A REPLY,

TO

<* A VINDICATION OF THE

HT OF INFANTS

«

TO THS

SI ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM :

m

Jambs Itussc-ij i:.m.s.c

AN ADDRESS

&

*^_—

BT TH 11END THOMAS POLUr

SJIJCSTElt OP THE CO'?U.

IP

»Jf .

£3	«
^		Q_
		.5*
		3
$		-o re
*^.		IE
•^>?	1-3	Q-
# w
*-er>	fe	o
O	^	5
^■■^	m	0)
o	c
«*	o	bfl		cC
»55	H	<.		5>
^	o	~o3 3
	fe	E		.5
w	M	t J		>2
^-	«	CO		t>
	Pn
C*				c>
^ fe		-a c		^ $
V*		0)		^
' «
V	£L		I3
	<z.	""""^ /i^1	8	^

ZL&X

tm

■4

<*%*

• A REPL Y,

TO

« A VINDICATION OF THE

RIGHT OF INFANTS

TO THE

ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM

Ev the rev. James Hvsscli., m.m.e.c."

IN AN ADDRESS

BY THE REVEREND THO?,iAS>POLinLL,

MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.''

Search the Scriptures. Jksus Christ,

SAVANNAH:

'RIKTED BT SEYHOU3 CJ WILLIAM*

1812. .

PREFACE.

Courteous Reader,

THIS small attempt, to point out the fatla* clous reasoning employed in 44 The vindication of the right of infants to the ordinance of Bap- tism, by James Russell, minister of the Me- thodist Episcopal Denomination;" and at the same time to direct your mi?ids to the great covenant head of the Church, has been ready for publication some time since. Various caus- es, however, have prevented its earlier appear- ance from the press.

IFhen I first began to address Mr. Russell, on the subject of his piece, it was not with any intention of publishing my remarks from the press. But at the earnest solicitation of many of my highly valued 'friends , I consented to send it abroad in this manner.

The style is coarse, but the subject hath em- ployed the mind of Jehovah from everlasting.

That God may make this address a blessing to his people, is the prayer of your devoted ser- vant.

THOS. POLHILL.

Newington, (Effingham County, > Geo.) July 13, 1812. j

ADDRESS

To the Congregation, to whom this production vfao first read, after public timely notice of ir.u intention to take into consideration Mr. J»usst ll's tveri, iiiii/i a view of exposing 'tis fake and u,u>criptural arguments.

Friends and-BRETHREN :

It is to be lamented that those, who profess to be followers of Christ, and take for their guide, the word of God, should be divided in their opinions, and that schisms should abound among them. But such is unhappily the case, and it becomes indispensibly necessary that errors, when they are discovered to have crept into the churches of the Redeemer, should fee faithfully pointed out, lor the purpose of being avoided.

When I was last at this place, I heard much of a pamphlet, published by Mr. James Rus- sell ; my desire was excited to see it, and as I returned home the next day, I borrowed it from a friend. On perusing it, I immediately discovered that Mr R. had attempted to over- throw the basis of our holy religion ; and as I think that God has set me for a defence of the truth, it becomes my duty to expose what I conceive to be contrary to it.

It is not a fondness for opposition that brings me forward to-day against Mr. R. I can ap- peal to Him who kiiovveth the heart, for the rectitude of my intentions. Had Mr. R. con- fined his arguments to infant baptism only, without proceeding to the denial of a futxUw

ADDRESS. v.

mental article, (nay the foundation itself) of our holy religion, you would never have heard from me in this public manner on the subject : particularly as so many abler pens have been employed 'to set forth the truths I have endea- voured to exhibit in this address.

Mr. R. has denied the everlasting covenant of grace made with Christ, before the founda- tion of the world, and endeavors to place our hopes of salvation upon the covenant of cir- cumcision, made with Abraham. After I had read his work, I searched the scriptures for my own greater confirmation in what 1 con- ceived to be the truth, putting down my re- marks on them in writing as they occurred ; and this I did, by way of address to Mr. R. In these remarks, that important article of the svstem of divine truth, the everlasting covenant of grace, made with Christ before the foundation of the world, appeared to my mind to be fully established : I then thought it would be well to establish it in my brethren's also. And lest it should be said that 1 had taken ad- vantage of Mr. Russell and his friends, in making ray remarks on his production without public notice of my intention, I did, on this day two weeks, announce from thepmpit, at the Sister Ferry Meeting-House, that I would, on this dav, take his book into consideration, and attempt to point out some of its absurdities. Accordingly I have attended, and the following; is .the address which 1 have prepared en the occasion.

A. REPLY, &c.

Rev. JAMES RUSSELL, SIR,

I HAVE read with attention your pam- phlet, vindicating the right of infants to bap- tism, under the new testament dispensation upon the authority of the Abrahamic covenant' the covenant of circumcision. If vou had a proper spiritual view of your text, and context and would, without prejudice, compare the masterly arguments of the apostle, with those passages of the old testament, to which he re- iers, and the promises which he repeats • you would, 1 am persuaded, think very different- ly, and acknowledge he had in view far great- er blessings and privileges, than the mere ini- tiating of Abraham and his posteritv into a vi sible church. Neither would you "attempt to make believers, Abraham's to become Christ's but Christ's, that they might be Abraham's spiritual seed. In short, you would entirely give up your far fetched argument, to prove an ordinance of the christian church, unless as a writer observes, « You will become all tnmgs, to ail men, to save some from the bap- tists."* You have a very happy knack of prov-

Doctor Baldwi*.

ing what you please, and cf imposing upon* the weak and illiterate, who either will not, or cannot, read, and judge for themselves ; of which class I am truly sorry there are so ma- ny in our land. If men would search the scrip- ture (as commanded) and do it from proper motives, with care and supplication, 1 think the number of your disciples would be small, especially if your preaching is as contrary to the word of God, as your writing. I have heard of the power of your reasoning; it must be powerful indeed, or men must be very ig- norant, if you can reason them out of the sim- plicity of the gospel, as it is in Jesus. I have a specimen of the power of your reasoning be- fore me : any man may carry his point in the same way (if he can reconcile it to his feelings) by perverting the scripture, drawing- conclusions from false premises, and when' almost exhausted and ready to sink, buoy up by assertion.

Do you really believe that the seed which Paul says was Christ, was the same to which the land of Canaan was promised for an ever- lasting possession ? Or have you through po- liteness, or from some other motive, follow- ed Mr. Worcester ? If the conditions of the covenant of circumcision had been complied with on the part of Abraham's seed, to whom the promise made, had nespect, they must have had possession of that land at this day ; for God had bound himself by promise that they should have an everlasting possession of it — It will not be denied that all the promises

of God are literally fulfilled, whether they be absolute or conditional. If conditional, they will be fulfilled if the conditions are performed. If unconditional, they will be fulfilled without respect to any conditions whatever.

The promise made to Abraham and his seed, when God commanded him to circumcise himself and his male household, was condition- al ; Abraham was to walk before him, and be perfect, (upright or sincere) and he was to circumcise his flesh, his children, and his servants ; he was to have the land of Canaan and God was to be his God. Abraham obey- ed, and left the land in possession of Isaac, his seed, with whom the covenant was renew- ed, and with his seed also. What was the cov- enant ? xii Gen. verse 7. u Unto thy seed ^will I give this land :" Gen. xv. 18. " In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abra- ham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land." The possession of the land of Canaan appears to be the covenant on the part of God : Gen. xvii. 8 *' And I will give unto thee and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- lasting possession; and I will be their God." This chapter appears to be a renewal of the two promises made some years before, with a con- dition now added by God, to be performed on the part of Abraham and his seed. When God first gave the land of Canaan to him by promise, and by possession, he had no seed, neither had he any when he gave it to him by covenant i when Ishmael was thirteen years old,

9

God renewed his covenant and added a condi- tion, to be observed by Abraham and his seed, in their generations. The first part of this 17th chapter contains a declaration of what God promises — 'k And I wiil make my cove- nant between me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly ;" vs. 2. " As for me, be- hold my covenant is with thee, and thou shaft be a lather of many nations ;" vs. 4. u" And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their genera- tions, for an everlasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee ;" vs» 7. Thus far we find the absolute promises of God. It does not carry the appearance of a contract. God is absolute in all his declara- tions : " I will make my covenant." "Behold my covenant is with thee." " And / will establish my covenant, and I will give unto thee the land ;" vs. 8. " And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant there- fore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their gen- erations. " " This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man child shall be circum- cised ;" vs. 10. " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore skin, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you ;" vs. 1 1. " And my covenant shall be in your fiesh for am everlasting covenant : (token)" vs. 13.

Candour must confess that circumcision was not the covenant, it was only a token of it, as though God should say ; I have long since giv- e« you this land ; I have called you from your

!0

family ; the long promised seed of the woman shall come through you ; 1 will have you a separate and distinct family ; you shall have a mark in your flesh to distinguish you from all the families of the earth, and when you see this mark, you shall remember that the unchange- able God, has honored you above all families. *' In thee shall all families of the eanh be bless- ed :" Gen. xii. 3. This to be sure is called a covenant, as was the Horeb law. We read Exo. xxxiv. 28 : u And he was tfyere with the Lord forty days and forty nights ; and he did neither eat bread nor drink water: and he wrote upon the the tables, the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ad Exo. xxiv. 12 : " And the Lord said unto Moses, come up to me into the mount and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written : that thou mayest teach them." It is evident from these texts that the law of God is often expressed by the term covenant ; and more generally by covenant, than by law — Properly speaking, a covenant must have con- tracting parties, and there is not the very least appearance of a contract, on the part of Abra- ham. God was pleased to make the law or covenant, with a condition on the part ofA- braham and his seed : and they were bound to obey, or forfeit the possession promised. If the land, the seed, and the seal of the covenant are viewed as we have stated them, down goes your superstructure. But if you will maintain as you have stated, " That seed is Christ ;"

II

what must follow? Consequences that you surely cannot admit. Was not that land pro- mised to Abraham, and his seed, for an ev- erlasting possession ? Have they got posses- sion of it? Were they not dispossessed of it in the second generation after Abraham ? What reason, sir, can you give, for their loss of that land ? Was God unfaithful to his promise ? God forbid we should say so ! Was he not able to prevent the famine that drove Jacob to Egypt f God forbid we should think other- wise. What then was the cause ? " Is there not a cause ?" yes. The failure of the seed to comply with the conditions of the covenant. If then sir, you maintain that seed is Christ, you charge Him with being less perfect than Abraham, or Solomon, who possessed that land ; and leave us in uncertainty to know why God has not continued them in their possession, until now ; but whatever opinion you may en- tertain of Christ, we are confident he hath per- formed all his engagements.

It is to be lamented that such labor and pains are taken to cherish a rite, non- impor- tant and unscriptural : but that every sacrifice must be made to infant sprinkling.

The principal object that I have in view, is to prove the everlasting covenant of grace, be- tween the Father and the Son, which you deny. But first,

I shall prove that the covenant of circumci- sion, was not the covenant, to which the apostle refers : Gal. iii. 17. — consequently not the covenant of grace, and that it only had respect

12

to temporal blessings, wlui this exception, that it pointed to the soffcrmgs of Christ.

Secondly — I shall prove, there was n cove- nant between God the Father, and God the Son ; that it was everlasting, and ordered in til things and sure.

First — The covenant of circumcisjon was net the everlasting covenant of grace, to which the apostle refers, which he says was confirmed before of God in Christ. Gal. iii. 17.

After our common father had violated the law of God, given him in his state of inno- cence, he was called before his Judge in the garden of Eden, and confessed his disobedi- ence. God was then pleased to give him faith in the seed of the woman, with whom he had threatened to bruise the head of satan.

Nothing occurred for two thousand years, that could give any of God's believing people just ground to fix upon the family, the favor- ed family, from whence should come this holy, this much desired seed ; although Adam, Abel, Enoch, and all the godly in their days, and afterwards, from this first intimation of the seed of the woman, down to clearer revelation of it, locked for, and by faith, trusted in it, for all their happiness ; to Abraham was that clearer revelation made, and on him was the honor conferred of being designated as that individual from whom the promised seed should descend. God was pleased to commu- nicate to him his intention, of making him the honored father after the flesh of his so.: : Gen. xii. 3. " In thee shall ail families of the earth

13

be blessed." Through your loins after many- generations, shall be born, her, who shall be the Virgin Mary, who shall miraculously con- ceive Him, who shall be the long looked for seed. This communication was made to him 1921 years before the seed was born. This revelation was what the apostle Paul calls, " preaching the gospel to Abraham ;" and what he calls a confirmation of the covenant that was made before of God in Christ, now confirmed to man by revelation :" Gal. iii. 8. 17 — and this was the seed the apostle had refer- ence to in the 18th verse. God then conferred with Abraham as a friend, and directed him to leave his family and kindred, and go to a land that he would shew him. Your family must not be intermixed with any other people ; they must be a distinct people, known from all fami- lies of the earth, for from them the seed ijs to come. A register of them shall be taken, that the genealogy of Christ may at any time be traced. It is evident from various circumstan- ces, that these things were revealed to him at this time. First — Abraham obeyed, and went to the land of Canaan, and built an altar unto the Lord. Secondly — He returned to that land, after being driven away by the famine ; and again called upon the name of the Lord. Thirdly — He complained " I go childless," after he had returned to the land whither God had directed him. In the same year, God promised to give that land to his seed; (this must be his children.) Four years after, he renews his promise, " For all the land which

B

14

thou scest, to thee will I give it, and to tin' seed forever :" Gen. xiii. 15. Four years more piss on, and the Lord appears unto him in a vision, saying, " Fear not Abraham : I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. And Abraham said, Lord God, what wilt thou give mc, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus : ancl Abraham said, behold to me thou hast given no seed ; and lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And behold the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, this shall not be thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, look now toward Heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them : and he said unto him, so shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord ; and he counted it to him for righteous- ness :" Gen. xv. 1 to 6. The same day God told Abraham of the affliction of his seed for four hundred years, and of their deliverance. " In that same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river the river Euphrates;" v. 18: and by a symbol of fire, confirmed the grant. Fifteen years after, when Abraham was nine- ty years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abraham, and said unto him, " I am the Al- mighty God; walk before mc, and be thou perfect," (in the margin, upright or sincere) "• and I will make my covenant between me *ud thee :" Gen. xvii. 1. 2. Will you venture

15

to say, this is not intended as a confirmation, or renewal of the same covenant made fifteen years before ? If you will, it rests with you to show how many covenants were made with Abraham ; what was promised in them, and what were their seals. Twenty- four years before circumcision was commanded, and when Abraham had first got possession of the land of Canaan, God promised it to him and his seed, (not Christ) but that seed through which Christ should come ; and now confirms it by promise, and by token, even circumci- sion ; which is the most that can fairly, and scripturally be made of it, in allusion to the covenant.

In page 8th we have your third declaration : " Which is to prove, that the Abrahamic covenant, was the covenant of grace, by its confirmation." Was it ever confirmed ? It was : for Paul tells us, " 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 promises of none effect." We grant that those are the words of Paul ; but, sir, how do you prove your covenant by them ? Does Paul say, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the covenant of circumcision of none effect ? No, he does not ; and as you have pressed the apostle into your service, it rests with you to prove, that the promises he had in view, were embraced in the covenant of circumcision. It is very easy to quote scrip-

ture, but when you attempt it in controverted points, you ought to bring such portions of it as will clearly apply to your subject, or you may expect that your errors will be exposed. Paul tells us " that the covenant that was confirmed before of God," was four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the Iioreb law, or the law of ten commands at Sinai. Now sir, I say that the covenant of circumcision was only four hundred and six years before the giving of that law, which I shall by and by de- monstrate. You run too fast, you make the apostle confirm your covenant, twenty-four years before it is sealed. How will you ex- tricate yourself? you have fixed decidedly, on the covenant of circumcision, as your batter- ing ram, to beat down the everlasting covenant of grace, to destroy the baptism of John, and to make the baptists unchurch themselves. But alas! the ground on which you place it, fails, and therefore its force is destroyed.

We will return to page 5 — " Was the Abra- hamic covenant, which circumcision sealed, the covenant of grace ?" It was, as appears by the three declarations contained in the covenant. ' " 1. The seed of the covenant — 2. The faith of the covenant — 3. The confirmation of the covenant ; either of which we think sufficient to establish the existence of the covenant." Con- sequently if you loose them all, and it should be made to appear, that you cannot establish either of them ; you give up your covenant, and all you have built upon it.

To borrow from your book — " But as great

17

opposition has been made, and many sophisti- cal arguments have been advanced, as a mighty bulwark against us, in this point ; it become1} necessary to attend particularly to each decla- ration. " This we will now do — You say page 5th, " Declaration the first — The seed of the Abrahamic covenant proves it to have been the covenant of grace, because that seed was Christ, as appeal's in Gal. in. 8 and 16 ; where Paul says '" The scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preach- ed before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed ;" and in verse 16th he shews that seed was Christ," Now sir, will you a3 a preacher of the gospel, with your bible in your hand, venture to say, that the gospel preached to Abraham, and the promise that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, which seed the apos- tle declares to be Christ, took place at the time that God commanded him to circumcise himself and male posterity : do you not on the contrary know that the gospel preached to Abraham, and the promise made to him took place twenty-four years before that event, when God commanded him to leave his fami- ly ? Gen. xii, 1. 2.3; " Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,, and from thy father's house, unto a Umd that I will shew thee ; and I will make of thee a great nation, and I v>{\l bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curse th thee;

B3

18

* and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed :" v. 4. And Abraham was seventy. five years old when he departed out of Haran," the time when this gospel was preached to Abraham, to which the apostle refers in Gal. iii. 8, which he quotes from Gen. xii. 3. And when he speaks of the promises made to Abra- ham, in 16th verse, where he saith, " And to thy seed which is Christ ;" Abraham was seven- ty-five years old. There therefore cannot be the smallest reason to believe that the land of Canaan was the object of this promise, for the land was confirmed to his family, and the na- tions of the earth could not, and were not bles- sed by it. The blessing proceeded from God's making his name great, and making him a blessing. How ? By making him the honour- ed father after the flesh, of the seed of the wo- man, in which way alone could the families of the earth be blessed in him. The families of the earth could derive no benefit from circum- cision, for they did not generally receive it. Those only who belonged to Abraham's family. or were bought with' his money, submitted to that rite. Those who were not thus entitled to it, but received it, lost their lives — witness the Shechemites. It is therefore evident that the apostle had far greater things in view, in his argument to the Galatians, than circum- cision. When God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, and male family, he was ninety- nine years old. This we prove : Gen. X'Vli. 1. Thus we make it appear that the promise was twenty -four years before circura-

\9

eision ; and if we add these twenty-four to the four hundred and six years, the difference of time from the promises made him in Gen. xii. 3. to the giving of the law, the period of four hundred and thirty years will be fully and clearly made out, which is the term of time the apostle mentions, particularly between the giving of the law and the promises, in the pas- sage above quoted. How, sir, could you have the face to press that passage to your assis- tance, which will not answer your purpose by twenty-four years, and venture to say Christ was the seed of the covenant, and force the apostle to prove what he »ever had an idea of. Besides, when the apostle elucidates the pas- sage from Moses, respecting the blessing of the nations through Abraham, he says, v. 8 — " And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, (not justify them through, or by Abraham) preached be- fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying, " in thee shall all nations be blessed," that is, in Christ, who is in thee, after the flesh. These words the apostle quotes from Gen. xii. 3. and not from any part of the 17th chapter : and again the apostle doth not say they are to be blessed in Abraham, or by him, but with him : v. 9. *' So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." They have as great a claim to Christ and his merits as Abraham, had, and that, not from any natural alliance to hint, but through their faith in Christ. And it was no greater spiritual blessing to Abraham, or to any of his posterity, that Christ came

20

through him, than it was or will be, to any individual believer whatever. You have fail- ed Mr, in proving Chriet the seed of the cove- nant; Moses and Paul, being the judges : be- side it appeal^ to me perfect nonsense, to speak of thtr seed of the covenant. You ad- mit that a covenant is a contract ; how does it yield seed ? Is it by ordinary, or extraordi- nary generation ?

In page 6th we have your second declara- tion. M This covenant is again proved to have been the covenant of grace, from the righteous- ness of faith couched in it."

You attempt to prove your second declara- tion by inquiring how Abraham was justified, as if he were justified in any singular way, or as if there were any way by which any believer could be justified in his conscience, but by faith. Abraham being justified by faith, does not prove the covenant of circumcision, to be the everlasting covenant of grace ; any more than the apostle Paul's justification by faith, does. The inquiry is, was Abraham justi- fied by circumcision or by faith ? If circumci- sion be the covenant of grace, Abraham must be justified by it : now the scripture declares that it is by faith in Jesus Christ alone that sin- ners stand justified in the sight of God, and as Jesus Christ is the covenant head, and not A- braham, (as we shall prove;) it surely rests with you (to carry your point) to prove Abra- ham justified by circumeision, or at least, by the faith he had in that transaction. If you do not, you fail; and your attempt will be found to involve in it a perversion of scripture, to apply

21

it where it lias only a forced allusion ; and where it is evident the inspired writer never in- tended it should be applied.

But sir, what was it that Abraham believed, when the apostle says his belief was counted to him for righteousness ? Was it that he and his seed should have the land of Canaan ? Was it that circumcision should be a blessing to him, and family ? Was it any thing pertaining to cir- cumcision ? Answer^ sir, in the fear of God : was not his belief counted to him for righteous- ness, fifteen years before circumcision had an existence ; and at the time when the promise was made to him that his seed should be as the stars of Heaven ? Gen. xv. 5, 6. " Look now toward Heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them ; and he said unto him so shall thy seed be : and he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for righte- ousness." Surely you will not say that the seed here promised was Christ, who were to be as numberless as the stars of Heaven. It was this faith in the promise of God now made that was counted to him for righteousness ; which Paul quotes both in Rom. iv. 3. and Gal. iii. 6. And this you call the faith of the covenant of circumcision, when that covenant was not made with Abraham until fifteen years after he had the belief, and after it was counted to him for righteousness. How, sir, can vou have the face to maintain such absurdities ? I think by an appeal to Moses and Paul, they will again decide against you, and you have lost your second battering ram.

<22

In papre 8th we have your third declaration — •' Which is to prove that the Abrahamic cove- nant, was the covenant of grace, by its confir- mation. Was it ever confirmed ? It was. For Paul tells US that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, (hat was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promi- ses of none effect." To this we answer in the Words of Doctor Baldwin.

" Here are several things worthy of consid- eration.— 1st. This covenant was confirm- ed before of God in Christ. It consequently stood independent of the obedience either of A- braham or his posterity.

" 2d. This covenant, if confirmed in Christ, could not be broken or disannulled. There could in the nature of things be no failure. Even a suspicion of this kind, Mould be de- rogatory to the honor and veracity of Christ.

" 3d. This promise, which is the same re- ferred to in the 29th verse, the apostle informs us was thus made and confirmed, four hun- dred and thirty years before the giving of the law. This will forever distinguish it from the promises in the covenant of circumcision ; for this was instituted only four hundred and six years before the giving of the law. The covenant in the 17th chapter Gen. was in the year before Christ 1897; the law was } 1897 given fourteen hundied and ninety one > 1491

years before the same era, which leave ) .

but four hundred and six : . . 406

But the promise, quoted by the apostle from

23

Genesis xii. 3. which was made to Abraham twenty four years before, when ha was in art* circumcision, exactly compares with this state- ment in the context, of four hundred and thin. ty years. This promise, according to the bible chronology, was made to Abraham in the year before Christ 1921, the law, ) 1921 as observed above, was given 1491, > 1491 w hich makes exac'Iv the time speci- ) — — fied :..'.... 430

u Here the matter is reduced to mathemati- cal certainty. Any person who will take the trouble to compare the dates of his bible, of the 12th chapter of Gen. and the 20th of Ex- odus, referred to above, will feel himself com- pletely satisfied. The most invincible preju- dice will find it difficult to resist the light of demonstration.

" If the observations which have now been made are correct, they will bring us unavoid- ably to this conclusion, viz. 7 hat Mr. Wor- cester" (we say MA Russel) " has totally mis- taken the promise in his text, and reasoned from one to which the apostle had no imme- diate reference. 'Hence the whole cf his la- boured superstructure is left without founda- tion. The fate of such a building may be seen in the close of the sixth chapter of Luke. In order to set aside this conclusion, three things must be fairly proved.

" 1st That the apostle throughout this .chapter did actually mean the promise in the covenant of circumcision, although he has not mentioned a single passage contained in it j

24

but expressly quoted one clearly distinguish- ed by 'he timt of its being delivered, and al- so by the terms and import of the promise it- self.

" 2d. It must be proved, that the covenant of circumcision was 430 years before the giv- ing of the law. notwithstanding scripture chro- nology places it but four hundred and six."

" 3d. That the seed of Ahraham, mentioned in the covenant of circumcision, and the seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed, Mere the same ; or in other words, that the seed of Abraham, expressed in that covenant, meant Christ ; for the apostle has expressly told us in the context, that he was the person to whom' the promise, from which he was then reasoning, exclusively referred. Until these are fairly proved, we shall insist upon the conclusion above stated."*

In the same page you say — " But was this covenant which God confirmed in Christ, the Abrahamic covenant? It vr.s, because in verse 15th it is written ; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man dis- annulled or addeth thereto."

To which I will answer nearly in the words ofDr Doddridge and Mr. John Wesley. " I have been speaking, brethren, of the blessings of Abraham, and have shewn that according to the promises of God, all his believing seed whether they be, or be not circumcised, must be entitled to many very valuable privileges: And herein I speak after the manner of men,

• Doctor Baldwin ui answer to Mr. Worcester.

S5

and reason on the principles of common equi- ty, according to what is the allowed rule of" all human compact : for though it be but the cov- enant of a man with his fellow creature, yet if it be once legally confirmed by mutual promise and seal, no honest man concerned aftt rwards, cancelleth what was agreed to by it, or addeth any thins: to it which should alter the terms of it, without the consent of the other stipula- ting party." Here wre see by the Doctor and Mr. Wesley that it was not man's covenant, but a comparison the apostle was making to shew the unchangeableness of the covenant confirm- ed before of God in Christ. It could not be altered but by the mutual consent of the par- ties, which so far from strengthening your cause, evidently weakens it.* In the same page you add, " How did God in Christ con- firm it ? Paul tells us in Romans xv. 8. that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circum- cision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." This is to be sure a grand discovery, " a minister of the circumcision." Do you mean he was a minister of the covenant of circumcision ? or do you mean (as the apostle intends us to un- derstand him) that he was a minister under the new testament dispensation to the Jeivs ? who you cannot deny, are called the circum- cision, to distinguish them from the gentile nations, who are called the uncircumcision.

* I would observe that God calls it liis covenant seven times, ar.d Mr. R. wishes to make his readers thiijk it was not God's, hut man's.

C

2G

You must intend, the one or the other, or we cannot comprehend your reasoning. If you mean the first, then the covenant of circum- cision had two ministers, for you tell us page £0. " Now from the period that God cha: ged his name to Abraham, he became a minister of the circumcision under God." We are at a loss to find out by your book, which is the greatest, .Abraham, or Christ. You say Christ is a minister of the circumcision, (you must mean of the covenant of circumcision, or it would answer you no purpose ;) but you have not informed us of any act he did to make it appear he was a minister in the way you would have your readers consider him. We grant you have proved Abraham a minister of the covenant of circumcision, for he acted just as God commanded him. I conceive there is a material difference in being a minis- ter of the circumcision, and a minister of the covenant of circumcision ; and it is evident from your arguments, that you wished your readers to consider Christ a minister of the covenant of circumcision ; a very honorable office indeed, sir, to Abraham ; but I should think a degrading one to the son of God. But sir, your work is all of a piece, you wish your readers to look to Abraham as their covenant head, to the rejection of Him, whom God hath honored more than all the children of men, and appointed the covenant head of his people.

Our Lord himself explains to us, in what $ense he is a minister of the circumcision :

27

Matt. xv. 24. " But he answered and said, I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel : Matt. x. 5. 6. Go not into the way of the gentiles ; and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not. But go ye ra- ther to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The Jews were the circumcision, and Christ was their minister, sent, to his. own nation. In addition to the above, we read that Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said it was necessa- ry that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you(fhe Jews.) Why was it neces- sary ? Because God had promised him (Christ) to the fathers, and his word must be fulfilled : Deut. xviii. 18. '* I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I com- mand him." This sir, is the truth of God, and here is one of many of the promises made unto the fathers, which Paul had in view when he exhorted the Romanj, to " bear the infir- mities of the weak," and to act after the ex- ample of Christ ; to be of one mind, and glo- rify God ; and " receive one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." " Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." God had promised the fathers that he would give them a prophet, and his word cannot fail. This the apostle Peter had in view in Acts iii. 22- 26. " Unto you first." Whom? You, Jews, the circumcision. " God having

as

raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning every one of you from his iniqui- ties." This is evidently what the apostle Paul means by his being a minister of the cir- cumcision. Neither do I believe, you would deny it. Peter is said to be an apostle of the circumcision : Gal. ii. 7. 8. " When they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circum- cision was unto Peter. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision ; the same was mighty in me toward the gentiles.) And when James, Ce- phas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, per- ceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to rne and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship ; that we should go unto the heath- en, and they unto the circumcision." Here we see clearly what the apostle means by the circumcision ; not the cutting of the flesh ; but the Jewish nation. For he has clearly distin- guished them by circumcision, uncircumci- sion, and heathen ; and it is undeniably thus he would have the Romans and us to under- stand him. And it completely destroys the last of your declarations : therefore, not one of your three declarations has sufficient weight to bear " the least breeze of truth." It is, therefore concluded you have lost each of your arguments, drawn from the Abrahamic cove* nant, in favor of your design ; and as your whole fabric was built thereon, the whole tumbles down together.

