^^ 
 
:Hf® 
 
 PERKINS LIBRARY 
 
 Duke University 
 
 I^re Books 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY, 
 
 AKD THE 
 
 Particular Communion 
 
 OP 
 
 THE BAPTIST CHURCHES, 
 
 EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 
 IN THREE PARTS. 
 
 THE FIRST—PuBLisHED or;g:nally in 1789; 
 THE SECOND— In 7794; 
 
 THE THIRD — As AppendiX) containing Additional 
 Observations and ARGUMENTg, with Strictures on 
 
 SEVERAL late PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 BY THOMAS BALDWIN, 
 PART HI. 
 
 Bofton : 
 
 Printed and fold by Manning IS Lorj«C> No. 2, ComhilL 
 
 1806. 
 
District of Mjssachusettsj to wit: 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the tenth day of September, \n 
 the thirty-iirft year of the independence of the United Stales of 
 America, M.\ v k i n f; & Lo k i no, of the fiiid difiricl, have dcpof. 
 ited in th/s ofRco the title of a Book, the rif^ht \vheie:of ihcy clai^i as 
 Proprietors, in the words following, to zuit : — *' The Baptifni oi Bi'* 
 lievers only, and the Particular Communion of the Baptiil Chuiches, 
 explained and vindicated. In Three Parts. The firfl— -pubhftjed ori- 
 ginally in 17S9; the fecond — in 1794; the third--an Appendix, con- 
 taining Adfljfional Obfcrvations and Arguments, with Siriflures on 
 fevcra! late Puhiicarions. By Thoma.s Baldwin." 
 
 In conformity to th'' A6\. of the Congvdfs of the United States, enti- 
 tled, '' An A6i for the encournf^ernent of learning, by fecuring the 
 copies of majis, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proj^rietors of 
 fuch copies, during the times therein mentioned ;'\ and alfo to an Aft, 
 entitled, " An Aft fupplemcntary to an Aft, entitled, ' An Aft fot 
 the cnconrngenient of learning, by fecurlng the copies of maps, charts, 
 and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch copies, during the 
 times therein mentioned ;' and extcndi^ig the benehts thereof to the 
 arts of deiigning, engraving, and etching hiftorical and other prints." 
 ' WILLIAM S. SHAW, Cicrk 0/ (Ac Dijlria of MajJackufrUs. 
 
 Cj" This Appendix was publiflied in connexion with^ 
 
 two other Pieces on the fame fubjcft ; but as the obfervations and 
 arguments contained in It have no particular leference to the former 
 Pieces, it was thought beft to pubhfli it alfo in a fcparate pamphlet. 
 
 1 
 
y JL 
 
 A P P E N D I X. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 I 
 
 T is with a mixture of regret and plealure, that 
 the Autlior of the enfuing work again refumes his pen 
 in this unplcafant controverfy. To be obliged to oppofe 
 the fentiments and pra<Stice of a body of Chriftians, fo 
 refpeiStable for their number, learning, and piety, and 
 for many of whom he entertains cordial fentiments of 
 fr-endfhip and Chriftian afFeOion, is matter of no fmall 
 regret. But he feels a degree of pleafure in believing, 
 that he is not influenced by an improper partiality for 
 a particular fedl, but with a laudable zeal for the honour 
 of Chrift, as Lawgiver and King in Zion. 
 
 The fubjecl oi particular communiGn^ has at length be- 
 come the moft important article of difpute, beiween 
 the Baptifts and P^edobaptifts. The latter urge their 
 objeflions with much addrefs, and feem determined if 
 we will not give up this part of our practice, to have no 
 religious connexion with us whatever. 
 
 We have attempted, in a very plain, undlfguifed man- 
 ner, to aflign the true reafons of our conduct. Thefe 
 have been either overlooked, or deemed unfatisfa^tory. 
 They on the other hand have laboured to convince us, 
 that the whole of our prad^ice wherein we differ from 
 them, is unfcriptural, and oppofed to the true fpirit of 
 the gofpel. "We have, with all the candour we could 
 command, endeavoured critically to examine and weigh 
 their arguments, but have not been able to fee their 
 conclufivenefs. Of courfe we remain unconvinced. 
 
C * ] 
 
 It is a h{i well known, that the Baptift churches 
 from time immemorial, have in general held and prac- 
 tifed, what is called c/cfe or particular communion. That 
 is, they have refufed to communicate at the Lord^'s 
 table with thofe whom they deemed nnbaptized. When 
 they were few in number, and univerfally defpifed, this 
 was little complained of. It was fometimes jail: men- 
 tioned in the clofe of a long catalogue of errors iji this 
 way, " And befide all this, they refufe ' to commune, 
 with us." 
 
 We wifh not to attribute the unufual and increafing 
 oppolition that is made to our fentiraents in this particular, 
 to unworthy motives ; but we are at a lofs in fome in- 
 ftances how to account for it, on the principles of Clirif- 
 tian fincerity. Can we fuppofe, that thofe who unceaf- 
 ingly fcandalize our pra^ice, and endeavour to repre- 
 fent our fentiments in the moft unfavourable light, af e 
 fincerely defirous of communicating with us at the 
 Lord's table 1 We certainly cannot, unlefs we fuppofe 
 them as inconfiftent as they repreferit us. For what 
 purpofe then, it may be afked, is this hue and' cry fet up 
 about clofe communion } It is believed by many, that 
 the true anfwer would be, becaufe it is known to be the 
 moft popular objection which can be urged againft our 
 fentiments. Immerlion has cohfefTedly fo many advan- 
 tages over fprinkling, and the baptifm of a believing 
 adult to that of an unconfcious infant j that little head 
 could be made againft a praflice which hasfo much th« 
 appearance of being apoftolic, were it not for its con- 
 nexion with the " antlchriftian" fcheme of clofe com- 
 munion. 
 
 Our Pfcdobaptift brethren know as well as we, that 
 our particular communion is a natural confequcnce of 
 our fentiments refpecting baptifm. It is feen at once, 
 tiiat the former is directly connecled with the latter ; 
 yea, that it arifes out of it. But inftead of approving 
 of it upon this ground, they infer, that our view^s of 
 baptifm muft be wrong, or they would not produce fuch 
 unpleafant confequences. We are fatisfied that there 
 is fault fomewhere. Either they are to blame for re- 
 jeEling the courijel of God in not being baptized' agreeably to 
 
C 5 ] 
 
 the inflitutlon ; or we are, for not acknowledging them 
 to be baptized when we verily believe they arc not. 
 
 We think, however, we cannot be confifiently blamed, 
 for refufmg to communicate at the Lord's table with 
 fbch as we deem unbaptized, efpecially by fuch as them- 
 felves hold baptifm to be a pre-requilite for that ordi- 
 nance. This we confider to be precifely the ground 
 on which our Psedobaptifl brethren ftand. Wc know 
 of none who are elleemed found in dodtrine, and or- 
 derly in practice, who do not agree with us, in refuling 
 to communnicate with any perfons however pious and 
 amiable, until they are baptized. 
 
 There are Tome indeed, to get rid of the difficulty in 
 the eafieft way poflible, who tell us, (but who never re- 
 duce their fentiments to pra6^ice) they could commune 
 withthofe who had never been baptized in any way, 
 provided they had fufficient evidence of their piety. 
 But we conclude the Piedobaptifts in general, would 
 join with us, in reje<5ling a fentiment fo fubverii\e of 
 gofpel order, and fay with the apoftle, " We have no 
 fuch cuftom, neither the churches of God." 
 
 If thefe obfervations be juft, they will bring us to the 
 true ground of the controverfy ; which is, not whether 
 we ought to communicate with unbaptized perfons, 
 but whether we ought not to believe that to be gofpel 
 baptifm which is adminiftered by fprinkling only, and 
 to fuch fubjects as make no profeflion of their faith ? 
 For notwithftanding they conftantly blame us for refu- 
 iing them communion at the Lord^s table, they do it 
 always upon the fuppofition, that they are baptized as 
 well as we. We have repeatedly declared, that we 
 could not confcientioufly believe them to be baptized, 
 according to the requirement of the inilitution. We 
 think our brethren ought to believe us. Our pra£lice 
 fufficiently demondrates the fincerlty of the declaration. 
 For could we with a good confcience recede from a 
 practice fo very obnoxious to other Chriftians, they cer- 
 tainly muft fuppofe we fliould wifh to do it. Therefore 
 to charge us with holding the ^ fentiment merely from 
 party fpirit, ar with a view to make a fchifm in the 
 body of believers, is both ungenerous and unjuft. We 
 A 2 
 
« ] 
 
 folemnly declarej if we know the motives of our con* 
 du<ft, that nothing lefs than a confcientious regard to 
 what we believe to be the will of God our Saviour 
 manifefted in his word^ influences our pra<Slice in this 
 particular. 
 
 If we have been able clearly to comprehend and ftate 
 the fubje^l: of the difpute, and to fliew where the dif- 
 ficulty lies ; the next queflion will be, What can be 
 done to bring the matter to a favourable iffue ? We 
 fee at prefent only two ways, in which this can be ef- 
 fected. The firft is, for each party to drop the difpute 
 wholly, and to conclude his brother may be a Chriliian, 
 though in fome points he may be erroneous. Each 
 concluding to retain their fentiments entire, until they 
 are convinced by the light of truth that they are wrong. 
 Determining like the Bereans to fearch the fcriptures, 
 and fee if thefe things arefo ; and in the mean time to 
 •unite in every thing in which they are agreed, in aid- 
 ing the common caufe of our glorious Redeemer. 
 
 Should the above be rejected, we conceive the only 
 remaining v/ay will be, for each party to bring their 
 whole ftrength to the conteft, and determine to conquer^ 
 or be conquered. 
 
 The former of thefe, is certainly the moft pleafant 
 and defirable ; and if it can be thought practicable 
 ought to be purfued. What real objeflion can there 
 be to a pradtiee which approximates to that chanty ivhieh 
 biliewih all things y hopeth all things P What objeClion } 
 a very feriousone, fays my Pa^dobaptift brother ! You 
 refufe to admit me to your communion table •, and this 
 you pretend to do, becaufe you fay I am not rightly bap- 
 tised. You therefore evideHtly " confider me as one of 
 the ant/chrijfian world" And by thus treating me, 
 <' you place me without, where are dogs^ andforcererSiand 
 whoremongers^ and murderers^ and idolaters, afid luhofoever 
 loveth and maketh a lie.^^* No, my dear brother, you in- 
 fer too haftily. We do not confider you as " on-e of the 
 antichrijlian ivorld,'' but as a dear child of God : yet we 
 ferioufly think you are in an error refpeCting baptifra. 
 We can by no means bring ourfelves to believe, th-at 
 
 « Vid. Mr. Avftin's LeUers, p. 5, 8. 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 to be a Chriftian, and to be baptized, are preclfely the 
 fame thing. You feem to fuppofe, that we lay an un- 
 due ftrefs upon baptifm. But is it not evident that you 
 lay much more ? For the want of it, wholly unchrif- 
 tianizes a perfon in your view ; in ours, it only proves 
 his obedience defecfkive, without impeaching his motives. 
 We fuppofe that blindnefs in part hai happened to bhuyhnt 
 do not determine his heart to be prevailingly wicked. 
 
 The want of baptifm can take no more from a man, 
 than the pofleilion of it could add to him ; for if bap- 
 tifm alone would not make him a Chriftian, then the 
 want of it cannot wholly unchriftianize him. Befides, 
 if you have that charity which heareth all thingSy and 
 which endureth all things^ will it not enable you to bear 
 nvith us a little vn this folly,* if indeed you efteem it to 
 be fuch ? 
 
 Should we not all a6t much more in chara^r as 
 Chriflians, to unite in every point of truth in which we 
 are agreed, rather than to treat each other with fuch 
 unchriflian inditference, merely becaufe we are not 
 agreed in every thing ? No, replies another Psedobaptift 
 brother, all your profeflions of friendlhip are of nch 
 avail, fo long as you " withhold communion from us, 
 thereby treating us as unchriftened heathens, aliens 
 from the church and covenant of God."f My dear 
 Sir, you do not do us juftice. Your inference is the 
 mofk unfavourable that could be made. We certainly 
 mean no fuch thing by the praftice which you repre» 
 hend ; nor can we fee that it necellarily implies what 
 you infer. Is there no other poflible way in which we 
 can manifeft our Chriftian affection to each other, un- 
 lefs we meet at the fame communion table ^ If the 
 members of a particular church have no other way of 
 expreffing their love to each other, than at periodical 
 feafons to meet together at the Lord's table, we muft 
 conclude they are unacquainted with many of the prin- 
 cipal advantages to be dei-ived from the Chriflian pro- 
 feffion. 
 
 The fcriptures lead us to conceive that this myjlic rite 
 was deiigned by our blefled Saviour ,to reprefent his 
 
 *■ % Cor. xu X. f Dr. Ofgood's Difc. on Baptifm, p. la 
 
[ s ] ^ 
 
 ^e.itli, and as an exprcilion of our hope of Intereft in it; 
 and fo, by confequence, to be one token of Chriftian fel- 
 lowfhip. But how many thoufands of Chrirtians there 
 are of the fame denomination, who have fellowihip with 
 each other, but who never did, and perhaps never will, 
 meet together at the fame facramental table. 
 
 It is fully believed that a conliderable proportion of 
 the two denominations are agreed in the mofl: important 
 articles of the Chriftian faith. It is hence certainly de- 
 firable they fliould unite their efforts to advance this 
 beft: of interefts, and to oppofe the enemies of our com- 
 mon falvation. 
 
 Many of our brethren tell us, they have long ardent- 
 ly defired this union among all real Chriftians : — but ; 
 — but what ? Why we have, fay they, one very im- 
 portant objection ; you will not admit us to communion 
 with you. Suppofing we cannot confcientioufly ; what 
 then ? Why then, we think it beft to have no religious 
 connexion with you whatever. Well, if it muft be fo, 
 it muft. But admitting we are in an error in this par- 
 ticular, is it of fuch a nature as actually to forbid all 
 Chriftian intercourfe with us ? We really believe you 
 to be in an error as it refpefcs both the fubje^ts and the 
 mode of baptifm. We are willing to allow you to form 
 the fame opinion of us with refpe^ft to our terms of com- 
 munion \ (for it muft be remembered that you can readily 
 overlook all the reft of our errors, if we would only ' 
 confent to free communion) now what decifton can it . 
 be fuppofed an impartial judge would pafs upon our' 
 difference of opinion on thefe points } Would he not 
 rationally conclude, that all who are in heart friendly 
 to the Lord Jefus Chrift, and who agree in the elTentlal 
 articles of the Chriftian faith, ought cordially to unite 
 their endeavours to build up the caufe of the dear Re- 
 deemer \ Here we think we are willing to meet our 
 brethren, and leave every thing of lefs moment to the 
 light of truth to adjuft. Who then are the blameable 
 caufe of the prefent difunion ? Attempts will undoubt- 
 edly be made, to lay it at the door of the Baptifts : 
 yea, it is already placed to their account. For, fays a 
 Rev. Psedobaptift brother, « Were they equally liberal 
 
C 9 3 
 
 and candid, (as we are) the unity of the fpirk in tht bottd 
 of peace might be preferved, and all clamour, ftrife, and 
 divilion, happily prevented. Upon whom then, does 
 the guilt of thefe evils lie ?"* We are unwilling to 
 bear the blame, if we can honourably clear ourfelv^s 
 of it ; and we are determined to make an e3brt to that 
 purpofe. 
 
 In meeting our brethren on the groimd above ftated, 
 we think we meet them fairly. We alk no relinquifh- 
 ment of fentiment on their part. We admit them jufl: 
 as they are. But in propofing to uniie with us, they 
 infill upon our giving up an article which is interwoven 
 with every part of our fcntiments as Baptiib.. The im- 
 partial will hence judge which party is jultly chargeable 
 with the want of candour. 
 
 If our brethren are determined on this point, that 
 they will have no religious connexion with us, nor fellow* 
 (hip us as members of the houfehold of faith, unlefs 
 we give up our particular communion, we think we have 
 a right to expe6l from them fatisfa<fk)ry proof of one of 
 the two following articles. Namely, 
 
 Firji, That baptifm is not, by the order of the gofpel, 
 required as an: indifpenfable pre-requifite to a vilible 
 (landing in the church of Chrift, and confequently to a- 
 participation at the Lord's table. Or, 
 
 Secondly, That neither a vifible profeffion of faith, 
 nor an immerfion in water, are elTeGtiai to gofpel bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 We think we have a right to expe(9: them to furnifh 
 proof on one of thefe points, or ceafe to blame us for 
 our limited communion. We fee no way at prefent 
 how we can give up the former, or admit the latter, 
 without violating our own confciences. And yet every 
 perfon of common difcernment mull fee, that we prac- 
 tically admit one or the other, by uniting in free com- 
 munion with fuch as we deem unbaptized. 
 
 Will our brethren, who charge us with being con" 
 traced in our views, attempt to prove, that believers in 
 the apoftolic age were admitted to communicate to- 
 gether at the Lord's table, without firft fubmltting to 
 
 • Dr. Ofgood's Dlfc. p. ii. ^^.^^^"^ 
 
L 10 3 
 
 baptifm, as a prior inftitution ? We think they will not. 
 An attempt of this kind would have to encounter not 
 only the fcripture hiftory, but the unlverfal lentiment 
 and practice of Chriftians of all denominations, from the 
 commencement of the gofpel difpenfation, down to the 
 prefent day : we hence conclude none will undertake 
 it. As the fubje(ft in difpute has not, as we recoiled, 
 been afTumed on this ground, we (hall not at prefent 
 attempt to adduce arguments to oppofe it. We fhall 
 therefore take it for granted, until fome one attempts to 
 prove the contrary, that the two denominations are 
 agreed on this point. 
 
 The queftion in difpute may be reduced then to this 
 fingle point : Whether thofe who have only heen/prinl- 
 led in infancy, before tkey had any knowledge of good 
 or evil, and confequently before they were capable ef 
 profeffing faith in Chrift, are to be conlidered as bap- 
 tized perfons, (and hence duly qualified for communion 
 at the Lord's table) according to the divine inftitution } 
 To this qu^.lllon, the Baptifts give their decided nega- 
 tive. They have uniformly infifted, that none have a 
 right to the inftitution, but fuch as profefs to believe 
 •with all the heart.* It alfo appears clear to them, that 
 any application of water, fhort of an entire immerfion, 
 or bathing of the whole body, cannot be conlidered as 
 gofpel baptifiTi. The Psedobaptifts take the oppofite 
 lide of the queftion, and attempt to prove the right of 
 infants to baptifm, not from New Teftament authority, 
 but from the covenant of circumcifton made with Abra- 
 ham and his feed *, and from tht famertefs of the Jewifh 
 and Chriftian churches. They alfo attempt to juftlfy 
 fprinkling, or any partial application of water for bap- 
 tifm, principally on the ground that the inftitution is 
 delivered in fuch indefinite language) that nothing more 
 can be poiitively determined, than that water in the 
 name of the facred Trinity is fome how or other to be 
 applied. 
 
 From this plain ftatement, the reader will readily 
 perceive the different ground the parties take,.and will 
 
 * Ads vlii. 37. 
 
C n ] 
 
 be able, it is hoped, in the fequel, to determine fatisfa^o- 
 rily which fide has the fupport of truth. 
 
 That we may avail ourfelves of all the light which 
 our opponents have to offer in favour of the above fen- 
 timents, we ihall begin with an examination of their ar- 
 guments in fupport of them. 
 
 SECTION n. 
 
 The Arguments for Infant Memherfiip in the Gofpel Churchy 
 inferred from the Covenant of Circumcfton^ confukred. 
 
 1 HE covenant of circumcifion is a general topic 
 reforted to by nearly all the advocates for infant bap- 
 tffm. Few have attempted to defend it as having de- 
 rived its authority entirely from the New Teftament, 
 Hence when you afk a Pxdobaptifi: for his warrant for 
 infant baptifm, he will at once refer you to the xviith. 
 chapter of Genefis, and repeat 2i part of the covenant 
 of circumcifion ; (for it muft be obferved, that Psedo- 
 baptifts claim no intcreft in the greater part of that cov- 
 enant, any more than the Baptifts do.) Here he will 
 inform you, that God was gracioufly pleafed to make 
 a grant in favour of the infant feed of the Jewilli pa- 
 triarch, and promifed that the bleffing of Abraham 
 lliould come on the Gentiles through faith. The fame 
 grant, he will tell you, fecures to the offspring of every 
 believer the right of admiflion to the gofpel church and 
 its privileges. As if this ftatement were an unequivocal 
 anfwer to your inquiry, you may expert him to turn upon 
 you with an air of affurance, and demand of you cate- 
 gorical proof, when and where this rite of infants ivas 
 ever vacated ? 
 
 But it muft be obferved, that this is taking for 
 granted the very point in difpute *, i. e. That infants 
 have a right to gofpel baptifm, becaufe infants under the 
 law had a right to circumcifign. That the male off- 
 fpring of Abraham, and of his natural feed, and of his 
 
C IS 3 
 
 fervants smS their feed, were proper fubje<Sls of the rite 
 of circumcifion, no Baptift we, believe ever difputed. 
 But, that the partial rite of infants (for it was only fuch) 
 under the legal difpenfation, fhould, without any renewal 
 of the grant or other intimation, fecure for them gener- 
 ally a right to baptifm under the gofpel difpenfation, is 
 an inference that cannot be admitted without proof. 
 This proof is what the Baptifts have long alked for, 
 but have never yet been able to obtain. The agreement 
 between thefe two difpenfations will be more particu- 
 larly confidered under the next head. 
 
 Our bufinefs at prefent is, to examine the evidence 
 in favour of infant memberfhip in the Chriftian church, 
 as founded and refting on the covenant of circumcifion. 
 PafTing over for the prefent, God's covenant with Abra- 
 ham, which contained the promife of the Meffiah, and 
 the bleffing of the Gentile nations in him, we ihall pro- 
 ceed immediately to the confideration of this covenant.* 
 
 In the xviith. chapter of Geneiis this covenant is re- 
 corded at large. The feveral articles of it may be enu- 
 merated and diftinguiflied as follows. 
 
 Art. I. / ivill make my covenant heliveeti -me and thee^ 
 AND WILL MULTIPLY THEE EXCEEDINGLY, Gen. Xvii. 2. 
 
 The promiffory part of this article refpe£ted the nat- 
 ural offspring of Abraham, and nothing more, as appears 
 by numerous other pafTages of fcripture, as well as the 
 one before us t uiilefs it fhould be thought that Abra- 
 ham's natural feed was typical of his fpiritual. The 
 promife in this article has been literally and extenfively 
 fjlfilled. 
 
 Art. IP. Biheid my covenant is'ivith thee, and thoujhalt 
 be a FATHER OF MANY NATIONS, ver. 4, 5. 
 
 The fulfilment of thrs part of the covenant is eafily 
 traced in the facred hiftory. A number t>f diftincH: na- 
 tions did arife from the feed of Abraham, fomebf which 
 remain to the prefent day. There is nothing in this 
 article which points us directly to the church of Chrift. 
 The utmoft that can fairly be made out, will be only a 
 typical reference. 
 
 * As this coYenant was tilled by a NcW-Teftatn£Bt Mertyr-thc cov- 
 enant of circumcifiob, vc know of ao better oawe bjr which to call It. 
 
C 13 ] 
 
 Art. III. The third particular promifed on God's 
 behalf to Abraham, was, not only that he fhould be the 
 Father of a numerous, but of a royal race. And kings 
 
 SHALL COME OF THEE, ver. 6. 
 
 This refpecSled not the church of God, as fuch, under 
 any dilpenlation ; but the natural offspring of the pa- 
 triarch. Nor is there any di-4iculty in tracing the lit- 
 eral fulfilment of this part of the covenant. If we ex- 
 amine the hiftory of Ilhrnacl, Abraham's firft-born, or 
 the family of Ifaac, the immediate lieir of promife, we 
 Ihall find kings in abundance did fpring from Abraham. 
 The account which has come down to us in the facred 
 pages, refpe(Sting thefe nations and their kings, furnilhes 
 inconteftable proof, that by far the greatell part were 
 very wicked, and many of them grofs idolaters. View 
 them collectively or individually, and you will fcarcely be 
 able to trace a typical refemblance of that church, which 
 Jelus Chrift fet up, under the new difpenfation ; much 
 lefs the church in an organized gofpel ftate. 
 
 Art. IX'^. / ivill ejlublijh my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy feed after tixe, in their generations, for an 
 
 EVERLASTING COVENANT, TO BE A GoD UNTO THEE 
 AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE. AnD I WILL GIVE 
 UNTO THEE AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE, THE 
 LAND WHEREIN THOU ART A STRANGER, ALL THE 
 
 LAND OF Canaan, for an everlasting possession, 
 AND I will be their God, ver. 7, 8. 
 
 As this part of the covenant contains the great prin- 
 ciple, from whence our Pa^dobaptift brethren draw their 
 main arguments, we will endeavour to examine every 
 part of it carefully. 
 
 Here are two leading ideas in this article. The flrft 
 is, God's promife to be a GoD to >/bruham and his feed. 
 The fecond, to give them the land of Canaafi. This cove- 
 nant, taken collectively, is called an everlafing covena?it ; 
 and the grant of the land of Canaan, an everlaflingpofftffion. 
 Whatever blefiings were included in this covenant, or 
 granted by this polTeffioD, all were conveyed by the fame 
 tenor. The fame words of perpetuity are affixed to each. 
 
 That God has long fince by his prophet pronounced 
 a Loammi upon that people,* and by his righteous prov- 
 
 » Hof. i. 9. 
 
[ U ] 
 
 idence fejefled them from all fpecial vifible relation to 
 him, can no more be denied, than that he has lufFered 
 them to be driven out, and difpoilefied of the land of 
 promife. 
 
 We will now proceed to inquire more particularly 
 what was promii'ed in this everlafting covenant,.* The 
 language is, / w/// eftahi'fb m^ covenant^ &c. U he a Gsd 
 unto thecy and to thy feed after thee. The queftion is, what- 
 did God eng^age by this promife ? " Every thing," fays 
 one, " that a God of mercy can beftow upon fallen 
 creatures, for time and eternity." Indeed this is a gen- 
 era! poftulatum, taken by the writers on that fide of the 
 controverfy. But is it corre(5l ? Will they be willing 
 to abide by all the confequences, which will unavoida- 
 bly follow luch a fuppoiltion ? \\rhen God faid, / ivill 
 he a God to thee^ and to thy feed f " the promife is as much 
 to the feed, as to Abraham," fays a zealous advocate 
 for infant memberfnip.:}: Very well. But what was 
 engaged in this promife ? Was it a promife of abfolute 
 faving bleflings ? If not, we are difputing about noth- 
 ing. 
 
 • Some pcrfons appear to lay an undue ftiefs upon the word ei>e*lafk 
 rVir, which is auntixtd to this covenant, a^ thrugh it were a pecuijup 
 (harav^h riftic of it. 'U'l.at . ver idoas we attach to this exprefTign, v/c 
 cf rcainly ought to explain it correfpondent to fad, to thv a^ual ftate 
 qI things. 
 
 The word evcrlafttng to us docs not appear peculiar as applkd Iij.thji 
 CiXc before u>. It is frequently ulcd with rel'pcd to other covenant8.t 
 It has a thrttfald application as cor.nf^i.^ed with this covenant, 'i he 
 tirll is jiereral. It Is called an everlaOiiijj: covenant. The poflefTion 
 ♦4 the promiied land, an evcrlafting poiicffion. The mark left upon 
 rirt;iubje<^»' <>l this bluody rite is fh\.s exprtffed ; My covenant fhajl he 
 iTk yaur ^fj'o ior an fii^iiaJUng covens:. -.t-. Out hrtthrcn very tenatioufiy 
 ftitiin rhe hiil of tiirfe. but have no difiiculty in difpcnfing with the 
 two lail. To us they apj-^r fo entirely conneoled, that we are led to 
 confidcr them all of the iame iir.port. Yt-a, it appears to us that the 
 two latter ar': { xegetica! of the former. At leaft, no part of the cove- 
 uant can, by fair co;!ftru(5l:ion, be carried to a greater extent of time, 
 thai' the n')jrk of cinnincifion in the flefh, and the poffeflion of the land 
 «rf Canaan, both of which are faid to be cvcriafting. Hence we. flee, 
 that two parts of this ccversant calif d everlaflinj:: have come to an end« 
 while in one inftance ihr crprtiricn ii» retailed, for the purppfc of aid- 
 ng infaat baptilm. 
 
 f S^t I.ev. ixiv. 8. xiii 1 7. a Sam. JOtllJ, 5,. &t. 
 ) .\Tr. P, Fdwards, p. jf. 
 
i i5 ] 
 
 We (hall take the liberty to Aate a few queries, in 
 t>rder to throw light on the rubje£>. 
 
 1ft. Did this promife, to be a God to Abraham*s feed, 
 refpect his natural or fpirituil feed ? If the former, then 
 the Gentiles cannot be included, for this plain reafo?!, 
 they are not his offspring. If the latter, none but be- 
 lievers can be interelled ; for no other are ihcfpinttni 
 feed of Abraham. In either cafe it fup{)orts no claim in 
 favour of the unbeUeving children of the Gentiles. 
 
 2d. Was this promife abfolute .'* or was itconditional ? 
 If ablblute, (and it contained the faving bleflings of 
 redemption) will it not prove that all the delcendanf] 
 of Abraham to the lateft period of time will be favcd ? 
 We think this will unavoidably follow. But this proves 
 too much, becaiife it proves againft fa(St, and fo deilroys 
 itfelf. If we are to conlidcr this as a conditional promife 
 of falvation, it will oblige us to inquire, 
 
 3d. What were the conditions on which its bleirmgs 
 were fufpcndcd ^ Were they any thing ihort of faith 
 and repentance ? If fo, it could not be a promife ex- 
 tending to all Abraham's pofterity containing eternal 
 life ; for none but penitent believers have any fuch 
 promife made to them. Nor will any others, let them 
 defcend from whom they may, ever ihare in the final 
 bleflings of redemption. 
 
 4th. Whatever elfe might be contained in the prom- 
 ife made to Abraham and his feed in this covenant, if it 
 did not contain an abfolute promife of eternal life, it is 
 urged againft us in this controvcrfy to no purpofe ; and 
 mul\ in that cafe be acknowledged to be eilentiaily dif- 
 ferent from what God has promifed to believers. God"s 
 promifes refpedtlng his believing people are abfolute. 
 They are not yea and -nay ; ^/// yea and amen to ihe ghry 
 of God by lis. He that hcaveth my words,, faid Jefus, and 
 helieveth on him that ftut me^ hath everlajting lifdy andjljall 
 
 NEVER COVtE INTO jCONDEMNATION.* 
 
 5th. If all Abraliam's defcendants, through every pe- 
 riod of time, are not favcd with a complete and everlaft- 
 ing falvation ; will it not prove beyond a reafonable 
 doubt, that God promifed no fuch thing, in his engage- 
 
 * John V. 24. 
 
 J 
 
[ 16 3 
 
 ment, to be a God to Abraham and his feed ? We 
 think that none, unlefs they are Univerfalifts, will have 
 the madnefs to fay, that all the natural offspring of 
 Abraham have been, or will be faved. Nor will any 
 impioufly dare to charge God with a violation of his 
 promife. • 
 
 6th. If it (hould be ikid, that God did not engage 
 abfolutely to fave all Abraham's poiterity, including the 
 fon of the bond-woman, the fix fons of Keturah and 
 their defcendants ; Efau, Achan, Korah, Daihan, and 
 Abiram, with all that unbelieving race, whofe carcaffes 
 fell in the wildernefs ; but that he only engaged to fave 
 luch as trufted in, and obeyed him ; this would be a 
 complete abandonment of the argument ; for it 
 would place fuch as claim intereil: in the covenant of 
 circumcifion exa<flly upon a level with all others. God 
 has engaged to fave all others who reverence, worlhip, 
 and obey him -, though Abraham be ignorant of them y and 
 Ifrael acknowledge them not.* We have no difficulty in 
 bf lieving, that all who are truly pious, whether circum- 
 tifed or uncircumcifed, baptized or unbaptized, will be 
 
 7th. We muft be allowed to query once more. If 
 God has not promifed falvation abfolutely to the feed of 
 Abraham generally, including all the unbelievers of 
 that nation ; can the promife be fuppofed to make any 
 better provifion for the unbelieving feed of Gentile be- 
 lievers .'' It certainly cannot. For if God fpared not 
 the natural branches hecaufe of wibelief it can hardly be 
 fuppofed that Gentile unbelievers, whether young or 
 old, can have any real intereft in, or union to, the True 
 Vine. 
 
 If the reader can keep in mind the above queries 
 and can without prejudice allow them their projier 
 weight, he will want much more than mere alTertion to 
 fatisfy him, that the infant feed of believers have a right 
 to memberfhip in the gofpel church, in confequence of 
 the promife made to Abraham and his feed in the cov- 
 enant of circumcilion. 
 
 * IhAxWl. i&. 
 
C 17 ] 
 
 CoiilJ we believe with our brethren, that the 
 above promiie made to Abraham and his fee J, has de- 
 Icended in the fuUeft extent to Gentile believers and 
 their leed, the preceding queries would prefent the 
 fame difficulties in this application of it, as in the for- 
 mer. It would in this cafe be extremely natural to Llk, 
 What has God promifed to the children of I'aidobaptiil 
 believers, m.^re than to the cliildren of other believers ? 
 Has he promifed falvation to any while impenitent, on 
 the account of the piety of their parents ? or merely 
 bccaufe they have been baptized ? It muft be anfwered 
 in the negative. 
 
 From thefe different views of the fubje<5^, the argu- 
 ment leems to be verging to a point ; and this will be 
 the only juil: conciufion, He that kdieveihyond is baptized^ 
 whether defcended from believing, or infidel parents, 
 fiall be faved ; and he that believeth not, however pious his 
 ^nct^OYS^JhcUl be damned. The fame Lcrd over ally i? rich 
 unto all ixiho call upm him : for there is no refpcEl of per- 
 fans with God. 
 
 In attempting to accommodate this covenant with 
 its diilinguiihing inftitute, to the ftate of the Gentile 
 church unJer the gofpel economy, we meet with diiH- 
 cuhies at every ilage. We are obliged to pafs through 
 a long train of analogical and inferential reafoning.% 
 which few perfons are competent to, in order to iind a 
 plain gofpel inftitution, equally deligned for men and 
 women of all nations and capacities ! But for what is all 
 this labour ? Is it not to fupport a tradition which has 
 no foundation in the word of God, nor in any authen- 
 tic hiftory of the primitive apoftolic church ? Does it 
 not appear much more natural and fafe to go firth by the 
 footjleps of the flock ,- following our good .Shepherd in 
 his own example ; remembering, that lohen he putteth 
 firth his o-wnfjtep^ he goeth before them ? 
 
 We think it has been made fufliciently plain in the 
 preceding remarks, that if the covenant promife to 
 Abraham's feed rei peeled his natural feed, none of the 
 Gentiles can be interefted in it. If it refpecfled his 
 fpiritual feed, none but believers can be interefted ; for 
 no others^ in the language cf the New Teftament, are 
 B 2 
 
[ 18 ] 
 
 conlidered as the children of Abraham. Hence we fee 
 nothing to fupport the claim of infants, to memberfhip 
 in the gofpel church. 
 
 But ihould we admit the premifes laid down by our 
 Paedobaptifl brethren, will they confent to abide the 
 fair legitimate confequences of their own arguments ? 
 We very much doubt it. 
 
 Their ftatement, if we underftand them, is this; That 
 believers and their offspring under the prefent difpen- 
 fation, ftand in the fame covenant relation to God, as 
 Abraham, and his offspring did, under the former. 
 And that they are under the fame obligation to baptize 
 their children, that Abraham and his pofterity were to 
 circumcife theirs. Let us now bring the matter to trial. 
 
 By what authority did Abraham prefume to circum- 
 cife the males of his houfe ? By the undoubted author- 
 ity of God. Here it follows *, And God /aid unto Abra^ 
 hamy thou Jljalt keep my covenant ^ therefore^ thou and thy feed 
 after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which 
 yefljall k^ep between me and youy and thy feed after thee ; 
 every man-child among yonfhall be circumcifed. And yefhall 
 circumcife the flefjj of your for efkin^ and it [hall be a token of 
 the covenant betwixt me and you. He that is eight days old 
 Jhall be circumcifed among you ; every man-child in your gen- 
 erations ; he that is bought with thy money of any flranger 
 that is not of thy feed. He that is born in thy houfe y and he 
 that is bought with thy money mufi needs be circumcifed : 
 and my cov mant JJjall be in your flejh for an EVERLASTING 
 
 COVENANT.* 
 
 Here we fee, that Abraham was obliged to circumcife 
 all the males of his houfe, whether old or young, with- 
 out the leaft regard to their moral qualifications. No 
 previous declaration of faith and repentance was re- 
 quired, either in adults or infants. If this be indeed 
 «* the great charter of all our privileges," and the very 
 law on which houfehold baptifm depends \ we afk, and 
 aik ferioufly, ought not our brethren to pra6life ac- 
 cording to it in its full extent, if they would be con- 
 fident } The patriarch not only beUeved, but obeyed. 
 
 In the felfsame day was Abraham circumcifed^ and I/b' 
 
 * Gen. xvii. 9—14. 
 
C 10 1 
 
 mael his fon^ and all the men of his houjcy horn in his houfe, 
 and bought with money of thejlranger, were cii'cumcijed 
 with him,* Do PKciobaptifts adminifter baptifm to the 
 fame extent as Abraham did circumcifion ? Is it ufual 
 with them to baptize not only the children of a family, 
 but all the domeftics, upon the faith of the mafter, or 
 head of the family ? 
 
 The argument by which the right of infants is fup- 
 ported is this, " a precept once in force, and not lim- 
 ited to any certain period, is ever after to be confidered 
 in force, unlefs known to have been repealed by the 
 fame authority by which it was given.'^f We afk, and 
 hope we fhall have a fair and candid anfwer, if fuch 
 an one can be given, When, and where has the right 
 of fervants as diftinguilhed from that of children been 
 repealed ? If the right of children to memberlhip refts 
 on this covenant, is not the right of fervants com- 
 pletely fecured by the fame ? This we are equally 
 bound to believe as the former, until it can be Ihown 
 to the contrary. 
 
 How many men-fervants Abraham had at the time 
 circumciiion was inftituted, we know not j but fome 
 time before he had three hundred. Probably as many, 
 or more at this time. All, were they more or lels, 
 were circumcifed. But would it not be a very novel 
 fight to fee one of our fouthern planters baptized, and 
 all the flaves on his plantation in the fame day. If they 
 were all true Chriftians, it would be a bleffed fight in- 
 deed ; but not otherwife. 
 
 This argument will probably be very unpleafant to 
 our opponents, but we appeal to them, and to a candid 
 pubUc, whether it is not corre<5t, and whether it can 
 be fairly evaded ^ If the covenant of circumciiion will, 
 by fair conftru*5\ion, fupport the right of infants to 
 memberfhip in the gofpel church, we verily believe, 
 and we muft contend, that the right of fervants can be 
 fupported by it to the fame extent. 
 
 2. A fecond confequence ariling from the premlfes 
 laid down by our brethren is, that infants, if admitted to 
 baptifm, have an undoubted rigiit to all the other priv- 
 
 * Gen. xvii. a6, a;. f Mr. S, Worccfter's Difc p. 56. 
 
[ 20 1 
 
 ilegcs of the gofpel church. It is conceived that no 
 reafon can be afligned, why a perfon who is qualified 
 for one ordinance, is not equally qualified for another. 
 No diftin<flion has been made under any difpenfation. 
 Circunicifion was the principal qualifying- pre-requifitc 
 for communion in the pafchal feaft, and for all the 
 privileges of complete memberdnp in the Jewiih church. 
 Under the gofp^^l difpenfation, Tkey that gladly received 
 the word luere baptized \ addetl to the church, and then 
 united ia breaking bread. Do Padobaptifts admit all 
 fuch as they baptize in their infancy, to a participation 
 in all the privileges of the Chriftian churchy .^ It is well 
 known they do not : and yet confiftency moft plainly 
 requires it^ 
 
 That we reafon fairly, and agreeably to tlie views of 
 Pxdobaptifts themfelves, the following quotations will 
 abundantly fhovv. « Circumcilion," (ays a late writer, 
 " was formerly the appointed pre-requiiite of udmijjion tt» 
 the church of God ; baptifm is now the appointed pr£- 
 requifite of admlflion to the fame church. In a word, 
 baptifm is of the fame import, and of the fame ufe in 
 the church under the prefent difpenfation, as was cir- 
 cumcinon under the ancient."* Says another, *' by this 
 fignificant rite (circumciiion) they were dedicated to 
 God, and dljiinguijhed from the rejl of the worlds as his 
 church afid people. "^ According to thefe gentlemen, 
 and we believe they are corre(^t in this, baptifm is the 
 appointed medium of introduction into the Chriftian 
 church. (It is hoped that the reader will remember 
 this, as we Ihall probably have occalion to make fome 
 further ufe of it by and by.) But how glaringly in- 
 confiftent muft their condud appear when compared 
 with their reafonings \ 
 
 In order to carry a point againfk the Baptifts, they 
 infift upon it that their baptized infants are church 
 members. But their pra<5lice tells every body, that 
 they believe no fuch thing. "We appeal to common 
 obfervation. Do they conftantly bring their children 
 to the communion table } Do they maintain arty 
 church difcipline over them ? Are they permitted to 
 
 * Mr. S. Wopceftcr's DIfc p. 5 i. 54- t Dr. Ofgood. 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 vote and a£b in church matters ? Are there any inftan- 
 ces in which the profane and licentious have been the 
 fubje^ls of church cenfure ? A filent negative muft be 
 given to all thefe qucfticns. From the general conduct 
 of the churches that hold infant baptifm, a candid 
 mind would naturally fuppofe, that the memberfhip of 
 infants, if it ever exiHed, ceafed as foon as they were 
 baptized. 
 
 Another circumftance which fervcs to corroborate 
 our laft obfervation is, that they admit all v/hom they 
 treat as church members, in a manner fimilar to what 
 we do. Hence we are frequently told, on fuch a day 
 a number of perfons were received into the Rev. 
 
 Mr. *s church, and at another time twenty more 
 
 were added, and fo on. If our Paidcbaptifl brethren 
 ferioufly believe what they endeavour to make us be- 
 lieve, that all their baptized children were, by that act, 
 admitted to villble memberfhip in the church, we can 
 hardly fee the propriety of their being admitted a fcc- 
 ond time •, unlefs by feme miicondu(5l of their own, 
 they had loft their ftanding, like the man in the church 
 at Corinth, whom the apoftle exhorted them again to re- 
 ceive, when he became repentant. 
 
 What conclufion would any candid perfon put upon 
 the condufl of a Psedobaptift church, on feeing them 
 receive by their ufiial folemnity, a number of perfons 
 into viable fellov/lhip with them ? Would not the con- 
 viiSlion be irrefiftible, that they had never before be«n 
 confidered as church members ? Indeed, for any to 
 have obferved the conduct of thefe perfons, and of the 
 church towards them, during the whole intervening 
 period from their baptifm in infancy, to their making 
 this engagement ; would it be pofllble to drav/ the con- 
 clufion, that any relation had fubiifled between them, 
 which had had the leaft influence on the condu<rt of 
 either ? Is it not perfe(Slly aftonifhing, that men of 
 learning and of piety, and who claim the privilege of be- 
 ing thought conhftent, fhould not fee as well as others, 
 that their fentiments and practice are totally at variance 
 with each other ? As much as they find fault with our 
 particular communion, they have never yet been able 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 to prove it inconfillcnt with our fentiments rerpe£ting 
 baptifm. Indeed many Psdobaptifts have acknowl- 
 edged, that they thought us entirely conliftent in this 
 particular. 
 
 3. We proceed to notice a third confequencc from 
 the poiition laid down by our brethren, i. e. That if 
 baptized perfons ftand in the fame relation to the 
 church under the prefent dlfpenfation, as circumcifed 
 perfons did under the former j they are equally obliged 
 by the fame penalties, to attend the fublequent duties 
 of the gofpel church, as the others were thofe of the 
 Jewifli. 
 
 Our meaning will be fully illuftrated by carefully 
 attending to the ordinance of the paflbver. The law 
 concerning it is in the following words j And the Lord 
 /aid unto Mafes and Aaron^ This is the ordinatice of the 
 pajfover ,• There Jhall no fir anger eat thereof^ but every man*s 
 fervant that is bought for jnoniyy when thou kafi circumcifed 
 kiniy thenfiall he eat thereof : All the congregation of Ifrasl 
 fhall keep it ; ^nd ivhen any fir anger fljcdl fojourn with thee^ 
 and will keep the pajfover to the Lord, let all his males he 
 circumcifed^ and then let him ccme near and keep it* 
 
 Every circumcifed perfon, who was not prevented by 
 ceremonial uncleannefs, or by being abfent, was not only 
 permittddy but obliged to keep the paflbver, on pain of 
 being cut offfrotn his people : for thus it is written ; But 
 the man that is clean^ and is not in ajourneyy and forbear eth 
 U keep the paffjver, even that fame foul fljall be cut off from 
 his people. \ 
 
 Do our brethren confider all their baptized children 
 and fervants under the fame obligation ? If fo, ought 
 not niinifters to urge the duty, and heads of families and 
 members of churches, to fee it carried into ef%£l ; and if 
 any wereftubbom, to cut them ofFby anacStof excluiion? 
 This would indeed eftablilh infant communion to sU 
 intents and purpofes ; but what of that ? Can there be 
 an inftance produced, from the hiilory of the Jewiili 
 church, where a ftate of nonage or minority has been 
 mentioned as a difquaUfying circumftance for commu- 
 nion in the pafchai feaft ? We do not recollecft any. 
 
 * fxoj xii. 4j, 44, 47, 48. f Numb. ix. 13. 
 
C 29 ] 
 
 The laMT of the paflbver makes no diftin£tion between 
 infants and adults. To be circumcifed, and to be free 
 from ceremonial uncleunnefs, were the only conditions 
 required. 
 
 Should any reply, that the Lord*s fupper is a holy 
 ordinance ; and requires, in every recipient, faith to 
 difcern the Lord's body, we readily grant it ; but 
 muft be allowed to aik, is not baptifm a holy ordinance 
 likewile ^ If fo, is not a perfon who is qualified for 
 one, fit for the other ? Do the fcriptures require dif- 
 ferent qualificati(Mis for the two ordinances ^ The ar- 
 guments which are employed in behalf of infants, in or- 
 der to evade the fcriptural requirements of f nit b and 
 repentath-ey by Mr. Edwards, will equally ferve their 
 turn with regard to the Lord's iupper. If what is faid 
 of kelievitig and i't'/>i';itf.'fg in order to baptifm, applies 
 only to adults ; the fame may be faid with regard to 
 the faecamental fupper. 
 
 To fhow that we reafon fairly, we will take one of 
 his arguments, and only by placing the Lord> fupper 
 in the room of baptifm, it will f>and thus, " Are infants 
 proper fubjei^s cf the Lord's fupper^ or are they not ? 
 It will clearly follow, that all thofe places which relate 
 to believers can prove nothing , the reafon is, they have 
 no relation to the queftion." If you pleafe, take an- 
 other ftatemcnt from the fame writer. " They (i. e. 
 the Baptifts) fay the fcriptures require faith and repent- 
 ance in order to baptifm. I afk, fays he, of whom ^ 
 the anfwer muft be, of adults ; for the fcriptures never 
 require them of infants in order to any ih'wg^'* Very 
 well, Mr; Edwards ; you will have no great difficulty in 
 this way, in getting them to the communion table. 
 The want of faiih to difcern the LorcCs body^ can no more 
 be urged againft the claim of infants to this inftitution, 
 than the want of faith and repentance can be urged 
 againft their baptifm. The fame arguments which 
 would prove their right to one inftitution, would equal- 
 ly fupport their claim to the other. The words of 
 Chrift, buffer little children to come unto me and forbid them 
 nut, maj^ be applied with quite as much propriety to 
 
 * Mr. Edwtrdif p. %i,%u 
 
C 24 ] 
 
 this inftltution as to baptifm, and might be adJrefled 
 with as much pathos to the tender feelings of a parent. 
 Let Mr. Edwards, or any other man, difprove the right 
 of infants to the communion table, and we pledge our- 
 felves by the fame arguments to difprove their right to 
 baptifm. 
 
 To give additional force to the preceding obferva- 
 tions, let it be remembered, that infant baptifm, and in- 
 fant communion, make their appearance in eccleiiaftical 
 hiftory nearly together. 
 
 The Rev. Mr, James Pierce, of Exon, about eighty 
 years ago, volunteered his fervice in the caufe of infajit 
 communion, as Dr. Ofgood has lately done in favour of 
 their baptifm. Mr. Pierce has fuftained the right of 
 infants to the eucharift on the fame ground, and de- 
 fended it by the fame arguments, as modern Px'dobap- 
 tifts do their right to baptifm. It will be difficult to 
 fhew wherein his arguments fail of being equally as 
 conclulive as theirs. , •> 
 
 Should it be faid that there is no mention made in 
 the New Teftament of infant communion, the fame 
 may be faid of infant baptifm. It will be equally in 
 vain to urge their incapacity to underftand, or to derive 
 fpiritual advantage from this folemn rite ; the fame may 
 be objected to their baptifm. That the eucharift was 
 given to fome who were called infants, tdwards the 
 dofe of the third century, we have the authority of 
 Dr. Mofticim.* It is not certain, however, that thefe 
 infants were hahes. It appears to have been a cuftom 
 at this time to call all minors infants. It is evident 
 beyond a doubt, that the infatjts whofe baptifm Tertul- 
 lian oppofed, were not babes, but probably children of 
 feven or eight years old. 'Such as were capable of 
 « alking to be baptized," but fuch as, in his judgment, 
 were not fufficiently enlightened and eftablilhed in the 
 docftrine of Chrift. His words are thus rendered 5 
 " The condefcenfion of God may confer his favours as 
 he pleafes ; but our wiflies may miflead ourfelves and 
 others. It is therefore moft expedient to defer bap- 
 tifm, and to regulate the adminiftration of it, according 
 
 ^EcclHift-V^lLp. J83. 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 to the dirpofitlon, and the age of the perfons to be bap- 
 tized : (prieclpue tamen circa parvulcs) and efpecially in 
 the cafe of little ones'^* The general tenor of his reason- 
 ing obliges us to underftand him* in this light. This 
 will appear lefs fingular when we conlider that he had 
 been in the practice of the law, before he became a 
 teacher of religion. That minors are frequently called 
 infants in law, will appear by a quotation from judge 
 Blackftone : " Infancy, "fays he/' is nonage, which is 
 a defedl of the underfranding. Infants under the age 
 of difcretion ought not to be punilhed by any criminal 
 profecution whatever. What the age of difcretion is, 
 in various nations, is matter of fome varlety."f 
 
 It matters not, however, in the prefent argument, 
 ^vhether thefe infants were mere hahes, or children who 
 were old enough to afli for baptifm. It is evident that 
 infant communion commenced nearly if not exadlly at 
 the fame time that infant baptifm did. Dr. Wall 
 makes this acknowledgment, when fpeaking of giving 
 the communion to infants. " Very near half the Chrif- 
 tians in the world do flill continue that pracflice. The 
 Greek church, the Armenians^ the Alaronitcs^ the Cobhtiy 
 the Abajjhuy the Afufcovitesy &c. ; — and fo, for aught I 
 know, do all the reft of the eaftern Chriftians."J The 
 Do£tor further acknowledges, that this cuftom prevailed 
 in St. Auftin's time, who commenced his miniftry in the 
 year 391, (about as early as we have any authentic ac- 
 count of infant baptifm) — That it continued in the 
 weftern church for fix hundred years — " That the 
 Roman church, about the year one tboufand, entertain- 
 ing the doctrine of tranfubftantiation, let fall the cuftom 
 of giving the holy elements to infants ; and the other 
 ivejttrn churches, mofily foilov/ing their example, did tha 
 like upon the fame account. But that the Greeks^ not 
 having the faid doctrine, continued, and do ftill con- 
 tinue, the cuftom of communicating infants."§ 
 
 * Parvulus, the word ufcd by Tcrtullian, is of vague fignificatlon. 
 It is not neccffarily, and in this cafe can by no means be, confined to «ui 
 infant. 
 
 f Comment Book Iv. Chap. ii. 
 
