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

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

p. 68Besides, when the Reverend Author in pag. 37. makes this p. 69Covenant-act of the Parent to be the procreant cause of the childs membership, even as the Paren… is the cause of the ch…l…em, by his generation of him; doth not this plainly infer that which yet he denieth, that such a Parent is the instrumental cause of the childs membership? For, is any Parent such a procreant cause of his childs Being by gen…raci…n, as not to be instrumental under God therein? how then are children said to be by the gift and blessing of God, Psa. … 27. 3. …en…s. 29.31. & 30.22. & 33.5. and the want of children even in married persons to be by Gods restraining hand, and sh…tting up the W…b? Gen. 16.2. & 20.18. & 30.2. doth not this plainly shew, that Parents are but Instrumental under God in the begetting of Children? and therefore if the Parent be the cause of the childs membership in like sort, as of the childs natural Being by his generating of him, then it must be granted, that in this of his Church-membership▪ he is no otherwise a procreant cause of it, but as instrumental; for in that of the childs natural being it is certainly so: and that of membe…ship being, as the Reverend Author saith, l…ke unto this other, therefore in this of the childs membership it is so also. Moreover, i… this well hold, that the Parent is such a procreant cause of the childs membership by confederating for him, as he is of the childs na…ur…l …en… by …; then look as the child which the Parent generates, is personally, immediately formally and actually a man for one of mankind as well as the Parent; so by the membership which the Parents confederating procreates for him, he is a personal, immediate, formal and actual Church-member.

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

p. 70Now what saith the Reverend Author to this? That which he saith, is this, That all that is here expressed, doth not supply what is wanting to invest little children with such membership. For, though they are in covenant, which is the formalis ratio of their membership, yet it is mediante parentum foedere, and so their membership is mediate.

Ans. But this speaks nothing to the nature and kind of their membership, but onelyonly to the way and means of attaining it, which may be different from that of adult persons, and yet the thing be the same. If the chief Captain obtain by a great sum to be a freeman of Rome, and Paul be free born, Act. 22.28. yet Pauls freedome is either better then the other, or at least no worse; and so it may be said of the Church-membership of little children.

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

Ans. But this is nothing to the nature of their membership, but onelyonly speaks of the way of attaining it by their own act. But shall we say that Paul wanted something to make him a free Roman, because he had no personal fitness nor ability to procure that freedome to himself by his own act, but onelyonly was so born? or shall we say that David and others mentioned in Psal. 22.10. Isai. 46.4. wanted something of compleat, proper and immediate interest in God, because they had their interest from their mothers womb, and did not attain it by their own personal act? for our parts we dare not so say, and by like reason dare not deny, but that the interest of little children in the visible Church, may be proper, compleat and immediate, though they have not come to it by their own act, but have had it from their minority or birth. For, to have God for their God is as great a blessing, as to be an actual and immediate member of the visible Church; and yet we see want of personall fitness to act for themselves, did not hinder from the one, and why then should it hinder from the other?

Synod. A different manner and means of conveying the covenant to us, or of making us members, doth not make a different sort of members; we are as truly, personally and immediately members of the body of fallen mankind, and by nature heirs of the condemnation p. 71pertaining thereto, as Adam was, though he came to …e so by his own pers…n…l act, and we by the act of our publick person, Pag. 24.25.

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

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

There is not any to be accounted a publick person, as Adam was, but onelyonly Iesus Christ for all that are in him, Rom. 5.14, to 20. pag. 41.

Ans. Yet it is evident, though Jesus Christ was a Publick Person for all that are in him, as Adam was, yet in the number of persons there is difference; Adam standing for all mankinde, and Christ standing p. 72onelyonly for his Redeemed, the Elect. Now if Christ may be truely called a Publick Person for all his, as Adam was, though Adam was for them that were farre more in number; why may not then a consederating Parent be counted a Publick Person for his children though they be farre less in number then the other? But herein the cases seem parallel; Adam for all in him, Christ Jesus for all in him, and the confederating Parent for all in him. We see not how this can justly be denied by the Reverend Author, si…h he calls these Parents "V…dertakers for their children, pag. 40. And again, pag. 41. And such undertakers, that the children are bound by their Parents acting to perform that Covenant, when they shall become capable: which seems to us to be the same, or as much as is meant, when they are called Publick persons for their children.

Another Similitude used by the Synod to illustrate the thing in question, is, from A Prince giving Lands to a man and his heirs successively while they continue loyall; in which case the following heir is a true and immediate Owner of that Land, and may be personally disinherited, if d…sloyall, as well as his father before him.

To this the Answer is, That this Similitude doth not sort the case in question; f…r, as for infants, they cannot be visibly disl…yall, and adult persons not regularly joyned to the Church, have cut off the entail of the Covenant from themselves and their posterity by their personall disloyalty.

Ans. But for all this, the Similitude may suit the case in question, though the Reverend Author say it doth not. For, as the following heir is an immediate Owner of that Land, till for disloyalty he be disinherited; so the following children are immediate Church-members, till some of them for their sin be cut off from their Membership. Is not here plain suitableness in the Similitude? we conceive it is apparent and manifest. For, if infants cannot be disl…yal, and if adult persons be cut off for disloyalty, is it not manifest, that both are immediate owners till they be cut off? which is the thing the Synod affirms. Concerning infants, it seems they are such true and immediate owners of Church-membership, as that they cannot be cut off therefrom, because they cannot be so disloyal as to deserve such a thing: and for the adult persons, if the entaile of the covenant p. 73be cut off from them and their posterity by their personal disloyalty; doth not this clearly shew, that they were truely and immediately in the Covenant, till their disloyalty cut them off? And so the Similitude stands suitable and good for the purpose for which the Synod brings it.

