<Vttt&IR.-- y 
 
^ 
 
 CL 
 
 «r 
 
 3E5 h> 
 
 «=5 
 
 ^ 
 
 ft 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 % 
 
 I 
 
 «P 
 
 < 
 
 E 
 to 
 
 it 
 
 
 C 
 
 
Mode and Subjects of Baptijm 
 
 * EXAMINED, 
 
 1M 
 
 SEVEN SERMONS. 
 
 f0 WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 A Brief Hiftory of the Baptifts. 
 
 BY DANIEL MERRILL, A. M. 
 
 ASTOR Of THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN S£DCWl«. 
 
 our. law judge any man before it hear him,' and k^ wlwt be 
 
 |h? NlCODKMliS. '" IN UK J '' 
 
 •ver he he of you that forfake* not all that he faarii, he cannot 
 f chic i pie. J 
 
 ■fbofoev 
 
 be my difciple 
 
 - — fe^©« — 
 
 SECOiWD EDITION. 
 
 — »©<-« — 
 
 Bofton : 
 Printed and fold by- Manning S? Loring> No. 2, Cornhill. 
 
 1805. 
 
TO THE R£i%DE'lC^ 
 
 
 Fellow Traveller to Etertiit\> s 
 
 Y/f 
 OU and I are the offspring of God. 
 The period of our return to him fwiftly 
 approaches. Then the motive I have had 
 in writing, and which you lhall have had in 
 reading, will both be known. How, and 
 how far the following pages will affect my 
 prefent and future life, is with the Lord. 
 Hdw far they fhall affect thine, is alfo with 
 Him. One thing is certain : the truth of 
 what I have written will be foon known. 
 You are willing to know it now, provided 
 you know the value of the gofpel, and poffefs 
 an heart humbled by its doctrines. 
 
 Reader, be not offended at what I have 
 written, till you be fure it is falfe. Do 
 thyfelf no harm. Read, confider, compare 
 every part, and the whole, with divine truth, 
 in fuch a manner and fpirit, as mall yield 
 thee a pleafing reflection in the world to 
 come. 
 
'!£ th4fc,fitbjc&, as here fc^efented, b&%£nue, 
 •it is' a ferioils trutn. If an error, it is a 
 lerious one. It nearly concerns .the king- 
 dom of Emmanuel, to whofe pleafure and 
 mercy the whole is cheerfully refigned, 
 
 By, Reader, 
 
 Thy Servant, 
 
 For Jefus' fake, 
 
 The AUTHOR. 
 
 .Sen r. wick, ) 
 04*. 27, »3o4. S 
 
The Mode and SubjkSls <j 
 
 m. 
 
 
 
 SERMO% 
 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, £ 
 
 Go j^, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojl ; teach- 
 ing them to obferve all things <whatfoever I have com manded 
 you : And, lo, I am ivith you alivay, even unto the end of the 
 'world. Amen. 
 
 IT hath pleafed the Father of Mercies to beftow on fallen 
 man a revelation from heaven. In it is contained the 
 fcheme of grace, which brings life and immortality to light. 
 It fhows the way by' which to efcape the wrath to come, and 
 to find the favour of God. All fcripture is given by his iri- 
 fpiration, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor- 
 rection, for inftruction in righteoufnefs ; that the man of 
 God may be perfect, thoroughly furniflied unto all good 
 works. 
 
 Till the human heart be humbled, in meafure, man feels 
 not his need of divine teaching ; nor will he make the fcrip- 
 tures the man of his counfel. But, my brethren, and peo- 
 ple, it is doubtlefs the cafe, that many of you pclfefs a wil- 
 lingnefs to have your principles and practice fquared by 
 the word and teftimony of Jefus Chrift. My text contains 
 fome of the laft words of our great High-Prieft. It is the 
 general orders which he gave his firft apoftles, and left for 
 the inftruction, practice and comfort of all their fucceffors, to 
 the end of the world. In the verfe which precedes my text, 
 Chrift informs us, that all power in heaven and in earth is 
 given unto him. His words, therefore, are clothed with 
 authority. May we hear, and fear, and be obedient. 
 Where the word of a king is, there is power ; and who may 
 fay unto the King of Zion, What doft thou? 
 A2 
 
6 The Mode and Subjccls [Serm. L 
 
 So far as we be Chriftians, all that is neceflary to enforce 
 obedience is, to know what Chrift would have us to do. 
 Perhaps not a paflage in all the oracles of truth contains 
 more extenfive inftruction than do the words of my text. 
 The commands are exceedingly broad ;. the Baptifmal Infti- 
 tution comprehends all obedient difciples ; and the comfort- 
 ing promile is durable as the world. 
 
 In my text, Chrift Jems, the Head of the church and 
 Lord of all, conllituted his prefent and fucceeding difciples 
 to- be apoftles unto all nations. It contains their commif- 
 fion, and general and particular orders. In it they are 
 directed 
 
 I. To go and difciple all nations. 
 
 II. To baptize them, in the name of the Father, and o£ 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 III. He directs thefe newly conftituted apoftles, and all 
 their fucceffors, to teach their baptized difciples to obferve 
 all things whatfoever he bad given in commandment. 
 
 Lajlly. For their encouragement and comfort, he adds* 
 And, lo, I am with you alway,.even unto the end of the 
 world. Amen. 
 
 I fuppofe it will be expedient, and with me it is an indif- 
 penikble duty, that I lay each of thefe propofitions as fairly 
 and as fully before you as I can. But 1 fhall not obferve 
 the order ia which they lie in my textj which is as I have 
 juft ftated them. For I have many things to fay unto you, 
 in agreement with my text, but fear that you are not, all 
 of you, able to bear them now. We fhall therefore begin 
 #ith the 
 
 II. Which contains Chrift's command to baptize, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, 
 thofe who fhall be difcipled of all nations. 
 
 Nor do I purpofe to call your attention, at this time, to 
 the whole which is implied in this proportion. But what 
 I purpofe is, to define a few words which appertain to the 
 ordinance, and then collect the fcripture account of baptifm, 
 with fome other texts, which may throw light upon the 
 fubject. Afterwards, in difcourfes which may follow, I 
 may produce evidence, that my definition of baptifm is ac- 
 curate and juft ; and fhow how the apoftles and primitive 
 Chriftians underftood this matter, and how they practifed. 
 When this is done, it will be cafily feen,. what is the out- 
 
Serm. L] of Baptifm. 7 
 
 ward and viiible part of baptifm ; and then the purport, 
 end and defign of the inftitution may call for fome attention. 
 
 Before I proceed to open, illuftrate and confirm theie 
 particulars, I have feveral things xq fay unto you. For I 
 wifh you to attend to the fubjecl without partiality and with- 
 out hypocrify. I pray God to remove darknefs and all pre- 
 judice from your minds, that you may, indeed, come to the 
 law and to the teftimony of Jefus Chrift in this matter. 
 
 You will confider me as under the ftrongeft worldly in- 
 ducements to continue to believe and praclife as I have 
 heretofore done ; for fhould I, after mature confideration, 
 be conftrained to believe and praclife differently, you will 
 be releafed from all legal obligations to afford me any far- 
 ther fupport ; my relations will, the moft of them, proba- 
 bly be greatly (hocked, and difpleafed, at the report; many, 
 whom I highly value as Christians, and numbers of them 
 zealous preachers of the gofpel, will, it may be, confider me 
 as loft, and worfc than loft, to the church and world : and, 
 tbefides this, multitudes will, no doubt, fay all manner of 
 evil againft me. All this being true, with a thoufand other 
 connected fmaller evils, and nothing of a worldly nature in 
 profpecl, fave what is contained in the promife of Jefus 
 Chrift, you cannot but conclude that I fhall proceed no 
 farther in this matter than I am obliged to, in following the 
 Lamb of God whitherfoever he goeth. 
 
 Having faid thus much with refpect to myfelf, I will ftill 
 add, that, fhould a change in my belief and practice, reflect- 
 ing the fubjecl on hand, bring me to a more full belief and 
 practice of the truth, I fhall, on the whole, be a gainer. 
 But, fhould a change take place, and I be called to fuftain 
 all the evils which I may calculate upon, and after all be. 
 plunged myfelf into a hurtful and bewildering error, furely 
 all the meek and lowly in heart would rather commiferate 
 than revile me. 
 
 Another thing I would mention to you, fo that the fub- 
 jecl may, if it poffibly can, meet your minds without preju- 
 dice. You ought not to fix your judgments, nor found your, 
 belief, upon, the arguments or confeffions of great and good 
 men, any farther than fuch arguments and confeffions are 
 conformed with the fcriptures of truth. Should we hear- 
 ken to what the greateft and beft of men have confeffed and 
 affirmed of the fubjecl which, we are about to coidider, and 
 
8 The Mode and Subjcfls [Serm. I. 
 
 , have our belief and practice correfponding with what they 
 / have written, the matter would, mod evidently, go againit 
 what we have, in time paft, both believed and pradifed. 
 For they have very generally, or very many of them, if not 
 all of them, confeifed, or affirmed, however their practice may 
 have been, that immerfion was the mode pradrifed by the 
 apoftles and primitive church. This I purpofe to prove to 
 you in its proper place. 
 
 What I have more to add, before I proceed to the main 
 bufmefs, is, to ftate a few plain truths. 
 
 1. Baptifm is a pofitive inftitution, about which we can 
 know nothing, as to its being a Chriftian ordinance, but from 
 what Chrift, and thofe infpired by his Spiric, have taught 
 us. 
 
 2. All which we are required to believe and practife, 
 with refpedt to the Chriftian ordinance of baptifm, is declared 
 to us by Jefus Chrift and his forerunner and apoftles. 
 
 3. When Jefus Chrift hrft inftituted the oidinance of 
 baptifm, he, no doubt, delivered his mind £o clearly and 
 fully upon the fubjecl:, that his immediate difciples and 
 apoftles underftood and practiied as he would have them. 
 
 4. Every thing which hath, by the precepts and com- 
 mandments of men, been added fince, is diftinct from the 
 ordinance, and makes no part of it. 
 
 5. No man, or body of men, have any more authority to 
 add to this ordinance, or to diminiih from it, than they have 
 to inftitute a new one and call it Chrift's. 
 
 6. Whenever, and wherever, this ordinance is fo chang- 
 ed, as to lofe the intent of the Inftitutor, then and theie 
 the ordinance is loft, and becomes no Chriftian ordinance 
 at all. 
 
 Having laid thefe preparatory obfervations, remarks and 
 plain truths before you, we proceed to confider the fubjecl 
 now on hand, which is — 
 
 Chrift's command to baptize, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, thofe who fhall be 
 difcipled of all nations. 
 
 What is propofed for the prefent difcourfe is — 
 
 1. To define a few words which appertain to the ordi- 
 nance of baptifm. Then — 
 
 2. To collect the fcripture account of baptifm, together 
 with fome other texts, which may throw light upon the fub- 
 je&. Afterwards, i a fome following difcourfes, we may— 
 
Serin. I.] of Baptifm. 9 
 
 3. Produce evidence, that my definition of baptifm is 
 accurate and juft. Then fhow — 
 
 4. How the apoflles and primitive church underflood 
 this matter, and how they pra&ifed. When this is done, it 
 will be ealily feen — 
 
 5. What is the outward and vifible part of Chriftian 
 baptifm. Then — 
 
 LafJy. The purport, end and defign of the baptifmal 
 inititution may call for our attention. 
 
 Agreeably to what is propofed, we are — 
 
 i. To define a few words which appertain to the ordi- 
 nance of baptifm. Thefe are — 
 
 1 . Baptiflerion, Greek ; baptijlerium and lavacrum, Latin ; 
 a font, a bath, a warning place, a veflel to wafh the body 
 in ; Englifh. 
 
 2. Baptifma and baptlfmos, Greek ; Baptifma and Lotion 
 alfo, ablutia faura, Latin ; baptifm, warning, facred, ceremo- 
 nial wafhing ; Englifh. 
 