 \ Hift. of infant baptifm, p. Ji 7. 
 
 § Ibid. 
 
t 26 ] 
 
 As th^ preceding quotations refer us back to Aal^ 
 tin,* we think it beft to give our readers bis fentimen-ts 
 upon the fubje(^l; in his own words. It appears that 
 from a miftaken view of tbofe words of Ciirift, John 
 iii. 5. Except a man be bom of lunter and of the Spirit 
 he cannot enter into the kwgdom of God ; he, with many 
 others, inferred the necellity of baptizing infants in 
 order to their ialvation. The i^Lmt erroneous conrtruc- 
 tion of John vi B%. Esvepi ye eat tha fijh cf the Sjn of 
 man, and drink his hlcod^ ye have no life in wu ; led hirn 
 w4th much zeal to plead for the admifiion of infantas 
 to the Jjord's table. With regard to the latter, his 
 words are, " Let us hear the Lord, I fay, not indeed 
 fpeaking tliis of the holy laver, but of tJje flicrament of 
 the holy table, (whither none righily cor4.E unless 
 baptized) Except ye cat my flijlj^ and drink my blood , y£ 
 Jhall haiae no life in y&u. What do you feek for further ? 
 What can be faid in. anfwer to this, unlefe one would 
 fet. himfelf againft clear and iRvincibtc truth ? Will 
 any one dare to fay this, that this palTage does not be- 
 long to infants ; and that they can have life in them- 
 felves without partaking of his body and blood ?" And 
 tlie neceiTity ol this, as well as of baptifm to eternal 
 life, he fays, the African Chriftians took to be an an*- 
 cient and apofi:olic tradition.f They did not pretend 
 that either of them were in the Bible. 
 
 It will he aiked, liow c^iie infant communion to ht 
 }>aid aiide, after its having travelled hand in hand with 
 infant baptifm for fo many centuries ? The reafort 
 alBgned by Dr. Wall is, the admiliion of that ghoftly 
 doctrine of trutfulfaniiatkn, W^e are at a lofs how 
 this Ihoiild aifecl it ; unlefi by this fuppofed change of 
 the elements^ they thought them too holy to be trifled 
 tcith in this way. 
 
 Thai: thefe little Cliriftians, who had not yet been 
 drawn from the brenfl^ mr learnt doElrine^ might not refufe 
 the elements when offered, the following rule was eftab- 
 li^hed i " Gave," fay they, « is to be taken concerning 
 infants, that they fhould not without the utmoft ne-* 
 
 * Augulline, but as often called Aufluj. 
 f Ep. io6. Bonifacio, contr. Pelag. 
 
C 27 ] 
 
 ceffity receive ^nyfood cnr fuck after they are baptized, 
 before they communicate in the facrament of our 
 Lord's body."* 
 
 It win require much ingenuity to maintain the right 
 of infants to mcinberihip in the gofpel church on the 
 footing of circumcilion, and not admit all the confe- 
 quences above ftated. For ourfelves, we fee no way to 
 embrace one, without admitting tlie other : and to ad- 
 mit either, appears to us to be fubverdve of the great 
 defign of the gofpel, which was to form a church, dif- 
 tind from the world. But if infant baptifm brings 
 them into the church, it totally deftroys that diftindtion, 
 and blends the world and church together. This idea 
 will be more particularly ccnfidered in its proper place. 
 
 As our Pa:dobaptiil: brethren lay fo much ftrefs upon 
 this part of the fubjecl:, we mud be allowed to view it 
 on all fides. 
 
 Could we be brought with them to confider the in- 
 fant OiTspnng of Gentile believers, as (landing in th« 
 fame covenant relation to God as the natural feed of 
 Abraham did, yet ftill we fee nothing, either in the 
 old or new law, which would authorize their baptifm. 
 An article every way fo different as baptifm is from cir- 
 cumcilion, feems not to be fuiliciently fupooiteJ hf 
 mere inference, but needs the firm balls of pkii.i posi- 
 tive inftitution to reft upon. To infer the right cf in- 
 fants to baptifm from the covenant of circumcifion, 
 appears to us extremely forced and unnatural. Son\e 
 of the difficulties that an inference of this kind labours 
 under, are the following : 
 
 1. The law of circumcifion was a pofitivc law, not 
 at all dependent on the nature and titnefs of things : 
 hence every thing which related to the inftitute, de- 
 pe!ided on the exprefs declaration of the inftitutor. 
 This is precifely the cafe with baptifm \ therefore therft 
 can be no arguing from one to the other. 
 
 2. The inftitution of circumcifion was exprefsly lim- 
 ited to males. Females, though defcending from the 
 films parents, were not fubjefls of the take:: of that coV- 
 
 * Ofdo Romanus, Tit. de Bapt. in Pi jr'rc. 
 
[ 28 3 
 
 enant : but the baptifmal inftitutlon includes botk 
 men and women. 
 
 3. The law of circumcifion required no previous 
 profeffion of faith and repentance, neither in adults nor 
 infants J as a qualification for that inftituticn : but the 
 gofpel pofitively requires fuch a profeflion in order to 
 baptifm, without even an exception in favour of in- 
 fants. 
 
 4. A male flave bought with money of an age above 
 eight daysj whether a believer or an infidel, whether an 
 idolater or an atheiil:, had the fame right to circumcif- 
 ion as the infant feed of his mafter had. The gofpel 
 jnftitution makes no provifion for flaves until they are 
 made fyee h\ the Son ; and then it requires, as a pre-re- 
 quifite to baptifm, the fame public profeffion of them as 
 of their believing mafters. 
 
 5 The rite infelf is fo very unlike the gofpel inftitute, 
 that it appears extremely unnatural to infer one from the 
 other. Circumcifion was a painful bloody rite, per- 
 formed by cutting the flefh of a particular part, (which 
 delicacy forbids us to name.) Baptifm is an immerfion, 
 or wafhing of the whole body in pure water. 
 
 6. Circumcifion might be lawfully adminiflered by 
 any perfon, at leafl by any head of a family, whether 
 male or female.* Baptifm is to be adminiftered by 
 particular officers in the Chriftian church, called and 
 qnlified for the v/ork. 
 
 Other diffimilarities might be urged, but thefe are 
 thought fufHcient to fhew, that it is not the eafiefh thing 
 in the world to infer baptifm from circumcifion. It 
 certainly requires a large ftock of myftical jefuitical in- 
 genuity, to make an inference appear plaulible, where 
 the nature, a^V, and defign are fo different. If infants 
 are to be baptized, there can be no doubt but the infVi- 
 tution makes ample proviiion for them, without fubjedl- 
 ing us to the perplexity of tracing it out from an anti- 
 quated Jewifh rite. 
 
 Psedobaptifts, when they reafon with one another, 
 and are not fufpicious that the Baptifts are watching to 
 
 * Zipporah eircumcifed the two fons of Mofcs with a fharp ftone. 
 Mldwive* have frequently adminiftered baptif.n, that is, fprinkling, te 
 ^ying infants. Vid. Robinfon's Hill, ©f Bap. 
 
r 29 3 
 
 take advantagb of their conceflioiis, reafon jufl as we 
 do. This remark will be eftabliOied by a quotation 
 from Dr. Emmons*s Differlation on the qualftications 
 for the Chriftian facraments, &g. againft Dr. liem- 
 meuway. We think the whole work worth)^ a can- 
 did perufal, but can only fele6l: a part of one of his ar- 
 guments. « Dr. Hemmenway," fays he, « has followed 
 other writers in arguing from the'former difpenfations 
 of the coveniint of grace, to the prefent, and endeavour- 
 ing to prove what the peculiar duties of believers are, 
 under the prefent difpenfation of the covenant of grace, 
 from what they were under its former difpenfations. 
 But this mode of reafoning is by no means conclu- 
 five.^ It was the duty of believers under former dif- 
 penfations of the covenant of grace, to offer facrilices ; 
 but can we hence infer that it is their duty now ? It 
 was the duty of believers under former difpen flit ions 
 of the covenant of grace, to circumcife their children 
 and attend the pafTover ; but does it hence follow that 
 thofe duties are ftill binding ? Or can we juflly con- 
 clude, that it is the duty of bshevers now to circumcife 
 their children, or even to baptize them, becaufe it lu.is 
 ence their duty to circumcife them } The truth is, we 
 muft learn the peculiar duties of believers under the pref- 
 ent difpenfation of the covenant of grace, from the dif- 
 penfation itfelf, which enjoins all the peculiar du- 
 ties WHICH BELONG TO IT. If believers are to baptize 
 their children, as they undoubtedly are, it is not becaufe 
 they were once obliged to circumcife them." « The 
 Chriftian difpenfation, which is allowed to be the freeft 
 from types and figures, plainly fpeaks for itfelf. And 
 we ought to look into the clear difpenfation of the gof- 
 pel, in order to difcover the pecuhar duties of believers, 
 at the prefent day."* "Would it not be a high r»efleaioa 
 wpon Dr. Emmons's confiftency, to fuppofe, after fuch 
 an explicit, candid, and rational ftatement, he would ever 
 attempt to prove infant baptifm from the covenant of 
 circumcifion, or from any thing elfe but the New Telia- 
 ment ? Whether he has, or has not, we leave thofe who 
 Are acquainted with his writings to determine. Qt-% 
 
 * Diff. chap ii. h&.. V. 
 
 c 2 
 
[ so ] . 
 
 thing, however, we muH: be permitted to fay, We verily 
 believe that could the Do6tor, with an unprejudiced 
 mind, admit the fair conclufion which muiT: arife from 
 his own reafoning, it would inevitably bring him to 
 believers^ bapt'ifm^ or leave him in complete inconfif- 
 tency ! 
 
 Having carefully examined every article in the cov- 
 enant of circumcifion, and traced fome of the confe- 
 quences which muft follow on admitting its application 
 to the prefent ftate of the Chriftian church, we think 
 it is demonftrably plain, that its firft and immediate 
 promifes and requirements refpefted the pofterity of 
 Abraham j that it has at moft, only a typical reference 
 to the gofpel Gentile church •, and that even this typ- 
 ical relation, like all other types, ought to be applied 
 with great caution and circumfpedlion. It is worthy of 
 obfervation, that types and the things that are repre- 
 fanted by them, although there is fome likenefs, are 
 aiv/ays diftin<n-. 
 
 The promifes which were made to Abraham, refpeiH:- 
 ing the Gentiles, that in him^ and in his fecdy all the na- 
 tions or families of the earth (liould be blefled, were 
 neither exprefTed nor included in the covenant of cir- 
 cumcifion j but were entirely diftindl, and independent 
 of it. It ought never to be forgotten by all who attend 
 to this controverfy, that the great promife which God 
 made to Abraham, and which is fo much contended for, 
 was made twenty-four years before the covenant of cir- 
 cumciiion j* and was renewed about twenty years af- 
 ter \-\ but not mentioned in the whole of that tranfadlion. 
 The promife to Abraham, that in him all the families of the 
 earth fiould he hltfccU was predicated, we humbly conceive^ 
 on the covenant of redemption, confirmed before of God 
 in Chrifi ;% and was ratified by the folemnity of an 
 oath, which would have carried it into complete effejSt, 
 had the covenant of circumciiion never exifted. The 
 further illuftration and proof of what we have now af- 
 lerted, will be referved for another part of this work. 
 
[ SI ] 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Whether the Jcivijh and Chri/lian Churches are the fame. 
 Or ivhether the latter is a diJiinB Church, or a mere con^ 
 t'lnuat'ion of the former, confide red, 
 
 1 HE entire filence of the New Teftament with 
 refpefl to the baptifm of babes, has led its advocates to 
 trace its origin back to the covenant of circumcifion. 
 Their arguments implicitly tell us, that they do not 
 wiiTi to hazard its defence upon the footing of its 
 being an inftitution of the gofpel ; but choofe rath- 
 er to conlider it as a right eftabliilied and fecured 
 to infants, under the former dlfpenfation. That the 
 male infants of the Jews were circumcifedj conformably 
 to the covenant which God made with Abraham their 
 ancellor, recorded in the xviith chapter of Genciis, 
 no one can difpute who reads the writings of Mofes. 
 Were it equally plain from the writings of the evangelifts 
 and apoftles, that infants were baptized, the diipute 
 would be at an end. But of the latter, no proof can be 
 found ! Who then can wonder, that the friends of in- 
 fant memberfliip fhould not be willing to " let go a 
 certainty, for an uncertainty." 
 
 But in order to fupport the foregoing hypothefis, the' 
 gofpel church alfo muft be judaized ; that is, it muft 
 be completely incorporated with the old Jewilh church, 
 or infant baptifm, after all, mufl: languilh for want of 
 divine inftitution to fupport it. Whether fuch an at- 
 tempt does not refemble the condudl of thofe judaizing 
 teachers, whom St. Paul in his epiftles to the Galatians, 
 Phihppians, and others fo feverely reprehended, ought 
 ferioufly to be confidered. To fome it has this afpecl:. 
 Circumcifion was the theme on which they perpetually 
 dwelt. And certain men, fays the hiftorian, ijuhich came 
 doiun from Judea, (to Antioch) taught the brethren and 
 faid, Except ye be circumcifed after the manner of Mofes, ye 
 cannot be faved. Alfo, there rofe up certain of the feci of the 
 Pharifees ivhich believed , fifng. That it ivai needful to cir- 
 
C »8 3 
 
 cumcife theniy and to command them to keep the law of 
 Mofes* 
 
 That our Pxdobaptlft brethren confider the gofpel 
 church only as the Jevvlfli church continued, and not 
 as commencing under the minlfiry of Jefus Chrift, or 
 his immediate forerunner, h clear from all their writ- 
 ings. That it may be feen that we ftate the fubje^l fairly, 
 we fubjoin the following quotations. Mr» P. Ediuardf : 
 <« The firft Gentiles, of whofe callmg we read, are faid 
 to have been added to the church *, but there was no 
 church exifting to which they could be added but the 
 ancient Jetui/fj churchy of which all the apoftles and difr 
 ciples of our Lord were members."f Mr. 5. Worcejler : 
 *« Though a new and brighter difpenfation was intro- 
 duced, yet the church continued thefaitie, which had almoft 
 two thoufand years before been eftabliflied by the cove- 
 nant made v/ith Abraham and his feed." " Circum- 
 cilion was formerly the appointed pre-requlfite of ad- 
 miffion to the church of Gody baptilm is now the ap- 
 pointed pre-requilite of admiflion to the fame church "1^ 
 Thefe gentlemen are quoted as a fpecimen of the com- 
 mon manner in which they ftate thefubjedt, rather than 
 to prove a point which it is prefumed no one will deny. 
 
 We will now proceed to compare tliefe two churches^ 
 and Ihew fome of the points in which they difagree. 
 
 1. They differ effentially in their confiitutions. 
 
 By the conftitution of the Jewifh church, we may un- 
 derftand thofe primary laws by which they were united 
 and diftinguiflied as an ecclefiaftical body. Thefe 
 laws contain a declaration of the rights and privileges, 
 the duties and obligations of all the members •, and alfo 
 the qualifications which conftitute the right of mem- 
 beriliip. Qircumcifion holds the firft and moft im- 
 portant place in this fyftem. This formed the difcrim- 
 inating line between the members of this church and 
 all others. It was the initiating badge of memberfhip \ 
 for no male of the {t^^ of Abraham^ nor apy others, 
 
 ♦ Ads XV. I, 5. 
 
 f Candid Reafons, &c. p. 54. 
 
 \ Two Dife. p, 48, 53, J4. 
 
C S3 ] 
 
 could be admitted to the privileges of that churck 
 without it. 
 
 The queftion now to be determined, is, whether the 
 qualifications for this rite were precifely the fame, or 
 even the fame in fubftance, as thofe required in order 
 to memberfliip in the gofpel church ? Abraham was 
 the firft that adminiftered circumciiion under the for- 
 mer difpenfation. John, i\\Q forerufwer of Chrift, was 
 the firft who adminiftered baptifm under the new dif- 
 penfation. Abraham circumcifed Iftimael, and all the 
 men of his houfe, in the fclf-fame day. lihmael was at 
 the time thirteen years old. This is an age fufceptible 
 of religious inftru(fiion, and when its influence on the 
 moral temper can be fatisfivflorily afcertained. Nothing 
 appears in the whole account to juftify an opinion, that 
 Iftimael was now a penitent (whatever he miglit be after- 
 wards) and from that conduiSV, which led to his expul- 
 lion from Abraham's family, we have much reafon to 
 believe the contrary.* Nor is there any m.ore evidence 
 that the men of Abraham's houfe were penitents, than 
 that lihmael was. Neither can v/e find any evidence, 
 that the inftitution required it in order to qualify them 
 for circumciiion. On this fubject, fo neceiTiry to fup- 
 port the pofition, that the Jewifli and the Chriftian 
 churches are the fame, the fcriptures preferve a pro- 
 found filence ! To qualify a perfon completely for cir- 
 cumcifion, nothing more was required, either in adults 
 or infants, than that they were defcendants from Abra- 
 ham, or were Jewifli property, having been bought with 
 money. Can any man v/ith the Bible in his hand con- 
 fcientioufly fay, that he verily believes thefe qualifica- 
 tions the fame which were required in order to baptifm 
 either by John the Baptift, by Jefus Chrift, or by the 
 apoftles ? 
 
 As if exprefsly defigned to convince us of this diftor- 
 cnce in the outfet, the harbinger of our Saviour who 
 was fent to introduce his new difpenfation, and to mani- 
 feft him to Ifrael as the Lamb of God who taheth awa^ the fin 
 of the worldi has made the v^ry diftindlion for which we 
 plead. But luhen hefaiu many of the Pharifees and SadJtwees 
 
 * Gen xxi. 9. 
 
C S4 ] 
 
 (Krme to his hnptifm^ he /aid unto thentyO gett0fatmt ^ vipc'rs^ 
 iL'bo hath warfiid you to flee from the ivvath to covie ? Bring 
 forth therefore fruits meet for repentance ; and thinh not to 
 fay withrfi yourfelves, we have Abraham to our Father : 
 fcr I fay unto you y God is able of thtfe fcncSi to rafe up chil- 
 dren nnto Jitraham,* Who were thefe Phnrlfees and 
 Sadducees ? Were they heathens ? No •, they wqvq 
 members of the Jewifli church, and in full communion, 
 for aught that appears to the contrary. We have Abra- 
 ham to our father. This was the very gitiund on which 
 their memberfliip in that church refted, and which had 
 never before been difputed. But John demanded qual- 
 ifications of a much higher nature, and every way dif- 
 ferent in a moral view, from thofe which had before 
 been allowed. In the true fpirit of a gofpel teacher, 
 he required the genuine fruits of repentance. And 
 thofe who did not bring forth thefe fruits, and fubmit 
 to this new inftitution, Chrift himfelf has denounced, 
 as reje5ling the counsel of God o.gainfl themfelvesy in not 
 being baptized of him. ^ 
 
 The different qualifications required by the initiating 
 inftitutes of the two churches, clearly defignate the dif- 
 ferent charafler of the members. To conftitute a per- 
 fon a complete member of the Jewifn church, required 
 nothing more than to be bought with Jewifh nioney, 
 or born of Jewifli parents, and to be circumcifed. To 
 conftitute a perfon a proper membercf the gofpel church, 
 he mufi: indeed be bought with a price ! but not ivith fi- 
 ver and gold, and fuch corruptible things^ but with the prC" 
 cious blood of the Son of God, as of a lamb ivithut blem^ 
 ifh ! And whether born of JewiOi parents or others, 
 is of no confequence ; he niufl be born a gain ^ not of blood, 
 nor of the ivill of the ftjh, nor of the will of man, kit of 
 God.X He mull: be born of water and of the Spirit , or he 
 can never be confidered as duly qualified to etiter the 
 gofpel kingdom, or church. This plain ftatement inevi- 
 tably brings the mind to this conclufion ; That unlefs to 
 be bought with money to be a Jtwi/l) fervant^ and to be 
 bought with the precious bipod of Chrift to be his free 
 men, are prccifely the fame things ; and to be born of 
 
 *-M3tt. iii. 7 — 9, t Luke vil 30. ^ JoJm i 13, &«. 
 
[ 55 ] 
 
 Jewlfli parents, according to the fiefh, and to be hcrh 
 «f God by the operations of the Holy Spirit, have the 
 fame meaning ; then the moral charaOer of the mem- 
 bers, as required by the two inftitutes, muft be ac- 
 knowledged to be totally different. 
 
 We do not think ouriblves bound to prove, that 
 there is no limilarity, mo points of agreement between 
 the two churches ; it Is fufficient to our purpofe to 
 fliow, that they differ fo effentially that they cannot 
 be conlidered as one and the fame. To (how the dif- 
 ference between two men, it would not be neceffary to 
 proYe, that one walked on two legs, and the other upon 
 four : although th^y might bear a confiderable refem- 
 biance to each other, yet there would be vifible points 
 of dia-erence, fufiicwnt to fliow that they were not one. 
 
 2. Qdr fecond argument is taken from the actual 
 difference in the vifible form of the two churche*. 
 The Jewirih church, in every l>age of it, has been na- 
 tional. The gofpel church is ielected and particular. 
 The former in its conftitution had a diredl tendency to 
 form and eftablifh a mixed church ; to blend believers 
 and unbelievers, faints and finners, the virtuous and 
 iMcious together in one general com.munion ; without 
 containing in iifelf the means of feparating the mor- 
 ally clean from the unclean. 
 
 The plan of the gofpel church is totally different. 
 This is compofed of none but profiling believers. A 
 people d^o/en, and cn//ed out from the world. Not dif- 
 tinguifl^ed indeed by family defcent, or any mark in the 
 JleJJj ; but by having the truth erigraved upon their hearts 
 by the Spirit of the living God, by which means they be- 
 come living epijilesy known and read of all men. 
 
 Mr. Edwards has denied that the Jewilh church was 
 national during the firft three or four centuries from its 
 commencement. But v/hat reafon does he affign for 
 it ? Why becaufe " it had no levitical prieffhood, no 
 inftitution of tythes, &c," (p. 104..) The reader will 
 remember that we are not difputing about the inftitu- 
 tion of th-e priefthood nor tythes, but about member- 
 fhip. If the Jewifli nation did not commence its ex- 
 Utence in the family of Abraliara as really as the Jewilh 
 
[ 38 ] 
 
 church, we acknowledge our argument will be weak- 
 ened ; but if it did, it will not be in the power of foph- 
 iflry to overthrow it. 
 
 During the above period, this nation and church 
 w^ere both in their infancy, and both progrefled in the 
 fame ratio. The queftion then does not depend on 
 the numbers which compofed either the nation, or 
 church, but whether the one was co-exiftent and co- 
 extenfive with the other ? Can this be denied in any 
 ftate of that nation ? Does not the i)ible eftablifh the 
 fa<rt in the cleareft manner ? To fuppofe that this 
 church was not national merely becaufe it had no " in- 
 ftituted priefthood or tythes," would be equally as 
 abfurd as to fuppofe, that the nation did not exift, until 
 it exiiled in its kingly form in the days of Saul. In fadl, 
 if the Jewlfh church did not exift in its national form 
 until the days of Mofes, it did not exift in any regular 
 viiible form whatever. View it in every poffible light, 
 from the eftablilhment of circumcifion, until the gofpel 
 church fucceeded it, and you will find that it com- 
 prifed the whole body of the Hebrew or Jev/ifli nation. 
 \Ve know of nothing which can denominate a church 
 as being national, but its comprifing the nation at large, 
 and its religious rites enforced by national authority. 
 Such we underftand the Jewifli to have been. 
 
 To determine whether the gofpel church does not 
 eflentially differ in its vifible form from the preceding, 
 we fliall confult only the New Teftament. It matters 
 not to us what forms have been eftablifhed at Rome or 
 Conftantinople, at Geneva or in Great Britain, The 
 New Teftament alone muft determine us in our prefent 
 inquiries. Here nothing can be found which looks like 
 a national church. The gofpel, though firft fent to the 
 Jews, was far from being generally received. Chrift came 
 unto his own, i. e. to his own nation, and his own received 
 him not : but as many as received him) to them gave he 
 power to become the fons of God ; even to them that believe 
 on his name. Of thefe JeWifh believers the gofpel 
 church was compofed ; and to thefe the converts from 
 among the Gentiles were added. The great body of the 
 Jewiih church, notwithftanding the gofpel was preached 
 
C 37 ] 
 
 among them attended with miracles, adhered to their 
 old national religion, and perfecuted Jefus of Nazareth 
 as an impofior. In this particular, I am happy enough 
 for once to agree with Mr. Edwards : fpeaking of this 
 people he fays, " As to their character, it is certain 
 that, a few only excepted, they were upon the whole, 
 the DEADLY ENEMIES of Chrfft and his do(Strine." (o. 
 62.) 
 
 It has never yet been proved, nor do we believe it 
 can be fairly inferred, from any thing recorded in the 
 New Teftament, that ever a fmgle perfon was confid- 
 cred as a member of the Chriiiian church, who did not 
 profefs faith in Jefus Chrift. The account given us in 
 the fecond chapter of Adls is plain, and eafy to be un- 
 derftood. The gofpe! was faithfully preached by Peter ; 
 the confciences of his hearers were folenmly addrefled ; 
 the Holy Ghoft accompanied the word in fuch a man- 
 ner, that it is faid. Then they that gladly received his word 
 were baptized ; and the fame day there ivere added unto them 
 about three thou fatid f. ids. No more were baptized, nor 
 were any added to the church but fuch as gladly re- 
 ceived tiie word. A careful attention to the remaining 
 part of this chapter will convince any one, that thefe 
 perfons were in general real believers. The account 
 clofes with thefe remarkable words ; And the Lord 
 added to the church daily, such as should be saved. 
 From this laft remark there is abundant evidence, that 
 in a judgment of charily, they were true believers. 
 Probably a large proportion of the three thoufands 
 were heads of families ; yet there is no mention made 
 of their children or tervants being baptized, according 
 to the right of member i^iip for which our brethren plead. 
 
 The particular mode of addrels adopted by St. Paul 
 to the feveral churches to which he wrote, naturally 
 leads to the conelufion, that they were compofed only 
 of vifible faints, or fuch as profeiTed to believe in, and 
 love Chrift. His language is, 2# nil that be in Rome^ 
 BtioviD OF God, called to be saints, ^r/rr^ fr pr^ 
 mud peaci from God the Father, and the Lord Jefus Chrijf, 
 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that 
 ^e SANCTIFIED Mi Christ Jesvsi called to be 
 
I »8 ] 
 
 SAINTS.* The addreffes in the other epifVles are very 
 fimilar. 
 
 Can any man in his fober fenfes fay, that he verily 
 believes that thefe churches were made up of all de- 
 fcriptions of character, like the old Jewilh church ? We 
 very much doubt it. The convidion muft be irrefifti- 
 ble that they were compofed of none but pr of ejfed faints. 
 We fpeak with this caution, becaufe that human dif- 
 eernmenc is not always fufficient to dete<Sl: hypocrify. 
 Thofe who take the greateft heed hew they bu'ild^ may at 
 times be deceived, as Philip was with Simon. He ap- 
 peared no doubt to the evangelii^ to be favingly 
 wrought upon ; but afterwards manifefted, that he lad 
 neither lot nor part in the matter. This is after all a very 
 different thing from admitting perfons without any 
 profeflion, and of whom charity itfelf cannot gatlver a 
 kope, that they ever knew any thing experimentally 
 about religion. 
 
 The true gofpel church has never been national fiiice 
 hs commencement, and probably never will be until th« 
 Millenium, whatever it may then. 
 
 It is thought probable that there is as large a propor- 
 tion of true Chriftians in thefe United States, as there 
 has ever been in any nation including the fame number 
 of inhabitants) fince the Ghriftian era. But is there ^ 
 ferl^us perfon of afiy denomination in this land who 
 would dare to fay, that in his opinion this whole nation* 
 was, according to the rules exhibited in the New Tefta- 
 ment, properly qualified for memberlhip in the Chrif- 
 tian church ? We prefume the contrary. The general 
 practice of 'all the churches (however hx their dif- 
 eipline msiy be) goes to efl:abli(h our fentiment. 
 
 That the Jewiih and Chriftian churches are not the 
 feme, may be argued, thirdly, from leverai pafTages of 
 fcripture which reprefent the gofpel church as com- 
 mencing at a different period, as well as exifting in » 
 different form from the ancient church. 
 
 In explaining the image which Nebuciiadnezza^ 
 faw in his dream, Daniel foretold, that four greal! 
 Aonarcliies iliouldfucceed each other, andthsri; thelaft' 
 
 • Rom. i. 7. I Cor i. 4. 
 
[St 3 
 
 fiould be divided into ten kingdoms, &c. In the days 
 Mf thefe kings ^ faith \\Q^J}jall the God of heaven Jet up a 
 kingdom ivhich Jhall never bedeJ}royed\ and the kingdom Jhall 
 not be left to other people ^ but it Jlmll hreak in pieces and con" 
 fume all thefe kingdoms^ and it jhall fl and for ever,* 
 
 "This defcription, faith Bifhop Newton, can with pro- 
 priety only be underftood, as the ancients underftood it, 
 of the kingdom of Chrift. ^nd in the days of thefe kings, 
 that is, in the days of fome of them. And it muft be 
 during the days of the laft" of them ; becaufe they are 
 reckoned y^z/r in fuccefllon, and confequently this muft 
 be the fifth kingdom. Accordingly the kingdom of 
 Chrift was fet up during the days of the laft of thefe 
 kingdoms, that is, the Roman. Theflone was totally 
 a different thing from the image^ and the kingdom of 
 Chrift is totally different from the kingdoms of this 
 world. Theflone *ivas cut cut of the mountain nvithotit 
 hands, as our heavenly body is faid to be a building of 
 God, an houfe not made nt'ith hands, that is, fpiritual, as 
 the phrafe is ufed in other places. I'his the fathers 
 generally apply to Chrift himfelf, who was miraculoufly 
 born of a virgin ; witho'jt the concurrence of a man : 
 but it iliould rather be underftood of the kingdom of 
 Chrift, which was formed out of the Roman empire, 
 not by number of hands, or ftrength of armies -, but 
 without human means, and the virtue of fecond caufes. 
 This kingdom was fet up by the God of heaven ; and 
 #rom hence the phrafe of the kingdom of heaven^ caijie to 
 fignify the kingdom of the Mefliah. It was fo ufed 
 and underftood by the Jews, and fo it is applied by 
 our Saviour in the New Teftament. Other kingdoms 
 were raifed by human ambition and worldly pov^er j 
 but this was the work, not of man but of God. This 
 was truly, as it is called the kingdom ef heaven, A king- 
 dom not of this 'world ,• its laws, its powers were all 
 divine." " As we may preftime to fay, that this is the 
 only true and genuine interpretation of this paiTage, 
 fo likewife it is the moft confonant to the fcnfe of atl 
 ancient writers, both Jews and Chriftians."f 
 
 ♦ D»n ii. 44. I Dift 4»q ;hc Prephcciw, p. 243, 24 4. 
 
i: *• ] 
 
 We know of no Chriftlan expofitor who decs net 
 «on(ider this as a predidion of the gofpel church. But 
 if this church had been fet up more than thirteen hun- 
 dred years before, why Ihould Daniel fpeak of it as an- 
 event ftill future. That we might not be liable to mif- 
 tiike, he foretold the period when it ibould take place. 
 hi the days of tkefe kings ; or during the continuance of 
 one of them, the Roman monarchy, Chrift fhould 
 make his appearance, and fet up his gofpel kingdom. 
 
 Confcrmably to this fentiment, we find our bleffed 
 Lord often fpeaking of the gofpel difpenfation under 
 tbe metaphor of a kingdom. Htf ufes the fame lan- 
 guage v/ith refpe<ri to his church. When he faid to 
 tbe Jews, If 1 ccift out devils by the Spirit of God^ then the 
 kingdom of God is come unto you ;* here he evidently 
 meant the gofpel difpenfation. 
 
 We think the fame was meant in that folemn threat- 
 en irg denounced againft the Jews for their unbelief, in 
 the following words j Therefore fay I unto youy that the 
 lif/gdotn of Godfhail be taken from youy and given to a 
 n:ition bringing forth the fruits thereof \ By which he 
 evidently meant the gofpel difpenfation, with all its 
 privileges and blefiings : not the old Jewiih difpenfa- 
 tion and the rites belonging to that. No \ thefe, in 
 the fenfe of our Saviour, were neither taken from them, 
 nor given to any others. The Jews ftill retain many 
 of them, and in their prefent iituation exhibit much 
 the fame appearance of vifibility as a church, as they 
 did during the firfl four hundred years, before their 
 deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Circumcifion was 
 the principal rite by vvh]ch they were then diftinguirtied 
 from other nations : They are to this day diftinguilhed 
 by the fame. 
 
 Our Lord, upon a different occafion, replied to 
 the fame cavijling Jews, Virily I ftty unto you^ that the 
 publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before 
 you. For John came Uf.io you in the 'way of righteoujrufsy 
 and ye believed him not ; but the publicans and the harlots 
 BELIEVED him» And y^^ ivhtn ye had feen it^ 'S.hVEiiT'E-D 
 mt afterward that ye might BELIEVE him.\ As the pharifees 
 
 Mi%l lii. %Z t M-^" xxi. 43- ^Matt. xxxi 3'>3*- 
 
are here charged wlih impenitence and iinbelie4 we 
 may fuppofe that the publicans and harlots who are 
 faid to go into the hingdcm of God, were fuch as under the 
 niiniftry of John were brought to true repentance, to 
 believe on the MefTiah whom lie declared to be at hv.nd, 
 and to be baptized of him. If the kingdom of God, 
 or gofpel church, and the Jewifli church were the 
 fame, then thefe puHuans and harlots^ before they em- 
 braced John's do<S^rine, yea> and the pharifees too, were 
 all in the kingdom of God ! for they undoubtedly aU 
 belonged to the Jewifh church- 
 
 The fcribes and pharifees fat in ^Tofes' feat, and 
 were perfons of the firft eminence in the Jewifh church ; 
 but Jefus faid to his difciples, Except your rlghteoufncfs 
 exceed the right ecu fntfs of the fcribes and pharfees^ye fJmll in 
 no cafe entlr into the kingdom of heaven.* 
 
 V/hether the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of 
 glory be intended in this palTage, this much is evident, 
 that being members of the Jewifh church, did not 
 qualify for either. 
 
 This argument will be further illufbrated and ftrength- 
 ened by the words of our fufFering Redeemer, when in- 
 terrogated by Pilate. Thine oivn nation^ faid he, and the 
 chief prifis htive delivered thee unto tne. What htifl thou 
 done ? Jefus anfivered, My kingdom is not of this 
 "WORLD ! f my kingdotn ivtre of this luor/d, then would fny 
 fervants fight y that Ifhould not be deUvtred to the Jeivs^ 
 By this declaration Jefus has given an indelible charac- 
 ter to his church ; and which muft frrever diftinguifU 
 it from the Jewifh church. The latter was not only 
 organized as a body politic, but its men of war were 
 marflialled, and frequently led to the fight by mil- 
 itary chieftains. 
 
 It muft be evident to every candid mind that the 
 Jewith church, in every ftage of it, notwithftanding it 
 contained fome true believers, was principally of this 
 world. This mufl be the cafe with every other church, 
 formed ftridtly upon the principles of irifant member- 
 fhip, whether they are admitted by circumcifion or 
 kaptifm. We appeal to the common fenfe of Chrif- 
 
 • Matt. V, no. I John xviii. IS'> 36. 
 
 d2 
 
L 42 ] 
 
 tlans, whether, to admit the hypothefis laid down br 
 the Psedobaptifts, that all the children of believers have 
 a right to memberftiip in the gofpel church, would not, 
 if put in pra<Slice, make fuch as are of the world, a vaft 
 majority in moft churches ? Are not the baptized, in 
 moft Psdobaptift congregations^ to thofe who aiSluallj 
 take upon themfelves a voluntaiT" profeffion of religion 
 and give evidence that they are real Chriftians, as two to 
 one ? Probably a much greater majority. If thefe ar« 
 all included in the ChrifLian church, (and they muft be,, 
 or their argument is loft) can it be faid, that fuch a 
 church is not of this world ? We might with as much 
 propriety fay, that a town-meeting was not of this 
 world, becaufe a number of the qualified voters were 
 Chriftians. For in the latter there would probably be 
 about the fame proportion of Chriftians, as in the 
 former. 
 
 It would be an infult upon the underftanding of men, 
 to attempt to maintain the two oppoftte points, that 
 new-born infants nauft be admitted to memberftiip in 
 the Chriftian church, and that the church was never- 
 thelefs not of this woridy but a fpiritual body. A man 
 who could believe this, ^vould have but little difBculty 
 in believing tranfuhjlantiatiouy or any other abfurdity. 
 
 No man who examines witl^ candour the hiftor.y of 
 the Jewifli church from the days of Abraham, till tlxe 
 deftrucTtion of their nation and temple by Vefpafian, but 
 what muft conclude, that the true believers at any pe- 
 riod would have been, when compared vvith the whole 
 nation, only a Jmnll minoriiy ! a remnant according to ihr 
 election of grace. They were fo few, and fo unknown in 
 the time cf Elijah, that he thought he was left alone. 
 And notwithftanding the anfwer of God happily con- 
 vinced him of his miftake, yet the number mentioned 
 were few compared with the thou fands of Ifrael and 
 Judah. 
 
 Can we ferioufly fuppofe that it was the intention of 
 Jefus Chrift to continue this church in its then viftbl* 
 form, or to fet up another like it } Does the New Tef- 
 lament lead to fuch a conclufion ? Does not the lan- 
 guage of Chrift and his apoftles confirm exactly tije 
 
C 43 3 
 
 t>ppofitc ? Tc" are the light cf the ivcrldi faid Jefus to Ms 
 little church. A city that is Jet on an lull c.mnot be hidJ* 
 ]f ye were of the world, the imrld iiKuld love his cum ; hut 
 becaufe ye are not cf the ivorld, but I have chofen you out of 
 the ivorldy therefore the lucrld hateth you.-\ This is the 
 manner in which our blefTed Lord defigjiated his dif- 
 ciples. The particular manner in which they were 
 brought to an intereft in the blefllngs of this kingdom, 
 is thus expreffed by the apoftle to the Coloffians : 
 Who hath delivered us from the power of darhnefs, and 
 hath tranflated us into the kingdom of his dear ^on,\ Every 
 perfon who claims the privilege of the Chriftian name, 
 ought to be able to give the lame renfon of his hope. 
 Such perfons may fay with the apoftle, Wherefore lue re- 
 eeiving a kitigdt>m luhich cannot he mo'ved, Itt us have graee, 
 or grant us grac^, luhtrtby ive may ferve God acceplablw 
 None but fuch as experience renewing grace, pofiefs 
 any one of thefe qualifications. No others are Hghts in 
 the religious world. No others have been tranflated 
 from the darknefs cf the world and lin into the kingdom 
 of God's dear Son. No others have received this im- 
 Bioveable kingdom. 
 
 When the Saviour afked his difciples their opinion 
 toncerning hinifelf, Peter anfwered, Thou art the Lkrift^ 
 the Son of the living God ! And J ejus affivered and faid 
 unto him, BUJfed art thou Simon Barjona j for flfjj and 
 blood hath 'not revealed it unto thee, but my Father ivhich is 
 in heaven. And I fay -unto ihee^ thau art Peter, and upon 
 this roch 'will .1. build my church ; and the gates of hell fiall 
 not prevail. agaiffl if. The J.ewilh church did not be- 
 lieve that Jelus Chrift was the Son of God. 'Ihey con- 
 fideredand treated him as an impoftor. They charg- 
 ed him with blafphemy, and faid, he being a man tiioik 
 himfelf Go<i. But every truly enlightened Chriftian 
 can fubfcribe with Peter, Thou art the Chrift, the Son 
 of the living God. The rulers of the Jewifh church 
 blafphemoully replied to hitn, 5^^ %venot loell that thouant 
 a Samaritan, and hafla devil ? Ti^s was the infulttng lan- 
 guage -of the leaders of tliat very church, which we 3J« 
 
 * Jifcl». V. 1,4. I John XT. 19, \ -Col .\\., y. 
 
[ 44. ] 
 
 told was the gofpel church, aPxd was continued without 
 any *< efTential alteration."* 
 
 Out fourth and laft argument to prove that the gofpel 
 church is totally dirtindl from, and independent of, the 
 Jewifh, (hall be drawn from fafts recorded in the New 
 Teftament. " Fa6ls are flubborn things." 
 
 If (as the advocates for infant bsptifm"^ aiTert) the 
 gofpel cliurch did incorporate with the old Jewifh 
 church, we may expe6l fuch an account of it in the 
 writings of the evangelifts and apoftles, as to put the 
 matter out of difpute. Should we find them entirely 
 filent on a fubjecl of fo much moment, its truth might 
 very juftly be called in queftion. But if, inftead of be- 
 ing iilent, we find them to have recorded fadis which 
 irrefiAibly prove the contrary, we fliould fuppofe Ikep- 
 ticiim itielf would ceafe to doubt. Let us proceed to 
 examine the proof. To the law and to the tefimony^ as 
 the final umpire, we cheerfully repair, and pledge our- 
 feives to abide the decifion. 
 
 If our minds are open and candid, we {l:iall find the 
 narrative plain and fimple ; the facfls fo abundant, and 
 fo varioufiy interfperfed, that we cannot eafily miftake 
 them. In order to trace them with pr^ifion, we muft 
 travel back to the commencement of this new difpenfa- 
 tion. 
 
 Chriftian reader, if your Bible be at hand, turn to 
 the third chapter of Matthew, and read, and examine 
 it candidly ; or will you permit me to repeat a few 
 fentences_, and make fome remarks upon them ? In 
 thofe days came Jchn the Baptijly preaching in the ivi/der- 
 tiefs of Judea. Who was this John the Baptift } He 
 was the perfon of whom Ifaiah fpake in prophecy. 
 The voice of one crying in the ivildernefs. Prepare ye the 
 ivoy of the Lordy make his paths Jlraight. Did John de- 
 rive his authority to preach and baptize from the Jew- 
 ifh church ? Moft certainly he did not. For it appears 
 that he had been in the deferis from early life until the 
 day of his fheiving unto Ifrael.\ How came he then by 
 his authority ? The evangelift John fhall anfwer : 
 There ivas a man SENT FROM GoD ivhofe name was jfohn. 
 The Jewifh church fent a deputation of priefts and 
 
 * YmI. p. EdwariJs, p. X07. \ Lvkc i. 80. 
 
I 45 ] 
 
 Levites ro him to inquire who he was ; whether he 
 were the MefTiah ? if not, why he baptized ?* By 
 which it appears that he did not ftand in connexion 
 with that church, nor z£t under its authority. It will 
 be here recollciSted how completely Chrift confounded 
 the leaders of that church by this fimple queftion. 
 T/jf bapiifm of Johrty faid he, nvhence ivas it ? from heavtti 
 9rof inen?-\ The chief prieft was among the party ; they 
 mail therefere certainly have known if John had been 
 inducSled into the prieft's office by them ; or had in any 
 way received his authority from them There can be 
 no imsgrnable reafon afligned for their concealing it, if 
 this had been tlie cafe. Could they with propriety have 
 aiTerted the fa(5t, it would have relieved them from 
 their prefent embarraflinent. If John did not derive 
 his authority from the officers of the Jewifli church, 
 (the only proper medium through which it could pafs) 
 he mud: have a£ted independently of them. 
 
 We alk again, did JoIhi preach the fame doctrine 
 which the leaders of this church did ? It is manifeft 
 he did not : for they taught for doBrvie the command- 
 merits of meuy Chrlll himfelf being juJge. But John 
 preached the true gofpel of the kingdom. He pointed 
 his hearers to the Saviour, as the Lnmh of God ivho 
 taketh aicay the fin of the iv^r/dy and exhtrted the people 
 to repent and believe on him. Such as received his 
 dod^rine, and confefled their litis, he baptized in 
 Jordan. 
 
 Was there any inflitution, or even cuftom in the 
 Jewilh church, which required John to baptize his con- 
 verts in Jordan .'* None has ever yet been produced. Al- 
 though there were divers ivnfjif.gs appointed in the 
 ritual of Mofes, and others added by the fuperl'titious 
 Pharifees *, yet they all differed widely from* John's 
 baptifm, both in manner and defign. 
 
 Towards the clofe of this chapter, we have the fol- 
 lowing account of our Savii)ur. Then comdh Jefur 
 from GaiJee to Jordan unto Johti^ to be baptiz-'d of him. 
 But John forbade him^ f.y'.ng^ 1 have n-.^ed to he baptized of 
 thee, and comejl thou to me ? And Jfus anjivcring^ faid 
 
 * Jol:a L f Matt. xx\. j<r. 
 
[ *6 ] 
 
 wito hiitiy ^Jfer it to be fo now ; for thus it becometh us f 
 fulfil all righieoufnefu Then hi fuffered him. And Jefus^ 
 xvhen he tuas baptized, WEjNT UP straightway out of 
 THE WATER. Reader ! lay your hand upon your 
 he^rt, and alk yourfelf, in the fear of God, if you can 
 pofilbly beUeve that either John or Jefus in the whole 
 of the tranfaccions related in this chapter, had any thing 
 to do with the Jewifli church, or their leaders ? In 
 fpite of all your prejudices, is there not a monitor 
 within that tells you, they had not ? 
 
 Much pains has been taken to prove that when Chrift 
 faid, thus it bccotneth us to fulfil all right eon fuefs, his 
 meaning was, that it was neceflary for him to be bapti- 
 zed by John in Jordan, to fulfil a law which required 
 the fons of Aaron, when entering into the priefl's office, 
 to be waflied at the door of the tabernacle.* What a 
 happy knack fome men have, in reafoning from analogy? 
 But there is one unlucky circumftance attending this 
 argument, vxA which wholly riyns it. That is, that by 
 the fame law which required the above wafhing at thje 
 door of the tabernacle, Jcfus Chrift could not be a 
 pried of tliat difpenfation ^ as he was neither of the 
 ions of Aaron, nor of the tribe of Levi j but of the tribg 
 pf Judah, of which tribe Mofes fpake nothing concerning 
 priefihood. 
 
 If we look into the next chapter, we fhall find th« 
 manner in which Chrift proceeded in gathering th« 
 New Teftament church. At the 18th verfe it is faid *, 
 And "Jefus luallung by the fsa of Galilee, f aw two brethren, 
 $imon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, cafling a net 
 into the fea,for they nvere fifbers. And he faith unto them. 
 Follow me, and I will make you fi/hers cf men* And they 
 Jlraightway left their nets and followed him.f And when 
 be had gone a little farther thence, he fiw James the fm of 
 'Zebedee, and John his brother^ who alfo were in ihefhip 
 mending their nets ; and fraightway he called thtm, and 
 they left their father Zcbedee in thejhip with the hired fer-o 
 vants, and went after hlm.X Again, the next day after, 
 Johnjlood, and twg of his difciples, and locking upcn Jeftttf 
 
 * Vid. Meffrs Fifli and Crane, and ethers. 
 t Matu iy. i8 — 2a. \ Ularki. ij>, se. 
 
L 4*7 3 
 
 #j he lOftlkedf hf faith i Behold the Lnmh of God ! And thi 
 two d'lfciples heard himfpeak, and they foiioived Jefus.^ 
 
 And a certain fcrihe came avd faid unto him^ Alafler^ 1 
 teili follow thee nvhitherfoevet thou pefl ; and amther of 
 his d'lfciples faid unto him. Lord, fujfrr ? e firfl to go and 
 hury my father. But Jefus faid unto hiin, Follow tr.e^ and 
 let the dead hury their dead f And as Jefus pa fed forth 
 from thence, he faw a man named Matthew fitting at the 
 receipt of cuflom ; and he faith unte him, Folloiv vie. And 
 he arofe and folloived him.\ 
 
 The day following Jefus would go forth into Galilee, and 
 findcth Philip, and faith unto him, Follow ?ne. Philip 
 caught the Spirit of this new fe£t fo entirely, as not only 
 to be willing to follow Jefus, but to ufe his influence 
 to prolelyte others. He foon after met withNathanael, 
 and faid to him, IVe have found HIM of whom Mofes in 
 tlye law, and the prophets did write, Jefus of Nazarethy 
 the fin of Jofeph. And Nathanael faid unto him. Can there 
 any good thing come cut of NaZareth ? Philip faith unto 
 hinti Come and fee 
 
 Thefe h£is, recorded by the evangelifts, place before 
 us a complete hiiiory of the commencement of the gof- 
 pel church. But in this account not a trace of its con- 
 nexion with the Jewiih church can be perceived. 
 
 When Jefus Chrill appointed his apoftles the firft offi- 
 cers in his new church, did he confiilt the chief priefts, 
 the fcribes and pharifees ? Or did he appoint them by 
 his own authority, totally independent of them ? Fa<fts 
 ill unite in denionftrating the latter. 
 
 The reafoning? of our P«dobaptift brethren have 
 ilways appeared to us exceedingly defective on this 
 point. They uniformly argue, that the Jewifli and 
 Chriftian churches are the fame ; and that the latter is 
 no mdre than a continuance of the former : but they 
 h^^e never fliown us when, where, or how the latter 
 ohdrch was connected with the former : and it is be- 
 lieved tkat they never can. They have feemed wholly 
 to ftep over this point. At one time they prefent to u< 
 the Jewiih church under the covenant of circumciiiolii 
 enjoying many privileges and bleffings j by and by, they 
 
 ♦ Johft i. J5— 37. f Matt. fiii. I^, It. \ ix. f. 
 
i: 48 ] 
 
 prefent us the gofpel church enjoying very different 
 and much greater privileges, and tell us that this is the 
 fame church, only under a different difpenfation. But 
 if this be a fa6l, would not Jefus Chrirt and the leaders 
 of the Jewifh church have acSted in concert ? and 
 v^'ould not the difciples of Chrift, and the members of 
 that church have been in harmony with each other ? 
 Would there not be as much propriety in faying that 
 the protcftant church, and the papal church from 
 which they feparated were one and the fame ? Some 
 branches of the proteibnt church approximate much 
 more to the papal, than the gofpel church did to the 
 JewiOi. But if proteftants acknowledge their church 
 to be but a continuance of the old papal church, we 
 think they ought at Icfaft to make lome confellion for 
 having abufed their Alma AlaUr, by calling her the 
 <« old where of Babylon" — ** The mother of abom- 
 inations; &c." 
 
