Full text of "A familiar illustration of Christian baptism : in which the proper subjects of that ordinance and the mode of administration are ascertained from the word of God and the history of the church"

See other formats

v v

i&.o-0.o.o — o»o.o.o.0.o.o.o.o-o-o-'fj|

-— — r

PRINCETON, N. J.

Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.

Agnew Coll. on Baptism, No.

W5jg7

FAMILIAR ILLUSTRATION

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM:

IX WHICH THE

PROPER SUBJECTS OF THAT ORDINANCE

AND THE

MODE OF ADMINISTRATION ARE ASCERTAINED

FRO?,I THE

WORD OF GOD

AND THE

HtSTORY OF THE CHURCH;

AND DEFENDED FHOM THE OBJECTIONS USUALLY UHGED BT THE

OPFOSERS OF INFANT BAPTISM,

AND THE

ADVOCATES OF IMMERSION:
IN THE FORM OF A DIALOGUE.

BY NATHANIEL S. PRIME,

PASTOH OF THE PtlKSI^TERI AN CHURCH, IN CA^BRILCE., (.V. T.)

SALEM, (N.Y.)
PRINTED BY DODD fcf STEVENSON.

1818.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW-YORK, m.

Be it remembered, That on the twentieth day of June, in
the forty second year of the Independence of the United States
(l.s.) of America, Henry Dodd and James Stevenson, Jun. of the said
District, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right
whereof they claim as proprietors, in the wi'rds following, to wit :— " A
" Familiar Illustration of Christian Baptism • in which the Proper Sub-
jects of that Ordinance and the Mode of Administration are Ascertain-
ed from the Word of God and the History of the Church, and defend-
" ed from the Objections usually urged by the Opposers of Infant Baptism,
" and the advocates of Immersion : In the form of a Dialogue. By Na-
" thaniel S. Prime, Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Cambridge,

"(N.Y.r

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, enti-
tled " An act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies
<of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies,
during the time therein mentioned M And also to an Act, entitled " an \ct
supplementary to an Act, entitled an Act for the encouragement of Learn-
ing, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and
proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extend-
ing the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching
historical and other prints."

JAMES DILL, Clerk
of the Southern District of New- York.

CONTENTS.

SECTION I.

PAGE.

OPENING of the discussion, and importance of the
subject, 13

Objection to the Paedobaptist scheme, because found-
ed on the sameness of the Jewish and Christian
church, answered, 18

Objection, that infant membership stands on the same
foundation with tythes, animal sacrifices, &c. shewn
to be utterly false, 21

Dr. Gill's objection to referring Gal. iii. 17. to infant-
membership shewn to be groundless, .... 23

Objection, that the " covenant of circumcision" is dis-
tinct from that which contains " the promise of a
Saviour," shewn to be worse than false, ... 25

The rite of circumcision done away, and infant mem-
bership left untouched, 29

Objection, that Abraham, in the covenant which God
made with him, was considered a type of Christ,
proved false and absurd, 33

SECTION II.

1st Argument in proof of the sameness of the church,
founded on the sameness of the covenant, . . 39

Objection, that the Abrahamic covenant was a " na-
tional compact" answered; and that covenant shewn
to contain all the blessings ever promised to the
church, 40

Objection, that circumcision is a mere badge of na-
tional descent, answered, 44

Objection, founded on the moral character of the
Jews, shewn to be groundless, 50

Dr. Gill's ten arguments against the Abrahamic cove-
nant examined, 54

iv CONTENTS.

mar..

Children, both under the former and present dispen-
sation, born into the covenant ; and therefore nei-
ther circumcision nor baptism can be properly cal-
led u an initiating ordinance," 64

Objection, that " circumcision was not a seal of the
righteousness of faith/-' when applied to Abraham's
seed, answered; and that rite shewn to imply the
same in both cases, 67

Objection, that this makes grace "hereditary," an-
swered, 60

The view given of the subject, shewn to be anala-
gous to other parts of the divine government, and
secures the most powerful means for the promotion
of religion, 72.

Objection founded on the immorality of the children
of believers, answered ; by shewing that their im-
piety results, not from any defect in the covenant,
but from the unfaithfulness of parents, . ... 75

Objection, that the view given of the subject is " cal-
culated to do injury to souls," answered, ... 82

SECTION HI.

2d Argument, that the same principles of holiness and
obedience were required under both dispensations, 86

Objection, that the obligation of the Jews to exercise
real holiness resulted merely from the universal
law of God, and that the Abrahamic covenant re-
quired nothing but typical holiness, ibid.

If the Jewish church were a mere type of the Chris-
tian, one prominent feature in the type not to be
found in the antitype ; (that is, on the supposition
that the Baptist church is the true Christian church :) 87

The last objection proved false, by a recurrence to
the Abrahamic covenant, in its original institution
and subsequent renewals, • 90

destroys the moral character of God, . . 95

is inconsistent with the Lord's charging them

with hypocrisy, 96

In the renewal of the Abrahamic covenant at Mount
Sinai, the Lord required, and the Israelites promis-
ed absolute holiness, . . . • . . . . . 100

CONTENTS. v

PAGE.

The ten commandments laid down as the basis of the
ceremonial economy ; and these, Israel solemnly
covenanted to obey, 106

The renewal of the covenant on the borders of Ca-
naan, in which absolute holiness is required of Is-
rael, on express condition of their enjoying the pro-
mised land, 108

Three notable institutions for the maintenance of re-
ligion in Israel, . Ill

Absolute holiness promised in the renewal of the co-
venant under Joshua, and afterwards under pro-
phets and kings, 113

Repentance and faith required and promised in the
Abrahamic covenant, 116

The irregularities which existed in the Jewish church,
did not proceed from any defect in their constitu-
tion, but from the unfaithfulness of the rulers, . 123

SECTION IV.

3d Argument, drawn from the application of the
same figures to express the relation between God
and the church, under both dispensations, . . 126

The marriage covenant, 127

The relation between a shepherd and flock, . . 128
Vine and branches; husbandman and vineyard, . 129

A rock of foundation and refuge. 130

Bath communities are called " the church," . . ibid.
4th Argument, founded on the nature and design of

the special ordinances under both dispensations, 132
Unity of design between the passover and the Lord's

supper, 133

— between circumcision and baptism, . . . 134

Remarks on the Rev. Robert Hall's opinion, that bap-
tism is not an essential prerequisite to communion

at the Lord's table, (a note,) 135

Circumcision, if not superseded by baptism, was ne-
ver abrogated by our Lord, 136

Objection, founded on the result of the council at Je-
rusalem, answered, 140

Application of baptism to both sexes does not render
it i( essentially different" from circumcision, . . 142
1*

vi CONTENTS.

SECTION V.

5th Argument, drawn from express declarations of

scripture, 143

Mat.xxi.43, ibid.

Acts ii. 39, . 14(>

Gal. iv. 22— 31, 153

Rom. xi. 15 — 25, loo

Eph. ii. 11— 22, 1G9

Apocalyptic allusions, 171

SECTION VI.

Recapitulation of arguments, 172

Objection, that this method of proving infant baptism

is a "recent invention," answered, 175

Testimonies from the fathers and historians, in fa-
vour of infant baptism, 176

Dr. Wall's summary of evidence, 177

The testimony of Tertullian, and strictures on the

use made thereof by the Baptists, .... 178

Testimony of Justin Martyr, 182

of Irekeus, 133

ofORIGEN, 185

of Cyprian, and the council of Carthage, ibid.

of Ambrose and Chrysostom, . . .ISO

of Hierome and Austin, 1x7

Evidence derived from the Feiagiax controversy, 188

from Ecclesiastical History, .... 190

Mosheot's account of the rise of the Baptists, . . 192
A conjecture as to the derivation of Baptist senti-
ments, (a note,) 195

V query not answered — Are the Baptist churches to
be regarded as churches of Christ, and their elders

as regularly authorized ministers of the gospel ? . 196

SECTION VII.

Inference from the preceding discussion, in favour of

infant baptism, .199

A review of the state of the controversy, . . . 299

CONTENTS. - Mi

PAGE,

Infant baptism plainly recognised in the New-Tes-
tarnent, Mat. xix. 14, Mark x. 14, Luke xviii. 16, 20-3

MatKw, xxviii. 19, 2u6

Baptism of households on the faith of the believing
parents, as in the case of Lydia and the jailer, 207

1 Cor.vii.14, .209

Objection — " What good can it do to baptize children?"
answered, j 213

Nature of the relation of baptized children to the
church, 217

The glory of the Paedobaptist church obscured, in
times past, by her own unfaithfulness, . . . 226

Revival of discipline, ibid.

Objection, that the Baptist churches increase, &c. 227

■ that "Baptists know they are right," 228

SECTION Vlil.

Inconsistencies of the Baptist system, .... 229
It rejects the divine authority of the Christian sabbath, 230
Discards infant baptism, tor the want of '• explicit

warrant," and admits female communion without it, 23o
Rejects the Old Testament as a rule of duty, . . 241
Virtually excommunicates the great body of the Chris-
tian church, ibid.

Close communion possesses "a frightful aspect/' and

is justly " odious" to the intelligent, - - - - 242
Character of the churches and individuals which are

excommunicated by that system, 245

Lebbeus yields the ai ■ and declares his convic-

tion of the correctness of thePsedobaptist scheme, 246

SECTION IX.

On thi Baptism — This part of the subject of

sir;. »mpared with the former, . 247

jections to free communion considered and
traced to their source, (a note,) 251

Arguments in favour of immersion reduced to two
heads— -1st, The import of the original word, con-
sidered, and shewn to be inconclusive, .... 252

viii CONTENTS.

£4.62.

2d, Argument founded on the circumstances attend-
ing the administration of that ordinance, consider-
ed, .209

All of these relate to John's baptism, which was not

Christian baptism, 271

This is shewn, 1st, from the object of John's admi-
nistration, 273

2. From the import of John's baptism, compared
with that of Christian baptism, 275

3. From the formula of administration, .... 279

4. From the absurdity which the supposition of their
sameness involves, ibid.

The example of Christ, in receiving baptism from
John, was not designed for the imitation of his fol-
lowers, nor can it be imitated by them, . . . 280

5. John's baptism not Christian baptism, proved from
the fact, that the apostles, in admitting persons to
the communion of the church, paid no respect to
John's administration, 283

In all other cases, the circumstances decide against im-
mersion, 2S9

Sprinkling the most appropriate and significant mode, 294

Lebbeu9 yields the point, asks and receives advice as
to the course of duty, 297

Evident tokens, that the Baptist system is rapidly de-
clining, and will soon become extinct, . . . 299

CONCLUDING ADDRESSES.

1. To the Poedobaptist churches, • . . . . 301

2. To professing parents, 304

3. To baptized children, 308

4. To unbelieving parents, 310

5. To the children of unbelievers, .... 312

PREFACE.

"WHAT! another publication on- baptism ?" will proba-
»!y be the exclamation of many, mto whose himds this little
volume may fall. At the same time it will be asked, "Can any
new light be thrown on this hackneyed subject?'* Whether
this has been done,, or not, in the following- pages, two conside-
rations, in the author's opinion, justify the publication. The
first is, that local productions induce many to read, who would
otherwise remain ignorant of the merits of the controversy ; and,
therefore, be liable to fall into error, whenever their minds might
be called to the subject. That such an inducement is needed at
the present juncture, in this region of country, is the opinion of
many of my brethren, who have examined and advised the publi-
cation. The other is, that until the Paedobapt-.st churches con-
duct more consistently with iheir profession, any production that
is calculated to a Waken them to duty, cannot be unseasonable.
The object of th:s publication is, not only to defend their system,
but, also, to excite them to walk worthy of their high vocation.
Controversy is always painful to my feelings. For the truth of
this position, as far as it can be tested by a man's conduct, 1 con-
fidently appeal to ail who have known me, in the whole course of
my ministry. But, doubtless, there a.re cases, in which the Chris-
tian minister, notwithstanding his reluctance, is bound to enter
the lists, in defence of the faith and practice of the gospel. Then,
aversion to controversy, would be a crime. That such a case ex-
isted, when this work was undertaken, will appear from the fol-
lowing statement of facts.

In the fore part of the last year, there was some special atten-
tion to religious concerns among the people of my charge, as well
as in other neighbouring congregations. At that time, the Bap-
tists, many of whom had Leon in habits of Christian intercourse
with our people, began to rail against our practice; intimating,
that we had no foundation in scripture for our scheme ; that in-
fant baptism was an invention of the devil; a relict of Popery;
that all who practised it, had no claim to the name of "church \"
and many other similar insinuations, which are familiar to all,
who are the least acquainted with, that denomination. These
things were endured a long time, without gainsaying ; because,
1 was unwilling to divert the attention of my people from the es-
sence of religion, to mere external rites and forme. To do so, I
knew might make them bigots, but could not make them Chris-
t/mis. The latter, 1 ardently desired: the farmer, I most sincere-
ly deprecated.

When the religious excitement had abated, and upon an occa-
sion when the ordinance of baptism was to be administered to se-
veral households, 1 considered it proper, and, on the whole, expe-

x PREFACE.

dient, to preach on the subject, and defend our practice from the
attacks of impious raillery and groundless assertion. Two dis-
courses, winch were then delivered, formed the basis of this pro-
duction. Many of my people solicited their publication at the
time; but my avocations were such, that I had not leisure to re-
vise the subject, till the commencement of winter.

To publish, in the sermon form, appeared inexpedient ; for the
following reason : — A person prejudiced against Poedobaptism,
often takes up a sermon, and in reading a single page, two or
three objections arise in his mind ; which, though completely an-
swered in the close of the discourse, have their full influence in
blinding him against conviction, while he is attending to the
argument. To obviate, as far as possible, this difficulty, the di-
alogue form was adopted, as being the readiest method to answer
objections as soon as they arise.

This method is liable to one objection. The writer has the
opportunity of putting words into his opponent's mouth. All I
can say to remove this, is, that I have studiously endeavoured to
make my " LEBBErs" a thorough Baptist. While the argument
was in train, I carefully avoided putting any concession into his
mouth, but what I have seen or heard advanced on that side of
the question. His arguments and objections are usually taken
from some Baptist writer, and when the quotation could be made
'verbatim, or nearly so, it is designated as such. I have referred,
but in few cases, to the authors' names, as it would be attaching
to many pamphlets, a consequence, of which they are really un-
worthy. The attention which has been bestowed upon them, is not
on account of their intrinsic merits, but because of their imposing"
influence on the ignorant and unwary. The intelligent reader
may be ready to imagine that, in some instances, 1 have descend-
ed to objections that were really unworthy of notice. My only
apology is, I have been writing for the benefit of the illiterate,
whose minds are often influenced by trifles. I have, therefore,
past over no argument or objection on the other side of the ques-
tion, that appeared calculated to impose on the uninformed mind.

in endeavouring to possess myself of the arguments and objec-
tions of our opponents, I have carefully perused every publica-
tion on that side of the question that I could procure, from Br.
Gill's system, down to the ephemeral productions of the day;
which, like Sybil's leaves, are flying in every direction ; some of
which have been gratuitously distributed among my own people ;
and which, if I am capable of judging, are like Sybil's leaves af-
ter they were scattered by the wind — unconnected, and, in a great
measure, unintelligible. On the other hand, I purposely avoided
the perusal of our own authors. It is true, that in years past, I
had read considerably on the subject; and, therefore, my mind
could not be entirely free from prepossession. But, while wri-
ting-, I endeavoured, as far as possible, to deduce my sentiments
directly from the scriptures. After executing my own plan, I
examined several Pcedobaptist publications, a few quotations from
which have since been added, and was surprized to find, not only
a great similarity of argument, but, in some instancesj a striking

PREFACE. xi

similarity of language ; and that in cases, where I verily thought
my own ideas were original. This is mentioned, not as a recom-
mendation of the present work, but as some evidence that to Pse-
dobaptists, at leust, the scriptures speak one language.

Throughout the discussion, I have used great plainness of
speech, but I have carefully endeavoured to avoid railing accusa-
tions. In some cases, I have used strong language : some, per-
haps, who are f^r removed from the ftVld of controversy, may
deem too strong: but I have felt myself justified in the impor-
tance of the subject. It is a serious question, in my mind, wheth-
er Psedobaptists, in general, do not view the opposite scheme
with too little aversion ? On the bare supposition that we are right,
that system argues a most awful dereliction and contempt of di-
vine authority It strikes at the coxstitutjow of the church —
the foundation which God has laid in Zion. Ought such a scheme
to be contemplated with calm indifference ? Can it be too strong-
ly reprobated ? If, in any case, that precept applies, " Be ye an-
gry, and sin not,"' is not this one ?— I am aware, that those publi-
cations, on our side of the question, which have been written with
considerable asperity of feeling, are often read with disapproba-
tion, on that account. I well recollect once having the same im-
pression with respect to Peter Edwards' work. But now, with-
out approving of all that author's severity, it does appear to me
impracticable, to trace the Biiptist scheme through all its wind-
ings, and ferret out all its absurdities, without sometimes indulg-
ing the same spirit. This Dialogue was undertaken with a se-
rious determination to guard against it. But I soon found, that
many objections were presented, which, on account of the influ-
ence they possessed over the uninformed mind, must not be past
unnoticed ; and, which could not be argued down in a serious
manner, without degrading one's self to the level of an ignorant
opposer. On this account, I have sometimes indulged in satire.
But it has been done with a conscientious regard to that inspired
precept, " Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be -vise in his
own conceit" When a man, professing to discuss a religious to-
pick, evades argument, and resorts to ridicule for his defence, it
seems proper to let him feel the point of his own weapon. It is
reasonable to suppose, that he can feel no other. But, I believe
it will be found, that, in no case, have I resorted to this as " the
test of truth," or for the defence of my own system.

One objection to publishing at all on this subject, had, for a
while, considerable influence on my mind. It was the apprehen-
sion that it might operate as a discouragement to united exertion,
in the noble institutions of the present day, for disseminating the
gospel of Christ. But I am now perfectly satisfied, as far as my
acquaintance extends, that this will not be the effect. Those
few Baptists who have already united with us in the holy work,
are possessed of a spirit and views too liberal, to resent that in
others, which is the acknowledged privilege of all denominations ;
and which, in their church, in particular, is esteemed a cardinal
virtue. Those who have not done so, we may be assured, from
the attempts which have been already made, never mil, until the

xii PREFACE.

narrow bigotry of that communion is destroyed. Every attempt,
therefore, to produce this effect, will ultimately tend to the fur-
therance of the gospel. In this point of view, the path of duty
appeared perfectly plain.— Another consideration rendered it im-
perious. When we see a sect, whose works of benevolence and
liberality certainly do not eclipse those of other denominations,
endeavouring to monopolize the credit of all the religious insti-
tutions of the day, and hear them arrogantly exclaiming, " The

TEMPLE OF THE LoRT), THE TEMPLE OP THE L.ORT), THE TEMPLE OF

tu". Lord are WE," to the exclusion of all others, as a watch-
man of Israel I could not forbear to lift up my voice against these
exclusive claims.

That every sentiment contained in this publication will be ap-
proved by all my Pxdobaptist brethren, is not to be expected.
On some minor points of our scheme, it is well known, there is
some diversity of sentiment. But, I am confident, that whatever
is written with candour, will receive from them a candid consid-
eration : and that real or supposed errors will be pointed out in
the spirit of the gospel. That it will have to encounter an oppo-
sition of a more hostile and determinate character, is what I
expect, and what I am prepared to meet with That it will be the
means of converting a single Baptist from the errors of his
scheme, is what 1 dare not expect. Such is the influence of pre-
judice over the human mind, that the conversion of one of that
people, may be considered next to a miracle. Therefore, I have
not been so chimerical as to anticipate the accomplishment of
that object. I have aimed no higher than to confirm Paedobar-
tists in their sentiments ; and, to prevent those who, as yet, have
adopted no system, from embracing error. But, if it should not
produce even this effect, I shall never regret my labour. The en -
tire satisfaction of my own mind, which the investigation has pro-
duced, is sufficient to repay me for all my trouble. T, therefore,
commit the work to the blessing of God, and the candid perusal
of the Christian publick.

THE AUTHOR.

Cambridge, January 12, 1813.

V. S. I had intended to subjoin to this publication, Dr. W'ith-
erspooVs Letters, on the education of children ; which 1 have
long designed to introduce into every family of my congregation,
as containing the best and most concise system of domestic poli-
cy with which I am acquainted. But, j».s my own work has swol-
len one third larger than was proposed, I am obliged, for the pre-
sent, to relinquish the design ; hoping' that, in some other waj',
I shall soon be able to furnish my people, and as many others as
may wish it, with that excellent manual.

A DIALOGUE, &c.

LEBBEUS, a Baptist— EUGENIUS, a Padobaptisl
SECTION I.

Lcbbeus. JL HAVE taken the liberty to
call upon you this morning for the purpose
of conversing, if you have leisure, on the
subject of the discourses you delivered yes-4
terday.

Eugenius. My time is usually occupied,
but I can generally arrange my business so
as to enjoy the society of friends : and, if it
will afford you any gratification, I shall free-
ly devote as much of this day as you please
to the subject you propose, provided we can
converse with freedom and candour.

Leb. That, I assure you, is my intention*
I consider the subject as vastly important
to the external order of the church, and am
convinced that it ought to be examined with
great candour and deliberation. I was in-
duced to attend your meeting yesterday,
because I had understood that you were to
preach on baptism; and, as T had never heard
that subject discussed, in the pulpit, by any
Of your denomination, and had often heard

it said, that the reason was, you have no
foundation in the scriptures for your senti-
ments and practice, I resolved to go and
hear what you could say. And, although
your arguments have not convinced me that
you are right, I am free to acknowledge,
that there is more of the appearance of truth
on your side, than I had ever imagined. I
have, therefore, come with a fixed resolution
to canvass the subject, as far as 1 am able,
with an unprejudiced mind.

Eug. I am happy, sir, to see you in such
a state of mind : and, although I may not be
able to set the subject in stronger light than
has been done by my brethren a thousand
times before; yet, I have no doubt, if you
will review the arguments without preju-
dice, your conviction of the correctness of
our system will be complete. Prejudice
is the great enemy of truth. It is a secret
and invisible enemy. It has full possession
of the minds of multitudes, who fondly im-
agine that they are entirely free from its in-
fluence. It operates like derangement in
an acute disease: the unhappy subject sup-
poses himself in perfect health, while, at the
same time, his disorder is accumulating
strength, and rapidly advancing to the most
alarming crisis. In like manner, those
who are most completely under the domin-
ion of prejudice, are ordinarily most apt to
think that they are free from its influence.
In a word, prejudice is the devil's strong
hold in the human heart.

The subject of baptism, as you have re
marked, is, indeed, one of great importance
and, therefore, it is a point of no trifling con
sequence, which divides the Baptist and Pse
dobaptist churches. Your denomination arc
apt to think, from the importance which the)
attach to the mode, that the whole responsi
bility rests upon us; that if we should prove
our sentiments and practice to be correct
they cannot be far from right. But the modi
is of little consequence, compared with tin
proper subjects. Therefore, the grand ques
lion at issue involves the very existence o
the church. — As to what you observed w7itl
respect to our ministers* seldom preaching
on the subject, I can assure you, it is not froir
any consciousness of the want of evidence
to support our system; but from an aversior
to controversy, at all times, and more espe
cially in seasons of special attention to re
ligion. We have no favourable opinion o\
those " revivals," so called, which are pro-
moted by the rancour and acrimony of con-
troversial preaching about modes and forms,
Nothing is more hostile than contention, to
a revival of "pure and undefiled religion. ,:
And this, you know, is the only time when
an attack is provoked by your denomina-
tion. In seasons of declension, your people
exhibit quite a catholic spirit. Your minis-
ters will then exchange with ours, or labour
together in one common field. Your mem-
bers will mingle their prayers and exhorta-
tions with ours. But, the moment the pub*

lie attention is awakened, and same begin to
be concerned for their souls' salvation, from
an apprehension that your catholic conduct
will not be likely to make the new converts
thorough-going Baptists, or, that you can-
not have a favourable opportunity to instil
into their minds your own peculiar senti-
ments, or, from some other cause, best
known to yourselves, you immediately be-
gin to withdraw, and set up separate altars.
And then the subject of baptism becomes
the theme of almost every sermon and ex-
hortation, and the topic of conversation from
house to house. And, in administering the
holy ordinance of baptism, instead of illus-
trating clearly the nature and design of the
institution, pointing out the difference be-
tween the external sign and the thing signi-
fied thereby, warning the subjects against
trusting to the form, we hear nothing but
the cry, " this is the way, the only way — this
is the path our Saviour trod ;y accompanied
with a torrent of raillery against all other
denominations; bantering and defiance to
every opposer. What opinion can a candid
mind entertain of such conduct, and of those
whose religion is produced and kept alive
by such means? I venture to pronounce it
essentially different from the religion of the
gospel. Is it reasonable to suppose that the
Lord will bless, to the conviction and con-
version of sinners, those discourses which re-
spect solely the externals of religion, while
the great and important doctrines and pre-

eepts of the gospel are thrown into the back
ground? It is the preaching of repentance,
faith, regeneration, sovereign grace, and o-
ther concomitant truths, and not empty de-
clamation on water baptism and other modes
and forms, (much less inveighing against o-
ther denominations,) which is usually sancti-
fied to the conversion of sinners, and to the
comfort, and edification of believers. We
consider the externals of religion important
in their place, and we endeavour to illus-
trate and enforce them in their proper place ;
but, after all, we do not forget that they are
mere externals. Hence, we cannot indulge
ourselves in railing accusations against those
wTho may differ from us on these subjects.
This is our only reason, and, 1 think I may
say, a sufficient one too, for not following
examples which are so frequently presented
on the other side. I will only add, that
whenever any of our ministers have depart-
ed from this course, and preached pointedly
against your system, your people, instead
of approving of what they consider a cardi-
nal virtue in their own conduct, have uni-
formly raised the hue and cry of popery or
persecution, thereby endeavouring to cast
on us the odium which attaches, or ought
to attach, to their own practice. — But I must-
crave your pardon for these plain remarks-
It is not my design to injure your feelings*
but the idea you suggested, requires a point-*
ed answer,

Leb. You have not injured my feelings
in the least. I am sensible there is too much
occasion for the strictures you have made.
I thank you for your plainness, and I wish
you to use the utmost freedom, throughout
our interview.

Eug. You will please to suggest that me-
thod of conducting the discussion, which will-
be most agreeable to your own mind.

Leb. Why, sir, I wish to converse at large
on the subject ; and, if you would indulge
me in the request, I should be happy to hear
you repeat the leading arguments of the dis-
courses you delivered yesterday, with such
remarks as you may be induced to make in
answer to my inquiries and objections.

Eug. This course will be perfectly agree-
able to me; and I pray God that it may be
profitable to us both.

Leb. I perceived, from the method you?
pursued in the discussion of the subject yes-
terday, that "the sameness of the Jewish
and Christian churches," is regarded as the
foundation of your whole system. Now, I
have this objection or difficulty, in regard
to that course* The attempt to " blend these
churches, carrying the Christian church
back, and bringing the Jewish church for-*
ward," and that constant reference to the
Old Testament, for proof of infant member-
ship, " seems to betray a consciousness of
the want of evidence to support it in the
New Testament/'

Eug. We do, indeed, consider "the same-
ness of the church,.*'* as the foundation of
our scheme; and, if this point is established,
it is impossible to avoid the consequences.
Your ministers are fully sensible of this,
and hence their constant endeavours, by so-
phistry and ridicule, by dogmatical asser-
tion and empty declamation, to make their
people reject the sentiment. As to your
remark about "bringing one church forward
and carrying the other back," it is altogeth-
er unfounded; for we do neither. We do
not alter their relative situation at all: we
take them precisely where we find them in
the word of God. There is no chasm be-
tween the two dispensations. The one stood
till the other was instituted. The same sove-
reign act that removed the one, established
the other in its place, and on the same foun-
dation. On our referring to the Old Tes-
tament, as a source of evidence, I shall only
remark, that I desire to bless God, I was
brought up to respect the whole revealed
will of Heaven; and I have never yet learn-
ed, and I hope I never shall learn, to reject
a single tittle of that revelation. Therefore
I submit as cheerfully to the authority of
the Old Testament, as to that of the New.

* By the " sameness of the church," is meant, that it has been
composedjof the same constituent parts in all ages : that the Jews
were required to profess the same religion which Christians do :
that both were by profession " the people of God," or the visible
church ; and that the only difference between them arises from
the different external rites and forms, which, by divine appoint-
ment, have been observed under the two dispensations. Their
cosstitxtiox is one, though their statftu-laws are. different.

2tf

Leb. But, certainly, you do not suppose-
that all the precepts of the Old Testament
are still obligatory?

Mag. No; I do not. There were many
rites and ceremonies, under the former dis-
pensation, which, from their nature, were
evidently designed to be confined to that
dispensation; the repeal of which was fore-
told by the prophets, and accomplished by
our Lord. But, whatever he has left unal-
tered, still challenges- the obedience of men.
And here I will not only advance that sen-
timent, so obnoxious to some of your peo-
ple, that "it requires the same authority to
repeal a law that it did to enact it ;" but I
will add, that the repeal of part of a law, in-
stead of invalidating the remaining part evi-
dently gives it a new sanction; for it is an
implicit acknowledgment, that so far it is a-
greeable to the existing administration. —
There are precepts in the New Testament,
which, from their nature, or the circumstan-
ces under which they were delivered, were
evidently limited in their operation; such
as the injunction of the apostles, " to abstain
from things strangled, and from blood;" and
yet no man, in his senses, ever supposed that
he must obey these, or reject the whole of
the New Testament.

Leb. But, is it not reasonable to suppose,
that if infant membership is still the will of
Heaven, it wTould have been explicitly re-
vealed in the New Testament?
.Eug.. Without admitting that the New Te^

lament is silent on this point, (for I believe
I can shew you, in its proper place, that it
is not,) I will only remark here, that an ex-
plicit revelation would be altogether need-
less. Divine revelation is given to rational
beings, and not to mere idiots. When the

> Lord has once delivered a precept, not lim-
ited in its nature, we know that it must be
obligatory until he explicitly repeals it. —
When, upon a change of administration, the
laws are amended in certain particulars, it

! is unnecessary for the legislature to declare
that those parts which are not amended, are
still in force. Or, to use another similitude*
still more to the case in hand, when one law
is repealed, and another enacted in its place*

i it is unnecessary for the legislature to de-
clare that this law is not designed to abro-
gate the constitution, which is the founda-
tion of the government. Such a declaration
would be an insult to common sense. To
suppose it necessary, is to suppose that the
people are little better than natural fools.

Leb. But, sir, if you admit tbal the whole
ceremonial economy is abrogated, I think
you admit all that is necessary; for "you
might as well pay tyihes, observe the pass-
over, offer sacrifice, &c. as to retain infant
membership."

Eug. I freely admit, thai the whole of the
ceremonial law is annulled ; but, unhappily
for your system, infant membership is no
part of that law. It was instituted in the
ancient church, four hundred and thirty

■22

years before that law had existence. And
this was what I designed to represent, by
the similitude which I used last; but which,
it seems, you did not understand. The cov-
enant made with Abraham, is the constitu-
tion of the church — that compact, which
forms the basis, or gives existence to the
community. The rites an I forms which were
afterwards ordained from time to time, of
which the ceremonial law was a part, were
the laws of the commonwealth — the mode
of administering the covenant. These, there-
fore, may ail be repealed, and others enact-
ed in their stead ; and yet the constitution
remain unaltered. This, the apostle ex-
pressly declares, in his epistle to the Gala-
tians. "And this I say, that the covenant
which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty
years after, cannot disannul that it should
make the promise of none effect." — Gal. iii.
17. Our Saviour, also, expressly recogni-
sed the distinct and diverse origin of circum-
cision, and the ceremonial law, when he ob-
served to the Jews, "Moses, therefore, gave
unto you circumcision; not because it is of
.Moses, out of the father s> 8Cg" — John vii. 22.
This important distinction appears to have
been entirely overlooked by your declaim-
ed against infant membership.

Leo. This, I acknowledge,, is to me a new
idea, and is entitled to serious consideration.
But, with respect to the text you quoted
from GalaUans, Dr. Gill says, the apostle

Ci does not there refer to the covenant of cir*
cumcision, because the time between them
does not agree; there being but about four
hundred years."

Bug. I do not pretend that the apostle
there refers to the rite of circumcision. This,
like the ceremonial economy, I consider as
one of the laws of the community, which
were liable to change. But the covenant,
which is the constitution of the church, and
had respect to Abraham's posterity, as well
as himself, was established almost thirty
years before that time; and thus you see the
time does correspond exactly. It was pre-
cisely four hundred and thirty years from the
time of God's first covenanting with Abra-
ham, to the departure of Israel out of Egypt.
Besides this, there is the same striking coin-
cidence between that passage and the other
writings of Moses. When the Lord appear-
ed to Abraham in Hebron, he there renew-
ed the covenant which he had previously
made, and then adds, " Know, of a surety,
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and
they shall afflict them four hundred years."
— Gen. xv. 13. This period, you will ob-
serve, is stated with exclusive reference to
Abraham's posterity; and here, we find, that
from the birth of Isaac to the emancipation
of Israel from Egypt, is exactly four hun-
dred years. Again, on the departure of Is-
rael from Egypt, Moses writes, "Now, the
sojourning of the children of Israel, who

dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thir-
ty years. — Ex.xii.40. These words are used
with singular precision ; and have refer-
ence not merely to Abraham's posterity,
but to himself with them; and include the
whole period, from the time of the Lord's
first entering into covenant with him, to
the emancipation of Israel. For, although
the greater part of Abraham's life, after he
was called of God, was spent in the land of
Canaan, yet even there he was only a so-
journer. This, you recollect, is expressly
declared by St. Stephen: "He removed him
into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And
he gave him none inheritance in it; no, not
so much as to set his foot on; yet he pro-
mised that he would give it to him, and to his
seed after him." — Acts vii. 4, 5. Hence Mo-
ses says, "The sojourning of the children of
Israel," (the name by which the church was
then usually distinguished) "who dwelt inE-
gypt" {their residence in Egypt is spoken of
as only a part of the time of their sojourn-
ing) "was four hundred and thirty years."
Hence, also, we find, that from the first
calling of Abraham to the egress of Is-
rael, from Egypt, was just four hundred
and thirty years; and, from the particu-
larity of Moses' words, it would seem to
be this even to a day : for, he adds, " And
it came to pass, at the end of the four hun-
dred and thirty years, even the self-same day-
it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord
went out from the land of Egypt." This e-

vent, you know, took place only about two
months before the giving of the law from Si-
nai; and therefore it is evident, that the apos-
tle does refer to the original covenant made
with Abraham, which he declares could not
be invalidated by the ceremonial law. If,
then, the enactment of that law did not annul
the original covenant, its repeal could not
affect it.

Leo. That the apostle refers to the cove-
nant made with Abraham, in Chaldea, Dr.
Gill admits; and also, that that covenant was
"an exhibition and manifestation of the co-
venant of grace to Abraham." But the co-
venant of circumcision is an entirely distinct
covenant from that. It is " by uniting these,
and taking occasion from the term covenant,
because applied to both; also, from gospel
believers being called the seed of Abraham,"
that your denomination have been pleased
"to call the Christian and Jewish church
one and the same. This passes for cur-
rency with such as do not examine for them-
selves.''

Eug. I am not surprised that such senti-
ments as you have now suggested, should
"pass for currency" or sound reasoning a-
mong common people, who have little ac-
quaintance with the structure of human lan-
guage; but that they should be passed off for
" good coin," by your teachers, who are, or
ought to he, men of some information, is to
me a matter of surprise, if they lay any claim
to common honesty. " The promise of a Sa-
3

viour," and what you are pleased to call
*'the covenant of circumcision," are, indeed,
distinct things; just as distinct as a promise
in a covenant, and the seal or token of that
covenant, are distinct things; but they are
not distinct covenants.

JLeb. But the Lord says expressly, " This
is my covenant, which ye shall keep between
me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Eve-
ry man-child among you shall be circumci-
sed." Gen. xvii. 10. Is not this an entirely
distinct covenant from that which the Lord
had previously made with him ? Gen. xii. I.

Eug. No sir; when the Lord appeared to
Abraham, as recorded in Gen. xvii. he did
not come to enter into a new covenant with
him, but merely to " establish" the one alrea-
dy made, by instituting a visible token, by
which, the existence of that covenant should
be known. Hence he addressed Abraham
thus ; " As for me, behold, my covenant is
with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many
nations, &c. And I will establish my cove-
venant between me and thee, and thy seed
after thee in their generations, for an ever-
lasting covenant : to be a God to thee and to
thy seed after thee," Here the original cove-
nant, in all its latitude, is renewed and es-
tablished or confirmed. As to the declara-
tion in the 10th verse, which you. have quo-
ted, it is nothing more than a common fi-
gure of speech, in which the sign is put
for the thing signified. There is no more
weight in your argument from this passage,

than in the popish doctrine of transubstanU-
atioiiy drawn from Christ's words, "This is
my body.'' The plain meaning of the pas-
sage, is "This is the token of my covenant,
&c." and if you had only quoted the suc-
ceeding verse, you would have found this
stated in the most explicit terms. " And ye
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin;
and it shall be a token of the covenant be-
twixt me and you." But, according to your
construction, circumcision is both the cove-
nant and the token of the covenant — the sign
and the thing signified by that sign: that is,
it is itself, and the token or sign of itself.—
Therefore I repeat what I have already said,
I am not surprised that common people
should be imposed upon by such contempt-
ible sophistry ; but when your teachers make
use of it to persuade their hearers that the
Abrahamic covenant is not the covenant of
grace, it proves incontrovertible one of two
things ; that they are either grossly ignorant,
or basely dishonest. But there is a reason
for all this sophistry. The covenant which
the Lord had made with Abraham contains
this gracious promise, " to be a God unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee." This ori-
ginal covenant Dr. Gill acknowledges, was
"an exhibition and manifestation of thecove-
nant of grace." Now to admit that circum-
cision was the seal of this covenant is to sur-
render the whole point in dispute. Hence,
they have no way left but to make it out
that the rile of circumcision^ instead of being

nn appendage to the original covenant, is an
entirely distinct institution: but with what
success, or rather absurdity, glaring absurd-
ity, 1 have shewn you.

Leb. I must confess I am astonished at
this view of the subject. I really believed
that these two things were entirely distinct.
But the explanation you have given exhibits
the point in quite a different light.

Eug. It is no explanation Lebbeus; it is
the plain declaration of God himself, that
circumcision is the token or seal of that co-
venant which contained all the blessings,
both temporal and spiritual, promised to
Abraham and his seed.

Leb. I observed in your discourse, yes-
terday, that you made frequent use of the
word "seal," in reference to the special or-
dinances of the gospel. I do not know but
you are correct in so doing, but 1 have
heard some of our ministers express a " wish
that your denomination would lay it aside,
as it sounds Jewish, or rather popish, in the
ears of baptists."

Eug. If they had said, it sounds too evan-
gelical or apostolical for their scheme, they
would have come much nearer the truth: —
I am sure there is nothing Jewish in it, for
the word was never used under that dispen-
sation in reference to religion. It is a term
of pure gospel origin, and the apostle de-
clares that it was applicable to circumcision,
for he calls it " a seal of the righteousness
of faith." And as to its being popish, I shall

only observe, that if that church had deri-
ved all its doctrines and precepts and max-
ims and terms from the gospel, as directly as
this term, it had never been the reproach
and scourge of the Christian world. I can
assure you, my friend, we shall never " lay
aside" gospel terms in condescension to the
prejudices of baptists.

Led. I think there can be no doubt that
you are correct in referring the apostle's
words to the original covenant. But if, as
I just now understood you to admit, circum-
cision was not a part of the original cove-
nant, but instituted afterwards, it appears
to me that on your own principles, you ex-
clude infant membership.

jEug. Not at all: the covenant, as origi-
nally made with Abraham, embraced his
seed as well as himself, as fully as it did at a-
ny subsequent renewal of it. But the rite
of circumcision, which was to be the token
of that covenant, or the public mark by which
membership was to be recognised under that
dispensation, was not then instituted; and
for a very good reason : the promised seed
was not then born. Hence, though the Lord
appeared to Abraham several times after he
first entered into covenant with him, and
at each of those times renewed and further
explained the terms of that covenant, yet
he never instituted the rite of circumcision
till the very year before the birth of Isaac.

Leb. But in as much as the rite of circum-
cision was by divine appointment applied *°

Abraham's household, consisting of his son
Ishmael and his servants, as soon as it was
instituted, is it not reasonable to suppose
that, if it had been designed to be the token of
the original covenant, it would have been
instituted at the same time?

Eug. No sir : the covenant in its origin,
and with the explanations which the Lord
condescended to give from time to time,
had reference all along to Isaac as the pro-
mised seed. Hence, although the seal was
by divine direction applied to those who
then composed Abrahams household, yet
the Lord states explicitly that it was insti-
tuted with peculiar reference to Isaac. He
graciously assures him that "for his (Abra-
ham's) sake he will bless his son Ishmael :
But, says he, my covenant will I establish
with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee,
at this set time, in the next year." Gen.
xvii. 19 — 21. This sentiment, it seems, A-
braham did not distinctly understand until
after the birth of Isaac. Then, when Sarah
discovered Ishmael mocking, she said unto
Abraham " Cast out this bond-woman and
her son, for the son of this bond woman
shall not be heir with my son, even with
Isaac : And the thing was very grievous in
Abraham's sight, because of his son. And
Godsaid unto Abraham, let it not be grie-
vous in thy sight, because of the lad and
because of the bond-woman ; in all that Sa-
rah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her
Toice, for in Isaac shall thy seed be called J ^

Hence, it is evident, that the covenant with
its appointed seal was instituted with pecu-
liar reference to Isaac and his posterity. —
And here we discover the true reason why
the token of the covenant was not appoint-
ed until just before his birth.

Leb. But, after all you have said, it ap-
pears to me, that the Apostle's words, upon
which you have been arguing, have no ref-
erence to infant membership. Nay, in the
verse immediately preceding that passage,
he expressly declares, that allusion is not
made to Abraham's natural posterity, but to
Christ. " Now to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made. He saith not,
and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one,
and to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal.
iii. 16.

Eug. If this reasoning of yours proves
any thing, it proves too much for your sys-
tem. It goes to shew that Abraham's na-
tural posterity were in no sense included in
the covenant. This covenant, like every
other, consists of two parts. Abraham pro-
mises obedience. On this condition the
Lord graciously promises to reward him.
Now the divine promise is not confined to
a single object ; it embraces several. The
first is to " make of him a great nation" —
then, " to bless him and his seed and to
make them a blessing, and to defend them
from all their enemies." These promises
have exclusive reference to his natural pos-
terity. And finally, as the foundation of

the whole covenant, he promises, "And in
thee" i.e. as it is afterwards explained, " in
thy seed shall all the families of the earth
be blessed." This last promise refers to
Christ, as the apostle expressly declares.
Turn back to the 8th verse of the chapter,
and vou will find this declaration. " And
the scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham saying, In
thee shall all nations be blessed." Now it
is to this part of the covenant that the apos-
tle all along refers, and particularly in the
16th verse, where he applies the word seed9
in its singular form, to Christ. But then,
in the succeeding verse he affirms, " This I
say, that the covenant that was confirmed
before of God in Christ, the law, which was
four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul that it should make the promise of
none effect." Therefore, I repeat my for-
mer concluson, that if the enactment of that
law did not destroy the original covenant,
its repeal could not effect it. And if one
part of the covenant stands good, the other
does. And, therefore, though all the rites
and ceremonies which were from time to
time ordained under the former dispensa-
tion of the covenant, were repealed at the
commencement of the Christian dispensa-
tion, and other rites instituted in their stead,
yet that original covenant, which is the con-
stitution of the church, remains in all its
force. Hence the seed of believers being

included in the covenant, their standing
cannot be affected by the abrogation of the
ceremonial law.

Leb. I have already prolonged this pre-
liminary discussion far beyond what I
expected or intended, and I am almost
tired of suggesting things, which present dif-
ficulties to my mind, but which vou seem
prepared to dispose of so readily. But a-
nother thought occurs so me, which, if your
patience is not yet exhausted, I should be
glad to mention.

Eng. Pray, sir, feel entirely at ease on
the score of my patience ; I shall cheerful-
ly devote the day to your service, and an-
other if it should be necessary. I certainly
wish you to suggest every objection which
occurs to your mind as we proceed, for un^
less you do this, I cannot expect you to
weigh with candour the arguments I shall
urge.

Leb. The idea which I alluded to, is this :
"The plain scripture fact seems to be, that
Abraham was a type of Christ, and the
promise that his seed should be as the stars
of heaven and the sand of tiie sea for multi-
tude, if it had any connexion with the cov-
enant of grace, it was in Christ. Agreea-
ble to Isaiah, he shall see of his seed and
be satisfied. — Was not the promise (Gen.
xviii. 18.) in Christ ? where God said ail the
nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.
Have all the nations, or individuals, who
have shared in the covenant of grace, beea.

in Abraham? or have they been in him as
a type of Abraham's God? We all know
that they have not been in him naturally,
but they have all been in Christ. By keep-
ing Abraham's typical character in view,
we are able to understand without difficulty
those passages of scripture which speak of
him as heir of the world, the father of all
them thai believe, &c. but, on any other
construction, you will find them involved ia
inexplicable difficulties."

Eug. That Abraham, in some passages
of scripture, is considered as a type of Christ,
I do not dispute* And so are Isaac, and
David, and Solomon, and Isaiah, and others
of the ancient patriarchs and prophets. But
does it follow from this that Abraham, or
any other man, possessed no other than a
typical character? It surely does not. —
Give Abraham all the honour that results
from his typical character, but let not the
type absorb the man. You must not for-
get that he sustains the character of a pa-
rent, the head of a family ; and in his char-
acter he is regarded in relation to his na-
tural posterity. You refer to Gen. xviii.
13. and ask, whether the promise there made
is not ifl Christ, and Abraham a type of Christ?
I answer, the promise is indeed made in
reference to Christ as the seed of Abra-
ham, but there is no evidence that Abra-
ham is there considered as a type. You
will observe, that this passage is a repeti-
tion of the original and fundamental prom-

ise of the covenant, (Vid. Gen. xii, 3.) and
is quoted by the apostle, in his epistle to
the Gala trans, as an evidence that the gos-
pel was preached to Abraham, and that he
was justified by faith. That is, according
to your construction, God made Abraham
a type of Christ, and then preached the gos-
pel to him ; or, preached the gospel to him
by making him a type of Christ. Now, ac-
cording to this interpretation, can you tell
me whether Abraham was justified for be-
lieving that he was a type of Christ, or, in
the promised Saviour .' i. e. for believing
in himself, or in Christ? Is this one of those
" inexplicable difficulties" which your type
is calculated to avoid, or does it lead di-
rectly into it? — You ask, whether all who
have ever shared in the covenant of grace,
have been in Abraham naturally, &c ? I
answer, No ; but by faith in Christy (not in
your type of Christ,) they have become
partakers of the covenant which God made
with the holy patriarch, and are therefore
called by the apostle " children of Abra-
ham" and " heirs of the promise :'' And these
epithets, it seems, many of your preach-
ers are unwilling to use, lest common
people, who are in the habit of giving a
common-sense interpretation to scripture,
should never imagine that Abraham was a
mere shadow. I do not wonder at their
caution.

What has been said, might be deemed suf-
ficient to shew, that in that passage,direct re-

ference is had to Christ; but to preclude all
doubt on the subject, and to shew you that this
is not the mere result of " inferential proof,"
permit me to refer you to a " Thus saith the
Lord" on this point. The Lord afterwards
repeated this promise to Abraham, and also
to Isaac and Jacob, in these words, "And
in thy seed shall all the families (or nations)
of the earth be blessed." Vid. Gen. xxii. 18.
xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14. This is the same identi-
cal promise, only expressed in more expli-
cit terms. And that it meant precisely the
same when originally delivered to Abra-
ham, is evident from the apostle's reasoning
in the 3d of Galatians. That he therein
refers to the original covenant, and not to
the subsequent explanations of it, I have
already shewn you, by the precise corres-
pondence of the four hundred and thirty
years. From the first institution of the cov-
enant, it is evident, that there are two seeds
distinctly recognised therein. The one may
be called "the promised seed," which is
Christ; and the other "the seed of the pro-
mise," which is Abraham's natural posteri-
ty, together with those who should be in-
corporated with them by professing their re-
ligion. The former, is all along held up as
the object of faith ; the latter, as the heirs of
the promise through faith. And every at-
tempt to destroy this distinction, by identi-
fying the one with Abraham, as a type of
Christ, however desirable it may be for the
maintenance of your system, is evidently

" darkening counsel by words without
knowledge."

But I have not done with this idea. As
your denomination are so fond of reducing
every thing under the former dispensation
to types and shadows, when you have made
Abraham a Christ, why have you never at-
tempted to shew that the Jews were requi-
red to exercise faith in Abraham. This ty-
pical faith would not only have happily cor-
responded with Abraham's typical character,
but would have been vastly convenient to
prefigure the faith of the Christian church ;
and I doubt not many of your denomination
will "fellowship" this suggestion rather than
give up Abraham's typical character, which,
it seems, helps them out of so many other-
wise "inexplicable difficulties;" but, for my
part, I am not terrified at those difficulties
which shadows can remove.

Before I conclude my remarks on this
point, I wish you to take one more view of
the passage you have referred to, in its con-
nexion.— It is in Genesis xviii, in immediate
connexion with the meditated destruction of
Sodom. "And the Lord said, shall I hide
from Abraham that thing which I do; see-
ing that Abraham shall surely become a
great and mighty nation, and all the nations
^)f the earth shall be blessed in him 1 For I
know that he will command his children and
his household after him, and they shall keep
the way of the Lord, to do justice and judg-
ment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham
4

that which he hath spoken of him" Now, se-
riously, this would have been one of the last
passages I should have thought of referring
to, as an evidence that Abraham was ever
considered a type of Christ. Here, as in
every other case, where the covenant is in-
troduced, the two distinct seeds are explicit-
ly brought to view, and that by way of al-
lusion to the original compact which God
had made with him. And, what is very re-
markable, he states precisely the ground
on which the benefits of that covenant are
to descend from generation to generation.
" For I know that he will command his chil-
dren and his household after him, and they
shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice
and judgment: that the Lord may bring up-
on Abraham that which he hath spoken
of him." So far from being regarded as
a type, he is expressly recognised as the fa-
ther or head of a family and household, in
which relation he must be faithful, in order
to transmit the blessing to his posterity. —
But I shall have occasion to call your atten-
tion to this passage in another place. I,
therefore, forbear any further comment up-
on it here. Permit me, therefore, to recall
your attention to the point at issue. And,
by this time, I think your candour must con-
strain you to admit, that the covenant which
St. Paul declares was not annulled by the
ceremonial law, is the original covenant
made with Abraham. With this, and with
no other, the four hundred and thirty years

correspond. Hence infant membership,
which was instituted four hundred and thir-
ty years before the law was ordained, cer-
tainly cannot be affected by the repeal of
that law. Your objection, therefore, that
we might as well "pa}7 tythes, keep the pass-
over, offer sacrifice, &c." is entirely without
foundation.

