YOUR piece which was printed last fall, at New-London, entitled ‘The New-Testa­ment interpretation of the Old, relative to in­fant baptism,—written letter-wise to Mr. Isaac Backus, occasioned by his late answer to Mr. F—'s^* letter,’ has further confirmed me in a sentiment which I adopted many years ago, viz. That a very great part of the controver­sies, among good men, are caused by their mis­taking each others ideas. But there are so ma­ny things in our dark world still to keep them in these mistakes, that nature is ready to say, 'tis in vain to make any further attempts to rectify them. Yet other considerations have induced me to make another short trial, to shew you wherein you have mistaken the scriptures, as well as the ideas of your friend, concerning bap­tism,

You tell me, that the thing which moved you to write against me, was my holding forth, ‘That in order to maintain infant baptism, you con­strue and interpret the New-Testament by the Old, and not the Old by the New,’ p. 4. Which you think is contrary to fact with regard to your­self, [Page 4]and you suppose that if we were willing to receive the New-Testament interpretation of the Old, we also should see warrant for that practice; and you close with giving public notice to me and others, that if we should pretend to answer you and not attend directly to your ground-work, you should probably look upon it so impertinent as not to be worthy of a reply, P. 71. I rea­dily join issue with you here, and desire that all impertinences may be dismissed from this dispute.

Let then the New-Testament interpretation of the Old be the ground-work of all our pro­ceedings; and how do you take that? Why, in general you say, ‘There was a spiritual glory then in being, although veiled with a type. there was then the same spiritual good under the type, that there is now without the type. And all who did not stick in the letter, saw that spiritual glory, and embraced that spiritual good,’ P. 7, 8. I say the same with all my heart. You observe that the covenant of legal services and ceremonies, considered in themselves, were weak and insufficient to justify and save those who attended them, unless they by faith looked to the end of those things which were to be abolished; and that the carnal Jews, who had no true faith to apprehend Christ in Abraham's Covenant, nor Christ as the substance of those shadows, they terminated in the shadow instead of the substance, to their own destruction, P. 23. [Page 5]And you illustrate the difference between the right use of those things, and the Jews abuse of them, by Paul's familiar allegory of the bond-woman and the free, P. 31,—34, This was the subject of my sermon, which, in its second edition, stands pre­fixed to what I wrote to Mr. F. and which I ex­pressly refer to, as what I designed should be part of my answer to him, P. 80. And how came you, Sir, to write above seventy pages in his be­half, and never take any notice of that sermon, nor let the reader know that I agree with you in all these sentiments? Indeed I am as far as you are from supposing that a man, who writes against another, is obliged to take notice of every thing the other hath said; yet for him to commence a dispute, and then recite a great number of truths, which his opponent holds as much as he does, without letting the reader know but that he de­nies them all; this you and all men must know is not fair dealing.

And now to come to the point in hand, you observe that in Gen. 17. ‘Circumcision was insti­tuted, and directions given for forming Abra­ham's family into a church-state.—Certain du­ties and privileges were annexed,—which were thankfully to be acknowleged and punctually complied with, until God should please to add thereto more rites and ceremonies, or take them all away, which were meerly positive, and appoint new ones at his pleasure,’ P. 9.10. [Page 6]These have long been the sentiments of my heart.

And you allow that if the words in Heb. 8.9. 10. had run in opposition to Abraham's cove­nant, you would freely give up the point to me, P. 21. Why then do you stand still to dispute? Because you say, ‘The words of inspiration run quite another way, even to Egypt and Mount Sinai, therefore take notice of them again. I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant I made with their fathers. But when? In the DAY I took them by the band to lead them out of the land of Egypt,’ p. 22.

