Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston, Text 2 (1 of 3)

Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston · Text 2 (1 of 3)

p. 1A 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, doth premise Eleven or Twelve Positions, by which (he saith) 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 onelyonly to clear what is said by the Synod, against what this Reverend Author saith against the same in his …; and therefore untill he speak to what the Synod delivered, we think it not needful to insist long upon these premised Positions. OnelyOnly 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 p. 2we do not see that we are bound to take these Positions ▪ as the Standard and Rule, by which to judge of what the Synod saith: 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. doth 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, viz. They that according to Scripture are Members of the visible Church, are the Subjects of Baptism:

The second is this: viz. The Members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are Confederate visible Believers, in particular Churches, and their Infant-seed, i. e. Children in … ▪ whose next Parents, one or both, are in Covenant.

Now what saith the Reverend Author to these? That which he saith, 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 actuall Members, &c. The second, thus; The actuall 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] [Actuall and regular Members.] But a necessity of this Alteration doth 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 p. 3bids us Search the Scripture, Job. 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, Rom. 15.4. and doth contain a perfect Rule in all things that concern Gods Worship, whether Natural, or Instituted, as this Reverend Author saith, 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 whatsoever 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 actuall Members] may we think that men may, or can be Members according to Scripture, and not Regular, nor actuall 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 Actuall be contradistinct from Potentiall; then they that are Members according to Scripture, are Actuall members, and not onelyonly Potentiall, 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 Patriarchall and Mosaical discipline of old, &c.

p. 4Reply. The Text alledged (viz. Gen. 18.19. & 21.9, 10.12. and Gal. 5.3.) do not prove the Antecedent, viz. 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 doth 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 doth expresly affirm, doth 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 saith they did, they were therefore under the Church-discipline that then was. And if they might be cast out, as Ishmael was, Gen. 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 p. 5and 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 saith, He should be a wilde man, and his hand against every man, and every mans hand against him, Gen. 16. & when as he soon after became such a Mocker and Persecutor, Gen. 21. Gal. 4. as that for it he was cast out, Gen. 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 minori…y, by vi…tue 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 Mosaicall 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 u…der Mosaicall 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, Gal. 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 p. 6Discipline 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, saith 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 Kingdome of God, is the same in substance which is taken from the Iews, and given to the Gentiles; yea, and that Baptisme 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 doth 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; viz. Because the members of the Church, in the Patriarchs families, were to continue in Communion p. 7with the Church all the dayes 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 alledged; and the reason is, because we say the very same concerning the Children of Church-members in these dayes, viz. that they still continue in the Church all the dayes of their life, if they be not cast out in a Gospel way, which he doth not disprove. And therfore in this there is no want of par ratio.

And for the proof of disparity between the Church of Israel, and our Churches, viz. 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 shew, that it is very probable that in Israel there was appointed of God an Ordinance of Church-censure or d…scipline, not only for sins against the Ceremoniall Law, but also against the Moral; For, the Lord doth so of…en, and earnestly command Holiness and purity to that People, and so often and severely reproveth 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 Passeover, that for this he must be cut off from the Congregation, as Exod. 12.15, 19. or if a man should touch a dead body, or a bone of a Man, or a grave, &c. 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 Whoredome, or Drunkeness, 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.

p. 8And yet if it were certain and clear, that so it was in those times, the purpose for which this is alledged 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 Synods argument. But, saith 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 onelyonly for Ceremonial uncleanness, and the lat…er 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, then 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 a…gueth for the maintenance of the Ministry now under the Gospel, from the maintenance of the Ministry that was under Moses, 1 Cor. 9.13. and sheweth the danger of unworthy receiving our Sacraments, from the evil that b…fell many who were partakers of the Baptism, and the spirituall meat and drink that was then, 1 Cor. 10.1, 2, &c. and if he argue from the Ministry and Sacraments that we…e under Moses; why i… not the Argument also good from the Mosaicall 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 Mann…, 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 onelyonly for Ceremonial matters, and that we have none such, but onelyonly 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.

p. 9The other particular alledged by the Reverend Author, to shew 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, viz. D…ut. 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, viz. 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; yea, 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 onelyonly entred into at that third year of Tything, then … 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, &c. was of all the people joyntly together, for it was a Covenant not onelyonly with Men, but with Women, yea 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 p. 10onelyonly 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 doth yet appear, to prove that …ult persons in Israel were not under Discipline in that Church, but by their taking hold of the Covenant personally; but for ought that doth 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, unto Church-discipline in the former, may be justly inferred their subjection thereto in the latter.