Leb. I acknowledge T never considered
the subject in (his light before. I was al-
ways in the habit of considering infant mem-
bership as standing on the same foundation
with tythes, annual sacrifices, &c. I have
heard it asserted so frequently, I verily
thought it was the case. But, as the force
of this argument will depend, in a consider-
able degree, on the proof you adduce in
favour of the sameness of the ancient and
Christian church, I will now attend to your
reasoning on that subject.

SECTION II.

Eugenius. THE first argument which I
adduced in support of that sentiment, was
drawn from the sameness of the covenant,
which the Lord made with Abraham and his
seed, and that upon which the Christian
church is founded. "I will make of thee a
great nation, and I will bless thee, and make
thy name great; and thou shalt be a bles-
sing. And I will bless them that bless thee,

and curse him that curseth thee." — Gen. xii.
2, 3. Of this covenant, circumcision, as I
have already shewn, was in due time ap-
pointed the seal.

Leb> But some of our most able preach-
ers and writers have shewn, that this, in-
stead of being the covenant of grace, was
" a national compact, '* having respect to the
possession of the land of Canaan, and other
temporal blessings; and "circumcision was
nothing more than a token or badge of na-
tional descent," by which the posterity of
Abraham should be kept pure from all oth-
er nations, until the promised Messiah was
born.

Eug. If this has ever been proved, I am
ignorant of the fact. I know it has been
roundly asserted by many, and with such
imposing effrontery too, that your people
have been constrained to adopt the opinion;
for they could not suppose that good men,
(as they suppose their teachers to be) would
make such positive assertions, without full
evidence of their correctness. It is not ge-
nerally considered, that great confidence in
asserting an opinion, is no evidence of its
correctness. Common people, who are not
in the habit of reasoning, are more frequent-
ly carried away with bold assertions than
with the soundest arguments. It is this that
has given some of your preachers so much
supposed advantage in this controversy. But
I assure you, I consider it no difficult task
to shew that these assertions have been made,

not only without a single sound argument to
support them, but also in direct opposition
to plain logical deduction, to scripture de-
claration, and to matter of fact* When the
Lord renewed this covenant with Abraham,
just before the birth of Isaac, and appointed
the seal, he fully explained what he meant
by blessing him and his seed. "And I will
establish my covenant between me and thee,
and thy seed after thee, in their generations,
for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to

THEE, AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE." Gen.

xvii. 7.

Leo, But this means nothing more than
that he would be "their King and temporal
governor," and have that nation under his
peculiar protection.

Eug. This may "pass for currency" with
Baptists, (the famous advocates, in theory T
of explicit warrant,) but it will not be re-
ceived as such by Peedobaptists, who found
their faith on argument, and not on asser-
tion. The sentiment which you have ad-
vanced, has often been roundly asserted, and
that not only without an argument to sup-
port it, but in direct opposition to the dic-
tates of common sense and the whole cur-
rent of scripture. " I will be your God, and
ye shall be my people." No greater bles-
sing can creatures desire. No greater bles-
sing can God bestow. It is the same which
is applied lo believers, John xx. 17. Heb. xi„
16, and to the Christian church, 2 Cor. vi. 16.
yea, even as comprehending all the blessings
4*

to be enjoyed in her millennial glory or tri-
umphant state. " And God himself shall be
with them, and be their God.'' — Rev. xxi. 3.
Where, then, I demand, is the evidence that
it implies less in one case than in the other.
What arrogance, not to say impiety, do those
display, who assert that there is an infinite
difference in the meaning of the same words
in the two cases! — But that the Abrahamic
covenant was as comprehensive as I have re-
presented, and that it is the foundation of the
Christian church, is most explicitly declared
in the 6th chap, to the Hebrews. The apos-
tle, there, introduces the promise of the ori-
ginal covenant, " Surely, blessing I will bless
thee, and multiplying, 1 will multiply thee." — -
This, he declares, " God confirmed by an
oath to Abraham," who, "after he had pa-
tiently endured, obtained the promise." —
But he never inherited the land of Canaan,
"no, not so much as to set his foot on:" he
was only a sojourner there. Consequently,
the blessing which God had promised, and
which he "obtained," after " patiently en-
during," must allude to something else. To
set this matter entirely at rest, the apostle
adds, " Wherein God, willing more abun-
dantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the
immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by
an oath ; that by two immutable things, in
which it was impossible for God to lie, WE
wight have a strong consolation, who have
Jled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set
before us : which hope we have as an anchor
ofthe soul, both sure and stedfast, and which

entereth into that within the veil ; whither
Jesus, the forerunner is for us entered, &e."
Now, I wish to know, what consolation Chrfo-
tians can derive from God's promise and oath
to Abraham, if the covenant which was con-
firmed thereby, is not the constitution of the
Christian church? And how can it be the
foundation of the Christian hope, which is
"an anchor of the soul, sure and stedfast,"
if that covenant had respect merely to the
possession of Canaan, and other temporal
blessings? The supposition is absurd; and
the fact is evident, that this covenant "com-
prises all the blessings and privileges ever
promised to believers and the church."

Leb. With respect to that sentiment, sir,
I shall only say, "to those that can believe
this, let them believe it."

Eug. Weli done, Lebbeus! you have a-
dopted a very convenient method to dispose
of an argument which you cannot contro-
vert. I have shewn, by comparing scripture
with scripture, that the promise of Jehovah,
to an individual or a community, "to be
their God," contains all that creatures can
desire, or God himself bestow. And I
defy you, or any of your persuasion, to
prove the contrary. Conscious of your in-
ability to do this, and yet pressed with the
argument, you endeavour to get rid of it, by
exclaiming "to those that can believe this,
let them believe it." This expression does,
indeed, contain a precious privilege to Pa>
do baptists, if you would allow them to exercise

it; but it contains no argument against iheir
sentiments, and really betrays the weakness
of your own cause. In this light it will be
viewed by every intelligent person. This,
however, is no unusual method, among your
people, to dispose of arguments which they
know not how to answer. T have often ob-
served, that they will exclaim, as you have
done, or cry out, "O, absurdity I" or pretend
to write " Tekel" on an argument, when, at
the very moment, they are so oppressed with
its weight, that they know not how to relieve
themselves. No man will adopt such an in-
glorious method of defence, unless he is con-
vinced, that he has no more honourable
way. But I seriously apprehend, Lebbeus,
that your professed candour must have de-
serted you just at this juncture.

I now proceed to another of your posi-
tions. You say, that "circumcision is a
mere badge of national descent.'5 This
stands on the same foundation with your
other remark. It is assertion in direct op-
position to the divine testimony, and to mat-
ter of fact. Abraham's servants received
that seal as well as his natural seed; Ish-
mael as well as Isaac ; Esau as well as Jacob.
And the descendants of those men who were
excluded from the promise, have retained
the same rite, even to the present day.
Moreover, the apostle declares, that "they
are not all Israel which are of Israel ; nei-
ther because they are the children of Abra-
ham, are they all children ; but in Isaac shall

thy seed be called ; that is, they which are
the children of the flesh, they are not the
children of God; but the children of the
promise are counted for the seed.''' — Rom. ix.
6 — 8. If the covenant of Abraham was a
mere national covenant, and had respect
solely to temporal blessings, there is not a
word of truth in this declaration; for on- that
ground they are all Israel that are of Israel,
and the children of the flesh, whether be-
lievers or unbelievers, did inherit the pro-
mise. Moreover, the apostle declares, that
all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, are
the "children of Abraham, and heirs accord-
ing to the promise.'' This is impossible, if
the Abrahamic covenant were a mere na-
tional compact, and the promise had respect
only to the land of Canaan.

There is no way to evade this consequence.
You must either admit, that St. Paul, wri-
ting under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
was mistaken; or else that the promise to
Abraham and his seed imported something
more than temporal blessings. But, if lie
were mistaken in this case, he feU into the
same error frequently. For again he de-
clares, " He is not a Jew which is one out-
wardly, neither is that circumcision which
is outward in the flesh; but lie is a Jew which
is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of
the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter,
whose praise is not of men, but of God." —
Rom. ii. 28,29. What plainer evidence can
be desired, that circumcision is not a mere

badge of national descent? If the apostle
had beheld, with prophetic eye, the cavils of
the Baptists on this subject, he could not
have given a plainer contradiction to their
assertions. But, as if to set the matter at
rest for ever, he declares, in another part of
the same epistle, in the most explicit terms,
that circumcision, instead of being a mark
of national descent, is a badge of the king-
dom of grace. " He received the sign of cir-
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of
faith, which he had yet being uncircumci-
sed. — For the promise that he should be the
heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or
to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith." — Rom. iv. 11, 13. —
He, who, in spite of these plain declarations,
can believe that circumcision was a badge
of national descent, can persuade himself to
believe any thing that suits his purpose.

Leo* Although these passages seem to
favour your scheme in one point of view,
yet it appears to me, in another they mili-
tate against you.

Eug. How so, pray?

Leb. Why, if the children of the flesh are
not the children of God — if he is not a Jew
which is one outwardly; and if the promise
were not made to Abraham or his seed
through the law, but through the righteous-
ness of faith, then it cannot be the covenant
of grace which was made with Abraham and
his seed; for all his posterity were embra-
ced in that covenant ; it was, therefore, na-
tional.

Eug. Our Saviour declares, " Many shall
say unto me, in that day, Lord, Lord, have
we not eaten and drunk in thy presence,
prophesied, cast out dtvils, and done many
wonderful works in thy name, to whom I
will profess, I never knew you." And the
history of the church, and our own observa-
tion, teach us, that in every age there are
those who are professedly in covenant with
God, and are yet destitute of true religion.
But does it follow, from the acknowledg-
ment of these facts, that it is not the cove-
nant of grace, on which the Christian church
is founded? No, my friend; it is still true
with respect to the church, under the pre-
sent dispensation, that "they are not all Is-
rael that are of Israel." This, instead of
disproving God's gracious covenant, only
proves, that men may be professedly in cove-
nant with God, and yet be strangers to the
covenant of promise. And I wish you to
observe, particularly, that this objection,
which you have made, was anticipated by
the apostle, and answered precisely on the
ground that I have stated. "For, what if
some of them did not believe? Shall their
unbelief make the faith of God without ef-
fect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but
every man a liar." — Rom. iii. 3, 4. Here he
plainly declares, that though every man
were a liar, or hypocritical professor, yet
God's gracious covenant remains the same.
And though, through their unbelief and hy-
pocricy, they forfeited the blessing, yet this

does not prove that they were not, by pro*
fession, in covenant with God; it only proves
that they were insincere in their profession.
That the Lord did, indeed, require ail Abra-
ham's natural seed to enter into that cove-
nant, and that the most of them did so pro-
fessedly, is a fact. And just the same does
the Lord require now of all to whom the
gospel comes. And many, unquestionably,
do now take upon them that covenant, in
the promises of which they have no part
nor lot. But in neither case does this prove
that the Lord requires them to do this with
an unholy heart, nor does it prove that it is
not the covenant of grace into which they
professedly enter. — During the former dis-
pensation, the true knowledge of God was
confined to the Jewish nation, and the visi-
ble church was identified with that common-
wealth, but this is no evidence that the co-
venant of God with them was a mere nation-
al compact, having respect only to tempo-
ral blessings.

Leb. But " they were born into that cove-
nant."

Eug. They were born into that covenant
in the same sense in which the children of
believers are born into the covenant now.
But neither then, nor now, does that circum-
stance give them a personal title to the bles-
sings of the covenant, without inherent holi-
ness ; as I shall have occasion to shew in its
proper place.

Leb. But unbelievers, as well as believers,
did enjoy the promised land.

Evg. They enjoyed it, just as wicked
men now enjoy the mercies of life, not by
virtue of the covenant, but of the sovereign
goodness of God. The tares and the wheat
grew together : and for the sake of his real
children, the Lord permitted those who were
not really holy to enjoy temporal blessings
with them. But he never promised in a
covenant way to bestow even temporal fa-
vours, on any of his creatures, as a reward
for services which they should perform with-
out holiness of heart. Your system is foun-
ded on the supposition that the Lord did
promise and bestow temporal blessings on
the Jews, on condition of their performing
certain services with unsanctihed hearts.
But this is a palpable error; utterly inconsis-
tent with the divine character: for it is no less
than to set up the great Jehovah as a re-
warder of iniquity. An instance of this
cannot be adduced in all the acts of his holy
administration. He has indeed sometimes
promised, or rather revealed his purpose, to
bestow temporal blessings on the wicked,
but he never entered into covenant with
them and promised those blessings as a re-
ward for services which they should per-
form with unsanctified hearts. He always
does this as an act of his holy sovereignty.
" Ye are the salt of the earth" said Christ.
It is on account of the church that the world
is sustained. It is on her account that he
distributes his favours "to the just and to
the unjust." And it was on the same ac-
count that he permittedthe hypocritical part
5

of the Jewish church to enjoy temporal
blessings with the righteous.

Leb. But is it not a fact that the great bo-
dy of the Jewish nation were frequently ', not
to say generally, ungodly and wicked?

Eug. Suppose this were true, as I am
sensible your people are fond of believing,
it does not alter the state of the case. It
only proves that under that dark dispensa-
tion unbelief and hypocrisy were more
common than in this highly favoured age :
that then, more people were professedly in
covenant with God, who had no claim to the
promise, than there are at the present time.
But in neither case does their hypocrisy an-
nul the covenant. In a depraved world like
ours we can never determine with certainty
what the laws of any community, whether
civil or ecclesiastical, are, by the conduct of
its members. There is a law in this state
that forbids Sabbath breaking, but, if we
were to judge by the conduct of a great
mass of our population, we should be o-
bliged to conclude that that crime was not
forbidden, nor punishable by the laws. —
Hence it is manifest that we are to look at
the divine requirements, and not at the con-
duct of the people, in order to determine
what was requisite to a standing in that
church.

But I am not disposed to admit the fact
in the full extent you have stated. Though
there were many and great defections in the
ancient church, yet there is no reason to

suppose that they were either as great or
general as your people would fain repre-
sent. Jn one of the darkest seasons under
that dispensation, even when a cotemporary
prophet supposed that he stood alone on the
Lord's side, the Lord declared, " / have left
me, seven thousand in Israel who have not bow-
ed the knee to Baal" 1 . Kings xix, 18. Now,
if one who lived at the time could be so
much deceived as to the extent of that
apostacy, how much more may we be
deceived in this remote age. Besides this,
in forming our opinions of the religious state
of that people, we are apt to make little or
no allowance for the different habits and
manners of the times. On this account, ma-
ny things in their conduct appear to us ut-
terly inconsistent with a state of grace, of
which we should form a very different opin-
ion if the manners of the times had remain-
ed unchanged. There probably are practi-
ces among professing christians in the pre-
sent day, which, on the same account, will
appear to succeeding generations as strange
and inconsistent with a gracious state as ma-
ny of the aberrations of the Jews do to us.
It is my candid opinion, warranted I think
by the word of God and the history of the
church, that the disproportion between real
and nominal believers, under the two dis-
pensations, is not so great as is generally im-
agined. And in suggesting this sentiment I
do not except the Baptist church ; for I be-
lieve, you yourself will acknowledge, that

professors in your churches are not in gen-
eral more circumspect and consistent in
their walk and conversation than ours: and
that apostacies, especially after what you
call a revival, are quite as numerous (not to
j-ay more so) as in any other religious com-
munity. The declaration of our Saviour
that many of those who cry " Lord, Lord,"
will be rejected of him, 1 believe has been
applicable to every past generation as well
as the present. Doubtless, there are now,
and ever have been, many who are deceived
with "a name to live and are dead;" who
really think that they are christians, and
are esteemed so by their brethren, to whom
Christ will say, in the hour of judgment,
" I never knew yon" But if this were the
character of ninety-nine hundreths of the
Christian church, or if it could be made to
appear that this was the state of that propor-
tion of the Jewish church, it would not
prove that either the one or the other was
not professedly built on the covenant of
grace. Hence it is manifest that vour ob-
jection against the Abrahamic covenant,
drawn from the moral character of the Jew-
ish nation, if it were founded in fact, has
not the weight of a straw. It may answer
your preachers as a subject of declamation,
and they may employ it to the advantage of
their system in reviling "the people of God,"
but in the balance of the sanctuary or of
sound reason, it is less than " the dust of th%
balance."

But I wish to make one additional re-
mark onyourviewof the rite of circumcision.
You say " it was nothing more than a badge
or token of national descent, by which the
posterity of Abraham should be kept pure
from other nations until the promised Mes-
siah was born." If the moral character of
that people were what you have represented
it to be, then Christ might as well have
descended, and would have been as much
honoured by descending, from Edom, Moab,
or any of the nations of Canaan. Moreo-
ver, it this weie its object it entirely failed :
for Abraham's posterity were not kept dis-
tinct from all other nations. Wlien the
Lord covenanted with the patriarch, he di-
rected him to apply the seal of the covenant
to all his servants, whether born in his
house, or bought with money, as well as to
his natural posterity. And when the law
was given to Israel, express provision was
made for the incorporation of strangers with
the commonwealth of Israel, whenever they
professed obedience to Israel's God. This
was frequently done ; and even in the gen-
ealogy of our Lord himself we find the name
of Ruth, the Moabitess, who wa^ providen-
tially converted to the Jewish faith, and pro-
fessed her indissoluble attachment to the
true God and his chosen people. Vid. Ruth
i. and Mat. i. 5.

Leb. But sir, there are many other objec-
tionsagainst the sentimentthat the Abraham-
ic covenant is the covenant of giace. These
5*

I think are stated in a very forcible manner
by Dr. Gill ; and I should be pleased to hear
your remarks upon them.

Eug> This part of Dr. Gill's treatise I
have read repeatedly, but I have a very dif-
ferent opinion of his objections. Instead of
being forcible, they appear to me to be \e-
ry feeble, and in many instances inconsistent
not only with themselves, but also with the
word of God. Here is the book. You
will please to select such as have the most
weight in your own mind.

Leb. With your leave, I shall make no
selection, but take them in order. He ob-
serves, "1. It is never called the covenant
of grace, nor by any name which shews it to
be such, but the covenant of circumcision.
Now nothing is more opposite to one anoth-
er than circumcision and grace/'

Eug. The Apostle declares that circum-
cision was " a seal of the righteousness of
faith ;" and that " that is not circumcision
which is outward in the flesh — but circum-
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and
not in the letter." Moreover, the Lord com-
manded the Israelites to "circumcise their
hearts;" and hence the apostle calls the ex-
ternal rite " the sign of circumcision," be-
cause it was an external sign of internal
grace. Now, let common sense say whether
" nothing is more opposite to one another thaw
circumcision and grace T* So much for one
part of Dr.. Gill's first assertion : now for
the other. He says " It is never called by

any name which shews it to he the covenant
of grace." But does not the Lord repea-
tedly call it his "everlasting covenant —
that endureth for ever, and to a thousand
generations." And are not these terms ap-
plied to the covenant of grace ? You may
indeed take the ground of the universalists,
as some of your writers have done, and try
to prove that these epithets do not mean
endless duration ; but even this will not
help your cause. If the terms are limited,
they are limited by the existence of the ob-
jects to which they are applied.

Leb. " The land of Canaan was given to
Abraham's seed for an everlasting posses-
sion: but that part of the covenant has come
to an end ; and one of these everlastings i&
as long as the other."

Eug. You will pardon me if I deny that
that part of the covenant is come to an end.
It is true that the Jews, for their unbelief,
have been cut ofF from the enjoyment of
Canaan and all the other blessings of the
covenant : but that they are to be restored
to the holy land, and to the favour of God,
is so plainly declared in the scriptures that
no rational man can doubt it. If therefore
the word everlasting is to be understood in
a limited sense in that case, it is limited, as
1 observed before, by the existence of the
object to which it is applied. That is, they
were to possess the land of Canaan as long
as it existed, on condition of their fidelity.
And on the same condition, this covenant

with Abraham and his seed, was to last as
long as they existed, or the blessings of the
covenant endured.

Leb. Dr. Gill observes " 2. It appears to
be a covenant of works and not of grace
since it was to be kept under a severe pen-
alty : — in case of disobedience or neglect
such a soul was to be cut off from his peo-
ple: all which shews it to be, not a cove-
nant of grace but of works."

Eug. Christians are required to keep all
the ordinances and precepts of the gospel,
under a severe penalty ; and in case of dis-
obedience, they are to be cut off from God's
people. Therefore, according to Dr. Gill's
reasoning, it is not the covenant of grace,
but of works, upon which the Christian
church is founded. And this you will find
is the result of his scheme.

Leb. " 3* It is plain it was a covenant that
might be broken ; of the uncircumcised it
is said, He hath broken my covenant; whereas
the covenant of grace cannot be broken."

Evg. The covenant of the Christian church
is often violated by its members ; therefore,
on the same ground, it may be inferred that
the Christian church is not built on the co-
venant of grace. It is evident, to the most
superficial observer, that Dr. Gill, in order
to give some plausibility to this argument,
makes no distinction between a man's real
and professed character, We believe in the
final perseverance of the saints as firmly as
the baptists do: but we believe, and w*

know, that a man may profess to be in the
covenant of grace, and yet be a hypocrite.
When such a person neglects his duty, or
falls into open sin, he is said to break cove-
nant; that is, he makes shipwreck of his
faith or profession : and this phraseology is
warranted by scripture. 1 Tim. i, 19, 20. —
He professed to be in the covenant of grace,
but he never was embraced within its holy
bonds. These remarks apply equally to the
former and present dispensation. And hence,
when the uncircumcised is said to have bro-
ken covenant, it meant precisely the same
as now; that he had cast off his profession,
and, therefore, ought no longer to be num-
bered among God's people.

Leb. " 4. It is certain it had things in it of
a civil or temporal nature, as a multiplica-
tion of Abraham's natural seed, and a race
of kings from him : a promise of his being
the father of many nations, and a posses-
sion of the land of Canaan by his seed ; —
things that can have no place in the pure
covenant of grace, and have nothing to do
with that, any more than the change of his
name from Abram to Abraham."

Eug. But do you believe, Lebbeus, that
"temporal blessings have no place in the co-
venant of grace, and have nothing to do with
ill',' Our Saviour promised that "those who
bad forsaken all for his sake and the gospel's"
should "recci ve a hundred j old in this life,
houses and lands, SCt" therefore, according
to Dr. Gill, forsaking all things for Christ

and the gospel, has nothing to do with grace.
"Godliness," saiih Paid, "is profitable unto
all things, hating promise of (he life that noiv
is, and of that which is to come:" there-
fore godliness is not grace, and has nothing
to do with it.

If I understand the scriptures, the cove-
nant of grace is, to every Christian, the grand
charter of all his privileges, both for time and
eternity. Whatever distinguishes his present
condition from that of the damned in hell
is of grace, and is secured to him by the co-
venant of grace. Precisely the same was
the covenant which God made with Abra-
ham. Those temporal blessings which Dr.
Gill enumerates, were secured by that co-
venant; and, beside these, the Lord promis-
ed to be " a God to Abraham and his seed*'*
Therefore, the declaration that temporal
blessings " can ha ve no place in the covenant
of grace, and have nothing to do with it," is
not only unfounded, but is in direct oppo-
sition to the word of God.

Leo. " 5. There were some persons inclu-
ded in it; who cannot be thought to belong
to the covenant of grace, as IshmaeJ and a
profane Esau; and there were some who
were left out of it, who, nevertheless, un-
doubtedly were in the covenant of grace, as
Shem, Arphaxad, Melchisedeck, Lot, and
others : wherefore this can never be the pure
covenant of grace."

Eug, And pray, what does this amount to ?
Because there are some hypocrites in the

Christian church, and some real Christians
who, for want of an opportunity, or from
some other cause, have never entered into
the visible church, does it thence follow that
the Christian church is not founded on the
covenant of grace ? This is indeed the re-
sult of Dr. G ill's argument. But when a
church is organized, it is not necessary that
every real Christian in the neighborhood
should be attached to it in order to make it
a true church. And if one or more hypo-
crites should happen to be included, that
would not destroy the character of the
church. What if the Lord, when he first
organized his church on the basis of the A-
brahamic covenant, was pleased to include
in it a persecuting Ishmael, and afterwards
a profane Esau; and what if Jesus Christ,
when he first called his twelve disciples, was
pleased to number a traitor, a devil, among
them : and afterwards under the ministry of
his apostles, to admit a sorcerer and other
hypocrites into his church, does that destroy
the covenant of grace ? — surely not. Con-
sequently, this objection has no force against
the Abrahamic covenant.

Leo. Dr. Gill's oth objection, you have
already answered in our preliminary discus-
sion ; but he observes, " 7. the covenant of
grace is made with Christ, &c. No mere
man is capable of covenanting with God, —
the covenant of grace is not made with any
single man, &c."

Eug. Here, then, you have what I told

you, that Dr. Gill, in order to destroy the
grace of the Abrahamic covenant excludes
the Christian church also from the covenant
of grace. He confounds the covenant of re-
demption, (which subsists between the per-
sons of the Trinity, in relation to human re-
demption,) and the covenant of grace, (which
subsists between God and all true believers,)
and excludes every individual of the human
family from the latter, by asserting that " no
mere man is capable of covenanting with
God, and that this covenant is never made
with any man." If this does not remove the
covenant of grace from the Christian, as
well as the Jewish church, and every other
community and individual of our race, I
know not what does. But how is this con-
sistent with the salvation of man, and the
declarations of scripture ?

LeL Why he says " Whenever we read of
it [the covenant of grace] as made with a
particular person or persons, it is always to
be understood of the manifestation and ap-
plication of it and its blessings and promises
to them."

Eug. And pray what does this differ from
the common understanding of Christians on
this subject? I am perfectly willing to adopt
those terms, if Dr. Gill prefers them, but
that does not destroy the grace of the A-
brahamic covenant. I have shewn that the
same " blessings and promises'' were "mani-
fested" and " applied" to Abraham and his
«eed that are " manifested" and " applied"

to the Christian church. Where then, on
Dr. Gill's own ground, is there any differ-
ence in the foundation or constitution of" the
two churches? I am ready to believe that
the Dr. himself began to perceive that there
was no difference, and that, after all his rea-
soning, he had brought himself back to the
very point from which he had started ; for,
if I recollect right, he sets out upon a dif-
ferent plan under his next argument, and tra-
vels over the same ground again.

Leb. He observes, " 8. Allowing Abra-
ham's covenant to be a peculiar one, and of
a mixed kind, containing promises of tem-
poral things to him and his natural seed, and
of spiritual things to his spiritual seed, or
rather that there was at the same time when
the covenant of circumcision was given to
Abraham and his natural seed, a fresh man-
ifestation of the covenant of grace made
with him and his spiritual seed in Christ — "

Eug. Yes, that is wThat I expected. Just
now the Abrahamic covenant was a mere na-
tional compact, having " nothing to do wilh
grace;" but now it has become "a mixed
kind," containing both temporal and spiri-
tual blessings;" and there was in it a fresh
manifestation of the covenant of grace." This
is quite a change of ground.

Leb. " That the temporal blessings of it
belonged to his natural seed, is no question."

Eug. Hold, that is a question, and a ve-
ry serious question too. — But go on.

Leb. " If the covenant of grace was made
6

with all Abraham's seed, according 1o Ihe
flesh, then it was made with his more imme-
diate offspring — with a mocking, persecu-
ting Ishmael, and with a profane Esau, and
with all his remote posterity ; with them who
believed not, whose carcases fell in the wil-
derness; with t lie ten tribes who revolted from
the pure worship of God ; with the Jews in
Isaiah's time, &c. with the scribes and pha-
risees, and that wicked and adulterous gene-
ration in the times of Christ: but what se-
rious, thoughtful man, who knows any thing
of the covenant of grace, can admit of this?'*
Evg. If "the temporal blessings of the
covenant belonged to Abraham's natural
seed," I wish to know whv Ishmael did not
enjoy the inheritance as well as Isaac? Why
was Esau excluded from the possession of
Canaan ? Why were the ten tribes after their
revolt, driven out of the land? Why are the
Jews now scattered to the four winds of hea-
ven ? If the Lord promised the possession of
Canaan and other temporal blessings to A-
braham's natural seed, without regard to spi-
ritual qualifications, why has he dene thus?
Has God broken his covenant ? He certain-
ly has, if the " temporal blessings belonged
to his natural seed," and nothing more were
necessary to entitle a man to those blessings,
than to be born of the seed of Abraham and
receive the rite of circumcision. The Jews
have to this day preserved themselves un-
mixed with other nations, and have maintain-
ed the rite of ciicumcision ; and yet they are

not enjoying the temporal, any more than the
spiritual blessings of the covenant.

Now although in Dr. Gill's opinion I should
forfeit my title to the character of a " seri-
ous, thoughtful man," and incur the charge
of not "knowing any thing of the covenant
of grace," I will venture to assert, that all
the wicked Israelites and Jews which he men-
tions, even the adulterous generation which
crucified our Lord, were once professedly in
the covenant of grace, just as hypocrites in
every age of the Christian church have pro-
fessed to be in that covenant. And it was
for their unbelief and hypocrisy, that the
Lord cut them off from both the temporal
and spiritual blessings of the covenant : and
this is the true reason why the land of Ca-
naan is possessed by strangers, and the seed
of Abraham are given up to blindness.

As to Dr. G ill's 91 h observation, it is a
mere repetition of what has been already an-
swered. But his 10th remark I will not pass
over in silence. He observes, " notwithstand-
ing all this pother made about Abraham's co-
venant, it was not made with him and his in-
fant seed, but with him and his adult offspring.
— It was not made with Abraham's infant
seed, who could not circumcise themselves,
but their parents were by this covenant obli-
ged to circumcise them, &c." This indeed
is a noble discovery, and if it really carried a-
ny force in it, why did not Dr. Gill make it
his first instead of his last argument ? It
would have saved him all the "pother" of

nine particulars. But the fact is, it has no
sort of bearing on the question. No person
supposes that the Jewish children when
brought for circumcision, or the children of
believers when presented for baptism, are
themselves contracting parties. Their pa-
rents alone are agents in this transaction;
but in both cases the infant seed are the sub-
jects of the transaction, and heirs of the pro-
mise. If the Lord had commanded Abra-
ham not to circumcise his offspring till they
arrived at adult years, then Dr. Gill might
with great propriety have exclaimed against
"all this pother." But when the fact is, that
the " token of the covenant" — " the seal of
the righteousness of his faith" was applied to
his infant seed eight days old, it shews incon-
testibly that the blessings of the covenant
were " manifested" in behalf of infants as
well as adults. Here then is the " sum to-
tal" of Dr. Gill's arguments against the A-
brahamic covenant. It stands precisely where
it did before ; his ten objections to the contra-
ry notwithstanding.

Lcb. But the " Jewish infants were not ad-
mitted into covenant by the rite of circum-
cision" for " they were in covenant from
their birth" — from whence it cannot be plea-
ded that the infants of believers are admitted
into it by baptism."

Kug. I do not pretend that the infants of
belie veis are admitted into the covenant by
baptism. I know that this ordinance is fre-
quently called the initiating ordinance : but

this T humbly conceive is an unhappy ex-
pression, and Calculated to convey very in-
correct ideas of the subject. It is indeed the
ordinance by which membership is recogni-
sed ; but a person must become a member
of any society, before he can receive the
badge or mark of membership. You mirk
your sheep, not to make them yours, but to
let the world know that they are yours. It
is a previous contract, or the circumstarce
of their being brought forth of your flock
that makes them yours. In like m --inner it
is the act of covenanting, or being born with-
in the pale of the covenant, that constitutes
membership in the fold of Christ. Hence,
the moment a person enters into covenant
with God, that moment he becomes a mem-
ber of the church and is to receive the token
or mark of membership. In the same in-
stant that his membership is constituted, his
children, in consequence of their relation to
him, are connected with the church ; and in
token of that, connexion are to receive the
seal of the covenant. And whenever a child
is born to a believing parent, the moment it
becomes a member of his family it becomes
connected with the church, and is to be re-
cognised as such, as soon as it may be done,
by receiving the appropriate seal or token of
the covenant.

And this is precisely the light in which
circumcision wag regarded under the former
dispensation. The Lord declares concern-
ing the uncircumcised child " he shall be cut
6*

off from his people, he hath broken my cov-
enant." How could he be cut off from his
people, if he had never belonged to them 7
And how could he be called a covenant
breaker, if he had never been embraced by
the covenant ? Some have supposed that the
pronoun he refers to the parent, but this is a
forced construction : there is no parent pre-
viously mentioned to which it can refer.*

In the view which has been taken of this
subject you may learn how to appreciate Dr.
Gill's assertion that " Circumcision was no
seal of the covenant of grace under the for-
mer dispensation, nor is baptism a seal of it
under the present," and that circumcision " is
called a sign or token, but not a seal, Sfc"
When such assertions are made not only with-
out evidence, but in direct opposition to
scripture declaration, I doubt not that all
who have respect for divine authority will
believe God rather than man.

* Some have contended that infants cannot be said to be " in
covenant," because a covenant is a mutual agreement between
parties ; and as infants are incapable of* making- such an agree-
ment, therefore ** God's act cannot bring them into covenant,"
or cause them " to belong to the visible church." But the term
covenant is used in the scriptures not only for an agreement be-
tween parties, but for a divine constitution. In this sense, I can
conceive of no difficulty or impropriety in saying that " infants
are in covenant." It was by a divine constitution which suspend-
ed the moral character of their posterity, on the obedience or
disobedience of our first parents, that all men are sinners. And
it is by a divine constitution, connected with the covenant of
grace, that the children of believers, are to become interested in
the privileges of that covenant It is in this sense that I use the
word when I speak of children as being- " in covenant" or " be-
longing to ihe church." They are connected with the church,
wot by any act of their own, but by virtue of their relation to
their parents.

Lcb. O Sir! we admit that it was the
covenant of grace which the Lord manifest-
ed to Abraham, and that circumcision was
to him a seal of the righteousness of faith,
but not to his seed. " For he was the only
believer in his family. God commanded that
all his males at eight days old. should be cir-
cumcised ; but what could it seal to them ?
or what does baptism seal to an infant? —
Surely nothing but a blank."

Eug. Pray tell me by what authority you
assert that circumcision was a seal of the
righteousness of faith, when applied to A-
braliam, and yet that it had no such mean-
ing when applied to his seed ? The bible
makes no such distinction. You say " he was
the only believer in his family." This is an
important confession on your part. He
was the only believer, and yet on account of
his faith, "the seal of the righteousness of
his faith" was applied to his whole house-
hold. This is precisely the ground on which
we rest the point. But you ask " What could
it seal to children eight days old ?" and with-
out waiting for an answer, you reply " sure-
ly nothing but a blank." Permit me to sug-
gest, that it becomes short-sighted creatureSj
like you and me, when speaking of the po-
sitive institutions of Heaven, to express
themselves with more deliberation, circum-
spection and humility. Though we may be
unable at first view fully to comprehend the
meaning of a divine rite, or U> reconcile it
with our pre-conceived opinions, yet it does

not follow from ibis, that that rife is a nuli-
ty. By your hasty decision you not only
make the circumcision of infants a seal to
a blank, but you declare the seal itself a nul-
ity ; and virtually accuse the omniscient Je-
hovah of instituting a useless and unmean-
ing ceremony. This must inevitably fol-
low, from what has been proven. I have
shewn, by incontestible evidence, that cir-
cumcision, instead of being a mere badge of
national descent, was a seal of the righteous-
ness of faith. This you have been constrain-
ed to admit, as far as it respected Abraham
himself. But, alarmed at the consequences
of tl is admission, you immediately declare,
that, with respect to his cfoildrefi, it could
seal nothing but a blank. If is true you are
driven to this by your own concession, but
that must be a hopeless resort, which obliges
a man to pronounce a divine institution a
mere nulity. Peimit me to answer your
question, and I will shew you that cinu inci-
sion is something more than a seal to a blank.
It implied precisely the same when applied
to Abraham's household, that it did when
applied to himself. It was in both cases, "a
seal of the righteousness of HIS faith." In
other words, it was a token of the covenant
which God had made with him, the gracious
promises of which he had been pleased to ex-
tend to his seed. It was a visible mark that he
was a believer, and that his seed were heirs
of the believer's promise. In the same light do
we regard infant baptism. You never heard

a Pcedobaptist affirm that the circumcision
or baptism of a child was a seal of its person
al faith ; but only a seal of the parents' faith,
and a token that the blessings of the cove-
nant, which subsists between God and the
parents, are, on certain conditions, to be ex*
tended to their seed.

Lcb. But this appears to me to make grace
hereditary. " That as sin is conveyed from
the parent to the child, so in God's gracious
establishment with Abraham and all his seed,
grace is in like manner communicated." —
This, I think, is plainly declared by some
writers on your side of the question. " The
love and obedience of the parents," says one,
"affects and forms the moral character of
the children ; so that their piety and obedi-
ence, by the promise, convey spiritual bles-
sings to their children." If, according to
these sentiments, the Abrahamic covenant
does not make grace to run in the blood, or
to descend by ordinary generation, I know
not what words can express it.

JEug. If the view I have given of the cov*
enant, or the quotation you have just made,
does express such a sentiment, then I ac-
knowledge I do not understand English. In
the Abrahamic, as in every other covenant,
certain conditions are proposed by the cove-
nantee, to be complied with by the covenan-
ter ; on the performance of which, the pro-
posed benefit is suspended. Hence God said
to Abraham, " Walk before me and be thou
perfect, and 1 will establish my covenant be-

tween me and thee and thy seed after thee
in their generations, for an everlasting cov-
enant; to be a God unto thee and thy seed
after thee." On condition of his fidelity,
the blessing was to descend to his children ;
and on condition of the fidelity of each suc-
ceeding generation, the blessing was to de-
scend from parents to children, for an ever-
lasting covenant. And now, permit me to
direct vour attention once more to Gen. xviii.
19. " For I know that he will command his
children and his household after him, and
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do
justice and judgment ; that the Lord may
bring upon Abraham, that which he hath
spoken of him/' Here, Abraham's fidelity
is distinctly recognised as the means of ren-
dering his children pious ; (for surely "to
keep the way of the Lord, and do justice
and judgment," implies as much as this ;) and
as the ground on which the blessing of the
covenant should be transmitted to posterity.
Besides this there are many positive declara-
tions and gracious promises in the word of
God, with respect to the children of believ-
ers, which, to say the least, present vast en-
couragement to parental fidelity. Take the
following as examples. " Because he loved
thy fathers, therefore lie chose their seed af-
ter them. — Thou shalt keep therefore his
statutes and his commandments, that it may
go well with thee, and with thy children af-
ter thee." Deut. iv. 37, 40. "Only the Lord
had delight in thy fathers to love them, and

he chose their seed after them ; even you, a-
bove all people as it is this clay." Deut. x,
15. " Observe and hear all these words
which I command thee, that it may go well
with thee, and with thy children after thee
for ever, when thou doest that which is good
and right, in the sight of the Lord thy God."
Deut. xii. 25. " Train up a child in the way
he should go, and when he is old, he will
not depart from it." Prov. xxii. 6. " And
they shall be my people, and I will be their
God; and I will give them one heart and
one way, that they may fear me for ever ;
for the good of them and of their children
after them." Jer. xxxii. 38, 39. " For he es-
tablished a testimony in Jacob, and appointed
a law in Israel, which he commanded our ja-
ihers, that they should make them known to
their children : That the generation to come
might know them, even the children which
should be born; who should arise and declare
them to their children : That they might set
their hope in God, and not forget the works
of God, but keep his commandments" PsaL
lxxviii. 5, 6, 7.

This is so far from representing grace as
"running in the blood," or " communicated
by ordinary generation," that it is suspen-
ding it on the condition of the covenant —
the promise of God to the fidelity of parents.
And this is what the writer whom you quo-
ted, expressly asserts. " The piety and obe-
dience of the parents does, by the promise,"
not by ordinary generation " convey spii itu-

al blessings to their children." You may
object to this mode of procedure, if you
please ; but remember, I am not your antago-
nist : it is with God that you must contend,
and to him you must answer it. As an ab-
solute Sovereign, he has an unquestionable
right to communicate the blessings of his
grace in his own way. And if he has been.
pleased, to transmit them ordinarily in a co-
venant way, from faithful parents to their
children, neither you, nor I, nor any other
person, has a right to inquire " Why doest
thou so? " And that he really does so, the
terms of the covenant, the promises of his
word, and the blessing which generally at-
tends, the diligent exe^ionsof faithful pa-
rents, plainly shew.

And although God acts as a Sovereign in
this case, and w7e may not be able to disco-
ver all his reasons for adopting this method
of communicating his grace, yet we can per-
ceive a striking analogy between this and a-
nother part of his holy administration. It
was by a covenant transaction which suspen-
ded the moral character of children on the
conduct of their parents, that the whole hu-
man race have been involved in ruin. This
was the first method whicli infinite wisdom
saw fit to adopt for the government of this
world. Now, I ask, does it not, at first
view, appear reasonable to suppose, that
when the Lord, in infinite mercy, began to
meditate the recovery of fallen man, he
would adopt a method, which should be, in

some respects, analogous to that by which
they were involved in ruin. In consequence
of the first covenant, which included all the
posterity of Adam, he could not consistent-
ly enter into a new covenant, by virtue of
which, grace should be communicated by
ordinary generation. But he could with
perfect consistency, by the covenant of grace
founded in the atonement of his Son, trans-
mit the blessings of his grace by promise from
faithful parents to their children. And this
is manifestly the import and design of the
Abrahamic covenant.

But there is another light in which I wish
to present this subject. The Lord governs
the moral, as well as the natural world by the
use of means. In this manner the moral
characters of his people are formed. In this
point of view, we discover a singular pro-
priety in the divine procedure in the case
before us. What stronger principle in hu-
man nature, than parental affection, could
have been made subservient to the cause of
religion ? AVhat so likely to secure the reli-
gious education of children, as the promise
of spiritual blessings for them, on the condi-
tion of the fidelity of their parents? And in
reference to this we may ask, why is man,
who is endowed with reason, and who is des-
tined to be lord of the creation, brought into
existence in a more helpless condition than
the meanest brute ? Why must he be nursed
and fostered with parental tenderness and
care for years, before he is capable of seek-
7

ing an independent livelihood ? That man
must he an infidel, who doe? not regard this
as the wise Constitution of Heaven, to give
the parent opportunity, to form the y«;ung
and tender mind to virtuous habits. And
it is a remarkable fact, that the prominent
traits of charaeter, and the leading maxims
of life, are usually formed under the hand
of parents, before their children have attain-
ed adult years. I do not mean to be under-
stood that 1 suppose children are usually
renewed before that time, (though this might
indeed be expected, if parents were in any
good degree faithful,) but, that their distin-
guishing characteristics are formed, and
those sentiments imbibed, which are usual-
ly sanctified to the salvation of their souls.
It is my deliberate opinion, that the proper
education and discipline of children from
infancy to the age of twelve or fourteen
years, does more towards forming their
character for life, than all the other means
of grace, if these are neglected. There-
fore, the Lord has so frequently enjoined
that duty, and encouraged its faithful per-
formance by the most gracious promises of
success.

Leb. But " if God did not engage abso-
lutely to save all Abraham's natural poster-
ity, but only such as trusted in, and obeyed
him ; this would place such as claim an in-
terest in the covenant of circumcision, ex-
actly upon a level with all others"

Eug. I am very willing to admit that the

promise in that case instead of being abso-
lute is conditional ; but this affords no
ground for your conclusion. For, the bles-
sing promised to the seed of believers, is
suspended, not immediately on their faith,
but on the fidelity of their parents ; which
is to be the means of their sanctification. —
This, therefore, instead of placing them
" exactly on a level with all others" highly
distinguishes their condition and affords pe-
culiar encouragement to expect their salva-
tion.

Leb. Still it appears to me, that if the
Lord had adopted the method you are ad-
vocating, we might generally expect that
the children of believers, as they grow up,
would become Christians. Instead of this,
we often find the Lord passing by those who
have been educated with the greatest care,
and calling in others who have been brought
up without any restraint or religious in-
struction. In fact, I have been in the hab-
it of supposing that I have no more reason
to expect my children will be saved, on ac-
count of any relation they bear to me, than
the children of the most abandoned among
my neighbours.

Eug. This objection would have great
weight, if it were founded in fact, and on
general principles; but there is its deficien-
cy. We might indeed expect to see the
Lord generally owning his covenant in the
sanctification of the children of believers,
provided their parents were faithful. It is

not by ordinary generation, as I have al-
ready shewn, that children become parta-
kers of the blessing, but by promise ; and
that promise is suspended on the fidelity of
the parents. In the present degenerate age,
we have not a fair experiment of the case.
Parents, even in the Paedobaptist churches,
are too unmindful of the covenant of the
Lord, and the high responsibility of their
station. That strictness of discipline and
the frequent and faithful instruction of chil-
dren, so frequently enjoined in the scrip-
ture as the means of their salvation, are now
most awfully neglected ; and we see the re-
sult of it, not only in the numerous instan-
ces of impiety and ungodliness which are pre-
sented among the children of professed be-
lievers, but also in the general complexion
of society. Is it not a fact that in this day,
parents in general, even those who profess
to be Christians, appear more solicitous to
lay up money for their children, than to se-
cure the salvation of their immortal souls ?
And do they not evidently labour tenfold
more for the former, than for the latter ob^
ject ? How many are there who call them-
selves the people of God, who go from sab-
bath to sabbath, if not longer, without say-
ing one word directly to their families on
the great concerns of salvation ! And can
you wonder that children trained in this
manner should grow up without becoming
pious? God has never promised to sanctify
them under such circumstances ; and if he

ever does, it will not be in a covenant way,
but in the exercise of the same sovereignty,
in which he sanctifies the children of irreli-
gious parents. And 1 have no doubt, he
frequently calls in such, not only for the
more conspicuous display of his sovereign-
ty, but to reprove his professed people and
shame them into obedience. And most a-
larming must be the condition of those who
take occasion from such instances to say,
that it is useless to educate children in a re-
ligious manner, with the hope or expecta-
tion of their being sanctified. They coun-
teract the gracious design of heaven, and
expose their children as well as themselves
to eternal perdition.

Moreover, even among the parents who
devote considerable time and care to the
religious education of their children, a very
erroneous method of instruction frequently
obtains. From an apprehension that little
children are incapable of understanding the
great doctrines of regeneration, repentance,
faith, &c. they begin by telling them they
must not lie, nor swear, nor break the sab-
bath, but speak the truth, &c. &c. and then
they will go to heaven. What is this, but
to teach them to depend on their own works,
for acceptance with God. And to this very
cause, I apprehend, is, in a great measure,
to be ascribed that violent opposition which
the doctrines of grace meet with, from some
of those who have received a religious edu-
cation. They have been familiar whh the
7*

scriptures, but have never become acquaint-
ed with the system of divine truth. They
have heard much about sin, but have never
learned the plague of their own hearts. — The
object, which such parents have in view, is
evidently laid too low. They seem to aim
more at making their children merely mor-
al, and so rendering them good members of
society ; than at making them pious, and
thus preparing them for the world of glory.
There is surely no difficulty in teaching
children, as soon as they can understand
their mother tongue, all the leading doc-
trines of divine revelation. Let the parent
remind them in an easy, familiar way, that
they do not love God, nor his sabbath, nor
his worship; that the subject of religion is
unpleasant to them; that heaven is a place
where there is no other entertainment than
the pure and holy worship of God ; and
where is the child of common sense, that
can understand language, but must feel that
he is a sinner, and in need of a change in
the temper of his mind ? I mention this
merely as an example. In a similar man-
ner, they may be taught all the distinguish-
ing doctrines of grace. To the want of at-
tention in this particular, or to some other
failure in duty, may be imputed, those
instances of impiety which occur, even in
the families of those who are considered
eminently pious. Parents who are faithful
in some important duties, frequently fail in
others, which are equally important in form-
ing the moral character of children..

But, after all, is it a fact, that instances of
hopeful conversion are as frequent among
those who have been brought up without, as
among those who have been favoured with,
religious instruction ? On this point 1 ap-
peal to your own knowledge and observa-
tion. Go even into your own church, and
do you not find a large majority who date
the first strivings of the Spirit with them, in
early life; and in many instances distinctly
refer to parental instruction as the means?
And if this is the case in the present age,
while there is so little fidelity among pa-
rents, how general might we not expect it
to be, if they were faithful to the souls com-
mitted to their charge ? Again, in some of
your churches you find a number who were
born of parents in our connexion, were
dedicated to God in their infancy and are
become hopefully pious. These you often
boast of, as signal trophies to your cause.
But if they prove any tiling, it is simply this,
that people may become real Christians, and
yet fall into error. The balance of testi-
mony is much against you. Instead of pro-
ring that God regards infant baptism with
that abhorrence that you do, it shews that
he owns his covenant, by sanctifving the
seed of his people in a covenant way.

With respect to the last idea you sug-
gested, I ask you solemnly, is it true that
you feel as though you had no more reason
to expect the salvation of your children, on
account of the relation they bear to yoi*5

than those of your irreligious neighbours?
As a Christian, you doubtless sometimes en-
joy seasons of peculiar communion with
God. You feel assured, or strongly per-
suaded of his favour. You come to his
throne of grace with great confidence and
raised expectations. By faith you hear him
ask you your requests; and see him stand-
ing ready to answer. Now I appeal to your
conscience and Christian experience, do you
at such a time feel as though you had no
peculiar encouragement to pray for, and ex-
pect the salvation of your children, rather
than others? I know Christian benevolence
requires you "to love your neighbour as
yourself," and therefore to desire the sal-
vation of others. But that same benevo-
lence requires you to be more solicitous
for both the temporal and eternal good of
your own children, than that of others ; not
because they are better, but because God
has committed them to your immediate
charge. Therefore I ask, do you not feel,
at such a time, peculiar encouragement to
pray for your own dear children, arising,
not merely from the frame of your mind,
but from their relation to you 1 Though you
may have no reason to believe that they are
really better than others, yet can you be-
lieve that God regards you as one of his be-
loved people, and not feel a kind of confi-
dence that, for the sake ol the favour which
he bears to you, he wi'l be propitious to
those whom he hath bound to you by so

many tender lies? However you may feel
on this point while engaged in cold specu-
lation, I know how you must feel when your
heart is warm and breathes the spirit of a-
doption. And I believe I know how you
have felt. You recollect what you told me,
last summer, after the death of your little
daughter of ten years of age ; how different
your feelings were on that occasion, and on
the death of your son, of the same age,
whom you lost several years ago. I think
you informed me that in the latter case,
your conscience was awfully harrowed up
under a sense of your past unfaithfulness —
that you had never instructed the child into
the things of religion, nor offered up one
fervent prayer for his salvation. And these
reflections, if my memory serves me, were
the first effectual means of your own awa-
kening. But you said when the Lord laid
your little daughter on a sick and dying
bed, you felt a peculiar satisfaction in be-
ing able to go to the throne of grace and
commend her soul to that God who had ex-
ercised sovereign mercy towards you : and
that when she was taken away, you enjoyed
great consolation in the reflection that, thor
imperfectly, you had, in some good degree,,
instructed her in the way of salvation, and
had often borne her on your heart at the
throne of mercy. And although you did
not then acknowledge that on that ground
you entertained a hope of her salvation, yet
I now ask you, was there not some linger*

ing of soul on this very point? Did you not
feel some kind of confidence or hope to
which you were an utter stranger when
your son departed life? — I am willing to
spare you the pain of an answer ; but I
must and do believe, that however you and
your brethren, in the day of prosperity,
may be disposed to revile, what we call
God's gracious covenant on behalf of the
seed of believers, you yourselves do rest
down on that very ground when your chil-
dren are removed by death.