 3. Baptjftes, Greek ; baptifta, Latin j one who dips, a 
 baptift ; Englifh. 
 
 4. Baptizo, Greek ; baptizo, mergo, lavo, Latin ; to bap- 
 tize, to dip all over, to wafh ; Englifh. 
 
 5. Lauo, Greek ; lavo, Latin ; to wafh, to rinfe, to 
 bathe; Englifh. * 
 
 2. We are to collect the fcripture account of baptifm, to- 
 gether with fome other texts which may throw light upon 
 the fubjecl. 
 
 We will begin with thofe pafTages which fpeak of the bap- 
 tifm of John. 
 
 1. Matth. iii. 5, 6, 7. Then went out to him Jerufalem, 
 and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
 were baptized of him in Jordan, confeiling their fins. But 
 when he faw many of the Pharifees and Sadducees come to 
 his baptifm, he faid unto them, O generation of vipers, &c. 
 
 2. Verfe 11. I indeed baptize you with water unto re- 
 pentance, Sic. 
 
 3. Verfes 13, 14, 15, 1 6. Then cometh Jefus from 
 Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him : but 
 John fo, bade him, faying, I have need to be baptized of 
 thee, and, corned thou to me ? And Jefus anfwering, faid 
 unto him, Suffer it to be fo now, for thus it becometh us to 
 fulfil all righteoufnefs : then he fuffered him. And Jefus, 
 when he was baptized, went up ftraightway out of the water. 
 
i o The Mode and Subjefts [Serm. I. 
 
 4^ Matth. xxi. 25, 26, 27. Thebaptifm of John, whence 
 was it, from heaven, or of men? And they reafoned with 
 themfelves, faying, If we (hould fay, From heaven, he will 
 fay unto us, Why did ye not then believe him ? But, if we 
 fhall fay of men, we fear the people, for all hold John as a 
 prophet. And they anfwered Jefus and faid, We cannot 
 t«ll,«&c. 
 
 5. Mark i. 4, 5. John did baptize in the wildernefs, 
 and preach the baptifm of repentance for the remiffion of 
 fins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
 and -they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the 
 river of Jordan, confefling their fins. 
 
 6. Verfes 8, 9, 10. I indeed have baptized you with 
 water — And it came to pafs in thofe days, that Jefus came 
 from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jor- 
 dan, and ftraightway coming up out of the water, &c 
 
 7. Mark xi. 30. The baptifm of John, was it from 
 heaven, or of men ? 
 
 8. Luke iii. 3. And he came into all the country about 
 Jordan, preaching the baptifm of repentance for the remif- 
 fion of fins. 
 
 9. Verfes 7, 8. Then faid he to the multitude that 
 came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers 
 ■ ■ bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. 
 
 10. Verfe 12. Then came alfo publicans to be baptized. 
 
 1 1. Verfe 16. I indeed baptize you with water. 
 
 12. Verfe 21. Now when all the people were baptized, 
 it came to pafs that Jefus alfo, being baptized, &c. 
 
 13. Luke vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard 
 him, and the publicans, juftified God, bemg baptized with 
 the baptifm of John. But the Pharifees and lawyers reject- 
 ed the counfel of God againtl themfelves, being not baptiz- 
 ed of him. 
 
 14. Luke xx. 4. The baptifm of John, was it from 
 heaven, or of men ? 
 
 15. John i. 25, 26. Why baptized thou, then, if thou 
 be not that Chrift, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? John an- 
 fwered them, faying, I baptize with water. 
 
 16. Verfe 28. "" Beyond Jordan, where John was bap- 
 tizing. 
 
 17. Verfe 3c. That he mould be made raanifeft to 
 Ifrad, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 
 
Serm. I.] of Baptifm, 1 1 
 
 1 8. Verfe 33. He that fent me to baptize with water. 
 
 19. John iii. 23. And John alfo was baptizing in Enon, 
 near to Salim, becaufe there was much water there ; and 
 they came and were baptized. 
 
 20. John iv. 1. The Pharifees had heard that Jefus 
 made and baptized more difciples than John. 
 
 21. John x. 40. Beyond Jordan, into the place where 
 John at firft baptized. 
 
 22. Ad.s i. 5. John truly baptized with water. 
 
 23. Verfe 22. Beginning from the baptifm of John. 
 
 24. Acts x. 37. After the baptifm which John preached. 
 
 25. A8s xi. 16. John indeed baptized with water. 
 
 26. A8s xiii. 24. When John had firft preached, be- 
 fore his coming, the baptifm of repentance to all the people. 
 
 27. Alls xviii. 25. He (Apollos) fpake and taught, 
 diligently, the things of the Lord, knowing only the bap- 
 tifm of John. 
 
 28. Ads xix. 3, 4. Unto what then were ye baptized ? 
 And they faid, Unto John's baptifm. Then faid Paul, 
 John verily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, faying 
 unto the people, that they fhould believe on him which 
 fhould come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. 
 
 We will next turn our attention to thofe texts which men- 
 tion Chrift's baptifm. 
 
 1. Matth. xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 2. Mark xvi. 15, 16. And he faid unto them, Go ye 
 into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature : 
 he that belie veth, and is baptized, mall be faved. 
 
 3. John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water, and of 
 the Spirit, &c. 
 
 4. Verfe 22. After thefe things came Jefus and his dif- 
 ciples into the land of Judea, and there tarried with them 
 and baptized. 
 
 5. Verfe 26. Behold the fame baptifceth, and all men 
 come to him. 
 
 6. John iv. 1, 2. When therefore tb? Lord knew how 
 the Pharifees had heard that Jefus made and baptized more 
 difciples than John, (though Jefus himfelf baptized not, but 
 his difciples.) 
 
 7. A8s iii. 38. Then Peter faid unto them, Repent, 
 an4 De baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jefus 
 
12 The Mode and Subjefls [Serm. I. 
 
 Chrift, for the remiftlon of fins, and ye (hall receive the gift 
 of the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 8. Acts ii. 41. Then they that gladly received his word 
 were baptized. 
 
 9. Acts viii. 12, 13. But when they believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and 
 the name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized, both men and 
 women. Then Simon himfelf believed alfo, and when he 
 was baptized, &c. 
 
 10. Atls viii. 16. Only they w r ere baptized in the name 
 of the Lord Jefus. 
 
 1 1. Verfes 36, 37, 38, 39. And as they Vent on their 
 way, they came unto a certain water ; and the eunuch faid, 
 See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ? 
 And Philip faid, If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou 
 mayeft. And he faid, I believe that Jefus Chrift is the Son 
 of God. And he commanded the chariot to ftand (till. 
 And they went down both into the water, both Philip and 
 the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were 
 come up out of the water, &c. 
 
 12. Atls ix. 18. And he (Saul) arofe, and was baptiz- 
 ed. 
 
 13. Atls x. 47, 48. Can any man forbid water, that 
 thefe fhould not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
 Ghoft as well as we ? And he commanded them to be bap- 
 tized in the name of die Lord. 
 
 14. Atls xvi. 15. And when (he (Lydia) was baptiz- 
 ed, and her houfehold. 
 
 15. Verfe 33. And was baptized, he (the jailor) and 
 all his, ftraightway. 
 
 16. Ads xviii. 8. Anil many of the Corinthians, hear» 
 ing, believed, and were baptized. 
 
 17. Ails xix. 5. When they heard this, they were bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord Jefus. 
 
 18. Atls xxii. 19. And now, why tarrieft thou? Arife 
 and be baptized, and wa(h away thy fins, calling on the 
 name of the Lord. 
 
 19. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that fo many of us as 
 were baptized if§30 Chrift Jefus, were baptized into his 
 death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptifm into 
 death, that like as Chrift was raifed up from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, even fo we alfo (hould walk in 
 newnefs of life. 
 
Serin. I.] of Baptifm. i 3 
 
 20. I Cor. i. i J, 14, 15, 16, 17. Were ye baptized in 
 the name of Paul ? I thank God that I baptized none of 
 you but Crifpus and Gaius ; left any fhould fay that I had 
 baptized in mine own name. And I baptized alfo the houfe- 
 hold of Stephanas : Beiides, I know not whether I baptized 
 any other ; for Chrift font me not to baptize, but to preach 
 the gofpel. 
 
 21. 1 Cor. vi. 11. But ye are wafhed. 
 
 22. 1 Cor. 12, 13. For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
 tized into one body.* 
 
 23. 1 Cor. xv. 29. Elfe what fhall they do that are 
 baptized for the dead ? 
 
 24. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been bap- 
 tized into Chrift, have put on Chrift. 
 
 25. Eph. iv. 5. One baptifm. 
 
 26. Eph. v. 26. That he might fanclify and cleanfe it 
 with the wafhing of water by the word. 
 
 27. Col. ii. j 2. Buried with him in baptifm, wherein 
 alfo ye are rifen with him. 
 
 28. Titus iii. 5. According to his mercy he faved us, 
 by the wafhing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghoft. 
 
 29. Heb. vi. 2. The doctrine of baptifm s f 
 
 30. Heb. x. 22. Our bodies wafhed with pure water. 
 
 31. 1 Peter iii. 21. The like figure whereunto even 
 baptifm doth now fave us, (not the putting away the fifth 
 of the flefh, but the anfwer of a good confeience toward* 
 God, by the refurre&ion of Jefus Chrift.) 
 
 Thefe, I believe, are all the texts in the New Teftament 
 which have a plain and obvious reference to either the bap- 
 tifm of John or of Chrift. They afford us the furn of all 
 the knowledge which we can have of either the mode or 
 fubjects of Chriftian baptifm. What thefe paffages fay, we 
 may believe : what they do not countenance, we may not 
 believe. 1 will now fet before you thofe paiTages where 
 wafhing is mentioned, and the Greek words which are ufed. 
 
 1. Matth. vi. 17. But thou, when thou fafteft, anoint 
 thy head, and (nip/ai) wafh thy face. 
 
 *This intends, as feme fuppofc, the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft. 
 + It is not certain that this hath any reference to Chriitian bnptifm. 
 If it have, it mini refer not to that only. See DooDR ICE in ioe, 
 
 B 
 
T4 The Mode and Subj [Serm. I. 
 
 2. Matth. xv. 2. Why do thy difciples tranfgrefs the 
 tradition of the elders ? for they [niplonlai) wafh not th<?ir 
 hands when they eat hread. 
 
 3. Matth. xxvii. 24. When Pilate faw that he could 
 prevail nothing, hut that rather a tumult was made, he 
 took water and (japenipfato) wafhed his hands. 
 
 4. Mark vis. 2. And when they faw fome of his difci- 
 ples eat bread with defiled, that is to fay with (anipto'u) un- 
 wafhen hands. 
 
 5. Verfe 3. For the Pharftees, and all the Jews, ex- 
 cept they (i:ipsoi:ta'i) wafh their hands oft, they eat not, Sec. 
 
 6. Verfe 4. When they come from the market, except 
 they (bapiisontai) wafh, they eat not ; and many other 
 things there be which they have received to hold, as the 
 (bapiifmous) walkings of cups and pots, brazen veffels, and 
 of tables. 
 
 7. Verfe 5. But eat bread with [aniptois) unwafhen 
 hands. 
 
 8. Verfe 8. For, laying afide the commandments of 
 God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the {laphjmous) walk- 
 ing of pots and cups. 
 
 9. Li. \f v. 2. And they (apcplunan) were wafhing 
 their nets. 
 
 10. Luke vii. 38. And flood at his feet, behind him, 
 weeping, and began [breeheln) to walk his feet. 
 
 11. Verfe 44. And he turned to the woman, and faid 
 unto Simon, Seeft thou this woman ? I entered into thine 
 houfe, thou gaveft me no water for my feet ; but fhe 
 [ebrexe) hath wafhed my feet with tears. 
 
 12. Ijule xi. 38. And when the Pharifees faw it, that 
 he had not firft (ebaptifthe) wafhed before dinner. 
 
 13. John \x. 7. And faid unt^o him, Go, and (tiipfai) 
 wafh in the pool of Siloam ;— he went his way therefore 
 and (enipfato) wafhed. 
 
