rents' child, being grown adult, unto his full communion with the church. The sum of the answer amounts to thus much; 1. That they are to have faith and repentance; 2. That this faith and repentance must appear to others.

Qu. 8. Whether by covenant seed is meant the seed of immediate parents only, or of remote also?

Ans. The Gospel by covenant seed intends only the seed of immediate parents in church covenant, as appears from 1 Cor. vii. 14. It can no where else expediently be bounded. Depinge ubi scitam.

Qu. 9. Whether adopted children and ||bondservants|| be covenant seed?

Ans. Adopted children and infant servants, regularly and absolutely subjected to the government and dispose of such heads of families as are in church covenant, though they cannot be said to be their natural seed, yet in regard the Scriptures (according to the judgment of many godly learned,) extend to them the same covenant privileges with their natural seed, we judge not any churches who are like minded with them for their practice herein. All which notwithstanding, yet we desire at present to leave this question without all prejudice on our parts to after free disquisition.

Qu. 10. Whether the child, admitted by his father's covenant, be also a deputy for his seed, without or before personal covenanting; or without or before like personal qualifications in kind, as his father was to enjoy when he became a deputy?

Rep. It is the duty of infants who confederate in their parents, (as in answer to quest. 1,) when grown up to years of discretion, though not yet fit for the Lord's Supper, to own the covenant they made with their parents, by entering thereinto in their own persons; and it is the duty of the church to call upon them for the performance thereof; and if, being called upon, they shall refuse the performance of this great duty, or otherwise continue scandalous, they are liable to be censured for the same by the church. And in case they understand the grounds of religion, are not scandalous, and solemnly bound servants ||

own the covenant in their own persons, wherein they give up both themselves and their children unto the Lord, and desire Baptism for them, we (with due reverence to any godly learned, that may dissent,) see not sufficient cause to deny Baptism unto their children.

This proposition was consented unto by a Synod called to meet at Boston, not long after, viz. §Anno 1662. They add, that the same may be said concerning the children of such persons who being dead, or necessarily absent, either did or do give the church cause, in judgment of charity, to look at them as thus qualified, or, had they been called thereunto, would have thus acted.

Qu. 11. Whether children, begotten by an excommunicate person, he so remaining, are to be baptized?

Ans. We cannot, for the present, answer the arguments for the negative, for the promise made to the seed belongs only to the seed of immediate parents in covenant now under the Gospel; and such as are excommunicate are to be looked upon as heathen and publicans.

Qu. 12. Whether a child born of a person justly censurable, yet not actually excommunicate, be to be baptized?

Ans. We answer affirmatively, for divine institution, which is the foundation of the covenant membership of the child, imputes only the covenant, and not any other act of the parents, to the child.

Qu. 13. Whether a member's child's unfitness for seals disableth not his seed for membership or baptism?

Ans. This question is answered in the 10th, agreeing in scope therewith.

Qu. 14. Whether a member's child be censurable for any thing but scandalous actions, and not also for ignorance and inexperience?

Ans. A member's child (like as it is with all other members,) is censurable only for scandalous sins, consequently for ignorance and inexperience, when scandalous. Matth. xviii. 15, 18. 1 Cor. v. 11.

Qu. 15. Whether a member's child must only ex

amine himself, and may not be examined by others of his fitness for seals?

Ans. It is a duty of a member's child to examine himself, and yet he is also subject to the examination of others, because the elders are to give an account, Heb. xiii. 17,; and therefore must take an account; and it appertaineth to them to see that the holy things be not defiled by the access of any unclean or unworthy person.

Qu. 16. Whether any officers must examine in private, or else in public before the church?

Ans. Concerning their examination in private before the elders, the former reasons conclude affirmatively. It is spiritual wisdom, by preparing the stones before hand, to prevent after noise in the building, 1 Kings, vii. 6.

Qu. 17. Whether the same grown member's child must not be examined of his charitable experience before Baptism, as well as before the Lord's Supper?

Ans. We think the elders do well to take an account of children concerning the principles of religion, according to their capacity, before they be baptized. But if children be yet in minority, their right unto Baptism being founded upon the covenant made in their parents, this examination is to be looked [at] as conducing to the better application, but not to the being, of their Baptism.