Leb. But sir, this view of the subject I
think is "calculated to do essential damage
to the souls of men ; because you tell your
children that they are brought into cove-
nant, that the seal of the covenant is upon
them — that baptism seals and signifies their
ingrafting into Christ — that they are dedica-
ted to God in baptism, and in that sense are
bis children, included in the covenant God
made with Abraham and his seed — that they
are in the circle of those, out of whom God
has promised, at least chiefly, to select num-
bers to perpetuate his church, and there-
fore that they are more likely to be con-
verted than others; and that those children
who are unbaptized are left to the uncove-
nanted mercies of God." This appears to
me peculiarly calculated to make children
rest down contented without a change of
heart, " depending on what had been done
to them by their parents in infancy, for sal-
vation. It is greatly to be feared that many
are deceived in this way."

Eug. That this view of the covenant has
been thus perverted in some cases, is very
possible. And what institution or doctrine
has not been pervei ted by ignorant or cor-
rupt men? But is this circumstance to be
made the standard of truth and error? If
so, then you must reject not only infant
membership, but the whole of divine reve-
lation. It lias often been objected to the
doctrines of divine sovereignty and the per-
severance of the saints, that they are calcu-
lated to make men secure in sin ; and you
well know that many have thus perverted
these sacred truths. But does it follow from
these facts, that these doctrines are not
true ? " God forbid ! yea, let God be true,
but every man a liar." The same answer
applies with equal propriety to your ob-
jection. For if the doctrines of grace are
thus perverted by some, it is not strange
that the covenant of grace should share the
same fate, in similar hands. But that this
perversion necessarily follows from the ac-
knowledgement of the covenant in the view
which I have given, I shall not admit. Sup-
pose I tell my children, " You are brought
into covenant with God — the seal of that
covenant is upon you, and the Lord claims
you as his, in a peculiar sense, because you
are the children of his professed followers ;
you are " near the kingdom of God ;" you
enjoy special privileges, and on that account
I have more reason to hope for your salva-
tion than that of those who are destitute of

these privileges. But notwithstanding all
this, you are by nature, "children of wrath
even as others." Your being born of Chris-
tian parents, although it affords you distin-
guished advantages, does not secure your
eternal salvation, without personal holiness.
You are possessed of wicked hearts, which
must be sanctified by divine grace, or you
must go down to hell ; and if you do perish,
you will sink in the lake of perdition, far
below those children who have been brought
up by ungodly parents — your condemna-
tion will be aggravated, just in proportion to
the superior privileges which you have abu-
sed. Therefore I intreat you to repent and
voluntarily dedicate yourselves to God."
Now Lebbeus, would you call this " an af-
front to common sense ?" Would you say
your punishment was greater than you could
bear, if you were required to reconcile these
things with sound reason or the word of
God ?" Or, is there any thing in such an ad-
dress, that is calculated to make children
easy in sin, trusting their salvation upon
what their parents did for them in infancy ?
No ! my friend ; human nature, although
greatly debased by sin, is not yet reduced
to the level of the brutes. You must be
sensible that when our Saviour told the
scribe, " thou art not far from the kingdom
of God," this afforded him no just ground
on which to rest a single moment. Indivi-
duals as well as communities may be exalt-
ed to heaven, and yet sink to the lowest re-

gions of hell. I may tell my congregation^
that they are near the kingdom of God,
compared with those who are destitute of
the privileges which they enjoy ; and that
those who attend regularly and devoutly on
the means of grace, are more likely to be
converted, than those [who habitually neg-
lect divine institutions : not because their
hearts are any better, but because it is the
ordinance of heaven that " faith" ordinarily
"cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." But does this afford just
reason for them to rest at ease in sin, and
give themselves no concern about a change
of heart ; especially when it is added, that
the misimprovement of these distinguished
privileges will greatly aggravate their con-
demnation ? That man must be destitute of
common sense who would form such a con-
clusion. Equally preposterous would it
be in the former case. Yea, I believe you
will readily admit, that nothing could be
better calculated to arouse the attention of
children to the concerns of their souls, than
the sentiments I have suggested. And if
such addresses were frequently and affec-
tionately urged upon children by their pa-
rents and the churches, we should soon reap
the blessed fruits of their fidelity.

Leb. I acknowledge that the subject ap-
pears in a light in which I never contem-
plated it before. But sir, I wish to hear
your other arguments in favour of the same-
ness of the church.

SECTION III.

Eiigenius. My 2nd argument is, that the
same principles of holiness and obedience,
were required of the Jewish, that are re-
quired of the Christian church.

Leb. This we readily admit. " God re-
quires all the subjects of his moral govern-
ment, whether in heaven, earth or hell, to be
holy." This argument, therefore, proves
nothing to your purpose, unless you can
make it appear, that these principles of ho-
liness and obedience were made the terms
of admission, or condition of a standing in
that community.

Eug. This is precisely what I calculate to
do ; and just what I think I did accomplish
in my discourses yesterday. And I be-
lieve, if you had heard me then, with the
candour which you now profess, you would
have received full conviction of the truth
of my position.

Leb. I acknowledge you made it appear
very evident, that the Lord did require ho-
liness in order to a standing in that church ;
but this, I conceive, was nothing more than
typical holiness. For I have often heard
our ministers say, " w7e are no where taught
in the word of God, that moral holiness was
necessary to membership in the Jewish
church, or indispensible to fill the highest
office in the kingdom of Israel." The fact
is " the Jewish church was" merely " tyjri-

cal. A degree of similarity always exists
between the type and antitype." But " al-
though there was some shade of likeness be-
tween the Jewish and Christian churches, still
the Christian church, set up by the coming
and ministry of Christ and his apostles, wa9
entirely new and distinct."

Eug. That there were many things typi»
cal under that dispensation, yea, that their
modes and forms of worship were in a great
measure so, no person will deny. But that
all the holiness which the Lord required in
order to a standing in that church, was noth-
ing more than typical holiness, though it has
been often asserted, has not a shadow of evi-
dence to support it; but like many other
of your assertions, it is in direct opposition
to the word of God. You might just as
safely say, that the men and women who
composed that community, were not real
men and women, but were types and shad-
ows of those who should live under the gos-
pel dispensation.

But suppose I should admit, for argument
sake, that the Jewish church was merely a
type of the Christian church ; the land of
Canaan a type of heaven ; in short, that
there was no reality in any thing of a re-
ligious nature under that dispensation ; that
it was all a commonwealth of types : — You
have just admitted that " some degree of
similarity always exists between the type
and antitype — some shade of likeness be-
tween the Jewish and Christian churches:"

Now I ask you, where is there any thing i»
the Baptist church, to answer to the type of
infant-membership in the Jewish church?
Such a distinguishing feature in the type,,
must be expected to have a corresponding
feature in the antitype. But where is there
" a shade of likeness" — the least " degree of
similarity ?" I defy Argus himself to dis-
cover the resemblance. And yet the Jewish
church was a mere type of the Christian ;
and a deformed type too, it seems. It had
one enormous excressence, to which there
is nothing correspondent in the antitype ;
that is, provided the Baptist church is the
true Gospel church.* Again, admit that the
moral character, which your people usually
ascribe to the ancient church is correct, that
they were generally a base, corrupt and idol-
atrous people ; are you willing to apply
this part of the type to the antitype ? Does
this exhibit " a similarity — a shade of like-

* I am sensible that the Baptists apply this feature of their
type to the succession of the church. They say, the children
in the Jewish church were typical of the new converts, who,
from time to time, should be added under the Christian dispen-
sation. But this does not remove the deformity of their type.
These converts are the children of the church as a collective bo-
dy, and are begotten by the instrumentality of gospel ministers :
but the Jewish children were children of the members in their
individual capacity ; and the children of private members no
less than those of the priests, were regarded as the children of
the covenant ; and there were at least ten times as many of the
former as of the latter. Again, Christian converts, among the
Baptists are no sooner born than they are made adult members
of the church ; not an hour is to be lost in getting them under
water : but the Jewish children were for years in a state of mi-
nority, in which they were trained up for the Lord's service.
Therefore I still affirm that there is no resemblance between the
type and antitype, if the Baptist church be that antitype.

ness" to the holiness of the Baptist church f
Without any disparagement to your com-
munion, (for there are seasons of declen-
sion and instances of apostacy in all chur-
ches,) I will venture to say, that the task of
pointing out a resemblance in this particu-
lar, would be infinitely less burdensome
than in the former case.

But to return to the point in hand. I am
to prove, that real holiness was requisite to
a standing in the Jewish church. And in
order to this, I shall, briefly review the A-
brahamic covenant, in its original institu-
tion, and subsequent renewals ; from which
it will appear that all the adult persons in-
cluded in it, are recognised as visible saints ;
and the sanctification of their seed, as a con-
sequence resulting from God's love to them,
and his blessing on their faithful labours.
But before I proceed, permit me to remind
you, that the question is not, whether they
were all really holy ? for this has probably
never been true of any church under hea-
ven. Even in the days of primitive Chris-
tianity there were tares among the wheat.
Nor is the question, whether there were-
more hypocrites under the former, than un-
der the present dispensation ? This may be
true, and yet the point at issue remain unde-
termined. The question is simply this,
whether real holiness was requisite to enti-
tle a man to the blessings of that covenant,
and consequently whether a profession of
this was required by the Lord in order to &
standing in that church?

When the Lord chose Abraham and cal-
led him in Ur of the Chaldees, it is recor-
ded concerning him, that " the Lord found
his hcartfaithful before him, and he made a
covenant with him ?' in which he promised
" to bless him and his posterity." Compare
Gen. xii. 1, 3. and Neh. ix. 7, 8. Here A-
braham's holiness of heart is distinctly re-
cognised, as the reason of God's conferring
this distinguished honour and privilege upon
him and his seed. In confirmation of this?
the Lord thus addresses him on the renewal
of that covenant ; " Fear not Abraham ; I
am thy shield and exceeding great reward."
And it is added " he believed in the Lord,
and he counted it to him for righteousness."
Gen. xv. 1, 6. Upon which the Apostle de-
clares " he was called the friend of God."
Jam. ii. 23. And again, when the Lord ap-
peared to Abraham for the purpose of" es-
tablishing" the covenant, and appointing a
visible seal by which its existence should
be known, he thus addresses him; " I am
the almighty god : walk before me and be
thou perfect : — And I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed
after thee, in their generations, for an ever-
lasting covenant, to be a god unto thee
and to thy seed after thee. Gen. xvii. 1, 7.
Here also, Abraham's holiness is dictinctly
recognised, as the occasion of God's enter-
ing into covenant with him and promising
to bless his seed. And again the Lord says-
" Shall I hide from Abraham that which 1 do%

, 91

seeing that Abraham shall surely become a
great and mighty nation, and all the nations
of the earth shall be blessed in him. Fori
know that he will command his children and
household after him, and they shall keep the
way of the Lord to do justice and judgment,
that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that
which he hath spoken of him." Gen. xviii.
17, 19. This passage presents to view the
five following sentiments which are decisive
on this subject, viz. 1. Abraham was pos-
sessed of real holiness. 2. The possession
of this holiness, was the occasion of God's
treating him with so great kindness and fa-
miliarity. 3. His fidelity to his children, was
the appointed means of rendering them holy
like himself; and because the Lord knew
that he would be faithful, therefore, he had
extended the promise to his seed. 4. Unless
they became personally holy it was impos-
sible for God to fulfil the promises which
he had made to Abraham. And 5. The foun-
dation of the whole scheme, or the meri-
torious ground on which these blessings
were promised to Abraham and his children,
was " the seed," in whom " all the nations
of the earth are to be blessed." Hence it
is evident that the covenant made with A-
braham required absolute holiness, without
which not one of its blessings could be enr
joyed in a covenant way.

The same truths are exhibited in the re-
newal of that covenant with Isaac and Ja-
cob. The Lord said unto Isaac, " I will be

with thee and I will bless thee, &c. And I
will perform the oath which I swear unto
Abraham thy father, &c. Because that A-
braham obeyed my voice and kept my charge,
my commandments, my statutes, and my
laws/' Gen. xxvi. 3 — 5. Again, " I am the
God of Abraham thy father ; fear not for I
am with thee, and will bless thee, and mul-
tiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's
sake." Ver. 24. The same covenant that
was made with Abraham and his seed, is
iiow renewed with Isaac and his seed, he
having become personally holy. The
same remark applies to the case of Jacob,
" And the Lord said, I am the Lord God of
Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac,
&c. Behold I am with thee and will keep
thee, &c. for I will not leave thee, until I
have done that which I have spoken to thee
of." Gen. xxviii. 13—15.

In all these instances, the same covenant,
containing the same blessings both temporal
and spiritual, is ratified to the seed of the be-
liever as they grow up ; they are recogni-
sed as holy, and the promise of the covenant,
in their turn, is extei ded to their children,
who are to be sanctified through the instru-
mentality of their parents' labours. Every
new generation that enjoys the blessings,
adds consequence to the covenant ; in tes-
timony of which, the Lord adds the name
to the style, by which he reveals himself to
the church. At first he calls himself " The
God of Abraham ;" then, " The God of A-
braham and of Isaac ." and then, " The

God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and
the God of Jacob. This" he declares " is

MY NAME FOR EVER, AND THIS IS MY ME-
MORIAL UNTO ALL GENERATIONS." Exo. ill.
6, 15, 16.

This leads me to notice the solemn re-
newal of that covenant with Moses, in be-
half of the children of Israel in Egypt. —
" And God spake unto Moses and said unto
him, I am the Lord ; and I appeared unto
Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by
the name of God almighty, but by my name
JEHOVAH, was I not known to them.
And I have also established my covenant
with them to give them the land of Canaan*
&c. And I have remembered my covenant.
Wherefore say unto the children of Israel,
I am the Lord and / will take you to me for
a people, and I will be to you a God, and ye
shall know that I am the Lord your God —
And I will bring you in unto the land, &c."
Exo. vi. 2 — 8. Herein the Lord declares, that
he had established with them, the same co-
venant which he had made wilh Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. And if he had not de-
clared it in plain words, the sameness of the
promises would prove the identity of the
covenant. The first is " / will take you to
me for a people, and I will be to you a God fy
and the other is u to bring them into the
land of promise." With respect to the for-
mer, you may asseit as before that it means
nothing more than to be in a peculiar sense
their " temporal King and Governor.'' As-

sertions are easily made, but the proof is
what is wanted. I have asserted that " it
comprises all the blessings which creatures
can desire, or God bestow/' and in proof of
thi s, I have shewn you that the same, and no
other promise comprises all the blessings
which God bestows on the Christian church
and the church triumphant. All that you
can reply is, " to them that can believe it,
let them believe it." Besides this, there are
hundreds of texts in which the Lord expres-
ses the relation between hirn and Israel, by
the same terms; the same by which he ex-
presses his relation to the Christian church.
The only answer you can give to this is, that
they were a very wicked people, and as a na-
tion had no real holiness ; hence you infer
that God could not be their God, nor they,
his people, in the same sense, as the Chris-
tian church. I have presented you with
several arguments and facts to prove that
the moral character of that nation, even in
the worst of times, was not near so bad as
you represent: and J have shewn you that
if there is any force in your argument on
that point, it would operate with the same
propriety against calling the Christian church
" the people of God," because there are un-
worthy members in its bosom. But still
you say "It can't be so." Suppose, then
we admit what you seem so anxious to have
conceded : that the nation of Israel was a
very base and wicked people ; that as a com-
munity they neither possessed nor professed

any real holiness; and consequently that
the Lord, in promising to be " their God,"
and to take them for his people, "meant no-
thing more than that he would have them
under his special care, and be " their king
and temporal governor."

Leb. Well sir, admit this, and it is all we
ask.

Eug. I do, for the sake of the argument;
but, for the honour of my God, I should
tremble to admit it in any other light, for
in what point of view does it represent the
character of the holy Sovereign of the uni-
verse ? He takes a people under his pecu-
liar care — becomes their king — fosters them
with paternal kindness — bears them on ea-
gles' wings — keeps them in the hollow of
his hand — preserves them as the apple of his
eye — destroys the nations that oppose them
— puts them in possession of a pleasant and
fruitful land — loads them with his favours :
thus he deals with them for the space of two
thousand years; and yet during this whole
time, they are neither really nor professedly
better than the very nations which he de-
stroyed before them : yea, the very holiness
which they professed, and the only holiness
which his covenant with them required, con-
sisted in acts of the grossest hypocrisy. —
And is this the Holy One of Israel ? Such
indeed is the character which your system
ascribes to him. "O my soul, come not thou
into their secret : unto their asssembly, mine
honour he not thou united'*

And after all we may inquire " Why doth
lie yet find fault, for who halh resisted his
will?" If the Lord's covenant with Israel
required nothing more than typical holiness,
why does he charge them with hypocrisy in
the performance of their covenant duties;
and condemn them because their hearts were
not engaged in the service ? " They did flat-
ter him with their mouths; and they lied unto
him with their tongues. For their heart was
not right with him : neither were they steadfast
in his covenant." Psal. Ixxviii. 36, 37. Why
does he charge them with having " broken
his covenant/' by admitting the " nncircum-
cised in heart" as well as injlesh" into his
sanctuary, and forbid them to do so in fu-
ture ? Ezek. xliv. 7 — 9. Why does he de-
mand of the wicked, " WThat hast thou to do
to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst
take my covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou
hatest instruction, and castest my words be-
hind thee." Psal. 1. 1 6, 1 7. " To what purpose
is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?
I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and
the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in
the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-
goats ? When ye come to appear before
me, who hath required this at .your hands,
to tread my courts? Bring no more vain ob-
lations : incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of
assemblies, I cannot away with: it is iniqui-
ty, even the solemn meeting. Your new
moons, and your appointed feasts, my soul

hateth; they are a trouble unto me: I am
weary to bear them." Isa. i. 11 — 14. In none
of these cases does he charge them with o-
mitting any of the external rites which he
had instituted. Nay, he acknowledges that
their offerings were " continually before
him." Why then does he find fault if typi-
cal holiness were all that his covenant re-
quired ?

Let). Oh! he found fault with them be-
cause they did not yield obedience to that
law, which is " obligatory on all the sub-
jects of his moral government, whether in
heaven, earth or hell ;" and to which they
were under peculiar obligations, resulting
from their superior advantages.

Eug. That does not remove the difficul-
ty. The question is, why did he censure
them for performing their ceremonial wor-
ship without conformity to the moral law, if
the performance of that worship did not re-
quire real holiness of heart? If, in the in-
stitution of these rites, the Lord required
nothing but typical holiness, he was bound
to give them credit on that score, when they
observed them with due solemnity ; though,
in another point of view, he might have re-
primanded them for their want of real holi-
ness. But, instead of this, he condemns
them for offering their sacrifices and incense,
calling their assemblies, attending their so-
lemn meetings, and taking his covenant in
their mouth, without a holy heart; and on
that account he pronounces it all " iniquity,

and an abomination in his sight." And hence
he commands them, "Wash ye, make you
clean, &c." Not typical washing, for in this
they had not been deficient; but the same
as when he commands them by another pro-
phet, " O Jerusalem, wash thine heart jrom
wickedness, that thou may est be saved" Jer.
iv. 14. And again, " Make you a new heart
and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house
of Israel." Compare Jsa. i. 16 — 20, and Eze-
kiel, xviil 29—32.

Again, if nothing but typical holiness
were required by God's covenant, why did
John the Baptist and our Saviour charge the
scribes and pharisees with hypocrisy, and
condemn them for the same ? They were
rigid observers of the ceremonial Jaw, and
even went beyond it: and if they could not
claim a reward for their works of supereroga-
tion, they were certainly entitled to full
credit for their typical holiness. And yet
our Saviour addresses them just as the pro-
phets had addressed their fathers; condemns
them as most egregious hypocrites, and as-
sures them that " they shall not escape the
damnation of hell."

Leb. He condemns them for their injus-
tice and wickedness, while they professed
to be just and righteous.

Eug. Very true : they professed to be
" the people of God," and yet their religion
consisted solely in ceremonial observances,
or your typical holiness. This is the precise
point of the argument.

Leb. But Christ had come to change the
dispensation, and set up his church, in view
of which John said to them, " Think not to
say within yourselves, we have Abraham to
our father, &c. And now also the axe is laid
unto the root of the trees, &c." Mat. iii.9, ]0.

JEvg. And pray, what does this differ from
the declarations of the ancient prophets? —
The Lord had always assured them that their
being born of pious parents would not secure
to them the blessings of the covenant with-
out personal holiness; that disobedience
would cut them off from the enjoyment of
the promises which he had made to Abra-
ham. Hence, whenever a general defec-
tion took place, he cast them out of the
land, or chastised them with judgments, till
" their uncircumcised hearts were humbled."
The advent of the Messiah was a time of
the most general apostacy that had ever
been known in Judea ; and it was the season
of God's judgments upon the unbelieving
part of that nation. He had borne long
with them, but when they had rejected the
hope of Israel, and crucified tfie Lord of
glory, their cup was filled, and they were
cast out of his sight. Here is not the least
intimation of a change in the constUulion of
the church, but only the execution of judg-
ment on the impenitent, in perfect accord-
ance with the ancient threatening which he
had delivered unto them. Read the xxvi/A
chapter of Leviticus, and you will find that
they were to be cast out of the land for their

100

transgressions; but still "the covenant of
their fathers'* was to remain inviolate, and
in due time to he fulfilled. "And yet for
all that, when they he in the land of their
enemies, I will not cast them away; neither
will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly
and to break my covenant with them, for I
am the Lord thy God. But I will for their
sakes remember the covenant of their an-
cestors, whom I brought forth out of the
land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen,
that 1 might be their God: I am the Lord.'*
If there were no express prophecies direct-
ly to the point, this declaration, taken in
connexion with the preservation of the Jews
as a separate people in their dispersion, is
sufficient evidence that they are to be resto-
red to the land of Canaan, and that even the
temporal blessings of the covenant of Abra-
ham are to be enjoyed by his seed to the end
of time.

Permit me now to resume my argument.
In the third month after the emancipation of
Israel from Egypt, they were brought into
the wilderness of Sinai. While encamped
before the mount, Moses ascended, and the
Lord gave him this message to deliver to
the children of Israel. " Now, therefore,
if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep
my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar trea-
sure unto me above all people : all the earth
is mine. And ye shall be unto me a king-
dom of priests, and a holy nation" When
this communication was made to the elders

101

and congregation of Israel, " All the peo-
ple answered together and said, All that
the Lord hath spoken, we will do" Exo. xix.
5 — 8. Can any Baptist church present an ex-
ample of a more solemn act of covenanting
with God ? And can any man have the ef-
frontery to assert that the people promised
nothing but a shadow of holiness? and even
that God himself required nothing more of
them, in order to regard them as his peculiar
people, a kingdom of priests, and a holy w«-
tion ? Then he may with the same proprie-
ty, I mean impropriety, assert that St. Peter
intends nothing more when he applies the
same terms to the Christian church. " Ye
are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a peculiar people ." 1 Pet. ii. 9.
But ah ! here is the difference : this latter
passage happens to be in the New Testament,
and "theOid one is all done &f?ay." How
strange that your ministers should ever
preach out of the Old Testament ! And
when they do, I am sure their sermons ought
to be mere types of gospel sermons ! !

.But suppose we take a passage out of the
Old Testament : " And the Lord spake un-
to Moses, saying, speak unto the congrega-
tion of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall
be holy, for I the Lord thy God am holy?' —
Lev. xix. 1. Does the great Jehovah ap-
pear here clad in garments of typical holi-
ness, as a sample of the holiness which Is-
rael was to possess? So it would seem, if

nothing but typical holiness were required^
9*

102

Leo. O no ! you forget the distinction
which I have already made. We acknow-
ledge that the Lord required absolute holi-
ness of them, just as he does of all the sub-
jects of his moral government, whether in
heaven, earth or hell ; but that he required
only typical holiness in a covenant way. In
such passages as the last you mentioned, we
acknowledge that absolute holiness is de-
manded ; but it was on the ground of the
universal obligation of his law.

Eug. This is indeed a precious distinction
for your system. Il is what I recollect when
I was a child, we used to call " a whip row."
It serves a most excellent purpose. When
a text requiring holiness is mentioned, your
first endeavour is to shew that it means no-
thing more than typical holiness. But when
one is presented which sets that gloss at de-
fiance, you immediately resort to the other
expedient, admit that it is real holiness, but
deny that it is required by virtue of the cov-
enant. And thus, like a pendulum, you are
constantly oscillating between the law and
the covenant — between realnnti typical holi-
ness. This is a just representation of the
conduct of your denomination in managing
the whole controversy. But you will ob-
serve, Lebbeus, that your doctrine of typi-
cal holiness not only destroys the moral cha-
racter of God, as I have already shewn, but
it is absolutely inconsistent with the univer-
sal obligation of the moral law, and reduces
the ceremonial law to the exact level of a-po-

103

pish indulgence. The moral law, you ac-
knowledge, is universal; its obligations ex-
tending to all the conduct of " all the sub-
jects of the divine government, whether in
heaven, earth or hell-" If so, then accord-
ing to your doctrine of typical holiness, the
Lord, instead of requiring more of Israel,
by enjoining the ceremonial economy, actu-
ally required less. If he had not given that
law, they would have been obliged to ren-
der absolute holiness in every act of their
lives. But, by virtue of that law, which re-
quired mere typical holiness, he dispensed
with the moral law, or absolute holiness, in
all those acts which were ceremonial. These
they were permitted to perform with unho-
ly hearts, and were even promised a rich
reward for their unhallowed services. Ac-
cording to this, the Lord required more of
the heathen, yea, of the devils in hell, than
he demanded of the Jewish nation. Of the
former he requires constant and absolute ho-
liness ; but of the latter he required this, on-
ly when they were not engaged in religious
duties. When they performed an act which
had no immediate connexion with religion,
and, therefore, was not cognizable by the
ceremonial law, they were bound, in com-
mon with " all other subjects of the divine
government, whether in heaven, earth or
hell," to exercise real holiness. But the mo-
ment they entered into the sanctuary, or ap-
proached the altar of the Lord, they were
released from that obligation, and were obli-

104

ged to render mere typical holiness, which
they could do with unholy hearts, and then
claim a reward for their unrighteousness. —
To say that the Israelites were bound by
the covenant to yield nothing more than
typical holiness in their religious services,
and yet that in the same acts, absolute holi-
ness was required by the law, does not al-
ter the case, for it leads to the same result.
That the law is the foundation of all moral
obligation is as true in one age, under one
dispensation, and in one part of Jehovah's
dominions as another. To suppose there-
fore that the Lord ever made a covenant
with any of his creatures, and promised them
a reward, even of temporal blessings, on
condition of any thing short of the require-
ments of his law, is to set him up as a rewar-
der of iniquity. This is an inevitable con-
sequence resulting from your favourite doc-
trine. With these views of the subject, it
is not strange that your people should con-
sider " many things in the Jewish ritual as
pretty well adapted to please the carnally-
minded ;" for all carnal men would be pleas-
ed with a law which dispenses with absolute
holiness, and requires nothing more than
what they can perform with wicked hearts.
When I am made to believe, that the God
of Israel required this, and even promised a
rich reward for such services, that moment
I shall cease to worship him.

But to return. You will observe, that
the children of Israel had just covenanted

1G5

in the mast solemn manner " to do all that
the Lord had spoken." He had not called
upon them to make a new covenant, hut to
ratify the old one. "If ye will obey my
voice indeed, and keep rny covenant, &c."
This covenant had from its first institution,
as has been shewn, required real holiness,
and recognised all who were embraced
within its sacred enclosure as professedly
holy ; and all the rites which had been or-
dained on that foundation, were considered
as outward expressions of real holiness. As
the time had now arrived, when the Lord
was about to establish a complete and per-
manent mode of worship, we discover a sin-
gular propriety in their being called upoa
in a solemn manner to renew that covenant,
Here then is the ground of all the statutes
which were delivered from Mount Sinai,
Many of those precepts were indeed typi-
cal— others of a civil or political nature, and
many others strictly moral ; but all these
equally regarded the mode of expressing
that holiness, which Israel had previously
covenanted to exercise. Hence we might
as well infer, that, because a man without
holiness of heart, can now profess religion,
be baptized, partake of the Lord's supper,
attend public worship, read and pray, and
perform the external part of all Christian
duties, therefore real holiness is not neces-
sary to a standing in the Christian church;
as to deduce this inference from the like pre-
mises, in reference to the Jewish church. The

106

logic would be equal!) unsound in both cases.
As a further confitntation ol these views,
when the Lord first addressed the congre-
gation of Israel from Mount Sinai, the first
precepts which he delivered, was the moral
law, in the form of the ten commandments.
This he laid down as the ha^is of all the re-
quirements which were afterwards deliver-
ed. And this, as well all the other statutes,
the people promised to obey. " And all
the people saw the thunderings, &c. and they
said to Moses, speak thou with us and we
will hear; but let not God speak with us
lest we die." Exo. xx. 18, 19. And when, in
condescension to their request, the Lord
had delivered all his statutes to his servant,
"Moses came and told the people all the
words of the Lord, and all the judgments ;
and all the people answered with one voice
and said, All the words which the Lord halh
said, trill we do. And Moses wrote all the
words of the Lord, and rose up early in the
morning, and budded an altar under the hill,
and twelve pillars, according to the twelve
tribes of Israel. And he sent young men
of the children of Israel, which offered burnt
offerings arid sacrificed peace offerings of
oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half
of the blood, and put it in basons, and half of
the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And
he took the book of the covenant, and read in
the audience of the people : and they said,
All that the Lord hath said, will we do, and
be obedient. And Moses took the bloody

107

and sprinkled it on the people and said, Be-
hold the blood of the covenant, which the L rd
hath made with yon, concerning all these
words." Exo. xxiv. 3 — 8. And now, Lebbe-
us, is all this a solemn farce, in which the God
of Israel bore so conspicuous a part ? For
immediately after this, M Moses and Aaron,
Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders
of Israel, went up and they saw the God of
Israel : and there was under his feet as it
were a paved work of a sapphire-stone, and
as it were the body of heaven in his clear-
ness." Ver. 9, 10. Did the Israelites, in
all this solemn act of covenanting, make
a mental reservation with respect to the
moral law ? And was God so well pleased
with their hypocrisy and falsehood (for they
had previously promised to keep those com-
mandments) that he condescended to mani-
fest himself to them in all his glory ? — Leb-
beus, the bare inquiry makes me tremble.
What then must that system be, which
makes the impious inquiry needful ? Or did
the moral law itself require nothing more,
under that dispensation, than typical holi-
ness? (Was their sabbath amon^ other things
a mere type of a Baptist sabbath ?) No ! Our
Saviour declared the import of the moral
law. " Hear, O Israel, The Lord our G*>d
is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thu heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy wind, and with all thy
strength. And thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself" But perhaps, he gave this as a

108

new interpretation of the ten command-
ments, peculiar to gospel times. No ! It is
the same which the Lord had previously de-
livered to Israel, and Christ quotes the
words, precisely from the law of Moses.
Comp. Mar. xii. 29, 31. Deut. vi. 4, 5. and
Lev. xix. 18.*

Passing over a vast deal of testimony to
the same effect, permit me now to direct
your attention, to the book of Deuterono-
my. This book consists of a recapitulation
of sundry precepts, which Moses made to
Israel in the last month of his life, accom-
panied with such exhortations, promises and
threatenings,as the Lord directed him to give
to the people at his decease. Let me re-
quest you, Lebbeus, to sit down at your lei-
sure, and read it, as well as the whole of the
Old Testament with serious and candid at-
tention; and I believe you will be amply-
repaid for your labour. But I cannot for-
bear, at the present moment, to introduce
some portions of this book. In the first
place, let us read the 5th and 6th Chapters.
[The reader is requested to turn to these chap-
ters and read them attentively before he pro-
ceeds any further.^ Here Moses assembles

* It is worthy of remark, that the same method of communi-
cating divine grace from generation to generation, which was
established in the original covenant, is distinctly recognized in
the decalogue. "Fori the Lord thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the
third and fourth generation of them that hate me ; and shewing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my com-
mandments." That is, " unto thousands of generations of them
that love him." Hence he is said to have " commanded his cov-
enant" and " to keep it to a thousand generations." Deut. vii. 9.
1 Chron. xvi. 15. Psal. cv. 8—10.

109

all Israel, and bids them hear the statutes
and judgments of the Lord. He reminds
them of the solemn covenant which they had
made with the Lord in Horeb. A covenant,
different from that which he had previously
made with their fathers, in these two res-
pects, as to the manner, and as to thejorm.
The Lord spake to them face to face, out
of the midst of the fire, and in the form of
the ten commandments. The object of the
allusion, was evidently, to make them feel
their superior obligations to obedience, re-
sulting from the vast increase of light which
they then enjoyed. Moses then rehearses the
ten commandments, and reminds them of
the tenor of which they were the subjects
when they beheld the awful displays of di-
vine Majesty, and of their solemn engage-
ment " to hear and do" all that the Lord
should say. He then adds, " Ye shall ob-
serve to do, therefore, as the Lord your God
hath commanded you: you shall not turn a-
side to the right hand or to the left. You shall
walk in all the ways which the Lord your
God hath commanded you, that ye may live,
and that it may be well with you, and that
ye may prolong your days in the land which
ye shall possess." He then proceeds to ex-
plain the import of the divine requirements,
the amount of which is " to love the Lord
their God with all their heart" — prescribes
the means of perpetuating the blessings of
the covenant, viz. by teaching their children
the commandments of the Lord diligently,

familiarly and constantly — cautions them a-
gainst being led astray, by the idolatrous
examples of tie surrounding nations, remin-
ding them that " the Lord their God is a jeal-
ous God," and then again enjoin?, as a sub-
ject of the first importance, the faithful in-
struction of their children, in order that the
blessings of the covenant might descend,
according to divine constitution, to their
posterity. Now, where is the man who has
the presumption to assert, that " to walk in
all the ways of the Lord their God, without
turning aside to the right hand or to the
left — to observe all his commandments and
statutes and judgments — to fear the Lord
their God — to love him with all their heart,
soul, mind and strength — to serve him and
swear by his name — to teach the same dili-
gently to their children, going out and com-
ing in, lying down and rising up, and that
this should be their righteousness," means
nothing more than typical holiness] Here,
Lebbeus, is no room for your convenient dis-
tinction between law and covenant. For Mo-
^es declares at the outset, that these duties
result from the covenant of Horeb, and they
are enjoined, and obedience required no less
than six times in these two chapters, as the
express condition of their continuing to en-
joy the land of promise.

Lei. But the land of Canaan was only a
type of heaven.

Eug. Very true; and in this light no doubt
the Lord intended they should regard it. —

Ill

And therefore, we see the reason why he re-
quired real holiness that they might not
only enjoy his blessing on earth, but what
is infinitely more desirable, his favour in
heaven. Hence this idea instead of inval-
idating, confirms my argument. — The same
sentiments sanctioned by the same promi-
ses and threatenings, run through this book.
To quote them all would be to repeat the
whole book. I must therefore renew my re-
quest that you will read it, without delay,
with devout attention, and with your eye to
this subject. But, before I proceed further,
I must direct you to three notable institu-
tions, recorded in this book ; by which the
Lord designed to perpetuate religion in Is-
rael.

The first is, that " their kino; should write
a copy of this law in a book, out of that
which is before the priests, the Levites, and
keep it by him, and read therein all the days
of his life ; that he might learn to fear the
Lord his God, to keep all the words of this
law and these statutes to do them; that he
might prolong his days in his kingdom, and
transmit the same blessings to his children."
Fid. Deut. xvii. 18—20.

The second is, that when they passed over
Jordan, "they should set up in Mount Ebal
great stones, and phtister them with plaister,
and write upon them, very plainly, all the
words of this law, and erect an altar there,
that all the people, when they came to wor-
ship before God, might see for themselves,

112

what the Lord required at their hands."—
Vid. chap, xxvii. 1 — 10.

The third, and if possible, the most re-
markable of all was, " that at the end of ev-
ery seven years, in the solemnity of the
year of release, in the feast of tabernacles
when all Israel was assembled before the
Lord their God, this law was to be read in
the hearing of all the people, men, women
and children, and the stranger within their
gates; that they might hear, and that they
might learn, and fear the Lord their God,
and observe to do all the words of this law :
and that their children, which had not known,
wight hear and learn to fear the Lord their
God, and continue to enjoy the blessings of
the covenant." Vid. chapter xxxi. 9 — 13.
Here an opportunity was presented, once
in seven years, for a solemn renewal of
covenant with those, who had previously
taken it upon them ; and for the reception
of their children, as they arrived at adult
years.* In reference to such a solemn
scene, well might Moses say, " This day,
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, to
do these statutes and judgments : thou shalt

* The Jewish rabbins say, that at the age of twelve or thirteen
years, their children were obliged to perform all the duties of
adult members, and were then denominated " sons of the com-
mandment,'* having been previously distinguished as " the chil-
dren of the covenant." These obligations were evidently impli-
ed in the offer of a personal sacrifice, but they were distinctly
expressed in this septennial act of covenanting. And this prac-
tice appears to be plainly recognised by the sacred Evangelist,
where he observes, that when our Saviour was tivelve years old,
bis parents took him up to Jerusalem " after the cugtom of the
feait"

113

therefore keep and do them, with all thine heart
and with all thy soul. Thou ha*t avouch-
ed the Lord, this day, to be thy God ; and
to walk in his ways, and to keep his statutes
and his commandments, and his judgments,
and to hearken unto his voice. And the Lord

HATH AVOUCHED THEE, THIS DAY, TO BE HIS

peculiar people, as he hath promised thee ;
and that thou shouldst keep all his command-
ments, and to make thee high, above all na-
tions, which he hath made, in praise, and in
name, and in honour, and that thou ma vest

BE A HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD THY GoD,

as he hath spoken.'9 Deut. xxvi. 16 — 19.

If a more solemn mode of covenanting is
practised — if more comprehensive vows are
required — if more powerful means are used
— if more gracious promises are enjoyed, at
the present day, in any portion of the church
of God, for the preservation and promotion
of " pure and undefiled religion," I know
not where to look for them : sure I am, they
are not to be found in the Baptist church.

I will now direct your attention, to that
solemn renewal of covenant, which Joshua
caused the children of Israel to make, just
before his death. As the event approach-
ed, that good man, after the example of Mo-
ses, assembled all Israel together in She-
chem. And after reminding them of all the
wonders which God had wrought for them,
and exhorting them " to keep and to do all
that Moses had commanded without turning
aside to the right hand or to the left/' re-
10*

114

minding them that " to love the Lord their
God" was the amount of the whole ; he call-
ed upon them to renew their covenant. —
And in the very commencement of this so-
lemn transaction, he tells them plainly, that
it is not mere outside religion, or a shadow
of holiness, which they are to profess, but
the religion of the heart. " Now, therefore,
fear the Lord, and!, serve him in sincerity and
in truth, &c." And upon their promising
to do so, he declares to them, in the most
explicit terms, that they cannot serve God
acceptably, with impenitent and wicked
hearts. " Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he
is a holy God ; he is a jealous God, &c." —
And the people answered, " The Lord our
God will we serve, and his voice will we obey"
So Joshua made a covenant with the peo-
ple, and wrote it in the book of the law, and
took a great stone and set it up as a witness
to the people. These solemn duties, like
all the rest which we have noticed, were en-
joined as the condition of their enjoying the
blessings of the covenant. " And Israel
served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and
all the days of the elders, that outlived
Joshua." Vid. Josh, xxiii. and xxiv.

Time would fail me, to take particular
notice of similar transactions, which took
place in the days of Samuel, and David, and
Solomon, and Elijah, and Hezekiah, and
Josiah, and other pious prophets and kings.
Examine these instances for yourself, and
you will find that all the judgments which

115

God inflicted upon his ancient people, were
brought upon them for their violation of
that covenant, which God made with their
fathers, and renewed with so much solemni-
ty; and that, whenever they renewed cove-
nant, they promised the same absolute holi-
ness, which their fathers professed ; — " ta
walk after the Lord, and to keep his com-
mandments, and his testimonies, and his sta-
tutes, with all their heart and all their soul,
to perform the words of this covenant, thai
were written in this book." 2 Kings, xxiii. 3..

The book of Psalms abounds with evi-
dence to the same point. Let me request youi
to read the Ixxviii//* Psalm, with particular
attention. Jt contains a summary of Goil's
dealing with Israel, and affords the most ex-
plicit testimony that absolute holiness was re-
quired by the covenant, and was to be trans-*
mitted in a covenant way. " For he establish-
ed a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law
in Israel,wh'ch he commanded our J others, that
they should make than known to their children;
that the generation to come might know them,
even the children which should be born, ?vho
should arise and declare them to their chil-
dren ; that they might set their hope in God,
and not forget the works of God, but keep his
commandments." Of those who were over-
thrown, it is declared that " they kept not
the covenant of God and refused to walk in
his law" — that they were guilty of hypocri-
sy in taking this covenant on their tongues,
because " their hearts were not right with

116

him :" and the anger of the Lord was kin-
dled against them " because they believed not
in God and trusted not in his salvation"

Now, Lebbeus, in view of all this evi-
dence, for me to assert that God's covenant
with Israel required nothing more than typ-
ical holiness, would be, as much worse than
common falsehood, as to give the lie to (lie
God of truth. As much as I value my
own personal ease, I would rather lose my
right hand, than be guilty of the assertion.

Lei), But pray tell me, Eugenius, is there
any evidence that faith and repentance were
required as a condition of that covenant?

Eug. If I have established the point that
real holiness was requited by the covenant,
then this follows of course ; for there is on-
ly one way for sinners to become holy, and
that is by repentance toward God and faith
in Christ. But I have no inclination to rest
the matter here. Positive testimony may
be adduced, directly to the point.

The prominent feature, and the founda-
tion of the whole covenant, as you have
seen, was the promise of a Saviour. " And
in thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed. And Abraham believed in the
Lord, and it was counted to him for righ-
teousness." He not only believed that he
should have a son, who through his fidelity
should be the heir of the promise, and in-
herit immortal glory ; but he believed, that
he should have another seed, "in ivhom all
nations shoidd be blessed" This promise

117

was the foundation of all his hopes both for
himself and his posterity. Hence, our Lord
declares, " Abraham rejoiced to see my day;
and he saw it, and was glad." Joh. viii. 56.
And Si. Paul says, " God preached the gos-
pel to Abraham, say i nor, (n thee shall all na-
tions be blessed.'" Gal. iii. 3. The same
covenant, with the same promise more fully
explained, I have already shewn, was re-
newed to Isaac and to Jacob. Hence, the
repeated declaration of Jehovah to Israel,
"I am the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob — this is my
name for ever and this is my memorial un-
to all generations." Exo. iii. 6, 15, 16. —
And hence also, he calls the covenant that
subsisted between him and Israel, " the cov-
enant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." —
Exo. ii. 24. Lev. xxvi. 42. We are assu-
red by our Saviour, that Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob are in the kingdom of God. —
They never possessed the land of promise;
they were only sojourners there ; but by
faith in Christ, they have gone to enjoy the
heavenly inheritance. But did the Lord,
when he renewed this covenant with Moses
and the children of Israel, strike out the
fundamental promise, or excuse them from
the exercise of faith in it? I know your peo-
ple endeavour to make it out, that the pos-
session of Canaan, was the summit of their
expectations: but we know, it was far oth-
erwise. Even after they were established
in the promised land, this promise of the

118

covenant was cherished with undiminished
fervour; and the same intense desire to see
its accomplishment, universally prevailed.
And tiiis was the principal reason, why bar-
renness was considered, by the Israelites,
especially the female part, as a dreadful
curse. Will your candour then permit you
to believe, that a man would have been tol-
erated in that community who denied the
hope of Israel 1 Would he not have been
considered worse than a heathen or publi-
can ? — With such ardent desire was that
promise cherished, even in seasons of the
greatest apostacy, that when John the Bap-
tist proclaimed the near approach of its ful-
filment, the whole nation was in a ferment:
and their impatience was so great, that they
seemed unwilling to wait a moment, but
were ready to storm heaven itself and bring
the Messiah down by force. Yid. Mat. xi. 12.
Again, what was the meaning of "the blood
of the covenant" of which we read so much,
and which was sprinkled on the people ? —
What was the object of all the victims, whose
blood was shed, and whose flesh was daily
offered in sacrifice to God ? Did not these
point, with singular significance, to " the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of
the world?" What was the import of their
sin-offerings, which were accompanied with
humble confession of sin ? Was not the
death of the victim an acknowledgement of
their desert of punishment, and that without
the shedding of blood, there could be no

119

remission? Or, if all these things were in-
tended by them, yet, did the Lord excuse
the people from understanding their import?
Suppose there were some, and at times
many, who did not understand and rightly
perform religious rites, did this destroy their
design or annul the divine requirements? —
But if ceremonial observances did not re-
quire faith, how will you dispose of express
precepts? Read Deut. x and xi chapters.
Here again, they are required "to fear the
Lord their God, to walk in all his ways —
to love and serve him with all the heart and
soul — to keep all his commandments and
statutes — to circumcise the foreskin of their
heart — to lay up the divine precepts in their
hearts and souls, and to teach them to their
children, and to choose between the bles-
sing and the curse," and all this, on express
condition of inheriting the blessings of the
covenant. But do these precepts require
neither repentance, nor faith, nor a holy
heart? Turn to the xxix and xxx chapters
of the same book and read the last address
of the servant of God to his people. There
after once more recapitulating the wonders
which God had wrought for them, he assem-
bles the whole congregation, "the captains
of the tribes and elders of the people, all
the men of Israel, with their wives and little
ones, and the stranger within the camp, from
the hewer of wood to the drawer of water."
And for what? " That thou shovldsl enter in-
to covenant with the Lord thy God> and into

120

his oath, which the Lord thy God mdketh
with thee this day : That he may establish
thee to-day for a people unto himself akd

THAT HE MAY BE UNTO THEE A GOD US he

haih said unto thee, and as he hath sworn un-
to thy fathers, to Abraham to Isaac and to
Jacob" And thus, alter solemnly renew-
ing covenant, the Lord once more gracious-
ly promised "to circumcise their hearts and
the heart of their seed to love the Lord their
God, with all their heart and with all their
soul," that they might live and enjoy the
blessings of the covenant. And as an en-
couragement to obedience and faithfulness,
he declares that what he requires " is not
hidden from them, nor far off, but the word
is nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy
heart, that thou mayest do it." These words
St. Paul quotes and declares, that they have
respect to the righteousness of faith. Com-
pare Deut. xxx. 11 — 14. and Rom. x. 5 — 9.
And this also, the Lord required of them,
as a condition of the covenant.

This truth is, not only frequently impli-
ed, but plainly asserted, in the apostolic
writings. In the xi. of Romans, Paul de-
clares that the Jews " were broken off because
of unbelief" I shall have occasion to call
your attention to this chapter, in a subse-
quent part of the discussion; I shall there-
fore only remark here, that they were bro-
ken off from that, into which the Gentiles
are grafted. That this was not the Chris-
tian church, is evident from the fact, that the

321

unbelieving Jews never had a standing in
that cnurch. They were broken off from
their own olive tree, of which they were na-
tural branches. And if they were " broken
off, because of unbelief " it is evident that
faith was requisite to a standing in that
church.— Again, St. Paul declares, that the
Israelites "did all eat the same spiritual
meat, and did all drink the same spiritual
drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock
that followed them and that rock was Christ."
1 Cor. x. 3, 4. This was their profession,
though many of them were insincere ; and
therefore he overthrew them in the wilder-
ness, " because they believed not in God, and
trusted not in his salvation" Hence the a-
postle asserts that "they tempted Christ,"
and from their example, he warns the Chris-
tian church against the same sin.

In writing to the Hebrews he recurs to
the same facts, and asserts, that it was "to
those that believed not" that " the Lord s?vare,
they should not enter into his rest;" and that
" they entered not in9 because of unbelief" —
At the same time he informs us, what was the
nature of this unbelief: viz. unbelief of the
gospel " For unto us was the gospel preach-
ed as well as unto them, but the word preach-
ed did not profit them, not being mixed with
faith in them that heard it." And in his whole
treatment of this subject, he evidently re-
gards the rest which was promised them, as
the same which is held forth to the Christian
church ; and imputes their failure of inheri-
Jl

122

ting the promise, to the want of faith. —
And finally, that faith in Christ was requi-
red and professed under that dispensation,
is evident from what the apostle says of Mo-
ses, in the xi//i chapter of this Epistle : " By
faith Moses, when he came to years, refu-
sed to be called the son of Pharaoh's daugh-
ter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with
the people of God, than to enjoy the plea-
sures of sin for a season ; esteeming the re-
proach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures in Egypt." How could Moses,
in suffering affliction with Israel, be said to
suffer with " the people of God?" and to en-
dure " the reproach of Christ ," if they were
not, by profession, "the people of Gody" and
" believers in Christ /"

It would be easy to multiply testimony
to this point, but it is needless. " If you will
not believe Moses and the prophets," nor
Christ and his apostles, " neither will you be
persuaded though one rose from the dead."

Lei). But there is no evidence, that the
Israelites were required to profess these
things, in order to enter into the church. —
On the contrary, as I have already observ-
ed, they were born into the church, and
grew up members of it, without making
any personal profession.

