I 
 
 .jfcAi-3Li^ilH^.i u 
 
f\\^ 
 
 VV 
 
 ^x -^ 
 
 
 ; 
 
 # 
 
 (^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ♦^ 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 1^ 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 *w 
 
 
 
 
 
 S?5 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 « i 
 
 CD 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 ^ o 
 
 bO 
 
 
 
 
 ^ t< 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 8 
 
 13 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 Iz; 
 
 E 
 
 I 
 
 1 i 
 
 ^ > 1 
 
 
 •^ PS 
 
 J? 
 
 
 
 ^ P4 
 
 u. 
 
 i^ =^. ^ 1 
 
 
 <<** 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 *a 
 
 
 
 
 >« 
 
 (U 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "c 
 
 
 
 
 >i 
 
 a> 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SCO 
 
m 
 
A 
 
 BiSCOUPvSE 
 
 O N 
 
 A C T S ii. 42. 
 
 in which the Practice of owning the Covenant 
 is examined : — The Arguments which have been 
 ufed in its Favour are particularly confidered : and 
 Reafons offered for its Abolition. 
 
 By G Y P R I a N -S T R O N G, A, M. 
 
 Pastor of the first Church in Chatham. 
 
 To the Law and to the Testimony. Isaiah. 
 
 Whj callj/e me. Lord, Lord, and do not the things 'which I fay f 
 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 HARTFORD: 
 PRINTED BY HUDSON AND GOODWIN. 
 
 iJ.DCC.XCI. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE covfideratimSi which have induced the author of 
 this difcourje to forward afecond imprejfioriy are the 
 following^ viz. The frequent enquiry which has been 
 Znadefor it^ — there being none of the former imprejfion to 
 le obtained — the follicitation of a nmnber of gentlemen^ 
 •whofe ■ opinions he ejleems, together with a dejire, that it 
 may be generally ^ i^ffal* 
 
 " - In this edition y /^<? ftyle is in many inji antes corre^ed, 
 mdfome new thoughts added. Conftdering the more refin- 
 ed tajie of the prcfent day, it may be thought, that further 
 correclions were tiecejfary. The author is fenfible, that 
 there is fufficient room for corrections ; but as he thinks 
 his meaning is fufficiently clear, as it now is, he fubmits 
 it to a candid perufaL 
 

 A DISCOURSE, &c. 
 
 ACTS ii. 42. 
 
 And they continued^ Jledfajlly^ in the Apojiles doclrine ani 
 fellow/hipy and in breaking of bread and in prayers. 
 
 IN the preceeding part of this chapter, we have an 
 account of the moft extraordinary and remarkable 
 out-pouring of the fpirit of God, and fuch an inftance 
 of divine power attending the difpenfation of truth, as, 
 perhaps, was never known from the apoftles days down 
 to the prefent period of time. There was a great mul- 
 titude colledled around the Apoftles, from different 
 quarters, and, doubtlefs, for very different purpofes : 
 fome, probably, out of mere curiofity, to hear what 
 thofe " bablers" would fay : others to mock and ridi- 
 cule them ; for we are informed that fome faid -' thefe 
 men are full of new wine :" And it is not unreafon- 
 able tofuppofe that fome might come to be inflrudled 
 into that fyftem of truths, which occalioned fo much 
 noife and tumult at that time. However, notwith- 
 ftanding their views and defigns v.ere fo various, we 
 find that divine truth was attended with fuch power, 
 that a great part of them " were pricked to the heart, 
 and faid unto Peter and the reft of the Apoflles, men 
 and brethren, what fhall we do ?" Peter immediate- 
 ly replied, " repent and be baptifed in the name of 
 Jefus Chrift, for the remiflion of fms." Divine power 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 llill attended the preaching of Peter ; for we find, that 
 many received his words gladly, and were baptifed ; 
 and the number was no lefs than about three tl.oafand« 
 ** And the lame day there were added unto them a- 
 bout three thoufand fouls.'* 
 
 We have a further account of thofe converts in our 
 text, and the words following. And by the account 
 the facred hiftorian gives us, it is evident they were 
 touched to fome purpofe ; their profefnon was not 
 merely nominal, or the effed of a lifclefs flame which 
 the apollle had blown up in their mmds ; for we are 
 afTurcd, that they continued to feel the force of divine 
 truth, and to adt up to the character of real chriifians. 
 They .continued, as tbrs ipofile informs us in our text, 
 ftidfiijfiy in theapolllcs do^lnne z.\\<\feilo%i'fljip ; that is', 
 they believed the fame things with the apoftles, and 
 fo had fellowlliip with tiiern. in all the facred doiitrines 
 of Chriilianity: And thofe converts who were bap- 
 tifed, not only believed the fame things, but they al fb 
 lived m the practice of the fame duties which the apof- 
 tles obferved'; for it is faid, that they continued with 
 them Jiedfojtly, in breaking of Ire ad and in prayerSy as 
 well as in do^rine. By knakm^ of bread with the apof- 
 tles, we are undoubtedly to underftand, that they con- 
 tinued to celebrate with them the memorial of Chrift's 
 death ; that they lived in the oblervation of that ordi- 
 nance and infVitution. Expoiitors thus underfland it. 
 It cannot be underftood to mean, that they held up 
 civil comm.union with the apoftles, that is, jointly par- 
 took of each other's temporal fubfiance ; for the apof- 
 tie mentions this afterwards : and befides, the apoflle 
 coniiders this as a religious r//f ; placing it among 
 their religious exercifes, fuch as having fellowfhip with 
 them in doRrine, and continuing with them m -prayers. 
 And the celebration of the Lord's Supper is elfewherc 
 lignihed, by breaking of bread i as in A6ls xx. 7. The 
 hreaking of breads therefore, mull: have an immediate re- 
 ference to the facrament of the Lord's Supper. Anci 
 
[ 5 ] 
 
 it is worthy of our particular obfervation, that the 
 apollle mentions the breaking of bread, or attending up^ 
 pn the memorial of Chrift's death, as what thole who 
 were baptiCed united in ; not as vj\\diX.fonie did, but as a 
 thing that was cjommon to them all. It at Icaft in- 
 cludes all the adults. There is nothing faid which 
 gives us fhe leaft reafbn to conclude, that there w^asa- 
 ny diftindion refpedliing the inftitution of the Lord's 
 Supper, more than refpecting do^lrine and prayers. 
 
 The words, therefore, may lead us to make the foU 
 lowing obfervation, viz. ihat thoje adults whom the 
 apojlles baptifedy iirre confidered as comraunicants, and as 
 being holden to an attendance upon all go/pel inftiiutions^ 
 the Lord' s Supper not excepted. 
 
 If tlie thr€c thoufand, who were baptifed on the day 
 of penticoft, or the adults included in that number, 
 were confidered and viewed as communicants at 
 thrift's table, we have prefumptive evidence, at leaft, 
 that it was their common practice, when they ad- 
 jniniftered baptifm to adults, to receive and conlider 
 jhem as communicants at the table of the Lord. 
 
 But this may further appear, in the courfe of the 
 enfuing enquiries. What is propofed in further dil- 
 jcourfing from thef^ words^ is. 
 
 First, To (how, that thofe adults who had the pri- 
 vilege of baptifm for themfeives or their feed, in the 
 days of the apoftles, were confidered as communicants, 
 and as being equally holden to an attendance upon the 
 facrament of the |-,ord's Supper, as upon any other 
 divine inflitution. 
 
 Secondly, More particularly to enquire, whether 
 the practice of owning the covenant, as it is called, 
 which admits perfons to the privilege of baptifm, who 
 profeffedly and pradically with-hold their attendance 
 £)n the facrament of the Lord's Supper, be fcriptural 
 and fo to be indulged. 
 
 Under this particular it is propofed to confider e- 
 very thing which is oifered in favor of the practice of 
 
C 6 ] 
 
 owning the covenant, aiid to fuggell reafons for its 
 jexclulion. 
 
 In difcouriing upon the points now propofed, I 
 
 ihall treat the -practice of owning the covenant with free- 
 dom and plainnefs, yet nothing perfonal is intended, 
 refpedling thofe who arc friendly to it. 
 
 I hope there are none fo fet in any particular 
 fcheme, as to be unwilling it fliould come under a fe- 
 rious examination ; or, to give it up, if it be not founded 
 on the facred oracles of the living God. I would re- 
 qiieft, that every one would diveft his mind of all pre- 
 judice, and be difpofed to receive light, whether it may- 
 be in favor of, or in oppofition to former fentiments. 
 Cafting away all wrath 3.nd Jlrifey and laying aiide all 
 fLiperfiuity of naughtinefs, be difpofed to receive with 
 rtiecknefs the ingtafted word, which is able to mak^ 
 you Wife unto falvation. I will now proceed, 
 
 First, To attempt to (how, that thofe adults who 
 had the privilege of bctptifiti for themfelves or their 
 feed, in the 4ays of the apoftles, were confidered as 
 commamicants, and as being equally holden to an at- 
 tendance upon the Lord's Supper, as upon any other 
 divine inftitution* 
 
 I do not fuppofe, neither would I be underflood to 
 fay, that an attendance upon the inftitution of the 
 Lord's Supper, or any ol\itv particular inftituted duty, 
 is the term or qualification for baptifm -, but an ob- 
 fervation of and an attendance upon <?// public inflitu-: 
 ted duties is the term.. Y/hat is meant is, that the 
 apoftlcs vicv/ed and confidered thofe adults whom 
 they baptifed, eamUy holden to obferve all the duties 
 and inftitutions of the Ghrif^ian religion. One duty 
 or inftitution was not difpenfed with rather than ano- 
 ther. And I can fee no room to doubt of this, fromi 
 any thing faid in the writings of the apoftles. The 
 facred fcriptures,giveno intimation of a different prac- 
 tice, in tht! days of the apoftles ; but aflbrd rhuch po- 
 iitive evidence, that they did confider thofe whom they 
 
t 7 • ] 
 
 baptlfed, as being equally holden to walk togcthef iri 
 an attendance upon all inftituted duties. This not 
 only appears clear to nae, but fomc, who have been 
 zealous advocates for a contrary practice, have declar- 
 ed, that it is fo evident to them as not to admit of a 
 doubt. One in particular, when writing in vindica- 
 tion of that pradlice which tolerates perfons in the 
 omiflion of the Lord's Supper, fays, concerning that 
 ordinance and inlHtution, " This was an ordinance 
 appointed for the whole body of Chrift'svifible church, 
 who profefled the chriftian faith : and accordingly, 
 tbey thus pra^ijed in the apoftles days ; as all the difci- 
 ples atte7ided upon this memorial."^ This conceilion,- 
 in one who is an advocate for a contrary pradlice, is 
 fomevvhat remarkable; and is not unfavorable, to what 
 is now fuppofed, viz. That the apoftles wereftrangers 
 to the pr-adice of adminiftering baptifm, to fuch as 
 live in the negledt of plain gofpel inftitutions. 
 
 But we will proceed to a more particular cOnfidcra- 
 tion of thepradlice of the apoftes, to fee whether it be 
 not evident, that they conlidered all the adults whom 
 they baptifed, as holden to an attendance upon all in- 
 ftituted duties of the covenant, the Lord's Supper not 
 excepted. t And the following things afford fatisfy- 
 ing evidence, that the apoftles adminiftcred baptifm to 
 no adults perfonally, or their feed, excepting fuch as 
 they confidered as communicants, or holden to an at- 
 tendance upon all inftitutions, without excepting the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 * Ely's Sertn, on Gal. ili. 27. p. 34. 
 
 + It is taken for granted here, and throagh this difcourfe, that the (arae qua- 
 lifications are rcquifite in an adult, for the dedication of his feed in baptifm, 
 as for the dedication of himfelf. If it were ncceffary in the apoftles days, for 
 an adult to engage to attend upon all infiitnted duties in order to bis czvn bap- 
 tifm, it muft have been neceffary to the dedication olhisf^ed. This, it is fup- 
 pofed, no OHC will difpirte. 
 
•I -8 -] 
 
 1. The nature and import of the commiffion, which 
 our Lord gave his apoftles, leads us to conclude, 
 that they confidercd all adults whom they bap- 
 tifcd, as holden to the pradlice of all Chriftiah 
 duties. 
 We hav£ the higheil rcafon to fuppofe, the apoftles 
 aited up to the fpirit and meaning of their commiilion. 
 And the comnliffion which Chrift gave them, made it 
 incumbent: on them to i'nfift upon it, that all whom 
 •they fliould baptifc, fhould attend upon all inftituted 
 duties. The commiflion which Chrift gave his apof- 
 tles, is cxpreiTed in thcfe words ; "Go ye, therefore, 
 and teach all nations, baptiiing them in the rtame of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft ; — 
 teaching them to objerve all things zuhatfoever I haz:e 
 commanded you/'* This commifflon made it incum- 
 bent on the apoftles, firft to teach, and then to bap- 
 tife : But this is not all ; for,- in it they were ftridtly 
 charged.to inftft upon it^ that all thofe whom they 
 fhould thus teach and baptife, ftiould obfcrvc allthingSy 
 that is, all the duties which Chrift had commanded 
 them.— Andi was not the Lord's Supper one duty 
 which Chrift had juft inftituted and made incumbent 
 on his difciples ? Was not this commanded duty, 
 therefore, one thing that they were to inftft uponftiould 
 be obferved, by thofe whom they ftiould baptife ? This 
 -commiftion will no more admit of tolerating perfons 
 in a profciTed and prad:ical Omiflionof the inftitution 
 of the Lord's Supper, than in the negleflof any other 
 inftitution. — It is as inconftftent with the plain mean- 
 ing and import of the commiftion, to tolerate thofe, 
 who have the privilege of baptifm, in a negledl of the 
 facrament of the Lord's Supper, as in an omiftion of 
 any other duty. And, as v e have reafon to believe 
 the apoftles. adted up to the fpirk of their commiftion, 
 fo wc muft conclude, that thofe adults, who had th« 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 13. 20, 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 privilege of baptifm granted them by the apoflles, 
 were viewed and confidcred as equally holden to an 
 attendance upon thefacrament of the Lord'sSupper,as 
 upon any other inftituted duty. If we are to make 
 up a judgment concerning the pradice of the apdftles 
 by the commillion they received from Chrift, wemult 
 conclude, that their difciples or baptifcd adults were 
 holden and bound to attend upon all inflituted duties, 
 without excepting the inflituted memorial of Chrift's 
 death. Again, 
 
