keeping of the Covenant in bringing up his Grand-child as much as in him lies to live and walk as himself does as one of Gods people according to the Tenour of the Covenant from whence the Conclusion evidently followeth that therefore Baptisme may there be Administred to Seal up the Covenant where the Grand-father receives the Covenant undertakes to bring up his Grand child in the faith and obedience of the Covenant Against this Argument it was objected by some what the Apostle writes 1 Cor. 7.14 where if both the husband and the wife who are the next Parents of the Child be unbelieving the Child is pronounced unclean and therefore uncapable of the holy Covenant and of the holy Seal of it whereto it was answered that the word in the Tex translated unbelieving is in the Original Infidel Now there is a difference between on Infidel and a Carnal Christian as then was amongst the lews a difference between an Heathen and a Carnal Israelite Though the Child be unclean where both the Parents are Pagans and Infidels yet we may not account such Parents for Pagans and Iâ—fiâ—el wâ—o are themselves baptized and prâ—fess their bâ—lief of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and live without notorious Scandalous Crime though they give not clear evidence of their regenerate estate nor are convinced of the necessity of Church Covenant After this Answer given there was no father reply against the point in hand but on the contrary some of the Brethren expressing their Consents with Addition of other Reasons and all of them by their silence we do therefore profess it to be the judgement of our Church and as we believ agreeable to the word of God such Cautions being observed as hath been mentioned that the Grand-Father a member of the Church may claim the priviledge of Baptisme to his Grand-Child though his next Seed the Parents of the Child be not received themselves into Church Covenant Wherein nevertheless we desire so to be understood not as presuming to judge others who happily may be of different opinion in this point or to direct you who are by the grace of God given to you able to direct your selves and us also in the Lord but as willing in meekness of wisdome to search out the truth of God with you and in brotherly Love to satisfy your request and demand touching this Question Now the God of truth and peace Lead you into all truth and go on to build up his holy Kingdome in the midst of you in the gracious Administration of all his holy Ordinances amongst you in the Lord Jesus In whom we rest Your loving Brethren John Cotton Tho. Oliver Tho. Leveret In the Name of the Church Boston Decemb. the 16th 1634. Now this is a great Testimony for if Anno 1634. which was amongst the Primitive Times of these Churches if then a Grand Father such Cautions being observed as have been mentioned being a member of a Church might claim the Priviledge of Baptisme to his grand Child though his next Seed the Immediate Parents of the Child be not received themselves into full Communion if then also it were true that there is a difference between an Infidel and a Carnal Christian as then was amongst the Jews a difference between an Heathen and a Carnal Israelite and that we may not account such Parents for Pagans and Infidels and so not their Children for unclean who are themselves baptized and profess their belief of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and live without notorious scandalous crime though they give not clear Evidence of their Regenerate Estate if this were true doctrine Anno 1634. Posterity will see who are the Apostates from the first Principles of New-England whether they whose Principles are for an Enlargement of Baptisme unto some whose next Patents are not fit for the Lords Supper or they that do oppose such a practice There is also to be seen another large and Judicious Letter of Mr. Cottons written with his own hand to a Friend of his in England touching accommodation and Communion between those of the Presbyterian and Congregational perswasion The Letter bears date the 8. 11. moneth 1648. and therein Mr. Cotâ—on delivers his judâ—ement in twelve propositions which are too large here to be inserted only the eighth of these Propositions being directly to our purpose we shall here transcribe it The words of it are these If the godly members of a Congregation formerly Subject to Episcopacy repenting of their sinful subordination thereto shall be studious of Reformation and shall solemnly Covenant to endeavour the same and shall choose their former godly Ministers into the Pastors Teachers office it is not necessary they should take the ignorant or Carnal members of the Parish into the fellowship of this renewed Election of their Ministers and yet it is not improbable but the Ministers may perform some Ministerial acts to them as not only to preach the word to them but happily also to baptize their Children For such members are like the Church members with us baptized in their Infancy yet not received to the Lords Supper when they come to Age nor admitted to fellowship of voting in Admissions Elections Censures till they come to profess their faith and repentance and lay hold of the Covenant of their Parents before the Church And yet they being not cast out of the Church nor the Covenant thereof their Children may be capable of the first Seal of the Covenant so in this Case till the Parents themselves grow Scandalous and thereby cast off out of the Covenant of the Chuâ—ch Also to a Reverend person yet surviving in this Country who in a Letter bearing date 4.4 Moneth 1649. propounded this Question A Father that was in the Iudgement of Charity one that feared the Lord but no Church member dies and gives his Little Infant to a Church member and Brother of ours which brother having no Child of his own gladly accepts it the question is whether such an adopted Child may by the will of Christ be baptized or not Mr. Cottons Answer was in these words youâ— Case of baptizing of the Child of one fearing God and in his death giving his Child to a Church member c. I propounded to some of our fellow Elders Mr. Wilson Mr. Eliot and I think Mr. Maâ—her and as I remember they all inclined to the Affirmative their ground was the Text in Gen. 17.12 13. for mine own part I lean to the Affirmative as you put the Case the Parent of this Child was not an Indian or Pagan but a Christian and baptized himself and so confederate with such a Church as we renounce not and I do not disswade the ministring of the Seal of the Covenant where the Covenant it self is not wanting c. Likevise in another Letter which is extant under Mr. Cottons own hand writing to one who thus objected Carnal children are not fit to renew their Covenant whilst they are
3. pag. 11. 12. Now if they that are Confederate and members of the visible Church have a right to Baptisme and if also the Children in Question are Confederate and mâ—mbers of the visible Church both which are affirmed by Mr. Hooker it must needs be that in his Judgement the Children in Question have right to Baptisme At the same Time and in the same Vessel with Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker there came the godly learned Mr. Samuel Stone late Teacher of the Church in Hartford concerning whom what his Judgement was touching the now agitated Controversies is known from his practice in the last years of his Life And that his Judgement was suitable to that practice many years before his decease appears from a Letter of his written to the Reverend Mr. Mather of Dorchester and bearing date June 6. 1650. In which Letter he thus expresseth himself I Conceive saith Mr. Stone that Children of Church members have right to Church membership by virtue of their Fathers Covenant it being granted that they are in Abrahams Covenant they have Membership by Birth Gal. 2.15 2 dly God is their God Gen. 17.7 3 dly They are Branches Rom. 11. 4. they are Subjects of Christs visiâ—le Kingdome Ezek. 37.25 Hence 1. If they be presented to a Church and Claim their Interest they cannot be denyed according to the Rules of the Gospel 2. Hence there hath been a sinful neglect in New-England of such Children who have either not been presented or not Received when they have claimed their right I spake with Mr. Warham and we question not the right of Children but we Conceive it would be Comfortable to have some Concurrence which is that we have waited for a Long Time And I think unless there may be some Conference of Elders this year in the Bay about it that we may see some Reason to the Contrary our Churches will Adventure to practice according to their Judgement i. e. take in all such Children as members I much desire that there may be some meeting of the Elders this year that these things may be Considered and setled in the Churches according to the mind of Christ c. These things do sufficiently manifest what was the Judgement of Mr. Cotton Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone who all three as was Intimated Came into New-England in the same Vessel Anno 1633. And they may justly be reckoned amongst the first three of New-Englands Worthies In the year 1635. God brought into this Country three more of our Worthies Another Triumâ—irate not unlike the former viz. Mr. Mather Mr. Norton and Mr. Shâ—pard whose Judgement touching the Question before us that it did Concur with the Doctrine of the late Synod will appear from the Sequel As for Mr. Mather late Teacher of the Church in Dorchester what the Apprehensions of that Reverend man of God were Concerning the present Controversie in his Latter Time is well known The Ancients had an opinion that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying words of worthy men were Oracutous because the Soul near its transâ—â—graâ—ion groweth more Divine Be that Notion as it is yet the dying Counsel of that blessed man to his Son is of weighty Consideration And that Mr. Mather did not take