, that the Synod does not at all apply them to the adult persons in question, and therefore it is a great mistake so to think: but having said, that these persons are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members, they do from there infer, that their children are therefore also Members, in covenant, and holy, and consequently are the Subjects of Baptism; which Inference and Consequence the Reverend Author we are persuaded will not deny, if the ground thereof be good, That the Parents in question are Members of the Church, as the Synod apprehends that they are. And therefore although the Texts alleged be not applicable to the adult persons in question, yet if they be applicable to such infants and little children whose Parents are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members, they do then sufficiently serve the purpose for which they are here alleged by the Synod.

So much for Defence of the sixth and last Argument for confirming this fifth Proposition.

Propos. 6. The sixth Proposition of the Synod, is this, Such Church-Members who either by death, or some extraordinary Providence, have been inevitably hindered from public acting as aforesaid, yet having given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified, and such, as had they been called thereunto, would have so acted, their children are to be Baptized.

To this the Reverend Author answers, That this Proposition may not be granted, for it grants the privilege of Church-membership to such as are not actually and regularly Church-members.

Ans. And yet the Proposition, in the very first words of it, does expressly declare, that what Church-privilege is here mentioned, is not granted to such as are not Church-members, but to such as are: Such Church-members, says the Synod, who, &c. their Children are to be Baptized. So that though Church-privileges may not be granted to such who are not Church-members, yet to the persons here spoken of, the Baptism of their Children may be granted, without any such undue granting of Church privileges, since the Synod does not say these persons are not Church-members, but does expressly say they are. All that can be said against these persons, is, that they have not acted according to the fifth Proposition: and yet it is said, they have been inevitably hindered therein, and have given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as willing to have so acted, and therefore having been Church-members from their birth or minority, how can the applying of Baptism to their children, be the granting of a Church-privilege to such as are not Church-members? If they had not been hindered from acting as in the fifth Proposition, but had indeed so done, yet this is not the thing that would have made them members, they having been members before; and though they be now adult, yet it has been proved before in the fifth Proposition, Arg. 6. Part. 3. That their membership does still continue; and therefore the granting of Church-privileges to such as are not Church-members, may be yielded to be unwarrantable, without any prejudice to the persons here spoken of, or to what the Synod here says concerning them.

And whereas the Reverend Author does here lay down two Inferences: 1. That an ordinary Minister cannot orderly do an act of Office to such as are not regular and actual Members of the visible Church; but, if he do, it will be usurpation. 2. That the Church may not receive into any privilege of Church-communion, such as are not actually in public Church-order.

These may both be granted, and yet what the Synod here says not be at all infringed thereby. For, considering that the persons spoken of were Church-members long ago, and have never since been cut off or cast out from that Relation, nor deserve any such matter, but do still continue therein, as was showed in the fifth Proposition, therefore we cannot see how it can be any usurpation in the Minister to do acts of his office towards them, nor unlawful in the Church to receive them to such a privilege of Church-communion as is spoken of; no, rather the persons being and still continuing Members, the performance of the thing in question may seem to be so far from being usurpation, as that the neglect thereof may be counted an unwarrantable omission or transgression.

The first Reason of the Synod for confirming this Proposition, is, Because the main foundation of the right of the child to privilege remains, namely, God's Institution, and the force of his covenant carrying it to the Generations of such as are keepers of the covenant, that is, not visibly breakers of it, &c.

Whereunto the Answer of the Reverend Author is, That the Parents of the children in question are visibly breakers of the covenant, which was sealed to them by Baptism in their Infancy, which obliged them to covenant personally for themselves and theirs, &c. p. 47, 48.

