QUEST. WHETHER the practice of persons own­ing or renewing the covenant, and having baptism for their children, without coming immediately to full communion, be war­rantable?

Arguments for the affirmative.

I. I THINK the famous Mr. Mitch [...]ll's argument unans­werable. ‘1st. The whole visible church under the new testament is to be baptized. 2d. If a man be once in the church (whether admitted at age or in infancy) no­thing less than censurable evil can put him out. 3d. If the parent be in the visible church, his infant child is also.’

This was the chief argument that convinced Dr. Increase Mather. It is impossible to get over this argument, but by saying, that not coming immediately to the LORD'S table is a censurable evil, a sin that deserves excommunication. But did any church ever hold this? Who has heard or read of any person's being laid under the church-censure meerly on this account? I grant, that the contempt of this ordi­nance deserves excommunication, but not the meer abstain­ing from it for a while. That may proceed from too high thoughts of the ordinance, and low thoughts of themselves. To cut off such would be a breaking the bruised reed with a witness, as Mr. Le [...]nard justly observes in the church re­cords. We would bear with a communicant for not com­ing to the LORD'S table if he declares it is from scruples of conscience respecting his state, and not from contempt of the ordinance: Much more should we bear with a mem­ber, [Page 2]that never communicated. Such should be dealt with in the ministry of the word and from the pulpit, and not by church consure. They should not be treated as delinquent members (as in the case of heresy or scandal) but be used with all tenderness.

II. All the arguments brought for infant baptism in ge­neral do prove that baptism ought to be admin [...]stred in the latitude pleaded for. These arguments all center in this, that if the parents be in the covenant, the children are so like­wise, and so ought to have the seal of the covenant. Now it is granted on all hands, that the parents in question are in the covenant, consequently then children are so too; why then should they not be baptized? To deny the validity of this way of arguing is to give up the cause entirely to the Ana­baptists; and there is no way left to confute them, and their demand is just when they call for a direct scripture for infant baptism; as some demand a direct scripture in this case, which is exactly to tread in their steps. In short, there is as much proof for this point, as for infant baptism; we argue by scripture-consequence both in the one case and the same consequences prove both points.

III. CHRIST says, Luke xviii. 16. Su [...]r little children to come unto me, and forbid them no [...]; for of such as the kingdom of GOD, i. e. Such are of my church. (This is the ground of the rebuke.) The same may be said of the children in question. They are the children of men le [...]t, therefore members. And here we may observe, That CHRIST was never so angry with his [...]d disciples upon any oc­casion, as for this deba [...]ring of the subjects of his Kingdom being brought to him. Let us fear lest he be as angry with us, if we do the same. The disciples thought that they were not good men that brought these children; they ex­hibited no positive evidence of grace to their view; neither does CHRIST so much as intimate that they were gracious. But the ground he seems to go upon was, that as they were members of the church, they had a right to bring their children; thereby letting us know, that it is visible [...] ­bership gives the right. If you say, their bringing their children was evidence enough of their faith in CHRIST, the same I say of the persons in question. If you say [...]ei [...]er, CHRIST would never have commended then for bringing their children, if they had not been [...] [Page 3]this is plainly begging the question, and it renders CHRIST'S answer to the disciples improper, which should have been (according to their notion) an express declaration of the pa­rent's fitness, and not of the children's interest in the covenant o [...] visible membership.

IV. "When a man according to scripture rule is be­come a member of the visible church, and there is no rule in the word to cast him out of the church, such a person has a right to have his children baptized."

V. If these persons are subject to the rod or to church-government, they are intitled to the privilages of CHRIST'S kingdom. We ought not to separate what God has joined together. And we have no business to judge them that are with­out, as we really do if they are entitled to no privileges at all.

VI. Those that submit to CHRIST'S discipline cannot with any colour of reason be excluded from discipleship. And if disciples, they have a right to baptism for their children. And here I would mention that famous text so much alledg­ed by Anabaptists and their opponents, Matt. xxviii. 20. Go disciple ^* all nations, baptizing them, &c. Here infants (as part of nations) are to be discipled and baptized. And if dis­cipled, all the privileges of disciples belong to them; and when demanded (after they are grown up) cannot justly be withheld from them, without they put a bar in their own way by their wickedness. ^†

VII. If you exclude baptized persons (of regular lives) from bringing their children to baptism, you treat them as Pagans and Infidels; you practically say, they have no part in the LORD; you in effect excommunicate them and [...] them all out of heaven; for there is no salvation out of the church: You make them visible members of Satan's kingdom; for there is no medium here, a man must be of the one or the other.

VIII. CHRIST says, feed my lambs; but this, instead of feeding them, is a thrusting them out of the fold: Instead of carrying them in our arms we cut off their heads. And how dreadful is the thought!

[Page 4] IX. If this rigid principle should prevail, in a few years (according to human prospect) nine tenths of the inhabitants will be in the condition of Pagans and Infidels; and even the name of Christianity will be in danger of being lost among this people. ^*

But this would be better (some say) than to come with a lie in their mouths. I answer, they do not come with a lie in their mouths, if they act conscientiously in what they do, if they come out of a sense of the command, and if (as far as they know their own hearts) they are sincere in what they profess, though they cannot say it is a gracious fincerity. It is the wilful hypocrite that lies to GOD and per­jures himself, who (conscious of his insincerity) does all to be seen of men, &c. I am persuaded and it may be easily proved from the word of GOD, that the former sort do not offend GOD so much by coming in this manner though they have no real grace, as they would do by wholly neglecting the duty. The total neglect is worse than the undue per­formance. And the same may be said of every duty.

This makes way for the considering some other objections.

I. It is objected, but these persons do not come imme­diately to the LORD'S supper; and therefore they ought to be shut out from other privileges until they will partake of the whole. I answer,

1st. The church in all ages has been larger in admitting to baptism, than the LORD'S supper. In the primitive church there were three sorts.

• 1st. Catechumeni or well dis­posed Heathens under instruction.
• 2d. Initiati or baptized persons.
• 3d. Confirmati, confirmed members. They used to baptized, before they admitted them to the holy mysteries.

[Page 5]And I might prove the point from the practice of all chur­ches since; but it would take up too long a time.

2d. I would mention some maxims or principles of fa­mous divines, which carry their own weight with them. As

• 1st. Baptism belongs to the disciples as such; the LORD'S supper to self-examining disciples.
• 2d. Baptism is a sa­crament of initiation or entrance into the church; the other of confirmation or growth in grace.
• 3d. Membership in the universal church gives a right to baptism; but member­ship in a particular church to the LORD'S supper. Those that the Apostles baptized as it were at large, must be join­ed to a particular church before they could receive the LORD'S supper.
• 4th. Covenant interest alone giveth right to baptism, but not to the LORD'S supper. It is a great mistake to think, that the parents immediate fitness for the LORD'S supper is the ground of baptizing their children; but it is the parents and so the childrens being in the covenant. We often have reason to think that some communicante are unfit for the LORD'S supper; but we cannot exclude them from that ordinance or from baptism for their children, being neither heretical or scandalous. The reason is, because they are under the covenant. The same may be said in the other case.
• 5th. That uncleanness would debar from coming to the passover, which did not unfit for the other ordinance of cir­cumcision. [Page 6]These several particulars import, that we should not be altogether so strict in admission to baptism, as to the LORD'S supper.

3d. I answer, "A mans not joining to a particular church may be owing to the weakness of his tender conscience, which scrupleth his fitness for the LORD'S supper; and yet would gladly have himself and his consecrated to the LORD, yea and rejoice to be under the government and laws of CHRIST in particular churches."

4th. If the knowledge of a man's good estate (as they hold) is a necessary qualification for the LORD'S supper, it is his duty to stay away until he has this knowledge; and yet not neglect other duties in the mean time.

5th. If such persons are real and hearty in renewing co­venant they will soon come further; if they are not, they had better remain where they are. It will be more for the honour of the church; for how often do those who are only under a common work of the spirit, lose their convictions, and (by their apostacy) become a scandal to religion and to the church that admits them? And hence we may see the impropriety of vehemently urging persons to come imme­diately into full communion, when they do not find a free­dom in themselves to do it.

6th. We ought rather to encourage persons to come as far as they see light in the path of duty, than to lay discou­ragements and stumbling-blocks in their way. This is truly to carry the lambs in our arms.

II. It is objected, But if all baptized persons are members already, why do they own the covenant? Is it not that, that makes them members? I answer, no: A person doth not become any more a member than he was before by renew­ing the covenant. It is only a recognition or taking pos­session of his right in the manner the church thinks proper. It is like an officer's taking an oath for the faithful dis­charge of his office: It is not the oath that constitutes the office, but the commission which he had before. There is no impropriety in calling all baptized persons compleat mem­bers, as our ancient Divines and the Synod expressly do. Membership is a thing that cannot be increased or diminish­ed; there is no magis or minus (more or less) here: A man is a member or no member; there is no medium: But their CAPACITIES of ACTING are not the same; they may be [Page 7]widely different. An infant or a communicant (become non-compos) cannot receive the LORD'S supper; yet they are compleat members. And there is no such a thing as halfmem­bership or half-covenanting, and it is injurious to use such an expression. But what advantage is it to renew covenant then? I answer, This is a meer prudential of the church, to make the more deep and more durable impressions on the persons concerned; to give them proper ideas of the solemnity of the affair; and also to impress on others a solemn sense of their covenant-engagements, by a repetition of the covenant in their hearing. They have the same end in it that whole churches have, when they renew covenant openly and expli­citly, as the churches were wont to do formerly, and this church more than once in my Grandfather's days. But it never entered into their hearts, that they made any additi­on to their membership by it. So it is in the present case. I am sorry to see that this custom of renewing covenant is so misunderstood by many; they seem to have got a notion, that by renewing covenant they are made members. But this is a mistake; they are no more members than they were before: And the practice had better be laid aside, than to be thus abused by such gross apprehensions.

III. But it is further objected, it is only grace that gives a right to either seal; and therefore a person ought not to come until he knows his grace. I answer,

1st. This objection doth not reach the case of those that were baptized in infancy; but those only that come for baptism at adult age. The former are members already, and therefore if we go to purge the church of them, or re­fuse to let them renew covenant, (which is the same thing) let them be ever so blameless in their walk, we must go fur­ther still, and purge the communicants likewise (who re­new covenant every time they come to the sacrament) and turn out all that we think have not grace, or that dare not say they are converted. And where we must slop no man can say. In short, this is running directly into the most rigid principles of the Separates, who are for purging the church. We have no more warrant to cast baptized persons out of the church than communicants: And if we do the one we must do the other also, when there is the same ground for it, that is, reason to fear they are graceless. Indeed if heresy or scan­dal can be proved upon either sort, let them be cast out in GOD'S name; but not otherwise.

[Page 8] 2d. These Persons in question exhibit those signs of grace which our opponents set up as the only standard for the church to judge by. They explode an account or relation of expe­riences, at least think them unnecessary; and make pro­fession and practice the only criterion of judgment. Thus Mr. Green, one of the Connecti [...]t champions for the new scheme; he says in his late treatise, p. 57.8 ‘In the ad­mission of persons, we are not to judge from the account of inward experiences: This is not laid down in scripture as the rule of publick judgment, but profession and prac­tice.’ To this we entirely agree with respect to baptism. Why then will they not suffer persons of regular practice to renew the covenant, when they desire it [...] or in other words, to add profession to their practice, which (according to them, is all that is necessary; and so to have baptism for their children? this would put an end to the controversy.

Here, by the way, I cannot help observing, how ridicu­lous it is to insist that none but gracious persons ought to par­take of the seals; and yet at the same time to say, that it is unnecessary to give an account of the a [...]ings of grace in their souls, which is what we call experiences. This seems to me to be a direct contradiction. Such an account is really es­sential to their scheme; and if separated from it, it falls to the ground; and they really (after all their noise about grace) take up with lesser evidences than we do in regard of the LORD'S supper.

3d. If this doctrine be true, then it will follow, that no believer while in the dark ought to come to either ordi­nance, or even present his child to baptism; for then he implicitly renews covenant; which must not be done in a state of darkness. And what confusion would this bring into the church? We should have but thin communions, it the members every time they come must know they have grace.

