the years 1655-6,*) was greatly altered from what it was at its first settlement. The people then were generally church members, and eminently pious. They loved strict religion, and followed their ministers into the wilderness for its sake. But with many of their children, and with others, who had since emigrated into this country, it was not so. They had made no open profession of religion, and their children were not baptized. This created uneasiness in them, in their ministers and others. They wished for the honors and privileges of church members for themselves, and baptism for their children; but they were not persuaded, that they were regenerated and knew not how to comply with the rigid terms of the Congregational churches."

The consequence of this state of things was, that a sort of rush, if one may so speak, was made against the doors of the church; a strong and general interest was excited; the church were strenuous, (that is to say, the great body of them,) in defence of their principles; and those out of its pale were equally strenuous for breaking them down, and gaining admission. Unhappily the result of this state of things was a sort of compromise by means of the plan of a half-way covenant, to be entered into by persons of the character already described. They thus gained a name to live, in the spiritual sense of the word, whatever might be their real characters; for they could, at least in some sense, be said to be separated from the world, although they were not acknowledged to be fully united in church membership, so that they not only obtained the desired baptism for their children, besides certain objects more purely secular, but so managed as to soothe their own consciences and hide their own increasing danger.

*History of Connecticut, Vol. I. Ch. XIII.; see also Bogue's and Bennet's History of the Dissenters, Ch. IX. § 4.

$197. Early opposition to the system of half-way covenanting.

But even this compromising, this half-way system, as it was aptly called, although unadvisedly supported by many conscientious and excellent men, as well as by the worldly-minded, was not adopted without much opposition. In consequence of the discussions on this subject, which had taken place in Connecticut, and particularly in consequence of a request from the magistrates of Connecticut, made to some of the ablest ministers of Massachusetts for their opinion, an assembly of ministers was held at Boston, on June 4th, 1657. In this assembly the subject was taken up, and after some examination the principle of the Half-way covenant was found to be approved by a majority of the members. But the plan, although recommended by this weight of authority, continued to be unacceptable to many religious persons, who foresaw in it serious evils. Such was the dissatisfaction, existing both with individuals and churches to some extent, that it became advisable to summon together another assembly, in which the laity should be included. "The practice of church care, (says the author of MAGNALIA, referring to the assembly of 1657,) thus directed and commended was but gradually introduced; yea, it met with such opposition, that it could not be encountered with any thing less than a general Synod, of elders and messengers, [ministers and delegates,] from all the churches in Massachusetts colony."

$198. Doings of the Synod of 1662 on this subject.

Accordingly, the General Court, having the necessity of the matter laid before them at their second session in the year 1661, expressed their desire and order for the

convening of such a Synod at Boston, to be assembled in the spring of the year ensuing."

One of the propositions, adopted at the sessions of this Synod of 1662, was as follows, "Church members, who were admitted in minority, [i. e. who were baptized in infancy or childhood, and whose church membership was thus constituted and in no other way,] understanding the doctrine of faith, and publicly professing their assent thereto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the covenant before the church, wherein they give up themselves and their children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the government of Christ in the church, their children are to be baptized."

The Synod went still further, and by another provision, although it is wrapped up in ambiguous phraseology, they seem to have thrown open the door completely. "Such church members, [that is, those, who are baptized, but still have never been admitted to the Lord's supper,] who either by death, or some other extraordinary provi dence, have been inevitably hindered from public acting as aforesaid, [that is, from solemnly owning the covenant before mentioned,] yet have given the church cause in judgment of charity, to look at them as so qualified, and such as, had they been called thereunto, would have so acted, their children are to be baptized."

But after all, the Synod found themselves unable to adopt these measures, (or rather approve and enforce what had already been adopted,) without encountering very serious objections on the part of a learned and judicious, though small minority. This minority are stated to have been jealous, lest the sacred ordinance of Baptism should come to be applied unto unfit subjects, and thus diminish that character for purity, which the New England churches had hitherto maintained. Several works

soon made their appearance in print against the doings of the Synod: viz. ANTISYNODALIA AMERICANA, by Mr. Charles Chauncey, president of Harvard College; and a publication, entitled, Another Essay for the Investigation of Truth, written by Mr. John Davenport of New Haven, Connecticut. To the last mentioned work was prefixed a distinct treatise, entitled, An Apologetical Preface, written by another hand. But while the objectors were decided and able, there was no want of zeal on the other side of the question, although the controversy seems to have been in general conducted with mutual regard and affection. The ANTISYNODALIA was answered by Allen, of Dedham; the Essay by Mather of Dorchester, who manifested an interest to the very close of his life in behalf of the system; while the task of replying to the Apologetical Preface fell to Mitchell of Cambridge.

$ 199. Views of the objectors to the Synod's Articles.

The objectors to the doings of the Synod maintained, that there was no warrant in Scripture to apply the seal of baptism to those children, whose parents are in a state of unfitness for the Lord's Supper. Nor did they seem to consider their mere assumption of a Covenant, as giving them a right, which they did not possess before. Except in the case of the children of persons in full communion, for whose baptism they conceded the existence of a scripture warrant, they maintained, that no person could be rightly baptized, without giving credible evidence of being a christian. They considered baptism a high and sacred ordinance, and thought that adults, who were fit for the application of water in baptism, were fit for admission to the Lord's Supper. They maintained also, that the granting of baptism to unregenerate persons and their children, and allowing the name of church membership,

although of a modified and inferior kind, tends to harden them in their sinful and dangerous condition.

$ 200.

Prevalence, results, and abandonment of the system.

Notwithstanding the arguments, used against it, the practice prevailed. For a time almost every church was burdened with this anomalous appendage of a half-way church of baptized coven nters; most of whom made no pretensions to any thing more than external decency of moral deportment. And the results, developed by a century of melancholy experience, were such as the objectors to the plan anticipated. The churches, loaded with the superincumbent mass, lost their strength of religious purpose, and spirit of holy enterprise. Although through the goodness of God, they were not at any time wholly deserted, many seasons of declension followed the first bright and glorious days; but it was not until after years of sin, and depression, and inquiry, that they at last agreed in attributing one great cause of this unhappy state of things to the System under consideration One church after another abandoned it; and it may now be regarded, both from general consent and general practice, as no longer a part of their ecclesiastical polity.-(See Trumbull's History of Connecticut, CHAPS. XIII. XIX. ; Bogue's and Bennet's History of Dissenters, CH. IX. § 4; Cotton Mather's MAGNALIA, Bk. V.; Dr. Increase Mather's Primitive Principles; the Publications already mentioned, occasioned by the Synod of 1662; Dwight's Theology, SERM. CLIX. &c.)