I proceed now to shew that the covenant of

2$

circumcision, cannot be the covenant of grace ; and that the seed therein mentioned, cannot be Christ ; for several reasons.

First — The covenant of circumcision, has every appearance of being conditional. God promised Abraham to be his God, and the God of his seed, and commanded him to cir- cumcise himself and his male household. He also promised him the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession to him and his seed after him, forever. It was to be theirs, in their gen- erations ; and God's covenant was to be in their flesh fur an everlasting covenant. We must conclude it was conditional, and that Christ was not the seed therein promised from the events that followed. They lost their pos*- session in the second generation after Abraham : " And they took their cattle, and their goods which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him :" Gen. xlv"i. 6. 1 think there cannot be a doubt that the seed here, and that in the 17th chapter are the same. A question will naturally occur, why was it that the posteri- ty of Abraham lost possession of the promised land ? God, who had promised them an ever- lasting possession of it, could not forfeit his word. Answer, although there was no condi- tion particularly stipulated, it must have been upon those terms that God made his covenant with Abraham ; for if he had promised them an everlasting possession without condition, they never would have lost the possession. It must then have been upon condition of their obedi- ,c 3

30

ence, to whatever God had commanded ; whether implied, or expressed. Could the seed that is expressed in that covenant be Christ ? No. If we admit that seed to be Christ, we charge him with violating the covenant of God. Now it is impossible, from the nature of God, that he should fail to comply with his promise ; and by asserting that the seed was Christ, we implicate the father, or the son. And what is still worse, if we say that seed was Christ, we charge God in positive terms with falsehood, for Christ said " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have r.ests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head." Notwithstanding that seed had the promise of an everlasting possession.

Secondly — The mark in the flesh has ceas- ed, for although the natural descendants of Abraham may, until this day, continue the practice of circumcision ; it is evident, they have now no divine authority for that rite. As long as God had a purpose to answer with them(which was until the promised seed should come) they were to keep themselves separate from other nations, and were to keep that seal or mark, as a distinction of their families in their generations. But that seal or mark exhibited something more, it pointed to the sufferings of Christ very particularly, and a prophet hav- ing this in view said, "Messiah shall be cut oft', but not for himself. " If then it was a mark of distinction of that people until Christ should suffer : as soon as he suffered, the mark was of no farther use ; and if it was typical of his suffering (as it assuredly was) he could not

31

have been the seed, for he was that, which the mark of the seed pointed at ; and as circum- cision was a seal or token of that covenant, and was to continue as long as the covenant did ; the token or seal being taken away as soon as Christ to whom it pointed suffered, proves that it had a fixed period ; and that the covenant to which that mark was attached was not ever- lasting.

Thirdly — A covenant is a transaction be- tween parties, who possess the power of per- forming their respective stipulations. Now as neither Abraham nor his seed had the-pow- er of holding possession of the promised land, it evidently follows that neither he nor they had the ability to perform such high duties as were required of Him, who undertook thecause of helpless man. Therefore the covenant of grace could not be made with Abraham or any of his natural seed for want of the ability requi- site in its head.

Again, the very duties enjoined on the seed mentioned in the covenant of circumcision, prove that it is not the covenant of grace ; for no duty is enjoined on them but circumcision. The duty to walk perfect before God was en- joined on Abraham exclusively ; and never in the chapter containing the covenant of circum- cison required of his seed. The declaration of Jehovah that " He will be their God," alters not the case. TtnVhe -might be, and would have been, in the way he was their God, had he never commanded circumcision. If we say he was their God, because they cir.

«?0

fumciscd themselves, and their families; boast- ing is not excluded. But he was their God only in a particular point of \ k w, and not a God of their salvation, neither did his promise to be their God extend so far ; for but a rem- nant of them were saved. Now if we say that he promised to be their God in the highest sense, that is, the God of their salvation, we charge him with a breach of his word, or we declare the whole nation of Israel were saved, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the scriptures.

Once more : If we attend to the duties, and qualifications of that seed, who was to be the head of the covenant of CTace, we shall find that the seed spoken of in the 17th chapter, were not capable of performing the first, or ac- quiring the last. Psa. Lxxxix. 28. '* My mercy will I keep for him forevermore ; and my cove- nant shall stand fast with him : 29. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven : 27. Also I will make him my first born higher than the kings of the earth :" Isa. XLii. 6. " I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the geutiles :" xl'ix. 8. 9. " Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee ; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to es- tablish the earth, to cause to inherit the deso- late heritages ; that thou niayest say to the

33

prisoners, go forth ; to them that are in dark- ness, shew yourselves ; they shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in high pla- ces " No man of common sense will say that these qualifications, and duties could be ac- quired and performed by the seed of Abraham, spoken of in the 17th chap. Gen. for they could not keep in their own strength, posses- sion of the land of Canaan.

The covenant of circumcision had respect to temporal blessings principally. As we have already shown, the land of Canaan, was all the promise made to the seed of Abraham in the 17th of Gen. containing an account of the covenant of circumcision. In the life of Ja- cob, Abraham's seed lost possession of that land, for the violation of the covenant. God was not bound to give them the possession again : but for the accomplishment of his pur- pose in keeping them a distinct people, until the seed promised in the 12th chap, of Gen. should come, he gave them again the pos- session of it. This is clearly intimated, when he says " Because he loved thy Fathers, (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,) therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt :" Deut. iv. 37. And in the 40th verse, he promises them and their children length of days, if they obeyed him. It is certainly true, and important to observe, that all the blessings they received as a nation had respect to Christ, Such as individuals had by the grace of God, and faith in the promised seed, were peculiar

34

to themselves, being the special gift of God. But as a nation, or family, the promises made to them were temporal : Exo. xxiii. 22. "But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak ; then I will be an enemy to thine enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries : 23. For mine angel shall po before thee and bring thee in unto the Antorites, &c. Deut. xxviii. 1. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do all his com- mandments, which I command thee this day ; that the Lord thy God will set thee on high, above all nations of the earth : 2. And all these blessings shall come on thee, and. overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God : 3. Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field : 4. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy bo- dy, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep." These are all good temporal blessings, with a variety of others you may read to the 14th verse, and the cur- ses are threatened on the same principle. " But it shall come to pass if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God,? all these curses shall come upon thee : " Cursed shalt thou be in the city ; and cursed shalt thou be in the field, thy basket, thy store, thy body, the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, thy sheep, vexation and rebuke, pesti- lence, consumption, fever, inflammation, burn- ing, sword, blasting and mildew ; and thy cue-

35

mies shall pursue thee until thou perish, and the heavens that is over thy head shall be brass,and the earth that is under thee shall be iron:" from 15 to 23d verse. It is hereby manifest that their blessings, and curses con- sidered in a national point of view were tem- poral, and not spiritual. The best baptist expositor, (except one) that ever I have read puts this out of all dispute, for he tells us that all the rites and ceremonies of that dispensa- tion, " Was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, which, stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on them, until the time of reformation :" Heb. ^x. 9. 10 — that is until the introduction of the gospel dispensation.

We apprehend then, as a nation, they were kept together ; as God's nation through which the holy seed was to come ; that their circum- cision was a mark of distinction, and typical of the anting off of the Messiah, their cove- nant head, which is both manifested by the part cut, and the blood spilt ; and further that God's people understood it so. For as soon as the Messiah was cut off, as was thereby typified, circumcision ceased, and not before. Now the ordinance of baptism, was command- ed by God for his people to observe, and those that were called by h^ grace, walked in it, not- withstanding they had \>een circumcised. This surely proves, that the o\;e did not supercede

the other, when the same persons, in a variety of instances received both.

Finally — From the arguments of the apos- tle to the Romans, and Galatians, it is absurd to believe that he had the covenant of circum- cision in view. How was faith reckoned to Abraham ? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, (but fifteen years before that event) when in un- circumcision. Here then we find both when, and how, faith was reckoned to him for righte- ousness. There is not the least hint in Gal. iii. of the covenant of circumcision, for the apostle argues against it, in the whole of his epistle to them. " There were men who crept in privily, denying the Lord, and with a view of bringing the church of Christ into bondage :" Jude iv. " For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness and de- nying the only Lord God, and the Lord Jesus Christ :" Part Gal. ii. 4. " And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage." What is the bondage the apostle alluded to? He tells us " stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." While they were in the Jewish church, they were under the bon- dage of circumcision, and other legal ceremo- nies of that dispensation ; but now saith he

37

to his brethren, you are in the gospel church, and enjoy the liberty in common with your brethren, *' which we have in Christ Jesus, stand fast therein " Behold" (take particular notice) " I Paul say unto you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ;" for by being " circumcised" you in effect say you are of the law, which is adhering to the dispensation, " which decayeth and waxeth old, and is ready to vanish away :" Heb. viii. 13. Who that desireth to teach men know- ledge, would so pervert the word of God, and lead them from the truth as it is in Jesus ? Again, look at the reason why the apostle wrote this epistle. " I marvel, that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel ; which is not another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ :" Gal. i. 6. 7. These false brethren endeavored to draw the affections of the Galatians from Paul, that they might make a gain of them, and this they could not do but by perverting the scripture, as too many now do, to make a gain of godliness, falsely so called. Again Gal. hi. 1. " O foolish Gallatians who hath bewitch- ed you," are ye so foolish having begun in the spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh :" to be plain, you have made a profession of Jesus Christ ; you have been baptized into his death, you have put on Christ by profession. If you now return to the traditions of the Jew- ish church, you in effect say, " except we be circumcised after the manner of Moses, we

38

cannot be saved." You arc thereby denying the work of the spirit, and expect to be made perfect by the flesh. You swerve from the truth, " before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently" (by his ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper) " set forth crucified among you." In short you cannot be justified in any way whatever but by him. This is evidently the whole of his intention. He asks them if he yet preached circumcision; if he yet adhered to the Jews' religion, in which he had been born, and was raised; and from which God by his grace had called him, revealing Christ in him : why he yet suffered persecu- tion (from the Jews ?) If, as we may naturally suppose him to say, if I was to return to that old way of living, then would my suffering for the cross cease. But, saith he, if we, or an angel from heaven preach any other (doctrine) unto you, than justification by the al!-atoning righteousness of Jesus Christ ; let him be ac- cursed. The sum total of the covenant of circumcision, is, that Abraham shall be a father of many nations ; kings shall come out of him, God would be a God unto Abraham, and to his seed after him. All the land of Canaan should be given them for an everlasting pos- session, that is until the promised seed shall come. Sarah should have a son indeed, and God would establish his covenant with him ; he should be the honored father of the seed, promised to Abraham twenty-four years ago. Thus much God promised. Abraham and his males should be circumcised, on their part, or

33

cut off from the family, who should bear his son. Why ? they would have broken God's covenant.

Nov/, sir, what do you say to your sophis- try ? Did you think that we would take for granted, all that you should say, as we lament too many do to their hurt? Do you so lightly esteem the glorious truths of the gospel, that you will deny them, rather than lose the plea- sure of sprinkling a little water in the face of those who are evidently under the law, conse- quently under the curse ? If ever there was an attempt made to lead men from the simplicity of the gospel, into a bewildered state, it is to be found in your pamphlet. The evidences pro- duced, and the mathematical demonstration placed before you, undeniably prove the truth which I asserted, and have endeavored to es- tablish, viz. — That the covenant of circumci- sion, is not the everlasting covenant of grace.

In the second place I was to prove, that there was a covenant made between the Father, and the Son, that it was everlasting, and or- dered in all things and sure.

But I would first make a remark upon your reasoning, in page 46 — You ask, " was there no covenant made between the Father, and the Son, he. ? Answer. There was not ; and it is unreasonable and unscriptural to suppose it, because there never was a time when God the Father, and the Son, came to an agreement in any point,, on which they did not agree before ; so the same agreement which now exists be- tween them, has existed from eternity ; of

40

course never began." Wc thank you sir, for that troth. It is just what we say ; for it is impossible to eonceive of an everlasting cove- nant in any other way. We conceive of the covenant just as we do of the sonship. Will you deny the covenant of grace so clearly re- vealed in the scriptures, because you cannot fix a date to its existence ? Do you think of the eternity of God, and his works as you do of man, and his works ? Surely your views of God are contemptible, if you think he could not do a thing, because you cannot ascertain the time when it was done. " Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven ? Canst thou set the dominion of them in the earth ?" Job xxviii. 33. We cheerfully agree with you that "there never was a time when the Father, and the Son did not agree in every particular." Now sir, if we should, unfortunately for your pamphlet, prove a covenant, or agreement between the Father, and the Son, you have yourself fixed the date of it ; it was from eternity, " for there never was a time, (according to your own declara- tion) when the Father and the Son came to an agreement in any point on which they did not agree before."

There are other mysteries in God, and his works, as great as the covenant of grace. The glorious Trinity, three in one, and one in three, cannot be fully comprehended, yet we believe it. Jesus Christ is said to be ** begotten of the Father — " the only begotten of the Father:" Jno. i. 14. " Thou art my son this day have I begotten thee :" Ileb. i. 5.

41

More might be ndded to prove his sonship : yet we find the child, that was to be born oi" the virgin, is styled " The mighty God, the* everlasting Father, the prince of peace :" Isa. i;;. 8. The union of the divine and human natures of our Lord, is a " mystery of godli- ness." The imputation of sin to our Lord, without which he could not have suffered, and the imputation of his righteousness to his peo- ple, without which they cannot be saved, are equally great and glorious truths ; and dis- covered by divine revelation only. If there never was a time when the Father and the Son came to an agreement in any point, on which they did not agree before, then they eternally agreed to make man. " Let us make man :" Gen. i. 26. I hope, sir, you will not deny this, and I would now ask as they eter- nally determined to make man, if it is unrea- sonable to believe that they eternally agreed to save man. And I would again ask, if man could be saved, as the event has proven, if Christ had not assumed their nature, and suf- fered their stead. If these facts will not be denied (as they will not but by an infidel) what becomes of your reason, and your scripture. Now then if these are facts, and undeniable ones ; where is the unreasonableness of an eternal covenant of grace ? I told you you had Contemptible views of the eternal God ! and you have manifested it in your declaration, that there *' was not a covenant between the Father and the Son." 4t Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times

D 3

42

the things that are not yet clone, saying, mv counsel, it shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure :" Isa. xlvi. 10. If we inquire what counsel the prophet intends, we will find that it is a counsel of peace, which was to be between the Father and the Son, and as they could never be at variance, it is evident that it must be a counsel of peace between them, for the people given in covenant to the Son for whom he undertook, and for whom he would suffer. This counsel was to be between the Lord of hosts, and the man, whose name is the Branch: Zech. vi. 12. 13. " I was set up Jrom everlasting- from the beginning-, or ever the earth was :" Prov. viii. 23. 4' According as he hath chosen us in him before the founda- tion of the world :" Eph. i. 4. " But accord- ing to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world be- gan :" 2 Tim. i. (J. " According to the eter- nal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord :" Eph. iii. 1 1. Here are great ar.d glorious declarations, big with importance to Christ and his people, but known fully and completely to God alone. But sir, if your de- clarations arc true, they are unmeaning words, and cannot be accounted for, There is a va- riety of such declarations, to which you must ascribe some reasonable meaning, or deny your own principles. These truths are as clearly revealed in scripture, as the covenant of circumcision, but not as generally believed ; and the only reason, we can give is, because they are humbling to haughty nature, and self-

43

willed hypocrites. Now, sir, if you will teH us precisely when Christ was set up, when he was begotten of the Father, when this grace spoken of, was treasured in him, and when Paul, and the elect of God were chosen in Christ according to God's eternal purpose ; we will tell you precisely when the covenant of grace took place. And if you can prove the covenant of circumcision as old as this covenant, we will ask your pardon.

I shall now prove the covenant of grace, between the Father and the Son. " I was set up from everlasting* from the beginning or ever the earth was:" Prov. viii. 23. We conceive it impossible for words to express the eternity of an act more fully. When the Psalmist would give us his views of the eter- nity of God, he said, " from everlasting to everlasting thou art God :" Psa. xc. 2. It will not be contended that the person spoken of in the foregoing passage was set up as God's son : this would be ignorance indeed. That person was by nature the son of God, or he never could have atoned for sin. It was his divinity as the Son of God that sanctified the human nature and rendered its obedience and sufferings meritorious. He was set up as me- diator, as the glorious covenant head of his church, and this is what the apostle alluded to, when he told his Galatian brethren " that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ" (before the foundation of the world) and now revealed unto Abraham " was the gospel preached to him" " the law that was

IVur hundred and thirty years after'* (this glo. rious revelation was made) " cannot disannul, that it shonkl make the promise of none effect." Why ? because it was confirmed by oath. " Once have 1 sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David:" Psa. Ixxxix. 35. What is the promise made to David, who here personates Christ? " My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him:" Ixxxix. 28. Agreea- ble to what you have said in page 57, your answer will be, David was intended : but this we deny unequivocally, for it is said, " I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth, v. 27. Kis seed will I make to endure forever, and his throne as the days of heaven:" v. 29. If you will still say David was intended, you will say any thing. But I ask was David higher than Solomon ? not to ndd than all other kings of the earih. Hath this throne endured until now ? And lastly are the heavens no more ? I have been particular here, because you have said that a Pcedobap'ist minister at a certain time shewed from Psalm Ixxxix. 3. " David and all believers belong- ed to Christ, and Christ to Abraham." You have said nothing, sir, to strengthen the scrip- ture knowledge of your Poedobaptist brother, for there is no doubt that the same person was intended in the 3d. verse, that we have by the 27th and 29th verses proved to be Christ.

Again, " Behold my servant whom. I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth : I have put my spirit upon him, he shaU bring judg-

45

ment to the gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break : and the smoaking flax shall he not quench : he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged till he shall have set judgment in the earth : and the isles shall wait for his law :" Isa. xlii. 1. 2. 3. 4. That this passage was a prophecy of Christ cannot be doubted ; but for proof of it read Matt, xii. 18 — 20. In what respect can he be called the servant of God ? it must be in his humilia- tion, as becoming one with man, to do his fa- ther's will. In this respect, he said " my Fa- ther is greater than I :" " but in another he said. ".land my Father are one." "Mine Elect," elected the covenant head of his glori- ous body, the church ; who are elected in him. " Christ is the head of the church" — even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it " for no man ever yet hated his own flesh ; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church ; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." (What a close and glorious union is this.) This is a great mystery : but I speak concern- ing Christ, and his church : Eph. v. 23. 25. 29. 30. 32. " And he is the head of the body, the church:" Col. i. 18— " and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all :" Eph. i. 22. 23. More might be added : let this suffice however to prove him the elect

if

head : elected by the Father, and given to, and for, the church. In this view he is God's servant, and his elect ; in whom his soul de- lighted.

Again, God promises to qualify him for the very purpose of redeeming his elect. " Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness, therefore God, thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows:" Psa. xlv. 7. Whom can we understand by fel- lows of, (or equal with) Christ ? Surely not those who live and die in sin ; but those whom God hath exalted to this equality by hw gift, in the covenant of grace. " I have put my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judg- ment to the gentiles :" Isa. xlii. 1. Now speaking to his son he saith, " I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the gen- tiles : to open the blind eyes, and bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison hotse. I am the Lord, that is my name :" Isa. xlii. 6. 7. 8. " Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I heard thee and in a day of salva- tion have I helped thee ; and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the peo- ple, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage.1; ; that thou mayest say to the prisoners go forth ; to them that are in darkness, shew yourselves, they (the elect,) shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in high places :" Isa. xlix. 8. 9. 10.

47

** They shall go in and out and find pasture :'* Jno. x. 9. Who can be meant here? Can it be all men ? If so then all must be saved, and that will be contrary to tl'e word of God, and the belitf of all men, but Universaiists. Our Lord haih told us in the 10, h of St John's gospel, that it is his sheep. " Bj his know- ledge shall my righteous servant justify ma- ny:" Iisa. liii. 11. " For it became him for whom are all things, in bringing many sor.s unto glory, to make the captain of their salva- tion perfect through sufferings. For both he who sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one : for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren :" Heb. ii. 10. 11. In what sense can we possibly under- stand the apostle, that they are " all of one" if not, of one covenant, of one family, of one interest ? " A body hast thou prepared me, lo I come as 'A is written (in the psalms) to do thy will O God:" Heb. x. 5. 7. What was the will of God ? That Christ should redeem to God by his blood a people (a covenant peo- ple) " out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; and make them unto God, kings and priests, that they may reign with him on earth," (and in heaven) : Rev. v. 9.- 10. Thus we see clearly from these passages, (and more might be added) that the dear Re- deemer is proved to be qualified for the im- portant office to which he was set up from everlasting, and which he freely undertook in the fullness of time, i. e. to be the covenant head of the church. He is called in righte-

4g

ousness, endowed with knowledge — a body prepared him — he hath the spirit without mea- sure, and made perfect by suffering — suffering all the innocent infirmities of his people, and the temptations of satan ; " that he might be able to succour them who are tempted," and all this done for and to him, that he might " bring many sons to glory," even all God's covenant people : " for he who sanctifieth (Jesus by his spirit) and they who are sancti- fied (his covenant people) are all of one." They have one God as their common Father. They are one as sons of God, they have one body, of which Christ is the head. They have one interest, viz. to glorify God, their common lather, and they shall have one re- ward, viz. eternal glory.

Let us take another view of this subject. Hath Christ any interest in this all important, and painful undertaking"? He lias a twofold interest. First — As God he would not let the devil his enemy, triumph in the victory he had obtained over his creature man ; and therefore from eternity determined to save his people. He said, " I have loved thee with an everlast- ing love : therefore (or for this cause,) with loving kindness have I drawn thee :" Jer. xxxi. 3. " Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it :" Matt. xvi. 18. " We love him; because he first loved us :" 1st Jno. v. 19. Secondly : As mediator or covenant head set up from everlasting, he had engaged with his Father, to sanctify his people and present them a glo.

49

rious church, and deliver them from this pre* sent evil world. First — He had eternally de- termined to save his people, and had set them apart in his eternal foreknowledge for that purpose, " whom he foreknew" (in the cove- nant of grace) "them he also did predestinate ;" to what ? " having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will." As God, " He and his Father are one :" Jno. x. 30. Then it appears that it was the will and good pleasure of the Father also, thus to predestinate his church to be accepted in the beloved! " For he (the Father) hath chosen us in him, (Christ) before the founda- tion of the world, (not to licentiousness, as some erroneously sa}', but) that we should be holy and without blame (in life and conversa- tion) before him in love, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved" (Jesus) : Rom. viii. 29. Eph. i. 4. 5. 6. Secondly — As mediator he had an interest also. His word and honor were engaged. We have already proven that there was a covenant made ; that Christ was set up from everlasting as the covenant head ; that he was sanctified for the ofhce ; and that a body was prepared him. He informs us ex- pressly of the purpose for which he came into this world : c< I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, (that is, he had not a se- parate, but an united will with the Father,) but the will of " him that sent me :" Jno. vi. 38. We now view him in his mediatorial of-

E

50

fice, and Considered in this character, his Father, who sent him, was greater than he. "I seek not mine own will but the will of him that sent me :" Jno. v. 30. From these declarations of our blessed Redeemer, it is very evident that he had engaged in the glorious work of re- demption, and came down from heaven to earth to perform it according to covenant. Dear and blessed Jesus, what was thy Father's will ? " This is the Father's will that sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day :" 39. " And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the son, and bclieveth on him, may have everlasting life ; and twitt raise him tip at the last day :" 40. Blessed and glorious Jesus, now speakest thou plainly ; but pardon our weakness, and permit us to inquire of thee, who best knowest thine own, and Father's will ; will they not Fall from grace, and finally perish ? They will fall into sin, they are not perfect in this life ; "for there is not a just man upon earth that docth good, and sinneth not :" Eccl. vii. 20. " Therefore I came down from heaven," to satisfy justice. Remember the assertion of my apostle to the gentiles. " For he was made sin for us who knew no sin rhat we might be made the righte- ousness of God in him:" 2 Cor. v. 21. All the sins of my church were imputed to me, or I could not have suffered, I knew " no sin," but by imputation ; and I have satisfied divine justice for them all ; and in return I impute my righteousness to them, for in this way alone

51

are they to be made righteous ; and how can they finally perish when they have my righte- ousness? Beside " there shall no evil happen to the righteous:" Prov. xii. 21. and smvly., net the greatest evil of losing my righteous- ness, and my love. There is no record in all my word, of one falling from the love of God. I covenanted with my Father for sheep (there be many goats that follow me, but I know them not.) " I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine :" Jno. x. 11. " I lay down my life for the sheep:" v. 15. " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them (to an individual) and they follow me, (both in my doctrine and ordinan- ces.) And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me (in the everlasting covenant of grace) is greater than all (in hell, or on earth) and none is able to pluck them cut of my Father's hand:" Jno. x. 27. 28. 29. I will join with my Father in this great work, my heart has been set upon it-from the foundation of the world ; and though I am now in the humble form of a covenant head of my church, and a servant of my Father, to do his will and save those, whom he hath given me ; yet in one respect, " I and my Father are one:" v. 30. And according to his, atd my own will, as one with him ; and my engagement as media- tor, I will sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word, and present it a glorious churchr not having spot or wrinkle

52

or any such tiling ; but holy and without blem- ish : Eph. v. 26. 27. We have now shown the interest which Christ had in this interesting aflair. We have shown his engagements al- so ; will any one have the hardiness to say he will not make them good ? Therefore to per- iorm his Father's will, and make good his engagement, he assumed human nature ; for as man had violated the law of God, man must make reparation . But a mere man was utterly inadequate to this important work. Therefore a divine person must assume, into union with bis perfect and infinite nature, the human na- ture, that by this unio.i an adequate atonement should be made for sin.

As Christ had undertaken the cause of man from everlasting, when he was set up as the covenant head ; it became necessary for him to be made, " like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God." Why ? " To make reconciliation for the sins of the people :" Heb. ii. 17. What people? Can it be all mankind ? not it cannot be, for had he made reconciliation for all their sins, they of course would be all reconciled. But if any die unre- conciled, it is evident that he did net make atonement for them ; for if he had made atone- ment for them all, they would have been infalli- bly saved ; for he finished the work his Father gave him to do. Could it be possible he had not, he would be found a false prophet, for in a very solemn appeal to his Father he declared, •• he had finished the work La gave him to do ;"

53

and desired to be glorified with him: Jno. xvii. 4. 5. From hence we are compelled, and feel justified to infer, it was the people given him in the everlasting covenant of grace ; " for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted :" Heb. ii. 16. Hence you see it was necessary for him to assume t/wir nature. The nature of angels would not have answered the purpo- ses of man. " For verily he took not on him the nature of argels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham :'*■ v. 16. This p.lorious event was revealed to the Fathers, thousands of years before, and this was what enabled them to bear afflictions, lions, fire, trials, cruel mockings, scourging, bonds, and imprison- ment ; stones, yea saws and swords. Adam believed in the seed, the blessed seed of the woman to come, who should bruise the serpent's head. Christ as the seed of the woman was typically crucified before them in the sacrifice of slain animals ; and the skins of the animals thus offered in sacrifice, were put upon Adam and Eve ; strikingly representing the glorious, all atoning and acceptable righteousness, which the seed of the woman should bring in, in the fulness of time, by his obedience and suffer- ing, for them, and their elect posterity. Abel had the same view by faith, by which he offer- ed an acceptable sacrifice to God. Cain, also offered a sacrifice, but it was not accepted, be- cause he had not proper views of the seed of the woman. As it is now, so it was then,

" There is none other name under heaven giv- e 3

54

en among men, whereby we must be saved :'* Acts. iv. 12. Enoch, Noah, and others had the same views by faith, and we doubt not that it was orally, and traditionally handed down from Adam. God gave them the faith of reli- ance, and they were saved by faith in him \\ ho was to come; and who was revealed in the first and after ages of the world, as the seed of the woman. About two thousand years alter the creation, a revelation was made to Abraham of the same seed with this addition, that that seed was to come through him. " In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed :" Gen. xii. 3. This is the time alluded to by our Lord when he told his enemies, the natural posterity of Abraham, " your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was *Jad :" Jno. viii. 56. He saw it again when the pro- mise was renewed, and Isaac was to be the seed, of whom should come the blessed seed. ** In Isaac shall thy seed be called :" Rom. ix. 7. But he saw it at another time under very trying, and awful circumstances, when called to offer his son, his only son (by Sarah) as a sacrifice. Here the glorious seed was in his type, slain, and raised from the dead. But we should exceed our limits, were we to en- large further. Suffice it to say, that the glori- ous seed was so manifest by promise, and by type, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, gave their posterity assurances of the faithful- ness of God to them, and to their seed after them ; that the faithful among them, looked with faith, and strong expectation, for him un^

55

til he was bom. Accordingly the glorious- seed appeared, manifested his divinity, obeyed the law, and suffered its penalty ; " according to the determinate council, and foreknowledge of God:" Acts. ii. 23. Being by wicked hands crucified and slain ; but the powers of darkness could not prevail, he arose from the dead, ascended on high, and is now an inter- cessor at the right hand of God.

