The firſt PART, on the BAPTISM uſed under the Law.

THE judgment of a Church in Hampſhire county, in the caſe of two perſons, who have heretofore profeſſed the chriſtian faith, and ſubmitted to the government, watch and care of ſaid Church, and ſo became divinely bound to keep the unity of the ſpirit in the bond of peace with it.

And yet paying no regard to thoſe ſacred bonds, have of late, in a diſorderly manner, withdrawn themſelves from all connection with ſaid Church, not only without its council and concurrence, but contrary to its painful labours and faithful remonſtrances, and united themſelves to what is called a Baptiſt Church.

And now ſaid Church, ſtill meaning to practiſe fidelity to Jeſus Chriſt and them; in conſideration of the premiſes; in conſideration alſo of the noted habit of the people called Baptiſts, to criminate all oppoſition to their bias, with the ſtyle of perſecution; and laſtly, in conſideration of the utter inconſiſtency of their ſcheme, with that of the bible; the ſaid Church holds itſelf called to exhibit ſcriptural light to the ſaid two perſons, and to whomſoever elſe it may concern; in conſidence, that when their minds are diſentangled from the bondage of errour, as they certainly will be in this caſe, they will then know we have treated them in conſiſtency with our ſtable profeſſion: and then we ſhall leave the ſaid two perſons entirely to the Judge of right.

Now as the people called Baptiſts, hold it a neceſſary part of obedience and following Chriſt, to be buried in water, as they ſay he was in baptiſin: We therefore are bound to teſtify and prove,

I. That Chriſt's baptiſm, was not chriſtian baptiſm.

1. Becauſe chriſtian baptiſm is a ſeal of chriſtianity; but the chriſtian diſpenſation was not in being when Jeſus Chriſt was baptized, and ſo there was no ſuch thing to be ſealed at that time; and then it muſt be a ſeal to nothing, which is no ſeal at all. Therefore the baptiſm of Jeſus Chriſt was not the chriſtian baptiſm.

2. Becauſe Jeſus Chriſt's baptiſm was under the law; but no ordinance under the law, could at the ſame time be under the goſpel; and if not under the goſpel, it could not be a chriſtian ordinance: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was not chriſtian baptiſm.

3. Becauſe Chriſt's baptiſm was part of that law-righteouſneſs, which he came to fulfil, and which muſt be finiſhed before the goſpel diſpenſation could begin; as juſtification muſt be finiſhed before ſanctification can begin: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm could not be chriſtian baptiſm,

4. Becauſe as every thing done to fulfil the law was legal, and as Chriſt's baptiſm was confeſſedly done to fulfil the law; Matt. iii. 15,—therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was legal, not chriſtian baptiſm.

5. Becauſe to be baptized in obedience to the legal diſpenſation, muſt be legal obedience; but Chriſt was ſo baptzied: therefore his baptiſm was legal, not goſpel obedience.

6. Becauſe what Chriſt came to do was to fulfil the righteouſneſs of the law, Matt. v. 17. But that was law-work, not goſpel-work: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was legal, not evangelical.

7. Ordinances of the law, and of the goſpel, are different; but Chriſt's baptiſm was an ordinance of the law, as the next argument will ſhew: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was not a goſpel or chriſtian ordinance.

Objection. But the Lord's ſupper was inſtituted under the law alſo.

Anſwer. True; but it was the very night in which he was betrayed, ſo it muſt be then or never, I. Cor. xi. 23. Whereas Chriſt was baptized ſeveral years before. Beſide, he commanded the future conſtant uſe of the Lord's ſupper; but no ſuch command about his baptiſm, becauſe that was part of his perfect law, righteouſneſs, which none ever could do but himſelf.

Nay further, Jeſus Chriſt knew that he was appointed by the Father to be faithful in all God's houſe, the church, as Moſes was,—Heb. iii. 2 But Moſes appointed the Paſchal feaſt, as a conſtant token of divine preſence and favour, and a mean of communion with him, which Paſchal feaſt was to ceaſe the moment Chriſt died. Therefore he muſt appoint the goſpel feaſt, the Lord's ſupper, before he died, or elſe he would not be as faithful in God's houſe, as Moſes was; but would leave it quite deſtitute of this chieſmean of viſible connection and communion with God; which would ſhow he had not finiſhed his work, and be a blot on him and his kingdom forever.

II. The baptiſm of Jeſus Chriſt, was the appointed mean of entering on his publie miniſtry, which he muſt fulfil, both as it was a part of the law, which he was to obey perfectly, and alſo, becauſe otherwiſe he could not claim that prieſthood all to himſelf.

1. Legal prieſts were always inducted to their public miniſtry, by waſhing or being baptized with water; therefore it was commanded for Aaron, his ſons and all his ſucceſſors, to be waſhed, or baptized with water, when they went into their public miniſtry,—Exod. xxix. 4, xl. 12.—Exod. 30.18.—20. So Chriſt, who knew the whole law, when he was going into his public diſcharge of the legal prieſthood, knew he muſt be waſhed or baptized with water; and as no legal prieſt could enter that public miniſtry, till thirty years of age, —Num. iv. 3, 47,—ſo Jeſus Chriſt, when he arrived to that age—Luke iii. 23—knowing it was the appointed mean of entering the miniſtry of the law, was obedient in that, as in every thing: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was wholly legal, not chriſtian.

2. This is exactly the reaſon which Jeſus Chriſt gives to John, when he come to be waſhed or baptized by him; "thus it becomes us to fulfil all rightouſneſs." Importing I can't fulfil all righteouſneſs, viz. of the law, unleſs I ſubmit to it; nor you do your duty unleſs you adminiſter it; for this was the reaſon why John was ſent to baptize—And as this was a noted part of obedience to the law, ſo all righteouſneſs could not be fulfiled without it: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was not chriſtian baptiſm.

3. It is declared, John i. 31, &c. that the very reaſon why John was ſent to baptize, was, that he might by that ordinance make Chriſt manifeſt to Iſrael, viz. to be their promiſed high prieſt; and he was made maniſeſt by public baptiſm, according to law, by the heaven's viſibly opening at the ſame time; by the deſcent of the holy ſpirit on Chriſt, and by the voice from heaven approving him. Therefore as ſoon as the neceſſary trials of forty days in the wilderneſs were out, he began to preach. Matt. iv. 17. Therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was altogether legal, not chriſtian.

III. The baptiſm of Juſus Chriſt was no part of chriſtian obedience. For,

1. Then it muſt be obedience to himſelf; for Jeſus Chriſt is the head of all chriſtian matters. He came to do the will of God, Pſal. xl. 8, not to do his own will, John vi. 38. But the will of God by Jeſus Chriſt, primarily, was his fulfiling the law, and his baptiſm was part of that work, as he told John at the time: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was obedience to the law, not to chriſtianity.

2. To be chriſtian obedience, it muſt be under chriſtianity, not under the law; but it was under the law, not under the goſpel: therefore the baptiſm of Jeſus Chriſt was wholly legal obedience, not chriſtian.

3. Not only the fact was under the law, but the view and deſign of it was to fulfil what the law already required, and to be a lawful qualification for his public miniſtry while under the law; the laſt act of which miniſtry and prieſthood, was his offering up himſelf in death, Heb. viii. 3, 7, 27. Therefore the deſign of Chriſt's baptiſm was altogether legal, and peculiar to himſelf; which was implied, when he ſaid, "ſuffer it to be ſo now," Matt. iii. 15, as the only inſtance of it in the world.

IV. Chriſt's baptiſm could not be a pattern for his people's obedience. For,

1. Obedience to the law for juſtification, never can be a part of his people's obedience: But Chriſt's baptiſm was a part of his obedience to the law, for the juſtification of ſinners: therefore no pattern for his people's obedience.

2. If Chriſt's baptiſm was pattern for his people to copy, then there muſt be a law in chriſtianity for his people to be baptized as he was; but there is no ſuch law: therefore Chriſt's baptiſm was not a pattern for them to follow.

3. Therefore there is no more reaſon to follow Chriſt in this action, than in all the actions of his obedience to the holy law.

Queſtion. What was John's baptiſm?

Anſwer. John's baptiſm was a rite which divine wiſdom deſigned and proclaimed by Malachy of old, Mal. iii. 1, which was to ſerve three purpoſes.

1. John was a pioneer and herald, ſent before his General, and the following chriſtian army, to remove impediments; and as ſin was the chief impediment, ſo John's work was to witneſs againſt it, and require repentance of it; and then to baptize, or waſh with water, all who complied, as a badge of their clearneſs from it; juſt as Jews always did to proſelytes and prieſts, under the law, as token of their purity. But now John did this to all penitents, both becauſe God ordered him ſo, and becauſe the holy chriſtian kingdom was then coming, in three or four years: ſo it was called the baptiſm of repentance. 2. As John's miniſtry was all under the law, ſo it was a type, like other religious actions, under the law; to be a picture of that holineſs, which was to be characteriſtic of approaching chriſtianity; that every body might ſee in that ſymbol, what they muſt be and what Chriſt could make them, viz. all over holy: But no uſe for types when the ſubſtance is come, except among Jews. 3. As Chriſt could not enter on his public miniſtry without baptiſm, and it could not be adminiſtered without a qualified officer; ſo, John i. 31, tells us the very reaſon why John was qualified, was that he might introduce Jeſus Chriſt to his public miniſtry under the law, by the baptiſm of that diſpenſation.

And with this teſtimony we refer the ſaid two perſons to God the righteous Judge. Only adding, that we ſhall as clearly delineate what is true chriſtian baptiſm, with its nature and evidence, when you, or any in your behalf, ſhall deſire it.

The Second PART, on CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

AS all goods derive from God to men through the channel of the covenant of grace, ſo I ſhall, 1ſt. Open the nature of the covenant of grace. 2d. Prove that this was the covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham. 3d. Show what were the contents of it, in that eſtabliſhment. 4th. Show what proviſion God has made for the propagation of thoſe contents.