 II. The account given us of the tranJa£lions of the 
 apoftles, afibrds another reafon for concluding, 
 that they conlidered the adults to whom they ad- 
 miniftered baptifm, as bound to attend upon all 
 ihftituted duties, without excepting theinftituted 
 memorial of Chrift's death. 
 We have no reafon to think, from any thing the a- 
 |Doft:les faid or tranfacfled^that fome adults who enjoyed 
 the privilege of baptifm, were confidcred als commu- 
 nicants and others were not ; or, that fome did attend 
 upon the inflituted memorial of Chrifl's death, and 
 others were tolerated in a negledl or omiflion of that 
 inflitution. We may as loon find fufhcicnt evidence 
 to conclude, that fome did not continue fledfaft in the 
 apoftles do^riney and in prayers, ajjd were tolerated iri 
 fuch a neglecft or omiffion, as that they were tolerated 
 and indulged in a neglecl: of the inftitution of the 
 Lord's Supper. It is very poflible, that fome might 
 but feldom have an opportunity of attending upon 
 that memorial, as well Us upon other inftituted duties ; 
 yet, as often as they had opportunity to do it, they 
 were equally under obligations to attend upon ic as: 
 upon other duties of the covenant ; at leaft tfjere is no 
 reafon for any other conclufion, cither from what the 
 apoftles faid, or the account we have of their tfanfac- 
 tions. But, we have much pofitive evidence, that all 
 baptifed adults, were bound to attend upon the memo-. 
 B 
 
[ lO ] 
 
 rial of Chrift's deafh, as well as all other covenant du- 
 ties. The apoftles, in all their letters and tranfadions, 
 treated all their difciples as being in one ftanding, and 
 as united in one body ; — -having o«(f faith, o//^ Lord, and 
 one baptifm. There is not the leaft intimation of any 
 diftindtion among them ; efpccially, it is no where in- 
 timated, that fome were communicants at the Lord's 
 table and others were not. — And does it, my hearer.;, 
 look probable, that there was this diftindion fincc 
 there is no mention made of it ? Why ihould we think 
 there was this difference or diftindion, when there is 
 no intimation of it t It is a conclufive argument that 
 there was no fuch diftindtion known to the apoftles, 
 fince it is no where intimated in any of their waitings 
 or tranfaclions. I am fcnfible, that as to fome, fuch 
 as the Eunuchy Cornelius^ and others, it is not faid, ex- 
 plicitly, that they were bound to attend upon the 
 Lord's Supper ; but can we from thence conclude,' 
 that they were not holden to an attendance upon it, 
 v/henever they fhould have opportunity } If we may, 
 M'e may alfo conclude, that they were not holden to an 
 attendance upon 07ie duty of the covenant ; ' for no one 
 duty is particularized. There is as much mention 
 made of the inititution of the Lord's Supper as of any 
 other inititution ; as of do^rine or prayers. If it be a 
 fufricient reafon to 6bnclude, that the Eunuch^ CorneliuSy 
 or others, were not conlidered as holden to the obfer- 
 vationof the inftitution of the Lord's Supper, as often 
 as they fhould have opportunity, becaufe it is not par- 
 ticularly mentioned. Me muft for the fame reafon con- 
 clude they were not holden to pradlife any Chriftian 
 duty, bccaufe no one is mentioned. The account is 
 left in fuch a manner as leads us to conclude, that there 
 was no diftinction thought of among Chriftian duties; 
 either thofe perfons muft be conftdcred as holden to 
 all., or to the obfervation of no inftituted duty of the 
 covenant. 
 
 Furthermore, the pofitive evidence that there was 
 
[ I. J 
 
 no diftindion among chriiiian duties, made or allow- 
 ed of by the apoftles will be incrcafed, if it be con- 
 fidered, that the celebration of the Lord's Supper is 
 mentioned as what was common to the difciples, \n the 
 apoftles days. When that memorial was attended up- 
 on, it is mentioned as what was common to the dif- 
 ciples in that day.' Thusitisfaid, Ads xx. 7. "And 
 upon the firft day of the week, when the difciples c'^ixwo. 
 together to break bready &:c. &c. It is not faid when 
 fome of the difciples came together to break bread, but 
 when ihe difciples*' &c. The apo ille fpeaks of it as 
 what the difciples did in common ; not as what fome 
 did and others negleded. 
 
 Again ; it is exprefsly faid, that they who were ad- 
 mitted to baptifm, on the day of Penticoft, did con- 
 tinue, ftedfaftly, with the apofrles,in breaking of breads 
 as well as in do^rine and prayers. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, have we not the moft a~ 
 bundant reafon to conclude, both from the nature of 
 the commifTion which Chrift gave his apoftles, and 
 alfo from the account given us of their tranfactions, 
 that they confidered fuch adults as they received to 
 baptifm, as holden to obferve and attend upon all in- 
 ftituted duties, without excepting the inftitution of 
 the Lord's Supper ? What reafon have we to think 
 that the apoftles tolerated their difciples in a negled 
 of the inftitution of the Lord's Supper, rather than 
 any other inftituted duty ? I think no one, who im- 
 partially conftders the cafe, can find the leaft evidence, 
 that the apoftles ever thought of any diftinclion among 
 covenant duties ; their commiftion made none, and 
 there is no appearance of any diftindion being al- 
 lowed or made in their pradice. 
 Let us now proceed, 
 
 S-ECONDLY, More particularly to enquire, whether 
 the pradice of owning the covenant, as it is called, 
 which admits perfons to the privilege of baptifm, who 
 profeffedly and pradically with-hold their attendance 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 upon the facramcnt of the Lord's Supper, be fcrip- 
 tural and to be indulged. . ' 
 
 The pradice of owning the covenant, admits adults 
 to the privilege of baptifm, for themfelves and their 
 feed, who neither view themfelves under any covenant 
 obligations to live in the obfervation of a plain gofpel 
 inflitution, nor do the church confider them as bemg 
 bound by their covenant to attend upon it ; andthere- 
 fove not difcfplineable or cenfurable for a neglecl and 
 omiiTion of it.* This indeed, is not the only diftinc- 
 tipn which is made betwixt thofe w^ho own the cove- 
 nant and thofe. who are in full communion, that the 
 former are not confidered as being under covenant 
 vows to celebrate the initituted memorial of Chrift's 
 death, and the latter are ; but thofe, who o'wn the cov- 
 enant y are not confidered as having a right to a voice 
 in the church, when tranfading the affairs of Chrifl's 
 kingdom,! They do not conlider themfelves as be- 
 ing under the fame obligation to watch over and deal 
 with one another, that fuch are under who are in full 
 communion : And many do not confider themfelves 
 as under fuch obligations to a holy and religious life^ 
 as fuch are under who are communicants at Chrift's 
 table ; but this I confider as an abufe of the original 
 pradice. The pradlice, therefore, will not be con- 
 iidercd in this gfofs fenfc of it. We will only en- 
 quire, whether the pradlice of adminiflering baptifm 
 to fuch adult perlbns, or to the feed of fuch as pro- 
 fcffedly and pradtically with-hoid an attendance upon 
 the inftitution of the Lord's Supper, be fcfiptural ? 
 
 If the pradlice of ov/ning the covenant, as delcribed 
 
 * I am not infenfible, tliaf fome call the covenant which fuch make ^fxdl 
 and complete covenant ; but I am unable to fee the propriety of its being fo 
 called, fince the covenant peifon does not mean to engage, nor the church 
 iindcrfland him as engaging an attendance ispon a plain covenant duty and 
 cxpn fs command of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 t The Synod, held at Canibridge, Anno 1662, which begun the praftice 
 of owning the covenant, did not confider perfons, in th^t particular fianding, 
 ai having any right to vote in the church, or with thofe who were in full 
 
 commufiion. 
 
[ '3 ] 
 
 in this enquiry, be not fcripuiral, it is not to be in- 
 dulged ; for the fcripturc mull be our only rule. If 
 we have not fcripturc precept or example for the prac- 
 tice, 'm has no foundation. As to politive inftitutions, 
 Ave are bound by the exprefs will of God. We may, 
 indeed, argue relatively to them as Naaman the leper 
 did, about the rivers of Jordan and Pharpar ; v/e may 
 fay that we do not fee, why luch and fuch methods 
 may not do, as well as thofe which we find exprefsly 
 inflituted by God ; but we have no more right to 
 pprfue fuch reafonings in pradlice, than Naaman had 
 to purfue his ; neither can we expedl better fuccefs. 
 We muft abide by what is revealed, and be determin- 
 ed by the inftitution itfclf. Such as are unwilling to 
 be determined by the Bible, mufb anfwer it to Chrift, 
 who hath faid, that heaven and earth fhall pafs away 
 before one jot or tittle ihall fail of all that he hath 
 f^id. A church ought be very cautious, how they a- 
 dopt rules and practices which are of mere human 
 invention ; for in adopting fuch rules, they rejed: the 
 authority of Chrift, and fo pollute all their offerings. 
 In vain, fays Chrift, ye do worfnip m.c, teaching 
 for doctrine the commandments of men.* It is, there- 
 fore, of very great importance, that a church grounds 
 its pracflice upon the laws and inllitutions of its king 
 and head. With thefe things in view, let us examine 
 the practice of o\\ ning the covenant. And it is hop- 
 ed every mind will be attentive, and fo far divefted of 
 all prejudice, as to be willing to know and receive the 
 truth, wherever it may appear. 
 
 In profecuting this enquiry, I Ihall, 
 
 I. Confider thofe things, which are urged in favor 
 of the practice. 
 
 II. A variety of things will be exhibited, to fhow 
 the unfcriptural nature of the pradice of owning the 
 covenant ; and why it ought to be abolilned. 
 
 * IVL:U XV. 9. 
 
[ '4 ] 
 
 I. We are to confider thofe things which are urg- 
 ed in favour of the practice of owning the covenant, 
 or of admitting fueh adults to the privilege of bap- 
 tifm, fof thenifclves or feed, who profelTedly and prac- 
 tically withhold their attendance upon the inftitution 
 of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 It is my delign, to take notice of the various things 
 which I can recoiled; to have fccn or heard urged, in 
 favor of the practice, however trivial ; and to detect 
 their fallacy. And, 
 
 I ft. In vindication of the pracftice, it hath been faid, 
 that many very great and good men have been and 
 ftill are in it ; and that it has been of long continu- 
 ance. 
 
 Reply. As to the time this pra6tice has been in 
 being, I think we may fafcly affirm, it cannot be trac- 
 ed back to the days of the apoftles. — And it is certain 
 itv/as never known among the churches in this land, 
 till near half a century after the firfi: fettlement of it. 
 But, if it fheuld be granted to have been of long con- 
 tinuance, yet in as much as the apoftles were ftrangers 
 to it ; this ought to have no weight in our minds. — 
 And, as to fuch great and good men as have been in 
 the practice, I believe, fuch as urge their example as 
 an argument for it, wholly miftake the views they 
 have always entertained of it. I truft, I may ven- 
 ture to fay, that not one out of ten of thofe who have 
 been m the pradice, have been for it. Thofe who 
 have written upon the fubjed:, and have been on the 
 fide of the pradice, have in general acknowledged, 
 that although rhey were in it they were not for it.* So 
 that notvvithflanding many great and good men have 
 
 * But, why is it that one fays, I am in it, but not for it ; — another, that 
 fcarcely one minifter in this nation is pleafed with it, if it be apraftice which 
 is-of divine inftitution ? If God hath inftitutcd the praflice, or if it be agree- 
 able tr) rliviiie inftitution, why are they \^oifor it ? Why arc they not pleafed 
 with it ? Are not God's inftitutions wife and well calculated to anfwer hit 
 o'vn v'Jipofes ? Bat if the piatlice be not agreeable to divine inftitution, why 
 aic ihcy iiiit ? 
 
[ '5 ] 
 
 been in thepradlice, yet, in as much as they, in gene- 
 ral, have not been for it, it ought to be coniidered 
 as an evidence and teflimony againft the piactice, 
 rather than an argument in its favor. Belides, it ought 
 to be coniidered and remembered, that many great and 
 good men have not only be^en /;/ but for a contrary 
 practice, and could never be reconciled to the prac- 
 tice of owning the covenant. Many have been zea- 
 loufly agaiufi the pradice of owning the covenant, 
 while very few have been really /c?r it. But if this 
 fnould not fatisfy all, we have other examples to op~ 
 pofe to the pracTtice ofthofe, who have been in it,w hich 
 ought to give full fatisfadion ; I mean the example of 
 the apoftles. They were as great and as good men, 
 as can be fuppofed ever to have been in the practice, 
 with this very weighty circumflance in their favor, 
 that they were under the infpiration of the Holy 
 Ghoft J and there is not the leaft evidence, that they 
 w ere ever in or for .the pracSlice under confideration ; 
 but the pradice is againft the fpirit of their commif- 
 fion, and the whole of their tranfudions. So that 
 what is now urged in favor of the pradice, from the 
 example of great and good men, w ho have been bare- 
 ly in it, cannot be confidered as having any weight, 
 lince not only other great and good men, but the apof- 
 tles, who were under the infpiration of the Holy Ghoft, 
 have been not only not in the pracflice, but againft it. 
 But, 
 2dly. It has been further urged, in favour of the 
 pradicc now under confideration, that under the for- 
 mer difpenfation, the Jew s who did not keep the paf- 
 fover, had the privilege of circumcifion for their feed ; 
 from whence it is inferred, that it is the will of God 
 that the feal of the covenant ftiould be adminiftered, 
 tofome at leaft, who do not attend upon the facrament 
 ot the Lord's Supper. It is faid, that the Jew under 
 ceremonial defilement, who might not keep the paf- 
 
[ '6 ] 
 
 lover, mighf, neYcrthelefs, have the privilege of cir- 
 cumcifion.* 
 
 Reply. Whoever carefully attends to the cafe, 
 muft fee, that there is nothing in what is now urgedy 
 which makes any thing for the practice of owning the 
 covenanti or of adminillcring baprifm to fuch as live 
 in the profeffed and continued omifiioh of the facra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper. The Jew, in cafe of le- 
 gal deiilcmenr,wa3 forbidden to eait of the pafTover ; in 
 omitting ir, under dfe^circumftances, he did it in o- 
 bedience to the command of God ; but he who owns 
 his covenant withholds his attendance upon the Lord's 
 Supper in oppoiition to a plain andexprefs command. 
 
