A

REPLY,

SIR,

In a LETTER to a FRIEND.

&c.

Acknowledge the receipt of your Letter on the 22 of laft March, and with

it Mr Clark's Defence of the Divine Right of Infant-Baptifm, &c. which I have fince curforily read over; for I thought it a too great waste of time to give it a fecond reading. Nor will my engagement in a work of greater importance permit me to write a fet and laboured anfwer to it; nor am I willing to bestow so much time and pains as are neceffary to cleanse that Augean stable, and remove all the dirt and rubbish this writer has collected together. The remarks I made in reading, I here fend you. At first setting out, I foon found I must expect to be dealt rudely and roughly with, and accordingly prepared myself for it; and I affure you, Sir, I was not disappointed.

The firft chapter of my book, which the above Gentleman has undertook to answer, is fhort, and only an introduction, obferving the author's title, method, and occafion of writing the pamphlet before me. In Mr Clark's Reply to which I obferve; 1. That he is difpleafed at calling the ordinance of baptism as truly and properly adminiftered, Believer's-baptism, and the pretended administration of it, to infants, Infant-fprinkling; whereas this is calling things by their proper names: it is with great propriety, we call baptifm as administered to believers, the proper subjects of it, Believer's-baptifm; and with the fame propriety: we call that which is adminiftered to infants, Infant-fprinkling; from the nature of the action performed, and the persons on whom it is performed. Does this Gentleman think, we shall be fo complaifant to fuit our language and way of speaking to his mistaken notion and practice? though indeed we too often do, through the common use of phrases which obtain. 2. He is unwilling to allow of any increase of the Baptift intereft in New England, either at Bofton or in the country; whereas I am credibly informed, and you, Sir, I believe, can attest VOL. II. 3 G

the

the truth of it, that there have been confiderable additions to the Baptist interest at Boston; and that many hundreds in the country have been baptized within a few years. 3. He fays, it is an egregious miftake, that the minifters of NewEngland applied to Mr Dickinson (the author of the pamphlet I wrote againft) to write in favour of Infant-fprinkling; and he is certain that not one of the minifters in Boston made application to him, (which was never affirmed,) and is perfuaded it was not at the motion of any minifters in New-England, that he wrote his Dialogue, but of his own mere motion; and yet he is obliged to correct himself by a marginal note, and acknowledge that it was wrote through ministerial influence. 4. This writer very early gives a fpecimen of his talent at reasoning; from the rejection of Infant-baptifm, as an human invention, he argues to the rejection of baptifm itself, as fuch; that if Infant-baptifm is intirely an human invention, and a rite not to be observed, then baptifm itself is an human invention, and not to be observed: this is an argument drawn up fecundum artem, like a master of arts; and to pretend to answer fo ftrong an argument, and set aside such a masterly way of reasoning, would be weakness indeed! 5. It being obferved of the Dialogue-writer, "that he took care, not to put fuch "arguments and objections into the mouth of his antagonist as he was not able "to answer;" this Gentleman rifes up, and blusters at a great rate, and defies the most zealous, learned, and fubtil of the Antipædobaptists to produce any other arguments and objections against Infant-baptifm, for matter or fubftance, different from, or of greater weight, than those produced in the Dialogue; but afterwards lowers his topfail, and fays, that the design of the author of that pamphlet was to represent in a few plain words, the most material objections against Infant-baptifm, with the proper answers to them; and at last owns, that a great deal more has been faid by the Antipædobaptifts.

The Second chapter, you know, Sir, treats of " the confequences of embracing Believer's - baptifm; fuch as, renouncing Infant-baptism, vacating "the covenant, and renouncing all other ordinances of the gospel;" that Christ must have forfaken his church for many ages, and not made good the promife of his prefence, and that there now can be no baptifm in the world. In Mr Clark's Reply to what I have faid on those heads, I obferve the following things.

The first confequence is the renunciation of Infant-baptifm; which confequence, to put him out of all doubt and pain, about my owning or not owning it, I readily allow, follows upon a perfon's being sprinkled in infancy, embracing adult-baptifm by immerfion; in which he is to be juftified, the one being an invention of man's, the other according to the word of God; nor is

there

BAPTISM. there any thing this Gentleman has faid, that proves fuch a renunciation to be an evil.

1. He is very wrong in fuppofing it must be my intention, that the age of a perfon, or the time of receiving baptifm, are effential to the ordinance. The Antipædobaptifts do not confine this ordinance to any age, but admit old or young to it, if proper fubjects; let a man be as old as Methuselah, if he has not faith in Christ, or cannot give a satisfactory account of it, he will not be admitted to this ordinance by reafon of his age; on the other hand, if a little child is called by grace, and converted, and gives a reason of the hope that is in it, of which there have been inftances; fuch will not be refused this ordinance of baptifm. The effentials to the right administration of baptism, amongst other things, are, that it be performed by immerfion, without which it cannot be baptism; and that it be adminiftered upon a profeffion of faith; neither of which are to be found in Infant-fprinkling.