Answer. I have often taken notice of this, and I desire you to do it once more. That was the DAY in which God added more rites and cere­monies to Abraham's covenant. He instituted the passover, with its various rules, and said every man servant that is bought for money, WHEN thou bast circumcised him, THEN shall be cat thereof. All the Congregation of Israel shall keep it. Also on that day, and not till then, he gave orders for bringing strangers, and all their males, both to circumcision and the passover, Exod. xii, 43—48. And when the whole system of ordinances and ceremonies were completed for that church in the wilderness, and the cove­nant was renewed with the whole nation, (many of whom had not eyes to see, nor ears to hear) just before they entered Canaan, it was to establish them for a people unto himself, and that he might [Page 7]be unto them a God, AS he had sworn unto their father Abraham, Deut. xxix, 4—13. So that what was done when they came out of Egypt, at Sinai, and in the plains of Moah, was but the completing of that constitution which first be­gan in Gen. xvii; and a literal fulfilment of that promise to Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And since the Holy Ghost says, the new covenant is not according to that covenant made with their fathers, how do you dare to say, ‘The gentile church is grafted into the same covenant—as the Jewish church once stood in!’ p. 50.

I am sensible that this is the root of the con­troversy, and you observe truly, that one blow at the root of a tree of vile fruit, would do as much good as many against the branches, p. 52. But if instead of a vile root you should be found striking against the rock, you will find it much worse than lost labour. You know that infant baptism is not expressed in the Bible, but you suppose that when the head of a family believed, and was baptized, that he afterwards brought his houshold upon his faith, and this is the root your cause stands upon; but the plainest precept for a new professor of religion, to bring his houshold into the church upon his faith, that we have in all the sacred oracles, was given on the day that Israel came out of Egypt; and since the Lord says, his new covenant is not according to that [Page 8]covenant, and the main point of difference which he describes is, that all who are in the new co­venant shall know him, from the least to the great­est, is it not surprising that you stand where you do?

However, since you are so kind as to tell us what you think causes our mistake, I have a no­tion of making a little attempt to requite my friend in the same way.

1. You suppose that we had taken our prin­ciples upon tradition, and when we came serious­ly to search the scriptures, we never took the ideas belonging to the words there used, p. 5. I return the compliment; for, as the philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, which the Colossians were warned against, were attempts to subject them to ordinances, which by those means were drawn from the handwriting which Christ had blotted out, and taken out of the way: Col. 2, 8, 14—22. So I think it is evident that you have not got so clear of those traditions as you imagine you have. My attempt to explain those ambiguous terms, which that deceitful philoso­phy invented, and which tradition and not scrip­ture has handed down to us, viz. of Abraham's covenant being the covenant of Grace, and that believers now are in the same covenant, has car­ried your mind away into such treatment of your brethren, as would shock you in other affairs. Mr. F. had laid those ambiguous terms as the [Page 9]foundation of his discourse; and I observed, that in order to settle this matter it was needful to explain what we meant by them, and said, ‘I fully concur with Mr. F.’ that ‘since Adam, our first natural head fell from the covenant which he was placed in, the tenor of which was, do and live; transgress and die; the Most High has never come to commune with any of the race of Adam, nor to offer good to them, but only in the second head, the Lord Jesus Christ.’ ‘And if by covenant of grace, we mean the glorious plan of salvation, which was laid in the divine mind from eternity, and was discovered at sundry times, and in divers manners to the fathers in the Old-Testament, and is brought in clear light in the New; and that one of those divers manners was by Abra­ham's covenant: In this we have no difference. But if by covenant of grace, he means the con­stitution and limits of the Jewish church, which descended in the line of natural generation, tak­ing in with the parents all their natural off-spring, which is evidently his meaning; in this I cannot concur with him for these reasons.’ One of which is, because, ‘The tenor of Abra­ham's covenant enjoined conditions, and works to be performed by men; the neglect of which exposed them to be cut off from their people, because they had broken that covenant, Gen. 17.14.’ therefore the letter of it was, ‘do [Page 10]and live; and the reason here given for setting of it aside is, because they continued not in it, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. But the tenor of the new covenant is, I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people, Heb. 8.9.10." P. 52—54. of my book these are my words; but you pick out a few of them, without either of these texts of scrip­ture, and then say; "I don't know what you really think Abraham's covenant was. Mr. F. said it was the covenant of grace, but you op­pose him in that, and mean to contradict him,’ p. 11. And so because I oppose that's being called The covenant of Grace, which per­sons come into by natural generation (for in no other sense did I oppose him) I say, because I oppose that language of tradition, you go on to declare me, and my brethren through me, to be so hetredox as to pretend, ‘That the Sinai dis­pensation was given of God, as the covenant of works, and that the Jewish church was formed by God upon the covenant of works, and circumcision instituted of God as the seal^* of the covenant of works,’ P. 35. And you go so far as to say that, ‘according to the bap­tists, the true church never had existence un­til the gospel day,’ p. 45. with a great deal [Page 11]more of like nature; which are as real breach­es of the ninth commandment, as were ever ut­tered by man; and which appears more surpris­ing from you, since you own that the apostle, in the Hebrews, ‘uses the words covenant and tes­tament, as terms synonimous; and therefore is not there distinguishing so directly between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, as he is between the Old and New-Testament dispensations, P. 23.’ If so, then [...] came you to abuse your brethren as you [...] done, only because they oppose the [...], that both the Old and New [...] are in the same covenant! [...] my heart, to see you thus [...] with tradition, to violate divine rule!