 Furthermore, The cafes of the defiled. Jew, and of 
 thofe who own the covenant, are totally diffimilar in 
 another refpscl:. The Jew, who v/as defiled, was on- 
 ly iin occa/JofirJ omktGr of the paiTovcr ; he was not 
 fuffered to omit it time after time, and year after year j 
 he might not omit the paffover fo much as one time, 
 on the whole, on account of legal defilement; This 
 will appear, if waattend to the cafe as flatedNumb. ix. 
 I — 13. It appears from the account therein given us, 
 that God had directed the people to keep the paffover, 
 on the 14th day of the firil m.onth, according to the o- 
 riginal inllitution. It happened that fome were defi- 
 led with the touch of a dead body. They went to 
 Mofes with their cale, as they were at a lofs about 
 keeping the palTovcr v.ith the people. Mofes afks di- 
 redion of God, God anfwers Mofes as in the 9th and 
 loth verfes, in thefe words. " Speak unto the chil- 
 dren of I irael, faying, if any man of you, or of your 
 pofterity be unclean by reafon of a dead body, or be in 
 a journey afar off jr/ he Jhall keep the paffover unto the 
 Lord. Thefourleenth day of thejecond month they Jhall 
 keep it.'' It appears from thefe words, that the perfon 
 who was unclean on the 14th day of the firit month, 
 
 * Ely's Serm. on Gal. iii. 27. 
 
[17 ] 
 
 when the body of the Jews kept the pafTover, miVhc 
 not live in the neglcd of it till the next annual return 
 bf the paflbver, he muft keep it the very next month ; 
 he might not omit it, on the whole, for one time. So 
 that, on the whole there was no toleration of an onjiif- 
 fion for any length of time, on account of ceremonial 
 defilement. At moft, no more can be pretended, than 
 a toleration of an occalional omifiion, during the fliorc 
 term of ceremonial defilement, or for one month only; 
 he muft keep the palTovcr as often as the reft of the 
 people.* 
 
 Now, how does this at all juftify, or even counte- 
 nance the praftice of admitting fuch to the privilege 
 of baptifm, who omit the Lord's Supper^ not merely 
 bn fome ©ccafions, but on all occafions, and that year 
 after year, and if they pleafe forever ? If ir were true, 
 that a Jew might have circumcifion^ although he 
 Ihould neglect to keep the paffover occafionally^ could we 
 from thence infer, that it is the will of God, that a 
 perfon, under the gofpel difpenfation, ftiould have the 
 privilege of baptifm, although he fliould live in a coiv 
 tinued omifiion of the Lord's Supper, year after year, 
 «lnd if he lliould pleafe forever ? I am lure it cannot 
 be pretended. There is nothing in the cafe of the de- 
 filed Jew, that fo much as countenances the pra(5lice 
 of owning the covenant. We are rather taught by it, 
 that it is the will of God that no public inftitution. 
 fhould be neglected or omitted ; for, rather than the 
 Jew lliould, on the whole, live in one omifiion of the 
 paifover, God makes fpccial provifton and a new in- 
 ftitution for himj who was under fuch circumilances, 
 C 
 
 _ + Some have faid, that ceremonial cleannefs was typical of moral pu- 
 rity ; and as a Jew, who doubted of his ceremonial cleannels was tolerated in 
 an omffion of the palFover.fo may a ChriHian be tolerated inomitting the Lord's 
 Supper, when he doubts of his rnoral purity. 
 
 , Anfw^r. The Jew was not tolerated in wemiflion. He might not delay 
 more than one month on account of bis doubts, or in cafe of rea/ defilements 
 So that if there were any thing typical in the cafe, it would not prove any- 
 thing in favour of a profeffed and continued omiffion of any ordinance ; for, on 
 the whole there was no omiflion lokrarcd* or allowed ; And but one atOBtfe 
 Vras allowed foi the rexaevftl of ical dciiienicnt, 
 
[ '8 ] 
 
 25 prohibited his keeping i: with tlie body ef the peo- 
 ple. Again, 
 
 jdly. God's deaUngg with the Jews in Jofiah's 
 time, have been mentioned in juftification of theprac-^ 
 tice of owning the covenant. It has been faid, that 
 the Jews, who from the time of the Judges to Joliah's 
 time, had not regularly attended upon the pafrover,en-. 
 joyed circumcifion and were not rejected and caft off 
 by God ; — from hence it is inferred, that perfons may 
 %Q fo far in good ftanding in the covenant, as to be 
 qualified for baptifm, although they live in a continu- 
 al omiilion of the Lord's Supper.* 
 
 Reply. Is it not as true that the Jews, ats a body, 
 ^ere in grofs idolatry when Joiiahcameto the throne, 
 as that they had omitted, for a long time, regularly to 
 keep the paffover ? Certainly it is.f May we not 
 then^ v/ith as much reafon, infer that baptifm may be 
 adininiftered to grofs idohUors, as to thofc who negled: 
 a plain inftitution ? If we may infer that perfons may 
 be qualified for the feal of the covenant, when they live 
 in the continued omiiTion of plain infl:itutions, front 
 God's not carting off the Jews when they neglcifled re- 
 gularly to attend upon the paffover, we may infer, that 
 perfons in grofs idolatry are qualified for the feal of 
 the covenant ; becaufe it is jufl as true that the Jev/s 
 were not caff off when in ^rofs idolatry, as that they 
 were not v/hen they negledted the paffover ; for they 
 Vf ei-e in open idolatry at the fame time. 
 
 What is here urged, therefore, is as much in favor 
 of admitting gfo/s tdolators to baptifm, and of their be- 
 ing qualijieci fubjec^s for it, as of the practice of own- 
 ing the covenant. 
 
 'The truth of the cafe is this ; the Jews in the be- 
 ginning of Jofiah's reign, were utterly unqualified for 
 one church privilege. — Had an individual been in the 
 ilate the Jews were, in the beginning of Jofiah's reign, 
 the church mufl have exconamunicated him, if they 
 
 * Ely's Seim. p, 31. t Sec s. Kings, chap. xxii. and xxiii* 
 
[ ^9 3 
 
 had proceeded according to the rules v. bich God ViacJ 
 given them : And God, in not cafting them off,adted 
 above the laws which he had given his churcii as a 
 rule of their condudt. God had a right fo to do, but 
 his church muft abide by the laws and rules which 
 God gives them. 
 
 4.thly. It has been further faid, in favor of ownmg 
 the covenant, that fuch as were baptited in infancy, 
 have a right, merely on that account, to the feal of 
 baptifm for their feed ; therefore, nothing further is 
 requilite than to own the covenant. 
 
 Reply. Do fuch as urge this mean, that children 
 have a right to baptifm, merely on account of the bap- 
 tifm of the parent ? If this be their meaning, it is 
 nothing in favor of the practice of owning the cove- 
 nant ; for it nmkes owning the covenant wholly un- 
 necelTary. If the baptifm of parents be, in itfelf a 
 qualification for the baptifm of their feed, then ov/n- 
 ing the covenant is wholly unneceiTary : And fo what 
 knowurged can be nothing in favor of owning the cove- 
 nant, nor any other perfohal tranfadlion, in adult years. 
 But, the tuppofition that the baptifm of a parent is, 
 in itfelf, a qualification for the baptifm of his feed, is 
 altogether groundlefs and unfcriptural. The baptifm 
 of a parent is nothing, ijnlefs he continues in good 
 Handing in the covenant, or lives in the practice of all 
 covenant duties. Hence fays the apoftle, " Circum- 
 cijicn verily profiieth^ if ihoii keep the laiv^ hut if thou he 
 a breaker ofthelaxvy thy circumcifion is made tincircumci- 
 Jim."% It appears from this paffage, that the baptifm 
 of a parent is nothing, unlefs he keep the law, or live§ 
 in the practice of covenant duties. If we fhould fup- 
 pofe that parents were baptifed in infancy or riper 
 years, yet fhould not live in the pradlice of covenant 
 duties, they would be no better than heathens or pub- 
 licans, — their circumcifion would be uncircumcifion. 
 In order to a perfon's having any Handing in the cove- 
 nant, it is abfolutely necefTary, that he be neither a he^ 
 retic nor immoral perfon y perfons of either of thofe 
 
 ^ Rom. ii. 25. 
 
r 20 ] 
 
 charadcrs may have no landing in the church of 
 Chrift. It is as neGcffary that a perfon who was bap- 
 tifed in infancy, fhould hcfou72d in thefailb, and live 
 in the pradice of the duties of religion, in order to 
 his having a Itaading in the church in adult years, or 
 enjoying church privileges, as it is for any other per- 
 fon, whatever. Herefy or immorality difqualifies a per- 
 fon for church privileges ; his eircumcifion becomes 
 uncircumciiion.f This leads us to fee, that the bap- 
 tifm of a parent is not of itfelf a qualification for 
 church privileges ; he muft be found in the faith, and 
 live in the pradrice of the duties of rehgion j other- 
 •\vife his circumcihon becomes uncircumcilion. Thefc 
 obfervations, alio lead us to fee, that it is as neceflary, 
 that a perfon who w^as baptifcd in infancy, fhould 
 make a confeflion of his f^iith, and declare his compli- 
 ance with the covenant of grace, in order to his en- 
 ioying privileges in adult years, as it is for any other 
 perfon ; for unlefs he be found in the faith, and do 
 comply with the covenant, he is no better than the 
 unbaptifed, — his circumciiion is become uncircum- 
 cilion ; and we mu ft judge that he is found in the faith 
 ^nd does comply with the covenant, by the fame rule 
 hji which we judge of others. So that what is now 
 urged, refpedting the baptifm of parents, is nothing 
 to the purpofe ; for if it be meant that the baptifm 
 of parents, in itfeif, qualifies their feed for baptifm, 
 then ownnig the covenant is perfcdtly unneceliary : 
 But if it be meant that they muft in addition to it, be 
 in good covenant ftanding, that is, found in the faith 
 and m the pradicjc of covenant duties, this is utterly 
 inconfillent with the pradice of owning the cove- 
 nant ; for then it will be necclTary that they live in 
 the obfervation of the inftitution of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, which is a covenant duty : So that what is now 
 urged cannot be viewed as any fupport or juftificationt 
 ofthe pradice of owaiing the covenant. 
 
 + Tit. iij. lo. J J. 2. ThcfT, Jii. 11. 12, -iZ' 
 
Again, 
 
 5thly. It has been faid, in juflification of the prac-r 
 dec of owning the covenant, that an omifiion of the 
 Lord's Supper is too fmall a faiJure, on account of 
 which, to cut a perfon off from the privilege of bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 Reply, i ft. A neglcfi to keep tlie pqjfo'uer, was hot 
 too fmall a failure in the view of God; to merit excqmrr 
 munication, : 
 
 The Jew who did not keep the paflbver was to have 
 no Handing among God's people, It is faid, " thq 
 inan that is clean and not on a journey, that forbear- 
 eth to keep the paffover, even the fame (ou\ J/jall be 
 cut 0^ from his people."! Ceremonial d^filementjOr 
 being on a diftant journey apologized for an occasion- 
 al omilTion of the paffover, but not for a continued 
 neglecfl, There was no fufficient apology or excufQ 
 could be given for a continued omiffion of the paffo- 
 ver. It becomes us then to be very cautious, how we 
 urge it as too fmall a failure, on account of vv^hich ;to 
 cut;perfons off from church privileges, mefelybecaufe 
 ^ey 'neglect the inftitution of the Lord's Supper; for 
 ^hat is as reafonabie and important aninftitutionasthc 
 paffover ; and yet we find that God viewed an omif-^ 
 fion of the latter a fufficient reafon for excommunica- 
 ting the delinquent. 
 
 2dly. I would enquire how it comes about, that it 
 is vievved as fo fmall and inconfidcrable a failure, in a 
 perfon to neglect theinflitutionof the Lord's Supper ? 
 
 Is not the inftitution of the Lord's Supper a duty of 
 the covenant ? Is it not as' reafonabie an inititution as 
 any one in the New Teftament ? Is not Chriff infi- 
 nitely worthy of a memorial ? Has he not done 
 enough to render a memorial of him both reafonabie 
 and delightful ? How comes it about, then, that it is 
 viewed as fo very fmall and inconliderable a failure, t# 
 
 + Numb. ix. 13. 
 
r 2^ J 
 
 neglc<5l fo plain and reafonable an inflitution ? If liv- 
 ing in the neglecft of plain .covenant duties does not 
 difqualify for covenant privileges, it is difBcult to fay 
 what does. If it be fcaiidalous to live in the omiffion 
 of piain, reafonable and iniportant covenant duties, it 
 is fo to negle6i the inftitution of the Lord's Supper ; 
 for that is a plain, a reafonable and important cove- 
 nant duty : And it is difficult to account for it^ that it 
 fhould be viewed as fo innocent and harnnlefs an omif- 
 fion to withhold an attendance upon it. Whoever con- 
 fiders how plain and reafonable a duty it is, cannot 
 urge the omiffion of it, as too fmall a failure to difqual- 
 ify for covenant privileges ; for if negledling plain 
 cov-enant duties does not difquaHfy perfons for privi- 
 leges, nothing can do it. And whoever confiders how 
 ttecefFary an attendance upon the palFover was in the- 
 view of God, in order to a ftanding in the church of 
 old, will be very cautiou§ how he urges a negledl of fo 
 important and reafonable an inftitution as that of the 
 Lord's Supper, as being too fmall a failure on account 
 ofwhich to with-hold covenant privileges. Again. 
 
 6thly.^ It has been faid by fome, in vindication of 
 the pradtjce of owning the covenant, that it is no 
 where exprefsly forlaidden. 
 
 Reply, There arp a thoufand other poflible pra<fti- 
 ces which mankind may adopt, that are aot exprefsly 
 prohibited. I'hp queftion is, is the practice agreea- 
 ble to the inftitution ? The want of inftitution is a fuf- 
 iicicnt prohibition. We have no right or waiTant to 
 take one ft:ep beyond the inftitution. If God has giv- 
 en us liberty to ad, we have a warrant for adting ; but 
 a want of Hcence is a full prohibition. It is not ex- 
 prefsly faid, that you may not baptife your own chil- 
 dren ; but you do not venture upon the praftice, be- 
 canfc you do not find a warrant for it ; fo a want of 
 licence in the prefent cafe, is a fufficient objednon a- 
 gainft the practice now under confideration, although 
 k be not, by name, exprefsly prohibited. Furthermore, 
 
C ^-3 1 
 
 7thly. It has been urged in favor of the practice of 
 owning the covenant, that perfons may be qualified 
 for baptifm, and ndt for the Lord's Supper ; and there- 
 fore thepradlice of owning the covenant muft be both 
 lawful and neceffary. 
 
 Reply. I do not recGlIcdl ever to have feen a diver- 
 lity of qualifications for the two ordinan.ces, Baptifm 
 and the Lord's Supper, urged as a realbn for the prac- 
 tice of owning the covenant, by any author vvho has 
 written upon the fubjecl ; however, as I am pcrfua- 
 ded that it has weight and influence in the view of 
 fome, in this place, I fhali briefly confider its weight 
 and merit. And here I would obferve; . 
 