Eug. And I have already observed, that
they were born into the church, in the same
sense, in which the children of believers are
now7 born into the church. But it is abund-
antly evident, that they were not consider-

123

ed, n<5 personally entitled to the blessings of
the covenant, until they had, by some act
of their own, taken the obligations of that
covenant upon themselves. To atford them
such an opportunity, the Lord commanded,
that the covenant should be publicly re-
newed every seventh year, as has been al-
ready shewn, for the express purpose of
having their children enter into its bonds.
And not only at that time, but whenever a
young Israelite came forward to the altar
of the Lord, to offer a personal sacrifice,
this act, was justly considered, as a profes-
sion of his faith, and an acknowledgment
of God's covenant. And in this light, the
Lord regarded it; for he speaks of such, as
having " made a covenant with him by sa-
crifice/' And that real holiness was requi-
red in that act, is evident from the declara-
tion " Unto the wicked God saith, what hast
thou to do to declare my statutes, or that
thou shouldst take my covenant in thy mouth,
&c." Psalm 1. 5—16.

Eeb. But the constitution of the Jewish,
was "totally different" from that of the
gospel church; as it had a direct tendency
to blend saints and sinners, without contain-
ing in itself the means of separating the
morally clean, from the unclean."

Eug. Then the Lord was, indeed, a very
" hard master," when he censured the priests
for putting "wo difference between the holy
and profane — the clean and the unclean" —
Ezek. xxiu 26. He required them to do

124

this, and yet, if your assertion is true, he
had furnished them with no means for doing
it. The constitution which he had given
them, "had a direct tendency to blend saints
and sinners" and yet he censures them,fornot
separating them. This is surely worse than
to require " bricks without straw." But is
it a fact that the original constitution of the
church "contained no means of separating
the morally clean from the unclean?" No ! It
furnished as effectual provision for the main^
tenance of discipline, as there is under the
present dispensation* The same duties of
morality, benevolence and piety were requi-
red, and the same sins were forbidden. And
when any one transgressed, he was required
to bring a sin offering to the altar, to make
confession of his sin and seek pardon at the
Land of the Lord. But the obstinate and
incorrigible offender was condemned to be
" cut off'' from God's people. You may
assert, that this had respect solely to cere-
monial transgressions; but I trust you have
learned, that assertions pass for nothing in
this controversy; especially when the Lord
has declared that, "the soul that doeih aught
presumptuously shall be cut off from among
his people" Even sabbath-breaking and ma-
ny other transgressions were capitally pun-
ished. Yid. Exo. xxi, xxii, and xxiii. Lev.
xix, and xx. Num. xv. Jf only one of these
precepts, were put in force against some
churches, of the present day, which make
great pretentions to "gospel purity," I sus-

125

pect very few of their members would es-
cape the sentence of being " stoned to
death." It is evident, that nothing was want-
ing under the former dispensation, to pre-
serve the purity, and promote the spiritual
interests of the church, but a disposition in
the priests and elders to administer the laws,
which God had given them. To the neglect
of this, and not to any defect in the consti-
tution of the church, are to be imputed all
the irregularities, which were then tolerated.
But for this, Israel would have continued to
enjoy the inheritance of their fathers. The
same negfect has been the occasion of great
dishonour to the Christian church. But in
neither case, does- it prove, that they were
not the visible church of God.

Leb. But their repentance was expres-
sed by ceremonial observances.

Eitg. Very true ; but it has been already
shewn, that in performing these, the Lord
required holiness of heart. And what puts
this beyond all dispute, is the fact, that the
Lord promised forgiveness to those who had
transgressed, when they offered their sin of-
ferings and made an humble confession of
their sin. This promise related not only to
ceremonial, but also to moral offences ; as
you will learn by inspecting the chapters to
which I last referred. But will any one
suppose, that the Lord promised pardon,
under that dispensation, on condition of any
thing short of true repentance and faith?
If so, then the ceremonial law, instead of
11*

126

being "a yoke of bondage," must hare bees
infinitely lighter than the gospel require-
ments; and wicked men, with impenitent
hearts, might then have claimed not only
temporal blessings, but even pardon and e-
ternal life at the hand of God. But no!
The Lord cannot forgive a single sin, ex-
cept through the atonement of his Son; and
to none but such as are penitent for sin, and
trust in that atonement. Hence it is evident
that the Jews were required to be sincere in
their confession of sin and truly penitent be-
fore God, and to trust in the merits of the
promised Messiah, (of which their sin-offer-
ings were an external expression,) in order
to obtain forgiveness, and enjoy the blessings
of the covenant.

SECTION IV.

Evgenius. A 3d argument in favour of
the sameness of the church, is derived, from
the application of the same, figures, to ex-
press I he relation, between God and the
church under both dispensations.

The Lord not only called the Jews, in
hundreds of instances, " his people," and
himself " their god ;" but he expressed his
union to them, by the same tern er and en-
dearing appellations, which he applies to the
Christian church. The marriage covenant
is one of the most striking and appropriate
figures to express this relation* and this is
applied equally to both.

127

He says,

To the Jewish church,
" For thy Maker is thy hus-
band ; the Lord of hosts is his
name, and thy Redeemer the
Holy One of Israel." Isa. liv. 5.

" Turn, O backsliding- chil-
dren, saith the Lord, for I am
married unto you. Jer. iii. 14.
My covenant they brake, al-
though I was an husband unto
them, saith the Lord." Chap.
xxxi. 32

" As the bridegroom rej iceth
over the bride, so shall thy God
rejoice over thee." Isa. lxii. 5.

" I remember thee, the kind-
ness of thy youth, the love of
thine espousals, 8cc Israel was
holiness unto the Lord." Isa.
ii. 2, 3.

H Thou hast played the harlot
with many lovers. — And I saw,
when for all the causes, where-
by backsliding- Israel commit-
ted adultery, 1 had put her a-
way, and given her a bill of di-
vorce ; yet her treacherous sis-
ter Judah feared not, but went
and played the harlot also. —
Surely, as a wife treacherously
departeth from her husband,
so have ye dealt treacherously
with me." Jer. iii. 1 — 8.

And when the Lord had re-
jected the ten tribes for their
idolatry, he declares,

" She is not my wife, neither
am 1 her. husband." Hos. ii. 2.

To the Christian church,
" For the husband is the head
of the wife, even as Christ is
the head of the church, and
he is the Saviour of the body.*'
Eph. v. 23.

" Fori am jealous over you,
with a Godly jealousy, for I
have espoused you to one hus-
band, that I may present you
as a chaste virgin to Christ." 2
Cor. xi. 2.

" Come hither, I will shew thee
the bride, the Lamb's wife. —
and I saw the holy city — prepa-
red as a br<de, adorned for her
husband." Rev. xxi. 9, 2.

" Nevertheless, I have some-
what against thee, because thou
hast left thy first love." Rev.
ii. 4.

'* But I have a few things a-
gainst thee, because thou hast
there them f.hat hold the doc-
trine of Balaam, who taught
Balak to cast a stumbling block
before the children of Israel,
to eat things sacrificed unto
idols, and to commit fornica-
tion. R-v. ii 14. — Thou suffer-
est thai woman Jezebel to se-
duce my servants to commit
fornication, &c." Ver. 20—22.

Vid. also the description of
the corrupt Roman church. —
Rev. xvii. and recollect, that
both in the Old and New Tes-
tament, idolatry is called forni-
cation or adultery.

But when be predicts the final restoration
of the Jews, and the calling of the gentiles
he says — "It shall be at that day, saith the
Lord, that thou shalt call me Tshi, (i. e. my
husband.) And I will betroth thee unto me>

123

forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me,
in righteousness, and in judgment and in lo-
ving kindness, and in mercies. 1 will even
betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and
thou shalt know the Lord. And I will say
unto them which are not wy people, Thott
art my people, and they shail say Thou
akt my God." Hos. ii. 16 — 23.

Thus when the Jews are gathered in with
the fulness of the Gentiles, then both will
stand in the same relation to God ; and that
relation will be the same which subsisted be-
tween God and the ancient church. He
will be "their husband," and they "his
wife." He will be « their God,'* and they
" his people. "

The union between Christ and his people
is also expressed by the relation between a
shepherd and his flock ; and this is applied
to the church under both dispensations.

" Give ear, O shepherd of Is-
rael, chou that leadest Joseph
as a flock." Psal. lxxx. 1.

«* We thy people and the sheep
of thy pasture, lxxix. 13. The
Lord is my shepherd, I shall
not want; he make th me to lie
down in green pas.ures," &c.
xxiii. 1. He made his people to
go forth like sheep." lvii. 52.

" He is our God3 and we are
the people of his pasture, and
the sheep of his hand." xcv. 7.

" All we like sheep have gone
astray — and the Lord hath laid
on him the iniquity of us all."
Isa. liii. 6.

"I am the good shepherd and
know my sheep, and am known

of mi

Joh x. 14.

" Take heed, therefore, to all
the flock over the which the
Hoi) Ghost hath made you o-
veiseers ; to fVed the church of
God, &c. For I know that af-
ter my departure, grievous
wolves shall enter in, not spa-
ring- the flock " Acts xx. 28.

" Fear not, little flock, for it
is your father's good pleasure
to give you the kingdom."
Luke. xii. 32.

" For we were as sheep going
astray, but are now returned
unto the shepherd and bishop
of your souls." 2 Pet. ii. 25.

129

Concerning both Christ says "I lay down
my life for the sheep. And other sheep 1
have, which are not of this fold, them also
I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,
and there shall be one fold and one shep-
herd.,r Joh. x. 15, 16.

The figure of a vine and vineyard is ap-
plied to the church under both dispensa-
tions.

" My well beloved hath a tfine- u For the kingdom of heaven

yard in a very fruitful hill, &c. is like unto a man that is a

The vineyard of the Lord of house-holder, which went out

hosts, is the house of Israel, early in the morning", to hire

and the men of Judah his labourers into his vineyard,

pleasant plant " Is. v. 1— 7. &c." Mat. xx. 1—16.

"Thou hast brought a vine " I am the true vine, and my

out of Egypt, thou hast cast Father is the husbandman, &c.

out the heathen and planted it, lam the vine,,ye are the bran-

&c." Psal. lxxx. 8—15. ches, &c." Joh: xv. 1—6.

" There was a certain house-holder which
planted a vineyard, &c. and let it out to
husbandmen, and went into a far country. —
When the Lord therefore of the vineyard
cometh, he will miserably destroy those
wicked men, and will let out his vineyard
unto other husbandmen, which shall render
him the fruits in their seasons. Therefore
say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall
be taken from you and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof." Mat. xxh
33—43.

The Lord Jesus Christ is also called the
Rock of the church, under both dispensa-
tions ; and that, both as the foundation on
which she is built, and as a place of refuge
in time of trouble.

130

*' Fie is the Rock, his work is " Therefore, whosoever hear-

perfect, &c. Deutxxxii.2. Then eth these sayings of mine, and

he forsook God which made him doeth them, I will liken him

and lightly esteemed the Rock unto a wise man, which built his

of his salvation. Ver. 15. The house upon a rock, &c. Mat.

God of Israel said, the Rock of vii. 24. Upon this rock I will

Israel spake, &c." 2Sam.xxiii. build my church, &c." Mat.

3. xvi. 18.

" Enter into the rock and hide " To whom coming as unto a

thee, &c." Isa. ii. 10. living stone, &c. chosen of God

and precious." 1 Pet. ii. 4.

" Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Be-
hold I lav in Zion, for a foundation, a stone,
a tried ataae, a piecious corner stone, a sure
foundation, he that believeih, shall not make
haste.*' Comp. Isa. xxviii. 16. and 1 Pet. ii. 6.
"And are built, upon the foundation of the a-
postles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone." Eph. ii. 20*

Other metaphors might be cited from the
holy scriptures, and many more examples of
those already adduced, might have been
presented, but these are sufficient to enforce
the argument. I shall therefore conclude
this branch of the subject by remarking, that
the word " church" is appropriated to the
common wealth of Israel, as well as to the
Christian household. Some of your "learn-
ed authors" have affected to consider this
fact, as having no weight in this controver-
sy ; merely because, the same word, in the
original, is applied to the tumultuous as-
sembly, convened at Ephesus, in conse-
quence of the uproar made bv the craftsmen
of that city. Acts xix. 32—41. This ex-
ception, they consider, as destroying the

131

whole force of the argument. That a sin-
gle exception to the application of a word,
destroys, what you cull, an "explicit war-
rant," I am willing to admit ; and ail lask
is that you will continue of the same opin-
ion, in a Subsequent part of the controversy.
But I do not adduce this word as " explicit
warrant;" I present it as an argument, in
common with many others which have been
urged. And you will be able to judge, for
yourself, how much consequence ought to
be attached to it, when you are informed of
the derivation and import of the word
"church."

The original term, is compounded of two
Greek words, which simply mean, " called
out or from ;" and this phrase, is singularly
expressive of the idea, which it is designed to
convey. When the Lord entered into cov-
enant with Abraham, he " called him out" —
bid him " depart out of his country and
from hiskindred and from his father'shouse."
And for what ? — To form a " peculiar peo-
ple to the Lord of hosts." Hence, his pos-
terity were styled " a holy and peculiar peo-
ple— a peculiar treasure and a kingdom of
priests — chosen ones.79 Exo. xix. 6. Deut.
xiv. 2. xxvi. 18, 19. 1 Chron. xvi. 13. And
hence also the Christian church is called "a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood a holy
nation, a peculiar people that they should shew
forth the praises of him, who hath called
them out oj darkness, into his marvellous
light, SCc." 1 Pet. ii. 9, 10. It is evident,

132

therefore, that the word "church" is appli-
ed in its strictest and most appropriate
sense, to the commonwealth of Israel as
well as to the community of Christians ; be-
cause each in their place, have been by
profession " the people of God," separated
from the rest of the world. Therefore St.
Peter, after applying to believing Gentiles,
the abovementioned terms, (which had
been previously applied to Israel,) adds,
" Who in time past were not a people ; but
are now the people of God ; which had not
obtained mercy, but now have obtained
mercy."

From all this it appears, that the Lord
Jesus Christ was the GOD of Israel, in the
same sense, in which he is the GOD of the
Christian church — that he is the husband of
both — the shepherd of both — the foundation
of both ; and that they are his people — his
bride or wife — his Jiock — his vineyard — his
CHURCH. That these words have an in-
finitely different meaning, when applied to
the two communities, may be asserted, but
it has never been proved; nor will any man
of unprejudiced mind believe the assertion.
From these facts it is evident, that, in God's
estimation, the church has been the same,
in every age.

I now proceed to a 5th argument in sup-
port of the sameness of the Jewish and
Christian church, which is founded on the
nature and design of the special ordinances
of the two dispensations.

153

That there is a unity of nature and de-
sign in the passover and the Lord's supper,
I believe, your denomination are not in the
habit of disputing. Though the former was
instituted in commemoration of a great tem-
poral deliverance, yet all are satisfied, that
the paschal lamb pointed to " the Lamb of
God ;" and the sprinkling of his blood on the
dwellings of Israel as a token to the de-
stroying angel to pass them by, represent-
ed the blood of Jesus Christ, by virtne of
which his people are delivered from the de-
struction that awaits the ungodly. The
same, is the design of the Lord's Supper. —
The only difference is this, that the one,
was prospective ; the other, is retrospective.
That pointed to a Saviour to come ; this,
1o a Saviour already come. That the lat-
ter was designed to take the place of the
former, is evident from the time of its insti-
tution— the subsequent practice of the apos-
tles, and from its being called by the same
name. " For even Christ our passover, is
sacrificed for us. Therefore, let us keep
the feast, not with old leaven, neither with
the leaven of malice and wickedness, but
with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth." 1 Cor. v. 7, 8. This statement of
the case I suppose will be equally satisfac-
tory to you and me.

With respect to unity of design, in cir-
cumcision and baptism, your system dis-
sents. But I am satisfied, that here is as
striking a coincidence as in the former case.
12

134

1. Circumcision was a token of the cote-
nant between God and Abraham and his seed.
" // shall be a token of the covenant betwixt
me and you" This I have shewn you, is
the covenant of grace. And this was the
external mark, by which the existence of
that covenant was known. Baptism occu-
pies the very same place.

2. Circumcision was " a seal of the righ-
teousness of faith:" so is baptism. " He that
believeth, and is baptized shall be saved, &c."
Mark xvi. 16. " Then they that gladly re-
ceived his rvord were baptized, &c." Acts
ii. 41. "But when they believed, &c. they
were baptized. — And Simon himself believed
also and was baptized" Acts viii. 12, 13.
And the eunuch said, "What doth hinder me
to be baptized?" And Philip said, " If thou
helievest with all thine heart, thou mayest,
&c." Ver. 26, 37. In all these cases and a
multitude of others, baptism is distinctly
recognised as " a seal of the righteousness
of faith."

3. Circumcision was an external sign of
internal grace. " Circumcise the foreskin
of your hearts." Deut. x. 16. Hence, the
apostle calls it " the sign of circumcision,"
and asserts, that " that is not circumcision
which is outward in the flesh, but that which
is of the heart, in the spirit." The same is
the import of baptism. Hence baptism is cal-
led " the circumcision of Christ," or Chris-
tian circumcision. Col. ii. 11, 12. Both
point to the corruption of human nature, and

135

indicate the necessity of a change of hearf^
and the effect produced by that change.*

4. The place which they occupy is pre-
cisely the same. Neither baptism nor cir-
cumcision is, what many have called the one
or the other, an " initiating ordinance," as has
been shewn. (See page 64 — 5.). The latter,
however, was the first seal of the covenant
under the former dispensation, and without
it, the other special privileges could not
be enjoyed. " For no uncircumcised per-
son shall eat thereof," that is, of the pass-
over. In like manner baptism is now the
first seal of the covenant, by which mem-
bership in the Christian church is recogni-
sed, and without which, no person can be
properly admitted to the Lord's tablet

* It is a notorious fact, that the Baptist scheme entirely mis-
represents the import and design of the ordinance of baptism,
and confounds it with the other special ordinance of the gospeL
" The end of baptism, says Dr. Gill, is to represent the burial of
Christ." And again, " One end of it, and a principal one, is to
represent the sufferings % burial and resurrection of Christ." The
same sentiments are to be found in every Baptist production on
the subject ; and are suggested by every Baptist professor, who
pretends to know any thing- about the scheme he has adopted. But,
I am bold to assert, that this is not the end, design or import of
baptism, but of the Lord's Supper. Although the propitiatory sac-
rifice of Christ, was completed when he bowed his head and died,
yet in as much as the way was not completely opened, for the
justification of the sinner, until he had arisen from the grave,
the ordinance of the supper, is justly considered, as represent-
ing that great work in all its parts. But baptism, instead of de-
noting the same thing, represents the work of grace, resulting
from the atonement of Christ. It points to his blood as the me-
ritorious cause ; to the influences of the Spirit as the efficient
cause ; and to the washing away of sin, as the consequence. In
a word, the supper represents the cause, and baptism the effect.
Bui on the Baptist scheme, they both signify the same thing.

f I must confess myself not a little surprised, to find some Pae-
dobaptists, expressing themselves favourably to a novel senti-
ment, recently advanced by Mr. Hall, a distinguished Baptist

136

1 will only add here, that if baptism were
not appointed by our Lord in the room of
circumcision, and so understood by the a-
postles, then that rite was never abrogated

minister in England, in his treatise in favour of free communion.
I do not wish to detract, in the smallest degree, from the merit
of this catholic production ; nor to circumscribe its influence,
in breaking down the unchristian barriers of that church, for
which it is evidently intended and peculiarly calculated. And,
although, I believe that when this is accomplished, the result
will be very different from that which Mr. Hall anticipates —
instead of the Baptist swallowing up the Paedobaptist church,
the reverse I presume will be the case : still however, I cannot,
with the hope of furthering this result, subscribe to a sentiment,
which I consider at open variance with the orders of God's house.
Nor can I conceive, how Paedobaptists can consider themselves
in any degree complimented, or laid under obligations to Mr.
Hall, for admission to his communion table, when they consider
the ground on which he is willing to admit them :- viz. as un-

BAPTIZEn PERSONS.

The main pillar of his scheme is this ; that baptism, is not
an essential prerequisite to communion at the Lord's table. This,
in my opinion, instead of being a gospel sentiment, is an er-
ror resulting directly from the Baptist system, elicited by the
catholic spirit of the age in which we live. Mr. Hall and others
of his communion, who partake largely of this spirit, begin to
feel that " close communion" is a practice, too remote from
Christian charity, to be tolerated ; and the ground which he has
taken, is the only one which a Baptist supposes he can take,
with any degree of" self-consistency. But if it can be shewn that
this ground is inconsistent with the gospel, good men will cer-
tainly choose rather to be inconsistent with themselves, than
with the laws of Christ's kingdom.

The main argument, which Mr. Hall has urged in favour of
his position, or at least, that which has induced the Pxdobap-
tists, with whom I have conversed, to think favourably of his doc-
trine, is this : Having proved, t;what Paedobaptists have proved
a thousand times* before,) that John's baptism was not Christian
baptism ; that the latter was not instituted, till after our Lord's
resurrection, and consequently that the Apostles, and probably,
the hundred and twenty brethren, who were with them previous
to the day of Pentecost, were admitted to the Lord's table with-
out baptism, he concludes that the Lordys supper, was in fact, a
prior institution, and therefore, that baptism cannot be an essen-
tial prerequisite.

I cheerfully subscribe to the opinion that the twelve Apostles,
•:<nd the hundred and twenty brethren, yea, I go farther — I be-
ffeve that the five hundred who beheld the Lord after his resur-

137

by Jesus Christ. It was not nailed to the
eross with the ceremonial law, because it
was no part of that law. It was institu-
ted and practised more than four hundred

rection ; in a word, that all who were members of the Christian
church, previous to the day of Pentecost, never received Chris-
tian baptism : but not for the reasons which Mr. Hall assigns. —
The idea that " the precept of baptism had no retrospective bear-
ing-," if proved to be correct, would not account for so important
an omission, in the first organization (according- to the Baptist
scheme) of the church. Nor can I conceive, any impropriety, in
" the Apostles of the Lord, who had continued with him in his
temptations, placing themselves on a level," in regarding- a Chris-
tian ordinance, " with that multitude, which, however penitent
at present, had recently demanded his blood with clamorous
importunity." The Apostles were, by nature, children of wrath,
in common with that multitude ; and they were indebted to the
same sovereign grace for salvation. And though they were ef-
fectually called at an earlier period, yet this was not because
they were any better than others. But if this circumstance ren-
dered it improper for them to "place themselves on a level'9 with
those who were converted afterwards, in regard to baptism ,- the
same reason would apply, with equal propriety, to the other or-
dinance : and therefore they might have refused to sit down at
the Lord's table with those guilty murderers. But no such dis-
tinctions are countenanced in the word of God : a temper of heart
directly the reverse, to what this is calculated to inspire, is uni-
formly inculcated.

My reasons for believing that the Apostles, and all who were
attached to the Christian church, previous to the day of Pente-
cost, never received Christian baptism, are the following : viz.

1. We know that the Apostles received the sacrament of the
holy supper before Christian baptism was instituted. The for-
mer was instituted on the same night in which Christ was be-
trayed : the latter not till after his resurrection, probably just
before his ascension. Hence, it does not appear, in the least de-
gree probable, that they were baptised, after Lt ing admitted to
the Lord's table. Beside this, the scripture is entirely silent,
respecting the baptism of those who believed, before the day ot
Pentecost. There is not the smallest intimation given, nor the
least fact recorded, from which it can be inferred, that any per-
son was baptized m obedience to our Lord's command, previous
to that distinguished day. And although this absence of testi-
mony does not, of itself prove, that they were not baptized, yet
*he presumption will be greatly increased, when it is observed,

2. That on the Paedobaptist scheme, there was no necessity
for their baptism ; yea, their baptism would have been a great
irregularity. If the Jewish and Christian churches are essential-

12*

I3S

years before that law existed; and the cov-
enant, of which it was a seal, St. Paul de-
ciares, could not be annulled by the cere-
monial law. Consequently, if the command

ly the same— if the same sovereign act that removed the for-
mer dispensation, set up the present ; and if the same judicial
stroke, that excommunicated the unbelieving Jews, left those
who believed, in the enjoyment of all the privileges of the cov-
enant ; then indeed, there was no necessity of their being bapti-
sed ; for they had already received the first seal of the covenant —
the mark of membership ; and to have baptized them would have
been only a repetition of the same thing-. Hence, there was a
manifest propriety, in our Lord's administering to them, the or-
dinance of the supper, without baptism. So near do the Jewish
and Christian churches stand to each other, that the last holy
feast of the one, and the first holy feast of the other, were cele-
brated at the same tahfe, without a moment's interval ; and the
same seal of the covenant (circumcision) was the passport to
both.

Here then, on Pxdobaptist principles, is a beautiful consisten-
cy in the conduct of our Lord and his Apostles, with respect to
church order v which,, on the Baptist scheme, is entirely destroy-
ed. For, if the Jewish and Christian churches are not essential-
ly the same, then the Apostles were admitted to the Lord's ta-
ble, not only without baptism, but without any thing which an-
swered to that institution. They were, admitted to the privi-
lege of members, without the mark of membership ; and it may
well be matter of surprise, that Christ should organize his
church in so irregular a manner, as to be under the necessity of
reversing the order of his ordinances, immediately afterwards.

To confirm tLe view which has been given, I would further
remark, that the institution of the supper, was the concluding
act of our Saviour's ministry ; for in the same hour his passion
commenced, and continued in a greater or less degree, till on
the cross he exclaimed in expiring agony, "IT IS FINISHED."
Then " he bhttexl ovt the hand writing of ordinances, and took it
avi of the way, nailing it- to his crosa." Col. li. 14. Then, and not
till then, the ceremonial law was completely abrogated. Cfir*
c umcision, howevci-j wh.eh, 1 have shewn, was no part of the
ceremon.al law, was not changed until alter his resurrection.

He had previously warned the Jews, that "the kingdom ©f
God should be taken from them, and given to a nation, bringing
forth the fruits thereof." When he pronounced these words, he
spake of the event us future ; and he forewarned them of it, that
by timely repentance, they might save themselves from the
dreadful sentence of excommunication. Hence, he continued to
preach to them, and sent his disciples to warn them, for the'
•Space of three years. But all these exertions, proving fruit tegf.

139

to baptize, did not supersede circumefsibrtv

then our Saviour die! not abrogate that rih;
at all ; and the apostles acted without, au-
thority, in discontinuing it.

as he entered Jerusalem for the last time, in view of the terrible
judgment of which he hud forewarned them, and which he had
then come to inflict, he wept over the devoted city and said,
" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest
them that are sent unto thee ; ho~v often -would I have gathered thy
children together, even as a hen gal here th her chickens under her
"wings, and ye -woidd not. Behold your house is left unto you deso-
late." Mat. xxiii. 37—39. Tile same sentiment, is expressed,
slill more explicitly,, by another evangelist: " If thou hadit known,
even thou, at teast in this thy day the things -which belong unto
thy peace ! lint NOW thet auk hid tkom think eyes."

Here, is the sentence of excommunication, against the unbe-
lieving part of the Jewish nation, pronounced by the Great King
and head of the church in person. The time was at hand when
he was to be delivered up to their power and put to death or.
the cross ; and there seemed to he a peculiar propriety, in ex-
cluding them from the church, before they had perpetrated that
presumptuous deed. Hence, our Saviour declare*, "NOW" — at
this very time, " The things -which belong to your peace, are hid
from your eyes — Your house is left unto you desolate." And he
adds, " Ye shall not see me hence, till ye shall say, blessed is he
that cometh, in the name of the Lord." Though individuals
might be converted, yet as a nation, they shall not see him, t'dl
they are ready to receive him in his millenial glory. He then
proceeds to predict the destruction of Jerusalem, as a conse-
quence of their rejection of heaven; which was accomplished
about forty years afterwards.

When our Saviour pronounced this sentence, the way was o-
pened, for the change of dispensation. This change was not
completed, as I have already observed, till our Lord exclaimed
on the cross, ,{ It is finished," and " the tail of the tkmpus
was r.F.NT in twain." But here, was the first act .of it. " The
kingdom of God was taken from the unbelieving Jews." Those
who believed, continued to occupy their former standing, and
thus constituted the church ; and lier.ee our Saviour, two days
afterwards, at the close of the passover, proceeded to institute
and administer to his disciples the holy supper, without any
formality in organizing a new church, and without previously
instituting the ordinance of baptism. Thus, the church contin-
ued through the change of dispensation, without a change of
constitution ; and consequently, without nullifying the first seal
of tlie covenant, which was not changed till several days after-
wards.

Here then, I conceive, is the true reason why the ApostW,

Leb. But, sir, if the apostles had under-
stood the subject in this light, is it not rea-
sonable to suppose, that it would have been
clearly expressed in the result of the coun-
cil at Jerusalem, where the point was agi-
tated ? See Acts, xv.

Eiig. The question submitted to that
council was not, " Whish of the two, cir-
cumcision or baptism, ought to be obser-
ved ?" but merely, "Whether the rite of
circumcision was obligatory an Gentile
converts?" No one doubted the propri-
ety and obligation of baptizing them; but
some contended, that in addition to the
Christian sacraments, they must be circum-
cised. We know that in those days, there
was a strong attachment, even among the
believing Jews, to their former religious
rites ; and in this they were in some mea-
sure indulged by the apostles: for it was in
condescension to these prejudices that Paul
circumcised Timothy; Acts, xvi. 3. and by

and all the rest of those who believed, previous to the day of
Fcntecost, were not baptized. They had received the existing-
seal of the covenant, before the change of dispensation ; and had
not been cast out of the covenant, when that change took place.
It is no objection to this reasoning', that those Jews, who were
afterwards converted, were required to be baptized, notwithstand-
ing they had been circumcised. It is true that in receiving an
excommunicated member, upon satisfactory evidence of repent-
ance, at the present time, we should not require him to be re-
baptized. But such a case is not parallel to the former. The
unbelieving Jews had been excommunicated under a former
dispensation ; and during' the time of their separation from the
church, the seals of the covenant had been changed. Hence, af-
ter the change had taken place, they were properly considered
as standing on the same ground, with the rest of the world ; and
therefore, when they professed to believe, they were received, in
the same manner, with others who had never been visibly in th»
covenant

141

the advice of the brethren at Jerusalem, pu-
rified himself after the manner of the cere-
monial law : though, at the same time, they
declare, that the council had ordained that
the believing Gentiles should " observe 110
such thing" Acts, xxi. 13 — 26.

But that the observance of the Christian
sacraments, by the believing Gentiles, was
considered by St. James, as superseding the
necessity of the Jewish rites, and as forming
the ground of his opinion, which was adopted
by the council, is pretty plainly intimated
in the words which he quoted from the pro-
phet Amos. The persons concerning whom
this decision was made are styled "Gentiles,
which are called by the name of the Lord ;?
or as St. James himself expresses it, " upon
whom the name of the Lord is called." Comp.
Amos, ix. 11, 12. and Acts, xv. 16, 17. Now
I wish to know whether this is not a distinct
recognition of baptism as superseding the
necessity of circumcision ? For to what else
than to their baptism can St. James be sup-
posed to allude, when he speaks of them as
persons " upon whom the name of the Lord is
called.^ INo other satisfactory reason can be
assigned for his thus varying and adapting
the words of the prophet.

From this concise statement of the case,
it is evident that baptism occupies the place
of circumcision, and the Lord's supper that
of thepassover; the one being ca I \ti\ ''Christ's
circumcision," and the other, " Christ our
passover*"

142

Leb. But there is this "essential diffe-
rence between circumcision and baptism ;
the former was applied only to males — the
latter is applied equally to females."

Eug. Though the Lord has often insti-
tuted religious rites, without revealing to
us the particular reasons on which they
are founded ; yet we can frequently disco-
ver a manifest propriety, and a striking sig-
nificance in them. And this, I think, was
the case in respect to circumcision. Though
it was a rite which was applied only to one
sex, yet the other was considered as virtual-
ly circumcised at the same time. For the
Lord peremptorily forbade any uneircum-
cised person to eat of the passover ; and yet
females were admitted, without the least
hesitation. — And in the scriptures, the term
circumcision is used to designate the Jewish
church, both male and female ; and iincir-
cumcision the Gentiles. There would be no
propriety in these things, yea, in the former
case, there would have been an open viola-
tion of the divine statute, if females had not
been considered virtually circumcised.

This being the fact, there is no room
for your assertion that there is " an essential
difference between circumcision and bap-
tism." Yea, if females had been treated un-
der that dispensation as uncircumcised per-
sons, that circumstance would not have con-
stituted an essential difference between the
two ordinances. A part of the subjects would
have been different as to sex, but the reli-

143

gious rite would have been precisely the
same in import and design. Therefore the
subsequent change of this rite for another,
which should be applied equally to both sex-
es, instead of making an essential difference
in the rite itself, could only be considered
as an enlargement of the covenant of which
that rite was the seal. And this extended
application of the seal under the present
dispensation, is distinctly intimated by the
apostle when he says, "For as many of you
as have been baptised into Christ, have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek;
there is neither bond nor free, there is nei-
ther male nor female : for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise." Gal. iii. 27 — 29. But this ex-
tension of the rite to females, is no evidence
that infants, both male and female are to be
excluded.

SECTION V.

I now come to my 5th argument in fa-
vour of the unity of the church ; and this is
drawn from the express declarations of scrip-
ture.

The first I shall mention, is the declara-
tion of our Saviour to the Jews. " The king-
dom of God shall be taken from you, and giv-
en to a nation bringing forth the fruits there-

144

if" Mat. xxi. 43. The phrase " kingdom of
God," or "kingdom of heaven" is peculiar
to the New-Testament, and is used in one
or other of the three following senses, viz.

1 . For the kingdom of glory, or the place of
eternal happiness. See Luke, xiii. 28. " Ye
shall see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all
the prophets in the kingdom of God, and
you yourselves thrust out," John. iii. 5.
"Except a man be born again, &c."

2. For the kingdom of grace. In this sense
it is applied either to an actual state of grace
or the visible profession of it. See Mat.
vi. 33. " But seek ye first the kingdom of
God, &c." Mar. iv. 11.x. 25. Rom. xiv. 17.

3. For the visible church ; and most fre-
quently, as it exists under the gospel dis-
pensation. See Mar. iv. 26. " So is the
kingdom of God as if a man should cast seed
into the ground, &c." — John the Baptist,our
Saviour and his apostles, used the term in
special reference to the gospel dispensation,
when they said u The kingdom of heaven is
at hand." Mat. iii. 2. iv. 17. x. 7. &c.

That the "kingdom of God" means the
visible church, in the passage under consid-
eration, is evident, from the nature of the
case. It cannot mean the kingdom of glory,
nor of grace ; for neither of these, did the
unbelieving Jews possess. Nor can it mean
the gospel church, for that was not yet or-
ganized; and even admitting that it had
been, those unbelievers did not possess a
standing in it \ and therefore it could not

145

be taken from them. The plain import of
the passage is this : " The visible church
which is now composed of you Jews, shall
be taken from you, on account of your im-
penitence and unbelief, and shall be given
to, or set up among, the believing gentiles."
And what confirms this, is the connexion of
the passage. It forms the conclusion, or ap-
plication, of our Saviour's parable of the
vineyard, which was let out to husbandmen.
The foundation of this parable, is evidently-
taken from the 5th of Isaiah ; where the
Lord declares, that the house of Israel is his
vineyard. Comp. Isa. v. 1 — 7. and Mat.
xxi. 33 — 46. In the conduct of the hus-
bandmen towards the servants of the house-
holder, our Saviour represents the treat-
ment, which the prophets of the Lord had
received, from the Jews ; and by the slay-
ing of the son, he plainly foretold his own
crucifixion, by their hands. Hence he de-
clares " The kingdom of God shall be ta-
ken from you, &c." — Here then are two im-
portant points decided by this passage.

1. The kingdom of God, or the visible
church, is essentially the same under both dis-
pensations. For it is the very same vineyard*
that is taken from the wicked husband-
men, which is given to others: and it is the
same kingdom of God, that is taken from the
unbelieving Jews, and given to the believing
Gentiles.

2. The Jews forfeited it, because they
tlid not bring forth the appropriate fruits of

146

the kingdom ; that is, the same fruits which
those are to bring forth to whom the king-
dom is given. Now with what sort of a face
can it be asserted, that real holiness, repen-
tance and faith were not required of the
Jewish church, when our Saviour declares
that the kingdom was taken from them, be-
cause they did bring forth these very fruits ?

The next passage to which 1 will refer
you, is Acts ii. 39. Here Peter, in the com-
mencement of public labour under the new
dispensation, in preaching to the multitude
and urging them to the exercise of repent-
ance and faith, as a motive and encourage-
ment to this duty, quotes and applies the
original promise made to Abraham, in all
its former latitude, and with an enlargement
which it had just received " For the promise
is unto you and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call"

Leb. Dr. Gill says " there is not the least
mention made in this text of Abraham's cov-
enant, or of any promise made to him, giv-
ing his infant seed a right to circumcision,
and still less to baptism." And he further
observes that " the promise here, be it what
it may, is not observed as giving a right or
claim to any ordinance ; but as an encoura-
ging motive to persons in distress, under a
sense of sin, to repent of it and declare their
repentance, and yield a voluntary subjec-
tion to the ordinance of baptism, when they
might hope that remission of sins would be
applied to them, &c*"

J 47

Eug. That the Apostle held forth this
promise, as a motive to repentance, I have
already stated. But the question is, what
is the promise that contained this encou-
ragement ? We have Dr. Gill's declaration
that " it is not any promise made to Abra-
ham :" but you will excuse me for saying,
I have seen too much of the fallibility of that
man in his writings, to build my faith on his
assertions. The Apostle evidently speaks
of the promise as one with which his hearers,
at least the Jewish part of them, were fami-
liar. Take a view of the circumstances of
the case, and you can easily discover the al-
lusion. Peter was preaching to a promis-
cuous multitude of Jews and Gentiles. See
ver. 9 — 11. His discourse was principally
addressed to the former. Ver. 14 — 36. He
recounts the gracious promises concerning
the Saviour predicted by the holy pro-
phets— declares to them the fulfilment of
those promises; and then charges them, in
the most direct terms, with the enormous
crime, of having crucified the Lord of glo-
ry. It was this that " pricked them in their
hearts," and caused them to cry out "Men
and brethren, what shall we do ?" Peter, per-
ceiving them to be under pungent convic-
tion of sin, endeavours to exhibit the rem-
edy. " Repent, says he, and be baptized eve-
ry one of you in the name of Jesus Christy for
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost" And as an encour-
agement to this duty he adds, " For the

148

promise is unto you, and to your children.1"
As if he had said, " Though you have hith-
erto rejected the hope of Israel, and in con-
sequence of your unbelief have been cast out
of the church ; yea, though you have stain-
ed your hands with his innocent blood, yet
your case is not hopeless. If you will now
repent of your sins and embrace him by
faith, the same promise in its original lati-
tude, which God made to your fathers, shall
be extended to you and your children. >*
But Peter, in his solicitude for " his
brethren according to the flesh," does not
forget the other part of his audience, which
were not Jews. Therefore in applying this
promise to the Jews, he takes care to state
the extension which it had received in the
change of dispensation. Hence he declares,
that it is not, as formerly, confined to one
nation. " The middle wall of partition be-
ing broken down" the promise is extended
" to as many of them, that are afar off (that
is, gentiles) as the Lord our God shall call."
But what puts it beyond all dispute that Pe-
ter here refers to the original covenant,
made with Abraham, is his declaration to the
Jews in his very next sermon, in the porch
of the temple. " Ye are the children of the
prophets, and of the covenant which God made
nith our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And
in thy seed shall edl the kindreds of the earth
be blessed." Acts iii. 25. This he introduces
in the same manner as in the former case*
viz, as a motive to repentance and faith i

149

and it is a plain proof that the Ahrahamic
covenant remains unaltered. If not, or if
that covenant had respect merely to the
possession of Canaan and other temporal
blessings, what connexion could it have had
with a gospel sermon on repentance an3
faith; or what encouragement could it have
afforded to the exercise of those graces?

Leb. But the Apostle quotes nothing
more than the promise which referred to the
Saviour.

Eug. True; but he tells the Jews that
they are "the children of the covenant,*' in
which, that promise was contained ; and he
speaks of it as presenting special encour-
agement to them, to exercise faith in Christ :
because by that covenant divine grace was
to be communicated from generation to gen-
eration. He regarded them in the same light
as St. Paul did, when he says " they are
beloved for the fathers' sake." In no oth-
er point of view, could an allusion to that
covenant afford them any special encourage-
merit.

Leb. But does not Peter evidently limit
the promise by the concluding clause "Even
as many as the Lord our God shall call ?"
Does not this " plainly prove that the per-
son?, whether Jews or Gentiles, must he ef-
Jeclually called" before they can claim the
promise ? And does not this, confine it to a-
dults?

Eug. That all persons,* whether adults or
infants, must be effectually called or renew*
13*

I. -30

fed in heart, in order to go to heaven, no-
body denies. The question, therefore, does
not respect the qualification, but the manner
in which God gives this qualification ; whe-
ther in a covenant-way as formerly or not.
That the promise is limited to believers, in
distinction from the unbelieving world, I
cheerfully admit. But that it is limited to
believers in distinction from their infant
seed, is not even intimated in the text; but
the contrary is most explicitly declared.
*' For the promise is unto you and to your
children. " This, as I have already obser-
ved, was addressed to the Jews. Peter tells
them that the blessings of the original cov-
enant, which included believing parents and
their children, are still presented to them.
But this promise is not confined to them, as
formerly. The same is now extended to
the Gentiles ; so that as many of them as
are effectually called, become heirs to the
promise which the Lord had made of old, to
believing parents including their children.

If this is not the true import of the pas-
sage— if the Apostle really intended to limit
the promise to adults, both of Jews and Gen-
tiles, pray why did he say any thing at all
about children ? By omitting that word,
some plausibility might be attached to your
interpretation. Hence, some of your peo-
ble, sensible of the weakness of their argu-
ment, while children are included in the
text, have undertaken to shew that the ori-
ginal word does not mean " little children*'*

1 31

but " posterity. " And what is the amount
of this wonderful and learned criticism ? —
Why simply this, that the evangelist, in re-
cording this discourse, quoted the original
promise, in as nearly the same terms as the
Greek language could enable him to ex-
press. "The promise is unto you and to
your children" or posterity, or offspring, or
seed. Take which of the terms, you please,
how can you exclude the idea of infants ? If
I were a Baptist, T should exceedingly regret
that any of my brethren had ever meddled
with this term. The criticism, instead of
helping their cause, only exposes its weak-
ness. This textthen in spite of all the glos-
ses that have been put upon it, is an explicit
declaration that, though anew dispensation
had commenced, the original constitution
of the church remained unaltered.

Leo. But does not St. Paul expressly de-
clare in Heb. viii. 7 — 13. that, agreeably to
the prophecy of Jeremiah "the old cov-
enant is done away and a new one institu-
ted."

JEug. He does indeed endeavour to con-
vince the Hebrews, that the dispensation of
the covenant is changed. But when he
speaks of the "old covenant" which is done
away, he tells us distinctly what he means
by it, viz. the covenant which God made
with their fathers when he led them out of
Egypt — the ceremonial law. Ver. 9. Only
take into view the point that the Apostle
was labouring with his countrymen, and

152

you cannot mistake his object. He was not
endeavouring to prove that the Abrahamic
covenant was done away; for this would
have been to contradict himself. In the villi
chapter lie had declared, that God confirmed
his promise to Abraham by an oath, "That
by two immutable things in which it was im-
possihle for God to lie WE, (we christians)
we, who have fled for refuge to the gospel
hope, might have strong consolation''' Lea-
ving inspiration out of the question, it is
scarcely to be expected that St. Paul would
so soon forget himself, as to turn about and
argue against the Abrahamiccovenant, which
he had just before declared to be the foun-
dation of the christian hope. His manifest
object in the viiith chapter, was to convince
the Jews, who were still attached to their
former mode of worship, that the ceremonial
law was completely annulled. And he
quotes the words of the prophet merely to
prove that the former dispensation was not
designed to be perpetual : for that prophe-
cy does not refer to the commencement of
the christian dispensation, but to a period
far subsequent to it; even to that blessed
day when "they shall not teach every man
his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know
me from the least to the greatest." Comp.
Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34. and Heb. viii. 8 — 12.
Here then it is evident, notwithstanding all
the clamour of your denomination about this
chapter, that there is not the smallest allu*

153

sion in it, to the Abrahamic covenant: it
has respect solely to the ceremonial law, of
" covenant of Sinai."

In the same manner the Apostle speak&
of that covenant in his epistle to the Gala-
tians; where he makes a clear distinction
between it and the Abrahamic covenant,
under the figure of Abraham's two sons,
" the one of a bond-maid and the other of a
free woman. Which things, says he, are an
allegory, for these are the two covenants, the
one from Mount Sinai in Arabia, and an-
swereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is
in bondage with her children. But Jerusa-
lem which is above, is free, which is the mo-
ther of us all. Now we brethren, as Isaac
was, are the children of promise. But as
then, he that was born after the flesh perse-
cuted him that was born after the Spirit,
even so is it now." Gal. iv. Here, it is ob-
vious that the Apostle, instead of making a
distinction between the Abrahamic cove-
nant and the constitution of the Christian
church, draws the line between that cove-
nant and the ceremonial law, given from
Mount Sinai: and hence he declares that
" WE, (christians) as Isaac was, are t tie chil*
dren of promise." This is an expression
similar to that of St. Peter on the day
of pentecost " For the promise is unto you
and to your children."

Leo. But Sir, " a rational comment on
this paragraph must destroy your argu-
ment, unless Sinai and Jerusalem are the
same."

154

Eug. What that " rational comment5* is,
I cannot tell, as 1 have never heard it; nor
is it a matter of any consequence, if its force
depends on Sinai and Jerusalem's not being
the same ; for the Apostle expressly de-
clares that they are the same. "For this
Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answer-
eth to Jerusalem which kow is." Jerusalem
or the Jewish nation as it then existed hav-
ing been cut off or cast out for unbelief,
he says, is in bondage ; and therefore he con-
siders them, in their excommunicated state, as
answering to the figure of the bondmaid ;
while those who believed, both Jews and
Gentiles, " are, as Isaac was, the children
of promise," And then in view of the treat-
ment which they received from the unbe-
lieving Jews, he adds, " But as then, he that
was born after the flesh, persecuted him
that was born after the Spirit, even so is it
now."

Leb. But if the Jewish and Christian
churches are the same, then " members of
t he church persecuted the members of the
church."

Eug. In view of all that has been said, can
you be serious, Leb be us, in that remark ?
Vea, can you read I he passage last quoted,
and be serious in advancing the idea? Were
the Jews members of the church after they
had been excommunicated by Christ him-
self. And does not the apostle expressly
declare that it is in allusion to her then ex-
isting state, {Jerusalem which now is J that

153

he considers her as answering to Sinai and
the bond maid. Is there any absurdity in
all this ? If there is, you must settJe it with
St. Paul. For my part, I consider it as no-
thing strange to find excommunicated mem-
bers, and even whole churches who, through
a superstitious attachment to external J orms,
have rejected " the foundation of the pro-
phets and apostles," persecuting the true
church of Jesus Christ.

I shall now direct your attention to Rom.
xith. Please to take the bible, and read from
the 15th to the 25th verse. Upon this pas-
sage you will indulge me in the following
remarks :

1. By the olive tree is evidently intended
the Jewish church, " a fat olive tree, with a
holy root''' Such it was when it was plant-
ed, and such the Lord required that the
branches should be. "For if the first fruit
be holy; the lump also: and if the root be
holy, so the branches." This he required
of all the branches or members; and there-
fore, when the great body of that church
became corrupt, and the measure of their
iniquity was full, he came forth in judgment
to cut them orT as unworthy of a standing in
a church which he designed to be holy.

Leb. Dr. Gill says that "by the good olive
tree is not meant the Jewish church-state,
which was abolished by Christ,|with all the pe-
culiar ordinancesof it; and the believingGen-
tiles were never ingrafted into it ; the axe has
been laid to the root of that old Jewish stock,

156

and it is entirely cat down, and no ingrafture
Is made upon it. But — by it is meant the
gbsjpfel church-state, in its first foundation,
consisting of Jews that believed, out of which
were left the Jews who believed not in
Christ, and who are the branches broken
off; into which church state the Gentiles
were ingrafted."

JEug. That the " olive tree" does mean
the Jewish church, is evident from the con-
nexion as well as other parts of the scrip-
ture. In the two chapters immediately pre-
ceding, the apostle is treating distinctly of
the Jewish church. And hence, in the com-
mencement of the xith chap, he inquires
44 Hath God cast away his people which he
foreknewT?" He asserts the contrary, and
presents himself as an evidence. " For 1 al-
so am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham,
&c." He declares that the Lord had always
had a holy seed among that people, even in
the darkest seasons : and although the great
body of them had been recently rejected,
yet even in that act of judgment he had still
preserved a remnant. He then proceeds to
describe the manner in which that had been
done ; and for this purpose, introduced the
figure of the " olive tree ;" a figure by which
the Lord himself had distinguished the Jew-
ish church. " The Lord called thy name a

GREEN OLIVE-TREE, FAIR, AND OF GOODLY
FRUIT THE BRANCHES OF IT ARE BROKEN ;

for the Lord of hosts hath pronounced evil a-
gainst thee, &c.*' Jer. xi. 1.6, 17. Read this

157

passage in its connexion, and then tell me,
Lebbeus, can you doubt that the apostle
had his eye on this very prophesy when he
wrote the xith chapter to the Romans? —
Moreover, to suppose that by the olive-tree
is meant the Christian, in distinction from
the Jewish church, is to charge the apostle
with the grossest perversion of language. —
This you plainly perceive from the quota-
tion you have made from Dr. Gill. He say?
that the branches being " broken off" means
" LEFT OUT." But does any man believe
that these phrases are synonymous? Suppose
I should tell you, pointing to the branches of
a tree lying; on the ground, that they were
<l broken off" from a certain tree when it was
grafted. Suppose you should afterwards
ascertain the fact, that they never were at-
tached to it; and upon asking an explana-
tion of me, I should answer " O ! I only
meant that they were left out of that tree
when it was grafted." Would this be satis-
factory ? — Or, suppose T should inform you
that such and such persons had been " cut
or broken off" from my church, and when
you had learned that they never belonged
to it, I should tell you, "I only meant that
they were left out of my church when it was
organized." Would you not call this anin-
excu sable perversion of language, or by the
harsher name of deception ? Of this was the
apostle guilty, if by the olive-tree, he meant
the gospel-church. — I shall only add that the
"words of John the Baptist, which Dr. Gill
14

153

applies to this case, have not the most re-
mote allusion to the " olive tree." John's
words are, " And now ai^o the axe is laid
unto the root of the trees: therefore every
tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is
hewn down and cast into the fire." Mat iii.
10. He does not speak of the Jewish church
in their collective capacity under the figure
of a single tree, as the apostle does ; but of
them severally, as trees in the vineyard. Nor
does he say that all the trees are to be cut
down and the vineyard destroyed, but only
such as do not bear good fruit. The analo-
gy between the two passages is manifestly
this. — In the one case, the Jewish church is
considered under the figure of a vineyard, in
which many trees are growing ; and the re-
jection of the unbelieving Jews is represent-
ed, by the cutting down of those trees which
do not bring forth good fruit. In the other
case, that church appears under the figure
of a single tree ; and the rejection of the un-
believers is represented by the cutting off
of the unfruitful branches. So far, there-
fore, from proving that the Jewish church
was entirely destroyed, the words of John
confirm the doctrine that a part only were
cast out.

