CHAP. I.
Being Animadversions upon the twoPrefaces: The first,To the Reader; the second,To the Honoured General Court.

IT is no good sign, that the Publisher of these Anti­synodalia doth so foully stumble at the Threshold, in his first stepping forth into this Business. For where as he pretendeth, ‘As a Lover of the Truth, to Publish this Treatise without any Commission from the Dissenting Bre­thren, which he desireth them not to be offended with:’ and affirms it as a truth. ‘That the persons engaged in this Dissent, had much rather this Treatise were suppressed, and as an untimely birth to have been bur [...]ed in everlasting darkness.’ The contrary hereunto is evidently evinced by the whole Preface following; which speaketh no more in the person of the Publisher, but of the Dissenters: and where­in they endeavour to Answer four Objections against the Publishing thereof. And in Answer to the first Objection, taken from the Ill consequences that might follow, they declare a Resolution to have it Published, whatever should follow; concluding in the words of Esther, If I perish, I perish. Besides, it is well known here, how [Page 2] earnest and resolute one of the chief of them was to have it Pub­lished.

Concerning the Objections here mentioned: The three first, from The sad Consequences that may follow; The trouble of the Peace of the Churches hereby; and from The Novelty of their Opinion; I know not of any that made these Objections: Surely that language was not heard in the Synod, but their own Reason might object such things. The fourth Objection is, A pretended Concurrence of all other Congregational Churches they know of, to countenance their Cause, but without any sufficient Proof thereof. But seeing it is now Published, though unseasonably, (as is confessed) I shall not trouble myself and the Reader about the Answers to the Objections, but apply myself to wipe off those uncharitable and unjust Asper­sions that in this Preface are cast upon many of the Elders and Churches of New-England. Wherein (that I may not wrong any of our beloved Brethren, the Dissenters) I must say this on their behalf, That some of them do profess that they had no hand in this first Preface, nor in the Publishing thereof, nor any knowledge thereof: And I have reason to think so of others of them, who I hope have other thoughts of their Brethren, then this Preface hold­eth forth. So that so farre as I conceive, it is the act of one of them onely, or chiefly.

I take notice of Seven Imputations cast upon us, which I shall speak unto.

1. The Author of this Preface complaineth of ‘The course En­tertainment of their Tenent, both in the Synod, and in the General Court, Where they expected more Patrons then did appear.’

Ans. That none may hence judge otherwise then the truth is; In respect of the Synod, it cannot be denied that the matter in question was placidly, fully, and oft-over Debated, all their Argu­ments weighed, all Writings presented were read, considered, and some publickly answered: So that all the course Entertainment was, that their Tenent was not embraced by the Synod. And as for the Honoured General Court, if they were so farre satisfied with the Answers of the Synod to that Question about The Subject of Baptism propounded by them, that they did not think fit in their Wisdome [Page 3] to countenance and encourage a Party rifing up in Opposition thereto, as tending to Divisions and Disturbances amongst us; they may thank themselves for such course Entertainment, if they will so account of it.

But to aggravate this course Entertainment, he addeth, ‘Though it be no other Doctrine then of all the Congregational Churches in Holland, England, Ireland, and New-England, and also in New-Haven, and Plimouth jurisdictions; yea, and also that it hath been the judgement and general Practice of the Churches in the Bay, some few inconsiderable excepted, for thirty years.’

Ans. Here is a great Pretence of general Concurrence with their Tenent, but without Proof, and beyond the truth. And to make the Number seem the greater, besides New-England, he addeth, And also New-Haven, Plimouth, &c. as if these were not New-England Churches. As for those Forreign Churches, it doth not appear whether as yet (many of them at least) have declared their Judgement in this case. Yea, I have heard from one of good note, that knows many of those Churches, who upon the question an­swered, That this case hath not as yet been considered in many of those Churches. And if their Practice have not yet suited to the Do­ctrine of the Synod, we know by our own experience how many hin­drances there may be of that, though their Judgement be for it. But concerning the Judgement of New-England Elders and Chur­ches, let the Preface to the Synod be read, by which it will ap­pear, That the most Eminent Elders in the most considerable Chur­ches, and the Messengers of the Churches of New-England, were generally for this Doctrine in the Synod held at Cambridge in the year 1648. I shall mention onely that Passage of famous Hooker, whose praise is in the Gospel in all the Churches, and who might know as much of the Principles of the Congregational Churches as an­other: It is not the question (saith he) Whether wicked Members, while they are sinfully tolerated in the Church, they and their seed may par­take of Priviledges; for this is beyond question: nor do I know, or ever heard it denied by any of ours. Survey, Part 3. Chap. 2. Pag. 11. Whereby it doth appear, that he took it for a general Confession on all hands, That it is the Interest in the Outward Covenant that [Page 4] giveth right to Outward Priviledges of the Church; which is the Foundation of the Doctrine of the Synod. Whereas the Tenent of our Dissenting Brethren is, That Members of the Church admit­ted minority, and having the covenant sealed by Baptism, if being adult, they hold not forth saving Faith and Repentance to the judgement of the Church, even so as to come into full Communion; neither they nor their seed may partake of Priviledges, they are Felones de se, self­murtherers, Discovenanted of God, and are not so much as Foederally holy, so soon as they be out of their Non-age; as will appear after: which Tenent I cannot believe will be owned by most of the Chur­ches named if by any of them.

This Author addeth further, ‘That yet now this Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Antichristianism and Anabaptism.’

Ans. If an Argument or two were used in the Synod, taken from such Consequences, is this ground enough to say it is laden with such Reproaches? (and other ground I know none.) Yet for that of Anabaptism, it will appear the Principles of the Dissenters are so near a Kin, if not the same with theirs, that we cannot but fear a great tendency thereunto: and what encouragement they take from thence, we are very sensible.

Secondly, In answering the first Objection, this Prefacer takes occasion, upon supposition of the Doctrine of the Synod to charge ‘the Boy Churches with a sin which he cannot see how it can stand with peace of Conscience, in leaving their former practice in dispensing the Seals, and taking up a new manner thereof; yea a grievous sin, in depriving so many Infants of Baptism for thirty years; yea, of the same nature, and somewhat worse then that of the Pharisees, Luke 7. 29,30. disannulling the counsel of God against themselves, and so many hundred poor Infants whom the Kingdome of God (as we now plead) belongs unto: and a practical Anabaptism.’

Ans. 1. It is indeed a grief of heart to many Elders and Bre­thren, that the practice of the Rule, according to the Doctrine of the late Synod, cannot yet obtain in their Churches; but they are not convinced it is a sin in them that cannot stand with peace of Conscience, as the case standeth: because all things in the Church must be done to edification; which in this case cannot be put in practice, especially [Page 5] in reference to the fifth Proposition, with peace and edification, by reason of the strong opposition made by these, and other like Dis­senters. When this matter was under Consideration in the Synod 1648. the Author of this Preface knoweth well who it was that professed. He would oppose it with all his might: by reason whereof, and the Dissent of some few more, it was laid aside at that time. It seemeth to me very hard dealing, for Brethren so strongly to oppose others in doing their Duty, and then to charge them with a sin that cannot stand with peace of Conscience if they do it not. The case standing thus, let the Reader judge who are more like the Pharisees, that rejected the counsel of God against themselves, in not being baptized of John, whether such as would practice according to their Judgement, or such as oppose and hinder them from so doing.

2. This Neglect is not so great for thirty years▪ as is Objected: for, in the former years of these Plantations, till the Church-seed were grown up to Marry, and have Children, there was not such need of practice according to the fifth Proposition (which is now most stumbled at;) besides, some Churches have been in that practice for divers years.

3. There is no falling from our former practice, as is Objected, our Principles are the same; this is onely a progress in practising ac­cording thereunto, as the encrease of the Churches doth require. It is the way of Christ in the Gospel, to set up the practice of his Institutions as the necessities of the people call for them, as appear­eth Matth. 9. 36, &c. with 10. 1, &c. So Acts 6. 1. & 14. 23. 1 Cor. 16. 1,2.

4. When Circumcision, by reason of the travels in the Wilder­ness, was omitted forty years, and the Feast of Tabernacles from the dayes of Joshua to the dayes of Nehemiah, was neglected so many hundreds of years, we do not reade of so deep a charge laid upon the Elders and people by any of the Prophets of God.

Thirdly, We are charged with ‘A greater sin to be trembled at, viz. That we admitted all sorts that were personally in Covenant to the Lords Supper, which now we deny to many, except after Covenant­ing they make it manifest, that they are able to examine themselves, and, discern the Lords Body: If this be regular, then the other is irregular, [Page 6] and brought guiltiness to many of the Body and Blood of Christ, and was eating and drinking judgement to our selves.’

Ans. This is a very heavy Imputation laid upon so many Elders and Churches, and without any colour of Reason: For, what mat­ter is it whether Elders and Churches be satisfied of the fitness of their Members for the Lords Supper, before their admittance into the Church, by the Elders examination of them; or at their admit­tance by their publick Professions (which is known to be our con­stant care and practice) or afterward? but because we do it not after Covenanting in persons received in adult age, as well as in persons received in infancy, that therefore we are so deeply guilty; this is a gross and irregular Charge. Some have objected against our admissions, as over-strict; but who hath charged us with such a sin to be trembled at in such a manner, as to bring guiltiness upon many of the Body and Blood of Christ? And it is strange to see such as make so loud a Profession of stedfastness in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, to lay so great a Scandal of a sin to be trembled at, upon so many Elders, before conviction thereof, and their impenitency therein, and that in the face of Old England and New, so contrary to the Principal and express Rules of Gospel-order, Matth. 18 15,16. 1 Tim. 5. 19.

Fourthly, In the Answer to the second Objection, viz. ‘That by Publishing this Treatise they shall disturb the peace,’ &c. The Au­thor pleading possession of another manner of dispensing the Ordi­nances, and that bought at a great rate, The loss of Native Land, Fathers Houses, &c. he saith, ‘That the disturbers of the peace, the troublers of Israel, are those that would rob them of their possession, or question their right, especially having enjoyed them so long before this pleaded-for Conversion of New England.’

Ans. 1. But did we indeed come to New England to put our Posterity under the wings of Gods gracious Covenant and Ordi­nances, and then to deny them and their seed the Benefits thereof? to leave them at a loose end without the Discipline of Christ, the Means to prevent sin, or to reduce them to Repentance unto life? Certainly, the Profession of very many gracious and serious hearts, and their hopes for their Children, was farre otherwise. Yea, of [Page 7] these that now Dissent amongst us, some I know, and many more I may suppose left Old England for the good of their seed in this respect.

2. Are not our Children in possession of the House, Members of the Church, by the confession of the Dissenters? The Synod pleadeth onely that they may enjoy the Priviledges of the House; it is the Dissenters therefore that would rob them of their possession, and disturb the peace.

3. The Synod (as appeareth in their Preface) doth leave them to their liberty to practise according to their Judgement: If they will not own, or Baptize such as in the fifth Proposition are described; if they will have their Children accounted Self-murtherers, Dis­covenanted of God, if the Lord have not wrought Faith and Repentance visibly in them [...] come to adult age, there is none that offereth to disturb their possession in these things. And why then should they disturb and oppose the Right and Possession of so many others who assert the Rights of the Church-seed, which are in Covenant with God in possession of the House, whose advantage (the A­postle saith) and profit is much every way? Rom. 3. 1,2.

Fifthly, In Answer to the third Objection, viz. ‘That they are Innovators; and that the most learned Ministers were of the Sy­nods minde.’ This Author of the Preface granting this to be true of some, (which is a large some, as is manifest in the Preface to the Synod) he must needs cast a double Aspersion upon the Elders, af­firming,

1. ‘That as many of them are so large in Judgement, as to soulder with Parish Churches.’

Ans. If this be meant in respect of Communion with Orthodox Parish Churches, we are no larger then our Dissenting Brethren, who concur with us in the seventh Proposition about the first Que­stion, which speaks to this case. But if it be meant of inlarging the Church to the Bounds of a Parish, it is a meer Slander: I do not believe that he can prove that any two Elders of these Churches have so declared their judgement; much less so many as are of the Synods minde. It lieth upon the Author to make good this charge, or to recant his rashness.

[Page 8] 2. He affirmeth, ‘That the general judgement of the learned El­ders, and their Practice, was as the Dissenters plead; but now divers of these Elders do retreat and recant.’

To prove this, he [...]lledgeth two Passages out of An Answer to Thirty two Questions, Printed 1639. But those Passages are too weak to bear up this Assertion; yea, do evidence the quite contrary.

The first is taken out of Page 22. of the said Book; the sum whereof is this, ‘That such whose Parents are not Believers and sanctified, are not foederally holy; Foederal Holiness or Sanctity being limited to the next Parents,’ 1 Cor. 7. 14.

Ans. 1. This Passage doth not agree with the Dissenters; for it doth appear, that the Author doth account Foederal Holiness to be Sanctity: and therefore the next parents being in Covenant with God, and so continuing, they are Ecclesiastically holy, sanctified, and visible Believers.

2. Do not the same Elders in this Synod deliver the very same Doctrine, in the Second Proposition, and fifth particular, viz. It is re­quisite to the Membership of Children, that the next Parents, one or both, be in Covenant? Citing the same Text, 1 Cor. 7. 14. And where then is the least shew of Recanting?

The second Proof is Page 23. of the said Book, where it is said, that ‘We believe that all Members of Churches ought to be Saints, and faithful in Christ Jesus, none excepted, Ephes. 1. 1. 1 Cor. 1. 2. Phil. 1. 1.’

Ans. 1. This passage speaketh of Members to be admitted in adult age, and therefore might be as well alledged to prove a consent with the Anabaptists, as with the Dissenters; which was farre from the meaning of that Author. Besides, though they ought to be so, yet that denieth not, but being regularly admitted, they are still Members of the Church, till they be regularly cast out, though they do not approve themselves to be such.

2. Do not those Elders profess the same Doctrine in the Synod, Propos. 2. viz. Members of the visible Church, according to Scripture, are Confederate visible Believers? alledging the same Texts, Eph. 1. 1, &c. Where then is this Recantation?

Sixthly, The Author of this Preface excusing the Paucity of the [Page 9] Dissenters, in comparison of the many able, learned; and godly Ma­gistrates and Ministers that consented; He objecteth three things against the Synod consenting.

1. ‘That divers of the Elders having Preached and Practised that Doctrine of late years, were Pre-engaged: and it is strange that after Vows they should be called to enquired.’

Ans. Were not Paul, Barna [...]as, and others, as much engaged in the Doctrine of that Synod Act 15? and did they come after Vows to enquire? 2. Were not the Dissenters as much pre-engaged in their Opinion? why then did they come after Vows to en­quire?

2. It is Objected, ‘That divers Messengers being no Logicians to answer Syllogisms, and discern Ambiguities, were over-born by the many Opposers.’

Ans. It is incongruous and too high, to make the Body of the Synod the Opposers, which more fitly agree to the few Dissenters. 2. Though divers were not such Logicians, yet Charity might al­low the choyce Members of our Churches to be able to judge of Arguments drawn from the Scriptures; and so farre consciencious, as that discerning the Voice of Christ, they would not be born down with number of Opposers. To say nothing of the Logick of the Dissenters, that might be as little as the others.

3. It is Objected, ‘That the corruption of man most inclineth to walk in the broadest way, though the stratter way be never so clear; especially when persons [...] Place, Power, Learning and Piety, are so linked together.’

Ans. Be it so, that there is such a corruption in man; yet when such persons as the Synod are confessed to be) agree in one, and that in so Solemn an Ordinance of God, where Christ hath pro­mised his Presence; Charity, [...] path all things, might well con­ceive that Grace would prevail above such a Corruption. 2. If our Brother be not aware of it, I can assure him that there is also a Corruption in man, and in good men too, under the not on of Strictness and Zeal, to swerve as much to the other Extreme: As when the Disciples would have kept little children from Christ, Mark. 10. 13,14. When out of Zeal against the Tares, men would hazard [Page 10] to pluck up the Wheat also, Matth. 13. 28,29. So when we are apt to judge others, whom God hath received, Rom. 14. 3. which I wish our Brother seriously to consider. The way of the Anabaptists is a straiter way, yet I suppose this Brother doth not judge it his cor­ruption, to chuse a way somewhat larger. So is the way of the Seekers and others, who think their straiter wayes as clear as our Brother thinketh of his.

Seventhly, In Page 5. this Brother answering another Obje­ction, ‘That this Discourse may seem needless, seeing all other Con­gregational Churches agree with them, that they know of;’ alledging the Savoy Meeting, Chap. 29. Of Baptism 4. ‘Yet, saith he, there needs abundant confirmation: for no this temptation will spread further, when more then the third part of the Stars of Heaven here are swept down, as is Prophesied Rev. 12. &c. Furthermore, (saith he) let the world know, That the Lord hath still a few Names in New-England who hold fast his Name, and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, and detest the Abominations of Anti­christ.’

Ans. 1. This Author glorieth much in the Consent of other Churches. We see here his ground, which I shall examine. The Position of that Meeting of the Churches, it this: Not onely those that do actually profess Faith in, and Obedience unto Christ; but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents, are to be Baptized, and those onely. We can well consent with this Doctrine, without any prejudice to the Doctrine of the Synod: For we profess and prove in the Synod, That the Children of the Church being in Covenant with God, owned by him as holy, as his People, his Children, and manifesting their continuance in the Covenant, according to the fifth Proposition, these are visible Believers in Ecclesiastical ac­count, in Scripture account, 1 Cor. 1. 1. with 7. 14. And I cannot believe but that Reverend and Learned Assembly would acknow­ledge Regular Church-members to be visible Believers; And it doth ap­pear, that these are Regular Church-members in their judgement, by their Second Position, Concerning the Church, Chap. 26. where they say, All such as profess the Faith of the Gospel, and Obedience to God by Christ according to [...] not destroying their Profession by Errours [Page 11] everting the Foundation, or unholiness of Conversation, are Members of the visible Church. Now it cannot be denied that the persons de­scribed in the fifth Proposition of the Synod are such, for they pro­fess their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith, and subjection to the Rules and Discipline of Christ; they give up themselves to God, own the Covenant, do not destroy their Profession by Errours, nor unholiness of life; holding the Doctrine of Faith, and not being Scandalous in life. So that for ought that appears, that Assembly agreeth rather with the Synod, then with the Dissenters.

2. In that our Brother maketh such a distinction between the third part of the Stars of New-England swept down, and A few Names in New-England that hold fast the Name of God, and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel: How well this Compa­rison agreeth with the Rules of Charity, Humility and Modesty, I shall leave to the judgement of others.

3. I must enquire into the Truth and Grounds of so deep a Charge, laid upon more then the third part of the Stars, the Lights set up in the Churches of New-England.

Is it the present Doctrine of this Synod, inlarging the subject of Baptism beyond the Opinion of the Dissenters, that is their fall from Heaven? And the more strict Opinion of our Brethren, the Character of those few Names remaining that hold fast the Faith and Order of the Gospel? as indeed it seemeth to be so. For, 1. This is the occasion taken up to make this Comparison. And 2. Those other Imputations, of Forsaking former Practices, Recanting of Elders, New Conversion of New-England, in reference to this Doctrine, seem to intimate as much. 3. And that Expression of a few Names holding fest the Faith and Order of the Gospel, doth plainly intimate, that not only more then a third part of the Stars, but also the generality of New England are greatly departed from the Faith and Order of the Gospel, and that, at the present, in the judgement of this Author: which is so high a strain, that I am loth to say what might be spo­ken of it.

