I TRUST I may say truly, without nauseous sawning, or criminal flattery, by a little acquaintance with your person, and more with your writings, that I look upon it that you are favoured with some excellent endowments of mind, with a good and rare rasent, es­pecially in writing; and that for the most part your pen has been employed in the cause of truth—Yet however, I observe some things in your writings which brings an ancient but true observation to my mind, viz. That the best of men, are but men at the best.—Therefore, sir, take it not ill if I point you to one or two of those spots with my pen, since I can assure you I do not write with a ce­sire or disposition to contradict, much less to disgust you or any of your baptist brethren, tho' I know not but this may be the event But the aim I have in view, (however [...]eeble the effort may be) is, by the divine bles­sing to endeavour to rescue some injured truths, which have suffered abuse by your pen.—And under this con­sideration I undertake it chearfully, but upon some other accounts it is with reluctance. For having had the hap to dip a little in one or two public controversies in time past, I have of late almost come to a determination to let polemic subjects alone, (unless where the essentials of religion are controverted) and leave disputes to other people, who have more pleasure and better skill therein than I, and higher expectations of doing good thereby. —Disputes seem of late to be almost fruitless as well as endless; and the more work of this nature there is done, [Page 4]the more there is to do: and the more labourers there are who [...]ter into this field of dispute, the wider the field g [...]ows in proportion; and in consideration hereof, I have almost been ready to say, that the multiplied numbers of disputants, in [...]he [...]e times, had about as good stand all the day id [...]e in th [...]s market place, as to spend their time as they do — However, I trust I am not al­together so superstitious o [...] pres [...]mptuous as to assert, as some have done, viz. That disput [...]s never did any good. For I believe the reve [...] of this is true, and that some times disputes are really necessary, and were it not for this, I would lay down my pen.—But with respect to the dispute in favour of, and against in [...]an [...] baptism I intended to have been a neuter, (as to public writing I mean) because I did not look upon it essential to vital religion, which side a man seteled in his judgment, in this affair, if he was consciencious, and truly perswaded in his own m [...]nd, seeing both sides have so much of a plea, in their favour; and I doubt not but eminently good men are on both sides of the question.

But, sir, in reading your answer to Mr. F—'s letter in favour of infant baptism, I confess you have drawn me a little out from my state of neutrality; [...] I cannot be quite easy (however catholick) to see things gloss'd smoothly, and then put off for truth, which are not.— However, being so very averse to write upon this sub­ject, I should not have meddled with it, had you ne­glected one thing in handling the controversy, and that is, you say, That in order to maintain infant baptism, we construe and interpret the new [...]stament by the old, and the old by the new, (p. 58). Now this was so directly the reverse of the truth respecting my establishment in fa­vour of infant baptism, that I could not be easy, nor answer a good conscience herein, to let it pass unnotic'd. And as it was the new testament interpretation of the old that gave me an establishment concerning infant bap­tism; so I am ready to think, that if the baptists would [Page 5]suffer the new testament interpretation of the old, to take place in their understandings, with their wills sub­jected to the light of truth in this particular, they would easily see more grounds for the warrant of [...] bap­tism than now they can; for while they have a different way to interpret the old testament, from the new testa­ment interpretation thereof, it necesla [...]ly hides the truth, and the binding force of it from their minds, in this particular. And hence they peremtorily conclude that there is nothing in the scripture to warrant infant bap­tism because they in these circumstances can't see it; but I can't allow this to be demonstration—I suppose that it is very probable, the solid and judicious among the bap [...]ists, who did not receive the binding force of their principles by tradition, made their mistake h [...]re, viz they took intant baptism upon tradition only, and practiced without understanding therein, but afterwards when they came to be more consciencious in the point, and could [...] no further in the practice by tradition; and then they attempted to search whether there were a scripture warrant for the practice or not, and when they read or heard the scriptures, the arguments, and interpretations of [...] &c. produced for the sup­port of infant baptism, they never took the proper ideas belonging thereto, and so could see no proof, where others who take the ideas as well as the words, can. I know something of this by experience; for I myself took infant baptism upon tradition, and went on so for near ten years after I was experimentally acquainted with religion, as I trust; in which time doctrinal reli­ [...]: and, practical godliness, was thro' grace, my de­ [...]lightful study; but my mind was not turn'd upon bap­tism w [...]h any closeness of thought, all that while. — At length I became a [...]quainted with a baptist who was pre­ty apt to be rigid [...] peremptory in his assertions and principles, who [...]old me there was neither precept nor example in the bible, for infant baptism, and that there [Page 6]was nothing to warrant the practice but humane tradi­tion. And moreover he said, that it was nothing but fear of reproach and singularity that kept multitudes of christians from practicing upon the baptists prin [...]ples. — Well, I was conscious I did not know much about the affair. I told him I would endeavour to search into the matter, and if there was nothing but humane tradition to warrant infant baptism, it was t [...]me it was rejected. And as to reproach and singularity I had not much to fear from that quarter; for by my late embracing and adhearing strictly to what I call congregational princi­ples, I was already reproached with the odious name of separate, which was look'd upon as a very ridicul [...]us thing where I then liv'd. Moreover I told him I trust­ed I had set out through grace, to go where truth and honesty would carry me, and if embracing the truth would make me a baptist, I hoped I was willing to be one. I further told him I did not like such sudden stars and changes about the principles of religion as I observed in some men [...] was willing any man should change his religious traditions, provided he did it with due consideration deliberation and a scripture warrant, and not else. If I ever bec [...]me a baptist, I told him I intended to be so well grounded in the principle, as not to have occasion to turn-back again, as I observed some did.

And now I undertook to search the scripture to find what the mind of God therein was; and I trust with [...]n si [...]eere desire to know the truth, in order for practice [...]; for I had got a ground about practising upon infant baptism any further upon tradition only. I did not think it my duty in searching after the truth in this matter to pray for▪ or expect any immediate revelation from God, to tell me which side [...] will [...]ay in the ma [...] ­ter. But that by the blessing of God in the use of pro­per m [...]ans, my understanding mig [...] be led to see what his mind and will is; as it is already revealed in his holy [Page 7]word, altho' more [...]arkly in this point, than in some others▪ And hereupon I read the scriptures, and au­thors upon both sides of the question, and conversed with the ablest men in favour of infant baptism I knew of, to see what could be said to support the practice, which by this time I very much call'd in question. The baptists arguments look'd plausible, and for to get light in the affair, I sometimes espoused the baptist side of the question, when conversing with men who profest to be clearly established in infant baptism, and it seem'd to me they got along but poorly in proving their infant­baptism-scheme. And my mind hung in suspence a considerable time, but it rather seem'd to be my prevail­ing tho' [...] that the truth lay on the baptists side. Until, by reading the new-testament-interpretation of some parts of the old testament, and that in a light very dif­ferent from my baptists authors, with that, I tho't, it may be here is something that I had hitherto over [...] ­look'd, therefore I will look again; and while I follow­ed this line, v [...]z. the new testament interpretation of the old, the substance of the baptists arguments were over­thrown, (at least they were overthrown in my mind.) And then I began to take the ideas, as well as words, concerning the grounds of infant baptism. And my mind, I trust, was led into the nature and spirituality of the vailed dispensation. There appeared then, more gospel, more grace, and more glory under the ancient and typical dispensation, than ever I saw before, or any baptist author I ever read, would allow. The baptists authors indeed do allow, that there was some glory un­der that dispensation, as things then typified the spiritual glory of the church in the gospel day. But as that was a disp [...]nsation of the covenant of grace, so I say that there was a spiritual glory then in being and existing [...] [...] vail'd with a type. There was then the same sp [...]ritual good under the type, that there is now carried in the gospel dispensation without the type. And all [Page 8]who did not stick in the letter, or as I may say the bark of that dispensation, saw the spiritual glory, and embraced the spiritual good, carried in the promise of the covenant of grace, and seal'd the same, by those seals which God appointed there­for, what ever typical use they might answer be­sides. And, sir, when Mr. F. in his letter in fa­vour of infant baptism, is speaking of that cove­nant which God made, or renewed with Abraham in the 17th of Gen. He says, ‘altho' we don't read the word, Christ, nor grace, nor faith, nor new covenant,’ yet he supposes that all this was implied, and that Christ and all his benefits were contain'd therein. And I say, amen to it! bles­sed and glorious truth! But you say (p. 53.) that with his man's wisdom, in so expounding that scripture, that he contradicts inspiration. But I think that you are quite mistaken, and that this assertion of his entirely agrees with inspiration, (as I trust will appear more obvious in the sequel) unless you mean to call the baptists writings in­spiration, then I know it differs.

But to proceed, Now as I said, it was the new testament interpretation of the old, that was the means which gave my mind the first establishment in favour of infant baptism, when I had been long hesitating there about. So what I now design, is to give a few instances of that nature, viz.

The four following,

• I. The new [...]est [...]ment interpretation of God's covenant with Abraham.
• II. Of Circumcision.
• III. Of the jewish church under the ceremonial law.
• IV. O [...] the breaking off of the Jews from their church-state, and the grafting in of the Gentiles.

[Page 9] I. Of God's Covenant with Abraham, which we find the first discovery of in 12th chap. of Gen. where God called Abraham and blessed him, and promised Canaan. And in the 15th ch. of Gen. we find the covenant renewed, a numerous seed promised, and a renewed promise of Canaan. And in the 17th ch. the covenant was renewed with Abraham again, and more explicit in some things; circumcision instituted, directions given for the forming his family into a church-state. And hence an external form of administration of the covenant commenced according to divine ap­pointment. Now this covenant which God was pleased, out of self-moving love, to take Abraham into with himself, I call the covenant of grace, containing spiritual blessings, with such an ex­ternal form of administration thereof, and belong­ing thereto, as God in his infinite wisdom and sovereignty saw fit to appoint.—For illustration, I suppose you will allow, that under the gospel dispensation, where God takes a man savingly into covenant with himself, there are some externals, called privileges and duties annexed, and that these are included in, and belong to the external admi­nistration of the covenant of grace, under the gospel dispensation. So in the covenant with Abraham, there was certain duties and privileges annexed therewith, and belonged to the external administration of the covenant of grace, under that ancient dispensation; which were thankfully to be acknowledged, and chearfully and punctually complied with, until God should please to add thereto, more rites and ceremonies, or take them [Page 10]all away, which were merely positive, and ap­point new ones at his pleasure. And yet in every period we are to acknowlege the covenant of grace, altho' under a different form of external administration.—The Abrahamatical form con­tinued a while.—At the Sinai dispensation, the moral law was promulgated, and all the rites of the ceremonial law were added to the external form of the administration of the covenant of grace, until the gospel day commenced, and the form of administration was altered.

But now let us look and see how the new tes­tament interprets God's covenant with Abraham. I find Paul is speaking directly of this covenant with Abraham, Gal. 3.17, 18. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: But God gave it to Abraham by promise. Here the covenant with Abraham is said to be confirmed in Christ, and the inheritance given to him by promise. But what inheritance? why the heavenly inheritance, which is not obtain'd by the works of the law, but by free grace. But when did God give the inheritance to Abraham by promise? why in the promise of Canaan. Again, the new testament tells us Rom. 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Now if here was faith, imputed righteousness, and justi­fication without works, and so Abraham had not whereof to glory before God, as the apostle shews [Page 11]in this chapter, then it must certainly be the co­venant of grace; for th [...] covenant of works knows of no faith in a mediator, no imputed righteous­ness, no justification without works. And to sup­pose that the good carried in the promise of the covenant, which God took Abraham into, con­sisted solely, or principally, in the temporal good of the type expressed, is to contradict the new testament explaination of that covenant, and of the good contained in it, in these following chap­ters, which you may read at your leisure, viz. Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11. Luke 1.