Having, therefore, shewn that by the "o-
live tree" is meant the Jewish church, I ob-
serve,

2. That some of the natural branches, in
consequence of their unfruitfulness, are bro-
ken off, and others taken from the wild olive

159

are ingrafted in their room. This, you and
1 both agree, represents the rejection of the
Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, for so
the apostle himself explains it. Now ob-
serve, this act is represented, not by culling
down, or plucking up " the good olive tree"
and planting a new one in its stead, (a great
deal better than "good:") but " by breaking
off (not all, but) some of the natural branch-
es, and grafting in branches taken from the
wild olive tree, among those natural branch-
es" which remained; by which operation
they are made to " partake with them of the
root and fatness of the good olive tree." —
If the apostle had ransacked the whole king-
dom of nature, he would not have found
a more striking figure ; or had he possessed
the wisdom of Solomon, he could not have
handled it in a more dexterous manner, to
represent the unity of the church under
both dispensations. The Jews are called
the natural branches, because they were the
natural descendants from the original stock.
The good olive tree with its holy root was
planted in the calling of Abraham; and his
posterity are therefore the natural branch-
es, " to whom pa iaineth the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, and the promises ;
whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concern-
ing the flesh, Christ came.''' Rom. ix. 4, 5. —
Some of these were broken off because of
unbelief (How then could a standing in that
church consist with the want of faith ?) And

160

those who are taken from the wild olive
[ G entiles] are, by faith grafted, in among the
remaining natural branches, or believing
Jews; and both together partake of the
root and fatness of the good olive tree. —
Sow, Lehbeus, 1 wish to know what more
conclusive evidence can be given or desi-
red, that the ancient church was not dissolv-
ed when the dispensation of the covenant
was changed ?

But let us, for a moment, suppose in di-
rect opposition to this testimony that it was
dissolved: Pray, tell me, when the new
church was organized ? Where in the New-
Testament, have we any account that the
Lord entered into covenant, in a formal
manner, with any person or number of per-
sons and constituted them into a Christian
church I You may say, it was implied in the
baptism of John ; or in the institution of the
Lord's supper; or in some other transaction
of our Lord or his apostles; but this is not
sufficient. Such an important transaction
as the organization of a church on earth,
(according to your scheme, the first organ-
ization of a real church] must have some-
thing more than IMPLlEDevidence. Here
i< the place for "explicit warrant/' If the
Jewish church were only a type of the Chris-
tian church, we might reasonably expect to
see the substance exceed the shadow in eve-
ry respect. But where is there an act of
covenanting in the New-Testament, that
l weeds, of even equals, the splendour ind

glory of the original covenant I Surely tlu
lyne ought not (d eclipse the antitype,

But the unity of the church under both
dispensations, as it has been already proved,
and as represented by the figure of the "o

li^ c- 1 1 tu," adonis a nad\ solution of all

these difficulties j or rather, precludes them
altogether. The olive-tree planted in A

lnaliam, and cultivated with divine tare,

>till lives and flourishes. When Christ came
and was rejected by the greater pari dfthe
Jewish nation, all the unbelieving pari were
w broken off" or excommunicated, Those

who received him cont inned loiuiupv their

standing as before. Those who believed
on him among the Gentiles, were received
and incorporated with the believing Jews
that remained. Thus, "the middle wall of
partition between Jew and Gentile was bro-
ken down, and both became one in Christ

Jesus.'1 And thus the church progressed
through thf change of dispensation, without,
the least alteration in her original constitu-
tion. In further confirmation of these \ iews,
you will observe,

:*. That the natural branches, if they a-
bide not in unbelief, are t<> be grafted in
agairi into THEIH OWN otivctret. Here
it is expressly declared, that when thf Jews
an* reclaimed from their infidelity, they
are to be grafted into the original stork
from which they were broken oil*. Hut when
this desirable event, for which we arc daily
prayltlg, takes place, are they to form a sej>
II

1&2

arate community on the basis of the Abra-
hamic covenant? No ! they are to be gath-
ered with the fulness of the Gentiles and
constitute but "one sheep/old under one
shepherd" How then can they be grafted
into the original olive-tree, unless that is
the foundation of the Christian church? The
truth of this has been realized in many in-
stances already. Many of those who, for
their rejection of the Lord of glory, were ex-
communicated from the Jewish church, were
afterwards brought to repentance under the
preaching of the apostles, and were imme-
diately added to the Christian church. And
so it has been in every succeeding age,
whenever any of that blinded people have
had their eyes opened to " look upon him
whom their fathers pierced."

Leh. Well Sir, this last observation of
yours completely overthrows one remark
which I have lately met with in one of ovr
writers, and which I acknowledge 1 thought
had a great deal of weight in it. He ob-
serves with respect to the conversion of the
Jews under the preaching of the Apostles,
that the sameness of the Jewish and Christian
church, involves the absurdity of " members
of the church added to the church." But if
they had been excommunicated under the
former dispensation, I see no inconsistency
or absurdity in saying, that when they belie-
ved, "they were added to the church."

JEug. Very true, Lebbeus ; and the same
Temark exposes the weakness and absurdity

of several pages of the same writer, (whose
discourse has fallen into my hands,) which
consist of bold assertion, and, what I call,
impious raillery, without the shadow of ar-
gument. Such as "a flat nose or crooked
back disqualifying a man for the high priest-
hood"— "sprinkling a little water in the
face" — "the Jewish church persecuting her
own members — and crucifying the High
Priest of our profession" — "Jesus Christ,
an interloper." Such insinuations are as
irrelevant as they are uncandid and un-
christian.— But Lebbeus, I now appeal to
your candour, whether the representation
which I have made of the "olive tree" is
not the fair and natural import of the pas-
sage.

Leb. Why Sir, I must acknowledge that
it has that, appearance At least, lam not
prepared to controvert it myself. ■ But if
you will indulge me, 1 should be pleased
to read you an interpretation of that
passage, oat of a pamphlet which I have al-
ready alluded to; and then I should be
glad to hear your remarks upon it.

Eug. Please to read.

Leb. (Reads.) "This passage is so fami-
liar as to render a repetition of it in this
place unnecessary, &c. This argument has
been often used and as often refuted, but
lest some think it conclusive, it shall re-
ceive due attention. First, then, the Jews
were broken off. But from what ? not

16*

from their own national church, which stiM
remained and their membership good, If
both— "

Eug. Hold, Lebbeus —

Leb. Let me go through before you re-
mark.

Eug. No Sir! When a man undertakes
to argue, and begs the question at the out-
set, it is altogether needless to hear him any
further. Your author sets out to explain
away this passage, so as to prove that the
Jewish and Christian churches are not the
same ; and in his very first sentence, takes it
for granted that they are not the same ; for
be asserts that the unbelieving Jews, whom
the apostle declares are " broken off from
their own olive tree," were still members of
the Jewish church. This, however, is asser-
tion and not "logical reasoning ;" and it
might be repeated a thousand times without
proving any thing, except the imbecility
of its author.

That the argument, founded on this pas-
sage, has been " often used"'' to prove the
sameness of the church, I know. But that
it has been " as often refuted" or that it has
met this fate in a single instance, I do not
know; I have read and heard a great many
Baptist comments upon it, and I never found
but one, that was in the smallest degree cred-
itable to the intellect of the author.

Leb. Pray, what was that ?

Eug. One of your ministers introduced
this passage into a sermon which he was

165

preaching on baptism, and after reciting it
at full length, remarked, " No man can give
an interpretation of this passage so as to fa-
vour infant-member ship, but what I can bring
against it unanswerable objections " and then
immediately proceeded to notice another
text. One of his hearers, at the close of the
service, complimented him on the ability of
his discourse, by remarking that " he consid-
ered his comment on the x\th of Romans, the
most able part of it." — Now had your au-
thor disposed of the passage in the same
way, instead of professing to give it " due
attention," although it might not have had
half the show of" logical reasoning," yet it
would have carried just as much weight in
the view of those who are in the habit of
reasoning ; and might have answered the
same purpose with those " who do not think
for themselves," but believe it is so, because
their minister says so. — But after all, doea
he not acknowledge, that the Jews were
" broken off" from the same stock, into
which the Gentile* were grafted ?

Leb. Why he says here " unbelief broke
them off; the same privileges to- which they
seemed more particularly entitled, were
wrested from them, and conferred on the
M new man," composed of Jews and Gen*
tiles. They were then the children of the
kingdom cast out ; that was taken away
which they seemed to have."

JEug. I do not know what this word "seem-
ed" has to do in this case The apostle doe.*

166

not say that they seemed to belong to the
olive tree, and were " broken oft'" only in
appearance. He declares that these things
were actually the case. But read a little
further.

Leb, (Reads,) "It is evident that their
being " broken off," their " stumbling" and
" their fall" mean the same thing."

Eug. It is evident that their being " bro-
ken off," and the occasion of their being
" broken off," were two distinct things. —
The latter was their own sinful rejection
of the Saviour; and the former was the ju-
dicial act of God, as the punishment of their
sins. But read the next paragraph.

Leb. (Reads.) " The Jews rvere broken off>
or rejected jrom that into which the Gentiles
rvere grafted or received, called their own olive
treer

Eug. Very well. Now Lebbeus, you per-
ceive that your author, after leaving his
? first" and last argument, (in which he as-
sumes the very point in dispute,) adopts the
selfsame interpretation which I have already
given. He asserts expressly t.iat "the Jews
were broken off from that into which the
Gentiles were grafted, called their own o-
live tree''' This, I think, is asserting the
sameness of .the, church in as explicit terms as
any Pa3dobaptist can desire.

Eeb. But he adds, — " because from their
previous advantages, they seemed naturally
entitled to those bles^in^s

Eug. I have already reminded you that

167

the apostle says nothing about their " seem-
ing" to belong to the olive tree or church ;
but he says they did really belong to it, and
were actually broken off from it.

Leb. But I suppose this writer considers
the olive-tree to be the Christian church ; for
he adds — " and especially because the gospel
church was first organized among them,
and of them, which comprises all the blessings
into which the Gentiles were received, and from
which the Jews were rejected"

JEug. " The gospel church was first organi-
zed among them, and OF THEM" Do you
believe this, Lebbeus? Or can you even
persuade yourself, that your author himself
believes that our Saviour, in the first place,
received the unbelieving Jews into the gos-
pel church, and then " broke them off" or
excommunicated them for their unbelief?
No ! he knows the contrary. For although
the change of dispensation took place a-
mong the Jews, yet that very change ex-
cluded those unbelievers from the covenant.
Not one of them was permitted to occupy a
standing in the gospel church. Therefore,
the assertion, that "the gospel church was
first organized OF THEM,'' is notorious-
ly false.

Leb. I presume the author does not mean
that the unbelieving Jews composed any
part of the gospel church, but that it was
formed of believing Jews.

Eug. Then surely the unbelieving Jews
were not "broken off from that into which

168

the Gentiles were graj 'led." Leaving them out
could in no sense be considered "break-
ing them off;" as 1 have already shewn you,
in answer to Dr. Gill, from whom your au-
thor's " logical reasoning" is evidently bor-
rowed. His favourite word " seemed," will
not help him out of this dilemma : for these
unbelievers did not even seem to belong to,
or to be " broken off" from the gospel
church. But they actually did belong to, and
were "broken off" from their own olive tree,
the Jewish church ; and we have the autho-
rity of St. Paul, and even of your author
himself, that "they were broken off from that
into which the Gentiles were grafted"

Thus you see, after all this parade in giv-
ing this argument "due attention," he makes
nothing of it, but what the passage bears on
its very face — the same interpretation that
has always been given by Pasdobaptists. —
But doubtless there was an object in all this
" ado about nothing" When a man is beset
by a formidable objection, which he knows
not how to answer, he frequently finds it
advantageous to his cause, to meet it with
great composure, and apparently, undaun-
ted courage. He pronounces it easy of
solution, and one that has been answered
a thousand times, — promises to give it "due
attention;" — proposes to deduce the truth
by " logical reasoning " says, " First then,"
— takes for granted the very point that is to
be proved; quotes several texts of scrip-
ture which do not even "seem" to relate to
the subject ; — multiplies a great many words

169

—and finally, comes to the very same con-
clusion that is stated in the objection. But
all this answers the intended purpose. It
raises a great fog, and makes common peo-
ple suppose that the objector is completely
overthrown. Whether they can perceive
it or not, they feel assured that a man could
not meet an objection with so much courage,
and talk so long about it, without being able
to answer it ; especially one who " seemed
to have" an extensive acquaintance with the
writings of the fathers, commentators and
reformers.

Leb. After all, Dr. Gill says "there is
not the least syllable about baptism, much less
of infant baptism, in this passage ."

Eug, No body pretends there is; but
there is a number of verses about the same-
ness of the Jewish and Christian church,
which establis-h most conclusively the pro-
priety of infant membership under the pre-
sent dispensation. This is all the evidence
that we wish to derive from the passage ; and
this is so plain, that all the sophistry of yout
denomination cannot obscure it from those
" who think for themselves," and understand
what is, and what is not "logical reasoning."

I will now invite your attention to a simi-
lar, and equally striking figure with that
which we have just been considering. Please
to turn to Eph. ii. and read from the 11th
verse to the end of the chapter.

Here the apostle recognises the Epliesians
before their conversion, in their Gentile char-

170

acter. " Gentiles in the flesh, being without
Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Isra-
el, and strangers from the covenant of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world.
But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes
were far off, are made nigh by the blood of
Christ, tor he is our peace, who hath made
both one" But how has this been accomplish-
ed ? Was it by destroying the old building,
and with a part of the materials thus scatter-
ed around, and others collected from the
wilderness, erecting another on a new
foundation ? No ! merely by " breaking down
the middle wall of partition" that excluded
the Gentiles. This he did, not by destroy-
ing the original covenant, or constitution of
the church, but " by abolishing the law of
commandments contained in ordinances" It was
by this means that "he made in himself oj twain
one new man, and reconciled both unto God in
one body ;^~and came and preached peace to
you which wt ? t far off, and to them that were
nigh. For by him, we both have an access by
one Spirit unto the Father." Pray, who are
these that were "nigh" before the wall was
broken down? for they occupied the very
place to which the Gentiles were brought by
the blood of Christ. " Notv, therefore, says
the apostle, ye are no more strangers and fa
reigners, hut fellow-citizens with the saints and
of the household of God." But who are these
saints and household to which these Gentiles
were strangers and foreigners before their
conversion? The apostle has already inform-

171

ed us on this point. Yer. 12. " They were a-
liens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenant of promise.* But
now they are u fellow citizens, SCc. And are
built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone" Here, if human language can
express the unity of the Jewish and Christian
church, it is expressed. Here is the church
standing on the apostles, and the church stand-
ing on the prophets, each resting equally on
Jesus Christ as their foundation, or chief
corner stone. This stone, which the unbe-
lieving Jewish builders rejected, and which
fell upon them, is indeed the head of the cor-
ner on which the church has always rested. —
The apostle seems so full of this subject that
the same idea runs through the succeeding
chapters. He calls the Gentiles "fellow-heirs,
and of the same body ; and partakers of the
promise in Christ by the gospel*

I shall only add here that the idea of a two-
fold but essentially the same church, runs
through the Apocalypse. This book is in-
deed highly mystical, but allusions of this
kind cannot be misunderstood. The jour and
twenty elders, seated around the throne of
God, with crowns of gold on their heads, is
a manifest allusion to the twelve patriarchs

* Some may still sneer at the idea that the Jewish church at
the time of our Saviour's advent, should be styled "the saints
and household of God." But as I have already answered thie
objection more than once, I shall only remark, that there were
real saints in the Jewish church, at that time, and they were ali
by profession " the household of God." Those who were net-
were " broken off" before the Gentiles were incorporated witlfc
them, a* has been shewn, (Page 138—9.)

172

or heads of the tribes of Israel, and the twelve-
apostles. Rev. iv.4. Such also are the two mys-
tical numbers of 144,000. Chap. vii. and xiv.
The same is expressly declared of the twelve
gates and the twelve foundations of the New-
Jerusalem, on which were written " the
names of the twelve tribes of the children of Is-
rael," and " the names of the twelve apostles of
the Lamb" Chap. xxi. And to the same idea
*' the song of 31oses, the servant of God, and
the song of the Lamb" which was sung in
heaven, is to be referred. Chap. xv. 3. — In
all these allusions, the sameness of the church
under both dispensations, is plainly recogni-
sed and established.

SECTION VL

Eugenius. We havespenta great deal
of time, Lebbeus, on this subject, but before
we proceed any further, I wish, as briefly
as possible, to recapitulate the arguments
which I have adduced in support of the
sameness of the church ; and then, I am wil-
ling to submit the question to your own
conscience.

In the first place, then, I have proved
that infant membership, instead of stand-
ing on the same foundation with " tythes,
animal sacrifices, &c." as you imagined, was
established by the original covenant, which
was instituted four hundred and thirty years
before the ceremonial law.

173

2. That this covenant, instead of being a
mere national compart, was the covenant
of grace, comprising " all the blessings that
God has ever promised to his church :" — -
That the seal of this covenant, instead of be-
ing a mere mark of carnal descent, is "a
seal of the righteousness ofjaith" and impli-
ed the same, when applied to Abraham's
seed, as to himself: — That the blessings of
the covenant were, ordinarily, to descend
from parents to children; not by natural
generation, but on the condition of the cov-
enant; and hence the continued impenitence
of children results, not from any defect in
the covenant, but from the unfaithfulness
of their parents. — This procedure, I shewed
you, is analogous to other parts of the di-
vine government, and secures the most pow-
erful means for the preservation and ad-
vancement of religion in the world.

3. That the same principles of holiness
and obedience, which are required of the
Christian church, were required under the
former dispensation ; and that, not merely
on the ground of the universal law of God,
but by the covenant: — That your doctrine
of "typical" holiness is contrary to the A-
brahamic covenant in its original institution^
in its subsequent renewals witli Abraham*
Isaac and Jacob, and with Israel in the wil-
derness, and in the land of Canaan; and is-
absolutely inconsistent with the moral char*
acter of God, and the requirements of his
holy law,

174

4. That the same striking epithets and
figures of speech, are applied to the church
under both dispensations, to express her
union to her great King and Head; and there
is not the Jeast intimation that they mean
less in the one case than in the other.

5. That the import and design of circum-
cision and the pnssover were, respectively,
the same with baptism and the Lord's Supper,
and therefore occupy the same place in the
covenant: baptism being called "Christ's cir-
cumcision" (Col. ii. 11, 12.) and the Lord's
Supper, " Christ our passovcr" (1 Cor. v.
7,8.)

And finally, I have shewn, by several ex-
press texts of scripture, which might have
heen multiplied if needful, some of which,
all the ingenuity of your church has not
been able to explain away, that the Jew-
ish and Christian church is essentially the
same ; the change of dispensation not hav-
ingaltered the original constitution. — If you
have any doubt remaining, on any of these
points, review the evidence which has been
adduced, for I am willing it should under-
go the strictest scrutiny ; then lay your
band on your heart and say, whether the
sentiment which J have been advocating is
not established .

Leb, I acknowledge myself unable to con-
trovert your reasoning. The arguments
which you have adduced have been exhi-
bited in a light that appears to me irresisti-
ble. I must therefore decline acting any

17. r)

longer as an opponent on this point. There
are, however, some difficulties stiJl remain-
ing, which I should be happy to state, for
the purpose of hearing your remarks.

Eug. Please sir to suggest them ; and if I
can relieve your mind of any embarrass-
ment, I shall be happy to serve you.

Leb. Well Sir, a principal difficulty which
operates in my mind is this: 1 have often
heard it asserted, that this method of prov-
ing infant-membership, by a recurrence to
the Abrahamic covenant, is a " recent inven-
tion"— that "Zuinglius and Calvin were the
first that ever adopted it,"

Eug. Suppose I should admit this to be
a fact, so far as that this method first came
into general use about the time of the Re-
formation ; what would it prove? Why ve-
rily this, \hdt previous to that time, there was
not a community in the Christian world, called
a church, which denied infant membership. —
It is no strange thing that the sword should
rest in the scabbard, where there is no ene-
my to oppose.

Leb. But you do not mean to intimate,
that there were no Baptist churches previ-
ous to that time?

Eug. That is, precisely, my meaning.

Ltb. You astonish me, Eugenius ! I have
been told a thousand times, that our church
had always existed by a regular and unin-
terrupted succession from John the Baptist ;
and I have supposed that this was distinr t-
ly recorded in Ecclesiastical history. Is no!
this the case ?

176

Eug. No, Lebbeus, there is not a word of
truth in it. Instead of going to the land of
Judea, for the origin of your church, you
need go no farther than the city of Munster.
And instead of regarding John the Bap-
tist as your patron, John Bockhold, if not
Thomas Munzer, is the legitimate founder
(if the term legitimate may be applied to a
lawless fanatic) of your sect. Your church
is not as old as the Christian church, by al-
most fifteen hundred years.

Lei. But pray tell me, whence are these
facts obtained I

Eug. They are derived from any authen-
tic history of the church; and if you will
take the trouble to examine for yourself,
you will be convinced, that the Baptist sys-
tem is a mere mushroom, that vegetates in
the night, without seed or root ; and Ian*
guishes and dies beneath the rays of the
sun. — To substantiate in part what I have
already advanced, I may refer you to the
concessions of your own denomination. Dr,
Gill, one of the most learned and laborious
divines that your church ever boasted of,
and others less distinguished, have been
constrained to acknowledge, that from the
fourth to the eleventh century of the Chris-
tian era, they are "not able to find one in-
stance of an opposer oj infant baptism." —
Here then, is a period of seven hundred years
in which there is no evidence of the exist-
ence of a single Baptist churchy or even of an
individual Baptist. Hence, it may fairly be*

177

presumed, that if your order had been ori-
ginally derived from John the Baptist, the
succession must have been completely in-
terrupted.

Leb. But it would seem from this conces-
sion, that there was evidence somewhere,
that previous to the fourth, and subsequent
to the eleventh century, infant baptism
met with opposition. Is this, then, a fact?

Eug. In answer to this inquiry, I will
refer you, in the first place, to the testimo-
ny of Dr. Wall, a learned divine of the
church of England, who wrote a history of
infant baptism more than a hundred years
ago. This same Dr. Wall, though a Ptedo-
baptist, supposes that immersion is the
proper mode of baptism; and therefore, on
this point, he is often referred to by your
denomination. For this reason it woukl
seem, that his authority ought to be more re-
spected by them, on both parts of the con-
troversy, than Psedobaptists'in general. The
following quotation is his summary of the
evidence, on both sides of the question. —
"LastIy,forthefirstfourhundredyears,there
"appears only one man, TertulJian, who ad-
" vised the delay of infant baptism in som©
"cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps
" practice such delay, in the case of his own
"children; but no society of men so think-
" ing or so practising; or any one man sa)>
" ing it was unlawful to baplize infants. So5
"in the next seven* hundred years, there
"is no* so much, as ane. man to be founds

178

"who either spoke for or practised any
" such delay, but all the contrary. And when,
"about the year 1130, one sect among the
" Waldenses or Albigenses declared against
"the baptizing of infants, as being incapa-
"ble of salvation, the main body of that
" people rejected their opinion ; and they
"of them who held that opinion, quickly
" dwindled away and disappeared ; there be-
"ing no more persons heard of, holding that
" tenet, until the rising of the German Anti-
"pasdobaptists in the year 1522."

In order to shew you, that these asser-
tions are not made without abundant evi-
dence of their correctness, I shall refer you
to some of the authorities on which they are
founded.

Dr. Gill and others of his sect who have
repeated the sentiment after him, have as-
serted that " Tertitllian is the first who
spoke of infant baptism, and at the same
time spoke against it." In answer to this
it has been observed with great propriety,
that "Dr. Gill, instead of saying that Terlul-
lian is the first man who mentions infant bap-
tism and spoke against it, ought to have said,
that he was the only man tfi all antiquity,
whose writings have come down to us, who has
said any thing at all against the practice of
baptising infants" This is the precise fact.
No other person among all the ancient fa-
thers speaks against it. What sort of a
foundation is this for the Baptist scheme ?
Because the fathers of the first century af-

179

ter the Apostles, are silent on the subject,
therefore, say the Baptists, it was never prac-
tised at that time. Suppose I should infer
from the same fact, that it was universally
practised ; which would really be the most
probable ? And if this practice were intro-
duced, as they say, about Tertullian's time,
how can we account for his being the only
opposer ? Was he the only faithful man in all
Christendom ? Was^ there no other to oppose
such a monstrous innovation? We know,
that in those days, the smallest deviation in
faith or practice, produced most awful
schisms in the church ; and yet the Baptists
would fain persuade us, that a practice, in
their opinion, more impious than any of the
abominations of popery, was universally
introduced throughout the Christian church,
at the close of the second or beginning of the
third century, and only one man lifted up his
voice against it !!! Will any man of common
sense believe this ?

But after all, what is the amount of Ter-
tullian's opposition to infant baptism ? It
would seem, from the frequent references
to this fact, that here was something,
the Peedobaptists knew not how to dispose
of. But does he say that there is no authori-
ty in scripture for the practice ? No ! — Does
he pronounce it an innovation not sanction-
ed by Apostolic example ? No ! — Does he
ridicule it as being of no more use than to
baptize " lambs and calves and young cat-
He ?" — Nothing of the kind. — He merely

gives it as his opinion, that it had better be
delayed till the subjects are of riper years :
and at the same time, he allows it as proper,
in cases of sickness or danger of death. From
this fact it is evident, that Tertullian was
opposed to the general practice of infant
baptism, on very different ground from the
modern Baptists ; for they are as much op-
posed to baptizing infants at the point of
death, as at any other time. With this fact,
in view, if I were a Baptist, J should be a-
shamed to refer to Tertullian's authority.
But how shall we account for his advice
against the general practice of infant
baptism, while he admits of it in cases of
extremity ? This apparent inconsistency is
easily solved, and the true ground of his o-
pinion ascertained, when we recollect that,
about this time, the sentiment that baptism
actually washed away all moral pollution,
and that sins committed after the reception
of that ordinance were so heinous, as to be
next to unpardonable, began to obtain. On
this mistaken ground, Tertullian advises, not
only to delay the baptism of infants till they
are of riper years, but also the baptism of
" unmarried persons, till the danger of temp-
tation is past — till marriage or the abate-
ment of lust." From the same false im-
pression, it was no uncommon thing at that
period, for those who were converted to the
Christian faith, to delay their baptism till the
close of life.

Here then is the whole secret of Tertul-

181

lian's opposition to infant baptism. And if
it proves that practice to have been an inno-
vation, it proves the same concerning the
baptism of unmarried persons. But in nei-
ther case does this follow. Nay, his very
advice, instead of militating against the
practice, proves that it was then and ever had
been the universal usage of the church, a-
gainst which he could urge nothing but his
own opinion, which was founded on an erro-
neous sentiment. In view of this fact I ask,
can a man, who knows what Tertullian does
say on this subject, be honest in asserting
that "he is the first of the fathers who speaks
of infant baptism, and at the same time
speaks against it ?" The Baptists never pre-
tend to quote his words, but merely make
this broad assertion, which carries great
weight in the view of those people who are
ignorant of what he does say. They con-
sider it as overwhelming evidence against
the Psedobaptists; and this is the manifest
design of the assertion. But is not this tell-
ing a part of the truth to establish a par-
ticular system, when, if the whole (ruth were
told, it would be most decisive testimony a-
gainst it? Would not such a witness in a ci-
vil court be deemed guilty of perjury? Is
it any better in a theological controversy?
or, does the gospel admit of pious frauds ?

This, then, according to their own con-
cession, is all the testimony that the Baptists
have to urge against infant baptism, during
the first 1 100 years of the Christian era ; and

182

this, instead of disproving it, affords conclu-
sive evidence, that it was the universal prac-
tice of the church.

But although Tertullian is the first of
the fathers, that expressly mentions infant
baptism, it is distinctly recognised before
his time.* JustinM artyr, who wrote about
forty years after the Apostolic age, says
" We have not received the carnal, but spiritu-
al circumcision, by baptism : and it is enjoin-
ed on all persons to receive it in the same man-
ner" Here, baptism is distinctly recogni-
sed as coming in the place of circumcision,
and as applicable to the same subjects. And
is this the " new fangled doctrine which was
invented about Luther's time for other pur-
poses than gospel purity ?" Such is the de-
claration of one who professes to be ac-
quainted with the writings of " the fathers"
and " historians'' and " reformers" and
"learned authors" and "quakers ;" and to
have " carefully consulted linguists."

*Dr. Gill being conscious that his system can derive no sup-
port from the writings of the fathers, endeavours to discredit
their testimony by intimating, that their writings have been cor-
rupted ; and he expressly asserts that " what is pretended to be
near those times, [apostolic days] is the more to be suspected ;"
and yet after writing only two pages, he cites a passage from
the writings of St. Barnabas, a cotemporary of the apostles and
the companion of St. Paul, to prove immersion, (a passage, by
the way, precisely parallel to the scripture - expression " going
down into and coming up out of the water."; But did Dr. Gill
forget so soon, his own declaration " the nearer the apostolic age,
ihe more suspicious the testimony.'* Or did he mean, that we
must suspect the fathers in nothing but what was against his
system ? This is asking rather too much. If he considers them
competent witnesses in favour of immersion, 1 shall consider
them so in support of infant baptism, until those passages are
proved to be interpolations ; which the Baptists have never yet
had hardihood enough to attempt.

183

Again, Justin Martyr observes " seve-
ral persons among us of 60 or 70 years old,
who were made disciples to Christ from their
childhood do continue uncorrupl." They
were madedisciples/rom their childhood; and
how ? but in obedience to the commission
of our Lord " Go disciple all nations, bapti-
zing them, SCc"

Irenjeus, who was born before the death
of St. John, wTas well acquainted with Poly-
carp, St. John's disciple, and often heard
him preach, and who wrote in advanced life
between sixty and seventy years after the
apostolic age, observes concerning Christ,
" He came to save all persons who by him are
regenerated unto God, infants, little ones,
youths and elderly persons" Many of the
ancient fathers used the words regeneration
and baptism as in some sense synonymous.
That Irenaeus did so in the passage I have
quoted is manifest from his own words; for
he says " When Christ gave his apostles com-
mand of regenerating unto God, he said,
Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,
&c." In like manner, Justin Martyr ob-
serves " they are regenerated in the same
way oj regeneration, in which we have been
regenerated; for they have been washed
with water, in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" In
order to apply these passages to the point
in dispute, it is needless to determine, whe-
ther the word regeneration is therein used
correctly or not. The sense in which it. is

184

used is manifest, and therefore it is evident
that these testimonies are decidedly in fa-
vour of infant baptism.

Origen, who was born eighty-five years
after the apostolic age, declares that " the
church had a tradition or command from the
apostles to give baptism to infants." And he
makes use of infant baptism, as an argument,
to maintain the doctrine of human depravity.
These are his own words. " David, concern-
ing the pollution of infants, says, I was
"conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my
" mother bring me forth. Let it be consid-
ered what is the reason, that whereas the
" baptism of the church is given for forgive-
ness, infants also, by the usage of the
"church, are baptized ; when if there were
"nothing in infants, which wanted forgive-
"ness and mercy, the grace of baptism
" would be needless to them. And again,
" infants are baptized for the remission of
"sin. Of what sin? Or, when have they
" sinned ? Or, how can any reason of the la-
" ver hold good in their case ? But accor-
"ding to that sense before mentioned, none
" is free from pollution, though his life be
" only the length of one day upon the earth.
"It is for this reason that infants are bapti-
" zed, because by the sacrament of baptism,
" our pollution is taken away." Can any
person believe, that Origen would have rest-
ed an important doctrine on an argument,
the correctness of which was disputed by
any part of the church ? The supposition is
incredible.

1S5

I will now refer you to the testimony of
Cyprian and the council of Carthage in the
year 253. The following question had been
proposed by Fid us, a Presbyter, to Cypri-
an, and, by him, was submitted to this coun-
cil, viz. Whether an infant might be baptized
before it was eight days old ? The council
consisted of sixty-six bishops; and they were
perfectly unanimous in their decision, which
Cyprian communicated to Fidus in the fol-
lowing words. "As to the case of infants,
"of whom you said, that they ought not to
" be baptized, within the second or third day
" after their birth, and that the ancient law of
" circumcision should be so far rejteated, that
"they ought not to be baptized till the eighth
" day, we were ail of a very different opin-
" ion. The mercy and grace of God, we all
"judged, should be denied to none. For if
"the Lord says in his gospel, ' The Son of
"man is not come to destroy men's lives
" but to save them,' how ought we to do our
" utmost as far as in us lies, that no soul
"should be lost! Spiritual circumcision
"should not be impeded by carnal circum-
"cision. If even to the foulest offenders,
"when they afterwards believe, the remis-
sion of sins is granted, and none is prohib-
ited from baptism and grace ; how much
"more should an infant be admitted, who,
"just born, hath not sinned at all, except
"that being carnally born according to A-
"dam, he hath contracted the contagion of
" ancient death in his first birth; who ap-
16*

]8G

"proaches to remission of sins, the more
"easily, because, not his own actual guilt,
"but that of another is remitted. — Our sen-
tence therefore, clearest brother, in the
"council was, that none by us should be
"prohibited from baptism and the grace of
"God, who is merciful and kind to all."

Here observe, that the Presbyter who
proposed this question, does not intimate a
doubt of the propriety of infant baptism. The
only hesitation was, whether it might be ap-
plied earlier than circumcision had been. Not
a doubt is expressed by the council, — they
are unanimous in their result. Therefore,
I ask again, does it appear, from the nature
of this question and the answer which it re-
ceived, that the ancient fathers did not re-
gard the Abrahamic covenant as the consti-
tution of the church — that "this method of
proving infant baptism was first invented by
Zuinglius or Calvin" Can any man, who has
ever seen the record of this fact, and has any
regard to truth, assert, that the idea of bap-
tism's coming in the place of circumcision
" is a new f angled doctrine, invented about the
time oj Luther for other purposes than gospel
purity ?"

St. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years
after the apostles, expressly declares " that
infant baptism was practised in his time, and
in the time of the Apostles."

St. Chrysostom, who was born A. D. 355,
observes that " persons may be baptized either
in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age,"

187

and that " infants were baptized, although
they had no sin, &c."

St. Hierome, who wrote about 280 years
after the Apostles, says " if infants be not
baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is
lend to the parents' cheirge"

St. Austin, who was cotemporary with
Hierome, mentions " infant baptism as one of
" those practices which was not instituted by
" any council, bid hael always been in use" He
savs "The whole church of Christ had
" constantly held that infants were baptized for
" the forgiveness of sin." That he had ne-
" ver read or heard of any Christian,
" catholic or sectary, who held other-
" wise :" and that " no Christian of any sort,
" ever denied it to be use fid or necessary" " If
" any one says he, should ask for Divine au-
thority in this matter, though that, which
"the whole church practises, and which has
"not been instituted by councils, hut was e-
" ver in use, may be believed, very reasona-
" bl y, to be a thing delivered or ordered by
"the apostles, }et we may, besides, take a
" true estimate, ftow much the sacrament of bap-
" tism does avail infants, by the circumcision
" which GoeVs former people received^ Here
again, we are assured, not only that infant
baptism was practised in the primitive ages,
but that the church considered the law of
circumcision as the foundation and warrant
of the practice. Therefore I am bold to af-
fi in, that when a man, professing acquaint-
ance with the writings of antiquity, asserts,
that this "is a newfangled doctrine inven-
ted about the time of Luther," he betrays

188

gross ignorance of the subject, or a total dis-
regard to truth. "Against men that will

MAKE SUCH ASSERTIONS, IT IS MY DUTY TO
WARN YOU."

Not only do these positive declarations of
the fathersestablish the practice ofinfant bap-
tism, but the manner in which they mention
the subject affords conclusive evidence that
it was the universal practice of the church.
They are not found disputing the point
with opponents, deducing arguments to
justify it, or removing objections against it
They merely hint at the subject inciden-
tally, when treating on other topicks. —
This would not have been the case, had
there been a single individual, and especial-
ly if there had been any considerable por-
tion of the church, which rejected the prac-
tice. They were always ready to enter the
lists with any opponent. And had there
been a single opposer of infant baptism in
Christendom, we should find their writings
teeming with arguments to overthrow the
adversary. This single circumstance is con-
clusive in proving, not only that it was no
innovation, but also that it was the univer-
sal practice ojthe church during the first four
centuries.

Before I leave this period, T must call
your attention to the evidence furnished by
the Pelagian controversy, concerning origi-
nal sin : which commenced about three
hundred years after the apostles. Pelagius
maintained that infants were born pure from

189

all sin. Among other arguments which Hie*
rome and Austin urged against his doctrine,
was infant baptism. "Infants, say they, are
by all Christians acknowledged to bland in
need oj baptism, which must be in then for ori-
ginal sin since they have no other. — If they
have no sin why are they then baptized. — Why
are they washed in the laver of regeneration if
they have no pollution ?"

Pelagius and his adherents, as might be
expected, were extremely embarrassed with
this argument, and they knew not bow to
evade it. If there had been the smallest scru-
ple in their minds with respect to the Di-
vine authority of this practice, if there had
been a single section of the church which re-
jected it, would not Pelagius have availed
himself of the advantage? He was even
charged by some of rejecting infant baptism;
probably because it seemed naturally to re-
sult from his doctrine. But he highly re-
sented the charge, and disclaims it as a slan-
der, declaring that " Baptism ought to be ad-
ministered to infants with the same sacramen-
tal words which are used in the case of adult
persons"* — that " men slander him as if he de-
nied the sacrament of baptism to infants,' and
that " he never heard oe AK\,notcvcn THE
MOST IMPIOUS HERETIC, that would
say such a thing of infants." Strange, in-
deed, if it were ever practicable, that Pe-
lagius, with all his learning, could not dis-
cover, in his day, what Baptists pretend to
have discovered eleven or twelve hundred

190

years later; Tiz. that infant baptism was an
innovation of the second or third century !!!
The fact is, Pelagius never possessed the
facially of discovering things that never ex-
isted.

From all this evidence, it appears that
during the four first centuries there is not
an individual to be found in the whole Chris-
tian church who denied infant baptism. One
indeed, on mistaken principles, advises its
delay, both with respect to little children and
unmarried persons, but still admits of it, in
both instances, in case of extremity ; while
others explicitly declare that it was derived
from the apostles, and was the universal prac-
tice of the church.

With respect to the seven succeeding cen-
turies, many of the most distinguished Bap-
tists, as you have already heard, have ac-
knowledged that they cannot find a single
opposer of the practice. The whole support
then, of the Baptist scheme, during the first
eleven hundred years of the Christian era*
is the testimony of Tertullian, which, when
the whole truth is told, is one of the most de-
cisive testimonies in favour of infant bap-
tism.

In the eleventh century there was a sect
of the Pauiicians, who rejected all external
rites and ceremonies, and maintained that
"the whole of religion consisted in the stu-
dy of practical piety, and in a course of ac-
tion conformable to the Divine laws." They
denied the necessity and utility of external

191

ordinances, and hence refused both bap-
tism and the Lord's supper to adults as
well as infants. In this respect, their prin-
ciples were the same with the modern Qua-
kers. But, can any man suppose that the
practice of this sect argues any thing in fa-
vour of the Baptist scheme ? For my part,
I cannot perceive how ; and I should never
have imagined it, had I not seen the autho-
rity of the Quakers referred to on this sub-
ject, and found some Baptists expressing
themselves thus — " 1/ the Quakers would ac-
cept of compliments, I would thank them for
their DISINTERESTED testimony on the
subject of the present controversy" This, how-
ever, is nothing singular; it is not the first
time that men, as much opposed to one
another as Pilate and Herod were, have be-
come friends in opposing the true church of
Jesus Christ.

In the twelfth century, as you have al-
ready heard from Dr. Wall, " one sect of
the Waldenses or Albigenses declared a-
gainst the baptizing of infants," but upon
different ground from the modern Baptists;
for they pronounced infants " incapable of
salvation" But this sentiment was rejected
by the great body of that people, and those
who embraced it soon dwindled away and
disappeared ; " there being no more persons
' heard of holding that tenet until the rising of
the German Anti-padobaptists, in the ycarjif-
teen hundred and twenty-two" These facts
are abundantly substantiated by various his-

192

torians. Where then, I ask, was the Baptist
church during all this time ? Am I not jus-
tified in the assertion that "your church is
not as old as the true Christian church by al-
most fifteen hundred yearsT

Lei). I am overwhelmed with astonish-
ment. If these things are so, pray tell me,
whence did our denomination originate ?

Eug. Here is the ivth volume of Mo-
sheim's Ecclesiastical History : I will read
you two or three paragraphs, and you may
then take the book home with you and pe-
ruse it at your leisure.

"It is difficult to determine with certainty, the particular
spot that gave birth to that seditious and pestilential sect of a-
nabaptists, whose tumultuous and desperate attempts were e-
cually pernicious to the cause of religion, and the civil interests
of mankind. Whether they first arose in Switzerland, Germa-
ny, or the Netherlands, is as yet a matter of debate, whose de-
cision is of no great importance. It is most probable, that seve-
ral persons of this odious class made their appearance, at the
same time, in different countries; and we may fix this period
soon after the dawn of the reformation in Germany, when Lu-
ther arose to set bounds to the ambition of Rome. This appears
from a variety of circumstances, and especially from this stri-
king one, that the first anabaptist doctors of any eminence, were
almost all heads and leaders of particular and separate sects. —
For it must be carefully observed, that though all these pro-
jectors of a new, unspotted, and perfect church, were compre-
hended under the general denomination of anabaptists* on account
of their opposing the baptism of infants, and their re-baptizing
such as had received that sacrament in a state of childhood in
Other churches, yet they were, from their very origin, subdivided
into various sects, which differed from each other in points of
no small moment. The most pernicious faction of all those that
composed this motley multitude, was that which pretended that
the founders of the new and perfect church, already mentioned,
were under the direction of a divine impulse, and were armed
against all opposition by the power of working miracles, it was
this detestable faction, that in the year 1521, began their fanati-
cal work, under the guidance of Munzer, Stubner, Storck, and
other leaders of the same furious complexion, and excited the
most unhappy tumults and commotions in Saxony and the
adjacent countries. They employed at first the various arts of

193

persuasion, in order to propagate their doctrine. They preach*
ed, exhorted, admonished, and reasoned in a manner that seem-
ed proper to gain the multitude, and related a great number of
visions and revelations with which they pretended to have been
favoured from above. But when they saw that these methods
of making proselytes were not attended with such a rapid suc-
cess as they fondly expected, and that the ministry of Luther
and other eminent reformers, was detrimental to their cause,
they then had recourse to more expeditious measures, and madly
attempted to propagate their fanatical doctrine by force of arms.
Munzer and his associates assembled, in the year 1525, a nume-
rous army, composed, for the most part, of the peasants of Sua-
bia, Thuringia, Franconia and Saxony, and, at the head of this
credulous and deluded rabble, declared war against all laws, gov-
ernment, and magistrates, of every kind, under the chimerical
pretext that Christ was now to take the reins of civil and eccle
siastical government into his own hands, and to rule alone over
the nations. But this seditious crowd was routed and dispersed
without much difficulty, by the elector of Saxony and othe?
princes; Munzer, their ringleader, ignominiously put to death,
and his factious counsellors scattered abroad in different place?.
"This bloody defeat of one part of these seditious and turbu-
lent fanatics, did not produce that effect upon the rest that
might naturally have been expected ; it rendered them indeed
more timorous, but it did not open their eyes upon this delusion.
It is certain, that even after this period, numbers of them, wht>
were infected with the same odious principles that occasioned
the destruction of Munzer, wandered about in Germany, Switz-
erland and Holland, and excited the people to rebellion by their
seditious discourses. They gathered together congregations in
several places ; foretold, in consequence of a divine commission.
the approaching abolition of magistracy, and the downfal of ci-
vil rulers and governors; and, while they pretended to be am *
bassadors of the Most High, insulted, on many occasions, the?
Majesty of heaven by the most flagitious crimes. Those who
distinguished themselves by the enormity of their conduct in
this infamous sect, were Lewis Hetzer, Balthazar Hubmeyer,
Felix Mentz, Conrad G rebel, Melchior Hoffman, and George
Jacob, who, if their power had seconded their designs, would
have involved all Switzerland, Holland and Germany in tumult
and bloodshed. A great part of this rabble seemed really deli-
rious ; and nothing more extravagant or more incredible can be
imagined than the dreams and visions that were constantly arising
in their disordered brains. Such of them as had some sparks of
reason left, and had reflection enough to reduce their notions in-
to a certain form, maintained, among others, the following points
of doctrine: 'That the church of Christ ought to be exempt
from all sin ; that all things ought to be in common among the
faithful ; that all usury, tythes and tribute ought to be entirclv
abolished; that the baptism of infants was an invention of the
devil i that every Christian was invested with a power to preach

194

the gospel, and consequently, that the church stood in no need
of ministers or pastors ; that in the kingdom of Christ civil ma-
gistrates were absolutely useless, and that God still continued
to reveal his will to chosen persons by dreams and visions.' "

Then after mentioning the severe pun-
ishments that were inflicted to restrain
their disorders, and their temerity in en-
countering them, Mosheim continues :

** There stands upon record a most shocking instance of this,
in the dreadful commotions that were excited at Munster, in the
year 1533, by certain Dutch anabaptists, that chose that city as
the scene of their horrid operations, and committed in it such
deeds as would surpass all credibility, were they not attested in
a manner that excludes every degree of doubt and uncertainty.
A handful of madmen, who had got into their heads the visiona-
ry notion of a new and spiritual kingdom, soon to be established
in an extraordinary manner, formed themselves into a society, un-
der the guidance of a few illiterate leaders, chosen out of the
populace. And they persuaded, not only the ignorant multitude,
Ibut even several among the learned, that Munster was to be the
seat of this new and heavenly Jerusalem, whose ghostly domi-
nion was to be propagated from thence to all the ends of the earth.
The ringleaders of this furious tribe were John Matthison, John
Bockhold, a taylor of Leyden, one Gerhard, with some others
whom the blind rage of enthusiasm, or the still more culpable
principles of sedition, had embarked in this extravagant and
desperate cause. They made themselves masters of the city of
Munster, deposed the magistrates, and committed all the -enor-
mous crimes, and ridiculous follies, which the most perverse and
xnfernal imagination could suggest. John Bockhold was pro-
claimed king and legislator of this new hierarchy; but his reign
HTas transitory, and his end deplorable. For the city of Munster
was, in the year 1536, retaken, after a long siege, by its bishop
and sovereign, count Waldeck ; the New Jerusalem of the ana-
baptists destroyed ; and its mock monarch punished with a most
painful and ignominious death. The disorders occasioned by the
anabaptists at this period, not only in Westphalia, but also in
other places, showed too plainly to what horrid lengths the per-
nicious doctrines of this wrongheaded sect were adapted to lead
the inconsiderate and unwary; and therefore it is not at all to be
wondered, that the secular arm employed rigorous measures to
extirpate a faction which was the occasion, nay, the source of
unspeakable calamities in so many countries." See also Robert-
son's Charles V.

We do not charge your denomination,
with all the extravagancies of these fanatics.

195

Shortly after their association, they were
greatly reformed and reduced to a consid-
erable degree of order by Menno, a Popish
priest, who went over to them, and became
the apostle of the sect. But in them you
behold the true origin of the Baptist church ;
and from them, are derived the distinctive
principles of your denomination.1*

* Although the Baptists were first organized into a distinct
denomination in the with century, and although many have
supposed that the origin of their sentiments, is still veiled in
considerable obscurity, I cannot forbear to. hazard the conjec~
ture, that the fundamental principles of that system, may be
traced up to the very first heresy that disturbed the Christian
church. From the Gnosticks of the Apostolic age down to the
German fanatics, it is evident that there were some, in every
age, who maintained, in some shape or other, that " The books
of the Old Testament were not of Divine authority — that the God
of the Jew* -was not the true God, but a kind of subordinate
dkitt, -whom they had substituted in the place of the true God,-
and that JWoses, in imposing such a system of disagreeable and se-
vere laws on the Jews, was acttiated by that subordinate deity, who
consulted his own glory and authority, and not the real advantage
of men?'' And in consequence of "a persuasion that evil resided
in matter as its centre and source, which prevented their treat-
ing the body with that regard that is due to it," some of them
denied the utility of external ordinances, and of course rejected
the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper. These sen-
timents were confined to the East until the xith century ; at
which time, a great multitude of the Paulicians, who maintain-
ed these doctrines with some modifications, " either, from a zeal
" to propagate their opinions, or, a desire to escape the perse-
** cutions of the Grecian church, emigrated into Europe, and
" among other countries, into France and Germany. Here they
" laid aside some of the most obnoxious doctrines which they
" hud previously maintained, assumed the appearance of singular
" piety, rejected all rites and ceremonies, even the Christian sa-
" craments, and looked with contempt on all external worship,
*' In the following ages., a like set of men, who had previously
•* emigrated from the East, proceeded in vast numbers out of It-
" aly, spread like an inundation through all the European pro-
" vinces, and were known in Germany under the name of The
u brethren and sisters of the free spirit" From Germany some of
them emigrated into England during the reign of Henry viiith,
and began to propagate their sentiments in that kingdom. (See
Spanhkix, Moshfim, Bfrket and others.) Now observe^

196-

Now Lebbeus, I wish you to judge for
yourself, which were the most zealous ad-
vocates for "gospel purity," Luther and
his coadjutors, or the lawless enthusiasts by
whom your denomination was founded. If
the former had been removed when the lat-
ter arose, where would have been the glory
of the Protestant church? It is unquestion-
ably owing to the light which Luther and
Calvin and others of their communion dif-
fused, that your sect were induced to purge
out many of the most obnoxious sentiments,
which their predecessors had maintained.
But for the influence of those worthies, the
heresies of former ages would have remained
in all their deformity.

Leb. In view of all this evidence, I wish,
sir, to ask you one question : Do you re-
gard our churches, as churches of Christ ;
and our elders, as regularly authorized min-
isters of the gospel ?

