ENCOURAGED by the kind reception I met with in my first visit, I am come to make you a second. For I still have a strong desire that my child should be baptized, and I have something new to offer.

I am ready to baptize your child with all my heart, as soon as you will put me in a way to do it on principles consistent with the bible, and with themselves. Have you yet found any text of scripture that will warrant the half-way-practice?

I have been round the country since I saw you, and my ears have been open to all the talk: Particularly, I have had a long conversation with my former minister, the substance of which has been printed at Hartford, under the title of a second dialogue between a minister and his parishioner, concerning the half way-covenant; which, I suppose, you have seen. And now according to the words he has put into my mouth, and according to all I have heard about the country among my friends, I am come to speak at this time. Therefore I say,—as to a text of scripture—"allow there is none," not one text of scripture to justify the half-way-practice, "it don't in the least prove the point."—Pray, where is there one to condemn it? p. 3.

In this controversy gentlemen on your side of the question are wont to argue abundantly from the old testament dispensation. Did you never observe, that according to the express letter of the Jewish law, if any man was found guilty of the half way-practice, he was to be excommunicated?

Indeed, Sir, I never did.

Be pleased to take the bible, and turn to Num. 9.13. The text I referred you to when here before, and read it in this view.

The words are—But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover; even the same soul shall be cut off from his people, because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season: that man shall bear his sin.

Read the foregoing, 10, 11, verses, and you will see, that those who were hindred by uncleanness, or a journey, from attending the passover in its season, were obliged to keep it the very next month; whereas it is the custom in some of our churches, to allow persons to own the covenant, and have their children baptized, and live and die, and never come to the Lord's table. Among the Jews such men would have been excommunicated.— And besides, are not the ministers of Christ obliged by their commission, Mar. 28. to teach the disciples of Christ to observe all things which he has com­manded? And has he not expresly commanded all his disciples, say­ing, This do in remembrance of me? Luk. 22. And are we not all agreed that the second command requires us to keep pure and entire all such religious wor­ship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word? And have ministers or churches a dispensing power? Are they authorized by Christ to grant indul­gence to any of his disciples to live in the allowed breach of any one of his laws? Mat. 5.19. The pope claims this power; but all protestants are agreed in disclaiming it.

"I cannot believe the command of Christ obligeth any of his followers to do that which they in their consciences dare not attempt."—"To oblige persons to that, which they are not convinced they may safely do, is hard." —"I freely allow it is the duty of all to come."—"I believe it is my duty to come, but I believe I must first get my scruples removed." p. 4 5.

What are your scruples? my dear sir. Let me know them, and will do my best to remove them.

It is not because I think I ought to be converted before I come to the Lord's table. This was my only scruple once. But I give it up. My for­mer minister has convinced me, that the scheme I was in cannot be vindicated He tells me, I have as good a right to come to the Lord's Table, knowing myself to be unconverted, as to attend the common means of grace, p. 8 and I am now convinced; but yet I dare not in conscience come. p. 5.

That is, you believe you have an undoubted right to come, and yet you doubt whether you may come. You believe it is your duty to come, but yet you dare not in conscience come. Your conscience says, yes, and no, at the same time. A strange conscience this! I thought you honest in your first visit, but what shall I think now? to believe a thing to be, and not to be, at the same time, is to believe a contradiction —Pray be not offended, my dear sir, at my pointing out the inconsistence of your present scheme; rather review it with that candor that becomes an honest man.

My former minister tells me, that the half-way practice has been approved of and practised upon by many great and good men, p. 4, 14, 15.

Perhaps he did not mean to be understood, that they approved of his half-way-practice; for he knew, that this scheme of his, to which you are become a proselyte, was not the scheme upon which they professed to act This scheme is essentially different from the half-way-scheme of the synod in [Page 4] Boston, 1662; for they—‘did acknowledge, that there ought to be true saving faith in the parent, according to the judgment of rational charity, or else the child ought not to be baptized.’—This I told you before; and did your former minister deny this to be the synod's scheme?

