>^ cV^^^^y^'- '^ov^' ^^i^/^^.'. '-^-^^^ o^^^^^^ii^""-. '^'^ <-{v '^^o^ • .^^^*. \^- ^/% l^- .^'-^^^ ■*■ - ^^..** :^iJk^ %/ /,^fe^ •'*..** .-^ ^'V V-^' V j> - » » " . V> V' • . . s V 4q, :<• V c'?^-^ .^fSltei% "^^ A^ ^^^^A''. '"^o .^^" - \ %,.^^ :'^i£'. v./ :m&% %.A^ " ^o, '^"'^o^ %.'''.y^,- .*•' NT'S ^0><=.- f- .. "V^'\**' %-^'*/ v^^*\/ ,** '°;.'^'''/ V'^^'y' "^^'--'-'^o- V «> "■o^ ■^ *''. DID THE FIRST CHURCH OF SALEM ORIGINALLY HAVE A COl^FESSIO]^ OF FAITH DISTINCT FROM THEIR C0VENANT1 BY JOSEPH B. FELT. ,...." As in building, if the line Be not exact and strait ; the rule dei^line ; Or level false, how vain is the design ! " — Lucretius. " To lead us safe through Error's thorny maze, "''o'' "^ Reason exerts Ler pure ethereal rays." — Fenton. ,«*^ ^- — BOSTON : PKESS OF EDWAKD L. BALCH, 21 SCHOOL STREET. 18 5 6. ^rj^i, Cc n' 9 M ''01 THE FIEST CHUECH OF SALEM A FEW days since, a tract came to my hands with the title : " A Brief Sketch of a Lecture, delivered before the Essex Institute, May 12, 1856, respecting the Founders of Salem and the First Church." The author of this work is the Hon. Daniel A. \Yhite. It remarks : " The main purpose of the lecture was to correct certain errors, con- tained in two recent publications ; — the Ecclesiastical History, by Mr. Felt, and a new edition of Morton's Memorial." The writer of the History regrets, that, some of its contents being thus represented, he feels himself obligated to clear the volume from such a charge. In the pursuit of this object, wc will, for the sake of lessening words and saving time, as well as avoiding personal remarks, personify the Sketch or Tract and the Book or Volume, and have the discussion, as it were, carried on between them. It may be well to state here the bill of indictment on which the Book is so arraigned. On its 115th page, there is a note, saying, that the covenant of 1629 differed from that of 1636. On the 116th, the original confession of faith and covenant " were evidently not contained together in one document, but were separately and individually acknow- ledged." On the 267th, after an allusion to Peters' settlement, as Pastor, it is observed, " They renew their covenant, somewhat altered from the first. It evidently had reference to events of the time." Then four extracts from it are adduced, and their application men- tioned, as bearing on several occurrences. This, as the author of these positions feels assured, is a fair representation. It is what, as already expressed, the Sketch denominates errors, and soon after, misrepresenta- tion. In addition to this, the Tract, on p. 6, referring to the aforesaid extracts, observes, "Yet in the "Book, '"it (the covenant) found no place, excepting some mutilated sentences, introduced apparently to disprove its authority." In the next sentence, it intimates, that such treatment of the covenant is unworthy and " perversive of its true character." This seems to have been honestly considered as a needed blister to quicken the perception of truth. But we trust that, on fuller examination, no sufficient morbidness will appear, requiring any such remedy. We will now endeavor to show that the preceding positions of the A'olume are correct, and therefore neither errors nbv misrepresentation, nor unworthiness, nor perversion. To do this, the general divisions, for the most part, adopted by the Sketch, may answer our purpose. I. The avowed principles of the Founders. It is an indisputable fact, in moral as well as intellectual philosophy, that principles will be accounted opinions, and so in the reverse com- parison, according to the medium of faith through which they are viewed. As in astronomical science, the power of the sun to attract all the less globes of its system was a grand principle with Coper- nicus, while his opponents denounced it as the vagary of imagination, so it is with the receivers and rejecters of the great doctrines of reli- gion. The Founders of Naumkeag highly estimated their practical principles of Congregationalism. But they looked on them, in contrast with their principles of Christianity, as the shell to the kernel and the husk to the corn. They could easily discern the difference between these two kinds of principles, and quickly distinguish them both from the loose speculations which drift with every wind. As the decision of their judgment, the principles of religion embalmed in their hearts, were drawn from the wisdom of Inspiration. Could they rise from the dead, and address those who greatly applaud them for doing what they never did, for lightly esteeming the doctrines which they held far more valuable than all worldly honor, they would say to them. How- ever earnest you arc, we count such praise as our reproach, and such glory as our shame. They had no need to be taught, that a reformed church could no more dwell in peace, and long exist together in pros- perity, without a specification of its doctrines, than a free state or a kingdom could, without the declaration of its constitutional principles. What, then, were the doctrines or principles of these founders '? — They imbibed a love for the truths of the Keformation, stronger than death. Though separating from the corruptions of the English church, they retained, as precious, all its Evangelical articles of faith. They harmonized with AVinthrop, in his Treatise on Christian charity: " That which the most in their churches (of England) maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring (where we go) into familiar and constant practice." " The essential marks of the church," which they formed, were, as John Eobinson taught, " I'aith professed in word and deed, shewing the matter to be true ; and order in the holy things of God, shewing tlie form to be true." With regard to the doctrines now professed, Chalmers says, they " formed the seed plant of the churches of New England." That these Ecclesiastical bodies mainly harmonized in their religious principles, we have the statement of William Rathband in England, 1G44. They " are of one and the same way in church constitution, government and discipline, without any material difference, so that what may be truly said of any one of them, may be believed of them all." Though Thomas Weld in replying to his work differed from him in various points, he did not in the one, just recited. These remarks are placed here to show the pertinency of facts, which will be adduced, to the church at Salem as well as others of Massachusetts. Before John Cotton came hither in 1633, he wrote "God's promise to his plantation," published in London 1030. In this he says to our set- tlers, "Have a care to be implanted into the ordinances, that the Word may be ingrafted into you and you into it." What he intended here is evidently brought out more particularly in his twelve articles of 1640, " which maintained by any, the church may receive them and keep fellowship with them." The first of such articles, is the doc- trine of the Trinity, which, like all the rest, is of the Calvinistic order. While writing of the New England churches in 1637, but one year af- ter the adoption by Salem Church of what the Sketch declares to be all that remains of its primitive confession and covenant, Richard Bernard, a Puritan conformist of Batcombe in England, makes the ensuing statement, " They propound questions to be answered of such, as come to be admitted into their church fellowship, as about the God- head, the Trinity, their works, man's first estate in innocence, the fall, the redemption, Christ bis nature, his offices, faith, the sacra- ments, the church, the resurrection and the last judgement." With reference to such doctrines of the Reformation, Samuel Danforth of Roxbury in his sermon of 1671, considers for his subject, " the Recog- nition of New England's errand into the AA^ilderness." Addressing himself to survivors of the primitive emigrants, he observes, your ob- ject in coming hither was " liberty to walk in the Faith of the Go.spel with all good conscience according to the order of the Gospel, and your enjoyment of the pure worship of God according to his institution, without human mixture and impositions. How diligent and faithful in preparing your hearts for