Now let us see whether your interpretation of Abraham's covenant agrees with the new testa­ment interpretation of it; and I think I find it don't You must not expect, in a letter so short as I intend this to be, that I make a collection of the baptist authors in general, and cite their words upon the point; for if you are as sound and as or­thodox, in the point, as they be in general, then your words may be cited as a specimen of their general notion, about Abraham's covenant. You say, pag. 53, ‘The tenor of Abraham's covenant enjoins conditions and works to be performed by men; the neglect of which exposed them to be cut off from their people.—Therefore the letter of it was do and live.’ Here sir, are your words, but I don't know what you really think Abraham's covenant was, notwithstanding. Mr. F. said it was the covenant of grace, but you op­pose him in that, and mean to contradict him, which is evident to every one who reads your an­swer. And to me it is evident you contradict the [Page 12]new testament interpretation of it, whether you mean it or no. You describe the covenant with Abraham just as the best of divines do the covenant of works made with innocent man, or Adam before the fall, do and live. And the scripture describes that ancient covenant of works, or the moral law as a covenant, in the same manner, He that doth them shall live in them. Well then, if you mean so, that is, if you mean as you say, that the tenor and letter of Abraham's covenant was works, do and live, then one of these things will certainly follow, viz that either, 1st. One man is gone to heaven by the cove­nant of works, since the fall. Or, 2dly, Abraham is damned; for he never had a better covenant to go to heaven by than this. The language of it was, I will be thy God; and Paul says this covenant was confirmed in Christ. But if you don't mean Adam's severe covenant of works, do and live, requiring perfect holiness as the condition of life, but some more mild and moderate covenant of works, and yet distinct in its nature from the covenant of grace, I don't think it worth while to spend time to talk about it: for if such a covenant ever existed any where, 'twas but in men's imagination, for you never found such a covenant in Genesis; nor from there to the end of the Revelations. But let us examine the force of your argument a little: You say, Abraham's covenant enjoins conditions and works to be perform'd by men; the neglect of which exposed them to be cut off from their people. Now by this argument you think to prove that the covenant with Abraham was not the covenant of grace, but of works. But sir, your argument proves too much for you, and so just nothing at all. Your argument, if it was allowed to take place, would deny that God now under the gospel takes his church into the covenant of grace, but the church is now form'd upon the covenant of works, do and live, for I trust that you yourself will not deny but that in the external ad­ministration of the covenant of grace, even under the [Page 13]gospel dispensation, God enjoins duties and works to be perform'd by men, thro' grace influencing, as a condition of a visible standing and continuance in God's visible church, the neglect of which now exposes them to be cut off from God's people by solemn excommunication; and dying without repentance, must be cut off by eter­nal damnation; and what do you find more condition­al, awful, and severe in Abraham's covenant?—I grant that in the covenant of redemption, or if it suits you better, the covenant of grace, as it was made with Christ in the behalf of the elect, Christ only was to perform the condition of their salvation, by obeying the law, and suffering the penalty thereof, in their room and stead. And I allow that there were no works done by ma [...], or foreseen, as the condition of election, but election was free, sovereign and absolute. I also allow further, that that faith, by which one is united to Christ, and by which the believer is said to be justified, is the free gift of God, and no previous conditions are performed by men, as procuring a right and title to that grace.—But yet, not­withstanding all this, I think I have a scripture warrant to say, that in the gospel declarations, and the external administration of the covenant of grace, there are con­ditions proposed and required. Salvation is promised in the gospel, to mankind in general, on the conditions of faith and repentance; and those who don't through grace, come up to these conditions, are threatned with eternal damnation. So there are certain qualifications required, and duties to be performed, as a condition now, as well as in Abraham's day, of having a standing and continuance in God's visible church. And what if you should now take the external administration of the covenant of grace, under the gospel dispensation, which requires conditions, enjoins duties, annexes penalties, &c. and call it a covenant by itself, distinct in its nature from the covenant of grace, even the covenant of works; would not this be a vile abase of the covenant of grace? [Page 14]to rob it of its external form of administration thus? and yet this would be to do, but just as you have done, by the covenant of grace, under a different form of ad­ministration, while you say that the covenant with A­braham was the covenant of works. Because of duties and penalties annexed. But you attempt to give some further light about Abraham's covenant, and [...] some further proof that it was not the covenant of grace, by an ther particular way of describing of it in the same 53. p. When you had been considering that in the 17 [...]h of Gen. God had enjoined circumcision in the flesh upon Abraham and his male children, then you add, ‘And God said to Abraham, My covenant shall be in your flesh. While he says in the new covenant, I will put my laws in their mind, and will write them in their hearts.’ Here is your pretended illustration of the difference between Abraham's covenant, and the new covenant, or cove­nant of grace. One is in the flesh, and the other is in the heart▪ But I ask, what is this darkning counsel for with words without knowlege? You in this same page speak of the seal of Abraham's covenant, and call cir­cumcision the seal of it. And baptist authors abundantly say, to cut off infants from baptism, that circumcision was a seal of the covenant of works. Now it is easy to see that a covenant, and the seal of it, are two things; the seal may be considered as a token and confirmation of the covenant, but not the covenant itself. But you seem to try to make it appear that Abraham's covenant was circumcision itself, and so opposite to, or at least distinct from the covenant of grace. Therefore you re­present God speaking out the nature of his covenant with Abraham, when he says, ‘My covenant shall be in your fl [...]sh’ And you laying the emphesis here, think to make us believe that the covenant did not carry spiritual bles­sings in it. But if we let an ancient and approved say­ing still pass for current, it will frustrate your attempt herein, viz That the scripture is the best interpretation o [...] [Page 15]scripture. And I think it becomes you in modesty, to let the Almighty interpret his own words, when he says to Abraham, My covenant shall be in your flesh, which he does in the same chapter 17th Gen. ver. 11. when God had enjoined circumcision in the flesh upon. Abraham, he then adds, And it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. Here observe, there was first a covenant subsisting between God and Abraham, and secondarily a seal, sign, or token of that covenant, which was cir­cumcision: and not that circumcision itself was the co­venant, as you try to insinuate. Here was such plain ground to go upon, that it seems you could not have stumbled, and made this blunder, had you not took pains for it, or tho't to have served a turn by it. But I say Abraham's covenant has the language of the cove­nant of grace expresly carried in it. Gen. 17.7 8. Where God says, And I will establish my covenant betwixt me and thee, and thy seed aster thee, &c. But what does he mean? why he adds, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Now when God says by way of covenant, I will be thy God, ^† or I will be their God, [Page 16]it is evermore new-covenant language since the fall of man. And I will be thy God, implies my attributes and glorious perfections are made over to thee, Abraham, and to all thy seed after thee, who shall take hold of my covenant by faith, as thou hast done. My mercy shall pardon thee, my grace shall sanctify thee, my light and truth shall guide thee, my power shall protect thee, and my alsu [...]iciency shall supply you, &c. And altho' these spiritual blessings were not so open, and clear, and explicit as they are in the gospel-day, yet as truly con­tain'd; for as we before noted, this covenant was con­firmed of God in Christ. But the baptist often object, and think they may triumph in so doing, that if that covenant with Abraham, wherein God says, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee, was the covenant of grace; and if believers now under the gospel stand re­lated to God by the same covenant, for the substance of it, and are under the same promise, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, as we plead for, and pretend. I say, the baptist often object and say, why don't we then see the promise fulfilled? Why were not all Abraham's children converted, and saved? And why are not all the children of believers now under the gospel, conver­ted and saved? if this be the covenant of grace, and spiritual blessings are contain'd in the promise?

To which I answer,

That this promise was fulfilled to Abraham and his seed, according to the tenor of it, and is a fulfilling daily to believing Gentiles, and their seed also. For it was by faith that Abraham became interested in the cove­nant of grace, and intitled to the spiritual blessings con­tain'd in the promise. And surely God fulfilled the promise of the covenant to him in all the extensiveness of spiritual blessings comprised in these words I will [...] thy God. And it was nothing short of faith that any o [...] Abraham's seed became intitled to the spiritual blessing contain'd in the promise, for saith the apostle, all a [...] [Page 17]not Israel, that are of Israel: Implying that it was only by faith that Abraham's children became intitled to the spiritual blessings contained in Abraham's covenant, and to all such of his seed the promise has been punctu­ally ful [...]lled. The same I may say concerning the G [...]n­tile believers and their seed; by faith in Christ it is they come to have a covenant interest in the spiritual bles­sings carried in the promise of Abraham's covenant, and the Gentiles by faith come thus to be blessed with faithful Abraham▪ But there would be no propriety nor truth in saying that the believing Gentiles are bles­sed with faithful Abraham, if Abraham's covenant had not been the covenant of grace, nor the blessings spiri­tual carried in the promise of it.

But then observe, as I noted before, how Abraham's covenant is to [...]e considered, viz. That it was the co­venant of grace, containing spiritual blessings in the promise, with such an external form of administration thereof as God in his wisdom and sovereignty he saw fit to appoint. And that you may not mistake me here­in I will explain myself a little further. Doubtless you will allow it to be possible, if not in fact the case, that God may, in a way of sovereign grace, take a man sav­ingly into covenant with himself from the midst of an heathen land, convey grace into his heart, bring him into union to Christ, grant him communion with God here, in this world, and eternal life hereafter; and save him by Christ, in the way of free grace; and yet never bring him under any external administration of the co­venant of grace, bring him into no visible church, of any form of constitution, give him no external seals or ordinances, of a possitive nature, &c. And if God in his wisdom and sovereignty had seen fit to call in all his elect in this wise, by the secret influences of his Spirit, and never had appointed any external form of admini­stration to the covenant of grace at all: Must not all creatures have yielded that God had a right to act his [Page 18]pleasure? when it was his own free grace he was going to bestow? Ma [...]n't he do what he will with his own? and as to the method, take what way he pleases?

But we find God has not always took that method of calling in his elect, if he did ever; but has been pleased to appoint an external form of administration of the co­venant of grace. And surely God was at liberty to de­termine what this form should be, whether it should be always alike, or whether it should differ in various peri­ods of the church, the latter of which we find to be his will. Now one of these external forms of the admini­stration of the covenant of grace, which was to continue a certain period in the church, God was pleased to give to Abraham. For when God took Abraham savingly into covenant with himself, and determined a visible and outward dispensation of the covenant of grace should appear, he had a right also to determine whether any but Abraham, and such as with him had saving faith, should have any concern herein, or privilege hereby; and in way of sovereignty God was pleased to connect Abra­ham's children with Abraham himself, in the external administration of his gracious covenant. So that it be­came Abraham's duty, and his children's privilege, for him to apply the seal of his faith, and the token or bond of God's gracious covenant to them. And a great fa­vour it was, if prized and improved as it ought to be, to stand thus related to God by his own gracious cove­nant and sovereign appointment; tho' not so as to ob­tain salvation without faith: But here, by way of emin­ence, they have the blessed means, and the greatest obligation to faith.

But I am sensible that the objection is not yet fully answered, the pinch of the objection is here; if it was the covenant of grace, containing spiritual blessings, in which God said to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, and if God says the same to believers now, why don't all their seed have spiritual blessings, and be saved? To which I directly answer.