2. You suppose we mistake in not distinguish­ing between the external administration of the covenant, and its internal efficacy, P. 41. But how do you prove it? You make much of Rom. 4.11. but say of us that we ‘seem to be as much afraid to have this text held up before us, as we would be of a loaded cannon; and say, I never yet was able to obtain a rational an­swer,’ p. 37. To which I shall say, that nei­ther my courage nor reason have at all fled at the sight of this text, so but that I shall come so near as to take your own dialect, since you can't understand ours. I take it that Paul there speaks of the internal efficacy of the covenant on Abra­ham's [Page 12]heart. You agree with me that circum­cision was a type of Christ's death, and of an inward change, p. 38.39. Well, Abraham had experienced the internal efficacy of these things before circumcision was appointed; therefore it was a seal to him of the faith which he bad, yet be­ing uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe, whether circumcised or not: From whence the apostle argues against the con­tinuance of those types, now the antitype is come. But what a poor figure does his argu­ment make, in the dress men would now put it into? To say, ‘The covenant of which circum­cision was a sign, is the same to all Abraham's spiritual seed, as it was to his natural posterity:’ What argument could be stronger to prove that all his spiritual seed ought to circumcise their children! The very principle which the Apostle was there opposing with all his might!

Circumcision was a sign or token of the cove­nant which constituted the Jewish church, and it is never called a seal to them in all the bible; but it was a seal to Abraham of the faith, which [...] had in the promise of Christ, and of salvation through him, both to Jews and Gen­tiles; which promise was given him in Gen. 12.3. and 15.5.6. to which places all the apostle's arguments in Rom. 4. and Gal. 3. expressly re­fer, and not to Gen. 17. as you imagine. And if you search chronology, you will find it general­ly, [Page 13]if not universally, agreed to by the learned, that the 430 years, which the apostle mentions, is to be reckoned from Abraham's first call out of his own country, when the promise was given him of being heir of the world, which promise was not through the law, but through Christ and his righteousness, Rom. 4.13. Gal. 3.14— 17. Now after his justification by faith in this promise, he went and took the bond-woman, and had a son by her, who was 13 years old when circumcision was instituted, and he was the first of Abraham's seed that partook of it, which we have seen was an allegory of the jewish covenant, in distinction from that which the gospel-church is in, Gal. 4.24.