the reception of the Word ? How painful were you in recollecting, repeating and discoursing of what you heard, whetting the Word of God upon the hearts of your children, servants and neighbors? What searchings among the Holy Scriptures; what collations among your leaders '? What fervent zeal against all manner of heterodox- ies?" The religious principles, mentioned and alluded to by these authors, are neither embraced nor indicated by the Covenant of 1636, and, con- sequently, they must have been known and practiced, as a confession of faith, independently of such a covenant. What they so confidently tell us, is not invalidated, but strengthened, by the remarks preceding them. While those make out a probability, these afford a certainty. Taking, then, the foregoing considerations together, what shall we say of them ? Do they contradict the position of the Volume, that the original confession and covenant of the Church in view, were seperate and distinct instruments ? No, they confirm it as true and worthy of all acceptation. II. Primitive history in relation to Salem Church. Among the va- rious accounts of gathering this body, the one given by Morton in his Memorial, p. 101-3, ed. 1721, is satisfactory and appropriate. He in- forms us that Messrs. Higginson and Skelton consulted with Governor Endicott "about settling a reformed congregation." There was a hearty concurrence on the part of the chief magistrate. " It was desired of Mr. Higginson to draw up a Confession of Faith and Covenant in Scripture language; which being done, was agreed upon. And because they foresaw, that this wilderness might be looked upon as a place of liberty and therefore might in time be troubled with erroneous spirits, there- fore, they did put one article into the Confession of Faith on purpose, about the duty and power of the magistrate in matters of Religion. — Thirty copies of the foresaid Confession of Faith and Covenant being written out for the use of thirty persons, who were to begin the work. When the sixth of August came, it was kept as a day of Fasting and Prayer, in which after the Sermons and Prayers of the two ministers, in the end of the day, the foresaid Confession of Faith and Covenant being solemnly read, the foresaid persons did solemnly profess their consent thereunto. The Confession of Faith and Covenant forenamed was acknowledged only as a direction, pointing to the Faith and Covenant contained in the Holy Scriptures, and, therefore, no man was confined unto that form of words, but only to the substance, end and scope of the matter contained in them." As to "joining the church, some were admitted by expressing their consent to that written confession of faith and covenant ; others did answer to questions about the princi- ples of religion, that were publicly propounded to them, some did pre- sent their confessions in writing, which was read for them ; and some that were able and willing, did make their confession in their own words and way." This relation of Morton as explicitly and fully re- cognizes a confession of faith as it does a cOYenant. The making of the latter to swallow up the former, as some modern writers have done, is a mistake. This is imitated by the Sketch, on page 5, where it represents the covenant of 1636, as comprising the first covenant and confession of Faith. To such a stand there are several objections. Morton informs us, that there was an article in the original confes- sion, "about the power and duty of magistrates in religion," j^robably suggested by the trouble with Lyford at Plymouth and with the Browns at Salem, which is no where found in the covenant, last named, though it has one, promising obedience to ministers and magistrates. Such lack of conformity proves, that the Covenant of 1636, does not contain, unless with a marked omission, the confession of 1629. It, therefore, breaks down the credibility, assumed by the Tract in behalf of what it considers, as its only remaining source of information, rela- tive to the original confession and covenant, and thus opens a door of uncertainty as to what was the whole confession, while it demonstrates that this instrument is not entirely included, even if a possibility ex- isted to prove that it was partly, by the covenant of 1636. The same author mentions a "form of words," in connection with the confession and covenent, as a rule for those, admitted to the church, and, though the candidates were permitted to own it by consent or re- plies to questions or written or oral language, they were required, in all this, to comply with "the substance, scope and end of the matter contained" in such a form. Substance and its two attendant terms de- pended on this form, as the definite standard of the doctrines, which they indicate. They absolutely needed such a rule so as not to be degraded from the vocabulary of intelligence to that of " sound and nothing else." However the "form of words" may have been represented as an empty shadow, it still remains, accompanied with its requisitions, as a fixed sign of all the scriptural principles, which it originally signified in the language of such men as Francis Higginson and Samuel Skelton. 'The account of Morton has the phrase, " the confession of faith and covenent was acknowledged only as a direction,'' binding no man ex- cept to the "substance" of such a scriptural form. This has always been in accordance witli the spirit of tbc written creeds of evangelical, congregational churches. While requiring candidates for admission to their privileges to harmonize in the substance of what they deemed the great doctrines, taught by the Gospel, they have never excluded any of them for diversity of opinion in non-essentials. So it was with the church, under John Higginson. He well knew the common ac- ceptation of the word, direction. He published his impression of it several years before he recommended the Memorial, which he, also, most probably supplied with its facts about the formation of his church. He, as we shall show, then used the term, direction, so as to comprise confession and covenent as two things, entirely separate from each other. An exegetical argument is offered by the Sketch, p. 12, 13, from certain words in Morton's relation, to shew that confession of faith and covenant were but one instrument, and that " a formula of faith distinct from the covenant was a thing unheard of in the formation of the early congregational churches of New England." We will look at the words italicised, on which these propositions are predicated. "Accordingly it was desired of Mr. Higginson to draw up a confession of faith and covenant which being done to as agreed upon." The Sketch would have us understand from these words that was being of the singular number and agreeing with which, must make this pronoun of the like number, and as which relates to confession of faith and covenent, these terms must signify but one idea and this idea must be covenant. But such a mode of interpretation seems to be unnatural and forced. Mur- ray, under his second rule of Syntax, remarks as follows. "It is evi- dently contrary to the first principles of grammar to consider two distinct ideas as one, however nice may be their shades ; and if there be no difference, one of them must be superfluous and ought to be rejected." It is plain that Morton was well acquainted with this principle. — Therefore, when he used confession of faith and covenant, two things essentially different in some particulars, he intended to convey by them two general, distinct ideas. He needed not be told that if both signi- fied but one such general idea, either confession of faith or covenant should be erased. It is also an undisputed rule and was so when Morton wrote, that "two nouns in the singular number, joined together by a copulative conjunction must have a pronoun agreeing with them in the plural number." Consequently, the which, if relating to confes- 9 sion of faith and covenant, must be plural, and, of course, must have its verb of the same number. Therefore, one of two inferences follows, either that was, if agreeing with which, as the relation to confession of faith and covenant, should be corrected and made ivere, and thus