I. I ſhall very briefly open the nature of that covenant of grace, through which all goods as ſuch, derive to man. But,

1ſt. If all men are ſinners, then divine juſtice forbids all favours to them, except on ſuppoſition of equal atonement; but all men are ſinners, and therefore the juſtice of God forbids all favour to them, except on ſuppoſition of equal atonement. Rom. iii. 23. "All have ſinned and come ſhort of the glory of God," and Jer. v. 25, "Your ſins have withholden good things from you." But ſince mercy and truth have found atonement, and "righteouſneſs is come down from heaven, the Lord will give that which is good," Pſal. lxxxv. 10, 11, 12.

2d. But the man Chriſt Jeſus, could not conſiſtently undertake the work of atonement, without expreſs ſecurity to be preſerved through, accepted and ſufficiently rewarded; therefore when the determination of the Father, was to give his ſon "a covenant of the people," Iſa. xlix. 8. Jeſus Chriſt replied, "Lo I come, I delight to do thy will, O my God," Pſal. xl. 7, 8. And for his ſecurity, God ſaid, Iſa. xlii. 6, "I have called thee in righteouſneſs, and will hold thine hand and will keep thee. And promiſed "he ſhould ſee his ſeed, and the ends of the earth ſhould ſee his ſalvation; that he ſhould ſay to the priſoners, go forth," &c. Iſa. xlix. 6, 9: So that there was a compleat ſtipulation or contract, between the Father and Son, with reference to the elect of God.

This contract is commonly ſtyled the covenant of grace. On which remark, 1ſt. This covenant is called, covenant of grace, or mere favour, becauſe the heart of the parties contracting firſt gave ſpring to the ſcheme of it, Cant. vi. 12. 2d. Becauſe their object, loſt ſinners, deſerved no favour at all. "They had deſtroyed themſelves, but in God was their help," Hoſ. xiii. 9. 3d. Becauſe it contains all grace, for time and eternity, without money or price, Iſa. lii. 3. 4th. Becauſe the parties contracting, knew they never could need any thing from the creatures. God ſaid "I am God, I will take no bullock of thee, &c. but will ſhew the ſalvation of God, Pſal. l. 7, 9, 23. 5th. As nothing can be new to God, ſo 'tis evident this covenant was made from eternity, Tit. i. 2, "It was promiſed, viz. in Chriſt, before the world began." 6th. The parties contracting were God the Father, of the one part, and God the Son, as accepting the human nature God provided, on the other; and without which it was impoſſible he ſhould make atonement. Pſal. xl. 6. Heb. x. 5. "This councel of peace was between them both," Zech. vi. 13. 7th. Therefore the covenant of grace, is as neceſſarily (by divine appointment) infallible, unchangeable and eternal, as God himſelf is. "'Tis the covenant which God always remembers; the word which he has commanded to a thouſand generations," Pſal. cv. 8.

And this gives us light in ſeveral texts of ſcripture, as Pſal. lxxxix. 3, "I have made a covenant with my choſen. And, II. Tim. i. 9, This was his own purpoſe and grace, given us in Chriſt, before the world began. So alſo, Pſal. xxv. 14, "The ſecret of the Lord, i. e. his free love and favour, is with them who fear him, and he will make them know his covenant." For Abraham, as having the ſecret of the Lord with him eminently, had this covenant notably eſtabliſhed with him, Gen. xvii. 7. On the ſame account, God made Iſaac know his covenant, Gen. xvii. 19. And in the ſame way it was revealed to Jacob, I. Chron. xvi. 15, 16, 17. And God has to this day made all know his covenant, who were governed by its principle, for "his ſecret is always with the righteous, Prov. iii. 32.

Queſtion. When God ſays, "I give thee for a covenant of the people," muſt we underſtand that Jeſus Chriſt is himſelf the covenant of grace?

Anſwer. By no means. 'Tis as abſurd to hold Jeſus Chriſt himſelf to be the covenant of grace, as to hold a treaſurer to be the treaſury itſelf. Or a teſtator to be his own teſtament. Or, an adminiſtrator to be the adminiſtration itſelf. The whole nature of the two parties to whom the covenant of grace has reſpect, is in Chriſt, and he has full power of ſole adminiſtration of it. For "in his hand was the pleaſure of the Lord to proſper," Iſa. liii. 10. 'Tis therefore amazing! that any man endowed with common ſenſe, and privileged with the bible, ſhould ever imagine, that the covenant of grace is not from eternity; or that it is poſſibly ſubject to intermiſſion or failure, in whole or in any part, touching any of its ſubjects, in any reſpect whatever.

Q. But don't the covenant of works interfere with the covenant of grace?

A. Not at all. Their agreements and differences are as follows: 1ſt. They agree, in that their preceptive part containing all the laws of the bible; and their promiſſory part, including all the goods of promiſes; and their penal part, containing all the executions againſt ſin, are the ſame in both. And they agree alſo that perfect conformity to the precept, is the only qualification for the promiſe; and that the want of it, induces the execution of the curſe. They both run through all ages, juſt as do the ſeed of the woman, and the ſeed of the ſerpent. And all human perſons in the world, are now ſubject to the one or the other. But, 2d. Thoſe two covenants eſſentially differ, in the following reſpects. 1ſt. The covenant of grace is coeval with God, and the other is coeval with men. 2d. They differ eſſentially in their ſeveral headſhips. For in the covenant of works, the firſt Adam was foederal head. Therefore in Adam, all die, I. Cor. xv. 22. But Jeſus Chriſt is ſole head in the covenant of grace: therefore "in him all its ſubjects are made alive, I. Cor. xv. 22. 3d. The parties contracting in each are different; for in the covenant of works, Adam contracted for all his poſterity. So Rom. v. 19, ſays, "By his diſobedience many were made ſinners" But in the covenant of grace, Jeſus Chriſt contracted for all the elect; ſo "grace reigns thro' righteouſneſs to them all." Rom v. 17 to 21. 4th. They differ as to the ground of claims on the promiſe; for in the covenant of works, each candidate claims on the foot of his own performance of the precept: But never ſo in the covenant of grace. For there every claim is made on account of Jeſus Chriſt's performance of all the precepts. 'Tis "for his righteouſneſs ſake only, God is well pleaſed," Iſa. xlii. 21. 5th. Though neither of theſe covenants admit any plea, but perfect righteouſneſs; yet the covenant of grace admits thoſe to uſe it ſucceſsfully who have no righteouſneſs at all perſonally. In this way, "he who hath no money may come, buy and eat, Iſai. lv. 1.

Q. Doth not this doctrine injure morality, by encouraging neglect of duty?

A. Right the reverſe; it diſcourages proud arrogance; but gives infinite encouragement to humble duty and obedience. Rom. iii. 31, "Do we then make void the law, thro' faith, God forbid, yea we eſtabliſh the law."

II. I am next to prove, that this was the covenant eſtabliſhed with Abraham. This indeed is evident from what has been already ſaid. But,

1ſt. If Abraham's ſeed, named in the covenant made with him, implies chriſtians, then that covenant was the covenant of grace: But ſeed in Abraham's covenant, implies chriſtians: therefore the covenant made with Abraham, was the covenant of grace. For God himſelf has told us, Gal. iii. 29, "If ye are Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham's ſeed." And ſpeaking of the ſame covenant, God aſſures his people in all ages, Iſa. liv. 9, 10, "It never ſhould be removed from them."

2d. If by righteouſneſs of faith, Rom. iv. 11, is meant the covenant of grace, then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace; but righteouſneſs of faith, in Rom. iv. 11, doth as evidently mean the covenant of grace, as that ſaving faith, and its perfect righteouſneſs, are the peculiars of that covenant. But then 'tis juſt ſo certain that the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace: For it was Abraham who received circumciſion, as the initiating ſign and confirming ſeal of the covenant made with him; which as it contained the ſum of all grace, I will be thy God," &c. muſt be that covenant through which only grace flows to men.

3d. If the mere mercy of God is equally the ſource and fountain of the covenant of grace, and the covenant with Abraham; then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace: but 'tis as certain to be ſo, as that both covenants contained good things for the unworthy; and that there is no other fountain, whence to derive them. Of courſe, the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

4th. Gal. iii. 6, ſays, "The promiſes of the bible were made to Abraham and his ſeed. But the promiſes of the bible contain all grace revealed; either therefore, the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace, or there is no ſuch covenant.

5th. The ſcriptures never ſpeak of more than one covenant of grace; but a covenant of grace was certainly made with Abraham and his ſeed. Gen. xvii. 7, "I will eſtabliſh my covenant between me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, for an everlaſting covenant, to be a God unto thee and thy ſeed after thee." Therefore the covenant with Abraham, was the one only covenant of grace, which runs through the whole bible.

6th. If Jeſus Chriſt was the very ſeed of Abraham's covenant, as Gal. iii. 16, ſays, "and to thy ſeed which is Chriſt," then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

Objection. The covenant with Abraham was to ſecure temporal things, as a numerous poſterity, and the poſſeſſion of the land of Canaan.

Anſwer. Theſe things were examples and ſhadows of heavenly things, Heb. viii. 5. His numerous poſterity, repreſented that multitude which no man could number, Rev. vii. 9. For they who are Chriſt's are Abraham's ſeed, Gal. iii. 29. And the earthly Canaan, repreſented that better country, even the heavenly, which they deſired. Heb. xi. 14, 15, 16. But if the antitypes of thoſe temporary figures, were moſt gracious things: then the covenant by which they were ſecured, was the covenant of grace, by which all good things are ſecured to its ſubjects.

7th. If God never publiſhed but one ſyſtem of gracious promiſes, and theſe Abraham received, Heb. xi. 17. Gal. iii. 16, then 'tis certain that the covenant which contains all gracious promiſes, was the covenant made with Abraham.

8th. If no perſon has juſtification and ſalvation, but through the covenant of grace; and yet Abraham had juſtification and ſalvation through the covenant made with him; Gal. iii. 18, "For God gave the inheritance to Abraham by promiſe;" then the covenant with Abraham was the ſame covenant, by which juſtification and ſalvation are received by all who are ſaved.