What shall we say to these all important and glorious truths ? Shall Jesus from all eternity devise, and in time execute, his most gracioua plan of redemption ; and shall he have no cer- tain reward for his suffering ? Shall it be in the power of men or devils to destroy his hope ? Begone unbelief ! begone infidelity! He shall; have an ample reward. What shall be his re- ward ? we answer, his people. The Lord's portion is. his people, Jacob (the church) is the lot of his inheritance :" Deut. xxxii. 9. " Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy pow- er :" Psa. ex. 3. That these words were ad- dressed to our Lord, is evident from the next verse. " The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedeck :" 4. But this portion, his people, is promised in express, and emphatical words, by the prophet Isaiah. " Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong."' Why Lord, why wilt thou give thy son a divi- dend ? He hath done my will, he hath per- formed;' the covenant ; yea, " He hath poured out his soul unto death :" liii. 12. " I wilt

5(3

give thcc the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the tarth for thy posses- sion:" Psa. ii. 8. He shall be king in Zion. " Yet have I bet my king upon my holy hill of Zion :" (my church) v. 7. " The heavenly host shall worship him saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord, God, Almighty ;" the covenant people shall worship him, saying, " thou art worthy to take the book and open the seals thereof; for thou Watt, slain and hast redeem- ed ns to God by thy blood, out of every kind- red, and tongue, and people, and nation : Rev. v. 9. After this I beheld and lo a great multi- tude, which no man could number, out of all nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the lamb : cloathed in white robes and palms in their hands : and crying with a loud voice, saying-, salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb :" Rev. vii. 8. 9. " And I beheld and heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders : and the number of them was, ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands: saying with a loud voice, wor- thy is the lamb that was slain, to receive power and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honor, and glory, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb forever and ever. And the four beasts said Amen." So say we : Amen and Amen. This is his reward. His people are to be his reward ; but they are in a state of sin, M conceived in sin, and brought forth

57

in iniquity:" yea — " dead in trespasses and in sins ;" and that to such an awful degree that the blessed redeemer saith ; " ye will not come unto me that ye might have life." It may be they will not believe, and thy word, thy blessed word declareth, " he that believeth not shall be damned." Nay man, " Is any thing too hard for thee Lord ? Sarah shall have a son :" Gen. xviii. 14. Are the souls of sinners more dead than Sarah's womb? More lifeless than the dry bones in the valley ? Eze. xxxvii. 1. Did I not say to the one bring forth ; and unto the others live : and did they not obey me ? I will exert the same life giving power, on the souls of sinners. They shall rise from their spiritual death, I will reveal my son in them and save them ; I wiil call them to sanctification and glory, as the end of all my labor cf love to them. " But we are bound to give thanks al- ways to God for you brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth :" 2 Thess. ii. 13. Whether this choice was made from everlasting, from the beginning of the world, the beginning of their lives, or from the be- ginning of their believing; they were from that beginning, chosen to salvation : and the truth of God is pledged to sanctify and save them ; therefore he who denies the salvation, the eternal salvation of his elect, hath endea- vored to make God a liar, and shall answer for his infidelity and presumption. " Elect ac- cording to the foreknowledge of God the Fa-

58

ther, through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ : 1 Pet. i. 2. But perhaps it may be for some good in them ? JVb. " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, (what then Paul) but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began :" 2 Tim. i. 9. " By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your, selves ; it is the gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast:" Kph. ii. 8. 9. More proof might be adduced to shew that the gift of Christ's people to him was eternal, and irrespective of conditions in the persons given. We have fully proven that this gift of Christ's people was actually made to him from eternity, and to be as it respects them uncon. ditional. We have also proven the certainty of their salvation.

Let us lastly inquire whether there be a de- finite, or indefinite number thus given. We say that the number is definite, known only to God however. This, we prove, first by ob- serving, that as God knew the end from the beginning, not one could be saved more, not one could be saved less, than he had deter- mined to save. If we say otherwise, we de- prive him as far as we can of his foreknow- ledge and power ; we, in effect say, he is migh- ty, but the devil his enemy is mightier. But if particular persons are saved, because God would save them, without any good foreseen in, or done by them ; and if particular scats

59

are set apart for particular persons, will it be improper for us to conclude, all are saved for the same reasons, and particular scats are pre- pared for all, as well as for some ? Zacchcus was called by name because he was a son of Abraham, or in other words, because he was in the covenant of grace : all the called are said to be the children of Abraham. " For if ye he Christ's (by election) preserved in Christ and called," then arc ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." And being heirs, ye must, nay, you shall have the inherit- ance. Paul was called by name, and Ananias told that he was a chosen vessel. It matters not for any to say he was called and chosen to be an apostle, we grant he was ; but he was chosen at the same time in the covenant of grace, or he never would have been chosen to the apostleship. It may perhaps be asked, was Judas also in the covenant of grace; for ' he was an apostle : we answer, no ; he was not, in the covenant of grace. It was necessa- ry that a familiar friend of Christ's, and one that did cat with him, should betray him. Christ therefore did call him to the apostleship for that express purpose, that he should eat with him and appear to be his friend. But as there was no violence offered to his will, it did not in the least injure him, to have that office ; and as he acted from first to last from wicked motives the sin lay on himself:" — Psa. xli. 9* Acts i. 16. 17. 18. Paul told Timothy some had erred concerning the faith : " Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth

60

sure, having this seal." Why, Paul, is it seal- ed ? yes, to the day of redemption. What is the seal ? " The Lord knoweth them that are his :" 2 Tim- ii. 19: He knoweth to an individual. We will now add testimonies from our blessed Lord, and close this head. " But to sit upon my right hand and my left, is not mine (as me- diator) io give, but it shall be given them, for whom it is prepared of my Father :" Matt. xx. 23. — Again, "come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:" Matt. xxv. 34. Christ told his disciples not to rejoice because unclean spirits were subject to them, " but rather to rejoice because their, names were written in heaven:" Luke x. 20. Glorious God ! thou hast prepared mansions for thy people ; thou hast written their names in hea- ven. Now if written they must be individu- ally written ; and if written eighteen hundred years ago, why not from eternity. It is not presumable that he had a book for the apos- tles only. Nay, Paul declares he had not. " And I entreat thee also, true yoke fellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life :" Phi. iv. 3* Nor is it possible that the devil once thrown down from heaven, will ever be able to ascend again, and blot out their names. And should it be said God will blot them out, it will be a denial of his glorious perfections, particularly his immutability. " To the general assembly and church of the

61

first born which are written in heaven :" Heb. xii. 13. "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God ; and when Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory :" Col. iii. 3. 4.

" O glorious day, O blest abode, To be forever near my God."

Having proved the everlasting covenant of grace, made between the Father and the Son ; that it was ordered in all things, and sure to all the parties interested therein, viz. Christ, and his church ; I shall close the subject with the words of the beloved disciple : Rev. xxi. 21. 27. " And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, every several gate was one pearl : and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transpar- ent glass. And I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb were the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it ; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved, shall walk in the light of it : and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glorv and honor of the nations into it. And there shall in no- wise enter into it any thing that defileth, nor whatsoever worketh abomina- tion, or maketh a lie : but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Your vindication of the right of infants to baptism, is predicated on this position, that the

62

covenant of circumcision, made with Abra- ham, was the only new and everlasting cove- nant of grace. You have endeavored to estab- lish this position, by supposition and affirma- tion, but no where by proof. In this my answer to you, I have already proved, that the cove- nant of circumcision, made with Abraham, was not the covenant of grace. I have also established that grand and all- important doc- trine of our holy religion, viz. That the ever- lasting covenant of grace was made with Christ, embracing all believers to the end of time, and securing their perseverance in grace, to glory. Now, sir, on the well known and just principle that a building must fall, when its foundation is removed, it will necessarily follow that your labored superstructure in favor of infant bap- tism must be brought to the ground, as the foundation on which it is built is manifestly taken away. I am astonished that you could make such assertions, as arc found in your production ; assertions that you must have known, no consistent divine would have con- curred with you in.

In page 3d. you say " That the Abrahamic covenant was the only new and evcr^sting covenant of grace" — and in page 48th, " So the covenant with Abraham merits the atten- tion of all persons, from Adam to the end of the world, as it involves the salvation of every- one." How can it merit the attention of those that never heard of it ? and how can it benefit those that never partook of it ? I never saw so much ignorance exhibited in so few words

65

before. You have been so explicit that it is impossible for us to mistake you. Your de- claration amounts to this : that God the Fa- ther made a covenant with Abraham, embrac- ing his seed, promised him in the 17th chapter of Genesis, 7th verse ; which covenant you state in the 4th page, as involving the salvation of all, from Adam to the end of the world. Jf indeed this were a truth, we are as miserable as the fallen angels, for that covenant hath long since been broken, as we have already proved in the first part of this work ; and we need not go farther at any time, for a better confirmation of this fact, than to the present state of Abra- ham's natural posterity. We have reason to bless God, there was, and is, a far better cove- nant, than that of circumcision ; and a far bet- ter covenant head, than Abraham. But, sir, we will give you the credit you ask, in doing all you can to destroy the christian's hope and salvation ; which you have done, if you have established your point. We then say that you have entirely excluded Christ as having any part in the covenant of grace, for you have fail- ed proving him the seed, to which the promise was made in the covenant of circumcision. We grant you speak ol Christ, but that you must do, to give currency to your libel ; for you know, ignorant as people are, they will retain Chiist, either in whole, or in part, as their saviour. You have given Abraham the pre-eminence of Christ in page 49th. " If the promise was not made to Adam, nor the ser- pent, who was it made to ? Answer : to Abra-

6±

ham and to Christ.'* It is evident that you have denied Christ, the right of altering his laws and ordinances as he pleases ; and you have perverted his word by making it a nose of wax, and interpreting it to suit your own purpose. You have by this means made the inspired writers (as far as you were able) con- tradict themselves and each other, particularly in the grand and fundamental part of our holy religion. You affect to make Paul prove your pernicious doctrine, a doctrine which he says, if an angel from heaven preach, let him be ac- cursed. The view which the apostle had in writing his epistle to the Galatians, was to dis- suade them from teachers who taught as you do ; and to insist uoon the important doctrine

1 »

of justification by faith. You cannot be justi- fied, (he would urge) by the law, either moral, or ceremonial ; the one is too holy for your perfect obedience to it ; and the other is insuf- ficient, being never intended for justification. Its appendages and ceremonies were only ap- pointed to prefigure Christ, that sinners might look to him for justification. The apostle elsewhere calls them shadows ; and circumci- sion was one of them, that pointed to Christ, (as we have shewn before) ; who was to be cut off, as Daniel said : " Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." Therefore my brethren, said Paul, you must be justified as Abraham was, by faith. God's promise to Abraham, ran. thus, " In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed :" Gen. xit. 3 : and again, Gen. xv. 5, " Tell the stars if thou be able to number

65

them, and he said unto him, so shall thy seed be." Abraham believed that he should have a nume- rous offspring: that Christ should descend from his loins, and be the spiritual head of a numerous spiritual offspring ; that these, having like faith with him, should, in one sense, be called his chil- dren, not for any natural alliance to him, but for the faith of the same nature with his and for which he is so much celebrated. This, Abra- ham believed, and this belief was imputed to him for righteousness. And that man who is not blinded by ignorance, or prejudice, will cheerfully acknowledge that this is the blessing which the apostle intended ; for the blessing of circumcision, (if it may be called a blessing) Was by the express command of God, to be confined to his male family, sons and male servants : the other inhabitants of the world were excluded from the rite, and therefore received no blessing from it. How you could say then, that the covenant made with Abra- ham, merited the attention of all, to the end of the world, is a m}rstery to me.

Having established the two first points which I undertook, I should have contented myself without bestowing any further attention upon your pamphlet. But as I had given public notice that I would take into consideration your work, I thought if nothing were said about baptism particularly, the ignorant would be confirmed in what many had said, viz. that your book was unanswerable, and the dispute now at an end. I shall therefore pro- ceed to make some remarks on the subject of baptism explicitly. But in the attempt I must

66

confess that I feel myself small, since so manv abler pens have been employed so successfully to exhibit this interesting subject in a light, at once clear, and conclusive from the force of scriptural evidence and cogent reasoning.

As it is impossible for any man to follow you through your sophistry ; I shall only take notice of, and remark on, such of your decla- rations, as I think may have had some weight upon the unenlightened part of the^community. And I am the more induced to do so, because the authors on the subject of baptism on both sides of the question, are not generally in the possession of the community ; and because bold assertion does more with many, than sou.nd reasoning from the word of God. Your talent appears to lie in bold assertion, and as, in your own opinion, you are the oracle of the day, it would be well to point out some more of the imperfections of the piece under present consideration. I shall first take notice of your remarks on the first church existing on the earth, contained in pages 4-8, 49. You there say " For God had not a visible church on earth, before Abraham's day." " Abraham was the first member on earth." You must mean he was the first member of God's church on earth.

In order to know whether these declarations of yours are true, or not ; our first inquiry will be, in what does a church consist ? We are of opinion that a particular congregation (or num- ber) of believers in Christ, united together in the order of the gospel : or under whatever form of worship God has directed, or enjoined

61

upon them, constitutes a church. According to the opinion of the church of England ; the visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly adminis- tered. Entiek says, a church is a place of di- vine worship, an assembly of christians. Hooker — the collective body of Christ — Doc- tor Watts — the body of christians, adhering to one particular form of worship. And Jesus Christ, " where two or three are gathered toge- ther in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Paul, " Christ is the head of the body, the church :" Col. i. 18. And again. "The general assembly and church of the first born, which are written in heaven :" Heb. xii. 13. From the above quotations of scripture, and authors, all agree in this, that a church properly speaking, consists of two or more that assemble for the pure worship of God, under any divine- ly appointed dispensation. Nothing but infi- delity will dare to deny this : for the blessed Redeemer hath said " where two or three are gathered together in my name," whether to believe on and worship him, as the seed of the woman, of Abraham, David, cr as the son of God, manifest in the flesh, it amounts to the same, if they are gathered in his name, he is in the midst of them to bless them, and own them as his. You say page lGth, a "church cannct exist without an inward spiritual grace :" thus far you are right : "but you add secondly, with- out " an outward visible sign also." Where have you your authority for this declaration ?

68

not in scripture : but you take the liberty to make the component parts of your church, and your book, to suit your own scheme, whether you have a warrant for it or not.

Moses informs us, that " unto Adam also and to his wife, did the Lord God make coats of skins, and cloathed them :" Gen. iii. 21. We are of opinion that the skins of which these coats were made, were the skins of beasts offer- ed in sacrifice. The sacrifice of these beasts we think were typical of the sacrifice of the promised seed, and the coats of skins which they furnished weretypieal of the righteousness of the seed, which God, revealed to Adam and Eve, as the manner in which they were to be justified. But, whether the beasts, from which the skins were taken to cloathe Adam and Eve, were sacrificed or not; the sacrifice of beasts from that time became the method of worship ; and the presumption is very strong, that it must have been ordered by the Lord at that time ; and this we prove by the acceptable offering of Abel. " And A bel he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat there- of, and the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering:" Gen. iv. 4. If this offering had been made in an improper manner it woNld not have been accepted ; but as it was accept- ed, and the person of Abel also accepted, the offering and the service must have been by the command of God ; and as blood was spilt in the sacrifice, it evidently pointed to the shed- ding of the blood of the seed of the woman. Two hundred and thirty- five years afterward,

69

id the days of Enos, the minds of God's people were more enlightened. They then not only sacrificed, but implored the mercy of God in Christ Jesus, the seed of the woman, as a com- pany of believers. " Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord :" Adam was yet living, and no doubt led in the worship. All the godly also in that day worshipped in an acceptable manner as God had directed, and He was in the midst of them. This is farther illustrated by the sacrifice of Noah, fourteen hundred and twenty years after : " And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and he took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour, and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground for man, &c. :" Gen. viii. 20. 21. How could Noah without divine direction have distinguished between the clean and unclean animals ? And without an observance of this direction, would the sacrifice offered have been accepted ? Permit me to ask further, would God have directed the service to any but his acknowledged people, and could they be such, without forming his church or a part of it ? Paul told his Hebrew brethren, " ye are come, to the general assembly and church of the first born :" xii. 22. 23. Did the apostle mean an)' but those who were the first born of the spirit : Adam, Eve, Abel, Enos, Enoch, No- ah, and others of their days, and afterwards, before Abraham ? Ignorance itself, yea and infidelity too, will allow (if thev will allow any

thing) that Abraham was born long after this, therefore he could not have been the first born, and the first born agreeably to Christ and Paul, formed the first visible, and acknowledged church. Thus, sir, you see that we have proven a church before the Rood, another after it, and before Abraham ; and your first church with all your bold assertions, is as unfounded as your ideas of the covenant of grace.

But once more : Jethro, the priest of Midi- an, came to Moses and said, " Now I know that the Lord is greater than all Gods, for in the things wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them : and Jethro, Moses' fathtr-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God : and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel to eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before God:" Exo. xviii. 11. 12. Can we say that Jethro was not a priest of God ? If we do, we shall charge the meek Moses, and the high priest Aaron, with idolatry, in joining in a sa- crifice that was improperly offered Job is another instance of God's having a people that worshipped him, exclusive of the family of Abraham ; and Melchisedec is said to be priest of the Most High God, eighteen years before Abraham was commanded to observe the rite of circumcision. If Melchisedec was a priest of God, he had, no doubt, a people among whom he officiated, whom we should consider as unquestionably a church of God. These proofs go far to establish, on just and correct grounds, the existence of a church pre- vious to Abraham's day.

71

We allow to faithful Abraham, the friend of God, who was set up for our imitation, (and would to God we were better able to follow him in his holy obedience) all that the scrip- ture ascribes to him ; but we must not put him, his obedience, or any thing else, in the place of Christ. We therefore say, that cir- cumcision, although it evidenced his obedi- ence, and was a mark of distinction to his family, was intended principally as a type of Christs* sufferings. It was a command to be observed by Abraham's posterity until Christ should appear. When he did appear, being one of that posterity, he submitted to it as a part of his obedience, but as soon as He the antytype was cut off, the bloody rite to whicli he had conformed ceased to be lawful, and was not superceded by baptism ; otherwise, the Jews, and Christ himself, who had sub- mitted to that rite, (if we view it as an initiating rite*) would never have been baptised. IVlr. Wesley had the same view of circumcision : he says " circumcision being laid aside, which was peculiar to males, and was designated to put a difference during that dispensation be- tween Jews and Gentiles. "f But, sir> ^ is surely ridiculous to suppose that God directed an ordinance, (for so you would have us be- lieve) for the initiation of his people into a church capacity, which ordinance could not,

• If circumcision constituted a church of God, then the wicked 6ons of Jacob constituted a church of God among the Hivites, when they circumcised Shechim, and the men of that city.

f Notes, 2d. toI. p. 130.

72

from the very nature of the thing itself, be ad- ministered to more than one half of the mem- bers, for surely the women were as much members of the church in the wilderness, as the men. Tell it not inGath, that a professed minister of the gospel should charge the great head of the church with such an error ; least the children of the unbelieving rejoice. Paul bears an honorable testimony to the antedilu- vian worthies : Hcb. xi. 4 to 7. " By faith Abel offered, £<c." * By faith Enoch was translated " " Uy faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Here, in addition to the testimony of God by Moses, an apostie bears testimony to their faith and acceptance ; and calls them " the church of the first born." Their faith was fixed upon the seed of the woman, which they looked for with as much assurance as Abraham did. And in doing so, were as ac- ceptable as he was. But 1o tell us, that Adam, and those before Abraham, looked foi the seed of Abraham, (the seed of a man) when the first intimation given of that seed, on which our faith is to be fixed, wasr that it should be the seed of the woman, is truly ridiculous; unless you will prove that all the believers be- fore Abraham were prophets. We shall con- clude this subject by observing, that the An- tediluvian church had the same faith with Abraham ; that it was placed upon the same

73

object, the seed of the woman ; and that it was as acceptable to God. They were therefore saved by the Lord Jesus Christ; and we con- sequently adopt your words and say, it is but cavilling" to say, they were saved by believing in the seed of Abraham. The only difference then was, that Abraham had a mark in the flesh, which they had not; and if a mark in the flesh will better constitute a church of God, with you, than spiritual worship, and offer- ings in faith ; you may go on and be made perfect by the flesh as fast as you can. But remember, *' as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse."

In page 21, you say " They (meaning the baptists) must build upon circumcision or sup- position, if they claim John's baptism, because i he was not baptized but circumcised." This to be sure is a very grand discovery, and may help baby baptism a little longer. You have placed us in a dilemma indeed, if you are to be the oracle, bv which truth and error are to stand or fall. Oh! my brethren, what shall we do? This wonderful Goliah will indeed prevail, unless David with his sling and smooth stone (truth) should come to our help. Let us exercise faith; and trust in him who hath said, " A thousand shall fall by thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand ; but it shall not come nigh thee :" Psa.xci. 7. And again, " No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper ; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn:" Isa. liv. 17. We told you that you had deni-

74

ed Christ the right of altering his laws, and establishing such ordinances as he pleased. " They must :" (what arrogance !) " build up- on circumcision or supposition, if they claim John's baptism." Why? " Because John was not baptised, but circumcised. " You might as well have said, because Christ had no right to alter his laws, and direct what ordinances he pleased for his people to observe.

We have shewn your fallacy in attempting to prove the covenant of circumcision, to be the covenant of grace. We have gone far to prove the existence of a church long before Abra- ham's day. And we have proven that the covenant of circumcision was a seal of tempo- ral blessings only, as it respected the seed of Abraham ; and that it was a mark of distinc- tion to that family, and that the all- wise God \\ ould not appoint a mark of church-member- ship, that could not be placed upon more than half of its members. We have also shewn, that circumcision, like many other rites under that dispensation, pointed to Christs' death ; and must necessarily have continued until that event took place : consequently all the posteri- ty of Abraham, in whose person the rite was established, and from whom Christ was to descend, were under obligation to submit to it, or be cut oft* from the land. John, the harbin- ger of our Lord, was one of that posterity, and therefore submitted^ to circumcision. But, sir, surely you will not venture to say, that circumcision disqualified him from acting in any office to which God might appoint him :

75

Malachi iii. 1. " Behold I will send my mes- senger, and he shall prepare the way before me." Hear die testimony of an angel of God. " Fear not Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard ; and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John, for he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine, nor strong drink : and he shall be rilled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mothers womb. And many of the chil- dren of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Klias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a peo- ple prepared for the Lord :" Luke i. 13. 17. Hear the beloved disciple, *' There was a man sent from God whose name was John." Jesus speaking to the multitude of John the Baptist, said. " A prophet ? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet." John, his forerun- ner, as his minister, was to inaugurate him, as the first gospel minister, under the new gospel dispensation, that shalf not be confined to the family of one man after the flesh, and those bought with his money.* He was also " to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." How ? He could not convert them ; though he might be, and was an instrument in that work. We cannot see any way how he was to make ready a people prepared for the Lord,

* This ia a lively representation of Corl'3 rovenant people ; all bought with the blood of Ch;i-.t, such only Lciny of th$ spiritual i hurch of 60(1.

16

better than to teach them to look for II im, so long promised, as at hand, and baptize them for our Lord, as he would not baptize any him- self : this fact the devil himself will not deny. Our Lord said he is more than a prophet. I confess I am at a loss how to understand this grand sentence, but in one way. All the pro- phets before John, by the command of God, prepared the kings of that nation, by anointing them with oil : but John must set king Jesus in his office by baptism. " God himself would anoint him with the oil of. gladness above his fellows." " Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion :" Psa. ii. 6. " I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee :" Deut. xviii. 18. " For he , testifieth thou art a priest forever after the order cf Melchisedec:" Heb. vii. 17. The Lord Jesus Christ was more than any prophet, priest or king — He was invested by the gift of his Fa- ther with each of these offices ; and they, taken separately, were higher than any that went be- fore him ; for he was to continue in them for- ever. '* Forever a priest after the order of Melchisedec." God therefore sent John, more than a prophet, to perform this new, and to John, highly honorable work ; and farther, he was to do more than any other prophet had done, he was to point at Christ and say, " Be- hold the Lamb of God."

But John, how dare you baptize ? You never were baptised ! Can your baptism be valid ? Will it not be called a Jewish washing ? and after all that has been said of you, and you have

77

said of yourself, will not your authority be called in question ? Why. as to a Jewish wash- ing, I know how, and when that was perform- ed : but I have authority from the highest tribunal to baptize* not to wash ! I am sent to introduce a new dispensation, or at least, pre- pare a way for it : I have done it by command with an ordinance never before practised on any religious occasion. John, your character stands high, mind what you say, and do ! I say that I am sent to introduce a new dispen- sation with an ordinance never before practised upon any religious occasion : and as to my authority being disputed ; I have a commission from the king of kings, the Lord God Almigh- ty* who was, and is, and is to come ; who will call all the postherds of the earth to account, for disputing his, and my authority, when act- ing by his command. Here is. my commission, read it. " And John bare record saying, I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not;" before, " but he that sent me to bap- tize with watery the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which bap- tizeth with the Holy Ghost. And 1 saw and bear record that this is the Son of God :" Jno. i. 32. 33. 34. John, we are perfectly satisfied with your credentials, for we are sure none but God himself could have told you of the descent of his holy spirit upon his Son. We shall prac- tice as you have done in that ordinance of the new Testament. " Then cometh Jesus from

G 2

7S '

Galilee to Jordan, unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering, said unto him, suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness; then he suffered him. And Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heav- ens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting up- on him :" Matt. iii. 13 — 16. Here we have as solemn an ordinance as ever was administered, and that too, to the Son of God ! nay, to God himself, and the trinity of persons approving of it in the highest terms : " And lo, a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved Son in whom lam well pleased :" Vide, 17th verse. Still, notwithstanding all the solemnity attending it, it is spoken of by some, in the most degrading manner, and by thousands profaned.

Will you have the hardiness to say after this, we must build upon circumcision, or supposi- tion ? Did not John receive his command from God ? Did Abraham, could Abraham receive more ? Or can you suppose that Abraham's being circumcised, invested him with higher authority than God's command to John to. bap- tize, conferred on him? Vain thought indeed! Was Moses ever washed, or anointed with oil, to qualify him, for the washing, and anoint- ing of Aaron ? Or was not God's command on that occasion, deemed sufficient ? Pray, sir, why art thou beside thyself? Moses was not washed, was not anointed with oil, to qualify

79

him for the work God commanded him to do ; yet we have not heard his authority called in question, nor yet Aaron's consecration dis- puted. " But John was not baptized, but cir- cumcised :" therefore we will sprinkle chil- dren. This is powerful reasoning indeed: it is reasoning away scripture with a witness ; nay I and calling in question the authority of the great head of the church. As a professed minister of the gospel, it becomes your duty to honor God, to reverence his Son, his ordi- nances, and inspired servants, and in a very high degree, him whom he himself did honor, as the harbinger of his Son. But you call his authority in question : at one time you cal his baptism a Jewish washing, at another, a type of the Holy Ghost : page 77, 78. It would be well for you to consider seriously what you have done, and pray to God that none of the evils written it\ his book, may come upon you ! It would be well also for our opponents, and for you as one of them, and a bitter one too, to have some consistency ; it would surely hold you up a little longer. But those that have written on your side of the question, differ from themselves and each other continually. We can say with truth, what you have said without it, in page 22d, ** When peo- ple are driven from the ground on which they have long boasted to the shifting field of un- certainty, it must appear that their foundation is too weak to support them. And as truth was never put to the blush, but always main- tained its ground against error, the system of

so

our opponents, in this point is found inconsis- tent with itself." Will you be good enough to tell me the name of the baptist, that ever shift- ed his ground, so as ;j give up the baptism of Christ administered by John ? But, sir, we can give names of our opponents of the highest respectability for learning, and talents, that have shifted again, and again. But, sir, why will you come forward to vindicate the right of infants? you must be aware, that the ingenui- ty of the learned world, hath not been able to prove, one infant, to have been in the churches in the apostolic day : and we venture the as- sertion they never will. You admit God had a right to command Abraham to circumcise, and that he was under obligation to obey : He had a right to command Moses to set Aaron apart to the priest's office, and that he was un- der obligation to obey ; although Moses had not the qualification in his case, that you re- quire of John in his, i. e. to have been washed himself; yet, as that does not affect baby bap- tism, it is not out of the way : — let that pass ; we here see plainly what prejudice will do.