JEug. I candidly ackaowledge, that this
question is the most difficult to answer of

1 hat " the Old Testament is all done away" — that «' Jehovah
•was merely a King or temporal Governor to Israel," — that " the
Jewish religion -u-as a carnal religion, rjell adapted to please the-
carnally minded and did not require heai. holmess," are well
known to be the fundamental sentiments of the Baptist scheme.
f „et the reader compare these with the sentiments stated in the
beginning1 of this note, which were maintained by the early here-
tics, and then say. whether there is not a striking affinity be-
tween them ? Then let him read the history of the Gnosticks —
the Manichxans — the Paulicians — the Catharists — the Brethren
and Sisters of the free spirit — the Men of understanding, and
other German fanatics, and I think, he can be at no loss, as to
the derivation of Baptist sentiments. In this point of view, I am
willing to admit a regular sitccession from the apostolic age ;
but it is from a source, and through a channel, which, however
strong its claims to antiquity m^y be, can do no honour to any
Christian denomination.

19?

any you have proposed, since we commen-
ced our discourse. I have already obser-
ved, that the question, which divides your
church and ours, is a constitutional question.
Our system being established, you are guil-
ty of rejecting one prominent article of the
constitution of the church. How far this
etfects the actual existence of your church,
1 am not prepared to say. I have no doubt,
that churches may be erroneous both in faith
and practice, and yet those errors not being
fundamental, they may be true churches of
Christ. But with what propriety this re-
mark may be applied to those communities
which reject and deride the constitution that
lies at the foundation of the church, is very
difficult to determine. Nor is it a matter of
much consequence, in view of the latter
part of your inquiry, as a still more se-
rious difficulty exists with respect to the
ordination of your ministers ; and of course,
as to the validity of their administrations.

If I understand the gospel, the ministe-
rial office was given by our Saviour to his
apostles, to be exercised by them, and com-
mitted to other faithful men, agreeably to
the direction of Paul to Timothy. " Neg-
lect not the gift that is in thee, which was giv-
en thee by prophecy, and the laying on of the
hands of the presbytery" 1 Tim. iv. 14.
" And the things that thou hast heard of me
among many witnesses, the same commit thou
lo faithful men, who shall be able to teach oth-
ers also." 2 Tim. ii. 2. This " honour" or

it*

198

office power "no man can take on himself "
and none that does not possess it, can confer
it upon another. But your denomination
have, from their beginning, rejected this
doctrine, and advocated lay -ordination. The
Anabaptists of the xvith century, as you
have just heard from Mosheim, maintained
that " every Christian was invested with a
"power to preach the gospel, and conse-
quently that the church stood in no need
" of ministers or pastors." Since that time,
the sentiment has been boldly advocated by
some of the most distinguished members of
vour communion. Dr. Gill asserts, that
"As every civil society has a right to
" choose, appoint and ordain their own offi-
" cers, — so churches, which are religious so-
cieties, have a right to choose and ordain
"their owe officers, and which are ordained
"for them, and for them only; that is for
"each particular church, and not another*
" The election and call of them with their
"acceptance is ORDINATION." This
indeed levels the Christian ministry with the
ground, and opens the door for the intro-
duction of any man, however ignorant and
vicious, if he only has craft enough to im-
pose on a small community of people as ig-
norant as himself, and induce them to choose
him for their pastor. Not only so, it drives
Dr. CilJ into this, among other gross absur-
dities: that " a pastor of one church, cannot
officiate as such in another church" nor " ad-
minister the Lord's Supper" nor even "pu$

199

forth any act or operation there" any more
than " the Lord Mayor of London can exer-
cise his power, in any branch of his office, m
the jurisdiction of the Mayor of York or
Bristol." — When such sentiments as these
are advanced by the most distinguished
members of your communion, to say the
least, there is great room for suspicion. — I
am aware that manv of vour churches have-
denounced these opinion?, and oppose them
in practice. But a mere change in senti-
ment and practice cannot give validity to an
invalid ordination-. Though your elders
alone are permitted, at the present time, to
ordain, yet they can confer no power but
what they received. And if they derived
their power from the source maintained by
Dr. Gill, then, they stand on the same ground
with the founders of your sect, who public?
ly advocated lay-ordination, or rather deni-
ed the necessity of any ordination at, all. — .
I do not say, that none of your ministers
have been regularly ordained ; but, this P
say, there is so much obscurity with respect
to the body at large, that I am unable to
give a decisive answer to your question.

SECTION VII.

Prom the doctrine which has been es-
tablished, and the evidence adduced from
writings of the Fathers and the history of
the church, I am warranted to infer, that

200

infant baptism is the ordinance of God, and
has been the practice of the church Jrom the
days of the apostles.

Your denomination have ever founded
their opposition to infant baptism, on the
want of what they call "explicit ivarrant"
They say, there must be an express precept
or an unquestionable example, in the New
Testament, to justify the practice. With
the greatest propriety, we deny this. We
prove that when the Lord first organized
his church into a regular community, it was
composed of professed believers and their
households ; and that the existing seal of the
covenant was, by divine direction, applied
to both. Now we say, and we have an ?m-
doubted right to say, to our opponents, "The
"labouring oar is yours: — prove that the
"original constitution of the church is al-
tered;— prove that the infant seed of be-
lievers have ever been excluded from the
"covenant. Produce the passage from the
"word of God, in which this evidence is
" contained, and we will surrender the point.
"It is your duty to furnish explicit warrant
" against our practice" Conscious of the
correctness of this demand, and of their ut-
ter inability to comply with it, your people
have been driven to the direful necessity of
vilifying the ancient church, reducing it
to a mere shadow, and degrading the AL-
MIGHTY GOD OF ISRAEL to the ig-
noble station of a temporal King." This is
the yery foundation of your whole scheme ;

20*

and a rotten one it is, in very deed ! The
most able of your disputants have never un-
dertaken to comply with our just demand.
They have never pretended to prove that
infants are expressly excluded fron> the
church. All the evidence^ they have addu-
ced, is of the negative kind. They say
"there is no command or example in the
New Testament for infant baptism." This,
if admitted, is nothing to the point. AfteF
all that we prove, it is your business to fur-
nish the precept or example against it. —
They say, " the gospel requires a profesr
sion of repentance or faith as a qualification
for baptism." We admit it without hesita-
tion, for the same did the Lord require of
old. But as then, so now, when the profes-
sed believer receives the seal of the cov-
enant, he becomes entitled, by God's gra-
cious promise, to the same seal for his chil-
dren. We are as strenuous advocates for
believer's baptism, as you are. We never ad-
minister the ordinance, but on a credible
profession of faith. We do not pretend to
baptize infants without it. But we require
the profession not of the infants, but of them
in whom the right lies. The infants of be*
lievers, in themselves considered, have no
more right to baptism, than the children of
unbelievers. The right vests in the believ-
ing parent, and results from God's gracious
covenant with him. Hence we mark the
children as "set apart" for the Lord, be-
cause their parents are the Lord's. — Thus

202

we produce direct and positive evidence in
support of our practice, and you can fur-
nish nothing- but negative evidence against
it. — In a large company of men a felony is
committed. Ten of the men are brought
forward, who testify that they saw the accu-
sed perpetrate the crime. Ten more of the
company, or ten times ten if you please,
come forward in his defence, and declare
that they did not rvitness the crime, nor even
see the man there. Would this afford any
just ground for a jury to doubt whether the
man was guilty of the alledged crime ?
Would they hesitate a moment to pronounce
him guilty ? Here is no clashing of testimo-
ny : No balancing of probabilities. The
veracity of no witness is called in question.
All are believed. But here is the point.
There is direct and positive testimony to
support the charge; and against it, nothing
but negative evidence, which might be mul-
tiplied to the ends of the earth, without in-
creasing its weight. This is the precise
state of the controversy between your de-
nomination and ours.

Leo. But Sir, you have more than once
intimated, that there is evidence in the
New Testament to sanction your practice.
I should be glad to hear you on that point.

Bug. Seeing that our Saviour and his
apostles acknowledged the Abrahamic cov-
enant as the constitution of the church, as
I have abundantly shewn, there is just as
much evidence of infant membership in the

203

New Testament as we should expect to
find ; and that is, a distinct recognition of
the fact. Thus our Saviour declares "Suf-
fer little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not, for of such is the kingdom of God"
See Mat. xix. 14. Mar. x. 14. Luk. xviii.
16.

Leb. But these children were not brought
to Christ for baptism.

Eug. Very true : and for very important
reasons. They were the children of be-
lieving parents, (for no others would have
brought their children to Christ, beseeching
him to lay his hands on them and pray,) and
therefore had received the existing seal of the
covenant. Besides this, Christian baptism
was not then instituted. The change of
dispensation, as has been shewn, had not
then taken place.* But they were " little
children,'9 "young children," "infants," {ov
so they are called by the different evange-
lists; and they were "brought" to Christ,
and " fie took them up in his arms.,J All these
circumstances shew, that they were so small
as to be incapable of acting for themselves. f

* That John's baptism was not Christian baptism, will be
proved, when I come to speak of the mode.

f It is perfectly astonishing to witness the various expedients
of the-Baptists, to explain away every text of scripture, that
seems to favour infant membership. They have attempted to
destroy the force of this text, by endeavotiring to make the
world believe, that these children must have been at least 12
years of age. And why ? Merely because the ruler's daughter,
who is said to be 12 years of age, is called "padton" (a child)
which is the same word that is used in this text ; although these
children are said to have been " brought" to Christ, and that

204

And yet Christ declares " Of such is the
kingdom of God. Now understand this
phrase, in any of the senses, in which it oc-
curs in the gospel, the result will be the
same in favour of our practice. Suppose
it means " the kingdom oj glory" If hea-
ven is filled with infants, shall the church on
earth exclude them? Suppose it means "the
kingdom of grace;" shall they be excluded
from the household of J aith on earth? Or

" he took them up in his arms." This must have been rather a
singular method of handling children 12 years old ; notwith-
standing one has said in explanation of this, that " Christ was
omnh>ote:<(t ! ! !" — But the}' are not only called "padia," but
also " brephe." Luk. xviii. 15. This term not onlv signifies
** infants,'" as it is rendered in our translation, but from its deriva-
tion it properly means "sucklings." It is the Greek word which
is applied to children, not only as soon as they are born, as in
Luk. ii. 12, 16, but, also to Xhefatus in utero. See Luk. i. 41—
44. But even this word, Dr. GjII says, is applied to one "ca-
pable of being instructed and of understanding the scriptures."
But where ? He refers to 2 Tim. iii. 15. "From a child thou hast
kno~on the holy scriptures" But did the apostle mean to say,
that Timothy had been acquainted with the scriptures merely
from the time he was capable of understanding them ? Suppose
the word should be rendered u infant" or " suckling" which is
its proper meaning j would there be any thing incredible in the
declaration that '*' from his infancy he had known the scrip-
tures 1" Faithful parents, I believe, are in the habit of beginning
to instil divine truth into the minds of their children, even be-
fore they are iceaned. And so, I presume, did the mother of Tim-
othy, who was renowned for piety, and her mother before her.
2 Tim. i. 5. If this text, therefore, has any bearing on the pre-
sent controversy — if Timothy's '* knowing the scriptures" implies
what Dr. Gill says it does, viz. " understanding them ;" it proves,
that he -was sanctified at a very early period of life, through the in-
strumentality of his pious mother's fidelity. — Here then on this text
we have a fair specin en of Baptist candour. Now, suppose, we
were told in plain words in the New Testament, that " padia"
(little children) or " brephe" (infants or sucklings) are proper
subjects of baptism, would not our opponents adopt the same ex-
pedients to destroy what they are constantly demanding, an " ex-
plicit warrant ?" For my part, I have no doubt, they would ar-
gue, in the same way, to prove that they must be at least 12
years old, before they could be baptized. "

205

suppose it means, what is the most frequent
import of the words, " the visible church ;
the point is decided. Whether you apply
it to the former or latter dispensation, the
result will be in our favour. If to the for-
mer, our Saviour hereby declares, that as
infants were attached to the church under
that dispensation, it was his benevolent in-
tention to continue their standing; and there-
fore he rebuked his disciples for manifesting
a disposition to exclude them. If the phrase
be applied to the gospel church, which in-
deed is by far the most frequent applica-
tion, it is "explicit warrant — a positive de-
claration that the gospel church, like the an-
cient, is in a great measure composed of in-
fants. But this is more than I ask, and more
than Baptists will admit, as long as any me-
thod of torture for a text of scripture re-
mains. Take which of the preceding inter-
pretations you please, it is a plain proof of
infant membership.

The same idea is plainly deducible from
the grand commission of our Lord to his a-
postles. " Go ye therefore and teach (that is
" disciple'''' or " make disciples)qf" for so the
original word literally signifies) all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, Sfc."
Mat xxviii. 19.

Leo. But this plainly implies that they
must believe before they are baptized.

Eug. It plainly, declares that they are
to be " made disciples" before they are bap-
tized. And as to the manner of making dis-
ciples, this was to be done according to the

206

method which had been previously estab-
lished, and which Christ had left unaltered.
Till then, their commission had been confi-
ned " to the lost sheep of the house of Is-
rael." But now it is extended to the whole
world ; to Gentiles as well as Jews. " The
middle wall of partition" being removed,
they are to go forth and " disciple all na-
tions" just as the Jews had been " discipled"
in preceding ages. The original plan is left-
unaltered ; the execution of that plan is on-
ly extended. No other directions were giv-
en; no other are to be found in the gospel.
Hence, they were to " make disciples of
all nations" by requiring a credible profes-
sion of faith, of all adult persons, and then
acknowledging their infant seed as disciples
(or scholars) to be trained up in the school of
Christ for the Lord's service. Then both pa-
rents and children are to receive the seal of
God's covenant, as a mark that they are, in a
peculiar sense, the Lord's property. If this
is not the plain interpretation of the text,
then Christ has given a commission that ne-
ver will nor can be executed. Even in the mil-
lenium, a great part of the nations cannot
be called disciples, if infants, who are inca-
pable of making a personal profession of
faith, are excluded from the covenant.*

* It is truly diverting to see the Baptists, when pressed with
the inconsistency of their practice in maintaining- female commu-
nion without "explicit warrant," tugging with all their might
to prove it from 1 Cor. xi. 28. " Let a MAN examine HIMSELF,.
&.c." " Here," say they, " is explicit warrant" for female com-
munion. The " word fanthroposj rendered man is a generic term .
tor the human species, and includes lotmen as well as men.''*

207

In the light of this iext, we see what con-
sequence is to be attached to the baptism of
"households " spoken of in the New-Testa-
ment. It is true we are not expressly in-
formed that there were, or were not, infants,
or little children in any of those families,
though your denomination speak of these,
with as much confidence as if the latter were
expressly declared. But this much is plain-
ly deducible from the record in the instan-
ces of Lydia and the jailer, that they were
the only professed believers in their respec-
tive families. The jailer's conversion is all

shall consider this argument at large, when I come to speak of
female communion : I shall therefore only inquire here, if" an-
thropos" is a generic term, does it not include infanta as well as
men and -women, and so prove infant, as well as female commu-
nion. This, however, would be proving1 rather too much. — But
suppose, when the Baptists demand of us an explicit warrant for
infant baptism, we should refer them to the commission of Christ
to his apostles, and insist that the term "ndtionf includes all
the individuals of the community, consisting of men, women,
children and servants I appeal to " lexicographers:," to " com-
mon sense," and even to Baptists themselves, with all their pre-
judices, whether there is not as firm a foundation here for expli-
cit warrant to justify infant baptism, as in i\\z text to which they
refer for the support of female communion ? It is vain to plead
that infants cannot be "made disciples," and are therefore exclu-
ded ; for this is begging- the question. Besides, we have proved
that they were once included in the covenant, and our opponents
must shew that they hive been excluded before they tell us that
they cannot be regarded as disciples

But, says Dr Gill, "It infants, as a part of all nations, and
because they are such, are baptized, then the infants of Heathens,
Turks and Jews ought to be baptized, since they are a part, and
a large part of all nations." Very true, and so they should; that
is, whenever they become disciples, and this will be the case,
when their parents become believers. Hence, 1 have said, and I
repeat the sent mem, if this is not to be the case, then Christ
has given a commission that never ca?i be executed Even in the
miltenium, "a large part of all nations" according to Dr. Gill's
• '.vii statement, will not b<£ " discipled,^ if all infants are to be ex-
cluded.

20$

that is declared to have taken place in his
house. Common readers of the bible are
apt to suppose that the conversion of the
whole family is asserted in Acts xvi. 34. —
But no such idea can be deduced from the
original text, of which the following is as lit-
eral a translation as our language affords
terms to express. "And when he had brought
them into his house, he set meat before them,
and rejoiced with for in) all his house,* he
having believed in God" Faith is here
predicated not of his household, but of him-
self alone. To infer, therefore, that the rest
of his household were converted at that
time, is taking for granted what is not even
intimated. It is true we are told that " the
apostles spake the word to all that were in
his house," but this is no evidence that they
were all converted, nor is the idea even im-
plied in any part of the record.

Moreover, this view of the passage ac-
cords precisely with what the apostles told
the jailer, when he inquired " What must I
do to be saved?" The answer was " Believe
in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shall be

* To shew the propriety of this construction, it may be pro-
per to inform the unlettered reader, that the phrase which is
translated " with all his house" instead of being a preposition,
with an adjective, a personal pronoun, and a noun, as in ojpr
language, is a single word in the original, and that a com-
pound adverb, qualifying the verb " rejoiced." It is rendered "with
all his house," merely because the English language does not
uirmsh an adverb corresponding with the original. These facts
plainly shew, that the passage, instead of declaring the conver-
sion of the whole family, only expresses the circumstance of his
rejoicing, not only in his own personal safety, but also in the
glorious prospect with respect to his household^ which the faith
eJf the gospel had opened to his view.

209

saved and try house." This is a plain ac-
knowledgment of the original promise. As if
they had said " Believe and be faithful, and
God's gracious covenant embraces your
household, as well as yourself." And this,
again, corresponds with our Saviour's decla-
ration to Zaccheus, who was the only belie-
ver in his family. " This day is salvation come
to this house, for as much as he also is a son,
of Abraham" Luk. xix. 9. By becoming
a believer in Christ, he became a son of A-
braham; and by becoming a son of Abra-
ham, "salvation" by virtue of the Abra-
hamic covenant, " came to his housed

A similar peculiarity is observable in the
narrative of Lydia's conversion. We are
distinctly informed that "the Lord opened
her heart" but not a shadow of evidence is
there, that any more of her household were
converted. To infer this from their baptism ,
is, as in the case of the jailer, begging the
question. " And when she was baptized and
her household, she besought us, saying, If ye
have judged me to be faithful, . Si 'c." evidently
implying that she was the only believer in the
family. Hence, it is evident that these in-
stances afford a plain recognition of tbeorigi-
ginal covenant, and consequently of infant
baptism. The same observation may be
made on 1 Gar. vii. 14. "For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified, kc. else were your chil-
dren unclean, but now are they holy."

Leb. But, sir, I have often heard it said,
that the apostle, in this passage, was not
18*

S*9

treating of infant baptism, but of the law-
fulness of believers and idolaters dwelling
together as husband and wife. And I find
that this is the idea of the writer of the dis-
course to which I have already referred;
and he adds, "The apostle teaches, in this
" passage, that the unbelief of one, did not
"render the marriage covenant void, else
" were your children unclean, born out of
"marriage, or illegitimate ; but now, he
" adds, they are holy or sanctified, as common
"food is said to be sanctified by the word
"of God and prayer: i. e. rendered fit for
" use. If the circumstance of being sanctified
" in the sense here used by the apostle, is all that
"is necessary to baptism, common food is also
" the subject oj baptism"

Eug. Who ever supposed or intimated
that the apostle was treating here on the sub-
ject of baptism, either of infants or adults ?
nor is such an idea necessary to the argu-
ment that is founded on this text. And that
he does not use the terms "sanctified" and
"holy" as implying inherent holiness, is pre-
cisely what we wish to have admitted. But
"we do believe that he makes allusion in this
passage to the relation between parents and
their children, and so does your author,
though he applies it to quite a different ob-
ject. And we are in the habit of supposing
that he uses the words " sanctified" and " ho-
ly1' in their primitive sense, as implying
something " separated" or "set apart" from
a common to a special use, Thus the se-

2li

venth day — the first-born — the tabernacle—
the temple, with all its furniture — the altar
— the sacrifices— the tythes — dedicated hou-
ses and fields, &c. &c. were sanctified under
the law; that is, they were "separated'" or
** set apart" from a common use to the Lord's
service. And I have always supposed that
in this case, the apostle uses the word " saric-
tified" in application to common food, 1 Tim.
iv. 5. and I verily thought that this was es-
teemed, by all Christian denominations,
the orthodox interpretation of that text. I
never knew before, (nor do 1 believe it nowj
that common food is not "jit for use" until
a blessing is asked upon it. I did not know
that this pious practice rendered our food
any better. I always supposed that the
Christian observed it, not to make his food
"Jit for use " but as an acknowledgment
that his mercies are from God, and are to
be used in his service. In other words, as a
solemn dedication or "separation" or " set-
ting apart" of his food to the service of his
Maker. If this is not the true import of the
passage, it remains to be proved what its
true meaning is ; for I am sure no "consi-
derate" man will adopt the interpretation
your author has given. If he were correct,
no epicure would live withoutachaplain;and
all the people of the world would pay some
more respect to religious duties. They are
as fond of eating food that is "jit for use" as
Christians are.

But we have not yet arrived at the cli-

212

max of absurdity ! After quoting a passage
as precisely parallel to the one under con-
sideration, your author tells us, that in one,
the term means "jit for use;" and in the
other " legitimate" or " born in marriage"
This is a striking parallelism indeed. — But
suppose it were complete, what then? Did
the apostle intend to pronounce the children
of those who entered into marriage without
faith in Christ, illegitimate I This would in-
deed be a fine compliment to the people of
the world. Or, did he only mean to tell us,
that the mutual children of a believer and un-
believer, who had been joined in marriage ac-
cording to Divine institution previous to the
conversion of the one, were not bastardized
by that circumstance ? This would be an
equally fine compliment to the "common
sense" of the Christian. He must have a
revelation from heaven to inform him, that
the faith of Christ does not make void the
marriage contract* And yet this is the result
of your authors exposition. Admirable
theology and logic ! !

Now Lebbeus, turn your attention to the
interpretation which 1. have given, and which
is supported by a hundred texts of scripture.
Understand the apostle as telling a believing
parent, that tlie unbelief o[ his partner does
not exclude their household from the bles-
sings of the covenant ; but that in conse-
quence of the faith of one, their common
children are Ao/y, that is, not yet possessed
oi inherent holiness, but " separated or set

213

apart" for the Lord, to be trained up in his
service. And is not this a natural and con-
sistent interpretation of the text ; and does
it not evidently establish infant member-
ship ?

Leb. Well, if we admit that this is the
case, still it. is asked " What good can it do
to baptize infants ?"

Mug. And on the same ground I may ask,
" What good can it do to baptize adults ?"
Does the soul derive any benefit from the
application of water to the body ? — But
stop. Are we to be the judges of the pro-
priety or impropriety of Divine ordinances ?
If so, then there is no security for any posi-
tive institution of Heaven. On this ground
Abraham might have demured and said,
" Lord what good can it do to put the seal of
MY faith on my children eight days old?"
But no ! Abraham had too much respect for
Divine authority, and he set too high a value
on that gracious covenant which God had
condescended to make with him, in behalf
of his seed, to hesitate a moment. He em-
braced it as a privilege that must gladden
the heart of every pious parent. — In order
to ascertain the obligation of a divine pre-
cept, we have no business to inquire, what
good the observance of it can do ? Our only
legitimate inquiry is,. "Has God enjoined
it?" That he has, in this instance, has been
proved. — But when the duty is acknowledg-
ed, there is no impropriety in our contem-
plating the, advantages resulting from thai

214

duty, as an encouragement and excitement
to fidelity. Therefore, I invite you, to re-
view what has been already said on the sub-
ject, and then say, if there is not encourage-
ment enough held out in God's gracious pre-
mise, to overwhelm the pious parent'* soul
with joy and gratitude. To have the prospect
of seeing his children sanctified through the
instrumentality of his labours, must be a
most powerful stimulus to parental fidelity.
And from the evidence adduced, I am war-
ranted to say, that in those families where
faithful instruction and discipline, support-
ed by pious example and daily prayer, are
maintained, there is as much more reason
to expect the sanctification of their children,
than of those who neglect these duties, as
there is to expect the salvation of those, who
diligently and devoutly attend onthe means
of grace, rather than of those who are desti-
tute of them.

It is remarkable, Lebbeus, that scarcely
a single objection is brought forward, by
your denomination, against the Abrahamic
covenant, but what was anticipated and an-
swered by St. Pan!. " What advantage then
hath the Jew 1 and n hat profit is there of cir-
cvmcision ?" is the question which he ex-
pected some would ask, and is virtually the
same which you have proposed. But he
does not answer it, as though he considered
circumcision a badge of carnal descent, of
token of a mere national covenant. " Much
every rvai/ ; chiefly , because that unto them

815

were -committed the oracles of God." Here,
nothing is said about the land of Canaan or
other temporal blessings, as constituting the
principle advantages resulting from that
covenant. But, they had the oracles of God,
by virtue of which their children enjoyed
the privilege of a religious education, which,
according to the Divine constitution, was
the appointed means of their salvation. —
The very same advantages result from in-
fant baptism.

Leb. You speak of these duties, as though
their performance depended on the obser-
vance of infant baptism. But cannot we
discharge them without having our children
baptized ?

Eug. I consider human nature as it is,
for in this light the Lord regards it. Every
man needs some excitement to the perfor-
mance of what he knows to be his duty;
and hence the Lord has seen fit to require
his people to bind themselves by covenant.
And that this is necessary in the case of
parental duty, I will appeal to your own ex-
perience and observation. — As to domestic
worship, that stands on the same foundation,
in your church, with infant baptism — with-
out explicit warrant ;" and hence your peo-
ple feel at liberty to observe it or not, ac-
cording to their own pleasure. It is also
notorious that you discountenance the prac-
tice of catechising your children ; though
there are but two or three answers in the
Assembly's Shorter Catechism that inter-

216

fere with your system. Go into any school
in this region of country, to hear the chil-
dren recite this precious " form of Sound
words," and you find a number who do not
engage in the exercise. Ask the teacher,
the reason? His reply is, " Their parents
are Baptists or Quakers" And after all, it
would be well if our children could per-
forin this duty, without being told by their
school fellows, that "their catechism is all
the work of man, and therefore they are not
to receive what is therein taught as the truth
of Jehovah." I speak plainly, Lebbeus, be-
cause these things are notorious facts in this
part of the world ; and I have often been
ready to believe, that your people were de-
termined to prove, by awful experiment,
the sentiment they profess, "that their chil-
dren are no more likely to be converted, than
the chidren of their most irreligious neigh-
bours" I shall join with them in this opin-
ion, as far as it respects their own church,
if the facts which I have noticed, extend
throughout your communion. But in the
very acknowledgement of the sentiment, I
discover an important reason for requiring
parents to dedicate their children to God,
and enter into solemn covenant to be faithful
to their soids.

Leb. But if children are proper subjects
of baptism, are they not as capable of the
benefits of the Lord's supper?

Eug. Though both ordinances are holy
seals of the same covenant ; it does not fol-

217

low, that all who receive the one, must in>
mediately receive the other. They are both
positive institutions ; and therefore their ap-
plication depends entirely on the will of
the Instil utor. They are evidently design-
ed for different ends. Baptism is a mark of
membership in the church. Hence it is to
be applied as soon as that membership is
constituted, and therefore is not to be re-
peated ; for when the mark is once placed
on the subject, the end is answered. But
the Lord's supper is not so. Besides being
a seal of the covenant, it is one of the means
of nourishing the Christian, and building
him up in the most holy faith ; and there-
fore is to be frequently celebrated. Hence,
though children are to be baptized as soon
as may be, to recognise them as " separated"
to the Lord, in consequence of their con-
nexion with believing parents ; yet they are
not to be admitted to the Lord's table, till
they are capable of making a personal ac-
knowledgment of the covenant, and " have
knowledge," both speculative and experi-
mental, "to discern the Lord's body."

Leb. But do you not consider your bap-
tized children, to all intents and purposes,
members of the church ?

Eug. With respect to the nature of their
standing, there is some diversity of opinion
in our church. But after all, that difference
is not so great as is generally imagined. —
The main question is, " Whether their stan-
ding is such, as to require the church to cut
19

2i a

tfhem off', by a formal act of excommunication,
in case they continue impenitent and incorri-
gible ?" But the view that has been given of
the subject, I think, affords a plain and con-
sistent answer to this question. The entire
connexion of children with the church is
through their parents. It is not their act
whit h makes them members of the church,
any moie than of the commonwealth under
which they Jive ; but their being born un-
der an established constitution. Hence as
long as their connexion with their parents
subsists; that is, as long as they form .mem-
bers of the family and are subject to paren-
tal control, so long they are subject to the
church and liable to its discipline. But ob-
serve, here, the discipline of the church
must follow the course of the connexion.
The connexion is through the parent, and
therefore tire discipline of children must be
exercised through the parent. The church
can enforce discipline on her baptized chil-
dren, no further than she can require their
parents to enforce it. If they should refuse
to execute her commands, or forbid their
children to submit to her authority, the
church has no power to take them out of
their hands. In that case, she could excom-
municate the parents for disobedience ; but
by the very same act, the children would be
cut off with them. For the parent is the
intermediate link that connects the children
with the church; when this link is broken,
their connexion is, of course, dissolved. —

219

Tftie excommunicated person has no more
connexion with the church, than if he had
never been a member. And hence, his chil-
dren stand in the same relation that they
would have done, it* he had never belonged
to it. This is one way in which the Lord
visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the
children. And doubtless a regard to the
welfare of his children, as well as to his own
personal safety, is designed to operate as a
motive to induce the Christian to walk wor-
thy of his high vocation. — That this mode
of connexion between baptized children and
the church, is according to the common un-
derstanding of Psedobaptists, is evident from
this simple fact: that when parents are dis-
missed from one branch of the church to join
another, the relation of their children is, by
the same act, considered as transferred;
though not a word is said about them in the
act of transfer.

As a further confirmation of these views
it may be remarked, that under the former
dispensation, when a child would not sub-
mit to parental control, the parents were
commanded to bring him before the elders
of the city. Deut. xxi. 18 — 21. Here it is
obvious, that the parents' authority is re-
garded as the means of bringing him before
the church. If they had neglected or refu-
sed to do so, the elders had no authority to
arraign him. And when he was brought,
there was no way provided to cut him off
from the church, but to cut film off from the
parents, by dissolving the relation between

220

them. Hence, he was condemned to be
stoned to death. And although under the
gospel, capital punishment, in this and oth-
er cases, is annulled ; yet the same mode of
connexion between the church and her bap-
tized children, is distinctly exhibited. The
command to parents is " Submit yourselves
to those who have the rule over you ," and
" Train up your children in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord:" To children " Obey
your parents" — The church is to command
parents, and parents are to command their
children; and if churches and parents were
both faithful, the blessed fruits of this Divine
constitution would be daily realized; and
this I think would be found to be all the
discipline necessary for baptized children.
If this view of the subject be correct, the
point is decided with respect to a formal act
of excommunication. There are but two
ways in which you can cut off baptized
children. One is by excommunicating their
parents; the other, by dissolving the rela-
tion between them and their parents. The
latter the church cannot do, at least in the
manner formerly practised:* The for-

* Although llie church does not now possess the power of in-
flicting capital punishments, yet there is a way in which the
connexion between parents and children may be dissolved with-
out taking life. They may be excluded from the household.
And suppose a child should abandon himself to debauchery,
drunkenness and other vices, and refuse to submit to parental
control, it is a serious question whether, after every means has
been used for his reformation and he remains incorrigible, he
ought not to be excluded from the family ? However painful
this, would be to parental feelings, might not the honour of reli-
gion, the credit of the family and the morals of the other mem
iters of the household require, the sacrifice ?

221

mer she will not, as long as the parents do
all that she requires. But when their con-
nexion with their parents ceases, that is, so
far that they are not subject to parental
authority; when children cease to be mem-
bers of the parents' family and set up an in-
dependent interest for themselves, in that
same instant, their connexion with the
church ceases, if they have not previously
made a voluntary surrender of themselves
to God. But then the church cannot ex-
communicate them, because their connex-
ion with the church is already dissolved.

Leb, I have always understood that you
consider your baptized children under spe-
cial obligations to own the Lord as their
God; but this doctrine appears to leave
them, after all, to act as they please.

Eug. We do indeed consider our chil-
dren under special obligations. These,
however, proceed, not from any personal act
of their own, but from the enjoyment of
those peculiar privileges which result from
the constitution under which they were
born. In no other light can their obliga-
tions be considered or enforced. On this
ground we may urge them to duty, and con-
vince them of their guilt in neglecting it.
But we could never make them feel a con-
sciousness of guilt in the violation of vows
which they never made. Obligations, re-
sulting from the source I have mentioned,
will be binding upon them to their dying
day. They can never divest themselves of
19*

2^2

these bonds. But by neglecting to discharge
the duty which those obligations impose,
they may cut themselves off from the bles-
sings of the covenant. So far, then, from
leaving them to act as they please, this doc-
trine imposes their duty under the most so-
lemn penalty. A penalty inflicted, as it
were, by their own hand.

Leb. But does not this render infant- bap-
tism a nullity ?

Mug. No more than in the case of an ex-
communicated member. Baptism does not
communicate grace, either to adults or in-
fants. It is a seal or pledge of special pri-
vileges. These privileges, in the case of in-
fants, result from their connexion with pi-
ous parents. While this connexion subsists,
they enjoy a peculiar season of probation.
If they pass through this, without becoming
pious, and taking upon themselves the bonds
of the covenant, their " circumcision is made
uncircumcision ;" and they are to be consid-
ered in the same light as though they had
never been baptized. The pledge, certain-
ly, can exist no longer than the privileges,
of which it is a seal, exist. The bible knows
nothing of children 40, 50 and even 70 years
of age in a slate of minority ; while, perhaps,
they are at the same time, parents and heads
of families of their own.

Leb. But if I should become a Paedobap-
tist, I should be loath to adopt a scheme that
would cut off from the church, so many
who had been baplized. Besides, when

223

any of them were afterwards converted, now*
should they be received ? Must they be bap*
tized again ?

Eug. This objection is founded entirely
on the present unfaithfulness of parents and
the churches. If child rem were faithfully
brought up — if they were urged to the im-
provement of their privileges while they en-
joyed them; and understood that the mo-
ment they left the parental roof, they would
step out of the territory of the church, I ap-
prehend, there would be little need of a more
extensive plan than that which I am advoca-
ting. No consideration could be better cal-
culated to impress the youthful mind. They
would tremble at the thought of taking the
awful step, that must sever them from the
church of God and from the blessings of the
covenant. In the faithful use of the appoint-
ed means, we might generally expect our chil-
dren to experience saving blessings, before
they leave the family altar. — As to the re-
ception of those who might be converted af-
terwards there is no difficulty in the ca*e, a-
ny more than in the restoration of an excom-
municated person, who gives evidence of
sincere repentance : and this difficulty is not
peculiar to our scheme ; it occurs as often
in Baptist churches as in ours. Suffice ii
to say, that in our connexion, we do not
consider rebaptism, in such a case, either ne-
cessary or allowable.*

* The Baptists are by no means agreed on this c;-se. Some say,
if a member of their church should prove an apostate, and give «?-

22 i

Lcb. Still there is one objection which, I
think, militates powerfully against your
plan, If the dissolution of the connexion
between the church and the parents, cuts off
the children, then when the parents are re-
moved by death, the children are cut off from
the church.

Eug. There is no weight, at all, in this
objection. It is the aet of God in his com-
mon providence that removes the parents, in
this case ; and that not as a punishment, ei-
ther on them or their children. Hence, it
can, in no sense, be considered as a dissolu-
tion of the constitution of the church. Be-
sides if they are real Christians, death does
not cut them off from the church: it only
removes them to another and more exalted
department of it. Therefore their children
hold their relation to the church, as long as
they would have done if their parents had

idence that he was regenerated afterwards* he must be rebapti-
*ed. Others, with propriety, say, that as they cannot tell the
state of the heart, and as the man has already been baptized on a
credible profession of faith, it is needless to repeat it since they are
as liable to be mistaken in the second case as in the first. * But
one has attempted to dispose of the difficulty in a summary way.
He says, "Such a case cannot occur in a REGULAR liaptist
church,- for they require evidence of grace in the jirst instance,
mid they can receive no more in the second'* Rut, does this man,
like the enthusiastic founders of his sect, claim the faculty of dis-
cerning- spirits ? and does he, on this ground, mean to assert that
apostacies never occur in the Baptist church ? This cannot be,
for a multitude of facts declare the contrary. — Does he then in-
tend, that those who have once apostatized, are never restored
to the communion of their churches ? Here again facts stare him
in the face. Or, does he mean that all the Baptist churches are
JRregular P This is, undoubtedly, the fact, whether he intended
to be so understood or not. On this ground, and on this alone, I
credit the assertion.

225

lived. And herein is presented the mosl
important object of one ecclesiastical office,
which the present unfaithfulness of the
church has rendered almost useless. The
office of " deacon'' was originally instituted
for the express purpose of taking care of
widowed families. It is still the duty, and
the principal duty of those who sustain
that office, not only to administer to the
temporal wants of such, in that situation, ag
need assistance ; but especially to take care
of their spiritual concerns — to see that the
orphan children of the church, who are left
without a parental guardian, are placed in a
situation where they will be brought up un-
der religious instruction and discipline, as
becometh the children of saints. — What an
unspeakable consolation would it be to the
poor man on his dying bed, to have the as-
surance that his dear children, whom he loves
as his own soul, and whom he is about to
leave without a cent of property, will not
be cast upon a wide unfeeling world, with-
out a pious guardian, but will immediately
become the special care of the church. This
assurance, methinks, would rob the " king
of terrors" of his last sting. For myself I
can say, it would afford me more satisfaction
than to leave them thousands of silver and
gold.

Leu. And, as a Christian, I must say I can
most cheerfully subscribe to the same sen-
timent. Why, Eugenius, this opens a new
world to my view* How is it possible that
I have been so blinded before X

226

Eug. The principal reason is, you have
never taken the trouble to investigate our
system with candour: and another circum-
stance, which has contributed to confirm
your prejudices is, that our churches have
conducted so little according to their profes-
sion. During the last century, the glory of the
Pasdobaptist church has been veiled in ob-
scurity, by her own unfaithfulness. The in-
troduction of what was called " the half-way
covenant" into the churches of JNew-En£-
land — a plan on which, a facetious poet just-
ly represents a person as standing with

° One foot secure in church's pale,
** And t'other out ot doors,"

did more towards pulling down the Congre*-
gational, and building up the Baptist church-
es, than any other event that has ever taken
place. From that period, till within a few
years, family instruction and discipline were
constantly declining. And in other portions
of the Paedobaptist church, an awful laxness
of discipline has produced similar effects. —
By these means, a generation has been rais-
ed up, who, instead of reproaching their pa-
rents for their unfaithfulness, have taken oc-
casion to revile God's gracious covenant, and
triumphantly inquire, " What good can it do
to baptize children /"

But, blessed be God, we hail the dawn of
brighter days. An almost universal sensa-
tion on this subject is felt through the Psedo-
baptist church. The orthodox churches of
New England, with but here and there a a.

227

exception, have returned to gospel order; and
what is truly surprizing, their return has
even been more rapid than their departure
was. Other churches of this country are re-
viving their discipline, and appear to be vie-
ing with one another, as if to see, which will
do most for the instruction and restraint of
their baptized children. God is daily own-
ing his covenant and blessing those instruc-
tions to the sanctification of souls. The
time is evidently approaching, when "the
hearts of the fathers shall be turned to their
children, and the hearts of the children to their,
fathers /' and "the Lord will pour out his Spi-
rit upon their seedy and his blessing upon their
offspring. And they shall spring up among
the grass as willows by the water courses. One
shall say, I am the Lord's, and another shall
call himself by the name of Jacob, and anoth-
er shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord
and surname himself by the name of Israel."
Isa. xliv. 3 — 5.

Leb. But our people are constantly say-
ing that our churches are increasing, and
that yours are rapidly decreasing. What is
the fact?

Eug. That your churches have increased
in this country ; and that, some years ago,
they did so at our expence, I have admitted,
and have shewn you the true cause. But
that you are now increasing more rapidly
than our churches, if you have ever heard
it asserted, it is palpably false. I have of-
ten heard it insinuated, for the purpose of

228

exciting prejudice against our system ; but
I have never yet found a man possessed of
sufficient hardihood to assert it as a fact.
Since God has been pouring out bis Spirit
so remarkably ol late years, what churches,
that make any pretensions to experimental
godliness, have not increased ? But have
none but yours been distinguished with the
effusions of grace ? Have ours been left to
languish under the frowns of Heaven ? Let
any man cast his eye over our country, and
assert these as facts, if he dare.

But suppose you were increasing, and all
other churches decreasing, what would that
prove? If it were any evidence of the cor-
rectness of your scheme, the time has been
when popery, and every other false scheme
of religion, even infidelity itself, might have
urged this argument in their favour. In fact,
it would prove nothing but, what the Lord
has been pleased, in his holy providence, to
prove a thousand times, that in a depraved
and ignorant world, error may sometimes suc-
ceed at the expence of truth ? On the whole,
this is one of the most arrogant, and, at the
same time, weakest arguments that your
people have ever urged.

Leb. But many of our people say they
never doubted the correctness of their scheme,
and they know that they are right.

Eug. And pray tell me, do you consider
tbat any evidence of their being right ? Do
not the advocates of error usually display
greater confidence, and far less modesty,

229

than the humble defenders of truth? Were
not the Pharisees of old as confident as any
of your denomination are, that they were
right ; and yet were fatally mistaken ? A
man may be very confident ; yea, he may
be sincere, and even act conscientiously in the
defence of error. So did Saul, in persecu-
ting the church. — So do multitudes in the
present day. In order for conscience to be
right, the understanding must be rightly in-
formed. " A good conscience is regulated
by the word of God." But " if sincerity
and a peaceable conscience are sufficient ; a
worshipper of Jupiter may be in as fair a
way for heaven, as the disciple of Christi" —
You may be as confident as the self-righ-
teous Jews were, that you are the peculiar
favourites of Heaven, and with equal arro-
gance may exclaim " The temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord
are WE ;" you may regard all other denomi-
nations with the same contempt that they
did the Samaritans ; but this is no evidence
that you have any better title than they had,
to that exclusive claim.

SECTION VIII.

Eugenius. Hitherto I have acted on the
defensive. — You will now permit me to en-
ter the lines of your camp, and point out a
few of the deformities of your own system;
some of which are usually kept concealed
20

230

from the vulvar eye. In the first place,
your system leads you to rejt cl the divine
authority of the Christian sabbatl).

Leb. What ! do you mean that we do not
regard the sabbath /

Eug. I mean just what I say, that your
system does not regard the sabbath as a di-
vine institution. 1 am not at all surprised at
your astonishment. This is one of the
secrets of your scheme, with which the com-
mon people are not entrusted. J doubt not
that the great body of your people suppose
that the sabbath is of divine authority ; and
your knowing ones find it for their interest
to keep them in ignorance of their senti-
ments on this point. Conscientious persons
might be frightened out of an enclosure in
which they knew such a monstrous senti-
ment was maintained.

Leb. But are you not mistaken, sir ? Do
not our articles of faith distinctly acknow-
ledge the sabbath?

Eng. That I am not mistaken I will soon
convince you. As to your articles of faith,
I shall only say, that articles of faith are one
thing, and the practice of those who pro-
fess them is another. This is an exposition
of those articles ; and I appeal to your own
observation, whether there is not a great
degree of remissness among your people in
sanctifying the sabbath ? Are there not ma-
ny things done on that holy day as works of
necessity, which are expressly condemned
by the word of God ? [" In earing time and in
harvest thou shalt rest" Ex. xxxiv. 21.}

231

Leb. Why I have often heard it said that
we were not bound to keep the sabbath as
strictly as the Jews were.

Eug. This sentiment is exactly conform-
able to your system, and on this ground
your sabbath is given up: for if you are not
to go to the Old Testament to Jearn how
to sanctify the sabbath, you will find no di-
rection elsewhere. Hence it is evident, that
whatever your articles of faith may be, in
your practice the sabbath is annulled. And
that this is the result of your system is ma-
nifest from the concessions of the best in-
formed among your denomination. Dr. Gill
labours hard to prove that no sabbath ever
existed in our world before the egress of Is-
rael from Egypt ; and that it was an institu-
tion peculiar to the Levitical economy. It
is true that he seems disposed to regard the
Christian sabbath as a day of worship, and
thinks that the practice is sanctioned by
apostolic example : but he says expressly
that there is " no positive preceptor express
command" for it. This is the strongest
ground that any of your denomination have
ever taken in favour of the sabbath. But
many, perceiving that this does not a-
inount to any thing like " explicit warrant,"
have totally rejected it. One of your most
intelligent ministers once remarked in my
hearing, " The sabbath is the best piece of su-
perstition that ever obtained in our world. " —
Having an opportunity shortly afterwards
to inquire of another of your ministers, as
to the meaning of this singular expression,

232

be frankly replied, " We do not consider the
sabbath of Divine authority, but merely as
an ordinance of the church." He then added,
" We deem it a very important institution,
and therefore would discipline our members
if they did not regard it." I answered, "I
am no advocate for priestcraft: if this is a
mere ordinance of the church, convince me
that it is so, and I will tell my people that
those of them who are church-members must
keep the sabbath, but those who are not,
may labour if they please." " Oh," said he,
"the law of the stale requires every citizen
to abstain from labour on the sabbath." I
replied, "Very true, but that law is made
under the conviction that the sabbath is a
divine institution : convince our legislators
that this is a mistake, and they will repeal
it." His answer was, what 1 think every
Christian and good citizen will approve,"/
believe it is better as it is." He moreover sta-
ted, in the course of the conversation, that he
bad once said, he would as soon keep Friday
or any other day in the week for a sabbath
as the first day, if his church should ordain
it; but candidly acknowledged, that after
having had the trial, he thought otherwise.
Having once entered into mercantile busi-
ness with a seventh-day Baptist, in a place
principally inhabited by people of that sen-
timent, for the sake of accommodation and
saving of time, he conformed to their prac-
tice. " But after living a few months," said
be, " a stranger to a quiet conscience, I felt
constrained to relinquish the concern."

233

I give this man credit for his candour, and
1 think his scruples did honour to his heart.
And does it not manifestly appear, that, al-
though in theory he rejected the divine au-
thority of the sabbath, his conscience secret-
ly acknowledged it ? And now tell me, Leb-
beus, did you ever hear any of your preach-
ers, who were thoroughly acquainted with
your system, attempt to prove that the
Christian sabbath is a divine institution ?

Leo. I have sometimes heard them preach
on the importance of keeping the sabbath.

Eug. That is not an answer to my ques-
tion. Did you ever hear them attempt to
shew, from the word of God, that the first
day of the week is to be sanctified as the
Christian Sabbath I

Leb. Why really, as to that point, I am
not able to answer. I never thought of such
a distinction before; and therefore, when-
ever I have heard them speak of the sabbath,.
I took it for granted that they regarded it
as a divine institution. But pray tell me, how
does this grow out of our system?

Eug. Do you not perceive ? You demand
"explicit warrant;" for all that you believe*
and practice ; but there is no <& explicit war-
rant" for the change of the sabbath. This
and infant baptism stand on the very same
ground, as to mode of proof. The same mode
of reasoning that establishes the Chris-
tian sabbath as a divine institution, gives the
same claims to infant baptism. So your peo-
ple, in order to get rid of one which they
20*

hate with perfect hatred, and at the same
time be self-consistent, reject both. Hence,
you perceive that the rejection of the sab-
bath is a necessary part of your system. —
Some of your denomination, who are unwil-
ling to adopt such a demoralizing senti-
ment, finding no explicit warrant in the New
Testament for the observance of the first
day, and considering the precept of the 4th
commandment as relating exclusively to the
seventh day, observe that as their sabbath.
Hence they are denominated Seventh-day
Baptists. And 1 must confess I consider
their scheme less baleful in its consequences
than yours. However, I do not bJame you
for the total rejection of the sabbath, that
is, on the supposition that you are determin-
ed to be self consistent at the expense of
truth. But that must be an awful system,
which, in order to preserve consistency, leads
to such results.

After all, is it a fact that your system
is consistent? Far from it : — there are some
things, for which you might plead " explicit
warrant," that you do not regard ; and others,
for which you have no such warrant, which
you practise. Why do you not observe the
washing of one another's feet; (Job. xiii. 14,
15.) and " anointing the sick with oil ? (Jam.
v. 14.) These precepts the founders of your
sect, in the xvith century, felt constrained
to obey literally ; and I see no reason, on
your plan, why you should not do the same.
In both instances the precept is explicit;

235

but you have no " explicit warrant" for f&
male communion. This, therefore, I mention
as another inconsistency in your system.

Leb. You are doubtless aware that Mr.
Booth and others deduce an explicit war-
rant for female communion from 1 Cor. xi.
28. by shewing that the Greek word render-
ed " wian" in that passage, is a generic
term including women as well as men.

Eug. That the word "*anlhroposyi is fre-
quently used in that manner, 1 do not dis-
pute ; but that it is always used thus, Mr.
B. himself dared not assert. His language
is extremely cautious ; and by way of in-
terrogation. He asks " Does not the word
' anthropos* OFTEN stand as a name of our
species without regard to sex? Have we
not the authority of lexicographers, and
which is incomparably more, the sanction of
common sense, for understanding it thus in
that passage?" Suppose it is often used in that
manner, this does not decide the point. The
question is, " Is it always used so ; at least
in the New Testament ?" If there is a single
exception, the explicit warrant is destroyed.
And that there are scores of exceptions,
every school-boy knows.

But there is one assertion made by Mr.
B. with respect to this word which I cannot
pass over in silence. " When the sexes are
distinguished and opposed, says he, the word
for a man is not ' anlhropos" but laneerJi9
Does he mean that this is always the case ?
As a man of veracity be dared not assert it ;
though his language seems to imply it. I

236

refer to the following texts as exceptions.
Mat. xix. 3, 5, 10. Mar. x. 7. 1 Cor. vii. 1,
Eph. v. 3]. Rev. ix. 7, 8. In all these pas-
sages, the sexes are distinguished and oppo-
sed, as the English reader may see by in-
specting the text; and yet in every one of
them the word " anthropos" and not " aneer"
is used to distinguish man from woman. —
What then has become of the explicit war-
rant for female communion? It surely can^
not be found in this text.

Lttb. But, sir, there are other texts which
are referred to as containing this warrant.

Eug. What are they ? Do name them.

