Concerning Baptism and Communion of Churches in New England, Letter 1 – Letter 2

Concerning Baptism and Communion of Churches in New England · Letter 1 – Letter 2

p. 2To our Reverend and Beloved Brethren the Elders with the reſt of the Church of Dorcheſter. Grace and peace. from God our Father and from the Lord Ieſus Chriſt our Saviour.

The Caſe of Conſcience which you propounded to our Conſideration, [to wit, whether a Grand Father being a member of a Chriſtian Church, might claim Baptiſm to his Grand-Child, whoſe next Parents be not received into Church Covenant] ha's been deliberately treated of in our Church Aſſembled together publickly in the name of Chriſt. And upon due and ſerious diſcourſe about the point, it ſeemed good unto us all with one accord, and agreeable (as we believe) to the word of the Lord, that the Grand-Father may lawfully claim that priviledge to his Grand-child baptized by right of the Grand-fathers Covenant, be Committed to the Grand fathers education; for as God in the Covenant of Grace undertaketh to be a God, unto the Believer and his ſeed, ſo by the Rule of Relatives, the Tenour of the Covenant requireth that the Believer, do undertake that himſelf and his Seed do give up themſelves to become the people of the Lord, which he cannot undertake, in behalf of his Seed, unleſs they be committed to his education. 2. This other Caution alſo we conceive to be requiſite, that the Parents of the Child, do p. 3not thereby take occaſion to neglect the due and ſeaſonable preparation of themſelves for entrance into Covenant with God and his Church: theſe Cautions premiſed and obſerved, the Baptiſme of the Grand-child by right of his Grand-fathers Covenant, we believe to be warranted from the nature and tenour of the Covenant of Grace by this Reaſon, where there is a Stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part, and reſtipulation of the Covenant on mans part, there may be an obſignation of the Covenant on both parts, or in plainer words, where there is an offer of the Covenant on Gods part, and a receiving and undertaking of the Covenant on mans part, there may be a ſealing of it on both parts? But here is an offer of the Covenant on Gods part, Gen. 17.7. where God ſays, that he will be a God to Abraham, that is, to the Believer and his Seed, and by Seed is not there meant the next Seed only, but Seeds Seed alſo to many Generations, Iſai. 59.21. And here is likewiſe a receiving and undertaking of the Covenant on mans part, ſeeing the Grand-father receiveth the Covenant by his faith, and by the profeſſion of his faith, and by his deſire of the Seal of the Covenant to ſtrengthen his faith, and he undertaketh alſo the 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 I…fi…el, w…o are themſelves baptized, and pr…feſs their b…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 p. 4againſt 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 p. 5Patents 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. monethmonth 1648. and therein Mr. Cot…on delivers his jud…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 Chu…ch.

Alſo to a Reverend perſon yet ſurviving in this Country, who in a Letter bearing date, 4.4 MonethMonth 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, you… 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. Ma…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, p. 6the 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 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 Iſ…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 ſ…me may object a paſſage in Mr. Cottons Book of the way of the Chu…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 B…ptiſme, therefore it m…y ſeem, that Mr. Cottons Iudgement was not as ha…h been now declared. Unto this, let the judicious Re…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, p. 7further 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 wond…ed at, if there be therein ſome paſſages contradictory to Mr. Cottons known Iudgement. (3.) Mr. Co…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 ſe…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 p. 8to 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. 4…. 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 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 m…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 p. 9ſuitable 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 viſi…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 Trium…irate not unlike the former, viz. Mr. Mather, Mr. Norton and Mr. Sh…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 foreign dying words of worthy men were Oracutous, becauſe the Soul near its tranſ…gra…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 p. 10Baptiſme, 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 p. 11their 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 MonethMonth 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 p. 12right 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 tranſi…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 p. 13ſuch 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 no… 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 baptiz…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 d…are ſpoked of, yet in Anſwer to that Queſtion, who ought to be baptiz…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 Infidel… Converted to the Faith, and the Infants of one, or both Chriſtian Parents. Catechiſme. And the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, ſpeak thus.

Queſt. Ʋnto whom is Baptiſme to be admin st…ed?

Anſw. Baptiſme is not to be adminiſtred to any that are out of the Ʋiſivie Church, and ſo strangers from the Covenant of Promiſe, p. 14till 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 p. 15their 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 …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 p….

p. 162. 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. …. none cuilibet Chriſtiano imo & prophane, pro demonſt…atione ſ…fficere debet.

Nam quod illius (ſc. Adami) voluntas fuit noſtra & nos in illo v… luimus, verum est, ſed…ati… hujus veritatis, nulla est preter quam voluntas Crea…oris; nunquam aliter intelliges, j…ſ…um fuiſſe nos omnes naſci miſeros p opter umus hominis peccatum.