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

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

2. And when the persons in question are such as were Regularly in Covenant in their infan…, by means of their Parents covenanting for them, as the Reverend Author doth acknowledge, how can their owning this Covenant, when they become adult, be justly counted a presuming to usurp the Covenant without warrant from God? We reade of them that are blamed, and that justly, for forsak…ng the Covenant which God made with their fathers, Deut. 29.25. Judg. 2.20. but that owning this Covenant should be a forsaking of it, and an usurping of it without warrant from God, and a presuming▪ we do not see how this can be proved. To some indeed the Lord saith, What hast thou to do to take my covenant in thy mo…th? Psal 50 16. but doth the Lord say this to such as were qualified as in this fifth Proposition? The contrary is most clear: for these in this Psal. 50. are expresly called Wicked, such as did hate to be instructed and reformed, were culpable for consenting with Thieves, partaking with Adulterers, slandering, and all evil speaking, &c. whereas the persons p. 74in question are not culpable for any such thing, being expresly said to be Not scandalous in life; but on the contrary furnished with many good and commendable qualifications, and were regularly admitted into the Covenant in their minority: and therefore being so unl…ke the persons that are blamed for tak…ng G…ds Covenant into their mouth, we see no ground to say they have … off the entail of the Covenant by their disloyalty, and that nothing is given to them and theirs by it, but that they presume to usurp it without wa…rant from God: we see no warrant from God so to say or think of such persons.

A Member (saith the Synod) is one that according to Rule, or Divine Institution, is within the visible Church.

They say true, saith the Reverend Author: but that refutes nothing that I have said concerning Mediate and Immediate Members, for both are within the Church, though both have not full communion with the Church in all Ordinances.

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

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

To this the Reverend Author auswereth, That their Answer to the p. 75Objection is insufficient; for the best Members have need to make prō gress in memberly duties and qualifications, yet all have that communion that suits their membership: Infants in Baptism, &c. and adult persons in the Seals, Voting, &c. pag. 41, 42.

Ans. By this it seems the difference lies here, that whereas some Church-members have communion in all Church-priviledges, and others not in all, but onelyonly in some; the Synod apprehends the reason of this difference to be, because some are yet defective in qualifications, and fitness for such full communion, though not wanting compleat and immediate Membership: But the Reverend Author makes the reason of the difference to be from the different kinde of Membership, the one sort being onelyonly Mediate Members, and the other Immediate. All have that communion for which they are qualified, saith the Synod: All have that communion which suits their Membership, saith the Reverend Author. For clearing of which Point, it may not be a miss to consider of other Societies, and how it is in them; as that of the Family, and of the Civil State: in both which it is clear, that all have not like communion in Priviledges; but who can say that this ariseth from their different Membership in the Societies of which they are? or how can it be denied, but that this ariseth from their different qualifications? An Infant, an Idiot, one Distracted, or Distempered with Frenzy, &c. such cannot enjoy all priviledges in the Family, or Civil State, as others may; and the reason is, Because they are not fitly qualified: but who can say they are not compleat, and proper, and immediate Members of the Family or State, as well as others? He that doth injury to such an one, doth injury to one that is as truely and properly a member of the Society, as those that are better qualified; and such injuries are punishable with Death, or otherwise, as the nature of the offence doth require, as being injuries to one that is truely and properly a personal and immediate Subject and Member of the Common-wealth, though there might be many other Subjects better qualified? In like sort in Church-society, some may enjoy more full com…union then others, and yet not as being more truely partakers of proper personal, and immediate Membership, but because they are better qualified.

p. 76Thus of the second Particular, That the Parents in question are Immediate Members.

The third is, That their Membership still continues in adult age, and ceaseth not with their infancy; 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onelyonly for notorious sin, or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief, not for growing up to adult age, Rom. 11.20.

The Reverend Author answereth, That this Reason doth not prove, that the membership of all baptized in infancy continues in adult age.

Ans. Nor did the Synod so say, nor produce that Reason and Scripture for such purpose; but their purpose therein was this, viz. To prove that the Parents in question do still continue members: which may be true, though all … are baptized in infancy do not. For thus their Argument lies: If persons be not broken off but for notorious sin, or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief; then the Parents in question are not broken off, but do still continue members: for any such notorious sin▪ &c. cannot justly be charged upon them, witness the terms of the Proposition. To this purpose is this Reason alledged by the Synod; and therefore though the membership of …ll baptized in infancy do not continue in adult age, the Synod loseth nothing thereby, a… having never affirmed any such thing.

But why doth not this Reason and Text prove the thing intended by the Synod? The Reverend Author gives this Reason; …ecause that Text Rom. 11.20. spe…k onelyonly of such as have been received into membership by their personal faith, and covenanting with the Church visibly.

A. The text clearly speaks of the people or nation of the Iews, of whom it is said, that they were a disobedient and gainsaying people, Rom. 10.2…. that they, as concerning the Gospel, were enemies, Rom. 11.28. that they killed the Lord Iesus, and their own Prophets, and persecuted the Ap…stles, pleased not God, and were contrary to all men, &c. 1 Thess. 2.15, 16. and shall we say, that notwithstanding all this, they were received into compleat and immediate membership by their personal faith, &c? Besides, it is not very credible, that all the members of the Jewish Church were received into compleat and immediate membership p. 77by their personal faith, if that be true which the Reverend Author said, pag. 6. that That Church was to be propagated and continued by natu… generation in a lineall descent from Abraham, by Isaac and Jacob, t…ll the coming of Christ; and that there was no Ordinance for casting out their members for sins against the Morall Law, as there is under the Gospel, pag. 12. Which things (if true) do import, that visible faith was not the thing looked for in receiving the members of that Church, nor in continuing of them, but their natural generation, and lineal d…sc…n…,, might suffice: How then can that stand which is here said, that the persons sp…k…n of in R…m. 11.20. were such as were received into membership …, when as that Text speaks of the members of the Church of the Jews, who (if the Reverend Authors apprehension be right) were not so received, but by lineal succession, by natural generation; Christian Churches differing from that Church, and being of another sort, as being to be propagated and continued by regeneration, made visible by a right Confession, and Profession of Faith, pag. 6. The sum is this, in the one place he makes it peculiar to Christian Churches to be propagated by Regeneration, and … …sibly prof…ed; and that in the Church of the Jews it was othe…wise: and in the other place, which certainly speaks of the Church of the Jews, he saith it speaks of emb… received by …her personal faith▪ wherein there seems to be a rep…gnancy.

