SECTION I. Reasons for not continuing the Practice.

I. Because I can find no text in the whole word of GOD, to justify the practice; nor any example of a person's being allowed to cove­nant with God and make a solemn profession of religion, and yet neglect to attend one of the special and most distinguishing commands and ordinances of God. His covenant people, both under the old and new Testament, not only were expressly commanded, but it is evident they always looked upon themselves bound by covenant to observe all divine institutions, and to "walk in all God's ordinances and commandments;" and that they had no warrant to make any exceptions or limitations, under any circumstances, or upon any pre­tence whatever.

Accordingly, God's ancient covenant people, profess with one voice, in the most solemn manner, Exod. xxiv. 7. ALL that the Lord hath said, will we do, and be obedient. This was the very import of the covenant, on their part; and 'tis plain they always understood it so by their frequent, solemn professions of the same nature from time to time. See Josh. xxiv. 25. Jer. xlii. 5, 6. Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. Josh. xxiv. 21. They never imagined they could, consistent with their covenant relation and engagements to God, live in the neglect of any one divine ordinance. They were as much obliged hereby, to keep the Passover, as to circumcise their children; and thus they practised universally. So under the New Testament, all that professed love and discipleship to JESUS CHRIST, were constantly taught, "to ob­serve all things whatsoever he had commanded." There is no inti­mation in the gospel, of any thing that looked like a double admission into the Church of CHRIST; or of persons, professing faith in CHRIST, being admitted to one ordinance while something further and higher was necessary for their enjoyment of the other; as seems to be the case, upon our present plan. When John Baptist, and the Apostles had, thro' their preaching, brought any to Faith and Repen­tance; upon their profession hereof, they were received into the visible Church or communion of Saints; and were looked upon as disciples; [Page 4]allowed to enjoy the priviledges of such, and were commanded to live and walk answerable to their profession, in a careful observance of all Christ's commands. See Matt. iii. 8. and xxviii. 20. John xv 14. Luke vi. 46. 1 John ii. 4. Col. ii. 6. This was evidently the plan the Apostles and first ministers of CHRIST went upon. Where do we hear of their dividing the seals, as the manner is in our present practice? Where do we find them insisting upon lower or "negative evidences" of Grace, as qualifying for one ordinance, and higher, positive evi­dences, as necessary for the other? I could never find any such dis­tinction, in the word of God, nor any precept or example on which such a distinction can be founded. And if so, what good reason can be given for the practice pleaded for, or how can we be justifyed in persisting in it?^*

'Tis objected by some, that the apostles did divide the seals, as they baptized, without ever so much as acquainting the disciples of the other ordinance. I answer, if this be true, it is certainly a suffi­cient reason for their not attending the other ordinance, when they had heard nothing about it. Yet it don't prove that they would not be obliged, by their christian profession, to attend it whenever they should be made acquainted with it, and had opportunity; nor that any other qualifications in kind, were necessary, than those which they had exhibited in order to Baptism.

II. Another reason is, I apprehend this practice has a tendency to lead persons to a direct breach of their most express covenant engage­ments. Which, I think will appear, if we consider the nature of those engagements. What is the meaning of that solemn transaction? What do persons promise and engage to do, when they own the covenant? Is it not "to behave as becometh a true disciple of JESUS CHRIST," and to live and walk as such an one? The Cove­nant imports nothing, if it does not imply a promise of subjection to CHRIST in all his ordinances and commandments. This certainly is implied in covenanting according to the Gospel. Therefore if a [Page 5]person does not engage this, (by the help of God) he does not own God's covenant, and therefore can have no right to Baptism either for himself or child; for Baptism is a seal of no other Covenant. Will it not then, from hence necessarily follow, that when persons own the covenant with a view to enjoy Baptism for their children, and do not propose to go any further, but allowedly live, (as many do, all their days) in the neglect of that express command of CHRIST, Do this in remembrance of me, that such, I say, do in a direct manner counteract their own covenant engagements? Does not such a con­duct look like something worse than trifling? Has it not the appear­ance of solemn dissimulation in a matter of the highest importance? Is not the plain language of it this—"I solemnly avouch the Lord to be my GOD, and JESUS CHRIST to be my Savior, and promise to walk in all his ordinances and commandments, except one, blameless; as to that one, I pray thee have me excused." How absurd, how shocking is the thought! Yet, as it appears to me, something like this, seems to be the import of this practice, however the person may be far from being aware of it when he owns his baptismal covenant, And this leads me to observe,

III. That this practice has a tendency to lead persons to think there are two covenants, in some important respects, different from each other; viz. One, that a person may safely enter into, who don't look upon himself to be a real Christian. The other, none must enter into, but those who have good evidence that they are true Believers. I may appeal to hundreds for the truth of this, in those places where it is practised. Many would not dare to make the profession which those persons do who join to the Church; but yet think they may safely own the covenant. And why? Because they think they are fit for the latter, but by no means for the former. And if you still enquire the reason; the answer is, they don't think they are good enough. Thus they plainly make a distinction between these two professions, as if, in their nature and design, they were different covenants.

It has been said, I know, that this is the fault of the minister: He should instruct them otherwise, and let them know that there is but one covenant. — I answer, not all the instruction in the world. will remove the difficulty, in the minds of some. After the utmost pains taken by the minister, to correct their mistake, and to show them the nature of covenanting with GOD, yet there are some, who cannot be fully convinced, but will retain the distinction between the [Page 6]covenants, and think that one requires different kind of qualifications from the other. And it is not at all to be wondered at, where per­sons have been, from their childhood nursed up in this practice. It appears to me, it has a natural and necessary tendency to such an effect.^*

IV. The same essential qualifications, which the scriptures make necessary for one ordinance, are required for the other. Neither the Forerunner, nor the Apostles of CHRIST, have said any thing, on which such a distinction can be justly founded, as is now made. As they insisted on repentance and faith as necessary in order to accep­tance with God and remission of sins, so they insisted upon the profession of them in order to their being admitted into the visi­ble kingdom or church of CHRIST. They baptized none, but upon this ground. Those who appeared, to a judgment of charity, to have these qualifications, they admitted to Baptism, and those only. See Mat. iii. 6. Acts xvi. 14, 15. and viii. 37, 38. and xvi. 31—33. and xix. 4, 5. And no other, or higher qualifications did they re­quire for their admission to the other ordinance of the Supper. Upon this profession, they were admitted into the Church or visible Family of Christ once for all; and entitled to all the Privileges of [Page 7]visible Believers, as long as they appeared to act agreeable to the character of such. In a word, from the whole tenor of the New-Testament, it is plain, that nothing less or lower than a Profession of Faith and true repentance, was required in order to a person's enjoying the privilege of Baptism; and nothing more, or of a higher kind, was necessary for admission to the Lord's-Supper. The di­stinction of higher and lower qualifications for the two ordinances, and the notion of negative evidences (which in this case is, in fact, no evidence at all; for as it is a negation of that which would merit censure, on the one hand, so it is a negation, or the absence, or want of that which is a proper ground of charity in this case) being a sufficient qualification for Baptism, was never learnt from the New-Testament, but is, doubtless, of mere human invention.^*

[Page 8] V. I look upon this practice, not only to be unfounded in scripture, but of very bad and dangerous tendency; especially on these two accounts. 1. That it tends to lead persons to think they can cove­nant with God, and that he accepts of and is pleased with them, and will admit them to the special privileges of his children, even while they are really unbelievers. Than which doctrine, nothing can be more pernicious to the souls of men, or more directly subversive of the scripture account of such persons; which teaches, that "they who are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD;" and that, "the carnal mind is ENMITY against God." Whereas, by the other doctrine, we confound all distinctions between the regenerate and unregene­rate, converted and unconverted. We used to be taught, that none but Believers could, in truth, call God their God—that none but such were in favor with God. But if unregenerates may safely "avouch the Lord for their God"—where is the material difference between a believer and an unbeliever? And why do ministers ever represent the state of the latter to be so infinitely dangerous and dreadful? as being the daily objects of the wrath of God? But this is not all, for 2dly, There is reason to think, this practice tends to promote a careless, secure spirit in the persons themselves. If the truth could be known, I doubt not, it would appear that it has had this awful effect, in a great many instances, where persons have, before, appeared to be under some serious impressions; yet, having own'd the covenant, their consciences seem to have found something to rest upon, and they presently grow secure. Neither will this appear at all strange, when we consider how natural it is for persons, who have some convictions of their miserable and dan­gerous state, to seek for something to quiet their consciences, short of CHRIST. If they are allowed and encouraged, under such circum­stances, to come and covenant with God; and are told that they are thenceforward to be looked upon and treated as Saints, and have a right to all the visible privileges of such, how naturally will their concern lessen, till their convictions are worn off; and notwithstand­ing all the cautions they have had not to rest there, but to press for­ward and make sure of an interest in CHRIST, yet all don't avail; through the temptation of Satan and the natural pride of their hearts, taking occasion from their being called visible christians, they grow careless, and at length "return like the dog to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wa [...]lowing in the mi [...]e." I can't but be afraid, this practice has had this ruinous effect upon multitudes of [Page 9]souls. And surely ministers and churches have no need to add to the temptations that sinners are under to carnal security, or do any thing that tends to soothe and lull them to sleep, in their infinitely dangerous circumstances. What can be the cause, that such persons stop here—many neglecting all their days to come to the other ordi­nance? Must it not be, either that they had no just sense of what they were about, and of the promises they made at owning the cove­nant; or if they had then any religious impressions, that they are, by this means, worn off? And indeed it must be allowed that such breaches of solemn vows, as many are guilty of, have a natural ten­dency to fear the conscience and harden the heart to a great degree.

For the foregoing reasons, with many others that might be men­tioned, I cannot think the practice warrantable, but unscriptural and therefore of dangerous tendency.

SECTION II. A further illustration of the Point, in some familiar Questions and Answers.

Querist. MUST a person be in covenant with God, in order to enjoy the priviledge of Baptism for his children?

Ans. Yes, undoubtedly. None can have right to the seals of the covenant but those that are in the covenant.

Q. What is it that constitutes a person in covenant with God?

A. His being born of christian parents, and being baptized in infancy.

Q. Is this all then, that is needful in order to his being admitted to the priviledges of the covenant; Baptism for his children, in particular?

A. Yes, provided he is of a sober, blameless life and conversation, and "does not carry the Devil's mark, i. e. a profane life."

Q. Why do you make this proviso in the case? Then Baptism of itself, is not a sufficient qualification?

A. No: a person may be a baptized member of the church, and yet be disqualified on account of his immorality and open wickedness.

Q. But why is that a sufficient reason to exclude him, if he be a "compleat member" of the church and in covenant, by his baptism?

A. God has made it a bar; he forbids such, and only such to come.

Q. On what account, can it be supposed, that God forbids scan­dalous persons to bring their Children to Baptism?

[Page 10] A. Because such sins are an Evidence of their Hypocrisy—and that they can't come in sincerity, to that ordinance; it would be a profanation of it for such to bring their children.

Q. Then it seems, that which God is displeased with, and dis­allows, is, persons coming to this ordinance merely in Pretence and Hypocrisy?

A. Certainly God disallows and always forbids Hypocrisy, in that, and every duty.

Q. How then can they come lawfully or safely, if they are in Heart, hypocrites, and have no true love to God?

A. The Church have nothing to do with their Hearts, in this matter.

Q. But I speak of Lawfulness in the Sight of God and their own conscience. If they are conscious to themselves that they are grace­less, and do not pretend to come under any notion of their being gracious persons, but from "a principle of Love to their Children," how can they come (according to what you have said) with safety or a good conscience?

A. They have a right, and may safely come, if they are members of the visible Church of Christ, and free from heresy and scandal: and their being baptized in Infancy makes them Members of Christ's visible Church.

Q. But you own that God forbids persons coming in Hypocrisy and pretence, that he requires sincerity of heart, in those that come to this ordinance.

A. They may come in sincerity, and yet have no saving grace.

Q. What! be sincere, and yet at the same time, not think they have any true love to God in their hearts, and don't come under any such notion?

A. Yes, if they come in obedience to the command of God, and from "love to their children," they may be sincere, and lawfully come.

Q. What kind of obedience, or sincerity is that, which an unrege­nerate sinner exercises? If God requires sincerity in opposition to hypocrisy, it must be such a kind of sincerity as God is pleased with and accepts; otherwise he may as well come in hypocrisy as in sincerity. You say, scandalous sinners are forbidden; that they cannot come to this ordinance in sincerity—but that others may; tho' they be not gracious persons. Which implies, that they can attend the ordi­nance in a manner which God allows and accepts. Now what sort of sincerity is that which an unconverted man, one who is entirely [Page 11]destitute of love to God and holiness, exercises; and which qualifies him for a lawful attending on this ordinance?^*

A 'Tis a common, moral sincerity, as distingufshed from gracious: If he is not a "willful hypocrite," or does not come with a design to mock God with a pretence, but from a sense of duty, his sin would not be so great, nor would he "offend God so much, by coming, as staying away, though he be no [...] regenerate."

Q. But can there by any real sincerity, such as God will accept, where the heart is wanting? does he not require the Heart?

A. Yes; he requires it in every duty. But a person may be heartily sincere, even tho' he be not truly gracious.

Q. Pray what do you understand by unregenerate? I have ever thought, and orthodox divines have always described unregeneracy, in t [...] very nature of it, to consist in the total alienation or opposition of the heart to God. Therefore I would again enquire, what kind of hearty sincerity that person can exercise, in his approaches to God, whose heart is entirely against God, full of reigning enmity to him, and one who, according to CHRIST'S own account, [...]ateth both him and the father? who is an enemy to the covenant of grace and re­fuses to submit to it?

A. Well, then according to this, an unregenerate sinner must not read nor pray, nor attend public worship; for he can do none of these in a gracious manner. It puts an end to all means of grace, as being of any service to the unregenerate. But I say, the "total neglect of these duties is much more sinful and provoking to God, than the un­due performance," and the contrary doctrine destroys every thing at once, and leads to the most open licentiousness.

Q. You either misapprehend me here, or else you don't argue justly. I do not hold that an unregenerate person must not read or pray or [Page 12]attend public worship. Neither doth it follow from any thing I have said. And I add, neither will it follow, that because unsanctified men may lawfully attend these common means of grace, reading, hearing, &c. that therefore they may attend upon the Sacraments—Baptism, or the Lord's-Supper. If there is any weight in your ob­jection, or if it proves any thing, it is this; viz. That which makes it lawful and right for a man to read, pray and attend public worship, makes it also lawful for him to come to special ordinances. But you, yourself, I trust, will not give in to this proposition. You will not assert, that nothing more is required in order to a lawful atten­dance on the latter, than the former. For you will allow that an unbaptized person may lawfully go to meeting, hear the word, &c. but you don't think it lawful for an unbaptized person to bring his child to baptism. So that your objection is of no weight, yourself being judge. Therefore 'tis unreasonable for you to say, that because I insist that some special qualifications are necessary in order to a lawful attending on the Sacraments, therefore a person must not at­tend upon any other means of grace, without these qualifications. It does not follow that because unbelievers cannot attend on covenant transactions without hypocrisy and lying, therefore they cannot say or do any thing without lying. Whatever implies this, they cer­tainly ought not to do.

Therefore, I think it is manifest, that the objection, that this scheme tends to destroy all obligations on sinners to attend the means of grace is without the least foundation; and that, from the necessity of gracious sincerity, for a person's lawfully attending on special sealing ordinances, it can never be argued that a person ought not to attend on the common means of grace, while in an unregenerate state.

And I am humbly of opinion, that from what has been said, it will also follow, that we must either deny Baptism to be a seal of the covenant of grace—Or affirm that a parent is not active in sealing of it, when he solemnly offers up his child to God in that ordinance—or else grant that no person while unregenerate has a right, or (know­ing himself to be so) can lawfully, and without wicked dissimulation, come to that ordinance—unless we will rather give up one of the most essential doctrines of Calvinism, and assert, that unregenerate men are not totally depraved, nor wholly enemies to God and his cove­nant; but can, as such, do something that shall be pleasing and acceptable to God; or in other words, that they who are in the flesh can please God; in direct contradiction to the express declarations of God, Rom. viii. 8. &c.

SECTION III. Answers to several Objections and Enquiries.

Obj. I. SAYS the Parent, tho' I am not satisfied that I am in a gracious state, or that I belong to the invisible Church of Christ; yet by my baptism, I was made a member of the visible Church, and therefore, whether I can claim saving Blessings or no, yet I have a right to visible, outward Priviledges, and such I have right to demand, particularly Baptism for my Children.

