THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF NEW-ENGLAND, Concerning The Subject of Baptism & Communion of Churches.  
Collected partly out of the Printed Books, but chief out of the Original Manuscripts of the First and chief Fathers in the New-English Churches; With the Judgement of Sundry Learned Divines of the Congregational Way in England, Concerning the said Questions.  
Published for the Benefit of those who are of the Rising Generation in New England.  
By INCREASE MATHER, Teacher of a Church in Boston in New-England  Deut. 32.7. Remember the days of old,— Ask thy Father and he will show thee, thy Elders & they will tell thee. Psal. 102.18. This shall be written for the Generation to come. Nihil mihi Authoritatis assumo, sed quae ab alijs dispersa velut in ordinem Epitomata, Conscribo. Veget. L. 1. C. 8. 
CAMBRIDGE Printed by Samuel Green, 1671.   

To the Reader.  
COncerning the ensuing Collection of Testimonies, which are expressive of the Judgement of the first and chief of the Fathers in the New English Churches (as also of sundry others that are Pillars amongst those of the true Congregational way) about the Subject of Baptism and the Communion of Churches, if any should have Scruples about the truth thereof, they may easily in part satisfy themselves, by having recourse to the printed Books out of which these passages are faithfully excerped. And as for those things which are (as most of the subsequent Collection is) taken from Manuscripts, I have by me the Original Scripts, only some few of them are in other hands, who are ready, to show them unto such (if any such there be) as shall hesitate touching the Fidelity of this publication. As to that matter therefore no more shall, or needs to be said. My design at present is only to Commend a few things to the serious and Christian Consideration of the Antisynodalian Brethren. Brethren I was once of your persuasion, and thence can with the more Love and Compassion speak unto you. What the Arguments were which caused me to be of another mind, is not here a place to relate, but it shall be done (if God permit) elsewhere. For the present, let it suffice to be said, that Study and Prayer, and much Affliction hath brought me to be of another belief, than once I was of touching the Controverted Questions. And unto you that are still of the Antisynodalian persuasion, I would in the bowels and love of Christ say these few things.  
1. Consider that it is possible that you may be mistaken in your Apprehensions. Many things might be mertioned to you, which ought to Cause an humble jealousy in you, lest so it should be. Were there that only Consideration, that so many Learned and ged men are opposed, it ought to Cause Trembling, and an holy fear in you, lest your Notions should be Erroneous It is a Christian Speech and Spirit which blessed Burroughs hath in his Excellent Itenicum (pag. 89.) where he saith, He that differs in his Judgement from ged learned men, had need to spend much Time in Prayer and Humiliation before the Lord There is a notable Expression of Basil cited in an Epistle of Luther to the Ministers of Norimberg, who were at variance variance one from another, He who will separate from his Brethren, had need to Consider many things even to anxiety, he had need break his sleep many nights, and seek of God with many Tears the demonstration of the Truth. Thus, Herald  
Remember that those you differ from were under greater Advantages and Probabilities to understand the Truth than can be said concerning yourselves, For that many of the members of the late Synod called to Answer the Questions concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches, (besides their eminent Piety and enlarged understanding and Capacity in those respects to discern the Truth) had bestowed much Time and pains in seeking and searching after the mind of God about these Questions, cannot be denied. For the most part, when godly, learned men miss of the Truth, it is in points which either they have not at all, or not throughly and Impartially studied, when as the Leaders in the Synod mentioned, had most industriously, and not without prayers and Tears laboured to know the will of the Lord, concerning these Affairs of his house, and Kingdom. Nor is it to be forgotten, how the Lord did in his Providence signally own that Assembly. For at the Time of their second Sessions there was a sore and threatening drought on the Land, whereupon that Synod set a day apart to seek the Lord by Fasting and Prayer, and Immediately upon those Prayers did the Lord give Rain from Heaven, whereby he did from Heaven own both his Servants, and the work which they were about. And therein likewise we may observe a divine Confutation of those Spirits, who impute our droughts, blast, etc. to that Assembly, or to the Doctrine by them asseried and propugned. Remember also that there have been very worthy men (amongst whom I who am Conscious to myself, that I am the chief of Sinners, am no way worthy to be mentioned) who were against such Enlargement of Baptism as the Synod pleads for, yet upon second and wisest thoughts (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) have seen Cause to change their opinion. This is true concerning some now at rest with Christ, and sundry (amongst whom as I said I reckon not myself) yet surviving. Yea, it is true concerning some Judicious of the Congregational way in England as well as in New-England. It is a good Observation which I remember Mr Cotton hath in his Letter to M. Williams. (pag. 12. where he argueth, that the way of the Rig●●●epa●●tion is not of God, because those who in Simplicity and tenderness 〈◊〉 Conscience have been drawn into the error of that way, yet when they have grown in grace, they have also grown to discern the error of the Separation. The same thing ●e may say in this Case; some who did once Conscientiously and humbly according to their present light descent from the late Synod, yet as they have grown in wisdom and grace, and ripeness for Heaven, the Lord hath given them for to see, that their Rigidity in this particular was a failing. Moreover two is a Rule as true as Ancient and Common, that whatever Opinion doth drive the maintainers of it to any absurdities is to be suspected and rejected as erroneous. It's Everlastingly Certain, that a false Conclusion can never be drawn out of true Premises, ex ●ero nil nisi verum. Now some that with the highest Confidence have opposed the Doctrine of the Synod concerning the Subject of Baptism to uphold their Notions, have been forced to embrace such things as are very Irrational. Al● these things being put together are enough to br●●d an humble, and an holy Jealousy over your own Apprehensions. That then is the first word I would seriously and affectionately Comm●nd to your Consideration. The second word is this, Consider that if you be mistaken your Error hath, as things are Circumstanced, no little evil and danger in it. For if you be mistaken, than you oppose a Cause of Divine Grace, which to do is sad, since God looks upon his Grace as his Glory, Eph. 1.14. As God's holiness is dear to him, and thence any way to oppose that is dangerous, the same is to be said concerning his Grace. And if you be mistaken, you oppose a Cause of God's Covenant, now God's Covenant is marvellous dear unto him, and no man can dash himself against an Interest of the Covenant without great hazard And if you be mistaken, you oppose an Interest, yea, and a great Interest of Christ's Kingdom, now that must needs displease the Lord, It is very observable, t●at Christ was never so angry as his own dear Disciples, as the●, when ●h●y did rigidly withhold som● that were Children o● th● Kingdoms, from being brought to him, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Mark. 10 13, 14 why so? even because his own Interest was therein Concerned, me● are soon mov●d when their own Interest is struck at, so was the holy heart of Christ much moved, because when Children, ●e●e k●●t from him, his own Interest was prejudiced. Brethren▪ if so it be, that th● Doctrine of the Synod he Truth, you that oppose it, do what in you be oped ju●●ce an Interest of Christ, and if so, Christ is not well pleased ●ith you for this thing. There is not a more awful Scripture in all the Book of God, the● that where it is said concerning Christ's Kingdom, that whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, M●●● 21.44 Brethren, one word let me in the Bow●s of the Lord sa●●o you, And I speak it not with a desire to grieve or ●ffend any of you, but if my heart deceive me not, Loy● to Christ, and to you, and to the succeeding Generation in New-England causeth me to speak it, it is only this, oh tremble, lest this very Error of yours prove the breaking, and the ruin of your poor Posterity. They are Solemn and weighty words, and I must Confess have always had an awful Impression upon my Conscience, which the Elders have in the Preface to the late Synod Book; (pag. 12.) should (say they) the Church education of your Children be by the want of your hearty Concurrence rendered either infeasable or ineffectual, should they live as Lambs in a large Pasture for want of your Agreement to own them of the Flock; we beseech you Consider how uncomfortable the Account hereof will be another day. Truly when I think, (and I often think of it) seriously and sadly with myself, that in a Plantation of Religion (for such New-England was) the Generality of the Inhabitants should be in the Condition of Infidels, that the Posterity of a People professing Godliness, yea, of the most eminent Professors in the whole World, should in our Age be as Infidels even not so much as within the Compass of the visible Church, or have the Livery and Character belonging to Christians upon them, whereby such are distinguished from the Infidel and Pagan World, what it has to others I know not, but to me it has a most formidable appearance, Remember also that the light has been forth, in which respect, Now for you to oppose the Truth, after that Convincing Testimonies have been given to it by the Lords Servants, will be far more dangerous and provoking to the Lord, then in former Times amongst us, when these things had not been so fully enquired into, as of late through the good hand of Divine Providence it has been. A third word which I would say is, study well the point of Infant Baptism. Acquaint yourselves with the Scripture proofs for that Ordinance, I must acknowledge that that has been no small Confirmation to me. This I find that there is haraly an Argument produced against such Enlargement, as is by the Synod asserted, but what the Antipaedo-Baptists wake use of to serve their tu●n. Also that the Arguments which do demonstrate Paedobaptism in general, do (for the most part) prove that Baptism ought to be Administered in the Latitude which the Synod pleads for. The last word which I shall say is this, use all means of Gods appointing, that you may come to understand the Truth in this matter. There have been some to my knowledge (and because I know there have been some, I am apt to think there may be many more than I know of) that have exclaimed much against the Synod Book, as if it were an Apostasy and Impurity, etc. That yet upon Examination have Confessed, that they never read the Book, much less have they read other things written in defence thereof; and how far then have they been from reading these things, with Prayers and Tears, and Humiliations before the Lord, oh! if Brethren would prove all things, and pray uncessantly over what they do, and add deep Humiliations to their Prayers, and depend upon Christ for light, we might hope that God would either discover his Truth to them, in the very things they are searching after, or in some other matters better for them to know, and in the mean Time help them to carry it with that Christian moderation that becometh Saints, Prov. 2.3, 4, 5. Ezek. 43.11. Phil. 3.15, 16.  
