^M
v v
i&.o-0.o.o — o»o.o.o.0.o.o.o.o-o-o-'fj|
-— — r
*
PRINCETON, N. J.
Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.
Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No.
W5jg7
A
FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION
OP
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM:
IX WHICH THE
PROPER SUBJECTS OF THAT ORDINANCE
AND THE
MODE OF ADMINISTRATION ARE ASCERTAINED
FRO?,I THE
WORD OF GOD
AND THE
HtSTORY OF THE CHURCH;
AND DEFENDED FHOM THE OBJECTIONS USUALLY UHGED BT THE
OPFOSERS OF INFANT BAPTISM,
AND THE
ADVOCATES OF IMMERSION: IN THE FORM OF A DIALOGUE.
BY NATHANIEL S. PRIME,
PASTOH OF THE PtlKSI^TERI AN CHURCH, IN CA^BRILCE., (.V. T.)
SALEM, (N.Y.) PRINTED BY DODD fcf STEVENSON.
1818.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK, m.
Be it remembered, That on the twentieth day of June, in the forty second year of the Independence of the United States (l.s.) of America, Henry Dodd and James Stevenson, Jun. of the said District, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the wi'rds following, to wit :— " A " Familiar Illustration of Christian Baptism • in which the Proper Sub- jects of that Ordinance and the Mode of Administration are Ascertain- ed from the Word of God and the History of the Church, and defend- " ed from the Objections usually urged by the Opposers of Infant Baptism, " and the advocates of Immersion : In the form of a Dialogue. By Na- " thaniel S. Prime, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Cambridge,
"(N.Y.r
In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, enti- tled " An act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies <of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned M And also to an Act, entitled " an \ct supplementary to an Act, entitled an Act for the encouragement of Learn- ing, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extend- ing the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints."
JAMES DILL, Clerk of the Southern District of New- York.
CONTENTS.
SECTION I.
PAGE.
OPENING of the discussion, and importance of the subject, 13
Objection to the Paedobaptist scheme, because found- ed on the sameness of the Jewish and Christian church, answered, 18
Objection, that infant membership stands on the same foundation with tythes, animal sacrifices, &c. shewn to be utterly false, 21
Dr. Gill's objection to referring Gal. iii. 17. to infant- membership shewn to be groundless, .... 23
Objection, that the " covenant of circumcision" is dis- tinct from that which contains " the promise of a Saviour," shewn to be worse than false, ... 25
The rite of circumcision done away, and infant mem- bership left untouched, 29
Objection, that Abraham, in the covenant which God made with him, was considered a type of Christ, proved false and absurd, 33
SECTION II.
1st Argument in proof of the sameness of the church, founded on the sameness of the covenant, . . 39
Objection, that the Abrahamic covenant was a " na- tional compact" answered; and that covenant shewn to contain all the blessings ever promised to the church, 40
Objection, that circumcision is a mere badge of na- tional descent, answered, 44
Objection, founded on the moral character of the Jews, shewn to be groundless, 50
Dr. Gill's ten arguments against the Abrahamic cove- nant examined, 54
iv CONTENTS.
mar..
Children, both under the former and present dispen- sation, born into the covenant ; and therefore nei- ther circumcision nor baptism can be properly cal- led u an initiating ordinance," 64
Objection, that " circumcision was not a seal of the righteousness of faith/-' when applied to Abraham's seed, answered; and that rite shewn to imply the same in both cases, 67
Objection, that this makes grace "hereditary," an- swered, 60
The view given of the subject, shewn to be anala- gous to other parts of the divine government, and secures the most powerful means for the promotion of religion, 72.
Objection founded on the immorality of the children of believers, answered ; by shewing that their im- piety results, not from any defect in the covenant, but from the unfaithfulness of parents, . ... 75
Objection, that the view given of the subject is " cal- culated to do injury to souls," answered, ... 82
SECTION HI.
2d Argument, that the same principles of holiness and obedience were required under both dispensations, 86
Objection, that the obligation of the Jews to exercise real holiness resulted merely from the universal law of God, and that the Abrahamic covenant re- quired nothing but typical holiness, ibid.
If the Jewish church were a mere type of the Chris- tian, one prominent feature in the type not to be found in the antitype ; (that is, on the supposition that the Baptist church is the true Christian church :) 87
The last objection proved false, by a recurrence to the Abrahamic covenant, in its original institution and subsequent renewals, • 90
destroys the moral character of God, . . 95
is inconsistent with the Lord's charging them
with hypocrisy, 96
In the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant at Mount Sinai, the Lord required, and the Israelites promis- ed absolute holiness, . . . • . . . . . 100
CONTENTS. v
PAGE.
The ten commandments laid down as the basis of the ceremonial economy ; and these, Israel solemnly covenanted to obey, 106
The renewal of the covenant on the borders of Ca- naan, in which absolute holiness is required of Is- rael, on express condition of their enjoying the pro- mised land, 108
Three notable institutions for the maintenance of re- ligion in Israel, . Ill
Absolute holiness promised in the renewal of the co- venant under Joshua, and afterwards under pro- phets and kings, 113
Repentance and faith required and promised in the Abrahamic covenant, 116
The irregularities which existed in the Jewish church, did not proceed from any defect in their constitu- tion, but from the unfaithfulness of the rulers, . 123
SECTION IV.
3d Argument, drawn from the application of the same figures to express the relation between God and the church, under both dispensations, . . 126
The marriage covenant, 127
The relation between a shepherd and flock, . . 128 Vine and branches; husbandman and vineyard, . 129
A rock of foundation and refuge. 130
Bath communities are called " the church," . . ibid. 4th Argument, founded on the nature and design of
the special ordinances under both dispensations, 132 Unity of design between the passover and the Lord's
supper, 133
— between circumcision and baptism, . . . 134
Remarks on the Rev. Robert Hall's opinion, that bap- tism is not an essential prerequisite to communion
at the Lord's table, (a note,) 135
Circumcision, if not superseded by baptism, was ne- ver abrogated by our Lord, 136
Objection, founded on the result of the council at Je- rusalem, answered, 140
Application of baptism to both sexes does not render it i( essentially different" from circumcision, . . 142 1*
vi CONTENTS.
SECTION V.
5th Argument, drawn from express declarations of
scripture, 143
Mat.xxi.43, ibid.
Acts ii. 39, . 14(>
Gal. iv. 22— 31, 153
Rom. xi. 15 — 25, loo
Eph. ii. 11— 22, 1G9
Apocalyptic allusions, 171
SECTION VI.
Recapitulation of arguments, 172
Objection, that this method of proving infant baptism
is a "recent invention," answered, 175
Testimonies from the fathers and historians, in fa- vour of infant baptism, 176
Dr. Wall's summary of evidence, 177
The testimony of Tertullian, and strictures on the
use made thereof by the Baptists, .... 178
Testimony of Justin Martyr, 182
of Irekeus, 133
ofORIGEN, 185
of Cyprian, and the council of Carthage, ibid.
of Ambrose and Chrysostom, . . .ISO
of Hierome and Austin, 1x7
Evidence derived from the Feiagiax controversy, 188
from Ecclesiastical History, .... 190
Mosheot's account of the rise of the Baptists, . . 192 A conjecture as to the derivation of Baptist senti- ments, (a note,) 195
V query not answered — Are the Baptist churches to be regarded as churches of Christ, and their elders
as regularly authorized ministers of the gospel ? . 196
SECTION VII.
Inference from the preceding discussion, in favour of
infant baptism, .199
A review of the state of the controversy, . . . 299
CONTENTS. - Mi
PAGE,
Infant baptism plainly recognised in the New-Tes- tarnent, Mat. xix. 14, Mark x. 14, Luke xviii. 16, 20-3
MatKw, xxviii. 19, 2u6
Baptism of households on the faith of the believing parents, as in the case of Lydia and the jailer, 207
1 Cor.vii.14, .209
Objection — " What good can it do to baptize children?" answered, j 213
Nature of the relation of baptized children to the church, 217
The glory of the Paedobaptist church obscured, in times past, by her own unfaithfulness, . . . 226
Revival of discipline, ibid.
Objection, that the Baptist churches increase, &c. 227
■ that "Baptists know they are right," 228
SECTION Vlil.
Inconsistencies of the Baptist system, .... 229 It rejects the divine authority of the Christian sabbath, 230 Discards infant baptism, tor the want of '• explicit
warrant," and admits female communion without it, 23o Rejects the Old Testament as a rule of duty, . . 241 Virtually excommunicates the great body of the Chris- tian church, ibid.
Close communion possesses "a frightful aspect/' and
is justly " odious" to the intelligent, - - - - 242 Character of the churches and individuals which are
excommunicated by that system, 245
Lebbeus yields the ai ■ and declares his convic-
tion of the correctness of thePsedobaptist scheme, 246
SECTION IX.
On thi Baptism — This part of the subject of
sir;. »mpared with the former, . 247
jections to free communion considered and traced to their source, (a note,) 251
Arguments in favour of immersion reduced to two heads— -1st, The import of the original word, con- sidered, and shewn to be inconclusive, .... 252
viii CONTENTS.
£4.62.
2d, Argument founded on the circumstances attend- ing the administration of that ordinance, consider- ed, .209
All of these relate to John's baptism, which was not
Christian baptism, 271
This is shewn, 1st, from the object of John's admi- nistration, 273
2. From the import of John's baptism, compared with that of Christian baptism, 275
3. From the formula of administration, .... 279
4. From the absurdity which the supposition of their sameness involves, ibid.
The example of Christ, in receiving baptism from John, was not designed for the imitation of his fol- lowers, nor can it be imitated by them, . . . 280
5. John's baptism not Christian baptism, proved from the fact, that the apostles, in admitting persons to the communion of the church, paid no respect to John's administration, 283
In all other cases, the circumstances decide against im- mersion, 2S9
Sprinkling the most appropriate and significant mode, 294
Lebbeu9 yields the point, asks and receives advice as to the course of duty, 297
Evident tokens, that the Baptist system is rapidly de- clining, and will soon become extinct, . . . 299
CONCLUDING ADDRESSES.
1. To the Poedobaptist churches, • . . . . 301
2. To professing parents, 304
3. To baptized children, 308
4. To unbelieving parents, 310
5. To the children of unbelievers, .... 312
PREFACE.
"WHAT! another publication on- baptism ?" will proba- »!y be the exclamation of many, mto whose himds this little volume may fall. At the same time it will be asked, "Can any new light be thrown on this hackneyed subject?'* Whether this has been done,, or not, in the following- pages, two conside- rations, in the author's opinion, justify the publication. The first is, that local productions induce many to read, who would otherwise remain ignorant of the merits of the controversy ; and, therefore, be liable to fall into error, whenever their minds might be called to the subject. That such an inducement is needed at the present juncture, in this region of country, is the opinion of many of my brethren, who have examined and advised the publi- cation. The other is, that until the Paedobapt-.st churches con- duct more consistently with iheir profession, any production that is calculated to a Waken them to duty, cannot be unseasonable. The object of th:s publication is, not only to defend their system, but, also, to excite them to walk worthy of their high vocation. Controversy is always painful to my feelings. For the truth of this position, as far as it can be tested by a man's conduct, 1 con- fidently appeal to ail who have known me, in the whole course of my ministry. But, doubtless, there a.re cases, in which the Chris- tian minister, notwithstanding his reluctance, is bound to enter the lists, in defence of the faith and practice of the gospel. Then, aversion to controversy, would be a crime. That such a case ex- isted, when this work was undertaken, will appear from the fol- lowing statement of facts.
In the fore part of the last year, there was some special atten- tion to religious concerns among the people of my charge, as well as in other neighbouring congregations. At that time, the Bap- tists, many of whom had Leon in habits of Christian intercourse with our people, began to rail against our practice; intimating, that we had no foundation in scripture for our scheme ; that in- fant baptism was an invention of the devil; a relict of Popery; that all who practised it, had no claim to the name of "church \" and many other similar insinuations, which are familiar to all, who are the least acquainted with, that denomination. These things were endured a long time, without gainsaying ; because, 1 was unwilling to divert the attention of my people from the es- sence of religion, to mere external rites and forme. To do so, I knew might make them bigots, but could not make them Chris- t/mis. The latter, 1 ardently desired: the farmer, I most sincere- ly deprecated.
When the religious excitement had abated, and upon an occa- sion when the ordinance of baptism was to be administered to se- veral households, 1 considered it proper, and, on the whole, expe-
x PREFACE.
dient, to preach on the subject, and defend our practice from the attacks of impious raillery and groundless assertion. Two dis- courses, winch were then delivered, formed the basis of this pro- duction. Many of my people solicited their publication at the time; but my avocations were such, that I had not leisure to re- vise the subject, till the commencement of winter.
To publish, in the sermon form, appeared inexpedient ; for the following reason : — A person prejudiced against Poedobaptism, often takes up a sermon, and in reading a single page, two or three objections arise in his mind ; which, though completely an- swered in the close of the discourse, have their full influence in blinding him against conviction, while he is attending to the argument. To obviate, as far as possible, this difficulty, the di- alogue form was adopted, as being the readiest method to answer objections as soon as they arise.
This method is liable to one objection. The writer has the opportunity of putting words into his opponent's mouth. All I can say to remove this, is, that I have studiously endeavoured to make my " LEBBErs" a thorough Baptist. While the argument was in train, I carefully avoided putting any concession into his mouth, but what I have seen or heard advanced on that side of the question. His arguments and objections are usually taken from some Baptist writer, and when the quotation could be made 'verbatim, or nearly so, it is designated as such. I have referred, but in few cases, to the authors' names, as it would be attaching to many pamphlets, a consequence, of which they are really un- worthy. The attention which has been bestowed upon them, is not on account of their intrinsic merits, but because of their imposing" influence on the ignorant and unwary. The intelligent reader may be ready to imagine that, in some instances, 1 have descend- ed to objections that were really unworthy of notice. My only apology is, I have been writing for the benefit of the illiterate, whose minds are often influenced by trifles. I have, therefore, past over no argument or objection on the other side of the ques- tion, that appeared calculated to impose on the uninformed mind.
in endeavouring to possess myself of the arguments and objec- tions of our opponents, I have carefully perused every publica- tion on that side of the question that I could procure, from Br. Gill's system, down to the ephemeral productions of the day; which, like Sybil's leaves, are flying in every direction ; some of which have been gratuitously distributed among my own people ; and which, if I am capable of judging, are like Sybil's leaves af- ter they were scattered by the wind — unconnected, and, in a great measure, unintelligible. On the other hand, I purposely avoided the perusal of our own authors. It is true, that in years past, I had read considerably on the subject; and, therefore, my mind could not be entirely free from prepossession. But, while wri- ting-, I endeavoured, as far as possible, to deduce my sentiments directly from the scriptures. After executing my own plan, I examined several Pcedobaptist publications, a few quotations from which have since been added, and was surprized to find, not only a great similarity of argument, but, in some instancesj a striking
PREFACE. xi
similarity of language ; and that in cases, where I verily thought my own ideas were original. This is mentioned, not as a recom- mendation of the present work, but as some evidence that to Pse- dobaptists, at leust, the scriptures speak one language.
Throughout the discussion, I have used great plainness of speech, but I have carefully endeavoured to avoid railing accusa- tions. In some cases, I have used strong language : some, per- haps, who are f^r removed from the ftVld of controversy, may deem too strong: but I have felt myself justified in the impor- tance of the subject. It is a serious question, in my mind, wheth- er Psedobaptists, in general, do not view the opposite scheme with too little aversion ? On the bare supposition that we are right, that system argues a most awful dereliction and contempt of di- vine authority It strikes at the coxstitutjow of the church — the foundation which God has laid in Zion. Ought such a scheme to be contemplated with calm indifference ? Can it be too strong- ly reprobated ? If, in any case, that precept applies, " Be ye an- gry, and sin not,"' is not this one ?— I am aware, that those publi- cations, on our side of the question, which have been written with considerable asperity of feeling, are often read with disapproba- tion, on that account. I well recollect once having the same im- pression with respect to Peter Edwards' work. But now, with- out approving of all that author's severity, it does appear to me impracticable, to trace the Biiptist scheme through all its wind- ings, and ferret out all its absurdities, without sometimes indulg- ing the same spirit. This Dialogue was undertaken with a se- rious determination to guard against it. But I soon found, that many objections were presented, which, on account of the influ- ence they possessed over the uninformed mind, must not be past unnoticed ; and, which could not be argued down in a serious manner, without degrading one's self to the level of an ignorant opposer. On this account, I have sometimes indulged in satire. But it has been done with a conscientious regard to that inspired precept, " Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be -vise in his own conceit" When a man, professing to discuss a religious to- pick, evades argument, and resorts to ridicule for his defence, it seems proper to let him feel the point of his own weapon. It is reasonable to suppose, that he can feel no other. But, I believe it will be found, that, in no case, have I resorted to this as " the test of truth," or for the defence of my own system.
One objection to publishing at all on this subject, had, for a while, considerable influence on my mind. It was the apprehen- sion that it might operate as a discouragement to united exertion, in the noble institutions of the present day, for disseminating the gospel of Christ. But I am now perfectly satisfied, as far as my acquaintance extends, that this will not be the effect. Those few Baptists who have already united with us in the holy work, are possessed of a spirit and views too liberal, to resent that in others, which is the acknowledged privilege of all denominations ; and which, in their church, in particular, is esteemed a cardinal virtue. Those who have not done so, we may be assured, from the attempts which have been already made, never mil, until the
xii PREFACE.
narrow bigotry of that communion is destroyed. Every attempt, therefore, to produce this effect, will ultimately tend to the fur- therance of the gospel. In this point of view, the path of duty appeared perfectly plain.— Another consideration rendered it im- perious. When we see a sect, whose works of benevolence and liberality certainly do not eclipse those of other denominations, endeavouring to monopolize the credit of all the religious insti- tutions of the day, and hear them arrogantly exclaiming, " The
TEMPLE OF THE LoRT), THE TEMPLE OP THE L.ORT), THE TEMPLE OF
tu". Lord are WE," to the exclusion of all others, as a watch- man of Israel I could not forbear to lift up my voice against these exclusive claims.
That every sentiment contained in this publication will be ap- proved by all my Pxdobaptist brethren, is not to be expected. On some minor points of our scheme, it is well known, there is some diversity of sentiment. But, I am confident, that whatever is written with candour, will receive from them a candid consid- eration : and that real or supposed errors will be pointed out in the spirit of the gospel. That it will have to encounter an oppo- sition of a more hostile and determinate character, is what I expect, and what I am prepared to meet with That it will be the means of converting a single Baptist from the errors of his scheme, is what 1 dare not expect. Such is the influence of pre- judice over the human mind, that the conversion of one of that people, may be considered next to a miracle. Therefore, I have not been so chimerical as to anticipate the accomplishment of that object. I have aimed no higher than to confirm Paedobar- tists in their sentiments ; and, to prevent those who, as yet, have adopted no system, from embracing error. But, if it should not produce even this effect, I shall never regret my labour. The en - tire satisfaction of my own mind, which the investigation has pro- duced, is sufficient to repay me for all my trouble. T, therefore, commit the work to the blessing of God, and the candid perusal of the Christian publick.
THE AUTHOR.
Cambridge, January 12, 1813.
V. S. I had intended to subjoin to this publication, Dr. W'ith- erspooVs Letters, on the education of children ; which 1 have long designed to introduce into every family of my congregation, as containing the best and most concise system of domestic poli- cy with which I am acquainted. But, j».s my own work has swol- len one third larger than was proposed, I am obliged, for the pre- sent, to relinquish the design ; hoping' that, in some other waj', I shall soon be able to furnish my people, and as many others as may wish it, with that excellent manual.
1
A DIALOGUE, &c.
LEBBEUS, a Baptist— EUGENIUS, a Padobaptisl SECTION I.
Lcbbeus. JL HAVE taken the liberty to call upon you this morning for the purpose of conversing, if you have leisure, on the subject of the discourses you delivered yes-4 terday.
Eugenius. My time is usually occupied, but I can generally arrange my business so as to enjoy the society of friends : and, if it will afford you any gratification, I shall free- ly devote as much of this day as you please to the subject you propose, provided we can converse with freedom and candour.
Leb. That, I assure you, is my intention* I consider the subject as vastly important to the external order of the church, and am convinced that it ought to be examined with great candour and deliberation. I was in- duced to attend your meeting yesterday, because I had understood that you were to preach on baptism; and, as T had never heard that subject discussed, in the pulpit, by any Of your denomination, and had often heard
14
it said, that the reason was, you have no foundation in the scriptures for your senti- ments and practice, I resolved to go and hear what you could say. And, although your arguments have not convinced me that you are right, I am free to acknowledge, that there is more of the appearance of truth on your side, than I had ever imagined. I have, therefore, come with a fixed resolution to canvass the subject, as far as 1 am able, with an unprejudiced mind.
Eug. I am happy, sir, to see you in such a state of mind : and, although I may not be able to set the subject in stronger light than has been done by my brethren a thousand times before; yet, I have no doubt, if you will review the arguments without preju- dice, your conviction of the correctness of our system will be complete. Prejudice is the great enemy of truth. It is a secret and invisible enemy. It has full possession of the minds of multitudes, who fondly im- agine that they are entirely free from its in- fluence. It operates like derangement in an acute disease: the unhappy subject sup- poses himself in perfect health, while, at the same time, his disorder is accumulating strength, and rapidly advancing to the most alarming crisis. In like manner, those who are most completely under the domin- ion of prejudice, are ordinarily most apt to think that they are free from its influence. In a word, prejudice is the devil's strong hold in the human heart.
15
The subject of baptism, as you have re marked, is, indeed, one of great importance and, therefore, it is a point of no trifling con sequence, which divides the Baptist and Pse dobaptist churches. Your denomination arc apt to think, from the importance which the) attach to the mode, that the whole responsi bility rests upon us; that if we should prove our sentiments and practice to be correct they cannot be far from right. But the modi is of little consequence, compared with tin proper subjects. Therefore, the grand ques lion at issue involves the very existence o the church. — As to what you observed w7itl respect to our ministers* seldom preaching on the subject, I can assure you, it is not froir any consciousness of the want of evidence to support our system; but from an aversior to controversy, at all times, and more espe cially in seasons of special attention to re ligion. We have no favourable opinion o\ those " revivals," so called, which are pro- moted by the rancour and acrimony of con- troversial preaching about modes and forms, Nothing is more hostile than contention, to a revival of "pure and undefiled religion. ,: And this, you know, is the only time when an attack is provoked by your denomina- tion. In seasons of declension, your people exhibit quite a catholic spirit. Your minis- ters will then exchange with ours, or labour together in one common field. Your mem- bers will mingle their prayers and exhorta- tions with ours. But, the moment the pub*
16
lie attention is awakened, and same begin to be concerned for their souls' salvation, from an apprehension that your catholic conduct will not be likely to make the new converts thorough-going Baptists, or, that you can- not have a favourable opportunity to instil into their minds your own peculiar senti- ments, or, from some other cause, best known to yourselves, you immediately be- gin to withdraw, and set up separate altars. And then the subject of baptism becomes the theme of almost every sermon and ex- hortation, and the topic of conversation from house to house. And, in administering the holy ordinance of baptism, instead of illus- trating clearly the nature and design of the institution, pointing out the difference be- tween the external sign and the thing signi- fied thereby, warning the subjects against trusting to the form, we hear nothing but the cry, " this is the way, the only way — this is the path our Saviour trod ;y accompanied with a torrent of raillery against all other denominations; bantering and defiance to every opposer. What opinion can a candid mind entertain of such conduct, and of those whose religion is produced and kept alive by such means? I venture to pronounce it essentially different from the religion of the gospel. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Lord will bless, to the conviction and con- version of sinners, those discourses which re- spect solely the externals of religion, while the great and important doctrines and pre-
17
eepts of the gospel are thrown into the back ground? It is the preaching of repentance, faith, regeneration, sovereign grace, and o- ther concomitant truths, and not empty de- clamation on water baptism and other modes and forms, (much less inveighing against o- ther denominations,) which is usually sancti- fied to the conversion of sinners, and to the comfort, and edification of believers. We consider the externals of religion important in their place, and we endeavour to illus- trate and enforce them in their proper place ; but, after all, we do not forget that they are mere externals. Hence, we cannot indulge ourselves in railing accusations against those wTho may differ from us on these subjects. This is our only reason, and, 1 think I may say, a sufficient one too, for not following examples which are so frequently presented on the other side. I will only add, that whenever any of our ministers have depart- ed from this course, and preached pointedly against your system, your people, instead of approving of what they consider a cardi- nal virtue in their own conduct, have uni- formly raised the hue and cry of popery or persecution, thereby endeavouring to cast on us the odium which attaches, or ought to attach, to their own practice. — But I must- crave your pardon for these plain remarks- It is not my design to injure your feelings* but the idea you suggested, requires a point-* ed answer,
2*
Leb. You have not injured my feelings in the least. I am sensible there is too much occasion for the strictures you have made. I thank you for your plainness, and I wish you to use the utmost freedom, throughout our interview.
Eug. You will please to suggest that me- thod of conducting the discussion, which will- be most agreeable to your own mind.
Leb. Why, sir, I wish to converse at large on the subject ; and, if you would indulge me in the request, I should be happy to hear you repeat the leading arguments of the dis- courses you delivered yesterday, with such remarks as you may be induced to make in answer to my inquiries and objections.
Eug. This course will be perfectly agree- able to me; and I pray God that it may be profitable to us both.
Leb. I perceived, from the method you? pursued in the discussion of the subject yes- terday, that "the sameness of the Jewish and Christian churches," is regarded as the foundation of your whole system. Now, I have this objection or difficulty, in regard to that course* The attempt to " blend these churches, carrying the Christian church back, and bringing the Jewish church for-* ward," and that constant reference to the Old Testament, for proof of infant member- ship, " seems to betray a consciousness of the want of evidence to support it in the New Testament/'
19
Eug. We do, indeed, consider "the same- ness of the church,.*'* as the foundation of our scheme; and, if this point is established, it is impossible to avoid the consequences. Your ministers are fully sensible of this, and hence their constant endeavours, by so- phistry and ridicule, by dogmatical asser- tion and empty declamation, to make their people reject the sentiment. As to your remark about "bringing one church forward and carrying the other back," it is altogeth- er unfounded; for we do neither. We do not alter their relative situation at all: we take them precisely where we find them in the word of God. There is no chasm be- tween the two dispensations. The one stood till the other was instituted. The same sove- reign act that removed the one, established the other in its place, and on the same foun- dation. On our referring to the Old Tes- tament, as a source of evidence, I shall only remark, that I desire to bless God, I was brought up to respect the whole revealed will of Heaven; and I have never yet learn- ed, and I hope I never shall learn, to reject a single tittle of that revelation. Therefore I submit as cheerfully to the authority of the Old Testament, as to that of the New.
* By the " sameness of the church," is meant, that it has been composedjof the same constituent parts in all ages : that the Jews were required to profess the same religion which Christians do : that both were by profession " the people of God," or the visible church ; and that the only difference between them arises from the different external rites and forms, which, by divine appoint- ment, have been observed under the two dispensations. Their cosstitxtiox is one, though their statftu-laws are. different.
2tf
Leb. But, certainly, you do not suppose- that all the precepts of the Old Testament are still obligatory?
Mag. No; I do not. There were many rites and ceremonies, under the former dis- pensation, which, from their nature, were evidently designed to be confined to that dispensation; the repeal of which was fore- told by the prophets, and accomplished by our Lord. But, whatever he has left unal- tered, still challenges- the obedience of men. And here I will not only advance that sen- timent, so obnoxious to some of your peo- ple, that "it requires the same authority to repeal a law that it did to enact it ;" but I will add, that the repeal of part of a law, in- stead of invalidating the remaining part evi- dently gives it a new sanction; for it is an implicit acknowledgment, that so far it is a- greeable to the existing administration. — There are precepts in the New Testament, which, from their nature, or the circumstan- ces under which they were delivered, were evidently limited in their operation; such as the injunction of the apostles, " to abstain from things strangled, and from blood;" and yet no man, in his senses, ever supposed that he must obey these, or reject the whole of the New Testament.
Leb. But, is it not reasonable to suppose, that if infant membership is still the will of Heaven, it wTould have been explicitly re- vealed in the New Testament? .Eug.. Without admitting that the New Te^
2t
lament is silent on this point, (for I believe I can shew you, in its proper place, that it is not,) I will only remark here, that an ex- plicit revelation would be altogether need- less. Divine revelation is given to rational beings, and not to mere idiots. When the
> Lord has once delivered a precept, not lim- ited in its nature, we know that it must be obligatory until he explicitly repeals it. — When, upon a change of administration, the laws are amended in certain particulars, it
! is unnecessary for the legislature to declare that those parts which are not amended, are still in force. Or, to use another similitude* still more to the case in hand, when one law is repealed, and another enacted in its place*
i it is unnecessary for the legislature to de- clare that this law is not designed to abro- gate the constitution, which is the founda- tion of the government. Such a declaration would be an insult to common sense. To suppose it necessary, is to suppose that the people are little better than natural fools.
Leb. But, sir, if you admit tbal the whole ceremonial economy is abrogated, I think you admit all that is necessary; for "you might as well pay tyihes, observe the pass- over, offer sacrifice, &c. as to retain infant membership."
Eug. I freely admit, thai the whole of the ceremonial law is annulled ; but, unhappily for your system, infant membership is no part of that law. It was instituted in the ancient church, four hundred and thirty
■22
years before that law had existence. And this was what I designed to represent, by the similitude which I used last; but which, it seems, you did not understand. The cov- enant made with Abraham, is the constitu- tion of the church — that compact, which forms the basis, or gives existence to the community. The rites an I forms which were afterwards ordained from time to time, of which the ceremonial law was a part, were the laws of the commonwealth — the mode of administering the covenant. These, there- fore, may ail be repealed, and others enact- ed in their stead ; and yet the constitution remain unaltered. This, the apostle ex- pressly declares, in his epistle to the Gala- tians. "And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect." — Gal. iii. 17. Our Saviour, also, expressly recogni- sed the distinct and diverse origin of circum- cision, and the ceremonial law, when he ob- served to the Jews, "Moses, therefore, gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of .Moses, out of the father s> 8Cg" — John vii. 22. This important distinction appears to have been entirely overlooked by your declaim- ed against infant membership.
Leo. This, I acknowledge,, is to me a new idea, and is entitled to serious consideration. But, with respect to the text you quoted from GalaUans, Dr. Gill says, the apostle
23
Ci does not there refer to the covenant of cir* cumcision, because the time between them does not agree; there being but about four hundred years."
Bug. I do not pretend that the apostle there refers to the rite of circumcision. This, like the ceremonial economy, I consider as one of the laws of the community, which were liable to change. But the covenant, which is the constitution of the church, and had respect to Abraham's posterity, as well as himself, was established almost thirty years before that time; and thus you see the time does correspond exactly. It was pre- cisely four hundred and thirty years from the time of God's first covenanting with Abra- ham, to the departure of Israel out of Egypt. Besides this, there is the same striking coin- cidence between that passage and the other writings of Moses. When the Lord appear- ed to Abraham in Hebron, he there renew- ed the covenant which he had previously made, and then adds, " Know, of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years." — Gen. xv. 13. This period, you will ob- serve, is stated with exclusive reference to Abraham's posterity; and here, we find, that from the birth of Isaac to the emancipation of Israel from Egypt, is exactly four hun- dred years. Again, on the departure of Is- rael from Egypt, Moses writes, "Now, the sojourning of the children of Israel, who
24
dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thir- ty years. — Ex.xii.40. These words are used with singular precision ; and have refer- ence not merely to Abraham's posterity, but to himself with them; and include the whole period, from the time of the Lord's first entering into covenant with him, to the emancipation of Israel. For, although the greater part of Abraham's life, after he was called of God, was spent in the land of Canaan, yet even there he was only a so- journer. This, you recollect, is expressly declared by St. Stephen: "He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it; no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet he pro- mised that he would give it to him, and to his seed after him." — Acts vii. 4, 5. Hence Mo- ses says, "The sojourning of the children of Israel," (the name by which the church was then usually distinguished) "who dwelt inE- gypt" {their residence in Egypt is spoken of as only a part of the time of their sojourn- ing) "was four hundred and thirty years." Hence, also, we find, that from the first calling of Abraham to the egress of Is- rael, from Egypt, was just four hundred and thirty years; and, from the particu- larity of Moses' words, it would seem to be this even to a day : for, he adds, " And it came to pass, at the end of the four hun- dred and thirty years, even the self-same day- it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt." This e-
25
vent, you know, took place only about two months before the giving of the law from Si- nai; and therefore it is evident, that the apos- tle does refer to the original covenant made with Abraham, which he declares could not be invalidated by the ceremonial law. If, then, the enactment of that law did not annul the original covenant, its repeal could not affect it.
Leo. That the apostle refers to the cove- nant made with Abraham, in Chaldea, Dr. Gill admits; and also, that that covenant was "an exhibition and manifestation of the co- venant of grace to Abraham." But the co- venant of circumcision is an entirely distinct covenant from that. It is " by uniting these, and taking occasion from the term covenant, because applied to both; also, from gospel believers being called the seed of Abraham," that your denomination have been pleased "to call the Christian and Jewish church one and the same. This passes for cur- rency with such as do not examine for them- selves.''
Eug. I am not surprised that such senti- ments as you have now suggested, should "pass for currency" or sound reasoning a- mong common people, who have little ac- quaintance with the structure of human lan- guage; but that they should be passed off for " good coin," by your teachers, who are, or ought to he, men of some information, is to me a matter of surprise, if they lay any claim to common honesty. " The promise of a Sa- 3
26
viour," and what you are pleased to call *'the covenant of circumcision," are, indeed, distinct things; just as distinct as a promise in a covenant, and the seal or token of that covenant, are distinct things; but they are not distinct covenants.
JLeb. But the Lord says expressly, " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Eve- ry man-child among you shall be circumci- sed." Gen. xvii. 10. Is not this an entirely distinct covenant from that which the Lord had previously made with him ? Gen. xii. I.
Eug. No sir; when the Lord appeared to Abraham, as recorded in Gen. xvii. he did not come to enter into a new covenant with him, but merely to " establish" the one alrea- dy made, by instituting a visible token, by which, the existence of that covenant should be known. Hence he addressed Abraham thus ; " As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations, &c. And I will establish my cove- venant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an ever- lasting covenant : to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," Here the original cove- nant, in all its latitude, is renewed and es- tablished or confirmed. As to the declara- tion in the 10th verse, which you. have quo- ted, it is nothing more than a common fi- gure of speech, in which the sign is put for the thing signified. There is no more weight in your argument from this passage,
27
than in the popish doctrine of transubstanU- atioiiy drawn from Christ's words, "This is my body.'' The plain meaning of the pas- sage, is "This is the token of my covenant, &c." and if you had only quoted the suc- ceeding verse, you would have found this stated in the most explicit terms. " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant be- twixt me and you." But, according to your construction, circumcision is both the cove- nant and the token of the covenant — the sign and the thing signified by that sign: that is, it is itself, and the token or sign of itself.— Therefore I repeat what I have already said, I am not surprised that common people should be imposed upon by such contempt- ible sophistry ; but when your teachers make use of it to persuade their hearers that the Abrahamic covenant is not the covenant of grace, it proves incontrovertible one of two things ; that they are either grossly ignorant, or basely dishonest. But there is a reason for all this sophistry. The covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham contains this gracious promise, " to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." This ori- ginal covenant Dr. Gill acknowledges, was "an exhibition and manifestation of thecove- nant of grace." Now to admit that circum- cision was the seal of this covenant is to sur- render the whole point in dispute. Hence, they have no way left but to make it out that the rile of circumcision^ instead of being
28
nn appendage to the original covenant, is an entirely distinct institution: but with what success, or rather absurdity, glaring absurd- ity, 1 have shewn you.
Leb. I must confess I am astonished at this view of the subject. I really believed that these two things were entirely distinct. But the explanation you have given exhibits the point in quite a different light.
Eug. It is no explanation Lebbeus; it is the plain declaration of God himself, that circumcision is the token or seal of that co- venant which contained all the blessings, both temporal and spiritual, promised to Abraham and his seed.
Leb. I observed in your discourse, yes- terday, that you made frequent use of the word "seal," in reference to the special or- dinances of the gospel. I do not know but you are correct in so doing, but 1 have heard some of our ministers express a " wish that your denomination would lay it aside, as it sounds Jewish, or rather popish, in the ears of baptists."
Eug. If they had said, it sounds too evan- gelical or apostolical for their scheme, they would have come much nearer the truth: — I am sure there is nothing Jewish in it, for the word was never used under that dispen- sation in reference to religion. It is a term of pure gospel origin, and the apostle de- clares that it was applicable to circumcision, for he calls it " a seal of the righteousness of faith." And as to its being popish, I shall
only observe, that if that church had deri- ved all its doctrines and precepts and max- ims and terms from the gospel, as directly as this term, it had never been the reproach and scourge of the Christian world. I can assure you, my friend, we shall never " lay aside" gospel terms in condescension to the prejudices of baptists.
Led. I think there can be no doubt that you are correct in referring the apostle's words to the original covenant. But if, as I just now understood you to admit, circum- cision was not a part of the original cove- nant, but instituted afterwards, it appears to me that on your own principles, you ex- clude infant membership.
jEug. Not at all: the covenant, as origi- nally made with Abraham, embraced his seed as well as himself, as fully as it did at a- ny subsequent renewal of it. But the rite of circumcision, which was to be the token of that covenant, or the public mark by which membership was to be recognised under that dispensation, was not then instituted; and for a very good reason : the promised seed was not then born. Hence, though the Lord appeared to Abraham several times after he first entered into covenant with him, and at each of those times renewed and further explained the terms of that covenant, yet he never instituted the rite of circumcision till the very year before the birth of Isaac.
Leb. But in as much as the rite of circum- cision was by divine appointment applied *°
3*
30
Abraham's household, consisting of his son Ishmael and his servants, as soon as it was instituted, is it not reasonable to suppose that, if it had been designed to be the token of the original covenant, it would have been instituted at the same time?
Eug. No sir : the covenant in its origin, and with the explanations which the Lord condescended to give from time to time, had reference all along to Isaac as the pro- mised seed. Hence, although the seal was by divine direction applied to those who then composed Abrahams household, yet the Lord states explicitly that it was insti- tuted with peculiar reference to Isaac. He graciously assures him that "for his (Abra- ham's) sake he will bless his son Ishmael : But, says he, my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee, at this set time, in the next year." Gen. xvii. 19 — 21. This sentiment, it seems, A- braham did not distinctly understand until after the birth of Isaac. Then, when Sarah discovered Ishmael mocking, she said unto Abraham " Cast out this bond-woman and her son, for the son of this bond woman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac : And the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight, because of his son. And Godsaid unto Abraham, let it not be grie- vous in thy sight, because of the lad and because of the bond-woman ; in all that Sa- rah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her Toice, for in Isaac shall thy seed be called J ^
31
Hence, it is evident, that the covenant with its appointed seal was instituted with pecu- liar reference to Isaac and his posterity. — And here we discover the true reason why the token of the covenant was not appoint- ed until just before his birth.
Leb. But, after all you have said, it ap- pears to me, that the Apostle's words, upon which you have been arguing, have no ref- erence to infant membership. Nay, in the verse immediately preceding that passage, he expressly declares, that allusion is not made to Abraham's natural posterity, but to Christ. " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. iii. 16.
Eug. If this reasoning of yours proves any thing, it proves too much for your sys- tem. It goes to shew that Abraham's na- tural posterity were in no sense included in the covenant. This covenant, like every other, consists of two parts. Abraham pro- mises obedience. On this condition the Lord graciously promises to reward him. Now the divine promise is not confined to a single object ; it embraces several. The first is to " make of him a great nation" — then, " to bless him and his seed and to make them a blessing, and to defend them from all their enemies." These promises have exclusive reference to his natural pos- terity. And finally, as the foundation of
32
the whole covenant, he promises, "And in thee" i.e. as it is afterwards explained, " in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." This last promise refers to Christ, as the apostle expressly declares. Turn back to the 8th verse of the chapter, and vou will find this declaration. " And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Now it is to this part of the covenant that the apos- tle all along refers, and particularly in the 16th verse, where he applies the word seed9 in its singular form, to Christ. But then, in the succeeding verse he affirms, " This I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the promise of none effect." Therefore, I repeat my for- mer concluson, that if the enactment of that law did not destroy the original covenant, its repeal could not effect it. And if one part of the covenant stands good, the other does. And, therefore, though all the rites and ceremonies which were from time to time ordained under the former dispensa- tion of the covenant, were repealed at the commencement of the Christian dispensa- tion, and other rites instituted in their stead, yet that original covenant, which is the con- stitution of the church, remains in all its force. Hence the seed of believers being
33
included in the covenant, their standing cannot be affected by the abrogation of the ceremonial law.
Leb. I have already prolonged this pre- liminary discussion far beyond what I expected or intended, and I am almost tired of suggesting things, which present dif- ficulties to my mind, but which vou seem prepared to dispose of so readily. But a- nother thought occurs so me, which, if your patience is not yet exhausted, I should be glad to mention.
Eng. Pray, sir, feel entirely at ease on the score of my patience ; I shall cheerful- ly devote the day to your service, and an- other if it should be necessary. I certainly wish you to suggest every objection which occurs to your mind as we proceed, for un^ less you do this, I cannot expect you to weigh with candour the arguments I shall urge.
Leb. The idea which I alluded to, is this : "The plain scripture fact seems to be, that Abraham was a type of Christ, and the promise that his seed should be as the stars of heaven and the sand of tiie sea for multi- tude, if it had any connexion with the cov- enant of grace, it was in Christ. Agreea- ble to Isaiah, he shall see of his seed and be satisfied. — Was not the promise (Gen. xviii. 18.) in Christ ? where God said ail the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. Have all the nations, or individuals, who have shared in the covenant of grace, beea.
34
in Abraham? or have they been in him as a type of Abraham's God? We all know that they have not been in him naturally, but they have all been in Christ. By keep- ing Abraham's typical character in view, we are able to understand without difficulty those passages of scripture which speak of him as heir of the world, the father of all them thai believe, &c. but, on any other construction, you will find them involved ia inexplicable difficulties."
Eug. That Abraham, in some passages of scripture, is considered as a type of Christ, I do not dispute* And so are Isaac, and David, and Solomon, and Isaiah, and others of the ancient patriarchs and prophets. But does it follow from this that Abraham, or any other man, possessed no other than a typical character? It surely does not. — Give Abraham all the honour that results from his typical character, but let not the type absorb the man. You must not for- get that he sustains the character of a pa- rent, the head of a family ; and in his char- acter he is regarded in relation to his na- tural posterity. You refer to Gen. xviii. 13. and ask, whether the promise there made is not ifl Christ, and Abraham a type of Christ? I answer, the promise is indeed made in reference to Christ as the seed of Abra- ham, but there is no evidence that Abra- ham is there considered as a type. You will observe, that this passage is a repeti- tion of the original and fundamental prom-
35
ise of the covenant, (Vid. Gen. xii, 3.) and is quoted by the apostle, in his epistle to the Gala trans, as an evidence that the gos- pel was preached to Abraham, and that he was justified by faith. That is, according to your construction, God made Abraham a type of Christ, and then preached the gos- pel to him ; or, preached the gospel to him by making him a type of Christ. Now, ac- cording to this interpretation, can you tell me whether Abraham was justified for be- lieving that he was a type of Christ, or, in the promised Saviour .' i. e. for believing in himself, or in Christ? Is this one of those " inexplicable difficulties" which your type is calculated to avoid, or does it lead di- rectly into it? — You ask, whether all who have ever shared in the covenant of grace, have been in Abraham naturally, &c ? I answer, No ; but by faith in Christy (not in your type of Christ,) they have become partakers of the covenant which God made with the holy patriarch, and are therefore called by the apostle " children of Abra- ham" and " heirs of the promise :'' And these epithets, it seems, many of your preach- ers are unwilling to use, lest common people, who are in the habit of giving a common-sense interpretation to scripture, should never imagine that Abraham was a mere shadow. I do not wonder at their caution.
What has been said, might be deemed suf- ficient to shew, that in that passage,direct re-
36
ference is had to Christ; but to preclude all doubt on the subject, and to shew you that this is not the mere result of " inferential proof," permit me to refer you to a " Thus saith the Lord" on this point. The Lord afterwards repeated this promise to Abraham, and also to Isaac and Jacob, in these words, "And in thy seed shall all the families (or nations) of the earth be blessed." Vid. Gen. xxii. 18. xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14. This is the same identi- cal promise, only expressed in more expli- cit terms. And that it meant precisely the same when originally delivered to Abra- ham, is evident from the apostle's reasoning in the 3d of Galatians. That he therein refers to the original covenant, and not to the subsequent explanations of it, I have already shewn you, by the precise corres- pondence of the four hundred and thirty years. From the first institution of the cov- enant, it is evident, that there are two seeds distinctly recognised therein. The one may be called "the promised seed," which is Christ; and the other "the seed of the pro- mise," which is Abraham's natural posteri- ty, together with those who should be in- corporated with them by professing their re- ligion. The former, is all along held up as the object of faith ; the latter, as the heirs of the promise through faith. And every at- tempt to destroy this distinction, by identi- fying the one with Abraham, as a type of Christ, however desirable it may be for the maintenance of your system, is evidently
37
" darkening counsel by words without knowledge."
But I have not done with this idea. As your denomination are so fond of reducing every thing under the former dispensation to types and shadows, when you have made Abraham a Christ, why have you never at- tempted to shew that the Jews were requi- red to exercise faith in Abraham. This ty- pical faith would not only have happily cor- responded with Abraham's typical character, but would have been vastly convenient to prefigure the faith of the Christian church ; and I doubt not many of your denomination will "fellowship" this suggestion rather than give up Abraham's typical character, which, it seems, helps them out of so many other- wise "inexplicable difficulties;" but, for my part, I am not terrified at those difficulties which shadows can remove.
