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

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

p. 35The 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, Gen. 17.7.

p. 36The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto, pag. 24. saith, That the sea…ing 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 …stablished by the Blood of Christ, Luk. 1.69, 72.73 Heb. 13.20.

Ans. Here is then a consent to the Synods 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; doth 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 Synods saying, and of their Proof of it.

Whereas the Synod said, That the Parents in Q…estion are keepers of the Covenant, because they are not fors…ker…, and rejecters of the God, and Covenant of their Fathers; and alledged for this Deut. 29.25, 26. 2 King. 17.15—20. 2 Chron. 7.22. Deu. 7.10.

The Reverend Author Answereth, 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 alledged; yet besides that gross Idolatry, there is a spiritual Idolatry in scandalous covetousness, Col. 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 saith 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 cove…ousness; 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 p. 37possible for men to be not Scandalous in life, and yet to be guilty of Worldly-mindedness, and other secret sins, and heart-wickednes… ; 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 sl…ghtly, but Solemnly and Publickly before the Church: for, doth 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 Rej…cters of God and his covenant, to serve the VVorld, and this not onelyonly 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 Fai…h, &c.

The Reverend Author in his Answer, saith That notwithstanding this, the Parents may put in a barre to hinder their children from Bap…sm, 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, Rev. 3.1. and yet for all this deadness and unregeneracy of theirs, the Church did warrantably admit p. 38them 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 onelyonly 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, viz. 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 Cor. 8.1, 5. And when the Synod mentioneth not onelyonly 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, Mat. 12. & 7. and, that even a childe is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right, Prov. 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 saith, 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 Tim. 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 p. 25Godliness 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; doth 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, Rom. 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, saith 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 p. 40of 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 saith, 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 mindes 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 thinketh not evil, 1 Cor. 13. nor receiveth a reproach against ones Neighbour, Psal. 15.) to endeavour to bring such Elders, as are thus faulty (if indeed there be any) to Repentance for their sailing therein, rather then 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 publick 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 onelyonly, but of all p. 41alike 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 answereth, That the more he considers the Proposition, the less he findes 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 finde so much to conclude thus of the children of Church-members, which Members understand the Doctrine of Faith, and publickly assent thereto; are not scandalous in life, but thus and further qualified, as in the Proposition is expressed: if he finde 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 meer contrary Affirmation, how can it go for a sufficient Confutation?

As for that which he addeth, That if a man have no more then 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 Synods 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 t… world, and this is respect of his external state, or being in the Church-visible; we see not that this is proved at all. For, as for Rom. 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, p. 42or 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 hath 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 externall 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 …e saith, 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 Gods 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 Gods Israel by election and spiritual regeneration. Thus the Apostles 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, Gods 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 easie to conceive how this can be; and therefore the words in Rom. 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 externall state.

Whereas the Synod for a third Argument, saith, That to deny this Proposition, would be 1. To stratten 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, then were the Iews of old. 2. To render the Iews, when they shall be called, in a worse condition then under the Legal administration: contrary to Jer. 30.20. Ezek 37.25, 26. 3. To deny the application of the p. 43initiatory Seal to such as regularly stand in the Church and Covenant, to whom the Mosaical dispensation, nay the first Institution appointed it to be applied, Gen. 17.9, 10. Joh. 7.22, 23. 4. To break the Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in covenant, Gen. 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 then the Iews of old were, under Legal dispensation, &c.

Ans. Suppose that Christian Churches be in a more spiritual and gracious frame then 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, then 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 str…t…ed, 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 Synods Argument in this particular stands good.

2. Saith the Reverend Author, It declareth that the state of the Iews, when they shall be called, will be far better then 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 farre greater measure of light and holiness then was to be found in former ages—

Ans. Suppose this be granted, the question is not about their Holiness and …, 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, viz. … 30.20. Ezek. 37 25, 26. do shew, that when they shall be called, their children shall be in as good estate as formerly: but p. 44how can this be, if the Parents may be qualified as is expressed, and yet may not have their children baptized? Is not this a rendring of them, in respect of their children, in a worse condition then formerly?

For the third Particular, the Reverend Author answereth, That the dent…ll of the Proposition doth not deny (in sum) what the Synod saith it doth, but the contrary.