As for the Reasons which have induced me to this ensuing Collection, besides those general motives mentioned in the Introduction, the special Considerations which have prevailed with me were, First, that I might please God in obeying the fifth Commandment by vindicating the honour of my Fathers. (2dly.) in that a special Advantage has been put into my hands for this undertaking, by Reason of my Acquaintance with the Manuscripts of both my Fathers, (I mean my Father Cotton, and my Father Mather) from whence these Testimonies are for the most part produced. [3dly.] My Father when he was leaving the world, did Commend it as his dying Counsel to me, that I should endeavour the good of the Rising Generation in this Country, and in special, that they might be brought under the Government of Christ in his Church, and when grown up and qualified, as is in the late Synod Book expressed, have Baptism for their Children. What Impression those words, since they were the words of a Father, and of such a Father, and dying words also, have had upon my heart, is known to the Father of Spirits, who only searcheth hearts, and Converseth with the Souls of men, nor am I able to utter it. [4 lie.] It is known unto those few in the world, that have any knowledge of so obscure and inconsiderable a person as myself, that I have of late been near unto Death, God having brought me back again, as it were out of the Grave, I must needs have had many thoughts with myself, what I should do for God, and for his people? yea, for his People, whose Prayers have saved my Life. Now I would fain hope what is here done will be a Service for Christ, and for these his Churches, and for that Generation whereof I am, when I shall sleep with my Fathers.  
There is also published herewith, the Substance of a Letter written by Mr. Mitchel, late faithful and famous Pastor of the Church in Cambridg. Although I cannot say but that I was [albeit he knew not that] when that Letter was sent to me, inclining to the same Apprehension about the Subject of Baptism, which at present I am of, yet the Arguments therein suggested, were I must Confess weighty and powerful Considerations with me, and I believe will be so to others that duly weigh matters in the Balance of the Sanctuary, for which Cause principally, I have thus exposed it to public view. Also I have partly done it honoris gratia, that I might testify my deep respect to that blessed man, concerning whom I may say as sometimes B●za concerning Calvin, Now Mitchel is dead, life is less sweet, and death will be less bitter unto me.  
Once for all, let me desire the Reader to take notice that I do not by this Collection, concern myself in the defence of every Notion or Argument, or Principle, that is by any of those Worthies insisted on, but my only design therein is, to show that such Inlargment of Baptism, and that Consociation of Churches, which is in the Synod Book asserted is no Apostasy from the first Principles of New-England, nor yet any declension from the Congregational way. Now the Lord Jesus who hath promised that the Spirit of Truth shall come, and shall guide into all Truth, fulfil his good word, even the Lord send out of his Light and his Truth, and let them lead us. Let him grant that there may be Peace and Truth in our days, and not only so, but that the Generation to come may praise the Lord, that it may appear, that his Righteousness is for ever, and his Salvation from Generation to Generation, Amen, and A men! This is the hearts desire and Prayer of him  
From my Study in Boston N.E. 1. of 3 d Month. 1671. Who is less than the least of all God's mercies and Saints. Increase Mather.   

Errata.  

p. 2. l. 11. for hands r. hand.  
p. 4. l. 28. for then r. there.  
p. 16. l. 24. Add deus dicit.  
p. 21. l. p. nult. r. parent.  
p. 32. l. 32. for so 24. r. Hebr. 10.24    

THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF NEW ENGLAND, Concerning the Subject of BAPTISM AND COMMUNION OF CHURCHES.  
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 Apostasy 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 Apostasy 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 the Christian world, and to Posterity to judge who are the Apostates.  
Now this may be done by showing, what was the judgement of the first Fathers of this Country, touching the questions in Controversy. And in this ensuing Collection 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 England's, viz. Mr. john 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.  
To 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 jesus 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 Grandchild, whose next Parents be not received into Church Covenant] has been deliberately treated of in our Church Assembled together publicly 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 Grandfather may lawfully claim that privilege to his Grandchild baptised by right of the Grandfather's Covenant, be Committed to the Grand father's 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 Tenor 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 not 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 Baptism of the Grandchild by right of his Grandfather's Covenant, we believe to be warranted from the nature and tenor of the Covenant of Grace by this Reason, where there is a Stipulation of the Covenant on God's part, and restipulation of the Covenant on man's 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 God's part, and a receiving and undertaking of the Covenant on man's part, there may be a sealing of it on both parts? But here is an offer of the Covenant on God's 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 man's part, seeing the Grandfather 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 Grandchild as much as in him lies to live and walk as himself does, as one of God's people, according to the Tenor of the Covenant, from whence the Conclusion evidently followeth, that therefore Baptism may there be Administered to Seal up the Covenant, where the Grandfather 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 Infidel, who are themselves baptised, 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, nor are convinced of the necessity of Church Covenant. After this Answer given, there was no father reply against the point in hand, but on the contrary, some of the Brethren expressing their Consents with Addition of other Reasons, and all of them by their silence, we do therefore profess it to be the judgement of our Church, and as we believ agreeable to the word of God (such Cautions being observed as hath been mentioned) that the Grandfather a member of the Church, may claim the privilege of Baptism to his Grandchild, 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 yourselves and us also in the Lord, but as willing in meekness of wisdom 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 Led you into all truth, and go on to build up his holy Kingdom 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 Privilege of Baptism 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 baptised, 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 Baptism unto some, whose next Patents are not fit for the Lords Supper, or they that do oppose such a practice.  
There is also to be seen another large and Judicious Letter of Mr. Cottons written with his own hand to a Friend of his in England touching accommodation and Communion between those of the Presbyterian, and Congregational persuasion, The Letter bears date the 8. 11. month 1648. and therein Mr. Cot●on delivers his judgement 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 & Teacher's 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 baptise their Children. For such members are like the Church members, with us baptised 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 Church.  
Also to a Reverend person yet surviving in this Country, who in a Letter bearing date, 4.4 Month 1649. propounded this Question, A Father that was in the judgement 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 baptised or not. Mr. Cottons Answer was in these words, you● Case of baptising of the Child, of one fearing God, and in his death giving his Child to a Church member, etc. 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, the Parent of this Child was not an Indian or Pagan, but a Christian, and baptised himself, and so confederate with such a Church as we renounce not, and I do not dissuade the ministering of the Seal of the Covenant, where the Covenant itself is not wanting, etc.  
Likewise 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, etc. 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism 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, jeroboam 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 forbidden, 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 Church's, pag. 81. where it is said, where neither of the Parents can claim right to the Lords Supper, their Infants cannot claim right to Baptism, therefore it m●y seem, that Mr. Cottons judgement 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 Baptism, further than 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 baptised, 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 wondered at, if there be therein some passages contradictory to Mr. Cottons known judgement. (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 Keys, 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 than 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 seriously 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 carried to England, and as I hoped suppressed but it seemeth some Brother there— caused his Copy, which was indeed abrupt in the Entrance, and imperfect, otherwise to be published in print, which when I saw, it troubled me not a little, as knowing that the discrepant Expressions in the one, and in the other, might trouble Friends, and give Advantages to Adversaries. I suffered both to stand as they did, especially, seeing I could not help it, the Book of the way being published without my Consent, and both the way and the Keys past my revoking, so that if the Replier find some discrepancy in one of these Books from the other, Let him know that the Doctrine of the way, in such few points, wherein it differs from the Keys, was not mine, when the Keys was published, much less when the way was published, which was many years after, though it had been penned many years before.  