2. From the Lordſhip of God, who may impoſe upon the reaſonable Creature whatſoever duty he pleaſeth.

3. From the nature of a Creature, which oweth unto God what duty he will call for.

4. From the nature of Community, where the abſent, yea, th…ſe that are unborn, are obliged by the deed of their Pleni…otentiary acting Legally, 2 Sam. 21 1. Joſhua 9.7, 15, 18. Ioſhu…s Covenant with the Gib. onites bound Saul.

Propoſition II.

Children by divine Inſtitution have Confederated, and do ſtill Confederate in their Parents as publick Perſons. 1. Mankind conſidered in Adam, Gen. 2.17. Rom. 5.12. 1 Cor. 15.22.

2. Abrahams Children born in his houſe, and alſo his Seed in their Generations, Confederated in Abraham, Gen. 17.7, 25.27.

3. The Poſterity of Iſrael entered into Convenant in the Act of their Progenitors, in Horeb ſoon after their coming out of Egypt, Ezk. 16 60. the abient and Children yet unborn renewed Convenant in the Act of Iſrael in the plains of Moab, Deut. 29.

4. Children under the Goſpel Confederate in their Parents, becauſe to the Children of Parents in Covenant, that promiſe Gen. 17.7. doth belong, Acts 2.39. becauſe they are holy, 1 Cor. 7.14. which Hoſmels cannot be underſtood to be any but external Holineſs, nor can that external be reaſonably interpreted of any but Church holineſs ſuitable to the like phraſe, Rom. 11.16. — Becauſe Children are baptized, which Baptiſme in the Goſpel Circumciſion, …ol. 2.11, 12. therefore in Church Covenant, but Covenant they do not no then proper perſons, therefore in their publick perſons, viz. their P…ents.

5. Either Children under the Goſpel are Confederate in their Parents, or Children …ay not be baptized or non-members ma… be baptized, but children are to b… baptized, and non-members are not to be baptized. Therefore Children are to be baptized is with us granted, that non members are not to be baptized appeareth thus. External Baptiſme is an external Seal of the external, not only of the internal Covenant. Baptiſme as touching the ſubſtantial part thereof, ſucceeds Circumciſion in place and uſe. As therefore Circumciſion was applied only to ſuch as were in Covenant, ſo ſhould it be with Baptiſme.

2dly. they who are not Subject to the Church Government, have no right to Church priviledges, of which Baptiſme is a principal one. but non members are not Subject to Church Government, Therefore &c

3dly. They with whom the Church have nothing to do, have no right to that thing which can only be done in a Church as ſuch. But with non-members the Church have nothing to do, 1 Cor. 5.12. Therefore &c.

p. 184ly. If to baptize in ordinary diſpenſation is only a Shepardly office act, then to be baptized is the privileage only of the Flock But to baptize is in ordinary diſpenſation only a Shepardly Office act, Math▪ 28.19. The Reaſon of the Conſequence is, Shepard and Flock are Relatives, and Relatorum mutuu…eſt ambitus. The walk of Relates is of equal extent.

5ly. If Infant non-members have right to Baptiſme, then Adult non-members; if ſo, then why may not non-members come to the Lords Supper.

Propoſition III.

By virtue of this Confederation Children are made Church-members.

1. That in Children which giveth that fo…m of member ſhip maketh Children Church members, But Confederation giveth the Form of Church memberſhip. Therefore Confederation maketh Children Church members.

2dly. That whereupon God declareth Children to be in Covenant with him to be holy, and to have right unto Church Priviledges, makes Children to be Church me…bers. But upon Confederation God declareth Children to be in Covenant with him to be holy, and to have right to Church Priviledges, Gen. 17. 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39. therefore Confederation makes Children to be Church members.

3dly. That which diſtinguiſhes between Children in Church Eſtate and Children not in Church Eſtate, makes Children Chureb members. But Confederation diſtinguiſhes between Children in Church Eſtate and Children not in Church Eſtate, therefore Confederation, &c.

4ly. Either Children are members by Confederation, or there may be given ſome other way of their memberſhip, or all Children are non-members. But neither can there be given any other way of their memberſhip, neither is it a true Propoſition, that all Children are non-members; therefore, &c.

Propoſition IV.

