alone gives Right for God hath made it one Commandment of four to provide for the manner of his Worship requiring that all his holy Ordinances be attended in a Solemn Humble Reverent and Profitable manner and it cannot be denyed to be meet and needful that persons should both know and own the Covenant-state they are in and the state of subjection to Christs Government which the Covenant placeth them in especially when they partake of such a fruit of the Covenant as Baptism for their Children is that they should do covenant-Covenant-duties when they come for Covenant priviledges that they should both seek and attend the Lords holy Ordinance though it be their Right never so much in Humility and Fear and it being one Branch of the Covenant that they give up their Children to the Lord and do promise to take care for their Christian Education it must needs be suitable that they be minded of it when they present them to Baptism and the more explicitely they do so promise it is the better Hence all Reformed Churches do in their Directories and Practices require Professions and Promises of Parents or those that present the Childe to Baptism and appoint a solemn manner of Administration and stand upon it as a needful duty Though they unanimously own and grant that the Childe hath a full and clear Right to Baptism by its being born within the visible Church See English Leiturgie of the administration of Baptism Directory pag. 31. Late Petition for Peace pag. 61 c. Zepperi Polit. Ecces pag 128. pag. 147 150. Alasco pag. 121 137. Ratio Discipl Bohem. pag 43. Hence also no man will doubt but that it is a comfortable and desireable thing that the Parent do address himself in the most solemn serious and spiritual manner to draw nig◠to God upon such an occasion as the Baptizing of a Childe by humbling himself before God for all neglects and Breaches of his Covenant by taking hold of the incouraging promises of Grace in Christ in reference unto the Children of the Covenant and by pouring out earnest Prayer to God for his Childe and for an heart to do the duty of a Christian Parent toward his Childe as doth become him c. And such things as these Parents may and ought to be stirred up unto in the Ministry of the Word as their duty But still we must distinguish between what belongs to the manner of Administration or to the better and more comfortable attendance thereof and between what is essentially requisite to give right and title to the Ordinance before the Church This latter meer Membership or Membership alone doth A state of Membership in the visible Church is that unto which the right of Baptism is annexed as not onely the Synod but the Scripture teacheth And so 2. The Assertion before-mentioned viz. That it is not meer Membership but qualified Membership that gives right to Baptism in the sense above given is also Antiscriptural 1. Because it directly overthroweth Infant-baptism which the Scripture establisheth for what have Infants more then Membership or Federal holiness or Covenant-interest to give them right to Baptism i. e. What have they more then this that they are regularly by the Rules of Gods Word and his Institution therein within the visible Church If this will not suffice but there must be some other qualifications besides and superadded unto this what shall become of them For our parts we know no stronger Argument for Infants-baptism then that Church members or Foederati are to be baptized the Infants of the Faithful are Church-members or Foederati Ergo. But if the foresaid Assertion hold this Argument fails and falls short for now Church-membership or to be in Covenant or Federal holiness will not serve the turn but there must be more then this to give right to Baptism How the sinews of the strongest Arguments of the Synod for Enlargement of Baptism will fare we know not but sure we are that this cuts in sunder the sinews of the strongest Arguments for Infant-baptism which must fall if this stand But fall it never will through Grace while the Lords Appointment in the Covenant of Abraham stands viz. to have the Initiating Seal run parallel with the Covenant Gen. 17. or Christs Commission Matth. 28.19 viz. to Baptize all Disciples or all Members of the visible Church under the New Testament Let this Assertion therefore fall which makes the extent of the Initiatory Seal shorter then the Covenant and denies Baptism to run parallel with Church-membership under the Gospel Hence 2. It contradicts that which the Harmony of Scripture and all Orthodox Divines acknowledge for a Principle viz. That the whole visible Church i. e. now under the New Testament ought to be baptized or that all Church members are Subjects of Baptism for if not meer Membership or Membership alone but qualified Membership gives right to Baptism then not all Members but some onely viz. those that be so and so qualified are to be baptized If Baptism do not belong to meer Membership or to a Member as such then not to all Members as à quatenus ad omne so à non quatenus ad non omne valet consequentiae This denies not onely in the Fifth but the First Proposition of the late Synod which yet the Antisynodalia pag. 17. seem to consent unto But let the Arguments that are given from Scripture to confirm that First Proposition be duely weighed and they will be found to be of greater weight then to be shaken by this Assertion Now for the Proof of this Assertion viz. Because John 's Baptism which was Christian Baptism might not be applied to some who were standing Members of the visible Church because they were not qualified with Repentance Luke 3.8 7.30 Therefore Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such as stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance Answ. Let this be answered with reference to Infant-baptism which lies upon our Brethren to do as well as on us seeing they above declared Antipoedobaptism to be a sinful Opinion and do profess to hold and maintain the baptizing of Infants though indeed the Reader could not gather so much from these words Christian Baptism is not to be applied unto such 〈◊〉 stand Members in the visible Church if they be not qualified with fruits of Repentance This seems directly to gainsay Infant-baptism for Infants do indeed stand Members of the visible Church but how do they or can they shew that they are qualified with fruits of Repentance for it seems that neither is Repentance it self sufficient without Fruits of Repentance But we are to suppose our Brethren do not intend to oppose Infant-baptism and therefore that their meaning is not to require these fruits of Repentance or qualifications superadded to Membership of the Children or person◠to be baptized but of their Parents though it be not so expressed But let this Argument
when Erasmus had said that Châ—lâ—ren beiâ—g grown 〈◊〉 they being askt would not staâ—d to what had been promised in their behalf they â—ere to be leâ—t to themselves Calvin 〈◊〉 it as the saying of a man not wel exercised in Châ—rch-government See also Chemnit Exam. Conc. Trid. par 2. de Baptis Can. 14. de Confirmat sub Can. 3. whose words in the former of these places the Reaâ—er may find Engliâ—â—ed in the beginning of Mr Shepards Treatise â—bout Childrenâ—â—ely â—â—ely Printed And Cartwright to â—â—at Question What are the Duties of the rest of the Church that are presâ—nt at a Câ—iâ—des Baptisme Answers 1. To Rejoyce and be glad at â—he increase of Gods Church 3 When the Childe comeâ—h to age to do such duties as one Member â—wâ—â—h to another he did not think its Membâ—rship ceased with Infancy but saith he when it cometh to age such duties are to be doâ—e to it as one Member oweth to another Hence we say is it rational so to undâ—râ—tâ—nd Parker or Calvin as if they did think or approved it as sound Doctrine in others to think that they who were Baptized in minority when after they are grown up they have approved their Faith they are then first admitted Meâ—bers as if they were no Members of the Church before as the Reader would think that that were the scope aâ—d sense of the Testimony here cited But to cite shredsâ—f â—f passages in Authers in a sense contrary to those Authâ—rs known and declared judgement is very injurious both to them and to the Reader He that reads what this Preface here saith would think that it is the Iudgement of many judicious Writers cited by Parker that Children do then first