Spirit of meckness and Love there doth grow dissention in any Church as did in the Church of Antioch about Circumsision The Church so divided shall do wisely and safely not to proceed to determine the Case by a Major Vâ—te to the unsatisfaction and offence of a Considerable part among themselves or the offence of other Churches But ought rather to bring the matter to the hearing and Judgement of other Elders and Brethren of other Churches who being desired ought readily to meet together and seriously as in the fear of God to enquire into the Case search out by the word what is the mind of Christ therein by themselves if present or otherwise by Letters and Messengers to declare to the Church what they judge to be the Rule of Christ which they should walk by which Judgement ought to be received with all due respect according to God Acts 15. Proposition VIII As there is a Brotherhood of members in the same Church so there is a Brotherhood of Churches being all Fellow members of Christ Jesus and so bound to have a mâ—utal Care one of another Cant. 8 8. It is therefore meet and requiste that in Case any Church shall fall into any scandalous error or offence in doctrine or practice then the Neighbour Church or Churches should Advertize Convince and admonish such a Church thereof according to the Rule of the Gospel And if after due Conviction by a Neighbour Church and again by more Churches the offending Church as the nature of the offence and the respect due to a Church of Christ may require may at length withdraw the Church with sufficient partience will not yet hearken to their Brethren then withdraw from that Church or at least that part of it which refuse to be healed such Brotherly Communion and the fruits thereof as otherwise Churches usually do afford to each other Proposition IX In Case any member shall be laid under Censure in a Church by the Major part with the offence of a Considerable part thereof or when any whole Church shall seem to have Consented corruptly to such a Censure upon Complaint of the grieved part attested by the dusenting Brethren or in the other Case by other credible persons it is free yea requisite that other Church or Churches in the Spirit of meckness desire to know the Reason or their Censure which if the Church shall clear up to be just then the other Church or Churches ought to bear witness to their proceedings and to perswade the Censured and dissenting part of the submit and give satisfaction But if the Church shall refuse to give an account of the Reasons of their procceedings or not finally clear up the Justice thereof nor ease the grieved party it will then be equal for any other Church to receive the Censured part to their Covenant or Communion For so Christ received the blind man after he was unjustly Cast out of the Synogogue Iobâ— 9. The unjust acts of any Church cannot appear to be done in the name of Christ out rather in the abuse of his name and power and therefore do not bind in Heaven Clavis errans uon Ligat Proposition X. As it is the practise of Godly Christians in the Churches without any Scruple and with much Edification and increase of Love to meet together in Covenient numbers or Families at Set times house by house to exercise that Christian Communion which the moral Rules of the Gospel call for 1 Thes 5.11 Col. 3.16 Heb. 3 13. and so 24. so also upon the same grounds besides others it would by the blessing of God conduce much to the increase of brotherly Love and Unity the spiritual Edification of many by mutual Faith of each other to the strengthening of the hearts and hands of one another in the work of the Lord If the Elders and brethren of the Churches did meet together Church by Church in Convenient numbers at set times not to exercise any Jurisdiction over any but to enjoy and practice Church Communion by prayer together hearing the word preached and Conference about such Gases and Questions of Conscience as shall be found useful or needful for the edification and Comfort and peace of every Church or any of the Brethren thereof and this Course might tend much to satisfy the Spirits of divers godly Brethren who have thought that we so much mind the distinction of particular Churches and the duties of fellow members in the same that we loose much of the Comfort of Love and the Fellowship of the Spirit which we might enjoy and that we fall short in some brotherly Love which we owe mutually to our dear Brethren of several Churches For the better Improvement of such a Conference 1. It is fit that the Number of Churches so to meet be regulated according to the nearness or distance of Churches and as other Conveniences or Inconveniences shall require 2. For the times of meeting it may seem best to leave it to the wisdome of each Society of Churches to meet more frequently or seldom as they shall see Cause 3. Concerning their Exercises it is meet that the Elders of each Church where the Conference is to be held should choose with Consent of the Church some other Elder as they see best whom they may intreat to preach at their meeting and also to desire some to moderate in the Conference and agree upon such Questions as they see fit three or four and send them to the Elders of other Churches at least fourteen dayes before the time of their Assembly 4. For the ordering of the Time it may be fit that the Sermon should end at Eleven a Clock and after it the Conference follow and continue so long as shall be found meet and seasonable Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself who is the Counsellour the Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace grant unto all his Churches truth and Peace alwayes and â—y all means and He counsel and guide the hearts of his people to discern and embrace all such wayes as himself hath sanctified to those holy Ends. Amen Thus farr Mr. Cotton And that this is according to Congregational Principles is evident from other Testimonies For the Messengers of an hundred and twenty Congregational Churches who met at the Savoy in London Anno 1658. do in their declaration of the order appointed in the Churches of Christ Thesis 26. thus declare In Case of difficulties or differences either in point of doctrine or in Administrations wherein either the Churches in general are concerned or any one Church in their Peace Vnion and Edification or any member or members of any Church are injured in or by any proceeding in Censures not agreeable to Truth and Order It is according to the mind of Christ that many Churches holding Communion together do by their Messengers meet in a Synod or Council to Consider and give their Advice in or about the matter in difference c. And Doctor Owen who was a great part of