up his perswasion concerning the Enlargenent of Baptisme in his last years only but that he was of the same Judgement four and twenty years and more before his decease is evident from some Manuscripts of his left written with his own hand For that Roverend Author did in the year 1645 prepare for the Press an elaborate discourse which he entituleth A plea for the Churches of Christ in New-England and in the second part of that discourse which contains positive grounds from Scripture and Reason for the Iustification of the way of the Churches of Christ in New-England there is this Question propounded Quest When those that were baptized in Infaney by the Covenant of their Parents being come to Age are not yet found fit to be received to the Lords Table although they be matried and have Children whether are those their Children to be baptized or no. The Answer is in these words I propound to Consideration this Reason for the Affirmative viz. That the Children of such Parents ought to be baptized the Reason is the Parents as they were born in the Covenant so they still continue therein being neither cast out nor deserving so to be and if so why should not their Children be baptized for if the Parents be in Covenant are not the Children so likewise Is not the Tenour of the Covenant I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Is not the Text plain Act. 2.39 the promise is to you and to your Children And if these Children be in the Covenant why should they not be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant Sith they are partakers of that which is one main ground why other Infants are admitted thereto doth it not seem unreasonable that these Infants being partakers of the ground of Baptisme as well as others that nevertheless others should be admitted and these be refused If other Infants were admitted to Baptisme upon some ground whereof these were not partakers then there might be Reason to make a difference between these Infants and others but if the ground Reason of admitting others be Common to these as well as to others it seems then to be Reasonable that these as well as others should share in the priviledge If their Parents were east out of the Church by Censures or falln away from the same by wilful Apostacy and Schisme or deserving to be Cast out by reason of Scandal then there were more Reason that their Infants should be excluded from the Seal But sith no such thing can be said of the Parents of whom we speak a good Reason should be given why their Infants are debarred for if it be said the Parents are not Confirmed members nor have yet been found fit for the Lords Table I conceive this needs not to hinder their Infants from Baptisme so long as they I mean the Parents do neither renounce the Covenant nor doth the Church see just Cause to Cast them out from the same for it is not the Parents fitness for the Lords Supper that is the ground of baptizing their Children but the Parents and so their Children being in the Covenant this is that which is the main ground thereof and as long as this doth Continue not dissolved by any Church Censure against them nor by any Scandalous Sin of theirs so long the Children may be baptized These words are to be seen written with Mr. Mathers own hand Anno 1645. Now if six and twenty years ago in a Book written in defence of the Churches in New England When this Collection of Testimonies was first composed it was but 26 years but now it is 29 years since that Book was written and in justification of tho way of-hese Churches it were true Doctrine that persons might have
a publick person in the first transgression therefore the first transgression was imputed to his posterity not only to him Rom. 5.12 but in his after transgressions he was in this respect but a single not a publick person therefore they are imputed only unto him and not to his Posterity 2 Object Members are compleat or incompleat Children are members incompleat not compleat Answer 1. Did this distinction hold yet that the incompleatness of Childrens membership is not such why they should be hindred from being baptized is clear from Pedo-Baptisme 2dly Members are to be considered either in respect of their Communion or in respect of their membership In respect of their Communion they may be said to be compleat or incompleat because Communion receives more or less and may be enjoyed either in whole or in part But if members be considered in respect of membership which is the present Query then they cannot be said to be compleat or incompleat because membership being a Relation doth not receive more or less as a little member is as truly a member as the greatest the hand of a Child is truly a hand and member of the whole as the hand of a man Object 3. Membership is Immediate viz when these that are Adult Confederate in their own persons Mediate viz when Infants Confederate in a publick person as Mankind Confederated in Adam 1 Answer Though Adam Confederated in his own person i. e. although it be the person of Adam that Confederated yet Adam himself Confederated not as a single person but as a publick person so as though Adam and the Parents of Children Confederate Immediately i. e. in their own persons yet do they not confederate as single persons In this notion Scil. of not confederating as single persons the Condition of both mediate and Immediate members are alike 2dly The validity of membership depends not upon the Instrument or medium to wit the Parents standing as a publick person in the Act of Confederation but upon the Institution of God in Christ the value and virtue of the effect here cannot depend upon the medium which is it self also an Arbitrary Effect but upon the supream and Independent Cause The membership of a male Child Confederating mediately i. e. in the publick person of the Moâ—â—â—r excelleth the membâ—rship of the Mother Confederating â—mmâ—â—iâ—tely in hâ—r own person because the Mother though shâ— be a Church member yeâ—â—s not capable of being a member coâ—â—tâ—â—uent oâ— the Church for only Brethren constitute a Church in that they alone be capable of being the Subject of the power of the Keyes 1 Cor. 14.34 1 Tim. 2.12 so as should the Brethren dye the Sisterâ— surviving could not continue a Church but would immediately cease to the Church members yet her male Child is not only a Church member but is also capable of being a member Constituent of the Church 3 dly The Cause why a member is not admitted to such and such Communion is not any defect in membership but some defect concerning the qualification of the member The mother notwithstanding her membership is inferiour to the membership of her male Child she being as was said before a member of the Church but not a member Constituent of a Church is admitted to the Supper yeâ— the Child is not A man or woman Adult Confederating in their own persons Immediately upon some offence possibly falling out or discovered between their Admission and intended Baptisme may not be baptized where as a Child Confederated in his publick person is to be baptized Object 4. Children in their non-Age are by their Parents only materially and not by themselves formally and actually members Answ Members potentially are such only in possiblity but aâ— yet non-members actually Membership is had two wayeâ— either by Confederating in a publick person or by Confederating in our own-persons Children are actually and formally members by Confederation in their publick person not in their own persons they who have the matter and Form of membership are actually members Children Confederate in their Parents have the matter and Form of membership viz. Holiness Mal. 2.15 Rom. 11 16. 1 Cor. 7.14 And Confederation in their Parents as their publick person Gen 17. Acts 2.39 therefore Infants Confederate in their Parents w re actually and formally not potentially Cirumcised under the Law they are actually formally not potentially baptized under the Gospel therefore they are actually and formally and not only potentially members If Mankind Confederated actually in Adam their publick person when they did not so much as exist in their proper persons then may children actually existing in their proper persons actually Confederate in their publick person But Mankind not yet existing in their proper persons Confederated in Adam their publick person Peccatum Alâ—â—i non fuit alienum sâ—deâ—am no strum peccatâ—m Adami fuit volunt â—â—ium 〈◊〉 modo respectu nostâ—i quia ut fuimus in Adamo nostâ—o Pa entes it a volâ—â—mus in iâ—lo Vedelius de Deâ— creat qu. 105. sâ—u voluntas illa Adami fuit voluâ—tas totiu Maâ—sae That Speech of Thomas though used by him to another purpose may aptly be applyed here peccatum Adami fuit gravius nostris secundum circumsiantiam personae non autem secundum speciâ—m â—om 〈…〉 .163.3 If children so soon as they exist are actually guilty of a Covenant broken then children as soon as they exist are capable of actually Confederating breaking of a Covenant supposes the being of a Covenaâ—t that cannot be broken that never had a being Abâ—â—st Tertii adjecti ad est secundi adjecti valet Consequentia But children so soon as they exist are guilty of a Covenant broken witness Original Sin actually inflicted upon children as the punishment of their Sin in Adam God doth not punish actually such as are only Sinners potentially but as yet have not actually sinned Neither doth childrens incapacity to exert Church acts deny them to be actually Church members for then Brethren under offence before any Censure brethren infirmed by some sinless Accident yea brethren when asleep should all of them be potentially only and not actually Church members Nor doth Childrens incapacity to Vote or Constitute a Church deny them to be actually Church members for thence iâ— would follow that the Sisters were only potentially and not actually Church members More needs not to be said of Mr. Nortons Judgement concerning this Subject we come to Mr. Shepards sometime Pastor of the Church in Cambridg in New-England who besides his eminent abilities was a man of much real and living Communion with God and therefore more like to know the mind of Christ then many others Now in a Letter of his Dated Iune 1649. which was not three monethe before his decease he does assert and prove that Children are members of the visible Church and that their membership continues when Adult and that the Children of Believers are to be accounted of the Church â—â—til they