Before I conclude my remarks on this point, I wish you to take one more view of the passage you have referred to, in its con- nexion.— It is in Genesis xviii, in immediate connexion with the meditated destruction of Sodom. "And the Lord said, shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; see- ing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations ^)f the earth shall be blessed in him 1 For I know that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judg- ment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham 4
38
that which he hath spoken of him" Now, se- riously, this would have been one of the last passages I should have thought of referring to, as an evidence that Abraham was ever considered a type of Christ. Here, as in every other case, where the covenant is in- troduced, the two distinct seeds are explicit- ly brought to view, and that by way of al- lusion to the original compact which God had made with him. And, what is very re- markable, he states precisely the ground on which the benefits of that covenant are to descend from generation to generation. " For I know that he will command his chil- dren and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment: that the Lord may bring up- on Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." So far from being regarded as a type, he is expressly recognised as the fa- ther or head of a family and household, in which relation he must be faithful, in order to transmit the blessing to his posterity. — But I shall have occasion to call your atten- tion to this passage in another place. I, therefore, forbear any further comment up- on it here. Permit me, therefore, to recall your attention to the point at issue. And, by this time, I think your candour must con- strain you to admit, that the covenant which St. Paul declares was not annulled by the ceremonial law, is the original covenant made with Abraham. With this, and with no other, the four hundred and thirty years
39
correspond. Hence infant membership, which was instituted four hundred and thir- ty years before the law was ordained, cer- tainly cannot be affected by the repeal of that law. Your objection, therefore, that we might as well "pa}7 tythes, keep the pass- over, offer sacrifice, &c." is entirely without foundation.
Leb. I acknowledge T never considered the subject in (his light before. I was al- ways in the habit of considering infant mem- bership as standing on the same foundation with tythes, annual sacrifices, &c. I have heard it asserted so frequently, I verily thought it was the case. But, as the force of this argument will depend, in a consider- able degree, on the proof you adduce in favour of the sameness of the ancient and Christian church, I will now attend to your reasoning on that subject.
SECTION II.
Eugenius. THE first argument which I adduced in support of that sentiment, was drawn from the sameness of the covenant, which the Lord made with Abraham and his seed, and that upon which the Christian church is founded. "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a bles- sing. And I will bless them that bless thee,
40
and curse him that curseth thee." — Gen. xii. 2, 3. Of this covenant, circumcision, as I have already shewn, was in due time ap- pointed the seal.
Leb> But some of our most able preach- ers and writers have shewn, that this, in- stead of being the covenant of grace, was " a national compact, '* having respect to the possession of the land of Canaan, and other temporal blessings; and "circumcision was nothing more than a token or badge of na- tional descent," by which the posterity of Abraham should be kept pure from all oth- er nations, until the promised Messiah was born.
Eug. If this has ever been proved, I am ignorant of the fact. I know it has been roundly asserted by many, and with such imposing effrontery too, that your people have been constrained to adopt the opinion; for they could not suppose that good men, (as they suppose their teachers to be) would make such positive assertions, without full evidence of their correctness. It is not ge- nerally considered, that great confidence in asserting an opinion, is no evidence of its correctness. Common people, who are not in the habit of reasoning, are more frequent- ly carried away with bold assertions than with the soundest arguments. It is this that has given some of your preachers so much supposed advantage in this controversy. But I assure you, I consider it no difficult task to shew that these assertions have been made,
41
not only without a single sound argument to support them, but also in direct opposition to plain logical deduction, to scripture de- claration, and to matter of fact* When the Lord renewed this covenant with Abraham, just before the birth of Isaac, and appointed the seal, he fully explained what he meant by blessing him and his seed. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to
THEE, AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE." Gen.
xvii. 7.
Leo, But this means nothing more than that he would be "their King and temporal governor," and have that nation under his peculiar protection.
Eug. This may "pass for currency" with Baptists, (the famous advocates, in theory T of explicit warrant,) but it will not be re- ceived as such by Peedobaptists, who found their faith on argument, and not on asser- tion. The sentiment which you have ad- vanced, has often been roundly asserted, and that not only without an argument to sup- port it, but in direct opposition to the dic- tates of common sense and the whole cur- rent of scripture. " I will be your God, and ye shall be my people." No greater bles- sing can creatures desire. No greater bles- sing can God bestow. It is the same which is applied lo believers, John xx. 17. Heb. xi„ 16, and to the Christian church, 2 Cor. vi. 16. yea, even as comprehending all the blessings 4*
42
to be enjoyed in her millennial glory or tri- umphant state. " And God himself shall be with them, and be their God.'' — Rev. xxi. 3. Where, then, I demand, is the evidence that it implies less in one case than in the other. What arrogance, not to say impiety, do those display, who assert that there is an infinite difference in the meaning of the same words in the two cases! — But that the Abrahamic covenant was as comprehensive as I have re- presented, and that it is the foundation of the Christian church, is most explicitly declared in the 6th chap, to the Hebrews. The apos- tle, there, introduces the promise of the ori- ginal covenant, " Surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying, 1 will multiply thee." — - This, he declares, " God confirmed by an oath to Abraham," who, "after he had pa- tiently endured, obtained the promise." — But he never inherited the land of Canaan, "no, not so much as to set his foot on:" he was only a sojourner there. Consequently, the blessing which God had promised, and which he "obtained," after " patiently en- during," must allude to something else. To set this matter entirely at rest, the apostle adds, " Wherein God, willing more abun- dantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath ; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, WE wight have a strong consolation, who have Jled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us : which hope we have as an anchor ofthe soul, both sure and stedfast, and which
43
entereth into that within the veil ; whither Jesus, the forerunner is for us entered, &e." Now, I wish to know, what consolation Chrfo- tians can derive from God's promise and oath to Abraham, if the covenant which was con- firmed thereby, is not the constitution of the Christian church? And how can it be the foundation of the Christian hope, which is "an anchor of the soul, sure and stedfast," if that covenant had respect merely to the possession of Canaan, and other temporal blessings? The supposition is absurd; and the fact is evident, that this covenant "com- prises all the blessings and privileges ever promised to believers and the church."
Leb. With respect to that sentiment, sir, I shall only say, "to those that can believe this, let them believe it."
Eug. Weli done, Lebbeus! you have a- dopted a very convenient method to dispose of an argument which you cannot contro- vert. I have shewn, by comparing scripture with scripture, that the promise of Jehovah, to an individual or a community, "to be their God," contains all that creatures can desire, or God himself bestow. And I defy you, or any of your persuasion, to prove the contrary. Conscious of your in- ability to do this, and yet pressed with the argument, you endeavour to get rid of it, by exclaiming "to those that can believe this, let them believe it." This expression does, indeed, contain a precious privilege to Pa> do baptists, if you would allow them to exercise
44
it; but it contains no argument against iheir sentiments, and really betrays the weakness of your own cause. In this light it will be viewed by every intelligent person. This, however, is no unusual method, among your people, to dispose of arguments which they know not how to answer. T have often ob- served, that they will exclaim, as you have done, or cry out, "O, absurdity I" or pretend to write " Tekel" on an argument, when, at the very moment, they are so oppressed with its weight, that they know not how to relieve themselves. No man will adopt such an in- glorious method of defence, unless he is con- vinced, that he has no more honourable way. But I seriously apprehend, Lebbeus, that your professed candour must have de- serted you just at this juncture.
I now proceed to another of your posi- tions. You say, that "circumcision is a mere badge of national descent.'5 This stands on the same foundation with your other remark. It is assertion in direct op- position to the divine testimony, and to mat- ter of fact. Abraham's servants received that seal as well as his natural seed; Ish- mael as well as Isaac ; Esau as well as Jacob. And the descendants of those men who were excluded from the promise, have retained the same rite, even to the present day. Moreover, the apostle declares, that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel ; nei- ther because they are the children of Abra- ham, are they all children ; but in Isaac shall
45
thy seed be called ; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, they are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.''' — Rom. ix. 6 — 8. If the covenant of Abraham was a mere national covenant, and had respect solely to temporal blessings, there is not a word of truth in this declaration; for on- that ground they are all Israel that are of Israel, and the children of the flesh, whether be- lievers or unbelievers, did inherit the pro- mise. Moreover, the apostle declares, that all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, are the "children of Abraham, and heirs accord- ing to the promise.'' This is impossible, if the Abrahamic covenant were a mere na- tional compact, and the promise had respect only to the land of Canaan.
There is no way to evade this consequence. You must either admit, that St. Paul, wri- ting under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, was mistaken; or else that the promise to Abraham and his seed imported something more than temporal blessings. But, if lie were mistaken in this case, he feU into the same error frequently. For again he de- clares, " He is not a Jew which is one out- wardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but lie is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." — Rom. ii. 28,29. What plainer evidence can be desired, that circumcision is not a mere
46
badge of national descent? If the apostle had beheld, with prophetic eye, the cavils of the Baptists on this subject, he could not have given a plainer contradiction to their assertions. But, as if to set the matter at rest for ever, he declares, in another part of the same epistle, in the most explicit terms, that circumcision, instead of being a mark of national descent, is a badge of the king- dom of grace. " He received the sign of cir- cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumci- sed. — For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." — Rom. iv. 11, 13. — He, who, in spite of these plain declarations, can believe that circumcision was a badge of national descent, can persuade himself to believe any thing that suits his purpose.
Leo* Although these passages seem to favour your scheme in one point of view, yet it appears to me, in another they mili- tate against you.
Eug. How so, pray?
Leb. Why, if the children of the flesh are not the children of God — if he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; and if the promise were not made to Abraham or his seed through the law, but through the righteous- ness of faith, then it cannot be the covenant of grace which was made with Abraham and his seed; for all his posterity were embra- ced in that covenant ; it was, therefore, na- tional.
47
Eug. Our Saviour declares, " Many shall say unto me, in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in thy presence, prophesied, cast out dtvils, and done many wonderful works in thy name, to whom I will profess, I never knew you." And the history of the church, and our own observa- tion, teach us, that in every age there are those who are professedly in covenant with God, and are yet destitute of true religion. But does it follow, from the acknowledg- ment of these facts, that it is not the cove- nant of grace, on which the Christian church is founded? No, my friend; it is still true with respect to the church, under the pre- sent dispensation, that "they are not all Is- rael that are of Israel." This, instead of disproving God's gracious covenant, only proves, that men may be professedly in cove- nant with God, and yet be strangers to the covenant of promise. And I wish you to observe, particularly, that this objection, which you have made, was anticipated by the apostle, and answered precisely on the ground that I have stated. "For, what if some of them did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without ef- fect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." — Rom. iii. 3, 4. Here he plainly declares, that though every man were a liar, or hypocritical professor, yet God's gracious covenant remains the same. And though, through their unbelief and hy- pocricy, they forfeited the blessing, yet this
4B
does not prove that they were not, by pro* fession, in covenant with God; it only proves that they were insincere in their profession. That the Lord did, indeed, require ail Abra- ham's natural seed to enter into that cove- nant, and that the most of them did so pro- fessedly, is a fact. And just the same does the Lord require now of all to whom the gospel comes. And many, unquestionably, do now take upon them that covenant, in the promises of which they have no part nor lot. But in neither case does this prove that the Lord requires them to do this with an unholy heart, nor does it prove that it is not the covenant of grace into which they professedly enter. — During the former dis- pensation, the true knowledge of God was confined to the Jewish nation, and the visi- ble church was identified with that common- wealth, but this is no evidence that the co- venant of God with them was a mere nation- al compact, having respect only to tempo- ral blessings.
Leb. But " they were born into that cove- nant."
Eug. They were born into that covenant in the same sense in which the children of believers are born into the covenant now. But neither then, nor now, does that circum- stance give them a personal title to the bles- sings of the covenant, without inherent holi- ness ; as I shall have occasion to shew in its proper place.
Leb. But unbelievers, as well as believers, did enjoy the promised land.
49
Evg. They enjoyed it, just as wicked men now enjoy the mercies of life, not by virtue of the covenant, but of the sovereign goodness of God. The tares and the wheat grew together : and for the sake of his real children, the Lord permitted those who were not really holy to enjoy temporal blessings with them. But he never promised in a covenant way to bestow even temporal fa- vours, on any of his creatures, as a reward for services which they should perform with- out holiness of heart. Your system is foun- ded on the supposition that the Lord did promise and bestow temporal blessings on the Jews, on condition of their performing certain services with unsanctihed hearts. But this is a palpable error; utterly inconsis- tent with the divine character: for it is no less than to set up the great Jehovah as a re- warder of iniquity. An instance of this cannot be adduced in all the acts of his holy administration. He has indeed sometimes promised, or rather revealed his purpose, to bestow temporal blessings on the wicked, but he never entered into covenant with them and promised those blessings as a re- ward for services which they should per- form with unsanctified hearts. He always does this as an act of his holy sovereignty. " Ye are the salt of the earth" said Christ. It is on account of the church that the world is sustained. It is on her account that he distributes his favours "to the just and to the unjust." And it was on the same ac- count that he permittedthe hypocritical part 5
50
of the Jewish church to enjoy temporal blessings with the righteous.
Leb. But is it not a fact that the great bo- dy of the Jewish nation were frequently ', not to say generally, ungodly and wicked?
Eug. Suppose this were true, as I am sensible your people are fond of believing, it does not alter the state of the case. It only proves that under that dark dispensa- tion unbelief and hypocrisy were more common than in this highly favoured age : that then, more people were professedly in covenant with God, who had no claim to the promise, than there are at the present time. But in neither case does their hypocrisy an- nul the covenant. In a depraved world like ours we can never determine with certainty what the laws of any community, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are, by the conduct of its members. There is a law in this state that forbids Sabbath breaking, but, if we were to judge by the conduct of a great mass of our population, we should be o- bliged to conclude that that crime was not forbidden, nor punishable by the laws. — Hence it is manifest that we are to look at the divine requirements, and not at the con- duct of the people, in order to determine what was requisite to a standing in that church.
But I am not disposed to admit the fact in the full extent you have stated. Though there were many and great defections in the ancient church, yet there is no reason to
51
suppose that they were either as great or general as your people would fain repre- sent. Jn one of the darkest seasons under that dispensation, even when a cotemporary prophet supposed that he stood alone on the Lord's side, the Lord declared, " / have left me, seven thousand in Israel who have not bow- ed the knee to Baal" 1 . Kings xix, 18. Now, if one who lived at the time could be so much deceived as to the extent of that apostacy, how much more may we be deceived in this remote age. Besides this, in forming our opinions of the religious state of that people, we are apt to make little or no allowance for the different habits and manners of the times. On this account, ma- ny things in their conduct appear to us ut- terly inconsistent with a state of grace, of which we should form a very different opin- ion if the manners of the times had remain- ed unchanged. There probably are practi- ces among professing christians in the pre- sent day, which, on the same account, will appear to succeeding generations as strange and inconsistent with a gracious state as ma- ny of the aberrations of the Jews do to us. It is my candid opinion, warranted I think by the word of God and the history of the church, that the disproportion between real and nominal believers, under the two dis- pensations, is not so great as is generally im- agined. And in suggesting this sentiment I do not except the Baptist church ; for I be- lieve, you yourself will acknowledge, that
52
professors in your churches are not in gen- eral more circumspect and consistent in their walk and conversation than ours: and that apostacies, especially after what you call a revival, are quite as numerous (not to j-ay more so) as in any other religious com- munity. The declaration of our Saviour that many of those who cry " Lord, Lord," will be rejected of him, 1 believe has been applicable to every past generation as well as the present. Doubtless, there are now, and ever have been, many who are deceived with "a name to live and are dead;" who really think that they are christians, and are esteemed so by their brethren, to whom Christ will say, in the hour of judgment, " I never knew yon" But if this were the character of ninety-nine hundreths of the Christian church, or if it could be made to appear that this was the state of that propor- tion of the Jewish church, it would not prove that either the one or the other was not professedly built on the covenant of grace. Hence it is manifest that vour ob- jection against the Abrahamic covenant, drawn from the moral character of the Jew- ish nation, if it were founded in fact, has not the weight of a straw. It may answer your preachers as a subject of declamation, and they may employ it to the advantage of their system in reviling "the people of God," but in the balance of the sanctuary or of sound reason, it is less than " the dust of th% balance."
53
But I wish to make one additional re- mark onyourviewof the rite of circumcision. You say " it was nothing more than a badge or token of national descent, by which the posterity of Abraham should be kept pure from other nations until the promised Mes- siah was born." If the moral character of that people were what you have represented it to be, then Christ might as well have descended, and would have been as much honoured by descending, from Edom, Moab, or any of the nations of Canaan. Moreo- ver, it this weie its object it entirely failed : for Abraham's posterity were not kept dis- tinct from all other nations. Wlien the Lord covenanted with the patriarch, he di- rected him to apply the seal of the covenant to all his servants, whether born in his house, or bought with money, as well as to his natural posterity. And when the law was given to Israel, express provision was made for the incorporation of strangers with the commonwealth of Israel, whenever they professed obedience to Israel's God. This was frequently done ; and even in the gen- ealogy of our Lord himself we find the name of Ruth, the Moabitess, who wa^ providen- tially converted to the Jewish faith, and pro- fessed her indissoluble attachment to the true God and his chosen people. Vid. Ruth i. and Mat. i. 5.
Leb. But sir, there are many other objec- tionsagainst the sentimentthat the Abraham- ic covenant is the covenant of giace. These 5*
M
I think are stated in a very forcible manner by Dr. Gill ; and I should be pleased to hear your remarks upon them.
Eug> This part of Dr. Gill's treatise I have read repeatedly, but I have a very dif- ferent opinion of his objections. Instead of being forcible, they appear to me to be \e- ry feeble, and in many instances inconsistent not only with themselves, but also with the word of God. Here is the book. You will please to select such as have the most weight in your own mind.
Leb. With your leave, I shall make no selection, but take them in order. He ob- serves, "1. It is never called the covenant of grace, nor by any name which shews it to be such, but the covenant of circumcision. Now nothing is more opposite to one anoth- er than circumcision and grace/'
Eug. The Apostle declares that circum- cision was " a seal of the righteousness of faith ;" and that " that is not circumcision which is outward in the flesh — but circum- cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." Moreover, the Lord com- manded the Israelites to "circumcise their hearts;" and hence the apostle calls the ex- ternal rite " the sign of circumcision," be- cause it was an external sign of internal grace. Now, let common sense say whether " nothing is more opposite to one another thaw circumcision and grace T* So much for one part of Dr.. Gill's first assertion : now for the other. He says " It is never called by
any name which shews it to he the covenant of grace." But does not the Lord repea- tedly call it his "everlasting covenant — that endureth for ever, and to a thousand generations." And are not these terms ap- plied to the covenant of grace ? You may indeed take the ground of the universalists, as some of your writers have done, and try to prove that these epithets do not mean endless duration ; but even this will not help your cause. If the terms are limited, they are limited by the existence of the ob- jects to which they are applied.
Leb. " The land of Canaan was given to Abraham's seed for an everlasting posses- sion: but that part of the covenant has come to an end ; and one of these everlastings i& as long as the other."
Eug. You will pardon me if I deny that that part of the covenant is come to an end. It is true that the Jews, for their unbelief, have been cut ofF from the enjoyment of Canaan and all the other blessings of the covenant : but that they are to be restored to the holy land, and to the favour of God, is so plainly declared in the scriptures that no rational man can doubt it. If therefore the word everlasting is to be understood in a limited sense in that case, it is limited, as 1 observed before, by the existence of the object to which it is applied. That is, they were to possess the land of Canaan as long as it existed, on condition of their fidelity. And on the same condition, this covenant
56
with Abraham and his seed, was to last as long as they existed, or the blessings of the covenant endured.
Leb. Dr. Gill observes " 2. It appears to be a covenant of works and not of grace since it was to be kept under a severe pen- alty : — in case of disobedience or neglect such a soul was to be cut off from his peo- ple: all which shews it to be, not a cove- nant of grace but of works."
Eug. Christians are required to keep all the ordinances and precepts of the gospel, under a severe penalty ; and in case of dis- obedience, they are to be cut off from God's people. Therefore, according to Dr. Gill's reasoning, it is not the covenant of grace, but of works, upon which the Christian church is founded. And this you will find is the result of his scheme.
Leb. " 3* It is plain it was a covenant that might be broken ; of the uncircumcised it is said, He hath broken my covenant; whereas the covenant of grace cannot be broken."
Evg. The covenant of the Christian church is often violated by its members ; therefore, on the same ground, it may be inferred that the Christian church is not built on the co- venant of grace. It is evident, to the most superficial observer, that Dr. Gill, in order to give some plausibility to this argument, makes no distinction between a man's real and professed character, We believe in the final perseverance of the saints as firmly as the baptists do: but we believe, and w*
57
know, that a man may profess to be in the covenant of grace, and yet be a hypocrite. When such a person neglects his duty, or falls into open sin, he is said to break cove- nant; that is, he makes shipwreck of his faith or profession : and this phraseology is warranted by scripture. 1 Tim. i, 19, 20. — He professed to be in the covenant of grace, but he never was embraced within its holy bonds. These remarks apply equally to the former and present dispensation. And hence, when the uncircumcised is said to have bro- ken covenant, it meant precisely the same as now; that he had cast off his profession, and, therefore, ought no longer to be num- bered among God's people.
Leb. " 4. It is certain it had things in it of a civil or temporal nature, as a multiplica- tion of Abraham's natural seed, and a race of kings from him : a promise of his being the father of many nations, and a posses- sion of the land of Canaan by his seed ; — things that can have no place in the pure covenant of grace, and have nothing to do with that, any more than the change of his name from Abram to Abraham."
Eug. But do you believe, Lebbeus, that "temporal blessings have no place in the co- venant of grace, and have nothing to do with ill',' Our Saviour promised that "those who bad forsaken all for his sake and the gospel's" should "recci ve a hundred j old in this life, houses and lands, SCt" therefore, according to Dr. Gill, forsaking all things for Christ
58
and the gospel, has nothing to do with grace. "Godliness," saiih Paid, "is profitable unto all things, hating promise of (he life that noiv is, and of that which is to come:" there- fore godliness is not grace, and has nothing to do with it.
If I understand the scriptures, the cove- nant of grace is, to every Christian, the grand charter of all his privileges, both for time and eternity. Whatever distinguishes his present condition from that of the damned in hell is of grace, and is secured to him by the co- venant of grace. Precisely the same was the covenant which God made with Abra- ham. Those temporal blessings which Dr. Gill enumerates, were secured by that co- venant; and, beside these, the Lord promis- ed to be " a God to Abraham and his seed*'* Therefore, the declaration that temporal blessings " can ha ve no place in the covenant of grace, and have nothing to do with it," is not only unfounded, but is in direct oppo- sition to the word of God.
Leo. " 5. There were some persons inclu- ded in it; who cannot be thought to belong to the covenant of grace, as IshmaeJ and a profane Esau; and there were some who were left out of it, who, nevertheless, un- doubtedly were in the covenant of grace, as Shem, Arphaxad, Melchisedeck, Lot, and others : wherefore this can never be the pure covenant of grace."
Eug, And pray, what does this amount to ? Because there are some hypocrites in the
59
Christian church, and some real Christians who, for want of an opportunity, or from some other cause, have never entered into the visible church, does it thence follow that the Christian church is not founded on the covenant of grace ? This is indeed the re- sult of Dr. G ill's argument. But when a church is organized, it is not necessary that every real Christian in the neighborhood should be attached to it in order to make it a true church. And if one or more hypo- crites should happen to be included, that would not destroy the character of the church. What if the Lord, when he first organized his church on the basis of the A- brahamic covenant, was pleased to include in it a persecuting Ishmael, and afterwards a profane Esau; and what if Jesus Christ, when he first called his twelve disciples, was pleased to number a traitor, a devil, among them : and afterwards under the ministry of his apostles, to admit a sorcerer and other hypocrites into his church, does that destroy the covenant of grace ? — surely not. Con- sequently, this objection has no force against the Abrahamic covenant.
Leo. Dr. Gill's oth objection, you have already answered in our preliminary discus- sion ; but he observes, " 7. the covenant of grace is made with Christ, &c. No mere man is capable of covenanting with God, — the covenant of grace is not made with any single man, &c."
Eug. Here, then, you have what I told
60
you, that Dr. Gill, in order to destroy the grace of the Abrahamic covenant excludes the Christian church also from the covenant of grace. He confounds the covenant of re- demption, (which subsists between the per- sons of the Trinity, in relation to human re- demption,) and the covenant of grace, (which subsists between God and all true believers,) and excludes every individual of the human family from the latter, by asserting that " no mere man is capable of covenanting with God, and that this covenant is never made with any man." If this does not remove the covenant of grace from the Christian, as well as the Jewish church, and every other community and individual of our race, I know not what does. But how is this con- sistent with the salvation of man, and the declarations of scripture ?
LeL Why he says " Whenever we read of it [the covenant of grace] as made with a particular person or persons, it is always to be understood of the manifestation and ap- plication of it and its blessings and promises to them."
Eug. And pray what does this differ from the common understanding of Christians on this subject? I am perfectly willing to adopt those terms, if Dr. Gill prefers them, but that does not destroy the grace of the A- brahamic covenant. I have shewn that the same " blessings and promises'' were "mani- fested" and " applied" to Abraham and his «eed that are " manifested" and " applied"
61
to the Christian church. Where then, on Dr. Gill's own ground, is there any differ- ence in the foundation or constitution of" the two churches? I am ready to believe that the Dr. himself began to perceive that there was no difference, and that, after all his rea- soning, he had brought himself back to the very point from which he had started ; for, if I recollect right, he sets out upon a dif- ferent plan under his next argument, and tra- vels over the same ground again.
Leb. He observes, " 8. Allowing Abra- ham's covenant to be a peculiar one, and of a mixed kind, containing promises of tem- poral things to him and his natural seed, and of spiritual things to his spiritual seed, or rather that there was at the same time when the covenant of circumcision was given to Abraham and his natural seed, a fresh man- ifestation of the covenant of grace made with him and his spiritual seed in Christ — "
Eug. Yes, that is wThat I expected. Just now the Abrahamic covenant was a mere na- tional compact, having " nothing to do wilh grace;" but now it has become "a mixed kind," containing both temporal and spiri- tual blessings;" and there was in it a fresh manifestation of the covenant of grace." This is quite a change of ground.
Leb. " That the temporal blessings of it belonged to his natural seed, is no question."
Eug. Hold, that is a question, and a ve- ry serious question too. — But go on.
Leb. " If the covenant of grace was made 6
62
with all Abraham's seed, according 1o Ihe flesh, then it was made with his more imme- diate offspring — with a mocking, persecu- ting Ishmael, and with a profane Esau, and with all his remote posterity ; with them who believed not, whose carcases fell in the wil- derness; with t lie ten tribes who revolted from the pure worship of God ; with the Jews in Isaiah's time, &c. with the scribes and pha- risees, and that wicked and adulterous gene- ration in the times of Christ: but what se- rious, thoughtful man, who knows any thing of the covenant of grace, can admit of this?'* Evg. If "the temporal blessings of the covenant belonged to Abraham's natural seed," I wish to know whv Ishmael did not enjoy the inheritance as well as Isaac? Why was Esau excluded from the possession of Canaan ? Why were the ten tribes after their revolt, driven out of the land? Why are the Jews now scattered to the four winds of hea- ven ? If the Lord promised the possession of Canaan and other temporal blessings to A- braham's natural seed, without regard to spi- ritual qualifications, why has he dene thus? Has God broken his covenant ? He certain- ly has, if the " temporal blessings belonged to his natural seed," and nothing more were necessary to entitle a man to those blessings, than to be born of the seed of Abraham and receive the rite of circumcision. The Jews have to this day preserved themselves un- mixed with other nations, and have maintain- ed the rite of ciicumcision ; and yet they are
63
not enjoying the temporal, any more than the spiritual blessings of the covenant.
Now although in Dr. Gill's opinion I should forfeit my title to the character of a " seri- ous, thoughtful man," and incur the charge of not "knowing any thing of the covenant of grace," I will venture to assert, that all the wicked Israelites and Jews which he men- tions, even the adulterous generation which crucified our Lord, were once professedly in the covenant of grace, just as hypocrites in every age of the Christian church have pro- fessed to be in that covenant. And it was for their unbelief and hypocrisy, that the Lord cut them off from both the temporal and spiritual blessings of the covenant : and this is the true reason why the land of Ca- naan is possessed by strangers, and the seed of Abraham are given up to blindness.
As to Dr. G ill's 91 h observation, it is a mere repetition of what has been already an- swered. But his 10th remark I will not pass over in silence. He observes, " notwithstand- ing all this pother made about Abraham's co- venant, it was not made with him and his in- fant seed, but with him and his adult offspring. — It was not made with Abraham's infant seed, who could not circumcise themselves, but their parents were by this covenant obli- ged to circumcise them, &c." This indeed is a noble discovery, and if it really carried a- ny force in it, why did not Dr. Gill make it his first instead of his last argument ? It would have saved him all the "pother" of
64
nine particulars. But the fact is, it has no sort of bearing on the question. No person supposes that the Jewish children when brought for circumcision, or the children of believers when presented for baptism, are themselves contracting parties. Their pa- rents alone are agents in this transaction; but in both cases the infant seed are the sub- jects of the transaction, and heirs of the pro- mise. If the Lord had commanded Abra- ham not to circumcise his offspring till they arrived at adult years, then Dr. Gill might with great propriety have exclaimed against "all this pother." But when the fact is, that the " token of the covenant" — " the seal of the righteousness of his faith" was applied to his infant seed eight days old, it shews incon- testibly that the blessings of the covenant were " manifested" in behalf of infants as well as adults. Here then is the " sum to- tal" of Dr. Gill's arguments against the A- brahamic covenant. It stands precisely where it did before ; his ten objections to the contra- ry notwithstanding.
Lcb. But the " Jewish infants were not ad- mitted into covenant by the rite of circum- cision" for " they were in covenant from their birth" — from whence it cannot be plea- ded that the infants of believers are admitted into it by baptism."
Kug. I do not pretend that the infants of belie veis are admitted into the covenant by baptism. I know that this ordinance is fre- quently called the initiating ordinance : but
65
this T humbly conceive is an unhappy ex- pression, and Calculated to convey very in- correct ideas of the subject. It is indeed the ordinance by which membership is recogni- sed ; but a person must become a member of any society, before he can receive the badge or mark of membership. You mirk your sheep, not to make them yours, but to let the world know that they are yours. It is a previous contract, or the circumstarce of their being brought forth of your flock that makes them yours. In like m --inner it is the act of covenanting, or being born with- in the pale of the covenant, that constitutes membership in the fold of Christ. Hence, the moment a person enters into covenant with God, that moment he becomes a mem- ber of the church and is to receive the token or mark of membership. In the same in- stant that his membership is constituted, his children, in consequence of their relation to him, are connected with the church ; and in token of that, connexion are to receive the seal of the covenant. And whenever a child is born to a believing parent, the moment it becomes a member of his family it becomes connected with the church, and is to be re- cognised as such, as soon as it may be done, by receiving the appropriate seal or token of the covenant.
And this is precisely the light in which circumcision wag regarded under the former dispensation. The Lord declares concern- ing the uncircumcised child " he shall be cut 6*
66
off from his people, he hath broken my cov- enant." How could he be cut off from his people, if he had never belonged to them 7 And how could he be called a covenant breaker, if he had never been embraced by the covenant ? Some have supposed that the pronoun he refers to the parent, but this is a forced construction : there is no parent pre- viously mentioned to which it can refer.*
In the view which has been taken of this subject you may learn how to appreciate Dr. Gill's assertion that " Circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace under the for- mer dispensation, nor is baptism a seal of it under the present," and that circumcision " is called a sign or token, but not a seal, Sfc" When such assertions are made not only with- out evidence, but in direct opposition to scripture declaration, I doubt not that all who have respect for divine authority will believe God rather than man.
* Some have contended that infants cannot be said to be " in covenant," because a covenant is a mutual agreement between parties ; and as infants are incapable of* making- such an agree- ment, therefore ** God's act cannot bring them into covenant," or cause them " to belong to the visible church." But the term covenant is used in the scriptures not only for an agreement be- tween parties, but for a divine constitution. In this sense, I can conceive of no difficulty or impropriety in saying that " infants are in covenant." It was by a divine constitution which suspend- ed the moral character of their posterity, on the obedience or disobedience of our first parents, that all men are sinners. And it is by a divine constitution, connected with the covenant of grace, that the children of believers, are to become interested in the privileges of that covenant It is in this sense that I use the word when I speak of children as being- " in covenant" or " be- longing to ihe church." They are connected with the church, wot by any act of their own, but by virtue of their relation to their parents.
67
Lcb. O Sir! we admit that it was the covenant of grace which the Lord manifest- ed to Abraham, and that circumcision was to him a seal of the righteousness of faith, but not to his seed. " For he was the only believer in his family. God commanded that all his males at eight days old. should be cir- cumcised ; but what could it seal to them ? or what does baptism seal to an infant? — Surely nothing but a blank."
Eug. Pray tell me by what authority you assert that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, when applied to A- braliam, and yet that it had no such mean- ing when applied to his seed ? The bible makes no such distinction. You say " he was the only believer in his family." This is an important confession on your part. He was the only believer, and yet on account of his faith, "the seal of the righteousness of his faith" was applied to his whole house- hold. This is precisely the ground on which we rest the point. But you ask " What could it seal to children eight days old ?" and with- out waiting for an answer, you reply " sure- ly nothing but a blank." Permit me to sug- gest, that it becomes short-sighted creatureSj like you and me, when speaking of the po- sitive institutions of Heaven, to express themselves with more deliberation, circum- spection and humility. Though we may be unable at first view fully to comprehend the meaning of a divine rite, or U> reconcile it with our pre-conceived opinions, yet it does
63
not follow from ibis, that that rife is a nuli- ty. By your hasty decision you not only make the circumcision of infants a seal to a blank, but you declare the seal itself a nul- ity ; and virtually accuse the omniscient Je- hovah of instituting a useless and unmean- ing ceremony. This must inevitably fol- low, from what has been proven. I have shewn, by incontestible evidence, that cir- cumcision, instead of being a mere badge of national descent, was a seal of the righteous- ness of faith. This you have been constrain- ed to admit, as far as it respected Abraham himself. But, alarmed at the consequences of tl is admission, you immediately declare, that, with respect to his cfoildrefi, it could seal nothing but a blank. If is true you are driven to this by your own concession, but that must be a hopeless resort, which obliges a man to pronounce a divine institution a mere nulity. Peimit me to answer your question, and I will shew you that cinu inci- sion is something more than a seal to a blank. It implied precisely the same when applied to Abraham's household, that it did when applied to himself. It was in both cases, "a seal of the righteousness of HIS faith." In other words, it was a token of the covenant which God had made with him, the gracious promises of which he had been pleased to ex- tend to his seed. It was a visible mark that he was a believer, and that his seed were heirs of the believer's promise. In the same light do we regard infant baptism. You never heard
a Pcedobaptist affirm that the circumcision or baptism of a child was a seal of its person al faith ; but only a seal of the parents' faith, and a token that the blessings of the cove- nant, which subsists between God and the parents, are, on certain conditions, to be ex* tended to their seed.
Lcb. But this appears to me to make grace hereditary. " That as sin is conveyed from the parent to the child, so in God's gracious establishment with Abraham and all his seed, grace is in like manner communicated." — This, I think, is plainly declared by some writers on your side of the question. " The love and obedience of the parents," says one, "affects and forms the moral character of the children ; so that their piety and obedi- ence, by the promise, convey spiritual bles- sings to their children." If, according to these sentiments, the Abrahamic covenant does not make grace to run in the blood, or to descend by ordinary generation, I know not what words can express it.
JEug. If the view I have given of the cov* enant, or the quotation you have just made, does express such a sentiment, then I ac- knowledge I do not understand English. In the Abrahamic, as in every other covenant, certain conditions are proposed by the cove- nantee, to be complied with by the covenan- ter ; on the performance of which, the pro- posed benefit is suspended. Hence God said to Abraham, " Walk before me and be thou perfect, and 1 will establish my covenant be-
70
tween me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting cov- enant; to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee." On condition of his fidelity, the blessing was to descend to his children ; and on condition of the fidelity of each suc- ceeding generation, the blessing was to de- scend from parents to children, for an ever- lasting covenant. And now, permit me to direct vour attention once more to Gen. xviii. 19. " For I know that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham, that which he hath spoken of him/' Here, Abraham's fidelity is distinctly recognised as the means of ren- dering his children pious ; (for surely "to keep the way of the Lord, and do justice and judgment," implies as much as this ;) and as the ground on which the blessing of the covenant should be transmitted to posterity. Besides this there are many positive declara- tions and gracious promises in the word of God, with respect to the children of believ- ers, which, to say the least, present vast en- couragement to parental fidelity. Take the following as examples. " Because he loved thy fathers, therefore lie chose their seed af- ter them. — Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes and his commandments, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children af- ter thee." Deut. iv. 37, 40. "Only the Lord had delight in thy fathers to love them, and
71
he chose their seed after them ; even you, a- bove all people as it is this clay." Deut. x, 15. " Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right, in the sight of the Lord thy God." Deut. xii. 25. " Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Prov. xxii. 6. " And they shall be my people, and I will be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever ; for the good of them and of their children after them." Jer. xxxii. 38, 39. " For he es- tablished a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our ja- ihers, that they should make them known to their children : That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children : That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" PsaL lxxviii. 5, 6, 7.
This is so far from representing grace as "running in the blood," or " communicated by ordinary generation," that it is suspen- ding it on the condition of the covenant — the promise of God to the fidelity of parents. And this is what the writer whom you quo- ted, expressly asserts. " The piety and obe- dience of the parents does, by the promise," not by ordinary generation " convey spii itu-
72
al blessings to their children." You may object to this mode of procedure, if you please ; but remember, I am not your antago- nist : it is with God that you must contend, and to him you must answer it. As an ab- solute Sovereign, he has an unquestionable right to communicate the blessings of his grace in his own way. And if he has been. pleased, to transmit them ordinarily in a co- venant way, from faithful parents to their children, neither you, nor I, nor any other person, has a right to inquire " Why doest thou so? " And that he really does so, the terms of the covenant, the promises of his word, and the blessing which generally at- tends, the diligent exe^ionsof faithful pa- rents, plainly shew.
And although God acts as a Sovereign in this case, and w7e may not be able to disco- ver all his reasons for adopting this method of communicating his grace, yet we can per- ceive a striking analogy between this and a- nother part of his holy administration. It was by a covenant transaction which suspen- ded the moral character of children on the conduct of their parents, that the whole hu- man race have been involved in ruin. This was the first method whicli infinite wisdom saw fit to adopt for the government of this world. Now, I ask, does it not, at first view, appear reasonable to suppose, that when the Lord, in infinite mercy, began to meditate the recovery of fallen man, he would adopt a method, which should be, in
73
some respects, analogous to that by which they were involved in ruin. In consequence of the first covenant, which included all the posterity of Adam, he could not consistent- ly enter into a new covenant, by virtue of which, grace should be communicated by ordinary generation. But he could with perfect consistency, by the covenant of grace founded in the atonement of his Son, trans- mit the blessings of his grace by promise from faithful parents to their children. And this is manifestly the import and design of the Abrahamic covenant.
But there is another light in which I wish to present this subject. The Lord governs the moral, as well as the natural world by the use of means. In this manner the moral characters of his people are formed. In this point of view, we discover a singular pro- priety in the divine procedure in the case before us. What stronger principle in hu- man nature, than parental affection, could have been made subservient to the cause of religion ? AVhat so likely to secure the reli- gious education of children, as the promise of spiritual blessings for them, on the condi- tion of the fidelity of their parents? And in reference to this we may ask, why is man, who is endowed with reason, and who is des- tined to be lord of the creation, brought into existence in a more helpless condition than the meanest brute ? Why must he be nursed and fostered with parental tenderness and care for years, before he is capable of seek- 7
74
ing an independent livelihood ? That man must he an infidel, who doe? not regard this as the wise Constitution of Heaven, to give the parent opportunity, to form the y«;ung and tender mind to virtuous habits. And it is a remarkable fact, that the prominent traits of charaeter, and the leading maxims of life, are usually formed under the hand of parents, before their children have attain- ed adult years. I do not mean to be under- stood that 1 suppose children are usually renewed before that time, (though this might indeed be expected, if parents were in any good degree faithful,) but, that their distin- guishing characteristics are formed, and those sentiments imbibed, which are usual- ly sanctified to the salvation of their souls. It is my deliberate opinion, that the proper education and discipline of children from infancy to the age of twelve or fourteen years, does more towards forming their character for life, than all the other means of grace, if these are neglected. There- fore, the Lord has so frequently enjoined that duty, and encouraged its faithful per- formance by the most gracious promises of success.
Leb. But " if God did not engage abso- lutely to save all Abraham's natural poster- ity, but only such as trusted in, and obeyed him ; this would place such as claim an in- terest in the covenant of circumcision, ex- actly upon a level with all others"
Eug. I am very willing to admit that the
75
promise in that case instead of being abso- lute is conditional ; but this affords no ground for your conclusion. For, the bles- sing promised to the seed of believers, is suspended, not immediately on their faith, but on the fidelity of their parents ; which is to be the means of their sanctification. — This, therefore, instead of placing them " exactly on a level with all others" highly distinguishes their condition and affords pe- culiar encouragement to expect their salva- tion.
Leb. Still it appears to me, that if the Lord had adopted the method you are ad- vocating, we might generally expect that the children of believers, as they grow up, would become Christians. Instead of this, we often find the Lord passing by those who have been educated with the greatest care, and calling in others who have been brought up without any restraint or religious in- struction. In fact, I have been in the hab- it of supposing that I have no more reason to expect my children will be saved, on ac- count of any relation they bear to me, than the children of the most abandoned among my neighbours.
Eug. This objection would have great weight, if it were founded in fact, and on general principles; but there is its deficien- cy. We might indeed expect to see the Lord generally owning his covenant in the sanctification of the children of believers, provided their parents were faithful. It is
76
not by ordinary generation, as I have al- ready shewn, that children become parta- kers of the blessing, but by promise ; and that promise is suspended on the fidelity of the parents. In the present degenerate age, we have not a fair experiment of the case. Parents, even in the Paedobaptist churches, are too unmindful of the covenant of the Lord, and the high responsibility of their station. That strictness of discipline and the frequent and faithful instruction of chil- dren, so frequently enjoined in the scrip- ture as the means of their salvation, are now most awfully neglected ; and we see the re- sult of it, not only in the numerous instan- ces of impiety and ungodliness which are pre- sented among the children of professed be- lievers, but also in the general complexion of society. Is it not a fact that in this day, parents in general, even those who profess to be Christians, appear more solicitous to lay up money for their children, than to se- cure the salvation of their immortal souls ? And do they not evidently labour tenfold more for the former, than for the latter ob^ ject ? How many are there who call them- selves the people of God, who go from sab- bath to sabbath, if not longer, without say- ing one word directly to their families on the great concerns of salvation ! And can you wonder that children trained in this manner should grow up without becoming pious? God has never promised to sanctify them under such circumstances ; and if he
77
ever does, it will not be in a covenant way, but in the exercise of the same sovereignty, in which he sanctifies the children of irreli- gious parents. And 1 have no doubt, he frequently calls in such, not only for the more conspicuous display of his sovereign- ty, but to reprove his professed people and shame them into obedience. And most a- larming must be the condition of those who take occasion from such instances to say, that it is useless to educate children in a re- ligious manner, with the hope or expecta- tion of their being sanctified. They coun- teract the gracious design of heaven, and expose their children as well as themselves to eternal perdition.
Moreover, even among the parents who devote considerable time and care to the religious education of their children, a very erroneous method of instruction frequently obtains. From an apprehension that little children are incapable of understanding the great doctrines of regeneration, repentance, faith, &c. they begin by telling them they must not lie, nor swear, nor break the sab- bath, but speak the truth, &c. &c. and then they will go to heaven. What is this, but to teach them to depend on their own works, for acceptance with God. And to this very cause, I apprehend, is, in a great measure, to be ascribed that violent opposition which the doctrines of grace meet with, from some of those who have received a religious edu- cation. They have been familiar whh the 7*
78
scriptures, but have never become acquaint- ed with the system of divine truth. They have heard much about sin, but have never learned the plague of their own hearts. — The object, which such parents have in view, is evidently laid too low. They seem to aim more at making their children merely mor- al, and so rendering them good members of society ; than at making them pious, and thus preparing them for the world of glory. There is surely no difficulty in teaching children, as soon as they can understand their mother tongue, all the leading doc- trines of divine revelation. Let the parent remind them in an easy, familiar way, that they do not love God, nor his sabbath, nor his worship; that the subject of religion is unpleasant to them; that heaven is a place where there is no other entertainment than the pure and holy worship of God ; and where is the child of common sense, that can understand language, but must feel that he is a sinner, and in need of a change in the temper of his mind ? I mention this merely as an example. In a similar man- ner, they may be taught all the distinguish- ing doctrines of grace. To the want of at- tention in this particular, or to some other failure in duty, may be imputed, those instances of impiety which occur, even in the families of those who are considered eminently pious. Parents who are faithful in some important duties, frequently fail in others, which are equally important in form- ing the moral character of children..
79
But, after all, is it a fact, that instances of hopeful conversion are as frequent among those who have been brought up without, as among those who have been favoured with, religious instruction ? On this point 1 ap- peal to your own knowledge and observa- tion. Go even into your own church, and do you not find a large majority who date the first strivings of the Spirit with them, in early life; and in many instances distinctly refer to parental instruction as the means? And if this is the case in the present age, while there is so little fidelity among pa- rents, how general might we not expect it to be, if they were faithful to the souls com- mitted to their charge ? Again, in some of your churches you find a number who were born of parents in our connexion, were dedicated to God in their infancy and are become hopefully pious. These you often boast of, as signal trophies to your cause. But if they prove any tiling, it is simply this, that people may become real Christians, and yet fall into error. The balance of testi- mony is much against you. Instead of pro- ring that God regards infant baptism with that abhorrence that you do, it shews that he owns his covenant, by sanctifving the seed of his people in a covenant way.