9th. If the words promiſe, promiſes, &c. very often uſed in the inſpired writings, generally mean Abraham's covenant, then Abraham's covenant is the covenant of grace. But thoſe words generally mean Abraham's covenant. For inſtance, Rom. iv. 13, 14, "For the promiſe was not to Abraham, or to his ſeed, through the law, but through the righteouſneſs of faith. So Gal. iii. 18, If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promiſe, but God gave it to Abraham by promiſe. Alſo Heb. vi. 13, when God made promiſe to Abraham, he ſware by himſelf, ſaying, bleſſing I will bleſs thee," &c. which are the very words of Abraham's covenant. Gen. xxii. 16, 17, 18. Therefore the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

10th. If heirſhip, often mentioned in the new teſtament, as predicable equally of Abraham, and of all chriſtians, implies title to the covenant of grace, then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace; but heirſhip in the new teſtament implies title to the covenant of grace; therefore the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace. For Rom. iv. 13, ſays, "Abraham became heir of the world;" i. e. not only entitled to Canaan, but a father to all who believe every where, "through the righteouſneſs of faith;" i. e. through the covenant of grace. So Gal. iii. 29, "If ye are Chriſt's, then are ye Abraham's ſeed, and heirs according to the promiſe;" i. e. according to the covenant made with Abraham. So alſo Heb. xi. 9, "By faith Abraham ſo journed with Iſaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the ſame promiſe," or covenant of grace.

11th. If inheritance, in the ſenſe of the bible, implies intereſt in the covenant of grace, then the covenant with Abraham and his ſeed, was the covenant of grace; but inheritance, in the ſenſe of the bible, implies intereſt in the covenant of grace, I. Pet. i. 4, He hath begotten us to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away." And yet ſuch inherritance God gave to Abraham, in the covenant made with him. Gal. iii. 18, "God gave the inheritance to Abraham by promiſe." Therefore the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

12th. If there is no ſalvation but through the covenant of grace, then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace; but there is no ſalvation except through the covenant of grace. Acts iv. 12, "There is no other name under heaven, whereby ye can be ſaved." Yet Abraham had ſalvation, for the beggar was carried to Abraham's boſom; Luke xvi. 22. Therefore the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

13th. If ſaving faith is always grounded on the covenant of grace, and yet Abraham had ſuch faith, then the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace.

14th. If the people of God were all ſaved for two thouſand years, viz. from Abraham to Chriſt, in the faith of Abraham's covenant, then Abraham's covenant was the covenant of grace, the only ſtanding way of ſalvation; but the people of God for two thouſand years, viz. from Abraham to Chriſt, were ſaved through faith in Abraham's covenant; it was by ſuch ſaith "the elders obtained a good report," Heb. xi. 2. And the 13th verſe ſays, "Theſe all died in faith, not having received the promiſes," i. e. not living to the outward eſtabliſhment of chriſtianity. Yet "God was not aſhamed to be called their covenant God,—and prepared for them a city. So ſurely, therefore, was the covenant with Abraham, the covenant of grace.

15. If Chriſt did not receive chriſtian baptiſm, previous to his inſtituting and receiving the Lord's ſupper, it muſt be becauſe the initiating ſeal of the covenant of grace, was already on him in circumciſion; but Jeſus Chriſt did not receive chriſtian baptiſm, previous to his inſtituting and receiving the Lord's ſupper—which is thus proved: 1. Becauſe the diſpenſation to which chriſtian baptiſm belongs, was not in being. 2. Becauſe to receive chriſtian baptiſm, is an inſtance of chriſtian obedience; but, it was inconſiſtent for Jeſus Chriſt to perform any act of chriſtian obedience for his people, till he had finiſhed a righteouſneſs for their juſtification. 3. Becauſe the baptiſm, then in uſe was John's baptiſm, which was legal not chriſtian.

The conſequence is, that as Jeſus Chriſt had the witneſſing ſeal of the covenant of grace upon him, in circumciſion, ſo he was as well qualified for acceſs to the Lord's ſupper, as any can be now by chriſtian baptiſm. But then 'tis juſt ſo certain, that the covenant with Abraham, which contained circumciſion was the covenant of grace.

Queſt. 1. Why did not Jeſus Chriſt himſelf baptize, but his diſciples only?

Anſ. 1. The baptiſm with which his diſciples baptized, was John's baptiſm; of which before.

Anſ. 2. As John's baptiſm was tipical of chriſtian purity; ſo for Chriſt to practice it, would be bearing witneſs to himſelf; contrary to his own maxim. Jon. v. 31

Anſ. 3. The work of Jeſus Chriſt was to obey the Law; now though the law required him to be baptized, as the induction to his public prieſthood; yet no precept or prophet of the law, ever ſaid he ſhould baptize with water; ſo he had no ſuch work to do.

Queſt. 2. What is chriſtian baptiſm?

Anſ. 1. Chriſtian baptiſm is being ſo enriched, and endowed, with the ſpecial gifts, and graces, of the holy ſpirit, as is in ſcripture called, baptized with the holy ghoſt. Matt. iii. 11. "He ſhall baptize you with the holy ghoſt and with fire." Where fire is explanatory of this baptiſm; for 'tis purifying as fire.

Anſ. 2. But as nature abounds with ſpeaking emblems of ſpiritual things; ſo it pleaſed God to appoint outward reſemblances of inward and ſpiritual things. And the outward ſignal, and repreſentation of chriſtian baptiſm, is that external application of water, in the name of the Godhead, which is called baptiſm, from its reſemblance to true baptiſm. Ezek. xxxvi. 25.

Anſ. 3. But then the ſign muſt always tally with the thing ſignified. And therefore as no perſon is totally ſubject to true baptiſm; for we are ſanctified but in part; ſo to apply the outward ſign to the whole body, does not agree to the thing ſignified, in any caſe, in this world.

Queſt. 3. Why was circumciſion appointed a ſeal of the covenant of grace?

Anſ. 1. 'Tis a prerogative of every royalty to chuſe and appoint his own ſeal.

Anſ. 2. A ſeal of the Covenant of grace ſhould always ſuit with the preſent diſpenſation of that covenant. When it was eſtabliſhed with Noah, and his ſeed; the univerſal terror, was fear of another flood, and ſo the rainbow was a ſign and ſeal of the covenant of grace, exactly ſuited to thoſe times. Gen. ix. 9. to 17. But in the gentle reign of Jeſus Chriſt, when blood has virtue enough, to anſwer all the purpoſes of cleanſing our ſins; then the cleanſing medium of water baptiſm, becomes the proper ſeal of the covenant of grace. Whereas for two thouſand years before, viz. from Abraham to Chriſt, the buſineſs of all that time, was to give aſſurance that their little bloods would certainly iſſue, in the allſufficient blood of the Meſſiah; for which purpoſe nothing could be more ſuitable, than for all families to be conſtantly ſhedding blood in circumciſion; ſo that was appointed, the witneſs and ſeal of the covenant of grace. Gen. xvii. 10, 11. The bloody ordinance of circumciſion, with all the burdenſome rites of that diſpenſation, excited deſires, and prayers for Chriſt's coming, and gave conſtant aſſurance of it.

Queſt. 4. When was the form of the ſeal of the covenant changed?

Anſ. When the diſpenſation was changed, from that of the law, to Chriſtianity. When the diſpenſation was changed, it was proper its witneſſing ſeal ſhould in its outward form be altered. Heb. x. 9. "He took away the firſt that he might eſtabliſh the ſecond."

Queſt. 5. When did the chriſtian diſpenſation begin?

Anſ. 1. Exactly when that of the law ended. But neither could the firſt ceaſe, or the ſecond begin, till John's miniſtry was finiſhed; for he generally ſpoke of Chriſt as coming after him. Mark i. 7. Matt. iii. 11. He preached "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So then it was near, but not come.

Anſ. 2. The chriſtian diſpenſation could not begin before the death of Chriſt.

1. Becauſe many legal types could not be fulfilled till that event. Heb. ix. 7, to 16.

2. Becauſe Chriſt's legal prieſthood, which muſt be finiſhed, before the goſpel diſpenſation could begin, was compleated by his offering himſelf in death. Heb. viii. 3, 7, 27, ix. 26, x. 12.

3. Becauſe as the doctrine of Chriſt's kingdom was to be peace on earth. Luke ii. 14. And that peace is founded in the blood of the croſs, Col. i. 20. So the goſpel diſpenſation could not be ſet up, till that blood was ſhed.

Anſ. 3. The chriſtian diſpenſation could not begin till after Chriſt's reſurrection.

1. Becauſe his finiſhing the attonement muſt be proved, by his reſurrection from the dead. But when God raiſed him, it was proof of his work fully done, and that juſtice was ſatisfied. Acts ii. 24.

2. Pardon of ſin, the privilege of the goſpel diſpenſation, could not be boldly affirmed; till Chriſt's riſing had proved the meritorious cauſe complete. Heb. ix. 26.

3. It was impoſſible to believe, without doubting, in what Chriſt had done, till he was proved to be the Son of God with power, by his reſurrection from the dead. Rom. i. 4. Therefore his diſpenſation could not begin till this proof was given.

Anſ. 4. The chriſtian diſpenſation could not begin till the day of Pentecoſt.

1. Becauſe as Pentecoſt was the fiftieth day from the ſecond day of the paſſover; ſo ſuch as are learned in ſcripture chronology alledge, that was the day, in which the Church was eſtabliſhed, and her law given from Sinai of old. And the inſtitution of her chriſtian form, muſt anſwer ancient types; but then it muſt be on the day of Pentecoſt, according to Acts ii. 1, which ſays "when the day of Pentecoſt was fully come." The inſpired words are, "en too ſymplee rouſthai," as importing, it muſt be at that juncture, neither ſooner, nor later.

2. Becauſe it was proper, that the religious privileges of this world, ſhould commence in preſence of witneſſes from every nation under heaven; which was the caſe then, Acts ii. 5. to 12.

3. Becauſe the circumſtances of that day, indicate that the great inſtitution was upon it. As

1. That God might not ſurprize his people, with ſuch important events, without previous notice. He gave them theſe days, from Chriſt's reſurrection, to the ſaid fiftieth day, to digeſt the evidence of what they had ſeen, that they might be prepared for this eſtabliſhment, ten days after his aſcenſion.