positively reject the Gospel and that the membership of Children hath no tendency in it to pollute the Church any more now then under the Old Testament and that children are under Church discipline and that some persons Adult may be admitted to Baptisme and yet not to the Lords Supper c. The whole Letter being already published we shall not here insert it or any thing further concerning it only assure the Reader that the Letter it self even the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is still to be seen as it was written by Mr. Shepards own hand Also the same Author in his printed defence of the nine positions pag. 143. does maintain the Church membership of childâ—en and their Subjection to Discipline In the year after these mentioned viz. Anno 1636. here arrived two other of New-Englands Worthies Mr. Partriches and Mr. Rogers Concerning the Subject of Baptisme Namely Mr. Ralph Partrich and Mr. Nathaâ—â—el Rogers As for Mr. Partrich sometimes faithful Pastor of the Church in Duxberry in Plimouth Colony what his Judgement was touching the present controversy is to be seen from that Model of Church Discipline when was by him composed and presented to the Synod at Cambridg Anno 1648. and which is still extant under the hand writing of the Reverend Author in which Manuscript are these words The persons unto whom the Sacrament of Baptisme is dispensed and as we conceive ought to be are such as being of years and converted from their Sins to the Faith of Jesus Christ do joyn in Communion and Fellowship with a particular visible Church as also the children of such Parents or Parent as having laid hold of the Covenant of grace in the judgement of Charity are in a visible Covenant with his Church and all their Seed after them that cast not off the Covenant of God by some Scandalous and obstinate going on in Sin as may appear by Math. 28.19 and 1 Cor. 7.14 with Gen. 17 c. compared Thus for Mr. Partrich his Judgement Concerning Mr. Nathaniel Rogers late eminent Pastor of the Church of Ipswich in New-England that his Judgement did concur with the Doctrine of the late Synod touching Baptisme is certain from what himself did publickly teach some years before his Decease Also from a Letter of his written to the Reverend Mr. Richard Mather some years before Mr. Rogers went to his Rest which Letter still remains under the Authors own hand writing we shall therefore insert the substance of it which followeth Reverend and dear Sir I Received a Letter with a Book from you and do return you this Testimony of my most thankful acceptance of your kindness and good will both in your Letter and worthy Treatise of Justification which as yours are wont to be is nervous and this is compendious in a special manner and yet perspicuous I see my defect in Hen. Den's matters supplyed by your Diligence To the Question concerning the Children of Chuch members I have nothing to oppose and I wonder any should deny them to be members They are members in Censa Ecclesiastico God so calls them the Church is so to account thew and when they are Adulia aâ—atis though having done no personal act yet are to be judged members still until after due Calling upon they shall refuse or neglect to acknowledge and own the Covenant of their Parents and profess their belief of and Subjection to the Contents thereof which if they shall deny the Church may Cashier or disown them Now for practice I confess I account it a great default that we have made no more real distinction between these and others that they have been no more attended as the Lambs of the flock of Christ and whether it be not the cause of the corruption and woful defection of our youth disquiri permittimus We are this week to meet in the Church about it and I know nothing but we must speedily fall to practice If we in this shall be Leaders I pray beg wisdom from the Father of Lights and him who is our Wisdom as well as our Righ cousness I commit you to the blessed Communion of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus and rest Yours in him Cordially N. Rogers XI 18. 1652. These Testimonies are more then abundantly sufficient to evince that the first Fa hers of this Country were for that Enlargement of Baptisme which the late Synod Book pleads for And that therefore such a practice is no â—postacy from our Primitive Principles yet further Testimonies might be superadded unto these for Mr Hâ—nr Sm â—h sometimes Minister of the Word at Wethersfield on Connecticot In a Letter of his dated August 23. Anno 1647. which Letter was also written to Mr. Mather thus expresses himself we are at a Loss in our parts about members Children being received into Communion because it is undetermined in the extent of it at the Synod our thoughts here are that the promise made to the Seed of Confederates Gen. 17. takes in all Children of Confederating Parents whether baptized here or else where whether younger or Elder if they do either expressly or otherwayes may be Conceived in the Judgement of Charity to Consent thereunto Now because many have Children grown up which were born in England who would gladly express their Consent and desire to their Parents Covenant only we are loth to walk alone in the thing we could heartily wish we had the Concurrence of your Judgement c. Thus Mr. Smith Likewise Mr. Prudden late faithful Pastor of the Church in Milford in New-Haven Colon in New-England in a Letter to the same Reverend person which the last mentioned was sent unto does not only express his own thoughts but gives Reason for his belief concerning the Question under Agitation with whose Testimony we shall conclude And because his Letter is of Weighty and worthy Consideration Consideration albeit part of it as of that of Mr. Rogers is already published in the Preface to the Synod Book yet we shall here insert the substance of it which now follows Dear Brother I was glad at the receipt of your Letters but I am sorry to hear of such breaches in Churches and no way nor means found out and applyed for healing which I fear with you does strengthen the Presbyterian Objection against our Congregational way when the writings of some for our defence and our practice agree not in that particular I think with you that man to be much blessed whom God should make helpful in those things though as he ha's but little encouragement to attempt it so can he expect less thanks from man who possibly may have erred but loth to be judged so to have done Touching your own Exercises you are not alone in them the power of the Elders in preparing matters of offence and other things for the Church has been much questioned by some But me-thinks hat which Mr Hooker ha's written in the Case Survey pt 3d. pag. 33. should satisfy those who are not of a
Contentious Spirit I had Conference with him about this matter in his life time And the Summe of what he hath now written he then expressed and told me withal that if a Case should be presented to the Church in any other way by the Brethren he would refuse to act in it unless the Church would first dispute the point which he would offer but act against his Judgement he would not It 's true that the Rule requires to tell the Church in due order by the Officers as he that Commands one to goe into his house intends that he should go in by the door The Elders are Captains and Leaders and Rulers Heb. 13.17 1 Tim 5.18 And therefore the Brethren must not go before them A common Souldier must not begin or make an Attempt without the Captain And the Elders being Leaders and Rulers they are to order all the publick occasions and affairs of the Church in a comely manner which they cannot do if the Brethren have Liberty at their pleasure to publish what seems best to themselves Touching the desire of such members Children as desire to have their Children baptized it is a thing that I do not yet hear practiced but for my own part I am inclined to think that it cannot justly be denyed because their next Parents however not admitted to the Lords Supper stand as Compleat members of the Church within the Church Covenant and so acknowledged that they might have right to Baptisme Now they being in Covenant and standing members their Children also are members by virtue of their Parents Covenant and Membership as well as they themselves were by virtue of their Covenant and membership and they have not renounced that Covenant nor are justly Censured for the breach of that Covenant but do own and profess it and by virtue of it claim the Priviledge of it to their Children Those Children who are within the Covenant and so members of it Baptisme cannot be denyed unto But the Children in Question are within the Covenant of the Church and so members of it Ergo Baptisme cannot be denyed to them The assumption is proved thus the Children of such Parents as are within the Covenant of the Church are themselves within the Covenant of that Church and so members But the Children in Question are the Children of such Parents as are in Covenant and so members of the Church Ergo they are so themselves The Proposition is clear because the Parents Covenant for themselves and for their Children Deut. 29. from 10 to 16. Ezek. 16.8 13. And God accepts both Gen. 17.12 13. the whole Nation is faederally holy they are expressly said to be in Covenant with their Father Deut. 29. not partly or partially in Covenant Rom 9.3 4 Acts 2.39 and God stiles himself their God as well as their Father Gen. 17.7 8 9. and to have God to be our God is to be in Compleat Church Covenant with him The assumption is evident because else such their Parents had not had right to Baptisme the Seal of the Covenant but that they had right unto and so received it and the same right they had the Children have who are included in their Fathers did expressly engage and Covenant but these not I Answer that the Covenant is the same and of the same force to bind and of the same extent in the one as well as the other Explicite and Implicite are but adjuncts of the Covenant and therefore though they are not come into Covenant the same way that their Parents did viz. by explicite personal Covenanting but are taken in by the Father Covenanting for them and themselves yet it seems to me that they are not less truly or less Compleatly in Covenant The God of Peace and Truth guide us in those wayes I rest Milford June 12. 