With respect to the last idea you sug- gested, I ask you solemnly, is it true that you feel as though you had no more reason to expect the salvation of your children, on account of the relation they bear to yoi*5
80
than those of your irreligious neighbours? As a Christian, you doubtless sometimes en- joy seasons of peculiar communion with God. You feel assured, or strongly per- suaded of his favour. You come to his throne of grace with great confidence and raised expectations. By faith you hear him ask you your requests; and see him stand- ing ready to answer. Now I appeal to your conscience and Christian experience, do you at such a time feel as though you had no peculiar encouragement to pray for, and ex- pect the salvation of your children, rather than others? I know Christian benevolence requires you "to love your neighbour as yourself," and therefore to desire the sal- vation of others. But that same benevo- lence requires you to be more solicitous for both the temporal and eternal good of your own children, than that of others ; not because they are better, but because God has committed them to your immediate charge. Therefore I ask, do you not feel, at such a time, peculiar encouragement to pray for your own dear children, arising, not merely from the frame of your mind, but from their relation to you 1 Though you may have no reason to believe that they are really better than others, yet can you be- lieve that God regards you as one of his be- loved people, and not feel a kind of confi- dence that, for the sake ol the favour which he bears to you, he wi'l be propitious to those whom he hath bound to you by so
81
many tender lies? However you may feel on this point while engaged in cold specu- lation, I know how you must feel when your heart is warm and breathes the spirit of a- doption. And I believe I know how you have felt. You recollect what you told me, last summer, after the death of your little daughter of ten years of age ; how different your feelings were on that occasion, and on the death of your son, of the same age, whom you lost several years ago. I think you informed me that in the latter case, your conscience was awfully harrowed up under a sense of your past unfaithfulness — that you had never instructed the child into the things of religion, nor offered up one fervent prayer for his salvation. And these reflections, if my memory serves me, were the first effectual means of your own awa- kening. But you said when the Lord laid your little daughter on a sick and dying bed, you felt a peculiar satisfaction in be- ing able to go to the throne of grace and commend her soul to that God who had ex- ercised sovereign mercy towards you : and that when she was taken away, you enjoyed great consolation in the reflection that, thor imperfectly, you had, in some good degree,, instructed her in the way of salvation, and had often borne her on your heart at the throne of mercy. And although you did not then acknowledge that on that ground you entertained a hope of her salvation, yet I now ask you, was there not some linger*
82
ing of soul on this very point? Did you not feel some kind of confidence or hope to which you were an utter stranger when your son departed life? — I am willing to spare you the pain of an answer ; but I must and do believe, that however you and your brethren, in the day of prosperity, may be disposed to revile, what we call God's gracious covenant on behalf of the seed of believers, you yourselves do rest down on that very ground when your chil- dren are removed by death.
Leb. But sir, this view of the subject I think is "calculated to do essential damage to the souls of men ; because you tell your children that they are brought into cove- nant, that the seal of the covenant is upon them — that baptism seals and signifies their ingrafting into Christ — that they are dedica- ted to God in baptism, and in that sense are bis children, included in the covenant God made with Abraham and his seed — that they are in the circle of those, out of whom God has promised, at least chiefly, to select num- bers to perpetuate his church, and there- fore that they are more likely to be con- verted than others; and that those children who are unbaptized are left to the uncove- nanted mercies of God." This appears to me peculiarly calculated to make children rest down contented without a change of heart, " depending on what had been done to them by their parents in infancy, for sal- vation. It is greatly to be feared that many are deceived in this way."
83
Eug. That this view of the covenant has been thus perverted in some cases, is very possible. And what institution or doctrine has not been pervei ted by ignorant or cor- rupt men? But is this circumstance to be made the standard of truth and error? If so, then you must reject not only infant membership, but the whole of divine reve- lation. It lias often been objected to the doctrines of divine sovereignty and the per- severance of the saints, that they are calcu- lated to make men secure in sin ; and you well know that many have thus perverted these sacred truths. But does it follow from these facts, that these doctrines are not true ? " God forbid ! yea, let God be true, but every man a liar." The same answer applies with equal propriety to your ob- jection. For if the doctrines of grace are thus perverted by some, it is not strange that the covenant of grace should share the same fate, in similar hands. But that this perversion necessarily follows from the ac- knowledgement of the covenant in the view which I have given, I shall not admit. Sup- pose I tell my children, " You are brought into covenant with God — the seal of that covenant is upon you, and the Lord claims you as his, in a peculiar sense, because you are the children of his professed followers ; you are " near the kingdom of God ;" you enjoy special privileges, and on that account I have more reason to hope for your salva- tion than that of those who are destitute of
84
these privileges. But notwithstanding all this, you are by nature, "children of wrath even as others." Your being born of Chris- tian parents, although it affords you distin- guished advantages, does not secure your eternal salvation, without personal holiness. You are possessed of wicked hearts, which must be sanctified by divine grace, or you must go down to hell ; and if you do perish, you will sink in the lake of perdition, far below those children who have been brought up by ungodly parents — your condemna- tion will be aggravated, just in proportion to the superior privileges which you have abu- sed. Therefore I intreat you to repent and voluntarily dedicate yourselves to God." Now Lebbeus, would you call this " an af- front to common sense ?" Would you say your punishment was greater than you could bear, if you were required to reconcile these things with sound reason or the word of God ?" Or, is there any thing in such an ad- dress, that is calculated to make children easy in sin, trusting their salvation upon what their parents did for them in infancy ? No ! my friend ; human nature, although greatly debased by sin, is not yet reduced to the level of the brutes. You must be sensible that when our Saviour told the scribe, " thou art not far from the kingdom of God," this afforded him no just ground on which to rest a single moment. Indivi- duals as well as communities may be exalt- ed to heaven, and yet sink to the lowest re-
85
gions of hell. I may tell my congregation^ that they are near the kingdom of God, compared with those who are destitute of the privileges which they enjoy ; and that those who attend regularly and devoutly on the means of grace, are more likely to be converted, than those [who habitually neg- lect divine institutions : not because their hearts are any better, but because it is the ordinance of heaven that " faith" ordinarily "cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." But does this afford just reason for them to rest at ease in sin, and give themselves no concern about a change of heart ; especially when it is added, that the misimprovement of these distinguished privileges will greatly aggravate their con- demnation ? That man must be destitute of common sense who would form such a con- clusion. Equally preposterous would it be in the former case. Yea, I believe you will readily admit, that nothing could be better calculated to arouse the attention of children to the concerns of their souls, than the sentiments I have suggested. And if such addresses were frequently and affec- tionately urged upon children by their pa- rents and the churches, we should soon reap the blessed fruits of their fidelity.
Leb. I acknowledge that the subject ap- pears in a light in which I never contem- plated it before. But sir, I wish to hear your other arguments in favour of the same- ness of the church.
8
SECTION III.
Eiigenius. My 2nd argument is, that the same principles of holiness and obedience, were required of the Jewish, that are re- quired of the Christian church.
Leb. This we readily admit. " God re- quires all the subjects of his moral govern- ment, whether in heaven, earth or hell, to be holy." This argument, therefore, proves nothing to your purpose, unless you can make it appear, that these principles of ho- liness and obedience were made the terms of admission, or condition of a standing in that community.
Eug. This is precisely what I calculate to do ; and just what I think I did accomplish in my discourses yesterday. And I be- lieve, if you had heard me then, with the candour which you now profess, you would have received full conviction of the truth of my position.
Leb. I acknowledge you made it appear very evident, that the Lord did require ho- liness in order to a standing in that church ; but this, I conceive, was nothing more than typical holiness. For I have often heard our ministers say, " w7e are no where taught in the word of God, that moral holiness was necessary to membership in the Jewish church, or indispensible to fill the highest office in the kingdom of Israel." The fact is " the Jewish church was" merely " tyjri-
87
cal. A degree of similarity always exists between the type and antitype." But " al- though there was some shade of likeness be- tween the Jewish and Christian churches, still the Christian church, set up by the coming and ministry of Christ and his apostles, wa9 entirely new and distinct."
Eug. That there were many things typi» cal under that dispensation, yea, that their modes and forms of worship were in a great measure so, no person will deny. But that all the holiness which the Lord required in order to a standing in that church, was noth- ing more than typical holiness, though it has been often asserted, has not a shadow of evi- dence to support it; but like many other of your assertions, it is in direct opposition to the word of God. You might just as safely say, that the men and women who composed that community, were not real men and women, but were types and shad- ows of those who should live under the gos- pel dispensation.
But suppose I should admit, for argument sake, that the Jewish church was merely a type of the Christian church ; the land of Canaan a type of heaven ; in short, that there was no reality in any thing of a re- ligious nature under that dispensation ; that it was all a commonwealth of types : — You have just admitted that " some degree of similarity always exists between the type and antitype — some shade of likeness be- tween the Jewish and Christian churches:"
88
Now I ask you, where is there any thing i» the Baptist church, to answer to the type of infant-membership in the Jewish church? Such a distinguishing feature in the type,, must be expected to have a corresponding feature in the antitype. But where is there " a shade of likeness" — the least " degree of similarity ?" I defy Argus himself to dis- cover the resemblance. And yet the Jewish church was a mere type of the Christian ; and a deformed type too, it seems. It had one enormous excressence, to which there is nothing correspondent in the antitype ; that is, provided the Baptist church is the true Gospel church.* Again, admit that the moral character, which your people usually ascribe to the ancient church is correct, that they were generally a base, corrupt and idol- atrous people ; are you willing to apply this part of the type to the antitype ? Does this exhibit " a similarity — a shade of like-
* I am sensible that the Baptists apply this feature of their type to the succession of the church. They say, the children in the Jewish church were typical of the new converts, who, from time to time, should be added under the Christian dispen- sation. But this does not remove the deformity of their type. These converts are the children of the church as a collective bo- dy, and are begotten by the instrumentality of gospel ministers : but the Jewish children were children of the members in their individual capacity ; and the children of private members no less than those of the priests, were regarded as the children of the covenant ; and there were at least ten times as many of the former as of the latter. Again, Christian converts, among the Baptists are no sooner born than they are made adult members of the church ; not an hour is to be lost in getting them under water : but the Jewish children were for years in a state of mi- nority, in which they were trained up for the Lord's service. Therefore I still affirm that there is no resemblance between the type and antitype, if the Baptist church be that antitype.
89
ness" to the holiness of the Baptist church f Without any disparagement to your com- munion, (for there are seasons of declen- sion and instances of apostacy in all chur- ches,) I will venture to say, that the task of pointing out a resemblance in this particu- lar, would be infinitely less burdensome than in the former case.
But to return to the point in hand. I am to prove, that real holiness was requisite to a standing in the Jewish church. And in order to this, I shall, briefly review the A- brahamic covenant, in its original institu- tion, and subsequent renewals ; from which it will appear that all the adult persons in- cluded in it, are recognised as visible saints ; and the sanctification of their seed, as a con- sequence resulting from God's love to them, and his blessing on their faithful labours. But before I proceed, permit me to remind you, that the question is not, whether they were all really holy ? for this has probably never been true of any church under hea- ven. Even in the days of primitive Chris- tianity there were tares among the wheat. Nor is the question, whether there were- more hypocrites under the former, than un- der the present dispensation ? This may be true, and yet the point at issue remain unde- termined. The question is simply this, whether real holiness was requisite to enti- tle a man to the blessings of that covenant, and consequently whether a profession of this was required by the Lord in order to & standing in that church?
M
When the Lord chose Abraham and cal- led him in Ur of the Chaldees, it is recor- ded concerning him, that " the Lord found his hcartfaithful before him, and he made a covenant with him ?' in which he promised " to bless him and his posterity." Compare Gen. xii. 1, 3. and Neh. ix. 7, 8. Here A- braham's holiness of heart is distinctly re- cognised, as the reason of God's conferring this distinguished honour and privilege upon him and his seed. In confirmation of this? the Lord thus addresses him on the renewal of that covenant ; " Fear not Abraham ; I am thy shield and exceeding great reward." And it is added " he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. xv. 1, 6. Upon which the Apostle de- clares " he was called the friend of God." Jam. ii. 23. And again, when the Lord ap- peared to Abraham for the purpose of" es- tablishing" the covenant, and appointing a visible seal by which its existence should be known, he thus addresses him; " I am the almighty god : walk before me and be thou perfect : — And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an ever- lasting covenant, to be a god unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Gen. xvii. 1, 7. Here also, Abraham's holiness is dictinctly recognised, as the occasion of God's enter- ing into covenant with him and promising to bless his seed. And again the Lord says- " Shall I hide from Abraham that which 1 do%
, 91
seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. Fori know that he will command his children and household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen. xviii. 17, 19. This passage presents to view the five following sentiments which are decisive on this subject, viz. 1. Abraham was pos- sessed of real holiness. 2. The possession of this holiness, was the occasion of God's treating him with so great kindness and fa- miliarity. 3. His fidelity to his children, was the appointed means of rendering them holy like himself; and because the Lord knew that he would be faithful, therefore, he had extended the promise to his seed. 4. Unless they became personally holy it was impos- sible for God to fulfil the promises which he had made to Abraham. And 5. The foun- dation of the whole scheme, or the meri- torious ground on which these blessings were promised to Abraham and his children, was " the seed," in whom " all the nations of the earth are to be blessed." Hence it is evident that the covenant made with A- braham required absolute holiness, without which not one of its blessings could be enr joyed in a covenant way.
The same truths are exhibited in the re- newal of that covenant with Isaac and Ja- cob. The Lord said unto Isaac, " I will be
92
with thee and I will bless thee, &c. And I will perform the oath which I swear unto Abraham thy father, &c. Because that A- braham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws/' Gen. xxvi. 3 — 5. Again, " I am the God of Abraham thy father ; fear not for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and mul- tiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake." Ver. 24. The same covenant that was made with Abraham and his seed, is iiow renewed with Isaac and his seed, he having become personally holy. The same remark applies to the case of Jacob, " And the Lord said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac, &c. Behold I am with thee and will keep thee, &c. for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of." Gen. xxviii. 13—15.
In all these instances, the same covenant, containing the same blessings both temporal and spiritual, is ratified to the seed of the be- liever as they grow up ; they are recogni- sed as holy, and the promise of the covenant, in their turn, is extei ded to their children, who are to be sanctified through the instru- mentality of their parents' labours. Every new generation that enjoys the blessings, adds consequence to the covenant ; in tes- timony of which, the Lord adds the name to the style, by which he reveals himself to the church. At first he calls himself " The God of Abraham ;" then, " The God of A- braham and of Isaac ." and then, " The
93
God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. This" he declares " is
MY NAME FOR EVER, AND THIS IS MY ME- MORIAL UNTO ALL GENERATIONS." Exo. ill. 6, 15, 16.
This leads me to notice the solemn re- newal of that covenant with Moses, in be- half of the children of Israel in Egypt. — " And God spake unto Moses and said unto him, I am the Lord ; and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH, was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan* &c. And I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord and / will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God, and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God — And I will bring you in unto the land, &c." Exo. vi. 2 — 8. Herein the Lord declares, that he had established with them, the same co- venant which he had made wilh Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And if he had not de- clared it in plain words, the sameness of the promises would prove the identity of the covenant. The first is " / will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God fy and the other is u to bring them into the land of promise." With respect to the for- mer, you may asseit as before that it means nothing more than to be in a peculiar sense their " temporal King and Governor.'' As-
94
sertions are easily made, but the proof is what is wanted. I have asserted that " it comprises all the blessings which creatures can desire, or God bestow/' and in proof of thi s, I have shewn you that the same, and no other promise comprises all the blessings which God bestows on the Christian church and the church triumphant. All that you can reply is, " to them that can believe it, let them believe it." Besides this, there are hundreds of texts in which the Lord expres- ses the relation between hirn and Israel, by the same terms; the same by which he ex- presses his relation to the Christian church. The only answer you can give to this is, that they were a very wicked people, and as a na- tion had no real holiness ; hence you infer that God could not be their God, nor they, his people, in the same sense, as the Chris- tian church. I have presented you with several arguments and facts to prove that the moral character of that nation, even in the worst of times, was not near so bad as you represent: and J have shewn you that if there is any force in your argument on that point, it would operate with the same propriety against calling the Christian church " the people of God," because there are un- worthy members in its bosom. But still you say "It can't be so." Suppose, then we admit what you seem so anxious to have conceded : that the nation of Israel was a very base and wicked people ; that as a com- munity they neither possessed nor professed
95
any real holiness; and consequently that the Lord, in promising to be " their God," and to take them for his people, "meant no- thing more than that he would have them under his special care, and be " their king and temporal governor."
Leb. Well sir, admit this, and it is all we ask.
Eug. I do, for the sake of the argument; but, for the honour of my God, I should tremble to admit it in any other light, for in what point of view does it represent the character of the holy Sovereign of the uni- verse ? He takes a people under his pecu- liar care — becomes their king — fosters them with paternal kindness — bears them on ea- gles' wings — keeps them in the hollow of his hand — preserves them as the apple of his eye — destroys the nations that oppose them — puts them in possession of a pleasant and fruitful land — loads them with his favours : thus he deals with them for the space of two thousand years; and yet during this whole time, they are neither really nor professedly better than the very nations which he de- stroyed before them : yea, the very holiness which they professed, and the only holiness which his covenant with them required, con- sisted in acts of the grossest hypocrisy. — And is this the Holy One of Israel ? Such indeed is the character which your system ascribes to him. "O my soul, come not thou into their secret : unto their asssembly, mine honour he not thou united'*
96
And after all we may inquire " Why doth lie yet find fault, for who halh resisted his will?" If the Lord's covenant with Israel required nothing more than typical holiness, why does he charge them with hypocrisy in the performance of their covenant duties; and condemn them because their hearts were not engaged in the service ? " They did flat- ter him with their mouths; and they lied unto him with their tongues. For their heart was not right with him : neither were they steadfast in his covenant." Psal. Ixxviii. 36, 37. Why does he charge them with having " broken his covenant/' by admitting the " nncircum- cised in heart" as well as injlesh" into his sanctuary, and forbid them to do so in fu- ture ? Ezek. xliv. 7 — 9. Why does he de- mand of the wicked, " WThat hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words be- hind thee." Psal. 1. 1 6, 1 7. " To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he- goats ? When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at .your hands, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain ob- lations : incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with: it is iniqui- ty, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons, and your appointed feasts, my soul
97
hateth; they are a trouble unto me: I am weary to bear them." Isa. i. 11 — 14. In none of these cases does he charge them with o- mitting any of the external rites which he had instituted. Nay, he acknowledges that their offerings were " continually before him." Why then does he find fault if typi- cal holiness were all that his covenant re- quired ?
Let). Oh! he found fault with them be- cause they did not yield obedience to that law, which is " obligatory on all the sub- jects of his moral government, whether in heaven, earth or hell ;" and to which they were under peculiar obligations, resulting from their superior advantages.
Eug. That does not remove the difficul- ty. The question is, why did he censure them for performing their ceremonial wor- ship without conformity to the moral law, if the performance of that worship did not re- quire real holiness of heart? If, in the in- stitution of these rites, the Lord required nothing but typical holiness, he was bound to give them credit on that score, when they observed them with due solemnity ; though, in another point of view, he might have re- primanded them for their want of real holi- ness. But, instead of this, he condemns them for offering their sacrifices and incense, calling their assemblies, attending their so- lemn meetings, and taking his covenant in their mouth, without a holy heart; and on that account he pronounces it all " iniquity,
9
98
and an abomination in his sight." And hence he commands them, "Wash ye, make you clean, &c." Not typical washing, for in this they had not been deficient; but the same as when he commands them by another pro- phet, " O Jerusalem, wash thine heart jrom wickedness, that thou may est be saved" Jer. iv. 14. And again, " Make you a new heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel." Compare Jsa. i. 16 — 20, and Eze- kiel, xviil 29—32.
Again, if nothing but typical holiness were required by God's covenant, why did John the Baptist and our Saviour charge the scribes and pharisees with hypocrisy, and condemn them for the same ? They were rigid observers of the ceremonial Jaw, and even went beyond it: and if they could not claim a reward for their works of supereroga- tion, they were certainly entitled to full credit for their typical holiness. And yet our Saviour addresses them just as the pro- phets had addressed their fathers; condemns them as most egregious hypocrites, and as- sures them that " they shall not escape the damnation of hell."
Leb. He condemns them for their injus- tice and wickedness, while they professed to be just and righteous.
Eug. Very true : they professed to be " the people of God," and yet their religion consisted solely in ceremonial observances, or your typical holiness. This is the precise point of the argument.
99
Leb. But Christ had come to change the dispensation, and set up his church, in view of which John said to them, " Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father, &c. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees, &c." Mat. iii.9, ]0.
JEvg. And pray, what does this differ from the declarations of the ancient prophets? — The Lord had always assured them that their being born of pious parents would not secure to them the blessings of the covenant with- out personal holiness; that disobedience would cut them off from the enjoyment of the promises which he had made to Abra- ham. Hence, whenever a general defec- tion took place, he cast them out of the land, or chastised them with judgments, till " their uncircumcised hearts were humbled." The advent of the Messiah was a time of the most general apostacy that had ever been known in Judea ; and it was the season of God's judgments upon the unbelieving part of that nation. He had borne long with them, but when they had rejected the hope of Israel, and crucified tfie Lord of glory, their cup was filled, and they were cast out of his sight. Here is not the least intimation of a change in the constUulion of the church, but only the execution of judg- ment on the impenitent, in perfect accord- ance with the ancient threatening which he had delivered unto them. Read the xxvi/A chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that they were to be cast out of the land for their
100
transgressions; but still "the covenant of their fathers'* was to remain inviolate, and in due time to he fulfilled. "And yet for all that, when they he in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away; neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly and to break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord thy God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their an- cestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that 1 might be their God: I am the Lord.'* If there were no express prophecies direct- ly to the point, this declaration, taken in connexion with the preservation of the Jews as a separate people in their dispersion, is sufficient evidence that they are to be resto- red to the land of Canaan, and that even the temporal blessings of the covenant of Abra- ham are to be enjoyed by his seed to the end of time.
Permit me now to resume my argument. In the third month after the emancipation of Israel from Egypt, they were brought into the wilderness of Sinai. While encamped before the mount, Moses ascended, and the Lord gave him this message to deliver to the children of Israel. " Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar trea- sure unto me above all people : all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a king- dom of priests, and a holy nation" When this communication was made to the elders
101
and congregation of Israel, " All the peo- ple answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do" Exo. xix. 5 — 8. Can any Baptist church present an ex- ample of a more solemn act of covenanting with God ? And can any man have the ef- frontery to assert that the people promised nothing but a shadow of holiness? and even that God himself required nothing more of them, in order to regard them as his peculiar people, a kingdom of priests, and a holy w«- tion ? Then he may with the same proprie- ty, I mean impropriety, assert that St. Peter intends nothing more when he applies the same terms to the Christian church. " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ." 1 Pet. ii. 9. But ah ! here is the difference : this latter passage happens to be in the New Testament, and "theOid one is all done &f?ay." How strange that your ministers should ever preach out of the Old Testament ! And when they do, I am sure their sermons ought to be mere types of gospel sermons ! !
.But suppose we take a passage out of the Old Testament : " And the Lord spake un- to Moses, saying, speak unto the congrega- tion of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord thy God am holy?' — Lev. xix. 1. Does the great Jehovah ap- pear here clad in garments of typical holi- ness, as a sample of the holiness which Is- rael was to possess? So it would seem, if
nothing but typical holiness were required^ 9*
102
Leo. O no ! you forget the distinction which I have already made. We acknow- ledge that the Lord required absolute holi- ness of them, just as he does of all the sub- jects of his moral government, whether in heaven, earth or hell ; but that he required only typical holiness in a covenant way. In such passages as the last you mentioned, we acknowledge that absolute holiness is de- manded ; but it was on the ground of the universal obligation of his law.
Eug. This is indeed a precious distinction for your system. Il is what I recollect when I was a child, we used to call " a whip row." It serves a most excellent purpose. When a text requiring holiness is mentioned, your first endeavour is to shew that it means no- thing more than typical holiness. But when one is presented which sets that gloss at de- fiance, you immediately resort to the other expedient, admit that it is real holiness, but deny that it is required by virtue of the cov- enant. And thus, like a pendulum, you are constantly oscillating between the law and the covenant — between realnnti typical holi- ness. This is a just representation of the conduct of your denomination in managing the whole controversy. But you will ob- serve, Lebbeus, that your doctrine of typi- cal holiness not only destroys the moral cha- racter of God, as I have already shewn, but it is absolutely inconsistent with the univer- sal obligation of the moral law, and reduces the ceremonial law to the exact level of a-po-
103
pish indulgence. The moral law, you ac- knowledge, is universal; its obligations ex- tending to all the conduct of " all the sub- jects of the divine government, whether in heaven, earth or hell-" If so, then accord- ing to your doctrine of typical holiness, the Lord, instead of requiring more of Israel, by enjoining the ceremonial economy, actu- ally required less. If he had not given that law, they would have been obliged to ren- der absolute holiness in every act of their lives. But, by virtue of that law, which re- quired mere typical holiness, he dispensed with the moral law, or absolute holiness, in all those acts which were ceremonial. These they were permitted to perform with unho- ly hearts, and were even promised a rich reward for their unhallowed services. Ac- cording to this, the Lord required more of the heathen, yea, of the devils in hell, than he demanded of the Jewish nation. Of the former he requires constant and absolute ho- liness ; but of the latter he required this, on- ly when they were not engaged in religious duties. When they performed an act which had no immediate connexion with religion, and, therefore, was not cognizable by the ceremonial law, they were bound, in com- mon with " all other subjects of the divine government, whether in heaven, earth or hell," to exercise real holiness. But the mo- ment they entered into the sanctuary, or ap- proached the altar of the Lord, they were released from that obligation, and were obli-
104
ged to render mere typical holiness, which they could do with unholy hearts, and then claim a reward for their unrighteousness. — To say that the Israelites were bound by the covenant to yield nothing more than typical holiness in their religious services, and yet that in the same acts, absolute holi- ness was required by the law, does not al- ter the case, for it leads to the same result. That the law is the foundation of all moral obligation is as true in one age, under one dispensation, and in one part of Jehovah's dominions as another. To suppose there- fore that the Lord ever made a covenant with any of his creatures, and promised them a reward, even of temporal blessings, on condition of any thing short of the require- ments of his law, is to set him up as a rewar- der of iniquity. This is an inevitable con- sequence resulting from your favourite doc- trine. With these views of the subject, it is not strange that your people should con- sider " many things in the Jewish ritual as pretty well adapted to please the carnally- minded ;" for all carnal men would be pleas- ed with a law which dispenses with absolute holiness, and requires nothing more than what they can perform with wicked hearts. When I am made to believe, that the God of Israel required this, and even promised a rich reward for such services, that moment I shall cease to worship him.
But to return. You will observe, that the children of Israel had just covenanted
1G5
in the mast solemn manner " to do all that the Lord had spoken." He had not called upon them to make a new covenant, hut to ratify the old one. "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep rny covenant, &c." This covenant had from its first institution, as has been shewn, required real holiness, and recognised all who were embraced within its sacred enclosure as professedly holy ; and all the rites which had been or- dained on that foundation, were considered as outward expressions of real holiness. As the time had now arrived, when the Lord was about to establish a complete and per- manent mode of worship, we discover a sin- gular propriety in their being called upoa in a solemn manner to renew that covenant, Here then is the ground of all the statutes which were delivered from Mount Sinai, Many of those precepts were indeed typi- cal— others of a civil or political nature, and many others strictly moral ; but all these equally regarded the mode of expressing that holiness, which Israel had previously covenanted to exercise. Hence we might as well infer, that, because a man without holiness of heart, can now profess religion, be baptized, partake of the Lord's supper, attend public worship, read and pray, and perform the external part of all Christian duties, therefore real holiness is not neces- sary to a standing in the Christian church; as to deduce this inference from the like pre- mises, in reference to the Jewish church. The
106
logic would be equal!) unsound in both cases. As a further confitntation ol these views, when the Lord first addressed the congre- gation of Israel from Mount Sinai, the first precepts which he delivered, was the moral law, in the form of the ten commandments. This he laid down as the ha^is of all the re- quirements which were afterwards deliver- ed. And this, as well all the other statutes, the people promised to obey. " And all the people saw the thunderings, &c. and they said to Moses, speak thou with us and we will hear; but let not God speak with us lest we die." Exo. xx. 18, 19. And when, in condescension to their request, the Lord had delivered all his statutes to his servant, "Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments ; and all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words which the Lord halh said, trill we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and budded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings arid sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people : and they said, All that the Lord hath said, will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the bloody
107
and sprinkled it on the people and said, Be- hold the blood of the covenant, which the L rd hath made with yon, concerning all these words." Exo. xxiv. 3 — 8. And now, Lebbe- us, is all this a solemn farce, in which the God of Israel bore so conspicuous a part ? For immediately after this, M Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, went up and they saw the God of Israel : and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire-stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clear- ness." Ver. 9, 10. Did the Israelites, in all this solemn act of covenanting, make a mental reservation with respect to the moral law ? And was God so well pleased with their hypocrisy and falsehood (for they had previously promised to keep those com- mandments) that he condescended to mani- fest himself to them in all his glory ? — Leb- beus, the bare inquiry makes me tremble. What then must that system be, which makes the impious inquiry needful ? Or did the moral law itself require nothing more, under that dispensation, than typical holi- ness? (Was their sabbath amon^ other things a mere type of a Baptist sabbath ?) No ! Our Saviour declared the import of the moral law. " Hear, O Israel, The Lord our G*>d is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thu heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy wind, and with all thy strength. And thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" But perhaps, he gave this as a
108
new interpretation of the ten command- ments, peculiar to gospel times. No ! It is the same which the Lord had previously de- livered to Israel, and Christ quotes the words, precisely from the law of Moses. Comp. Mar. xii. 29, 31. Deut. vi. 4, 5. and Lev. xix. 18.*
Passing over a vast deal of testimony to the same effect, permit me now to direct your attention, to the book of Deuterono- my. This book consists of a recapitulation of sundry precepts, which Moses made to Israel in the last month of his life, accom- panied with such exhortations, promises and threatenings,as the Lord directed him to give to the people at his decease. Let me re- quest you, Lebbeus, to sit down at your lei- sure, and read it, as well as the whole of the Old Testament with serious and candid at- tention; and I believe you will be amply- repaid for your labour. But I cannot for- bear, at the present moment, to introduce some portions of this book. In the first place, let us read the 5th and 6th Chapters. [The reader is requested to turn to these chap- ters and read them attentively before he pro- ceeds any further.^ Here Moses assembles
* It is worthy of remark, that the same method of communi- cating divine grace from generation to generation, which was established in the original covenant, is distinctly recognized in the decalogue. "Fori the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my com- mandments." That is, " unto thousands of generations of them that love him." Hence he is said to have " commanded his cov- enant" and " to keep it to a thousand generations." Deut. vii. 9. 1 Chron. xvi. 15. Psal. cv. 8—10.
109
all Israel, and bids them hear the statutes and judgments of the Lord. He reminds them of the solemn covenant which they had made with the Lord in Horeb. A covenant, different from that which he had previously made with their fathers, in these two res- pects, as to the manner, and as to thejorm. The Lord spake to them face to face, out of the midst of the fire, and in the form of the ten commandments. The object of the allusion, was evidently, to make them feel their superior obligations to obedience, re- sulting from the vast increase of light which they then enjoyed. Moses then rehearses the ten commandments, and reminds them of the tenor of which they were the subjects when they beheld the awful displays of di- vine Majesty, and of their solemn engage- ment " to hear and do" all that the Lord should say. He then adds, " Ye shall ob- serve to do, therefore, as the Lord your God hath commanded you: you shall not turn a- side to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess." He then proceeds to ex- plain the import of the divine requirements, the amount of which is " to love the Lord their God with all their heart" — prescribes the means of perpetuating the blessings of the covenant, viz. by teaching their children the commandments of the Lord diligently,
10
no
familiarly and constantly — cautions them a- gainst being led astray, by the idolatrous examples of tie surrounding nations, remin- ding them that " the Lord their God is a jeal- ous God," and then again enjoin?, as a sub- ject of the first importance, the faithful in- struction of their children, in order that the blessings of the covenant might descend, according to divine constitution, to their posterity. Now, where is the man who has the presumption to assert, that " to walk in all the ways of the Lord their God, without turning aside to the right hand or to the left — to observe all his commandments and statutes and judgments — to fear the Lord their God — to love him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength — to serve him and swear by his name — to teach the same dili- gently to their children, going out and com- ing in, lying down and rising up, and that this should be their righteousness," means nothing more than typical holiness] Here, Lebbeus, is no room for your convenient dis- tinction between law and covenant. For Mo- ^es declares at the outset, that these duties result from the covenant of Horeb, and they are enjoined, and obedience required no less than six times in these two chapters, as the express condition of their continuing to en- joy the land of promise.
Lei. But the land of Canaan was only a type of heaven.
Eug. Very true; and in this light no doubt the Lord intended they should regard it. —
Ill
And therefore, we see the reason why he re- quired real holiness that they might not only enjoy his blessing on earth, but what is infinitely more desirable, his favour in heaven. Hence this idea instead of inval- idating, confirms my argument. — The same sentiments sanctioned by the same promi- ses and threatenings, run through this book. To quote them all would be to repeat the whole book. I must therefore renew my re- quest that you will read it, without delay, with devout attention, and with your eye to this subject. But, before I proceed further, I must direct you to three notable institu- tions, recorded in this book ; by which the Lord designed to perpetuate religion in Is- rael.
The first is, that " their kino; should write a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests, the Levites, and keep it by him, and read therein all the days of his life ; that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them; that he might prolong his days in his kingdom, and transmit the same blessings to his children." Fid. Deut. xvii. 18—20.
The second is, that when they passed over Jordan, "they should set up in Mount Ebal great stones, and phtister them with plaister, and write upon them, very plainly, all the words of this law, and erect an altar there, that all the people, when they came to wor- ship before God, might see for themselves,
112
what the Lord required at their hands."— Vid. chap, xxvii. 1 — 10.
The third, and if possible, the most re- markable of all was, " that at the end of ev- ery seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles when all Israel was assembled before the Lord their God, this law was to be read in the hearing of all the people, men, women and children, and the stranger within their gates; that they might hear, and that they might learn, and fear the Lord their God, and observe to do all the words of this law : and that their children, which had not known, wight hear and learn to fear the Lord their God, and continue to enjoy the blessings of the covenant." Vid. chapter xxxi. 9 — 13. Here an opportunity was presented, once in seven years, for a solemn renewal of covenant with those, who had previously taken it upon them ; and for the reception of their children, as they arrived at adult years.* In reference to such a solemn scene, well might Moses say, " This day, the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, to do these statutes and judgments : thou shalt
* The Jewish rabbins say, that at the age of twelve or thirteen years, their children were obliged to perform all the duties of adult members, and were then denominated " sons of the com- mandment,'* having been previously distinguished as " the chil- dren of the covenant." These obligations were evidently impli- ed in the offer of a personal sacrifice, but they were distinctly expressed in this septennial act of covenanting. And this prac- tice appears to be plainly recognised by the sacred Evangelist, where he observes, that when our Saviour was tivelve years old, bis parents took him up to Jerusalem " after the cugtom of the feait"
113
therefore keep and do them, with all thine heart and with all thy soul. Thou ha*t avouch- ed the Lord, this day, to be thy God ; and to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice. And the Lord
HATH AVOUCHED THEE, THIS DAY, TO BE HIS
peculiar people, as he hath promised thee ; and that thou shouldst keep all his command- ments, and to make thee high, above all na- tions, which he hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honour, and that thou ma vest
BE A HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD THY GoD,
as he hath spoken.'9 Deut. xxvi. 16 — 19.
If a more solemn mode of covenanting is practised — if more comprehensive vows are required — if more powerful means are used — if more gracious promises are enjoyed, at the present day, in any portion of the church of God, for the preservation and promotion of " pure and undefiled religion," I know not where to look for them : sure I am, they are not to be found in the Baptist church.
I will now direct your attention, to that solemn renewal of covenant, which Joshua caused the children of Israel to make, just before his death. As the event approach- ed, that good man, after the example of Mo- ses, assembled all Israel together in She- chem. And after reminding them of all the wonders which God had wrought for them, and exhorting them " to keep and to do all that Moses had commanded without turning aside to the right hand or to the left/' re- 10*
114
minding them that " to love the Lord their God" was the amount of the whole ; he call- ed upon them to renew their covenant. — And in the very commencement of this so- lemn transaction, he tells them plainly, that it is not mere outside religion, or a shadow of holiness, which they are to profess, but the religion of the heart. " Now, therefore, fear the Lord, and!, serve him in sincerity and in truth, &c." And upon their promising to do so, he declares to them, in the most explicit terms, that they cannot serve God acceptably, with impenitent and wicked hearts. " Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God ; he is a jealous God, &c." — And the people answered, " The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey" So Joshua made a covenant with the peo- ple, and wrote it in the book of the law, and took a great stone and set it up as a witness to the people. These solemn duties, like all the rest which we have noticed, were en- joined as the condition of their enjoying the blessings of the covenant. " And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders, that outlived Joshua." Vid. Josh, xxiii. and xxiv.
Time would fail me, to take particular notice of similar transactions, which took place in the days of Samuel, and David, and Solomon, and Elijah, and Hezekiah, and Josiah, and other pious prophets and kings. Examine these instances for yourself, and you will find that all the judgments which
115
God inflicted upon his ancient people, were brought upon them for their violation of that covenant, which God made with their fathers, and renewed with so much solemni- ty; and that, whenever they renewed cove- nant, they promised the same absolute holi- ness, which their fathers professed ; — " ta walk after the Lord, and to keep his com- mandments, and his testimonies, and his sta- tutes, with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant, thai were written in this book." 2 Kings, xxiii. 3..
The book of Psalms abounds with evi- dence to the same point. Let me request youi to read the Ixxviii//* Psalm, with particular attention. Jt contains a summary of Goil's dealing with Israel, and affords the most ex- plicit testimony that absolute holiness was re- quired by the covenant, and was to be trans-* mitted in a covenant way. " For he establish- ed a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel,wh'ch he commanded our J others, that they should make than known to their children; that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, ?vho should arise and declare them to their chil- dren ; that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments." Of those who were over- thrown, it is declared that " they kept not the covenant of God and refused to walk in his law" — that they were guilty of hypocri- sy in taking this covenant on their tongues, because " their hearts were not right with
116
him :" and the anger of the Lord was kin- dled against them " because they believed not in God and trusted not in his salvation"
Now, Lebbeus, in view of all this evi- dence, for me to assert that God's covenant with Israel required nothing more than typ- ical holiness, would be, as much worse than common falsehood, as to give the lie to (lie God of truth. As much as I value my own personal ease, I would rather lose my right hand, than be guilty of the assertion.
Lei), But pray tell me, Eugenius, is there any evidence that faith and repentance were required as a condition of that covenant?
Eug. If I have established the point that real holiness was requited by the covenant, then this follows of course ; for there is on- ly one way for sinners to become holy, and that is by repentance toward God and faith in Christ. But I have no inclination to rest the matter here. Positive testimony may be adduced, directly to the point.
The prominent feature, and the founda- tion of the whole covenant, as you have seen, was the promise of a Saviour. " And in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And Abraham believed in the Lord, and it was counted to him for righ- teousness." He not only believed that he should have a son, who through his fidelity should be the heir of the promise, and in- herit immortal glory ; but he believed, that he should have another seed, "in ivhom all nations shoidd be blessed" This promise
117
was the foundation of all his hopes both for himself and his posterity. Hence, our Lord declares, " Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." Joh. viii. 56. And Si. Paul says, " God preached the gos- pel to Abraham, say i nor, (n thee shall all na- tions be blessed.'" Gal. iii. 3. The same covenant, with the same promise more fully explained, I have already shewn, was re- newed to Isaac and to Jacob. Hence, the repeated declaration of Jehovah to Israel, "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob — this is my name for ever and this is my memorial un- to all generations." Exo. iii. 6, 15, 16. — And hence also, he calls the covenant that subsisted between him and Israel, " the cov- enant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." — Exo. ii. 24. Lev. xxvi. 42. We are assu- red by our Saviour, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are in the kingdom of God. — They never possessed the land of promise; they were only sojourners there ; but by faith in Christ, they have gone to enjoy the heavenly inheritance. But did the Lord, when he renewed this covenant with Moses and the children of Israel, strike out the fundamental promise, or excuse them from the exercise of faith in it? I know your peo- ple endeavour to make it out, that the pos- session of Canaan, was the summit of their expectations: but we know, it was far oth- erwise. Even after they were established in the promised land, this promise of the
118
covenant was cherished with undiminished fervour; and the same intense desire to see its accomplishment, universally prevailed. And tiiis was the principal reason, why bar- renness was considered, by the Israelites, especially the female part, as a dreadful curse. Will your candour then permit you to believe, that a man would have been tol- erated in that community who denied the hope of Israel 1 Would he not have been considered worse than a heathen or publi- can ? — With such ardent desire was that promise cherished, even in seasons of the greatest apostacy, that when John the Bap- tist proclaimed the near approach of its ful- filment, the whole nation was in a ferment: and their impatience was so great, that they seemed unwilling to wait a moment, but were ready to storm heaven itself and bring the Messiah down by force. Yid. Mat. xi. 12. Again, what was the meaning of "the blood of the covenant" of which we read so much, and which was sprinkled on the people ? — What was the object of all the victims, whose blood was shed, and whose flesh was daily offered in sacrifice to God ? Did not these point, with singular significance, to " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world?" What was the import of their sin-offerings, which were accompanied with humble confession of sin ? Was not the death of the victim an acknowledgement of their desert of punishment, and that without the shedding of blood, there could be no
119
remission? Or, if all these things were in- tended by them, yet, did the Lord excuse the people from understanding their import? Suppose there were some, and at times many, who did not understand and rightly perform religious rites, did this destroy their design or annul the divine requirements? — But if ceremonial observances did not re- quire faith, how will you dispose of express precepts? Read Deut. x and xi chapters. Here again, they are required "to fear the Lord their God, to walk in all his ways — to love and serve him with all the heart and soul — to keep all his commandments and statutes — to circumcise the foreskin of their heart — to lay up the divine precepts in their hearts and souls, and to teach them to their children, and to choose between the bles- sing and the curse," and all this, on express condition of inheriting the blessings of the covenant. But do these precepts require neither repentance, nor faith, nor a holy heart? Turn to the xxix and xxx chapters of the same book and read the last address of the servant of God to his people. There after once more recapitulating the wonders which God had wrought for them, he assem- bles the whole congregation, "the captains of the tribes and elders of the people, all the men of Israel, with their wives and little ones, and the stranger within the camp, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water." And for what? " That thou shovldsl enter in- to covenant with the Lord thy God> and into
120
his oath, which the Lord thy God mdketh with thee this day : That he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself akd
THAT HE MAY BE UNTO THEE A GOD US he
haih said unto thee, and as he hath sworn un- to thy fathers, to Abraham to Isaac and to Jacob" And thus, alter solemnly renew- ing covenant, the Lord once more gracious- ly promised "to circumcise their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God, with all their heart and with all their soul," that they might live and enjoy the blessings of the covenant. And as an en- couragement to obedience and faithfulness, he declares that what he requires " is not hidden from them, nor far off, but the word is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." These words St. Paul quotes and declares, that they have respect to the righteousness of faith. Com- pare Deut. xxx. 11 — 14. and Rom. x. 5 — 9. And this also, the Lord required of them, as a condition of the covenant.
This truth is, not only frequently impli- ed, but plainly asserted, in the apostolic writings. In the xi. of Romans, Paul de- clares that the Jews " were broken off because of unbelief" I shall have occasion to call your attention to this chapter, in a subse- quent part of the discussion; I shall there- fore only remark here, that they were bro- ken off from that, into which the Gentiles are grafted. That this was not the Chris- tian church, is evident from the fact, that the
321
unbelieving Jews never had a standing in that cnurch. They were broken off from their own olive tree, of which they were na- tural branches. And if they were " broken off, because of unbelief " it is evident that faith was requisite to a standing in that church.— Again, St. Paul declares, that the Israelites "did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ." 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. This was their profession, though many of them were insincere ; and therefore he overthrew them in the wilder- ness, " because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation" Hence the a- postle asserts that "they tempted Christ," and from their example, he warns the Chris- tian church against the same sin.
In writing to the Hebrews he recurs to the same facts, and asserts, that it was "to those that believed not" that " the Lord s?vare, they should not enter into his rest;" and that " they entered not in9 because of unbelief" — At the same time he informs us, what was the nature of this unbelief: viz. unbelief of the gospel " For unto us was the gospel preach- ed as well as unto them, but the word preach- ed did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." And in his whole treatment of this subject, he evidently re- gards the rest which was promised them, as the same which is held forth to the Christian church ; and imputes their failure of inheri- Jl
122
ting the promise, to the want of faith. — And finally, that faith in Christ was requi- red and professed under that dispensation, is evident from what the apostle says of Mo- ses, in the xi//i chapter of this Epistle : " By faith Moses, when he came to years, refu- sed to be called the son of Pharaoh's daugh- ter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the plea- sures of sin for a season ; esteeming the re- proach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." How could Moses, in suffering affliction with Israel, be said to suffer with " the people of God?" and to en- dure " the reproach of Christ ," if they were not, by profession, "the people of Gody" and " believers in Christ /"
It would be easy to multiply testimony to this point, but it is needless. " If you will not believe Moses and the prophets," nor Christ and his apostles, " neither will you be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
Lei). But there is no evidence, that the Israelites were required to profess these things, in order to enter into the church. — On the contrary, as I have already observ- ed, they were born into the church, and grew up members of it, without making any personal profession.
Eug. And I have already observed, that they were born into the church, in the same sense, in which the children of believers are now7 born into the church. But it is abund- antly evident, that they were not consider-
123
ed, n<5 personally entitled to the blessings of the covenant, until they had, by some act of their own, taken the obligations of that covenant upon themselves. To atford them such an opportunity, the Lord commanded, that the covenant should be publicly re- newed every seventh year, as has been al- ready shewn, for the express purpose of having their children enter into its bonds. And not only at that time, but whenever a young Israelite came forward to the altar of the Lord, to offer a personal sacrifice, this act, was justly considered, as a profes- sion of his faith, and an acknowledgment of God's covenant. And in this light, the Lord regarded it; for he speaks of such, as having " made a covenant with him by sa- crifice/' And that real holiness was requi- red in that act, is evident from the declara- tion " Unto the wicked God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth, &c." Psalm 1. 5—16.
Eeb. But the constitution of the Jewish, was "totally different" from that of the gospel church; as it had a direct tendency to blend saints and sinners, without contain- ing in itself the means of separating the morally clean, from the unclean."