 14. Verfe 15. Then again the Pharifees alio afked 
 him how he had received his fight : he faid unto them, 
 He put clay upon mine eyes, and I (enipfamen) wafhed and 
 do fee. 
 
 l S' 7°^ in XI 'i- 5* After that he poured water into a 
 bafon, and began (niptein) to w.:lh the difciples' feet. 
 
 1 5. Verfe 6. And Peter ikid unto him, Lor J, dci; 
 iiiou (nipteis) wafh my feet ? 
 
S er m . I . ] of Baptifim 1 5 
 
 17. Veife 8. Peter faith unto him, Thou fli.ilt ruever 
 [n'tpfei) waih my feet. Jefus anfwered him, If I (ntyfo} 
 waih theenot, thou hall; no part with me. 
 
 18. Verio 10. Jefus faith to him, He that is (olelou- 
 taenos-) wafhed, needeth not fave {nlpfii/ihai) to waih. his 
 feet, &g. 
 
 19. Verfe 14. If f then, your Lord anl Mailer (en>>- 
 fa) have wafhed your feet, ye alio ought (niptein) to waih 
 one another's feet. 
 
 20. ./#?.i- ix. 37. And it came to pafs in thofe days th it 
 fiie was fick and died, whom when they had (ioufa 
 warned. 
 
 21. yA?.r xvi. 33. Ana he took them the fame hour of 
 the night, and (eloufen) wafhed their (tripes. 
 
 22. A3s xxii. 16. And now, why tarried: thou ? Arife 
 3nd be baptized, and (apoloufai) waih away thy fins. 
 
 23. 1 Cor. vi. 11. But fuch were fome of you, but ye 
 (apeloufaglhe) are wafhed. 
 
 24. Eph. v. 26. That he might fanclify and cleanfe it 
 with Uoutro) the wafhing of water by the word. 
 
 25. 1 Tim. v. 10. If ihe (enipfe/i) have wafhed the- 
 faints' feet. 
 
 26. Titus iii. 5. By the (lovtrou) wafhing of regeneration. 
 
 27. Hib.'ix. 10. Which flood only in meats and drinks, 
 and [diaphorois bapiifmois) divers wafhings. 
 
 28. Heb. x. 22. Having our bodies {lehumenoi} wafhed 
 with pure water. 
 
 29. 2 Peter ii. 22. But it is happened unto them ac- 
 cording to ihe true proverb — and the low that {loufamene) 
 was wafhed, &c. 
 
 30. Rev. i. 5. Unto him that level us and (loufanii) 
 waihed us from our fins in h : s own blood, 
 
 31. 1 Rev. vii. 14. Theie a:e they who came out of 
 great tribulation, and (eplunan) h:\v: wafted their reb.s hi 
 the blood of the Lamb.* 
 
 Thofe pafFages which make mention of sprinkling, 
 with die Greek words nfed, now call for your attention. 
 
 1. Bleb. ix. 13. For if the blood of bulls and goats, 
 and the aihes of an heifer (rantizoufa) fprinkling the uiv 
 clean, &c. 
 
 * Plunl properly fignifiea to waih clothes ; as km, the body ; and 
 v, the face and hands. 
 
1 6 The Mode and Subjefis [Serm. I. 
 
 2. Vcrfe 19. He (Mofes) took the blood of calves 
 .md of goats, with water, and fcarlet wool, and hyffop, and 
 {errantije) ipi inkled both the book and ail the people. 
 
 3. Heb. .12. Haying our hearts (erratiti/meifoi) fprink* 
 led from an evil confidence. 
 
 4. Heb. xi. 28. Through faith he kept the paflover 
 and the [prrj}Li:!;n) fprinkling of blood. 
 
 5. Heb. iii. 24. And to the blood of [ranlifmou) 
 iprmkljng. 
 
 6. 1 Peter i. 2. And to the (rantlfmor.) fprinkling of 
 the blood of Jefus Chriit. 
 
 Lqflly. You will now give attention for a moment to 
 thofe paflages of fcripture where the word dip is mentioned. 
 
 i. Luke xvi. 24. That he may (bapse) dip his finger 
 in water. 
 
 2. Matth. xxvi. 23. And he anfwered and faid, He 
 that {einL:pj'as) dippeth his hand with me in the difh. 
 
 3. Mark xiv. 20. And he anfwered and faid unto 
 them, It is one of the twelve that (embaptomenos) dippeth 
 with me in the difh. 
 
 4. John xiii. 26. And he anfwered, He it is to whom 
 I ihall give a fop when I have (bap/as) dipped it; and 
 when he had (embepfas) dipped the fop, &c. 
 
 5. Rev, xix. 13. And he was clothed with a vefture 
 [bebammenon) dipped in blood. 
 
 A few remarks on what we have pafTed over will clofe 
 iicourfe. 
 
 1. Wc fee th; words which appertain to the or- 
 dinance of baptifm, fi^nify the fame which they would pro- 
 
 ihe fcripture mode. 
 
 2. Wc fee that the fubjeel of baptifm is very repeatedly 
 mentioned in the New Teftament. It is brought to view 
 exprefslj in about threefcore paliages. 
 
 3. r baptifm is mentioned, and nekher the 
 
 word btiptizo nor baptifmos is ui'ed, the word fubdituted 
 plainly intimates that bathing, or wafhing the body all 
 over, is the mode ; for this is the fignification of louo, which 
 is the word, and the only word, which the fciiptures em- 
 in the room of baptizS. , 
 . 4. Whenever baptizo or baptlfmos is tranfiated walking, a 
 cerenioni.il and not a common walking is manifeftly intended. 
 
Serm. I.] of Baptijls. 1 7 
 
 5. We find that in all the places where fprinkling is 
 mentioned, the original words, rbantizo and proj'chufin, are 
 very different from bapti%o and laptifmos. 
 
 6. You will pleafe to obfcrve, that wherever we find, 
 through the New-Teftament, the word, to dip, it is from 
 the fame theme whence baptixo comes. 
 
 7. We fee that every thing looks as though immerjion 
 might be the mode ; and, as for Jprinkling, there is, to fay 
 the leaft, nothing which looks like it. 
 
 B« 
 
The Mode and Subjects [Serm. II. 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Co ye, therefore, and leach all nations, baptizing them in tie name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft ; teaching 
 them to olferve all things ivhatfoever I have commanded you : 
 And, lo, I, am nvilh you alivay, even unto the end of the 
 ivor Id. Amen. 
 
 T 
 
 'HE bufmefs which we are now upon depends very 
 much upon the definitions of certain words, and 
 principally upon the definition of the word baptize, and upon 
 the certain evidence of fuch definition or definitions being 
 accurate and juft. For we can no othervvife underiland 
 what God the Lord faith unto us, than by knowing the 
 import of the words by winch he is pleafed to communicate 
 his will. The great Teacher who came from God, hath 
 doubtlefs communicated his mind fo explicitly that the hum- 
 ble in heart may know the common matters which relate 
 to faith and practice. If we devoutly fearch the fcriptures, 
 and feek wifdom as (liver, and fearch for her as for hid 
 treafures, God will make us to underiland knowledge, and 
 to ferve him with acceptable practice. The Spirit of the 
 Lord hath moft certainly chofen acceptable words, words of 
 definite meaning. We are to fearch cut their fignification, 
 and to be obedient. I cannot judge of their fignification 
 for you, nor can I anfwe.r for the judgment which you iluill 
 make up, nor can you for me. 
 
 I am by my office obliged to exhibit, fo far as I can, all 
 thofe divine truths which relate to faith and practice. I am 
 obliged to believe and praclife according to the bed lipht 
 which I can gather, or have in any way afforded me. You 
 are under fimilar obligations. 
 
 Whilfl 'we proceed, I wifh you to believe fully two 
 things ; one is, that truth, if believed and practifed, will 
 not, on the whole, harm you. The other is, that the mod 
 fure way to acquire truth is, to be of a humble and obe- 
 dient mind, ready to receive the truth. For God refifleth 
 the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. 
 
Scrm. If.] of Baptifm. 19 
 
 In the preceding difcourfe, we attended to the definition 
 of certain words which appertain to the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm ; and then collected the fcripture account of baptifm, 
 together with fome other texts which are fuppofed to 
 throw light upon the fubjecl under confederation. In this 
 difcourfe we are — 
 
 3. To produce the more direct evidence that my defi- 
 nitions of baptifm and to baptize are accurate and juft. 
 
 The definition which I gave of baptifm was, a iva/hing, 
 afacred, a ceremonial wafhing. I will now add to this defi- 
 nition, that it is immerfion, or dipping one all oyer in water. 
 
 The definition which I gave of the word bapti-zo is, to dip 
 all over, to walh. I will alio add, that the word fignifies, 
 to wafh the body, or any thing, all over. What I mean is, 
 that thefe are the iignification of the words baptifma and 
 baptizd, which are rendered baptifm, and, to baptize. 
 
 I am now to produce evidence, that this is a juft and 
 accurate definition cf the words. 
 
 You will obferve, that this is quite different from the 
 fubjeils of baptifm ; that is another fubjecl, which mud be 
 attended to in its place. 
 
 The evidence which I have to offer, in order to fix pre- 
 ciiely the jufl fenfe and meaning cf the words baptifm and 
 to baptize, is contained in the following facts. The 
 
 1 If. Comprifes what the Greek Lexicon, Concordance, 
 and two Engiiih Dictionaries, tefiify of the words. 
 
 Schrevelius's Lexicon teftifies, the import of baptifm is 
 lotto, wafhing. Alfo that to baptize fignifies to ivafo, to put 
 under water, or under any other liquid thing ; to link, dip 
 in, duck or plunge over head, to immerfe. 
 
 Bntterwonh's Concordance fays, baptifm is an ordinance 
 of the New Tcfiament, inftituted by Jefus- Chriff , whereby 
 a profelfed believer in Chrifl is, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and o{ the Holy Ghoff., immerfed in and 
 covered with water, and then railed up out of it, as a fign 
 of his fellowfhip with Chrift in his death, burial and refur- 
 rection, and a fign of his own death to fin, and "refur recti on 
 to newnefs cf life here, and to life eternal hereafter. The 
 fame Concordance defines the word to baptize, thus — to dip, 
 immerfe, or plunge. 
 
 Entick's Dictionary fays, that — Baptifm is a facrament 
 that admits into the church. — Baptizer, one who chrillens, 
 
20 The Mode and Subjefts [Serm. II. 
 
 or dips. — Baptijlery, the place of baptizing at, a font Bap- 
 tize, to chriilen, plunge, overwhelm. — Baptized, admitted 
 to baptifm, dipt, &c. 
 
 Bailey's Dictionary, fpeaking of baptifm, or rather the 
 place in which peribns were baptized, fays, Baptijlcry is 
 either the place or veifel in which perfons are baptized. 
 In ancient times, this being performed by immerfion, the 
 perfons fo initiated went into a river and were plunged ; 
 but in the time of Conftantine the Great, chapels or places 
 on purpofe to baptize in, were built in great cities, which 
 was performed in the eaftern and warmer countries by dip- 
 ping the perfons ; but in procefs of time, in the weuern 
 and colder countries, fprinkling was fubltituted in place of 
 dipping ; which was the origin of our fonts in churches. 
 
 2. 1 will repeat fome of the attendant or circumftantial 
 facts, which have relation to the ordinance of baptifm, that 
 you may look at them, and judge for yourfelves, whether 
 the preceding definitions appear juft. 
 John baptized in the river Jordan. 
 
 He was baptizing in Enon, becaufe there was much water 
 there. 
 
 The name of the place, where baptifm was adminiflered, 
 is ba->tif?erion f or baptiftery, which fignifies a place in which 
 to warn the body all over. 
 
 Baptifm fignifies to dip, plunge, immerfe, or wafh the 
 body all over in water. 
 
 Baptizer fignifies one who dips, plunges, or wafhes the 
 body all over in water. 
 
 To baptize fignifies to plunge under water, to dip, or to 
 wafh the body all over. 
 
 To be baptized is to be plunged, immerfed, or waflied 
 all over in water. 
 