Ans. In what the Synod here saith, there are three Particulars contained or included: 1. That the Mosaicall 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 d… regularly stand in the Church and Covenant. 3. That the deniall of the Proposition, doth deny the application of the Sea… to such as the Mosaicall dispensation appointed it to be applied unto. Of these Particulars, the first cannot be denied; for it is undeniably proved by the Texts alledged, viz. Gen. 17.9, 10. Joh 7.22, 23. and the third Particular is plain of it self: all the doubt therefore must be about the second, viz. Whether the children in question do regularly stand in the Church and Covenant: But for this the Synod hath given divers Proofs in their first and second Arguments; which Proofs we do not see taken off by what the Reverend Author hath said thereto.

The fourth Particular is answered by a plain deniall of what there the Synod affirmeth, viz. That to deny the Proposition, doth not break Gods Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant.

Ans. Yet nothing can be more plain, then that denying Circumcision to them that were in the Covenant, was a breaking of Gods Covenant; for it is expresly so called, Gen. 17.9. 10, 14. If therefore the children spoken of be in the Covenant, how can the deniall of Baptism to them be any other then 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: C…nfederate visible Believers, though but in the p. 45lowest 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 answereth, by denying the minor in the Argument, and affirming the contrary to the first Reason here mentioned; viz. 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.

Ans. But if there be sundry positive arguments for Charity thus to judge of them, and nothing evident to the contrary, as the Synod argueth; 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 publickly 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, saith the Reverend Author, Let them show how faith was w…ough…, and how it work… in them, and then the Church will have ground for their charitable judgement concerning their fitness, &c.

Ans. What proof is there, that except this be done, there can be no ground for the charitable judgement 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 shew 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 requireth, of declaring how their Faith was wrought in them.

2. The Synod saith, The children of the godly, though qualified but as the persons in the Proposition, are said to be Faithfull, Tit. 1.6.

p. 46The Reverend Author answereth, Nor are the children of the godly, qualified but as in the Proposition, said to be Faithfull in Tit. 1. So his Answer is an express deniall of what the Synod here saith. But to say the children in Tit. 1. are not called Faithfull, is directly to gainsay the Text, which doth exp…esly so call them: and that these Children that are called Faithful in Tit. 1. were qualified above what the Proposition requireth, is not proved at all. For the Text that calls them Faithful, saith 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 describeth may much more be so accounted; because they are not only free from Vnruliness and Riot, but partakers of sundry other good qualifications, which do amount further.

3. Whereas the Synod saith, Children of the covenant, as the Parents in Question are, have frequently the beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years, at Scripture and experience shew. Instance Joseph, Samuel, &c. hence this sort of Persons shewing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or to ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers.

The Reverend Author answereth, 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 fi…ly called Children of the Covenant, but Transgressors of the Covenant, and breakers of it.

Ans. 1. If they be breakers of it, then sure they are comprehended in it: for, how can men break the Covenant, wh…ch they are not in? therefore, as it is here expresly confessed, that they were children of the Covenant in their minori…y, 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 acknowledgeth they were, this suits well enough with the purpose and scope of the Synod in this place, which is expresly 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, p. 47why 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 untill the day of Christ, Psal. 138.8. Phil. 1.6.

Further, saith the Reverend Author, This Argument is fall…cious, 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 Synods 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 alledged; are now all left out, and in stead thereof it is rendred some Children of the Covenant, &c. and whereas the inference which the Synod makes is thus expressed, viz. hence this sort of Persons &c. now the term All, which was not in before, is expresly 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 fall… cious, or firme, 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 shewing 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 alledged and by Experience; and the Consequence we hope is not fall…cious, but found 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▪ account … p. 48company of Saints, 1 Cor. 14.33. & 1.2.

The Reverend Author Answereth, That both the Assertion and the Proof of it are to be denyed. 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 Cor. 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 hath 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 doth alledge it, which is to p…ove, that they that are Regularly in the Church, are in Scripture account visible Saints; and the words of the Texts alledged, are so plain and apposi…e 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 hath and may be said: but the Texts alledged 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 s…ffice, though they prove not this other, to which the Reverend Author doth apply them.

5. Saith the Synod, Being in Covenant and baptized, they have Faith and Repentance indefinitely given to them in the Promise, and sealed up in Baptism, Deut. 30.6. which continues valid, and so a valid Testimony for them, while they do not rej…ct 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 externall 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 p. 49the offers of grace, and living under the means of grace, do remain unbelievers, cannot be said to have Faith and Repentance undefinitely given to them in the Promise.