He did not. But he however really thinks in his conscience their scheme is wrong; (yea, that it amounts to the same thing with Sandemeanism, p. 5.) for he believes, that a man may enter into covenant with God; and have his child baptized, and come to the Lord's table too, who knows him­self to be unconverted, p. 8—12.

Your former minister then knows, that the famous men, whom he mentions, are not in his scheme. Why then did he mention them in a man­ner which tended to lead you to think they were? I suppose he also knew, that there is no evidence that the half-way-practice was set up in New-England, till after the synod, 1662, 40 years after the first settling of the country. Mr. Prudden in his letter dated, 1651, to which he refers, says, "it is a thing I do not yet hear practised." And not one of the letters in my collection, say, that it was practised. But be this as it may, it is nothing to your purpose, for you reject their scheme, and advance one of another nature, on different and contrary principles; even on principles on which the half-way-practice never was justified before by any synod, council, pres­bytery, or any one single writer, perhaps, since the world began. A scheme which no parishioner can be in, and act upon, without being guilty of the most glaring self-contradiction. A scheme, therefore, I am of opinion, no parishioner ever was in, and acted upon, that understood himself. For, if men believe they have equal right to both ordinances, there is no room left for scruples. There is no room for the half-way-practice, upon their own principles, according to their own conscience. The synod in 1662, knew better than to advance such a scheme as this.

The sum of the matter is this, when you owned your covenant, you did not mean to own the covenant of grace, which you thought none but the godly might do; but the half-way-covenant, which you thought the uncon­verted might do; your former minister, in the time of it, thought the princi­ples you acted upon were wrong; but, for peace sake, suffered you to take your course, and this confirmed you in your error.—Now he tells you plainly, "there is no half-way-covenant;" and he that is qualified to have his chil­dren baptized is equally qualified for the Lord's table.—You are convinced —you give up the half-way-covenant; and to be consistent, you must now give up the half-way-practice too. For, according to your own conscience, you are now as fit for one ordinance as for the other; and to say you dare not come, is expresly to contradict yourself.

But what if I had been conscience bound? And what if no one could have convinced me? In such a case as this, surely it would be the duty of a minister to bear with one.

And what if you was about to sign a bond of £. 1000 to a merchant for a pearl of great price? And what if you thought it to be £. 1000 old tenor? A good bargain, think you. And what if in this view you was greatly engaged to strike the bargain? Conscience bound! and was so bad a reader, as not to observe it was plainly written £. 1000 sterling.—Now, nothing can open your eyes, and hinder your signing the bond, and binding yourself to ten times as much as you are worth in the world, or would be willing to give; but the plain truth—the merchant fees your mistake—shall he tell you the truth, wake you up from the pleasing dream, or let you go on in your error?—the answer is easy.—Oh, how many poor souls are there, who know not what they are about, when they own the covenant!—Pray, my dear sir, how do you understand the covenant of grace, and covenanting transactions?

I am told, that the covenant of grace requires real holiness, even re­pentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ: And yet that men, who know they have no grace, may enter into this covenant with a good conscience, without being guilty of lying. p. 8, 9.

How can you with a good conscience profess that to be true, which you know, in the time of it, is not true?

This is thought to be lying in our dealing between man and man; and why not in our transactions with the heart-searching God?

The Israelites entered into covenant at Mount Sinai, but they were generally graceless. p. 6.