Ans. But is this certain, that the Parents in question are visibly breakers of the covenant? Sure this, if it be affirmed, had need to be soundly cleared. For either they be such as do personally own the covenant, being qualified with knowledge and blameless life, &c. as in the fifth Proposition, or else if they have not so acted, they have been inevitably hindred therein, as is said in the sixth Proposition: and is it reasonable, that for all this they must be counted visibly breakers of the Covenant? Are they such breakers of it, who do publickly own it, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord, being not culpable for any contrary practice in their conversation? Or are they such breakers of it, who if they have not publickly acted as aforesaid, the reason has been, because they have been inevitably hindred? We cannot see that Rule or Reason will allow or give warrant for such apprehensions. Put case a person who was born a Church-member, and has been sound in judgement, and unblameable and commendable in his conversation all his dayes, but has been, like Ioseph, sold for a slave, and kept in bondage, suppose to the Turks, or others for many a year: suppose also that after a time he be restored to his liberty, and thereupon do return homeward with his childe or children born to him in his exile and bondage, intending to present himself and his children to the Lord in the Church where he was born, but before he reach home, he dieth by the way; this man is inevitably hindred from entring into Covenant personally, though willing to have done it, and fit for it. But will any Reason or Charity permit to count this man a visible breaker of the Covenant, because he did not personally enter thereinto? We suppose this cannot be said, he being inevitably hindred from so acting. Why then should the Parents in question be judged to be visibly Covenant-breakers for not entring into Covenant personally, when it is expresly said they have herein been inevitably hindred, though willing to have done it, if there had been opportunity? For our parts, we dare not judge them to be visibly Covenant-breakers, as not seeing any ground or warrant so to do.

The second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition, is, Because the Parents not doing what is required in the fifth Proposition, is through want of opportunity, which is not to be imputed as their guilt, so as to be a barre to the childes Priviledge.

Now what says the Reverend Author to this? Does he deny that it is want of opportunity that hinders the Parents from doing what is required in the fifth Proposition? No we do not see that he denieth this at all? Does he then say, that though want of opportunity hindred, yet for all this want of opportunity, the not doing, though through [illegible] want of opportunity, is nevertheless a barre to the childes Priviledge? Not so neither; we do not finde that he so says, any more then the former: And therefore what was said in the former Reason about being inevitably hindred, may be applied to this particular for want of opportunity, namely, that such not doing what is mentioned in the fifth Proposition, can be no barre to the childes Priviledge.

But if the Reverend Author says nothing touching this want of opportunity, which is the main thing which is mentioned by the Synod in this their second Reason, what then does he say in his Answer to this Reason?

That which he first says, is, That it has been already proved in his Examining the fifth Proposition, That more is required to fit one that is adult for Church-membership, then is there expressed, namely, Faith in Christ made visible to the Church, without which they are not regularly Church-members.

Ans. But the Question here is not, Whether more be required to Membership then is expressd in that Proposition; but, Whether want of opportunity in Parents to do what is there expressed, be a just barre to the childes Priviledge. It is evident that this is the question here in hand, whereto the Answer of the Synod is Negative, That this want of opportunity is not a just barre. But whether it be [illegible] just barre, or be not, the Reverend Author says nothing at all to that, but speaks to another thing, That more is required to Church-membership then that Proposition does express: so that the thing in question seems not to be touched. Yet let us a little consider of this other whereto he leads us, and return back with him to the fifth Proposition.

Concerning which, first, here seems to be a manifest mistake concerning the scope of that fifth Proposition, which is not at all as is here intimated, whether what is there expressed be enough to fit one that is adult for Church-membership; but the scope of it is plainly this, to shew, That such Church-members as were admitted in minority, if they be qualified as is there expressed, may have their children Baptized: but for fitness for Membership, that Proposition does not discuss that Point at all, but expresly speaks of such as are Members already, and were admitted long ago, even in their minority. As for that which is here said concerning his Examining that fifth Proposition, we referre the Reader to what has been formerly there said in Defence of that Proposition.

Further, the Reverend Author says, That Baptism administred by ordinary Officers to such as are out of Church-order, is profaned; as Circumcision was by the Shechemites, and would have been by the Ishmaelites and Edomites, if it had been administred to their children, when their Parents were not joyned to the Church, or abode not in it in the Families of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Ans. Still this makes nothing against administring Baptism to the children spoken of in this fifth and sixth Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order. For the Synod thinks, that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority, so they still continue therein; and the contrary we have not yet seen proved. As for the Shechemites, &c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them, and yet Baptism not so, when administred to the children in question. For, if the former were not in the Church, yet these are: and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives, these other are farre from any such thing; and therefore there is no comparison between the former, and these spoken of, but a vast difference. And we may adde further, That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest, and the persons spoken of, both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation; so in respect of this latter, these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Jacob, to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred. We may instance in Simeon and Levi, who committed that odious cruelty and blood-shedding, for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death (Genesis 49). And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these, they abiding in the Family of Jacob, how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question, or be said to be profaned when administred to them, sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God, and were never cast out, nor deserving any such thing, but do still continue therein, and for life and conversation are farre from any such scandal and crime as was found in the Sons of Jacob aforesaid.