does not sanction the conclusion of the Tract, or, if not agreeing with which, so applied, must properly agree with it differently applied. The last of this dilemma is evidently the fact. To substantiate this proposition, the ensuing remarks are presented It is well known, that part of a sentence, logically consid- ered, may have all the privileges of Syntax, which belong to a noun of multitude. One example is given from Murray, "Promising without due consideration oUen produces a breach of promise." Consequently, part of a sentence is entitled, like such noun, to a relative of the singu- lar number. Applying these statements, let us take the phrase, " It was desired of Mr. Higginson to draw up a confession of faith and covenant in Scripture language." The action here is evidently the draft of a confession of faith and covenant. It is the gist of the sen- tence, and that portion of it, which may be properly considered as a noun, significant of more than one distinct thing, and, at the same time, entitled to a relative pronoun of the singular number. Of course, which, referring to such a portion of the sentence, may properly have the verb, was, agreeing with it and still leave confession of faith and covenant two separate instruments. So it is with the second case, of- fered by the Sketch. " The confession of faith and covenant foremen- tioned was acknowledged only as a direction." The part of this sen- tence to forementioned, was intended by Morton as a nominative singu- lar, though of plural signification, to ivas, so that confession of faith and covenant should not be merged together, but understood as our fathers defined them. But docs the Sketch object to such construing a part of a sentence ? If so, it falls under its own objection, though it has come to a different conclusion. It has rendered the phrase, " the confession of faith," indubitably a part of the sentence, as a noun singular and has added covenant to it and still retained the whole as of the same number. It would be far more suitable to the genius of our language to understand the passages in question, as follows: — Con- fession or avowal of faith and of covenant, — so that was might agree with which as referring to confession or avowal, and in the next case, immediately with one or other of these last two words, — than to adopt the interpretation of the Sketch. Another expression, " that written confession of faith and covenant," is indicated by the Sketch to signify but one instrument, because that, 10 being a singular demonstrative pronoun, and not repeated immediately before the word, covenant, makes this instrument of the same import as confession of faith. This is not justified by the use of our language, nor was it in the days of Morton. We frequently meet, in ancient as well as in modern publications, with phrases tantamount to the following : That man and woman were strangers to each other. Here are two indi- viduals of distinct identity, the latter having an ellipsis of that before her understood. If, allowing the Sketch to be right, we are reduced to the absurdity of declaring that these two persons are one and the same. f*>ut this cannot be in the nature of things. The preceding excgctical remarks leave us no other alternative, than either to trample on the proprieties of our language by complying with deductions from them, as drawn by the Sketch, or to coincide with such proprieties, and thus permit confession of faith and covenant to signify, as originally intended, the avowal of Gospel doctrines and of agreement to serve God in all relative duties, as two distinct services. Trom Morton we pass to the Covenant of 1636. If this instrument be said to comprise what the founders of Kaumkeag church called a confession of faith, have we not a right to expect, that it will present us with the leading features of such a confession. If a contract to keep the laws of our Commonwealth be represented as containing these laws, are we not fully authorized to look for them in such a contract ? Most assuredly. But we search that covenant in vain, for most of the religious principles which the founders of Salem heartily believed and counted above all earthly price ; and the small proportion of them found there, are only by implicat.ion, such as tally with the form of a covenant, but not with the form of a confession. We fully believe, that had those worthies known that the covenant of 1636 was to be expounded as embracing the principles of their creed, they would have strongly protested against it as a grievous wrong to their reputation as Christian Puritans. The Magnalia, while introducing the Covenant of 1636, vol. i., p. 6G, ed. 1820, thus expresses itself. " They set apart the sixth day of August, for settling a Church state among them, and for their making a confession of their faith and entering into an holy covenant, whereby that Church state was formed." This language is very noticeable as to its plain import, that two distinct writings were in the mind of the author. Had there been only one, he could not have used words more directly and efficiently calculated to make a false impression on every reader of them. The relation goes on: " Now the Covenant, whereto these Christians 11 engaged themselves, which was about seveu years after solemnly re- newed among them, I shall lay before all the churches of God, as it was then expressed and inforced." Here the question arises, to what date does this word, theii, refer ? It more naturally and easily refers to 1G36, when the renewal took place, than otherwise. Consequently, in giving the transcript, JMather intended to be understood, as not confining it to the exact phraseology and contents of the first covenant. Having recited the covenant, as the same author sets it before us, he adds: " By this instrument was the covenant of grace explained, received and recognized by the First Church in this Colony." Nor until he comes to describe the admission of members to the church, does he speak a single syllable about Confession. He thus refers to this and that, as two entirely separate concerns. Xor when the Church renewed their covenant, in 1636, did they so much as utter a lisp in their introduction to it, as though containing the least particle of their confession, but mentioned it as being nothing more than a covenant. In 1636, when the Salem covenant was renewed, we have the subse- quent extract from the Boston Church records. " Thomas Matson, formerly received by communion of churches, but now as a member upon confession of his faith and repentance, and professed subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ according to the covenant of the Gospel." Here confession of faith and covenant subjection were undoubtedly required as separate duties. From the fellowship between Boston and Salem churches we may legitimately conclude, that the like custom was in the latter as in the former. In 1637 many Puritan clergyman of England sent over thirty-two questions to the ministers of New England. Under the eighth ques- tion, they make the two subsequent inquiries. Do you require of those joining the church, " a public profession of their faith concerning the articles of Eeligion ? An express verbal covenanting to walk with the said church in particular, in church fellowship ? " Two years afterwards, these questions were answered by the ministers of our New England Colonies, through Eichard Mather. They say, we hear can- didates for admission to the church " speak concerning the gift and grace of justifying faith in their souls, and the manner of God with them in working it in their hearts ; we hear them speak what they do believe concerning the doctrine of faith. Hereby we would prevent the creeping in of any into the church, that may be infected with cor- rupt opinions;" having done this and being approved, they "openly profess their subjection to the Gospel of Christ, and to all the ordi- 12 nances of God in that church " with which they unite. We have here a plain indication and expression of what was done in Salem and the other churches of Massachusetts and vicinity. Any person may as rationally deny that day is not different from night, as to affirm, with such facts before