3. You say, ‘The baptists don't distinguish between the true nature, and right improve­ment of the ceremonial institutions, and how the Jews in general did improve them,’ p. 41. But thou that teachest others, teachest thou not thyself? The constitution and ordinances of the Jewish church were shadows of good things to come, and Abraham's first son that was circum­cised, being born only by ordinary generation, and the other by supernatural power, of parents as good as dead, according to promise, were types of the difference between the children of his flesh, and the elect; and it is expressly among the election of grace that believing gentiles are grafted in, Rom. 9.8. and 11.5.17. and this grafting, [Page 14]if we compare it with John 15.1—6. is into Christ by faith, and into his church by a perso­nal profession of it; for, with the heart man be­lieveth unto righteousness, and with the mouth con­fession is made unto salvation, Rom. 10.10. But if any who are received into the church prove fruitless, they will be broken off, and taken away, while living branches are purged, that they may bring forth more fruit. This appears to be the true nature, and right improvement of the sha­dow and the substance, and the true distinction between Jews by nature, and sinners of the Gen­tiles, and its influence was so pernicious as to carry both Peter and Barnabas away with dissi­mulation, Gal. 2.11—15. which moved Paul to withstand them to the face. And he proceeds to shew that all are under the curse of the broken law, till they are redeemed by Christ, and re­ceive the promise of the Spirit through faith, which are the blessings of Abraham, that were to come on the Gentiles. And he says, "The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe; and IF ye be Christ, THEN are ye Abra­ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, Gal. 3, 10,—14.22.29.

Promise of what? Of remission of sins, and the gist of the Holy Ghost; and as many of the Jews [Page 15]and their children as were called, so as gladly to [...] this word, were baptized and added to the [...]. 2.38—41. This is the gospel which was preached unto Abraham, before cir­cumcision or other rites of the law were institut­ed; and was now freely preached both to Jews and Gentiles, after those rites were abolished; and I find not a word of any of them being bap­tized, till they prosessed faith in that promise: Yet you must needs go back to the jewish con­stitution, and from thence frame a plea for bringing your houshold upon your faith. You, Sir, go back to the "federal holiness" of the Old-Testament, to interpret the word holy by, in 1 Cor. 7.14, p. 50. Though that Old-Tes­tament holiness is expressly given as a reason why they should make no marriages with other nati­ons, Deut. 7.3.6. And the same reason is given against eating unclean meats, Deut. 14.3—21; neither is there a whit more of consis­tency or of justice, in going back to that church, for the meaning of the word holy in this text, than there is for the meaning of the word sanctified in this, and also in 1 Tim. 4.3.—5. which both prove that sort of holiness to be out of date. And by the way, I would not have you forget, that the reason why Abraham's seed might not be circumcised till eight days old, was because their mothers were unclean seven days, Levit. 12.2.3. And as all their males were to be circumcised as [Page 16]soon as they were clean; so, if any man of them was clean and not in a journey at the appointed season of the passover, and forbore to keep it, e­ven the same soul should be cut off from his people, Numb. 9.10.13. So that though natural birth or purchase for money brought per­sons into that church, yet it is your mistake in supposing they were circumcised only upon a relative right, p. 54. Personal qualifications were required for both ordinances; and a ne­glect of either of them exposed them to be cut off from that church; but to have circumcised a child before he was eight days old would have been a transgression; and so it would to have offered a calf, lamb or kid, before that age, be­cause God would have no unclean thing offered to him, Exod. 22.30. Levit. 22.27. As to the spi­ritual things which these were types of, in them I suppose we agree: And so we do about the manner of eating the passover; but for you to blend type and antitype together as you do, p. 56. is not just. Neither is it so for you to say, we se­cretly take it for granted, that it is not a person's sin to remain in unbelief, p. 58. I hold as ful­ly as you do, that it was a damning sin in every jew, if he did not truly believe in the Messiah to come, who is the substance of those types; and then it must surely be an aggravated sin not to believe in him that is come. But how short-sighted are we! While you attempt to discover [Page 17]my secret mistake, you beg the whole question between us. You say, ‘The baptized child of a true believer is, by God's appointment and the parent's act, brought under the bond and seal of the covenant,’ p. 61. This is all the ques­tion between us; only prove that it is God's ap­pointment, and I will give up the dispute in a mi­nute. Here the point turns.