Thus much may suffice for the clearing of Mr. Cottons Judgement, concerning the Subject of Baptism. 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. hooker's 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 Baptism 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 Father's 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 Baptism, 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 Baptism, and if also the Children in Question are Confederate, and members 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 Baptism.  
At the same Time, and in the same Vessel with Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker, there came the godly, learned, Mr. Samuel Stone, late Teacher of the Church in Hartford, concerning whom, what his Judgement was, touching the now agitated Controversies, is known from his practice in the last years of his Life. And that his Judgement was suitable to that practice many years before his decease, appears from a Letter of his written to the Reverend Mr. Mather of Dorchester, and bearing date June 6. 1650. In which Letter he thus expresseth himself. I Conceive, (saith Mr. Stone) that Children of Church members have right to Church membership by virtue of their Father's Covenant, it being granted that they are in Abraham's Covenant, they have Membership by Birth, Gal. 2.15. (2dly.) God is their God, Gen. 17.7. (3dly.) They are Branches, Rom. 11. (4.) they are Subjects of Christ's visible Kingdom, Ezek. 37.25. Hence,  
1. If they be presented to a Church, and Claim their Interest, they cannot be denied, 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 spoke 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 settled in the Churches, according to the mind of Christ, etc. 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 Triumvirate 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 Controversy 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 transmigration 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 persuasion concerning the Enlargenent of Baptism, 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 entitleth, 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 justification of the way of the Churches of Christ in New-England, there is this Question propounded.  Quest. When those that were baptised 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 baptised 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 baptised: 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 baptised, for if the Parents be in Covenant, are not the Children so likewise? Is not the Tenor 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 Baptism as well as others, that nevertheless others should be admitted and these be refused? If other Infants were admitted to Baptism upon some ground, whereof these were not partakers, than 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 privilege. If their Parents were east out of the Church by Censures, or fallen away from the same by wilful Apostasy and Schism, or deserving to be Cast out by reason of Scandal, than there were more Reason that their Infants should be excluded from the Seal: But sigh no such thing can be said of the Parents of whom we speak, a good Reason should be given, why their Infants are debarred? for if it be said the Parents are not Confirmed members, nor have yet been found fit for the Lords Table, I conceive this needs not to hinder their Infants from Baptism 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 Parent's fitness for the Lords Supper, that is the ground of baptising 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 baptised. 
These words are to be seen written with Mr. mather's 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 Baptism for their Children, and yet themselves not be fit for the Lords Table: If six and twenty years ago, this was written in a Book, whose whole design was to Justify the way of these Churches, how then can it be said, that the present pleading for such Enlargement of Baptism is any Apostasy 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 public 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, largely, and Elaborately discussed by the same Author. Also in a Letter to a Friend, bearing date 30th. 5 Month 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 aught 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 men's and women's Estate, aught to be watched over as other members, and to have their Infants baptised, 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 practised, 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 Baptism for their Children, that yet have not right to the Lords Supper for themselves. But against this Testimony some may object a passage in Mr. mather's printed Catechism, pag. 91. This holy man was sensible that some did take Advantage from an Expression therein, to impute unto him a change of judgement, 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 Catechism 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 baptised being thus Answered in a Catechism, viz. men of years when once they are converted to the Faith, and joined to the Church, and such Infants whose Parents, both, or one of them are so Converted and joined: The Question therefore now is, whether this Answer if sound and true, do infer that the Children of Persons Converted and joined to the Church being now Adult, and having Children, may not be so qualified, as to have these their Children Baptised afore they who are now the Parents, be fit for the Lords Supper, or if he that Answered the Question in the Catechism as above, do think they may, doth not this infer a change in that man's 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 baptised, this does not at all infer, that men of years converted to the Faith, and Joined to the Church, may not be baptised, nor that such Infants may not be baptised, whose Parents, one, or both, are so Converted and joined, Nor if a man Answer that such as the Catechism speaks of may be baptised, does this infer, that those others may not, there is no Colour sure, no just ground for such Consequence, no more than if one should say, that such as are become Believers by hearing the Word preached are to be baptised, (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 baptised, as not being become Believers, at least not by that means of hearing, preaching, this would in no sort follow from the other, as if one should say, that such as do the will of God upon Earth shall enter into Heaven, & that such as feed Christ when hungry, cloth him being naked, shall be saved in Heaven, which are very true, Matth. 7.21. and 25.34, etc. doth this prove that Little Infants, and the Thief upon the Cross must not be saved, because the one through Imbecility 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 Catechism speaks of, are to be baptised, 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 denial but that such as the late Catechism speaks of, may be baptised, so that here is no Contradiction between the things Alleged, but that both may be true and consist together.  
2dly. It the words in the Catechism 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 baptised? 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 Catechism which was printed in the year 1650. had sundry Times before in the years 1646. 1648. 1649. publicly delivered his Judgement, both by word of mouth, and by writing that such Children of Church members might have their Infants baptised, 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 Catechism should be intended by him to have such a meaning as is quite Contrary to what himself had publicly Delivered both before, and after, and that at sundry Times, and in several ways.  
4 . Other Authors of much worth for holiness and Learning, who never meant to deny Baptism to such Children of Church members dear spoked of, yet in Answer to that Question, who ought to be baptised? or to whom is Baptism to be administered, have expressed themselves in Terms, not far unlike to those in the aforesaid Catechism, Mr. Balls words are these, who ought to be baptised? Answ Infidel's Converted to the Faith, and the Infants of one, or both Christian Parents. Catechism. And the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, speak thus.  
Quest. Unto whom is Baptism to be admin st●ed?  
Answ. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the Visivie Church, and so strangers from the Covenant of Promise, till they profess their Faith in Christ, and obedience to him, But Infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them professing Faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the Covenant, and to be baptised. Larger Catechism. These words we see are not fare unlike to those in the Catechism before mentioned, and yet it were a Collection far from their meaning, to gather from these words, that none should have Baptism 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 Catechism, 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 . 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 joined to the Church, than 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. jud. 3. than 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 publicly 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 baptising of whose Children is in Question, are not without the one of the Qualifications mentioned in the Catechism, viz. of being Converted to the Faith. And for the other, viz. of being joined to the Church, this cannot be denied touching these Parents, for as much, as by means of the Covenant, which takes in Parents and Children, they have been either born in the Church, or taken in, in their Infancy, and so they were joined 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 joined 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, etc. So that here is a personal and public 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 baptised, which the Catechism mentioned, is found in the Parents spoken of, viz that they are persons joined to the Church, and therefore he that affirms than these may have their Children baptised, does not Contradict the  Catechism at all, nor is there any thing in the Catechism against the baptising of these Children.  
This which has been expressed, may be sufficient for the vindication of that Reverend and Honoured person.  
We proceed ●herefore to Mr. Nortons' judgement concerning the present Controversy, and that the Apprehensions of that judicious and Eagle eyed Seer did Concur with those Servants of the Lord, which have been mentioned, is apparent, both from what himself did often publicly 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 wont 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 aught to be baptised.  Answ. Children of Parents in Church Covenant are Church members, and aught to be baptised. This Answer stands upon the proof of these five propositions. 

1. Children are capable of Confederating in a public p●●●.  
2. Children by divine Institution have Confederated, and do still Confederate in their Parents as public 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 Baptism, so as they are baptised by their own right, and not by the right of their Parents.   
Proposition. I.  
1. Children are capable of Confederating in a public person:  A public 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 public 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 public 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 & profane, 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 public Persons. 1. Mankind considered in Adam, Gen. 2.17. Rom. 5.12. 1 Cor. 15.22. 
2. Abraham's 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 baptised, which Baptism in the Gospel Circumcision, ●ol. 2.11, 12. therefore in Church Covenant, but Covenant they do not not then proper persons, therefore in their public persons, viz. their P●ents.  
5. Either Children under the Gospel are Confederate in their Parents, or Children ●ay not be baptised or non-members ma● be baptised, but children are to b● baptised, and non-members are not to be baptised. Therefore Children are to be baptised is with us granted, that non members are not to be baptised appeareth thus. External Baptism is an external Seal of the external, not only of the internal Covenant. Baptism 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 Baptism.  
2dly. they who are not Subject to the Church Government, have no right to Church privileges, of which Baptism 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 etc.  
4ly. If to baptise in ordinary dispensation is only a Shepardly office act, then to be baptised is the privileage only of the Flock But to baptise 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 Baptism, 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 Privileges, makes Children to be Church members. But upon Confederation God declareth Children to be in Covenant with him to be holy, and to have right to Church Privileges, 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, etc.  
