ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANTISYNODALIA AMERICANA, A TREATISE Printed in Old England, In the Name of the DISSENTING BRETHREN In the SYNOD held at Boston in New England 1662.  
Tending to Clear the ELDERS and CHURCHES of New England from those Evils and Declinings charged upon many of them in the two Prefaces before the said Book.  
Together with AN ANSWER UNTO The Reasons alleged for the Opinion of the Dissenters.  
And a REPLY to such Answers as are given to the Arguments of the SYNOD.  
By JOHN ALLIN, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Dedham in N. England.  Rom. 3.1, 2. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumcision? Much every way: chief, because that unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Gal. 3.27, 28. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither Bond nor Free, there is neither Male nor Female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Heb. 12.15, 16. Looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God, left any root of bitterness springing up, trouble you, and thereby many be defiled. Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for a morsel of meat sold his Birthright. 
Cambridge: Printed by S.G. and M. J. for Hezekiah Usher of Boston. 1664.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Such is the Infirmity and Corruption of Man, the Malice and Subtlety of Satan the Enemy of Truth, Purity, and Peace, and the holy and just Dispensation of God Permitting and Ordering all things to his most glorious Ends; that frequent Experience showeth how hard it is for a People desirous to walk in all the ways of God, to steer a right course between the Gulf of Profaning the Ordinances by an overloose Dispensation thereof, on the one hand; and the Rocks of Rigid Separation, Anabaptism, and the like, on the other hand.  
And hence it may seem the less strange, that (notwithstanding the Eminent Lights we have had, holding forth The Covenant-interest of the Church-seed, and The Duty of Churches to improve the Ordinances for their good) yet the Practice hereof hath not obtained in many of our Churches.  
That this Case is now become matter of public Dispute between the late Synod, and some Dissenting Brethren; though it be cause of Humiliation, yet we desire herein to submit to the only wise God, hoping and waiting upon Him to see the Improvement thereof for good, and for the further clearing up unto us what is His good, perfect, and acceptable Will in this case.  
When these Antisynodalia of our Brethren came to our hands, and Another Essay of the same nature was here Published, some godly and wise Christians advised the Elders to let them ●ass in silence; conceiving that they would not so take with the People, as to hinder the Practice of the Doctrine of the Synod: and that a Reply would occasion further Disputes and Contests. But, upon serious consideration of the matter by divers Elders met to that End, the Reasons on the other side did preponderate. Such as these.  
1. We being persuaded of the Doctrine of the Synod, and not finding any Weight in those Tractates to change our Judgements, it seemed to us, that by silence we should be sinfully wanting to the Truth of God, (a present Truth that many godly ones are enquiring into) and to the Just Interest of the Church-seed.  
2. This Truth being asserted in so Solemn an Ordinance, viz. The Assembly of the Elders, and other Messengers of so many Churches, after solemn seeking the Face of God, and much search into the Scriptures, with large Disputes about the same; Our silence in this case would not only render that Ordinance useless and vain at present, but also discourage the Churches in aftertimes to make use thereof for their necessary Establishment in Truth and Peace.  
3. We see evidently, that the Principles of our Dissenting Brethren give great Advantages to the Antipoedobaptists, which if we be silent, will tend much to their Encouragement and Increase, to the Hazard of our Churches.  
4. These Treatises coming into the People's hands, if no Answer should be returned, will much strengthen the hands of such as are Dissenters, and discourage the hearts of others from the Practice of the Doctrine of the Synod, for the good of Posterity.  
5. Those unjust Aspersions cast upon many of the Elders and Churches of New-England in the two Prefaces to the Antisynodalia, do tend much to weaken the Authority of their Ministry and Dispensations, and would lay them under much Scandal in Old-England and New, should not a just Apology and Answer be made thereunto.  
For these and the like Reasons, it was thought necessary to return a just Answer to these Books, published in Opposition to the Doctrine of the Synod. But that my Brethren should have any eye upon myself to undertake this part of the Work; viz. To Examine, and make Reply to these Antisynodalia, was very fare from my thoughts. Yet when I could by no Persuasions and Entreaties prevail with them, to Call out some other more able for this Work (whereof we had choice) I considered, that the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, and that the Lord is not wont to deny Assistance to such as he calleth forth to any Service; yea, that He delighteth to show His strength in weakness: In hope hereof, I have by his Grace and Help run through these Antisynodalia, in my plain and homely manner (loving always to speak to vulgar Capacities) wishing hearty it had been done by some better hand, that might have performed it more throughly. This only I have to say for myself, That I have not willingly declined any seeming strength of Reason, nor sought by Shifts and Evasions to darken any seeming Light of Truth held forth in these Antisynodalia; but have Candidly (according to my measure) Searched the Scripture whether those things were so. As I have believed, so have I spoken: As I find in the Law and Testimony, so have I written. What weaknesses and defects may be discovered by a more judicious Eye, I hope (through Grace) I shall be willing to see and reform upon intimation thereof; only let no Truth herein held forth, be the less esteemed for the Infirmity of the Instrument.  
I shall commit this Case of the Church-seed unto that God, who of his rich Grace hath undertaken to be their God; Beseeching Him to make his Ways plain before the face of his People, and to improve these Disputes to common Edification, according to the good pleasure of his will.  
Thine in the Lord, JOHN ALLIN. From my Study in Dedham in N.E. 6 day, 11 mon. 1663.   

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ANTISYNODALIA AMERICANA.  

CHAP. I. Being Animadversions upon the two Prefaces: 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 buried 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 earnest and resolute one of the chief of them was to have it Published.  
Concerning the Objections here mentioned: The three first, from The s●a 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 uns asonably, (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, than this Preface holdeth forth. So that so fare as I conceive, it is the act of one of them only, or chief.  