[Page 19] The objection takes that for granted which is not [...]ue, viz that this promise, to thee and thy seed, can't be [...] covenant of grace, unless all the seed of believers a [...] saved: whereas it is not so—God said to Abraham for­merly, and to believers now, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, that is, to thee and to thy seed indefinitely; i. e. not to be confin'd to all individuals of their seed. And in this sense, it was, and is true, that God is a God of believers and their seed. And in this sense it is, that the apostle clears this promise of the covenant of grace from falshood, as you ma [...] see Rom 3.3. What if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? ver. 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. Now if we do but consider and un­derstand the scope, view, and aim of the apostle here, we shall find that he had been considering that all the external privileges of the Jews would not avail to salva­tion, unless they had heart circumcision, and were Jews inwardly, as well as ouswardly. Well he sees now a question will arise, men of a baptist turn of mind would be ready to ask. What advantage then hath a Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? As much as to say, What good does it do to stand so related to God, by the external administration of the covenant of grace as to have the seal, token, or bond thereof applied? when all this may be, and yet no heart circumcision, no regene­ration, no faith nor salvation? surely there was nothing meant of spiritual blessings in Abraham's covenant, I will be a God to thee and thy seed: or else God is not true in the performance, &c.

Now to this the apostle replies, and says, It is an ad­vantage & much every way; and altho' some such don't believe, yet God is true to his promise notwithstanding. What if some don't believe? shall their unbelief make the faith, that is, the fidelity, truth and faithfulness of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a [...]ar: that is, let every such man [Page 20]be accounted a liar, who shall say there were no spiritual blessings in the promise of God's covenant with Abra­ham, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, or that shall say if there were, then God don't fulfil his promise, unless he converts and saves them all: for if some, yea thous­ands perish thro' unbelief, that don't make the fidelity of God without effect, or his promise void.

But to proceed, If Abraham's covenant was not the covenant of grace, and respected things of a spiritual nature, what was the matter that he was not a Jew which was one outwardly? If that covenant respected the na­tural seed of Abraham as such, and as such to remain the subjects of the covenant, and the good promised was only outward Canaan; and the requirements of the co­venant, was only outward circumcision, and an external conformity to outward rites and ceremonies: I say, if this was the case, is the baptists plead, then he was a Jew in the complearest and fullest sense of that coven­ant, who was one outwardly; for according to them, that covenant respected, required, nor granted nothing but outward things.

I grant, that in Abraham's covenant there were some things that respected his natural seed, as such, viz that God would multiply them, make a great nation of them, give the land of Canaan to them. But these things were but a mere circumstance; and as I may say some appendages added, and not the essence and sub­stantial part of the covenant. Now by these appenda­ges attending Abraham's covenant God was pleased to a [...]d them as very significant things, and as types to preach, teach, illustrate, and shadow forth the spiritual good and glory contained in the substantial part, the essence and spiritually of Abraham's covenant. Abra­ham's numerous natural seed promised, typified the sub­jects of the covenant of grace, or his spiritual seed a­mong both Jews and Gentiles, as God was pleased to honour him with the title of being called the father o [...] [Page 21]all the faithful. And the gift of Canaan to Abraham's natural seed, typified the heavenly inheritance, given in Abraham's covenant, or the covenant of grace to all true believers. So that there was truly a gospel cove­nant, and gospel doctrines, and gospel blessings in A­braham's day. Now for the baptist to take these ap­pendages, these typical things in Abraham's covenant, and try [...]o make the very essence of that covenant to consist in them, is a vile abuse of Abraham's covenant, and a counteracting the new testament interpretation of that covenant, as we have seen in part already, and may see more in the sequel.

But sir, I must not forget to consider the main pillar you ground your opinion upon; and your chief engine which you think to beat down all our arguments and proof, that Abraham's covenant was the covenant of grace. And that is what we find in Heb. 8. And es­pecially those words cited by the apostle from the pro­phecy of Jeremiah, ver. 8, 9, 10. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, &c. Now what seeming proof there is in these words, or whole chapter, to establish the bap­tist in the opinion that Abraham's covenant was not the covenant of grace, is wholly founded on a mistake: which I think I can easily shew, and demonstrate to eve­ry rational mind that will attend without prejudice,

And this I shall do by considering two things,

1. That neither the prophet Jeremiah in his prophe­cy, nor the apostle Paul in the Hebrews, do oppose this new covenant which the Lord would make with the house of Israel, to Abraham's covenant; but they op­pose [...] to something else, which is quite evident if we do but attend closely to the matter. Do but see how the words run. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the Land of Egypt. Now if [Page 22]the words had run thus, I will make a new covenant, &c.—not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took Abraham by the band, and called him out from his kindred and blessed him, &c. I say if the words had run thus, I would freely give up the point to you, and allow the new covenant spoken of in Heb. 8. is in op­position to Abraham's covenant. But I find the words of inspiration run quite another way, even to Egypt and Mount Sinai. Therefore take no­tice of them again. I will make a new covenant — not according to the covenant I made with their fathers—But when?— in the DAY I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Now it is as evident as words can make it, that this covenant spoken of, to which the new cove­nant is said to be made in opposition to, was not made in Abraham's day, but four hundred and thirty years after, when the children of Israel came out of Egypt, and the Sinai-law given; (for we may note, that the Sinai-law was given the same year that Israel went out of Egypt); so that I have a right to tell you in the words of the apostle, Gal. 3.17. And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, (that is Abraham's covenant, as tis called) the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul. So that the covenant with Abraham, being the covenant of grace, as to the essence and substance of it, still continues. But if you ask what covenant it was, if it was nor A­braham's covenant that the new covenant in Heb. 8. is opposed to? I answer, that it is evident by [Page 23]the main scope of the epistle to the Hebrews, and this 8th ch. in particular, that it was the cove­nant of ceremonies and legal services given at Si­nai, considered in the abstract, or what they were in themselves, weak and insufficient to justify and save those who attended thereupon, unless they by faith look'd to the end of these things which were to be abolished, and saw Christ the substance of these shadows. For the law, in all the punc­tilios of ceremonies, made nothing perfect. And it was impossible that the blood of bulls, and of goats, should take away sin. Now the carnal Jews, who had no true faith, to apprehend Christ, in Abra­ham's covenant, nor Christ the substance of these shadows; are said to have a vail on their heart, and so could not look to the end of that which should be done away, but thro' spiritual blind­ness, and unbelief, they terminated in the shadow instead of the substance, to their own destruction. Therefore as a remedy against this melancholly scene, that encouraging prophecy was given by the mouth of Jeremiah.—Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel—not according to the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt—Led them to Sinai, and gave them a ^† covenant of ceremonies—a testament of blood, [Page 24]yet weak that could not take away sin—a dispen­sation that was vail'd—But it shan't always be so, Christ the substance of all these shall come, and cause these shadows to flee away: and I will pour out my Spirit in plentiful effusions thereof, and multitudes shall be converted truly; I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts will I write them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people, in the sense of my gra­cious covenant with Abraham. And so Zacha­rias by the spirit of prophecy, viewed Abraham's covenant accomplishing, in the bestowment of spiritual blessings. Luk. 1.72, 73, 74, 75. To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would [Page 25]grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve [...] without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

So that this new covenant spoken of Heb. 8. is so far from really opposing Abraham's coven­ant, that it does really accomplish it.

2. The second thing I proposed, or intended to consider, as a proof that this new covenant, Heb. 8. was not opposed to Abraham's, is, be­cause the effects and blessings of Abraham's co­venant, and the effects and blessings of this new covenant are one: Now opposite covenants don't meet in oneness of effect. But I have partly pre­vented myself herein, by what I have said already. However, I will just add a word or two more.

Now let us consider the effect and blessings of this new covenant, spoken of in Heb. 8. I will put my law in their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Here is the effect and blessings of the new covenant you allow. And I trust you will not deny but that the privileges and blessings of the new covenant are spoken of in other pla­ces of scripture, as well as this; and altho' not contradictory to this, yet with more enlargements on the privileges, and more minutely particular therein. And as the apostle cites this passage in Heb. 8.10. from the 31. ch. of Jer. so I trust you can't deny but the next chapter, viz. Jer. 32.38.39. speaks out also the promise of the new covenant, or covenant of grace. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And I will [Page 26]give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them. So also is the promise of the new covenant spoken out in the 44. of Isa. ver. 3. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine off [...]spring. Now let us in a word, consider the effect and blessings of the covenant with Abraham. And we find, that when God graciously condescended to enter into these covenant engagements by his own free promise, he tells us what he meant by it, Gen. 17.7. speaking to Abraham; To be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. The very same blessings carried in those other promises of the new covenant, tho' not here so much enlarg­ed upon, nor so explicit, in their spiritual nature. For the gospel, and covenant of grace, and the spiritual blessings thereof, open'd gradually. But if at every degree of new openings, of the privi­leges of the covenant of grace, and enlargements thereof, and explicit promises made; I say, if we should call the same, at every such period, another covenant, instead of the same more enlightned into, we should have new covenants, and new gospels plenty enough in the bible. But when God says in Abraham's covenant, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, means no less than the same spiritual blessings contain'd in the new covenant, elsewhere expressed by a more particular descrip­tion of the blessings involved in these words, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. As pouring his Spirit upon them, giving them a new [Page 27]heart, and writing his laws in their heart, &c. So we may look upon Deut. 30.6. a true ex­planation of Abraham's covenant: The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord, &c. And surely this is the same spiritual blessing of having the law of God written in the heart. And when God says, by way of covenant, I will be thy God, since the fall of Adam, it is evermore new covenant language, and new covenant blessing referred to.

But I find baptist authors, and I think you a­mong the number, do allow, that in Abraham's covenant, that God did engage to be externally their God, altho' it was the covenant of works, that did not carry spiritual blessings in the pro­mise.

Now here I would just remark two things, for there is not a baptist among you all, but allow that in Abraham's covenant there were great fa­vours thereby conferred upon the subjects of it.

1. I say that Abraham's covenant cannot be the covenant of works, say what you will, if there were any favours or blessings at all in it, either spiritual or temporal. For the nature and pro­perty of the covenant of works, is to give life to sinless, or perfect obedience, & to curse the trans­gressor, and bestow no mercy on the sinner, no not the least even of a temporal nature. And altho' God does bestow many favours on sinners, who are under the law, as a covenant of works, yet he does not do it by the covenant of works, or in the way of the covenant of works; but in a way of sovereign grace thro' the Mediator, which the covenant of works knows nothing of.

[Page 28] 2 What kind of a covenant, and what kind of a blessing is this? for God to engage to a people or a person, to be their God externally? and the perform­ance to be according to the engagement. The plain English of it is this, that Jehovah [...]s their God in word, but the covenant leaves the devil to be their God in deed.

I observe, sir, that you allow that Abraham was an eminent saint, and was somehow, in the covenant of grace, but that covenant in ^* Gen. 17. of which circum­cision [Page 29]was the seal, was not it, but the covenant of works, likewise the Sinai dispensation was the covenant of works; and if so, all the [...]aints from Abraham down to the gospel day, were under the covenant of works, and went to heaven under the covenant of works; or else some how, without God's leave, they slipt their necks out of the covenant of works, and stole away to heaven in secret: I say without God's leave, because God never gave his saints any liberty while that dispensation lasted, to depart from those institutions, which the baptist say, were of, and belonged to, the covenant of works. But I apprehend the grounds of your mistake to be truly this, that you take the external form of the administra­tion [Page 30]of the covenant of grace, and make in your own minds, a distinct covenant of it, by itself, even the co­venant of works, as I before noted.