Eug. Then the Lord was, indeed, a very " hard master," when he censured the priests for putting "wo difference between the holy and profane — the clean and the unclean" — Ezek. xxiu 26. He required them to do
124
this, and yet, if your assertion is true, he had furnished them with no means for doing it. The constitution which he had given them, "had a direct tendency to blend saints and sinners" and yet he censures them,fornot separating them. This is surely worse than to require " bricks without straw." But is it a fact that the original constitution of the church "contained no means of separating the morally clean from the unclean?" No ! It furnished as effectual provision for the main^ tenance of discipline, as there is under the present dispensation* The same duties of morality, benevolence and piety were requi- red, and the same sins were forbidden. And when any one transgressed, he was required to bring a sin offering to the altar, to make confession of his sin and seek pardon at the Land of the Lord. But the obstinate and incorrigible offender was condemned to be " cut off'' from God's people. You may assert, that this had respect solely to cere- monial transgressions; but I trust you have learned, that assertions pass for nothing in this controversy; especially when the Lord has declared that, "the soul that doeih aught presumptuously shall be cut off from among his people" Even sabbath-breaking and ma- ny other transgressions were capitally pun- ished. Yid. Exo. xxi, xxii, and xxiii. Lev. xix, and xx. Num. xv. Jf only one of these precepts, were put in force against some churches, of the present day, which make great pretentions to "gospel purity," I sus-
125
pect very few of their members would es- cape the sentence of being " stoned to death." It is evident, that nothing was want- ing under the former dispensation, to pre- serve the purity, and promote the spiritual interests of the church, but a disposition in the priests and elders to administer the laws, which God had given them. To the neglect of this, and not to any defect in the consti- tution of the church, are to be imputed all the irregularities, which were then tolerated. But for this, Israel would have continued to enjoy the inheritance of their fathers. The same negfect has been the occasion of great dishonour to the Christian church. But in neither case, does- it prove, that they were not the visible church of God.
Leb. But their repentance was expres- sed by ceremonial observances.
Eitg. Very true ; but it has been already shewn, that in performing these, the Lord required holiness of heart. And what puts this beyond all dispute, is the fact, that the Lord promised forgiveness to those who had transgressed, when they offered their sin of- ferings and made an humble confession of their sin. This promise related not only to ceremonial, but also to moral offences ; as you will learn by inspecting the chapters to which I last referred. But will any one suppose, that the Lord promised pardon, under that dispensation, on condition of any thing short of true repentance and faith? If so, then the ceremonial law, instead of 11*
126
being "a yoke of bondage," must hare bees infinitely lighter than the gospel require- ments; and wicked men, with impenitent hearts, might then have claimed not only temporal blessings, but even pardon and e- ternal life at the hand of God. But no! The Lord cannot forgive a single sin, ex- cept through the atonement of his Son; and to none but such as are penitent for sin, and trust in that atonement. Hence it is evident that the Jews were required to be sincere in their confession of sin and truly penitent be- fore God, and to trust in the merits of the promised Messiah, (of which their sin-offer- ings were an external expression,) in order to obtain forgiveness, and enjoy the blessings of the covenant.
SECTION IV.
Evgenius. A 3d argument in favour of the sameness of the church, is derived, from the application of the same, figures, to ex- press I he relation, between God and the church under both dispensations.
The Lord not only called the Jews, in hundreds of instances, " his people," and himself " their god ;" but he expressed his union to them, by the same tern er and en- dearing appellations, which he applies to the Christian church. The marriage covenant is one of the most striking and appropriate figures to express this relation* and this is applied equally to both.
127
He says,
To the Jewish church, " For thy Maker is thy hus- band ; the Lord of hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel." Isa. liv. 5.
" Turn, O backsliding- chil- dren, saith the Lord, for I am married unto you. Jer. iii. 14. My covenant they brake, al- though I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord." Chap. xxxi. 32
" As the bridegroom rej iceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Isa. lxii. 5.
" I remember thee, the kind- ness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, 8cc Israel was holiness unto the Lord." Isa. ii. 2, 3.
H Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers. — And I saw, when for all the causes, where- by backsliding- Israel commit- ted adultery, 1 had put her a- way, and given her a bill of di- vorce ; yet her treacherous sis- ter Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. — Surely, as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me." Jer. iii. 1 — 8.
And when the Lord had re- jected the ten tribes for their idolatry, he declares,
" She is not my wife, neither am 1 her. husband." Hos. ii. 2.
To the Christian church, " For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the Saviour of the body.*' Eph. v. 23.
" Fori am jealous over you, with a Godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one hus- band, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." 2 Cor. xi. 2.
" Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. — and I saw the holy city — prepa- red as a br<de, adorned for her husband." Rev. xxi. 9, 2.
" Nevertheless, I have some- what against thee, because thou hast left thy first love." Rev. ii. 4.
'* But I have a few things a- gainst thee, because thou hast there them f.hat hold the doc- trine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornica- tion. R-v. ii 14. — Thou suffer- est thai woman Jezebel to se- duce my servants to commit fornication, &c." Ver. 20—22.
Vid. also the description of the corrupt Roman church. — Rev. xvii. and recollect, that both in the Old and New Tes- tament, idolatry is called forni- cation or adultery.
But when be predicts the final restoration of the Jews, and the calling of the gentiles he says — "It shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Tshi, (i. e. my husband.) And I will betroth thee unto me>
123
forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me, in righteousness, and in judgment and in lo- ving kindness, and in mercies. 1 will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord. And I will say unto them which are not wy people, Thott art my people, and they shail say Thou akt my God." Hos. ii. 16 — 23.
Thus when the Jews are gathered in with the fulness of the Gentiles, then both will stand in the same relation to God ; and that relation will be the same which subsisted be- tween God and the ancient church. He will be "their husband," and they "his wife." He will be « their God,'* and they " his people. "
The union between Christ and his people is also expressed by the relation between a shepherd and his flock ; and this is applied to the church under both dispensations.
" Give ear, O shepherd of Is- rael, chou that leadest Joseph as a flock." Psal. lxxx. 1.
«* We thy people and the sheep of thy pasture, lxxix. 13. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want; he make th me to lie down in green pas.ures," &c. xxiii. 1. He made his people to go forth like sheep." lvii. 52.
" He is our God3 and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand." xcv. 7.
" All we like sheep have gone astray — and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. liii. 6.
"I am the good shepherd and know my sheep, and am known
of mi
Joh x. 14.
" Take heed, therefore, to all the flock over the which the Hoi) Ghost hath made you o- veiseers ; to fVed the church of God, &c. For I know that af- ter my departure, grievous wolves shall enter in, not spa- ring- the flock " Acts xx. 28.
" Fear not, little flock, for it is your father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Luke. xii. 32.
" For we were as sheep going astray, but are now returned unto the shepherd and bishop of your souls." 2 Pet. ii. 25.
129
Concerning both Christ says "I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep 1 have, which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shep- herd.,r Joh. x. 15, 16.
The figure of a vine and vineyard is ap- plied to the church under both dispensa- tions.
" My well beloved hath a tfine- u For the kingdom of heaven
yard in a very fruitful hill, &c. is like unto a man that is a
The vineyard of the Lord of house-holder, which went out
hosts, is the house of Israel, early in the morning", to hire
and the men of Judah his labourers into his vineyard,
pleasant plant " Is. v. 1— 7. &c." Mat. xx. 1—16.
"Thou hast brought a vine " I am the true vine, and my
out of Egypt, thou hast cast Father is the husbandman, &c.
out the heathen and planted it, lam the vine,,ye are the bran-
&c." Psal. lxxx. 8—15. ches, &c." Joh: xv. 1—6.
" There was a certain house-holder which planted a vineyard, &c. and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. — When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Mat. xxh 33—43.
The Lord Jesus Christ is also called the Rock of the church, under both dispensa- tions ; and that, both as the foundation on which she is built, and as a place of refuge in time of trouble.
130
*' Fie is the Rock, his work is " Therefore, whosoever hear-
perfect, &c. Deutxxxii.2. Then eth these sayings of mine, and
he forsook God which made him doeth them, I will liken him
and lightly esteemed the Rock unto a wise man, which built his
of his salvation. Ver. 15. The house upon a rock, &c. Mat.
God of Israel said, the Rock of vii. 24. Upon this rock I will
Israel spake, &c." 2Sam.xxiii. build my church, &c." Mat.
3. xvi. 18.
" Enter into the rock and hide " To whom coming as unto a
thee, &c." Isa. ii. 10. living stone, &c. chosen of God
and precious." 1 Pet. ii. 4.
" Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Be- hold I lav in Zion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried ataae, a piecious corner stone, a sure foundation, he that believeih, shall not make haste.*' Comp. Isa. xxviii. 16. and 1 Pet. ii. 6. "And are built, upon the foundation of the a- postles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Eph. ii. 20*
Other metaphors might be cited from the holy scriptures, and many more examples of those already adduced, might have been presented, but these are sufficient to enforce the argument. I shall therefore conclude this branch of the subject by remarking, that the word " church" is appropriated to the common wealth of Israel, as well as to the Christian household. Some of your "learn- ed authors" have affected to consider this fact, as having no weight in this controver- sy ; merely because, the same word, in the original, is applied to the tumultuous as- sembly, convened at Ephesus, in conse- quence of the uproar made bv the craftsmen of that city. Acts xix. 32—41. This ex- ception, they consider, as destroying the
131
whole force of the argument. That a sin- gle exception to the application of a word, destroys, what you cull, an "explicit war- rant," I am willing to admit ; and ail lask is that you will continue of the same opin- ion, in a Subsequent part of the controversy. But I do not adduce this word as " explicit warrant;" I present it as an argument, in common with many others which have been urged. And you will be able to judge, for yourself, how much consequence ought to be attached to it, when you are informed of the derivation and import of the word "church."
The original term, is compounded of two Greek words, which simply mean, " called out or from ;" and this phrase, is singularly expressive of the idea, which it is designed to convey. When the Lord entered into cov- enant with Abraham, he " called him out" — bid him " depart out of his country and from hiskindred and from his father'shouse." And for what ? — To form a " peculiar peo- ple to the Lord of hosts." Hence, his pos- terity were styled " a holy and peculiar peo- ple— a peculiar treasure and a kingdom of priests — chosen ones.79 Exo. xix. 6. Deut. xiv. 2. xxvi. 18, 19. 1 Chron. xvi. 13. And hence also the Christian church is called "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood a holy nation, a peculiar people that they should shew forth the praises of him, who hath called them out oj darkness, into his marvellous light, SCc." 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10. It is evident,
132
therefore, that the word "church" is appli- ed in its strictest and most appropriate sense, to the commonwealth of Israel as well as to the community of Christians ; be- cause each in their place, have been by profession " the people of God," separated from the rest of the world. Therefore St. Peter, after applying to believing Gentiles, the abovementioned terms, (which had been previously applied to Israel,) adds, " Who in time past were not a people ; but are now the people of God ; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
From all this it appears, that the Lord Jesus Christ was the GOD of Israel, in the same sense, in which he is the GOD of the Christian church — that he is the husband of both — the shepherd of both — the foundation of both ; and that they are his people — his bride or wife — his Jiock — his vineyard — his CHURCH. That these words have an in- finitely different meaning, when applied to the two communities, may be asserted, but it has never been proved; nor will any man of unprejudiced mind believe the assertion. From these facts it is evident, that, in God's estimation, the church has been the same, in every age.
I now proceed to a 5th argument in sup- port of the sameness of the Jewish and Christian church, which is founded on the nature and design of the special ordinances of the two dispensations.
153
That there is a unity of nature and de- sign in the passover and the Lord's supper, I believe, your denomination are not in the habit of disputing. Though the former was instituted in commemoration of a great tem- poral deliverance, yet all are satisfied, that the paschal lamb pointed to " the Lamb of God ;" and the sprinkling of his blood on the dwellings of Israel as a token to the de- stroying angel to pass them by, represent- ed the blood of Jesus Christ, by virtne of which his people are delivered from the de- struction that awaits the ungodly. The same, is the design of the Lord's Supper. — The only difference is this, that the one, was prospective ; the other, is retrospective. That pointed to a Saviour to come ; this, 1o a Saviour already come. That the lat- ter was designed to take the place of the former, is evident from the time of its insti- tution— the subsequent practice of the apos- tles, and from its being called by the same name. " For even Christ our passover, is sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. This statement of the case I suppose will be equally satisfac- tory to you and me.
With respect to unity of design, in cir- cumcision and baptism, your system dis- sents. But I am satisfied, that here is as striking a coincidence as in the former case. 12
134
1. Circumcision was a token of the cote- nant between God and Abraham and his seed. " // shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" This I have shewn you, is the covenant of grace. And this was the external mark, by which the existence of that covenant was known. Baptism occu- pies the very same place.
2. Circumcision was " a seal of the righ- teousness of faith:" so is baptism. " He that believeth, and is baptized shall be saved, &c." Mark xvi. 16. " Then they that gladly re- ceived his rvord were baptized, &c." Acts ii. 41. "But when they believed, &c. they were baptized. — And Simon himself believed also and was baptized" Acts viii. 12, 13. And the eunuch said, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" And Philip said, " If thou helievest with all thine heart, thou mayest, &c." Ver. 26, 37. In all these cases and a multitude of others, baptism is distinctly recognised as " a seal of the righteousness of faith."
3. Circumcision was an external sign of internal grace. " Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts." Deut. x. 16. Hence, the apostle calls it " the sign of circumcision," and asserts, that " that is not circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but that which is of the heart, in the spirit." The same is the import of baptism. Hence baptism is cal- led " the circumcision of Christ," or Chris- tian circumcision. Col. ii. 11, 12. Both point to the corruption of human nature, and
135
indicate the necessity of a change of hearf^ and the effect produced by that change.*
4. The place which they occupy is pre- cisely the same. Neither baptism nor cir- cumcision is, what many have called the one or the other, an " initiating ordinance," as has been shewn. (See page 64 — 5.). The latter, however, was the first seal of the covenant under the former dispensation, and without it, the other special privileges could not be enjoyed. " For no uncircumcised per- son shall eat thereof," that is, of the pass- over. In like manner baptism is now the first seal of the covenant, by which mem- bership in the Christian church is recogni- sed, and without which, no person can be properly admitted to the Lord's tablet
* It is a notorious fact, that the Baptist scheme entirely mis- represents the import and design of the ordinance of baptism, and confounds it with the other special ordinance of the gospeL " The end of baptism, says Dr. Gill, is to represent the burial of Christ." And again, " One end of it, and a principal one, is to represent the sufferings % burial and resurrection of Christ." The same sentiments are to be found in every Baptist production on the subject ; and are suggested by every Baptist professor, who pretends to know any thing- about the scheme he has adopted. But, I am bold to assert, that this is not the end, design or import of baptism, but of the Lord's Supper. Although the propitiatory sac- rifice of Christ, was completed when he bowed his head and died, yet in as much as the way was not completely opened, for the justification of the sinner, until he had arisen from the grave, the ordinance of the supper, is justly considered, as represent- ing that great work in all its parts. But baptism, instead of de- noting the same thing, represents the work of grace, resulting from the atonement of Christ. It points to his blood as the me- ritorious cause ; to the influences of the Spirit as the efficient cause ; and to the washing away of sin, as the consequence. In a word, the supper represents the cause, and baptism the effect. Bui on the Baptist scheme, they both signify the same thing.
f I must confess myself not a little surprised, to find some Pae- dobaptists, expressing themselves favourably to a novel senti- ment, recently advanced by Mr. Hall, a distinguished Baptist
136
1 will only add here, that if baptism were not appointed by our Lord in the room of circumcision, and so understood by the a- postles, then that rite was never abrogated
minister in England, in his treatise in favour of free communion. I do not wish to detract, in the smallest degree, from the merit of this catholic production ; nor to circumscribe its influence, in breaking down the unchristian barriers of that church, for which it is evidently intended and peculiarly calculated. And, although, I believe that when this is accomplished, the result will be very different from that which Mr. Hall anticipates — instead of the Baptist swallowing up the Paedobaptist church, the reverse I presume will be the case : still however, I cannot, with the hope of furthering this result, subscribe to a sentiment, which I consider at open variance with the orders of God's house. Nor can I conceive, how Paedobaptists can consider themselves in any degree complimented, or laid under obligations to Mr. Hall, for admission to his communion table, when they consider the ground on which he is willing to admit them :- viz. as un-
BAPTIZEn PERSONS.
The main pillar of his scheme is this ; that baptism, is not an essential prerequisite to communion at the Lord's table. This, in my opinion, instead of being a gospel sentiment, is an er- ror resulting directly from the Baptist system, elicited by the catholic spirit of the age in which we live. Mr. Hall and others of his communion, who partake largely of this spirit, begin to feel that " close communion" is a practice, too remote from Christian charity, to be tolerated ; and the ground which he has taken, is the only one which a Baptist supposes he can take, with any degree of" self-consistency. But if it can be shewn that this ground is inconsistent with the gospel, good men will cer- tainly choose rather to be inconsistent with themselves, than with the laws of Christ's kingdom.
The main argument, which Mr. Hall has urged in favour of his position, or at least, that which has induced the Pxdobap- tists, with whom I have conversed, to think favourably of his doc- trine, is this : Having proved, t;what Paedobaptists have proved a thousand times* before,) that John's baptism was not Christian baptism ; that the latter was not instituted, till after our Lord's resurrection, and consequently that the Apostles, and probably, the hundred and twenty brethren, who were with them previous to the day of Pentecost, were admitted to the Lord's table with- out baptism, he concludes that the Lordys supper, was in fact, a prior institution, and therefore, that baptism cannot be an essen- tial prerequisite.
I cheerfully subscribe to the opinion that the twelve Apostles, •:<nd the hundred and twenty brethren, yea, I go farther — I be- ffeve that the five hundred who beheld the Lord after his resur-
137
by Jesus Christ. It was not nailed to the eross with the ceremonial law, because it was no part of that law. It was institu- ted and practised more than four hundred
rection ; in a word, that all who were members of the Christian church, previous to the day of Pentecost, never received Chris- tian baptism : but not for the reasons which Mr. Hall assigns. — The idea that " the precept of baptism had no retrospective bear- ing-," if proved to be correct, would not account for so important an omission, in the first organization (according- to the Baptist scheme) of the church. Nor can I conceive, any impropriety, in " the Apostles of the Lord, who had continued with him in his temptations, placing themselves on a level," in regarding- a Chris- tian ordinance, " with that multitude, which, however penitent at present, had recently demanded his blood with clamorous importunity." The Apostles were, by nature, children of wrath, in common with that multitude ; and they were indebted to the same sovereign grace for salvation. And though they were ef- fectually called at an earlier period, yet this was not because they were any better than others. But if this circumstance ren- dered it improper for them to "place themselves on a level'9 with those who were converted afterwards, in regard to baptism ,- the same reason would apply, with equal propriety, to the other or- dinance : and therefore they might have refused to sit down at the Lord's table with those guilty murderers. But no such dis- tinctions are countenanced in the word of God : a temper of heart directly the reverse, to what this is calculated to inspire, is uni- formly inculcated.
My reasons for believing that the Apostles, and all who were attached to the Christian church, previous to the day of Pente- cost, never received Christian baptism, are the following : viz.
1. We know that the Apostles received the sacrament of the holy supper before Christian baptism was instituted. The for- mer was instituted on the same night in which Christ was be- trayed : the latter not till after his resurrection, probably just before his ascension. Hence, it does not appear, in the least de- gree probable, that they were baptised, after Lt ing admitted to the Lord's table. Beside this, the scripture is entirely silent, respecting the baptism of those who believed, before the day ot Pentecost. There is not the smallest intimation given, nor the least fact recorded, from which it can be inferred, that any per- son was baptized m obedience to our Lord's command, previous to that distinguished day. And although this absence of testi- mony does not, of itself prove, that they were not baptized, yet *he presumption will be greatly increased, when it is observed,
2. That on the Paedobaptist scheme, there was no necessity for their baptism ; yea, their baptism would have been a great irregularity. If the Jewish and Christian churches are essential-
12*
I3S
years before that law existed; and the cov- enant, of which it was a seal, St. Paul de- ciares, could not be annulled by the cere- monial law. Consequently, if the command
ly the same— if the same sovereign act that removed the for- mer dispensation, set up the present ; and if the same judicial stroke, that excommunicated the unbelieving Jews, left those who believed, in the enjoyment of all the privileges of the cov- enant ; then indeed, there was no necessity of their being bapti- sed ; for they had already received the first seal of the covenant — the mark of membership ; and to have baptized them would have been only a repetition of the same thing-. Hence, there was a manifest propriety, in our Lord's administering to them, the or- dinance of the supper, without baptism. So near do the Jewish and Christian churches stand to each other, that the last holy feast of the one, and the first holy feast of the other, were cele- brated at the same tahfe, without a moment's interval ; and the same seal of the covenant (circumcision) was the passport to both.
Here then, on Pxdobaptist principles, is a beautiful consisten- cy in the conduct of our Lord and his Apostles, with respect to church order v which,, on the Baptist scheme, is entirely destroy- ed. For, if the Jewish and Christian churches are not essential- ly the same, then the Apostles were admitted to the Lord's ta- ble, not only without baptism, but without any thing which an- swered to that institution. They were, admitted to the privi- lege of members, without the mark of membership ; and it may well be matter of surprise, that Christ should organize his church in so irregular a manner, as to be under the necessity of reversing the order of his ordinances, immediately afterwards.
To confirm tLe view which has been given, I would further remark, that the institution of the supper, was the concluding act of our Saviour's ministry ; for in the same hour his passion commenced, and continued in a greater or less degree, till on the cross he exclaimed in expiring agony, "IT IS FINISHED." Then " he bhttexl ovt the hand writing of ordinances, and took it avi of the way, nailing it- to his crosa." Col. li. 14. Then, and not till then, the ceremonial law was completely abrogated. Cfir* c umcision, howevci-j wh.eh, 1 have shewn, was no part of the ceremon.al law, was not changed until alter his resurrection.
He had previously warned the Jews, that "the kingdom ©f God should be taken from them, and given to a nation, bringing forth the fruits thereof." When he pronounced these words, he spake of the event us future ; and he forewarned them of it, that by timely repentance, they might save themselves from the dreadful sentence of excommunication. Hence, he continued to preach to them, and sent his disciples to warn them, for the' •Space of three years. But all these exertions, proving fruit tegf.
139
to baptize, did not supersede circumefsibrtv
then our Saviour die! not abrogate that rih; at all ; and the apostles acted without, au- thority, in discontinuing it.
as he entered Jerusalem for the last time, in view of the terrible judgment of which he hud forewarned them, and which he had then come to inflict, he wept over the devoted city and said, " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee ; ho~v often -would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gal here th her chickens under her "wings, and ye -woidd not. Behold your house is left unto you deso- late." Mat. xxiii. 37—39. Tile same sentiment, is expressed, slill more explicitly,, by another evangelist: " If thou hadit known, even thou, at teast in this thy day the things -which belong unto thy peace ! lint NOW thet auk hid tkom think eyes."
Here, is the sentence of excommunication, against the unbe- lieving part of the Jewish nation, pronounced by the Great King and head of the church in person. The time was at hand when he was to be delivered up to their power and put to death or. the cross ; and there seemed to he a peculiar propriety, in ex- cluding them from the church, before they had perpetrated that presumptuous deed. Hence, our Saviour declare*, "NOW" — at this very time, " The things -which belong to your peace, are hid from your eyes — Your house is left unto you desolate." And he adds, " Ye shall not see me hence, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh, in the name of the Lord." Though individuals might be converted, yet as a nation, they shall not see him, t'dl they are ready to receive him in his millenial glory. He then proceeds to predict the destruction of Jerusalem, as a conse- quence of their rejection of heaven; which was accomplished about forty years afterwards.
When our Saviour pronounced this sentence, the way was o- pened, for the change of dispensation. This change was not completed, as I have already observed, till our Lord exclaimed on the cross, ,{ It is finished," and " the tail of the tkmpus was r.F.NT in twain." But here, was the first act .of it. " The kingdom of God was taken from the unbelieving Jews." Those who believed, continued to occupy their former standing, and thus constituted the church ; and lier.ee our Saviour, two days afterwards, at the close of the passover, proceeded to institute and administer to his disciples the holy supper, without any formality in organizing a new church, and without previously instituting the ordinance of baptism. Thus, the church contin- ued through the change of dispensation, without a change of constitution ; and consequently, without nullifying the first seal of tlie covenant, which was not changed till several days after- wards.
Here then, I conceive, is the true reason why the ApostW,
no
Leb. But, sir, if the apostles had under- stood the subject in this light, is it not rea- sonable to suppose, that it would have been clearly expressed in the result of the coun- cil at Jerusalem, where the point was agi- tated ? See Acts, xv.
Eiig. The question submitted to that council was not, " Whish of the two, cir- cumcision or baptism, ought to be obser- ved ?" but merely, "Whether the rite of circumcision was obligatory an Gentile converts?" No one doubted the propri- ety and obligation of baptizing them; but some contended, that in addition to the Christian sacraments, they must be circum- cised. We know that in those days, there was a strong attachment, even among the believing Jews, to their former religious rites ; and in this they were in some mea- sure indulged by the apostles: for it was in condescension to these prejudices that Paul circumcised Timothy; Acts, xvi. 3. and by
and all the rest of those who believed, previous to the day of Fcntecost, were not baptized. They had received the existing- seal of the covenant, before the change of dispensation ; and had not been cast out of the covenant, when that change took place. It is no objection to this reasoning', that those Jews, who were afterwards converted, were required to be baptized, notwithstand- ing they had been circumcised. It is true that in receiving an excommunicated member, upon satisfactory evidence of repent- ance, at the present time, we should not require him to be re- baptized. But such a case is not parallel to the former. The unbelieving Jews had been excommunicated under a former dispensation ; and during' the time of their separation from the church, the seals of the covenant had been changed. Hence, af- ter the change had taken place, they were properly considered as standing on the same ground, with the rest of the world ; and therefore, when they professed to believe, they were received, in the same manner, with others who had never been visibly in th» covenant
141
the advice of the brethren at Jerusalem, pu- rified himself after the manner of the cere- monial law : though, at the same time, they declare, that the council had ordained that the believing Gentiles should " observe 110 such thing" Acts, xxi. 13 — 26.
But that the observance of the Christian sacraments, by the believing Gentiles, was considered by St. James, as superseding the necessity of the Jewish rites, and as forming the ground of his opinion, which was adopted by the council, is pretty plainly intimated in the words which he quoted from the pro- phet Amos. The persons concerning whom this decision was made are styled "Gentiles, which are called by the name of the Lord ;? or as St. James himself expresses it, " upon whom the name of the Lord is called." Comp. Amos, ix. 11, 12. and Acts, xv. 16, 17. Now I wish to know whether this is not a distinct recognition of baptism as superseding the necessity of circumcision ? For to what else than to their baptism can St. James be sup- posed to allude, when he speaks of them as persons " upon whom the name of the Lord is called.^ INo other satisfactory reason can be assigned for his thus varying and adapting the words of the prophet.
From this concise statement of the case, it is evident that baptism occupies the place of circumcision, and the Lord's supper that of thepassover; the one being ca I \ti\ ''Christ's circumcision," and the other, " Christ our passover*"
142
Leb. But there is this "essential diffe- rence between circumcision and baptism ; the former was applied only to males — the latter is applied equally to females."
Eug. Though the Lord has often insti- tuted religious rites, without revealing to us the particular reasons on which they are founded ; yet we can frequently disco- ver a manifest propriety, and a striking sig- nificance in them. And this, I think, was the case in respect to circumcision. Though it was a rite which was applied only to one sex, yet the other was considered as virtual- ly circumcised at the same time. For the Lord peremptorily forbade any uneircum- cised person to eat of the passover ; and yet females were admitted, without the least hesitation. — And in the scriptures, the term circumcision is used to designate the Jewish church, both male and female ; and iincir- cumcision the Gentiles. There would be no propriety in these things, yea, in the former case, there would have been an open viola- tion of the divine statute, if females had not been considered virtually circumcised.
This being the fact, there is no room for your assertion that there is " an essential difference between circumcision and bap- tism." Yea, if females had been treated un- der that dispensation as uncircumcised per- sons, that circumstance would not have con- stituted an essential difference between the two ordinances. A part of the subjects would have been different as to sex, but the reli-
143
gious rite would have been precisely the same in import and design. Therefore the subsequent change of this rite for another, which should be applied equally to both sex- es, instead of making an essential difference in the rite itself, could only be considered as an enlargement of the covenant of which that rite was the seal. And this extended application of the seal under the present dispensation, is distinctly intimated by the apostle when he says, "For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free, there is nei- ther male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. iii. 27 — 29. But this ex- tension of the rite to females, is no evidence that infants, both male and female are to be excluded.
SECTION V.
I now come to my 5th argument in fa- vour of the unity of the church ; and this is drawn from the express declarations of scrip- ture.
The first I shall mention, is the declara- tion of our Saviour to the Jews. " The king- dom of God shall be taken from you, and giv- en to a nation bringing forth the fruits there-
144
if" Mat. xxi. 43. The phrase " kingdom of God," or "kingdom of heaven" is peculiar to the New-Testament, and is used in one or other of the three following senses, viz.
1 . For the kingdom of glory, or the place of eternal happiness. See Luke, xiii. 28. " Ye shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out," John. iii. 5. "Except a man be born again, &c."
2. For the kingdom of grace. In this sense it is applied either to an actual state of grace or the visible profession of it. See Mat. vi. 33. " But seek ye first the kingdom of God, &c." Mar. iv. 11.x. 25. Rom. xiv. 17.
3. For the visible church ; and most fre- quently, as it exists under the gospel dis- pensation. See Mar. iv. 26. " So is the kingdom of God as if a man should cast seed into the ground, &c." — John the Baptist,our Saviour and his apostles, used the term in special reference to the gospel dispensation, when they said u The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Mat. iii. 2. iv. 17. x. 7. &c.
That the "kingdom of God" means the visible church, in the passage under consid- eration, is evident, from the nature of the case. It cannot mean the kingdom of glory, nor of grace ; for neither of these, did the unbelieving Jews possess. Nor can it mean the gospel church, for that was not yet or- ganized; and even admitting that it had been, those unbelievers did not possess a standing in it \ and therefore it could not
145
be taken from them. The plain import of the passage is this : " The visible church which is now composed of you Jews, shall be taken from you, on account of your im- penitence and unbelief, and shall be given to, or set up among, the believing gentiles." And what confirms this, is the connexion of the passage. It forms the conclusion, or ap- plication, of our Saviour's parable of the vineyard, which was let out to husbandmen. The foundation of this parable, is evidently- taken from the 5th of Isaiah ; where the Lord declares, that the house of Israel is his vineyard. Comp. Isa. v. 1 — 7. and Mat. xxi. 33 — 46. In the conduct of the hus- bandmen towards the servants of the house- holder, our Saviour represents the treat- ment, which the prophets of the Lord had received, from the Jews ; and by the slay- ing of the son, he plainly foretold his own crucifixion, by their hands. Hence he de- clares " The kingdom of God shall be ta- ken from you, &c." — Here then are two im- portant points decided by this passage.
1. The kingdom of God, or the visible church, is essentially the same under both dis- pensations. For it is the very same vineyard* that is taken from the wicked husband- men, which is given to others: and it is the same kingdom of God, that is taken from the unbelieving Jews, and given to the believing Gentiles.
2. The Jews forfeited it, because they tlid not bring forth the appropriate fruits of
13
146
the kingdom ; that is, the same fruits which those are to bring forth to whom the king- dom is given. Now with what sort of a face can it be asserted, that real holiness, repen- tance and faith were not required of the Jewish church, when our Saviour declares that the kingdom was taken from them, be- cause they did bring forth these very fruits ?
The next passage to which 1 will refer you, is Acts ii. 39. Here Peter, in the com- mencement of public labour under the new dispensation, in preaching to the multitude and urging them to the exercise of repent- ance and faith, as a motive and encourage- ment to this duty, quotes and applies the original promise made to Abraham, in all its former latitude, and with an enlargement which it had just received " For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"
Leb. Dr. Gill says " there is not the least mention made in this text of Abraham's cov- enant, or of any promise made to him, giv- ing his infant seed a right to circumcision, and still less to baptism." And he further observes that " the promise here, be it what it may, is not observed as giving a right or claim to any ordinance ; but as an encoura- ging motive to persons in distress, under a sense of sin, to repent of it and declare their repentance, and yield a voluntary subjec- tion to the ordinance of baptism, when they might hope that remission of sins would be applied to them, &c*"
J 47
Eug. That the Apostle held forth this promise, as a motive to repentance, I have already stated. But the question is, what is the promise that contained this encou- ragement ? We have Dr. Gill's declaration that " it is not any promise made to Abra- ham :" but you will excuse me for saying, I have seen too much of the fallibility of that man in his writings, to build my faith on his assertions. The Apostle evidently speaks of the promise as one with which his hearers, at least the Jewish part of them, were fami- liar. Take a view of the circumstances of the case, and you can easily discover the al- lusion. Peter was preaching to a promis- cuous multitude of Jews and Gentiles. See ver. 9 — 11. His discourse was principally addressed to the former. Ver. 14 — 36. He recounts the gracious promises concerning the Saviour predicted by the holy pro- phets— declares to them the fulfilment of those promises; and then charges them, in the most direct terms, with the enormous crime, of having crucified the Lord of glo- ry. It was this that " pricked them in their hearts," and caused them to cry out "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Peter, per- ceiving them to be under pungent convic- tion of sin, endeavours to exhibit the rem- edy. " Repent, says he, and be baptized eve- ry one of you in the name of Jesus Christy for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" And as an encour- agement to this duty he adds, " For the
148
promise is unto you, and to your children.1" As if he had said, " Though you have hith- erto rejected the hope of Israel, and in con- sequence of your unbelief have been cast out of the church ; yea, though you have stain- ed your hands with his innocent blood, yet your case is not hopeless. If you will now repent of your sins and embrace him by faith, the same promise in its original lati- tude, which God made to your fathers, shall be extended to you and your children. >* But Peter, in his solicitude for " his brethren according to the flesh," does not forget the other part of his audience, which were not Jews. Therefore in applying this promise to the Jews, he takes care to state the extension which it had received in the change of dispensation. Hence he declares, that it is not, as formerly, confined to one nation. " The middle wall of partition be- ing broken down" the promise is extended " to as many of them, that are afar off (that is, gentiles) as the Lord our God shall call." But what puts it beyond all dispute that Pe- ter here refers to the original covenant, made with Abraham, is his declaration to the Jews in his very next sermon, in the porch of the temple. " Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made nith our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall edl the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts iii. 25. This he introduces in the same manner as in the former case* viz, as a motive to repentance and faith i
149
and it is a plain proof that the Ahrahamic covenant remains unaltered. If not, or if that covenant had respect merely to the possession of Canaan and other temporal blessings, what connexion could it have had with a gospel sermon on repentance an3 faith; or what encouragement could it have afforded to the exercise of those graces?
Leb. But the Apostle quotes nothing more than the promise which referred to the Saviour.
Eug. True; but he tells the Jews that they are "the children of the covenant,*' in which, that promise was contained ; and he speaks of it as presenting special encour- agement to them, to exercise faith in Christ : because by that covenant divine grace was to be communicated from generation to gen- eration. He regarded them in the same light as St. Paul did, when he says " they are beloved for the fathers' sake." In no oth- er point of view, could an allusion to that covenant afford them any special encourage- merit.
Leb. But does not Peter evidently limit the promise by the concluding clause "Even as many as the Lord our God shall call ?" Does not this " plainly prove that the per- son?, whether Jews or Gentiles, must he ef- Jeclually called" before they can claim the promise ? And does not this, confine it to a- dults?
Eug. That all persons,* whether adults or infants, must be effectually called or renew* 13*
I. -30
fed in heart, in order to go to heaven, no- body denies. The question, therefore, does not respect the qualification, but the manner in which God gives this qualification ; whe- ther in a covenant-way as formerly or not. That the promise is limited to believers, in distinction from the unbelieving world, I cheerfully admit. But that it is limited to believers in distinction from their infant seed, is not even intimated in the text; but the contrary is most explicitly declared. *' For the promise is unto you and to your children. " This, as I have already obser- ved, was addressed to the Jews. Peter tells them that the blessings of the original cov- enant, which included believing parents and their children, are still presented to them. But this promise is not confined to them, as formerly. The same is now extended to the Gentiles ; so that as many of them as are effectually called, become heirs to the promise which the Lord had made of old, to believing parents including their children.
If this is not the true import of the pas- sage— if the Apostle really intended to limit the promise to adults, both of Jews and Gen- tiles, pray why did he say any thing at all about children ? By omitting that word, some plausibility might be attached to your interpretation. Hence, some of your peo- ble, sensible of the weakness of their argu- ment, while children are included in the text, have undertaken to shew that the ori- ginal word does not mean " little children*'*
1 31
but " posterity. " And what is the amount of this wonderful and learned criticism ? — Why simply this, that the evangelist, in re- cording this discourse, quoted the original promise, in as nearly the same terms as the Greek language could enable him to ex- press. "The promise is unto you and to your children" or posterity, or offspring, or seed. Take which of the terms, you please, how can you exclude the idea of infants ? If I were a Baptist, T should exceedingly regret that any of my brethren had ever meddled with this term. The criticism, instead of helping their cause, only exposes its weak- ness. This textthen in spite of all the glos- ses that have been put upon it, is an explicit declaration that, though anew dispensation had commenced, the original constitution of the church remained unaltered.
Leo. But does not St. Paul expressly de- clare in Heb. viii. 7 — 13. that, agreeably to the prophecy of Jeremiah "the old cov- enant is done away and a new one institu- ted."
JEug. He does indeed endeavour to con- vince the Hebrews, that the dispensation of the covenant is changed. But when he speaks of the "old covenant" which is done away, he tells us distinctly what he means by it, viz. the covenant which God made with their fathers when he led them out of Egypt — the ceremonial law. Ver. 9. Only take into view the point that the Apostle was labouring with his countrymen, and
152
you cannot mistake his object. He was not endeavouring to prove that the Abrahamic covenant was done away; for this would have been to contradict himself. In the villi chapter lie had declared, that God confirmed his promise to Abraham by an oath, "That by two immutable things in which it was im- possihle for God to lie WE, (we christians) we, who have fled for refuge to the gospel hope, might have strong consolation''' Lea- ving inspiration out of the question, it is scarcely to be expected that St. Paul would so soon forget himself, as to turn about and argue against the Abrahamiccovenant, which he had just before declared to be the foun- dation of the christian hope. His manifest object in the viiith chapter, was to convince the Jews, who were still attached to their former mode of worship, that the ceremonial law was completely annulled. And he quotes the words of the prophet merely to prove that the former dispensation was not designed to be perpetual : for that prophe- cy does not refer to the commencement of the christian dispensation, but to a period far subsequent to it; even to that blessed day when "they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest." Comp. Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34. and Heb. viii. 8 — 12. Here then it is evident, notwithstanding all the clamour of your denomination about this chapter, that there is not the smallest allu*
153
sion in it, to the Abrahamic covenant: it has respect solely to the ceremonial law, of " covenant of Sinai."
In the same manner the Apostle speak& of that covenant in his epistle to the Gala- tians; where he makes a clear distinction between it and the Abrahamic covenant, under the figure of Abraham's two sons, " the one of a bond-maid and the other of a free woman. Which things, says he, are an allegory, for these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia, and an- swereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusa- lem which is above, is free, which is the mo- ther of us all. Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then, he that was born after the flesh perse- cuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so is it now." Gal. iv. Here, it is ob- vious that the Apostle, instead of making a distinction between the Abrahamic cove- nant and the constitution of the Christian church, draws the line between that cove- nant and the ceremonial law, given from Mount Sinai: and hence he declares that " WE, (christians) as Isaac was, are t tie chil* dren of promise." This is an expression similar to that of St. Peter on the day of pentecost " For the promise is unto you and to your children."
Leo. But Sir, " a rational comment on this paragraph must destroy your argu- ment, unless Sinai and Jerusalem are the same."
154
Eug. What that " rational comment5* is, I cannot tell, as 1 have never heard it; nor is it a matter of any consequence, if its force depends on Sinai and Jerusalem's not being the same ; for the Apostle expressly de- clares that they are the same. "For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answer- eth to Jerusalem which kow is." Jerusalem or the Jewish nation as it then existed hav- ing been cut off or cast out for unbelief, he says, is in bondage ; and therefore he con- siders them, in their excommunicated state, as answering to the figure of the bondmaid ; while those who believed, both Jews and Gentiles, " are, as Isaac was, the children of promise," And then in view of the treat- ment which they received from the unbe- lieving Jews, he adds, " But as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so is it now."
Leb. But if the Jewish and Christian churches are the same, then " members of t he church persecuted the members of the church."
Eug. In view of all that has been said, can you be serious, Leb be us, in that remark ? Vea, can you read I he passage last quoted, and be serious in advancing the idea? Were the Jews members of the church after they had been excommunicated by Christ him- self. And does not the apostle expressly declare that it is in allusion to her then ex- isting state, {Jerusalem which now is J that
153
he considers her as answering to Sinai and the bond maid. Is there any absurdity in all this ? If there is, you must settJe it with St. Paul. For my part, I consider it as no- thing strange to find excommunicated mem- bers, and even whole churches who, through a superstitious attachment to external J orms, have rejected " the foundation of the pro- phets and apostles," persecuting the true church of Jesus Christ.
I shall now direct your attention to Rom. xith. Please to take the bible, and read from the 15th to the 25th verse. Upon this pas- sage you will indulge me in the following remarks :
1. By the olive tree is evidently intended the Jewish church, " a fat olive tree, with a holy root''' Such it was when it was plant- ed, and such the Lord required that the branches should be. "For if the first fruit be holy; the lump also: and if the root be holy, so the branches." This he required of all the branches or members; and there- fore, when the great body of that church became corrupt, and the measure of their iniquity was full, he came forth in judgment to cut them orT as unworthy of a standing in a church which he designed to be holy.
Leb. Dr. Gill says that "by the good olive tree is not meant the Jewish church-state, which was abolished by Christ,|with all the pe- culiar ordinancesof it; and the believingGen- tiles were never ingrafted into it ; the axe has been laid to the root of that old Jewish stock,
156
and it is entirely cat down, and no ingrafture Is made upon it. But — by it is meant the gbsjpfel church-state, in its first foundation, consisting of Jews that believed, out of which were left the Jews who believed not in Christ, and who are the branches broken off; into which church state the Gentiles were ingrafted."
JEug. That the " olive tree" does mean the Jewish church, is evident from the con- nexion as well as other parts of the scrip- ture. In the two chapters immediately pre- ceding, the apostle is treating distinctly of the Jewish church. And hence, in the com- mencement of the xith chap, he inquires 44 Hath God cast away his people which he foreknewT?" He asserts the contrary, and presents himself as an evidence. " For 1 al- so am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, &c." He declares that the Lord had always had a holy seed among that people, even in the darkest seasons : and although the great body of them had been recently rejected, yet even in that act of judgment he had still preserved a remnant. He then proceeds to describe the manner in which that had been done ; and for this purpose, introduced the figure of the " olive tree ;" a figure by which the Lord himself had distinguished the Jew- ish church. " The Lord called thy name a
GREEN OLIVE-TREE, FAIR, AND OF GOODLY FRUIT THE BRANCHES OF IT ARE BROKEN ;
for the Lord of hosts hath pronounced evil a- gainst thee, &c.*' Jer. xi. 1.6, 17. Read this
157
passage in its connexion, and then tell me, Lebbeus, can you doubt that the apostle had his eye on this very prophesy when he wrote the xith chapter to the Romans? — Moreover, to suppose that by the olive-tree is meant the Christian, in distinction from the Jewish church, is to charge the apostle with the grossest perversion of language. — This you plainly perceive from the quota- tion you have made from Dr. Gill. He say? that the branches being " broken off" means " LEFT OUT." But does any man believe that these phrases are synonymous? Suppose I should tell you, pointing to the branches of a tree lying; on the ground, that they were <l broken off" from a certain tree when it was grafted. Suppose you should afterwards ascertain the fact, that they never were at- tached to it; and upon asking an explana- tion of me, I should answer " O ! I only meant that they were left out of that tree when it was grafted." Would this be satis- factory ? — Or, suppose T should inform you that such and such persons had been " cut or broken off" from my church, and when you had learned that they never belonged to it, I should tell you, "I only meant that they were left out of my church when it was organized." Would you not call this anin- excu sable perversion of language, or by the harsher name of deception ? Of this was the apostle guilty, if by the olive-tree, he meant the gospel-church. — I shall only add that the "words of John the Baptist, which Dr. Gill 14
153
applies to this case, have not the most re- mote allusion to the " olive tree." John's words are, " And now ai^o the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire." Mat iii. 10. He does not speak of the Jewish church in their collective capacity under the figure of a single tree, as the apostle does ; but of them severally, as trees in the vineyard. Nor does he say that all the trees are to be cut down and the vineyard destroyed, but only such as do not bear good fruit. The analo- gy between the two passages is manifestly this. — In the one case, the Jewish church is considered under the figure of a vineyard, in which many trees are growing ; and the re- jection of the unbelieving Jews is represent- ed, by the cutting down of those trees which do not bring forth good fruit. In the other case, that church appears under the figure of a single tree ; and the rejection of the un- believers is represented by the cutting off of the unfruitful branches. So far, there- fore, from proving that the Jewish church was entirely destroyed, the words of John confirm the doctrine that a part only were cast out.
Having, therefore, shewn that by the "o- live tree" is meant the Jewish church, I ob- serve,
2. That some of the natural branches, in consequence of their unfruitfulness, are bro- ken off, and others taken from the wild olive
159
are ingrafted in their room. This, you and 1 both agree, represents the rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, for so the apostle himself explains it. Now ob- serve, this act is represented, not by culling down, or plucking up " the good olive tree" and planting a new one in its stead, (a great deal better than "good:") but " by breaking off (not all, but) some of the natural branch- es, and grafting in branches taken from the wild olive tree, among those natural branch- es" which remained; by which operation they are made to " partake with them of the root and fatness of the good olive tree." — If the apostle had ransacked the whole king- dom of nature, he would not have found a more striking figure ; or had he possessed the wisdom of Solomon, he could not have handled it in a more dexterous manner, to represent the unity of the church under both dispensations. The Jews are called the natural branches, because they were the natural descendants from the original stock. The good olive tree with its holy root was planted in the calling of Abraham; and his posterity are therefore the natural branch- es, " to whom pa iaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concern- ing the flesh, Christ came.''' Rom. ix. 4, 5. — Some of these were broken off because of unbelief (How then could a standing in that church consist with the want of faith ?) And
160
those who are taken from the wild olive [ G entiles] are, by faith grafted, in among the remaining natural branches, or believing Jews; and both together partake of the root and fatness of the good olive tree. — Sow, Lehbeus, 1 wish to know what more conclusive evidence can be given or desi- red, that the ancient church was not dissolv- ed when the dispensation of the covenant was changed ?