Ans. But is there any Proof of the contrary to what the Synod affirmeth? It seems none at all. For, when the Synod saith, The Covenant which promiseth Faith and Repentance is a valid Testimony for them, while they do not reject it; and the Reverend Author saith, 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, … they do not reject it, do plainly imply the contrary. And therefore what the Synod here saith, may be sound and good, for all that the Reverend Author alledgeth. If their Doctrine here be not right, then it must be said, that the Covenant, in which God promiseth to circumcise the hearts of his people, and of their seed, Deut. 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 followeth; viz. Yet it doth not necessarily follow, that these persons are immediately fit for the Lords Supper; the Reason rendred, 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 speciall exercise of faith, which is requisite to that Ordinance, as was said upon Propos. 4.

p. 50To this the Reverend Author saith, 1. If any man speak, let him speak as the Oracles of God, 1 Pet. 4.11. The New-Testament no where alloweth that latitude of expression, to call men Believers, who, &c.

Ans. Though it be the duty of all, if they speak, to speak as the Oracles of God, yet it doth not follow from thence, 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 doth 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 hath 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 saith 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 answereth, They cannot be so accounted, because Infants are looked at onelyonly in the Parents covenant, being not capable of covenanting for themselves, as men are: so that there is not par ratio between them.

Ans. 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 Be…evers, or in numero fi…lium; of which the Reverend Author saith nothing. But the thing the Synod here intimateth, is this, that as even Infa…ts in Covenan… are counted Believers, or in numero fi…elium, so may the Parents spoken of.

p. 513. Whereas the Synod saith, They may want that ability to examine themselves, and that speciall exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance.

The Reverend Author answereth, That visible want of this ability, and of this exercise of faith, doth argue a visible want of that faith which is to be examined and exercised, and is a just barre to the admi…tance of such into immediate and personall Church-membership, as well as to the Lords Supper.

Ans. 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 barre 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, doth 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 Saviour blames his Disciples, and Peter, for the want of the exercise of faith, Mat. 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 truely. How plain is it, that some for their weakness and small ability in grace, and the exercise of it, are compared to a bruised R…ed, and to smoaking Flax, Mat. 12 20. and yet when it is said, Christ will not break… such Reed…, nor quench such Flax, it appeareth thereby, that notwithstanding all this weakness, there may be the …e…ng 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 thence? What shall we then say to Souls in such a case as Heman's, Psal. 88. who complains, that Gods w…th 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 Gods fierce w…ath went over him; that Gods terrours had cut him off; and that hereby he was as distracted, and this even from his youth up▪ No… p. 52can 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 gra…e of fa… for all this. And therefore we cannot say that wan… of ability to examine one's self, or of the …eciall exercise of faith, doth alwayes argue the want of that faith which is to be examined and …xerci…ed: and therefore what the Synod here saith may still stand, That …he persons spoken …f may be Believers, and yet want that abi…ity to examine themselves, and that speciall exercise of faith which is requisite to that Ordinance of the Lords Supper.

So much for D…fence of the fourth Argument for confirming the fifth Proposition.

The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this fifth Proposition▪ is this: That the deniall of Baptism to the children in question, hath 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 Josh. 22.24, 25, 27. But to deny them, and so their children successively, to be in the Church, or Members of i…, 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 saith the Reverend Author to this in his Reply? that which he saith, 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.

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

2. Whereas the Reverend Author saith, That these children are p. 53now in such a state, through the fault of the degenerate Parents, who do not regularly enter into f…ll communion: It hath been shewed before, That these Parents, though not yet in fall communion, … in …ny b…rr… … the … Baptism of their children: and indeed, when the Parents are such as the Prop…sition describeth, viz. Not …, but understanding and … to the Doctrine of Faith, and solemnly owning the Covenant, and therein giving up themselves and h…r children to the Lord, &c. how, for all this, these Parents should be the cause that their children have n… part in the Lord, but do ce…s… from f…aring 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 …, and be qualif… for it, as in the Proposition is expressed? Is their giving up themselves and …h…r children to the Lord, a cause to cut off their children from having any part in the Lord? or is their present unfitness for f…ll …, a cause of such loss and misery though they be and do what is mentioned and all that the Prop…s…ion expresseth? we see no sufficient ground to apprehend so: but when the Parents are and d… a… is mentioned, we f…ar 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. Saith the Reverend Author, That this denial hath 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 fea…ing the Lord, how can it be but as is said? can men cease from fearing the Lord, and from having any par… in h…, 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 whence is it, but from them that causlesly deny their Baptism and Church-membership? and if his deni…l do cause that they have no part in the Lord, doth it not also cause their Irreligion and …postacy?

p. 54That Text Josh. 22.24, 25. saith 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 doth 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 ful… Communion; and their children, when they were grown up, were joyned in Covenant by a solemn Covenant every third year, Deut. 26.17, 18. so that they had a part in the Lord successively, from which if they had been excluded causlesly, 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 doth 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 Josh. 22. speaks nothing for the Synods 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.