II. I now in the second place, as it was proposed, proceed to consider the new testament interpretation of circumcision. I observe sir, that in trying to get along with your scheme in denying Abraham's to be the cove­nant of grace, one while you represent circumcision to be a seal of the covenant of works, do and live, and then se [...]m to try to make Abraham's covenant to consist in circumcision, or that circumcision was the covenant it­self, as I before noted. But I am after a more authen­tic interpretation of circumcision, than I take yours to be, even the new testament interpretation. And that tells us without hesitation, how we are to consider cir­cumcision. Rom. 4.11. He received the sign of circum­cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had. Now the righteousness of faith, is nothing short of Christ's righteousness apprehended by faith, and such evangeli­cal obedience as is the effect of true faith; which is gos­pel righteousness, as truly as any believer has now under the gospel, and seals by baptism. Therefore circumci­sion was not appointed as a seal of the covenant of works, because it was appointed to seal a righteousness that never belonged to the covenant of works, even the righteousness of faith, which is gospel-righteousness, and evermore belongs to the covenant of grace. What will you do then for proof, that circumcision was a seal of the covenant of works? It may be you will have re­course to Gal. 5.3, 4. where the apostle tells them that Every man (among them) that is circumcised, is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of none effect unto you: whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are falle [...] from grace. Now inasmuch as the baptists think this text to be much in their favour, as a proof that circum­cision belonged to the covenant of works, because tha [...] Paul told the Galations that if they became circumcised [Page 31]they were debtors to do the whole law, &c. Therefore we will take this matter a little under consideration.

Now when Paul says to the Galations, If ye become circumcised, ye are debtors to do the whole law; if he means the ceremonial law, then he would let them know that by being circumcised, they brought themselves un­der an obligation, by that, to come under that heavy yoke, in all its branches, which Peter told his jewish bre­thren was a yoke which neither their fathers nor they were able to bear, Acts 15.10.

But I suppose that the apostle has a more special re­ference to the moral law, as containing the substance of the covenant of works. And when Paul told the Ga­latians, that if they became circumcised, they would be debtors to do the whole law, viz. get a perfect law righteousness of their own, such as the law demands. But he don't say that circumcision originally, and insti­tutionally, laid all under an obligation to perform the covenant of works in order to justification: altho' cir­cumstantially considered, and eventually it did the Ga­latians, and many of the self-righteous Jews, thro' their sinful abuse, and wicked perverting the right order and use of things, as I shall shew. And that we may see in the light of truth how it came about that circumcision laid the self-righteous Jews, and the Galations who were corrupted by them, under an obligation to do the whole law, or perform the covenant of works, as a condition of justification and salvation, we shall consider their a­buse, and misuse of, both the Sinai-dispensation, and circumcision. And this I find Paul has done to our hands already, in his allegory concerning Abraham's two wives; a very natural and beautiful similitude, re­presenting the case in a true and striking light. Now Sarah was a free woman, and in the allegory represents the covenant of grace. Hagar was a bond-woman and she represented the law, as the covenant of works; or the Sinai dispensation received in the form of the cove­nant [Page 32]of works. Now observe, that Hagar in her first and proper station, was Sa [...]ah's hand maid, to serve and assist her, and so long as she did so, and kept in that capacity, all was harmonious, well, and quiet in the fa­mily: but when Hagar came to be removed from the place of a servant, to the place of a wife, gets into Sarah's place, and bears a son to Abraham, all is in confusion, and great disturbance in the family. Altho' Hagar was a good servant, and would have done well in that capa­pacity; yet she was not fit to be made a wife of, for being a bond woman her self, her children are born in bondage, and not properly heirs of the inheritance. Therefore, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond woman, and her son; for he shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. Now when this is done, and Sarah comes to be wife alone, as she ought to have been before; and bears Abraham a son, who is free, and truly the heir, and abundantly blessed; now all things are set right again, and peace takes place in the family.

Now these things are an allegory, saith Paul, and thus he applies it: Satah represents Abraham's coven­ant, or the covenant of grace made known to Abraham, into which God was pleased, of his self-moving love, to take him, giving him saith, the pardon of sin, and eter­nal life altogether as the effect of free grace; not of works, least any man should boast, and so Abraham had not wherewith to glory before God, Rom. 4.2. And this covenant of grace was proposed to Abraham, as the only way of life to fallen man, and looked that God would bless his seed, in the same way and manner that he had blessed him, viz. of free grace, in and thro' the promised seed, on whom alone he depended for spirit­ual blessings, both for himself and his seed, according to God's gracious promise.

Now, four hundred and thirty years after this, the Sinai-dispensation was given, and Paul shews that it was not given to oppose the covenant of grace, nor to [Page 33]propose another way of life. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. Gal 3 21. But the Sinai law was given, to help forward the salvation of sinners by free grace, and not to hinder it. And therefore the Sinai dispensation in its true and proper use, was to be like Hagar, in her first station, which was to serve Sarah. And the Sinai dispensation was well calculated for this end; for there the moral law was firstly published, which if understood aright, shews sinners their death; & then the ceremonial law, which if rightly understood would have shewn them the way of life, viz. by the way of free grace. And so Paul labours to shew and convince self-righteous men, that the law never was given at S [...]nai, for men to get life by their own obedience to it, b [...] life mu [...] come by free grace. He puts a question for them in their mouths; Wherefore then serveth the law? Gal. 3 19 He answers, It was added because of trans­gressions —And again, The law entred that the offence might abound; that is, that they might see their trans­gressions and abounding sins, and so the need they stood in of a Saviour. And so says Paul concerning the Si­nai-law, it was ordain'd by angels in the hand of a Me­diator, and therefore to subserve the covenant of grace, if rightly understood and improved.

But now the carnal and self-righteous Jews made a great mistake here, concerning the right application, and improvement of the Sinai dispensation. For instead of being convinced by the moral law, of sin, and pe­rishing condition in themselves; and instead of fleeing to Christ the only remedy, pointed out in the ceremo­nial law, they substitute the duties there enjoined, in­stead of Christ, and so make a righteousness of their own doings, and hereby marry the law as a covenant of works, and so remove Hagar from the place of ser­vant to the place of wife, and so the bond woman brings forth children; and a dreadful bondage they are in, bound upon the pain of eternal [...]nation by the co­venant of works to which they cleave, to produce a [Page 34]perfect law-righteousness, without the least defect; and for the want of it, will at last be cast out and rejected, from having any inheritance in the heavenly world, and hell must be their portion. For they who are of the works of the law are under the curse. And indeed this is the case with self-righteous men now, as well as it was with the Jews and the Galatians of old, when any substitute rites and forms, and their own works, altho' under the gospel dispensation, instead of Christ and his righteous­ness, the bond-woman brings forth children yet, that must as assuredly be cast out, as ever Ishmael was.

Now I apprehend it is quite plain from Paul's epistle to the Galatians that it is in this light he tells them, that if they became circumcised they would be debtors to do the whole law; that if they set out upon that foot­ing, even so far as to be circumcised, under a notion that it was part of their justifying righteousness, (which they did, it seems, and hence was so loth to give it up) then they must go a thorow stich with it, and get a righte­ousness as perfect as it demands; as he shews abundantly it must b [...] wholly of works, or wholly of grace. Now if Paul had look'd upon it that circumcision in every circumstance, laid the subject of it under an obligation to do the whole law, in point of justification, he never would have circumcised Timothy when he did. He knew that circumcision as Abraham practised it, was a seal of the covenant of grace, and as he practised it, when he circumcised Timothy it was but a meer indif­ferent thing. But as the self-righteous Jews and Gala­tians did it, he saw it was like to prove fatal to their souls; hence he earnestly disswades them from it. If the Jews had universally understood, and improved the Sinai dispensation as they ought, and kept Hagar as a servant, and not married her as a wife, circumcision would have sealed no other righteousness than that of faith, as it did to Abraham, and other true believers, according to the [...]itive institution of it; neither [Page 35]would they have been so tenacious of the outward cere­mony of it, when the gospel dispensation had abolished it.

Now because the self-righteous Jews misimproved the Sinai dispensation, and married the law [...] a coven­ant of works, and misapplied circumcision, and made it a bond of that covenant to themselves; you and other baptist writers, pretend that this were the nature and design of these things in reality; that the Sina [...] dispen­sation was given of God as the covenant of works, and that the Jewish church was form'd by God upon the covenant of works, and circumcision instituted of God as the seal of the covenant of works. But your opinion herein is wholly on the send of sad mistake, as the new testament shews. Tho' so much is true. I [...]reely allow, that when the self righteous folks do cleave to the cove­nant of works as being agreeable to their legal temper, and wicked hearts, God holds them to the terms of that covenant they choose, and damns them eternally accor­ding to the strictness of it.

But to suppose that the chief end and design of the Sinai dispensation was to give forth a dispensation of the covenant of works, and form the Jewish church upon that covenant, is absurd with a wit­ness. I apprehend the natural tendency and design of the Sinai dispensation, when any thro' grace, fell in with the true design of it, was on purpose to bring the Jews off from the covenant of works, to which they and all men naturally are very fond of cleaving. It seems, that there God acted out, in an external dispensation, what he does internally by his Spirit upon every soul he brings off from the covenant of works, and to a com­pliance with the covenant of grace, in true conversion. First the Spirit of God [...]ets home the law upon the sin­ner's heart, not with a design to make the man cleave to the law as a covenant of works, but with a contrary design, viz. to make him cleave from the law, as a co­venant, [Page 36]understanding its strictness and severity. So in the Sinai dispensation, the moral law came forth in aw­ful terror, containing the nature and substance of the covenant of works, cursing the sinner, to humble their pride, and make them sensible they stood in need of a Mediator, and so to fall in with the covenant of grace; and so the law was to subserve the gospel, and as Ha­gar in her right place, was to serve Sarah, and so the Sinai dispensation was to help forward and promote the salvation of sinners by the covenant of grace. And thus I think it must appear to every understanding and unprejudiced mind, that circumcision laid the Galati­ans and many of the self-righteous Jews, under an ob­ligation to perform the covenant of works, or get a perfect law-righteousness of their own, not from God's institution, order, design and appointment, (had they fallen in with that) but from their own wicked perver­sion of things, viz their misusing and misimproving the law, and misapplying circumcision. For my part I wonder how you, and other baptists, who pretend to be such new-testament men, dare venture to go so right a­breast against the new-testament interpretation of cir­cumcision, which declares, (as it was instituted and rightly improved) it a seal of the righteousness of the faith. How can it then properly and truly belong to the covenant of works?

I observe, sir, that you, and some other baptist writ­ers, in order to get along with your scheme in annexing circumcision with the institution of the covenant of works, you choose to say little or nothing about this text, Rom. 4.11. But with a degree of art and elo­que [...]ce, stip alo [...]g as smothly by it as you can, as if you did not want to see the true import and meaning of it, nor that we should neither; but with a [...]w of words, and a glib way and manner of uttering them, you hope to pass in safety this dangerous spot; and herewith also hope to bribe us to a belief that you pass along without [Page 37]meeting with so much as one brier or thorn, to scratch even your outside cloaths; when at the same time I can't but think your insides are scratch'd and torn, and put to a good deal of pain to get along as you do. If you should ask me why I conjecture so, I will tell you one reason of it, and I think a substantial one, viz. That I have conversed with many of the baptist, one time or another, who assert as you do, that circumcision was not a seal of the covenant of grace, but of the covenant of works. Then only ask them how they reconcile that assertion with Paul's words, Rom. 4 11. where he says, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith. And they a [...]e puzz [...], they will nestle round, and shift the conversation, and seem to be as afraid to have this text held up before them, as they would be (by way of comparison) of a [...]a [...]ed Can­non; and I never yet was able to obtain a rational an­swer to such a question, by all I ever conversed with, nor don't know how they mean to reconcile it, as rati­onal creatures, to satisfy their own minds and conscien­ces in the affair.

But what I have observed is not the only proof that circumcision was the seal, token, or bond of the cove­nant of grace, as really as baptism is now, altho' under a different dispensation. Let us therefore consider this matter a little further. [...]oth circumcision and baptism were of divine appointment, and consisted of an exter­nal sign, and a spiritual mist [...]ry signified there by: and altho' the outward sign of circumcision and baptism dif­fer, yet the inward and spiritual signification of them but [...] very much agree in one, as to the essential things therein, and point at one and the same thing, and there­fore both belonged to one and the same covenant. Let us see in the spiritual m [...]stery, somewhat of their one­ness, agreement and harmony, altho' their outward sign differs.