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, etc.  
Proposition IU.  This distinct membership gives them a proper right unto Baptism, so as they are not baptised by the right of their Parents, but by their own right. (1.) Such as their membership is, such is their right unto Baptism, But their membership as hath been already proved is distinct, therefore their right to Baptism is distinct. (2dly.) That Covenant which Contracteth upon the ●●●●quent, a proper guilt in order unto punishment conveyeth upon the obedient a proper right, and in order unto Privileges. But the Covenant of infants Contracteth upon them Delinquent a proper guilt in order unto punishment, Ez●k 16.59. therefore it Conferreth upon the obedient a proper right in order unto Privileges. (3dly.) It the Children of the Jews in Covenant bade a proper right to Circumcision, than their Children of Believers in Covenant, have a proper right to Baptism. 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 Parent's Suspension to be Circumcised the eighth day: 
4ly. If Confederate Children are to be baptised notwithstanding the Parents be not members, than they are to be baptised, not by their Parents but be their own membership. But Confederate Children are to be baptised, notwithstanding their Parents be not members, as in Case of the Parents death or Censure falling out after their children's being, and before the Time of their Baptism, therefore Children are baptised 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 public persons) yet the membership of the Child remains, though the membership of the Parent ceaseth, Paul's freedom by birth lives after his Father's 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 lie under offence, it seems then their Children ought not to be baprized.  
Answ. We must carefully distinguish between the Parents standing as a public person, and between the Parents standing as a single person, the Child is contained in the Parent only when he stands as a public 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 public 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 public person, therefore they are imputed only unto him, and not to his Posterity  
2 Object. Members are complete or incomplete: Children are members incomplete, not complete.  
Answer 1. Did this distinction hold, yet that the incompleatness of children's membership is not such why they should be hindered from being baptised, is clear from Pedobaptisme.  
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 complete or incomplete; 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, than they cannot be said to be complete, or incomplete, 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 public 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 public 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 public 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 itself also an Arbitrary Effect) but upon the supreme and Independent Cause, The membership of a male Child Confederating mediately, i. e. in the public person of the Mo●●●r, excelleth the membership of the Mother Confederating immediately in h●r own person, because the Mother though sh● be a Church member, ye●●s not capable of being a member constituent o● the Church (for only Brethren constitute a Church, in that they alone be capable of being the Subject of the power of the Keys, 1 Cor. 14.34. 1 Tim. 2.12.) so as should the Brethren die, the Sisters 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.  
3dly. 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 inferior 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 Baptism, may not be baptised, where as a Child Confederated in his public person is to be baptised.  
Object. 4. Children in their nonage are by their Parents only materially, and not by themselves formally and actually members.  
Answ. Members potentially are such only in possibility, but a● yet non-members actually. Membership is had two waye●, either by Confederating in a public person, or by Confederating in our own-people, Children are actually and formally members by Confederation in their public 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 public 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 baptised under the Gospel, therefore they are actually and formally, and not only potentially members. If Mankind Confederated actually in Adam their public 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 public person. But Mankind not yet existing in their proper persons, Confederated in Adam their public 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, 
Vedelius de De● & create qu. 105.  s●u voluntas illa Adami fuit volu●tas totiu Ma●sae. That Speech of Thomas though used by him to another purpose may aptly be applied 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, than children as soon as they exist are capable of actually Confederating, breaking of a Covenant supposes the being of a Covenant 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 children's 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 children's 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. Shepherds, 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, than many others Now in a Letter of his (Dated june 1649. which was not three month 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 Baptism, and yet not to the Lords Supper, etc. 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 itself (even the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is still to be seen, as it was written by Mr. Shepherds own hand. Also the same Author in his printed defence of the nine positions, pag. 143. does maintain the Church membership of children and their Subjection to Discipline. In the year after these mentioned, viz. Anno 1636. hear arrived two other of New-englands' Worthies.  
Mr. Partridges and Mr. Roger's Concerning the Subject of Baptism. Namely, Mr. Ralph Partridge, and Mr. Natha●●el Rogers. As for Mr. Partridge sometimes faithful Pastor of the Church in Duxberry in Plymouth 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 Baptism is dispensed (and as we conceive aught to be) are such as being of years, and converted from their Sins to the Faith of Jesus Christ, do join 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, etc. compared.  
Thus for Mr. Partridge 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 Baptism; is certain from what himself did publicly 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 supplied by your Diligence. To the Question concerning the Children of Church 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 the Contents thereof, which if they shall deny, the Church may Cashier or disown them,— Now for practice I confess I account it a great default, that we have made no more real distinction, between these and others, that they have been no more attended as the Lambs of the flock of Christ, and whether it be not the cause of the corruption and woeful 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 Right 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 than abundantly sufficient to evince that the first Fa she of this Country were for that Enlargement of Baptism, which the late Synod Book pleads for, And that therefore such a practice is no apostasy 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 baptised here, or else where, whether younger or Elder, if they do either expressly or otherways 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 Parent's Covenant, only we are loath to walk alone, in the thing; we could hearty wish we had the Concurrence of your Judgement, etc. Thus Mr. Smith.  
Likewise, Mr. Prudden late faithful Pastor of the Church in Milford in New-Haven Colon, in New-England in a Letter to the same Reverend person, which the last mentioned was sent unto, does not, only express his own thoughts, but gives Reason for his belief, concerning the Question under Agitation, with whose Testimony we shall conclude, And because his Letter is of Weighty and worthy Consideration, Consideration, albeit part of it (as of that of Mr. Rogers) is already published in the Preface to the Synod Book yet) we shall here insert, the substance of it, which now follows,  
Dear Brother.  
I was glad at the receipt of your Letters, but I am sorry to hear of such breaches in Churches, and no way nor means found out and applied for healing, which I fear with you does strengthen the Presbyterian Objection against our Congregational way, when the writings of some for our defence, and our practice agree not in that particular. I think with you that man to be much blessed, whom God should make helpful in those things; though as he has but little encouragement to attempt it, so can he expect less thanks from man who possibly may have erred, but loath to be judged so to have done.— Touching your own Exercises you are not alone in them, the power of the Elders in preparing matters of offence and other things for the Church, has been much questioned by some, But methinks hat which Mr Hooker has written in the Case (Survey pt. 3d. pag. 33.) should satisfy those who are not of a Contentious Spirit, I had Conference with him about this matter, in his life time. And the Sum of what he hath now written, he then expressed and told me withal, that if a Case should be presented to the Church, in any other way by the Brethren he would refuse to act in it, unless the Church would first dispute the point which he would offer, but act against his Judgement he would not, It's true that the Rule requires to tell the Church in due order by the Officers, as he that Commands one to go into his house, intends that he should go in by the door.  
The Elders are Captains, and Leaders, and Rulers, Heb. 13.17. 1 Tim, 5.18. And therefore the Brethren must not go before them, A common Soldier must not begin or make an Attempt without the Captain. And the Elders being Leaders and Rulers, they are to order all the public occasions, and affairs of the Church, in a comely manner which they cannot do, if the Brethren have Liberty at their pleasure to publish what seems best to themselves. Touching the desire of such members Children as desire to have their Children baptised, it is a thing that I do not yet hear practised, but for my own part I am inclined to think, that it cannot justly be denied, because their next Parents however not admitted to the Lords Supper) stand as Complete members of the Church, within the Church Covenant, and so acknowledged that they might have right to Baptism. Now they being in Covenant and standing members, their Children also are members by virtue of their Parent's Covenant and Membership, as well as they themselves were by virtue of their Covenant and membership, and they have not renounced that Covenant, nor are justly Censured for the breach of that Covenant, but do own and profess it, and by virtue of it claim the Privilege of it to their Children Those Children who are within the Covenant, and so members of it Baptism cannot be denied unto. But the Children in Question are within the Covenant of the Church, and so members of it, Ergo, Baptism cannot be denied to them. The assumption is proved thus, the Children of such Parents, as are within the Covenant of the Church, are themselves within the Covenant of that Church, and so members. But the Children in Question are the Children of such Parents, as are in Covenant, and so members of the Church, Ergo, they are so themselves. The Proposition is clear, because the Parent's Covenant for themselves and for their Children, Deut. 29. from 10, to 16. Ezek. 16.8, 13. And God accepts both, Gen. 17.12, 13. the whole Nation is faederally holy, they are expressly said to be in Covenant with their Father, Deut. 29. not partly, or partially in Covenant, Rom 9.3▪ 4 Acts 2.39. and God styles himself their God, as well as their Father, Gen. 17.7, 8, 9 and to have God to be our God is to be in Complete Church Covenant with him. The assumption is evident, because else such their Parents had not had right to Baptism, the Seal of the Covenant: but that they had right unto, and so received it, and the same right they had, the Children have, who are included in their Fathers did expressly engage and Covenant, but these not. I Answer, that the Covenant is the same, and of the same force to bind, and of the same extent, in the one as well as the other: Explicite and Implicit, are but adjuncts of the Covenant, and therefore though they are not come into Covenant, the same way that their Parents did, viz. by explicit personal Covenanting, but are taken in by the Father Covenanting for them and themselves, yet it seems to me, that they are not less truly, or less Completely in Covenant. The God of Peace and Truth guide us in those ways. I rest  
Milford June 12. 1651. Your loving Brother Peter Prudden.  