enter into Church-membersâ—ip when their Fâ—ith is approved by the Church after they are grown up and that they are not Members at all before that when as it is most certain and evident that neither Parker nor any judicious Writer cited by him nor any one heretofore approved for a judiâ—ious Writer eitâ—er Ancient or Mâ—dern did indeed so judge but the contrary And Parkers words are clearly intended in another sense viz. with reference in full Communion And so speaking of the very same matter in the first book of his Ecclesiast â—elit Cap. 10. he saith That in the Reformed Churches the adult are exâ—mined by the Presbytery approved by the consent of the People and received by the whâ—le Church as Members of theâ—r Communion in a special manner and so are as it were confirmed before they be admitted to the Lâ—rds Supper where Members of their Communion in a special manner is the same with Members in full Communion in our Language and so â—is words together with the known practice of the Reformed Churches do plainly confirm our distinction between Initiated Members and Member in fâ—â— Communion but they are far from intâ—nding or holding forth either a denial of Childrens membership or a cessation thereof as soon as they become adult As for the Inference that is here made from Parkers Teâ—â—imony Therefore according to the Ancient Doctrine such Children are not as compleat and perfect Members as any in the Church Anâ— If his words do â—old in the sâ—nse in wâ—ich they are here alledged then Children are not onely Membersâ—s â—s any in the Church but they are not Meâ—bers at all or Non-meâ—bers seeing they are not it seers admitted Membeâ—s till when adult they have made their Prâ—feâ—â—â—on As for their being compleat and perfect Members it s well known we say and hold that they are not compleat or perfect in point of Communion or Priviledge but onely in regard of the Essence or Relation of Membership i. e. they are properly and compleatly within the Church and not half in and half out To be â—ccording to divine Institution within the Church is to be a Member of the Church as the Book before which this Prefâ—ce is set well owns pag. 41 〈…〉 any man â—â—ew us one Orâ—hâ—dox Divine or Judicious Writer before or iâ— Parkers dayes that ever said that the Children of the Faiâ—â—ful are either wâ—ile Infants or when â—dult suppoâ—ing them not excommunicate nor deserving so to be not within the Church But withâ—l we hold and so did Parker and the Reformed Churches that â—â—ere are many within the Church who may not â—ave coâ—pleat or juâ—â— Communion in all the Priviledges â—â—ereof and so are not compleat or perfect Members in that â—ense and â—word Meduâ— Lib. 1. Cap. 32. Thes. 13. It is not we but you that will have Children 〈◊〉 lâ—ast all adult Câ—â—ldren to be as compleat aâ—d perfect Members in this sense aâ— any in the Church or else to be no Members at all seeing you acâ—nowlâ—dge none that are adult to be Members unless they be in full Communion It is â—urâ—â—er added That when they are adult in case they do not joyn unto the Church then they do not retain their Membersâ—ip which â—hey 〈…〉 Minority Nâ—w to joyn to the Church is the act of one that is not jâ—yned or is not a Member so that unless they 〈◊〉 themselves to be not Members or unless they own themsâ—lves to â—â—ve lost their Membership they do not retain their Memberâ—â—ip this we confess we do not understand But so much for the discourâ—e upon the third Objection In the Answer to the fourth Objection there is an high Profession of much zeal for Church care and Watch to be extendâ—d towâ—rd Children and much cleâ—rness therein even as the light at Noon and as if it were written with the beams of the Sun so as that the Reader would expect to finde very ample â—â—tisfâ—ction in that matter but when it comes to it â—â—lls flat to no more but this That the watch over them is to be mediate according to the state of their Membership the Church is to see that the Parents â—â— their duty toward their â—hâ—ldâ—en Now we demand whether this be any more then the Church should extend to a Negro or Indian living in the Family of one of their brethren for should they not see that he do his duty toward him and that in reference to the things of Relâ—gion yea we might further ask whether this mediate watch viz. by seeing that the Parents do their duty doth not belong as much to Children when they are rejected and disâ—â—rneâ— by the Church as our Brethren would have them And what shall become of Children when their Parents are dead as how many Fâ—therleâ—s and Motherless Children are amoâ—g us or farre removed and when Children are sui juris and not under the wings of their Parents and why also should not Baptism and Catechizing as well as other Church-benefits be dispensed onely mediatelyâ—nd â—nd not immediately unto Children The Reader may here see that the difference about 〈…〉 and immediate Membership is more then a notion it contains under it a thing of great moment This mediate Membership is made a medium to put our poor Children from
from Iohn's requiring of qualifications over and above Membership be answered with reference to Infant-baptism and that will answer it as to the case in hand We remember in Debates between the Elders and an Antipoedâ—baptist many years since this very Argument was urged by him and the same Answer that was given then we shall give here Viz. 1. That meerly to be a Member of the Old-Testament Iewish Church or simply to be in Covenant or Confederate under the Old-Testament manner of Administration sufficeth not to Baptism but to be in the Church and Covenant of the New-Testament to be a Member of a Gospel Church stated and setled under the Gospel manner of Administration this is that which Right to Baptism stands upon and here Membership alone sufficeth thereunto When we say that Members of the visible Church Confederates c. are to be Baptized we must needs be understood to speak of the visible Church or of Covenant-interest under the New Testament and Gospel-administration which is founded upon Christ already come And it were most absurd and irrational to understand us otherwise we having now no other Church or Covenant to speak of but that Old Testament-Church-membership gave right to Circumcision New-Testament Church-membership gives right to Baptism But at the transition from Old to New or at the first setting up of the Gospel-administration oâ— Kingdome of Heaven as 't is called and of Baptism the entring seal thereof in Iohn Baptists's and Christ's time well might more be required then bare Membership in the Iewish Church which was then also under great corruption and degeneracy Hence all the Members of the Church of the Iews were not Baptized but onely those that in some degree embraced the new and reformed Administration in order to which a special Repentance was then necessary Mat. 3.2 But to inferre from hence a necessity of qualifications superadded unto Membership in stated Christian or Gospel-Churches in order to Baptism-right will not hold there is a wide difference between the case of Ecclesia Christiana Constituenda and Constituta In those first beginnings of the Gospel even Pious persons and men fearing God such as the Eunuch and Cornelius must have further Instruction and preparation before they could be Baptized may a man thence inferre that now in the Christian Church Constituted a Christian or Church-member that feareth God is not Baptizable without further qualifications 2. Much of what was required by Iohn Baptist of the Members of the Iewish Church before he Baptized them may be referred to the manner of Administration and was upon that account attended in a case so circumstanced as that was for that by reason of their Church-state though so degenerate as they were they were in a farre other and neerer capacity then Non-members and that thereby they had a Right to the ministrations of Iohn and Christ among them is plain from many Scriptures Luk. 1.16 Iohn 1.11 Mat. 10.6 15.24 26. Rom. 15.8 But those that were then to be Baptized at that first Institution of Baptism and beginning of the Gospel-administration being adult persons and they defiled with Scandal and Degeneracy yea having much lost the Truth of Doctrine in many poinst hence they could not be brought to entertain that beginning of the Gospel as 't is called Mark 1.1 2. and Baptism the Sign and