Our … of adult persons that break off themselves from the covenant by pr…h…ne neglect or contempt of the Ordinances, or uns…table conve…s…a…, pag. 43.

Ans. Then the Parents in question are not broken off at all, but their membersh…p … continues, as the Synod saith; for the terms of the Proposition will not suffer such prophaneness and …n empt of O… nances, and … Conversation, to be justly charged upon them; and if there be the causes for which men are … off, is not then this reason of the Synod plainly confirmed and made good? for they argue, that the persons in question do still continue members, because … notorious sin, impenitency, incorrigibleness, and the like; and here it is said, that men are broken off by pro…h…eness, contempt of the Ordinances, and unsuitable conversation; which sayings are in effect p. 78the same, or little different, and both of them do witness that the persons spoken of are not broken off, as not being guilty of any such wickedness or misdemeanours.

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

Ans. If the persons described in the Proposition be said to be broken off, what is this l…ss then the thing that is so disowned? It cannot be denyed but they were once within the Church, and it cannot be said that they are broken off for any Scandal in their conversation; but coming up to the terms in the Proposition are far from such evil, and on the contrary are furnished with many good and commendable qualifications, as Knowledge, Profession, S…jection to Christs Government, owning the Covenant, and the like. Now if notwithstanding all this, they be declared to be no Members of the Church, but broken off from it, though they were once in it; what is this less then to say, they are broken off by growing up to adult age? And see Reply of the Reverend Author to this Argument, p. 42.

2. Saith the Synod, The Iews Children circumcised did not cease to be Members by growing up, but continued in the Church, and were by vertue of their membership received in Infancy, bound unto various duties, and in special to those solemn personal professions that pertained to adult Members, not as then entring into a new membership, but as making a progress in memberly duties, Deut. 26.2—10. & 16.16, 17. Gal. 5.3.

To this the Answer is, 1. That the Iewes children circumcised were bound to various duties, and to those solemn professions mentioned, is clear enough by the Texts alledged, and sundry other: whereunto I willingly adde, that Baptisme also bindeth the infant-seed of confederates to various Gospel-duties, and especially this of using all mean, &c.

Ans. And do not both these shew that which the Synod expresseth, That children do not cease to be Members by growing up, but do still continue in the Church? for if it was so with the Jews children, is it not also so with ours, according to the Synods arguing? and if by vertue of that membership received in infancy, the circumcised then did, and the Baptized now do stand bound to various duties when adult, how can it be avoided, but that membership received in infancy then did, and p. 79now doth continue in adult age? for, when & as long as one stands bound by a covenant, then and so long that covenant must needs remain in being, for otherwise how could one stand bound by it? can one be bound by that which is not in being? one would think this were not possible. Therefore by this being bound by the covenant and membership received in infancy, to various duties when adult, it appeareth, that the covenant and membership received in infancy doth still continue in adult age, and so the purpose of the Synod is gained.

But 2. saith the Reverend Author, It is not proved by those texts, that w…n they were adult they did not enter into a new membership; rather the contrary appears by Deut. 26.17, 18.

Ans. If so, then they did every third Year enter into a new membership: for the Reverend Author conceives that what is said to be done in Deut. 26 17, 18. was done every third Year, as before ….31. but who knows not that the same persons or people may many a time enter into covenant, or renew their covenant with God, and yet not thereby enter into so many new memberships? It seems by Psal. 50.5. where it is said, They have made a covenant with me by sacrifice, that so oft as sacrifice was offered, so oft there was a covenant made between God and them; and yet it will not follow, that at every time of sacrificing there was an entring into a new membership: it may suffice to say, as the Synod doth, that at all such times there was a prog…s… in memberly duties.

But why should we think that the Covenant in Deut. 26. was entring into a new Membership? The Reason rendred, is this; Because they entred into the Covenant personally and immediately, not in and by their Parents, as they did in infancy, Gen. 17.7. And if Covenanting be the Form of Church-membership, then a different Form of Covenanting, makes a different kinde of Membership; Mediate and Immediate Covenanting, makes Mediate and Immediate Members.

Ans. But is this certain, that a different way of covenanting, makes a different kinde of membership? In Gen. 15. there is covenanting by divi…ing the he…fe…, the go…, &c. in the midst, and passing between the pieces or parts ▪ and so in Jer. 34. In Gen. 17. there is covenanting by p. 80silence, and falling upon the face: in Nehem. 9.38. there is covenanting by Writing and Sealing of it; in 2 Chron. 15. by Swearing with a loud voice, and by engaging, that …hosoever should not do as is there promised, should be put to death. Here we see are various wayes of covenanting; but shall we say that these do infer divers kinds of membership? then it would follow, that if the same persons or people should divers times enter into Covenant, or renew their Covenant, and this sometimes in one of these wayes, and sometimes in another, if a different form of covenanting do make a different kind of membership, it would follow, that the same persons and people might many times over, again and again enter into a new kin… of membership; which we suppose none will affirm, and therefore this that is here said will not hold: the thing for essence and Kind may be the same, when the way and manner of doing may be various. Moreover, covenanting taken for our act in making or renewing the covenant, is not the form of membership (this is but the instrumental efficient) but covenant-interest, or to be in covenant, is the formalis ratio of membership (that is it which the Synod affirms pag. 24.) and that is the immediate, actual, and proper portion of the children, as well as of the Parents.

The third Argument of the Synod, is, From the Relation of born Servants and Subjects, by which the Scripture s…s forth the state of children in the Church, Levit. 25 41, 42. Ezek. 37.25. which relations (as all men know) do no… …eas… with infancy, but do continue in adult age: and …ince it also follows, that one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grow… up, &c. pag. 25, 26.

The Answer to this, is, That the one of these Texts is typical, figuring the t…e of grace, whereby now Christ hath freed us from the servitude of Sin and Satan, &c. the other Text is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect nation of the Iews, and of the state of the Church under the New Ierusalem: and therefore these do neither of them suit the thing in question.