Circumcision in the outward sign of it, was that cir­cumcision [Page 38]which was said to be made with hands; the spiritual mistery signified thereby was that circumcision made without hands, viz. heart cir­cumcision, the effect of renewing grace.

Baptism, in the outward sign of it, is the ap­plication of water in a sacred manner ordinancial­ly, or the washing with water; "I baptize you with water," says John. The inward mistery signified thereby is the baptism of the holy Ghost and of fire; or the inward washing and cleansing from sin in the blood of Christ; or the washing of regeneration and renewings of the holy Ghost, which is the same thing with heart circumcision.

Again, if these ordinances are considered as a convictive sign, both of our disease and remedy, there seems to be an agreement here. Circum­cision, rightly understood, doubtless carries a con­viction and an acknowlegement of defilement, by natural generation, the sign itself very significant­ly seems to point that out; and the sign being painful and bloody, carries also a conviction and an acknowlegement of the remedy in the circum­cision of Christ, that is, by his blood. So bap­tism, by washing, acknowleges native defilement, as well as the virtue of Christ's blood to cleanse.

Again, if we consider these ordinances as an obliging sign, or bond of the covenant, there is an agreement here also.

Circumcision laid Abraham and his children, under a bond to look solely to Christ, and free grace, (the good contain'd in the covenant) for salvation; and strength to serve God acceptably: which Abraham, and all the faithful in the jew­ish [Page 39]church, thro' grace did, as really as believers do now under the gospel dispensation. And those of the circumcised, who did not thus do, broke thro' a strong bond, and their sin became aggra­vated, and without repentance, their punishment too, as the scriptures abundantly shew.

So baptism may be considered as a bond, obli­ging the believer, and his seed, to look solely to Christ for righteousness and justification, for par­doning mercy and sanctifying grace; for strength to serve God acceptably here, and a glorious im­mortality hereafter. And if the children of be­lievers, under the bond of baptism, don't thro' grace, come up to those obligations, both their sin and punishment will be dreadfully aggravat­ed; for the nigher any stand related to God, and his gracious covenant, and the higher they are exalted, by their situation, with privileges, the lower they must fall, and the deeper they must sink into hell, if they abuse the same, and conti­nue impenitent.

I don't say there is an exact parrallel, in every thing, between circumcision and baptism, nei­ther need there be, as the baptists pretend there must be, a parity throughout, in order to have them both seals of the covenant of grace; but that is mere fallacy, or folly, as I could easily shew, were it not a needless waste of time. But there being a parity and agreement in the spirit­ual mistery signified by both, in the main essen­tials thereof, it is entirely sufficient. Doubtless there was something in circumcision typical of Christ and of his death, as yet to come, who was [Page 40]to be born of the holy circumcised seed of Abra­ham, and yet to be born of a woman, altho' the females were not circumcised, to shew perhaps, while the bloody sign was only to pass upon the males, that Christ alone was to suffer for, and in the room of the church, his spouse; for of the people there was none with him. And perhaps this may be one reason why females were exempted from the painful and bloody sign of the covenant under the typical dispensation. But now under the gospel dispensation, the sufferings of Christ being over, the painful seal ceases, a mild seal commences, and females are brought under it, this signifying, that altho' the spouse of Christ was not to share with him in the curse, yet she is to share with him in the blessings.

III.|I come now to consider the new testa­ment interpretation of the jewish church, after the Sinai dispensation, and the yoke of the cere­monial law, was laid upon them. The rites and ceremonies laid upon the jewish church, were very numerous; of which, as Paul says, I cannot now speak particularly; but shall only observe in general, that that was a testament of blood. There was atoning blood, sprinkling blood, cleansing blood. For saith the apostle, Heb. 9.22. Al­most all things are by the law purged with blood.— Now, altho' this ceremonial blood was weak in itself considered, and could not take away sin; yet it declared there was blood efficatious enough to do it, and it pointed them right to Christ and his blood, that does make an atonement to the full satisfaction of divine justice; and does purge the [Page 41]conscience, and cleanse from sin. And all those then in the jewish church, who understood the true nature of these ceremonial institutions, and fell in with the design of God therein, read the atonement of Christ's blood therein, and by faith fled thereunto for cleansing and for salvation.— And a baptist knows not what he says, nor where­of he affirms, when he asserts that that was a dis­pensation of the covenant of works, or denies it to be the covenant of grace. What, does the co­venant of works provide a Mediator for sinners? and point out the way of life by the Mediator's death? A strange sort of a covenant of works, that points the way of salvation by free grace. But there are two things which I apprehend that the baptist do not rightly distinguish, which proves the means of their mistake here, and has led them to consider the Sinai-dispensation a co­venant of works, upon which they say the jewish church was form'd, and not upon the covenant of grace.

First, I apprehend that the baptists do not dis­tinguish the covenant of grace, appearing in an external form of administration, and, the internal efficacy on the heart. And therefore when they read of the legal services, and so many carnal or­dinances as they are called, enjoin'd upon the jewish church, they are ready to say, these can't belong to the covenant of grace, for that is effi­cacious to inspire life into the soul, or put the law of God into the heart.

Secondly, the baptists don't distinguish between the true nature and right improvement of the ce­remonial [Page 42]institutions, and how the Jews in ge­neral did improve them. How they did improve them, and how they ought to have improved them are two things. They ought to have improved them so as to have been led to Christ by them, and to have accepted of salvation by free grace in the way of the new covenant: But they did, the body of them, so improve the ceremonial in­stitutions as to make them a covenant of works to themselves, and so clave to that covenant.— And what was in the event, the baptist pretend was the intent of that dispensation, viz. a coven­ant of works. But it is all a mistake. What if one should say, that the gospel dispensation was a dispensation of the covenant of works, and should think to prove it by this, viz. that many professors under the gospel substitute the externals of gospel duties, ordinances, rites and ceremonies; instead of Christ, and make a righteousness of their pri­vileges & doings, cleave to the covenant of works, and live and die under that covenant. I say, not­withstanding this is a sad and awful truth, doubt­less, with respect to many under the gospel; yet will this prove that the gospel dispensation is a dispensation of the covenant of works? Doubtless baptists and all will say no. And no better proof have they, that the typical dispensation was a dispensation of the covenant of works.

But what I principally aim at, under this head, is, to consider briefly, that notwithstanding all the legal services, carnal ordinances and indeed car­nal men, in the jewish church, yet things were not, even then, so altogether typical of something [Page 43]future, concerning the covenant of grace, and the spiritual glory of the gospel church, as to deny a dispensation of the covenant of grace, and a spi­ritual church then existing, altho' the glory there­of was comparatively low, & vail'd with a type.

Let us hear then how the new testament con­siders the jewish church under the ceremonial law. Gal. 4.1, 2. "Now this I say, that the heir as long as he is a child, dissereth nothing from a servant, tho' he be lord of all. But is under tutors and governors until the time appoin­ted of the father."

Now this passage is, I know, by good divines, sometimes applied to an e [...]ect [...]ou [...], before conver­sion, as differing nothing from others, but is un­der the curse and severity of the mor [...] law, or the broken covenant of works, [...] he is con­verted, and so obtains freedom and deliverance from the curse thereof. But I dare say, this is not the principal meaning of Paul, nor the text. For by the heir, in these two different circum­stances, Paul speaks of; as first under age, there to be tutor'd, and that with a good deal of seve­rity, as if he was but only a servant, and not a child: And then coming forth out of that cir­cumstance, into liberty and freedom, as a child does who has got to be of age—I say, by this heir, Paul means to point out the church of God in two different periods: The heir in minority, under tutors, &c. represents the church under the ceremonial law, which was very severe: But the heir coming into freedom, no more to be under his former tutors and governors, represents the [Page 44]church in the gospel day, coming into gospel liberty and freedom, and no more to come under that heavy yoke, the ceremonial law. And all who read Paul's epistle to the Galatians with un­derstanding, and take the chain of his arguments, will see this to be the case; yet I allow that the church under the gospel, is favoured more emi­nently with internal and spiritual blessings, and commences into a circumstance more pure and spiritual than under the typical dispensation. But then what I aim to remark from this new testa­ment interpretation of the church under the cere­monial law, is, that there was the existance and being of a spiritual church, even then, (tho' not in the gospel form) although the spiritual glory of it was comparatively low, and vail'd with a type. If this was not so, Paul brought a very unsuitable similitude to represent the case by. A man, an heir, at liberty and freedom, had exist­ance and being, when but a child; and altho' now he throws away the habit he wore when he was a child, and bids adieu to his old school-master, who then learn'd him his letters, & betakes him­self now to employment that more becomes a state of manhood; yet he is to be considered as one and the same person, in these two different cir­cumstances, the latter of which is much to be preferred before the first. So God considered his church as a child under age, and dealt with it accordingly under the typical dispensation, and by types and shadows did as it were, take the child by the hand, and lead it to the spiritual substance. But at the time appointed of the father, viz. in [Page 45]the gospel day, God considers his church more advan­ced in age, and ripeness for freedom, and treats it ac­cordingly; which latter circumstance of the church is much to be preferred to the former. But if the church was not under a dispensation of the covenant of grace, but form'd upon the covenant of works, as the baptists pre [...]end, nor to be considered in a degree spiritual, how could it then, with any propriety, be called a child and in the gospel day advanced to manhood? When accor­ding to the baptists, there were no advancement to it; but were to be considered as two distinct churches in their nature, the one instituted and constituted by God to be a carnal church in the d [...]sign of it; the latter in­stituted and constituted by God [...]o be a spiritual church. And also according to the baptists these two different churches are form'd upon two different covenants, which d [...]ffer in their nature and essence, viz. that the jewish church was form'd upon the covenant of works, do and live. And the gospel church only form'd upon the covenant of grace. And if this were the case, it seems Paul should have took some other similitude, and of different species, the one specie to represent the Jews church by, form'd upon the covenant of works; the o­ther specie to represent the gospel church by, form'd up­on the covenant of grace, viz such a similitude as this, That the ox or the horse was under tutors and govern­ors, but the child is free: yea, free as soon as it was born; for according to the baptist, the true church never had existance until the gospel day.

IV. I am to consider the new testament inter [...]a­tion, and representation of the breaking off of th [...] [...] from their church-state, and the g [...]afting in of the Gen­tiles. Now the apostle represents this in the 11th cha. Rom. by the similitude of an olive tree, natural branches, and wild. By this olive tree, Paul means to represent the Jews in their covenant relation to God; by the na­tural branches which were broken off, he means the Jews [Page 46]who fell by unbelief, and forfeited their standing in co­venant relation to God, and in severity God took the forfeiture at their hands, and rejected them. And by the olive tree, wild by nature, which was grafted in a­mong the natural branches that stood, Paul means the Gentile church. From all which we may fairly and truly argue thus: That if the Gentiles, by being graf­ted in among the natural branches that were not broken off, do stand related to God, as his church, by the ex­ternal administration of the covenant of grace, under the gospel dispensation; then the natural branches, be­fore they were broken off, did stand related to God by the same covenant, altho' under a different dispensation, or a different form of administration.