him, compared with pro- ceedings in the formation of the First Salem Church, that this church had no primitive articles of belief, required of its candidates for ad- mission, separate from its covenant, as expressed in 103G. As a matter of past practice and public notoriety, Lechford in his "News from New England," under 1639, but three years after the Covenant of 163G, described the manner of admitting members to our churches. Testimonials and recommendations were required of them. They related their Christian experience. " The party having finished his discourses of his confession and profession of his faith," the Ruling Elder then called the brethren to vote whether they felt ready to accept him as a member. So it was with other candidates. In case they were approved of, " the Elder calleth them and rehearse th the covenant, on their parts, to them, which they publicly say, they do promise, by the help of God, to perform. And then the Elder, in the name of the Church, promiseth the Churches part of the covenant, to the new admitted members." Thomas Weld replied to William Eathband in 1644. The latter had remarked of our fathers, " They permit no man whatsoever to be a member in any of their churches, to partake with them in any church fellowship, unless he exactly enter in their way of entering, and walk in their order." The former answered, "It is no more than all other societies in the world do, who first require conformity before they permit to any the enjoyment of their liberties." Eathband re- lated the procedure of our churches with candidates for admission, before entering into covenant, which then, as now, was the last requi- sition. He said that such candidates must have recommendation from acquaintances, present and absent ; give a particular relation of their religious experience, and be examined " touching their knowledge in the principles of relioion." In connection with this he quoted a letter from this country : " The churches here admit none but upon confes- sion of their faith." His language was understood by Weld as if every individual candidate was required to do all these things in pub- lic, and therefore Weld mentioned an exception : " We have seen such a tender respect had to the weaker sex, who are usually more fearful and bashful, that we commit their trial to the elders and some few others, in private, who upon their testimony, are admitted into the church." 13 , Rathband, after dwelling on the qualifications of church member- ship, and making one of them to be confession of faith, as absolutely essential, came down to the covenant, which he represented as the same in exacting duties of fellowship, but " in form of words, diverse in divers chui'ches." In replying to him, Weld observed, " Any church hath and taketh liberty, as they shall see just cause to alter it (their covenant) and renew it before the Lord, and bind not themselves to continue in any oversight because they once fell into it, and some churches ha v so done." Cotton, in his " \Yay of the Churches" in New England of 1645, made the following statements. They who wish to join the church, mention it to the elders, " who take trial of their knowledge in the principles of religion, and of their experience in the ways of grace, and of their godly conversation amongst men, that if found ignorant, such may not be presently presented to the church." If approved, "they are propounded by one of the ruling elders of the church." If no exceptions be made, they are called forth before the church, and each one maketh confession of his sins and profession of his faith." Pro- vided all appears right, the brethren express their approbation by lift- ing up their hands. After this, " the elder propoundeth to them the heads of the covenant." The candidates " acknowledging this to be their duty and professing their consent unto it, in the name of Christ ; the elder doth further acquaint them with what duties of holy watch- fulness over them, they may expect from the church ; and so shutteth up his work with some short prayer unto the Lord." Cotton remarked, " The Lord Jesus maketh the profession of the faith of his name to be the rock, on which his visible church is built. Then we shall build a church without a foundation, if we receive such members, as do not hold forth such a profession. Doth not Christ impute it to the sleepi- ness, that is, to the remissness and negligence, of his servants, that tares were sown in his field amongst the wheat? " Cotton said, in his " Way of Congregational churches cleared," printed in London, 1648, " We profess the Orthodox doctrine of faith, the same with all Protestant churches." As bearing on the like subject, and afi'ording similar proof we may quote from the preface to the Platform, adopted by the New England Synod of 1648. " Being called upon by our godly magistrates to draw up a public confession of faith, which is constantly taught and gene- rally professed amongst us ; we thought good to present unto them, and with them to our churches, and with them to all the churches of Christ abroad, our professed and hearty assent and attestation to the 14 whole confession of faith (for substance of doctrine) which the reverend Assembly presented to the religious and honorable Parliament of England." In his epistle, dedicatory to his Orthodox Evangelist, which he wrote to his parishioners of Ipswich, 1652, John Norton made the following re- marks : " What hath my soul longed or labored for more than that you should be not only babes, but men, both sound and strong in faith; sin- cere and distinct, that Christ might not only be formed but perfected ; that you might not only have a saving but satisfactory knowledge of him, in whom you believe. The end of the Gospel is to be known, the duty and disposition of the believer, is to know." How he had thus dis- charged his duty to the people of Ipswich from 1G3G, may be learned from the principles of divinity taught and illustrated in the aforesaid work. In his election sermon of 16G3, John Higginson observed that the design of the primitive settlers was " the avoiding of some special cor- ruptions, and the vigorous profession and practice of everything in doctrines, worship and discipline, according to Scripture pattern." — After other similar observations, he added, "Hence I humbly conceive, that the consent of the Synod here to the confession of Eaith by the Assembly of Westminster, and the platform of discipline published in the year 16-19, these for the substance of them, have carried with them a declaration of the Faith and order of these churches, and are so looked upon by the reformed Churches abroad, unto which may be added many other books of our divines of the same import." William Stoughton, in his sermon of 1670, called " New England's true interest," spoke of what its founders practiced, as " practical piety and holiness ; unmixed, spiritual, Gospel worship; sincere and open profession and owning of the truths and ways of Christ." In his ad- dress to survivors of the first generation, he observed, " as long as you are in this tabernacle, stir them up by putting them in remembrance, that they may be established in all those truths and practices, which to own and abide in hath been New England's glory and must be its preservation and safety in whatever times are coming upon us." In the preface to the Eesult of the Synod, assembled in Boston 1679, and written by Increase Mather, he remarked, that the churches "own both the faith and order of the Gospel, that was professed in the days of our fathers." As the same divine wrote the Eesult, he shows therein what he meant by such owning of the faith, as follows, " It is requisite that persons be not admitted unto communion in the Lord's 15 supper without making a personal and public profession of their faith and repentance." He afterwards spoke of renewing the covenant as a long known custom, very distinct from the profession or confession of faith. As to the manner in which the Salem church was gathered, Hub- bard wrote, by 1682, " Mr. Higginson drew up a confession of faith and form of a church covenant, " language which must be exceedingly di- verted from its natural import to signify