Ans. But for the present nothing appears to the contrary, but p. 81they may be suitable; yet, if the thing it self for which those Texts are alledged, be sound and good, the Inference which the Synod makes is so also, though the Texts were not so apt. For, if the children in the Church be in state as born Servants and Subjects to Christ, then this state and relation, and so their membership, doth not cease with infancy, but continues in adult age. And we hope the Reverend Author will not deny, but for state they are as born Servants, and Subjects to Christ, though he thinks the Texts quoted are not apt Proofs for it; but if the thing be not denied, the Argument of the Synod stands good for the continuance of their membership. Grant them to be in the state of born Servants and Subjects in their infancy, and then it must be granted, that this state continueth when they are adult, and so their membership doth not cease with their infancy: deny that their membership continueth when adult, and then it must be said, either that their state in infancy is not as born Servants and Subjects, or that such relations do cease with infancy. But for the Reverend Author, he expresly grants, That one special end of membership received in infancy, is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up, when they are fittest for it, and have most need of it, pag 43. which is the very same that is here affirmed by the Synod: and doth not that hence follow which the Synod inferreth, That therefore their membership did not cease with infancy, but doth still continue? It seems to follow unavoidably: for how can they when adult, or grown up, be under engagement to service and subjection, as the end of membership received in infancy, if that membership do not still continue, but together with their infancy be now past and gone? If they be still under engagement, then their Covenant doth still continue, and consequently their Membership.

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

Ans. It is true, none can give grace but God, who is the God of all grace: but for bringing the adult persons spoken of into membership, p. 82we conceive there is no such thing here intended by the Synod, nor can be spoken of in any propriety of speech concerning the persons in question; they being such as were Members from their infancy, and are accounted by the Synod still to continue members now when adult, and therefore there is no bringing of them into membership. That which is here spoken of, were more aptly called an acknowledging of them to be members: and how the acknowledging of such persons, as the Proposition describes, to be and continue members, can be judged a prophanation of the Ordinances, or a polluting of the Lords Sanctuary, we confess we do not understand: for we know they were brought into membership by Gods own Institution and Appointment, and we do not know that they have in any way of God been put from it; nor, considering the term in the Proposition, can be justly judged to deserve any such matter, but the contrary: and therefore the acknowledging of them to be members, can be no such prophaning and polluting, as is spoken of.

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

Whereto the Reverend Author answereth, That the ennumeration is insufficient; there is another ordinary way, i. e. Desertion. Thus Esau's membership ceased; and so many theirs, who being adult, regard not to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation, &c. And if forsaking the Church may suffice to deprive those of Church-priviledges, who were before in personal and immediate Church-fell…wship, 1 Joh. 2.19. how much more those who never had such membership? &c. What can the mediate membership which such had in infancy, advantage them for continuing in membership, when being adult they live in the breach of that Covenant, whereby they were left under engagement in their infancy unto service and subjection to Christ in the Church?

Ans. If the Ennumeration were not sufficient, but that that of Desertion ▪ were needful to be added, yet this would not avail to prove p. 83the contrary to what the Synod here saith, but the membership of the persons in question may still continue for all this: for, being qualified as the Proposition expresseth, they are farre from being guilty of such Desertion, or forsaking of the Church of God; and therefore it is not this, though it were added to the Particulars in the Argument, that can hinder their still continuing to be Members. Nor can they be justly charged as guilty of such things as are here expressed, viz. Not regarding to joyn with the Church by their personal and immediate confederation, nor to fit themselves for it, but to despise the Church of God, not desiring nor endeavouring after spiritual fitness, but living in the breach of that Covenant, &c. These things we cannot see how they can justly be imputed to the persons qualified as the Proposition expresseth, but they may still continue to be members, as not being culpable of any such things, as these here mentioned, to un-Member them.

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

For that of Esau, whose membership is said to cease by Desertion the Reverend Author may remember, that he hath more then one told us of invalidity of Proofs from the Old Testaments for things … Gospel-times: which Proofs, though we cannot say but they may b… valid, yet why should himself use them against us, (for this of Esau is from the Old Testament) if his apprehension be right, that such Proofs are not valid? But for the thing it self, of the cessation of membership by a mans own act, this hath been spoken unto before, pag. 34.35. in Defence of the first Argument for this fifth Proposition: Where also was considered that Text 1 Ioh. 2.19. which is here alledged again: To which former place we refer the Reader; p. 84onelyonly adding thus much, that the cessation of membersip which the Synod here speaks of, is such cessation as is ordinary, but if Esau' ▪ were by his own act alone, why may we not say that there was something in it extraordinary? Though it is not any where said that it was by his own act: if any afffirm that it was, it stands upon them to prove it, for affirmanti incumbit probatie. And though it be not said that the Church had any hand in it, yet negative Arguments in matter of Fact are not cogent, though in matters of Faith they be: but for matter of Fact, we know many things were done that are not written, Ioh. 20.30. & 21.25. and therefore though this be not written, that there was any Church-proceedings against Esau for his departing from the Church, and therefore we do not say there was; yet they that say there was not, must prove there was not, because the meer not mentioning that there was, is no sufficient Proof that there was not: And for any further Proof, that Esau's falling off from his Church-membership was by his own act alone; any further Proof for this, then meerly the not expressing of any Church-proceedings against him, we finde none.

The fifth Argument of the Synod for confirming this Particular, That the persons spoken of do still continue Members, is this: Because otherwise a person admitted a member, and sealed by Baptism, not cast out, nor deserving so to be, may (the Church whereof he was, still remaining) become a Non-member, out of the Church, and of the unclean world; which the Scripture acknowledgeth not.

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

Ans. It may be justly questioned, whether this Comparison do suit the case in hand. For, 1. All the priviledge of this Freemans p. 85childe that is mentioned, is this, that he may in his minority trade under his Father; which priviledge doth not at all arise from his being the childe of a Freeman; and the reason is, because one that is not a childe, but onelyonly a servant of such a Freeman, may trade under the Freeman▪ as his Master. This being the priviledge of such Freemen, that their Servants, and others belonging to them, though they are not free, yet may trade for them, and in their names: which is upon then atter no priviledge at all to the childe or servant, but onelyonly to the Freeman himself under whom they trade. But will any say, that to be a childe of a Church-member is no priviledge at all to a childe, but onelyonly to the Father? or will any say, that the childe hath no more priviledge then the servant, sith in the cafe alledged, the servant may trade under the Freeman, as well as the childe may? we suppose none will say this; and therefore in this the Comparison doth not suit the case in hand. The Orders and Priviledges of Corporations are various, according to the tenour of their several Charters; but what the Charter of the Church is, we know, viz. That in Gen. 17. it takes in children into the Church with their Parents, and doth not allow them to be put out, till censureable iniquity do appear.