I fully agree with you, that there is an essential difference between moral duties and positive in­stitutions. Morality in all ages is in its nature as immutable as the perfections of the deity; but institutions of worship depend intirely upon his sovereign will, and positive appointment; and I like well your description of God's first forming Abraham's family into church-state, with cer­tain duties and privileges annexed, which were to be thankfully received, and punctually ob­served, ‘until God should please to add there­to more rites and ceremonies, or take them all away,—and appoint new ones at pleasure.’ Now the single point between us is, whether he has taken away that covenant which constituted that church, and appointed a better covenant, which is established upon better promises; or whe­ther the covenant is the same, and only changed into different hands, with the appointment of different ordinances. The apostle observes that the first covenant had ordinances of divine service; but he does not confound ordinances and cove­nant [Page 18]together as you seem to do, p. 23. No, he keeps them distinct; and since he so often dis­stinguisheth the covenants as well as ordinances, by calling one Old, the other New; the one first, the other second, and says Christ taketh away the first, that he may establish the second, Heb. 9.1. and 10.9. I should think your evidence was hardly sufficient to prove that a man ‘boasts as being by way of eminence in the cause of God,’ if he did use some "peremptory airs," p. 67. in asserting that, old and new, first and second are not the same! Especially when the first must be taken away in order to establish the second!

You allow some of the babtists to be ‘very judicious Christians in other respects, yet think that in this particular (about children's being in covenant) one and all of them may justly be termed near-sighted people,’ p. 67. If so, then I am sorry that you happened to be so much troubled with the same calamity, as not to see, that though I supposed the principle of hold­ing children to be born in the covenant of grace tended to a crying peace, peace, when there was no peace; yet that I expressly said in my 66. page, that I was satisfied Mr. F. did not commonly teach persons in such a way: Had you but seen that, it might have prevented your complaining of me, as though I charged such language upon all parents, who practise infant baptism without distinction, p. 64. But it seems a little remark­able, [Page 19]that, while you are trying to clear the prin­ciple of that language, by saying, ‘When we act up to our principles, we are so far from crying peace, peace, to our baptized children, that we cry, wrath! wrath!—if they go on in sin,’ p. 65. Yet you can't get but three pages forward before you call them ‘the little children of God's gracious covenant.’ And how near was your sight when you said, ‘although there is no mention made of infants, yet housholds include infants, and that is sufficient for our purpose?’ p. 51. What! did you never see a houshold without an infant in it? If you have, your argument is like that of the minister of Harwinton, which you justly observe in your let­ter to him, p. 23. was no more conclusive, than to argue, that if a man has got money, he has cer­tainly got gold, tho' it is well known that the word includes copper as really as gold; and you truly tell him that he "was not over-sharp," if he did not see this to be the nature of his argu­ment.

And, my friend, how sharp was you, to sup­pose you could read infants in Lydia's house? When by the book she appears to be the head of the family, and there is not the least mention of her over having either husband or child. Again how near was your sight, that you could not see that there is just the fame proof that all the gaol­ers house were taught and believed, as there is [Page 20]that all were baptized? Acts 16.15.32—34, 40. And how sharp was you at reckoning figures, when you concluded that the 8 souls in 1 Pet. 3.21. amounted to a proof for a ‘housholder to bring his children to baptismal sprinkling?’ p. 51. as if Noah had brought his wife, and his sons and their wives, in his arms to be sprinkled with rain! Whereas the sacred record informs us, that they all went into the ark, as God had com­manded Noah, and the Lord shut him in; where they were covered from the rain, and saved thro' the flood, Gen. 7.7—16.

Once more, how careful was you to see that your words and ideas went together, in your at­tempt to pull down my pride? As I had wrote three or four times on this controversy without being answered, you represent me as conceiting I ‘had struck all with such intimidating fear, that there was no one stripling left who dare en­counter with this great Goliah, that has been these several times defying one branch of the army of the living God, viz. the little child­ren of his gracious covenant,’ p. 68. I have been deeply sensible these many years that pride is as bad an enemy as any I have to conflict with and would gladly improve your help as well as others to keep him down; but have I been defy­ing infants! I had no such thought. The first piece I wrote on this subject was the sermo which you [...] now passed over without any [Page 21]corrections; and at different times since I have attempted to point out the mistakes of three ministers; and is this defying infants? And as to pride, I can freely leave the impartial public to judge between this supposed Goliah, and the stripling who has ventured out against him, but has failed so much as to the skill he conceited he had, that instead of a real person, all his artillery is discharged at a man of straw of his own making. For I solemnly declare, I know of no man on earth who holds, ‘That the jewish church was formed by God upon the covenant of works.’ Yet your whole book is directed against such an one, which therefore must be only a creature of your own brain.