 Does this whole matter, taking fo many of the words, 
 and fome circumftances, and finding them all fo well agree- 
 ing together, help you, in any degree, to the definition of 
 the word baptize ? Suppofing thefe things be facts, and you 
 had never had any prejudice for, or againft, the word bap- 
 tize, would you be able to gather the meaning of it from 
 what hath been faid ? 
 
 There is an objection ftarting in the minds of fome of you, 
 which (hould be now obviated, left it prejudice your minds 
 from the truth. 
 
Serm. II.] of Baptifm. 2\ 
 
 The objection is, Do not the words fignify fnme other 
 things, as well as thofe which have been mentioned ? 
 
 Anf. I have thought they did : but I have fearched in 
 feveral dictionaries, and read many authors upon the words, 
 yet have not found one dictionary which has given x defini- 
 tion of the words different from what t have given ; nor one 
 author who has been able to (how, that die true meaning of 
 the words is any otherwife than what I have mentioned. 
 Eelides, the very courfe of argumentation which Dr. Lath- 
 rop, Mr. Cleav eland and others have taken, by which 
 to prove that baptizo-haxh. fome other fignificatton than to 
 dip, immerfe, to bury or overwhelm, is an implicit confef- 
 fion that they were not able to prove any fuch thing. It 
 is alfo a ftrong prefumptive argument, that no different fig- 
 nification can be found. 
 
 Their argument is this : Bapto fignifies, in one inftance, 
 in the Old Tetlament, to wet with the dew of heaven. Bap- 
 tize is the offspring of bapto, and consequently maybe taken 
 in the fame fenfe. This argument is of the fame w 
 with the following : My father believes in fprinkling, as 
 being baptifm ; I am his offspring, and confequently I be- 
 lieve the fame ; when the fact is, I am largely convinced 
 that it is no fuch thing. Would gentlemen employ fuch 
 an argument, did not their caufe labour ? Such an argu- 
 ment, when it (lands, as it does, at the front of all their fup- 
 pofed evidence, is an implicit confeffion that they cannot 
 prove what they wiih to.* 
 
 This matter will have farther attention in another place. 
 
 * Since writing the above, I have met with Cole's Latin Diftionary, 
 which gives one Englifh of baptizo, to fprinkle. It hath, indeed, been 
 matter of no little lurprife, that all modem diaionary compilers have 
 not given one definition of the word baptize, to fprinkle ; for it, indeed, 
 is one fignification, which the prance of many Chriftians, for two or 
 three hundred years pal>, has given to the word. 
 
 Had all lexicons, and all dictionaries, for the two laft centuries, borne 
 united tcftimony, that one fenfe of the word laptizo-vtas to ipnnkle, it 
 would not have been half fo unaccountable as it now is that they have lo 
 generally retained the ancient and primitive hgni fixations, and refufed to 
 adopt the modern one, which prejudice, convenience and modern prac- 
 tice have given to it. Indeed, could a thouland modern lexicons and 
 Hbnaries be found, which mould fay, to fprinkle is one fenfe in which 
 -JM is ufed, it would all come to nothing, unlefs they fhould tcihiy 
 that this is one of its ancient and primitive iignificaiions : and even then. 
 
22 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. II. 
 
 3. The words baptijmos and bapt'mo have two, and only- 
 two, tranflations in the Nev-Teitament. Thefe two are, 
 bapiifm and ivq/hing. They are very generally rendered, 
 baptifm, or to baptize. This is their ufual translation. But 
 feveral times in Mark, Lule, and in the Epiftle to the He. 
 Irezvs, they are rendered wafhing. As the wafhing o! 
 
 and cup', and brazen veflels and tables, or feats on which they 
 reclined, when they ate meat ; and diapborois baptijmou in 
 Hebrew is rendered divers walkings. 
 
 In the law given by Mofes, the people were, on many oc- 
 caiions, to bathe their bodies, and walh their clothes in 
 water ; and alfo to put their pots and cups and brazen 
 veffels into water, that they might be cleanfed from ceremo- 
 nial uncleannefi. To thefe legal ceremonies the Pharifees 
 had added traditional ones, which were, no doubt, obferved 
 in the fame manner as thofe appointed by the Lord. If fo, 
 then the wafhing of pots, &c. in Mark, was putting them 
 into water, as the command was to do, Lev:t. xi. 32. The 
 divers wafliings in Heb. ix. 10. were ceremonial warnings, 
 or bathings, in which the body was warned, or dipped. 
 Numb. xix. 19. This being the cafe, does not tins matter 
 go to confirm, or determine, what is the definition of bap- 
 tifm ? 
 
 4. We will now mention a few noted witnefTes, who 
 have given their testimony as to the meaning of the word 
 baptizo. 
 
 Calvin, a very .warm eppofer of the Baptifts, fhall, as a 
 witnefs in this caufe, fpeak firil. His teftimony is, " How- 
 beit, the very word of baptizing fignifteih to dip." 
 
 Zanchhis, as brought forward by the Rev. Mr. Butter- 
 worth, ihall be my next witnefs. He fays, bapt'1%0 is to im- 
 merfe, plunge under, to overwhelm in water, 
 
 I could quote, or bring forward, a multitude of witneues, 
 and all from our own order, the Pedobaptilts, to prove the 
 fame point. But in the mouth of two or three witneifes, if 
 they be good ones, every word ihall be eilablilhed. Wo 
 will therefore produce but one more ; that ihall be good 
 
 v wpul ! corn;: to no -nore than this, that the word is liTs dotermi 
 
 fuppofediobe. Con 1 .' I hey do this, it would be fliil uw 
 
 uniefs thc-y prove the (fcriptures iile ii in this fenfe, which they c 
 
 11 hv \\: ] \ to theii point, u.ilv 
 can ftiow tiiui :ation to the 
 
Serm. II.] of Baptifm. 23 
 
 Dr. Owen. " For the original and natural Signification of 
 it (baptizo) Signifies to dip, to plunge."* 
 
 5. I will mention to you a Greek word, which Paul 
 repeatedly ufes, as Signifying the fame thing as baptizo, and 
 where he means the fame thing, namely, baptifm. 
 
 In ! Cor. vi. 1 1. Paul, fpeaking to the Corinthians of 
 divers kinds of vile finners, fays, " And fuch were fome of 
 you ; but ye are wafhed,'" &c. 
 
 Eph. v. 26. That he might fanclify and cleanfe it (the 
 church) with the nvaflnng of water, by the word. 
 
 Heb. x. 22. Let us draw near, with a true heart, in full 
 affurance of faith, having our hearts fprinkled from an evil 
 confcience, and our bodies ivafied with pure water. 
 
 The Pedobaptifts acknowledge that ivajlnng, in thefe 
 texts, means baptifm, and I know not that any of them deny 
 it. Baptifm and warning appear to be ufed as fynonymous 
 words, or as words fignifying the fame thing. If this be 
 the cafe, then the two words, baptizo and hud, which are 
 tranflated, one to baptize, and the other to walk, mean the 
 fame thing, and are thus intended by the Apoftle. Then, 
 provided we can determine what louo means, we can alfo 
 determine what is the fignification of baptizo. • This word, 
 louo, fignifies to wafli, and to bathe the body in water ; for 
 thus it is generally if not univerfally ufed, and from it is 
 loutron, a bath, or place to wafh the body in. Befides, the 
 word lotto is never ukd in the New-Teftament, nor any 
 where elfe, to my knowledge, to iignify either fprinkling or 
 common warning. Its appropriate fenfe appears to be, 
 bathing, or warning, any thing all over ; as you may fee, 
 jicls ix. 37. and xvi. 3352 Peter ii. 22 ; which are the only 
 places where I recoiled the word loud is ufed, fave where 
 the ordinance of baptifm appears to be referred to. This 
 being the cafe, the matter appears juft as it would,- provided 
 the ordinance included the bathing of the body in water. 
 This is letting fcripture interpret itfelf ; and the interpreta- 
 tion which it gives is, baptifm is bathing, or wafhing the 
 body in water. This, therefore, may help you a little to- 
 wards determining in your minds what is the fignification 
 of baptizo. For louo is repeatedly ufed in fcripture, as im- 
 porting the fame mode of wafhing which is commanded in 
 the ordinance cf baptifm. 
 
 % Ancient Dialogue. 
 
24 The Mode and Subjefls [Serm. II. 
 
 6. Paul's defcription of the mode of baptizing, or of 
 "what is done to thofe who are baptized, may afford you 
 farther light upon the fubject. 
 
 Paul brings this matter up to the Roman and Colofllan 
 Chriilians, as a matter well known to them. To the for- 
 mer he fays, Ro?n. vi. 4.. Therefore we are buried with 
 him by baptifm into death, that like as Ghrift was raifed up 
 from the dead by the glory of the Father, even fo we alfo 
 fhould walk in newnefs cf life. To the other he fays, Col. 
 ii. 12. Buried with him in baplifm, wherein alfo ye are 
 rifen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, 
 who hath raifed him from the dead. 
 
 Upon thefe texts, Dr. Doddridge has tbe following note. 
 " It feems the part of candour to confefs, that here is an 
 allufion to baptifm by immerfion, as was moft ufuaHs thefe 
 early times." Here the good doctor fays, " as was mojl 
 ufual ;" this I fliall, by and by, explain to you. 
 
 In the mean time, you will pleafe to pay due attention 
 to what was done to thofe who were baptized, and which 
 appears to be familiar to the Roman and Colofiian Chrif- 
 tians. The Apoflle makes no remarks, and explains noth- 
 ing to them, but fpeaks to them as though they would and 
 did well underfland what he meant, when he faid, " We are 
 buried with him by baptifm into death ;" and, " Buried 
 with him in baptifm." It is plain fact, that Paul thus 
 fpeaks, and it alfo appears, very plainly, that he had no ap- 
 prehenfion but that he fhould be underftood. 
 
 Biiliop Hoadly's declaration appears to be much in 
 point : ' If baptifm,' fays he, ' had been then,' i. e. in the 
 ^pottles' days, ' performed as it is now among us, we fhould 
 never have fo much as heard of this form of expreffion, of 
 dying and rifing again in this rite.'* 
 
 Thefe tilings I have thought it my duty to lay before 
 you, that I might aflift you, by a number of plain facts, to 
 form a judgment, each one for himfelf, what the meaning 
 of baptifm is, and what the word to baptize fignifies. 
 
 I have ftill more light upon this fubject, and (hall, in the 
 next difcourfe, lay it within your view. It will perhaps be, 
 to fome of you, more convincing than any thing which 
 I have as yet_ exhibited. But previoufly I will make 
 one obfervation, and it is this : all the evidence which we 
 
 *Tcn Letters. 
 
 1 
 
Serm. II.] &f Baptifm. 1$ 
 
 have been exhibiting, we have on one fide of the quetiion ; 
 and, if I miftake not, none on the other to counteract it i 
 for, if my memory and judgment be correct, the wifeft and 
 beft of men, of our own denomination, have afTerted, that 
 thefe things are fo. I do not fay that all good men have ; 
 but the moft learned have, and fome who have appeared 
 very pious. 
 
 But you will fay, Why have they not pra&ifed different- 
 ly, if they have dius believed ? I am not anfwerable for 
 their practice ; but, if the Lord will, 1 fliall, ere long, give 
 you the reafons-which they affign. 
 
 I fliall only add, for the prefent, two or three confequen- 
 ces, and then leave the fubject for your consideration. 
 
 1. The Baptifts have, againft our practice, and for theirs, 
 that kind of evidence which is, perhaps, in all cafes but the 
 prefent, confidered the molt unequivocal and certain. This 
 evidence is given in by a cloud of witneftes, who, whilft they 
 are bearing their teftimony, condemn themfelves every fen- 
 tence they utter. If thefe men, who are confefted by both 
 fides to be both pious and learned, may be believed, the 
 caufe will moft certainly be determined againft us ; for 
 there was never a clearer cafe. They unitedly teftify that 
 the fcripture mode of baptifm is immerfion, but omit the 
 practice. In this they condemn themfelves. 
 