Now if this be our Fall from Heaven, it is our comfort that we are not yet faln so farre as many bright Stars of the first Magni­tude, that have shined gloriously in the Churches; such as Calvin, [Page 12] Cartwright, Perkins, Ames, and hundreds more, whose judgement is well known to be larger in this Point then the Synod doth hold forth. And we are faln no further then blessed Cotton, Philips, Shepard Rovers, and others of the Bay Churches: Famous Hooker and Stone of Connect [...], Prud [...]e [...], of [...]-Haven, Partridge and Newman of Plimouth, with divers other Lights in New-England, of whom I am perswaded that they are gotten to Heaven in that Opinion, whereby we are supposed to be swept down from Heaven. But let this Brother beware, lest himself and his few Names be not judged by some to be swept down from Heaven also, who hold an Opinion, That Infants of the Church are to be Baptized, which is not so strict a Tenent as they would have.

4. But if this so great a Charge be laid upon more then the third part of the Stars upon any other ground, let it be considered whether the Rules of Charity and Gospel-Order would not require, that he should first have Convinced his Brethren of their Fa [...], yea, indeed of their supposed Errour about the Subject of Baptism) before he should cast so great a Scandal upon them before the face of the world; even an Heretick may have two Admonitions before rejection. However, whether it be this or that ground, surely this course doth not a little darken that loud Profession of our Brother's holding fast to the Order of the Gospel.

It hath been our portion all along, to go through evil Reports from the mouthes of many discontented persons, and corrupt Opinionists, Familists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and the like; but I little expected such things as these from so near a Friend and Brother. I will not deny or excuse the Declining of many Professors to corrupt Opi­nions, to the World, Loose Wayes, and the like: Neither will I justifie all things in all the Elders of New-England; failings may be found in Judgement and Practice, and perhaps some may be larger in their Judgement concerning The subject of Baptism, then the Sy­nod doth hold forth: But God forbid we should judge them to be swept down from Heaven, that differ from us in greater matters then these, or for such Blemishes as are incident to good men. But whe­ther the generality of the Stars in New-England Churches be not yet in the right hand of Christ shining in their Orbs with the light [Page 13] of Heavenly Doctrine, and Christian Conversation, I appeal to the Consciences of all the sober-minded People of God in the Country; yea, and also to the Conscience of the Author of this Preface him­self, who gives this Testimony of the Elders in the Synod, being more then half the Elders of all the Churches of New-England, Pag. 5. viz. That they were able, learned and godly; and again, Emi­nent in Learning and Piety. However it be, it is a very little thing to be judged of men, whether approved or condemned.

Concerning that which is said of Mr. Parker by name, for Pub­lishing a Book in favour of Episcopacy; our Brother doth or might know, that the Book is distastful also to his Brethren, as well as to himself: yet the approved Learning and Piety of the person might have called for better language.

As for that Imputation, ‘That the Common-Prayer-Book findeth some Advocates in New-England, who can finde Stakes and Mate­rials to edifie Gods People in a Congregational Church (as is said.)’ I wonder that a man of Piety and Gravity should venture to publish such things to the world upon (As is said;) and to what end is it, except to cast dirt upon his Brethren? Much more then is true, is said of that and other things. The Lord help such as profess such stedfastness in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, to walk up to the Rules of Gospel-Order and Charity, more then his Brother hath done.

Thus much to the first Preface. Concerning the second, To the General Court. I shall Animadvert onely upon two or three Passages of it. And

1. Whereas Pag. 8. they tell the Honoured Court, ‘That they have yielded and voted with the rest to farre, that rightly considered and practised, it would silence all sad Complaints against the many great and prevailing corruptions of Youth amongst us.’

Ans. It is true, that one of the chief of our Dissenting Brethren did propound, and earnestly promote the third Proposition; viz. That the Infant-seed of the Church are Members of the same Church with their Parents, and when they are grown up, are personally under the Watch and Government of the Church: and this rightly practised, would indeed tend much to the end aforesaid; for so the Church, by [Page 14] an Ordinance of Christ that hath his Promise annexed, should either bring such Youth to Repentance, or purge the Church of them. But it is as true, that this Treatise putteth such a sense and meaning upon that Proposition, as renders it useless and vain to the ends afore­said. For, if they be not actual, personal nor immediate Mem­bers, whereby acts of Church-government should be put forth im­mediately upon their persons, but onely reach them at the second hand viz. by their parents, as was said by some in the Meeting­house, to which they referre, pag. 23. And if Excommunication, that healing Medicine of Christ for the destruction of the flesh, and saving of the soul, may not touch them, as is in the same Page 23. Yea, if the Foederal Holiness of their persons, and so their Co­venant-interest continue no longer then their minority, (wherein indeed they are scarce capable of any Church discipline) as is affirmed Page. 37.) These things being so, let any man judge how it is pos­sible for Church government to reform such great, many, and pre­vailing corruptions of Youth.

2. Page 10. our Brethren say, ‘It is apparent to all, what a corrupt mass of Unbelievers shall by this change throng into the fel­lowship of Gods People, and the children of strangers, uncircumcised in heart, shall be brought into Gods Sanctuary to pollate it, contrary to Ezek 44. 7, 9.’

Ans. 1. Whether these Parents in question be to be counted Unbelievers, or not, will appear after. But if the Charity of our Brethren will allow them no other term, I pray, Who let them into the fellowship of Gods People? Do not our Brethren with us affirm, That the Covenant of Abraham belongs unto them, and therefore they are to partake of Baptism the Seal of it? [...] (say they) there is the whole Churches Communion in Baptism, as well as in the Lords supper, 1 Cor. 12. 13. If then they would keep them out of the fellowship of God, People, they must joyn with those that shut that door against all Infants by which they entred; for if they be Unbelievers, that are so qualified as in Proposition the fifth, then surely they were so when they were Baptized. By this, with many other Passages, our Brethren may see whither their Principles do carry them. So that the difference between the Synod and our [Page 15] Brethren, is not about their Admission into the fellowship of Gods People, but about The Improvement of the Ordinances of Christ for their good, while they continue in that fellowship; wherein the Synods Doctrine admits them not to acts of Communion with the rest of Gods People, but as they are regularly fit; neither do the Synod continue them in that fellowship, any longer then they walk orderly, without deserving the Censures of the Church. Ezek. 44. speaks of strangers amongst the children of Israel, such as Tob [...]ah, Neh 13. 4, &c. not of any Israelite, ver. 9.

3. Our Brethren in their sixth Consideration, acknowledging ‘The great Deliverances and Wonders that the Lord hath wrought in former times for New England; they adde, But since the motion of this Change, what the Lords dealing hath been and still is, we leave to the Prudent to judge: We may glory in this New Light, but we fear it will prove but glorying in our shame.’

Ans. I had thought that Gods gracious answer to the Prayers of the Synod 1662. in sending Rain so speedily and sweetly, night not onely have taken off that Imputation of the Drought unto the Synod, as if it was for their sakes; but also it might have stayed our Brethren from such Applications of the Providences of God to their own ends. I remember that when the polish Cantons im­puted the death of Zuinghus and Deco [...]amp [...]d [...]us to the just Judge­ment of God upon then for causing their Troubles, the Historian hath this Observation upon it: It is (saith he) a plots thought to attribute the disposition of every Event to the Providence of God; but to determine to what ends those Events are directed by his high Wisdome, is not farre from Presumption. Men are so straightly and religiously wedded to their own Opinions that they are perswaded God loveth and fa­voureth them as much as themselves. Hist. of the Council of Treat, p. 60. But if we must needs take notice of the dealing, of God with New-England, in reference to this case; Can any prudent man say, that the Deliverances of New-England are not as great and won­derful in these last years, and at this day, as in former years? And as for those afflicting Providences that have lately a faln us, have we not had as heavy Strokes many wayes formerly? And have we not Sins enough that are evident, to humble us under the [Page 16] Lords hand, as deserving these and greater evils, but we must needs apply them as Judgements of God to this (falsly so called) Change, and brand the constant Doctrine of Gods eminent Messengers amongst, as a N [...]w Light that will turn to our shame? The Lord forgive these many harsh Censures of the Brethren.

Thus have I passed through this unpleasing part of my Work: wherein, if by clearing the innocent, any thing doth reflect upon the Accusers, I hope the equal-minded Reader will excuse me; considering, that the Name of God is named upon the Elders and Churches of New-England, and would have suffered in them, should not such unjust Aspersions be wiped off them by a just Apologie. Had our Brethren followed the Example of the Sy­nod, with like Love, Tenderness and Moderation as is expressed towards them in their Preface, the world had not been so Scanda­lized, as I fear it is, by these Contests, and I had spared much of this labour. Oh! when shall we see Brethren manage such Disputes with that Brotherly Love, Ingenuity, and Endeavours to finde out the Truth, as becometh the Cause of CHRIST, and without such harsh Reflections upon mens persons! The want of this is a Lamentation, and shall be for a Lamenta­tion.

CHAP. II.
Concerning our Brethrens Answer to the main Question.

COncerning The Order of this Treatise, I need not trouble the Reader; nor concerning their two Propositions premised. Who eth that Baptism in a Seal of the Gospel, and to be admi­nistred according to Gospel-Rules? Or, that the surest way to end Con­troversies, is to finde out how it was in the beginning? Onely these Rules are too general, and have a like influence into all Con­troversies about Gospel-Ordinances.

I shall therefore endeavour to clear up from Scripture two or three Propositions, that have a more near and immediate respect to the Question now in debate. It is no question between us, Whe­ther adult persons to be joyned to the Church, and to be Baptized, should hold forth Faith and Repentance to the judgement of Charity, and that in same particular visible Church? nor, Whether the Infant-seed of such are to be Baptized? But, the very Hinge whereupon our De­bate turneth, lieth in these two things:

1. Whether the Infant-seed of all Church-members ought to be Baptized?

2. What it is that Cuts off any from his Membership in the vi­sible Church?

Clear up these two from the Word of God, and the whole Con­troversie is issued. To this end I shall premise three things, which being proved by the Word of God, will make my way plain and easie through all these Antisynodalia.

That however the Membership of the seed of the Faithful be conveyed to them by their Parents instrumentally,Propos. X. yet it flows from, and is grounded upon Gods Institution, as the principal Efficient [Page 18] cause thereof, who is pleased to extend the Grace of his Covenant not only to the Parents, but also to their seed. God enters into Cove­nant with them, He is their God, They are his People. This is evident Gen. 17 7. I will establish my Covenant between Me and Thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee: At eight dayes old they were to be Circumcised, as a Token of the Covenant between God and them, ver. 11, 12. Deut. 29. 11, 12. Their little ones stood before the Lord their God, to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God, to be established a people to himself. What can be spoken more plainly and fully to this purpose? Acts 2. 39. The Promise is to your Children. 1 Cor. 7. 14. Your Children are holy. And in­deed, what can be supposed in the Parents Faith, Profession, or Co­venanting to bring in their seed, but it dependeth wholly upon Gods Free-grace ordaining his Covenant so to be dispensed? And hence it followeth. That the Infant-seed are in their own persons actually Members of the Church, being actually in this Covenant with God as His People, and he Their God, and having the Covenant in their flesh, the Seal of it applied to their persons. And hence they cannot be cut off from their interest in God, and his Covenant-Priviledges, but in such a way as he hath ordained, which in Gospel­times is by Church-censures. Mat. 18. 1. Cor. 5.

There is a two fold Dispensation of the Covenant of God in his visible Church:Propos. 2. 1. Outward and visible, by which the Lord be­stows upon his Church, and all the Members thereof, the outward Priviledges of the Covenant, his Ordinances, and Means of Grace, as they become capable thereof, and wherein he tenders unto them the Saving Benefits thereof, with many Means to bring up their hearts to the embracing thereof. This is evident, they have all the Name and Title of Gods People, His Children, A Roy [...] Priesthood, Holy Nation, Saints, &c. Gen, 6. 2. Exod. 19. 5,6. Deut. 32. 9. Isa. 1. 1,2. Psal. 50. 1. 2. Mat. 15. 26. And the Ordinances and Means of Grace are theirs, Roy. 3. 1, 2. & 9. 4. So in the New-Testament, the whole Church of Corinth are called Saints, and faithful in Christ. The Seven Churches, Rev. 1. are called Golden Candlesticks, though there were corrupt Members in them. And the Ministry of the Word, and other Ordinances, belong to the visible [Page 19] Church, Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Whence it is evident, That Officers are set in the Church for the edifying of the Body of Christ, and for the healing and saving the Members of the visible Church.

2. There is a more Inward, Spiritual, and Saving Dispensation of the Covenant to such as truly Believe, and perform the Condi­tions of the Covenant, whose hearts God hath circumcised accord­ing to the Promises of the Covenant, Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 36. From this different Dispensation it is, that the Lord, though he requires of all to Fear the Lord their God, to walk in his wayes, to Love him with all their hearts, &c. Deut. 10. 12,13. and keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love God, and walk with God in faith and obe­dience; but reproveth the wicked for taking his Covenant into their mouthes, Psal. 50. rejects their Sacrifices, Isa. 1. &c. 58. calleth them Uncircumcised, Ethiopian, &c. in respect of any inward and saving Benefits of the Covenant: yet still he owneth them as His People, Saints in Covenant with him, Psal 50. 1. and followeth them with the Means of Grace till there be no remedy. 2 Chron. 36. This is evi­dent in all the story of the Church in the Old and New-Testament, as will appear more afterward.

There is a different Rule and Reason of admitting Members into the visible Church,Propos. 30. and the continuation of them in it, being regu­larly admitted. In Admiting Members into the Church, we justly look for such positive Qualifications as the Word of God requireth, viz. A visible Profession of Faith and Repentance in adult persons, and Foederal Holiness Infants. We well approve that Saying of Cha­mier, quoted by our Brethren. ‘No man can disallow such diligence, to prevent the profaning of holy things, and left such as Simon Ma­gus should lie hid.’ But to cast out such as are Regularly admitted, we must have positive Impenitency in sin, as a ground to count them as Heathens and Publicans, Mat. 18. and that after due patience towards them; for, even an Heretick may have two Admonitions before re­jection, Tit. 3. 10. or at least some notorious scandalous sin, as some conceive from 1 Cor. 5.

These things premised, I shall proceed to consider the next [Page 20] thing in order, which is our Brethrens Answer to the main Question viz. Who are the Subjects of Baptism? To which their Answer is this:

‘That visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an in­stituted Church, (being unbaptized) together with their next seed in minority, are the proper and im [...]edlate Subjects of Baptism, as to the receiving of it.’ For the proof of this, they referre to the places before alledged, [...]a. 28. 19. 20. Mark 16. 16. Acts 2. 38,39. Their large Discourse I pass by, though some things might be mat­ter of Dispute: but I would decline all impertinencies, and come to their Reason gathered out of those Scripture; which is this:

‘Those are proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism, to whom Christ, in the Gospel-institution, hath appointed it. But visible Be­lievers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church, are the persons (being unbaptized) to whom Christ, in the Gospel-institution of Baptism, hath appointed it. Therefore visible Believers, &c.’

The greatest weight or stress of this Argument, lieth upon that place Acts 2. 38,39. and I see our Brethren put much confidence in it, affirming, ‘That the minor is express Scripture, and therefore though many are unwilling it should be true, and will cavill against it, it will be found true at the Day of Judgement, &c.’

Ans. God forbid, that in searching after the Truth we should Cavill at the Word of God; but let us take heed of Adding to it, or Taking from it: But whether the Minor will prove true, or not, we need not stay till the Day of Judgement; for, the holy Scriptures, the Judge of all Controversies, will easily decide it; and I will di­rectly deny the Mino [...]; for none of those Scriptures, or any other that I know of, will prove, That full communion with an instituted Church is requisite to the Subject of Baptism, much less that such are the proper Subjects thereof; as if such and onely such, were to be Baptized. This of Full Communion our Brethren thought would advantage their Cause, and so have put it in: but it is a meer Ad­dition to the Word of God, which wholly fails them of any proof, yea makes evidently against them. In that principal place, Acts 2. 38,39. it is evident, that they were Baptized before their Full Com­munion: For, 1. Peter called them to be Baptized upon the [Page 21] ground of the Promise, ver. 38. 2. They were Baptized, and added to the Church, before full Communion, ver. 41,42. 3. It had been very preposterous to put them into full Communion, before Union with the Church sealed by Baptism; for Baptism is a Seal of Union with the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. which must go before Communion. But they seem to suppose, at least, that some in full Communion may be unbaptized, by that word (being unbaptized:) but the truth is, that our Brethrens confidence in this Argument will be found so greatly to fail them, that whil'st by it they seek to straiten The Subject of Baptism, beyond the Doctrine of the Synod, they destroy and take away the whole Subject it self of Baptism, because there will never be found any such persons, according to Gospel-Rule, (which they call so much for, and appeal unto) that are in full Com­munion with an instituted Church, being unbaptized. I will be a little bold with our Brethren in this case, to challenge them to pro­duce any Rule or Example in the Gospel, of any person that either was, or by Rule might be in full Communion with an instituted Church, being unbaptized. I hope this Answer is plain, and no Cavill.

Yet for the further clearing up of this Answer, I shall remove what may be further said by our Brethren.

Object. Though those in Acts 2. were not in full Communion actually before Baptism, yet they were admitted to a state and right to full Com­munion by their Baptism, which these Children in question are not.

Ans. 1. The Question is not, What state or right the Baptized are partakers of, as a consequent fruit of Baptism received? but, what it is that constitutes a person to be a fit Subject to be Baptized? To de­scribe the proper subject of Baptism, by the consequent fruits of it, and not by the precedent causes that gives right to Baptism, is very improper and preposterous. If the Question were, Who are the pro­per Subjects of Church-membership? we say, Confederating visible Be­lievers, and their seed; for this makes them fit for, and brings them into such a relation. But should any answer, That the proper Sub­ject of Church-membership, is a person in full communion with an insti­tuted Church; or, One that is under the Teaching and Rule of Church-Officers, which are the fruits of Church-membership received: Who [Page 22] does not see the weakness of such an Answer? and the like is this case, Baptism being the Seal of Gods Covenant with his Church, whereby we are Baptized [...] 2. Although the Infant-seed of the Church cannot actually enjoy full Com­munion in all Ordinances, as their Parents do; yet the Co­venant of God sealed to them in Baptism, sets them in estate and right to all the Benefits of the Covenant, to be enjoyed by them as they become fit for them, as well as their Parents: for, the Cove­nant of God with Parents and seed, is one and the same. All that are in the same Covenant, are bound to the same Duties of the Co­venant, and have the same right to all the Benefits of the Cove­nant, as they come up to perform the Conditions, and are fit for the enjoyment of the Blessings. In adult Members it is so, who being under Admonition for Scandal, or in a Frenzy, or the like case, though they partake not of all the good of the Covenant, yet their right remains: So here, when the seed grow up to perform the Du­ties of the Covenant, they also partake of the Benefits, not by any new Covenant, or Membership, but by the right of that Covenant God made with them, and sealed to them in Baptism, as will ap­pear more fully afterward.