Seal thereof without previous convictions and penitential preparations by the powerful Ministry of the Baptist. But it doth not appear that more was pre-required of them then what was necessary to an humble submitting to the Ordinance and to that new and reforming Administration then on foot which was betokened and sealed thereby And he that shall consider the multitudes that were Baptized by Iohn Mat. 3.5 6. Luk. 3.7 21. in the short time of his Ministry and in those glimmerings of Gospel-light that they then had together with the great weakness and rawness of some that he Baptized Iohn 3.25 26. Act. 19.1 5. will not think that the persons Baptized by Iohn did excell those whom the Synod describeth in their fifth Proposition of which our Brethren were so sensible in their Anti-synodalia pag. 18. that there they chose rather to wave Iohns Practice and to seek for stricter presidents though here they plead and that rightly and truely that Iohn's Baptism was Christian Baptism and holds forth a Rule unto us As for that Confession of sins in Mat. 3.6 when our Children do in their Assens to the Doctrine of Faith and Consent to the Covenant acknowledge their sin and misery by nature their perishing condition without Christ c. are willing to submit to Instruction and Government for the Reformation of their sins as those that were Baptized by Iohn shewed their penitential frame by that viz. a submission to his Instructions and Counsels Luk. 3.10 14. they cannot be denyed to have somewhat of that confession of sin So Chemnit on the place They acknowledged themselves to be sinners and both in words and by their action in desiring to be baptized they professed their fear of the wrath of God and desire to escape it But if any do stand guilty of Open Scandals we know not why they should not make particular Confession of their sin therein when they come to present themselves before God and desire Baptism for their Children if they have not done it before so saith the same Chemnitius in the same place of them Moreover such as stood guilty of more grievous falls did also confess them in particular To be sure they should by the Discipline of the Church be brought to that whether they had Children to be baptized or no but then may be a fitting season for it Thus there may be cause and call for a special Repentance in special cases when persons have so carried it as to shake their standing in the visible Church and although the Rule owns the Childe to be a Member of the Church and so a Subject of Baptism while it allows the Parent to be a Member not cut off yet it is a covenant-Covenant-duty of the Parent to confess his sin in such a case and so shall Baptism be administred with greater honour to God and comfort to all that are concerned But otherwise while the Parent that was born in the Church regularly continues in it without Scandal he is Ecclesiastically accounted to have the being of Repentance and so to have the thing which Iohn required of them though not the same modus of Manifestation and discovery thereof Now follows the fifth Reason of our Brethrens Dissent which is this That which will not make a man capable of receiving Baptism himself in case he were unbaptized doth not make him capable of transmitting right of Baptism unto his Childe but all that the Synod hath said will not give a man Right to Baptism himself in case he were unbaptized therefore all that the Synod hath said is not enough to make a man capable of transmitting right of
break off themselves from their Church-relation not onely meritoriously but actually and really then it may be justly questioned whether Church-members can thus break off themselves Sure Israel did not thus destroy themselves because all judgement and punishment is from the Lord whose work it is to kill and make alive to wound and to heal to create peace and evil so that there is no evil in the city but the Lord doth it even the Lord doth all these things Deut. 32.39 Isa. 45.7 Amos 3.6 And therefore if breaking off from Church-estate be an evil of Punishment men cannot in this sense break off themselves without God Besides men cannot of themselves alone bring in themselves into the Church but there is requisite the Consent of the Church thereto and therefore if they cannot of themselves alone bring in themselves into the Church how is it credible that of themselves alone they should break themselves off from the Church One would think that such as cannot of themselves alone open the door for their Entrance into the Church should no more be able to open it for their going out And further it seems not rational that Delinquents in the Church should have it in their power whether they will be censured with Church-censure or no and yet it must be so if men that have been Church-members may un-Member themselves at their pleasure for sure it is Church censures cannot be dispensed to any but to such as are within the Church 1 Cor. 5.12 If therefore a Church-member suppose one that hath been in full communion shall commit the most enormous and scandalous wickedness that can be named yet if men may break off themselves from Church-relation at their pleasure such an one may have it in his choice whether he will be censured or no for if he can but say I am no Member of your Church nor will be but do forsâ—ke the Church-relation in which I was it shall then be in the power of such a notorious Delinquent to bind the Churches hands from censuring him and so make the Rule of Christ to be of none effect which saith Dâ—liver such a man to Satan 1 Cor. 5. which makes it very improbable that men can of themselves break off themselves from the Covenant and Church-relation As for them in 1 Ioh. 2.19 of whom it is said They went out from us but they were not of us c. why may not this going oâ—t be understood of a local departure or of a departing from the company and communion of the Saints and such Duties and acts of Love as that Church-relation requireth rather then of a going out from the relation it self It is plain men may of themselves if they have no more grace neglect the duties which their nearest relations require and depart from them in respect of place and duties as David and Iob were thus forsaken by their kindred bâ—ethren and mothers children c. Psal. 38.11 69.8 Iob 19.13 14. but doth this prove that those brethren and mothers children who thus neglected the duties which their relation required were now no longer in the relation at all were these brethren and mothers children now become mothers children no longer nor brethren any longer because now they were gone from the duties which they should have performed This doth not follow at all How then doth it follow that those who wenâ— out from the Saints in respect of place and performance of duties were thereby gone out from their Church-relation they might by this departure of theirs deserve to be cut off by Church-censure from their Church-estate but that by this their departing they did cut off or break off themselves from their Church-estate any otherwise then meritoriously doth not appear The Synod having said That the Parents in Question are in Covenant because the Tenor of the Covenant is to the Faithful and their seed after them in their Generations Gen. 17.7 The Reverend Author in his Answer hereto pag. 24. saith That the seaâ—ing of this covenant to the posterity of Isaac and Jacob by circumcision was to continue throughout their Generations till the coming of Christ and that the Covenant is for the substance the same to us as it was to them it being â—stablished by the Blood of Christ Luk. 1.69 72.73 Heb. 13.20 Ans. Here is then a consent to the Synods Argument and the Proof of it for if the Covenant be for substance the same to us as it was to them and was then to the Faithful and their seed in their Generations doth it not then follow that these Parents being the Seed of the Faithful are hereby proved to be in the covenant this seems a plain granting of the Synods saying and of their Proof of it Whereas the Synod said That the Parents in Qâ—estion are keepers of the Covenant because they are not forsâ—kerâ— and rejecters of the God and Covenant of their Fathers and alledged for this Deut. 29.25 26. 2 King 17.15 20. 2 Chron. 