So much for Defence of the Synods 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; viz.

Because they are within the Church, or Members thereof, and therefore subject to Church-judicature, 1 Cor. 5.12.

The Answer that is given, is, That the Argument is to be denied, and the Text alledged doth 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 ye not judge them that are within? but them that are without God judgeth. 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 p. 11distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit: Distinctions should be warranted by the Word; therefore when the Word saith, 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, onelyonly because they are not so with…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 doth not here expresly speak of Excommunica…o…, and that the children are subject to that Ordinance; but onelyonly saith, They are under the Watch, Discipline and Gove…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 saith, may be true f…r all this.

And th…ugh …t be true, that such as were never in Church-communion at all, cannot properly be Excommunicated; yet the Reverend Author, we suppose, doth not, nor will deny, but that many who have never yet been p…rtakers of all Ordinances, or of the Lord… Supper as children in minority, yet may be counted Church-member…, 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… have not been admitted to full communion; and therefore what impossibility is there in it, but that men may be Excommunicated, viz. 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 **See Essay first, pag. 13▪ 4. in …xam. of Prop. 4.Will say, that his children in minority are cut off from their membership with him, and so are Excommunicated with the Pa…ent. And if p. 12so, then there may be Excommunicatio…, where there never was the enjoyment of full communion. And so for all that is here said, [That pe…sons not in full communion cannot be Excommun…ca…ed] yet what the Synod saith 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; viz.

Because they are Disciples, and therefore under Discipline in Christs School.

The Reverend Author's Answer hath in it a Concession, and an Exception: The Concession is, That all Church-members are Disciples, Infants foeder…lly, &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 D…scipline, and even Infants so in their way; it is strange, that these that their infancy are now become adult, should now be n… 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 findes 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 sith for the thing it is confessed that they were Disciples and Members when Infants, is it not more rationall 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) untill they be upon desert cut off, or cast ou…, rather then to say, that now being adult, they have lost the Relation and Priviledge p. 13which 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 dye in their Infancy, and never live to be adult; sith in their Infancy they had Church-relation, and Covenant-state, which now they have lost, though without their desert.

The adult Disciples, in Mat. 28 20. must observe, and do all Christs Commandments, therefore the Disciples there intended, w…th reference to adult persons, are Members in full Communion, pag. 13.

Ans. This Arguing is but too lik… to that of the Antipoedobaptists: for it is well known how they would exclude infants by this Text, from being partakers of Bap…ism, because they are not D…sciples so, made by Teaching, or by being taught to observe all Christs Commandments; because Infants cannot do this, therefore, say they, they are not Disciples to be Baptized. But the Reverend Author confesseth, that I…fants 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 Christs Commandments, not being in full communion? The Arguing of the Antipoedopaptists from this Text is to this purpose, viz. All Disciples that are to be Baptized, …e taught to observe all Christs commandments; but this doth not agree to Infants: therefore Infants are no… Disciples that are to be Baptized. And is not the Arguing of the Reverend Author much like it? viz. All adult persons that are Disciples, do observe all Ch…ists Commandments: but this doth 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 l…ke unto 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 onelyonly 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 Christs Commandments: but as this doth not exclude Infants from being Disciples, and from being Baptized; so neither are the adult person ▪ spoken p. 14of excluded from being Disciples, though neither the one nor the other be yet fit for observing all Christs Commandments, in full communion, in all the Ordinances.

To the fourth Argument; They are in Church-covenant, therefore subject to Church-power, Gen. 17.7. & 18.19.

