A REPLY,
TO
<* A VINDICATION OF THE
HT OF INFANTS
«
TO THS
SI ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM :
m
Jambs Itussc-ij i:.m.s.c
AN ADDRESS
&
*^_—
BT TH 11END THOMAS POLUr
SJIJCSTElt OP THE CO'?U.
IP
»Jf .
£3
«
^
Q_
.5*
3
$
-o
re
*^.
IE
•^>?
1-3
Q-
# w
*-er>
fe
o
O
^
5
^■■^
m
0)
o
c
«*
o
bfl
cC
»55
H
<.
5>
^
o
~o3
3
fe
E
.5
w
M
t J
>2
^-
«
CO
t>
Pn
C*
c>
^
fe
-a
c
^
$
V*
0)
^
' «
V
£L
I3
<z.
""""^ /i^1
8
^
ZL&X
tm
■4
<*%*
• A REPL Y,
TO
« A VINDICATION OF THE
RIGHT OF INFANTS
TO THE
ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM
Ev the rev. James Hvsscli., m.m.e.c."
IN AN ADDRESS
BY THE REVEREND THO?,iAS>POLinLL,
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL.''
Search the Scriptures. Jksus Christ,
SAVANNAH:
'RIKTED BT SEYHOU3 CJ WILLIAM*
1812. .
PREFACE.
Courteous Reader,
THIS small attempt, to point out the fatla*
clous reasoning employed in 44 The vindication
of the right of infants to the ordinance of Bap-
tism, by James Russell, minister of the Me-
thodist Episcopal Denomination;" and at the
same time to direct your mi?ids to the great
covenant head of the Church, has been ready
for publication some time since. Various caus-
es, however, have prevented its earlier appear-
ance from the press.
IFhen I first began to address Mr. Russell,
on the subject of his piece, it was not with any
intention of publishing my remarks from the
press. But at the earnest solicitation of many
of my highly valued 'friends , I consented to send
it abroad in this manner.
The style is coarse, but the subject hath em-
ployed the mind of Jehovah from everlasting.
That God may make this address a blessing
to his people, is the prayer of your devoted ser-
vant.
THOS. POLHILL.
Newington, (Effingham County, >
Geo.) July 13, 1812. j
ADDRESS
To the Congregation, to whom this production vfao
first read, after public timely notice of ir.u intention
to take into consideration Mr. J»usst ll's tveri,
iiiii/i a view of exposing 'tis fake and u,u>criptural
arguments.
Friends and-BRETHREN :
It is to be lamented that those, who profess
to be followers of Christ, and take for their
guide, the word of God, should be divided in
their opinions, and that schisms should abound
among them. But such is unhappily the case,
and it becomes indispensibly necessary that
errors, when they are discovered to have crept
into the churches of the Redeemer, should fee
faithfully pointed out, lor the purpose of being
avoided.
When I was last at this place, I heard much
of a pamphlet, published by Mr. James Rus-
sell ; my desire was excited to see it, and as
I returned home the next day, I borrowed it
from a friend. On perusing it, I immediately
discovered that Mr R. had attempted to over-
throw the basis of our holy religion ; and as
I think that God has set me for a defence of
the truth, it becomes my duty to expose what
I conceive to be contrary to it.
It is not a fondness for opposition that brings
me forward to-day against Mr. R. I can ap-
peal to Him who kiiovveth the heart, for the
rectitude of my intentions. Had Mr. R. con-
fined his arguments to infant baptism only,
without proceeding to the denial of a futxUw
ADDRESS. v.
mental article, (nay the foundation itself) of
our holy religion, you would never have heard
from me in this public manner on the subject :
particularly as so many abler pens have been
employed 'to set forth the truths I have endea-
voured to exhibit in this address.
Mr. R. has denied the everlasting covenant
of grace made with Christ, before the founda-
tion of the world, and endeavors to place our
hopes of salvation upon the covenant of cir-
cumcision, made with Abraham. After I had
read his work, I searched the scriptures for
my own greater confirmation in what 1 con-
ceived to be the truth, putting down my re-
marks on them in writing as they occurred ;
and this I did, by way of address to Mr. R.
In these remarks, that important article of
the svstem of divine truth, the everlasting
covenant of grace, made with Christ before the
foundation of the world, appeared to my mind
to be fully established : I then thought it would
be well to establish it in my brethren's also.
And lest it should be said that 1 had taken ad-
vantage of Mr. Russell and his friends, in
making ray remarks on his production without
public notice of my intention, I did, on this
day two weeks, announce from thepmpit, at the
Sister Ferry Meeting-House, that I would, on
this dav, take his book into consideration, and
attempt to point out some of its absurdities.
Accordingly I have attended, and the following;
is .the address which 1 have prepared en the
occasion.
A. REPLY, &c.
Rev. JAMES RUSSELL,
SIR,
I HAVE read with attention your pam-
phlet, vindicating the right of infants to bap-
tism, under the new testament dispensation
upon the authority of the Abrahamic covenant'
the covenant of circumcision. If vou had a
proper spiritual view of your text, and context
and would, without prejudice, compare the
masterly arguments of the apostle, with those
passages of the old testament, to which he re-
iers, and the promises which he repeats • you
would, 1 am persuaded, think very different-
ly, and acknowledge he had in view far great-
er blessings and privileges, than the mere ini-
tiating of Abraham and his posteritv into a vi
sible church. Neither would you "attempt to
make believers, Abraham's to become Christ's
but Christ's, that they might be Abraham's
spiritual seed. In short, you would entirely
give up your far fetched argument, to prove
an ordinance of the christian church, unless
as a writer observes, « You will become all
tnmgs, to ail men, to save some from the bap-
tists."* You have a very happy knack of prov-
Doctor Baldwi*.
ing what you please, and cf imposing upon*
the weak and illiterate, who either will not, or
cannot, read, and judge for themselves ; of
which class I am truly sorry there are so ma-
ny in our land. If men would search the scrip-
ture (as commanded) and do it from proper
motives, with care and supplication, 1 think
the number of your disciples would be small,
especially if your preaching is as contrary to
the word of God, as your writing. I have
heard of the power of your reasoning; it must
be powerful indeed, or men must be very ig-
norant, if you can reason them out of the sim-
plicity of the gospel, as it is in Jesus. I have
a specimen of the power of your reasoning be-
fore me : any man may carry his point in
the same way (if he can reconcile it to his
feelings) by perverting the scripture, drawing-
conclusions from false premises, and when'
almost exhausted and ready to sink, buoy up
by assertion.
Do you really believe that the seed which
Paul says was Christ, was the same to which
the land of Canaan was promised for an ever-
lasting possession ? Or have you through po-
liteness, or from some other motive, follow-
ed Mr. Worcester ? If the conditions of the
covenant of circumcision had been complied
with on the part of Abraham's seed, to whom
the promise made, had nespect, they must
have had possession of that land at this day ;
for God had bound himself by promise that
they should have an everlasting possession of
it — It will not be denied that all the promises
of God are literally fulfilled, whether they be
absolute or conditional. If conditional, they
will be fulfilled if the conditions are performed.
If unconditional, they will be fulfilled without
respect to any conditions whatever.
The promise made to Abraham and his seed,
when God commanded him to circumcise
himself and his male household, was condition-
al ; Abraham was to walk before him, and be
perfect, (upright or sincere) and he was to
circumcise his flesh, his children, and his
servants ; he was to have the land of Canaan
and God was to be his God. Abraham obey-
ed, and left the land in possession of Isaac,
his seed, with whom the covenant was renew-
ed, and with his seed also. What was the cov-
enant ? xii Gen. verse 7. u Unto thy seed ^will
I give this land :" Gen. xv. 18. " In the
same day the Lord made a covenant with Abra-
ham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this
land." The possession of the land of Canaan
appears to be the covenant on the part of God :
Gen. xvii. 8 *' And I will give unto thee and
thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art
a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever-
lasting possession; and I will be their God."
This chapter appears to be a renewal of the two
promises made some years before, with a con-
dition now added by God, to be performed on
the part of Abraham and his seed. When
God first gave the land of Canaan to him by
promise, and by possession, he had no seed,
neither had he any when he gave it to him by
covenant i when Ishmael was thirteen years old,
9
God renewed his covenant and added a condi-
tion, to be observed by Abraham and his
seed, in their generations. The first part of
this 17th chapter contains a declaration of what
God promises — 'k And I wiil make my cove-
nant between me and thee, and I will multiply
thee exceedingly ;" vs. 2. " As for me, be-
hold my covenant is with thee, and thou shaft
be a lather of many nations ;" vs. 4. u" And I
will establish my covenant between me and
thee, and thy seed after thee, in their genera-
tions, for an everlasting covenant ; to be a
God unto thee and to thy seed after thee ;" vs»
7. Thus far we find the absolute promises
of God. It does not carry the appearance of a
contract. God is absolute in all his declara-
tions : " I will make my covenant." "Behold
my covenant is with thee." " And / will
establish my covenant, and I will give unto
thee the land ;" vs. 8. " And God said unto
Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant there-
fore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their gen-
erations. " " This is my covenant which ye
shall keep between me and you, and thy seed
after thee; every man child shall be circum-
cised ;" vs. 10. " And ye shall circumcise the
flesh of your fore skin, and it shall be a token
of the covenant between me and you ;" vs. 1 1.
" And my covenant shall be in your fiesh for am
everlasting covenant : (token)" vs. 13.
Candour must confess that circumcision was
not the covenant, it was only a token of it, as
though God should say ; I have long since giv-
e« you this land ; I have called you from your
!0
family ; the long promised seed of the woman
shall come through you ; 1 will have you a
separate and distinct family ; you shall have a
mark in your flesh to distinguish you from all
the families of the earth, and when you see this
mark, you shall remember that the unchange-
able God, has honored you above all families.
*' In thee shall all families of the eanh be bless-
ed :" Gen. xii. 3. This to be sure is called a
covenant, as was the Horeb law. We read
Exo. xxxiv. 28 : u And he was tfyere with the
Lord forty days and forty nights ; and he
did neither eat bread nor drink water: and
he wrote upon the the tables, the words of
the covenant, the ten commandments." Ad
Exo. xxiv. 12 : " And the Lord said unto
Moses, come up to me into the mount and
be there: and I will give thee tables of stone,
and a law, and commandments which I have
written : that thou mayest teach them." It
is evident from these texts that the law of God
is often expressed by the term covenant ; and
more generally by covenant, than by law —
Properly speaking, a covenant must have con-
tracting parties, and there is not the very least
appearance of a contract, on the part of Abra-
ham. God was pleased to make the law or
covenant, with a condition on the part ofA-
braham and his seed : and they were bound
to obey, or forfeit the possession promised. If
the land, the seed, and the seal of the covenant
are viewed as we have stated them, down goes
your superstructure. But if you will maintain
as you have stated, " That seed is Christ ;"
II
what must follow? Consequences that you
surely cannot admit. Was not that land pro-
mised to Abraham, and his seed, for an ev-
erlasting possession ? Have they got posses-
sion of it? Were they not dispossessed of it in
the second generation after Abraham ? What
reason, sir, can you give, for their loss of that
land ? Was God unfaithful to his promise ?
God forbid we should say so ! Was he not
able to prevent the famine that drove Jacob to
Egypt f God forbid we should think other-
wise. What then was the cause ? " Is there
not a cause ?" yes. The failure of the seed to
comply with the conditions of the covenant.
If then sir, you maintain that seed is Christ,
you charge Him with being less perfect than
Abraham, or Solomon, who possessed that
land ; and leave us in uncertainty to know why
God has not continued them in their possession,
until now ; but whatever opinion you may en-
tertain of Christ, we are confident he hath per-
formed all his engagements.
It is to be lamented that such labor and
pains are taken to cherish a rite, non- impor-
tant and unscriptural : but that every sacrifice
must be made to infant sprinkling.
The principal object that I have in view, is
to prove the everlasting covenant of grace, be-
tween the Father and the Son, which you deny.
But first,
I shall prove that the covenant of circumci-
sion, was not the covenant, to which the apostle
refers : Gal. iii. 17. — consequently not the
covenant of grace, and that it only had respect
12
to temporal blessings, wlui this exception, that
it pointed to the soffcrmgs of Christ.
Secondly — I shall prove, there was n cove-
nant between God the Father, and God the
Son ; that it was everlasting, and ordered in
til things and sure.
First — The covenant of circumcisjon was
net the everlasting covenant of grace, to which
the apostle refers, which he says was confirmed
before of God in Christ. Gal. iii. 17.
After our common father had violated the
law of God, given him in his state of inno-
cence, he was called before his Judge in the
garden of Eden, and confessed his disobedi-
ence. God was then pleased to give him faith
in the seed of the woman, with whom he had
threatened to bruise the head of satan.
Nothing occurred for two thousand years,
that could give any of God's believing people
just ground to fix upon the family, the favor-
ed family, from whence should come this holy,
this much desired seed ; although Adam, Abel,
Enoch, and all the godly in their days, and
afterwards, from this first intimation of the
seed of the woman, down to clearer revelation
of it, locked for, and by faith, trusted in it, for
all their happiness ; to Abraham was that
clearer revelation made, and on him was the
honor conferred of being designated as that
individual from whom the promised seed
should descend. God was pleased to commu-
nicate to him his intention, of making him the
honored father after the flesh of his so.: : Gen.
xii. 3. " In thee shall ail families of the earth
13
be blessed." Through your loins after many-
generations, shall be born, her, who shall be
the Virgin Mary, who shall miraculously con-
ceive Him, who shall be the long looked for
seed. This communication was made to him
1921 years before the seed was born. This
revelation was what the apostle Paul calls,
" preaching the gospel to Abraham ;" and
what he calls a confirmation of the covenant
that was made before of God in Christ, now
confirmed to man by revelation :" Gal. iii. 8.
17 — and this was the seed the apostle had refer-
ence to in the 18th verse. God then conferred
with Abraham as a friend, and directed him to
leave his family and kindred, and go to a land
that he would shew him. Your family must
not be intermixed with any other people ; they
must be a distinct people, known from all fami-
lies of the earth, for from them the seed ijs to
come. A register of them shall be taken, that
the genealogy of Christ may at any time be
traced. It is evident from various circumstan-
ces, that these things were revealed to him at
this time. First — Abraham obeyed, and went
to the land of Canaan, and built an altar unto
the Lord. Secondly — He returned to that
land, after being driven away by the famine ;
and again called upon the name of the Lord.
Thirdly — He complained " I go childless,"
after he had returned to the land whither God
had directed him. In the same year, God
promised to give that land to his seed; (this
must be his children.) Four years after, he
renews his promise, " For all the land which
B
14
thou scest, to thee will I give it, and to tin'
seed forever :" Gen. xiii. 15. Four years
more piss on, and the Lord appears unto him
in a vision, saying, " Fear not Abraham : I am
thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
And Abraham said, Lord God, what wilt thou
give mc, seeing I go childless, and the steward
of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus :
ancl Abraham said, behold to me thou hast
given no seed ; and lo, one born in my house
is mine heir. And behold the word of the
Lord came unto him, saying, this shall not be
thine heir, but he that shall come forth out of
thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he
brought him forth abroad, and said, look now
toward Heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be
able to number them : and he said unto him,
so shall thy seed be. And he believed in the
Lord ; and he counted it to him for righteous-
ness :" Gen. xv. 1 to 6. The same day God
told Abraham of the affliction of his seed for
four hundred years, and of their deliverance.
" In that same day the Lord made a covenant
with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I
given this land, from the river of Egypt unto
the great river the river Euphrates;" v. 18:
and by a symbol of fire, confirmed the grant.
Fifteen years after, when Abraham was nine-
ty years old and nine, the Lord appeared to
Abraham, and said unto him, " I am the Al-
mighty God; walk before mc, and be thou
perfect," (in the margin, upright or sincere)
"• and I will make my covenant between me
*ud thee :" Gen. xvii. 1. 2. Will you venture
15
to say, this is not intended as a confirmation, or
renewal of the same covenant made fifteen
years before ? If you will, it rests with you to
show how many covenants were made with
Abraham ; what was promised in them, and
what were their seals. Twenty- four years
before circumcision was commanded, and
when Abraham had first got possession of the
land of Canaan, God promised it to him and
his seed, (not Christ) but that seed through
which Christ should come ; and now confirms
it by promise, and by token, even circumci-
sion ; which is the most that can fairly, and
scripturally be made of it, in allusion to the
covenant.
In page 8th we have your third declaration :
" Which is to prove, that the Abrahamic
covenant, was the covenant of grace, by its
confirmation." Was it ever confirmed ? It
was : for Paul tells us, " that the covenant
that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law which was four hundred and thirty
years after, cannot disannul, that it should
make the promises of none effect." We grant
that those are the words of Paul ; but, sir, how
do you prove your covenant by them ? Does
Paul say, the law which was four hundred and
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it
should make the covenant of circumcision of
none effect ? No, he does not ; and as you
have pressed the apostle into your service, it
rests with you to prove, that the promises he
had in view, were embraced in the covenant of
circumcision. It is very easy to quote scrip-
ture, but when you attempt it in controverted
points, you ought to bring such portions of it as
will clearly apply to your subject, or you may
expect that your errors will be exposed. Paul
tells us " that the covenant that was confirmed
before of God," was four hundred and thirty
years before the giving of the Iioreb law, or
the law of ten commands at Sinai. Now sir,
I say that the covenant of circumcision was
only four hundred and six years before the
giving of that law, which I shall by and by de-
monstrate. You run too fast, you make the
apostle confirm your covenant, twenty-four
years before it is sealed. How will you ex-
tricate yourself? you have fixed decidedly, on
the covenant of circumcision, as your batter-
ing ram, to beat down the everlasting covenant
of grace, to destroy the baptism of John, and to
make the baptists unchurch themselves. But
alas! the ground on which you place it, fails, and
therefore its force is destroyed.
We will return to page 5 — " Was the Abra-
hamic covenant, which circumcision sealed, the
covenant of grace ?" It was, as appears by the
three declarations contained in the covenant. '
" 1. The seed of the covenant — 2. The faith of
the covenant — 3. The confirmation of the
covenant ; either of which we think sufficient to
establish the existence of the covenant." Con-
sequently if you loose them all, and it should be
made to appear, that you cannot establish either
of them ; you give up your covenant, and all
you have built upon it.
To borrow from your book — " But as great
17
opposition has been made, and many sophisti-
cal arguments have been advanced, as a mighty
bulwark against us, in this point ; it become1}
necessary to attend particularly to each decla-
ration. " This we will now do — You say page
5th, " Declaration the first — The seed of the
Abrahamic covenant proves it to have been
the covenant of grace, because that seed was
Christ, as appeal's in Gal. in. 8 and 16 ; where
Paul says '" The scripture foreseeing that God
would justify the heathen through faith preach-
ed before the gospel unto Abraham, saying,
in thee shall all nations be blessed ;" and in
verse 16th he shews that seed was Christ,"
Now sir, will you a3 a preacher of the gospel,
with your bible in your hand, venture to say,
that the gospel preached to Abraham, and the
promise that in his seed all the nations of the
earth should be blessed, which seed the apos-
tle declares to be Christ, took place at the
time that God commanded him to circumcise
himself and male posterity : do you not on the
contrary know that the gospel preached to
Abraham, and the promise made to him took
place twenty-four years before that event,
when God commanded him to leave his fami-
ly ? Gen. xii, 1. 2.3; " Now the Lord had
said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country,
and from thy kindred,, and from thy father's
house, unto a Umd that I will shew thee ; and
I will make of thee a great nation, and I v>{\l
bless thee, and make thy name great ; and thou
shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse him that curse th thee;
B3
18
*
and in thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed :" v. 4. And Abraham was seventy.
five years old when he departed out of Haran,"
the time when this gospel was preached to
Abraham, to which the apostle refers in Gal.
iii. 8, which he quotes from Gen. xii. 3. And
when he speaks of the promises made to Abra-
ham, in 16th verse, where he saith, " And to
thy seed which is Christ ;" Abraham was seven-
ty-five years old. There therefore cannot be
the smallest reason to believe that the land of
Canaan was the object of this promise, for the
land was confirmed to his family, and the na-
tions of the earth could not, and were not bles-
sed by it. The blessing proceeded from God's
making his name great, and making him a
blessing. How ? By making him the honour-
ed father after the flesh, of the seed of the wo-
man, in which way alone could the families of
the earth be blessed in him. The families of
the earth could derive no benefit from circum-
cision, for they did not generally receive it.
Those only who belonged to Abraham's family.
or were bought with' his money, submitted to
that rite. Those who were not thus entitled
to it, but received it, lost their lives — witness
the Shechemites. It is therefore evident that
the apostle had far greater things in view, in
his argument to the Galatians, than circum-
cision. When God commanded Abraham to
circumcise himself, and male family, he was
ninety- nine years old. This we prove : Gen.
X'Vli. 1. Thus we make it appear that the
promise was twenty -four years before circura-
\9
eision ; and if we add these twenty-four to the
four hundred and six years, the difference of
time from the promises made him in Gen. xii.
3. to the giving of the law, the period of
four hundred and thirty years will be fully and
clearly made out, which is the term of time
the apostle mentions, particularly between the
giving of the law and the promises, in the pas-
sage above quoted. How, sir, could you have
the face to press that passage to your assis-
tance, which will not answer your purpose by
twenty-four years, and venture to say Christ
was the seed of the covenant, and force the
apostle to prove what he »ever had an idea of.
Besides, when the apostle elucidates the pas-
sage from Moses, respecting the blessing of
the nations through Abraham, he says, v. 8 —
" And the scripture foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, (not justify
them through, or by Abraham) preached be-
fore the gospel unto Abraham, saying, " in
thee shall all nations be blessed," that is, in
Christ, who is in thee, after the flesh. These
words the apostle quotes from Gen. xii. 3. and
not from any part of the 17th chapter : and again
the apostle doth not say they are to be blessed
in Abraham, or by him, but with him : v. 9.
*' So then they which be of faith are blessed
with faithful Abraham." They have as great
a claim to Christ and his merits as Abraham,
had, and that, not from any natural alliance to
hint, but through their faith in Christ. And
it was no greater spiritual blessing to Abraham,
or to any of his posterity, that Christ came
20
through him, than it was or will be, to any
individual believer whatever. You have fail-
ed Mr, in proving Chriet the seed of the cove-
nant; Moses and Paul, being the judges : be-
side it appeal^ to me perfect nonsense, to
speak of thtr seed of the covenant. You ad-
mit that a covenant is a contract ; how does
it yield seed ? Is it by ordinary, or extraordi-
nary generation ?
In page 6th we have your second declara-
tion. M This covenant is again proved to have
been the covenant of grace, from the righteous-
ness of faith couched in it."
You attempt to prove your second declara-
tion by inquiring how Abraham was justified,
as if he were justified in any singular way, or
as if there were any way by which any believer
could be justified in his conscience, but by
faith. Abraham being justified by faith, does
not prove the covenant of circumcision, to be
the everlasting covenant of grace ; any more
than the apostle Paul's justification by faith,
does. The inquiry is, was Abraham justi-
fied by circumcision or by faith ? If circumci-
sion be the covenant of grace, Abraham must
be justified by it : now the scripture declares
that it is by faith in Jesus Christ alone that sin-
ners stand justified in the sight of God, and as
Jesus Christ is the covenant head, and not A-
braham, (as we shall prove;) it surely rests
with you (to carry your point) to prove Abra-
ham justified by circumeision, or at least, by
the faith he had in that transaction. If you do
not, you fail; and your attempt will be found to
involve in it a perversion of scripture, to apply
21
it where it lias only a forced allusion ; and
where it is evident the inspired writer never in-
tended it should be applied.
But sir, what was it that Abraham believed,
when the apostle says his belief was counted to
him for righteousness ? Was it that he and his
seed should have the land of Canaan ? Was it
that circumcision should be a blessing to him,
and family ? Was it any thing pertaining to cir-
cumcision ? Answer^ sir, in the fear of God :
was not his belief counted to him for righteous-
ness, fifteen years before circumcision had an
existence ; and at the time when the promise
was made to him that his seed should be as the
stars of Heaven ? Gen. xv. 5, 6. " Look
now toward Heaven, and tell the stars, if thou
be able to number them ; and he said unto him
so shall thy seed be : and he believed in the
Lord and he counted it to him for righte-
ousness." Surely you will not say that the
seed here promised was Christ, who were to
be as numberless as the stars of Heaven. It
was this faith in the promise of God now made
that was counted to him for righteousness ;
which Paul quotes both in Rom. iv. 3. and
Gal. iii. 6. And this you call the faith of the
covenant of circumcision, when that covenant
was not made with Abraham until fifteen years
after he had the belief, and after it was counted
to him for righteousness. How, sir, can vou
have the face to maintain such absurdities ? I
think by an appeal to Moses and Paul, they will
again decide against you, and you have lost
your second battering ram.
<22
In papre 8th we have your third declaration —
•' Which is to prove that the Abrahamic cove-
nant, was the covenant of grace, by its confir-
mation. Was it ever confirmed ? It was.
For Paul tells US that the covenant that was
confirmed before of God in Christ, the law,
(hat was four hundred and thirty years after,
cannot disannul, that it should make the promi-
ses of none effect." To this we answer in the
Words of Doctor Baldwin.
" Here are several things worthy of consid-
eration.— 1st. This covenant was confirm-
ed before of God in Christ. It consequently
stood independent of the obedience either of A-
braham or his posterity.
" 2d. This covenant, if confirmed in Christ,
could not be broken or disannulled. There
could in the nature of things be no failure.
Even a suspicion of this kind, Mould be de-
rogatory to the honor and veracity of Christ.
" 3d. This promise, which is the same re-
ferred to in the 29th verse, the apostle informs
us was thus made and confirmed, four hun-
dred and thirty years before the giving of the
law. This will forever distinguish it from the
promises in the covenant of circumcision ;
for this was instituted only four hundred and
six years before the giving of the law. The
covenant in the 17th chapter Gen. was in the
year before Christ 1897; the law was } 1897
given fourteen hundied and ninety one > 1491
years before the same era, which leave ) .
but four hundred and six : . . 406
But the promise, quoted by the apostle from
23
Genesis xii. 3. which was made to Abraham
twenty four years before, when ha was in art*
circumcision, exactly compares with this state-
ment in the context, of four hundred and thin.
ty years. This promise, according to the
bible chronology, was made to Abraham in
the year before Christ 1921, the law, ) 1921
as observed above, was given 1491, > 1491
w hich makes exac'Iv the time speci- ) — —
fied :..'.... 430
u Here the matter is reduced to mathemati-
cal certainty. Any person who will take the
trouble to compare the dates of his bible, of
the 12th chapter of Gen. and the 20th of Ex-
odus, referred to above, will feel himself com-
pletely satisfied. The most invincible preju-
dice will find it difficult to resist the light of
demonstration.
" If the observations which have now been
made are correct, they will bring us unavoid-
ably to this conclusion, viz. 7 hat Mr. Wor-
cester" (we say MA Russel) " has totally mis-
taken the promise in his text, and reasoned
from one to which the apostle had no imme-
diate reference. 'Hence the whole cf his la-
boured superstructure is left without founda-
tion. The fate of such a building may be seen
in the close of the sixth chapter of Luke. In
order to set aside this conclusion, three things
must be fairly proved.
" 1st That the apostle throughout this
.chapter did actually mean the promise in the
covenant of circumcision, although he has not
mentioned a single passage contained in it j
24
but expressly quoted one clearly distinguish-
ed by 'he timt of its being delivered, and al-
so by the terms and import of the promise it-
self.
" 2d. It must be proved, that the covenant
of circumcision was 430 years before the giv-
ing of the law. notwithstanding scripture chro-
nology places it but four hundred and six."
" 3d. That the seed of Ahraham, mentioned
in the covenant of circumcision, and the seed
in whom all the families of the earth should be
blessed, Mere the same ; or in other words,
that the seed of Abraham, expressed in that
covenant, meant Christ ; for the apostle has
expressly told us in the context, that he was
the person to whom' the promise, from which
he was then reasoning, exclusively referred.
Until these are fairly proved, we shall insist
upon the conclusion above stated."*
In the same page you say — " But was this
covenant which God confirmed in Christ, the
Abrahamic covenant? It vr.s, because in verse
15th it is written ; though it be but a man's
covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man dis-
annulled or addeth thereto."
To which I will answer nearly in the words
ofDr Doddridge and Mr. John Wesley. " I
have been speaking, brethren, of the blessings
of Abraham, and have shewn that according
to the promises of God, all his believing seed
whether they be, or be not circumcised, must
be entitled to many very valuable privileges:
And herein I speak after the manner of men,
• Doctor Baldwin ui answer to Mr. Worcester.
S5
and reason on the principles of common equi-
ty, according to what is the allowed rule of" all
human compact : for though it be but the cov-
enant of a man with his fellow creature, yet if
it be once legally confirmed by mutual promise
and seal, no honest man concerned aftt rwards,
cancelleth what was agreed to by it, or addeth
any thins: to it which should alter the terms
of it, without the consent of the other stipula-
ting party." Here wre see by the Doctor and
Mr. Wesley that it was not man's covenant,
but a comparison the apostle was making to shew
the unchangeableness of the covenant confirm-
ed before of God in Christ. It could not be
altered but by the mutual consent of the par-
ties, which so far from strengthening your
cause, evidently weakens it.* In the same
page you add, " How did God in Christ con-
firm it ? Paul tells us in Romans xv. 8.
that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circum-
cision for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made unto the fathers." This is to
be sure a grand discovery, " a minister of
the circumcision." Do you mean he was a
minister of the covenant of circumcision ? or
do you mean (as the apostle intends us to un-
derstand him) that he was a minister under
the new testament dispensation to the Jeivs ?
who you cannot deny, are called the circum-
cision, to distinguish them from the gentile
nations, who are called the uncircumcision.
* I would observe that God calls it liis covenant seven times,
ar.d Mr. R. wishes to make his readers thiijk it was not God's,
hut man's.
C
2G
You must intend, the one or the other, or we
cannot comprehend your reasoning. If you
mean the first, then the covenant of circum-
cision had two ministers, for you tell us page
£0. " Now from the period that God cha: ged
his name to Abraham, he became a minister
of the circumcision under God." We are at
a loss to find out by your book, which is the
greatest, .Abraham, or Christ. You say
Christ is a minister of the circumcision, (you
must mean of the covenant of circumcision,
or it would answer you no purpose ;) but you
have not informed us of any act he did to make
it appear he was a minister in the way you
would have your readers consider him. We
grant you have proved Abraham a minister of
the covenant of circumcision, for he acted
just as God commanded him. I conceive
there is a material difference in being a minis-
ter of the circumcision, and a minister of the
covenant of circumcision ; and it is evident
from your arguments, that you wished your
readers to consider Christ a minister of the
covenant of circumcision ; a very honorable
office indeed, sir, to Abraham ; but I should
think a degrading one to the son of God. But
sir, your work is all of a piece, you wish your
readers to look to Abraham as their covenant
head, to the rejection of Him, whom God
hath honored more than all the children of
men, and appointed the covenant head of his
people.
Our Lord himself explains to us, in what
$ense he is a minister of the circumcision :
27
Matt. xv. 24. " But he answered and said,
I am not sent, but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel : Matt. x. 5. 6. Go not into
the way of the gentiles ; and into any city of
the Samaritans, enter ye not. But go ye ra-
ther to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
The Jews were the circumcision, and Christ
was their minister, sent, to his. own nation. In
addition to the above, we read that Paul and
Barnabas waxed bold and said it was necessa-
ry that the word of God should first have been
spoken unto you(fhe Jews.) Why was it neces-
sary ? Because God had promised him (Christ)
to the fathers, and his word must be fulfilled :
Deut. xviii. 18. '* I will raise them up a
prophet from among their brethren like unto
thee, and will put my words in his mouth,
and he shall speak unto them all that I com-
mand him." This sir, is the truth of God,
and here is one of many of the promises made
unto the fathers, which Paul had in view when
he exhorted the Romanj, to " bear the infir-
mities of the weak," and to act after the ex-
ample of Christ ; to be of one mind, and glo-
rify God ; and " receive one another, as
Christ also received us, to the glory of God."
" Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister
of the circumcision for the truth of God, to
confirm the promises made unto the fathers."
God had promised the fathers that he would
give them a prophet, and his word cannot fail.
This the apostle Peter had in view in Acts
iii. 22- 26. " Unto you first." Whom?