This diſtinct memberſhip gives them a proper right unto Baptiſme, ſo as they are not baptiz…d by the right of their Parents, but by their own right. (1.) Such as their membe…ſhip is, ſuch is their right unto Baptiſme, But their memberſhip as hath been already proved p. 19is diſtinct, therefore their right to Baptiſme is diſtinct. (2dly.) That Covenant which Contracteth upon the …quent, a proper guilt in order unto puniſhment con…e…eth upon the obedient a proper right, and in order unto Priviledges. But the Covenant of infants Contracteth upon them Deli…quent a proper guilt in order unto puniſhment, Ez…k 16.59. therefore it Conferreth upon the obedient a proper right in order unto Priviledges. (3dly.) It the Children of the Jews in Covenant bad a proper right to Circumciſion, then their Children of Believers in Covenant, have a proper right to Baptiſme. But the Children of the Jews in Covenant had a proper right to Circumciſion: In caſe of the Parents Ceremonial uncleanneſs, the Parents notwithſtanding their memberſhip were ſuspended from Communion in the holy things, yet was the Child even then notwithſtanding the Parents Suſpenſion to be Circumciſed the eighth day:

4ly. If Confederate Children are to be baptized notwithſtanding the Parents be not members, then they are to be baptized, not by their Parents but be their own memberſhip. But Confederate Children are to be baptized, notwithſtanding their Parents be not members, as in Caſe of the Parents death or Cenſure falling out after their Childrens being, and before the Time of their Baptiſme, therefore Children are baptized by their own memberſhip; Though the memberſhip of the Parent is by Divine Inſtitution Inſtrumental to the memberſhip of the Child, (for God inſtitutes ſuch only to be publick perſons) yet the memberſhip of the Child remains, though the memberſhip of the Parent ceaſeth, Pauls freedom by birth lives after his Fathers death, Acts 22.28. the effect continues, though the Inſtrument be extinct.

1. Object. In caſe the Parents themſelves be not admitted to full Communion, or that they lye under offence, it ſeems then their Children ought not to be baprized.

Anſw. We muſt carefully diſtinguiſh between the Parents ſtanding as a publick perſon, and between the Parents ſtanding as a ſingle perſon, the Child is contained in the Parent only when he ſtands as a publick perſon, not when he ſtands as a ſingle perſon. Hence only the Confederation, not the condition or converſation of the Parent is impured to the Child. As Adam was a publick perſon, in the firſt tranſgreſſion, therefore the firſt tranſgreſſion was imputed to his poſterity, not only to him, Rom. 5.12. but in his after tranſgreſſions he was in this reſpect but a ſingle, not a publick perſon, therefore p. 20they are imputed only unto him, and not to his Poſterity

2 Object. Members are compleat or incompleat: Children are members incompleat, not compleat.

Anſwer 1. Did this diſtinction hold, yet that the incompleatneſs of Childrens memberſhip is not ſuch why they ſhould be hindred from being baptized, is clear from Pedo-Baptiſme.

2dly. Members are to be conſidered either in reſpect of their Communion, or in reſpect of their memberſhip. In reſpect of their Communion they may be ſaid to be compleat or incompleat; becauſe Communion receives more or leſs, and may be enjoyed either in whole or in part, But if members be conſidered, in reſpect of memberſhip which is the preſent Query, then they cannot be ſaid to be compleat, or incompleat, becauſe memberſhip being a Relation doth not receive more or leſs, as a little member is as truly a member as the greateſt, the hand of a Child is truly a hand, and member of the whole as the hand of a man.

Object. 3. Memberſhip is

Immediate, viz when theſe that are Adult

Confederate in their own perſons.

Mediate, viz when Infants Confederate in a publick perſon as Mankind Confederated in Adam.

1 Anſwer. Though Adam Confederated in his own perſon. i. e. although it be the perſon of Adam that Confederated, yet Adam himſelf Confederated not as a ſingle perſon, but as a publick perſon, ſo as though Adam and the Parents of Children Confederate Immediately, i. e. in their own perſons, yet do they not confederate as ſingle perſons. In this notion, Scil. of not confederating as ſingle perſons, the Condition of both mediate, and Immediate members are alike.

2dly. The validity of memberſhip depends not upon the Inſtrument or medium to wit, the Parents ſtanding as a publick perſon in the Act of Confederation, but upon the Inſtitution of God in Chriſt, the value and virtue of the effect here cannot depend, upon the medium (which is it ſelf alſo an Arbitrary Effect) but upon the ſupream and Independent Cauſe, The memberſhip of a male Child Confederating mediately, i. e. in the publick perſon of the Mo…r, excelleth the memb…rſhip of the Mother Confederating …mm…i…tely in h…r own perſon, becauſe the Mother though ſh… be a Church member, ye… …s not capable of being a member co…t…uent o… the Church (for only Brethren conſtitute a Church, in that they alone p. 21be capable of being the Subject of the power of the Keyes, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12.) ſo as ſhould the Brethren dye, the Siſter… ſurviving could not continue a Church, but would immediately ceaſe to the Church members, yet her male Child is not only a Church member, but is alſo capable of being a member Constituent of the Church.