 It is a fact which no one can deny, that Jefus Chrift, 
 during his perfonal miniftry, did collect a large number 
 of difciples and followers of both fexes : that he fent 
 forth teventy difciples at one time to preach the gofpel, 
 and to evince its power by miracles. That thefe all 
 fiood totally unconnected with the old Jewifh church 
 is abundantly evident, from the unceafmg oppolition 
 which the laliter made to the former. We beg to know 
 whether ChriiVs difciples, with their Mafter at their 
 head, did not conftitute a church, a complete church 
 in gofpel order ? If fo, here were two churches exiiting 
 at the fame time in direct oppofition to each other : 
 for it muft be remembered that the kingdom of God 
 was not yet taken from the Jews and given to the Gen- 
 tiles. We ^Ik, which of thefe two is to be conlidered 
 as the true church ? The Jewifli church continued its 
 vilible Itate, and retained its vifible fonns of worfliip 
 long after the cftablilhment of Chriftianity. And there 
 was juft as much friendfliip in this old church towards 
 the followers of Jefus, when they ftoned Stephen to 
 death for no other fault, than becaufe he was fiUed with 
 the Holy Ghoft, and when they caught Paul in the 
 temple and were ready to puil him in quarters, as whe» 
 
[ *9 ] 
 
 Jems was in the midft of them, teaching and preaching 
 the kingdom of God. 
 
 Did Chrift treat the Jewifh church in fuch a manner, 
 or receive fuch treatment from it, as would lead us to 
 fuppofe that lie confidercd it as his church, which he 
 purchafed with his own blood ? 
 
 To elucidate the idea, pleafe to examine the debarc 
 between Chrift and the leaders of this church, recorded 
 in the eighth chapter of John. In this, Jefus declared 
 himfelf the /igki of the nvorld. The Pharifees diibelieved 
 it, and told him plainly that he bore reard of himjef^ and 
 that his record was not true. (ver. 12, 13.) Chrift told 
 them that they were ignorant both of him and of his 
 Father, (v. 19.) Te are^ faid hey from beneaihy lam from 
 above ; ye are of this worlds I am not of this world. — If vf 
 believe tiot that I am he^ yefjall die in pur fns. (v. 23, 24<.) 
 In order to evade the force of Chrift's do(^rine, they 
 pleaded their covenant privileges : We be Abraham^ s feed, 
 I k?JOiu that ye are Abrakarn s feedy replied Jefus ; but xe 
 fetk to kill f/iey becaufe my ivord hath no place in you, I 
 /peak that ivkich I have fecn with my Father y and ye do 
 that ivhich ye have feen ivith your father. They anfwered 
 and faid unto hiniy Abraham is our father, Jefus faith unto 
 ihi'm. If ye ivere Abrahants CHILDREN, you nvould do the 
 works cf Abraham. Chrift feems to admit that they 
 were Abraham's natural feed, but denies that they were 
 his children in a fpiritual fenfe. Unwilling to acknowl- 
 edge themfelves deftitute of religion, and to prove that 
 they had a fair title to heaven without being indebted 
 to him, they declared that God was their Father. Jifus 
 faid unto them^ If God were your Father, ye would love me : 
 for I proceeded forth and came from God ; neither cam:' I 
 rfmyfelj, but he fen t me, (v. 41, 42.) At length ChriH: 
 faid to them, Te are of your father the devil^ and the lu/fs 
 of your father ye will do. (v. 44.) With a view no doubt 
 to Ihow the keennefs of their jefentment at this plain 
 dealing, they anfwered him, Say we not well that thou art 
 a Samaritan^ and hajl a devil ? Does this look like th»t 
 language of love which fubfifted between Chrift and 
 his true church ? Every candid heart will reply. No. 
 
L 50 J 
 
 , Is it poffible to bring our minds to believe that the 
 true church could ever treat the blelfed Saviour as the 
 Jews treated him ? They not only defpifed and held 
 him in contempt, calumniated and Jibufed him, but ac- 
 tually perfecuted him to death ! Who was it that the 
 traitor covenanted with, to fell his Lord for thirty 
 pieces of fdver ? Was it to an ignorant mob,- made up 
 of Gentile libertines, and headed by fome fanatical 
 leader ? No fuch thing. Judas made his calculations with 
 more certainty. He went dire(fl!y to the CiUEF priests, 
 the principal leaders in this church. And do you 
 think they would let fo fair an opportunity pafs, to get 
 into their hands a man whom they hated ? Surely no. 
 The bargain was clofed at once ; and Judas was fent 
 v^ith a band of men to arreft him** Who was it firft 
 formed the delign of putting Jefusto death ? The princi- 
 pal leaders of the Jewifti church. And ivhen the morn- 
 ing was come, ALL THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS of 
 
 the people took counfel agaiti/i Jefui to put him to death. In 
 order to accomplish their murderous defign, he muft 
 be delivered to Pilate the governor, to pafs fentence 
 of death upon him. Pilate, though a Gentile, feemed 
 to have fome fenfe of moral juftice, and was defirous to 
 underftand the real-caufe of their complaint. But who 
 arraigned him before Pilate's bar ? Thwe otun nation^ 
 faid he, and the chief priejls have delivered thee to me — 
 What haft thou done ? Jefus at once ftated the true 
 ground of the controverfy. My kingdom, faid he, is not 
 of this lucrld. The more Pilate heard and faw, the 
 uronger was his conviction of the innocency of Jefus. 
 Several means had been employed to avert the fentence, 
 but without effetSt. At length, recolleOing that it had 
 been a cuftoYn at this feaft to releafe a prifoner, and 
 having two, he hoped they would choofe Jefus. But in 
 this he was deceived. His perfuaiions \Yere all in vain. 
 Malice had fixed the infernal purpofe too ftrongly in 
 their breafts to be fhaken by his reafonings. No, Jefus 
 muft die. His crucifixion was determined on. Hence 
 the chief priejis and elders perfuaded the multitude that they 
 Jlmild afk Barabbas, and defroy Jefus.\ O thou infulted, 
 
 * Matt, xxvi, 14, 15, 47. f Matt, XKvIi. %o. 
 
[ 51 ] 
 
 fuffering Lamb of God ! were thefe the leaders of thy 
 church, thy true gofpel church ? Muft we confider 
 them as thy friends, while manifefting this murderous 
 oppofition to thee, merely becaule they deicended from 
 the loins of Abraham ? We cannot. Our hearts revolt 
 at the horrid thought. 
 
 Nor can we believe that this was the church into 
 which the Gentile converts were grafted. No *, it was 
 the church gathered by Jefus, and his apoftles ; from 
 among the Jews indeed, but compofed only of the ron- 
 Ycrts to his new dotftrine ; of Separates from the old 
 Jewifli church and religion. No others compofed any 
 part of the New Tei\ament church. Muft we not fliut 
 cur eyes againft the cleared light to believe otherwife ? 
 We certainly mul^. 
 
 This, however, is one of the main pillars on which 
 Pacdohaptifm refts,That this old Jewifli church and the 
 New Tcltament church are the fame. This is Mr. 
 Kdwards's potent argument, with which he has aflailed 
 the Baptifts, and bid them (in his imagination) heaps 
 upon heaps, as Samlbn did the Phili (lines with the 
 jaw-bone of an afs. But with all his zeal to maintain 
 the famenefs of the Jewifh and Chriftian churches, his 
 confcience compelled him to make one very juft concel- 
 fion. His conl'cience, did I fay ? No, I rather think he 
 was a little off his guard. Speaking of the Jcwilli 
 people colledlively, he fays j " As to their character, 
 it is certain that, zj}w only excepted, they were i:pon 
 the whole the deadly enemies of CnRist- and his 
 doctrine." (p. 6*2.) Reader ! paufe a moment, and re- 
 flecSt upon this declaration. That the Jewilli church, a 
 few, a very few, excepted, were the deacl/y enemies of 
 Chrift and his doftrine ! And yet, if there be any truth 
 in Mr. Edwards's argument, this was not only a /ample 
 of the gofpel church, but the church in reality ! the 
 fame with that under the gofpel difpenfation. A little 
 altered indeed in " diet" and " drefs," but identically 
 the fame."* And was this one of Mr. Edwards's " can- 
 did reafons for leaving the Baptifts," becaufe they do 
 not believe Chrift's church to be principally made up of 
 
 * Yid. p, 46, 48. 
 
C i2 ] 
 
 his deadly enemies ? I'he Baptifts entertain no fucli 
 horrid idea. If he believes his own reafoning, it was 
 certainly a very fuifitient one for his leaving a com- 
 munity who think very differently : For hoiu tan tnxio 
 'tLalk together^ except they he agreed ? 
 
 We have thus briefly ftated a few fa^ls which ferve 
 to rtiow the temper and feelings of the JewiQi church 
 iowi^rds our bieilld Redeemer and his do<^\rine, and 
 alfo v/hat treatment he received from them. 
 
 We will now inquire, whether the apoflles of J.fus 
 Chriil: agreed in fentuncnt with the advocates for infant 
 baptifm, with refpc^t to the Jamenefs of the Jevvifli 
 and ChriRian churches. 
 
 Immediately after the ufcenfion of the Saviour, we 
 are prefented with a view of his little flock ; this new 
 gofpel church in a company by themfelves. Kere we 
 find a body of difciples, amounting to about one hun- 
 dred and twenty, allembled in an open room at Jerufa- 
 lem. Tlefe all continued ivith one accord, in prayer and 
 fupplicationSi with the women ^ and Mary the mother ojf JefuSy 
 and ivith his briihren. Here were no fcribes nor phari- 
 fees intermixed. No one who retained his jftanding in 
 the Jewifh church, nor any v,ho feh unfriendly to the 
 intereftscf Jefus. The traitor himfelf no longer ob- 
 truded his unhallowed prefence among them. They 
 were all united in love.* Whci the day of pentecojl iva.f 
 fully come, we find them again together, ivith one accord 
 in one phce. Here the apoftles experienced the fulfil- 
 ment of whi.t had been predicted by John, and prcmif- 
 ed by Chrift. They were all baptized ivith the Holy 
 Ghofl a?idfire. No fooner was this noifed abroad, than 
 a vaft multitude collected. Some were flruck wiih 
 wonder and amazement ; others mocked, and faid thefe 
 men are full of new i^ine. But Peter flood up and ad- 
 drefTed the multitudf in a difcourfe peculiarly adapted 
 to the cccaiion, and to the circumftances of his audi- 
 ence. His preacliing was attended with a marvellous 
 difplay of divine power. He concluded in the following 
 words •, Therefore let ALL the houfe of Ifrael know affuredly^ 
 that Cod hath made that fame JfuSi whom ye have crif- 
 
 * Acfls i. 14. 
 
[ 53 ] 
 
 CTFiF-D, both Lord and Chrijl. Here the hcuje of Jfrael or 
 JewiTn church coUedl:ive]y, is charged with having taken 
 the Son of God, and with wicked hands crucified and 
 flain him. The word delivered by Peter became 
 /harper than a tivo-edged fivcrd ! Ajid they luere pricked 
 in their hearty and Jaid unto Peter^ and to the refi of the 
 apcftles, Men and brethren^ ivhat fhall toe do ? Then Peter 
 fiud icnto ihem^ Repent and be baptized every one of you in 
 the name cf f^fus Chrijl^ for the reniiffion offinsy and ye 
 JJmll receive the gift of the Holy Goof}. For the prvmife is 
 unto youy and to your children^ and to all that are afar off, 
 even as many as the Lord our God fhall calL'^ 
 
 What fhall lue do P was the language of thofe wouncj- 
 ed-hearted finners. Repent, faid Peter, and he baptized 
 every one of you. He commanded none to be baptized, 
 but what he firft commanded to repent. The promife 
 of remiflion of fins, and of the gift of the Holy Ghoft-, 
 WHS not m.ade to all indifcrirainately, but was predicated 
 upon their repentance and baptifm, upon their being 
 called by the Lord, and not upon the baptifm of im- 
 oenitents. The promife quoted by the apoftle, as an 
 encouragement to then2 and to their children to repent, 
 muft alfo be underftood with this limitation. 
 
 * The apoftle here no Joub* alluded to the prmiife recorded by the 
 piOphiJt jeremiiih. Behutd the days tomt., faith the Lardy that I tx-ill make 
 tf NLW COVENANT •With the heufe of If ra el aud with the hovft of Juduh : 
 nut atcording to the covenant that J made zvitb their fathers in the day 
 KL-ben I toik them by the hand to bring them out «f the land of Egypt ^ tohicb 
 my ctvcnatit tJ.>ey br-uki^ altb(,ugh I zvas an bufband unto ik^m,faiib the Ltrd. 
 £ut this fhall be the covenant that I -will make ijuith the boufe oflf- ael ; ^^ftif 
 thofe days y faith the Lord, I WILL PUT MY LAW IN THEIR INWARD 
 PARTS, AND WRITE IT iN THEIR HEARTS, and will be their God, ar.i 
 they fhall be my people And they /hall teach no more every man bis neigh' 
 tnuTy and every man his brother, faying, Knciv ye the Loid ; for they SHALt. 
 ALL KNO'.y mi:, from the leaf cf thxm unta the great efi of them, faith the 
 Lord ; for I ivill forgive their iniquity, and remember tii'.r fn no more.f 
 This n-iw covenant was eftablifhed upon better prcmifet thai; thofe con- 
 tained in the covenant of circumciGon, God did not enjjage in that, 
 the renewing influences cf the I^oly Spirit, to put his la'zv !n their inward 
 parts. That covenant was outward in the fltfh ; this is inv/ard, the 
 laxv vuritten upon the heart In this new covtDant, the very laifl Ifnows 
 the Lord. In that, many, vvho v/tre the greatefi ia office and pov-fcr, 
 knew not the Lord. 
 
 t J^^- »^^'- 31—34. 
 E 2 
 
C 54 ] 
 
 We cannot poiEbly agree with Mr. Edwards in his 
 explanation of this pafFage. His reafoning, to us ap- 
 pears both fophiftical and abfurd. He is io very anx- 
 ious to iecure a place for infants in the goJ'pel church, 
 that he Teems willing to pafs over the real bieirings con- 
 tained in the promrfe, and fix on one which by his own 
 reafoning they were already in pofTeilion of. After 
 holding the word children m a ftare of- torture, umil it 
 has paffed three ftages of diicufQon, he thiiiks he has 
 l^rained the important point ; i. e. ** Tiiat infanrs are 
 placed in the fume relation to baptifm, as they were of 
 old to circumcifion." (p. 71, 72.) 
 
 What an admirable comment upon the apoftle's 
 words ! Here were a number of perfjns pricked in the 
 heart, and crying out in diUrefs, Whatfiall'we dc P They 
 are told for their comfort, that the promife is to you and 
 to yjur children ; by which they were to underftand that 
 they were placed in the fame relation to baptifm as they 
 were of old to circumcidon ! What confolation this 
 muft be to a heart throbbing under the pangs of con- 
 Ti6lion, or inquiring with the ardor of a new-born foul 
 after duty I But we will leave Mr. Edw;jrds for the 
 prefent. 
 
 Let us now hear the concludon of the facred hifto- 
 lian. Then they that gladly received his ivord were bap'- 
 lized J and the fame day there ivcre added unto them about 
 three thiufand fouls. We alk, To whom were thefe con-* 
 verts added ? Was it to the old Jcwiih church .'' of 
 *o the new goipel church .** for they both exifted at 
 this time j but in totul oppofition to each other. We 
 ©nly wiih that c-onfcience may make the decilion. This 
 folemn and interefting account clofes wiih thefe words ; 
 .And the Lord added to the church daily ^ fuch as Jh'uld be 
 faved. What church, v/e aik again, was this ? Was it 
 ihe old perfecuting Jewiili ciiurch ? no one we think 
 can polhbly believe it. No ; they were taken from 
 that, and added to the Chriftian church. We are con- 
 fident that there cannot be an inftance produced 
 i)i a fingle a(5t of Chriftian fellowHiip between thefe 
 two churches. How often in the book of Ads, that 
 authentic hiftory of the primitive Chriftians; do we 
 
[ 55 J 
 
 find the leaders of the gofpel church dragged before the 
 rulers of the Jewiih church, and by their orders beaten 
 and imprifoned ; and (Iraitly charged to fpeak no 
 more in the name of Jeftis ! If both were the church of 
 Chrift, his kingdom was certainly divided againil itlelf -, 
 and our Lord has told us the fate of fuch a kingdom. 
 The papal and proteftant churches were never more 
 at variance in the hctteft times of perfecution rhan 
 thefe two churches were, until the gofpel diipenfation 
 \v:.^ taken from the Jev.'s and given to the Geiitiles. 
 
 It may poffibly be faid that thefe arguments only 
 prove the corruptions that were in that church, but do 
 not affedl its real {late. To determine whether an old 
 houfe ought to be taken down, in order to build a new 
 one in its room, it would not be necefTary to know 
 what it once was, but only to examine it in irs preient 
 fiate 5 and ihould a few pieces of timber be faved 
 from this old wreek, and put into the new building, 
 \vc iliould hardly fuppofe any ptrfon would fay it was 
 the fame, the very fame houfe. The application is eafy. 
 
 In order to bring this argument to a clcfe, we '< Ik, 
 Were not the principal oppofers and perlecutors of Jefus 
 Chrift and his fcUowers, officers and members of the 
 Jewiih church ? ^Vere they not confldered at the 
 time to be in regular flanding ? To exemplify the 
 queftioD, we will Uh6\ one only ; it Oiall be the great 
 apoftle of the Gentiles. Was he not a me^-ber of the 
 Jewiih church, at the very time he was perfecuting 
 the poor faints of Jefus, and haling them both men 
 and women to prifon ? 
 
 The accownt which Paul has given of himfelf will 
 probably fatisfy us on this point. In a ftatement which 
 he made to the Galatians reipec^ting his call to preach, 
 he lays ; But I ccriify ycu^ hrtthren^ that the gofpel which 
 lUiJJ pnached of mcy is 7wt after nidn ; for I ?itiihtr rfreiveiJ 
 it of ma/i, neither was I taught ity tut by the revelation of 
 Jejus Chrifi. For ye have heard of my converfaiion in time 
 paj}) in THE Jews* religion •, how that beyond meafure 
 I perfecitted the church of God^ and wafted it. And profited 
 in the Jews* religion above many rny equals in mine cwa 
 nation ; being more exceedingly zcalciis of the traditions of 
 my fa^Hi's* But — But pray^ Paul; let us interrupt your 
 
[ 56 ] 
 
 narrative a moment, that you may explain yourfelf. 
 You have twice mentioned the Jdivs^ religion^ as if it 
 were diftindt from the religion of Jefus Chrift. You 
 have alfo fiid, that you perfecuted and ivafled the CHURCH 
 OF GOD. You moft certainly do not mean the old Jew- 
 ifh church, for if we underftand you, you were a^Tting 
 in concert with that. " My manner of life from my 
 youth, which was at the iirft among mine own nation 
 at Jerufalem, know all the Jews ; who knew me from 
 the beginning, (if they would teAify) that after the 
 STKAiTEST SECT OF OUR RELiaiON, I Hved a pharifee/'' 
 And in my zeal for that church, " I verily thought with 
 myfelf, that I ought to do many things contrary to the 
 name of Jefus of Nazareth. Which thing I alfo did in 
 Jerufalem ; and many of the faints did I £!iut up in 
 prifbn/' I did not do it however, in a riotous manner 
 without the concurrence of my brethren, but " having 
 received authority from the chief priefls» And when they 
 were put to death, I gave my voice againll them.' And 
 puniflied them oft in every fynagogue, ?;nd compelled, 
 them to bhfpheme : and being exceedingly mad againft 
 them, I perfecuted them even unto ftrange cities."* 
 '« But when it pieafed Godj who feparated me from n^y 
 mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his 
 Son in me, that T might preach him among the hea- 
 then y immediately I conferred not with flefh and 
 blood — but I. went into Arabia and returned again to 
 Damafcus. And was unknown by face unto the 
 churches of Judea, which were in Chriji : but they had 
 heard only, that he who perfecuted us in times paft, 
 now preacheth the faith 'which cme he defrayed. And 
 they glorified God in me."f 
 
 In. this man, before his converiion, we have a com- 
 plete fpecimen of the general temper of the Jcwifli 
 church, during moft of the time the gofpel was con- 
 tinued among them. This will be evinced by the fol- 
 lowing quotation from one of his epiftles. " For yc, 
 brethren, became followers of the churches of God, 
 which in Judea are in Chrifb Jefus : for ye have alfo 
 fuffered like tilings of your own countrymen y^^^vi as they 
 
 * A«a» jxvi. 4, 5, 9, ic, IX. f Gal. i, ii— x; and «^a4* 
 
'I 57 ] 
 
 bave of the Jiius : who both killed the Lord JeiliSj 
 a.nd their own prophets, and have pcrfecuted us ; and 
 they pleafe not God, and are contrary to all men "* 
 
 From the evidence ariljng from the favSls which haTe- 
 been briefly detailed in the preceding pages, the follow- 
 ing conclusion irrefiftibiy forces itfelf upon the mind, 
 vi/. That the gofpel church is not a continuation of the 
 old Jewifh church, but totally difrin^l : That it dif- 
 fers CiTentially in its conftitution ; in the qualifications 
 required in order to mcmberlhip ; in its vifible form,, 
 that being national, this being felc<ftcJ and particular : 
 That tlie predicTtions and declaration of the prophets, of 
 Jefus Chrill: and his apoftles, all prefent it to us as a dif- 
 tindt body : That facts which cannot be coiitroveried, 
 deterir.inc that they never were united, although they 
 both actually exifted at the fame time ; but that the 
 latter was conftantly oppofed and perfecuted by the 
 former. 
 
 Hence we conclude, that as the two churches are 
 every way fo dillin6t, the rii^ht of infants to member- 
 iliip in the Jewi(h church is infuiiiclent to fuilain their 
 cldm to mernberfliip in the gofpel church. If they 
 have any claim to memberdiip under the gofpel dif- 
 penfation, it mufl be foutided in the fpecial proviiions 
 of this difpenliition, and not inferred from any thing in 
 the former. " The truth," faith Dr. Emmons, " is, we 
 muft learn the peculiar duties of believers under the 
 prefent difpenfation of the covenant of grace, from 
 the difpenfation itfelf, which enjoins all the peculiar 
 duties which belong to it. If believers are nov/ to 
 baptize their, children, — it is not becaufe they v/ere 
 once obliged to circum^ife them."f 
 
 If thefe things are true, as we verily believe they are, 
 we befeech our brethren not to fhut their eyes ?.gainft 
 the light, and rejeiSt them. O that the great Head of 
 the church would enlighten each of us more perfeclly 
 in the knowledge of his will ! 
 
 * 1 Their, ii. M* ij* t Replj- to Dr. Hcnir.icnway. 
 
[ 58 ] 
 
 S E C T I O N IV. 
 
 StrlBures on the Rev. Peter Edwards's " Candid 
 Reafons for renouncing the Principles of Antip^dohap^ 
 t'tfmr 
 
 X HIS gentleman has been feveral times named 
 in the preceding pages, and the book now before us 
 referred to. 
 
 My defign is only to make ftriftures. It cannot 
 therefore be expe<fteu that I fhould follow him in all 
 his long-laboured fyllogifms, nor attempt to unravel all 
 his intricate v/indings. This talk is rendered the lefs 
 neceiTary, as Dr. Jenkins's very able reply is before tbfe 
 public. In this, a candid reader will difcover much 
 foHd learning, and a thorough knowledge of the fubjedt 
 difcufled. 
 
 In v/riting thefe Arictures, I have no wifli to detract 
 from Mr. Edwards's " hard-eariied fame^'' nor to fpeak 
 diminutively of his abilities as a polcnlc writer. I wiOi 
 I could in juftice acknowledge him to be a fair and 
 honourable difputant. Whether my judgment is warp- 
 ed by prejudice, is not for me to fay j but his reafonings 
 have ever appeared to me extremely fophiftical and un- 
 candid. The reafons on which I found this cpiuion 
 will be {q^t\ in the courfe of thefe animadverlions. 
 
 The reader is alfo notified, that no attempt will be 
 made in the enfuing pages to vindicate Mr. Booth, as 
 the writer has never feen his book to which Mr. Ed- 
 wards has replied. Nothing therefore will be noticed, 
 only what implicates cur fentirnents generally. 
 
 Mr. Edwards, in his introdutlion, gives what he calls 
 " a fair ihtement of the queftion." This ftatement is 
 divided into five Thefes. His firil: Thefts we fliould not 
 objecSt to, had he conduced the difpute accorcHng to 
 the principles there ftated. It ftands thus — Thefts 1. 
 ** That we iet afide all thofe filings about which we are 
 agreed, and fix our attention to that only on which a 
 difference of opinion may fall." *« Secondly, that this 
 
C 59 3 
 
 difference be dated in a manner the moft plain and 
 fimple." The reader will judge, whether Mr. Ed- 
 wards has not violated the firft of thefe rules, in the 
 moft flagrant manner. Has he not brought up the 
 fubje(5l oi female communion, and employed it as a main 
 argument againft the Baptifts ? Yea, the very argu- 
 ment, which he boaftingly tells us that he has ufed 
 with {o much dexterity, as to filence every Baptift he 
 has met with in a quarter of an hour. And yet this is 
 a fubject that we are entirely agreed in. What has 
 female communion to do with infant baptifm ? Nothing 
 at all. 
 
 Thefts 2.-*-" Antipsedobaptifts confider thofe perfons 
 as meet fubje^ls of baptifm, who are fuppofed to pof- 
 fefs faith in Chrift, and thofe only. Paidobaptifts 
 agree with them in this, that believers are proper fub- 
 jects of baptifm, but deny that fuch only are proper 
 fubje(fts. They think, that, together with fuch believ- 
 ing adults, who have not yet been beipfizecl, their infants 
 have a right to baptifm as well as their parents." The 
 laft part of this poiition implies v/hat is not true, which 
 - will be feen in our remarks upon the next. 
 
 Thijis 3. — " From this view of the fentiments of 
 each, it appears that both parties are agreed on the 
 article of adult baptifm, which muft therefore be fet 
 afide, as a matter entirely out of difpute j for it can 
 anfwer no good purpofe for one to prove what the other 
 will not deny." An incautious reader by this ftate- 
 ment would be led to fuppofe, that the two denomina- 
 tions had the fame views of adults being proper fub- 
 •jeds of baptifm. But it is evident that we differ widely 
 on this fubjecl. It is not true, that Pscdobaptifts allow 
 adult baptifm, only under certain limitations. They 
 indeed admit fuch as have never been baptized in in- 
 fancy, when they come to be believers. But why da 
 they ? Evidently becaufe they could never baptize 
 them before. Their own, or their parents' confent was 
 wanting. But could they carry their fentiments into 
 complete effedl, it. would put an entire end to believers* 
 baptifm ; for they would baptize every infant foon after 
 it was born j nor would they allow them ever after, 
 
C 60 ] 
 
 {hould they become believers, to be baptized agreeably 
 to their own confciences, upon the pain of being de- 
 nounced as Anabaptifts. This dife'ence of fentiment 
 on this point cannot be denied, without denying an 
 obvious truth. It is therefore but mere evafion, to fay, 
 that we are agreed on this point, and that they hold to 
 belisvers* kaptifm as well as we. They certainly would 
 exterminate it out of the world if they could. 
 
 But what is Mr. Edwards making this preparation 
 for ? The anfwer is eafy. It is to get rid of that bur- 
 den of proof ariiing from thofe qualifications^ indifcrim- 
 inately required in order to brquifm, with which his 
 denomination have conliantly been prelTed by the Bap- 
 tists. 
 
 We fh?.ll not at prefent obje^l to his ftatement in 
 the clofe of this polition, viz, " The fimple queftion 
 which remains to be decided is this, Are infants fit fub- 
 je£ts of baptifm, or are they not } On this queftion the 
 whole turns. The Pxdobaptifts affirm, and the Anti- 
 p'^dobaptifls deny." But we fhall take the liberty to 
 difprove their fitnefs, by urging their want of thofe qual- 
 ifications required by the inltitution, without afking Mr. 
 Edwards's confent. 
 
 Thefts 4. — " The fimple queftion being as v/e have now 
 ftated it, Are mhms Jit fu Ejects of baptifm, or are they 
 not ? it will clearly follow, that all thofe places which 
 relate to believers' baptifm, can prove nothing on the 
 lide of the Baptifts ; and the reafon is, they have no 
 relation to the queftion." No, Mr. Edwards, we (hall 
 not confent to this. You might very eafily indeed beat 
 us all in a quarter of an hour, if we would be fo foolifti -^ 
 as to confent to let you firft tie our hands. But in vain.^ 
 is thefnare fpread in the fight of af^y bird. You afk, " Are 
 infants fit fubjefts of l3aptifm V How are we to judge 
 of the fitnefs of a fubje(5t any otherwife than by the 
 qualifications required by the inftitution .? No, no, fay 
 you, thefe all refpedt adults, and therefore are irrelevant 
 to the fubje<^t. Allow, if you pleafe, that thefe refpe^ 
 adults only, and will not this concluiion inevitably fol- 
 low, that none but adults were to be baptized .«* 
 
C «! ] 
 
 If the qualifications indefinitely required by the in- 
 ftitution of baptifm, (I fay indejimiely^ becaufe the fcrip- 
 tures give us no idea of one kind of qualifications for 
 aduUs, and another for infants) if thefe are to form no 
 part of the rule by which we are to judge of thejiin^/s 
 of infants, what are we to judge by ? Why truly, Mr* 
 Edwards has furniflied us with a very compendiout 
 method indeed. "We mufl go back almoft two thou- 
 fand years before the inftitution of baptifm exifted, and 
 examine another inftitution every way different in its na- 
 ture, mode, and defign, and belonging to another church 
 equally different from the Chriftian church *, and upon 
 this we are to make up our judgment refpecting the 
 fitnefs of infants for a New Teftament inftitution ! Muft 
 not a man have a front like brafs, who can charge his 
 opponents with fophiftry, while he himfelf is guilty of 
 fuch management as this, to keep men from feeing the 
 truth ? It is believed, that there is not another fubject 
 in the world, on which men would reafon fo inconcluiive- 
 ly. Were a difpute to arife concerning the right of citi- 
 zenfhip in the United States, how fhould we determine 
 the queftion ? Should we determine it by the confti- 
 tution of Great-Britain, or by the conftitution of the 
 United States ? We think there would be but one 
 opinion in this cafe, ;. e. that it muft be determined by 
 the conftltution under which we now live. Why fhould 
 we not determine the qualifications for an inftitution of 
 the gofpel in the fame way ? 
 
 Mr. Edwards's fifth Thefts is a mere recapitulation 
 of the preceding j therefore it is thought unneceffary to 
 ftate it. 
 
 We fhall now proceed to his ftatement of the arga- 
 Dients which the Baptifts bring againft infant baptiirn. 
 « Of thefe," he tells us, « there are two only." It he 
 had allowed us to fpeak for ourf^lves, it is more than 
 poflible we might hare muftered up one or two more. 
 But what are the two which he allows us to bring ? 
 
 Firft, «< Aperfon nuha has a right to a pfitive itfitution 
 mufi be exprefsly mentioned as having that right ; but infants 
 mre not fo mentioned^ therefore they have not thai right.'* 
 
 This argument he fuppofes requires that eiprefs 
 laemion be made in the fcriptures of the baptifm of 
 
 F 
 
C 62 3 
 
 infmts. Tills he fays, is " aflumlng, contracled, falfe.** 
 « It is very afTuming, becaufe it feems to dictate to the 
 ever blefTed God in what manner he ought to fpeak to 
 his creatures. Since it is no where contained in his word, 
 and he knows beft how to communicate his mind to 
 men, it little becomes fuch creatures as we are to lay- 
 down rules by which he fhall proceed." Is it not si 
 little afuming for Mr. Edwards to infift upon our re*. 
 cciving and approVing a practice which he allows not 
 to be contained in the ivord of God J Reader, paufe a 
 moment, and reflect upon this " precious confeflion." 
 If you are a Baptift, will you not feel more thankful 
 than ever, that the fentiments you pradlife are moft 
 plainly contained in God's word ? Will not Mr. Ed- 
 wards's new friends blu{h for this unguarded conceffion, 
 and willi he had been a little more careful ? He adds, 
 « it is very contra6led, becaufe it fuppofes we cannot 
 ijnderftand what God fays, but when he fpeaks to us in 
 one particular way." No Sir, you miftake : it fuppofes 
 we cannot under ftand him when he does not fpcak at 
 all. For you will pleafe to remember, you have juft 
 fa id, it is no where contained in his ivord. And this is 
 the only medium through which he has fpoken to us 
 refpecting pofitive inlHtutions. But, 
 
 *« It is very falfe : becaufe (to wave all other inftan-- 
 ces, and fix on one only) a fubje<St is admitted to a pofi- 
 tive inftitute, and that admiffion is according to truths 
 and fo held and pra^lifed by all who ufe Chriftian rites, 
 fvben there is no exprefs law or example to fupport it 
 in all the word of God. It is the cafe of women to 
 which I allude, and their admiffion to the Lord's 
 table.'* 
 
 This is Mr. Edwards's knock-down argument, witk 
 V'hich he has fo often vanqtiifhed the Baptifts. He 
 kas fperit twelve pages in attempting to prove that there 
 k no explicit warrant for female communion ; and 
 therefore that it ftands upon the fame footing of infant 
 baptifm. His meaning is, that the right of infants to 
 buptlfm is equally plain, and as well fupported by the 
 Icriptures, as the right of females to communion. But 
 tie has unhappily dedroyed his argument by his own 
 'ft«tesnent. For he fay$^ female communion " is held 
 
[ 63 3 
 
 and praB'ifed by all luho life ChryTian rites. "^ If infant 
 baptifm were equally as plaioj what reafon can be af- 
 iigned for its not being as univeriaily admitted ? He is 
 undoubtedly correct in this, that no Chriitian fe£t who 
 have admitted the celebration of the Lord's fupper, 
 have dilaliowed the right of females. It is equally 
 certain, that from the lirft mention of infant baptifm in 
 eccleiiaftical hiftory, it has met with oppofition. This 
 cppofition has not been made by thole who profeiTed 
 to be governed by the decrees of popes and councils ; 
 but fuch as profeiled to take the word of God for their 
 guide in all matters of religion. Wliat rational account 
 can bo given for the oppoiition made to infant baptifm 
 from time immemorial to the prefent, while females 
 have all this time remained in the unmolefted enjoy- 
 ment of communion ; unlefs it be, that the latter is 
 clearly eftabliihed in the New Tefcamenl, while no evi- 
 dence can be found for the former. 
 
 Thofe who deny infant baptifm, have undoubtedly 
 the fame tender affe£lion for their children as thofe 
 who pradtife it ; nor can we admit that they feel lefs 
 concerned for their eternal falvation. Hence nothing, 
 but the want of fcripture to fupport it, leads them to 
 deny its validity. 
 
 We will now take the liberty to vary Mr. Edwards's 
 third Thefts, and put female communion in the place of 
 adult baptfm, and he and his friends will then fee xXvi 
 full force of his argument. 
 
 Thefts 3. — " From this view of the fentiments of each, 
 it appears that both parties are agreed in the article of 
 female cvrnmumon^ which muft therefore be fet alide, as 
 a matter entirely out of difpute : for it can anfwer no 
 good purpoie for one to prove what the other will not 
 deny." Very well : then here we will leave it. 
 
 Argument 2. — ^The fecond argument which Mr. Ed- 
 wards allows the Baptifts to bring againffc the baptifm 
 of infants, he exprefles as follows : 
 
 " The fciipiiii-es require faith and repentance as requiftte 
 t6 hapiifm^ hut as infants cannot have ihefe, they are not 
 proper fubj eels of baptifm. Infants^ fay the Baptifls, cannot 
 believe^ cannot repent \ and nonefljould be baptized ivihout 
 faith, ^c:' 
 
I 64 3 
 
 «< The moft expeditious way, fays Mr. Edwards, of 
 dejlroy'wg this argument is this. They fay the fcriptures 
 require faith and repentance in order to baptifm. I alk 
 of whom ? The anfwer mufl be of adults ,- for the fcrip- 
 tures never require them of infants in order to any 
 thing." My Baptift brethren ! do you not tremble 
 for the fate of your argument, fince it has fallen into 
 the hands of fuch an Apollyon ? But how is he going 
 to v/ork to dtfroy it ? Why by telling you that all the 
 qualifications required by the inftitution, have refpe£t 
 only to a very fmall proportion of the candidates for 
 that ordinance, and that no qualifications at all are re- 
 ouired of far the greater part. 
 
 How does Mr. Edwards prove that the fcriptures do 
 not require faith and repentance of all who are to be 
 admitted to baptifm ? Pie does it in this way, by ad- 
 ding the word adults. But it muft be remembered, 
 that the fcriptures do not mention either adults or in- 
 fants ; but prefcribe thefe qualifications generally and 
 without any exception. We fhall therefore infift, that 
 the want of thefe qualifications muft forever bar the 
 claim of all others to this ordinance, whether adults or 
 infants. This is ground we (hall by no means give up^ 
 until it fhall be fairly proved, that either Chrift or his 
 apoftles did a^ually admit perfons to baptifm, who 
 made no profefiion of faith and repentance. This 
 has never yet been done, and we believe it never can 
 be. However, we have no objedion to any perfon's 
 making the attempt. 
 
 Mr. Edwards, after working over this argument, fo as 
 to fuit himfelf by changing and diminifliing the force 
 of the major propofit.ion, at length declares it " a glar* 
 ing Jophifm.^^ But in what does the fophiftry confift ? 
 In his own management, and in nothing elfe. The 
 firft ftaternent reads thus ; « The fcriptures require 
 faith and repentance in order to baptifm." The 
 meaning is generally and without any exception. 
 When akered by Mr. Edwards, it ftands thus : — « The 
 fcriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in 
 order to baptifm." It is this addition alone which 
 can poffibly expofe the argument to the charge of 
 fophiftry. Place the argument upon its native ground, 
 and it will ftand thus : 
 
C 65 ] 
 
 " The fcriptnres require, in ai! ferfons^ faith and 
 repentance as reqnifite to baptifm ; but fome perfons 
 have not faith and repentance : therefore, all impeni- 
 tents, whether adults or infants^ are not proper fubje^Vs 
 of baptifm." The reader will determine for himfelf, 
 which party is juftly chargeable with fophiftry. 
 
 After altering the argument as above defcribed, 
 Mr. Edwards goes on to prove it falfe. "We will now 
 briefly examine his proof. He propofes " firft to fhow 
 that the argument is entirely fallacious ; fecond, point 
 out wherein its fallacy coniifts." << 1. Of the fallacy 
 of this argument. The principle of it is, that infants 
 are excluded from baptifm, becaufe fomething is faid of 
 baptifm which will not agree to infants. To fee there- 
 fore the tendency of this argument whether it will 
 prove on the fide of truth or error, I will try its opera- 
 tion on thefe four particulars." 
 
 1. " On the circumcifion of infants. That infants 
 were circumcifed, is a fact. That they were circum- 
 cifed by the exprefs command of God, is a proof of 
 right, &c." This will not be difputed by any one. But 
 how does this prove the argument of the Baptifts to be 
 falfe } Why in this way, " circumcifion, as it was a 
 folemn entering into the church of God, did fix an ob- 
 ligation on the circumcifed, to conform to the laws and 
 ordinances of that church."* How is this proved ? 
 From Gal. v. 3. " Every man •who is circumcifed is a 
 debtor to do the xvhoie Icnv" What is the inference ? 
 Here it follows in Mr. Edwards's own words ; " Then 
 it is clear, there was fomething faid of circumcifion 
 which did no more agree to infants, than if it had 
 been faid, Repent and be baptized." Suppofing, Mr. 
 Edwards, we fhould retort a little of your logic upon 
 yourfelf, and affirm, that when the apoitle fays. Every 
 man nvho is circumcifed is a debtor to do the ivhole laiv^ 
 he mufk mean, every adult : " for the fcriptures never 
 require fuch obedience of infants in order to any thing." 
 Now, Sir, if your logic is good, your argument is good* 
 
 * It would, -we believe, be very difficult to defcribe the ^ctit foUmnity 
 which an infant of eight days old diiicoTtred, at this tiane of iw.cDtrauct 
 mto the church. « 
 
 f 2 
 
for nothing , For the fame mode of realonln^ which 
 ypu.haye a<l€^te<l to deftroy our argument, will deftroy 
 your own. Bjt I mean to liiow its fallacy in another 
 way. 
 
 ■* To the above inference our author adds, « In this 
 rerpe(5l, baptifm and circumcifion are upon a level *, for 
 there is fomething faid concerning both, which will by 
 no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand 
 cannot believe and repent ; and thefe are connected 
 with baptifm ; and on the other hand, infants cannot 
 become debtors ; they cannot keep the law, and thefe 
 are connected \vit!\ circumcilion." If I fhould reafoE 
 after this manner, I ibould expe<5l: to be roundly charged 
 with fophiftry. « Cotmeffed with baptifm j" " connected 
 with Gircumcilion," fays iVIr. Edwards. But, Sir, are 
 they conne<5Led alike t MulV not every perfon, by a 
 moment's reflection, fee that they are totally di3erent } 
 Baptifm does not merely " fix an obligation" to believe 
 and repent at fom.e future period ; but requires a pro- 
 feffion of faith and repentance, as a previous qualifica- 
 tion for the ordinance. Circumcifion did not require 
 any previous obedience to the law, in order to qualify a 
 perfon for that rite. The utmoft that can be faid of it 
 with regard even to fuch adults as voluntarily choofe 
 k for tJiemfelves is, that they thereby made themfelves 
 debtors to do the whole b^v. The apolUe's meaning Is 
 evidently this, that thofe who ftill infixed upon circum- 
 cifion, as that was one of the firft articles of the legal 
 difpenfation, could not be fuppofed to have embraced 
 the .gofpel 5 and if they depended on their olvjdience 
 to the law for juiVification, which was implied in their 
 holding to circumcifion, they mufl then confider them- 
 felves debtors to do the whole law. But can it be fup- 
 pofed, that the mere a6t of circunicifion, performed on 
 a he^.plefs infant, without his knowledge or confent, 
 Ihould make him a debtor to do the whole law ? It 
 >$ evident Paul had nothing of this in view, when he 
 circviracifed Timothy. I do not think it conflituted 
 him a debtor to do the whole law. But had he chofen 
 tkat method of juftificatioja in prefei-eiue to th« gt)f|)ej> 
 it <:ermiiJy w^^yald. 
 
C 67 ] 
 
 But will not every perfon who is capable of reafoning 
 upon a fubjedl, fee a wide difference between qualijica^ 
 tions previoujly required by an ordinance, and an obligch- 
 tisn fixed by the ordinance itfelf ? The great Author of 
 being fixes an obligation upon every rational creature 
 as foon as it exifts, to lore and obey him. But he re- 
 quires no previous exercifes of love and obedience in 
 order to qualify us for exiftence. It hence appears that 
 the two cafes ftated by Mr. Edwards, as being entirely 
 fimilar, " and upon a level," are totally unlike. There- 
 fore, until it can be made out that qualifications for an 
 ordinance, and fubfequent duties ariling^/r;v; it, are the 
 fame thing, we muft fet down Mr. Edwards as a 
 fopliiuical reafoner ! But tlie whole will be fubmitted, 
 argiimentum ad judicium^ to all whom it may concern."* 
 
 Mr. Edwards next argues agalnft the g(->4'eral require- 
 ment of faith and repentance, from the " baptiim of 
 Jefiio Chrift." He fuppofes as *' he was no (inner, he 
 could have no repentance \ and lince he needed r\o fal- 
 vation from fin, he could not have the faith of God's 
 elea." 
 
 Are there any Chriftians who fuppofe that JefusChrifb 
 was baptized i\:>i precifely the fame reafons as thofe by 
 ■wiiich he has enjoined the duty upon his people ? Or in 
 other words, wlieiher iiis baptifm fignilied the fame 
 things which our's does ^ If not, his argument is noth- 
 ing to the purpofe. But let us hear Mr.Edwards's own 
 explanation. <* With regard to the ufe of baptifm," faith 
 he, " I coniider it in the light of a nifan of grace, and I 
 ifiew it in the fame way when applied to infants.*' (p. 
 1B4.) Does Mr. Edwards fuppofe that the baptifm cf 
 Chrift was a mean of grace to him ? If not, it muft 
 certainly be very different from the baptifm of any 
 other perfon. We do not think that Jeius Chrill ftood 
 in need of any fuch means of grace as infant baptifm. 
 Mence his not being a fubjeft of faith and repentance, 
 cannot with any fairnefs be urged againft the general 
 requirement of the infiitution, nor be pleaded as an 
 exception in behalf of tinful creatures. 
 
 • The reader will cxcufc ray uCng thcfe logical terms, wkcri he i9C»h 
 hA$ I am reafoning with » ■^ery logical i»an» 
 
[ 68 ] 
 
 Mr. Edwards draws his third argument from the 
 «* falvation of infants.'* Thefe he prefumes are faved y 
 and faved too without either faith or repentance. 
 
 We fufpe<^ he may find this argument rather unman- 
 ageable. It may poffibly take a greater extent of lati- 
 tude, and fpread much wider than he intended. If in- 
 fants may be faved without faith or repentance, (the 
 qualifications for baptifm) it mufl be plain that all in- 
 fants may be faved. If this be an argument in favour 
 of the baptifm of fome infants, it will prove equally in 
 favour of the baptifm of all infants, whether their par- 
 ents are Chriftians, heathens, or infidels, unlefs the 
 poflibility of their falvation be denied. We fee but 
 two ways (to ufe his own modeft language) to fave his 
 •* argument from perdition." The firft is, to prove that 
 no infants will be faved, but fuch as defeend from be- 
 lieving parents : or, fecond, to extend his pradlice of 
 baptizing them to all infants, without exception. For 
 if their right to this ordinance is to be fupported upon 
 the pofiibiiity of their falvation, then it cannot depend 
 at all on the moral condition of their parents, unlefs their 
 falvation depends on that likewife, which it would be 
 abfurd to pretend. We only add, if they may be faved, 
 though incapable of the qualifications required by the 
 baptifmal inf^itution, we ihould certainly fuppofe their 
 baptifm might be alfo omitted, unlefs that be thought 
 of more confequence in the article of falvation than faith, 
 and repentance* 
 
 Mr. Edwards's fourth and lafl: argument to prove 
 that the Baptifls reafon fophiftically when they infifl on 
 z profeflion of faith and repentance in order to baptifm, 
 is drawn from tlie <* temporal fubflftence of infants." 
 He endeavours to nvake out that our argument goes to 
 prove, that infants ought to be left to ftarve to death. 
 His reafoning is founded on Paul's words to the Thef^ 
 falonians ; We commanded yoUf faith the apoftie, if any 
 ivould not nvorky neither Jhould he eat. 
 
 Our argument, as ftated by Mr. Edwards, is, that 
 ** the fcriptures require faith and repentance as requi- 
 site to baptifm ; but as infants cannot have thefe, they 
 ar« not proper fubjeds." This argument fuppofes, that 
 
t 69 ] 
 
 as infants eannoi exhibit the fcriptural qualifications, 
 they are not to blame ; neither are they injured m our 
 view in not being admitted to baptifm. But the cafe of 
 the wilful idler is every way different. Ke is fuppofed 
 to poffefs fufficient ability to obtain the comfortable 
 means of fubfiftence, but by a criminal negligence be- 
 comes chargeable to the church. It is wonderful to 
 fee what this do^lrlne of analogy can do ! It can make '^ 
 fubjedVs the moft antipodal, appear to ftand in perfeft 
 harmony ; and fuch as in their nature are every way 
 unlike, to be perfe(fHy analogous. 
 
 By the preceding animadveriions it will be feen that 
 Mr. Edwards's foi!r arguments, when weighed in aa 
 even balance, are found wanting. It needs only to 
 remove their extraneous parts, and they appear at once 
 wholly irrelevant to the fubjed>. The argument which 
 he oppofes does not of itfelf prove againft the truth, nor 
 has it any unfriendly afpeft but what it derives from 
 his torturing hand. 
 
 His next attempt is to fhow wherein the falfity of this 
 argument confifts. This, he informs his readers, is by 
 our placing « or.e thing in the premifes, and another 
 in the conclufion." But the reader muft not forget 
 that he ftated the premifes, and made the concluiion to 
 fuit himfelf. But, wherein do they difagree ? The 
 Baptifts, he fays, place adults in the premifes, and infants 
 in the conclufion. This is not true. The Baptifts 
 make the premifes general, and the conclufion general. 
 But let us inquire whether Mr. Edwards does not, 
 by his own ftatement, get more in his conclufion from 
 circumcifion than can be found in the premifes. His 
 argument runs thus : — The male infants of Abraham and 
 his pofterity, were by God's command to be cir- 
 cumcifed. What is his conclufion ? Therefore the in- 
 fants of fuch as belong to the Chriftian church, both 
 male? and females, are to be baptized. Has Mr. Edwards 
 here got no more in his conclufion than is found in his 
 premifes ? « O fliame, where is thy blufh !" 
 
 We will now meet Mr. Edwards upon his argument 
 turn ad hominem^ and fee what the refult will be. 
 «* Now, faith be, to make the argument of the Baptifi^s 
 
C 7« •} 
 
 tonfrftent, we rauft place infants in the premii^s as 
 well as in the conclufion, and the argument will ftand 
 thus : — ^The fcriptAires require faith and repentance of 
 infants in order to baptifm ; but infants have not faith, 
 &c. therefore infants are not to be baptized." 
 
 We will now try his argument. Mr. Edwards fu{^ 
 tains the plea in favour of the baptifm of infants both 
 male and female, from the covenant of circumcilion j 
 but by that covenant no female infant was admitted to 
 circumcifion ; therefore no female infant muil be ad- 
 mitted to baptifm. 
 
 Again, *< infants, in order to vidble memberfliip> 
 were the fubjefts of a religious rite j"* for " circumcif- 
 ion was n religious rite ;" but female infants were not 
 the fubjeifts of that religious rite, therefore female in- 
 fants were not admitted to memberfliip in the viiible- 
 church. 
 
 Thus we fee, that Mr. Edwards's logic will prove his 
 own arguments falfe, and exclude female infants both 
 from baptifm and from viiible membership in the 
 church. It is im.poilible to fupport the claim of female 
 infants to baptifm upon the covenant of circumcifion, 
 without getting more into the conclufion than can be 
 found in the premifes. This may not be ftigmatized as 
 a << glaring fophifm" in a Pasdobaptifi: ; but it will be 
 remembered what Mr. Edwards has faid of it with re* 
 fpe(5t to the Baptifis. 
 