4th. According to this scheme, no person ought to en­gage in any duty whatsoever, until he knows he has grace. For he is in danger of lying to GOD, or dealing falsely in the discharge of it; which is the grand objection in the present case.

5th. According to this scheme, Hezekiah and Josiah were to blame for bringing their peop [...]e in general to renew co­venant, when they had reason to sear that the greater part [Page 9]of them would come with a lye in their mouths, and they had better have let it alone.

6th. I have observed before; if persons know not that they have grace, yet are conscious of their sincerity in what they do, they had better come than stay away. And if they should be really destitute of grace, their coming will be less offensive to GOD than the omission would be. Refor­mation and renewings of covenant when only proceeding from a common work of GOD'S spirit, have been a means of removing or preventing judgments, as is evident from many places of scripture.

And here I would mention one thing; I should be glad to hear as much of the danger of the total omission of these duties, as of the performing them in a wrong manner. The Jew that did not circumcise his child was to be cut of from GOD's people, i. e. put to death: But no such severe judg­ment was threatned against the unregenerate person, that circumcised his child. And Moses himself had like to have lost his life, for the omission of this duty.

7th. John the Baptist and CHRIST'S disciples did not ask those they baptized, whether they knew they had grace. But upon their confession of their sins and promising reformation, they immediately baptized them, Matt. 3, 6.

8th. If this church should agree to renew covenant at this day openly and explicitly as churches did formerly for the strengthening their covenant engagements, it would be proper and necessary to call upon all the children of the church to join with us in it, as our Fathers did, as we may find on our church-records. And who in this case would dare to forbid or exclude them, though they did not come immediately to the LORD'S table? And if not why should they be excluded when they come ous by one?

9th. If the knowledge of our good estate be necessary in order to partaking of the seals, it must amount to a certain knowledge. For how can a meer hope entitle us to it? How know we but it is the hope of the hypocrite? Sup­pose a king should give such and such privileges to persons so and so qualified, it will not do for persons to come and say they hope they have those qualifications; they must cer­tainly make out to their own and others satisfaction that they have them, or they have no business to put in their claim. So that this doctrine is come to this at last, that [Page 10]nothing but full assurance will warrant our coming either to baptism or the LORD'S supper. And if we have this before we come, what need we come at all? At least we need not come for this end, to get our evidences and comforts streng­thened; they being already come to their full strength.

IVth objection. But why do you exclude any baptized person at all from bringing their children to baptism, if they are all members? I answer, the reason is, because of their vicious lives. If a person be a lyar, swearer, sabbath-breaker, whoremonger, &c. he ought to be dealt with, and if he re­main impenitent to be cut off. In this case he forfeits his privilege. And this is the reason why persons are propound­ed, that if any know they are guilty of such things, they may object and get them excluded.

Vth and last objection. This will bring in impurity into the church. I answer, Diligent attendance to discipline, and not curtailing the covenant will keep the churches pure. The contrary doctrine rather tends to impurity: For per­sons, if debarred from renewing covenant and bringing their children, will be tempted from their great fondness for their offspring, to come too rashly to the LORD'S table. And the church will likewise be tempted to be lax in their admis­sions, to prevent the complaints of such persons, and to re­move the reproach that such swarms of children among them are in a state of heathenism.

Several other weighty considerations might have been mentioned, but I forbear. I shall firish with observing, That this was the principle of almost all the first Fathers in the country; my Great-grandfather Cotten, Mr. Norton, the famous Mr. Shepard, Messi'rs Wilson, Mather, Allen, Rogers, and many others. And the practice was recommended by a Synod of all the churches of the Massachusetts Colony in the year 1662. And it was agreeable to the sentiments of my Grandfather Cotton the former Minister of this church, as I find by a manuscript written by his own hand. And it has been practised by the generality of the churches for more than an hundred years past.

Further CONSIDERATIONS illustrating the point.

I. IF the foundation be taken away, what will the righ­teous do? What signifies it to keep contending who are the church, or who shall or shall not be received, when the very foundation of the church is struck at, though not designedly? We are in reality no church, nor any of us members of a church, if this proposition be not true, That these who are in the visible covenant have a right to the seal of the covenant for themselves and children. The very being of the church depends upon it; the whole controversy turns here: If it be denied, our cause is betrayed to the Baptists, and we cease to be a church: If it be granted, then our op­ponents give up their cause, and the children in question are to be baptized. It is strange therefore that this way of ar­guing is so little taken notice of, when every thing dear to us plainly depends upon it.

II. Upon the same foundation I argue, If the church should vote to disannul this practice, I should think they wholly disannulled infant baptism; for the ground of it would be wholly taken away: If this way of arguing be not conclu­sive, they that are in the covenant have a right to the seal of it for themselves and children, there is no defence against them left, and we become downright Baptists without knowing it; at least we hold infant baptism by meer tradition, without un­derstanding the grounds of it.

No doubt it will be said in answer to this, That, as according to the constitution of the churches, a person has no imme­diate [...]ight to bring his children to baptism notwithstanding he was baptized in infancy, until he has solemnly renewed the covenant; and this the church ought not to suffer until they are fully satisfied he has grace. I answer, The foun­dation of this objection was taken away in my first Essay; in which I observed,

• 1st. That this renewing covenant did not make them any more members than they were before: but was only a taking possession of their right in the manner the church thought fir.
• 2d. That this taking possession could not be denied them, unless heresy or scandal could be [Page 12]proved upon them. And now add,
• 3d. That no other evi­dences of grace are necessary with respect to those who are members already, than meer negative ones, unless the church assume an authority of purging the church upon the plan of the Separates. As negative evidences are sufficient in regard of those already in full communion, so also with respect to these in question. I also add,
• 4th. There is no divine ap­pointment, that persons should renew covenant in this explicit manner, when they become adult; but it is a meer prudential of the church to make the more solemn impressions.

Ac­cordingly I find, that the two famous Mr. Henrys (Father and Son) did not propose any explieit covenant to baptized persons in publick at adult age: So far were they from thinking it essential to membership. And we read nothing of circumcised Israelites thus renewing covenant in order to partake of any of the privileges of that church. But yet there is great propriety in it for the end just mentioned. And if the church should order a general explicit owning the covenant by us all every time we come to the sacrament or once a year, there would be nothing amiss in it, but it would tend to make the greater impressions, though not make us more members.

III. We find in scripture, that all the Israclitish nation, old and young, were baptized by GOD himself in the cloud and in the sea, I Cor. x. 2. Here the children of unregenerate persons had this rite administred to them by the highest au­thority; and it was afterwards blest to them, though the parents were cut off. From this we may infer, that it is not contrary to the mind of GOD that children of persons unregenerate should have this ordinance administed to them, if their parents be in covenant relation to him. This seams to be a type of what was to be done in gospel times. The Apostle plainly speaks of it in allusion to the christian baptism.

IV. I cannot be of the sentiments of those that are for altering the practice, unless I held that baptized infants are no members; or if they were, they lose their member­ship when they grow up, unless they come to the LORD'S table. They would be consistent, though not true. But to grant that they were members then, and continue mem­bers still, and as such ought to be dealt with for misde­meanors, and yet that their children are not members and have no right to the feal, is a strange inconsistency, and what can never be it reconciled.

[Page 13] ‘As all children are part of their parents, and make but one person by the laws of GOD and men; so christian infants are one person with their christian parents, and make but one body with them, as the root and bran­ches are but one tree; and this by divine ordination, and especially in obligations to duties, and right unto fa­vours and privileges spiritual, so far as they are capable. ^*’

V. If the church should alter this practice, what would become of those who have already owned the covenant? part of their children baptized and part unbaptized, when they have the same right they had before: A motley mix­ture indeed, part of the church and part of the world. Here would be an excommunication with a witness.

But they may be remedied by looking upon them as per­sons in full communion, and allowing them without further ceremony to come to the LORD'S table: But this cannot be right. For, 1st. This would be to give them a privilege which they neither ask for or desire, and perhaps will not consent to. Such may properly be called pressed men, not voluntiers in GOD'S service.

2d. To be members in full communion and not com­municants is a contradiction in terms.

3d. Here will be some in full communion that never made any relation of their acquaintance with experimental religion, which will either make two sorts of members in full communion, the one admitted without a relation and the other with; or it will cause the total laying aside the relation of experiences. In the former case, what con­fusion will it make in the church, relations exacted from one sort and not from the other? In the latter case, the total laying aside of relations would deprive the church of one proper means of judging of their good estate. Without some account of their sense of divice things we shall not know but all their religion is a piece of mechanism, meerly external: We shall have nothing left to judge by but blamelesness of life, which all acknowledge may be separate from grace; and as to many we should have no more than negative evidences of grace, that is, that we never heard any thing bad of them, their manner of life being little known to the greater part of the church, which must be frequently the case in great towns. This would do upon Mr. Stoddard's scheme, that the LORD'S supper was a converting ordinance, and to be used, by re­gular [Page 14]livers, as the other means of grace: But for those that hold that the church should receive none but gracious persons, for them to consent to abolish relations, and to make such negative and external evidences the only standard of judg­ing appears to me a palpable contradiction. With regard to relations, I acknowledge that some of them are not very edifying, and others are too particular; we do not want [...] man to give a history of his life: But for the Minister to pen down some of the principal answers to the questions pro­posed by him to candidates, expressing their sense of the evil of sin, love to CHRIST, and the like essential acts of grace would be far from being useless and unedifying, especially in some remarkable instances.

VI. The children of those in the covenant are God's; they are born unto me, says God; they are my children. Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. That is, within my church and covenant: This is spoken of the children of unregerate Israelites. Certainly then we rob God of his portion, if we deny them the seal; and there will be no difference between the infants of such as are in covenant, and the infants of Turks, which is not to be admitted: God himself claims a right to the one, but not to the other.

VII. It is the Baptist's grand plea against baptizing infants, that they do not exhibit any positive evidences of grace.

And how do these that are for the new scheme tally with them? Negative evidences are sufficient in both cases. As baptism is a sacrament of entrance; so the lowest degree of evidence is to be admitted in this case. Certainly fuller evidences are to be expected from those that are admitted to the table, than from those that only approach the threshold; from proficients than incipients or first beginners at CHRIST'S school.

VIII. Dr. Taylor and others inform us, that the primitive church administred the holy communion to newly baptized infants, after the example of the Jewish church, all their circumcised children eating the passover with their parents. This practice was as early as St. Cyprian's time, who liv­ed about 240 or 250 yeare after CHRIST, and for aught ap­pears much earlier; and it was continued universally in the church above 600 years, and in some of the castern chur­ches it continues to this day: St. Austin writes in defence of it. But although we judge them wrong in this, because infants are uncapable of examining themselves or of discerning [Page 15]the LORD 'S body: Yet from this practice we may infer that it was their general sense that baptized persons meerly by virtue of their baptism, were intitled to all church privileges, and that nothing but their open wickedness could justly debar them from it.

IX. Those who oppose this practice, lay the whole stress of the controversy upon this, that baptism is the seal of the covenant of grace; consequently, say they, none but gracious persons have a right to partake of it, and if they have grace, they ought also to come to the LORD'S supper, which is another seal of the covenant; and it is wrong to admit any adult person to the one, without they will immediately come to the other: The seals are not to be divided.

It is granted on all hands that baptism is a seal of the co­venant of grace: The Synod that recommended the present practice universally held this; and so did the two Dr. Ma­thers, Mr. Willard, and others, and so did Mr. Leonard; and yet they were all zealous for administring baptism in this latitude; they could see no inconsistency between these two principles. But how can they be reconciled? Ans. 1st. They admitted the lowest evidences of grace, even nagative ones, and supposed them sufficient with respect to those already in covenant. And to prevent scandalous persons from bringing their children to baptism, they were always propounded before hand, that objections might in that case be made against their coming.

2d. With respect to those without, that offered themselves to baptism at adult age, they admitted the first dawnings and glimmerings of good as intitling them to that ordinance; as we find John Baptist did. Matt. iii. ^* And the Apostle likewise. But they thought, that more solid, substantial, [Page 16]and positive evidences of grace were necessary for the con­firming ordinance of the LORD'S supper, or that they should bring forth fruits meet for repentance, before they partook of it. Matt. iii. 8.