But do you not remember the high charge which God afterwards exhibited against them by the divinely inspired psalmist. They did flatter him with their lips, and they lied unto him with their tongues, for their heart was not right with him, neither were they steadfast in his covenant. Ps. 78, 36, 37. And do you not remember that the carcases of this wicked hypocritical gene­ration fell in the wilderness? And do you not know, that these things were written for our warning that we might not sin and perish, as they did; and not for our imitation? And if they are thus charged by God with lying, for professing that to be true which was not so, altho' in the time of it, for aught appears, they thought it was; how will God look upon you, if you profess that, which, in the time of it, you know to be false? Can wilful lying be called an instituting means of grace, which is so plainly contrary to the light of nature? Can this be preached up as a means of conversion, which natu­rally tends to harden men in sin? Ask the wisest man that ever lived under that dispensation, and he will tell you, Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay. Eccl. 5.5.—And if that people acted hypocritically in the time of Asa, as is intimated p. 9. whether justly or not, we need not stand to enquire, for if they did, they must fall under the same condemnation with their forefathers: And their wicked example is not to be your pattern, but the law of God is your only rule.

I do not mean to profess, that I have true repentance, or saving faith, or any holiness in my heart, or any thing that implies it. This is not ne­cessary in order to sealing ordinances. p. 8—12.

What is the covenant then with which you mean to profess a com­pliance?

Not any half-way-covenant, for—"there is no half-way-covenant," p. 4.—"no one disputes it being the covenant of grace."—"no one dare deny it." p. 6.

What then! does your former minister instruct you thus? Does he teach you, in words, to profess a compliance with the covenant of grace, and at the same time to mean in your heart, that you do not comply with it? Does he teach you to substitute such gross dissimulation in the room of so holy a transaction as entering into covenant with the GREAT GOD! And does he learn you to justify your conduct by the hypocritical professions of that generation whose carcases fell in the wilderness!

No, sir, by no means. I do not believe a profession of a compliance with the covenant of grace is necessary in order to sealing ordinances. This was not required of the Israelites by Moses, nor of the Jews by John baptist, or by Christ, or his apostles. p. 8—12.

What then! We are to profess a compliance with no covenant at all, it seems! Not with the half-way-covenant; for there is none.—Not with the covenant of grace; for this never was required.—And there is no other covenant.—It therefore follows, according to you, that we are to enter into covenant with God visibly, without professing to comply with any co­venant at all, what say you to this?

I have heard that it hath been said, that a man who knows he has no grace, may profess to comply with the covenant of grace, with moral sin­cerity.

And why might not Annanias and Sapphira be supposed to exercise moral sincerity in their profession, as well, when they brought their money, and laid it at the apostle's feet, and said, this is all; altho' they knew what they said was not true? For, if we profess supreme love to God and Christ, &c. when we know there is none in our hearts, we do say that which we know is not true, as really as they did. And if we do not profess supreme love to God and Christ, &c. we do not profess a compliance with the cove­nant of grace, and so do not visibly enter into covenant with God, and so are not visible disciples of Christ, nor can we claim the peculiar privileges of such. When therefore your minister, speaking of that covenant with God, which professors publickly enter into, in our churches, previous to their admis­sion to special ordinances, said, "there is no half-way-covenant"—"no one disputes it being the covenant of grace"—"no one dare deny it." He im­plicitly yielded up every point for which we contend. Nor do I doubt, if this controversy should go on, it will soon publickly appear, that there is [Page 7] "one who dare deny it." For, otherwise all men of sense will see that gen­tlemen on that side of the question, are grossly inconsistent with themselves.

Sir, I feel myself pinched. I cannot get out. I must therefore deny that it is the covenant of grace, that is to be owned, and by consequence I must say, that a profession of a compliance with no covenant at all, is necessary in order to sealing ordinances. ^(a) For there is no other covenant, but the covenant of grace. But this would condemn the practice of all our churches in a lump. For they all have their covenants. What shall I do?

Read President Edwards on this subject—for it is beyond my original design to enter far into these things: it appears quite needless, til some one shall attempt an answer to what he has already published. My design was to shew the absurdity of the half-way-covenant, and the half-way-practice, in use in our churches. You have given up the former; and I am willing to leave it to your own judgment, whether the latter can be retained, if the former is given up?

But, Sir, I have not the Books by me, which you recommend. There­fore pray answer me a few Questions, as briefly as you please.