2. It is in vain and to no purpose in this writer to urge, that infants are capable of baptism; so are bells, and have been baptized by the Papifts. But it is faid, infants are capable of being cleansed by the blood of Chrift; of being regenerated; of being entered into covenant, and of having the feal of it adminif tered to them. And what of all this? are they capable of understanding the nature, defign, and use of the ordinance, when administered to them? are they capable of profeffing faith in Chrift, which is a pre-requifite to this ordinance? are they capable of anfwering a good confcience towards God in it? are they capable of fubmitting to it in obedience to the will of Chrift, from a love to him, and with a view to his glory? they are not. But,

3. It seems, in baptifm, infants are dedicated unto God; wherefore to renounce Infant-baptifm, is for a man to renounce his folemn dedication to God; and much is said to prove that parents have a Right to dedicate their children to him. It will be allowed, that parents have a right to devote or dedicate their children to the Lord; that is, to give them up to him in prayer; or to pray for them, as Abraham did for lshmael, that they may live in his fight; and it is their duty to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but they have no direction to baptize them, nor warrant to dedicate them by baptism; nor is baptifm an ordinance of dedication, either of a man's felf, or of others; a dedication ought to be previous to baptism; and Believers first give up themselves to the Lord, and then are baptized in his name.

4. After all, a renunciation of baptifm in infancy must be a matter of great impiety, becaufe witches are folicited by the Devil to renounce it, in order to their entering into confederacy with them. I thought, Sir, your country of

New-England had been cured of these fooleries about witchcraft, and diabolical confederacies long ago, but I find the diftemper continues. This argument, I own, is unanswerable by me; I must confefs myself quite a ftranger to this dark bufinefs.

5. What the story of Mr Whiston is told for, is not easy to say; fince it seems, he did not renounce his Infant-baptism: it looks, by the reference, as if it was intended to fuggeft, that an Antitrinitarian could not fo well fhelter himself among a people of any denomination, as the Baptifts; whereas the ordinance as administered by them, as strongly militates against such a principle, as it does by being administered by Pædobaptifts: but it may be, it is to recommend a fpirit of moderation among us, to receive unbaptized persons into our communion by this example; but then unhappy for this writer, fo it is, that the congregation Dr Foster was paftor of, and Mr Whiston joined himself to, is, and always was of the Pædobaptift denomination, and have for their prefent minifter one of the Prefbyterian perfuafion.

The Second confequence of receiving the principle of adult-baptism, and acting up to it, is, vacating the covenant between God and the perfon baptized in infancy, into which he was brought by his baptifm.

Now you will observe, Sir, 1. That Mr Clark has offered nothing in proof of infants being brought into covenant with God, by baptifm; and indeed I cannot see how he can confiftently with himself undertake it; fince he makes covenant relation to God, the main ground of infants right to baptifm; and therefore they must be in it before their baptifm, and confequently are not brought into it by it; wherefore fince they are not brought into covenant by it, that cannot be vacated by their renouncing of it.

2. It being observed, that no man can be brought into the covenant of grace by baptifm, fince it is from everlasting, and all interested in it were fo early in covenant, and confequently previous to their baptifm; this writer fets himself with all his might and main to oppose this fentiment, that the covenant of grace was from everlasting; this, he says, is unfcriptural, irrational, and contrary to fcripture. But if Chrift was fet up from everlasting as mediator; for only as fuch could he be fet up; if there was a promise of eternal life made before the world began, and this promife was in Chrift, who then existed as the federal head and reprefentative of his people, in whom they were chosen fo early, to receive all promises and grace for them; and if grace was given to them in him before the world was, and they were blessed with all spiritual bleffings in him fo early; then, furely, there must be a covenant tranfaction between the Father and the Son on their account fo early; for could there be all

Prov. viii 22.

b Titus i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 1.

2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. i. 3,4.

all this and no covenant fubfifting? The diftinction between a covenant of redemption and a covenant of grace, is without any foundation in the word of God. Nor is this notion irrational; two parties were fo early exifting, when the covenant was made; Jehovah the Father was one, and the Son of God the other, in the name of his people; who, though they had not then a perfonal, yet had a reprefentative being in Chrift their head; and this was fufficient for them to have grace given them in him before the world was.

His metaphyfical arguments from eternal acts being imminent, will equally militate against eternal election, as against an eternal covenant; and perhaps this writer has as little regard to the one, as he has to the other: nor is this notion contrary to fcripture; for though the covenant is called a new and fecond covenant, yet only with refpect to the former administration of it, under the legal difpenfation; and both administrations of it, under the law and under the gofpel, are only fo many exhibitions and manifeftations of the covenant under different forms, which was made in eternity. The fcriptures which promise the making of a covenant, only intend a clearer manifestation and application of the covenant of grace to perfons to whom it belongs; things are faid in fcripture to be made, when they are made manifest or declared: it is a previous intereft in the covenant of grace that gives perfons a right to the bleffings of it; and the application of these bleffings, fuch as pardon of fin, &c. flows from this previous intereft: nor does this notion render the miniftry of the word and the operation of the Spirit for that end useless, and fuperfluous; but on the contrary fo early an intereft in the covenant of grace is the ground and reafon of the Spirit being fent down in time to make the word effectual to falvation. Nor is the state of unregeneracy, the elect of God are in by nature, inconfiftent with this eternal covenant; fince that covenant fuppofes it, and provides for, promises, and fecures the regeneration and fanctification of all interested in it; affuring them that the heart of stone shall be taken away, and an heart of flesh given them; a new heart and a new Spirit, yea the Spirit of God fhall be put into them, and the laws of God written in their minds.

The text in Ephefians ii. 12. describes the Gentiles only, who were strangers from the covenants of promife; the covenant of circumcifion, and the covenant at Sinai; covenants peculiar to the Jews; as well as strangers to the fcriptures, which contain the promise of the Meffiah; all which might be, and was, and yet be interested in the covenant of grace. If this is to be an Antinomian, L am quite content to be called one; such bug-bear names do not frighten me. It is not worth while to take notice of this man's Neonomian rant; of the terms

See Acts ii. 36.

and