Leb. The author to whom I have alrea-
dy referred more than once, says, " Jesus
commanded his disciples, lliis do in remem-
brance of mt."

Eug. Very true; but there were no fe-
males present when he gave this command.

Leb. I acknowledge it, but he said this
to his disciples ; and " pious females are in
the scriptures called disciples ; hence pious
females feel themselves commanded to com-
mune at the Lord's table."

Eug. This again is " logical reasoning,"
even in the due form of a st/llogismy and
therefore it must be " logic" But surely
logical reasoning is not explicit warrant. If
it be, then there is abundance of "explicit
warrant" for infant baptism. Butour op-
ponents say, No ! this will not answer : this
is " carnal reason," which can never war-
rant a religious practice ; and yet they re-

237

sort to the same method to justify female
communion ! " SHAME, WHERE IS
THY BLUSH!! Mil"—

Rut, conceding to our opponents, what
they will not concede to us, (for their cause
needs every advantage,) that a fair deduc-
tion from scripture premises, is explicit war-
rant, let us now examine your author's syl-
logism, and see whether it is fair " logical
reasoning." — ".Jesus commanded his disci-
ples, This do in remembrance of me — pious
females are called disciples — hence pious
females FEEL themselves commanded to
commune at the Lord's table." The main
fault to be found with this example is, that
the conclusion is not contained, in the premises.
It does not affirm that "pious females are
commanded, &c." but merely that they "feel
themselves commanded/' These may be
their feelings, and yet unless it is proved
that their feelings are correct, the case stands
precisely where it did before the syllogism
was formed. And if another should be
made to establish this point, and the conclu-
sion should be expressed in similar termsP
the point at issue would still remain without
support. And thus syllogisms might be
multiplied ad infinitum, without proving any
thing.— -Rut why are these two words lug-
ged in, at all? A "logical reasoner" surely
would not have done so. Do you suppose
your author did not perceive that they com-
pletely destroyed his logic? Why did he
not say expressly, " Hence pious females

238

are commanded to commune at the Lord's
table V*. Was he not evidently afraid to as-
seit tiial which he knew to be absolutely
fal*e ; viz. that they are commanded to do
so, when it was well known that there is no
such command.. This would have overset
the whole ; it would have been declaring an
"explicit warrant," where there is none.

But let us suppose these words erased
from the conclusion, and that there is no
impropriety in affirming, that pious females
are commanded to do what they are not
commanded. I will test the correctness of
this reasoning by a syllogism formed on the
same premises, having respect to another
class of persons : viz.

Jesus commanded his disciples, "Tins do in remembrance of
me."

But hypocrites, or persons who followed Christ merely for
the loaves and fishes, are, in the scriptures, called disciples,
See John vi. 66,

Therefore hypocrites, or those who follow Christ merely
for the loaves and fishes, are commanded to commune at the
Lord's table.

Now I submit to your own judgment
whether my syllogism does not prove as
much as yours? This, Lebbeus, I sincerely
hope is the last example of such "logical
reasoning" that we shall have in our inter-
view. I must confess I am weary of expo-
sing such contemptible sophistry.

Leb. But, sir, you will permit me to re-
mark, that " the mother of Jesus and other
pious women were of the number of disci-
ples to whom the 3000 wTere added ; (Acts
L and ii.) a part of the 3000 were women \

:39

and we read that they, not somebody else,
continued in the observance of" t bis ordi-

nance, '

Evg. We read that " they continued daily
with one accord in the temple, and breaking
bread from house to house, eating their meat
with gladness and singleness of heart." Acts
ii. 46. But that this " breaking of bread
from house to house," means celebrating the
Lord's supper, remains to be proved. You
mav infer it, but inference is not explicit
wan ant. You must be awaie that very
different opinions have been entertained on
this passage, by those who have had no view
to this controversy : and from the mode of
expression, and its connexion, I appeal to
your own understanding, whether this act
does not refer most naturally to the " com-
munity of goods," spoken of in the prece-
ding verse. At any rate it is not explicit
warrant, for the thing itself is very ques-
tionable.

Leo. I will trouble you with but one more
text; and that is 1 Cor. x. 17. There " the
apostle, after treating expressly of the rights
and duties of female disciples, says, We are
all partakers o) that one bread."

Eug. Lebbeus, this is truly an astonish-
ing contrivance. The apostle does indeed
treat, in ttie viith chapter of this Epistle, on
the subject of marriage and the respective
duties of husbands and wives. But does it
follow from tins, that whatever he says in
the subsequent part of the Epistle, is ad-

240

dressed to persons initial relation ? Thi*
is very far fiom even looking like "explicit
warrant." Besides this, the apostle com-
mences an entirely new subject at the viiith
chapter, and also in the ixth and xth, which
have no more respect to the viith than one
of hi<epii4les to another church. And what
is truly remarkable in this xth chapter to
which you have referred, he does not even
once mention 1 lie female sex as distinguished
from tiie male. He begins " Moreover,
brethren, Sfc" "Let him that thinketb he
standeth lake heed lest he fall, &c." —
" There hath no temptation taken you but
what is common to man.'" "I speak as to
wise men." You may say that these terms
include females, and I believe it; but this is
not " explicit warrant." — It is vain, Leb-
be us, for your denomination to labour
this point. It is out of their power to ad-
duce explicit warrant for female commu-
nion.

Leb. But, sir, it has been said, "If your
denomination have any doubts about the
propriety of the practice, you are certainly
bound to lay it aside, till the matter is clear
to your own mind."

Ens?. The fact is, we have no doubts on
the subject. We receive female communion
on the same ground, that we do infant bap-
tism, and we are perfectly satisfied of the
correctness of our conduct in both cases.
Our only reason for urging it against you, is,
io shew that you are inconsistent with your-

241

selves. You admit one practice without
" explicit warrant," and reject another for
the want of " explicit warrant." Hence, we
charge you with inconsistency; and with all
your "flouncing" and "logic" and "parade
of words" and appeals to " lexicographers"
and " common sense," vou cannot clear
yourselves of the charge.

I now remark another awful result of your
system. It leads you to reject the whole of
the Old Testament, as being any part of the
revealed will of Heaven to the Christian
church. This charge I know is as often re-
pelled as it is made, and yet the ground of it
is as often renewed. I do not accuse you
of denying the inspiration of the law and the
prophets, as the ancient hereticks did. But
your sentiment in practice amounts to near-
ly the same thing. With the Old Testament
church, the Old Testament itself is thrown
away. If any reference is made to it to
prove a Christian duly, your only answer
is, " That is all done away — it is no rule
for the faith or practice of Christians." And
hence we might as well quote the Talmud
or Alcoran to prove a Christian duty, as the
ancient oracles of God. You can dispose
of the authority of the latter, as easily as
that of the former.

Again; your system virtually excommu-
nicates the great body of the real disciples
of Christ. You reject communion with tl;e
whole Pffidohaptist church, which, some cf
your denomination are arrogant enough to
affirm, is not a church of Christ. If so, pray,
21

242

bow long was Jesus Christ without a church
on earth? I have proved that the whole
church was Paedobaptist for 1500 years. —
Dr. Gill admits that there is no evidence to
the contrary during 700 years. What then
has become of the promise of Chi 1st that
" the gates of hades shall not prevail against
it?" The church has always been "a little
flock"compared with the unbelieving world:
but if all that practise infant baptism are to
be excluded from the fold, she was during a
long period extinct y and even now, she is a
very "little flock." In some nations, which
have been called Christian for ages, she has
scarcely a single altar.

Close communion is deemed essential to
self-consistency on your plan : but again I
say that must be an awful plan, which, to
maintain self consistency, leads to such re-
sults. I must confess, it has " a frightful as-
pect :" not, however, " to the uninformed
and less conscientious part of the Christian
•world ;" but to the intelligent and conscien-
tious Christian. Yea, the more information
he possesses, and the more susceptible his
conscience is, the more "odious" will the
practice appear. — Whence is it that your
most intelligent and conscientious converts
often exhibit such extreme reluctance to
join your churches, even after they feel
persuaded that your mode is right ? Do they
not tell you, that they tremble to take the
awful step which must exclude from their
fellowship thousands and tens of thousands

243

of the sincere and bumble friends of Jesus ?
And every expedient is used to obscure
their correct views, and steel their conscien-
ces against these pious affections, before
they can be made willing to pass the Rubi-
con, that separates the great body of the
church from their Christian communion,
Mriny are beguiled by being told that they
can have spiritual communion with all
real Christians ; and even, entertain the sen-
timent of free communion, without prac^
tising it. But the intelligent and conscien-
tious Christian is not to be duped by such
means. He cannot discharge his conscience
by feeling right, without the privilege of act-
ing right.

For further evidence that close commu-
nion is most abhorrent to the most intelligent
and conscientious, you may recur to facts.
Cast your eye over the water, behold the
learned and catholic Robekt Hall, who
stands second to none in the Baptist church
in England. Deeply convinced of the im-
propriety of the sentiment that excommu-
nicates all the followers of Jesus who are
not found within the narrow pale of his
church, he has boldly denounced it, and
written a volume, which has already gone
through several editions, to prove its absur-
dity. Nor has he laboured in vain. His
worthy example has been followed by sev-
eral of his brethren both in England and A-
merica, and is daily gaining ground. Such
facts need no comment. They speak vol-

244

times to the world; and while they afford
singular evidence of individual piety, they
till your camp with trembling. — It is true,
the step which these distinguished individu-
als have taken, has exposed them to the
charge of inconsistency, which is daily vocif-
erated from the mouth of every bigot : but
it is better, and I presume they esteem it so,
to be deemed inconsistent with ourselves,
than to be inconsistent with the first princi-
ples of the Christian religion. With pro-
priety may it be said to such persons " If
ye are reproached for the name of Christ, hap-
py are ye ; for the Spirit of glory and of God
resteth upon you. On their part he is evil spo^
ken oj, hut on your part he is glorified. But
let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a
thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy-body
in other men's matters.* Yet if any man
suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ;
but let him glorijy God on this behalf. — Ha-
ving a good conscience ; that, nhtrcas they
speak evil of you as evil doers, they may be
ashamed that falsely accuse your good conver-
sation in Christ. For it is better, if the will
of God be so, that ye suffer for yell-doing than
for evil doings 1 Pet. iv. 14—16. iii. 16,
17. — In view of these facts, Lebbeus, which
think you, bids the fairest lo be " rapidly
purged out," infant baptism or close comnm-

* The litcrr,; translation of this phrase i^ " ove that make;.
himself a bishop in another >r<a/j'.v charge »r diocese" endeavouring
tt> !e:>J st-"*y iiis Hock, 8cc. fee

nion? Upon the continuance of which, would
you rather have your life suspended?

One inquiry more, and 1 have done. —
Which are the churches that, by your sys-
tem, are excluded from 1 lie pale of Christ's
visible kingdom, and are often branded as
the limbs of Popery and Antichrist? They
are the very churches, which, as in every
past age, are, at the present time, doing a
hundred-fold more to promote the cause of
Christianity, than all their revilers have
done. — Who are the men that have spent
their lives, not in secular pursuits to the
starving of their flocks,, but in illustrating;
and defending the truth of the bible ; and
who, "though dead yet speak I" The fruits
of their labours are left behind, and have al-
ready been blessed to the salvation of thou-
sands; and will still remain a rich legacy
for generations yet unborn. Remove from
our shelves all the books which have been
written by Paedobaptists, and how many
volumes will there be left ? A few pam-
phlets on immersion and close communion
will then constitute the whole of our libra-
ries.* lam bold to affirm that "the wri-
tings of one individual of the Psedobaptists —
the first President Edwards — are of tenfold

* These remarks are made with special reference to this coun-
try. There are many honourable exceptions on the Other side oi
the Atlantic. The names of the late Dr. Fulltii, of Fosteb and
Hall would do honour to any communion, and will be embalmed,
in the hearts of posterity. And it is no small evidence of the
real greatness of these men, that instead of spending* their lives
in contention with other churches about modes and fortm

2.1*

more worth, thai) all the writings of your
denomination, in this country, from its first
settlement to the present day." And are
these churches, and these godly ministers
the " limbs of Popery and Antichrist ;"
or is the sentiment a base and unfounded ca-
lumny ?

But I forbear. The bigotry, the arro-
gance, and the uncharitableness of your sys-
tem, sicken my very soul. I would sooner
part with ray right hand than subscribe to
its pretentions.

Now, Lebbeus, you see the broad line of
demarkation between your church and ours.
You plainly perceive that there can be no
accommodation between the two systems.
If one is right, the other must be wrong :
and all attempts to unite them, must be as
unsuccessful as the attempt "to weld iron
and clay." And which of them is " buili
on the foundation of the prophets and apos-
tles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cor-
ner stone," I now cheerfully submit to your
decision.

Leb. I candidly acknowledge, Eugenius,
that your arguments are unanswerable ; and
that our system is full of inconsistencies,
which must render it abhorrent to every pi-
great object of the ir labours has been to illustrate the doctrines
and enforce the duties of the gospel of Christ. One of them in
pa ticular has openly attacked the narrow bigotry of his own
church, and boldly extended the hand of Christian fellowship to
other denominations : Under such auspices, and with such an
apostle as Carey, the cause of missions may well be expected to.
succeed.

217

oils ami candid mind. From this hour, I
shall date my emancipation from its bon-
dage. I am now convinced that the mode of
baptism can be of little consequence com-
pared with the subjects. But as this is es-
teemed a point of essential importance, by
the advocates of immersion, and as I am ve-
ry little acquainted with the arguments in
support of your practice, I shall feel myself
under additional obligations, if you will fa-
vour me with your sentiments on that sub-
ject also.

Eug. This I shall do with the utmost
cheerfulness.

SECTION IX.

On the mode of Baptism,*

Eugenius. You have justly remarked that
the mode of baptism is of little consequence

* The Baptists scarcely ever attempt to treat this branch
of the subject, without expressing their aversion to the phrase
" made of baptism,'' because, say they, it seems to imply that
baptism may be performed more ways than one; "whereas im-
mersion is baptism itself— to say that immersion or dipping- is
the tnpde of br.ptisrn, is the same thing as to say, that dipping- is
the mode of dipping." And to call "sprinkling a mode of baptism
is just such good sense as to say that sprinkling is the mode of
dipping, since baptism and dipping are the same." This may
piss for "logical reasoning;'* with Baptists; but a child may
perceive that it is begging the question at the outset. The very
point to be proved i ;. that baptism and immersion or dipping mean
the same thing. Bat this our opponents assume at the threshold
of the controversy, and. then pretend to prove it. This is done
by asserting it over and over again, without an argument to sup-
port i%. until their hearers or readers, mistaking assertion for ar-
gument, verily believe the point is established. " This passes fov
currency with those ivho do not examine for themselves"

248

compared with the other point of controver-
sy. For if the constitution of the church
still includes the infants of believers, which
has been proved, then those churches which
have adopted that constitution must be
the true and regular gospel churches. Their
constitution being right, no informality
in external rites, if it did exisf, could des-
troy their church state. On the other hand,
any formality in rites and ceremonies, how-
ever conformable to divine institution, can-
not render those societies regular churches,
which rejectand ridicule the constitution that
the Lord has ordained. In making these re-
marks, 1 would not be understood to admit
that I consider our mode less conformable
to divine institution than our opponents' ;
but to enforce the idea that the grand point
of difference between the two systems is that
which has been discussed : and consequent-
ly that the Baptists, in attaching so much
importance to the mode, as to reject com-
munion with thousands and tens of thousands
of real Christians, merely because they have
never been completely under water, is in fact
"paying tythes of mint, arutis and cum mm,
and omitting the weightier mailers of the law."
Common sense decides against attaching
so much consequence to external rites, and
the scriptures give it no countenance. Some
of your preachers have indeed ridden "the
red heifer"* of the ceremonial law, till she is

* In some places this allusion may not be perfectly intelligi-
ble. To render it so, I need only observe, that, in this part of

219

completely worn out in the service ; hut they
have not yet proved that the Lord ever at-
tached so much importance, even under the
ceremonial economy, to the mode of perfor-
ming a religious rite, as to nullify the act for
want of exact conformity to the institution;
especially when it was done from conviction
of duty, and with sincere and upright inten-
tions, [n such a case, he expresses his dis-
approbation of the informality, but accepts

the country, the Baptists, among- other flimsy arguments to in-
duce people of tender consciences to be immersed, huve urged
the necessity of conforming exactly to divine rule, by an allusion
to the red heifer which Moses was commanded to take for the
purification of the people. This lias been a favourite subject of
declamation with some. " Although," say they, •■ this was a mere
ceremonial observance, yet no other colour than red would an-
swer. Therefore, nothing- but immersion.'* Here, again, it is evi-
dent there is an assumption of the very point in dispute. We believe
that no other colour would answer in that case, and that be-
cause the Lord had explicitly declared it. But it is not so with
respect to baptism. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. In
order to make them so, let us suppose that the Lord, without
specifying any particular colour, had commanded Moses to take
a coloured heifer, &c. would the Baptists undertake to prove that
none but a red heifer would answer ? They might urge in sup
port of that idea that red is the brightest of all colours, and there-,
fore answers most fully to the idea of a coloured heifer — that it
corresponds with the colour of the cedar-wood, and hyssop and
scarlet-wool, &c. and after adopting this notion, they might
exclude from their communion all who would not subscribe to
the same opinion, with as much propriety as they now exclude
those who do not believe that baptism implies immersion. — Or,
let them first prove that the Lord has as explicitly (old us, that
baptism must be performed by immersion, as he did Moses that
the heifer must be red, before they ur^c the latter in support of
the former. But since this cannot be done, and since the Lord h; s
commanded his people to be baptized, without specifying- the
quantity of water to be used; whether three drop*, or a gaUoHt
or a hoq-shead, or a hike ; it is evident that there is no more ana-
logy between the red heifer and immersion, than there is between
the profession of a Jeij and a Baptist. I am astonished that such
mortal enemies to the ceremonial law should ever urge any of its
provisions in support of their system.

25a

the service according to the intention of the
heart. Thus, at the passo&er which was ce-
lebrated by Hezekiah, "a multitude of the
people had not cleansed themselves, vet did
they eat the passover otherwise than it was
written, But Hezekiah prayed for them,
saying, The good Lord pardon every one
that preparelh his heart to seek God, the
Lord God of Ins fathers, though he be not
cleansed according to the purification of the
sanctuary, And the Lord hearkened to He-
zekiah, and healed the people." 2Chron.xxx0
18 — =20. Here was a departure from ex-
press precept, which was understood and
acknowledged by the king and people; and
yet the Lord graciously accepted their ser-
vice, because their hearts were sincere.

Lzb. I think I have seen this fact alluded
to before for the same purpose, and heard
it answered, that the Lord did not accept
their service ; and, therefore, they kept the
feast over again, verse 23. " And the whole
assembly took counsel to keep other seven
days; and they kept other seven days with
gladness."

Eug. The people were so delighted with
the worship of God, during the first seven
days of unleavened bread, that, of their viva
ehoice, they resolved to keep the feast seven
days longer. But this was not designed as
a substitute for the former, nor was the pass-
over repeated. If this had been their de-
sign, instead of repairing what they had
done amiss, it would have been a repetition

251

of the offence ; for they were no more pu-
rified, according to the law, in the second
week than in the first. And in another point
of view, it would have been a still greater
departure from divine precept. The Lord
had commanded them to keep the passover
on the fourteenth day of the first month. —
But if any were not purified at that time,
they were directed to keep it on the four-
teenth day of the second month. This was
the very time in which Hezekiah had ap-
pointed the passover, because the priests
were not purified in the first month. Vers.
2, 3, 13, 1^>. To suppose, therefore, that the
people, of their own option, kept the feast
over again on the twenty -first of the month,
is to make them depart still further from di-
vine institution. But the fact is plain. The
Lord graciously accepted them, not withtand-
ing the informality of their worship, and
gave them such delight in his service, as in-
duced them to extend the feast of unleaven-
ed bread seven days longer. — This fact,
therefore, plainly shews that if the Baptists
were as exact imitators of the example of
Christ as they profess to be, they would be
willing to extend the hand of Christian com-
munion, to all those who have sincerely dis-
charged their own consciences in the obser-
vance of a religious rite, even though, in
their opinion, they may have departed from
the prescribed rule.*

* " Bui, say the Baptists, in refusing to commune ivith your
churches, ~ue act precisely on the growid you do. You w««W not

552

Forms of worship or religious rites are
positive institutions; and are, therefore, ob-
ligatory no further than they are explicitly
revealed. That the mode of baptism is so
distinctly revealed, as to prove that immer-
sion is essential to its due performance, we
most unequivocally deny; and I pledge
myself to establish t lie position. — All the ar-
guments that your denomination use in fa-
vour of immersion may be reduced to two
general heads, viz.

3. The import of the original word. And
. 2. The circumstances attending the ad-
ministration of the ordinance, as expressed
in the sacred record.

admit to the Lord's table, ove -who had never been baptized : in ouv
view, you are vnbaptized persons ; and therefore, for the same rea-
so7is iokich you would alledge, we cannot commune -until you" This
looks very plausible at first view ; but it is easy to see that there
is a vast difference between their practice and ours. We should
indeed consider it improper to admit to our communion, a per-
son who denies and refuses to submit bo the ordinance of bap-
tism in any mode or form. But, although we have a preference
tor a particular mode, yet we do not attach so much consequence
to the mode, as to refuse any who have discharged their own con-
sciences in the observance of this rite, whether by immersion,
pouring- or sprinkling. Here then lies the difference. We say,
" We are -willing to admit to our communion, all the children of God
•who liuve discharged their consciences inregard to 4oater baptism"
The Baptists say, " We will admit none however pious and consci-
entious, until they have complied with our forms ; end thus dischar-
ged OUR consciences, as well as thtir own" Ir this is not " lord-
ing it over other men's consciences" I know not what is

But demands one, ** Can yon fellowship a man in doing what you
dare not, as conscientious Christian?, do yourselves ?'' 1 answer, Yes,
in regard to modes and forma not explicitly revealed Especially,
when I see my Lord and Master overlooking, what I consider his
irregularity, and blessing him with the tokens of his favour, I
feel it to be my imperious duty, to " fellowship" him as one of
God's children.

" O / says the Baptist r.gain, we go as far as Christ doe1? : — he
Communes with you sriniTTALLT, and so do we ! /" And pray, does

2jS

In regard to the first, the Baptists assert,
that the Greek word "baptizo" always im-
plies immersion : and in attestation of this,
they refer to " lexicographers," and " com-
mon sense," and "fathers," and "reformers,"
and " historians," and " learned authors,"
and " quakers ;'' the most of whose writings,
many of them have never read in all their
lives. But, although this may serve to make
the vulgar think that those who can make
such abundant references, must themselves
be very "learned authors;" yet what is this
to the point in hand? Why is reference
made at all, to this motley mixture of wor-
thies and unworthies ? The opinion of one
man is no better than that of another, in a
controversy that is to be decided by the word
of God. The question is, What is the im-

Christ commune with Christian Baptists in any other way ? DM
he ever appear bodily, at one of their communion tables ? This w*
have never heard asserted ; though the impious attempt was
made, a few years ago, in a neighbouring* state, to persuade the
world that the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a dove, in *
Eaptist church, and perched on the head of the minister, who
was declaiming on immersion : but the " cheat tvas soon detected"
and held up to merited contempt.

Again, the advocate of close communion observes, " We admit
that Christ communes with you, in the same manner that he does
-with us ? but not on brkad A5D wiNE." Is it fact then, that
Christ communes with Christian Fiedo baptists, in all their reli-
gious services, until they approach the communion table ; and
then, covers his face with a cloud, which not a ray of light di-
vine can penetrate ? Instead of his banner of love, does he spread
clouds of vengeance over their heads? If the testimony of V? -
dobaptists may not be received in this case, I call upon those few
charitable Baptists, who have broken over the unchristian bar-
riers of their own church and taken an occasional seat at our ta-
ble, to answer these questions. Say, brethren ; did not Jesus
manifest himself there " in the breaking of bread?" Did not your
*' hearts bum within you," white you received the sacred svmbols
22- •

254

port of the word " baptizo" as it is used in
the scriptures ? Does it there always signify
immersion? If so, then we yield the point.
I3ut if there is a single exception, our oppo-
nents are down. " To Ihe law and the tes-
timony," therefore, we make the appeal.

Permit me then to refer you to Mark vii.
4. where it is said of the Pharisees, "When
they come from the market except they
wash (in the original it is " baptize,") they
eat not. And many other things there be
which they have received to hold, as the
washing (baptizing) of cups and pots and
brazen vessels and of tables."

Leb. But "this does not refer to the or-
dinance of baptism."

of his body and blood, from the handsof a "sprinkled priest," in the
midst of a " sprinkled throng ?" Were you not ready to exclaim,
■■* Surely Jesus is in tins place, though Ikneiv it not before ?" These
questions I cheerfully submit to your decision ; but to propose
them to your close communion brethren, would be to submit a
question concerning- colours to the blind.

To cap the climax of absurdity, another says, " Christ is a Sove-
reign and can do as he pleases j but xoe can go no further than he has
commanded ! ! /" And can Christ, because he is a Sovereign, do
morally ivrong ? This must be the meaning of the objection, if
it is morally wrong for Baptists to commune with Paedobaptists.
— But, Christ has commanded his people to follow his example :
and if he sets the example of communing with Paedobaptists,
how can Baptists dispense with the command.

Driven from every other refuge, I hear a thousand whispers, at
once, " If we give up close communion, our church is down." — "Aye,
f.here's the rub." This is undoubtedly correct ; and this is the
grand secret of close communion. For the sake of maintaining
a system and promoting a party, nine tenths of Christ's sheep are
to "be turned out into the wilderness, and treated like wolves :
though he continues to foster them -with a shepherd's care. Here, then,
stands the hideous monster, in his native deformity, divested of his
CLO \K of " zeal for Divine institutions." Who, that possesses the
head of a wise man, or the heart of a Christian, will give hi**
' ' the right hand of fellowship ?"

25£

Eug. And that is the very reason why I
refer to it. It is the same word in the ori-
ginal, that is applied to the ordinance of bap-
tism ; and therefore, serves to explain its
meaning. And as it does not signify immer-
sion here, it is evident that it does not al-
ways imply that idea.

Ijcb. I have often heard it said, that the
immersion in the former part of this verse,
relates to the hands, and not to the whole
body ; because the Evangelist says, in the
verse immediately preceding, " Except they
wash their hands oft, they eat not." Ver. 3.

Eug, Admit that, and your difficulty is
increased ; for in the preceding verse, where
the Evangelist says, "Except they wash their
hands oft,'' he does not use the word "bap-
tizo" but " nipto" which properly signifies
to wash one hand with the other ; and which, in
this case, is evidently used as synonymous
with " baptizo" Except they wash (nipson-
taij their hands oft, they eat not. And when
they come from the market, except they wash
(baptisonlai) they eat not." The first is a
general declaration of their frequent wash-
ingSy and the second is given as one example,
Who then that has any regard to truth, or
title to " common sense," will say, that these
words are used in a different sense ? and if
they are, which, from its connexion, seems
most likely to imply immersion ? The bal-
ance is manifestly in favour of " nipto'?9
and yet no man pretends that this implies
that idea.

Again, observe the recurrence of the word

256

u baptize?* at the close of this verse, and al-
so in the 8th verse. " The baptising of cups,
pots, brazen vessels and tables," or rather
couches or beds ; for so the word properly
signifies, and thus it is invariably rendered,
except in this case. See Mat. ix. 6. Mar. iv.
21. Luke v. 19,24. viii. 16. xvii. 34. Acts v.
15. Rev. ii. 22.

Leb. But it has been said, " If the washing
of hands, cups, platters, &c. was for the pur-
pose of cleanliness, this passage concludes
in our favour; for this is generally done
by wetting all the parts thus washed."

Eug. The man that makes this supposition
does not believe that those washings were
" for the purpose of cleanliness." Our Sa-
viour or his apostles never blamed any man
for washing his hands, or any thing else,
when they were defiled. I presume they
were as cleanly in their persons and table-
furniture, as the Pharisees. The baptisms
here spoken of, were washings enjoined by
the traditions of the elders ; not for the pur-
pose ofcleanliness, but as an appendage to
the ceremonial purifications, in token of
their superior righteousness. But if " learn-
ed writers have clearly shewn," what, by
the way, the bible does not, but directly the
contrary, (Exo. xxx. Lev. viii. Num. xix.)
" that ceremonial washings were performed

by PUTTING ALL OVER UNDER WATER;" Can

any learned or unlearned man tell how they
baptised their couches or beds? Will
" common sense," which Mr. Booth consid-
ers incomparably better than learned men,

237

decide in favour of immersion 11 — Is It not;
perfectly ridiculous to see the Baptists re-
ferring to the authority of learned men, when
their testimony seems to favour their pecu-
liarities, and at other times treating them
with contempt and disdain ?

Here then is a case, in which the words
" baptizo" and "n*/?/o" are evidently used
synonymously ; and yet neither of them
signifies immersion. If this import could bo
attached to either, the latter has manifestly
the strongest claim. Now if there were no
other similar example in the word of God,
this would be sufficient to shew, that the ar-
gument founded on the meaning of 'the word
"baptisa" is inconclusive. — But there are
other examples. The same remarks apply
to Luke xL3o. where it is said " the Phar-
isee marvelled that he- (Jesus) had not first
washed (baptized) before dinner," Will
any man in his senses believe that the Jews
never ate a meal without previously immers-
ing themselves ? So/ne Baptists have indeed
asserted this ; and for the convenience o£
the operation, tbey have, ai their own expenee,
furnished every house in Jerusalem, with a
private bath, sufficiently targe for the im-
mersion of the inhabitants and all the furni-
ture of the house ! But all this is assertion
without a shadow of evidence,- — That each
house was furnished with vessels for their
ceremonial purification is indeed evident ;
but that these were large enough for the im-
mersion of the hod yT does not appear, On
the contrary, their capacity* in the only ifcr
22*

2:38

stance in which it is mentioned, is declared
to be "two or three firkins apiece*;" and
they were furnished with means for drawing
out the water for use. See John ii. 6 — 8,
Hence, it was impossible for them to im-
merse their bodies or large pieces of furni-
ture in such vessels. And I will add, that if
they had cleansed, even their cups and plat-
ters in that way, there would have been
no foundation for our Saviour to accuse
them of cleansing merely the outside of these
vessels : for in immersing them, they could
have made no distinction between the in-
side and the outside. Both would have been
equally clean.

I will now refer you to an example that
not only decides against immersion, but di-
rectly in favour of sprinkling. In the Epis-
tle to the Hebrews, the apostle, in referring
to the ceremonial economy, makes mention
of" meats and drinks and divers wetshingsJ*
(Gr, baptisms.) Heb. ix. 10. But how were
these divers baptisms performed? Of this
the apostle proceeds to give an example,
"For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and
the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, &c."
Comp. Num. xix. and Heb. ix. Here, then,
it seems that oney at least, of those divers
baptisms was performed by sprinkling. —
Where then is the assertion that the word
always implies " all over under water ?"

* The word rendered Jlrkin, was a measure containing a littler
r*ss than eve gallon.

259

Again, St. Paul declares fbft't all the Is-
raelites "were baptized unto Moses, in the*
cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. x. 2. I aru
aware that the Baptists, in order to get rid
of this text, have spread the cloud on the
surface of the sea, or made it a complete*
canopy over their heads, necessarily touch-
ing the surface of the sea on each side,
and the bottom of the sea, before and behind
them, it is true, the scripture saith "the pillar
of the cloud went from before their face
and stood behind them :" and I am willing
to admit that, in its transition, it might have
passed over their heads; but this change
took place before they entered the sea ; and,
no intimation is given that they were, at any
time, enveloped in the maimer supposed. —
But even admitting that this was the case,
it must be a very strange and unprecedent-
ed kind of baptism, in which, not a particle^
of the element is permitted to touch the bo-
dy. I have been in the habit of supposing,
that in order to a right performance of bap-
tism, water, in seme measure or olher, must
be applied to the person. But, according
to this conjecture, Baptists might easily con-
trive a method to immerse their proselytes,
without ever permitting a drop of water to
touch the body. This would be vastly con-
venient, especially in the winter season,
and at all times for sick people.* But ai-

* This happy fancy is still further countenanced by Dr. Gill?s
remarks on 1 Pet. in. 20, 21. He there insists that the apostle>

260

though a person might in this manner, he
truly immersed, yet he could not he consid-
ered truly baptized: nor do I beiieve that
the Israelites were thus baptized ; but that
they were sprinkledhy the spray of the sea,
and a shower of rain from clouds passing
over them.

Leb. But one of our writers says this b
"a very vain fancy, because it is said they
went over 6vy shod,"

Eug. Then it seems one of your writers
believes that they were baptized, without

in calling" Noah's salvation by toater a TiJ-e figure to our ■ salvation
by baptism, alludes to the mode of baptism ; therefore, he feel*'
constrained to contrive a way to Kave Noah and his family im-
mersed. Rut how is this accomplished ? — Why simply thus, first »
n shutting them up m the ark r" and then, (S when the fountain?,
of the great deep were broken up below, and the windows of
heaven were opened above, the ark with those in it, wrre, as it
■were, covered with and imme<rs$d\ft water ; arid so was a figure of
baptism by immersion." Now does not this look like "heading-
a man up in a dry eask and plunging it under water, and then li-
king him out as one truly immersed ?" No ! it is not half so ortho-
dox a method as this ; for the ark was only sprinkled or poured
upon, but the cask has been "ail over under water." — But Dr.
Gill, not contented with attempting- to prove the madeof baptism
from the case of Noah, undertakes to shew from the same, who
are the proper subjects. The whole argument is contained in-
two lines. " As there were none but adult persons in the ark,
who were saved by water in it, so none but adult persons are the
proper subjects of water baptism !" Reader, is this logic ? If so,
*hen because ail the beasts »f the fie'O and the fowls of the air
and creeping1 things were baptized, according' to Dr. Gill's doc~
trine, with Noah in the ark ; therefore, though infants are exclu-
ded, the beasts and fowls and all creeping things (except creep-
ing children^ are proper subjects of Christian baptism.

But, to be serious, 1 think it must be evident to the most su-
perficial reader, that St. Peter, in mentioning the case of No»h,.
does not give the least intimation of his being- baptized in any
mode whatever. He merely says, "eight souls were saved by
water, the like figure whereuuto, even baptism, doth also now
save us, (not the putting av/ny of the filth of the fiesh, but the an-
swer-of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of^
•Jesus Chrisit," As Noah a»d feis family were saved by water, the

261

having a particle of water come in contact
with them. And a very cogent reason he
assigns for that belief: " because they went
over dry-shod." But, did a man never walk
dry-shod through a shower of rain ? — If such
reasoning is not trijiing, I know not what is.
But the interpretation which I have adopt-
ed, is not so " vain a fancy" as your author
supposes; for there is a "Thus saith the
Lord" for it. "Thou hast with thine arm
redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and
Joseph. The waters saw thee, O God; the
waters saw thee, they were afraid, the deptha
also were troubled. The clouds poured out
water" Psal. lxxvii. 15 — 17. Now, sir,

water of the same flood, that swept an ungodly world to hell ; so
baptismal water, which is (not the antitype of Noah's salvation,
but) a figure or representation of the blood of Christ, saves the
true believer, while at the same time it proves the aggravated
condemnation of those who reject him. — And if baptism is " not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh," why be washed all over ?
Immersion does nothing more toward purifying the soul than
sprinkling. " And he that is washed," in token of an interna!
grace, *• necdeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit."
And if baptism i9 " the answer of a good conscience toward God,"
why should not those, who have discharged their consciences by
sprinkling, us much as those who have been immersed* be regarded
as truly baptized, and as regular arid conscientious Christians ? —
But, although I do not consider the apostle as referring, in this'
case, either to the mode or subjects of baptism, yet there is one
circumstance in the case, of God's covenant with Noah which is
entitled to consideration. We have no evidence from the scrip-
tures, that any of Noah's family besides himself, was a true believ-
er, before the flood. On the contrary, we have so much evidence us
this, that at least one of his sons was dissolute, and incurred the
curse of his father, which followed his posterity : and when God
resolved to save some of the human family, he entered into cov-
enant with Noal) only g ("With thee will I establish my covenant;"
Gen. vi. 13 ) yet on his account, he graciously condescends to save
his whole family. Header, do you not discover something here,
like a connexion betwten the faith ef a believer and the welfare,
of his household

262

with the word of God on my side, I submit
to " common sense" to determine, which
ought to be called " a vain fancy ;" their
being sprinkled in a shower, or immersed in
a vacmim — a pit without water.

Again, in all those texts in which baptism
with the Holy Ghost is spoken of, the idea
of immersion is necessarily excluded. John
declared to the people that Christ should
" baptize with the Holy Ghost." This Christ
promised to his disciples ; and in due time
it was accomplished. This was done, not
by immersing them into the Holy Ghost,
but by pouring out the influence of the Spir-
it upon them, ft is thus that this act is uni-
formly represented in the word of God.
" He shall come down like rain upon the
mown grass, and showers that water the
earth." " T will pour out my Spirit upon
you," said the Lord, by his ancient pro-
phets. Pro?, i. 23. Isa. xxxii. J 5. xliv. 3. Ezek.
xxxix. 29. Joel ii. 28, 39. On the day of
pentecost St. Peter declares that this pro-
phecy of Joel was accomplished in the e-
vent of that day. And how? \ei the inspired
record say. " And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat up-
on each of their), and they were all filled
with (not immersed m) the Holy Ghost."
Arts ii. 3, 4.*

* It is well known, that the Baptists endeavour to deduce the
idea of hnmerrio-n, from the record of this transaction. The fol-
lowiftg quotation from Mr. Booth, will serve as a specimen of
their reasoning (if it may be so ckiled) upon that fact : and
the subjoined answer of Mr. Edwards, places the Baptist exposi-
tion of thr.t passage in its true light.

263

Again, when Peter preached the gospel
in the house of Cornelius, " The Holy Ghost
fell on all them which heard the word. And
they which were of the circumcision wrere
astonished, because that on the Gentiles was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." And
then Peter inquired, " Can any forbid water
that these should not be baptized, which
have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we."
Acts x. 44 — 47. In all these passages, and
a multitude of others of the same descrip-
tion, we read of being "filled with /' "fall-
ing" or descending :" "poured out" and " re-
ceived;" in application to the influences of
the Spirit : but nothing like immersion. —
The very idea would be an absurdity in that
case.

Once more ; our Saviour applies the word
baptism to his sufferings. " I have a baptism

After speaking of "an electrical bath, so called, because the
electric fluid surrounds the patient," Mr. B. proceeds to observe :
" This philosophical document reminds me of the sacred histori-
an's language, where narrating the fact under consideration, thus
he speaks. 'And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they
were all, with one accord, in one place. And suddenly there
came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it
filled all the house whebe they WERE sitttng. And there ap-
peared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire : and it sat upon
each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.' Now,
s>aysMr. B. if the language of medical electricity be just, it cannot
be absurd ; nay, it seems highly rational, to understand this lan-
guage of inspiration as expressive of that idea, [immersion] for
which we contend. Was the Holy Spirit poured out? Did the Holy
Spirit fall upon the apostles and others at that memorable time ?
It was, in such a manner, and to such a degree, that they were
like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it."

To this Mr. E. replies, " This electric bath is a pretty fancy,
a happy invention for Mr. B. It is well he did not live before it
was found out; for then what a fine thought would have been
lost. Though the .Holy Spirit fell vpon, was poured out, yet,

2ti4

to be baptized with, &c." Luke xii. 50. " Are
ye able — to be baptized with the baptism
that I am baptized with ? &c." Mark x. 38,
39. Here the idea of immersion is as absurd
as in the cases last mentioned. The blessed
Jesus was filled, both soul and body, with
unutterable pain and anguish ; but to say he
was immersed in suffering, is a perfect absur-
dity. We sometimes say a man is overwhelm-
ed in sorrow, to express the idea of extreme
agony ; and thus the passion of Christ is pro-
phetically described in the 69th Psalm; but
we never affix to this expression, the idea
of his sufferings forming an element around

says he, it was in such a manner, and to such a degree, that they
were like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it ;
that is, immersed in the Holy Spirit. Most persons, 1 suppose,
when they read of the Holy Spirit falling upon any one, under-
stand it to mean, the influence of the Spirit coming* upon the soul :
but Mr. B. speaks as if the Holy Ghost, or his influence, fell on
the outside of the apostles, and so surrounded their bodies like
an electric bath. And, to shew he intended this, he has put these
words in large capitals, " it filled all tiie house where thet
we're sitting." Then they were immersed in something which
filled the house ; I ask, what was that something ? — I answer, [it
was] " sound." The sound, which was as a rushing, mighty wind,
filled all the house where they were sitting. The word, in the
Greek, is echos, an echo, a reverberating sound. Mr. B's elec-
tric bath was, after all, nothing more than an echo. It was an
echo, then, that filled the house, and the apostles being immersed
in sound, were surrounded by the echo, like a patient in an elec-
tric bath. This is the beauty of sticking close to the primary
meaning of the term, as Mr. B. calls it; and so tenacious is he of
his primary meaning, that he does not care in what people are
immersed, so they are but immersed in something'*

This is sufficient to shew the ridiculous absurdity of the idea
of immersion in the "baptism with the Holy Ghost." I will
add, that the apostles were to be baptized, not only with the Ho-
ly Ghost, but, also, -with fire. But were they immersed into fire "
If so, then they were immersed into the cloven tongues, which,
*• like as of fire, sat upon each of them." In order, therefore, for
the Baptists to maintain the idea of immersion, they must shew
that the apostles were immersed in something more than sound.

265

him, in which he is immersed. Our blessed
Saviour's sorrows overflowed, and in conse-
quence thereof, he was baptized with "great
drops of blood;" but here was nothing like
immersion.

In all these instances which I have men-
tioned, the word " baptism" does not signi-
fy immersion. Such, then, is the amount
of the main argument in favour of the Bap-
tist mode.

Leb. But is not immersion evidently im-
plied in the expression " Buried with him
in baptism V\

Eug. No sir; there is no allusion what-
ever to the mode of baptism in that expres-
sion, as is evident from the connexion ; but
to that of which baptism is the sign, viz.
death to sin. This phraseology is used by St.
Paul in two of his epistles, Rom. vi. 4. and
Col. ii. 12. and in both cases for the same
purpose; viz. as an argument to induce
Christians to live a life of holiness. Accord-
ing to the Baptist interpretation of this pas-
sage, baptism is a sign of the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ: but no such
thing is even intimated by the apostle. On
the contrary, he plainly asserts that baptism
is simply a sign of death to sin. " Know ye
not that as many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death"
Rom. vi. 3. Here the act of baptism termi-
nates, because it simply signifies " death to
sin." The " resurrection to newness of life"
is to follow as a consequence of being dead
23

266

to sin. This is plainly expressed in the 6th
verse. "Knowing this that our old man is
crucified with him, that the body of sin
might be destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin" Here the same body
which is " buried in baptism" is said to be
** crucified" to prepare the way for a life
of holiness. And this is the very point of
the apostle's argument when he speaks of
baptism. He urges Christians to live a life
of holiness, from a consideration of the pro-
fession of " death to sin," which they had
made in baptism. " Therefore rue are buried
with him by baptism into death — " (Here, ob-
serve again, the act of baptism terminates;
the resurrection, of which he afterwards
speaks, is evidently something that is subse-
quent to it — ) "that like as Christ ivas rais-
ed up from the dead, by the glory of the Fa-
ther, even so rue also should walk in newness
of life" This distinction between death and
resurrection, and the latter as being subse-
quent to baptism, is still more strikingly ex-
pressed in the succeeding verse. " For if
we have been planted together in the like-
ness of his death, we shall be also in the like-
ness of his resurrection." That is, if we are
indeed dead to sin, as we professed to be in
baptism, " we shall be" (he does not say we
were raised up out of the water in token of
Christ's resurrection, but) " we shall be also
in the likeness of his resurrection." In eve-
ry one of these verses there is a manifest
distinction between death and resurrection ;

267

the former being implied in baptism, and
the latter resulting from that change of
which baptism is the sign. Hence the plain
meaning of the passage is, as if the apostle
had said, " You profess to be dead to sin—
this was evidently implied in your bap-
tism : for as Christ was put to death for sin,
so, in the reception of that Christian rite, you
professed to be dead to sin : your body of
sin, not your natural bodies, was buried in
baptism : therefore, if you would act consist-
ently with the profession you then made,
you must hereafter walk in newness of life-.*
But the Baptist interpretation of this pas-
sage, by uniting death and resurrection in
the act of baptism, destroys the whole force
of the apostle's reasoning, and makes im-
mersion "all in all ;" the whole sum of the
Christian profession and practice.

Leb. I have but one more remark to make
on this particular. It has been said by those
who have "carefully consulted linguists" on
the subject, that " the Greek language is as
rich with words to express the slightest vari-
ation of ideas as any language whatever, —
that a total or partial washing, pouring, bath-

* Some might be ready to suppose that the parallel text Col.
ii. 12. seems to unite death and resurrection in the act of baptism.
" Buried with him in baptism -wherein also ye are risen with him,
&c." But it is sufficient to observe that the relative pronoun
rendered " wherein" evidently refers to Christ, and not to bap-
tism ; and therefore ought to have been rendered " in whom."
This not only comports best with the context, but shews that
the word " him, which, is supplied by the translators, was need-
less. The passage will then read thus ; " Buried with him in bap-
tism, in wliom also ye are raised ( or, qnicJcenedJ together, through
the faith of the operation of God, &c.iy See Poll Syn. and Willet's
Hex. on Epis. to Rom.

268

ing and sprinkling have all and each a dis-
tinct word exactly answering to the idea;
and that no word can be found in the Greek
language to express immersion but the word
now in debate."

Eug. That the Greek language is as pro-
lific as you have been told, I do not dis-
pute ; but that there is no other word but
" baptizo" in that language to express im-
mersion, is notoriously false. The Greeks
were furnished with the word "bctpto" which
does really signify to dip, plunge> or im-
merse ; and this very word is used by the
sacred evangelists, in every instance where
the idea of " dipping" is designed to be con-
veyed. This word our Saviour himself used
when he said " He it is to whom I shall give
a sop when I have dipped it. And when he
had dipped 1he sop he gave it to Judas:"
Job. xiii. 2b.^ but it is never used in ap-
plication to the ordinance of baptism. It
seems that the evangelists knew how to use it,
when the idea of immersion was to be con-
veyed. What then could have hindered,
yea, how could they have avoided the adop-

* The attempt has been made to prove that '• bapto" does not
signify merely dipping or plunging, but a continuance in that
condition for the purpose of colouring or dying, as cloth is dyed,
and this idea is supposed to be conveyed in Rev. xix. 13-—" ves-
ture dipped in blood." The manifest object of this criticism is
to make " bapto" signify something more than " immersion," in
order that " baptizo" may occupy its place. But did the rich
man request that Lazarus might dye or steep the tip of his fin-
ger in water ? or was it merely to dip it, and then fly immedately
to his relief? — Did our Saviour mean to convey the idea that his
is disciples soaked their hands in the dish with him ? And yet
in both of these cases the word " bapto" in its simple «r com*
pound form, is used.

269

lion of this very word, in reference to bap-
tism, if they had designed to inform us that
immersion was intended ? This richness of
the Greek language, then, instead of arguing
in favour of the Baptist scheme, is directly
against it. — I think it would be well for those
of your ministers who are under the neces-
sity of "consulting linguists," not to make
too positive assertions, on the ground of se-
cond-hand information, as they may be held
responsible for other men's errors; and surely
they have enough of their own to answer foiv

I come now to the second argument in fa-
vour of immersion, and that is founded on
the circumstances under which baptism is
said to have been administered.

Great stress is laid on the expression
" they went down into the water, and came up
out of the water." This is often wielded as
a very powerful weapon in the hands of
a bold declaimer among ignorant people.
Its whole force, 'however, depends on the
translation of two litlJe words called prepo-
sitions, which occur hundreds of times in
the New Testament, and which are more
frequently translated otherwise, than as in
this case : And every person, who is the
least acquainted with the Greek language,
knows, that here, they might have been ren-
dered to and from, with as much propriety
as into and out of. Does it then appear pro-
bable, will " common sense" admii the idea,
that the Holy Spirit would have suspended
an ordinance, the essential performance o£
23*

270

which depended on the mode, on such an un-
certain foundation? The argument founded
on these words has always appeared to me
so perfectly ridiculous, that I should not
have noticed it, if it were not for the conse-
quence attached to it by some weak minds.*
But suppose these words are properly ren-
dered into and out oj, they do not prove im-
mersion. Thousands have been down into
the water, and come up out of it, who never
were " all over under water," in their lives.

* An advocate for immersion, recently holding forth this ar-
gument in support of that sentiment, anticipated the common
objection that our Saviour is often said to have " gone up into a
mountain :" to which he answered " So he did, and I SUPPOSE
there -was a cave there." Query. Was it in this cave that the de-
vil " shewed him all the kingdoms of the world r" for we are ex-
pressly informed that for this purpose ;' the devil took, him up
ixxo an exceeding- high mountain," but nothing is said about a
cave there. But if our Saviour had really discovered a cave in
the mountain, did he expect Peter to find one in the sea, when he
commanded him to go eis teen tfialassdn " to or into the sea" for
the purpose of taking a fish ? Mat. xvii. 27. Or, did he command
.him to dive into the sea, and catch the fish in his hands ? or, did
lie mean that he should merely go to the water's edge, and cast
in his hook? A multitude of similar examples might be present-
ed, to shew that the preposition " eis" is indifferently rendered to,
into", on, at, &c. And now, will the world believe that- the men
who make such suppositions are the strenuous advocates of "ex-
plicit warrant r" that they believe nothing without a " Thus saith
the Lord" for it ? — But another man of a great deal more celeb-
rity, has ventu?'ed to defend this argument in print. For this
purpose, he has called in " the law of nature" to his aid. By this
T expect he means the same that Mr. Booth eails "common
sense." **The law of nature," says he, " is one criterion to ex-
plain scripture by. When it is said that Jesus went up into
the mountain, nature says that he went up into or amongst the
trees." Such contemptible trifling as this deserves no better an-
swer than it has already received. " Not so," says a reviewer
of this production, "for it is impossible for a man to go info the
trees, unless he coulel find hollow ones. But it proves thatm and
into.ave used in several senses, as on, among, at, &c." Here then
the argument rests precisely where it stood before, viz. that
these prepositions are sometimes renderedone way, and sometimes
another, and that without any violence to " the law of nature.*

271

Again, in arguing in favour of immersion,
much dependence is made on the circum-
stance that John is said to have baptized at
theriver Jordan, and "in Enon, because there
was much water there." Here it is a^ked, if
baptism was not performed by immersion,
why such places were selected rather than
others ? The common answer to this ques-
tion is, that these places were chosen for the
accommodation of the multitudes, and the
beasts with which they travelled, when they
flocked in crowds from all parts of the na-
tion, to hear the wondrous man who prolaim-
ed the approach of the long expected Mes-
siah. And this is manifestly the object in
the selection of Enon, because " there were
many waters there." This is the literal trans-
lation of the passage, and tliis was the pre-
cise fact. There was no large stream or bo-
dy of water in that place; but many springs
or rivulets that would accommodate the
people.