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

Ans. And yet the Text saith, the Covenant of Abraham is with him, and his seed in their generations, Gen. 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 willng mind p. 44. so that if they do it not, but live in neglect or contempt of the Ordnances, or unsuitable conversation, they hereby live in the breach of that covenant, whereby they were left under engagement in their Infancy, pag 43.…4 45. Now if this be so, it plainly appeareth hereby, that as they were in the Covenant in …h… I…fancy, 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 … 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, viz. They are Subjects of the Kingdome of Christ, and therefore under the Laws and Government of his Kingdom…, Ezek. 37.25, 26.

The Answer is, That this Argument may be retorted against themselves, and the proofs of it, thus: The Subjects of Christs Kingdome have full communion in all the priviledges of Christs Kingdome, but these adult persons have not so, ex-confesso, therefore they are p. 15not Subjects …f Christs Kingdome, and so are not under the Laws and Government of it.

Ans. The sum is, The Subjects of Christs Kingdome have full communion in all the Priviledges of Christs Kingdome: But the adult persons spoken of have not such communion: E…go. But is this true, that a… the Subjects of Christs Kingdome have full communion in all the Priviledges of it, even in all, and not in some onelyonly, i. e. in all Ordinances? What shall be said then of little children? must they have communion in all Church-priviledges, and all Ordinances, as the Lords Supper, Voting in Elections, &c. or else be no Subjects of Christs Kingdome? It is plain, that such communion they cannot have; and yet it is as plain, that Of such is the Kingdome of Go…, and of Christ, and therefore he would have them to be brought unto him, and rebuked those that would have kept them from him, Mark 10 and therefore persons may be Subjects of Christs Kingdome, and yet not have communion in all th… Ordinances, or Priviledges of that Kingdome. And therefore the adult persons spoken of, may be Subjects of Christs Kingdome, though not yet fit for all Ordinances; and yet being …ubjects, must be subject to such Laws of that Kingdome 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 Christs Kingdome, because they have not communion in all the Priviledges of it, and by the same reason we may exclude Infants: allow Infants to be Subjects of Christs Kingdome, and partakers of some Priviledges of it, viz. 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 p. 16Christs School; but this here is from their being Baptized, and that therefore they are in a state of subjection to the authoritative teaching of Christs Ministers, and to the observation of all his commandment…, 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 subject on to the authoritative teaching of Christs 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, &c. The P…op…si…ion is grounded on the Text, Mat. 28.19, 20. where Christs Ministers are required to Bap…ize, and to teach the Baptized to observe all his commandments. The Assumption is plain of it self.

To the seventh Argument, viz. That Elders must seed, i. e. both Teach and Rule all the Flock; and that children are part of the Flock.

The Reverend Author answereth, That this concerneth 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 burthen which they suppose themselves to be under. And when the Holy-Ghost saith, that they must take heed to themselves and to all the flock, Act. 20 28. and that they must watch for their Souls, as they that must give account, Heb. 13.17. to say, that these Soules, and this flock, are only such as are in full communi…n, 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 …aul; and that now the Elders are not charged to watch over them any longer, nor to give account of their Soules, we fear this would be an undue straitning and limiting of the Texts alledged, and would be no good plea before the Lord; and therefore without b…t…er proof, we dare not assent unto it.

For what the Synod alledgeth, "That the Apostle writing to the F…ock or Church at Ephesus, doth also write to children, Eph. 6.1. as counting them part of the flock:

p. 17We do not see that this is sufficiently taken off, by what the Reverend Author answereth, viz. That those Children were either Children in their Minority, or if adult, they were personally joyned 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 doth there alledge, Honour thy Father and Mother, &c. 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 Honour 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 Ho…ouring 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, w…ether 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 (i. e. both to Teach and k…l… them) it appeareth thereby, that what the Synod here saith, 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 alledged to the contrary.

In Answer to the Eighth Argument, From the danger of Irreligion and Apostacy 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 dreadfull judgement of being let-alone in their wickedness. Hos. 4.16, 17.