 I ft. It does not appear that God hath ever made 
 any diftindion betwixt the two ordinances, baptifm 
 and the Lod's Supper^ in point of qualification j if it 
 be fo, we have no right to make any. 
 
 There is not the leaft evidence, from any thing 
 written in our Bibles, that the apofties made any di- 
 ftindlion, in point of qualification for the two ordnian- 
 ees, in their practice. The eommijion they received 
 from Chrift, and their />r£?^/V^ agree in this, that one 
 and the fame fubjedl: is qualified ibr both ordinances ; 
 fpr thofe whom they bapti fed, continued with them in 
 ** breakiiig of bready* as well as in docirine and prayers^ 
 
 idly. What is now urged, refped^ing a diverfity of 
 qualifications for the ordniances of baptifm. and the 
 Lord's Supper^ is contrary to the plain import of the 
 pradice you have always been ufed to, in this place. 
 
 You have ever had but one covenant ; and a com- 
 pliance with that has always been made neceffary, both 
 for the privilege of baptifm and the Lord's Supper. 
 Vou have always required perfons to engage the lame 
 things in order to their enjoying either ordinance ; ex- 
 cepting the one muft engage an attendance upon the 
 inrtitution of the Lord's Supper and the other not. 
 This, makes it evident, that it was always fuppofed, by 
 the church and people in this place, that the qualifi- 
 cations, I mean the ejfential qualifications for the two 
 
[Hi 
 
 ©rdinancei, were the fame ; otherwifc they have al- 
 ways beeti Wrong in inliiling upon the fame things ai 
 i'equi(ij:e for an attendance upon either. 
 
 3dly. What is now urged is contrary to the opi- 
 nion of minifters in general, who have been in the 
 pradlice of owning the covenant. 
 
 It is not on account of any real difference as to the 
 qualifications for the two ordinances, that miniflers 
 practife baptifing or giving the privilege of baptifrri 
 to fuch adliks as negleiif the inftitution of the Lord's 
 Supper ; but in condefcenlion to the groundlefs fcruples 
 and ignorance of the people. It is on this ground, and 
 not on any real difference, as to the qualifications for 
 the two ordinances,- that the pradlice of owning the 
 covenant refts, in the viev/ of fuch minifters as j)rac-; 
 tife upon it ; fo fiir as I am acquainted with theif 
 views of the prailice, 
 
 4thly'. Is it not demonfffably true, that there can- 
 not be a diverlity of qualifications for the two ordi- 
 nances. 
 
 Our Saviour mod: certainly knew, what his will 
 ever would be, relpectiiig the ordinances of baptifm' 
 and the Lord's Supper: And he, very exprefsly, gave" 
 it in charge to his apoftlcs, to inlift upon it that the 
 baptifed Ihould attend upon all inf lituted duties. " Ga 
 ye and teach all nations^ baptijlng them in the name of ^^c. 
 teaching them to objerve all things what Jo ever I have' 
 commanded you J" Now, had there been a diverfity of 
 qualifications for thole tv/o ordinances, we cannot fup- 
 pofc, that our Saviour would have charged his apof- 
 tles to teach and inliil upon it, that all thofe whom' 
 they fnould baptife," lliould do or obferve all things 
 whatfoever he had commanded. 
 
 Again. As a qualification for baptifm, it is abfo- 
 lutely neceilary that a perfon be in covenant with God ; 
 for baptifm is a viark and token of the covenant ; this 
 mark and token cannot be fixed on any, excepting 
 fuch as have a viiible covenant relation to God;-— 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 And, when a pciTon takes upon him the covenant, he 
 engages to do all the duties of the covenant ; this muft 
 be a neceflluy qualification for baptifm. And can 
 any pretend that it is a greater thing, or requires 
 higher quaUfications to do the duties of the covenant ; 
 than to engage to do them ? And is not the Lord's Sup- 
 per a covenant duty ? Does not the covenant compre- 
 hend all duties ? Mofl: certainly it does. And does not 
 God make over all the benefits, privileges, and blef- 
 fings of the covenant to his covenant people ? There 
 is nothing more manifcft than that he does. If thefe 
 things be fo, how can there be higher qualifications 
 tequifite for the Lord's Supper than for baptifm, fince 
 it is abfolutely neceffary that there be a covenant rela- 
 tion to God in order to baptifm ? Since the covenant 
 does extend to all Chriflian duties — and fince God be- 
 queaths all the bleiTmgs and privileges of the cove- 
 nant to men, on the fole condition of their being in 
 covenant with him, it is without the leaft ftiadow of 
 reafon that it is urged, that men may be qualified for 
 baptifm and not for the Lord's Supper ; for being in 
 covenant v/ith God is the condition of all covenant 
 blelfings ; is the alone qualification for baptifm, for 
 the Lord's Supper, and for all the blelfings of Chrifl:'S 
 kingdom. So that the pra6tice of ©waning the cove- 
 nant cannot be grounded on any real difference, in 
 point of qualification for the two ordinances, baptifm 
 and the Lord's Supper, 
 
 But fome may poffibly fay, that baptifm is only art 
 introdudion into Chrifl's fcheol, and fo does not fup- 
 pofe that a perfon h fully inftrucfted into the Chrifi:ian 
 religion, and prepared for all its ordinances. 
 
 Anfwer. That muft be an egregious miftake ; for 
 as baptifm is a token of the covenant, and fuppofes that 
 a perfon is in the covenant, fo it always fuppofes that 
 a perfon is inftruded into the nature of it,and acquain- 
 ted with the capital duties which are contained in it. 
 And it is exceedingly evident, that our Saviour him- 
 D 
 
[ j6 ] 
 
 felf fuppofed, that fuch inflruclion was necefiary to 
 precede baptifm, as qualified a perfon, an adiiit, to ob- 
 ferve all the capital duties of the Chriftian religion. 
 Hence, v.iien he fent his apoftlcs to baptiie, he charg- 
 ed them in their commifilon, firjl to taichy then to bap- 
 tife. InftruCtion was to precede bapriim ; and the 
 inllrudtion was, doubtlefs, to extend to all thofe duties 
 which Vy'ould be incumbent on them, in confequence 
 of baptifm : and thofe were all the duties of the Chrif- 
 tian religion ; for they were to teach them to obferve 
 ^ijljbings whatfoevcr Chrift had commanded them. 
 This objeclioni therefore, proceeds from miftaken 
 conceptibns of the nature and defign of baptifm. 
 
 It may be further urged, that there muft be greater 
 qualifications requiiite for the Lord's Supper than 
 covenanting, becaufe we find fuch fpecial judgments 
 threatned to, and adlually in'dided upoii the profaners 
 of the Lord's Supper, as cannot be found refpediing 
 the unworthy covenanter. It is faid " He that eateth 
 and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damna- 
 tion to himfelfi" And the Corinthians who profan- 
 ed the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, were vifited 
 with the judgment of peftilcnce, whereas there are no 
 fuch warnings given againft covenanting unworthily. 
 
 Anfwer. What the apofile means by damnation, in 
 tiie paffage juft mentioned, is judgement ; teaching us, 
 tha? fuch as profane that ordinance do expofc them- 
 felves to the av/ful judgments of heaven : And this 
 was exemplified in the Corinthians, who fufFcred by 
 the judgment of peililence, as a punifliment for their 
 .profaning that ordinance. But, has not God warned 
 us in as folemn a manner againft covenanting un- 
 worthily ? Did not God threaten "Ifrael with, gvc at 2iTid 
 terrible judgments, for drawing near to him with their 
 lips "whilfi their hearts werefar from him ? Turn your 
 attention, alfo, to the cafe of Jnnanias and Sapphira. 
 They had folemnly covenanted to dedicate themfelves 
 and their efta^e to the fervice of God ; but they dealt 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 deceitfully with him, and kept back part of the price 
 for which they had fold their inheritance. And did 
 God behold their condud with greater indiiteren'cy, 
 than theconduclof the Corinthians when they profan- 
 ed the Lord's Supper ? No ; for he fent the moft aw- 
 ful judgment upon them ; they were ft ruck dead in an 
 inftant 1 
 
 Upon the whole, therefore, let us turn our attention 
 which way we will, we have the utmofl reafon to con- 
 clude, that the qualifications for covenanting or bap- 
 tifm, are as great as thofe for the Lord's Supper ; and 
 fo there cannot be any neceffity of the pradlice of own- 
 ing the covenant, on account of a diverfity of qualifi- 
 cations, refpecting the ordinances of baptifm and the 
 Lord's Supper. But, 
 
 8thly, It is urged, that notwithftanding the qualifi- 
 cations for baptifm and the Lord's Supper are one and 
 the fame, yet, in as much as fome may think them- 
 felves qualified for baptifm, and at the fame time 
 fcruple their qualifications for the Lord's Supper, ktuM 
 nejs, tendernejs and condefctiifwn, to the fcrupulous, re- 
 quire that we admit them to the former in a negled of 
 the latter.— What is here urged, I take to be the great 
 fupport of the pradice, in the view of the moft of thofe 
 who are in it. 
 
 Reply. I am an advocate for kindnefs and tcnder- 
 nefs, and would ad fuch a part as real kindnefs and 
 tenderhefs require .; but herein I muft be directed by 
 God, who beft knows what is moft for his glory and 
 the good of men. We may not go to unjuftifiable 
 lengths, under the notion of kindnefs and tendernefu 
 And, for my part, I am unable to find the leaft warrant 
 in fcripture, for fetting afide, or difpenfing with plain 
 inftitutcd duties, in condefccnfion to the unjuft fcru- 
 ples or prejudices of men. There are precepts and 
 examples in abundance, for making indifferent things 
 give way to the fcruples and prejudices of mankind : 
 But there is neither precept nor example for making 
 divine ordinances find injiitulions give v»^ay to fuch fcru- 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 pics and prejudices. Indifferent things ought to be 
 facrificed to them ; but divine inftitiUions may not be' 
 difpenfed with ; they are more facred than groundlcfs 
 prejudices*. We do well in giving up indifferent things 
 for the fake of eafing the confciences of the fcrupulous, 
 and in condefcenlion to the prejudices of the weak^ 
 but the moment we fet aiide, or difpenfe with divine 
 inftitutions for that purpofe, we do that which is with- 
 out any fcripture precept or example. Wc have as 
 good a right to give up every law and inftitution of 
 Chrill's kingdom, as one particular inftitution ; for 
 they are equally binding and cloathed with the fame 
 authority. • 
 
 What St. Paul fays, refpeding the condefcenlion we 
 ought to ufe towards " him that is zveak in the faiths' 
 wholly refpeds indifferent things, fuch as particular 
 daysy meats and drinks ; he docs not give the leaft inti- 
 jnation, that we muft give up or difpenfe with plain 
 inftitutions for the fake of gratifying or giving eafe to 
 
 * A fcraple relative to an attendance upon the facraraent of the Lord's 
 Supper, has been confidcred, as being v try facred indeed ! But on what ac- 
 count or for what good reafon, I am utterly unable to conceive. The infti- 
 tutioi! of the Lord's Supper is a very plain one ; and what can there be, which 
 ibeuld render a fcraple, as to attending upon it, fo very virtuous, or even tri' 
 fiocetit ? If a fPrvant Ihould fcruple to comply with the will of his mafler, in 
 a cafe where his >vill was obvious, and his demand rcafonable, would fuch a 
 fcruple be thought an excufe I Scruples, as to doing what Chrift mod manu 
 Jcjlly requires and deinar.ds, cannot, certainly, be the mofl: innocent fcuples. 
 li'it fhould be fiid, that the fciupulous perfon only fcruples his qualifications 
 to do as Chriii diretls, flill it is difficu't to conceive, how it can be confidered 
 as an excufe or apology ; for a perfon not being prepared to do his Lord's 
 will, when he knows what it is, was not confidered by our SavFour himfelf, 
 fts affording the moil acceptable apology. He fays, " Thatjtrvantjhould be 
 beaten with manyjlripes." 
 
 A perfon being very Jerious in fcrup'in,'^ to do as Chrift demands, or in 
 fcrupling his own qualifications to do it, does not, as I can conceive, afford 
 the leaft apology or excufe. If a perfon fhould fcruple to do that which is 
 tx'pre{s\yJorbidd€n, it would be a virtuous fcruple : but when he fcruples to 
 do that which is exprefsly required, the fcruple, inftead of being virtuous, ot 
 even innocatt, muft become criminal. It is not to be wondered at, that men 
 fliould fomctimes fcruple to do what other nun require ; but it is fomewhat 
 furprifing, that they ftjould fcruple to daV/hat Jejus ChrIST exprefsly de« 
 iaaands, and coiifiJer it a» I'm'arai and wfnVoTO«.i'. 
 
I 29 ] 
 
 jhe weak and fcnipnloust. And the in{\ance of Paul's 
 circumcifing Tmoiby, in condefcenfion to the preju- 
 dices of the Jews, is' far from affording an example of 
 fiich condefceniion as that which we have now under 
 conlideration. Paul, in circumcifing Timothy, dif- 
 penfed with no divine inftitution. It was a matter of 
 perfed indifferency in itfelf, whether Timothy were cir- 
 cumcifed or not, as circumcifion was then aboUflieds 
 but, in as much as his being circumcifed wouW re- 
 commend him to the Jews, Paul confents to it ; it 
 was a matter of as much indifferency in the view of 
 Paul, as whether Timothy Ihould be <:loathed in black 
 or white. He facrificed or difpenfed with no inftitu- 
 tion, in condefcenfion to the prejudices of the Jews ; 
 he only gave way fo far to their prejudices, as to make 
 ufe of that which was as indifferent, in its nature, as 
 any thing that can be named. I truft, it muff hence 
 appear, that we have no right to make ufe of the con- 
 defcenfion that is now plead for ; v/e ought to be con- 
 defcending in matters of indifferency, yet we have no 
 rie-ht to difpenfe with divine injii tut ions. 
 
 ^Although what has been faid does fufficiently fliow, 
 that we have no right to difpenfe with an attendance 
 upon the inftitution of the Lord's Supper, as there is 
 nothing in fcripture that warrants it ; and fo that ten- 
 dernejs to the fcrupulous does by no means require it ; 
 yet, I would fuggeft a few things further, which may 
 tend to give further conviction. And, 
 
 iff. The ftate of fuch a perfon as fcruples his quali- 
 fications for an attendance upon the Lord's Supper, 
 while he thinks himfelf qualified to receive the feal of 
 baptifm, is fuch as requires a very different kind of 
 treatment from indulging and condcfcending to grati- 
 fy it. 
 