You, Jews, the circumcision. " God having
as
raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning every one of you from his iniqui-
ties." This is evidently what the apostle
Paul means by his being a minister of the cir-
cumcision. Neither do I believe, you would
deny it. Peter is said to be an apostle of the
circumcision : Gal. ii. 7. 8. " When they
saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed to me, as the gospel of the circum-
cision was unto Peter. (For he that wrought
effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the
circumcision ; the same was mighty in me
toward the gentiles.) And when James, Ce-
phas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, per-
ceived the grace that was given unto me, they
gave to rne and Barnabas the right hands of
fellowship ; that we should go unto the heath-
en, and they unto the circumcision." Here
we see clearly what the apostle means by the
circumcision ; not the cutting of the flesh ; but
the Jewish nation. For he has clearly distin-
guished them by circumcision, uncircumci-
sion, and heathen ; and it is undeniably thus
he would have the Romans and us to under-
stand him. And it completely destroys the
last of your declarations : therefore, not one
of your three declarations has sufficient weight
to bear " the least breeze of truth." It is,
therefore concluded you have lost each of your
arguments, drawn from the Abrahamic cove*
nant, in favor of your design ; and as your
whole fabric was built thereon, the whole
tumbles down together.
I proceed now to shew that the covenant of
2$
circumcision, cannot be the covenant of grace ;
and that the seed therein mentioned, cannot
be Christ ; for several reasons.
First — The covenant of circumcision, has
every appearance of being conditional. God
promised Abraham to be his God, and the
God of his seed, and commanded him to cir-
cumcise himself and his male household. He
also promised him the land of Canaan for an
everlasting possession to him and his seed after
him, forever. It was to be theirs, in their gen-
erations ; and God's covenant was to be in
their flesh fur an everlasting covenant. We
must conclude it was conditional, and that
Christ was not the seed therein promised from
the events that followed. They lost their pos*-
session in the second generation after Abraham :
" And they took their cattle, and their goods
which they had gotten in the land of Canaan,
and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed
with him :" Gen. xlv"i. 6. 1 think there
cannot be a doubt that the seed here, and that
in the 17th chapter are the same. A question
will naturally occur, why was it that the posteri-
ty of Abraham lost possession of the promised
land ? God, who had promised them an ever-
lasting possession of it, could not forfeit his
word. Answer, although there was no condi-
tion particularly stipulated, it must have been
upon those terms that God made his covenant
with Abraham ; for if he had promised them an
everlasting possession without condition, they
never would have lost the possession. It must
then have been upon condition of their obedi-
,c 3
30
ence, to whatever God had commanded ;
whether implied, or expressed. Could the
seed that is expressed in that covenant be
Christ ? No. If we admit that seed to be Christ,
we charge him with violating the covenant of
God. Now it is impossible, from the nature
of God, that he should fail to comply with
his promise ; and by asserting that the seed
was Christ, we implicate the father, or the son.
And what is still worse, if we say that seed
was Christ, we charge God in positive terms
with falsehood, for Christ said " The foxes
have holes, and the birds of the air have
r.ests, but the son of man hath not where to
lay his head." Notwithstanding that seed had
the promise of an everlasting possession.
Secondly — The mark in the flesh has ceas-
ed, for although the natural descendants of
Abraham may, until this day, continue the
practice of circumcision ; it is evident, they
have now no divine authority for that rite.
As long as God had a purpose to answer with
them(which was until the promised seed should
come) they were to keep themselves separate
from other nations, and were to keep that seal
or mark, as a distinction of their families in their
generations. But that seal or mark exhibited
something more, it pointed to the sufferings
of Christ very particularly, and a prophet hav-
ing this in view said, "Messiah shall be cut oft',
but not for himself. " If then it was a mark
of distinction of that people until Christ should
suffer : as soon as he suffered, the mark was
of no farther use ; and if it was typical of his
suffering (as it assuredly was) he could not
31
have been the seed, for he was that, which
the mark of the seed pointed at ; and as circum-
cision was a seal or token of that covenant, and
was to continue as long as the covenant did ;
the token or seal being taken away as soon as
Christ to whom it pointed suffered, proves that
it had a fixed period ; and that the covenant to
which that mark was attached was not ever-
lasting.
Thirdly — A covenant is a transaction be-
tween parties, who possess the power of per-
forming their respective stipulations. Now
as neither Abraham nor his seed had the-pow-
er of holding possession of the promised land,
it evidently follows that neither he nor they
had the ability to perform such high duties as
were required of Him, who undertook thecause
of helpless man. Therefore the covenant of
grace could not be made with Abraham or any
of his natural seed for want of the ability requi-
site in its head.
Again, the very duties enjoined on the seed
mentioned in the covenant of circumcision,
prove that it is not the covenant of grace ; for
no duty is enjoined on them but circumcision.
The duty to walk perfect before God was en-
joined on Abraham exclusively ; and never in
the chapter containing the covenant of circum-
cison required of his seed. The declaration
of Jehovah that " He will be their God,"
alters not the case. TtnVhe -might be, and
would have been, in the way he was their
God, had he never commanded circumcision.
If we say he was their God, because they cir.
«?0
fumciscd themselves, and their families; boast-
ing is not excluded. But he was their God
only in a particular point of \ k w, and not a
God of their salvation, neither did his promise
to be their God extend so far ; for but a rem-
nant of them were saved. Now if we say that
he promised to be their God in the highest
sense, that is, the God of their salvation, we
charge him with a breach of his word, or we
declare the whole nation of Israel were saved,
which is contrary to the whole tenor of the
scriptures.
Once more : If we attend to the duties, and
qualifications of that seed, who was to be the
head of the covenant of CTace, we shall find
that the seed spoken of in the 17th chapter,
were not capable of performing the first, or ac-
quiring the last. Psa. Lxxxix. 28. '* My mercy
will I keep for him forevermore ; and my cove-
nant shall stand fast with him : 29. His seed
also will I make to endure forever, and his
throne as the days of heaven : 27. Also I
will make him my first born higher than the
kings of the earth :" Isa. XLii. 6. " I the
Lord have called thee in righteousness, and
will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and
give thee for a covenant of the people, for a
light of the geutiles :" xl'ix. 8. 9. " Thus
saith the Lord, in an acceptable time have I
heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I
helped thee ; and I will preserve thee, and
give thee for a covenant of the people, to es-
tablish the earth, to cause to inherit the deso-
late heritages ; that thou niayest say to the
33
prisoners, go forth ; to them that are in dark-
ness, shew yourselves ; they shall feed in the
ways, and their pastures shall be in high pla-
ces " No man of common sense will say that
these qualifications, and duties could be ac-
quired and performed by the seed of Abraham,
spoken of in the 17th chap. Gen. for they
could not keep in their own strength, posses-
sion of the land of Canaan.
The covenant of circumcision had respect
to temporal blessings principally. As we have
already shown, the land of Canaan, was all the
promise made to the seed of Abraham in the
17th of Gen. containing an account of the
covenant of circumcision. In the life of Ja-
cob, Abraham's seed lost possession of that
land, for the violation of the covenant. God
was not bound to give them the possession
again : but for the accomplishment of his pur-
pose in keeping them a distinct people, until
the seed promised in the 12th chap, of Gen.
should come, he gave them again the pos-
session of it. This is clearly intimated, when
he says " Because he loved thy Fathers,
(Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,) therefore he
chose their seed after them, and brought thee
out in his sight with his mighty power out of
Egypt :" Deut. iv. 37. And in the 40th verse,
he promises them and their children length of
days, if they obeyed him. It is certainly true,
and important to observe, that all the blessings
they received as a nation had respect to Christ,
Such as individuals had by the grace of God,
and faith in the promised seed, were peculiar
34
to themselves, being the special gift of God.
But as a nation, or family, the promises made
to them were temporal : Exo. xxiii. 22. "But
if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all
that I speak ; then I will be an enemy to thine
enemies, and an adversary to thine adversaries :
23. For mine angel shall po before thee and
bring thee in unto the Antorites, &c. Deut.
xxviii. 1. And it shall come to pass, if thou
shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the
Lord thy God, to observe and do all his com-
mandments, which I command thee this day ;
that the Lord thy God will set thee on high,
above all nations of the earth : 2. And all these
blessings shall come on thee, and. overtake
thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of
the Lord thy God : 3. Blessed shalt thou be
in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the
field : 4. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy bo-
dy, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit
of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the
flocks of thy sheep." These are all good
temporal blessings, with a variety of others
you may read to the 14th verse, and the cur-
ses are threatened on the same principle.
" But it shall come to pass if thou wilt not
hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God,? all
these curses shall come upon thee : " Cursed
shalt thou be in the city ; and cursed shalt
thou be in the field, thy basket, thy store, thy
body, the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy
kine, thy sheep, vexation and rebuke, pesti-
lence, consumption, fever, inflammation, burn-
ing, sword, blasting and mildew ; and thy cue-
35
mies shall pursue thee until thou perish, and
the heavens that is over thy head shall be
brass,and the earth that is under thee shall be
iron:" from 15 to 23d verse. It is hereby
manifest that their blessings, and curses con-
sidered in a national point of view were tem-
poral, and not spiritual. The best baptist
expositor, (except one) that ever I have read
puts this out of all dispute, for he tells us that
all the rites and ceremonies of that dispensa-
tion, " Was a figure for the time then present,
in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices,
that could not make him that did the service
perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, which,
stood only in meats and drinks, and divers
washings, and carnal ordinances imposed on
them, until the time of reformation :" Heb.
^x. 9. 10 — that is until the introduction of the
gospel dispensation.
We apprehend then, as a nation, they were
kept together ; as God's nation through which
the holy seed was to come ; that their circum-
cision was a mark of distinction, and typical
of the anting off of the Messiah, their cove-
nant head, which is both manifested by the
part cut, and the blood spilt ; and further that
God's people understood it so. For as soon
as the Messiah was cut off, as was thereby
typified, circumcision ceased, and not before.
Now the ordinance of baptism, was command-
ed by God for his people to observe, and those
that were called by h^ grace, walked in it, not-
withstanding they had \>een circumcised. This
surely proves, that the o\;e did not supercede
the other, when the same persons, in a variety
of instances received both.
Finally — From the arguments of the apos-
tle to the Romans, and Galatians, it is absurd
to believe that he had the covenant of circum-
cision in view. How was faith reckoned to
Abraham ? When he was in circumcision, or
in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, (but
fifteen years before that event) when in un-
circumcision. Here then we find both when,
and how, faith was reckoned to him for righte-
ousness. There is not the least hint in Gal. iii.
of the covenant of circumcision, for the apostle
argues against it, in the whole of his epistle
to them. " There were men who crept in
privily, denying the Lord, and with a view of
bringing the church of Christ into bondage :"
Jude iv. " For there are certain men crept
in unawares, who were before of old ordained
to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning
the grace of God into lasciviousness and de-
nying the only Lord God, and the Lord Jesus
Christ :" Part Gal. ii. 4. " And that because
of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring
us into bondage." What is the bondage the
apostle alluded to? He tells us " stand fast
therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has
made us free, and be not entangled again in
the yoke of bondage." While they were in
the Jewish church, they were under the bon-
dage of circumcision, and other legal ceremo-
nies of that dispensation ; but now saith he
37
to his brethren, you are in the gospel church,
and enjoy the liberty in common with your
brethren, *' which we have in Christ Jesus,
stand fast therein " Behold" (take particular
notice) " I Paul say unto you that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ;"
for by being " circumcised" you in effect say
you are of the law, which is adhering to the
dispensation, " which decayeth and waxeth
old, and is ready to vanish away :" Heb. viii.
13. Who that desireth to teach men know-
ledge, would so pervert the word of God, and
lead them from the truth as it is in Jesus ?
Again, look at the reason why the apostle wrote
this epistle. " I marvel, that ye are so soon
removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ, unto another gospel ; which
is not another, but there be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ :"
Gal. i. 6. 7. These false brethren endeavored
to draw the affections of the Galatians from
Paul, that they might make a gain of them, and
this they could not do but by perverting the
scripture, as too many now do, to make a gain
of godliness, falsely so called. Again Gal. hi.
1. " O foolish Gallatians who hath bewitch-
ed you," are ye so foolish having begun in the
spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh :"
to be plain, you have made a profession of
Jesus Christ ; you have been baptized into his
death, you have put on Christ by profession.
If you now return to the traditions of the Jew-
ish church, you in effect say, " except we be
circumcised after the manner of Moses, we
38
cannot be saved." You arc thereby denying
the work of the spirit, and expect to be made
perfect by the flesh. You swerve from the
truth, " before whose eyes Jesus Christ has
been evidently" (by his ordinances of baptism
and the Lord's supper) " set forth crucified
among you." In short you cannot be justified
in any way whatever but by him. This is
evidently the whole of his intention. He asks
them if he yet preached circumcision; if he
yet adhered to the Jews' religion, in which he
had been born, and was raised; and from which
God by his grace had called him, revealing
Christ in him : why he yet suffered persecu-
tion (from the Jews ?) If, as we may naturally
suppose him to say, if I was to return to that
old way of living, then would my suffering for
the cross cease. But, saith he, if we, or an
angel from heaven preach any other (doctrine)
unto you, than justification by the al!-atoning
righteousness of Jesus Christ ; let him be ac-
cursed. The sum total of the covenant of
circumcision, is, that Abraham shall be a father
of many nations ; kings shall come out of him,
God would be a God unto Abraham, and to
his seed after him. All the land of Canaan
should be given them for an everlasting pos-
session, that is until the promised seed shall
come. Sarah should have a son indeed, and
God would establish his covenant with him ;
he should be the honored father of the seed,
promised to Abraham twenty-four years ago.
Thus much God promised. Abraham and his
males should be circumcised, on their part, or
33
cut off from the family, who should bear his
son. Why ? they would have broken God's
covenant.
Nov/, sir, what do you say to your sophis-
try ? Did you think that we would take for
granted, all that you should say, as we lament
too many do to their hurt? Do you so lightly
esteem the glorious truths of the gospel, that
you will deny them, rather than lose the plea-
sure of sprinkling a little water in the face of
those who are evidently under the law, conse-
quently under the curse ? If ever there was an
attempt made to lead men from the simplicity
of the gospel, into a bewildered state, it is to be
found in your pamphlet. The evidences pro-
duced, and the mathematical demonstration
placed before you, undeniably prove the truth
which I asserted, and have endeavored to es-
tablish, viz. — That the covenant of circumci-
sion, is not the everlasting covenant of grace.
In the second place I was to prove, that
there was a covenant made between the Father,
and the Son, that it was everlasting, and or-
dered in all things and sure.
But I would first make a remark upon your
reasoning, in page 46 — You ask, " was there
no covenant made between the Father, and the
Son, he. ? Answer. There was not ; and it
is unreasonable and unscriptural to suppose it,
because there never was a time when God the
Father, and the Son, came to an agreement in
any point,, on which they did not agree before ;
so the same agreement which now exists be-
tween them, has existed from eternity ; of
40
course never began." Wc thank you sir, for
that troth. It is just what we say ; for it is
impossible to eonceive of an everlasting cove-
nant in any other way. We conceive of the
covenant just as we do of the sonship. Will
you deny the covenant of grace so clearly re-
vealed in the scriptures, because you cannot
fix a date to its existence ? Do you think of
the eternity of God, and his works as you do
of man, and his works ? Surely your views of
God are contemptible, if you think he could
not do a thing, because you cannot ascertain
the time when it was done. " Knowest thou
the ordinances of heaven ? Canst thou set the
dominion of them in the earth ?" Job xxviii. 33.
We cheerfully agree with you that "there never
was a time when the Father, and the Son did
not agree in every particular." Now sir, if we
should, unfortunately for your pamphlet, prove
a covenant, or agreement between the Father,
and the Son, you have yourself fixed the date
of it ; it was from eternity, " for there never
was a time, (according to your own declara-
tion) when the Father and the Son came to an
agreement in any point on which they did not
agree before."
There are other mysteries in God, and
his works, as great as the covenant of grace.
The glorious Trinity, three in one, and one
in three, cannot be fully comprehended, yet
we believe it. Jesus Christ is said to be
** begotten of the Father — " the only begotten
of the Father:" Jno. i. 14. " Thou art my
son this day have I begotten thee :" Ileb. i. 5.
41
More might be ndded to prove his sonship :
yet we find the child, that was to be born oi"
the virgin, is styled " The mighty God, the*
everlasting Father, the prince of peace :" Isa.
i;;. 8. The union of the divine and human
natures of our Lord, is a " mystery of godli-
ness." The imputation of sin to our Lord,
without which he could not have suffered, and
the imputation of his righteousness to his peo-
ple, without which they cannot be saved, are
equally great and glorious truths ; and dis-
covered by divine revelation only. If there
never was a time when the Father and the
Son came to an agreement in any point, on
which they did not agree before, then they
eternally agreed to make man. " Let us make
man :" Gen. i. 26. I hope, sir, you will not
deny this, and I would now ask as they eter-
nally determined to make man, if it is unrea-
sonable to believe that they eternally agreed to
save man. And I would again ask, if man
could be saved, as the event has proven, if
Christ had not assumed their nature, and suf-
fered their stead. If these facts will not be
denied (as they will not but by an infidel) what
becomes of your reason, and your scripture.
Now then if these are facts, and undeniable
ones ; where is the unreasonableness of an
eternal covenant of grace ? I told you you had
Contemptible views of the eternal God ! and
you have manifested it in your declaration,
that there *' was not a covenant between the
Father and the Son." 4t Declaring the end
from the beginning, and from ancient times
D 3
42
the things that are not yet clone, saying, mv
counsel, it shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure :" Isa. xlvi. 10. If we inquire
what counsel the prophet intends, we will find
that it is a counsel of peace, which was to be
between the Father and the Son, and as they
could never be at variance, it is evident that it
must be a counsel of peace between them, for
the people given in covenant to the Son for
whom he undertook, and for whom he would
suffer. This counsel was to be between the
Lord of hosts, and the man, whose name is the
Branch: Zech. vi. 12. 13. " I was set up
Jrom everlasting- from the beginning-, or ever
the earth was :" Prov. viii. 23. 4' According
as he hath chosen us in him before the founda-
tion of the world :" Eph. i. 4. " But accord-
ing to his own purpose and grace which was
given us in Christ Jesus, before the world be-
gan :" 2 Tim. i. (J. " According to the eter-
nal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus
our Lord :" Eph. iii. 1 1. Here are great ar.d
glorious declarations, big with importance to
Christ and his people, but known fully and
completely to God alone. But sir, if your de-
clarations arc true, they are unmeaning words,
and cannot be accounted for, There is a va-
riety of such declarations, to which you must
ascribe some reasonable meaning, or deny
your own principles. These truths are as
clearly revealed in scripture, as the covenant
of circumcision, but not as generally believed ;
and the only reason, we can give is, because
they are humbling to haughty nature, and self-
43
willed hypocrites. Now, sir, if you will teH
us precisely when Christ was set up, when he
was begotten of the Father, when this grace
spoken of, was treasured in him, and when
Paul, and the elect of God were chosen in
Christ according to God's eternal purpose ;
we will tell you precisely when the covenant
of grace took place. And if you can prove
the covenant of circumcision as old as this
covenant, we will ask your pardon.
I shall now prove the covenant of grace,
between the Father and the Son. " I was set
up from everlasting* from the beginning or
ever the earth was:" Prov. viii. 23. We
conceive it impossible for words to express
the eternity of an act more fully. When the
Psalmist would give us his views of the eter-
nity of God, he said, " from everlasting to
everlasting thou art God :" Psa. xc. 2. It
will not be contended that the person spoken
of in the foregoing passage was set up as God's
son : this would be ignorance indeed. That
person was by nature the son of God, or he
never could have atoned for sin. It was his
divinity as the Son of God that sanctified the
human nature and rendered its obedience and
sufferings meritorious. He was set up as me-
diator, as the glorious covenant head of his
church, and this is what the apostle alluded to,
when he told his Galatian brethren " that the
covenant that was confirmed before of God in
Christ" (before the foundation of the world)
and now revealed unto Abraham " was the
gospel preached to him" " the law that was
IVur hundred and thirty years after'* (this glo.
rious revelation was made) " cannot disannul,
that it shonkl make the promise of none effect."
Why ? because it was confirmed by oath.
" Once have 1 sworn by my holiness, that I
will not lie unto David:" Psa. Ixxxix. 35.
What is the promise made to David, who here
personates Christ? " My mercy will I keep
for him for evermore, and my covenant shall
stand fast with him:" Ixxxix. 28. Agreea-
ble to what you have said in page 57, your
answer will be, David was intended : but this
we deny unequivocally, for it is said, " I will
make him my first born, higher than the kings
of the earth, v. 27. Kis seed will I make to
endure forever, and his throne as the days of
heaven:" v. 29. If you will still say David
was intended, you will say any thing. But I
ask was David higher than Solomon ? not to
ndd than all other kings of the earih. Hath
this throne endured until now ? And lastly are
the heavens no more ? I have been particular
here, because you have said that a Pcedobap'ist
minister at a certain time shewed from Psalm
Ixxxix. 3. " David and all believers belong-
ed to Christ, and Christ to Abraham." You
have said nothing, sir, to strengthen the scrip-
ture knowledge of your Poedobaptist brother,
for there is no doubt that the same person was
intended in the 3d. verse, that we have by the
27th and 29th verses proved to be Christ.
Again, " Behold my servant whom. I uphold,
mine elect in whom my soul delighteth : I have
put my spirit upon him, he shaU bring judg-
45
ment to the gentiles. He shall not cry, nor
lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the
street. A bruised reed shall he not break :
and the smoaking flax shall he not quench : he
shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall
not fail nor be discouraged till he shall have set
judgment in the earth : and the isles shall
wait for his law :" Isa. xlii. 1. 2. 3. 4. That
this passage was a prophecy of Christ cannot
be doubted ; but for proof of it read Matt,
xii. 18 — 20. In what respect can he be called
the servant of God ? it must be in his humilia-
tion, as becoming one with man, to do his fa-
ther's will. In this respect, he said " my Fa-
ther is greater than I :" " but in another he
said. ".land my Father are one." "Mine
Elect," elected the covenant head of his glori-
ous body, the church ; who are elected in him.
" Christ is the head of the church" — even as
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself
for it " for no man ever yet hated his own
flesh ; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even
as the Lord the Church ; for we are members
of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."
(What a close and glorious union is this.)
This is a great mystery : but I speak concern-
ing Christ, and his church : Eph. v. 23. 25.
29. 30. 32. " And he is the head of the body,
the church:" Col. i. 18— " and hath put all
things under his feet, and gave him to be the
head over all things to the church, which is his
body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all :"
Eph. i. 22. 23. More might be added : let
this suffice however to prove him the elect
if
head : elected by the Father, and given to,
and for, the church. In this view he is God's
servant, and his elect ; in whom his soul de-
lighted.
Again, God promises to qualify him for the
very purpose of redeeming his elect. " Thou
lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness,
therefore God, thy God hath anointed thee with
the oil of gladness above thy fellows:" Psa.
xlv. 7. Whom can we understand by fel-
lows of, (or equal with) Christ ? Surely not
those who live and die in sin ; but those
whom God hath exalted to this equality by hw
gift, in the covenant of grace. " I have put
my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judg-
ment to the gentiles :" Isa. xlii. 1. Now
speaking to his son he saith, " I the Lord have
called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine
hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a
covenant of the people, for a light of the gen-
tiles : to open the blind eyes, and bring out
the prisoners from the prison, and them that
sit in darkness out of the prison hotse. I am
the Lord, that is my name :" Isa. xlii. 6. 7.
8. " Thus saith the Lord, in an acceptable
time have I heard thee and in a day of salva-
tion have I helped thee ; and I will preserve
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the peo-
ple, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit
the desolate heritage.1; ; that thou mayest say
to the prisoners go forth ; to them that are in
darkness, shew yourselves, they (the elect,)
shall feed in the ways, and their pastures
shall be in high places :" Isa. xlix. 8. 9. 10.
47
** They shall go in and out and find pasture :'*
Jno. x. 9. Who can be meant here? Can it
be all men ? If so then all must be saved, and
that will be contrary to tl'e word of God, and
the belitf of all men, but Universaiists. Our
Lord haih told us in the 10, h of St John's
gospel, that it is his sheep. " Bj his know-
ledge shall my righteous servant justify ma-
ny:" Iisa. liii. 11. " For it became him for
whom are all things, in bringing many sor.s
unto glory, to make the captain of their salva-
tion perfect through sufferings. For both he
who sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified,
are all of one : for which cause he is not
ashamed to call them brethren :" Heb. ii. 10.
11. In what sense can we possibly under-
stand the apostle, that they are " all of one"
if not, of one covenant, of one family, of one
interest ? " A body hast thou prepared me,
lo I come as 'A is written (in the psalms) to do
thy will O God:" Heb. x. 5. 7. What was
the will of God ? That Christ should redeem
to God by his blood a people (a covenant peo-
ple) " out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation ; and make them unto God,
kings and priests, that they may reign with
him on earth," (and in heaven) : Rev. v. 9.-
10. Thus we see clearly from these passages,
(and more might be added) that the dear Re-
deemer is proved to be qualified for the im-
portant office to which he was set up from
everlasting, and which he freely undertook in
the fullness of time, i. e. to be the covenant
head of the church. He is called in righte-
4g
ousness, endowed with knowledge — a body
prepared him — he hath the spirit without mea-
sure, and made perfect by suffering — suffering
all the innocent infirmities of his people, and
the temptations of satan ; " that he might be
able to succour them who are tempted," and
all this done for and to him, that he might
" bring many sons to glory," even all God's
covenant people : " for he who sanctifieth
(Jesus by his spirit) and they who are sancti-
fied (his covenant people) are all of one."
They have one God as their common Father.
They are one as sons of God, they have one
body, of which Christ is the head. They
have one interest, viz. to glorify God, their
common lather, and they shall have one re-
ward, viz. eternal glory.
Let us take another view of this subject.
Hath Christ any interest in this all important,
and painful undertaking"? He lias a twofold
interest. First — As God he would not let the
devil his enemy, triumph in the victory he had
obtained over his creature man ; and therefore
from eternity determined to save his people.
He said, " I have loved thee with an everlast-
ing love : therefore (or for this cause,) with
loving kindness have I drawn thee :" Jer. xxxi.
3. " Upon this rock will I build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it :" Matt. xvi. 18. " We love him; because
he first loved us :" 1st Jno. v. 19. Secondly :
As mediator or covenant head set up from
everlasting, he had engaged with his Father,
to sanctify his people and present them a glo.
49
rious church, and deliver them from this pre*
sent evil world. First — He had eternally de-
termined to save his people, and had set them
apart in his eternal foreknowledge for that
purpose, " whom he foreknew" (in the cove-
nant of grace) "them he also did predestinate ;"
to what ? " having predestinated us unto the
adoption of children, by Jesus Christ unto
himself according to the good pleasure of his
will." As God, " He and his Father are
one :" Jno. x. 30. Then it appears that it was
the will and good pleasure of the Father also,
thus to predestinate his church to be accepted
in the beloved! " For he (the Father) hath
chosen us in him, (Christ) before the founda-
tion of the world, (not to licentiousness, as
some erroneously sa}', but) that we should be
holy and without blame (in life and conversa-
tion) before him in love, to the praise of the
glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us
accepted in the beloved" (Jesus) : Rom. viii.
29. Eph. i. 4. 5. 6. Secondly — As mediator
he had an interest also. His word and honor
were engaged. We have already proven that
there was a covenant made ; that Christ was
set up from everlasting as the covenant head ;
that he was sanctified for the ofhce ; and that
a body was prepared him. He informs us ex-
pressly of the purpose for which he came into
this world : c< I came down from heaven not
to do mine own will, (that is, he had not a se-
parate, but an united will with the Father,)
but the will of " him that sent me :" Jno. vi.
38. We now view him in his mediatorial of-
E
50
fice, and Considered in this character, his Father,
who sent him, was greater than he. "I seek
not mine own will but the will of him that sent
me :" Jno. v. 30. From these declarations of
our blessed Redeemer, it is very evident that
he had engaged in the glorious work of re-
demption, and came down from heaven to earth
to perform it according to covenant. Dear
and blessed Jesus, what was thy Father's will ?
" This is the Father's will that sent me, that
of all which he hath given me, I should lose
nothing, but should raise it up again at the last
day :" 39. " And this is the will of him that
sent me, that every one that seeth the son, and
bclieveth on him, may have everlasting life ;
and twitt raise him tip at the last day :" 40.
Blessed and glorious Jesus, now speakest thou
plainly ; but pardon our weakness, and permit
us to inquire of thee, who best knowest thine
own, and Father's will ; will they not Fall from
grace, and finally perish ? They will fall into
sin, they are not perfect in this life ; "for there
is not a just man upon earth that docth good,
and sinneth not :" Eccl. vii. 20. " Therefore
I came down from heaven," to satisfy justice.
Remember the assertion of my apostle to the
gentiles. " For he was made sin for us who
knew no sin rhat we might be made the righte-
ousness of God in him:" 2 Cor. v. 21. All
the sins of my church were imputed to me,
or I could not have suffered, I knew " no sin,"
but by imputation ; and I have satisfied divine
justice for them all ; and in return I impute
my righteousness to them, for in this way alone
51
are they to be made righteous ; and how can
they finally perish when they have my righte-
ousness? Beside " there shall no evil happen
to the righteous:" Prov. xii. 21. and smvly.,
net the greatest evil of losing my righteous-
ness, and my love. There is no record in all
my word, of one falling from the love of God.
I covenanted with my Father for sheep (there
be many goats that follow me, but I know
them not.) " I am the good shepherd, and
know my sheep, and am known of mine :"
Jno. x. 11. " I lay down my life for the
sheep:" v. 15. " My sheep hear my voice,
and I know them (to an individual) and they
follow me, (both in my doctrine and ordinan-
ces.) And I give unto them eternal life, and
they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck
them out of my hand. My Father which
gave them me (in the everlasting covenant of
grace) is greater than all (in hell, or on earth)
and none is able to pluck them cut of my
Father's hand:" Jno. x. 27. 28. 29. I will
join with my Father in this great work, my
heart has been set upon it-from the foundation
of the world ; and though I am now in the
humble form of a covenant head of my church,
and a servant of my Father, to do his will and
save those, whom he hath given me ; yet in one
respect, " I and my Father are one:" v. 30.
And according to his, atd my own will, as
one with him ; and my engagement as media-
tor, I will sanctify and cleanse it, with the
washing of water by the word, and present it
a glorious churchr not having spot or wrinkle
52
or any such tiling ; but holy and without blem-
ish : Eph. v. 26. 27. We have now shown
the interest which Christ had in this interesting
aflair. We have shown his engagements al-
so ; will any one have the hardiness to say he
will not make them good ? Therefore to per-
iorm his Father's will, and make good his
engagement, he assumed human nature ; for
as man had violated the law of God, man must
make reparation . But a mere man was utterly
inadequate to this important work. Therefore
a divine person must assume, into union with
bis perfect and infinite nature, the human na-
ture, that by this unio.i an adequate atonement
should be made for sin.
As Christ had undertaken the cause of man
from everlasting, when he was set up as the
covenant head ; it became necessary for him to
be made, " like unto his brethren, that he
might be a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God." Why ? " To
make reconciliation for the sins of the people :"
Heb. ii. 17. What people? Can it be all
mankind ? not it cannot be, for had he made
reconciliation for all their sins, they of course
would be all reconciled. But if any die unre-
conciled, it is evident that he did net make
atonement for them ; for if he had made atone-
ment for them all, they would have been infalli-
bly saved ; for he finished the work his Father
gave him to do. Could it be possible he had
not, he would be found a false prophet, for in
a very solemn appeal to his Father he declared,
•• he had finished the work La gave him to do ;"
53
and desired to be glorified with him: Jno. xvii.