Unto these might have been added the Testimony of that Reverend and faithful Servant of Christ Mr. john Wilson, the first Pastor of the first Church in Boston. But his Judgement touching the question in hand is known to all that knew him. And the Reader is referred to his dying Spee hes, concerning this matter which are inserted in the Book called New England's 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 Month: And of the 9th of the fifth Month and sixth Month, Anno 1654. Likewise we might have produced the Judgement of Mr. Philip's 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 Baptism, than 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 Baptism subjective y to a particular Congregation, that I do not believe that any m mber of a particular Church was ever regularly baptised; baptism precedes 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 joined to any particular Church, or no, suitable to this Judgement has been my Constant and uninterrupted practice.  
Likewise Doctor Nathaniel Homes in his defence of Infant Baptism against Mr. Tombs, has these words, (pag 193.) for baptising of Believers Infants, several Churches of us do hold, that we may baptise them, though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches. Baptism as we conceive being an Admission into the universal v sinle Church, etc. And again, (pag 217.) Mr. Tombs having made this Objection, that the baptising of Infants has occasioned on u●ne●essary dispute about baptising 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 practise the baptising of such, etc. 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 sundry eminent Divines of the Congregational way in England, declaring that the Judgement of the Elders with them is generally according to what hath been now expressed. By these things therefore, which have been thus far expressed, it is very manifest that the doctrine of the late Synod concerning the Subject of Baptism is no Apostasy 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 Baptism, 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 of 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 largely expressed in his Book of the Keys, pag. 54, etc. 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.  
Propositions Concerning Consociation and Communion of Churches, tendered to the Elders and Brethren of the Church for their Consideration and acceptance according to God.  
Proposition I. 
Every true Church of Christ, viz. a particular Congregation furnished with a Presly ery▪ and walking in the truth and peace of the Gospel, hath received from the Lord Jesus full Power Ecclesiastical within itself, both of Liberty to receive her own members, to choose her own Officers and the like. And also of Authority to Administer Sacraments, Censure her own offenders, and restore penitents, Mat. 18 18: 1 Cor 5. Acts 6.2, etc. and 14 23. so as this Consociation and Communion of Churches ought not to hinder the exercise of this power, but only by Counsel from the word to direct and strengthen their hands, in the right Administration thereof upon all just occasions.  Proposition II. 
Althought the Apostles of Christ were Independent on each other, and had equally the highest Power Ecclesiastical under Christ, and were led with Infallible Assistance of the Spirit in the exercise thereof, yet Paul with Barnabas and Titus went up to Jerusalem, (and that by Revelation) not only to Confer and Consult with the Apostles about his doctrine, (left he had, or should run in vain, Gal▪ 2.1, 2.) but also Consociated or made Agreement with them by mutual giving the right hand of Fellowship, to dispose the Course of their Ministry and Provision for the poor, that so they might procure the more free and effectual passage of the fruit of the Gospel, and the work of their Ministry, and therefore it may seem much rather, not only lawful, but also very profitable and needful for ordinary Elders, (and Churches though equal in Power) wanting that Infallible Assistance of the Spirit to Comer, and Consult, and Consociate or agree together about all such weighty matters, in which Counsel and Concurrences, to avoid Suspicion of prejudice, and partiality, and so to expedite the free passage of the Gospel in the hands of them all.  Proposition III. 
If when Peter gave offence at Antioch, the Apostle Paul took Liberty to rebuke him before them all, (though he was his equal in place and power) and that no doubt out of that duty of love and faithfulness, which he owed unto him and to the truth, Peter also submitting thereunto, than it may well stand with the equality of Churches out of their duty of Love and Faithfulness to admonish each other in case of public offence, and submit to such admonition from the word in meckness of wisdom, as to the will and Authority of Christ, and to give such Satisfaction as the Rule doth require.  Proposition IU. 
Out of Question, the Lord jesus, the bode, King and Compassionate high P●●●st and Saviour of his body the Church, hath as great a Love and care of the purity, Peace and Edisocation of whole Churches, as of particular Saints as is evident by those Epistles sent to the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, and the seven Churches of Asia, to heal the public Errors, diffentions, and other Corruptions found in them, and therefore certainly he hath appointed and sanctified some sufficient mean to preserve their purity and peace, to heal and help the evils and distempers of whole Churches, as well as of particular Believers. Now then since Apostles and other extraordinary Officers are ceased, (that had power in all Churches, and only Love remaineth) what other Ecclesiastical help is there left without infringing the power of particular Churches, but the Exercise of brotherly Love, mutual watchfulness, Brotherly Care, and Counsel? which Elders and Churches ought therefore to practise towards each other in this way of Brotherly Communion and Assistance on all just occasions.  Proposition V. 
Upon these and other Scripture grounds and Examples, and for the ends above said, it is very meet and requisite, (according to our present practice) that when any Company of Christians intent to unite themselves into the Fellowship of a Church, or being in a Church state to elect and ordain any Elders over them, that in due time they signify their intentions to the Neighbouring Churches, walking in the order of the Gospel, if such may be had, desiring their presence, Assistance, and right hand of Fellowship, that as a Church is a City set upon a Hill, so the Acts thereof may not be as a Light put under a Bushel, but may so shine forth to all other Churches, beholding and approving their orderly proceed, as they may the more readily give them the right hand of Fellowship, and walk with more freedom of Spirit in Brotherly Love and Communion with them in the Lord.  Proposition VI. 
In such matters of public Censure, wherein through the obscenity and difficulty thereof, or otherwise, there doth arise differences tending to dangerous Divisions and distractions in the Church, or offence to other Churches, In all such Ca●es it is meet and requisite that the Church proceed advisedly with the Counsel and Concurrence of the Elder, or Elders, with other Judicious and impartial Breth●●● of other Churches, clearing up from the Word, what is the mind and will of Christ to be done.  Proposition VII. 
Not only in matters of Censure, but also in other Cases of Doctrine or practice, wherein for want of Light or of the Spirit of meckness and Love, there doth grow dissension in any Church (as did in the Church of Antioch about Circumsision) The Church so divided shall do wisely and safely, not to proceed to determine the Case by a Major V●te, to the unsatisfaction and offence of a Considerable part among themselves, or the offence of other Churches. But ought rather to bring the matter to the hearing and Judgement of other Elders and Brethren of other Churches: who being desired aught readily to meet together, and seriously (as in the fear of God) to inquire into, the Case, search out by the word, what is the mind of Christ therein, by themselves, (if present) or otherwise, by Letters and Messengers to declare to the Church, what they judge to be the Rule of Christ which they should walk by, which Judgement ought to be received with all due respect according to God, Acts 15.  Proposition VIII. 
As there is a Brotherhood of members in the same Church, so there is a Brotherhood of Churches, being all Fellow members of Christ Jesus, and so bound to have a m●utal Care one of another, Cant. 8 8. It is therefore meet and requiste, that in Case any Church shall fall into any scandalous error or offence in doctrine or practice, than the Neighbour Church or Churches should Advertise, Convince, and admonish such a Church thereof according to the Rule of the Gospel. And if after due Conviction by a Neighbour Church, and again by more Churches, the offending Church as the nature of the offence and the respect due to a Church of Christ may require, may at length withdraw, the Church with sufficient partience will not yet hearken to their Brethren; then withdraw from that Church, or at least that part of it which refuse to be healed, such Brotherly Communion and the fruits thereof, as otherwise Churches usually do afford to each other.  Proposition IX. 

In Case any member shall be laid under Censure in a Church by the Major part with the offence of a Considerable part thereof, or when any whole Church shall seem to have Consented corruptly to such a Censure, upon Complaint of the grieved part attested by the dusenting Brethren, or in the other Case, by other credible persons, it is free, yea, requisite that other Church, or Churches, in the Spirit of meckness desire to know the Reason or their Censure, which if the Church shall clear up to be just, than the other Church or Churches ought to bear witness to their proceed, and to persuade the Censured and dissenting part of the submit and give satisfaction. But if the Church shall refuse to give an account of the Reasons of their procceeding, or not finally clear up the Justice thereof, nor ease the grieved party, it will then be equal for any other Church to receive the Censured part to their Covenant or Communion.  
