THere having been some who have thought that the Doctrine of the late Synod Book Concerning Bap­tism and the Communion or Consociation of Chur­ches is an Innovation and Apostacy from the first prin­ciples of New England. And inasmuch as it may be a special Service for these Churches, both in present and in after times, that men should know what the first Principles touching these Controversies were, Considering also, that the Lords Servants and Messengers are much wronged when Apo­stacy is imputed to them, upon account of the Doctrine aforesaid, and that it will be a thing very acceptable unto God (who is displeased and dishonoured when his faithful ones are traduced) that his Servants should be vindicated from such injurious Aspersions: upon these and the like Considerations, we shall endeavour (as in the Lords holy fear) to erquire what were the first Principles of New-England concerning the Subject of Baptism and Communion of Churches, and leave it to [Page 2]the Christian world, and to Posterity to judge who are the Apostates.

Now this may be done by shewing, what was the judgement of the first Fathers of this Country, touching the questions in Controversy. And in this ensuing Coll [...]ction of Testimonies we shall not mention any of those Reverend Elders that are yet surviving, nor all amongst our deceased worthies, only some of the Chief of the Fathers of this Country.

And first, concerning Baptism, we shall begin with the Judgement of that man of God deservedly famous in both Englands, viz. Mr. Iohn Cotton, late Teacher of the first Church in Boston. And what the Apprehension of that Seer was, is manifest from a Letter which is to be seen written with his own hands in the name, and with the unani­mous Consent of the whole Church, which then was in this Boston to the Church in Dorchester. Because the Letter is of Ancient date, and so giveth a great light towards the clearing of the matter, which is before us, we shall therefore here insert it, word for word as it is written with Mr. Cottons own hand, It is that which followeth.

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 [Page 5]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. 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 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, 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, [Page 6]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 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, [Page 7]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 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 [Page 8]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. 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 [Page 9]suitable to that practice many years before his decease, appears from a Letter of his written to the Reverend Mr. Mather of Dorchester, and bearing date June 6. 1650. In which Letter he thus expresseth him­self. ‘I Conceive, (saith Mr. Stone) that Children of Church mem­bers have right to Church membership by virtue of their Fathers Co­venant, it being granted that they are in Abrahams Covenant, they have Membership by Birth, Gal. 2.15. (2 dly.) God is their God, Gen. 17.7. (3 dly.) They are Branches, Rom. 11. (4.) they are Subjects of Christs 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 [...] 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 [Page 10] Baptisme, in his last years only, but that he was of the same Judge­ment four and twenty years and more, before his decease, is evident from some Manuscripts of his left written with his own hand. For that Roverend Author did in the year 1645, prepare for the Press an elabo­rate discourse which he entituleth, A plea for the Churches of Christ in New-England, and in the second part of that discourse, which con­tains positive grounds from Scripture and Reason for the Iustification of the way of the Churches of Christ in New-England, there is this Question propounded.

These words are to be seen written with Mr. Mathers own hand, Anno 1645. Now if six and twenty years ago in a Book written in defence of the Churches in New England,When this Collection of Testimonies was first composed, it was but 26 years but now it is 29 years since that Book was written. and in justification of tho way of-hese Churches, it were true Doctrine that persons might have right to Baptisme for their Children, and yet themselves not be fit for the Lords Table: If six and twenty years agoe, this was written in a Book, whose whole designe was to Justifie the way of these Churches, how then can it be said, that the present pleading for such Enlarge­ment of Baptisme is any Apostacy from Primitive Principles? Also the same thing was Asserted and urged by this Reverend Author in his Model of Church Government presented to the Synod, Anno 1647. And in the years 1648. and 1649. he did frequently in his publick Ministry in Dorchester thus instruct his people as is to be seen in the Sermon Notes left written propria manu. And in the year 1653. this Question was fully, largly, and Elaborately discussed by the same Author. Also in a Letter to a Friend, bearing date 30th. 5 Moneth 1651. He thus expresseth himself, ‘for my part my thoughts have been this long Time, that our Churches in general do fall short in their practice of that which the Rule requires in this particular, which I think ought to be thus, viz. that the Children of Church members submitting themselves to the Discipline of Christ in the Church, by an act of their own, when they are grown up to mens and womens Estate, ought to be watched over as other members, and to have their Infants baptized, but themselves not to be received to the Lords Table, nor to voting in the Church, till by the manifesta­tion of Faith and Repentance, they shall approve themselves to be fit for the same. But we have not yet thus practiced, but are now Considering of the matter, and of sending to other Churches for ad­vice. Help us I pray you with your prayers that we may have grace to discern, and do the Lords mind and will herein.’ So that in the year 1651. it had for a long Time been the Judgement of this Seer, that some have right to Baptisme for their Children, that yet have not [Page 12]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 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 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.