2. The goſpel diſpenſation was to be managed by twelve apoſtles, as the old one had been by twelve patriarchs; but theſe apoſtles were not all appointed till after Chriſt's reſurrection. And they were directed to bear witneſs of Chriſt, &c. after the Holy Ghoſt was come on them, Acts i. 8; but this was not till Pentecoſt: Therefore the goſpel diſpenſation did not begin till that day.

3. Tongues were a needful mean for propagating the goſpel; but theſe were not given till Pentecoſt. Therefore this diſpenſation did not begin till that day.

4. The goſpel is the holy ſpirit's inſtrument, in gracious operations; but he did not come to poſſeſs and uſe it till Pentecoſt, Acts ii. 2, 3. Therefore his diſpenſation did not begin till that day.

5. Special divine power was eſſentially neceſſary for the management of this diſpenſation, but the apoſtles, the inſtruments of that work, were commanded to tarry at Jeruſalem, till they ſhould be endowed with power from on high: that is, till the promiſe of the Father, which was the holy ſpirit, ſhould come on them, Luke xxiv. 49. Acts i. 4. But this was not done till Pentecoſt; therefore the diſpenſation did not begin till that day.

6. The apoſtles were not endowed for caſting out devils, taking up ſerpents, and being proof againſt poiſon, &c. which infernal malice againſt the goſpel would give occaſion for, till Pentecoſt, Mark xvi. 18, 19, 20.—Luke xxiv. 49. And ſo their diſpenſation did not begin till that day.

7. Whenever the chriſtian diſpenſation begun, it may be expected ſuch providences would ſoon follow, as ſhould witneſs it's divine nature. But ſuch events took place at Pentecoſt.

1. The Holy Ghoſt took poſſeſſion of goſpel truth, as the mean of his gracious operation then.

2. Then did the ſacred ſymbal of it's nature and effects appear in fiery tongues.

3. Then did cloven tongues indicate Gentiles, as well as Jews, to be its deſigned objects.

4. Then did their fiery appearance, foretel, the throughly purifying effect of the goſpel.

5. Then were all the world together, to witneſs the advent of the univerſal religion.

6. Then was a moſt diſtinguiſhed day for miracles and devils malice charging all to drunkenneſs. Acts ii. 13.

7. Then was a day the moſt crowned with goſpel ſucceſs, having three thouſands converted at once.

Queſt. 6. Where is authority for the inſtitution of outward baptiſm?

Anſ. 1. In the nature of the caſe. For, as God has been pleaſed, in various diſpenſations of the covenant of grace, to appoint an outward ſign and ſeal of it; 'tis therefore certain, that it was right and reaſonable, that the covenant of grace ſhould have an outward ſign and ſeal; but the nature of the caſe determines, it is as right and reaſonable now as ever it was; therefore, as there is no pretence, to any other outward initiating ſign and ſeal to the covenant of grace now but outward baptiſm; therefore that ought in all reaſon, to be held the initiating ſign and ſeal of the covenant of grace now.

Anſ. 2. In the inſtitution of circumciſion. For 'tis certain God appointed circumciſion, Gen. xvii. 10. and called it "a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith." Rom. iv. 11. And as there is no pretence of any thing to ſucceed circumciſion, as a ſeal of the covenant of grace but outward baptiſm; therefore either circumciſion is ſtill of force, as a ſeal of the covenant; or elſe outward baptiſm has taken its place: But we are forbidden to uſe the ordinances of that diſpenſation, Col. ii. 20, 21, "Touch not, taſte not, handle not, for they are all to periſh in the uſing." Therefore outward baptiſm is the viſible ſeal of the covenant of grace.

Anſ. 3. In divine inſtitution, Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, "All power is given to me in heaven and earth; go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them." And as this is an expreſs command, there is equal authority for baptiſm, as for any thing in chriſtianity.

Queſt. 7. Is there any further evidence that baptiſm comes in place of circumciſion?

Anſ. 1. There is; For ſince circumciſion did confeſſedly, terminate with the legal diſpenſation, if baptiſm does not ſucceed to it, then the diſpenſation of the goſpel, cannot be much more glorious than that of the law; but it is in its outward circumſtances much more glorious. II. Cor. iii. 8, 9, 10, 11. Therefore this muſt have an outward initiating ſeal, as well as that; and as there can be no pretence of any other, it muſt be baptiſm. And this exceeds circumciſion, as there is nothing bloody in it, and as it admits females, and laſtly, as it expreſſes what we need, viz. cleanſing by the blood of Chriſt, more clearly.

Anſ. 2. The maxim of chriſtianity is, "give no offence in any thing, to Jew or Gentile." I. Cor. x. 32. II. Cor. vi. 3. But to ſtop circumciſion, and not replace it by ſome other form of a ſeal to the covenant of grace, would have been an inappeaſible offence to all Jews; eſpecially the moſt ſerious and godly of them. And it would have been offenſive to Gentiles, to call them under a covenant not ſo well endowed, as that by which they knew the Jews had ever been dignified. So it is contrary to an eſtabliſhed rule of the bible, to ſuppoſe circumciſion abrogated, and baptiſm not inſtituted in its place.

3. If baptiſm does not take the place of circumciſion, then the church is not ſo complete in her outward privileges, under Chriſt, as ſhe was under Moſes; but divine teſtimony affirms, the church is "complete in Chriſt." Col. ii. 10. Therefore baptiſm takes the place of circumciſion; and you find, in the 11th verſe, baptiſm is called chriſtian circumciſion, or the circumciſion of Chriſt, and in the 12th verſe this circumciſion is expreſsly called baptiſm.

4. If baptiſm imports the ſame things, and is of the ſame uſe now, as circumciſion under, the law then as 'tis certain circumciſion has ceaſed, baptiſm takes its place.

But, 1. Baptiſm imports the ſame things; for as none might cat the paſſover, till circumciſed, Exod. xii. 49. So the apoſtles divinely guided, always baptized their converts, as their viſible qualification for church ſtate, and privileges. As Acts ii. 41. Alſo circumciſion was then a ſeal of the covenant of grace. Rom. iv. 11. And it has been proved that baptiſm is ſo now. And when, I. Pet. iii. 21, ſays, "baptiſm doth now ſave us." He implies, 'tis a viſible witneſs of the ſalvation, which is in the covenant of grace, for its ſubjects.

2. Baptiſm is of the ſame uſe to us, as circumciſion was to them. For as circumciſion was the ordinance of admiſſion into the viſible church then; ſo is baptiſm now; therefore the apoſtles baptized thoſe they taught, as ſet apart for God. And they whom Peter baptized, were added to the Church. Acts ii. 41, 47. Circumciſion was the viſible badge of relation to God, and his Church; ſo is baptiſm now. Gal. iii. 27. "As many as are baptized have put on Chriſt." Therefore baptiſm anſwering the ſame purpoſes, ſucceeds to circumciſion.

5. Jeſus Chriſt could not be faithful in God's Houſe, the Church, as Moſes was, if when he put an end to circumciſion, he did not inſtitute baptiſm in its place; but he was faithful in the houſe of God, as Moſes was. Heb. iii. 2. Therefore he appointed baptiſm, as certainly as Moſes appointed circumciſion.

Obj. 1. The baptiſm of the bible, is called a being buried with Chriſt, and ſo means plunging.

Anſ. 1. Rom. vi. 4, ſays, "buried with him, by baptiſm into death." But there is but one ſort of Baptiſm in the bible, or in the world, that is into death; and that is ſpiritual baptiſm, or ſanctification; which is to the death of ſin only. Therefore buried with Chriſt in baptiſm, is not true of any baptiſm at all, by water.

Anſ. 2. Col. ii. 15. ſay, "buried with him in baptiſm." And it ſays alſo, "riſen with him," in the ſame baptiſm. But there is no baptiſm in the world, which implies death and reſurrection too, but baptiſm by the holy ſpirit. And the certain effect of this ſpiritual baptiſm is, union to, and not ſeparation from real chriſtians. I. Cor. xii. 13. "For by one ſpirit, we are all baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink into one ſpirit."

Obj. 2. But there is no command in the bible for baptizing children.

Anſ. 1. It is a reproach common to baptiſts, that they will not allow of fair ſcriptural conſequences. But we believe fair ſcriptural conſequences, are good ſcriptural authority. As

1. If God did once command his people to dedicate their children to him; and his mind has never changed; then 'tis the mind of God now, that his people ſhould dedicate their children to him; but if he has abrogated circumciſion, as has been proved; and inſtituted baptiſm in place of it, as has been proved; then we know 'tis the mind of God now, that his people ſhould dedicate their children in baptiſm. Now he has told us, his mind always was, that circumciſion ſhould ceaſe in the uſing. Col. ii. 21.22. And that baptiſm ſhould ſucceed to it, as has been proved, ſo that this alteration, ſhows no change in the mind of God, about it. And now the fair conſequence is, that his viſible people muſt dedicate their children to him in baptiſm, or ſink into the character of unbelievers, and diſobedient.

2. Tis a command of God, "If thou know not, go thy way forth by the footſteps of the flock." Cant. i. 8. But we know that the flock of God, for two thouſand years before Chriſt always dedicated their children to God, with acceptance, it being according to his expreſs command. And there is reaſon to judge, that when Chriſt commanded his followers to baptize all nations, he meant they ſhould baptize children; both becauſe they are a great part of all nations; and becauſe they had been always uſed to dedicate children of profeſſing parents; and he makes no exception about it. And when Peter directed the multitude of his hearers, to be baptized, every one of them. Acts ii. 38, 39. And inſtead of ſaying, but not your children, he adds, as a reaſon taken from divine commandment, "For the promiſe," meaning Abraham's covenant, "is to you and your children." And he implies, that the ſame eſtabliſhment extended to the Gentiles, as thoſe afar off, as faſt as they ſhould receive the ſame faith. And the fair conſequence of all this is, that believers ought to give up their children in baptiſm. Nor will it help the cauſe of ſuch as diſlike this concluſion, to wiſh there was a little alteration of the bible on this head,

Beſide, as we have reaſon to judge the apoſtles practiced infant baptiſm, becauſe they tell us they baptized whole houſholds, of which children are generally a part. And they had always uſed a like practice; and never gave a word of caution againſt admitting the children of chriſtians, with their parents, as they certainly would, if 'twas wrong. So we hiſtorically know, that many nations have practiced it, and do ſtill, viz. all who are called chriſtians, in Aſia and Africa, and divers nations in Europe. So that 'tis eaſy to ſee what it is to follow the foot-ſteps of the flock, in this caſe; and what they muſt expect, who diſregard this commandment, with its evidence.