But, my friend, it is too late in the day to make a jest of these matters. I must come to deal yet more seriously with you. You begin and end your letter, with expressions of respect to me, and tell me, you ‘trust you say it truly, without nauseous fawning, or criminal flattery;’ yet, in the space between, you have covered my sentiments with a false dress, without attending to my explanation of them, and then you have not only compared me to proud Goliah, but have also accused me with great ambiguity, which you say to you is very probable I 'use with design,' p. 66. If this be not what the scripture calls a speaking wickedly for God, I know not what is; [...] the baptists has been [Page 22]handed down by tradition ever since Luther's day. Tho' while I deal thus plainly with you for your faults, I would by no means forget to give you credit, for your guarding against an­other branch of deceitful philosophy, that has been practised as long as the other: Which is the bringing up the characters of men, as a test to decide what is the truth of God. This has moved many to violate the rule of truth and equity, in order to keep up a bad character of the baptists, and a good one of their opponents, and many of our baptists fathers in this land, have neglected to do justice to themselves, and to posterity, by detecting those evils; and the sore trials and siftings that I endured by such means, with the authority of that command, When thou art converted strengthen thy brethren, have, if I know my heart, been the chief mo­tives to all I have written on this subject. I say, I would not forget this cautiousness that you have shewn, p. 64. which your friend F. did not.

And tho' you suppose my mind is ‘narrow­ed up with rigid superstition,^*’ because I hold that Christ has not only appointed the ordinance of baptism; but also the manner of its admini­stration, [Page 23]so that when men have done something else under that name, it is not the thing which he commanded; yet I am fully sensible that I never enjoyed so much freedom from a narrow rigid temper, as I have since my present estab­lishment; and never was more fully persuaded than I am now, of the real piety and eminent usefulness of many pedobaptists, both in former and latter times; whom therefore I would ever respect and honor; but I hope never to give up the truth for any man.

One thing more I must beg your attention to, and I shall conclude, which is this; we are none of us willing to be thought fond of controversy; [Page 24]you say, 'I am far from desiring to continue it? But how shall we prevent its continuance? You own you have not ‘attended directly to my plan, and the ground-work thereof,’ yet tell me that if I don't attend directly to yours, you shall look upon it impertinent, p. 71. and who discovers most pride here? The want of attending to my plan has caused you to abuse your brethren as you have done; and if I write again, I shall, accord­ing to your notion, give another proof of being a proud, contentious person; yet if I do not, even honest people, who have no better means of information than your writings, will be apt to think the people called baptists are such absurd creatures as to hold, that there was only the sha­dow of a church in the Old-Testament, and that 'the true church never had existence till the gospel day.' I say, they will be apt to think so of the whole denomination; for your reproach, as Esther said of Haman's decree, is laid against all my people; to which you add an insinuation of 'designed ambiguity,' in my defence of this cause: Than which, what could you have said worse of an honest man? And which a due at­tention to what I have wrote would doubtless have prevented. And must this sword devour for­ever? It will surely be bitterness in the latter end.