4. 5. From hence we are compelled, and feel
justified to infer, it was the people given him
in the everlasting covenant of grace ; " for
in that he himself hath suffered being tempted,
he is able to succor them that are tempted :"
Heb. ii. 16. Hence you see it was necessary
for him to assume t/wir nature. The nature
of angels would not have answered the purpo-
ses of man. " For verily he took not on him
the nature of argels, but he took on him the
seed of Abraham :'*■ v. 16. This p.lorious
event was revealed to the Fathers, thousands
of years before, and this was what enabled
them to bear afflictions, lions, fire, trials, cruel
mockings, scourging, bonds, and imprison-
ment ; stones, yea saws and swords. Adam
believed in the seed, the blessed seed of the
woman to come, who should bruise the serpent's
head. Christ as the seed of the woman was
typically crucified before them in the sacrifice
of slain animals ; and the skins of the animals
thus offered in sacrifice, were put upon Adam
and Eve ; strikingly representing the glorious,
all atoning and acceptable righteousness, which
the seed of the woman should bring in, in the
fulness of time, by his obedience and suffer-
ing, for them, and their elect posterity. Abel
had the same view by faith, by which he offer-
ed an acceptable sacrifice to God. Cain, also
offered a sacrifice, but it was not accepted, be-
cause he had not proper views of the seed of
the woman. As it is now, so it was then,
" There is none other name under heaven giv-
e 3
54
en among men, whereby we must be saved :'*
Acts. iv. 12. Enoch, Noah, and others had
the same views by faith, and we doubt not that
it was orally, and traditionally handed down
from Adam. God gave them the faith of reli-
ance, and they were saved by faith in him \\ ho
was to come; and who was revealed in the first
and after ages of the world, as the seed of the
woman. About two thousand years alter the
creation, a revelation was made to Abraham of
the same seed with this addition, that that seed
was to come through him. " In thee shall all
the families of the earth be blessed :" Gen. xii.
3. This is the time alluded to by our Lord
when he told his enemies, the natural posterity
of Abraham, " your father Abraham rejoiced
to see my day, and he saw it and was *Jad :"
Jno. viii. 56. He saw it again when the pro-
mise was renewed, and Isaac was to be the
seed, of whom should come the blessed seed.
** In Isaac shall thy seed be called :" Rom. ix.
7. But he saw it at another time under very
trying, and awful circumstances, when called
to offer his son, his only son (by Sarah) as a
sacrifice. Here the glorious seed was in his
type, slain, and raised from the dead. But
we should exceed our limits, were we to en-
large further. Suffice it to say, that the glori-
ous seed was so manifest by promise, and by
type, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph,
gave their posterity assurances of the faithful-
ness of God to them, and to their seed after
them ; that the faithful among them, looked
with faith, and strong expectation, for him un^
55
til he was bom. Accordingly the glorious-
seed appeared, manifested his divinity, obeyed
the law, and suffered its penalty ; " according
to the determinate council, and foreknowledge
of God:" Acts. ii. 23. Being by wicked
hands crucified and slain ; but the powers of
darkness could not prevail, he arose from the
dead, ascended on high, and is now an inter-
cessor at the right hand of God.
What shall we say to these all important and
glorious truths ? Shall Jesus from all eternity
devise, and in time execute, his most gracioua
plan of redemption ; and shall he have no cer-
tain reward for his suffering ? Shall it be in the
power of men or devils to destroy his hope ?
Begone unbelief ! begone infidelity! He shall;
have an ample reward. What shall be his re-
ward ? we answer, his people. The Lord's
portion is. his people, Jacob (the church) is the
lot of his inheritance :" Deut. xxxii. 9. " Thy
people shall be willing in the day of thy pow-
er :" Psa. ex. 3. That these words were ad-
dressed to our Lord, is evident from the next
verse. " The Lord hath sworn, and will not
repent, thou art a priest forever after the order
of Melchizedeck :" 4. But this portion, his
people, is promised in express, and emphatical
words, by the prophet Isaiah. " Therefore
will I divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong."'
Why Lord, why wilt thou give thy son a divi-
dend ? He hath done my will, he hath per-
formed;' the covenant ; yea, " He hath poured
out his soul unto death :" liii. 12. " I wilt
5(3
give thcc the heathen for thine inheritance, and
the uttermost parts of the tarth for thy posses-
sion:" Psa. ii. 8. He shall be king in Zion.
" Yet have I bet my king upon my holy hill of
Zion :" (my church) v. 7. " The heavenly
host shall worship him saying, Holy, Holy,
Holy, Lord, God, Almighty ;" the covenant
people shall worship him, saying, " thou art
worthy to take the book and open the seals
thereof; for thou Watt, slain and hast redeem-
ed ns to God by thy blood, out of every kind-
red, and tongue, and people, and nation : Rev.
v. 9. After this I beheld and lo a great multi-
tude, which no man could number, out of all
nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues,
stood before the throne, and before the lamb :
cloathed in white robes and palms in their
hands : and crying with a loud voice, saying-,
salvation to our God which sitteth upon the
throne, and unto the Lamb :" Rev. vii. 8. 9.
" And I beheld and heard the voice of many
angels round about the throne, and the beasts
and the elders : and the number of them was,
ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands
of thousands: saying with a loud voice, wor-
thy is the lamb that was slain, to receive power
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honor, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and
honor, and glory, be unto him that sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the lamb forever and ever.
And the four beasts said Amen." So say we :
Amen and Amen. This is his reward. His
people are to be his reward ; but they are in a
state of sin, M conceived in sin, and brought forth
57
in iniquity:" yea — " dead in trespasses and
in sins ;" and that to such an awful degree that
the blessed redeemer saith ; " ye will not come
unto me that ye might have life." It may be
they will not believe, and thy word, thy blessed
word declareth, " he that believeth not shall be
damned." Nay man, " Is any thing too hard
for thee Lord ? Sarah shall have a son :" Gen.
xviii. 14. Are the souls of sinners more dead
than Sarah's womb? More lifeless than the
dry bones in the valley ? Eze. xxxvii. 1. Did
I not say to the one bring forth ; and unto the
others live : and did they not obey me ? I will
exert the same life giving power, on the souls
of sinners. They shall rise from their spiritual
death, I will reveal my son in them and save
them ; I wiil call them to sanctification and
glory, as the end of all my labor cf love to
them. " But we are bound to give thanks al-
ways to God for you brethren, beloved of the
Lord, because God has from the beginning
chosen you to salvation, through sanctification
of the spirit and belief of the truth :" 2 Thess.
ii. 13. Whether this choice was made from
everlasting, from the beginning of the world,
the beginning of their lives, or from the be-
ginning of their believing; they were from
that beginning, chosen to salvation : and the
truth of God is pledged to sanctify and save
them ; therefore he who denies the salvation,
the eternal salvation of his elect, hath endea-
vored to make God a liar, and shall answer for
his infidelity and presumption. " Elect ac-
cording to the foreknowledge of God the Fa-
58
ther, through sanctification of the spirit unto
obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ : 1 Pet. i. 2. But perhaps it may be
for some good in them ? JVb. " Who hath
saved us, and called us with an holy calling,
not according to our works, (what then Paul)
but according to his own purpose and grace
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began :" 2 Tim. i. 9. " By grace ye
are saved through faith and that not of your,
selves ; it is the gift of God : not of works,
lest any man should boast:" Kph. ii. 8. 9.
More proof might be adduced to shew that
the gift of Christ's people to him was eternal,
and irrespective of conditions in the persons
given. We have fully proven that this gift of
Christ's people was actually made to him from
eternity, and to be as it respects them uncon.
ditional. We have also proven the certainty
of their salvation.
Let us lastly inquire whether there be a de-
finite, or indefinite number thus given. We
say that the number is definite, known only to
God however. This, we prove, first by ob-
serving, that as God knew the end from the
beginning, not one could be saved more, not
one could be saved less, than he had deter-
mined to save. If we say otherwise, we de-
prive him as far as we can of his foreknow-
ledge and power ; we, in effect say, he is migh-
ty, but the devil his enemy is mightier. But
if particular persons are saved, because God
would save them, without any good foreseen
in, or done by them ; and if particular scats
59
are set apart for particular persons, will it be
improper for us to conclude, all are saved for
the same reasons, and particular scats are pre-
pared for all, as well as for some ? Zacchcus
was called by name because he was a son of
Abraham, or in other words, because he was
in the covenant of grace : all the called are said
to be the children of Abraham. " For if ye
he Christ's (by election) preserved in Christ
and called," then arc ye Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise." And being
heirs, ye must, nay, you shall have the inherit-
ance. Paul was called by name, and Ananias
told that he was a chosen vessel. It matters
not for any to say he was called and chosen to
be an apostle, we grant he was ; but he was
chosen at the same time in the covenant of
grace, or he never would have been chosen to
the apostleship. It may perhaps be asked,
was Judas also in the covenant of grace; for
' he was an apostle : we answer, no ; he was
not, in the covenant of grace. It was necessa-
ry that a familiar friend of Christ's, and one
that did cat with him, should betray him.
Christ therefore did call him to the apostleship
for that express purpose, that he should eat
with him and appear to be his friend. But
as there was no violence offered to his will, it
did not in the least injure him, to have that
office ; and as he acted from first to last from
wicked motives the sin lay on himself:" —
Psa. xli. 9* Acts i. 16. 17. 18. Paul told
Timothy some had erred concerning the faith :
" Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth
60
sure, having this seal." Why, Paul, is it seal-
ed ? yes, to the day of redemption. What is the
seal ? " The Lord knoweth them that are his :"
2 Tim- ii. 19: He knoweth to an individual.
We will now add testimonies from our blessed
Lord, and close this head. " But to sit upon
my right hand and my left, is not mine (as me-
diator) io give, but it shall be given them, for
whom it is prepared of my Father :" Matt. xx.
23. — Again, "come ye blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:" Matt. xxv. 34.
Christ told his disciples not to rejoice because
unclean spirits were subject to them, " but
rather to rejoice because their, names were
written in heaven:" Luke x. 20. Glorious
God ! thou hast prepared mansions for thy
people ; thou hast written their names in hea-
ven. Now if written they must be individu-
ally written ; and if written eighteen hundred
years ago, why not from eternity. It is not
presumable that he had a book for the apos-
tles only. Nay, Paul declares he had not.
" And I entreat thee also, true yoke fellow,
help those women which labored with me in
the gospel, with Clement also, and with other
my fellow laborers, whose names are in the
book of life :" Phi. iv. 3* Nor is it possible
that the devil once thrown down from heaven,
will ever be able to ascend again, and blot out
their names. And should it be said God will
blot them out, it will be a denial of his glorious
perfections, particularly his immutability.
" To the general assembly and church of the
61
first born which are written in heaven :" Heb.
xii. 13. "For ye are dead, and your life is
hid with Christ in God ; and when Christ who
is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear
with him in glory :" Col. iii. 3. 4.
" O glorious day, O blest abode,
To be forever near my God."
Having proved the everlasting covenant of
grace, made between the Father and the Son ;
that it was ordered in all things, and sure to all
the parties interested therein, viz. Christ, and
his church ; I shall close the subject with the
words of the beloved disciple : Rev. xxi. 21.
27. " And the twelve gates were twelve pearls,
every several gate was one pearl : and the street
of the city was pure gold, as it were transpar-
ent glass. And I saw no temple therein, for
the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb were
the temple of it. And the city had no need
of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it ;
for the glory of God did lighten it, and the
Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of
them which are saved, shall walk in the light
of it : and the kings of the earth do bring their
glory and honor into it. And the gates of it
shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall
be no night there. And they shall bring the
glorv and honor of the nations into it. And
there shall in no- wise enter into it any thing
that defileth, nor whatsoever worketh abomina-
tion, or maketh a lie : but they which are
written in the Lamb's book of life."
Your vindication of the right of infants to
baptism, is predicated on this position, that the
62
covenant of circumcision, made with Abra-
ham, was the only new and everlasting cove-
nant of grace. You have endeavored to estab-
lish this position, by supposition and affirma-
tion, but no where by proof. In this my answer
to you, I have already proved, that the cove-
nant of circumcision, made with Abraham,
was not the covenant of grace. I have also
established that grand and all- important doc-
trine of our holy religion, viz. That the ever-
lasting covenant of grace was made with Christ,
embracing all believers to the end of time, and
securing their perseverance in grace, to glory.
Now, sir, on the well known and just principle
that a building must fall, when its foundation
is removed, it will necessarily follow that your
labored superstructure in favor of infant bap-
tism must be brought to the ground, as the
foundation on which it is built is manifestly
taken away. I am astonished that you could
make such assertions, as arc found in your
production ; assertions that you must have
known, no consistent divine would have con-
curred with you in.
In page 3d. you say " That the Abrahamic
covenant was the only new and evcr^sting
covenant of grace" — and in page 48th, " So
the covenant with Abraham merits the atten-
tion of all persons, from Adam to the end of
the world, as it involves the salvation of every-
one." How can it merit the attention of those
that never heard of it ? and how can it benefit
those that never partook of it ? I never saw so
much ignorance exhibited in so few words
65
before. You have been so explicit that it is
impossible for us to mistake you. Your de-
claration amounts to this : that God the Fa-
ther made a covenant with Abraham, embrac-
ing his seed, promised him in the 17th chapter
of Genesis, 7th verse ; which covenant you
state in the 4th page, as involving the salvation
of all, from Adam to the end of the world. Jf
indeed this were a truth, we are as miserable
as the fallen angels, for that covenant hath long
since been broken, as we have already proved
in the first part of this work ; and we need not
go farther at any time, for a better confirmation
of this fact, than to the present state of Abra-
ham's natural posterity. We have reason to
bless God, there was, and is, a far better cove-
nant, than that of circumcision ; and a far bet-
ter covenant head, than Abraham. But, sir,
we will give you the credit you ask, in doing
all you can to destroy the christian's hope and
salvation ; which you have done, if you have
established your point. We then say that you
have entirely excluded Christ as having any
part in the covenant of grace, for you have fail-
ed proving him the seed, to which the promise
was made in the covenant of circumcision.
We grant you speak ol Christ, but that you
must do, to give currency to your libel ; for
you know, ignorant as people are, they will
retain Chiist, either in whole, or in part, as
their saviour. You have given Abraham the
pre-eminence of Christ in page 49th. " If the
promise was not made to Adam, nor the ser-
pent, who was it made to ? Answer : to Abra-
6±
ham and to Christ.'* It is evident that you
have denied Christ, the right of altering his
laws and ordinances as he pleases ; and you
have perverted his word by making it a nose
of wax, and interpreting it to suit your own
purpose. You have by this means made the
inspired writers (as far as you were able) con-
tradict themselves and each other, particularly
in the grand and fundamental part of our holy
religion. You affect to make Paul prove your
pernicious doctrine, a doctrine which he says,
if an angel from heaven preach, let him be ac-
cursed. The view which the apostle had in
writing his epistle to the Galatians, was to dis-
suade them from teachers who taught as you
do ; and to insist uoon the important doctrine
1 »
of justification by faith. You cannot be justi-
fied, (he would urge) by the law, either moral,
or ceremonial ; the one is too holy for your
perfect obedience to it ; and the other is insuf-
ficient, being never intended for justification.
Its appendages and ceremonies were only ap-
pointed to prefigure Christ, that sinners might
look to him for justification. The apostle
elsewhere calls them shadows ; and circumci-
sion was one of them, that pointed to Christ,
(as we have shewn before) ; who was to be cut
off, as Daniel said : " Messiah shall be cut off,
but not for himself." Therefore my brethren,
said Paul, you must be justified as Abraham
was, by faith. God's promise to Abraham, ran.
thus, " In thee shall all the families of the earth
be blessed :" Gen. xit. 3 : and again, Gen. xv.
5, " Tell the stars if thou be able to number
65
them, and he said unto him, so shall thy seed be."
Abraham believed that he should have a nume-
rous offspring: that Christ should descend from
his loins, and be the spiritual head of a numerous
spiritual offspring ; that these, having like faith
with him, should, in one sense, be called his chil-
dren, not for any natural alliance to him, but
for the faith of the same nature with his and for
which he is so much celebrated. This, Abra-
ham believed, and this belief was imputed to
him for righteousness. And that man who is
not blinded by ignorance, or prejudice, will
cheerfully acknowledge that this is the blessing
which the apostle intended ; for the blessing
of circumcision, (if it may be called a blessing)
Was by the express command of God, to be
confined to his male family, sons and male
servants : the other inhabitants of the world
were excluded from the rite, and therefore
received no blessing from it. How you could
say then, that the covenant made with Abra-
ham, merited the attention of all, to the end of
the world, is a m}rstery to me.
Having established the two first points which
I undertook, I should have contented myself
without bestowing any further attention upon
your pamphlet. But as I had given public
notice that I would take into consideration
your work, I thought if nothing were said
about baptism particularly, the ignorant would
be confirmed in what many had said, viz.
that your book was unanswerable, and the
dispute now at an end. I shall therefore pro-
ceed to make some remarks on the subject of
baptism explicitly. But in the attempt I must
66
confess that I feel myself small, since so manv
abler pens have been employed so successfully
to exhibit this interesting subject in a light, at
once clear, and conclusive from the force of
scriptural evidence and cogent reasoning.
As it is impossible for any man to follow
you through your sophistry ; I shall only take
notice of, and remark on, such of your decla-
rations, as I think may have had some weight
upon the unenlightened part of the^community.
And I am the more induced to do so, because
the authors on the subject of baptism on both
sides of the question, are not generally in the
possession of the community ; and because
bold assertion does more with many, than
sou.nd reasoning from the word of God. Your
talent appears to lie in bold assertion, and as,
in your own opinion, you are the oracle of the
day, it would be well to point out some more
of the imperfections of the piece under present
consideration. I shall first take notice of your
remarks on the first church existing on the
earth, contained in pages 4-8, 49. You there say
" For God had not a visible church on earth,
before Abraham's day." " Abraham was the
first member on earth." You must mean he
was the first member of God's church on earth.
In order to know whether these declarations
of yours are true, or not ; our first inquiry will
be, in what does a church consist ? We are of
opinion that a particular congregation (or num-
ber) of believers in Christ, united together in
the order of the gospel : or under whatever
form of worship God has directed, or enjoined
61
upon them, constitutes a church. According
to the opinion of the church of England ; the
visible church of Christ is a congregation of
faithful men, in which the pure word of God
is preached, and the sacraments duly adminis-
tered. Entiek says, a church is a place of di-
vine worship, an assembly of christians.
Hooker — the collective body of Christ — Doc-
tor Watts — the body of christians, adhering to
one particular form of worship. And Jesus
Christ, " where two or three are gathered toge-
ther in my name, there am I in the midst of
them." Paul, " Christ is the head of the body,
the church :" Col. i. 18. And again. "The
general assembly and church of the first born,
which are written in heaven :" Heb. xii. 13.
From the above quotations of scripture, and
authors, all agree in this, that a church properly
speaking, consists of two or more that assemble
for the pure worship of God, under any divine-
ly appointed dispensation. Nothing but infi-
delity will dare to deny this : for the blessed
Redeemer hath said " where two or three are
gathered together in my name," whether to
believe on and worship him, as the seed of the
woman, of Abraham, David, cr as the son of
God, manifest in the flesh, it amounts to the
same, if they are gathered in his name, he is in
the midst of them to bless them, and own them
as his. You say page lGth, a "church cannct
exist without an inward spiritual grace :" thus
far you are right : "but you add secondly, with-
out " an outward visible sign also." Where
have you your authority for this declaration ?
68
not in scripture : but you take the liberty to
make the component parts of your church, and
your book, to suit your own scheme, whether
you have a warrant for it or not.
Moses informs us, that " unto Adam also
and to his wife, did the Lord God make coats
of skins, and cloathed them :" Gen. iii. 21.
We are of opinion that the skins of which these
coats were made, were the skins of beasts offer-
ed in sacrifice. The sacrifice of these beasts
we think were typical of the sacrifice of the
promised seed, and the coats of skins which
they furnished weretypieal of the righteousness
of the seed, which God, revealed to Adam and
Eve, as the manner in which they were to be
justified. But, whether the beasts, from
which the skins were taken to cloathe Adam
and Eve, were sacrificed or not; the sacrifice
of beasts from that time became the method of
worship ; and the presumption is very strong,
that it must have been ordered by the Lord at
that time ; and this we prove by the acceptable
offering of Abel. " And A bel he also brought
of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat there-
of, and the Lord had respect unto Abel, and
to his offering:" Gen. iv. 4. If this offering
had been made in an improper manner it woNld
not have been accepted ; but as it was accept-
ed, and the person of Abel also accepted, the
offering and the service must have been by the
command of God ; and as blood was spilt in
the sacrifice, it evidently pointed to the shed-
ding of the blood of the seed of the woman.
Two hundred and thirty- five years afterward,
69
id the days of Enos, the minds of God's people
were more enlightened. They then not only
sacrificed, but implored the mercy of God in
Christ Jesus, the seed of the woman, as a com-
pany of believers. " Then began men to call
upon the name of the Lord :" Adam was yet
living, and no doubt led in the worship. All
the godly also in that day worshipped in an
acceptable manner as God had directed, and
He was in the midst of them. This is farther
illustrated by the sacrifice of Noah, fourteen
hundred and twenty years after : " And Noah
builded an altar unto the Lord, and he took of
every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and
offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the
Lord smelled a sweet savour, and the Lord
said in his heart, I will not again curse the
ground for man, &c. :" Gen. viii. 20. 21.
How could Noah without divine direction have
distinguished between the clean and unclean
animals ? And without an observance of this
direction, would the sacrifice offered have been
accepted ? Permit me to ask further, would
God have directed the service to any but his
acknowledged people, and could they be such,
without forming his church or a part of it ?
Paul told his Hebrew brethren, " ye are come,
to the general assembly and church of the
first born :" xii. 22. 23. Did the apostle mean
an)' but those who were the first born of the
spirit : Adam, Eve, Abel, Enos, Enoch, No-
ah, and others of their days, and afterwards,
before Abraham ? Ignorance itself, yea and
infidelity too, will allow (if thev will allow any
thing) that Abraham was born long after this,
therefore he could not have been the first born,
and the first born agreeably to Christ and Paul,
formed the first visible, and acknowledged
church. Thus, sir, you see that we have proven
a church before the Rood, another after it, and
before Abraham ; and your first church with
all your bold assertions, is as unfounded as
your ideas of the covenant of grace.
But once more : Jethro, the priest of Midi-
an, came to Moses and said, " Now I know
that the Lord is greater than all Gods, for in
the things wherein they dealt proudly, he was
above them : and Jethro, Moses' fathtr-in-law,
took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God :
and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel to
eat bread with Moses' father-in-law before
God:" Exo. xviii. 11. 12. Can we say that
Jethro was not a priest of God ? If we do, we
shall charge the meek Moses, and the high
priest Aaron, with idolatry, in joining in a sa-
crifice that was improperly offered Job is
another instance of God's having a people that
worshipped him, exclusive of the family of
Abraham ; and Melchisedec is said to be
priest of the Most High God, eighteen years
before Abraham was commanded to observe
the rite of circumcision. If Melchisedec was
a priest of God, he had, no doubt, a people
among whom he officiated, whom we should
consider as unquestionably a church of God.
These proofs go far to establish, on just and
correct grounds, the existence of a church pre-
vious to Abraham's day.
71
We allow to faithful Abraham, the friend of
God, who was set up for our imitation, (and
would to God we were better able to follow
him in his holy obedience) all that the scrip-
ture ascribes to him ; but we must not put
him, his obedience, or any thing else, in the
place of Christ. We therefore say, that cir-
cumcision, although it evidenced his obedi-
ence, and was a mark of distinction to his
family, was intended principally as a type of
Christs* sufferings. It was a command to be
observed by Abraham's posterity until Christ
should appear. When he did appear, being
one of that posterity, he submitted to it as a
part of his obedience, but as soon as He the
antytype was cut off, the bloody rite to whicli
he had conformed ceased to be lawful, and
was not superceded by baptism ; otherwise,
the Jews, and Christ himself, who had sub-
mitted to that rite, (if we view it as an initiating
rite*) would never have been baptised. IVlr.
Wesley had the same view of circumcision :
he says " circumcision being laid aside, which
was peculiar to males, and was designated to
put a difference during that dispensation be-
tween Jews and Gentiles. "f But, sir> ^ is
surely ridiculous to suppose that God directed
an ordinance, (for so you would have us be-
lieve) for the initiation of his people into a
church capacity, which ordinance could not,
• If circumcision constituted a church of God, then the
wicked 6ons of Jacob constituted a church of God among the
Hivites, when they circumcised Shechim, and the men of
that city.
f Notes, 2d. toI. p. 130.
72
from the very nature of the thing itself, be ad-
ministered to more than one half of the mem-
bers, for surely the women were as much
members of the church in the wilderness, as
the men. Tell it not inGath, that a professed
minister of the gospel should charge the great
head of the church with such an error ; least
the children of the unbelieving rejoice. Paul
bears an honorable testimony to the antedilu-
vian worthies : Hcb. xi. 4 to 7. " By faith
Abel offered, £<c." * By faith Enoch was
translated " " Uy faith Noah being warned
of God of things not seen as yet, moved with
fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house,
by the which he condemned the world, and
became heir of the righteousness which is by
faith." Here, in addition to the testimony of
God by Moses, an apostie bears testimony to
their faith and acceptance ; and calls them
" the church of the first born." Their faith
was fixed upon the seed of the woman, which
they looked for with as much assurance as
Abraham did. And in doing so, were as ac-
ceptable as he was. But 1o tell us, that Adam,
and those before Abraham, looked foi the seed
of Abraham, (the seed of a man) when the
first intimation given of that seed, on which
our faith is to be fixed, wasr that it should be
the seed of the woman, is truly ridiculous;
unless you will prove that all the believers be-
fore Abraham were prophets. We shall con-
clude this subject by observing, that the An-
tediluvian church had the same faith with
Abraham ; that it was placed upon the same
73
object, the seed of the woman ; and that it was
as acceptable to God. They were therefore
saved by the Lord Jesus Christ; and we con-
sequently adopt your words and say, it is but
cavilling" to say, they were saved by believing
in the seed of Abraham. The only difference
then was, that Abraham had a mark in the
flesh, which they had not; and if a mark in
the flesh will better constitute a church of God,
with you, than spiritual worship, and offer-
ings in faith ; you may go on and be made
perfect by the flesh as fast as you can. But
remember, *' as many as are of the works of
the law are under the curse."
In page 21, you say " They (meaning the
baptists) must build upon circumcision or sup-
position, if they claim John's baptism, because
i he was not baptized but circumcised." This
to be sure is a very grand discovery, and may
help baby baptism a little longer. You have
placed us in a dilemma indeed, if you are to
be the oracle, bv which truth and error are to
stand or fall. Oh! my brethren, what shall
we do? This wonderful Goliah will indeed
prevail, unless David with his sling and smooth
stone (truth) should come to our help. Let
us exercise faith; and trust in him who hath
said, " A thousand shall fall by thy side, and
ten thousand at thy right hand ; but it shall
not come nigh thee :" Psa.xci. 7. And again,
" No weapon that is formed against thee shall
prosper ; and every tongue that shall rise
against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn:"
Isa. liv. 17. We told you that you had deni-
74
ed Christ the right of altering his laws, and
establishing such ordinances as he pleased.
" They must :" (what arrogance !) " build up-
on circumcision or supposition, if they claim
John's baptism." Why? " Because John was
not baptised, but circumcised. " You might
as well have said, because Christ had no right
to alter his laws, and direct what ordinances
he pleased for his people to observe.
We have shewn your fallacy in attempting
to prove the covenant of circumcision, to be the
covenant of grace. We have gone far to prove
the existence of a church long before Abra-
ham's day. And we have proven that the
covenant of circumcision was a seal of tempo-
ral blessings only, as it respected the seed of
Abraham ; and that it was a mark of distinc-
tion to that family, and that the all- wise God
\\ ould not appoint a mark of church-member-
ship, that could not be placed upon more than
half of its members. We have also shewn,
that circumcision, like many other rites under
that dispensation, pointed to Christs' death ;
and must necessarily have continued until that
event took place : consequently all the posteri-
ty of Abraham, in whose person the rite was
established, and from whom Christ was to
descend, were under obligation to submit to it,
or be cut oft* from the land. John, the harbin-
ger of our Lord, was one of that posterity, and
therefore submitted^ to circumcision. But,
sir, surely you will not venture to say, that
circumcision disqualified him from acting in
any office to which God might appoint him :
75
Malachi iii. 1. " Behold I will send my mes-
senger, and he shall prepare the way before
me." Hear die testimony of an angel of God.
" Fear not Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard ;
and thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son,
and thou shalt call his name John, for he shall
be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine, nor strong drink : and he
shall be rilled with the Holy Ghost, even from
his mothers womb. And many of the chil-
dren of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their
God. And he shall go before him in the spirit
and power of Klias, to turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children, and the disobedient to
the wisdom of the just, to make ready a peo-
ple prepared for the Lord :" Luke i. 13. 17.
Hear the beloved disciple, *' There was a man
sent from God whose name was John." Jesus
speaking to the multitude of John the Baptist,
said. " A prophet ? Yea, I say unto you,
and more than a prophet." John, his forerun-
ner, as his minister, was to inaugurate him, as
the first gospel minister, under the new gospel
dispensation, that shalf not be confined to the
family of one man after the flesh, and those
bought with his money.* He was also " to
make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
How ? He could not convert them ; though
he might be, and was an instrument in that
work. We cannot see any way how he was to
make ready a people prepared for the Lord,
* This ia a lively representation of Corl'3 rovenant people ;
all bought with the blood of Ch;i-.t, such only Lciny of th$
spiritual i hurch of 60(1.
16
better than to teach them to look for II im, so
long promised, as at hand, and baptize them
for our Lord, as he would not baptize any him-
self : this fact the devil himself will not deny.
Our Lord said he is more than a prophet. I
confess I am at a loss how to understand this
grand sentence, but in one way. All the pro-
phets before John, by the command of God,
prepared the kings of that nation, by anointing
them with oil : but John must set king Jesus
in his office by baptism. " God himself would
anoint him with the oil of. gladness above his
fellows." " Yet have I set my king upon my
holy hill of Zion :" Psa. ii. 6. " I will raise
them up a prophet from among their brethren
like unto thee :" Deut. xviii. 18. " For he ,
testifieth thou art a priest forever after the order
cf Melchisedec:" Heb. vii. 17. The Lord
Jesus Christ was more than any prophet, priest
or king — He was invested by the gift of his Fa-
ther with each of these offices ; and they, taken
separately, were higher than any that went be-
fore him ; for he was to continue in them for-
ever. '* Forever a priest after the order of
Melchisedec." God therefore sent John, more
than a prophet, to perform this new, and to
John, highly honorable work ; and farther, he
was to do more than any other prophet had
done, he was to point at Christ and say, " Be-
hold the Lamb of God."
But John, how dare you baptize ? You never
were baptised ! Can your baptism be valid ?
Will it not be called a Jewish washing ? and
after all that has been said of you, and you have
77
said of yourself, will not your authority be
called in question ? Why. as to a Jewish wash-
ing, I know how, and when that was perform-
ed : but I have authority from the highest
tribunal to baptize* not to wash ! I am sent to
introduce a new dispensation, or at least, pre-
pare a way for it : I have done it by command
with an ordinance never before practised on
any religious occasion. John, your character
stands high, mind what you say, and do ! I
say that I am sent to introduce a new dispen-
sation with an ordinance never before practised
upon any religious occasion : and as to my
authority being disputed ; I have a commission
from the king of kings, the Lord God Almigh-
ty* who was, and is, and is to come ; who will
call all the postherds of the earth to account,
for disputing his, and my authority, when act-
ing by his command. Here is. my commission,
read it. " And John bare record saying, I
saw the spirit descending from heaven like a
dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew
him not;" before, " but he that sent me to bap-
tize with watery the same said unto me, upon
whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and
remaining on him, the same is he which bap-
tizeth with the Holy Ghost. And 1 saw and
bear record that this is the Son of God :" Jno.
i. 32. 33. 34. John, we are perfectly satisfied
with your credentials, for we are sure none but
God himself could have told you of the descent
of his holy spirit upon his Son. We shall prac-
tice as you have done in that ordinance of the
new Testament. " Then cometh Jesus from
G 2
7S '
Galilee to Jordan, unto John to be baptized of
him. But John forbade him, saying I have
need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou
to me ? And Jesus answering, said unto him,
suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us
to fulfill all righteousness; then he suffered him.
And Jesus when he was baptized went up
straightway out of the water: and lo, the heav-
ens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit
of God descending like a dove, and lighting up-
on him :" Matt. iii. 13 — 16. Here we have as
solemn an ordinance as ever was administered,
and that too, to the Son of God ! nay, to God
himself, and the trinity of persons approving of
it in the highest terms : " And lo, a voice from
heaven saying, this is my beloved Son in whom
lam well pleased :" Vide, 17th verse. Still,
notwithstanding all the solemnity attending it,
it is spoken of by some, in the most degrading
manner, and by thousands profaned.