• 1. Children are capable of Confederating in a publick p [...].
• [Page 16]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:’

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.’

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.’

[Page]Proposition II.

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.’

[Page 18] 4ly. ‘If to baptize in ordinary dispensation is only a Shepardly office act, then to be baptized is the privileage only of the Flock But to baptize is in ordinary dispensation only a Shepardly Office act, Math▪ 28.19. The Reason of the Consequence is, Shepard and Flock are Relatives, and Relatorum 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.

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.

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 [Page 20]they are imputed only unto him, and not to his Posterity’

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

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

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

Object. 3. Membership is

• Immediate, viz when these that are Adult
• Confederate in their own persons.
• Mediate, viz when Infants Confederate in a publick person as Mankind Confederated in Adam.

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

2dly. ‘The validity of membership depends not upon the In­strument or medium to wit, the Parents standing as a publick per­son in the Act of Confederation, but upon the Institution of God in Christ, the value and virtue of the effect here cannot depend, upon the medium (which is it self also an Arbitrary Effect) but upon the supream and Independent Cause, The membership of a male Child Confederating mediately, i. e. in the publick person of the 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 [Page 21]be capable of being the Subject of the power of the Keyes, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12.) so as should the Brethren dye, the 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 [Page 22]though 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.’

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 [...]) 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.

[Page 23]Mr. 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.

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, [Page 25]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,

Unto these might have been added the Testimony of that Reverend and faithful Servant of Christ Mr. Iohn Wilson, the first Pastor of the [Page 27]first Church in Boston. But his Judgement touching the question in hand is known to all that knew him. And the Reader is referred to his dy­ing Spee hes, concerning this matter which are inserted in the Book called New Englands memorial. (pag. 183. 184.) which because they were amongst the last words of so holy a man, cannot without great sin be despised or disregarded. Also we might have mentioned the Judge­ment of Reverend Mr. Norris; which that it did Concur with what hath been expressed, is to be seen from the Records of the Church in Salem, viz. in their Records of the 24th. of the first Moneth: And of the 9th of the fifth Moneth and sixth Moneth, Anno 1654. Likewise we might have produced the Judgement of Mr. Philips sometimes the faithful Pastor of the Church in Watertown, but the Reader is for that referred to the Preface in the Synod Book.

Also that some godly and Judicious of the Congregational way in England, are for a greater Latitude in the point of Baptisme, then our dissenting Antisynodalian Brethren do acknowledge, is manifest from what [...]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 [Page 28]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.