One end of Baptism now (as it was of Circumcision then) is, to seal Church-communion (1 Corinthians 12:13), and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, &c.

Ans. This is no just ground of denying Baptism to the children in question, except it could be proved that neither they nor their Parents are in the Church of God, nor of his Family, which yet we have not seen proved.

The regular and lawfull use of Baptism now (as of Circumcision of old) presupposeth both God's Promise, and his Faith (namely, Faith for justification with Abraham) who is to use it, either upon himself, or upon his infant. To use it, being not so qualified visibly, is it not a treacherous usurping of the Great Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth?

Ans. Neither does this make against the Baptism of the children in question; forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God, I will be a God to you, and to your seed in their generations: and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition, cannot be denied to have Faith visibly, as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition, and in this Defence formerly. Sure it is, these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly, as the Sons of Jacob afore-mentioned, and as many in the Church at Corinth, of whom it is said, that they were culpable for carnall dissentions, going to Law, Fornication, Uncleannesses, and not repenting thereof (1 Corinthians 1 & 3 & 6, and 2 Corinthians 12), and yet being in the Church, and professing Christianity, we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized, and the children of Jacob's Sons circumcised, and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth; and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition, though the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children. For it is evident, these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians, and in Reuben, Simeon and Levi, but are much more innocent, yes commendable.

So much for defence of the second Reason of the Synod for confirming this sixth Proposition, against what the Reverend Author, in his Answer thereto, says in his Digression, and turning back to the Proposition foregoing.

The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition, is, Because God accepteth that as done in his service, to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it were hindred; as in David to build the Temple (1 Kings 8), in Abraham to sacrifice his Son (Hebrews 11:17), and in that of Alms (2 Corinthians 8:12). As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto, and Baptized in voto, because there was no want of desire that way, though their desire was not actually accomplished.

To which the Answer of the Reverend Author is, That this may hold in private service, so that there God accepts the will for the deed, when the acting of it is hindred; but in public service, he does not accept of that as done, which is not done, so farre as to bring them into public state and order, whatever their desires and endeavours have been. And he instanceth in one that desireth to be a Minister, and yet may not do the acts of that Office, afore he be in Office; and in such as desire to joyn to the Church, but may not be received to the Seals afore they be so joyned.

Whereto the answer is, That what is here said is insufficient, as being not suitable to the case in hand, which is not concerning such as are out of Church-state and order, as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it, though their actual entring were hindred. For it is evident, that the Synod speaks not of such, but of such as are Church-members already, onely have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition; which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership, for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already: but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another purpose, namely for the more orderly, clear, and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children; themselves, though being in the state and order of Church-members, having not yet been received to the Lords Supper. It is evident, that the Synod speaks of such persons, and of actings for such an end, namely of persons already in Church-estate, and acting for the end aforesaid; and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end, though their actings, as aforesaid, have been inevitably hindred. Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all, though they do desire it; and of them he says, that these desires are not sufficient for their admission to Church-priviledges, when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred: between which, and those spoken of by the Synod, there is great difference; so that if what he faith were granted, yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby: but though desire of office, or of Church-estate, be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one, or obtaining the priviledges of the other, when actual entring into that office and state is hindred; yet when such as are in Church-estate already, do desire to act as in the fifth Proposition, but are inevitably hindred from so acting, what should hinder but they may have their children Baptized, as if they had so acted indeed? And why may not the instances of Gods accepting of Abrahams offering his Son, of Davids building the Temple, and the other mentioned by the Synod, be sufficient proofs hereof? We see nothing to the contrary but they may. Whereto may be added that in (2 Chronicles 30) where the people that prepared their hearts to seek God, are accepted of God in the Passeover, though they were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary: yet whatever it was that hindred their cleansing, their preparing their hearts did imply that they did desire it, and hereupon at the Prayer of Hezekiah they are accepted. And in (1 Samuel 30) when two hundred of Davids men were by faintness hindred that they could not go over the brook Besor, as he and others did, yet he will not yield but that they shall have part of the spoil, as well as others that went down to the Battell; considering that it was not want of will, but want of ability that hindred their acting as others did: and He, as he was in other things, a man after Gods own heart, even so he was in this; and they that would not have had the will of these two hundred accepted, when their deed was so inevitably hindred, are called wicked men, and men of Belial. By all which the Argument of the Synod is further confirmed and cleared, when they say in this their third Reason, that God accepts that as done in his service, to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it were hindred. And, if God accept those as Martyrs who are such onely in voto, as the Reverend Author seemeth to acknowledge, pag. 49 why may not the like be said of those who are onely Baptized in voto? We see no reason but that if in the one case God accept them as Martyrs, he does also in the other as persons Baptized.