2. I shall adde further, It is true, that to admit adult persons into the Church, and to Baptism, visible Faith is required; and so much the Texts alledged prove: but this is not the case in Dispute be­tween us, but About persons already in the Church, and Baptized, whe­ther in such, the ground of Baptizing their seed, be Faith and Grace made visible in the same manner, or their Interest in the Covenant? and therefore the Argument doth not conclude the Question. Put case any of those visible Believers and converts, Acts 2. should after­ward discover by their Worldliness, Looseness, or other wayes, that there is in them no sap or favour of Faith and Grace, even to the charitable judgement of most in the Church; my Question is, Whe­ther yet (so long as they continue in the Church) their Infant-seed shall not be Baptized? If it be granted, then it is not such visible Faith and Grace, but the Interest in the Church and Covenant that gives Right to Baptism, and so to these Church-members in question. If this be denied, let there be one Tittle of Scripture-Rule or Ex­ample [Page 23] produced to the contrary. Having answered their Reason, I shall present an Argument from the same Text, to confirm the Doctrine of the Synod. It is to be noted, That the Promise, Acts 2. 39. is [...] which God made with Abra­ham, as appeareth by that parallel place, Acts 3. where [...]. 19. Peter exhorts to Repentance [...] in [...] 2. 38. and chap. 3. 25. he useth the same Reason in other words, You are the children of the Covenant which you [...] with our fathers; the substance whereof all grant to be this, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed in their generations (although the Apostle there makes use of another branch of the Covenant concerning Christ, that seed in whom God is the God of his People.) Now the Reason stands thus:

If the Covenant-promise to Abraham and his seed, be a ground to Repent and be Baptized in the Gospel-dispensation, then it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church that gives right to Baptism. But the Covenant-promise was a ground to Repent and be Baptized, in Gospel-dispensation, Acts 2. 38,39. with chap. 3. 19,25. Therefore it is the Covenant of God with his visible Church, that gives right to Baptism: which is the Doctrine of the Synod.

Thus much to their Scripture-Argument. To which our Bre­thren adde the Testimony of Mr. Richard Mather: ‘Well agree­ing with this (say they) is the Answer of Reverend Mr. Mather in his Catechism.’

Ans. But, by their leave, it differeth from their Answer in the main thing that toucheth the cause in hand; for, there is nothing of full communion in his, which they put into theirs.

2. That Reverend and Learned Author speaketh onely what adult persons should be, in joyning to the Church, and the seed of such so converted and joyned, which hath reference to their first joyning to the Church; not denying, that being once regularly joyned, they may after have their seed Baptized, though they should not approve themselves to be true Converts.

As for the Objections and Answers here brought in, they are not the Objections of the Synod: And what is any way pertinent to our Dispute, may sufficiently be taken off by what is said, and therefore I shall pass them by. And I may the rather so do, seeing [Page 24] our Brethren in their third Answer have yielded the Cause. For, if the Covenant made with Abraham, and the Circumcision of his seed, was appointed upon the same terms that Baptism was; Why should not Baptism be continued successively to the seed remaining in the Covenant, as well as Circumcision?

CHAP. III.
Concerning our Brethren Notes upon the first and second Proposition.

IN the first Proposition our Brethren onely give an Explication [...] word Visible Church, taking the word Church as a Gems of all particular Churches; from which we Dissent not.

In the second Proposition, viz. That the Members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are confederate visible Believers, and their Infant-seed: They have made divers Notes upon it.

1. ‘That by visible Believers, they intend true Believers to the judge­ment of charity.’ And herein we agree.

Second Note, ‘That visible Believers, and their Infant-seed, are rightly distinguished.’ And so farre we agree also, That they are persons distinctly and severally covenanted with by the Lord, not wrapped up in their Parents (as they speak.)

But whereas they distinguish them from their Parents, ‘as not being Believers, never so called in Scripture. How can they believe that know not the right hand from the lift? They have no Faith actual or habitual, nor can have, without a Miracle, and we hold Miracles are ceased.’

Ans. This is the great Objection of the Anabaptists against the Baptizing of Infants; and what the scope of this Note is here, I know not, except it be to deny them any actual and personal Mem­bership in the Church, as in their next Note: I shall therefore speak [Page 25] the more fully to it. And first it appeare [...]h, the Scripture numbers them amongst Believers, if it doth not also expresly call them so Mat. 18. 6. One of these little ones that believe in me; which some interpret of Infants. 2 Cor. 6. 14,15. where all in the Church are called Believers, in opposition to I [...] And no Paul would not allow any of these to marry with Infidels when grown up, by that Rule of his, and therefore he reckons them as Believers.

2. To make a person a Member of the visible Church, the mat­ter is not whether he hath Faith and Grace really, or not; if he hath such qualifications as the Rule of the Word accepteth for Faith in the visible Church, we can go no further. This is clear, and will be easily granted in respect of adult persons. If a man profess he doth believe with all his heart, as the Eunuch, Acts 8. and nothing appears to the contrary: If a man appear Pricked at the heart, Gladly receive the Word, &c. as those Acts 2. Gods Rule accepts of such as Believers and so must the Church, though the Lord seeth that some, it may be many such, have no Faith in truth; for, Many are called, but few chosen. And however they may afterward dis­cover themselves, as Ananias, Simon Magus, &c. yet all will grant these were rightly received as visible Believers. In like manner is the case of Infants: The matter is not, whether they have true Faith, or not, in the act or habit, so they have such qualifications as God accepts of, to receive their persons into his Covenant, and to be Members of the Body of Christ: This sufficeth, though they have no Faith or Grace really. Now that the Lord doth so accept of them into the number of the Faithful, and as Believers, appeareth, 1. Because he doth account them Holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. be it Foederal or Covenant-Holiness, this implies that God is their God; and if God gives himself unto them, surely he accepted them as Believers: He is not the God of Infidels, who are without God, Ephes. 2. 12. The Covenant of God is the same with Parents and their seed, and therefore God accepteth them as such as are answer­able to the Terms and Conditions of that Covenant. 2. This appeareth from the Nature of the Seal of the Covenant: Circum­cision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. When God appointed this Seal to be set upon Infants, surely God numbred [Page 26] them with Believers. So when we are said to be Baptized into Christ, can there be any Union with Christ without Faith? As no real Union without true Faith, so no visible Union without that which is accepted as Faith: And when the Lord Jesus faith, Of such is the Kingdome of God; doth the Kingdome of God belong to Unbelievers? If it be said, It is their Parents Faith that is accepted for them, not any thing in their own persons: I answer, If so, that God will accept the Parents Faith and Profession in their name and stead, as a Publick Person covenanting for them; yet this is Gods free and preventing Grace towards the seed and doth engage their persons to the Duties of the Covenant, to avouch God for their God, &c. and therefore they are actually and personally in Covenant with God, as well as their Parents.

3. I adde further, That as we must rest in such Signs of Faith as the Rule requireth, though it should not be there; so also we must in charity judge the best, and walk towards such as visible Believers, till by impenitency in sin the Church have just cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans. So Phil. 1. 7. It is meet I should think thus of you all, because you are in my heart. Love and Church-charity should reach farre, especially to Members of a Church regularly received, because the Lord doth give Faith to some; and who have Faith in truth, who not, is hard for us to judge. And so it is in such Members as came in in their Infancy: We know the Lord gives Faith and Grace to some betimes, as to Samuel, Timothy, and others; yea, in all Elect Infants that die in mi­nority, no God gives them the Spirit of Faith, and that which is proportionable to the act of Faith; and therefore in cha­rity we are to look at them as Believers, till for in penitency in sin, the Church shall [...]ount them as Heathens and Publicans.

Their third Note is, ‘That though they be Members in general, yet Infant-seed are onely foederally holy; others that hare taken hold of the Covenant, are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 6. 11. These have a Parental and partial Right, not compl [...]at and perfect. Thus the Lord speaks Deut, 4. 37. & 10. 15. Acts 2. 38 39. So Dr. Ames distinction into Perfect and Imperfect, Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 13.’

[Page 27] Ans. 1. Let it here be applied what was said of their Faith in Gods acceptance, and the reality of it in some of them, as well as in some admitted by Profession of Faith.

2. Concerning this distinction of Foederal Holiness, and Sanctified in Christ Jesus: It is not sufficiently considered what is contained in Foederal Holiness; Doth it not include, that They are in Covenant with God, that God is their God, that They are his People, An holy People to himself, A Royal Priesthood, A Chosen Generation, &c? which the Apostle applieth to Believers, 1 Pet. 2. 9. And what dif­ference is there between Sanctified in Christ Jesus, and Saints, and Faithful in Christ Jesus? which the Apostle attributeth to the whole Church, 1 Cor. 1. 2. whereof the holy seed was a part, 1 Cor. 7. 14.

3. To say, These have Parental and partial Right, Deut. 4. 37. & 10, 15. Acts 2. 38. doth any of these Texts prove, that Parental Right (as they call it) or the Right by the Covenant of God with their Fathers, is a partial Right? If God loved their fathers, and therefore chose their seed after them; was not the seed the object of Gods choyce? and as perfect Members of the Church in all ages, as their Fathers were? It seems the Lord did as great things for them, as for their Fathers, out of his love to them, bringing them out of Egypt with great power, Deut. 4. 37,38. And were not their, little ones established to be a People to God, as well as their Fathers? Deut. 29. 11,13.

4. Doctor Ames makes nothing for their Tenent, but agreeth, with the Synod. His saying (take it intire) is this: Children of the faithful are to be numbred amongst the faithful, as Members of the Church, 1 Cor. 7. 14. for they are partakers of the same Covenant, and also of the same Profession with their Parents: yet Infants are not so perfect Members of the Church, that they can exercise acts of Communion, or be admitted to partake of all Priviledges, untill the increase of Faith appeareth; but from those things that pertain to the beginning of Faith, and entrance into the Church, they are not to be excluded. Medul. Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Sect. 12,13. By this it is evident, that he doth not make them I [...] perfect Members, in respect of the relation of Mem­bership, but in respect of acts of Communion: Even as a childe of [Page 28] the family is not so perfect to do the work, & enjoy all the Priviledges of the Family, as a grown person is; but yet he is as perfectly a Member of the Family, as a grown man. Besides, that eminent Doctor looked at Infants of the faithful as capable of such thing as belong to the beginning of Earth, and to be admitted to acts of Com­munion, as the increase of their Faith appeareth: He thought of no other and new Membership to intitle them to all Ordinances, but that, to come to them by their Covenant in Infancy. What can be more full, to shew his concurrence with the Synod?

Object. ‘But Membership is a word of Relation, and therefore cannot admit of degrees [...] [...]’

To this our Brethren Answer, ‘That it is a clear exception from the general Rule, That such Relations, the foundation whereof is Qua­lity to Action, [...] admit of diversity of degrees; as Similitude is a Relation grounded on some Quality; one thing may be more or less like another so Calefaction, &c.’

Reply. The Authors of this Distinction are not so authentick, but that it may be examined by the Rules of right Reason. And first it confoundeth all Logical Arguments making Cause and Effect, yea Compared, to be Reldi [...], which is against Reason.

2. This Distinction will not hold; For, what Relates are there, whose foundation is not in Action or Quality? Why is this man a Father, but because he begat a Son?. The Relation of Master and Servant, Husband and Wife, and the like, is it not by Covenant, which is an Action? So that by this Rule, all Relates should admit, Degrees of more or less; which is against that received Rule of Lo­gic [...].

But how is this Exception applied to this case?

‘In both which respects (say our Brethren) the Membership of the Infants Faith, and act of Confederation being grounded on the Parents Faith, is rightly distinguished from the Membership of such as are adult, which is grounded on their own Faith and Confederation.’

Reply. What dependance hath this upon the former Distinction? where this Relation is said to be founded upon such diversity of Action, as makes two sorts of distinct Members, as is pretended, and not onely two degrees of Membership?

[Page 29] 2. There is no such diversity of the Foundation of Member­ship, a should thus distinguish these Members; the Foundation is one and the same, viz. The Free-grace of God in his Covenant, extended both to Parent and Childe, Gen. 17. 7,9. I will be thy God, and the God of my seed. The way of entring into this Covenant on man's part, is onely a differing means or manner of Covenanting with God. As a Sciens put into the Stock by hand, and the Branches that grow out of it are all equally parts of the Tree, though the Branches were not so put in by hand as the Sciens was. A Father that purchaseth Lands to himself and his Childe, the Childe hath as perfect and good a Right as the Father hath, though he did not make the Bargain and Covenant as his Father did.

The fourth Note of our Brethren is upon those words, ‘Whose next Parents are in Covenant:’ which they say is ambiguous; and therefore they distinguish between ‘Parental Covenant, (as they call it) and Personal with presupposed Faith and Repentance: the former they count insufficient to capacitate the next seed to Baptism.’

Before I come to Answer their Reasons interwoven in this Dis­course: Seeing our Brethren have so oft recourse to their Distin­ctions of Members into actual, not actual; personal, not personal; by Parental Covenant, and personal; immediate, and mediate; perfect, and imperfect: and lay so much weight upon them; as, That the Parental Covenant cannot capacitate their seed to Baptism; That their Membership by Parental Covenant lasts no longer then minority, pag. 37. and, The personal Covenant of such, makes them Members; is the Form of their Membership, and the like: I shall therefore here, once for all, recall these things to the Law and Testimony, and try what Light is in them.

And first, in my best Observation, I can finde no such distin­ction of Parental and Personal Covenant, that should make two sorts or kindes of Members, neither in the Name or Thing: but all along in the Scripture, the Covenant is one and the same that God makes with his People, and is called by the name of Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. where this Covenant was most solemnly made, and to which the oft-renewed Covenants in the Old Testament, and the Covenant or Promise in the New Testament, hath reference, as Rom. 9. [Page 30] Acts 2. 38,39. with Chap. 3. 25. Gal. 3. In that place, I say, the Lord calleth in My Covenant, seven times, and that in respect of Abrahams seed, as well as of himself, ver. 7,9,10. Deut. 29,10,11,12. The little ones stood to enter into Covenant with the Lord their God. Ezek. 16. 8. Centred into Covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine. This is the common language of the Scripture. In the New Testa­ment, besides other places, note that 1 Cor. 12. 12,13. where the Apostle proves that the Church is one Body, consisting of many Members (some weak, and of less honour, &c. By Baptism, The Seal of the covenant, we are all Baptized into one Body; and so as that there might be no Schism in the Body: But how shall the Body be one, if some be Baptized into this Body as actual and personal Members, some not actual not personal; some into a parental covenant, some personal? What a Schism might this make? some saying, I am not actually of the Body, though Baptized with the same Baptism, (and there is but one Baptism;) others may say, I am of the Body personally, You are no actual Members of it? It seemeth the Apostle knew not these Distinctions: So Gal. 3. 27,28. All are Baptized into Christ, and are all one in Christ.

2. I finde, that the Scripture doth clearly own the Church-seed grown up to adult age, to be in Covenant with God, and so Mem­bers of the Church by virtue of Gods Covenant made with them in their Infancy, and that before any personal Covenant, as they call it. See Deut. 5. 2,3. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us; even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Now who were these, but that generation numbred by Moses and Eleazar, when all that were numbred at the first, of twenty years old and upward, were dead? See Numb. 26. 63,64. with Deut. 1. 3. So that multitudes of these now alive, were in their infancy and minority when God made that Covenant with them in Horeb; and yet it is expresly said, God made that Covenant with them, even with their own persons: that was a Personal, not a Parental Covenant, as our Brethren phrase it. And this is set out with a double Emphasis: 1. Negatively, Not with our fathers; Why so, was it not made with their fathers now dead? Yes surely, but not onely with them; or,not with us as wrapped up with, [Page 31] or in our fathers. 2. With us, Affirmatively; and again, Even with us; and a third time, With us that are now alive, in distinction from their father to at were dead: and all this before that second Covenant, Deut. 29. for this is said of them before the Repetition of that Co­venant at Horeb, to provoke them to the obedience thereof. Where then is this Parental Covenant distinguished from Personal, so as to make two sorts or degrees of Members?

3. I observe, That when the Scripture calleth this Covenant, The Covenant of their fathers, or of the Lord God of their fathers, it is never so styled, to the diminution or abatement of any Blessing, Priviledge, or Favour that might come to their seed by it, but rather for the advantage, and greater good of the Children: See Exod. 3. 15,16. & 6. 3,4, 5. Lev. 26. 44 45. I will not abhor them, &c. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their Ancestors, whom I brought out of Egypt: So Deut. 4 31. So that in these, and divers other Scriptures, we see no such disadvantage to the seed by being under Parental Covenant, as our Brethren call it; who first bring down Gods Covenant to a Parental Covenant, and then make a very slight matter of that also; that it cannot capacitate their seed to Baptism; Is not sufficient to establish their seed to be a people to God; Will not reach beyond the minority of their seed, and the like.

Object. But it will be Objected, That although these Distinctions be not so expresly found in Scripture-phrase, yet the nature of the subject doth admit such Distinctions.

Ans. 1. Some of them cannot consist with the nature of the subject; as for a person to be a Member, but not actually; a person in Covenant baptized into the Body of Christ, and yet not per­sonally; these are plain Contradictions in adjecto, as we say, To be A Member, and yet No Member. As for this of Parental and Personal Covenant, so much used, it maketh not two Covenants, the Cove­nant is but one, and that Gods Covenant, as is said: there is but a dif­fering modus, or manner of entring into it.

2. As for the rest, of Mediate and Immediate Members, Perfect and Imperfect, and the rest: Suppose that in some sense the subject do admit them, yet they can never bear up such Consequences as are built upon them: for, they are but distributions ex adjunctis, and [Page 32] those common Adjuncts to many other Subjects, which cannot make any essential difference: As when we distinguish the Church into Visible and Invisible, it is still but one and the same Church: So Church-Covenant into Explicit and Implicit, there is still but one sort of Churches or Covenants: So the Church is either In­compleat, without Officers, or Compleat, with her Officers; yet still a true Church, and not two sorts of Churches. Such is this case, if we put twenty such Distinctions upon Members from common Ad­juncts, they make no essential difference. These things, besides much more that might be said, to me afford this Conclusion, That in these Distinctions, and the Consequences thereof, there is no Scripture-Light, but a Mist to darken the Free and Rich Grace of God, shining out in his Covenant to the Faithful and their seed.

I return now to consider the Reasons of our Brethren, to prove, that parental Covenant cannot capacitate their seed for Baptism.

Their first Reason is, ‘For so the Covenant should be intailed to a thousand generations.’

Ans. What our Brethrens Parental Covenant can do I know not, but surely Gods Covenant is An everlasting Covenant, Gen. 17. 7. to be a God to their seed, viz. They keeping within the Covenant, from generation to generation: And if the Lord will intail his Covenant, and the Means of Grace thereby, to such as keep his Covenant, to a thousand generations, what hurt is in that? Blessed be his Name for it.

Reas. 2. ‘Ishmael and Esau had the Parental Covenant, but were not Established thereby.’

Ans. This was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant (for so I must call it) but from their sin that continued not in it. By this Reason, Personal Covenant by Profession of Faith and Repentance, is as insufficient; for such, by their sin, may not be established.

Reas. 3. ‘The immediate Parents Unbelief breaks off the Covenant from their seed, Rom. 11,20,21,22.’