 We will now fpend a few minutes in examining Mr. 
 Edwards's " arguments on the fide of infant baptifm," 
 
 " Infant baptifm, faith he, is to be proved in the 
 fame way as female communion •," /. e. by " inference 
 and analogy." Well, go on, Mr. Edwards, and make 
 your ftatement, " In the firft place, it is a fact ac- 
 knowledged by the Baptifts themfelves, that infants 
 were at an early period confiituted members of the 
 church of God." This, Sir, is about half true. No 
 well informed Baptift could admit it in this unqualified 
 {QXi{^ ; for it fuppofes that infants, females as well as 
 Kiales, without limitation were admitted : this wants 
 proof. But proceed. " In the next place, I (hall pro- 
 
 • Candid Rwfoui, p. 39, 
 
C 71 ] 
 
 ^uce proof, that they have a right to be fo now ; ani 
 that the conftitution of God by which they were made 
 «iembers, has not been altered to this day." Should you 
 fucceed, Sir, in this attempt, thefe confequences will in- 
 evitably follow. 1. That circumciiion is (till in force ; 
 or, that the (Conftitution of God, which cxprefsly en* 
 joined circumcifion, has been altered ; and altered too 
 by divine authority, fo as to admit of baptifm in its 
 room. 2. If this conftitution remains unaltered, female 
 infants have no place in it : for they were neither nam- 
 ed nor included in that rite by which you tell us infants 
 were admitted to " viftble memberflnp." (p. S9.) Have 
 you got through with your ftatement, Sir ? Not wholly. 
 Then pleafe to proceed. " In the laft place, I fhall 
 iay down this dilemma, which will conclude the whole 
 bufmefs ; namely : — As infants, by a divine imalterab't 
 tonJUtution^i have a right to be received as church mem- 
 bers, they muft be received either with baptifm or 
 without it. If they are not to be received without 
 baptifm, then the confequence is, that they muft be 
 baptized, becaufe they muft be received." Infants muit 
 be received, and therefore muft be baptized, and they 
 muft be baptized becaufe they muft be received. The 
 ^potency of this reafoning no man will dare to difpute. 
 
 This dilemma viev/ed at a diftance, lias., to be fure, a 
 frightful afpeel ; but upon a nearer infpeclion, its for- 
 midable appearance vaniflies away. The Turn of it is 
 this, That if infants have a right by the divine infiitution to 
 mernhcrfljip in the Chrifiian churchy then ihey muji be ad" 
 fniited according to that injVitution. 
 
 If Mr. Ed wards, by this unalterable conftitution, means 
 the covenant of circumciiion, as he moft certainly does, 
 we wiQi to know whether female infants were admitted 
 to memberfiiip by any religious rite, agreeably to that 
 conftitution .'' If fo, what was that rite ? If that confliiU" 
 tion faid nothing about female infants, and it was in its 
 nature unalterable ^ we wifli to be informed how therjr 
 came by the right they now enjoy in the Chriftiati 
 church, I am afraid after all, Sir, your argument will 
 prove fatal to the memberftiip of thefe poor little fe- 
 male Infants ! Do,Sir,have a little compaflion on them, 
 and try fome wa/ or other to provide for their mem- 
 
C 72 ] 
 
 berth ip. It will be in vain, however, to tell us that in 
 the inftitution of the gofpel church there is neither male 
 mr female i that they are all one in Chrijl Jefus. This is 
 not the unalterable conftitution on which you defend 
 their right. And it is true only of fuch as are believers, 
 fuch as are the children of God by faith in Chrijl Jefus ;* 
 not fuch as are his merely by circumcifion or baptifm. 
 Thefe infants, if they are any way interefted in Chrift*s 
 falvation, have no faith ^ by your own acknowledgment ; 
 for you have fuppofed them incapable of it. 
 
 In this firft argument, Mr. Edwards fuppofes he has 
 eftablifhed the right of infant memberfhip in the Chrif 
 tian church. But the utmoft that can be fairly deduced 
 from his arguing is, that male infants were admitted by 
 divine appointment to memberfhip in the Jewifh church. 
 Two points, which are all-important, yea, which are the 
 "verjftne qua non to fupport his fcheme, he has left to- 
 tally without proof, viz. That the Jewifh and Chriftian 
 churches are the fame ; and that female infants were 
 admitted to memberfhip by divine appointment. If 
 Mr. Edwards has proved any thing more than I have 
 allowed him, I have not yet been able to difcern it. 
 The refult which he has formed upon his own argu- 
 ment, will {how us what he fuppofes he has done, and 
 what courfe he means to take in future. " Thefe two 
 parts of the proportion, faith he, being evinced j name- 
 ly, 1. The church memberfhip of infants j and, 2. 
 Their admif!ion to it by a religious rite j the whole 
 propofition which I undertake to maintain, and to lay 
 as the ground-work from which to conclude the bap- 
 tifm of infants, is this, — God has conflituted in his 
 church the memberfhip of infants, and has admitted 
 them to it by a religious rite."f 
 
 The reader will here fee the ground-work of infant 
 haptifm J that it is placed at the diftance of near two 
 thoufand years from the gofpel difpenfation ! that it 
 does not look to that for its fupport, but depends en- 
 tirely upon the unalterable conftitution of the Jewifh 
 church. 
 
 From this data Mr. Edwards proceeds to his fecond 
 argument, as follows : «< The church memberfhip of infants 
 
 * G»l ui. 26, a8. t Page 43. 
 
t 73 3 
 
 «;«/ never Jet mfide by Gcd or man ; but continues in f^rety 
 under the fanclion of God,, to the prefent day." 
 
 In fupport of this argument, he realbns thus : «« Ev- 
 ery one knows, that what was once done, and never 
 undone, muft of courfe remain the fame : And that 
 what was once granted, and never revoked, muft needs 
 continue as a grant." (p. 45.) " That whatever God 
 has cftabHCHed Ihould be fuppofed to continue, though 
 vre could bring no proof of its continuance, unlefs we 
 %re plainly told, that he has ordered it otherwife." It 
 would not do, I fuppofe, in this inftance, Mr. Edwards, 
 to difprove its continuance by '* analogy" or " infer- 
 ence !" Nothing but being " plainly told,^ can be ad- 
 mitted in this cafe. 
 
 To fave us the trouble, however, of proving that this 
 grant is vacated^ Mr. Edwards has generoufly volun- 
 teered his fervices to prove that it is not. This proof 
 will now be examined. " There was, fays he, only one 
 point of time, in which it is even fuppofed the church 
 memberfhip of infants was fet aiide ; and that was 
 when the Gentiles were taken into a vilible church 
 ftate.** 
 
 Here Mr. Edwards is thought to have ftumbled upoa 
 the very threlhold. He has taken for granted, what 
 cannot be admitted without the mod clear and une- 
 quivocal proof ; that is, that the apoftles and difci- 
 pies of Jefus, with their Mafter at their head, did not 
 conftitute a neiv church, purely upon gofpel principles, 
 but thas they were incorporr.ted with the old Jewilh 
 church, and conducfted in all things a^^^cably to its 
 unalterable co?iJlituiicn. Nothing in our view can be 
 farther from the truth than this fentiment. It ftands 
 condemned by all the fadts recorded in the New Tefta- 
 ' ment. But having treated this iubje£l more at large 
 in a preceding part of this work, the reader is referred 
 to that for proof bf what is here aiTerted.* It is fuiH- 
 cient here to fay, If Chrift, with more than feventy dif- 
 tiples, adding by his authority, totally independent of 
 the Jewifh church and its leaders, did not conftitute the 
 Chriftian charch, we can have no idea of its exiftencc 
 
 • Jcc Scift. IV. 
 G 
 
C 7t ] 
 
 At any other period. To fay that Chrift and his dirci- 
 pies were united as members of that old church ever 
 after Jefus commenced his public miniftry, and called 
 thefe difciples to follow him as their head and leader, 
 would be to contradi6t the whole hiflory of fa(Sts re- 
 corded by the Evangelifts. 
 
 Mr. Edwards fuppofes the *« moft carnal Jew that 
 €ver fat in the regions of darknefs could not give a 
 more frigid account of circumcifion than Mr. Booth 
 has done." It is believed he would be puzzled to find 
 a Jew, either in the regions of darknefs or light, when 
 Chrift was upon earth, or at any period iince, who 
 would acknowledge with him that the Jewifli and 
 Ci"!Tiftian churches are the fame. No ; they know 
 that they and their fathers hated and oppofed Jefus of 
 Nazareth and his doctrine ^ that they perfecuted him 
 and his followers. Yet Mr. Edwards tells us, that " the 
 firft Gentile3 of whofe calling we read are faid to have 
 been added to the church ; but there was no church 
 exifting to which they could be added, but the ancient 
 Jeivifo church, of which all the apoftles and difciples of 
 our Lord were members." Is there another man upon 
 earth that can believe this ? that can entertain fuch a 
 degrading thought of Jefus and his difciples, as not to 
 acknowledge them to be the true gofpel church ? We 
 know that the Jewifh priefls and people difowned them, 
 and treated them as the enemies of their church j but 
 who would have ever thought that a man, profeffing to 
 be a Chriftian minifter, could be fo attached to the old 
 Jewifh fyftem, as to deny Chrift and his difciples the 
 honour of compofing and conftituting the neiu Chriflian 
 church / Let every perfon who can read the New Tef- 
 tament, read it carefully and prayerfully, and fee if he 
 can find a iingle hint in the whole account, that ever 
 the apoftles and difciples of Jefus were in any fenfe 
 connected with that church, after ihey became the fol- 
 lowers of Chrift. Mr. Edv/ards fays, thefe « apoftles 
 and difciples were members of the ancient Jewifh 
 rburch." The evangelift John fays, The Jews hod 
 a^ra-ti tffr:£^^^- f'.-y" '/' -'-'v ?-■;«» ilid eo7iftJs thai he ijuas tkf 
 
t *^^ ] 
 
 ^rifl\ he fi^uhl he put eut of the f-jnagoguj.^ Did not tEe 
 apoftles and difciples coiifcfs Cbriit openly ? Or did 
 they difTemble, and fo keep their place in the Jewiih 
 church ? We leave the dilemma to Mr. Edwards and 
 his friends. 
 
 Will the apoftles of Jefus thank Mr. Edwards for 
 afTociating them with his " deadly enemies ?" Or im- 
 plicitly charging- them with the duplicity of the Phari- 
 fees, who are f^iid to bclisvc on him, but who loved the 
 praife of men more than the praife of God, and there- 
 fore did not confefs him openly ? The Jews were fo 
 far from acknowledging Chriil: and his followers as be- 
 ing members of their church, that they exultingly told 
 the man whom Jefus had reftored to his light, Thou art 
 his difciple, but ive are Mofes* ilifap/es. We hnoiv that 
 God fprtke unfa Mcfes : as for this felloiv^ ivcknoiv not from 
 wh,^tice he is.^ 
 
 It v;ould not help Mr. Edwards^s argument to fay^ 
 tliat the Jewilh church now confifled of fuch only as 
 embraced Chrifr and his doclrine. This would but 
 deceive his readers ; for this was not the Jewiih, but 
 the gofpel church. This was compofed of converts iroax 
 Judaifm to Chri-lianity. But if Judaifm and Chriftianity 
 are the fame, it would be nonfenfe to talk of being 
 converted from one to the other. For a Jew to be- 
 come a Chriflian, a much greater alteration was necef- 
 fary than merely to change his " clothing'* and ." di- 
 et ;" (p. 46, 48) hi? heart muft be changed, or he 
 would be no better than a Judas. 
 
 For Mr. Edwards therefore to prove that male in- 
 fants had a right to memberfhip in the Jcwifh ciiurch, 
 is proving what nobody denies *, and will alford no 
 fupport to his argument, unlefs it can be proved, that 
 the two churches are one and the fame. This he has 
 indeed averted, but has given no fufficient proof of it. 
 Nor will any man who is inquiring after truth be fatif- 
 fied by having it proved, that there were fome points 
 cf agreement •, fome analogy between the two churches. 
 It mull be proved, that Chrift and his difciples did 
 a6lHaily unite with the old Jewifli church, and became 
 
 • John ix. 21. f John ix. a8, 29. 
 
[ 76 ] 
 
 one with that body, or elfe his argument will prove 
 nothing to the point in diipute. 
 
 Nor will it help his caiife to fay, " that the right of 
 infants in that church was never fet afide either by God 
 or man." The queftion is not, whether infants were 
 admitted fb the Jewilh church, but whether Chrift has 
 inftituted the raemberfbip of infants in the gofpel 
 chvrth. Let this be proved, and the difpute will be 
 at £n end. 
 
 Mr. Edwards feems willing to let go every body and 
 every thing vhich belonged to that church, buc the 
 member Oiip of infants. He acknowledges that the 
 freat body of that " church were, upon the whole, the 
 deadly enemies of Chrift and his do(ftrine ;" that 
 " feveral inAitntions did ceafe, and fome new ones were 
 ordained," but his darling point was not afFedted. (p. 
 46, 62.) How v/onderfui it is, that in this general 
 wi*eck, he fhould be fo fortunate as to fave the mem- 
 berfhip of -.infants. Not only to fecure it in its ancient 
 form, but to extend it to females as well as males. He 
 had indeed anticipated this difficulty, in carrying for- 
 ward liis famenefi of memberlhip. But what are the 
 greateft mountains before fuch a Zerubbabel ? They 
 are at once levelled to a plain. He acknowledges that 
 women, (the antithelis required him to have faid, fe- 
 male infants) were not admitted into the JewiOi church 
 by any initiating rite, and concludes, «' that whereas 
 the church ftate among the Jews included males both 
 adult and infant, fo to the Gentile church, together 
 with thefe, there is, by the esprefs order of Chd^ the iuper- 
 addition of females." But pray, fir, does this exprtfs 
 ^rder of Goi include female infants? Or docs it in- 
 clude only believing women ? If there be any " ex- 
 prefs order of God" refpecling female infants in the 
 New Teftament, do, in your great wifdom, be fo good as 
 to point us to it. If Mr. Edwards knows of any exprefs 
 trder of God, he can have no difiiculty in pr^fenting it 
 to our complete convliTtion. 
 
 We know that believing ivomen are exprefsly men- 
 tioned j but this does nothing to eftablifh his argument, 
 It is faid of the Samaritans, that luhi^n fh--; believed Philip 
 
C 77 ] 
 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of Gody and the 
 name of J'efus Chrift^ they ivere baptized both ??ien and 
 nvomen. Here we have exprefs mention of women, but 
 not of children. 
 
 It will appear, no doubt, to the candid reader, that to 
 prove the exiftence of any right under the Jewifh 
 difpenfation, is not to prove the exiftence of the 
 fame right under the gofpel difpenfation ; the qualifi- 
 cations for memberfliip under the latter, being fo very 
 diiFerent from thofe required by the former, that no 
 plea of right can be argued from one to the other. It 
 might as well be argued, that becaufe a fmall borough 
 in the county of Cornwall in England has a right to 
 fend a member to the Britifh parliament, therefore a 
 town containing the fame number of inhabitants in 
 MafTachufetis has a right to {<<t\'\(i a member to Con- 
 grefs. 
 
 "VVe will now proceed to Mr. Edwards's proof that 
 the memberfhip of infants was carried forward into 
 the Gentile church. His firft argument is taken from 
 Matt. xxi. 43. « Therefore fay I unto you, that the 
 kingdom of God (hall be taken from you, and given to 
 a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'* The quef- 
 tion here is, what was taken from the Jews, and what 
 was given to. the Gentiles ? Was it the old Jewilh 
 church privileges ? or, was it the gofpel difpenfation, 
 which Chrift called the kingdom of God I What did 
 John mean when he thus addrefled the Jews who at- 
 tended his miniftry, Repenty for the kingdom of God is at 
 hand P Did he mean that the JewiOi church ftate was 
 at hand ? This would agree with Mr. Edwards's defi- 
 nition. Muft it not be manifeft to every candid mind 
 that he meant the gofpel difpenfation, containing the 
 fpiritual kingdom of Chrift ? 
 
 It may be afked how this could be taken from them, 
 unlefs they firft had it. We anfwer, this kingdom was 
 among then^ although it did not come by obfervation. 
 The gofpel with all its privileges was firft publilhed to 
 the Jews. And notwithftanding they had delivered 
 Chrift to be crucified, yet he commanded iiis difciples,, 
 
 G 2 
 
[ TS ] 
 
 after he rofe from tlie dead, to preach repentance and 
 remiffion of fins to all nations, bcginnutg at Jer-jfaUm. 
 
 Here they began ; and on the day of pemecoft 
 three thoufand fouls v/ere converted, and added to the 
 church. We appeal to the confcientious, (and we be- 
 lieve there are many fuch among tlie Pajdobaptifts,) 
 whether the church here mentioned was the old Jew- 
 ifh church, or the body of believers which had been 
 colle6led under the perfonal miniftry of Chriil: ? The 
 latter mull be admitted ; nor can we think there would 
 be a diiienting voice. But to admit this, would ruin 
 Mr. Edwards's whole plan. For he has no other fjp- 
 port for the memberihip of infants but what is de- 
 rived from the union of thefe two churches. 
 
 The reader will now look at his explanation. " The 
 taking of the kingdom, fiiith he, from the Jews and 
 giving it to the GentileSj denotes ; 1- The ceafing of a 
 regular church ftate among the Jews. And this-ac- 
 tually took place, by the deftru(51:ion of fome, and the 
 difperiion of others who did not receive the Lord Jefus 
 Chriil as the fent of God j while thofe who did receive 
 him -ivere at length removed from Judea, and by de- 
 grees loft the name of Jew, in that of Chriftian." (p* 
 47.) This account looks pretty plaufible j but it has 
 one very eiTential defect. It happens to difagree in 
 almoft every point with matter of laci: ; for inftead of 
 the derrruclion and difperiion of the Jews at the fetting 
 up of the gofpel church, it was the Chriftians that were 
 difperfed and fcattered abroad by the perfecution of the 
 Jews.* « Thofe who did not receive the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift,'' at this time, and for many years after, remained 
 in the fame church order as before the appearance of 
 Chrift. Nor is it fa6l, that the name of Jew was loft 
 in that of ChryTtan. That name and that church ftill 
 continued for nearly thirty years after the disciples 
 ^iuere f.yft called Christians at Antioch. 
 
 It \yould feem by this confufed ftatement which Mr.. 
 Edwards has made, that the change from Judaifm to. 
 Chrifliaiiity was very gradual j that it took nearly fortj^ 
 
 • A<5l3 vyji. r • 
 
[ T9 ] 
 
 years to ly.lng It about. That the Chriftlans were 
 united with the Jews all the time until their dilperiion, 
 (p. 4-7.) Nor was the change, according to him, of any 
 conlequence when it had taken place. It confiiled prin- 
 cipally in the abolition of a few Jewifli rites, and the 
 adoption of others in tlieir room, both meaning the 
 fame thing : *' for rituals are to a church, as diet and 
 ornaments are to a man." (p. 48.) Thefe do not efTen- 
 tially alter him. 
 
 Mr. Edwards argues fecondly from Rom. xl, 23, 2i. 
 from the breakinfj: off of the Jews from t]\e olive tree ; 
 and the grafting in of the Gentiles. His explanation 
 of this figurative paflage is as follows. " 1. The olive 
 tree is to denote a vilible church ftate. 2. The Jews 
 are faid to be natural branches, becaufe they defcended 
 from Abraham, to whom the promife was made : I ivill 
 be a God to ikee^ and to thy feed. 3. The Gentiles were 
 brought into the fame church ftate from which the Jews 
 were broken off," &c. 
 
 Upon the above v^'e obferve — If the breaking off of 
 the Jews from the olive tree denoted the diffolution of 
 their church ftate, then the fadls will not correfpond 
 with each other ; for the Gentiles were grafted into 
 the Chriftiarj church long before the viilbility of the 
 Jewifh church ceafed. 
 
 The perfecution and martyrdom of Stephen, appears to 
 have taken place the fame, or the year following the cru- 
 cifixion of'ourLord. On this perfecution it is faid the 
 church w.-s all fcattered abroad^ excepting the apoftles. 
 Was this the old Jewiili church that was perfecuted ? 
 If {o^ we ailc who perfecuted them ? Did the few 
 Chriftians perfecute the whole Jewifn church and fcat- 
 ter them ? What abfurdities follow upon admitting the 
 arguments of our opponents. This perfecution was over- 
 ruled for the fpread of the gofpel among the Gentiles. 
 Philip went down to Samaria. Saul was converted 
 at Damafcus and b' gan to preach ; and not long after 
 there was a church planted at Antioch in Syria. From, 
 this, Paul and Barnabas were fent into Aha Minor* 
 Here they found fome of their countrymen, and ea- 
 
[ 80 ] 
 
 ileaYOured to convince them that Jefus was the MeHiah* 
 Some believed, but the greater part oppofed and blaf- 
 phemed. Then Paul aru] Bartuihas ivased bold and 
 faidy It was necejpiry that the ivcrd of God fjould Jirjl have 
 been fpoken to you ; but feeing ye put it from you^ and judge 
 yourfehes univcrthy of everlajling hfe^ lo, ive turn to the 
 Gentiles ; forfo hath the Lord commanded us.* In this way- 
 it appears, that the kingdom of God was taken from 
 the Jews and given to the Gentiles. 
 
 Upon the olive tree Mr. Edwards obferves, " 3. 
 The Gentiles were brought into the fame church ftate 
 from which the Jews were broken oftV The objcft of 
 this ftatement is eafily difcerned. It is made, no doubt, 
 to fave the memberfliip of infants. He has no difficul- 
 ty in admitting that thisy^w^ church fate is altered in 
 almoft every thing elfe. But the memberfhip of in- 
 fants muft be retained, << although we have no proof of 
 its continuance, tmlefs we are plainly told to the con- 
 trary." But this whole ftatement appears to be crro- 
 xieous. 
 
 If the good " olive tree is tO denote a vifible church 
 fbate," tfie wild olive tree mufl: denote the fame. 
 The antitheirs certainly requires this conftruftion. But 
 was there any thing among the Gentiles at this time 
 •which might be called a church fkate ? We can forn^ 
 no fuch idea. The G«ntiles were confidered as branch- 
 es of one tree before believing, and of another after- 
 Thefe two trees are both called olives, and diftinguifhed 
 only by their qualities ; the one a good, the other a 
 wild olive. By the good olive tree, therefore, we rather 
 think Chrift himfelf is intended. If ^o^ it may be 
 alked, how can it be faid, that the unbelieving Jews 
 were branches, (as they muft have been in fbme fenfe)^ 
 or they could not be broken off I We anfwer. They 
 were fo confidered, in confequence of their vifible pro- 
 feffion. As a nation, they profsfted to be his people. 
 The believing fpiritual branches continued in Chrift ; 
 and were, under his immediate direction, formed into a 
 fpiritual church in vifible golpel order, and the unbe- 
 Heving branches cut off and rejected. This reprefeista'^ 
 
 * AAs xiii. 46, 47* 
 
[ 81 3 
 
 tion agrees wkh Chrift's ovrn words in the fifteenth 
 chapter of John, //arm, faith he, ihe true vine ; my 
 Father is ike hujhandnmn. Ever-^ branch in me that hear- 
 rth net fruit he taketh aiuay ; and every branch thtit bear^ 
 eth fruit, he pvrgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 
 
 Here are two kinds of branches, and both faid to be 
 in Chrift j one barren, the other fruitful. The friiit- 
 lefs branches were in him only by profeflion ; the 
 fruitful branches v.'ere united to him by a living faith 
 and onenefs of nature. 
 
 By the ivlld olive tree, we think the npoftle meant to 
 reprefent Adao), as the original ftock from whence all 
 rhe huDian family fprang ; and all who are not by the 
 Spirit of God grafted into Chrift the true olive, ftill 
 liand in this wild or natural ftock. 
 
 Chrift is the holy rooty which fuppiies the branches with 
 all the real holineis they pofTefs. From him each living 
 member will forever draw fap and nourilhment. The 
 apoftlcs were th^frft fruits of Chrift's perfonal miniftry ; 
 they were made hcly by virtue of their union with him. 
 If the firfl fruits, faith the apoftle, be holy, the hmip alf» 
 *will he ho'y. As the firft fruits were accounted a 
 pledge of the future harveft, fo were thefe firft converts 
 coniiJered as a fample of the church, which fliould be 
 gathered under the miniftry of the word. But to con- 
 fider Abraham arthe rcot, as many do, is to place the 
 branches upon a Very incompetent ftock. Good man I 
 all the real holinefs he ever had, was derived from him 
 \y\vo is the Root and Offspring of David : nor could 
 he conimunicate the fmalleft degree of that to his pof- 
 terlty. Abraham, like the wife virgins, had no oil to 
 impart. 
 
 It w:\s unbelief tliat firft procured tlie excifion of the 
 Jewifti branches. This was the caufe of the gofpel's 
 being taken from them, and given to a nation bringing 
 forth the fruits thereof. The Gentiles individually 
 ftand in this oli\e tree by faith. An unbelieving Gen- 
 tile can no more ftand in the good olive tree than an 
 unbelieving Jew. And they alfo, if they abide not fill in un- 
 belief fhall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in 
 agmtu It hence follows, that neither Jew nor Gentile 
 
[ 85 ] 
 
 tan have any union with the good olive tree, bu: hy 
 faith. 
 
 If fome unbelieTers were broken off", no reafon can be 
 affigned why any fliould be retained. If none were re- 
 tained but real believers (which we have every reafon 
 to fuppofe v/as the c-Je) then infants were not retained, 
 as they are not believers, by Mr. Edwards's own con- 
 ceffion. All his arguing therefore from this paflage 
 will be of no avail, unlefs he can prove, that notwith- 
 ftanding fome unbelievers were broken offV yet ft ill a' 
 vaft proportion were retained. The idea is almoft too- 
 abfurd to exift, even in fuppofition. The refle<Sting 
 reader will here afk, Did not infmts and minors make 
 a large proportion of JewiQi branches which were- 
 broken off ? Is it not faid exprefsly, that the Gentiles 
 who are grafted in, Jlaml h faith P But Gentile infants 
 have, no faith : hov/ then do they ftand in this good= 
 olive tree ? 
 
 It is worthy of obfervation, that the Gentiles are faid 
 to be grafted in contrary to nature. It is fo, in almoft every- 
 fenfe. The whole of religion is contrary to our de- 
 praved natures j but more efpecially in the following 
 things. 1. "We never graft a fcion but upon the prin- 
 ciple of its being better than the ftock into which it is 
 fet. 2. The fcion, thwigh grafted into another (lock, 
 and nouriOied by it, ftill retains its ov/n nature, and: 
 bears its own fruit. 3 A bafe ftock is rendered valu- 
 able, in confequence of the good fruit produced by the 
 engrafted part. But in grafting in the Gentiles, all is 
 reverfed. They are not chofen on account of their own 
 excellenc)r, but on Chrift's account. By being grafted 
 into this holy (lock, their nature is fo changed, that 
 they bring forth the fruits of holinefs. They add noth- 
 ing to the elTential value of the ftoek into which they 
 are grafted, but receive all their real excellence from it. 
 
 Before we difinir:^ this argument it may be proper to 
 anfv/er one or two objeclions 1. L' Chrift be intended 
 by the olive tree, why does the apoftle call the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, who could have no real intereft in him, 
 nittiral branches ? Aiifwer : Thefe Jews had no real 
 intereft in him •, but as they profelTed to be his people,. 
 
L 83 ] 
 
 •tliey^'ere confidered as natural branches; that is, it 
 •was much more natural to fuppofe, that the Jews who 
 had the oracles of God committed to them, and confe- 
 quently were better informed refpe^ting the Melliah, 
 ihould believe on him, than the idolatrous Gentiles, who 
 had not thefe advantages. 2. If Chriit be intended by this 
 figure, vrhy does the apoflle, fpeaking of the Jev/s, call 
 him their own olive tree F Anfwer : He was their oivtiy 
 as it refpedlcd liis human nature. He descended from 
 the flock of Abraham) and was a Branch vjhich [prang 
 from thejVm cf Jejje, In this fenfe he was " bone of 
 their bone, and fleih of their fleih." Hence Pilate 
 when addreffing him called the Jews his oion nation, 
 *♦ Thine own nation and the chief priefts have delivered 
 thee to me " This mode of expreilion is frequently 
 made ufe of by Cariilians when praying for the con- 
 verfion of the Jews, " That they may embrace their otun 
 Melliah." In this fenfe it is faid. He came to his invn 
 and hi! oivn received him not. Thefe, notwlihftandiiig 
 their profeffion, v/ere not his own in any facing ienfe \ 
 they were not the clilldren of God. Ij God <were your 
 Father^ faid Jefus, ye ivcuhl love me ; for I proceeded forth 
 and caviiefrom G&d. Thefe were not fpiritual, but natu- 
 ral branches only* 
 
 Every believing Gentile has great reafon to be hum- 
 bled under a fenfe of the divine gooJaefs. It would 
 illy become them to boaft againft the Jev/ifli branches; 
 -and lliould they, they would neither bear nor fufcain the 
 root, but the root them. 
 
 One obfervation ihall clofe our rerharks on this ar* 
 gument of Mr. Edv/ards. It is this : If the Jev.s were 
 broken off becaufe of unbelief, it is perfectly inconfiTtent 
 to fuppofe that they v/ill ever be grafted in again while 
 remaining in the fame Rate. Therefore no fuppolitiou 
 can be admitted, that their engrafture will be national ; 
 or even by families, including a few believers, and many 
 Unbelievers, Such a fentiment can neither be fupport- 
 ed by reafon, nor by any thiag which the apoitle has 
 faid in this epiftle. The penitent Jews will undoubted* 
 ly come as individuah, as all others do who embrisce the 
 Savii^ur. For reiigion h at ^U tiaies perforial ; no one 
 
can believe for another, any more than they can be fa- 
 ▼ed for another. But when the Chriftian church fliall 
 travail in birth for this dear negledled people, we may 
 hope that many fpiritual children will be born among 
 them. B\at even then it may be alked, Sha/i the earth be 
 made to bring forth in a day ? Or Jhall a nation be born at 
 once ? Ifai. Ixvi. 8. 
 
 Mr. Edwards argues, thirdly, from Rom. xi. 17. "And 
 if fome of the branches be broken off," &:c. This text 
 he endeavours to render fubfervient to a number of 
 conclufions drawn from his preceding argument. The 
 whole ftrength, therefore, of what is faid under this 
 head, is predicated upon that. Hence, if we have inval- 
 idated his arguments under that head, his conclufions 
 under this will fall of courfe. 
 
 The entire force of thefe arguments taken together, 
 Fefts upon this abfurd and falfe hypothecs, namely, that 
 while the great body of the Jewifh church, including 
 adults and infants, was broken off, fome believing adults, 
 together with their unbelieving offspring, were contin- 
 ued. But this is taking for granted the very point in 
 difpute j which is, whether any unbelievers, either 
 aduks or infants, ftill retained tlieir ftanding in the good 
 elive tree j or were admitted, as fuch, to the privileges 
 of the Chriftian church. The account which we have 
 already given in this work* of the gathering of the iirft 
 Chriftian church, muft, we think, convince every un- 
 prejudiced mind, that it was compofed of individual be- 
 lievers only. The faliity of Mr. Edwards's arguments 
 will be fully perceived by all who take the pains to com- 
 pare them with the facts recorded in the New Tefta- 
 ment. He has ftated his conclulion as follows : " The 
 text informs uS, that fome of the branches were broken 
 off, and if only fome, then not all, and that remnant 
 continuing in their former fate conftituted the ftill exift- 
 ing church of God." (p. 54.) It here needs only to 
 remove what is falfe, and this conclufion lofes all its 
 force vigainft the Baptifts. The falfehood lies in this 
 member of the fentence ; *^ And that remnant continuing 
 ik their former fate^' &c. 'By t]x2ir former fate is meant, 
 
 * Bcc Scft. III. 
 
C 85 J 
 
 that they continued fome of all defcriptioHs believers 
 and unbelievers, parents, children, and fervants bought 
 with money ; for this was their former {late, yea, their 
 primitive ftate. This we have denied, and think- we 
 have proYcd it untrue. We Ihall maintain this gTouad 
 until proof is made out that fome were retained in the 
 good olive treeT>efides believers. This fentiment is the 
 very ground work of his fcheme. It runs through and 
 forms the centre of all his arguments. Hence the re- 
 moval of this, unhinges his whole plan. 
 
 We proceed to INIr. Edwards's fourth argument, 
 founded on Eph. ii. 14. " For he is our peace, who 
 hath made both one, and hath broken down the mid- 
 dle wall of partition between us." 
 
 From this palTage, he informs his readers, the fame 
 conclulions muft be drawn as from the preceding. 
 
 1. " That the Jewifh church continued as before, 
 and was not diflolved at the calling of the Gentiles." 
 This may be true ; but what U this to the argument ? 
 The papal church continued as before, and was not dif- 
 folved at the fetting up of the proteftant church. Thefe 
 Gentile converts had no more to do with the old Jew- 
 ifh church, than we have with the church of Rome. 
 
 2. " That the Gentiles were not formed into a ne\f' 
 church, becaufe the breaking down of a partition united 
 them to the Jewilh church, and made them one'*' 
 
 That the Gentiles were not formed into a new church 
 is true. But it is not true, if we can underftand the 
 Bible, that they were united to the old Jewiih church ; 
 nor to any other which bore the name of a Jewiih 
 church j but to the difciples of Chrift, or Chriilian 
 church. This was indeed formed of believing Jews, 
 but of fuch only as feparated from the old JewiQi 
 church. Mr. Edwards adds, 
 
 3. « That infants were in a£lual memberdnp in that 
 church to which the Gentiles were united." No, Mr. 
 Edwards, this cannot be admitted. Your conciufion is 
 built on falfe premifes. You adduce it from this poftu- 
 latum. That a part of the old Jewilh church, conliiling 
 of believers and unbelievers, conftixuted that body to 
 which the Gentile converts were added. This, it is be- 
 
 H 
 
[ 8fe 3 
 
 iie\'cd, has no foundation in trnth, and ca» be fupportt^ 
 only by your fophiftical retjfoning. 
 
 The union between Jews and Gentiles, fpoken of ill 
 this text, was not between them generally, but only be- 
 tween believers. The Jewiili church ftood as far aloof 
 from the Gentiles as ever. 
 
 Had Mr. Edwards duly confidered the verfe follow- 
 ing that from which he has drawn the above inferences, 
 and admitted the complete fenfe of the lafl: claufe, 
 it would have faved liim, in all probability, one half 
 of his book. We will here add it, fo that the reader 
 may compare it with his remarlts. Havings faith the 
 ^-iodlQ) aao-'Jhed hi his fiejh the enmity y (ven the Icnv of coin' 
 rnind'rnents contained in ordinances^ for to make in himfelf 
 tf tivain ONE NtW MAN. fo mahng prate. Here the 
 apoftle informs us, that in order to effeft: this union, 
 the law of ceremonial ordinances "which char after i*zed 
 the Jetvifii chutch ftate, and which was the occafion of 
 perpetual enmity between them and the Gentiles, was 
 abolifi^ed in the fiefn of Chrift. Circumcilion was a 
 principal caufe of this enmity. " The Jews reproached 
 and hated the Gentiles, as being uncircumcifed. The 
 Gentiles defpifed the Jews for being circumcifed,"* 2. 
 The text lliows us ivhtre they were linited, namely, /« 
 himfelf ; that is, in Chrift. There never has been any 
 real union between Jews and Gentiles but in Jefus 
 Chrift. 3. The text alfo ftiows us the great end and 
 defign of their being united ; for to make of twain 
 ONE NEV/ MAN. By tliis neiu man^ the Chriftian 
 church is undoubtedly intended. No other fair con- 
 ftru£lion, we conceive, can be put upon the M'ords. 
 Does this language correfpand with the fentiment we 
 are oppofing } Can any man believe the old Jewilh 
 church was intended } That what the -apoftle calls a. 
 fuiu 7}iani\\zs not really fo ; but only the old one a little 
 altered in his " clothing, ornaments and diet," but 
 «« identically the fame ?" Is it not plain, that by this 
 metaphorical language, the apoftle prefents us v/ith a 
 view of the NewTeftament Chriftian church, compofed 
 '«»iiiy of believing Jews and Gentiles .'* For in Cht*^ 
 
 * Vid. Poole's Expof. in he. 
 
C 87 j 
 
 Jefus^ iherg is tuither Jtiv nor Greek ; but all belierersr 
 are y^e in him. It hence appears, that the apoftle was 
 very far from the fcheme which Mr. Edwards advocates. 
 He appears not to have entertained the moft diftant 
 idea, that the Chriftian church (when compared with 
 the Jewifli) was the fattie inan with only his " clothes 
 changed," but a unv man : created in Chrift to good 
 works. The reader will now judge, whether the iov« 
 of hypothcfis has not carried the Author of " Cindid 
 Reafons," &c. wide of the truth. 
 
 In the concluiion which Mr. Edwards draws from 
 the preceding arguments, he makes this remark — " If a 
 law could be found in the New Teftanient to repeal 
 that which had been eftabliihed in the Old, I grant 
 freely, that all that has been faid on the four pailages 
 of fcripture, would fignify nothing." (p. 58.) The only- 
 ^luelHon of importancehere is this ; Is that law, which, 
 by the ftatement of this writer, gave infants a viilble 
 ft'inding in the church, repealed in the New Teftament, 
 cr is it ftill in force ? Was there any law prior to, or 
 independent of the law of circumcifion, which gave 
 them this right ? If fo, let it be pointed out. If in- 
 fants had a right to memberihip independent of circum- 
 cifion, it would have continued, whether they were cir- 
 cumcifed or nou If their right refted wholly upon cir- 
 cumcilion, then it muft fkand or fall with that inftitu- 
 tion. A right which depends on a particular law, can- 
 not exift any longer than that law remains in t'orc^. 
 The queflion then comes to this fmgle point. Is cir- 
 cumcifion aboliflied in the New Teftament, or is it 
 not ? We prefume no perfon will pretend it has any 
 place in the gofpel church. On what then, we afk, does 
 the right of infants depend ? We fhall probably be told, 
 on tJie divine declaration, " / ivii/ be a God to thee, and 
 to thyjc:d after thee''' If this promile contains a prior 
 right, and which exifts independently of circumcifion, it 
 will undeniably follow, that uncircumcifed infants, or 
 thofe that are imbnptized, ftand in covenant relation to 
 God. If this be true, then the children af thofe be- 
 lieving parents V,' ho deny infant baptifm, lland interefr- 
 ed \n this proiiiire, as really as thofe who are ioitiatei. 
 
[ 88 ] 
 
 according to the inftitution. The parent may, indfed, 
 be chargeable with fome neglect of duty j but this mii- 
 not invalidate the claim of the child, nor make fhe 
 promife of God cf none effeEi, 
 
 •Neither Mr. Edwards, nor any other writer on that 
 lide of the controverfy, has attempted to trace the 
 right of infants further back than the covenant of cir- 
 cumciiion. They feem by common confent to leave 
 tliem for two thoufand years before, to the mercy of 
 God, wltliout any covenant relation, or any initiating 
 rite. If ir.fant mernberOiip had no exiftence but in con- 
 nexion with circumcilioii, it is difficult to fee, when 
 this has ceafed, how that can be continued. To us it re- 
 quires fame new law, under a difpenfation every way 
 different, to fupport and continue it in exigence. 
 
 As an auxiliary to infant memberfhip, Mr. Edwards 
 argues fiom their bringing cliildren to Chrift ; and 
 endeavoiirs to make it appear that this affords evidence 
 of their belonging to the church. He does not pretend, 
 as mofl: Psedobaptilis do, that they were brought to 
 him to be baptized, but fuppofes '"^ it is moft likely they 
 were brovght to receive the benedidlion of Chrift. 
 Matt.x. ](i." (p. 67.) 
 
 The bringing of thefe children to receive Chrift's 
 bl effing, affords no more evidence of their belonging to 
 the church, than for the mother of Zebedee's children 
 to afk the privilege for her two fons to fit, the one on 
 Chrift's right hand the other on his left, in his kingdom, 
 was evidence that they belonged to the Jewiih church. 
 
 Per v/haiever reafons thel'e children were brought 
 to Chrift, one thing is certain ; that is, that it was 
 no' a common thing. This appears to be a folitary 
 inftance. The conducl of the difciples in forbidding 
 them, is full proof of this affertion. Neither the fim- 
 ple account ftated by the evangeiifts, nor Mr. Edwards's 
 laboured gloffary, afford any i'atisfa6tory evidence that 
 they were brought, or bleffed, on account of tlieir re- 
 lation to the church, nor that they v/ere at this time, or 
 any time after, baptized. 
 
 The evangehfts affign at moft but two reafons for 
 their bringing thefe children lo Chrift-, one is, that 
 
[ 88 1 
 
 he woulJ hy his h^nds on them and pray ; the other, 
 li\at he would bids them : probibly both meant the 
 fcune thing. As the 'dSt of bringing them had no con- 
 nexion with their being church members, nor any thing 
 which Chrill: did particulnriy applicable to them as fuch, 
 \v^ leave the account jufl as we iind it Itatcd in the 
 fcriptures, and acknowledge we know no more about it 
 than what is there recorded. 
 
 We muil beg the readei*'s indulgence while we juft 
 notice Mr. Edwards's argument from A(^U ii. 58, 39. 
 *< Then Peter faid unto them, Repent and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the 
 remiilion of fms, and ye fhall receive the gift of tlie Ho» 
 ly Glioft. For the promife is to you and to your chil- 
 dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the 
 Lord our God fhall call." From this text Mr. Edwards 
 argues that the phrafe, '* to you^ and to your chilirtn^ in- 
 tends adults and infants." 
 
 Upon this we obferve, if the promife mentioned 
 in this text be not limited by their rcptvdingy or by 
 this claufe, as many as the Lord cur (hdjhall call, it 
 muft be coniidered as unHmited. If limited as above, 
 then it can embrace none but fuch as are true pemtetits^ 
 fuch as are called of God ^ by an holy calling. In this way 
 it will abfolutely exclude infants, until llieyarethe fub- 
 je(-ls of repentance. If t.iken in an unlimited fenfe, it 
 will prove that all the children ox believers Ihall receiv*; 
 remiffion of fins, and the gift of the Hoiy Ghoft. In 
 this it will prove too much, and fo deftroy itfelf totally. 
 Mr. Edwards here means to apply it to the promile in 
 the 1 7th chapter of Genefis made to Abraham and his 
 feed. But if this be the promife intended by the apof- 
 tle, it will include all the feed of Abraham as well as 
 the infants of believing, adults* For Mr. Edwards has 
 before told us, that that promife was as " much to his 
 feed as to him." Rtpuiting^ and being called of Gody 
 then, are out of the queftion ! O no, not wholly fo. I 
 faid, replies Mr. Edwards, it " intends adults and in- 
 fants." By adults, iSir, I conclude you mean, that pa- 
 rents cannot be admitted without repentance, and being 
 called of God j but upon, their believing, their infant 
 H 2 
 
[ 90 ] 
 
 offspring come into the ijnmediate pofTefTion of a right 
 founded in the promife made in the covenant of circum- 
 cifion. This, we conclude, will be granted. It would 
 be defirable here to know whether Mr. Edwards means 
 to apply this promife to the children of believers indef- 
 initely, or to infants only. The apoRle fays, to you and 
 to your children ,- Mr. Edwards fays, to adults and infants. 
 We will ftate a cafe, and a very probable one too, and 
 fhould be glad of a candid nnfwer to it : it is this. At 
 the age of fixty, two perfons, who are the parents of a 
 numerous family, are brought to repentance : they ap- 
 ply io Mr. Edwards to be admitted to the privileges of 
 the Chriftian church They have a number of chil- 
 dren of different ages, from thirty-five, down to twenty- 
 one ; but no infants. ^ Will be addrefs tl^em in the lan- 
 guage of the apcftle, and tell them, the promifi is to yoii^ 
 and to your children ; and on this ground admit them 
 all to baptifm } We very m.uch doubt it. The prac- 
 tice of Psedobaptifl-s generally tells us, they v/ould not. 
 But on what principle can thefe children be refufed ? 
 The promife is to you and to your children. Thefe 
 are as much, their children, as if they were infants of 
 only eight days old. The npoftle has ufed the term 
 children, without any limitation as to age. Tf the right 
 be founded in this, that their parents are believers, then 
 a perfon of fifty years old may claim this right for him- 
 felf, with as much propriety as any could have chaU 
 lenged it for him when he was in a (liate of infancy. 
 
 We v/ill fuppofe one cafe more, and one which fre^- 
 quently occurs : it is this. The parents of a family, at 
 the age of about forty-five, are brought to embrace the 
 jgofpel : they have children of every grade, from eight 
 days old, up to more than twenty years. We wiOi to 
 know whether they all are to be received to member- 
 fliip on thoir parents* account ? If not, what age dif- 
 qualifies them from coming .'' If they may be received 
 on their parents' account at the age of twenty, we fee 
 nothing to forbid them at twenty-five, at thirty, at 
 forty ; yea, at any age while their parents live to fupport 
 their claim. If the promife in the text gives any of 
 the children of believers a right to meiiiberHiip without 
 
[91 ] 
 
 repentance, or being called of God, It gives them all 
 a right. 
 
 However abfurd thefe things may appear, they are 
 but the fair legitimate confequences of Mr. Edwards's 
 argument. There is but one way for him honourably 
 to clear himfelf, and that is, now to prove that tekna 
 means only infants of a certain age, and not children 
 generally. This we think he will find rather difficult. 
 
 His conclufion from the pafTage is, " that infants are 
 placed in the fime relation to baptifm, as they were of 
 old to circumciiion." (p. 71.) I'liat rite placed uiicir- 
 cumcifed infant^., and uncircumcifed adults all upon one 
 footing as to right. It alfo placed Abraham's fervants 
 upon t lie fame level with his natural feed. 
 
 On the whole, this argument ipun out of the promlfti 
 made in the covenant of circumcifion, is one of the 
 moit lingular that we ever attempted to trace. It pof- 
 fefles certain elaftic qualities, by which it is rendered 
 capable of being extended or contracfted, fo as to fait 
 the convenience of the perfon who ufes it. Viewed 
 in its fuUeft extent, and it proves the right of fervants 
 as well as children j in this it proves too much for the 
 purpofes of infant memberlhip. Viev/ed in a limited 
 ienfe, and it will funport only the right of males ; in 
 this it proves too little, and of courfe makes no provhion 
 for females. Yet upon the whole, it proves juft enough 
 to fecure the right of infants, both males and females,, 
 and no more. 
 
 Let us now for a moment review the pafTage, in or- 
 der to afcertain the plain fenfe of the apoftle. " Then 
 Peter faid unto them. Repent and be baptized, every one 
 of yvii'^ That he did not mean infants is plain, from 
 rcafon, and from Mr. Edwards's own concefiion j who 
 fays, that " faith and repentance are never required of 
 infants, in order to any thing." But he required re- 
 pentance of the fame perfons, that he called upon to be 
 baptized in the name of Jefus Chrift. To fay, that he 
 called oa adults to repent and be baptized, and at the 
 fame tim« to bring all tiieir impenitent children to the 
 ordinance, appears to be a conftrudion too unnatural 
 «uid forced. The apoftle adds. And yejhall receive the 
 
[ »2 1 
 
 gift of the Holy Gbifl^ If he inelucl^d all the children of 
 
 believers, did he engage the ^ift of the Holy Gh^fl to 
 them all ? For, f^ith he, thu pyomlfs is to yoUy and to your 
 children^ and to all that aye afar ojf, evert as matiy as the 
 Lord our GodJhaV. call. Is it not plain to every one, 
 that the laft fentence is here designed as a limiting 
 claufe ; and that there would be as much propriety in 
 leaving it out in every inftance, as in one ? We ought 
 either to read it thus — The promifs is i9 vou<, and to your 
 ihildretii and to all that are afar off] and fo confider it 
 £S being univerfal •, or elfe conne^l this limiting claufe 
 with each fubjeft mentioned in the text. If the latter 
 be truej it would be under ftood thus, The promife is to 
 you, who now appear to be true penitents; it will 
 equally embrace your children, whenever they become 
 penitent ; and alfo the Gentiles who are afar off, even 
 as many of ail as the Lord our God fhall call. But no 
 fuch thing as a promife to unbelieving children can be 
 inferred from this paifage. To fuppofe this, would be 
 to make the apoflle z€i the part of a god-father, and 
 promife that thefe children fliouM repent, and receive 
 i^miffion of fins, and the g:ift of the Holy Ghoft, &c. 
 at feme future period. "We cannot believe that the 
 apoftle ever trifled in this manner. 
 
 Mr. Edwards attempts to get over the difficulty of 
 this limiting claufe in tliis way. *' As the apotlle, faith 
 he, extends the promife beyond the called m the fird: 
 claufe, v/e muft follow his example, and extend it be- 
 yond the called in the laft clauie — ^Tlius the promife 
 is to as many as the Lord our God fhall call, and to 
 their children "^ (p. 79.) It does not appear that the 
 apoftle did extend the promife in the firft claufe beyond 
 the called. There is no evidence that he meant to ap- 
 ply the promife to children upon any other principle 
 than as he applied it to parents -, namely, upon their re- 
 penting and being baptized. The promife would as 
 naturally embrace impenitent parents as impenitent 
 children. On the whole, this pafTage muft be tortured, 
 or it will not fpeak a lingle word in favour of infant 
 Ikaptifm, Some very fenfibte and learned Psedcbaptift« 
 
[ 9» ] 
 
 have given it up, as affording no argument in favour of 
 their fentiment. 
 
 In what an undignified light does the fcheme of our 
 opponent r^prefent the apoftle Peter. On the memo- 
 rable day of Pentecoft — fuch a day as had never been 
 fince time began, and probably fuch an one as will never 
 occur again while time lafts — the Holy Gholt fent 
 down from the afcended Saviour ! Peter ftanding in 
 the midft of three thoufand deeply (litl:relTed perfons 
 who were crying out, V/'hnt Jhall nve do ? To this earneft 
 inquiry, the holy apoftle is reprefemed in this very ab- 
 furd light as telling them, "that infants are placed in the 
 fame relation to baptifm as they were of old to circum- 
 cifion." (A fubjedt which they made no inquiry about, 
 and which we prefnme had not at this time come into 
 their thoughts.) Had the apofile been as intent upon 
 infant baptifm as Mr. Edwards himfelf, we cannot fup- 
 pofe, at fuch a time and to fuch an inquiry, he would 
 have given fuch an anfvver. 
 
 In the preceding animadvcrfions, we have in a very 
 brief manner examined Mr. Edwards's pretended refu- 
 tation of cur arguments againft infant baptifm, rnd have 
 endeavoured to Ihow the inconclufivenefs of his reafon- 
 ing. In order to render his tafli more eafy, he has 
 attempted, at the very outfet, to deprive us of thofe 
 great advantages which the fcriptures afford us in this 
 controverfy. But thefe will not be relinquiOied. He 
 has alfo laboured abundantly to evade the force of thefe 
 arguments, by endeavouring to embarrafs and perplex 
 them. But when difentangled from his fophiftical web, 
 they ftill appear correct and uninjured. 
 