 The true ftate of the cafe is this, the perfon is in an 
 error \ for he is either qualified for both ordinances or 
 
 + Se? Rone. ijiv. 
 
t 30 ] 
 
 for neither. What is wanting, in this cafe, is light 
 and inJini^lioTi. Our proper bulinefs is to teach and 
 inftrud him." To begin with him here would be aim- 
 ing at the difficulty ; it would be acting the part of 
 IkiUful ph) ficians, who aim at the difeaie, or like fur- 
 gcons who make their applications directly to the 
 wound. And I cannot think, that there would be any 
 great difficulty in removing r^.s'/ and /r^o/z^ fcruples, 
 \vert we painful and laborious in our endeavors. But 
 if ^NC are fuperfjciai and eafily glide over them, we 
 Ihall rather coniirm than remove them. This mull 
 be the only proper method of application. Since the 
 perfon is really in an error, and wants light and in- 
 ilruiilion, it muff be our proper bulinefs to communi- 
 cate it to him in all poffible ways i the nature of his 
 cafe calls for it. Belides, 
 
 2dly. It is far from being an a6t of kindnefs and ten- 
 dernefs to indulge the fcruples of fuch, who think 
 themfelves qualified for covenanting- and baptifm, and 
 not for the Lord's Supper. It is not an adl of kind- 
 nefs to the fcrupulous. 
 
 Indulging fuch fcruples, has a direct tendency to 
 confirm them ; for whatever we may fay about their 
 hzinggroundlefs^ we by indulging them fofar as to ad- 
 mit iHch to privileges, do in faCl; allow them all the 
 weight oizveil-grounded fcruples : And it will be more 
 difficult than ever to convince a perfon that his fcru- 
 ples are groundlefs, if a church adl as if they were 
 well founded. Belides, tolerating fuch fcruples only 
 makes perfons eafy under them. After their fcruples 
 are indulged and their children are baptifed, they are 
 lefs concerned than ever to remove them ; and one 
 fpecial motive to be painful and laborious in making 
 their way clear to the table of the Lord is removed, 
 and v>iU never have any more influence. Were we 
 aduated, therefore from a true regard to the real in- 
 tereft of the fcrupulous, we fliould never indulge fuch 
 a fcruple, but endeavor, in all pollible ways, to re- 
 move it. Again, 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 3(117. Another thing which forbids indulgence, in 
 the cafe under confideration, is tiie influence it would 
 have on others. 
 
 Indulgence of the fcruple under confideration is not- 
 only without a warrant from fcripture, and injurious 
 to the real intereft of the fcrupulous, but it hurts 
 others ; it begets juft fuch fcruples in the minds of 
 others. When perfons are trained up under a prac- 
 tice, which makes a diftinction between the two ordi- 
 nances^ it naturally and almoft unavoidably leads them 
 to think, that there is a real diftindion ; and (o mul- 
 titudes grow up in the belief of it ; thoufands are 
 taught it by the pradice, who would never have 
 thought of any diftindion, had not the pradice in- 
 ftilled it into them in the earlieft part of life. 
 
 When perfons, therefore, think themfelves qualifi- 
 ed for covenanting and the privilege of baptifm, and 
 yet doubt and fcruple their qualifications for the 
 Lord's Supper, inlfead of its being a duty and an ad 
 of kindnefs to grant the former in the negled of the 
 latter, there is every thing forbids it. It is contrary 
 to the real intereft of the fcrupulous ; it has a bad in- 
 fluence on others : And to difpenfe with inftitutions, 
 in condefcenlion to the erroneous fcruples and preju- 
 dices of men, is without any warrant from fcripture. 
 The fcripture recommends condefcenlion to the weak^ 
 nefs, ignorance and prejudices of men, fo far as to 
 make indifferent things give way, but no where does 
 it teach us to facrifice plain and exprefs infiitutions to 
 them. 
 
 9thly. Another thing which has been mentioned 
 in favor of the pradice of owning the covenant, is 
 this ; That if perfons fhould come to the Lord's table 
 and be unworthy communicants, their guilt would be 
 greater than if they had only owned their covenant, 
 and never attended upon the inftitution of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
[ 3^ ] 
 
 Reply. What is now u rged is rather a reafon, why 
 ijerfons v, ould choofe to have the privilege of baptifm 
 without attending upon the other inftitution, than an" 
 argument that it is the will of God they fhould. The 
 cafe is the fame as to all the privileges men enjoy ; — 
 if they mifimprove them, their guilt and condemna- 
 tion will be enhanced : But can we from thence infer; 
 that it is the VviU of God, that men fhould turn their 
 backs on all the means of grace, and privileges of the 
 gofpel ? If perfons fhould oTe'?z /^f <:oc'T//^;z/ in an un- 
 worthy manner, it would involve them in greater guilt 
 than if they had never profaned the covenant : But, 
 can we from thence infer, that it is the v/ill of God 
 they fhould receive baptifm without fo much as own- 
 ing the covenant ? Certainly we cannot. But we. 
 might juft a3 well conclude, that it is the will of God 
 peifons fhould have the privilege of baptifm without 
 owning the covenant, or even attending to one infti- 
 tuted mean of grace, as that it is God's will they 
 fi'iould have fuch a privilege in a negledl of the Lord's 
 Supper, on account of the fuperior guilt they would 
 incur by an unworthy attendance upon that inftitu- 
 tion ; for it is as true, that a mifimprovement of eve- 
 jfy gofpel privilege, enhances the guilt of men, as that 
 tlieir guilt is increafed by an unworthy attendance 
 upon the Lord's Supper. 
 
 iiclidcs, as the qualifications for covenanting and 
 the Lord's Supper are one and the fame, as the latter 
 is only a branch or a duty of the covenant, fo perfons 
 liave no reafon lo fear attending upon the Lord's Sup- 
 per, when they are well latisficd refpe6ting their qua- 
 lification for covenanting. I'here, is, therefore, no oc- 
 calion for any abatement here, in as much as the qua- 
 lihcations are the fame in both cafes. If it fliould be 
 granted, that a perfon would incur greater guilt by at- 
 tending upon the Lord's Supper, in an unworthy man- 
 ner, than if he ihould neglccl: to attend upon it, and 
 that this v»ere a fufhcienc reafon for his enjoying bap-.' 
 
t 33 J 
 
 tifm ill i neglect of the Lord's Supper, we mull, for 
 the fame reafon, view it as a duty, to grant perfons 
 the privilege of baptifm, without {o much as owning 
 the covenant, or even attending on one mean ofgracc^ 
 for in profaning the covenant or the means of grace, 
 they would incur greater guilt than if they had never 
 been guilty of fuch profanation. So that what is here 
 Urged in favor t>f owning the covenant cannot be 
 viewed as any reafon for it ; for it equally excludes 
 even the n.eceility of owning the covenant, and makes 
 it as neeefiary to difpenfe with fbaf, as with an attend- 
 ance upon the Lord's Supper ; for it is as true 
 that he that covenants in an unworthy manner has 
 greater guilt than if he had not pretended to covenant 
 at all, as it is, that he that communes in an unworthy 
 inanner, incurs greater guilt than in negledling to at- 
 tend upon the Lord's Supper ; and if it be a fufficient 
 reafon for excufing perfons in the latter cafe, it mull 
 be in the former. Again, 
 
 lothly. Some, in juftification of the pradlice of 
 owning the covenant, have laid, that John the Baptift 
 adminiftered baptifm in his day ; and thofe to whom 
 he adminiftered it, certainly did not attend upon the 
 inllitution of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Reply. In the days of John the BaptiH^the Lord's 
 Supper was not inftituted, and fo it could not be 
 viewed as a covenant duty, or a negled: of it a defed: 
 in a chrilHan profelfion : But the cafe is very elTen- 
 tially different now, lince the Lord's Supper is infti- 
 tuted and made an incumbent duty on all profeffors 
 of chriftianity. 
 
 iithly. Another thing, which is of great weight 
 with many, that has been urged in favor of owning 
 the covenant is this, that if this pradlice be excluded, 
 multitudes of children will be unbaptifed, and in at 
 ftatc of heathenifm. 
 
 Reply. The beft truths and the moft reafonable 
 inftitutioiis may be abufed ; it is poffible this may; 
 
 ■ . ; E 
 
[ 34 ] 
 
 %iit if tbf pra£li.ce of owning the covenant be nut wicii.« 
 ia t]je limus of divine inrtitution, we are not at liber- 
 tjt' t.p aUer and lower down the inftitution, in compli- 
 ^lic.e with the tafte and incHnations of mankind. If 
 ijiea cannot find it in their hearts to receive and com- 
 ply with divine inllitutions ag- they come from God, 
 we rauft not alter them and lower them down to their 
 feimiQurs and inclinations. We may not warp off 
 j&-oro di^fine inftitutians. fpr the fake of making pro- 
 feiytes. It would, hawever, he a rnattcr -o:^ juft la- 
 m^ntsdon that children Ihould be unbaptifed, hecaufe' 
 ^leir parents cannot ftnd it in their hearts' to make 3 
 complete dedication of themfelves to God, and to bear 
 a memorial of the dying love of the Redeemer ; but it 
 ought to. be. coniidered, that the caufc of larrientation 
 muft arife from the unreafomkh Rate of men's minds,- 
 ai.\d not from the unreafonablenefs and feverity of fucli 
 g.lt inftitution, as makes fuch a complete dedication of 
 thcmfelves mdifpenfably necelTary to that feal of the 
 covenant. 
 
 I2thly. It has been urged, in favour of the" pfac- 
 tice oi- owning the covenant, that if none may be ad- 
 mitted to the ord'nance of baptifm,- unlefs they attend 
 upon tlic Lord's Supper, men will rufh o% unprepar- 
 ed, to. the table of thd Lord. 
 
 Repxy, No plan can be anfwerable for the abufes 
 it rimy fuffer. Ifperfons will rulh on unprepared to 
 die Lord's Supper, for the fake of having their chil- 
 dren.' baptifed, they muft anfwer for their raflmefs. 
 The fame per fons wrould covenant umvorthily too, for 
 rhe' feke of the fame privilege. If v/e would lower 
 down the inftitution {o that it could be liable to na 
 ^hufe from the iriconfideratenefs or raihnefs of men,- 
 we muft iniift on no qualifications at all. If mca are 
 fo eager to obtain baptifm, as is fuppofed in what is 
 noAV urged, they will covenant in an unworthy man- 
 ner to obtain it. If men will make fuch an idol of 
 baptifm as to rudi " upon the thick bofles'.' of the 
 Ijuckler of the Moft High to obtain it, they muft an- 
 
I 35 ] 
 
 fwei it to him. If we would efFedually remove ali 
 danger arifing from the ralTinefs and inconliderate- 
 nefs of meiij we muft difpenfe with all terms and qual- 
 ifications ; we muft not even retain the pradlice of 
 owning the covenant. So that what h how urged is 
 nothing in favour of owning tlie covenlKt, Sn'd catiildt 
 be vicJved as any objedioh to its exclulioti. 
 
 i^thly. In fupport of the praciiice under confide- 
 rationi it has been further faid ; That people onght to 
 be encouraged in every religious motion. If they can-- 
 not now bind themfelves to do every thin^^ yet let 
 them proceed as far as they can. This v^ill ch'courag^ 
 them to proceed further ; whereas, if thay tha)' Ii6t 
 proceed as far as xht'ir prefehi tight and inclirtfttion will 
 admit, they will be difcouraged from doing afty thing. 
 
 Reply. It is readily admitted, thiit every reafoha^ 
 ble meafitre ought to be taken, to encotirage tntti to 
 do their duty ? but nothing ought to be done, which 
 iritJicates that they are fomething which they $;fe not. 
 
 Baptifm is deligned as a public rnai k that men are 
 chriftians or difciples. It Was not ddfigfied to itidi4 
 cate that they are partly fuch-^that they have tdken 
 Jofne fteps towards it, by domg fome of thi; things which 
 ^re required to be done by chriltians. Were there any 
 tnftituted way to fignify, how far perfons have pi'o- 
 ceeded, who have not become chriftiaris altogether, 
 in pradtice, fuch align nriighr, with propriety, t'^uled ; 
 but there is thegreat^ft inipropriety, in uting a mark 
 or lig-n, which indicates, that the perfons on \*/hom it 
 is fet, have become chrjfiians in fully When, in facl, 
 they have only advanced fome fleps tovvafds it. There- 
 in the iriconliftency of the practice under cohlidera- 
 tion appears ; for in the adminiftra>lion of baptifni; 
 According to it, a public mark is itt, of perfons be- 
 coming chriftians, when in reality they have only tak- 
 en fome fteps towards it. Nov/, although it be true, 
 that religious motions arc to be properly encouraged ; 
 yet it is perfectly imreafonable, that we fhould fet the 
 mark of their having bec&me chriftians in /«//, whert 
 
[ 36 3 
 
 in fad, accordingr to what i3 fupppfed in wliat is now 
 urged, they have only fet out to do /nnelhing. huinox all 
 that which is required of chrillians. This would be 
 impoiing on the chriftian world, for the fake of en- 
 couraging individuals, to make further progrefs to- 
 wards being real chriflians. Baptifrn was not defign- 
 ed as an encoumgemenl to men to become chriflians, but 
 as a pofitive mark that they are already fuch. So that 
 no argument for the pradice can be derived from 
 whac is now urged, — there is no te^fon for the pradiice 
 in that view of it ; but the higheft iinpropricty, as the 
 defign of baptifm is to fignify, that perfons tuc already. 
 chriflians, not that they have rcvAdtfome niotions anj 
 taken fome fteps towards it. 
 
 Befides, granting chriftian privileges before men 
 get to be really chriflians does not tend in the leaft, 
 to encourage them to ftrive for further attainments ; 
 but the reyerfe; If perfons are admitted to chrijlian, 
 privileges fhort of their being fully chriflians, they 
 have nothing further, of that nature to induce thern 
 to make further advances. If the privileges and im-. 
 munities of a civil community were reftrided to fuch 
 as are, in all refpeds, loyal, there would be the ftrong- 
 eft inducements to loyalty, in the view of all fuch as 
 ■were defirous of fharing in thofe honors and privi- 
 leges ; but if, on the contrary, thofe who are loyal in 
 feme refpeds only, may fliare in them, as well as fthofe 
 who keep all the laws of the community, what induce- 
 ments to loyalty, are there remaining, which arife 
 from a defire of iliaring in thofe privileges ? 
 
 It mufl be thus, in the cafe under confideration. 
 If chriftian privileges may be adminiftered to fuch 
 only as becom.e chriflians in full, there is, every in- 
 ducement to become llich ; but if fuch privileges 
 may be conferred on fuch, as are only fuppofed to have 
 Xdktnfome fteps towards it, what inducement is left 
 to fuch perfons, to make further- progrefs, arifing frorT> 
 a defire of enjoying chriftian privileges ? They have 
 already attained ihcni. 
 
t 37 1 
 
 Further acquirements are not neccfiary in this view 
 pf it — They have nothing further lo expcd — They 
 fan obtain all fuch privileges >vith their prcfent ac- 
 guircmentg. 
 