And whereas he says, To be Baptized in voto, will nothing advantage any, as to Church-fellowship, because de occultis non judicat Ecclesia, and things are not manifested to the Church otherwise then by congruous actings.

The Answer is, 1. That the thing here spoken of by the Synod, is not at all of receiving into Church-fellowship, as the Reverend Author carries it, but of Baptizing the Children of such as are in Church-estate already, and have been so even from their minority.

2. Nor is the desire they speak of so hidden and unknown, that the Church cannot judge of it, but so manifest, that they have given the Church cause in the judgement of charity to look at them as so qualified, as is said, and that had they been called thereto, they would have so acted. So that if it were true, that men could not be received into Church-fellowship by meer desire of such state, when that desire is secret, and not manifest to the Church; yet men that are in Church-estate already may have their Children Baptized when their desires to act, as is mentioned, are sufficiently known to the Church, though their acting has been inevitably hindred. For these cases do apparently differ; so that what the Synod says in the one, is not overthrown by what the Reverend Author says in the other.

3. It is conceived by some, that those who of the Ancients are said to be Baptized in voto, were so spoken of, because they were Martyred before they could actually receive Baptism, and yet that their children were after the death of the Parents actually Baptized and accounted of the Church: which if so, does testifie, That they counted it a great matter to be Baptized in voto, sith in such case they would actually apply Baptism to the children, when the Parents had not received it actually, but onely in voto, or in desire. And how much more may Baptism be applyed to the children in question, whose Parents are not onely Baptized actually, and not in desire onely, but have been actually members of the Church even from their birth or minority? Onely they have not acted as in the fifth Proposition, but have been inevitably hindred therein, though they have been known to the Church to desire so to have acted.

Fourthly, Says the Synod, The termes of the Proposition import that in charity, that is here done interpretatively, which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly.

The Reverend Author Answereth, Its an unwarrantable charity that makes such an interpretation, for it is without warrant of any Rule in Scripture, or in good Reason.

Ans. But is this certain, that neither Rule in Scripture, nor good Reason, will give warrant for such charity as is mentioned? If men have been by death, or some extraordinary providence, inevitably hindred from so acting as in the fifth Proposition, and yet have given the Church cause to look at them as such as would have so acted, if they had been thereunto called, and not inevitably hindred, is there yet for all this no warrant in Scripture or good Reason for such charity as is spoken of? For our parts, when God Almighty accepts the will for the deed, when the parties inability hinders from doing so much as he would (2 Corinthians 8:12), and when Scripture tells us, that charity thinks not evil, but believes all things, hopes all things, etc. (1 Corinthians 13:5, 7), we cannot but think it better to retain and exercise such charity as is here spoken of, then to be driven or depart from it, as if no Rule of Scripture or good Reason would warrant it.

If that which is mentioned to be done in the fifth Proposition expresly, is here done interpretatively, both being put together, will not avail to put the Parent regularly into church-fellowship in any sense, and to give the infant a right to Baptism thereby.

Ans. For putting into church-fellowship, the things here mentioned by the Synod are not by them alledged for that end; and therefore if this that is said by the Reverend Author were granted, the doctrine of the Synod is not at all weakned thereby: But if the things mentioned be sufficient for the baptizing of the children of parents who are in church-fellowship already, the purpose of the Synod is sufficiently gained.

But why do not the things mentioned avail to put the Parent into church-fellowship? The reason rendred, is, Because by Christ's Ordinance only adult persons, who have true faith and holiness, are adult members of the invisible Church; and the same persons making profession thereof outwardly in the order by him appointed, may be members of the visible Church, and they only can give their infant-seed a right to Baptism.