 We have alfo considered the two leading arguments 
 in his prcfent fyflem. In the firft, he undertakes to 
 prove, that '< God has inftltuted in his church the 
 memberniip of infants, and admitted them to it by a 
 religious rite." In his fecond argument, his objet^t is 
 to prove the continuance of this right of memberlhip. 
 From thefe taken together, he infers the right of infants 
 to baptifm in the goipel church. 
 
 We have attempted to fhow the inconclufivenefs of 
 the firjly by proving that the Jewilh and Chriflian 
 
[ »* 
 
 T 
 
 rhurches were not the fame : That therefore no infer- 
 ence can be drawn from one to the other refpedting any 
 poUtive inftitution. 
 
 With reference to the fecotid, we have e'ndeavoured 
 to ftiow, that this right cannot be contiaued in confe- 
 quence of that law which gave it exiftence, unlefs con- 
 tinued according to that law : namely, that a hw 
 obliging a parent to circumcife his male infants, cannot 
 bind him to baptize them, both male and female. That 
 whatever duties were enjoined by the Jewifh difpenfa- 
 tion belonged to that difpenfation -, and that whatever 
 duties are required by the gofpel difpenfation, are clear- 
 ly and particularly enjoined by it, and not left to be in- 
 ferred from any thing elfe. This is efpecially the cafe 
 with whatever relates to pofitive inftitutions. 
 
 It will now be referred to the deciflon of the reader, 
 whether we have not demonftrated, in a manner too 
 plain to be denied, that the Chriftian church, colle6led 
 under the perfonal miniftry of Chrift and his apoiiies, 
 was entirely diftinct from the JewiOi church and inde- 
 pendent of it. If fo, all Mr. Edwards's arguments, 
 founded on a contrary hypothefis, are unavailing. They^ 
 prove nothing but his own inconiiftency. 
 
 Having thus fhown that thefe two arguments, which 
 are the main pillars in Mr. Edwards's fyftem, are both 
 defedtive, and totally unable to faftain the fuperliruc- 
 ture raifed over them ; we fhail not trouble the reader 
 at prefent with animadverdons on his other collateral 
 arguments, many of which are but mere ramifications 
 of the fame. It is evident, that on thefe he placed hi$ 
 main dependence. All his other arguments are de-^ 
 iigned only to corroborate and ftrengthen thefe. Yea, 
 he tells us exprefsly, that ** the whole defence of infants 
 refts on two arguments. 1. That God did conftiiute 
 in his church the memberfmp of infants, and admitted 
 tiiem to it by a religious rite. 2. Tliat the right cT 
 infants was never taken away." (p. 8"^.) 
 
 The fir ft of thefe is admitted under certain qualifi- 
 cations with refpe£l to the Jewiih church. But even 
 ia this, inf \nts were not generally admitted by any re- 
 
i 'Si ] 
 
 ligious rite. It was only infants of a certain defcrip- 
 tion who were thus admitted. 
 
 With regard to the fecond, fiioiild we admit the 
 premifes, we muft deny the conclufion. For though 
 this right had never been taken away, it would not be- 
 long to any other church than that to which it was 
 given. If this be the foundation on which " the de- 
 fence of infants refts," then it depends certainly on no 
 new additional grant made under the gofpel difpenfa- 
 tion ; of confequence, there can be no more in it now, 
 'than was originally in it. If the whole defence of in- 
 fants refls on this, then no part of it can reft on any 
 tiling elfe. This privilege can no more be enlarged 
 without fome fpecial z^Oi of the Lawgiver, than it can 
 be wholly taken away and difannuUed. Hence if this 
 right remain at all, it muft remain precifely in its in- 
 flituted form, and no otherwife •, unlefs feme new law, 
 making an important alteration, can be produced. 
 
 What effeiSi: Mr. Ed-wards's writings may have in ef- 
 tabliiliing his Pxdobaptiil: brethren, we pretend not to 
 fsy ; but we arc perfuaded that fuch <♦ candid reafons" 
 as he has offered, when ftript of their fophiftical drefs, 
 will have little influence on the m-inds of real Bi^ptifts. 
 We know of no one who has been brought by them to 
 " renounce the principles of Anti-psedobaptifm ;" but 
 on the contrary, feveral have been brought to embrace 
 them. His reafonings have produced ilie fame eS^edls on 
 otiiers, which he informs his readers that Iklr. Booth's 
 did on him. 
 
 If what we have offered to the reader in the prece- 
 ding pages be according to the oracles of truth, we 
 pray the great Head of the chcrch to fucceed it for the 
 comfort and eftablifliment of fuch, as are reeking,or ccn- 
 teridijig for the truths and for the coiivi(ftion of luch a? 
 are advocating error. 
 
L &6 ] 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 Strictures on Two Difcourfes on the Perpetuity and 
 Provifion of God's gracious Covenant ivith Ahraham and' 
 his feed. By Samuel Worcester, a. m. Paflor cf 
 the Tabernacle Church in Salem. 
 
 r OR the piety and talents of the Author of thefe 
 difcourfes, we entertain fentiments of refpecfbful efteeni. 
 And although we feel impelled to animadvert upon his 
 writings, we fliall ftill hold his perfon facred. We do 
 not blame him for endeavouring to defend his own fen- 
 timents, and guard his flock againft what he confideis 
 to be error. But from his former profeffions of candour, 
 we had no juft reafon to expedl, that he would fo far 
 mifreprefent our known and avowed fentiments, as to 
 lead his readers to fuppofe, that we were deftitute both 
 of religion and common decency j that we " difplay 
 our greateft zeal in making people believe, in too many 
 inftances, that going into the water will anfwer all the 
 purpofes of their prefent comfort, and of their eternal 
 falvation." (Note, p. 73.) 
 
 Had Mr. Worcefter contented himfelf, by proving to 
 «iemonftration every iota of his own plan, without in- 
 vading the right of others ; his difcourfes might in all 
 probability have paffed down the ftream of time un- 
 xjoticed. Such an attempt would have given no reafon- 
 able offence to any man living. But when he digreffes 
 from this point, fc«: the purpofe of reprefenting in an 
 unfriendly light the fentiments and practice of a nume- 
 rous body of Chriftians, who think they have at leaft 
 equal preteniions to apoftolical purity of fentiment, we 
 mufb view it with the deepeH: regret. 
 
 The author of the difcourfes before us has commen- 
 ced the attack ; and if we do not miftake him, has im- 
 pliritly invited us to the conteft. If this be not his 
 meaning, we think he has at leaft fuperfeded the necef- 
 fity of an apology on our part, if we teft hirii by his own 
 principles. The paragraph to which we refer is in the 
 following words : " Any caufe or dodlrine which fhrinhs 
 from the light of fair inveftigation, or will not endure 
 
C 91 ] 
 
 the tefi: of fcripture argument, certainly cannot be the 
 cauie of truth, nor a do^Vrine according to godlinefs. 
 And thofe who will be offended or hurt by a fair and 
 candid exhibition of argument, and vindication of fen- 
 timents in oppofilion to their own, give the greateft 
 evidence that they are not contending, or conc-erned 
 for the caufe of truth, but only for the caufe of a par- 
 ty." (p. 78.) The common adage fays, " It is a poor 
 rule that will not work both ways." 
 
 If Mr. Worcefter meant to apply this to the Baptifts, 
 and fuppofe that they would fhrink from a fair fcrip- 
 tural invei^igation of the fubjcift in difpute, he may be 
 aiTured he has mil^aken the men whofe fentiments he 
 has attacked. No, let him and his brethren treat us in 
 this way, and I believe they will not find us to " (hrink 
 from the light of fair inveftigation." Nor do we be- 
 lieve, that the Baptifts « will be oiFended or hurt by a 
 fair and xamiid exhibition of argument." But, if infcead 
 of this, he lliall attempt to fiience us by an oblique ref- 
 erence to the gholUy ftory of Munfter, (which by the 
 way we were no more concerned in, than we v/ere in 
 the ivitchcraft in Salem) or, to deter us from following 
 the example of our blefied Redeemer, by the tales of 
 a Vojftus-t of " naked men and women," he need not be 
 furprifed, if fuch arguments as thefe do not produce 
 conviction. But even thefe fhall be noticed in their 
 proper place. 
 
 The difcourfes before us are founded on Gal. iii. 29. 
 And if yc be ChrijVs^ then are ye Ahrahj.m s fecdy and heirs 
 mccording to the prf^vnije. 
 
 The doClrine which the author adduces from the text 
 is this : " In God's covenant of promife with Abraham, 
 provifion was made for the continuance of the church 
 formed by it, and thus for the tranfmiffion of "the privi- 
 leges and bleilings contained in it, from generation td 
 generation, down to the clofe of time." 
 
 In order to iilultrate this doctrine, Mr. Worcefter 
 firft attempts ** to (liow, that the covenant which was 
 made with Abraham, and by which the church was formed 
 in his family^ was intended to be perpetual." By this 
 covenant he evidently intends the covenant of circuia- 
 
L ^8 J 
 
 ciHon ; for no other has ever been fuppored to form 
 Abraham's family into a church ftate. This contlufion 
 is drawn not merely from the above flatement, but from 
 the whole tenor of his reafonings. That this is a fair 
 ftatement, it is prefumed, will not be denied. 
 
 We proceed therefore to confider this " candid ex- 
 hibition of argument." And fliall attempt, firjly to 
 prove, that Mr. V/orcefter has totally miftaken the 
 prom'ijt in his text ; that the apoftle referred to a pro- 
 m'lje entirely diltindt from that from which he has rea- 
 foned. 
 
 Second. We (hall attempt to (how that his applica- 
 tion of this promife to believers and unbelievers, or* 
 to believing parents and their unbelieving children, is 
 unfcriptural, and contrary to the apoille's reafoning 
 throughout the context. 
 
 The reader will keep in mind that the promife made 
 to Abraham and his feed in the covenant of circumci- 
 iion, is the datum from which the author of thefe dif- 
 courfes reafons. In order to prove that he has mif- 
 taken his text, and reafoned from a promife not ex- 
 pi-efled nor intended by the apoftle, we begin at the 
 jaxth verfe, where the fiibje^l is particularly introduced 
 in the context. Even as Abraham believed God, and it 
 nvas accounted to him for righteoufnefs. (verfe 7.) Know 
 ye therefore, that they luhich are of faith ^ the fame are the 
 children of Abraham, (verfe 8.) Attd the fcript lire fire~ 
 feeing that God would jufify the heathen through faith, 
 preached before the gofpel unto Abraham ^ faying, \i>i IHILE 
 SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED. This is the promifc, 
 from which the apoftle reafons throughout the chapter. 
 But it muft be obferved, that this promife is not found 
 in the covenant of circumcifion, which is recorded at 
 large in the feventeenth chapter of Genefis. By ex- 
 amining this, we fliall find that the above promife is 
 neither exprefled nor contained in it by fair implica- 
 tion. Tlie promife quoted by the apoftle is in the 
 twelfth chapter of Geneiis, and third verfe. This was 
 made to Abraham at the time when he was called to 
 leave his country and kindred, to go and fojcurn in a 
 ftrange land, The Meiffiah, in whons tke nations were 
 
[ 99 ] 
 
 to be bleiTed, wa*-" revealed in this promile. Hence the 
 apoftle calls this the preaching of the gofpel to Abraham, 
 This was probably the period alfo referred to by our 
 Lord, when he faid to the Jews, Tour father Abraham 
 rejoiced to fee my day, and ht faiv it and iva-s glad* On 
 the above, a learned commentator makes the following 
 remark : "The apoftle qiiotcth the promife^ Gen. xii. 
 S, where God tells AbrahraTi, that in him all the na- 
 tions (or families) of the earth fliould be bleffed. This 
 is to be underftood of thofe fpiritiial blellings which 
 are in Chrifl: Jefus : for all the nations of the earth 
 were no other wife blelTed in Abraham. "f 
 
 This promife was made twenty-four years before the 
 covenant of circnmcinon exifted ; and was as independ- 
 ent of that, as the covenant made with Nonh refpe-fi.^ 
 ing the drowning of the world. It did not depend at 
 all upon the obedience of Abraham, or any other crea- 
 ture It was in no fenfe conditional. The divine ve- 
 racity was pledged for its fuliilment. And whether 
 circuniciilon had been inflituted or not, God would in 
 the fulrefs of time have fent his Son into the world, 
 and would have bleffed the nations in him. 
 
 That this promife was made to Abraham twenty- 
 four years before the covenant of circumciiion, is proved 
 from the following circumftances. 1. Abraham was 
 feventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran, 
 which was the time when this promife was C 99 
 made.J He was ninety-nine years old when he -J ^}__ 
 was circumcifed. 5 See the margin. (^ 04 
 
 Abraham received this promife, believed in its ac- 
 complitliment, faw by faith the day of the Lord Je- 
 fus, and was juftiiied through faith — all while he was 
 in uncircumcifion.[| Not one of thefe circumftances 
 could have ever been altered, had that never been in- 
 ftituted. Nor does it appear that this promife was di- 
 re6tly connected with, or included in that covenant. 
 For notwithftanding it is there faid, a father of many na- 
 tijHS ivill I make thee ; and although this might in a 
 r.:etaphorical fenfe allude to his being the father of be- 
 
 * John viii. 56. f Poo'.'» Contin. in loc. \ Gen. xil 4- 
 
 § xvii. I. H Vid. Rom. iv 9, 10. 
 
[ loe ] 
 
 icTcrs in all nations ; yet it miift be obferved, that it 
 ftands immediately connected with the followincr words ; 
 And I luill wake ihce exceeding fruitful ,- and I ivill make 
 NATIONS OF THEE, find hug.^ Jhall come of thy Jcins. 
 Thefe exprelBons, taken together, do not amount to a 
 promife, that the nations which flioiild fpring from 
 Abraham's loins, or any others ftiould be bleiied in 
 him. It was not therefore defcending from the loins 
 ©f Abraham, but poiTefling his faith, which gave a title 
 to the promife. The promife that he fl^ould be the 
 father of many 7iaticn?y and that kings jJjotdd ccme of 
 him, has been literally and fully accompli fhed. 
 
 The promife which refpciSled the bleffing of the 
 Gentile nations in Chrift, was renewed again to Abra- 
 ham about tvrenty years after the covenant of circum- 
 cifion. This was unde^ circumflances peculiarly folemn : 
 it was when he was called to offer up his beloved fon 
 Ifaac. We have muck reafon to believe, that in this 
 tranfadl:ion, Abraham faw more of the myftery of re- 
 demption, thrcugh the incarnation and facriiice of the 
 Son of God, then he had ever fecn before. The Lord 
 now graciouily condefcended to comfort him, by repeat- 
 ing the promife which he made to him more than forty 
 years before, with this variation ; In thy s^^iyfjjall all 
 the nations of the. earth be blefjed. 
 
 1. The af^oftle is particul^.rly careful to diftingui'li this' 
 promife refpccVing the seed in whom the Gentile na- 
 tions fliouM be blelTed, from that made in the covenant 
 of circumciiioh refpecling the pofterity of Abraham. 
 The ivoman^s seed, who was to hruife the ferpent's heady 
 was alfo the sefd, promifed to Abraham, in whom the 
 believing Gentiles fhouid be blelTed. But primarily 
 his natural {t^(\^ or at mofr his fpiritual feed, and not 
 Chrift, was intended, by the feed in the covenant of 
 circumcifion. The nations have never, been blefled in 
 any other of Abraham's feed but Chrift. 2. The apof- 
 tle farther diftinguiflies the promife under coniideration, 
 in the fixteenth verfe. Now, faith hey to Abraham and 
 his feed nvere the PROMISES- made. He fpeaks in tlie plu- 
 ral, « promifes." In Gen. xii. 3, it is faid, In thee 
 JJmH all families of the earth he bleffed. And in Gen. xxii. 
 
[ 101 ] 
 
 18, it is {'aid, hi thy seed j%all all the nations of the earth 
 be blejfed. That we might not miftake the latter, as 
 referring to the promife made in the covenant of 
 circumcilion, and lb to Abraham's natural Iced, the 
 apoftlc adds, " He faith not, And to feeds, as of majn ; 
 but as of ONE, and to thy seed, which is Christ. The 
 promifes in the covenant of circumcilion were to many % 
 to Abraham'^ feed generally. Will any perfon pre- 
 fume to fay that thefe promifes referred' to Chrift, or 
 were made to him -, or that he was the feed there in- 
 tended ? Were kings to come out of his loins, and 
 nations to be made of him ? Was the land of Canaan 
 promifed to Chrift for an everlafting poflsfTion ? Thefe 
 were fome of the promifes maile and fulfilled to 
 Abraham and his natural feed. Chrift claimed no in- 
 tereft in the land of Canaan : no, not {o much as the 
 foxes 5 for they had holes to burrow in, but the Son of 
 Man had not where to lay his head. It will hence, we 
 think, undeniably follow, either that the promifes made 
 to Abraham's feed in the covenant of circumciiion re- 
 ferred to Chrifi:, and had particular refpe^ to him, or 
 elle that the apoftle reafoned from a promife entirely 
 diftind from them. 3. That the apoftle did not refer 
 to the promifes in the covenant of circumcifion, is fur- 
 ther evident, from what he has faid in the 17th verfe : 
 And this Ifayy that the covena?it that was cenfirmed before 
 of God in Chrify the lanv which was fctir hundred i%.nd 
 thirty years after y cannot dijannuly that it^fiould make the 
 promife of none effect. 
 
 Here are feveral things worthy of confideratlon; 
 1. This covenant was confirmed of God in Chrift. It 
 confequently Rood independent of the obedience either 
 of Abraham or his pofterity. 
 
 2. This covenant, if confirmed in Chrifc, could net 
 be broken or difannulled. There could in the nature 
 of tilings be no failure. Even a fufpicion of this kind, 
 would be derogatory to the honour and veracity of 
 Chrift. 
 
 3. This promife, which is the fame referred to in ' 
 the 29th verfe, the apoftle informs us was thus mad* 
 and confirmed, four hundred and thirty years bef©rj& 
 
 I 2 
 
i nnnarea ana 
 I, which C 1^97 
 he mar- ] *_t?l 
 
 i 101 ] 
 
 felie giving of the iaw. 1'hib wih forever diftii.guifli it 
 from the promifes in the coven.mt of chcumcifion. 
 For this was inftituteci only four hundred and fix years 
 before the giving of the law. The covenant in the 
 xviith chapter of Gcnefis was in the year before Chriti: 
 1897. The law was given fourteen hundred and 
 ninety-one years before the fame era, 
 leavei but four hundred and hx. bee th( 
 gin. 
 
 But the promifo quoted by the apoftle from Genefis 
 xii. 3, which was niade to Abraham twenty-four years 
 before, when he was in uncircumcihon, exa£liy com- 
 pares wich this ilateraent in the context, of four hun- 
 dred and thirty years. This pronTiife, according to the 
 Bible chronology, was made to Abraham in the year 
 before Chrift, 1921. The law, as cbferved C ly^i 
 above, was given 1491, v/hich makes exaftly < [^ 
 the time fpecihed. See the margin. (_ 4^0 
 
 Here the matter is reduced to mathematical cer- 
 tainty. Any perfon who will take the trouble to com- 
 pare the dates in his Bible, of the xiith chapter of Gene- 
 iis, and the xxth of Exodus, referred to above, will feel 
 liimfelf completely fatisfied. The mod invincible prej- 
 udice will find it difficult to refill the light of demon- 
 ftration. 
 
 if the obfervations which have now been made are 
 correct, they will bring us unavoidably to this conclu- 
 £on, viz. That Mr. Worcefter has totally miftaken the 
 promife in his text, and reafoned from one to which 
 the apoftle had no immediate reference. Hence the 
 whole of his laboured fuperftruclure is left without 
 foundation ! The fate of fuch a building may be {een 
 in the ciofe of the hxth chapter of Luke. In order to 
 fct ahde this conclulion, three things muA be fairly 
 pr,oved. 
 
 1. That the apoftle throughout this chapter did ac- 
 tually mean the promife in the covenant of circum- 
 cifion, although he has not mentioned a fingle pafTage 
 contained in it j but exprefsly quoted one clearly dif- 
 tinguiihed by the time of its being dehvered, and alf© 
 hy the terms and import of th« promife itfelf. 
 
[ 103 ] . 
 
 S. It mufi be proved, that the covenant of clrcum- 
 clfion was 430 years before the giving of the law, nnt^ 
 withflanding fcripture chronology places it bat four 
 hundred and fix. 
 
 3. Thai th.^ feed of Abraham^ mentioned In the cov- 
 enant of circumciiion, and the seed In whom all the 
 families of the earth iliould be blefTed, were the faaie : 
 or in other words, that the feed of Abraham, expreffed 
 in that covenant, meant Chrift ; for the apoftle has ex- 
 prefsly told us in the context, that he was the perfon 
 to whom the promlfe, from which he was then reafon- 
 ing, excluhvely referred. 
 
 Until thefe are fairly proved, we fliall infift upon the 
 conclufion above ftated. We have too good an opinion 
 of Mr. Worcefter's candour, to think that he will deny 
 that he has reafoned from the covenant of circumcifion 
 throughout his dilccurfes. If he can honourably extri- 
 catehimfelf from tlie foregoing dilemma,he willundoubt- 
 edly do it ; and in doing it he will inftrucl the writer of 
 thefe firicturei., and probably relieve fome of his breth- 
 ren, who have, it is thought, already felt the difficuhy. 
 We new proceed, 
 
 Seco>^dly, to fliow, That the application of this 
 promlfe to believers and unbelievers, or to believing 
 parents and their unbelieving children, is unfcriptural, 
 and contrary to the apoftle's reafoning throughout the 
 context. The apoftle predicates his reafonings upon two 
 diftintSt topics, viz. upon Abraham's /a/V/;, and the prom- 
 if made to him refpe(fting the Gentile nations. With 
 regard to the firft, he faith, Abraham btUeved Gody and 
 it ivas accounted to hhn for right eou fiefs. Know yr, there^ 
 fore, that they ivhich are offaithy the fame are the' children 
 of Abraham, (Ver. 6, 7,^ Here it muft be obvious to 
 every unprejudiced mind, that Gentiles, whether young 
 or old, cannot claim this reiationlhip to Abraham, un- 
 lefs they are of faith : that is, unlefs they believe Gjd, as 
 Abraham did. Viewed in this characfter, as the " father 
 of the faithful," and the lame diftinaion will alfo apply 
 with refpei5t to his natur:d pofterity. None of his 
 feed are confidered as his children in this fenfe, 
 but fuch as are of faith. This diAinaion was made by 
 
Ckrift himfelf, when reafoning with the pharlfees, in 
 the viiith of John. FeeHng themfelves preffed by his 
 arguments, they lied, to their common refuge, We be 
 Abraham^ s feed. Jefus anfnuered them, I know that ye are 
 Abraham's feedy but ye feek to kill me, becaufe my word hath 
 noplace in you. If ye luere Abraham's CHILDREN, ye tuntld 
 do the works of Abraham.^ The works of Abraham 
 comprehended both his faith and his obedience ; and 
 for any one to claim intereft in him as their father, 
 until they are the fubjedls of laving fiiith in Jefus 
 Chrift, would be equally as unavail'ing as the claim of 
 the rich man, who addreffed Abraham as his father , but 
 could not obtain a drop of water to cool his tor- 
 ment-ed tongue.f 
 
 We have airesidT made feme remarks on the 14th 
 verfe, but it comes in courfe to be confidered more par- 
 ticularly. The apoftle in the preceding verfe makes 
 this ftatement j That " Chrift hath redeemed us from 
 the curfe of the law, being made a curfe for us, that 
 the bleffing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, 
 through Jefus Chrift." Is it poilible for any perfon ta 
 fuppofe, that by the bleffing of Abrahatn, the apoftle in- 
 tended external church privileges ? fuch as the bap- 
 tizing, and conftituting children church members ^ We 
 cannot think thefe were the bleflings expreffedor intend- 
 ed by the apoftle. For according to him, the blefling 
 of Abraham comes on the Gp.nx.\\QSyihrough Jefus Chri/iy 
 and through no other medium. But the blefling of in- 
 fant baptifm, and infant memberfhip, comes on chil- 
 dren through their parents : it depends altogether 
 upon them, whether the children ihall enjey thefe 
 bleflings or not. But according to the apoftle, They^ 
 which be of faith, are blejfed with faithful Abraham, whether 
 their parents are believers or unbelievers ; whether 
 friends or enemies to the crofs of Chrift. 
 
 According to Mr. Worcefter, if we underftand him, 
 the falvation of the children of believers depends prin- 
 cipaily upon the " faith and fidelity" of their parents. 
 His words are, " The promife, then, to be a God ta 
 Abrahaoa, and to his feed after him, v/as of this pur- 
 
 ♦Jokaviii. 33,«37, ^. f Luke xti. 24. 
 
C 105 ] 
 
 port, that on condition of faith and fidelitf on Abra- 
 ham's part, i!i rcrpe(ft to his children^ they IhoiiM be- 
 come fubjccls jf grace, and heirs of the bleilings of the 
 covenant. The fame promife was made to Abrahain's 
 pofterity, in their fucceflivc generations ; and the fame 
 is now made to all true bclievers^his adopted children 
 of every nation."* This doctrine, we believe, has been 
 averted by other Paedobaptiri: minifters, befides Mr. 
 Worcelier 5 but we acknowledge fr;ely th:it we have our 
 doubts reipectiiig its correchiefs. Will any one nilcrt 
 that all Abraham's own children were faved ? If not, 
 will they venture to hy it was owing to his want of 
 fmth or fideiity towards them ? Was Ifaac diftinguiflied 
 by Abraham's faith and fidelity before he was conceiv- 
 ed in the womb of Sarah, as the child of promife ? Or 
 does it appear that Abraham ever exercifed any pre- 
 eminent faith or iideiity towards Ifaac, more than to- 
 wards Ilhrnael ? 
 
 If we d^fcend a ftep further, into the family of Ifaac, 
 we (hall fee ftill clearer proof of the incorreclnefs of 
 the fentiment under confideration. It is too evident to 
 be denied, that Ifaac had a partiality for Efau. It is 
 alfo evident tliat his faith had fixed on him as the heir 
 of promife j for he intended, and actually thougiit he 
 had given him the bleiiing. Yet the purpofe of Gcd^ ac- 
 cording to ehrum, fuperfeded both his *' faith and fideli- 
 ty," with refpect to Efau, and gave the blefiing to Jacob. 
 Will any one hazard the aflertion, that Ifaac had any 
 different exercife oi faith for Jacob, or manifefted any 
 fidelity towards him, which he did not towards Efau ? Or 
 was it the fovereign pleafure of God alone, that made 
 Jacob the lot of his inheritance^ rather than Efau, totally 
 independent of either the faith or fidelity of the pious 
 parents ? 
 
 * Throughout the chapter on which the difcourfef 
 before us are founded, the apoftle has allerted the per- 
 fonal intereit of believers, and of no others in the blef- 
 fing of Abraham. There is not a word of this condi- 
 tional hufinefs^ about tl>e " faith and fidelity" of parents, 
 by which their children become «* fubjects of grace :'* 
 
 • Difc. p. 1%. 
 
[ 106 ] 
 
 but, according to the apoftle, both parents and chil- 
 dren " become fubjefls cf grace," only by becoming 
 believers in Chrift. This is being blefled with Abra- 
 ham in fom* proper fenfe, and to fome certain and 
 valuable purpofe. 
 
 There is alfo a very material difference with refpecft 
 to the kind of faith with which the bleffing of Abra- 
 ham is connecled. The apoftle gives no intimation 
 that he means any other faith, than that which is com- 
 mon to every believer : that is, faith in the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. 
 But Mr. "Worcefler's faith, to which the promife of 
 God is con.ii:ionai'Jy made, feems to be a faith refpedl- 
 ing tlie falvation of our children. He reafons thus ; 
 << Hence," faith he, "though in one refpeiSl the prom- 
 ifes of the covenant are conditional ; yet in another 
 they are not. Though in refpect to individual believ- 
 ers, the promifes are not abfolute, but have refpedt to 
 their fnith end fidelity as a condition ; yet with refpe£l to 
 Chrift, and the church as one with him, the promife* 
 are yea and amen. Though God is not by covenant 
 abfolutely engaged to give every believer that faith in 
 the promifes, refpecting his children, which will cer- 
 tainly through grace, f^cure to his children, and all of 
 them, the blefllngs of the covfe.iant,"* &c. This faith 
 refpe6ling children is entirely diftlncl from that faith 
 by which Abraham and all other believers are juftified : 
 it is a kind of faith which probably few believers have 'y 
 which many never have, and which many never caa 
 have. A great proportion of believers are fingle per- 
 fons, who have neither companions nor children ; and 
 many who marry, live and die childlefs. None of thefe 
 can be fuppofed to have this kind of faith. But we 
 afk 3 Has not the blejSing of Abraham come on them 
 through Jefus Chrift 1 Are they not bljpd with faithful 
 Abraham ? 
 
 We have no doubt but fome believing parents have 
 had ftrong faith given them refpe^ling the converfion 
 of their children \ or at leaft fome of them, or polli- 
 bly fome of their neighbours, or their cliildren. But 
 it is equally evident, that many have been fo happy a-s 
 
[ i«7 ] 
 
 to fee their children brought to know the Lord, wk« 
 were never feniible of any fpecial faith concerning them 
 in particular. On the other hard, it is reafonable to 
 fuppofe, that that ardent defire which it is common for 
 pious parents to feel for the falvation of their children, 
 has led them to believe many things refpefling them, 
 which they never did, nor ever will realize.* 
 
 Whatever faith parents may have rerpe<5tlng their 
 children, it is certain they cannot give thtm faith, and 
 confequently cannot convey the bleffing of Abraham to 
 them. This blelfing reiis on none but fuch as are 
 themfclves the fubje^ of faith ; On true believers only. 
 This promife therefore cannot, confidently with the 
 apoflle's reafoningj be applied to children on the account 
 of their parents' faith. If ever they receive the blejfmg 
 of Abraham^ it ysSSS. c:r,\e bn thtm thrcir^h Jffus Chrift j 
 and they will reft: in a moft fatal dtlufion, if they reft 
 in any thing fliort of this. 
 
 ** Vain are the hopes that rtlel'^ place 
 
 Upon their birtli and bJo; d ; 
 Dcfccrdtd from a pious racf, 
 
 Their faihers noTv with God;" 
 
 * The indarcfe of the Rev. Mr. V/hittficId, rtfpet^^'hg his foh, flialt 
 Tcrvc as a fpccirr.cn. In February, 1744 (fays Dr, Gillies) an event 
 hr.ppcncd to him, which, an idfl all his fuccefs, tended to keep hira 
 hiinible, and ferved to cur< him of a wcalncfb to which he had bcea 
 ljal)le, the trailing to grfni;dkfs imprtfiions. It v as the death of hi» 
 only child, concerning v.honi he v/as To imprrfled, th.<t he made no 
 fcruple of declaring- before the birth, that the child would be a fon ; 
 and that he hoped he v oiild live to preach the GofpeL Several nar- 
 row efcapcs, v/hich R'lrs. Wl.itclJtld liad duiing her pregnancy, con- 
 firmed him in his exf c6?.ti<ni ; whlcli were fo high, that after he had 
 publicly baptized the child at the 1 ?.bernacle, all went away big with 
 the hopes of his beint* fp.'red to be employed in the work of God. 
 Eut theJe fond cipedcaticns were foOn hlafted by the chdd's death, 
 when he was about fcur lnoiltIi^ old. This was, no doubc, very hum- 
 bling to the father ; bat he was help'd to make the wifefl and heft 
 improvement of it. " Though I am difappoibtcd, fays he, (writing to 
 a fiiend) of a living preacher, by the deatli of my fon ; yet I hope what 
 happened before his birth, and fincc his death, has taught me fuch 
 leffons, as if duly improved, may render his miftakcn parent more cau- 
 tious, more fober aiindcd, more experienced in Satan's devices, and 
 confequcatly more ufeful in his future labours to the church ef God,*'* 
 • Memoirs oj the life uf the Rev. Get H'bit^U, 
 
[ io« J 
 
 Whether their fathers are gone to heavea or not, re- 
 ligion is at all times a perforu-il concern. The moft pious 
 parents cannot fave their ungodly children. God de- 
 clared by the prophet Ezekicl, that when he Ihould 
 fend his judgments upon a finful land, ihotigh Noak, 
 Daniel and Job ivere in it^ they JJjonld deliver but their 
 oiun fouls by their righteoufncfs. As L live ^ faith the Ltrd 
 God, they fij all deliver neither fons nor daughters.* Thefe 
 were three eminent faints ; we ihould hence very nat- 
 urally fuppofe, their children would derive as much 
 advantage from their *< faith and fidelity," as the chil- 
 dren of Ikints in general : yet it feems that the children 
 muft have fome perfonal religion, independent of their 
 parents, to exempt them from even temporal judgments : 
 how much more to fecure them from the wrath to 
 come ! 
 
 The fentiment we have been contemplating refpe<fi:- 
 jng the promife of God made to Abraham, to his f)of- 
 terity, and to Gentile believers, to make their children 
 «* fubjetSls of grace," on condition of their " faith and 
 fidelity," involves, if we miftake not, another impor- 
 tant error. It Aippofes, that every Gentile believer, 
 who is the head of a family, ftands in the fame relation^ 
 and is entitled to the fame promifes that Abraham was. 
 That every true believer is blefTed with the fume blef* 
 fings of pardon p.nd juftification, with interell: in the 
 Mellidi, the promifed feed, will be readily r.dmitted : 
 but it does not hence follow, that the fame promifes are 
 made to them refpedting their pofrerity which were 
 made to him. No, by no means ; for this would con- 
 ftitute every believing head of a family, an Abraham •, 
 a patriarch of the church ; a father of the faithful. Is , 
 there a Mefiiah to fpring from every believii^g family ? 
 Are all the nations of the earth to be bleffed in their 
 feed .'' Does the promife of the land of Canaan defcend 
 to the children of believers, as it did to the children of 
 Abraham ? Has God promifed any Gentile believer 
 that his feed ihall become numerous as the ftars of 
 heaven ? That nations and kings fhall fpriiig from 
 him .? — All thefe queftions muft be anfwered in the neg- 
 
 * Eeek. xlv. 13— 16« 
 
C 109 3 
 
 ative. It will hence appear that by the fpecial appoint- 
 ment of God, Abraham was placed in a fituation differ- 
 ent froip all other believers *, and in this peculiar fit- 
 uation many things were promlfed to his feed, which 
 are not promifed to the feed of other believers. 
 
 But it will probably be faid, we have mentioned every 
 thing elfe but the promife itfelf, which contained Abra- 
 ham's principal bleiiing, and which has been tranfmit- 
 ted to Gentile believers, viz. That God promifed to be 
 a God to him, and to his feed. From the general tenor 
 of the difcourfes before us, we conclude the author con- 
 iidered this as the promife referred to in his text. 
 Hence, to be Chrift's, is to be Abraham's feed, and heirs 
 according to this promife : i. e. Tliat God will be a God 
 to us and our feed. 
 
 We truft it has been made fufficiently evident in the 
 preceding pages, that this could not be the promife 
 intended by the apoftle j and that whatever bleilings 
 were contained in this, that bleffing of Abraham which 
 is faid to have come on the Gentiles through Jefus 
 Chrift, was a bleffing diftinct from this, and one which 
 he enjoyed long before this covenant exifted. 
 
 The queftion now to be determined is this. Does 
 God ftand engaged by covenant to every believer, to be 
 a God to him and to his feed after him, in the fame 
 fenfc, as by that covenant he flood engaged to Abraham 
 and his feed ? If a theory does not correfpond with fact, 
 it is a certain argument that it is not right. We have 
 already feen that a large proportion of believers die 
 without ifiue. If this promife in its full force has been 
 tranfmitted to them, it required, belides their " faith and 
 fidelity," another condiiioriy which the author of the 
 difcourffs has overlooked. It muft run to them and 
 their feed, provided they heve any. This promife, as it 
 refpe(Sted Abraham, did not require this condition •, for 
 he had previoufly the promife of God, that his feed 
 fliould become as the duft of the earth. 
 
 To give a correct view of what is contained in this 
 promife, we fhall quote the words of an excellent wri- 
 ter : " To afcertain the meaning of this promife, (faith 
 Ue) we can proceed on no ground more certain thaa 
 
[ HO J 
 
 h€t- It Is facV, that God in fuccceding ages took tkt 
 feed of Abraham to be a peculiar people unto himfclf, 
 above all other nations; not only giving them <the land 
 of Canaan for a poffeflion,' but himfelf to be their God, 
 Kingi or temporal Governor. Nor was this all ; it was 
 •among them that he fet up his fpiritual kingdom, giv- 
 ing them his lively oracles, fending to them his proph- 
 ets, and eftabliihing among them his holy worfhip 5 
 which great advantages were, for many ages, in a man- 
 ner confined to them j and what was ftill more, the 
 great body of thofe v/ho were eternally faved previoufly 
 to the coming of Chrift, were faved from amongft them. 
 Thefe things taken together were ^n immenfely greater 
 favour than if tliey had all been literally made kings 
 and prlefts. Such then being the faSis^ it is natural to 
 fjppofe that fuch was the meaning of the promife."* 
 
 * Fiiller's Fxpofitcry Dire, on Gen. xvii. 7. To the above he fuD- 
 tohis the followi: g lote. 
 
 As an Antipa-dobartift I fee no reccflity for denying that fpiritual 
 J,lel5rtfs were promifed, in this general ivay, to the natural feed of 
 J^braham ; nci can it, I think, be fairly denied. The Lord engaged to 
 ^« that which he adinally did ; namely, to take out of them, rather than 
 other narlons, a pecj;le for himfclf This, 1 fuppofe, is xhtfeLd promiftd 
 to Abraharuj to which the apoRIe refers when he fays, " They ^vhich 
 ire the children oiihz ficfh, thefe are not the cliihiren of God ; but the 
 children of the promife are counted for the/teJ.^' (Rom. ix. 8.) By 
 '' the children of the promife" he did not mean the clc<5l in general, 
 compcfed of Jews and Gentiles, but the eled from araongfl the Jews* 
 Hence he reckons himfelf " an Ifratlite, cf the f.-ed of Abraham, and 
 the trite of Benjamin,'' as a Hving proof that " God had not cafl away 
 kis people whom he fc^reknew.'* Rom. xi* i, 2. 
 
 Eut 1 perceive not how it follows from hence, that God has promifed 
 tp take a peop'e from amongft the natural defccndants of believers, in 
 lillinAion from oihers. "V^'hat was promifed to Abraham, was neiiher 
 promifed nor fuiiilied to every good man. Of the pr.fte|ity of his kinf- 
 man Lot, nothing good is recorded. It is true, the labours of thofe 
 parents who " bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of 
 ipe Lord," are' ordinarily bleffed to the converlion of fomc cf them : 
 ind the lame may be faid of the labours tf faithful inhiifters, whcrevar 
 |)rovidence ftations them* But as it does net follow in the out cafe, 
 that the gracelefs inhabitants are more in covenant with God than thefe 
 ei fethcr placeB, neither does it follow in the other, that the gracelefe 
 ©Espring of believers arc more in covenant with God than thofe of un- 
 l elievers. " New Teflament faints have nothing more to do with the 
 Abrahamic covenant, tkan the Old Teftament believers who lived prior 
 to Abrah^ina." 
 
 I ,am aware that the words of the apoftle in Gal. iil 14, " t^e WelTiHg;^ 
 •^ AjK*b«sa is cume oa th€ Gentiles, through Jcfiis Cbrift," arc alleged 
 
[ ^^^ 1 
 
 All this may bs re-idlly admitted, witk refpecl to Abra- 
 ham and his defcenJants ; but it does not prove that 
 the rime things are either engag^ed or ful tilled to Gen- 
 tile believers. Their feed is not diftinguilhed by any 
 fpecial a£b of Divine Providence, as th^ feed of Abra- 
 ham was. The uncircumcifed might not mingle with 
 the circumcifed in the comaion adls of worlhip. But 
 the difpenfation under which we live, has no law for- 
 bidding the unbaptized, or even the irreligious from 
 attending public worihip with the faints. They are 
 not coinpelled now to wonliip in the outer court, but 
 may fit upon the f^iv^e feats, and hear the precious gof- 
 pel. Circuracifion forbade the ufual civilities of focial 
 life to the uncircumcifed •, but this is not the cafe in 
 Chriflian focieties. 
 
 But ihould we admit this to be the promife intend- 
 ed in the paiTage, on which the difcourfes before us are 
 founded, (which we Ihall by no means grant) and th.tt 
 
 in proof of the contrary. But the mjanlmg of that palTagc, I coacchz, 
 is not, that through Jefus Chrid every believer becomes an Abraham, a 
 father of the faithful ; but that he is reckoned among hit chMdren : not 
 3. flock on which the future church faould grow ; but a irancb, partaking 
 of the root and fatnefs of the olive tree So, however, the context aj.'- 
 pears to explain It — '■- Tlv^y which arc of faith are ibt tklldrtn of faiihul 
 Abraham." ver. 7. 
 
 But if it were gi anted, that the blailing of Abraham is fe come o« 
 the believiiT Gentiles, as not only to render them blefledashis ipiriti al 
 chil:iren,bat to infa.e a people for God from amongfl their niu;:.l pof- 
 terlty, rath.r than from thofe of others ; yet it is not n thoir nitural 
 po?rerIty that they are individually entitled to any one fpliitual b! Tinr ; 
 for tliis -.vas more than was true of the natural feed of Abraham. Kor 
 do I fee how it follows from hence, that we arc warranted to bat^iirc 
 thcra in their infancy. Abraham, it is true, was commanded to circurh- 
 cife his male children ; and if we had been commanded to baptize our 
 males, or females, or both, or any example of the kind had been left in 
 the New Teftan^.cnt, v/e fhould be as much obliged to comply in the 
 one cafe, as he was in the other. Eut we do not think ourfelves war- 
 ranted to reafon from circumcifion lo baptifm ; from the circuniciGca 
 of mabs to the baptifm of males and females ; and from tha circum- 
 ciCon of the chil Iren of a nation, (the greater part of whom were un^ 
 believers) and of " fei vants born in the houfc or bought with money," 
 to the baptifm of the children of believers. In fiiort, we Jo not think our- 
 lelvcs warranted in matters of politive inftitution, to foui:d our practice 
 on analogies, wliether real or fuppofed ; and flill lefs on one fo circuit- 
 ous, dilTonant, and uncertain as that in (luefiion. Our duty, we con- 
 ceive, is, in fu^-h cafes, to fallow the precepts and examples of tKe dif- 
 penfation under which v,^e live. 
 
C 112 ] 
 
 It has defcended to Gentile believers in the fulleft ex- 
 tent, yet we conceive that no fair inference can be 
 drawn from it in flavour of infant baptifiij. For the 
 rituals of that difpenfation were peculiar to it, and 
 have now enfircly cer/ed. The Gofpel difpenfation 
 under which we live, has its own rituals totally uncon- 
 uecled, and independent of that. This will appear by 
 this fingle eircumftance, that the fame perfons who had 
 been circumcifed in infancy, under that difpenfation, 
 were baptized when they became believers. If, accord- 
 ing to our opponents, infant baptifm comes in the room 
 of circumcifion, we fee no reafon why they (hoald not 
 now be baptized when they become believers, as the 
 JewiOi converts were formerly. If, as is contended for, 
 circumcifion was a feal of the covenant, and baptifm is 
 a feal of the fame covenant, why were they fealed over 
 a fecon;l time ? This was certainly ^w^-fealing, which 
 would look quite as inconfiftent sfs y/;7^7-baptifm. 
 
 If the Jewifh church and the Chriftian church are 
 the fame, where is the impropriety of calling the form- 
 er the Gofpel church, and the latter the Jewifh ? or in 
 ufing the terms interchangeably, as may appear moft 
 convenient ? Agreeably to this, fome Paedobaptifts 
 have called their infant baptifm "Chriftian circumci- 
 fion." This is Judnizing with a witnefs. The lan- 
 guage of Pscdobaptift writers, and that of the writers 
 of the New Teftament, when compared together, will 
 appear widely different on thefe points. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has fo ftrangely blended different 
 things, promifed to Abraham at different times, that 
 an incautious reader will be likely to miftake one for 
 another. As a fpecimen of what may be found in va- 
 rious parts of the work, the reader will notice the fol- 
 lowing paragraphs. 
 
 <* God's covenant of promife made with Abraham, 
 coiTiprifed all the bleffings and privileges ever prom- 
 ifed to believers and the church." 
 
 *' / ivill ejlahlijh my covefiant between me and thee and 
 thy feed after thee, fays the Lord to Abraham, for an 
 everlcft'ing covenant, TO EE A God unto thee and to 
 THY SEE© after THEE." This is the mcft- extenlive 
 
[ 113 ] 
 
 promlfe in the covenant of circLrncIfion. Bat did this 
 *^ comprife all the blefliugs and privileges ever proraifed 
 to believers ?" It certainly did not. Nor did Mr. 
 Worcefler feel willing to reil his alT^rtion upon this ; 
 but has fubjoined another promife made to Abraham 
 long before the covenant to v/hich he refers exifted ; 
 and which was renewed to him, and to Tfaac and Jacob 
 afterwards. This pro:nife he has given us in the fol- 
 lowing words, " AND IN THEE, AND IN THY SEED SHALL 
 ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED." (page 
 
 14.) This promife, indeed, comprifes every thing, be- 
 caufe it comprifes the Melliah, the seed in whom fome 
 of all nations fhall be bleiTed. But this forms no part 
 of the covenant of circumciaon, though conflantly 
 blended in the difcourfes before us, as if it were one 
 of the mofl: prominent articles in it. 
 
 The author of thefe difcourfes feems to anticipate in— 
 iTiinierable difficulties, on the fuppofition that the Gof- 
 pel church commenced with the prefent difpeniation. 
 '*If," faith he, " the covenant made with. Abraham lias 
 been difannuUed, and the church formed by it abo:- 
 iOied j if, on the introduction of the Chrillian difpenfa- 
 tion, a new church was formed, and anew covenant in- 
 ftituted, materially different from that made with Abra- 
 ham ; in what important refpedl can Abraham be con- 
 fidered as the father of Chrillian believers r" He fur- 
 ther adds ; "If we be members of a- different church, 
 formed by a different covenant from that of Abraham, 
 what relation have we to Abraham .'' In what refpe^t 
 are we his children ? How is it that we are bleffed with 
 him ? that we are heirs according to the promife made 
 to him ?" (page 12.) 
 
 All thefe difficulties we think will be obviated and 
 removed, by corredting a very effential error in his 
 next paragraph. In this, if we miffake not, he has 
 mifquoted the Apoftle's words, mifapplied them, and 
 made him give a very important conclulion, without 
 any premifes ! "Thefe," fays the reader, "are charges 
 of confiderable magnitude : they ought therefore to be 
 made out fairly, or retracted." We engage to do one 
 or the other. The quotation to which we refer is.> 
 
 k2 
 
r 111 ] 
 
 in the following words : « H^ receivi'dlheftgn 9fs:Wciim' 
 eifion^ a fcal of the v'lghtty.ifiiefs ojfiiith^ THAT HE MIGHT 
 
 BE THE FATHER OF ALL TH6.M THAT BELIEVE, THOUGH 
 
 THEY BE KOT CIRCUMCISED.'* (page 12 ) That the 
 reader may better judge, we will give the paragraph 
 entire. 
 
 '< But Abraham was made the father of many na- 
 tions ; and all who are of faith are his children, and 
 are blefTed with him. This is according to the cove^ 
 nant of promife which God made wuh Abraham." 
 This is all very well, but he adds, " He received theftgn 
 %f circumc'ifiGn, a feal of the righteouf?iefs of faith y THAT 
 HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OJ ALL THEM THAT BE- 
 LIEVE, THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED, thougll 
 
 they be net his natural poiierity, that righteous- 
 ness MIGHT BE IMPUTED TO THEM ALSO." if JMr. 
 Worcefter is correel, it was xYbraham's circuQiciiion, 
 and not his faith, which conftituted him the father of 
 believers ! 
 
 ^The puiTage here referred to, is Rom, iv. 11. And 
 we comphin, 1. That the words are mifquGtcd. Tx> 
 prove this, we need only compare them with the facred 
 text. IMr. Worcefter lays, « a fial of the rightcoufncfs of 
 Jaithy that he might be a father, &c." The apoflle fays, 
 Mfeal of the righteoufjiefs of'THEfdith ikihich he had, y^'t 
 kewg uncircumcift'd. Although the words he had, are 
 not in the original, they are neceffarily implied and 
 underftood, as in cur tranflation. Had the words been 
 quoted as they are read in our Bibles, they would have 
 conveyed <juice a different meaning. We do not infift 
 that an author fnonld always quote fcripture verbatim, 
 but if his variations give a different fenfe, he is certain- 
 ly accountable for it. 
 
 52. We complain that the words are mi/applied. 
 They are applied as they ftand in the Bible, only to 
 Abraham. Circumciilon was a feal to Abraham of his 
 faith, but it is not iaid to be fuch to his pofterity, or to 
 any other perfoa upon earth. Mr. Worcefter has made 
 it a feal of the r'lgJfteoufnefs of faith generally. What faith 
 can it be fuppoied that an infant has of eight days old ^ 
 YiTas there any iiiitiiL foaled to fuck ? What f*;ith wis 
 
[ H5 ] 
 
 fealed to a lervant bought with money, who had beta 
 brought up I;i idolatry, and perh.ips ftill attached to ic, 
 only compelled ta conform to the religion of the Jews, 
 becaufe he was a ilave ? No man believes that either of 
 tfie two were fubje^ls of faith. How then, we alk, was 
 circumciiion a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith to 
 them ? But it will be laid, that God commanded them 
 to be circumcifed, and therefore it mull have bean 
 right. With this we fully agree; but God has no 
 where faid thai it was a feal of the righteoufnefs. of 
 faith to them. A man may as well believe that every 
 baptized infant is fealed with the righteoufnefs of faith, 
 though he may afterwards prove to be a profligate infidel, 
 as that circumciiion placed them in this privileged con- 
 dition. He mull give up his common fenfs to believe 
 either. We thei-efore conclude, that if Mr. Worcefter's 
 words mean, what the fame exprellions mean when ufei 
 by others, he has applied an exprefiion generally, which 
 the apodle applied only in a particular cafe ; which v?a 
 conilder as a mifapplication of the text. 
 