 2. The fcripture fenfe, and, for aught appears, the only 
 fenfe, of baptifm, is, dipping, immerfion, burying in water, 
 being overwhelmed, and the like. 
 
 3. We are brought to this dilemma, either to com- 
 mence Baptifts, as to the mode, or do as our fathers have 
 done, confefs the truth in theory, and neglecl: it in pra&ice. 
 
26 The Mode and Subjecls [Serm. III. 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 2 c. 
 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in tie name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghojl ; teach- 
 ing them toobjerve all things what foever I have commanded 
 you : And, lo, I am with you alivay, even unto the end tf the 
 world. Amen* 
 
 MIN, brethren, and fathers, we are ft HI upon a very 
 important fubjeel — a fubjecT: which highly concerns 
 us as Chriftians — a fubjedl in which our feelings, our rep- 
 utation, and our peace too, may not be a little concerned. 
 Many things, not to fay every thing, call upon us not to go 
 too faft ; and, at the fame time, obedience to our common 
 Lord forbids all backwardnefs, in purfuing where his truth 
 and Spirit lead us. 
 
 All which I requeft of you is, with candour hear, with 
 readinefs obey, what truth fhall dictate. 
 
 Should we, after long and ferious deliberation, be obliged 
 to believe and pracYife differently from what we have here- 
 rofoie done, we fhall be much expofed to two things : one 
 is, to be reviled ; the other, to revile again. What we fhall 
 d is, patience to bear the one, and grace that we may 
 avoid the other. 
 
 Perhaps human nature is more inclined to nothing than 
 10 an overbearing fpirit. It is perfectly confonant wich hu- 
 ff ri nature to make or.rfelves, and not- the fcriptures, the 
 ftandard of both faith and practice. The natural confe- 
 rence of this is cenfure againit. all who dare to think, or 
 act, as we do not. To guard you againft uni eafonable and 
 common prejudice, 1 will, foi your confederation, fuggeft a 
 thought, which we may do well to remember; and it is 
 this: many, who iliall believe and praclife as we have long 
 ckme, may be as honeft and faithful as we then were. This 
 being true, the following confequence is plain, that the line 
 of conduit which the Baptifts ought to have practifed, in 
 months and years pati, towards us, the fame, if we be Bap- 
 t'fts, will irt become us to purfue with relation to others. It 
 
Serm. III.] of Baptifm. 27 
 
 requires not much forefight to difcover, that ce ftiali used 
 much of that wifdom which is profitable to direct. 
 
 Whilft it may be indifpenfable with us to ufe every pru- 
 dent mean to diffuie that light which God may graciouflj 
 afford us, it will be our wifdom to do every thing in filch a 
 manner as not to heighten, but, if polfible, 10 lower, the prej- 
 udices of good people. 
 
 Whilft you, my dear friends and people, know that light 
 chafeth away the darknefs, and that truth will ultimately 
 prevail againft every error; I folic it your candour and 
 prayerful attention, that error may not be retained, or pre- 
 vail againft any of us, to our wounding. 
 
 Our attention hath already been called to the definition 
 of a number of words, which relate to the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm, to the fcripture account of baptifm, together with fome 
 other texts, which were fuppofed to throw light upon the 
 fubjeel, and ano to lb me evidence in fiippqrt of the given 
 definitions. As the great queftion turns upon what is com- 
 manded, and as that cannot be otherwife known than by 
 making lure the import of the words ufed, we ihall therefore 
 fearch for additional light and certainty, by inquiring — 
 
 4. How the apoftles and primitive Chriftians understood, 
 this matter, and how they praclifed. 
 
 If this can be made plain, then, perhaps, your mind will 
 be fatisfied, and your judgments made up. 
 
 I proceed to lay the evidence before you. 
 
 There appears no neceffity of fpending time to produce 
 evidence that the apoftles underftcod the matter to be as I. 
 have proved to you that it was : for they, no doubt, under- 
 ftood the words which Chrift fpake, and the commands 
 which he gave ; befides, if the apefties and primitive church 
 praclifed thus, it is evident that they thus underftood it; for 
 doubtlefs they, eipecially the apoftles, were honeft men, and 
 praclifed as they underftood Jefus Chrift to have direcled 
 them. 
 
 I will here make two obfervations to you ; and I wifli 
 you to remember them. 
 
 The firft is, no perfon fliould, efpecially in important 
 matters, make up his judgment, that any particular fubjeel 
 is true, till he has evidence of its truth. 
 
 The other is, the beft proof which the nature of any cafe 
 admits of, may and ought to be confidered as evidence, and 
 
28 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. III. 
 
 fo received by us, as to thofe things we are called to believe 
 and praclife. 
 
 There are different degrees of evidence : the higheft kind 
 produces knowledge. When the evidence is fmall, it pro. 
 duces a weak and dubious belief. But where it is luch 
 that, on fuppofition the thing be true, the evidence could not 
 be greater than it is, there we are obliged to yield our affent, 
 and we do violence to our reafon if we will not believe. 
 
 The evidence, which we have with refpeel to the prac- 
 tice of the apoilles in the matter of baptizing, differs in de- 
 gree, and, in fome meafure, in kind, from the evidence 
 which we have refpecling the practice of the church in later 
 ages as to the fame matter. But if we have, with refpeel 
 to the practice of both, the bed evidence which the different 
 cafes admit of, we are under obligation to believe the evi- 
 dence good, and the facts true which are fupported by it. 
 
 We have much the fame kind of evidence with refpeel to 
 the practice of the apoftles, which we have as to the prac- 
 tice of the church for many ages after them. Mr. Baxter, 
 biihop Hoadly, and others, teftify, that the apoftolic prac- 
 tice was, immerfion. We have, moreover, as to their prac- 
 tice, a much higher kind of evidence. In fupport of their 
 practice, I fhall produce the bed kind of evidence, and 
 afterwards, whilft ipeaking of the practice of the church in 
 iucceeding age?, may occafionally bring forward fome of 
 the other kind of evidence, in fupport of the apoftles' prac- 
 tice. 
 
 As to the practice of the apoftles, in the adminiftration of 
 baptifm, I obferve, wc have in the fcriptures four diftinct 
 fources of evidence. The 
 
 j ft. Is this. When baptifm is mentioned by the difciples 
 and apoftles, and the common word is not uied, they uni- 
 formly employ one particular word, and this word is of 
 very determinate Hgnincaticn, and expreffes the bathing, -or 
 warning, of the body in water, as Heb. x. 22 : Having our 
 bodies (leloumenci) ivajhtd with pure water. ABi xxii. 16. 
 Arife and he baptized, und (apoloufai) waih away thy fins. 
 I Cor. vi. 11. But ye are [apoloujajlhe) wafted. By the 
 determinate fignification of this word, their practice appears 
 to be irmiierfion. 
 
 2. The apoftles were commanded to dip, immerfe, or 
 pHin^c all over in water, the perfons whom they admitted 
 to this ordinance. This is evident from the determinate 
 
Serm. III.] of Baptifnu 29 
 
 fignification of the word to baptize. Says the command, 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c. 
 We have before proved what is the fignification of this 
 word, and confequently what Chrill commanded his dif- 
 ciples, when he fent them to baptize. 
 
 I do not now fay that the apoflles immerfed any ; but 
 this is what I fay, they were commanded thus to do. I 
 leave it for you to determine, whether they did, or whether 
 they did not. 
 
 3. I obferve to you, that the New-Teftament, where- 
 ever it fpeaks of the apoflles baptizing any, fays they im- 
 merfed them, or dipt them all over in water. For this is 
 the plain, literal and common, if not the only fignification 
 of the word. I Hill leave it with you to determine whether 
 the apoftles did, or did not, prt.dtiie thus. 
 
 Left fome of you may have forgotten what I have before 
 
 proved to you, and confequently entertain fome doubt 
 
 whether baptifm may not fometimes fignify the application 
 
 of water in a different way ; we will make two or three 
 
 „ obfervations. 
 
 1. The plain, literal and common fignification of the 
 word is to immerfe, overwhelm, dip, or to .plunge all over. 
 
 2. There appears to be no evidence that it is ever ufed 
 fo much as once, in any part of the Bible, to fignify the 
 application of water in any other fenfe. Even in thofe 
 paffages where I have in time pale fuppofed that the mean- 
 ing might be, and probably was, wa/Jjiug without immerfion, 
 the fenfe appears to be putting into water or immerfion, and 
 not what we commonly underftand by the word walking. 
 Of this you may be convinced by confidering the treatment 
 to which the Jews were accuftomed with refpecT: to thofe 
 vdfels which were ceremonially unclean. They were to 
 baptize them, or put them into water, as you may fee, 
 Levit. xi. 32. "And upon whatfoever any of them, when 
 they are dead, doth fall, it iuall be unclean ; whether it be 
 any veffel of wood, or raiment, or (kin, or fack ; farhaifoev.er 
 vsjfcl it be, wherein any work is done, it muft be put into 
 •water, and it fliall be unclean until the even } fo it lhall be 
 cleanfed." 
 
 3.I will obferve to you that it would mod vifibly be 
 a reflection upon the great Teacher who came from Go.], 
 to fuppofe that he fhould, when appointing a pofitive inftW 
 C2 
 
30 The Mode and Subjcds [Serm. III. 
 
 tution, ufe words afide from their plain and commonly re- 
 ceived lenfe, that too without giving any intimation of his 
 « ufing the words in any fenfe differing from the common, 
 efpecially when he was letting up a new inllitution, i>bout 
 which his moll faithful followers could, in all fuceeeding 
 generations, know nothing but from the words ufed in and 
 about the institution. Does not all this appear plain and 
 reafonable ? 
 
 Now the Bible in the plain, literal and common-fenfe of 
 the words which it ufes, fays, the apoftles dipt, plunged or 
 immerfed all fuch as they admitted to baptifm. You will 
 judge for yourfelves whether the apoftles practifed thus, or 
 whether they did not. 
 
 4. The practice of the apoftles is farther illu'ftrated and 
 confirmed by what Paul tells the Roman and Cololuan 
 Chriftians, with refpect to what took place when they re- 
 ceived the ordinance of baptifm. He fays to the former, 
 " We are buried with him by baptifm- into death :" To the 
 other he fays, "Buried with him in baptifm." Paul fpeaks 
 of this matter as a thing perfectly underftood by Chriftians 
 in his time, and uied it as an argument to promote their 
 weanednefs from the world, and growth in fanctiiication. 
 But have you not either palled over thefe and fimilar palTages, 
 without noticing them, or confidered them rather hard to 
 be underftood ? But how eafy is it to underftand them, 
 provided the apoftles practifed as the fcriptures fay they 
 did ! I ftill leave it with ycu to determine for yourfelves 
 how the apoftles practifed. 
 
 This is the bell evidence which the nature of the fubject 
 admits. This matter, the apoftles' practice, was tranfacted 
 many ages fince. We have the teftimony of the fcriptures 
 as to what it was ; this is evidence enough : however, we 
 {hall occafionally add the teftimony of men. 
 
 We fhall now attend to the practice of the church, and 
 difcover, if we can, how it was for ages after the apoftles. 
 The bell evidence which this part of my fubject admits is 
 that of human teftimony.* I by no means reft the merit 
 
 * Chrift's promife to his apoftles, to their fucceflbrs, and to the 
 Church may allure us that the ordinance of baptifm, by which h* 
 people Ihould be diftinguifhed from the world, would ever continue. 
 Therefore could we know what the church hath always practifed, 
 efpecially that part of it which hath been mod feparate from the world, 
 then their pra£tice would afford a llrong argument in favour of wkat 
 the inllitution intended. 
 
Serm. III.] of Baptifm. $\ 
 
 of the caufe on this evidence. At the fame time, it may 
 weaken the prejudices of fome, and be a mean of confirm- 
 ing others in the belief of the truth. 
 
 It appears fo plain a cafe that we can hardly refufe a/Tent 
 to it, that as the church hath for a feries of ages practifed, 
 fo have they believed. When we fhall fee what their prac- 
 tice hath been, we fhall the more eafily concede that their 
 belief hath been fimilar. 
 