Qu. 18. Whether baptized children, sent away for settlement, and not intending to return, are continually to be accounted members?

Ans. Baptized children, though locally removed from the church unto which they do belong, are to be accounted members, until dismission, death, or censure, dissolve the relation.

Qu. 19. Whether historical faith and a blameless life fit a member's child for all ordinances and privileges, and he must be examined only about them?

Ans. Not only historical faith and a blameless life, but also such an holding forth of faith and repentance as, unto judgment of charity, sheweth an ability to examine themselves and discern the Lord's Body, is requisite to fit a member's child for all ordinances and privileges,

|| 18 ||

and his blameless life notwithstanding, a member's child is to be examined concerning the other qualifications.

Qu. 20. Whether if a church member barely say, it repents me, though seventy times seven times following, he relapses into the same gross evils, as lying, slander, oppression, &c., he be to be forgiven, and not censured?

Ans. Notwithstanding a brother offends seventy times seven times, i. e. many times, a definite number being put for an indefinite, yet whilst God enables him to repent, it is our duty to forgive. But to say in words, I repent, and to gainsay it in deeds, is, according to Scripture, not to repent; yet an ingenuous and solemn profession of repentance, nothing appearing to the contrary, is to be accepted as true repentance in the judgment of charity. 1 Cor. xiii. 7.

Qu. 21. Whether a member under offence, and not censured, or not with the highest censure, can authoritatively be denied the Lord's Supper, or other church privileges?

Ans. None but the church can authoritatively deny to the member his access unto the Lord's Supper, because the power thereof is only delegated to that subject. Mat. xviii. 17. Neither can the church deny unto a member his access to the Lord's Supper, until she hath regularly judged him to be an offender; and the first act whereby he is judicially declared so to be, is admonition, whereby he is made judicially unclean, Levit. xxii. 3, 4, 5, 6, and is thereby authoritatively denied to come unto the Lord's Supper. All which notwithstanding, there are cases wherein a brother, apparently discerned to be in a condition rendering him an unworthy communicant, should he proceed to the Lord's Supper, may and ought regularly to be advised to forbear, and it is his duty to hearken thereunto; yet none should forbear to come worthily, which is their duty, because, to their private apprehension, another is supposed (at least) to come unworthily, which is his sin.

The answer to these questions was drawn up at Boston, June 19, 1657, and presented according as is mentioned before, and was generally accepted by all those

that rested satisfied in the determination of the following Synod about the question concerning the subject of Baptism, although the practice thereof was but gradually introduced into the churches of New England. And

it is well known that some of the ablest ministers of the country, that were most forward and ready to promote these resolves, never durst adventure upon the practice thereof, for fear of making a breach in their respective churches. And some that were at that time otherwise persuaded, have, since then, altered their minds upon mature consideration, and have also strongly engaged on the other hand, and written judiciously in the defence thereof, and cleared it up to all, that it is no other than1 what was consonant not only to Scripture, reason and antiquity, but to the apprehension and judgment of the first fathers of the churches of New England, as may be seen in Mr. Increase Mather's learned treatise on that subject, published not long since.

And as this disputation had its first rise in the Colony of Connecticut, so was there much difference and contention raised at Hartford, where was the principal church of the jurisdiction, between Mr. Samuel Stone, their teacher, and the rest of the church, occasioned at the first on some such account; insomuch that sundry members of that church, having rent themselves off from that church, removed themselves to another place higher up that river, where they seated themselves and gathered into a distinct church in way of schism, as the rest of the church accounted. So that it came at the last to an open breach, which could not be healed or made up amongst themselves, which put them upon a necessity of calling a convention of the messengers of sundry churches in the Massachusetts, who met together at Boston,3 in the year 1659; and upon a full hearing of all the matters in controversy therein, they made a reconciliation between them, and those that irregularly departed away in that manner, being convinced of their mistake, freely acknowledged it, which made the closure of that breach the more cordial and real; many paroxysms of contention That in the MS.2 -H. Hadley. See page 316; Holmes, i. 316. —. At Hartford, June 3d, and Aug. 19th, says Trumbull, i. 307.-H.