Will you have the hardiness to say after this,
we must build upon circumcision, or supposi-
tion ? Did not John receive his command from
God ? Did Abraham, could Abraham receive
more ? Or can you suppose that Abraham's
being circumcised, invested him with higher
authority than God's command to John to. bap-
tize, conferred on him? Vain thought indeed!
Was Moses ever washed, or anointed with
oil, to qualify him, for the washing, and anoint-
ing of Aaron ? Or was not God's command on
that occasion, deemed sufficient ? Pray, sir,
why art thou beside thyself? Moses was not
washed, was not anointed with oil, to qualify
79
him for the work God commanded him to do ;
yet we have not heard his authority called in
question, nor yet Aaron's consecration dis-
puted. " But John was not baptized, but cir-
cumcised :" therefore we will sprinkle chil-
dren. This is powerful reasoning indeed: it is
reasoning away scripture with a witness ; nay I
and calling in question the authority of the
great head of the church. As a professed
minister of the gospel, it becomes your duty
to honor God, to reverence his Son, his ordi-
nances, and inspired servants, and in a very
high degree, him whom he himself did honor,
as the harbinger of his Son. But you call his
authority in question : at one time you cal
his baptism a Jewish washing, at another, a
type of the Holy Ghost : page 77, 78. It
would be well for you to consider seriously
what you have done, and pray to God that
none of the evils written it\ his book, may
come upon you ! It would be well also for
our opponents, and for you as one of them,
and a bitter one too, to have some consistency ;
it would surely hold you up a little longer.
But those that have written on your side of the
question, differ from themselves and each other
continually. We can say with truth, what you
have said without it, in page 22d, ** When peo-
ple are driven from the ground on which they
have long boasted to the shifting field of un-
certainty, it must appear that their foundation
is too weak to support them. And as truth
was never put to the blush, but always main-
tained its ground against error, the system of
so
our opponents, in this point is found inconsis-
tent with itself." Will you be good enough to
tell me the name of the baptist, that ever shift-
ed his ground, so as ;j give up the baptism of
Christ administered by John ? But, sir, we can
give names of our opponents of the highest
respectability for learning, and talents, that
have shifted again, and again. But, sir, why
will you come forward to vindicate the right of
infants? you must be aware, that the ingenui-
ty of the learned world, hath not been able to
prove, one infant, to have been in the churches
in the apostolic day : and we venture the as-
sertion they never will. You admit God had
a right to command Abraham to circumcise,
and that he was under obligation to obey : He
had a right to command Moses to set Aaron
apart to the priest's office, and that he was un-
der obligation to obey ; although Moses had
not the qualification in his case, that you re-
quire of John in his, i. e. to have been washed
himself; yet, as that does not affect baby bap-
tism, it is not out of the way : — let that pass ;
we here see plainly what prejudice will do.
God commanded John to baptize, and that
under more peculiar circumstances than his
commands to other servants of his, have been
given : but you say, he must not obey, or what
is worse, (if worse can be) you invalidate his
work. u Christ was not baptized with John's
baptism :" "John's baptism is a type of the
Holy Ghost." We ask you seriously, sir,
when, and by whom, was christian baptism in-
troduced, if John did not introduce it ? We.
81
defy you, sir, or any of your brethren, to point
out the person that first administered it ; if
John the Baptist was not the first honored ad-
ministrator, of that holy ordinance. You have
read Edwards, until you have sucked in his
enmity, as well as his arguments. But, sir,
remember, the Jewish nation, with all their
power, and learning — the Roman government,
with all its enmity and authority ; aided by an
unbelieving, persecuting world, did not, could
not, overcome our blessed Lord, and the few
baptists he had collected together, from the
disciples of John. A few fishermen withstood
the world, with all their learning, and enmity ;
and so do, and so will v.?. We have truth,
reason, and God, on our part ; and we fear
not what man can say or do. " Fear not little
flock, (not Jewish church) it is your Bather's
good pleasure to give you the kingdom, " —
Precious Jesus ! how comfortable and strength-
ening were thy words to thy little flock ! —
when surrounded by their enemies, Sanhe-
drim, Priests, Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces,
the whole Jewish nation, and the Roman go-
vernment ! supported by thee they weathered
the storm ! thou thyself their Captain. So
aid us, blessed Jesus, and we too will stand up
in thy cause, and triumph under thy blessing.
Your low shifts and serpentine turns are
truly ridiculous, of which you ought to be
ashamed. In page 75, you say : " Here we
request you particularly to notice what Paul
said of John's baptism, i. e. that it is a baptism
of repentance. Now unless Christ could have
82
repented and believed on himself, he could not
have received John's baptism." We will not
be surprised after this, to find infidelity abound
in our land, when those that profess themselves
preachers of the gospel, and that with uncom-
mon zeal too, not only preach, but put printed
books into the hands of the people, denying
as positive facts recorded in scripture, as words
can express. Now, unless the word of God
be false, Christ did receive God's baptism,
administered by John ; and properly called
John's baptism, as he was the first adrninis-
trator of it; and believers baptism, as they
only were the subjects of it ; and christian
baptism, because Christ, after whom they are
called, was a partaker of it. For proof of this,
read the third chapter of Matthew. It seems
to offend you very much that Christ should
call upon a baptist to administer the holy ordi-
nance to him : it would seem, if he had called
upon one of the chief priests, (who persuaded,
the multitude that they should ask Barabbas,
the murderer) to have washed him, it would
have suited you better, pleased you more ; and
then you might indeed have placed us in a di-
lemma. But John the Baptist must administer
it, and such is your displeasure at it, that rather
than have people believe it, least they should
say Christ must have been baptised right, and
John's baptism must be proper, because Christ
chose him for the honored administrator of that
ordinance to him *v you will contrary, to truth,
say he did not receive it. May God of his infin-
ite mercy deliver his people from such teachers.
83
We say, John's command was received by
him under more peculiar circumstances than
Abraham's or Moses'. From eternity God
had elected a church in Christ, for whom he
covenanted with Christ ; they were to be the
purchase, and the reward of his sufferings.
Some few of them had been collected during
the period of four thousand years by the min-
istry of ungels,vand prophets ; but in that space
of time were not formed into a proper church
state, that is to say, they were not brought in-
to a congregational relation. The time at
length arrived which the worthies of old looked
for, but died without the sight of. (" These
all died in the faith, not having received the
promises :" Heb. xi. 39.) On the approach of
this'glorious acra, John was miraculously born,
(being sanctified from the womb) ; and Christ
miraculously conceived by a virgin. God
sent John as the forerunner of his Son, with a
special commission to introduce this long look-
ed for, and new dispensation ; called, " a better
testament."* If it were a better testament,
than the old one, that was passing away, how
could it be the same ? " For there is verily
a disannulling of the commandment going be-
fore, for the weakness and unprofitableness
thereof."! The old dispensation was weak
and unprofitable, it made nothing perfect, it
was a dispensation of types and shadows, which
was never intended to continue permanently ;
but only until the mediator of a better cove-
nant should appear. At that momentous pe-
* Heb. vii. 22. | viclc 18-
riod it was disannulled, not changed ; yea it
waxed old, and did vanish away * What in
the name of common sense are we to under-
stand by, " a better testament," " a more ex-
cellent ministry," " mediator of a better cove-
nant, which was established upon better pro-
mises?'^ if, after all the preparation of the
Trinity for four thousand years ; and the re-
peated promises of God, to Christ, and his
church, of a far more excellent and extensive
spread of the gospel, in the latter clay, when
Christ should stand upon the earuY'f — if the
new dispensation should be but the continua-
tion of the same old dispensation, " the same
man in new cloaths," or the old Jewish church;
and baptism now instituted in the place of cir-
cumcision. The clay is coming, and will ap-
pear, when these gross errors will be disclosed,
and reprobated.
The long promised day had arrived, Christ
had descended from heaven to do his Father's
will : " I come to do thy will O God :" — " to
be a surety of a better testament," than that
under the law, and " to obtain a more excel-
lent ministry ;" than Moses, or any of the
fathers, or any of the prophets ever had.
" And he is the mediator of a better covenant,
than ever was made with man. Theirs' were
earthly, " wordly," " carnal:" and the apos-
tle informs us, *• stood in meats and drinks,
and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,
(margin, rites, or ceremonies) imposed on
• Keb. viii. 13. i Vide viii. C f Job six. 25.
85
them until the time of reformation :" Heb. ix.
10. Until God would send his Son and effect
a reform, from a woroly, carnal worship, to a
purely spiritual, and heavenly worship. This
better dispensation, introduced by the baptism
of John, was established upon better promises.
The promises under the old dispensation, as
we have shewn, were temporal, and the duties
required generally, such as could be perform-
ed by wicked men, and conditional : " If ye
obey, ye shall eat the good of the land." The
promises under this new, and better dispensa-
tion, are unconditional and far better. " For
if that first covenant had been faultless, then
should no place have been sought for the se-
cond ; for finding fault with them, he saith,
behold, the days come (saith the Lord) when I
will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and the house of Judah : not according
(or like) to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,
because they continued not in my covenant,
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For
this is the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel, after those days, saith the
Lord : 7 will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts ; and I will be to
them a God, and they shall be to me a people.''
Here we find the new covenant, called new as
it respected Israel, as it respected the new ap-
pearance of the glorious covenant head, and as
it respected the covenant of circumcision, with
all its promises, which were as we have shewn,
H
86
the land of Canaan, and temporal blessing ; but
especially new in its revelation, and operation.
God complains that they had broken his firut
covenant, and well they might, when it was
made with man. But this they shall not break.
Jesus is the mediator of this covenant, the
head of this covenant ; for his sake " I will be
their God." " They shall be my people."
This is a permanent covenant, not chaffy like
Mr. R's. that " the least breeze of truth blows
away." The world was no doubt in great
commotion, at the opening of this new dispen-
sation, and well it might be, for there never
were two such men on earth before. John,
my faithful servant, saith Jesus, I am come to
thee to be prepared by the gospel ordinance of
baptism, f ;r my ministry. Thus it becometh
tis, both of us, to fulfil all righteous (obedience.)
I am sent, sanctified and sent, as the head of
my church, to call, sanctify, and save them.
h is the Father's will, and my will, that I be
baptized. He sent you to baptize mey he told
you, you should see the heavenly dove descend
upon me. It will descend ; it then behoves
us both, to act agreeably to his command; I
to submit to this gospel rite, and you to ad-
minister it to me : hesitate not. Then he buf-
feted him. " And Jesus when he was baptized
went up straightway out of the water : audio,
the heavens were opened unto him and he saw
the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
lighting upon him." After he entered upon
his work of love and obedience, did he bap-
tize any to qualify them to baptize others?
87
.Vo, he did not — he called those that John had
baptized, to be his disciples. M Again, the
next day after, John stood and two of his disci-
ples : and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he
saitfr, behold the Lamb of God. And the two
di*ciples heard him speak, and they followed
Jesus :" Jno. i. 35, 37. These were Andrew,
and John, which are named by him as his dis-
ciples, and stated followers. They adminis-
tered, what you call, the christian baptism, (for
Jesus baptized not but his disciples) by his
command, after being baptized by John the
Baptist.
We have now brought you to the christian
church : we have proven unequivocally, that
John was the honored instrument to prepare
the way for his Lord to build this church, by
baptizing both him and his disciples, for him.
We do not assert he baptized them all, but
can you prove that he did not ? We have pro-
ven that he baptized tvyo, and that is sufficient
for our purpose. They were properly baptized
by John, for the use of our Lord. (Who was
easier satisfied than you are.) If they had not
been, surely we should have heard of their re-
baptism, and then our Lord would have been
an anabaptist, as well as the apostle Paul, (who
you say was one) but in this, our Lord a second
time, confirms the baptism of John. And here
we find the declaration of John quickly verifi-
ed, " He must increase, but I must decrease."
The disciples of John left him, and went to our
Lord. John thereby decreased, and Christ
increased, and will continue to increase by
88
large accessions to his church, until the consum-
'mation of all things. But, sir, should 3-our
doctrine be true, we are all in an error, and
have been for nearly eighteen hundred years :
Jesus baptized not, but his disciples. If they
were not baptized, they had no better authority
to baptize than John had. If they were bap-
tized by John, then his baptism is valid : and
if they were not baptized by John, it rests with
you to say who baptized them. For it is evi-
dent he had no greater authority, as God-man,
to command, or authorise, than he had as God,
or than his heavenly father had ; and we have
proved that John was commanded by God the
Father.
We now call upon you sir, for your autho-
rity for baptizing, for we understand you have
divers baptisms ; and you thereby show to the
world you are still under the law, for you have
not attempted to prove there were divers lawful
baptizms under the gospel.
We shall now prove, that Paul confirmed
John's baptism, by laying hands on his disci-
ples— your bug- bear in the 79th page, not-
withstanding. You ask, " But will not some
say with Mr. Osborne, they were not baptized
again, but Paul confirmed John's baptism — An-
swer : We are unwilling to suppose any man
of common understanding can think so, nor
indeed can he, without destroying the gram-
matical construction of words." Why are
you unwilling sir ? Would it not delight you
to expose the baptists? If we may judge of
others, by your conduct to John, we are of
83
opinion nothing would please you better. Bur
perhaps you aie unwilling we should come to
reasonable, and scriptural investigation of that
passage. I confess, sir, that I have no preten-
sion, to great accuracy in grammar. But I will
put your grammar, and penetration in scrip-
ture, to the touchstone of truth and reason.
This is the best rule, the best grammar : Acts.
xviii. 24. " And a certain Jew named A pol-
ios, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and
mighty in the scriptures came to Ephesus : 25.
This man was instructed in the way of the
Lord ; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake
and taught diligently the ways of the Lord,
knowing only the baptism of John : 26. And
he began to speak boldly in the synagogue.
Whom when Aquilla and Piiscilla had heard,
they took him unto them, and expounded unto
him the way of God more perfectly : 27. And
when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the
brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to re-
ceive him." It is evident from this passage
of scripture, that the baptizm of John, signi-
fies a Christ to come, and by no meanS intends
a distinct baptism, from the new testament
baptism, the christian baptism.
Let us now .attend to that passage : Acts..
xix. 1. " And it came to pass while Apol-
los was at Corinth, Paul having passed thi( ugh
the upper coasts, came to Ephesus ; aid find-
ing certain disciples, 2 — He said unto them,
" Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
believed? And they said unto him, we have
not so much as heard whether there Le any
tu
so
Holy Ghost : 3 — And he said unto them, trrv
to what then uvre ye baptized ? and they said
unto John's baptism : 4 — Then said Paul" I
will here pause to inquire, why Paul did not
now, address them as he had done before .'
and why this fourth verse did not begin as the
third, and second did, or whether the gram,
matical construction would have been in the
least injured had this, in the stead of " then
said Paul" read, 'and he said unto them :' I
conceive not ; and had he thus begun this
fourth verse, it would have altered the case
materially, "John verily baptized with the bap-
tism of repentance, saying unto the people that
they should believe on him, which should come
after him, that is on Christ Jesus : 5 — When
they heard this they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus : 6 — And when Paul had laid*
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on
them ; and they spake with tongues, and pro-
phesied."
We have before us in this account, three
parties, i. e. Paul, John's disciples, and the
Ephesians.
Paul : Have ye received the Holy Ghost,
since ye believed? John's disciples : We have
not so much as heard whether there be any Ho-
ly Ghost ; we have lived in a remote place
from Jerusalem, and have never seen any of
the disciples of Christ but of our own compa-
ny. ( Apollos perhaps and others) and would be
glad of instruction upon that subject, and would
willingly receive the Holy Ghost. And Paul
said unto them, unto what then were ye bap-
tized? (I perceive ye are believers.) John's
disciples : unto (or with) John's baptism.
44 Then said Paul," (and I very believe he
now addressed tie Ej lesions) '4 John verily
baptized with the baptism of repentance, say.
ing unto the people" (to whom he preached or
whom he was to baptize) "4 that they should
believe on him which should come after him,
that is on Christ Jesus." Now before we pro-
ceed any further, we will ask, if common sense
will admit that Paul knew how, and in what
manner John baptized ; as well as those that
were baptised by him. All that Paul knew?
about John and his baptism, was by hearsay ;
"what John's disciples knew, was by experience.
I will a-k again, if Paul was so destitute of
common sense as to inform men of any thing
they were better acquainted with than he was;
and if it is not far moie reasonable and fully a*
grammatical, to believe that Paul was address-
ing the Ephesians in the 4ch and 5th verses,
informing them of John's method of baptism,
and assuring them, that although, since the
resurrection of our Lord, we baptize in the
name of the Trinity, it was not so before ; for
all that were baptized before the suffering of
our Lord, could not be baptized otherwise
than as in a Saviour to suffer. If they had been
baptized in any other way, they would not
have given the ordinance its proper significa-
tion ; and they would in effect, have witnessed
a falsehood, but since he has suffered, he left
command to baptize in the name of the Trinity;
and these men, like the eloquent Apollos, liav-
92
irgbccn Tar from us the apostles of our Lord,
aod having nut had an opportunity of better
b. struct ion : receive them therefore into \o'ur
f How -i .!|i, and treat them as brethren. But
er, if cur construction of this passage is
Wrong, t! e apostle must have In en guiltv of
an tin r. that we are sure he was not capable
cf; thai is of baptizing them as John had done.
We hear of no in*tni< tion given to them bv tne
apostle, respecting the difference of a coming,
and a crucified saviour, (surely an apostle
would not have been less diligent in his instruc-
tion, than a private christian and his wife had
b' en with Apollos) of the difference of Christ
Jesus, and the Trinity; but simply '• when they
heard this," (which they knew better than he
that told them did, if it was them he spoke to)
" they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus." I ask what is the difference between
" Christ Jesus" and " Lord Jesus." It is evi-
dent beyond contradiction, jhat the 4th and 5th
verses of this chapter, were addressed to the
l.phesians, and not to John's disciples ; and it
is farther evident that the apostle would not
have baptized them in the name of the Lord
Jesus, when the command of our Lord was,
to baptize in the name of the Trinity.
If he did baptize them thus, he violated the
command of Christ, (this we cannot believe)
ai d the poor disciples were no better instruct-
ed, consequently no better baptized by ah
apostle, than they had been By John, or one of
his disciples. If you could make it appear
that Paul baptized in u different way rom John,
9'3
it might answer you some purpose; but until
you can prove that John baptized without au-
thority from God, your arguments will only
serve to shew your enmity to the ordinance of
Christ. If John's disciples were re- baptized
a thousand times, it will by no means destroy
his authority, as he received it from God.
Their not having heard of, or received the Ho-
ly Ghost, is not at all surprising, as they had
not been at Jerusalem. And what you oifer
as a reason why Paul asked the question, i. e.
" That the gift of the Holy Ghost was given
before, or after baptism," is not true, as it was
by the laying on of the apostles hands generally,
that that gift was given ; and there is no instance
of the gift of the Holy Ghost given to any, only
in the presence of an apostle, except Paul,* who
was to be an apostle. Why did the apostles
send Peter, and John to Samaria ? Philip had
baptized there, both men and women, and they
had not received the Holy Ghost ; the reason
was, it was given only by the laying on of the
hands of one of the twelve.
Verse 6. u And when Paul had laid his
hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon
them and they spake with tongues and prophe-
* Suppose it should be denied that Paul was regularly bap-
tized, and his baptism called in question by an infidel, how
would you prove that Ananias was baptized ? 1 should say God
commanded him, and that was sufficient, whether he was bap-
tized or not: yo\i will say he was a disciple, so were the
twelve that were at Ephesus ; we might demand who baptized
Peter, and Philip ; but for my part I am not disposed to doubt
tlte authority of any, who acted in the apostolic day by the
command of God ; neither do I apprehend it the greatest mark
of piety, in any that do it,
M
sied." Why was it not said they were baptized
In the name of the Father, Son, and H >ly
Ghost ? But not a wo»d of it : it is therefore
evident that they were not re-baptized, but that
their baptism was confirmed by Paul, and the
Holy Ghost. Tne piety, and obedience of the
apostle, forbid the belief that they were re-
baptized ; for he would in that act, have called
in question the authority of God, as you have
done ; and invalidated the baptism of our bles-
sed Lord, and two of his disciples at least, if
not the whole of them. As you are the stan-
dard by which the word of God is to be deci-
ded, will you inform us who it was that re-
baptized Apollos? "that eloquent man that
was mighty in the scriptures ; instructed in
the way of the Lord ; fervent in the spirit ; but
still, knew only the baptism of John."
We cannot forbear smiling to find, after you
have derided us, by calling us anabaptists,
you very gravely tell us, Paul was an anabap-
tist ; and for once, admit we have done right,
as we practise as you suppose, the apostle did.
But this we do not suppose you intended as a
compliment, consequently we give you no cre-
dit lor it.
Your very light expressions, when speaking
of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, do you no
credit ; and your comparing the sound, that
proceeds from your sinful heart and lips, to the
sound as of a mighty rushing wind, occasioned
by the descent of the Holy Ghost, is so filled
with enmity, if not blasphemy, that I know not
what to say of it. Your words are in page 68^
V5
uTf sound were immersion, all whom we bap.
tized would be immersed: as we geneially
speak loud enough for the sound to fill the
house, yet the water only falls on those uho
are baptized. So it was at the day of Pente-
cost : the sound filled the house, but the Holy
Ghost sat only on each of them like cloven
tongues of lire." Surely in this as in most
other things- in your book, yen are endeavor-
ing to lead your admirers into error : you
would have your readers believe that the sym-
bol of fire, was a common thng when the Ho-
ly Ghost was communicated, i ut, sir, it is
not the fact : the Holy Ghost was communi-
cated in a variety of instances, whtn there was
not the least visible appearance, ; nay, the in-
stance recorded in Acts is the only instance of
the appearance of fire in the new testament,
at the time of the giving of the Holy Ghost.
Thus you endeavor to deceive, by keeping
back part of the sacred texts.
Our blessed Lord in his last interview with
his disciples told them that " They should be
baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days
thence:" Acts. i. 5. And accordingly they
were baptized with it. For on the memora-
ble day of Pentecost, whilst " they were all
with one accord in one place, suddenly tl eie
came a sound fr m heaven as < f a rrshirg
mighty wi» d, ai d it fill d all the house where
they were sitting : and there appeared ui to
them eleven tongues like as of fire, a: d it sat
upon each of them :" Acts. ii. 1 — 3. It is ve-
ry evident from this passage that the Loly
96
Ghost did not descend in a wind ; and it is
equally evident that no wind filled the house,
for it is said that " the sound as of a rushing
mighty wind filled the house." This is a
comparison only, a likening of the Holy Ghost
in his descent to the noise of a rushing mighty
wind. The sound was evidently significant of
the approach of the spirit, and a mode of his
descending, as the cloven tongues of his ap-
pearance to their sight.
Now as a rushing mighty wind is irresisti-
ble in its course, and necessarily surrounds
and overwhelms the objects with which it
meets, it is a most fit emblem of the spirit's
operations on the mind. For in these opera-
tions, the whole soul is the subject, being
transformed and renewed altogether. If a ves-
sel containing certain substances, be filled
with water, those substances will certainly be
covered over with the water. Now as the
body is represented to be the temple of the
Holy Ghost, the soul, which it contains, must
be completely overwhelmed in a spiritual sense
by his operations : therefore the comparison
above instituted is appropriately selected for
the purpose of illustrating the ordinance of
water baptism.
In relation to the cloven tongues as of fire,
it is stated that " it sat upon each of them."
The " it" evidently refers not to the tongues,
but to the fire diffusing itself in appearance
over them in the form of those torgues. And
as no particular part is mentioned as the seat
of the fire or of the tongues, it mav be rational-
91
\y supposed that a lambent flame in appearance
rested on and enveloped them, presenting the
forms as of cloven tongues.
In the same page, (68th) you say M Butter-
worth and Taylor, in their concordances agree
on this point, saying baptism is put for the
affusion of the Holy Ghost." Butterworth's
words are, " Baptism is (1.) An ordinance of
the new testament, instituted by Jesus Christ,
whereby a professed believer in Christ, is, in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, immersed in, and covered
with water ; and then is raised out of it, as a
sign of his fellowship with Christ in his death,
burial, and resurrection, and a sign of his own
death to sin, and resurrection to newness of
life here, and life eternal hereafter;" (2) it is
put for, the plentiful effusion of the grace and
gifts of the holy spirit : (3) the overwhelming
sufferings of Christ : (4) a vital union to ana
one-ness with Christ, by sovereign love, and
the all-pervading operations of the holy spirit.'*
In page 76, you say, " To shew what he
{meaning Christ) was baptized for." "it was
to fulfil the law of the Levitical Priesthood :
for when Christ came to John to be baptized,
he was surprised,," If he was surprised, it is
easily accounted for. That the Son of Gcd
should condescend to be baptized by one of
his fallen creatures, was an act of such conde-
scension, that we ought to think, speak, and
write of it, with reverence and astonishment
indeed. If the angels in heaven were silent,
when they beheld the amazing works cf God ;
98
much more ought we mortal men to be astonish-
ed to think of the condescension of the. Son of
God, in humbling himself to submit to, and
partake of, the same ordinance with his rebel-
lious creatures. We would have thought that
John's surprise would not have permitted you
to believe that Christ went to him to be bap-
tized to fulfil the Levitical law ; (if indeed he
was surprised, though I read nothing of it ; it
may be so however in your testament ;) for it
was not uncommon among the Jews to wash
their priests; nay, they could not officiate with-
out it. It is therefore very unreasonable to
suppose that he was surprised, if that had been
the fact. It was true they were not washed in
rivers, but at the door of the tabernacle. From
hence, however, the surprise might have
arisen.
I will now point out the absurdity of your
declaration ; and show the enmity you have to
the ordinance of Christ. We will show how
the priests under the Levitical law were conse-.
crated : Exo. xxix. 4. " And Aaron and his
sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the taber-
nacle of the congregation, and shall wash them
with water : v. 5. And thou shalt take the
garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the
robe and the ephod, and the breast plate, and
gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod:
v. 6. And thou shalt put the mitre upon his
head, and put the holy garment upon the mitre:
v. 7. Thou shalt then take the anointing oil,
and pour it upon his head and anoint him : v.
8. And thou shalt bring his sons and put
99
coats upon them : v. 9. And thou shalt gird
them with girdles (Aaron and his sons) and
put the bonnets on them ; and the priest's office
shall be theirs for a perpetual statute."
Now, sir, tell us if it would be lawful to con-
secrate a priest in any other way. It is true,
j'ou are not very particular, but would you
have had a hand m consecrating any other
priest, but Jesus Christ, in any other way than
is here commanded: or have you read any
thing like this taking place on the banks of Jor-
don. When our Lord put the question con-
cerning the baptism of John to the chief priests
and elders — " the baptism of John, whence was
it, from heaven or of men ?" Why did they not
say, ■ of the fathers — it was a Jewish washing :
we demand an answer in the fear of God.
They must have known better than you can,
for they were upon the spot. What was their
answer — carnal reason and self prevailed, as they
do now — "we cannot tell." Why could they
not tell ? The fact was, they knew it was from
heaven as well as you do ! " but they reason-
ed" (like too many now do) " with themselves,
saying, if we shall say, from heaven ; he will
say unto us, why did ye not then believe him ?
But if we shall say of men; we fear the peo-
ple, for all hold John as a prophet." Here we
have the very reason why John's baptism is
now disputed. " If we shall say it is from
heaven," honest men will say, why do ye then
act contrary to his example ? why do ye bap-
tize any, but such as do bring forth fruit meet
for repentance ? You very well know that John
100
would not baptize the children of Abraham,
as such, nor any that did not profess repen-
tance. And rather than men will convict
themselves, and give room to others to charge
them with acting contrary to their own opinion ;
they, like the priests and elders will say, we
cannot tell ; or rather worse, not fearing the
people, nor God himself! it is a Mosaic rite !
it is a Jewish washing ! it was under the law,
it is not the christian baptism ! May the great
head of the church, look mercifully upon such,
and cause them to turn from the error of their
ways.
Why did the priests and Levites send mes-
sengers to John, to ask him who he was ? If
his baptism had been a common priestly wash-
ing ; surely they, who had been themselves
washed for their office, could not have been
strangers to the law of Moses,' and the ceremo-
nies practised upon such an occasion ! They
well knew there was an ordinance introduced,
never before practised, and they declare this to
all who will read the narrative by their interro-
gations. " And they said unto him, who art
thou, that we may give an answer to them that
sent us ; what sayest thou of thyself? And he
said, I am the voice of one crying in the wil-
derness, make straight the way of the Lord, as
said the prophet Esaias. And they asked him
and said unto him, why baptizest thou then,
if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias neither
that prophet :" Jiio. i. 22, 23, 25. Mark !
■ ** Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that
Christ?" This is a proof of two important
101
facts. — First, that the baptism of Christ was
not a Jewish washing. — Second, that baptism,
as a religious rite, was never practised before.
]f the washing of the priests for fourteen hun-
dred and ninety years had been done in the
way that John baptized our Lord ; is it net
very surprising that the land of Judah, and Je-
rusalem should be in such consternation ! and
is it not very remarkable that we have not read
of God's judgments upon them for the viola-
tion of his law ! " Uzzah put forth his hand
to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the
oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord
was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote
him there for his error, and there he died by the
ark of God :" 2 Sam!, vi. 6, 7' The crime
of this young man was not equal to the change
of the washing of the priests, as recorded in
the 29th chapter of Exodus : but we find
God's judgment executed against him ; and.
surt'y if the priests had deviated from the
law, we should have read of their punishment
also. But they never had baptized any for
the priest's office ; they had washed them at
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
according to the command of God to Moses.,
And the introduction of baptism, was one cause
why they thought Join must be the Christ, it
never having been performed before.
It would be well, if professors of religion
would read, and well consider the case of Uz-
rah, and particularly ministers of the gospel.
If God smote this young man, for an act that
appeared really laudable, and praise- worthy,
12
102
and done in his zeal for the preservation of the
ark of God, because it was contrary to law ;
how ought men to fear in this day of greater
light ? not only to act themselves, but teach
others to act, contrary to the gospel. It would
be well for them frequently to read, and medi-
tate seriously on, the words of the apostle
Paul: Heb. viii. 5 and x. 28, 29 and xii. 25,
to 29. " See that ye refuse not" to obey the
commands of " him that speaketh : for if they
escaped not, who refused him that spake on
earth," (Moses) " much more shall not we es-
cape, if we turn away from him that speakest
from heaven," (Christ.) But what authority
had John to wash our Lord for the priest's of-
fice ? He was not of the priestly tribe, but of
the kingly. " For the priesthood being
changed," (from the tribe of Lej'i, to the tribe
of Judah) " there is made of necessity a change
also of the law." Why is there^of necessity
a change of the law ? or of the dispensation ?
Answer: "The law made nothing perfect :"
Heb. vii. 19. And if perfection were by the
Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people
received the law) what further need was there
that another priest should rise after the order
of Melchisedcck, and not be called after the or-
der of Aaron ? Thus you see, that by reason
of the imperfection of man, and of the law un-
der which he acted, Christ the God-man, in
in whom is perfection, and who was of a tribe
of greater dignity, was ordained of and anoint-
ed by, God, (not by a woman) and consecrated
a glorious high priest over his church, after the
103
end of the law ; for Paul tells us so explicitly :
Heb. vii. 28. " For the law maketh men high
priests which have infirmity : but the word of
the oath, which was since the law, maketh the
Son, who is consecrated forevermore." Thus
we see, that Christ was not a priest under the
law but since, or after it. Ali the ceremonies
under the Aaronic administration must there-
fore of necessity cease, and circumcision among
the rest, for it was attached thereto. " There
is made of necessity a change also of the law."
There must be under this new priesthood, en-
tire new laws, and regulations agreeably to the
dignity of the glorious priest, who, in introduc-
ing his new dispensation, was not to arise after
the order of Aaron, " but for ever after the or-
der of Melchisedeck." u There is made of ne-
cessity.'*? . It must be so according to the very
nature of the divine dispensation. Shall the
tribe of Lev* lose the priestly office ? Yes—
and shall it eternally be placed in the kingly-
tribe ? Yes — Shall the same man hold the
sceptre, and wear the priestly mitre ? Yes ! —
Astonishing change indeed in the w hole dis-
pensation ! " For he of whom these things are
spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which
no man gave attendance at the altar : for it is
evident our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which
tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priest-
hood : Heb. vii. 12. 13. 14. (Observe here*
the silence of Moses, is said by Paul, to be
proof, " evident proof" of a fact. Surely then
the silence of scripture about infant baptism
ought to be proof also, that it never was prac*
tised until revelation ceased.) Can we believe
that John, the faithful servant oi God, would
violate the law in such a manner, as to baptize
a son of Judah, to act in the office of the sons
of Levi ; which was entailed on them for a
perpetual statute "? We cannot ! But he might
have done so ignorantly ! Well thought of !