2. If in some Corporations one that is free-born do lose his Priviledge when he becomes adult, if he do not then enter personally into the Engagement, yet it is not certain that it is so in all. Sure no such thing is said of Paul, who yet pleads his Priviledge of being a Freeman of Rome, because he was so born, without mention of any personal act of his own for attaining that Priviledge, Acts 22. And if Paul, being free-born, did retain his Freedome when adult, without any personal act of his own for that end, why may it not be so in respect of Church-membership, though in all Civil Corporations it be not so? It is evident, that the Scripture speaks of the children of bond-servants, as bound a…so, and of the children of the f…er, as free also, without mention of any act of the children to procure that relation or state, in the one case or in the other, …eu…. 25.46, 54. And we see no reason but it may be so also in the visible Church, that if the Parent be a member, the childe is so also, and so continues, … i. e be cut off, not losing his membership by the meer not performin… of p. 86what might fit him for full Communion.

3. If it were so in all Corporations, that a Freemans childe doth lose his Freedome when adult, if he do not then in his own person enter into the common Engagement; and if it were also so in the Church, that a Members childe should lose his Membership when adult, if he do not then personally Coven…nt, (though this is more then we see proved) yet if it were so, we see not how this can be prejudicial to the persons spoken of in this fifth Proposition. For of them it is expresly said, that they do solemnly own the Covenant before the Church, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord, &c. and therefore though Freedome in a Corporation, and Membership in the Church, might be lost by not entring personally into the Common Engagement, and Covenant; yet, except we shall say it may be lost, though this Personall Engagement and Entring be performed and done, except we shall say this, we cannot say that the membership of the persons in question is lost at all, but doth still continue, sith they are such as do thus personally engage and covenant.

As for that Text, Rom. 2.25. If thou be a breaker of the Law, thy Circumcision is made no circumcision, which is here alledged again: we refer the Reader to what hath been said touching this Text before in pag. 33.

Lastly, whereas the Reverend Author saith, Those Texts in Rom. 11.16. 1 Cor. 7.14. Gen. 17.7. are not applicable to the adult persons in question, but onelyonly to infants and children in minority.

The Answer is, that the Synod doth not at all apply them to the adult persons in question, and therefore it is a great mistake so to think: but having said, that these persons are personall, immediate, and yet-continuing Members, they do thence infer, that their children are therefore also Members, in covenant, and holy, and consequently are the Subjects of Baptism; which Inference and Consequence the Reverend Author we are perswaded will not deny, if the ground thereof be good, That the Parents in question are Members of the Church, as the Synod apprehends that they are. And therefore although the Texts alledged be not applicable to the adult persons in question, yet if they be applicable to such infants and little children p. 87whose Parents are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members, they do then sufficiently serve the purpose for which they are here alledged by the Synod.

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

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

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

Ans. And yet the Proposition, in the very first words of it, doth expresly declare, that what Church-priviledge is here mentioned, is not granted to such as are not Church-members, but to such as are: Such Church-members, saith the Synod, who, &c. their Children are to be Baptized. So that though Church-priviledges may not be granted to such who are not Church-members, yet to the persons here spoken of, the Baptism of their Children may be granted, without any such undue granting of Church priviledges, sith the Synod doth not say these persons are not Church-members▪ but doth expresly say they are. All that can be said against these persons, is, that they have not acted according to the fifth Proposition: and yet it is said, they have been inevitably hindred therein, and have given the Church cause in judgement of charity to look at them as willing to have so acted, and therefore having been Church-members from their birth or minority, how can the applying of Baptism to their children, be the granting of a Church-priviledge to such as are not Church-members? If they had not been hindred from acting as in the fifth Proposition, but had indeed so done, yet this is not the thing that would have made them members, they having been members afore▪ and though they be now adult, yet it hath been proved afore in the fifth Proposition, Arg. 6. Part. 3. That their membership p. 88doth still continue; and therefore the granting of Church-priviledges to such as are not Church-members, may be yielded to be unwarrantable, without any prejudice to the persons here spoken of, or to what the Synod here saith concerning them.

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

These may both be granted, and yet what the Synod here saith not be at all infringed thereby. For, considering that the persons spoken of were Church-members long ago, and have never since been cut off or cast out from that Relation, nor deserve any such matter, but do still continue therein, as was shewed in the fifth Proposition, therefore we cannot see how it can be any usurpation in the Minister to do acts of his office towards them, nor unlawful in the Church to receive them to such a priviledge of Church-communion as is spoken of; nay rather the persons being and still continuing Members, the performance of the thing in question may seem to be so far from being usurpation, as that the neglect thereof may be counted an unwarrantable omission or transgression.

The first Reason of the Synod for confirming this Proposition, is, Because the main foundation of the right of the childe to priviledge remains, viz. Gods Institution, and the force of his covenant carrying it to the Generations of such as are keepers of the covenant, i. e. not visibly breakers of it, &c.