The Reverend Author nameth sundry other means for preventing these evils; as, That no adult person… be received into personal membership, till fit for all Church-communion; and that the Keyes of p. 18the Kingdome of Heaven, which Christ hath left to binde and loose, be rightly managed toward Delinquent-members that are orderly admitted into Church-communion; and for others that are not thus joyned to the Church, that authority in Families and Common-wealth 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 …he pu…pose …lledged: and, Oh that there were due care and wa…ch…lnes… in Churche… ▪ Families, and Common-wealth, for the faithful and due exercise hereof! Nevertheless, we conceive all these are not …fficien… for the purpose desired;

1. Because some of them are not Church-wayes at all▪ of which the Synods Argument speaketh; though it is not so expressed by the Reverend Author: and therefore t…ough government in Families and Common-wealth were carefully used in the manner expressed, yet Church-way may be wanting for all this.

2. Those Church-wayes that are mentioned, viz. Care in admitting into the Church, and due managing the Keyes 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, I…religion and Apostacy may break into the Churches, notwithstanding all Church-wayes toward others, and all other wayes in Common-wealth 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 blesseth onelyonly his own Institutions, not mens Devices; and that Humane Inventions usually cause the evils which they pretend to cure, pag. 15.

This Reason may have in it self a truth; viz. that Gods Institutions, p. 19and not mens 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 an Humane 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, Hos. 4 of being …e… alone in their wickedness? And doth not this Neglect make way for I…religion and Apostacy in Churches, no Church-way being used toward these for prevent…ng thereof? for we do not see any ground to think, that the use of Church disc…pline toward such is an Humane 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 joyning with the Antipoedobaptists, in denying the Ba…sm and Church-memb…rship 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 an Humane D…vic…, yet for such as were once according to Order and Divine Institution within it, as Members thereof, and never were since st…out of …, or cut off f…om that relation (which is the case of the persons spoken of) to say, That Church-government and Church-discipline toward such, is an Humane Inven…io…, we see no sufficient Reason either so to say or think; but do rather conceive, that this Church-discipline is so far from being an Humane Invention, that the neglect thereof, is a neglect of a Divine Institution; and that a… sowning p. 20of … personspunc; and declaring of them to be Non-members, which some speak for) if this be not a Church-censure, what is it other then an Humane 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.

Propose 4. The fourth Proposition of the Synod, is, That these adult Persons are not therefore to be admitted to full communion, meerly 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 Lords Supper afore they be duely 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 Lords Supper may be preserved from unworthy partakers, as we do not doubt but he doth. But why then is this Proposition stuck at? if it may not be granted, that these adult persons are not to be admitted to f…ll communion without such qualifications as the word of God requireth thereunto, which is what the Synod saith; 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 doth not consent to the other, but excepts against the proofs of it.

For, saith he, Though this Proposition seems to them plain, yet it seems not sufficiently cleared by their Proofs: 1. From 1 Cor. 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, p. 21when they partake of this Ordinance: But this ability is too of…n seen to be wanting in the c…ildren 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 doth 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 saith 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, yea 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 (viz. 1 Cor. 1….28, 29.) proves it.

p. 22Ans. Doth 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 doth 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 saith à quatenus ad omne valet conj… quenti…, 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 …f that Text 1 Cor. 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, (i. e. 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 st…ll c…ntinue 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 f…rth faith in Christ wrought in their hearts, before they may be baptized, as Philip required the Eunuch, Acts 8. So, by parity of Reason, f…om 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 … God, &c