Thus farr Mr. Cotton. And that this is according to Congregatio­nal Principles, is evident from other Testimonies; For the Messengers of an hundred and twenty Congregational Churches, who met at the Sa­voy in London, Anno 1658. do in their declaration of the order ap­pointed [Page 34]in the Churches of Christ (Thesis 26.) thus declare. ‘In Case of difficulties or differences either in point of doctrine, or in Administra­tions, wherein either the Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in their Peace, Ʋnion, and Edification, or any mem­ber, or members of any Church are injured in, or by any proceeding in Censures not agreeable to Truth and Order: It is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding Communion together, do by their Messengers meet in a Synod or Council to Consider and give their Advice in or about the matter in difference, &c.’ And Doctor Owen (who was a great part of that Assembly) in his Cate­chisme concerning Church discipline, (pag. 224, 226, 227.) thus ex­presses his Judgement. ‘Churches being gathered and setled accord­ing to the mind of Christ, ought to preserve a mutual holy Communi­on amongst themselves, and to exercise it in the discharge of those du­ties, whereby their mutual good and Edification may be promoted. In desiring or making use of the Counsel and advice of one another in such Cases of doubt and difficulty, whether Doctrinal or practical, as may arise in any of them, Acts 15.2, 6. And from hence it follows, that in Case any Church either by error in Doctrine, or praecipitation, or mistake in other Administrations, do give offence unto other Churches, those other Churches may require an account from them, admonish them of their faults, and withhold Communion from them, in Case they persist in the error of their way, and that because in their difficulties, and before their miscarriages, they were bound to have desired the advice, Counsel, and Assistance of those other Churches, which being neglected by them; the other are to recover the end of it unto their utmost ability, Gal 2.6, 11. And hence also it follows, that those that are rightly and justly Censured in any Church ought to be rejected by all Churches what ever, both because of their mutual Communion, and because it is, and ought to be presumed, until the contrary be made to appear, that in Case there had been any difficul­ty or doubt in the proceedure of the Church, they would have taken the advice of those Churches, with whom they were obliged to Con­sult.’ Thus far Doctor Owen. Likewise Doctor Thomas Goodwin. and Mr. Philip Nye in that worthy Epistle which they have prefixed be­fore Mr. Cottons book of the Keyes, (in which Epistle the Congregatio­nal way is truly stated and asserted, as it differs from both the extreams, viz. from Presbyterianisme on the one, and Brownisme on the other hand do declare their Concurrence with him in acknowledging ‘that an Association or Communion of Churches sending their Elders and [Page 35] Messengers into a Synod, is an Ordinance of Christ, unto whom Christ hath (in Relation to rectifying male Administrations, and healing Dissentions in particular Congregations, and the like Cases) com­mitted a due and just measure of power suited and proportioned to those Ends, and furnished them not only with ability to give Coun­sel and Advice, but further upon such like occasions, with Ministeri­al power and Authority to determine, declare, and injoyne such things as may tend to the reducing Congregations to right order and Peace, see pag. 4. 6, 7, 10.’

Moreover, that the practice of Congregationals, ha's been according to this Profession, may be seen in the Apologetical Narration published by Doctor Goodwin. Mr. Philip Nye, Mr. Sydrach Simpson. Mr. Bur­roughs and Mr. Bridg. In as much as those famous Apologists (as Paul speaks concerning Iames, Cephas and Iohn amongst the Apostles) seem to be Pillars, [and worthily are they so accounted) amongst Con­gregationals. Since also that Apologetical Narration (though printed) is in the hands of but few with us, we shall therefore here transcribe and insert some pages of it. And therein they thus declare [see pag. 15. to pag. 22.]

So that these Godly Learned Writers, were so far from making a Popedome of a particular Church that they deemed it an abhorred max­ime [Page 39]to affirme that a particular Church is unaccountable to, or not Censurable by Neighbour Churches about them; They therefore that do reject the Co [...]nsociation or Communion pleaded for, want that which is one Specifical Character of a true Congregati [...]nal man, whereby such are distinguished from Brownists and Morellians, whose Principles have ever been disowned and disavowed by Congregationals, who have also thought themselves not a little in [...]ured, when they have been represent­ed as the same, else how have Hornebecks Summa Controversiaru [...] de Brownishis, and Bailies disswasive, and other writings, ej [...]fde in commatis been so distastful and dissatisfactory to all of that way, who understand what Principles they go upon.

Moreover that our Congregational Brethren are for such Communi­on of Churches as is by the late Synod asserted, is yet farr more evi­dent from the Testimony of blessed Burroughs in his Excellent Treatise about heart D [...]visions see pag. 84. and 163. And in pag. 43, 44. There are these words. (1.) ‘Those in the Congregational way acknowledge that they are bound in Conscience to give account of their wayes to Churches about them, or to any other who shall require it, this not in an Arbitrary way, but as a duty that they owe to God and man.’

2dly. ‘They acknowledge that Synods of other Ministers and Elders about them are an Ordinance of Jesus Christ 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 [Page 40]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.’