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

Ans. But is this certain, that the Parents in question are visibly breakers of the covenant? sure this, if it be affirmed, had need to be soundly cleared. For either they be such as do personally own the covenant, being qualified with knowledge and blameless life, &c. as in the p. 89fifth Proposition, or else if they have not so acted, they have been inevitably hindred therein, as is said in the sixth Proposition: and is it reasonable, that for all this they must be counted visibly breakers of the Covenant? Are they such breakers of it, who do publickly own it, and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord, being not culpable for any contrary practice in their conversation? or are they such breakers of it, who if they have not publickly acted as aforesaid, the reason hath been, because they have been inevitably hindred? we cannot see that Rule or Reason will allow or give warrant for such apprehensions. Put case a person who was born a Church-member, and hath been sound in judgement, and unblameable and commendable in his conversation all his dayes, but hath been, like Ioseph, sold for a slave, and kept in bondage, suppose to the Turks, or others for many a year: suppose also that after a time he be restored to his liberty, and thereupon do return homeward with his childe or children born to him in his exile and bondage, intending to present himself and his children to the Lord in the Church where he was born, but before he reach home, he dieth by the way; this man is inevitably hindred from entring into Covenant personally, though willing to have done it, and fit for it: But will any Reason or Charity permit to count this man a visible breaker of the Covenant, because he did not personally enter thereinto? we suppose this cannot be said, he being inevitably hindred from so acting. Why then should the Parents in question be judged to be visibly Covenant-breakers for not entring into Covenant personally, when it is expresly said they have herein been inevitably hindred, though willing to have done it, if there had been opportunity? For our parts, we dare not judge them to be visibly Covenant-breakers, as not seeing any ground or warrant so to do.

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

Now what saith the Reverend Author unto this? Doth he deny p. 90that it is want of opportunity that hinders the Parents from doing what is required in the fifth Proposition? No we do not see that he denieth this at all? Doth he then say, that though want of opportunity hindred, yet for all this want of opportunity, the not doing, though through …hat want of opportunity, is nevertheless a barre to the childes Priviledge? Not so neither; we do not finde that he so saith, any more then the former: And therefore what was said in the former Reason about being inevitably hindred, may be applied to this particular for want of opportunity, viz. That such not doing what is mentioned in the fifth Proposition, can be no barre to the childes Priviledge.

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

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

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

Concerning which, first, here seems to be a manifest mistake concerning the scope of that fifth Proposition, which is not at all as is here intimated, whether what is there expressed be enough to fit one that is adult for Church-membership; but the scope of it is plainly this, to shew, That such Church-members as were admitted in minority, if p. 91they be qualified as is there expressed, may have their children Baptized: but for fitness for Membership, that Proposition doth not discuss that Point at all, but expresly speaks of such as are Members already, and were admitted long ago, even in their minority. As for that which is here said concerning his Examining that fifth Proposition, we referre the Reader to what hath been formerly there said in Defence of that Proposition.

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

Ans. Still this makes nothing against administring Baptism to the children spoken of in this fifth and sixth Propos. except it could be proved that their Parents are not in Church-order. For the Synod thinks, that as they were admitted into Church-membership in their minority, so they still continue therein; and the contrary we have not yet seen proved. As for the Shechemites, &c. Circumcision might be profaned when administred to them, and yet Baptism not so, when administred to the children in question. For, if the former were not in the Church, yet these are: and whereas the former were vile and vicious in their lives, these other are farre from any such thing; and therefore there is no comparison between the former, and these spoken of, but a vast difference. And we may adde further, That as there is difference between those Shechemites and the rest, and the persons spoken of, both in respect of Church-relation and Conversation; so in respect of this latter, these are farre better then sundry that abode in the Family of Iacob, to whom he will not deny but Circumcision was lawfully administred. We may instance in Simeon and Levi, who committed that odious Cruelty and Blood-shedding, for which their Father laid such a Curse upon them a little afore his death, Gen. 49. And if Circumcision was lawfully administred to the children of these, they abiding in the Family of Jacob, how can Baptism lawfully be denied to the children in question, or be said to be profaned when administred to p. 92them, sith they are children of Parents who were once in the Church of God, and were never cast out, nor deserving any such thing, but do still continue therein, and for life and conversation are farre from any such Scandal and Crime as was found in the Sons of Iacob aforesaid.

One end of Baptism now (as it was of Circumcision then) is, to seal Church-communion, 1 Cor. 12.13. and is a testimony of the admission of the party baptized into the Family of God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, &c.

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

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

Ans. Neither doth this make against the Baptism of the children in question; forasmuch as their Parents and they are under the Promise of God, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed in their generations: and the Parents being qualified as in the fifth Proposition, cannot be denied to have Faith visibly, as was shewed by the Synod in their Arguments for Confirming that Proposition, and in this Defence formerly. Sure it is, these Parents may as well be thought to have Faith visibly, as the Sons of Iacob afore-mentioned, and as many in the Church at Corinth, of whom it is said, that they were culpable for carnall Dissentions, going to Law, Fornication, Vncleannesses, and not repenting thereof, 1 Cor. 1. & 3. & 6. and 2 Cor. 12. and yet being in the Church, and professing Christianity, we suppose the Reverend Author will not deny but their children might be baptized, and the children of Iacobs Sons circumcised, and that this in them was no treacherous usurping of the Seal of the King of Heaven and Earth; and therefore much less can such a thing be imputed to the persons qualified as in the fifth Proposition, though p. 93the Seal of Baptism be administred to their children. For it is evident, these persons are farre from such offensiveness as was in those Corinthians, and in Reuben, Simeon and Levi, but are much more innocent, yea commendable.

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

The third Reason of the Synod for this sixth Proposition, is, Because God accepteth that as done in his service, to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it were hindred; as in David to build the Temple, 1 Kings 8. in Abraham to sacrifice his Son, Heb. 11.17. and in that of Alms, 2 Cor. 8.12. As in such as are said to be Martyrs in voto, and Baptized in voto, because there was no want of desire that way, though their desire was not actually accomplished.