Dr. C. Mather says, ‘The purest churches of the LORD JESUS, have generally not been so large, or so scon in the administration of the LORD'S supper, as of baptism. One has been given as milk; when the other like strong meat. has been withheld; and the ancients usually detained the baptized a while before they were confirmed. ^*’ 3d. If after all they were really unregenerate, they held their bap­tism was no nullity to them or their children, but of use in various respects.

Before I leave this head, I cannot help expressing my sur­prise to hear the names of several Ministers mentioned as patronising the contrary scheme, when it is notoriously known that the sentiments of most of them were as large as ours with respect to the subject of baptism; and I rather think it was so as to all of them, except Mr. Edwards, who was too apt to run into extremes. Though I acknowledge, that none of them agree with Mr. Stoddard's notion of the sacraments being converting ordinances; neither did the Syned, that intro­duced this practice into our churches. This, by the way, leads me to observe, that there are too controversies blended in this dispute, which should be carefully separated, though there is no occasion for me to do it at present, as both parties agree in this, that baptism is of larger extent than the LORD'S supper.

Here for further clearing this point, we may observe.

1 st. That though baptism be a seal of the covenant of grace; yet, as grace respects sinners, the virtue and efficacy of it is not confined to regenerate persons only. The sacraments are seals of the whole covenant; baptism particularly is a seal in these respects. 1 st. It is a seal of membership, a badge of discipleship, to distinguish GOD'S professing people from the world. 2d. It is a seal of the truth and reality of the co­venant; it exhibits to sinners the certainty of a way of mercy. Circumcision which was of the same nature with baptism is called a seal of the righteousness of faith. Rom. iv. 2. That is, a seal of CHRIST'S righteousness, which is apprehended and applied by faith; it assures us, that there is such a righteous­ness provided for the relief of miserable sinners, and seals the [Page 17]efficacy of it unto salvation: How encouraging then is this, to draw forth an act of faith? In circumcision and baptism the truth of the convenant is sealed, which is a great means to beget in the soul a persuasion of the truth of it. "And if a man be but convinced of these things" says Mr. Stoddard, he is gained." ‘The sacraments, says another, are not properly seals of the truth of our faith, but of the truth of the convenant; they are only seals of our faith by consequence, because as seals confirm a thing, so faith is confirmed and strengthened by receiving; but they are not, in a proper sense, seals unto any thing but the covenant. ^*’ 3d. As baptism seals a sense of our natural filthiness and pollution; so it is a seal to Kind us to seek to GOD for the spiritual washing. ^† 4th. It is a sed to assure us, that if we seek it in a right manner, we shall be washed in the blood and spirit of CHRIST. Many Divines hold, that baptism is a sacrament for the begetting of life in elect infants; it is doubtless so to the children of the faithful, that die in their infancy. But as for those that grow up, it is a seal at least that they shall not only have the offer of CHRIST, but the striving of his Spirit; which if not resisted will prove effectual to their conversion. And what an advantage is even this? ‘The LORD will as assur­edly, says one, ingraff us into CHRIST and cloath us with his righteousness, as we have the outward washing, if we deprive not ourselves thereof by our own careless­ness. ^†’ 5th. Baptism is also a seal of saving blessings to believers. And it even seals these to the unregenerate, though not absolutely, but conditionally. In all these respects baptism is a seal to regenerate persons, and in most of them it may be a seal to the unregenerate, and so of great use to them through the blessing of GOD. Circumcision was a seal to Abraham of saving mercies, but not so to Ishmael, and perhaps not so to sundry others of Abraham's family, which was numerous. In regard of these latter, it was a seal only in part; that is, of the other things I just mentioned, which must be acknowledged to be a great benefit. Why then should we be so anxious to exclude every unregenerate per­son from this seal?

[Page 18] 2d. Though baptism and the LORD'S supper be seals of the same covenant, yet there is to impropriety of administring the one sometime before the other. And this in two cases especial­ly;

• 1st. When the person has been very ignorant or scandalous before; In this case it is best to stay until they are better in­structed, or give fuller evidence of their reformation, other­wise they may prove a great blemish to religion and the church. This the primitive church did.
• Or 2d. When they themselves are kept back by sears or scruples; so that the seals may be lawfully divided.

3d. If grace be absolutely necessary in order to baptism, what inference can be more just, and even ratural, than this? Then I must certainly know that I have grace before I come to this ordinance, or bring my children. This consequence hangs like a dead weight upon this opinion, and can never be got over. All the talk about prevailing hopes, or any lesser degree of evidence still serves to make the contradiction the more glaring. Without I am sure, I have no business to come; the ordinance is not for me. All the hopes in the world never gave a man any right to one privilege, civil or sacred; it is the qualification of itself and our being able to make out with certainty that we have it, that intitles us.

But if I should grent for arguments sake that a lesser de­gree of evidence will do, how high must it rise? If it be prevailing hopes, what must become of the believer that hath preponderating fears? Surely he must stay away. If it be lesser evidence still that will be admined, who then will be excluded? Surely none but those who absolutely know that they are unconverted; and we shall find but sew that will own that, or that are wholly destitute of hopes. So that the door is opened as wide for almost every body to come as the most sanguine of Mr. Stoddard's followers could wish. This leads me to observe.

4th. That though Micislers appear to differ widely in their sentiments about the subjects of baptism, yet when they come to practice they nearly agree, and seem disposed on each side to admit the same sort of persons. Those in Dr. Mather's and Mr. Stoddard's principles both say, That this ordinance is not to be ad [...]nin [...]shed to scandalous persons remaining such, or indeed to any that stake open profession of their unregeneracy. But here seems to be the main difference, the one take blame lesness of life with profession for evidence of grace; the other [Page 19]do not, but suppose it may be separated from grace, and yet that we have no business to prevent their coming, because the ordi­nance is often blest to those in a state of unregeneracy. The difference then appears to be very small, or rather it may be looked upon as a meer logomachy or strife about words.

5th. I observe, That the children's membership is a dis [...]iact thing from that of their parents, though coming through their means, as is made evident beyond contradiction by the Synod and others of our Fathers; and to punish them because their parents do not immediately approach to the LORD'S table is hard and injurious.

6th. Le [...] baptism be called a seal or what you will, what reason can they assign why grace is more necessary in order to a persons bringing his children to it, than in order to praying, coming to meeting, &c? Prayer is a seal in some respects, and so is bearing; and all the sacrifices under the law were seals of the covenant of grace, as well as the passover. (So Dr. Watts expressly asserts, and it may be easily proved) And yet who ever dreamed of excluding all unregenerate persons from them? The sin lay not in performing the duty, but in performing it in a wrong man­ner, which is the utmost that can be said with respect to bap­tism.

7th. GOD himself hath divided the seals, as in the case of in­fants: And shall we make ourselves wiser than GOD, in saying the seals shall not be divided? And he also in some cases di­vided circumcision and the passover. And if they may be di­vided in one case they may in another, as the church hath thought in all ages, who have always been more large in the administration of baptism than of the other seal, even with re­spect to adults.

The case of infants plainly shews it to be the divine pleasure, that some unregenerates should be baptized; for he requires it to be done if they are under the covenant, and yet it is his pleasure at the same time not to give them, that is, most of them, the grace of the covenant, though there be no resistance or op­position on their parts. And it is the divine pleasure likewise that the church should be so constituted, that of necessity we are obliged to receive many adult unregenerates into it, let us be ever so careful and cautious. This thought pursued in its full latitude, and the genuine conseqences from it duely con­sidered, methinks might case the scruples of any, about admi­nistring the ordinance to such as give but stander evidences of grace: A prevailing fear of their unregeneracy should not pre­vens [Page 20]it, if it be possible after all that they may have the root of the matter in them; but if the marks and evidences of unrege­neracy be plain and open, and leave us without doubt, in that case once for all I declare my opinion, they are not to be ad­mitted. This leads me to say.

Lastly, and upon the whole here, I apprehend none of the church would be uneasy if persons of some regular lives and behaviour could be admitted to bring their children, though such as are of a contrary character be excluded. Here pru­dence should direct, and caution should be used not to prostitute the ordinances to unmeet subjects. That profane persons are out of the question is granted by all. And if such should be shut out, it would remove the repreach of our having fallen from the method proposed by the Synod, who first brought in this practice into these churches. Which if true, is more owing to the carelesness of Ministers, than to an alteration of princi­ples.

X. It has been suggested. ‘That the method we have been in has a tendency to hurt the candidates that offer themselves by promoting a careless secure spirit, which may be fatal to their best interest.’ This I rather think true of the contrary scheme. When a Minister hath peremptorily declared, that no unregenerate person ought to come to either sacrament, and hath charged them upon their peril not to come, and yet ear­nestly to urge particular candidates for baptism immediately to come to the LORD'S supper is as much as to tell them that he is fully satisfied they have grace, though he doth not say so in words. And what is the tendency of this but to make them easy in their present condition without further examination? The corrupt hearts of many will flatter them last enough with hopes, and having the Minister's sanction to back them, they will be in the utmost danger of being staked down in delu­sion.

XI. It has been suggested further. ‘That we received this practice by tradition from our Fathers without examination, and have gone on in a loose way without being able to give any good reason for it.’ I answer, that neither our Fathers introduced it, nor we received it in this light manner. The question was started in the country soon after grand-children were born to the first comers, and the point agitated for twenty or thirty years by the ablest Divines, until at last the Synod of all the Ministers and churches, came to a solemn decision about it in the year 1662, after much prayer, study, and converse, and [Page 21]gave such weighty reasons for it as were never yet answered. ^* Neither did many of their posterity receive it thus lightly: Mr. Leonard in particular had occasion and thoroughly studied the controversy, as appeared by several sermons on the point; and the same may be said of many others. And I am sorry there is such occasion to retort the argument; I am persuaded it is owing to the superficial remarks of some of our younger Divines, lately appearing in print, that this practice has been questioned, when as they had never thoroughly studied the grounds and rea­sons our Fathers went upon, or even the point of infant bap­tism, which gives great light to the controversy, and is really the foundation it is built upon, so that they must both stand or fall together.

XII and lastly. The expedient to reconcile us, viz. For the persons in question to be admitted to full communion, and then for the church to dispense with their coming to the LORD'S table for a while. I say this expedient proposed by the Pastor is quite unsatisfactory to me. For.

Ist. This scheme goes upon this supposition, that by renewing covenant they are made members, which is wrong as I have prov­ed before. All baptized persons are members, whether they renew covenant or no, and are under obligations to all chris­tian duties. This renewing covenant is never thought to make persons members in other cases: When a church is embodied in a new parish they enter into covenant anew, but are no more members than before; and just so it is when churches renew covenant in order to promote a reformation.

2d. The term of members in full communion has been always appropriated to persons who immediately communicate, to dis­tinguish them from those who do not communicate, though in [Page 22]other respects they are equally members. But b [...] this new proposed method all distinction will be confounded, and to be members in full communion and not in full communion will be the same thing, which, as I observed will be a contra­diction in terms; and it will make such confusion in language, that when we become habituated to this practice we should not be able to understand one anothers speech when conversing with those of another town about members in full communion. And what difficulty would it cause about a form of dismis­sion and recommendation, in case any of these new sort of mem­bers should remove to other towns before they communicated? Or must we set up ourselves as a model or standard for other churches to copy after our example, and that even with­out consulting them at all [...] Surely we have need of ano­ther Synod to advise, before we rashly run into this new scheme.

3d. This I look upon to be a right Popiso dispensation, viz. a dispensing with the command of GOD, which is one of the worst things that we charge upon the Remish church. The utmost the church can do is passively to connive at those who are kept away by fears and scruples, and not to lay any censure upon them, which is the case according to the present mode. But to give open toleration, by an actual vote, for members to come or stay away at their pleasure is unjustifiable by any rules of scripture or reason.

4th. If our baptized members should be averse to this new method, as I rather think they will, and none should come, it will be just the same thing as if no door was opened to them at all: Or if they should like it, and should come in multitude [...], then the church would be in danger of being overrun with a laxer fort of members who would carry all before them; for who would deny them the privilege of voting if they be members in full? And who would choose to have the affairs of CHRIST'S kingdom wholly in such hands, in the hands of non-communi­cants? For they would soon become the majority; or must we bargain with them not to claim a privilege justly belonging to them, until they actually communicate? Or shall we by m [...] arbitrary power without just warrant exclude them from vot­ing? In that case they would not be members in full, but only [...]sar [...], contrary to what the church promises them at their ad­mission; or in other words, they would be only nominal, and [...]t [...]er [...] members in full communion.