1651. Your loving Brother Peter Prudden Unto these might have been added the Testimony of that Reverend and faithful Servant of Christ Mr. Iohn Wilson the first Pastor of the first Church in Boston But his Judgement touching the question in hand is known to all that knew him And the Reader is referred to his dying Spee hes concerning this matter which are inserted in the Book called New Englands memorial pag. 183. 184. which because they were amongst the last words of so holy a man cannot without great sin be despised or disregarded Also we might have mentioned the Judgement of Reverend Mr. Norris which that it did Concur with what hath been expressed is to be seen from the Records of the Church in Salem viz. in their Records of the 24th of the first Moneth And of the 9th of the fifth Moneth and sixth Moneth Anno 1654. Likewise we might have produced the Judgement of Mr. Philips sometimes the faithful Pastor of the Church in Watertown but the Reader is for that referred to the Preface in the Synod Book Also that some godly and Judicious of the Congregational way in England are for a greater Latitude in the point of Baptisme then our dissenting Antisynodalian Brethren do acknowledge is manifest from what â—undry Learned men of that way have long sincâ— published For Doctor Owen in his review of Scâ—asmâ— pag 134 thus expresses himself I am so far from confining Baptisme subjective y to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any m mber of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized baptisme pâ—â—cedes Admission into Church membership as to a particular Church the Subject of it is professing Believers and their Seed as such they have right unto it whether they be joyned to any particular Church or no suitable to this Judgement ha's been my Constant and uninterrupted practice Likewise Doctor Nathaniel Homes in his defence of Infant Baptisme against Mr. Tombs ha's these words pag 193. for baptizing of Believers Infants several Churches of us do hold that we may baptize them though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptisme as we conceive being an Admission into the universal v sinle Church c. And again pag 217. Mr. Tombs having made this Objection that the baptizing of Infants ha's occasioned on uâ—neâ—essary dispute about baptizing the Infants of believing Parents that are not members of gathered Churches I never saith Doctor Homes perceived the world troubled with this dispute divers Churches without dispute can practice the baptizing of such c. Thus he See also in the same Book 207 208 215. with his Epistle to the Reader And the Collector of these Testimonies hath lately received Letters from suâ—dry eminent Divines of the Congregational way in England declaring that the Judgement of the Elders with them is generally according to what hath been now expressed By these things therefore which have been thus far expressed it is very manifest that the doctrine of the late Synod concerning the Subject of Baptisme is no Apostacy from the first Principles of New-England nor yet any declension from the Congregational way It remaineth that we proceed
Circumstanced no little evil and danger in it For if you be mistaken then you oppose a Cause of Divine Grace which to do is sad since God looks upon his Grace as his Glory Eph. 1.14 As Gods holiness is dear to him and thence any way to oppose that is dangerous the same is to be said concerning his Grace And if you be mistaken you oâ—pose a Cause of Gods Covenant now Gods Covenant is marvellous dear unto him and no man can dash himself against an Interest of the Covenant without great hazâ—â—d And if you be mistaken you oppose an Interest yea and a great Interest of Christs Kingdome now that must needs displease the Lord It is very obâ—â—â—vâ—ble tâ—at Christ was never so angry as his own dear Diâ—ciples as theâ— when â—hâ—y did rigidly withhold somâ— that were Children oâ— thâ— Kingdomâ— from being brought to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mark 10 13 14 why so even because his own Interest was thâ—rein Concerned meâ— are soon movâ—d when their own Interest is struck at so was the holy heart of Christ much moved because when Children â—eâ—e kâ—â—t from him his own Interest was prejudiced Brethren if so it be that thâ— Doctrine of the Synod he Truth you that oppose it do what in you be opt juâ—â—ce an Interest of Christ and if so Christ is not well pleasâ—d â—ith you for this thing There is not a more awful Scripture in all the Book of God theâ— that where it is said concerning Christs Kingdom that whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken Mâ—â—â— 21.44 Brethren one word let me in the Bowâ—s of the Lord saâ—â—o you And I speak it not with a desire to grieve or â—ffend any of you but if my heart deceive me not Loyâ— to Christ and to you and to the succeeding Generation in New-England causeth me to speak it it is only this oh tremble lest this very Error of yours prove the breaking and the ruine of your poor Posterity They are Solemn and weighty words and I must Confess have alwayes had an aweful Impression upon my Conscience which the Elders have in the Preface to the late Synod Book pag. 12. should say they the Church education of your Children be by the want of your hearty Concurrence rendred either infeasable or ineffectual should they live as Lambs in a large Pasture for want of your Agreement to own them of the Flock we beseech you Consider how uncomfortable the Accompt hereof will be another day Truly when I think and I often think of it seriously and sadly with my self that in a Plantation of Religion for such New-England was the Generality of the Inhabitants should be in the Condition of Infidels that the Posterity of a People professing Godliness yea of the most eminent Professors in the whole World should in our Age be as Infidels even not so much as within the Compass of the visible Church or have the Livery and Character belonging to Christians upon them whereby such are distinguished from the Infidel and Pagan World what it ha's to others I know not but to me it ha's a most formiâ—able appearance Remember also that the light ha's been forth in which respect Now for you to oppose the Truth after that Convincing Testimonies have been given to it by the Lords Servants will be farr more dangerous and provoking to the Lord then in former Times amongst us when these things had not been so fully enquired into as of late through the good hand of Divine Providence it ha's been A third word which I would say is study well the point of Infant Baptisme Acquaint your selves with the Scripture proofs for that Ordinance I must acknowledge that that ha's been no small Confirmation to me This I find that there is haraly an Argument produced against such Inlargement as is by the Synod asserted but what the Antipaedo-Baptists wake use of to serve their tuâ—n Also that the Arguments which do demonstrate Paedo-Baptisme in general do for the most part prove that Baptisme ought to be Administred in the Latitude which the Synod pleads for The last word which I shall say is this use all means of Gods appâ—inting that you may come to understand the Truth in this matter There have been some to my knowledge and because I know there have been some I am apt to think there may be many more then I know of that have exclaimed much against the Synod Book as if it were an Apostacy and Impurity c. That yet upon Examination have Confessed that they never read the Book much less have they read other things written in defence thereof and how farr then have they been from reading these things with Prayers and Tears and Humiliations before the Lord oh if Brethren would prove all things and pray uncessantly over what they do and add deep Humiliations to their Prayers and depend upon Christ for light we might hope that God would either discover his Truth to them in the very things they are searching after or in some other matters better for them to know and in the mean Time help them to carry it with that Christian moderation that becometh Saints Prov. 2.3 4 5. Ezek. 43.11 Phil. 3.15 16. As for the Reasons which have induced me to this ensuing Collection besides those general motives mentioned in the Introduction the special Considerations which haue prevailed with me were First that I might please God in obeying the fifth Commandment by vindicating the honour of my Fathers 2 dly in that a special Advantage ha's been put into my hands for this undertaking by Reason of my Acquaintance with the Manuscripts of both my Fathers I mean my Father Cotton and my Father Mather from whence these Testimonies are for the most part produced 3 dly My Father when he was leaving the world did Commend it as his dying Counsel to me that I should endeavour the good of the Rising Generation in this Country and in special that they might be brought under the Government of Christ in his Church and when grown up and qualified as is in the late Synod Book expressed have Baptisme for their Children What Impression those words since they were the words of a Father and of such a Father and dying words also have had upon my heart is known to the Father of Spirits who only searcheth hearts and Converseth with the Souls of men nor am I able to utter it 4 ly It is known unto those few in the world that have any knowledge of so obscure and inconsiderable a person as my self that I have of late been near unto Death God having brought me back again as it were out of the Grave I must needs have had many thoughts with my self what I should do for God and for his people yea for his People whose Prayers have saved my Life Now I would fain hope what is here done will be a Service for Christ and for these his Churches and for that Generation whereof