1. What did the covenant with Abraham require of him?

To believe in Jehovah, Gen. 15.6. To walk before him and be perfect, Gen. 17.1. To forsake his native country, and follow God. Gen. 12.1.

2. What did the covenant at Mount Sinai require of the Israelites?

Supreme love to God. Exod. 20.6. Deut. 6.4.5. and 10.12, 13, and 11.22, 23. To love their neighbours as themselves. Lev. 19.18. And put an intire trust and confidence in God. Num. 14.11. Heb. 3.19. and 4.11. and from love to God and man to perform all the duties required re­specting God and man. Mat. 22.40. So that love was the fulfilling of their Law. Rom. 13.8, 10. The sum of which was contained in ten commands, and was written on two tables of stone, which were called the tables of the co­venant. Deut. 4.13. and 9.9, 11. And the whole was written more at large in a book, even the whole law of Moses, and this was called the book of the covenant, which was put in the ark of the covenant.

3. What did the Israelites promise when they entered into this covenant?

To comply with the whole of it. Exod. 19.8. and 24, 3. Deut. 26, 17.

4. What does the gospel require of its professors?

Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, and to do all Things whatsoever Christ commands us. Acts 20, 21. Mat. 28, 19, 20.

5. But can no man be a disciple of Christ, without this?

No man can be Christ's disciple unless he love him more than father and mother, yea, more than his own life, and deny himself, and take up his cross and follow him. Mat. 10.32—39. Luke 14 25—33.

6. To whom was baptism administred in the days of Christ, and his Apostles? I speak only as to adults.

To those, and to those only who professed that very faith and repen­tance which the gospel required, and that very discipleship. First they made disciples, and then they baptised them. First they appeared to repent, they professed to believe, and then they baptised them. John 4.1 Acts 2.38 41, 44, 47, and ch. 8 36, 37. and ch. 16 31, 34. Mat. 28.19, 20 Mark 16.15, 16.

7. What is the meaning of Mat. 28.19. Teach all nations, baptising them.

In the original it is, disciple all nations, baptising them, i. e. first make them disciples, and then baptise them. The meaning of the word disciple may be seen Luke 14.25—33. Their manner of making disciples is exemplified, in Acts 2.37—47. The import of baptism is stated, Acts 22.16. Rom. 6.1—14. Gal. 3.27, 29.

8 What did Philip mean by believing with all the heart? Acts 8.37.

St. Paul will tell you, in Rom. 10.9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, &c. thou shalt be saved.

9. What was the import of the Eunuch's profession, as they used words in the apostolic age? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

We may learn from 1 John 5.1. Whosoever believeth Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And ch. 4. 15. Whosoever shall confess, that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

10. To whom did John administer Baptism?

John preached up but one kind of repentance—the repentance which he preached up was a gracious repentance; for it was connected with the remis­sion of sins: those who appeared by their profession to comply with his preach­ing, even those who came to him confessing their sins, he baptized; and there­fore his baptism was called by the name of the baptism of repentance for the re­mission of sins: and therefore was evidently the same with that in Acts 2.38. Repent and be baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. See Mat. 21.28—32. Mat. 3.6. Luke 3.3.

11. Did not Christ desire hypocrites to make a profession of his religion, and come into his visible kingdom?

Far from it. Luke 6.46. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the [Page 9] things which I say? Mat. [...]2.12. Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? See Luke 14.25—33.

12. What was this man (in Mat. 22.12) blamed for?

For coming into Christ's visible kingdom without a wedding garment; which he did when he made a profession.

13. Doth not baptism, received in infancy, merely of it self, give right to baptism for our children?

If our baptism alone gives us a right to have our children baptised, then our right continues after we have been censured for gross scandal, yea after ex­communication; for even excommunication does not cause us to be unbaptised, or render it needful that we should be baptised again, upon repentance; as all grant.