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 than 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 publicly 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 fare 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 Wisdom to countenance and encourage a Party rising 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 Plymouth 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, Plymouth, etc. as if these were not New-England Churches. As for those Foreign 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 only 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 Privileges; 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 giveth right to Outward Privileges 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 in 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 Privileges, they are Felones de se, Self-m●rtherers, Discovenanted of God, and are not so much as federally holy, so soon as they be out of their Nonage; 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 Bay 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 than that of the Pharisees, Luke 7.29, 30. disannulling the counsel of God against themselves, and so many hundred poor Infants whom the Kingdom 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 ca●fication; which in this case cannot be put in practice, especially 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 baptised of John, whether such as would practise 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 only a progress in practising according thereunto, as the increase 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, etc. with 10.1, etc. 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 days of Joshua to the days of Nehemiah, was neglected so many hundreds of years, we do not read 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, than the other is irregular, and brought guiltiness to many of the Body and Blood of Christ, and was eating and drinking judgement to ourselves.  
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 public 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 steadfastness 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, etc. The Author pleading possession of another manner of dispensing the Ordinances, and that bought at a great rate, The loss of Native Land, Father's Houses, etc. 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 God's gracious Covenant and Ordinances, and then to deny them and their seed the Benefits thereof? to leave them at a lose 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 fare otherwise. Yea, of 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 only that they may enjoy the Privileges 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 Baptise 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 when they 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 Minister's were of the Synods mind. 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 soldier with Parish Churches.  
Ans. If this be meant in respect of Communion with Orthodox Parish Churches, we are no larger than 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 enlarging the Church to the Bounds of a Parish, it is a mere 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 mind. It lieth upon the Author to make good this charge, or to recant his rashness.  
2. He affirmeth, That the general Judgement of the learned Elders, and their Practice, was as the Dissenters plead; but now divers of those Elders do retreat and recant.  
To prove this, he allegeth 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 sanct●fied, are not federally 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 show 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 alleged to prove a consent with the Anabaptists, as with the Dissenters; which was fare 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? alleging the same Texts, Eph. 1.1, etc. Where then is this Recantation?  
Sixthly, The Author of this Preface excusing the Paucity of the 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 inquire.  
Ans. Were not Paul, Barnabas, and others, as much engaged in the Doctrine of that Synod Acts 15? and did they come after V●ws to inquire? 2. Were not the Dissenters as much pre-engaged in their Opinion? why then did they come after Vows to inquire?  
2. It is Objected, That divers Messengers being no Logicians to answer Syllogisms, and discern Ambiguities, were overborn by the many Opposers.  
Ans. It is incongruous and too high▪ to make the Body of the Synod the Op●osers, which more fitly agree to th' few Dissenters. 2. Though divers were not such Logicians, yet Charity might allow the choice Members of our Churches to be able to judge of Arguments drawn from the Scriptures; and so fare conscientious, as that discerning the Voice of Christ, they would not be born down with number of Opposers. To say nothing of the Logic 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 straighter way be never so clear; especially when persons eminent in 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; Cha●●y, that hopeth all things, might well conceive that Grace would prevail above such a Corruption. 2 If our Brother be not ware 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 to plack 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 straighter way, yet I suppose this Brother doth not judge it his corruption, to choose a way somewhat larger. So is the way of the Seekers and others, who think their straighter ways 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; alleging the Savoy Meeting, Chap. 29. Of Baptism 4. Yet, saith he, there needs abundant confirmation: for no doubt this temptation will spread further, when more than the third part of the Stars of Heaven here are swept down, as is Prophesied Rev. 12. etc. 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 steadfast 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, is this: Not only those that do actually profess Faith in, and Obedience unto Christ; but also the Infants of one or both believing Parents, are to be Baptised, and those only. 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 it, not destroying their Profession by Errors 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 Errors, nor unholiness of life; holding the Doctrine of Faith, and not being scandalous in life. So that for aught 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 steadfast 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 inquire into the Truth and Grounds of so deep a Charge, laid upon more than the third part of the Stars, the Lights set up in the Churches of New-England.  
Is it the present Doctrine of this Synod, enlarging 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 fast the Faith and Order of the Gospel, doth plainly intimate, that not only more than 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 loath 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 fallen so fare as many bright Stars of the first Magnitude, that have shined gloriously in the Churches; such as Calvin, 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 fallen no further than blessed C●ton, Th●lip, Shepard, Ro●ers, and others of the Bay Churches: Famous Hooker and Stone of Connectico●, Prudden of New-Haven, Partridge and Newman of Plymouth, with divers other Lights in N●w-England, of whom I am persuaded 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 Baptised, which is not so strict a Tenent as they would have.  
4. But if this so great a Charge be laid upon more than 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 Error about the Subject of Baptism) before he should cast so great a Scandal upon them before the face of the world; even an Heretic 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 mouths 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, Lose Ways, and the like: Neither will I justify 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, than the Synod doth hold forth: But God forbidden we should judge them to be swept down from Heaven, that differ from us in greater matters than 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 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 than 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 distasteful 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 find Stakes and Materials to edify God's 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 than is true, is said of that and other things. The Lord help such as profess such steadfastness in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, to walk up to the Rules of Gospel-Order and Charity, more than this Brother hath done.  
Thus much to the first Preface. Concerning the second, To the General Court, I shall Animadvert only 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 so fare, 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 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 only reach them at the second hand, viz by their Parents, as was said by some in the Meetinghouse, to which they refer, pag. 23. And if Excommunication, that healing Medicine of Christ for the destruction of the flesh, and saving of the So●l, 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 than 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 God's People, and the children of strangers, uncircumcised in heart, shall be brought into God's Sanctuary to pollute 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 God's 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? And (say they) there is the whole Church's Communion in Baptism, as well as in the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 12.13. If then they would keep them out of the fellowship of God's People, they must join with those that shut that door against all Infants by which they entered; for if they be unbelievers that are so qualified as in Proposition the fifth, then surely they were so when they were Baptised. 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 Brethren, is not about their Admission into the fellowship of God's 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 God's People, but as they are regularly fit; neither do the Synod continue them in that fellowship, any longer than they walk orderly, without deserving the Censures of the Church. Ezek. 44. speaks of strangers amongst the children of Israel, such as Tobiah, Neh 13.4 etc. 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 add, 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 God's gracious answer to the Prayers of the Synod 1662. in sending Rain so speedily and sweetly, might not only 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 Popish Cantons imputed the death of Zuinglius and ●ecolampadius to the just Judgement of God upon them for causing their Troubles, the Historian hath this Observation upon it: It is (saith he) a pious 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 Wisdom, is not fare from Presumption. Men are so straightly and religiously wedded to their own Opinions, that they are persuaded God loveth and favoureth them as much as themselves. Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 60. But if we must needs take notice of the dealing, of God with Non-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 befallen us, have we not had as heavy Strokes many ways formerly? And have we not Sins enough that are evident, to humble us under the Lord's hand, as deserving these and greater evils, but we must needs apply them as Judgements of God to this (falsely so called) Change, and brand the constant Doctrine of God's eminent Messengers amongst us, as a New 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 Apology. 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 Scandalised 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 find out the Truth, as becometh the Cause of CHRIST, and without such harsh Reflections upon men's persons! The want of this is a Lamentation, and shall be for a Lamentation.   