One method however occurs to my mind, which I think to take, to try to draw you out of your entrenchment under the language of tradition, [Page 25]and to prevent any [...] was born [...] and that the gospel of [...] which is Christ, was preached to [...] believed therein to his justification [...] which was the covenant confirmed of God [...] that the law could not disannul, Gal. 3.8.16.17. But I declare boldly, that neither his first nor his second birth gave him any right to circumcise either himself or his seed. All the right he had to do that, was by a positive institution many years after, by a covenant which formed his houshold in­to a church, with circumcision for the token of their membership, from whence the Holy Ghost calls it The Covenant of Circumcision, Act. 7.8. but never the covenant of grace. I believe that the choice of that nation, for God's only visible church in the world, was a type of the holy na­tion, ^* of his elect among all who were, either by birth or purchase, incorporated into that church, was a type of Christ's shedding his blood to purchase his chosen, and of their regeneration, by his grace.^‡ And when Christ by his death abolished circumcision, he also took away the co­venant which it was a token of, and made a new covenant with Abraham's believing children, not according to the covenant he made with their father. [Page 26]He did not cast away his people which he foreknew; no, they were before in his covenant, but now he made a new covenant with them, which broke off all Abraham's unbelieving poste­rity, and grafted in the believing gentiles among the elect Jews.^* Thus he instituted a new church-state of the houshold of God, ^* and ap­pointed the ordinance of baptism as a token of membership therein, and ordered his ministers to administer the same to such, and only such, as made a credible profession of the new-birth, and of saving faith in Jesus Christ.^‡ And as natural generation brought persons into Abra­ham's covenant, which is called everlasting, so the natural posterity of Aaron, and none but they, were appointed by a like everlasting covenant to minister at God's altar in that church,^‡ both of which were types of the lively stones, the holy priesthood, of which Christ's spiritual house is built. 1 Pet. 2.5. Therefore I challenge you and all men upon earth, to shew, if you can, any evidence from the divine oracles, to entitle the natural offspring of believers to baptism, before they personally profess faith in Chirst, any more than [Page 27]there is to confine the gospel ministry to the chil­dren of ministers.^‖.

This is the plan I am upon, and this is my testimony, and if you or any other can shew any part of it to be contrary to truth, do it by all means; but if any accuse me of knowingly hold­ing any thing contrary hereto, they in that respect join with the old accuser of the brethren, let them otherwise be ever so pious: And (though most unworthily) I hope to overcome them by the blood of the lamb, and by a close adhe­rence to the testimony of truth, even unto the death. If you call this boasting, you have com­pelled me; and it is only a hope of putting some stop to the fire of contention, which abounds more in your part of the country than ours, con­cerning the covenant and a right to ordinances; or at least a stop to my concern therein, that has brought me to this length.

Some would lay the blame of these contentions to those called new-lights, some to the separates, and others to baptists; but my opinion is, that the power of the gospel was the first means of breaking up the carnal peace which our land was settled into, by which great members were [Page 28]cut off from nature's stock, and grafted into Christ. Yet many of them flocked into church­es which were very much blenced with the world. And those who knew what they were doing in the separation, came out to have the church a distinct body from the world, and I sup­pose they all, to a man, testified against what is called the half way covenant; though most of them did not see that they only struck at the branches, and not at the root of that evil, while they still applied the token of the gospel cove­nant to intants, which had no other birth than that which brings us all into this world. And when some of us were convinced of this, and act­ed accordingly, Mr. F's letter, and yours, will shew how we have been treated by our brethren: And lately this controverly has appeared, and is carried to a great height, among those called standing ministers.

Dr. Bellamy has written a number of times against the half-way covenant, and has taken much pains to shew that the covenant which is publicly owned, implies a profession of saving grace; and therefore, that if the person who makes the profession has no grace, his profession is a lie. But many have tried to avoid this con­sequence. At length Mr. Moses Mather pub­lished a pamphlet, to prove that the visible church is in covenant with God, according to Abraham's convenant, and consequently that all [Page 29]who are in covenant ought to be in the use of all the means and ordinances of it, in order to obtain grace and salvation. Against this the Dr. wrote 80 pages, and because Mr. M. left the word grace out of his description of the external co­venant, he charges him with ‘giving up the grounds,’ on which Messieurs Dickinson, Clark and Bostwick, vindicated infant baptism.^§ And the Dr. represents Mr. M's covenant to be so void of any privilege that he says,^* ‘He has no right, upon his scheme, to the apostles answer in Rom. 3.1.2. For, as to the oracles of God, which he claims for one of the chief privileges of his external covenant, he will grant, that they are common to the unbap­tized, i. e. the unbaptized have as good a right to read and hear the word of God, as the baptized have; and as good a right to believe and embrace the gospel. For, by Christ's last commission, the gospel is to be preached to all nations; yea, to every creature: And that, previous to, and in order to prepare men for baptism, Mar. 16.15.16. So that, there is not the least need of being in his external co­venant, in order to have as good a right to hear and believe, and be justified by the gospel, as any man on earth has: For there is no dif­ference, [Page 30]Rom. 3.22. compare Mat. 10.5, 6. and 28.19.’