14. Are not all baptised infants in the church? and have not all church-members a right to church privileges?

Baptism alone, in the apostolic age, never made any adult person, a church-member; or give any one a right to church privileges, without a pro­fession. Profession was first made, and then they were baptised. Those there­fore that are baptised in infancy, in order to be members, in this sense, must make a profession when they become adult. The New-England churches, therefore, are right in demanding it.

15. Were not the graceless Israelites, in fact, in covenant with God? And have not all who are in covenant a right to covenant privileges?

He who complies with the covenant of grace, in the sight of God, as searcher of hearts, has a right, in the sight of God, as searcher of hearts, to all the blessings of the covenant; and so to the seals. In this sense, the graceless Israelites were not in covenant; as all allow.—He who professeth to comply with the covenant of grace, and promises to live according to it, is bound by his profession and promise to be holy to God in heart and life; is under covenant bonds and obligations by his own act and deed; and so is in covenant with God in this sense; and that altho' he re­nounces the covenant in his heart by impenitence and unbelief; yea, altho' he renounces the covenant in his life by open scandal. And, in this sense, the Israelites were God's covenant people, even when they lived in open idolatry; yea, after they had rejected and crucified the Messiah, Acts 3.25. But being in covenant, in this sense, gives no real right to sealing ordinances; for if it does, then the rejecters and murderers of Christ had such a right.

16. Did not God know that the Israelites at Mount Sinai were graceless when they entered into covenant? If so, why did he lead them to enter into covenant?

As the omniscient, heart-searching God, he knew it: but he did not act in this character.—As visible head of that people, in which character he acted he did not know it. Isa. 63.8. For he said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie. Read the following verses.

17. What do they mean by the external covenant?

It is not a scripture-phrase—Divines, who use it, mean, some, one thing, [Page 10] and some, another.—Some mean the covenant of grace, externally exhibited by God in his word, and externally complied with in a profession of godliness. Others mean a covenant requiring only external obedience, in distinction from heart-holiness.—Thus some suppose the Sinai covenant required merely ex­ternal obedience—and was essentially a distinct and different thing from the covenant of grace—and some suppose the baptismal covenant not to be the covenant of grace, but a covenant requiring external obedience only.—I am of opinion these ungracious covenants are creatures of the imagination, a mere human device, for reasons I have already hinted at.—But the practice of allowing sealing ordinances, to those who know themselves to be graceless, can be vindicated only on the supposition of such an ungracious covenant: and indeed, this is the only point that need be settled, to settle the whole controver­sy; for if a compliance with the covenant of grace must be professed, those who know they have no grace cannot make a profession.

18. The Jews universally circumcised their children, attended the sacrifice of the passover, and all their other sacrifices and ordinances, let them be ever so openly and scandalously wicked, even altho' they lived in idolatry; and why should we not do so too, in the christian world? Why should not we as universally attend sacraments, as we do public worship on the sabbath?

God has never told us that the example of that wicked hypocritical people should be the rule of our conduct. This point, you seem to take for granted; but it is not allowed. Taking this for granted, you build your argument wholly upon it; an argument which would lead to the most scandalous con­duct.

19. But did not God command them to attend all ordinances?

Not in the manner in which they did. For if our Saviour understood the law of Moses, all the duties required in it, the Jews were obliged by their law to perform, in a gracious manner. i. e. from love; from love to God and man. For on these two hang all the law and the prophets. Mat. 22.37 — 40.

20. My former minister allows that we ought to perform all duties in a right manner. p. 7. But the question is this, is it not better to do them in a wrong manner, than not at all?

Those sinners are more likely to be converted, who attend the common means of grace, than those who do not: for, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom. 10.14 Nevertheless, as to covenanting transactions, the words of the wise man are the truth. Eccl. 5 5. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay. It is better to do nothing than to lie. Lying is not a means of grace—It is not an appointed means of conversion. Psa. 50.16. But unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth? But graceless men may at­tend common means without lying.