 What is now before us is to produce and to receive evi- 
 dence relative to the practice of the primitive church. It 
 is the following : — 
 
 I. This evidence confifts in the united teftimony of both 
 thofe who practifed the admin iftration of the ordinance by 
 immerfion, and thofe who ufed fprinkling, and called it 
 baptizing. 
 
 Mofheim, a very noted church hiftorian, and not very 
 friendly to the Baptifts, bears direct teftimony that John, 
 Chrift's forerunner, and the church in the firft ages of 
 Chriftianity, practifed immerfion as the mode of baptizing. 
 The following you may take as a fample of his evidence, 
 " The exhortations of this refpectable mefTenger (John) 
 were not without effect, and thofe who, moved by his folemn 
 admonition, had formed the refolution of correcting their 
 evil difpofitions and amending their lives, were initiated into 
 the kingdom of the Redeemer by the ceremony of immer- 
 fion, or baptifm."* 
 
 Speaking of the church in the fecond century, he fays, 
 " The perfons that were to be baptized, after they had re- 
 peated the creed, confeffed and renounced their fins, and 
 particularly the devil in his pompous allurements, were 
 immerfed under water, and received into Chrift's kingdom 
 by a folemn invocation of Father. Son, and Holy Ghoft, 
 according to the exprefs command of our bleffed Lord.f 
 
 The Doctor fpeaking of fome inferior fects of the feven- 
 teenih century, and particularly of a feet called Collegiants, 
 fays, " Thofe adult perfons, that defire to be baptized, re- 
 ceive the facrament of baptifm according to the ancient and 
 primitive manner of celebrating that inftitution, even by 
 immerfwn. ,, \ 
 
 Mr. Bailey, in his Etymological Englifli Dictionary, fays, 
 " In ancient times, this (baptifm) being performed by im. 
 
 * Century I. chap, iii. feft. 3. t Cent. II. part ii. chap. v. feft. ia. 
 + Vol. v. p. 488. 
 
32 The Mode and Subjccls [Serm. III. 
 
 merfion, the perfons fo initiated went into a river, Sec. and 
 were plunged." 
 
 John Calvin, in his Injlilutions, Book IV. chap. xv. feci. 
 19, fays, "It is certain that the manner cf dipping was 
 ufed of the old church." 
 
 Here are three fubftantial wicnefTes. Thefe might be 
 fufficient, feeing there is not one to be found who will, or 
 dares, give direct and pofitive teftimony againft the truth 
 of what thefe affirm. But fince there are an hoft who 
 ftand ready to give in their teftimony, even againft their 
 own practice, we will hear what two more of them will tef- 
 tify relative to the important caufe now on trial. 
 
 Thefe two fnall be Dr. Cave and the famous Mr. Baxter. 
 Dr. Cave, a great fearcher into antiquity, fays, " That 
 the party baptized was wholly immerfed, or put under 
 water, which was the common, con/latit, and univerfal cuftom 
 of thofe times; whereby they did fignificantly exprefs the 
 great end and effects of baptifm, reprefenting Chrift's death, 
 burial and reiurrection, and, in conformity thereto, our dy- 
 ing unto fin, the deftruction of its power, and our refurrec- 
 tion to a new courfe of life," &c* 
 
 Moft remarkable is the teftimony which Mr. Baxter gives 
 to this truth, in the following words : " It is commonly 
 confeffed by us to the Baptifts, (as our commentators de- 
 clare) that in the apoftles' time, the baptized were dipped 
 over head in water, and this fignirieth their profeffion both 
 of believing the burial and refurrection of Chrift, and of 
 their own dying unto fin, and living, or rifmg again to new- 
 nefs of life, or being buried and rifen again with Chrift, as 
 the apoftle expoundeth baptifm, Col. ii. 12, and Rom. iv. 6. 
 And though (faith he) we have thought it lawful to difufe 
 the manner of dipping and to ufe lefs water, yet we prefume 
 not to change the ufe and fignification of it ; fo then he 
 that fignally profeffes to die and rife again in baptifm with 
 Chrift, doth fignally profefcfavitig faith and repentance ; but 
 this do all they that are baptized according to the apoftolic 
 practice, "f 
 
 As thefe witneftes teftify, fo do all learned and pious men 
 who have critically attended to this fubject, and afterwards 
 given in any direct and pofitive evidence upon the matter. 
 
 * Ten Letters. + Ibid. 
 
Serm. III.] of Baptifm. 33 
 
 2. Tha evidence as to the practice of the primitive 
 chinch, confifts in the teftimony of men to this truth, that 
 the church did for thirteen hundred years praeliic immer- 
 fion, fome extreme cafes excepted. 
 
 The only evidence which I purpofe to give in fupport of 
 this for the prefent, is the teftimony of the author of Ten 
 Letters to Biihop Hoadly upon the mode and fubjects of 
 baptifm, and the confeflion of Dr. Lathrop that it was 
 even fo. 
 
 The author of the Letters aflerts that this vras the practice 
 of the church for thirteen hundred years after the com- 
 mencement of the Chriitian era. Dr. Lathrop aflents that 
 this was the fact ; as you may fee, by reading his four fer- 
 mons on baptifm, where he gives thefe letters a particular 
 attention, and is fuppofed to affent, where he makes no 
 objection. 
 
 3. All the churches in Europe, Afia and Africa, ever 
 have done, and do now, praclife immerilon, fave thofe who 
 are now, or have been, under the jurifdiction of the Pontiffs 
 of Rome. 
 
 The fame witneffcs who bore their teftimony to the laft 
 particular, give in their evidence in fupport of this, and in 
 the fame way ; the one aflerting the facl:, the other aflenting 
 that it is even fo. 
 
 4. The very reafons which have been given and which 
 are flill given to juftify the contrary practice, are a plain 
 confeflion that immernon, or burying the fubjects under 
 water, was the practice of the apoftles and primitive church 
 in the ordinance of baptifm, and what Chrift commanded 
 to be done. 
 
 The reafons which are alleged why fprinkling may be 
 fiibftituted for immerflon, are, the want of health, in fome 
 inftances where they fuppofe baptifm to be neceflary ; the 
 weaknefs of cdnftitution with refpect to fome, and the cold- 
 nefs of climate with refpect to many, and as to all irj north- 
 ern climes in the v.intry feafon. Here is a filent acknowl- 
 edgment, that it is not the iniluution, that it is not the 
 permuLon of Chrift, but mere accidental and local circum- 
 ftauces, which make it lawful to lay by the command of 
 Chrift, and to receive in its ftead the precepts and com- 
 mandments of men. 
 
 Mr. Bailey fays, in his Dictionary, that baptifm was 
 performed in the eafteru, and warmer countries by dipping 
 
34 The Mode and Subjects [Scrm. III. 
 
 the perfons all over ; but in procefs of time, in the wcStern 
 and colder countries, Sprinkling was Substituted in the place 
 of dipping. 
 
 Dr. Lathrop in his fermons implicitly confeSfes the fol- 
 lowing extracts to be both true and genuine. 
 
 Mr. Baxter, in his Paraphrafe on the Neiv-Tejlamenty ob- 
 ferves on Matth. iii. 6. " We grant that baptifm then was 
 by waihing the whole body ; and did not the difference of 
 our cold country, as to that hot one, teach us to remember, 
 ' I will have mercy and not faciificc,' it fhould be lb here." 
 
 The author of the Letters to Bjjlop Hoadly* in the twenty- 
 third page, writes thus: " Mr. Baxter, we have already 
 feen, excufes the matter by the coldnefs of our climate. 
 Calvin, the celebrated reformer of Geneva, obferves in his 
 Exposition of Acls viii. 38, * We fee here what was the bap- 
 tifmal rite among the ancients, for they plunged the whole 
 body in the water.' Now it is the cuStom for the miniflcr 
 to fprinkle only the body or head, and he too excufes this 
 fprinkling, but how, I cannot well recoiled, net having his 
 book at hand." 
 
 Bifhop Burnet though he thus defcribes the primitive 
 baptifm, "With no other garments but that might feive 
 to cover nature, they at firft laid them down, as a man is 
 laid in the grave, and then they faid thefe words, 1 baptize, 
 or wafli, thee in the name, &c. Then they raifed them up 
 again, and clean garments were put upon them ; fiom 
 whence came the phrafes of being baptized into Chrilt's 
 death, of being buried with him by baptifm into death, of 
 our being rifen with Chiift, and of cur putting on the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift ; of putting off the old man, and putting on 
 the new," — and though he juStly obferves that Sacraments 
 are pofitive precepts, which are to be meafured only by the 
 inftitution, in which there is not room left for us to carry 
 them any farther ; — yet forgetting his own meafure of the 
 institution, viz. the party baptized was laid down in the 
 water, as a man is laid in the grave, he fays, " The danger 
 in cold climates may be a very good real'on for changing 
 the form of baptifm to iprinkling. 
 
 I propofe for the prefent to note but one quotation more, 
 and that Shall be in the words of Dr. Wall, as quoted in 
 the Letters. The Doctor in giving the reafons why, in 
 
 * Burner's Exposition of the Thirty-nine articles. 
 
Serm. III.] of Baptifm. 3$ 
 
 Queen Elizabeth's reign, the cuftom of dipping was laid 
 afide, obferves, "It being allowed to weak children to be 
 baptized by aiTufion, many found ladies and gentlemen firft, 
 and then, by degrees, the common people, would obtain 
 the favour of the prieft to have their children pafs for weak 
 children, too tender to endure dipping in the water."* Now, 
 
 6. It may be eafy for you to gather what is the outward 
 and vilible part of the ordinance of baptifm. 
 
 It is to immerfe proper fubjects in water, in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft. This 
 is the outward and vifible part of baptifm, the fcriptures 
 being judge ; this Hteral and plain meaning of the command 
 being judge ; the practice of the apoftles being judge ; the 
 practice of the church for more than a thoufand years bejng 
 judge ; and even if we appeal to thofe who refufe to prac- 
 tife thus, they add their testimony, that it is what was com- 
 manded. They pretend not to fay that any new command 
 hath been given, or that the old one hath ever been changed. 
 What (hall we fay to thefe things ! ! ! 
 
 I conclude by fubmitting a queftion, and a few inferences, 
 for your confideration. 
 
 The queftion is, If immerfion be from heaven, and 
 fprinkling from men, by what authority do we continue 
 the practice ? 
 
 The inferences are — 
 
 1. We, who call curfelves Pedobaptifts, are as a houfe 
 divided againft itfelf. To fay the leaft, we appear thus. 
 Our champions will look us in the face, and affure us, that 
 the Baptifts have plain fcripture for their mode, and yet we 
 have a right to choofe on the fcore of convenience, &c. what 
 mode is pleating to us. Thus fay Calvin, Hoadly, Owen, 
 and others : whilft in their practice they have been, in this 
 inltance, like the fervant who knew, but did not his lord's 
 will. Thefe good men have confeffed rather too much for 
 the credit of their practice, and our comfort while copying 
 it. Many, however, have rifen up in defence of our fathers' 
 practice and ours. They invent many ingenious hypothefes 
 to prove it from heaven, but not one affords a folid conclu- 
 fion which fhows it to be fo. 
 
 2. According to the light which for the prefent appears, 
 we cannot but conclude that our definitions of baptifm and 
 
 * Vol. II. F . 30. 1 Ed. 
 
36 The Mode and Subjecls [Serm. III. 
 
 to baptize are fcriptural, accurate and juft. If we will do 
 the will of God, we mult praclife what he commands. 
 
 3. It appears that it is not left with us to choofe what 
 mode we will practife in adminiftering or in receiving the 
 ordinance of baptifm ; for we rind but one mode to it : and 
 we muft praftiie this, or none. We may fprinkle a perfon 
 in the name of the Father, &c. and we may wafh the face, 
 or any part of a perfon, in the fame facred name ; but it is 
 not pofllble to baptize a perfon in this way ; for fprinkling, 
 or any fmall, partial walhing never was, is not now, nor 
 ever will be, what the fcriptures mean by Chriftian baptifm. 
 