p. 55Ans. 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 onelyonly, 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 wayes 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 doth 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, saith the Reverend Author, This must be understood and applied suita…ly 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 confesseth it to be true, viz. That the covenant runs to us, and to our Seed after us in their Generations: So long as this is not denied, the d…fference 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 p. 56was 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 affirmeth 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 confesseth to be true, that the frame of the covenant (did not onelyonly run to them and to their Seed, but also) run… to us, and our Seed in their Generations. And if this be true, then what the Synod gathereth from it is true also, that God hath so framed his covenant, and the constitution of his Church thereby, as to design a continuation and propagation of his Kingdome 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 saith, 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 judgement; but not so, when such a Membership is set u… in Christian Churches, whereby Infants shall be Baptized by right from such Parents as are not in f…ll communion: for what influence and efficacy h…th 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 onelyonly 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 doth import some p. 57influence 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 saith, That by this cutting off, and disavowing the Covenant, Sion is hindred from being an Eternall 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 establisheth the Church, Deut. 29.13. Jer. 30.20. and that therefore the contrary doth disestablish it.

The Reverend Author answereth, That the Argument is to be denied; for it will not follow, that if God did establish the Church of the Iews by such a successive progress of the Covenant, Deut. 29.13. therefore he doth so now, pag. 33.

A. Why doth it not follow, that if God did establish the Church of the Iews by a progress of the Covenant, that therefore he doth so now? Is not that true, which the Reverend Author confesseth 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 saith, (though the Reverend Author saith nothing to it) That God was an 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 carefull of the purity of his Church? we fear that to say this, would be to the dishonour of Gods Holiness and Glory. And plain it is, that it is the same Kingdome of God, that is, the same Church-estate for substance and kind…, which is taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles, Mat. 21.43. and therefore the Gentiles are said to be fellow-he…rs, and of the same Body with them, Ephes. 3.6. And therefore what p. 58should hinder, but that if a progress of the Covenant was a means to establish the Church, then, it may be the same in …hese … 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 …m…s 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 alledged these Scriptures, Isa. 60.15. & 59.21. Ezek. 37.25—28. Psal. 102.16—28. Ier. 32▪39.

The Reverend Author applies all these very Texts to the Church of the Iews under the New Jerusalem; which Church, he saith, must consist, for the matter of it, of elect and sincere Believers onelyonly, both they and their children successively to the end of the world: for which he alledgeth 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 onelyonly elect and sincere Believers, both they and their children to the end of the world. For, when Christ shall come, the Kingdome 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 oyle in their vessels with their lamps, and so must have the door of the Marriage-Chamber shut against them, Matth. 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, Isa. 60.15. & 59.21. and the rest, do prove, that when the Iews shall be called, it shall be with them as is said; then what the Synod here saith is gained, and stands good, viz. 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 Ierusalem, and the p. 59Gentile 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 Iews shall be otherwise: yet sith the Scripture saith, that the Nations of them that are saved, shall walk in the light of that New Ierusalem, Rev. 21. and that then the Lord shall be King in all the earth; and that there shall be one Lord, and his Name one, Zech. 14. and that the Name of the New Ierusalem shall be written upon Philadelphia, a Church of the Gentiles, Rev. 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 doth yet appear, if there shall be such a glory in the one, as that there shall be a successive p…ogress 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 it self (whatever difference there may be as to the measures of grace, &c. as is said in the Synods Result, p. 9.) is a conception that we see no ground for in Scripture.

Whereas the Reverend Author saith, pag. 34. That the children of Church-members in this Country are commonly known to be Prof…n…, Va…, Licentious, Vicious, Stubborn, Proud, &c. and complains, That yet these are accepted into immediate Personall 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 unto full Communion, when they are fit for it; and an acknowled…ing 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 th…m 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 p. 60great 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 V…cious, or not, we think there is great reason that they should be carefully watched over by Elders of Churches, and all Superiours, 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, saith, 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 hath been proved afore by seven or eight Arguments in Propos. 3. That these children are by Gods appointment under the Watch, Discipline, and Government of the Church; which Arguments have been formerly vindicated and cleared from what the Reverend Author hath 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 doth testify, that to some it hath, 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 p. 61of 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, doth not the Vigilancy of Church-Elders, import some kinde of Church-watchfulness? Can there be such Vigilancy, Care and Endeavours towards such as are no… 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 t…ese 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 personall Members, or Members in their own persons, they say appears, 1. Because they are personally holy, 1 Cor. 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, Jer. 11.2, 10. Ezek. 16. therefore they are personally in it.