CHAP. II. Concerning our brethren's Answer to the main Question.  
COncerning The Order of this Treatise, I need not trouble the Reader; nor concerning their two Propositions premised. Who doubteth that Baptism is a Seal of the Gospel, and to be administered according to Gospel-Rules? Or, that the surest way to end Controversies, is to find out how it was in the beginning? Only 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 joined to the Church, and to be Baptised, should hold forth Faith and Repentance to the judgement of Charity, and that in some particular visible Church? nor, Whether the Infant-seed of such are to be Baptised? 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 Baptised?  
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 Controversy is issued. To this end I shall premise three things, which being proved by the Word of God, will make my way plain and easy through all these Antisynodalia.  
Propos. 1 That however the Membership of the seed of the Faithful be conveyed to them by their Parents instrumentally, yet it flows from, and is grounded upon God's Institution, as the principal Efficient 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 days 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 Parent's Faith, Profession, or Covenanting to bring in their seed, but it dependeth wholly upon God's Freegrace, 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 Gospel-times is by Church-censures. Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5.  
Propos. 2 There is a twofold Dispensation of the Covenant of God in his visible Church: 1. Outward and visible, by which the Lord bestows upon his Church, and all the Members thereof, the outward Privileges 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 God's People, His Children, A Royal Priesthood, Holy Nation, Saints, etc. 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, Rom. 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 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 ways, to Love him with all their hearts, etc. 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 mouths, Psal. 50. rejects their Sacrifices, Isa. 1. & 58. calleth them Uncircumcised, Ethiopians, etc. 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.  
Propos. 3 There is a different Rule and Reason of admitting Members into the visible Church, and the continuation of them in it, being regularly admitted. In Admitting 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 in 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 lest 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 Heretic 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 thing in order, which is our brethren's Answer to the main Question● viz. Who are the Subjects of Baptism? To which their Answer i● this:  
That visible Believers and Converts in full Communion with an instituted Church, (being unbaptised) together with their next seed in minority, are the proper and immediate Subjects of Baptism, as to the receiving of it. For the proof of this, they refer to the places before alleged, Mat. 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 Scriptures; 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 unbaptised) to whom Christ, in the Gospel-institution of Baptism, hath appointed it. Therefore visible Believers, etc.  
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 cavil against it, it will be found true at the Day of Judgement, etc.  
Ans. God forbidden, that in searching after the Truth we should Cavil 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 Minor: 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 only such, were to be Baptised. This of Full Communion our Brethren thought would advantage their Cause, and so have put it in: but it is a mere 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 Baptised before their Full Communion: For, 1. Peter called them to be Baptised upon the ground of the Promise, ver. 38. 2. They were Baptised, 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 unbaptised, by that word (being unbaptised:) but the truth is, that our brethren's confidence in this Argument will be found so greatly to fail them, that whilst by it they seek to straiten The Subject of Baptism, beyond the Doctrine of the Synod, they destroy and take away the whole Subject itself 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 unbaptised. 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 unbaptised. I hope this Answer is plain, and no Cavil.  
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 Baptised 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 Baptised? 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 does not see the weakness of such an Answer? and the like is this case, Baptism being the Seal of God's Covenant with his Church, whereby we are Baptised into one Body. 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 a state 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 add further, It is true, that to admit adult persons into the Church, and to Baptism, visible Faith is required; and so much the Texts alleged prove: but this is not the case in Dispute between us, but About persons already in the Church, and Baptised, whether in such, the ground of Baptising 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 ways, that there is in them no sap or savour 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 Baptised? If it be granted, than 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 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 That Covenant-Promise which God made with Abraham, as appeareth by that parallel place, Acts 3. where ver. 19 Peter exhorts to Repentance, as in chap. 2.38. and chap. 3.25. he useth the same Reason in other words, You are the children of the Covenant which God made 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 feed 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 Baptizsed in the Gospel-dispensation, than 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 Baptised, 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 add 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 only what adult persons should be, in joining to the Church, and the seed of such so converted and joined, which hath reference to their first joining to the Church; not denying, that being once regularly joined, they may after have their seed Baptised, 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 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's Notes upon the first and second Proposition.  
IN the first Proposition our Brethren only give an Explication of the word Visible Church, taking the word Church as a Genus 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 intent 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 fare 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 left? 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 Baptising 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 the more fully to it. And first it appeareth, the Scripture numbers them amongst Believers, if it doth not also expressly 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 Infidels: And no doubt 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, etc. as those Acts 2. God's Rule accepts of such as Believers, and so must the Church, though the Lord seethe 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, etc. 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 numbered them with Believers. So when we are said to be Baptised 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 saith, Of such is the Kingdom of God; doth the Kingdom of God belong to Unbelievers? If it be said, It is their Parent's Faith that is accepted for them, not any thing in their own persons: I answer, If so, that God will accept the Parent's Faith and Profession in their name and stead, as a Public Person covenanting for them; yet this is God's free and preventing Grace towards the seed and doth engage their persons to the Duties of the Covenant, to avouch God for their God, etc. and therefore they are actually and personally in Covenant with God, as well as their Parents.  
3. I add 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 fare, 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 doubt 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 impenitency 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 only federally holy; others that have taken hold of the Covenant, are sanctified in Christ Jesus, 1 Cor. 6.11. These have a Parental and partial Right, nor complete 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.  