7.22 Deu. 7.10 The Reverend Author Answereth That keepers of the covenant the Parents in Question are not for though they are not such forsakers and rejecters of it as they who are spoken of in the Texts alledged yet besides that gross Idolatry there is a spiritual Idolatry in scandalous covetousness Col. 3.5 Worldly-mindedness whereby men forsake and reject God and his Covenant to serve the World and such may they be who answer all the terms of their fifth Proposition externally and visibly Ans. Now herein is a marvellous thing and not easie to be understood for the Proposition saith expresly that the persons spoken of are not scandalous in life and the Answer is That men may Answer that and all the other terms of the Proposition externally and visibly and yet be guilty of Scandalous coveâ—ousness and Worldly-mindedness Now that men may be not Scandalous in life and yet guilty of Scandalous covetousness guilty of Scandalous covetousness and worldly-mindedness and yet not Scandalous in life these things seem contradictory and inconsistent Câ—piat qui capere porest It seems to us more rational to think and say That though it be possible for men to be not Scandalous in life and yet to be guilty of Worldly-mindedness and other secret sins and heart-wickednesâ— yet if they answer this and all the terms of the Proposition it seems not improbable but they may be truely godly and sincere sith they are not only not Scandalous in life but do give up themselves and their children to the Lord and subject themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church and all this not Ignorantly but with understanding not slâ—ghtly but Solemnly and Publickly before the Church for doth not all this make their sincerity hopeful we conceive it may But that they should do all this and in such manner as is said and yet for all this to be so far from probability of grace as to be Forsakers and Rejâ—cters of God and his covenant to serve the VVorld
not used men may be looked at as Non-members though the Church did neglect to pass a formal Censure wherein we shall not trouble our selves with being their Opponents It sufficeth us that in Churches regularly using Discipline there is no ordinary way whereby offenders lose Church-membership but by Excommunication And that none can lose it while they live that are not guilty of such evil as is censureable or is matter of Excommunication which the persons in question are not Another Testimony here alledged is from Mr. Cotton in his Way of the Churches p. 9. where he saith that Many in Churches have cut themselves off Ans. Had the whole sentence been set down every Reader would have seen the impertinency of the Allegation as to the Persons and Case in question Mr. Cotâ—â—ns wordâ— are these Many in other Churches have â—ut themselves off from the Covenant by their notorious wickedness and profaneness And withall in the same place he addes that Arelapsed Church with all the Members of it are bound to renew their Covenant in order to Reformation which shews that they were not wholly cut off before though their Membership was but by being born in the Church and baptized for of that he there speaks We doubt not but among the Members of such Relapsed Churches might be found many much more degenerate then those described in the Synods Fifth Preposition much less therefore are those Discovenanted but being in Covenant are bound to renew it in order to full Communion The next Testimony here produced is from those words in the Discourse of Church-Covenant pag. 17. viz. That if men had not promised and also performed in some measure of truth the duties of Faith and Obedience unto God they had not taken hold of the Covenant but had Discovenanted themselves notwithstanding all the Promises of God unto their Fathers and others Thus though God promised Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed in their generations Genes 17 7. yet the Ishmaelites and Edomites descending from Abraham were Discovenanted by not promising nor performing those duties of Faith and Obedience which God required on the peoples part Now if this saith the Apologist were Truth in the Year 1639. as it then had the Approbation of the Eldeâ—s hereabouts we see no reason why it should not be Truth in the Year 1662. For Veritas in omnem partem sui semper eadem eâ—t Either this was a Mistake then or else it is a Truth at this day Ans. Let the words here cited be câ—ndidly interpreted and they contain nothing repugnant to the present Doctrine of the Synod For it is true that if men do not promise or do not perform in some measure yea in some measure of truth i. e. visibly and in Charitable and Ecclesiastical reputation the duties of Faith and Obedienâ—e into God they do Discovendat themselves i. e. they do it meritoriously and do what lies in them â—n thâ—â— part to destroy their Membership And â—hey so do it as will inferre the absolute loss of their Membership viz. either by formal Excommunication if you speak of particular persons and if the Church do her duty or by the Lorâ—s giving them a Bill of Divorce if you speak of whole Bodies of People as here the Ishâ—â—celâ—â—s 〈◊〉 a Eâ—ountes are spoken of But what is all this to the Children of our Churches deâ—â—ribâ—d in the Synodâ— Fifth Proposition who do promise and do in some â—easure though not in so full a measure as were to be desired perform the duties of Faith and Obedience This might be true in 1639. and in 1662. also And yet our Assertion may be true and yours false notwithstanding Let our Children appear to be such as the Edoâ—ates and Ishmaelites were or let them appear to be such as do in no measure yea i. â— no measâ—re of truth i. e. as to Church-visibility or charitable hope for the Church â—â—ngâ— no further perfâ—rm the duties of Faith and Obedience and we will with you plead to have them put out of the Church But till then i. e. as long as they do in some measure though yet but in a small and initiall measure perform the Duties and retain the Essentials of Christianity or of Faith and Obedience they continue yea regularly continue in the Church for ought that hath yet appeared either in 1639. or in 1662. We are loth to take notice of the insulting Expressions that are here used which are too-too uncomely especially there where thâ—â—â—fth Commandment requireth Special Honour But the intelligent Reader will easily see the vanity of this Conâ—â—dence to bring a Testimony concerning the Discovenanting of the Ishmaelites and Edomites for they are expreâ—ly instanced in as the Explication of the not-promising nor performing the duties of Faâ—â—rand Obedience intended by the Author and then to triumph in it as if that proved the Discovenanting of our Hopefull and Non-excommunicable Children or thwarted the Doctrine of the Synod When it is here added This is the main thing wherein we Dissent from the major part of the Synod If by This be meant the Assertion which is before expressed viz. that A church-member may possibly become no Member without any act of the Church in formal Censuring of him then it is a great and â—trangâ— miâ—reâ—resentation to say that this is the main Poâ—ut of your Dissent For there be them that do â—eartily consent to all the Conclâ—sions of the Synod and yet dâ— hold and did in the Synod express as much That in some notorious cases and where the Church neglects her duty as hath been before said persons may be broken off and looked at as Non-members though not formally Censured or that a Church-member may possibly in some cases become no Member without a formal Censure the Reader therefore is greatly mis-led and mis-informed when he is told that This is the main Point of our Dissent But when you aâ—â—ert that the Children in question are become no Members or that persons who were before Members do become no Members as soon as ever they are adult meerly by want of fitness for full Communion though they neither have not deserâ—e to have any Church-censure paâ—led upon them This we confess is a main Point wherein you Dissent from the Synod and we suppose from Scriâ—ture and sound Reason too Preface Here let us adde the words of Mr. Cotton in his Excellent Treatise of The Holiness of Church meâ—bers which are these following Such as are born and baptized Memâ—ers of the Church are not cruelty continued and confirmed Members unless when they grow up to years they do before the Lord and his People prayes their Repentance and Faith in Ieâ—us Chrâ—st Answ. It is manifest that by Confirmed Members all along in that Book Mr. Cottonâ—eaneâ— â—eaneâ— such as are admitted to â—uâ— Communiâ—n or to the Lords Supper and Voting and so he dâ—th expressly explain himself pag. 9. and for that it is well known we stand â—ully for the
