Christian but an Heathen People Let me add this farther Consideration all Disciples or Acts 11.26 Christians are by Christ enjoyned to be baptized Math 28.19 Acts 11.26 states it upon theâ—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 Athiests c. 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 denyed to do surely Christs Injunction doth include them We may observe that Congregational men in England are not without thoughts and studies for enlargement of Baptisme Doctor Owen in his late Catechisme is plainly with us in the main Substance of the Cause viz. the baptizing of those we plead for though it seems be would have them baptized in another Notion For when as in Question 38 he makes the proper Subject of Baptisme to be professing Believers and their Infant Seed it is plain he intends Baptisme 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 joyned 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 baptized 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 Catholick Church of Christ. How plain is it that the persons whose Children we would have baptized are professing Believers according to Doctor Owens 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 Catholick Church of Christ And I suppose they would not have any part of Christs visible Church left unbaptized 'T is true they say this visible Catholick Church of Christ as such is not intrusted with the Administration of any Ordinance but they may mean as many do expressly hold that the pâ—â—â—on Aâ—ministring Baptisme must be an Officer in a particular Churâ—h though the Subjects baptized may be of the Catholick Church However such Catholick Professâ—â—s as they here describe are qualified for Baptisme 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 baptizing of such as are described in ouâ— fifth Proposition Whether they should be baptized as in a Catholick or in a particular Church state is another Question and I Confess my self not altogether so peremptory in this Latter as I am in the thing it self viz. that they ought to be baptized yet still I think that when all Stones are turned it will come to this that all the baptized are and ought to be under Discipline in particular Churches your self and those few in the Ministâ—y here that dissâ—nt do bear a greater weight then it may be you are aware of For the People in the Country have in a manner no Arguments to object but this some of your selves 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 Texâ—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 publick and Practical Concernment as this is lye 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 shâ—uld 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 uâ—â—nindful of you whom I have a real respect for and do heartily love in the Lord. I am not without hope that we may be yet of one mind before we dye And I am ready to think that we had been so e're 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 â—â—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 wayes of Truth and Peace to his Glory the good of others and rejoycing of our own Souls in the day of Christ In whom I am Yours unfainedly Jonathan Mitchel Cambridg December 26. 1667. FINIS
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 Baptisme 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 duely weigh matters in the Ballance of the Sanctuary for which Cause principally I have thus exposed it to publick 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 Bâ—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 my self 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 shew that such Inlargment of Baptisme and that Consociation of Churches which is in the Synod Book asserted is no Apostacy 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 dayes 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 Moneth 1671. Who is less then the least of all Gods 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. Adde deus dicit p. 21. l. p. nult r. parente 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 CHVRCHES THere having been some who have thought that the Doctrine of the late Synod Book Concerning Baptism and the Communion or Consociation of Churches is an Innovation and Apostacy from the first principles of New England And inasmuch as it may be a special Service for these Churches both in present and in after times that men should know what the first Principles touching these Controversies were Considering also that the Lords Servants and Messengers are much wronged when Apostacy is imputed to them upon account of the Doctrine aforesaid and that it will be a thing very acceptable unto God who is displeased and dishonoured when his faithful ones are traduced that his Servants should be vindicated from such injurious Aspersions upon these and the like Considerations we shall endeavour as in the Lords holy fear to erquire what were the first Principles of New-England concerning the Subject of Baptism and Communion of Churches and leave it to the Christian world and to Posterity to judge who are the Apostates Now this may be done by shewing what was the judgement of the first Fathers of this Country touching the questions in Controversy And in this ensuing Collâ—ction of Testimonies we shall not mention any of those Reverend Elders that are yet surviving nor all amongst our deceased worthies only some of the Chief of the Fathers of this Country And first concerning Baptism we shall begin with the Judgement of that man of God deservedly famous in both Englands viz. Mr. Iohn Cotton late Teacher of the first Church in Boston And what