but one solitary document. We have thus followed the teachings of history. They evidently and fully show, that there was a marked distinction made in the Salem and other primitive churches, between a profession or confession of faith and taking the covenant, and that these were ser- vices not mixed up together, but required and performed at diifcrent times. But in the covenant, renewed in 163G, we perceive no pro- vision of doctrines to meet such an established practice, and therefore, we cannot, consistently with the ecclesiastical usage of our first settlers, allow, that it comprises a confession of faith in addition to its own ap- propriate requisitions. Such historical instructions are absolutely at variance with the Sketch, which maintains that the confession and covenant " were one and the same instrument." Applying them to the Book, do they contradict its statements, as called in question by this Tract ? Candor and truth legitimately exercised, cannot re- ply in the affirmative. III. Proceedings of the First Salem Church. The records of this body, as they are now extant, have quotations from a preceding book, not to be found, from 1G36 to 1G59. There is no original transcript of the first confession and covenant known to be in existence. Even the list of the church members has no earlier a date, than the former of these two years, before any of them, though some were among the first professors. Of the thirty names, cited on 11 th page of the Sketch, but a small proportion were of the primitive members. The earliest ecclesiastical document of the present records is what the Magnalia contains and calls the covenant, as renewed in 1636, except an intro- duction to it of this date and an additional clause of 1660. — Consequently, the present church records cannot furnish undoubted and full proof of what the founders of Salem had exactly for their original confession and covenant. They have not a single item to substantiate the position, that the latter of these documents embraced the former. The introduction to the covenant, which they have, says, " AVe renew that church covenant, we find this Church bound unto 16 at their first beginning." It utters not a syllable in reference to tbe confession. The principal word, on which the question turns, inde- pendently of other sources, whether this covenant is the same as the first, "word for word and letter for letter," is renew. This term evident- ly means, from its connection, " to put again into act."' Therefore, the renewal of the covenant was for the members to repeat the act, it re- quired, of obligating themselves to serve God faithfully in all their personal and relative duties. This could then and on all similar occa- sions afterwards, be properly done, and yet leave room for such omissions, alterations and additions in the covenant, as comported with so sacred a duty and as were expedient for different periods, events and circumstances. This is confirmed by the statement of Mr. Weld on p. 13. Hence, the brethren in 163G, virtually said, we do renew the original covenant, or repeat the act of binding ourselves to do the good pleasure of God in all our relations, as that covenant obligated its primitive observers. Their renewal did not hold them to perpetu- ate and approve every letter, word and sentence of such a document, any further than they agreed it should in compliance with their differ- ent situation, though, at the same time, it did hold them to the moral obligation, as already expressed. It is similar to the repairing or re- newing of Church edifices. These may be centuries old and yet, while allowed to stand as the resorts of holy service, we always assign to them their ancient age, though they ma}' have been altered in form and enlarged in dimensions, with every successive assembly, who have wor- shipped within their walls, It is like the corporate identity of a church composed of members, who die off for generations, but it is still traced to its original formation and receives its primitive rank according- ly. Or, to take things less material, it resembles a law or constitution of a State, which until absolutely repealed, bear their original dates, though when amended or renewed, they have been subjected to various changes. The ground, here taken, will be confirmed by subsequent facts. On one side of the covenant, as recited by Mather, and contained in the church records, whence this author received it directly or indi- rectly, is the succeeding marginal note, penned by Samuel Tisk, who was ordained in 1718. " 6 of 6th month, 1629. This covenant was publicly signed and declared, as may appear from page 85, in this book." The instrument, thus noticed, has an introduction and an addition, which could not possibly have been with the covenant, as owned in the beginning. Therefore, Mr. Fisk's written testimony 17 adds force to the position, that it was common to speak of such a con- tract, as the first one, though preceded and succeeded by what was not of its primitive contents. But the note of Mr. Fisk is particularly interesting from its refer- ence to the 85th page. Here we are met with the following transcript. 1665, Oct. 5. " The Pastor did then also acquaint the Church with the writing he had formerly mentioned and read unto them, as a help to reduce the doctrine of the Synod into practice, it being a Direction for a public profession after private examination by the Elders, which Direction is taken out of the Scripture, and points to the Faith and Covenant contained in the Scripture, it being the same for substance propounded to and agreed upon by the Church of Salem at their first beginning, the sixth of the sixth month, 1629, it being now printed, any that desired it, should have one of them for their use." Here we have a rare production from the pen of John Higginson, introduced to our notice. It refers to a Synod of Massachusetts of 1662. This body are well known to have assembled, and acted on the half-way covenant and the consociation of churches. Their churches still re- tained the articles of faith, professed by the Westminster Assembly, and adopted by them in 16-18, as the standard for admission to their fellowship. In their answer to questions, as desired by the General Court, they observed, that " such church members, who are admitted in minority, understanding the doctrine of faith, and publicly pro- fessing their assent thereunto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the covenant before the church," may have their children bap- tized. Here the Synod, whose proposals Mr. Higginson wished to have carried out among his people, as others of like tenor had been from the beginning, as his declaration is on p. 14, made it necessary even for such as owned the half-way covenant, to comprehend " the doctrine of faith," as evidently taught by the Westminster Catechism, and publicly acknowledge it, and then to own such a covenant, so that they might be received into membership, though not full communion. If so much was demanded of these persons, assuredly less could not consistently have been from those admitted to fuller privileges. Here two things are demonstrated. One, that articles of religion were first re- quired to be publicly confessed, and another, that a covenant was after- wards alike acknowledged as conditions of communion, and, of course, the former and latter of the two first of these duties were not dis- charged together, but separately. In the same extract from the 85th page of the Church records, we 18 read, " Faith and Covenant." This phrase was used by Mr. Higgin- son. He did not mean by it, as proved by his Direction, that Faith and Covenant were one and the same, but two instruments entirely separate. His signification of it was conclusive authority, as pre- viously stated, for Morton's Jlemorial, recommended by Higginson four years after the latter published such a phrase. AVhat shall we say, then, of the interpretation put by the action of the Synod and Mr. Higginson, upon the expression, " Faith and Covenant " ? Such interpretation was laid before the whole country prior to the emission of the Memorial, which is not only destitute of any conclusive argu- ment against it, but furnishes