Ans. True; such Unbelief whereby they obstinately rejected Christ, Acts 13,45,46. Mat. 21,42,43. but this was not from any insufficiency in Gods Covenant to Capacitate their seed to Baptism, or Establish a People, but from their rejecting of the Covenant, [Page 33] in rejecting Christ, that Seed in whom all were to be blessed.

Reas. 4. ‘Baptism is, as Circumcision was, A Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. which is invisible in these children that should to [...] Baptism.’

Ans. This is true that as Circumcision, so Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith: And thence I infer that when God by his Institution appointed that Seal to be transmitted to the seed of [...] as they continued in the visible Covenant they were [...] of God as Believers in Ecclesiastical account: and so it is in respect of transmitting Baptism; so long as the seed of the Faithful continue in the visible Church, they are visible Believers in Ecclesiastical account, and may so transmit Baptism to their seed.

Reas. 5. They alledge ‘Acts 2. 38,39. which, they say, restrains Baptism to the next seed of such Parents as manifest Repentance and Effectual calling, and is if more weight then any Argument from far­fetched and [...] in consequences out of the Old Testament.’

Ans. To this Text is fully answered before; and, as was said, it favours the Doctrine of the Synod, That the Promise or Covenant is the ground of Baptism. And that this Text hath no such Restraint, it may appear thus: Let all he granted that is here said, yet suppose such visible Converts discover afterward no sap or favour of Grace, to the fairest Charity, but continue still in the Church, shall not their seed be Baptized? or must every Church-member hold forth a Profession of Repentance at the Baptism of every childe? I suppose our Brethren will not so affirm; and if so, then a Church-member, though not apparently a true Penitent, may have his seed Baptized. As for far-fetched Consequences from the Old Testament, the following Discourse will shew, that none use them so much as our Bre­thren do.

Concerning the Answers here given to an Objection from Exod. 20. The Synod doth not make that Objection, but agreeth with this Interpretation given in the third and fourth Answer; viz. So that the Priviledges are onely continued to the seed of the next Parents, that continue in the Covenant, and are not broken off.

CHAP. IV.
Concerning the third Proposition.

Propos 3. THat the Infant-seed of Confederate visible Believers, are Members of the same Church with their Parents, and when grown up, are personally under the Watch and Government of that Church.

Our Dissenting Brethren, by their dilute interpretations of this Proposition, seem to recede from their own Concessions: For this Proposition was propounded, and earnestly promoted by one of the chief of them, as tending to issue other Difficulties amongst us, and to Reform the corruptions of Youth: and there were not above three noted that dissented from it. But when it was observed (as is here said) that the other Propositions would be inferred from it, and so strongly, that some said, The whole Cause was given up in that Pro­position; Our Brethren therefore now think to ease the matter by their interpretations: but such they are, as cannot consist with the terms of the Proposition, as will appear.

‘First, (say they) when it is said, They are personally under the Watch of the Church; the meaning is not, that they have an actual, personal, and immediate Membership, which is proper to those in full communion, but onely that the Church-watch, in the dispensation of it, should reach unto their persons: which was publickly expressed in the Meeting-house by us.’

Ans. How inconsistent are these things? 1. These persons are Members of the Church, but not actually: How then are they Members? potentially? so are many that are fit matter for a Church, that yet are no Members: or are they so habitually: surely they are actually Baptized into the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12. 13. And shall [Page 35] we Baptize actually, such as are not actually in the Covenant? 2. They are personally under the Watch and Government of the Churches yet the Church must not deal with their persons, but reach their persons at the second hand, viz. by their Parents: (So indeed some expressed themselves, but I thought it would not have been owned by the rest) But thus to reach their persons, is not to touch them with any act of Church-government, but of Family-government onely. Yea, thus to reach their persons, is no more then the Church may reach an Heathen servant: for the Church may Cen­sure the Master, if he restrain not the evils of his Servant, as well as a Father for the evils of his Childe.

‘Secondly, (say they) By Discipline, we do not intend Excommuni­cation, which is proper to Offenders in full communion; for how can they be cast out of full communion that were never in it?’

Ans. Then they must suppose that Excommunication is no part of Discipline, or intend a Discipline ineffectual to Christs ends: for what are Admonitions unregarded, without that Censure to set them home? Mat. 18. Excommunication is not to cast out of full communion onely, but out of all communion: Let him be as an Hea­then and Publican. It is a giving up to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved, 1 Cor. 5. 5. and this soveraign Medicine all that are within are capable of, and may stand in need of it.

‘Nevertheless, say they, the Church may disown them, and declare them to be no Members, upon their deserting of the Church, and the Co­venant of their fathers, by such a Sentence as Peter pronounced to Simon Magus, Acts 8. 21.’

Ans. 1. This disowning such as no Members, is a meer inven­tion of man, never ordained of Christ, nor tending to reach the ends of his Discipline: for, though it seems to agree with Excommuni­cation, in not owning them as Members; yet it wanteth that aw­full dread of Excommunication, to humble the sinner, and bring him in. Yea, thus to disown them as no Members, is to rid the Church of any further care of them, as those without. But all acts of Christs Discipline, are acts of the love and compassion of Christ and his Church to the Souls of offenders, to seek their Repentance and [Page 36] Salvation, 1 Cor. 5. 2. 2 Cor. 2. 6,7, &c.

2. Acts 8. 21. giveth no ground of this Practice: For, 1. Peter did not presently disown him as no Member (neither in­deed doth the place referre to Membership, but to the power of giving the Holy Ghost) but declaring his sin and danger, he exhorteth him to Repentance, and to pray to God for pardon, ver. 22. which implies, that upon his Repentance he was ready to promise pardon, according to the end of Christs Discipline: but persisting impeni­tently in his sin, he might then be cast out. Besides, 2. This Sen­tence was upon one that came in by Profession of Faith; and if that were Peters meaning, to disown him as no Member of the vi­sible Church, and it be an Example to be imitated, then any Member discovering Hypocrisie to a discerning Spirit, might presently be disowned as no Member, which would make sad work in Churches.

3. If the Church may disown them, when they desert the Church and Covenant, then they may, yea ought to own them as Mem­bers, when they own the Covenant, and do not desert the Church.

I cannot but make a little pause here, before I passion; and se­riously intreat our dear Brethren, and all of their minde, to consi­der well how the Lord is wont to deal with his visible Church, and all the Members thereof, in the Old and New Testament, and compare therewith this their respect and care of the Lambs of Christs Pluck. When the Lord hath once stricken a Covenant with his People, taking in their seed with the Parents, Gen. 17. 7. Deut. 29,10,11.

1. What Abundant Means of their Salvation doth he ordain, and cause diligently to be improved to that end? Cain and Abel both admitted to Sacrifice; Abraham's Commands were to his whole Family-Church, Gen. 18. The daily ordinary Sacrifices, and the more solemn and extraordinary, were for the whole Congregation, Lev. 4. 14,21. Numb. 15,24,25. To Israel pertain the Adoption, the Glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises, Rom. 94. And how did the Lord follow his Church in all ages by his Prophets, to bring them to Repentance? yea, when gone after Baal, to reduce them by Elijah. How affe­ctionately doth the Lord by them plead with his People? Jer. 2. [Page 37] & 3. Micah 6. Psal. 81. 8, &c. So in the New Testament, the Ministry of the Word, and other Ordinance, are given to the Visible Church for their Salvation, 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11, &c. and Discipline to reduce and save offenders.

2. Consider the Wonderfull Patience of God in seeking the Sal­vation of his visible Church. When the Children of God were so corrupt, that God resolved to destroy all flesh; yet he spared them an hundred and twenty years, sending Noah a Preacher of Righteous­ness to seek their good, Genes. 6. And how great was his Patience to Israel and Judah, sending his Prophets early and late, out of his compassion, till there was no remedy? 2 Chron. 36. So the Lord Jesus sent his Epistles To the seven Churches of Asia, to heal their cor­ruptions; and though he threatned to Come quickly, yet spared them many years.

3. See with what Compassion and Bowels, of humane Affections, as it were, the Lord expresseth himself, when he is about to cast off a People he hath been in Covenant with: How shall I give thee up, O Ephraim? &c. my Repentings are kindled together, Hos. 11. 8. So Christ, O Jerusalem, how oft would I have gathered thee, as an He [...] her Chickens? &c. Mat. 23. 37. How did he Weep over Jerusalem, saying, O that thou had it known at least in this thy day! &c. Luke 19. 41. This is Gods way. But what is our Brethrens Way to these Members of the visible Church, to whom they confess the Promise doth belong? Acts 2. 39.

1. Though God have stricken his Covenant with them, and Sealed it To be their God, and own them to be His People; yet they will not acknowledge them Actual personal Members, but in effect Di­stinguish them out of the Church.

2. They allow them no more acts of Church-watch and Disci­pline, then may reach an Infidel-servant: and Excommunication, the most effectual Ordinance of Christ to Destroy the Flesh, and Save the Soul, must not touch them.

3. So quick they are, that if the Lord be not pleased to give them Saving Faith and Grace so soon as they come to adult age, Dis­own them as No Members, and so let them go. Now how farre unlike this is to Gods Way, who doth not see? And I must confess [Page 38] this is to me one great Argument, That the Way of these Brethren is not the Way of God.

To proceed: Our Brethren to clear this Coast, think fit to An­swer The Reasons of the Synod to prove their Continuance in the Church. But the Reader must note, That those Arguments are not applied to this Proposition in hand, here being Eight Reasons to prove They are personally under the Watch and Discipline of the Church, which are not touched by them. But the Reasons that our Brethren here speak unto, are those brought by the Synod to prove the last Branch of the sixth Argument for the fifth Proposition, viz. That Church­members admitted in minority, understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publickly professing their Assent thereto; not scandalous in life, and so­lemnly owning the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up them­selves and children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in the Church; That their Membership still continueth in adult age, and ceaseth not with their Infancy. And this is the rather to be noted, because if their Answers suit not the case of such per­sons, then they are not pertinent to take off the Reasons of the Sy­nod. But let us see what is answered to these Reasons (though out of their place.)

Reas 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sins, or incorrigible impenitency and unbelief; not for growing up to adult age, Rom 11. 20.

Ans. Our Brethren answer, ‘Not simply for growing up, but for such accessaries as may attend adult age. Rom. 11. 20. doth not say onely for notorious sins, &c. Negative unbelief, Neglecting the means of Grace, Not Professing the Faith, and the fruits thereof, may give cause of breaking off. And to such, though our patience and expectation ought to be large and long, yet it may be tired out at last, and come a period.’

Reply. 1. If our Brethren would but hold to this, it would tend much to our desired Unity. For, hence it will follow. That their Membership received in infancy doth continue in adult age, untill such Accessories do appear, and till the Patience of the Church be tired out. 2. If it were granted that Negative unbelief, manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace, Not professing of the Faith, and the fruits thereof, might, after long patience, give just cause to break them [Page 39] off; yet, by this Rule, the persons described in the fifth Proposi­tion cannot be said to be broken off, for they do Profess the Faith, and the fruits thereof, by a life free from Scandal, giving up themselves to God, and submitting to the Government of Christ in his Church: Or at least such as these are still objects of the Churches Patience, and therefore not broken off.

And seeing our Brethren come thus farre, I shall willingly meet them here, and confess, That if Negative unbelief be manifested by Neglect of the means of Grace, Not professing of the Faith (being or­derly called thereunto by the Church) and Continuance impenitently in such Neglects, after due means, web due patience used by the Church, this would give the Church just cause to cast them out for this were Incorrigible Impenitency in sin. And, Oh that we might meet here! But when I consider many other Expressions in this Treatise, I fear my desires will fail: For, if no act of Church-government may be put forth upon their persons immediately, but by their Parents, how shall the Church come at them, to put them upon such Duties, and deal with them for their Neglect thereof? and when their Parents be dead, what shall the Church do then? and when their Member­ship is owned onely in general, as wrapped up in their Parents, not actual or personal; yea, when their Personal or Foederal Holiness is denied to continue in adult age? These, and the like Passages, Pag. 23,25,37. and in other places, do make me fear, that our Bre­thren will not hold to their Expressions in this place.

Reply 2. Although Rom. 11. 20. faith, Not onely for notorious sins, &c. yet it sheweth how the Jews were broken off, which we know was for Notorious sins, and Incorrigible Impenttency, and Un­belief. And let any shew, that any have been broken off, or by Rule may be so, for Negative unbelief, without impenitency added. The contrary we finde 2 Chron. 36. 16. Mat. 21. 43. Acts 13. 45,46. & 18. 6 & 19. 8.

Reas. 2 The Jewish children circumcised, did not cease to be Mem­bers by growing up to adult age, but continued in the Church, and were bound to the Duties of Members, Deut. 26. 2—10. O 16. 16, 17. Gal. 5. 3.

‘Ans. The circumcised Jews did not cease to be Members simply for [Page 40] growing up, but for growing out of kinde. Jer. 2. 21. They became de­generate Plants. Amos 9. 7. Children of the Negroes; Bastard Branches to be cut off, Job. 15. 2.’

Reply. There is a double great mistake in applying these Scriptures. 1. They do not speak of persons ceasing to be Members. As for Jer. 2. it was the Word of the Lord to Jerusalem, ver. 2. and that in the thirteenth year of Josiah, after the Covenant was renewed, and Religion greatly Reformed; and God calls them His People, ver. 11,13 and therefore their Membership ceased not at that time. So Amos 9. He Prophesied in the dayes of Uzziah King of Judak, and Joash the son of Jeroboam King of Israel, in whose dayes God had not yet removed Israel out of his sight. As for Joh. 15. 2. though the Lord doth in his time cut off unfruitful Branches by Death, or Church-censures, yet till he doth so, they are expresly said to be in Christ. So that these places speak nothing of the ceasing of Church­membership in adult age.

2. These places do not suit the persons in the fifth Proposition. Jer. 2. speaketh of such as Prophesied by Baal; That played the harlot on every high hill, ver. 20. and are therefore called A degenerate plant, ver. 21. Amos speaketh of Israel in the corrupt times of Idolatry, and reproves their great Covetousness and Oppression, Chap. 8. 4,5. And therefore if such as those had ceased to be Members in adult age, it doth not follow that the Membership of these in question doth cease.

What is here added about the phrase of Entring into Covenant, is a mistake: for, the Synod speaks of Entring into a new Member­ship, not denying the phrase of Entring into, Or Renewing the Cove­nant.

Reaf. 3. Those Relations of Bond-servants and Subjects, which the Scripture maketh use of to s [...] forth the state of the children of the Church by, Levit. 25. 41,42. Ezek. 37. 25. do not cease with Infancy, but continue in adult age, whereby they are engaged to duty when they are most fit for it. So here.

‘Ans. 1. The Relation of the Son of the Bond-woman may cease in adult age, as Ishmael; much more of the Bond-servant.’

Reply. The Relation of Ishmael ceased not by growing up to [Page 41] adult age, nor till he was cast out for his sin. These in question are not cast out, or deserving so to be: and therefore this Answer is impertinent.

‘Ans. 2. By this Reason, Moral wickedness should not cut off adult Members, for that doth not cut off the Relation of Bond-servants.’

Reply. This Argument taken from the common nature of Civil and Church-Societies, doth not require they should hold in all things; as, that they should be governed by the same Laws, and subject to the same Punishments: that were indeed to make Simili­tudes run on all four (as we say.) It is enough if they agree in that thing wherein they are applied. And this Application of the Synod is clear in Levit. 25. 41,42. where the children of the Isra­elitish Servants were to serve with their parents unto the year of Jubile, which being every Fiftieth Year, they were oft grown up to adult age before that time: And the reason why they should then go out, is, Because they (that is, Parents and Children) are my Servants, faith the Lord. So that there is the like reason in Gods Service, as in that Relation. And we see David delighteth to own himself the Servant of the Lord in this very Relation: I am thy Servant, the Son of thine Handmaid, Psal. 116. 16. that is, engaged to the Service of God from his Birth, and so for ever, as the Son of the Handmaid was, Exod. 21. 4. And yet if the Similitude should be pressed so farre, we know that the Moral Wickedness of Murther, Adultery, and the like, would cut off Servants and Subjects by Death, according to the Law of God.

Reas. 4. There is no ordinary way of cessation of Church-membership but by Death, Dismission, Excommunication, or Dissolution of the Society; none of which is the case of the children in question.

‘Ans. 1. This is to be understood of Members in full communion, which these adult children are not.’

Reply. If none of these belong to such adult children, to cause their Membership to cease; then by their judgement, it seems, they have no Membership at all, if neither Death, nor Dissolution of the Society, can cause it to cease: which before they seemed not to own.

‘Ans. 2. There are many other wayes of the cessation of Church-members; [Page 42] they may Excommunicate themselves (at Mr. Cotton, The Assembly at the Savoy, and Dr. Ames affirm.) Also by Withdrawings sometimes commanded of God, 2 Tim. 3. 5. Rom. 16. 17. Also by Apostacy, 1 Job. 2. 19. By Heresie, as Arrtan [...], Quakers, &c.’

Reply. 1. If these adult children may Excommunicate themselves, then it is yielded that they are Members in adult age. But if all these were granted, yet none of them is the case of these in the fifth Proposition.

2. Here is a needless multiplying of particulars; All but a sup­posed Lawful Withdrawing, are Subjects of Excommunication, as shall be proved. Concerning a Lawful Withdrawing, that Turning away from such, 2 Tim. 3. 5. and Avoiding those, Rom. 16. 17. may more fitly be understood to be done, by not admitting them into the Church, or casting them out if they be in; rather then by With­drawing from the Church it self for their sakes, which cannot be done without Schism, except many Cautions be used. Neither can such Withdrawing loosen a man's Relation to the Church, which no may call him to account for it, and he is bound to render a reason thereof; else all Discipline may hereby be made frustrate. Now if his Reasons be found just, it will be one with a Dismission.

3. Concerning this Self-Excommunication: 1. The ordinary instances of Cain, Ishmael, Esau, are not clear that they did Ex­communicate themselves, but were cast out by the Lord. The Curse of Cain, was to be A Vagabond and Fugitive in the earth; which he un­derstood of his casting out of the Church, From thy face shall I be hid, Gen. 4. 14. As for Ishmael, the case is plain that he was cast out by Abraham, the Governour of the Church, by the appointment of God. And of Esau it is expresly said, that when he would have inherited the Blessing, he was rejected, viz. of Isaac; after which re­jection, he went away from the Church in Isaac's Family. Con­cerning the instance of the Sons of Abraham by Keturah, how long they continued to Worship the true God, or how they fell off, who can say, or prove that they Excommunicated themselves, without any act of God that had the nature of such a Censure? As for Open and Obstinate Hereticks and Apostates, which some call Excommunicate de Jure, that hindreth not but that they may, and ought to be Excom­minicated [Page 43] in Fact also. But if we speak of Gospel-times, where­in the Lord Jesus hath so expresly instituted Church-censures, for the saving of Offenders, and purging of his Churches; and hath confirmed the same with such Promises, to B [...]de and Loose in Hea­ven, what is Bound and Loosed on Earth, Mat. 18. I conceive (with due respect to the Authors alledged) That no Member of a parti­cular Church (having the Power and Exercise of Church-Discipline) can so cut off his Relation to that Church actually, but that the Church may, and ought to dispense the Censures to him, as the case shall require. My Reasons are:

1. From the Ends of Church-Discipline; Reason 1. viz. To reduce and save Offenders, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 5. To purge the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 7. To vindicate the Name and Glory of God, in bearing full testimony a­gainst Scandals, 2 Sam. 12. 14. 2 Cor. 7. 11. You have approved your selves to be clear in this matter: For the Example and Terrour of others, 1 Tim. 5. 20. Whence the Reason stands thus:

If the Lord Jesus hath betrusted his Church with the Power of Church-Discipline for these and the like Ends; then it is the duty of the Church to put forth this Power whensoever these, or any of these ends may be attained with the Edification of the Church. But there is no case can befall any Church member, wherein these, or some of these ends may not be attained. For, put case a Mem­ber be turned Arrian, Quaker, Turk, and what you will; yet the Censure denounced will Acquit the Church, vindicate the Name and Glory of God, in bearing full testimony against such Scandals, and tend to the Terrour of others; yea, who knoweth how farre the Lord may improve it upon the sinner for his good?