John was raised in the wilderness ! But now
we recollect ourselves, this apology will net
remove the error, for God commanded him
particularly to baptize Christ, and Christ him-
self submitted to the ordinance, so that if there
is an error, (and an error there undoubtedly ia
if he was baptized to fulfil the Levitical priest-
hood) and we remove it from John, we charge
it on the Father, and the Son ! * You must
give up this point, for it will not answer, thus
to persist in charges, against the clearest evi-
dence ! You must admit that John knew ChrV,
and baptized him as a priest of the New Testa-
ment dispensation, not after the order of Aaror,
but after the order of Melchisedcck, to an eter-
nal priesthood, and that He, submitting to bap-
tism, left an example for his people to follow !
Well, if this is admitted, and it must be ad-
mitted, or you will sin against the clearest
light ; what will become of infant baptism, and
your pamphlet. They must be cast to the
moles and the bats, or sent back to the church
of Rome, the Harlot, the mother of abomina-
tions.
* But such was the malice and envy of the Jews, that had
John attempted to wash Christ at the door of the tabernacle, as
11 priest of their order, he would no doubt, have been put to
tenth,' said it would iuve been lawful : >'uuib. ill. 10. xviii. r:
105
But, sir, we cannot leave your work yet.
It is too full of error and abomination, to let it
pass itself upon the world for reason and truth.
In page 77, you say : " And at a certain time,
a woman poured an alabaster box of ointment
upon his head : so he received a pouring of
oil as Aaron did. Therefore his baptism was
one of the divers baptism's under the law,"
(and children must be sprinkled !) Well done
Mr. R. Take care baptists ! Stand fast, and
dont suffer your faith to be overthrown ! We
shall next hear that Paul's mother was a Jew-
ess, therefore Paul could not be a christian
apostle. Surely the reasoning in one case, is
as good as that in the other ! "At a certain
time a woman:" why, poor John! you are
to be pitied, you must have a woman, and
Mr. R. to help you, or you cannot consecrate
Christ a priest after the order of Aaron : and
now you have not effected it, after all your la-
bor. Why John ! You made a wrong choice
of your woman ! Oh ! John, I ask your par-
don, it was Mr. Russell's choice! And if he
had made as good a choice as Saul, king of Is-
rael did, he might have had Moses brought
up, to have helped him out at a dead lift.
Don't be angry, sir, for Ave are sure that your
case required it, as much as Saul's did ! " A
woman poured oil upon his head ;" " there-
fore" (as a natural consequence) " his baptism
was one of the divers baptisms under the law."
This may do for some people, that cannot, or
will not read, and think for themselves ; but
we should be very sorry, if only one christian,
10(7
that hath a bible, and can read, would be so
imposed upon. Now let us view the differ-
ence between truth and error : Moses, autho-
rised, and directed by the God of wisdom,
doth his work at the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation, at once, and alone ; accord-
ing to the law of God, in that case made and
provided, which we read you some time ago.
But whenever we set men to do a work that
they have no authority for, or are unacquaint-
ed with, they stumble at the very threshold ;
and it is a thousand to one, if they ever accom-
plish their design. For instance, Mr. R. will
have John to make a common Jewish priest of
our Lord : to work he goes, and no doubt the
good man did his duty ! Well, how does the
case stand ? John the Baptist, not being a
priest, neither commanded of God to conse-
crate his son to the priestly office after the or-
der of Aaron, happened one day when he was
baptizing in Jordan, to have Jesus come to him
in the wilderness, and to demand baptism at
his hands, saying, suffer it to be so. John
baptized him;* but happening to have no oil
with him, he did not anoint him, although it
was commanded by the Mosaic law. This
event happened in the year of our Lord twenty-
* Whem Christ was baptized, there came aroice from hea-
ven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well plea-
sed ; and the Holy Ghost descended, lighting upon him. Thus
the first, and third persons of the Trinity, bore their testimo-
ny to the obedience of Christ. And Mr. R. says, he wa« at
that time violating the law of God ; which was the fact, if he
was washed to fulfil the Leviticallaw : and instead of bearing
testimony to his obedience, he ought by that law to have b«en
stoned to death : Numbers iii. 10. S* xviii. 7.
107
seven. In the year of our Lord thirty-three,"
Christ was in the house of Simon the leper.
u Then came unto him a woman ; having an
alabaster box of very precious ointment," (not
oil) and poured it upon his head, as he sat at
meat. Mr. R. says " to qualify him as priest."
John had neglected it for six years, and rather
than it should not be done, Mi*. R. makes this
woman do it. What a blessed thing is the
word of God ! How thankful we ought to be
for that gift, and the ability to read it. It will
detect error in every shape, however plausi-
bly, sophistry will represent it. Our blessed
Lord said, " she did it for his burial:" Matt.
xxvi. 13. " Verily I say unto you, whereso-
ever this gospel shall be preached in the whole
world, there shall also this, that this woman
hath done, be told for a memorial of her."
Let Mr. R. reflect if his representation of this
act of this pious woman, reflects honor on her,
or credit on himself.
You say page 78, " John's dispensation was,
as Mr. Moore says, an intermediate dispensa-
tion under the law.* If it was indeed under
the law, it cannot be between that, and the gos-
pel ; consequently that is an error. But, sir,
in what chapter and verse do you read of such
a dispensation. We read of an old, and new
* After my work was finished, and I had spoken to a prin»
ter, I met with a book written by Joseph Moore, which I sup-
pose to be the person Mr. R. intends. I feel it my duty to in-
form my readers, that Mr. M. was not as ignorant as Mr. R.
has represented him. He says page 6, " John's preaching/
and baptism, form a kind of an intermediate dispensation be*
tween the law and the gospel." •
108
testament, of a " new covenant," "of a better
covenant," " of a better testament ;" which \vc
understand as the new dispensation, under the
gospel ; as distinguished from the old, under
the law. But we no where read of an iritertne*
diate dispensation in the bible. You and your
friend Moore, have built this dispensation upon
the covenant, or rather law of circumcision, to
form a second foundation for infant sprinkling ;
and all the reasons that you offer in proof, are,
John said, Christ must increase, and he must
decrease ; and that John's disciples were re-
baptized ; (which we have disproved.) That
Christ did increase, and will continue to in-
crease, untill all his covenant people are gather-
ed together, is a fact at which we rejoice ; but
what has that to do with your intermediate
dispensation ? That by no means proves your
assertion. John's disciples going from him,
to Christ, caused a decrease of the one, and an
increase of the other, we admit ; and that was
always intended, it was a part of his errand,
and a very eminent part, to prepare the way,
as we have already shewn, by baptizing disci-
ples for his great Lord and master. And
John's decreasing as all mere men must, is no
proof whatever that his dispensation was an
intermediate one, and such a one as we have
no account of in scripture. You very often
take things for granted, without any authority,
but the authority of your own will, and give no
reason but your own declaration. But if John's
disciples had been baptized a thousand times,
it would by no means prove your unscripturai
109
dispensation. What do you understand by
*' intermediate" in this connection ? Newton
says it is " intervening; interposed." Taylor
says, u intervene is to come between persons
or things." Wotton says, it is " opposition."
Swift says, " interpose, from the Latin inter-
ponoj to thrust in as an obstruction, interrup-
tion, or inconvenience." Boyle says, " to inter-
pose"— (l) '* to mediate, to act between two
parties" — (2) " to put in by way of interrup-
tion." Woodward says, " to interpose, to
offer succour or relief." Surely, sir, you can-
not [\dmit that John came with any such views,
he did not come as a mediator : that was
Christs' office. He did not come to relieve or
succour, that also was Christs' province ; and
surely he did not come with the hostile inten-
tion, of interruption, or opposition, in direct
violation of his acknowledged commission ;
which was to " prepare the way of the Lord,
and make his paths straight." Our blessed
Lord said, " The law and the prophets were
until John : since that time the kingdom of
heaven is preached, and every man presses into
it:" Luke xvi. 16. Again, " For all the pro-
phets and the law prophesied until John :"
Matt. xi. 13. When John entered upon his
ministry, prophecy ceased : nay, the prophets
had nothing more to do. All the prophecies
had immediate respect to Christs' coming, and
when he came they ceased of course. But to
put John upon an eouality with the prophets,
under the law, is degrading. Our Lord said,
he was more than a prophet, " than any pro-
110
phet." He alone had the honor of saying,
" Behold the Lamb of God ;" of baptizing
Christ, and his disciples for him; and of preach-
ing the first gospel sermon under the new dis-
pensation, "saying the kingdom of heaven is at
hand," (Christ is in the flesh.) This was the
whole of his mission, and as soon as he ac-
complished his work, he decreased, and dis-
appeared. But to attempt to continue the
law, under the gospel dispensation, because it
was absolutely necessary, from the very nature
of that dispensation that John should act as he
did ; is certainly a great abuse of scripture.
If u the law and the prophets were until John"
entered upon his ministry, surely they ceased
when his mission began ; consequently the old
dispensation ended, and the new or gospel dis-
pensation commenced. This is evident be-
yond contradiction from the words of our
Lord, quoted before ; i. e. " The law and the
prophets were until John, since that time the
kingdom of heaven is preached." You cannot
deny that the kingdom of heaven in this place
means the gospel dispensation; and if it does,
how can you have the face to say, John's was
an intermediate one, under the law ; in direct
contradiction of the words of Christ. No sir,
the moment the law-dispensation ceased, which
was the moment that John entered upon his
mission, the gospel dispensation commenced ;
which is further evidenced by the words of
Mark and Paul, Anno Dom. 26 : Mark i. 1 —
3. " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus
Christ the Son of God, as it is written in the
Ill
prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face which shall prepare thy way before
thee. The voice of one crying in the wilder-
ness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight." But the apostle Paul puts it
beyond doubt : Heb. vii. 28. " For the law
maketh men high priests which have infirmi-
ty : but the word of the oath which was since
the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated
forevermore." If we admit that John's dis-
pensation was under the law, we say Christ had
infirmity, that is, was not perfect, which is
contrary to truth and common sense ; for the
apostle saith the Son was made a priest by oath
since the law, and continues forevermore ; and
Mr. M. and you are mistaken, or make de-
clarations contrary to your better judgment.*
In page 48, you say, " We have reason there-
fore to believe that as Adam labored for the
bread of life, so also that he labored in sacri-
fice to secure an interest in the covenant before
it was made, and so became Abraham's."
You have a wonderful faith ! a strong faith in-
deed. But faith not founded on the word of
God, is mere delusion, and presumption.
Why have you reason to believe all this ? We
are sure that you have no reason from scrip-
ture, for there is not the smallest intimation of
* John's being called a prophet doth not suppose him to
have been under the legal dispensation, or between the law
and the gospel. Barnabas and Saul (Paul) are called pro-
phets: Acts. xiii. 1. "Follow after charity, and desire spi-
ritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy :" 1 Cor. 14. 1.
Again, " And he gave some, apo6tles : and some prophets ;"
Eph. iv. 11.
112
it there ! For us to believe what God has re-
vealed, is our duty ; nay, we cannot be chris-
tians unless we do. But for us to imagine
things, and take to ourselves the credit of be-
lieving them, is mere delusion. I am con-
vinced, if you could have devised a better way
to vindicate your unscriptural rite of infant
sprinkling, you never would have gene back
two thousand years to reveal to Adam, in di-
rect opposition to what God had revealed to
him, that the seed of man was to be his Saviour.
We believe that Adam, and all after him were
saved in faith of the seed of the woman, but
not as you do in the covenant to be made with
Abraham ; but in the one already made ivith
Christ, and revealed to Adam for his belief and
comfort. What other assurance could they
have, or could they want, than that the seed of
the woman should overcome the serpent, sa-
tisfy for their sin, and bring in an everlasting
righteousness which should be accepted, and
become the ground of their justification. We
have no room for thinking, much less for be-
lieving, that Adam ever had the least thought
of Abraham.
We shall take a little notice of your " He-
brew church which you say was built upon the
Abrahamic covenant through the faith of the
gospel ; is now standing and will remain to the
end of time." In page 3d, you intend to in-
form your readers, that the visible church of
Christ is the same now that it was under the
law, with a little variation in its ordinances,
" as a man with his apparel changed, still re-
113
mains the same." This you took from EcU
wards, but have not been honest enough to
give him credit for it. Be that as it may, you!
have made it your own. If we understand
you, you make the gospel church, as to its
members, to be precisely what the Jewish
church was, and that there is no more altera-
tion in it, than there would be in the same man
with a change of apparel.
You admit (because you cannot deny) that
the disciples of Christ baptized. Very well.
Wliottt did they baptize ? It must have been
the Jews, for they were commanded, " Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any
city of the Samaritans enter ye .,ot, but go to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel :" Matt.
x. 5. 6. What did his disciples baptize them
for ? They had been circumcised, and that was
sufficient, as you say, for their entering into
Christ's church. It is something mysterious
that they should have two ordinances to initi-
ate them into the same church, for you say this
is the way of initiation : circumcision former-
ly, baptism now7. Why, it wot: Id appear from
your statement ; and the facts recorded in
scripture, that all the New Testament ministers
were anabaptists. If baptism came, as you
say, in place of circumcision, it is as much re-
baptism to baptize those who were circum-
cised, as to baptize those that had been bap-
tized r and that John thus acted, is as evident
as that he existed; and that the disciples of our
Lord, from the very nature of their command,
must have done the same, I hope you will not
k. 2
114
deny. You have accounted already in your
way for the baptism of Christ. He entered
the church you say by circumcision, and his
baptism was a Jewish washing. But, sir, I
must ask you again, why were his disciples
baptized, and why did they baptize the Jews?
This does not appear like a change of apparel,
it looks more like a new garment over the old !
This strange conduct in Christ and his disci-
ples, agreeably to your assertions, must be ac-
counted for ; and as you have loaded them with
the charge, you must vindicate their conduct,
or confess your wrong. You set out with
Abraham as our example, and ask more in the
gospel day for admission into the Jewish
church, than Abraham had required of him.
The apostle has led us to believe that the yoke
of bondage was taken off, and Christ told his
disciples " his yoke was easy, and his burden
light." But you have indeed contradicted
them both : beside, you make a difference in
the head, and the members of the church.
C»»lst the head, entered the church by circum-
cision. The members enter doubly, by cir-
cumcision in their infancy, and then by bap-
tism, when they believe. How, sir, can you
with propriety, ask more of any member, than
was required of Abraham, or than Christ per-
fofmed? If you are correct in your declarations,
these are the consequences that follow : Abra-
ham the first member of the gospel church,
entered by circumcision, and his sons and male
servants entered in the same way : but Sirah,
the mother of the seed, the free woman, and
115
all her daughters, however pious, shall have no
place in the church of Christ. Again, Christ,
the head of the church, after he was born of ihe
virgin, entered the church at eight days old by
circumcision; but all, that entered the church
after John commenced his ministry, were com-
pelled to enter by baptism, notwithstanding
they had been circumcised at eight days old.
We find you have two doors to ycur church.
But perhaps you will object and say, before
Christ entered upon his ministry, it was proper
to circumcise them ; but after he sent out his
disciples to preach, and baptize, then they en-
tered only by baptism, whether men, women,
or children. I must remind you of your error,
sir, for you have told us that the reason why
Christ did not baptize the children that were
brought to him, that he might lay his hands
on them, and pray, was " because they were
all circumcised at eight days old :" page 27.
We are not backward in saying, that neither
Christ, nor John the Baptist, nor the apostle
Paul ever acknowledged the Jewish church to
be the church of Christ, after the commence-
ment of the christian aera, which we think was
introduced at John's baptism.
First — Christ did not acknowledge the Jews
to be in, or of his church. But were not all the
disciples of Christ, Jews? Yes. , Then they
had been circumcised and were in that church.
Hear the words of Christ to these disciples :
" If the world hate you, ye know that it hated
me before it hated you. If ye were of the
world, the world would love his own : but be-
lid
cause ye ?.re not of the world, but I have cho-
sen you out of the world, therefore the world
hateth you:" Jno. xv. 18. 19. Who was it
that hated Christ and his disciples ? The Jews.
Who \vas it that Christ in this passage call the
world ? The Jews. Where were the disciples
of Christ, when John baptized them? In the
Jewish church. Then it is evident that Christ
did not acknowledge the church in which they
were, to be his church, for he called them out
of it, denominating it the world. But that
there may not a doubt remain, that the Jewish
church was here intended by the world, read the
25th verse of this chapter. " That the word
might be fulfilled that is written in their law.
They hated me without a cause." Again :
Christ speaking to the Scribes, Pharisees, and
Jews; " Ye are from beneath, I am from above;
ye are of this world, I am not of this world :"
Jno. viii. 23. " Yc are of your father the de-
vil, and the lusts of your lather ye will do:" 44th
verse. From these passages it is clearly seen
that Christ never did acknowledge the Jewish
church as his, or himself of them, after he was
come in the flesh. In the twenty-third chap-
ter of Matthew, he denounces eight woes
against the Scribes and Pharisees, calls them
hypocrites, and says, u Ye compass sea and
land to make one proselyte, and when he is
made, ye make him two-fold more the child
of hell then yourselves ! Ye serpents, ye gene-
ration of vipers, how can ye escape the damna-
tion of hell." This, sir, is the sample of the
church of the meek and lovely Jesus, accord-
117
irtg to j our absurd declarations. I hope you
will reflect upon t'ne dishonor you are doing
God, and repent and retract. Secondly — John
the Biptist did not acknowledge them to be
the church of Christ, because they were the
children of Abraham ; but required higher
qualifications. " But when he saw many of
the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his bap-
tism, he said unto them, O generation of vi-
pers ! who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come ? Bring forth, therefore, fruits
meet for repentance. And think not to say
within yourselves, we have Abraham to our
father : for I say unto you, God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham :"
Matt. iii. 7 — 9. That they applied to John
for baptism, we prove by Luke iii. 7. It is
therefore evident, John did not acknowledge
them to be the church of Christ, because they
were of the Jewish church, but evidently re-
fused them the gospel ordinance of baptism,
when they required it on that ground.
Thirdly — The apostle Paul dees not ac*
knowledge them to be the church of Christ.
He makes a clear distinction between the Jew-
ish religion, and the religion of Christ. " For
ye have heard of my conversation in time past,
hi the Jews religion, how that beyond measure,
I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it.
And profited in the Jews religion above many
my equals in mine own nation, being more
exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my
fathers. But when it pleased God, and called
me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that
118
I might preach among the heathen, imn
ately I conferred not with flesh and blood :"
Gal. i. 13 — 1G. Paul acknowledges that the
religion of the Jews, after their rejection of
Christ, was not the religion of God, for when
he was of that religion he persecuted the
church of God, and in this he acted in a more
violent manner than many others of the Jews.
Why did he thus act ? Because he had a great-
er zeal in the Jews religion, and the traditions
of the fathers. From this it is evident, that
the Jews were the best, and most zealous of
their church, who persecuted the church of
Christ most, and wasted it. This is evident,
from the whole history of that people, from the
first commencement of the church of Christ,
under the gospel. Yet we find men still zeal-
ous of the tradition of the fathers, and as much
as they can, endeavor to deface the beauty of,
(if not waste) the church of Christ.
We will prove by the Jews themselves that
they were not of the church of Christ. " But
when the Pharisees heard it, they said this fel-
low doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub
the prince of the devils :" Matt. xii. 27. " For
the Jews had agreed already, that if any man
did confess that he was Christ, he should be
put out of the synagogue :" Jno. ix. 22. This
agreement must have been made by the Jews,
in a church capacity, for the punishment they
inflicted was a church censure ; and it evi-
dently proves that Christ could not have been
a member of that church. (That Mr. R. should
say the Jewish church was the church of
119
Christ is as astonishing as any thing in his
book. I am surprised that any man could
have the face to make such a declaration. {
was surprised at Edwards in making it, but
he had a little more modesty.) " WeJ know
that God spake unto Moses : as for this fellow,
we know not from whence he is:" v. 29.
These, sir, are the declarations of the Phari-
sees, not the rabble, but the chief men of that
Jewish church. They reviled the man that
had been blind, and said ; " Thou art his dis-
ciple, but we are Moses' disciples:" v. 28.
I do not believe that Tom Paine would have
said, Christ was a member of the Jewish
church !
They not only denied Christ to be the head
of the gospel church, but they persecuted his
apostles and members. u Then the high priest
rose up and all they that were with him, and
were filled with indignation, and laid their
hands on the apostles, and put them in the
common prison:" Acts. v. 17. 18. "And
they stoned Stephen calling upon God :" Ibid,
vii. 59. " And the Jews made insurrection,
with one consent against Paul, saying, this fel-
low persuadeth men to worship God contrary
to the law:" Acts, xviii. 12. 13. " For we
have found this man, (Paul) a pestilent fellow,
and a mover of sedition among all the Jews,
throughout the world, and a ring-leader of the
sect of the Nazarenes." From these quota-
tions is it easily perceived that the Jews as a
church, never received Christ or his disciples,
but contrary-wise. It is easily discovered that
120
they were their greatest enemies, and persecu-
tors. Paul is called a ring-leader of the sect
of theNazarenes, that is, one of the most zeal-
ous preachers, and followers of Christ. They
never acknowledged Christ or his disciples to
be a church, but viewed them as disturbers of
the peace, and enemies of the law of Moses,
and traditions of the fathers. And without
doubt had no more to do together as a church,
then the baptists, and methodists have. How
truly ridiculous doth it appear, and how incon-
sistent with reason and scriptui-c, that these
very priests, Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Sanhedrim ,and people of the Jewish nation,
that falsely accused Christ, crying crucify
him ! crucify him ! should still be members
of his church. Great God ! deliver men
from such infidelity.
We read, that under the sermon of Peter,
many converts were made. And it is after-
wards said, ** That about three thousand were
added to the church the same day :" Acts. ii.
41. " And that God added to the church dai-
ly such as he would have to be saved." Is it
possible to conceive that these Jews were added
to the church, they were members of before ;
to the Hebrew church as you call it ? No sir,
it is unreasonable to believe it, and that they
were Jews, read the 36th verse. " Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly that
God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ :" — and v. 41.
** Three thousand of them are said to be added
to the church." " Tidings of these things
121
came unio the ears of the church, which was
at Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas
that he should go as far as Antioch:" Acts,
xi. 22. But according to your declaration
Barnabas must have been sent to preach, not by
the disciples, but by their enemies, and the
enemies of Christ, that is by the Jewish nation,
for it was the church that sent him ; and as
the whole of that nation, of all ages and de-
scriptions, (females excepted) were members
of that church, there must have been a vast
number of Jewish children concerned in sending
this good man to exhort their enemies to cleave
to the Lord with full purpose of heart ; and
thereby aid in the propagation of the very
gospel, the Jews were endeavoring to destroy.
1 will remind you of a text, and close this
head : Eph. ii. 15. " For to make in himself
of twain one new man." The apostle intends
by the new man, the church of Christ. And
this new man is made out of Jews and gentiles,
and so made, it is a new man, not an old tnan,
as the Jewish church was. Fourteen hundred
and ninety years old, and but a new man !
This shews that in taking away this partition,
Jesus distinguished between the Jews and gen-
tiles, and placed them on a level as to religious
rites, and then out of doth made a new man or
church, and that quite different from both Pa-
gan and Jewish institutions. If he had brought
the gentile church into the Jewish, it would
have been fourteen hundred and ninety years
old, consequently a very old man. The like
might be said, had he brought the Jewish into
122
Paganism, it still would have been nothing
more than an old man. But says Paul, it is a
new man, a new church of Christ; " built
upon the foundation of the apostles and pro-
phets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner stone.'*
I will now give you a few pages in the
words of Mr. White in answer to Mr. P.
Edwards, which you will receive as in sub-
stance an answer to your arguments on the
same subject.
" Mr. E. says in page 40, there is a " same-
ness of the church state among the gentiles,
with that among the Jews," and a change of
institutes he contends, page 39, " will in itself
produce no more alteration in the members of
the church, than a change in a man's diet will
destroy the idenity of the man " From these
quotations, we find that he makes the gospel
church, as to its members, to be precisely what
the Jewish church was ; and he says, the gos-
pel church is nothing more than the man ap-
pearing in new cloathes.
" If this definition is true, he has hereby, in
the most explicit manner, cut off all females
from membership in the gospel church ; for
he says, page 33, that circumcision is, " a
public entering into church fellowship." If it
was by circumcision persons entered into the
church, then females were never in it ; and if
the church is the same under the gospel, of
course females cannot be admitted therein.
14 Mr. E. vindicates the membership of Jew-
ish infants by the promise made to Abraham,
123
41 I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee." If this is the warrant, and by the
seed is meant his natural posterity, then indeed
females were in the Jewish church; unless Mr.
E. would deny them to be the seed of Abra-
ham ; and if this is the case, (which it surely
must, if the scripture just quoted is that on
which he relies) then they did not become
members by circumcision, and of course, his
beautiful type of baptism is entirely lost, and
his reasoning from analogy is foolishness.
And if what he says is true that circumcision
was a li token that God would be a God to
Abraham and his seed," and this promise re-
lated to things purely spiritual ; it will follow,
that the females had no interest in God as their
God — no hope of salvation from him ! — must
be lost, and all spiritual blessings belong to
the males exclusively. If any thing more is
necessary to represent in its true colors, the
absurdity of Poedobaptist views concerning
Abraham's covenant, I am much mistaken ;
for by it females were shut out of the church,
and excluded from heaven, our opponents hav-
ing declared Abraham's covenant to be the
covenant of grace.
" Mr. E. cannot rest without having granted
to him, that circumcision was the door into
the church, and baptism is now in the place of
it. If it was the door into the church, and
baptism has come in its place, the door was a
very narrow one indeed ; so much so, that it
would not admit females into the church. We
need not wonder therefore, that he denied them
124
a place at the Lord's table, when they could
not enter in the door. Let us hear no more
of charity, ye advocates of infant church mem-
bership ; for not content with refusing infant
females a place in the church of old, you have
now outdone the baptists entirely, who deny
the right to infants, as such ; whereas your
door into the church excludes females of what-
ever age, or however pious. But this does
the business for Mr. E.'s division of the sub-
jects of baptism into adults and infants, when
he says, that adults ought not to be baptized
without repentance and faith, though infants
may without either. It is well known, that
adults among the Jews had circumcision ad-
ministered to them without any evidence of
grace, yea, when extremely wicked in their
life ; neither is there any evidence that any
spiritual qualifications were required in order
thereunto. But if the Jewish and gospel
churches are the same, then, according to that
rule, no gracious qualifications are to be requir-
ed of any person in order to membership in the
gospel church ; and Mr. E.'s talk about faith
and repentance being necessary to adult bap-
tism, must not be sincere. It does follow,
therefore, that either the Jewish and gospel
churches are not one and die same, and that
circumcision is no rule for the administration
of baptism ; or else that the church is not the
church, and the rule is not the rule.
" The materials of the Jewish church were
different from those of the gospel. 1. They
were all the posterity of one man, together
V25
with their servants bought with money. This
cannot be disputed ; for if circumcision was
an initiating ordinance, and male servants were
circumcised, then, of course, they were mem-
bers : Gen. xvii. 27. 2. No grace was ne-
cessary, in either young or aged persons, in
order to circumcision. This will appear from
the command being general, to circumcise eve-
ry male child : Gen. xvii. 10 : — and surely
none will attempt to assert, that all the male
posterity of Abraham were renewed persons ?
That no grace was requisite, appears from the
circumcising of all the sons of Shechem : Gen.
xxxiv. 24. — from the circumcising of a whole
army of adults and infants, without distinction:
Josh. v. 7. — i hi the circumcising of a wicked
Ishmael : Gen. xxvii. 27. —and, in that no di-
rection is any where given to require religious
experience prior thereto, even from adults.
" In direct opposition to all this, the gospel
church was formed out of no one fomilv, nor
of a few families; nor yet did all of a family
belong, because one had embraced the gospel ;
much less was it confined to one nation, or one
country. Neither are the servants of a family
members of the gospel church, on account of
their master embracing religion, nor do our
opponents pretend to such a thing ; much less
did they in the church of Christ force their
servants to be baptized, as the Jews compelled
their bought servants to be circumcised. But
the churches of Jesus Christ were made up of
persons who had been converted under the gos-
pel, nor do we ever hear of any other: Acts.
L 2
126
ii. 41. " Then they that gladly received his-
word were baptized ; and the same day there
were added unto them about three thousand
souls." These were, u added," not to the
Jewish church; for to that they did belong be-
fore. Such as were its members, it is said,
were added by God, and were in a state of sal-
vation : Acts. ii. 47. u And the Lord added
to the church daily such as sJiould be saved."
The gospel churches are spoken of thus : '* Be-
loved of God, called to be saints: Rom. i. 7.
V Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,
to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, cal-
led to be saints .*" 1 Cor. i. 2. " Unto the
church of God which is at Corinth, with all the
saints which are in all Achaia:" 2 Cor. i. |.
4C To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to
the faithful in Christ Jesus :" Eph. i. 1. " To
all the taints in Christ Jesus, which are at.
Philippi:" Phil. i. 1. " Unto the church of
the Thessalonians, which is in God the Fathery
and in the Lord Jesus Christ:" 1 Thes. i. 1.
" Unto the church of the Thessalonkins, in
God our lather, and the Lord Jesus Christ :"
2 Thes. i. 1.
" This contrast shews plainly, that the two
are as wide apart as the poles, and that while
no grace was required to be a member of the
former, but only a willingness to be circum-
cised; on the other hand, persons however
pious, who were not of that nation, were not
reckoned to belong to it, nor yet wtvc they
commanded to be circumcised. This is evi-
dent in the case of Lot, Abraham's brother's.
son. Yet, in the gospel church, no inquiry
is made about family, or nation. But if what
Mr. E. affirms is true, that the infants of be-
lievers are to be baptized, because Jewish in-
fants were circumcised ; then, irom what I
have just proved, it will appear that their
bought servants are also to be baptized, yeat
forced to it ; and, what is worst of all, that un~
believing adults are to be baptized, because
such were circumcised. Beside all this, a man-
that was illegitimate was not to belong to the
Jewish church :" Deut. xxiii. 2. " A bastard
shall not enter into the congregation of the
Lord.*' Would any man, besides Edwards,,
ever have dreamed of making this the gospel
church ? What ! is it so, that a bastard is not
to belong to the gospel church, nor yet his
children to the tenth generation ? Neither was
a Moabite to enter in under a less time : verse
S, " An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter
into the congregation of the Lord ; even to
their tenth generation." Surely it will never
be pretended that this was an image of tie
gospel church, and that very church itself. It
can never be a model for us to receive mem-
bers by, when a mere accidental circumstance-
of parentage or country, and that without res-
pect to personal vice, is a prohibition to mem-
bership. But what is worse, is, that a person
wounded in body was not to enter into that
church his whole life, no matter how pious he
might be : Deut. xxiii. 1. Will it be pre-
tended, that deformity of body is now to be a
bar; that misfortune is to be considered as
T2S
crime, and made the foundation of still greater
privation ? Yet such must be the christian
church, if membership in the one, is to govern
membership in the other. It will not do for
Mr. E. to say these things are done away ; ft.r
if membership has been altered at all, then his
pica for infant membership is at once gone :
and beside, he told us the " man, or church"
was not " altered" but only the " dress." Will
any of our opponents affirm, no grace was re-
quired to membership in the gospel church ?
Or dare they assert, that grace was required to
entitle an adult Jew to circumcision, or yet a
gentile proselyte ? If these things they will not
pretend to, how can they tell us, that member-
ship id the one instance is the rule in the
other ?
" Again — the whole nation was the church :
the most abandoned were as much members of
it, as the pious ; the nation was not considered
as many churches, but one ; and, in its origin-
al organization, authority, in civil and religious
affairs, were both deposited in the same hands
— priest and prince were recognized in the
same person — he that wore the mitre, was also
a general in the field — the same persons that
sacrificed tor the soul, passed sentence of death
on the body. That the Jewish church was a
national one, who will pretend to dinj ?