under the Governâ—eâ—t of Christ aâ—d to set them in their own persons as Lamos in a large place For by this the Church hath nothing to do with them nor can put forth any act eâ—â—er of Watch or Censure immedâ—ately upon them but upon their Parents onely But that Church-watch Government no Discipline is to be extended and administred to our Children personâ—lly and immediâ—aâ—ly i. e. according as in regard of age and understanding they are capable there f viz. Instruction and Inspection and that in an official way even in younger years aâ—d formal Censures when adult if they fâ—ll into such offences as do need â—nd deserve the same the Reader may finde confirmed in the Syâ—â—ds Arguments and in the following Defence thereof Haply the Aâ—sertion 〈…〉 mediate Church-care is â—â—eltered uâ—dâ—r that clause Those Châ—ldren that are in Minority Bâ—â— 1. Much help by Instructions Counsels Warnings Reproâ—fs Exhortations c. and that in an Authoritative way and upon the account of their Memberly Relation may be administred unto Children themsâ—lves immediately in their own pâ—rsons besides looking to Parents that they do their duâ—ies to them even while they are in their Minoriâ—y though not yet capable of publick Censures 2. They are in the same state and Relation to the Church though not of the same capacity when in minority and when adult If therefore not because of their natural incapacity but because of the nature of their Membership onely mediate and no Immediate Church-care Watch and Government belong to them while in minority neither doth it belong to them when adult and therefore this notion excludes all our Children both younger and elder from being under any Church-government immediately in their own persons So that let them run on in never such vile courses the Church cannot deal with them but with their Parents onely and yet the case may often so be that the Parents are neither blameable for their miscâ—rriages nor able to reform the same But as mediate as their Memberâ—â—ip is here is somewhat added that shall touch these adult Children themselves and what is that Why Iâ— when they 〈◊〉 be adult they do not bring forth fruits of Repentance and Faith then the Church is to disâ—wn them at having no part in the Lord. Ans. 1. Is this according to the Spirit of Christ or like the Lords proceeding with his Covenant-people in the Scripture presently to disown them and cast them off if some evil fruits nay if want of gâ—od fruits be 〈◊〉 in them then at first step to call them Loamâ—i and tell them they have no part in the Lord Hath the Lord vouchsâ—fed to take these persons into his gâ—orious Coveâ—â—nt and â—o real it to them in Baptism before Men and Angels and doth it come but to this that if poor Childreâ— as soon as the day of ripe understanding dâ—wns upon them do not bring 〈◊〉 the fruits of Faith and Repentance yea such fruits as may sit them for felâ— Communion they are then presently declared to be Discovenanted and to be turned dâ—ift as those who have no part in the Lord It is true the most hopeful Childe yea the best of us all might justly be Discovenanted by the Lord should he strictly mark what is amisâ— and deal accâ—rding to our deserts but he is graciously pleased not to proceed with 〈◊〉 severity but with much patience and long suffering towards those whom he once take into Covenant And who or what is man that he should be more holy then the Lord Let but that one Scripture be looked upon among many other touching the barren Fig-tree which is here cited as if it gave some countenance to this present Disowning in case of barrenness The Lord comes in the time and season of fruit and findes none and yet he waits another year after that and a third after that i. e. a long time and with great demonstration of patience before he speaks of cutting it down and then the Vine-dresser acted therein by the Spirit of God cries not Cut it down presently but Lord let it alone one year more i. e. till it appear utterly hopeless and incureable that I may dig about it and dung it He chooseth rather to make it a subject of Labour and Culture then to case himself by ridâ—â—ng his hands of it Also that Parable points to the People of the Iews to and among whom Chrâ—st preached Now the following story of the New Testament tells us that Christ and his Apostles wâ—ited on them till they appeared altogether incureable and incâ—rrigâ—â—e and till their incureable Barreâ—ness disâ—overed it self by pâ—sitive fruits of wicked opposing and rejecting the Gosâ—el before they were cut down or broken off And the Apâ—â—tles when they preached to the Adult and yet impenitent Iews did not tell them they had no part in the Lord but on the contrary expressly told them they had a part in the Lord and in his Covenant-dispensations and urged that as an Argument to â—raw them to repent and believe though they had not yet done it Acts 13.19.25 26. Acts 3.26 26. They were farre from being an occasion of making them cease from fearing the Lord by telling them they had no part in him 2. Suppose any of these Children when adult do bring forth some fruits of Faith and Repentance as those desâ—ribed in the Synods fifth Proposition can hardly be denied in charitable reputation to do though not so full and ripe fruits as were to be desired and haply not such as themselves do finde encourageâ—ent to approach to the Lords Table what shall be done to these shall they be Owned or Disowned are they In the Church or Out If In why is Baptism denied to their Children If Out how coâ—e they so to be or where doth God in his Word say or allow us to say to such hopeful young men and women as through grace many of our Children are though not yet in full Communion That they have no part in the Lord 3. Wâ—at is tâ—is Disowâ—ing and where shall we have Scripture-warrant for such a Church-disowning as is not Excommuniâ—ation for That our Bretâ—ren see not warrant to procâ—ed unto but 〈◊〉 down this Rule The Church is to disown them or having no part in the Lord If any man speak especiâ—lly if he speak Rules according to wâ—icâ— the Church is to practise let him speak as the Oracles of God It were needful that this disowning contradistinguished to Excommunication should be cleared from thence Admonition and Excommunication we hear plainly of in the Scripture and in Orthodox Divinity but a Disowning that is a kinde of publick Church-censure and yet is neither Admonition nor Excommunication this seems to be a new invented piece of Discipline We demand whether this Disowning be not a putting one out of the Church that was before in it If so what is it but Excommunication which the Apostle expresseth by that Put away from among you 1 Cor. 5.13 if not is
the Reverend Author doth more then once acknowledge and testify pag. 23 28 33 43 45. It were too long to transcribe all the words that are to this purpose in the Pages quoted but in sum there is thus much there affirmed and taught That the covenant in which Children are comprehended in their minority leaves them under engagement to duty and obedience when they become adult which if they do not accordingly perform they are then transgressors of the Covenant and breakers of it Now if they be breakers of it is it not thereby clear that they are comprehended in it and so what is here said by the Synod stands good Thus of the first Particular That the Parents in question are personal Members The second is That they are immediate Members as to the Essence of Membership i. e. that they themselves in their own persons are the immediate Subjects of this Adjunct of Church-membership though they come to it by means of their Parents covenanting For Proof whereof one thing alledged by the Synod is that Iohn 22.25 27. where the children are said to have a part in the Lord to which Church-membership is equivalent as well as the Parents and nothing coming between this Subject The Children so as to sever it from the Adjunct A part in the Lord therefore they conclude That the children are immediate Subjects of Church-membership or immediate Members Now what saith the Reverend Author unto this why that which he saith is That though nothing come between to sever that Adjunct from the Subject