For so Christ received: the blind man, after he was unjustly Cast out of the Synogogue, Iob● 9 The unjust acts of any Church cannot appear to be done, in the name of Christ; out rather in the abuse of his name and power, and therefore do not bind in Heaven, Clavis errans uon Ligat.   Proposition. X. 
As it is the practice of Godly Christians in the Churches (without any Scruple, and with much Edification and increase of Love) to meet together in Convenient numbers or Families at Set times, house by house, to exercise that Christian Communion, which the moral Rules of the Gospel call for, 1 Thes. 5.11. Col. 3.16. Heb. 3, 13. and so 24. so also upon the same grounds, [besides others] it would [by the blessing of God] conduce much to the increase of brotherly Love and Unity, the spiritual Edification of many, by mutual Faith of each other, to the strengthening of the hearts and hands of one another in the work of the Lord, If the Elders and brethren of the Churches, did meet together, Church by Church, in Convenient numbers, at set times, (not to exercise any Jurisdiction over any,) but to enjoy and practise Church Communion by prayer together, hearing the word preached, and Conference about such Gases and Questions of Conscience, as shall be found useful or needful for the edification and Comfort, and peace of every Church, or any of the Brethren thereof, and this Course might tend much to satisfy the Spirits of divers godly Brethren, who have thought that we so much mind the distinction of particular Churches, and the duties of fellow members in the same, that we lose much of the Comfort of Love, and the Fellowship of the Spirit, which we might enjoy, and that we fall short in some brotherly Love which we own mutually to our dear Brethren of several Churches.  For the better Improvement of such a Conference. 


1. It is fit that the Number of Churches so to meet, be regulated according to the nearness or distance of Churches, and as other Conveniences, or Inconveniences shall require.  
2. For the times of meeting, it may seem best to leave it to the wisdom of each Society of Churches, to meet more frequently or seldom as they shall see Cause.  
3. Concerning their Exercises, it is meet that the Elders of each Church where the Conference is to be held, should choose with Consent of the Church some other Elder as they see best, whom they may entreat to preach at their meeting, and also to desire some to moderate in the Conference, and agree upon such Questions as they see fit, three or four, and send them to the Elders of other Churches, at least fourteen days before the time of their Assembly.  
4. For the ordering of the Time, it may be fit that the Sermon should end at Eleven a Clock, and after it the Conference follow, and continue so long, as shall be found meet and seasonable.     
Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself who is the Counsellor, the Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace, grant unto all his Church's truth and Peace always, and ●y all means: and He counsel and guide the hearts of his people to discern and embrace all such ways as himself hath sanctified, to those holy Ends. Amen.  
Thus far Mr. Cotton. And that this is according to Congregational Principles, is evident from other Testimonies; For the Messengers of an hundred and twenty Congregational Churches, who met at the Savoy in London, Anno 1658. do in their declaration of the order appointed in the Churches of Christ (Thesis 26.) thus declare. In Case of difficulties or differences either in point of doctrine, or in Administrations, wherein either the Churches in general are concerned, or any one Church in their Peace, Union, 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, etc. And Doctor Owen (who was a great part of that Assembly) in his Catechism concerning Church discipline, (pag. 224, 226, 227.) thus expresses his Judgement. Churches being gathered and settled according to the mind of Christ, aught 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 precipitation, 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 aught 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 Keys, (in which Epistle the Congregational way is truly stated and asserted, as it differs from both the extremes, viz. from Presbyterianisme on the one, and Brownism on the other hand do declare their Concurrence with him in acknowledging that an Association or Communion of Churches sending their Elders and Messengers into a Synod, is an Ordinance of Christ, unto whom Christ hath (in Relation to rectifying male Administrations, and healing Dissensions 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 enjoin 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, has 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 james, Cephas and john 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.] 
And whereas [say they] the Common prejudice and exception laid into all men's thoughts against us, and our opinions is, that in such Congregational Government thus entire within itself, there is not allowed sufficient remedy for miscarriages, though never so gross, no relief for wrongful Sentences, or persons injured thereby, no room for Complaints, no powerful or effectual means to reduce a Church, or Churches that fall into Heresy, Schism, etc. but every one is left, and may take Liberty without control, to do what is good in their own eyes, we have [through the good Providence of God upon us] from the avowed declarations of our Judgements among our Churches mutually during our Exile, and that also confirmed by the most solemn Instance of our practice, wherewith to vindicate ourselves and way in this particular, which upon no other occasion we should ever have made thus public. God so ordered it, that a Scandal and offence fell out, between those very Churches, whilst living in this Banishment, [whereof we ourselves that write these things were then the Ministers] one of our Churches having unhappily deposed one of their Ministers, the others judged it not only too sudden an act, [having proceeded in a matter of so great moment without consuiting their S●ster Churches, as was publicly professed, we should have done in such Cases of concernment] but also in the proceed thereof, as too severe, and not managed according to the Rules laid down in the Word. In this Case our Churches did mutually acknowledge and submit to this, as a Sacred and undoubted Principle, and Supreme Law to be observed amongst all Churches, that as by virtue of the Apostolical Command Churches as well as particular men, are bound to give no offence, neither to jew nor Gentile, nor the Churches of God they live amongst. So, that in all Cases such offence or differences by the Obligation of the Common Law of Communion of Churches, and for the Vindication of the glory of Christ which in Common they hold forth, the Church or Churches challenged to offend or differ, are to submit themselves (upon the Challenge of the offence or Complaint of the person wronged) to the most full and open trial and examination by other Neighbour Churches offended thereat, of what ever has given the offence. And further, that by virtue of the same and like Law of not partaking of other men's sin, the Church offended may, and aught upon the Impenitency of those Churches persisting in their Errors and miscarriage to pronounce that heavy Sentence against them of withdrawing and Renouncing all Christian Communion with them, until they do repent, and further to declare and protest this with the Causes thereof to all other Churches of Christ, that they may do the like. And what further Authority or proceed purely Ecclesiastical of one or many Churches towards another whole Church, or Churches offending; either the Scriptures do hold forth, or can rationally be put in Execution (without the Magistrates interposing a power or another nature, unto which we upon his particular Cognizance and Examination of such Causes, profess ever to submit, and also to be most willing to have recourse unto) for our parts we saw not then, nor do yet see. And likewise we did then Suppose, (and do yet) that this Principle of Submission of Churches that miscarry, unto other Churches offended, together with this other, that it is a Command from Christ enjoined to Churches that are finally offended to denounce such a Sentence of non Communion and withdrawing from them whilst Impenitent, as unworthy to hold forth the Name of Christ, (these Principles being received and generally acknowledged by the Churches of Christ to be a mutual duty as strictly enjoined them by Christ as any other) that these would be as effectual means through the blessing of Christ to awe and preserve Churches and their Elders in their duties, As that other of Claim to an Authoritative Power Ecclesiastical to Excommunicate other Churches, or their Elders offending; for if the one be compared with the other, in a mire Ecclesiastical Notion, that of Excommunication pretended, hath but this more in it, that it is a Delivery of whole Churches and their Elders offending unto Satan, (for which we know no warrant in the Scriptures that Churches should have such a power over other Churches.) And then as for the binding Obligation, both of the one way and the other, it can be supposed to lie but in these two things.  