" Every abandoned character Mas in that
church: such as were guilty of incest: Geii.
xxxviri. 18 — murder : Gen. xxxiv. 25. — nor
were there any methods of separating- them,
unless their crimes came under the -slew of the
129
judicial law, and they were punished with
death : but can any man affirm, that every
monster of wickedness is to be in the gospel
church, until separated by a capital punishment,
by the civil laws ? Yet, if no alteration is made
in the old Jewish church, such must be the
case. But, as was before said, if any former
members are cut off, away goes the plea for
infant membership ; for it rests entirely on the
two churches being of equal extent. The
Jewish church was but one, and that extended
over the whole country ; nor were the syna-
gogues considered as distinct churches : but
how unlike is this to the gospel church ? for
we read of churches in Judea : Gal. i. 22. —
seven churches in Asia: Rev. i. 11. — in dif-
ferent cities, as Corinth : 1 Cor. i. 2. — Philip-
pi : 1 Phil. i. 1 — Ephesus : Eph. i. 1. ; and a
church is spoken of as being in a house : Rom.
xvi. 15. You, reader, are left to judge what
credit is due to those writers who affirm, as
does Mr. E., that both churches are the same :
I ask you, is there the smallest resemblance ?
While we see priests buried in war : Josh. vi.
4. and the high priest presiding in a court of
justice and pronouncing sentence of death :
Jno. xviii. 13. 14. ; does this look like the
church at Jerusalem ? Does not Christ refuse
to have any thing to do in their civil concerns :
Luke xii. .14. Does he not declare his king-
dom is not of this world : Jno. xviii. 36. ; and
does he not say, he came not to destroy men's
lives, but to save them : Luke ix. 56. But
can our adversaries pretend, that ciyii and reli-
130
gious authority are deposited in the hands of
the clergy, and that the power of life and death
are with them ? If not, then the churches arc
by no means the same ; for such power the
Jewish priesthood had.
Again, the duties of members of the Jewish
church do not, in the least, resemble those in
the christian church. In that church, an out-
ward attention to sacrifices — tithes — rituals, no
matter as to the motives which influenced them,
or whether the heart Mas in them or not, were
all that the law required of them ; and never
do we hear of their being punished for any
thing but an outward neglect. But the duties
of the members of a gospel church, are chiefly
those of the heart. To evince this, I will now
produce positive commands to members pf the
Jewish church ; which, if they are considered
as a religious body, are incompatible with the
church of Christ, and in direct hostility to his
commands, yea, to the whole gospel scheme :
Exo. xxi. 10. " If he take him another wife ;
her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage
shall not be diminished ;" with which contrast
Luke xvi. 18. " Whosoever putteth away
Lis wife, and marrieth another, committeth
adultery :" Exo. xxi. 24. *; Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand ;" contrasted with
Rom. xii. 19. " Dearly beloved avenge not
yourselves," and 1 Thes. v. 15. " See that
none render evil for evil " unto any man :"
Exo. xxii. 10. " Six years thou shalt sow
thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:
but the seventh year, thou shalt let it rest and
131
be still ;" contrasted with 2 Thes. iii. 10. • If
any will not work, neither shall he eat.' A
witch was to be put to death by that church :
Exo. xxii. 18. He that did not keep the sab-
bath, was to be put to death: Exo. xxxi. 14.
They were to put the idolater to death : Deut.
xvii. 5. They were to put to death those that
ate the blood of beasts* : Lev. xvii 10. All
the congregation were to stone the blasphemer :
Lev. xxiv. 14. They were to stone a person
who taught idolatry: Deut. xiii 9. In some
cases they were to inflict punishment by
stripes: Deut. xxv. 3.
" It will be remembered, that this putting to
death was for sins committed either against the
ceremonial or moral law, and that the congre-
gation or churchy were to be the executioners :
but, brethren, is this any thing like the church
of Christ ? Has he any where ordered his peo-
ple to inflict the punishment of death, and that
in a chiircf) capacity ? Was there one instance
of any being stoned by them, even for blasphe-
my ? Yea, did not the extent of the powers of
a gospel church consist in excommunication ?
Is it not, therefore, plain that the Jewish church
was more of a civil, than a religious institution ;
and is it not evident, that it was radically dif-
ferent from the gospel church? What figure
would a church of Jesus Christ make in drag-
ging an idolater or a blasphemer forth, to en-
compass him about, and stone him with stones
until he died: yet, brethren, such was the
church which Mr. E. calls the gospel church.
But this is not all ; for the parent was to put to
132
tncath his oxvn child: Deut. xxi. 31.: and is
this a church of Christ ? Or rather, is it not a
mere commonwealth, or civil institution ?
" In the second chapter of Numbers, every
man of" Israel is commanded to learn the mili-
tary profession, to perform the duties of a sol-
dier : but where arc such precepts to the church
of Christ? Is not the injunction, * as much as
m you lies, live in peace with all men?' Nothing
will serve better, to shew how opposite the two
wrere, than to consider two passages which
were suitable to the Jewish church, as such,
but never could suit them as a religious body ;
and, evident it is, that the duties of the gospel
church are so very opposite, the one could ne-
ver be a pattern for the other. " Thou shalt
not seek their peace, nor their prosperity, for-
ever :" Deut. xxiii. G. " Therefore it shall
be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee
rest from all thine enemies round about, in the
land which the Lord thy God givcth thee for
ari inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt
blot out the remembrance ofAmalek from under
heaven ; thou shalt not forget it /" Deut. xxv.
19. In both these texts are inculcated an un-
forgiving temper, and a spirit of revenge. Had
the Jews been a religious body, as the church
of Christ now is, such precepts never would
have been given : but as our opponents insist
on it, they were a religious body, and hold
them up as an example to us, how evident
must it be, to a reader of but superficial know-
ledge, they cannot be such, when the laws of
Christ are so opposite, as we shall shew, and
133
tlieir practice so different. To manifest how
opposite the duties of the members of a gospel
church are to those of the Jewish, take the fol-
lowing texts: u Let us do good unto all men :"
Gal. vi. 10. " But I say unto you, love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good un-
to them that hate you, and pray for them which
despitefully use you, and persecute you." In-
deed, an hundred passages such as these might
be produced, to evince how widely different the
two institutions are, and that what was obliga-
tory on one, could by no means be duty in the
other ; yet, is it not strange that they should
be considered as one and the same church ?
" The only expedient which our opponents
use to extricate themselves from the difficulty,
is to say, these were mere civil institutions,
and were enjoined on them not as a church, but
merely as a body politic. But what does this
amount to ? Is it not admitting a difference be-
tween them and the christian church, when
they do not pretend it has the administration of
the civil law in its hands, and do they not ac-
knowledge the dissimilarity ? Indeed, this is a
concession that goes to the ruin of their cause,
and is the very thing we have been contending
for. The Jews were truly a civil body ; in this
light they are to be viewed : but the church of
Christ was in tio respect like them ; so that
while adults and infants were of necessity a
part of that community, it cannot, it does not
follow, they are to be members of an institution
purely spiritual.
" Another argument respects the discipline.
M
134-
In the gospel church, an offended member was
in the first instance to tell the party his fault by
himself; if confession was made he was bound
to forgive : if no confession was made, he was
to take with him one or two more of his bre-
thren— if no confession still was made, he was
to give the matter up to the church, to judge
between them : Matt, xviii. The punishment
nfiicted by a church was that of excluding the
person from their fellowship ; but in no in-
stance was corporeal punishment inflicted.
How different from all this was the Jewish
church! Its laws took no notice whatever
of offences of a spiritual kind ; and the only
offences it regarded were those against proper-
ty, family, reputation, or the like. Nor were
any directions given to admonish, and forgive ;
nor yet was sorrow for an offence, in any in-
stance, looked upon as sufficient: but the
command was to obtain satisfaction according
to the nature of the offence, either in restitu-
tion, stripes, or death. In the Church of
Christ, every christian is forbidden to go to
law with each other, and especially to do it be-
fore the people of the world ; but the Jews
were on every occasion to appear before the
judicial authority. From the Jewish church
theie was no excommunication, nor could a Jew
be separated any other way than by death : and
although the Pharisees cast the blind man out
of the synagogue, yet it was not done by any
law of Moses, (for no such law was ever given
by him), but by one of their own traditions.
If any were ever excommunicated, it was the
135
leper, who was ordered to be shut out of the
camp : but then this was for a bodily malady,
not a moral evil ; and the person was tempora-
rily excluded for misfortune, not crime. But
how different is this from the gospel church,
from whom every wicked person is to be ex-
eluded, and that, not on account of natural de-
fect, but moral offences. If our opponents are
right in the opinion, that they are one and the
same church, or that the christian church, as
to members, is to be governed by. the Jewish ;
then every vile person must be retained in our
communion. ' An heretic reject, after the first
and second admonition :' Tit. hi. 10. ' Put
from among you that wicked person :' 1 Cor.
-v. 13. Brethren, judge ye, if the two churches
are the same, when murderers, incestuous per-
sons, and every species of wicked men, were
retained in one, but cast out "of the other : Gen.
xxxiv. 25. and xxxviii. 18. 1 Cor. v. 11."
Many more arguments might be brought
forward, and have been published by Dr. Bald-
win, of Boston, and Mr. William White, of
Philadelphia, to evince the difference of the
Jewish and the christian church, but enough
has been said to prove "the falsity of Mr. E.'s
assertions, that the Jewish church state remains,
and having shewn that the two churches are
radically different, and that infants can by no
means be members of the gospel church, as
they were of the Jewish ; I shall now shew,
that some things are said of the gospel church
that will not agree with infants. The church
is called " the pillar and ground of the truth ;P
130
Tim. iii. 15. but can it be said of infants,
that they are the support and defence of the
gospel ? The church is said to be subject to
Christ, as a woman ought to be to her hus-
band : Eph. v. 22. but are infants, indeed,
subject to Christ ? Paul persecuted the church,
says the sacred text : Phil. iii. 6. but did he
act so unmanly as to persecute infants ? It is
said that Saul made havoc of the church :
Acts. viii. 3. can it be thought he put young
children to death ? Certainly not. It is said,
that it pleased the whole church (not part of
them) to send chosen men of their own com-
pany, to Antioch : Acts. xv. 22. this cannot
-agree with infants; for it was impossible that
they should send messengers. Such as pro-
phecy, are said to edify the church : 1 Cor.
xiv. 15. but if infants were members, this
could only be true of a part of them. The
church were not to be charged with the sup-
port of certain widows: 1 Tim. v. 16. but
would it not be nonsense for the apostles to
direct babes not to support the widows ? The
apostle John says, " I wrote to the church :"
3 Jno. 2. but it is ridiculous so to talk, if in-
fants were in it, especially if the children of
believers were such ; they would constitute
the majority. In Acts. ix. 31. "then had
the churches rest, throughout all Judea and
Galilee and Samaria, and were edified ; and
walked in the fear of the Lord, and in the com-
fort of the Holy Ghost." Can it with consis-
tency be said of little sucking infants, that they
were " edified" •' -walked in the fear of the
137
Lord" and u were comforted of the Holy
Ghost .?" Yet such inconsistencies are with our
opponents. It is said, that when Ananias and
Sapphira his wife, had been slain by the Lord,
" great fear came upon all (not a part only) the
church :" Acts. v. 11. but were babes afraid ?
Directions are given to aggrieved members of
the church how to act, and their instructions
run thus: "And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the church: but if he shall
neglect to hear the church," See. : Matt, xviii,
17. But fiow is he to tell his case to infants ?
and how can infants speak to the offending
person ?
" These, and numberless other texts that
might readily be adduced, afford dignified and
obvious proof that infants were not in the apos-
tolic churches ; nor can our opponents, with
all their subtle logic, evade the force of them.
But all the exhortations and warnings address-
ed to the members of churches, prove the same
thins:, ah1 of which would be utterlv inconsis-
tent were infants in membership ; besides
which, it is remarkable, that no directions are
given to the church with respect to such in-
fants: a neglect this, that never would have
existed, if they were members, and which can-
not be said as it relates to the Jewish church.
Does it appear consistent, that exhortations
should be addressed to the church by name,
and which do, in every instance, imply the
parties having grace and the exercise of their
understanding; and yet no directions given to
the church respecting infant members, if they
M 2
138
were so ; but all the exhortations which con-
cern them are addressed to their parents ? No
duties are pointed out for them to perform, or
others to perform for them ; nor yet is there
any church privilege assigned to them, nor
could they enjoy any ; nor can our Lord's act
of blessing some infants, establish their right
to baptism, or church membership, for we have
no information of either taking place ; nor yet
did he leave any command to his disciples to
follow his example in this respect.
" Such exhortations and cautions as these
following, are in all the epistles directed to the
church in general, without any specification of
age or sex : " Take heed, brethren, lest there
should be in any of you an evil heart of unbe-
lief:" Heb. hi. 12. " Bear ye one another's
burdens :" Gal. vi. 2. " If a brother be over-
taken in a fault, let such as are spiritual restore
him :" Gal. vi. 1. " Not forsaking the as-
sembling of yourselves together:' Heb. x.
25. " Examine yourselves whether ye be in
the faith — Let a man examine himself and so
let him eat of that bread :" 1 Cor. xi. " Ye
are all the children of God bv faith in Christ
Jesus :" Gal. iii. 26. " Received ye the Spi-
rit by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith :" Gal. iii. 2. Such quotations would
be endless ; 1 must therefore leave it to the
reader to judge for himself, how very absurd
such addresses would be if made to infants ;
and confident I am, that a man not blinded by
prejudice, never will maintain the membership
of infants."*
* WilU-m Wrhite of Philadelphia.
J 39
In page 17 you say, " We read in the pro-
phecy of Jeremiah, that the church was called
an olive tree, to which the apostle alludes in
Rom. 11th chapter."
If your description of the Hebrew church
be a correct one, they draw all their sap and
fatness from themselves. It is no wonder that
we read of so few of them being perfect ; you
say they are " the root, body, and branches."
We grant that the Jews were branches, and
some of them were broken off for unbelief.
But we cannot admit that they are the root, as
there is no other root on which the church of
Christ now grows, than that on which they
grew from the beginning : your description
certainly differs materially from Paul's. He
speaks of two olive trees, one good, the other
wild. If by the good olive tree a visible church
state is intended, then by the wild olive, the
same must be intended also ; or else we cannot
comprehend the apostle's reasoning. But have
we read of any thing like a visible church-
state among the gentiles at this time ? Cer-
tainly not; consequently such a state among
them cannot be intended. And could we find
no better way, than you have pointed out, we
might not only expect to be lean in gospel
graces, but lose any we might have, and be
at a loss to understand him. But as the scrip-
tures are rich and full, for edification and in-
struction, we shall not perhaps search in vain
for a better root, than the Hebrew church, of
Abraham the father of the nation. He, good
man, had great faith, and was a favorite of God,
140
but had no oil to spare no more than the wise
virgins. All his sap and fatness must have
originated from a better source than himself;
or he never would " against hope have believ-
ed in hope." The apostle hath given us a de-
scription of two great heads of the human race
: n Adam, and Christ. All were in Adam when
he fell, and continue to be in him until cut off
by the law of God, and grafted in by the gospel.
Then they stand in him by faith ; for the want
of which the Jewish branches were broken off;
and those Romans that were grafted in are
said to " stand by faith." Consequently the
Jews that remained must have stood by faith
also. The gentiles, that were grafted in, were
taken from the wild olive, " said to be cut out
of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and
wert grafted contrary to nature into a good
olive tree." When he speaks of the Jews
that were broken off, he calls them branches,
and not the root. If some of the Jews were
branches, all must have been so. If. they were
broken off for unbelief, the greatest part were
broken off, and all infants must have been with
them, for you have never pretended to prove
they had faith, (though you call them holy.)
And when he speaks of the gentiles that were
grafted in, he says " among them," (the Jews)
and not on them, " and with them," (not from
them) partakest of the root and fatness of the
olivetree, 1. (Christ.) 2. The gentiles being cut
off from their root Adam, and the Jews being
broken off from their root, Christ. 5. Both roots
remain to this day ; and the law still continues
141
JO cut off branches from the wild olive, and the
gospel still grafts them contrary to nature in
the good olive tree, Christ, and will continue
todo so until the fulness of the gentiles be come
in. But both roots still remain separate and
distinct, and will remain so forever. If we
thus understand the apostle, the distinction he
makes between the Jews and gentiles is a clear
and correct one ; and notwithstanding all men
in a state of nature, whether they be Jews or
gentiles, are properly in the wild olive tree ;
jet the good olive might by the apostle be cal-
led properly their own olive tree ; for they were
received by God as his peculiar people in a
national capacity — claimed God as their God —
unto them were committed the oracles of God
— he was bone of their bone — he came unto
hijs own, though his own received him not :
Jno. i. 11. This passage of the blessed Re-
deemer's greatly illustrates the one before us.
" I am the true vine, and my Father is the
husbandman, every branch in me that beareth
not fruit he taketh away : " this shews that those
Jewish branches that were broken off might
be in him in a sense, and still fruitless ones,
and as the apostle says unbelieving ones ; and
for that unbelief broken off that they might
wither and die, and be burned. Christ must
be intended by the good olive tree, and Jews
and gentiles in him by faith receive nourish-
ment and grow up " to an heavenly building
in the Lord." He alone can in the strictest
sense be cal'ed the holy root, " and if the root be
holy so arethe branches," and He alone has a suf-
M2
ficient virtue, or fulness of holiness in himself
to communicate sap and fatness to the branch-
es. It is unreasonable to believe Abraham or
the whole Jewish church could have any such
fatness to communicate, as before observed.
No man hath any to communicate, any to
spire, but just enough for himself if he be
Christs. Hence says the apostle, " Jf the first
fruit be holy, the lump is also holy ; and if the
root be holy so are the branches :" v. 16. By
the first fruit, we understand the apostles, and
those baptized by John. These are called
Christs' church. By the lump, all the real
believers in Christ, are intended and by the
root, Christ himself. The apostle never could
have intended the Jewish church as the root.
There is not any account of it in any age that
could induce us to believe he could have called
them holy. But if the Jews had been intend-
ed, it would have rendered your cause no ser-
vice. You admit those that were broken off
were unbelievers, consequently all unbelievers
must have been broken off, and unbelieving
infants among the rest, and as they that stood,
stood by faith, they must have had faith which
infants are not capable of. After Christ came
in the flesh, he had no further use of them as
a nation,, there fore those tbuthad a living faith
in him stood by that faith, fhid those that had
not, were broken off from then own olive tree,
and the gentiles were grafted ki contrary to
nature, and stand by faith.
" It is worthy of observation," says Doctor
Baldwin, " that the gentiles are \aid to be
143
grafted in, contrary to nature." It is so, in
almost every sense. The whole of religion is
contrary to our depraved natures ; but more
especially in the following things — 1. We ne-
ver graft a scion but upon the principles of its
being better than the stock into which it is set.
2. The scion, though grafted into another
stock, and nourished by it, still retains its own
nature, and bears its own fruit. 3. A base
stock is rendered valuable, in consequence of
the good fruit produced by the ingrafted part.
But in grafting in the gentiles, all is reversed.
They are not chosen on account of their own
excellency, but on Christ's account. By be-
ing grafted into this holy stock, their nature
is so changed, that they bring forth the fruit
of holiness. They add nothing to the essen-
tial value of the stock into which they are
grafted, but receive all their excellence from
it.
In page 28th you say, " And the probability
is stronger that there were infants in the house-
hold, mentioned in scripture, than that there
were not." Why, sir, is it stronger? "Because
three times three are nine ?" Why did you not
examine the passages, and give us reasons
founded on scripture, and fairly deducible
from them ? Why huddle them into a con-
fused heap of nonsense ? You might as well
have said, it is more probable that a covenant
of grace was made with Abraham, than with
Christ, because four times four are sixteen.
Eut as you were afraid to bring them fairly
to public view, lest you should be detected,
144
and your assertions found to be erroneous ;
we will shew you, all that we want is a fair
investigation of scripture to maintain our apos-
tolic example. Acts. xvi. 33. " And he took
them the same hour of the night, and washed
their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all
his, straightway. And when he had brought
them into his house he set meat before them,
and rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house." Will you venture the assertion that
the family did not believe and rejoice in God
with the gaoler ? If they did not believe and
rejoice how could it be said that the gaoler re-
joiced, believing in God with them? There
was a mutual rejoicing and believing of the
whole family. " Nor need we wonder," says
Mr. White " that a family rescued thus from
eternal destruction should feel such joy, as to
be thought worthy of being recorded in holy
writ." How sir, can you say it is nine to one
that there were infants in these families ? when
it is said v. 32, " They spake unto him the
word of the Lord, and to all that were in his
house." And when v. 34, It is sail all his
house believed as well as himself. How can
you so far forget yourself, as to venture such
an assertion? when the express declaration is,
" and rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house." Mr. White continues, " It is very
remarkable, that in all the instances recorded
of households, being baptized, the Holy Ghost
has been careful to prevent the error of infant
baptism, or infant church membership, being
thereby encouraged ; and this hath been done
145
by something being said in the narrative to
prevent the idea from fairly obtaining that in-
fants were in such households. Thus in the
ease of the gaoler, the narrative says expressly,
•' the word of the Lord was preached to him,
and all that were in his house, and that before
baptism was administered to any one ©f them ;
that he believed with all his house : from
whence it must be readily inferred that infants
were not there ; for they cannot hear the word
of the Lord, nor yet believe in Christ. So
also in the case of Lydia, there is no proof she
was a married woman, or had an husband ; for
had that been the case, no one can account for
the house going under her name, and not her
husband's ; and it is improbable that she would
leave the city of Thyatira, and come to Philip-
pi 'in the character of a female merchant, a
seller of purple ; much less if she had young
children and a husband also. It is evident her
household were servants, or, if children, such
as had arrived to years of maturity, and that
because in the 40th verse it is said, " Paul and
Silas entered into the house of Lydia, and
when they had seen the brethren they comfort-
ed them :" her household are here called bre-
thren, are said to have been comforted;
" which could not have taken place had they
been infants. The household of Stephanas is
said to be the firsts fruits of the gospel in
Achaia. " I beseech you brethren, (ye know
the house of Stephanas, and that it is the first
fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints) : 1
148
Cor. xvh 15. If there had beln infants in that
household, they could not be a fruit of the gos-
pel, for that intends conversion to God : nor
yet could they minister to the saints. Surely
it will not be said that infants could minister
to the apostles wants." The evident result
therefore is in direct opposition to your 9 to 1,
and instead of infants ever having had a place
in the gospel church, the reverse is the fact.
So that there is no express law necessary to
discountenance that which was never thought
of, consequently there is no occasion for a Thus
saith the Lord, to leave them where Christ and
his apostles left them. And as to what you
say of depriving them of their right, you have
failed in proving their right, and you have not
shewn what advantage it will be to them, were
they sprinkled. Your arguments from cir-
cumcision are inadmissible, as we have proven
that baptism did not succeed it, but is a nevy
and gospel institution ; and that citizenship in
the Jewish commonwealth, of which infants
were of necessity members, is no argument
for christian church membership, under the
gospel dispensation, particularly as the two are
so radically different from each other, as we
have sufficiently shown : that there is no in-
ferring membership in the one instance from
the other. We have confuted you in your
household baptisms ! and as you havo not in
.any one instance proved that infants were mem-
bers in the gospel church ; or that Christ, or
his apostles, either ordered it, or even counte-
. jianced it ; we boldly say from scripture au.
thority, they arejnot to be members of the visi-
ble church of Christ, either with, or without
baptism.
Now, sir, as you have labored to shew us
the signification of baptism, and have brought
forward all your strength to little purpose ;
we will set before you, a few of the abundant
testimonies in our possession, from those that
have differed with us in practice ; authorities
that are undeniable, and respectable. You
will then be able to judge, whether the author
from whom you have extracted your informa-
tion, deserves credit.
I. We shall offer a few testimonies, concern-
ing the nature, obligation, and importance of
positive institutions in religion.
1. Dr. Owen : " Positive institutions — are
the free effects of the will of God, depending
originally and solely on Revelation, and which
therefore have been variously and actually
changed."
2. Buddeus : "The obligation by which
men are bound rightly to use positive appoint-
ments, is to be derived from the moral law
itself; by which it is manifest, that men are
obliged to do all those things by which their
eternal felicity may be promoted. God had
the wisest reasons, why lie would have an ap-
pointment administered in this or the other
manner. It is not lawful therefore, for men to
alter any thing, or to mutilate the appointment.
Thus the sacraments are to be used, not ac-
cording to our own pleasure, but in the man-
ner appointed by God.
148
3. Dr. J. G. King, on the rites and ceremo-
nies of the Greek church in Russia, p. 12 :
" Positive duties, having no obligation in the
reason of things, can have no foundation but
in the express words of the institutor, from
which alone they derive their authority."
4. Mr. Jonathan Edwards : " Those laws,
whose obligations arise from the nature of
things, and from the general state and nature
of mankind, as well as from God's positive
revealed will, are called moral laws. Others,
whose obligation depends merely upon God's
positive and arbitrary institution, are not mor-
al ; such as the ceremonial laws, and the pre-
cepts of the gospel about the two sacraments.'*
Positive "precepts are the greatest and most
proper trial of obedience ; because in them the
mere authority and will of the legislator, is the
sole ground of The obligation, and nothing in
the nature of the things themselves ; and there-
fore they are the greatest trial of any person's
respect to that authority and will." Sermon
on important subjects : page 79.
5. Gerhardus : *' Seeing that a sacrament
depends entirely on the appointment of God,
when we do not what God has appointed, it
certainly will not be a sacrament."
6. Bishop Burnet : "Sacraments are positive
precepts, which are to be measured only by
the institution, in which there is no room It ft
for us to carry them any further.*'*
II. Concerning the signification of the terms
baptize and baptism.
• Bryant'* hbridguaent ui Booth's Fscdobaptisra examined.
148
1. Gurtlcrus : " To baptize, among the
Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip : and
baptism, is immersion, dipping.' Baptitmos en
Pneumati agio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is
immersion into the pure waters of the Holy
Spirit : for he on whom the holy spirit is pour-
ed out, is as it were immersed into him —
Baptismos en puri, baptism in fire, is a figura-
tive expression, and signifies casting into a
flame, which, like water, flows far and wide ;
such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem —
the thing commanded by our Lord, is baptism,
immersion into water."
2. Buddeus: " The words baptizcin and bap-
tismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersions ;
but always of immersion."
3. Salmasius : " Baptism is immersion ; and
was administered in former times, according
to^ the force and meaning of the word."
4. Calvin : " The word baptize, signifies to
immerse ; and the rite of immersion, was ob-
served by the ancient church." Ins. Chr. Rel.
L. iv. ch : 15:
5. Beza : " Christ commanded us to be bap-
tized, by which word, it is certain immersion
is signified — Babtizesthai, in this place, is
more than Cherniptein ; because that seems to>
respect the whole, this only the hands. Nor
does baptizein'signify to wash, except by con-
sequence : for it properly signifies to immerse
for the sake of dying* To be baptized in wa-
ter, signifies no other than to be immersed in
water ; which is the external ceremony of bap-
tism— Baptizo differs from the verb dunax,
N 3
150
which signifies to plunge in the deep and to
drown."
6. Vitringa : c< The act of baptizing, is the
immersion of believers in water. This ex-
presses the force of the word. Thus also it
was performed by Christ and his apostles."
7. Luther : " The term baptism, is a Greek
word. It may be rendered a dipping, when
we dip something in water, that it may be en-
tirely covered with water."
8. Venema : " The word baptizein, to bap-
tize, is no where used in scripture for sprink-
ling."
9. Anonymous : " That the letter of the
scripture is in favor of the baptists, cannot
without evasion and equivocation, be denied :"
London Review, for June 1776 — .p. 489.
10. Dr. Doddridge: " I have, indeed, a most
dreadful baptism, to be baptized with, aiyi
know that I shall shortly be bathed, as it were,
in blood, and plunged in the most overwhelm-
ing distress :" Paraphrase, on Luke xii. 50.
11. Anonymous : k< The word baptize, doth
certainly signify immersion, absolute and total
immersion, in Josephus and other Greek wri-
ters. 'Hitherto the antipasdobaptists seem to
have had the best of the argument, on the mode
of administering the ordinance : the most ex-
plicit authorities are on their side. Their op-
ponents have chiefly availed themselves of in-
ferences, analogy, and doubtful construction :"
Monthly Review for May, 1784 — p. 3VG.
Reflections from Bryant's abridgment of
Pcedobaptism, examined bv A. Booth — pages
31 to 34.
151
«' It should be well observed, that when our
Lord after his resurrection says, go baptize ;
he docs not mention baptism by way of allusion
or incidentally. No, he speaks the language
of legislation: he delivers divine law. He
mentions and appoints baptism as an ordinance
of God, as a branch of human duty: where
then must we expect precision in the use of
terms, if not on such an occasion ? Can it be
supposed, without impeaching the wisdom or
goodness of Christ, that he enacted a law re-
lating to his own worship, the principle term
in which is obscure and ambiguous? Can it
be imagined that he intended an ambiguity so
great in the term baptism, which prescribes
the duty to be performed, as equally to war-
rant the use of immersion, of pouring, or of
sprinkling, which are three different actions ?
We may' safely challenge our opposers to pro-
duce an instance of this kind out of the Mosaic
ritual. Does Jehovah, when giving his posi-
tive laws, make use of a word that signifies
dipping ? He means as he speaks, and requires
immersion, in contradistinction to pouring or
sprinkling. Does he on the one hand, employ
a word which properly understood, signifies
pouring? Or does he choose an expression,
the radical idea of which is no other than
sprinkling ? He still means as he speaks, and
enjoins what he mentions, in distinction from
every other action.
That dipping, pouring and sprinkling, de-
note three different actions, in the language of
divine law, as well as in the estimate of com-
152
mon sense, we have many examples in the
■writings of Moses. The following are select-
ed for the readers notice. And the priest shall
dip bapsei, (Septuag) his finger in the blood,
and sprinkle, prosranei, of the blood seven
times before the Lord. And the priest shall
pour, ekcheei, all the blood of the bullock at
the bottom of the altar.* Moses took of the
anointing oil, and he sprinkled, erranen, there-
of, upon the altar seven times — and he poured
epechei, of the anointing oil upon Aaron's
head. Moses sprinkled, proechci, the blood
upon the altar round about, and he washed,
eplunen, the inwards and the legs in water, f
He dipt, ebapse, his finger in the blood — and
he poured out exechein, the blood at the bot-
tom of the altar. And Aaron's sons presented
unto him the blood, which he sprinkled prose-
chein, round about upon the altar —and he did
wash, eplune, the inwards.J As for the living
bird, he shall take it and the cedar wood, and
the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them,
bapsei auta, and the living bird, in the blood of
the bird that was killed. And he shall sprinkle,
perirranei, upon him that is to be cleansed from
the leprosy seven times — and he that is to be
cleansed shall wash, plunei, his clothes, and
shave off his hair, and -wash himself, lousetai,
in water, that he may be clean. § And who-
soever toucheth his bed shall zvash, plunei, his
clothes, and bathe himself, lonsetai, in water.fi
• Levit. iv. 6. 7- 17 18. f Levit. viii. 11. 12. 19. 21. i Chnp.
tx. 9. 12- 14.
$ UTit. xir. 6. 7. 8. J Chap. xr. 5. $►
153
So in the new testament, washing the feet is
distinguished from bathing the whole body,
washing a part of the body from being baptized,
and baptism from washing ; as appears from
the following instances. He that is washed,
(or has been bathing 6 leloumenos) needeth not
save to wash his feet, pedas nipsasthai.J He
took them the same hour of the night, and
washed, elousen, their stripes, and was bap-
tized, ebaptisthe, he and all his straightway.
Arise and be baptized, baptisai, and wash
away apalousai, thy sins.§ By which it ap-
pears, that as tasting in the language of scrip--
ture, is distinguihed from drinking; so are
washing the feet fom bathing the whole body,
and washing a part of the body from being"
baptized. With what reason or shadow of
propriety, then, can any pretend that the term
baptism is equally expressive of these different
actions.