 It is certain, therefore, that the pradlice of owning 
 the covenant is not necellary, as an inducement to 
 thofe perfons to" make further progrefs in rehgion, 
 who cannot bind themfelves to aii attendance on all 
 phriftian duties. It is io far from haying a tendency 
 to it, as thaMt has a inoil natural tendency to induce 
 them to rcll eafy with prefent acquirejnents ; for if 
 they are fulhcient to entitle to chrillian privileges, the 
 inducement tg ftrive for fomething further is remov- 
 ed. But if, on the contrary, chrirtian privileges are 
 reftrided to. thofe, who |liall attend to all the com- 
 mands pf Chrifi, all the original moti\ts, to induce 
 perfons rp make prpfacicncy in religious acquirements, 
 do remain in full force. 
 
 There muft, certainly, be the higheft impropriety, 
 jn fixing the mark of chiillians \nfull on fuch, as are 
 pnly chriftians in part ; i. e. to fuch as only fee their 
 way clear to attend to fovie pnrt of their duty. As has 
 already been obfcrved,, if there were any inflituted 
 fnark, which wa-s defigned to lignify, how many Heps 
 a perfon had taken towards being a chriftian in full, 
 there might be a propriety in making ufe of it, when 
 perfons had begun and taken fome fieps towards be- 
 ing fuch ; butinafmuch as baptifm is defigned to fig- 
 nify, that perfons are already chriflians, fo there is 2 
 manifeft impropriety in adniiniftering it to perfons 
 who have only fet out and taken fome Reps, iliort of 
 the whole, towar-ds it. 
 
 On the Vjhole, I think it as evident as a truth can 
 .well be, that there is no propriety in the practice, 
 when the nature of it is conlidered : and it is equally 
 evident, that it is not necelTary as an inducement to 
 perfons to make further progrefs in religious acquire- 
 ments : but on the contrary, that it has a direct ten^ 
 dency to induce them to reft eafy with prefent attain^ 
 
C 38 ] 
 
 merits ; becaufe, on that plan, they can have all the 
 privileges they ({ciiie or alk for, v/ith the progrefs and 
 attainments they have already made. So chat what is 
 now urged affords not the Jeaft argument for the prac- 
 tice ; it is rather a weighty rcafon for its abolition. 
 
 I have now taken notice of every thing that I can 
 f^colled to have heard offered in favor of the pradice 
 bf o\Vning the covenant ; I would now delire you to 
 take what has been faid mto/erious confideratiori, and 
 to judge upon it with impaiiidlify, ^* Search the 
 fcriptures" to fee if things be not really fo ; and re- 
 member that you arc accountable for your faith as well 
 as your pradice, I fiiall now proceed as was pro- 
 pofed, 
 
 il. To exhibit a number of things to view, which 
 fhow the unftriptural nature of the pradlice of ozvm'ng 
 the cov€nant ; and vThy it ought to be abolilhed. 
 
 I would alk your ferious attention to what will now 
 be offered, and hope you will exercife ail that impar- 
 tialty which becomes accountable creatures, when -^^ 
 lending to matters that are intimately connedted witli 
 fhe wcUlire of Chrift's kingdom in the world. 
 
 In replying to the various things which have been 
 urged in favor of the practice, I have had occafioh to 
 totich on the principal things, which I have in mf 
 mind againft it ; fo that much lefs enlargement will 
 now be made, on many things that will be fuggeiled^ 
 than would othcrwife have been necellary. And it i'S 
 hoped, that what has been faid will be carefully re- 
 membered. I nov/ proceed to fay, 
 
 iff. Th-at one reafoii which has great weight in my 
 mind, for the abolition of the pradlice of adminiffcring 
 baptifm to the feed of fuch parents, who profeflfediy 
 and pradically withhold their attendance upon thefa- 
 cramenc of the Lord' 5 Supper, is this, it does not ap- 
 pear thu: the apoftles were in it. 
 
 It docs not appear from any thing the ap^fflesT^'^f 
 or did that they were acquainted with fuch a pra<5lice, 
 I am fenfible, that in feme inftances'^ k is not faid thai;. 
 
t 39 1 
 
 tfiofe who were baptifed, fuch as the Eunuch, Covnclm 
 and others, were holdcn to an attendance upon the in- 
 ftitution of the Lord's Supper ; yet there is as much 
 faid refpeding that inftitution as any other chriftiait 
 duty ; and we have as much reafon to believe, that the 
 apofties confidercd them as holden to attend upon the 
 i4iftitution of the i>ord's Supper, as often as they 
 Ihould have opportunity, as upon zwy one chriftian du- 
 ty; We may as well fuppofe, that fome^w horn the 
 apol^les admitted to the ordinance of baptifm were to^ 
 a-ttertd on no one chriflian duty, as that they were not 
 to attend on the inlHtution of the Lord's Supper j for, 
 in the cafes juft mentioned, there is as much mention 
 made of the Lord's Supper as any other duty. — It is no' 
 where faid, that they did tolerate adults inanomiffion 
 ^f the Lord*s Supper. — What reafon, therefore, have 
 we to conclude they did praclife fuch a toleration ? 
 Such a conclulion mufl be altogether arbitrary. Some 
 1^'ho have been profelTed advocates for the practice of 
 owning the covenant, have acknowledged it as an un- 
 doubted fact, that all the difciples (in the apofties 
 days) did attend upon the memorial of Chrift's death.- 
 Gne, in particular, when fpcaking of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, fays, " This was an ordinance appointed for the: 
 ^hole body of Chrift's vilible church to attend upon,; 
 who profeffed the chriftian faith. And accordingly 
 they thus pradifed in the apofties' days, as all their 
 difciples attended upon this memorialf." Others 
 have looked upon it very doubtful, whether the prac- 
 tice'of owning the covenant be agreeable to the pra6lice 
 «)fthe apofties ; or within the limits of divine inftitu- 
 tion ; for, it cannot other wife be accounted for, that 
 fome fhould fay, they are not for the practice whiK^ 
 they <«re in it ; and another, tliat fcarcely one minifter 
 in the nation is pleafed with it. 
 
 Now, unlefs there be fuflicient evidence, that the 
 pradice of admitting perfons to the privilege of bap« 
 
 + Ely's Sersa. p. 34, 
 
■ t ^o ] 
 
 tifni, Mho profelTedly ahdpradically withhold tliefr 
 atiendancc upon the inftitution of the Lord's Supper; 
 war. known to the^ apoftles, what reafon can be otFered 
 for the pradice now ? Were not the apoftles fufficient- 
 \y condcfccnding ? Or, is it more neceffary now thaii 
 in the apoftles days ? That cannot be pretended ; for 
 if it were ever ncceflajy, it was then, when the difci- 
 pies they made emerged cut of a ftate of heathenifm, 
 and had not th-e advantages of a religious education 
 from the carlieft days of childhood. If the apoflles 
 were in the pradice of owning the covenant, as now 
 under confidcration, it would have appeared from 
 ibme thing they faid of did : but it is no more evi- 
 dent that they tolerated their difciples in an omifHon 
 of the Lord's Supper than any other duty. And it is 
 certain^ if the apoftles were not in that pradlice, we 
 have no kind of warrant for it ; for they were certain-' 
 ly as well acquainted with the will of Ghrift as we can 
 pretend to be. And among all the inltances of their 
 condeicenfion, it does not appear, that they ever made 
 any law or inftitution of Chrift's kingdom give way to 
 the weaknefs, fcruples or prejudices of mankind. 
 
 2dly. Another reafon for the abolition of the prac- 
 tice of owning the covenant, or adminiftering baptifm 
 to Rich adults as withhold thdir attendance upon the 
 facrament of the Lord's Supper, is this, it is in a de- 
 gree a perverfion of the end and defign of baptifm^ 
 
 If we are to form our notions concerning the end 
 and defign of baptifm, from the ufe and deiign of cir- 
 Gumciilon, we muft view it as a mark and token oi the 
 covenant.* It is not a token of a jf^^r//^/ covenant j 
 but that a perfon \^full in the covenant, or under en-i 
 gagemsnts to do all covenant duties^ Now, baptifm,^ 
 when adminiftered to fucb, who do not mean to en- 
 gage to r^tend upon ^//the dunes of the covenant, and 
 arc not uiiderflood as engagino- this, cannot with any 
 propriety be ufed as a feal or loken of the zihole cove- 
 nant ; for the perfon is woi full in the covenant ; or 
 
 ■* Gen. xvii. ii. 
 
t 41 j 
 
 -vvhich is the fame thing, he is not imdcr crtgagdiiiems 
 to do or attend upon all the duties of the covenant. — 
 The Lord's Supper is a covenant duty ; but fuch as own 
 the covenant, as now under confideration, do not mean 
 toengageto do this,ortoUve in the obiervation of that 
 inftitution : Their covenant is therefore partial,; it 
 does not extend to ali the duties of the covenant. — . 
 There is therefore this inconliftency in adminiftering 
 baptifm to fuch as only make fuch a covenant, it fixes 
 that which was defigned and intended as a mark of the 
 •whole covenant, to a covenant which is Jhori of the 
 whole ; that is, to a covenant which does not include 
 -complete fubjedtion.f It may be fa id, that the perfon 
 who enters into covenant, maiy fuppofe that he engages 
 every thing that is required of him j yet, inafmuch as: 
 -he really does not, we ought rather to let him right, 
 than to rriifufe the feal, or in any mxafure pervert the 
 endand deiign of baprifrh. Again, 
 
 3dly. If we may infer any ihing, concerning the 
 pradice now under confideration, from the laws and 
 rules which God gave his church, under the Jewifh 
 difpenfation,it mufl be this, that it ought to be abolifh- 
 ed. 
 
 The rules and laws which God gave his church,un-. 
 der thfe former difpenfation, did not admit of a prac- 
 tice of chat nature ; for it was exprefsly ordered, that 
 he who kept not the pafTover, fliould be cut off from 
 from his people. There was no toleration of fuch a 
 Begied or omiffion. It is true, if a Jew fhould hap-i 
 
 f Some fcem to infift upon it, that the coveftant fuch make who own the 
 covenant, as 'tis called, is full and compi'^te ; but it is certain they do not en- 
 gage to attend upon all chriflian duties ; their Covenant does not extend to alt 
 covenant duties ; or fo far as the covenant of other profeffors. It may be 
 granted, it is- not, ftri£tly fpeaking, a. half-way covenant ; but it can't be pre- 
 tended that it \sfuUznd complete, for if omitting one covenant duty does not 
 render a covenant incomplete, omitting two does not ; and if omitting two 
 does not, then omitting all covenant duties would not. I am unable to con- 
 ceive what we are to underftand by a complete covenant, unlefs it be an en- 
 gagement to do all the duties ofthe covenant : And if this be what we arc 
 to underftand by it, then fuch as do not enRage to do ali tb« d^itiej of tfaccoVj 
 enaiit, arc not jn a complete covenant ftanding, 
 
 F 
 
t 42 3 
 
 ptn -fo 'be undean or on a diftant yonrney ^t thsHifrO: 
 the paffover was to be kept, he was tolerated in 
 m omifrioh of it untii the next month ; but not till thfe 
 ^ext annuul letuin of the paffover, on any pretence 
 -\v'hatev€r. 'i hat conllitution did not admit one to a* 
 .landing in the church, or ainong God's people, who' 
 )ived in a neglect of me public inftitution.f Some 
 will faV; perhaps, that when it is faid thathethat ** for- 
 beareth to keep the paiTover" fhall be cut off from his 
 .jpeople, it is meant one, who fliall negledl: to keep it 
 out a^jJigbfand conlempt i but with much greater rea-- 
 •foil it may be faid,that it meant every perfon, who for 
 any reason whatever fi=iouM live in an habitual omif^ 
 -fion of that inftitution; for there is no diftindionf 
 jnade : and the whole account teaches us, that no exv 
 Guie or apology could be offered, excepting defile- 
 ihcnt or being on a diffant journey,' and that was con- 
 fidered as a fufiicient excufe,- only for an occalioiiaf 
 omiflion ^ or delaying to keep it for one month,- 
 *rhere is fomcthing very ffriking and figmftca^t, i«' 
 i&od's making fuch fpecial pr-ovilion for fuch as eoul^ 
 not keep the paffover on the fourteenth day of the firft 
 month : God's making it neceffary to keep it by them*-^ 
 felvcs, on the fourteentti day of the next month,- evi- 
 dently teaches us, that God did inffft upon it that fuck 
 as had a Handing in his church, or among his coYtn*- 
 ant people, fhould by no means live in a negle6t or 
 omiffion of one capital inl^itution. So that if we may 
 colled: aay thing from the conflitutioh of the Jewifli 
 church;' refpe-dling the practice of owning the coven- 
 ant, it is this : that it ought never to have been in- 
 troduced ;. arnd fo ought now to be abolifhed. 
 
 4thly. Another reafon for the abolition of the prac* 
 tice of owning the covenant is, its contrariety to the 
 plain fenfe and meaning of the commiffion which 
 Ghrift gave his apoftksj, when he fent them forth tcr 
 feftptife. 
 
 The commiffion which Ghrifl gave his apoftles was 
 
 + Nam, 1x. 1—13. 
 
€ +3 ] 
 
 i^preffed in theft words : " Go ye therefore, andteadi: 
 ^U nations, baptifing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Sob, and of the Holy Ghoft ; — teaxhm^ 
 0fim to. abjervf all things whatfoever I l^rve conwianded, 
 y9U'"X Now the moft plain and obvious itveanihg of 
 this coramiffioii is tJiis : — '* Go ye and teach all na- 
 ^on^," that is. Jews and Gentiles ;-— teach them the 
 n9Au;e and duties of the Chriiiian religion : — And 
 having led them to an underftanding of them things^ 
 j^ atiy ihould he fo far convinced of their reality, im^- 
 portance and excellency as to be delirous of embrace 
 iog and etigaging in my caufe and fcrvice, do you bap-, 
 tife them, or fet upon them the mark of my followers 
 and fubj.^dls : But, in the mean time, do you infift up- 
 jon.it, that thoy- *-^ obferve all tkaigs what fim^er- 1 have. 
 fim)nmt}iedyo% /'—that they liv^ in: t lie practice of all 
 the duties of the chriftian religion ; for, 1 would not; 
 hftve; you fet the mark belonging to my fiibjecls, upon 
 jBich a,s live, in. the aeglecl of the things \\4iich \ h^V^ 
 jcommanded and enjoined ; or upon fuch as- a^'e not 
 IB$:aUy fubjed: to my will, as ligniilcd in mycorpmands 
 an;d inftitutions.— Thia is- the moft plain and natural 
 igaapart of the commiliion. And, wi-thout any fiirther 
 fipnam.cnt upon it, it muft appear to be dire(illy op- 
 pofed to the practice of owning the covenant, whicli 
 gdmits thofe to baptifm, who do not mean to beuiider- 
 ftood to engage an attendance upon a plain comriiand- 
 ed duty, and are not conlidered by others as cen&rablq 
 im a neglect. 
 