1. In a warrant and Injunction given by Christ to his Churches, to put either the one or the other into Execution. And 2. That men's Consciences be accordingly taken therewith, so as to Subject themselves whether unto the one way or the other. For suppose that other Principle of Authoritative Power in the greater part of the Churches combined to Excommunicate other Churches, etc. To be the Ordinance of God, yet unless it do take hold of men's Consciences, and be received amongst all Churches, the offending Churches will slight all such Excommunications, as much as they may be supposed to do our way of protestation and Sentence of non Communion. On the other side, Let this way of ours be but as strongly entertained, as that which is the way and Command of Christ; and upon all occasions be heedfully put in Execution, it will awe men's Consciences as much, and produce the same Effects. And if the Magistrate's Power▪ to whic● we give as much and (as we think) more, than the Principles of the Presbyterial Government will suffer them to yield,): do bu● assist and back the Sentence of other Churches denouncing this Non Communion against Churches miscarrying according to the nature of the Crime as they judge meet, and as they would the Sentence of Chu che Excommunicating other Churches in such Cases upon their own particular Judgement of the Cause, then without all Controversy, this our way of Church proceeding, will be every way as effectual, as their other can be supposed to be; and we are sure more brotherly and more suited to that Liberty and equality Christ hath endowed his Church with. But without the Magistrates interposing their Authority, their way of proceeding will be as ineffectual as ours, and more liable to Contempt, by how much it is pretended to be more Authoritative, and to inflict more dreadful punishment which carnal Spirits are seldom sensible of. This for our Judgements. And for a e●l evidence and demonstration; both, that this was then our Judgements, as likewise for an instance of the effectual Success of such a Course held by Churches in such Cases, our own practice and the blessing of God thereon may plead and testify for us to all the world. The manage of this Transaction, in brief was this: That Church which with others was most Scandalised, did by Letters declare their offence, requiring of the Church supposed to be offending, in the Name, and for the vindication of the honour of Christ, and the relieving the party wronged, to yield a full and public hearing before all the Churches of our Nation, or any other whomsoever offended, of what they could give in Charge against their proceed, in that deposition of their Minister, and to submit themselves to an open Trial and review of all those forepast Carriages that concerned that particular: which they most cheerfully and readily (according to the forementioned Principles) submitted unto in a place and state, where no outward violence or any other external Authority either Civil or Ecclesiastical would have enforced them thereunto. And accordingly the Ministers of the Church offended, with other two Gentlemen of much worth, wisdom and Piety, members thereof, were sent as Messengers from that Church; and at the Introduction and entrance into that Solemn Assembly, (the Solemnity of which has left as deep an Impression upon our hearts of Christ● dreadful presence, as ever any we have been present at.) It was openly and publicly professed in a Speech that was the Preface to that discussion to this Effect, that it was the most to be abhorred maxim, that any Religion has ever made profession of, and therefore of all other the most contradictory and dishonourable unto that of Christianity, that a single, and particular Society of m●n professing the Name of Christ, and pretending to be endowed with a power from Christ to judge them that are of the sa●e body, and Society within themselves, should further arrogate to themselves an exemption from giving account, or being Censurable of any other either Christian Magistrate above them, or Neighbour Churches about them. So far were our judgements from that Independent Liberty that is imputed to us, then, when we had least dependency on this Kingdom, or so much as hopes ever to abide therein in peace.  
And for the Issue▪ and Success of this agitation after there had been for many days as Judiciary▪ and full a Charge, trial and deposition of witnesses openly before all Comers of all Sorts as can be expected, in any Court where Authority enjoins it, that Church which had offended did as publicly acknowledge their sinful aberration in it, restored their Minister to his place again, And ordered a Solemn day for fasting, to humble themselves before God and men for their sinful Carriage in it, and the party also which had been deposed, did acknowledge to that Church, wherein he had likewise sinned,   
So that these Godly Learned Writers, were so far from making a Popedom of a particular Church that they deemed it an abhorred maxim to affirm 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 Congregational 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 dissuasive, and other writings, ej ●fde in commatis been so distasteful 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 far more evident from the Testimony of blessed Burroughs in his Excellent Treatise about heart Divisions 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 ways to Churches about them, or to any other who shall require it, this not in an Arbitrary way, but as a duty that they own 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, Schisms, 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 than if any private Brethren should do the same thing; For a Synod is a Solemn Ordinance of Christ, and the Elders are to be looked upon as the Officers of Jesus Christ. And again, pag. 47. he has these words, If it shall be said, But surely they do not agree so far, 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 has been against us in this thing.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  

POSTSCRIPT  
SInce the Composure of this Collection of Testimonies, it hath pleased the Lord to take unto himself another of our Ancient Studs, viz. worthy and Reverend Mr. Allin of Dedham, whose Apprehensions touching the Controverted Questions is sufficiently known. Likewise not many weeks before his death, he read this Script, and expressed his judgement thereon in words following.  
Reverend and dear Brother, I salute you in the Lord.  
I humbly bless God for your fruitful Labours in this your Collection, (and in other matters performed by you) concerning which in general, I think it is worthy serious Consultation amongst your Friends, whether it be not a Season to publish the same. (1.) We see the work of Christ touching the Church Seed is laid asleep, this might awaken our drowsiness, we see also the great disorders in Churches for want of seasonable help from Neighbouring Churches, and by Reason of the rejection of Counsel without convincing their Sentence of error.  
2dly. We see how our present doctrine is rejected as a Novel Innovation, differing from first and primitive Principles. (3.) Who knoweth how far God may bless this Treatise to the recovery of some if not many, from their Erroneous Opinions about these Truths.  
I Conceive also some serious Exhortation to cleave to these first ways of Christ in New England, might be seasonably added, I Rest  
Yours in our Lord, john Allin.  
A Letter concerning the Subject of Baptism, written by that eminent Minister of Christ Mr jonathan Mitchel, late Pastor of the Church in Cambridg in New England.  
Reverend and dear Sir,  
I have deliberately read over Mr. D●. Essay and Epistle to the Reader, which I now return to you with thanks for the Loan of it, If I should say, I see not matter of Conviction in it, his Answer is already given me, (pag. 35) If men shut their eyes, when the light is held out to them, they may truly say they see not, or in pag. 6. they that Inquire of God with an Idol in their hearts, shall be paenally answered by being left to their own Counsels, etc. we had need Labour to approve ourselves to God, when we meet with such sharp Censures from men But the R. A. can hardly expect, we should find Conviction here, seeing he builds all upon this distinction of Immediate and mediate membership, which with the Consectaries He deduceth from it, is the prora & puppis of his whole discourse: and for the proof of the distinction, himself, in (pag. 34, 35.) refers the Reader to his former Essays; neither have I observed much more in this writing, toward the proof of it, than we have had before. And therefore if we did not see it (as by him explained and Improved) to be evident before, it is not strange, if we do not see it now. If it must be imputed to our blindness (yea, wilful and penal blindness) that we see it not, we must be Content, to bear it as we may. Also when he affirms over and over (pag. 75, 83, 92, 103, 131, 145, 152.) that we ourselves Confess the Parents in Question have not Faith, or are not visible Believers, the Contrary whereunto we have plainly asserted. And how many times over does he say it, [we call them mere members] which we have disclaimed, and do not so call them but, [members not in full Communion] yea, he says, in pag. 49.) we grant that the persons in Question, are not to be accounted Church members, etc. How should we receive Conviction from such discourses? If his meaning be by so often reflecting on [our mere members as he calls them] to deny that distinction of members into [such as are in full Communion, and such as are not in full Communion] that would seem strange, for how can that be denied by any Pad●baptists, and he seems to approve it in pag. 35. yea, he seems sometimes to grant, that some when Adult do Continue in the Church and Covenant, who yet are not admitted to full Communion, pag. 76. 99, yet he calls for a Rule for two such sorts of Adult members, pag. 73. But I shall not enter into discourse of particulars, nor am I fit to be an Answerer, it is easy to observe a greater sharpness in his Expressions to me then else where in this Book. I hope I shall Consider as I am able, what I find in this, or other discourses, about the matter in Controversy, etc. and if I be convinced of Error, I shall not be ashamed to own it, but if there be no way to Issue the Controversy but by such voluminous writings, and if every passage be not spoken to, he counts himself neglected, or unanswered; And that which he hath before said stands still firm and good, (as to that purpose he speaks in this Book above twenty times) I have little hope to see an Issue of it, nor can I see any likely way for an Issue, unless we can meet, (either in way of Synod or Colloquy) and with freedom and Candour verbally and fully discourse the matter, and agree to some orderly Conclusion. As for the Substance of the Cause, wherein we have engaged, I am daily more and more Confirmed, that it is the Cause of Truth, and of Christ, and that wherein not a little of the Interest of Christ's Kingdom, and of the Souls of men is laid up. I have heard you intimate, as if there were failings in the manner of Calling, and the managing of the late Synod, and you speak of your expunging some passages in what passed the Press, which would have discovered the nakedness of the contrary minded, (though I suppose if they had been printed, they would have discovered more the nakedness of the Author, or Authors, then of the Subjects of those Expressions and Informations.) And I once had an Intimation, as if some had gathered up a Narrative of matters that would shame us much, if it should be published. To all which I would say, I do not know of any such great matter, that can be objected, or of aught Considerable, that would seem strange [if things be rightly represented] among men of Infirmity as we all are. And some of us were not slow in the open Synod, and other ways to own ourselves such, and to crave the Candour and forbearance that is needful for such, which one would think Christian and ingenious Spirits should have been satisfied with. But if there were more to be objected that way, than there is, is that any Argument against the matter and Cause itself? Luther's Refo ma ion might be Condemned upon that ground, for all know that he wanted not many failings, in the management thereof. God loves to humble Instruments, and to leave matter of humbling upon them, even when they are carrying on his own good work; but I should be sorry if there were to be found with us the Tyths of Irregularities that abound among our Anti Synod alien people in the Count●, who slick not to despise, reproach, and distaste Synods, and Ministers, and all upon the account of this matter, whereby I wish the Lo d be not provoked unto Anger. And how far those few in the Ministry that have appeared in opposition may have been accessary thereunto, I had rather they would seriously Consider between the Lord and their own Souls, than I go about to determine. We have been reflected upon by some as seeking ourselves, and driving on I know not what design, and I cannot readily Imagine, what Self Interest or Self End we here should be led by in this matter. Sure I am for my own part, that I prejudice myself much, as to name, Interest, Ease, etc. For my appearing in this Cause. Neither was I so insensible, as not to feel it from the first. I know myself to be a poor, vile, sinful Creature, and can with some ceiling say, chief of Sinners, and least of Saints, but in this particular matter I have often said, I wish my Brethren could see through me, for I know not any design or desire I have in it, in all the world, but only that the will of God might be done among us, his Kingdom be advanced, these Churches settled on right Bases, and flourish in the ways of Truth, Purity and Peace, and that the good of the Souls of men might be promoted both in this, and after Generation.  