the Apprehension of that Seer was is manifest from a Letter which is to be seen written with his own hands in the name and with the unanimous Consent of the whole Church which then was in this Boston to the Church in Dorchester Because the Letter is of Ancient date and so giveth a great light towards the clearing of the matter which is before us we shall therefore here insert it word for word as it is written with Mr. Cottons own hand It is that which followeth 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 Iesus Christ our Saviour The Case of Conscience which you propounded to our Consideration to wit whether a Grand Father being a member of a Christian Church might claim Baptism to his Grand-Child whose next Parents be not received into Church Covenant ha's been deliberately treated of in our Church Assembled together publickly in the name of Christ And upon due and serious discourse about the point it seemed good unto us all with one accord and agreeable as we believe to the word of the Lord that the Grand-Father may lawfully claim that priviledge to his Grand-child baptized by right of the Grand-fathers Covenant be Committed to the Grand fathers education for as God in the Covenant of Grace undertaketh to be a God unto the Believer and his seed so by the Rule of Relatives the Tenour of the Covenant requireth that the Believer do undertake that himself and his Seed do give up themselves to become the people of the Lord which he cannot undertake in behalf of his Seed unless they be committed to his education 2. This other Caution also we conceive to be requisite that the Parents of the Child do 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 Baptisme of the Grand-child by right of his Grand-fathers Covenant we believe to be warranted from the nature and tenour of the Covenant of Grace by this Reason where there is a Stipulation of the Covenant on Gods part and restipulation of the Covenant on mans part there may be an obsignation of the Covenant on both parts or in plainer words where there is an offer of the Covenant on Gods part and a receiving and undertaking of the Covenant on mans part there may be a sealing of it on both parts But here is an offer of the Covenant on Gods part Gen. 17.7 where God says that he will be a God to Abraham that is to the Believer and his Seed and by Seed is not there meant the next Seed only but Seeds Seed also to many Generations Isai 59.21 And here is likewise a receiving and undertaking of the Covenant on mans part seeing the Grand-father receiveth the Covenant by his faith and by the profession of his faith and by his desire of the Seal of the Covenant to strengthen his faith and he undertaketh also the
keeping of the Covenant in bringing up his Grand-child as much as in him lies to live and walk as himself does as one of Gods people according to the Tenour of the Covenant from whence the Conclusion evidently followeth that therefore Baptisme may there be Administred to Seal up the Covenant where the Grand-father receives the Covenant undertakes to bring up his Grand child in the faith and obedience of the Covenant Against this Argument it was objected by some what the Apostle writes 1 Cor. 7.14 where if both the husband and the wife who are the next Parents of the Child be unbelieving the Child is pronounced unclean and therefore uncapable of the holy Covenant and of the holy Seal of it whereto it was answered that the word in the Tex translated unbelieving is in the Original Infidel Now there is a difference between on Infidel and a Carnal Christian as then was amongst the lews a difference between an Heathen and a Carnal Israelite Though the Child be unclean where both the Parents are Pagans and Infidels yet we may not account such Parents for Pagans and Iâ—fiâ—el wâ—o are themselves baptized and prâ—fess their bâ—lief of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and live without notorious Scandalous Crime though they give not clear evidence of their regenerate estate nor are convinced of the necessity of Church Covenant After this Answer given there was no father reply 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 Grand-Father a member of the Church may claim the priviledge of Baptisme to his Grand-Child though his next Seed the Parents of the Child be not received themselves into Church Covenant Wherein nevertheless we desire so to be understood not as presuming to judge others who happily may be of different opinion in this point or to direct you who are by the grace of God given to you able to direct your selves and us also in the Lord but as willing in meekness of wisdome to search out the truth of God with you and in brotherly Love to satisfy your request and demand touching this Question Now the God of truth and peace Lead you into all truth and go on to build up his holy Kingdome in the midst of you in the gracious Administration of all his holy Ordinances amongst you in the Lord Jesus In whom we rest Your loving Brethren John Cotton Tho. Oliver Tho. Leveret In the Name of the Church Boston Decemb. the 16th 1634. Now this is a great Testimony for if Anno 1634. which was amongst the Primitive Times of these Churches if then a Grand Father such Cautions being observed as have been mentioned being a member of a Church might claim the Priviledge of Baptisme to his grand Child though his next Seed the Immediate Parents of the Child be not received themselves into full Communion if then also it were true that there is a difference between an Infidel and a Carnal Christian as then was amongst the Jews a difference between an Heathen and a Carnal