unfit to partake in the Seal of the Covenant c. He replies in these words Though they be not fit to make such profession of visible faith as to admit them to the Lords Table yet they may make profession full enough to receive them to Baptisme or to the same estate Isâ—mael stood in after Circumcission And to one who complained of being in the dark about the truth asserted in Mr. Cottons printed Book concerning the Baptisme of Infants and that amongst other made this Objection when said that Scrupler a child comes to know that his Parents are no visible Saints but appear to be contrary both in Life and Doctrine and the children had only words and water poured on them how came these persons to have right to it the Parents having no visible faith to act in that Ordinance and their children likewise being uncapable to hold forth the acts of faith before men He thus Answereth Ieroboam and his wife were neither of them visible Saints in your Sense but appeared to be contrary both in Life and Doctrine yet the Circumcision of their Son was not in vain to him 1 Kings 14.13 In this Case when the faith of the Parents is wanting and yet they still live within the Pale of the Church though the Church be Corrupt and the Parents also yet here the Speech of the Apostle takes place what though some believed not shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect God forbid Rom. 3. 3 4. now the Faithfulness of God who keepeth Covenant and mercy to thousands supplies the defect of the Faith of the next Parents and maketh good his Covenant to the Children in respect of the Faith of their former Ancestors in Elder Ages But against this sâ—me may object a passage in Mr. Cottons Book of the way of the Chuâ—ches pag. 81. where it is said where neither of the Parents can claim right to the Lords Supper their Infants cannot claim right to Bâ—ptisme therefore it mâ—y seem that Mr. Cottons Iudgement was not as haâ—h been now declared Unto this let the judicious Reâ—der attentively hear the Answer which is 1. In that very Book of Mr. Cottons there are sundry passages which plead for an Enlargement of Baptisme further then to the Immediate Children of persons in full Communion even to the Children of such Parents who have such a faith as denominateth them Christian Believers in opposition to Pagan Infidels yea if there be a Christian Sponsor for the Child of a Stranger or wicked man it may be baptized see the way pag 87. 88. 106 115. 2dly That Book of the way was printed from an imperfect Copy in which respect it is not to be wondâ—ed at if there be therein some passages contradictory to Mr. Cottons known Iudgement 3. Mr. Coâ—ton himself was much troubled when he saw that Book come forth and was desirous that the Reader should understand that his Judgement in such things wherein the Book of the way is discrepant from that of the Keyes should be sought for not in the Book of the way but in that of the Keys And that no one may think that these things are Imaginary or conjectural only let us hear Mr. Cotton speaking in his own words in his printed defence against the Imputations of Mr. Cawdrey written not long before his death and Published by Doctor Owen In which Book pag. 36. 37 38 39. The truth is saith Mr. Cotton that many years ago I was seriously moved by some of our Brethren and Fellow Elders here to draw up an Historical narration of our Church way together with some familiar Grounds of the same briefly In short time as God helped I dispatched it which when our Brethren had perused it I saw they did not close with it yet a Brother going for England got some where a Copy of it and presented it to some of the Congregational way there and I afterwards heard neither did they close with it and in particular not with that passage which is here recited which since appeareth more openly by the Asterisk put upon that passage and upon sundry other in the Book but before I saw that and had only heard that they did not fully accord I hoped that it had met with a timely Suppression rather then an Impression for I heard no more of it for two or three years after mean while perceiving that one main point of dissatisfaction was the Authority given to the Fraternity I consiered more seâ—iously and distinctly of the whole power of the Keys and expressed my apprehensions in that treatise of the Keys which our Brethren here did well accept and so did the Brethren of like Judgement in England and some of them were pleased to arrest it with the Preface that is now Extant before it This was sundry years after the Treatise of the way had been finished and carryed to England and as I hoped suppressed but it seemeth some Brother there caused his Copy which was indeed abrupt in the Entrance and imperfect otherwise to be published in print which when I saw it troubled me not a little as knowing that the discrepant Expressions in the one and in the other might trouble Friends and give Advantages to Adversaries I suffered both to stand as they did especially seeing I could not help it the Book of the way being published without my Consent and both the way and the Keys past my revoking so that if the Replier find some discrepancy in one of these Books from the other Let him know that the Doctrine of the way in such few points wherein it differs from the Keys was not mine when the Keys was published much less when the way was published which was many years after though it had been penned many years before Thus much may suffice for the clearing of Mr. Cottons Judgement concerning the Subject of Baptisme In the same year and in the same Vessel with Mr. Cotton came into this Country that famous Mr. Thomas Hooker late Pastor of the Church in Hartford upon Connecticot Now that in Mr. Hookers Judgement the Children concerning whom the Question is have a continued standing and membership in the visible Church upon which hinge the Controversy about the Enlargement of the Subject of Baptisme turns is evident from a passage in his most Judicious and accurate Survey of Church Discipline in which Book pag. 4â— are these words in some Cases saith Mr. Hooker an Implicit Covenant may be fully Sufficient as Suppose a whole Congregation should consist of such who were Child on to the Parents now deceased who were Confederate their children were true members according to the Rules of the Gospel by professing of their Fathers Covenant though they should not make any personal and vocal Expression of their Engagement as the Fathers did Also he lays it down for a Maxim that faederati sunt baptizandi proving by several Arguments that Confederates are the proper Subject of Baptisme see in the same Book part
right to Baptisme for their Children and yet themselves not be fit for the Lords Table If six and twenty years agoe this was written in a Book whose whole designe was to Justifie the way of these Churches how then can it be said that the present pleading for such Enlargement of Baptisme is any Apostacy from Primitive Principles Also the same thing was Asserted and urged by this Reverend Author in his Model of Church Government presented to the Synod Anno 1647. And in the years 1648. and 1649. he did frequently in his publick Ministry in Dorchester thus instruct his people as is to be seen in the Sermon Notes left written propria manu And in the year 1653. this Question was fully largly and Elaborately discussed by the same Author Also in a Letter to a Friend bearing date 30th 5 Moneth 1651. He thus expresseth himself for my part my thoughts have been this long Time that our Churches in general do fall short in their practice of that which the Rule requires in this particular which I think ought to be thus viz. that the Children of Church members submitting themselves to the Discipline of Christ in the Church by an act of their own when they are grown up to mens and womens Estate ought to be watched over as other members and to have their Infants baptized but themselves not to be received to the Lords Table nor to voting in the Church till by the manifestation of Faith and Repentance they shall approve themselves to be fit for the same But we have not yet thus practiced but are now Considering of the matter and of sending to other Churches for advice Help us I pray you with your prayers that we may have grace to discern and do the Lords mind and will herein So that in the year 1651. it had for a long Time been the Judgement of this Seer that some have right to Baptisme for their Children that yet have not right to the Lords Supper for themselves But against this Testimony some may object a passage in Mr. Mathers printed Catechisme pag. 91. This holy man was sensible that some did take Advantage from an Expression therein to impute unto him a change of Iudgement touching this Question which had it been so indeed Ad meliora transiâ—e nullus pudor it is no dishonour to any man to change for the better but concerning this Question that Reverend man altered not but was all along of the same Apprehension wherefore knowing in his own heart that he was of the very same Judgement when that Catechisme was written as in his last years he was of he therefore left a Manuscript in his Study to clear