Ans. 1. Granting all you say; This will not prove the lawful­ness of our present practice, of admitting to one ordinance, end not to the other. If there be any force in your argument, it will prove that you have as good a right to the Lord's Supper, as to Baptism; for one is as much a visible priviledge of the covenant, as the other. If therefore, your being baptized, gives you a lawful claim to Baptism for your child, it certainly gives you a right to the Lord's Supper for yourself. And not only so, but it makes it your bounden duty to come to both ordinances. So that here is no room left for dividing the seals. For that which gives any person a right to a christian priviledge, doubtless makes it his duty to attend upon and enjoy that priviledge, when he has opportunity. How then can you think yourself at liberty to neglect one special ordinance of Jesus Christ, as well as a precious priviledge? But,

2. 'Tis true, by Baptism in infancy you was initiated into the visi­ble church of CHRIST; i. e. by your parent's act, you was introduced into the number of God's visible covenant-people. But then it is but reasonably expected of you, that since you are now prown up to adult age, you should make your parents act your own, by an open christian profession. So long as you refuse to acknowledge your con­sent to the covenant, to confess Christ before men, professing a readi­ness to obey all his commands, what right have you to be received and treated as a christian in good standing? He that is not for Christ, is against him. And do you not renounce what your parents did, when they dedicated you to Christ in baptism?

Obj. II. My attending the public worship and ordinances of God, and desiring baptism for my child, are a sufficient evidence that I do not renounce the covenant I was brought into by my baptism, but own and consent to it.

Ans. This, of itself, can be no proper evidence of it to the church at all. For that which is found in persons who make no pretence to [Page 14]real, saving religion; who know and own themselves to be enemies to God and his covenant, cannot certainly be any proper evidence of compliance with it in another person; or afford a just ground of a visibility of true religion, in a judgment of rational charity. That which is common to both good and bad, gracious and ungracious persons, cannot possibly be looked upon such a profession of religion, as Christ makes necessary in order to admission to sealing ordinances, or to the special privileges of his disciples. The truth, in short, is, none do conform to their baptismal covenant, but those who do all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. Your attending on God's worship and ordinances in some instances, and neglecting others, as important, and as plainly commanded—your offering your child to baptism, while you refuse explicitly to confess Christ and come to the holy supper, is rather against you than for you. It imports an [...]surdity; and shews you to be too ignorant of the nature of that transaction, of offering up a child to God in baptism; than which, nothing can simply a more solemn covenanting with God.

Obj. III. Well, says the parent, I am willing then, publickly to own the Covenant, and make a profession of religion—and thus make my Parents Act, my own. What hinders me now from enjoying baptism for my Child?

Ans. You will not think me unreasonable here, if I tell you, two things are very necessary for you, in this case. One is, that you ought to understand what you do, and to know what you are going about, in such a solemn affair as this is, covenanting with the great Gods. And the other is, that if you do vow and promise to the Lord, you ought to perform what you promise; otherwise it will be but solemn mockery. You ought at least, to purpose and intend to per­form, by the help of God.

1. You ought to know and well understand what it is to covenant with God, before you go about it; and not go on blindfold in such a solemn transaction. Now if the case be truly as you say, i. e. if there be such an heart in you, as far as you are able to judge, upon the most careful and serious consideration; I trust none will object to your coming, and owning your baptismal covenant; I am sure, none ought to refuse you. (Obj.) But don't you hold that assurance is necessary? I have heard you held it; and that none can safely come but such as know they are truly gracious. (Ans.) No, I do not hold this. I do not think you ought to wait till you have assurance of your regenerate state. I never held or taught such doctrine; nei­ther will this follow from my principles. I think 'tis your duty to [Page 15]come, if the case be with you, as described above; and the duty of the church to receive you; for we are not to break the bruised r [...]d. But then you ought, on the other hand, to be careful that you do not mock God, by making a shew of covenanting, when you do not do it in sincerity of heart; and have reason to think you have never really chosen God for your portion. A conscientious person, surely would be afraid to come and profess before God, Angels and Men, that he does this day avouch the Lord for his God, when he has good reason to think that he is to this day an enemy to God, has no saving know­ledge of, or love to him. Perhaps when you say you are willing to own your baptismal covenant, you mean, you are willing to stand up, as the manner is, before the congregation, and hear the common form of covenanting read by the minister, bow your assent to it, and then bring your children out to baptism. But I must tell you, this is not all that is meant by owning, or entering into covenant with God. If your heart don't go along with the words of the covenant; if you have reason to think the disposition of your heart does not agree to the words of your mouth, it is all but a piece of formal hypocrisy, and must be very displeasing to a holy God. Such persons might well expect that awful demand in Psal. l. 16. What hast thou to do—that thou shouldst take MY COVENANT in thy mouth!

But if you have reason to think, upon the most diligent and prayerful examination of your state, by the rules of God's word, that there is such a heart in you, that you find in yourself a freedom, and willingness to give up yourself to God thro' Jesus Christ, and devote your all to him forever, according to the tenor of your baptismal covenant, I would encourage you, as a minister of Christ, to come and do it, and God be with you. There can be no reasonable objec­tion to your being received to all the privileges of that covenant, which was sealed to you in baptism. But then,

2. You ought to be careful to perform as well as promise to God. For better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay. Eccl. v. 5. By owning your covenant, you engage, by a solemn vow, to live and walk as a disciple of JESUS CHRIST, to submit to all his institutions and to walk in ALL his command­ments and ordinances blameless. This, as has been before observed, i [...] what is implied in the very nature of covenanting with God. How then can you think of doing this, when at the same time you do not [Page 16]intend, or think it your present duty to attend upon that special or­dinance and command of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me. ^*

Obj. IV. The Jewish church had all their children circumcised; and were commanded by God to do it, or they should be cut off. And none can suppose they were all gracious persons—or that they were required to make a publick profession that implied it: And why may not all children be baptised now, of those in visible cove­nant—I mean the children of baptized parents; inasmuch as all allow baptism comes in the room of circumcision?

Ans. 1. Should all this be allowed, yet this won't justify the prac­tice we are speaking of. Nay if this argument has any weight at all, it is directly against the Practice. For you, and every one must allow, that the Israelites were as much obliged and commanded to eat the passover, as to circumcise their children. So that your ar­gument, if any thing to the purpose, proves it to be the indispensible duty of all that bring their children to baptism, to come them­selves to the Lord's table. And here, I pray that it may be care­fully observed, that the circumcised adults in Israel, were not admit­ted to the priviledge of circumcision for their children, but were cut [Page 17]off, by the express command of God, from all the Privileges of his covenant people if they neglected or refused to attend on the Passo­ver. See Numb. ix. 13. But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey and FORBEARETH TO EAT THE PASSOVER, even the same soul shall be CUT OFF from his people. Whether this excision intends, being put to death, or not, yet none deny that it intended at least, their being cut off from all the special pri­viledges of God's covenant people, or visible Saints. Now I think it but a reasonable request, that those, who are for run­ning back to the Jewish dispensation, and build so much upon that, for the support of this practice, should endeavour to re­concile it with this text. I think it affords a very strong argument at least, for not treating those persons as visible saints, who refuse or neglect to attend the Lord's Supper, and for denying them the priviledges of God's covenant people, if not for casting them out. But,

2. Those are evidently mistaken, who assert that, the Israelites were not required to make a public profession of their covenant en­gagements to God. It is manifest from scripture, that they were commanded solemnly to renew covenant, in a public manner, even the whole congregation, every seventh year.—So that none could have children to circumcise, who had not before made a public pro­fession of religion. See Deut. xxxi. 9—12. And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests, the sons of Levi which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel; and Moses commanded them saying, At the end of EVERY SEVEN YEARS in the solemnity of the year of release—when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read THIS LAW, before all Israel, in their hearing, &c. Now that this intends a public renewal of cove­nant with God, is manifest, not only from this, that the law or ten commandments, are frequently called God's covenant, as the law, summarily contained that covenant, so that whenever there was, among that people, a publick, solemn profession of obedience to it, by God's institution, it must be looked upon as an explicit covenanting with God—but it will be evident, beyond all reasonable doubt, that in this place such public renewal of covenant is meant, if we will compare this passage and its connection with the xxix chapter, 10—15 verses. Ye stand all of you this day before the Lord your God—that thou shouldst ENTER INTO COVENANT with the Lord thy God, and into his oath. That which is here called GOD'S covenant and [Page 18]oath, is in the forementioned place called his law. And whoever will be at the pains to read attentively, these three chapters, viz. from the xxixth to the xxxiid, must see, that what the people of Israel were commanded to do every seven years, in the xxxist chap. was the same which they had before done in the plains of Moab, mentioned in the xxixth. If the latter was a publick renewal of covenant with God, so was the former; for it is plainly spoken of as a repetition of what they had so solemnly transacted in the fore­mentioned place. Whence it appears, that none, among that people, had grown up to such an age, as to have occasion to circumcise their children, but they had before, personally and explicitly entered into covenant with God.

As to the other part of the objection, that they were not all graci­ous persons, who brought their children to be circumcised; I would observe, 'Tis most probable, yea, there is no doubt, many of them did come to this ordinance in a hypocritical manner—did externally covenant with God, and seal their covenant when they had no true love to the God of ISRAEL. It is very certain, that in many periods of the Jewish state, the greater part of the people were notoriously wicked, grossly hypocritical—fell into scandalous idolatry: Insomuch that God speaks of them in general, and calls them a hypocritical nation, and the people of his wrath, Isai. x. 6. But will any one argue from all this, that they had a right to come to God's ordinances in the manner they did—or that God ALLOWED THEM to come with such a character, much less, commanded them? Will any per­son reason after such a strange sort as this; that because the Israelites were commanded to attend the Sacraments, and many of 'em at­tended them in abominable hypocrisy—therefore we may do so like­wise? And because they flattered GOD with their mouth, and LIED to him with their tongue, therefore 'tis lawful for us to do the same now? This would be, indeed, a surprizing way of arguing. God did enjoin that people, 'tis true, to circumcise their children and eat the passover, on penalty of excision; But it does not follow from hence, that God enjoined or allowed them to do it in an ungracious, hypocritical man [...]r. Therefore it must be acknowledged, to the honor of the divine purity, that those Israelites had no right to at­tend those ordinances, in the manner that multitudes of them did.

But furthermore—It may be observed, that this objection, taken from the Jewish church, does militate full as much against those that make it, as against us. For they hold, that none have a right to come [Page 19]to either ordinance, but such as are free from scandal. But it is cer­tain, as before observed, tha [...] vast numbers among the Jews, attended their Sacraments, without this qualification; when they were scanda­lously immoral, and lived in open wickedness and idolatry. How con­tinually were they falling into that sin? and yet we have no account, at such times, of their leaving off circumcision or the passover. So that, for persons to plead, that the Jews were expressly commanded to attend these ordinances, and therefore might do it without gracious since­rity—or to urge that true holiness was not what God required of them, because the command was so universal; if of any weight here, will, in the end, prove every whit as much against themselves, as against us; viz. That God did not require, so much as moral honesty, or freedom from scandal, in those that came to his ordinances. For there is no more exception, in the divine command, in one case, than in the other. The truth undoubtedly, is, though God did command them to attend on these duties, yet he never commanded them to do it in a graceless hypocritical manner. 'Tis impossible he should—it would be inconsistent with the infinite, unchangeable holiness and per­fection of his nature, to do it. Therefore, what they actually did, is no rule by which we are to judge what was right; but what God commanded.

If any should say, God knew they had no grace, many of them, and that it was impossible for 'em to come in a gracious manner, and therefore he could not, consistent with his justice, command them to come with a qualification which he knew they had not, and could not get. I answer—1st. It may as well be said, that God knew many of them were scandalous, and could not come to the ordinance without being of such a character—and therefore, when he commands them so universally, he could not intend they should be free from immorality when they came. But 2d. The command of God to at­tend these ordinances, was no more universal, or absolute, than the command to love him with all their heart. So that it may, as justly be objected, that God cannot, consistent with his justice, require men to love him, or to repent and be converted, because they, at present have no heart, or moral power to do it.—But I conclude all orthodox persons will allow, that God may justly command all men every where to love him, and to repent of their sins, even tho' they have at pre­sent no gracious principle, or moral ability to obey. And if so, where is the absurdity, or injustice in their being commanded to pro­fess their Love to God, or to attend those ordinances, which are, in their nature, a profession of love, repentance, faith, &c.

[Page 20] For persons to plead, that a man can't be to blame for coming to sealing ordinances without grace, when he has it not; and that it would be hard to punish persons for not having a qualification, which it is not in their power to get, and which God alone can bestow, I ap­prehend, is just as much as to say, a man can't be to blame for not loving God, when he has no Love in his Heart to him; and that it would be hard to punish a poor creature, with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, merely for his continuing in impeni­tency and obstin [...]te rebellion against God, when he can't but he of such a temper. T [...] objection, in short, seems to be nothing but an implicit casting all the blame of a sinner's enmity and alienation of heart from God, upon the DIVINE BEING himself.

"If God may justly require that of a sinner, which, while he is in an unregenerate state, he has no moral power to perform, then he may require those things which are dependant on it; and which, if the other be done, he would be able to do and might do, and with­out which, he may not do it. So, if God may require an unsanctified person, while such, to love him, then he may require him to testify that love, as every Christian does in attending on either of the Sacra­ments; and yet it not be lawful for him to testify and profess love, when he has it not."^*

Thus the argument brought to support this practice, taken from the Jewish Church, which has been so much insisted on among us, appears to be inconclusive and without any weight. For, 'tis abun­dantly manifest, as has been shewn, that they were not allowed to [Page 21]enjoy the priviledge of circumcision for their children, nor any other priviledge of God's covenant people, or visible saints, if they neglected to attend the Passover; but were to be cut off. Moreover it appears, they were all obliged personally and publickly to renew covenant with God—And that, however some of them came in Hypocrisy, yet that God never allowed, much less commanded them to attend or­dinances in this manner, but always forbid it—and that their con­duct therefore, is not to be the rule by which we are to determine what was right. If thousands under the Jewish and Christian dis­pensations should own the covenant in hypocrisy, and avouch the Lord for their God, while yet they are enemies to him in heart, it can never prove that it was then or is now, lawful to do it; much less, agreeable to the will of God and his design in having a visible Church in the world, as some have plead.

Obj. V. Why may not persons be admitted to the priviledges of Baptism now, as universally, and with no other qualifications than those had who came to John the Baptist, to be baptized? It can't be thought they were all gracious, or made a profession of saving faith.

Ans. Several things are evident from this account, viz. 1st. That John preached repentance and faith in the approaching Messiah, Math. iii. 2. REPENT ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. And Acts xix. 4. That they should BELIEVE on him that should come after him. 2dly. 'Tis evident also, that they who came to him and were baptized, made some publick profession of faith and repentance. Math. iii. 6. And were baptized of him CONFESSING THEIR SINS. And Acts xix. 5. When they heard this, they were baptized IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.^* 3dly. It is not reasonable to suppose that they made profession of another and diffe­rent kind of repentance from that which John preached and had in­culcated upon them. But 4thly. 'Tis very evident, that was not a legal, but a saving, evangelical repentance. For it was repentance for the REMISSION OF SINS. And there is no remission of sins pro­mised, or that can belong to any repentance but that which is gracious and saving. Therefore there is nothing that can be gathered from John, or his Baptism, that will warrant our practice, or prove that it is lawful for unregenerate persons to come to special ordinances. Whether those that he baptized, were all true penitents or not, ('tis [Page 22]plain some of 'em were not,) yet this was what they professed, and upon this profession, he baptized them. For he had no authority to judge their hearts. He went by what was visible, as all ministers and churches ought. If persons profess true repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and nothing appears in their lise and conduct to contradict it, they are to be admitted. God has given us no other rule to go by, than this.

As to the numbers that went to John to be baptized—All Judea and Jerusalem; by these expressions, 'tis plain nothing more is meant, than that there was a great resort, much people from those places, that went out to him. The word ALL there, can no more intend all the inhabitants of those places, young and old, than the like expression of the Apostle Paul, when he says ALL MEN FORSOOK ME. Whereas 'tis evident he was not forsaken by every individual of his friends: Or than the same expression in Luke xvi. 16. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached and EVERY MAN PRESSETH INTO IT.

Obj. VI. Well, if this practice of owning the covenant, is laid aside, what will become of our poor children? If none have a right to the ordinance of Baptism for themselves or children, without covenanting with God, and if none ought to do this, but those whose hearts are right with God, i. e. gracious persons; if I ought not to "avouch the Lord to be my God," unless I have reason to think I have heartily chosen him for my God; if the case be so, what a dark and melan­cholly prospect does it give, of the rising generation? In a few years more, the greater part of our children will be unbaptized—and go without so much as the external mark or badge of christianity; be as Pagans, Infidels and Heathen. And what a reproach will this be to the children, and the families they belong to? Must they be treated as "dogs and not as lambs of the flock"—What a terrible consideration is this! and what shall be done in this case?

Ans. In the first place, not take ungospel methods to remedy the difficulty. However dark the prospect may be, and however great our concern for our children, yet we may be sure of this, that 'tis not the right way, to get rid of this evil, to go out of the rules which Christ has given us with respect to baptism. Neither can we expect a blessing, either on us or them, if we should do evil that good may come; or if we should be guilty of dissimulation and hypocrisy, in order to get our children baptized; as that person must be, who solemnly covenants with God, when he has not such an heart in him.