Were the leading term in any human law to
have an imbiguity in it equal to that for which
our brethren plead with regard to the word
baptism, such law would certainly be consider-
ed as betraying either the weakness or the wick-
edness of the legislator ; and be condemned as
opening a door to perpetual chicane, and pain-
ful uncertainty. Far be it, then, from us to
suppose, that our gracious and omniscient Lord
should give a law relating to divine worship,
and obligatory on the most illiterate of his real
disciples, which may be fairly construed to
mean this, that, or the other action — a law,
4 Jao. xiii. 10. $ Acta. xvi. 33. and 22. 16,,
154
which is calculated to excite and perpetuate
contention among his wisest and sincerest fol-
lowers— a law, in respect to its triple meaning,
that would disgrace a Congress or British par-
liament, as being involved in the dark ambi-
guity of a Pagan oracle — it must, therefore, be
at our peril, if we indulge a wantcn fancy in
the interpretation of that law which is now be-
fore us : For as Mr. Charnock observes, " Tis
a part of God's sovereignty to be the interper-
ter, as well as the maker, of his own laws ; as
it is a right inherent in the legislative power
among men. So that it is an invasion of his
right to fasten a sense upon his declared will,
which cloth not naturally flow from the words.
For to put any interpretation according to our
pleasure upon divine as well as human laws,
contrary to their true intent, is a virtual usur-
pation of this power ; because, if lawrs may be
interpreted according to our humors, the pow-
er of the law would be more in the interpreter,
than in the legislator ?*
III. Concerning the design of baptism ; or
the facts and blessings represented by it, both
in regard to our Lord and his disciples.
1. Dr. Robert Newton : " Baptism was usu-
ally performed by immersion, or dipping the
whole body under water, to represent the
death, and burial) and resurrection of Christ
together ; and therewith to signify the persons
own dying to sin, the destruction of its power,
and his resurrection to new life. St Paul
• Of man's eiHiitv to G»d— p. -98.
*>
In V
3D
plainly refers to this custom:" Rom. vi. 4:
Pract. Expo. Cat. p. 2S7, 298.
2. A. H. Frankius : " The baptism of Christ
represented his sufferings: Matt. xx. 22—
and his coming up cut of the water, his resur-
rection from the dead." Prog. Program. 14.
p. 343.
3. Mr. Saurin : " Paul says, ' We are bu-
ried with him by baptism into death :' that is,
the ceremony of wholly immersing us in water,
when we were baptized, signified, that as we
died to sin ; and that of raising us again from
our immersion, signified, that we would no
more return to those disorderly practices, in
which we lived before our conversion to Chris-
tianity." Sermons, vol. 3. p. 171.
4. Mr. Polhill : " Where baptism is in the
right use, there is a seal of union with Christ.
They have the power of death in his mortifica-
tion, and the power of his resurrection in a
divine life : the one is notably adumbrated iri
the baptismal immersion into the water : the
other, in the eduction out of it." Mystical
Union, Chap. 7. p. 202, 203.
5. Turrettiaus : The passage of the Israel-
ites through the red sea, wonderfully agrees
with our baptism, and represents the grace it
was designed to express ; for as, in baptism
when performed in the primitive manner, by
immersion and emersion, descending into the
watert and again going out of it, of which de-
scent and ascent we have an example in the
.Eunuch, Acts. viii. 38. 39. — yea, and what is
jpore by this rite, when persons are immerse^
15(5
in water, they are overwhelmed, and as it were
buried, and in a manner buried together -with
Christ ; and again when they emerge, seem to
be raised out of the grave, and are said to rise
again with Christ : Rom. vi 4. 5. — Col. ii.
12 — as in former times, the persons to be
baptized were immersed in the water, continu-
ed under the water, and emerged out of it:
Matt. iii. 16. — Acts. viii. 37. — so the old man
died in and was buried, and the new man arose :
Rom. vi. 4.— Col. ii. 12." Disp. de Bap. Nu-
bis, Tom. 3. Loc. 19.
6. Scudder : " Baptism, doth lively repre-
sent the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ : Rom. vi. 3. 4. 5.— Col. ii. 11. \2. 13.
Daily walk, Cap. 5. p. 95.
7. Grotius : " Buried with him by baptism.
Not only the word baptism, but the very form
of it, intimates this. For an immersion of the
whole body in the water, so that it is no longer
beheld, bears an image of that burial which is
given to the dead. So Col. ii. 12. There
was in baptism, as administered in former
times, an image both of a burial and of a re-
surrection ; which in respect of Christ, was
external ; in regard to ^christians, internal/'
In Rom. vi. 4.— Col. ii; 12.
8. Wolfius : " Immersion into water, in
former times, and a short continuance under
the water, practised by the ancient church, af-
forded the representation of a burial in bap-
tism." Curai. ad Rom. vi. 4.
Reflections — p. 60, 61.
£ Baptism being a gracious appointment oC
157
God, it must have an important meaning; and
as it is a positive ordinance, the whole of its
design must be fixed by divine institution.
For we have no more authority to invent a
signification for any rite of holy worship, than
we have to appoint the rite itself. The design
of baptism, therefore, must be learned from the
New Testament, and that part of that sacred
volume, as has, an immediate reference to it.
Were we divested of partiality and prepos-
session, there is reason to conclude that it
would not be very difficult to discover the
chief design of our Lord in his positive ap-
pointments. The following words of Dr.
Owen, are here worthy of notice. ' This was
a great part of the imperfection of legal insti-
tutions, that they taught the things which they
signified and represented obscurely, and the
mind of God in them Was not learned but with
great difficulty--* but all the ordinances and in-
stitutions of the gospel do give light into and
exhibit the things themselves unto the minds
and faith of believers. Hereon they discern
the reasons and grounds of their use and bene-
fit ; whence our whole worship is called our
reasonable service :' Rom. xii. 1.*
IV. Concerning the practice of John the
Baptist, of the apostles, and of the church in
succeeding ages, in regard to the manner of
administering the ordinance ojfbajrtism.
1. Piscator: ** Udata polla, signifies many
rivers ; as udor, in the singular number, de-
noted the river Jordan. This is mentioned to
• On Heb. vii. 11— vol. 3. p. III.
o
158
signify the ceremony of baptism, which John
used ; that is, immersing the whole body of a
person standing in the river. Whence Christ
being baptized of John in Jordan, is said to as-
cend out of the water : Matt. 3 : the same man-
ner was observed by Philip:" Acts. viii. 38.
2. Calvin : M From these words, John iii.
23. it may be inferred, that baptism was ad-
ministered by John and Christ, by plunging
the whole body under water. Here we per-
ceive how baptism was administered among
the ancients ; for they immersed the whole
b»dy in water. Now it is the prevailing prac-
tice for a minister only to sprinkle the body or
the head." In Joan iii. 23. Comment, ill
Acts. viii. 38:
3. Mosheim : " The- exhortations of this
respectable messenger, (John the Baptist) Mere
not without effect ; and those who, moved by
his solemn admonitions, had formed the reso-
lution of correcting their evil dispositions and
amending their lives, were initiated into the
kingdom of the Redeemer, by the ceremony
of immersion, or baptism : Matt. iii. 6. John
i. 22. The sacrament of baptism was admin-
istered in this (the second) century, without
the public assemblies, in places appointed and
prepared for that purpose, and was performed
by immersion of the whole body in the baptis-
mal font. Those adult persons, that desired
to be baptized (among the collegiants) received
the sacrament of baptism, according to the
Ancient and primitive manner of celebrating
that institution, even by immersion."
159
4. Dr. Priestly : V It is certain that in very-
early times, there is no particular mention
made of any person being baptized by sprink*
ling only, or a partial application of water to
the body:" Hist. Corrupt. — vol. 2. p. 67.
5. Grotius : " That baptism used to be per-
formed by immersion, and not pouring, ap*
pears both from the proper signification of the
word, and the places chosen for the adminis-
tration of the rite. John iii. 23. Acts. viii.
38 ; and also from the many allusions of the
apostles, which cannot be referred to sprink-
ling :" Rom. vi. 3. 4. Col. ii. 12. Apud
Polum, Synops. ad Matt. iii. 6.
6. Assembly of Divines : " Were baptized
— washed by clipping in Jordan, as Mark viu
4. Heb. ix. 10. Buried with him by baptism.
See Col. ii. 12. In this phrase the apostle
seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of
baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized,
and as it were to bury them under the water a
"While, and then draw them out of it, and lift
them up, to represent the burial of our old
man, and our resurrection to newness of life.
Annotat. on Matt. iii. G. Rom. iv. 4.
7. Mr. Joseph Mede : " There was no such
thing as sprinkling, or rantismos, used in bap-
tism in the apostle's days, nor many years after
them."
8. Bossuet : " The bap-ism of John the
Baptist, which served for a preparative to that
of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging.
When Jesus Christ came to John, to raise
baptism to a more marvellous eff.cacy in re-
I (TO
ceiving it, the scripture says, that he went up
out of" the water of Jordan : Matt. iii. 16.
Mark i. 10. In fine we read not in the scrip-
tures that baptism was otherwise administer-
ed ; and we are able to make it appear, by the
acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that
for thirteen hundred years, baptism was thus
administered throughout the whole church,
as far as was possible." In Mr. Stennett, ag.
Russen. p. 175.
9. Mr. Chambers : t% In the primitive times
this ceremony was performed by immersion ;
as it is to this dav in the oriental churches, ac-
cording to the original signification of the
word." Diet : Cyclo : Article, Baptism ;
Edition 7th.
10. Mr. John Wesley : " Mary Welsh, a-
ged eleven days, was baptized according to
the custom of the first church by immersion.
The child was ill then, but recovered from that
hour — Buried with him — alluding to the an-
cient manner of baptizing by immersing." —
Extract of Mr. J. Wesley's Journal, from his
embarking for Georgia, p. 11.
11. Dr. Wall. tl Their (the primitive chris-
tians) general and ordinary way was to baptize
by immersion, or dipping the person, whether
it were an infant or grown man or woman, into
the water. This is so plain and clear by infi-
nite numbers of passages, that as one cannot
but pity the weak endeavors of such Prcdo-
baptists as would maintain the negative of it ;
so also we ought to disown and show a dislike
to the profane scoffs which some people give
161
to the English Antipsedoqaptiste, merely for
their use of dipping — it was, in all probability
the way by which our blessed Saviour, and for
certain was the most usual and ordinary way
by which the ancient christians did receive
their baptism. 'Tis a great want of prudence,
as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an
adversary what is certainly true, and may be
proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest
that one says. 'Tis plain that the ordinary and
general practice of St. John, the Apostles and
primitive church, was to baptize by putting the
person into the water, cr causing him to go in-
to the water. We should not know by these
accounts (John 3. 23. Mark 1. 5. Acts 8. 38.)
whether the whole body of the baptized was
put under water, head and all, were it not for
two latter proofs, which seem to me to put it
out of question. One, St. Paul does twice, in
an allusive way of speaking, calls a burial :
which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive
them to have gone into the water only up to their
arm-pits, 5kc. as it is if the whole body was im-
mersed. The other, the custom of the near
succeeding times : As for sprinkling, I say, as
Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England,
ct them defend it who use it. They (who are
inclined to Presbyterianism) are hardly pre-
vailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of
having their children, though never so well,
baptized out of a bason, or poringer, in a bed
chamber ; hardlv persuaded to bring them to
church : niuch farther from having them dip-
o2
162
• -
ped though never so able to bear it." Hist, of
inf. Bap : Part 2. Chap. 2. p. 462.
Now as it appears by the concessions, declar-
ations, and reasonings of so many learned Pse-
dobaptists themselves, that the natural and
proper idea of the term baptism, the design of
the institution, and the examples of the apos-
tles, are all in favor of immersion, and all agree
with our practice ; we do not, we cannot want
any more to justify our conduct, either before
God or man. This must be the case, except
the united testimony of such a cloud of wit-
nesses, and the reasons of it, can be confronted
with superior testimony.
V. Concerning the present practice of the
Greek and Oriental churches, in regard to the
mode of Administration.
1. Deylingius : " The Greeks retain the ritev
of immersion to this day : as Jeremiah the Pa-
triarch of Constantinople declares." De. Prud.
Pastoral. Part. 3. C iii. $.26.
2d. Budclcus : " That the Greeks defend im-
mersion is manifest : and has been frequently
observed by learned men : which Ludalphus
informs us is the practice of Ethiopians." —
Theolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. $.5.
3. Dr. Wall : " All christians in Asia, all
in Africa, and about one third part of Europe,
are of the last sort (/. e. practise immersion)
in which a third part of Europe are compre-
hended the christians of Graccia, Trocia, Ser-
via, Bulgaria, Bascia, Walachia, Moldavia,
Russia, Nigra, and so on : and even the Mus-
covites, who, if coldness of the country will ex-
194
cuse, might plead for a dispensation with the -
most reason of any." Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part
2. Chap. 9. p- 477.
VI. Concerning the Design of Baptism, as
more fully expressed by immersion, than by-
pouring or sprinkling.
1. Witsius : " It must not be dissembled,
that there is in immersion a greater fruitful-
ness of signification, and a more perfect corres-
pondence between the thing signified : as we
shall shew, when we come to that part of our
subject." CEcon. Feed. L. v. Ch. 16. p. 13.
2. Alstcdins : " The rite of immersion,
which is intimated by the very word baptism,
certainly bears a greater analogy to the thing
signified." Lexicon Theol. Cap. 12. p. 225.
3. Dr. Clarke : " In the primitive times,
the manner of baptizing was by immersion, or
dipping the whole body into the water. And
this manner of doing it was a very significant
emblem of the dying and rising again referred
to by St. Paul." Rom. 6. 4. Expos, of Church
Cat. p. 294.
4. Dr. Cave : " The party to be baptized
was wholly immerged, or put under water : —
whereby they did more notably and significant-
ly express the three great ends and effects of
baptism." Primi. Christ. Part 1. Chap. 10,
p. 203.
VII. Concerning the Reasons, Rise, and
Prevalence of Pouring or Sprinkling, instead
of immersion.
1. Salmasins : " The Clinics only, because
they were confined to their beds, were baptized
1G4
in a manner of which they were capable, not In
the entire laver, as those who plunge the head
under water, but the whole body hud water
nourtd upon it. AoCypiian 4. Ep. vii. Thus
Novctus, when sick, received baptism ; being
pericliuthus, besprinkled, l.ot l»ap:isthefc>,
baptised.
2. Grotius : " The custom of pouring or
sprinkling seems to have prevailed in favor
of those that were dangerously ill, and were de-
sirous of giving up themselves to Christ :
whom others call Clinics- See tie epistle of
Cyprian to Magnus." Apud Poli Synopsin;
ad Matt. 3 6."
3- Bp. Burnet : " The danger of dipping
in cold climates, may be a good reason for
changing the form of baptism to sprinkling."
Kxpo. of 39- Ait. p. 456-
4- Dr. Wall : " In case of sickness, weak-
ness, haste, want of a quantity of water, or such
like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affu-
sion of water on the face, was by the ancients
counted sufficient baptism. 1 shall out of
many proofs of it, produce two or three of the
most ancient. Anno Dom. two hundred and
fifty-one, Novatian, was by one part of the cler-
gy and people of Rome, chosen Bishop of that
Church in a schismatical way, and in opposi-
tion to Corne/ius, does, in a letter to Fabius,
Bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right : and
shows that A ovatian came not canonical!}- to
his orders of priesthood, much less was he ca-
pable of being chosen Bishop ; for that all the
clergy, and a great many of the laity, were iu
165
gainst his being ordained presbyter, because it
■was not lawful (they said) for any one that had
been baptized in his bed in time of sickness
(ton en kline dia noson perichuthenta) as he
had been, to be admitted to any office of the
clergy.. -France seems to have been the first
country in the world, where baptism by affu-
sion, was used ordinarily to persons in health,
and in the public way of administrating it.
There had been some synods in some dio-
ceses, of France, that had spoken of affusion,
without mentioning immersion at all, that being
the common practice ; but for an office or li-
turgy of any church, this is I believe the first
in the world that prescribes aspersion absolute-
ly ; and for sprinkling, properly called, it seems
it was, at sixteen hundred and forty-five, just
then beginning, and used by very few. It
must have begun in the disorderly times of
forty-one.--But then came the Directory and
says—Baptism is to be administered, not in pri-
vate places or privately ; but in the place of
public worship, and in the face of the congrega-
tion, and so on. And not in the places where
fonts, in the time of popery, were unfitly and
superstitiously placed- So they reformed the
font into a basin. This learned assembly
could not remember, that fonts to baptize in
had been always used by the primitive chris-
tians, long before the beginning of Popery, and
ever since the churches were built : but that
sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing
was really introduced (in France first, and then
in other Popish countries) in times of Popery.
1GG
And that according, all those countries in
which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has
formerly been owned, have left off dipping of
children in the font : but that all other coun-
tries in the world, which had never regarded
his authority, do still use it ; and that basins,
except in cases of necessity, were never used
by Papists, or any other christian, Till Bv
themselves* What has been said of this
custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the or-
dinary use of baptism, is to be understood on-
ly in reference to the western parts of Europe :
for it is used ordinarily no where else-" I list-
of Bap. Inf. Part 2- Chap. ix. p. 463, 467, 470>
471, 472,477.
Reflections*
" By the quotations here produced from cm*
inent Paedobaptists, we are taught that the
most ancient instance on ecclesiastical record*
which is yet adduced, of pouring or sprinkling
i s that of Nov ati an, in the year 4 wo hundred
and fifty- one. That the reason of it, both then
and afterwards, was not any real, nor even pre-
tended command or example in the New Tes-
tament ; but a supposed necessity, arising from
bodily disease- -it was considered as an imper-
fect administration of the ordinance, so imper-
fect as rendered the subject of it ineligible to
the ministerial office, and was denominated
sprinkling, not baptism. That sprinkling,
strictly so called, did not commence in Eng-
land, till the year sixteen hundred forty-five,
and was then used by very few. That the As-
sembly of Divines at Westminster, converted
167
the font into a basin, and that basins unless
in cases of necessity, had never been used by
papists, or any other christians whatever, till
03 the members of that Assembly
" According to this representation, the prac-
tice of pouring and spi inkling, makes but a
poor figure in the eyes of a consistent Protes-
tant : for if this be a just account, it had no ex-
istence till many corruptions had taken deep
root in the church ; it originated in dangerous
error ; was fostered by the mcther of abomi-
nations ; and under the powerful influence of
her authority and her example, it became the
general custom of all those parts of the world
to which her tyranny ever extended--<W no
ivhere else. It seems to have been under the
combined opperation of different errors that the
practice took its rise, &c Sec."
\TII- Concerning the want of both Express
Precept, and Plain Example, for Pcedobap-
tism in the New Testament-
1- Bp- Burnet : " There is no express pre-
cept, or rule, given in the New Testament for
baptism of infants-" Expos, of 39 Articles- -
Art- 27-
2. Dr. Wall : " Among all the persons that
are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there
is no express mention of any infant— There is
no express mention indeed of ;my children bap-
tised by him," i e John the Baptist---Hist. of
ii.ft Bap* Intro- p 1, 55-
3 Luther : ' It cannot be proved by the
sacred scripture, that infant baptism was in-
stituted by ^Christ, or begun by the fiist chris-
168
tians after the Apostles.". -In A. B's Vanity of
Inf. Bap. Part 2- p. 8.
A* Limborch : " There is no express com-
mand for it in scripture : nay, all those passa-
ges wherein baptism is commanded, do imme-
diately relate to adult persons, since they are
ordered to be instructed, and faith is prerequi-
site as a necessary qualification, which are pe-
culiar to adults alone. There is no- instance
that can be produced, from whence it may in-
disputably be inferred, that any child was
baptized by the apostles. The necessity of
Paedobaptism was never asserted by any coun-
cil before that of Carthage, held in the year four
hundred and eighteen :" Compt. Svs. Div.
B. V. Ch. 22. Sec. 2.
Reflections.
** Such concessions are our opponents ob-
liged to make, in reference to this affair ! With
propriety therefore, I may here demand and
remonstrate, in the remarkable words of Mr.
Baxter : * What man dare go in a way which
hath neither precept nor example to warrant
it, from a way that hath a full current of both ?
Who knows what will please God but him-
self? And hath he not told us what heexpect-
eth from us? Can that be obedience, which
hath no command for it ? Is not this to supc-
rerogate, and to be righteous overmuch ? Is
it not also to accuse God's ordinances of in-
sufficiency, as well as his word, as if they were
not sufficient either to please him, or help our
own graces? O the pride of man's heart, that
instead of being a law-obeyer, will be a Uw~
169
maker ; and instead of being true worshippers,
they will be worship makers ; for my part, I
will not fear that God will be angry with me
for doing no more than he hath commanded
me, and for sticking close to the rule of his
word in matter of worship ; but I should trem-
ble to add or diminish !*
" We are frequently charged with being ex-
tremely fond of getting people into the water :
but whether it be really so, I leave the impar-
tial to judge. We may however say this for
ourselves, that we never immerse a person in
the sublimest of all names, without his con-
sent ; no nor yet without his explicit request :
whereas those who lodge the complaint against
ns are well aware, that it would in general be
very absurd for them to ask the consent of those
whom they sprinkle in the same glorious name;
they consider the consent of a parent, or of a
proxy, as quite sufficient, though the subject
of the ordinance be ever so reluctant."
IX. Concerning the want of evidence in fa-
vor of Paedobaptism, before the latter end of the
second, or the beginning of the third centurj-.
1. Salmasius and Suicerus : " In the two
first centuries no one was baptized, except be-
ing instructed in the faith, and acquainted with
the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess
himself a believer ; because of these words,
He that believeth and is baptized. First then he
was to believe. Thence the order of Cate-
chumens, in the church. Then also it was the
constant custom to give the Lord's supper to
• PUu* Scrip. Proof, p. 24, 303.
P
170
those Catechumens, immediately after their
baptism." Epist. ad Justum Pacium. Suiceri
Thesa. p. 1 136.
2. Curcellaeus : " The baptism of infants,
in the first two centuries after Christ, was alto-
gether unknown ; but in the third and fourth
was allowed by some few- In the fifth and
following ages it was generally received---the
custom of baptizing infants did not begin be-
fore the third age alter Christ was born. In
the former ages no trace of it appears— -and it
was introduced without the command of
Christ."
3. Episcopius, denies that any tradition can
be produced for Pzedobaptism, till a little be-
fore the Milevitan Council, A. D. 418, and
maintains that it was not practised in Asia till
near the time of that Council. Insti. L. iv. 14.
Mr. Brandt speaks to the same effect. Hist.
Ref. Vol. 1. p. 9.
4. Venema : " Tertullian has no where men-
tioned Pzedobaptism among the tradition of
the church, nor even among the customs of the
church that were publicly received and usually
observed : nay, he plainly intimates that in his
time it was a doubtful affair. For in his book
De Baptismo, Cap. 18, he dissuades from
baptizing infants, and proves by certain rea-
sons that the delay of it to a more mature age
is to be preferred ; which he certainlv would
not have done, if it had been a tradition and a
public custom of the church, seeing he was
very tenacious of traditions, nor had it been a
tradition, would he have failed to mention it.
171
It is manifest therefore, that nothing was then
determined concerning the time of baptism
nay, he judged it safer that unmarried persons
should defer their baptism — Nothing can be
affirmed with certainty concerning the custom
of the church before Tertiillian ; seeing there
is not any where in more ancient writers, that I
know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism.
Justin Martyr, in his second Apology, when
describing baptism, mentions only that of ad-
ults " — Hist. Eccles. Tom. iii. Secul. ii. $.108,
109.
5. Regaltius : " In the Acts of the Apos-
tles, we read, that both men and women were
baptized, when they believed the gospel prea-
ched by Philip, without any mention being
made of infants. From the apostolic age, there-
fore, to the time of Tertiillian, the matter is
doubtful. Some there were, from that saying
of our Lord, Suffer little children to come unto
me : (to whom, nevertheless, our Lord did not
■command water to be administered) who took
occasion to baptize new born infants. And
as if they had been transacting some secular af-
fair with God, they offered sponsors cr sure-
ties to Christ, who engaged that they should
not depart from the christian faith when ad-
ults ; which practice displeased Tertu'Iian." —
Ste.met's Answer to Mr. Russen, p* 74, 75.
X. Concerning the high opinion of the Fa-
thers, in relation to the utility of Baptism, and
the grounds on whieh they proceeded in ad-
n. metering that ordinance to infants, when
Fas Jobaptism become a prevailing practice.
172
1. Vitringa : " The ancient Christian
Church, from the highest antiquity, after the
apostolic times, appears generally to have'
thought that baptism is absolutely necessary for
all that would be saved by the grace of Jesus
Christ. It was therefore customary in the an-
cient church, if infants were greatly afflicted
and in danger of death ; or if parents were af-
fected with a singular concern about the salva-
tion of their children ; to present their infants,
or children in their minority, to the Bishop to
be baptized. But if these reasons did not urge
them, they thought it better, and more for the
interest of minors, that their baptism should be
dcferedtill they arrived at a more advanced
age : which custom was not yet abolished in
the time of Austin, though he vehemently urg-
ed the necessity of baptism, while, with all his
might, he defended the doctrines of grace a-
gainst Pelagius." Observat. Sac. Tom. I. L.
II. C. 6. \ 9.
2. Salmasius : " An opinion prevailed, that
no one could be saved without being baptized ;
and for that reason the custom arose of bapti-
zing infants." — Ep. ad Justum Pacium. &c.
Hist. B:ip.
3. Episcopius : M Psedobaptism was not
accounted a necessary rite, till it was determin-
ed.sotobein the Milevitan Council, held in
the year four hundred and eighteen. " — Insti-
tut. Theol. L- IV. C. 14.
4. Hospinianus : " Austin — when writing
against the Pelagians, too inconsiderately, con-
signs over the infair:s of christians to dumna-
173
n, that died without baptism. There is no-
ling that he more zealously urges, nor any
thing on which he more firmly depends, than
those words of Christ; Except a man be born
of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into
thekinoxlom of God." — Hist. Sacram. L. II.
C. 11. "p. 52.
5. Dr Owen : " Most of the ancients con-
cluded that it (baptism) was no less necessary
:ito salvation, than faith -or repentance itself.".
On Justification, Chap ii- p. 173-
Reflections.
" Though it be manifest from the conces-
sions and assertions of learned Pasdobaptists,
in the preceeriin^ clrapterj that there is no evi-
dence of infant baptism before the time of Ter-
tullian, by whom it was opposed : yet from
the quotations, it plainly appears that both; he
and others before him, spake of baptistri "m such
a manner, as had a natural tendency to intro-
duce and promote Paedobaptism.
It is worthy of observation, that while Cyp-
rian stands forth as the first patron of infant
sprinkling, he appears also as giving the sanc-
tion of his.au thority in favor of holy xuater : as-
serting the Necessity of having the baptismal
element consecrated by a priest, m order to
render it the more effectual for the washing a-
way of sin.* Austin and others, we find, in
following times, proceed a step further than
Cyprian-, and not contented with asserting at.
an extravagant rate the utility of baptism, bold-
ly maintains its absolute necessity : consigti-
* Sec Yenema, Eccl. Ifist. Tnm. ITISec 3. p. 6L
J* 2
174
ing over to eternal ruin, all such infants as died
without it — .Now, as both Cyprian And Austin
were African Bishops, there is reason to con-
elude with Grotius, 4 That anciently the bap-
tism of infants was much more common in
Africa than in Asia, or elsewhere : and with
a greater opinion of its necessity.' f So fond
of baptism were the superstitious Africans, that,
as Deylingms informs us they frequently bap-
tized the dead. % I cannot help
thinking, that either the inspired writers knew
nothing at all of Paedobaptism, or hud a very
mean opinion of it : for it seems unaccountably
:it range, that they should all have approved the
practice, and yet all agree, on such a variety of
.occasions, in saying nothing about it- But sup-
posing k was practised by them, and that they
considered it as much more advantageous than
♦helteptism of believers, their conduct is yet
moiv amazingly strange : because they ex-
pressly apply the latter to practical purposes,
though emitcly silent about the former. An
example this, which our opponents are not in-
clined to imitate. Peruse the writings of mod-
ern Psedobr.ptists, and you plainly perceive the
advantc-$es resulting from baptism, almost en-
tirely confined to that of infants. Consult the
Apostolic records, and you find them all con-
nected wivh the baptism of adults. We may
»iow venture to appeal to the reader, whether
he would not suspect my unknown author of
bei» g a baptist, weie he to find him treating on
- Apud. Poli. Synops. ad .Matt. xix. 14.
* De Prud P^st. Pops. III. CU.3. $16-
175
all ihe various topics lately enumerated, and
yet perceive that he is quite silent about infant
baptism.
XI Concerning Apostolic Tradition, and
the impracticability of pointing out the time
when Pa;dobaptism commenced.
1. J. A. Turrettinus : " Tradition is a con-
venient word, to excuse and retain those things
that were brought into religion without the au-
thority of scripture, by the ignorance of the
times and the tyranny of men."
2. Mr- Robinson : " If, whatever we find
to have been a general and prevailing custom a
few hundred years after the Apostles, must ne-
cessarily be allowed to have been the practice
of their times too; I am afraid we must not
only have forms of prayer, but also prayers for
the dead, and invocations of saints and angels*
and so on-" Review of Liturgies, p. 111.
3. Anonymous: " The church of Ron.v,
will not acknowledge their points of doctrine
to be erroneous, unless we can assign the time,
and point out the persons who first broached
them. If a man be sick of a consumption, will
he refuse help of the physician, except he can
resolve him whether his lungs, or his liver
w^re first infected, and show the time when,
and the occasion how his body grew first dis-
tempered." Popery confuted by Papists, p.
26, 27,
4. Mr. Henry : " Irenaeus, one of the first
fathers, with this passage, (John viii. 57) sup-
ports tradition, which, he sakh he 1 ad from
some that had converged with St. John, that
17fi
our Snviour lived to be fifty years old, which
he contends for. See what little credit is to be
^iven to tradition." Exposition on Jolmviii. 57.
5. Mr. Claude: " As to the scripture, in-
stead of making that the only rule of faith,
they (the Papists) had joined tradition with it:
that is to say, the most uncertain thing in the
world, the most subject to impostures, and the
most mixed with human inventions and weak-
nesses. Tradition is so far from being able to
serve for a rule, that it ought itself to be cor-
rected and regulated according to that maxim
of Jesus Christ : In the beginning it was not so.
There is therefore, nothing more improper to
be the rule of faith than that pretended tradi-
tion, which is not established upon any c:
foundation, winch serves for a pretence to he-
retics, which is embraced pro and con, which
changes according as times and places do, and
by the favor of which they may defend the
greatest absurdities, by merely saying, fl&t
they are the traditions of the apostles trans-
mitted from their own mouths to their suc-
cessors." Defence of Reformation, Part 1.
chap. 3. p. 34. Part 2. chap. 8. 254, 258.
Reflections.
" The Baptists are here informed by their
learned opponents, that the pretence of tradi-
tion is a happy expedient, in favor of those
who wish to retain unscriptural rites in the
worship of God. That some of the first Fa-
thers who pleaded apostolic tradition, stand
convicted of error. That were ecclesiastical
custom, but a few centuries after the christian
177
sera commenced, to be considered as an apos-
tolical practice barely on a traditional ground ;
we must adopt a variety of ceremonies which
all Protestants have agreed to reject. That
the conduct of the Roman Catholics in refusing
to acknowledge their errors, except the time
when, and the persons by whom they were in-
troduced be pointed out, is grossly absurd.
Such are the sentiments of these respectable
authors concerning the matter before us."
. The following remarkable words
of the famous Wicklijf, we would suppose
should be cordially adopted by every consis-
tent Protestant : " All human traditions, which
are not taught in the gospel, are superfluous
and wicked." Superfluous, because the bible
is a complete rule of faith and practice : wickedt
because tradition frequently usurps the place
of divine law, and vacates the commands of
God Till therefore,
it be fairly proved that infant baptism is war-
ranted, either b}r precept or by example in the
New Testament, we need not ber much con-
cerned about the precise time when it was
introduced ; but may safely shelter our cause
under the wings of that divine oracle — From
THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. If, llOW-
ever, our opponents will pledge themselves to
inform us with precision, when the Jewish
proselyte baptism commenced, or when infant
communion first came into the church ; we
will engage in our turn to inform them with
equal punctuality, when infant baptism was
first practised. The conduct of our opposers
178
in arguing for Paedobaptism from tradition,
reminds me of an old saying, with which I will
conclude this chapter : Cum leonina non suf-
ficeret, pellem vulpinamesse assuendam."
XII. Concerning the period at which infant
baptism and infant communion were intro-
duced, and the similarity of argument by which
they are both supported.