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
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
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
for the helping the Church against Errors Schismes and Scandals 3dly That these Synods may by the Power they have from Christ admonish men or Churches in his Name when they see evils Continuing in or growing upon the Church and their Admonitions carry with them the Authority of Jesus Christ 4ly As there shall be cause they may declare men or Churches to be Subverters of the Faith or otherwise according to the nature of the offence to shame them before all the Churches about them 5ly They may by a Solemn act in the Name of Jesus Christ refuse any further Communion with them till they repent 6ly They may declare also in the Name of Christ that these erring people or Churches are not to be received into Fellowship with any of the Churches of Christ nor to have Communion with one another in the Ordinances of Christ You will say what if they care not for all this Answ That is as if you should say what if they be not Conscientious what if nothing can prevail with Conscience if you say private Brethren may admonish and declare in the Name of Christ This is more then if any private Brethren should do the same thing For a Synod is a Solemn Ordinance of Christ and the Elders are to be looked upon as the Officers of Jesus Christ And again pag. 47. he ha's these words If it shall be said But surely they do not agree so farr they do not come up to these six things mentioned To that I Answer I do not in these deliver only mine own Judgement but by what I know of the Judgements of all those Brethren with whom I have occasion to Converse by Conference both before and since I stand Charged to make it good to be their Judgements also yea it hath been theirs and mine for divers years even then when we never thought to have enjoyed our own Land again And if it be so then let the Lord be Judge between us and our Brethren for those loud and grievous out-Cries there ha's been against us in this thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 POSTSCRIPT SInce the Composure of this Collection of Testimonies it hath pleased the Lord to take unto himself another of our Antient Studs viz. worthy and Reverend Mr. Allin of Dedham whose Apprehensions touching the Controverted Questions is sufficiently known Likewise not many weeks before his death he read this Script and expressed his judgement thereon in words following Reverend and dear Brother I salute you in the Lord. I humbly bless God for your fruitful Labours in this your Collection and in other matters performed by you concerning which in general I think it is worthy serious Consultation amongst your Friends whether it be not a Season to publish the same 1. We see the work of Christ touching the Church Seed is laid asleep this might awaken our drowsiness we see also the great disorders in Churches for want of seasonable help from Neighbouring Churches and by Reason of the rejection of Counsel without convincing their Sentence of error 2 dly We see how our present doctrine is rejected as a Novel Innovation differing from first and primitive Principles 3. Who knoweth how farr God may bless this Treatise to the recovery of some if not many from their Erroneous Opinions about these Truths I Conceive also some serious Exhortation to cleave to these first wayes of Christ in New England might be seasonably added I Rest Yours in our Lord Iohn Allin A Letter concerning the Subject of Baptisme written by that eminent Minister of Christ Mr Ionathan Mitchel late Pastor of the Church in Cambridg in New England Reverend and dear Sir I have deliberately read over Mr. Dâ— Essay and Epistle to the Reader which I now return to you with thanks for the Loan of it If I should say I see not matter of Conviction in it his Answer is already given me pag. 35 If men shut their eyes when the light is held out to them they may truly say they see not or in pag. 6. they that Enquire of God with an Idol in their hearts shall be paenally answered by being left to their own Counsels c. we had need Labour to approve our selves to God when we meet with such sharp Censures from men But the R. A. can hardly expect we should find Conviction here seeing he builds all upon this distinction of Immediate and mediate membership which with the Consectaries He deduceth from it is the prora puppis of his whole discourse and for the proof of the distinction himself in pag. 34 35. refers the Reader to his former Essays neither have I observed much more in this writing toward the proof of it then we have had before And therefore if we did not see it as by him explained and Improved to be evident before it is not strange if we do not see it now If it must be imputed to our blindness yea wilful and paenal blindness that we see it not we must be Content to bear it as we may Also when he affirms over and over pag. 75 83 92 103 131 145 152. that we our selves Confess the Parents in Question have not Faith or are not visible Believers the Contrary whereunto we have plainly asserted And how many times over does he say it we call them meer members which we have disclaimed and do not so call them but members not in full Communion yea he sayes in pag. 49. we grant that the persons in Question are not to be accounted Church members c. How should we receive Conviction from such discourses If his meaning be by so often reflecting on our meer members as he calls them to deny that distinction of members into such as are in full Communion and such as are not in full Communion that would seem strange for how can that be denyed by any Padâ—baptists and he seems to approve it in pag. 35. yea he seems sometimes to grant that some when Adult do Continue in the Church and Covenant who yet are not admitted to full Communion pag. 76. 99 yet he calls for a Rule for two such sorts of Adult members pag. 73. But I shall not enter into discourse of particulars nor am I fit to be an Answerer it is casie to observe a greater sharpness in his Expressions to me then else where in this Book I hope I shall Consider as I am able what I find in this or other discourses about the matter in Controversy c. and if I be convinced of Error I shall not be ashamed to own it but if there be no way to Issue the Controversy but by such voluminous writings and if every passage be not spoken to he counts himself neglected or unanswered And that which he hath before said stands still firm and good as to that purpose he speaks in this Book above twenty times I have little hope to see an Issue of it nor can I see any likely way for an Issue unless we can meet