Again, If some of the natural branches were not bro­ken off by unbelief, but by faith kept their standing in covenant relation to God, and this standing in cove­nant relation to God, in the gospel day, is a standing in relation to God as his church and covenant peo­ple, by, and according to the external administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel dispensation: Then the natural branches did before, stand related to God by the external administration of the same coven­ant of grace, altho' under a different dispensation of it. What sense would there be in saying, that when the Gentiles came to be taken into a covenant relation to God, even by the covenant of grace, that they were grafted in, if the Jews had not stood in relation to God by the same covenant? but another covenant essentially different. Do you think, sir, that the Gentile church is grafted into the covenant of works? and stand in rela­tion to God by a dispensation of that covenant? Or do you suppose the Gentile church is grafted in to a cove­nant relation to God, by a covenant that is merely nati­onal, that does not mean, nor carry spiritual blessings in the promise of it? Yes, you must hold to this abomi­nable absurdity; or else make Paul talk non-sense; or give up your assertion wherein you deny Abraham's [Page 47]covenant to be the covenant of grace, and deny the jewish church to stand related to God by a dispensation of the covenant of grace. According to the baptists. Paul should not have said broken off, and grafted in; for when he says, some of the natural branches were broken off, it fully implies that there yet remained the stump, stock, and some of the natural branches which were con­tinued along, and the Gentiles by ingrafting, come in upon that root. And hence says Paul to the Gentile church, B [...]ast not, for thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Now by this roo [...], stock, and branches which were continued, can't possibly mean the typical or cere­monial dispensation; for that had waxed old, and was vanished away; therefore it was the essence of the co­venant relation it self, that did not change with the change of dispensations. But as I said, according to the baptist notion, Paul should not have said, Some of the branches were broken off, and the Gentiles grafted in [...] but that all the branches, stock, an [...] root, and all sunk together, and a new stock and branches arose, essentially different. For if the church under the ceremonial law, was not under a dispensation of the covenant of grace, and the gospel church is, there can be no ingraftment in the case, but two distinct things.

But that we may learn further, what the breaking off the Jews, and the grafting in of the Gentiles meant, & intended, the parable of the vineyard, Mat. 21. may afford us some light. None will deny, I suppose, but that the vineyard represented and meant the jewish church-state, with the privileges thereof, which they fadly and wickedly abused, as you may see at large in the parable, as Christ there represents and sets it forth. Then Christ demanded of his hearers, what they thought the lord of the vineyard would do to those wicked hus­bandmen? They answer, miserably destroy them, and let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their season. Now it seems that Christ ap­proved [Page 48]of their answer, for he further adds and says; The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Now by the king­dom of God here, it is evident that the same thing is meant that the vineyard represented, which as I noted before was the jewish church-state, with i [...]s privileges; and says Christ, it shall be giv [...]n to a nation bringing forth, the frui [...]s thereof; referring to the Gentile nation, who was about to receive the gospel, and thro' grace, did bring forth, in some measure, answerable fruit. But now observe here, that it was the same vineyard, the same kingdom of God, which was taken from the Jews, that Christ says should be given to [...]he Gentiles; that is, it must mean a relation to God by the same covenant, viz the covenant of grace, although not under the same dispensation of it.

But it s [...]ems that if you had been to have explain'd, or represented this matter, your principles would not allowed you to have explained it just as Christ has done. But your principles would have necessi [...]ated you to re­present the matter some how after this manner, viz. ‘That the jewish church, by a certain covenant relation they stood in to God, distinct in its nature from the covenant of grace, had certain favours and privileges granted to them, which might be compared to a vine­yard let out, the fruits of which they were bound to return in due season; but for their unfaithfulness and unfruitfulness, God in righteousness determined he would take the vineyard from them. And what will he do with it? Will he give it to the Gentiles, and try them whether they will render answerable fruit? No, but God will take away the vineyard from the Jews. and give the Gentiles another essentially d [...] ­ferent, and a thousand times better in its nature.’

For certainly, if the jewish church did not stand re­lated to God by a dispensation of the covenant of gra [...]e, but if they were form'd or constituted upon a disp [...]sa­tion [Page 49]of the covenant of works; or upon a covenant merely national that did not carry spiritual blessings in it; very certain it is that the privileges of the same co­venant are not given to the Gentile church. But Christ says, the same vineyard, the same kingdom of God, shall be taken from the Jews, and given to the Gentiles; and who must I believe? when Christ says it is the same, I think it it safest and best to credit him, let the baptists say otherwise ever so peremptorily.

But I think enough has been said under these four foregoing heads, to shew, that what you charge us with is not true, viz. That we do not construe and interpret the new testament by the old, in order to support infant baptism: But contrarily, we adhere to the new testa­ment interpretation of the old, and hence find a warrant for the practice. For from what has been said above, we may, I think, remark these following things, as grounded and established upon the new testament testi­mony, viz.

1. That the covenant with Abraham was the coven­ant of grace, containing spiritual blessings, Gal. 3.17. Luk. 1.72,—75.

2. That circumcision was a seal of the covenant of grace, Rom. 4.11.

3. That when by God's gracious and sove [...]ign ap­pointment, Abraham's natural seed were included with­in the external administration of the covenant of grace, and brought under the bond and seal of the covenant, are considered as standing in covenant relation to God, and as belonging to his visible kingdom, Acts 3.25. Rom. 9.3. Mat. 8.12.

4. That to stand thus related to God by covenant, even by the external administration of the covenant of grace, and brought under the seal and bond thereof, is considered as a distinguishing mercy, great favour, pri­vilege and benefit, Rom. 3.1, 2. Acts 3.26. chap. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14.

[Page 50] 5. That the Gentile church is grafted in to the same covenant relation to God; that is, related to God by the same covenant of grace, as the jewish church once stood in, altho' under a more glorious dispensation of the one & the same covenant, and are come under the promise and blessings of it, so that the blessing of Abraham is come on the believing Gentiles; to whom God said, thro' the promised seed, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, as the language and tenor of his gracious covenant; by virtue of which gracious promise, Abraham did claim spiritual blessings to his own soul, and a place for his children, in God's visible kingdom, and under the bond and seal of God's covenant, Rom. 10 17. Gal. 3 11.14.

But that the blessing of Abraham is come on the be­lieving Gentiles, and by their relation to God by the same covenant, they may claim the good of the promise, which is the same still, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, the new testament will help us to some further confirm­ation respecting this: For we do find in the new testa­ment, that where one of the parents is a believer, the fe­deral holiness of the children is asserted.—By God's gracious covenant with the believer, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, where there is one parent thus related to God, and his gracious promise, the wickedness of the other can [...] make null the promise; for the children are considered as standing in relation to the believing par­ent, and holds that relation, to that parent and God's gracious covenant, as much as if the other parent had no being. 1 Cor. 7.14. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.—As for your baptist nauseous inter­pretation of the word holy, here in this place, that it means the children are not bastards, I don't think it worth while to spend time to make a reply to it, seeing it is so mean a plea, to get by the force of our arguments, and suffi­ciently confuted many a time already: only this I shall observe, that it seems to be evident, by the drift and scope of the apostle's argument, that that holiness he there spoke of, was in consequence of one of the parent's being a believer.

[Page 51] Furthermore, the new testament confirms our opinion, because it speaks of, and holds forth houshold [...] baptism. 1 Cor. 1.16 Acts 16 15. And Peter, speaking of No­ [...]h's houshold-salvation from the deluge, which was ob­tained upon the account of the housholder, he only be­ing upright, he makes baptism a figure of [...]t, or that a figure of baptism. 1 Pet. 3.21. But if we deny housh­old baptism upon the account of the believing housh­older, and hold that baptism is to be administred to in­dividuals upon their own personal right, it more lamely, if at all answers, the one to the other, as a figure. But if we consider believing Noah taking his family into the ark, and thereby gives them a figurative salvation, that is, instrumentally by him, and upon his account they had it, and hereby, and herewith, he taught them, (for he was a preacher of righteousness) what was necessary to their eternal salvation. And then view the figure in baptism, while the believing housholder takes his hous­hold under baptismal washing on his account, and teach­es them they must also be washed with the washing of regeneration and the renewings of the Holy Ghost, in order to eternal salvation; which is an acknowledgement that water baptism does not put away the filth of the flesh; but in it there is the answer of a good conscience, viz. in the housholder, while he himself subjects to the ordinance of baptism, in the belief that his sins are wash­ed away in the blood of Christ, and brings his children under baptismal washing or springling, a figure of sav­ing washing in the blood of sprinkling which cleanses from all sin.

Agreeable hereunto we find that upon the conversion of the head of a family, the houshold was baptised, Acts 16 15.33. 1 Cor. 1.16. And altho' there is no mention made of infants, yet housholds do include infants, and that is sufficient for our purpose.

So that believers under the gospel, I mean such of them who have their understandings fruitful in the [Page 52]knowledge of the word and will of God, in this point, relating to the scriptural grounds and warrant for the practice of infant baptism, may unite and sing, with the understanding, faith, and gratitude, to the glory of God and free grace, the following song, when they dedicate their children to God in baptism, viz.

Perhaps, sir, you will say, that if I intended to write upon this controversy, I ought to have taken the bap­tists arguments in course, and answered them in their order particularly. To which I answer, in a few parti­culars, as,

1. What I aim'd at principally in this letter was to dwell upon the positive side, and establish that, or rather shew the establishment of that, and so meddle with no more of the baptists arguments than naturally fell in my way, in order for so doing.

2. That method would be too long and tedious, and not at all consistent with my designed brevity.

3. I apprehend that there is no need of taking that method; for if I aim'd to kill a tree of vile fruit, I think one stroke well laid at the root, would do as much good as three or four struck at the boughs and branches.— [Page 53]And what I have here written, and the plan I have gone upon, if it stands the trial of the written word, saps your scheme to the bottom, and overthrows it by the roots, that the boughs and branches must die of conse­quence; I mean in scripture-informed minds.—And if the substance of what I have here written, and the main drift and plan I have gone upon, will not stand the trial of God's written word, I will turn baptist myself, as soon as ever I am convinced of it. Not that I expect this will ever be; for I never was more fully established in the scripture warrant for infant baptism, than I have been since I read your answer to Mr. F's letter; to see how, such a writer as you, was obliged to misinterpret the plain spirit and meaning of some parts of the scripture, in order to get along with your scheme.

I know that the baptist pretend that they can raise so many and mighty objections against this scriptural plan, I have been attempting to point out, for the warrant of infant baptism, that thereby they think they can over­throw it. But I think if they should raise as many ob­jections against this plan, as there are stars in the firm­ament, yet I apprehend, that with all their multitude and magnitude they must be driven back before it, and made to disappear, as all the stars in the fimament are driven back and made to disappear before the rising sun. So that virtually, all objections are answered already, in this scriptural plan established, for the grounds and war­rant for infant baptism. However, I will proceed to answer one or two of the heaviest objections, that I know of, which you have against the practice, before I conclude this letter.

1. Objection, That to baptise infants makes them members of the church, and gives them a right to the Lord's-supper, as circumcision gave a right to the pas­sover; for if infants have a right to one seal, they must to the other; for captism is as sacred an ordinance as the Lord's-supper; and if they have a right to both, this is [Page 54]to build the church with unconverted men, as such, which is contrary to the general language of the new testament,

To which I answer,

1. I acknowlege that some who hold to, and practice infant baptism, do improve it according to the objection above, and suppose that the infant baptised has a right to the Lord's-supper, without any true grace, or the professon of any. But I suppose it to be an abuse and wrong improvement of the doctrine and practice of in­fant baptism. But shall we reject infant baptism for that? If we reject every thing that has been abused, we must reject the whole bible.