God commanded John to baptize, and that under more peculiar circumstances than his commands to other servants of his, have been given : but you say, he must not obey, or what is worse, (if worse can be) you invalidate his work. u Christ was not baptized with John's baptism :" "John's baptism is a type of the Holy Ghost." We ask you seriously, sir, when, and by whom, was christian baptism in- troduced, if John did not introduce it ? We.

81

defy you, sir, or any of your brethren, to point out the person that first administered it ; if John the Baptist was not the first honored ad- ministrator, of that holy ordinance. You have read Edwards, until you have sucked in his enmity, as well as his arguments. But, sir, remember, the Jewish nation, with all their power, and learning — the Roman government, with all its enmity and authority ; aided by an unbelieving, persecuting world, did not, could not, overcome our blessed Lord, and the few baptists he had collected together, from the disciples of John. A few fishermen withstood the world, with all their learning, and enmity ; and so do, and so will v.?. We have truth, reason, and God, on our part ; and we fear not what man can say or do. " Fear not little flock, (not Jewish church) it is your Bather's good pleasure to give you the kingdom, " — Precious Jesus ! how comfortable and strength- ening were thy words to thy little flock ! — when surrounded by their enemies, Sanhe- drim, Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces, the whole Jewish nation, and the Roman go- vernment ! supported by thee they weathered the storm ! thou thyself their Captain. So aid us, blessed Jesus, and we too will stand up in thy cause, and triumph under thy blessing. Your low shifts and serpentine turns are truly ridiculous, of which you ought to be ashamed. In page 75, you say : " Here we request you particularly to notice what Paul said of John's baptism, i. e. that it is a baptism of repentance. Now unless Christ could have

82

repented and believed on himself, he could not have received John's baptism." We will not be surprised after this, to find infidelity abound in our land, when those that profess themselves preachers of the gospel, and that with uncom- mon zeal too, not only preach, but put printed books into the hands of the people, denying as positive facts recorded in scripture, as words can express. Now, unless the word of God be false, Christ did receive God's baptism, administered by John ; and properly called John's baptism, as he was the first adrninis- trator of it; and believers baptism, as they only were the subjects of it ; and christian baptism, because Christ, after whom they are called, was a partaker of it. For proof of this, read the third chapter of Matthew. It seems to offend you very much that Christ should call upon a baptist to administer the holy ordi- nance to him : it would seem, if he had called upon one of the chief priests, (who persuaded, the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, the murderer) to have washed him, it would have suited you better, pleased you more ; and then you might indeed have placed us in a di- lemma. But John the Baptist must administer it, and such is your displeasure at it, that rather than have people believe it, least they should say Christ must have been baptised right, and John's baptism must be proper, because Christ chose him for the honored administrator of that ordinance to him *v you will contrary, to truth, say he did not receive it. May God of his infin- ite mercy deliver his people from such teachers.

83

We say, John's command was received by him under more peculiar circumstances than Abraham's or Moses'. From eternity God had elected a church in Christ, for whom he covenanted with Christ ; they were to be the purchase, and the reward of his sufferings. Some few of them had been collected during the period of four thousand years by the min- istry of ungels,vand prophets ; but in that space of time were not formed into a proper church state, that is to say, they were not brought in- to a congregational relation. The time at length arrived which the worthies of old looked for, but died without the sight of. (" These all died in the faith, not having received the promises :" Heb. xi. 39.) On the approach of this'glorious acra, John was miraculously born, (being sanctified from the womb) ; and Christ miraculously conceived by a virgin. God sent John as the forerunner of his Son, with a special commission to introduce this long look- ed for, and new dispensation ; called, " a better testament."* If it were a better testament, than the old one, that was passing away, how could it be the same ? " For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going be- fore, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof."! The old dispensation was weak and unprofitable, it made nothing perfect, it was a dispensation of types and shadows, which was never intended to continue permanently ; but only until the mediator of a better cove- nant should appear. At that momentous pe-

* Heb. vii. 22. | viclc 18-

riod it was disannulled, not changed ; yea it waxed old, and did vanish away * What in the name of common sense are we to under- stand by, " a better testament," " a more ex- cellent ministry," " mediator of a better cove- nant, which was established upon better pro- mises?'^ if, after all the preparation of the Trinity for four thousand years ; and the re- peated promises of God, to Christ, and his church, of a far more excellent and extensive spread of the gospel, in the latter clay, when Christ should stand upon the earuY'f — if the new dispensation should be but the continua- tion of the same old dispensation, " the same man in new cloaths," or the old Jewish church; and baptism now instituted in the place of cir- cumcision. The clay is coming, and will ap- pear, when these gross errors will be disclosed, and reprobated.

The long promised day had arrived, Christ had descended from heaven to do his Father's will : " I come to do thy will O God :" — " to be a surety of a better testament," than that under the law, and " to obtain a more excel- lent ministry ;" than Moses, or any of the fathers, or any of the prophets ever had. " And he is the mediator of a better covenant, than ever was made with man. Theirs' were earthly, " wordly," " carnal:" and the apos- tle informs us, *• stood in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, (margin, rites, or ceremonies) imposed on

• Keb. viii. 13. i Vide viii. C f Job six. 25.

85

them until the time of reformation :" Heb. ix. 10. Until God would send his Son and effect a reform, from a woroly, carnal worship, to a purely spiritual, and heavenly worship. This better dispensation, introduced by the baptism of John, was established upon better promises. The promises under the old dispensation, as we have shewn, were temporal, and the duties required generally, such as could be perform- ed by wicked men, and conditional : " If ye obey, ye shall eat the good of the land." The promises under this new, and better dispensa- tion, are unconditional and far better. " For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the se- cond ; for finding fault with them, he saith, behold, the days come (saith the Lord) when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah : not according (or like) to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord : 7 will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.'' Here we find the new covenant, called new as it respected Israel, as it respected the new ap- pearance of the glorious covenant head, and as it respected the covenant of circumcision, with all its promises, which were as we have shewn,

H

86

the land of Canaan, and temporal blessing ; but especially new in its revelation, and operation. God complains that they had broken his firut covenant, and well they might, when it was made with man. But this they shall not break. Jesus is the mediator of this covenant, the head of this covenant ; for his sake " I will be their God." " They shall be my people." This is a permanent covenant, not chaffy like Mr. R's. that " the least breeze of truth blows away." The world was no doubt in great commotion, at the opening of this new dispen- sation, and well it might be, for there never were two such men on earth before. John, my faithful servant, saith Jesus, I am come to thee to be prepared by the gospel ordinance of baptism, f ;r my ministry. Thus it becometh tis, both of us, to fulfil all righteous (obedience.) I am sent, sanctified and sent, as the head of my church, to call, sanctify, and save them. h is the Father's will, and my will, that I be baptized. He sent you to baptize mey he told you, you should see the heavenly dove descend upon me. It will descend ; it then behoves us both, to act agreeably to his command; I to submit to this gospel rite, and you to ad- minister it to me : hesitate not. Then he buf- feted him. " And Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway out of the water : audio, the heavens were opened unto him and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him." After he entered upon his work of love and obedience, did he bap- tize any to qualify them to baptize others?

87

.Vo, he did not — he called those that John had baptized, to be his disciples. M Again, the next day after, John stood and two of his disci- ples : and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saitfr, behold the Lamb of God. And the two di*ciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus :" Jno. i. 35, 37. These were Andrew, and John, which are named by him as his dis- ciples, and stated followers. They adminis- tered, what you call, the christian baptism, (for Jesus baptized not but his disciples) by his command, after being baptized by John the Baptist.

We have now brought you to the christian church : we have proven unequivocally, that John was the honored instrument to prepare the way for his Lord to build this church, by baptizing both him and his disciples, for him. We do not assert he baptized them all, but can you prove that he did not ? We have pro- ven that he baptized tvyo, and that is sufficient for our purpose. They were properly baptized by John, for the use of our Lord. (Who was easier satisfied than you are.) If they had not been, surely we should have heard of their re- baptism, and then our Lord would have been an anabaptist, as well as the apostle Paul, (who you say was one) but in this, our Lord a second time, confirms the baptism of John. And here we find the declaration of John quickly verifi- ed, " He must increase, but I must decrease." The disciples of John left him, and went to our Lord. John thereby decreased, and Christ increased, and will continue to increase by

88

large accessions to his church, until the consum- 'mation of all things. But, sir, should 3-our doctrine be true, we are all in an error, and have been for nearly eighteen hundred years : Jesus baptized not, but his disciples. If they were not baptized, they had no better authority to baptize than John had. If they were bap- tized by John, then his baptism is valid : and if they were not baptized by John, it rests with you to say who baptized them. For it is evi- dent he had no greater authority, as God-man, to command, or authorise, than he had as God, or than his heavenly father had ; and we have proved that John was commanded by God the Father.

We now call upon you sir, for your autho- rity for baptizing, for we understand you have divers baptisms ; and you thereby show to the world you are still under the law, for you have not attempted to prove there were divers lawful baptizms under the gospel.

We shall now prove, that Paul confirmed John's baptism, by laying hands on his disci- ples— your bug- bear in the 79th page, not- withstanding. You ask, " But will not some say with Mr. Osborne, they were not baptized again, but Paul confirmed John's baptism — An- swer : We are unwilling to suppose any man of common understanding can think so, nor indeed can he, without destroying the gram- matical construction of words." Why are you unwilling sir ? Would it not delight you to expose the baptists? If we may judge of others, by your conduct to John, we are of

83

opinion nothing would please you better. Bur perhaps you aie unwilling we should come to reasonable, and scriptural investigation of that passage. I confess, sir, that I have no preten- sion, to great accuracy in grammar. But I will put your grammar, and penetration in scrip- ture, to the touchstone of truth and reason. This is the best rule, the best grammar : Acts. xviii. 24. " And a certain Jew named A pol- ios, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures came to Ephesus : 25. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord ; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the ways of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John : 26. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Whom when Aquilla and Piiscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly : 27. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to re- ceive him." It is evident from this passage of scripture, that the baptizm of John, signi- fies a Christ to come, and by no meanS intends a distinct baptism, from the new testament baptism, the christian baptism.

Let us now .attend to that passage : Acts.. xix. 1. " And it came to pass while Apol- los was at Corinth, Paul having passed thi( ugh the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; aid find- ing certain disciples, 2 — He said unto them, " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have

not so much as heard whether there Le any tu

so

Holy Ghost : 3 — And he said unto them, trrv to what then uvre ye baptized ? and they said unto John's baptism : 4 — Then said Paul" I will here pause to inquire, why Paul did not now, address them as he had done before .' and why this fourth verse did not begin as the third, and second did, or whether the gram, matical construction would have been in the least injured had this, in the stead of " then said Paul" read, 'and he said unto them :' I conceive not ; and had he thus begun this fourth verse, it would have altered the case materially, "John verily baptized with the bap- tism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus : 5 — When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus : 6 — And when Paul had laid* his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and pro- phesied."

We have before us in this account, three parties, i. e. Paul, John's disciples, and the Ephesians.

Paul : Have ye received the Holy Ghost, since ye believed? John's disciples : We have not so much as heard whether there be any Ho- ly Ghost ; we have lived in a remote place from Jerusalem, and have never seen any of the disciples of Christ but of our own compa- ny. ( Apollos perhaps and others) and would be glad of instruction upon that subject, and would willingly receive the Holy Ghost. And Paul said unto them, unto what then were ye bap-

tized? (I perceive ye are believers.) John's disciples : unto (or with) John's baptism.

44 Then said Paul," (and I very believe he now addressed tie Ej lesions) '4 John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say. ing unto the people" (to whom he preached or whom he was to baptize) "4 that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus." Now before we pro- ceed any further, we will ask, if common sense will admit that Paul knew how, and in what manner John baptized ; as well as those that were baptised by him. All that Paul knew? about John and his baptism, was by hearsay ; "what John's disciples knew, was by experience. I will a-k again, if Paul was so destitute of common sense as to inform men of any thing they were better acquainted with than he was; and if it is not far moie reasonable and fully a* grammatical, to believe that Paul was address- ing the Ephesians in the 4ch and 5th verses, informing them of John's method of baptism, and assuring them, that although, since the resurrection of our Lord, we baptize in the name of the Trinity, it was not so before ; for all that were baptized before the suffering of our Lord, could not be baptized otherwise than as in a Saviour to suffer. If they had been baptized in any other way, they would not have given the ordinance its proper significa- tion ; and they would in effect, have witnessed a falsehood, but since he has suffered, he left command to baptize in the name of the Trinity; and these men, like the eloquent Apollos, liav-

92

irgbccn Tar from us the apostles of our Lord, aod having nut had an opportunity of better b. struct ion : receive them therefore into \o'ur f How -i .!|i, and treat them as brethren. But er, if cur construction of this passage is Wrong, t! e apostle must have In en guiltv of an tin r. that we are sure he was not capable cf; thai is of baptizing them as John had done. We hear of no in*tni< tion given to them bv tne apostle, respecting the difference of a coming, and a crucified saviour, (surely an apostle would not have been less diligent in his instruc- tion, than a private christian and his wife had b' en with Apollos) of the difference of Christ Jesus, and the Trinity; but simply '• when they heard this," (which they knew better than he that told them did, if it was them he spoke to) " they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." I ask what is the difference between " Christ Jesus" and " Lord Jesus." It is evi- dent beyond contradiction, jhat the 4th and 5th verses of this chapter, were addressed to the l.phesians, and not to John's disciples ; and it is farther evident that the apostle would not have baptized them in the name of the Lord Jesus, when the command of our Lord was, to baptize in the name of the Trinity.

If he did baptize them thus, he violated the command of Christ, (this we cannot believe) ai d the poor disciples were no better instruct- ed, consequently no better baptized by ah apostle, than they had been By John, or one of his disciples. If you could make it appear that Paul baptized in u different way rom John,

9'3

it might answer you some purpose; but until you can prove that John baptized without au- thority from God, your arguments will only serve to shew your enmity to the ordinance of Christ. If John's disciples were re- baptized a thousand times, it will by no means destroy his authority, as he received it from God. Their not having heard of, or received the Ho- ly Ghost, is not at all surprising, as they had not been at Jerusalem. And what you oifer as a reason why Paul asked the question, i. e. " That the gift of the Holy Ghost was given before, or after baptism," is not true, as it was by the laying on of the apostles hands generally, that that gift was given ; and there is no instance of the gift of the Holy Ghost given to any, only in the presence of an apostle, except Paul,* who was to be an apostle. Why did the apostles send Peter, and John to Samaria ? Philip had baptized there, both men and women, and they had not received the Holy Ghost ; the reason was, it was given only by the laying on of the hands of one of the twelve.

Verse 6. u And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spake with tongues and prophe-

* Suppose it should be denied that Paul was regularly bap- tized, and his baptism called in question by an infidel, how would you prove that Ananias was baptized ? 1 should say God commanded him, and that was sufficient, whether he was bap- tized or not: yo\i will say he was a disciple, so were the twelve that were at Ephesus ; we might demand who baptized Peter, and Philip ; but for my part I am not disposed to doubt tlte authority of any, who acted in the apostolic day by the command of God ; neither do I apprehend it the greatest mark of piety, in any that do it,

M

sied." Why was it not said they were baptized In the name of the Father, Son, and H >ly Ghost ? But not a wo»d of it : it is therefore evident that they were not re-baptized, but that their baptism was confirmed by Paul, and the Holy Ghost. Tne piety, and obedience of the apostle, forbid the belief that they were re- baptized ; for he would in that act, have called in question the authority of God, as you have done ; and invalidated the baptism of our bles- sed Lord, and two of his disciples at least, if not the whole of them. As you are the stan- dard by which the word of God is to be deci- ded, will you inform us who it was that re- baptized Apollos? "that eloquent man that was mighty in the scriptures ; instructed in the way of the Lord ; fervent in the spirit ; but still, knew only the baptism of John."

We cannot forbear smiling to find, after you have derided us, by calling us anabaptists, you very gravely tell us, Paul was an anabap- tist ; and for once, admit we have done right, as we practise as you suppose, the apostle did. But this we do not suppose you intended as a compliment, consequently we give you no cre- dit lor it.

Your very light expressions, when speaking of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, do you no credit ; and your comparing the sound, that proceeds from your sinful heart and lips, to the sound as of a mighty rushing wind, occasioned by the descent of the Holy Ghost, is so filled with enmity, if not blasphemy, that I know not what to say of it. Your words are in page 68^

V5

uTf sound were immersion, all whom we bap. tized would be immersed: as we geneially speak loud enough for the sound to fill the house, yet the water only falls on those uho are baptized. So it was at the day of Pente- cost : the sound filled the house, but the Holy Ghost sat only on each of them like cloven tongues of lire." Surely in this as in most other things- in your book, yen are endeavor- ing to lead your admirers into error : you would have your readers believe that the sym- bol of fire, was a common thng when the Ho- ly Ghost was communicated, i ut, sir, it is not the fact : the Holy Ghost was communi- cated in a variety of instances, whtn there was not the least visible appearance, ; nay, the in- stance recorded in Acts is the only instance of the appearance of fire in the new testament, at the time of the giving of the Holy Ghost. Thus you endeavor to deceive, by keeping back part of the sacred texts.

Our blessed Lord in his last interview with his disciples told them that " They should be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days thence:" Acts. i. 5. And accordingly they were baptized with it. For on the memora- ble day of Pentecost, whilst " they were all with one accord in one place, suddenly tl eie came a sound fr m heaven as < f a rrshirg mighty wi» d, ai d it fill d all the house where they were sitting : and there appeared ui to them eleven tongues like as of fire, a: d it sat upon each of them :" Acts. ii. 1 — 3. It is ve- ry evident from this passage that the Loly

96

Ghost did not descend in a wind ; and it is equally evident that no wind filled the house, for it is said that " the sound as of a rushing mighty wind filled the house." This is a comparison only, a likening of the Holy Ghost in his descent to the noise of a rushing mighty wind. The sound was evidently significant of the approach of the spirit, and a mode of his descending, as the cloven tongues of his ap- pearance to their sight.

Now as a rushing mighty wind is irresisti- ble in its course, and necessarily surrounds and overwhelms the objects with which it meets, it is a most fit emblem of the spirit's operations on the mind. For in these opera- tions, the whole soul is the subject, being transformed and renewed altogether. If a ves- sel containing certain substances, be filled with water, those substances will certainly be covered over with the water. Now as the body is represented to be the temple of the Holy Ghost, the soul, which it contains, must be completely overwhelmed in a spiritual sense by his operations : therefore the comparison above instituted is appropriately selected for the purpose of illustrating the ordinance of water baptism.

In relation to the cloven tongues as of fire, it is stated that " it sat upon each of them." The " it" evidently refers not to the tongues, but to the fire diffusing itself in appearance over them in the form of those torgues. And as no particular part is mentioned as the seat of the fire or of the tongues, it mav be rational-

91

\y supposed that a lambent flame in appearance rested on and enveloped them, presenting the forms as of cloven tongues.

In the same page, (68th) you say M Butter- worth and Taylor, in their concordances agree on this point, saying baptism is put for the affusion of the Holy Ghost." Butterworth's words are, " Baptism is (1.) An ordinance of the new testament, instituted by Jesus Christ, whereby a professed believer in Christ, is, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, immersed in, and covered with water ; and then is raised out of it, as a sign of his fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, and a sign of his own death to sin, and resurrection to newness of life here, and life eternal hereafter;" (2) it is put for, the plentiful effusion of the grace and gifts of the holy spirit : (3) the overwhelming sufferings of Christ : (4) a vital union to ana one-ness with Christ, by sovereign love, and the all-pervading operations of the holy spirit.'*

In page 76, you say, " To shew what he {meaning Christ) was baptized for." "it was to fulfil the law of the Levitical Priesthood : for when Christ came to John to be baptized, he was surprised,," If he was surprised, it is easily accounted for. That the Son of Gcd should condescend to be baptized by one of his fallen creatures, was an act of such conde- scension, that we ought to think, speak, and write of it, with reverence and astonishment indeed. If the angels in heaven were silent, when they beheld the amazing works cf God ;

98

much more ought we mortal men to be astonish- ed to think of the condescension of the. Son of God, in humbling himself to submit to, and partake of, the same ordinance with his rebel- lious creatures. We would have thought that John's surprise would not have permitted you to believe that Christ went to him to be bap- tized to fulfil the Levitical law ; (if indeed he was surprised, though I read nothing of it ; it may be so however in your testament ;) for it was not uncommon among the Jews to wash their priests; nay, they could not officiate with- out it. It is therefore very unreasonable to suppose that he was surprised, if that had been the fact. It was true they were not washed in rivers, but at the door of the tabernacle. From hence, however, the surprise might have arisen.

I will now point out the absurdity of your declaration ; and show the enmity you have to the ordinance of Christ. We will show how the priests under the Levitical law were conse-. crated : Exo. xxix. 4. " And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the taber- nacle of the congregation, and shall wash them with water : v. 5. And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe and the ephod, and the breast plate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod: v. 6. And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy garment upon the mitre: v. 7. Thou shalt then take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head and anoint him : v. 8. And thou shalt bring his sons and put

99

coats upon them : v. 9. And thou shalt gird them with girdles (Aaron and his sons) and put the bonnets on them ; and the priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute."

Now, sir, tell us if it would be lawful to con- secrate a priest in any other way. It is true, j'ou are not very particular, but would you have had a hand m consecrating any other priest, but Jesus Christ, in any other way than is here commanded: or have you read any thing like this taking place on the banks of Jor- don. When our Lord put the question con- cerning the baptism of John to the chief priests and elders — " the baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or of men ?" Why did they not say, ■ of the fathers — it was a Jewish washing : we demand an answer in the fear of God. They must have known better than you can, for they were upon the spot. What was their answer — carnal reason and self prevailed, as they do now — "we cannot tell." Why could they not tell ? The fact was, they knew it was from heaven as well as you do ! " but they reason- ed" (like too many now do) " with themselves, saying, if we shall say, from heaven ; he will say unto us, why did ye not then believe him ? But if we shall say of men; we fear the peo- ple, for all hold John as a prophet." Here we have the very reason why John's baptism is now disputed. " If we shall say it is from heaven," honest men will say, why do ye then act contrary to his example ? why do ye bap- tize any, but such as do bring forth fruit meet for repentance ? You very well know that John

100

would not baptize the children of Abraham, as such, nor any that did not profess repen- tance. And rather than men will convict themselves, and give room to others to charge them with acting contrary to their own opinion ; they, like the priests and elders will say, we cannot tell ; or rather worse, not fearing the people, nor God himself! it is a Mosaic rite ! it is a Jewish washing ! it was under the law, it is not the christian baptism ! May the great head of the church, look mercifully upon such, and cause them to turn from the error of their ways.

Why did the priests and Levites send mes- sengers to John, to ask him who he was ? If his baptism had been a common priestly wash- ing ; surely they, who had been themselves washed for their office, could not have been strangers to the law of Moses,' and the ceremo- nies practised upon such an occasion ! They well knew there was an ordinance introduced, never before practised, and they declare this to all who will read the narrative by their interro- gations. " And they said unto him, who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us ; what sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wil- derness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they asked him and said unto him, why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias neither that prophet :" Jiio. i. 22, 23, 25. Mark ! ■ ** Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ?" This is a proof of two important

101

facts. — First, that the baptism of Christ was not a Jewish washing. — Second, that baptism, as a religious rite, was never practised before. ]f the washing of the priests for fourteen hun- dred and ninety years had been done in the way that John baptized our Lord ; is it net very surprising that the land of Judah, and Je- rusalem should be in such consternation ! and is it not very remarkable that we have not read of God's judgments upon them for the viola- tion of his law ! " Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error, and there he died by the ark of God :" 2 Sam!, vi. 6, 7' The crime of this young man was not equal to the change of the washing of the priests, as recorded in the 29th chapter of Exodus : but we find God's judgment executed against him ; and. surt'y if the priests had deviated from the law, we should have read of their punishment also. But they never had baptized any for the priest's office ; they had washed them at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, according to the command of God to Moses., And the introduction of baptism, was one cause why they thought Join must be the Christ, it never having been performed before.

It would be well, if professors of religion would read, and well consider the case of Uz- rah, and particularly ministers of the gospel. If God smote this young man, for an act that appeared really laudable, and praise- worthy,

12

102

and done in his zeal for the preservation of the ark of God, because it was contrary to law ; how ought men to fear in this day of greater light ? not only to act themselves, but teach others to act, contrary to the gospel. It would be well for them frequently to read, and medi- tate seriously on, the words of the apostle Paul: Heb. viii. 5 and x. 28, 29 and xii. 25, to 29. " See that ye refuse not" to obey the commands of " him that speaketh : for if they escaped not, who refused him that spake on earth," (Moses) " much more shall not we es- cape, if we turn away from him that speakest from heaven," (Christ.) But what authority had John to wash our Lord for the priest's of- fice ? He was not of the priestly tribe, but of the kingly. " For the priesthood being changed," (from the tribe of Lej'i, to the tribe of Judah) " there is made of necessity a change also of the law." Why is there^of necessity a change of the law ? or of the dispensation ? Answer: "The law made nothing perfect :" Heb. vii. 19. And if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedcck, and not be called after the or- der of Aaron ? Thus you see, that by reason of the imperfection of man, and of the law un- der which he acted, Christ the God-man, in in whom is perfection, and who was of a tribe of greater dignity, was ordained of and anoint- ed by, God, (not by a woman) and consecrated a glorious high priest over his church, after the

103

end of the law ; for Paul tells us so explicitly : Heb. vii. 28. " For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity : but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore." Thus we see, that Christ was not a priest under the law but since, or after it. Ali the ceremonies under the Aaronic administration must there- fore of necessity cease, and circumcision among the rest, for it was attached thereto. " There is made of necessity a change also of the law." There must be under this new priesthood, en- tire new laws, and regulations agreeably to the dignity of the glorious priest, who, in introduc- ing his new dispensation, was not to arise after the order of Aaron, " but for ever after the or- der of Melchisedeck." u There is made of ne- cessity.'*? . It must be so according to the very nature of the divine dispensation. Shall the tribe of Lev* lose the priestly office ? Yes— and shall it eternally be placed in the kingly- tribe ? Yes — Shall the same man hold the sceptre, and wear the priestly mitre ? Yes ! — Astonishing change indeed in the w hole dis- pensation ! " For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar : for it is evident our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priest- hood : Heb. vii. 12. 13. 14. (Observe here* the silence of Moses, is said by Paul, to be proof, " evident proof" of a fact. Surely then the silence of scripture about infant baptism ought to be proof also, that it never was prac*

tised until revelation ceased.) Can we believe that John, the faithful servant oi God, would violate the law in such a manner, as to baptize a son of Judah, to act in the office of the sons of Levi ; which was entailed on them for a perpetual statute "? We cannot ! But he might have done so ignorantly ! Well thought of ! John was raised in the wilderness ! But now we recollect ourselves, this apology will net remove the error, for God commanded him particularly to baptize Christ, and Christ him- self submitted to the ordinance, so that if there is an error, (and an error there undoubtedly ia if he was baptized to fulfil the Levitical priest- hood) and we remove it from John, we charge it on the Father, and the Son ! * You must give up this point, for it will not answer, thus to persist in charges, against the clearest evi- dence ! You must admit that John knew ChrV, and baptized him as a priest of the New Testa- ment dispensation, not after the order of Aaror, but after the order of Melchisedcck, to an eter- nal priesthood, and that He, submitting to bap- tism, left an example for his people to follow ! Well, if this is admitted, and it must be ad- mitted, or you will sin against the clearest light ; what will become of infant baptism, and your pamphlet. They must be cast to the moles and the bats, or sent back to the church of Rome, the Harlot, the mother of abomina- tions.