Anſ. 2. Baptiſts ſeem to ſuppoſe that the bible favours their peculiar notions of baptiſm, which don't lie in baptizing profeſſing adults who were not baptized in infancy for that is our conſtant practice. But what is peculiar to baptiſts, is, firſt, to deny baptiſm to young children, even of profeſſing parents; for which there is not one word in the bible. And Secondly, to baptize adults, who have already been baptized in infancy; and the bible knows as little of this as the other. Now till theſe their two peculiar points become ſcriptural, which 'tis certain they never will, baptiſts ſhould be very ſparing in boaſting of favour from the bible.

3. I am now according to the methods propoſed to ſhew what were the contents of the covenant of grace as eſtabliſhed with Abraham. And I ſhall take notice only of two things contained in that covenant, and conſider them together.

1. The infant children of believing parents, are there declared to be in the covenant of grace, with their parents. And, 2. The ſeal of that covenant is there ordered by God to be applied to them. But it is neceſſary to ſet ſome things, relative to theſe points, in their true light, before I proceed to the points themſelves, as Baptiſts do not ſeem to notice them rightly.

Queſt. 1. How can any, either parents or children, be in the covenant of grace, without ſaving faith?

Anſ. 1. 'Tis certain ſome infants have been ſanctified from the womb. As Jer. i. 5. Alſo John the baptiſt. Luke i. 15. And what has been of that kind, certainly may be again, and there is reaſon to think, ſome are ſo ſtill. I know the word ſanctified, is ſometimes uſed only for ſequeſtration to divine uſe. But other expreſſions, in the caſe of Jeremiah, as well as the concurrent ſenſe of interpreters, make it evident enough, that Jeremiah had gracious ſanctification; and of courſe, infants are certainly capable of ſaving faith. And whoever knows, that the gift of faith, is totally a work of God; and that the difference of adult years, from infancy, in reſpect to the beſtowment of ſaving faith, is that it encreaſes oppoſition, and never furniſhes any concurrence; will doubtleſs allow that a ſtate of infancy, in itſelf, is of no weight at all, againſt ſaving faith being wrought.

Anſ. 2. Being in the covenant of grace, does not always imply ſaving faith, or any other ſaving grace. The covenant of grace has its outward court, juſt as the holy temple had, I. Kings, viii. 64, and many texts. And juſt as the godhead in Chriſt had the outward court of fleſh and blood, in his manhood; in which, tho' it was holy, was no divinity at all. So 'tis common for rich palaces, to have court-yards round them, containing things belonging to the palace, but not fit to be beſtowed in its interior apartments. So has the covenant of grace its outward court, and to this belongs the unſanctified children, houſes, cattle, fields, &c. of all the believers. Now I will prove that the covenant of grace, has ſuch outward court.

1. Every underſtanding chriſtian in the world, holds his houſe, cattle, all he has, are in the covenant of grace; how elſe ſhould he take hold of the truth and faithfulneſs of God, in prayer about them; but theſe can only be in ſuch outward court of that covenant.

2. This doctrine of an outward court to the covenant of grace, gives light about many ſcriptures. As John xv. 2. "Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, will be finally burned." But there are no ſuch branches in Chriſt, but theſe who are in this outward court of the covenant of grace, who are in Chriſt only by outward appearance, viſible ſtanding, or mere profeſſion. So alſo Matt. xv. 3. "theſe are the plants which God hath not planted," viz. in the inward ſpirit and grace of his covenant, and ſo "they muſt be rooted up." Therefore many may be in the covenant, without ſaving grace.

3. You know God often calls the children of Iſrael his people, as Exod. iii. 7, 10, and vii. 4, which neceſſarily implies, they were in the covenant of grace; and yet you know they were not in the ſpecial grace of that covenant generally. For they were a rebellious people, and God often threatens to caſt them off utterly. So it appears, they were only in this porch, or outward court of the covenant. But then the conſequence is, that perſons may be in the covenant of grace, without any ſaving grace.

4. 'Tis in this ſenſe God claims and owns the children of his covenant people, when they were generally fallen to idolatry; but not yet viſibly caſt off. As Ezek. xvi. 20.21, and xxiii. 37. "Ye have taken your ſons and daughters, which ye did bear unto me, and have ſlain my children, by cauſing them to paſs through the fire." viz. to Moloch. And the margin of the text refers to Gen. xvii. 7.11. where the covenant of grace was eſtabliſhed with Abraham and his infant ſeed; to ſhew the wickedneſs of this conduct. But theſe children, and indeed their parents too, were in God's covenant claim, only as they were in this outward court of the covenant of grace. Therefore parents and children may be in the covenant of grace without any ſaving grace; which was to be proved.

Queſt. 2. What are the privileges of young children in the covenant of grace?

Anſ. 1. God knows they are his creatures, and that he has required his people to dedicate them to him in his appointed way, and "he is ever mindful of his covenant." Pſal. iii. 5. And the pſalmiſt draws the conſequence. Pſal. cxv. 12, 13. "The Lord has been mindful of us, and will bleſs us. He will bleſs them that fear him, the ſmall with the great." So the Hebrew is. And if God's bleſſing ſmall children, as well as parents, is allowed to be a privilege, then the queſtion will be allowed to be anſwered, by all who duly regard the word of God.

Anſ. 2. The pſalmiſt held the privilege of a child in the covenant of grace, very great, when he ſaid, Pſal. lxxxvi. 16. "Oh turn to me, and have mercy on me, and ſave the ſon of thine hand-maid!" Importing, "my mother was in covenant with thee, ſhe gave me to thee, in thine own way." Now I pray grant me the privileges of that covenant, in which I was given up to thee at eight days old. Again he ſays. Pſal. cxvi. 16. "Oh Lord I am thy ſervant, I am thy ſervant, the ſon of thine handmaiden!" Importing, I am doubly bound to fidelity in thy ſervice; viz. by my own covenant obligations, and by the early dedication of my pious parent. Thoſe then who love the obligations of the covenant of grace, will hold it a privilege to be under them. Bathſheba alſo, as became a pious penitent, urges on King Lemuel, his duty, from the conſideration of the vows, by which ſhe had dedicated him to God, in his own way. And ſuch as hold urgent arguments to holineſs, a privilege, will allow their children privilege by that holy covenant in which they have been vowed to God. Samuel's piety and honors were his privilege, in conſequence of an early and pious dedication to God, in the covenant of grace. I. Sam. i. 11.

Anſ. 3. Godly parents have advantage to plead the covenant of grace for their children, given up in a covenant way. And if 'tis allowed to be a great privilege for children to have ſuch prayers made for them, which is peculiar to ſuch as have given up their children to God, in his own covenant way; then this is another anſwer to the queſtion.

Anſ. 4. Children given to God in his own covenant way, may always plead their outward covenant relation to God, for deliverance in any diſtreſs: As David did, Pſal. cxix. 94. "I am thine, ſave me." Such as are not addicted to plead promiſes, will hold this anſwer very light. All others will allow the weight of it.

Obj. But God hears no prayers but ſuch as proceed from ſaving faith.

Anſ. This objection proceeds from an antinomian principle; and indicates ignorance of the ſcriptures, and of the power of God. Prayer is firſt of all the language of nature in diſtreſs; and the God of nature hears it. For 'tis an aphoriſm of the kind bible. Iſa. xxv. 4. "He is a ſtrength to the needy in his diſtreſs." And he hears the cry of the ravens. Pſal. cxlvii. 9. The God of nature, hears the voice of nature in man and beaſt.

Anſ. 5. The Church of God holds itſelf bound, to exerciſe watchfulneſs, and careful inſpection, over the lives and manners, of ſuch as having been dedicated to God, are become the children of the church. As Pſal. xxxiv. 11. "Come ye children, hearken unto me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord." For 'tis a maxim with the church of God, "the things that are revealed belong to us, and to our children forever." Deut. xxix. 29. Therefore 'tis ſaid of Chriſt, the great head and patron of his Church, Iſa. xl. 11. "He ſhall feed his flock like a ſhepherd, He ſhall gather the lambs, with his arm, and carry them 〈…〉 boſom." And therefore Chriſt forbids his people to 〈◊〉 little children from coming to him, and intimated, they were under the watch and government of his church, by ſaying, "for of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven. Matt. xix. 14. Accordingly when Chriſt gave order to Peter how to treat his ſheep, he eſpecially charges him to feed his lambs. John xxi. 15. The inſpired words are. "boſke ta arnia mou." Which allude to the caſe of children in a natural family, where overſight and government, belong to feeding. And all ſuch as chuſe to have their children inſpected and well regulated, will certainly hold this a great privilege. And to this all children publicly dedicated, are of right always ſubject.

Anſ. 6. The conſideration of ſuch ſolemn dedication to God, has a tendency to ſolemnize and reſtrain the ſpirit and manners of ſuch children. And ſurely all advantage this way is a privilege. And for this reaſon, children ſhould be taught the nature of ſuch dedication.

Anſ. 7. The obligation ariſing to chriſtian parents, from ſuch ſolemn dedication is Eph. vi. 4, "bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." And every faithful parent eſteems his obligation this way a privilege, which centers in covenanted children.

Queſ. 3. What is it that is ſealed by a ſealing ordinance?