21. Granting all these things are so; yet is it not better for us to go on in [Page 11] the common way? Some of the good kings of Judah reformed things as far as they could: Nevertheless the high places were not taken away. If the half way practice cannot be vindicated from the word of God; yet is it not best to tole­rate it? "I tremble to think of the awful consequences," of doing otherwise. p. 13.

They provoked him to anger with their high places. Psa. 78.58. And shall their God provoking conduct, be the rule for us to walk by?—Surely no—

In popish countries they are instructed to believe, that the laity may take Christ's body and eat it, but may not drink his blood. And no doubt thousands of the common people think it a very wicked thing to drink one drop of the sacramental wine. They dare come to the altar, as they call it; they dare take and eat Christ's body; but their consciences are so tender they dare not taste the wine. But, pray, whence arise their scruples? not from the bible. There is not a tittle in the bible that looks that way. They are as expressly commanded to take the cup and drink it, as to take the bread and eat it So the command to all Christ's disciples is equally plain in the present case, as is granted. Every parent who has a right to baptism, for his children is expressly enjoined to attend the Lord's Supper, as is allowed; but if with light and in love we vindicate this, and practice accordingly, "you tremble for the awful consequences."—The clergy among the papists, if they would unite, as one man, might soon rectify the judgments of the com­mon people, and remove all their scruples, and bring on a general reformation without any "awful consequences," in that case. So the clergy might in our churches, in this case. Both cases as they stand in the bible are equally plain. And are not the popish clergy to blame for not teaching their people the truth plainly, all as one man?—'Tis true, if a few popish clergy men should come out boldly, and declare plainly, that the laity have as good a right to one element as to the other, and practice accordingly; they would soon be silenced, if not something worse. But is it therefore lawful and right for them to go on in their half-way-practice, contrary to the divine institution, to avoid this "awful consequence"? are they not bound to abide by and act agreeable to Christ's institution at the risque of their lives? Luke 14.25—33.

And now to conclude, what shall we do to avoid "the awful consequences? Shall we give up the covenent of grace, and substitute in its room a covenant requiring no holiness, nothing but external duties, to suit the taste of wicked men? Or, if we keep the covenant of grace, shall we tolerate wilful lying in the worship of God, by leading those, who know themselves to be graceless, to make a profession of a compliance with the covenant of grace, in order to keep peace? Is such wickedness as this necessary to a quiet life? Can it be? Surely no▪ Our confession of faith declares, ch. 28. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Chap. 29. Baptism is—a sign and seal of the covenant of grace And the heads of agreement say, ‘that none shall be admitted as members, in order to communion in all the special ordinances of the gospel, but such [Page 12] persons as are knowing and sound in the fundamental doctrine of the christian religion, without scandal in their lives, and to a judgment regulated by the word of God, are persons of visible holiness and honesty; credibly profes­sing cordial subjection to Jesus Christ.’ And when the bible is so full on our side, and our confession of faith, and articles of discipline so express; and the half-way-covenant and half-way practice, neither name nor thing so much as ever once mentioned in our platform—and the covenants in use in our churches generally as full as can be desired.—Would the clergy all unite in love as one man, our churches surely might be reclaimed by the blessing of God.—And if any of you, gentlemen parishioners, who are convinced in your consciences, that we only abide by and act agreeable to the institution of our Lord and Master, in refusing to practise on the half-way, should treat us ill, you will not be able to hope for mercy at the hands of God, on that consideration menti­oned in Paul's case, 1 Tim. 1.13. I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, and in unbelief.

God forbid I should ever treat my minister ill for acting like a christian, and like an honest man.—But it is time for me to go—I thank you for your kind instructions—I am determined to look into this matter thorolly, carefully to consider every text you have referred me to, and to search the scriptures to see whether these things are so.

If you meet with any objection, my dear sir, which you cannot answer, I am always ready at your service. You shall not want light, if I can give you it. And you may depend on the kindest treatment —Adieu, my dear sir.— God grant it may happen to you as it did to the noble BEREANS!