 *'5thly. Another reafon for the excluiion of the 
 praAicc of owning the covenant is this : It ftands op,-- 
 ppfed to the wilt of Chriil, as fignilied in the inftitu- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The ordinance of the tord's Supper is not to bi6 
 YJewed, merely as. a privilege which men may enjoy, 
 but it ought to be confjdered as a duty which is in^ 
 curabent on difciples, as fuch. The direction, " D^i 
 
 I Malt, xxviii. ^^^ %q. 
 
[ 44 3 
 
 ye this in rememhrance of me," was defigned for fome 
 body :-— And to whom did our Saviour diredhimfelf^ 
 excepting his difcifles f— And, are notaduhs, who en- 
 joy the feal of the covenant, difciples ? Don't the 
 church conliderthem as fuch, when they grant them 
 the feal of baptifm ? They moft ccrtamly do. They 
 are, therefore, the very perfons to whom our Saviour 
 direds himfelf, when he fays, '' Do ye this in remem- 
 Iranceofme:' This ihows that the will ofChriR, as 
 lign.ficd and expreffed in the inftitution of the Lord's 
 Supper, is of a very different import from that 
 pradice, which difpenfes with their attendance upon 
 it ; and that fuch a pradice ftands diredlly oppofed to 
 Chrilt's will as fignitied in that inftitution ; for there- 
 in Chrift fays, do ye this, &c. but this pradice effcn- 
 tiaily confiils in difpeniing with an attendance upon 
 it. Again, 
 
 6thly. The pradige of owning the covenant is un- 
 juftifiable, as it builds up one ordinance at the expence 
 of another. 
 
 The pradice of owningthecovenant,if it were made 
 perfed, would flrip the communion table ofguefts. 
 The more it is pradtifed, the fmaller is the number of 
 thofe who bear a memorial of Chrift's love. The plain 
 language of it is, it is better that the great Redeemer 
 Ihould be without a memorial, than that worms of the 
 duit iliould be without the feal of the covenant ! The 
 pradice effentially confifts in difpenfing v/ith an at- 
 tendance upon the inftituted memorial of Chrift's 
 dea:h, in order to perfons enjoying the feal of the cov- 
 enant, or the privilege of baptifm. The Lord's Sup- 
 per is fubordinated to the ordinance of baptifni 
 by this practice. The memorial of Chrift's death, 
 is, as it were, let afide, tliat men may enjoy the feal of 
 baj-tiim. it is more than pofiible, that in procefs of 
 time, tnis pradice will lit ip the communion table of 
 guefts. It is a fad which cannot be. difputed, that 
 owning the covenant is a place in which men are ex- 
 (:eedingiy inclined to reft eafy ; and it is equally true^ 
 
[ 45 ] 
 
 that the people in fuch places where the pradice has 
 obtained, and is not fcrupled, run more and more into 
 it. And, the practice ot" o\^ ning the covenant, on the 
 uhole, tiourjilies and thrives en the ruins of the other 
 inftitution ; the one is built up on the ruins of the 
 orher : And in this view of it, it is altogether unjufti- 
 fiable ; as we have' no right or warianc to fet the or- 
 dmances of Chrift at variance with each other. 
 
 7ihly. Another reafon for the exclunon of the 
 practice of ownmg the covenant is, it lets up an un- 
 warrantable aiftmction amon^^ profcffed Chnftians. 
 
 The Icriptu^es conlidcr Chriftians as being oi one 
 denomination ; not as Chriitians in part and Chrifti-' 
 ans my«//. They conlidcr all profelfors, I mean a- 
 duks, as having one faith, 07ie Lord, one baptifm, &c.* 
 And theapoftles always addreffed them as being of o;?;? 
 denomination. But the practice of ovv'ning the cove- 
 nant makes different denominations of chriifians. 
 Thofe who ozvn the covenant do not mean to engage lo 
 do fo much as other profeffed Chriftians do ; they do 
 not mean to engage an attendance upon one plain and 
 importan;: inftitution ; neither do fuch as admit them 
 underftand them as engaging to do it, or difciplinable 
 if ^hey Bcgle6t it. So that there is really a diiierence. 
 made by that pradtice among profefibrs ; and fuch a, 
 difference too, as is not warranted by any thing reveal- 
 ed in the fcripturcs : And, for this reafon, it is a prac- 
 tice that ought to be abGlifned. 
 
 8thly. The practice of owning the covenant is ab- 
 folutely unneccjfary upon the principles of thcgofpel. 
 
 The qualifications for baptifm and the Lords Sup- 
 per are really one and the A77/;r. Perfons m.uft be in 
 covenant in order to baptii'm : And being in the cov- 
 enant cerfainh qualifies for all covenant duties and 
 privileges. And there can be no greater or more folemn 
 tranfadtion, thaii for crearures to covenant with their 
 great Creator, it is true, indeed, if perfons mean no 
 more by co\enanting than to appear well, cyAernaUy^ 
 there is no great foleminity in it ; but if they mean to 
 
 * Eph. iv. 4-6, 
 
f 46 J 
 
 give xvp themfeWe^ to G«4 to be his, and ie» itjedv^ 
 Jiim a:?, tlieir God, and confider Govenaming as: inaply- 
 jQg a heart correfppnding with tke words of the coy-.^ 
 tnaat.u is not onl) folemn, butit implies qv^ry thii^g- 
 requii;te to an ' acceptable difcharge of all Chriltui^; 
 duties. 
 
 ' Beiidcs^ covenating^ in its nature^ ipnplie^ i? if m 
 engagement to do all cov.enant duties- j for wha,t d<^ 
 we rnican by covenanting, except it be engaging- to do 
 the duties of the covenant ? And the Lord's Supper 15- 
 oiie plain duty of the Govetiant. — The quali&atioii^- 
 iQV baptifni and the Lord's Supper, therefore, being 
 one and the iarne, as they are both cpyenant dutie^, 
 there can be, on the principles of the g<)^el^ np. n^;Ce^- 
 &y for the pra'itipe of owning thecpyenant ; ar^ asig 
 i^ 'ur^ieceifary on gofpel prin.ciplqs^ it ought, to b^ 
 yie;v,edfp on every principle, and: fp to be abphfb.<?dr. 
 
 ' Again, 
 
 9thly. Another reafon y/hich I woul4, ojfter fof t^hjp 
 s^bolition of the practice of owning the coven.^nt i^ 
 thia : It is built upon a principle which canupt, go^- 
 itftently^ flop lliprt of difp€nling^^-ith^U ehril^iaji.dihr 
 tl.es. 
 
 t ^T> unable to fee what right: pr Wiarraiiit a- chuFcfct 
 has to tolerate a. perfon in the neglect of the- Lord's^ 
 Supper, rather than in a negiedpf any other dt^iy. The, 
 priiiciple upon w:hich the pradlice is founded; is this; :, 
 That fcrupulous confcieaccs muft be iiifhilge-d ; but; 
 if they mull be indulged fo fara^tp difpenlc witji di- 
 ving inftitutions. for their fake, where w-ill the pr-incU 
 pie end ? If one fcruple mult be fp far indulged, \yhy 
 not another ? If aperfon m.ay be viewed and treatei^ 
 as. in, good ftanding in the negled of the Lprd's $up-, 
 per, why npt for the fame reafon in tlie negle.di of an^j; 
 (^herdftty ? Here is one has doubts, and fcrupies ref-* 
 peeling, the cioctrine of origiriid lin ; — another ha^i 
 dpuhts rtfpeding the divinity of Chrift :;— a, thh-c| ha% 
 fc;rupli;s about the Chriftian Sabibiith ;— a fourth per-- 
 jji^d^ubLi whether, thq-e b? %fly Sal^tjatl^ a;iiali; N^w^ 
 
t 47 ] 
 
 i^hy may we -not tolerate all thefe doubts, and a tfe^ijit 
 fand more, fo far a5 to give up the neceility of a beisf^ 
 of thofe dottrines, and the pradice of thofe duties. Is 
 -jvell as the fcrapie refpecting the Lord's Sapper? 
 Why may not a church tolerate one negiecfl m one 
 ^erfon, anoth^er neglecft in another perfon, and fo ori 
 tiil they toltrrare, among tJiem alt, a neglect ofever^ 
 duty of the Chriftian religion, as well as: a negfett c^ 
 the Lord'^ Supper ? If we once begin to difpcnlc with 
 kn attendance upon divine inftitutions, on account o5f 
 erroneous fci-uples, I know not wheie we can fix thoft 
 Aice bounds which may- not be fuperccded. I sih uft- 
 able to fee, why other ordinances mufl not give way to 
 fcruples, as well a*s the Lord's Supper. Is the Lord's 
 •Sujpper fo ummportant an inlliitution, as that mtti 
 h\2.y be good chriftians in the negied of it, and not ia 
 the negltd: of other duties ? Why Ihould this be almoil 
 the only ncgled which can be tolerated ? — Theprincipk 
 on v/hich the pradice of o\vning the covenant is built, 
 i-f purlued, muft make thorough work ivith chriftian 
 duties. If we once begin to difpenfe with chriftian du^ 
 ties, or an attendance upon them, on account of-eh'a^ 
 neons fcrupies, I cannot fee where we may conllfleiitly 
 ftop. Furthermore, 
 
 I othly. The confequences of which the praclice of 
 Owning the covenant is produdtive, fhow the iiTipor- 
 tance af its being abolifhed. 
 
 Could we not fee ^rry bad confequences dBowing froM 
 ft, yet, inafmuch as there appears no room in the insti- 
 tution for it,^ — as it is not fupported by the practice df 
 ■the apoftles, and the principle on which it is built 4s 
 fubverfive of all chriftian duties, it ought to be exd^a:- 
 ded. But the practice is, moft manifeftly, produdtivt 
 of many bad confequences. 
 
 I ftly. It naturally leads men to think, that in tm>^ 
 eaanting with God, there is very little folemnity. 
 
 This praftice leads people to think, that it is a/;W/ 
 matter to covenant ; — tliat the obligations on fuch as 
 only covenant are/wr?//, compared with tlie obiig-atioiif. 
 
t 4^ ] 
 
 .which arc upon thofc who are in full communiGn. ft 
 is granted that thev are told otherwile; yet inafmuch 
 as they are admitt-d out of indulgence to fuch an o- 
 pinion, they will think fo, and it is moft manifeftthat 
 a great part feel fo.. 
 
 2dly. Another evil attendant on the praclice of 
 owning the covenant, is, tha unkind influence it has oji 
 thcpeifon who is admitted to privileges in that way. 
 
 It is done, I grant, out of real kindnefs to the fcru- 
 pulous perfon ; but it is not kind in its influence ref- 
 pedtirig hi in. It rather confirms his fcruple ; for the 
 practice looks as if the church thought it a juft one* 
 To fay the leait, by indulging the fcruple, the fcrupu- 
 lous are put to rrft ; and they commonly reft very eafy 
 without feekuig any thing further. It is like fewing 
 pillows under mens arm-hoics ; and it removes fome 
 fpecial incentives, they would have otherwife had to 
 be affiduous, in making their way clear to an attendance 
 upon tiie other ordinance and inrtitution. 
 
 3dly. The pracdce of owning the covenant has a 
 bad influence, not only on the peribn who has privi- 
 leges in that way, but on others. 
 
 It naturally leads others to think there is a real dif- 
 ference, in poiat of qualification, for the ordinances 
 of baptifm and the Lord's Supper ; or iii other words, 
 it has a natural tendency to train up others in jufl" fuch 
 a fcruple as it was dcligned to indulge. When others 
 fee there is a real difference inpradicei refpeCling the 
 two ordinances, they will conclude that there is a dif- 
 ference as to the requifite quaHfications iov them ;' and 
 thus the fcruple grows up with them. The pradlice is 
 the mother and the nurfe of fuch fcruples. — In this 
 way it cmbarralTes the minds of the more ferious, and 
 frightens them away from Chrift's table. — They think 
 that covenanting with Gt)d is a moft folcmn tranfac- 
 tion, and if partaking of the facramcnc of the Lord's 
 Supper be ftiU morefolemn, as this praclice teaches, 
 they will fay as St. Paul did in another cafe, " Who is 
 lufhcicnt: for thefe things ?" — As ihepradice doesn^u 
 
[ 49 ] 
 
 turally lead perfons to think, that there is a real differ- 
 ence in point of qualificarion for the ordinances of 
 baptifm and the Lord's Supper ; fo they will cither 
 conclude,thar it is a/;«^// matter to covenant with God ; 
 or if they retain proper conceptions of covenanting, 
 they will ht frightried away from Chrift's table, as too 
 facred for partially fanAified creatures to approach. 
 It almoft necelTarily leads to one or the other of thefe 
 extremes. Again, 
 
 The pradlice of owning the covenant, naturally 
 leads people to make an idol of baptifm ; and to con- 
 lider the ordinance of the Lord's Supper as of /mall 
 confequence ; for as mankind in that pradice are ex- 
 hibiting' a great zeal for baptifm, and fhow but little 
 or no inclination to enjoy the ordinance of the Lord's 
 Supper ; fo it is natural for young people, who are 
 trained up under it, to conclude, that it m.uft be be- 
 caufc baptifm is of fo much greater importance than 
 the other ordinances. Llence it is, that fo many feel 
 very uneafy till their children are baptifed, and fo eafy 
 in negledling, all their days, the memorial of Chrift's 
 death. 
 
 Thefe and a variety of other evil confequences which 
 might be mentioned, of which the pradticc of owning 
 the covenant is productive, fhow tlie importance of 
 its being abolifhed. I will only add, 
 
 1 1 thly. That ihtgood confequences attending a con- 
 trary pradice, fhow the importance of abolifhing the 
 pradice of owning the covenant. 
 