[Page 23] But as to the reproach brought upon our children, by going with­out the outward badge of a christian, because they remain unbaptiz­ed through the parents neglecting to make a profession of godliness—Such an objection will appear to you, I trust, to favor of great unrea­sonableness and even stupidity, if you do but attend to the nature of it. And here I ask leave of the reader, to insert the following quotation, though the passage be somewhat lengthy; to which I humbly and earnestly ask the serious attention of the reader, and particularly the people of my charge; not only because I think it contains a solid and full answer to the objection made, but also some truths, of the greatest importance, which I could wish, may be deeply impressed on the minds of all that are concerned about this controversy—especially the parents in question.

"Such a kind of objection (says he) will savour of a very unrea­sonable spirit. Is it not enough, if God freely offers men to own their children and give them the honour of baptism, in case the pa­rents will only relinquish their enmity to him, turn from sin, and heartily give up themselves and their children to him, and take upon them the profession of godliness?—If men are truly excusable, and not to blame for remaining in an unconverted state, in not turning to God thro' Christ, and in not believing with their hearts and confessing with their mouths, why don't we openly plead that they are so? and why don't we openly teach sinners, that they are not to blame for continuing among the enemies of Christ, and neglecting and despising his great salvation?—But if, on the other hand, they are not at all excusable in this, if it be owing wholly to their own wicked hearts and indulged lusts, that they refuse sincerely to give up themselves and their children to God, then how unreasona­ble is it in them to complain that their children are denyed the honor of having God's mark set upon them as some of his? If parents are angry (says he) and think hard of this, such a temper shews them to be very senseless of their own vile treatment of the blessed God."

"And besides, is it not very much owing to parents, that there are so many young people grown up, who can make no profession of godliness? They have themselves therefore to blame, if the case be so, that (proceeding upon the principles that have been maintained) there is like to rise a generation of unbaptized children. Tho' they cannot change their hearts, yet if ancestors had thoroughly done their duty to their posterity, in instructing, governing and praying for their children, and setting good examples before them, according to their [Page 24]covenant engagements, there is reason to think, the case would have been far otherwise than it is."

"The insisting on this objection, seems also to savor of much stupi­dity as well as unreasonableness. For the objection seems to suppuse the country to be full of those that are unconverted [as they cannot make a profession of godliness] and so are exposed every momeat to eternal damnation; yet it seems, we don't hear such great complaints and lamentable outories concerning this. The cry is, they are un­baptized; have not the outward mark: not hat they are enemies to GOD and in danger of H [...]LL [...]. Now why is it looked upon so dreadful, to have great n [...]muors among as going without the name and honorable badge of christiadity, when at the same time it is [...] more laid to heart, that such multitudes go without the thing; which is surely infinitely more dreadful? Why are we so s [...]eut about this? What is the name good for, without the thing? Can parents bear to have their children go about the world in the most odious and dan­gerous state of soul; in reality children of the Devil, and under con­demnation to eternal burnings; when at the same time, they can't bear to have them disgraced by going without the honor of being baptized? A high honor and procious priviledge this is, indeed, to all the proper subjects of it; yet how can parents be contented with the sign without the thing sig [...]ied? Why should they covet the ex­ternal honor for their children, while they are so careless about the spiritual blessing? Don't this argue great sen [...]les [...]ness of their own misery as well as their children's, in being in a christless state? If a man and his children were together bitten by a Viper, dreadfully­swollen, and like to die, would it not argue great stupidity in the parent to be anxiously concerned about his child's having on; at the same time, a dirty outside garment, and angry at others for not putting some external ornament upon it? But the difference in this present case, is infinitely greater and more important. Let parents pity their poor children, because they are without Baptism, and pity themselves, who are in danger of everlasting misery, while they have no special interest in the covenant of grace, and so, have no right to covenant favors nor honors, for themselves or children.—No religious honors, that are obtained in any other way than by real religion, are much worth contending for. And in truth, it is no honor at all to a man, to have merely the outward badges of a chris­tian, without being a christian indeed. Any more than it would be an honor to a man, that has no learning, but is a mere dunce, to have [Page 25]a degree at college: or for a man who has no courage or valour, but is a grand coward, to have an honorable commission in an army; which, by listing him up, only serves to expose him to the deeper re­proach, and sets him forth as the more notable object of contempt.

But it is said, The form is better than nothing; and better have our children baptized, if their parents can't make a profession of god­liness. For to deny them the outward mark, has a tendency to make them cast off all restraints, and so in the end will tend to general pro­faness and immorality—as they are denied any portion in the Lord.

To this it may be answered, "That CHRIST is the best judge of the tendency of his own institutions.—But it will be found, more­over, that this is a very great mistake; contrary to scripture, reason and experience.—Indeed, I acknowledge it would have such a ten­dency, were they to be shut out from having any part in the Lord, in the same sense that the two tribes and a half were.—Josh. xxii. 25. or to fence them out by such a partition wall as formerly was between the Jews and Gentiles, i e. to tell them, that if they were never so much disposed to serve the Lord, he was not ready to accept them, according to that notion the Jews entertained of the uncircumcised Gentiles.—But only for us to forbear giving them honors they have no title to, and not to compliment them with the name and badge of GOD's children, while they profess or pretend to nothing but what is consistent with their being his enemies; this can have no such tendency, as is complained of in the objection. But rather the contrary practice has very much this tendency. For it is found by constant experience, through all ages, that blind, corrupt mankind are strongly disposed to rest in a name instead of the thing—in the form instead of the power; and to make themselves easy in the former, in the neglect of the latter."

"This way of proceeding tends greatly to encrease the negligence of parents, and to confirm the stupidity and security of wicked chil­dren. If Baptism were denied to all children, whose parents did not profess godliness, and in a judgment of christian charity, appeared to be real friends to CHRIRT, it would have a tendency to excite pious heads of families to more thorough pains, and care in the reli­gious education of their children, and to more fervent prayer for them, that they might be converted in youth, before they enter into a married state; and so, if they have children, the entail of the co­venant, be secured. And it would also tend to awaken young people themselves, as yet unconverted, especially when about to settle in [Page 26]the world. The thought of their having no right to christian privi­ledges for their children, (should they become parents) would tend to lead them, at such a time, seriously to reflect on their own awful state, which, if they don't get out of it, must lay a foundation for so much calamity and reproach to their families. And if, after they are parents, they remain in such a condition, they would have this additional motive to stir them up to seek grace for themselves and their children.^* Whereas the contrary practice, as it has been car­ried on generally, has a natural tendency to quiet the minds of per­sons, both in their own and their childrens unregeneracy. Yea, may it not be justly suspected, that the way of baptizing the children of such as never make a profession of saving grace or religion, is an expedient originally invented for this very end, to give ease to ances­tors with respect to their posterity, in times of general declension and degeneracy?"

"This way of proceeding tends greatly to establish the stupidity and irreligion of children, as well as negligence of parents. It is certain, that unconverted, graceless parents, never do truly give up their children to God, since they don't truly give up themselves to him. And if neither of the parents appear truly pious, in a judgment of scriptural charity,' (or any otherwise than by mere negative evidences) "there cannot, in this case, be any grounds to expect that their chil­will be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, how solemnly soever the parents may promise it. The faichfulness of Abraham was such as might be trusted in this matter. Gen. xviii. 19. But men that are not visibly godly, i. e. who have not the profession or appearance of real saints, upon what grounds are they to be trusted? It would be but presumption to expect that those children, who are never really given up to God, nor brought up for him, should prove religious and be God's children. There is no reason to expect, but that such children, ordinarily speaking, will grow up in irreligion, whether they are baptized or not. And for persons to go about with the name and visible seal of God, and the sacred badge of chris­tianity upon them, having had their bodies, by a holy ordinance, consecrated to God as his temples, yet living in irreligion and ways of wickedness, this tends exceedingly to harden them and establish them in an habitual contempt of sacred things. Such persons, above all men, are like to be the most hardened and abandoned, and most difficultly reclaimed. As it was with the wicked Jews, who were [Page 27]much more confirmed in their wickedness, than those heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon. To give that which is holy to those whom we have no manner of reason to expect, (from the circumstances of their parentage and education) will be any otherwise than profane and irre­ligious, is not the way to make them better but worse. 'Tis the way to make them habitually trample holy things under their feet, yea, even to turn again and rent us, and be more mischievous and hurtful enemies to that which is good than otherwise they would be."^*

And now to close this head of objections; if after all it should be said, that saving grace, and a hearty disposition to give up myself to God in Christ, is a thing out of my power, I cannot change my own heart, and that it cannot be just that my child should suffer for my sake.—I would seriously ask such an objector, what is the real language of the objection? Is it not a secret casting all the blame of the parents remaining in impenitency and opposition to God, upon that Being who he supposes can change his heart?^† I conceive there would be just as much reason, in saying, 'Tis a hardship that I should be punished with eternal misery for not loving my Maker, and not complying with the Gospel with all my heart: Or 'tis unrea­sonable that I should be to blame for disobeying God's commands, when 'tis my very nature to do it Whereas this is the very thing, in which the sinner's inexcusable guilt and wickedness consists—that he has such a heart, and that it is his nature to be, or in other words, that he is so willingly, opposite to God, chooses and takes pleasure in that which is infinitely wrong and contrary to God. In this lies the essence of a sinner's guilt and blameworthiness, for which he justly deserves, from the hand of the Lord, not only to be denied every priviledge of the covenant, but to be eternally cast off from God, and to lie down in sorrow.

Wherefore, the only effectual way to have the difficulty removed, and which, I conceive, is the only way which God himself points out is, for parents to renounce their unreasonable prejudices and opposition to CHRIST and the gospel, and yield a hearty compliance with, and consent to the covenant of grace. This is their present [Page 28]duty, as well as highest interest—to repent and be converted—give up themselves wholly to God thro' Jesus Christ; and then will they be entitled to all the priviledges and blessings of God's covenant people here, and in the world to come. And as for those among us who profess to be the true followers and friends of Christ, methinks, instead of urging or encouraging parents to come and covenant with God, and give up their children to him in baptism, when they have no reason to think they ever did give themselves up to God, or were ever real friends to Christ in their hearts; and instead of teaching them that they may lawfully perform such solemn transactions, with no higher principle than "love to their children," which is certainly consistent with reigning enmity against God; would they not act much more becoming the christian character and more agreeable to Christ, if they should be more engaged to keep up that godly disci­pline, and attend those rules, which Christ has enjoined in his church; and be more earnest and frequent in prayer to God, with whom is the residue of the spirit, crying in the importunate language of the Prophet, O Lord revive thy work! And if God, who is the bearer of prayer, should be pleased in his infinite mercy, to pour out his spirit in his saving influences, upon parents and children, how soon would the present complaints and perplexities be happily removed? And men, becoming new creatures, their hearts being sanctified and brought to the love of God and faith of Jesus, they would no longer plead for a covenant, which a graceless sinner may lawfully enter into, but their gladsome voice, one to another, would be like that in Jer. l. 5. "Come let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant, that shall not be forgotten."—"I will go also."

SECTION IV. More particular Remarks on Mr. Cotton's Essays.

I Can't but observe that Mr. C. in the greater part of his essays, seems to have entirely lost sight of the question which was first proposed, and which is the ground of the debate. The question, as he has rightly stated it in the beginning of his book, was, "Whether the half way practice of admitting persons to own the covenant and have baptism for their children, without coming to the Lord's Supper, be warrantable by the word of God." Mr. C. undertook to prove [Page 29]the affirmative. Had he done this, from the word of God, he would have established his point, and I must and would have freely given it up. But the attentive reader will easily observe, that in a very little while after he had first stated th [...] question, he goes off, to endeavour to prove another point, viz. that persons who are unregenerate, (if baptized) have a lawful right to bring their children to baptism; and that their coming, in such circumstances, (if outwardly regular,) would be less offensive to God than the omission would be. That it is not their being gracious persons, that the church is to have respect to, in admitting them, but their being baptized, and so in visible co­venant—and that this gives them the right, whether they are gracious or no. This appears from those words of his, in the 2d page "Neither does CHRIST so much as intimate that they were gracious—thereby letting us know, that it is visible membership gives the right." i. e. Such a membership as a person may have, without any need of the supposition of his being truly gracious. For the drift of his whole argument is to prove that unregenerate persons me compleat members of the church, (if baptized and regular) so as to give them a lawful right to ordinances. And he must mean a right in the sight of God, as well as the church; for he says, p. 12. "From this we infer that it is not contrary to the mind of GOD, that the children of persons unregenerate should have this ordinance admini­stred to them, if their parents be in covenant relation to God." And indeed, that this is a point Mr. C. holds, is evident not only from a multitude of passages all over his book, but from his appearing in op­position to my declared sentiments in this matter. There would be no room or foundation for opposing me here, if he was not of the principle above. For I have always held that we have nothing to [...] to judge hearts, or to insist that they shall certainly be gracious, or else not be admitted; far from it; we may, and often are deceived no doubt. But if persons profese to be real friends to Christ, and appear to be sincere in what they profess, and their lives are agreea­ble, they are to be received, not only to Baptism, but to all the priviledges of visible saints. Whereas Mr. C. supposes, according to his book, that it is lawful for graceless persons as such, to come to this ordinance, own the covenant, &c. and that, there is no necessity of their being gracious, or professing grace, in order to give them a right. Otherwise he could not say, "'Tis the will of God," they should come, provided they have been baptized; or that such pro­fession is " only a prudential of the church."

[Page 30] And yet strangely, Mr. C. seems to hold, in many other places, that which is directly contradictory to this. As in p. 30, 65, &c. of which, more hereafter. But it is evident from what has been observed, that Mr. C. has forsaken the original question, which was—not whether unregenerate parents have a right to bring their chil­dren; but whether 'tis warrantable from scripture for persons to own the covenant and be admitted to the priviledge of baptism for their children, (thereby treating them as visible saints) while they neglect to attend the other ordinance. It was his going off from the point in controversy, that obliged me, in the course of our debates at the church meetings, to answer some objections and bring sundry argu­ments to prove the unlawfulness of unregenerate men's partaking of covenant priviledges; for which Mr. C. has charged me with "mis­stating the question," p. 65. And tells me, with an air, rather suited to his magistratical than brotherly character, "Wherefore I desire to hear no more about qualifications." But if persons will them­selves ramble from the point, I know of no other way but to ramble after 'em. But I will now invite Mr. C. back again, and endeavour for a while to attend to the question we set out upon; and consider what he has said upon it; and whether any arguments he has bro't, when weighed in the ballance of the sanctuary, will appear of suffi­cient weight to establish what he undertook to prove.

His arguments seem to be chiefly founded on the parents being compleat members of the church, in good standing. He owns that notwithstanding their membership by baptism, they may be guilty of that which disqualifies them for enjoying baptism for their children. That by their unchristian conduct and behavior they may forfeit their right. He holds, in many places, that none have the right, but visible christians or believers, p. 70, &c. that is, those that profess and appear to be real christians, true believers.

Now it is granted that persons baptized in infancy, are thereby initiated into the visible church of Christ, and have a proper member­ship in it; and as such, have a visible title to the ordinances and priviledges of such, provided they behave like christians and do not exclude themselves by their unchristian conduct; or in other words, as long as they appear to act agreeable to the import of their baptis­mal covenant engagements; or do not practically renounce them.^* [Page 31]But if, when grown up to adult age, they appear not to live and walk agreeable hereto; particularly, if they refuse to confess Christ before men, and obey that special command to all disciples, "Do this in remembrance of me," the question then is, whether this, if persisted in, is not such a violation of their christian bonds, and such disobe­dience to Christ, as to make them forfeit the charater of visible friends and disciples; and a just ground of denying them the special priviledges of such; so that they cannot rightfully demand or expect them. The dispute therefore, is not whether baptized persons who behave well, (i. e. answerable to their baptismal engagements) are members of the visible church, and have a right to baptism for their children: I allow they have. For I suppose, if they act up to their engagements, they will heartily comply with the terms of that cove­nant, and publickly own it before men. And upon their professing it of appearing so to do, no person or church have a right to refuse them, but they ought to be admitted to all the priviledges they expect or desire. But the question is, whether persons, baptized in, infancy, who refuse to profess their consent to the covenant of grace, and habitually neglect coming to the Lord's Supper, have a right to the character of visible saints, and ought to be allowed their priviledge, notwithstanding such refusal and disobedience? I suppose the nega­tive, Mr. C. asserts the affirmative; but he has said nothing hitherto, as I have observed, that can, by any means, be said to prove it; though his whole building rests upon this foundation: So that if this is removed, all he has said and done, falls to the ground. And this, I conceive, may be easily done, if we will be willing to lay aside all prejudices and attachments to human invention and tradi­tional opinions, and attend diligently and only to the scriptures, the only unerring standard of truth.

I would be far from endeavoring to depreciate the characters of the fathers, or speaking disrespectfully of those venerable divines who have been upon the other side in this controversy; of whom my [Page 32]late reverend and pious Predecessor Mr. LEONARD, was one; whose name and memory are justly dear to me, as well as to the people of my charge.^* But in a matter of this nature, we ought to call no man on earth master. To the law and to the testimony. Let that devide the point; by that I am willing to stand or fall, in this debate. And if we will but sit at the feet of Christ, and be willing to learn of him, we may easily find, who are visible christians—who those are, whom HE accounts, and whom he would have us account his disci­ [...], and treat as such. And we shall there learn also, what that is, by which they forfeit this character, and which, in CHRIST's account, [...]enders them unworthy of the priviledges of his visible church and people; of which Baptism of children is one. He has not left us in the dark in this matter, or obliged us to spell out by "negative evidences" who are, and who are not proper persons to be ranked among his visible friends. His words are as plain as can be expressed. Let us turne to some out of many of them.