1. Bp. Burnet : " We see a practice that
\vas very ancient, and that continued very long,
which arose out of the exposition of those
words, John vi. 53 ; by which children were
made partakers of the eucharist." Four Dis-
courses to the Clergy, p. 206, 207.
2. Salmasius : " Because the eucharist was
given to adult Catechumens when they were
washed with holy baptism without any space
of time intervening : this also was done to in-
fants, after Psedobaptism was introduced."—
Apud Dalcnem. Dissertat. de Paedobaptismo.
3. Mosbeim : " It appears by many and un-
doubted testimonies, that this holy rite (the
Lord's Supper) was looked upon as essential
to salvation ; and when this is duly consider-
ed we shall be less disposed to censure, as er-
roneous, the opinion of those who have affirm-
ed that the Lord's Supper was administered to
infants durir g this (second} century." Eccles.
Hist. Vol. 1, p. 171.
4. Dr. John Edwards : " Infant commu-
nicating— was a catholic, doctrine — Herein all
the fathers agreed ; who, misunderstanding,
and misapplying Christ's words, in John vi. 53.
.ield that the sacrament of the Lord'*) supper
179
was to be administered to infants and children,
and that it was necessary for them to salva-
tion ; accordingly they made them partakers
of that ordinance." — Discourse concerning
truth and error, p. 232.
5. Venema : " No sign of admitting infants
to the holy supper appears before the time of
Cyprian, in the third century ; who is the first,
that mentions it, as will appear in its pn >per
place. From which, what has been said about
Paedobaptism, acquires additional force ; see-
ing in the ancient church, those Civ o sacraments,
in respect of the subject, were never sepa-
rated the ONE FROM THE OTHER. Hist.
Eccles. Secul. II. p. 100.
6. Mr. Williams : " In point of right, how
can the two ordinances be separated ? are not
the same reasons which are brought for infant
baptism, in the like manner applicable to infant
communion ? And will not the objections a-
gainst the latter admit of the same answer as
those against the former ? — Nor do I see how
this reasoning can be evaded by a consistent
Paedobaptist, while we only attend to a legal
right of infants to that ordinance." — Note on
Mr. Morrice's Soc. Relig. p. 78, 79.
I will close the testimony of our respectable
Paedobaptist bcethren with one of Cardinal
Hosiusy who was President of the Council of
Trent. " The Anabaptists are a pernicious
sect: of which kind the Waldensian Breth-
ren seem also to have been. Concerning
whom it appears, that not very long ago they
rebaptized persons : though some of them
180
lately, as they testified in their Apology, have
ceased to repeat baptism. Certain it is how-
ever that in many things they agree with the
Anabaptists . Nor is this heresy a modern
thing : for it existed in the time of Austin."
Ap. Schyn. Hist. Mennomit. p. 135.
Reflections.
We are here told by our opponents, that the
Lord's supper was anciently given to infants—
That it became general — That the practice of
giving the holy supper to infants, originated
in a misunderstanding of John vi. 53---That it
followed immediately on their being baptized.
That in point of legal right, the two ordinan-
ces cannot be separated-- -That in the ancient
church, baptism and the sacred supper were
never separated, in regard to their subjects—
That the Lord's supptr was esteemed neces-
sary to the salvation of infants- --That no ob-
jection can be made against it which will not
lie with equal force against infant baptism.
Such is the important intelligence communica-
ted by these Paedobaptists."
" It is very observable, that so many Paedo-
baptists themselves have admitted the facts on
which we reason : Do we maintain, for in-
stance, that baptism is a positive institution,
and that positive rites depend entirely on the
revealed will of God, in regard to the manner
of performing them, the persons to whom they
belong, and the signification of them ? All
this they readily grant. Do we insist, that the
obvious and native sense of the term baptism,
is immersion ? They expressly allow it. Do
181
we assert, that the principal thing intended by
the ordinance, is a representation of our com-
munion with Christ ? It is cheerfully granted.
Do we maintain that immersion was the apos-
tolic practice, and that except in extraordinary
cases, it was the general custom for thirteen
hundred years ? Do we affirm, that immer-
sion is the present practice of the Greek and
Oriental churches, and that those churches in-
clude one half the christian world ? Their own
pens bear testimony for us. Do we insist, that
plunging is more expressive of the great things
intended by the ordinance, than pouring or
sprinkling ? They accede to our opinion.-—
Do we assert, that the first instance of pouring
or sprinkling, instead of immersion, which is
expressly recorded, was about the middle of
the third century, and then condemned ; that
the apostate church of Rome, all sovereign as
her claims are, introduced pouring to common
practice ; and that Protestant churches receiv-
ed it from her polluted hands ? These being
stubborn facts, are all acknowledged. Do we
assert, that no power on earth has authority
to alter the laws of Christ, or to depart from
the apostolic example in regard to immersion ?
So do they, in effect, when disputing with Pa-
pists concerning the sacred supper. Do we
contend that there is no express command, nor
plain example in^the New Testament, relating
to infant baptism ? It is granted by them. Do
we plead, that there is no evidence of Paedo-
baptism being practised before the conclusion
of the second, or beginning of the third cen-
182
tury ? This also is readily granted, even by
some of those who were the greatest adepts in
christian antiquities. Is it our opinion that the
extravagant notions of the fathers, in the se-
cond and in the beginning of the third century,
concerning the great utility of baptism, and
their misunderstanding of John iii. 5. laid the
foundation of Paedobaptism ? It is allowed.
Do we treat with contempt the plea of pretend-
ed apostolic tradition, unsupported by scrip-
ture ? So do all Protestants, except Paedo-
baptism, Episcopacy, or something similar, so.
licits their patronage. Once more : Do we
maintain, that infant baptism and infant com-
munion were introduced about the same time ;
that they are supported by kindred arguments ;
that they were equally common for a course
of ages : and that they are still united in the
practice of half the christian world ? We have
the happiness to find that these facts are all
confirmed by their learned pens."
Glassius informs us of some Jewish Rabbics
who maintain, ' That there are seventy ways of
expounding divine law ;' and Dr. Allix tells us
that Rabbi Lipman lays this down for a maxim,
* That the law was capable of divers explica-
tions, and all of them, though never so incom-
patible and contradictory, were nevertheless the
words of the living God. ' * Now as the sen-
timents of our opposers respecting infant bap-
tism are so greatly diversified and so grossly
inconsistent, I do not perceive how they can
be reconciled, without admitting these Rab-
• Judg. of the Jewish Church, p. 413.
]S3
binical principles of interpreting holy writ : nor
even then without insulting common sense,
and rendering the divine word of no utility. —
Franklius, we learn from Dr. Schyn> publish-
ed a book which he entitled, The Babel of the
Anabaptists : and it appears from what has
been laid before the reader, that he might have
published its counter-part, under the title of
the Babel of Pasdobaptism : for we may safe-
ly defy our keenest opposers to produce a mass*
of inconsistencies from the writings of Bap-
tists, and relating to baptism, equal to that
which appears in the foregoing pages."
Having proved all we want, by the conces-
sions and declarations of our opponents, quoted
from Bryant's abridgement of Booth's Paedo-
baptism examined, we offer a few passages ta-
ken from Mr. White, of Philadelphia : prin-
ted 1808.
" In the pamphlet we have noticed, the ail-"
thor tries to lead his readers astray by quota-
tions from the fathers, wherein he asserts that
as early as forty years after the apostles, the
baptizing of infants is spoken of in their wri-
tings. The persons he refers us to in proof
of it are, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertuliian,
Origen and Cyprian. All that he has said here
has been literally copied from a sermon of Mr.
Bostwick, of New- York, yet no credit has
been given him for it : but it is disingenuous
to the last degree in him to renew this argu-
ment, when he well knows that the late Dr.
Gill proved Mr. Bostvvick's assertions errone-
ous ; and as that gentleman never did reply to
18*
the Doctor, his silence is conclusive evidence
of his defeat. Nor does our author give a true
account of the time in which they lived ; for
according to him, Justin Martyr wrote about
forty years after the apostles : but the fact is,
that he lived about one hundred and fifty years
after Christ. Nor did Tertullian, as he affirms,
live within one hundred and ninety years of
the apostles ; for he did not join the church at
Carthage, until the close of the second centu-
ry, nor flourish until the beginning of the third.
Cyprian lived about the middle of the third
century ; but this author says it was about one
hundred years after the apostles. Now, what
dependence is to be placed in men's assertions,
when they can, to serve their purposes, so
cgregiously falsify history ?"
" This author's pretended quotation from
Justin Martyr, is, that l some aged christians
were made disciples in, or from, their infancy;'
and, though he allows that infant baptism is not
mentioned, yet he says, * if they were made
disciples in infancy, they were doubtless the
subjects of baptism.' The quotation is not
correct : for the word ' disciple' is not in the
passage ; all that he -says is, that they were ' in-
structed' from their childhood : The original
quotation is, " Several persons among us, men
and women of sixty and seventy years of age,
who, from their childhood were instructed in
Christ, remain still incorrupt." These per-
sons were instructed, not baptized, nor made
disciples. How absurd, therefore, the conclu-
sion, that they were baptized in their infancy,
185
when no such thing is said ! Nor is the Greek
word which he renders ' infancy' in his quo-
tation, properly translated ; for it ought to be
rendered 'children? and surely it will not
be thought strange that such should be instruc-
ted ; for Timothy knew the scriptures from a
* child,'' Besides, ' instructing* supposes they
were not infants ; and therefore if they had
been 'disciples,' as he affirms, yet it was done
at a time when they could, and actually did re-
ceive - instruction.1
Our author says, " Irenseus mentions the
baptism of ' infants^ This assertion of his is
altogether false . The words are, ' He (that is
Christ) came to save all ; all I say, who by him
are bom again to God, infants and little ones,
and children, and young men, and old men.' —
He will have it, that by ' regeneration' is meant
4 baptism0: but this gross error of calling re-
generation, baptism, had not at that time got
into use, and was reserved to darker ages ; nor
is it in his power to shew an instance in any of
the writings of Irenaeus of its being so used, to
justify this interpretation. This would make
him say, that Christ came to save all baptized
persons, which he never would have said : but
it was true in the sense he used it, that Christ
came to saveaU that were ' born again of God ;'
for no doubt infants' dying in infancy , are re-
generated and taken to glory : but not all in-
fants : for some grow up in sin and live in it
all their days."
He next introduces Tertullian, who, he says,
*' speaks of baptizing of infants as a practice of
<i3
18(5
the church ;" and he calls him singular and
whimsical. Tertullian does not say it was a
practice of the church : but he opposes it as an
innovation, and declares it to be wrong-, advi-
sing that such should grow up first, and be in-
structed before they were baptized. His
Words are, " Let them come, while they are
growing up, let them come and learn, and let
them be instructed when they come, and when
they Understand Christianity, let them profess
themselves christians." I now ask, is it not
too barefaced for a man to assert, as does this
author, that he spoke of infant baptism as a
practice of the church ? We indeed have not
denied that at that time the first attempt was
made to introduce infant baptism, under the
notion that it was regeneration : but other er-
rors were also at the same time introduced, as
Tertullian says : whose words are, M It is well
known, a great variety of superstitious \ ridicu-
lous and foolish rites, were brought into the
church." Must it net be evident to an unpre-
judiced mind, that tins is evidence against in-
fant baptism, rather than a defence of it ? But
why call Tertullian whimsical ? Or if he were
so, why quote him as an authority? The whole
mystery lies in this, that he opposed the bap-
tizing of infants ; and the test oijimwess and
stability with our author 'must, no doubt, be
zeal for infant baptism.
Origen is next mentioned, thus : " He was
one of the most learned and knowing men of
the age, and declares that infants are, by the u-
sage of the church, baptized, and that an order
IS7
for baptizing of infants had been delivered to
the church, from the apostles, who knew that
the pollution of sin is in all." The reader will
observe, that Origen wrote in Greeks and many
of his own writings are still in being : but this
quotation concerning infant baptism, is not to
be found in any of them. But if it be asked,
whence was it derived : the answer is, that our
opponents have gotten it from some interpola-
ted latin translations, which are not to be trus-
ted. These were made by men that lived at
the latter end of the fourth century, when the
churches were overrun with error. But had
it been in reality proved (which it cannot be)
that Origen had so written : yet his assertion
deserves but little credit, as he was one of the
most erroneous and superstitious persons of his
day, and one that taught universal salvation :
and that cur author has given him a character
he by no means deserves, and to shew how lit-
tle reliance is to be placed on what he says, I
will subjoin a quotation from a Paedobaptist
(Bishop Taylor) concerning him : His re-
marks are. " A tradition apostolical, if it be
not consigned with a fuller testimony than that
of one person (Origen) whom all ages have con-
demned oj many errors^ will obtain so little re-
putation among those, who know that others
have upon greater authority pretended to de-
rive from the apostles and yet falsely, that it
will be a great argument that he is credulous
and weak that shall be determined by so weak
approbation in » matter of so great conse-
quence." The reader will see from this quo-
188
tation from so eminent a person as Bishop Tay-
lor, that our author's recommendation of cha-
racter is not to be trusted ; and this will learn
the reader to be cautious how he takes on
trust what this writer says.
" Cyprian (says our author) gives as full a
testimony as possible to the practice of infant
baptism at the time ha lived. At the council
of sixty-six ministers, held about one hundred
and fifty years after the apostles, (the date here
is false, for it Mas in the middle of the third
century) it was debated, whether it would not
be proper to delay the baptizing of infants till
the eighth day, according to the law of circum-
cision. The reader will recollect, we have ad-
mitted that infant baptism, not infant sprink-
ling, was introduced in the beginning of the
third century. Of what use can it be to tell
us of Cyprian, who lived after that period, or
of the council of Carthage, which debated the
question referred to, when we have not dispu-
ted it prevailed then ? Take out the false date,
our author has given it, and then the poison is
extracted ; for instead of this being done in
the second century, it will be found to be in
the middle of the third. But the name of the
council in which this was debated is kept back,
as well as the arguments used in support, as
likewise other ridiculous questions debated.
Why not tell these things ? Was the gentle-
man ashamed of the transaction ? Well he may
be. But that the reader may see the extreme
ignorance and superstition of these ' minis-
ters' as he calls them, I will give a little ac-
count of this business.
. 189
A bishop named Fidus, wrote to Cyprian at
Carthage, to know whether children might be
baptized before they were eight days old, (it
seems his bible could not determine this ques-
tion^ nor yet Cyprian) ; a council was called,
and its decision was this : " That God denies
grace to none; that God would be a respecter
of persons if he were to deny to infants what
he grants to adults ;" and then to justify this
decision, they advance the following reasoning:
" Did not the prophet Elijah lie upon a child,
and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his
eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his
hands ? Now the spiritual sense of all this is,
that infants are equal to men ; but if you refuse
to baptize them, you destroy the equality, and
are partial." Here, reader, is conclusive rea-
soning for you ! Here is the mighty decision
of the council of Carthage i How profound the
reasoning ! Elijah lay upon a child, therefore
infants are to be baptized ! Infants are equal to
men, therefore infants are to be baptized I
God is no respecter of persons, therefore in-
fants are to be baptized ! Wonderful council
of Carthage ! Sixty-six Solomons indeed they
were ; and no doubt, cur author, had he then
lived, would have vied with any of them ! But
one thing is singular : they do not pretend to
any apostolic tradition, do not quote the prac-
tice of the church — bring forward no command
of Christ — no example from the New Testa-
ment: as for them they at that time never
thought of arguing from Abraham's covenant,
and were it seems ignorant of infant church-
190
membership, and destitute of arguments which
modern Paedobaptists so amply supply in die
present day*"
" But I have not done with this council yet ;
for it seems the pious Fidus above mentioned,
had his conscience troubled about a matter
equally as weighty as the baptizing a child at
eight days old, nor could he rest until the coun-
cil decided on it ; and now, reader, if you pro-
mise me not to laugh immoderately, I will tell
you what it is. Poor dear man he was very
delicate, and had no small fear of ceremonial
defilement, (as a person of his holiness must
need be) ; now as it was the practice to kiss
the babe, poor Fidus thought this was an un-
clean piece of business to kiss the child so soon
after it was born ; and, feering the wrath of
heaven if he did not do it, his holy soul could
not rest until the council had settled the matter.
This council that decided so wonderfully on
infant baptism, very gravely debated the point,
and after many a display of genius decided
thus : " You are mistaken, Fidus, children in
this case are not unclean, for the apostle saith,
* to the pure all things are pure.' JVo man
ought to be shocked at hissing what God conde-
scends to create. Circumcision was. a carnal
rite, this is spiritual circumcision, and Peter
saith we ought not to call anv man common or
unclean." These famous bishops were as
tenacious of the ordinance of baby kissing, as
of baby baptizing. It is indeed singular, that
while these gentlemen refer to Cyprian and
others, as authorities for the subjects of bap-
191
iism, they wholly reject the mode ; for it is well
known that they practised immersion only."
" One remark more will close these strict-
ures ; and that is on what the author says,
* that we have the testimony of Doctor YV all
to this effect : * For the first four hundred
years there appears only one man f Tertul « J
that advised the delay of infant baptism in
some cases, and one Gregory that did perhaps
practice such delay in the case of his children :
but no society so thinking, or so practising,
nor any one man saying that it was not lawful
to baptize infants. In the next seven hundred
years, there is not so much as one man to be
found that either speaks for or practised such
delay." Had all this been true, what would
it prove, more than that the long reign of the
superstitions of popery is a justification of
those superstitions ; such reasoning will justi-
fy most of the errors uf the church of Rome.
But it is not true;: for Doctor Wall has allowed
that Tertullian did oppose it, on its first intro-
duction in the beginning of the third century ;
and the same man produces a decision of the
council of Carthage, one hundred and eigh-
teen years after Cyprian, when persons are an-
athematised who deny infant baptism. This
was in the year 418, and stands thus : ' Also
it is our pleasure that whoever denies that
new born infants are to be baptised, let him be
anathema.' Would that council have given
these directions, had it not been opposed ? —
And the same Dr. Wall admits, that Peter
Jlruys, and Henry , his follower, were both An-
192
tipasdobaptist preachers, and says, * they were
the first that c\ er set up a church, or society
of men, holding that opinion against infant
baptism, and re- baptising such as had been
baptized in infancy ; and that the Latcran coun-
cil, under Innocent II. A. D. 1139, did con-
dc * /Peter Bruys, and Arnold Brescia.' From
this it appears that Doctor Wall has granted
all we want : namely, that the JValdenses, of
which these men were pastors, held this very
doctrine ; and it is well known thattbe Wai-
fs were inhabitants of the vallies of Pied-
mont, who firmly and at the peril of their lives,
maintained the truth through all the dark ages
of popery. Their confessions prove they op-
posed infant baptism. Extracts from their
confessions may be seen, with a general ac-
count of them, in Doctor Gill's answer to si
pamphlet printed in Boston in 1 74 6.
It has been asked by Paedobaptists, why
make such ado about baptism, it is, s«y they
but a nonessential at last, and even if we are
wrong, it is not a matter of such importance,
nor shall we be asked in the day of judgment
whether we have been Baptists or Paedobap-
tists. In answer to this 1 shall observe, that
it is hard for our opponents to know what
questions will be asked them on that head
hereafter : but Christ says, ' He that breaketh
one of the least of these commandments, and
teachcth men so, shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven : Matt. vi. 19. Certainly
this text does not look as if the practice were
harmless. 1 have often wondered that any
193
christians would urge as a rer.son for rrcgfecft
that baptism is not a ' saving1 ordinance j there
is so much meanness in it, and it certainly con-
veys the idea that they are determined to have
no more religion than is sufficient tokcepthern.
out of hell ; and if they can but get to heaven,
God's glory is nothing to them ; yea, that they
care not whether He is pleased or di-plcased*
I know there are thousands of godly Pac do-
baptists who would tremble at such inferences:
but I ask, do they not arise out of the excuses
that are made ? But infant baptism is so far
from being a small tiling, it is one of the great-
est of evils, and has been the fruitful source of
most of the calamities that have overtaken the
christian church ; it has been the inlet to in-
numerable other evils, and never will the
church of Christ be purged and appear in her
primitive simplicity and beauty, until this most
pernicious practice is discontinued* Baptism
is called the floor into the church fey our oppo-
nents : does it not then assume the greatest
importance, and does it not become. us to take
care that the door is sucfi as will not eventual-
ly destroy the chitrch itself ? All pious men
k<»ow, that real religion consists in a work of
grace in the soul — a new and spiritual birth — »
and that in tins work, there is effected a change
of views, of affections, and of pursuits of those
who are the partakers of it : so that such per-
sons are entirely opposite in their tempers and
dispositions, to the rest of mankind ; nor can
they hive any real fellowship with them in
worldly things, and none at all in spiritual con*
B
194
cerns, for there is not the least agreement of
sentiment here.
I now ask, what was a church state set up
for ? Was it not that real religious persons
might be associated together in brotherly love ;
and by enjoying each other's conversation and
fraternal assistance, grow up in their holy reli-
gion, and so aid each other in seeking everlas-
ting life? And did not Christ in establishing
the gospel church, intend they should hold up
to the view of sinful men the excellency of the
christian religion, and thereby practically en-
force in their view, the necessity of real piety
in order to their future happiness ? But infant
sprinkling has corrupted the church of God —
has made the fountain turbid — has made it a
mere worldly sanctuary — has defeated the ends
Christ proposed in the organization of this re-
ligious institution ; and the children of God
have to seek in retirement that comfort they
cannot have in a worldly church ; while the
wicked are hardened in their infidel principles,
by the conduct of such professors.
My Brethren in the ministry, who are in the
practice of infant sprinkling, and have felt the
power of religion in your heart, (for to carnal
clergy this address will be tasteless) have you
surveyed all the consequences of such a prac-
tice, and will you bear with me while I dis-
charge a solemn duty which I owe to God and
to you, even that of developingthe evils attend-
ant upon it ? You well know that in chris-
tian countries (so called) near nine tenths of
the people have received what is termed bap-,
195
tism in infancy, and you have told us baptism
introduces into the church. Now breth-
ren, look at the state of society ; what have you
done, have you not assisted in crouding into
the church of Christ the children of satan ? Do
yon not, by these means, put the government
of the church into the hands of wicked men,
they being by far the majority ? Infant sprink-
ling is the mean by satan used for preventing a
religious experience being given in, in order
to admission into the church ; hence a reH-
gious experience ceases to be necessary to
church membership, and what is ihc conse-
quence ? Is it not, that a great majority of such
institutions become in a short time graceless
persons ? And these churches, what are they
to do ? Are they not to select their officers,
such as ministers and deacons ? But what se-
lections are wicked men likely to make ? Will
they choose pious persons to rtil such starfons,
or are they not generally disposed to sit under
a clergy that will favor their vices ; and to
choose deacons and elders, who Will wink at sin ;>
If it should be asked, why are so manv
churches so corrupt, that their members gener-
ally live in all the fashions and gaiety oft he age —
attend the theatre — are found at assemblies and
sinful parties — are profane and loose in their
conversation — neither assemble for social wor-
ship, nor adntitof religious conversation ahrsnr-*
them ; the answer will be infant sprinkKftp js
the cause of all this — it has made them mem-
bers of the church. Should it be afcfced, v>hv
are many of the clergy void of religion, and
196
how came they into the sacred trust, and what
led to their being selected as pastors ? the an-
swer is still the same — infant sprinkling is the
cause ! Should it be asked, why mere moral
lectures, elegant diction, flowery language, cor-
rect composition* should be called gospel
preaching by the hearers ; when at the same
time, human ciepravhy has not been set forth —
or the new birth and experimental religion in-
sistcd en — nor Christ hardly mentioned, much
less the mysteries of his cross, and the complete-
ness of his righteousness displayed — but on
the contrary, a total ignorance of a work of
gra.ee on the preacher's heart, manifest to eve-
ry spiritual man that hears him ; the answer still
is, iniar. t sprinkling is the cause of all this : for
if the church had not been corrupted by it, and
the majority had feared God and loved religion,
they never could sit under such preachers.
In the first ages, while believers' baptism
was in practice, the churches were nearly pure ;
but ::0 sooner did that desolating evil of infant
sprit)!-: ling creep in, but in a very short time
the face of the church was changed. Then a
carnal clergy succeeded — then every abomina-
ble error took its rise ; for a graceless clergy
could do no less than err — then in a little time
the clergy began to aim at worldly power and
djgniiy then the harlot oi Rome became car-
isscdar-d established, and this was her sup-
port— then a wicked clergy under pretence c£
seeking God's honor, interfered in the politi-
oal concern.; of nations, and sowed discord a-
lrions princes, and provoked the most cruel
197
wars. Had church-membership continued
on the plan first established by Christ, and had
none been admitted to baptism but believers,
or such as gave a credible account of a work of
grace on the heart, the majority of the mem-
bers in churches would have been such as fear-
ed God; and none of these evils would have
followed. Infant sprinkling makes a carnal
church ; a carnal church only can be a fight-
ing or persecuting church. Infant sprinkling,,
and infant church- membership, have laid the
foundation for all the persecutions that have
ever been practised by the church of Rome ;
had it not been for a carnal church, the fields
of Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany,
would never have been covered with kjimaa
gorc> by the pretended children of Christ. I
ask, could a real christian church be a perse-
cuting church ? I know the answer must be,
it cannot. But would the church ever have
been so corrupt, had membership therein de-
pended on a religious experience? It will —
it must be conceded, that it would not. But
was it not infant sprinkling that occasioned this
religious test to be laid aside ? and if it were,
is it not to this dreadful evil all the consequen-
ces are owing.
Infant sprinkling, by corrupting the church
of God, has made her a bloody, a persecuting
church — is now that tie that binds church anil
state together on the continent, (for without it
there could be no national church) the present
cause of ungodly and shameful persecutions-.
Infant sprinkling is that which in Europe has
R2
198
settled a numerous and licentious clergy, who
having entered into the political schemes of
their respective governments, have m return
been saddled on the people to ride them to
death, and are the cause of preventing the faith-
ful preaching of the gospel by others ; so that
irreligion prevails under the name of estab-
lished religion, and no means can be used to re-
medy it, as the civil power is enlisted in its de-
fence.
But to come nearer home. If infant sprink-
ling, and infant church-membership were dis-
continued, and the ancient practice of receiv-
ing persons on a relation of religious experi-
«nce were revived in general ; then, in a little
time a complete separation would take place
between the church and the world — churches
would harmonize; — an unconverted ministry
would be banished — professors would not
look so much J ike the world — the church
would appear amiable. --revivals of religion
would be common, for the prejudices of infi-
dels and others that now exist against the
churches, on account of their wickedness,
would vanish — then christians would take u
pleasure in God's house — then true fellowship
would be enjoyed — then the church would be
the envy of men, and terrible to the wicked as
an armv with banners—then numerous fami-
lies would not be confined to attend places of
divine worship, to hear a man that has never
known the way to heaven himself, has no ac-
quaintance with spiritual things, and therefore
cannot teach ihcm toothers, and by that means
\99
thousands would not be deluded, wno are now
lulled to sleep by these worst of enemies to the
soul.
Things must come to this ; the latter day
glory will shortly break ; then infant church
membership must be at an end, and already
does it tremble to its base ; and the feeble ef-
forts that are making in its support will prove
ineffectual. But, brethren, lay aside a prac-
tice so pernicious in its consequences, and so
derogatory to the honor and glory of God ;
and remember your responsibility to the great
head of the church. Can you call that harm-
less, which has spoiled the beauty of the
churchofGod,has deluged her with blood, fill-
ed her with errors, and which now makes thou-
sands rest secure, under the idea that they
have been brought into covenant with God,
and made christians, while their steps are tak-
ing hold of hell V
My brethren of the Baptist denomination,
permit me to address you in the words of our
brother Baldwin of Boston.
" Beloved Brethren — Unto you it is given,
in the behalf of Christ ', not only to believe on him,
but to suffer for his sake. From the days of
your persecuted ancestor, who was obliged to
cross the Patucket, to enjoy among savages
those rights of conscience, which had been
denied him by christians, your history exhibits
repeated instances of cruel mockings, and of
the spoiling of your goods, and some of bonds
and imprisonment. The American revolution
has meliorated your condition. Truth must
200
prevail. Its progress will naturally be more
rapid, when not impeded by religious estab-
lishments, and penal laws."
" We beseech yon, brethren, as pilgrims
and strangers, to adorn your profession, by a
holy, humble walk. The progress of your
principles and increase of \ our churches (under
God) depends not less upon the unblamable -
ness of your lives, than upon the purity of your
sentiments. If your brethren hate you, and
cast you out for h'13 name" s sake, rt quite them
only with kindness. In this way you will put
to silence the ignorance of foolish men. '1 he
present period is auspicious : O for wisdom to
improve it. See that you fall not out by the
way. I inally, brethren, tee beseech you that
you walk roorihy of the vocation wherewith
you are called ; with all lowliness and meek-
ness, with long-suffering, forbearing one ano-
ther in love ; endeavouring to keep the unity
of the spirit in the bond of peace."
ERRATA.— Pag* S6, 12th1ir.ef.-cin the b«ttetoa, for Parr,
wad I'aul,
Read the quotation from G*!ati»ns, in 117 ar.d 118th page*,
as follows— "But when it pleased Goil, who
called me by his gmc* to reveal his Son
in mc that I might preach him, &c."
Place the inverted commas now standing in the first line,
page 14S, at the end of the paragraph.
P;:ge 16:>, loth line from the tap, for Atrtedin*, read .IhleJiuf.
2i. liae from tliu bottom, for ZlulmaviM, read
SOitMi «'!.'».
INDEX.
1. The Covenant of Circumcision not
the Covenant f f Grace, 6
2. The Covenant of Grace between the
Father Sfthe Son, 39
3. The absurdity of the representation
that the Covenant made with Abra-
ham, merited the attention of every
cue from Adam to the end of the
world, 62
4. The existence of a church before A-
braham's Day, 68
5. The validity of John's Baptism, 76
6. The confirmation of John's Baptism
by the Apostle Paul, 88
7. Remarks on Acts ii. 2, 3, 4, 95
8. Butterworth's definition of Baptism, 97
9. The Baptism of Christ, 97
10. The dispensation of John, 107
11. The difference between the Jewish
and Christian Churches, 112
12. Quotation from Mr. White on the
same subject, 122
13. Remarks on Romans, 11th chapter, 139
14. The Baptism of Households, 143
15. Quotations from Pscdobaptist au-
thors, proving ail that the Baptists
state on the Ordinance of Baptism,
INDEX.
and its subjects, together with reflec-
tions of Mr. Booth, 147
16. Quotations from Mr. White, expo-
sing the false quotations of the " Au-
thor of a Pamphlet," 183
17. Mr. White's observations on Infant
Sprinkling, and an address to Paedo-
baptist Ministers, 194
18. Doctor Baldwin's address to the
Baptists, 199
IOUR &? WILLIAMS. ¥,
JSERMONS ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS,:
by the Reverend Henry Kollock, d. u :
in one S vo. volume — Price S % 5
LAY e LAST MINSTRI
by Walter Scott. 12 mo.— .Price 75
•A FRIENDLY VISIT TO THE HOI :
MOURNING,
)M'C ALL's HISTORY OF GEORGIA,!;
from its early settlement io the pre-
day— Vol. T --Price 3 2 25, to .ubscri ?|
hers.— The id Vol will gq to Press ir< '-'
short time.
:THE HISTORY < )Y ANN MOOR, the re!
ebrated F Woman— -by Dr.* J. E
White. .--Price 07 1 2 cts.
■>*j SEYMOUR & WILLIAMS* keep ton.f
tantly for sale a larpe collection of &
RELIGIOUS lOOKS.
The following at che oi.glnal subscription priced
SCOTT'S BIBLE ; second Philadelr
geditign, to be completed in 5 Vols. 4to. at
lollars each : 4 Vols, arc out.
GILL'Sv^XPOSITlON of the Old an
N ew Te; tament, to be complete I in 0 Y^Is-lffr
tto. at 6 dojls. per Vol. or S 9 gant calffc
iidin^ : ihr volumes are oi.t.
)OmiV^GE'S FAMILY EXPOSI-&
•TOii o/.'Uje NllW TESTAMENT 6voIs.]|t
oifrdys exposition or the ol; .
PES I AMi :.NT, 5 vols. Svo.
The complete W; !;s- of the Rcvd.' JOHNE.
EWTOJ'J, a new edition, in 6 vols, 8vo.
Ditto ... do. in 11 vols. 12m0. &c. &c.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11