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

Whereto the answer is, That what is here said is insufficient, as being not suitable to the case in hand, which is not concerning such as are out of Church-state and order, as if desires after that state were enough to bring them into it, though their actual entring were hindred. For it is evident, that the Synod speaks not of such, but of such as are Church-members already, onelyonly have been inevitably hindred from such actings as are mentioned in the fifth Proposition; which actings are not at all spoken of for attaining Church-membership, for that state the Synod accounts that they have attained already: but the actings mentioned are clearly spoken of for another p. 94purpose, viz. for the more orderly, clear, and edifying manner of administration of baptism to their children; themselves, though being in the state and order of Church-members, having not yet been received to the Lords Supper. It is evident, that the Synod speaks of such persons, and of actings for such an end, viz. of persons already in Church-estate, and acting for the end aforesaid; and here in this sixth Proposition of obtaining that end, though their actings, as aforesaid, have been inevitably hindred. Whereas the Reverend Author speaks of such as are not in Church-state and order at all, though they do desire it; and of them he saith, that these desires are not sufficient for their admission unto Church-priviledges, when their actual entring into Church-state is hindred: between which, and those spoken of by the Synod, there is great difference; so that if what he faith were granted, yet what is delivered by the Synod is nothing hindred thereby: but though desire of office, or of Church-estate, be not sufficient for doing the duties of the one, or obtaining the priviledges of the other, when actual entring into that office and state is hindred; yet when such as are in Church-estate already, do desire to act as in the fifth Proposition, but are inevitably hindred from so acting, what should hinder but they may have their children Baptized, as if they had so acted indeed? And why may not the instances of Gods accepting of Abrahams offering his Son, of Davids building the Temple, and the other mentioned by the Synod, be sufficient Proofs hereof? we see nothing to the contrary but they may. Whereto may be added that in 2 Chron. 30. where the people that prepared their hearts to seek God, are accepted of God in the Passeover, though they were not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary: yet whatever it was that hindred their cleansing, their preparing their hearts did imply that they did desire it, and hereupon at the Prayer of Hezekiah they are accepted. And in 1 Sam. 30. when two hundred of Davids men were by faintness hindred that they could not go over the brook Besor, as he and others did, yet he will not yield but that they shall have part of the spoil, as well as others that went down to the Battell; considering that it was not want of will, but want of ability that hindred their acting as others did: and He, as he was in other things, a man after Gods own heart, even so he p. 95was in this; and they that would not have had the will of these two hundred accepted, when their deed was so inevitably hindred, are called wicked men, and men of Belial. By all which the Argument of the Synod is further confirmed and cleared, when they say in this their third Reason, that God accepts that as done in his service, to which there was a manifest desire and endeavour, albeit the acting of it were hindred. And, if God accept those as Martyrs who are such onelyonly in voto, as the Reverend Author seemeth to acknowledge, pag. 49 why may not the like be said of those who are onelyonly Baptized in voto? we see no reason but that if in the one case God accept them as Martyrs, he doth also in the other as persons Baptize….

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

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

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

3. It is conceived by some, that those who of the Ancients are said to be Baptized in voto, were so spoken of, because they were Martyred before they could actually receive Baptism, and yet that their children were after the death of the Parents actually Baptized p. 96and accounted of the Church: which if so, doth testifie, That they counted it a great matter to be Baptized in voto, sith in such case they would actually apply Baptism to the children, when the Parents had not received it actually, but onelyonly in voto, or in desire. And how much more may Baptism be applyed to the children in question, whose Parents are not onelyonly Baptized actually, and not in d…sire onelyonly, but have been actually members of the Church even from their birth or minority? onelyonly they have not acted as in the fifth Proposition, but have been inevitably hindred therein, though they have been known to the Church to desire so to have acted.

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

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

Ans. But is this certain, that neither Rule in Scripture, nor good Reason, will give warrant for such charity as is mentioned? If men have been by death, or some extraordinary providence, inevitably hindred from so acting as in the fifth Proposition, and yet have given the Church cause to look at them as such as would have so acted, if they had been thereunto called, and not inevitably hindred, is there yet for all this no warrant in Scripture or good Reason for such charity as is spoken of? For our parts, when God Almighty accepts the will for the deed, when the parties inability hinders from doing so much as he would, 2 Cor. 8.12. and when Scripture tells us, that Charity thinketh not evil, but believeth all things, hopeth all things, &c. 1 Cor. 13.5, 7. we cannot but think it better to retain and exercise such charity as is here spoken of, then to be driven or depart from it, as if no Rule of Scripture or good Reason would warrant it.

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

Ans. For putting into Church-fellowship, the things here mentioned p. 97by the Synod are not by them alledged for that end; and therefore if this that is said by the Reverend Author were granted, the Doctrine of the Synod is not at all weakned thereby: But if the things mentioned be sufficient for the Baptizing of the children of Parents who are in Church-fellowship already, the purpose of the Synod is sufficiently gained.

But why do not the things mentioned avail to put the Parent into Church-fellowship? The Reason rendred, is, Because by Christs Ordinance onelyonly adult persons, who have true Faith and Holiness, are adult Members of the invisible Church; and the same persons making profession thereof outwardly in the Order by him appointed, may be Members of the visible Church, and they onelyonly can give their infant-seed a right unto Baptism.

Ans. And is this certain and clear, that onelyonly they who have true Faith and Holiness, and so are Members of the invisible Church, may be Members of the visible Church, and so their infant-seed have right to Baptism? If this were so, we may question whether it can be lawful for Ministers, or any men, to dispense Baptism to any persons at all: and the reason is, Because they cannot certainly know who have such true Faith and Holiness, and so are Church-members. For what the Reverend Author said a little before in pag. 49. That though God search and know the heart, yet the Church doth not, de occultis non judicat Ecclesia; this we believe to be very true: and therefore if this hold, that none may be Members of the visible Church, and give right to their seed unto Baptism, but onelyonly they who have true Faith and Holiness, and so are Members of the Church invisible; we say, if this hold, how can we know who are to the Baptized, sith none can certainly know but God onelyonly, whether men have this true Faith and Holiness in their hearts and souls? Therefore we think it more safe to say, that where there is a profession of true Faith and Holiness, and nothing contrary thereto appearing, whereby that profession can be disproved, such persons may be Members of the visible Church, and so have Baptism for their children, whether they be of the invisible Church, or no. And if the persons described in the fifth Proposition be tried by this Rule, we cannot see but as they were in Church-fellowship from their minority, p. 98so they still continue therein, and so may have their Children baptized, in as much as now they make a good profession before many witnesses, even the whole Church, and do no way contradict their profession by any Scandalous practice in their lives. And therefore, though that be true which the Reverend Author here saith, pag. 50. That without Faith it is impossible to please God, and that therefore there must be true Faith in them whom he priviledgeth to baptize their Infants: that is, as we understand him, whom he priviledgeth to present their Infants to Baptism; yet for all this it may be lawful enough to administer Baptism to the Children of Parents qualified as in the fifth and sixth Propos. and they that do administer, may have Faith to please God therein, because of the Church-relation and good profession of the Parents, though the Parents cannot please God in presenting their children to that ordinance, if themselves be destitute of the grace of Faith: yet this we must still say, that for any that are so qualified as is said, we see no Scripture-Rule or Reason that will warrant us to judge them so destitute.