I am sorry to sphnd thus many Lines about the Circumstantials of the Cause; the prejudices that are thence taken up against it, have drawn me thus far. But touching the matter itself, that hath been in debate between us (which I had rather be discoursing of) you may please to Consider at Leisure which of these three Propositions you would deny.  

1. The whole visible Church under the New Testament is to be baptised  
2. If a man be once in the Church (whether admitted at Age or in Infancy nothing less than Censurable evil can put him out.  
3 If the Parent be in the visible Church his Infant Child is so also.   
The first is proved by the Arguments for the Synods first Proposition, the second is plain from the Current of Scripture, and Confirmed under the New-Testament, (besides other Reasons) from the Carriage of Christ and his Apostles towards the Jews, who came into the Church by a membership received in Infancy. The third must be owned by all, but Antip●do Baptists. The Frame of the Covenant, Gen, 17. inferrts it, and Mr. D. imprinted Essay, pag 23. grants that the Promise of the Covenant do●s not stop at the Infant Cold. These three things are all of them the doctrine of all our great Divines, as well as of the Scriptures.  
It is to m●● Confirmation to observe de facto, that in the way of successive baptising in Children of all that had a standing in the visible Church (though with too much Laxeness and Corruption for want of Discipline) the Lord hath continued Religion among Christian People from Age to Age, whereas the like Continuance and Preservation of true Religion could not have been hoped for, not propable in the Contrary way.  
It was never heard of in the world from Abraham to this day [since God appointed an entering Sign, or such a Livery to be worn by his people to distinguish them from the world] that a people did Continue for any length of Time to be Religious, who were either all, or the greater part of them uncircumcised or unbaptised.  
The laying aside of Circumcision among the Midianites, for that they did betimes lay it aside, may be plainly gathered from Exod. 4.24, 25, 26. was quickly followed with the utter Loss of all true Religion among them, and other of the Posterity of Abraham and Keturab.  
I know the bare having of Baptism does not always keep true Religion but sure it is, that the want of it will quickly lose Religion among, a people To say that a people may be Religious well enough without Baptism, would be to reflect upon the wisdom of Christ, in appointing such an external Sign of Christianty, which surely was no needless thing; It is easy to see that in the way yourself and some others go, the bigger h●lf of the people in this Country will in a little Time be unbaptised, Mr. D. says in his Essay, pag. 55. that out mere members as he calls them, will soon be a far greater number than his Sheep and Lambs, i. e. then his Immediate and mediate members, both of them, and all the Generations of these mere members [as he calls them] he would have unbaptised, now I leave it to Consideration, how subversive to Religion this will soon be, as also how absurd a thing that a Christian professing people, yea, eminently professing, and of a more reformed temper then ordinarily the world h●th known. [As through grace the body of people of this Country, yea, and of our members not in f●ll Communion yet are] should so soon be the body of them unbaptised, as if they were not a Christian, but an Heathen People. Let me add this farther Consideration, all Disciples or [Acts 11.26.] Christians are by Christ enjoined to be baptised; Math 28.19 Acts 11.26. states it upon the●e people that are called [named or counted] Christians, I know these are that arrogate to themselves the Name of Christians who are manifest Anti-Christians, as Papist, Atheists, etc. these may be excluded, but those who [in regard both of their belief and practice] do justly and rightly retain the Reputation of Christians, as they that are described in our fifth Proposition, and the Generality of the People in this Country cannot be denied to do, surely Christ's Injunction doth include them.  
We may observe that Congregational men in England are not without thoughts and studies for enlargement of Baptism. Doctor Owen in his late Catechism, is plainly with us in the main Substance of the Cause, viz. the baptising of those we plead for, though it seems be would have them baptised in another Notion. For when as in Question 38 he makes the proper Subject of Baptism to be professing Believers and their Infant Seed, it is plain he intends Baptism to many, who (according to his Platform) are not in full Communion, or may not come to the Lords Table, nay, are not (with him) so much as joined members of a particular or instituted Church, but are only professors of the Faith, Compare Question 19 39, 47 49. And I suppose, there are Expressions to that purpose in other writings of his, which I have not now by me. The same thing may be Contained under the Expression at the meeting of the Savoy in their Confession of Faith, Chap. 29. Thes. 4. [the Infants of one or both believing Parents are to be baptised,] using therein the words of the Assemblies Confession, and we know in how large a Sense they take the word [believing] when as they say in Chap. 26. Thes. 2. The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the Faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it, not destroying their own Profession by any errors, everting the Foundation, or unholiness of Conversation, are, and may be called the visible Catholic Church of Christ.  
How plain is it, that the persons whose Children we would have baptised are professing Believers according to Doctor Owen's Expressions, believing Parents in the Assemblies Sense, and such Professors of the Faith of the Gospel, and of obedience to God, as do not otherwise destroy that Profession, all which (say the Savoy meeting) are of the visible Catholic Church of Christ. And I suppose, they would not have any part of Christ's visible Church left unbaptised. 'Tis true they say, this visible Catholic Church of Christ as such, is not entrusted with the Administration of any Ordinance, but they may mean, as many do expressly hold, that the p●●●on Administering Baptism must be an Officer in a particular Church, though the Subjects baptised may be of the Catholic Church. However such Catholic Professors as they here describe, are qualified for Baptism, If taking hold of the Covenant in a particular Church be (in their mind) further needful, ours do that.  
You may hereby perceive, that you stand almost alone, while you are against the baptising of such as are described in ou● fifth Proposition. Whether they should be baptised as in a Catholic, or in a particular Church state is another Question, and I Confess myself not altogether so peremptory in this Latter as I am in the thing itself, [viz. that they ought to be baptised] yet still I think that when all Stones are turned, it will come to this, that all the baptised are, and aught to be under Discipline in particular Churches, yourself and those few in the Ministry here, that descent, do bear a greater weight than it may be you are ware of. For the People in the Country have in a manner no Arguments to object but this, some of yourselves, some of the Ministers are against it: I have lately in Course of Exposition gone over Exod. 4 24. as formerly over Gen 17 9— 14. And the more I look into such Tex●s as those, the more awful they are to me, to make me fear, lest we should be wanting to do the will of God in this particular, and lest the Lord should be thereby displeased. And I am afraid that we do not our duty while we let a matter of so great moment, and of such public and Practical Concernment as this is, lie by from year to year, without using more means to bring it to an Issue, and to come to some settlement therein.  
Thus you see with what Freedom I have opened somewhat of my heart to you about this matter, had I not been Confident of your Candid Acceptation thereof, I should not have done it.  
I do affectionately thank you for your Remembronce of me before the Lord, and desire a Continued Share therein, hoping that I am not, and shall not be [in my poor measure] u●●nindful of you, whom I have a real respect for, and do hearty love in the Lord.  
I am not without hope, that we may be yet of one mind before we die, [And I am ready to think that we had been so  this, if you had been pleased to attend and pursue a free Candid and through Debate of matters veybally, and happily if some such Course were yet ●●ken amongst us that live here about, it might effect an accord] But however I hope we shall meet there, ubi Luthero cum zuinglio optimè jam convenit. The Lord direct all our paths for us, that we may be found walking in the ways of Truth, and Peace, to his Glory, the good of others, and rejoicing of our own Souls in the day of Christ. In whom I am  
Yours unfeignedly Jonathan Mitchel. Cambridg. December. 26. 1667.  
FINIS.