But let us, for a moment, suppose in di- rect opposition to this testimony that it was dissolved: Pray, tell me, when the new church was organized ? Where in the New- Testament, have we any account that the Lord entered into covenant, in a formal manner, with any person or number of per- sons and constituted them into a Christian church I You may say, it was implied in the baptism of John ; or in the institution of the Lord's supper; or in some other transaction of our Lord or his apostles; but this is not sufficient. Such an important transaction as the organization of a church on earth, (according to your scheme, the first organ- ization of a real church] must have some- thing more than IMPLlEDevidence. Here i< the place for "explicit warrant/' If the Jewish church were only a type of the Chris- tian church, we might reasonably expect to see the substance exceed the shadow in eve- ry respect. But where is there an act of covenanting in the New-Testament, that l weeds, of even equals, the splendour ind
m
glory of the original covenant I Surely tlu lyne ought not (d eclipse the antitype,
But the unity of the church under both dispensations, as it has been already proved, and as represented by the figure of the "o
li^ c- 1 1 tu," adonis a nad\ solution of all
these difficulties j or rather, precludes them altogether. The olive-tree planted in A
lnaliam, and cultivated with divine tare,
>till lives and flourishes. When Christ came and was rejected by the greater pari dfthe Jewish nation, all the unbelieving pari were w broken off" or excommunicated, Those
who received him cont inned loiuiupv their
standing as before. Those who believed on him among the Gentiles, were received and incorporated with the believing Jews that remained. Thus, "the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was bro- ken down, and both became one in Christ
Jesus.'1 And thus the church progressed through thf change of dispensation, without, the least alteration in her original constitu- tion. In further confirmation of these \ iews, you will observe,
:*. That the natural branches, if they a- bide not in unbelief, are t<> be grafted in agairi into THEIH OWN otivctret. Here it is expressly declared, that when thf Jews an* reclaimed from their infidelity, they are to be grafted into the original stork from which they were broken oil*. Hut when this desirable event, for which we arc daily prayltlg, takes place, are they to form a sej> II
1&2
arate community on the basis of the Abra- hamic covenant? No ! they are to be gath- ered with the fulness of the Gentiles and constitute but "one sheep/old under one shepherd" How then can they be grafted into the original olive-tree, unless that is the foundation of the Christian church? The truth of this has been realized in many in- stances already. Many of those who, for their rejection of the Lord of glory, were ex- communicated from the Jewish church, were afterwards brought to repentance under the preaching of the apostles, and were imme- diately added to the Christian church. And so it has been in every succeeding age, whenever any of that blinded people have had their eyes opened to " look upon him whom their fathers pierced."
Leh. Well Sir, this last observation of yours completely overthrows one remark which I have lately met with in one of ovr writers, and which I acknowledge 1 thought had a great deal of weight in it. He ob- serves with respect to the conversion of the Jews under the preaching of the Apostles, that the sameness of the Jewish and Christian church, involves the absurdity of " members of the church added to the church." But if they had been excommunicated under the former dispensation, I see no inconsistency or absurdity in saying, that when they belie- ved, "they were added to the church."
JEug. Very true, Lebbeus ; and the same Temark exposes the weakness and absurdity
of several pages of the same writer, (whose discourse has fallen into my hands,) which consist of bold assertion, and, what I call, impious raillery, without the shadow of ar- gument. Such as "a flat nose or crooked back disqualifying a man for the high priest- hood"— "sprinkling a little water in the face" — "the Jewish church persecuting her own members — and crucifying the High Priest of our profession" — "Jesus Christ, an interloper." Such insinuations are as irrelevant as they are uncandid and un- christian.— But Lebbeus, I now appeal to your candour, whether the representation which I have made of the "olive tree" is not the fair and natural import of the pas- sage.
Leb. Why Sir, I must acknowledge that it has that, appearance At least, lam not prepared to controvert it myself. ■ But if you will indulge me, 1 should be pleased to read you an interpretation of that passage, oat of a pamphlet which I have al- ready alluded to; and then I should be glad to hear your remarks upon it.
Eug. Please to read.
Leb. (Reads.) "This passage is so fami- liar as to render a repetition of it in this place unnecessary, &c. This argument has been often used and as often refuted, but lest some think it conclusive, it shall re- ceive due attention. First, then, the Jews were broken off. But from what ? not
16*
from their own national church, which stiM remained and their membership good, If both— "
Eug. Hold, Lebbeus —
Leb. Let me go through before you re- mark.
Eug. No Sir! When a man undertakes to argue, and begs the question at the out- set, it is altogether needless to hear him any further. Your author sets out to explain away this passage, so as to prove that the Jewish and Christian churches are not the same ; and in his very first sentence, takes it for granted that they are not the same ; for be asserts that the unbelieving Jews, whom the apostle declares are " broken off from their own olive tree," were still members of the Jewish church. This, however, is asser- tion and not "logical reasoning ;" and it might be repeated a thousand times without proving any thing, except the imbecility of its author.
That the argument, founded on this pas- sage, has been " often used"'' to prove the sameness of the church, I know. But that it has been " as often refuted" or that it has met this fate in a single instance, I do not know; I have read and heard a great many Baptist comments upon it, and I never found but one, that was in the smallest degree cred- itable to the intellect of the author.
Leb. Pray, what was that ?
Eug. One of your ministers introduced this passage into a sermon which he was
165
preaching on baptism, and after reciting it at full length, remarked, " No man can give an interpretation of this passage so as to fa- vour infant-member ship, but what I can bring against it unanswerable objections " and then immediately proceeded to notice another text. One of his hearers, at the close of the service, complimented him on the ability of his discourse, by remarking that " he consid- ered his comment on the x\th of Romans, the most able part of it." — Now had your au- thor disposed of the passage in the same way, instead of professing to give it " due attention," although it might not have had half the show of" logical reasoning," yet it would have carried just as much weight in the view of those who are in the habit of reasoning ; and might have answered the same purpose with those " who do not think for themselves," but believe it is so, because their minister says so. — But after all, doea he not acknowledge, that the Jews were " broken off" from the same stock, into which the Gentile* were grafted ?
Leb. Why he says here " unbelief broke them off; the same privileges to- which they seemed more particularly entitled, were wrested from them, and conferred on the M new man," composed of Jews and Gen* tiles. They were then the children of the kingdom cast out ; that was taken away which they seemed to have."
JEug. I do not know what this word "seem- ed" has to do in this case The apostle doe.*
166
not say that they seemed to belong to the olive tree, and were " broken oft'" only in appearance. He declares that these things were actually the case. But read a little further.
Leb, (Reads,) "It is evident that their being " broken off," their " stumbling" and " their fall" mean the same thing."
Eug. It is evident that their being " bro- ken off," and the occasion of their being " broken off," were two distinct things. — The latter was their own sinful rejection of the Saviour; and the former was the ju- dicial act of God, as the punishment of their sins. But read the next paragraph.
Leb. (Reads.) " The Jews rvere broken off> or rejected jrom that into which the Gentiles rvere grafted or received, called their own olive treer
Eug. Very well. Now Lebbeus, you per- ceive that your author, after leaving his ? first" and last argument, (in which he as- sumes the very point in dispute,) adopts the selfsame interpretation which I have already given. He asserts expressly t.iat "the Jews were broken off from that into which the Gentiles were grafted, called their own o- live tree''' This, I think, is asserting the sameness of .the, church in as explicit terms as any Pa3dobaptist can desire.
Eeb. But he adds, — " because from their previous advantages, they seemed naturally entitled to those bles^in^s
Eug. I have already reminded you that
167
the apostle says nothing about their " seem- ing" to belong to the olive tree or church ; but he says they did really belong to it, and were actually broken off from it.
Leb. But I suppose this writer considers the olive-tree to be the Christian church ; for he adds — " and especially because the gospel church was first organized among them, and of them, which comprises all the blessings into which the Gentiles were received, and from which the Jews were rejected"
JEug. " The gospel church was first organi- zed among them, and OF THEM" Do you believe this, Lebbeus? Or can you even persuade yourself, that your author himself believes that our Saviour, in the first place, received the unbelieving Jews into the gos- pel church, and then " broke them off" or excommunicated them for their unbelief? No ! he knows the contrary. For although the change of dispensation took place a- mong the Jews, yet that very change ex- cluded those unbelievers from the covenant. Not one of them was permitted to occupy a standing in the gospel church. Therefore, the assertion, that "the gospel church was first organized OF THEM,'' is notorious- ly false.
Leb. I presume the author does not mean that the unbelieving Jews composed any part of the gospel church, but that it was formed of believing Jews.
Eug. Then surely the unbelieving Jews were not "broken off from that into which
168
the Gentiles were graj 'led." Leaving them out could in no sense be considered "break- ing them off;" as 1 have already shewn you, in answer to Dr. Gill, from whom your au- thor's " logical reasoning" is evidently bor- rowed. His favourite word " seemed," will not help him out of this dilemma : for these unbelievers did not even seem to belong to, or to be " broken off" from the gospel church. But they actually did belong to, and were "broken off" from their own olive tree, the Jewish church ; and we have the autho- rity of St. Paul, and even of your author himself, that "they were broken off from that into which the Gentiles were grafted"
Thus you see, after all this parade in giv- ing this argument "due attention," he makes nothing of it, but what the passage bears on its very face — the same interpretation that has always been given by Pasdobaptists. — But doubtless there was an object in all this " ado about nothing" When a man is beset by a formidable objection, which he knows not how to answer, he frequently finds it advantageous to his cause, to meet it with great composure, and apparently, undaun- ted courage. He pronounces it easy of solution, and one that has been answered a thousand times, — promises to give it "due attention;" — proposes to deduce the truth by " logical reasoning " says, " First then," — takes for granted the very point that is to be proved; quotes several texts of scrip- ture which do not even "seem" to relate to the subject ; — multiplies a great many words
169
—and finally, comes to the very same con- clusion that is stated in the objection. But all this answers the intended purpose. It raises a great fog, and makes common peo- ple suppose that the objector is completely overthrown. Whether they can perceive it or not, they feel assured that a man could not meet an objection with so much courage, and talk so long about it, without being able to answer it ; especially one who " seemed to have" an extensive acquaintance with the writings of the fathers, commentators and reformers.
Leb. After all, Dr. Gill says "there is not the least syllable about baptism, much less of infant baptism, in this passage ."
Eug, No body pretends there is; but there is a number of verses about the same- ness of the Jewish and Christian church, which establis-h most conclusively the pro- priety of infant membership under the pre- sent dispensation. This is all the evidence that we wish to derive from the passage ; and this is so plain, that all the sophistry of yout denomination cannot obscure it from those " who think for themselves," and understand what is, and what is not "logical reasoning."
I will now invite your attention to a simi- lar, and equally striking figure with that which we have just been considering. Please to turn to Eph. ii. and read from the 11th verse to the end of the chapter.
Here the apostle recognises the Epliesians before their conversion, in their Gentile char-
15
170
acter. " Gentiles in the flesh, being without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Isra- el, and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ, tor he is our peace, who hath made both one" But how has this been accomplish- ed ? Was it by destroying the old building, and with a part of the materials thus scatter- ed around, and others collected from the wilderness, erecting another on a new foundation ? No ! merely by " breaking down the middle wall of partition" that excluded the Gentiles. This he did, not by destroy- ing the original covenant, or constitution of the church, but " by abolishing the law of commandments contained in ordinances" It was by this means that "he made in himself oj twain one new man, and reconciled both unto God in one body ;^~and came and preached peace to you which wt ? t far off, and to them that were nigh. For by him, we both have an access by one Spirit unto the Father." Pray, who are these that were "nigh" before the wall was broken down? for they occupied the very place to which the Gentiles were brought by the blood of Christ. " Notv, therefore, says the apostle, ye are no more strangers and fa reigners, hut fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God." But who are these saints and household to which these Gentiles were strangers and foreigners before their conversion? The apostle has already inform-
171
ed us on this point. Yer. 12. " They were a- liens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise.* But now they are u fellow citizens, SCc. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" Here, if human language can express the unity of the Jewish and Christian church, it is expressed. Here is the church standing on the apostles, and the church stand- ing on the prophets, each resting equally on Jesus Christ as their foundation, or chief corner stone. This stone, which the unbe- lieving Jewish builders rejected, and which fell upon them, is indeed the head of the cor- ner on which the church has always rested. — The apostle seems so full of this subject that the same idea runs through the succeeding chapters. He calls the Gentiles "fellow-heirs, and of the same body ; and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel*
I shall only add here that the idea of a two- fold but essentially the same church, runs through the Apocalypse. This book is in- deed highly mystical, but allusions of this kind cannot be misunderstood. The jour and twenty elders, seated around the throne of God, with crowns of gold on their heads, is a manifest allusion to the twelve patriarchs
* Some may still sneer at the idea that the Jewish church at the time of our Saviour's advent, should be styled "the saints and household of God." But as I have already answered thie objection more than once, I shall only remark, that there were real saints in the Jewish church, at that time, and they were ali by profession " the household of God." Those who were net- were " broken off" before the Gentiles were incorporated witlfc them, a* has been shewn, (Page 138—9.)
172
or heads of the tribes of Israel, and the twelve- apostles. Rev. iv.4. Such also are the two mys- tical numbers of 144,000. Chap. vii. and xiv. The same is expressly declared of the twelve gates and the twelve foundations of the New- Jerusalem, on which were written " the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Is- rael," and " the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" Chap. xxi. And to the same idea *' the song of 31oses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb" which was sung in heaven, is to be referred. Chap. xv. 3. — In all these allusions, the sameness of the church under both dispensations, is plainly recogni- sed and established.
SECTION VL
Eugenius. We havespenta great deal of time, Lebbeus, on this subject, but before we proceed any further, I wish, as briefly as possible, to recapitulate the arguments which I have adduced in support of the sameness of the church ; and then, I am wil- ling to submit the question to your own conscience.
In the first place, then, I have proved that infant membership, instead of stand- ing on the same foundation with " tythes, animal sacrifices, &c." as you imagined, was established by the original covenant, which was instituted four hundred and thirty years before the ceremonial law.
173
2. That this covenant, instead of being a mere national compart, was the covenant of grace, comprising " all the blessings that God has ever promised to his church :" — - That the seal of this covenant, instead of be- ing a mere mark of carnal descent, is "a seal of the righteousness ofjaith" and impli- ed the same, when applied to Abraham's seed, as to himself: — That the blessings of the covenant were, ordinarily, to descend from parents to children; not by natural generation, but on the condition of the cov- enant; and hence the continued impenitence of children results, not from any defect in the covenant, but from the unfaithfulness of their parents. — This procedure, I shewed you, is analogous to other parts of the di- vine government, and secures the most pow- erful means for the preservation and ad- vancement of religion in the world.
3. That the same principles of holiness and obedience, which are required of the Christian church, were required under the former dispensation ; and that, not merely on the ground of the universal law of God, but by the covenant: — That your doctrine of "typical" holiness is contrary to the A- brahamic covenant in its original institution^ in its subsequent renewals witli Abraham* Isaac and Jacob, and with Israel in the wil- derness, and in the land of Canaan; and is- absolutely inconsistent with the moral char* acter of God, and the requirements of his holy law,
174
4. That the same striking epithets and figures of speech, are applied to the church under both dispensations, to express her union to her great King and Head; and there is not the Jeast intimation that they mean less in the one case than in the other.
5. That the import and design of circum- cision and the pnssover were, respectively, the same with baptism and the Lord's Supper, and therefore occupy the same place in the covenant: baptism being called "Christ's cir- cumcision" (Col. ii. 11, 12.) and the Lord's Supper, " Christ our passovcr" (1 Cor. v. 7,8.)
And finally, I have shewn, by several ex- press texts of scripture, which might have heen multiplied if needful, some of which, all the ingenuity of your church has not been able to explain away, that the Jew- ish and Christian church is essentially the same ; the change of dispensation not hav- ingaltered the original constitution. — If you have any doubt remaining, on any of these points, review the evidence which has been adduced, for I am willing it should under- go the strictest scrutiny ; then lay your band on your heart and say, whether the sentiment which J have been advocating is not established .
Leb, I acknowledge myself unable to con- trovert your reasoning. The arguments which you have adduced have been exhi- bited in a light that appears to me irresisti- ble. I must therefore decline acting any
17. r)
longer as an opponent on this point. There are, however, some difficulties stiJl remain- ing, which I should be happy to state, for the purpose of hearing your remarks.
Eug. Please sir to suggest them ; and if I can relieve your mind of any embarrass- ment, I shall be happy to serve you.
Leb. Well Sir, a principal difficulty which operates in my mind is this: 1 have often heard it asserted, that this method of prov- ing infant-membership, by a recurrence to the Abrahamic covenant, is a " recent inven- tion"— that "Zuinglius and Calvin were the first that ever adopted it,"
Eug. Suppose I should admit this to be a fact, so far as that this method first came into general use about the time of the Re- formation ; what would it prove? Why ve- rily this, \hdt previous to that time, there was not a community in the Christian world, called a church, which denied infant membership. — It is no strange thing that the sword should rest in the scabbard, where there is no ene- my to oppose.
Leb. But you do not mean to intimate, that there were no Baptist churches previ- ous to that time?
Eug. That is, precisely, my meaning.
Ltb. You astonish me, Eugenius ! I have been told a thousand times, that our church had always existed by a regular and unin- terrupted succession from John the Baptist ; and I have supposed that this was distinr t- ly recorded in Ecclesiastical history. Is no! this the case ?
176
Eug. No, Lebbeus, there is not a word of truth in it. Instead of going to the land of Judea, for the origin of your church, you need go no farther than the city of Munster. And instead of regarding John the Bap- tist as your patron, John Bockhold, if not Thomas Munzer, is the legitimate founder (if the term legitimate may be applied to a lawless fanatic) of your sect. Your church is not as old as the Christian church, by al- most fifteen hundred years.
Lei. But pray tell me, whence are these facts obtained I
Eug. They are derived from any authen- tic history of the church; and if you will take the trouble to examine for yourself, you will be convinced, that the Baptist sys- tem is a mere mushroom, that vegetates in the night, without seed or root ; and Ian* guishes and dies beneath the rays of the sun. — To substantiate in part what I have already advanced, I may refer you to the concessions of your own denomination. Dr, Gill, one of the most learned and laborious divines that your church ever boasted of, and others less distinguished, have been constrained to acknowledge, that from the fourth to the eleventh century of the Chris- tian era, they are "not able to find one in- stance of an opposer oj infant baptism." — Here then, is a period of seven hundred years in which there is no evidence of the exist- ence of a single Baptist churchy or even of an individual Baptist. Hence, it may fairly be*
177
presumed, that if your order had been ori- ginally derived from John the Baptist, the succession must have been completely in- terrupted.
Leb. But it would seem from this conces- sion, that there was evidence somewhere, that previous to the fourth, and subsequent to the eleventh century, infant baptism met with opposition. Is this, then, a fact?
Eug. In answer to this inquiry, I will refer you, in the first place, to the testimo- ny of Dr. Wall, a learned divine of the church of England, who wrote a history of infant baptism more than a hundred years ago. This same Dr. Wall, though a Ptedo- baptist, supposes that immersion is the proper mode of baptism; and therefore, on this point, he is often referred to by your denomination. For this reason it woukl seem, that his authority ought to be more re- spected by them, on both parts of the con- troversy, than Psedobaptists'in general. The following quotation is his summary of the evidence, on both sides of the question. — "LastIy,forthefirstfourhundredyears,there "appears only one man, TertulJian, who ad- " vised the delay of infant baptism in som© "cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps " practice such delay, in the case of his own "children; but no society of men so think- " ing or so practising; or any one man sa)> " ing it was unlawful to baplize infants. So5 "in the next seven* hundred years, there "is no* so much, as ane. man to be founds
178
"who either spoke for or practised any " such delay, but all the contrary. And when, "about the year 1130, one sect among the " Waldenses or Albigenses declared against "the baptizing of infants, as being incapa- "ble of salvation, the main body of that " people rejected their opinion ; and they "of them who held that opinion, quickly " dwindled away and disappeared ; there be- "ing no more persons heard of, holding that " tenet, until the rising of the German Anti- "pasdobaptists in the year 1522."
In order to shew you, that these asser- tions are not made without abundant evi- dence of their correctness, I shall refer you to some of the authorities on which they are founded.
Dr. Gill and others of his sect who have repeated the sentiment after him, have as- serted that " Tertitllian is the first who spoke of infant baptism, and at the same time spoke against it." In answer to this it has been observed with great propriety, that "Dr. Gill, instead of saying that Terlul- lian is the first man who mentions infant bap- tism and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the only man tfi all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us, who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptising infants" This is the precise fact. No other person among all the ancient fa- thers speaks against it. What sort of a foundation is this for the Baptist scheme ? Because the fathers of the first century af-
179
ter the Apostles, are silent on the subject, therefore, say the Baptists, it was never prac- tised at that time. Suppose I should infer from the same fact, that it was universally practised ; which would really be the most probable ? And if this practice were intro- duced, as they say, about Tertullian's time, how can we account for his being the only opposer ? Was he the only faithful man in all Christendom ? Was^ there no other to oppose such a monstrous innovation? We know, that in those days, the smallest deviation in faith or practice, produced most awful schisms in the church ; and yet the Baptists would fain persuade us, that a practice, in their opinion, more impious than any of the abominations of popery, was universally introduced throughout the Christian church, at the close of the second or beginning of the third century, and only one man lifted up his voice against it !!! Will any man of common sense believe this ?
But after all, what is the amount of Ter- tullian's opposition to infant baptism ? It would seem, from the frequent references to this fact, that here was something, the Peedobaptists knew not how to dispose of. But does he say that there is no authori- ty in scripture for the practice ? No ! — Does he pronounce it an innovation not sanction- ed by Apostolic example ? No ! — Does he ridicule it as being of no more use than to baptize " lambs and calves and young cat- He ?" — Nothing of the kind. — He merely
gives it as his opinion, that it had better be delayed till the subjects are of riper years : and at the same time, he allows it as proper, in cases of sickness or danger of death. From this fact it is evident, that Tertullian was opposed to the general practice of infant baptism, on very different ground from the modern Baptists ; for they are as much op- posed to baptizing infants at the point of death, as at any other time. With this fact, in view, if I were a Baptist, J should be a- shamed to refer to Tertullian's authority. But how shall we account for his advice against the general practice of infant baptism, while he admits of it in cases of extremity ? This apparent inconsistency is easily solved, and the true ground of his o- pinion ascertained, when we recollect that, about this time, the sentiment that baptism actually washed away all moral pollution, and that sins committed after the reception of that ordinance were so heinous, as to be next to unpardonable, began to obtain. On this mistaken ground, Tertullian advises, not only to delay the baptism of infants till they are of riper years, but also the baptism of " unmarried persons, till the danger of temp- tation is past — till marriage or the abate- ment of lust." From the same false im- pression, it was no uncommon thing at that period, for those who were converted to the Christian faith, to delay their baptism till the close of life.
Here then is the whole secret of Tertul-
181
lian's opposition to infant baptism. And if it proves that practice to have been an inno- vation, it proves the same concerning the baptism of unmarried persons. But in nei- ther case does this follow. Nay, his very advice, instead of militating against the practice, proves that it was then and ever had been the universal usage of the church, a- gainst which he could urge nothing but his own opinion, which was founded on an erro- neous sentiment. In view of this fact I ask, can a man, who knows what Tertullian does say on this subject, be honest in asserting that "he is the first of the fathers who speaks of infant baptism, and at the same time speaks against it ?" The Baptists never pre- tend to quote his words, but merely make this broad assertion, which carries great weight in the view of those people who are ignorant of what he does say. They con- sider it as overwhelming evidence against the Psedobaptists; and this is the manifest design of the assertion. But is not this tell- ing a part of the truth to establish a par- ticular system, when, if the whole (ruth were told, it would be most decisive testimony a- gainst it? Would not such a witness in a ci- vil court be deemed guilty of perjury? Is it any better in a theological controversy? or, does the gospel admit of pious frauds ?
This, then, according to their own con- cession, is all the testimony that the Baptists have to urge against infant baptism, during the first 1 100 years of the Christian era ; and
16
182
this, instead of disproving it, affords conclu- sive evidence, that it was the universal prac- tice of the church.
But although Tertullian is the first of the fathers, that expressly mentions infant baptism, it is distinctly recognised before his time.* JustinM artyr, who wrote about forty years after the Apostolic age, says " We have not received the carnal, but spiritu- al circumcision, by baptism : and it is enjoin- ed on all persons to receive it in the same man- ner" Here, baptism is distinctly recogni- sed as coming in the place of circumcision, and as applicable to the same subjects. And is this the " new fangled doctrine which was invented about Luther's time for other pur- poses than gospel purity ?" Such is the de- claration of one who professes to be ac- quainted with the writings of " the fathers" and " historians'' and " reformers" and "learned authors" and "quakers ;" and to have " carefully consulted linguists."
*Dr. Gill being conscious that his system can derive no sup- port from the writings of the fathers, endeavours to discredit their testimony by intimating, that their writings have been cor- rupted ; and he expressly asserts that " what is pretended to be near those times, [apostolic days] is the more to be suspected ;" and yet after writing only two pages, he cites a passage from the writings of St. Barnabas, a cotemporary of the apostles and the companion of St. Paul, to prove immersion, (a passage, by the way, precisely parallel to the scripture - expression " going down into and coming up out of the water."; But did Dr. Gill forget so soon, his own declaration " the nearer the apostolic age, ihe more suspicious the testimony.'* Or did he mean, that we must suspect the fathers in nothing but what was against his system ? This is asking rather too much. If he considers them competent witnesses in favour of immersion, 1 shall consider them so in support of infant baptism, until those passages are proved to be interpolations ; which the Baptists have never yet had hardihood enough to attempt.
183
Again, Justin Martyr observes " seve- ral persons among us of 60 or 70 years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood do continue uncorrupl." They were madedisciples/rom their childhood; and how ? but in obedience to the commission of our Lord " Go disciple all nations, bapti- zing them, SCc"
Irenjeus, who was born before the death of St. John, wTas well acquainted with Poly- carp, St. John's disciple, and often heard him preach, and who wrote in advanced life between sixty and seventy years after the apostolic age, observes concerning Christ, " He came to save all persons who by him are regenerated unto God, infants, little ones, youths and elderly persons" Many of the ancient fathers used the words regeneration and baptism as in some sense synonymous. That Irenaeus did so in the passage I have quoted is manifest from his own words; for he says " When Christ gave his apostles com- mand of regenerating unto God, he said, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c." In like manner, Justin Martyr ob- serves " they are regenerated in the same way oj regeneration, in which we have been regenerated; for they have been washed with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" In order to apply these passages to the point in dispute, it is needless to determine, whe- ther the word regeneration is therein used correctly or not. The sense in which it. is
184
used is manifest, and therefore it is evident that these testimonies are decidedly in fa- vour of infant baptism.
Origen, who was born eighty-five years after the apostolic age, declares that " the church had a tradition or command from the apostles to give baptism to infants." And he makes use of infant baptism, as an argument, to maintain the doctrine of human depravity. These are his own words. " David, concern- ing the pollution of infants, says, I was "conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my " mother bring me forth. Let it be consid- ered what is the reason, that whereas the " baptism of the church is given for forgive- ness, infants also, by the usage of the "church, are baptized ; when if there were "nothing in infants, which wanted forgive- "ness and mercy, the grace of baptism " would be needless to them. And again, " infants are baptized for the remission of "sin. Of what sin? Or, when have they " sinned ? Or, how can any reason of the la- " ver hold good in their case ? But accor- "ding to that sense before mentioned, none " is free from pollution, though his life be " only the length of one day upon the earth. "It is for this reason that infants are bapti- " zed, because by the sacrament of baptism, " our pollution is taken away." Can any person believe, that Origen would have rest- ed an important doctrine on an argument, the correctness of which was disputed by any part of the church ? The supposition is incredible.
1S5
I will now refer you to the testimony of Cyprian and the council of Carthage in the year 253. The following question had been proposed by Fid us, a Presbyter, to Cypri- an, and, by him, was submitted to this coun- cil, viz. Whether an infant might be baptized before it was eight days old ? The council consisted of sixty-six bishops; and they were perfectly unanimous in their decision, which Cyprian communicated to Fidus in the fol- lowing words. "As to the case of infants, "of whom you said, that they ought not to " be baptized, within the second or third day " after their birth, and that the ancient law of " circumcision should be so far rejteated, that "they ought not to be baptized till the eighth " day, we were ail of a very different opin- " ion. The mercy and grace of God, we all "judged, should be denied to none. For if "the Lord says in his gospel, ' The Son of "man is not come to destroy men's lives " but to save them,' how ought we to do our " utmost as far as in us lies, that no soul "should be lost! Spiritual circumcision "should not be impeded by carnal circum- "cision. If even to the foulest offenders, "when they afterwards believe, the remis- sion of sins is granted, and none is prohib- ited from baptism and grace ; how much "more should an infant be admitted, who, "just born, hath not sinned at all, except "that being carnally born according to A- "dam, he hath contracted the contagion of " ancient death in his first birth; who ap- 16*
]8G
"proaches to remission of sins, the more "easily, because, not his own actual guilt, "but that of another is remitted. — Our sen- tence therefore, clearest brother, in the "council was, that none by us should be "prohibited from baptism and the grace of "God, who is merciful and kind to all."
Here observe, that the Presbyter who proposed this question, does not intimate a doubt of the propriety of infant baptism. The only hesitation was, whether it might be ap- plied earlier than circumcision had been. Not a doubt is expressed by the council, — they are unanimous in their result. Therefore, I ask again, does it appear, from the nature of this question and the answer which it re- ceived, that the ancient fathers did not re- gard the Abrahamic covenant as the consti- tution of the church — that "this method of proving infant baptism was first invented by Zuinglius or Calvin" Can any man, who has ever seen the record of this fact, and has any regard to truth, assert, that the idea of bap- tism's coming in the place of circumcision " is a new f angled doctrine, invented about the time oj Luther for other purposes than gospel purity ?"
St. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, expressly declares " that infant baptism was practised in his time, and in the time of the Apostles."
St. Chrysostom, who was born A. D. 355, observes that " persons may be baptized either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age,"
187
and that " infants were baptized, although they had no sin, &c."
St. Hierome, who wrote about 280 years after the Apostles, says " if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is lend to the parents' cheirge"
St. Austin, who was cotemporary with Hierome, mentions " infant baptism as one of " those practices which was not instituted by " any council, bid hael always been in use" He savs "The whole church of Christ had " constantly held that infants were baptized for " the forgiveness of sin." That he had ne- " ver read or heard of any Christian, " catholic or sectary, who held other- " wise :" and that " no Christian of any sort, " ever denied it to be use fid or necessary" " If " any one says he, should ask for Divine au- thority in this matter, though that, which "the whole church practises, and which has "not been instituted by councils, hut was e- " ver in use, may be believed, very reasona- " bl y, to be a thing delivered or ordered by "the apostles, }et we may, besides, take a " true estimate, ftow much the sacrament of bap- " tism does avail infants, by the circumcision " which GoeVs former people received^ Here again, we are assured, not only that infant baptism was practised in the primitive ages, but that the church considered the law of circumcision as the foundation and warrant of the practice. Therefore I am bold to af- fi in, that when a man, professing acquaint- ance with the writings of antiquity, asserts, that this "is a newfangled doctrine inven- ted about the time of Luther," he betrays
188
gross ignorance of the subject, or a total dis- regard to truth. "Against men that will
MAKE SUCH ASSERTIONS, IT IS MY DUTY TO WARN YOU."
Not only do these positive declarations of the fathersestablish the practice ofinfant bap- tism, but the manner in which they mention the subject affords conclusive evidence that it was the universal practice of the church. They are not found disputing the point with opponents, deducing arguments to justify it, or removing objections against it They merely hint at the subject inciden- tally, when treating on other topicks. — This would not have been the case, had there been a single individual, and especial- ly if there had been any considerable por- tion of the church, which rejected the prac- tice. They were always ready to enter the lists with any opponent. And had there been a single opposer of infant baptism in Christendom, we should find their writings teeming with arguments to overthrow the adversary. This single circumstance is con- clusive in proving, not only that it was no innovation, but also that it was the univer- sal practice ojthe church during the first four centuries.
Before I leave this period, T must call your attention to the evidence furnished by the Pelagian controversy, concerning origi- nal sin : which commenced about three hundred years after the apostles. Pelagius maintained that infants were born pure from
189
all sin. Among other arguments which Hie* rome and Austin urged against his doctrine, was infant baptism. "Infants, say they, are by all Christians acknowledged to bland in need oj baptism, which must be in then for ori- ginal sin since they have no other. — If they have no sin why are they then baptized. — Why are they washed in the laver of regeneration if they have no pollution ?"
Pelagius and his adherents, as might be expected, were extremely embarrassed with this argument, and they knew not bow to evade it. If there had been the smallest scru- ple in their minds with respect to the Di- vine authority of this practice, if there had been a single section of the church which re- jected it, would not Pelagius have availed himself of the advantage? He was even charged by some of rejecting infant baptism; probably because it seemed naturally to re- sult from his doctrine. But he highly re- sented the charge, and disclaims it as a slan- der, declaring that " Baptism ought to be ad- ministered to infants with the same sacramen- tal words which are used in the case of adult persons"* — that " men slander him as if he de- nied the sacrament of baptism to infants,' and that " he never heard oe AK\,notcvcn THE MOST IMPIOUS HERETIC, that would say such a thing of infants." Strange, in- deed, if it were ever practicable, that Pe- lagius, with all his learning, could not dis- cover, in his day, what Baptists pretend to have discovered eleven or twelve hundred
190
years later; Tiz. that infant baptism was an innovation of the second or third century !!! The fact is, Pelagius never possessed the facially of discovering things that never ex- isted.
From all this evidence, it appears that during the four first centuries there is not an individual to be found in the whole Chris- tian church who denied infant baptism. One indeed, on mistaken principles, advises its delay, both with respect to little children and unmarried persons, but still admits of it, in both instances, in case of extremity ; while others explicitly declare that it was derived from the apostles, and was the universal prac- tice of the church.
With respect to the seven succeeding cen- turies, many of the most distinguished Bap- tists, as you have already heard, have ac- knowledged that they cannot find a single opposer of the practice. The whole support then, of the Baptist scheme, during the first eleven hundred years of the Christian era* is the testimony of Tertullian, which, when the whole truth is told, is one of the most de- cisive testimonies in favour of infant bap- tism.
In the eleventh century there was a sect of the Pauiicians, who rejected all external rites and ceremonies, and maintained that "the whole of religion consisted in the stu- dy of practical piety, and in a course of ac- tion conformable to the Divine laws." They denied the necessity and utility of external
191
ordinances, and hence refused both bap- tism and the Lord's supper to adults as well as infants. In this respect, their prin- ciples were the same with the modern Qua- kers. But, can any man suppose that the practice of this sect argues any thing in fa- vour of the Baptist scheme ? For my part, I cannot perceive how ; and I should never have imagined it, had I not seen the autho- rity of the Quakers referred to on this sub- ject, and found some Baptists expressing themselves thus — " 1/ the Quakers would ac- cept of compliments, I would thank them for their DISINTERESTED testimony on the subject of the present controversy" This, how- ever, is nothing singular; it is not the first time that men, as much opposed to one another as Pilate and Herod were, have be- come friends in opposing the true church of Jesus Christ.
In the twelfth century, as you have al- ready heard from Dr. Wall, " one sect of the Waldenses or Albigenses declared a- gainst the baptizing of infants," but upon different ground from the modern Baptists; for they pronounced infants " incapable of salvation" But this sentiment was rejected by the great body of that people, and those who embraced it soon dwindled away and disappeared ; " there being no more persons ' heard of holding that tenet until the rising of the German Anti-padobaptists, in the ycarjif- teen hundred and twenty-two" These facts are abundantly substantiated by various his-
192
torians. Where then, I ask, was the Baptist church during all this time ? Am I not jus- tified in the assertion that "your church is not as old as the true Christian church by al- most fifteen hundred yearsT
Lei). I am overwhelmed with astonish- ment. If these things are so, pray tell me, whence did our denomination originate ?
Eug. Here is the ivth volume of Mo- sheim's Ecclesiastical History : I will read you two or three paragraphs, and you may then take the book home with you and pe- ruse it at your leisure.
"It is difficult to determine with certainty, the particular spot that gave birth to that seditious and pestilential sect of a- nabaptists, whose tumultuous and desperate attempts were e- cually pernicious to the cause of religion, and the civil interests of mankind. Whether they first arose in Switzerland, Germa- ny, or the Netherlands, is as yet a matter of debate, whose de- cision is of no great importance. It is most probable, that seve- ral persons of this odious class made their appearance, at the same time, in different countries; and we may fix this period soon after the dawn of the reformation in Germany, when Lu- ther arose to set bounds to the ambition of Rome. This appears from a variety of circumstances, and especially from this stri- king one, that the first anabaptist doctors of any eminence, were almost all heads and leaders of particular and separate sects. — For it must be carefully observed, that though all these pro- jectors of a new, unspotted, and perfect church, were compre- hended under the general denomination of anabaptists* on account of their opposing the baptism of infants, and their re-baptizing such as had received that sacrament in a state of childhood in Other churches, yet they were, from their very origin, subdivided into various sects, which differed from each other in points of no small moment. The most pernicious faction of all those that composed this motley multitude, was that which pretended that the founders of the new and perfect church, already mentioned, were under the direction of a divine impulse, and were armed against all opposition by the power of working miracles, it was this detestable faction, that in the year 1521, began their fanati- cal work, under the guidance of Munzer, Stubner, Storck, and other leaders of the same furious complexion, and excited the most unhappy tumults and commotions in Saxony and the adjacent countries. They employed at first the various arts of
193
persuasion, in order to propagate their doctrine. They preach* ed, exhorted, admonished, and reasoned in a manner that seem- ed proper to gain the multitude, and related a great number of visions and revelations with which they pretended to have been favoured from above. But when they saw that these methods of making proselytes were not attended with such a rapid suc- cess as they fondly expected, and that the ministry of Luther and other eminent reformers, was detrimental to their cause, they then had recourse to more expeditious measures, and madly attempted to propagate their fanatical doctrine by force of arms. Munzer and his associates assembled, in the year 1525, a nume- rous army, composed, for the most part, of the peasants of Sua- bia, Thuringia, Franconia and Saxony, and, at the head of this credulous and deluded rabble, declared war against all laws, gov- ernment, and magistrates, of every kind, under the chimerical pretext that Christ was now to take the reins of civil and eccle siastical government into his own hands, and to rule alone over the nations. But this seditious crowd was routed and dispersed without much difficulty, by the elector of Saxony and othe? princes; Munzer, their ringleader, ignominiously put to death, and his factious counsellors scattered abroad in different place?. "This bloody defeat of one part of these seditious and turbu- lent fanatics, did not produce that effect upon the rest that might naturally have been expected ; it rendered them indeed more timorous, but it did not open their eyes upon this delusion. It is certain, that even after this period, numbers of them, wht> were infected with the same odious principles that occasioned the destruction of Munzer, wandered about in Germany, Switz- erland and Holland, and excited the people to rebellion by their seditious discourses. They gathered together congregations in several places ; foretold, in consequence of a divine commission. the approaching abolition of magistracy, and the downfal of ci- vil rulers and governors; and, while they pretended to be am * bassadors of the Most High, insulted, on many occasions, the? Majesty of heaven by the most flagitious crimes. Those who distinguished themselves by the enormity of their conduct in this infamous sect, were Lewis Hetzer, Balthazar Hubmeyer, Felix Mentz, Conrad G rebel, Melchior Hoffman, and George Jacob, who, if their power had seconded their designs, would have involved all Switzerland, Holland and Germany in tumult and bloodshed. A great part of this rabble seemed really deli- rious ; and nothing more extravagant or more incredible can be imagined than the dreams and visions that were constantly arising in their disordered brains. Such of them as had some sparks of reason left, and had reflection enough to reduce their notions in- to a certain form, maintained, among others, the following points of doctrine: 'That the church of Christ ought to be exempt from all sin ; that all things ought to be in common among the faithful ; that all usury, tythes and tribute ought to be entirclv abolished; that the baptism of infants was an invention of the devil i that every Christian was invested with a power to preach
17
194
the gospel, and consequently, that the church stood in no need of ministers or pastors ; that in the kingdom of Christ civil ma- gistrates were absolutely useless, and that God still continued to reveal his will to chosen persons by dreams and visions.' "
Then after mentioning the severe pun- ishments that were inflicted to restrain their disorders, and their temerity in en- countering them, Mosheim continues :
** There stands upon record a most shocking instance of this, in the dreadful commotions that were excited at Munster, in the year 1533, by certain Dutch anabaptists, that chose that city as the scene of their horrid operations, and committed in it such deeds as would surpass all credibility, were they not attested in a manner that excludes every degree of doubt and uncertainty. A handful of madmen, who had got into their heads the visiona- ry notion of a new and spiritual kingdom, soon to be established in an extraordinary manner, formed themselves into a society, un- der the guidance of a few illiterate leaders, chosen out of the populace. And they persuaded, not only the ignorant multitude, Ibut even several among the learned, that Munster was to be the seat of this new and heavenly Jerusalem, whose ghostly domi- nion was to be propagated from thence to all the ends of the earth. The ringleaders of this furious tribe were John Matthison, John Bockhold, a taylor of Leyden, one Gerhard, with some others whom the blind rage of enthusiasm, or the still more culpable principles of sedition, had embarked in this extravagant and desperate cause. They made themselves masters of the city of Munster, deposed the magistrates, and committed all the -enor- mous crimes, and ridiculous follies, which the most perverse and xnfernal imagination could suggest. John Bockhold was pro- claimed king and legislator of this new hierarchy; but his reign HTas transitory, and his end deplorable. For the city of Munster was, in the year 1536, retaken, after a long siege, by its bishop and sovereign, count Waldeck ; the New Jerusalem of the ana- baptists destroyed ; and its mock monarch punished with a most painful and ignominious death. The disorders occasioned by the anabaptists at this period, not only in Westphalia, but also in other places, showed too plainly to what horrid lengths the per- nicious doctrines of this wrongheaded sect were adapted to lead the inconsiderate and unwary; and therefore it is not at all to be wondered, that the secular arm employed rigorous measures to extirpate a faction which was the occasion, nay, the source of unspeakable calamities in so many countries." See also Robert- son's Charles V.
We do not charge your denomination, with all the extravagancies of these fanatics.
195
Shortly after their association, they were greatly reformed and reduced to a consid- erable degree of order by Menno, a Popish priest, who went over to them, and became the apostle of the sect. But in them you behold the true origin of the Baptist church ; and from them, are derived the distinctive principles of your denomination.1*
* Although the Baptists were first organized into a distinct denomination in the with century, and although many have supposed that the origin of their sentiments, is still veiled in considerable obscurity, I cannot forbear to. hazard the conjec~ ture, that the fundamental principles of that system, may be traced up to the very first heresy that disturbed the Christian church. From the Gnosticks of the Apostolic age down to the German fanatics, it is evident that there were some, in every age, who maintained, in some shape or other, that " The books of the Old Testament were not of Divine authority — that the God of the Jew* -was not the true God, but a kind of subordinate dkitt, -whom they had substituted in the place of the true God,- and that JWoses, in imposing such a system of disagreeable and se- vere laws on the Jews, was acttiated by that subordinate deity, who consulted his own glory and authority, and not the real advantage of men?'' And in consequence of "a persuasion that evil resided in matter as its centre and source, which prevented their treat- ing the body with that regard that is due to it," some of them denied the utility of external ordinances, and of course rejected the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. These sen- timents were confined to the East until the xith century ; at which time, a great multitude of the Paulicians, who maintain- ed these doctrines with some modifications, " either, from a zeal " to propagate their opinions, or, a desire to escape the perse- ** cutions of the Grecian church, emigrated into Europe, and " among other countries, into France and Germany. Here they " laid aside some of the most obnoxious doctrines which they " hud previously maintained, assumed the appearance of singular " piety, rejected all rites and ceremonies, even the Christian sa- " craments, and looked with contempt on all external worship, *' In the following ages., a like set of men, who had previously •* emigrated from the East, proceeded in vast numbers out of It- " aly, spread like an inundation through all the European pro- " vinces, and were known in Germany under the name of The u brethren and sisters of the free spirit" From Germany some of them emigrated into England during the reign of Henry viiith, and began to propagate their sentiments in that kingdom. (See Spanhkix, Moshfim, Bfrket and others.) Now observe^
196-
Now Lebbeus, I wish you to judge for yourself, which were the most zealous ad- vocates for "gospel purity," Luther and his coadjutors, or the lawless enthusiasts by whom your denomination was founded. If the former had been removed when the lat- ter arose, where would have been the glory of the Protestant church? It is unquestion- ably owing to the light which Luther and Calvin and others of their communion dif- fused, that your sect were induced to purge out many of the most obnoxious sentiments, which their predecessors had maintained. But for the influence of those worthies, the heresies of former ages would have remained in all their deformity.
Leb. In view of all this evidence, I wish, sir, to ask you one question : Do you re- gard our churches, as churches of Christ ; and our elders, as regularly authorized min- isters of the gospel ?
JEug. I candidly ackaowledge, that this question is the most difficult to answer of
1 hat " the Old Testament is all done away" — that «' Jehovah •was merely a King or temporal Governor to Israel," — that " the Jewish religion -u-as a carnal religion, rjell adapted to please the- carnally minded and did not require heai. holmess," are well known to be the fundamental sentiments of the Baptist scheme. f „et the reader compare these with the sentiments stated in the beginning1 of this note, which were maintained by the early here- tics, and then say. whether there is not a striking affinity be- tween them ? Then let him read the history of the Gnosticks — the Manichxans — the Paulicians — the Catharists — the Brethren and Sisters of the free spirit — the Men of understanding, and other German fanatics, and I think, he can be at no loss, as to the derivation of Baptist sentiments. In this point of view, I am willing to admit a regular sitccession from the apostolic age ; but it is from a source, and through a channel, which, however strong its claims to antiquity m^y be, can do no honour to any Christian denomination.