5th. How long must we stay with these new sort of mem­bers? [Page 23]If they are limited to a certain time which they are not to exceed, then the church must censure them if they do not come within that time. And what confusion would this bring us into? And even how unjust would it be, if the same reason subsists that hindered their coming at first? If it be left to them to co [...]e when they think proper, this would be to leave the matter just as it is now, and they may stay away as long as upon the other scheme.

If it be said, this would give the Minister a warrant the more frequently to call upon them, I answer, not more warrant than he has by the present method. For these persons in co­venanting promise to use diligence in their preparations for an ac­cess to the LORD 'S table: And what better ground can a Mi­nister or others have to stir them up to such preparations?

6th. This method has a tendency to destroy all order, and to bring in the utmost confusion. For if we dispease with one, though he hath laid himself under immediate obligations to come, we may as well dispense with another, and so with all, What then would become of the communion? Even those that are now communicants may think themselves warranted by such liberty given to absent themselves when they please: And how know we but by and by the effect of it may be that we should have no communicants at all? And what a case would this be? A church without communicants? Many in full communion, and yet no communion? Members professing to serve the LORD in all his ordinances, and yet no ordinan­ces? What an absurdity to open such a door as this?

7th. In this new scheme all the same difficulties recur, which are objected to the present method. This is a half-way practice as well as the other: This divides the seals as well as the other, which has been declared "unwarrantable and unlawful:" This equally encourages unregenerate persons to come: This has a like tendency to keep persons along in their mistakes, in their doubts and scruples as the other mode. This as fully tolerates persons in living in the neglect of "one essential duty of the covenant," as it is called, as the method proposed by the Synod. In a word, I know of nothing that may be objected against the present practice but what with equal force militates against the way proposed. It is called indeed by a new name, but that does not alter the nature of the thing; the styling them members in full communion does not make them one jot the more so, than if they owned the covenant in the common form.

[Page 24] 8th. There seems to be a downright inconsistency in this way of covenanting. They doubt whether they ought to come to the LORD'S table in their present circumstances, and yet they must promise to come: They are to promise it, and then the church will dispense with the performance; or in other words, will allow them to break their promise for a while, or perhaps as long as they live if the same reason continues, that is, if they do not get over their doubts before. How jarring and incoherant does this appear upon the bare mentioning: For my part, I think they had better not immediately promise, than not to per­form. These promises in futuro are looked upon in other cases as meet evasions to avoid a present duty; like a sinner's pro­mising to repent hereafter, which he has no thoughts of at pre­sent. And then further, as they promise it to GOD as well as to the church, they must have GOD'S dispensation as well as the church's, or they are obliged to come immediately, notwith­standing any thing the church can do. When thou hast vowed a vew unto GOD defer not to pay it. Eccl. v. 12.

9th. The introducing this new scheme will either cause the wholly laying by a relation of experiences, or this new fort of members must submit to this practice, or we must have two different methods of admitting persons to full commu­nion: And great inconveniences would arise by either of these different ways. With respect to relations I have spoken before. I would only add, that if these non-communicants in full communion should be obliged to bring a relation, I believe it would as effectually put a stop to their coming, as any of the most rigid methods the church could possibly take: I dare say we should have no members of these sort: They would carry their children to other churches that are not so strait.

10th. The most material difference between this and the present method seems to be this, that in the one case the convenant is proposed twice, and in the other case but once: Which, it is strange to me, should occasion any Jeru­ples of conscience, since it only adds to the solemnity of the af­fair, and does but little, if at all, diminish their obligations of coming to the LORD'S table; in the one method they pro­mising diligently to seek preparations for it, and in the other, that they will come when they have got over their scruples, and are better satisfied that they are prepared for the ordi­nance; which certainly is the same thing in effect: And there is as much danger on the one side as the other, of their using it [Page 25]meerly as a formality, especially after a while, to get their children baptized.

As for the suggestion, that by this two-fold repetition of the co­venant, persons are led into the mistaken notion, that there are two different covenants, and that the first is of a laxer nature than the last: it is impossible for a person that hears both forms read rationally to entertain such a thought; but if any of the weak­er sort are in danger of it, they may be easily set right from the pulpit, or by conversation. As for their being made twice member; by it, enough has been said before, when it was ob­served that this renewing covenant does not make them mem­bers, &c.

11th. If the difficulty lies here, the proposing of the covenant twice, as being thought superfluous and unnecessary, for peace sake I should not object against the first proposing of it being wholly laid aside; I mean with respect to those already in the covenant or persons baptized; and that they, after being propounded a competent time and no objection made to their lives and morals, should be allowed to bring their children to baptism. Though after all I should be sorry to see the church abate any thing from the solemnity of the affair, which cer­tainly is of good tendency both in regard of the candidate and spectators, and intitles the former to the prayer of the church, &c.

Upon the whole, I should be glad of any proper expedient to remove the difficulties among us, and to preserve peace and harmony; but as for the expedient under consideration, I can­not see my way clear to come into it at present. And if the majority of the church should approve of it, I am afraid that we should become an object of ridicule to the whole country for our singularity, and for our introducing such an inconsistent jumbled scheme, which was never heard of in the churches before this day; and even now I do not find it so much as hint­ed, that above one church practises any thing like it.

SOME THINGS have occurred to my mind since the last church-meeting, relating to the subjects of baptism.

1. I shall take notice of some positions that have been ad­vanced, and objections made.

1st. It is objected, that many make a formality of the prac­tice meerly to get their children baptized. Answer. I sear it is too true. But how shall this new regulation remedy the difficulty? If this door were entirely shut, is there not as much danger of making a formality of the LORD'S suppot ra­ther than their children should go without baptism. But as to some there is no doubt they do it not formally, but sincerely: And shall we keep them away, because others abuse the pri­vilege? For my part, I am of my Great-grandfather Cotton's mind, that it is better to admit ten bypocrites, than to excluae one sincere child of GOD.

And I would add, if they are such persons who make a formality of it that chiefly come to renew convenant for their children's sake, how comes it to pass that the door is op [...]ed for their admission to the LORD'S supper? For i [...] hath been once and again said, that the purport of the new scheme is to enlarge and not to curtail and diminish their privileges, viz. by obliging them to come immediately into full communion.

2d. It is objected, Mr. Leonard's great difficulty in bring­ing in the practice, and that he w [...]s seven years about it. [...] answer, Mr. Leonard was indeed so long about it; but the reason was not because he could not gain a major vote before; for he had the major part of the church with him, (I think) [...]t first, at least for years before the point was brought to a publick decision. But this arose, 1st. From his prudence because he would not grieve two or three respectable member [...] but would wait until he had gained their acquiescence at least. 2d. In this he acted according to the ancient practice and constitution of this church. For in the records we find they would not vote in affairs of importance, especially in alterations of any part of worship, untill they had gained the consent of every brother, at least so far as to acquiesce in the church procced [...]e. Th [...]se were the real causes of his delay in putting [...] to vote.

[Page 27] And if any thing may be argued from Mr. Leonard's being seven years about it, it is this, that we ought to be as long at least in considering before we cast this practice out, proceeding in the same gradual manner, and not to do any thing of such importance rashly and in haste.

3d. It is said our Fathers of this church admitted not the practice. I answer, they admitted that upon which this prac­tice is grounded, that is, they admitted all the children of the church to renew covenant in a body, and that more than once, without coming to the LORD'S table. Which is further than our Pastor would have us go. And I appeal to him, after they had gone so far, whether they ought not to have gone farther, and baptized their children, as he does now the children of them who have formerly owned the covenant.

The Rev. Mr. Thacther of Middleborough after such general renewing of covenant in his church, baptized all their children without any further step; and perhaps our Fathers would have done the same, if any of these renewers of covenant had appli­ed to have their children baptized, which does not appear from the records that ever they did. Further, I find they had high­er thoughts of infant's membership than many now a days have; they looked upon them as members; they dealt with them as such; they dismissed and recommended them to other chur­ches when they removed, and sent admonitions after them, if not dismissed, when they misbehaved.

4th. It is said that none but visible Christians or Believers, should partake of special privileges. I readily grant it, and say, that all baptized persons are visible Christians or Believers, unless they carry the Devil's mark, a profane life, or are known infidels. This and nothing else should exclude them from the privilege of baptism, if they ask for it. If we can prove by scripture marks to the satisfaction of the church, that they are wicked persons, or if they make an open profession of unre­generacy, that is, know and acknowledge themselves to be un­regenerate, we desire not their admission. It would be pre­posterous indeed to apply CHRIST'S seal to those that are vi­sibly the Devil's children, and own themselves to be such with­out any compunctions of conscience. But if we have only fears and scruples about them and cannot say but that after all they may have some good thing in them toward the LORD, an Abijah had in the house of Jeroboam, how dare we s [...]ot them out or say they shall not do their duty as far as they at present see light for it? Read Matt. xviii. 6.

[Page 28] If seems to me that the distinction between visible and invisible believers is too much blended and confounded in the present dispute. If it is visible grace only that intitles in the sight of the church, then all the talk about real grace is nothing to the purpose.

5th. It is said, if visible grace entitles to the seals, why ought we to make a distinction, and admit some to one ordinance and others to both? I answer, 1st. That it is the candidates them­selves generally speaking that make the distinction, and not the church; and we ought to admit them to the discharge of their duty as far as they see light to go, and not to lay stumb­ling-blocks in their way. 2d. I am fully of Mr. Robbins's mind, that baptism as well as the LORD'S supper are seals of the convenant of grace. But the consequence he draws from it I deny, that baptism and the LORD'S supper are of equal extent. It is and has been my settled principle and practice, to be more strict in admissions to the LORD'S table than to bap­tism. And I have the example of almost all churches from the beginning to patronize me in it. If there be but a hare possibility that a person has grace, I think he ought not to be excluded from baptism for himself or children. But more positive evidences of grace were necessary for the LORD'S supper. And this for several reasons: These two among the rest;

• 1st. Because bap­tism is a sacrament of entrance, but the LORD'S supper a sacra­ment of growth.
• 2d. Because if afterwards they were back­sliders, it would bring less reproach on religion or the church than if they were admitted to full communion.

6th. It is said that the persons in question have only an in­fant-membership which differs from that of the adult. I answer, it differs not in the essentials of it. All membership comes by divine institution; and is as real membership, and as compleat in the one as in the other, that is, in the children as in the pa­rents. Paul was as real and compleat a Roman citizen as the Chief Captain, though the one came to it by birth and the other by purchase at adult age. Original sin comes in a different manner from other sins, viz. by the mediation of our parents, yet it is as really a sin in us as any that we actually commit. The like may be said in the present case. But after all, if it be a reproach to have only an infant-membership, we may easily take it away by this church's renewing covenant, as our ancestors d [...]d, and calling upon the children of the church to join with us in it in a body. And then surely none will deny them to be adult members.

[Page 29] II. I shall now make some OBSERVATIONS for the further clearing the point, &c.

1st. I think this is a point of the greatest importance that ever came before this church. The question is, whether our children shall be treated as outcasts, as strangers to the cove­nants of promise, or in orher words, as Infidels, as Pagans, without GOD in the world and without hope! If the act esta­blishing this practice should be repealed, I should look upon it that all our children are this day unchurched and excom­municated, and that the church hath nothing more to do with them in a way of discipline. The brethren had need con­sider what they do before they act: Your children are no doubt dear to you; and will you, blindfold, this day cast them out of the heritage of the LORD? Will you with your own hands, lifted up to Heaven, deliver them to Satan? I cannot possibly put any other construction on the matter: They must either be within the church or without; either dogs, or lambs of CHRIST'S flock: If they are within, that is, members, they are certaily entitled to some privilege; and what privilege have they left, if their children must not be baptized? Did we not learn this in our earliest infancy, that the enfants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized? But if they must be discovenanted and cast out after all, I cannot help turning myfelf to them, as many such are present, and saying to such as are of good conversation, as in Isa. lxvi. 5. Your brethren that cast you out, for my name's sake, said, let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed. ^*

2d. But why are we to do this? The plea or pretence is grace. But I dare say it will be found a most ungracious scheme in the issue: It will bring in a carnal generation into the church, I mean into the number of communicants: other doors being shut they will after a while rush into it as the horse to the battle, rather than not have their children bap­tized. And Ministers and churches will be more lax in ad­missions, rather than to have a generation of heathens growing up among them. This it seems begins already to be the case, where this alteration takes place, as some serious people complain.