Israelite and that we may not account such Parents for Pagans and Infidels and so not their Children for unclean who are themselves baptized and profess their belief of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith and live without notorious scandalous crime though they give not clear Evidence of their Regenerate Estate if this were true doctrine Anno 1634. Posterity will see who are the Apostates from the first Principles of New-England whether they whose Principles are for an Enlargement of Baptisme unto some whose next Patents are not fit for the Lords Supper or they that do oppose such a practice There is also to be seen another large and Judicious Letter of Mr. Cottons written with his own hand to a Friend of his in England touching accommodation and Communion between those of the Presbyterian and Congregational perswasion The Letter bears date the 8. 11. moneth 1648. and therein Mr. Cotâ—on delivers his judâ—ement in twelve propositions which are too large here to be inserted only the eighth of these Propositions being directly to our purpose we shall here transcribe it The words of it are these If the godly members of a Congregation formerly Subject to Episcopacy repenting of their sinful subordination thereto shall be studious of Reformation and shall solemnly Covenant to endeavour the same and shall choose their former godly Ministers into the Pastors Teachers office it is not necessary they should take the ignorant or Carnal members of the Parish into the fellowship of this renewed Election of their Ministers and yet it is not improbable but the Ministers may perform some Ministerial acts to them as not only to preach the word to them but happily also to baptize their Children For such members are like the Church members with us baptized in their Infancy yet not received to the Lords Supper when they come to Age nor admitted to fellowship of voting in Admissions Elections Censures till they come to profess their faith and repentance and lay hold of the Covenant of their Parents before the Church And yet they being not cast out of the Church nor the Covenant thereof their Children may be capable of the first Seal of the Covenant so in this Case till the Parents themselves grow Scandalous and thereby cast off out of the Covenant of the Chuâ—ch Also to a Reverend person yet surviving in this Country who in a Letter bearing date 4.4 Moneth 1649. propounded this Question A Father that was in the Iudgement of Charity one that feared the Lord but no Church member dies and gives his Little Infant to a Church member and Brother of ours which brother having no Child of his own gladly accepts it the question is whether such an adopted Child may by the will of Christ be baptized or not Mr. Cottons Answer was in these words youâ— Case of baptizing of the Child of one fearing God and in his death giving his Child to a Church member c. I propounded to some of our fellow Elders Mr. Wilson Mr. Eliot and I think Mr. Maâ—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 baptized himself and so confederate with such a Church as we renounce not and I do not disswade the ministring of the Seal of the Covenant where the Covenant it self is not wanting c. Likevise in another Letter which is extant under Mr. Cottons own hand writing to one who thus objected Carnal children are not fit to renew their Covenant whilst they are
3. pag. 11. 12. Now if they that are Confederate and members of the visible Church have a right to Baptisme and if also the Children in Question are Confederate and mâ—mbers of the visible Church both which are affirmed by Mr. Hooker it must needs be that in his Judgement the Children in Question have right to Baptisme At the same Time and in the same Vessel with Mr. Cotton and Mr. Hooker there came the godly learned Mr. Samuel Stone late Teacher of the Church in Hartford concerning whom what his Judgement was touching the now agitated Controversies is known from his practice in the last years of his Life And that his Judgement was suitable to that practice many years before his decease appears from a Letter of his written to the Reverend Mr. Mather of Dorchester and bearing date June 6. 1650. In which Letter he thus expresseth himself I Conceive saith Mr. Stone that Children of Church members have right to Church membership by virtue of their Fathers Covenant it being granted that they are in Abrahams Covenant they have Membership by Birth Gal. 2.15 2 dly God is their God Gen. 17.7 3 dly They are Branches Rom. 11. 4. they are Subjects of Christs visiâ—le Kingdome Ezek. 37.25 Hence 1. If they be presented to a Church and Claim their Interest they cannot be denyed according to the Rules of the Gospel 2. Hence there hath been a sinful neglect in New-England of such Children who have either not been presented or not Received when they have claimed their right I spake with Mr. Warham and we question not the right of Children but we Conceive it would be Comfortable to have some Concurrence which is that we have waited for a Long Time And I think unless there may be some Conference of Elders this year in the Bay about it that we may see some Reason to the Contrary our Churches will Adventure to practice according to their Judgement i. e. take in all such Children as members I much desire that there may be some meeting of the Elders this year that these things may be Considered and setled in the Churches according to the mind of Christ c. These things do sufficiently manifest what was the Judgement of Mr. Cotton Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone who all three as was Intimated Came