positive material in its favor. Most certainly, it is point blank against the conclusions of the Sketch. Here the question offers itself, AYhat does the Direction,* carefully, earnestly and sincerely urged by the pastor on his church, — contain ? After various and appropriate quotations from the Bible, one of them being, " Hold fast the form of sound words," it presents a Confession of Faith, which begins and proceeds in the following language : " I do believe with my heart, and confess with my mouth, concern, ing God, that there is but one only true God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost ; each of them God, and all of them one and the same infinite, eternal God, most wise, holy, just, merciful and blessed forever." Then the Confession goes on with similar particularity, as to six other subjects, namely : The Works of God ; The Fall of Man ; Jesus Christ ; The Holy Ghost ; Benefits through Christ ; and the Christian Church. After setting before us these things, the Direction narrates the Covenant, much shorter than that drawn up by Peters, and then, " Questions to be answered at the baptizing of children." Such a direction was no hasty efi"usion. It was from the mind, heart and hand of Higginson, who well knew what he affirmed. He had personal experience of all he declared on this subject. He was the original source of all the authority adduced by the Sketch, to sus- tain a theory totally at variance with his own. He was among the survivors, of whom Hubbard said, while describing, among other things, a transcript of the primitive confession and covenant, " a copy of which is retained at this day by some, that succeeded in the same church." Higginson, in preparing the Direction, would be much more likely to imitate the main features of what his father drew up, than those by any other hand. Under these circumstances, he declared, * See Appendix (A.) 19 that the Direction was " the same for substance" as agreed upon by the Church in 1G29. Compare it with the Covenant of 1636. We cannot, if permitting reason to make a fit use of the testimony before us, do otherwise than conclude, that there is an incontrovertible differ- ence between them ; that if Higginson be correct, they are far fr<)m being one and the same thing ; that the covenant of the Direction has but little resemblance to the covenant accepted by the church under Peters ; that this last instrument by no means comprises the confes- sion of the Direction ; and that, as the confession and covenant of the Direction are substantially those of 1629, these two original instru- ments cannot, with any propriety of sound speech, be called the same as the covenant of 1686. We will now turn to the proceedings of the church in 1680. This year another pamphlet* was prepared for their use. It is plainly from the hand of John Higginson, ever vigilant for the prosperity of his flock. It commences with the two succeeding statements. " There was a church covenant agreed upon and consented to by the church of Salem at their first beginning in the year 1629, Aug. 6." — " This fol- lowing covenant was propounded by the Pastor, agreed upon and con- sented to by the Brethren of the Church in the year 1636." Then the latter covenant, with its introduction, is recited literally, as it was inserted, without such introduction, in Cotton Mather's Magnalia, a work recommended by Higginson seventeen years from the date of the pamphlet. There is not so much as an allusion either to the first or last of these two instruments as including a confession of faith, nor is the word confession used in any connection with them. The whole phraseology shows, that covenants alone were before the mind of him, who spoke of them, Such a fact is no proof that there was not a dis- tinct confession, because the pamphlet of 1665 and other credible authorities have placed this question beyond all rational dispute. This conclusion is strengthened by the quotation of the Sketch, pp. 7, 8, as to individuals who joined the church in 1678, " they making their profession of faith and repentance," and were then admitted, " they engaging in the covenant." Nor has the mode of such pro- fession or confession, as related by the quotation, any essential force to break down the position, that the church had " a form of words," as Morton relates, to regulate the confession so that it should not deny the leading principles of the Gospel, as understood and declared by John Higginson and his brethren. * See Appendix (B.) 20 The pamphlet next remarks, •' This foremeutioucd covenant (of 1636) was often read and reneAved by the church at the end of days of humiliation, especially in the year I GOO," when a clause was added, " to beware of the leaven of the doctrine of the Quakers." It then informs us, that the church adopt another covenant, " as a direction for the renewing of our church covenant," which was first used April 15, 1G80. Such a covenant varies much from that of 1636, and, of course, the first time it was used, it could not be a renewal of its pre- ceding covenant in all its words and sentences, but only of the moral obligation of the members to serve God in all their relations, and of the language and parts of this preceding covenant as were needed to express such an obligation. Therefore we have another confirmation, that the renewal of the covenant in 1636, did not necessarily imply, that such an instrument was the same in all respects as that of 1629. This conclusion is confirmed by the phraseology of the two foregoing statements, compared with each other, which fully indicate all the diversity here implied. The Statements and the Direction, as illustrating each other and the confessions of faith and covenants, appertaining to the First Church of Salem, constitute an indubitable argument, sufficient to confirm the positions of the Volume, and clear it from the charges of the Sketch. Before we close, it may not be amiss to notice the implied surprise of the Tract, pp. 5, 6, that the volume failed to recite, at length, the covenant of 1636. But, in view of the previous reasons, why such an instrument should not be quoted by a historical work, as " the true original of the confession and covenant of 1629," there can be no Teasonable wonder why it was omitted. The manner in which such surprise is manifested seems to denote that every history of New Eng- land, down to the time of Dr. Bentley's remarks, contained a trans- script of this instrument. If recollecting aright, no other history of our country contained it except the Magnalia, and this in terms by no means sufficient to allow the latitude taken with it by the Sketch. It is true, that the covenant of 1636 was quoted by William Eathband in his work of 1644, with another, adopted by the Church of Rotter- dam, when Hugh Peters became their pastor and before his settle- ment at Salem. As recited by Hanbury, these two documents exhibit a style and similar expressions which denote that they may have been drawn up by Peters himself. Whether this be so or not, Eathband adduces the Salem covenant of 1636, without a single intimation that 21 it was the one of 1629. He criticizes some of its passages, as to prophecy and questions in time of public worship, which were not so likely to exist in the church at the time of its being formed as after- wards, and thus intimate themselves to be additions and not original insertions. Looking to these and other considerations of the third head, the Book has not only a civil, but also a moral right to receive the service of the Eoman orator in a brief speech, as one exemplifying its own course and quoted by the Tract: "The historian should never dare utter what is false, or suppress anything that is true, and must always keep his mind above prejudice or partiality." APPENDIX. (A.) A DIRECTION FOR A PUBLICK PROFESSION in the CHURCH ASSEMBLY, after private Examination by the ELDERS. Which Direction is taken out of the Scripture, and Points unto that Faith and Covenant contained in the Scripture. Being the same for Substance -which was propounded to, and agreed upon by the Church of Salem at their bejiinning, the sixth of the sixth Moneth, 1629. In the Preface to the Declaration of the Faith owned and professed by the Congregational Churches in England.