3d. I would query, whether it is probable Abraham had grounds to think that all his numerous family were converted, [Page 30]when they entered into solemn covenant? Gen. xvii. and whe­ther he would have been justified if upon his fearing the contra­ry, he had withheld the seal from them? Abraham's family was the only church in the world, and a type of the gospel church; and what was done in it, ought to be done in gospel times. We should not be stricter than Abraham the father of the faith­ful, especially since we are in the same covenant with him. Rom. iv. and xi. and Gel. iii.

4th. If this new scheme takes place, the next step may be a total laying aside of relations. This it seems is done in Con­necticut, by the most zealous promoters of this new method. And Mr. Robbins owns, that it is matter of indifferency, or at least, that a church may be rightly constituted without them: If so, they may be laid aside. And what will be the conse­quence of this? Why, 1st. the knowledge of experiences will be left to the sole cognizance of Ministers: And must the church trust implicitly to them? 2d. The church will have nothing left to judge by, but external evidences. And then, as to many, they will have only negative evidences: And as to the can­didates most known, blamelesness of life will be the sum total of the evidence. Every one that can say with the Pharisee, I am no extertioner, unjust, &c. or with the young man, all these have I kept, &c. must be admitted to the LORD'S supper. What then will become of the scheme of real grace being essen­tial? Or how will they free themselves from inconsistency, as I noted before?

5th. I would observe, that the Synod were of the same mind with Mr. Robbins, that it is real grace that entitles a person to the ordinances in the sight of GOD, and that it is visible grace that entitles them in the sight of the church; and yet they ad­ministred baptism in this latitude: They could see no incon­sistency between these things; and how came we at this day to be more clear-sighted?

6th. Further, with respect to the Synod that introduced this practice generally, (for it was introduced by some particular Ministers and churches before) I would observe two things.

• 1st. The famous Ministers that came into the country at the first settlement were most of them alive and present at the Synod. and mostly joined in it. And those that were dead, as my Great-grandfather Mr. Cotton, Mr. Sheppard, and others, were for it, as appears by their writings. And as for those Mini­sters that opposed the Synod, they afterwards almost to a man sell in with it, insomuch that Mr. Mitchell in his letter to D [...]. [Page 31] Inc. Mather, five years after the Synod, tells him that he was lest almost alone: And he afterwards fell in; from what motives his writings tell.
• 2d. I think it an observation of some weight, that the temptation that lay before our Fathers was rather to be too rigid than lax in admissions.

For they were justly and greatly offended with the church of England, from which they had just broke away, for their admitting every one, yea the profanest to gospel ordinances, as members of the national church. This is one of the reasons they always give of their seperation, viz. promiscuous administrations: And yet they so far got over their prejudices as to come into such a result as we have in the Synod-Book. And as to Mr. Davenport in particu­lar, the grand opposer of the Synod, we find in his life, that he was not only prejudiced by the loose administrations in the church of England, but by what he saw in Holland, when he was Minister there; they requiring his baptizing all children belonging to his assembly, let their parents or guardians be eve [...] so ignorant or scandalous, which he refusing, was forced to leave his ministry among them. And he was afraid if he joined with the Synod it would come to this at length in New-England. As to President Chauncy the other great opposer of the Synod, (for­merly Minister of this church) we know how rigid he was about the dipping of infants; he would neither baptize them in the common way himself, nor suffer it to be done by other Mini­sters, which occasioned his leaving this place. No wonder then that he was as rigid in the present case. These two with Dr. Inc. Mather, were the chief opposers and writers against the Synod; but Dr. Mather altered his mind, as you have heard.

7th. I think it a good observation of the worthy and inge­nious Mr. Neal, who was formerly in New-England, (but now or lately a Minister in London) in his New-England History, speaking of the Synod in 1662 he says, ‘I must confess, for my own part, that it looks but like an odd assertion to me to call a person a member of a church, who hath no right to any of its privileges, and yet remains exposed to its censures.’ A strange sort of membership indeed!

8 [...]h. If the church must be purged in this sort, that is, so considerable a number of members must be declared uncapable of any privilege, and in effect discovenanted, I would move that the church would begin higher in this purging work. Let us begin with the communicants; let all be examined; let them be asked one by one whether they have grace, or whether they love the LORD JESUS in sincerity? And if they have not [Page 32]assurance of this, or good evidence, let them be rendered un­capable of any privilege or discovenanted until it is other­wise with them. In a word, let us turn down-right Separates, and set up a pure church, this would be acting consistently, and not turning our artillery against the weaker part of the members only.

Lastly, As to the manner the church should act in this affair. I would ask the members, as it were one by one, whether they can say upon their consciences and according to the word of GOD, that the practice is wrong and erroneous, or in other words, that it sprung from Hell? If the major part can say this without any doubt or hesitation upon their minds, I would ask further, what right the scripture gives them to impose their sentiments upon their fellow-members, who think the practice agreeable to the will of GOD? Ought there not rather to be some way found out in which our consciences may remain in­violate, and none of our christian rights invaded, and we con­tinued in communion together in charity and love? And is not the method I proposed at the last church-meeting of this nature?

Whether the major part of the church be for or against the practice I know not, having conversed with but few. But if any alteration takes place, I apprehend two things necessary.

1st. That those who vote for the alteration should have clear evidence, if not assurance of their own regenerate estate. The new plan supposes it necessary that all candidates for baptism or the LORD'S supper have such evidence. And shall candidates be excluded by those who have it not themselves? As our Saviour said, He that is without sin let him cast the first stone; so I say, let him that hath good evidence of his own gracious state cast a stone at our baptized members; and let none else presume to do it by voting in this [...]ase. If they do they condemn themselves; they pull the mote out of their brother's eye, and leave the beam in their own, contrary to our Saviour's command; they require that of others, which their consciences tell them they are destitute of themselves. And what an absurdity is this? What a presumption? What a self-condemning mark? It was to such cases as this the Apostle had reference in Rom. ii. 1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself.

2d. The other thing necessary is, that the church should be unanimous in the alteration, at least that all opposition should cease.

[Page 33] Our church records inform us, ‘That before any vote was called in affairs of importance, care was always taken to gain the consent of every Brother: And in case any could not actually vote; yet expressing, that they could rest in the act of the church, it was satisfying: And this was a great pre­servation of the peace of the church.’ This is the constitu­tion of the church. How then can this practice be abolished, when about half the church at least, are zealous for it? This would be an imposition with a witness; such as was never heard of, since the church had a foundation.

But how is it possible then, that this affair should ever be settled? I answer, it can be settled no other way, than by mu­tual toleration and forbearance. The church may, if they think proper, passively acquiesce in Mr. Robins's forbearing the practice, until he hath more light to act in the affair. This is the utmost that they can do, without a general concurrence and consent, or while our different sentiments remain.

And if the church thus far condescend to Mr. Robbins, I think at least he ought as far to condescend to those of differ­ent apprehensions; that is, by passively acquiesing at baptism being administred among us by other Ministers, as has been al­ready proposed, and not to imitate Mr. Chauncy in his rigid­ness, or lay stumbling blocks in the way to prevent or discou­rage Ministers coming. Thus by mutual forbearance, the af­fair may be peaceably accommodated, and no violation of conscience on either side. But if the matter be drove on with violence, who can tell what the consequence will be: GOD only knows.

And I would finally say, that if a vote of repeal be obtained, it would be null in itself, unless by a previous vote the constitu­tion of the church be altered, and a new constitution established, wherein the major part should have a right granted them of ruling the consciences of their Brethren; which GOD forbid should ever be the fate of this once famous, but now declining church. AMEN.

This Letter was sent back opened.

On these Letters I remark,

1st. That it was the first of these Letters that began our personal difference: Before this, we held a good co [...]spon­dence, notwithstanding our different sentiments about bap­tism; and might have done so still, if he had managed the controversy with argument instead of abuse; And whether I gave him suficient ground for turning the dispute into this channel by the preceeding Essay, I leave to the Reader's consideration.

2d. What could be Mr. Robbins's real motive in writing his first Letter? His excuse is, that he had not time to an­swer my Piece at the church-meeting, it grew so late, which rendered it necessary for him to write. If this was the case, why did he not argue the point like a man, and endeavour to [Page 52]refute me, and not write like a Momus? Or did he think it too great a condescension for one in " a station so far above me," for one of his superior penetration and sagacity to deign to argue the point with such a mean Antagonist? Why, in this case, a [...]ens contempt would have been the most proper an­swer. Or did he write [...]rly to v [...]nt his indignation? He tells us, "he wrote not in a passion." Or did he do it purposely to pick a quarrel with me? This surely could not be the case with a man of Mr. Robbin [...]'s consummate meek­ness, a grace that he has so much recommended of late; or was it done to chastize me for my presumption in daring to oppose a men of his consequence? This, I dare say, he will not own. Or did he write to terrify me from any further op­position? He says, in his Lo [...], [...]he meant not to attempt "to terrify or affrigh [...] the." Or did he think it best to finish the controversy with a butcher-stroke to knock me down at one blow, (to use a vulgar phrase?). These things I must leave. The real motive of this conduct is beyond my pene­tration: It fills me with surprize every time I think of it. As to the second Letter, the design of it is not so mysterions; it is [...]pare [...]tly to let me know the suparlative contempt he had for me. There is certainly nothing in either Letter that tends to administer con [...]iction, if I had been ever so wrong; nothing but a torrent of abuse, a rumbling sound of hard words; an overflow of gall and bitterness. If I had wrote su [...]h Letters to Mr. Robbins, I should have been afraid to walk the streets. This leads me to ask,

3d. Which has written with the greatest asperity? Mr. Robbins says, "I have [...]ronged him in my Letter thirty times is more than he has me in both his." Here it must be remem­bered, that he began the quarrel, and if, by his reflections and abuses, I have been provoked to speak sometimes too harshly. he may thank himself for it, by giving such needless provoca­tion. But how do the reflections on each side appear upon the comparison? Why, if what he says of me be true, I am cer­tainly a grand knave, and a dangerous beretick, wholly unfit to instruct or preach any more. But in what light have I repre­sented him? Why, the whole amounts to no more than this, that he has partly forgot his school logic; that he is no great Divine; that he is not so much conversant in history as some scholars are; that he does not visit his people enough to know [Page 53]who are the most experienced Christians; that there are ma­ny points of divinity that he has neyer fully and particularly handled; that he hath spoke slightingly of relations, not of experiences, as he is pleased to turn it, which I never ac­cused him of; that his discourse was a rhapsady, &c. If these things be true, where is the fault of telling him of them in the manner I have brought them in? which I desire may be noticed. If any of the particulars be magnified beyond bounds, or the expressions too strong, is the injury done him a thousandth part so great as the injury to me? The differ­ence, I apprehend, is as great, as between the scratch of a pin and a stab through the vitals. Surely, if any one, that was an utter stranger to us both, should read his Letters, and know no more of me than what is contained in them, he would think me a vile wretch indeed. And if they do me no hurt where I am known, no thanks to him.

4th. What satisfaction is proper in this case; and whe­ther the satisfaction offered be sufficient? As Mr. Robbins has brought particular charges against me, I think the satisfaction ought to be particular, and that a general acknowledgment, or amnesty, is not sufficient to answer the gospel rule, &c. But what satisfaction has been offered? Mr. Robbins offered this in general, upon our meeting with some Brethren, refusing so much as to talk of particulars, viz. "You think I have injured you, and I think you have injured me thirty times more by your Letter: Let us make mutual concessions to each other; let us bury the hatchet, and forget and forgive, and for the future live in love and peace." Here is no acknowledgment either general or particular; but only a bare proposal to let the matter drop, without saying any more about it; or in other words, to make something of a ballance, and leave off on equal terms, with intimations at the same time, that he thought it a condescention in him to come down so low. This was the case; and yet I understand I am much blamed by many for not making up on these terms, and represented as unforgiving implacable, &c. Even the pulpit has not been free from cen­sure. If I had accepted this, it would have been an implicit concession.