Anſ. 1. Never the immediate object. Perſons or children are no more ſealed in baptiſm, than the cloud was, in which was the rainbow, which was a ſeal of the covenant of grace in Noah's time. Gen. ix. 13, 14, 15. The immediate ſubject of baptiſm, is not at all morally or ſpiritually affected by that ordinance. The ſpirit of God may beſtow quickning, comfort, bleſſing, at the ſame time, to a believing parent, or a believing adult at the time of the adminſtration; as he ſometimes does in a clap of thunder: An earthquake; or a ſudden death. When the apoſtle ſays "Baptiſm doth now ſave us." I. Pet. iii. 20, 21. He tells us it is as Noah's ark ſaved him. The ark was a ſenſible mean of ſecurity from the flood: And eſpecially ſpeaking ſignal of future ſalvation by Chriſt. So baptiſm is a ſure evidence of pardon and ſalvation to be had; but baptiſm itſelf gives none of it. And ſo the apoſtle explains himſelf, when he ſays, "not the putting away of the Filth of the fleſh; but the anſwer," or correſpondence, "of a good conſcience:" in the covenanting agent. And this derives not all from the ordinance itſelf; but from the holy ſpirit of grace.

Anſ. 2. The only thing actually ſealed in baptiſm is the covenant of grace. Baptiſm is like every thing elſe in chriſtianity, "a witneſs to the truth." John xviii. 37. And ſo ſerves the ſame purpoſe as circumciſion did; which God himſelf has told us was a ſeal of the righteouſneſs of faith. Rom. iv. 11. It gives a certain preſent witneſs of the truth of chriſtianity. And ſo reminds every believer, of the certainty of the ground of his hope; and of the matter of his faith. And ſo by the frequency and believing uſe of it, chriſtians may hold faſt their confidence, and the rejoicing of their hope firm unto the end. Heb. iii. 6. Baptiſm is alſo a declarative ſeal, witneſs, and monitor, to the beholding world, as far as they are inſtructed enough to underſtand its ſpeaking import; it beſpeaks a certainly, in all the materials of the goſpel, and true religion. And ſo the goſpel kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt as antitype to that of David, "is eſtabliſhed forever as the Moon, and as a faithful witneſs in Heaven, Selah." Pſal. lxxxix. 37. And ſo by this ordinance, as a picture of his blood he witneſſeth alſo on the earth. According to, I. John, v. 8.

Now let us return to what was propoſed; viz. To ſhew that the contents of the covenant, with Abraham were, that infant children of believers, were declared to be in the covenant of grace, with their parents; and accordingly the ſeal of the covenant was ordered by God himſelf to be outwardly applied to them. And the firſt evidence I ſhall give of this affair is the letter of the text.

1. If the bible ſays, that God declared the children of believers to be in the covenant of grace, with their parents; and that God accordingly ordered the ſeal of that covenant to be applied to them; then ſuch children are in that covenant, and the ſeal of it muſt be outwardly applied to them: But the bible does ſay ſo; therefore ſuch children are in that covenant, and muſt have its ſeal applied to them. For Gen. xvii. 7. &c. ſays, "I will eſtabliſh my covenant between me and thee, and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations, for an everlaſting covenant, to be a God to thee, and thy ſeed after thee. And God ſaid unto Abraham thou ſhall keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy ſeed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye ſhall keep, between me and you, and thy ſeed after thee, every man child among you ſhall be circumciſed. And ye ſhall circumciſe the fleſh of your foreſkin, and it ſhall be a token of the covenant between me and you. And he that is eight days old, ſhall be circumciſed among you, every man child in your generations; he that is born in the houſe, or bought with money of any ſtranger, which is not of thy ſeed, he that is born in the houſe, and he that is bought with thy money, muſt needs be circumciſed, and my covenant, ſhall be in your fleſh for an everlaſting covenant; and the uncircumciſed manchild, whoſe fleſh of his foreſkin is not circumciſed, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant."

Now, Rom. xv. 4. ſays "whatever things were writen aforetime;" viz. as long ago as Abraham, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the ſcriptures might have hope." And to prove that this text refers to this eſtabliſhment with Abraham; the 8th verſe adds, "Now this I ſay, that Jeſus Chriſt was a miniſter of the circumciſion, for the truth of God." But then the covenant of circumciſion, was the truth of God; to be continued down to us Gentiles. And to prove it, the apoſtle adds, "to confirm the promiſes, made to the fathers." Pointing to this covenant with Abraham. And then gives the reaſon; "that the Gentiles might rejoice with his people," viz. in the enjoyment of the eſtabliſhment with Abraham. Now all who believe the bible muſt confeſs, that children were taken into the covenant of grace, with their parents, and that the ſeal of it was applied to them. And in the ſaid 15th chap. of Romans, the apoſtle proves, that theſe things were not ordered for Jews only; but eſpecially for Gentiles; for the time of the New-Teſtament; i. e. for us. But the holy ſpirit who guided the apoſtle, knew that circumciſion, in its jewiſh form, was never to take place with us: but that baptiſm, which is the chriſtian circumciſion, was to be in uſe now, as has been proved. The conſequence is, that the children of believing parents, are in the covenant of grace, with ſuch parents, and by them to be given up to God in baptiſm.

2. If the plaineſt ſenſe of Act. ii. 39. "be baptized for the promiſe is to you and your children," is, that children are under the outward adminiſtration of the covenant of grace, if their parents are in the ſpirit and grace of that covenant; and that therefore the ſeal of it, is to be outwardly applied to them; then this is good authority for our practice; for ſcripture ought always to be underſtood in the plaineſt ſenſe that is conſiſtent with the whole. But that this is the plaineſt conſiſtent ſenſe of the text; I ſhall now prove.

1. 'Tis exactly agreeable to the letter of the text, as all may ſee, if they read impartially.

2. 'Tis exactly agreeable to the practice of all God's people, for two thouſand years before that time.

3. As Peter knew the Jews were tenacious of their religious rites; ſo you may ſee, if you pleaſe, that Peter who perfectly knew what his hearers were uſed to; would not give them offence at the new chriſtian religion; by cutting off their children from their uſual privilege; but lets them know in this firſt chriſtian ſermon, that this new religion extended privilege to them and to their children juſt as the bible always did.

4. Peter knew the will of God, was "give no offence to Jew or Gentile, or the church of God." He knew alſo that the moment he gave the leaſt ſuſpicion, that this new religion, was ſo much narrower, and leſs glorious in outward privileges, than what they had always been ſubject to, as to exclude all their children, from covenant privilege; they would immediately renounce it, and conceive offence not to be removed. And as he knew there was no ground for this offence; but that they were all under the ſame covenant, to which they were always ſubject; He therefore addreſſes them in language they had always heard; importing "you and your children ſtand related to God, and his covenant, juſt as you, and they always did; God is not altered, the covenant is the ſame, the promiſe is to you and to your children, juſt as it always was. And 'tis evident they underſtood him ſo; and ſo all proceeded, without one word of objection.

5. To conſtrue this text as baptiſts do, is to ſet aſide the plain literal ſenſe of the text, although it perfectly conſiſts with the whole bible; it alſo implies that the mind of God is altered ſince Abraham's time, which is atheiſtical. It implies alſo that the covenant with Abraham was not the covenant of grace, contrary to the above demonſtrations. If then we would avoid ſuch ſentiments, let us allow the text to ſpeak honeſtly its own meaning; and then we ſhall adopt the mind of God, plainly expreſt in it.

6. Peter had now a fine advantage to have taught his hearers otherwiſe; viz. to have told them, "you are now under another diſpenſation, and muſt not expect any old Jewiſh matter to be continued to you" &c. It was a fine opportunity to advance the baptiſts notion of this text; for his hearers were ſoft and ductile, fit to receive any thing from their ſpiritual father; it was alſo a time for new things to take place. Beſide, he was divinely bound to ſpeak the thing, as it was. And doubtleſs, but two reaſons can be deviſed, why he delivered himſelf as he did, viz. becauſe it was true, and becauſe the reverſe was not true. But indeed the apoſtle was not ſo far advanced in the light of modern times, as to ſee reaſon to correct a groſs error in divine conduct, in putting ſuch ſubjects into his holy covenant, as were no way fit for that ſituation.

3. Mark x. 13. 14, ſays, They brought young children to Chriſt; be ſure not to be baptized; for he baptized not. John iv. 2. Reaſons for which have been given above. But Matt. xix. 13. ſays, "that he ſhould put his hands on them and pray." Mark x. 13, ſays, "that he ſhould touch them" and the 16th verſe ſhews they meant that he ſhould bleſs them; which he did. But this bleſſing muſt come from the treaſury of the covenant of grace. But we are ſure, a bleſſing from the covenant of grace, could not be beſtowed on ſuch as were not in that covenant. For a divine rule is, "give not that which is holy to dogs." Matt. vii. 6. But then tis evident theſe children of his covenant people, were in the covenant of grace. And though he did not baptize them, he required them to be brought to him, to receive a covenant bleſſing. And if there is no way for his people to copy out this inſtruction viſibly now, but by baptiſmal dedication, according to the revealed mind of him who changeth not; then 'tis their duty, ſo to dedicate them. And though there were ſome even then, who oppoſed this practice of bringing children to Chriſt for a covenant bleſſing; yet it was done; and received great encouragement by Chrſt's being much diſpleaſed with thoſe who oppoſed it; and alſo by his command, equally binding now as then. "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not." And his reaſon for it is of force now, "for of ſuch is the kingdom of heaven." And 'tis of no importance in the caſe, whether by "kingdom of heaven." is deſigned the church militant or triumphant; ſince they are both of one nature. And if children belong to either, they are entitled at leaſt, to the privileges of the former. And if Jeſus Chriſt now owns little children to belong to the kingdom of heaven; if you are not ſure of their ſalvation, you are the more ſure they belong to the viſible church. Therefore who is he that ſhall dare deny them?

