Concerning Baptism and Communion of Churches in New England, Letter 3
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 MonethMonth: And of the 9th of the fifth MonethMonth and ſixth MonethMonth, 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 …undry Learned men of that way have long ſinc… publiſhed.
For Doctor Owen in his review of Sc…aſm…, 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 p…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 u…ne…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 ſu…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 to the other Queſtion about Communion and Conſociation of Churches. Now concerning that, it is leſs needful to produce many Teſtimonies, that there in the Synod Introduceth not any Innovation. For ſome that diſſented from the Anſwer to the firſt Queſtion about Baptiſme, yet in this laſt concurred, yea, there was an unanimous and univerſal Aſſent to the Anſwer given to this ſecond Queſtion, as the Author of the Antiſynodalia American… does acknowledge, where (pag. 12.) it is ſaid in the ſecond Queſtion we do fully agree with the reſt af the Synod, in all the Propoſitions laid down about it together with the Proofs thereof, we ſhall therefore amongſt our New Engliſh Worthies, only mention the Judgement of Mr. Cotton concerning this Queſtion, which what it is may be ſeen largly expreſſed in his Book of the Keyes, pag. 54, &c. And there are thoſe that will remember, that when that eminent Miniſter of Chriſt Mr. Mitchel was ordained Paſtor of the Church in Cambridg, Mr. Cotton giving in the Name of the Meſſengers of Churches, the right hand of Fellowſhip, ſeriouſly adviſed him to endeavour (And that faithful man was ever mindful of that ſolemn Advice) that that Ordinance of Conſociation of Churches might be duly practiſed, greatly bewailing the defect of theſe Churches, as to that particular, yea, Mr. Cottons heart was much upon this thing, in his latter time; foreſeeing that without it, theſe Churches and the Congregational way could not ſtand; He did therefore not long before his deceaſe, draw up ſome Propoſitions which are expreſſive of the way and manner of this Conſociation pleaded for, which becauſe they are (as being written by his hand, they cannot but be) of great weight and worth, we ſhall therefore here inſert and publiſh them.