• 1st. That I was wrong in ever manifesting any dissatisfaction at all.
• 2d. That the charges against me were well grounded and just.
• 3d. That I acquiesced in the doom he had pronounced upon me, as unfit to instruct, &c. And
• 4th. [Page 54]That I had really wronged him, and that in the degree he men­tioned, or at least in equal degrees, when I was not conscious I had wronged him at all. In short, the terms offered appear­ed to me a further insult, rather than any thing that looked like acknowledgment. If he thought proper to insist upon a general making up, what less could he have said, than that his Letters were rash, hasty, and unguarded, and that he was sorry that ever he wrote them? Or something of the like tenor; but not so much as this, could be obtained.

But I am weary with remarking, and would give myself and the Reader some relief, by proceeding to the next Essay; in which, if I have treated him with greater severity, in publick, than be­fore, I trust I have not exceeded christian bounds; if I have, which I am not at present conscious of, I desire to stand corrected.

QUEST. WHETHER the practice of this church respect­ing the subjects of Baptism be warrantable?

The Affirmative further urged; June 30, 1772.

1. I shall endeavour to remove some of the mountains that have been laid in the way, or in other words, to solve some dif­ficulties that have been newly alledged against this practice.

1st. It is said, that the baptism of children, and of adult per­sons is of quite a different nature; persons baptized when a­dult are indeed compleat members, and have a right to all church privileges by virtue of their baptism; but it is not so with respect to baptized infants; their relation to the church at first is but incompleat and partial, and meerly mediate; all the end and intent of it, is to lay them under bonds to be the LORD'S when they grow up; but they are not entitled to the least privilege by virtue of their baptism; and when they come to years of understanding, their relation to the church, or this incompleat membership, if it may be so called, wholly ceases, let them be ever so serious and regular in their lives, unless they make it their own act by taking the covenant personally upon themselves in a gracious manner.

This position I look upon as absurd and irrational and direct­ly contrary to scripture. That childrens membership is of the same nature, as full and compleat and as lasting as that of persons baptized at adult age, and that they can forfeit it no other way but by bad principles or vicious lives, may be proved by the following arguments.

1st. From the nature of baptism, which is, according to all Di­vines, the door of entrance into the church. And if it is the door of entrance, then certainly all baptized persons, whether admitted in infancy, or adult age are members, and there can­not possibly be any specific difference between the member­ship of the one and the other. The scripture no where assigns any such difference; and shall we be wiser than GOD? The following scriptures may further illustrate this point. As 1st. The Apostle says, Gal. iii. 25. As many as have been baptized [Page 56]into CHRIST, have put on CHRIST; that is, have put on the pro­fession of his religion; they are become members of his church; they are in visible covenant delation to him: Let them be child­ren or grown persons, their standing in the church is the same. This place seems exactly parallel with that, 1. Cor. xii. 13. We are all baptized into one body; we are all, whether infants or a­dult, received into the bosom of the church; we are equally become parts of this body, which is but one.

Again, the Apostle tells us, Eph. iv. 5. There is but one LORD, one saith, one baptism. But according to this new notion, there are two baptisms specifically distinct; the one only lays persons under bonds, but the other entitles them to all privileges; which is certainly absurd. This new doctrine, if true, would inset the necessity of rebaptization. Accordingly, Dr. Inc. Mather observes, that rebaptization is the necessary consequence of it: ‘For it seems, says he, according to this plan the covenant which the child was in when an infant is become a meer nul­lity; so that now being adult, he must not renew his cove­nant but enter into a new and other kind of covenant, which he was never i [...] before: Now it is necessary, that when a man doth enter into covenant, he should be initiated by baptism. There was lately a sot in the world, as Mr. Baxter tells us, who upon this very ground, although they did acknowledge baptism of infants as lawful, yet did re­baptize themselves when adult.’ Thus Dr. Mather; sub­ject of baptism, p. 65.

2d. We may argue this point further from the nature of the covenant. This includes the children equally with the pa­rents; their visible covenant relation is the same. Accord­ingly the Apostle says, Rom. xi. 17. If the root be holy, so are the branches. That is, according to all our Divines that are for infant baptism, if the parents, who are the root, be federally holy, that is, in covenant with GOD, so are the children, which are the branches, equally so: The [...]e [...]ive hol [...]ss of the one and the other, are of the same nature and extent, and not spe­cifically distinct: They are equally church mem [...]rs. If it is said, that by the holiness of the root is meant [...] holiness; consequently the holiness of the root and of the branches is of a different nature. I answer, this cannot be the meaning; for it is such a holiness is spoken of as may be l [...]st; it may be broken off by unbelief, as the context shews: From w [...]ce it is evident, that covenant holiness of visible membership is what is meant, [Page 57]and not real holiness. To the same purpose the Abostle says, 1 Cor. vii. 14. Else were your children unclean, but now am they holy. That is, are in covenant with GOD; they are members of the church as well as their parents: There is no difference between the visible relation of the one and the other. To the like effect is that declaration, Acts ii. 39. The promise is unto you and to your children. Infant baptism is strongly argued by all our Divines from this text; and if the argument is good, it proves infant' [...] visible membership to be equal to that of their parents: They are both alike interested in the promise, so far as to have a standing in GOD'S church. And we read Gen. xvii. 13. That the covenant of circumcision was given for an everlasting covenant; so that children do not grow out of it by their becoming adult.

3d. We may argue the point from the claims of this cove­nant relation as still subsisting, made by several particular per­sons after they arrived at adult age. How frequent is this plea in the Old Testament, thou art the GOD of my Fathers? Import­ing their present covenant relation to GOD through their pa­rents means; otherwise there would be no force in the plea: For what benefit would it be if he were only the Father's GOD, and not the childrens too, by virtue of the covenant? David pleads, Psal. cxvi. 16. I am thy Servant the son of thy Hand-maid. He was far from thinking that his covenant relation to GOD by virtue of his circumcision ceased, when he became capable of acting for himself; he still holds it to be in is full force as ever; I am the Son of thy Hand-maid. I was early given to GOD in circumcision; that relation or membership still con­tinues; and upon this ground I beg for covenant blessings. Distressed Ephraim uses the same plea; Jer. xxxi. 18. Turn thou me, &c. for thou art the LORD my GOD. He does not call GOD his GOD, because he thought he had a special saving in­terest in GOD at this time; for he verily thought himself un­converted; but pleads his covenant relation to GOD by vir­tue of circumcision, as an argument for special grace which shews that that relation still subsisted when he was grown up. The pious Mr. Vincent, in his Treatise of Conversion, inter­prets the text thus. Says he, ‘Under the Old Testament every Israelite that in infaa [...]y had been circumcised in the flesh, might go unto GOD for converting grace, for a circum­cised heart; and go to him as unto a GOD, who had sealed a covenant to him. Ephraim upon this score calls the [Page 58]LORD, his GOD, when he cries to him to be turned, Jer. xxxi. 18. Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my GOD: As if he should say, LORD! I have been circumcised and dedicated unto thee, and laid under an obli­gation to be thine: Ob circumcise and turn my heart, that I may be thine indeed. Do the children of believers under the gospel want such an help to conversion as the Jewish chil­dren under the law had? Did CHRIST come to turn in­fants out of covenant, who were once taken in; and to les­sen the saints privileges, instead of enlarging and augment­ing them? No, no; he that hath been baptized and re­ceived this seal of the New Testament, may with confidence address unto GOD, and say; LORD! I have been baptized with water; Ob sprinkle me with the blood of JESUS; bap­tize me with his Spirit; wash me thoroughly from my iniquity; cleanse and turn my heart to thee, and make me faithful and fled­fast in thy covenant.’ Thus Mr. Vincent, p. 79. And the great Mr. Williams formerly of Hatfield, interprets this text in Jer. in the same manner in his Sermon on Infant Baptism, p. 19, 25. And I believe it is the sense that Divines generally put upon it. ^*

4th. We may argue this point from many other divine de­clarations. The kingdom of GOD shall be token from you, says CHRIST, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matt. xxi. 43. That is, they should be deprived of their co­venant relation to GOD by virtue of circumcision; they should be cut off from their membership in the visible church, which is here called the kingdom of GOD, and the Gentiles should be admitted in their flead. To the same purpose is Rom. xi. The Apostle there declares at large how the Jews were broken off. That is, unchurched, and the Gentiles grassed in their room, to partake of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. Their visible relation to GOD by means of circumcision was at an [Page 59]end. And innumerable declarations of the like nature are to be found in the Old Testament. That text is remarkable, Jer. iii. 14. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married to you. ^* That this is spoken of unregenerates is abundantly evident from the context; and yet GOD calls them children; that is, children of the covenant, within the pale of the church; and the expression, I am married to you, is still more strong: He does not say, I will be married to you if you turn; but, I am married to you; to denote their present cove­nant relation to GOD. They had not lost their member­ship received in circumcision, notwithstanding their vile de­generacies; and this he urges as one of the strongest motives to repentance and conversion. GOD was willing to receive them, notwithstanding their repeated adulteries and breaches of wedlock; though ye have played the harlot with many lovers, yet return unto me, saith the LORD, ver. 1. Again, how often does GOD call the Israelites his people, from one generation to another, even in the time of the greatest degeneracy; and this upon account of their visible covenant relation to him, or being members of his church by virtue of circumcision. And this relation continued until GOD gave them a bill of divorce at the Assyrian and Babylonish captivities, when he pronounced lo-ammi upon them. That is, they should be no lon­ger his people nor be their GOD. Hos. i. 9, and Jer. iii. 8. And the same doom was pronounced upon the Jews, sometime after CHRIST'S death, by the Apostles, when they were wholly un­churched and deprived of their visible covenant relation or membership. Rom. xi. and elsewhere. All this serves to shew, that membership received in infancy by circumcision or bap­tism never ceases but continues in adult age, until a people or particular person be regularly cut off or cast out by some im­mediate act of GOD, or by the act of the church in the exer­cise of discipline.

We may also prove, that infant-membership continues after they arrived to such years, as to be capable of ministerial teach­ings, consequently of personal covenanting, from John xxi. 15. [Page 60] Feed my lambs, says CHRIST to Peter. They who are given to me in circumcision or baptism, are my lambs; they have my mark upon them; I own them still as part of my flock; they have not lost their membership, now they begin to be capable of acting for themselves: Therefore feed them as belonging to my fold; feed them as well as the more adult sheep; they are all equally members. And Peter tells the numerous congregation to which he preached, Act. iii. 25. Ye are the children of the covenant, which GOD made with our Fathers. He here plainly supposes their covenant relation received in infancy, still to remain; and urges it as a motive to repentance. And we may observe, that the terms circumcised and uncircum­cised are used through all the Old Testament, to distinguish those who are of the visible church and who not; which plain­ly denotes, that infants membership ever remains in adult age, unless persons are regularly cut off for their wickedness by son e judicial act of GOD or the church; in which case their cir­cumcision becomes uncircumcision, that is, they cease to be members. Hence the city of Jerusalem is called the holy city, at the time of CHRIST'S death, upon the account of this federal holiness, or their being in covenant with GOD by circumcision, when there was scarce a real holy person in it. Matt. xxvii. 53.