4. If the principle of forbidding a dedication of children in baptiſm, tends to prevent the millennium, or glorious ſtate of the church in this world, in which the prophecies of ſcripture ſo generally centre; then 'tis an unſcriptural principle; but it has ſuch a palpable tendency. For in the millennium all nations are to flow into the church of God; Iſa. ii. 2. But children are a great part of all nations; and the hope of the people, both for church and ſtate. And to exclude them all from ſo much as the outward court of the church of God, is to ſhut them all up viſibly in the devil's kingdom: for all who are not of the viſible church, are, as to their viſible ſtanding, in the kingdom of the devil. And to place all children there has a direct tendency to prevent all nations ever to become, entirely the kingdom of Chriſt. Whereas if they were dedicated to him, according to his own plan; and ſo put in his way; he would be holden by his covenant to take care of them; for he is ever mindful of his covenant. Pſal. iii. 5. They would be in the way of religious inſpection and regulation, inſtruction, prayers, every mean, private and public, appointed to ripen them for divine ſervice. But to exclude them from all thoſe, has an awful tendency to keep them out of God's appointed way, and to prevent the deſigns of his grace in this world. And ſo is an unſcriptural and antiſcriptural principle. I am ſenſible antinomians who are hearty enemies to the laws and regulations of God's houſe, will eaſily harden themſelves againſt this reaſoning; for at bottom, they hate a religion which confronts their looſe and licentious ſpirit. But the people of God may comfort themſelves, ſuch unhappy people are more againſt God and the bible than againſt any of his people. And we may be ſure, divine truth will have weight, with all whoſe hearts are found in God's ſtatutes.

5. Children were in the covenant of grace, and ſo in the outward court of the church, under the former diſpenſation, by God's own order; this has been proved and can't be denied. But the ſame covenant of grace ſtill ſtands, and God is of the ſame mind; therefore in right, they are there now.

Obj 1. But the ſame word of God ſays "believe and be baptized." Whereas children can't believe; and therefore ought not to be baptized.

Anſ. 1. It has been proved, that children have believed, and of courſe may be often made believers

Anſ. 2. This is no more a bar to their dedication in baptiſm, than it was in caſe of circumciſion, little children are as able to believe now, as they were when God declared them to be in the covenant of grace of old. 'Tis no mark of one being taught of God, to be diſpoſed to dictate his maker; or diſpute his revealed will.

Anſ. 3. When little children are denied baptiſm, on this principle, that they can't believe. It looks like an evidence of unregeneracy; for it ſeems to imply that an adult, can contribute ſomething toward getting true faith; but an infant cannot, for want of abilities, which ſhews ignorance of the nature of human depravity, and of the power of God For faith is ſolely the gift of God Eph. ii. 8. And infants certainly have not ſo ſtrong oppoſition to this work; and adults as certainly never concur in it. Rom viii. 7

Anſ. 4. God knew the ſtate of infants with reſpect to believing when he connected circumciſion with faith; for Abraham believed before circumciſion was commanded. Gen. xv. 6. And all parents of his progeny believed the great doctrines of revealed religion, in thoſe days. And ſo dedicated their children in circumciſion. And this fully explains the doctrine of "believe and be baptized." The command lies on the agent, not the infant ſubject.

Anſ. 5. We inſiſt on the principle "believe and be baptized," as ſtrictly as any; but we inſiſt on it only where God originally required it; viz. in the agent, who is bound by the command, and who can obey, and accordingly deſires baptiſm, for his child, if he is a parent; as a part of himſelf, and as what God requires of him, as his own, and to be rendered to him in his own way. We therefore keep his commandment exactly according to the original ſtate of it. Whereas baptiſts inſiſt on it, where it never was required, in the original eſtabliſhment of the covenant to which all theſe things belong. For God ſaid not a word of faith in the infant ſubject of circumciſion; but in the agent, the parent, or actor in the affair; who feels the bond of duty, and who being himſelf dedicated to God, means to dedicate theſe branches of himſelf alſo, viz. his children.

Obj 2. But little children know nothing of what whey are doing; have no ſenſe of the affair.

Anſ. They do nothing in the affair, and have nothing to do. They are not the ſubjects of command about it; nor have any duty to do in it. But they have full as much ſenſe about the matter now, as thoſe had who were circumciſed in infancy, when this covenant and its ſeal were eſtabliſhed of old. And the author of the whole ſcheme, knew full as much about it at firſt, as any body does now. He knew how this teſt of allegiance would operate through all generations. But as he did order it; ſo we mean to obey his revealed will without diſputing it with him; without charging him with error, or abſurdity in it; or ſubſtituting our own imagination about it. For we know "the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. xxix. 29.

6. If the letter of the apoſtolick commiſſion, doth not exclude children, as it certainly would if it was the mind of God to exclude them; but includes them with their parents; then we ought to include them, and allow them to be the ſubjects of that witneſſing ordinance, which God has appointed for them; but that commiſſion does naturally include them; therefore we muſt include them, and apply the ordinance of baptiſm to them, as God has directed. The words of that commiſſion are "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them." Now if 'tis certain and well known that children are always a great part of all nations; then they are not excluded, when the command ſays all nations, but neceſſarily included; ſince there is no exception at all made. Beſide if the command had been "circumciſe all nations," the admiſſion of children, could not have been doubted; and be ſure 'tis as evident they are to be admitted now. For the inſtitutor, and his authority are the ſame; the covenant is the ſame; and baptiſm is exactly in place of circumciſion, as has been proved. Therefore the children of viſible chriſtans, are in the covenant of grace with their parents; and by divine direction the ſeal of that covenant is to be applied to them.

7. The laſt evidence I ſhall adduce for the point, is the evident import of Rom. xi. 17. "If ſome of the Jews, were broken off from the former ſtate of the church and gentiles were grafted in their place, and ſo gentiles under the goſpel, partake with ſuch jews as believed, and ſo were not broken off, in the root and fatneſs of that former ſtate of the church, &c. Then the following things are certainly true, viz.

1. That by olive tree, in the cloſe of this text, is meant the church of God, in which thoſe Jews who believed, and ſo were not ſtill broken off, ſtill remained. 2. That when gentiles were converted under the goſpel, they were grafted into the ſame church ſtate, with thoſe Jews who ſtood by faith, and were never broken off. 3. And ſo the believing gentiles, did with thoſe Jews, who were never broken off, equally partake of the root, i. e. of the church privileges derived from Abraham, or the inſtitution eſtabliſhed with him; and of the fatneſs, i. e. the promiſes, ordinances, and bleſſings, of that good olive tree, the church of God. All which may be reduced to the two following heads. 1. That all gentile chriſtians, are grafted in, and belong to that church which was firſt founded on the covenant made with Abraham, and which was commanded to uſe circumciſion, as the viſible ſeal of the covenant. And ſo all gentile chriſtians came to be entitled to all the ordinances and privileges of the church, down from Abraham. But circumciſion of children was one of them. Therefore, ſince God has only altered the form of this ordinance, which alſo the apoſtle knew, when he wrote this text; gentile chriſtians, being now in the ſame church, are equally bound to dedicate children in baptiſm, as Gods people of old were in circumciſion. 2. As this inſertion of all gentile believers, into the ſame church, is called grafting; ſo it implies that their children are ſet in with them; juſt as the buds of a cyon are ſet into the ſtock, with the cyon, as parts of itſelf. And as the cyon, with its buds all partake of the ſap of their ſtock; ſo chriſtians with their children partake in the ſame privilege of religious dedication by baptiſm, as the people of God, did of old by circumciſion. 'Tis certain, God never had, or deſigned to have, more than one church. There never was more than one ſuch good olive tree. The lamb never had, or will have more than one wife, Rev. xxi. 9. The covenant of grace, is her only charter of priviledges; and baptiſm is her only initiating ſeal; the firſt public witneſs of the truth, durableneſs, and certainty, of her grand charter. And as circumciſion of their children was part of the fatneſs of that ſtate of the good olive tree; we being grafted into the ſame olive tree, have this branch of her fatneſs, in chriſtian baptiſm. And ſuch as daily attend to, and regard this word of God, may be fully ſatisfied in the concluſion.

4. And this brings me in the laſt place, to ſhew what proviſion God has made for the propagation of theſe contents.

1. Baptiſmal dedication is one mean to propagate and diſtinguiſh the viſible church, and ſo to attain the end and deſign of the covenant of grace in this world. As circumciſion was an ingredient in the wall of ſeparation, between the church of God, of old, and the heathen world, ſo is baptiſm now; for all who are not baptized, are heathen in their viſible ſtanding. When the apoſtle Peter had declared. Act. ii. 39. That baptiſm belonged to believers and their children; juſt as circumciſion did, from Abraham down to that very day, in which he delivered this doctrine; he afterwards compares baptiſm to Noah's ark, ſo that as the ark was a mean and pledge of ſafety to Noah and his family; juſt ſo he ſays, baptiſm doth now ſave us. I. Pet. iii. 21. But intimates at the ſame time, 'tis not the mere formal action, that does it, any more that Noah and his family were ſaved from the flood, merely by the ark, which if God had not upheld and kept, muſt have foundered by the weather and the flood. But baptiſmal dedication, is like the ark, a mean and pledge of ſafety and preſervation to the church of God. 'Tis of God's own appointing; and by it, his viſible church is diſtinguiſhed, from all who do not practically own the true God. And as he owns and honors his own appointments; ſo this ordinance, as the witneſſing ſeal of his covenant, and mark of his people, is evidence of his promiſſed-fidelity, in watching over them, and preſerving them, as his people and church, from final ruin in this world. Even the gates of hell, can't prevail to that effect. Mat. vi. 18. Nay the church which is faithful in theſe obſervances "ſhall be eſtabliſhed forever as the moon, and as a faithful witneſs in heaven, Selah Pſal. lxxxix. 37.

2. Another mean of divine appointment, for perpetuating the deſigns of the covenant of grace, in this world, is family inſtruction, and government. Therefore Deut. vi. 7. After referring to the eſtabliſhment with Abraham in ſeveral points, ſays, "Thou ſhalt teach them diligently to thy children." And to fix a ſolemn engagement on them, to do ſo, adds 15th verſe. Leſt the anger of the Lord thy God, be kindled againſt thee, and be deſtroy thee from off the face of the earth". Which implies that if they were faithful in this duty of family inſtruction, it ſhould be a mean of their preſervation, as a church, and people of God, on the face of the earth. To which the apoſtle, long ſince, refers Eph vi. 4. "Bring them, your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Nay the wiſdom of God has determined both means and end. Prov. xxii. 6. Train up a child in the way he ſhould go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it And God has added the chriſtian confirmation. II. Tim iii. 15. "From a child thou haſt known the holy ſcriptures, which are able to make thee wiſe unto ſalvation" And the holy ſpirit in giving laws for the church's health and preſervation, ſays Prov. xxix. 15. "The rod and reproof give wiſdom; but a child left to himſelf, bringeth his mother to ſhame." Therefore, 17th verſe adds "correct thy ſon." And the ſame divine councel ſays, "he that ſpareth the rod, hateth his ſon". Prov. xiii. 24. And, be ſure, the want of ſuch meaſures ruined Eli's Houſe I. Sam. ii. 13. As ſurely then, as "the reproofs of inſtruction are the way of life," Prov. vi. 23. So ſurely, family inſtruction and government, are a mean appointed by God, to preſerve and perpetuate his church upon earth.