 4. That a perfon muft be greatly unacquainted with the 
 plain, literal, fcripture account of baptifm, or extremely 
 prejudiced, not to fay perverfe, to affirm that the Bible fays 
 nothing about immerfion, or burying in water for baptizing. 
 For it fpeaks of this mode, and of no other, in the applica- 
 tion of water as a gofpel ordinance. 
 
 The Baptifts have for their mode the broad bafts of fcrip- 
 ture, antiquity, and the uninterrupted,, and fomewhat uni- 
 verfal practice of the church. 
 
 5. It appears that for well-informed Pedobaptifts to op- 
 pofe the Baptifts, as to their mode cf baptizing, is very 
 great wickednefs. For the Baptifts have the advantage of 
 plain and exprefs fcripture on their fide, and the learned, 
 critical and candid Pedobaptifts know it. 
 
 Ignorance is the beft and only excufe which we can make 
 for ourfelves for any oppofition which we have made againft 
 the ancient and primitive mode which the Baptills have 
 pradYifed in the adminiftration of the ordinance. Our con- 
 tention in this matter hath not been againft the Baptifle 
 merely, but it hath been againft their Lord and ours. 
 
 Dr. Lathrop appears generoufiy to grant the truth, that 
 immerfion is fcripture baptifm, and only contends that 
 fprinkling be alfo allowed ; which every candid mind 
 would readily do, were there one text of fcripture to fup- 
 port it. 
 
 6. No true Chriftian, if he knew what he did, would" 
 ever make light of immerfion, which the Lord commands, 
 and the Baptifts praftife, as the mode of baptizing, or, more 
 frri&ly, as baptiftfj itfelf. 
 
Serm. I V.J of Baptifm. 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Go yc, therefore, and ieach all nations, baptizing them in tL 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho/f / h 
 them to obferve all things ivhatfoever I have commanded you : 
 si tid, lo, I am with you aliuay, even unto the end of the 
 world. Amen. 
 
 HILST difcourfing to you upon thefe words, I 
 have, as I fuppofe, proved to you what is the out- 
 ward and viable part of baptifm. You have, to appearance, 
 given a ferious and folemn attention, and, 1 hope, a candid 
 one, to what halh been faid. 
 
 All which I afk of you in this matter is, that you in the 
 fpirit of meeknefs hear the whole, and then judge and prac- 
 tife in fuch a manner as you cannot refufe to do, without 
 doing violence to your reafon, and without diiobedience to 
 the command of Heaven. 
 
 Some of you may be afraid of difcord ; but whence, I 
 pray you, will difcord arife among brethren ? Will a can- 
 did, prayerful and felf-denying attention to truth caufe this 
 feared difcord ? Hath truth a tendency to produce difcord 
 among the faithful followers of the Lamb of God ? I know 
 that once, when Chrift preached the doctrines of the crofs, 
 multitudes of profeffing difciples went back, and followed 
 no more with him. 1 hope it will not be thus with any of 
 you. But, my brethren, however it may be with any of 
 you, one thing is clear — I ought, I muft declare to you, io 
 fall as I profitably can, all thofe truths of God which 
 appear necelTary to build you up in found faith and holy 
 practice. 
 
 As I have faid before, {o fay I Unto you again, that all 
 ■which 1 afk of you is, to give truth a candid hearing, and 
 yield youraffent, when facts are plain!/ proved. 
 
 Nothing fhould, by me, be thought too much to be done, 
 $o clear away from your minds the darknefs of prejudice, 
 together with any erroneous belief and practice which you 
 
cS The Mode and Subjects [Serm. IV. 
 
 may have imbibed, in part, by my means. I fhall, there- 
 fore, in this difcourfe, after having aUended to the purport, 
 end or defign of bartilm, anfwer fome objections, which 
 may ibr die prefeut cbftruct the force of truth. 
 
 Before we proceed to the particular bufinefs of this dif- 
 courfe, you will, if you pleaie, attend for a minute to a few 
 queftions and their anfwers. 
 
 i. Is it not a plain cafe, that it is my duty to deliver 
 to you the whole ccunfel of God, according to the beft light 
 it may pleafe him to afford me? 
 
 2. Is it not equally plain, that your duty is to yield, not 
 to me, bat to the Bruths which I deliver, an obedient ear ? 
 
 «, Should you, from an uncandid and prejudiced mind, 
 refufe to be converted by the truth, will ..he fault be mine ? 
 
 4. Should I exhibit full evidence, as to the fubjecl oa 
 land, and exhibit that evidence clearly too, or fhould it be 
 that I have done this, and yet great difficulties fhould arifs, 
 v. ill you be juilified fhould you lay the blame to me ? 
 
 5. -Should I teach you the truth, and produce all the 
 evidence which you can afk for, and you fhould, all, like 
 
 ul Christians, believe it, where or whence will arife any 
 difficulty among us? Should any of you refufe to believe, 
 will yon charge your difficulties to my account ? 
 
 '6. Are not all of you determined that you will hear 
 candidly, and believe upon evidence ? 
 
 You \.ill pleafe to give a Chriftian and judicious anfwer 
 to c - ,.c]i of thefe queftions, and. let y< ur practice be conform- 
 ed with ihegofpel of our Lord TefusGhrift. 
 
 Having laid before you the principal part of the faols 
 and evidence, wliich I intended, as to the vifihl'e and out- 
 ward part of baptifm, now— 
 
 Lqftlj. The purport, end and defign of the Baptifmal 
 Institution may call for fome attention. 
 
 The purport, end or defign of this Chriftian ordinance^ 
 or inflitution, appears to be — 
 
 1. For a dividing line between the kingdom 'of cur 
 Lord, and the kingdoms of this world. 
 
 John was Chrift's forerunner : he was fent before his 
 '.< ce to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the 
 difobedient to .the wifdem of the juft : to make ready a peo- 
 >> prepared for the Lord ;* and that Chrift fhould be mad? 
 
 ' 
 
 *~ * L ^ 
 
Senn. IV.] of Baph 39 
 
 manifed to Ifrael, therefore, fays Jolin, an I com: bap'.' 
 ing with water.* John's million comprehended a. d aM- 
 purpofe, to make ready a people, prepared for the Lord, 
 and to manifest Him unto [frael. The people which he. in- 
 ftrumeatally made ready, and pteparod to receive the Lord, 
 he bapti .:.ed ; and it appear! from his rejecting many of the 
 Pharilbes and Sadducees, thit he intentionally baptized 
 none other.f The whole difcoarfe which he had with 
 them, Matt. iii. 7 to'12, is good evident that he admitted 
 none to baptii'm but: fuch as brought forth viable fruits vt 
 Repentance. Such perfons he admitted among that peoplo 
 ch he was making ready for the Lord. This people 
 re, when prepared^ tocorripofe that kingdom, ex the be- 
 ginning of th.it kingdom, which fhall never be deftroyedj 
 and which is an everlailing kingdom, which fka!l ftand for. 
 ever ; Daniel ii. 44. and vii. 27. This kingdom Chrift calls 
 the kingdom of heaven, and fays, it is not of this world. 
 It appears to be this kingdom, which was iio.v at hand, 
 almofl ready to be fet up, of which Chi ill fpeaks to Niccde- 
 rr.us, when he fays, John iii. c. Except a man be born of 
 v/ater and of the Spirit, he cannot eater into the kingdom 
 of God. 
 
 All this does, for rabftance, meet the fentiment of Bap* 
 tirts and Pedobaptifts on this fubjefc. Bqth fuppofe, lhat 
 none can belong to this kingdom without being born < t 
 water, or baptized. Doth fuppofe that men may prcfeffed- 
 ly, or viiibly, belong to this kingdom, without being born 
 of the Spirit : but, perhaps, neither the Baptifts, nor Pedo- 
 baptids, would fay, that any do, ftrict" y fpeaking, belong 
 to th : s kingdom, except they have bten born of valor and 
 of th:- Spirit Our Lord faith, Verily, verily, except a man 
 be b:>rn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of licaven. If a man cannot enter into this king- 
 dom but in this way, he cannot belong to it in any otl 
 
 Both fides grant, that baptifm, or to be born of water, is 
 the only way of admittance into this kingdom. They are 
 .not fo well agreed as to what it is to be born of water, 
 Whe her it be to be fprinkled, warned, or immerfed. Ccn- 
 \ern'ng this matter you mtift judge for yotitielves. 
 
 Tnis being a given point, that the defign of baptifm is, 
 yat it fliould be for a dividing line between that kingdom, 
 
 * John i. 31. + Man. J: 
 
4» * ' ' [Serm. IY. 
 
 • of heaveti wsi ; - day, 
 
 , J would fnggeit i'cv j ion — 
 
 ii tween 
 < on earth ; to enter it 
 
 buried 
 i this 
 ' m ? 
 I wi • one thing mor^ 
 
 Whii ■ 
 
 - 
 . To ha\ . in infancy , 
 
 water put 
 rt of them livi 
 wickednefs, or , and unn y the 
 
 or, to have 
 vers, and thc!^ ad 
 in a way v itly fay?, that they turn their backs 
 
 upon the world ; yea, that they are dead to the world, and 
 are rifen v . I only fuggeft this for your confider- 
 
 ation. I hope to attend to it in ics place, but not to-day. 
 
 2. The purport, end or defign of baptifm appears to be 
 fcr a manifeftation, that the fuhjecls of it have forfaken all, 
 y( -s, their own lives, for Chrift's fake and the gofpel. 
 
 How can this be more vifibly manifefted, than by being 
 buried with him in baptifm ? How can a man more vifibly 
 forfake all, than he does when buried ? How can any one 
 more manifeftly forfake his own life for another, than by 
 voluntarily If into the hands of another 
 
 to be buried alive i 
 
 Is not. this :v * i what Chrift fauh, Whofoever he 
 
 be of you that forfhketh not all that he hath, he cannot be 
 my diiciple ? 
 
 3 It appears to be for a feprefentation of our being 
 ■wafhed from our fins in the blood of the Lamb. 
 
 John, the revelator, faith, fpeaking of Jefus Chrift, the 
 
 faithful v.irnels, " Unto him 1 us, and waihed us 
 
 ins own blood." This is a figurative ex- 
 
 predion, £h< i once the procuring caufe, the blood cl 
 
 Chrift, and th'e \ our fouls purged from 
 
 : God. C;t. any natural 
 refent tt.i more felly, than does baptifin, in which 
 bodies are tvaihed with pure water? 
 
Serm. IV.] of Baptifm. 4» 
 
 4. The purport, end or defign of this Chriftian ordi- 
 nance appears to be for the promotion of piety in individu- 
 als, and purity in the church. 
 
 What can have a flronger tendency to move the heart of 
 a Chriilian to piety and wear.ednefs from the worlds than 
 has the inftitution of baptifm ? Seein;- at rifcem- 
 
 brance of it, he is put in mind, now Chrift died for Jin, 
 and how everyone • n baptized, 
 
 has by the ordia buried from 
 
 the world, and tin to riewnefs of life. Hath not 
 
 this ordinance alio an equally ttrong tendency to preferve 
 the purity « f the church, fliould it be adminiftered as we 
 have proved it ought to he, by immerfion only ? And mould 
 another thing be found to be true, that vifible believers only 
 fhouldbe admitted to it, what a world of unbelievers would 
 this ihut out of the church ! How differently would the 
 profeffed church of Jefus Chrit't aj 
 does ! 
 
 If my information be correct, every natural horn f 
 of the crown of England is, according to tl 
 national church, to be baptized, and immediately 
 as a member- of the church. This is, indeed, conlift 
 all the parents have, in any pad p led to '■ 
 
 the Chriilian religion, and if baptifm have come into the 
 place of circumcifion, and io be adminiftered to children; 
 and infants, as that wis. 
 