Ans. 1. Let it here be applied what was said of their Faith in God's 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 feed the object of God's choice? 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 entire) is this: Children of the faithful are to be numbered 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 Privileges, until 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 Imperfect Members, in respect of the relation of Membership, but in respect of acts of Communion: Even as a child of the family is not so perfect to do the work, & enjoy all the Privileges 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 things as belong to the beginning of Faith, and to be admitted to acts of Communion, as the increase of their Faith appeareth: He thought of no other and new Membership to entitle them to all Ordinances, but that, to come to them by their Covenant in Infancy. What can be more full, to show his concurrence with the Synod?  
Object. But Membership is a word of Relation, and therefore cannot admit of degrees of more or less.  
To this our Brethren Answer, That it is a clear exception from the general Rule, That such Relations, the foundation whereof is Quality or Action, do 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, etc.  
Reply. The Authors of this Distinction are not so authentic, but that it may be examined by the Rules of right Reason. And first it confoundeth all Logical Arguments, making Cause and Effect, yea comparata, to be Relates, 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 Logicians.  
But how is this Exception applied to this case?  
In both which respects (say our Brethren) the Membership of the Infant's Faith, and act of Confederation being grounded on the Parent's Faith, is rightly distinguished from the Membership of such as are adult, which is grounded on their own Faith and Confederation.  
Reply. What dependence 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 only two degrees of Membership?  
2. There is no such diversity of the Foundation of Membership, as should thus distinguish these Members; the Foundation is one and the same, viz. The Freegrace of God in his Covenant, extended both to Parent and Child, Gen. 17.7, 9 I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed: The way of entering into this Covenant on man's part, is only a differing modus 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 Child, the Child 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 than 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 find no such distinction of Parental and Personal Covenant, that should make two sorts or kinds 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 God's 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 Acts 2.38, 39 with Chap. 3.25. Gal. 3. In that place, I say, the Lord calleth it My Covenant, seven times, and that in respect of Abraham's 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. I entered 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, etc.) By Baptism, the Seal of the covenant, we are all Baptised 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 Baptised into this Body as actual and personal Members, some not actual nor personal; some into a parental covenant, some personal? What a Schism might this make? some saying, I am not actually of the Body, though Baptised 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 Baptised into Christ, and are all one in Christ.  
2. I find, 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 God's 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 numbered by Moses and Eleazar, when all that were numbered 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 expressly 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 only with them; or, not with us as wrapped up with, 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 fathers that 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, Privilege, 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. Leu. 26.44, 45. I will not abhor them, etc. 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 God's 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 expressly 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 baptised 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 God's Covenant, as is said: there is but a differing modus, or manner of entering 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 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 Explicite and Implicit, there is still but one sort of Churches or Covenants: So the Church is either Incomplete, without Officers, or Complete, 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 entailed to a thousand generations.  
Ans. What our brethren's Parental Covenant can do, I know not, but surely God's 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 intall 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 God's 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 Parent's 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 God's Covenant to capacitate their seed to Baptism, or Establish a People, but from their rejecting of the Covenant, 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 those children that should transmit 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 Abraham, so long as they continued in the visible Covenant, they were accepted 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 allege Acts 2.38, 39 which, they say, restrains Baptism to the next seed of such Parents as manifest Repentance and Effectual calling, and is of more weight than any Argument from farfetched and uncertain 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 be granted that is here said, yet suppose such visible Converts discover afterward no sap or savour of Grace, to the fairest Charity, but continue still in the Church, shall not their seed be Baptised? or must every Church-member hold forth a Profession of Repentance at the Baptism of every child? I suppose our Brethren will not so affirm; and if so, than a Church-member, though not apparently a true Penitent, may have his seed Baptised. As for farfetched Consequences from the Old Testament, the following Discourse will show, 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 Privileges are only continued to the seed of the next Parents, that continue in the Covenant, and are not broken off.   

CHAP. IU. 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 only that the Church-watch, in the dispensation of it, should reach unto their persons: which was publicly expressed in the Meetinghouse 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 Baptised into the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.13. And shall we Baptise actually, such as are not actually in the Covenant? 2. They are personally under the Watch and Government of the Church, 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 only. Yea, thus to reach their persons, is no more than 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 Child.  
Secondly, (say they) By Discipline, we do not intent 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 intent a Discipline ineffectual to Christ's ends: for what are Admonitions unregarded, without that Censure to set them home? Mat. 18. Excommunication is not to cast out of full communion only, 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 sovereign 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 mere 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 awful 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 Christ's Discipline, are acts of the love and compassion of Christ and his Church to the Souls of offenders, to seek their Repentance and Salvation, 1 Cor. 5.2. 2 Cor. 2.6, 7, etc.  
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 refer 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 Christ's 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 Peter's meaning, to disown him as no Member of the visible Church, and it be an Example to be imitated, than any Member discovering hypocrisy 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, than 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 pass on; and seriously entreat our dear Brethren, and all of their mind, 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 Christ's Flock. 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, Leu. 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. & 3. Micah 6. Psal. 81.8, etc. So in the New Testament, the Ministry of the Word, and other Ordinances, are given to the Visible Church for their Salvation, 1 Cor. 12.28. Ephes. 4.11, etc. and Discipline to reduce and save offenders.  
2. Consider the Wonderful 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 Prophet's 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 threatened 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? etc. my Repenting are kindled together, Hos. 11.8. So Christ, O Jerusalem, how oft would I have gathered thee, as an Hen her Chickens? etc. Mat. 23.37. How did he Weepover Jerusalem, saying, O that thou hadst known at least in this thy day! etc. Luke 19.41. This is God's way. But what is our brethren's 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 fare unlike this is to God's Way, who doth not see? And I must confess 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 Church-members admitted in minority, understanding the Doctrine of Faith, and publicly 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, than 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 only 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 only for notorious sins, etc. 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 to a period.  
Reply. 1. If our Brethren would out 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, until such Accessaries 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 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 Church's Patience, and therefore not broken off.  