* The Genuine use of a Confession of Faith is, that under the same Form of Words tliey express the substance of the same common Salvation or unity of their Faith. Accordingly it is to be looked upon as a fit meancs, whereby to express that their Common Faith and Salvation, and not to be made use of as an imposition upon any. * These two lines, being separated from the quotation, to which they are an introduction, led the writer into the mistake of supposing that the Direction, though referring immediately to the Salem Church, was published by the Savoy Synod. But the quotation from the eighty-fifth page of this Church's records decides that the Direction was from the hand of John Higginson, and printed under his supervision. The error, with a right application of the facts in this work, was published in the second edition of the Annals of Salem. 1 v., 126 p., and 2 v., 567 p. The Direction was seen by the writer more than twenty years ago, in the Boston Athenseum, among the extensive collection made by the late "William S. Shaw, Esq. 24 We heseech you Brethren to know them that labour among you, avd are over you in the Lord, and admonish you to' esteem them very highly in love for their icork sake, and be at peace among yourselves. 1 Thess. 5, 12, 13. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your scales, as they must give an account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief for that is unprofitable fur you. Heb. 13, 17. Who is that wise and faithfull steivard, whom his Lord shall make Ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season. Luke 12, 42. One Faith, one Baptism. Eph. 4, 5. The Common Faith. Tit. 1, 4. The common Salvation. Jude Ver. 3. Christ Jesus, the high priest of our Profession. Heb. 3, 1. The profession of our Faith. Heb. 10, 23. One shall say I am the Lords. Isai. 44, 5. Hold fast the form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1, 13. The form of Knowledge and of the truth. Horn. 2, 20. The form of Doctrine delivered unto you. Rom. 6, 17. THE CONFESSION OF FAITLI. I do believe with my heart and confess with my mouth, Concerning God. That there is but one only true God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each of them God, and all of them one and the same Infinite, Eternall God, most Wise, Holy, Just, MercIfuU and Blessed for- ever. Concerning the Works of God. That this God is the Maker, Preserver, and Governour of all things according to the counsel of !iis own AViil, and that God made man in his own Imayc, in Knowledge, Holiness, and Righteousness. Concerning the fall of Man. That Adam, by transgressing the Command of God, fell from God and brought himself and his posterity into a state of sin and death, under the Wrath and Curse of God, which I do believe to be my own condition by nature as well as any other. Concerning Jesus Christ. That God sent his Son into the World, who for our sakes became man, that he might redeem and save us by his Obedience unto death, and that he arose from the dead, ascended unto Heaven and sitteth at the right band of God, from whence he shall come to judge the World. Concerning the Holy Ghost. That God the Holy Ghost hath fully revealed the Doctrine of Christ and will of God in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, which are the Word of God, the perfect, perpetuall and only Rule of our Faith and Obedience. Concerning the benefits we have by Christ. That the same Spirit, by Working Faith in God's Elect, applyeth unto them Christ with all his Benefits of justification and sanctification, unto Sal- vation, in the use of those Ordinances which God hath appointed in his written word, which therefore ought to be observed by us until the comine of Christ. ^ 25 Concerning the Church of Christ. Tliat all true Believers being united unto Christ as the Head, make up one Misticall Church, whiih is the Body of Christ, the members whereof having fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost by Faith, and one with another in love, doe receive here upon earth forgiveness of Sinnes, with the life of Grace, and at the Resurrection of the Body they shall receive everlasting life. Amen. THE COVENANT. I do heartily take and avouch this one God who is made known to us in the Scripture, by the Name of God the Father, and God the Son, even Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost to be my God, according to the ten- cur of the Covenant of Grace ; wherein he hath promised to be a God to the FaithfuU and their seed after them in their Generations, and taketh them to be his People, and therefore unfeignedly repenting of all my sins, I do give up myselt wholy unto this God, to believe in, love, serve and obey him sincerely and faithfully according to his written word, against all the temptations of the Devil, the World, and my own flesh, and this unto the death. I do also consent to be a member of this particular Church, promising to con- tinue steadfastly in fellowship with it, in the publick worship of God, to submit to the Order, Discipline and Government of Christ in it, and to the Ministerial teaching, guidance and oversight of the Elders of it, and to the brotherly watch of Fellow Members ; and all this according to God's Word, and by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ enabling me thereunto. A ME N. Questions to be Answered at the Baptizing of Children, or the substance to be expressed by the Parents. Quest. Doe you present and give up this child, or these children, unto God the Father, Sonne and Holy Ghost, to be baptized in the Faith, and en- gaged in the Covenant of God professed by this Church? Quest. Doe you Solleinnly Promise in the presence of God, that by the grace oj Christ, you loill discharge your Covenant duty towards your chil- dren, soe as to bring them up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord, teaching and commanding them to keep the way of God, that they may he able (through the grace of Christ) to make a personall profession of their Faith and to own the Covenant of God themselves in due time. FINIS. m (B.) There was a Church Covenant agreed upon and consented to by the Church of Salem at their first beginning in the year, 1629, Aug. 6. The following Covenant was propounded by the Pastor, agreed upon and consented to by the Brethren of the Church, in the year, 1636. Gather my Saints unto me that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice, Psal, 50. 5. We -whose Names are underwritten, Members of the present Church of Christ in Salem, having found by sad experience how dangerous it is to sit loose from the Covenant we make with our God, and how apt we are to •wander Into by paths, even to the losing of our first aims in entring into Church Fellowship ; Do therefore solemnly in the presence of the Eternal God, both for our own comforts, and those who shall or may be joyned unto us, renew that Church Covenant we find this Church bound unto at their first beginning, viz. That we covenant with the Lord, and one with another, doe bind our selves in the presence of God to walk together in all his wayes, according as he is pleased to reveal himself unto us in his blessed word of truth, and do more explicitly in the name and fear of God, profess and pro- test to walk as followeth, through the power and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. We avouch the Lord to be our God, and our selves to be his people, in the truth and simplicity of our spirits. We give ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ; and the word of his grace, for the teaching, ruling and sanctifying of us in matters of worship and con- versation, resolving to cleave to him alone for life and glory, and to oppose all contrary wayes, Cannons and constitutions of men in his worship. We promise to walk with our Brethren and Sisters with all watchfulness, and tenderness, avoiding jealousies and suspitions, backbitings, censurings, provokings, secret risings of spirit against them ; but in all offences, to Ibllow the rule of the Lord Jesus, and to bear and forbear, give and forgive as he hath taught us. In publick or private we will willingly doe nothing