yet something comes between to bring that Subject and Adjunct together viz. The Parents covenanting for the childe which if it did not come between they would be severed as they are in otheâ— children Ans. But what is there in this to overthrow the Synods Assertion Do not they expresly grant in terms as plain as can be spoken and that more then once That the children come to this Adjâ—nct of Church-membership by means of their Parents covenanting See their words in their pag. 23. and therefore this can be no removing of what they have said being nothing but the very same with that which they have said before The question is not about the way or meanâ— of childrens Membership for it is freely yielded that in this respect it is Mediate that is they come unto it by means of the Parents covenanting but the question is about the Essâ—â—â—â— Nature or Kâ—mâ—e of their Membership whether in this respect it be not the same with the Parents and they as well as the Parents the immediate Subjects of it and the granting of the former is no deniall of this other If a Parent have room or place in such or such an house and his childe be there also though he come thither in the Parents arms yet may it not be said that this childe hath a place and being in the house as truly and as properly as the Parent although he came unto it by the Parents means Even so it is in the case in hand the childe comes to be in Covenant and so in the Church by the Parents covenanting yet now he is in the Church and in the Covenant and hath a room and place therein as truly and as properly as the Parent Again the Synod having said That their visible ingraffing into Christ the Head and so into the Church his Body is sealed in Baptism and that in ingraffing nothing comes between the graft and the stock their union is immediate The Reverend Author answereth That yet it will not follow that they are immediate Members of the visible Church Ans. And why will not this follow If their union with the Church be ingraffing and that in ingraffing nothing comes between the gâ—â—ft and the stock doth it not then follow that their union with the Church is immediate and they immediate Members of it For as for that which is here said That this union is not properly but metaphorically called ingraffing because there is some similitude here but Similitudes do run on four feet it sufficeth that they agree in the main point Ans. But how do they agree therein if for all this in graffing there be something between the stock and them Is it not a main point in ingraffing that the union between the branch and the stock be immediate and that nothing lye between them Who knoweth not that if it be not so but that some stock or stone or something else be between them so that their union be not immediâ—te who knoweth not that in such case the ingrâ—ffing is spoiled and the benefit of the branch interrupted because its union with the stock is not immediate If then the union of Members with the Church be â—â—graffing how can it be avoided but it must be immediate and so they be immediate Members As for that which is here subjoyned That infants and children in minority do partake of Baptism and other Priviledges by means of their Parents covenanting for them but adult persons by their personall covenanting for themselves and their seed This is nothing to the Essence of their Membership but onely speaks to the way and meanâ— how they come to it which is not the thing in question for it may be granted That children come to be Members by their Parents covenanting for them and the Parents by their own covenanting and yet their Membership notwithstanding this different way of attaining it may be one and the same for Essence and Kinde and both have immediate conjunction with the Church For that where the Synod saith That in Deut. 29.11 the children were personally and immediately part of the People of God or Members of the Church of Israel as well as the Parents The Answer of the Reverend Author is That the Text doth not prove it Ans. And yet the words are express and plain that they did all stand before the Lord to enter into covenant with him that he might establish them a people to himself and the persons of whom this is said are not onely the men of Israel but also their wives and their little ones So that if the men of Israel and their wives were personally and immediately Members of that Church their little ones for ought that appears were so also for they are all alike spoken of without difference Whereas the Synod said That to be in Covenant or to be a Covenantee is the formalis ratio of a Church-member and the children being in the Covenant are therefore the immediate Subjects of the formalis ratio of Membership and so immediate Members The Answer of the Reverend Author is That though to be in Covenant be the formalis ratio of a Church-member yet it will not follow that every Covenantee doth immediately covenant for himself nor that every Member of the Church is an immediate Member pag. 39. Ans. For the one of these viz. of Covenanting immediately for themselves the Synod never said nor meant that little children did so covenant nor
their Assent thereto â—hey are not scandalous in life they solemnly own the Covenant and therein give up themselves and their children to the Lord and is this such disloyalty as to be a cutting off the Covenant and entaâ—l of it we think it were hard to prove such a thing and do fear that Charity will not allow to affirm it Nor that which is here said in this pag. 41. That nothing is given to them and theirs by the Covenant whâ—â—h â—hey presume to usurp without warrant from God For 1. By the Covenant God gives himself to be a God to his People and to their seed in their generations Gen. 17. and shall we say this is nothing God is Almighty and All-sufficient and is it nothing to have such a God to be a God to us and to our seed 2. And when the persons in question are such as were Regularly in Covenant in their infanâ—â— by means of their Parents covenanting for them as the Reverend Author doth acknowledge how can their owning this Covenant when they become adult be justly counted a presuming to usurp the Covenant without warrant from God We reade of them that are blamed and that justly for forsakâ—ng the Covenant which God made with their fathers Deut. 29.25 Judg. 2.20 but that owning this Covenant should be a forsaking of it and an usurping of it without warrant from God and a presuming we do not see how this can be proved To some indeed the Lord saith What hast thou to do to take my covenant in thy moâ—th Psal 50 16. but doth the Lord say this to such as were qualified as in this fifth Proposition The contrary is most clear for these in this Psal. 50. are expresly called Wicked such as did hate to be instructed and reformed were culpable for consenting with Thieves partaking with Adulterers slandering and all evil speaking c. whereas the persons in question are not culpable for any such thing being expresly said to be Not scandalous in life but on the contrary furnished with many good and commendable qualifications and were regularly admitted into the Covenant in their minority and therefore being so unlâ—ke the persons that are blamed for takâ—ng Gâ—ds Covenant into their mouth we see no ground to say they have 〈◊〉 off the entail of the Covenant by their disloyalty and that nothing is given to them and theirs by it but that they presume to usurp it without waâ—rant from God we see no warrant from God so to say or think of such persons A Member saith the Synod is one that according to Rule or Divine Institution is within the visible Church They say true saith the Reverend Author but that refutes nothing that I have said concerning Mediate and Immediate Members for both are within the Church though both have not full communion with the Church in all Ordinances Ans. The Synod never said that all that are within the Church have such full communion and therefore this is nothing against them but if all Members be within the Church according to Divine Institution how can it be avoided but they are all immediate Members of the Church For if they be all within the Church then there is nothing as a Medium between the Church and them or any of them and so they are all immediate Members as the Synod saith Whether all have full communion is one thing and whether all be immediate Members is another