But I muft beg your patience, gentlemen, for the methods of proof are various. If one method fail, I fhall refort to another. The fate of war does not always depend on a fingle encoun

ter.

Fid. Proceed in your own way. Only remember we are not met for the purpofe of war, but of friendship and mutual improvement. Freely utter every thing in your mind, which may expofe any fallacy in my reafoning, or help us to find the way, in which we fhould walk.

Hum. All your remarks in our former converfation proceeded on this ground, that perfons are admitted to the halfway practice upon the fuppofition, that they are not the subjects of holiness. This one thing, incautiously conceded, put great advantage into your hands, at the fame time difarming us, and leaving the iffue of the controversy at your difpofal. I now retract that conceffion, and with the practice to be placed on another foundation. I find that fome minifters admit perfons to the halfway covenant, upon the fuppofition that they are truly penitent. Of one who would enter into that covenant they require fatisfactory evidence of religion. They confider the covenant as complete, and the cove. nanter as entitled to all the privileges of membership. But they are willing to make allowance for his confcientious fcruples with respect to himself, and his mifconceptions with respect to the Lord's fupper. Though they are ready to receive him to communion, and wifh him to come, they would not deprive him and his children of all the privileges of the church, because he cannot

come.

Fid. You now reft the practice upon a foundation, which feems to me the moft favourable. According to this, the halfway covenant is admitted for the fake of accommodating humble, doubting believers, and fo has an appearance of christian forbearance and tenderness. But I wish it may be kept in mind, that this is not the ground of the common practice; and that requiring proper evidence of grace in thofe who are to be admitted, would involve a great alteration in the ftate of our churches.

Hum. Though what has been stated is not precifely the common practice, I with it may be clofely examined. For now I think the truth begins to dawn.

Fid. Let us, then, carefully examine the fubject, as you now Jay it before us. According to your prefent fcheme, perfons admitted to the covenant are in fact as really qualified for the Lord's fupper, as for the covenant.

Hum. True. But they think otherwife. Though they can with fatisfaction come to the halfway covenant, and offer up their children in baptifm; they cannot believe themselves in any measure fit for the Lord's fupper.

Let all realize that perish they must, and that eternally, if they Aay away from God in their state of oppofition; and that it is their duty, and will be their wifdom at once to come and bow themselves before him in humble entire fubmission: it may be that God will reach forth to them his merciful fceptre, enable them to touch the top of it and live forever.

JUSTUS.

DIALOGUES ON THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF THE HALFWAY COVENANT. Between FIDELIS, CANDIDUS, and HUMANUS.

Fid.

DIALOGUE II.

WELL, brethren, I am glad my apprehenfion was groundless. I feared our first conversation took fuch a turn, that a fecond would not be defired.

Can. Indeed, Sir, the peculiar fpirit of that conversation was a special reason why I withed for another. If this interview be as friendly and inftructive as that was, I hope to be more thor oughly releafed from the hackles of prejudice, and to fee in a ftill clearer light the path of my duty.

Hum. As for you, Candidus, I am refolved that your soft and pliable temper fhall have no effect on me. You need not expect that I fhall eafily renounce the fentiments and practices, in which I have been educated; efpecially when they may be fo well defended, as the halfway covenant. This has been the fubject of my reflections ever fince our converfation. I have thought of fcarcely any thing elfe. It has occafioned me fuch labour and · perplexity of mind, that I have fometimes regretted the circumftance, which made it an object of attention. I believe, nevertheless, the final confequence will be defirable. For I find, the more clofely I attend to the fubject, the more favourably I am led to think of the common practice.

Can. What feems to me defirable is, that we find and embrace the truth, whether it confift with the common practice or not. Fid. Let us be acquainted, Humanus, with the fruit of your intense study. Your ingenuity may, for aught I know, have discovered many errors in our former converfation, and may now bring forward unanswerable arguments for the halfway prac

tice.

Hum. I believe, Sir, the practice refts on folid ground. It is capable, I think, of being fupported by the best arguments.

But

But I muft beg your patience, gentlemen, for the methods of proof are various. If one method fail, I fhall refort to another. The fate of war does not always depend on a fingle encoun

ter.

Fid. Proceed in your own way. Only remember we are not met for the purpofe of war, but of friendship and mutual improvement. Freely utter every thing in your mind, which may expofe any fallacy in my reafoning, or help us to find the way, in which we fhould walk.

Hum. All your remarks in our former converfation proceeded on this ground, that perfons are admitted to the halfway practice upon the fuppofition, that they are not the subjects of holiness. This one thing, incautiously conceded, put great advantage into your hands, at the Lame time difarming us, and leaving the iffue of the controversy at your difpofal. I now retract that conceffion, and with the practice to be placed on another foundation. I find that fome minifters admit perfons to the halfway covenant, upon the fuppofition that they are truly penitent. Of one who would enter into that covenant they require fatisfactory evidence of religion. They confider the covenant as complete, and the cove nanter as entitled to all the privileges of membership. But they are willing to make allowance for his confcientious fcruples with refpect to himself, and his mifconceptions with respect to the Lord's fupper. Though they are ready to receive him to communion, and with him to come, they would not deprive him and his children of all the privileges of the church, because he cannot

come.