Those words of our Lord in Math. xxviii. 20. Mr. Cotton pro­duces, in order to prove that baptized children are disciples. 'Tis granted they are, and continue to be such, as long as, or provided they come up to the character there described, and submit to the injunctions and discipline which CHRIST in these very words appoints; (which Mr. C. has left out in quoting this text) viz. Teaching them to observe ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I have commanded you. But what if they did not submit to this, but refused to observe some important commands of Christ? Had the Apostles, in this case any right, by their commission, to number them among the dis [...]ples of Christ, or visible saints? Nay would they not hereby, have acted in direct opposition to it? Here we have the character of a visible chris­tian, drawn by CHRIST himself. To apply it therefore to the point in debate; we must either say, CHRIST has not commanded his dise­ples to attend that holy ordinance of the Lord's Supper and confess him before men, or else assert, in direct contradiction to our Lords [Page 33]words, that a person may be a good disciple, and ought to have the priviledges of such, who lives in the constant, visible neglect of a plain, express command of Christ; and which he acknowledges such. Surely he who teaches, that such persons are visible friends to Christ, teaches for doctrine the commandments of men.

In John xv. 14. our Lord confirms the doctrine taught in the abovementioned text. He says, Ye are my FRIENDS if ye do WHAT­SOEVER I command you. As if he had said, "This is the touchstone, the test, (not only by which a man's real grace and sincerity is to be determined, and whether he belongs to the invisible church of Christ or not, but) by which you are to judge of visible discipleship. This is the mark by which you are to ground your charity, in the admission of persons into my visible church and kingdom. If any call themselves my friends, and yet keep not my commands, whatever outward advantages, relation or profession they may boast of, they are none of mine; neither have they any right to expect or enjoy the priviledges of my friends.

FURTHERMORE, by a visible disciple of Christ, is meant, one that professes, and visibly appears to be a lover of CHRIST. But our Lord says, John xiv. 15. "If ye love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS." And verse 21st. "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." 23d v. "If any man love me, he will keep my words." Now, by what right can a person call himself a visible christian, or lover of Christ, and expect to be treated as such by others—or how can any teach, that they are and ought to be looked upon as such, and that they are abused if they have not the honors and priviledges of christians, when they live openly and con­stantly in the violation of one of the most important of all CHRIST's institutions and commands, without being guilty of opposing and contradicting CHRIST, in these express and repeated declarations of his?—St. John saith, "He that saith I know him (or professes discipleship to him) and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him." 1 John ii. 4.

Again; those words of CHRIST in Luk. vi. 46. are directly against such claims. "And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say." Why do you come with such a vain pretence to be my disciples; why do you pretend obedience and subjection to me, as if I was your Lord, and yet live in disobedience to me. As long as you refuse to obey me, your claim to visible discipleship is good for nothing—neither have you any right to be treated as such." [Page 34]These words will forever stand as a bar against admitting persons to the character and peculiar priviledges of visible saints, who keep not the commandments and walk not in the instituted ordinances of JESUS CHRIST. But such are they, who, after proper instruction and ad­monition, refuse to attend on the Lord's Supper; as they do herein openly disobey CHRIST in a most important article which he has strictly enjoined on all his disciples; and by which they are to be visibly distinguished from the world.

ONCE MORE, agreably to what has been said above, CHRIST tells his disciples plainly, who those are, that are to be looked upon as his enemies, that have no love to him, John xiv. 24. "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." q. d. By this rule you may know whom you are not to receive or treat as my visible friends, viz. them that will not keep my sayings. Wherever you meet with one, habi­tually of this character, know, that he has no right to the name or priviledges of my disciples; neither ought he, or any one else, to think him wronged, that he is denied them.^* Innumerable other texts might easily be adduced to the same purpose; but what have been mentioned, appear to me, abundantly sufficient to determine this question, beyond all reasonable objection. And that if we will allow the New-Testament to be of divine authority, and the great head of the church to be a proper person to determine the point, we must conclude, that none ought to be look'd upon as visible believers or christians, or to be allowed their priviledges, who live in the con­stant, allowed neglect or violation of any of Christ's commands and institutions. And therefore, if we allow the Lord's Supper to be an instituted ordinance of Christ, and a public confessing of him before men, to be a commanded duty to all his disciples, then we must grant that those who live in the habitual neglect of them, do not come up to the character CHRIST has given, and therefore have no right to the special priviledges of his disciples.

None, I hope, will mistake what I have said, as if I supposed a pro­fession of religion and coming to the Lord's Supper were enough to denominate a man a real christian or true believer; or as if this was enough to satisfy a man's own conscience, that he was in a safe state. [Page 35]This would be a very dangerous doctrine. For thousands, no doubt call Christ Lord, and eat and drink in his presence, to whom he will say, "Depart, ye workers of iniquity, I know you not." But what I intend is, that this is what we are to judge by. And that we have no right to call persons visible christians, or grant them special priviledges but those who do make such external professions and obey that possitive command of Christ, Do this in remembrance of me.

But it is objected, that their neglect of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, is not owing to any "contempt" of Christ's command; it arises from "scruples and tenderness of conscience"—therefore we ought to bear with them and let them "come as far as they will go." That is to say, we should look upon them in good standing, and treat them as very good disciples of CHRIST, tho' they cannot see their way clear to walk in all his ordinances and obey his command­ments. In answer to this, I pray the following things may be observed.

1. That we find no warrant for such a distinction or exception, in the word of God, let the plea for it be what it will. Is it not probable we should have had some intimation of it from CHRIST or his Apostles, if there had been any reasonable grounds for such an excuse for neglecting a plain institution of Christ? Whence comes it to pass, that we never find, in the New Testament, any account of disciples excusing themselves from this command of Christ, from scruples of conscience? I can't find that this was ever tho't to be a sufficient ground, till since the Apostles days; perhaps not till within 200 years, for admitting persons to the number and priviledges of disciples, who lived in the neglect of that distinguishing command of Christ. Have we not reason then, to look upon this, not of divine approbation, but as an invention of men, to palliate, if not to excuse persons, in their disobedience to the commands of Christ, while yet they may pass for his disciples and goods christians?

2. But what are these scruples of conscience, which will suffer a person to engage in the most solemn transaction in the world, (as they do when they own the covenant) and yet will keep him back from the Lord's Supper, a plain instituted ordinance of Christ? Is there not reason to think, at least in many instances, that these "scruples" are in reality, an inward consciousness that all is not right within; a con­sciousness of their unfitness for such a covenant transaction? or that they are satisfied in themselves, however the church may have charity for 'em, that they have no true love to JESUS CHRIST; that they [Page 36]are in a state of polluted nature.—Yet, since there is such a practice in the church as owning the covenant without coming to the Lord's Supper, they will venture to comply with it, for the sake of their children; hoping secretly, all the while, that it is not really the co­venant of grace that they own; nor of the same nature, in point of obligation, with that covenant which persons make, when they come up to full communion. Is there not great reason to fear this is truly the case with many, in those places where this practice is upheld?—Which leads me to say,

3. If they do not scruple to do the greater, why should they scruple to do the less? Their tender consciences won't scruple to own the covenant, which is one [...]f the greatest and most solemn transactions a person can perform on this side death and the eternal world. For he therein calls God, Angels and men to witness his vows and the dedication of himself to God, and engagements to be the Lord's, to walk in all his ways. I say his scruples don't terrify him from this—he can do this with a safe and easy conscience; and yet he scruples to come to the Lord's table—i.e. scruples whether 'tis safe for him to fulfil what he has just before bound himself in covenant to perform. For our opponents say there is but one covenant; so that they who own the covenant are under the same obligations to walk in all ordi­nances, that those are, who join in full communion. It may also be enquired,

4. Why these fears and scruples don't operate as strong to keep him away from one ordinance, as from the other, equally solemn and important; and to the right attendance on which, love to CHRIST is as much required? There is as much a profession of love to CHRIST, and as much of a covenant transaction in a person's offering his child to God in baptism, as in his coming to the Lord's table. And if any parents think otherwise, they are greatly mistaken. Therefore should they persist in pleading scruples of conscience for neglecting the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, while yet they demand Baptism for their children, will not such gross inconsistence shew, either that they are too ignorant of the nature of Baptism and the import of it, to be admitted to baptism for their children, until better instructed; or else, that they do not act from any love to CHRIST in insisting upon it; but from some worldly views, such as the honor and credit of it, or some other sinister motive? And if so, ought a minister or a church to prostitute a [...]oly ordinance of JESUS CHRIST to [...] ­ [...]ify such a temper as this? But,

[Page 37] 5. Let us for a moment turn the tables, and suppose a parent should come, who had never been baptized himself, and should desire baptism for his child, and to be admitted to the Lord's Supper himself. You tell him he can't be admitted to either, till he is himself baptized, He replies, he is afraid to come to that ordinance; bap­tism appears so solemn an ordinance, that he dare not venture; he scruples his fitness for it. Now must be he borne with, and admitted to the Lord's Supper under a notion that we should let him come "as far as he can go," and so bear with him as to baptism, till his scruples are removed? Who would think this reasonable or lawful? Would not every one say he is sit for neither, till his scruples are re­moved and he better instructed.—Some perhaps will say this is not to the purpose, because there never was such an instance; and that it can't properly be supposed.

I answer, it is a fact, that in the fourth century, about 330 years after CHRIST, in the reign of Constantine the great, people had much the same opinion about Baptism, that many among us now have, about the Lord's Supper. They looked upon it so awful and sacred an ordinance, that if they were not holy persons, or fell into sin after they had been baptized, their baptism would seal their damnation; therefore they dare not approach to that ordinance, but put it off till they were just going to die, that they might ascend pure to the celes­tial regions.^* Now what church could think that such scruples of conscience as these—tho' uttered with the greatest possible solemnity and apparent conscientiousness, would be a sufficient plea for admit­ting him to the Lord's Supper should he desire it, while he neglects the ordinance of Baptism? Would any plead for him, "'Tis hard he may not come to one duty, because he can't come to all; will you force a man to be baptized, when he cannot see his way clear, and dare not in conscience do it; and say, he shall not have the Lord's Supper, till he comes to the other ordinance; i. e. he shall not come as far as be can with a good conscience, unless he will do that which is directly against his conscience?" What kind of arguing would this be? Yet there is, at least, as good reason to admit it in one case as in the other.

Obj. But is there not some allowance to be made for weak, tender rainds? All can't see alike. Tho' there is no just ground for per­sons scruples about the Lord's Supper, if they are sit to offer their children in baptism, yet it's difficult, yea impossible perhaps to con­vince [Page 38]some of it. And may'nt there be real good christians, that may be under these scruples? You would not debar communicants from the Lord's table or baptism, should they be under doubts and fears; or condemn them as graceless. Why then may'nt a person be a true christian, and see his way clear to offer his child, but not dare to come to the Lord's Supper?

Ans. I am far from supposing this impossible. I doubt not it has often been the case. And all possible tenderness is to be used with conscientious tho' fearful christians, lest we should quench the smoak­ing flax. But I can by no means think 'tis any act of tenderness, to do that, which tends to establish and keep them along in their mistakes. 'Tis acknowledged, their scruples arise from some wrong notions they have got about the nature of the two ordinances; or from their misunderstanding certain texts of scripture, particularly, oftentimes that in 1 Cor. xi. 29. It may be justly presumed, that these persons never would have been led into this notion of scrupling their fitness for one ordinance, while they have none about their fitness for the other, had it not been for some wrong notions or instructions they have received, and from this half-way practice, which tends to keep up a distinction between the ordinances, which they have been always used to, from their childhood. I cannot but think, that if ministers would be painful in declaring what is the truth in this matter, and determine no longer to submit to a practice, which themselves, many of them, acknowledge carries in it an inconsistency; and if churches would join in abolishing this unscriptural practice, which has tended so much (I speak from my own knowledge) to mislead and bewilder honest, enquiring minds with respect to covenanting with God, there is no doubt but the prejudices and scruples of all honest, conscientious persons would soon be removed; and they would see that they might as safely come to the Lord's table as offer up a child to God in Baptism; or it would be as difficult to perswade them to come to the latter as the former.

Mr. C. indeed seems to urge a distinction to be made between the two ordinances; and intimates, certainly in many places, as if the same essential qualifications were not required in both. But what proof does he bring? He "says, the church has in all ages been larger in admitting to baptism than the Lord's supper."^* And has [Page 39]mentioned the practice of the first century, concerning the catachu­meni, baptizati, &c. What he has said here, I apprehend may posi­bly lead some into a mistake. The truth of that matter was this, according to the best church history extant; "None were admitted to baptism till they had, not only firmly professed their faith in CHRIST, but till they had manifested satisfactory proofs of their piety." And the baptizati were not kept back from the other ordi­nance upon trial (as Mr. C. has misapprehended) but "upon bap­tism, were admitted to ALL the mysteries of the christian faith."^† But had it been so, that the church in some ages have made this dis­tinction, can it be proved, that they held it in the apostolic age? I am sure I could never see the least hint of it in the new testament, but the clearest evidence to the contrary. And here I can't but ob­serve, Mr. C. has very few with him in this peculiar opinion, that the same qualifications are not necessary for one as for the other. Tho' there are many churches who practice upon the plan, yet there are very few, that I have heard of (who have thought much of the mat­ter) but will own there is a great impropriety and even inconsistency in making such a distinction, tho' their sentiments may be various with regard to qualifications. I know of a number of Ministers who are in the practice, but not for it. They say it has no foundation in the word of God; and that men's scruples must arise from wrong notions they have imbibed about the ordinances; and that they con­tinue in the practice, only in condescention to the infirmities and misapprehensions of the people; but should be glad with all their hearts to have it laid aside.

There have been various expedients invented to have the children of those, baptized, who are not, according to the rules CHRIST has given us, visible believers. One has been to have Sponsors, to pro­fess and promise instead of the parents. There was, no doubt, care taken at first, that they should be persons of visible piety and holiness; but 'tis well known and lamented by all sober people, that this practice is reduced to a mere ceremony, or rather solemn farce, in some instances at least.

[Page 40] This was matter of great grief, 'tis well known, to our piou [...] [...] ­cestors, the first settlers of New England; and they rejected the practice as absurd and unscriptural; and accordingly when they came over to this place, they took their practice for the baptizing of infants, purely from the holy scriptures; and allowed none that priviledge, but those and the children of those, who were visible christians ac­cording to the gospel description of them; viz. those who professed Faith in CHRIST and "walked in all his commandments and ordi­nances blameless."^* But after some time, when the country en­creased, and children that had been baptized grew up, and did not come to the Lord's table, tho' they had families, many were terrified at the thoughts of having a generation of unbaptized children; and therefore at a Synod called in the year 1662, among other things, the major part of the Synod came to an agreement to baptize the children of those who solemnly renewed covenant and were looked upon as real christians, having "justifying faith," (as one of the most learn­ed and godly among them, expressed it) tho' on account of some darkness and fears, they did not see their way clear to come imme­diately to the other ordinance. This was the Synod s plan; and this is what has been the occasion, (tho' contrary to their design) of such a melancholly prostitution of that holy ordinance of Baptism, in so many places; where owning the covenant, is dwindled into a mere piece of formality, and persons are allowed to bring their children to baptism, who don't so much as look upon themselves to be real chris­tians, true disciples of Jesus Christ. That Synod, who were a num­ber of godly and excellent men, no doubt, little thought this would be the consequence of their agreement. It is evident that they had no notion of pleading the lawfulness of "unregenerate sinners coming" to that, or either of the ordinances; or that they would "sin more in staying away than in coming." For Dr. I. Mather, who was at last, full in the Synod's plan, has these remarkable words, "It is only a justifying faith which giveth right to baptism before God, so it is the profession or visibility of this faith which giveth right before [Page 41]the church." And again, "If he doth not consent with HIS HEART that this God shall be his God, he hath no right to Baptism." The reader may now judge whether Mr. C. has or has not warped off from the sentiments and original design of the Synod, while he asserts the lawfulness of unregenerates coming to this ordinance, and that "we have no business to prevent their coming, because the ordinance is often blest to those in state of unregeneracy."

SECTION V. Wherein the inconclusiveness of many of Mr. Cotton's Arguments is shewn, from their inconsistency one with another, or with his declared sentiments.

TRUTH is always self consistent. Therefore when a person advances any scheme or position, and in his arguments to sup­port it, is inconsistent with himself, it affords, at least a strong pre­sumption that his scheme or position is not true. Whether Mr. C. has not fallen into this difficulty in attempting to support his scheme, I shall, after pointing out a few things, leave the reader to judge.