The Answer is, That there is not, as is said, parity of Reason between p. 23the 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 d…si…e, the persons having had the Covenant, and their Membership sealed by Bapt…sm 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 … that Priviledge; but in the other case, the persons were Church-members long ago. For, as for that term that is used concerning these … d…ring to be joyned to the Church by their own personall … c…ve this word of [joyning] to the Church if it be meant of their first joyning thereto, is very improper, because the… 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; yea, and the Priests and Porters had speciall charge that men should not partake in all the holy things, unless duely qualified for the same, notwi…hstanding 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, hath been declared in the fourth, sixth, and eighth Positions, with which this proof doth 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, Rom. 15.4. and Christ himself bids us search them, as those which did Testifie of Him, Joh. 5.39. and brings many Proofs out of those Scriptures for confirming and clearing things under the Gospel, Luk. 24.44, 45, 46. & 16.29, 31. and so do the Apostles likewise, even in main & fundamental matters, Act. 17.2, 3. & p. 2428.23. and so from the maintenance of the Ministry that was under the Old Testament, to the maintenance of the Ministry now, 1 Cor. 9.13. from their Sacraments to ours; and from the danger of unworthy receiving those, to the danger of unworthy receiving ours, 1 Cor. 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 doth 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 Kingdome of God is the same to the Iews formerly, and to the Gentiles now; and that Baptisme of Infants, under the New Testament, may be rightly proved from the Circumcision of Inf…nts 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, unto 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 …oedobaptism, 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 p. 25full communion in these dayes, 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 Synods 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 saith, 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 Iewish 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 ceremoniall uncleannes, 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 bad such full communion. But what weight is there in this, to weaken the Synods Argument? If ceremoniall uncleanness did then hinder men from full communion, who had formerly had it is there not as much reason that want of spirituall qualifications should now binder 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 f…ll communion with the Church (for so the Reverend Author, ….19. understands that place in 2 Chron. 23 19.) doth it not much more follow, that such as yet never had such full communion may justly be kept theref…om, untill duely quali…ica, notwithstanding their Membership? For ought we see, this Consequence is strong and undeniable, and so the Synods Argument in this place from the Old Testamen… is not at all overthrown, but rather more strengthned.

As for what the Reverend Author saith, pag. 18, 9. to the particular Texts here alledged, viz. Levit. 7.20, 21. Numb. 9.6, 7. & 19.13, 20. Ezek. 44.7, 8, 9. which he understandeth to signifie and p. 26teach, That in Gospel-times men should be removed ou… 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.

OnelyOnly 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, then meer membership; therefore so there is now to the Lords Supper.

The Reverend Author answereth, It is true, more then 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 then 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, viz. That more then membership is also requisite to the receiving of the Lords 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 speciall communion with him, and so supposeth a speciall renewing of Faith and Repentance in them that partake of that Ordinance.

The Reverend Author making answer to this, faith 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 onelyonly p. 27for some, for any thing that the Reverend Author saith to the contrary. For, as for the different nature of these two Ordinances, he saith nothing thereto at all: But his Answer is about the communion that is inferred from Church-membership, viz. 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 medleth not with the different nature of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, from which the Synod argueth; so it is an Answer which being considered in it self, 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 ad…lt persons are not therefore to be admitted to full communion, meerly 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, saith, as here we see, that the Membership of adult persons, infers communion in all Ordinances, the Lords Supper, &c. The Synod saith in effect, This Membership alone doth not infer full communion; and the Answer here given, is an affirming of the contrary, viz. that it doth infer it; which Answer cannot goe for a sufficient overthrow of the Synods Proposition, unless we shall say, that a meer 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 doth 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 pertaines to males in full communion: —for how can they who are not able to examine and judg themselves, be thought able and fit to discern and judge in the weighty affairs of the House of God?

Now what saith the Reverend Author to this? one thing he saith, is this, That Church-membership in adult Persons, infers communion p. 28in 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 saith, is this, That no adult person may be received into meer 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…, and their Inference from i…, be removed, the Reader may judge what is to be thought of a meer affirmation to the contrary.

So much for Defence of the Synods fourth Proposition.

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

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 whatsoever, and neither p. 29the Parents nor the children do put in any barre to binder 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 an…, the Synod proves; Because in the Old Testament this was the ground of Title to Circumcision, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 11. to which Baptism now answer, Col. 2.11, 12 and because in Acts 2.38 39. they are … ground exhorted to be baptized, because the Promise (… Covenant) was to them and to their children.