But you wilt observe, Lebbeus, that all
the circumstances which have been mention-
ed, relate exclusively to John's baptism.
This, I have told you, is not Christian bap-
tism. Of course, if it could be satisfactorily
proved that John baptized by immersion^ it
would be wholly irrelevant to the present
controversy.

Your denomination have ever pretended
to derive their succession from John, and I
think they have done well in so doing. Not,
that this is the fact ; but because their

272

church is as entirely diverse fj;ora either the
Jewish or true Christian church, as John's
administration was distinct from these. In
consequence of their unfounded claim, they
have always taken for granted that John's
baptism was Christian baptism. Though
this has been disproved a thousand times by
Psedobaptists, yet, until very lately, we have
stood alone on this ground. But now we
have the labours of Mr. Hall to support
the doctrine. And although he has urged
no new argument, to my knowledge, to
prove the sentiment, yet as he is a distin-
guished Bapiist, wre may expect (and in-
deed the expectation has already been rea-
lized) that the same arguments from him,
will have more weight with that denomina-
tion, than if they had come from our side of
the question. And as he has thus torn a-
way the foundation stone of the Baptist
church, and made a breach in the wall of
separation, which excluded the Paedobap-
tists from their communion, we may safely
conclude that ihe " baseless fabric" will
soon crumble into ruins. When a citadel
that is closely invested without, is attacked
by her own troops within; yea, when "a
captain of thousands" begins to demolish
her bulwarks, and to throw open her gates
to the besiegers, her destruction is inevitable.
The work is begun both in Europe and A-
meri^a, and this catholic age, with all its
catholic institutions, will soon complete it.
The spirit of the present times, though a

273

gradual, will ultimately prove "a consu-
ming fire" to close communion sentiments.
They are stubble before the flame.

I will now proceed to establish the posi-
tion that John's baptism was not Christian
baptism.

]■• This is evident from the object of John's
administration. He was sent in compliance
with an ancient prophecy, for the exclusive
purpose of " preparing the way of the
Lord." At the time of his advent, the most
general apostacy and religious apathy that
had ever been witnessed in Judea, prevail-
ed. Their subjugation by the Romans had
destroyed the spirit of the nation, and they
w7ere ready to relinquish all hope of deliv-
erance. In order to arouse their attention
and prepare their minds for the reception of
the Messiah, John was sent to preach and
baptize. When interrogated as to his char-
acter and the object of his mission, " He
confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am
not the Christ" But " I am the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, make straight the
way of the Lord as said the prophet Esaius"
John i. 19, 23. Here then was the object >
the exclusive object of John's embassy ; and
he accomplished it very speedily ; for, his
proclamation, " The kingdom of heaven is at
hand," (not already come, but approaching
or drawing nigh,) aroused the whole nation
from their stupidity, and excited an univer-
sal expectation of the appearance of the,
Messiah.

274

From Ibis view of the subject it is evident
that John's administration was not designed
to annul or supersede the Levitical econo-
my. Hence, those who have called it an
"intermediate link" between the Jewish
and Christian dispensation, are manifestly
incorrect. There was no chasm between
them, in which an "intermediate link" could
be inserted. The Jewish dispensation did
not terminate till the conclusion of our
Lord's ministry. He himself conformed to
all the precepts of the ceremonial law till
the night in which he was betrayed ; and he
enjoined it upon his disciples and all the
multitude " to observe and do whatsoever* the
scribes and Pharisees commanded" Mat.
xxiii. 1 — 3. He directed the leper whom
he healed, " to go and shew himself to the
priest, and offer the gift that Moses command-
ed for a testimony unto them," Mat. viii. 4.
But what puts this matter beyond all dis-
pute, is the declaration of Christ respecting*
John. He pronounces him the greatest of
the prophets, but at the same time declares,
" He that is least in the kingdom of God, is
greater than he." Luke vii. 2o. The " king-
dom of God," here, evidently means, the
visible church under the Christian dispensa-
tion, the same which John had declared to
be ^ near at hand" Hence, if John was
less than the least in the gospel church, it is
manifest that he did not belong to that
church. All these facts atFord conclusive
testimony, that the Jewish dispensation had

275

not been superseded by John's ministry ;
but on the contrary that it stood firm, as
has been shewn, till the crucifixion of our
Lord; at which time the Christian dis-
pensation commenced. — You may indeed
"unite two pie^s of a chain by a middle
link;" but it would be absurd to attempt
this with a solid bar of iron. You may con-
nect two adjacent buildings, by erecting
one between them; but you cannot do so
with those which stand in contact, upon one
and the same foundation : You may, how-
ever, without altering the form of either,
or removing their foundation, erect a porch
which will serve as a convenient, and, in
some cases, a necessary egress, from the one
to the other. And this was the precise ob-
ject of John's administration. Therefore his
ministry was no part of the Christian dis-
pensation; consequently, his baptism was
not Christian baptism.

2. The object and import of John's bap-
tism were essentially different from Chris-
tian baptism. As John was sent for the spe-
cial purpose of arousing the expectations of
the Jews, and preparing them for the recep-
tion of the Messiah, it was perfectly reason-
able and proper that he should be entrusted
with some religious rite, which should be
applied to those who professed a belief in
his proclamation. Therefore he was in-
structed to baptize with water. And "all
Judea and Jerusalem'' flocked to him and
were baptized of him. Had John intimated

276

that his administration was designed to su-
persede the ceremonial law, this would not
have been the case. The Jews would have
persecuted him just as they did Jesus ; and
he would have been without any means of
justifying himself, even in tWe view of those
who were truly pious; for " John did no
miracles," and he had no commission to
perform them.

John's baptism might have been typical
or emblematical of the privileges of the
Christian church, for he says, " I indeed
baptize you with water unto repentance;
but he that cometh after me is mightier than
I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He
shall baptize yeu with the Holy Ghost and
with fire." But, the special object of this
rite was in perfect unison with his ministry,
— to prepare a people for the reception of
the Messiah. It was called " the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins ," because
those who were admitted to that rite, were
required to profess repentance. But doubt-
less thousands who were baptized by John
were insincere in that profession, and en-
tirely mistaken with respect to the charac-
ter of the person whose advent he predicted.
They verily believed him, when he declar-
ed that the promised Messiah would soon
appear ; but they expected he would be a
temporal prince, who would deliver them
out of the power of the Romans, establish
the kingdom of Judah on a permanent ba-
sis, and defend them from all their enemies.

277

In a word, they supposed that be would be,
just what the Baptists would fain make the
God of Israel from the beginning, " a tem-
poral King or Governor. So debased and
erroneous were their views of the expected
Prince. And hence, when he made his ap-
pearance under circumstances of indigence,
and explicitly declared that " his kingdom
was not of this world," they, almost " with
one consent," rejected him: notwithstand-
ing the expectations which they had en-
tertained, and the profession they had
made.*

Christian baptism is a token of the cov-
enant of grace — an external sign of internal
grace — a seal of the righteousness of faith
— the mark of membership in the Christian
church. In all these particulars, it differed
from the rite which John administered. —

* The Baptists reject the idea that the Jewish church was the
true church, and scorn to derive their origin from that source,
on account of, what they call, its extreme corruption : and yet
tliey strenuously advocate the notion, that their system is derived,
by regular succession, from John the Baptist. And pray, what
do they gain by taking this ground ? Verily nothing, but a church
more corrupt and hypocritical than ever the Jews had been, in any
preceding- period of their national existence. This is as clear as the
meridian sun. For we are informed that" all the people counted John,
that he ivas a prophet indeed:" In consequence of this general per-
suasion of his divine commission, " Jerusalem and all Judea,
and all the region round about Jordan -went out and ivere baptized of
him in Jordan, confessing their sins ." The " publicans" and " sol-
diers" and " all the people that heard Jam were baptized" with the
baptism of John. From these facts, it is evident, that vast mul-
titudes, even the great body of the Jewish nation, received this
religious rite : and yet, when Christ revealed himself to the peo-
ple ; yea, when John pointed him out saying, " Behold the Lamb
of God" not one in a thousand, would receive him. And after our
Lord himself and his disciples had laboured and wrought mira-
cles among them for the space of three years or more, and had

273

" The conviction demanded;" says Mr. Hall,
u in the two case* was totally distinct — The
profession demanded in the baptism of John,
was nothing more than a solemn recogni-
tion of that ore at article of the Jewish faith,
the appearance of the Messiah,* accompa-
nied with this additional circumstance, that
it was nigh at hand. The faith required by
the apostles included a persuasion of all the
miraculous facts which they attested, com-
prehending the preternatural conception,
the Deity, incarnation and atonement, the
miracles, the death and the resurrection of
the Lord Jesus." Hence, as the import of
these two rites is essentially different, they
must be entirely distinct : consequently,

".'made and baptized more disciples than John" himself, (the bap-
tism which they then administered being of the same import and
design with John's,) I say, after all this, it is evident that there
was but here and there a true believer in the whole nation. The
church in Jerusalem, previous to the day of Pentecost, consisted
of but " about a hundred and twenty names ;" and the greatest
number of " brethren" or disciples before that time that we any
where read of, is the " more than 500" who saw^him after his
resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. 6. Where, then, are the thousands and.
tens of thousands whom John and the disciples of our Lord had
baptized ? If Jerusalem and all Judea had not made a hypocriti-
cal profession of repentance, when they received that rite, Christ
never could have been condemned and crucified there. But doubt-
less they were hypocrites. They professed to believe that a great
temporal prince was about to make his appearance, but when the
meek and iowht Jesus was revealed as their king, they could join
with the rabble in crying " A~xuy xvith him, away with him ,• cnici-
\ crucify him" And yet, according to the Baptist scheme, all
who had been previously baptized were true members of the
gospel church. Then indeed it may safely be regarded as the
true antitype of the Jewish church : not, however, in her best
estate, but in seasons of the greatest declension and apostacy.

!t coems then, Mr. Hall believes, that there were "article?
off^ilh" in the Jewish church ; and that " a Messiah to come"
was a prominent ariicle iu their confession.

279

John's baptism was not Christian baptism.

3. Ctiristian baptism was originally, as at the
present time, administered in the name of the
Ti iune God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost ;
and this form is essential to the administration
of that holy ordinance. Thus our Saviour
commanded his disciples when he gave them
their commission, and thus they practised.
But John did not thus baptize. Nay, when
he commenced his ministry, the doctrine of
the Trinity had never been expressed in those
connected terms, and John himself declares
that he did not know Jesus. " And I knew
him not, but that he should be made mani-
fest to Israel; therefore am Icome baptizing
with water. — And 1 knew him not, but he
that sent me to baptize with water, the same
said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and remaining on him, the
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this
is the Son of Cod." Joh. i. 31, 33, 34.

4. Those who identify John's baptism
with Christian baptism, involve themselves
in a monstrous absurdity. Instead of ma-
king Christ the Found er of the Christian
church, they ascribe this honour to John ;
(though he himself repeatedly disclaimed
it ;) and reduce the Great King and Head
of the church to the capacity of one of John's
disciples. As absurd as this appears, and as
abhorrent as the idea was to John himself,
(for he seems to have apprehended this con-
clusion, and therefore declined baptizing

2*)0

Christ when be first applied,) there are those
at the present day who publicly advocate
the sentiment. A Baptist elder of some
considerable celebrity, says, " Was not Je-
sus baptized by John to fulfil all righteous-
ness 1 Was not Jesus therefore a BAPTIST ?
These things are so." This is a fine spe-
cimen of Baptist logic. First ask a ques-
tion or two, and then affirm, and thus the
proposition is established. Of this, if I had
time, I might present a multitude of exam-
ples from the writings of those who have at-
tempted to defend that scheme. — But why
all this zeal to prove that Christ was a Bap-
tist, rather than John a Christian ? Why,
forsooth, in order that they may have the
baptism of Christ, for a subject of declama-
tion in favour of adult baptism.

As the example of Christ in this particu-
lar is often urged for the imitation of Chris-
tians, and has considerable influence with
unenlightened consciences, J shall here ex-
pose its fallacy. Christ was indeed bapti-
zed by John, but not with John's baptism.
For, 1. It was " the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins'" that John administered :
but Christ had no sins to repent of, or which
needed remission. — 2. It was not believer's
baptism which Christ received from John;
for, he had no occasion for faith, and he him-
self was the great object of faith. 3. It was
not Christian baptism which he received, for
that would have been to be baptized in his
own name. These are facts which no man

281

can gainsay. Where then, I ask, is there any
thing in Christ's baptism which is designed
for the imitation of Christians ? He did not
receive "the baptism of repentance," nor
" believer's baptism," nor "Christian bap-
tism." What then was the import of his
baptism? This is evident from the circum-
stances of the case, and from the conversa-
tion between our Lord and John. When
Christ first applied for baptism, John refu-
sed him from the consideration of his own un-
worthiness. Did not John manifestly dread,
to perform an act which would seem to im-
ply, what the modern Baptists are fond of
believing, that Christ became one of his dis-
ciples? And until Jesus had explained to
him the object of his application and the
true import of the act, he would not consent
to baptize him. But as soon as Christ had
said, " Thus it becomelh us to juljil all right-
eousness, he suffered him*9 But what right-
eousness did Christ herein fulfil? Notwith-
standing Baptists have often attempted to
ridicule the idea, I do not hesitate to say,
that it was in compliance w ith that precept
of the ceremonial law which respected the
consecration of the priests. See Exo, xxix.
and Lev. viii. And although, on the ground
of our scheme, some of our opponents have,
I had almost said, blasphemously called the
Hi^h Priest of our profession " an inlerlo-
//^r," because he was not born of the tribe
of Levi, yet I still shall maintain the senti-
ment, and leave the authors of such profane
24*

282

ridicule, to answer for their conduct to "the
Lion of the tribe of Judah."

In support of the idea which I have said
was implied in Christ's baptism, I will just
make the following remarks. 1. The priests
were to enter on the duties of their office
when they wrere thirty years old. It was
at this age that Christ was baptized by John.
2. In the inauguration of the priests, they
were to be washed with water. Thus Christ
was washed in Jordan. 3. After being wash-
ed, they were to be anointed with oil. So
Christ when he came up from the water, re-
ceived the unction of the Holy Ghost: and
therein was fulfilled that prophetic allusion
of the Psalmist ; " Therefore God, thy God
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows.* Psal. xlv. 7. Hen. 1, 9.
The ancient priests and prophets, who had
been partakers of the Hoi} Ghost, had receiv-
ed it in a limited degree ; but Jesus receiv-
ed the Spirit "without measure." And fi-
nally, all this was done in obedience to an
existing statute, and therefore was a "ful-
filment o) righteousness."

Now, I appeal once more to "common
sense," (for I am as fond of submitting to
this umpire as any of our opponents are,
audi really wish they would appeal to
it more frequently than they do,) wheth-
er Christ designed by his baptism to be-
come one of John's disciples, or to be in-
augurated into the priesthood? At all events,
he did not receive a baptism which any

Christian can imitate. Consequently to
urge the example of Christ, in 1 his particu-
lar, as an argument to induce conscientious
persons to go " all over under water" is to
use an argument without foundation.

5. That John's baptism was not Christian
baptism, is evident from the fact, that the a-
postles, in their administration, paid no re-
spect to the former, but administered the
Christian rite to John's disciples in common
with others, If there were no positive evi-
dence of this fact, it might safely be inferred
from the circumstances of the case. We
have seen that the great body of the Jewish
nation received John's baptism; and yet
when the apostles admitted their converts
to the fellowship of the Church, they bapti-
zed them without discrimination. The 30(30
converts on the day of Pentecost were all
baptized by the apostles ; and yei, no doubt,
many of them had been previously baptiz-
ed by John.

But we are not left to decide this point
by balancing probabilities. In the sixth
of Acts, we have the fact explicitly declar-
ed. In one of his journies, " Paul came to
Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, said
unto them, Have ye received the Holy
Ghost, si nee ye believed. And they said un-
to him, We have not so much as heard whe-
ther there be any Holy Ghost. And he said
unto them, Unto what then were ye bapti-
zed ? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with

234

the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people, that they should believe on him
which should come after him, that is on
Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus." — This plain statement of facts, in
which some of John's disciples are declared
to have received Christian baptism, has pro-
duced great trouble among the Baptists;
and the invention of the whole denomination
has been put to the rack, in order to discov-
er some method to distort the passage and
so destroy its testimony against their scheme*.
And what is the result? Why truly this.
"The writer of the Acts, say the Baptists, in
recording the latter part of this interview
between Paul and these disciples, does not
state what Paul did to them, but but what he
told them, that John said and did to them.
Thus, Paul said, John verily baptized with
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people that they should believe on him
which should come after him, that is on
Christ Jesus. When they (that is, the peo^
pie to whom John preached, these disciples
being a part of them) heard this (from John)
they were baptized (by John) in the name
of the Lord Jesus."

Now is not this more than contemptible?
Is it not a shameful perversion of language,
and an awful act of violence on Divine rev-
elation ? If such liberties are to be indulged,
then may the infidel say, " the scriptures
can be made to speak any thing." But let
those who are guilty of such perversion, be-

285

ware of the curse denounced against those
who add to, or lake from the testimony of
God. Mr. Hall, in remarking on this expo-
sition, thus expresses himself. "In the
whole compass of theological controversy,
it would be difficult to assign a stronger in-
stance of the force of prejudice in obscuring
a plain matter of fact ; nor is it easy to con-
jecture, what could be# the temptation to
do such violence to the language of scrip-
ture, and to every principle of sober criti-
cism, unless it were the horror which certain
divines have conceived, against every thing
which bore the shadow of countenancing
anabaptistical error. The ancient commen-
tators appear to have felt no such appre-
hension, but to have followed without scru-
ple the natural import of the passage."

But in order to shew the absurdity of this
perverse comment, permit me to remind
you of what has been already shewn, viz.
That John did not baptize in the name of
the Trinity or of the Lord Jesus. Of this
we have renewed evidence \t\ this passage.
These disciples declare, " We have not so
much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost ;" which must have been false, if they
had been baptized in his name,— Moreover,
if nothing more is inferided by this record,
than to inform us what Paul said to these
disciples, how sagely the great apostle of
the Gentiles was .employed, in telling those
people what they knew a great deal more
about, than he himself did ! And how couhi.

2&6

such a recital prepare them for the gift of
the Holy Ghost, the bestowment of which
is recorded in the succeeding verse. " And
when Paul had laid his hands upon them,
(that is, the persons who had been baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus, which ac-
cording to the Baptist exposition must mean
all the disciples of John,) the Holy Ghost
came on them, and they spake with tongues
and prpphjBcied." Well might Mr. Hall style
this "ineffably absurd."

But after all, some have professed to pro-
duce an "explicit warrant" against the re-
baptism of these disciples : and what is it ?
Why plainly this, that St.Paul declares to
the Corinthian church, " I baptized none of
you but Crispus and Gains, and the house-
hold of Stephanas." 1 Cor. i. 14. 16. This is
truly a noble discovery. Because Paul had
baptized only a few persons at Corinth, there-
fore, he did not baptize any at Ephesus.—
This is another specimen of " logical rea-
soning." But suppose we admit it to be
correct, for no doubt Paul carefully avoid-
ed the administration of that ordinance when
the aid of others could be obtained ; was he
destitute of such aid at Ephesus? Did he
not usually have a companion in his jour-
nies who could perform that (iutyl And
when he set out upon this excursion, are we
not expressly informed, that he took Silas
with him, whom we find with him in almost
every place whither he went? And though
Silas abode with Timotheus a short time at

287

Berea when Paul left that place, yet we
find them joining him again at Corinth, just
before he set out for Ephesus. What then
is the amount of thi^ explicit warrant? It is
the mere ghost of a shadow.

From all this evidence the conclusion is
irresistible, that John's baptism was not
Christian baptism; and consequently, neither
the mode nor the subjects of the former rite,
if they could be clearly ascertained, can be
urged as a precedent for the latter.

But, says one, who probably begins to
doubt the firmness of his foundation on John
the Baptist, " If it is true that John's bap-
tism is done away, and that the baptism in-
stituted by Jesus, and practised by the a~
postles is radically different from that of
John, it is no pjoof at all for the baptism of
infants" Very true, we do not argue it for
that purpose. But it wrests out of the
mouths of our opponents all the circumstan-
tial evidence in favour of immersion. It
leaves no ground of declamation about riv-
ers and ponds or lakes, and the people go-
ing down into the water and coming up out of
the water. All these are swept away at a dash ;
and when these are gone, although they have
no real weight in them if they could be pre-
served, the most popular arguments of the
Baptists in favour of immersion are lost for
ever. For although they profess to make
great dependence on their criticism on the
word " baptizo" yet, in the view of igno-
rant people, this is nothing in comparison

288

with the river Jordan, and the going -down in-
to, and coming up out of the water. This, the
Baptist preachers perfectly understand; and
hence, these circumstances constitute the
burden of their declamations on the banks
of rivers, and the margin of mill ponds.

But, as I have already observed, with the
baptism of John, all this circumstantial evi-
dence is swept away ; for there is but a sin-
gJr instance of Christian baptism in which
this phraseology occurs; and the necessary
circumstances of that case were such, as ful-
ly to explain the reason of its adoption, f
here allude to the case of the Eunuch who
was baptized by Philip. They were jour-
neying in a carriage, and, of course, had no
means for administering the ordinance in
any mode whatever. Therefore, when
they came to a certain water, the Eunuch
said, "See water; what doth hinder me to
be baptized?" He does not say whether
there was more or less water; whether it was
a river or a brook, or only a small fountain.
Then they "went down" from the chariot
to the water, and he was baptized. Now,
without insisting on the fact stated by tra-
vellers, that in this region there is no stream
of water "more than ancle deep," if this
phraseology, in this case, proves the immer-
sion of the eunuch, it equally proves the im-
mersion of Philip. This idea T know is of-
ten treated by our opponents as a quibble ;
but it is a solemn fact; for, "they went down
both of them into the water, bqth Philip and

289

the eunuch, and he baptized himP To say
that the immersion is implied in the word
"baptized" is to surrender all the circumstan-
tial evidence of the passage, and to build
on a foundation which has already been de-
molished.— In all the other instances in which
Christian baptism is recorded, the circum-
stantial evidence is decidedly against im-
mersion. In the case of the three thousand
converts on the day of pentecost, I will
make two or three remarks.

1. There were no conveniences at hand
for immersion. There were no streams or
fountains in Jerusalem in which it could have
taken place. The baths of the temple could
not have been procured, at any time, for
Christian purposes ; but then, they were oc-
cupied, it being the feast. And if the peo-
ple had been wandering about for the pur-
pose of procuring private baths, (if any such
there were which were large enough for
immersion,) the accomplishment of the work
would have been impossible. But —

2. If the ocean had been at hand, it is dif-
ficult to imagine how such a vast multitude
could have been immersed by the apostles,
in the remaining part of the day. Dr. Gill,
in order to avoid this objection, has indeed
called in the seventy disciples to the aid of
the apostles : but as their4commission, like
John's, was designed merely to prepare the
way of the Lord, and was therefore tempo-
rary; and especially as the scripture is silent
on that subject, I presume everv consistent

290

advocate of " explicit warrant," if there be
such a creature in our world, will cheerful-
ly consign this conjecture io "the cave in the
mountain." The Baptists pretend that there
is no difficulty in this case, on their princi-
ples. If not, why do they contrive so ma-
ny absurd expedients to get rid of it? Why
not shoulder the objection and carry it off,
if there is no weight in it? But no! their
constant wincing makes it evident that it
presses hard upon them. One of Dr. Gill's
expedients I have already mentioned : now
for another. " Though they were added to
the church in one and the same day, it does
not follow that they were baptized in one
day." But how so? In the introduction of
the subject, he says, " Though it is not a
"church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God,
" and a part and branch of public worship.
"When I say, it is not a church ordinance, I
"mean it is not an ordinance administered
" in the church, but out of it, and in order to
" admission into it, and communion with it ;
" it is preparatory to it, and a qualification
" for it ; it does not make a person a mem-
"ber of the church, or admit him into a vi-
" sible church ; persons must first be baptized
" and then added to the church, as the three
"thousand converts were." But after
writing 24 pages he again introduces the
three thousand, and to get rid of the diffi-
culty of immersing them all in a part of
one afternoon, now asserts that " though
" they were added to the church in one and thf

291

* same day, it does not follow that they were
ci baptized in one day." — That they had not
been previously baptized, is evident from
the fact that Christian baptism had nevei
been administered before that day : and e-
ven, if it had been, it is not to be supposed
that the apostles would have admitted then)
to that holy rite before their conversion. —
Here then, if I can understand English, is a flat
contradiction. If one of your preachers
" were sentenced to reconcile these asser-
tions with sound reason or the word of God,"
or even, with each other ', he might well say,
" my punishment is greater than I can bear.**
But why is this sentiment advanced at all ?
When Dr. Gill had called the " seventy" to
the aid of the apostles for the immersion
of the three thousand, which, he says, would
be but " six or seven and thirty persons
each ;$s and had appropriated to their use
° a number of private baths in Jerusalem" —
u many pools in the city" — "the various a-
partments and things in the temple" — " the
dipping room of the high priest" — " the
molten sea and the ten brazen lavers; "all of
which they might be allowed the use of, as
they were of the temple ;" and " having favour
with all the people!!!" yea, and had even
provkled every convert with a change of
raiment; and how? will you believe that he
says, " it was only every one's providing and
bringing change of raiment for himself ?*' —
as though these persons, with hearts of en-
mity to the gospel, not to say any thing of

292

Their ignorance of the Christian ordinances,
had come up to Jerusalem and to the tem-
ple, with such a prepossession that they
should be put completely under water be-
fore they returned, that each had provided
himself with a change of raiment for the oc-
casion : I say, when Dr. Gill had furnished
the apostles with so much assistance, and
the converts with all these conveniences for
immersion, and even informed us, in a note,
that " ten thousand had been baptized in
one day by Austin the Monk ;" and " twen-
ty thousand in one day by a missionary of
Photius the Patriarch," why should he re-
serve any of the three thousand for another
day? — Surely Dr. Gill could not have re-
posed much confidence in the credulity of
his readers.

But, although I am willing to admit
that the baptism of a man on the same
day, does not follow of course from the dec-
laration that he was received into the
church at a given time, yet, I do feel
under an absolute necessity of believing
that the three thousand were all bapti-
zed on the same day, or else, I must dis-
credit the word of God : for the sa-
cred penman declare?, "THEN," at that
very time; " they that gladly received his
words were baptized, and the same day, there
were added about three thousand souls."
For myself, then, I do believe, that they were
not only baptized on that same day without
immersion, but by sprinkling ; and that pro-
bably not one by one; but as many at a

293 -

time as could conveniently approach the
administrator, and profess their faith in a
crucified Saviour: — that they were sprin-
kled just as Moses sprinkled the blood of
the covenant on the people, — and that the
baptism of this promiscuous multitude, from
all parts of the world, at the commence-
ment of the Christian dispensation, was an
inceptive, but literal accomplishment of
that prophecy, " So shall he sprinkle many
nations"*

At the baptism of Saul, of Cornelius, of
Lydia, and of the jailer, we hear nothing of
baths, rivers or ponds of water. Of the
first it is said, "He received sight forth-
with and arose and was baptized." No
change of place, or process of time is even
intimated. — In the second instance, Peter
inquires not, "Who will allow us the priv-
ilege of their bath? but, " who can forbid
water that these should not be baptized V9
If this phraseology contains any circum-
stantial evidence, it is this ; that the water
was to be brought to the candidates, and not
the candidates carried to the water. — In the
case of Lydia, it is true, we are previously
informed, that they were near a river; but
when her baptism and that of her household
are spoken of, there is nothing said of their
going down info, or coming up out of the wa-
ter.— And with respect to the jailer, the same

* I wish the reader to turn to Isa. lii. and after reading it, let
him judge for himself, whether the prophecy in that chapter doe*
not refer, at least inceptively, to the opening- of the new dif pen
sation.

25*

294

remarks, as in the former instances, are a]>
plicable, with this addition ; that the record
of the transaction plainly shews, they had
never left the outer prison till the ordinance
had been administered. It is true some
Baptists have hazarded the conjecture that
there was a large reservoir of water in the pris-
on ; but 1 shall only say, if I had adopted
a system, which drove me to such miserable
subterfuges, I would never open my lips a-
gain in favour of explicit warrant. I would
sit down and sullenly enjoy my opinion ; but
this conjecture, with a thousand others of the
same description, I would carefully conceal
in "the cave in the mountain,'* and inscribe
« CLOSE COMMUNION" over the door.
Here then I rest the subject. Much more
might be said, but I presume you are al-
ready satisfied, that the two grand sources
of argument improved by the Baptists in fa-
vour of immersion, are as barren as a desart.
No inference to support the sentiment can
be derived from the word " baptizo /' for
it has been shewn, by comparing scripture
with scripture, which is the only way in
which this controversy can be decided, that
the word does not necessarily signify im-
mersion. It is a term which, in the bible, is
exclusively appropriated to religious ablu-
tions, some of which were partial, and oth-
ers total ; some were performed by immer-
sion ; and others, by pouring and sprinkling.
Hence, it is certain, that no particular mode
is defined by that word. This is left to

295

the discretion of the church. — And in ever/
instance of Christian baptism recorded in
the scriptures, the circumstances of the case
are in favour of sprinkling. And this, I ven-
ture to pronounce, a more apt representa-
tion of the things signified thereby. For in
the observance of this holy institution we
come not to the banks of Jordan, to hear
" the voice of one crying in the wilderness*,
prepare ye the way of the Lord :" but, " to
Jesus the Mediator qj the new covenant, and

TO THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING." And it is

" through sancti fie alien of the Spirit, unto obe-
dience and SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF Je-

sus Christ," and "with the washing of water
by the word" that the people of God are pre-
pared for heaven.

Under the former dispensation, the blood
of the sacrifices, which was typical of Ihe
blood of Christ, was applied to the people
by sprinkling : and hence, the apostles call
the blood of Christ "the blood of sprinkling."9
Therefore, if the application of water to the
body in baptism, is designed to represent
the application of the blood of Christ to the
soul, then, according to scripture analogy,
sprinkling is the most significant and appro-
priate mode. And the same conclusion will
follow, if we consider baptism as represent-
ing the purifying efficacy of the blood of
Christ. The Baptists are constantly asser-
ting that " sprinkling or pouring is not
cleansing." This, like a thousand other of
their assertions, is made without evidence

296

to support it, and in direct opposition to
scripture testimony, and matter of fact. In
multiplied instances the scriptures repre-
sent cleansing as the result of sprinkling, or
the application of water with the hand. —
Thus Moses was directed towash Aaron and
his sons at the door of the tabernacle ; and to
sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice and the
anointing oil upon them, when they were
consecrated to the priesthood. Exo. xxix.
And whenever they entered into the taber-
nacle, they were commanded to sanctify
themselves, by washing their hands and their
feet. Chap. xxx. 20, 21. In like manner the
people were cleansed by sprinkling, or the
partial application of the appointed ele-
ment. And the apostle, as has been already
observed, declares that those sprinklings
were a token of cleansing. Heb. ix. 13. Nu-
merous other instances might be adduced
in which the design of sprinkling is thus
represented — Moreover, the great Head
of the church himself declares, that the
partial application of water to the body
is a sufficient representation of the purifi-
cationoftbe soul. " He ihatis washedneedeth
no! save to wash his feet, butis clean every whit"

JLeb. But, it will be said, that this decla^
ration of our Saviour does not relate to the
ordinance of baptism.

JEng. Very true, but this is nothing to the
purpose. Your people say, sprinkling, or
the partial application of water does not de-
note cleansing j but Christ says it does.—

297

This text, therefore, though it does not al-
lude to external baptism, decides so much as
this, that sanctijica lion, of which baptism is
a sign, may be represented by a partial ap-
plication of water to the body.

From all that has been said, it is evident,
that whether we consider baptismal water
as representing the influences of the Spirit,
by whose agency the soul is sanctified ; or,
the blood oj Christ, by virtue of which that
effect is produced ; or, the effect itself ;
sprinkling or pouring is a more significant
mode than plunging; and vastly more con-
formable to the analogy of scriplure.

Leb. You have treated this part of the
subject also, in a manner perfectly satisfac-
tory to my mind. I am under a thousand
obligations to you for your unwearied pa-
tience, during the whole discussion. I feel
myself in a new7 world, and possessed of im-
mense privileges, which I never realized be-
fore. As a parent, I have always felt soli-
citous for the eternal welfare of my chil-
dren. But the system I had embraced, pre-
sented such a gloomy prospect with respect
to their salvation, as to cool the ardour of
parental feeling, and paralize every exer-
tion for their spiritual benefit. But, blessed
be Gx)d, I shall now return to my family
with new motives and rem .ved zeal. I shall
go to my closet and to the family altar,
with new views and feelings. I shall there
address the Majesty of heaven, not only as
my God and Father, but the covenant God
vt my children,. Hereafter I shall endeavour

298

lobe faithful to their souls; and shall la-
bour, and pray, and hope for, and expect
their salvation.

But pray tell me, Eugenius, what course
shall I take to get rid of my present connex-
ion ?

Eug. You must act with great prudence
and circumspection. By no means break
effin a sudden manner. I suppose you have
entered into solemn covenant to walk with
that church; and, though you are now con-
vinced that they are in monstrous errors,
vet those vows are not to be trifled with.
Go to your church, tell thern plainly and af-
fectionately the revolution in your senti-
ments, and request a dismission from their
communion. If this is denied, ask leave to
withdraw. If this also is refused, your way
is clear. No society, possessed of Christian
candour and charity, would refuse one or
the other, under such circumstances. But
if your church does, I presume your own
conscience and the Lord of your conscience
will exonerate you.

But beware of one thing, Lebbeus; and
that is, of a compromise. Your people, when
they are apprized of your present senti-
ments, and find it impracticable to envelope
you in "the cloud" again, will try every ex-
pedient to make you contented in their
communion. The idea of losing one of
their members in this way, produces the
pangs of dissolution in their whole body.
But I have shewn you that there can be no

299

compromise between these two systems.
Though you may be told that "you can re-
tain your present sentiments on free com-
munion, but not act them out;" that "you
may consider jour children in covenant
with God, without having the token of the
covenant applied to 1 hem ;" yet be not deceiv-
ed. This is all carnal policy. Remember
that precept which your own denomination
so strenuously enjoin. " Teaching them to
observe all things, whatsoever I have com-
manded you" Therefore be firm and im-
movable, as well as prudent and deliberate,

Leb. I thank you for your advice, and I
shall scrupulously regard it. But I feel a
deep concern for my brethren, who are still
in the blinded condition in which I have
been. Is there no ground of hope that they
will, ere long, have their eyes opened to see
their errors?

Eug. I have already shewn, you that the
unchristian practice of close communion is
rapidly declining both in England and A~
merica. And it is obvious, that, on other
grounds, your denomination are approxi-
mating to the sentiments and practice of
the true church. You doubtless recollect
that, but a few years ago, they were in the
constant habit of discarding human learning
as a qualification for the ministerial office ;
and railing against the salaries of the regu-
lar clergy. From every part of your
church, our ears were stunned with the
din of ridicule against "college-bre ddi-
vines ;" and the cry of " hireling, hireling,"

300

was vociferated from every tongue. But
mark the change. Now, on these subjects,
their lips are closed in silence. A few men
of education among them (the Lord grant
that they may soon be increased) are the or-
acles of the party ; and all their ministers
are claiming a stipulated salary from their
people ; though, at the same time, the most
of them follow some other occupation
through the week for a livelihood.

And on the subject of infant membership
there is a manifest approximation to the
gospel scheme. In some Baptist churches
in England, it has been a practice for many
years past, for parents to present their chil-
dren, and as they say, "to give them up in
faith to God;" though not to have "the seal
of their faith" set upon them. I did not
knowr, until very lately, that this practice
had been adopted, in a single instance, in
this country. But, I am credibly informed
of the existence of two churches in New-
England, which have come into the measure.

These facts plainly shew, that the pecu-
liarities of the sect are rapidly decaying.
Only let free communion sentiments and the
above-mentioned practice become universal,
and the funeral rites of the Baptist scheme
may be performed. A single step further
will bring them upon gospel ground. Their
present system will then be IMMERSED,
like a mill-stone in the sea, to rise no more.

Leb. The Lord grant that it may speedi-
ly be accomplished.

Eug. AMEN.

CONCLUDING ADDRESSES.

1 . To the Padobaptist Churches.
Dearly Beloved ; " Grace be unto you,
and peace from God our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ" — You have adopted a con-
stitution, which, at once, involves an exalted
privilege and an immense responsibility. It
is the same constitution which the Lord es-
tablished, when he organized his church ;
and which he then declared to be an " ever-
lasting covenant" Hence, he has never ab-
rogated it : but has given the most satisfac-
tory testimony that it shall remain, in its full
extent, to the end of time. — In this cove-
nant, you, in your collective capacity, as
well as each individual in his personal char-
acter, are one of the high contracting par-
ties. Not a member is admitted into your
holy fraternity, without professing to take
hold of this covenant, avouching Jehovah to
be his God, and the God of his seed. At
the same time, you, as a church, promise to
watch over him, and see that he is faithful
to God, to his fellow-men, and especially to
those committed to his immediate charge.
Not a seal is applied without your expres-
sed or implied consent. Not a child is born
within the pale of the covenant and receives
the token thereof, but you are held respon-
sible for his being trained up " in the nur-
ture and admonition of the Lord."
26

302

It is to our reproach and injury, that, in
years past, so little attention has been paid to
this important duty. Our children have
been baptized according to divine institu-
tion; but then, in too many instances, they
have been permitted to grow up without due
instruction and restraint. So great has been
the inattention to this subject, that many
are doubting as to the nature of the relation
which children bear to the church ; and con-
sequently, as to the duty which the church
owes them. But, brethren, so much as this
is self-evident : It is the duty of every indivi-
dual and of every community tojulfil their own
solemn vows. When parents present their
children for baptism, they promise before
earth and heaven, to train them up for the
Lord. You promise under the same solem-
nity, to see that they fulfil their vows. Now,
redeem your pledge. If parents disregard
their covenant obligations, call them to an
account. If they still persist in disobe-
dience, and permit their children to grow
up without instruction and restraint, cut
them off from your holy communion ; they
have broken God's covenant. Thus far, the
path of duty is plain. Go thus far ; and
then, if more be necessary, and if the word
of God will bear you out in it, go farther.
But do not waste time in disputing about
the standing of baptized children, while
nothing is done to remedy existing evils.
It is needless to ascertain the full extent of
duty, while the very first steps of it are so

303

awfully neglected. — Something must he
done without delay. " The uncircumcised
triumph," and pour contempt on your con-
stitution ; because, under a lax administra-
tion, comparatively little good results from
its adoption. The welfare of society — the
honour of the church — the salvation of
souls, especially of the rising generation, and
the glory of God require you to awake.

You are daily praying and labouring for
the introduction of the latter day glory.
Remember, one of the preludes of that bles-
sed period is " the turning of the hearts of
the fathers to the children, and the hearts of
the children to the fathers''' Until this event
is realized, you will look in vain for the
revelation of that glorious day. The disci-
pline of the church must be revived, not
only in relation to the personal conduct of
adult members, but also with respect to their
children. When this is done, then shall
Zion " arise and shine, her light being come
and the glory of the Lord being risen upon
her" Then may you say to your opposers,
" Walk about Zion, and go round about her ;
tell the toners thereof; mark ye well her bul-
warks, consider her palaces j that ye may tell
it to the generation following. For this God
is our God Jor ever and ever ; he will be our
guide even unto death.''' Then shall " the
testimony be established again in Jacob, and
the law appointed in Israel, which he command-
cd our fathers, that they should make them
known to their children : that the generation

304

to come might know them, even the children
which should be born ; who should arise and
declare them to their children. That they
might set their hope in God, and not forget the
works of God, but keep his commandments"
from generation to generation.

2. To Professing Parents.

Christian Brethren; It is an unspeak-
able favour that the Lord has admitted
you into his covenant. You are under in-
finite obligations, of a personal nature, to
divine grace. But the kindness of heaven
has been still further manifested. Out of
regard to you, the Lord has made gracious
promises concerning your children. He has
permitted them to be sealed with the seal of
the covenant ; and has given you peculiar
encouragement to expect their salvation,
through the instrumentality of your pious
labours. How distinguished the favour!
how vast your obligations !

But, brethren, in order for your children
to realize the benefits of this constitution,
you must be faithful to their souls. The
sacramental water possesses no intrinsic vir-
tue that can communicate benefits to the
soul. "Sprinkling a little water in the face"
and even plunging the body in the ocean,
Avill, of themselves, be alike ineffectual. Bap-
tism is a seal of special privileges; and with-
out the enjoyment of these, the sacred rite
would be equally useless to adults and in-
fants. If you expect your children to expe-
rience saving benefits, you must faithfully

305

discharge those important duties which God
requires, and which you have voluntarily
promised. When you first entered into cov-
enant, and at every subsequent renewal of
it, you vowed before God, angels and men,
"to instruct your children and servants in-
to the doctrines and duties of the reli-
gion you profess — to bring them up under
the exercise of proper discipline — to set be-
fore them a pious example : and to maintain
the daily worship of God in your families/'
These duties must be made an every-day
business. It is not by a long lecture, de-
livered once a week, that your children
are to be instructed into the things of reli-
gion. Their minds are volatile and they
can retain but little at a time. Your in-
structions must " distil like the rain." They
must be given "line upon line, line upon
line ; precept upon precept, precept upon
precept ; here a little, and there a little."
" And these words which I command thee
this day, shall be in thine heart ; and thou
shalt teach them diligently unto thy chil-
dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sit-
test in thine house, and when thou walkest
by the way, and when thou liest down, and
when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind
them for a sign upon thine hand, and they
shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And
thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy
house and on thy gales." This is the whole
secret as to the manner of parental instruc-
tion.— And as to the matter, it is all that God.
26*

306

has revealed in bis word. Every doctrine
and duty therein contained " belongs to you
and to your children." Let the great object
of all your instructions be, to convince them
that they are sinners, and that they must be
renewed in the spirit of their minds, or they
can never "see the kingdom of God.''

Assume the government of your children at
an early period. With the first daivnings,
of reason, let them learn that the will of the
parent is the law of the household. By at-
tention to this particular, you will save
yourselves incalculable trouble, and your
children much needless correction. For
the want of this, consequences fatal to the
character and state of children, I doubt not,
have often ensued. Let children live un-
controlled till they are a year and a half or
two yearsof age, and if they are everbrought
into subjection, it will require ten times as
much correction as would have been neces-
sary at an earlier period ; and even then, the
work will not be as effectually accomplished.
However unpopular the sentiment may be,
and however contrary to the opinion of those
indulgent parents, who will not allow their
children to possess as much sagacity at the
age of nine months, as a brute animal of as
many weeks, it is an unquestionable fact,
that the early commencement and steady
maintenance of discipline requires the least
degree of severe correction, and is the best
evidence of true parental affection. Adopt
the plan proposed in Dr. WiTHERsrooN's

307

Letters on Education, which I earnestly re-
commend to your perusal, and you may ea-
sily obtain the control of your children, at
an age that you may now deem incredible.

Let your own deportment be such that
your children may be convinced, you are
sincere in your profession. They are better
judges of consistency of character, than yoil
are probably aware. In vain do you instruct
and correct them, unless you exhibit a pious
example. Without this, your children-may be
made to fear you, but they will not fear to sin.

Finally; pray much with and for your
children. This is an important duty and a
precious privilege. It is one of the establish-
ed means of procuring promised blessings,
" I mill yet for this be inquired of by the house
of Israel to do it for tktffi?* It may be improv-
ed even while they are incapable of in-
struction or restraint, orof being influenced
by example. From the first moment of their
existence, the pious parent may approach
the throne of grace, and implore for them
the covenant blessings of Abraham. When
reason begins to dawn, not only call them
around the family altar, but take them fre-
quently with you into your closets. This
will have a powerful effect to solemnize their
minds, and to promote the fear of God in
their hearts. In a word; let all your instruc-
tions and every act of discipline, as far as
circumstances will permit, be sanctified by
prayer.

For the performance of these duties, breth-

308

ren, you are held responsible. If you neg-
lect to discharge them, you are liable to the
discipline of the church. — Consider, more-
over their vast importance. The respecta-
bility and usefulness of your children in this
world, and, under the Divine blessing, their
eternal salvation depend upon your fidelity.
Without it, they may become your living
sorrows, and die accursed. And should they
perish through your neglect, how could you
meet them at the bar of God! If a pang of
wo, could ever enter a celestial mind, me-
thinks, il would be inflicted by seeing your
children turned into hell, in consequence of
your unfaithfulness. — On the other hand,
how happy the condition, and how delight-
ful the prospects of faithful parents and o-
bedient children. They grow up in this life
as " fellow-heirs of grace ;" and shall at last
meet in Mount Zion before God, to sit clown
" with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," and sing
" the song of Moses and the Lamb" forever
and ever.- — Brethren, I intreat you by all
the comfort and happiness that you hope
to derive from your children in this life, — by
all the mortification and pain and grief you
wish to avoid — by all the joys of heaven, and
by all the miseries of hell, to be faithful to
their souls.

3. To Baptized Children.
Ye children of the covenant ; how high-
ly are you distinguished ! The seal of A-
braham's God has been impressed on your
foreheads. The Lord has marked you as
his property, in a peculiar sense ; and has

309

provided special means for you to be train-
ed up in his service. This distinction how-
ever is conferred upon you, not on your ac-
count; but solely, on account of your pious
parents: — not because you are any better
than others, for by nature you are children
of wrath even as they; but "because the Lord
loved your fathers, therefore hath he chosen
you" to enjoy these exalted privileges.

But remember, the bare enjoyment of
privilege cannot save you. It is not enough
to be " set apart" to the Lord's service ; you
must possess inherent holiness. Your pecu-
liar advantages are designed as superior
means to produce this effect. You are fa-
voured with numerous instructions ; you are
the children of numberless prayers. You
now enjoy the most favourable opportunity
to make your peace with God. But shortly
these privileges will be at an end. You will
soon leave the family altar, and go out into
the wide world to provide for yourselves.
How wretched will be your condition, if
then, you have no altar of your own to ap-
proach— no interest at the throne of grace
to improve for your own souls! Secluded
from the privileges of the parental dwelling,
outcasts from the church, you will be "with-
out God, without Christ, and without hope
in the world." How imperious is your pre-
sent duty ! You have no time to lose. You
mustawaketoa senseof yourcondition. You
must be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
or perish for ever. Your characters are ra-
pidly forming for the eternal world, They

310

will soon be sealed to the day of God Al-
mighty. Your parents are deeply concern-
ed for you. The church watches over you
Avith the tenderest solicitude. If you con-
tinue impenitent and die in your sins, ten
thousand slighted privileges will fall upon
you, and sink you to the lowest hell. Awake,
then, ye careless children, who are "at ease
in Zion." Make a voluntary surrender of
yourselves to God, that you may inherit the
blessings of the covenant, and be prepared
to transmit them to generations yet unborn.
4. To Unbelieving Parents.
My Friends; you will indulge me in a
few words of address to you ; and you will
pardon me, if 1 address you as " aliens from
the commonwealth cf Israel and strangers to
the covenant of promise. The Lord has dis-
tinguished you from the heathen. Pie has
cast your lot in a Christian land. You have
been educated under the light of the gospel.
Some of you were born within the pale of
the church ; but by misimproving your ex-
alted privileges, you have cut yourselves
off from the blessings of the covenant.
Your condition is perilous. Your souls are
in jeopardy every moment. You are con-
stantly exposed to all the horrors of eternal
burnings.— But, you are not likely to perish
alone. You have been instrumental in giv-
ing existence to other immortal beings,
whose character and condition are deeply
involved in your conduct. Your children
are a part of yourselves, and doubtless you
love them as your own souls. But by con*-

3J1

tinned impenitence, yon may exclude them,
as well as yourselves, from the blessings of
salvation. It is true, if they perish, they will
be condemned for their own per sonahins; but
"their blood will be found in your skirts."
You are anxious for their present com-
fort and happiness ; but, I beseech you to
recollect, that they are immortal beings.
— You are daily labouring to provide
for them the riches of time ; but, " what will
will it profit you" or them, "to gain the whole
world and lose your own souls?" A few more
years will roll away, and you must meet
them at the bar of God. How dreadful if
you should meet them on the left hand of
the Judge ! How will your ears be stunned
with their bitter accusations! Can you bear
the thought of hearing them exclaim, " O un-
faithful parents ! but for your neglect, we
might now be in the midst of yonder hap-
py throng. You taught us how to obtain
wealth in the other world, but you never
taught us how to save our souls. Our riches
we have left forever, and now we must lie
down in eternal sorrow." My friends, if you
would save yourselves the pain of such an
interview, be intreated to make religion the
great concern of your lives. " Seek ye first
the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.''
"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you
shall be saved, and your houses." Embrace
the covenant of Abraham in faith, and you
will bring salvation to yourselves and to
your households.

312

5. To the Children of Unbelievers.

.My dear young friends; It is indeed
your unhappiness that you were not horn
within the pale of the covenant. But though
this deprives you of many precious privi-
leges, it does not excuse your impenitence in
sin. The Lord declares in his word, that
the heathen are "without excuse." How
much more inexcusable are you! — Though
your parents have been awfully negligent of
your souls, yet you are blessed with the gos-
pel. You have the bible to read, and the
day and means of grace to enjoy. You are
not ignorant of your duty. If you will obey
the calls of divine grace, the Lord will not
despise you. " He is no respecter of persons;
but in every nation he that feareth him, and
worketh righteousness, isaccepted withhim."

Be intreated to repent without delay. —
Time is ever on the wing. You may soon
die. — Or, if your lives should be spared a
few years longer, you will probably become
the parents of children; for whom, in your
turn, God will hold you responsible. You
will then have more souls to take care of,
and less, much less time to devote to it. The
cares of life will then engross so much atten-
tion, that you will scarcely find time to think
of your eternal concerns. " Behold, now
is the accepted time: behold now is the day of
salvation. To day if ye will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts" Therefore, " Turn
ye, tcrn ye : for why will ye die ?'[

THE END.

*-^H.

■

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "A familiar illustration of Christian baptism : in which the proper subjects of that ordinance and the mode of administration are ascertained from the word of God and the history of the church"

See other formats