2. If in Scripture-patterns, Reason 2. the worst of Hereticks and Blasphe­mers were laid under Censures, notwithstanding their supposed Self­Excommunication, then we ought to follow such Patterns in all such cases. But such was the Practice in Scripture-examples, Tit. 3. 10. 1 Tim 1. 20. 1. Cor. 16. 22. Therefore, &c.

3. That Position that openeth a door for Church-members to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline, Reason 3. is not to be admitted. But this Position doth open a door to evade and frustrate Church-Disci­pline. For, by this means, any Member in danger of Church­censures [Page 44] may Withdraw himself, Renounce the Church, and then they cannot proceed against him: for, it were in vain to cut off a Mem­ber that hath already Excommunicated himself. If any shall say, It is sufficient punishment and judgement of God, in leave a man so to Excommunicate himself. Ans. But how then shall the Church be discharged of their duty to save the Offender by Excommunication, that tends to destroy the flesh, and save his Soul? I never read that God blessed Self-Excommunication to that end. Yea, by this Po­sition, a wicked Schismatical Member shall take the Keyes out of the hands of the Church, and Censure the whole Church, was oft they do) and the Church hath no power to lay any Punishment upon him for it.

And hence those Scriptures alledged Hebr. 10. 21. 1. John 2. 19. may receive a just Answer; for, that Forsaking of the [...] of themselves, and Going out, doth not exempt them from Church­censures, or prove that they were cut off before Church-censures. If the foot saith, I am not of the Body, is it therefore not of the Body? Or can this Withdrawing discharge the Church from using the means of their recovery, or exempt themselves from the just Cen­sure and Punishment appointed Christ for such Offenders?

Reas. 5. These adult persons are Members or Non-members; if Non-members, then a person admitted a Member, and sealed by Baptism, not cast out, nor deserving so to be, may (the Church still remaining) become a Non-member, out of the Church, and of the unclean world: which the Scripture acknowledgeth not.

‘Ans. 1. Members and Non-members are not opposites, but with taking in the conditions of all opposites, as in this case (ad idem, or in the same respect) they may be Non-members in full communion, and yet Members in Parental Right.’

Reply. 1. This Distinction is not ad idem; for the want of full Communion is not such a respect as makes a man a Non-member, for so a man under Admonition for some Scandal, or in a Frenzy, should be a Non-member. 2. The question is not, Whether these be Members in full Communion? but, Whether that Membership which was sealed up unto them in Baptism, doth continue in adult age? And this seems once more here to be granted.

[Page 45] "Ans. 2. They may deserve Censures, though not put upon them."

Reply. This is not the case of these Members in question: And if it were so, that they deserved Censures, yet no man is actually cut off, till the Censure be applied. And, it they may deserve Cen­sures, then are they Personal Members under Church-Discipline.

CHAP. V.
Concerning the fourth Proposition.

Propos. 4. THese adult persons are not therefore to be admitted to full Communion, meerly because they are, and continue Members, without such further Qualifications as the Word of God re­quireth thereunto.

Our Brethren granting this Proposition, yet in reference to the fifth Proposition, are pleased by way of Prevention to state this Question; viz. ‘Whether there are, or should be in the Church, such persons as have publickly and personally Covenanted, that are not in f [...]ll Communion?’ The Negative they prove:

Reas. 1. ‘Because publick and personal Covenanting is the forma­lity of a Church-member; such have all the constituent causes, and so all the consequences of the Form, and all the priviledges of that Subject, which in this case is full Communion. Hence the Form introduced, and the Covenant personally owned, doth necessarily imply all the priviledges belonging [...] unto.’

Ans. Every Publick and Personal Covenanting is not the Form of Church-membership. The Covenant was oft renewed, publickly owned, or Entred into, by such as were Members of the Church before; [...] 29. and other Scripture, doth appear. And this is the case of these in question, who were in Covenant with God and his Church, and had the Seal of Baptism set thereto before, Genes. [Page 46] 17. 7. 1 Cor. 12. 13. and therefore this Owning of the Covenant, is onely a manifestation of their continuance in it. And hence this is not the Form of their Membership, but a Duty of their Covenant, and doth not in itself fit them for full Communion, except withall they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God requireth there­unto. A Youth that hath the constituent causes of a Man. Soul and Body, with some Understanding and Reason, is not thereby capable of all Priviledges of a man; as, To Marry, Give good As­surances of Lands, and the like. An adult person received into the Church by personal Covenant, is not fit for the Lords Supper meerly because he hath Covenanted, for except he hath suitable qualifica­tions, he will Eat judgement to himself.

Reas. 2. ‘Because those that were admitted by personal Covenant in the Primitive Church, continued in full Communion, Acts. 2. 41. 1.’

Ans. There is not the same reason; for they were admitted in adult age, and also indued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost: These being admitted in Infancy, do onely by Owning the Covenant, manifest their continuance therein. The Indians newly converted, and holding forth so much Faith and Repentance as may admit them into the Church and Baptism, might yet need further Prepa­ration to the Lords Supper, not having such eminent gifts.

Reas. 3. ‘Because this Doctrine presupposeth, that what Know­ledge, Faith and Repentance is required in adult persons coming to Baptism, is not sufficient to the Lords Supper.’

Ans. This Doctrine doth not suppose it; for it speaketh onely of such adult persons as were Baptized in infancy, not to be Bapti­zed in adult age. It supposeth onely that persons Baptized in infan­cy, and continuing in the Covenant, and visible Church, may yet be unable to Examine themselves, and discern the Lords Body. And hence the Reasons which here follow, touch not this case. And it is well if some of them do not argue Against the Baptizing of In­fants; or, That Infants Baptized may partake of the Lords Supper.

CHAP. VI.
Concerning the fifth Proposition:

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

‘This Proposition (say our Brethren)doth stumble us most.’ Their Reasons are:

Reaf. I. ‘Because, there being three Expressions propounded, this swerveth further then the other from the Scripture.’

Ans▪ Be it granted, that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded; these onely in conclusion were Assented unto. But if our Brethren judge, That they all swerved from the Scripture, what matter is it which swerved most from it? If this swerveth most, they have the more advantage of Dispute against it. But seeing they stumble so much at this, I shall easily remove this Block out of their way.

Obj. ‘First, say they, in the former Expressions it was required, they should understand the Grounds of Religion; here, no more then the Doctrine of Faith: So that they may be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Moral Law, and so have no knowledge of Sin, of the Duties of Holines, Righteousness, Sabbaths, &c.’

Ans. As if the Doctrine of Faith were not as large as all the Grounds of Religion, both in the acceptation of Scripture, and of Orthodox Divines. Phil. 1. 27. when the Apostle exhorts them to strive for the Faith of the Gospel, might they let go the Doctrine of [Page 48] the Moral Law, or any other Grounds of Religion? 2 Tim. 4. 7. when Paul saith, He had kept the Faith, did he let go the Doctrine of the Moral Law, and other Grounds of Religion? Jude ver. 3. Contend for the Faith; was not that [...] opposed to the filthy Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law? and there­fore sorely the Doctrine of Faith comprehends the Doctrine of the Moral Law. When our Synod at Cambridge 1648. declared their Consent with the Assembly of Divines in England, in [...]he Doctrine of Faith; and the Assembly at the Savoy calleth that Book A Declara­tion of their Faith and Order; do they not mean by the word Faith, all the Grounds of Religion, excepting onely matters of Order? But what need more Instances, when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel? I dare not be so uncharitable, to think, that such persons do not hold fast The Doctrine of the Moral Law, and all The Grounds of Religion. Surely the Synod intended it so.

Obj. 2. ‘In the second Expression it was required, that they should be Examined of their sense of their need of Christ, and desires after him; here, only of their Assent to the Doctrine of Faith, which the Devils may have.’

Ans. But if such sense of their need of Christ, and desires after him, should not, upon such Examination, appear, but this Assent to the Doctrine of Faith, with all the other Qualifications; Might not this suffice to shew their Continuance in the [...] Church? What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth? it is not f [...]ee, but inforced; and they want all the other Qualifications, that these have.

Obj.3. ‘The former required, that they should give Satisfaction for [...]ny O [...]nce they had fallen into; here, onely that they are not Scanda­lous in life. The former, viz. Offences, comprehend Original Sin, or any other committed against God or ma [...], Jam. 3 2. Scandal in if, [...]oteth onely, Notorious sins, and a course therein.’

Ans. That they stumble at this, must needs arise from a very rigid Principle (whereof this Treatise hath too many) For, who ever took up that of Original Sin, as matter of offence to deal with his Brother for it? Or what Rule have we to call for Satisfaction for that, or for all such Words or Actions as are Offences to God or [Page 49] man? A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alledged, Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters; for in many things we of­fend a [...]l: and therefore pity, and bear with one another▪ and be not so rigid to require Satisfaction for every Offence. If this were not so, what use were there of those Rules of Love, I Cor. 13. 7. Love beareth all things. Gal. 6. 2. Bear one anothers burthens. Col. 3. 13. Forbearing one another?

2. It is evident Luke 17. 1,2,3. that Offences to be dealt with are Scandals: Woe to him that scandalizeth one of these little ones; and Impenitency in any such Scandal deserveth the highest Censure, but repented of, ceaseth to be a Scandal or Offence, Mat. 18. yea, al­though such a Scandal should not be a notorious sin, nor continued in but in one act: So that Not to be scandalous in life, is full as large as that other Expression, and doth include Satisfaction for Offences that are fallen into.

Obj. 4. ‘In the former was said, They should own the Covenant of their Parents; here, onely the Covenant: which may extend to Grandfathers, &c.’

Ans. I wonder how our Brethren could make to themselves such a Block as this is to stumble upon, when-as the Doctrine of the Synod is so express to the contrary in the second Proposition, which affirmeth, That this right in the Covenant is conveyed onely by the next Parents, I Cor. 7. 14. If men have a lust to contend, and raise Objections, they might as well have objected against the for­mer phrase, The Covenant of their Parents; for are not Grand­fathers Parents also?

‘These things (say our Brethren) thus weighed, may suffice to dis­cover, whether there be not just cause for us to deny our Consent to such kinde of Members as these.’

Ans. But these things weighed over again by the equal Ballance of the Sanctuary, and right Reason, I not but the Judicious Reader will see how light they are, and unworthy to sway the Judgements of such as our Brethren are. But they adde (as they had need) other Reasons of their Deniall.

Reas. 2. ‘Because this crosseth the two former Propositions, which make the proper Subjects of Baptism, Confederate visible Believers and [Page 50] their seed: whereas these, though so qualified, are not (neither Parents nor Children) visible Believers; for the vilest persons may have these, Rom. 2. 18. & 10 19,21. yea, they that commit the sin unto Death may have these, Heb. 10. 26. There are washed Swine, 2 Pet. 2. 20, &c.’

Ans. 1. These Parents are Confederate visible Believers, as hath been proved. They are in Covenant with God, He is their God, God accepteth them as His People. His Children; the Lord hath sealed to them the Righteousness of Faith, Baptized them into Christ, and they Own this God, Submit to his Rules, &c. and therefore in Ecclesiastical account they are visible Believers.

2. Here is a very palpable Fallacy in citing these Scriptures to prove the contrary. The vilest persons (say they) may have these: Indeed the Scriptures prove that some vile persons may have some one of these; as Rom. 2. proveth, that wicked men may have know­ledge; but these have knowledge, and also Not scandalous in life, &c. and so may be said of the rest. But which of these, or any other, doth prove, That such persons as have all these Qualifications con­junctly, are vile persons, or not visible Believers in Ecclesiastical ac­count, or in Scripture account, and not true Members of the visible Church? It is true, that such as these may fall away, and become vile, Heb. 10 26. but may not such as come into the Church by the fairest Profession of Faith, prove so vile also? and were they there­fore no visible Believers before such a fall?

3. These very Scriptures, or most of them here alledged, speak of such persons (though so vile, as is said) who being adult chil­dren of the Church, did yet continue Members of the visible Church, and they and their seed partake of Priviledges; and therefore such Scriptures cannot reach this case, to disprove the Membership of these in the visible Church, because they are not visible Believers, these being farre better Members then those were: and I wonder that our Brethren do not observe it; or if they do, why should they alledge such Scriptures in this case?

‘Object. But their giving up of themselves and their children to God, implies Faith, 2 Cor. 8. 5.’

‘Ans. Our Brethren grant, that it may imply Faith, but in persons [Page 51] no better qualified it cannot imply it. There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God, Exod. 13. 2,12. & 22. 29.’

Reply. To say, That in such persons no better qualified it cannot im­ply Faith, and that without any Reason rendred, is against the Rule of Love, that hopeth all things to be hoped, as this is confessed to be, viz. that it may imply it. No , a person thus qualified in Knowledge and Conversation, may give up himself to God in such a manner, that the most discerning Church would receive him as a true visible Believer into full Communion regularly. The Eunuch's Confession, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was justly taken for true Faith. To say, There is a giving up of the First-born of man and beast to God (if it be not a Scoff) it argueth a very slight thought of so solemn a Profession before God and his People: for what Comparison is there between these two?

Reas. 3. ‘Where there is no Foederal Holiness, there is no right to Baptism. But where neither Parent is a Believer, there is no Cove­nant-holiness, I Cor. 7. 14. where not onely one of the Parents must be in Covenant, but a Believer, that the children be foederally holy. Neither is it rightly Objected, That a Believer is opposed there to an Infidel: for the children were not upon their ceasing to be Infidels, Be­lievers: So that themselves were Believers, or their children foederally holy; They were Catechumeni, and Competentes, before Fi­deles.’

Ans. 1. Did the Primitive Churches receive any that were not visible Believers into the Churches? Surely in the Apostles account The Church of God and Sanctified in Christ Jesus, is all one, 1 Cor. 1. 2. So the Church of Ep [...]esus and Colosse, are called Saints, and Faith­full in Christ, Ephes. 1 1. Col. 1. 2. Why then is it said, that the Pa­rents must be not onely in Church-covenant, but also Believers? as if the one did not necessarily suppose and infer the other.

2. That it is rightly said, That in ceasing to be Infidels they were Believers in Ecclesiastical account, is evident, in that Infidels and Un­believers are the same in Scripture-phrase, and both opposed to Be­lievers, 2 Cor. 6. 14. 15. Be not unequally yoked with Unbelievers, that is, with Infidels, as appeareth ver. 15. What part hath a Believer with an Infidel? Now I appeal to our Brethren, whether this Rule [Page 52] of the Apostle would allow the Parents in question described in the fifth Proposition, to Marry with an Heathen, Indian, or like Infi­del; if not, then in the Scripture account he is a Believer, for other­wise he should not be unequally yoked with such an one.

3. As for that Distinction of Catechumeni, Competentes, and Fid [...]les, the Scripture knoweth no such thing; for, Lydia and her house were Baptized together, Acts 16. 15. and the Jaylor and his house [...] way. That distinction came into the Church after­ward, and was applied to new Converts, as well as to the Church-seed.

But our Brethren adde further, ‘That else, or otherwise were your children unclean, cannot be meant onely of Infidels; for so we may make mad work of Scripture: as Deut. 4. 29. Jehovah is God, and none else; if any should say, There may be another God to the Gen­tiles, it would be a sad Exception: So Rev. 2. 15. Repent, or I will come against thee; shall another Church say, It will not be so with us?’

Ans. That to be Unclean, is meant the uncleanness of Infidels, is clear by the Rule of Contraries. For, if to be holy, be meant of the holiness of the Covenant; then to be unclean, is the uncleanness of such as are strangers from the Covenant, and so without God in the world, that is, Infidels, Eph. 2. 12. And what are the children of such as have both Parents Unbelievers, but Infidels in the Apostles sense? But for that inference, That by like reason might be inferred from that proposition, There is no God else, that There may be another God to the Gentiles; I confess my shallow understanding cannot see any Comparison between those two propositions, but onely that the work Else is in them both; the one being a disjunct Axiome, Your children are clean, or else unclean, and the other a simple Axiome, where the word Else is of another use and sense then in the former. But be it so, that it is so sad an Exception from a general proposi­tion, Jehovah is God, and none else, to say, Yet there may be another God to the Gentiles; or to say, The threatnings of Christ to the Churches yet belong not to us: Our Brethren may then consider, when the Apostle saith of Church-members, Your children are holy, to make such an Exception, and say, Not so, but onely the children [Page 53] of Members in full Communion are holy, whether this be not a sad Exception also.

Reas. 4. ‘The being in Covenant doth not priviledge to Baptism, without visible Repentance in Parents, Acts 2. 38,39. The Jews were in Covenant, and pricked to the heart, yet they were openly called to Repent: So [...]ohn Baptist thought, Mat. [...]. 8,9.’

Ans. 1. The Jews being in Covenant did priviledge their chil­dren to the Benefits of that Covenant they were in, viz. Circumci­sion, the Sacrifices, &c. Rom. 3. 1,2,3. But there was great reason they should be called to Repentance, when they were to enter into the Gospel-dispensation of the Covenant, because the Church of the Jews was grown so corrupt; and those in Acts 2. being guilty of the Blood of the Son of God: and hence John was sent to prepare a people for the Lord by the Doctrine of Repentance. But when Philip had to do with the Eunuch, a godly Proselyte, he onely called him to Faith in the Person or Christ as the Son of God.

2. Though Faith and Repentance, in a visible Profession there­of, be required at the first admission into the Church; yet these are not required in the same manner in persons regularly admitted, to priviledge their seed to Baptism. What Rule or Example requireth a Church-member to make Profession of visible Faith and Repen­tance, so oft as he hath a childe to be Baptized? Or in case a Church-member declineth, and giveth cause of much of the soundness of his Faith and Repentance; What Rule will debarre his childe from Baptism, so long as he continueth a Member of the Church? Now our question is of Persons regularly admitted, and continuing in the Church.

Reas. 5. ‘The Covenant is limited to such as obey God, and there­fore the Priviledges of the Covenant, Deut. 7. 9. Neh. 1. 5. Dan. 9. 5. He [...] Covenant and Mercy to them that love him.’