Ans. And is this certain and clear, that only they who have true faith and holiness, and so are members of the invisible Church, may be members of the visible Church, and so their infant-seed have right to Baptism? If this were so, we may question whether it can be lawful for ministers, or any men, to dispense Baptism to any persons at all: and the reason is, Because they cannot certainly know who have such true faith and holiness, and so are church-members. For what the Reverend Author said a little before in pag. 49, that though God search and know the heart, yet the Church does not, de occultis non judicat Ecclesia; this we believe to be very true: and therefore if this hold, that none may be members of the visible Church, and give right to their seed to Baptism, but only they who have true faith and holiness, and so are members of the Church invisible; we say, if this hold, how can we know who are to be baptized, sith none can certainly know but God only, whether men have this true faith and holiness in their hearts and souls? Therefore we think it more safe to say, that where there is a profession of true faith and holiness, and nothing contrary thereto appearing, whereby that profession can be disproved, such persons may be members of the visible Church, and so have Baptism for their children, whether they be of the invisible Church, or no. And if the persons described in the fifth Proposition be tried by this Rule, we cannot see but as they were in church-fellowship from their minority, so they still continue therein, and so may have their children baptized, in as much as now they make a good profession before many witnesses, even the whole Church, and do no way contradict their profession by any scandalous practice in their lives. And therefore, though that be true which the Reverend Author here says, pag. 50, that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that therefore there must be true faith in them whom he priviledgeth to baptize their infants: that is, as we understand him, whom he priviledgeth to present their infants to Baptism; yet for all this it may be lawful enough to administer Baptism to the children of parents qualified as in the fifth and sixth Propositions, and they that do administer, may have faith to please God therein, because of the church-relation and good profession of the parents, though the parents cannot please God in presenting their children to that ordinance, if themselves be destitute of the grace of faith: yet this we must still say, that for any that are so qualified as is said, we see no Scripture-Rule or Reason that will warrant us to judge them so destitute.

So much for defence of the sixth Proposition.

Propos. 7. The members of orthodox churches, being sound in the faith, and not scandalous in life, and presenting due testimony thereof, these occasionally coming from one Church to another, may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come, by vertue of communion of churches; But if they remove their habitation, they ought orderly to covenant and subject themselves to the government of Christ in his Church where they settle their abode, and so their children to be baptized. In being the churches duly to receive such to communion, so far as they are regularly fit for the same.

For confirming of this Proposition in both the parts or branches of it, the Synod giveth sundry reasons, whereto the Reverend Author says nothing in the particulars, but in general, that he looks at the regular communion of approved churches as an Ordinance of Christ: But further then so he says nothing, either by objection against the Proposition, or by consent to it? But all he says is by way of propounding Queries, to the number of half a score, or more; and then concludes, That when these and the like questions are clearly answered, he shall then understand the true and full sense of this Proposition, and what to say to it. But when the Synod shall come together to answer these questions, whether ever or never, we do not know, nor do see any great probability of such a thing; and therefore no more being here said against this Proposition, we may conclude that it yet stands firm and good. And, as he concludes, that thus much may suffice, for the present, for reply to the Synod's answer to the first question; So may we conclude, That thus much may suffice, for the present, for defence of the Synod's answer against what he says to the contrary in his Reply.

Concerning the Reverend Author's Discourse upon the second Question touching Consociation of Churches, we shall not trouble the Reader with any large Reply: and we hope it needeth not, because there appeared no Dissent or Dissatisfaction in the Synod about that matter. Our Brethren that Dissented in the former Question, readily and fully Concurred in this, as themselves declare in Antisynodali, pag. 12. Besides, part of the Reverend Author's Exceptions referring to the Platform of Discipline, concluded on with great Unanimity in the Synod held at Cambridge, Anno 1648. (sundry Principal Members whereof, as Mr. Cotton, Shepard, Rogers, Norton, &c. are now at rest with God) we shall not now after so many years, wherein we heard of no Opposition, make that a subject of debate.

But if the Reader please to take along with him these three or four Considerations, they may serve to take off what is here Objected against us by the Reverend Author.