And seeing our Brethren come thus fare, 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, with 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 only 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. saith, Not only for notorious sins, etc. yet it showeth how the Jews were broken off, which we know was for Notorious sins, and Incorrigible Impenitency, and Unbelief. And let any show, that any have been broken off, or by Rule may be so, for Negative unbelief, without Impenitency added. The contrary we find 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. & 16. 16-17. Gal. 53. 
Ans. The circumcised Jews did not cease to be Members simply for growing up, but for growing out of kind. Jer. 2.21. They became degenerate Plants. Amos 9.7. Children of the Negroes; Bastard Branches to be cut off, Joh. 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 Reform; 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 days of Vzziah King of Judah, and Joash the son of Jeroboam King of Israel, in whose days 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 expressly said to be in Christ. So that these places speak nothing of the ceasing of Church-membership 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 Entering into Covenant, is a mistake: for, the Synod speaks of Entering into a new Membership, not denying the phrase of Entering into, or Renewing the Covenant.  Reas. 3. Those Relations of Bond-servants and Subjects, which the Scripture maketh use of to set 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 Bondwoman may cease in adult age, as Ishmael; much more of the Bond-servant.  
Reply. The Relation of Ishmael ceased not by growing up to 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 o● Jubilee, 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, saith the Lord. So that there is the like reason in God's 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 fare, we know that the Moral Wickedness of Murder, 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 ways of the cessation of Church-members; they may Excommunicate themselves (as Mr. Cotton, The Assembly at the Savoy, and Dr. Ames affirm.) Also by Withdrawing; sometimes commanded of God, 2 Tim. 3.5 Rom 16.17. Also by Apostasy, 1 Joh. 2.19. By Heresy, as Arrians, Quakers, etc.  
Reply. 1. If these adult children may Excommunicate themselves, than 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 itself 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 doubt 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 all 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 Governor of the Church, by the appointment of God. And of Esau it is expressly 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 Heretics and Apostates: which some call Excommunicati de Jure, that hindereth not but that they may, and aught to be Excommunicated in Fact also. But if we speak of Gospel-times, wherein the Lord Jesus hath so expressly instituted Church-censures, for the saving of Offenders, and purging of his Churches; and hath confirmed the same with such Promises, to B●nde and Lose in Heaven, what is Bound and Loosed on Earth, Mat. 18. I conceive (with due respect to the Authors alleged) 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 aught to dispense the Censures to him, as the case shall require. My Reasons are:  
Reason 1 1. From the Ends of Church-Discipline; 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 fall testimony against Scandals, 2 Sam. 12.14. 2 Cor. 7.11. You have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter: For the Example and Terror 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; than 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 Terror of others: yea, who knoweth how fare the Lord may improve it upon the sinner for his good?  
Reason 2 2. If in Scripture-patterns, the worst of Heretics and Blasphemers were laid under Censures, notwithstanding their supposed Self-Excommunication, than 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, etc.  
Reason 3 3. That Position that openeth a door for Church-members to evade and frustrate Church-Discipline, 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 Church-censures 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, to 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 Keys out of the hands of the Church, and Censure the whole Church, (as oft they do) and the Church hath no Power to lay any Punishment upon him for it.  
And hence those Scriptures alleged Hebr. 10.21. 1 John 2.19. may receive a just Answer; for, that Forsaking of the assembling of themselves, and Going out, doth not exempt them from Church-censures, 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 by Christ for such Offenders?  Reas. 5. These adult persons are Members or Non-members; if Non-members, than 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.  
Ans. 2. They may deserve Censures, though not put upon them.  
R●ply. 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, if 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, merely 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 publicly and personally Covenanted, that are not in full Communion? The Negative they prove:  
Reas. 1. Because public 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 privileges of that Subject, which in this case is full Communion. Hence the Form introduced, and the Covenant personally owned, doth necessarily imply all the privileges belonging●th reunto.  
Ans. Every Public and Personal Covenanting is not the Form of Church-membership. The Covenant was oft renewed, publicly owned, or Entered into, by such as were Members of the Church before; as in Deut. 29. and other Scriptures, 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. 17.7. 1 Cor. 12.13. and therefore this Owning of the Covenant, is only 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 withal they hold out such Qualifications as the Word of God requires 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 Privileges 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 merely 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.  
Ans. There is not the same reason; for they were admitted in adult age, and also endued with eminent Gifts of the Holy Ghost: These being admitted in Infancy, do only 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 only of such adult persons as were Baptised in infancy, not to be Baptised in adult age. It supposeth only that persons Baptised 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 Baptising of In●ants; or, That Infants Baptised 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 publicly 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 Baptised.  
" This Proposition (say our Brethren) doth stumble us most. Their Reasons are:  
Reas. 1. Because, there being three Expressions propounded, this swerveth further than the other from the Scripture.  
Ans. Be it granted, that several terms and expressions of these Qualifications were propounded; these only 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 than 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 Holiness, Righteousness, Sabbaths, etc.  
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 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? Judas ver. 3. Contend for the Faith; was not that Faith opposed to the fi●●●y Dreamers that sinned against the Moral Law? and therefore surely 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 The 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 only matters of Order? But what need more Instances, when the Preface to this Book telleth the world of A few Names that are steadfast 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.  
A●s. 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 show their Continuance in the visible Church? What if the Devils may give an Assent to the Truth? it is not free, but enforced; and they want all the other Qualifications, that these have.  
Obj. 3. The former required, that they should give Satisfaction for any Offence they had fallen into; here, only that they are not Scandalous in life. The former, viz. Offences, comprehend Original Sin, or any other committed against God or man, Jam. 3 2. Scandal in lif●, noteth only 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 man? A practice that the Apostle condemneth in that very place alleged, Jam. 3 1. Be not many masters; for in many things we offend all: 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, 1 Cor. 13.7. Love beareth all things. Gal. 6.2. Bear one another's burdens. 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 repent 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, only the Covenant: which may extend to Grandfathers, etc.  
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 only by the next Parents, 1 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 kind of Members as these.  
Ans. But these things weighed over again by the equal Balance of the Sanctuary, and right Reason, I doubt 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 add (as they had need) other Reasons of their Denial.  