'Tis evident from all Mr. C.'s essay, th [...] the grand point he is aiming at is to prove that it is lawful for persons that have been bap­tized and are not scandalous, to own the covenant and have baptism for their children, tho' they neglect to come up to the other ordi­nance; and that churches ought to admit them to the former, tho' they refuse the latter. That is, the church ought to dispense, (at least for the present) with the parents omission of the Lord's supper; tho' he acknowledges it a commanded duty to all disciples of Christ. And yet in p. 22d, in answe [...] to an expedient which I had proposed, (which was this, "If persons must be borne with, on account of their scruples about the other ordinance, I prop [...]se that they should own the covenant, profess their faith, and let the church receive them as mem­bers in full; not half members; and then let their children be bap­tized, tho' their scruples detained them for the present, from the Lord's table") I say, Mr. C. in answer to this, says, "This I look upon to be a right popish dispensation, dispensing with the command of God, which is one of the worst things we charge upon the Church of Rome." And yet, Mr. C. to establish the lawfulness of this very popish dispensation, has wrote a whole book: For he owns it is a [Page 42] command of Christ to all his visible disciples, Do this in remem­brance of me; yet the whole plan he is upon, pleads the lawful­ness of dispensing with this command.

Mr. C. abundantly assert that baptized persons are real members—compleat members of the church, in good standing, &c. and that they are visible christians, p. 27. and many other places. Yet in p. 29. he in effect calls them a "carnal generation," who would "rush into the church as the horse to the battle," if they were not allowed to own the covenant and have their children baptized, without coming to the Lord's table. To say, that he only means scandalous persons, by that carnal generation, would be but a mere evasion. For none ever plead the lawfulness of such coming to either ordinance. So that, it seems, those who, in one breath, are called "visible believers, disciples, compleat members"—are in the next, "a carnal generation," and therefore best they should be kept together by themselves, by keeping up the half way practice, least they should, to get their chil­dren baptized, "rush in" among the communicants. And what is fur­ther remarkable, Mr. C. owns he should be willing to receive these very persons into communion. For he has repeatedly said, when asked why the church will not admit them in full? "The church would wil­lingly do it, but the difficulty lies in their own breasts, not in ours."

Mr. C. allows, as has been observed, that no person ought to come to either ordinance, un [...] he is a visible believer, p. 27. 65. He also grants, p. 30, "that it is real grace that entitles to the ordi­nance in the sight of God, and visible grace—in the sight of the Church." Therefore if we have not some satisfying evidence that a person is gracious in a judgment of scriptural charity, he ought not to be allowed Baptism for his child. And elsewhere, that if a person knows he has no gra [...]e he has no right to offer himself to renew co­venant. And yet he says p. 12, "It is not contrary to the mind of God that children of persons unregenerate should have this ordi­nance administered to them, if in covenant relation to him." If the unregenerate have to right in the sight of God, as he just now acknow­ledged, then pray what sort of "covenant relation" is that, which gives them a right, while unregenerate? He holds also, that persons who are admi [...]ted to this priviledge, must have a visibility of grace, i. e. must be received as visibly regenerate, Yet in p. 17. he says, "Why should we be so anxions to exclude every unregenerate per­son from this seal?" And that they are less sinful, and offend God [...]th in coming than in staying away. (p. 4. 68.)

[Page 43] Yea Mr. C. advances that, in his zeal for this practice, which de­stroys all distinction between saints and sinners, visible christians and scandalous persons; and which gives the children of all, a right to baptism, independant of the character of their parents. So that there seems to be no necessity of their being so much as moral in order to have their children baptized. For he says, p. 19. "The children's membership is a distinct thing from that of their parents;—and to punish them because their parents do not immediately come to the Lord's table is hard and injurious." i. e. (if there is any argu­ment or meaning in the expressions) As the membership of children does not depend on the character or conduct of the parent, or his membership, they ought to be baptized, let the parent be what he will. The child has a right to the ordinance, because it has a compleat, distinct membership of its own; therefore 'tis "hard and injurious to punish the child" by denying it baptism, because the parent is of [...] scandalous character.

In p. 16 and 17, Mr. C. has a number of particulars, shewing in what respects baptism is a seal. And among other things says, "Baptism seals saving blessings to the unregenerate conditionally." 'Tis not easy to find out what he means by this expression. If he means that those who are baptized have this truth confirmed to them. that if they believe they shall be saved; 'tis no more than what all unbaptized persons enjoy, who live under the gospel and have their bibles. If he means, God has bound himself by covenant to bestow saving blessings on those that comply with the conditions of the cove­nant; in this sense, all mankind are in covenant with God. He may be said to have bound himself to them ALL, conditionally, whether baptized or unbaptized, Jews, Deists or Mahometans, if they have heard of the gospel. For the gospel confirms and proclaims that truth to all the world, He that believeth shall he saved.

The same kind of confusion, it appears to me, there is in his idea or description of a seal in p. 67, with which word, he says, "People are so continually dinned and drowned." It certainly seems as if this, or something else, has had this effect upon his mind, if we attend to his account of a seal in this place. He says first, "Prayer is a seal of the covenant of grace." And how does he prove this? why thus; or to this effect; because true believers, when in the exercise of faith, say in prayer, Our Father which art in heaven, (for none else can say it in the manner he there speaks of) they set to their seal that God is their father. Therefore unregenerats men may seal [Page 44]the covenant of grace, because 'tis lawful for such to pray. For this is the drift of his argument here, as appears by his saying, a little after, "Must then all unregenerate men be debar'd from these or­dinances?" He says further, "Hearing is a seal," by this he means that hearing which the unregenerate are capable of; for he is speak­ing of this, as an ordinance which none are to be "debar'd" from. And what is his proof of this? 'Tis in these words, "Because when we heartily believe the truths delivered, we set to our seal that God is true," i. e. because saving faith seals the truth of the gospel, there­fore hearing the word is a seal. Or because true believers in hearing the word, [...]ix faith with it, and so set to their seal that God is true, therefore hearing, without faith, (as all unregenerates do) is a seal likewise. I think this must be the meaning of the words, if there is any meaning to them. For he is here shewing what ordinances un­regenerate [...]ners may lawfully use, viz. Prayer, hearing, &c. and from thence argues the lawfulness of their coming to sealing ordi­nances, particularly Baptism; since other ordinances are seals, equally with this. I would not willingly pervert his sense. But if this is not the purport of what he says here, I confess myself totally at a loss for his meaning.

To the same purpose he adds, "reading is a seal," and to prove it, says, they that "apply the law or gospel to their souls (this must be by faith) seal the truth of it." Therefore, the inference must be this, as the unregenerate ought not to be "debared" from reading; so they ought to be allowed baptism; as one is no more a seal than the other. If there be any weight in such kind of reasoning, it certainly proves that all sorts of men, good and bad, even the most scandalous sinners living, have a right to the ordinance of baptism. For none will deny that such may lawfully read and hear the word.

But let us attend a little further to his manner of arguing in p. 18. He insists, that if grace be necessary in order to persons lawfully com­ing to ordinances, then a person has no right to come, unless he has assurance, or knows he has grace. And if he has this, he says, in another place, what need he come at all. ^* This consequence, [Page 45]says he, hangs like a dead weight upon this opinion." And yet in p. 30, he holds that grace, "real grace" is necessary; and that no person has a right in the sight of God, without it. Nay, what has al­ways appeared very strange and inconsistent to me is, that it is well known to be Mr. C.'s professed principle, that no person should come to the Lord's Supper, but those that are converted. So that it is certain, this "dead weight" lies full as heavy on himself as on us. Let him tell how he gets from under it himself, and he will remove it from us.^*

[Page 46] Yea he goes on further and says, "It is a certain maxim of truth that if a man declares upon oath more than he knows, he is guilty of perjury, tho' it should happen afterward 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, tho' it should appear afterwards to be the case, 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 lie, consequently there can be no covenanting with God upon this new scheme, without a certain knowledge of a man's gra­cious state." P. 66. And yet in the same page he holds, that a person when he offers his child in baptism, must say, "that as far as he knows his own heart, he is sincerely willing to give up himself and his children to God," which is as high a profession as ever any in the new scheme (as he terms it) insisted upon in order to their coming to any ordinance. So that if the person professing this, has no sav­ing faith, no "real grace" (which Mr. C. holds a necessary qualifi­cation in the sight of God) or if he has it and don't know it, he is, according to Mr. Cotton, guilty of perjury.

Moreover, it is absolutely necessary, according to Mr. C's reason­ing, that the forms of covenanting made use of all over the country, and formerly by himself, should be all immediately abolished, and [Page 47]some new one found out. For they all with one voice, according to Mr. C. conspire to make men perjure themselves; nay all that ever joined to a church, have already been guilty of downright "perjury and lying," unless they had full assurance that they were truly gra­cious. For they have solemnly as it were upon oath avouched the Lord for their God, and given themselves up to him, &c. when they did not know it was true, which Mr. C. says is the "very essence of a lie."

Yet notwithstanding all this, he says, p. 4. "They do not come with a lie in their mouths if they act conscientiously, and if, as far as they know their own hearts, they are sincere in what they profess." A direct contradiction to his account of perjury, just quoted. For according to what he says now, if they sincerely believe, what they profess, to be true, they do not lie, whatever profession they make; whether they have assurance or no. But it would be endless to fol­low Mr. C. in all the contradictions and inconsistencies, which he seems necessarily to run into, in vindicating his plan.

Mr. C. strenuously and repeatedly insists, that Infant baptism can­not be maintained upon the plan he is opposing, but must be given up. P. 2, 62. But this he asserts on a supposition entirely without foun­dation, viz. That we deny infant membership: Which is a very great mistake in him; (to call it no more) I never denied or tho't of deny­ing that they were made visible members of the church, by that initiating ordinance. As I have before observed, all that I ever held, was that Baptism in infancy, did not so constitute them members, as that nothing else was necessary, when they grew up, in order to their being admitted to special ordinances; or that they might enjoy these priviledges, whether they made any profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him or not, or walked in all his commandments or not. This I denied; and do still.

It might with great truth and justice be retorted, I apprehend, that the practice he is so fond of, tends to bring infant baptism into dis­grace, and that it can never be vindicated on his plan. Infants are baptized, considered as parts of their believing parents, and as one with them, as Mr. C. owns, p. 13. The right to the external seal is argued from Gen. xvii. where God promises to be a God to him and to his seed. Which the Apostle quotes, Acts ii. 39. The pro­mise is unto you and to your children, i. e to you who are the chil­dren of Abraham and have the faith of Abraham; and to your children, as parts of yourselves. For the Apostle says, Gal. iii. 29. [Page 48]"If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." There are no promises made in the covenant of grace to unbelievers, or to their children. Whereas we may find promises all over the bible concerning the seed or children of believers. That God will bless their seed for their sake. See Psal. cxii. 2. The generation of the upright shall be blessed. So Ps. ciii. 17, 18. Deut. vii. 9, &c. And allowing these to be indefinite promises, yet they respect none but the seed of the righteous. Where do we find any such promises to the seed of unsanctified men, the enemies of Christ and servants of Satan? The baptism of infants is the seal of these promises made to the seed of the faithful, or true believers. And on these principles, some rational as well as scriptural account may be given of infant baptism. But there can be none, upon Mr. C.'s scheme of the lawfulness of persons coming to this ordinance tho' "really destitute of grace;" and that "their coming so, will be less offensive to GOD, than the omission would be." On this scheme, I may be bold to say, no warrant can be found in scripture, for infant baptism; tis a "mere nullity." For promises are the only warrant for priviledges. But there are no promises in the word of God to the seed of impenitent, unregenerate sinners.

Mr. C. indeed, in other places says, persons must be visible believers, in order to bring their children to baptism. But it has been shewn, I think clearly, that they are not so, according to CHRIST's descrip­tion of visible disciples or believers. And therefore the children of such, can have no right to baptism, considered as children of believing parents. From what quarter then, do they derive their right?

It might further, be well observed here, that pleading for lower qualifications for baptism than for the Lord's Supper, tends greatly to lessen the solemnity and importance of that ordinance; and administring baptism in the latitude pleaded for, tends to reduce it to little more than a mere ceremony. And I verily think, there is nothing in the world has contributed more to prejudice many, against infant baptism, and to encrease the number of Anabaptists among us, than this half way practice, and the lax method of baptizing the children of any that come and own the covenant; tho', in many places, they are in no other respect distinguished from the world.^* Serious persons, when they see those (who give no grounds to think they are truly [Page 49]religious) stand up and make the most solemn vows and promises before God; and then view their lives and conversation afterwards, they are shocked. "How can this be right, say they?" Can it be agrea­ble to the word of God that the infants of such parents should be bro't to that holy ordinance? Can it be lawful for such persons to offer them up to God? Surely no. This can never be an institution of God, or agreable to his will." And thus many serious people, are gradually led to give more and more into the Antipoedobaptists notions—This induces them to listen to their teachers, who appear, many of them, to be men of real religion and zealous in the cause of God—who, by specious glosses on various texts of scripture, establish them in their prejudices against the baptizing of infants; till finally, they leave their former pastors and principles, and become thorough proselytes to anabaptism.

I shall conclude this section with observing, that Mr. C. in de­fending this practice, (as many others have done before him) has naturally, and I think, upon his plan, necessarily, warped off from Calvinism and run into sentiments, respecting man's natural depravity, exactly agreable to Arminian writers. Which he would not have done, undoubtedly, had he been aware of it. Whether my observation is just, I leave the reader to judge by what follows.

He frequently represents natural men, as truly desirous of avouch­ing the Lord for their God; as sincerely entering into covenant with God and giving up themselves and their children to him in covenant. See p. 4, 66, 68, &c. Not only so, but he represents the conversion of sinners as owing, sometimes at least, to their not resisting the Spirit of God. For speaking of the benefits of infant baptism, he says, "As for those that grow up, it is a seal at least that they shall not only have the offer of CHRIST, but the strivings of his Spirit, which, if not resisted, will prove effectual to their conversion." p. 17. This, at least, supposes, that in some instances, the Spirit of God is not resisted by such persons, and that this non-resistance is the reason why his strivings are effectual to their conversion. Is not this a plain, implicit denial of the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace, which have been reckoned such important doctrines of Calvinism? ^* It is doubtless true, that if sinners do not resist the strivings of the Spirit, they will be effectual to their conversion. But where was ever the instance, since God has been, in CHRIST, reconciling the [Page 50]world to himself, that a sinner did not resist the Spirit of God; whether he had been baptized or not? And did not Mr. C. use to preach up such doctrine formerly? What can he intend here then, by intimating that baptized unregenerates may sometimes not resist the Spirit of God, and so, by that means become converted? Is not this the plain sense and scope of his argument in this place? If it be not, I am utterly at a loss what sense can be put upon it.

Therefore, further to support this sentiment he has quoted the words of a writer, not the most noted for Calvinism; in which, I would also observe, he espouses the doctrine of promises of saving blessings to the unregenerate. For he quotes with approbation, the follow­ing words from that author: "The Lord will as assuredly ingrast 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," p. 17. The carelessness here intended, must be the carelessness of the unregenerate, which they may put off, and yet be unregenerate still. Otherwise there is no sense or meaning in the words. If, by putting off this carelessness he means faith in Christ, or believ­ing to salvation, none ever denied that such would be "cloathed with the righteousness of Christ"—and therefore this would be quoting the passage to no kind of purpose for the argument he has in hand.

Mr. C. further supposes, that men while unregenerate do endea­vour to believe, repent and obey; in confidence of God's help and assistance. And that these endeavours are gospel duties, which un­regenerate men diligently perform, p. 17, marg. "One end of this ordinance is to quicken our dulness, and excite our diligence in per­forming gospel duties, viz. our endeavours to believe, repent, and obey, in confidence of God's help and assistance." According to this, graceless persons, (for he is speaking of those that are destitute of the "spiritual washing") do with diligence perform gospel duties. And these evangelical duties are, "endeavours to believe;" to which endeavours, there are promises of assistance; for without this, cer­tainly there could be no ground of "confidence" of it.

He has also plainly asserted p. 19, that in infants there is no resi­stance or opposition to God's grace. Speaking of infants, he says, concerning most of them, "they have not the grace of the covenant, tho' there be no resistance or opposition on their parts." This is to say, they are not depraved and have not original sin, if our assembly of divines have given a right account of it. For they say expresly, that "original corruption is that whereby we are MADE OPPOSITE to all good," (Conf. of faith.)

[Page 51] May not Mr. C. with great propriety be advised to look round himself, and see into what company he is fallen, by attempting to vin­dicate his scheme? Surely it is a bad cause that can be defended with no better weapons than these, and thus leads a man unawares, into the mire. It can be no great matter of surprize, if Mr. C. should now meet with the approbation and applause of some, for his performance, whom once he did not esteem the greatest friends of Calvinism, and of what he has called experimental religion.