to the offence of the Church ; but will be willing to take advice for our selves and ours, as occa^ sion shall be presented. We will not in the Congregation be forward either to shew our own giftg and parts, in speaking and scrupling or there discover the weaknesses and failings of our Brethren, but attend an orderly call thereunto, knowing how much the Lord may be dishonored, and his Gospel & the profession of it slighted by our distempers and weaknesses in publick. We bind ourselves to study the advancement of the Gospel in all truth and peace both in regard of those that are within or without, no way slighting our Sister Churches, but using their council as need shall be, not laying a stumbling block before any, no not the Lidians, whose good we desire to promote, and so to converse as we may avoid the very appearance of evil. We doe hereby promise to carry our selves iu all lawful obedience to those that are over us in Church or Commonwealth, knowing how well and pleas- ing it will be to the Lord that they should have encouragement iu their places, by not grieving their spirits through our irregularityes. We resolve to approve our selves to the Lord in our particular Callings, shunning idleness as the bane of any State, nor will we deal hardly or op- pressingly with any wherein we are the Lords Stewards. Also promising to our best ability to teach our Children and Servants the knowledge of God and his will, that they serve him also; and all this not by any strength of our own, but by the Lord Christ, whose blood we desire may sprinkle this our Covenant made in his Name. 27 This forementloned Covenant was often read and Renewed by the Church at the end of days of Hamilialion, especially in the year 1660, on the sixth of the first moneth ; ivhen also considering the hour of Temptation amongst us by reason of the Quakers Doctrine, to the [evening of some in the place where we are, and endangering of others, we doe see cause to remember the admonition of our Saviour Christ unto his disciples, Math. 16. Take heed and beware of the levea of the doctrine of the Pharisees. And doe judge it (so far as we understand it) that the Quakers doctrine is as bad or worse than that of the Pharise es. Therefore, We doe Covenant by the help of Jesus Christ, to take heed and beware of the leven of the doctrine of the Quakers. Also this following Covenant icas in several Church Meetings in the begin- ning of this year 1680, considered of agreed upon, and consented to by the generality of the Church, to be used as a direction for the Renewing of our Church Covenant, as being more accommodated to the present times, and state of things amongst us. Accordingly it ivas made use of in that way at the conclusion of the publick Fast, April 15, 1680. viz. We, who (through the mercy of God) are Members of this Church of Salem, being now assembled in the presence of God, and in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, after humble confession of our manifold breaches of Cov- enant with the Lord our God, and earnest supplication for his pardoning mercy through the lilood of Christ and deep acknowledgement of our own unworthiness to be owned as the Lords Covenant People ; also acknowledg- ing our inability to keep Covenant with God, or to perform any spiritual duty unless the Lord enable us thereunto by the Grace of his Spirit, and yet being awfully sensible that in these times by the loud voice of his judgements both felt and feared, the Lord is calling us all to Repentance and Reforma- tion ; we doe therefore in humble confidence of his gracious assistance, through Christ, Renew our Covenant with God, and one with another in the manner following. 1. We doe give up our selves to that God whose name alone is Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit, as the only true and living God, and unto our Lord Jesus Christ, as our only Redeemer and Saviour, as the only Prophet, Priest & King over our Souls, and only Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, engaging our "hearts unto this God in Christ by the help of his Spirit of Grace to cleave unto him as our God and chief good, and unto Jesus Christ as our Mediator by Faith, in a way of Gospel Obedience, as becometh his Covenant People for ever. 2. We doe also give up our Offspring unto God in Jesus Christ, avouching the Lord to be our God and the God of our Children, and our selves, with our Children to be his People, humbly adoring the Grace of God in Christ Jesus, that we & our Children may be looked upon as the Lords. 3. We do also give up ourselves one to another in the Lord according to the will of God, to walk together as a Church of Christ in all the wayes of his worship and service, according to the Rules of the Word of God, promis- ing in brotherly love faithfully to watch over one another's Souls, and to sub- mit our selves to the discipline and government of Christ in his Church, and duly to attend the Seals and Censures, and whatever Ordinances Christ hath commanded to be observed by his people according to the order of the Gospel, so far as the Lord hath, or shall reveal unto us. And whereas the Elders and Messengers of these churches have met to- gether in the late Synod to inquire into the Reasons of the Lord's Contro- versy \vith his peoplf, have taken notice of many provoking Evils as the pro- curing causes of the Judgements of God upon New-England, so far as we or 28 any of us have been guilty of those Evils, or any of them, (according to any light held forth by them from Scripture) we desire from our hearts to bewail it before the Lord; and humbly to entreat for pardoning mercy for the sake of the blood of the everlasting Covenant. And as an expedient unto Refor- mation of those Evils, or whatever else have provoked the Eyes of God's glory amongst us, we do promise and engage our selves in the presence of God. 1. That we will (by the help of Christ) endeavour every one to reform his own heart and life, by seeking to mortify all our sins and to walk more close with God than ever we have done, and to uphold the power of godli- ness, and that we will continue to worship God, in public, private and secret, and this (as God shall help us) without formality and hypocrasie, and more fully and faithfully then heretofore, to discharge all Covenant duties one to- wards another in a way of Church Communion. 2. We promise by the help of Christ, to reform our Families, and to walk before God in our houses with a perfect heart, and that we will uphold the Worship of God therein continually, as he in his Word doth require both in respect of prayer, and reading of the Scriptures, that we will do what lyes in us to bring up our Children for God, and therefore will (so far as there shall be need of it) Catechize them, and exhort and charge them to fear and serve the Lord, and endeavour to set an holy Example before them, and be much in prayer for their Conversion and Salvation. 3. We do further engage (the Lord helping of us) to endeavour to keep our selves pure from the sins of the Times, and what lyes in us to help for- ward the Reformation of the same in the places where we live, denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, making Conscience to walk so as to give no offence nor to give occasion to others to sin or to speak evil of our holy Profession. Finally, giving glory to the Lord our God, that He is the faithful God, keeping Covenant and mercy with his people for ever, but confessing that we are a weak and sinful people, and subject many wayes to break our Covenant with him ; therefore that we may observe and keep these and all other Covenant duties required of us in the word of God ; We desire to deny our selves, and to depend wholly upon the grace of God in Christ Jesus for the constant presence and assistance of his holy spirit to enable us thereunto, and wherein we shall fail, we shall humbly wait upon his grace in Christ for pardon, for Acceptance, and for healing, for his Name's sake. Amen. FINIS. PD 1.8U v;*^• '^^ ,o- : ^^<^ ^^-^^^ V 4 c '-^0^ "01 40. "■*■- cP\'u:^^°- J'yJ^L'X /yj;^,\ 4 '* -(^ , DOBBSBROS. ^<^^ v^. ° WmW J" .'^ rS* "".S BRARV BINDING ^^ -^ " ^ t^^^* '^ ^ *'-^«?aa5r » <.v ST. AUGUSTINE ^, V-0^