 3. We have charged Mr. Worcefter, with making 
 the apollle cmduJe 'without ^remifes. This we are nosv 
 to make out. In order to render it plain to every ca- 
 pacity, we will again fet down his quotation. " He re- 
 ceived tlie fign of circumcifion, a feal of the righteouf- 
 nefs of faith, that he might be the father of all them 
 that believe, though they be not circumcifed.'' The 
 apoftle is here made to fay, that Abraham was circum- 
 cifed, fo that he might be the father of believers that 
 are uncirciimcifed ! We afk, in the name of common 
 'iiiw^Kiy why it was necelTary for Abraham to be circum- 
 cifed^ in order to conftitnte him the father of believers 
 that are uncivcumcijed ? If there can be any other mean- 
 ing to the argument, as Mr. Worcefter has placed it be- 
 fore the public, we confefs we have not difcernment 
 enough to fee it. But is it poflible tliat the apoftle 
 Ihould reafon at this rare ? He certainly did not. He 
 is placed in this awkward fituation only for the want of 
 having his argument fairly prefented. In order to fee 
 the force of his reafoning, the following words which be- 
 gin the quotation, ought to be conlidered as a parenthti- 
 
C UG J 
 
 ^s, as they really are, viz. (And he received the fign of 
 circumcifioTii afeal of the righteoufnfs of the faith which he 
 hady yet being unciraimcifed.) The fenfe of the pafTage 
 will then be plain. The apoftle ftates his argument 
 thus : For lue fayy that faith was reckojied to Abraham for 
 righteoufnefs. How was it then reckoned P when he was in 
 circurnci/ion, or in uncircumcifton ? not in circumciftony but 
 in uncircumcifton y (and he received the fign, &c.) that 
 he might be the father of all them that believey though they 
 be not circumcifedJ* Here the argument relumes its 
 native force, and teaches us that faith was reckoned to 
 Abraham for righteoufnefs, when he was in uncircum- 
 cifion ; fo that he might be the father of all other be- 
 lievers, though they be not circumcifed. Not that he 
 received circumcifion, " for this very purpose," as 
 Mr. Worcefter aflerts (page 11) to quahfy him to be the. 
 father of uncircumcifed Gentile believers. 
 
 For what purpofe, it may be afked, was the apoftle*s 
 argument in this mutilated form introduced into the 
 difcourfes before us 'i undoubtedly, to give force to th« 
 covenant of circumcifion. If it were circumcifioii 
 that conllitutcd Abraham the father of believers, it 
 would attach a degree of conlideration to that rite, 
 which it would not otherwiie poflefs. In this way, it 
 is thought to aid the caufe of infant baptifm. But we 
 afk, was it not Abraham's faith which he had long be- 
 fore his circumcifion, which, according to the apoftle-s 
 argument, conftituted him the father of the faithful.? 
 He being the firfl: that fubmitted to that rite, might 
 conftitute him the father oi the circumcifion ; but it was 
 his FAITH that conftituted him the father of believers. 
 
 It is conceived that the author of the difcourfes 
 might with as much propriety have argued from this 
 paiTage in his context ;- — For it is luritten, Curfed is every 
 ene that hangeth on a tree ,• that the bleffing of Abraham 
 might come on the Gentiles through Jefus Chrifi:'* It 
 would be im-pofTible here to fee the propriety of this 
 conclufion as it now ftands before us : it is equally fo 
 in the one which Mr. Worcefter has introduced above. 
 But place this in its proper order, and it will alfo re?*- 
 
 * Gul iii. J 3, 14. 
 
C "7 ] 
 
 fume its native force. Tiie argument /lands thus. 
 Chrijl hath redeemed us from the curfe of the laiUy being 
 made a curfe for us : (for it is witten, Curfed is every one 
 that hangeth on a tree :) t/jdt the hleffing of Abraham 
 might come on the Gentiles through Jefus Chrifi. The 
 bleffing of Abraham does not come on the Gentiles, 
 becaufe every one is curfed who hangeth on a tree ; 
 but becaufe Chrift hath redeemed us from the curfe of 
 the law. So, neither was Abraham by being clrcum- 
 cifed conftituted the father of beUeving Gentiles wh© 
 are uncircumcifed ; but by believing God, and having 
 faith reckoned to him for righteoufnefs, when he was 
 in uncircumcilion. We now leave it Avitli a candid 
 public to determine, whether, in his zeal to fupport his 
 hypothefis, Mr. Worcefter ha 9 not entirely miftaken and 
 mifreprefented the apoftle's argument, and finally drawn 
 % cancluOon favourable to his own fchemc, but drawn 
 it without any premifes. 
 
 From Mr. Worcefter*s arguments thus corre^ed, we 
 fee nothing which leads to the conclufion that the gofpel 
 church (compofed of profefling believers only,) may not 
 be coniidered as the children of Abraham^ not by circum- 
 cifion, but by faith, and completely bleffed in him through 
 Jefus Chrift ; notwithftanding the covenant, which con- 
 tained circumcifion, and all the other Jewifh rites^ has 
 waxed eld and vanifjcd aivay. If our relation to Abra- 
 ham can be fuftained on no better ground, than that 
 we have had the feal of the covenant, as it is called, 
 applied to us in our infancy, (whether by circimiciiion 
 or baptlfm it matters not,) it will leave us in the fame 
 wretched condition of the unbelieving Jews. Let us 
 not deceive ourfelves by fpending our efforts in defend- 
 ing the Ihadow, whilft we give up the fubftance. 
 
 They which be of faith , faith the apoftle, are bleffed 
 nvith faithful Abraham ; and they nvhich are of faith y 
 the fame are the children of Abraham. The fcripture hath 
 eoncluded all under ftn, thst the PRO?JiSE BY FAITH OF Je- 
 sus Christ might be givpn to them that believe. 
 For ye are all the children cj God by faith in Jefus Chrifi, 
 For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrifi, have 
 put on Chrij}. There is neither Je^ nor Greek, there is 
 
L lis ] 
 
 ite'ithey hond mr free^ there is neither male fitrfetnak ; for )& 
 mre all one in Chrijl J(fis, And if ye be Chrifi's, then are 
 ye Abraham s feed i and heirs according to the promifeP Every 
 fentence which, we hare now quoted, feems to look 
 with a forbidding afjpec): upon the member fliip and 
 baptifm of unbelievers. If the apoflle had really de- 
 figned to have barred the claim of infants, and all other 
 unbelievers, he could fcarcely have ufed language more 
 ^ecifive. He has firft informed us that Abraham was 
 blefled in believing God. He believed the gofpel that 
 was preached to him, concerning his feed, the MelHah, 
 in whom all families of the earth flj$uld be hlejfed^ This 
 glorious promife has been fulfilling for ages ; and the 
 blef!ing cf Abraham ftill comes QVi the Gentiles through 
 Jefus Chrift, and through no other medium. 
 
 The apoftle is particularly cai'eful ta eftabliili this 
 point, that Abraham's j77zV.^ was reckoned to him for righi- 
 eoufnefsy ivhen he ivcs in uncircumciftun. By this he has 
 excluded circumcifion from claiming the fmalleft fhare 
 cf honour in the falvation of Abraham, or in his being 
 the father cf othet believers. He appears equally 
 cautious in difcriminating the charadters' who are bleflT- 
 ed with Abr%h:mi. His language is, That God would 
 jtijlify the heathin ihroit^h faith. He adds> So then, 7 ll l Y 
 WHICH BE OF FAITH are blfjjed with faithful Abrahar.i, 
 Again, Th,it the Hfjing of Abraham jnight come on the Ge'n^ 
 tiles THROUGH Jesus Christ. Vv'e mufi: find fomething 
 more favourable to unbelievers than what is here ex- 
 preffedj or we fhall be as unable to blefs them, as Ifaac 
 was Efau, after ke had given the blefilng exclufively 
 to Jacob. 
 
 Still to imprefs the fentiment rhore deeply, the apoftU 
 again refumes his fubject towards the clofe of the chap- 
 ter, and adds ; For ye are all the children of God, by faith 
 in Chrifl Jefits, Not by defcending from Abraham, nor 
 any other believer ; nor by any external rite whatever. 
 For as many of you as have been baptized into Chri/iy havtt 
 ^ut on Chrifi. This language agrees perfectly with the 
 idea of their being all proieilbrs. But how a paffive 
 infant, of eight days old, can be faid \.o put on Chrifl^ to 
 *s is inconceivable.. It might be faid of fuch as are bap* 
 
C lit 3 
 
 lized in infancy, that Chrlft, that is, his name is put 
 upon them, without either their knowledge or confent ; 
 but how it can be rendered actively, you have put on 
 Chrifl, is difficult to reconcile either to common fenfe 
 or to truth. There is neither Jew nor Greeks there is 
 frelthcr hcTid nor frce^ there is neither male nor female ; FOR 
 YE ARE ALL ONE IN Christ Jesus. What ! whole 
 families ! believing parents (at leafl one of them) and 
 unbelieving children ? faint's and finners, all one in 
 Chr'ift ? Strange union indeed ! What commitniott hath 
 ii^ht with darknefs ? and whjt concord hat/j Chri/l with 
 Bella! ? or what ^ art hath he that helicveth with an infidel?'^ 
 
 If St. Paul were to addrefs a modern congregation, 
 where perhaps feven-eighths of them had been baptized 
 in infancy, could he vrith propriety addrefs them as he 
 did thcfe Galatian Chriftians : As many of you as have 
 been baptized into Chrifl^ have put en Chrif ? Te are all one 
 in Chrijl ? Do Piedobaptift ChrilHans themfelves believe 
 this of their families ? Do they believe that their bap- 
 tized but unregenerate children have put on Chrift ? 
 I'hat they -ixxid. their children of this defcription are 
 all one in Chrifl: Jefus .? They certainly do not treat 
 them as if they believed any fuch thing; nor can we 
 fuppofe they do feriouily believe it. Yet if tliey do 
 not.believe it, v/ill they not feel this conviction, that 
 their churches differ eiTentially from thofe in the apof- 
 tolic age ? As the apoftles themfelves did not profefs 
 to know the hearts of others, the language addrefled to 
 the Galatians, would be proper to any body of baptized 
 profefibrs who adled in character as Chriilians. 
 
 It orily remains here to obierve a few words upon the 
 text itfelf. And if ye he ChrifFs, then are ye Abraham's 
 feedy end heirs accordi?ig to the promifi. 
 
 We have already feen that the promlfe here men- 
 tioned did not refer to the covenant of circumcilion, 
 but to a previous promife made to Abraham, and con- 
 firmed of God in Chrift. We have alio feen that be- 
 lievers only, or fuch as are of faith ^ are considered aa 
 partaking in the bkflings of that promife. But if there 
 Ti'ere nothing in the context to determine us with ra- 
 
 * a Cor. vi. M, ij. 
 
C 120 3 
 
 ^ard to the fubje£b, one would fuppofe that the text it- 
 felf fpeaks a language irreconcileable to the docSlrlne of 
 infant baptifm.* If ye he ChriJTs ; this determines our 
 title to the bleifing. This determined the title of our 
 anceftors, and this will determine the title of our chil- 
 dren. But the author of the difcourfes has advocated 
 a fentiment exceedingly different from this : it implies 
 the following ; If ye parents, one or both of you, be 
 Chriji^s^ then are ycy and all your children, Ahmham^sfeed^ 
 and heirs according to the prcmfe. But it v/ill be alked. 
 In what fenfe can unconverted Gentiles be considered 
 as the children of Abraham ? What promife has God 
 ever made to Abraham of fpiritual bleffmgs, that un- 
 converted Gentiles may claim, by right of heirlhip ? 
 The anfwer muft be, None at all. 
 
 Indeed it is believed that Mr. Worcefter himfelf 
 has fully conceded this very point, notwithftanding all 
 his laboured arguments to prove that the baptized 
 children of Gentile believers are Abraham's feed. 
 Kis words are, " To become entitled then to the blef- 
 iings of the covenant, Abraham muft walk before God, 
 and be perfedl j muft have true faith, and be fin- 
 cerely obedient. This was necelTary as it refpecTted him- 
 felf perfonally, and equally neceffary as it rcfpeEled his chil- 
 drenT (page 36.) If " tiue faith" was necefiary to en- 
 title Abraham and his children to the bleiiings of the 
 covenant, is not the fame neceffary for us and our chil- 
 dren ? This perfectly agrees with the language of the 
 apoflle in the text, as we underftand him. Jf y^^ hi 
 Chrijl's^ that is;» have " true faith" in him, then are ye 
 Abrahanis feed, i3fc. No Baptift, we believe, ever dif- 
 puted but that all fuch^ whether young or old, as have 
 true faith in Chrift, are Abraham's fpiritual feed, and 
 heirs according to the promife, that all nations fhould be 
 bleffed in his seed. It appears to us, that many of our 
 
 *■ I'hls text ftands fo fcntimentally ojipofcd to Infant baptifra, that it 
 k»s been ?. little furprifing that Mr. Worecfter Ihould choofe it as the 
 foundation of his difcourfes. He muft, vre conceive, have thought it 
 more friendly to his fubje<S: than it appears to us : for we are unwiiliu j 
 to fuppofe he chofe it upon the prir.cipic which Secretes is faid to have 
 chofun one of his wives, the noted Xantipfiey (one of the frowardeft 
 women ia the world) i, e. tojhcxu hUJkill in mattmging her* 
 
C J«i 3 
 
 ^Pacdobaptifl: brethren mliTiake the fubjeft on this ground, 
 That the promires which were made to Abraham, ^ 
 which refpe6ted h\% fpiritual fc&d ojily^ they apply indil- 
 criminately to the natural feed of Gentile believers. 
 
 In the ninth of Romans it is faid, Tkey are not all If-^ 
 rael whi are of Ifrael ; neither^ hecaufe they are the feed of 
 Ahrahamy are they all children* They %vho are the children 
 ffthejlejjj, thefe Are not tht children of God : hut thi chil'- 
 dren of the pro mi fe are counted for the fted.* Are not the 
 children of Gentile believers, children of the fief j^ as 
 really as others ? If fo, the apoftle has decided the 
 point, that they are not the children of God, nor the 
 feed of Abraham : for the children of the prcviife are 
 counted for the feed. By thefe we think no perfon can 
 doubt, but the apoftle meant fpiritual pcribns, as dif- 
 tingailhed from the children of the fleih. This perfeft- 
 ly correfponds with the general tenor of the fcrip- 
 tures. This will alfo affill us in detenBining who «re 
 intended by Abraham's feed in the text. 
 
 On the whole, we cannot perceive that a lingle blef- 
 fing is promifed to any unbeliever, throughout the 
 whole chapter on which the difcourfes are founded. 
 We therefore conclude, that the author, in applying; 
 them to believing parents, and their unbelieving oft- 
 fpring -, and by endeavouring to prove, that they are 
 all Abraham^ s fed^ and heirs acc$rding to the proruife, has 
 applied them in a fenfe, which neither the fcripture* 
 in general, nor the apollle's reafoning throughout the 
 context, will juftify. The reader will judge, whether the 
 preceding reafoning will fiipport this conclulion or not. 
 
 It will be remembered, that we propofed in the be- 
 ginning of thefe ftri<ftures to attempt the proof of two 
 points : 
 
 1. That Mr. Worceiler had miftaken the promife 
 in his text, and reafoned from one totally dififerent from 
 the one which the apoftle reafoned from. 
 
 2. We propofed to (liow, that his application of 
 the^romife to believers and unbelievers, or to believ- 
 ing parents and unbelieving children, was unfcriptural, 
 and contrary to the apoftle's reafoning. 
 
 • Rom. ix. 6- 8. 
 L 
 
[ 122 ] 
 
 On the firft, we have fliown, that the promhe quoted 
 by the apoftle was diftinifl, in its nature and dtftgfi, 
 from the one on which, the difcourfes are founded j 
 and that the time at which it is ftated to have been 
 given, will not agree with the covenant of circum- 
 ciflon. 
 
 On the fecond, we have flioWn, that by the apoftle's 
 reafoning in the context, and other fcripturcs, the 
 bleffing of Abraham is annexed only to faith : That it 
 comes on Gentile believers individually, and not other- 
 wife : That parents, by faith in Jefus Chrift, may en- 
 joy the bleffing of Abraham, while their unbelieving 
 children lie under all the miferies of the curfe : That 
 the bleffing of Abraham comes on believing children, 
 through Jefus Chrijly and not through their parents : 
 That they are not faved by their parents' faith, but by 
 their own. 
 
 If the two preceding points have been dcmonftrated, 
 it is all that we undertook. We do not pretend to 
 have confidered all Mr. Worcefter's arguments, nor to 
 have expofed all his errors. Our limits forbid that we 
 fliould enlarge on this part of the fubje<fi:. We have 
 confclentiouily endeavoured not to mifreprefent his fen- 
 timents *, if it floald be found, in any inftance, to be 
 the cafe, it will be' Uncerely regretted when pointed 
 out. 
 
 Ivlay the Spirit of the living God, that Spirit which 
 was promifed by Jefus to his difciples, difcover to each 
 of us his errors, by leading us into the truth. And mar 
 we be always ready to receive the truth, whenever it is 
 prefented to our minds, although it may crofs our 
 preconceived opinions. If we love the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, we are fulemnly bound to keep his command- 
 ments. In order to thi&, we muft be willing to know 
 what they are, and how they are to be obferved. And 
 k'l us fee to It, that we do not make void his command- 
 ments through our tradition. 
 
 To the tribunal of public opinion, the preceding re- 
 marks are cheerfully fubmitted. And were it not for 
 fome charges particularly brought againft our denom- 
 ination in the difcourfes before as, vt^e ihould here take 
 
L 1^5 J 
 
 »ar leaTC of them j but, under prcfent cIrcumftiiHces, 
 we fiiould be wanting to ourfelves, not to attempt * 
 vindication. We mult therefore alk the reader's pa- 
 tience a httle longer, hoping that he will candidlj^ at- 
 tend to what we have to fay to the things laid to our 
 charge, and then judge whether tliey ought to be placed 
 to our account or not. 
 
 SECTION TI. 
 
 The Bapiijls vindicated from the Charges brought ng-r.njl 
 them by the Rev, Samuel Worcejler, 
 
 J O reprove a Chriftian brother, and to do it 
 in the temper of the gofpel ; and efpeciallj, >rhen v.'e 
 feel ourfelves injured by the faults v/hich call for re- 
 proof, is by no means one of the leaft difficult duties o^ 
 our holy religion. 
 
 If the things of which we are ibout to complain had 
 emanated from avowed enmity, or had been vocifer- 
 ated only by the tongue of flander, they had never 
 excited any other emotions in our minds, than pity and 
 filent contempt : but when they are uDiered upon the 
 public, as undeniable fa(Sts, and fanc\ioned too by ?11 
 the gravity of the pulpit, tliey aftume a very fericu'-.'and 
 dangerous afpeiSl:, and im.perioufly call us to fcif- defence. 
 
 Onr limits will not allow us to animadvert on all that 
 ]Mr. Worceiler has faid againft us ; and even the few 
 articles which we do touch upon, we are obliged to ban- 
 die ^vith great brevity. 
 
 Without particularly noticing feveral preceding re- 
 marks, in which he probably aimed his Ihafts at the 
 Baptifts ; yet, as he neither nam.ed, nor hit any one, 
 we Ihall proceed to what is direclly applied to us/ 
 
 1. In a note, page 23, we are charged with imbilv 
 ing the error of the ©Id « legal Jews," by uv.fcripturalh 
 bletiditig the covenant of circumciiion made with Abra- 
 ham, and what, is called the Sinai covenant, together. 
 
I J2* 3 
 
 This charge comes rather with an ill grace, from a 
 Kian, who has, throughout the difcourfes before us, con- 
 itniitly blended the promifes of the covenant of circum- 
 ciiion, with the promife of the Meffiah, made to Abra- 
 ham, years before that covenant exifted. From this 
 ** unfcriptural blending" of thefc two covenants, which 
 in their nature are every way diftindl, it is thought, he 
 has given the chief plaulibility to his arguments, which 
 they poiiefs. Had he confined himfelf to the covenant 
 of circiimciiion, he could not v/ith propriety have infer- 
 red thole great blelTi ngs^ wlvlch come on the Gentiles, 
 through Jelus Chrill, under the gofpel difpenfation. 
 
 JBut if Mr. Worcefter has done wrong, in blending 
 tw^ covenants which are really diftinct, it will by no 
 means exculpate the Baptlfts, if they have been guilty of 
 the fame. How far this charge can be fiipported wc 
 know not. Had it been accompanied by the words of 
 the writers referred to, we could more readily have 
 judged of its accuracy. This would alfo have given 
 the perfons implicated, if living, an opportunity to 
 have vindicated themfelves. But it now refts upon the 
 denomination at large. 
 
 In reply, we can only fay, we know of no writer on 
 our fide of the controverfy, who has blended the coy- 
 eriants referred to, any fartlier than the fcriptures have 
 blended them. What Mr. Worcefter and other Paedo- 
 baptiit writers call the Shiai covenant^ wants defining. 
 They fomctimes fpcak of it in fuch a way as would 
 naturally lead us to I'uppofe, they meant the ten com- 
 mandments, or moral law. But furely thefe comm.ands 
 are not abolifhed ? The moral precepts of that law 
 riven from Sinai can never be abrogated. If by the 
 Sinai covenant, they mean what the apoftle calls, l^he 
 law of csimmandmenU contained in ordinances •,* we afk. 
 Was not circumcifion blended with thefe ordinances } 
 Yea, was not this the principal article which occalion- 
 ed the " enmity" betv/een Jews and Gentiles, which 
 Chrift by the Gofpel difpenfation and by his death 
 abohflied ? That circumciiion was blended with the 
 ritual of Mofes, is clear from the words of Chrift t« 
 
 ♦ Ti^h. n. 5,5.- 
 
[ 125 ] 
 
 the Jews. Mops therefore^ faicl lie, give tiKtyyou ciKcutn- 
 cijton (not bccauie it is of Mofes, but of the fathers) 
 gnd ye on the fahhnth-day circumclfe a man. If a men on 
 the fahhath-day receive circumc'Jtony that ike law cf 
 Moses should not be broken-, are ye atigry^ &c. 
 " The unfcripturnl blending of thefe two covenants 
 together, fays Mr. Worcefter, has been a moft prolific 
 fource of error. From this fource fprang the error of 
 the legal Jews, in former ages ; and from the fame 
 fource has fprung the error of the Antipxdobaptlfts, 
 in modern times." He further adds ; « It was v;itk 
 his eye upon this fource of error, that our Lord, whea 
 in difcourfe with the Jews, he took occafion to men- 
 tion circumcifion, the original feal of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, was particular to remind them, that // ivav 
 mt OF Moses, but of the fathers." How Mr. 
 Worcefter came by his information, that Chriil Iiad 
 his "eye upon this fource of error," we know not. 
 We can fee nothing in the context to juliify fuch an 
 opinion. Chrift, in vindicating himfclf for having heal- 
 ed a man upon the fabbath-day, adverts to their con- 
 duct in circumciilng the child which might happen to be 
 eight days old on the fabbath. This was certainly ac- 
 cording to the law of Mofes,* and it was certainly ac- 
 cording to the law given to the fathers. f How then 
 does it appear that they were in an error about circum- 
 ciilng the child on the fabbath .'' It does not appear at 
 all. Their error did not lie in this, but in condemn- 
 ing the Saviour for doing a deed which no more mil- 
 itated with the law of the fabbath, than circumciilng 
 the child.. 
 
 But if thefe covenants v/ere fo diftin<ft, how cams 
 Mr. Worcefter himfelf to blend them } He confiders 
 tlie Sinai tranfadlion a renewal of the former covenant. 
 His words are, " At Mount Sinai, the Lord appeared 
 in terrible and glorious majefty, and, recognizing the 
 ranfomed tribes as the feed of Abraham, renewed with 
 ihem his covenant ; and gave them a code of ftatutes and 
 ordinances, called alfo a corenant, which were to con- 
 linue until the Mefiiah fhould come," &:c. What Mr. 
 
 * Lev. xii. 3. f Gen. xvii 3«. 
 
 3L2 
 
[ 126 ] 
 
 Worcefter here calls a renewal of the covenant, if he 
 refers to Exodus xix. 5 — 8. we think moft likely to be 
 the covenant which the prophet Jeremiah had in view, 
 which he faid GjJ made ivith their fathers in the day 
 that he took them by the hand, to bring them out of 
 the land of Egypt, nvhich my covenant they brake ^ allhough 
 I was an hujhand unto the niy faith the Lord. The Jews 
 were very tenacious of the law or ritual of Mofes. They 
 adhered to this long after they had loft the fpirit of 
 obedience. But whether it were this, or the law of 
 douimandmenls contained in ordifiances^ circumcifion was 
 connected with both. And if circumcifion was not con- 
 tained in the hand writing of ordinances^ which Chrift 
 blotted out^ and nailed to his crcfs, we think it may be 
 difficult to prove, that it has ever been aboliilied. We 
 do not fuppofe from this, that any abfolute promiie 
 which God ever made to Abraham, or any otlier per- 
 fon, has ever been aboliihed. Conditional promifes, 
 ■fuch as LIr. Worcefter tells us thofe were which ref- 
 pecled the falvation of Abraham's feed, and the feed, 
 of other believers, can be obligatory upon the proniifery 
 only by the conditions being fulfilled. And as he has 
 ftated thefe conditions, it does not appear that either- 
 Abraham or Ifaac, or any of their poflerity ever fulfilled 
 them. If they failed, v^e fericufiy doubt whether any 
 ether believer has ever complied with them fully : at 
 leaft, it wants proof. 
 
 In all denominations, fome men difer in opinion from 
 others, and fome have errors which it would be ungen- 
 erous to charge upon the whole : but v/e think we are 
 authorized to fay, that the Baptifts believe, that every 
 promife which God made to Abraham refpetSting his 
 natural feed has been, or will be fulfilled, in cafe the 
 conditions on their part are fulfilled j but that the 
 promifes fecured to Abraham by covenant refpedling 
 the Mefliah, and the blefling of the nations in him, ?v- 
 tjjain unahered. Thefe promifes, which include all Abra- 
 ham's fpiritual feed, are abfolute. They are in Chriil 
 Jefus ♦, and in him they are yea and amen. "VYe conceive, 
 that it no more depended on Abraham's faith whether 
 tibe Mefliah fliould fpringfrom him, or whether the na* 
 
C 127 ] 
 
 tions lliould be bleiTed in the promifed feed, th^t is, in 
 Chrirt, by believing the gofpel, than it did, whether 
 Chrift (lioLild rife from the dead on the third day. 
 
 But has not the author before us drawn a Httie from 
 this " proline fource," and blended two other covenants 
 which are Rianifeftly diftin(St ? We mean the covenant 
 of circumcllion, and the new covenant mentioned in the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah.* Speaking of the latter, he 
 fays, '* This is called, indeed, a new covenant, and on 
 this account has fometimes, for vrant of proper attention 
 to the fubjeft, been fuppofed to be different from any 
 covenant before eilablilhed with the clmrch. It is 
 called a nrw covejiant, becaufe oi its revival and renewal 
 after it had been for along time greatly obfcured," t<c, 
 (page 18.) But after all his ingenious labour to prove 
 his point, he iias failed •, and in the-verynext page, with 
 much fceming reluiStance, conceded to an important 
 ditftronce. Speaking of the new covenant, he fays, 
 " In the InA inftance, indeed, there is an intlt:tation of a 
 renewal of hearty in thofe with whom the covenant is 
 eilablifhcd." " An intimation^'' Sir ; is this all ? Is 
 there not a policive, folemn engagement ? This is an 
 article, which muil forever diftinguifli tiiis new cove- 
 nant. " An intimation of a renewal of heart 1" We 
 could not have believed, had v/e not {^^tw it from his 
 own pen, that the " Paftor of the Tabernacle Church 
 in Salem," could ever have fpoken with fuch cold indif- 
 ference Q^i the v;ork of the Holy Ghoft in renewing 
 the heart. 
 
 That we have properly " attended to the fubjefl,** 
 we prefjft-ie not to fay ; but this v/e are free to declare, 
 that it appears to us, that God himfelf has difcinguiflied 
 this covenant not only from the one contrafted with it, 
 but from all others v.'iiich preceded it. Mark the lan- 
 guage 1 — The days come, faith the Lonlythat I iiili make a 
 K£w COVENANT ; not revive an old one. / ivill put my laitj 
 in their in-ward parts i and lurite it in their hearts. Thii 
 is not the tenor of any former covenant. Is there any 
 fuch engagement in that of which circumciiiou was the 
 
 ♦ Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, 
 
[ U» 1 
 
 feal ? The iijm of that covenant was outward^ in the 
 flefh. Thoufands had this fign, which in thefe dif- 
 courfes is called thefea/ cf the r'lghteoitfnefs of faith ^ who 
 never, as we have aay reafon to believe, had any true 
 faith. In this new covenant, all knoix) the Lord, from 
 the lead to the gvesteji, A vaft proportion of thofe who 
 were interefted in the covenant of circumcihon, and 
 had that feal put upon them, we muft conclude, if we 
 believe the fcriptures, never knew the Lord. To fay 
 the leaft, this covenant is quite as diftin^t from the 
 Abrahamic covenant, as that was from the covenant 
 which God made with the Ifraelites, when he took 
 them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. 
 
 2. Another charge, though not the next in order, 
 which Mr. Worcefter has exhibited againft the " Ana- 
 baptifts," as he very faftidioufly cr/lis us, is fo clofely 
 conne£^ed with this, that we proceed next to coniider it. 
 
 " Tbey deny, faith he, God's everlafting covenant of 
 fuperabounding grace, the grand charter of the inher- 
 itance and privileges of his people, the fource of blef- 
 ilngs to all the kindreds of the earth." (page 78.) 
 
 If there were any law in force to burn heretics, I 
 know not, my brethren, how we fhould feel to have 
 fuch a charge as^ this fulminated againft us ; but as 
 things now are, I am mclined to think, we fhall be able 
 to meet it with a good degree of cahnnefs. 
 
 But on what is this dreadful charge founded ? The 
 writer has not condefcended to inform us ; he has made 
 the afiertion, and gone on his way. He has 'left us to 
 gather his meaning from the general tenor of the dif- 
 courfes before us. From thefe we are led to fuppofe 
 he muft refer to our not allowing, that the covenant 
 made with Abraham, which obliged him to circumcife 
 all the males born in his houfe and bought with money, 
 obliges Gentile believers to baptize their infants, both 
 male and female. This we do not believe : we cannot 
 believe it. But is this full proof, that we " deny God's 
 everlafting covenant of fuperabounding grace ?" We 
 can by no means admit it. Our confciences bear us wit- 
 nefs, that we do not knowingly deny any covenant 
 which God has revealed in his word 5 nor do we feci 
 
I 1«9 ] 
 
 any other convicftion in our minds from this terrible 
 charge, than of the miftaken zeal of its author. No, we 
 have ever acknowledged " God's everlafting covenant" 
 wiiich contained the promife of the Meffiah, the only 
 « fource of blcilings to all the kindreds of the earth." 
 We mult therefore view with the deepeft regret, a de- 
 claration {o evidently unfounded ; si declaration pecul- 
 iarly calculated to inflame the pailions, and inereafc the 
 unhappy prejudices of thofe wdio differ from us. 
 
 Nor is it true, that we deny what is called the 
 <« Abrahamic," or covenant of circumcifion. We think 
 we acknowledge it in its full extent, as ftated by the 
 infpired writers, as really as our brethren do. It is true, 
 we do not acknowledge all the inferences they draw 
 from it. But is this denying the covenant itfelf ? Might 
 - we not with as much propriety charge them with a 
 " denial" of the ordinance of baptifm, becaufe they do 
 not comply with our views of it, as for them to churge 
 us with tienying God's covenant, becaufe we under- 
 ftand it differently from themfelvcs .'' 
 
 Some of our reafons for difbelieving that Gentile 
 Chriftians are under the covenant of circumciiion, a* 
 the feed of Abraham were, are founded on the refult 
 of the firft Chriftian council, ftated in the ivth of Acts, 
 as may be feen in what follows. 
 
 When certain men were come from Judea to Artti- 
 och, they taught the brethren, who were Gentile 
 believers, that except they were circumdfed after the man- 
 ner cf AlcfeS) they could not be faved. Paul and Barna- 
 bas withftood them, but could not convince them. It was 
 finally concluded to fend a deputation to the apoftles and 
 elders at Jerufalem. And after much confultation this 
 was the refult : For it feemed good to the Holy Ghost, 
 and to us, to lay on you no greater burden th^n thefe nectjfary 
 things i th.ii ye ahjlain from meats offered to idols, and 
 from blood, and from things flrangled, and frzm fornica^ 
 tion^ from lohich if ye keep yourfelves, yejhall do wclL 
 Fare ye luell. 
 
 By the refult of this council, we fee circumcifion 
 totally given up, as it refpefted the Gentiles, and r.» 
 
C 1»G ] 
 
 fubftitute named in its room. Had there been but 
 a few- Paedobaptifts in that council, it is thought they 
 would have iettled the bufmefs at once. How eafily 
 they might have ftopped the mouths of thofe fticklers 
 for circumcifion ! It would have been only to have 
 ufed the modern argument, that baptifm is placed in 
 the room of circumcifion. That as they ufed to circum- 
 cife their children, (that is, the males) they had need 
 only to baptize them. It is perfe<fl:ly unaccountable 
 that Paul and Barnabas, while contending at Antioch 
 againft circumcifion, Ihould never once think of this ar- 
 gument. Paul was certainly a very accute reafoner. 
 In general we find him to haTe fully comprehended his 
 fubjeft, and alfo to have availed himfelf of the befl to- 
 pics of argument. He feems in this infl:ance to have 
 neglected the only rational ground of defence. But is 
 it not pafling flrange, that not one m the council, which 
 was compofed of nearly all the apoflles and elders of 
 the Chriftian church, fhould ever once have mentioned 
 the only argument which would have fatisfied or con*- 
 founded their opponents ? Tou cannot now talk with 
 t Paedobaptifl five minutes on the fubje^l, but he will 
 tell you, « baptifm came in the room of circumcifion." 
 There never was a cafe which more urgently called for 
 this argument, nor when it might have been ufed with 
 greater profpe^St of complete fuccefs. How can we ac- 
 count for its omiffion ? In one way, we conceive, and 
 in one only : it had then probably ho exiflence. 
 
 Had this argument been brought forward in that 
 council, it mufl have produced the happiefl efFe(Sts. It 
 would have cut like a two-edged fword ; for it would 
 not only have fiiilled thofe Judaizing Chriftians, who 
 were clamouring about circumcifion, but would alfo 
 have filenced every objection v/hich any Antipisdobap- 
 till: could have raifed. 
 
 We wifli here to afk one queflion, and leave it with 
 our Psedobaptifl friends to anfwer ; and we hope they 
 will anfwer it confcientioufly, in the fear of God. 
 Should a number of thedefcendants of Abraham, at the 
 prefent day, embrace the gofpel, and embody into a 
 oJiurch ftate, after which a number of Gentile believers 
 
C 151 3 
 
 ikould propofe to unite with them ; but in order to this 
 union, they fliould infift upon their being circumcifed 
 after the manner cf Mofes : £hould both parties agree to 
 refer their difficulties to a council, to be compofed 
 wholly of Paedobaptifts, — we wifh to aik, whether they 
 do not think that their principal argument with thefe 
 believing Jews would be, <* that circumcilion had been 
 fuperfeded by baptifm ?" Or, in other words, <'That 
 they were now tobaptize their infants, inilcad of circum- 
 ciiing them f" We wifli not to anticipate their anfwer 
 any farther than juft to fay, that fhould they not avail 
 themfelves of this argument, they would reafon very 
 xlifferently with them, from what they do with us. 
 Anfwer it as they may, they muft, we think, either 
 differ from themfelves, or from the council at Jerufa- 
 lem. 
 
 We beg the reader's indulgence here, while we di- 
 ^^refi a few moments from our fiibje<Sl:, to anfwer an ob- 
 jeiftion which has often been brought by Ptedobaptifts, 
 againll: giving up circumcifion without a fubftitute. 
 They have ccnftantly argued, that the Jews were fo 
 tenacious of this privilege for their children, that they 
 would never have peaceably refigned it, without fome- 
 thing in its room ; and yet it has often been faid,that 
 there was never any difpate about it. INIr. Edward?, 
 reafoning upon this ve/y point, has the following re- 
 marks : *' If," faith he, "we take into confideration the 
 character of thofe perfons, among whom this cuOom 
 had prevailed, and among whom it is fuppofed to have 
 ceafed, we (l^all have fuiiicient reafon to think it impof- 
 fible, that a cuftom of this nature fiiculd be abrogated, 
 and they not oppofi aftngle word.**"* Will not the reader 
 afk. Had Mr. Edwards never read the xvfh chapter of 
 A(Sts ? Had he never obferved that the very firil: dif- 
 ficulty in the Chriftian church which required the in- 
 tervention of a council, was occalioned by a contention 
 raifed about circumciiion by certain JewiiJ^j believers ? 
 We fee nothing in the fcriptures to juflify the opioion, 
 that the Jews were tenacious of this privilege, any 
 ©therwife, than as they cotiiidered it an ordinance of 
 
 * Caad. RaiT. p. 6«. 
 
God, which they were bound to obferTC on pain of 
 the divine difpleafure. It appears to us, that Paedobap^ 
 tifts rate the privilege much higher than ever the Jews 
 did. Peter certainly confidered it as a yoke, and a 
 grievous one too ; which neither t^^ir fathers nor 
 tkey were able to bear. 
 
 It leems to be generally concluded by Piedobaptifts, 
 that the only reafon why the believing Jews made no 
 difficulty about the abrogation of circumcilion, was, 
 'that infant baptifm was fubftituted in its room. But 
 if other Jewifh believers viewed it as Peter did, as a 
 yoke, is it not probable, when they were brought into 
 the pure liberty of the gofpei, they would be willing to 
 difpenfe with fuch a yoke of bondage ? 
 
 We wiili the reader ferioufly to confider the two fol" 
 lowing obfervations : 
 
 1. That the apoftles had continually to contend 
 with Judaizing Chriftians, on the fubjedt of circum- 
 cifion, although Mr. Edwards and others will not allow 
 that they " oppofed a (ingle word." 
 
 2. That in all the inftances in which the apoftles 
 had to oppofe the advocates for circumcifion, they nevet* 
 t)nce made ufe of this argument, that the baptifm of in- 
 fants was fubftituted in its room. 
 
 Both of thefe remarks will be confirmed by a careful 
 examination of the following fcriptures : Except ye be 
 €ircumcifedi and keep the law of Mofes ye cannot befaved,* 
 Thou fee/}, brother , htw many thoiifaiid of the Jews there are 
 *which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law : and 
 they are irformed of thee, thcrt thou teachejl all the Je'ws 
 which are ahnong the Gentiles y toforfake Mojcs, faying, that 
 THEY OUGHT NOT TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHJLDREN:f 
 
 See alfo the apoftle's exhortation to the Galatians : 
 Stand fajly therefore, in the liberty wherewith Chrift hath 
 made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of 
 bondage. Behold, I Paul fay unto you, that IF YE BE CIR- 
 CUMCISED Christ shall profit ycu nothing4 To 
 the Philippians he faith, Beware of dogs, beware of evil 
 workers, beware of the concifion, ^f.§ And to Titus, 
 
 • Afti XY. f, J. f A^s xxl. io, 21. } Gal. V. 1, X. 
 
 % PlxiL iii. 2. 
 
C 13S ] 
 
 Thcfi are many unrtiU nnd vain talkers and deceiver!^ ES- 
 PECIALLY THEY OF THE CIRCUMCISION ; ichofe niouths 
 muj} he flopped; ivho fubv:rt luhle hcuftSj teaching ihingi 
 %uhich they ought 7iot^ for filthy lucre^sfake* 
 
 Can any man feriouily confider thcfe pafTages, with 
 many oihers of the lame import, and then conclude, 
 th.it the Jews made no difficulty ahout giving up clr- 
 cumcilion ? that they did not "oppofc a fingle word ?'* 
 We fhould think, that we were only beating the air to 
 reafon with fuch a man. 
 
 If our reafonings on this head (hould produce no 
 other effect, will they not exonerate us from the un- 
 chriitian charge, that we " deny God's everlafting cov- 
 enant ?" Feeling ourfelves acquit, v/e leave the author 
 to anfwer it to his God, and to his confcicnce. 
 
 3. " They deny (faith he) the church of God, 
 which was formed in the family of Abra]iam,"'^c.f 
 
 How has Mr. Worcefter proved this ^. How ! by 
 his own aiT rtion, as he has the moil: of his otlier 
 charges. We are obliged to fmd out his meaning, if we 
 can, from the general drift of his difcourfes. As this 
 charge immediately follows the one we have juft been 
 confidering, it is probably drawn from the fame prem- 
 ifes. And in anfwer to it we need only fay, we are not 
 confcious of denying any thing refpecting the " church 
 formed in Abraham's family," which the fcriptures 
 eftabl'ih, or w'hich reafon requires us to believe. We 
 know of nothing on whicli the charge can be founded, 
 but what has bec.'n obviated under the preceding article, 
 unlefs it hz this ; that we do not believe the gofpel 
 church to be a mere continuation of the old Jewi/h, iDut: 
 a fpiritual houfe built up of lively ftont*;. We conceive 
 the charge, therefore, as unfounded as it v/ouid be to 
 charge us with denying that Great Britain, with which 
 we were once connected, was a lawful government, be- 
 caufe we are not now under it, but enjoy different and 
 greater privileges, under a different coni^it^tion. 
 
 Without " difplaying any thing like a fpirit of perfe- 
 cution, or even of uncharitablenefs," (fee pagg 78>) 
 Mr. Worcefter proceeds to fay, 
 
 * Tit. 1. 10, n. i ibli. 
 
 M 
 
t iS4 3 
 
 4. <<The grand provifion, which, in his infinite 
 wifdom and grace, Jehovah has been pleafed to mak^ 
 for the prefervation of a righteous feed upon earth, and 
 for the maintenance and promotion, from age to age, of 
 his caufe and kingdom in this hoftile world, they not only 
 denyy BUT OPENLY contemn." Is it not a profanation 
 of language to talk of " charitablenefs" towards any feci 
 of profefling Chriftians, and at the fame time to charge 
 them not only with denying y but openly contemning the 
 grand provifion which God has gracioufly made, for the 
 promotion of his caufe and kingdom in the world ? 
 This charge, however, appears to us fo totally unfound- 
 ed, and fo far from that fpirit of meeknefs, which the 
 love of Chrift infpires, that we fliall attempt no other 
 vindication, but a folemn appeal to fa6ts, and to the 
 feelings of our fellow-men. Let thofe, who are bed 
 acquainted with our fentiments, with our doftrine, with 
 our daily converfation and pra£tice, teftify, if they think 
 us the open deniers and contemners of the provifion which 
 God has made for the " promotion of his caufe and 
 kingdom in the world." Let the thoufands in Amer* 
 ica, whom God has gracioufly condefcended to convert 
 by our miniftry, teftify, if they have ever {^en any thing 
 in our conduct towards themfelves or others, which 
 could juftify fuch a charge. Let the converted Hin- 
 doos of Hindoftart declare, if they think the men who 
 have left their friends, their country, and almoft every 
 enjoyment held dear by civilized man, to publifti in 
 thofe benighted regions the precious name of a Saviour : 
 let thefe teftify, if they have ietfi any thing in them, 
 which looks unfriendly to the promotion of the caufe 
 •f God in the world. Although we have much reafon 
 to lament the languor of our zeal in this precious caufe, 
 yet our confciences bear us witnefs in the light of God, 
 that we love and pray for its profperity ; and whilft 
 thus unjuftly charged, we think we can rejoice, that our 
 jitdgment is ivith the Lordy and our work ivith cur God, 
 
 5. Thfe author of the difcourfes, ftill continuing his 
 jftrain of accufation, adds — *< They deny and contemn the 
 grace which is fo kindly and fo condefcendingly offered 
 
 * Ifa. xlii. 4. 
 
C iss ] 
 
 for the fpiritual renovation and everlaftlng falvation of 
 the feed of the church." (page 79.) 
 
 An inqulfitive mind, if permitted, would naturally 
 aik two or three queftions upon this article. Do not 
 the fcripture3 consider the church as the brUe, the Lawb*s 
 ^unfe, and the Saviour himfelf as the Bridegroom ? 
 Wh^t feed then has the church, that are not " renovat- 
 ed ?'* Has the church, properly fpealdng, any children 
 but fpiritual ones ? What grace is that fo '* kindly offer- 
 ed," which the Baptifts " deny and contemn ?" And to 
 whom is it offered ? to parents for their children, or to 
 children for themfelves ? We know of no other grace, 
 nor can we conceive of any which the author can have 
 reference to, but the grace of irifant hapt'ifm» We know 
 of nothing which diffinguiflies the children of Paedo- 
 baptifts from the children of other believers, only their 
 baptifm. It will be admitted, that there are unworthy 
 profeiTors in all denominations, from whom it would be 
 irnproper and dinngenuous to form a judgment of the 
 whole. But it is not perceived, that Pxdobaptifls in 
 general difcover any more folicitude for the eternal fal- 
 vation of tlieir children, than what is apparent in other 
 Chriftians. Do they more generally reffrain them from 
 the vanities of the world } Or do they pray more fre- 
 quently, or more fervently for them than others ? They 
 may indeed prefent their fupplication upon a difierent 
 footing from what the Baptifts do. They may plead 
 their covenant relation to God ; that the-^ have Abraham 
 to their father : whereas others have nothing to plead 
 for theirs but the merits of a Saviour, or whiu is call- 
 ed " the uncovenanted mercy of God." An obfervation 
 made by Paul, in his epiftle to the Romans, may caft 
 fome light upon the fubjedl. J^Fhat advantage then^ faid 
 he, hath the' Jew ? Or ivhat profit is there of^circumcifion ? 
 Much every ivay ; chiefiy^ becanfe that unto them ivere com- 
 mitted the oracles of God* If to enjoy the oracles of 
 God was the chief advantage which the circumcifed Jew 
 had above others •,. and " baptifm places children in the 
 fame relation to the church as circumcifion did," it will 
 lie dijScult, we believe, to point out any great advan^ 
 
 •"B-om. iii. 1,2, 
 
I 1S6 ] 
 
 tages, which the children of Paedobaptirts enjoy, whick 
 are not equally enjoyed by others. .., The oracles of God, 
 as far as we know, are as freely and fally enjoyed bv 
 the children of the Baptiiis, as by any others. St. 
 Paulj in another of his epiftles, gives ns his opinion of 
 the real value of all the privileges to be derived from 
 tiie covenant of circurnciQon. Thmgh I might nifj, faith 
 he, htive confidence in the jlepD. If ony other man ihinheth he 
 hath ivhereof he may trujl in theJlc/Jj^ I more, Circum- 
 fifed the eighth dcey, of the flock f Ifracli rf the tribe of Ben- 
 Jjniiniafi Hchreiu of the Hehrtnjcs^ C5*f. But ^vh at things 
 luere gain to me I counted Ifs for Chrifi. Ten douhtlefsy 
 und 1 count nil things but 'ofs,fcr the excellency of the knoivU 
 tdge of Chrijl Jfns my Lord ; for 'whom I have fufftred tht 
 Ifs of all things^ and do count them but dung that I may 
 'ivin ChriJl.-\ We very much doubt, whether any per- 
 ibns who were ever truly hurabled before God, under 
 a fenfe of their guilt and unworthinefs, then felt as 
 if they had any thing to plead but pure mercy. All 
 their felf-exalting fchemes, founded upon their fuppofed 
 covenant relation to God, at once difappeared, and thofe 
 things which before they ha(J reckoned upon as enti- 
 tling them to divin^B favour, they ceunted but dung, that 
 ihey might ivin Chrifl. 
 
 The foilovr'ing, founds very different to us, from the 
 fiiyle of the New-Tellament writers, viz. Conditional 
 prcmift's to parents, by which their children may or may 
 not become " fubje^ts of grace." (p^^ge 38.) « Grace 
 ^o kindly offered to us for our children." (page 77.) 
 And *< grace offered for the fpiritual renovation of the 
 y^W of the church." (p^ge 79.) This language is about 
 as unintelligible to a Baptirt, as that was to Neheraiah, 
 which was I'poken by the children of thofe Jews who 
 had married wives of AQidod, &c.f We hence leave it 
 to thofe who can better underftand it ; and proceed to 
 his next charge. 
 
 6. " The great body of God's vifible profefling peo- 
 ple, even the most enlightened, and the most 
 FAITHFUL, for hundreds of years, they utterly fet afide, 
 
 * rhil. i*i. 4, J, 7, S. t Niheiv.ah iUi. 23, %^. 
 
[ 137 2 
 
 as conftituting no part of the true church of Chrift, but 
 ©nly a part of Antichrift." 
 
 We very much regret, that Mr. Worcefter fhould 
 throw out fuch an unqualified charge, without produ- 
 cing a fcrap of proof to fupport it. Can we fuppofe, that 
 he ferioufly believed this to be the fentiment of the 
 Baptifts in general ? If fo, we (hall ftlU regret, that he 
 has undertaken to reprefent to the world, or rather 
 to mifreprefent the fentiments of a people, which he 
 knows fo little about. 
 
 Could any thing be produced from the writings of 
 an individual, which might feem to bear hard upon the 
 vilibility of the P2edobaptift churches, this alone would 
 not prove it to be the general fentiment of the denom- 
 ination. Do not the printed works of the Baptlft^, 
 from time immemorial, abundantly fliow that they hold 
 no fuch fentiment ? 
 
 The writer of thefe fheets thinks it incumbent on 
 himfelf, in this place to declare, that as far as he has 
 been able to underftand the fentiments of his own de- 
 nomination, both in Europe and America, they never 
 have denied that Pxdobaptifts were vlfible Chriftians ; 
 that a number of them united together, may be con- 
 fidered as a vifible church ;. and that a minifter regu- 
 larly placed over them, may be a vifible minifter of 
 Chrlft. Yet they confider them, Individually and unit- 
 edly, in an error with refpedt to baptifm : that fo far 
 as their vifibillty depends on baptifm, fo far it Is defect- 
 ive. We think we can fay, in the fincerity of our 
 hearts, that we unfelgnedlylove our Pxdobaptill: breth- 
 ren, who appear to walk in the fpirit of the gofpel ; 
 and are determined to treat them as Chriftians ; but 
 as Chriftians whom we view in an error, as exprefled 
 above, notwithftanding the hard things they are faying 
 of us. If Mr. Worcefter can make out, that our deny- 
 ing the validity of their baptifm, is denying that they 
 make any " part of the true church, but only a part of 
 Antlchrift," then his aftertion may be true, and not 
 otherwife. The fuppofition, however, is too abfurd to 
 be admitted ; for It would bring us to this concluflon, 
 that baptifm conftltuted the true church of Chrift : 
 m2 
 
[ 1S8 ] 
 
 then Gonfequently nothing more woald be necefTiry 
 to make men true Chriiiians, but to be rightly baptized.- 
 
 f). The author of the difcourf^s has charged the 
 jinabaptifts'^ with *' placing fuch Itrefs upon baptifm in 
 their mode, as to make it the Iribject on which to dif- 
 play their greatefi. z^cal; thus making people beUeve, in too 
 many initances, that going into the water will anfwer 
 all the purpofes of their prefent comfort and of their • 
 eternal falvation." (Note, page 73.) 
 
 Can Mr. Worcelter lay his liand upon his heart, and 
 folemnly declare,- that he believes the above charge to 
 be true ? If he believes it, he believes it becaufe he has 
 evidence of its truth ; for he is certainly a rational 
 man, and no rational man will believe without evidence. 
 If he has evidence, he certainly can exhibit it to the 
 public. . And that we may be either proved guilty, or 
 elfe honourably acquitted, we call upon him as a gentle- 
 man, as a man of honour, as a ChriRian, as a Chrillian 
 minifter, to bring forward the proof, that we " difplay 
 our greateft zeal in making people believe, that going 
 into the water will anfwer all the purpofes of their pref- 
 ent comfort ahd of their future falvation.". 
 