And this leads me to observe, that they who will consistently hold the doctrine of man's total depravity by nature, and will adhere to the scripture account of the character and state of unregenerate sin­ners, as being without strength, their carnal minds enmity against God—full of opposition in their hearts to all holiness—as having no real desires after it—but naturally opposing the Spirit of God; and as being voluntary in all this, and therefore entirely to blame, and wholly without excuse in their continued impenitence and unbelief; such, will naturally drop all notions of unregenerate men's sincerely covenanting with God; and will be most likely to come into the true scriptural plan of infant baptism. While those, who would be called half way Calvinists, may oppose it zealously, and in their opposi­tion, (without design perhaps) give up some of the most fundamental doctrines of Calvinism. So that it will perhaps appear, at bottom, that the dispute is, really, more about doctrines than discipline, and that if we were entirely agreed in the former, there would not be much difficulty as to the latter.

SECTION VI. Shewing wherein Mr. Cotton has, in some instances, misapprehended me, and in others misrepresented Things, both respecting me and the Brethren on the same side of the Question.

1. I Cannot think it quite a fair way of proceeding, for Mr. C. so frequently to represent it as our opinion, that a man must know he is in a gracious state—must have assurance that he is converted, before he presume to come to these ordinances. 'Tis a doctrine we never held, but have over and over disclaimed, in public and private. Neither does it follow that assurance is necessary, any more from our [Page 52]principles than his own. And yet how often does he represent us as holding this opinion? P. 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, &c. and indeed throughout a great part of his first essay, and in many other places.

2. In p. 6. he plainly intimates that I "vehemently urge persons to come into full communion." And p. 26. That I am for "obliging them to come immediately into full communion." As if I would merely force them in, whether willing or no. This is a very hard and unjust representation. I appeal to all that have ever come to talk with me on that head, whether this has been my method, or any thing like it. The most that I have ever said to them in these cases, is, they if they found a heart to give up themselves to God in Christ, as they profess to do in owning the covenant, I apprehended they might as lawfully and safely come to the Lord's Supper, as to Baptism.

3. I have good grounds to think Mr. C. is mistaken in the repre­sentation he has given of the manner in which this practice was first introduced into this church by Mr. Leonard, p. 26. The fact was this, my venerable Predecessor proposed this plan to the church first, in July 1726. He gave his reasons for it, which are upon record. But the church acted nothing upon it at this time. It is certain there was a great number of the church against the new proposed plan; I have reason to think the bigger part. For the affair was in agita­tion, before it was accomplished, near six years. In December 1731, there was a vote obtained for it; not by a unanimous voice, but (as the records say) by "a very considerable majority." And tho' there was a calm spirit, no bitter contentions at the meeting when it passed, yet there were some, and of the most respectable members too, who were against it to the last; and at the very time it was obtained, some "objected against it," as Mr. Leonard himself has recorded. And there is now living an aged and worthy member, who was then pre­sent and has told me it was matter of great grief to him and many others of the brethren; that they never could approve of the practice, and several he knew, bore it as their burden to their dying day.

Mr. C. frequently charges me with making an innovation in the church—and represents me as to blame for endeavoring to bring in a new scheme, &c. and intimates that the church were all very well contented with the former practice. In this he is certainly greatly mistaken. It has been far from being agreable to the minds of all the church or congregation, for many years past. Numbers have told me, long before I ever mentioned the affair at the church meeting, that it always appeared a dark, unaccountable affair to them; that they [Page 53]never could see into the lawfulness or propriety of this half way practice, of persons making such a solemn profession of religion, and never coming up to the Lord's table.

But why should I be charged with making an innovation in the church, any more than Mr. Leonard before me? Mr. C. has never, that I know of, looked upon it as a crime in him, or that he disturbed the peace of the church, by proposing this practice; when indeed, it might with much greater propriety be called an innovation at that day; for it was a thing entirely unknown to the church, from their foundation to that time. Neither is there the least appearance, but that the church were quite contended with the good old way they had always been in: And that the alteration entirely originated from their pastor. (Not that I think he had no right to make the motion, as he was conscientiously of that opinion.) Whereas my proposal was, only to return back to the original plan of this church and of all the churches in New England, respecting Baptism.

4. Mr. C. must have greatly misapprehended me, in that he has represented me in p. 55. as holding that "the baptism of children, and of adults is quite of a different nature;" and that "adults, by baptism, were entitled to all the priviledges of the church, whereas infants were not." I have said, and do still hold, that Baptism alone, does entitle, neither i [...] [...] not adults, to all church priviledges, without a profession an [...] [...]ctice conformable to their baptismal vows and obligations. In short this long string of arguments in his last essay, seems to be founded entirely upon a mistaken supposition that we had denied infant membership [...] a sense, in which we never thought of denying it.

But he will object, perhaps, of what advantage then is infant-baptism? Those that have never been baptized, have a right to all church pri­viledges, upon their making a professon of faith, and a practice agreeable. Ans. This objection suppose either, 1. That unregene­rate persons have a right to special ordinances, provided they have been baptized; which is directly repugnant to his declared senti­ments, p. 30. Or 2dly. That baptism actually confers grace; and that it is a regenerating ordinance. Otherwise how can their baptism in infancy give them a lawful right, when he acknowledges none can have this right without "real grace?" Therefore insisting on this objection, is only running himself into a direct inconsistency. But I think there is a further, and easy answer to be given to the objection. The advantages of infant baptism are much every way. They are [Page 54]hereby initiated into the visible family or church of God; solemnly devoted to God by the believing parent, who lays himself under the most sacred engagements to bring them up in the nurture and admo­nition of the Lord. They are hereby declared children of the cove­nant—visible heirs of eternal life, by virtue of the believing parent's covenanting with God, in which covenant, the parent takes hold of that divine promise, "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed." So that they are visibly introduced among the saved, the holy people of God, and (as to men) have a visible right to all covenant priviledges and ought to be admitted to them, when capable of them, unless by their own conduct they discover the contrary, and exclude themselves by a manifest refusing to own the God of their fathers for their God and to subject themselves to Christ in all things according to the tenor of their baptismal covenant. They are, moreover, by their baptism, taken under the special watch and care of the church—entitled in a more peculiar manner to their prayers, as well as to the painful in­struction, admonition, care and prayers of the parent; who is under covenant bonds to these things. Are all these a "mere nullity?" Is such a child in no better condition, and under no more advantages than those whom Mr. C. calls "Pagans, Infidels and Heathens?" And if the discipline of our churches was not dwindled almost to nothing, if parents and charches were [...]entious to act up to their covenant engagements respecting baptiz [...] [...]hildren, would they not then, be under any better advantages for their souls, than the unbap­tized? And if when they grow up, and thro' the negligence and wicked carelessness of their parents and other means, they appear not to have the fear and love of God in them, but live in the habitual neglect or violation of those commands which Christ has enjoined on all his disciples as distinguished from the world; I say, if this be the case with baptized persons when grown up, must we be charged with "unchurching and excommunicating them" if we don't allow them the special priviledges of disciples? And must we be represented as treating them like "dogs," and abusing them, when they are denied these priviledges, merely on their own account, viz. because they will not act up to the character and obligations laid upon them by their baptism? If they will only do this, and there be the visible appearance of it to the church, we are ready, with all our hearts, to grant them this, and all priviledges. If they will not do this, the sin lies, not at our, but at their own door. It would be unreasonable, in the highest degree, to blame the church, or those who are for not granting pri­viledges [Page 55]to persons who do not come up to the character CHRIST himself has given, of those unto whom such priviledges belong.

5. What a new and surprizing exposition has Mr. C. given of that text in Jer. iii. 14. Turn O backsliding children for I am married unto you. P. 59, he says, "'Tis abundantly evident that this is spoken of unregenerates." 'Tis the first time, I confess, that I ever heard such a construction put upon these words.

Whoever will be at the pains to read the context, will see, that these words were spoken to a people in covenant with God; visible believers, and in that character only; whatever their inward state was. God speaks, as to true saints, those whom he had chosen and called, and had bro't near to himself. Therefore he is not ashamed to be called their father. Hence he speaks to them in that endear­ing manner, verse 4th. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, MY FATHER, thou art the guide of my youth, &c. Yet, notwith­standing this dear relation, and their obligations to God, they had shamefully backsliden from him. Wherefore, with the bowels of an affectionate husband, with inexpressible tenderness, he calls to them in these words; enough to melt their hearts into tears of silial sorrow and shame; Turn ye backsliding children, for I married unto you. God is speaking to them here, evidently after the manner of men. Loth to give them up, notwithstanding they had ungratefully depart­ed and gone out of the way, he is inviting them to return. They were in the case of a wise, who has forsaken her husband, and gone after other lovers. Her husband, instead of divorcing her, as he justly might, is using means to reclaim her; and kindly promises, upon her return, freely to forgive her, and to remember her iniquities no more. For he remembered the kindness of her youth and the love of her ESPOUSALS, and is willing to be pacified towards her.

Can it be wondered at then, that I should endeavour (as Mr. C. tells his readers I did, soon after) to rescue these words from, what I thought, so glaring and dangerous a misapplication; especially when it was delivered with so much confidence, and in so public a manner, to the people of my charge?

6. I come now to take notice of a very cruel instance of his mis­representation, in (p. 62) Where, (tho' he does not call me by name) yet he plainly intimates that I have spoken, with the most shocking contempt, of the ordinance of baptism, in those words, "What sig­nifies it to have an infant sprinkled with a little water?" Any person by reading this sentence, and observing the manner in which 'tis bro't [Page 56]in, would naturally think me guilty of that, which was not much short of a blasphemous assertion. And very justly too, had I spoken with that ridiculous contempt of a sacred ordinance of Christ, as he there represents. For he has never given his readers any account of what was said before or after the expressions he has put down. Mr. C. cannot but know that he has not herein acted, as he would that others should do to him; but has greatly abused me. The utmost that charity itself can do, in excuse for him, is, to suppose or hope that, in the great perturbation of his spirits, he did not attend to what I was speaking of at the time I suppose he refers to. Let it be observed then, Mr. C. had then been insisting on the great priviledge of infants baptism; and had, as I tho't, car­ried the matter too far; even so far, that people would be in danger of thinking that they were actually regenerated by baptism; and therefore all that were not baptized must consequently be lost. Moreover, insisted that all baptized persons had a right to this privi­ledge, whether regenerate or not, if they were free from heresy or scandal, &c. &c. In answer to which, I said, to this effect,, "That the baptizing the infants of believing parents, tho' it made them visi­ble members, yet 'tis certain that many of these, when grown up, appear to be not real christians. And it would be very dangerous to view them as such. "For circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." And as to baptizing the children of those, who make no profession of real religion, and appear to have no other qualification than only their having been baptized themselves and free from open wickedness, I apprehended they had no scripture warrant for it. And if so, what right have we to baptize such? What good will baptism do their children, if administered without a divine warrant? Of what advantage can it be to the souls of their children, barely to have the external washing, or water sprinkled upon them? Will this save them? will it entitle them to any of the special priviledges of God's covenant? If not, why should this matter be pushed so vehemently, as if the salvation of their souls depended upon their having this outward sign administered to them—and therefore they must be bro't, and the church must receive them, whether they have a lawful right according to Christ's rules or not." This was the substance and scope of what I said in answer to Mr. C. at the meeting. I meant nothing more. How injurious therefore must it be, for Mr. C. to insinuate, that I had cast such sacrilegious contempt upon that holy ordinance of Jesus Christ, as he evidently [Page 57]does, by the manner in which he mentions the above passage. Such treatment is exceeding unkind; and none can think it ought to pass without proper notice and resentment.

7. Mr. C.'s fondness for adducing human testimonies in support of his scheme, has led him to assert with confidence, a proposition, which I am confident he will be put to some difficulty to prove—unless his asserting it should be deemed sufficient proof. The proposition is this, p. 63, "This has been the universally received opinion of ministers and churches, from Christ's time to this day; except Mr. Davenport, Mr. Street and 2 or 3 others in the time of the Synod; and a few Connecticut ministers, &c. in our days." By "opinion" here, he can't intend, merely their opinion concerning the membership of in­fants; for those ministers whom he has struck off from his list, never did deny, (that I have ever heard) infants being members; initiated by baptism. So that it must be concluded he means they were all of his opinion in this controversy. Therefore the proposition needs no comment. The judicious reader, who has had the least acquaintance with ecclesiastical history, will form his own judgment, concerning the probability of the truth of the assertion.

Mr. C. in the same page, in his manner of summing up the matter, would induce his readers to imagine, the point I have disputed for must be given up, upon my own concession—(see bottom of p. 63)—his consequence is, Therefore "it undeniably follows that the chil­dren of such as have been baptized, are to be baptized; and none can lawfully deny them this priviledge, UNLESS they have forfeited it by their wickedness." I allow it all—And what advantage has he got by the concession? I humbly conceive, that instead of overthrow­ing the scheme I have endeavoured to establish, he has implicitly, but effectually given up his own, unless he will deny it to be "wicked­ness" to live in the habitual and continued neglect of, and disobedience to the express command of JESUS CHRIST; which enjoins all his dis­ciples to openly acknowledge and confess him before the world, and walk in ALL his ordinances, upon pain of a just forfeiture of the cha­racter and priviledges of his disciples, or visible christians.

What Mr. C. has said, in his "challenge," p. 64, concerning Ar­minianism—Atheism, &c. must be judged of by the impartial reader. After what I have already remarked concerning the tendency of this practice, I am free to submit it to the Calvinistick world to judge, whe­ther it can be supported, without running a person directly into Arminian sentiments, respecting the great and peculiar doctrines be­fore [Page 58]mentioned. But why he brings in the Apostle James in this argument, I can't devise; nor the pertinency of it to what he would prove. I confess I don't see why he might not have bro't any verse in Nehemiah or Exodus, and it had been about as much to his pur­pose as this. Besure I think he has exhibited a remarkable talent at argumentation in this page. Because I supposed, that this plan, in its necessary consequences, tended to support some of the Arminian tenets, therefore, I am accused of charging Mr. Leonard, Mr. Cotton, the Apos­tle James and myself, with being direct Arminians. Pray may'nt a person hold to some things, which in their consequences, involve a denial of or giving up some Calvinistic doctrines, without being justly called an Arminian? And when, if he saw these to be the necessary consequences of his principle, he would immediately renounce it?—In no other sense then this, did I ever charge Mr. C. with being an Arminian—And I have repeatedly told him, that I did not think him an Arminian, but the contrary; as I believed he was not aware of, what appeared to me, the unavoidable consequence of his senti­ments upon this practice. And yet Mr. C.'s representation of this matter is such, as must necessarily lead his readers to think, I had set him forth to my people (as he expresses it elsewhere) as "a soul-destroying Arminian and deceiver, unfit ever to preach any more;" and that I did this, with no other design, neither, than to "throw out a bugbear and scarecrow, to prevent people listening to his arguments." Is there no "conseriousness" or "uncharitableness" in this? I would ask Mr. C. whether he thinks I might not, with some propriety here, exclaim in his own language, and say—He represents me "as merely acting a part—that all was grimace and farce—that my discourse was calculated to impose on the auditory—to make them believe what I knew was not true—Lawyerlike, using craft instead of argument"—by trying to make them believe he was an Arminian, when I knew he was not, but only meant it for a "scarecrow." To the same purpose, Mr. C. often speaks of my "management"—as if twas all a piece of art and tricking. And of my insisting upon grace in this dispute only out of "pretence," p. 29, 65, &c. Why might I not, upon this, with equal reason, cry out, as he has done,—that he has charged me with dissembling with my brethren, and made me a "de­signing, finished hypocrite." And then add—"What assuming the prerogative of God—the rankest seperate never exceeded you in cen­soriousness"—then appeal to the world whether my treatment of him does not resemble the "scratch of a pin"—and his—"the stab [Page 59]of a dagger thro' the vitals?" There is one observation, which many have made, during our debates here—and which could hardly escape the notice of those who have been acquainted with Mr. C.'s manner of conduct thro' this affair—that is, 'Tis the nature of some people to be of VERY QUICK SENSATION, when injuries are done to THEM­SELVES—while at the same time, they are perfectly CALLOUS and insensible to the injuries THEY do to OTHERS.

8. There is one instance more, wherein Mr. C. has exceedingly misrepresented our sentiments; which is all I shall particularly remark upon at this time: 'tis in p. 65. where he expressly asserts that we insist "upon the highest sort of evidence of grace, as necessary" in order to a person's enjoying ordinances, &c. What colour of foun­dation he had for this assertion, I cannot conceive; when it is directly against my repeatedly declared sentiments; and I have reason to think, against the sentiments of every member of the church on this side the question. I have publickly, in all our church meetings declared the contrary, viz. That the very least degree of grace intitled a person to all the priviledges of the covenant, in the sight of God—and as to the church, that where a candidate exhibited the lowest rational evidence of it, or such an outward manifestation as rendered it pro­bable, on scripture grounds, that they were sincere friends to religion, they ought to be admitted. I never was for straining things, in the manner Mr. C. represents. I never tho't a church should insist on the "highest sort of evidence" in this case. Indeed, I never tho't it was scriptural to admit them upon "negative evidence," or no evi­dence at all, 'tis true. I can't suppose it any evidence at all of a person's being gracious, merely that he is not a drunkard—nor a thief—nor a murderer—nor an adulterer, &c. These are, indeed, an evi­dence that a man is not an open scandalous sinner—but are no proper evidence that he is a saint; or upon which, the scriptures will war­rant such a presumption of it, as will make it lawful for us to treat them as such.