2. The objection, or objector, don't distinguish what kind of right, nor in what manner, the believer's infant has a right to baptism. The child of a believer has not a right to baptism by personal qualifications, but relative? that is, standing so related to his believing parent: be­cause that God in his gracious and sovereign pleasure, was pleased so to couple the believer and his child to­gether in this matter, that in the External administra­tion of the Covenant of grace, one seal should be ap­plied to both parent and Child. And Ishmael, tho' a wicked Child, and turn'd out wicked in the end, yet had the same relative qualification that Isaac had; that is, he stood so related to his godly Father, that by God's gracious Covenant, it became Abraham's duty, and Ishmael's priviledge, to have the seal of Gods covenant, and the parent's faith, applied to the Child. But Ish­mael abusing his prilviledges, growing profane and wicked, and not having, nor producing the personal qua­lifications requisite for a continuance in God's church, even under that (comparatively) dark dispensation, was rejected, and purged out. So the children of believers, being baptized, or having the seal of God's gracious covenant applied to them, under the gospel dispensation, 'tis upon their relative qualification, and their right comes by their parents, or parent; God's covenant be­ing [Page 55]still the same, with the believer, thou and thy seed. But now if these baptised children come to the Lord's-table, they are the actors, and not their parents; and coming upon their own perso­nal right, they must have the personal qualificati­ons requisite; and the new testament shews what they be, and insists much upon them; as faith and repentance, or in a word, the truth of grace.

3. I remark a mistake in the above objection. When the baptist perceive, we hold with them, that true grace is requisite in order to come to the Lord's-supper, with the divine approbation, they seem to triumph in bringing this objection against us, viz. That we pretend to hold infant baptism, from circumcision, and yet won't let them come to the Lord's-supper upon that; whereas circum­cision, say they, gave the Israelites a right to the passover. But here is some mistake, and the bap­tist seem to be quite willing to join with the ^† Stoddardeans against us in it; perhaps they think the better to serve their own turn by it. But I apprehend two armies against the truth, will ne­ver overthrow it; especially when both are in­volved in one mistake. The mistake is this; they [Page 56]say that circumcision gave the Israelites a right to the passover; whereas I find there was a concur­rence of other things and circumstances necessary, in order to attend the passover with the divine approbation. Look in Gen. 12. where the passover was first instituted, and there we find personal directions how & after what manner the passover ought to be attended. They were to eat the pass­over with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, to denote that repentance accompanies faith: That those who feed on Christ, the Lamb of God by faith, do it with bitter repentance for sin. So there were personal directions further, they were to eat the passover with their loins girded, shoes on their feet, and their staves in their hands; and was this to shew that they were circumcised? No, but to shew that they were personally, and actually in a marching posture from Egypt to Ca­naan, and that the power and strength of Egypt, that night was broke. And afterwards they never were to eat the passover but in the circumstance of being found ceremonially clean; as well as to be circumcised. Circumcision was a duty previ­ous to the eating of the passover, I allow; and so is baptism previous to the Lord's-supper, and re­quisite in order thereunto, but I can't allow it qualifies therefor, but where there is the concur­rence of other things, viz. those personal qualifi­cations the gospel requires; when any can come and feed on Christ the Lamb of God, with that faith which true repentance attends, and shew that they are in a marching posture to the hea­ [...]ly Canaan, and their native bondage to sin and [Page 57]satan is broke.—And besides, to suppose that God did not then under the typical dispensation, re­quire any thing spiritual in the manner of their attending upon the passover, in order for his gra­cious approbation, but only in a manner to answer to the letter of the type, is to me, giving a strange idea and representation of the unchangeable God. And yet if I form my opinion upon the baptists representation of things I must conclude that form­erly God was solax & indifferent, that he required, and was content with only ceremonial holiness; but now is grown so severe that he requires, and nothing less will content him, than real holiness in his people.

But while I attend to these things, I find I am led where I am beset on both sides with objecti­ons, and need the two edged sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, that will cut both ways, and make the path of truth appear, notwithstand­standing the attempts to block it up with objec­tions; and trusting I have the same at hand, I shall make a reply here both ways, And

1. To a Stoddardean objection, which is, that we have no right to keep a baptised person from the Lord's-supper, if he be outwardly moral, al­tho' he has no true grace, nor so much as professes it.

2. On the other hand the baptists say, it does the child no good to baptise it before it has faith, this don't enable it to believe, nor secure it salva­tion, and therefore it is no benefit at all.

Now both these objections arise from one root, however different the aims and character of the [Page 58]parties may be who make them, viz. from this they both arise, a secret kind of taking it for gran­ted that it is not a person's sin, even under the light of the gospel, that he don't truly believe in Christ, or become converted. Now if this supposition were true the objections might possibly have some grounds to stand upon, but it being false, the ob­jections are only like castles in the air.

1. I shall reply to the Stoddardean objection. And as I remark'd before, one who comes to the Lord's-supper, as it is a personal act, so the agent must come upon his personal right, and conse­quently must be possessed of the personal qualifi­cations required, which I think is not merely in­fant baptism, nor an outward moral life, but true faith. And as this might be proved from the new testament in general, so from the 11th. ch. of Rom. in particular. Paul is here speaking of the Jews who were broken off from their church-state by unbelief, and the Gentile church, who was grafted in by faith. Now the unbelief of the Jews who were broken off, and the faith of the Gentiles who were grafted in, are opposed to each other. But the unbelief of the Jews was damning, therefore the faith of the Gentiles was saving. And without any departure, or distinc­tion from this kind of faith by which the Gentile church at first was grafted in, Paul tells them they must stand. Thou (O Gentile church) stand­eth by faith. But what does Paul mean by stand­ing? Why in continuance; as his own words explain, Be not high-minded but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, viz. the Jews, [Page 59]take heed lest hé spare not you. So that the Gentile church is to stand in continuance in that relation to God as his church, by saith, and not by baptism in infancy and outward morality merely, as the Stoddardean prin­ciple pleads they may. But if the natural seed of be­lievers, who are distinguished from other children, by God's sovereign appointment, and their parent's act, and brought under the bond and seal of God's coven­ant, and hereby into an external nearness to God, and laid under additional obligations to repent of sin, believe in Christ, choose God for their only portion, and un­feignedly to dedicate themselves to him, even for time and eternity: I say, if they refuse to do this, in these circumstances, and continue in possitive damning unbe­lief, refusing Christ, & a cordial compliance with the gos­pel; they not only judge themselves unworthy of eter­nal life, but hereby render themselves unworthy of a continuance in God's visible church in the gospel day, which is to stand in continuance, by saith; therefore such must go out like a wicked Ishmael, and a profane Esau, who sold his birth-right; and the blame must lie upon themselves, and not upon God, who appoi [...]s rules, nor upon his church who attends to them. But O! is not this hard? I answer, That if impenitency and un­belief in these circumstances, was only their calamity & not their sin, it would be hard indeed: but if unbelief is their sin, and the greatest of sins, in these circumstan­ces. I don't know who would think this hard, that won't think damnation harder, to be inflicted for the same sin.

But a Stoddardean, upon the principle, will say, no, it is unreasonable that a baptised child should go out of God's visible church, & his seed with him, & to become heathen, for the want of true faith; no [...] let one who was baptised in infancy, do as well as he can when he becomes adult, without the grace of true faith. & [...]e shall preserve to himself and his posterity a standing in the church of God: that is, let him profess his speculative [Page 60]faith and moral sincerity, and he shall obtain a right to the Lord's-supper for himself, and baptism for his chil­dren. Therefore I suppose one breathing out the very spirit of the Stoddardean principle, may address himself to a baptised child, now grown to adult years, and has children of his own, after this manner; ‘O! to my grief and sorrow, I find that there is some such cruel ministers and churches in the land, who would sain be so severe to persons in your circumstances, as to hold you off from the Lord's-table, and deny you baptism for your children, and cause that you, at least that your children become heathen, because you han't that special grace of faith, belonging, and peculiar to regenerate men; when notwithstanding you are pos­sessed of so many amiable qualities and virtues. I see you have a good conversation, a civil and moral life; and you hold to orthodox principles, and are ready to profess your speculative saith and moral sin­cerity, and willingness, on this wise, to come under covenant engagements to serve God for the future, as far as by his grace he shall enable you. God forbid that his ministers and churches should deny you and your children ordinances, and a continuance in the church upon such an upright profession.’

And thus the principle sooths up, and flatters the un­believer, as tho' it was not his sin that he don't truly believe, provided he is willing to come forward in the profession and practice of the externals of religion. But I don't find that the gospel thus paliates the soul-dam­ning sin of unbelief, neither will it compound matters with the unbeliever, and accept of other things, in the liou of true faith.

2. And from the same root, as I said, as supposing that unbelief is not much of a sin, if any, does the baptist objection arise when they say, it does the child of a believer no good to baptise it before it has saith, for baptism don't secure salvation to the child, nor enable it to believe, &c. To which I answer,

[Page 61] The question is not whether baptism secures the sal­vation of the child of a believer, not whether it enables the child to believe. But the question is whether the child is not hereby bro't under an additional obligation to believe and repent; and whether thi [...] additional ob­ligation thus to do, is not a great privilege, and of the nature of a mercy: and this is what I ass [...]rt. But if im­penitency and unbelief is not the sin of every man who enjoys the light of the gospel, and continues therein, then the obligation to believe and repent can't be more bin [...]ing in one circumstance than another: and the bap­tised child of a true believer, who by God's appoint­ment and the parent's act, is brought under the bond & seal of the covenant, is not additionally bound to believe and repent. But if it be a duty to believe and repent truly and savingly, then the obligation to perform this duty may admit of degrees, and the highest degree the greatest mercy. And God has a sovereing right to fa­vour some with a greater obligation laid upon them to believe and repent, than others. As for instance: A child born and bro't up in a land of gospel light, is un­der a greater obligation to love, fear, and serve God, than one born and brought up in a land of heathenish darkness. And this obligation is a great mercy & pri­vilege, as all will allow; and bestowed in a way of so­vereignty; for he came into being and existance in this situation, without any planning or contrivance of his own; and here he is bound. O blessed bond! the stronger the better; but if broken, the condemnation will be the greater. And what hinders but that there may be higher degrees of obligations laid upon some child­ren in way of sovereignty than what I have mentioned? even by God's appointment to be born in a greater ex­ternal nearness to him, than barely in a land of gospel light; to stand so related to God, & his church, as that by the external administration of the covenant of grace, to be placed under the bond and seal of it? Who dare [Page 62]say this is not a mercy and privilege? or that there is no additional bonds to God in this standing? Although thro' the sin of unbelief, many times, the privileges are misimproved, & the obligations with all their strength are broken, and the children of the kingdom, in this sense, are finally cast out and rejected of God; but they could not be cast out of God's kingdom, if they had not had, in some sense, a standing in it.

If men are not, and cannot be laid under obligations to believe and repent truly then I allow that the obliga­tion cannot be increased by difference of circumstances; and for the children of believers to be included in the external administration of the covenant of grace, and to be baptised in infancy, does them no good. But I trust that thro' grace. I never shall be left to embrace such corrupt ^† divinity.

[Page 63] 2. Objection. To baptise infants, is to make the church national under the gospel, like the jewish church, whereas according to the new testament, the church is considered as congregational only.

To which I answer,

1. That if infant baptism is supported by the word of God, then it may and ought to be practiced, let it make the church national, or what it will.

2. But the objection is not true; infant baptism does not make the church national, as to the essence of those things which denominated the jewish church national.— While the jewish church was national, their worship & discipline was so; they must come so often to Jerusalem to worship, and had they set up the like worship any where else, they would have been guilty of idolatry. But under the gospel, the worship is not fixed; neither in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, but they are the true wor­shipers who worship the Father in spirit and in truth.

And as to the discipline of the church under the gos­pel, it is congregational, with respect to the gathering, building, organising, cleansing, or whatsoever is neces­sary in order for the well being thereof; I say it is, or may be altogether congregational, and not a whit the less so because the individual members dedicate their children to God in baptism.