himself from such an Imputation which for his Vindication we shall therefore here Insert and publish The words are as follow This Question who ought to be baptized being thus Answered in a Catechisme viz. men of years when once they are converted to the Faith and joyned to the Church and such Infants whose Parents both or one of them are so Converted and joyned The Question therefore now is whether this Answer if sound and true do infer that the Children of Persons Converted and joyned to the Church being now Adult and having Children may not be so qualified as to have these their Children Baptized afore they who are now the Parents be fit for the Lords Supper or if he that Answered the Question in the Catechisme as above do think they may doth not this infer a change in that mans Apprehension from what it formerly was Answer It seems not at all to infer any such change 1. Because these Apprehensions are no way contrary to one another nor at all Inconsistent For if a man say that the Children last mentioned may be baptized this does not at all infer that men of years converted to the Faith and Joyned to the Church may not be baptized nor that such Infants may not be baptized whose Parents one or both are so Converted and joyned Nor if a man Answer that such as the Catechisme speaks of may be baptized does this infer that those others may not there is no Colour sure no just ground for such Consequence no more then if one should say that such as are become Believers by hearing the Word preached are to be baptized which is a very Truth Act. 2.41 and 8.12 37. and 18 8. it could thence be proved that no Infants are to be baptized as not being become Believers at least not by that means of hearing preaching this would in no sort follow from the other as if one should say that such as do the will of God upon Earth shall enter into Heaven that such as feed Christ when hungry cloath him being naked shall be saved in Heaven which are very true Matth. 7.21 and 25.34 c. doth this prove that Little Infants and the Thief upon the Cross must not be saved because the one through Imbecillity of Age and the other through want of opportunity did not perform the things mentioned it doth not prove it at all but that Salvation in Heaven may be the Portion of these as well as of the others even so though such as the Catechisme speaks of are to be baptized it doth noâ— thence follow but that the Ordinance may be dispensed to the Infants of such members Children as are mentioned and though it be dispensed to such this is no denyal but that such as the late Catechisme speaks of may be baptized so that here is no Contradiction between the things Alledged but that both may be true and consist together 2 dly It the words in the Catechisme had any Exclusive particle in them there had been some more ground or Colour for the Inference as if the words had been thus only these or none but these are to be baptizâ—d but any such Exclusive or Negative particle there is none and therefore the Collection or Inference from them which is made is groundless 3dly The Author of the aforesaid Catechisme which was printed in the year 1650. had sundry Times before in the years 1646. 1648. 1649. publickly delivered his Judgement both by word of mouth and by writing that such Children of Church members might have their Infants baptized though themselves were not yet received to the Lords Supper and so divers Times again in the years following And therefore it is not probable that what is expressed in the said Catechisme should be intended by him to have such a meaning as is quite Contrary to what himself had publickly Delivered both before and after and that at sundry Times and in several wayes 4 ly Other Authors of much worth for holiness and Learning who never meant to deny Baptisme to such Children of Church members dâ—are spoked of yet in Answer to that Question who ought to be baptizâ—d or to whom is Baptisme to be administred have expressed themselves in Terms not far unlike to those in the aforesaid Catechisme Mr. Balls words are these
who ought to be baptized Answ Infidelâ— Converted to the Faith and the Infants of one or both Christian Parents Catechisme And the Assembly of Divines at Westminster speak thus Quest Vnto whom is Baptisme to be admin stâ—ed Answ Baptisme is not to be administred to any that are out of the Visivie Church and so strangers from the Covenant of Promise till they profess their Faith in Christ and obedience to him But Infants descending from parents either both or but one of them professing Faith in Christ and obedience to him are in that respect within the Covenant and to be baptized Larger Catechisme These words we see are not farre unlike to those in the Catechisme before mentioned and yet it were a Collection farr from their meaning to gather from these words that none should have Baptisme for their Children except themselves were fit for the Lords Supper Sure such an Apprehension was never taught nor intended by them why then should it be thought to be Contained in the words of the aforesaid Catechisme or deducted from them when as the words there and in these Reverend Authors are so very like even so very like that the Collection or deduction mentioned is either sound and just from both or from neither 5 ly If the Parents spoken of may notwithstanding their unfitness for that Ordinance of the Lords Supper yet be truly said to be Converted to the Faith and joyned to the Church then the appearance of Contradiction is at an end Now for the one of these Qualifications viz. That they be Converted to the Faith if Faith be taken as it often is for the Doctrine of Faith as Act. 6.7 Iud. 3. then it is evident that the Parents spoken of are not destitute of this Faith because it is required of them that they understand the Doctrine of Faith and publickly profess their Assent thereto And if Faith be taken for the grace of Faith in the heart why may they not be said to have Faith in this Sense also seeing it is required of them that besides their understanding the Doctrine of Faith and their professing their Assent thereto that they must also not be Scandalous in Life but solemnly own the Covenant and therein give up themselves and their Children to the Lord. And does not this imply some beginning of Faith Can persons have all these Qualifications and yet for all this be utterly destitute of the grace of Faith It seems not suitable to Charity to judge so And in as much as men have neither Faith nor any thing that good is by Nature therefore they that have it may be said to be converted to it and so the Parents the baptizing of whose Children is in Question are not without the one of the Qualifications mentioned in the Catechisme viz. of being Converted to the Faith And for the other viz. of being joyned to the Church this cannot be denyed touching these Parents for as much as by means of the Covenant which takes in Parents and Children they have been either born in the Church or taken in in their Infancy and so they were joyned to the Church If so they continue still being neither Cast out nor deserving so to be and therefore their Infants are the Children of Parents joyned to the Church And lest it should be said that though they were in the Church in their Infancy and minority yet now being Adult they fall out or go out by their own default in neglecting the duty pertaining to the Adult therefore for the preventing of this it is here said that they solemnly owned the Covenant before the Church and therein give up themselves and their Children to the Lord c. So that here is a personal and publick act of their own in respect of the Covenant and giving up themselves and their Children to the Lord by their own act with a Subjection of themselves to the Government of Christ in his Church whereby it appears that as these Parents were in the Church in their minority and were never since Cast out so neither are they fallen out by their own neglect But do manifest their Continuance in the Church and in the Covenant by their own personal act And so the other Qualification of Parents whose Children are to be baptized which the Catechisme mentioned is found in the Parents spoken of viz that they are persons joyned to the Church and therefore he that affirms than these may have their Children baptized does not Contradict the fore-mentioned Catechisme at all nor is there any thing in the Catechisme against the baptizing of these Children This which ha's been expressed may be sufficient for the vindication of that Reverend and Honoured person We proceed â—herefore to Mr. Nortons Iudgement concerning the present Controversy and that the Apprehensions of that Iudicious and Eagle eyed Seer did Concur with those Servants of the Lord which have been mentioned is apparent both from what himself did often publickly teach not only in Boston but in Ipswich and from a Script composed Anno 1654. by that learned band which because it is acute clear and distinct according to the wonted manner of that great Author and because it was never yet published we shall therefore here Insert it It is that which follows Quest Whether the Children of Parents in Church Covenant are Church members and ought to be baptized Answ Children of Parents in Church Covenant are Church members and ought to be baptized This Answer stands upon the proof of these five propositions 1. Children are capable of Confederating in a publick pâ—â—â— 2. Children by divine Institution have Confederated and do still Confederate in their Parents as publick persons 3. By virtue of this Confederation Children are made Church members 4. The membership of Children Confederating in their Parents is a distinct membership from the membership of their Parents 5. This distinct membership gives them a proper right unto Baptisme so as they are baptized by their own right and not by the right of their Parents Proposition I. 1. Children are capable of Confederating in a publick person A publick person is when some one of a Society doth by the Law in such an Act stand for the whole Society So he that is but one person Physically is Politically as many persons as the Law makes him Since Religion and Reason both allow and require humane Laws to create such publick persons for the good of the Community much more may we see Cause why they may be constituted by the divine Law of him whose Sole Prerogative it is that he may do whatsoever he pleaseth 2. That Children though they are uncepable of Confederating in their proper Persons yet are Capable of Confederating in a publick person appeareth 1. From the nature of God whose will is the Rule of Rules and Reason of all Reasons Bradward de Causa Dei l. 1 Corol. 32 Polan Synt. l. 6. c. â— none cuilibet Christiano imo prophane pro demonstâ—atione sâ—fficere