into New-England in the same Vessel Anno 1633. And they may justly be reckoned amongst the first three of New-Englands Worthies In the year 1635. God brought into this Country three more of our Worthies Another Triumâ—irate not unlike the former viz. Mr. Mather Mr. Norton and Mr. Shâ—pard whose Judgement touching the Question before us that it did Concur with the Doctrine of the late Synod will appear from the Sequel As for Mr. Mather late Teacher of the Church in Dorchester what the Apprehensions of that Reverend man of God were Concerning the present Controversie in his Latter Time is well known The Ancients had an opinion that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dying words of worthy men were Oracutous because the Soul near its transâ—â—graâ—ion groweth more Divine Be that Notion as it is yet the dying Counsel of that blessed man to his Son is of weighty Consideration And that Mr. Mather did not take up his perswasion concerning the Enlargenent of Baptisme in his last years only but that he was of the same Judgement four and twenty years and more before his decease is evident from some Manuscripts of his left written with his own hand For that Roverend Author did in the year 1645 prepare for the Press an elaborate discourse which he entituleth A plea for the Churches of Christ in New-England and in the second part of that discourse which contains positive grounds from Scripture and Reason for the Iustification of the way of the Churches of Christ in New-England there is this Question propounded Quest When those that were baptized in Infaney by the Covenant of their Parents being come to Age are not yet found fit to be received to the Lords Table although they be matried and have Children whether are those their Children to be baptized or no. The Answer is in these words I propound to Consideration this Reason for the Affirmative viz. That the Children of such Parents ought to be baptized the Reason is the Parents as they were born in the Covenant so they still continue therein being neither cast out nor deserving so to be and if so why should not their Children be baptized for if the Parents be in Covenant are not the Children so likewise Is not the Tenour of the Covenant I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed Is not the Text plain Act. 2.39 the promise is to you and to your Children And if these Children be in the Covenant why should they not be admitted to the Seal of the Covenant Sith they are partakers of that which is one main ground why other Infants are admitted thereto doth it not seem unreasonable that these Infants being partakers of the ground of Baptisme as well as others that nevertheless others should be admitted and these be refused If other Infants were admitted to Baptisme upon some ground whereof these were not partakers then there might be Reason to make a difference between these Infants and others but if the ground Reason of admitting others be Common to these as well as to others it seems then to be Reasonable that these as well as others should share in the priviledge If their Parents were east out of the Church by Censures or falln away from the same by wilful Apostacy and Schisme or deserving to be Cast out by reason of Scandal then there were more Reason that their Infants should be excluded from the Seal But sith no such thing can be said of the Parents of whom we speak a good Reason should be given why their Infants are debarred for if it be said the Parents are not Confirmed members nor have yet been found fit for the Lords Table I conceive this needs not to hinder their Infants from Baptisme so long as they I mean the Parents do neither renounce the Covenant nor doth the Church see just Cause to Cast them out from the same for it is not the Parents fitness for the Lords Supper that is the ground of baptizing their Children but the Parents and so their Children being in the Covenant this is that which is the main ground thereof and as long as this doth Continue not dissolved by any Church Censure against them nor by any Scandalous Sin of theirs so long the Children may be baptized These words are to be seen written with Mr. Mathers own hand Anno 1645. Now if six and twenty years ago in a Book written in defence of the Churches in New England When this Collection of Testimonies was first composed it was but 26 years but now it is 29 years since that Book was written and in justification of tho way of-hese Churches it were true Doctrine that persons might have
Contentious Spirit I had Conference with him about this matter in his life time And the Summe of what he hath now written he then expressed and told me withal that if a Case should be presented to the Church in any other way by the Brethren he would refuse to act in it unless the Church would first dispute the point which he would offer but act against his Judgement he would not It 's true that the Rule requires to tell the Church in due order by the Officers as he that Commands one to goe into his house intends that he should go in by the door The Elders are Captains and Leaders and Rulers Heb. 13.17 1 Tim 5.18 And therefore the Brethren must not go before them A common Souldier must not begin or make an Attempt without the Captain And the Elders being Leaders and Rulers they are to order all the publick occasions and affairs of the Church in a comely manner which they cannot do if the Brethren have Liberty at their pleasure to publish what seems best to themselves Touching the desire of such members Children as desire to have their Children baptized it is a thing that I do not yet hear practiced