Fid. You now reft the practice upon a foundation, which feems to me the most favourable. According to this, the halfway covenant is admitted for the fake of accommodating humble, doubting believers, and fo has an appearance of christian forbearance and tenderness. But I wish it may be kept in mind, that this is not the ground of the common practice; and that requiring proper evidence of grace in those who are to be admitted, would involve a great alteration in the state of our churches.

Hum. Though what has been stated is not precifely the common practice, I wifh it may be clofely examined. For now I think the truth begins to dawn.

Fid. Let us, then, carefully examine the fubject, as you now lay it before us. According to your prefent fcheme, perfons admitted to the covenant are in fact as really qualified for the Lord's fupper, as for the covenant.

Hum. True. But they think otherwife. Though they can with fatisfaction come to the halfway covenant, and offer up their children in baptifm; they cannot believe themselves in any measure fit for the Lord's fupper.

Fid. You confider fuch perfons under a mistake?

Hum. Yes. Their making such a distinction between christian ordinances, and fuppofing themfelves qualified for fome and not for others, muft indeed be accounted a mistake.

Fid. Now, I apprehend, the origin of this mistake will, in many inftances, be found in the practice of our churches. Hum. How does this appear?

Fid. It is the language of the prevailing practice, that there is an effential diftinction between covenanting with God and partaking the Lord's fupper, and alfo between the requifite qualifications for each. The practice publicly holds up a distinction between duties which are equally folemn and binding. Now it is reasonable to fuppofe, that fuch a practice imprefies its own mistake upon the minds of men. How eafy it is for perfons of a pliable, docile temper to fall in with a fentiment, which is authorized by the churches of Chrift? How natural to rely on those, who are conftituted the ground and pillar of the truth, and fo to look upon themfelves entitled to a covenant ftanding, though not to full communion? Could ferious people fo frequently imbibe this mistake, without the influence of prevailing practice?

Can. If my information has been correct, miftakes like this were made before the practice was introduced.

Fid. I allow it, Candidus. And I venture to add, that upon those mistakes the practice was founded. It was to accommodate perfons, who were accounted fincere believers, but whofe preparation for full communion was doubted, that the halfway Covenant was invented.

Can. It feems, then, we have generally departed from the views, with which our forefathers introduced the halfway prac

tice.

Fid. Undoubtedly we have. It was publicly known at the time, that the fynod of 1662 "did acknowledge that there ought to be true faving faith in the parent according to the judgment of rational charity, or elfe the child ought not to be baptized." Dr. Increase Mather, a divine of principal note in favour of the practice, undertakes profeffedly to fhow, that parents, in order to enjoy baptifm for themselves and their children, fhould have not only historical, but juftifying faith. But he held, "that more full and fatisfactory evidence of regeneration and of chriftian proficiency is requifite in order to admiffion to the Lord's table, than in order to baptifm." The fynod infifted upon initial grace in order to baptifm; but fuppofed greater attainments neceffary in order to full communion. Accordingly, no man can allege the authority of our forefathers for the common practice of receiving perfons into covenant and baptizing their children without any evidence of their piety. The authority of our forefathers, in order to be of any avail, must be urged precifely in favour of that scheme,

i.

which

which they meant to establish. And that, I fuppofe, Humanus, is nearly the fcheme, which you have now undertaken to defend.

Ham. It is. And I am glad you have prefented it before us in fuch a pleafing connection. The authority of men fo learned, and fo eminently pious, as those who introduced the practice, must be of great weight in our minds.

Fid. I hope, Humanus, you will not forget the caution we have heard from your own lips, "that we ought not to fubmit to the authority of human names, however celebrated." The caution may, I think, be applied with more propriety now, than it could be, when you administered it. You adduce the mere authority of celebrated names. Whereas all that I did was to mention a great divine, who believed and ably defended the fentiments which I had been attempting to prove, and to refer you to the arguments found in his writings. Now there is a great difference between blindly relying upon great names, repeating' continually, "our forefathers, our pious forefathers," as the ground of our belief, and a proper regard to the reafons, by which diftinguifhed authors have fupported their fentiments.

Hum. But can you, Sir, with fafety, and with becoming def erence to the fathers of our New England churches, fay, that the practice which they introduced was founded on a mistake?

Fid. Yes, Humanus. Nor am I alone. You have substantially faid the fame. For perfons to think themselves, or for others to think them qualified for one ordinance and not for the other, you allowed to be a mistake. Now the persons, whose advantage was confulted by the halfway practice, were, in the eye of charity, fincere penitents, who, neverthelefs, judged themfelves and were judged by others unqualified for the Lord's table. It is our united opinion, that fuch a judgment was erroneous. And it was in conformity to fuch an erroneous judgment, that the halfway covenant was introduced.

Hum. If that mistake were the occafion of introducing the practice, how can the practice be confidered, as you have fuppofed, the origin of the mistake?

Fid. It was faid to be its origin "in many inftances." This miftaken judgment refpecting the Lord's fupper had an influence with thofe, who first authorized the halfway covenant. When that mode of covenanting came into common ufe in the churches, it tended, in its tun, to promote the very mistake, by which itfelf was occafioned. There are many cafes befides this, in which two things have a reciprocal influence.

I will now endeavour, Humanus, to bring my obfervations to a point. Ought we to do any thing, which naturally and directly tends to promote error?

Ham. Certainly not.

Fid. Does not the halfway covenant, ftanding on the founda

tion