and the denying of the former is no infringing of the latter The Synod having mentioned an Objection That if children be compleat and immediate Members as their Parents they shall then immediately have all Church-priviledges as their Parents have And making this Answer That it followeth not all priviledges that belong to Members as such do belong to the children as well as the Parents but all priviledges do not so A Member as such or all Members may not partake of all priviledges but they are to make progress both in memberly duties and priviledges as their age capacity and qualifications do fit them for the same To this the Reverend Author auswereth That their Answer to the Objection is insufficient for the best Members have need to make proÌ„gress in memberly duties and qualifications yet all have that communion that suits their membership Infants in Baptism c. and adult persons in the Seals Voting c. pag. 41 42. Ans. By this it seems the difference lies here that whereas some Church-members have communion in all Church-priviledges and others not in all but onely in some the Synod apprehends the reason of this difference to be because some are yet defective in qualifications and fitness for such full communion though not wanting compleat and immediate Membership But the Reverend Author makes the reason of the difference to be from the different kinde of Membership the one sort being onely Mediate Members and the other Immediate All have that communion for which they are qualified saith the Synod All have that communion which suits their Membership saith the Reverend Author For clearing of which Point it may not be a miss to consider of other Societies and how it is in them as that of the Family and of the Civil State in both which it is clear that all have not like communion in Priviledges but who can say that this ariseth from their different Membership in the Societies of which they are or how can it be denied but that this ariseth from their different qualifications An Infant an Idiot one Distracted or Distempered with Frenzy c. such cannot enjoy all priviledges in the Family or Civil State as others may and the reason is Because they are not fitly qualified but who can say they are not compleat and proper and immediate Members of the Family or State as well as others He that doth injury to such an one doth injury to one that is as truely and properly a member of the Society as those that are better qualified and such injuries are punishable with Death or otherwise as the nature of the offence doth require as being injuries to one that is truely and properly a personal and immediate Subject and Member of the Common-wealth though there might be many other Subjects better qualified In like sort in Church-society some may enjoy more full comâ—union then others and yet not as being more truely partakers of proper personal and immediate Membership but because they are better qualified Thus of the second Particular That the Parents in question are Immediate Members The third is That their Membership still continues in adult age and ceaseth not with their infancy 1. Because in Scripture persons are broken off onely for notorious sin or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief not for growing up to adult age Rom. 11.20 The Reverend Author answereth That this Reason doth not prove that the membership of all baptized in infancy continues in adult age Ans. Nor did the Synod so say nor produce that Reason and Scripture for such
purpose but their purpose therein was this viz. To prove that the Parents in question do still continue members which may be true though all 〈◊〉 are baptized in infancy do not For thus their Argument lies If persons be not broken off but for notorious sin or incorrigible in penitency and unbelief then the Parents in question are not broken off but do still continue members for any such notorious sin c. cannot justly be charged upon them witness the terms of the Proposition To this purpose is this Reason alledged by the Synod and therefore though the membership of â—ll baptized in infancy do not continue in adult age the Synod loseth nothing thereby aâ— having never affirmed any such thing But why doth not this Reason and Text prove the thing intended by the Synod The Reverend Author gives this Reason â—ecause that Text Rom. 11.20 speâ—k onely of such as have been received into membership by their personal faith and covenanting with the Church visibly A. The text clearly speaks of the people or nation of the Iews of whom it is said that they were a disobedient and gainsaying people Rom. 10 2â— that they as concerning the Gospel were enemies Rom. 11.28 that they killed the Lord Iesus and their own Prophets and persecuted the Apâ—stles pleased not God and were contrary to all men c. 1 Thess. 2.15 16. and shall we say that notwithstanding all this they were received into compleat and immediate membership by their personal faith c Besides it is not very credible that all the members of the Jewish Church were received into compleat and immediate membership by their personal faith if that be true which the Reverend Author said pag. 6. that That Church was to be propagated and continued by natuâ—â—â— generation in a lineall descent from Abraham by Isaac and Jacob tâ—ll the coming of Christ and that there was no Ordinance for casting out their members for sins against the Morall Law as there is under the Gospel pag. 12. Which things if true do import that visible faith was not the thing looked for in receiving the members of that Church nor in continuing of them but their natural generation and lineal dâ—scâ—nâ— might suffice How then can that stand which is here said that the persons spâ—kâ—n of in Râ—m 11.20 were such as were received into membership 〈…〉 when as that Text speaks of the members of the Church of the Jews who if the Reverend Authors apprehension be right were not so received but by lineal succession by natural generation Christian Churches differing from that Church and being of another sort as being to be propagated and continued by regeneration made visible by a right Confession and Profession of Faith pag. 6. The sum is this in the one place he makes it peculiar to Christian Churches to be propagated by Regeneration and 〈◊〉 â—â—sibly profâ—â—â—ed and that in the Church of the Jews it was otheâ—wise and in the other place which certainly speaks of the Church of the Jews he saith it speaks of embâ—â—â— received by â—her personal faith wherein there seems to be a repâ—gnancy Our 〈◊〉 of adult persons that break off themselves from the covenant by prâ—â—hâ—ne neglect or contempt of the Ordinances or unsâ—table conveâ—sâ—aâ—â— pag. 43. Ans. Then the Parents in question are not broken off at all but their membershâ—p 〈◊〉 continues as the Synod saith for the terms of the Proposition will not suffer such prophaneness and â—n empt of Oâ—â—â—nances and 〈◊〉 Conversation to be justly charged upon them and if there be the causes for which men are 〈◊〉 off is not then this reason of the Synod plainly confirmed and made good for they argue that the persons in question do still continue members because 〈…〉 notorious sin impenitency incorrigibleness and the like and here it is said that men are broken off by proâ—hâ—â—eness contempt of the Ordinances and unsuitable conversation which sayings are in effect the same or little different and both of them do witness that the persons spoken of are not broken off as not being guilty of any such wickedness or misdemeanours Who ever said that any were broken off for growing up to adult age Ans. If the persons described in the Proposition be said to be broken off what is this lâ—ss then the thing that is so disowned It cannot be denyed but they were once within the Church and it cannot be said that they are broken off for any Scandal in their conversation but coming up to the terms in the Proposition are far from such evil and on the contrary are furnished with many good and commendable qualifications as Knowledge Profession Sâ—â—jection to Christs Government owning the Covenant and the like Now if notwithstanding all this they be declared to be no Members of the Church but broken off from it though they were once in it what is this less then to say they are broken off by growing up to adult age And see Reply of the Reverend Author to this Argument p. 42. 