19?
any you have proposed, since we commen- ced our discourse. I have already obser- ved, that the question, which divides your church and ours, is a constitutional question. Our system being established, you are guil- ty of rejecting one prominent article of the constitution of the church. How far this etfects the actual existence of your church, 1 am not prepared to say. I have no doubt, that churches may be erroneous both in faith and practice, and yet those errors not being fundamental, they may be true churches of Christ. But with what propriety this re- mark may be applied to those communities which reject and deride the constitution that lies at the foundation of the church, is very difficult to determine. Nor is it a matter of much consequence, in view of the latter part of your inquiry, as a still more se- rious difficulty exists with respect to the ordination of your ministers ; and of course, as to the validity of their administrations.
If I understand the gospel, the ministe- rial office was given by our Saviour to his apostles, to be exercised by them, and com- mitted to other faithful men, agreeably to the direction of Paul to Timothy. " Neg- lect not the gift that is in thee, which was giv- en thee by prophecy, and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" 1 Tim. iv. 14. " And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou lo faithful men, who shall be able to teach oth- ers also." 2 Tim. ii. 2. This " honour" or
it*
198
office power "no man can take on himself " and none that does not possess it, can confer it upon another. But your denomination have, from their beginning, rejected this doctrine, and advocated lay -ordination. The Anabaptists of the xvith century, as you have just heard from Mosheim, maintained that " every Christian was invested with a "power to preach the gospel, and conse- quently that the church stood in no need " of ministers or pastors." Since that time, the sentiment has been boldly advocated by some of the most distinguished members of vour communion. Dr. Gill asserts, that "As every civil society has a right to " choose, appoint and ordain their own offi- " cers, — so churches, which are religious so- cieties, have a right to choose and ordain "their owe officers, and which are ordained "for them, and for them only; that is for "each particular church, and not another* " The election and call of them with their "acceptance is ORDINATION." This indeed levels the Christian ministry with the ground, and opens the door for the intro- duction of any man, however ignorant and vicious, if he only has craft enough to im- pose on a small community of people as ig- norant as himself, and induce them to choose him for their pastor. Not only so, it drives Dr. CilJ into this, among other gross absur- dities: that " a pastor of one church, cannot officiate as such in another church" nor " ad- minister the Lord's Supper" nor even "pu$
199
forth any act or operation there" any more than " the Lord Mayor of London can exer- cise his power, in any branch of his office, m the jurisdiction of the Mayor of York or Bristol." — When such sentiments as these are advanced by the most distinguished members of your communion, to say the least, there is great room for suspicion. — I am aware that manv of vour churches have- denounced these opinion?, and oppose them in practice. But a mere change in senti- ment and practice cannot give validity to an invalid ordination-. Though your elders alone are permitted, at the present time, to ordain, yet they can confer no power but what they received. And if they derived their power from the source maintained by Dr. Gill, then, they stand on the same ground with the founders of your sect, who public? ly advocated lay-ordination, or rather deni- ed the necessity of any ordination at, all. — . I do not say, that none of your ministers have been regularly ordained ; but, this P say, there is so much obscurity with respect to the body at large, that I am unable to give a decisive answer to your question.
SECTION VII.
Prom the doctrine which has been es- tablished, and the evidence adduced from writings of the Fathers and the history of the church, I am warranted to infer, that
200
infant baptism is the ordinance of God, and has been the practice of the church Jrom the days of the apostles.
Your denomination have ever founded their opposition to infant baptism, on the want of what they call "explicit ivarrant" They say, there must be an express precept or an unquestionable example, in the New Testament, to justify the practice. With the greatest propriety, we deny this. We prove that when the Lord first organized his church into a regular community, it was composed of professed believers and their households ; and that the existing seal of the covenant was, by divine direction, applied to both. Now we say, and we have an ?m- doubted right to say, to our opponents, "The "labouring oar is yours: — prove that the "original constitution of the church is al- tered;— prove that the infant seed of be- lievers have ever been excluded from the "covenant. Produce the passage from the "word of God, in which this evidence is " contained, and we will surrender the point. "It is your duty to furnish explicit warrant " against our practice" Conscious of the correctness of this demand, and of their ut- ter inability to comply with it, your people have been driven to the direful necessity of vilifying the ancient church, reducing it to a mere shadow, and degrading the AL- MIGHTY GOD OF ISRAEL to the ig- noble station of a temporal King." This is the yery foundation of your whole scheme ;
20*
and a rotten one it is, in very deed ! The most able of your disputants have never un- dertaken to comply with our just demand. They have never pretended to prove that infants are expressly excluded fron> the church. All the evidence^ they have addu- ced, is of the negative kind. They say "there is no command or example in the New Testament for infant baptism." This, if admitted, is nothing to the point. AfteF all that we prove, it is your business to fur- nish the precept or example against it. — They say, " the gospel requires a profesr sion of repentance or faith as a qualification for baptism." We admit it without hesita- tion, for the same did the Lord require of old. But as then, so now, when the profes- sed believer receives the seal of the cov- enant, he becomes entitled, by God's gra- cious promise, to the same seal for his chil- dren. We are as strenuous advocates for believer's baptism, as you are. We never ad- minister the ordinance, but on a credible profession of faith. We do not pretend to baptize infants without it. But we require the profession not of the infants, but of them in whom the right lies. The infants of be* lievers, in themselves considered, have no more right to baptism, than the children of unbelievers. The right vests in the believ- ing parent, and results from God's gracious covenant with him. Hence we mark the children as "set apart" for the Lord, be- cause their parents are the Lord's. — Thus
202
we produce direct and positive evidence in support of our practice, and you can fur- nish nothing- but negative evidence against it. — In a large company of men a felony is committed. Ten of the men are brought forward, who testify that they saw the accu- sed perpetrate the crime. Ten more of the company, or ten times ten if you please, come forward in his defence, and declare that they did not rvitness the crime, nor even see the man there. Would this afford any just ground for a jury to doubt whether the man was guilty of the alledged crime ? Would they hesitate a moment to pronounce him guilty ? Here is no clashing of testimo- ny : No balancing of probabilities. The veracity of no witness is called in question. All are believed. But here is the point. There is direct and positive testimony to support the charge; and against it, nothing but negative evidence, which might be mul- tiplied to the ends of the earth, without in- creasing its weight. This is the precise state of the controversy between your de- nomination and ours.
Leo. But Sir, you have more than once intimated, that there is evidence in the New Testament to sanction your practice. I should be glad to hear you on that point.
Bug. Seeing that our Saviour and his apostles acknowledged the Abrahamic cov- enant as the constitution of the church, as I have abundantly shewn, there is just as much evidence of infant membership in the
203
New Testament as we should expect to find ; and that is, a distinct recognition of the fact. Thus our Saviour declares "Suf- fer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God" See Mat. xix. 14. Mar. x. 14. Luk. xviii. 16.
Leb. But these children were not brought to Christ for baptism.
Eug. Very true : and for very important reasons. They were the children of be- lieving parents, (for no others would have brought their children to Christ, beseeching him to lay his hands on them and pray,) and therefore had received the existing seal of the covenant. Besides this, Christian baptism was not then instituted. The change of dispensation, as has been shewn, had not then taken place.* But they were " little children,'9 "young children," "infants," {ov so they are called by the different evange- lists; and they were "brought" to Christ, and " fie took them up in his arms.,J All these circumstances shew, that they were so small as to be incapable of acting for themselves. f
* That John's baptism was not Christian baptism, will be proved, when I come to speak of the mode.
f It is perfectly astonishing to witness the various expedients of the-Baptists, to explain away every text of scripture, that seems to favour infant membership. They have attempted to destroy the force of this text, by endeavotiring to make the world believe, that these children must have been at least 12 years of age. And why ? Merely because the ruler's daughter, who is said to be 12 years of age, is called "padton" (a child) which is the same word that is used in this text ; although these children are said to have been " brought" to Christ, and that
204
And yet Christ declares " Of such is the kingdom of God. Now understand this phrase, in any of the senses, in which it oc- curs in the gospel, the result will be the same in favour of our practice. Suppose it means " the kingdom oj glory" If hea- ven is filled with infants, shall the church on earth exclude them? Suppose it means "the kingdom of grace;" shall they be excluded from the household of J aith on earth? Or
" he took them up in his arms." This must have been rather a singular method of handling children 12 years old ; notwith- standing one has said in explanation of this, that " Christ was omnh>ote:<(t ! ! !" — But the}' are not only called "padia," but also " brephe." Luk. xviii. 15. This term not onlv signifies ** infants,'" as it is rendered in our translation, but from its deriva- tion it properly means "sucklings." It is the Greek word which is applied to children, not only as soon as they are born, as in Luk. ii. 12, 16, but, also to Xhefatus in utero. See Luk. i. 41— 44. But even this word, Dr. GjII says, is applied to one "ca- pable of being instructed and of understanding the scriptures." But where ? He refers to 2 Tim. iii. 15. "From a child thou hast kno~on the holy scriptures" But did the apostle mean to say, that Timothy had been acquainted with the scriptures merely from the time he was capable of understanding them ? Suppose the word should be rendered u infant" or " suckling" which is its proper meaning j would there be any thing incredible in the declaration that '*' from his infancy he had known the scrip- tures 1" Faithful parents, I believe, are in the habit of beginning to instil divine truth into the minds of their children, even be- fore they are iceaned. And so, I presume, did the mother of Tim- othy, who was renowned for piety, and her mother before her. 2 Tim. i. 5. If this text, therefore, has any bearing on the pre- sent controversy — if Timothy's '* knowing the scriptures" implies what Dr. Gill says it does, viz. " understanding them ;" it proves, that he -was sanctified at a very early period of life, through the in- strumentality of his pious mother's fidelity. — Here then on this text we have a fair specin en of Baptist candour. Now, suppose, we were told in plain words in the New Testament, that " padia" (little children) or " brephe" (infants or sucklings) are proper subjects of baptism, would not our opponents adopt the same ex- pedients to destroy what they are constantly demanding, an " ex- plicit warrant ?" For my part, I have no doubt, they would ar- gue, in the same way, to prove that they must be at least 12 years old, before they could be baptized. "
205
suppose it means, what is the most frequent import of the words, " the visible church ; the point is decided. Whether you apply it to the former or latter dispensation, the result will be in our favour. If to the for- mer, our Saviour hereby declares, that as infants were attached to the church under that dispensation, it was his benevolent in- tention to continue their standing; and there- fore he rebuked his disciples for manifesting a disposition to exclude them. If the phrase be applied to the gospel church, which in- deed is by far the most frequent applica- tion, it is "explicit warrant — a positive de- claration that the gospel church, like the an- cient, is in a great measure composed of in- fants. But this is more than I ask, and more than Baptists will admit, as long as any me- thod of torture for a text of scripture re- mains. Take which of the preceding inter- pretations you please, it is a plain proof of infant membership.
The same idea is plainly deducible from the grand commission of our Lord to his a- postles. " Go ye therefore and teach (that is " disciple'''' or " make disciples)qf" for so the original word literally signifies) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Sfc." Mat xxviii. 19.
Leo. But this plainly implies that they must believe before they are baptized.
Eug. It plainly, declares that they are to be " made disciples" before they are bap- tized. And as to the manner of making dis- ciples, this was to be done according to the
18
206
method which had been previously estab- lished, and which Christ had left unaltered. Till then, their commission had been confi- ned " to the lost sheep of the house of Is- rael." But now it is extended to the whole world ; to Gentiles as well as Jews. " The middle wall of partition" being removed, they are to go forth and " disciple all na- tions" just as the Jews had been " discipled" in preceding ages. The original plan is left- unaltered ; the execution of that plan is on- ly extended. No other directions were giv- en; no other are to be found in the gospel. Hence, they were to " make disciples of all nations" by requiring a credible profes- sion of faith, of all adult persons, and then acknowledging their infant seed as disciples (or scholars) to be trained up in the school of Christ for the Lord's service. Then both pa- rents and children are to receive the seal of God's covenant, as a mark that they are, in a peculiar sense, the Lord's property. If this is not the plain interpretation of the text, then Christ has given a commission that ne- ver will nor can be executed. Even in the mil- lenium, a great part of the nations cannot be called disciples, if infants, who are inca- pable of making a personal profession of faith, are excluded from the covenant.*
* It is truly diverting to see the Baptists, when pressed with the inconsistency of their practice in maintaining- female commu- nion without "explicit warrant," tugging with all their might to prove it from 1 Cor. xi. 28. " Let a MAN examine HIMSELF,. &.c." " Here," say they, " is explicit warrant" for female com- munion. The " word fanthroposj rendered man is a generic term . tor the human species, and includes lotmen as well as men.''*
207
In the light of this iext, we see what con- sequence is to be attached to the baptism of "households " spoken of in the New-Testa- ment. It is true we are not expressly in- formed that there were, or were not, infants, or little children in any of those families, though your denomination speak of these, with as much confidence as if the latter were expressly declared. But this much is plain- ly deducible from the record in the instan- ces of Lydia and the jailer, that they were the only professed believers in their respec- tive families. The jailer's conversion is all
shall consider this argument at large, when I come to speak of female communion : I shall therefore only inquire here, if" an- thropos" is a generic term, does it not include infanta as well as men and -women, and so prove infant, as well as female commu- nion. This, however, would be proving1 rather too much. — But suppose, when the Baptists demand of us an explicit warrant for infant baptism, we should refer them to the commission of Christ to his apostles, and insist that the term "ndtionf includes all the individuals of the community, consisting of men, women, children and servants I appeal to " lexicographers:," to " com- mon sense," and even to Baptists themselves, with all their pre- judices, whether there is not as firm a foundation here for expli- cit warrant to justify infant baptism, as in i\\z text to which they refer for the support of female communion ? It is vain to plead that infants cannot be "made disciples," and are therefore exclu- ded ; for this is begging- the question. Besides, we have proved that they were once included in the covenant, and our opponents must shew that they hive been excluded before they tell us that they cannot be regarded as disciples
But, says Dr Gill, "It infants, as a part of all nations, and because they are such, are baptized, then the infants of Heathens, Turks and Jews ought to be baptized, since they are a part, and a large part of all nations." Very true, and so they should; that is, whenever they become disciples, and this will be the case, when their parents become believers. Hence, 1 have said, and I repeat the sent mem, if this is not to be the case, then Christ has given a commission that never ca?i be executed Even in the miltenium, "a large part of all nations" according to Dr. Gill's • '.vii statement, will not b<£ " discipled,^ if all infants are to be ex- cluded.
20$
that is declared to have taken place in his house. Common readers of the bible are apt to suppose that the conversion of the whole family is asserted in Acts xvi. 34. — But no such idea can be deduced from the original text, of which the following is as lit- eral a translation as our language affords terms to express. "And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced with for in) all his house,* he having believed in God" Faith is here predicated not of his household, but of him- self alone. To infer, therefore, that the rest of his household were converted at that time, is taking for granted what is not even intimated. It is true we are told that " the apostles spake the word to all that were in his house," but this is no evidence that they were all converted, nor is the idea even im- plied in any part of the record.
Moreover, this view of the passage ac- cords precisely with what the apostles told the jailer, when he inquired " What must I do to be saved?" The answer was " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be
* To shew the propriety of this construction, it may be pro- per to inform the unlettered reader, that the phrase which is translated " with all his house" instead of being a preposition, with an adjective, a personal pronoun, and a noun, as in ojpr language, is a single word in the original, and that a com- pound adverb, qualifying the verb " rejoiced." It is rendered "with all his house," merely because the English language does not uirmsh an adverb corresponding with the original. These facts plainly shew, that the passage, instead of declaring the conver- sion of the whole family, only expresses the circumstance of his rejoicing, not only in his own personal safety, but also in the glorious prospect with respect to his household^ which the faith eJf the gospel had opened to his view.
209
saved and try house." This is a plain ac- knowledgment of the original promise. As if they had said " Believe and be faithful, and God's gracious covenant embraces your household, as well as yourself." And this, again, corresponds with our Saviour's decla- ration to Zaccheus, who was the only belie- ver in his family. " This day is salvation come to this house, for as much as he also is a son, of Abraham" Luk. xix. 9. By becoming a believer in Christ, he became a son of A- braham; and by becoming a son of Abra- ham, "salvation" by virtue of the Abra- hamic covenant, " came to his housed
A similar peculiarity is observable in the narrative of Lydia's conversion. We are distinctly informed that "the Lord opened her heart" but not a shadow of evidence is there, that any more of her household were converted. To infer this from their baptism , is, as in the case of the jailer, begging the question. " And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful, . Si 'c." evidently implying that she was the only believer in the family. Hence, it is evident that these in- stances afford a plain recognition of tbeorigi- ginal covenant, and consequently of infant baptism. The same observation may be made on 1 Gar. vii. 14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified, kc. else were your chil- dren unclean, but now are they holy."
Leb. But, sir, I have often heard it said, that the apostle, in this passage, was not 18*
S*9
treating of infant baptism, but of the law- fulness of believers and idolaters dwelling together as husband and wife. And I find that this is the idea of the writer of the dis- course to which I have already referred; and he adds, "The apostle teaches, in this " passage, that the unbelief of one, did not "render the marriage covenant void, else " were your children unclean, born out of "marriage, or illegitimate ; but now, he " adds, they are holy or sanctified, as common "food is said to be sanctified by the word "of God and prayer: i. e. rendered fit for " use. If the circumstance of being sanctified " in the sense here used by the apostle, is all that "is necessary to baptism, common food is also " the subject oj baptism"
Eug. Who ever supposed or intimated that the apostle was treating here on the sub- ject of baptism, either of infants or adults ? nor is such an idea necessary to the argu- ment that is founded on this text. And that he does not use the terms "sanctified" and "holy" as implying inherent holiness, is pre- cisely what we wish to have admitted. But "we do believe that he makes allusion in this passage to the relation between parents and their children, and so does your author, though he applies it to quite a different ob- ject. And we are in the habit of supposing that he uses the words " sanctified" and " ho- ly1' in their primitive sense, as implying something " separated" or "set apart" from a common to a special use, Thus the se-
2li
venth day — the first-born — the tabernacle— the temple, with all its furniture — the altar — the sacrifices— the tythes — dedicated hou- ses and fields, &c. &c. were sanctified under the law; that is, they were "separated'" or ** set apart" from a common use to the Lord's service. And I have always supposed that in this case, the apostle uses the word " saric- tified" in application to common food, 1 Tim. iv. 5. and I verily thought that this was es- teemed, by all Christian denominations, the orthodox interpretation of that text. I never knew before, (nor do 1 believe it nowj that common food is not "jit for use" until a blessing is asked upon it. I did not know that this pious practice rendered our food any better. I always supposed that the Christian observed it, not to make his food "Jit for use " but as an acknowledgment that his mercies are from God, and are to be used in his service. In other words, as a solemn dedication or "separation" or " set- ting apart" of his food to the service of his Maker. If this is not the true import of the passage, it remains to be proved what its true meaning is ; for I am sure no "consi- derate" man will adopt the interpretation your author has given. If he were correct, no epicure would live withoutachaplain;and all the people of the world would pay some more respect to religious duties. They are as fond of eating food that is "jit for use" as Christians are.
But we have not yet arrived at the cli-
212
max of absurdity ! After quoting a passage as precisely parallel to the one under con- sideration, your author tells us, that in one, the term means "jit for use;" and in the other " legitimate" or " born in marriage" This is a striking parallelism indeed. — But suppose it were complete, what then? Did the apostle intend to pronounce the children of those who entered into marriage without faith in Christ, illegitimate I This would in- deed be a fine compliment to the people of the world. Or, did he only mean to tell us, that the mutual children of a believer and un- believer, who had been joined in marriage ac- cording to Divine institution previous to the conversion of the one, were not bastardized by that circumstance ? This would be an equally fine compliment to the "common sense" of the Christian. He must have a revelation from heaven to inform him, that the faith of Christ does not make void the marriage contract* And yet this is the result of your authors exposition. Admirable theology and logic ! !
Now Lebbeus, turn your attention to the interpretation which 1. have given, and which is supported by a hundred texts of scripture. Understand the apostle as telling a believing parent, that tlie unbelief o[ his partner does not exclude their household from the bles- sings of the covenant ; but that in conse- quence of the faith of one, their common children are Ao/y, that is, not yet possessed oi inherent holiness, but " separated or set
213
apart" for the Lord, to be trained up in his service. And is not this a natural and con- sistent interpretation of the text ; and does it not evidently establish infant member- ship ?
Leb. Well, if we admit that this is the case, still it. is asked " What good can it do to baptize infants ?"
Mug. And on the same ground I may ask, " What good can it do to baptize adults ?" Does the soul derive any benefit from the application of water to the body ? — But stop. Are we to be the judges of the pro- priety or impropriety of Divine ordinances ? If so, then there is no security for any posi- tive institution of Heaven. On this ground Abraham might have demured and said, " Lord what good can it do to put the seal of MY faith on my children eight days old?" But no ! Abraham had too much respect for Divine authority, and he set too high a value on that gracious covenant which God had condescended to make with him, in behalf of his seed, to hesitate a moment. He em- braced it as a privilege that must gladden the heart of every pious parent. — In order to ascertain the obligation of a divine pre- cept, we have no business to inquire, what good the observance of it can do ? Our only legitimate inquiry is,. "Has God enjoined it?" That he has, in this instance, has been proved. — But when the duty is acknowledg- ed, there is no impropriety in our contem- plating the, advantages resulting from thai
214
duty, as an encouragement and excitement to fidelity. Therefore, I invite you, to re- view what has been already said on the sub- ject, and then say, if there is not encourage- ment enough held out in God's gracious pre- mise, to overwhelm the pious parent'* soul with joy and gratitude. To have the prospect of seeing his children sanctified through the instrumentality of his labours, must be a most powerful stimulus to parental fidelity. And from the evidence adduced, I am war- ranted to say, that in those families where faithful instruction and discipline, support- ed by pious example and daily prayer, are maintained, there is as much more reason to expect the sanctification of their children, than of those who neglect these duties, as there is to expect the salvation of those, who diligently and devoutly attend onthe means of grace, rather than of those who are desti- tute of them.
It is remarkable, Lebbeus, that scarcely a single objection is brought forward, by your denomination, against the Abrahamic covenant, but what was anticipated and an- swered by St. Pan!. " What advantage then hath the Jew 1 and n hat profit is there of cir- cvmcision ?" is the question which he ex- pected some would ask, and is virtually the same which you have proposed. But he does not answer it, as though he considered circumcision a badge of carnal descent, of token of a mere national covenant. " Much every rvai/ ; chiefly , because that unto them
815
were -committed the oracles of God." Here, nothing is said about the land of Canaan or other temporal blessings, as constituting the principle advantages resulting from that covenant. But, they had the oracles of God, by virtue of which their children enjoyed the privilege of a religious education, which, according to the Divine constitution, was the appointed means of their salvation. — The very same advantages result from in- fant baptism.
Leb. You speak of these duties, as though their performance depended on the obser- vance of infant baptism. But cannot we discharge them without having our children baptized ?
Eug. I consider human nature as it is, for in this light the Lord regards it. Every man needs some excitement to the perfor- mance of what he knows to be his duty; and hence the Lord has seen fit to require his people to bind themselves by covenant. And that this is necessary in the case of parental duty, I will appeal to your own ex- perience and observation. — As to domestic worship, that stands on the same foundation, in your church, with infant baptism — with- out explicit warrant ;" and hence your peo- ple feel at liberty to observe it or not, ac- cording to their own pleasure. It is also notorious that you discountenance the prac- tice of catechising your children ; though there are but two or three answers in the Assembly's Shorter Catechism that inter-
216
fere with your system. Go into any school in this region of country, to hear the chil- dren recite this precious " form of Sound words," and you find a number who do not engage in the exercise. Ask the teacher, the reason? His reply is, " Their parents are Baptists or Quakers" And after all, it would be well if our children could per- forin this duty, without being told by their school fellows, that "their catechism is all the work of man, and therefore they are not to receive what is therein taught as the truth of Jehovah." I speak plainly, Lebbeus, be- cause these things are notorious facts in this part of the world ; and I have often been ready to believe, that your people were de- termined to prove, by awful experiment, the sentiment they profess, "that their chil- dren are no more likely to be converted, than the chidren of their most irreligious neigh- bours" I shall join with them in this opin- ion, as far as it respects their own church, if the facts which I have noticed, extend throughout your communion. But in the very acknowledgement of the sentiment, I discover an important reason for requiring parents to dedicate their children to God, and enter into solemn covenant to be faithful to their soids.
Leb. But if children are proper subjects of baptism, are they not as capable of the benefits of the Lord's supper?
Eug. Though both ordinances are holy seals of the same covenant ; it does not fol-
217
low, that all who receive the one, must in> mediately receive the other. They are both positive institutions ; and therefore their ap- plication depends entirely on the will of the Instil utor. They are evidently design- ed for different ends. Baptism is a mark of membership in the church. Hence it is to be applied as soon as that membership is constituted, and therefore is not to be re- peated ; for when the mark is once placed on the subject, the end is answered. But the Lord's supper is not so. Besides being a seal of the covenant, it is one of the means of nourishing the Christian, and building him up in the most holy faith ; and there- fore is to be frequently celebrated. Hence, though children are to be baptized as soon as may be, to recognise them as " separated" to the Lord, in consequence of their con- nexion with believing parents ; yet they are not to be admitted to the Lord's table, till they are capable of making a personal ac- knowledgment of the covenant, and " have knowledge," both speculative and experi- mental, "to discern the Lord's body."
Leb. But do you not consider your bap- tized children, to all intents and purposes, members of the church ?
Eug. With respect to the nature of their standing, there is some diversity of opinion in our church. But after all, that difference is not so great as is generally imagined. — The main question is, " Whether their stan- ding is such, as to require the church to cut 19
2i a
tfhem off', by a formal act of excommunication, in case they continue impenitent and incorri- gible ?" But the view that has been given of the subject, I think, affords a plain and con- sistent answer to this question. The entire connexion of children with the church is through their parents. It is not their act whit h makes them members of the church, any moie than of the commonwealth under which they Jive ; but their being born un- der an established constitution. Hence as long as their connexion with their parents subsists; that is, as long as they form .mem- bers of the family and are subject to paren- tal control, so long they are subject to the church and liable to its discipline. But ob- serve, here, the discipline of the church must follow the course of the connexion. The connexion is through the parent, and therefore tire discipline of children must be exercised through the parent. The church can enforce discipline on her baptized chil- dren, no further than she can require their parents to enforce it. If they should refuse to execute her commands, or forbid their children to submit to her authority, the church has no power to take them out of their hands. In that case, she could excom- municate the parents for disobedience ; but by the very same act, the children would be cut off with them. For the parent is the intermediate link that connects the children with the church; when this link is broken, their connexion is, of course, dissolved. —
219
Tftie excommunicated person has no more connexion with the church, than if he had never been a member. And hence, his chil- dren stand in the same relation that they would have done, it* he had never belonged to it. This is one way in which the Lord visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children. And doubtless a regard to the welfare of his children, as well as to his own personal safety, is designed to operate as a motive to induce the Christian to walk wor- thy of his high vocation. — That this mode of connexion between baptized children and the church, is according to the common un- derstanding of Psedobaptists, is evident from this simple fact: that when parents are dis- missed from one branch of the church to join another, the relation of their children is, by the same act, considered as transferred; though not a word is said about them in the act of transfer.
As a further confirmation of these views it may be remarked, that under the former dispensation, when a child would not sub- mit to parental control, the parents were commanded to bring him before the elders of the city. Deut. xxi. 18 — 21. Here it is obvious, that the parents' authority is re- garded as the means of bringing him before the church. If they had neglected or refu- sed to do so, the elders had no authority to arraign him. And when he was brought, there was no way provided to cut him off from the church, but to cut film off from the parents, by dissolving the relation between
220
them. Hence, he was condemned to be stoned to death. And although under the gospel, capital punishment, in this and oth- er cases, is annulled ; yet the same mode of connexion between the church and her bap- tized children, is distinctly exhibited. The command to parents is " Submit yourselves to those who have the rule over you ," and " Train up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord:" To children " Obey your parents" — The church is to command parents, and parents are to command their children; and if churches and parents were both faithful, the blessed fruits of this Divine constitution would be daily realized; and this I think would be found to be all the discipline necessary for baptized children. If this view of the subject be correct, the point is decided with respect to a formal act of excommunication. There are but two ways in which you can cut off baptized children. One is by excommunicating their parents; the other, by dissolving the rela- tion between them and their parents. The latter the church cannot do, at least in the manner formerly practised:* The for-
* Although llie church does not now possess the power of in- flicting capital punishments, yet there is a way in which the connexion between parents and children may be dissolved with- out taking life. They may be excluded from the household. And suppose a child should abandon himself to debauchery, drunkenness and other vices, and refuse to submit to parental control, it is a serious question whether, after every means has been used for his reformation and he remains incorrigible, he ought not to be excluded from the family ? However painful this, would be to parental feelings, might not the honour of reli- gion, the credit of the family and the morals of the other mem iters of the household require, the sacrifice ?
221
mer she will not, as long as the parents do all that she requires. But when their con- nexion with their parents ceases, that is, so far that they are not subject to parental authority; when children cease to be mem- bers of the parents' family and set up an in- dependent interest for themselves, in that same instant, their connexion with the church ceases, if they have not previously made a voluntary surrender of themselves to God. But then the church cannot ex- communicate them, because their connex- ion with the church is already dissolved.
Leb, I have always understood that you consider your baptized children under spe- cial obligations to own the Lord as their God; but this doctrine appears to leave them, after all, to act as they please.
Eug. We do indeed consider our chil- dren under special obligations. These, however, proceed, not from any personal act of their own, but from the enjoyment of those peculiar privileges which result from the constitution under which they were born. In no other light can their obliga- tions be considered or enforced. On this ground we may urge them to duty, and con- vince them of their guilt in neglecting it. But we could never make them feel a con- sciousness of guilt in the violation of vows which they never made. Obligations, re- sulting from the source I have mentioned, will be binding upon them to their dying day. They can never divest themselves of 19*
2^2
these bonds. But by neglecting to discharge the duty which those obligations impose, they may cut themselves off from the bles- sings of the covenant. So far, then, from leaving them to act as they please, this doc- trine imposes their duty under the most so- lemn penalty. A penalty inflicted, as it were, by their own hand.
Leb. But does not this render infant- bap- tism a nullity ?
Mug. No more than in the case of an ex- communicated member. Baptism does not communicate grace, either to adults or in- fants. It is a seal or pledge of special pri- vileges. These privileges, in the case of in- fants, result from their connexion with pi- ous parents. While this connexion subsists, they enjoy a peculiar season of probation. If they pass through this, without becoming pious, and taking upon themselves the bonds of the covenant, their " circumcision is made uncircumcision ;" and they are to be consid- ered in the same light as though they had never been baptized. The pledge, certain- ly, can exist no longer than the privileges, of which it is a seal, exist. The bible knows nothing of children 40, 50 and even 70 years of age in a slate of minority ; while, perhaps, they are at the same time, parents and heads of families of their own.
Leb. But if I should become a Paedobap- tist, I should be loath to adopt a scheme that would cut off from the church, so many who had been baplized. Besides, when
223
any of them were afterwards converted, now* should they be received ? Must they be bap* tized again ?
Eug. This objection is founded entirely on the present unfaithfulness of parents and the churches. If child rem were faithfully brought up — if they were urged to the im- provement of their privileges while they en- joyed them; and understood that the mo- ment they left the parental roof, they would step out of the territory of the church, I ap- prehend, there would be little need of a more extensive plan than that which I am advoca- ting. No consideration could be better cal- culated to impress the youthful mind. They would tremble at the thought of taking the awful step, that must sever them from the church of God and from the blessings of the covenant. In the faithful use of the appoint- ed means, we might generally expect our chil- dren to experience saving blessings, before they leave the family altar. — As to the re- ception of those who might be converted af- terwards there is no difficulty in the ca*e, a- ny more than in the restoration of an excom- municated person, who gives evidence of sincere repentance : and this difficulty is not peculiar to our scheme ; it occurs as often in Baptist churches as in ours. Suffice ii to say, that in our connexion, we do not consider rebaptism, in such a case, either ne- cessary or allowable.*
* The Baptists are by no means agreed on this c;-se. Some say, if a member of their church should prove an apostate, and give «?-
22 i
Lcb. Still there is one objection which, I think, militates powerfully against your plan, If the dissolution of the connexion between the church and the parents, cuts off the children, then when the parents are re- moved by death, the children are cut off from the church.
Eug. There is no weight, at all, in this objection. It is the aet of God in his com- mon providence that removes the parents, in this case ; and that not as a punishment, ei- ther on them or their children. Hence, it can, in no sense, be considered as a dissolu- tion of the constitution of the church. Be- sides if they are real Christians, death does not cut them off from the church: it only removes them to another and more exalted department of it. Therefore their children hold their relation to the church, as long as they would have done if their parents had
idence that he was regenerated afterwards* he must be rebapti- *ed. Others, with propriety, say, that as they cannot tell the state of the heart, and as the man has already been baptized on a credible profession of faith, it is needless to repeat it since they are as liable to be mistaken in the second case as in the first. * But one has attempted to dispose of the difficulty in a summary way. He says, "Such a case cannot occur in a REGULAR liaptist church,- for they require evidence of grace in the jirst instance, mid they can receive no more in the second'* Rut, does this man, like the enthusiastic founders of his sect, claim the faculty of dis- cerning- spirits ? and does he, on this ground, mean to assert that apostacies never occur in the Baptist church ? This cannot be, for a multitude of facts declare the contrary. — Does he then in- tend, that those who have once apostatized, are never restored to the communion of their churches ? Here again facts stare him in the face. Or, does he mean that all the Baptist churches are JRregular P This is, undoubtedly, the fact, whether he intended to be so understood or not. On this ground, and on this alone, I credit the assertion.
225
lived. And herein is presented the mosl important object of one ecclesiastical office, which the present unfaithfulness of the church has rendered almost useless. The office of " deacon'' was originally instituted for the express purpose of taking care of widowed families. It is still the duty, and the principal duty of those who sustain that office, not only to administer to the temporal wants of such, in that situation, ag need assistance ; but especially to take care of their spiritual concerns — to see that the orphan children of the church, who are left without a parental guardian, are placed in a situation where they will be brought up un- der religious instruction and discipline, as becometh the children of saints. — What an unspeakable consolation would it be to the poor man on his dying bed, to have the as- surance that his dear children, whom he loves as his own soul, and whom he is about to leave without a cent of property, will not be cast upon a wide unfeeling world, with- out a pious guardian, but will immediately become the special care of the church. This assurance, methinks, would rob the " king of terrors" of his last sting. For myself I can say, it would afford me more satisfaction than to leave them thousands of silver and gold.
Leu. And, as a Christian, I must say I can most cheerfully subscribe to the same sen- timent. Why, Eugenius, this opens a new world to my view* How is it possible that I have been so blinded before X
226
Eug. The principal reason is, you have never taken the trouble to investigate our system with candour: and another circum- stance, which has contributed to confirm your prejudices is, that our churches have conducted so little according to their profes- sion. During the last century, the glory of the Pasdobaptist church has been veiled in ob- scurity, by her own unfaithfulness. The in- troduction of what was called " the half-way covenant" into the churches of JNew-En£- land — a plan on which, a facetious poet just- ly represents a person as standing with
° One foot secure in church's pale, ** And t'other out ot doors,"
did more towards pulling down the Congre*- gational, and building up the Baptist church- es, than any other event that has ever taken place. From that period, till within a few years, family instruction and discipline were constantly declining. And in other portions of the Paedobaptist church, an awful laxness of discipline has produced similar effects. — By these means, a generation has been rais- ed up, who, instead of reproaching their pa- rents for their unfaithfulness, have taken oc- casion to revile God's gracious covenant, and triumphantly inquire, " What good can it do to baptize children /"
But, blessed be God, we hail the dawn of brighter days. An almost universal sensa- tion on this subject is felt through the Psedo- baptist church. The orthodox churches of New England, with but here and there a a.
227
exception, have returned to gospel order; and what is truly surprizing, their return has even been more rapid than their departure was. Other churches of this country are re- viving their discipline, and appear to be vie- ing with one another, as if to see, which will do most for the instruction and restraint of their baptized children. God is daily own- ing his covenant and blessing those instruc- tions to the sanctification of souls. The time is evidently approaching, when "the hearts of the fathers shall be turned to their children, and the hearts of the children to their, fathers /' and "the Lord will pour out his Spi- rit upon their seedy and his blessing upon their offspring. And they shall spring up among the grass as willows by the water courses. One shall say, I am the Lord's, and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob, and anoth- er shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord and surname himself by the name of Israel." Isa. xliv. 3 — 5.
Leb. But our people are constantly say- ing that our churches are increasing, and that yours are rapidly decreasing. What is the fact?
Eug. That your churches have increased in this country ; and that, some years ago, they did so at our expence, I have admitted, and have shewn you the true cause. But that you are now increasing more rapidly than our churches, if you have ever heard it asserted, it is palpably false. I have of- ten heard it insinuated, for the purpose of
228
exciting prejudice against our system ; but I have never yet found a man possessed of sufficient hardihood to assert it as a fact. Since God has been pouring out bis Spirit so remarkably ol late years, what churches, that make any pretensions to experimental godliness, have not increased ? But have none but yours been distinguished with the effusions of grace ? Have ours been left to languish under the frowns of Heaven ? Let any man cast his eye over our country, and assert these as facts, if he dare.
But suppose you were increasing, and all other churches decreasing, what would that prove? If it were any evidence of the cor- rectness of your scheme, the time has been when popery, and every other false scheme of religion, even infidelity itself, might have urged this argument in their favour. In fact, it would prove nothing but, what the Lord has been pleased, in his holy providence, to prove a thousand times, that in a depraved and ignorant world, error may sometimes suc- ceed at the expence of truth ? On the whole, this is one of the most arrogant, and, at the same time, weakest arguments that your people have ever urged.
Leb. But many of our people say they never doubted the correctness of their scheme, and they know that they are right.
Eug. And pray tell me, do you consider tbat any evidence of their being right ? Do not the advocates of error usually display greater confidence, and far less modesty,
229
than the humble defenders of truth? Were not the Pharisees of old as confident as any of your denomination are, that they were right ; and yet were fatally mistaken ? A man may be very confident ; yea, he may be sincere, and even act conscientiously in the defence of error. So did Saul, in persecu- ting the church. — So do multitudes in the present day. In order for conscience to be right, the understanding must be rightly in- formed. " A good conscience is regulated by the word of God." But " if sincerity and a peaceable conscience are sufficient ; a worshipper of Jupiter may be in as fair a way for heaven, as the disciple of Christi" — You may be as confident as the self-righ- teous Jews were, that you are the peculiar favourites of Heaven, and with equal arro- gance may exclaim " The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are WE ;" you may regard all other denomi- nations with the same contempt that they did the Samaritans ; but this is no evidence that you have any better title than they had, to that exclusive claim.
SECTION VIII.
Eugenius. Hitherto I have acted on the defensive. — You will now permit me to en- ter the lines of your camp, and point out a few of the deformities of your own system; some of which are usually kept concealed 20
230
from the vulvar eye. In the first place, your system leads you to rejt cl the divine authority of the Christian sabbatl).
Leb. What ! do you mean that we do not regard the sabbath /
Eug. I mean just what I say, that your system does not regard the sabbath as a di- vine institution. 1 am not at all surprised at your astonishment. This is one of the secrets of your scheme, with which the com- mon people are not entrusted. J doubt not that the great body of your people suppose that the sabbath is of divine authority ; and your knowing ones find it for their interest to keep them in ignorance of their senti- ments on this point. Conscientious persons might be frightened out of an enclosure in which they knew such a monstrous senti- ment was maintained.
Leb. But are you not mistaken, sir ? Do not our articles of faith distinctly acknow- ledge the sabbath?
Eng. That I am not mistaken I will soon convince you. As to your articles of faith, I shall only say, that articles of faith are one thing, and the practice of those who pro- fess them is another. This is an exposition of those articles ; and I appeal to your own observation, whether there is not a great degree of remissness among your people in sanctifying the sabbath ? Are there not ma- ny things done on that holy day as works of necessity, which are expressly condemned by the word of God ? [" In earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest" Ex. xxxiv. 21.}
231
Leb. Why I have often heard it said that we were not bound to keep the sabbath as strictly as the Jews were.
Eug. This sentiment is exactly conform- able to your system, and on this ground your sabbath is given up: for if you are not to go to the Old Testament to Jearn how to sanctify the sabbath, you will find no di- rection elsewhere. Hence it is evident, that whatever your articles of faith may be, in your practice the sabbath is annulled. And that this is the result of your system is ma- nifest from the concessions of the best in- formed among your denomination. Dr. Gill labours hard to prove that no sabbath ever existed in our world before the egress of Is- rael from Egypt ; and that it was an institu- tion peculiar to the Levitical economy. It is true that he seems disposed to regard the Christian sabbath as a day of worship, and thinks that the practice is sanctioned by apostolic example : but he says expressly that there is " no positive preceptor express command" for it. This is the strongest ground that any of your denomination have ever taken in favour of the sabbath. But many, perceiving that this does not a- inount to any thing like " explicit warrant," have totally rejected it. One of your most intelligent ministers once remarked in my hearing, " The sabbath is the best piece of su- perstition that ever obtained in our world. " — Having an opportunity shortly afterwards to inquire of another of your ministers, as to the meaning of this singular expression,
232
be frankly replied, " We do not consider the sabbath of Divine authority, but merely as an ordinance of the church." He then added, " We deem it a very important institution, and therefore would discipline our members if they did not regard it." I answered, "I am no advocate for priestcraft: if this is a mere ordinance of the church, convince me that it is so, and I will tell my people that those of them who are church-members must keep the sabbath, but those who are not, may labour if they please." " Oh," said he, "the law of the stale requires every citizen to abstain from labour on the sabbath." I replied, "Very true, but that law is made under the conviction that the sabbath is a divine institution : convince our legislators that this is a mistake, and they will repeal it." His answer was, what 1 think every Christian and good citizen will approve,"/ believe it is better as it is." He moreover sta- ted, in the course of the conversation, that he bad once said, he would as soon keep Friday or any other day in the week for a sabbath as the first day, if his church should ordain it; but candidly acknowledged, that after having had the trial, he thought otherwise. Having once entered into mercantile busi- ness with a seventh-day Baptist, in a place principally inhabited by people of that sen- timent, for the sake of accommodation and saving of time, he conformed to their prac- tice. " But after living a few months," said be, " a stranger to a quiet conscience, I felt constrained to relinquish the concern."
233
I give this man credit for his candour, and 1 think his scruples did honour to his heart. And does it not manifestly appear, that, al- though in theory he rejected the divine au- thority of the sabbath, his conscience secret- ly acknowledged it ? And now tell me, Leb- beus, did you ever hear any of your preach- ers, who were thoroughly acquainted with your system, attempt to prove that the Christian sabbath is a divine institution ?
Leo. I have sometimes heard them preach on the importance of keeping the sabbath.
Eug. That is not an answer to my ques- tion. Did you ever hear them attempt to shew, from the word of God, that the first day of the week is to be sanctified as the Christian Sabbath I
Leb. Why really, as to that point, I am not able to answer. I never thought of such a distinction before; and therefore, when- ever I have heard them speak of the sabbath,. I took it for granted that they regarded it as a divine institution. But pray tell me, how does this grow out of our system?
Eug. Do you not perceive ? You demand "explicit warrant;" for all that you believe* and practice ; but there is no <& explicit war- rant" for the change of the sabbath. This and infant baptism stand on the very same ground, as to mode of proof. The same mode of reasoning that establishes the Chris- tian sabbath as a divine institution, gives the same claims to infant baptism. So your peo- ple, in order to get rid of one which they 20*
hate with perfect hatred, and at the same time be self-consistent, reject both. Hence, you perceive that the rejection of the sab- bath is a necessary part of your system. — Some of your denomination, who are unwil- ling to adopt such a demoralizing senti- ment, finding no explicit warrant in the New Testament for the observance of the first day, and considering the precept of the 4th commandment as relating exclusively to the seventh day, observe that as their sabbath. Hence they are denominated Seventh-day Baptists. And 1 must confess I consider their scheme less baleful in its consequences than yours. However, I do not bJame you for the total rejection of the sabbath, that is, on the supposition that you are determin- ed to be self consistent at the expense of truth. But that must be an awful system, which, in order to preserve consistency, leads to such results.
After all, is it a fact that your system is consistent? Far from it : — there are some things, for which you might plead " explicit warrant," that you do not regard ; and others, for which you have no such warrant, which you practise. Why do you not observe the washing of one another's feet; (Job. xiii. 14, 15.) and " anointing the sick with oil ? (Jam. v. 14.) These precepts the founders of your sect, in the xvith century, felt constrained to obey literally ; and I see no reason, on your plan, why you should not do the same. In both instances the precept is explicit;
235
but you have no " explicit warrant" for f& male communion. This, therefore, I mention as another inconsistency in your system.
Leb. You are doubtless aware that Mr. Booth and others deduce an explicit war- rant for female communion from 1 Cor. xi. 28. by shewing that the Greek word render- ed " wian" in that passage, is a generic term including women as well as men.
Eug. That the word "*anlhroposyi is fre- quently used in that manner, 1 do not dis- pute ; but that it is always used thus, Mr. B. himself dared not assert. His language is extremely cautious ; and by way of in- terrogation. He asks " Does not the word ' anthropos* OFTEN stand as a name of our species without regard to sex? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that passage?" Suppose it is often used in that manner, this does not decide the point. The question is, " Is it always used so ; at least in the New Testament ?" If there is a single exception, the explicit warrant is destroyed. And that there are scores of exceptions, every school-boy knows.
But there is one assertion made by Mr. B. with respect to this word which I cannot pass over in silence. " When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, says he, the word for a man is not ' anlhropos" but laneerJi9 Does he mean that this is always the case ? As a man of veracity be dared not assert it ; though his language seems to imply it. I
236
refer to the following texts as exceptions. Mat. xix. 3, 5, 10. Mar. x. 7. 1 Cor. vii. 1, Eph. v. 3]. Rev. ix. 7, 8. In all these pas- sages, the sexes are distinguished and oppo- sed, as the English reader may see by in- specting the text; and yet in every one of them the word " anthropos" and not " aneer" is used to distinguish man from woman. — What then has become of the explicit war- rant for female communion? It surely can^ not be found in this text.
Lttb. But, sir, there are other texts which are referred to as containing this warrant.
Eug. What are they ? Do name them.
Leb. The author to whom I have alrea- dy referred more than once, says, " Jesus commanded his disciples, lliis do in remem- brance of mt."
Eug. Very true; but there were no fe- males present when he gave this command.