SECTION VII. On the Subject of the Letters, &c. and Mr. Cotton's Remarks upon them.

I Think there is just cause for some apology to be made to the pub­lick, especially to chose who are unacquainted with the peculiar circumstances of affairs in this place, for troubling them with matters which are merely personal, between Mr. C. and myself. A stranger may well say, "what have we to do with these letters?" The ques­tion in debate is of public importance, 'tis true.—But what concern have the publick, with private letters; which relate to some diffe­rence between two persons at Plymouth? How came these letters to be pala [...]ed upon the world, along with the arguments?" This has been the enquiry and surprize of many. And I can make no other answer to the question for the reader's satisfaction, than that they were published entirely without my knowledge or consent. He never so much as asked whether I was willing my letters should be printed with the ess [...]ys: or even hinted to me that he had it in view—nei­ther did I ever suspect they would be published to the world, any more than my yesterday's conversation, till after they were gone to the press. But, contrary to all the rules of politeness, humanity or christianity, he has made them as publick as he could, without con­descending to ask my leave. The world will judge whether such conduct is justifiable, or whether it is not below the character of a man of benevolence and uprightness. This alone is that which has constrained me to trouble the reader with this section on the letters. Mr. C. has, I am informed, endeavoured to excuse this part of his conduct to some, by saying, 1st. That I had read or communi­cated his letter to many persons before—and that people had wrong notions about it; therefore 'twas necessary he should publish all, to vindicate his character. As to this—I can say truly, that altho' these letters were soon handed about, and the subject of them in almost every one's mouth; yet it was not thro' my means, but his own. I never shewed them to four persons in the world, till I had heard he had given off copies of them to persons, who, I am told, made it their business to propagate them thro' the town and to various parts of the county. And I have no doubt of the truth of it, from some curious remarks and speeches which, 'tis said, were made by some of his—acquaintance at a distance, in consequence hereof. So that, if these letters were made, in a measure, publick, before they were printed, it [Page 61]was owing to himself and not to me. But 2dly. Another method Mr. C. has taken, I have been informed, is, by endeavouring to prove that they were not private letters. Because I had given this as a reason of my writing to him at first, viz. "That I had not time to make a reply to his 3d essay, in publick, at the church meeting." Whence he argues, that my letter is to be looked upon, as tho' it had been spoken or read at the meeting before the whole assembly—not as a private letter, but as a publick answer to his essay, which he had been reading in public. Well, supposing it had been so, does that give him a right to print it without my knowledge or consent? If a minister should preach a Sermon, (which is a thing of a more publick nature still) and a person should be able to take it all down in writing, so that he is possessed of the whole, as it was delivered; has he, even in this case any right to go and publish it, without the preacher's con­sent? When we preach, or when we write letters, we should be glad to know, and perhaps be consulted, if they are like to be sent to the press, assoon as they are out of our hands. So that I can conceive of no plea in the world that can justify Mr. C.'s conduct, in the freedom he has taken to print my letters, unknown to me. I am willing to leave it to the whole impartial world, whether it be christian, or manly treatment: or doing as they would be done by.

As to the contents of my first leter to Mr. C. it contained my real sentiments upon his manner of conduct and the things he had advanced. And I have never yet met with any just cause to alter my sentiments upon them. After stating a few facts, I shall leave it to the reader's judgment, whether I was wrong, in writing what I did.

The grounds and reasons of my writing to him were these three, viz.

• 1. His having delivered several things which I really tho't of very dangerous tendency, before a large number of the people of my ministerial charge.
• 2. His having grossly misrepresented us.
• 3. Tak­ing undue and unfair methods to support his scheme, and prejudice the brethren and others against our sentiments.

—These were the real grounds of my letter. I thought it was my duty, in these cir­cumstances, to do as I did. If I was mistaken, it was an error of judg­ment, not of will. And truly if I had had a thought beforehand that it would have had such an effect on him, and caused him to put such a construction upon it, as he had done, so different from what I ever in­tended or tho't of—and to rave at me with such vehemence of spirit, as he has done in that remarkable postscript to his first letter—I should not have wrote at all to him, but have taken some other method. For [Page 62]notwithstanding his intimations to the contrary, I had no design in my heart, or desire to "pick a quarrel with him."—

1. The first ground or reason of my writing to him, was, his hav­ing delivered several things, which I looked upon of very dangerous tendency; such as these. His teaching that it was lawful or safe for unregenerate men to covenant with God. That all who have ever been baptized, are visible christians—that is, are to be looked upon as believers, if they are but free from open profaness and scandal. P. 27, &c. &c. Such doctrine, is directly contrary to what I have always taught my people. I look upon it as sewing pillows under armholes—that it has a natural tendency to quiet sinners in their un­regeneracy—and flatter them with vain hopes that their state is safe, when it is really infinitely dangerous. Whether it has not this ten­dency, let those judge, who experimentally know the deceitfulness of the human heart, and how extremely prone sinners are to rest in any thing short of CHRIST, and to flatter themselves in their delusions.

Moreover, his applying the promises of God to those that never made any pretence to, or profession of saving religion or faith in Christ: As he has evidently done in that text, p. 29, "God shall ap­pear to your joy." Not, of those who have given their names and hearts to Christ. He was not speaking to such; but to the baptized only, who had never made any publick profession of religion, or so much as renewed their baptismal covenant.—Now had I not reason to say, (when I heard such things delivered, so publickly, which were so contrary to what I had ever instructed this people into) that they were of dangerous tendency, and in my view, destructive of some of the great truths of the gospel and of Calvinism, and tended to sup­port the contrary doctrines?

2. The next thing mentioned, as the ground of my writing to Mr. C. and which I charged him with, was, that he had misrepre­sented us. Of this also, let the readers judge, not only from what has been already observed, in the 6th Section—but from what fol­lows,—he represents p. 26, as if I was for "obliging persons to come immediately into full communion" contrary to my sentiments and universal practice, ever since I have been ordained as before observed. In p. 30, he says, "Mr. Robbins owns 'tis a matter of indifferency" whether persons make relations or not; and "that a church may be rightly constituted without." And in another place he says, I have "spoken slightingly of them." This is a gross and injurious misrepre­sentation; without all foundation. All that I have ever said, was, that [Page 63]I tho't relations ought not to be made essential terms of communion, for if so, we condemn ourselves and act contradictorily; as we admit those from other churches, to our communion, who have never made any relations. As to a church's being "rightly constituted" with­out them, I trust Mr. C. would not care to expose himself to the charge of ignorance of the nature of a church, so much, as to assert, that relations are absolutely necessary to the very "constitution" of a church; so that they are not to be looked upon as "right" or re­gular churches, who don't insist on them.

Another instance of this kind, is in p. 32, where he represented, as if we held that persons must not bring their children, unless they have a certain knowledge or assurance of their gracious state. That "our plan supposes it necessary." This is not a little unkind in Mr. C. when we had publickly and constantly declared directly the contrary all along. What could be the design of such a representation, if it was not to prejudice the brethren against our sentiments? And had I not just ground, therefore, to say, that "he must certainly know, we held no such thing?" For he must have heard me frequently declare against it, as I had done at all our meetings. If the expression is tho't, by any, to carry the matter too far, I am willing to say, instead of it, that Mr. C. had good reason and sufficient opportunity to know the contrary. For I can't absolutely be certain, but that he might have turned his face and attention another way, every time I had declared my sentiment as above.

Mr. C. represents as tho' I was for driving the matter on with violence. I have nothing more to say upon this, than only, that they who were present at our meetings, are the best judges, who appeared with most violence and temper.

3. The last thing mentioned, as the reason of my writing the letter aforesaid, was the unfair methods he took, working upon people's passions, instead of reason, in order to establish the point in question. Of which I shall give a few instances, and submit it.

In p. 29, he represents to the brethren, as if we were going to ex­communicate their children—to unchurch them, and make Pagans and Heathen of 'em. Surely this must appear a terrible thing to a parent that has any love to his child. The thought is enough to frighten him from being of our opinion; if we are such cruel, unna­tural sort of people. But what does he ground this upon? Why truly this. Because we hold, that if persons do not own Christ before men, and walk in all his commandments and ordinances, they ought not to [Page 64]be admitted to the priviledges of Christ's visible disciples. This in all the unchurching them, that we are guilty of. And for this, we are charged with excommunicating—making them Pagans and creating them as "dogs and not lambs."

But this is not all—As if he was determined to prevent the bre­thren from daring to "hold up their hands" to vote to repeal the practice, he signifies to them, that they would hereby deliver their children over to Satan. For these are his very words, p. 29.— "Your children are no doubt dear to you, and—will you, with your own hands lifted up to heaven, deliver them to Satan?" Dreadful thought! What parent, in his wits, would do this? And yet this is what you will do, brethren, if you vote with Mr. R. and his brethren. Is not this the plain import of the sentence? And can this be called a fair, upright way of managing a cause? Is such a method, generous, in a disputant? If this is not "appealing to men's passions" instead of their reason and judgment, I acknowledge I know not what is.

But we have still more of the same kind, in the same page. "If they must be discovenanted, I can't help turning myself to them"— (and then he turned round and looked up to the galleries, full of peo­ple; and with great Pathos addressed those that were baptized in their infancy, in these words) Isai. lxvi. 5. Your brethren that cast you out [pointing to me] for my name sake, said, let the Lord be glorified—(i. e. as he explains it in the next line but one, they PRE­TEND they are aiming at the glory of God—this is only a "pretence.")—But he shall appear to YOUR joy, but THEY shall be ashamed. i. e. Your minister and those of the church that think as he does; for he directed himself to us, in these last words. Now whoever will be at the pains to turn to this chapter, will immediately see, that in these words is contained, a terrible threatning or curse, on the one hand; and a precious promise, on the other. On the one hand, God threa­tens confusion and shame to the enemies of his people—on the other, he promises JOY and confort and salvation to his children. And this was the text Mr. C. made use of, in the manner above described: Applying and directing the promise of it, to the unregenerate, i. e. to those who never made any pretence or profession of grace—and the curse or threatning of it, to me, and those of the church that were with me in sentiment. Let the reader then judge, whether I had not good reason to say, that he wrested or misapplied scripture, to a bad purpose.

But least the brethren should not be sufficiently terrified from vot­ing out the practice; he has a finishing stroke, in p. 32, which is, [Page 65]that they must not presume to vote, unles they "can say upon their consciences, that the practice sprung from HELL."—Such was Mr. C.'s manner of treating this affair, at the church meeting. And all the while, appeared to be in as great heat and vehemence of tem­per, as I ever saw a man, on any such like occasion, in my life. This was not barely my own, but the observation of multitudes that heard and saw him. These are facts, which should never have been made more publick by me, had not Mr. C. really obliged me to it, to vin­dicate myself from those charges which he has thrown out against [...] in his bitter remarks upon the letters; which have made it necess [...] that I should thus let the world know the particular reasons of my conduct, especially in writing that letter, which he has endeavoured to represent to his readers, in such terrible colours.

And now I beg the reader's patience, while we take a view of the ANSWER Mr. C. returned to my letter, and his conduct thereupon. There are a great variety of things suggested in his letter, which have no just foundation. 'Tis intimated particularly, here and elsewhere by him, that I had turned away, or refused persons who came to me to desire to own the covenant. He instances in one person, by name, towards the beginning of his letter—but without his knowledge, I am well assured. And who he had his information from, I am not able to say. For that person, (who is a man of an unexceptionable cha­racter, so far as I know, or have ever heard) has told me since, that he never had told any person whatever, that I had refused him; neither did he even look upon it that I had denied him, any more than I had denied the whole congregation. He has indeed frequently discoursed with me on the affair in debate, as many others have—and has wished that it might be peaceably settled—and if so, that he should be glad to enjoy the priviledge of baptism for his children. But as Mr. C. has represented the matter, there is not the least foundation for it; as the person himself will willingly declare, (as he has told me) to any one's satisfaction.

Mr. C. has also, in this letter, given a very wrong turn to an ex­pression of mine, concerning the most godly among us, being on our side the question. It will appear, I think, to every one who will attend to the whole of what I said there, that I had a plain and prin­ciple reference to those in the church, who cannot act in the affair. (See postscript of my first letter.) But if any should think, my man­ner of expression conveys an idea of judging or condemning any of the church; or a publick preferring one before another, who are [Page 66]professed christians—I neither intended nor allow of any such thing; nor do I think it justifiable, whatever our private judgment may be.

I don't know what reason Mr. C. had to insinuate that I am "not enough acquainted with my people to judge who are experienced, good christians and who are not." If it be so, I trust he won't say, he asserts this from his own knowledge or acquaintance with them. Neither do I think he would have uttered such a sentence, if he had felt good natured, or of a christian temper.

As to what he has said respecting the women of the church—it has been hinted to me, that some have understood his expressions, as if he designed to cast some reflection or odium upon my character—If that was his design, I have a right to expect and demand an explana­tion from him. Tho' I acknowledge it did not enter into my mind, that that was his intention, or that any one would understand the words in such a light.

But what surprized me most of all was, that group of extravagant expressions in p. 41, where he speaks of my "thundering Anathema, authoratively denounced against him, for advancing such pernicious, soul-damning, destructive doctrines." Will the reader believe it, that not one of these violen expressions is contained in my whole let­ter? But what was it then, that caused this vehement outcry? Why truly, 'twas because I was so audacious as to say, "I could not in con­science encourage the instructions of those who advanced such doctrines, among a people, the charge of whose immortal interests was com­mitted to me;" because I looked upon them of dangerous tendency. This was the thundering anathema, and this was all.

Furthermore, what a strained construction does he put upon the abovementioned expression of mine, saying 'it equally involved the brethren, and that I had virtually excommunicated half the church at once." What I because I looked upon his doctrines as dangerous in their consequences and tendency, therefore I charge the brethren with embracing them. When, in truth, I was so far from it, that I did not even suppose, that Mr. C. himself, was aware of those con­sequences, or would espouse them.

Again, I can't but take notice of that unchristian reflection in p. 43. where he insinuates, that I am guilty of partiality in admitting per­sons to own the covenant, or to communion. "Especially those of note," says he. My own conscience is witness, and I trust a higher power still, that I have ever made it my practice in affairs of this sacred importance, to treat all alike: whether they be persons of note, or not; to make no destinction between high and low, rich or poor.

[Page 67] There are several things in the remarkable postjeript to his letter, which also merit observation. Mr C. can better give the reason tha [...] I, why he insinuates that "I had a mind to leave" my people: After 'tis notoriously known, that I had publickly declared the contrary; that I had no desire, but to spend my life with this people, if I could live in peace, and there was any prospect of my being serviceable to their best interest: And that all reports to the contrary, were groundless.

Another thing Mr. C. has implicitly charged me with is, breaking open a letter, sent to him from my father. This has been industri­ously propagated and aggravated by some persons. 'Tis necessary therefore the truth should be known. The letter to Mr. C. was sent inclosed to me—and unsealed—with my father's express desire that I would look it over, and see whether I thought it might answer any good end to send it. If not, (as I knew the circumstances of affairs here better than he did) he directed me to suppress or destroy it—and left it wholly with me, to conduct as I tho't most proper in the matter, This is the whole truth of the affair; which I am ready to make ap­pear to any one that desires it, by my father's letter, which I now have by me. I erased two short passages—and should be as willing the world should know what they were as not, were they in the least degree material to the present controversy—but they are not, as Mr. C. himself knows, who has since heard them.

In short, this Postscript, I apprehend, will appear, to every one who attends to and compares it with what it refers to, a most peculiar one of its kind. Mr. C. has, indeed by inverted commas given his readers to understand, that he quotes the sentences from my letter. Whether his quotations are just, or whether he has not perverted my meaning almost in every passage, the reader will best judge, by only comparing it with my letter. He has, besure, represented my letter, in a very frightful light. But I do not own the letter in this dress. He has certainly stripped it of the garb that belonged to it, and has dressed it up in one of his own manufacture; terrible enough, I ac­knowledge; and then seems to have viewed and reviewed it, in this ugly hue, till he had got quite out of all patience, and, as if unable to contain any longer, he at length breaks forth in such expressions as these—thundering anathema—soul-damning doctrines—finished hypocrite—lawyer like—assuming the prerogative of God—the rankest sepera [...]—raw, unstudied—young man, &c. But pray let us for a moment, get away from the noise of a torrent, and calmly enquire, what it is that occasioned all this vehemence of spirit, and expression? It [...] [Page 68]to have arisen, so far as I can find out, from these two things, viz. My saying that I looked upon some things he had advanced, to be of an arminian tendency—and that I could not encourage the instruc­tions of those, that promoted such principles. These two things, 'tis evident, are the chief, which he appears so exceedingly to resent; as if I had herein been guilty of the highest crime that could possibly be committed against a mortal. But I think a person must be of a very irritable disposition, to conceive such poignan resentment at ex­pressions like those above.