Now what saith the Reverend Author to these Proofs? truly nothing at all that doth appear; and therefore the Argument & 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, saith God, Gen. 17. between me and thee, and thy seed after thee— Ye shall therefore keep my Covenant: and this is my Covenant which you shall keep, Every male among you shall be circumcised: and▪ saith Peter, Repent, and …e baptized wherefore, or on what g…ou…d must they be so? Because (saith he) th… Promise … 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 … the Gospel; and that Baptism …come in the place of Circumcision, and therefore Infants of Confederates are now to be baptized, as thou 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 [the very thing here: affirmed by the Synod. What then doth the Reverend Author here say? why, that which he saith, is this, That men must be duely qualified before they may be admired to covenant with the Lord and his Church for themselves and their children—and, that the Primitive Churches looked for this qualification in the … admitted into Church-membership— which p. 30doth not at all enervate what the Synod here saith. For, suppose men must be duely qualified before they be admitted to Covenant and Membership, doth 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 doth not speak ad idem. Whether the Parents of the children here spoken of, be duely qualified for Covenant, and unto 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 "S…ints, Sanctified, and Faithfull in Christ Iesus, 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 o… 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, viz. [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 p. 31manner of alledging it, that he doth; then what the Synod here affirmeth, is gained, viz. 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 doth 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 doth: 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 Baptisme, 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, viz. That according to Scripture, the Covenant was differently administred in diff… rent 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. VVhat if all this were granted? Is there any thing in this (for we would willingly keep to the Question) to overthrow the Synods f…st Proposition, or their saying that is here under debate, viz. 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 saith, appears;

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

p. 32To this the Reverend Author Answereth, That if this being in Covenant, be understood of being in it according to G…spel-rules, and that the Childrens 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, viz. 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, alledgeth, 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, saith, That they are discovenanted, by not performing that whereunto they were engaged by the Covenant,— for which he alledgeth Rom. 2.25.

Ans. 1. It seems then the Covenant doth not only reach unto 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 engageth? 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 conc…ssion that the Covenant reacheth further then to Infancy or minority, and that they who were in Covenant in their Infancy by meanes of their Parents covenanting for them, are also in that Covenant when they are become adult.

2. Nor is it clear, that m…ns not performing what the Covenant requireth of them, doth 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 p. 33them long afore be give them a bill of Divorce, as it is said in Nehem. 9.30. Many years didst thou forbear them; and therefore it may seem more rigour then the Word alloweth, 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 requireth. The long-suffering of God will not allow us so to judge, unless we had more clear warrant for such judgement: Nor doth the Text alledged, viz. Rom. 2 25. prove any such thing; but when it is there said, Thy circumcision is made uncircumcision, the meaning is it shall not profit thee 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, i. e. 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 bindes them unto; 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, then 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, untill 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, sare for notorious sins, and incorrigibleness therein, which is not the case of these Parents.

The Reverend Author answereth, That if they break off themselves, p. 34by breaking the Covenant which was sealed by Baptism in their infancy or minority, they thereby deprive themselves of the benefits and Priviledges of the Covenant, and in such case are to be looked at like those in 1 Joh. 2.19.

Ans. If by Breaking off themselves, were meant no more, but that they do this meritoriously, i. e. 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, Hos. 13.9. O Israel, thou hast destroyed thy self, i. e. 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 onelyonly 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 doth it, even the Lord doth all these things, Deut. 32.39. Isa. 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 Cor. 5.12. If therefore a Church-member, suppose one that hath been p. 35in 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 fors…ke 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 saith, D…liver such a man to Satan, 1 Cor. 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 Ioh. 2.19. of whom it is said, They went out from us, but they were not of us, &c. why may not this going o…t 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 then 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 Iob were thus forsaken by their kindred, b…ethren, and mothers children, &c. Psal. 38.11. & 69.8. Iob 19.13, 14. but doth 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 doth not follow at all: How then doth it follow, that those who wen… 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 then meritoriously, doth not appear.