Leb. I acknowledge it, but he said this to his disciples ; and " pious females are in the scriptures called disciples ; hence pious females feel themselves commanded to com- mune at the Lord's table."
Eug. This again is " logical reasoning," even in the due form of a st/llogismy and therefore it must be " logic" But surely logical reasoning is not explicit warrant. If it be, then there is abundance of "explicit warrant" for infant baptism. Butour op- ponents say, No ! this will not answer : this is " carnal reason," which can never war- rant a religious practice ; and yet they re-
237
sort to the same method to justify female communion ! " SHAME, WHERE IS THY BLUSH!! Mil"—
Rut, conceding to our opponents, what they will not concede to us, (for their cause needs every advantage,) that a fair deduc- tion from scripture premises, is explicit war- rant, let us now examine your author's syl- logism, and see whether it is fair " logical reasoning." — ".Jesus commanded his disci- ples, This do in remembrance of me — pious females are called disciples — hence pious females FEEL themselves commanded to commune at the Lord's table." The main fault to be found with this example is, that the conclusion is not contained, in the premises. It does not affirm that "pious females are commanded, &c." but merely that they "feel themselves commanded/' These may be their feelings, and yet unless it is proved that their feelings are correct, the case stands precisely where it did before the syllogism was formed. And if another should be made to establish this point, and the conclu- sion should be expressed in similar termsP the point at issue would still remain without support. And thus syllogisms might be multiplied ad infinitum, without proving any thing.— -Rut why are these two words lug- ged in, at all? A "logical reasoner" surely would not have done so. Do you suppose your author did not perceive that they com- pletely destroyed his logic? Why did he not say expressly, " Hence pious females
238
are commanded to commune at the Lord's table V*. Was he not evidently afraid to as- seit tiial which he knew to be absolutely fal*e ; viz. that they are commanded to do so, when it was well known that there is no such command.. This would have overset the whole ; it would have been declaring an "explicit warrant," where there is none.
But let us suppose these words erased from the conclusion, and that there is no impropriety in affirming, that pious females are commanded to do what they are not commanded. I will test the correctness of this reasoning by a syllogism formed on the same premises, having respect to another class of persons : viz.
Jesus commanded his disciples, "Tins do in remembrance of me."
But hypocrites, or persons who followed Christ merely for the loaves and fishes, are, in the scriptures, called disciples, See John vi. 66,
Therefore hypocrites, or those who follow Christ merely for the loaves and fishes, are commanded to commune at the Lord's table.
Now I submit to your own judgment whether my syllogism does not prove as much as yours? This, Lebbeus, I sincerely hope is the last example of such "logical reasoning" that we shall have in our inter- view. I must confess I am weary of expo- sing such contemptible sophistry.
Leb. But, sir, you will permit me to re- mark, that " the mother of Jesus and other pious women were of the number of disci- ples to whom the 3000 wTere added ; (Acts L and ii.) a part of the 3000 were women \
:39
and we read that they, not somebody else, continued in the observance of" t bis ordi-
nance, '
Evg. We read that " they continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, eating their meat with gladness and singleness of heart." Acts ii. 46. But that this " breaking of bread from house to house," means celebrating the Lord's supper, remains to be proved. You mav infer it, but inference is not explicit wan ant. You must be awaie that very different opinions have been entertained on this passage, by those who have had no view to this controversy : and from the mode of expression, and its connexion, I appeal to your own understanding, whether this act does not refer most naturally to the " com- munity of goods," spoken of in the prece- ding verse. At any rate it is not explicit warrant, for the thing itself is very ques- tionable.
Leo. I will trouble you with but one more text; and that is 1 Cor. x. 17. There " the apostle, after treating expressly of the rights and duties of female disciples, says, We are all partakers o) that one bread."
Eug. Lebbeus, this is truly an astonish- ing contrivance. The apostle does indeed treat, in ttie viith chapter of this Epistle, on the subject of marriage and the respective duties of husbands and wives. But does it follow from tins, that whatever he says in the subsequent part of the Epistle, is ad-
240
dressed to persons initial relation ? Thi* is very far fiom even looking like "explicit warrant." Besides this, the apostle com- mences an entirely new subject at the viiith chapter, and also in the ixth and xth, which have no more respect to the viith than one of hi<epii4les to another church. And what is truly remarkable in this xth chapter to which you have referred, he does not even once mention 1 lie female sex as distinguished from tiie male. He begins " Moreover, brethren, Sfc" "Let him that thinketb he standeth lake heed lest he fall, &c." — " There hath no temptation taken you but what is common to man.'" "I speak as to wise men." You may say that these terms include females, and I believe it; but this is not " explicit warrant." — It is vain, Leb- be us, for your denomination to labour this point. It is out of their power to ad- duce explicit warrant for female commu- nion.
Leb. But, sir, it has been said, "If your denomination have any doubts about the propriety of the practice, you are certainly bound to lay it aside, till the matter is clear to your own mind."
Ens?. The fact is, we have no doubts on the subject. We receive female communion on the same ground, that we do infant bap- tism, and we are perfectly satisfied of the correctness of our conduct in both cases. Our only reason for urging it against you, is, io shew that you are inconsistent with your-
241
selves. You admit one practice without " explicit warrant," and reject another for the want of " explicit warrant." Hence, we charge you with inconsistency; and with all your "flouncing" and "logic" and "parade of words" and appeals to " lexicographers" and " common sense," vou cannot clear yourselves of the charge.
I now remark another awful result of your system. It leads you to reject the whole of the Old Testament, as being any part of the revealed will of Heaven to the Christian church. This charge I know is as often re- pelled as it is made, and yet the ground of it is as often renewed. I do not accuse you of denying the inspiration of the law and the prophets, as the ancient hereticks did. But your sentiment in practice amounts to near- ly the same thing. With the Old Testament church, the Old Testament itself is thrown away. If any reference is made to it to prove a Christian duly, your only answer is, " That is all done away — it is no rule for the faith or practice of Christians." And hence we might as well quote the Talmud or Alcoran to prove a Christian duty, as the ancient oracles of God. You can dispose of the authority of the latter, as easily as that of the former.
Again; your system virtually excommu- nicates the great body of the real disciples of Christ. You reject communion with tl;e whole Pffidohaptist church, which, some cf your denomination are arrogant enough to affirm, is not a church of Christ. If so, pray, 21
242
bow long was Jesus Christ without a church on earth? I have proved that the whole church was Paedobaptist for 1500 years. — Dr. Gill admits that there is no evidence to the contrary during 700 years. What then has become of the promise of Chi 1st that " the gates of hades shall not prevail against it?" The church has always been "a little flock"compared with the unbelieving world: but if all that practise infant baptism are to be excluded from the fold, she was during a long period extinct y and even now, she is a very "little flock." In some nations, which have been called Christian for ages, she has scarcely a single altar.
Close communion is deemed essential to self-consistency on your plan : but again I say that must be an awful plan, which, to maintain self consistency, leads to such re- sults. I must confess, it has " a frightful as- pect :" not, however, " to the uninformed and less conscientious part of the Christian •world ;" but to the intelligent and conscien- tious Christian. Yea, the more information he possesses, and the more susceptible his conscience is, the more "odious" will the practice appear. — Whence is it that your most intelligent and conscientious converts often exhibit such extreme reluctance to join your churches, even after they feel persuaded that your mode is right ? Do they not tell you, that they tremble to take the awful step which must exclude from their fellowship thousands and tens of thousands
243
of the sincere and bumble friends of Jesus ? And every expedient is used to obscure their correct views, and steel their conscien- ces against these pious affections, before they can be made willing to pass the Rubi- con, that separates the great body of the church from their Christian communion, Mriny are beguiled by being told that they can have spiritual communion with all real Christians ; and even, entertain the sen- timent of free communion, without prac^ tising it. But the intelligent and conscien- tious Christian is not to be duped by such means. He cannot discharge his conscience by feeling right, without the privilege of act- ing right.
For further evidence that close commu- nion is most abhorrent to the most intelligent and conscientious, you may recur to facts. Cast your eye over the water, behold the learned and catholic Robekt Hall, who stands second to none in the Baptist church in England. Deeply convinced of the im- propriety of the sentiment that excommu- nicates all the followers of Jesus who are not found within the narrow pale of his church, he has boldly denounced it, and written a volume, which has already gone through several editions, to prove its absur- dity. Nor has he laboured in vain. His worthy example has been followed by sev- eral of his brethren both in England and A- merica, and is daily gaining ground. Such facts need no comment. They speak vol-
244
times to the world; and while they afford singular evidence of individual piety, they till your camp with trembling. — It is true, the step which these distinguished individu- als have taken, has exposed them to the charge of inconsistency, which is daily vocif- erated from the mouth of every bigot : but it is better, and I presume they esteem it so, to be deemed inconsistent with ourselves, than to be inconsistent with the first princi- ples of the Christian religion. With pro- priety may it be said to such persons " If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, hap- py are ye ; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you. On their part he is evil spo^ ken oj, hut on your part he is glorified. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in other men's matters.* Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but let him glorijy God on this behalf. — Ha- ving a good conscience ; that, nhtrcas they speak evil of you as evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conver- sation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for yell-doing than for evil doings 1 Pet. iv. 14—16. iii. 16, 17. — In view of these facts, Lebbeus, which think you, bids the fairest lo be " rapidly purged out," infant baptism or close comnm-
* The litcrr,; translation of this phrase i^ " ove that make;. himself a bishop in another >r<a/j'.v charge »r diocese" endeavouring tt> !e:>J st-"*y iiis Hock, 8cc. fee
nion? Upon the continuance of which, would you rather have your life suspended?
One inquiry more, and 1 have done. — Which are the churches that, by your sys- tem, are excluded from 1 lie pale of Christ's visible kingdom, and are often branded as the limbs of Popery and Antichrist? They are the very churches, which, as in every past age, are, at the present time, doing a hundred-fold more to promote the cause of Christianity, than all their revilers have done. — Who are the men that have spent their lives, not in secular pursuits to the starving of their flocks,, but in illustrating; and defending the truth of the bible ; and who, "though dead yet speak I" The fruits of their labours are left behind, and have al- ready been blessed to the salvation of thou- sands; and will still remain a rich legacy for generations yet unborn. Remove from our shelves all the books which have been written by Paedobaptists, and how many volumes will there be left ? A few pam- phlets on immersion and close communion will then constitute the whole of our libra- ries.* lam bold to affirm that "the wri- tings of one individual of the Psedobaptists — the first President Edwards — are of tenfold
* These remarks are made with special reference to this coun- try. There are many honourable exceptions on the Other side oi the Atlantic. The names of the late Dr. Fulltii, of Fosteb and Hall would do honour to any communion, and will be embalmed, in the hearts of posterity. And it is no small evidence of the real greatness of these men, that instead of spending* their lives in contention with other churches about modes and fortm
2.1*
more worth, thai) all the writings of your denomination, in this country, from its first settlement to the present day." And are these churches, and these godly ministers the " limbs of Popery and Antichrist ;" or is the sentiment a base and unfounded ca- lumny ?
But I forbear. The bigotry, the arro- gance, and the uncharitableness of your sys- tem, sicken my very soul. I would sooner part with ray right hand than subscribe to its pretentions.
Now, Lebbeus, you see the broad line of demarkation between your church and ours. You plainly perceive that there can be no accommodation between the two systems. If one is right, the other must be wrong : and all attempts to unite them, must be as unsuccessful as the attempt "to weld iron and clay." And which of them is " buili on the foundation of the prophets and apos- tles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cor- ner stone," I now cheerfully submit to your decision.
Leb. I candidly acknowledge, Eugenius, that your arguments are unanswerable ; and that our system is full of inconsistencies, which must render it abhorrent to every pi- great object of the ir labours has been to illustrate the doctrines and enforce the duties of the gospel of Christ. One of them in pa ticular has openly attacked the narrow bigotry of his own church, and boldly extended the hand of Christian fellowship to other denominations : Under such auspices, and with such an apostle as Carey, the cause of missions may well be expected to. succeed.
217
oils ami candid mind. From this hour, I shall date my emancipation from its bon- dage. I am now convinced that the mode of baptism can be of little consequence com- pared with the subjects. But as this is es- teemed a point of essential importance, by the advocates of immersion, and as I am ve- ry little acquainted with the arguments in support of your practice, I shall feel myself under additional obligations, if you will fa- vour me with your sentiments on that sub- ject also.
Eug. This I shall do with the utmost cheerfulness.
SECTION IX.
On the mode of Baptism,*
Eugenius. You have justly remarked that the mode of baptism is of little consequence
* The Baptists scarcely ever attempt to treat this branch of the subject, without expressing their aversion to the phrase " made of baptism,'' because, say they, it seems to imply that baptism may be performed more ways than one; "whereas im- mersion is baptism itself— to say that immersion or dipping- is the tnpde of br.ptisrn, is the same thing as to say, that dipping- is the mode of dipping." And to call "sprinkling a mode of baptism is just such good sense as to say that sprinkling is the mode of dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same." This may piss for "logical reasoning;'* with Baptists; but a child may perceive that it is begging the question at the outset. The very point to be proved i ;. that baptism and immersion or dipping mean the same thing. Bat this our opponents assume at the threshold of the controversy, and. then pretend to prove it. This is done by asserting it over and over again, without an argument to sup- port i%. until their hearers or readers, mistaking assertion for ar- gument, verily believe the point is established. " This passes fov currency with those ivho do not examine for themselves"
248
compared with the other point of controver- sy. For if the constitution of the church still includes the infants of believers, which has been proved, then those churches which have adopted that constitution must be the true and regular gospel churches. Their constitution being right, no informality in external rites, if it did exisf, could des- troy their church state. On the other hand, any formality in rites and ceremonies, how- ever conformable to divine institution, can- not render those societies regular churches, which rejectand ridicule the constitution that the Lord has ordained. In making these re- marks, 1 would not be understood to admit that I consider our mode less conformable to divine institution than our opponents' ; but to enforce the idea that the grand point of difference between the two systems is that which has been discussed : and consequent- ly that the Baptists, in attaching so much importance to the mode, as to reject com- munion with thousands and tens of thousands of real Christians, merely because they have never been completely under water, is in fact "paying tythes of mint, arutis and cum mm, and omitting the weightier mailers of the law." Common sense decides against attaching so much consequence to external rites, and the scriptures give it no countenance. Some of your preachers have indeed ridden "the red heifer"* of the ceremonial law, till she is
* In some places this allusion may not be perfectly intelligi- ble. To render it so, I need only observe, that, in this part of
219
completely worn out in the service ; hut they have not yet proved that the Lord ever at- tached so much importance, even under the ceremonial economy, to the mode of perfor- ming a religious rite, as to nullify the act for want of exact conformity to the institution; especially when it was done from conviction of duty, and with sincere and upright inten- tions, [n such a case, he expresses his dis- approbation of the informality, but accepts
the country, the Baptists, among- other flimsy arguments to in- duce people of tender consciences to be immersed, huve urged the necessity of conforming exactly to divine rule, by an allusion to the red heifer which Moses was commanded to take for the purification of the people. This lias been a favourite subject of declamation with some. " Although," say they, •■ this was a mere ceremonial observance, yet no other colour than red would an- swer. Therefore, nothing- but immersion.'* Here, again, it is evi- dent there is an assumption of the very point in dispute. We believe that no other colour would answer in that case, and that be- cause the Lord had explicitly declared it. But it is not so with respect to baptism. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. In order to make them so, let us suppose that the Lord, without specifying any particular colour, had commanded Moses to take a coloured heifer, &c. would the Baptists undertake to prove that none but a red heifer would answer ? They might urge in sup port of that idea that red is the brightest of all colours, and there-, fore answers most fully to the idea of a coloured heifer — that it corresponds with the colour of the cedar-wood, and hyssop and scarlet-wool, &c. and after adopting this notion, they might exclude from their communion all who would not subscribe to the same opinion, with as much propriety as they now exclude those who do not believe that baptism implies immersion. — Or, let them first prove that the Lord has as explicitly (old us, that baptism must be performed by immersion, as he did Moses that the heifer must be red, before they ur^c the latter in support of the former. But since this cannot be done, and since the Lord h; s commanded his people to be baptized, without specifying- the quantity of water to be used; whether three drop*, or a gaUoHt or a hoq-shead, or a hike ; it is evident that there is no more ana- logy between the red heifer and immersion, than there is between the profession of a Jeij and a Baptist. I am astonished that such mortal enemies to the ceremonial law should ever urge any of its provisions in support of their system.
25a
the service according to the intention of the heart. Thus, at the passo&er which was ce- lebrated by Hezekiah, "a multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves, vet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written, But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that preparelh his heart to seek God, the Lord God of Ins fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, And the Lord hearkened to He- zekiah, and healed the people." 2Chron.xxx0 18 — =20. Here was a departure from ex- press precept, which was understood and acknowledged by the king and people; and yet the Lord graciously accepted their ser- vice, because their hearts were sincere.
Lzb. I think I have seen this fact alluded to before for the same purpose, and heard it answered, that the Lord did not accept their service ; and, therefore, they kept the feast over again, verse 23. " And the whole assembly took counsel to keep other seven days; and they kept other seven days with gladness."
Eug. The people were so delighted with the worship of God, during the first seven days of unleavened bread, that, of their viva ehoice, they resolved to keep the feast seven days longer. But this was not designed as a substitute for the former, nor was the pass- over repeated. If this had been their de- sign, instead of repairing what they had done amiss, it would have been a repetition
251
of the offence ; for they were no more pu- rified, according to the law, in the second week than in the first. And in another point of view, it would have been a still greater departure from divine precept. The Lord had commanded them to keep the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. — But if any were not purified at that time, they were directed to keep it on the four- teenth day of the second month. This was the very time in which Hezekiah had ap- pointed the passover, because the priests were not purified in the first month. Vers. 2, 3, 13, 1^>. To suppose, therefore, that the people, of their own option, kept the feast over again on the twenty -first of the month, is to make them depart still further from di- vine institution. But the fact is plain. The Lord graciously accepted them, not withtand- ing the informality of their worship, and gave them such delight in his service, as in- duced them to extend the feast of unleaven- ed bread seven days longer. — This fact, therefore, plainly shews that if the Baptists were as exact imitators of the example of Christ as they profess to be, they would be willing to extend the hand of Christian com- munion, to all those who have sincerely dis- charged their own consciences in the obser- vance of a religious rite, even though, in their opinion, they may have departed from the prescribed rule.*
* " Bui, say the Baptists, in refusing to commune ivith your churches, ~ue act precisely on the growid you do. You w««W not
552
Forms of worship or religious rites are positive institutions; and are, therefore, ob- ligatory no further than they are explicitly revealed. That the mode of baptism is so distinctly revealed, as to prove that immer- sion is essential to its due performance, we most unequivocally deny; and I pledge myself to establish t lie position. — All the ar- guments that your denomination use in fa- vour of immersion may be reduced to two general heads, viz.
3. The import of the original word. And . 2. The circumstances attending the ad- ministration of the ordinance, as expressed in the sacred record.
admit to the Lord's table, ove -who had never been baptized : in ouv view, you are vnbaptized persons ; and therefore, for the same rea- so7is iokich you would alledge, we cannot commune -until you" This looks very plausible at first view ; but it is easy to see that there is a vast difference between their practice and ours. We should indeed consider it improper to admit to our communion, a per- son who denies and refuses to submit bo the ordinance of bap- tism in any mode or form. But, although we have a preference tor a particular mode, yet we do not attach so much consequence to the mode, as to refuse any who have discharged their own con- sciences in the observance of this rite, whether by immersion, pouring- or sprinkling. Here then lies the difference. We say, " We are -willing to admit to our communion, all the children of God •who liuve discharged their consciences inregard to 4oater baptism" The Baptists say, " We will admit none however pious and consci- entious, until they have complied with our forms ; end thus dischar- ged OUR consciences, as well as thtir own" Ir this is not " lord- ing it over other men's consciences" I know not what is
But demands one, ** Can yon fellowship a man in doing what you dare not, as conscientious Christian?, do yourselves ?'' 1 answer, Yes, in regard to modes and forma not explicitly revealed Especially, when I see my Lord and Master overlooking, what I consider his irregularity, and blessing him with the tokens of his favour, I feel it to be my imperious duty, to " fellowship" him as one of God's children.
" O / says the Baptist r.gain, we go as far as Christ doe1? : — he Communes with you sriniTTALLT, and so do we ! /" And pray, does
2jS
In regard to the first, the Baptists assert, that the Greek word "baptizo" always im- plies immersion : and in attestation of this, they refer to " lexicographers," and " com- mon sense," and "fathers," and "reformers," and " historians," and " learned authors," and " quakers ;'' the most of whose writings, many of them have never read in all their lives. But, although this may serve to make the vulgar think that those who can make such abundant references, must themselves be very "learned authors;" yet what is this to the point in hand? Why is reference made at all, to this motley mixture of wor- thies and unworthies ? The opinion of one man is no better than that of another, in a controversy that is to be decided by the word of God. The question is, What is the im-
Christ commune with Christian Baptists in any other way ? DM he ever appear bodily, at one of their communion tables ? This w* have never heard asserted ; though the impious attempt was made, a few years ago, in a neighbouring* state, to persuade the world that the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a dove, in * Eaptist church, and perched on the head of the minister, who was declaiming on immersion : but the " cheat tvas soon detected" and held up to merited contempt.
Again, the advocate of close communion observes, " We admit that Christ communes with you, in the same manner that he does -with us ? but not on brkad A5D wiNE." Is it fact then, that Christ communes with Christian Fiedo baptists, in all their reli- gious services, until they approach the communion table ; and then, covers his face with a cloud, which not a ray of light di- vine can penetrate ? Instead of his banner of love, does he spread clouds of vengeance over their heads? If the testimony of V? - dobaptists may not be received in this case, I call upon those few charitable Baptists, who have broken over the unchristian bar- riers of their own church and taken an occasional seat at our ta- ble, to answer these questions. Say, brethren ; did not Jesus manifest himself there " in the breaking of bread?" Did not your *' hearts bum within you," white you received the sacred svmbols 22- •
254
port of the word " baptizo" as it is used in the scriptures ? Does it there always signify immersion? If so, then we yield the point. I3ut if there is a single exception, our oppo- nents are down. " To Ihe law and the tes- timony," therefore, we make the appeal.
Permit me then to refer you to Mark vii. 4. where it is said of the Pharisees, "When they come from the market except they wash (in the original it is " baptize,") they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptizing) of cups and pots and brazen vessels and of tables."
Leb. But "this does not refer to the or- dinance of baptism."
of his body and blood, from the handsof a "sprinkled priest," in the midst of a " sprinkled throng ?" Were you not ready to exclaim, ■■* Surely Jesus is in tins place, though Ikneiv it not before ?" These questions I cheerfully submit to your decision ; but to propose them to your close communion brethren, would be to submit a question concerning- colours to the blind.
To cap the climax of absurdity, another says, " Christ is a Sove- reign and can do as he pleases j but xoe can go no further than he has commanded ! ! /" And can Christ, because he is a Sovereign, do morally ivrong ? This must be the meaning of the objection, if it is morally wrong for Baptists to commune with Paedobaptists. — But, Christ has commanded his people to follow his example : and if he sets the example of communing with Paedobaptists, how can Baptists dispense with the command.
Driven from every other refuge, I hear a thousand whispers, at once, " If we give up close communion, our church is down." — "Aye, f.here's the rub." This is undoubtedly correct ; and this is the grand secret of close communion. For the sake of maintaining a system and promoting a party, nine tenths of Christ's sheep are to "be turned out into the wilderness, and treated like wolves : though he continues to foster them -with a shepherd's care. Here, then, stands the hideous monster, in his native deformity, divested of his CLO \K of " zeal for Divine institutions." Who, that possesses the head of a wise man, or the heart of a Christian, will give hi** ' ' the right hand of fellowship ?"
25£
Eug. And that is the very reason why I refer to it. It is the same word in the ori- ginal, that is applied to the ordinance of bap- tism ; and therefore, serves to explain its meaning. And as it does not signify immer- sion here, it is evident that it does not al- ways imply that idea.
Ijcb. I have often heard it said, that the immersion in the former part of this verse, relates to the hands, and not to the whole body ; because the Evangelist says, in the verse immediately preceding, " Except they wash their hands oft, they eat not." Ver. 3.
Eug, Admit that, and your difficulty is increased ; for in the preceding verse, where the Evangelist says, "Except they wash their hands oft,'' he does not use the word "bap- tizo" but " nipto" which properly signifies to wash one hand with the other ; and which, in this case, is evidently used as synonymous with " baptizo" Except they wash (nipson- taij their hands oft, they eat not. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisonlai) they eat not." The first is a general declaration of their frequent wash- ingSy and the second is given as one example, Who then that has any regard to truth, or title to " common sense," will say, that these words are used in a different sense ? and if they are, which, from its connexion, seems most likely to imply immersion ? The bal- ance is manifestly in favour of " nipto'?9 and yet no man pretends that this implies that idea.
Again, observe the recurrence of the word
256
u baptize?* at the close of this verse, and al- so in the 8th verse. " The baptising of cups, pots, brazen vessels and tables," or rather couches or beds ; for so the word properly signifies, and thus it is invariably rendered, except in this case. See Mat. ix. 6. Mar. iv. 21. Luke v. 19,24. viii. 16. xvii. 34. Acts v. 15. Rev. ii. 22.
Leb. But it has been said, " If the washing of hands, cups, platters, &c. was for the pur- pose of cleanliness, this passage concludes in our favour; for this is generally done by wetting all the parts thus washed."
Eug. The man that makes this supposition does not believe that those washings were " for the purpose of cleanliness." Our Sa- viour or his apostles never blamed any man for washing his hands, or any thing else, when they were defiled. I presume they were as cleanly in their persons and table- furniture, as the Pharisees. The baptisms here spoken of, were washings enjoined by the traditions of the elders ; not for the pur- pose ofcleanliness, but as an appendage to the ceremonial purifications, in token of their superior righteousness. But if " learn- ed writers have clearly shewn," what, by the way, the bible does not, but directly the contrary, (Exo. xxx. Lev. viii. Num. xix.) " that ceremonial washings were performed
by PUTTING ALL OVER UNDER WATER;" Can
any learned or unlearned man tell how they baptised their couches or beds? Will " common sense," which Mr. Booth consid- ers incomparably better than learned men,
237
decide in favour of immersion 11 — Is It not; perfectly ridiculous to see the Baptists re- ferring to the authority of learned men, when their testimony seems to favour their pecu- liarities, and at other times treating them with contempt and disdain ?
Here then is a case, in which the words " baptizo" and "n*/?/o" are evidently used synonymously ; and yet neither of them signifies immersion. If this import could bo attached to either, the latter has manifestly the strongest claim. Now if there were no other similar example in the word of God, this would be sufficient to shew, that the ar- gument founded on the meaning of 'the word "baptisa" is inconclusive. — But there are other examples. The same remarks apply to Luke xL3o. where it is said " the Phar- isee marvelled that he- (Jesus) had not first washed (baptized) before dinner," Will any man in his senses believe that the Jews never ate a meal without previously immers- ing themselves ? So/ne Baptists have indeed asserted this ; and for the convenience o£ the operation, tbey have, ai their own expenee, furnished every house in Jerusalem, with a private bath, sufficiently targe for the im- mersion of the inhabitants and all the furni- ture of the house ! But all this is assertion without a shadow of evidence,- — That each house was furnished with vessels for their ceremonial purification is indeed evident ; but that these were large enough for the im- mersion of the hod yT does not appear, On the contrary, their capacity* in the only ifcr 22*
2:38
stance in which it is mentioned, is declared to be "two or three firkins apiece*;" and they were furnished with means for drawing out the water for use. See John ii. 6 — 8, Hence, it was impossible for them to im- merse their bodies or large pieces of furni- ture in such vessels. And I will add, that if they had cleansed, even their cups and plat- ters in that way, there would have been no foundation for our Saviour to accuse them of cleansing merely the outside of these vessels : for in immersing them, they could have made no distinction between the in- side and the outside. Both would have been equally clean.
I will now refer you to an example that not only decides against immersion, but di- rectly in favour of sprinkling. In the Epis- tle to the Hebrews, the apostle, in referring to the ceremonial economy, makes mention of" meats and drinks and divers wetshingsJ* (Gr, baptisms.) Heb. ix. 10. But how were these divers baptisms performed? Of this the apostle proceeds to give an example, "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, &c." Comp. Num. xix. and Heb. ix. Here, then, it seems that oney at least, of those divers baptisms was performed by sprinkling. — Where then is the assertion that the word always implies " all over under water ?"
* The word rendered Jlrkin, was a measure containing a littler r*ss than eve gallon.
259
Again, St. Paul declares fbft't all the Is- raelites "were baptized unto Moses, in the* cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. x. 2. I aru aware that the Baptists, in order to get rid of this text, have spread the cloud on the surface of the sea, or made it a complete* canopy over their heads, necessarily touch- ing the surface of the sea on each side, and the bottom of the sea, before and behind them, it is true, the scripture saith "the pillar of the cloud went from before their face and stood behind them :" and I am willing to admit that, in its transition, it might have passed over their heads; but this change took place before they entered the sea ; and, no intimation is given that they were, at any time, enveloped in the maimer supposed. — But even admitting that this was the case, it must be a very strange and unprecedent- ed kind of baptism, in which, not a particle^ of the element is permitted to touch the bo- dy. I have been in the habit of supposing, that in order to a right performance of bap- tism, water, in seme measure or olher, must be applied to the person. But, according to this conjecture, Baptists might easily con- trive a method to immerse their proselytes, without ever permitting a drop of water to touch the body. This would be vastly con- venient, especially in the winter season, and at all times for sick people.* But ai-
* This happy fancy is still further countenanced by Dr. Gill?s remarks on 1 Pet. in. 20, 21. He there insists that the apostle>
260
though a person might in this manner, he truly immersed, yet he could not he consid- ered truly baptized: nor do I beiieve that the Israelites were thus baptized ; but that they were sprinkledhy the spray of the sea, and a shower of rain from clouds passing over them.
Leb. But one of our writers says this b "a very vain fancy, because it is said they went over 6vy shod,"
Eug. Then it seems one of your writers believes that they were baptized, without
in calling" Noah's salvation by toater a TiJ-e figure to our ■ salvation by baptism, alludes to the mode of baptism ; therefore, he feel*' constrained to contrive a way to Kave Noah and his family im- mersed. Rut how is this accomplished ? — Why simply thus, first » n shutting them up m the ark r" and then, (S when the fountain?, of the great deep were broken up below, and the windows of heaven were opened above, the ark with those in it, wrre, as it ■were, covered with and imme<rs$d\ft water ; arid so was a figure of baptism by immersion." Now does not this look like "heading- a man up in a dry eask and plunging it under water, and then li- king him out as one truly immersed ?" No ! it is not half so ortho- dox a method as this ; for the ark was only sprinkled or poured upon, but the cask has been "ail over under water." — But Dr. Gill, not contented with attempting- to prove the madeof baptism from the case of Noah, undertakes to shew from the same, who are the proper subjects. The whole argument is contained in- two lines. " As there were none but adult persons in the ark, who were saved by water in it, so none but adult persons are the proper subjects of water baptism !" Reader, is this logic ? If so, *hen because ail the beasts »f the fie'O and the fowls of the air and creeping1 things were baptized, according' to Dr. Gill's doc~ trine, with Noah in the ark ; therefore, though infants are exclu- ded, the beasts and fowls and all creeping things (except creep- ing children^ are proper subjects of Christian baptism.
But, to be serious, 1 think it must be evident to the most su- perficial reader, that St. Peter, in mentioning the case of No»h,. does not give the least intimation of his being- baptized in any mode whatever. He merely says, "eight souls were saved by water, the like figure whereuuto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting av/ny of the filth of the fiesh, but the an- swer-of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of^ •Jesus Chrisit," As Noah a»d feis family were saved by water, the
261
having a particle of water come in contact with them. And a very cogent reason he assigns for that belief: " because they went over dry-shod." But, did a man never walk dry-shod through a shower of rain ? — If such reasoning is not trijiing, I know not what is. But the interpretation which I have adopt- ed, is not so " vain a fancy" as your author supposes; for there is a "Thus saith the Lord" for it. "Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. The waters saw thee, O God; the waters saw thee, they were afraid, the deptha also were troubled. The clouds poured out water" Psal. lxxvii. 15 — 17. Now, sir,
water of the same flood, that swept an ungodly world to hell ; so baptismal water, which is (not the antitype of Noah's salvation, but) a figure or representation of the blood of Christ, saves the true believer, while at the same time it proves the aggravated condemnation of those who reject him. — And if baptism is " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh," why be washed all over ? Immersion does nothing more toward purifying the soul than sprinkling. " And he that is washed," in token of an interna! grace, *• necdeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." And if baptism i9 " the answer of a good conscience toward God," why should not those, who have discharged their consciences by sprinkling, us much as those who have been immersed* be regarded as truly baptized, and as regular arid conscientious Christians ? — But, although I do not consider the apostle as referring, in this' case, either to the mode or subjects of baptism, yet there is one circumstance in the case, of God's covenant with Noah which is entitled to consideration. We have no evidence from the scrip- tures, that any of Noah's family besides himself, was a true believ- er, before the flood. On the contrary, we have so much evidence us this, that at least one of his sons was dissolute, and incurred the curse of his father, which followed his posterity : and when God resolved to save some of the human family, he entered into cov- enant with Noal) only g ("With thee will I establish my covenant;" Gen. vi. 13 ) yet on his account, he graciously condescends to save his whole family. Header, do you not discover something here, like a connexion betwten the faith ef a believer and the welfare, of his household
262
with the word of God on my side, I submit to " common sense" to determine, which ought to be called " a vain fancy ;" their being sprinkled in a shower, or immersed in a vacmim — a pit without water.
Again, in all those texts in which baptism with the Holy Ghost is spoken of, the idea of immersion is necessarily excluded. John declared to the people that Christ should " baptize with the Holy Ghost." This Christ promised to his disciples ; and in due time it was accomplished. This was done, not by immersing them into the Holy Ghost, but by pouring out the influence of the Spir- it upon them, ft is thus that this act is uni- formly represented in the word of God. " He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass, and showers that water the earth." " T will pour out my Spirit upon you," said the Lord, by his ancient pro- phets. Pro?, i. 23. Isa. xxxii. J 5. xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxix. 29. Joel ii. 28, 39. On the day of pentecost St. Peter declares that this pro- phecy of Joel was accomplished in the e- vent of that day. And how? \ei the inspired record say. " And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat up- on each of their), and they were all filled with (not immersed m) the Holy Ghost." Arts ii. 3, 4.*
* It is well known, that the Baptists endeavour to deduce the idea of hnmerrio-n, from the record of this transaction. The fol- lowiftg quotation from Mr. Booth, will serve as a specimen of their reasoning (if it may be so ckiled) upon that fact : and the subjoined answer of Mr. Edwards, places the Baptist exposi- tion of thr.t passage in its true light.
263
Again, when Peter preached the gospel in the house of Cornelius, " The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they which were of the circumcision wrere astonished, because that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." And then Peter inquired, " Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we." Acts x. 44 — 47. In all these passages, and a multitude of others of the same descrip- tion, we read of being "filled with /' "fall- ing" or descending :" "poured out" and " re- ceived;" in application to the influences of the Spirit : but nothing like immersion. — The very idea would be an absurdity in that case.
Once more ; our Saviour applies the word baptism to his sufferings. " I have a baptism
After speaking of "an electrical bath, so called, because the electric fluid surrounds the patient," Mr. B. proceeds to observe : " This philosophical document reminds me of the sacred histori- an's language, where narrating the fact under consideration, thus he speaks. 'And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all, with one accord, in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house whebe they WERE sitttng. And there ap- peared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire : and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' Now, s>aysMr. B. if the language of medical electricity be just, it cannot be absurd ; nay, it seems highly rational, to understand this lan- guage of inspiration as expressive of that idea, [immersion] for which we contend. Was the Holy Spirit poured out? Did the Holy Spirit fall upon the apostles and others at that memorable time ? It was, in such a manner, and to such a degree, that they were like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it."
To this Mr. E. replies, " This electric bath is a pretty fancy, a happy invention for Mr. B. It is well he did not live before it was found out; for then what a fine thought would have been lost. Though the .Holy Spirit fell vpon, was poured out, yet,
2ti4
to be baptized with, &c." Luke xii. 50. " Are ye able — to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? &c." Mark x. 38, 39. Here the idea of immersion is as absurd as in the cases last mentioned. The blessed Jesus was filled, both soul and body, with unutterable pain and anguish ; but to say he was immersed in suffering, is a perfect absur- dity. We sometimes say a man is overwhelm- ed in sorrow, to express the idea of extreme agony ; and thus the passion of Christ is pro- phetically described in the 69th Psalm; but we never affix to this expression, the idea of his sufferings forming an element around
says he, it was in such a manner, and to such a degree, that they were like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it ; that is, immersed in the Holy Spirit. Most persons, 1 suppose, when they read of the Holy Spirit falling upon any one, under- stand it to mean, the influence of the Spirit coming* upon the soul : but Mr. B. speaks as if the Holy Ghost, or his influence, fell on the outside of the apostles, and so surrounded their bodies like an electric bath. And, to shew he intended this, he has put these words in large capitals, " it filled all tiie house where thet we're sitting." Then they were immersed in something which filled the house ; I ask, what was that something ? — I answer, [it was] " sound." The sound, which was as a rushing, mighty wind, filled all the house where they were sitting. The word, in the Greek, is echos, an echo, a reverberating sound. Mr. B's elec- tric bath was, after all, nothing more than an echo. It was an echo, then, that filled the house, and the apostles being immersed in sound, were surrounded by the echo, like a patient in an elec- tric bath. This is the beauty of sticking close to the primary meaning of the term, as Mr. B. calls it; and so tenacious is he of his primary meaning, that he does not care in what people are immersed, so they are but immersed in something'*
This is sufficient to shew the ridiculous absurdity of the idea of immersion in the "baptism with the Holy Ghost." I will add, that the apostles were to be baptized, not only with the Ho- ly Ghost, but, also, -with fire. But were they immersed into fire " If so, then they were immersed into the cloven tongues, which, *• like as of fire, sat upon each of them." In order, therefore, for the Baptists to maintain the idea of immersion, they must shew that the apostles were immersed in something more than sound.
265
him, in which he is immersed. Our blessed Saviour's sorrows overflowed, and in conse- quence thereof, he was baptized with "great drops of blood;" but here was nothing like immersion.
In all these instances which I have men- tioned, the word " baptism" does not signi- fy immersion. Such, then, is the amount of the main argument in favour of the Bap- tist mode.
Leb. But is not immersion evidently im- plied in the expression " Buried with him in baptism V\
Eug. No sir; there is no allusion what- ever to the mode of baptism in that expres- sion, as is evident from the connexion ; but to that of which baptism is the sign, viz. death to sin. This phraseology is used by St. Paul in two of his epistles, Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. and in both cases for the same purpose; viz. as an argument to induce Christians to live a life of holiness. Accord- ing to the Baptist interpretation of this pas- sage, baptism is a sign of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ: but no such thing is even intimated by the apostle. On the contrary, he plainly asserts that baptism is simply a sign of death to sin. " Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death" Rom. vi. 3. Here the act of baptism termi- nates, because it simply signifies " death to sin." The " resurrection to newness of life" is to follow as a consequence of being dead 23
266
to sin. This is plainly expressed in the 6th verse. "Knowing this that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin" Here the same body which is " buried in baptism" is said to be ** crucified" to prepare the way for a life of holiness. And this is the very point of the apostle's argument when he speaks of baptism. He urges Christians to live a life of holiness, from a consideration of the pro- fession of " death to sin," which they had made in baptism. " Therefore rue are buried with him by baptism into death — " (Here, ob- serve again, the act of baptism terminates; the resurrection, of which he afterwards speaks, is evidently something that is subse- quent to it — ) "that like as Christ ivas rais- ed up from the dead, by the glory of the Fa- ther, even so rue also should walk in newness of life" This distinction between death and resurrection, and the latter as being subse- quent to baptism, is still more strikingly ex- pressed in the succeeding verse. " For if we have been planted together in the like- ness of his death, we shall be also in the like- ness of his resurrection." That is, if we are indeed dead to sin, as we professed to be in baptism, " we shall be" (he does not say we were raised up out of the water in token of Christ's resurrection, but) " we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." In eve- ry one of these verses there is a manifest distinction between death and resurrection ;
>
267
the former being implied in baptism, and the latter resulting from that change of which baptism is the sign. Hence the plain meaning of the passage is, as if the apostle had said, " You profess to be dead to sin— this was evidently implied in your bap- tism : for as Christ was put to death for sin, so, in the reception of that Christian rite, you professed to be dead to sin : your body of sin, not your natural bodies, was buried in baptism : therefore, if you would act consist- ently with the profession you then made, you must hereafter walk in newness of life-.* But the Baptist interpretation of this pas- sage, by uniting death and resurrection in the act of baptism, destroys the whole force of the apostle's reasoning, and makes im- mersion "all in all ;" the whole sum of the Christian profession and practice.
Leb. I have but one more remark to make on this particular. It has been said by those who have "carefully consulted linguists" on the subject, that " the Greek language is as rich with words to express the slightest vari- ation of ideas as any language whatever, — that a total or partial washing, pouring, bath-
* Some might be ready to suppose that the parallel text Col. ii. 12. seems to unite death and resurrection in the act of baptism. " Buried with him in baptism -wherein also ye are risen with him, &c." But it is sufficient to observe that the relative pronoun rendered " wherein" evidently refers to Christ, and not to bap- tism ; and therefore ought to have been rendered " in whom." This not only comports best with the context, but shews that the word " him, which, is supplied by the translators, was need- less. The passage will then read thus ; " Buried with him in bap- tism, in wliom also ye are raised ( or, qnicJcenedJ together, through the faith of the operation of God, &c.iy See Poll Syn. and Willet's Hex. on Epis. to Rom.
268
ing and sprinkling have all and each a dis- tinct word exactly answering to the idea; and that no word can be found in the Greek language to express immersion but the word now in debate."
Eug. That the Greek language is as pro- lific as you have been told, I do not dis- pute ; but that there is no other word but " baptizo" in that language to express im- mersion, is notoriously false. The Greeks were furnished with the word "bctpto" which does really signify to dip, plunge> or im- merse ; and this very word is used by the sacred evangelists, in every instance where the idea of " dipping" is designed to be con- veyed. This word our Saviour himself used when he said " He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped 1he sop he gave it to Judas:" Job. xiii. 2b.^ but it is never used in ap- plication to the ordinance of baptism. It seems that the evangelists knew how to use it, when the idea of immersion was to be con- veyed. What then could have hindered, yea, how could they have avoided the adop-
* The attempt has been made to prove that '• bapto" does not signify merely dipping or plunging, but a continuance in that condition for the purpose of colouring or dying, as cloth is dyed, and this idea is supposed to be conveyed in Rev. xix. 13-—" ves- ture dipped in blood." The manifest object of this criticism is to make " bapto" signify something more than " immersion," in order that " baptizo" may occupy its place. But did the rich man request that Lazarus might dye or steep the tip of his fin- ger in water ? or was it merely to dip it, and then fly immedately to his relief? — Did our Saviour mean to convey the idea that his is disciples soaked their hands in the dish with him ? And yet in both of these cases the word " bapto" in its simple «r com* pound form, is used.
269
lion of this very word, in reference to bap- tism, if they had designed to inform us that immersion was intended ? This richness of the Greek language, then, instead of arguing in favour of the Baptist scheme, is directly against it. — I think it would be well for those of your ministers who are under the neces- sity of "consulting linguists," not to make too positive assertions, on the ground of se- cond-hand information, as they may be held responsible for other men's errors; and surely they have enough of their own to answer foiv
I come now to the second argument in fa- vour of immersion, and that is founded on the circumstances under which baptism is said to have been administered.
Great stress is laid on the expression " they went down into the water, and came up out of the water." This is often wielded as a very powerful weapon in the hands of a bold declaimer among ignorant people. Its whole force, 'however, depends on the translation of two litlJe words called prepo- sitions, which occur hundreds of times in the New Testament, and which are more frequently translated otherwise, than as in this case : And every person, who is the least acquainted with the Greek language, knows, that here, they might have been ren- dered to and from, with as much propriety as into and out of. Does it then appear pro- bable, will " common sense" admii the idea, that the Holy Spirit would have suspended an ordinance, the essential performance o£ 23*
270
which depended on the mode, on such an un- certain foundation? The argument founded on these words has always appeared to me so perfectly ridiculous, that I should not have noticed it, if it were not for the conse- quence attached to it by some weak minds.* But suppose these words are properly ren- dered into and out oj, they do not prove im- mersion. Thousands have been down into the water, and come up out of it, who never were " all over under water," in their lives.
* An advocate for immersion, recently holding forth this ar- gument in support of that sentiment, anticipated the common objection that our Saviour is often said to have " gone up into a mountain :" to which he answered " So he did, and I SUPPOSE there -was a cave there." Query. Was it in this cave that the de- vil " shewed him all the kingdoms of the world r" for we are ex- pressly informed that for this purpose ;' the devil took, him up ixxo an exceeding- high mountain," but nothing is said about a cave there. But if our Saviour had really discovered a cave in the mountain, did he expect Peter to find one in the sea, when he commanded him to go eis teen tfialassdn " to or into the sea" for the purpose of taking a fish ? Mat. xvii. 27. Or, did he command .him to dive into the sea, and catch the fish in his hands ? or, did lie mean that he should merely go to the water's edge, and cast in his hook? A multitude of similar examples might be present- ed, to shew that the preposition " eis" is indifferently rendered to, into", on, at, &c. And now, will the world believe that- the men who make such suppositions are the strenuous advocates of "ex- plicit warrant r" that they believe nothing without a " Thus saith the Lord" for it ? — But another man of a great deal more celeb- rity, has ventu?'ed to defend this argument in print. For this purpose, he has called in " the law of nature" to his aid. By this T expect he means the same that Mr. Booth eails "common sense." **The law of nature," says he, " is one criterion to ex- plain scripture by. When it is said that Jesus went up into the mountain, nature says that he went up into or amongst the trees." Such contemptible trifling as this deserves no better an- swer than it has already received. " Not so," says a reviewer of this production, "for it is impossible for a man to go info the trees, unless he coulel find hollow ones. But it proves thatm and into.ave used in several senses, as on, among, at, &c." Here then the argument rests precisely where it stood before, viz. that these prepositions are sometimes renderedone way, and sometimes another, and that without any violence to " the law of nature.*
271
Again, in arguing in favour of immersion, much dependence is made on the circum- stance that John is said to have baptized at theriver Jordan, and "in Enon, because there was much water there." Here it is a^ked, if baptism was not performed by immersion, why such places were selected rather than others ? The common answer to this ques- tion is, that these places were chosen for the accommodation of the multitudes, and the beasts with which they travelled, when they flocked in crowds from all parts of the na- tion, to hear the wondrous man who prolaim- ed the approach of the long expected Mes- siah. And this is manifestly the object in the selection of Enon, because " there were many waters there." This is the literal trans- lation of the passage, and tliis was the pre- cise fact. There was no large stream or bo- dy of water in that place; but many springs or rivulets that would accommodate the people.
