Massachusetts with a request, that several of the ablest ministers of each colony might deliberate and give them an answer. Accordingly, letters from the government procured an assembly of the principal ministers of New England, at Boston, June 4, 1657, who, by the 19th of the month, presented an elaborate answer to 21 questions. "'* Among other things, referring to the state of children born in the church, they assert, That it is the duty of those come to years of discretion, baptized in their infancy, to own the covenant; that it is the duty of the church to call them to this; that if they refuse, or arc scandalous in any other way, they may be censured by the church. If they understand the grounds of religion, and are not scandal-. ous, and solemnly own the covenant, giving up themselves and their children to the Lord, baptism may not be denied their children. This was the first introduction of what is popularly called the halfway covenant, in the christian church. “The practice," says a writer very friendly to the custom, was but gradually introduced, yet it met with such opposition, as could not be encountered with any thing less, than a synod of elders and messengers from all the churches in Massachusetts colony, to give it currency and reputation." Accordingly, the general court, having the necessity of the matter laid before them, in 1661, issued their desire and order for a synod at

* MATHER.

*

280

Synod of 1662 convened.

Boston, in the spring of the next year. Beside the subject of baptism, the consociation of churches was an object of their attention. Concerning the latter, being desirous of uniting our churches, like a bundle of arrows, not to be broken, they subscribed to a profession made in the English churches, "That it is a most abhorred maxim, that a single society of men, professing the name of Christ, should judge them of the same body and society, and yet exempt themselves from giving account, or being censurable by any other, either christian magistrate above them, or neighbour churches about them.”

The result of their doings was presented to the general court, Oct. 8, 1662. In answer to the question, Who are the subjects of baptism? The synod say, "They, that according to scripture, are the members of the visible church, are the subjects of baptism; the members of the visible church are, according to scripture, confederate, visible believers in particular churches, and their infant seed, i. e. children in minority, whose next parents, one or both, are in covenant." They acknowledge, that "there ought to be true saving faith in the parent, according to the judgment of rational charity, or else the child ought not to be baptized." Those who objected to the custom,

entreated and urged, again and again, that this, which they themselves acknowledged was a principle of truth, might be set down for a conclusion,

3

and they should all agree." This was all that was asked. The reverend persons would not consent to this," but replied," that we are to distinguish between faith in the hopeful beginning. of it, and faith in the special exercise of it, that the apostles constantly baptized persons upon the first beginning of their christianity." "All owned,

that only visible believers were to have their children baptized.. So it is expressed in the result of the synod. The only question is, Who are visible believers ???**

The business had now become a political con-troversy in Massachusetts.

of 1631, had been revived.

In 1660, the law This law "ordered.

and agreed, that for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body poli-tic, but such as are members of some of the churches, within the limits of the same." This law, which not only cut off a large portion of the people from all honours and offices, but also from the rights of freemen, doubtless produced a considerable effe in deciding the controversy, which then agitated the country. A majority of the synod confirmed the practice of baptizing the children of visible believers..

However, the synod themselves were not unanimous ;. several learned and pious clergymen protested against the determination respecting baptism. The Rev. Charles Chauncey, president of Harz 2

282

The Practice recommended by

vard college, Mr. Increase Mather, Mr. Mather, of Northampton, and others, were warmly in the opposition. President Chauncey, Mr. Increase Mather, and Mr. Davenport, all wrote against the practice. It was opposed by all the ministers. of New Haven colony, and disapproved by the Connecticut churches. The churches, in general, were more in opposition than the clergy.*

It was thirty nine years after the assembly of ministers at Boston had recommended the practice; it was thirty four years after it had been established at the synod of Cambridge, before a single church in Connecticut adopted the custom of owning the covenant for the baptizing of children. Notwithstanding the sanction of these two powerful assemblies of divines, notwithstanding the legislature of Connecticut called an assembly of alf the ministers of the colony, in 1667, that the business might be publicly disputed to an issue," and sent to Massachusetts for several of their able ministers, to enlighten and soften the minds” of those unfriendly to the design; Mr. Mitchel, one of them, being the most powerful disputant in his day, in favour of the baptism of children, upon their parents owning the covenant; notwithstanding the civil rulers were so prudent, that finding, with all their precautions, they were not able to carry any point in this assembly, they virtually dissolved them before they came to any vote, yet

* HANNAH ADAMS.

Synod not universally adopted. 283

more than the period of one generation passed away, before one church in Connecticut submitted to the measure. * It was first introduced at Hartford, in 1696; in a short time, nearly all the young people had subscribed a covenant prepared for them; not many years after, other churches followed the example, and gradually the custom became general. At Hartford, the ministers and deacons went round among the young people, and warned them once every year to coine and subscribe or own the covenant. In other churches, more generally, the covenant was not owned till the young people became parents, and wished their children baptized. This has been the general custom in Massachusetts.

A majority of the churches in Connecticut, and à great number in Massachusetts, have discontinued this practice. In Vermont and New Hampshire, it was never generally introduced. The prevalence of the baptists in Rhode Island, always prevented its being an interesting object in that state. This practice has now, as it has had from the beginning, men of the first rank for piety, talents, and respectability, both for and against it. The subject has been very ably and fully discussed. As it never has been, so it is hoped it never will be made, on either side, an article essential to the communion of churches. The dissenting clergy in England, and the episcopal and presby

♦TRUMBULL, Chap. 19.