Well done doctor! here you talk reason and scripture too. But if a stranger might be so bold as to ask, whether natural generation conveys grace to your child or not? 'Tis likely the answer would be, no, by no means: And if it might be farther asked, whether you hold to the popish doctrine, of the sacraments, conferring grace by the operation of work done? Would you not resent the suggestion with abhorrence?— If neither natural generation, nor what parents and ministers have done, in baptizing children, confer grace upon them, where are they before God gives it to them but in Mr. Mather's external covenant? And to imagine that they have a better claim to the spirit's influence to make the means of grace effectual, than other sinners; this the Dr. truly observes is inconsistent with God's having mercy on whom he will have mercy. ^‡

[Page 31] Mr. M. has published a reply, in which he says, ‘It is evident, that it is not from the covenant of grace, strictly taken, but from a particular positive institution, that the visible churh derives its being. It is the covenant of grace that composeth, and unites the several members of Christ's spiritual body, but the vi­sibe body of Christ is composed, and united by a particular institution.’ And he charges the doctor with "using the argument of the Anabaptists," because he does not regard this distinction.^‡ Thus a frightful name that super­stition has imposed upon us, serves each party in their turn, in the room of argument, though of­ten to the injury of truth: For it is not truth to say, we do not observe this distinction. And while they both try to support their sentiments by Abraham's covenant, yet neither of them dare act up to it. For Mr. M. who goes the far­thest, [Page 32]observes, that Abraham's covenant, as it was renewed in Deut. 29. took in all that [...] whether present or absent, and was extended [...] ‘even to such whose consent to it was not to as [...].^§’ Yet as to our [...] says, ‘It is allowed on all hands, that it is [...] outward profession, confirmed with the ap­pointed seal by which a man [...] a mem­ber of the visible church.^‖’ Thus he appears to know, that the covenant now is not the same that the Jewish church stood in, and yet you all will plead that 'tis the same. We know as well as that gentleman, that the [Page 33]were added in being under the former dispensa­tion; yet for him to say as he does, that ‘There is not the least hint in all the apostles writings, that it was a new church,’ is directly against the other text that he brings, which says, Christ has abolished those Jewish laws and ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man. Eph. 2.13—15. and 3.6. The body is the same that existed under the types; but a new covenant, a new positive institution of a church-state, is made with them not according to that made with their fathers. And I have no hope of their ever bringing this controversy to an end, till they will come to allow, that the apostles knew as well how to express their own meaning, as any now do how to express it for them.

And as I have already proved, that both the house of Abraham, and of Aaron, were types of the houshold of God, whereof the gospel-church is constituted; and as none might minister at, or partake with the altar, but Aaron's posterity, and the apostle says of gospel-believers, we have an altar whereof they have no right to eat, who serve the tabernacle, Heb. 13.10. I leave you to consider what you are doing, while you claim a right to bring your children to a gospel-ordinance upon Abraham's covenant, and yet pay no re­gard [Page 34]to Aaron's covenant, which was equally everlasting, and much more strict; for one ad­mitted of proselytes, while the other did not. And if those who served the tabernacle, and kept to the type, when the antitype was come, had no right to gospel privileges, what are those do­ing who will blend type and antitype together, even to this day? I never yet could obtain a direct answer to this question, either from learn­ed or unlearned, and if you, sir, can give a satisfy­ing one, you will much oblige your hearty friend.