5th. This doctrine is attended with great inconveniencies, and several gross consequences result from it, which are not to be admitted. 1st. It puts baptized and unbaptized persons all upon a par or level: They seem to be exactly in the same situation, if the former are grown out of the church, and all relation ceases at adult age; we may well then object as those did of old; Rom. iii. 1. What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there of circumcision? The answer according to this scheme must be, the advantage or profit is none at all: But the Apostle was of another mind; he answers Rom. v. ii. The profit is much every way. For to them pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law and the service of GOD, and the promises, says he in another place Rom. ix. 4. And indeed it has been always esteemed a great privilege by the people of GOD for themselves and theirs to be under the covenant. And Mr. Robbins himself calls the baptism of infants an inestimable privilege; which cannot be true, if they are entitled to no privilege at all by virtue of their baptism. This leads me to observe, 2d. This doctrine tends to sadden the hearts of godly parents. It is a comfortable conside­ration to them, whether living or dying, that their children or rela­tives [Page 61]are under the wing of the covenant, although not as yet converted; they hope covenant mercy will reach them in due time; they look upon this as a weighty plea with GOD in prayer, and accordingly use it; as David did for his son So­lomon. 1. Chron. xxix. 19. ^* And all their hopes of good for their unregenerate offspring, when they lye a dying, is bottom­ed upon this foundation. ‘As a precious man, when dying, called his children about him said, children, I have nothing to leave you, but a GOD, and a gracious covenant, and that is enough for you:’ And shall we dash all these hopes and pleas at once by telling them, that their children have no part in the LORD; that they have no more right to his covenant, than the worst Indian or Heathen in the land, who are within the sound of the gospel? GOD forbid. 3d. This doctrine in effect condemns the practice of GOD'S people in their prayers for reformation. How frequent is this plea in scripture, and that in the worst times of degeneracy, LORD, we are thy peo­ple; we are called by thy name, &c. The meaning is, we are thy people in visible covenant; we were devoted to thee in circumcision; this relation still continues at adult age; there­fore give this people the grace of the covenant. But how vain and futile does this place appear to be, if infant membership be wholly lost, when persons become capable of acting for them­selves, or of personal covenanting. 4th. This doctrine in ef­fect makes infant baptism a meer nullity; or at most a mean, [Page 62]little insignificant rite, which may near as well be let a lone, as done. Agreeable whereto it was said at last church-meeting, What signifies it to have an infant sprinkled with a little water? An expession that made me shudder.

My Brethern, I beg to know what infants are baptized for, if they are not made members of GOD'S church? To what end is this ordinance? Of what benefit and advantage? And are not the Baptists right in laying it aside? If you say, it is to lay them under stronger bands to be the LORD'S when they grow up. Pray, what scripture have you to prove, that this is the only end of baptism? If the greater arguments from the con­sideration of GOD'S being our Creator, Preserver, Governor, and Redeemer, will not prevail, how little can be expected from this? I must profess, that, if I thought these bonds were all that was imported in infant's baptism, and that there was no consideration to [...]e had of the privileges accompanying the re­lation, and of the expectation we may rationally have of GOD'S blessing attending his own institution, I should not think those much to blame who wholly rejected infant baptism. I am sure those who are for the new doctrine would make but a poor figure in encountering the Anabaptists, if ever they should be called to engage in that controversy; and they must cer­tainly lay aside some of their present favourite opinions, or they could never expect any success, in their opposition.

I conclude this head with a quotation or two: The pious President Wadsworth, after explaining some scriptures, con­cludes thus; these things plainly shew, that children of the ‘covenant do not cease to be in GOD'S covenant meerly by their growing up from an infant to an adult state; as some are apt to imagine. No indeed; GOD will be ever mindful of his covenant; He has commanded his covenant forever, Psal. iii. 5, 9. I sware unto thee, and entered into covenant with thee, saith the LORD GOD, and thou becamest mi [...]e. En [...] xvi. 18. Those in GOD'S covenant are his; he will not alie­nate his right to them, and none else have authority to do it. ^* Again, he says, these children admitted in minority, when grown up, do continue in GOD'S covenant, visible members of his visible church, unless justly excommuni­cated for their wickedness. ^†’

What the sentiments of our Fathers were relating to this point will appear from the New-England Memorial, where Se­cretary Morton cites the following words from Governor B [...]ad­ford's [Page 63]manuscript History. ‘In 1629, the two Ministers of Salem being seriously studious of reformation, they consi­dered of the state of their children, together with their pa­rents; concerning which, Letters did pass between Mr. Hig­ginson and Mr. Brewster, the reverend Elder of the church of Plymouth; and they did agree in their judgments, viz. con­cerning the church membership of the children with their pa­rents, and that baptism was a seal of their membership: Only when they were adult, they being not scandalous, they were to be examined by the church-officers, and upon their appro­bation of their fitness, and upon the children's publick and personal owning of the covenant, they were to be received unto the LORD'S supper. Accordingly Mr. Higginson's el­dest Son, being about fifteen years of age, was owned to have been received a member together with his parents; and being privately examined by the Pastor, Mr. Shelton, about his knowledge in the principles of religion, he did present him be­fore the church, when the LORD'S supper was to be ad­ministred; and the child then publickly and personally own­ing the covenant of the GOD of his Father, he was admitted unto the LORD'S supper. It being then professedly owned, according to 1 Cor. vii. 14. That the children of the church are holy unto the LORD, as well as their parents: According­ly, the parents owning and retaining the baptism which they themselves received in their infancy in their native land; as they had any children born, baptism was administred unto them. ^*’

But it would be endless to cite human testimonies, since this has been the universally received opinion of Ministers and churches from CHRIST'S time to this day; except Mr. Daven­port, Mr. Street, and two or three others in the time of the Synod, and a few Connecticut Ministers, &c. in our days; who are forced to advance the contrary absurd doctrine, in order to uphold their opposition to the practice recommended by the Synod.

Upon the whole, as Mr. Robbins expressly granted at the last church-meeting, that, according to our Catechism, the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized; and, as I have fully proved that baptized persons are members of the visible church, it undeniably follows, that their chil­dren are to be baptized; and none can lawfully deny them this privilege, unless they have forfeited it by their wickedness. [Page 64]What an amazing thing then is it, that any are so fond of principles, urging them with so much heat and vehemence, that tend so directly to unchurch their posterity, and leave them in the state of outcasts and aliens to GOD'S covenant?

If what has been said, does not satisfy, I desire that Dr. Inor. Mather's twelve arguments in proof of the point may be read, as also the arguments of the Synod; with which what I have alledged does but little interfere; so fruitful is the scripture of arguments, to prove children's membership and its continuance at adult age.

II. It is objected, "that this Practice and the arguments made use of to support it, have an unavoidable tendency to subvert some of the grand doctrines of the gospel and of cal­vinism, and to establish some of the most dangerous tenets of arminianism." What a bug-bear? What a scare-crow is here thrown out, either to stop my [...]ou [...]h, or to make people ima­gine I hold something very dreadful, to prevent their listening to me, or duly weighing the arguments that I bring? But I trust the Brethren have more understanding, than to be impo­sed upon in this sort. There is really no more connexion be­tween this practice and arminianism, than between it and a­theism. And I challenge all the world to show the contrary. If there is such a connexion, then Mr. Leonard, your former beloved Paster, was an Arminian; then this church have been Armini­ans for forty one years, ever since they introduced this practice, and Mr. Robbins was an Arminian for the first nine years of his ministry, while he held to this practice. Yea, Mr. Stoddard and almost all the Ministers and churches in the country are Arminians: Yea, Calvin himself was an Arminian, who was with us in this point of baptism. Yea further, St. James the Apostle was an Arminian, who held justification by works before [...]en as much as we. Here let me give a specimen how this charge may be supported against the Apostle, St. James holes, that we are justified by works, that is, by our lives and conver­sations, in the sight of men, in the sight of the church and thers. Hence they will unavoidably be led to think, that [...] are likewise justified by works in the sight of GOD. consequently St. James holds doctrines of an arminian tendency. What trisling is this? What an absurd consequence indeed? And yet, this is exactly the argument that is produced to prove me an Arminian. Methinks the boldest face may be justly asham­ed ever to mention it any more.

III. I now pass to make some ODOERVATION for the sur­ther illustrating the point, &c.

[Page 65] 1st. I think the controversy is greatly mis [...]stated. By Mr. Robbins's management and arguments, one would think that the dispute here is the same that subsisted at North-Hampton some years ago between Mr. Edwards and his people. But this is not the case; for Mr. Edwards meddles little or no­thing with baptism, but the LORD'S supper; and all his discourse is about qualifications for that, which I never yet pretended to disclaim; neither did it ever enter into my heart, that the chief design of our church-meetings was to determine, whethes Mr. Stoddard's doctrine about the LORD'S supper was right or not. The dispute here relates entirely to the initiating or­dinance of baptism. And even as to this, the controversy is not; whether they should be visible Christians that offer themselves or not; we agree that they should be such. In what then do we differ? Why, 1st. our opponents say, that the highest sort of evidence of grace is necessary in this case; we say the lowest is sufficient, especially with respect to persons already baptized, as baptism is a facrament of entrance.

But what is this highest sort of evidence that they insist on? Why, this is a mystery that I could never yet unfold. Is it a particular relation of experiences? No; this, they say, is not absolutely necessary; this is not the standard that the scripture gives for the church to judge by. What then is it? Why, profession and practice, or the life and conversation. To this we again agree: In what then do we differ but in words? But if Mr. Robbins now says, contrary to all his former declara­tions, that a relation is absolutely necessary, how can he look upon those, who have already owned the covenant as members in full communion, as he says he does, that never made any such relation? What an inconsistency would be here? 2d. They say, that none should come to baptism, but they should immediately come likewise to the LORD'S supper. But we say, they may come to the one ordinance and not to the other in some cases; that baptized persons, of regular conversati­ons, have right to come, and none have right to deny them: Here then the dispute chiefly lies, and not so much about qua­lifications. Why then do we hear so much concerning them, as if the hinge of the controversy lay here? If Mr. Robbins would only receive those whom he calls qualified, to own the covenant, &c. he would meet with little opposition. But it seems they must be excluded without they will come im­mediately to full communion, let their scruples be what they will, which is what I think he cannot answer to GOD or the church. Wherefore I desire to hear no more about qualificati­ons, [Page 66]about moral and gracious sincerity, which are terms I never used, until this point be settled.

2d. I observe, that it is peculiar to those of the congregational way to have a church, as it were, within a church; to make distinction between members at large, and members in particular, between communicants and others. All other persuasions rec­kon bapt [...]zed persons such members, as to be entitled to all church privileges whenever they demand them, if they lay no bar in the way by their wickedness: Which is the reason why we read of no disputes in such churches about the subjects of baptism, such as subsist among the congregationists.

3d. I observe, our Brethren of the other side of the question, are exactly like those Disciples, who because the Jews, we read of in scripture, did not follow CHRIST so fully and in the man­ner they expected and required, forbad them to bring their child­ren to CHRIST. But CHRIST says, sorbid them not, for of such is the kingdom, &c.

4th. I observe, that if a person baptized says, that as far as he knows his own heart, he is sincerely willing to give up himself and his children to GOD, that is enough. The Minister should go no further. He has no business to puzzle and confound him with a long discourse about moral and gracious sincerity, which it is likely the candidate will understand little of.

5th. I observe, that if a man offers himself to either ordi­nance, only to be seen of men, &c. and knows it, nothing that can be said to him about grace will hinder him: He will come, let the Minister say what he will. But it is only the tender con­scienced, that have been under so [...]e [...]k of the Spirit, that will be scared and terrified away by the present harsh method of treating the subjects. So here is the utmost danger, as I have observed heretofore, of breaking the bruised read, and quench­ing the smoaking flax, &c.

6th. I observe it as a certain maxim of truth, that if a man declares upon oath more than he knows, he is guilty of perjury, though it should happen afterwards to be true. If a man then publickly professes, that GOD is his GOD, and that he has sav­ing faith, and does not know it to be so, though it should ap­pear afterwards to be the case, he certainly goes beyond the line of truth; he solemnly, and, as it were, upon oath declares that to be true, which he does not know but may be false; which is the very essence of a lye. Consequently there can be no covenanting with GOD upon this new s [...]me, without a cer­tain knowledge of a ma [...]'s gracious state. And in addition to [Page 67]this I observe, that Mr. Robbins, according to his plan, must ne­cessarily tell every candidate that offers, that it is saving faith he prefesses, when the covenant is propounded to him; and he must necessarily tell him further, that if he has not saving faith, he cannot profess it. How then can such a candidate proceed one step further, without he knows he has saving faith? Or further, where is the consistency to tell a man that it is enough for him to say that he hopes he has saving faith, when discoursed with in private; if, when he comes into publick, he must abso­lutely profess saving faith, without any hope so in the case? How can these things hang together? But what are these prevail­ing hopes. founded on scripture evidence, so much talked of? Are they not in effect the same with assurance? Prevailing hopes may be accompanied with doubes and fears; and so may assurance: Full assurance I know excludes all doubts, but not so the other; there are degrees of assurance. So that I do not see why they need start so much at the word assurance, when they hold the same thing in other words. Mr. Bellamy uses the word, knowledge or knowing in this case, which is certainly as strong a term as assurance.