Reas. 2. Because this crosseth the two former Propositions, which make the proper Subjects of Baptism, Confederate visible Believers and 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 etc.  
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, Baptised them into Christ, and they Own this God, Submit to his Rules, etc. 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, etc. 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 alleged, 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 Privileges; 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 fare better Members than those were: and I wonder that our Brethren do not observe it; or if they do, why should they allege 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 no better qualified it cannot imply it. There is a giving up of the Firstborn 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 rendered, is against the Rule of Love, that hopeth all things to be hoped, as this is confessed to be, viz. that it may imply i●. No doubt, 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 Eunuches Confession, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was justly taken for true Faith. To say, There is a giving up of the Firstborn 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, 1 Cor. 7.14. where not only one of the Parents must be in Covenant, but a Believer, that the children be federally 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 federally 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 Ephesus and Colosse, are called Saints, and Faithful in Christ, Ephes. 1 1. Col. 1 2. Why th●n is it said, that the Parents must be not only 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 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 Fideles, the Scripture knoweth no such thing; for, Lydia and her house were Baptised together, Acts 16.15. and the Jailor and his house straightway. That distinction came into the Church afterward, and was applied to new Converts, as well as to the Church-seed.  
But our Brethren add further, That else, or otherwise were your children unclean, cannot be meant only 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 , 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 Parent's 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 only that the word Else is in them both; the one being a disjunct Axiom, Your children are clean, or else unclean, and the other a simple Axiom, 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 threaten 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 only the children of Members in full Communion are holy, whether this be not a sad Exception also.  
Reas 4. The being in Covenant doth not privilege 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 John Baptist thought, Mat. 3.8, 9  
Ans. 1. The Jews being in Covenant did privilege their children to the Benefits of that Covenant they were in, viz. Circumcision, the Sacrifices, etc. 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 only called him to Faith in the Person of 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 privilege 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 child to be Baptised? Or in case a Church-member declineth, and giveth cause of much doubt of the soundness of his Faith and Repentance; What Rule will debar his child 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 Privileges of the Covenant, Deut. 7.9 Neh. 1.5 Dan. 9.5. He keepeth 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 Privileges 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 named: Did not Church-priviledges belong to all Israel, when Moses spoke 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 show they were Scandalous in life, which these are not, and have many other good Qualifications besides that also.  
Reas. 6. From the tenor 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, etc.  
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 th●se Duties, are thereby deprived of the Outward Privileges 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 only of Israel, but also in Gospel-Churches, as of Corinth, Galatia, the Churches of Asia, Rev. 2. & 3. who did enjoy Church-priviledges, till they were cast ou●, or till God actually Removed their Candlesticks? It was indeed a sin reproved to suffer such, but so long as they were suffered, they regularly enjoyed the Outward Privileges.  
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 place.) Now abraham's Covenant, and the Blessing thereof, is confirmed only to those that 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 tenor of the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; for Ishma●l, though graceless, was taken into Abraham's 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 God's Everlasting Covenant made with Abraham, to be a God to his seed af●er 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 carnal 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 1. Only such of the carnal seed with whom the Covenant was established, by walking in the steps of Abraham's Faith. 2. His spiritual seed, who are only meant in that Everlasting covenant.  
Reply. 1. It is granted, that the Outward Dispensation of the Covenant is not Absolute, but Conditional, 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 do not break off a People from the visible Covenant, and the Privileges thereof: and therefore so long as the Lord doth not cast them out of the visible Church (wherein his patience is very long) the Privileges thereof continue to their succeeding generations everlastingly, even to such as are here called the Carnal seed.  
2. It doth not savour well, that our Brethren so frequently call the Church-seed A Carnal 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, Royal Priesthood, etc. Your children are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. God never enters into covenant with any as a Carnal seed, but as an●holy People to the Lord.  
3. What difference is there between the Carnal seed walking in the Faith of Abraham, and his Spiritual seed? If the Everlasting Covenant belong only to such, than the Privileges of the Covenant belong not to any Church-member, till he 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 Public and Personal Covenant. Church-covena●ters 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 publicly. Our Brethren confess they are in Covenant, Acts 2. which is Sealed up to themby Baptism, and that in their own persons, as was before proved from Deut. 5.2, 3. & 29.10, 11, 12. This Public 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 Scandal (which implieth regular Satisfaction for offences) who give up themselves to God, Submit to his Government; to lay all this upon them without Proof, is fare from the Rule of Charity. Surely, they are better Saints than those mentioned by our Brethren Psa. 50.5, 16. Neither do these visibly hate instruction, in the sense there spoken of, vers. 17. for they are charged to consent with Thiefs, to partake with Adulterers, to give their mouths to evil, etc. 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 sully hold forth these by a visible Profession, that all such have no right to the outward Privileges? 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, etc. is not to be admitted. But the Baptising 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, Baptised into Christ, as hath been oft proved from 1 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 childrne Baptised; 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, if they were not Baptised themselves, might not be Baptised in this estate, and therefore cannot entitle their seed unto it. A man must stand possessed of a right, before he can make it over to another. Acts a 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, and Possession of his Lands, and it is true he cannot make a good Conveyance; but may he 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 Baptised? 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 Baptised, 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 Baptised, if they had not been Baptised.  