Ans. This is a frequent Mistake, to apply that which is spoken of the saving Benefits of the Covenant, to the Outward Priviledges thereof; the first God performs to such as love and obey him sin­cerely, yet the other he continueth to all such as do not fall away from the Outward Profession of the Covenant. Take these Scri­ptures [Page 54] named: Did not Church-priviledges belong to all Israel, when Moses spake that word, Deut. 7. 9. that God keepeth Mercy and Covenant to them that love him? and yet he giveth a sad testimo­ny of them, Chap. 9. 24. You have been rebellious against the Lord ever since I knew you, So in Nehemiahs time, did not all that were of the holy, seed enjoy Church-priviledges; when Nehemiah sp [...]ke that word, Chap. 1. 5.? and yet the story speaketh of many evils amongst them, that shew they were Scandalous in life which these are not, and have many other good Qualifications besides that also.

Reas. 6. ‘From the tenour and manner of the Covenant made with Abraham, Nehem. 9. 8. when God saw his heart faithful before him. So Gen. 17. 1,7. Walk before me, and be upright, and I will be a God to thee and thy seed, &c.’

Ans. This is the same Reason with the former, built upon the same Mistake, and may have the same Answer. I readily grant▪ That all that Enter into Covenant with God ought to Love him, Obey him Walk uprightly before him: and what is said Gal. 3. 7,9. that They that are of the Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham: Faith and Holiness is the duty of every Church-member, for want whereof he falleth short of all the Saving Blessings of the Cove­nant, But doth it follow, that such as are in Church-covenant, and do not perform these Duties, are thereby deprived of the Outward Priviledges and the Means of Grace, and that before they be regular­ly cast out of the Church? Were there not many corrupt Members in the Church, not onely of Israel, but also in Gospel-Churches, as [...]f Corinth, Galatia, the Churches of Asia, Rev. 2. & 3. who did enjoy Church-priviledges; till they were cast out, or till God actually Re­moved their Candlesticks? It was indeed a [...]in reproved to suffer such, but so long as they were suffered, they regularly enjoyed the Outward Priviledges.

Here our Brethren endeavour to Answer two Objections.

Obj. 1. ‘The Covenant-Blessing was conveyed with Circumcision successively to the following generations.’

Ans. ‘We must consider, that Gal. 3 14. that is expressed to be the Blessing of Abraham that should come upon the Gentiles, not the Co­venant of Jacob (as Mr. Cotton hath judiciously noted upon the [Page 55] place.) N [...]w Abrahams Covenant, and the Blessing thereof, i [...] confirmed onely to those [...] walk uprightly with God, as Abraham did.’

Reply. That difference Mr. Cotton put between the Blessing of Abraham and Jacob, may hold in this, That God continued all the Sons of Jacob, and their Posterity, in the Covenant; not so of Abraham: Ishmael and his seed, and the Sons of Keturah, were not so; and so Esau and his seed, being the Posterity of Isaac, were re­jected. And that seemeth to be the meaning of that speech of Jacob, Gen. 49 26, that His blessing prevailed above the blessing of his Progenitors. But this difference cannot hold in respect of the tenour of the Covenant made with Abrahams, Isaac and Jacob; for Ish­mael, though graceless, was taken into Abrahams Covenant, and con­tinued in it, till for his sin he was cast out. So Esau in Covenant, till for his Profaneness he was rejected, Heb. 12. Was not the con­tinuance of the Covenant to the seed of Jacob, the performance of Gods Everlasting Covenant made with Abraham, to be a God to his seed after him in their generations? as is evident, Exod. 3. 15. & 6. 3,4. Was there ever any Covenant made with Jacob and his seed, upon any other terms then the Covenant of Abraham? Did not the Lord require Faith and Holiness of the Posterity of Jacob, as he did of the seed of Abraham? and therefore this is nothing to hinder the continual succession of the Covenant of Abraham in the Gentile Churches.

Obj.2. ‘It will be said, God promised that he would be a God to him and his seed in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant.’

Ans. ‘Is it that all the carnall seed of Abraham, in all succeeding generations, should have God to be their God? Then the Jews are not yet broken off; contrary to Rom. 11. This seed is I. Onely such of the carnall seed with whom the Covenant was established, by walking, in the steps of Abrahams Faith. 2. His spirituall seed, who are onely meant [...] that Everlasting covenant.’

Reply. 1. It is granted, that the Outward Dispensation of the Co­venant is not Absolute, but Conditionall, in respect of the succession thereof: The Lord is ever mindful of his Covenant, and that ever­lastingly; till his People break his Covenant, he never casts them out. But there are many transgressions against the Covenant, that [Page 56] do not break off a People from the visible Covenant, and the Privi­ledges thereof: and therefore so long as the Lord doth not cast them out of the visible Church (wherein his patience is very long) the Pri­viledges thereof continue to their succeeding generations everlasting­ly, even to such as are here called the Carnall [...]ed.

2. It doth not savour well, that our Brethren so frequently call the Church-seed A Carnall seed: We know whose Phrase it is, and to what it tendeth, even To deny Baptism to them. The Scripture calls them The holy Seed, An holy Nation, Royall Priesthood, &c. [...]our children are holy, I Cor. 7. 14. God never enters into covenant with any as a Carnall seed, but as an holy People to the Lord.

3. What difference is there between the Carnall seed walking in the Faith of Abraham, and his Spirituall seed? if the Everlasting Covenant belong onely to such, then the Priviledges of the Cove­nant belong not to any Church-member, till [...]e come up to Walk in the Faith of Abraham, which is the Tenent of (we know whom.)

Reas. 7. ‘It is irregular to receive persons with no better Qualifi­cations into Covenant; we mean, Ignorant, unbelieving, and impeni­tent persons, into Publick and Personal Covenant. Church-covenan­ters must be visible Saints, Psal. 50. 5,16. Faith, Repentance and Obe­dience are required to Covenant with God. It is a palpable untruth for an Unbeliever to engage himself to keep the Lords Covenant, whereof Faith is the condition, Joh. 3. 16.’

Ans. 1. It is a great Mistake▪ to think these in question are to be received into the Covenant, when they come to own their Ba­ptismal Covenant publickly. Our Brethren confess they are in Co­venant, Acts 2. which is Sealed up to them by Baptism, and that in their own persons, as was before proved from Deut. 5. 2,3. & 29. 10,11,12. This Publick Owning of the Covenant, is but the manife­station of their continuance in it, or a renewing of it.

2. To censure these for Ignorant persons, that understand the Do­ctrine of Faith (which contains all the Grounds of Religion [...] as is before proved) and for Impenitent sinners, and Unbelievers, whom God hath received, owned as His children, and Believers, 2 Cor. 6. 14,15. who live without Scandall (which implieth regular Satisfaction for [Page 57] offences) who give up themselves to God, Submit to his Government; to lay all this upon them without Proof, is farre from the Rule of Charity. Surely, they are better Saint [...] then those mentioned by our Brethren Psa. 50. 5,16. Neither do th [...]se visibly hate instruction, in the sense there spoken of, vers. 17. for they are charged to consent with Thieves, to partake with Adulterers, to give their mouthes to evill, &c. which cannot be said of these.

3. What though Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and that in truth, be required of all Covenanters with God; doth it follow; that such as being in Church-covenant want these things, or do not so clearly and fully hold forth these by a visible Profession, that all such have no right to the outward Priviledges? This indeed is the man­ner of their Reasoning all along; but the inconsequence thereof who doth not see, that is acquainted with the Scripture story?

Reas. 8. ‘That Practice that exposeth the Blood of Christ to con­tempt, Baptism to profanation, the Church to pollution, &c. is not to be admitted. But the Baptizing of the children of such as are not visible Believers doth all this. Therefore it is not to be admitted.’

Ans. 1. I might grant the Argument: It doth not conclude against these whom God hath received as holy, as visible Believers, Baptized into Christ, as hath been oft proved from I Cor. 1. 2. with chap. 7. 14. & 12. 13. 2 Cor. 6. 14,15.

2. By this Reason, when Members received by Profession of Faith and Repentance in adult age, do decline, and appear to have as little Faith as these are supposed to have, though under no cen­sure, such must not have their children Baptized; or else all those consequences will follow. This may suffice to Answer the Reason itself. The Proofs I shall touch afterward.

Reas. 9. ‘Because these adult children, of they were not Baptized themselves, might not be Baptized in this estate, and therefore cannot intitle their seed unto it. A man must stand possessed of a right, be­fore he can make it over to another. Acts à non habente potesta­tem, are void in Law.’

Ans. This is a strange kind [...] of Reasoning▪ By supposing that a man hath not that thing which indeed he hath and therefore he can­not convey that which he hath. Let me take away a man's Evi­dences, [Page 58] and Possession of his Lands, and it is true he cannot make a good Conveyance; but may be not then convey what he hath Evidences and Possession of? There are some Members in Chur­ches, who suppose they were not admitted, would not now be ad­mitted; doth it therefore follow, that their children may not be Baptized? If acts of such as have no right and power themselves, are void; then acts of such as have a right and power, are valid: Now these are Church-members, and Baptized, and therefore their conveyance of Baptism is valid, by this Argument. And yet it would be hard for our Brethren to prove, that these being Church-members so qualified, might not be Baptized, if they had not been Baptized.

Reas. 10. ‘Because there is but one way of Entrance into the Church for all sorts of persons, which way is not here mentioned, and this way is Christ, Joh 10. 7. But this Proposition holdeth forth no personall Entrance by Christ: if they be gotten in some other way, they are Thieves and Robbers. The danger is seen in him that had not on the Wedding-garment, the Righteousness of Christ: which being so pernicious, how can the Church be blameless in bringing them in this way?’

Ans. Let the interpretation of Joh, 10. be granted at present; I Answer, That these children came into the Church by Christ, for they came in by the Gospel-Covenant, as our Brethren grant from Acts. 2 38 39. And is not Christ the Mediator of that Covenant? Yea are they not Baptized into Christ? Are not the Blood and Be­nefits of Christ Sealed up to them in Baptism? But our Brethren seem wholly to forget that, or to make a Nothing of it.

2. When this Covenant (which is called The covenant of God in Christ, Gal. 3. 17.) is Solemnly owned by them, wherein they give up themselves to God, and submit to the Government of Christ in the Church; Is there nothing of Christ in all this?

3. The danger of wanting the Wedding-garment, is as great to such as come in with the fairest Profession of Faith, as to these; and as the Church blameable for admitting such, because their danger is so great, when such want the Wedding-garment? But seeing our Brethren urge so much Joh. 10, let them consider ver. 13. The [Page 59] hireling careth not for the sheep. We have more cause to fear how we shall answer for our careless Neglect of these Lambs of Christ, then for our Receiving them into the Fold of Christ, for which we have our Warrant from Christ. And withall, let us remember that weighty Charge Heb. 12. 15,16. Looking diligently, lest any [...] of the grace of God, &c. lest there be a profane person, as Esau, who for a morsell of meat sold his Birthright. It seemeth the Apostle did think there was a Precious Birthright, and that it was the duty of the Church to look diligently to the preservation and improvement of it. Let us then take heed we do not take it from them, before the Rule of Christ doth require it.

By this whole Discourse, and by these Ten Reasons, we may now fully see upon what Principles our Brethren ground their Ant [...]-Syn [...]dal [...], or their Positions wherein they Dissent from the Synod. And therefore, seeing the Prefacer complains that Their Tenent is laden with Reproaches of Anabaptism, I shall crave leave (before I pass on) to present unto their serious Consideration, what Advantages they put into the hands of the Anabaptists, who, I fear, will make such use hereof as our Brethren would not willingly allow them to do. It is true, that our Brethren confess with us, That the Covenant of God with Abraham and his seed, is the Gospel-covenant, and doth belong to the Faithfull and their seed, Acts 2 38,39. But do they not with their Distinctions, in effect, take away what they have given them? They are Members in generall (say they) but come to the particular, and it is onely as wrapped up in their Parents Covenant; they are not actual or personal Members. And that Membership in their Parents, and their Foederal Holiness, reacheth no further then their Minority, pag. 37. And what Church-Ordinances are they capable of in that time, especially [...] that were true which some suggest, That Ishmael came into the Church by Profession of Faith as an adult Member at thirteen years of age? And, if at adult age they come not up by Profession of Faith and Grace, to Enter into personal Covenant, and so to a new Membership, [...] have no right to Church-priviledges. And may not a Convent out of Paganism, upon such terms, enjoy as much as this? And as for Church-watch and Government, it cannot reach them, but by their Parents, as it may reach an Infidel-servant: and when their [Page 60] Parents be dead, and they left to the care of such as are not of the Church how shall it then touch them at all? And when their Owning of the Covenant is accounted the Form of their Membership; what is this, but to make a Nullity of their Covenant sealed in Baptism? So that it will, I fear, seem to the Anabaptists; That to Baptize Infants, is to set a Seal to a Blank, or to a Covenant of no use to them. Again, when our Brethren so oft deny the visible Covenant, and the Privi­ledges thereof, to such as want the inward Grace; and affirm, That the Covenant, and the Priviledges thereof, are limited to those that with Abraham walk with God, whose heart was faithfull; who love God, and keep his commandments, pag. 29. Will not the Anabaptists be ready to inferre. Therefore Infants wanting that Grace, &c. have no right to the Covenant, o [...] to Baptism the Priviledge of it? Again, when our Brethren so oft confound the Outward and Inward Dispensa­tion of the Covenant, alledging the Scandalous sins of Church-members in the Scripture, to prove that these in question are Self-Excommunicated, and have no interest in the Outward Covenant, or Priviledges thereof; Is not this a Mistake which they will make advantage of? Lastly, when they say, That the Practice of the fifth Proposition exposeth the Blood of Christ to contempt, Baptism to be profaned, bringeth pollution into the Church, &c. what are the Rea­sons? For (say they) i [...] imparteth the Blood of the Covenant to those that are not visible Believers, sets the Seal to a Blank, severeth Baptism from the stipulation of a good conscience, bringeth the uncircumcised in heart into the Sanctuary. But they oft confess, that Infants have no Faith, They are a carnall seed, &c. And is it not a just fear, that the Anabaptists will be ready to inferre, Therefore to baptize Infants, is to expose the Blood of Christ to contempt, &c?

I know our Brethren will say, We do not require Faith and Grace in the Infants, but in the Parents onely: But yet when generally we ground the Baptism of Infants upon the Covenant of God to the Parent and their seed, Gen. 17. Acts 2. 1 Cor. 7. and prove they are Disciples, Members of the visible Church, and therefore to be Ba­ptized; I wish our Brethren may consider, how greatly this ground is weakned by Denial of Gods Covenant to their Persons, and onely as in their Parents; and by making it so slight a matter, as to wear out [Page 61] with their Minority, &c. And also let them consider, how suitable their Notions and Principles before named, are to the Arguments and Grounds of Denial of Baptism to all Infants, as is easie to see in all the Books of Antipoedobaptists. These things I mention, that our Brethren may keep further off from this danger, which themselves count a Reproach.

I shall now proceed to consider the Answers of our Brethren to the Arguments of the Synod for the proof of the fifth Proposition.

Arg. 1. These children are partakers of the main ground of baptizing any children whatsoever, and neither the parents nor the children a [...] put in any barre to hinder it. This ground is the Interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7 9,10,11. Act, 2. 39. Col. 2. 10,11.

"Ans. They answer in general, that Faith is the main ground of Baptism, Rom. 4 11. Acts 8. 37 & 19. 4.

Reply. 1. Here is no answer to the Scriptures alledged, which are very full: Gen. 17. 10,11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep, Every Male-childe shall be circumcised: It shall be a taken of the Cove­nant between me and you. So Acts 2. 38,39. The Promise is to you and your children.

2. Faith is the Condition of the Covenant; yet the outward Seal had reference to the outward Covenant it self: for Lo [...], and other Believers, could not partake of Circumcision, but by entring into that visible Covenant with Abraham. And our Brethren after­ward do grant, That the Church-covenant is the next ground of the dispensation of the Seals: Now they that have the next ground, are supposed to have the more remote.

‘Ans. 2. More particularly, they say, the Covenant is not the main ground of Baptism. For, 1. though they had Abraham for their father, yet John's Baptism takes away that Plea, Mat. 3. 8,9. and calls for Repentance.’

Reply. John took away their vain confidence in Abraham's Cove­nant for Righteousness and Life, as the Prophets also frequently did, Is [...]. 1. & 58. Jer. 7. Mic. 6. But he took not away the outward Priviledges of Abraham's Covenant, as Circumcision, Sacrifices, &c.

2. John. indeed calls for Repentance in a people so corrupt, to fit them for a more Gospel-dispensation, to make them a People pre­pared [Page 62] for the Lord. But that is not the case of these in the fifth Proposition, who are in the Gospel-covenant and have the Seal of Baptism.

‘2. We must distinguish (say they) between the Covenant of Grace, and the Church-covenant, which differ very much: for the Covenant of Grace belongeth onely to the Elect, and true Believers, which the Church cannot infallibly judge who they are. But the Church-covenant (which is the next ground of the dispensation of the Seal [...] requireth mutuall consent of them that are admitted into com­munion; to walk with God according to the Gospel. The Covenant of Grace is made to the children in the Parents, but is established onely by [...]he [...]stipulation of Faith and Repentance, Gen. 17. 7 9. Rom. 11. 20. Thou standest by Faith.’

Reply. 1. I cannot see how these things can consist one with an­other. For, if the Covenant of Grace belongeth onely to the Elect and true Believers; and this Covenant of Grace be made with the childe in the Parents: then the childe and Parents must be Elect, and true Believers; which will not be granted. Again, if the difference of the Church-covenant stand in this, That it requireth mutuall con­sent to walk with God; how shall Infants partake of the Church-covenant and Baptism, whereof it is the next ground.

2. This Distinction, as here laid down, doth not prove the thing it was brought for, but rather yield the same: For, 1. It is yielded that the Church-covenant is the next ground of Baptism; and that which is the next ground and immediate, is the chief, for it sup­poseth the remote; and the remote grounds, without the next, could not give right to Baptism, and therefore this is the chief ground. Besides, when it is said, that the Covenant of Grace is made to the childe in the Parents, then still the Covenant, even of Grace also, is the ground of Baptism. But (say they) the establishment is upon the restipulation of Faith: Thou standest by Faith, Rom. 11. 20. Be it so, in respect of the Covenant of Grace, and the saving Benefits thereof; yet the visible Covenant, and Dispensation of the Ordi­nances, and Means of Grace, remains to such in the Covenant as do continue in the visible Profession thereof, as hath been oft proved. That Faith by which the Gentile-Churches stand, Rom. 11. 20. is [Page 63] such a Faith as is opposed to that Unbelief for which the Jews were broken off: but they were not broken off for want of holding forth positive Saving Faith to the judgement of Charity▪ but for positive Unbelief, whereby they obstinately rejected Christ, Rom. 10. 21. They were a disobedient and gainsaying people. Acts 13. 45. The Apostle turned from them to the Gentiles, because they contra­dicted and blasphemed. Mat. 21. 42,43. The Kingdome of God was taken from them, because they rejected Christ the Corner stone▪ See also Acts 18. 5,6. & 19. 8,9. And therefore so long as the Gentile Churches do profess Jesus Christ, and his Gospel and Ordinances, they may stand in the visible Covenant, (through the patience of God) though they, or many of their Members, do not hold out such a Profession of Saving Faith visibly to the judgement of Cha­rity. otherwise we must Unchurch many such Societies of Chri­stians whom the Lord hath not Unchurched, but continueth to them the Means and Ordinances of Grace.