* But such was the malice and envy of the Jews, that had John attempted to wash Christ at the door of the tabernacle, as 11 priest of their order, he would no doubt, have been put to tenth,' said it would iuve been lawful : >'uuib. ill. 10. xviii. r:

105

But, sir, we cannot leave your work yet. It is too full of error and abomination, to let it pass itself upon the world for reason and truth. In page 77, you say : " And at a certain time, a woman poured an alabaster box of ointment upon his head : so he received a pouring of oil as Aaron did. Therefore his baptism was one of the divers baptism's under the law," (and children must be sprinkled !) Well done Mr. R. Take care baptists ! Stand fast, and dont suffer your faith to be overthrown ! We shall next hear that Paul's mother was a Jew- ess, therefore Paul could not be a christian apostle. Surely the reasoning in one case, is as good as that in the other ! "At a certain time a woman:" why, poor John! you are to be pitied, you must have a woman, and Mr. R. to help you, or you cannot consecrate Christ a priest after the order of Aaron : and now you have not effected it, after all your la- bor. Why John ! You made a wrong choice of your woman ! Oh ! John, I ask your par- don, it was Mr. Russell's choice! And if he had made as good a choice as Saul, king of Is- rael did, he might have had Moses brought up, to have helped him out at a dead lift. Don't be angry, sir, for Ave are sure that your case required it, as much as Saul's did ! " A woman poured oil upon his head ;" " there- fore" (as a natural consequence) " his baptism was one of the divers baptisms under the law." This may do for some people, that cannot, or will not read, and think for themselves ; but we should be very sorry, if only one christian,

10(7

that hath a bible, and can read, would be so imposed upon. Now let us view the differ- ence between truth and error : Moses, autho- rised, and directed by the God of wisdom, doth his work at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, at once, and alone ; accord- ing to the law of God, in that case made and provided, which we read you some time ago. But whenever we set men to do a work that they have no authority for, or are unacquaint- ed with, they stumble at the very threshold ; and it is a thousand to one, if they ever accom- plish their design. For instance, Mr. R. will have John to make a common Jewish priest of our Lord : to work he goes, and no doubt the good man did his duty ! Well, how does the case stand ? John the Baptist, not being a priest, neither commanded of God to conse- crate his son to the priestly office after the or- der of Aaron, happened one day when he was baptizing in Jordan, to have Jesus come to him in the wilderness, and to demand baptism at his hands, saying, suffer it to be so. John baptized him;* but happening to have no oil with him, he did not anoint him, although it was commanded by the Mosaic law. This event happened in the year of our Lord twenty-

* Whem Christ was baptized, there came aroice from hea- ven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well plea- sed ; and the Holy Ghost descended, lighting upon him. Thus the first, and third persons of the Trinity, bore their testimo- ny to the obedience of Christ. And Mr. R. says, he wa« at that time violating the law of God ; which was the fact, if he was washed to fulfil the Leviticallaw : and instead of bearing testimony to his obedience, he ought by that law to have b«en stoned to death : Numbers iii. 10. S* xviii. 7.

107

seven. In the year of our Lord thirty-three," Christ was in the house of Simon the leper. u Then came unto him a woman ; having an alabaster box of very precious ointment," (not oil) and poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat. Mr. R. says " to qualify him as priest." John had neglected it for six years, and rather than it should not be done, Mi*. R. makes this woman do it. What a blessed thing is the word of God ! How thankful we ought to be for that gift, and the ability to read it. It will detect error in every shape, however plausi- bly, sophistry will represent it. Our blessed Lord said, " she did it for his burial:" Matt. xxvi. 13. " Verily I say unto you, whereso- ever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her." Let Mr. R. reflect if his representation of this act of this pious woman, reflects honor on her, or credit on himself.

You say page 78, " John's dispensation was, as Mr. Moore says, an intermediate dispensa- tion under the law.* If it was indeed under the law, it cannot be between that, and the gos- pel ; consequently that is an error. But, sir, in what chapter and verse do you read of such a dispensation. We read of an old, and new

* After my work was finished, and I had spoken to a prin» ter, I met with a book written by Joseph Moore, which I sup- pose to be the person Mr. R. intends. I feel it my duty to in- form my readers, that Mr. M. was not as ignorant as Mr. R. has represented him. He says page 6, " John's preaching/ and baptism, form a kind of an intermediate dispensation be* tween the law and the gospel." •

108

testament, of a " new covenant," "of a better covenant," " of a better testament ;" which \vc understand as the new dispensation, under the gospel ; as distinguished from the old, under the law. But we no where read of an iritertne* diate dispensation in the bible. You and your friend Moore, have built this dispensation upon the covenant, or rather law of circumcision, to form a second foundation for infant sprinkling ; and all the reasons that you offer in proof, are, John said, Christ must increase, and he must decrease ; and that John's disciples were re- baptized ; (which we have disproved.) That Christ did increase, and will continue to in- crease, untill all his covenant people are gather- ed together, is a fact at which we rejoice ; but what has that to do with your intermediate dispensation ? That by no means proves your assertion. John's disciples going from him, to Christ, caused a decrease of the one, and an increase of the other, we admit ; and that was always intended, it was a part of his errand, and a very eminent part, to prepare the way, as we have already shewn, by baptizing disci- ples for his great Lord and master. And John's decreasing as all mere men must, is no proof whatever that his dispensation was an intermediate one, and such a one as we have no account of in scripture. You very often take things for granted, without any authority, but the authority of your own will, and give no reason but your own declaration. But if John's disciples had been baptized a thousand times, it would by no means prove your unscripturai

109

dispensation. What do you understand by *' intermediate" in this connection ? Newton says it is " intervening; interposed." Taylor says, u intervene is to come between persons or things." Wotton says, it is " opposition." Swift says, " interpose, from the Latin inter- ponoj to thrust in as an obstruction, interrup- tion, or inconvenience." Boyle says, " to inter- pose"— (l) '* to mediate, to act between two parties" — (2) " to put in by way of interrup- tion." Woodward says, " to interpose, to offer succour or relief." Surely, sir, you can- not [\dmit that John came with any such views, he did not come as a mediator : that was Christs' office. He did not come to relieve or succour, that also was Christs' province ; and surely he did not come with the hostile inten- tion, of interruption, or opposition, in direct violation of his acknowledged commission ; which was to " prepare the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight." Our blessed Lord said, " The law and the prophets were until John : since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached, and every man presses into it:" Luke xvi. 16. Again, " For all the pro- phets and the law prophesied until John :" Matt. xi. 13. When John entered upon his ministry, prophecy ceased : nay, the prophets had nothing more to do. All the prophecies had immediate respect to Christs' coming, and when he came they ceased of course. But to put John upon an eouality with the prophets, under the law, is degrading. Our Lord said, he was more than a prophet, " than any pro-

110

phet." He alone had the honor of saying, " Behold the Lamb of God ;" of baptizing Christ, and his disciples for him; and of preach- ing the first gospel sermon under the new dis- pensation, "saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand," (Christ is in the flesh.) This was the whole of his mission, and as soon as he ac- complished his work, he decreased, and dis- appeared. But to attempt to continue the law, under the gospel dispensation, because it was absolutely necessary, from the very nature of that dispensation that John should act as he did ; is certainly a great abuse of scripture. If u the law and the prophets were until John" entered upon his ministry, surely they ceased when his mission began ; consequently the old dispensation ended, and the new or gospel dis- pensation commenced. This is evident be- yond contradiction from the words of our Lord, quoted before ; i. e. " The law and the prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." You cannot deny that the kingdom of heaven in this place means the gospel dispensation; and if it does, how can you have the face to say, John's was an intermediate one, under the law ; in direct contradiction of the words of Christ. No sir, the moment the law-dispensation ceased, which was the moment that John entered upon his mission, the gospel dispensation commenced ; which is further evidenced by the words of Mark and Paul, Anno Dom. 26 : Mark i. 1 — 3. " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, as it is written in the

Ill

prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilder- ness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." But the apostle Paul puts it beyond doubt : Heb. vii. 28. " For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmi- ty : but the word of the oath which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore." If we admit that John's dis- pensation was under the law, we say Christ had infirmity, that is, was not perfect, which is contrary to truth and common sense ; for the apostle saith the Son was made a priest by oath since the law, and continues forevermore ; and Mr. M. and you are mistaken, or make de- clarations contrary to your better judgment.*

In page 48, you say, " We have reason there- fore to believe that as Adam labored for the bread of life, so also that he labored in sacri- fice to secure an interest in the covenant before it was made, and so became Abraham's." You have a wonderful faith ! a strong faith in- deed. But faith not founded on the word of God, is mere delusion, and presumption. Why have you reason to believe all this ? We are sure that you have no reason from scrip- ture, for there is not the smallest intimation of

* John's being called a prophet doth not suppose him to have been under the legal dispensation, or between the law and the gospel. Barnabas and Saul (Paul) are called pro- phets: Acts. xiii. 1. "Follow after charity, and desire spi- ritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy :" 1 Cor. 14. 1. Again, " And he gave some, apo6tles : and some prophets ;" Eph. iv. 11.

112

it there ! For us to believe what God has re- vealed, is our duty ; nay, we cannot be chris- tians unless we do. But for us to imagine things, and take to ourselves the credit of be- lieving them, is mere delusion. I am con- vinced, if you could have devised a better way to vindicate your unscriptural rite of infant sprinkling, you never would have gene back two thousand years to reveal to Adam, in di- rect opposition to what God had revealed to him, that the seed of man was to be his Saviour. We believe that Adam, and all after him were saved in faith of the seed of the woman, but not as you do in the covenant to be made with Abraham ; but in the one already made ivith Christ, and revealed to Adam for his belief and comfort. What other assurance could they have, or could they want, than that the seed of the woman should overcome the serpent, sa- tisfy for their sin, and bring in an everlasting righteousness which should be accepted, and become the ground of their justification. We have no room for thinking, much less for be- lieving, that Adam ever had the least thought of Abraham.

We shall take a little notice of your " He- brew church which you say was built upon the Abrahamic covenant through the faith of the gospel ; is now standing and will remain to the end of time." In page 3d, you intend to in- form your readers, that the visible church of Christ is the same now that it was under the law, with a little variation in its ordinances, " as a man with his apparel changed, still re-

113

mains the same." This you took from EcU wards, but have not been honest enough to give him credit for it. Be that as it may, you! have made it your own. If we understand you, you make the gospel church, as to its members, to be precisely what the Jewish church was, and that there is no more altera- tion in it, than there would be in the same man with a change of apparel.

You admit (because you cannot deny) that the disciples of Christ baptized. Very well. Wliottt did they baptize ? It must have been the Jews, for they were commanded, " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye .,ot, but go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel :" Matt. x. 5. 6. What did his disciples baptize them for ? They had been circumcised, and that was sufficient, as you say, for their entering into Christ's church. It is something mysterious that they should have two ordinances to initi- ate them into the same church, for you say this is the way of initiation : circumcision former- ly, baptism now7. Why, it wot: Id appear from your statement ; and the facts recorded in scripture, that all the New Testament ministers were anabaptists. If baptism came, as you say, in place of circumcision, it is as much re- baptism to baptize those who were circum- cised, as to baptize those that had been bap- tized r and that John thus acted, is as evident as that he existed; and that the disciples of our Lord, from the very nature of their command,

must have done the same, I hope you will not k. 2

114

deny. You have accounted already in your way for the baptism of Christ. He entered the church you say by circumcision, and his baptism was a Jewish washing. But, sir, I must ask you again, why were his disciples baptized, and why did they baptize the Jews? This does not appear like a change of apparel, it looks more like a new garment over the old ! This strange conduct in Christ and his disci- ples, agreeably to your assertions, must be ac- counted for ; and as you have loaded them with the charge, you must vindicate their conduct, or confess your wrong. You set out with Abraham as our example, and ask more in the gospel day for admission into the Jewish church, than Abraham had required of him. The apostle has led us to believe that the yoke of bondage was taken off, and Christ told his disciples " his yoke was easy, and his burden light." But you have indeed contradicted them both : beside, you make a difference in the head, and the members of the church. C»»lst the head, entered the church by circum- cision. The members enter doubly, by cir- cumcision in their infancy, and then by bap- tism, when they believe. How, sir, can you with propriety, ask more of any member, than was required of Abraham, or than Christ per- fofmed? If you are correct in your declarations, these are the consequences that follow : Abra- ham the first member of the gospel church, entered by circumcision, and his sons and male servants entered in the same way : but Sirah, the mother of the seed, the free woman, and

115

all her daughters, however pious, shall have no place in the church of Christ. Again, Christ, the head of the church, after he was born of ihe virgin, entered the church at eight days old by circumcision; but all, that entered the church after John commenced his ministry, were com- pelled to enter by baptism, notwithstanding they had been circumcised at eight days old. We find you have two doors to ycur church. But perhaps you will object and say, before Christ entered upon his ministry, it was proper to circumcise them ; but after he sent out his disciples to preach, and baptize, then they en- tered only by baptism, whether men, women, or children. I must remind you of your error, sir, for you have told us that the reason why Christ did not baptize the children that were brought to him, that he might lay his hands on them, and pray, was " because they were all circumcised at eight days old :" page 27.

We are not backward in saying, that neither Christ, nor John the Baptist, nor the apostle Paul ever acknowledged the Jewish church to be the church of Christ, after the commence- ment of the christian aera, which we think was introduced at John's baptism.

First — Christ did not acknowledge the Jews to be in, or of his church. But were not all the disciples of Christ, Jews? Yes. , Then they had been circumcised and were in that church. Hear the words of Christ to these disciples : " If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own : but be-

lid

cause ye ?.re not of the world, but I have cho- sen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you:" Jno. xv. 18. 19. Who was it that hated Christ and his disciples ? The Jews. Who \vas it that Christ in this passage call the world ? The Jews. Where were the disciples of Christ, when John baptized them? In the Jewish church. Then it is evident that Christ did not acknowledge the church in which they were, to be his church, for he called them out of it, denominating it the world. But that there may not a doubt remain, that the Jewish church was here intended by the world, read the 25th verse of this chapter. " That the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law. They hated me without a cause." Again : Christ speaking to the Scribes, Pharisees, and Jews; " Ye are from beneath, I am from above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world :" Jno. viii. 23. " Yc are of your father the de- vil, and the lusts of your lather ye will do:" 44th verse. From these passages it is clearly seen that Christ never did acknowledge the Jewish church as his, or himself of them, after he was come in the flesh. In the twenty-third chap- ter of Matthew, he denounces eight woes against the Scribes and Pharisees, calls them hypocrites, and says, u Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell then yourselves ! Ye serpents, ye gene- ration of vipers, how can ye escape the damna- tion of hell." This, sir, is the sample of the church of the meek and lovely Jesus, accord-

117

irtg to j our absurd declarations. I hope you will reflect upon t'ne dishonor you are doing God, and repent and retract. Secondly — John the Biptist did not acknowledge them to be the church of Christ, because they were the children of Abraham ; but required higher qualifications. " But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his bap- tism, he said unto them, O generation of vi- pers ! who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you, God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham :" Matt. iii. 7 — 9. That they applied to John for baptism, we prove by Luke iii. 7. It is therefore evident, John did not acknowledge them to be the church of Christ, because they were of the Jewish church, but evidently re- fused them the gospel ordinance of baptism, when they required it on that ground.

Thirdly — The apostle Paul dees not ac* knowledge them to be the church of Christ. He makes a clear distinction between the Jew- ish religion, and the religion of Christ. " For ye have heard of my conversation in time past, hi the Jews religion, how that beyond measure, I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. And profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that

118

I might preach among the heathen, imn ately I conferred not with flesh and blood :" Gal. i. 13 — 1G. Paul acknowledges that the religion of the Jews, after their rejection of Christ, was not the religion of God, for when he was of that religion he persecuted the church of God, and in this he acted in a more violent manner than many others of the Jews. Why did he thus act ? Because he had a great- er zeal in the Jews religion, and the traditions of the fathers. From this it is evident, that the Jews were the best, and most zealous of their church, who persecuted the church of Christ most, and wasted it. This is evident, from the whole history of that people, from the first commencement of the church of Christ, under the gospel. Yet we find men still zeal- ous of the tradition of the fathers, and as much as they can, endeavor to deface the beauty of, (if not waste) the church of Christ.

We will prove by the Jews themselves that they were not of the church of Christ. " But when the Pharisees heard it, they said this fel- low doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils :" Matt. xii. 27. " For the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue :" Jno. ix. 22. This agreement must have been made by the Jews, in a church capacity, for the punishment they inflicted was a church censure ; and it evi- dently proves that Christ could not have been a member of that church. (That Mr. R. should say the Jewish church was the church of

119

Christ is as astonishing as any thing in his book. I am surprised that any man could have the face to make such a declaration. { was surprised at Edwards in making it, but he had a little more modesty.) " WeJ know that God spake unto Moses : as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is:" v. 29. These, sir, are the declarations of the Phari- sees, not the rabble, but the chief men of that Jewish church. They reviled the man that had been blind, and said ; " Thou art his dis- ciple, but we are Moses' disciples:" v. 28. I do not believe that Tom Paine would have said, Christ was a member of the Jewish church !

They not only denied Christ to be the head of the gospel church, but they persecuted his apostles and members. u Then the high priest rose up and all they that were with him, and were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the apostles, and put them in the common prison:" Acts. v. 17. 18. "And they stoned Stephen calling upon God :" Ibid, vii. 59. " And the Jews made insurrection, with one consent against Paul, saying, this fel- low persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law:" Acts, xviii. 12. 13. " For we have found this man, (Paul) a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews, throughout the world, and a ring-leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." From these quota- tions is it easily perceived that the Jews as a church, never received Christ or his disciples, but contrary-wise. It is easily discovered that

120

they were their greatest enemies, and persecu- tors. Paul is called a ring-leader of the sect of theNazarenes, that is, one of the most zeal- ous preachers, and followers of Christ. They never acknowledged Christ or his disciples to be a church, but viewed them as disturbers of the peace, and enemies of the law of Moses, and traditions of the fathers. And without doubt had no more to do together as a church, then the baptists, and methodists have. How truly ridiculous doth it appear, and how incon- sistent with reason and scriptui-c, that these very priests, Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Sanhedrim ,and people of the Jewish nation, that falsely accused Christ, crying crucify him ! crucify him ! should still be members of his church. Great God ! deliver men from such infidelity.

We read, that under the sermon of Peter, many converts were made. And it is after- wards said, ** That about three thousand were added to the church the same day :" Acts. ii. 41. " And that God added to the church dai- ly such as he would have to be saved." Is it possible to conceive that these Jews were added to the church, they were members of before ; to the Hebrew church as you call it ? No sir, it is unreasonable to believe it, and that they were Jews, read the 36th verse. " Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ :" — and v. 41. ** Three thousand of them are said to be added to the church." " Tidings of these things

121

came unio the ears of the church, which was at Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch:" Acts, xi. 22. But according to your declaration Barnabas must have been sent to preach, not by the disciples, but by their enemies, and the enemies of Christ, that is by the Jewish nation, for it was the church that sent him ; and as the whole of that nation, of all ages and de- scriptions, (females excepted) were members of that church, there must have been a vast number of Jewish children concerned in sending this good man to exhort their enemies to cleave to the Lord with full purpose of heart ; and thereby aid in the propagation of the very gospel, the Jews were endeavoring to destroy. 1 will remind you of a text, and close this head : Eph. ii. 15. " For to make in himself of twain one new man." The apostle intends by the new man, the church of Christ. And this new man is made out of Jews and gentiles, and so made, it is a new man, not an old tnan, as the Jewish church was. Fourteen hundred and ninety years old, and but a new man ! This shews that in taking away this partition, Jesus distinguished between the Jews and gen- tiles, and placed them on a level as to religious rites, and then out of doth made a new man or church, and that quite different from both Pa- gan and Jewish institutions. If he had brought the gentile church into the Jewish, it would have been fourteen hundred and ninety years old, consequently a very old man. The like might be said, had he brought the Jewish into

122

Paganism, it still would have been nothing more than an old man. But says Paul, it is a new man, a new church of Christ; " built upon the foundation of the apostles and pro- phets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.'*

I will now give you a few pages in the words of Mr. White in answer to Mr. P. Edwards, which you will receive as in sub- stance an answer to your arguments on the same subject.

" Mr. E. says in page 40, there is a " same- ness of the church state among the gentiles, with that among the Jews," and a change of institutes he contends, page 39, " will in itself produce no more alteration in the members of the church, than a change in a man's diet will destroy the idenity of the man " From these quotations, we find that he makes the gospel church, as to its members, to be precisely what the Jewish church was ; and he says, the gos- pel church is nothing more than the man ap- pearing in new cloathes.

" If this definition is true, he has hereby, in the most explicit manner, cut off all females from membership in the gospel church ; for he says, page 33, that circumcision is, " a public entering into church fellowship." If it was by circumcision persons entered into the church, then females were never in it ; and if the church is the same under the gospel, of course females cannot be admitted therein.

14 Mr. E. vindicates the membership of Jew- ish infants by the promise made to Abraham,

123

41 I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." If this is the warrant, and by the seed is meant his natural posterity, then indeed females were in the Jewish church; unless Mr. E. would deny them to be the seed of Abra- ham ; and if this is the case, (which it surely must, if the scripture just quoted is that on which he relies) then they did not become members by circumcision, and of course, his beautiful type of baptism is entirely lost, and his reasoning from analogy is foolishness. And if what he says is true that circumcision was a li token that God would be a God to Abraham and his seed," and this promise re- lated to things purely spiritual ; it will follow, that the females had no interest in God as their God — no hope of salvation from him ! — must be lost, and all spiritual blessings belong to the males exclusively. If any thing more is necessary to represent in its true colors, the absurdity of Poedobaptist views concerning Abraham's covenant, I am much mistaken ; for by it females were shut out of the church, and excluded from heaven, our opponents hav- ing declared Abraham's covenant to be the covenant of grace.

" Mr. E. cannot rest without having granted to him, that circumcision was the door into the church, and baptism is now in the place of it. If it was the door into the church, and baptism has come in its place, the door was a very narrow one indeed ; so much so, that it would not admit females into the church. We need not wonder therefore, that he denied them

124

a place at the Lord's table, when they could not enter in the door. Let us hear no more of charity, ye advocates of infant church mem- bership ; for not content with refusing infant females a place in the church of old, you have now outdone the baptists entirely, who deny the right to infants, as such ; whereas your door into the church excludes females of what- ever age, or however pious. But this does the business for Mr. E.'s division of the sub- jects of baptism into adults and infants, when he says, that adults ought not to be baptized without repentance and faith, though infants may without either. It is well known, that adults among the Jews had circumcision ad- ministered to them without any evidence of grace, yea, when extremely wicked in their life ; neither is there any evidence that any spiritual qualifications were required in order thereunto. But if the Jewish and gospel churches are the same, then, according to that rule, no gracious qualifications are to be requir- ed of any person in order to membership in the gospel church ; and Mr. E.'s talk about faith and repentance being necessary to adult bap- tism, must not be sincere. It does follow, therefore, that either the Jewish and gospel churches are not one and die same, and that circumcision is no rule for the administration of baptism ; or else that the church is not the church, and the rule is not the rule.

" The materials of the Jewish church were different from those of the gospel. 1. They were all the posterity of one man, together

V25

with their servants bought with money. This cannot be disputed ; for if circumcision was an initiating ordinance, and male servants were circumcised, then, of course, they were mem- bers : Gen. xvii. 27. 2. No grace was ne- cessary, in either young or aged persons, in order to circumcision. This will appear from the command being general, to circumcise eve- ry male child : Gen. xvii. 10 : — and surely none will attempt to assert, that all the male posterity of Abraham were renewed persons ? That no grace was requisite, appears from the circumcising of all the sons of Shechem : Gen. xxxiv. 24. — from the circumcising of a whole army of adults and infants, without distinction: Josh. v. 7. — i hi the circumcising of a wicked Ishmael : Gen. xxvii. 27. —and, in that no di- rection is any where given to require religious experience prior thereto, even from adults.

" In direct opposition to all this, the gospel church was formed out of no one fomilv, nor of a few families; nor yet did all of a family belong, because one had embraced the gospel ; much less was it confined to one nation, or one country. Neither are the servants of a family members of the gospel church, on account of their master embracing religion, nor do our opponents pretend to such a thing ; much less did they in the church of Christ force their servants to be baptized, as the Jews compelled their bought servants to be circumcised. But the churches of Jesus Christ were made up of persons who had been converted under the gos- pel, nor do we ever hear of any other: Acts.

L 2

126

ii. 41. " Then they that gladly received his- word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." These were, u added," not to the Jewish church; for to that they did belong be- fore. Such as were its members, it is said, were added by God, and were in a state of sal- vation : Acts. ii. 47. u And the Lord added to the church daily such as sJiould be saved." The gospel churches are spoken of thus : '* Be- loved of God, called to be saints: Rom. i. 7. V Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, cal- led to be saints .*" 1 Cor. i. 2. " Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:" 2 Cor. i. |. 4C To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus :" Eph. i. 1. " To all the taints in Christ Jesus, which are at. Philippi:" Phil. i. 1. " Unto the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Fathery and in the Lord Jesus Christ:" 1 Thes. i. 1. " Unto the church of the Thessalonkins, in God our lather, and the Lord Jesus Christ :" 2 Thes. i. 1.

" This contrast shews plainly, that the two are as wide apart as the poles, and that while no grace was required to be a member of the former, but only a willingness to be circum- cised; on the other hand, persons however pious, who were not of that nation, were not reckoned to belong to it, nor yet wtvc they commanded to be circumcised. This is evi- dent in the case of Lot, Abraham's brother's.

son. Yet, in the gospel church, no inquiry is made about family, or nation. But if what Mr. E. affirms is true, that the infants of be- lievers are to be baptized, because Jewish in- fants were circumcised ; then, irom what I have just proved, it will appear that their bought servants are also to be baptized, yeat forced to it ; and, what is worst of all, that un~ believing adults are to be baptized, because such were circumcised. Beside all this, a man- that was illegitimate was not to belong to the Jewish church :" Deut. xxiii. 2. " A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.*' Would any man, besides Edwards,, ever have dreamed of making this the gospel church ? What ! is it so, that a bastard is not to belong to the gospel church, nor yet his children to the tenth generation ? Neither was a Moabite to enter in under a less time : verse S, " An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord ; even to their tenth generation." Surely it will never be pretended that this was an image of tie gospel church, and that very church itself. It can never be a model for us to receive mem- bers by, when a mere accidental circumstance- of parentage or country, and that without res- pect to personal vice, is a prohibition to mem- bership. But what is worse, is, that a person wounded in body was not to enter into that church his whole life, no matter how pious he might be : Deut. xxiii. 1. Will it be pre- tended, that deformity of body is now to be a bar; that misfortune is to be considered as

T2S

crime, and made the foundation of still greater privation ? Yet such must be the christian church, if membership in the one, is to govern membership in the other. It will not do for Mr. E. to say these things are done away ; ft.r if membership has been altered at all, then his pica for infant membership is at once gone : and beside, he told us the " man, or church" was not " altered" but only the " dress." Will any of our opponents affirm, no grace was re- quired to membership in the gospel church ? Or dare they assert, that grace was required to entitle an adult Jew to circumcision, or yet a gentile proselyte ? If these things they will not pretend to, how can they tell us, that member- ship id the one instance is the rule in the other ?

" Again — the whole nation was the church : the most abandoned were as much members of it, as the pious ; the nation was not considered as many churches, but one ; and, in its origin- al organization, authority, in civil and religious affairs, were both deposited in the same hands — priest and prince were recognized in the same person — he that wore the mitre, was also a general in the field — the same persons that sacrificed tor the soul, passed sentence of death on the body. That the Jewish church was a national one, who will pretend to dinj ?

" Every abandoned character Mas in that church: such as were guilty of incest: Geii. xxxviri. 18 — murder : Gen. xxxiv. 25. — nor were there any methods of separating- them, unless their crimes came under the -slew of the

129

judicial law, and they were punished with death : but can any man affirm, that every monster of wickedness is to be in the gospel church, until separated by a capital punishment, by the civil laws ? Yet, if no alteration is made in the old Jewish church, such must be the case. But, as was before said, if any former members are cut off, away goes the plea for infant membership ; for it rests entirely on the two churches being of equal extent. The Jewish church was but one, and that extended over the whole country ; nor were the syna- gogues considered as distinct churches : but how unlike is this to the gospel church ? for we read of churches in Judea : Gal. i. 22. — seven churches in Asia: Rev. i. 11. — in dif- ferent cities, as Corinth : 1 Cor. i. 2. — Philip- pi : 1 Phil. i. 1 — Ephesus : Eph. i. 1. ; and a church is spoken of as being in a house : Rom. xvi. 15. You, reader, are left to judge what credit is due to those writers who affirm, as does Mr. E., that both churches are the same : I ask you, is there the smallest resemblance ? While we see priests buried in war : Josh. vi. 4. and the high priest presiding in a court of justice and pronouncing sentence of death : Jno. xviii. 13. 14. ; does this look like the church at Jerusalem ? Does not Christ refuse to have any thing to do in their civil concerns : Luke xii. .14. Does he not declare his king- dom is not of this world : Jno. xviii. 36. ; and does he not say, he came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them : Luke ix. 56. But can our adversaries pretend, that ciyii and reli-

130

gious authority are deposited in the hands of the clergy, and that the power of life and death are with them ? If not, then the churches arc by no means the same ; for such power the Jewish priesthood had.