but for my own part I am inclined to think that it cannot justly be denyed because their next Parents however not admitted to the Lords Supper stand as Compleat members of the Church within the Church Covenant and so acknowledged that they might have right to Baptisme Now they being in Covenant and standing members their Children also are members by virtue of their Parents Covenant and Membership as well as they themselves were by virtue of their Covenant and membership and they have not renounced that Covenant nor are justly Censured for the breach of that Covenant but do own and profess it and by virtue of it claim the Priviledge of it to their Children Those Children who are within the Covenant and so members of it Baptisme cannot be denyed unto But the Children in Question are within the Covenant of the Church and so members of it Ergo Baptisme cannot be denyed to them The assumption is proved thus the Children of such Parents as are within the Covenant of the Church are themselves within the Covenant of that Church and so members But the Children in Question are the Children of such Parents as are in Covenant and so members of the Church Ergo they are so themselves The Proposition is clear because the Parents Covenant for themselves and for their Children Deut. 29. from 10 to 16. Ezek. 16.8 13. And God accepts both Gen. 17.12 13. the whole Nation is faederally holy they are expressly said to be in Covenant with their Father Deut. 29. not partly or partially in Covenant Rom 9.3 4 Acts 2.39 and God stiles himself their God as well as their Father Gen. 17.7 8 9. and to have God to be our God is to be in Compleat Church Covenant with him The assumption is evident because else such their Parents had not had right to Baptisme the Seal of the Covenant but that they had right unto and so received it and the same right they had the Children have who are included in their Fathers did expressly engage and Covenant but these not I Answer that the Covenant is the same and of the same force to bind and of the same extent in the one as well as the other Explicite and Implicite are but adjuncts of the Covenant and therefore though they are not come into Covenant the same way that their Parents did viz. by explicite personal Covenanting but are taken in by the Father Covenanting for them and themselves yet it seems to me that they are not less truly or less Compleatly in Covenant The God of Peace and Truth guide us in those wayes I rest Milford June 12. 1651. Your loving Brother Peter Prudden Unto these might have been added the Testimony of that Reverend and faithful Servant of Christ Mr. Iohn Wilson the first Pastor of the first Church in Boston But his Judgement touching the question in hand is known to all that knew him And the Reader is referred to his dying Spee hes concerning this matter which are inserted in the Book called New Englands memorial pag. 183. 184. which because they were amongst the last words of so holy a man cannot without great sin be despised or disregarded Also we might have mentioned the Judgement of Reverend Mr. Norris which that it did Concur with what hath been expressed is to be seen from the Records of the Church in Salem viz. in their Records of the 24th of the first Moneth And of the 9th of the fifth Moneth and sixth Moneth Anno 1654. Likewise we might have produced the Judgement of Mr. Philips sometimes the faithful Pastor of the Church in Watertown but the Reader is for that referred to the Preface in the Synod Book Also that some godly and Judicious of the Congregational way in England are for a greater Latitude in the point of Baptisme then our dissenting Antisynodalian Brethren do acknowledge is manifest from what â—undry Learned men of that way have long sincâ— published For Doctor Owen in his review of Scâ—asmâ— pag 134 thus expresses himself I am so far from confining Baptisme subjective y to a particular Congregation that I do not believe that any m mber of a particular Church was ever regularly baptized baptisme pâ—â—cedes Admission into Church membership as to a particular Church the Subject of it is professing Believers and their Seed as such they have right unto it whether they be joyned to any particular Church or no suitable to this Judgement ha's been my Constant and uninterrupted practice Likewise Doctor Nathaniel Homes in his defence of Infant Baptisme against Mr. Tombs ha's these words pag 193. for baptizing of Believers Infants several Churches of us do hold that we may baptize them though neither of their Parents be of our particular Churches Baptisme as we conceive being an Admission into the universal v sinle Church c. And again pag 217. Mr. Tombs having made this Objection that the baptizing of Infants ha's occasioned on uâ—neâ—essary dispute about baptizing the Infants of believing Parents that are not members of gathered Churches I never saith Doctor Homes perceived the world troubled with this dispute divers Churches without dispute can practice the baptizing of such c. Thus he See also in the same Book 207 208 215. with his Epistle to the Reader And the Collector of these Testimonies hath lately received Letters from suâ—dry eminent Divines of the Congregational way in England declaring that the Judgement of the Elders with them is generally according to what hath been now expressed By these things therefore which have been thus far expressed it is very manifest that the doctrine of the late Synod concerning the Subject of Baptisme is no Apostacy from the first Principles of New-England nor yet any declension from the Congregational way It remaineth that we proceed