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 personal Entrance by Christ: if they be gotten in some other way, they are Thiefs 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 Baptised into Christ? Are not the Blood and Benefits of Christ Scaled 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 is the Church  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 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 withal, let us remember that weighty Charge Heb. 12.15, 16. Looking diligently, lest any fail of the grace of God, etc. lest there be a profane person, as Esau, who for a morsel 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 Antisynodalia, 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 Faithful 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 general (say they) but come to the particular, and it is only as wrapped up in their Parent's Covenant; they are not actual or personal Members. And that Membership in their Parents, and their Foederal Holiness, reacheth no further than their Minority, pag. 37. And what Church-Ordinances are they capable of in that time, especially if 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, hay have no right ●o Church-priviledges. And may not a Convert 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 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 Baptise 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 Privileges thereof, to such as want the inward Grace; and affirm, That the Covenant, and the Privileges thereof, are limited to those that with Abraham walk with God, whose heart was faithful; who love God, and keep his commandments, pag. 29. Will not the Anabaptists be ready to infer, Therefore Infants wanting that Grace, etc. have no right to the Covenant, or to Baptism the Privilege of it? Again, when our Brethren so oft confound the Outward and Inward Dispensation of the Covenant, alleging 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 Privileges 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, etc. what are the Reasons? For (say they) it 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 carnal seed, etc. And is it not a just fear, that the Anabaptists will be ready to infer, Therefore to baptise 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 only: But yet when generally we ground the Baptism of Infants upon the Covenant of God to the Parents and their seed, Gen. 17. Acts 2. 1 Cor. 7. and prove they are Disciples, Members of the visible Church, and therefore to be Baptised; I wish our Brethren may consider, how greatly this ground is weakened by Denial of God's Covenant to their Persons, and only as in their Parents; and by making it so slight a matter, as to wear out with their Minority, etc. And also let them consider, how suitable their Notions and Principles beforenamed, are to the Arguments and Grounds of Denial of Baptism to all Infants, as is easy 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 baptising any children whatsoever, and neither the parents nor the children do put in any bar to hinder it. This ground is the Interest in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7, 9, 10, 11. Acts 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 alleged, which are very full: Gen. 17.10, 11. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep, Every Male-child shall be circumcised: It shall be a token 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 itself: for Lo, and other Believers, could not partake of Circumcision, but by entering 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, Isa. 1. & 58. Jer. 7. Mic. 6. But he took not away the outward Privileges of Abraham's Covenant, as Circumcision, Sacrifices, etc.  
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 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 only 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 mutual 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 only by the restipulation 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 only to the Elect and true Believers; and this Covenant of Grace be made with the child in the Parents: then the child and Parents must be Elect, and true Believers; which will not be granted. Again, if the difference of the Church-covenant stands in this, That it requrreth mutual 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 child in the Parents, than 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 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 Kingdom 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: otherwiser 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 Privileges, 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 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 cut 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, etc. They may reject the counsel of God against themselves, as the Pharisees, Luke 7. They may be Felones de se, as Mr. Cotton speaks, etc. There are other grounds of breaking off the Covenant, besides notorious sins, and incorrigibleness therein; as, Not standing by Faith, Not bringing forth f●uit, Mat. 3.10. Not doing Righteousness, 1 Joh. 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 M●●. 3 Joh. 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 Israe●; 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. Joh. 8. were a part. 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 Ma●. 3. Jo●. 8. had been discovenanted of God, doth it follow that these in question are so? Are these A generation of Vipers, Liars, Murderers, &c that live without Scandal, Submit to the Government of Christ, & c? If the Lawyers and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, in not being Baptised of John; do these so, that being Baptised themselves, desire it also for their Seed, and that in such in way, by Owning God's 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 follow that these are such, that take hold of the Covenant, and that in some measure of truth, for aught 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 Liars, etc. Joh. 8. 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, than 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 God's 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 find some other meaning of Mat. 3. Joh. 8. 1 Joh. 3.10. and such like Scriptures.  
Arg. 2. The children of the Parents in question are either child on of the Covenant, or strangers from it, Eph. 2.12. Holy, or unclean, 1 Cor. 7.14. within the Church, or without, 1 Cor. 5.12. such as have God for their God, or without God in the world, Eph. 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, etc. 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 chief 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 alleged 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, etc. do Discovenant themselves. But th●se Church-members described in the fifth Proposition, do not walk with God, Love God, etc. 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, To love God, etc. and that God performs to such the Saving Benefits of the Covenant: but they do not prove, that simply by the neglect of th●se duties especially without Impenitence added, they do actually Discovenant themselves out of the visible Church and from the Privileges thereof, and the Means of Grace therein. The gross neglect of the duties of the Covenant persisted in obstinately and impenitently, 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 brethren's sense; yet they continued in the Church, till for their manifest Profaneness the one was cast out by God's 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, etc. were there not multitudes in Israel that came not up to these duties of the Covenant, in our brethren's sense, that yet were Gods Holy People, Royal 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 read 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 than 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, etc. 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. 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 entered 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 sight of the Lord, and to walk in his ways, 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 ways of the Lord, is charged upon them when they walked after Baalim, In the ways of Jeroboam, 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 cold, 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 Lukewarm Church, A golden Candlestick, holds their Stars in his Right hand, offers to come in, etc. So that Christ is not so quick in discovenanting lukewarm 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, than were the Jews of old. 
Ans. 1. 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 enlargement of the grace of God in Gospel-times, would argue rather that it should be enlarged in this Point also, and not therefore straitened here, because enlarged in other respects. Were it Objected to a Father, That he straitened his wont 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 satisfy? 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 far allowed to the Family. Just so is the case here.  
Ans. 2. This doth no more straiten the grace of the Covenant, than the keeping of Baptised, 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 debar 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 practices, 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, etc. Surely, God's enlargement of the Covenant to the Posterity of Abraham in their generations, was an act of God's 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 life, doth not stand in restraining the means of grace to a few; for why then should the Lord enlarge the Gospel to all Nations now, more than of old?  2d Consequence, To deny the Proposition, is to render the children of the Jews, when they shall be converted, in a worse condition than they were under the Legal-dispensation, contrary to Jer. 30.20 Ezek. 37.25, 26. 
Ans. This is denied, any more than that they should be in a worse state if they shall not have an Highpriest 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 God's Covenant with Abraham, which is the Gospel-covenant, it cannot be taken away without real 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 worse state, then transmitting the Covenant now only 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 etc.  