 If it could be fairly proved, tUat any minifter v/ho 
 bears the name of a Baptift, had fo far departed from 
 our known and avowed fentiments, a^- to teach in the 
 manner ftated in the charge, he would, on being con- 
 victed, be immediately rejected from our connexion. 
 It is notorious, to all who have the lead knowledge of 
 our fentiments, that we baptize , only upon z profijjloti of 
 faith. That is, iuch perfons only as in a judgment of 
 charity are thought to be experimental Chriftians. 
 
 * The term Anabaptlft, has by common confent been' permitted to re- 
 pofe for about half a century. During this period, our opponents huve 
 jrenprally. been content to call us Baptifts . but Mr. Worceftcr thinks it 
 itot fulficientiy defcriptive ; for he fays, '■ We arc all BaptKb," and hence 
 concludes, as we rc-baptize (as he calls it) fuch as they have fprinkled in 
 infancy, Anabaptlft is the moft: proper term of diftinilion (See his note, 
 p.ige 66 ) A gentleman in Counecfticuc, who has lately publilhed a large 
 pamphlet on the fubjedl of baptifm, &c. feems not content witji any 
 names they have hitherto given us. He chpofes to diftinguifh us by 
 the term Dipping Baptifts, and Duck-dipping Baptifts, and i know not 
 iiow many more names. After all, it will be remembered, that hard, 
 iiiittivs, and haru aRgunnents, are very (iiifereat things. 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
[ 159 1 
 
 Sh6ulcl any defire to be baptized upon the principle 
 laid down in the charge, it would in our opinion prove 
 them totally unqualified for the ordinance. The pub- 
 lic have the charge before them, but candour requires 
 that they Ihould fufpend their opinion until proof is 
 exhibited to fubftamiate it. Mere vague report, or even 
 lome folitary inftances of real imprudence, if fucli could 
 be found, would not be deemed fuflicient to fix a cliarge 
 generally upon the whole denomination. Permit us to 
 iUk, Do we preach more frequently upon baptifm in 
 our mode, than Pjedobaptifts do upon the fame fubject 
 in theirs ? Do we write and publifli more books in 
 defence of our fentiments than they do of theirs ? Faifts 
 fpeak fo plainly to the contrary, that we think no one 
 will alfert it. Do we " place iiich a ftrefs upon bap- 
 tiim in our mode," as to adminifter the ordinance to 
 any who cannot give a fatisfactory and fcriptural reafon 
 of their hope ? We certainly do not. The miniilers 
 of our denomination, perhaps all of them, have frequent 
 applications for baptifm by perfons who are otherwife 
 decent, but not being able to give evidence of a change 
 of heart; they are denied. How then docs it appear 
 that we are guilty of "making people believe, m too 
 many inftances, that going into the water will anfwer 
 all the purpolbs of their prefent comfort and eternal 
 ialvation r" It does not appear at all, at leaft from any 
 thing known to us. On the whole, the charge before 
 us has an afpedl fo perfe^Stly refembling what the fcrip- 
 tures call jlatider^ that if it had come from almoH: any 
 other quarter befldes from the Rev. Mr. Worceftcr, we 
 i;M;uld have been liable to have miilaken it for that 
 deteflable vice. 
 
 7. The next thing which we fhall notice, is a charge 
 againft us of " delufion and fuperftition," on the ac- 
 count of our pretending to folLtv Chriil into the v>'ater. 
 (See note, page 71.) 
 
 Thia charge is indeed in the form of a queftion ; but 
 it is evidently intended to afTert what it feems to in- 
 quire after. It is ftated thus : " Does not the idea, 
 then, of following Chrift into the water, which has 
 unhappily fo povrerful an effe<5t upon many minds, par- 
 take very tnuch of the nature oidilufion .xniXfupetjTaii^nP" 
 
[ 140 3 
 
 That tHe reader may better underftand Mr. Wbrcef^ 
 ter's argument, we obferve, that the obje6l of the note 
 from which the above is extra^led, is to explain away 
 the evidence ariling in favour of immerfionj from John's 
 baptifm ; or to prove that John's baptifm was not Chrif- 
 tian baptifm ; therefore, as Chrift was baptized by him,, 
 it was " no example for Chriftians." 
 
 « Chrift's baptifm," faith he, " was defigned regularly 
 to introduce him into his prieftly office, according to 
 the law of Mofes, under which he commenced his min- 
 iftry, and which it behoved him to fulfil." This fam« 
 fentiment was made the theme of a fmall pamphlet, 
 publifhed fome years ago by Meffrs. Fifli and Crane, 
 entitled, " The baptifm of Jefus Chrift not to be imi« 
 tated by Chriftians." We have noticed obfervations 
 to the fame import in the writings of feveral other 
 Psedobaptifts. 
 
 The author before us continues his argument thus :: 
 " There is no evidence that Chrift was buried in the 
 water ; and even if he were, his baptifm was of an im- 
 port very difterent from that of the baptifm which he 
 afterwards inftituted for his followers. Are we to gp 
 into the water, under the idea of following Chrift — into- 
 his prieftly office .'^ Ought we to call this delujton and. 
 fuperjiition, or ought we to c:tll it the height of impiety /*" 
 
 The reader will here obferve, that this argument 
 denies that Chrift's baptifm would be an example for- 
 believers, if it could be proved beyond a doubt that he- 
 were immerfed by Jolin, in Jordan. The reafon affign— 
 ed, is, " his baptifm v/as of a difi'erent import from that 
 which he inftituted for hh follower sJ^ So it feems then, 
 he did not intend his followers {\\ou\d follow him. Was. 
 not every other a£t of Chrift's life, after- he entered on: 
 his public work, as really of a <« difterent import" from 
 the work afligned us, .is his baptifm I If fOi in what 
 then are we to follow him ? 
 
 Our Pxdobaptift brethren argue their mode of fprink- 
 ling from the fprinklings under the law. Thefe, no 
 doubt, were precifely of the fame import of infant bap- 
 tifm : no difiiculty in tracing a complete refemblance* 
 here, though the fprinkling were only of blood and? 
 aflies ! But if we talk o£ following Chrift into the 
 
[ HI ] . 
 
 water, fo as to have our baptlfm refemble his, we are 
 chargeable with the ** height of impiety !" 
 
 We will now conlider the arguments by which this 
 charge is iupported. It is faid that *' Chrift's baptifm 
 was deligned regularly to introduce him into his prieiilv 
 office, according to the law of Mofes." Hence this 
 conclufion is drawn, that for any to pretend to imitate 
 him in his baptifm, mult be a facriiegious intrufion t.pon 
 his prieftly cfiice. 
 
 But the fcntiment ftated above labours under fevcral 
 important difficulties : a few of theni will be briefly 
 noticed. 
 
 1. By the law of Mofes, no Jl ranger who was not of 
 the feed of Aaron, might come near to offer incenfe on 
 pain of death.* Every thing which pertained to the 
 I'ervice of the tabernacle was committed to the Levites, 
 and the Jlraiigcr that lliculd dare to come nigli was to 
 be put to dmlh.\ By the fi:rangor here, we are not to 
 underftand the Gentiles, but any of the other tribes. 
 As the tribe of Levi was felected for all the outward 
 fervice of the tabernacle, fo the priefthood was exclu- 
 lively given to the houfe of Aaron. How then, we 
 afk, could' Jefus Chrift be baptized, to introduce him 
 " regularly into his prieftly office, according to the law 
 of Mofes,'' when by that very law he could not be a 
 prieft? 
 
 2. If Jefus had been of the tribe of Levi, and of the 
 fiimily of Aaron, his baptifm by John in Jordan could 
 not have " regularly introduced him into his prieftly 
 office, according to the law of Mofes ;" for it did not 
 correipond at all with that law, refpecling a regular in- 
 du<£iiGn into the prieft's office. L'he form of induction, 
 as prefcribed by Mofes, is as follows : — Jnd this is tht 
 thing that -thou JJjalt do unto them^ ia hal'ou' theui^ to min-^ 
 ijltr unto me in the priefis^ '{ffi^^- J^'<-'ke one y^ung bullocky 
 and two rums lijithout bleimjh ; and unleavened breads S(.c. 
 And Aaron and his Jons ihjujhalt bring unto the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation^ and Jhuit iajijIj them uith 
 watery &c. After this they were to be adorned with 
 holy garments, the bullock and the rams to be facri* 
 
C 1+3 3 
 
 liced, and Aaron and his fons fprinkled with the blood.. 
 This account may be feen at large in the twenty-ninth 
 chapter of Exodus, which the reader is delired to coin/- 
 pare with the baptifm of Jefus by John in Jordan ; and 
 then let him aik himfelf, whether he can poffibly believe: 
 that the latter was intended " regularly to introduce 
 him into his prieftly office, according to the law of 
 Mofes." Had John attempted to have walhed Jefus at 
 the door of the tabernacle, with a view to indu<n: him 
 into the priefl's office, it Js probable the whole nation 
 would have rifen up againft them : for they were fo 
 zealous of the law of Mofes, that Mr. Edv/ards tells us, 
 " they would wrangle for a rite, q.uarrel for a faft, and 
 almoft fight for a new-moon." 
 
 3. Another infuperable difficulty, which attends Mr.. 
 Worcefter's explanation of the baptifm of Chrift, is, he 
 ivas not made a priejl after the lauu of a carnal command- 
 ment y but after the power of an endlefs Ife.* He not only^ 
 pertained to another trih, of which no num gave attendance 
 at the aliar^ but was a prieft of an order every way dif- 
 tinct from the order of Aaron, or any thing prefcribed 
 by the law of Mofes. By the oath of God, Chrifl w^su. 
 made a prieft after the order of Melchtzedec.\ Let it be. 
 fairly proved, that Melchizedec's order of priefthood 
 required that Jefus fhould be baptized in Jordan, and 
 we will acknowledge the argument to be in point. But 
 even to admit this/would eftablilh another interefting 
 idea, i. e. that Melchizedec was alfo a Baptift ! 
 
 From the preceding remarks it appears that Mr. 
 Worcefler's aflertion, that " the baptifm of Chrift was 
 regularly to introduce him into his prieftly office," is^ 
 not only without fcmidatlon, but we conceive utterly 
 incr.pabie of proof. If the law of Mofes limited the 
 priefthood to the tribe of Levi *, then Jefus, who was 
 of the tribe of Judah, could not by that law be regular- 
 ly introduced i«to the prieft's office. And if by divine 
 appointment the pcrfons legally qualified to be induct- 
 ed into the prieft's office, were to be ivafhed at the 
 door of the Uibernacle — clothed with holy garments — and. 
 fprinkled with bloody then the baptifm of Jefus in Jordan,, 
 
 • Kcb vii. 1 6. t PfiLiicx, 4* 
 
t r*s ] 
 
 is it differed from every thing prefcribed by the law of 
 Mofes, cannot be conlidered as anfwering any require- 
 ment of that law. And if Chrift were a prieft after 
 the order of Melchizedec, then the law of Mofes re- 
 fpecling the Aaronic priefthood, had nothing to do 
 with his induction into his pricAly office.* 
 
 Is it not aftoniihing that inen who have the Bible in 
 their hands, can reafon at fuch ?. rate ; and, with '«an 
 afTurance peculiar to themfelves," aiTert, that " the bap- 
 tifm of Chrift is not to be imitated by Chriftians 5" but 
 was " intended to introduce him into his prieftly of- 
 fice '," therefore to pretend to follow him into the water, 
 muft be " delulion and fuperftition," if not the very 
 " height of impiety ? " 
 
 What eftetSt Mr. Worcefter*s alarming charge of 
 « delufion and fuperftition," may have on fuch of his 
 brethren as ai-e diflatisfied with their infant baptifm, 
 and who have almoft determined to follow Chriit in his 
 holy ordinances, we know not. It is pofllble that it 
 may deter them from their duty a little lon,i;er, but we 
 think in the end, they muft fee, that all his " exhibi- 
 tion of fcripture argument," amounts to nothing more 
 than a bold afTertion. If there be any law of Mofes, that 
 required Jefus to be baptized in Jordan, we fliall thank 
 Mr. Worcefter to point it out to us ; for we cannot 
 find it in our Bibles. If no fuch law ever exifted, we 
 
 • Great as Abraham the patriarch and father of the Jewlfli church 
 Vas, the priefthood of Chri/k is reckoned after the ord^r of one who 
 was faid to be greater than him. (Hsb. vii. 7.) As Melchizedec 
 broti)s.ht forth ireaJ and zvinc to Abraham, when he was returning from 
 the fluughter of the kings and bltfled him ; fo Chrift inftituted 6read 
 and ivine as the fymbols by which his deatk fliould be commemorated 
 \o the end of time. This, and his ol^ering of hi.-v.fcif upon the tree of 
 the crofs, were ads which particularly diftinguiftied the prieftly office 
 of Chrift. . We have no account of his ever offi»:iating as a prieft in the 
 temple. He prefented neither blood n«r incenfe, befides his own. 
 For if be xvere on ecrtb, faid the apoftle, he Jbould not be a p;iejiy feeing 
 that there are fr^efts that cffer g'/ts acccrding fo fte /azv.f T hereforc 
 Chrift, as the great Apoftle and High Prieft of our profcQion, when 
 he had made this one offering for fin, did not enter into the holy place 
 blade with hands, but into heaven Itftlf, by hi» own blood, and notr 
 afpciTS in the prcfcncf of God for us. 
 
 f Heb. Tiii. 4. 
 
C 14-4 ] 
 
 muft conclude the bjptUm of Chrifl had fome other 
 meaning. 
 
 The reader will comnara the obfervations we have 
 made, with thofe parts of the {lacred fcriptures to which 
 they refer ; particularly to Paul's account of the prieft- 
 hood of Jefus Chrili, in his ep'ftle to th« Hebrews. If 
 this examination be made by an honeiT: mind, aided by the 
 enlightening influences of the Spirit of truth, we have 
 no doubt but all his fears of its being mere " delufion 
 and fuperftition," to follow the blelTed Saviour in his 
 baptifmal example, will inftantly vanilh away. He will 
 with grateful and adoring views of the condefceniion of 
 the Son of God, moft cheerfully follow him into his 
 Watery grave, and be buried with him in hapffm^ in the 
 full and hrm hope of rilkig to ivalk 'with him i?i nezvnefs 
 oflife. , _ ^ 
 
 It the author before us intended to fix his charge 
 of delufiOn^ fuperjTition ^ and, i:v.piety only on fach as 
 //7.^/?;/ by following Chriif: into the water, to "follow 
 him in his prieftly ofHce," it will implicate none of the 
 Baptifls : for we prefume none of them ever believed 
 him to be baptized for that purpoie. None but P^edo- 
 baptiils, who cautioufly ihun the awful delujton of " imi- 
 tating Chrift in his baptifm," believe any fuch thing. 
 There muft be a greater difplay of " fcripture argument" 
 than we have ever yet feen, to convince us th.t Chrirt 
 Was immerfed by J •>:-! to fulfil the law of Mofes. 
 
 It is plain to be feen, how much Mr. Worceiler re- 
 grets, that theidea of "following Chrifi: into the wa- 
 ter, which he fays has unhappily fo powerful an effect 
 upon many minds," ihould after all be Itfc in the hands 
 cf the Baptifls, to be ufed as a " fort of popular charm," 
 to get people into the water. That it has a very " pow- 
 erful elFect" upon a heaven-born foul, we have no 
 doubt j but we never before heard that it was an "un- 
 happy " efFecT:> If thofe who have felt its influence are 
 the proper judges, the evidence will certainly be turned 
 againft him. On the whole, we fee nothing which bids 
 fairer to come under the denomination of " delufion," 
 than to be left to believe, thnt Chrifl did not intend his 
 haptifm JJjould be imitated by his folloiuers. The Jews 
 boafted that, they were not Chrift's,but Mofes's difciples \ 
 
C H5 3 
 
 snd fome PxJobaptlfts feem to exult that thev are not 
 fo deluded as to follow hiin into the water, to imitate 
 his baptifmul examj-'le. We envy not their happinefs, 
 but we freely confei?, we afpire after the fcliciry of 
 thofe of whom it will one day be faid, Thefe are they 
 which FOLLOW THE Lamb ivhitherfoevcr he goeth,^ 
 
 There are many other things in the difcourfes which 
 have been the fubjc<5t of thele animadverfions, which 
 we confider as highly reprehenlible, but our Hmits for- 
 bid that we fliould enlarge. A few things, which re- 
 fpe£l the mode of baptifm, will probably be noticed 
 in our next fe<5lion. Mr. Edwards propofed a fliort 
 method with the Baptifts, but Mr. Worceiler has taken 
 a ftill (horter ; for while the former attempted to run 
 down one or two of their main arguments, the latter 
 has only to declare that they do not " touch the point," 
 and the bufinefs is done. His words are, " The argu- 
 ments moft in ufe among the Antipiedobaptiits, and of 
 the greateft efficacy, as a fort of popular charm, do not 
 touch the points of real difference between us and 
 them." (Note, page 58.) If the "real points of differ- 
 ence have not been touched," in the preceding fheets, 
 we fliall only have to regret our inability to diicern 
 them. Our objed has been to « touch " them fo as to 
 be felt, yet in a refpe(Slful candid manner ; whether we 
 have failed in the attempt an impartial public will jud'^e. 
 Confcious of having directed our arguments to the " real 
 points of difference," it would give us litile pain (hould 
 any gentleman modejlly declare them nothing more thati 
 « a popular charm." We pray God to fucceed them, 
 for the removal of real aiffcrences between good men. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 Striclttres on the Obfervations of tic Rev. Mr. Woi'cejl-er, 
 Dr. Ofgcod, and others ^ upon the MODE of Baptfn. 
 
 IT is extremely difficult to write or fpeak fa 
 as not to be cenfured by thofe who are difpoled to cavil. 
 «« If your fentiments are cordiftent," fay our opponents 
 
 • Rev. xiv. 4. 
 N 
 
[ 1^6 3 
 
 « why do you talk about the mode of baptlfm ? Immer- 
 iion and baptifni muft be fyuonymoLis terms with you." 
 They are indeed fo with us, and when we talk or write 
 to thofe of our own denomination, we life them in this 
 fenfe. But, fays another, " the difpute is not about 
 baptifm itfelf, but only about a mere mode of baptifm." 
 Very well •, let it be mode, if we can only underftand 
 one another. We fliall therefore ufe the term nwdey 
 not meaning by it to concede that there are diffei*ent 
 modes equally valid, but as being beft adapted to explain 
 the di^erent views of the two dencmiuaticns. ** The 
 queftion," faith Mr. Worcefter, " properly between us, 
 is not this, Whether any were baptized in the days of 
 Chrift and his apodlcs by inimerfion or dipping ; but it 
 is precifely this, Whether immerfion or dipping be the 
 only valid mode of bapiifm." (Note, page 73.) 
 
 If Mr. Worcefter himfolf can " touch the points of 
 real difference between us and them," and this is an 
 accurate ftatement of one of them, it will narrow the 
 ground of controverfy confidcrably. By this ftatement 
 it will be {^en^ that if it be not a qiief^ion between us 
 and them, " whether fome were baptized in the days 
 of Chrift and h's apoftles by immerlion," then it mufi: 
 be a conceded point thcit there v^ere fome immerfed at 
 that period. And if it be not a queftion, whether im- 
 merfion or dipping be a valid mode of baptifm, but 
 whether it be the '« only valid mode,'* then immerfion 
 is unqneftionably a valid mode. The " point of differ- 
 ence" is here to nicely ^« touched," as to leave our 
 practice on the firm balls of apoilolic authority. Let 
 the auiho' before us prove fprinkling to be equally 
 valid, and tliere will be no queftion about that : it will 
 then be acknowledged by us as well as them, that both 
 are valid. 
 
 That immerfion is nn apodolic valid mode, is as capa- 
 ble of oroof as any other event placed at that diffance. 
 But it may be aiked, How is it to be proved t We 
 anfwer, 1(1:, from a fair and candid conflrudtion of 
 fcrlpture teilimony refj-.ecting the ordinance j 2d, from 
 the mod authentic eccleliiffical hiftory ; and 3d, we 
 alio prove it from the fuU and fair concellior.s of mr.ny 
 
C 147 ] 
 
 of the moft learned and pious Paidobaptifts tliem- 
 felves.* 
 
 Afier furnillnng all tliis kind of proof, in the mofl 
 SHiiple and plenary manner, our opponents infiil: that 
 we mull: alio difpnve their niod'.^ We can fee no pro- 
 priety in fuch a demand, nor ih.all we undertake it, any 
 further than the proving our own will difprove theirs. 
 If they pra^life fprinkling for baptifoi, they certainly 
 ought to exhibit proof of its validity. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter charges the author of the Seven Ser- 
 mons on the llibj eels and mode of baptifm, that "lie 
 tijlrts much and proves little." We think that ^Oi\-\Q of 
 his own aflertions would have carried quite as much 
 convijSlion, if they had been fupported by a little more 
 proof. His lifth inference labours for the want of proof. 
 It is ftated as follows : " It may be inferred from our 
 fubjc^, that fprinkling or alFufion is a valid ai:d fcrip- 
 tiiral mode of baptifm." (page 64".) But (rom what is 
 this inference drawn ? Not from any dire«:t fcripiure 
 teftimony, for the fcriptures £re wholly << lilent.'-j- Not 
 from any authentic hillory, " becaufe there is notliing 
 diretSlly on the fubje^t, cither for or again!!: inf.int bap- 
 tifm, in the fragments which have co.i.ii t.ic?r;n to w- -x 
 the wntings of the firft century."J It muft tlieicfore 
 reft on the follov/ing circumftances : That a church vva>i 
 conftituted in the family of Abraham ; that circumcilion 
 was a feal or token of memberfhip in that church ; 
 that the fame church has been continued under the 
 gofpel difpenfation, and for ages has been exclulively 
 among the Pjedobaptifts ; that God hrs owned tliem as 
 his church ; and they have -always pra(^^iied fprinkling 
 or afFufion ; therefore, " fprinkling or atFnlion is a valid 
 (ifid fcr'iptwal mode of baptifm" If the inference has 
 any thing better than the above to fupport it, we very 
 much rniftake. As a fpecimen of I\Ir. Wcrctftcr's rea- 
 fbning in fupport of the inference^ the reader will take 
 the following : " But if there have been, in every peri- 
 od, a true church in the world j then there have been, 
 in every period, eflentially zoxxq.€l views of the facra- 
 
 • Sec Part II. Se<5l. iv. and v. 
 I Mr. P. Edwards. \ Mr. Worcefter, note, psfe 6», 
 
[ U8 ] 
 
 ments and feals of the church. In particular, fmce rhe 
 alteration of the firfi: feal, there mufl: have been effen- 
 tially correct views of baptlfm : for it were no iefs 
 ablurd in itfelf, than incompatible with the purpofes 
 and promifes of God, to fuppofe that at any period a 
 true church has exifted without efTentially correct views 
 cf the hrft facrament and feal" 
 
 " It is, however, (continues the author) a well fup- 
 ported fae"t, tliat in the fir ft ages of Chriftianity, and 
 for about twelve or fifteen hundred years, baptifm by 
 fprinkling or affufion was univerfally allowed to be 
 fcripturnl and valid. Even thofe who in ordinary cafes 
 baptized by immerfioUi did not deny, but admitted, the 
 ■validity of bapthm by fprinkling or aitufion." (page 
 
 The reader will here notice another full and fair 
 conceilion — that the manner of baptizing was in crdi^ 
 nary cafes by immersion. This is an undoubted fa£l : 
 but that fprinkling, during the apoftolic age, and for 
 two centuries after, was allowed to be fcriptural, or, 
 properly fpeaking, vo.Iid^ we iliall not believe without 
 proof. Eufebius, about the middle of the third century, 
 j^ives U5 the follov/ing account of Novotus : " He fell 
 into a grievous diftemper, and it being fuppofed that 
 he would die immediately, he received baptifm (being 
 hejprinklcd with w^ater) on the bed whereon he lay, if 
 that can be called baptifm."* If fprinkling w^ere con- 
 ildered equally valid as immerlion, why fliould this 
 ancient father make the above exception ? If equally 
 valid, why fliould the Neoc.tfirian Council declare fuch 
 perfons incapable of being admitted to the degree of 
 prelhyters in the church ? f We have never yet feen 
 any fair proof that Iprinkling was in any inftance ad- 
 mitted in the apoftolic age. But after infpiration had 
 ceafed, and men began to mix their own inventions 
 with the pure doctrine of Chrift, and had concluded 
 that baptifm was eiTential to falvation, cafes frequently 
 occurred which they called cafes of necejfity ; that is, 
 v/here perfons were tick and in danger of dying. Thele 
 were, we acknowledge, in fome inftances fprinkled r 
 
 * Sec Part II. p.ge Oj^. f Dr. Gate, page i9<. 
 
i: 1+9 ] 
 
 but this rprinkling was almoft as different from that 
 which is now in ufe as immerfion itfelf. It was not a 
 few drops of water put on the face only, but the per- 
 fons were fprinkled from head to foot.* It was an 
 entire wetting, like what is faid of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who was wet with the dew of heaven. This wetting 
 of the perfon all over by fprinlding, though it were not 
 an immerfion, it approximated to it ; and even this was 
 admitted only in cafes of imperious necefHty. Dr. Cave 
 thus remarks upon it : " This was accounted a lefs 
 f'Aemn and perfeB kind of baptifm, partly becaufe it was 
 done 7iQt by immevfion^ but hy fprifihl'uig ; pirtly becaufe 
 perfons were fuppofed at fuch a time to defire it, chiefly 
 out of fear of death."f The Do(ri:or further adds, « The 
 place where this folemn action was performed, was at 
 firft unlimited. Any place where there was water, as 
 Juftin Martyr tell us, in ponds and lakes ; at fprings or 
 rivers^ as Tertullian fpeaks Afterwards they had their 
 {hnptijleria) fonts built, at lirft near the church, then in 
 the church-porch, to reprefent baptifm as being the 
 entrance into the myftical church.":{: Thefe, he in- 
 forms us, were ufually very large and capacious, fo 
 *< that they might comport with the general cuftoms of 
 thofe times, of perfons baptized being immcrfed or put 
 under water." 
 
 Two things are clearly demonflrated by the above 
 quotations. Firfi, That immEvfiony during the firft 
 centuries, was conlldored as the only fcriptural bap- 
 tifm. Second, That fprinhlin^ was admitted only in 
 cafes of fuppofed necefljty, and tiien coniidered as a 
 kind of imperfeci baptiiln. This proves that it was a 
 mere human invention, a departure from the infiituted 
 mode ; for if it had been fan(Slioned by apoftolic au- 
 thority, it muft have been coniidered equally valid as 
 immerlion. In fact, there can be no fair reafon affigncd 
 why they fliould immerfe in ordinary cafes, or even at 
 all, had they viewed fprinkling equally valid. 
 
 " It is, however, a well fupported fadt," f lith Mr. 
 Worcefter, <« that in the firft ages of Chriflianity, and 
 
 * See Dr. Wltfixis on the Covenants, Vol. HI. 
 t Priui. Chriftianity, page '96. \ Ibid, page 198, ;95» 
 
 N 2 
 
[ 150 ] 
 
 for about twelve or fifteen hundred years, baptifm hf 
 iprinkling or aftufion was univerfally allowed to be 
 fcriptural and valid." By whom is this " fad fupport- 
 ed ?" Certainly not by Eufebius and Socrates 5* not by 
 Cave.f Wall.l MoQieim,§ nor RobinA^n-H Thefe all 
 fupport exactly the contrary j that imrnerlion was the 
 divinely appointed mode, and that fprinkling, for the 
 fiike of convenience or neceffity, without divine author- 
 ity, was adopted in its room. In proof of this, we add 
 the following: « There has," fays Dr. Wall, «no nov- 
 elty or alteration, that I know of, in point of baptifm, 
 been broug;ht into our church, but in the -zu^^'Or manner 
 of adniiniftering it. The way that is now' ordinarily 
 
 Ufed, V/E CANNOT DENY TO HAVE BEEN A NCVF'LTY, 
 
 brought into the church by thofe who learned it in 
 Germany or at Geneva. "5f This honeft confeffion, 
 with what we have quoted from Eufebius and Cave, 
 nriilitates exceedingly with Mr. Worceifer's ** well fup- 
 ported faft/"' of the fcriptural validity of fprinkling. 
 
 After fpending a number of pages, in attempting to 
 prove the validity of fprinkling from the practice of 
 the Pa^dobarffift churches, without producing the leafb 
 jcriptitre autbcrity^ Mr. Worcefter adds, " The fair and 
 invincible conclufion then is, that fprinkling or affufion, 
 the mode of baptifm praclifed in tbefe churches, is 
 fcriptural and valid." On what does this invincible con- 
 cluiion reft t Why truly, on this, That the Psedobap- 
 tifts, who are God's true church in an excluiive fenfe, 
 have for centuries praiTtlfed fprinkling in -the room of 
 immerfion, therefore it muft be '* fcriptural and valid." 
 The author does not pretend to have proved it from 
 the Bible, but informs us " there is nothing in the 
 fcriptures againft it, but much, as might be fhewn did 
 time permit, in favour of it." (page 69 ) Yv^'hat a pity 
 it is that he had not fpared fome of his time fpent in 
 invectives againil the Baptifts, and proved this important 
 point. If it had been of no fervice to us, it might have 
 kelped fome of his wavering brethren, who we conceive 
 
 * Eccl Hlft. t Prim. Chrif. \ Hifl. Infant Bap. 
 
 § Ecci. Hift. II Hi(V. Bap. and Eccl. Refcarche*. 
 
 \ Defence of Hiil. Infaat Bap. p. t^t. 
 
L 151 ] 
 
 jnuft be more perplexed than ever, from the confufed 
 contradi<ftory account he has given of the ordinance. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has conceded, not only implicitly, but 
 in direct terms, that immerfion was the ancient ordinary 
 mode : yea, that it was pracliftd in the days of Chrift 
 and his apoftles ; and after all dented that there is any- 
 proof of it. We will place his obfer vat ions before the 
 reader, and leave him to make his own comments. 
 
 Speaking of baptifm in the *^ firft ages of Chriftianl- 
 ty," he fays, " Even thofe who in ordinary cafes baptized 
 by iniinerfiony did not deny, but admitted the validity of 
 baptifm by fprinkling or aduiion." (p^ge" 64-, Qo.) 
 Again, "ThequelHon properly between us is /;5/ this, 
 Whethr ANT were baptized in the days of Christ 
 
 AND HIS APOSTLES BY IMMERSION OR DIPPING J but 
 
 it is precifely this, Whether immerfion or dipping 
 be the only valid mode of baptifm ^ (Note, page 73.) 
 He quotes the following from Dr. Wall ; "The 
 ancient Chriilians, wlen they ivere baptized by imm^r- 
 siOK, were all baptized naked, &c." " It is a clear cafe," 
 fays the author, "that ivb^'n they luere baptized by im- 
 mersion, they were immerfed three tinaes, 8:c." (Note 
 page 74.) Thele are fome of the concefiions in the 
 diicourfes before us. The following appear to us like 
 contradidions. " We have (faith the author) no evi- 
 dence in the fcriptures, that in the days of Chriif and 
 his apoiVies, atiy pevfon luas baptized by immersion." (page 
 69.) *' Could it even be proved, as however it cannot 
 be, thaty^w^ ivere baptized in the apojlles' days by immer- 
 sion, it would avail nothing ag:u-,ift our practice, unlcfs 
 It could be proved that none were baptized in any other 
 way." (Note, page 73.) 
 
 It is thought that Mr. Worcefter has fallen into the 
 fame inconliltencies in defending his own pradlice as in 
 oppofing ours. The following is a fpecimen : " As 
 there was (faith he) no difpute about baptifm in the 
 hrft ages of Chriilianity, it ihould not be expelled that 
 much would be found particularly on the fubjeCt, in 
 the writings of thofe ages. But becaufe there is no- 
 thing directly on the subject either for or 
 AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM, in thc fragments which have 
 come down to us of the writings of the firft century, 
 
[ 152 ] 
 
 the Antiptedobaptiftf5, with an aiTlirsnce peculiar to them- 
 felves, have undertaken to njprtf not to proves that 
 during the firfl: century, infant baptifm was not pra<EVifed 
 in the church." (Note, page 60.) After thus acknowl- 
 edging that in the writings of the firft century there is 
 nothing directly « either for or againil: infant baptifm," 
 he goes on to fay, that " in the writings of Clemanus Ro- 
 manusy and Hermes Paftor, both cotemporaries with the 
 apoftles, paffages are extant, which by fair implication^ 
 prove the practice of infant baptifm in their day: 
 
 »>* 
 
 * There Is an Ingenious obfcurlty In the manner of Mr. Worceftcr's 
 quoting thefe ancient writers. Had we no other means of ufcertain- 
 Ing the time when they lived and wrote, but the ftatemcnt in the note 
 before us, it would not be very eafy to detenaiue in what century they 
 lived. An incautious reader might fuppofc thst they all lived in or near 
 the hrft century ; whereas the Ha^ is, they extend through four or five, 
 " TertuUian," lays the author beiore \js, '* was uLout ii years old when 
 Polycarp died " But how are we to know when Polycarp died > 
 Again, " Cyprian, bifhop of Carthage, who fujfered martvrdom for the 
 Chiriftian faith, only about five years from the death of Oj igen " Ah, 
 indeed, it is prefumed th..t every f.ne knows when Origendied ! But 
 whit of Cypiian ? Why, iie *• v\ as prelident of a council, which coa- 
 fifted of fixty-fix bifhops or partes of churches, and whi h ucliv-'red an 
 unanimous opinion that che baptifm of infants was not to he deferred 
 (as fonie had fuj poied it fhould be) until the eighth day, but might be 
 given them at any time before " But wfien was this council held ? 
 Why, fome time in the Ufe of Cyprian, and h« fuffcred martyrdom on- 
 ly five years after th. death of Origen. , Now who could tell by all 
 this whether this council was held in the firft, fecond or third century ? 
 But what does the refult cf it prove, v/ith refpedt to infant baptifm's 
 being an apoftolic pra(R:ice ? Noching at all, we conceive, but much to 
 the contrary. The fa6t is, this council was in the year 256. The 
 occafion was, a country bifliop by the name of Fidus could not deter- 
 mine by his Bible, nor by aii^ ufage of the church, whether new born 
 infants might be baptized, or whether it niuft be deferred until the 
 eighth day. He applied to Cyprian, hut he had no rule by which to 
 determine the oueftion, until it was fettled by the opinion of the above 
 council. If Jt had been the conftant pradlice of the whole Chriftian 
 church from the firil iniHiution of baptifm, which was now more than 
 aoo years, to baptize infants, would fuch an important circumflancc 
 have been unnoticed all this time ? It is a'ofolutely incredible. 
 
 To the above account the author adds, " Gregory Nazianzen, Bafil, 
 Ambroie, Chryfoflome, and Jerome, all of whom flourifhed within 
 about A hundred years of Origen and Cyprian, are all explicit on the 
 fubjecl ; explain the defign of infant baptifm, &c." (Note, page 60.) 
 The abcve mentioued all lived in the fourth century, and one or more 
 of them in the beginning of the fifth. As thefe are faid to be '* explicit 
 oa the fubje(5l, and to explain the (''■Jiyn of infant baptifm ;" we think 
 it would grat-fy our readers, to knov/ what the ^ep^n of it was. We 
 will give tlicnr. the op:n:on of the firll of them. Gregory, as dcli\-ered 
 
[ i53 ] 
 
 What a happy knack fome men have st proving their 
 point. When all other evidence fciils, they can prove 
 it completely by implication -, and even from writings 
 too, which fay " nothing direclly on the fubject, either 
 for or againft it." We regret exceedingly, however, 
 that thofe "paflages" which prove infant baptifm by 
 fair implication, had not been fet down, fo that we might 
 have judged of the evidence for ourfelves. Or had the 
 author only favoured us with corredt references to the 
 book and page, it is more than probable that fome might 
 have taken the liberty to have examined the originals 
 for themfelves. However, it is bed to proceed cau- 
 tioufly : there might be fome danger apprehended from 
 this i'for " of late (fays he) one can hardly meet with 
 an Atttipxdobaptift, who is not prepared to talk fo 
 fluently and learnedly of the meaning of Greek and 
 Latin words, as alm.oft to amaze one ! ! " Kud fucli 
 references been made, it is poffible that fome of this 
 evidence by implication mijjht have been difputed. 
 
 Several other writers of the two rirft centuries are 
 mentioned ; but none of them as giving explicit evi- 
 dence in favour of infant baptifm, till we come to Ori- 
 gen, towards the middle of the third century. We are 
 willing that the teltimony of Origen^ fl^iould have its 
 proper weight; but we are perfuaded, that*fuch as 
 know his true character, as it ftands on tl?e page of 
 hiftory, will attach very little confidence to what he has 
 faid on this point. The following is quoted from him 
 by Dr. Molheim : " The fcrlptures are of Uttle ufe to 
 thofe who underfland them as they are v/ritten." To 
 
 in his fortieth Oration in tiie year 38 r. "But, fay fome, what i$ 
 your opinion of infants, who are not capable of judging cither of the 
 gtace of baptifm, or of the ^.7;//^/^^<f fuflained by the want of it ; fliail 
 we baptize them too ? By all niean=^, // there be any apparent danger. 
 for it were better tliat they were fanci'fed ivithcut their kno^vlttg if, 
 than that they fhould die without being fealed and initiated. ^ As for 
 ©thers, I give my opinion, that when they arc three years of age, or 
 thereabouts (for then they are able to hear and anfwer fome of the 
 myftical words, and although they do not fully underrtand, they may re- 
 ceive impreffions) they may he fandified both foul and body by the 
 great myftery of initiation." (Greg Naz. Orat. xL in Robinfon.) 
 What wonderful children, to underiland fuch profound myfteries at three 
 years old! And what an amazing cffed this huuntf^ of initiation had, 
 CO fandify chcm throughout in foul and body. 
 
C 154 2 
 
 which the Do<rtor adds this obfervation : " He could not 
 find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted, as long 
 as he interpreted that facrcd book according to its literal 
 fenfe."* It is of little confequence in this difpute, to 
 know that men in the third and fourth centuries ap- 
 proved and pradtifed infant baptifm. Nor do we con- 
 ceive that the " impregnable teftimony " of Pelagius, 
 (a man condemned by all the ancient fathers as a her- 
 etic) adds any ftrength to Mr. Worcefter's argument. 
 
 Another argument in favour of fprinkling, and againft 
 immerfion, which makes a coniiderable figure in thefe 
 difcourfes, and in the writings of fome others, is, that 
 fprinkling is ihe mojl eafy and convenient mode, " Of the 
 feveral accounts of baptifms recorded in the fcriptures, 
 I think (fays Mr. Worcefter) it will appear that thofe 
 baptifms Avere performed in the mofi: eafy and convenient 
 mode." (page 70.) He fuppofes that when John's can- 
 didates were " aiTembled upon the banks of the Jordan, 
 the mofl cofivenient way would be for them to go down 
 to the brink of the water, and there be baptized by 
 aifulion or fprinkling." <« On the day oi pentecofty (he 
 adds) when three thoufands were baptized in a very 
 fhort time ; they were at the temple in the mid fir of 
 Jerufalem, where the moft convenient, if not the only 
 tl-ay, would be to have water brought in a bafon, or 
 fome othei-^S^eflel, and baptize them in the fame way.'*' 
 (page 72.) It would feem, by thefe obfervations, that 
 the command of God muffc yield to our convcniency. 
 Wiiat exalted ideas fuch men muft have of the authority 
 of God in his pofitive inftitutions, to fuppofe we are to 
 accommodate them to our own conveniency ! Had good 
 old Abraham, at the age of ninety-nine, confulted his 
 conveniency, would he not probably have preferred cut- 
 ting the end of his little finger, to the part appointed 
 by the inftitution of circumcifion } 
 
 We have no right nor wifn to fay, that our brethren 
 fliall not confult their convenience in the admihiftratlon 
 of the ordinance ; but for ourfelves, we hope never to 
 think it inconvenient to obey the commands of Chrifl, 
 and follow the example of him who thought it no incon-* 
 
 * Mofhelm, Vol. I, page 270, note. 
 
C 153 1 
 
 vemency to travel on foot from Galilee to Jordan, to be 
 immerfed by John in that river. 
 
 Sprinkling is alfo faid to have another great advan- 
 tage over immerfion : It is not only more convenient, 
 but " more compatible with every idea of propriety and 
 DECENCY." (page 73.) 
 
 Dr. Ofgood * dilates largely on the decency of their 
 pra<flice, and the indecency of ours. " To me, (faith 
 he) indeed, this (fprinkling) appears the only mode in 
 which the ordinance can be adminiiicred with that 
 •rder, ckcency^' &c. He adds, " Their leaving the place 
 of. wordnpfjlri'nmiffg away in the open air to fome pond 
 or river, and in all feafons and climates, changing their 
 apparel in order to their being totally immerl'ed in the 
 water, out of which tliey come drenched and Jhiverin^;' 
 &c. (page 8.) He concluJcs, however, that " baptiVm 
 by immerfion might not, perhaps, eighteen hundred 
 years ago, be offensive in Judea ; nor can we fay that 
 it would difguft the uncultivated and unclothed inhab- 
 itants of South Africa, even now ; but it is certain, that 
 the culiom of plunging mixed multitudes of men and 
 women, either in thin veftments or in their ufual drefs, 
 is deemed indecorous by moft people accuftomed to 
 poliihed manners." (page 14.) Eighteen centuries ago, 
 it feems, then, it might not have been off^nfive for Jeiiis 
 and his difciples to be immerfed, but it is now abfolutely 
 " indecorous" to follow their example ! And is there 
 nothing, dear fir, "indecorous" in com.paring the ftate 
 of manners in the priiritive Chriftian church, contain- 
 ing Chrill and all his difciples, to the loweil dregs of 
 the human race ? to \\\q Bojchemm or %vild HoUentots 
 of South Africa } Mull: not fuch a comparifon Arike a 
 tender mind with horror, and be confidered as a moft 
 fevere reflection on the great Head of the church, and 
 all his immediate followers } Who can help reflecfting 
 on the prophetic language of David, when perfonating 
 Chrill, rke re pre aches of them that reproached thee are fallen 
 upon ir.e.\ Is the religion of Jefus, efpecially its inftitu- 
 tions, when praaifed as they were in '« Judea eighteen 
 hundred years ago, deemed indecorous" by people of 
 
 Two Diicoi;rr*;s at M.iljen. f \*:A:n hlx. 9. 
 
[ 1^6 ] 
 
 " poll (lied manners ?'* Such people would do well to 
 remember, that the fricnd/ljjp of the world is enmity luith 
 God ;* and that Chrift, in order to guard his people 
 againft this temporizing fpirit, has faid, Whcfoever Jhall 
 be ASHAMED of nie, and of my nvords, of him Jfiall the Son 
 of Man be afljamed^ ivhen he flmll come in his onvn gloryy 
 and in his Father' s, and of the holy angels. \ 
 
 But what aftoni(hes us moft of all, is, that after all 
 this outcry about decency and offending againft polified 
 manners^ that the Doctor fliould inform the world, that 
 their minifters will be guilty of doing the fame ! ! Yes, 
 « we are (faith he) far from calling in queflion the 
 validity of theirs, (meaning our ;Tiode of baptifm) •, nay, 
 in condefcenfion to the confciences of thofe who requefl 
 it, our minifters fcruple not to baptize by immerfwn." Is it 
 poflible, Do6lor ? What ! will your minifters and their 
 people " go ftreaming away in the open air to fome 
 pond or river ?" What ! and with as little fenfe of 
 decency as the Baptifts, be " totally immerfed in the 
 water," and like them " come drenched and fliivering " 
 out of it ? It is perfectly aftoniftiing ! But why do they 
 thus trefpafs upon the cuftoms of " polifhed manners ?'* 
 Why ? not indeed from a confcientious regard to the 
 command or example of Chrift, but " in condefceniion 
 to the confciences of thofe who requeft it." So great 
 is their condefcenfion , that it feems they can become all 
 things to all men, that by all means they may fave fome — of 
 their people from going over to the Baptifts. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has mentioned one fpecies of inde- 
 cency, which he fuggefts was pra6tifed anciently in im- 
 merfton, which in this age of improvement is wholly 
 done away. He relates the ftory from Dr. Wall, and 
 he from Voflius, and where he got it nobody knows ; 
 but it is thus related in the difcourfes before us : " The 
 ancient Chriftians," fays Dr. Wall, " when they were 
 baptized by immerfion, ivere all baptized naked, whether 
 they were men^ ivomen^ or children. Voffius has col- 
 lected feveral proofs of this, which I fliall omit, becaufe 
 it is a clear cafe." (Note, page 74>.) If Mr. Worcefter 
 is acquainted with Dr. Wall's writings, as he undonbt- 
 
 * James iv. 4. f I.wke \%. a 6, 
 
I 157 J 
 
 ^dly is, he muft certainly know that the Do£tor ha« 
 ftreniioady aflerted that imineriion was the primitive 
 ordinary moJe throughout almoft the whole Chriftian 
 world, for thirteen centuries, and in many countries 
 much longer.* Can any man in his fenfes fuppofe that 
 Dr. Wall ferioufly believed, that during this long pe- 
 riod of thirteen or fifteen centuries, there was not a 
 fcrap of niodeliy in the whole Chriftian world ? Would 
 he have pleaded for the reftoration of a practice that 
 had conlVantly been a reproach to decency ? We hard- 
 ly think it. 
 
 But we iliould like to know who this VofliLis was, 
 "i^ho furnidied this indecent ftory, that we may know 
 what degree* of credit is due to it. Was it Ifnac Vcffnis^ 
 who came over from Leyden to England in 1670, whom 
 'king Charles made caion of Windfor .** Of this perfo* 
 an Englifli biographer thus remarks ; that Charles knew 
 his chara^Sler well enough to lay, «' there was nothing 
 that Voihus refufid to believe^ e:<cepting the Bible !" He 
 further adds, " He appears indeed by his publications — 
 to have been a moit credulous mafi, while he afforded 
 many circum (lances to bring his religious faith in quef- 
 tion." If there be no other proof that the ancient 
 Chriftians baptized naked, than what can be gathered 
 from the writings of fuch a man, we fhall think our- 
 felves at liberty to doubt it. But, true or falfe, Mr. 
 Worcefler has cleared the Baptifts of the difgraceful 
 ftory. For this pra<5lice is faid by Dr. Wall to have 
 been among the cmcietit Chriftians. « But the Anabajv 
 tifts, or Antipxdobaptifts," fays our author, « are a fedt 
 of modern date. They had their origin fome time 
 ifter the reformation under Luther and Calvin." (P. QG^ 
 According to this, the Paedobaptilis may place all thef© 
 naked folks to their own account. And if they 
 confult Dr. MoOieim, (vol. i. p. 227) or Broughton't 
 Hilforical Library, (vol, i. p. 14) they may find an ac- 
 count of others, who, it is faid, went naked, not indeed 
 Uito the ivater, but into their public aflemblies.f 
 
 ♦ Sec Part II. Sed- iv. and y. 
 
 t That people in warns climates anciently went almoft naked, that It, 
 with only a covering louud the waift, no body will dif^iuta The fwuc 
 
[ 1^« ] 
 
 By dating the origin of the Baptifts « feme time after 
 the reformation," our opponents exonerate uj from all 
 the indecencies, pious frauds, errors, herefies, and pcB- 
 fecutions, which difgracedChriftianity before that period. 
 
 We muft here beg the reader's indulgence while we 
 digrefs a few moments from our fubjecfb, with a view to 
 repel an ungenerous inlinuation refpedting our origin. 
 The riot at Munfter, in which fome who oppofed and 
 denied infant baptifm were concerned wit'i others who 
 held it, is generally fixed upon as the mofi: diihonoura- 
 ble part of our hiftory. We regret that our limits will 
 not allow us to vindicate ourfelves more fully from the 
 unhandfome things which have been fo often fuggefted, 
 from that tranfa^tion, with a view to injure our charac- 
 ter as a religious denomination. But we can here only 
 fay, that we verily believe, that to take the account o^ 
 the German Anabaptifts, as given by their enemies, 
 nothing will be found either more wicked or difgrace- 
 ful in this fe(ft, than may be found in the origin of al- 
 moft any other ancient fe^, taking their hiftory from 
 the fame fource. 
 
 For inftance *, the Independents in England, from 
 whom the prefent refpe<S\able Congregational Churches 
 in this country defcended. If you take their hiftory 
 from Clarendon i Echard) Parker y or even from Rapirty 
 ▼ou will find the obfervatibn juftified. The latter, 
 though a foreigner, is allowed to have written one of 
 the beft hiftories of England extant. This illuftrious 
 writer, faith Dr. Molheim, reprefents the " Independents 
 under fuch horrid colours, that, were his portrait juft, 
 they would not delerve to enjoy the light of the fun, or 
 to breathe the free air of Britain ; much lefs to be treat- 
 ed with indulgence and efteem, by thofe who have the 
 caufe of virtue at heart." However unjuftly they might 
 be accufed, " the moft eminent Englifti writers, (adds 
 the DoiSVor) not only among the patrons of Epifcopacy, 
 J)ut among thofe very Frefhyteriansy with whom they 
 are now united, have thrown out againft them the bit- 
 is ftill pra<5lifcd by the inhabitants of the torrid zone. That they went 
 Juto the water in their ufual drefs is highly probable ; but that any 
 wcrf baptJzui vytJiout a covering rouad the waiii, wc have fcen n» 
 li<^tu«t prcof. 
 
L 159 } 
 
 tereft accufations and the fevereft inve<SlIves, that the 
 warmeil imagination could invent. They have not on- 
 ly been reprelented as delirious, mad, fanatical, illite- 
 rate, factious, and ignorant both of natural and revealed 
 religion ; but alfo abandoned to all kinds of wicheJnefs 
 and fedition, and as the only authors of the odious par- 
 ricide committed on the perfon of Charles I."* We do 
 not pretend to vouch for the truth of thefe things, nor 
 Cio we believe them generally to be true ; but only men- 
 tion them fo (hew that other fe^ls have been as fevere- 
 ly cenfured as the Anabaptifts. If we compare the ac- 
 counts given by the enemies of the two fe<Sts, this will 
 be about the refult — ^The fanatics of one, in their wild 
 zeal, fet up a king ; and the fanatics of the other pulled 
 tiown theirs. 
 
 But even admitting all that has been faid of the Ger- 
 man Anabaptifts to be true, and we can fee no more 
 propriety in reproaching the prefent Baptifts with it, 
 than there would be in reproaching the prefent Paedo- 
 baptifts with all the errors, debaucheries, and enormous 
 cruelties committed by the Pxdobaptifts of Rome. The 
 fa£t is, though we agree efTentially with the German 
 Baptifts in the article of baptilm, yet we totally difap- 
 prove of their diforderly, feditious fanaticifm. So we 
 underftand our brethren, that while they agree with the 
 chiurch of Rome in their infant baptifm, they difagree 
 with their fentiments and practice generally. The only 
 inquiry which a candid mind would here make would 
 be this ; Is there any thing in immerfion which haj a 
 natural tendency to fanaticifm and Icdition ? 
 