 I am very fenfible, that many difagreeable confe- 
 quences may follow an attempt to aboLfh the pradice 
 of owning the covenant, through an unjuft attach- 
 ment to it, and the unreafonable prejudice of men in 
 its favor. I am alfo, fenfible, that it has been laid, 
 that if none may be admitted to the privilege of bap- 
 tifm, excepting fuch as engage an attendance upon all 
 inftituted duties, without excepting an attendance up- 
 on the Lord's Supper, feveral bad confequences will 
 enfue ; fuch as many children going unbaptifed j 
 G 
 
[ 5^ ] 
 
 ru riling on unprepared to the communion table, &6 
 l>ur thcfc have been already Ihown to be unnatural 
 confequen^es, if tiiey Ihould take place. As they 
 have already been conlidcredj I ihall refer you to whac 
 hath been faid refpcdling them ; and proceed to point 
 oat feveral very important things which would attend 
 a practice that admits no adults to the privilege of 
 baptifm, who do not engage an attendance upon all 
 inltitutions. And, 
 
 ifl. Such a pradlice would make a tmion ^nd onejiefs 
 among profelicd Chriftians. 
 
 They would then have one faithy 07?^ Lord/ and one 
 baptifm : They would in all rcfpedis- be oney3.s to vifi- 
 ble Chriiiianity ; which would make a church appear 
 like the church in the apoftles days, as they would then 
 continue Jieclf'aJUy m the apoftles dodlrines,- and in 
 breaking of bread and iwp-ayersi 
 
 2dly. If none were admitted to bapfifm excepting 
 fuch as engage to attend upon all ordinances, the hon~ 
 or of all ordinances would be equally maintained. 
 
 While the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is made 
 ro gi ve way to the ordinance of baptifm, the former 
 will be confidered as of but little importance when 
 coi'npared v/ith tbe latter : but if none were admitted 
 to baptifm, excepting fuch as attend upon all ordi- 
 nances, the importance of all would be vindicated 
 and maintained - the rights of the Lord's table and 
 Chr-ift's authority in all his inftitutions would be fup^ 
 piVi'ted,- A church would then Ipeak the fame lan^ 
 gUagQ with Chrift in his ordinances, both in word and 
 pracMce. 
 
 3dly. If none fliould be admitted lo baptifm, I 
 mean adults, excepting fuch as engage to attend upon 
 all ordinances, good purpofes would be anfwered, ref- 
 pcci:ing fuch as may be under fcruples. 
 
 It would make them /)^?///W in their endeavors to 
 Remove their fcruples. If we iliould labor to remove^ 
 inllead of indulging fcruples, we fhould ftand a good 
 chance t<? obliterate them^ and fo to help on the fcru^ 
 
C .5« ] 
 
 pdous perfon to attend, with comfort and fatisfadtion, 
 upon his whole duty : But if we fhould once indulge 
 it, his fcruple, if any thing, would be more confirmed ; 
 at leaft, it would not be removed, and the befl oppor- 
 tunity for removing it would be over and pall. 
 Once more, 
 
 4thly. If none were admitted to baptifm, excepting 
 fuch as attend upon all ordinances, jt would anfwcr 
 kind purpofes to mankind in general. 
 
 It would lead all to fee the importance of all ordi- 
 nances : It would guard them againfl unjuil fcruplcs ; 
 for if they fliould fee no diitindion among ordinances 
 in practice, they would not fufp.etl any difference, in 
 point of qualification, for fpecial ordinances. It would 
 alfo lead people to fse the importance of being prepar- 
 ed and qualified for an early attendance upon the 
 Lord's Supper, as well as baptifm. 
 
 Thus the tendency of a pradice which admits none 
 to baptifm, excepting fuch as attend upon all ordi^ 
 nances and live in the practice of all Chriflian duties, 
 is fuch, as I apprehend would fufliciently jufiify the 
 abolition of the pradcice of owning the covenant. 
 
 We have now taken a particular view of the nature 
 and tendency of the pradice of owning the covenant. 
 We have confidered the foundation on which ii refls, 
 and the reafons for its exclulion. It has, I apprehend, 
 been fhiown, that it w^as not /;/ being in the apoflles 
 days : That it is contrary to the exprcjs will of God, 
 as manifefled to his church under the former difpen- 
 fation: That it is contrary to theyp/r/V and plain im- 
 port of the commilJion which Chrift gave his apoftles, 
 when he fent them forth to baptife : That it is oppojed 
 to the 'will of Chrifl:, as exprelfcd in the inftitution of 
 the Lord's Supper : That it fets up an unwarrantable 
 dijlin^ion between the ordinances of baptifm and the 
 Lord's Supper : That it is utterly unnecejjary upon 
 go/pel principles : That it makes an iinzvarrantable dif- 
 tin£iion among profefTed Chriftians : That the princi- 
 ple on which it ig built and grounded, is fuch^ as that 
 
[ 52 ] 
 
 there can, confiftently, be noJhpJJjorl of an indulgence of 
 all fcmples, and an exemption from the pra^ice of all 
 Cbrlpan duties, fo- far as any fcruples may happen to 
 arife about them : That it is of a bad and pernicious 
 tendency, both refpecling fuch as are indulged and 
 others. Finally, it has been obferved, that the tenden- 
 cy of 2i contrary pra5f ice is fuch, 7i% fu.lly jujlifies and war^ 
 rants the aholilion and exclufion of the practice of own- 
 ing the covenant. The matter, my hearers, is now 
 fubmitted to your impartial confideration ; and I 
 hope you will not fail to fearch the fcriptu res diligent- 
 ly, to fee if thmgs are fo ; and may the Father of 
 i^iGHTS dired you into a right underftanding of them. 
 IMPROVEMENT. 
 
 All that will be offered, by way of improvement, 
 will be in two particulars. And> 
 
 I'irjl, What has been faid leads us to fee the unrea- 
 fonablc nature of many things, that have been faid a- 
 gainft that pradice which admits none to the ordinance 
 of baptifm, who live in an habitual negledl of any pub- 
 lic ordinance and inftkution. 
 
 Many thmgs have been f lid, which are highly cal- 
 culated to raife popular clamor and uncalinefs. It 
 has been laid, that fuch a pradice, debars perfons of 
 baptil'm, cafts ,theni out of covenant, is hard^ crnely^c. 
 But what has been faid, leads fuch to fee that pcrfon? 
 call: themfelves out of covenant, by wot keeping cove- 
 nant with God, or not living in the prad:ife of cove- 
 nant duties. If there be any fault, it is in themfelves. 
 If there be any cruelly -SiW^ fvcrily in the cafe, it is in 
 the injiitution, and not in thofewho practice according 
 to it. The charge therefore terminates againft God ; 
 /or it has been {l"»ov*'n, that his inftitution admits none 
 to baptifm, excepting iiich Vvho are in covenant with 
 him ; or do engage to live in the praflicc of covenant 
 duties ; if, therefore, there be any cruelty or feverity 
 in not admitting fuch to the ordinance of baptifm, 
 who withhold their attendance on covenant duties, it 
 is owing to the inftitution. But how unjuft and un- 
 
r 53 ] 
 
 rcafonable is the out-cry, that it is cruel and fevere tc 
 withhold baptifm from fuch who withhold their at- 
 tendance upon the ordinance of the Lord's Supper ? 
 What has been faid leads us to fee that it is an ad; of 
 real kindnefs to them and to all around. Indulgence 
 may be fweet to perfons, but it is ao a6l of kindnefs to 
 confirm their fcruples and to few pillows under their 
 arm holes that they may feel eafy in a negled: of plain 
 gofpel inftitutions : No, it is the worft thing that can 
 be done for them, and its evil influence extends to 
 multitudes around them. 
 
 And what has been faid leads us to fee, that if any 
 fliould fuffer their children to go unbaptifed, becaufe 
 they cannot obtain baptifm, uniefs they attend upon 
 the memorial of Chrifl's death, they would a(5t a per- 
 fedlly unrcafonable part ; for the Lord's Supper is a 
 reafonable inftitution, and it is a duty of the covenant. 
 The apoftlcs admitted perfons to baptifm on no other 
 terms. It becomes men to be very cautious how they 
 jaife a clamour againft fuch a»prad:ice, by calling it 
 hard and cruel^fmce it terminates againft theconftitu- 
 tion of heaven, and is of equal force againft the prac« 
 tice of the apoftles. 
 
 Secondly. What has been faid will be further im- 
 pioved, in fome particular addrefies. 
 
 I ft. To the church in general. 
 
 My Brethren, you have now had the pra(n:ice of 
 owning the covenant laid open to you, both as to the 
 nature of it and its confequenccs : And ufing that im- 
 partiality which it becomes you to exercife, m.uft you 
 not determine, that its confequenccs are bad — that it 
 llands oppofed to the will of Chrift and the rights of 
 his table — that it is entirely unneceilary upon the prin- 
 ciples of the gofpel ^ Are not the qualifications for 
 baptifm and the Lord's Supper one and the fame .'* If 
 there be 'd/cruple in the mind of any one, is there pre- 
 cept or example in the Bible for difpenfing with an 
 attendance on plain gofpel inftitutions in a w^ay of 
 condefcenfton to it ? Moreover, is not the pracl;ice 
 
[ 54 3 
 
 of owning the covenant oppofed to the practice of the 
 aportles, whofe difciples continued, fledHillly, in Ireak^ 
 ing of bread, as well as in the apoftles dodrines and in 
 prayers ? And, is it not oppofed to the coranrjiflioii 
 which Chrift gave to the apoftles ? If thele things 
 do appear to you, docs not the honor of Chriil and the 
 welfare of Zion demand, that a period be put to the 
 pradice ? As you are profeiTed friends of Chrift and 
 his caufe, you are bound to think on thefe things, and 
 to ad as Chrift and the welfare of his church demand. 
 
 2dly. I would particularly addrefs fuch as are in 
 ^ covenant ftanding, and yet withhold their attendance 
 on the memorial of Chrift's death. 
 
 I have now conftdered the ftanding you are in, with 
 freedom and impartiality ; and have fliown, I truft, 
 that it is wholly unfcriptural ; yet I do not conftder 
 you as in it with a view of its unfcriptural nature, or 
 pernicious confequences : I conftder you as having 
 aded honejllyy yet erroneonfly. You will not thinkthat 
 I am your enemy, becaufe I have told you the truth. 
 I can truly fay concerning you, as St. Paul faid con^ 
 ■cerning his brethren, the jews, "My heart's defire 
 and prayer to God for you is, that ye may be favcd." 
 You will fufter mc further, with all the earneftnefs and 
 importunity which becometh one who hath the wel- 
 fare of your ibuls in charge, to urge you to conftder, 
 whether the ftanding you are in be not unfcriptural — '• 
 whether it does not become the profefled difciples of 
 Jefus Chrift to keep all his commandments ? '* If ye 
 love me, keep my commandments," fays Chrift. You 
 profcfsto call Chrift your Lord and Mafter : But fays 
 Chrift, " Why call ye me Lord, Lordy find do not the 
 things zvhich I fay f!" This demand of our Saviour's 
 is diredly to your ca.fe ; and I entreat you to conftder, 
 whether you can ever anfwer for your negled to Chrift 
 — whether you are not called upon to quit your pre- 
 fent ftanding ; and as you profefs to call Chrift, LoRii^ 
 whether you are not bound to do as he hath command- 
 td you ? 
 
[ 55 J 
 
 Lfet tvhat has been faid be impartially confidefed by 
 you, and then afk your own confciences, whether you 
 ought to pcrfift any longei in a practice, fo evidently 
 contrary to the practice ot the apolUes ? 
 
 3dly. I will olier a few words in an addrefs to fuch 
 as have not, as yet, dedicated their children to God 
 in babtifm. 
 
 The obligations upon you to dedicate your children 
 to God in baptifm, are great and indifpenfible : But 
 then it is your duty to dedicate them .in the manner 
 that God has direcled you. Why do you delay and 
 neglecT: in fo important a duty ? Is it becaufe you may 
 not proceed in it unlefs you attend upon all the duties 
 of the covenant v/ithout excepting theinftitutionofthe 
 Lord's Supper ? What right have you to that feal of 
 the covenant, fhort of your engaging to do covenant 
 duties ? A Jew might not be acknow ledged as having 
 a Handing in the covenant, who would live in an ha- 
 bitual ncgled: of a plain covenant duty. There is no 
 evidence that the apoftles baptifed on any other terms ; 
 Why then fliould you defire it ? You will fay that you 
 fcruple your qualifications for an attendance upon the; 
 ordinance of theLord'sSupper; but why more than your 
 qualifications for covenantmg ? Is a perfon qualified to 
 engage to do the duties of the covenant, and yet not 
 qualified adually to do them ? — You cannot take up- 
 on you the whole covenant, unlefs you engage to at- 
 tend upon the memorial of Chriit's death : for that is 
 a covenant duty. Befidcs, would you have pkiin gofpel 
 inftitutions fet afide in condefcenfion to your fcrupks? 
 Where is the precept, where is the example for fuch 
 condefcenfion ? It is not to be found in your Bibles. 
 Moreover, can you anfw er your negledt to Chrift } — • 
 Will it do (when he comes to enquire of you the oc- 
 cafion of your negled) for you to fay, we might not 
 receive the ordinance unlefs we had engaged an at- 
 tendance upon-the inftituted memorial of thy death I 
 Will you have a face to urge that, as an unreafonable 
 term ! Hcwfoever you may now view the matter, you 
 
C 56 ] -^ 
 
 • :.n never find an excufe which will juftify your nc- 
 gle<fl from that quarter. I am far from defiring to a- 
 bridge you of one privilege : My duty and intereft 
 both invite me to do every thing for you, which is 
 conliftent with that refped I always ought to have for 
 divine inftitutions. I urge it upon you, to confider, 
 what hath been faid with impartiality, and compare 
 it with the word of God ; and then afk your own con- 
 fciences, whether there is not the greateft probability, 
 if not full evidence, that the pradice of owmng the 
 coveHant is not of divine original. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 LET one and all be difpofed to receive and em- 
 brace the light, which divme revelation fets before 
 you. There is a day of folemn account approaching, 
 wherein every one will be judged according to the^(?7- 
 fel. If, therefore, wliat hath been faid be agreeable 
 lo the fcriptures (which appears to me, ai'ter the moll 
 painful examination, to be really the cafe} no preju- 
 dices ought to rejed it. And, I cannot biit think, 
 that what hath been faid, mull: recommend itfelf to every 
 man's confcience, as inculcating a plan agreeable to 
 what the church was ufed to of old ; — a plan, agreea- 
 ble to what the church was ufed to in the -apollles 
 days ? — and a plan calculated to maintain the honor 
 and authority of Chrift, — to excite and quickea to all 
 duty, and to build up the church of Chriil in the world 
 in unity. ^ 
 
 May the Father of Lights accompany diyinc 
 truth with his blefling, and grant that we may build 
 upon the foundation of the apofliles and prophets, Je- 
 fus Chiiithimlelf being the chief corner-done : And 
 in HIM may the whole building, being fitly fram- 
 ed together, grow up into an holy Temple in the 
 Lord. Amen,