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 days: 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. Joel 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 Covenant than shall be continued, according to the Promise of God, to Abraham's 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 always by real Faith; for to think there shall be no Sin, no Hypocrites then, is groundless. There is none righteous that sinneth 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.  3d Consequence. The denial of the Proposition, denieth the initiatory Seal to such as are regularly in the Church and Covenant, to whom the Mosaical 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 alleged, 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 Baptised in Infancy, and being grown up, do understand the Doctrine of Faith, publicly 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 Adu●erers, ver. 2. Liars, ver. 3. Slanderers, ver. 4. Deceivers, ver. 5. yea, they walked after Baal, 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 alleged, 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 persons, ver. 9, 10, 11 and to take off the jews 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 God's 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. etc. But to infer, that every lieu that was so outwardly only, 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 Privileges; witness the case of the Centurion Cornelius, and his devout Soldiers, 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 Privileges, and that according to God's 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 alleged, viz. Stealing, Adultery, Sacrilege, etc. 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 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 〈◊〉 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 brethren's Tenent, in these, or any other Scriptures they have alleged; as Jer. 2.21. Amos 9.7. Mat. 3. joh. 8. & 15. which have been considered in their place. And I am the more persuaded that this Way of 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 only of farfetched Consequences, but of plain Inconsequences from the Old Testament.  4th Consequence. That to deny the Proposition, is to break God's Covenant, by denying the initiatory Seal to those that are in Covenant, Gen 17 9, 10, 14. 
Ans. 1. To refuse to Baptise 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 Lord's 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 alleged against it.  
2. To deny Communion in the Lord's 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 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 Baptised.  
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 persuasion of the lawfulness of eating meats unclean by the Law, as ver. 2. showeth.  
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 brethren's Charity could observe nothing for it, they might then show 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 deserve 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, nor Orthodox: Faithfulness is taken for Fidelity, which may be in Moral men.  
Reply. Nor do the Synod so conclude: There is much more in the Text, than 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 Faithful, of such as are educated in the sound Doctrine of Piety, and in the fear of God. Taylor, by Faithful 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 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 showeth. Hence this sort of persons showing nothing to the contrary, are in charity, or in Ecclesiastical reputation, visible Believers. 
Ans. It is extraordinary to have grace in Infancy, and therefore no Rule for ordinary Church-proceeding.  
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 younget years. 2. We build not ordinary Church-proceeding 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-proceeding 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, 1 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, choose 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 aught appeareth, never yet happened in the world, viz. That all the Members in a Church should be so taken away, that none remain but such as these 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, choose Officers, etc. 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, etc.  
2. Were the Rules of Christ observed, such a case could not 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 sanctify their hearts to prepare them for it; or else he will leave them to discover their hypocrisy 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 choose Officers, etc. if they were trained up under Church-discipline, as in our brethren's 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 not 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 those Officers, until 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, than 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?  Reas. 5. Being in the Covenant, and Baptised, 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 baptised ones are Believers: But hese in question are circumcised or baptised one's: Therefore, etc. or thus, The Roman Catholics are baptised: Therefore, etc.  
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) than all such children are not to be rejected as unbelievers, as our Brethren would: But some baptised one's 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 only, 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 Catholics, savours not of ingenuity: for are they the seed of Confederate visible Believers, of whom our Dispute is? or are they Regularly Baptised? or do they show 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 Ecclesiastical reputation, which is the scope of this fourth Argument.  Arg. 5. The denial of Baptism to these, hath a dangerous tendency to Irreligion and Apostasy, because it denieth the children of the Church to have any part in the Lord, Josh. 22.24, 25, 26. 
Ans. The Brethren deny the Consequence, affirming, That thirty or forty years' experience in New-England, through the mercy of God, showeth the contrary.  
Reply. This is a bare denial, 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, than they have.  
2. When our Brethren in their Preface To the General Court, take notice of the Many, Great, and Prevailing Corruptions of Youth, that need Reformation by Church-discipline, this might abate our glorying of contrary Experience for thirty or forty years, in respect of the danger of Irreligion and Apostasy in the seed of the Church. But if this be so, it seemeth our Brethren do think that there are many more than A few Names in N. England, that hold fast the Name of Christ, and are steadfast in the Faith and Order of the Gospel, and do not own so great an Apostasy of Elders and People, as the Author of the Preface presents to the World.  Arg. 6. The persons in question are personal, immediate, and yet-continuing Members of the Church, and therefore their children are to be Baptised. 
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 untouched.  
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 Personal act, than it is denied.  
Reply. This distinction of Members wrapped up in their Parents, and Members by their own Personal act, is a Riddle that no Scripture doth unfold. Let us hold to Scripture-phrases, and the meaning will be plain and easy, viz. They are Members in their own persons, by the Lords actual entering 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, 1 Cor. 7.14. therefore Members in their own persons. 
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 Charch-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 tenor 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 Baptised, 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 actual 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 actual enjoyment of them, viz. Such increase of Faith as is requisite, as Dr. Ames well expresseth, it, Medul. Lib. 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, 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 Kingdom of Heaven than 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, than they shall not be saved in their own persons, but in their Parents; this is utterly inconsequent: unless in should be said, that all, and only 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 Privilege of the Church (by God's Covenant) to be the Redeemed and Saved People of the Lord: Christ is the Saviour of his Body the Church, Eph. 5.23, etc. 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 Kingdom 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 only, and not in their own persons, it would follow, that this visible state of Salvation is in their Parents only, 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 God's Covenant made with their seed.  Proof 5. When they commit iniquity, they personally break the Covenane, 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 show; 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 alleged, expressly 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 duty of the Covenant, viz. T● 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 Master's 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 Law, which such as were never in, or cast out of the Church, may break.  
Our Brethren here think fit to make a stand; only 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 Baptise divers Children whose Parents they receive not to the Lords Table, doth persuade 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 alleged in the second Paragraph, wherein they describe the persons to be Baptised, thus: Baptism is an holy Sacrament, in which a person professing the Christian Faith, or the Infant-seed of such, is Baptised, etc. which is fully answered in the fifth Proposition.  
Concerning the Sixth Proposition, which dependeth upon the Fifth, our Brethren only declare their Dissent.  
Concerning the Seventh Proposition, they say, It is cautelously penned, and do not Object against it: only desice Care in the Application thereof, 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 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 Prophesy in part, and are imperfect in all we do; and therefore must wait for, and endeavour after further discoveries of the mind 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 men's 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 ways alleged, whereby they should become Non-members, as, By their Self-Excommunication, By God's Excommunication, etc.  
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 doubt 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.  
FINIS.