1. That we never said nor thought, that there should be a Withdrawing from other Churches upon Differences, Errors or Offences of an inferior and dubious nature, yes though continued in. We are far enough from Hastiness or Harshness in that matter, being professed Adversaries to a Spirit of sinful and Rigid Separation: we hope there is no word in the Synod's Conclusions that savors thereof, if candidly interpreted. And for Withdrawing from Brethren because of Dissent from what is here held forth by this Synod, both our Practice and our Profession in the Preface to that Book, do sufficiently show us to be far from it. This may answer what is said this way in Pag. 54, 55, 57, 63.

2. That we account not Consociation of Churches to be another thing than Communion of Churches, but only an Agreement to Practise that Communion, as is expressly said in Propos. 5th & 6th. And therefore we understand not why the Reverend Author should so often praise Communion of Churches, as pag. 58, 59, 60, 61. and yet dispraise and dislike Consociation. Is Regular Communion so good and excellent, and can it be hurtful for Churches to agree and consent to Practise it? Neither do we mean by that Agreement, a Vow (as is suggested pag. 56, 57.) or a formal Covenant in a strict sense (though Mr. Cotton does not refuse to call it a Covenant, in Keyes, p. 54, 59.) but only a declared Consent (as is expressed Propos. 7.) of each Church to walk in Regular Communion with their Neighbor-Churches. And if the Reverend Author does approve of the Acts of Communion here set down for the substance of them, as it seems he does by what he says pag. 52. why should it be thought a dangerous matter to agree thereunto for the Substance thereof?

We have indeed found in our Experience much good and benefit by Communion of Churches, as the Reverend Author acknowledges, pag. 58, 61. and his acknowledgement thereof we gladly accept; but we have also found, that the want of ready Agreement timously to attend and exert the Acts of Communion, has hazarded the Peace and Well-being of sundry Churches, and exposed them to great Troubles. We do not desire by our proposed Consociation, to add any thing to the Communion of Churches, but only a vigorous and timous exercise thereof.

3. That we expressly disclaim the subjecting of a Church to any other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatever, Propos. 1. and therefore it is strange that the Reverend Author should put that upon the Consociation by us intended, That it is a subjecting of Churches under Classical Jurisdiction, pag. 59. It is not the bare Consent, or mutual Agreement of Churches, but the nature of the thing consented to, namely the Power they agree to be stated under, that makes it a Classical Combination, or puts those Churches under a Classical Jurisdiction. What though the voluntary Combination, mentioned by Mr. Rutherfurd, in his sense does infer a Classical Membership and Jurisdiction? Surely it does not follow that ours does so, when as we expressly disclaim it. But is it true, that wherever there is a voluntary Combination of Churches, they become a Classical or Presbyterian Church, and the Members by consenting thereto, become Members of a Classical Church, and under the Power of it, so as to be Excommunicated by it, &c. as is said pag. 59? What then shall be thought of that known Position of Doctor Ames, Medal. Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 27. which is expressly cited and approved by the Reverend Author in his Reply to Paget, pag. 224, 225?

Surely it is no new thing with Congregational-men, but their professed Doctrine, with one consent to own some kind of Combination and Consociation of Churches; but withal we constantly affirm with Doctor Ames in the same place, that This Combination does neither constitute any new Form of a Church, nor ought it to take away, or in any measure to diminish that Liberty and Power which Christ has left to his Churches, but only it serves to direct and promote the same.

4. Let the Reader please to peruse and consider the Reverend Author's Eleventh and Twelfth premised Position, pag. 6, 7, 8. and compare them with what the Synod has published touching Consociation of Churches, and we suppose he will find such an agreement between them, as that he will wonder (as we do) to see the Reverend Author appearing as an Antagonist in this matter. It seems strange, that Brethren should be willing to contend both where they do differ, and where they do not. Also it may be considered, how many Reflections here are upon us, (as if we would cast a Snare upon Churches, by straitening them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves in re propria; as if we would absolutely bind Churches not to administer Censures within themselves, &c.) for which nothing published by the Synod did give any just occasion.

And whereas Mr. Cotton is represented as being against our Consociation, pag. 60, 61. Let his Printed words be viewed in the Keyes, pag. 54–59. his Solemn Speeches of it to sundry be remembered, and his Draught of it a little before his death be considered, and the Reader will see whether he can join in belief with the Reverend Author about that matter. The Lord guide us by his Spirit into all Truth, and help us to follow the Truth in Love.

FINIS.