2. Saith the Synod The Iews Children circumcised did not cease to be Members by growing up but continued in the Church and were by vertue of their membership received in Infancy bound unto various duties and in special to those solemn personal professions that pertained to adult Members not as then entring into a new membership but as making a progress in memberly duties Deut. 26.2 10. 16.16 17. Gal. 5.3 To this the Answer is 1. That the Iewes children circumcised were bound to various duties and to those solemn professions mentioned is clear enough by the Texts alledged and sundry other whereunto I willingly adde that Baptisme also bindeth the infant-seed of confederates to various Gospel-duties and especially this of using all mean c. Ans. And do not both these shew that which the Synod expresseth That children do not cease to be Members by growing up but do still continue in the Church for if it was so with the Jews children is it not also so with ours according to the Synods arguing and if by vertue of that membership received in infancy the circumcised then did and the Baptized now do stand bound to various duties when adult how can it be avoided but that membership received in infancy then did and now doth continue in adult age for when as long as one stands bound by a covenant then and so long that covenant must needs remain in being for otherwise how could one stand bound by it can one be bound by that which is not in being one would think this were not possible Therefore by this being bound by the covenant and membership received in infancy to various duties when adult it appeareth that the covenant and membership received in infancy doth still continue in adult age and so the purpose of the Synod is gained But 2. saith the Reverend Author It is not proved by those texts that wâ—â—n they were adult they did not enter into a new membership rather the contrary
appears by Deut. 26.17 18. Ans. If so then they did every third Year enter into a new membership for the Reverend Author conceives that what is said to be done in Deut. 26 17 18. was done every third Year as before â— 31 but who knows not that the same persons or people may many a time enter into covenant or renew their covenant with God and yet not thereby enter into so many new memberships It seems by Psal. 50.5 where it is said They have made a covenant with me by sacrifice that so oft as sacrifice was offered so oft there was a covenant made between God and them and yet it will not follow that at every time of sacrificing there was an entring into a new membership it may suffice to say as the Synod doth that at all such times there was a progâ—â—sâ— in memberly duties But why should we think that the Covenant in Deut. 26. was entring into a new Membership The Reason rendred is this Because they entred into the Covenant personally and immediately not in and by their Parents as they did in infancy Gen. 17.7 And if Covenanting be the Form of Church-membership then a different Form of Covenanting makes a different kinde of Membership Mediate and Immediate Covenanting makes Mediate and Immediate Members Ans. But is this certain that a different way of covenanting makes a different kinde of membership In Gen. 15. there is covenanting by diviâ—ing the heâ—feâ— the goâ— c. in the midst and passing between the pieces or parts and so in Jer. 34. In Gen. 17. there is covenanting by silence and falling upon the face in Nehem. 9.38 there is covenanting by Writing and Sealing of it in 2 Chron. 15. by Swearing with a loud voice and by engaging that â—hosoever should not do as is there promised should be put to death Here we see are various wayes of covenanting but shall we say that these do infer divers kinds of membership then it would follow that if the same persons or people should divers times enter into Covenant or renew their Covenant and this sometimes in one of these wayes and sometimes in another if a different form of covenanting do make a different kind of membership it would follow that the same persons and people might many times over again and again enter into a new kinâ— of membership which we suppose none will affirm and therefore this that is here said will not hold the thing for essence and Kind may be the same when the way and manner of doing may be various Moreover covenanting taken for our act in making or renewing the covenant is not the form of membership this is but the instrumental efficient but covenant-interest or to be in covenant is the formalis ratio of membership that is it which the Synod affirms pag. 24. and that is the immediate actual and proper portion of the children as well as of the Parents The third Argument of the Synod is From the Relation of born Servants and Subjects by which the Scripture sâ—â—s forth the state of children in the Church Levit. 25 41 42. Ezek. 37.25 which relations as all men know do noâ—â—easâ— with infancy but do continue in adult age and â—ince it also follows that one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when growâ— up c. pag. 25 26. The Answer to this is That the one of these Texts is typical figuring the tâ—â—e of grace whereby now Christ hath freed us from the servitude of Sin and Satan c. the other Text is a Prophecy of the calling of the Elect nation of the Iews and of the state of the Church under the New Ierusalem and therefore these do neither of them suit the thing in question Ans. But for the present nothing appears to the contrary but they may be suitable yet if the thing it self for which those Texts are alledged be sound and good the Inference which the Synod makes is so also though the Texts were not so apt For if the children in the Church be in state as born Servants and Subjects to Christ then this state and relation and so their membership doth not cease with infancy but continues in adult age And we hope the Reverend Author will not deny but for state they are as born Servants and Subjects to Christ though he thinks the Texts quoted are not apt Proofs for it but if the thing be not denied the Argument of the Synod stands good for the continuance of their membership Grant them to be in the state of born Servants and Subjects in their infancy and then it must be granted that this state continueth when they are adult and so their membership doth not cease with their infancy deny that their membership continueth when adult and then it must be said either that their state in infancy is not as born Servants and Subjects or that such relations do cease with infancy But for the Reverend Author he expresly grants That one special end of membership received in infancy is to leave persons under engagement to service and subjection to Christ in his Church when grown up when they are fittest for it and have most need of it pag 43. which is the very same that is here affirmed by the Synod and doth not that hence follow which the Synod inferreth That therefore their membership did not cease with infancy but doth still continue It seems to follow unavoidably for how can they when adult or grown up be under engagement to service and subjection as the end of membership received in infancy if that membership do not still continue but together with their infancy be now past and gone If they be still under engagement then their Covenant doth still continue and consequently their Membership Yet when all this is done neither can the Parents nor the Church give grace unto the children that when they become adult they may be spiritually fit for personal and immediate membership and to bring them into it without such fitness visibly is to prophane the Ordinances and to pollute the Lords Sanctuary pag 44. Ans. It is true none can give grace but God who is the God of all grace but for bringing the adult persons spoken of into membership we conceive there is no such thing here intended by the Synod nor can be spoken of in any propriety of speech concerning the persons in question they being such as were Members from their infancy and are accounted by the Synod still to continue members now when adult and therefore there is no bringing of them into membership That which is here spoken of were more aptly called an acknowledging of them to be members and how the acknowledging of such persons as the Proposition describes to be and continue members can be judged a prophanation of the Ordinances or a polluting of the Lords Sanctuary we confess we do not understand for we