3. Objection. But the plain letter of the new testa­ment is, believe and be baptised To which I answer,

That the church was then first gathering and forming upon the gospel plan, and those of whom it was required that they should believe in order to receive baptism, were adult persons, and coming to that ordinance upon [Page 64]their own personal right; and hence the personal qua­lifications were demanded: tho' it appears, that some such brought their housholds with them, and it seems, as I apprehend, were baptised upon their relative quali­fications, as I before noted, and so shall not add here.— If I was going among the heathen, or in this land either, to baptise any upon their own personal right, I should say, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, and not else.

But before I conclude this letter, I would just remark a word or two upon some things I find in your answer to Mr. F's letter.

1. In the 73 pag. you charge it upon the principle and practice of infant baptism, without making any di­stinction, that such parents cry peace, peace to their chil­dren, when there is no peace.

Now I acknowlege that there is a disposition in the fallen race of man, to cry peace, peace to themselves, and to their children too, when God says there is no peace. And many who practice infant baptism, are awfully guilty herein, no doubt. But this is not to be charged upon the principle, but another cause. I have known some baptists, the rankest sort of Arminians, but I never thought of fathering arminianism upon the bap­tists principles, but upon another cause, viz. The corrup­tion of humane nature, together with satan's influence.

Again, on the other hand, there are some, not to say many, that go by the denomination of baptist, who were dipt deeper in the antinomian spirit than ever they were in the water; and from thence growing expert in sling­ing out their invectives, against Babylon, anti-christ & tradition, without making any proper distinctions; cal­ling every thing to be such that don't fellowship them in their antinomian travel, they commence very spirit­ual christians in their own op [...]nion; and are for a reli­gion just like their own minds, which is without form and void. Doctrional religion, and preaching the ter­rors [Page 65]of the law, with them is reproached as legal; and to preach up conviction, conversion, christian experience and a growing conformity to God, in the work of sanc­tification, with them is termed old fashion religion, that used to be in vogue when religion run low. They are after higher things, and more glorious, in their own view, than merely increase of holiness, growth in sanc­tification, and greater and greater conformity to God, viz. the travel of Zion according to the work and wit­ness of God in the spirit, as having out grown, and left all creeds, articles of faith, principles, and written church-covenants as merely a dead letter, belonging to anti-christ's kingdom. And hence they are always a building, & always a breaking: always upon the theme of union, and yet always contending; always right, and yet always altering; always in some glorious travel, but never get along (in the right way) a step. Now if I should measure the baptist principles and people, all off in a lump, by the principles and practices of these sort of baptists I have above mentioned, you would, I doubt not, think it was unfair dealing; and yet, it would be doing but as you have done, while you charge it upon the principle, and all who hold and practice infant bap­tism, of crying peace, peace to our children, as if safe enough, when we have once baptised them. Whereas this suggestion is a vile and wicked slander, let the man be ever so good from whom is came. For when, thro' grace, we act up to our principles, we are so far from crying peace, peace to our baptised children, that we cry wrath! wrath! the heaviest end of the divine wrath will enevitably fall upon them, if they go on in sin, and remain impenitent, seeing God has exalted them so high in point of privileges.

2. I remark, that with a good deal of satire and elo­quence, (not to say insult) you attempt to reproach Mr. F. and all in general who have wrote in favour of infant baptism, that they use great ambiguity of words in this [Page 66]controversy; so that their ways, like the harlots, are moveable that one cannot know them—But in so doing, you bring to my mind the apostle's severe reprimand, Rom. 2 11 Thou therefore which teachest another, teach­est thou not thy self? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? v. 1. Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thy self; for thou that judgest doth the same things. Yea, the very same that thou chargest them of doing. It is really marvellous to see with what ambi­guity you express yourself; a little hint by way of spe­cimen, I will here just drop. When you are denying the covenant with Abraham to be the covenant of grace, you say, the letter of it was do and live. Now I would ask whether you mean by this, that the letter of Abra­ham's covenant contradicted the true nature and spirit of it? if you don't, then I would ask again, Whether you really mean, that Abraham's covenant, which you say was do and live, was an Adam's covenant of works, which required perfect doing, as a condition of life? Now if you meant thus, it would so unavoidably in­volve you into such absurdities that I don't know how to think you really meant so. Therefore you have hid your meaning under ambiguous terms, unless you meant to use ambiguity upon design, which to me is very pro­bable. So again, speaking of Abraham's covenant, you use those scripture expressions where God told Abraham, when he had enjoin'd circumcision upon him, And my covenant shall be in your flesh. But you use them so ambi­guously that you don't distinguish whether you mean, as the scripture explains, that the token of God's cove­nant should be in their flesh, or the essence of the cove­nant; but the latter of which, with ambiguity of words you attempt to insinuate. So sometimes you seem to represent Abraham's covenant to be neither the coven­ant of works nor the covenant of grace; at other times almost conceed that it was the covenant of grace: But your words are so ambiguous, and ways so moveable, that I cannot know them.

[Page 67] 3. I would remark a word or two upon the general vein, and strain of your writings upon this subject. And truly, surprising it might well seem, to a christian and catholic mind, to observe how that your principles con­tract and narrow up, with such rigid superstition, a mind, which otherwise might be considered as noble, excellent, and praise-worthy. Placing the very offence of baptism in being put wholly under water; of which I shall not make any particular reply in this letter, for it has alrea­dy swelled in my hands much beyond my first intention, neither do I look upon the mode so material, as the sub­jects of baptism.—You write with such peremptory airs of boast, as being, by way of eminence, in the cause of God, while you are setting yourself against infant bap­tism, and triumph so much in the supposed clea [...]ness of proof, and fullness of demonstration for your si [...]e the question; with such a representation of the weakness, or wickedness of those on the other side; that I should be apt to think, as the saying [...]s, if a man was to drop out of the clouds, wholly ignorant of the scriptures in general, and this controversy in particular, and was to read your answer to Mr F's letter, and to form up a judgment by your representation of things there, he would go nigh to think that there was no man of sense, understanding nor conscience in favour of infant bap­tism. And it seems by the spirit of your writings, that you mean to insinuate and impose this notion on the ig­norant and credulous, that as fast as any come to act honestly for the truth of reformation, and the cause of God, they come into your sentiments and practice in th [...]se things. And it seems as if you was ready to con­clude, that what Job said once satirically concerning his three friends, ought to be applied to you and your par­ty, in sober sincerity. Doubtless ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. But I query in this case, what would be the harm, and wherein the impropriety? if we should repeat Job's words here, which his friends ex­torted [Page 68]from him by their censorious charge they bro't against him. What know ye that we know not also, and wherein are we inferior to you? Or to allude to the words of the apostle. Are ye ministers of Christ? [...]o are we. Are ye improved as instruments in the hands of God, for the conversion of souls? so are we. Are ye for refor­mation, purity of ordinances, and the power of godli­ness? so are we. Bear with me a little in this folly of boasting, ye have compelled me.

I have observed, sir, that with other things in your public writings, you have wrote, three or four times at least, in the vindication of your peculiar, baptist prin­ciples, and never have yet had, as I have known, or heard of any particular antagonist, in those points, that has appeared to write against you. And it seems that you began to think that the day was your own, that you had stop'd every bodies mouth, or at least had struck all with such intimidating fear, that there was not one stripting left who dare encounter with this great Goli­ah, that has been these several times, defying one branch of the army of the living God, viz. the little children of his gracious covenant, and visible kingdom.—And it seems you have lifted your sails rather too high—Be­gan to triumph before you h [...]d taken the field—At­tempted to divide the spoil, before you had won the battle.—Infant baptism is not given up yet—neither is it a going to be by the church of God in general, not­withstanding there be these, here and there, (and some of them very judicious christians in other respects, yet in this particular, one and all of them, I apprehend, may justly be term'd, near sighted people) who stick in­the latter and are not able to penetrate through the ba [...]k of the typical dispensation; I say, insant baptism is but a going to be given up, altho' such there are, rea­dy enough to boast of their number under water. But m [...] of a good understanding in the church of God, and that are blest with a clear sight in the knowlege of his [Page 69]holy word, that can thro' grace see, nigh at hand and at a distance too, can see the gospel as far off as Abra­ham's covenant, as truly, tho' not so clearly, as in the new testament, can see the new testament take off he vail from the old, and discover the spirituality thereof; that can see the harmony of the two testaments, and how they both terminate in one thing, even the salvati­on of sinners by the blood of Christ, the one dispensation by the help of a type, the other not needing of it, the anti-type being come; that can see the covenant of grace under both dispensations, and that the blessing of Abraham is come upon poor Gentile believers now in the gospel day. I say, such will see a solid foundation and scripture warrant for infant baptism, and feel firm and stable in the point, altogether unmoved, as having firm ground to stand upon, even in shaking [...]mes; while others who built th [...]r infant baptism upon the quick­sand and quag-mire of humane tradition and custom only, in shaking times, no wonder if they feel their foundation give way, and they sink and are plunged.

As God has united all true believers with Abraham, in the blessings of the one and same covenant, so all such as have their understandings fruitful herein, will unite with Abraham, not only in acknowledging the bles­sings thereof as it respects themselves personally, but their seed also. While others who are wanting in fruitful­ness of knowlege and understanding herein; altho' they profess to be the children of Abraham, yet in this point will not do the works of Abraham, but deny the seal of God's gracious covenant to their children, this did not Abraham.

But to draw towards a close, and as expresh [...] of my ideas, and the nature of the present subject, I shall here add a divine hymn, entitled, Circumcision and baptism.

P. S.

AS in the foregoing letter I have wrote, as the grounds and warrant for infant baptism, the true sentiments of my own mind, as it has been led, I trust, to take the truth from the word of God it self, and not from humane testimony; so I have pro­ceeded with taking but very little notice, of what others have wrote on my side the question before me.—So on the other hand, I don't pretend I have attended closely to a multitude of argu­ments which baptist authors have advanced to support their prin­ciples, only just some of them which fell in my way. For my design and aim has been, in the above letter, to dwell mainly on the positive side, and shew the scripture establishment thereof — And if what I have advanced on the positive side, for the estab­lishment of infant baptism, won't stand the trial of God's written word: tis not the answering of a thousand particular baptist arguments will make it stand: but if the ground work and foun­dation I have gone upon, is warranted by the scripture, then I think I may be excused from being obliged to go the tedious round of all particulars. Or if hereafter I should judge it neces­sary, and think I have a call thereto in providence, to answer any opposing arguments to the plan I have here laid down, I am ready to perswade [...]self they may all be shielded off, in a short [Page 71]and concise manner.—Therefore I give this public no­tice, that if you, sir, or any other baptist writer shall pretend to answer this foregoing letter, and don't attend immediately and directly to the ground work I have laid down; but leaving that unmolested, at least I mean if you don't attempt to molest it, but hover round about, or dwell upon other points, I shall look upon it so impertinent a performance, in all probability, that I shall not think it worthy of any further reply.

But to this it may be you will answer, that you also have been upon the positive side, endeavouring to shew the scripture war­rant for the baptist principles, and had as good a right to require me to attend directly to your plan, and the ground-work thereof, but seeing I have took another method, you have a right to call my performance so impertinent a piece that it deserves no answer.

If you should say thus, I am willing to say amen to the con­troversy; for I am far from desiring to continue in it; but let the judicious and impartial judge which of these two positives, your side the question and mine, both pretending to a scripture warrant; I say, let the judicious judge which in reality has it.

In the school of Christ we must, and may, learn to distinguish between a man and his sentiments. The man we must love, his sentiments we may hate. And thro' grace, I trust I can say, truly, I remain a cordial friend to your person, altho' I have appeared against your sentiments.