Again, the duties of members of the Jewish church do not, in the least, resemble those in the christian church. In that church, an out- ward attention to sacrifices — tithes — rituals, no matter as to the motives which influenced them, or whether the heart Mas in them or not, were all that the law required of them ; and never do we hear of their being punished for any thing but an outward neglect. But the duties of the members of a gospel church, are chiefly those of the heart. To evince this, I will now produce positive commands to members pf the Jewish church ; which, if they are considered as a religious body, are incompatible with the church of Christ, and in direct hostility to his commands, yea, to the whole gospel scheme : Exo. xxi. 10. " If he take him another wife ; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall not be diminished ;" with which contrast Luke xvi. 18. " Whosoever putteth away Lis wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery :" Exo. xxi. 24. *; Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand ;" contrasted with Rom. xii. 19. " Dearly beloved avenge not yourselves," and 1 Thes. v. 15. " See that none render evil for evil " unto any man :" Exo. xxii. 10. " Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: but the seventh year, thou shalt let it rest and

131

be still ;" contrasted with 2 Thes. iii. 10. • If any will not work, neither shall he eat.' A witch was to be put to death by that church : Exo. xxii. 18. He that did not keep the sab- bath, was to be put to death: Exo. xxxi. 14. They were to put the idolater to death : Deut. xvii. 5. They were to put to death those that ate the blood of beasts* : Lev. xvii 10. All the congregation were to stone the blasphemer : Lev. xxiv. 14. They were to stone a person who taught idolatry: Deut. xiii 9. In some cases they were to inflict punishment by stripes: Deut. xxv. 3.

" It will be remembered, that this putting to death was for sins committed either against the ceremonial or moral law, and that the congre- gation or churchy were to be the executioners : but, brethren, is this any thing like the church of Christ ? Has he any where ordered his peo- ple to inflict the punishment of death, and that in a chiircf) capacity ? Was there one instance of any being stoned by them, even for blasphe- my ? Yea, did not the extent of the powers of a gospel church consist in excommunication ? Is it not, therefore, plain that the Jewish church was more of a civil, than a religious institution ; and is it not evident, that it was radically dif- ferent from the gospel church? What figure would a church of Jesus Christ make in drag- ging an idolater or a blasphemer forth, to en- compass him about, and stone him with stones until he died: yet, brethren, such was the church which Mr. E. calls the gospel church. But this is not all ; for the parent was to put to

132

tncath his oxvn child: Deut. xxi. 31.: and is this a church of Christ ? Or rather, is it not a mere commonwealth, or civil institution ?

" In the second chapter of Numbers, every man of" Israel is commanded to learn the mili- tary profession, to perform the duties of a sol- dier : but where arc such precepts to the church of Christ? Is not the injunction, * as much as m you lies, live in peace with all men?' Nothing will serve better, to shew how opposite the two wrere, than to consider two passages which were suitable to the Jewish church, as such, but never could suit them as a religious body ; and, evident it is, that the duties of the gospel church are so very opposite, the one could ne- ver be a pattern for the other. " Thou shalt not seek their peace, nor their prosperity, for- ever :" Deut. xxiii. G. " Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God givcth thee for ari inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance ofAmalek from under heaven ; thou shalt not forget it /" Deut. xxv. 19. In both these texts are inculcated an un- forgiving temper, and a spirit of revenge. Had the Jews been a religious body, as the church of Christ now is, such precepts never would have been given : but as our opponents insist on it, they were a religious body, and hold them up as an example to us, how evident must it be, to a reader of but superficial know- ledge, they cannot be such, when the laws of Christ are so opposite, as we shall shew, and

133

tlieir practice so different. To manifest how opposite the duties of the members of a gospel church are to those of the Jewish, take the fol- lowing texts: u Let us do good unto all men :" Gal. vi. 10. " But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good un- to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." In- deed, an hundred passages such as these might be produced, to evince how widely different the two institutions are, and that what was obliga- tory on one, could by no means be duty in the other ; yet, is it not strange that they should be considered as one and the same church ?

" The only expedient which our opponents use to extricate themselves from the difficulty, is to say, these were mere civil institutions, and were enjoined on them not as a church, but merely as a body politic. But what does this amount to ? Is it not admitting a difference be- tween them and the christian church, when they do not pretend it has the administration of the civil law in its hands, and do they not ac- knowledge the dissimilarity ? Indeed, this is a concession that goes to the ruin of their cause, and is the very thing we have been contending for. The Jews were truly a civil body ; in this light they are to be viewed : but the church of Christ was in tio respect like them ; so that while adults and infants were of necessity a part of that community, it cannot, it does not follow, they are to be members of an institution purely spiritual.

" Another argument respects the discipline.

M

134-

In the gospel church, an offended member was in the first instance to tell the party his fault by himself; if confession was made he was bound to forgive : if no confession was made, he was to take with him one or two more of his bre- thren— if no confession still was made, he was to give the matter up to the church, to judge between them : Matt, xviii. The punishment nfiicted by a church was that of excluding the person from their fellowship ; but in no in- stance was corporeal punishment inflicted. How different from all this was the Jewish church! Its laws took no notice whatever of offences of a spiritual kind ; and the only offences it regarded were those against proper- ty, family, reputation, or the like. Nor were any directions given to admonish, and forgive ; nor yet was sorrow for an offence, in any in- stance, looked upon as sufficient: but the command was to obtain satisfaction according to the nature of the offence, either in restitu- tion, stripes, or death. In the Church of Christ, every christian is forbidden to go to law with each other, and especially to do it be- fore the people of the world ; but the Jews were on every occasion to appear before the judicial authority. From the Jewish church theie was no excommunication, nor could a Jew be separated any other way than by death : and although the Pharisees cast the blind man out of the synagogue, yet it was not done by any law of Moses, (for no such law was ever given by him), but by one of their own traditions. If any were ever excommunicated, it was the

135

leper, who was ordered to be shut out of the camp : but then this was for a bodily malady, not a moral evil ; and the person was tempora- rily excluded for misfortune, not crime. But how different is this from the gospel church, from whom every wicked person is to be ex- eluded, and that, not on account of natural de- fect, but moral offences. If our opponents are right in the opinion, that they are one and the same church, or that the christian church, as to members, is to be governed by. the Jewish ; then every vile person must be retained in our communion. ' An heretic reject, after the first and second admonition :' Tit. hi. 10. ' Put from among you that wicked person :' 1 Cor. -v. 13. Brethren, judge ye, if the two churches are the same, when murderers, incestuous per- sons, and every species of wicked men, were retained in one, but cast out "of the other : Gen. xxxiv. 25. and xxxviii. 18. 1 Cor. v. 11."

Many more arguments might be brought forward, and have been published by Dr. Bald- win, of Boston, and Mr. William White, of Philadelphia, to evince the difference of the Jewish and the christian church, but enough has been said to prove "the falsity of Mr. E.'s assertions, that the Jewish church state remains, and having shewn that the two churches are radically different, and that infants can by no means be members of the gospel church, as they were of the Jewish ; I shall now shew, that some things are said of the gospel church that will not agree with infants. The church is called " the pillar and ground of the truth ;P

130

Tim. iii. 15. but can it be said of infants, that they are the support and defence of the gospel ? The church is said to be subject to Christ, as a woman ought to be to her hus- band : Eph. v. 22. but are infants, indeed, subject to Christ ? Paul persecuted the church, says the sacred text : Phil. iii. 6. but did he act so unmanly as to persecute infants ? It is said that Saul made havoc of the church : Acts. viii. 3. can it be thought he put young children to death ? Certainly not. It is said, that it pleased the whole church (not part of them) to send chosen men of their own com- pany, to Antioch : Acts. xv. 22. this cannot -agree with infants; for it was impossible that they should send messengers. Such as pro- phecy, are said to edify the church : 1 Cor. xiv. 15. but if infants were members, this could only be true of a part of them. The church were not to be charged with the sup- port of certain widows: 1 Tim. v. 16. but would it not be nonsense for the apostles to direct babes not to support the widows ? The apostle John says, " I wrote to the church :" 3 Jno. 2. but it is ridiculous so to talk, if in- fants were in it, especially if the children of believers were such ; they would constitute the majority. In Acts. ix. 31. "then had the churches rest, throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified ; and walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the com- fort of the Holy Ghost." Can it with consis- tency be said of little sucking infants, that they were " edified" •' -walked in the fear of the

137

Lord" and u were comforted of the Holy Ghost .?" Yet such inconsistencies are with our opponents. It is said, that when Ananias and Sapphira his wife, had been slain by the Lord, " great fear came upon all (not a part only) the church :" Acts. v. 11. but were babes afraid ? Directions are given to aggrieved members of the church how to act, and their instructions run thus: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he shall neglect to hear the church," See. : Matt, xviii, 17. But fiow is he to tell his case to infants ? and how can infants speak to the offending person ?

" These, and numberless other texts that might readily be adduced, afford dignified and obvious proof that infants were not in the apos- tolic churches ; nor can our opponents, with all their subtle logic, evade the force of them. But all the exhortations and warnings address- ed to the members of churches, prove the same thins:, ah1 of which would be utterlv inconsis- tent were infants in membership ; besides which, it is remarkable, that no directions are given to the church with respect to such in- fants: a neglect this, that never would have existed, if they were members, and which can- not be said as it relates to the Jewish church. Does it appear consistent, that exhortations should be addressed to the church by name, and which do, in every instance, imply the parties having grace and the exercise of their understanding; and yet no directions given to the church respecting infant members, if they

M 2

138

were so ; but all the exhortations which con- cern them are addressed to their parents ? No duties are pointed out for them to perform, or others to perform for them ; nor yet is there any church privilege assigned to them, nor could they enjoy any ; nor can our Lord's act of blessing some infants, establish their right to baptism, or church membership, for we have no information of either taking place ; nor yet did he leave any command to his disciples to follow his example in this respect.

" Such exhortations and cautions as these following, are in all the epistles directed to the church in general, without any specification of age or sex : " Take heed, brethren, lest there should be in any of you an evil heart of unbe- lief:" Heb. hi. 12. " Bear ye one another's burdens :" Gal. vi. 2. " If a brother be over- taken in a fault, let such as are spiritual restore him :" Gal. vi. 1. " Not forsaking the as- sembling of yourselves together:' Heb. x. 25. " Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith — Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread :" 1 Cor. xi. " Ye are all the children of God bv faith in Christ Jesus :" Gal. iii. 26. " Received ye the Spi- rit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith :" Gal. iii. 2. Such quotations would be endless ; 1 must therefore leave it to the reader to judge for himself, how very absurd such addresses would be if made to infants ; and confident I am, that a man not blinded by prejudice, never will maintain the membership of infants."*

* WilU-m Wrhite of Philadelphia.

J 39

In page 17 you say, " We read in the pro- phecy of Jeremiah, that the church was called an olive tree, to which the apostle alludes in Rom. 11th chapter."

If your description of the Hebrew church be a correct one, they draw all their sap and fatness from themselves. It is no wonder that we read of so few of them being perfect ; you say they are " the root, body, and branches." We grant that the Jews were branches, and some of them were broken off for unbelief. But we cannot admit that they are the root, as there is no other root on which the church of Christ now grows, than that on which they grew from the beginning : your description certainly differs materially from Paul's. He speaks of two olive trees, one good, the other wild. If by the good olive tree a visible church state is intended, then by the wild olive, the same must be intended also ; or else we cannot comprehend the apostle's reasoning. But have we read of any thing like a visible church- state among the gentiles at this time ? Cer- tainly not; consequently such a state among them cannot be intended. And could we find no better way, than you have pointed out, we might not only expect to be lean in gospel graces, but lose any we might have, and be at a loss to understand him. But as the scrip- tures are rich and full, for edification and in- struction, we shall not perhaps search in vain for a better root, than the Hebrew church, of Abraham the father of the nation. He, good man, had great faith, and was a favorite of God,

140

but had no oil to spare no more than the wise virgins. All his sap and fatness must have originated from a better source than himself; or he never would " against hope have believ- ed in hope." The apostle hath given us a de- scription of two great heads of the human race : n Adam, and Christ. All were in Adam when he fell, and continue to be in him until cut off by the law of God, and grafted in by the gospel. Then they stand in him by faith ; for the want of which the Jewish branches were broken off; and those Romans that were grafted in are said to " stand by faith." Consequently the Jews that remained must have stood by faith also. The gentiles, that were grafted in, were taken from the wild olive, " said to be cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree." When he speaks of the Jews that were broken off, he calls them branches, and not the root. If some of the Jews were branches, all must have been so. If. they were broken off for unbelief, the greatest part were broken off, and all infants must have been with them, for you have never pretended to prove they had faith, (though you call them holy.) And when he speaks of the gentiles that were grafted in, he says " among them," (the Jews) and not on them, " and with them," (not from them) partakest of the root and fatness of the olivetree, 1. (Christ.) 2. The gentiles being cut off from their root Adam, and the Jews being broken off from their root, Christ. 5. Both roots remain to this day ; and the law still continues

141

JO cut off branches from the wild olive, and the gospel still grafts them contrary to nature in the good olive tree, Christ, and will continue todo so until the fulness of the gentiles be come in. But both roots still remain separate and distinct, and will remain so forever. If we thus understand the apostle, the distinction he makes between the Jews and gentiles is a clear and correct one ; and notwithstanding all men in a state of nature, whether they be Jews or gentiles, are properly in the wild olive tree ; jet the good olive might by the apostle be cal- led properly their own olive tree ; for they were received by God as his peculiar people in a national capacity — claimed God as their God — unto them were committed the oracles of God — he was bone of their bone — he came unto hijs own, though his own received him not : Jno. i. 11. This passage of the blessed Re- deemer's greatly illustrates the one before us. " I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman, every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away : " this shews that those Jewish branches that were broken off might be in him in a sense, and still fruitless ones, and as the apostle says unbelieving ones ; and for that unbelief broken off that they might wither and die, and be burned. Christ must be intended by the good olive tree, and Jews and gentiles in him by faith receive nourish- ment and grow up " to an heavenly building in the Lord." He alone can in the strictest sense be cal'ed the holy root, " and if the root be holy so arethe branches," and He alone has a suf-

M2

ficient virtue, or fulness of holiness in himself to communicate sap and fatness to the branch- es. It is unreasonable to believe Abraham or the whole Jewish church could have any such fatness to communicate, as before observed. No man hath any to communicate, any to spire, but just enough for himself if he be Christs. Hence says the apostle, " Jf the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the root be holy so are the branches :" v. 16. By the first fruit, we understand the apostles, and those baptized by John. These are called Christs' church. By the lump, all the real believers in Christ, are intended and by the root, Christ himself. The apostle never could have intended the Jewish church as the root. There is not any account of it in any age that could induce us to believe he could have called them holy. But if the Jews had been intend- ed, it would have rendered your cause no ser- vice. You admit those that were broken off were unbelievers, consequently all unbelievers must have been broken off, and unbelieving infants among the rest, and as they that stood, stood by faith, they must have had faith which infants are not capable of. After Christ came in the flesh, he had no further use of them as a nation,, there fore those tbuthad a living faith in him stood by that faith, fhid those that had not, were broken off from then own olive tree, and the gentiles were grafted ki contrary to nature, and stand by faith.

" It is worthy of observation," says Doctor Baldwin, " that the gentiles are \aid to be

143

grafted in, contrary to nature." It is so, in almost every sense. The whole of religion is contrary to our depraved natures ; but more especially in the following things — 1. We ne- ver graft a scion but upon the principles of its being better than the stock into which it is set. 2. The scion, though grafted into another stock, and nourished by it, still retains its own nature, and bears its own fruit. 3. A base stock is rendered valuable, in consequence of the good fruit produced by the ingrafted part. But in grafting in the gentiles, all is reversed. They are not chosen on account of their own excellency, but on Christ's account. By be- ing grafted into this holy stock, their nature is so changed, that they bring forth the fruit of holiness. They add nothing to the essen- tial value of the stock into which they are grafted, but receive all their excellence from it.

In page 28th you say, " And the probability is stronger that there were infants in the house- hold, mentioned in scripture, than that there were not." Why, sir, is it stronger? "Because three times three are nine ?" Why did you not examine the passages, and give us reasons founded on scripture, and fairly deducible from them ? Why huddle them into a con- fused heap of nonsense ? You might as well have said, it is more probable that a covenant of grace was made with Abraham, than with Christ, because four times four are sixteen. Eut as you were afraid to bring them fairly to public view, lest you should be detected,

144

and your assertions found to be erroneous ; we will shew you, all that we want is a fair investigation of scripture to maintain our apos- tolic example. Acts. xvi. 33. " And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Will you venture the assertion that the family did not believe and rejoice in God with the gaoler ? If they did not believe and rejoice how could it be said that the gaoler re- joiced, believing in God with them? There was a mutual rejoicing and believing of the whole family. " Nor need we wonder," says Mr. White " that a family rescued thus from eternal destruction should feel such joy, as to be thought worthy of being recorded in holy writ." How sir, can you say it is nine to one that there were infants in these families ? when it is said v. 32, " They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." And when v. 34, It is sail all his house believed as well as himself. How can you so far forget yourself, as to venture such an assertion? when the express declaration is, " and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Mr. White continues, " It is very remarkable, that in all the instances recorded of households, being baptized, the Holy Ghost has been careful to prevent the error of infant baptism, or infant church membership, being thereby encouraged ; and this hath been done

145

by something being said in the narrative to prevent the idea from fairly obtaining that in- fants were in such households. Thus in the ease of the gaoler, the narrative says expressly, •' the word of the Lord was preached to him, and all that were in his house, and that before baptism was administered to any one ©f them ; that he believed with all his house : from whence it must be readily inferred that infants were not there ; for they cannot hear the word of the Lord, nor yet believe in Christ. So also in the case of Lydia, there is no proof she was a married woman, or had an husband ; for had that been the case, no one can account for the house going under her name, and not her husband's ; and it is improbable that she would leave the city of Thyatira, and come to Philip- pi 'in the character of a female merchant, a seller of purple ; much less if she had young children and a husband also. It is evident her household were servants, or, if children, such as had arrived to years of maturity, and that because in the 40th verse it is said, " Paul and Silas entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren they comfort- ed them :" her household are here called bre- thren, are said to have been comforted; " which could not have taken place had they been infants. The household of Stephanas is said to be the firsts fruits of the gospel in Achaia. " I beseech you brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, and that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints) : 1

148

Cor. xvh 15. If there had beln infants in that household, they could not be a fruit of the gos- pel, for that intends conversion to God : nor yet could they minister to the saints. Surely it will not be said that infants could minister to the apostles wants." The evident result therefore is in direct opposition to your 9 to 1, and instead of infants ever having had a place in the gospel church, the reverse is the fact. So that there is no express law necessary to discountenance that which was never thought of, consequently there is no occasion for a Thus saith the Lord, to leave them where Christ and his apostles left them. And as to what you say of depriving them of their right, you have failed in proving their right, and you have not shewn what advantage it will be to them, were they sprinkled. Your arguments from cir- cumcision are inadmissible, as we have proven that baptism did not succeed it, but is a nevy and gospel institution ; and that citizenship in the Jewish commonwealth, of which infants were of necessity members, is no argument for christian church membership, under the gospel dispensation, particularly as the two are so radically different from each other, as we have sufficiently shown : that there is no in- ferring membership in the one instance from the other. We have confuted you in your household baptisms ! and as you havo not in .any one instance proved that infants were mem- bers in the gospel church ; or that Christ, or his apostles, either ordered it, or even counte- . jianced it ; we boldly say from scripture au.

thority, they arejnot to be members of the visi- ble church of Christ, either with, or without baptism.

Now, sir, as you have labored to shew us the signification of baptism, and have brought forward all your strength to little purpose ; we will set before you, a few of the abundant testimonies in our possession, from those that have differed with us in practice ; authorities that are undeniable, and respectable. You will then be able to judge, whether the author from whom you have extracted your informa- tion, deserves credit.

I. We shall offer a few testimonies, concern- ing the nature, obligation, and importance of positive institutions in religion.

1. Dr. Owen : " Positive institutions — are the free effects of the will of God, depending originally and solely on Revelation, and which therefore have been variously and actually changed."

2. Buddeus : "The obligation by which men are bound rightly to use positive appoint- ments, is to be derived from the moral law itself; by which it is manifest, that men are obliged to do all those things by which their eternal felicity may be promoted. God had the wisest reasons, why lie would have an ap- pointment administered in this or the other manner. It is not lawful therefore, for men to alter any thing, or to mutilate the appointment. Thus the sacraments are to be used, not ac- cording to our own pleasure, but in the man- ner appointed by God.

148

3. Dr. J. G. King, on the rites and ceremo- nies of the Greek church in Russia, p. 12 : " Positive duties, having no obligation in the reason of things, can have no foundation but in the express words of the institutor, from which alone they derive their authority."

4. Mr. Jonathan Edwards : " Those laws, whose obligations arise from the nature of things, and from the general state and nature of mankind, as well as from God's positive revealed will, are called moral laws. Others, whose obligation depends merely upon God's positive and arbitrary institution, are not mor- al ; such as the ceremonial laws, and the pre- cepts of the gospel about the two sacraments.'* Positive "precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience ; because in them the mere authority and will of the legislator, is the sole ground of The obligation, and nothing in the nature of the things themselves ; and there- fore they are the greatest trial of any person's respect to that authority and will." Sermon on important subjects : page 79.

5. Gerhardus : *' Seeing that a sacrament depends entirely on the appointment of God, when we do not what God has appointed, it certainly will not be a sacrament."

6. Bishop Burnet : "Sacraments are positive precepts, which are to be measured only by the institution, in which there is no room It ft for us to carry them any further.*'*

II. Concerning the signification of the terms baptize and baptism.

• Bryant'* hbridguaent ui Booth's Fscdobaptisra examined.

148

1. Gurtlcrus : " To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip : and baptism, is immersion, dipping.' Baptitmos en Pneumati agio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit : for he on whom the holy spirit is pour- ed out, is as it were immersed into him — Baptismos en puri, baptism in fire, is a figura- tive expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far and wide ; such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem — the thing commanded by our Lord, is baptism, immersion into water."

2. Buddeus: " The words baptizcin and bap- tismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersions ; but always of immersion."

3. Salmasius : " Baptism is immersion ; and was administered in former times, according to^ the force and meaning of the word."

4. Calvin : " The word baptize, signifies to immerse ; and the rite of immersion, was ob- served by the ancient church." Ins. Chr. Rel. L. iv. ch : 15:

5. Beza : " Christ commanded us to be bap- tized, by which word, it is certain immersion is signified — Babtizesthai, in this place, is more than Cherniptein ; because that seems to> respect the whole, this only the hands. Nor does baptizein'signify to wash, except by con- sequence : for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dying* To be baptized in wa- ter, signifies no other than to be immersed in water ; which is the external ceremony of bap- tism— Baptizo differs from the verb dunax,

N 3

150

which signifies to plunge in the deep and to drown."

6. Vitringa : c< The act of baptizing, is the immersion of believers in water. This ex- presses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and his apostles."

7. Luther : " The term baptism, is a Greek word. It may be rendered a dipping, when we dip something in water, that it may be en- tirely covered with water."

8. Venema : " The word baptizein, to bap- tize, is no where used in scripture for sprink- ling."

9. Anonymous : " That the letter of the scripture is in favor of the baptists, cannot without evasion and equivocation, be denied :" London Review, for June 1776 — .p. 489.

10. Dr. Doddridge: " I have, indeed, a most dreadful baptism, to be baptized with, aiyi know that I shall shortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelm- ing distress :" Paraphrase, on Luke xii. 50.

11. Anonymous : k< The word baptize, doth certainly signify immersion, absolute and total immersion, in Josephus and other Greek wri- ters. 'Hitherto the antipasdobaptists seem to have had the best of the argument, on the mode of administering the ordinance : the most ex- plicit authorities are on their side. Their op- ponents have chiefly availed themselves of in- ferences, analogy, and doubtful construction :" Monthly Review for May, 1784 — p. 3VG.

Reflections from Bryant's abridgment of Pcedobaptism, examined bv A. Booth — pages 31 to 34.

151

«' It should be well observed, that when our Lord after his resurrection says, go baptize ; he docs not mention baptism by way of allusion or incidentally. No, he speaks the language of legislation: he delivers divine law. He mentions and appoints baptism as an ordinance of God, as a branch of human duty: where then must we expect precision in the use of terms, if not on such an occasion ? Can it be supposed, without impeaching the wisdom or goodness of Christ, that he enacted a law re- lating to his own worship, the principle term in which is obscure and ambiguous? Can it be imagined that he intended an ambiguity so great in the term baptism, which prescribes the duty to be performed, as equally to war- rant the use of immersion, of pouring, or of sprinkling, which are three different actions ? We may' safely challenge our opposers to pro- duce an instance of this kind out of the Mosaic ritual. Does Jehovah, when giving his posi- tive laws, make use of a word that signifies dipping ? He means as he speaks, and requires immersion, in contradistinction to pouring or sprinkling. Does he on the one hand, employ a word which properly understood, signifies pouring? Or does he choose an expression, the radical idea of which is no other than sprinkling ? He still means as he speaks, and enjoins what he mentions, in distinction from every other action.

That dipping, pouring and sprinkling, de- note three different actions, in the language of divine law, as well as in the estimate of com-

152

mon sense, we have many examples in the ■writings of Moses. The following are select- ed for the readers notice. And the priest shall dip bapsei, (Septuag) his finger in the blood, and sprinkle, prosranei, of the blood seven times before the Lord. And the priest shall pour, ekcheei, all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar.* Moses took of the anointing oil, and he sprinkled, erranen, there- of, upon the altar seven times — and he poured epechei, of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head. Moses sprinkled, proechci, the blood upon the altar round about, and he washed, eplunen, the inwards and the legs in water, f He dipt, ebapse, his finger in the blood — and he poured out exechein, the blood at the bot- tom of the altar. And Aaron's sons presented unto him the blood, which he sprinkled prose- chein, round about upon the altar —and he did wash, eplune, the inwards.J As for the living bird, he shall take it and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them, bapsei auta, and the living bird, in the blood of the bird that was killed. And he shall sprinkle, perirranei, upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times — and he that is to be cleansed shall wash, plunei, his clothes, and shave off his hair, and -wash himself, lousetai, in water, that he may be clean. § And who- soever toucheth his bed shall zvash, plunei, his clothes, and bathe himself, lonsetai, in water.fi

• Levit. iv. 6. 7- 17 18. f Levit. viii. 11. 12. 19. 21. i Chnp. tx. 9. 12- 14.

$ UTit. xir. 6. 7. 8. J Chap. xr. 5. $►

153

So in the new testament, washing the feet is distinguished from bathing the whole body, washing a part of the body from being baptized, and baptism from washing ; as appears from the following instances. He that is washed, (or has been bathing 6 leloumenos) needeth not save to wash his feet, pedas nipsasthai.J He took them the same hour of the night, and washed, elousen, their stripes, and was bap- tized, ebaptisthe, he and all his straightway. Arise and be baptized, baptisai, and wash away apalousai, thy sins.§ By which it ap- pears, that as tasting in the language of scrip-- ture, is distinguihed from drinking; so are washing the feet fom bathing the whole body, and washing a part of the body from being" baptized. With what reason or shadow of propriety, then, can any pretend that the term baptism is equally expressive of these different actions.

Were the leading term in any human law to have an imbiguity in it equal to that for which our brethren plead with regard to the word baptism, such law would certainly be consider- ed as betraying either the weakness or the wick- edness of the legislator ; and be condemned as opening a door to perpetual chicane, and pain- ful uncertainty. Far be it, then, from us to suppose, that our gracious and omniscient Lord should give a law relating to divine worship, and obligatory on the most illiterate of his real disciples, which may be fairly construed to mean this, that, or the other action — a law, 4 Jao. xiii. 10. $ Acta. xvi. 33. and 22. 16,,

154

which is calculated to excite and perpetuate contention among his wisest and sincerest fol- lowers— a law, in respect to its triple meaning, that would disgrace a Congress or British par- liament, as being involved in the dark ambi- guity of a Pagan oracle — it must, therefore, be at our peril, if we indulge a wantcn fancy in the interpretation of that law which is now be- fore us : For as Mr. Charnock observes, " Tis a part of God's sovereignty to be the interper- ter, as well as the maker, of his own laws ; as it is a right inherent in the legislative power among men. So that it is an invasion of his right to fasten a sense upon his declared will, which cloth not naturally flow from the words. For to put any interpretation according to our pleasure upon divine as well as human laws, contrary to their true intent, is a virtual usur- pation of this power ; because, if lawrs may be interpreted according to our humors, the pow- er of the law would be more in the interpreter, than in the legislator ?*

III. Concerning the design of baptism ; or the facts and blessings represented by it, both in regard to our Lord and his disciples.