 Our obje(St in this fection was not particularly to ex- 
 hibit all the proofs in favour of immerfton of which the 
 lubjejSt is fufceptible, (as th-it, we conceive, has bcea 
 fufficiently done^Part II fedt. iv. and v.) but more efpe- 
 cially to remove fome of the objections which have been 
 raifed againit the praiftice by its oppofers. We huve 
 endeavoured candidly to meet the moft weighty and 
 popular objc(nions, and the public will judge whether 
 we have refuted them or not. A few additional obfer- 
 vations (hall clofe the fe6tion. 
 
 •Et-cl ^iia. vol V p. x8i, 1 81. 
 
C 160 ] 
 
 " T!ie Greek word hoptixo^' fays Mr. WorcefFer, 
 ^\ detirmines nothing in refpect to the particular mode 
 in which water is to be applied.'' (P. 69.) This is cer- 
 tainly an unpleafiint circumftancej if true, that a word 
 is made ufe of to defcribe a particular a(S^ion, and yet 
 that it has no definite meaning, fo that we can poffibly 
 dttermine from it what is to be done: " Every ptrfon," 
 fays Dr.Cfgood, " who hatli the like acquaintance with 
 them (that is, with the original languages as himfeli) 
 well knows, that the Greek word for baptifm iignifies 
 any kind of wafhing, by fprinkling or affulion, as often, 
 if not much oftener, than by dipping.'* The object with 
 both thefe writers is evidently the fame : it :s to throve . 
 the word into a ftate of complete uncertainty, and in 
 this way to fecure the validity of fprinkling. It means, 
 according to them, any kind of wafhing, either by dip- 
 ping, pouring on water, or fprinkling. Nor is there 
 any direQicn to what part the water is to be applied ; 
 w^hethcr to the head, the hands, or the feet. We know 
 of nothing but cuftom, which, has determined the appli-- 
 cation of it to the forehead*. 
 
 "We wifh here to flate a cafe, and {hould be much 
 gratified in a fair anfwer. Suppofing a family of the 
 defcendants of Abraham were to embrace Chrillianity 
 tinder the rainiftry of the Paedobaptifts, and fliould re- 
 ceive their doctrine of baptifm, as coming in the room 
 of circumcifion ; and fliould hence infifV, that in order 
 to render it analogous to that rite, the water muft be 
 applied to the fame part \ would thefe gentlemen, in 
 their great " condefcenfion to the confciences" of their 
 Jewilli convert?, ^pply w^ater in this way ? Could they 
 .make any fair obie£ti(.n, and ftill fupport their baptifm 
 on the ground of circumcifion ? We fhonld fuppofe not* 
 Jf the manner of applying water is to be determined by 
 tlie conrciencc, or rather flmcies of the candidates for 
 the ordinance, then any way, and to any part whicli 
 they may choofe, mud be confidercd as valid baptifm.. 
 
 But let us for a moment inquire if the word baptizoy 
 which is rendered bapiizcy has not a primary meanings 
 fufiiciently definite to dire<n: our pra^ice. " The word," 
 fays a very fenfible writer, " is confefledly Greek. Na- 
 tive Greeks undcTftand their own language better thaut 
 
[ IGl ] 
 
 foreigners ; and they have always underftood the word 
 to mean dipping ; therefore from their fir ft embracing 
 Chriftianity to this day, they have always baptized, and 
 do yet baptize by immerjion.'' * We appeal to our learn- 
 ed opponents to fay, whether the Greek church in all 
 its branches, even the cold regions of Ruflia not except- 
 ed, has not to the prefent time pradtifed ivimerfiou ? We 
 hence reafon in this way : — ^The New Teftament was 
 originally written in Greek \ that native Greeks under- 
 ftood the word baptizo as we do, to mean immerfion, 
 and confequently they always praiflifed immerfion : 
 this alone, we fliould fuppofe, would be allowed to be 
 decifive evidence of the meaning of the word. — ^llie 
 beft critics of all the Chriiiian feels have agreed with 
 Leigh,f " that the native and proper fignification of it 
 (baptizo) is to dip into water, or to plunge under water.''^—^ 
 When the a£tion is defcribed in the New Teftament, 
 it is defcribed by their going down i?ito the water, aad 
 coming up out of\t \ which would be abfurd upon any 
 other principle but immerfion. — That it was under- 
 ftood in the fame fenfe by the Chriftian church general- 
 ly during the firfi: centuries ; this is evident from every 
 ecclefiaftical writer of any note whofe works have come 
 to our knowledge. Thel'e things confidered, can there 
 A doubt remain as to Its proper meaning I 
 
 As we have quoted largely from the above clafs of 
 writers in a preceding part of this work, we Oiall here 
 only add two or three quotations from Dr. Moftieim;. 
 In defcribing the rites and ceremonies of the firft cen- 
 tury, he fays, " The facrament of haptifm was adminifi 
 tered in this century, in places appointed and prepared 
 for that purpofe ; and was performed by immerfwn of the 
 luhole body in the baptifmal font.":}: In this author, there ■ 
 is not a word to be found in the hiftory of this century, 
 of pouring or fprinkling, as *« a fcriptural and valid mode 
 of baptifm." But wlivu may be done by " fair implica- 
 tion," we pretend not to fay. 
 
 Let us now follow this learned hiftorfan into the next 
 century, and fee how the ordinance was then adminif- 
 tered. " The perfons>" faith he, «to be baptized, after 
 
 o 2 
 ♦ Robinfon's Hid. Bapt p. 5. \ Crit, Sacra. 
 
 |Eccl, Hift. vol, 1. p. lit. 
 
E 1^^ ? 
 
 they had repeated the creedy confeiTed and renounced 
 their fins, and particularly the devil in his pompous al- 
 lurements, ivcre IMMERSED under luater^ and received 
 into Chrift^s kingdom, by a folemn invocation of Father, 
 Son,"&c. (Ibid. p. 206.) 
 
 Thus, according to Dr. Mollieim, (and it muO: not be- 
 forgotten that he was aPxdobaptift) the apoftolic mode 
 of baptifm was preferved through this century. Had 
 either fprifih/i/jg or ajfufion been pracftifed in thefe centu- 
 ries, is it not perfe(^ly unaccountable that not a hint 
 fhould be given of it by this author .? What could in- 
 duce him to keep fuch a fullen filence about it ? Had 
 he not the advantage of examining the writings of Ck- 
 mensy Hermes.^ JujViJi Martyr^ Irenausy and all the other 
 ancient writers mentioned by Mr. Worcefter } He un- 
 doubtedly had, far he has quoted from many if not all 
 ©f them. 
 
 If the fulleft evidence could be exhibited of the ex- 
 igence of infant baptifm, in the third and fucceeding 
 centuries, and that it were then practifed by pouring or 
 fprinkling, it would afford no deciiive evidence that .ei-. 
 ther were pra£tifed by the apoftles. Any one who Jias 
 taken the pains to trace the progrefs of innovation, will 
 be fully convinced of this :- he will find fuch an increafe 
 of rites -^nd ceremonies from century to century, as in a. 
 little time to change the "viiible afpc(St of almoft the 
 whole Chrfftian church. But notwithftanding this gen- 
 eral departure from apofioUc purity both in dodlrine and 
 manners, immcvjton held its indifpatable claim, of being 
 the divinely appointed mode of baptifm. We fay modty. 
 becaufe fprinkling in fome inftances was admitted, in 
 cafes of danger of death, as a fubftitute. And we verily 
 believe, that " after all the laborious and oilentatious 
 eriticifm" upon baptizoy to make it mean pouring or 
 fprinkling ; and upon eny apOy and m,* there could not 
 be found among the Psedobaptifts themfelves, one per-- 
 ibn in ten who had ever thought on the fu bjecSV, but 
 would freely acknowledge that he believed Jefus Chriffc 
 was irnmcrjed by John in Jordan. Nor do we think our 
 l^rethren who plead for the valid»ity of fprinkling, difbe- 
 
 * Vid. Dr. Crane's Sermon*. 
 
L JG3' ] 
 
 lieve it thernfelves. If this be indeed :in error, v/e cr^ir 
 think of bur one complete remci^y for it ; and th.ir is, * 
 to alter the Bible ! Whihl the prefent tranil.u-ion is re- 
 ceived, and people are per.nirted to rtMd and uiiuk for 
 t'leiiirelves, it may be exp-.'cled that tii(.Te..\vill be a geii- 
 eral conviction, tiiat Jefus was plunged in Jordan. 4nJr 
 ail attemprs to prove, that this was to anfwer to the 
 waihing of the priefts at the t.ibernacle door, in order 
 to introduce him into his prieftly office, will help to 
 ftrengthen this conviction ; for it will be fcen that tlie 
 Pxdobaptifts themfolves feel the dilHculty, and try t-a 
 get rid of it in this way* 
 
 We have no where in the courfe of thefe animadver- 
 fions attempted to vindicate Mr. Merrill, as we thinly 
 him able, and believe him determined, to do it himlelf i* 
 but with here to notice a criticifm made by Mr. Auiiiii 
 on John xii. 10, in lii.s Letters riddreiled to the above 
 author. (P. 39..) " Yon mention," faith Mr. Auftin, 
 « /ouo, as fignifyir^g the? fanie vv.ith bdpt'tzo, &c. If you 
 will (continues he) turn to Job.n xiii. 10, juft adverted 
 to, a place which yon have not mentioned, and probably 
 not coniidered, you will lind evidence direBI^ and i':,ft- 
 clhftvely agahift this idea. * Jcfus faith unto him, He 
 that is wafhed [o Idoumfuos) needcth not fave to wafh 
 his feet,- but is clean every whit." On this Mr. Auftin 
 obferves — '* Here the fubjecl fpoken of is not the feet, 
 or hands, or face j but the man, he^ in Greek, o. He is 
 w-aihed when his feet only are washed ; and nipfajikai is 
 ufed, to exprefs this waliiing of the feet." 
 
 But has not Mr. Auftin after all miffed the force of 
 onr vSaviour's obfervation } Did not Jefus intend to ex- 
 prefs two di'dinCH: acts, one a general, and the other a 
 partial waihmg ? one a bathing of the whole body, and 
 the other a waihing of the feet, and therefore made ufe 
 of two different words ? In the firft, Chrift ufes the paii 
 
 ■* Psedobaptifts, uno write or fpenk of Mr MerriH, affed to treat 
 him with much coutempt, as tlioiigh he were a man of inferior learning 
 ind tdlents. If they believe. ir, is it not aflonifhing that fo many pens 
 iiiould be employed ugainft him, and thefe wielded too by men of the 
 firft literary eminence? If their reprefentations be true, they x.vould 
 gain but little honour HiOLild they beat him ; but would it not be infi-- 
 nitcly difgractful to be beaten by him, after thus dcfpiftog hiai i 
 
r 164 ] 
 
 tenfe ; He that is (Icloumenos) luajhed tieedeth not fave 
 (nipfafthai) to lunflj his feet ^ but is cUan ever\ lubit. He 
 that ir nvajheii^ if this referred to the walhing of the 
 feet, needed not to waih at all, according to Mr. Auftin, 
 for this exprelFed an a(St already done. 
 
 Left the lenfe we have given above (hould be thought 
 to be a mere " imagination of the Baptilb/"'^ we fabjoin 
 the remarks of the amiable Dr. Doddridge. " He tliat 
 is ivaJJjed already y or that has juft been bathings needs 
 only to wafli his feet, which may indeed be eafiiy foiled 
 by the (horteft walk, and when that is done he is en- 
 tirely clean."f Upon the abjve he has the following 
 critical note : — " He that h s been bathing. This render- 
 ing of the word leloumeuos is confirmed by Eifner^ (Ob- 
 fcrv. vol. i. p. 337, 338) and gives as it were a compen- 
 dious paraphrafe upon it. Clarius has well obferved, 
 that as the apoduteriotiy or room in which they drefled 
 themfelves after bathing, was different from that in 
 which they bathed, the feet might be fo foiled in walk- 
 ing from one to the other, as to make it necefTary im- 
 mediately to wafh them again." 
 
 If Dr. Doddridge be right, it afford^ a high proba- 
 biUty that Mr. Merrill may alfo be right. If, according 
 to the above, two diftindl afts were intended by Chrift, 
 then Mr. Auftin has overlooked the real meaning of the 
 paiTage. \ 
 
 On the whole, we have one undeniable advantage 
 over our opponents in this difpute about the mode of 
 baptifm. Ours correfponds with the primary fenfe of 
 the ori|^inal word to baptize, and certainly with the 
 praftice of the primitive Chriftians. Theirs, by the 
 confeffions of many of their beft writers, is a departure 
 from both. If it had been the intention of the great 
 Head of the Church, that this rite ftiould have been per- 
 
 * Dr. Ofgood, p. a I. f Expof. vol. il p. 4»6. 
 
 \ Mr. Auftin appears peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of the word 
 affujicn to rcprefent the mode of applying -vrater in baptifm, as it neither 
 agrees with the Bible, nor his own pradice. No one will deny but a 
 man may be as thoroughly wet by pouring water on him, as by dipping 
 him into it ; but the queftion is, has Mr. Auftin produced any inftance 
 where tha Greek verb ekeo, (to afFuf or pour) has been rendered 
 b pt'ize : if not, what argumeit is ther« in his attaching it to ba^tifov 
 ftxty times over .' 
 
[ 1^5 i 
 
 formed by pcwiugvsri lur.Ur^ wonlci not tho (to afHife, te 
 pour) have bet^n i!red,ir!l'i:eaJ o\ bnpth-, (to dip, to j>lungt?^ 
 &c.)? Or it* fpriiikling hiid been intended, ihcuid v/e 
 not rometimcs hwve found rantizo (to aiperje, to fpiinkie) 
 ufed to exprefs the acl of baptizing, inflead of a word, 
 which in its primary fenie fignities immcrfion ? 
 
 Figurative expreiTions are coni^jntly rcforted to by 
 ©ur brethren to uipport their pradlice': luch as fr>nnk' 
 ling many iiatifis.j'pnnWhHjr clean ivater^ f^ouring on of tha 
 Spiriti &c. With thele, we have only to contraft other 
 fcriptures, which reprelem the fame things by an entire 
 waftiing or plunging : iiudi ;;s t-.-e following. In that 
 tluy tha-efiall te a FOUNTAIN opetied to the houfe tf David ^ 
 and to the inhtwitanis of Jeriifalem.forfm and fir unclean- 
 nefs,'* 'Unto H:in that hvid us, and ivaped us fr.m our 
 fms IN /-// o'lcn bhod.-\ TheJ'j arc they ivho came out of gr.at 
 tribulation^ and have tvajhi'd ihar robes and made them 
 white IN the blood of the Lamb.t Thefe Ijitter afford juft 
 as much evidence of immeriion, as the former do of 
 fprinkiin^. Brit as neither of tbeni have any thing to 
 do with the fubject, neither of them aiford any direct 
 proof in the cafe. 
 
 «* Tliere is an expreilion," f^iys Dr. Ofgood, " occur- 
 ring once or twice in the writings of St. Paul, which 
 feems to have full poffeilion of the imaginatidn of otir 
 Baptiii brethren, and renders them pofitive that imn^er- 
 fion-wasthe primitive mode of baptifm. It is found 
 Rom.vi. 4. < We XiVQ huried with him in (by) bapiiiln 
 into death.' Again in Col. ii. \2. * Buried with hun \\x 
 baptifm,' &c." 
 
 But what has " polTeired the ima.c^ination" of (o many 
 Pjedobaptifts, to give the fame explanation, and to agree 
 with us, that the apoflk, by tlie term buried, alluded to 
 the< mode of baptifm by' immeriion 1^ 
 : A writer v/liO refers to ^^ /mail things,'' on Ti fmall Jub^ 
 p^^ contained in a JmaU bo^k^ may aiiift us on the 
 prefent occafion ; ■^sfrrtnli things oki^n liiow which wrvjr 
 the wind blows |j '< \i any of the learned fathers," favs: 
 
 * Zed.. xiVu I, f Rev. i J. t Rev. "u. ; I 
 
 § Vid, Cave, Loclce, Burkitt, Poole, in luc. 
 jl Vid. Mi" Andcrfon's cftiniate of imiue.uon, note p. i r. 
 
C 166 ] 
 
 this author, " have faid things, in favour of baptizing by 
 imnierfion, they may have been indebted for it to their 
 reading Greek authors, more than to their critical atten- 
 tion to the New TcfVament." (Note, page 11.) What 
 jin admirable apology for men, whofe profefTed object 
 was, to write critical expofitions on the facred text ! 
 ''Hence (continues this author) \we learn -why probably 
 Calvin, and many others, made conceflions in favour 
 of immeriion, and yet baptized by affudon. They were 
 i<sne/?*** As cliiffic fcholars in the Greek language 
 they made their conceflions, but as believers, taught by 
 the words which the Holy Ghoft teacheth, they bap- 
 tized as we do." (Page 23.) 
 
 Will Mr. Anderfoii's brethren thank him for this 
 fingular ftatement ? For the premifes which he has 
 placed before us furnilh us with the following conclu- 
 iion, viz. That thofe who will not concede the fame 
 things which Calvin and many others did, that « to 
 baptize is to Immerfe," are either unacquainted with 
 the Grecian tlajftcs^ or elfe that they are not honejl] 
 But how does Calvin*s honefty appear ? in his believing 
 one thing and pradtifing another ? How ? Why, in this 
 way : as a clajjic fcholar, thoroughly acquainted with 
 Grecian literature, he was compelled to own, that " the 
 word baptizo ilgnihes to dip ; and it is certain (adds he) 
 that the manner of dipping was ufed by the ancient 
 church."* «< But as a believer, taught by the words 
 which the Holy Ghoft teacheth," he could conftrue 
 baptizo to mean pouring, or fprinkling, or any kind of 
 wetting ! But where and how does the Holy Ghoft 
 teach that new born babes (hould be fprinkled ? Not 
 in the fcriptures ; for many others, whofe honefty can 
 r»o more be fcrupled than Calvin's, have confelTed, that 
 the fcriptures were totally " filcnt j" nor by the tefti- 
 mony of thofe who were cotemporary with the apoftles, 
 for there " is nothing directly on the fnbjedt, either for 
 or againft infant baptifm, in the writings of the firft 
 century." But where will this I'entiment lead us, that 
 the *' Holy Ghoft teacheth," that words, when ufed in 
 the facred fcriptures, have a meaning totally different 
 
 * luft Chiift. Rdlg. 1. iv c. ij § (9 
 
t 167 3 
 
 from what they have In common ufe ? Will it not lead 
 into all the devious paths of error ? Is it not Origenifm 
 revived with a witnefs ? and does it not eftabliih the 
 fentiment of tliat myitic writer, that "the f:riptures 
 are of little ufe to thofe who underftand them as they 
 were written ?" 
 
 But thefe men, who made conceflions in favour of 
 immerfion, fays Mr. Anderfon, "were honeft." Did 
 he mean to fuggeft, that men are lefs honeft at the 
 prefent day ? we Hiould hardly fuppofe it ; and yet 
 there is fome ground for luch a iiifpicion. It is under- 
 ftood, that many plumply deny what their pious and 
 learned anceftors freely acknowledged : not only fo, 
 but we find the"r works interpolated. In the firlV edi- 
 tion of Poole's expofition on John iii. 2S. fpeaking of 
 John's baptizing at Enon hecniife ibere luas much water 
 there^ the writer thus expounds : " It is from this appa- 
 rent, that both Chrlft and John baptized by dipping the 
 body in water, elle they needed not have fought places 
 where had been great plenty of water : yet it is probabUy 
 thev did not conftantly dip, from what we read of the 
 apoftles' baptizing in houfes.'* Noticing more is added 
 upon this member of the text. Although Dr. Collins, 
 the writer of this article, has long fince been dead, yet 
 fome facrilegious hand has dared to alter this in a late 
 edition, printed at Edinburgh 1801, in the following 
 manner : " It is from this apparent, fay forney" &c. 
 " Others fay it is not apparent," &c. ; and feveral argu- 
 ments are here urged, to difprove what ftands decidedly 
 in favour of immerlion in the firft edition. This artful 
 interpolation we confider as a real impoiition upon the 
 public : for in this way any of the ancient writers may 
 be made to fay things which they never faid, and deny 
 things which they freely acknowledged. If fuch frauds 
 are allowed to be pracl:ifed, all confidence in the tefti- 
 mony of thofe who have gone before us will be de- 
 ftroyed. 
 
 The 6ppofers of immerfion make ufe of the fame 
 kind of arguments to difparage this praiSlice, which the 
 enemies of revelation employ againft Chriftianity gen- 
 erally ; we mean, by arguing from the abufes of it. 
 Oiie would think, by fome of their reprefentations, that 
 
r. i'-38 ] 
 
 ©ur bnptifiDal occafions were a icene of riot and confu- 
 iion ; the truth is exa<Sl]y the revcrfe of this ; they are 
 lifiially feafons of peculiar folemnity. We have fre- 
 cjfjent and repeated inftanccs of perfpns' beinpr ftruck 
 under conviction, while witnefling the due adminiltra- 
 tion of this impreffive inftitute. But were the ridicule 
 and oppofition much greater than what we have at any 
 time experienced, we Ihould fuppofe our brethren would 
 be the laft perlbns in the world to complain. From 
 whom docs this oppofition and ridicule proceed ? Surely 
 not from the Baptift^ themfelves, nor from any who are 
 
 friendly .to them ; but from we will not fay 
 
 whom, though they are often well known. 
 
 It mull; be peculiarly grateful to the feelings of a 
 p'ous Baptift, when reproached for following the exam- 
 ple of his Lord and Mafter, that immeriion, after fuf» 
 taining every oppofition which learned ingenuity can 
 make, ftill maintains its indifputable claim, of being 
 apoilolic baptifm. .Nor will it give him the le'aft unea- 
 fineA, that his Pjedobaptift brethren can make out a 
 bare prGbabilityy that water might po[fibIy have been ap- 
 plied in fome extreme cafes otherways. From the evi- 
 dence which the facred fcriptures, ecclefiaflical hiftory, 
 and the teilimony of the moft pious and learned of the 
 Psedobaptifts exhibit, that immerfion was the conftant 
 practice of the primitive church, he will feel a fafety in 
 following their example ; he will reft confident, that 
 there cannot be the fame degree of evidence in favour 
 of ^any other mode. This, Psedobaptifts themfelves ac- 
 l^nowledge to be valid ; all others are doubtful. 
 • Though conlidered by our opponents as a " little 
 modern fe<^," * if we have the truth on our fide we 
 need not fear. "They have ever been (faith Mr. Wor- 
 ccfler) but a very fmall proportion of the Chriftian 
 worl^. I do not mean (faith he) that they have been 
 but a fmall proportion of the twmwally Chriftian worlds 
 but. a very fmall proportion of the true and faitlrfui pro- 
 fefhng people of God." This is to us another of the 
 myfi:erious unintelligible flatements made by this author. 
 k would feem by this, that the Baptifts have fome time 
 
 • Dr. Ofgood, page 4i» aad Mr, Worceftcr, page 6ft. 
 
C 169 ] 
 
 »r other msde a large proportion of the profefiing 
 Chriltian world. But as a drawback upon this, they 
 had a much larger proportion of nominal profefTors than 
 fell to the ft.are of other denominations. If it be a 
 fa6l, that wc have a greater proportion of twrnitml pro- 
 feflbrs than Paedobaptifts, we are extremely puzzled to 
 'account for it. If we baptized infants, and iniifted that 
 they were all r/,yr;/?/<'j-, although they had never learned % 
 word concerning Jefus Chrift, nor was it certain that 
 they ever would : or if V/e admitted members into our 
 churches wiihout evidence of their having experienced 
 a moral change, and in many inftances, without afking 
 iliem a fmgle queltion concerning their religious exer- 
 cifes : or if a confiderable proportion of our minifters 
 were ordained without any examination refpeifling their 
 particular ientiments or experimental knowledge of the 
 truth, and who of courfe would be interefted in keeping 
 their hearers prejudiced againft the fanaticifm of expe- 
 rimental religion ; then we might realonably conclude 
 that we had a larger proportion of nominal profefTors 
 than thofe churches who admit only fuch as give a 
 j;Uisfa(ftory reajhn of the h^jpe that is in them. 
 
 It is true, indeed, we neither make difciples, admit 
 ni-embers, nor ordain miniilers, in this way \ yet, after all 
 our care in examining them according to the beji light ive 
 have, we are very liable to err. Our brethren, it would 
 feem, are not fo much expofed ; for, if they have not 
 overrated themfelves, " the light of the truth has been 
 a hundred, perhaps a thousand fold greater, in the 
 Psedobaptift churches than in the Baptift."* Aiirabili 
 diEiu ! What an amazing difference ! Who does net 
 pity the poor benighted Baptifts ? Alfo all the piety, 
 learning, and talents, belonging to the Ghriftian world, 
 our brethren claim, almoft ^xclufively for themfelves.! 
 For all this vaft fuperiorjty, we moft rerpe<flfally ten- 
 der them ** the homage of our high coiifideration j" 
 but beg them in future, not to overwi^lm us with fuch 
 arguments as thefe. 
 
 Mr. Anderfon, in his 2eal to make Tifairjh^^ of em- 
 inent men in the Paedobaptift churches, has fomehow 
 
 * Mr. Anderroti'g I.ett. p 14, f Vid. Mr. Worcdlcr** P-'c. p. c?. 
 P 
 
I 170 ] 
 
 flipped in among them the author of the Pilgrim's 
 Progress.* Bunyan, though a Baptift, we fuppofe it 
 -will be allowed was one of the good fort, for he held 
 to open communion. This being the cafe, how came 
 the Psedobaptifts to perfecute and imprifon him ? "Was 
 it for any immoral conduct that he was configned to a 
 loathfome jail twelve years and a half ? The reader, 
 perhaps, could judge better, if he were to know the 
 crime that was laid to his charge. The bill of indift- 
 ment preferred agalnft him runs tlms : " John Butiyan 
 — hath devilipAy ahflatned from coming to churchy to hear 
 divine fervice ; and is a common upholder oj feveral ««- 
 lanvful meetings and conventicles, to the dijlurbance and dif- 
 trahion of the good fubjeBs cf this kingdowy contrary to the 
 laius of our fovereign lord the king,* For thus daring 
 to preach the gofpel, contrary to the laws of a tyran- 
 iiical hierarchy, this good man was fent to prifon for 
 twelve years and fix months ! 
 
 It has often been urged, as an argument in favour 
 of the divinity of the Chriftian religion, that it made 
 its way at fir ft againft the learnings poiver and policy of 
 the world, by the inftromentality of a few illiterate 
 fifhermen ! Does not this argument caft its full weight 
 into the fcale, in favour of our diftinguilhing fen- 
 timents, if the obfervations of our brethren refpeifling 
 us be juft ? Let the candid mind decide. May the 
 Lord preferve us from becoming vain by profperity. 
 We have great reafon to adore our Saviour God, that 
 our dety is made fo plain in his blefled word ; that we 
 have fuch abundant proof that we are treading in thefoot- 
 Jleps of the flocks and are followers of them who through 
 faith and patience are gone to inherit the promifes. 
 
 Notwithftanding our praOice of immeriion, which 
 « is deemed indecorous by moft people accuftomed to 
 polilhed manners," and " denial of the external rite of 
 baptifni to the infant feed of believers j" yet, if it were 
 not for our " antichriftian pra61:ice of clofe commu- 
 nion," it feems that our brethren could receive and treat 
 us as Chriftians. We therefore add a few obfervations 
 on free communion before we clofe. 
 
 * Lett. p. aj. t Notes oa Claude, vol ii. p. aiS. 
 
C 171 ] 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 The Prhiciples of Open Communion examined — The Subje£f 
 concluded. 
 
 Is the communion for which our brethren plead, lim- 
 ited, or unlimited ? If limited, we wifli to be iiiform- 
 ed what are its boundaries. If unlimited, then it muft, 
 we conceive, embrace all who bear the ChrilHan name. 
 *< In thefe United States (faith a refpedtable writer) 
 there are probably more than fix millions of people 
 wearing the Chrijlian name,^** Is open communion 
 charitable enough to embrace all thefe ? No, furely j 
 the thought is too extravagant to be ferloufly entertain- 
 ed. A confiderable proportion of thefe, have no other 
 connexion with Chriftianity, than only as it is the re- 
 ligion of the cpuntry in which they happened to be 
 born. However, they are all brought forward, and 
 each counts one againft the Baptifts.f 
 
 But to fay no more of this. If we open our doors 
 for free communion, muft we nor, to a^ confiftentlv, 
 receive all whofe right of member(hip can be fup- 
 ported ? If fo, muft we not commune with all the bap- 
 tized children which belong to Paedobaptift congrega- 
 tions ? Our brethren place the right of their infants 
 on the fame footing with their own •, therefore, if tl>eir 
 argument be good, if we receive them, we muft re- 
 ceive their children alfo. Should we admit the be- 
 lieving parents, and refufe their baptized children, 
 might they not ftill continue the dreadful charge, that 
 we " deny God's everlafting covenant of fuperabound- 
 ing grace, the grand charter cf the inheritance and 
 privileges" of their infant feed ? We fee nothing to 
 forbid. But it may be faid, this is more than they 
 pradtife themfelves \ and therefore, it would not be 
 expected of the Baptifts. We grant that they do not 
 pra(5tlfe it ; and on that account we think them ex- 
 tremely inconfiftent. In contending with us, they 
 ftrenuoufly infift upon the right of their infants to 
 memberlhip, and yet themfelves deny them the moft 
 
 - .j^ ■ 
 * Dr. 0%ood,DUc. p. 41. f Ibid 
 
C ns ] 
 
 cfTential privileges which every member has a right t# 
 •fnjoy ! 
 
 But fhoiild we give up this idea, and narrow the 
 field of free communion, fo as to include only fuch 
 as are a<^ual members of Pasdobaptift churches ; we 
 Ihould ftill wifli to inquire, whether it would be ex- 
 pe61e4, that we lliould commune wiHi all of them, 
 .whether Calvinifts, Arminians, Semi-Aiians, Socinians, 
 or Unitarians ? If not, where are we to fix the difcrim- 
 inating hne ? D© the ftri£t Calviniftic or Hopkinfian 
 churches commune with thofe whom they conlider as 
 y\rminlans, or Semi-Arians ? If not, do they not prac- 
 , life clofe communion as well as the Baptifts ? Do 
 thofe churches which require of every perJon in order 
 lo mcmberfhip^ either a verbal or written declaration 
 ji>f ihtfir experience of a work of grace upon their 
 hearB, hold communion with thofe churches which 
 require no fuch experience, and which believe nothing 
 in iiich a work ? If they do not, are they not incon- 
 iiftent to blame us for our particular communion ? If 
 they do, are they not ftill more inconliftent ? 
 
 With a view to relieve thefe difficulties, fome have 
 ilated the pVan oi free communion in this way : — ^That 
 we fhould hold com.munion with all fuch, and with fuch 
 only, as we confcientioufly believe to be real Chriftians 5 
 God's own dear children by the Spirit of adoption and 
 a living faith. This is indeed by far the moft- con- 
 liftent plan ; but even this is attended with fome fe- 
 lious difficulties. It is believed that in all Chriftian 
 communities there may be found fome of the above 
 defcription. There ivere even in Sardis a few namts 
 ivhich had net defiled their garments^ though living in a 
 church which had moft awfully apoftatized from the 
 truth. On this principle we might freely commune 
 with one member, and reje<ft another at the fame time, 
 whofe ftanding was equally good in the church to 
 which they belonged. But what heart-burning and 
 confufion this would produce ; and yet it might be un- 
 avoidable in many cafes. 
 
 The fa6t is, we conceive, that there is but one con- 
 iiftent method, by which oceafional communion can be 
 pra^tifed between the members of fifter churches. This 
 
[ 173 ] 
 
 15 not upon the principle of individual, but of church 
 fellowjlnp. If we could receive one member of a church, 
 by the fame rule we could receive every member of 
 the fame church. We do not know the precife order 
 in which our Paedobaptift brethren proceed ; but think 
 it the general practice in our churches, that when a 
 brother, who is a ftranger, requefts occafional com- 
 munion, if by a certificate (or otherwife) he can fatisfy 
 us, that he is a member in regular ftanding, in any 
 church of the hm^ faith and order with ourfelves, he is 
 readily admitted. The only evidence which we have 
 of the man in this cafe is, from the character of the 
 church of which he is a member. We imagine the 
 practice of our brethren is not very diflimilar. 
 
 There are fome Psedobaptifl: churches which appear 
 to be built of lively Jlonesy and where the truths of the 
 gofpel in general are preached, and a good degree of 
 difcipline maintained. With thefe we have no material 
 difficulty, excepting in the article of baptifm. We 
 could moft cheerfully unite with them in every a^l of 
 Chriftian duty, which would not in our view contravene 
 fome other part of the revealed will of Chrift. In the 
 article of communion, we feel bound to treat them juft 
 as we do our own members, after they are received in- 
 to our fellowfhip, but not baptized. Should we treat 
 them as baptized perfons, would they not with great 
 propriety charge us with our inconfiftency ? 
 
 There are other churches, with which we freely ac- 
 knowledge we could not commune, if we had no ob- 
 je(5tions to their baptifm. It is not becaufe we do not 
 think them refpe£lable members of fociety, but becaufe 
 we have no evidence that they are real Chriftians. We 
 have no doubt but in thefe communities, there may be 
 fome fincer« believers ; but where a change of heart is 
 not coniidered as a neceflary qualification for member- 
 ihip, there is always a high probability, that a large 
 proportion of the members are unacquainted with the 
 truth as it is in Jefus. On the whole, we fee no way 
 that looks more confident than our prefent pradtice. 
 From all the evidence which has been fet before us, 
 we cannot brin^ ourfelves to believe that any thing is 
 p 2 
 
I 174 3 
 
 baptifm (Lort of imTnerfion. Nor can we fee our wzj 
 clear to invite any to the communion table until thef 
 have been baptized. 
 
 But why is it thought fo important, that different 
 denominations fhould be agreed in the article of table- 
 communion, more than in other things ? Is it any more 
 eflential to falvation, that we commune together at the 
 Lord's table, than that we fhould be rightly baptized ? 
 For ourfelves, we believe neither of them eflential to» 
 falvation. We are hence unable to difcern, why our 
 refufing to admit the Psedobaptifts to communicate 
 with us, fhould injure their churches, any more thanr 
 their not admitting us fhould injure our's. 
 
 Our brethren charge us with laying an undue ftrefs 
 ttpon baptifm ; at ieaft upon a particular mode of it» 
 But their arguments have been infufficient to produce 
 conviction. On the other hand, we think they lay an 
 undue ftrefs on our communicating together at theLord's 
 table. Ritual duties, they have conftantly iniifted, 
 were to be clafFed among the non-ejfenttals of religion. 
 How then fhali we reconcile the condu^ of thofe min- 
 ifters and churches, who profefs te^ hold rfie dodlrine 
 of fovereign difcriminating grace, and yet unite with 
 others, who hold every grade of do£b-ine, down to 5^- 
 gf^ianifm^ merely becaufe they are agreed in the article 
 of infant baptifm I At the fame time, they rejedt all 
 kind of connexion with their Baptift brethren, who 
 believe and preach the fame important truths which 
 they profefs to believe. Nay, do they not in fome 
 inftances, warn their people to fhun them as they 
 would the peftilence ? 
 
 Our pulpits have been generally open to all evangelic 
 minifters, whether they have been buried in bapttfrrty or 
 only fprinkled^ and we rather think they will ftill re- 
 main {o. Some of our brethren, in return, invite us 
 into their's •, while others very confcientioufly refufe, 
 afligning as a reafon, their fears, that it would have a 
 tendency to make a divifion among their people. Did 
 we differ in points of doctrine, the objection would have 
 weight, but now it is of little force. We do not be- 
 lieve that an inftance can be named, in which any kare 
 
L ^75 ] 
 
 preached upon their diftinguifhing fentiments, when 
 in each others' pulpits. Where then is the mighty 
 danger ? No where but in imagination. We have 
 never apprehended any danger, from their pi-eaching 
 the truth to our people. 
 
 Nor are we confcious of feeling, or difplaying, that 
 rage for profelyting, which our opponents charge us 
 with. " Each individual, (fiiys Dr. Olgood) whom they 
 can perfuade to renounce his former baptifm, by being 
 thus baptized over again, they confider as being recov- 
 ered from a ftate of heathenifm." (P. la.) We think 
 the Do£lor would have fpoken more correctly, if he had 
 faid, " They baptize all fuch as we cannot perfuade to keep 
 out of the water." Whenever a perfon renounces Paedo- 
 baptifm, and comes over to the Baptifts, it is immediately 
 faid, " Somebody has been perfuading him." So far is 
 this from being true generally, that we have reafon to fear 
 that the dread of being accufed of profelyting, has, in^ 
 too many mftances, kept us from fully declaring this part 
 of the counfel of God, We appeal t© Paedobaptift min- 
 ifters to fay, whether they have not, (many of them at 
 leaft) had repeatedly to ufe all the arts of perfuafton to 
 keep their people from being Baptifts ? If there be 
 nothing in the Bible which looks with a favourable af- 
 ped upon the Baptifl: fentiment, we aik, how it happens 
 that fo many Pjedobaptift minifters have confefTed, that 
 at feme former period of their lives, (though through 
 mercy they are now well eftablifbed) they had ftrong 
 doubts refpe<St:ing their infant baptifm I What but the 
 bible perfuaded Mr. Dunfter, the firfl: Prefident of Har- 
 yard Univerfity, to embrace the Baptift fentiments I 
 Surely he could not have h^Qu perfuaded by the Baptifts y 
 for at this time they were fcarcely allowed to breathe 
 the air of Maflachufetts. It is faid, " he thought him- 
 felf under obligation, to bear his teftimony in fome fer- 
 mons, againft the adminiftration of baptifm to any in- 
 fants whatfoever."* What his temerity coft him, the 
 author of the Hiftory of Malfachufetts will inform us. 
 ?' peaking of the rife of Antipredobaptifm in the prov- 
 iiice> he fays, « Mr. Dunfter, the Prefident of the Col- 
 
 *Mitcbcr» Life, p. 67, in Backiu. 
 
[ 1-6 ] 
 
 lege, made profellion of it, and was forced to quit his 
 preddentfliip." To which he adds, " Mr. Chauncy, his 
 fucceiTor, held immer/ion necejjary^ but was content that 
 the ordinance Oiould be adminiftered to infants, pro- 
 vided it was done in that way." He further remarks, 
 that " in Mr. Hooker's time, foon after the year 1 640, 
 it appears by his letters, that many were inclined that ivay^ 
 and he eyprefPes his apprehenfions, that the number 
 ■would increafe.*'* Whether his apprehenfions were 
 excited by a prophetic. fpirit, we pretend not to fay ; 
 but they appear to have been well founded. We wifh, 
 in future, whener^T the fons of Harvard are difpofed 
 to treat the advocates of immerfion as being deftitute 
 of literary patronage, they may remember, that their 
 two firft Prelidents underftood baptifm, as we do, to 
 mean immersion. 
 
 The preceding remarks contain fome of our difficul- 
 ties refpe^ting the plan of free communion. To us, the 
 ftanding of many churches at the prefent day, appears 
 to be fimilar to thofe of Afia, to which John was direct- 
 ed to write. Although they were not difowned of 
 God, yet the moft of them were reproved for having 
 departed from their original purity. 
 
 There are many individuals in the different commu- 
 nities with whom we could moft cheerfully communi- 
 cate at the Lord's table, did we believe them to be bap- 
 tized. But their argun^ents in favour of their practice 
 do not fatisfy us, and we cannot fee how they can fatisfy 
 them. To acknowledge that the fcriptures are our " on^ 
 ly rule of faith and praBice" and then proceed to argue 
 from their flencef looks to us as inconfiftent, as to admit 
 the teftimony of the guard, who reported that the dif- 
 ciples of Jefus ftole him away while they flept. 
 
 When the mode of our obedience to a pofitive infti- 
 tute, (inftead of better ground) reforts to this, that 
 " there is abfolutely no text or fentence in the Bible 
 forbidding it :"f or, that " there is nothing in the 
 fcriptures againft it :"-)- it eftablilhes to us one point, 
 and one only, that is, that the caufe which requires it 
 
 * Hutch, Hlft. Maff, p. iig. 
 f Dr. Ofgood, p. 49, Mr. Worcefter, p. 69. 
 
E 177 ] 
 
 labours e?(ceediogly. The reader will contraft the fol- 
 lowing obfervations with the above. 
 
 " Rehgion, (faid the excellent Claude) in all its parts, 
 ought to proceed from God : for as he has not left it 
 to the choice of man to have or not have a religion ; 
 fo neither has he left it to hisfavcy to invent fuch a wor- 
 ftiip as he choofes."* An old Engliih divine favs, 
 " We muR- have God*s warrant for God's worfhip. St. 
 Paul proves, that the tribe of Judah had nothing to do 
 with Aaron's pri eft hood, from xhf^ filence oilSloi'Q^ \ of 
 iL'hich tribe Mjf-'s [pake tiothin? conceniing priejlhood.'^ 
 He reafons as follows : " God employed Mofes to re- 
 veal his will to the Jews. Mofes fpake nothing of Ju- 
 dah's priefthood. Therefore God would not have 
 that tribe officiate in the prieft's oSice. What God 
 would have his cl^urch practife, fince the abolition of 
 Judaifn, he has revealed by ChriO: and his apoftles. 
 The apoft'os have rcg'tfu-red ihefe nppcrfjtnienis in the I crip- 
 tures"-f It hence appearSj that St. Paul confidered the 
 ftlcnce of the fcriptures, in a light exactly oppolite to 
 what our brethren do. He argued from it, thiit what 
 was not written was implicitly forbidden. They argue, 
 that what is not forbidden, TTiay lawfully be pradVifed. 
 
 We oppcfe infant baptifm becaufe we do not believe 
 It to be divine. If it be an apoftolic tradition, it is an 
 unwritten one. We baptize believers, becaufe we have 
 politive f-^ripture proof that they were baptized in the 
 days of Chrift and the apoftles. We pradUfe immer- 
 fion, becaufe to us it appears exceedingly plain from 
 the fcriptln-es that John the Baptift, who was fent 
 from God to introduce tills new diipenfation, baptized 
 IN Jordan ; and in Enon becaufe there was much ivater. 
 I'he nuich ivater is mentioned, as neceiTary to his bap- 
 tizing, and to nothing elfe. We alfo believe that Jefus 
 our Lord and Saviour was plunged in Jordan We fur- 
 ther believe that this was the on4y way in which the 
 apoftles received and adminiftered the ordinance. 
 
 Jefus firft made djciplcs, and then baptized them. 
 The commiffion which he gave to teach and baptize, 
 eorrefponds with his own practice. ** The order runs 
 
 '^ Difc, or. a Ser. vol. i. p. li^'. 
 f Gouge on the viith. of Hebrews, 
 
[ !7» ] 
 
 thus, Teach all nations baptizing them. The thing fpeaks 
 for itfelf ; the ftyle is popular ; the fenfe plain : it muft 
 mean either — baptize whole nations, or fuch of ail na- 
 tions as receive your inftru(5lions, and deiire to be bap- 
 tized. The firft is too grofs to be admitted, becaufe 
 it cannot be effected without force ; and the groffnefs 
 of the one inftantly turns the mind to the other, the 
 plain and true fenfe. In the principles of the kingdom 
 of Chrift there is UQiiher fraud nor force / nor Is it fuit- 
 able to the dignity of the Lord Jefus Chrift, to take 
 one man by conviction^ and his ten children h^ furprife^^ 
 Bifhop Beveridge, with many others, have tried to 
 make out, that the Greek word {matheietfate) to teach, 
 or make difciples, would admit of making them without 
 teaching. « But I believe (faid a very correal writer) 
 it would puzzle a whole conclave of Jefuits, to make a 
 difciple of Chrift, or a Chri/lian, without teaching.'*^ Col- 
 lecfting cmr ideas of a difciple from the New Teftament, 
 and we are at once led to a believer in the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift. Tl^fe difciples ail delire the ftncere milk of the 
 IVORD ; but thofe "little difciples" deiire no higher 
 nouriihment than what a good healthy nurfe can afford 
 them. But it is faid, " they are entered into Chrift's 
 fchool, and deitined to learn."f Indeed ! — But do men 
 enter their children as fcholars as foon as they are born, 
 becaufe they intend to fend them to fchool, fliould they 
 live to be four or five years old .'' A man may be fup- 
 pofed to form an intention, foon after the birth of a fon, 
 to bring him up at college ; but would he not be thought 
 a madman, Ihould he attempt to enter him as foon as he 
 was born, or before he was fitted, or was even capable 
 of receiving the loweft degree of inftrutftion } We will 
 only fay, ive have not fo learned Chrift. 
 
 Notwithftanding we oppofe with fome degree of zeal 
 what v/e look upon to be error in our brethren, yet we 
 rejoice whenever we hear or fee the work of God 
 among them. Concerned as we are, that the ordi- 
 nances (liould be kept pure, as they were delivered by 
 the apoftles, it is ftill a minor confideration. Our firfl 
 and great concern is, that men be made Chriftians^ 
 
 • Robiiifon. f Dr. Ofgood's DiTc. p. 7 a. 
 
C i79 ] 
 
 We have no idea that baptifm in any mode will make 
 Chriftians, either of infants or adults.* 
 
 We baptize fuch as have been fprinkled in their 
 infancy, when they defire it of us, provided they can 
 fatisfy us that they are fit fubje£ts ; becaufe we think 
 with TertuUian, *' that he that is not rightly baptized, 
 is doubtlefs not baptized at alL" Such as have been 
 baptized, that is, immerfed, upon a profeffion of faith, 
 by Psedobaptifts; we do not re-baptize : but if they have 
 only been fprinkled, though adults, when they come 
 over to us, we baptize them.f Infant baptifm to us is 
 defe(flive, both in the fibjtB and modey and has a ten- 
 dency to defeat the delign of the ordinance, which was 
 intended to be a figniiicant lign of faith in Chrift. 
 
 If baptizing fuch as have not been rightly baptized 
 be anabaptifmy then there were liundreds and thoufands 
 long before the mndmen of Munfter (as their enemies 
 are pleafed to call them) in 1522. Befides many indi- 
 viduals from Tertullian down to the Reformation, were 
 there not large fects, fuch as the Donatifts, in the fourth, 
 century, the Paulicians, in the feventh, eighth and 
 ninth, the Waldenfes in the eleventh, who baptized 
 fuch as came over to them from other {^^ ? Dr. 
 Mofheim allows, thnr " the origin of the fe(St is hid in 
 
 ♦ The quefllon was once afked one of the Paulianifts (an ancient 
 fed,) " Why do you not haptize yiiur fon, to expel die devil out of 
 him ? Oh, anfwered he, no water can wafh the devil out of the child. 
 Monfler! faid the other, you deny haptifm and the influence of the 
 Holy Ghoft." Monflrous abfurdity ! 
 
 f Mr. Worcefter feems to be much difturbed at the proceedings of 
 the Baptifts at Sedgwick, for adminifiering baptifm, forming a church, 
 &c. " Thus (fays he) in the face of the jn%rld, was the great body of 
 our churches and miniftcrs &c. ddilerately fet at nought. This has 
 been widely, and with great exultation, fpread abroad by the Anti- 
 padobaptifts." And would not the Paedobaptifts " exult " a little, if a 
 Baptift mteifter, his wife, three deacons, and eighty others, fhould all 
 come over to them at once .? Has not the defe<5lion of Mr. Edwards 
 from our fcntiments, been a theme of as much " exultation " among 
 them ? Has not a folitary inftance of a Mrs. JackfoH, in the State of 
 Vermont, been conveyed to Bofton, and attached to feveral publications, 
 and vaft pains taken to fpread it ? Not only fo, but has not an inftance 
 of one, who by the " overwhelming attentions of the Baptifts," had like 
 to have Leen one, but mercifully efcapcd, been widely proclaimed abroad ? 
 Vid. the lucubrations of a petticoat triefty over the fignaturc •£ Lydia, 
 in the Maff, Miff, Mag. 
 
[ 180 ] 
 
 the remoteft depths of antiquity j" that they <' ftarted 
 wp all of a fudden in feveral countries, at the fame point 
 of time, under different leaders, at the vtry period when 
 the firft conteft of the reformers with the Roman pon- 
 tiffs drew the attention of the world," &c. 
 
 But having far exceeded our propofed limits, we 
 halten to cloie the fubjeft with a few words of addrefs. 
 
 To the Paedobaptifts. 
 
 Belovjt.i, Bkethken — When you caft your <^-es upon the Baptlft 
 churches, you behold a people ffread abroad, who have rifcn fr(,m a 
 ftandfui to a great multitude. Like the primitive church, thry have 
 had tc encounter all the prejudices of the learned and of the ignorant. 
 As they have never been aided by civil power, their progref? mult be 
 attributed to fomc other caufe. We bcfccch you candidly to weigh the 
 evidence exhibited in the preceding wovk, and conip re it with thit by 
 wjiich you fujrport your own Icntimenfrs; and may the Lord help yon 
 *o know and do his will. 
 
 To the Baptifts. 
 
 BelOVFI) BrethR e n — Unto you it is givf/t, in the behalf •/ Chriji, ntt 
 •nly to believe on him^ hut alfo to ft'ffer for bis fake. From the days of 
 ^our perlecuttd anccftor, who was obliged to crofs the Patuckct, to en- 
 joy among favages thofe rights of confciencc, which had been denied 
 him by Chriftians, your hiftory exhibits repeated inftances of cruel 
 moiiings, and of the fpoil'ng of your goods, and lome of bonds and imprifcn- 
 mtnt. The American revolution has meliorated your condition. Truth 
 inuft prevail. Its progrefs will naturahy be more rapid, when not im- 
 peded by religious eftabliftiments. and penal laws. 
 
 We befeech you, brethren, ?i^ pilgrims and fr angers, to adorn your pfo- 
 fcflion, by a holy, humble walk. The progrels of your principles, and 
 increafe of your churches (under God) depends not lefs upon the un- 
 blameablenefs of your lives, than upon the purity of your iencimerts. 
 If your brethren bate you, und caji you out far bis name's fake, requtte 
 them only with fcindnefs. In this way you will put to ftlence the i^no* 
 ranct of foelifb men. The prHcnt period i« aufpicious; O for wildom to 
 improve it. Sec that you fall not out by ike way. Finally, brethren, 
 've befeecb you, that you ivalk 'worthy of the vocation ivhet e-with you arlt 
 tailed ; luitb all Utulinefs and nieeknef^ ivith l^ng'fvjff'erings forbearing one 
 enotber in Uve ; endeavouring to keep the unity of t,. -it Spirit itt the bomd of 
 ftate. 
 
 FINIS. 
 

 • ;P 
 
 ><?!. ' 
 
 •i?-