3. I deny that there is such a difference between the Church-covenant and that of Grace: for, as was said in the second Proposition premised, Chap. 2. there is indeed a differing dispensation of the Co­venant of Grace in the Church, viz. Outwardly in the Priviledges, Ordinances, and Means of Grace to the whole visible Church; or Inwardly, in the Saving Benefits thereof to true Believers. Now that the Dispensation of the Covenant of God to the whole visible Church, is the Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, is proved: 1. Because God giveth himself to be the God of all the visible Church, Gen. 17. I will be thy God; and he avoucheth them to be His People, and they avouch him to be Their God, Deut 26. 17,18. Now this is the first and chief Benefit of the Covenant of Grace, and containeth all the rest, as Mr. Cotton noteth upon that Cove­nant. 2. Because the Means of Grace and Life, and the offer of Christ and Grace, is given to all in the visible Church, Rom. 3. 1,2,3. & 9. 4. 3. Because all in Church-covenant stand bound thereby to Believe, Repent, and perform the conditions of the Covenant of Grace: and this our Brethren confess, that Church-covenant requires they should walk with God according to the Gospel; which is the Co­venant of Grace. I have the more insisted on this Passage, be­cause [Page 64] the right understanding hereof, is of much use to the main Question in debate.

That these in the fifth Proposition are still in Covenant, the Synod [...]proveth, Because they were once in Covenant, and never [...]ut off [...] from it.

‘Ans. To this our Brethren Answer, The Lord himself discove­nants them, Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 39,40,41,42. where the Lord takes away their Plea of the Covenant, and tells them they have the Devil for their Father. And that without any act of Church discipline, &c. They may reject the counsel of God against themselves, [...]s the Pharisees, Luke 7. They may be Felones de [...]se, as Mr. Cotton speaks, &c. There are other grounds of breaking off the Covenant, besides notorious sins, and incorrigibleness therein; as, Not standing by Faith, Not bringing forth fruit, Mat 3. 10. Not doing Righteousness, I Jo [...]. 3. 10.’

Reply. I have many things to Reply here. 1. Did the Lord himself discovenant all those out of his visible Church, spoken of Mat. 3. Jo [...]. 8? Were their seed thereby cut off from Circumci­sion? Were they excluded from the Sacrifices and Temple-worship? Who can believe this? when we see the Lord Jesus so oft com­municated with them in the Worship of God; when he calleth them still The lost sheep of the house of Israel; yea, the children to whom Bread did belong, Mat. 15. 24,26. These things were spoken of the Jews in general, whereof those Mat 3. Jo [...]. 8. were [...]. They were indeed of the Devil, not of God, in respect of the in­ward state, and saving good of the Covenant; yet still in the out­ward Covenant, and under the Means of Grace.

2. If those Mat. 3. Jo [...]. 8. had been discovenanted of God, doth it follow that these in question are so? Are these A generation of Vipers, Lyars, Murthe [...]rs, &c that live without Scandall, [...] to the Government of Christ, &c? If the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, in not being Baptized of John; do these so, that being Baptized themselves, desire it also for their Seed, and that in such in way, by Owning Gods Covenant, Giving up themselves to God, Submitting themselves to Discipline, &c? If Mr. Cotton did count such as Ishmael and Esau Self-murtherers, doth it fellow that these are such, that take hold of the Covenant, and that [Page 65] in some measure of truth, for ought is yet proved to the contrary?

3. I must not pass over this Rigid and Dangerous Principle, without further Examination. The Position of our Brethren is, That God himself doth discovenant, or cast out of his visible Church, such as bring not forth good fruit, Mat. 3. that commit sin, are Lyars, &c. Joh. [...]. and that without any act of Church-censure. Against this I argue.

1. That these were not discovenanted of God, I proved before. And it doth appear, That the Providence of God continued them under Church-priviledges and Ordinances, at least till Gospel-Churches were erected, after the Ascension of Christ.

2. If the Lord Jesus hath ordained and commanded Church-discipline for the saving of Offenders, and the Purging of his Church, then he doth not discovenant such without Church censures. But so it is, Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. Therefore he doth it not himself with­out them. The reason of the Consequence is, Because if God himself did discovenant them, Church-censures were useless and vain. To what end should the Church cut off one that is already a Non-member? what have they to do with such as are without? why should Corinth be blamed for suffering that Leaven, if God himself had cast it out?

3. This supposed Discovenanting by God himself, frustrates the great and chief End of Church discipline, viz. To heal and save the Sinner: for, the Church having now no power over them, they must perish, being without the Means of their Recovery, except God restore them immediately; at least they are deprived of that special Means appointed and blessed of God to that end.

4. What confusion would this bring into the Church? For, how shall the Church know when God hath discovenanted this or that man? whether so soon as he hath committed such sins, or how long Gods patience will bear with him? And how shall the Church prove against any such, That God hath indeed discovenant­ed him? These things, and much more that might be said, may put our Brethren to finde some other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1. Joh. 3. 10. and such like Scriptures.

Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in questions are either child [...]n [Page 66] of the Covenant, or strangers from it, Eph. 2. 12. Holy, or un­clean, I Cor. 7. 14. within the Church, or without, I Cor▪ [...] 12. such as have God for their God, or without God in the world, Ep [...]. 2. 12. But he that considereth the terms of the Proposition, will not affirm the latter; and the former being granted, inferreth their right to Baptism.

‘Ans. The Assumption is denied, because the children in question dis­covenant themselves, not keeping the conditions of the Covenant; Not walking with God, Not loving God, &c. Deut. 7. 9. as they that for­sake the Covenant of their fathers, Deut. 29. 25 And what do these that come not up to the conditions of it? God may cast off for sins of Omission, 1 Sam. 15. so for not believing in God.’

Reply. This being the very Hinge whereupon chiefly this Que­stion doth turn, viz. Whether, and how these Church-members are cut off from their Membership in the visible Church? I desire the Reader to observe well the Answer of our Brethren, and their Reasons thereof. Sometime they say, God Discovenanteth them; which hath been examined: Sometime, that They Discovenant themselves; which also hath been spoken to before. To this Refuge they now again betake themselves. Their Reason here alledged I shall consider, which standeth thus: Church-members which do not come up to the conditions of the Covenant, viz. To walk with God, Love God, keep his Commandments, Believe in God, &c. do Discovenant themselves. But th [...]se Church-members described in the fifth Proposition, do not walk with God, Love God. &c. Therefore they do Discovenant themselves. The Proposition they would prove from Gen. 17 1. Deut. 7. 9. Psa. 105. 8. Deut. 29 25. To this I answer:

1. By denying the Proposition. As for the Proofs, Genes. 17. 1. Deut. 7. 9. Psa. 105▪ These Scriptures prove it is the duty of such as enter into Covenant with God, to Walk with God, To be upright, so love God, &c. and that God performs to such the Saving Benefits of the Covenant: but they do not prove, that simply by the neglect of th [...] s [...] duties especially without Impenitence added, they do actually Discovenant themselves out of the visible Church and from the Privi­ledges thereof, and the Means of Grace therein. The gross neglect of the duties of the Covenant persisted in obstinately and impenitently, [Page 67] may deserve Censures: but that the want of such graces, and du­ties of the Covenant, doth actually cut off such from the visible Church, is an Assertion never heard of in the Book of God, nor I think in any the best Reformed Church to this day. Surely Ishmael and Esau did not Walk with God, Love God, Believe in God, in our Brethrens sense; yet they continued in the Church, till for their ma­nifest Profaneness the one was cast out by Gods appointment, and the other rejected, Heb. 12. 17. When Deut. 7. 9. Moses said, that The Lord keepeth Covenant and Mercy with them that love him, &c. were there not multitudes in Israel that came not up to these duties of the Covenant, in our Brethrens sense, that yet were Gods Holy Peo­ple, Royall Nation, enjoying all Church-priviledges? and so all along through the story of all the Scriptures. Deut. 29. 25. renders indeed the cause of the great Plagues upon Israel, to be their for­saking the Covenant: But what was that forsaking of the Covenant? was it their not coming up to these terms of it, to Walk with God, Love God, Believe in God with a visible saving Faith? Nothing less: but because they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, ver. 26. As for the case of Saul, 1 Sam. 15. whom the Lord rejected from being King, for so gross a disobedience to an express and parti­cular Command; yet we reade not that he was cast out of the visible Church: Nor doth it follow, that because God may justly cut off a man from the Church for not believing, or Sins of Omission, that therefore he doth so; or that therefore a Church-member, by Sins of Omission, doth actually cut off himself from the visible Church. Surely these are worse then farre-fetched and uncertain Consequences from the Old Testament.

2. For the Assumption of this Argument; They say (but with­out Proof) That these Parents in the fifth Proposition do not walk with God, &c. according to the conditions of the Covenant. I answer, These do outwardly and visibly, at least, so Walk with God, Love Him, and keep His Commandments, as the Rule of God doth ac­count A keeping of the visible Covenant: These Profess the Faith, are not scandalous in life, give up themselves to God, submit to his Rules and government; and were not such as these all along in the Scripture accepted as the People of God in the visible Covenant? Deut. 5. [Page 68] when the people professed to Obey Moses in all things, God saw they wanted an heart to fear him, and keep his commandments, yet he en­tred into Covenant with them. How oft are the Kings of Judah, that observed the Ordinances of Worship, said to do that which was right in the sigh [...] of the Lord, and to walk in his wayes, though they wanted that upright walking with God, and love of God, which was required? See 2 Chron. 11. 17. 2 Kings 11. 2. & 14. 3. & 15. 3,34. And, Not to walk in the wayes of the Lord, is charged up­on them when they walked after [...], In the wayes of Jero [...]oam. and the like. To conclude, I would demand of our Brethren that hold this way of Self-Excommunication, Whether any Member doth Excommunicate himself by any act that is not Excommunicable (or matter of Excommunication) by the Rule of Church-discipline? If so, let us have a Rule for it; if not, surely these in the fifth Proposition do not Excommunicate themselves, for no Rule of Christ would allow the Church to cast them out.

‘Ans. 2. The children in question (say they) are in a state of Neu­trality at present: and such Christ accounts to be against him, Mat. 12. 30. They are neither hot nor col [...], Rev. 3.’

Reply. Mat. 12. 30. speaketh not of such as these, for these are for Christ, that Profess the Faith of Christ, and Submit to his go­vernment: That Saying of Christ, Mark 9. 40. suits better with these, He that is not against us, is for us. As for Rev. 3. Christ calls that Luke-warm Church, A golden Candlestick, holds their Stars in his Right hand, offers to come in, &c. So that Christ is not so quick in discovenanting luke-warm ones, as our Brethren seem to be.

Arg. 3. From the evil consequences of the contrary Opinion: as, 1. To deny the Proposition, would be to straiten the grace of Christ in the Gospel-dispensation, and to make the Church in the New Testa­ment times, in a worse case, relating to their children successively, then were the Jews of old.

‘Ans. I. This doth not straiten the Gospel-dispensation, seeing it is granted to be extended to all Nations, and to both Sexes, which was not of old.’

Reply. This indeed the Anabaptists answer, but it doth not reach the case. For, such inlargement of the grace of God in Gospel-times, [Page 69] would argue rather that it should be enlarged in this Point also, and not therefore straitned here, because enlarged in other respect. Were it Objected to a Father, That he straitned, his wonted favours to his children, in putting them out of the Family; and he should answer. Not so, for I have taken in many adopted chil­dren: would this answer satisfie? Or should he say, Not so, for though I kept my Family with Pulse before, I now give them much better fare: would not any man say, So much is the greater wrong to your children, both to put them out of the Family, and deprive them of their share in the better fare allowed to the Family. Just so is the case here.

‘Ans. 2. This doth no more straiten the grace of the Covenant, then the keeping of Baptized, especially covenanting Parents from the Lords Supper, seeing the circumcised Jews were not debarred from the passover.’

Reply. The circumcised Jews did not partake of the Passover, without suitable legal qualifications, viz. A state of legal purity and fitness to eat it to the Lord, and therefore they were to instruct their children in the meaning of that Service, Exod. 12. 25,26,27. In like manner we debarre none from the Lords Supper, but for want of Gospel qualifications.

‘Ans. 3. Gospel-times are in many respects Times of Reformation, Heb. 9. 10. and therefore to build so much upon the largeness of Jewish practises, is a great sin, seeing it is a stretching of the narrow way that leads to life, to be as wide as the broad way that leads most to destruction.’

Reply. 1. We build not upon Jewish practices Ceremonial, wherein that Reformation Heb. 9 10. did consist, as is plain in the Text: but upon the Gospel-covenant with Abraham, and that in the substantials of it. viz. I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee in their generations, exemplified in the seed of Abraham.

2. It is a strange speech to say, that This is a stretching of the nar­row way of life, to be as broad, &c. Surely, Gods enlargement of the Covenant to the Posterity of Abraham in their generations, was an act of Gods grace, tending to bring the more to life, by giving to them the means of grace and life, and therefore was not the broad way to destruction. The straitness of the way to [...], doth not stand in restraining the means of grace to a few; for why then [Page 70] should the Lord enlarge the Gospel to all Nations now, more then of old?

2 Consequence, To deny the Proposition, is to render the children of the Jews, when they shall be converted, in a worse condition then they were under the Legal-dispensation, contrary to Jer. 30. 20. Ezek. 37. 25,26.

‘Ans. This is denied, my more then that they should be in a worse state if they shall not have an High-Priest and Temple-worship, when they shall have in Christ a thousand-fold more: So here is like reason in re­spect of His abundant grace.’

Reply. The loss of Shadows is nothing seeing they shall have the Substance in Christ: but this being an essential Branch of Gods Covenant with Abraham, which is the Gospel-covenant, it cannot be taken away without reall loss; and the more abundant grace, the greater is the loss, as was said before.

‘Ans. 2. This doth no more put them into a worser state, then trans­mitting the Covenant now onely to the next seed, which before was trans­mitted to remote Posterity.’

Reply. The Covenant was all along transmitted by the next Pa­rents to their seed in the Old Testament: For, so long as they were not cast off by the Lord, he accounted every generation to be His Peo­ple, even in their worst times. So that the transmitting of the Cove­nant and Church-priviledges, was still by the next Parents; and when the Parents were broken off, their seed were broken off also, Rom. 11. 20. So that there is no such difference.

‘Ans. 3. To the Scriptures, (say they) that in Jer 30. speaketh of their return from Babylon: Ezek. 37. speaketh of their Calling, when they shall be all righteous, and nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant, Isa. 60. 21. Joel 3. 17, &c.’

Reply. If Jer. 30. hath any reference to their return from Babylon, yet it appeareth to look further, even to the latter times. For Ver. 9. it speaketh of David their King, whom God will raise up to them; and v. 24. of the latter dayes: and Chap. 31. 1. At the same time I will be the God of all the families of Israel. As for those places, Isa. 60. 21. J [...]el 3. that say, They shall be all righteous, no stranger shall pass through them; so that nothing shall hinder the continuance of the Covenant: The [Page 71] Covenant then shall be continued, according to the Promise of God, to Abrahams seed in their generations, which is enough to the scope of this Argument. Besides, this continuance of the Covenant shall be by visible Faith and Righteousness, not alwayes by reall Faith; for to think there shall be no Sin, no Hypocrites then, is groundless. There is none righteous that [...] not, is the general state of all men in this world, till we come to Heaven. And it is evident Ezek 37. 25. Zech. 10. 7,9. that their seed are part of that righteous Nation.

3^d Consequence. The deniall of the Proposition, denieth the initia­tory Seal to such as are regularly in the Church and Covenant, to whom the Mosaicall dispensation, nay the first Institution in the Covenant of Abraham, appointed it to be applied, Gen. 17. 9,10. Joh. 7. 22,23.

‘Ans. This is a begging of the Question: The children in question do not stand regularly under the Church-covenant; the contrary is plain Jer. 9. 26. Rom. 2. 28. Ezek. 34. 7 9.’

Reply. The Question is not begged, but the ground of the Ar­gument is proved, Gen. 17. 9,10. Joh. 7. 22,23. to which no answer is returned.

2. Seeing these Scriptures Jer. 9. Rom. 2. Ezek. 44. and such like are so oft alledged, and here with so much confidence in the present case, I shall Examine them more distinctly.

The Question is, Whether children received into the Church, and Baptized in Infancy, and being grown up, do understand the Doctrine of Faith, publickly Profess their Assent thereto, are not scandalous in life, solemnly own the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up them­selves to God, and submit to the government of Christ in the Church; Whether (I say) such, do not stand regularly▪ in the Church: and, Whether the Scriptures named do plainly prove the contrary.

Now for the first, Jer. 9. 26. where the Lord threatneth to punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised; for, all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart. To this I answer, 1. That this punish­ment was not Discovenanting them, but the Sword. 2. But suppose Discovenanting be included in the other; what were the causes thereof, by which they were proved to be uncircumcised in heart, and therefore so to be punished? They were all Adulterers, ver. 2. Lyars, [Page 72] ver. 3. Slanderers, ver. 4. Diceivers, ver. 5. yea, they walked after [...], ver. 14. And how then doth this place plainly prove, that the persons described in the Proposition stand not regularly in the Church? As for Rom. 2. 28. so oft alledged, however it may have some reference to the Doctrine of Justification, before spoken to, yet it seems the par­ticular occasion and scope of that discourse of the Jew and Gentile, is to prove, that God distributeth rewards and punishments without respect of person, ver. 9,10,11 and to take off the lews confidence in Legal-priviledges in that respect, ver. 13,17,18,19. 20. but how­ever, it cannot be spoken with any reference to Church-member­ship. Now in respect of Gods distribution of rewards and punish­ments, Circumcision profited if they kept the Law, else not; and in this respect, the Uncircumcision that kept the Law, was counted Circumcision: and so in this respect, He is not a Jew that is one outwardly, &c. But to infer, that every lew that was so outwardly onely, wanting the inward circumcision of the heart, was there by discovenanted out of the visible Church, this were a strange Doctrine to Scripture-ears. To clear this further: 1. In what respect the circumcision is made uncir­cumcision, by breaking the Law; in the same respect the uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, in them that kept the Law: but this was never so accounted in respect of Church-membership and Priviledges; witness the case of the Centurion Cornelius, and his devout Souldiers, and others, and therefore not so in the former. 2. He speaketh of the inward circumcision, as having its praise of God, not of men: but we know the outward Circumcision is approved of the Church, though without the inward, in respect of Church-standing and Priviledges, and that according to Gods Rules. 3. The Apostle fully cleareth his meaning, Chap. 3. 1,2 3. affirming, That the advantage of the Jew, and profit of circumcision, was much every way, and that in the committing the Oracles of God to them, which was a Church-priviledge.

Lastly, Concerning this place, let it be noted what were the evi­dences of uncircumcised hearts there alledged, viz. Stealing, Adul­tery, Sacriledge, &c. ver. 21,22. which how well it suits to prove plainly, That these in question are not regularly in the Church, let every one Judge.

Concerning Ezek. 44. 7,9. This place speaketh of bringing in the [Page 73] heathen strangers that were amongst the children of Israel, as [...]s evi­dent, in that it is called an Abomination so to do: but to bring in an Israelite circumcised in flesh, not in heart, was never counted an Abo­mination. Again, he speaketh of strangers uncircumcised in heart and flesh, which these children are not. 2. Put case this place may by allusion be applied to receiving of Members into the visible Church; we agree, that none visibly unholy should be received into the Church: But our Question is of such as being holy, were regularly re­ceived into the Church, and do not deserve to be cast out; to which case this place speaks nothing.

