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
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
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
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
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
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