7th I observe, that the word soul is much used in this contro­versy; and indeed it seems that almost all the arguments used on the other side of the question are founded on this word: People are so continually dinned and drowned with it, that they imagine there is more in it than there is. Therefore I shall add a little on this point. There is no gospel ordinance whatsoever but carries the nature, the very essence of a seal. Prayer is a seal of the covenant of grace. When we say, our Father which art in Heaven in sincerity, we set to our seal that GOD is our Father. Hearing is a seal; when we heartily be­lieve the truths delivered, we set to our seal that GOD is true. John iii. 33. Reading the word is a seal; when we apply the law or gospel to our souls, we seal the truth of it. Must then all unregenerate men be debarred from these ordinances, be­cause these, properly used, are seals, always seals, of the covenant of grace? No, say they, these are moral duties, and therefore ought to be performed by all; but baptism and the LORD'S supper are positive special institutions, and are only to be per­formed by true believers. Here then the argument from the nature of a seal is given up: It is in effect granted, that unre­generate men may partake of some of the seals of the covenant of grace, though not of others; and the reason why they are ex­cluded [Page 68]from the one and not from the other, is not taken from the nature of a seal, but from a different ground, viz. the one's being of a moral and the other of positive institution. How ab­surd then is this way of reasoning taken meerly from the nature of a seal? But to follow then the argument a lit le further. The argument from the nature of a seal being given up, and another foundation established in its room, let us see how far this will hold. The sacraments, say they, are positive special institu­tions, and therefore confined to believers. But does not this prove too much? May not the same be said of all the sacrifices under the law, as well as of the passover, baptism, &c? They were not of a moral nature, but of positive special institution. Must not then an unregenerate Jew engage in the daily sacrifice, or the sacrifices offered every Sabbath, because of positive institu­tion? Why, this would have destroyed all publick worship at once among the Jews. If none but regenerates must have come to the temple, (which were so few generally) what thin assemblies would they have had. It follows then that as ordinances be­ing meerly of positive special institution, is not in it self a sufficient bar to unregenerates attending [...]on them. So that both their grounds here fail them. But what does all this arguing tend to, will they say, but to encourage unregenerate men, knowing themselves to be such, to come to both sacraments? I answer, this is not my design in it, but only to shew the weakness of the argument taken from the nature of a seal, &c. ^* But thus much I say, if a person under ferious religious impressions should out of a sense of duty come to either ordinance, he sins less in com­ing than in staying away, though it should afterwards appear that he was unregenerate at the time. This leads me,

8th. To take notice of some absurd doctrines delivered by the chief promoter of the new scheme. These are Mr. Bellamy's words ‘When a natural man owns the covenant, or pretends to own it, for it is impossible for such a man to own the co­venant of grace really, he sins against GOD in a more pro­voking manner than if he had committed drunkenness, for­nication, and adultery;’ p. 48. And the reason he gives is, [Page 69]because such are guilty of lying to GOD and perjury: This, we may observe, is spoken not only of wilful hypocrites, who do all to be seen of men, &c. but of all unregenerate men whatsoever let them be under ever so great religious impressions, ever so se­rious or consciencious in what they do. This I stick not to call horrible doctrine, contrary to scripture and r [...]ason. Accord­ing to this, 1st. Ahab sinned more in humbling himself and walking softly, which necessarily implies his confessing his sin and promising reformation; I say, that he sinned more in doing this than in murdering Naboth and taking away his vineyard by injustice and violence. 2d. According to this doctrine, Hezekiah and Josiah sinned more in promoting, and the people in joining in renewing covenant, than they would have cone in murdering a whole city, or all turning drunkards and adulterers: For, it is evident by the peoples after apostacy, that their hearts were not generally right with GOD in the transaction. 3d. Accord­ing to this doctrine, the King and the people of Niacvah sinned more provokingly in repenting and reforming in the manner they did, than they would have if they had murdered Jonah and bid defiance to the GOD of Israel. 4th. According to this doctrine, if a sinner unconverted in a time of sickness or other great distress, should acknowledge his sins and premise reforma­tion with all appearing earnestness, he is all the while commit­ting a greater sin in promising, than drunkenness or adultery. What a figure, would a Minister make, if he should stop the sinner's month by telling him this? Is it not rather the Mini­ster's duty to encourage him, though at the same time teiling him that he must go to CHRIST for strength, otherwise all his resolutions and premises will come to nothing?

For my part, I always thought, and it is the opinion of al­most all Divines, that a particular persons or a peoples persorm­ing a duty with any sort of sincerity, was a less [...]r sin than a total neglect, &c. And as to special ordinances, particularly, although I think they ought to be visible Christians that come; yet that if they do come coasciencionsly, though unconcerted, their sin is not so great and provoking, as a contemptuous turning their back upon the ordinance. The scriptures tell us, that he that was not circumcised, or did not eat the passover, was to be out off from his people; that is, put to death: But no such punishment was threatned to an untegenerate man that performed tue duty.

But what signifies mens coming to special ordinances, if their hearts be not engaged in the duty? What is here but [Page 70] meer form? And what can be more provoking than that? I answer, the form of religion compared with the power, is a little thing; but in itself it is a great thing: But where that remain­ed, GOD hath graciously returned many and many a time to his people. But when both form and power were gone, there never was an instance of GOD'S remaining with that people, but they were made examples of vengeance.

9th. I observe, that we seem to be agreed in this, that none but visible Christians or believers should be admitted to either ordinance. But when they come to explain themselves, it is evident that by visible Christians they mean real Christians; so confounding all distinction between the visible and invisible church, in direct contradiction to almost all Divines. And herein they talk just as the Baptists do, who destroy all differ­ence between the external and internal parts of the covenant.

10th. I observe, that Mr. Davenport, the great writer against the Synod, was consistent with himself: He professedly acknow­ledges that the church had nothing to do with the baptized im­mediately in a way of discipline, as not being immediate members. But our Pastor called the church together at their first meeting, partly to discipline the baptized children of the church; which im­plies, that he thought them to be immediate members: And this is a matter that yet lies under our consideration underermined If he has since altered his mind he ought publickly to declare that he was then in an error, and that he did wrong in propo­sing discipline to the church, or our calling those to account with whom we have nothing to do, according to his present princi­ples. This would be ingenuous, and what the church have a right to expect, if he has led them in a wrong path, or propo­sed what ought not to be proposed. For what have we to do to judge them that are without? 1 Cor. v. 12.

11th. I would observe, upon a passage that sell from Mr. Robbins at last church-meeting. He said, that some who had taken the pains to turn to the passages of scripture that were produced of the Synod, said, they found them nothing to the purpose to prove their point; which shews, that he takes upon trust what is al­ledged on that side, and that he never examined them himself. Is this an impartial way of proceeding? Is this the manner of a lover of truth, to see with others eyes? On the contrary. I assert that these texts are much to the purpose, and that he would have found them so, if he had given them an impartial examina [...]ion.

[Page 71] 12 [...]h. I would observe, the policy of some to get this practice abolished. They endeavour to instill into people, that the whole design of the opposition is to get Mr. Robbins away; hoping, if such a notion be once imbibed, it will put then into such a ferment, that they will join in abolishing the practice right or wrong, in order to keep Mr. Robbins. But how unjust is this? And what gross uncharitableness does it involve in it? Pray, who was it first brought this dispute into the church? Not we, sure. Who is it that are for innovation? Not we: And must we submit to innovations, for fear our Minister should run away from us? Not we, unless our consciences were convinced. If Mr. Robbins is resolved to leave us, if he cannot gain his point, we cannot help it; we must do our duty, and leave the event to GOD. As for any direct design to get him away, it never en­tered into my heart; and I never heard any thing lisped by my Brethren tending that way: All our design is, I can speak it for myself, and believe it of my Brethren; I say, all our de­sign is to discharge our consciences and do our duty: We think the point of very great importance, and cannot give it up. And in order to promote peace, we have alrealy proposed an expe­dient that would make all easy, and hurt no man's conscience. But with what contempt was it rejected. ^*

If we patiently submit in this point, meerly to please or keep Mr. Robbins, who will ever dare to speak against innovations again, let them come ever so fast? We have had something new started to trouble the churches peace, I think, every two or three years since his settlement; And who can assure us, that it will not be so hereafter, until the whole of the Canazdicut disciplins be brought in upon us? ^† If any make the least, opposution, why [Page 72]they will be immediately branded with a design of getting away Mr. Robbins; and then it must pass without controul. But I trust the Brethren are better fortified than to be led away by suth insinuations; and hope that whisperers, talc bearers, and s [...]ers of discord among Brethren will be disappointed of their aim, according to the directions we had last Sabbath, and agreeable to the Apostle's advice; Rom. xvi. 17. Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned, and avoid them.

Upon the whole, I hope whatever the Brethren do in this matter will be founded upon full conviction of conscience; I say, full conviction of conscience; and that they will not be influenced one way or the other meerly to please any man whatsoever; and that they will not hold the doctrine of CHRIST with respect of persons; but with all impartiality will pass their judgment, as they will answer it at the bar of CHRIST.

I shall conclude with some PROPOSALS. And my.

1st proposal is, instead of contending what privileges belong to the children of the church, we had better unite in granting them some privilege; and then set upon the vigorous exercise of discipline: And we may hope for GOD'S blessing in reforming, or at least in restraining our licencious youth.

2d. I would propose this churches solemnly renewing covenant on a day of fasting and prayer, according to the model of our Fathers. This has been found a happy expedient of reviving religion in timer of great degeneracy; the divine blessing usu­ally accompanying it; as we see in the time of Kings Hezeki [...]h and Jos [...]h, and in the days of our Fathers. This tends to re­vive a [...]nse of covenant vows and enpagements, both in com­municants and the children of the church, and excites a more strict and circumspect walk.

3d. I would propose that the church, by a formal vote, adopt the method I proposed the last town-meeting, viz. for a neigh­bouring Minister to baptize the children of the church, as long as Mr. Robbins's scruples remain: By which it will appear, that we have no design of soreing Mr. Robbins to act against his conscience, as the matter is represented abroad, or of getting him away. We are willing to give him liberty of conscience; [Page 73]and expect the same liberty from him. And should think it hard, if he endeavours to prevent any Minister's coming.

4th. and lastly, I would propose, that seeing Mr. Robbins's chief stick is about qualifications, if he will go on with the practice, he may examine the candidate as much as he pleases [...] though we think there is no divine warrant for it, with respect to persons baptized; but we would by no means have the practice wholly laid aside.

As to the method proposed, of receiving the candidates to full communion, and then dispensing with their coming to the LORD'S table, which is again reurged, I have said enough be­fore. I would only add, that I look upon It as the old practice spoiled: A few circumstances must be added to reader it non­sensial, ridiculous and contradictory in itself. No church in the province practices any thing like it. A report indeed we have, that one church in Co [...]necticut have adopted some such scheme, whether true or not we cannot tell; And if there be something in it, we have no particular account of the plan; and shall we meerly upon such a vague report, without con­sulting one Minister or church, make such a material alteration as this? What presumption? What head-long Jehu-like act would it be? I am confident, not one man that should vote for it, but would be ashamed of it before a twelve-month came about. May the LORD keep us from wrong paths: May he lead us into all truth, and direct us in the way of duty. May this church still retain its precious privileges, and transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity: And may no weapon formed against its welfare prosper.

Perhaps those who live at a distance may be desirous to know how this dispute terminated. Why, in short, the church, with a view to peace, have voted to "dissolve the meeting and to drop the affair for the present, and to reassume the confiderati­on thereof when they shall think proper." Thus the matter is left in suspence. The practice remains unrepealed, and the Minister as much unsatisfied with it as ever. So that the door seems at present strut against all comers. How things will finally issue, is beyond me to say. But I trust GOD will over­rule all to his glory, and the best good of his church and peo­ple, and bring this controversy at last to a happy