There are but two other things, which I shall particularly notice in this letter. One is, his representing that I had "been obliged to retract some opinions which I formely held." And the person I learned them of, he politely tells me, was Bellamy. Without re­marking upon the manner in which Mr. C. has here and elsewhere treated that divine; I can inform him and the world if necessary,

• 1. That I never espoused any principles, merely because they were held by Dr Bellamy, or any other man.
• 2. That I have never, since I have been in this place, retracted or seen cause to retract any sentiments in divinity, which I had "formerly h [...]ld"—as I have thought them, and [...]ill think them agreeable to the word of God.
• And 3. If I am convinced that any sentiment I have espoused, is uns [...]riptural, I hope I shall always be willing to "retract it," without being "obliged" to it; and shall look upon such a retractation, not a reproach, as it seems here to have been intended, but as an honor to me.

The other thing is, the last paragraph in Mr. C.'s letter, which was wrote upon the sabbath, April 12th. Upon which I observe, that it appears to savour, not of a very christian spirit; and morover is a misrepresentation of the matter: at least, such a representation, as will naturally give a stranger a wrong idea. I, no doubt, did use those words of the Apostle, which he mentions; but not in the man­ner, or with the design he suggests. And is it not very hard, to have it flung at me, in the manner Mr. C. has done in his marginal note upon it? "in a sever (says he) as his manner is when moved." So that if ever I feel any impressive sense of divine things upon my own mind, I must take care not to discover it, nor appear with any degree of earnestness in prayer or preaching, least I should be reproached with being "in a sever as my manner is." How does it look, for one who has been an old minister, (but now a hearer) to sit as a captious critick under the ministry of a young man, carping at his expressions, and finding fault, with no other grounds than he has mentioned above? [Page 69]How discouraging must it be, to be always exposed to such cants as these—that "if he lived to the age of Methusaleh, he would not de­clare the whole counsel of God," if he did not make more haste about it, than he had done—That he had never "preached fifteen twen­tieths of the heads of divinity" which a minister ought to preach, &c. If these things are true, I am indeed very much to blame, I acknowledge. But is it not a little strange, that no others of the congregation should have found this out, and complained of it for years past? Or if it was because Mr. C. had so much more knowledge and discerning than the rest, that he discovered it, what can be the reason that he had never mentioned it before? Why did he not, in a friendly manner, hint it to me, that I might amend for the future; especially since we had "held a good correspondence" before; and since this has been such "matter of grievance to him for years" past? and was "no sudden ebullition of passion?" But if he thought it was owing to my igno­rance, and that I was not able to handle those points, why does he expose my weakness, and publish it to the world?—But, if I may be allowed to dissent from Mr. C. I must say, that his assertion there, is not according to the truth of fact. And that "it is in my power to prove it," not "by an interleaved almanack," but from others of my hearers, who will be allowed to have some understanding, as well as Mr. Cotton, and also by my own notes. So that I think I have good right to appeal from his almanacks, to a more impartial test: and the more so, because he has one or two texts set down (by his own account) which I never did preach from. I have reason there­fore, to call in question the authenticity of his records, and to look upon his "interleaved almanack" as apocriphal and not genuine.

Another remark he has, of much the same nature, in the margin of the next page; where he repeats an assertion he had, in his former letter, viz. "That his brethren all think as he does." If this be rightly and truly expressed, I own, I am entirely ignorant of the minds of all the members of the church respecting this debate; and can have no idea of the difference between a negative and an affirmative.

Mr. Cotton, in the following page 50, exhibits to his readers fur­ther proofs of his kindness and friendship to me, in a catalogue of charges he has drawn up; at the close of which, he tells his readers, he "mentions these things not to expose me, but to prevent the like for time to come." It seems 'tis a preventive potion which he here intended to administer: I wish it's operation may be salutary; tho' I must acknowledge, the ingredients seem to be somewhat better— [Page 70]I shall not trouble the reader by repeating the several articles of charge, in this catalogue: But only observe, in general, that there is a mixture of misrepresentation, suspicion and jealousy; things which are surmised, without the least foundation: Particularly what he has said of my praying at the church-meeting—"sermon of triumph"— psalms being sung at him, &c. They are too low and even ridiculous to mention. I can with truth declare, that during the whole of these debates, I have never once, either prayed, sung or preached with any design to disgust Mr. C. or any one else—but have always endea­voured to avoid every thing that might be looked upon as pointed, or intended to irritate. The psalms were sung in course. As to the sermon, which he intimates was made in a way of triumph after the church-meeting, &c. That sermon was made above a month be­fore the church-meeting had an existence; and therefore before I could possibly know (or even suspected) what would be done at that meeting. I utterly deny the charge, of it's being my "usual phrase to say "my friends and my enemies."—What Mr. C. says, likewise, in the postscript of his little letter, p. 51, I am certain he has no grounds for, from his own knowledge. And if he had it by informa­tion, is there not some danger, that his informer has had as great a share in the "tristing discourse" as any one else? As to his letter being "sent back opened," this is a very great mistake—It might possibly be opened in his own family, before he received it—but it was never opened in mine; but immediately returned to him unopened and un­seen by any person in my family—And I should probably never have been favoured with the contents of it, the challenge, &c. but as he has seen sit to publish it, with the other letters. As to the manner and style of of it, I leave the reader to make his own remarks on them—and pass

To take some notice of his REMARKS on these letters—p. 51. 52, &c. Mr. Cotton intimates, that before these letters, "we held a good correspondence." Of HIS friendly disposition towards me, the reader might be better able to judge, perhaps, if I were (after his example) to publish a private letter, which he sent me by way of chastisement, many years ago, for a part of my conduct as a minister, which I never was faulted for, but by Mr. C. He has, indeed, since that time, shewn instances of kindness and friendship; which I ac­knowledge with gratitude. And besure, I could scarcely have believed then, that it were possible he could have said and done those things, which, since, we have had but too sad occasion to observe, [Page 71]I cannot therefore, but have reason to apprehend, from all that has appeared of late, that he has long had some root of prejudice against me—and that nothing was wanting but an opportunity for it to ma­nifest itself, as it has now done. I wish I may be mistaken.

As to the provocation given by my letter; I can truly say, I never meant or intended that abuse of him, which he complains of; or to "begin any quarrel" with him; whatever his jealous mind may have suggested. Neither am I now at all disposed to keep up a variance. I desire nothing but peace and reconciliation. I should be sincerely glad to have Mr. C. return to us, with a kind, charitable, christian spirit; and that we might, with the same spirit receive him, and live and walk as brethren. I never purposely did any thing to drive him away. And since his withdraw, I have endeavoured a reconciliation, in the presence of a number of the church—the greater part of whom said, and still say, that the terms I offered and proposals I made, were, in their opinion, reasonable and sufficient, and agreeable to the gospel—that they should desire no more, had they been the offended; and yet Mr. C. refuses to be reconciled and to return.

I think the account he has given of this matter p. 53, is far from being so impartial and full, and it ought to be. The fact was this. At a meeting of a number of the brethren at my house with him, in order to confer and endeavour to heal this unhappy personal breach; after the affair was opened by Mr. C. I told him, I was sorry for the unhappy difference that seemed to subsist between us, and was willing to do any thing that was reasonable and scriptural, for an accommo­dation; and would make this proposal—viz. "Being sensible that it has been a day of temptation and controversy among us, wherein we had both, no doubt, said and done many things which are wrong, and which, at another time, we should not have done—Let us now mutually forgive each other, and bury all that has been amise, cover­ing each others faults and failings with a mantle' of love and charity—I am heartily willing to do it myself, and desire the same of you; and hereafter let us love and live like brethren." This was what I offered him—and this he utterly refused; and let me know, that unless I would go into particulars, and bring over sundry articles of grievance that he had against me, he would not make up the matter. I told him I was not willing to that, and refused to do it; and that the only objection I had to it was, that it would tend only to exaspe­rate, on both sides—that raking open the coals would serve but to e [...]crease the heat, instead of quenching the fire—and that the only [Page 72]way, therefore, in the judgment of others, (both ministers and bre­thren) as well as myself, would be mutually to ask and grant for­giveness— This I was free to do—and thought it most reasonable that he should comply with it; especially considering the injurious treatment, I thought, he had given me so frequently before. He says, I thought it a condescention in me to make this proposal. I acknow­ledge it—and do now think so—and am very far from being alone, in my judgment, among those who have been most acquainted with our affairs. But be it a condescention or no condescention, I won't dis­pute that matter with him. I think it a reasonable and christian proposal; and am willing still to comply with it. Mr. C. after this, persisted still to refuse to consent to it; and pull'd out of his pocket a paper, containing three or four confessions for me to make; or ar­ticles of grievance, for which he expected I make a distinct acknow­ledgment. I told him I did not think sit to comply with his request—and withal asked him if he thought HE was so entirely innocent, as that he ought to make no concessions on his part? His answer was in these words, "I shall not answer that question." And thus the affair, in short, ended; and thus it remains.

There are innumerable other passages in Mr. Cotton's writings and conduct, which manifest how little he thinks himself to blame through the whole affair—how quick to censure and condemn others and to justify himself; to aggravate the faults of his brethren and to lessen and even annihilate his own. An instance, among many others, of this, we may see in p. 52, 53. "Mr. Robbins may thank himself IF I have been provoked to speak sometimes too harshly," If I have. Nay, he brings it out, and says plainly p. 54. "I was not conscious I had wronged him at all." And again, "I am not conscious I have exceeded christian bounds in my treatment of Mr. R." Perhaps others may be better judges of that, than Mr. C. or I. Be it as it may, it is certain, that most people among us happen to differ much from his judgment in this matter.

But what a remarkable talent has he, on the other hand, at finding out crimes in others and making mountains of molehills. In p. 70, under his 11th observation, he charges me with "seeing with others eyes'—never "examining for myself"—and so I am condemned as not being "a lover of truth;" only because I had said, that some who have turned to the passages of scripture referred to by the SYNOD, to prove the lawfulness of THIS PRACTICE, had said, they could not see that they had proved it, or were to the purpose. Does this imply, [Page 73]that I had never observed the same MYSELF? His observation or inference is truly worthy a Logician, in this instance.

Yet this is a mere trifle, compared with his charge against me in the next page, (marginal note) which is, that "I did in direct terms, in the face of the church, give him the LYE." This is a high charge indeed: And obliges me in vindication of myself, to say that, which I have been very loth to believe, and would now be glad, (otherwise) to have been silent about: viz. That it is a fact, that there has been much talk among us of late, of what he there refers to. Many have been of the opinion, that Mr. C. (to mention none besides) has had a design to get me away from this people, if he could. This opinion they formed, I suppose, from the whole tenor of his conduct towards me of late. But when he read his last piece at the church meeting, June 30th, (tho' the church voted twice not to hear it) I must ac­knowledge, that by the matter and the extraordinary manner in which it was delivered, I was, more than ever before, satisfied in my own mind, that those reports were true; and that he would be glad to procure a dissolution of my relation to this people. I grounded my opinion upon that old, but true proverb, that actions speak louder than words. And I did express this my opinion—and for this he is pleased to say, I gave him the LYE. I am perswaded, had any one been in my situation, and observed the whole series of Mr. C.'s be­havior towards me at those meetings, and since, he would be at no great loss to conjecture what he would have, if it was in his power. Possibly I may be mistaken; but I speak as things really appear to me—and I believe to many others. However, I would speak it with thankfulness to GOD, and also to my people, I have reason to believe (tho' most unworthy) that I have as much evidence of the love and ten­der affection of my people in general, as almost any minister whatever.—I pray that I may continue, both to deserve and enjoy it. And I am not without hopes, notwithstanding the late troubles, that a gracious God will, in due time, cause all animosities and divisions to cease among us; that peace may be restored, and that we may have some­thing to attend to, besides controversy, even the one thing needful—that that we may know the things which belong to our peace, before they are hid from our eyes.

As to the methods proposed in the church, for an accommodation of the publick dispute, I had mentioned the following, viz. "That if the church would admit those persons into full communion that ap­peared to be qualified to renew their baptismal covenant, I should [Page 74]be willing to baptize their children, tho' perhaps some of them could not see light to come immediately to the Lord's Supper." This Mr. C. "rejected with contempt," as ridiculous; saying, that there would "not be one person that should vote for it, but would be ashamed of it before a twelvemonth."^* I knew indeed, there were some difficulties attending the method I proposed; but I did it to avoid greater. My meaning was this—"If scruples of conscience call for the church's forbearance in this case, let us forbear with them as members in covenant, not as half members. (For persons will look upon them as half members, according to the present practice.) Let us bear with their scruples, as we do with old communicants, who are in the dark. It appeared to me, that this would be much more consistent, than the practice we have been in.

On the other hand, Mr. C.'s proposal was, "that a neighbouring minister come and baptize the children of the persons in question—and that the Deacons, or a committee of the church propound them for owning the covenant." I told him, this was not only an innova­tion, a plan, which I had never heard of in any church before—but, it appeared to me, would be instituting a kind of new ecclesiastical ju­risdiction: And that it would be attended with many difficulties and inconveniencies—that I doubted whether any neighbouring minister would be willing to officiate in such circumstances. And if they would, I questioned whether three persons, if a single one, in the con­gregation would desire it—that we had never heard any thing of this kind hinted, by the persons concerned, or who were not of the church.—I did not however, treat his proposal, in the contemptuous manner he has suggested: nor tell the brethren they "would be ashamed of it" should they adopt it.

[Page 75] I think the information Mr. C. gives, in the last page, "to those who live at a distance," will hardly give a full idea of the manner in which "this dispute terminated;" that it is a little to partial and defective. It seems to convey an idea, that the church meeting was dissolved for the sake of peace, but not to the satisfaction of the pastor—that I remained "unsatisfied." It is well known that I was not at all unsatisfied with the dissolution of the meeting; but was very desirous of it—that I had long tho't, as well as above three quarters of the church, that these church meetings rather hurt than promoted the peace of both church and town: And that a dissolution, would, we had reason to hope, put an end to the unhappy discords among us, at least for the present. It is also as well known, that Mr. C. appeared greatly dissatisfied with the church's proposal to dissolve the meeting and strove against it with great vehemence. And that there never had been so much warmth and unchristian heat, at all our meetings before, as at this time. (We have all of us reason to think and speak of it with shame.) The occasion of it, 'tis evident, was, the opposi­tion that was made to dissolving the meeting; altho' the declared design of it was, for the sake of peace. A paper had been, for this end, drawn up a day or two before the last meeting, and signed by more than half the church—not by constraint or perswasion, but wil­lingly—the purport of which was, "considering the unhappy disputes that have subsisted in the church, and being earnestly desirous to restore peace, we, for this end would propose and desire that the church meeting which stands adjourned to the last of June, may then be dissolved without entering into any further debates on the affair—the church to reassume the consideration thereof when they shall think proper. This paper, being given into my hand at the opening of the meeting, and read, it was opposed with the greatest earnestness, as mentioned above; Mr.C. insisting upon reading further what he had wrote on the debate. On the other hand, the church in general, not willing to hear any thing more; as we had seen but too sad effects of Mr. C.'s Essays in former meetings—and were therefore [...]irous the matter might rest at present, and the meeting be dissolved in peace. However, after some debate, the question was desired [...]e put, and a vote called,—Whether the church incline to hear any thing further? It passed in the negative. After this, it being suspected there was some mistake in the vote, it was called again, in the same words, and passed clearly in the negative again. But so great were the complaints, and so vehement the opposition of Mr. C. and two or three more, [Page 76]that the church, after this, did, in pure condescention to the importu­nity of these brethren, reconsider their vote, and gave liberty for Mr. C. to read his last essay. Assoon as he had finished, the question was de­sired, once more to be put, whether the meeting should be dissolved? And it passed in the affirmative, by a much greater majority than in either of the former votes. And thus the affair now remains. And I cannot but think, that, notwithstanding our difference in sentiments, and some past unhappy things which have taken place among us, yet, if Mr. C. had not, "in his advanced state of life," engaged in this publick controversy—and needlessly published to the world, those Letters with the Essays—(contrary I believe I may safely say, to the minds of almost the whole church, and congregation too) our diffi­culties would have soon subsided, and matters return to their former peaceful state. But his publishing this book, as it had a natural ten­dency to renew these things in peoples minds, to exasperate their spirits, and to blow up the coals of contention; so it has been followed with some other unhappy effects, which otherwise, would never have taken place.

What the issue of these things will be now; is known only by him who rules the world in infinite wisdom and righteousness, and will govern and direct all events for his own glory and the good of his church. But it is, and ought to be matter of comfort to all that wish well to Zion, that while the church, like the ark of old, is surround­ed with waters, and many times tossed up and down by storms and tempests, yet JESUS CHRIST sits at helm; and the Lord on high, is mightier than the noise of many waters; and can say to them, Peace, be still!—For this, let the children of Zion pray; and at all times, be joyful in their King.

I have now, but to request earnestly, the prayers of all that love the interest and kingdom of Christ and the edification and peace of his members; that God would, in his tender mercy, visit this vine, which we trust, his own right hand hath planted—that he would give to more and more of the spirit and temper of the gospel—unite our hearts in brotherly kindness and charity, and grant that we may all meet at last, in that holy world, where the church of CHRIST are one in sentiment and affection.