3 dly. The Cauſe why a member is not admitted to ſuch and ſuch Communion, is not any defect in memberſhip, but ſome defect concerning the qualification of the member. The mother notwithſtanding her memberſhip is inferiour to the memberſhip of her male Child, (ſhe being as was ſaid before a member of the Church, but not a member Conſtituent of a Church) is admitted to the Supper, ye… the Child is not. A man or woman Adult Confederating in their own perſons Immediately upon ſome offence poſſibly falling out or diſcovered between their Admiſſion and intended Baptiſme, may not be baptized, where as a Child Confederated in his publick perſon is to be baptized.

Object. 4. Children in their non-Age are by their Parents only materially, and not by themſelves formally and actually members.

Anſw. Members potentially are ſuch only in poſſiblity, but a… yet non-members actually. Memberſhip is had two waye…, either by Confederating in a publick perſon, or by Confederating in our own-perſons, Children are actually and formally members by Confederation in their publick perſon, not in their own perſons: they who have the matter and Form of memberſhip, are actually members. Children Confederate in their Parents have the matter and Form of memberſhip, viz. Holineſs, Mal. 2.15. Rom. 11 16. 1 Cor. 7.14. And Confederation in their Parents as their publick perſon, Gen 17. Acts 2.39. therefore Infants Confederate in their Parents w re actually and formally, not potentially Cirumciſed under the Law they are actually & formally, not potentially baptized under the Goſpel, therefore they are actually and formally, and not only potentially members. If Mankind Confederated actually in Adam their publick perſon, when they did not ſo much as exiſt in their proper perſons, then may children actually exiſting in their proper perſons, actually Confederate in their publick perſon. But Mankind not yet exiſting in their proper perſons, Confederated in Adam their publick perſon. Peccatum Al…i non fuit alienum ſ…de…am no▪ ſtrum peccat…m Adami fuit volunt …ium … modo reſpectu noſt…i quia ut fuimus in Adamo noſt…o Pa entes, it a vol…mus in i…lo, Ʋedelius de De… & creat qu. 105.ſ…u voluntas illa Adami fuit volu…tas totiu Ma…ſae. That Speech of Thomas p. 22though uſed by him to another purpoſe may aptly be applyed here, peccatum Adami fuit gravius nostris ſecundum circumſiantiam perſonae non autem ſecundum ſpeci…m.…om. ….163.3.

If children ſo ſoon as they exiſt are actually guilty of a Covenant broken, then children as ſoon as they exiſt are capable of actually Confederating, breaking of a Covenant ſuppoſes the being of a Covena…t that cannot be broken, that never had a being. Ab…ſt Tertii adjecti ad eſt ſecundi adjecti valet Conſequentia. But children ſo ſoon as they exiſt are guilty of a Covenant broken, witneſs Original Sin actually inflicted upon children as the puniſhment of their Sin in Adam. God doth not puniſh actually ſuch as are only Sinners potentially, but as yet have not actually ſinned. Neither doth childrens incapacity, to exert Church acts deny them to be actually Church members, for then Brethren under offence before any Cenſure, brethren infirmed, by ſome ſinleſs Accident, yea, brethren when aſleep ſhould all of them be potentially only, and not actually Church members. Nor doth Childrens incapacity to Vote or Conſtitute a Church, deny them to be actually Church members, for thence i… would follow, that the Siſters were only potentially, and not actually Church members

More needs not to be ſaid of Mr. Nortons Judgement concerning this Subject, we come to Mr. Shepards, ſometime Paſtor of the Church in Cambridg in New-England, who beſides his eminent abilities, was a man of much real and living Communion with God, and therefore more like to know the mind of Chriſt, then many others Now in a Letter of his (Dated Iune 1649. which was not three monethe before his deceaſe) he does aſſert and prove, that Children are members of the viſible Church, and that their memberſhip continues when Adult, and that the Children of Believers are to be accounted of the Church …til they poſitively reject the Goſpel, and that the memberſhip of Children hath no tendency in it, to pollute the Church any more now, then under the Old Teſtament, and that children are under Church diſcipline, and that ſome perſons Adult may be admitted to Baptiſme, and yet not to the Lords Supper, &c. The whole Letter being already publiſhed, we ſhall not here inſert it, or any thing further concerning it, only aſſure the Reader that the Letter it ſelf (even the foreign) 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 child…en and their Subjection to Diſcipline. In the year after theſe mentioned, viz. Anno 1636. here arrived two other of New-Englands Worthies.

p. 23Mr. Partriches and Mr. Rogers Concerning the Subject of Baptiſme. Namely, Mr. Ralph Partrich, and Mr. Natha…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 a…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 p. 24the 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 …poſtacy from our Primitive Principles: yet further Teſtimonies might be ſuperadded unto theſe, for Mr H…nr, Sm …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, p. 25Conſideration, 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,