3. Another mean for accompliſhing the deſign of the covenant of grace, and the laſt I ſhall name is eccleſiaſtical diſcipline. For as family diſcipline is for the members of the family; ſo church diſcipline is for all the members of the church.

1. If then the children of profeſſing chriſtians, are in the outward court of the covenant of grace; and ſo under its outward adminiſtration; then they are within the pale of the viſible church. The former has been proved, and the latter follows of courſe. The common objection is, then they ought to partake of all ordinances; but 'tis not ſo. An infant heir at law, has right to an eſtate; or a crown; but he can't inherit, and poſſeſs it, 'till of lawful age. So a baptized infant member of the church, can't actually enjoy full communion 'till evidence of knowledge, faith, and holineſs, qualifies him according to the laws of the viſible church. II. Cor. xiii. 5. Examine yourſelves, whether ye be in the faith, prove your own ſelves." And all who can do this, may eat and drink I. Cor. xi. 28. 'Tis certain that all circumciſed children of old, were of the viſible church. For in the firſt inſtitution of that ordinance, God gave a rule to run through all ages of the law — "The uncircumciſed manchild, ſhall be cut off from his people" Gen. xvii. 14. But he could not be cut off from the church by want of circumciſion, unleſs circumciſion conſtituted memberſhip. And the Pſalmiſt who knew the nature of church ſtate, in thoſe days, ſays Pſal. cii. 28. "The children of thy ſervants ſhall continue, and their ſeed ſhall be eſtabliſhed before thee." But as God is the ſame, his mind the ſame, the church the ſame, and the covenant on which it ſtands the ſame; ſo of courſe children are in the outward court of the church now. And to this purpoſe, the apoſtle is quite full. "The bleſſing of Abraham" Part of which was circumciſion of his ſeed, and their conſequent priviledges; "is come on the gentiles;" that is on us now; "through Jeſus Chriſt" Gal. iii. 14. The apoſtle Peter therefore had good reaſon to preach to viſible chriſtians. The promiſe is to you and to your children. Act. ii. 39.

2. As all baptized children are in the outward court of the church; ſo of right, they are under the care, overſight & diſcipline of the church; juſt as children of a private family, are, as to their Parents. And as 'tis of dangerous conſequence, for Parents to neglect this duty; ſo 'tis for a church to neglect the diſcipline of her baptized members. This kind of conduct ruined Eli's houſe. Jeſus Chriſt ſat an example for his church, when in giving Peter charge about his fold, he eſpecially commands him to feed his lambs; but feeding implies government. Yea, Chriſt himſelf took young children in his arms. Mar. x. 16. And as the out door members of his church, beſtowed a covenant bleſſing on them, and was much diſpleaſed with thoſe who oppoſed, 14th verſe.—As certainly therefore, as jewiſh children, were within the pale of the church, and under its government; as has been proved; ſo certainly are baptized children now. So Act. iii. 25, tells us, "ye are the children of the covenant, God made with the fathers, ſaying to ABRAHAM, in thy ſeed, ſhall all the kingdoms of the earth be bleſſed;"

3. If God claims the children of his people, as his children and ſervants; then they are jubject to the diſcipline, which he has inſtituted in his church; but he does ſo claim them. For he ſays, Ezek. xvi. 21. "Thou haſt cauſed my children to paſs through the fire, viz. to Molock, thy ſons and thy daughters which thou haſt born to me." 20th verſe. And in Lev. xxv. 41, 42. "They are my ſervants." Alſo, Pſal. cxxv. 3 "Children are the heritage of the Lord." But heritage, is character for the church. Joel iii. 2. Therefore they are as ſurely ſubject to the diſcipline of God's Houſe, the church; as that there is any diſcipline there. Or as children and ſervants are under diſcipline in a family.

4. If God owns the ſame relation to children in the church, as to their parents there; then they are equally under diſcipline there; but he does own the ſame relation; Ezek. xviii. 4. "All ſouls are mine, as the ſoul of the father, ſo alſo the ſoul of the ſon is mine." And the following words inflict puniſhment equally on both, in caſes of diſobedience.—Therefore the children of the church, are equally ſubject to diſcipline, as parents there.

5. All perſons, in the viſible church are, as to their ſtanding in the kingdom of Chriſt; but as the branch and the ſtock belong together; ſo 'tis abſurd to ſuppoſe their children, given to God in baptiſm, are in the kingdom of ſatan, as to their outward relative ſtanding; yet 'tis evident, the kingdom of Chriſt, and that of ſatan include all. Therefore children given to God in baptiſm, and ſo being of the Church, as to their relative ſtanding, are of courſe under the inſpection and diſcipline of the church.

6. If baptiſed children are not of the church, and ſo under diſcipline, the church will not be able to give account according to Heb. ii. 13. "Behold I and the children which God hat given me."

7. If the known and allowed diſtinction, of viſible and inviſible church, is founded on matter of fact, then there are thoſe truly of the church who are not of it, as a ſpiritual and inviſible body. And as the bible teaches, and it has been proved, that baptized children are of the church; ſo theſe are of it as viſible in diſtinction from the ſpiritual and inviſible ſtate of that corporation; and of courſe ſuch children are objects of the care and government of the church as a ſpiritual and truly chriſtian corporation.

8. If all diſciples are of the church, and ſubject to diſcipline, then baptized children are ſo; Act. xv. 10, calls thoſe diſciples who actually endured circumciſion; but in general, only children were circumciſed from Abraham to the apoſtles; and we have proved baptiſm, to be in place of circumciſion. As therefore circumciſed children were diſciples then; 'tis equally evident that baptized ones are ſo now; and of courſe, they are of the church, and under its inſpection and diſcipline. For 'tis the claim of all corporations, to govern and regulate their own ſubjects.

9. If the church in both ſtates of it, had one and the ſame lord and head; and he changeth not, Mal. iii. 6, but is of one mind, and none can turn him. Job xxiii. 13. Then as evidently as we find circumciſed children, under the overſight and diſcipline of his church formerly; ſo certainly baptized ones, are equally under inſpection and government of the church now. But the apoſtle aſcribes the calling and forming of both ſtates of his church to the ſame head and lord. Rom. ix. 24: Therefore ſubjects of the chriſtian circumciſion are equally under the inſpection and diſcipline of the church now.

10. If Abraham, the father of believers did "command his children and houſehold after him, to keep the way of the Lord." Then 'tis the duty of a chriſtian church, as conſiſting of his children, to copy the example of that patriarch. But he did do ſo; and God approved him in it. Gen. xviii. 19. Therefore a chriſtian church, as Abraham's children, ought to follow his ſteps.

11. If for baptized children to be under diſcipline in the church, is one mean to form them for ſucceſſion in the chriſtian church, and other uſeful offices; then 'tis the will of God, and the duty of the church, to exerciſe it; but 'tis as evidently one mean for thoſe ends; as training up a child in the way he ſhould go, is a mean of his walking in it afterward. According to Prov. xxii. 6.

12. If when God ſaid, "I will be a God to thee and thy ſeed. Gen. xvii. 7. Heb. viii. 10. He did at leaſt ſecure all outward bleſſings and privileges, to the children of the faithful; then, if the overſight and regulation of a chriſtian church, in the government of their children, is a bleſſing and privilege; it was the deſign of God originally, and of courſe, the duty of the church, ſo to treat their baptized children. But the former is true, and ſo of courſe muſt be the latter.

13. If ſuch care and government, is implied in God's being the God of Abraham's ſeed, which includes believers children; then they are under ſuch care and government in the church; for be ſure, God has government 〈◊〉 all that are in covenant with him. And 'tis as ſure, that a church under that government, and who mean to be followers of God as dear children, muſt, in fidelity excerciſe it over all baptized ſubjects of the ſame covenant.

14. If training up a child in the way he ſhould go, implies diſcipline, and the church are bound by this command, 〈◊〉 a law on every parent, then the church muſt exerciſe diſcipline, on all their baptized children, or be diſobedient

15. If baptized children, are under the bound of the covenant of grace, as has been proved; then they muſt 〈…〉 the rod of diſcipline; but they are under the bond of the covenant, both as given up to God; and as he calls them his own children; therefore they muſt paſs under the rod of diſcipline. For God has connected theſe together. 〈◊〉 xx. 37.

16. The church is God's family, Eph. iii. 15. There is therefore equal reaſon for diſcipline over all that belong to it; as in any natural family.

17. If diſcipline in a natural family is a privilege; then in the church it is part of that fatneſs, which every, chriſtian church derives from the olive tree into which it is grafted. Rom. xi. 17.

18. As "there is one body," the church, one Lord, one faith, one God and father of all" churches, in all ages, who is above all," and ſo has right excluſively to order every thing, "and is through all" from the beginning of the world, to the end of it; "and in all" his people and churches; Eph. iv. 4, 5.6. And as this one God, is of one unalterable mind, and has ſeen fit in his wiſdom, to eſtabliſh a church in the world; and calls it his family; and has appointed its rules, and internal government; and gave the ſum of theſe to Abraham, and gave aſſurance to us all, that he ſhould never depart from that plan; but maintain it for ſubſtance, through all ages to the end of the world; and as the public dedication of children, and their being ſubject to chriſtian overſight, and diſcipline in his church, are parts of that plan which unchangeable uniformity has preſcribed, and determined ſhall continue, and be obſerved by his people, in all times and places; ſo 'tis certainly ſafer, and more honorable as well as peaceful, for us, to be ſubject to his pleaſure; and in every thing learn to ſay "thy will be done."

The END.