But you wilt observe, Lebbeus, that all the circumstances which have been mention- ed, relate exclusively to John's baptism. This, I have told you, is not Christian bap- tism. Of course, if it could be satisfactorily proved that John baptized by immersion^ it would be wholly irrelevant to the present controversy.
Your denomination have ever pretended to derive their succession from John, and I think they have done well in so doing. Not, that this is the fact ; but because their
272
church is as entirely diverse fj;ora either the Jewish or true Christian church, as John's administration was distinct from these. In consequence of their unfounded claim, they have always taken for granted that John's baptism was Christian baptism. Though this has been disproved a thousand times by Psedobaptists, yet, until very lately, we have stood alone on this ground. But now we have the labours of Mr. Hall to support the doctrine. And although he has urged no new argument, to my knowledge, to prove the sentiment, yet as he is a distin- guished Bapiist, wre may expect (and in- deed the expectation has already been rea- lized) that the same arguments from him, will have more weight with that denomina- tion, than if they had come from our side of the question. And as he has thus torn a- way the foundation stone of the Baptist church, and made a breach in the wall of separation, which excluded the Paedobap- tists from their communion, we may safely conclude that ihe " baseless fabric" will soon crumble into ruins. When a citadel that is closely invested without, is attacked by her own troops within; yea, when "a captain of thousands" begins to demolish her bulwarks, and to throw open her gates to the besiegers, her destruction is inevitable. The work is begun both in Europe and A- meri^a, and this catholic age, with all its catholic institutions, will soon complete it. The spirit of the present times, though a
273
gradual, will ultimately prove "a consu- ming fire" to close communion sentiments. They are stubble before the flame.
I will now proceed to establish the posi- tion that John's baptism was not Christian baptism.
]■• This is evident from the object of John's administration. He was sent in compliance with an ancient prophecy, for the exclusive purpose of " preparing the way of the Lord." At the time of his advent, the most general apostacy and religious apathy that had ever been witnessed in Judea, prevail- ed. Their subjugation by the Romans had destroyed the spirit of the nation, and they w7ere ready to relinquish all hope of deliv- erance. In order to arouse their attention and prepare their minds for the reception of the Messiah, John was sent to preach and baptize. When interrogated as to his char- acter and the object of his mission, " He confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ" But " I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord as said the prophet Esaius" John i. 19, 23. Here then was the object > the exclusive object of John's embassy ; and he accomplished it very speedily ; for, his proclamation, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand," (not already come, but approaching or drawing nigh,) aroused the whole nation from their stupidity, and excited an univer- sal expectation of the appearance of the, Messiah.
274
From Ibis view of the subject it is evident that John's administration was not designed to annul or supersede the Levitical econo- my. Hence, those who have called it an "intermediate link" between the Jewish and Christian dispensation, are manifestly incorrect. There was no chasm between them, in which an "intermediate link" could be inserted. The Jewish dispensation did not terminate till the conclusion of our Lord's ministry. He himself conformed to all the precepts of the ceremonial law till the night in which he was betrayed ; and he enjoined it upon his disciples and all the multitude " to observe and do whatsoever* the scribes and Pharisees commanded" Mat. xxiii. 1 — 3. He directed the leper whom he healed, " to go and shew himself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses command- ed for a testimony unto them," Mat. viii. 4. But what puts this matter beyond all dis- pute, is the declaration of Christ respecting* John. He pronounces him the greatest of the prophets, but at the same time declares, " He that is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than he." Luke vii. 2o. The " king- dom of God," here, evidently means, the visible church under the Christian dispensa- tion, the same which John had declared to be ^ near at hand" Hence, if John was less than the least in the gospel church, it is manifest that he did not belong to that church. All these facts atFord conclusive testimony, that the Jewish dispensation had
275
not been superseded by John's ministry ; but on the contrary that it stood firm, as has been shewn, till the crucifixion of our Lord; at which time the Christian dis- pensation commenced. — You may indeed "unite two pie^s of a chain by a middle link;" but it would be absurd to attempt this with a solid bar of iron. You may con- nect two adjacent buildings, by erecting one between them; but you cannot do so with those which stand in contact, upon one and the same foundation : You may, how- ever, without altering the form of either, or removing their foundation, erect a porch which will serve as a convenient, and, in some cases, a necessary egress, from the one to the other. And this was the precise ob- ject of John's administration. Therefore his ministry was no part of the Christian dis- pensation; consequently, his baptism was not Christian baptism.
2. The object and import of John's bap- tism were essentially different from Chris- tian baptism. As John was sent for the spe- cial purpose of arousing the expectations of the Jews, and preparing them for the recep- tion of the Messiah, it was perfectly reason- able and proper that he should be entrusted with some religious rite, which should be applied to those who professed a belief in his proclamation. Therefore he was in- structed to baptize with water. And "all Judea and Jerusalem'' flocked to him and were baptized of him. Had John intimated
276
that his administration was designed to su- persede the ceremonial law, this would not have been the case. The Jews would have persecuted him just as they did Jesus ; and he would have been without any means of justifying himself, even in tWe view of those who were truly pious; for " John did no miracles," and he had no commission to perform them.
John's baptism might have been typical or emblematical of the privileges of the Christian church, for he says, " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize yeu with the Holy Ghost and with fire." But, the special object of this rite was in perfect unison with his ministry, — to prepare a people for the reception of the Messiah. It was called " the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins ," because those who were admitted to that rite, were required to profess repentance. But doubt- less thousands who were baptized by John were insincere in that profession, and en- tirely mistaken with respect to the charac- ter of the person whose advent he predicted. They verily believed him, when he declar- ed that the promised Messiah would soon appear ; but they expected he would be a temporal prince, who would deliver them out of the power of the Romans, establish the kingdom of Judah on a permanent ba- sis, and defend them from all their enemies.
277
In a word, they supposed that be would be, just what the Baptists would fain make the God of Israel from the beginning, " a tem- poral King or Governor. So debased and erroneous were their views of the expected Prince. And hence, when he made his ap- pearance under circumstances of indigence, and explicitly declared that " his kingdom was not of this world," they, almost " with one consent," rejected him: notwithstand- ing the expectations which they had en- tertained, and the profession they had made.*
Christian baptism is a token of the cov- enant of grace — an external sign of internal grace — a seal of the righteousness of faith — the mark of membership in the Christian church. In all these particulars, it differed from the rite which John administered. —
* The Baptists reject the idea that the Jewish church was the true church, and scorn to derive their origin from that source, on account of, what they call, its extreme corruption : and yet tliey strenuously advocate the notion, that their system is derived, by regular succession, from John the Baptist. And pray, what do they gain by taking this ground ? Verily nothing, but a church more corrupt and hypocritical than ever the Jews had been, in any preceding- period of their national existence. This is as clear as the meridian sun. For we are informed that" all the people counted John, that he ivas a prophet indeed:" In consequence of this general per- suasion of his divine commission, " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan -went out and ivere baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins ." The " publicans" and " sol- diers" and " all the people that heard Jam were baptized" with the baptism of John. From these facts, it is evident, that vast mul- titudes, even the great body of the Jewish nation, received this religious rite : and yet, when Christ revealed himself to the peo- ple ; yea, when John pointed him out saying, " Behold the Lamb of God" not one in a thousand, would receive him. And after our Lord himself and his disciples had laboured and wrought mira- cles among them for the space of three years or more, and had
24
273
" The conviction demanded;" says Mr. Hall, u in the two case* was totally distinct — The profession demanded in the baptism of John, was nothing more than a solemn recogni- tion of that ore at article of the Jewish faith, the appearance of the Messiah,* accompa- nied with this additional circumstance, that it was nigh at hand. The faith required by the apostles included a persuasion of all the miraculous facts which they attested, com- prehending the preternatural conception, the Deity, incarnation and atonement, the miracles, the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus." Hence, as the import of these two rites is essentially different, they must be entirely distinct : consequently,
".'made and baptized more disciples than John" himself, (the bap- tism which they then administered being of the same import and design with John's,) I say, after all this, it is evident that there was but here and there a true believer in the whole nation. The church in Jerusalem, previous to the day of Pentecost, consisted of but " about a hundred and twenty names ;" and the greatest number of " brethren" or disciples before that time that we any where read of, is the " more than 500" who saw^him after his resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 6. Where, then, are the thousands and. tens of thousands whom John and the disciples of our Lord had baptized ? If Jerusalem and all Judea had not made a hypocriti- cal profession of repentance, when they received that rite, Christ never could have been condemned and crucified there. But doubt- less they were hypocrites. They professed to believe that a great temporal prince was about to make his appearance, but when the meek and iowht Jesus was revealed as their king, they could join with the rabble in crying " A~xuy xvith him, away with him ,• cnici- \ crucify him" And yet, according to the Baptist scheme, all who had been previously baptized were true members of the gospel church. Then indeed it may safely be regarded as the true antitype of the Jewish church : not, however, in her best estate, but in seasons of the greatest declension and apostacy.
!t coems then, Mr. Hall believes, that there were "article? off^ilh" in the Jewish church ; and that " a Messiah to come" was a prominent ariicle iu their confession.
279
John's baptism was not Christian baptism.
3. Ctiristian baptism was originally, as at the present time, administered in the name of the Ti iune God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost ; and this form is essential to the administration of that holy ordinance. Thus our Saviour commanded his disciples when he gave them their commission, and thus they practised. But John did not thus baptize. Nay, when he commenced his ministry, the doctrine of the Trinity had never been expressed in those connected terms, and John himself declares that he did not know Jesus. " And I knew him not, but that he should be made mani- fest to Israel; therefore am Icome baptizing with water. — And 1 knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of Cod." Joh. i. 31, 33, 34.
4. Those who identify John's baptism with Christian baptism, involve themselves in a monstrous absurdity. Instead of ma- king Christ the Found er of the Christian church, they ascribe this honour to John ; (though he himself repeatedly disclaimed it ;) and reduce the Great King and Head of the church to the capacity of one of John's disciples. As absurd as this appears, and as abhorrent as the idea was to John himself, (for he seems to have apprehended this con- clusion, and therefore declined baptizing
2*)0
Christ when be first applied,) there are those at the present day who publicly advocate the sentiment. A Baptist elder of some considerable celebrity, says, " Was not Je- sus baptized by John to fulfil all righteous- ness 1 Was not Jesus therefore a BAPTIST ? These things are so." This is a fine spe- cimen of Baptist logic. First ask a ques- tion or two, and then affirm, and thus the proposition is established. Of this, if I had time, I might present a multitude of exam- ples from the writings of those who have at- tempted to defend that scheme. — But why all this zeal to prove that Christ was a Bap- tist, rather than John a Christian ? Why, forsooth, in order that they may have the baptism of Christ, for a subject of declama- tion in favour of adult baptism.
As the example of Christ in this particu- lar is often urged for the imitation of Chris- tians, and has considerable influence with unenlightened consciences, J shall here ex- pose its fallacy. Christ was indeed bapti- zed by John, but not with John's baptism. For, 1. It was " the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins'" that John administered : but Christ had no sins to repent of, or which needed remission. — 2. It was not believer's baptism which Christ received from John; for, he had no occasion for faith, and he him- self was the great object of faith. 3. It was not Christian baptism which he received, for that would have been to be baptized in his own name. These are facts which no man
281
can gainsay. Where then, I ask, is there any thing in Christ's baptism which is designed for the imitation of Christians ? He did not receive "the baptism of repentance," nor " believer's baptism," nor "Christian bap- tism." What then was the import of his baptism? This is evident from the circum- stances of the case, and from the conversa- tion between our Lord and John. When Christ first applied for baptism, John refu- sed him from the consideration of his own un- worthiness. Did not John manifestly dread, to perform an act which would seem to im- ply, what the modern Baptists are fond of believing, that Christ became one of his dis- ciples? And until Jesus had explained to him the object of his application and the true import of the act, he would not consent to baptize him. But as soon as Christ had said, " Thus it becomelh us to juljil all right- eousness, he suffered him*9 But what right- eousness did Christ herein fulfil? Notwith- standing Baptists have often attempted to ridicule the idea, I do not hesitate to say, that it was in compliance w ith that precept of the ceremonial law which respected the consecration of the priests. See Exo, xxix. and Lev. viii. And although, on the ground of our scheme, some of our opponents have, I had almost said, blasphemously called the Hi^h Priest of our profession " an inlerlo- //^r," because he was not born of the tribe of Levi, yet I still shall maintain the senti- ment, and leave the authors of such profane 24*
282
ridicule, to answer for their conduct to "the Lion of the tribe of Judah."
In support of the idea which I have said was implied in Christ's baptism, I will just make the following remarks. 1. The priests were to enter on the duties of their office when they wrere thirty years old. It was at this age that Christ was baptized by John. 2. In the inauguration of the priests, they were to be washed with water. Thus Christ was washed in Jordan. 3. After being wash- ed, they were to be anointed with oil. So Christ when he came up from the water, re- ceived the unction of the Holy Ghost: and therein was fulfilled that prophetic allusion of the Psalmist ; " Therefore God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.* Psal. xlv. 7. Hen. 1, 9. The ancient priests and prophets, who had been partakers of the Hoi} Ghost, had receiv- ed it in a limited degree ; but Jesus receiv- ed the Spirit "without measure." And fi- nally, all this was done in obedience to an existing statute, and therefore was a "ful- filment o) righteousness."
Now, I appeal once more to "common sense," (for I am as fond of submitting to this umpire as any of our opponents are, audi really wish they would appeal to it more frequently than they do,) wheth- er Christ designed by his baptism to be- come one of John's disciples, or to be in- augurated into the priesthood? At all events, he did not receive a baptism which any
Christian can imitate. Consequently to urge the example of Christ, in 1 his particu- lar, as an argument to induce conscientious persons to go " all over under water" is to use an argument without foundation.
5. That John's baptism was not Christian baptism, is evident from the fact, that the a- postles, in their administration, paid no re- spect to the former, but administered the Christian rite to John's disciples in common with others, If there were no positive evi- dence of this fact, it might safely be inferred from the circumstances of the case. We have seen that the great body of the Jewish nation received John's baptism; and yet when the apostles admitted their converts to the fellowship of the Church, they bapti- zed them without discrimination. The 30(30 converts on the day of Pentecost were all baptized by the apostles ; and yei, no doubt, many of them had been previously baptiz- ed by John.
But we are not left to decide this point by balancing probabilities. In the sixth of Acts, we have the fact explicitly declar- ed. In one of his journies, " Paul came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost, si nee ye believed. And they said un- to him, We have not so much as heard whe- ther there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye bapti- zed ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with
234
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." — This plain statement of facts, in which some of John's disciples are declared to have received Christian baptism, has pro- duced great trouble among the Baptists; and the invention of the whole denomination has been put to the rack, in order to discov- er some method to distort the passage and so destroy its testimony against their scheme*. And what is the result? Why truly this. "The writer of the Acts, say the Baptists, in recording the latter part of this interview between Paul and these disciples, does not state what Paul did to them, but but what he told them, that John said and did to them. Thus, Paul said, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they (that is, the peo^ pie to whom John preached, these disciples being a part of them) heard this (from John) they were baptized (by John) in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Now is not this more than contemptible? Is it not a shameful perversion of language, and an awful act of violence on Divine rev- elation ? If such liberties are to be indulged, then may the infidel say, " the scriptures can be made to speak any thing." But let those who are guilty of such perversion, be-
285
ware of the curse denounced against those who add to, or lake from the testimony of God. Mr. Hall, in remarking on this expo- sition, thus expresses himself. "In the whole compass of theological controversy, it would be difficult to assign a stronger in- stance of the force of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of fact ; nor is it easy to con- jecture, what could be# the temptation to do such violence to the language of scrip- ture, and to every principle of sober criti- cism, unless it were the horror which certain divines have conceived, against every thing which bore the shadow of countenancing anabaptistical error. The ancient commen- tators appear to have felt no such appre- hension, but to have followed without scru- ple the natural import of the passage."
But in order to shew the absurdity of this perverse comment, permit me to remind you of what has been already shewn, viz. That John did not baptize in the name of the Trinity or of the Lord Jesus. Of this we have renewed evidence \t\ this passage. These disciples declare, " We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost ;" which must have been false, if they had been baptized in his name,— Moreover, if nothing more is inferided by this record, than to inform us what Paul said to these disciples, how sagely the great apostle of the Gentiles was .employed, in telling those people what they knew a great deal more about, than he himself did ! And how couhi.
2&6
such a recital prepare them for the gift of the Holy Ghost, the bestowment of which is recorded in the succeeding verse. " And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, (that is, the persons who had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, which ac- cording to the Baptist exposition must mean all the disciples of John,) the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prpphjBcied." Well might Mr. Hall style this "ineffably absurd."
But after all, some have professed to pro- duce an "explicit warrant" against the re- baptism of these disciples : and what is it ? Why plainly this, that St.Paul declares to the Corinthian church, " I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains, and the house- hold of Stephanas." 1 Cor. i. 14. 16. This is truly a noble discovery. Because Paul had baptized only a few persons at Corinth, there- fore, he did not baptize any at Ephesus.— This is another specimen of " logical rea- soning." But suppose we admit it to be correct, for no doubt Paul carefully avoid- ed the administration of that ordinance when the aid of others could be obtained ; was he destitute of such aid at Ephesus? Did he not usually have a companion in his jour- nies who could perform that (iutyl And when he set out upon this excursion, are we not expressly informed, that he took Silas with him, whom we find with him in almost every place whither he went? And though Silas abode with Timotheus a short time at
287
Berea when Paul left that place, yet we find them joining him again at Corinth, just before he set out for Ephesus. What then is the amount of thi^ explicit warrant? It is the mere ghost of a shadow.
From all this evidence the conclusion is irresistible, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism; and consequently, neither the mode nor the subjects of the former rite, if they could be clearly ascertained, can be urged as a precedent for the latter.
But, says one, who probably begins to doubt the firmness of his foundation on John the Baptist, " If it is true that John's bap- tism is done away, and that the baptism in- stituted by Jesus, and practised by the a~ postles is radically different from that of John, it is no pjoof at all for the baptism of infants" Very true, we do not argue it for that purpose. But it wrests out of the mouths of our opponents all the circumstan- tial evidence in favour of immersion. It leaves no ground of declamation about riv- ers and ponds or lakes, and the people go- ing down into the water and coming up out of the water. All these are swept away at a dash ; and when these are gone, although they have no real weight in them if they could be pre- served, the most popular arguments of the Baptists in favour of immersion are lost for ever. For although they profess to make great dependence on their criticism on the word " baptizo" yet, in the view of igno- rant people, this is nothing in comparison
288
with the river Jordan, and the going -down in- to, and coming up out of the water. This, the Baptist preachers perfectly understand; and hence, these circumstances constitute the burden of their declamations on the banks of rivers, and the margin of mill ponds.
But, as I have already observed, with the baptism of John, all this circumstantial evi- dence is swept away ; for there is but a sin- gJr instance of Christian baptism in which this phraseology occurs; and the necessary circumstances of that case were such, as ful- ly to explain the reason of its adoption, f here allude to the case of the Eunuch who was baptized by Philip. They were jour- neying in a carriage, and, of course, had no means for administering the ordinance in any mode whatever. Therefore, when they came to a certain water, the Eunuch said, "See water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" He does not say whether there was more or less water; whether it was a river or a brook, or only a small fountain. Then they "went down" from the chariot to the water, and he was baptized. Now, without insisting on the fact stated by tra- vellers, that in this region there is no stream of water "more than ancle deep," if this phraseology, in this case, proves the immer- sion of the eunuch, it equally proves the im- mersion of Philip. This idea T know is of- ten treated by our opponents as a quibble ; but it is a solemn fact; for, "they went down both of them into the water, bqth Philip and
289
the eunuch, and he baptized himP To say that the immersion is implied in the word "baptized" is to surrender all the circumstan- tial evidence of the passage, and to build on a foundation which has already been de- molished.— In all the other instances in which Christian baptism is recorded, the circum- stantial evidence is decidedly against im- mersion. In the case of the three thousand converts on the day of pentecost, I will make two or three remarks.
1. There were no conveniences at hand for immersion. There were no streams or fountains in Jerusalem in which it could have taken place. The baths of the temple could not have been procured, at any time, for Christian purposes ; but then, they were oc- cupied, it being the feast. And if the peo- ple had been wandering about for the pur- pose of procuring private baths, (if any such there were which were large enough for immersion,) the accomplishment of the work would have been impossible. But —
2. If the ocean had been at hand, it is dif- ficult to imagine how such a vast multitude could have been immersed by the apostles, in the remaining part of the day. Dr. Gill, in order to avoid this objection, has indeed called in the seventy disciples to the aid of the apostles : but as their4commission, like John's, was designed merely to prepare the way of the Lord, and was therefore tempo- rary; and especially as the scripture is silent on that subject, I presume everv consistent
25
290
advocate of " explicit warrant," if there be such a creature in our world, will cheerful- ly consign this conjecture io "the cave in the mountain." The Baptists pretend that there is no difficulty in this case, on their princi- ples. If not, why do they contrive so ma- ny absurd expedients to get rid of it? Why not shoulder the objection and carry it off, if there is no weight in it? But no! their constant wincing makes it evident that it presses hard upon them. One of Dr. Gill's expedients I have already mentioned : now for another. " Though they were added to the church in one and the same day, it does not follow that they were baptized in one day." But how so? In the introduction of the subject, he says, " Though it is not a "church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, " and a part and branch of public worship. "When I say, it is not a church ordinance, I "mean it is not an ordinance administered " in the church, but out of it, and in order to " admission into it, and communion with it ; " it is preparatory to it, and a qualification " for it ; it does not make a person a mem- "ber of the church, or admit him into a vi- " sible church ; persons must first be baptized " and then added to the church, as the three "thousand converts were." But after writing 24 pages he again introduces the three thousand, and to get rid of the diffi- culty of immersing them all in a part of one afternoon, now asserts that " though " they were added to the church in one and thf
291
* same day, it does not follow that they were ci baptized in one day." — That they had not been previously baptized, is evident from the fact that Christian baptism had nevei been administered before that day : and e- ven, if it had been, it is not to be supposed that the apostles would have admitted then) to that holy rite before their conversion. — Here then, if I can understand English, is a flat contradiction. If one of your preachers " were sentenced to reconcile these asser- tions with sound reason or the word of God," or even, with each other ', he might well say, " my punishment is greater than I can bear.** But why is this sentiment advanced at all ? When Dr. Gill had called the " seventy" to the aid of the apostles for the immersion of the three thousand, which, he says, would be but " six or seven and thirty persons each ;$s and had appropriated to their use ° a number of private baths in Jerusalem" — u many pools in the city" — "the various a- partments and things in the temple" — " the dipping room of the high priest" — " the molten sea and the ten brazen lavers; "all of which they might be allowed the use of, as they were of the temple ;" and " having favour with all the people!!!" yea, and had even provkled every convert with a change of raiment; and how? will you believe that he says, " it was only every one's providing and bringing change of raiment for himself ?*' — as though these persons, with hearts of en- mity to the gospel, not to say any thing of
292
Their ignorance of the Christian ordinances, had come up to Jerusalem and to the tem- ple, with such a prepossession that they should be put completely under water be- fore they returned, that each had provided himself with a change of raiment for the oc- casion : I say, when Dr. Gill had furnished the apostles with so much assistance, and the converts with all these conveniences for immersion, and even informed us, in a note, that " ten thousand had been baptized in one day by Austin the Monk ;" and " twen- ty thousand in one day by a missionary of Photius the Patriarch," why should he re- serve any of the three thousand for another day? — Surely Dr. Gill could not have re- posed much confidence in the credulity of his readers.
But, although I am willing to admit that the baptism of a man on the same day, does not follow of course from the dec- laration that he was received into the church at a given time, yet, I do feel under an absolute necessity of believing that the three thousand were all bapti- zed on the same day, or else, I must dis- credit the word of God : for the sa- cred penman declare?, "THEN," at that very time; " they that gladly received his words were baptized, and the same day, there were added about three thousand souls." For myself, then, I do believe, that they were not only baptized on that same day without immersion, but by sprinkling ; and that pro- bably not one by one; but as many at a
293 -
time as could conveniently approach the administrator, and profess their faith in a crucified Saviour: — that they were sprin- kled just as Moses sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the people, — and that the baptism of this promiscuous multitude, from all parts of the world, at the commence- ment of the Christian dispensation, was an inceptive, but literal accomplishment of that prophecy, " So shall he sprinkle many nations"*
At the baptism of Saul, of Cornelius, of Lydia, and of the jailer, we hear nothing of baths, rivers or ponds of water. Of the first it is said, "He received sight forth- with and arose and was baptized." No change of place, or process of time is even intimated. — In the second instance, Peter inquires not, "Who will allow us the priv- ilege of their bath? but, " who can forbid water that these should not be baptized V9 If this phraseology contains any circum- stantial evidence, it is this ; that the water was to be brought to the candidates, and not the candidates carried to the water. — In the case of Lydia, it is true, we are previously informed, that they were near a river; but when her baptism and that of her household are spoken of, there is nothing said of their going down info, or coming up out of the wa- ter.— And with respect to the jailer, the same
* I wish the reader to turn to Isa. lii. and after reading it, let him judge for himself, whether the prophecy in that chapter doe* not refer, at least inceptively, to the opening- of the new dif pen sation.
25*
294
remarks, as in the former instances, are a]> plicable, with this addition ; that the record of the transaction plainly shews, they had never left the outer prison till the ordinance had been administered. It is true some Baptists have hazarded the conjecture that there was a large reservoir of water in the pris- on ; but 1 shall only say, if I had adopted a system, which drove me to such miserable subterfuges, I would never open my lips a- gain in favour of explicit warrant. I would sit down and sullenly enjoy my opinion ; but this conjecture, with a thousand others of the same description, I would carefully conceal in "the cave in the mountain,'* and inscribe « CLOSE COMMUNION" over the door. Here then I rest the subject. Much more might be said, but I presume you are al- ready satisfied, that the two grand sources of argument improved by the Baptists in fa- vour of immersion, are as barren as a desart. No inference to support the sentiment can be derived from the word " baptizo /' for it has been shewn, by comparing scripture with scripture, which is the only way in which this controversy can be decided, that the word does not necessarily signify im- mersion. It is a term which, in the bible, is exclusively appropriated to religious ablu- tions, some of which were partial, and oth- ers total ; some were performed by immer- sion ; and others, by pouring and sprinkling. Hence, it is certain, that no particular mode is defined by that word. This is left to
295
the discretion of the church. — And in ever/ instance of Christian baptism recorded in the scriptures, the circumstances of the case are in favour of sprinkling. And this, I ven- ture to pronounce, a more apt representa- tion of the things signified thereby. For in the observance of this holy institution we come not to the banks of Jordan, to hear " the voice of one crying in the wilderness*, prepare ye the way of the Lord :" but, " to Jesus the Mediator qj the new covenant, and
TO THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING." And it is
" through sancti fie alien of the Spirit, unto obe- dience and SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF Je-
sus Christ," and "with the washing of water by the word" that the people of God are pre- pared for heaven.
Under the former dispensation, the blood of the sacrifices, which was typical of Ihe blood of Christ, was applied to the people by sprinkling : and hence, the apostles call the blood of Christ "the blood of sprinkling."9 Therefore, if the application of water to the body in baptism, is designed to represent the application of the blood of Christ to the soul, then, according to scripture analogy, sprinkling is the most significant and appro- priate mode. And the same conclusion will follow, if we consider baptism as represent- ing the purifying efficacy of the blood of Christ. The Baptists are constantly asser- ting that " sprinkling or pouring is not cleansing." This, like a thousand other of their assertions, is made without evidence
296
to support it, and in direct opposition to scripture testimony, and matter of fact. In multiplied instances the scriptures repre- sent cleansing as the result of sprinkling, or the application of water with the hand. — Thus Moses was directed towash Aaron and his sons at the door of the tabernacle ; and to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice and the anointing oil upon them, when they were consecrated to the priesthood. Exo. xxix. And whenever they entered into the taber- nacle, they were commanded to sanctify themselves, by washing their hands and their feet. Chap. xxx. 20, 21. In like manner the people were cleansed by sprinkling, or the partial application of the appointed ele- ment. And the apostle, as has been already observed, declares that those sprinklings were a token of cleansing. Heb. ix. 13. Nu- merous other instances might be adduced in which the design of sprinkling is thus represented — Moreover, the great Head of the church himself declares, that the partial application of water to the body is a sufficient representation of the purifi- cationoftbe soul. " He ihatis washedneedeth no! save to wash his feet, butis clean every whit"
JLeb. But, it will be said, that this decla^ ration of our Saviour does not relate to the ordinance of baptism.
JEng. Very true, but this is nothing to the purpose. Your people say, sprinkling, or the partial application of water does not de- note cleansing j but Christ says it does.—
297
This text, therefore, though it does not al- lude to external baptism, decides so much as this, that sanctijica lion, of which baptism is a sign, may be represented by a partial ap- plication of water to the body.
From all that has been said, it is evident, that whether we consider baptismal water as representing the influences of the Spirit, by whose agency the soul is sanctified ; or, the blood oj Christ, by virtue of which that effect is produced ; or, the effect itself ; sprinkling or pouring is a more significant mode than plunging; and vastly more con- formable to the analogy of scriplure.
Leb. You have treated this part of the subject also, in a manner perfectly satisfac- tory to my mind. I am under a thousand obligations to you for your unwearied pa- tience, during the whole discussion. I feel myself in a new7 world, and possessed of im- mense privileges, which I never realized be- fore. As a parent, I have always felt soli- citous for the eternal welfare of my chil- dren. But the system I had embraced, pre- sented such a gloomy prospect with respect to their salvation, as to cool the ardour of parental feeling, and paralize every exer- tion for their spiritual benefit. But, blessed be Gx)d, I shall now return to my family with new motives and rem .ved zeal. I shall go to my closet and to the family altar, with new views and feelings. I shall there address the Majesty of heaven, not only as my God and Father, but the covenant God vt my children,. Hereafter I shall endeavour
298
lobe faithful to their souls; and shall la- bour, and pray, and hope for, and expect their salvation.
But pray tell me, Eugenius, what course shall I take to get rid of my present connex- ion ?
Eug. You must act with great prudence and circumspection. By no means break effin a sudden manner. I suppose you have entered into solemn covenant to walk with that church; and, though you are now con- vinced that they are in monstrous errors, vet those vows are not to be trifled with. Go to your church, tell thern plainly and af- fectionately the revolution in your senti- ments, and request a dismission from their communion. If this is denied, ask leave to withdraw. If this also is refused, your way is clear. No society, possessed of Christian candour and charity, would refuse one or the other, under such circumstances. But if your church does, I presume your own conscience and the Lord of your conscience will exonerate you.
But beware of one thing, Lebbeus; and that is, of a compromise. Your people, when they are apprized of your present senti- ments, and find it impracticable to envelope you in "the cloud" again, will try every ex- pedient to make you contented in their communion. The idea of losing one of their members in this way, produces the pangs of dissolution in their whole body. But I have shewn you that there can be no
299
compromise between these two systems. Though you may be told that "you can re- tain your present sentiments on free com- munion, but not act them out;" that "you may consider jour children in covenant with God, without having the token of the covenant applied to 1 hem ;" yet be not deceiv- ed. This is all carnal policy. Remember that precept which your own denomination so strenuously enjoin. " Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have com- manded you" Therefore be firm and im- movable, as well as prudent and deliberate,
Leb. I thank you for your advice, and I shall scrupulously regard it. But I feel a deep concern for my brethren, who are still in the blinded condition in which I have been. Is there no ground of hope that they will, ere long, have their eyes opened to see their errors?
Eug. I have already shewn, you that the unchristian practice of close communion is rapidly declining both in England and A~ merica. And it is obvious, that, on other grounds, your denomination are approxi- mating to the sentiments and practice of the true church. You doubtless recollect that, but a few years ago, they were in the constant habit of discarding human learning as a qualification for the ministerial office ; and railing against the salaries of the regu- lar clergy. From every part of your church, our ears were stunned with the din of ridicule against "college-bre ddi- vines ;" and the cry of " hireling, hireling,"
300
was vociferated from every tongue. But mark the change. Now, on these subjects, their lips are closed in silence. A few men of education among them (the Lord grant that they may soon be increased) are the or- acles of the party ; and all their ministers are claiming a stipulated salary from their people ; though, at the same time, the most of them follow some other occupation through the week for a livelihood.
And on the subject of infant membership there is a manifest approximation to the gospel scheme. In some Baptist churches in England, it has been a practice for many years past, for parents to present their chil- dren, and as they say, "to give them up in faith to God;" though not to have "the seal of their faith" set upon them. I did not knowr, until very lately, that this practice had been adopted, in a single instance, in this country. But, I am credibly informed of the existence of two churches in New- England, which have come into the measure.
These facts plainly shew, that the pecu- liarities of the sect are rapidly decaying. Only let free communion sentiments and the above-mentioned practice become universal, and the funeral rites of the Baptist scheme may be performed. A single step further will bring them upon gospel ground. Their present system will then be IMMERSED, like a mill-stone in the sea, to rise no more.
Leb. The Lord grant that it may speedi- ly be accomplished.
Eug. AMEN.
CONCLUDING ADDRESSES.
1 . To the Padobaptist Churches. Dearly Beloved ; " Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" — You have adopted a con- stitution, which, at once, involves an exalted privilege and an immense responsibility. It is the same constitution which the Lord es- tablished, when he organized his church ; and which he then declared to be an " ever- lasting covenant" Hence, he has never ab- rogated it : but has given the most satisfac- tory testimony that it shall remain, in its full extent, to the end of time. — In this cove- nant, you, in your collective capacity, as well as each individual in his personal char- acter, are one of the high contracting par- ties. Not a member is admitted into your holy fraternity, without professing to take hold of this covenant, avouching Jehovah to be his God, and the God of his seed. At the same time, you, as a church, promise to watch over him, and see that he is faithful to God, to his fellow-men, and especially to those committed to his immediate charge. Not a seal is applied without your expres- sed or implied consent. Not a child is born within the pale of the covenant and receives the token thereof, but you are held respon- sible for his being trained up " in the nur- ture and admonition of the Lord." 26
302
It is to our reproach and injury, that, in years past, so little attention has been paid to this important duty. Our children have been baptized according to divine institu- tion; but then, in too many instances, they have been permitted to grow up without due instruction and restraint. So great has been the inattention to this subject, that many are doubting as to the nature of the relation which children bear to the church ; and con- sequently, as to the duty which the church owes them. But, brethren, so much as this is self-evident : It is the duty of every indivi- dual and of every community tojulfil their own solemn vows. When parents present their children for baptism, they promise before earth and heaven, to train them up for the Lord. You promise under the same solem- nity, to see that they fulfil their vows. Now, redeem your pledge. If parents disregard their covenant obligations, call them to an account. If they still persist in disobe- dience, and permit their children to grow up without instruction and restraint, cut them off from your holy communion ; they have broken God's covenant. Thus far, the path of duty is plain. Go thus far ; and then, if more be necessary, and if the word of God will bear you out in it, go farther. But do not waste time in disputing about the standing of baptized children, while nothing is done to remedy existing evils. It is needless to ascertain the full extent of duty, while the very first steps of it are so
303
awfully neglected. — Something must he done without delay. " The uncircumcised triumph," and pour contempt on your con- stitution ; because, under a lax administra- tion, comparatively little good results from its adoption. The welfare of society — the honour of the church — the salvation of souls, especially of the rising generation, and the glory of God require you to awake.
You are daily praying and labouring for the introduction of the latter day glory. Remember, one of the preludes of that bles- sed period is " the turning of the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers''' Until this event is realized, you will look in vain for the revelation of that glorious day. The disci- pline of the church must be revived, not only in relation to the personal conduct of adult members, but also with respect to their children. When this is done, then shall Zion " arise and shine, her light being come and the glory of the Lord being risen upon her" Then may you say to your opposers, " Walk about Zion, and go round about her ; tell the toners thereof; mark ye well her bul- warks, consider her palaces j that ye may tell it to the generation following. For this God is our God Jor ever and ever ; he will be our guide even unto death.''' Then shall " the testimony be established again in Jacob, and the law appointed in Israel, which he command- cd our fathers, that they should make them known to their children : that the generation
304
to come might know them, even the children which should be born ; who should arise and declare them to their children. That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments" from generation to generation.
2. To Professing Parents.
Christian Brethren; It is an unspeak- able favour that the Lord has admitted you into his covenant. You are under in- finite obligations, of a personal nature, to divine grace. But the kindness of heaven has been still further manifested. Out of regard to you, the Lord has made gracious promises concerning your children. He has permitted them to be sealed with the seal of the covenant ; and has given you peculiar encouragement to expect their salvation, through the instrumentality of your pious labours. How distinguished the favour! how vast your obligations !
But, brethren, in order for your children to realize the benefits of this constitution, you must be faithful to their souls. The sacramental water possesses no intrinsic vir- tue that can communicate benefits to the soul. "Sprinkling a little water in the face" and even plunging the body in the ocean, Avill, of themselves, be alike ineffectual. Bap- tism is a seal of special privileges; and with- out the enjoyment of these, the sacred rite would be equally useless to adults and in- fants. If you expect your children to expe- rience saving benefits, you must faithfully
305
discharge those important duties which God requires, and which you have voluntarily promised. When you first entered into cov- enant, and at every subsequent renewal of it, you vowed before God, angels and men, "to instruct your children and servants in- to the doctrines and duties of the reli- gion you profess — to bring them up under the exercise of proper discipline — to set be- fore them a pious example : and to maintain the daily worship of God in your families/' These duties must be made an every-day business. It is not by a long lecture, de- livered once a week, that your children are to be instructed into the things of reli- gion. Their minds are volatile and they can retain but little at a time. Your in- structions must " distil like the rain." They must be given "line upon line, line upon line ; precept upon precept, precept upon precept ; here a little, and there a little." " And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart ; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy chil- dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sit- test in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house and on thy gales." This is the whole secret as to the manner of parental instruc- tion.— And as to the matter, it is all that God. 26*
306
has revealed in bis word. Every doctrine and duty therein contained " belongs to you and to your children." Let the great object of all your instructions be, to convince them that they are sinners, and that they must be renewed in the spirit of their minds, or they can never "see the kingdom of God.''
Assume the government of your children at an early period. With the first daivnings, of reason, let them learn that the will of the parent is the law of the household. By at- tention to this particular, you will save yourselves incalculable trouble, and your children much needless correction. For the want of this, consequences fatal to the character and state of children, I doubt not, have often ensued. Let children live un- controlled till they are a year and a half or two yearsof age, and if they are everbrought into subjection, it will require ten times as much correction as would have been neces- sary at an earlier period ; and even then, the work will not be as effectually accomplished. However unpopular the sentiment may be, and however contrary to the opinion of those indulgent parents, who will not allow their children to possess as much sagacity at the age of nine months, as a brute animal of as many weeks, it is an unquestionable fact, that the early commencement and steady maintenance of discipline requires the least degree of severe correction, and is the best evidence of true parental affection. Adopt the plan proposed in Dr. WiTHERsrooN's
307
Letters on Education, which I earnestly re- commend to your perusal, and you may ea- sily obtain the control of your children, at an age that you may now deem incredible.
Let your own deportment be such that your children may be convinced, you are sincere in your profession. They are better judges of consistency of character, than yoil are probably aware. In vain do you instruct and correct them, unless you exhibit a pious example. Without this, your children-may be made to fear you, but they will not fear to sin.
Finally; pray much with and for your children. This is an important duty and a precious privilege. It is one of the establish- ed means of procuring promised blessings, " I mill yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel to do it for tktffi?* It may be improv- ed even while they are incapable of in- struction or restraint, orof being influenced by example. From the first moment of their existence, the pious parent may approach the throne of grace, and implore for them the covenant blessings of Abraham. When reason begins to dawn, not only call them around the family altar, but take them fre- quently with you into your closets. This will have a powerful effect to solemnize their minds, and to promote the fear of God in their hearts. In a word; let all your instruc- tions and every act of discipline, as far as circumstances will permit, be sanctified by prayer.
For the performance of these duties, breth-
308
ren, you are held responsible. If you neg- lect to discharge them, you are liable to the discipline of the church. — Consider, more- over their vast importance. The respecta- bility and usefulness of your children in this world, and, under the Divine blessing, their eternal salvation depend upon your fidelity. Without it, they may become your living sorrows, and die accursed. And should they perish through your neglect, how could you meet them at the bar of God! If a pang of wo, could ever enter a celestial mind, me- thinks, il would be inflicted by seeing your children turned into hell, in consequence of your unfaithfulness. — On the other hand, how happy the condition, and how delight- ful the prospects of faithful parents and o- bedient children. They grow up in this life as " fellow-heirs of grace ;" and shall at last meet in Mount Zion before God, to sit clown " with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," and sing " the song of Moses and the Lamb" forever and ever.- — Brethren, I intreat you by all the comfort and happiness that you hope to derive from your children in this life, — by all the mortification and pain and grief you wish to avoid — by all the joys of heaven, and by all the miseries of hell, to be faithful to their souls.
3. To Baptized Children. Ye children of the covenant ; how high- ly are you distinguished ! The seal of A- braham's God has been impressed on your foreheads. The Lord has marked you as his property, in a peculiar sense ; and has
309
provided special means for you to be train- ed up in his service. This distinction how- ever is conferred upon you, not on your ac- count; but solely, on account of your pious parents: — not because you are any better than others, for by nature you are children of wrath even as they; but "because the Lord loved your fathers, therefore hath he chosen you" to enjoy these exalted privileges.
But remember, the bare enjoyment of privilege cannot save you. It is not enough to be " set apart" to the Lord's service ; you must possess inherent holiness. Your pecu- liar advantages are designed as superior means to produce this effect. You are fa- voured with numerous instructions ; you are the children of numberless prayers. You now enjoy the most favourable opportunity to make your peace with God. But shortly these privileges will be at an end. You will soon leave the family altar, and go out into the wide world to provide for yourselves. How wretched will be your condition, if then, you have no altar of your own to ap- proach— no interest at the throne of grace to improve for your own souls! Secluded from the privileges of the parental dwelling, outcasts from the church, you will be "with- out God, without Christ, and without hope in the world." How imperious is your pre- sent duty ! You have no time to lose. You mustawaketoa senseof yourcondition. You must be renewed in the spirit of your minds, or perish for ever. Your characters are ra- pidly forming for the eternal world, They
310
will soon be sealed to the day of God Al- mighty. Your parents are deeply concern- ed for you. The church watches over you Avith the tenderest solicitude. If you con- tinue impenitent and die in your sins, ten thousand slighted privileges will fall upon you, and sink you to the lowest hell. Awake, then, ye careless children, who are "at ease in Zion." Make a voluntary surrender of yourselves to God, that you may inherit the blessings of the covenant, and be prepared to transmit them to generations yet unborn. 4. To Unbelieving Parents. My Friends; you will indulge me in a few words of address to you ; and you will pardon me, if 1 address you as " aliens from the commonwealth cf Israel and strangers to the covenant of promise. The Lord has dis- tinguished you from the heathen. Pie has cast your lot in a Christian land. You have been educated under the light of the gospel. Some of you were born within the pale of the church ; but by misimproving your ex- alted privileges, you have cut yourselves off from the blessings of the covenant. Your condition is perilous. Your souls are in jeopardy every moment. You are con- stantly exposed to all the horrors of eternal burnings.— But, you are not likely to perish alone. You have been instrumental in giv- ing existence to other immortal beings, whose character and condition are deeply involved in your conduct. Your children are a part of yourselves, and doubtless you love them as your own souls. But by con*-
3J1
tinned impenitence, yon may exclude them, as well as yourselves, from the blessings of salvation. It is true, if they perish, they will be condemned for their own per sonahins; but "their blood will be found in your skirts." You are anxious for their present com- fort and happiness ; but, I beseech you to recollect, that they are immortal beings. — You are daily labouring to provide for them the riches of time ; but, " what will will it profit you" or them, "to gain the whole world and lose your own souls?" A few more years will roll away, and you must meet them at the bar of God. How dreadful if you should meet them on the left hand of the Judge ! How will your ears be stunned with their bitter accusations! Can you bear the thought of hearing them exclaim, " O un- faithful parents ! but for your neglect, we might now be in the midst of yonder hap- py throng. You taught us how to obtain wealth in the other world, but you never taught us how to save our souls. Our riches we have left forever, and now we must lie down in eternal sorrow." My friends, if you would save yourselves the pain of such an interview, be intreated to make religion the great concern of your lives. " Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.'' "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your houses." Embrace the covenant of Abraham in faith, and you will bring salvation to yourselves and to your households.
312
5. To the Children of Unbelievers.
.My dear young friends; It is indeed your unhappiness that you were not horn within the pale of the covenant. But though this deprives you of many precious privi- leges, it does not excuse your impenitence in sin. The Lord declares in his word, that the heathen are "without excuse." How much more inexcusable are you! — Though your parents have been awfully negligent of your souls, yet you are blessed with the gos- pel. You have the bible to read, and the day and means of grace to enjoy. You are not ignorant of your duty. If you will obey the calls of divine grace, the Lord will not despise you. " He is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, isaccepted withhim."
Be intreated to repent without delay. — Time is ever on the wing. You may soon die. — Or, if your lives should be spared a few years longer, you will probably become the parents of children; for whom, in your turn, God will hold you responsible. You will then have more souls to take care of, and less, much less time to devote to it. The cares of life will then engross so much atten- tion, that you will scarcely find time to think of your eternal concerns. " Behold, now is the accepted time: behold now is the day of salvation. To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts" Therefore, " Turn ye, tcrn ye : for why will ye die ?'[
THE END.
<y
*-^H.
■
■