Thus we see how little footing there is for our Brethrens Tenent, in these or any other Scriptures they have alledged; as Jer. 2. 21. Amos 9 7. Mat. 3. Ioh. 8. & 15. which have been considered in their place. And I am the more perswaded that this Way oft our Bre­thren is not the Way of God, being built upon so manifold mistaken and misapplied Scriptures; whereof many of them being Old Testa­ment Proofs, it appears our Brethren make use not onely of far-fetched Consequences, but of plain Inconsequences from the Old Testaments.

4^th Consequence. That to deny the Proposition, is to break Gods Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Cove­nant, Gen 17 9,10,14.

‘Ans. 1. To refuse to Baptize one that is not regularly in Covenant, is not to break it. 2. Then it is a breach like the great Sea, to deny Communion in the Lords Supper to those that have laid hold upon the Covenant, and given up themselves to God by solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance, which is now strongly pleaded for.’

Reply. 1. Whether these be not regularly in the Covenant, let the Reader judge by what is said for it, and by the Scriptures alledged against it.

2. To deny Communion in the Lords Supper to such, is not pleaded for, much less strongly; for, Solemn Profession of Faith and Repentance is not in the Proposition. All that is affirmed, is, That the Church-seed, manifesting their continuance in the Covenant by such qualifications, if they shall still be wanting in ability to Examine themselves, and discern the Lords body, may be delayed till they give satisfaction therein.

3. Our Brethren in this case deal very hardly and partially, with [Page 74] us, whilst so oft they compare these with the most scandalous persons reproved in Scripture, and with them Discovenanted, as they pretend: and yet at other times they lay it deeply to our charge, that we do not Receive them to the Lords Table, upon such terms as are denied by them to be sufficient to continue them in the visible Church.

Arg. 4. These Parents are confederate visible Believers in some de­gree, and therefore their children are to be Baptized.

‘Ans. The Parents in question are not such, if we speak of true vi­sible Faith, which is required Rom. 14. 1. Mat. 12. 20.’

Reply. Be it granted, that we speak of true Faith visibly in some degree, yet Rom. 14. 1. speaks rather of a perswasion of the lawfulness of eating meats unclean by the Law, as ver. 2. sheweth.

That these are visible Believers in some degree; is thus proved:

Reas. 1. Charity may observe sundry things for it, but nothing evi­dent against it.

"Ans. This is said gratis, and denied by us.

Reply. If our Brethrens Charity could observe nothing for it, they might then shew something evident against it, without which the Reason is not answered: for, in discovenanting of regular Church-members, there ought to be such things evident against them as de­ [...] Church-censures, Mat. 18. 15,16,17.

Reas. 2. Children of the faithful, qualified but as the persons in que­stion, are said to be Faithful, Tit. 1,6.

‘Ans, Every one not accused of Riot, to be concluded to be of the Faith, is not the Apostles intent, not Orthodox: Faithfulness is taken for Fidelity, which may be in Morall men.’

Reply. Nor do the Synod so conclude: There is much more in the Text, then Not given to Riot, viz. 1. Children of godly Parents: 2. E­ducated in the Faith: 3. Not scandalous, or Not accused of Riot: 4. Not unruly, but subject to Government: All which do suit well with the Proposition. And this sense of the word is given by Orthodox In­terpreters: Marlorat Expounds the word Faithfull, of such as are educated in the sound Doctrine of Piety, and in the fear of God. Taylor, by Faithfull Children, understandeth such as being instructed in the Faith, are at least in external Conversation answerable to the Profession of the Faith they make. And Reason would incline us [Page 75] to conceive, that the Apostle would require in the children of Church-Officers something of Piety, as well as of Morality. Be­sides, the word [...] here used, is frequently and commonly used in the New Testament, in the Synods sense, viz. for Christian Be­lievers, Acts 10. 45. 2 Cor. 6. 15. Eph. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 6. 2. & 4. 3,10,12. & 5. 16.

Reas. 3. Children of the Covenant have frequently beginnings of grace wrought in them in younger years, as Scripture-examples and Ex­perience sheweth. Hence this sort of persons shewing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or in Ecclesiasticall reputation, visible Believers.

‘Ans. It is extraordinary to have grave in Infancy, and therefore no Rule for ordinary Church-proceedings.’

Reply. 1. The Synod speaketh not of Infancy, but of younger years, and that is not so extraordinary as is objected: witness the hopeful signs of grace in many that die in minority, and the Confes­sions of divers, that hold forth seeds of grace sown in their younger years. 2. We build not ordinary Church-proceedings immediately upon this ground; yet these being Church-members, we may build Church-charity upon this ground, that seeing some Church-members of this sort have Faith in reality, all of this sort may be so reputed in Church-charity: for so we judge of adult professors in the Church; we know some have grace in reality, and therefore we judge so of all that sort, till the contrary appear, though in the general we know Many are called, Few chosen: And what other ground have we of Church-proceedings with Church-members, but Church-charity?

Reas. 4. These are regularly in the Church, and therefore visible Saints in the account of Scripture, which is the account of Truth, I Cor. 1. 2. & 14. 33.

‘Ans. 1. The children in question are not regularly in the Church, for then the Parents being dead, the children surviving should make a Church, enjoy Ordinances, chuse Officers, which is denied; and it is incredible to deny them that power when their Parents are alive, and they will not be long kept from putting it forth, though they may for a while.’

Reply. 1. If we may thus argue, by putting cases, that for ought appeareth, never yet hapned in the world, viz. That all the Members in [Page 76] a Church should be so taken away, that none remain but such as those children. By like reason one may prove, that women and children are not regularly in the Church: for, if all the men die, they should make a Church, chuse Officer, &c. which will be denied. Yea, thus I will prove, That this or that man is not regularly in the Church; for, if all men die but one or two, they cannot make a Church, &c.

2. Were the Rules of Christ observed, such a case could hot fall out: For, (as Mr. Cotton answereth the Anabaptist in a case not un­like this) Let there be a due watchfulness of the Church over these children to fit them, for the Lords Table, and either the Lord, in the faithfulness of his Covenant, will sanctifie their hearts to prepare them for it; or else [...]e will leave them to discover their hypocrisie and profaneness in the sight of all, to prevent the pollution of his Table, and the corruption of Discipline. Grounds and Ends of Baptism, pag. 161,163. And had we thus done, through the Blessing of Christ, which he hath promised upon his Ordinances, such cases could not fall out; neither had there been so much need or use of this fifth Proposition, that is now so great a matter of Dispute; and I fear this Opposition of the Dissenters will increase our Difficulties. Neither do I see so much danger of these not being kept from putting forth a power to chuse Officers, &c. if they were trained up under Church-discipline, as in our Brethrens Way; who acknowledge them Church-members, and cannot rid their hands regularly of them, without acts of Church-discipline, which yet they deny to belong to their persons immediately.

3. If such a case should fall out, it is not impossible nor absurd to say, That a people retaining the Essentials of a true Church, may fall into such a degeneracy or decay, as to be unfit for Ordinances, or to chuse Officers, untill they be further prepared by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them.

‘Ans. 2. To the Scriptures, 1. Cor. 1. 2. & 14. 33. they say, That by a Church of Saints primarily, the better part of Saints are understood, the rest Synecdochically, though not so in truth, yet so called.’

Reply. If all be so called, though some be not so in truth, them the Argu­ment is yielded, That in Scripture & Ecclesiastical account, all Church-members are Saints: and who shall tell us which are so in truth, and which not, till impenitency in sin gives us cause to count them as Heathens and Publicans?

[Page 77] Reas. 5. Being in the Covenant, and Baptized, they have faith given them indefinitely in the Promise, and sealed to them in Baptism, Deut. 30. 6. which continueth valid, and is a valid Testimony for them, whilst they do not reject it.

‘Ans. The Promise is indefinite, not universal: whence the Argu­ment must be, Some circumcised or baptized ones are Believers: But these in question are circumcised or baptized ones; Therefore, &c. or thus, The Roman Catholicks are baptized: Therefore, &c.’

Reply. 1. I see our Brethren can make a false Syllogism, to decline the force of an Argument that would rightly conclude. Thus; If some children, being under that indefinite Promise, be Believers (for God is true of his Promise) then all such children are not to be rejected as unbelievers, as our Brethren would: But some baptized ones be­ing under that indefinite Promise, are Believers: Therefore. Now who can say who are such, and who are not, till they reject the grace of the Promise, and by impenitency in sin are to be accounted as Hea­thens and Publicans? For, though the Promise of Heart-circumcision being but indefinite, is effectually performed to some onely, not to all; yet they are all alike to the Church, till the difference doth some way openly appear. 2 To apply this to the Roman Catholicks, savours not of ingenuity: for are they the seed of Confederate visible Believers, of whom our Dispute is? or are they Regularly Baptized! or do they shew nothing to the contrary, that profess Popery?

‘Ans. 2. It is not an indefinite Promise there, because it is certainly made good to such as return with their Souls, ver. 1,2.’

Reply. This doth not hinder the indefiniteness of the Promise, but confirmeth it. And their effectual return to God is the fruit of that Promise, and indefinite also.

‘Ans. 3. An indefinite Promise doth not capacitate all children to receive the Seals.’

Reply. Neither is so much affirmed; but this, with the other Con­siderations, doth render them visible Believers in Ecclesiasticall repu­tation, which is the scope of this fourth Argument.

Arg. 5. The deniall of Baptism to these, hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostacy, because it denieth the children of the Church to have any pa [...]t in the Lord, Josh. 22 24,25,26.

[Page 78] ‘Ans. The Brethren deny the Consequence, affirming, That thirty or fourty years experience in New-England, through the mercy of God, sheweth the contrary.’

Reply. This is a bare deniall, without answering the Reason from Josh. 22. Surely that religious generation had a deeper sense of that danger, and more solicitous care to prevent it, then they have.

2. When our Brethren in their Preface To the Generall [...] take notice of the Many, Great, and Prevailing Corruptions of Trust, that need Reformation by Church-discipline, this might abate our glory­ing of contrary Experience for thirty or fourty years, in respect of the danger of Irreligion and Apostacy in the seed of the Church. But if this be so, it seemeth our Brethren do think that there are many more then A few Names in N. England, that hold fast the Name of Christ, and are stedfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, and do not own so great an Apostacy of Elders and People, as the Author of the Preface presents to the World.

Arg. 6. The persons in question are personally immediate, and yet-continuing Members of the Church, and therefore their children are to be Baptized.

Our Brethren here only speak to the first Branch, concerning their personal membership, having spoken to the third Branch before. But the second Branch about their immediate membership they leave untouch'd.

‘Ans. If the meaning be, that the Promise to their believing Parents reacheth them, and that they are wrapped up together with them; the Assertion is granted, as far as concerneth the seed of Confederating Be­lievers in their minority: But if the meaning be, that they are Mem­bers by their own Personall act, then it is denied.’

Reply. This distinction of Members wrapped up in their Parents, and Members by their own Personall act, is a Riddle that no Scripture doth unfold. Let us hold to Scripture-phrases, and the meaning will be plain and easie▪ viz. They are Members in their own persons, by the Lords actuall entring into Covenant with their persons distinct from their Parents, and setting the Seal of the Covenant upon their persons; as hath been proved from Gen. 17. 7,9. Deut. 5. 2,3. & 29. 10,11.

Proof 1. They are personally holy, l Cor. 7. 14. therefore Members in their own persons.

[Page 79] ‘Ans. This concerns children in minority, or the seed of Believers and Members in full Communion, and therefore it reacheth them not when adult and grown.’

Reply. Here our Brethren speak out; That the foederal holiness and Church-membership of the church seed, weareth quite out with their infancy or minority though sometime they speak otherwise, as was noted upon their Concession in their Answer to the Argument of the Synod, pag. 23. in the end. But no Scripture will prove this; yea, the whole tenour of Scripture-stories of the Church, convinceth the contrary. See Deut. 5 2,3. Rom. 3. 1,2,3. & 9. 4.

Proof 2. They are personally Baptized, the Seal of Membership is applied to their own persons, which being regularly done, is a divine testimony that they are in their own persons members of the Church.

‘Ans. So are the Papists in Rome; and are they personal Members? The Shechemites and Edomites were circumcised: there is par ratio.’

Reply. This is a very slight evading of the Argument, which speaketh of Baptism regularly done. I had thought our Brethren did not think Baptism regularly done in Rome, or Circumcision regularly applied to the Shechemites and Edomites: Or if not, could they suppose that there is par ratio a like reason between Baptism regularly done, and not regularly done? Except they should mean, that there is like reason between Baptism in Rome, and the Circumcision of the She­chemites and Edomites; and that is granted.

Proof 3. They are personally under Discipline, and liable to Church-censures in their own persons. See Propos. 3.

‘Ans. This is granted in the sense given before; yet not so personal, as to have right to all Church-priviledges, as is confessed by all.’

Reply. That sense given before, is confuted before. 2. If they have right to all Church-priviledges properly belonging to Members as such, it is sufficient. 3. Their want of actuall enjoyment of some Church-priviledges, is not for want of right unto them, but for want of such Qualifications as may make them fit for actuall enjoyment of them, viz. Such increase of Faith as is requisite, as Dr. Am [...]s well expresseth it, Medul. Ltb. 1. Chap. 32. Sect. 13.

Proof 4. They are personally (by means of the Covenant) in a visible state of salvation. To say they are not Members in their own per­sons, [Page 80] but in their Parents, would be as if one should say, They are saved in their Parents, and not in their own persons.

‘Ans. It is granted they are in a state of Salvation, and nearer the Kingdome of Heaven then Heathens are: but they are not visibly at present in a state of Salvation, Mark 12. 34. But to infer, That if they be not Members in their own persons, but in their Parents, then they shall not be saved in their own persons, but in their Parents; this is utterly inconsequent: unless it should be said, that all, and onely they that are Members in their own persons, shall be saved; which were sad and Heterodox.’

Reply. To grant they are in a state of Salvation, and yet not visibly so at present, sheweth that this Argument is greatly mistaken. The ground of the Argument is this: It is the Priviledge of the Church (by Gods Covenant) to be the Redeemed and Saved People of the Lord: Christ is the Saviour of his Body the Church, Eph. 5. 23, &c: Thus it is with the visible Church visibly: And hence saith Christ, Salvation is of the Jews, Joh. 4. 22▪ And so speaking of the little ones, he saith, Of such is the Kingdome of Heaven, Mark 10. 14. And hence the Inference is also much mistaken; which is this: If their Mem­bership (by means of the Covenant) setteth them in a visible state of Salvation (as it doth, upon the grounds laid down) then, supposing this Membership be in their Parents onely, and not in their own persons, it would follow, that this visible state of Salvation is in their Parents onely, and not in their own persons: and so if they be saved according to this Covenant, it must be in their Parents, and not in their own per­sons. And hereby it appeareth, how greatly this Opinion bereaveth the Parents of that hope and comfort they take in their dying Infants, by reason of Gods Covenant made with their seed.

Proof 5. When they commit iniquity, they personally break the Cove­nant, and therefore they are personal members, Jer. 11. 2,10. Eze. 16.

‘Ans. The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral Law, as the Texts shew; which any man never in, or cast out of the Church, may break.’

Reply. Truly this Answer (as the rest) is far from satisfying the Ar­guments of the Synod. The Texts alledged, expresly call their ini­quities, A breaking of the Covenant: and what then if the Texts speak of the Moral Law? is not the observation of the Moral Law a [Page 81] duty of the Covenant, viz. To have God for our God, To love him, Fear him, &c.▪ Or is the breach of the Moral Law, no breach of the Covenant in them that are in Covenant, because others not in Covenant may break it? What sense and reason is in this? When a Master chargeth his Apprentice with breach of his Covenant in Stealing his Masters goods; should he answer, It was no breach of Covenant, because others that were never in Covenant, may be guilty of Stealing also? Would this answer prove it was no breach of Co­venant? Just so is the case here: When the Lord chargeth the adult Members of the Church with breach of their Covenant in the Mo­ral duties of the Covenant, to say, The Covenant there spoken of is the Moral [...], which such as were never in, or cast out of the Church, may break.

Our Brethren here think fit to make a stand; onely concluding in the words of the Presbyterian Ministers, wherewith they would seem to be well satisfied. But the known Practice of-those Reverend Bre­thren, that do Baptiz [...] divers Children whose Parents they receive not to the Lords Table, doth perswade me, that such a Profession as is de­scribed in the fifth Proposition, would be readily accepted of by them, as a credible Profession for the Administration of Baptism to their seed. And this is the more evident to me, by that which is here al­ledged in the second Paragraph, wherein they describe the persons to be Baptized, thus: Baptism is an holy Sacrament, in which a person professing the Christian Faith, or the Infant-seed of such, is Baptized, &c. which is fully answered in the fifth Proposition.

Concerning the Sixth Proposition, which dependeth upon the Fifth, our Brethren onely declare their Dissent.

Concerning the Seventh Proposition, they say, It is caut [...]lo [...]y penned, and do not Object against it an onely desire Care in the Application whereof, with what Churches we have Communion.

Concerning the second Question, About CONSOCIATION OF CHURCHES. they have declared their Consent in all the Propositions laid down by the Synod, and here Object nothing.

And herein I do willingly and gladly acknowledge the ingenuity of our dear Brethren; who though they be earnest and quick some­times, in such things wherein they differ, yet do freely declare their [Page 82] Consent in other things: which giveth me the more hope, that after a fair Debate of this Question, we may at length meet sweetly in the same Truth, which perhaps neither of us do as yet so clearly ap­prehend, as we may (through the help of Christ) attain unto. We know but in part, Believe in part, and Prophesie in part, and are imper­fect in all we do; and therefore must wait for, and endeavour after further discoveries of the minde of God.

And to this end (in case what hath been, and is here, or what short­ly may be Published about this Question, should not clear up the Truth to satisfaction, but that further Replies should be made) My earnest Motion and Desire is,

1. That all Reflections upon mens Persons, and other impertinent Discourses, being laid aside, the main issue of the Question in Debate may be closely followed; which, I perceive, is come in a manner to this narrow, viz. Whether the Persons described in the fifth Proposi­tion be regularly Church-members; for this is all along denied by our Brethren, and several wayes alledged, whereby they should become Non-members, as, By their Self-Excommunication, By Gods Excom­munication, &c.

2. My Motion and Desire is, That the Scriptures alone, according to their true sense and scope, may be made the Touchstone to disco­ver the Truth: These are able to make the man of God fully furnished to every good work. I deny not the use of the Concurring Judge­ment of the godly Learned: And it is well known how fully the advantage lieth on the Synods side in that respect; yet I see men are too apt to make use of Sentences of Authors that seem to favour their Opinion, though indeed contrary to the meaning and judgement of those Authors: And this tends to amuse and puzzle the common sort of Readers, and enlarge Disputes, but doth not tend to clear up the Truth. If these two things might be attended, I not but this Case would have a speedy and comfortable issue.

Now the Lord God of Truth, Purity and Peace, direct all our hearts into the Right Understanding, Unfeigned Love, and United Pra­ctice of his Holy Will in all things. Amen.