debet Nam quod illius sc Adami voluntas fuit nostra nos in illo vâ—luimus verum est sedâ—atiâ— hujus veritatis nulla est preter quam voluntas Creaâ—oris nunquam aliter intelliges jâ—sâ—um fuisse nos omnes nasci miseros p opter umus hominis peccatum 2. From the Lordship of God who may impose upon the reasonable Creature whatsoever duty he pleaseth 3. From the nature of a Creature which oweth unto God what duty he will call for 4. From the nature of Community where the absent yea thâ—se that are unborn are obliged by the deed of their Pleniâ—otentiary acting Legally 2 Sam. 21 1. Joshua 9.7 15 18. Ioshuâ—â—s Covenant with the Gib onites bound Saul Proposition II. Children by divine Institution have Confederated and do still Confederate in their Parents as publick Persons 1. Mankind considered in Adam Gen. 2.17 Rom. 5.12 1 Cor. 15.22 2. Abrahams Children born in his house and also his Seed in their Generations Confederated in Abraham Gen. 17.7 25.27 3. The Posterity of Israel entered into Convenant in the Act of their Progenitors in Horeb soon after their coming out of Egypt Ezk. 16 60. the abient and Children yet unborn renewed Convenant in the Act of Israel in the plains of Moab Deut. 29. 4. Children under the Gospel Confederate in their Parents because to the Children of Parents in Covenant that promise Gen. 17.7 doth belong Acts 2.39 because they are holy 1 Cor. 7.14 which Hosmels cannot be understood to be any but external Holiness nor can that external be reasonably interpreted of any but Church holiness suitable to the like phrase Rom. 11.16 Because Children are baptized which Baptisme in the Gospel Circumcision â—ol 2.11 12. therefore in Church Covenant but Covenant they do not no then proper persons therefore in their publick persons viz. their Pâ—ents 5. Either Children under the Gospel are Confederate in their Parents or Children â—ay not be baptized or non-members maâ— be baptized but children are to bâ— baptized and non-members are not to be baptized Therefore Children are to be baptized is with us granted that non members are not to be baptized appeareth thus External Baptisme is an external Seal of the external not only of the internal Covenant Baptisme as touching the substantial part thereof succeeds Circumcision in place and use As therefore Circumcision was applied only to such as were in Covenant so should it be with Baptisme 2dly they who are not Subject to the Church Government have no right to Church priviledges of which Baptisme is a principal one but non members are not Subject to Church Government Therefore c 3dly They with whom the Church have nothing to do have no right to that thing which can only be done in a Church as such But with non-members the Church have nothing to do 1 Cor. 5.12 Therefore c. 4ly If to baptize in ordinary dispensation is only a Shepardly office act then to be baptized is the privileage only of the Flock But to baptize is in ordinary dispensation only a Shepardly Office act Math 28.19 The Reason of the Consequence is Shepard and Flock are Relatives and Relatorum mutuuâ—est ambitus The walk of Relates is of equal extent 5ly If Infant non-members have right to Baptisme then Adult non-members if so then why may not non-members come to the Lords Supper Proposition III. By virtue of this Confederation Children are made Church-members 1. That in Children which giveth that foâ—m of member ship maketh Children Church members But Confederation giveth the Form of Church membership Therefore Confederation maketh Children Church members 2dly That whereupon God declareth Children to be in Covenant with him to be holy and to have right unto Church Priviledges makes Children to be Church meâ—bers But upon Confederation God declareth Children to be in Covenant with him to be holy and to have right to Church Priviledges Gen. 17. 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 therefore Confederation makes Children to be Church members 3dly That which distinguishes between Children in Church Estate and Children not in Church Estate makes Children Chureb members But Confederation distinguishes between Children in Church Estate and Children not in Church Estate therefore Confederation c. 4ly Either Children are members by Confederation or there may be given some other way of their membership or all Children are non-members But neither can there be given any other way of their membership neither is it a true Proposition that all Children are non-members therefore c. Proposition IV. This distinct membership gives them a proper right unto Baptisme so as they are not baptizâ—d by the right of their Parents but by their own right 1. Such as their membeâ—ship is such is their right unto Baptisme But their membership as hath been already proved is distinct therefore their right to Baptisme is distinct 2dly That Covenant which Contracteth upon the â—â—â—â—quent a proper guilt in order unto punishment conâ—eâ—eth upon the obedient a proper right and in order unto Priviledges But the Covenant of infants Contracteth upon them Deliâ—quent a proper guilt in order unto punishment Ezâ—k 16.59 therefore it Conferreth upon the obedient a proper right in order unto Priviledges 3dly It the Children of the Jews in Covenant bad a proper right to Circumcision then their Children of Believers in Covenant have a proper right to Baptisme But the Children of the Jews in Covenant had a proper right to Circumcision In case of the Parents Ceremonial uncleanness the Parents notwithstanding their membership were suspended from Communion in the holy things yet was the Child even then notwithstanding the Parents Suspension to be Circumcised the eighth day 4ly If Confederate Children are to be baptized notwithstanding the Parents be not members then they are to be baptized not by their Parents but be their own membership But Confederate Children are to be baptized notwithstanding their Parents be not members as in Case of the Parents death or Censure falling out after their Childrens being and before the Time of their Baptisme therefore Children are baptized by their own membership Though the membership of the Parent is by Divine Institution Instrumental to the membership of the Child for God institutes such only to be publick persons yet the membership of the Child remains though the membership of the Parent ceaseth Pauls freedom by birth lives after his Fathers death Acts 22.28 the effect continues though the Instrument be extinct 1. Object In case the Parents themselves be not admitted to full Communion or that they lye under offence it seems then their Children ought not to be baprized Answ We must carefully distinguish between the Parents standing as a publick person and between the Parents standing as a single person the Child is contained in the Parent only when he stands as a publick person not when he stands as a single person Hence only the Confederation not the condition or conversation of the Parent is impured to the Child As Adam was
either in way of Synod or Colloquie and with freedom and Candor verbally and fully discourse the matter and agree to some orderly Conclusion As for the Substance of the Cause wherein we have engaged I am daily more and more Confirmed that it is the Cause of Truth and of Christ and that wherein not a little of the Interest of Christs Kingdome and of the Souls of men is laid up I have heard you intimate as if there were failings in the manner of Calling and the managing of the late Synod and you speak of your expunging some passages in what passed the Press which would have discovered the nakedness of the contrary minded though I suppose if they had been printed they would have discovered more the nakedness of the Author or Authors then of the Subjects of those Expressions and Informations And I once had an Intimation as if some had gathered up a Narrative of matters that would shame us much if it should be published To all which I would say I do not know of any such great matter that can be objected or of ought Considerable that would seem strange if things be rightly represented among men of Infirmity as we all are And some of us were not slow in the open Synod and other wayes to own our selves such and to crave the Candor and forbearance that is needful for such which one would think Christian and ingenious Spirits should have been satisfied with But if there were more to be objected that way then there is is that any Argument against the matter and Cause it self Luthers Refo ma ion might be Condemned upon that ground for all know that he wanted not many failings in the management thereof God loves to humble Instrumentâ— and to leave matter of humbling upon them even when they are carrying on his own good work but I should be sorry if there were to be found with us the Tyths of Irregularities that abound among our Anti Synod alian people in the Countâ— who slick not to despise reproach and distast Synods and Ministers and all upon the account of this matter whereby I wish the Lo d be not provoked unto Anger And how farr those few in the Ministry that have appeared in opposition may