1. Dr. Robert Newton : " Baptism was usu- ally performed by immersion, or dipping the whole body under water, to represent the death, and burial) and resurrection of Christ together ; and therewith to signify the persons own dying to sin, the destruction of its power, and his resurrection to new life. St Paul

• Of man's eiHiitv to G»d— p. -98.

*>

In V 3D

plainly refers to this custom:" Rom. vi. 4: Pract. Expo. Cat. p. 2S7, 298.

2. A. H. Frankius : " The baptism of Christ represented his sufferings: Matt. xx. 22— and his coming up cut of the water, his resur- rection from the dead." Prog. Program. 14. p. 343.

3. Mr. Saurin : " Paul says, ' We are bu- ried with him by baptism into death :' that is, the ceremony of wholly immersing us in water, when we were baptized, signified, that as we died to sin ; and that of raising us again from our immersion, signified, that we would no more return to those disorderly practices, in which we lived before our conversion to Chris- tianity." Sermons, vol. 3. p. 171.

4. Mr. Polhill : " Where baptism is in the right use, there is a seal of union with Christ. They have the power of death in his mortifica- tion, and the power of his resurrection in a divine life : the one is notably adumbrated iri the baptismal immersion into the water : the other, in the eduction out of it." Mystical Union, Chap. 7. p. 202, 203.

5. Turrettiaus : The passage of the Israel- ites through the red sea, wonderfully agrees with our baptism, and represents the grace it was designed to express ; for as, in baptism when performed in the primitive manner, by immersion and emersion, descending into the watert and again going out of it, of which de- scent and ascent we have an example in the .Eunuch, Acts. viii. 38. 39. — yea, and what is jpore by this rite, when persons are immerse^

15(5

in water, they are overwhelmed, and as it were buried, and in a manner buried together -with Christ ; and again when they emerge, seem to be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise again with Christ : Rom. vi 4. 5. — Col. ii. 12 — as in former times, the persons to be baptized were immersed in the water, continu- ed under the water, and emerged out of it: Matt. iii. 16. — Acts. viii. 37. — so the old man died in and was buried, and the new man arose : Rom. vi. 4.— Col. ii. 12." Disp. de Bap. Nu- bis, Tom. 3. Loc. 19.

6. Scudder : " Baptism, doth lively repre- sent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ : Rom. vi. 3. 4. 5.— Col. ii. 11. \2. 13. Daily walk, Cap. 5. p. 95.

7. Grotius : " Buried with him by baptism. Not only the word baptism, but the very form of it, intimates this. For an immersion of the whole body in the water, so that it is no longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which is given to the dead. So Col. ii. 12. There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and of a re- surrection ; which in respect of Christ, was external ; in regard to ^christians, internal/' In Rom. vi. 4.— Col. ii; 12.

8. Wolfius : " Immersion into water, in former times, and a short continuance under the water, practised by the ancient church, af- forded the representation of a burial in bap- tism." Curai. ad Rom. vi. 4.

Reflections — p. 60, 61.

£ Baptism being a gracious appointment oC

157

God, it must have an important meaning; and as it is a positive ordinance, the whole of its design must be fixed by divine institution. For we have no more authority to invent a signification for any rite of holy worship, than we have to appoint the rite itself. The design of baptism, therefore, must be learned from the New Testament, and that part of that sacred volume, as has, an immediate reference to it.

Were we divested of partiality and prepos- session, there is reason to conclude that it would not be very difficult to discover the chief design of our Lord in his positive ap- pointments. The following words of Dr. Owen, are here worthy of notice. ' This was a great part of the imperfection of legal insti- tutions, that they taught the things which they signified and represented obscurely, and the mind of God in them Was not learned but with great difficulty--* but all the ordinances and in- stitutions of the gospel do give light into and exhibit the things themselves unto the minds and faith of believers. Hereon they discern the reasons and grounds of their use and bene- fit ; whence our whole worship is called our reasonable service :' Rom. xii. 1.*

IV. Concerning the practice of John the Baptist, of the apostles, and of the church in succeeding ages, in regard to the manner of administering the ordinance ojfbajrtism.

1. Piscator: ** Udata polla, signifies many rivers ; as udor, in the singular number, de- noted the river Jordan. This is mentioned to

• On Heb. vii. 11— vol. 3. p. III.

o

158

signify the ceremony of baptism, which John used ; that is, immersing the whole body of a person standing in the river. Whence Christ being baptized of John in Jordan, is said to as- cend out of the water : Matt. 3 : the same man- ner was observed by Philip:" Acts. viii. 38.

2. Calvin : M From these words, John iii. 23. it may be inferred, that baptism was ad- ministered by John and Christ, by plunging the whole body under water. Here we per- ceive how baptism was administered among the ancients ; for they immersed the whole b»dy in water. Now it is the prevailing prac- tice for a minister only to sprinkle the body or the head." In Joan iii. 23. Comment, ill Acts. viii. 38:

3. Mosheim : " The- exhortations of this respectable messenger, (John the Baptist) Mere not without effect ; and those who, moved by his solemn admonitions, had formed the reso- lution of correcting their evil dispositions and amending their lives, were initiated into the kingdom of the Redeemer, by the ceremony of immersion, or baptism : Matt. iii. 6. John i. 22. The sacrament of baptism was admin- istered in this (the second) century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptis- mal font. Those adult persons, that desired to be baptized (among the collegiants) received the sacrament of baptism, according to the Ancient and primitive manner of celebrating that institution, even by immersion."

159

4. Dr. Priestly : V It is certain that in very- early times, there is no particular mention made of any person being baptized by sprink* ling only, or a partial application of water to the body:" Hist. Corrupt. — vol. 2. p. 67.

5. Grotius : " That baptism used to be per- formed by immersion, and not pouring, ap* pears both from the proper signification of the word, and the places chosen for the adminis- tration of the rite. John iii. 23. Acts. viii. 38 ; and also from the many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprink- ling :" Rom. vi. 3. 4. Col. ii. 12. Apud Polum, Synops. ad Matt. iii. 6.

6. Assembly of Divines : " Were baptized — washed by clipping in Jordan, as Mark viu 4. Heb. ix. 10. Buried with him by baptism. See Col. ii. 12. In this phrase the apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and as it were to bury them under the water a "While, and then draw them out of it, and lift them up, to represent the burial of our old man, and our resurrection to newness of life. Annotat. on Matt. iii. G. Rom. iv. 4.

7. Mr. Joseph Mede : " There was no such thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in bap- tism in the apostle's days, nor many years after them."

8. Bossuet : " The bap-ism of John the Baptist, which served for a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging. When Jesus Christ came to John, to raise baptism to a more marvellous eff.cacy in re-

I (TO

ceiving it, the scripture says, that he went up out of" the water of Jordan : Matt. iii. 16. Mark i. 10. In fine we read not in the scrip- tures that baptism was otherwise administer- ed ; and we are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years, baptism was thus administered throughout the whole church, as far as was possible." In Mr. Stennett, ag. Russen. p. 175.

9. Mr. Chambers : t% In the primitive times this ceremony was performed by immersion ; as it is to this dav in the oriental churches, ac- cording to the original signification of the word." Diet : Cyclo : Article, Baptism ; Edition 7th.

10. Mr. John Wesley : " Mary Welsh, a- ged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour — Buried with him — alluding to the an- cient manner of baptizing by immersing." — Extract of Mr. J. Wesley's Journal, from his embarking for Georgia, p. 11.

11. Dr. Wall. tl Their (the primitive chris- tians) general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by infi- nite numbers of passages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Prcdo- baptists as would maintain the negative of it ; so also we ought to disown and show a dislike to the profane scoffs which some people give

161

to the English Antipsedoqaptiste, merely for their use of dipping — it was, in all probability the way by which our blessed Saviour, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient christians did receive their baptism. 'Tis a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. 'Tis plain that the ordinary and general practice of St. John, the Apostles and primitive church, was to baptize by putting the person into the water, cr causing him to go in- to the water. We should not know by these accounts (John 3. 23. Mark 1. 5. Acts 8. 38.) whether the whole body of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two latter proofs, which seem to me to put it out of question. One, St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, calls a burial : which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive them to have gone into the water only up to their arm-pits, 5kc. as it is if the whole body was im- mersed. The other, the custom of the near succeeding times : As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, ct them defend it who use it. They (who are inclined to Presbyterianism) are hardly pre- vailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a bason, or poringer, in a bed chamber ; hardlv persuaded to bring them to church : niuch farther from having them dip- o2

162

• -

ped though never so able to bear it." Hist, of inf. Bap : Part 2. Chap. 2. p. 462.

Now as it appears by the concessions, declar- ations, and reasonings of so many learned Pse- dobaptists themselves, that the natural and proper idea of the term baptism, the design of the institution, and the examples of the apos- tles, are all in favor of immersion, and all agree with our practice ; we do not, we cannot want any more to justify our conduct, either before God or man. This must be the case, except the united testimony of such a cloud of wit- nesses, and the reasons of it, can be confronted with superior testimony.

V. Concerning the present practice of the Greek and Oriental churches, in regard to the mode of Administration.

1. Deylingius : " The Greeks retain the ritev of immersion to this day : as Jeremiah the Pa- triarch of Constantinople declares." De. Prud. Pastoral. Part. 3. C iii. $.26.

2d. Budclcus : " That the Greeks defend im- mersion is manifest : and has been frequently observed by learned men : which Ludalphus informs us is the practice of Ethiopians." — Theolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. $.5.

3. Dr. Wall : " All christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one third part of Europe, are of the last sort (/. e. practise immersion) in which a third part of Europe are compre- hended the christians of Graccia, Trocia, Ser- via, Bulgaria, Bascia, Walachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, and so on : and even the Mus- covites, who, if coldness of the country will ex-

194

cuse, might plead for a dispensation with the - most reason of any." Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part 2. Chap. 9. p- 477.

VI. Concerning the Design of Baptism, as more fully expressed by immersion, than by- pouring or sprinkling.

1. Witsius : " It must not be dissembled, that there is in immersion a greater fruitful- ness of signification, and a more perfect corres- pondence between the thing signified : as we shall shew, when we come to that part of our subject." CEcon. Feed. L. v. Ch. 16. p. 13.

2. Alstcdins : " The rite of immersion, which is intimated by the very word baptism, certainly bears a greater analogy to the thing signified." Lexicon Theol. Cap. 12. p. 225.

3. Dr. Clarke : " In the primitive times, the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into the water. And this manner of doing it was a very significant emblem of the dying and rising again referred to by St. Paul." Rom. 6. 4. Expos, of Church Cat. p. 294.

4. Dr. Cave : " The party to be baptized was wholly immerged, or put under water : — whereby they did more notably and significant- ly express the three great ends and effects of baptism." Primi. Christ. Part 1. Chap. 10, p. 203.

VII. Concerning the Reasons, Rise, and Prevalence of Pouring or Sprinkling, instead of immersion.

1. Salmasins : " The Clinics only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptized

1G4

in a manner of which they were capable, not In the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water, but the whole body hud water nourtd upon it. AoCypiian 4. Ep. vii. Thus Novctus, when sick, received baptism ; being pericliuthus, besprinkled, l.ot l»ap:isthefc>, baptised.

2. Grotius : " The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have prevailed in favor of those that were dangerously ill, and were de- sirous of giving up themselves to Christ : whom others call Clinics- See tie epistle of Cyprian to Magnus." Apud Poli Synopsin; ad Matt. 3 6."

3- Bp. Burnet : " The danger of dipping in cold climates, may be a good reason for changing the form of baptism to sprinkling." Kxpo. of 39- Ait. p. 456-

4- Dr. Wall : " In case of sickness, weak- ness, haste, want of a quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affu- sion of water on the face, was by the ancients counted sufficient baptism. 1 shall out of many proofs of it, produce two or three of the most ancient. Anno Dom. two hundred and fifty-one, Novatian, was by one part of the cler- gy and people of Rome, chosen Bishop of that Church in a schismatical way, and in opposi- tion to Corne/ius, does, in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right : and shows that A ovatian came not canonical!}- to his orders of priesthood, much less was he ca- pable of being chosen Bishop ; for that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity, were iu

165

gainst his being ordained presbyter, because it ■was not lawful (they said) for any one that had been baptized in his bed in time of sickness (ton en kline dia noson perichuthenta) as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy.. -France seems to have been the first country in the world, where baptism by affu- sion, was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administrating it.

There had been some synods in some dio- ceses, of France, that had spoken of affusion, without mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice ; but for an office or li- turgy of any church, this is I believe the first in the world that prescribes aspersion absolute- ly ; and for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at sixteen hundred and forty-five, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times of forty-one.--But then came the Directory and says—Baptism is to be administered, not in pri- vate places or privately ; but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congrega- tion, and so on. And not in the places where fonts, in the time of popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed- So they reformed the font into a basin. This learned assembly could not remember, that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive chris- tians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since the churches were built : but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing was really introduced (in France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times of Popery.

1GG

And that according, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the font : but that all other coun- tries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it ; and that basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other christian, Till Bv themselves* What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the or- dinary use of baptism, is to be understood on- ly in reference to the western parts of Europe : for it is used ordinarily no where else-" I list- of Bap. Inf. Part 2- Chap. ix. p. 463, 467, 470> 471, 472,477. Reflections* " By the quotations here produced from cm* inent Paedobaptists, we are taught that the most ancient instance on ecclesiastical record* which is yet adduced, of pouring or sprinkling i s that of Nov ati an, in the year 4 wo hundred and fifty- one. That the reason of it, both then and afterwards, was not any real, nor even pre- tended command or example in the New Tes- tament ; but a supposed necessity, arising from bodily disease- -it was considered as an imper- fect administration of the ordinance, so imper- fect as rendered the subject of it ineligible to the ministerial office, and was denominated sprinkling, not baptism. That sprinkling, strictly so called, did not commence in Eng- land, till the year sixteen hundred forty-five, and was then used by very few. That the As- sembly of Divines at Westminster, converted

167

the font into a basin, and that basins unless in cases of necessity, had never been used by papists, or any other christians whatever, till 03 the members of that Assembly

" According to this representation, the prac- tice of pouring and spi inkling, makes but a poor figure in the eyes of a consistent Protes- tant : for if this be a just account, it had no ex- istence till many corruptions had taken deep root in the church ; it originated in dangerous error ; was fostered by the mcther of abomi- nations ; and under the powerful influence of her authority and her example, it became the general custom of all those parts of the world to which her tyranny ever extended--<W no ivhere else. It seems to have been under the combined opperation of different errors that the practice took its rise, &c Sec."

\TII- Concerning the want of both Express Precept, and Plain Example, for Pcedobap- tism in the New Testament-

1- Bp- Burnet : " There is no express pre- cept, or rule, given in the New Testament for baptism of infants-" Expos, of 39 Articles- - Art- 27-

2. Dr. Wall : " Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant— There is no express mention indeed of ;my children bap- tised by him," i e John the Baptist---Hist. of ii.ft Bap* Intro- p 1, 55-

3 Luther : ' It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture, that infant baptism was in- stituted by ^Christ, or begun by the fiist chris-

168

tians after the Apostles.". -In A. B's Vanity of Inf. Bap. Part 2- p. 8.

A* Limborch : " There is no express com- mand for it in scripture : nay, all those passa- ges wherein baptism is commanded, do imme- diately relate to adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is prerequi- site as a necessary qualification, which are pe- culiar to adults alone. There is no- instance that can be produced, from whence it may in- disputably be inferred, that any child was baptized by the apostles. The necessity of Paedobaptism was never asserted by any coun- cil before that of Carthage, held in the year four hundred and eighteen :" Compt. Svs. Div. B. V. Ch. 22. Sec. 2.

Reflections.

** Such concessions are our opponents ob- liged to make, in reference to this affair ! With propriety therefore, I may here demand and remonstrate, in the remarkable words of Mr. Baxter : * What man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both ? Who knows what will please God but him- self? And hath he not told us what heexpect- eth from us? Can that be obedience, which hath no command for it ? Is not this to supc- rerogate, and to be righteous overmuch ? Is it not also to accuse God's ordinances of in- sufficiency, as well as his word, as if they were not sufficient either to please him, or help our own graces? O the pride of man's heart, that instead of being a law-obeyer, will be a Uw~

169

maker ; and instead of being true worshippers, they will be worship makers ; for my part, I will not fear that God will be angry with me for doing no more than he hath commanded me, and for sticking close to the rule of his word in matter of worship ; but I should trem- ble to add or diminish !*

" We are frequently charged with being ex- tremely fond of getting people into the water : but whether it be really so, I leave the impar- tial to judge. We may however say this for ourselves, that we never immerse a person in the sublimest of all names, without his con- sent ; no nor yet without his explicit request : whereas those who lodge the complaint against ns are well aware, that it would in general be very absurd for them to ask the consent of those whom they sprinkle in the same glorious name; they consider the consent of a parent, or of a proxy, as quite sufficient, though the subject of the ordinance be ever so reluctant."

IX. Concerning the want of evidence in fa- vor of Paedobaptism, before the latter end of the second, or the beginning of the third centurj-.

1. Salmasius and Suicerus : " In the two first centuries no one was baptized, except be- ing instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer ; because of these words, He that believeth and is baptized. First then he was to believe. Thence the order of Cate- chumens, in the church. Then also it was the constant custom to give the Lord's supper to

• PUu* Scrip. Proof, p. 24, 303. P

170

those Catechumens, immediately after their baptism." Epist. ad Justum Pacium. Suiceri Thesa. p. 1 136.

2. Curcellaeus : " The baptism of infants, in the first two centuries after Christ, was alto- gether unknown ; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few- In the fifth and following ages it was generally received---the custom of baptizing infants did not begin be- fore the third age alter Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears— -and it was introduced without the command of Christ."

3. Episcopius, denies that any tradition can be produced for Pzedobaptism, till a little be- fore the Milevitan Council, A. D. 418, and maintains that it was not practised in Asia till near the time of that Council. Insti. L. iv. 14. Mr. Brandt speaks to the same effect. Hist. Ref. Vol. 1. p. 9.

4. Venema : " Tertullian has no where men- tioned Pzedobaptism among the tradition of the church, nor even among the customs of the church that were publicly received and usually observed : nay, he plainly intimates that in his time it was a doubtful affair. For in his book De Baptismo, Cap. 18, he dissuades from baptizing infants, and proves by certain rea- sons that the delay of it to a more mature age is to be preferred ; which he certainlv would not have done, if it had been a tradition and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very tenacious of traditions, nor had it been a tradition, would he have failed to mention it.

171

It is manifest therefore, that nothing was then determined concerning the time of baptism nay, he judged it safer that unmarried persons should defer their baptism — Nothing can be affirmed with certainty concerning the custom of the church before Tertiillian ; seeing there is not any where in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism.

Justin Martyr, in his second Apology, when describing baptism, mentions only that of ad- ults " — Hist. Eccles. Tom. iii. Secul. ii. $.108, 109.

5. Regaltius : " In the Acts of the Apos- tles, we read, that both men and women were baptized, when they believed the gospel prea- ched by Philip, without any mention being made of infants. From the apostolic age, there- fore, to the time of Tertiillian, the matter is doubtful. Some there were, from that saying of our Lord, Suffer little children to come unto me : (to whom, nevertheless, our Lord did not ■command water to be administered) who took occasion to baptize new born infants. And as if they had been transacting some secular af- fair with God, they offered sponsors cr sure- ties to Christ, who engaged that they should not depart from the christian faith when ad- ults ; which practice displeased Tertu'Iian." — Ste.met's Answer to Mr. Russen, p* 74, 75.

X. Concerning the high opinion of the Fa- thers, in relation to the utility of Baptism, and the grounds on whieh they proceeded in ad- n. metering that ordinance to infants, when Fas Jobaptism become a prevailing practice.

172

1. Vitringa : " The ancient Christian Church, from the highest antiquity, after the apostolic times, appears generally to have' thought that baptism is absolutely necessary for all that would be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. It was therefore customary in the an- cient church, if infants were greatly afflicted and in danger of death ; or if parents were af- fected with a singular concern about the salva- tion of their children ; to present their infants, or children in their minority, to the Bishop to be baptized. But if these reasons did not urge them, they thought it better, and more for the interest of minors, that their baptism should be dcferedtill they arrived at a more advanced age : which custom was not yet abolished in the time of Austin, though he vehemently urg- ed the necessity of baptism, while, with all his might, he defended the doctrines of grace a- gainst Pelagius." Observat. Sac. Tom. I. L. II. C. 6. \ 9.

2. Salmasius : " An opinion prevailed, that no one could be saved without being baptized ; and for that reason the custom arose of bapti- zing infants." — Ep. ad Justum Pacium. &c. Hist. B:ip.

3. Episcopius : M Psedobaptism was not accounted a necessary rite, till it was determin- ed.sotobein the Milevitan Council, held in the year four hundred and eighteen. " — Insti- tut. Theol. L- IV. C. 14.

4. Hospinianus : " Austin — when writing against the Pelagians, too inconsiderately, con- signs over the infair:s of christians to dumna-

173

n, that died without baptism. There is no- ling that he more zealously urges, nor any thing on which he more firmly depends, than those words of Christ; Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into thekinoxlom of God." — Hist. Sacram. L. II. C. 11. "p. 52.

5. Dr Owen : " Most of the ancients con- cluded that it (baptism) was no less necessary :ito salvation, than faith -or repentance itself.". On Justification, Chap ii- p. 173- Reflections.

" Though it be manifest from the conces- sions and assertions of learned Pasdobaptists, in the preceeriin^ clrapterj that there is no evi- dence of infant baptism before the time of Ter- tullian, by whom it was opposed : yet from the quotations, it plainly appears that both; he and others before him, spake of baptistri "m such a manner, as had a natural tendency to intro- duce and promote Paedobaptism.

It is worthy of observation, that while Cyp- rian stands forth as the first patron of infant sprinkling, he appears also as giving the sanc- tion of his.au thority in favor of holy xuater : as- serting the Necessity of having the baptismal element consecrated by a priest, m order to render it the more effectual for the washing a- way of sin.* Austin and others, we find, in following times, proceed a step further than Cyprian-, and not contented with asserting at. an extravagant rate the utility of baptism, bold- ly maintains its absolute necessity : consigti-

* Sec Yenema, Eccl. Ifist. Tnm. ITISec 3. p. 6L J* 2

174

ing over to eternal ruin, all such infants as died without it — .Now, as both Cyprian And Austin were African Bishops, there is reason to con- elude with Grotius, 4 That anciently the bap- tism of infants was much more common in Africa than in Asia, or elsewhere : and with a greater opinion of its necessity.' f So fond of baptism were the superstitious Africans, that, as Deylingms informs us they frequently bap- tized the dead. % I cannot help

thinking, that either the inspired writers knew nothing at all of Paedobaptism, or hud a very mean opinion of it : for it seems unaccountably :it range, that they should all have approved the practice, and yet all agree, on such a variety of .occasions, in saying nothing about it- But sup- posing k was practised by them, and that they considered it as much more advantageous than ♦helteptism of believers, their conduct is yet moiv amazingly strange : because they ex- pressly apply the latter to practical purposes, though emitcly silent about the former. An example this, which our opponents are not in- clined to imitate. Peruse the writings of mod- ern Psedobr.ptists, and you plainly perceive the advantc-$es resulting from baptism, almost en- tirely confined to that of infants. Consult the Apostolic records, and you find them all con- nected wivh the baptism of adults. We may »iow venture to appeal to the reader, whether he would not suspect my unknown author of bei» g a baptist, weie he to find him treating on

- Apud. Poli. Synops. ad .Matt. xix. 14. * De Prud P^st. Pops. III. CU.3. $16-

175

all ihe various topics lately enumerated, and yet perceive that he is quite silent about infant baptism.

XI Concerning Apostolic Tradition, and the impracticability of pointing out the time when Pa;dobaptism commenced.

1. J. A. Turrettinus : " Tradition is a con- venient word, to excuse and retain those things that were brought into religion without the au- thority of scripture, by the ignorance of the times and the tyranny of men."

2. Mr- Robinson : " If, whatever we find to have been a general and prevailing custom a few hundred years after the Apostles, must ne- cessarily be allowed to have been the practice of their times too; I am afraid we must not only have forms of prayer, but also prayers for the dead, and invocations of saints and angels* and so on-" Review of Liturgies, p. 111.

3. Anonymous: " The church of Ron.v, will not acknowledge their points of doctrine to be erroneous, unless we can assign the time, and point out the persons who first broached them. If a man be sick of a consumption, will he refuse help of the physician, except he can resolve him whether his lungs, or his liver w^re first infected, and show the time when, and the occasion how his body grew first dis- tempered." Popery confuted by Papists, p. 26, 27,

4. Mr. Henry : " Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage, (John viii. 57) sup- ports tradition, which, he sakh he 1 ad from some that had converged with St. John, that

17fi

our Snviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for. See what little credit is to be ^iven to tradition." Exposition on Jolmviii. 57.

5. Mr. Claude: " As to the scripture, in- stead of making that the only rule of faith, they (the Papists) had joined tradition with it: that is to say, the most uncertain thing in the world, the most subject to impostures, and the most mixed with human inventions and weak- nesses. Tradition is so far from being able to serve for a rule, that it ought itself to be cor- rected and regulated according to that maxim of Jesus Christ : In the beginning it was not so. There is therefore, nothing more improper to be the rule of faith than that pretended tradi- tion, which is not established upon any c: foundation, winch serves for a pretence to he- retics, which is embraced pro and con, which changes according as times and places do, and by the favor of which they may defend the greatest absurdities, by merely saying, fl&t they are the traditions of the apostles trans- mitted from their own mouths to their suc- cessors." Defence of Reformation, Part 1. chap. 3. p. 34. Part 2. chap. 8. 254, 258.

Reflections.

" The Baptists are here informed by their learned opponents, that the pretence of tradi- tion is a happy expedient, in favor of those who wish to retain unscriptural rites in the worship of God. That some of the first Fa- thers who pleaded apostolic tradition, stand convicted of error. That were ecclesiastical custom, but a few centuries after the christian

177

sera commenced, to be considered as an apos- tolical practice barely on a traditional ground ; we must adopt a variety of ceremonies which all Protestants have agreed to reject. That the conduct of the Roman Catholics in refusing to acknowledge their errors, except the time when, and the persons by whom they were in- troduced be pointed out, is grossly absurd. Such are the sentiments of these respectable authors concerning the matter before us."

. The following remarkable words

of the famous Wicklijf, we would suppose should be cordially adopted by every consis- tent Protestant : " All human traditions, which are not taught in the gospel, are superfluous and wicked." Superfluous, because the bible is a complete rule of faith and practice : wickedt because tradition frequently usurps the place of divine law, and vacates the commands of

God Till therefore,

it be fairly proved that infant baptism is war- ranted, either b}r precept or by example in the New Testament, we need not ber much con- cerned about the precise time when it was introduced ; but may safely shelter our cause under the wings of that divine oracle — From

THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. If, llOW-

ever, our opponents will pledge themselves to inform us with precision, when the Jewish proselyte baptism commenced, or when infant communion first came into the church ; we will engage in our turn to inform them with equal punctuality, when infant baptism was first practised. The conduct of our opposers

178

in arguing for Paedobaptism from tradition, reminds me of an old saying, with which I will conclude this chapter : Cum leonina non suf- ficeret, pellem vulpinamesse assuendam."

XII. Concerning the period at which infant baptism and infant communion were intro- duced, and the similarity of argument by which they are both supported.

1. Bp. Burnet : " We see a practice that \vas very ancient, and that continued very long, which arose out of the exposition of those words, John vi. 53 ; by which children were made partakers of the eucharist." Four Dis- courses to the Clergy, p. 206, 207.

2. Salmasius : " Because the eucharist was given to adult Catechumens when they were washed with holy baptism without any space of time intervening : this also was done to in- fants, after Psedobaptism was introduced."— Apud Dalcnem. Dissertat. de Paedobaptismo.

3. Mosbeim : " It appears by many and un- doubted testimonies, that this holy rite (the Lord's Supper) was looked upon as essential to salvation ; and when this is duly consider- ed we shall be less disposed to censure, as er- roneous, the opinion of those who have affirm- ed that the Lord's Supper was administered to infants durir g this (second} century." Eccles. Hist. Vol. 1, p. 171.

4. Dr. John Edwards : " Infant commu- nicating— was a catholic, doctrine — Herein all the fathers agreed ; who, misunderstanding, and misapplying Christ's words, in John vi. 53. .ield that the sacrament of the Lord'*) supper

179

was to be administered to infants and children, and that it was necessary for them to salva- tion ; accordingly they made them partakers of that ordinance." — Discourse concerning truth and error, p. 232.

5. Venema : " No sign of admitting infants to the holy supper appears before the time of Cyprian, in the third century ; who is the first, that mentions it, as will appear in its pn >per place. From which, what has been said about Paedobaptism, acquires additional force ; see- ing in the ancient church, those Civ o sacraments, in respect of the subject, were never sepa- rated the ONE FROM THE OTHER. Hist.