So much for Defence of the sixth Proposition.

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

For confirming of this Proposition in both the Parts or Branches of it, the Synod giveth sundry reasons, whereto the Reverend Author saith nothing in the particulars, but in general, That he locketh at the regular communion of approved Churches as an Ordinance of Christ: But further then so he saith nothing, either by objection against the Proposition, or by consent unto it? But all he saith is by way of propounding Quaeri…s, to the number of half a score, or more; p. 99and then concludes, That when these and the like Questions are clearly Answered, he shall then understand the true and full sense of this Proposition, and what to say to it. But when the Synod shall come together to Answer these Questions, whether ever or never, we do not know, nor do see any great probability of such a thing; and therefore no more being here said against this Proposition, we may conclude that it yet stands firm and good. And, as he concludes, that Thus much may suffice, for the present, for Reply to the Synods Answer to the first Question; So may we conclude, That thus much may suffice, for the present, for Defence of the Synods Answer against what he saith to the contrary in his Reply.

COncerning the Reverend Author's Discourse upon the second Question touching Consociation of Churches, we shall not trouble the Reader with any large Reply: and we hope it needeth nor, because there appeared no Dissent or Dissatisfaction in the Synod about that matter. Our Brethren that Dissented in the former Question, readily and fully Concurred in this, as themselves declare in Antisynod…li…, pag. 12. Besides, part of the Reverend Author's Exceptions referring to the Platform of Discipline, concluded on with great Unanimity in the Synod held at Cambridge, Anno 1648. (sundry Principal Members whereof, as Mr. Cotton, Shepard, Rogers, Norton, &c. are now at rest with God) we shall not now after so many years, wherein we heard of no Opposition, make that a subject of Debate.

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

1. That we never said nor thought, that there should be a Withdrawing from other Churches upon Differences, Errours or Offences of an inferiour and dubious nature, yea though continued in. We are p. 100farre enough from Hastiness or Harshness in that matter, being professed Adversaries to a Spirit of Sinfull and Rigid Separation: we hope there is no word in the Synods Conclusions that savoureth thereof, if candidly interpreted. And for Withdrawing from Brethren because of Dissent from what is here held forth by this Synod, both our Practice and our Profession in the Preface to that Book, do sufficiently shew us to be farre from it. This may answer what is said this way in Pag. 54, 55, 57, 63.

2. That we account not Consociation of Churches to be another thing th…n Communion of Churches, but onelyonly an Agreement to Practise that Communion, as is expresly said in Propos. 5^th & 6^th. And therefore we understand not why the Reverend Author should so often praise Communion of Churches, as pag. 58▪ 59, 60, 61. and yet dispraise and disl…ke Consociation. Is Regular Communion so good and excellent, and can it be hurtful for Churches to agree and consent to Practise it? Neither do we mean by that Agreement, a Vow (as is suggested pag. 56, 57.) or a formall Covenant in a strict sense (though Mr. Cotton doth not refuse to call it a Covenant, in Keyes, p. 54.59.) but onelyonly a declared Consent (as is expressed Propos. 7.) of each Church to walk in Regular Communion with their Neighbour-Churches. And if the Reverend Author doth approve of the Acts of Communion here set down for the substance of them, as it seemeth he doth by what he saith pag. 52. why should it be thought a dangerous matter to agree thereunto for the Substance thereof?

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

3. That we expresly disclaim the subjecting of a Church unto any other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction whatsoever, Propos. 1. and therefore it is strange that the Reverend Author should put that upon the p. 101Consociation by us intended, That it is a subjecting of Churches under Classicall Iurisdiction, pag. 59. It is not the bare Consent, or mutual Agreement of Churches, but the nature of the thing consented to, as, viz. The Power they agree to be stated under, that makes it a Classical Combination, or puts those Churches under a Classical Iurisdiction. What though the voluntary Combination, mentioned by by Mr. Rutherfurd, in his sense doth inferre a Classical Membership and Iurisdiction? Surely it doth not follow that ours does so, when as we expresly disclaim it. But is it true, that where-ever there is a voluntary Combination of Churches, they become a Classical or Presbyterian Church, and the Members by conse…ting thereto, become Members of a Classical Church, and under the Power of it, so as to be Excommunicated by it, &c. as is said pag. 59? what then shall be thought of that known Position of Dr. Ames, Medal. Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 27. which is expresly cited and approved by the Reverend Author in his Reply to Paget, pag. 224, 225?

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

4. Let the Reader please to peruse and consider the Reverend Author's Eleventh and Twelfth premised Position, pag. 6, 7, 8. and compare them with what the Synod hath published touching Consociation of Churches, and we suppose he will finde such an agreement between them, as that he will wonder (as we do) to see the Reverend Author appearing as an Antagonist in this matter. It seems strange, that Brethren should be willing to contend both where they do differ, and where they do not. Also it may be considered, how many Reflexions here are upon us, (as if we would cast a Snare upon Churches, by straitning them in the use and exercise of their Church-power within themselves in re propria; as if we would absolutely binde Churches not to administer Censures within p. 102themselves, &c.) for which nothing published by the Synod did give any just occasion.

And whereas Mr. Cotton is represented as being against our Consociation, pag. 60.61. Let his Printed words be viewed in the Keyes, pag. 54—59. his Solemn Speeches of it to sundry be remembred, and his Draught of it a little before his death be considered, and the Reader will see whether he can joyn in belief with the Reverend Author about that matter. The Lord guide us by his Spirit into all Truth, and help us to follow the Truth in Love.

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Mather, Defense of the Answer and Arguments of Synod in Boston (1664)