To this the Reverend Author answereth, That three of these Proofs belong onelyonly 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 saith 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 Cor. 7.14. though this be meant, as the Reverend Author saith, that they are thus Holy federally and relatively, yet it is, as he acknowledgeth, in their own persons; and if so, doth it not then follow, that they are Church-members in their own persons? Can persons be truly called Holy, as in the Text alledged, p. 62or 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 saith, 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 saith, It is a divine Testimony that they are in their own persons Members of the Church. For, we conceive, the Lord hath 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, untill they be regularly cut off from the same?

For that other Particular, That by meanes of the Covenant they are personally in a visible state of Salvation; The Reverend Author saith nothing hereto, but onelyonly 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, whi… nothing appears to the contrary; doth 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 p. 63Parents: whereto the Reverend Author saith 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 saith, 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 Propos. 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, viz. 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.

p. 64For 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, Ier. 11.2, 10. Ezek. 16. where breaking of covenant is expresly charged upon the persons there spoken of. Now doth 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 doth more then 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, (i. e. 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 Iohn. 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 saith the Reverend Author unto this? why, that which he saith, is, That though nothing come between to sever that Adjunct from the Subject, yet something comes between to bring that Subject and Adjunct together, viz. The Parents covenanting for the childe: p. 65which if it did not come between, they would be severed, as they are in othe… children.

Ans. But what is there in this to overthrow the Synods Assertion? Do not they expresly grant, in terms as plain as can be spoken, and that more then once, That the children come to this Adj…nct 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 mean… of childrens Membership, for it is freely yielded that in this respect it is Mediate, that is, they come unto it by means of the Parents covenanting; but the question is about the Ess…, Nature or K…m…e 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 deniall of this other. If a Parent have room or place in such or such an house, and his childe be there also, though he come thither in the Parents arms, yet may it not be said that this childe hath a place and being in the house, as truly and as properly as the Parent, although he came unto it by the Parents means? Even so it is in the case in hand; the childe 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 hath 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 g…ft and the stock, doth 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 p. 66here, 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 in graffing 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 immedi…te; who knoweth not that in such case the ingr…ffing 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 …graffing, 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 Priviledges, by means of their Parents covenanting for them, but adult persons by their personall covenanting for themselves and their seed. This is nothing to the Essence of their Membership, but onelyonly speaks to the way and mean… 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 Kinde, and both have immediate conjunction with the Church.

For that where the Synod saith, "That in Deut. 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 doth not prove it.

Ans. 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 67Whereas 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 doth immediately covenant for himself, nor that every Member of the Church is an immediate Member, pag. 39.

Ans. For the one of these, viz. 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 doth 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 instrumentall means of Membership, and yet children are not without this neither: for the act of the Parent (their publick person) is accounted theirs—

p. 68The Reverend Author answereth, That the Parents acting in … v…n…n…ing for their infant-…, hath been before proved to be the procreant cause of …, pag 39.

Ans. It was indeed before said, viz. pag 37. that He looked at believing confederating …, not as the instrumentall, but as the procreant caus…; as of the c…hil… B…m…, by his generating of him, so also of his Church-membership, by his confederating for him. This was s…ia 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 onelyonly as contrad…sti…ct from the instrumentall cause, but as a deniall thereof, for so his expression runs. viz. Not as the instrumentall, but as the procreant cause, &c. Now that it hath been proved, that the Parents act in covenanting is not the instrumentall cause, but the procreant of the childes Membership, this indeed hath been said once and again but we do not see …t proved at all. And indeed how can it? for this procreant cause, sith it is not an instrumentall, must then be the principall-cause: and is this proved, That the Parents act in covenanting is not the instrumen…ll, but the principall cause of the childes Membership? what shall then become of Gods institution in this matter? If the Parents act herein be such a procreant cause as is not instrumentall, then it must be the principall; and then what place is there left for Gods institution? and how doth the Reverend Author agree with himself, who saith, Th…s is the procreant cause, and that by Gods Institution, and yet is not the cause instrumentall? if the Parents act be the cause of the childs membership by Gods institution, how can it be avoided but it must be instrumentall, as the Synod said: but if it be so procreant, as not to be instrumentall, how then can it be by Gods Institution, as he saith 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 …ffi…i…n, and this act of the Parents that is here spoken of, being not the principall effi…ent of the childs membership, must needs be the instrumentall, as the Synod hath said; and therefore such a procreant as is not instrumentall, nor yet principall, we confess we know not where to place it.