Eccles. Secul. II. p. 100.

6. Mr. Williams : " In point of right, how can the two ordinances be separated ? are not the same reasons which are brought for infant baptism, in the like manner applicable to infant communion ? And will not the objections a- gainst the latter admit of the same answer as those against the former ? — Nor do I see how this reasoning can be evaded by a consistent Paedobaptist, while we only attend to a legal right of infants to that ordinance." — Note on Mr. Morrice's Soc. Relig. p. 78, 79.

I will close the testimony of our respectable Paedobaptist bcethren with one of Cardinal Hosiusy who was President of the Council of Trent. " The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect: of which kind the Waldensian Breth- ren seem also to have been. Concerning whom it appears, that not very long ago they rebaptized persons : though some of them

180

lately, as they testified in their Apology, have ceased to repeat baptism. Certain it is how- ever that in many things they agree with the Anabaptists . Nor is this heresy a modern thing : for it existed in the time of Austin." Ap. Schyn. Hist. Mennomit. p. 135. Reflections.

We are here told by our opponents, that the Lord's supper was anciently given to infants— That it became general — That the practice of giving the holy supper to infants, originated in a misunderstanding of John vi. 53---That it followed immediately on their being baptized. That in point of legal right, the two ordinan- ces cannot be separated-- -That in the ancient church, baptism and the sacred supper were never separated, in regard to their subjects— That the Lord's supptr was esteemed neces- sary to the salvation of infants- --That no ob- jection can be made against it which will not

lie with equal force against infant baptism.

Such is the important intelligence communica- ted by these Paedobaptists."

" It is very observable, that so many Paedo- baptists themselves have admitted the facts on which we reason : Do we maintain, for in- stance, that baptism is a positive institution, and that positive rites depend entirely on the revealed will of God, in regard to the manner of performing them, the persons to whom they belong, and the signification of them ? All this they readily grant. Do we insist, that the obvious and native sense of the term baptism, is immersion ? They expressly allow it. Do

181

we assert, that the principal thing intended by the ordinance, is a representation of our com- munion with Christ ? It is cheerfully granted. Do we maintain that immersion was the apos- tolic practice, and that except in extraordinary cases, it was the general custom for thirteen hundred years ? Do we affirm, that immer- sion is the present practice of the Greek and Oriental churches, and that those churches in- clude one half the christian world ? Their own pens bear testimony for us. Do we insist, that plunging is more expressive of the great things intended by the ordinance, than pouring or sprinkling ? They accede to our opinion.-— Do we assert, that the first instance of pouring or sprinkling, instead of immersion, which is expressly recorded, was about the middle of the third century, and then condemned ; that the apostate church of Rome, all sovereign as her claims are, introduced pouring to common practice ; and that Protestant churches receiv- ed it from her polluted hands ? These being stubborn facts, are all acknowledged. Do we assert, that no power on earth has authority to alter the laws of Christ, or to depart from the apostolic example in regard to immersion ? So do they, in effect, when disputing with Pa- pists concerning the sacred supper. Do we contend that there is no express command, nor plain example in^the New Testament, relating to infant baptism ? It is granted by them. Do we plead, that there is no evidence of Paedo- baptism being practised before the conclusion of the second, or beginning of the third cen-

182

tury ? This also is readily granted, even by some of those who were the greatest adepts in christian antiquities. Is it our opinion that the extravagant notions of the fathers, in the se- cond and in the beginning of the third century, concerning the great utility of baptism, and their misunderstanding of John iii. 5. laid the foundation of Paedobaptism ? It is allowed. Do we treat with contempt the plea of pretend- ed apostolic tradition, unsupported by scrip- ture ? So do all Protestants, except Paedo- baptism, Episcopacy, or something similar, so. licits their patronage. Once more : Do we maintain, that infant baptism and infant com- munion were introduced about the same time ; that they are supported by kindred arguments ; that they were equally common for a course of ages : and that they are still united in the practice of half the christian world ? We have the happiness to find that these facts are all

confirmed by their learned pens."

Glassius informs us of some Jewish Rabbics who maintain, ' That there are seventy ways of expounding divine law ;' and Dr. Allix tells us that Rabbi Lipman lays this down for a maxim, * That the law was capable of divers explica- tions, and all of them, though never so incom- patible and contradictory, were nevertheless the words of the living God. ' * Now as the sen- timents of our opposers respecting infant bap- tism are so greatly diversified and so grossly inconsistent, I do not perceive how they can be reconciled, without admitting these Rab-

• Judg. of the Jewish Church, p. 413.

]S3

binical principles of interpreting holy writ : nor even then without insulting common sense, and rendering the divine word of no utility. — Franklius, we learn from Dr. Schyn> publish- ed a book which he entitled, The Babel of the Anabaptists : and it appears from what has been laid before the reader, that he might have published its counter-part, under the title of the Babel of Pasdobaptism : for we may safe- ly defy our keenest opposers to produce a mass* of inconsistencies from the writings of Bap- tists, and relating to baptism, equal to that which appears in the foregoing pages."

Having proved all we want, by the conces- sions and declarations of our opponents, quoted from Bryant's abridgement of Booth's Paedo- baptism examined, we offer a few passages ta- ken from Mr. White, of Philadelphia : prin- ted 1808.

" In the pamphlet we have noticed, the ail-" thor tries to lead his readers astray by quota- tions from the fathers, wherein he asserts that as early as forty years after the apostles, the baptizing of infants is spoken of in their wri- tings. The persons he refers us to in proof of it are, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertuliian, Origen and Cyprian. All that he has said here has been literally copied from a sermon of Mr. Bostwick, of New- York, yet no credit has been given him for it : but it is disingenuous to the last degree in him to renew this argu- ment, when he well knows that the late Dr. Gill proved Mr. Bostvvick's assertions errone- ous ; and as that gentleman never did reply to

18*

the Doctor, his silence is conclusive evidence of his defeat. Nor does our author give a true account of the time in which they lived ; for according to him, Justin Martyr wrote about forty years after the apostles : but the fact is, that he lived about one hundred and fifty years after Christ. Nor did Tertullian, as he affirms, live within one hundred and ninety years of the apostles ; for he did not join the church at Carthage, until the close of the second centu- ry, nor flourish until the beginning of the third. Cyprian lived about the middle of the third century ; but this author says it was about one hundred years after the apostles. Now, what dependence is to be placed in men's assertions, when they can, to serve their purposes, so cgregiously falsify history ?"

" This author's pretended quotation from Justin Martyr, is, that l some aged christians were made disciples in, or from, their infancy;' and, though he allows that infant baptism is not mentioned, yet he says, * if they were made disciples in infancy, they were doubtless the subjects of baptism.' The quotation is not correct : for the word ' disciple' is not in the passage ; all that he -says is, that they were ' in- structed' from their childhood : The original quotation is, " Several persons among us, men and women of sixty and seventy years of age, who, from their childhood were instructed in Christ, remain still incorrupt." These per- sons were instructed, not baptized, nor made disciples. How absurd, therefore, the conclu- sion, that they were baptized in their infancy,

185

when no such thing is said ! Nor is the Greek word which he renders ' infancy' in his quo- tation, properly translated ; for it ought to be rendered 'children? and surely it will not be thought strange that such should be instruc- ted ; for Timothy knew the scriptures from a * child,'' Besides, ' instructing* supposes they were not infants ; and therefore if they had been 'disciples,' as he affirms, yet it was done at a time when they could, and actually did re- ceive - instruction.1

Our author says, " Irenseus mentions the baptism of ' infants^ This assertion of his is altogether false . The words are, ' He (that is Christ) came to save all ; all I say, who by him are bom again to God, infants and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men.' — He will have it, that by ' regeneration' is meant 4 baptism0: but this gross error of calling re- generation, baptism, had not at that time got into use, and was reserved to darker ages ; nor is it in his power to shew an instance in any of the writings of Irenaeus of its being so used, to justify this interpretation. This would make him say, that Christ came to save all baptized persons, which he never would have said : but it was true in the sense he used it, that Christ came to saveaU that were ' born again of God ;' for no doubt infants' dying in infancy , are re- generated and taken to glory : but not all in- fants : for some grow up in sin and live in it all their days."

He next introduces Tertullian, who, he says, *' speaks of baptizing of infants as a practice of <i3

18(5

the church ;" and he calls him singular and whimsical. Tertullian does not say it was a practice of the church : but he opposes it as an innovation, and declares it to be wrong-, advi- sing that such should grow up first, and be in- structed before they were baptized. His Words are, " Let them come, while they are growing up, let them come and learn, and let them be instructed when they come, and when they Understand Christianity, let them profess themselves christians." I now ask, is it not too barefaced for a man to assert, as does this author, that he spoke of infant baptism as a practice of the church ? We indeed have not denied that at that time the first attempt was made to introduce infant baptism, under the notion that it was regeneration : but other er- rors were also at the same time introduced, as Tertullian says : whose words are, M It is well known, a great variety of superstitious \ ridicu- lous and foolish rites, were brought into the church." Must it net be evident to an unpre- judiced mind, that tins is evidence against in- fant baptism, rather than a defence of it ? But why call Tertullian whimsical ? Or if he were so, why quote him as an authority? The whole mystery lies in this, that he opposed the bap- tizing of infants ; and the test oijimwess and stability with our author 'must, no doubt, be zeal for infant baptism.

Origen is next mentioned, thus : " He was one of the most learned and knowing men of the age, and declares that infants are, by the u- sage of the church, baptized, and that an order

IS7

for baptizing of infants had been delivered to the church, from the apostles, who knew that the pollution of sin is in all." The reader will observe, that Origen wrote in Greeks and many of his own writings are still in being : but this quotation concerning infant baptism, is not to be found in any of them. But if it be asked, whence was it derived : the answer is, that our opponents have gotten it from some interpola- ted latin translations, which are not to be trus- ted. These were made by men that lived at the latter end of the fourth century, when the churches were overrun with error. But had it been in reality proved (which it cannot be) that Origen had so written : yet his assertion deserves but little credit, as he was one of the most erroneous and superstitious persons of his day, and one that taught universal salvation : and that cur author has given him a character he by no means deserves, and to shew how lit- tle reliance is to be placed on what he says, I will subjoin a quotation from a Paedobaptist (Bishop Taylor) concerning him : His re- marks are. " A tradition apostolical, if it be not consigned with a fuller testimony than that of one person (Origen) whom all ages have con- demned oj many errors^ will obtain so little re- putation among those, who know that others have upon greater authority pretended to de- rive from the apostles and yet falsely, that it will be a great argument that he is credulous and weak that shall be determined by so weak approbation in » matter of so great conse- quence." The reader will see from this quo-

188

tation from so eminent a person as Bishop Tay- lor, that our author's recommendation of cha- racter is not to be trusted ; and this will learn the reader to be cautious how he takes on trust what this writer says.

" Cyprian (says our author) gives as full a testimony as possible to the practice of infant baptism at the time ha lived. At the council of sixty-six ministers, held about one hundred and fifty years after the apostles, (the date here is false, for it Mas in the middle of the third century) it was debated, whether it would not be proper to delay the baptizing of infants till the eighth day, according to the law of circum- cision. The reader will recollect, we have ad- mitted that infant baptism, not infant sprink- ling, was introduced in the beginning of the third century. Of what use can it be to tell us of Cyprian, who lived after that period, or of the council of Carthage, which debated the question referred to, when we have not dispu- ted it prevailed then ? Take out the false date, our author has given it, and then the poison is extracted ; for instead of this being done in the second century, it will be found to be in the middle of the third. But the name of the council in which this was debated is kept back, as well as the arguments used in support, as likewise other ridiculous questions debated. Why not tell these things ? Was the gentle- man ashamed of the transaction ? Well he may be. But that the reader may see the extreme ignorance and superstition of these ' minis- ters' as he calls them, I will give a little ac- count of this business.

. 189

A bishop named Fidus, wrote to Cyprian at Carthage, to know whether children might be baptized before they were eight days old, (it seems his bible could not determine this ques- tion^ nor yet Cyprian) ; a council was called, and its decision was this : " That God denies grace to none; that God would be a respecter of persons if he were to deny to infants what he grants to adults ;" and then to justify this decision, they advance the following reasoning: " Did not the prophet Elijah lie upon a child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands ? Now the spiritual sense of all this is, that infants are equal to men ; but if you refuse to baptize them, you destroy the equality, and are partial." Here, reader, is conclusive rea- soning for you ! Here is the mighty decision of the council of Carthage i How profound the reasoning ! Elijah lay upon a child, therefore infants are to be baptized ! Infants are equal to men, therefore infants are to be baptized I God is no respecter of persons, therefore in- fants are to be baptized ! Wonderful council of Carthage ! Sixty-six Solomons indeed they were ; and no doubt, cur author, had he then lived, would have vied with any of them ! But one thing is singular : they do not pretend to any apostolic tradition, do not quote the prac- tice of the church — bring forward no command of Christ — no example from the New Testa- ment: as for them they at that time never thought of arguing from Abraham's covenant, and were it seems ignorant of infant church-

190

membership, and destitute of arguments which modern Paedobaptists so amply supply in die present day*"

" But I have not done with this council yet ; for it seems the pious Fidus above mentioned, had his conscience troubled about a matter equally as weighty as the baptizing a child at eight days old, nor could he rest until the coun- cil decided on it ; and now, reader, if you pro- mise me not to laugh immoderately, I will tell you what it is. Poor dear man he was very delicate, and had no small fear of ceremonial defilement, (as a person of his holiness must need be) ; now as it was the practice to kiss the babe, poor Fidus thought this was an un- clean piece of business to kiss the child so soon after it was born ; and, feering the wrath of heaven if he did not do it, his holy soul could not rest until the council had settled the matter. This council that decided so wonderfully on infant baptism, very gravely debated the point, and after many a display of genius decided thus : " You are mistaken, Fidus, children in this case are not unclean, for the apostle saith, * to the pure all things are pure.' JVo man ought to be shocked at hissing what God conde- scends to create. Circumcision was. a carnal rite, this is spiritual circumcision, and Peter saith we ought not to call anv man common or unclean." These famous bishops were as tenacious of the ordinance of baby kissing, as of baby baptizing. It is indeed singular, that while these gentlemen refer to Cyprian and others, as authorities for the subjects of bap-

191

iism, they wholly reject the mode ; for it is well known that they practised immersion only."

" One remark more will close these strict- ures ; and that is on what the author says, * that we have the testimony of Doctor YV all to this effect : * For the first four hundred years there appears only one man f Tertul « J that advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory that did perhaps practice such delay in the case of his children : but no society so thinking, or so practising, nor any one man saying that it was not lawful to baptize infants. In the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found that either speaks for or practised such delay." Had all this been true, what would it prove, more than that the long reign of the superstitions of popery is a justification of those superstitions ; such reasoning will justi- fy most of the errors uf the church of Rome. But it is not true;: for Doctor Wall has allowed that Tertullian did oppose it, on its first intro- duction in the beginning of the third century ; and the same man produces a decision of the council of Carthage, one hundred and eigh- teen years after Cyprian, when persons are an- athematised who deny infant baptism. This was in the year 418, and stands thus : ' Also it is our pleasure that whoever denies that new born infants are to be baptised, let him be anathema.' Would that council have given these directions, had it not been opposed ? — And the same Dr. Wall admits, that Peter Jlruys, and Henry , his follower, were both An-

192

tipasdobaptist preachers, and says, * they were the first that c\ er set up a church, or society of men, holding that opinion against infant baptism, and re- baptising such as had been baptized in infancy ; and that the Latcran coun- cil, under Innocent II. A. D. 1139, did con- dc * /Peter Bruys, and Arnold Brescia.' From this it appears that Doctor Wall has granted all we want : namely, that the JValdenses, of which these men were pastors, held this very doctrine ; and it is well known thattbe Wai- fs were inhabitants of the vallies of Pied- mont, who firmly and at the peril of their lives, maintained the truth through all the dark ages of popery. Their confessions prove they op- posed infant baptism. Extracts from their confessions may be seen, with a general ac- count of them, in Doctor Gill's answer to si pamphlet printed in Boston in 1 74 6.

It has been asked by Paedobaptists, why make such ado about baptism, it is, s«y they but a nonessential at last, and even if we are wrong, it is not a matter of such importance, nor shall we be asked in the day of judgment whether we have been Baptists or Paedobap- tists. In answer to this 1 shall observe, that it is hard for our opponents to know what questions will be asked them on that head hereafter : but Christ says, ' He that breaketh one of the least of these commandments, and teachcth men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven : Matt. vi. 19. Certainly this text does not look as if the practice were harmless. 1 have often wondered that any

193

christians would urge as a rer.son for rrcgfecft that baptism is not a ' saving1 ordinance j there is so much meanness in it, and it certainly con- veys the idea that they are determined to have no more religion than is sufficient tokcepthern. out of hell ; and if they can but get to heaven, God's glory is nothing to them ; yea, that they care not whether He is pleased or di-plcased* I know there are thousands of godly Pac do- baptists who would tremble at such inferences: but I ask, do they not arise out of the excuses that are made ? But infant baptism is so far from being a small tiling, it is one of the great- est of evils, and has been the fruitful source of most of the calamities that have overtaken the christian church ; it has been the inlet to in- numerable other evils, and never will the church of Christ be purged and appear in her primitive simplicity and beauty, until this most pernicious practice is discontinued* Baptism is called the floor into the church fey our oppo- nents : does it not then assume the greatest importance, and does it not become. us to take care that the door is sucfi as will not eventual- ly destroy the chitrch itself ? All pious men k<»ow, that real religion consists in a work of grace in the soul — a new and spiritual birth — » and that in tins work, there is effected a change of views, of affections, and of pursuits of those who are the partakers of it : so that such per- sons are entirely opposite in their tempers and dispositions, to the rest of mankind ; nor can they hive any real fellowship with them in worldly things, and none at all in spiritual con*

B

194

cerns, for there is not the least agreement of sentiment here.

I now ask, what was a church state set up for ? Was it not that real religious persons might be associated together in brotherly love ; and by enjoying each other's conversation and fraternal assistance, grow up in their holy reli- gion, and so aid each other in seeking everlas- ting life? And did not Christ in establishing the gospel church, intend they should hold up to the view of sinful men the excellency of the christian religion, and thereby practically en- force in their view, the necessity of real piety in order to their future happiness ? But infant sprinkling has corrupted the church of God — has made the fountain turbid — has made it a mere worldly sanctuary — has defeated the ends Christ proposed in the organization of this re- ligious institution ; and the children of God have to seek in retirement that comfort they cannot have in a worldly church ; while the wicked are hardened in their infidel principles, by the conduct of such professors.

My Brethren in the ministry, who are in the practice of infant sprinkling, and have felt the power of religion in your heart, (for to carnal clergy this address will be tasteless) have you surveyed all the consequences of such a prac- tice, and will you bear with me while I dis- charge a solemn duty which I owe to God and to you, even that of developingthe evils attend- ant upon it ? You well know that in chris- tian countries (so called) near nine tenths of the people have received what is termed bap-,

195

tism in infancy, and you have told us baptism introduces into the church. Now breth- ren, look at the state of society ; what have you done, have you not assisted in crouding into the church of Christ the children of satan ? Do yon not, by these means, put the government of the church into the hands of wicked men, they being by far the majority ? Infant sprink- ling is the mean by satan used for preventing a religious experience being given in, in order to admission into the church ; hence a reH- gious experience ceases to be necessary to church membership, and what is ihc conse- quence ? Is it not, that a great majority of such institutions become in a short time graceless persons ? And these churches, what are they to do ? Are they not to select their officers, such as ministers and deacons ? But what se- lections are wicked men likely to make ? Will they choose pious persons to rtil such starfons, or are they not generally disposed to sit under a clergy that will favor their vices ; and to choose deacons and elders, who Will wink at sin ;> If it should be asked, why are so manv churches so corrupt, that their members gener- ally live in all the fashions and gaiety oft he age — attend the theatre — are found at assemblies and sinful parties — are profane and loose in their conversation — neither assemble for social wor- ship, nor adntitof religious conversation ahrsnr-* them ; the answer will be infant sprinkKftp js the cause of all this — it has made them mem- bers of the church. Should it be afcfced, v>hv are many of the clergy void of religion, and

196

how came they into the sacred trust, and what led to their being selected as pastors ? the an- swer is still the same — infant sprinkling is the cause ! Should it be asked, why mere moral lectures, elegant diction, flowery language, cor- rect composition* should be called gospel preaching by the hearers ; when at the same time, human ciepravhy has not been set forth — or the new birth and experimental religion in- sistcd en — nor Christ hardly mentioned, much less the mysteries of his cross, and the complete- ness of his righteousness displayed — but on the contrary, a total ignorance of a work of gra.ee on the preacher's heart, manifest to eve- ry spiritual man that hears him ; the answer still is, iniar. t sprinkling is the cause of all this : for if the church had not been corrupted by it, and the majority had feared God and loved religion, they never could sit under such preachers.

In the first ages, while believers' baptism was in practice, the churches were nearly pure ; but ::0 sooner did that desolating evil of infant sprit)!-: ling creep in, but in a very short time the face of the church was changed. Then a carnal clergy succeeded — then every abomina- ble error took its rise ; for a graceless clergy could do no less than err — then in a little time the clergy began to aim at worldly power and

djgniiy then the harlot oi Rome became car-

isscdar-d established, and this was her sup- port— then a wicked clergy under pretence c£ seeking God's honor, interfered in the politi- oal concern.; of nations, and sowed discord a- lrions princes, and provoked the most cruel

197

wars. Had church-membership continued on the plan first established by Christ, and had none been admitted to baptism but believers, or such as gave a credible account of a work of grace on the heart, the majority of the mem- bers in churches would have been such as fear- ed God; and none of these evils would have followed. Infant sprinkling makes a carnal church ; a carnal church only can be a fight- ing or persecuting church. Infant sprinkling,, and infant church- membership, have laid the foundation for all the persecutions that have ever been practised by the church of Rome ; had it not been for a carnal church, the fields of Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany, would never have been covered with kjimaa gorc> by the pretended children of Christ. I ask, could a real christian church be a perse- cuting church ? I know the answer must be, it cannot. But would the church ever have been so corrupt, had membership therein de- pended on a religious experience? It will — it must be conceded, that it would not. But was it not infant sprinkling that occasioned this religious test to be laid aside ? and if it were, is it not to this dreadful evil all the consequen- ces are owing.

Infant sprinkling, by corrupting the church of God, has made her a bloody, a persecuting church — is now that tie that binds church anil state together on the continent, (for without it there could be no national church) the present cause of ungodly and shameful persecutions-. Infant sprinkling is that which in Europe has

R2

198

settled a numerous and licentious clergy, who having entered into the political schemes of their respective governments, have m return been saddled on the people to ride them to death, and are the cause of preventing the faith- ful preaching of the gospel by others ; so that irreligion prevails under the name of estab- lished religion, and no means can be used to re- medy it, as the civil power is enlisted in its de- fence.

But to come nearer home. If infant sprink- ling, and infant church-membership were dis- continued, and the ancient practice of receiv- ing persons on a relation of religious experi- «nce were revived in general ; then, in a little time a complete separation would take place between the church and the world — churches would harmonize; — an unconverted ministry would be banished — professors would not look so much J ike the world — the church would appear amiable. --revivals of religion would be common, for the prejudices of infi- dels and others that now exist against the churches, on account of their wickedness, would vanish — then christians would take u pleasure in God's house — then true fellowship would be enjoyed — then the church would be the envy of men, and terrible to the wicked as an armv with banners—then numerous fami- lies would not be confined to attend places of divine worship, to hear a man that has never known the way to heaven himself, has no ac- quaintance with spiritual things, and therefore cannot teach ihcm toothers, and by that means

\99

thousands would not be deluded, wno are now lulled to sleep by these worst of enemies to the soul.

Things must come to this ; the latter day glory will shortly break ; then infant church membership must be at an end, and already does it tremble to its base ; and the feeble ef- forts that are making in its support will prove ineffectual. But, brethren, lay aside a prac- tice so pernicious in its consequences, and so derogatory to the honor and glory of God ; and remember your responsibility to the great head of the church. Can you call that harm- less, which has spoiled the beauty of the churchofGod,has deluged her with blood, fill- ed her with errors, and which now makes thou- sands rest secure, under the idea that they have been brought into covenant with God, and made christians, while their steps are tak- ing hold of hell V

My brethren of the Baptist denomination, permit me to address you in the words of our brother Baldwin of Boston.

" Beloved Brethren — Unto you it is given, in the behalf of Christ ', not only to believe on him, but to suffer for his sake. From the days of your persecuted ancestor, who was obliged to cross the Patucket, to enjoy among savages those rights of conscience, which had been denied him by christians, your history exhibits repeated instances of cruel mockings, and of the spoiling of your goods, and some of bonds and imprisonment. The American revolution has meliorated your condition. Truth must

200

prevail. Its progress will naturally be more rapid, when not impeded by religious estab- lishments, and penal laws."

" We beseech yon, brethren, as pilgrims and strangers, to adorn your profession, by a holy, humble walk. The progress of your principles and increase of \ our churches (under God) depends not less upon the unblamable - ness of your lives, than upon the purity of your sentiments. If your brethren hate you, and cast you out for h'13 name" s sake, rt quite them only with kindness. In this way you will put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. '1 he present period is auspicious : O for wisdom to improve it. See that you fall not out by the way. I inally, brethren, tee beseech you that you walk roorihy of the vocation wherewith you are called ; with all lowliness and meek- ness, with long-suffering, forbearing one ano- ther in love ; endeavouring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."

ERRATA.— Pag* S6, 12th1ir.ef.-cin the b«ttetoa, for Parr, wad I'aul,

Read the quotation from G*!ati»ns, in 117 ar.d 118th page*,

as follows— "But when it pleased Goil, who

called me by his gmc* to reveal his Son

in mc that I might preach him, &c."

Place the inverted commas now standing in the first line, page 14S, at the end of the paragraph. P;:ge 16:>, loth line from the tap, for Atrtedin*, read .IhleJiuf. 2i. liae from tliu bottom, for ZlulmaviM, read

SOitMi «'!.'».

INDEX.

1. The Covenant of Circumcision not

the Covenant f f Grace, 6

2. The Covenant of Grace between the Father Sfthe Son, 39

3. The absurdity of the representation that the Covenant made with Abra- ham, merited the attention of every cue from Adam to the end of the world, 62

4. The existence of a church before A- braham's Day, 68

5. The validity of John's Baptism, 76

6. The confirmation of John's Baptism

by the Apostle Paul, 88

7. Remarks on Acts ii. 2, 3, 4, 95

8. Butterworth's definition of Baptism, 97

9. The Baptism of Christ, 97

10. The dispensation of John, 107

11. The difference between the Jewish

and Christian Churches, 112

12. Quotation from Mr. White on the same subject, 122

13. Remarks on Romans, 11th chapter, 139

14. The Baptism of Households, 143

15. Quotations from Pscdobaptist au- thors, proving ail that the Baptists state on the Ordinance of Baptism,

INDEX.

and its subjects, together with reflec- tions of Mr. Booth, 147

16. Quotations from Mr. White, expo- sing the false quotations of the " Au- thor of a Pamphlet," 183

17. Mr. White's observations on Infant Sprinkling, and an address to Paedo- baptist Ministers, 194

18. Doctor Baldwin's address to the Baptists, 199

IOUR &? WILLIAMS. ¥,

JSERMONS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS,: by the Reverend Henry Kollock, d. u : in one S vo. volume — Price S % 5 LAY e LAST MINSTRI

by Walter Scott. 12 mo.— .Price 75

•A FRIENDLY VISIT TO THE HOI : MOURNING,

)M'C ALL's HISTORY OF GEORGIA,!; from its early settlement io the pre- day— Vol. T --Price 3 2 25, to .ubscri ?| hers.— The id Vol will gq to Press ir< '-' short time.

:THE HISTORY < )Y ANN MOOR, the re! ebrated F Woman— -by Dr.* J. E

White. .--Price 07 1 2 cts.

■>*j SEYMOUR & WILLIAMS* keep ton.f tantly for sale a larpe collection of &

RELIGIOUS lOOKS.

The following at che oi.glnal subscription priced SCOTT'S BIBLE ; second Philadelr geditign, to be completed in 5 Vols. 4to. at

lollars each : 4 Vols, arc out. GILL'Sv^XPOSITlON of the Old an

N ew Te; tament, to be complete I in 0 Y^Is-lffr

tto. at 6 dojls. per Vol. or S 9 gant calffc

iidin^ : ihr volumes are oi.t.

)OmiV^GE'S FAMILY EXPOSI-&

•TOii o/.'Uje NllW TESTAMENT 6voIs.]|t

oifrdys exposition or the ol; .

PES I AMi :.NT, 5 vols. Svo. The complete W; !;s- of the Rcvd.' JOHNE. EWTOJ'J, a new edition, in 6 vols, 8vo. Ditto ... do. in 11 vols. 12m0. &c. &c.