have been accessary thereunto I had rather they would seriously Confider between the Lord and their own Souls then I go about to determine We have been reflected upon by some as seeking our selves and driving on I know not what design and I cannot readily Imagine what Self Interest or Self End we here should be led by in this matter Sure I am for my own part that I prejudice my self much as to name Interest Ease c. For my appearing in this Cause Neither was I so insensible as not to feel it from the first I know my self to be a poor vile sinful Creature and can with some seeling say chief of Sinners and least of Saints but in this particular matter I have often said I wish my Brethren could see through me for I know not any design or desire I have in it in all the world but only that the will of God might be done among us his Kingdome be advanced these Churches setled on right Bases and flourish in the wayes of Truth Purity and Peace and that the good of the Souls of men might be promoted both in this and after Generation I am sorry to sphnd thus many Lines about the Circumstantials of the Cause the prejudices that are thence taken up against it have drawn me thus farr But touching the matter it self that hath been in debate between us which I had rather be discoursing of you may please to Consider at Leisure which of these three Propositions you would deny 1. The whole visible Church under the New Testament is to be baptized 2. If a man be once in the Church whether admitted at Age or in Infancy nothing less then Censurable evil can put him out 3 If the Parent be in the visible Church his Infant Child is so also The first is proved by the Arguments for the Synods first Proposition the second is plain from the Current of Scripture and Confirmed under the New-Testament besides other Reasons from the Carriage of Christ and his Apostles towards the Jewes who came into the Church by a membership received in Infancy The third must be owned by all but Antipâ—do Baptists The Frame of the Covenant Gen 17. inferrts it and Mr. D. imprinted Essay pag 23. grants that the Promise of the Covenant doâ—s not stop at the Infant Cold. These three things are all of them the doctrine of all our great Divines as well as of the Scriptures It is to mâ—â— Confirmation to observe de facto that in the way of successive bapâ—â—zâ—ng in Children of all that had a standing in the visible Church though with too much Laxeness and Corruption for want of Discipline the Lord hath continued Religion among Christian People from Age to Age whereas the like Continuance and Preservation of true Religion could not have been hoped for not propable in the Contrary way It was never heard of in the world from Abraham to this day since God appointed an entering Sign or such a Livery to be worn by his people to distinguish them from the world that a people did Continue for any length of Time to be Religious who were either all or the greater part of them uncircumcised or unbaptized The laying aside of Circumcision among the Midianites for that they did betimes lay it aside may be plainly gathered from Exod. 4.24 25 26. was quickly followed with the utter Loss of all true Religion among them and other of the Posterity of Abraham and Keturab I know the bare having of Baptisme does not alwayes keep true Religion but sure it is that the want of it will quickly lose Religion among a people To say that a people may be Religious well enough without Baptisme would be to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ in appointing such an external Sign of Christianty which surely was no needless thing It is easie to see that in the way your self and some others go the bigger hâ—lf of the people in this Country will in a little Time be unbaptized Mr. D. sayes in his Essay pag. 55. that out meer members as he calls them will soon be a farr greater number then his Sheep and Lambs i. e. then his Immediate and mediate members both of them and all the Generations of these meer members as he calls them he would have unbaptized now I leave it to Consideration how subversive to Religion this will soon be as also how absurd a thing that a Christian professing people yea eminently professing and of a more reformed temper then ordinarily the world hâ—th known As through grace the body of people of this Country yea and of our members not in fâ—ll Communion yet are should so soon be the body of them unbaptized as if they were not a
Christian but an Heathen People Let me add this farther Consideration all Disciples or Acts 11.26 Christians are by Christ enjoyned to be baptized Math 28.19 Acts 11.26 states it upon theâ—e people that are called named or counted Christians I know these are that arrogate to themselves the Name of Christians who are manifest Anti-Christians as Papist Athiests c. these may be excluded but those who in regard both of their belief and practice do justly and rightly retain the Reputation of Christians as they that are described in our fifth Proposition and the Generality of the People in this Country cannot be denyed to do surely Christs Injunction doth include them We may observe that Congregational men in England are not without thoughts and studies for enlargement of Baptisme Doctor Owen in his late Catechisme is plainly with us in the main Substance of the Cause viz. the baptizing of those we plead for though it seems be would have them baptized in another Notion For when as in Question 38 he makes the proper Subject of Baptisme to be professing Believers and their Infant Seed it is plain he intends Baptisme to many who according to his Platform are not in full Communion or may not come to the Lords Table nay are not with him so much as joyned members of a particular or instituted Church but are only professors of the Faith Compare Question 19 39 47 49. And I suppose there are Expressions to that purpose in other writings of his which I have not now by me The same thing may be Contained under the Expression at the meeting of the Savoy in their Confession of Faith Chap. 29. Thes 4. the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be baptized using therein the words of the Assemblies Confession and we know in how large a Sense they take the word believing when as they say in Chap. 26. Thes 2. The whole body of men throughout the world professing the Faith of the Gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it not destroying their own Profession by any errors everting the Foundation or unholiness of Conversation are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ. How plain is it that the persons whose Children we would have baptized are professing Believers according to Doctor Owens Expressions believing Parents in the Assemblies Sense and such Professors of the Faith of the Gospel and of obedience to God as do not otherwise destroy that Profession all which say the Savoy meeting are of the visible Catholick Church of Christ And I suppose they would not have any part of Christs visible Church left unbaptized 'T is true they say this visible Catholick Church of Christ as such is not intrusted with the Administration of any Ordinance but they may mean as many do expressly hold that the pâ—â—â—on Aâ—ministring Baptisme must be an Officer in a particular Churâ—h though the Subjects baptized may be of the Catholick Church However such Catholick Professâ—â—s as they here describe are qualified for Baptisme If taking hold of the Covenant in a particular Church be in their mind further needful ours do that You may hereby perceive that you stand almost alone while you are against the baptizing of such as are described in ouâ— fifth Proposition Whether they should be baptized as in a Catholick or in a particular Church state is another Question and I Confess my self not altogether so peremptory in this Latter as I am in the thing it self viz. that they ought to be baptized yet still I think that when all Stones are turned it will come to this that all the baptized are and ought to be under Discipline in particular Churches your self and those few in the Ministâ—y here that dissâ—nt do bear a greater weight then it may be you are aware of For the People in the Country have in a manner no Arguments to object but this some of your selves some of the Ministers are against it I have lately in Course of Exposition gone over Exod. 4 24. as formerly over Gen 17 9 14. And the more I look into such Texâ—s as those the more awful they are to me to make me fear lest we should be wanting to do the will of God in this particular and lest the Lord should be thereby displeased And I am afraid that we do not our duty while we let a matter of so great moment and of such publick and Practical Concernment as this is lye by from year to year without using more means to bring it to an Issue and to come to some settlement therein Thus you see with what Freedom I have opened somewhat of my heart to you about this matter had I not been Confident of your Candid Acceptation thereof I shâ—uld not have done it I do affectionately thank you for your Remembronce of me before the Lord and desire a Continued Share therein hoping that I am not and shall not be in my poor measure uâ—â—nindful of you whom I have a real respect for and do heartily love in the Lord. I am not without hope that we may be yet of one mind before we dye And I am ready to think that we had been so e're this if you had been pleased to attend and pursue a free Candid and through Debate of matters veybally and happily if some such Course were yet â—â—ken amongst us that live here about it might effect an accord But however I hope we shall meet there ubi Luthero cum zuinglio optimè jam convenit The Lord direct all our paths for us that we may be found walking in the wayes of Truth and Peace to his Glory the good of others and rejoycing of our own Souls in the day of Christ In whom I am Yours unfainedly Jonathan Mitchel Cambridg December 26. 1667. FINIS