 Not only fo, but probably nine-tenths of the inhabitants 
 of New-England, if not of cur nation, belong to the church, 
 according to the profeffed belief of the*Pedobaptifts. Upon 
 the fame principle I preiurhe that more than three-fourth^ 
 of all the adults in this and the neighbouring towns belong 
 to the church, and have, if the principle be according to the 
 gofpel, a right to require admittance to the Lord's Si 
 and baptifm for their children. Then, upon the fame prin- 
 ciple, would their children be members of the church, 
 entitled to all the privileges of God's houfe, as they cor.^e 
 to years, and nothing fhort of grofs immorality could jufU- 
 fy their exclufion. Does this look as though Chrift king- 
 dom were not of this world ? 
 
 5. The purport, end or defgn of h tptifm appeal's t : he 
 well defcribed by Dr. Goodwin, in the following word- : 
 "The eminent thing fignified and d in baptifm h 
 
 Da 
 
42 The Mule and Subjects [Serm. IV. 
 
 not fiflgly the blood of Chrift, as it avq/lrs us from our fin?, 
 but there is a further reprcfentation therein of (Shrift's death, 
 burial and refurreclion, in the baptized : and this is not in a 
 hire conformity to Chrift, but is a representation of a com- 
 munion with Chi ill in his death and refurrection ; th-. 
 it is faid, We are b'Jiied with him in baptifm, and wl 
 we are rifen with him, &c. And moreover, here it is that 
 file anfwer of a good confeience, which is made the inward 
 effect of this ordinance, I Peter iii. 21, is there alio attribu- 
 ted to Chrift's refur reft ion, as the thing Signified and rep- 
 refented in baptifm ; and as the caufe of that anfwer of a 
 good confeience, even baptifm doth now {ji\e us, as it is a 
 figure of falvation by Chrift." 
 
 6. The purport, end or defign of the ordinance appears 
 to be to point out, or fhadow fo:th,- th; fcrgivenefs or re- 
 miffion of fins, and the being cleaned from then;. Hence 
 the propriety of Scripture expreflions, which are like the fol- 
 lowing : The baptifm of repentance for the remiflion of fins, 
 Marl i. 4. Arife and be baptized, and wafh away thy fins, 
 j43s xxii. 16. Here it is worthy of the critical reader's 
 notice, that the word translated, <wcjh away, i» apolouj'aiy 
 ■which Signifies to wafh clean, or to wafh out a Main, a 
 as to wafh away. It is alfo worthy to be obferved, that the 
 word loud, whence this is derived, is the t nly word, or theme, 
 fave baptize, which, in the New-Teftamenr, fignifies to wafh 
 the body. This being well considered, it cannot be doubt- 
 ed, but bapiifm is a moft Significant reprefentation of the 
 remiffion of fin, or cleanfing from it. 
 
 Lajlly. The purport, en J and deiigtl of the ordinance of 
 baptifm appears to be, for an open and manifeft declaration 
 that thofe who receive it, do heartily, and of a ready mind, 
 put on Chrift, enter into his fervi«e s receive him to be their 
 Prophet, Prieft and King, end covenant to be for him, and 
 for him only. Accordingly it is faid, As many ab 
 baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift : They have put on 
 his name, his felf-denymg piofeilion, his iuffcring, defpifed, 
 but glorious cauie. 
 
 Is the purport, end and defign of baptifm as hath been 
 now ftated ? then the mode is immerfion ; and thofe who 
 change the ordinance from dipping to fprinkilng, and apply it 
 to unbelievers, pervert the ordinance, lefe :ts import, and 
 make it quite another thing. This we have, for years, ig- 
 Rorantly done. 
 
Serm. IV.] of Baptifm. 43 
 
 We will now attend to to the arguments, which the. 
 late Rev. John Cleaveland hath left us in fupport of fprink- 
 Hng, as being authentic baptifm. This Mr. Cleaveland was, 
 and I believe juflly too, eileemed as one of the mod pious 
 and faithful fervants of Chrift. Whilfl I was favoured 
 with a perfonal acquaintance with him, he flood very high 
 in my eftimation, for his unaffected piety, and fervent fim- 
 ■••, as a preacher of the everlaftinggofpel. I iljll retain" 
 the fame opinion of the good man. But great and good 
 men are not always wife. In any inflance \\1iere their wif- 
 dpm hath failed them, we fhould be careful how we follow. 
 'i he Bereans would not take Paul for a guide, without firft 
 bringing him to the ftandard of divine truth. The Bereans 
 were juitined. Should we treat Mr. C. in the fame way, 
 he could not, and I am inclined to think, he would not, 
 though he were living, condemn us. I might let his works 
 and arguments in fupport of fprinkb'ng, iieep, were it not, 
 that fome of you, my people, and perhaps others, may by 
 them, in one particular, be kept from beholding Chrift, as 
 in an open glafs. 
 
 The good man's object was, to prove that baptifm by 
 fprinkling is authentic, or is fcriptural ; or that ip: inkling 
 is baptifm. 
 
 I will now lay before you his fuppofed ftrong arguments 
 by which he fupports the validity of fprinkling for baptiz- 
 ing. Alter ftating the principles of the Baptifts, as to the 
 ordinance now conhderin;.;', his 
 
 j It. Argument is, "Their learned men know that the 
 word baptizo in Luke xi. 38, and lapiifmuus in Mark vii. 2 
 — 5, are ufed to fignify the lame as nipto is, i. e. proper 
 walhing, or making cle;-:;'. by the application of water, in 
 cafes that do not neceffarily require dipping as the mode of 
 walking." The anfwer to this is : That neither the learned 
 men among the Baptifts, nor the learned among any otner 
 clals of men, know any luch thing. Beftdes, baptl/lhe, in 
 Luke, and baptifmous, in Mark, have reference to, and mean, 
 a ceremonial, a religious, or ratier, as may be more prop- 
 erly called in thefe inftances, a fuperititious walhing. What 
 is meant by a ceremonial waihing, you may fee by looking 
 into the ceremonial law : Levif. xi. 32, and in Numb. xix. 
 1 9, where you will find that this ceremonial walhing was, 
 to put into water, or to bathe one's fiefh in water. You 
 hence fee that theie two pafiages, with which Mr. Cleave- 
 
44 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. IV. 
 
 land lays the foundation ofhis fupport of fprinkling for bap- 
 tifin, utterly fail him, and come in as auxiliaries to confirm 
 immerfion as the only fcripture baptilm. I will not fay 
 that nipto is never ufed to lignify ceremonial wafhing, and 
 fo intend the wafhing, or putting the hands into water, 
 (pugmc) with abundance of exaclnefs, as Dr. Doddridge ex- 
 pounds it, or up to the elbows, as L'Enfant renders it. 
 But one thing is evident to all who will examine the texts, 
 and compare them with the ceremonial wafhings of the cer- 
 emonial law, in conformity with which the Jewifh doctors 
 meant to have their traditional ceremonies, that bapi'i-zo and 
 baptifmos are not ufed in the fenfe in which nipto generally 
 is. In every point of view, Mr. Cleaveland's texts utterly 
 fail him, and go to deftroy the cuftom or tradition he 
 brought them to fupport. Befides, I do not find that bap. 
 tivd is ufed, in any place, for wafhing the hands, or for 
 wafhing or dipping a part of the body, or any other thing. 
 Mr. Cleaveland's 
 
 2d. Argument is built upon Hebre ws ix. 10. where the 
 Apoftle fpeaks of (diaphorois laptijmou) divers waih 
 Here, where die Apoitie is fpeaking of divers ceremonial 
 wafhings, or bathings, Mr. Cleaveland, without the 3ea!l poi- 
 fible evidence, concludes the Apoftie means divers Jbrink- 
 lings. 
 
 The fame anfwer which was given to the firft argument 
 belongs to this, as Mr. Cleaveland has produced no evidence, 
 that (baptifmois ) waihings^ or bathings, means fprinklings, 
 lave that in the 13th and 21ft verfes. The Apciile make:; 
 ufe of the word fprinkle, when fpeaking of the application 
 of blood, and fpeaking of the unclean, lays, they are ratitiz- 
 td, and adds, almoft all things are by the law purged, cath- 
 tr'ized, not baptised, with blood. It is net a little furprifing 
 that a man of Mr. Cleaveland's good fenfe fhould fay, and 
 that Dr. Lathrop, and ether men of erudition, fhould fol- 
 low him, in faying, thefe different fprinklings, in the 13th 
 and 2 1 11 vtifes, refer to baptifmois, when, had they looked 
 three words farther, they would have found them to be, Lai 
 dikaiomafi farhos, the liberal Engliih of which is, " The ordi- 
 nances of God concerning the ceremonial rites of bloody 
 facrifices!" Had they looked into their Greek teitaments, 
 they might, with eafe, have feen that their argument would 
 not bear examination. Surely, had thefe gentlemen had 
 the right of the queftion, they never would have compelled 
 
Serai. IV.] of Bap!. 45 
 
 the Apoflle to explain by the fprinkling of bloedf, what he 
 meant by bathings or wafhings with write 
 more forced expofition of fcripture is feldom beard. B .»- 
 fides, the Apoflle told them, by placing whac is tranflateJ, 
 carnal ordinances, between divers in the iotl 
 
 fprinkling in the 13th and 21ft verfes, that he intended no 
 fuch thing as they fiippofed. If I miftake not, Mr. C's. 
 
 3d. Argument is an attempt to prove that bapu 
 ire ufed to fignify fornething more than to dip, put 
 'into water, &c. When the good man brought forward his 
 argument he forgot — Sec. — which belongs to his quotation 
 from Dr. Gale, and which includes imm'erfiort and 
 whelming, and which compriie.- the whole which Mr. C. 
 has proved that baptizo fignifies. But, waving his forget- 
 fulnefs, we will attend to what he fays. All which he ap- 
 pears to do here is, to ihow that bapto, or baptizo, are ufed 
 to walh, dip and wet with fprinkling the dew from heaven, 
 and to overwhelm. That is, bapto fignifies to dip, put into 
 water, wet with the dew of heaven, &c. and baptizo fignifies 
 to dip, put into water and overwhelm. What is the confe- 
 quence ? According to Mr. C. it is this : Becaufe bapto is 
 fometimes ufed to fignify one's being wet with the dilHUing 
 dew of heaven, &c. therefore baptizo fignifies the fame thing : 
 Becaufe bapto fignifies in one place to wafii without dipping, 
 therefore baptizo fignifies to wafn without dipping; and be- 
 caufe bapto is fometimes ufed to fignify to colour, or ftain, 
 by afperfion, or the like, therefore baptizo is ufed in the 
 fame fenfe ; therefore fprinkling is authentic baptifm. 
 What evidence, I pray you, my hearers, is there in all this ? 
 Yes, what {how or appearance of evidence is there in all 
 tl is ? Would ten thoufand fuch arguments aiford you the 
 :onvi<fHon, or gain your aflent, where you had a cent 
 to lofe ? 
 
 Every perfon of fenfe, who is acquainted with the Greek, 
 erally fpe ow Mr. C's. premiies, that hap- 
 
 to, in different | ;nifies the on of water in 
 
 ?times fignifies over- 
 whelming. But no rfiands the mutter, 
 will allow his conclufron, lor it hath no connexion with the 
 premifes. 
 
 His argument, in plain Englifh, is this : The verb to wet, 
 
 tics fignifies to is in a heavy dew we fay it 
 
 (prinkles, or wets; the verb 10 overwhelm, fometimes figni- 
 
46 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. IV. 
 
 fi;s to cover all over with water, as is the beach, by the 
 flowing of the tide. Of confequence, to overwhelm is to 
 fprinkle ; therefore to fprinklc is authentic overwhelming, or 
 baptifm. The fallacy of this argument is eafily detected, 
 and with the fame eafe may any one, who knows the differ- 
 ent fignifications of bapto and iaptlzo, uncover the fallacy 
 and complete inconclufivenefs of Mr. C'?. argument. 
 " The plain truth is, he hath done his fide a differvice, for 
 by fearchtng he hath fun-.!, and implicitly acknowledges, 
 h not intentionally, and (I fuppofe) without knowing 
 it, that no inftancVcan be found where lujtizo fignifieth the 
 application of water by fprinkling, or any other way, which 
 does not imply ovc- helming, or wafhing, that is, a ceremo- 
 nial wafhing, which is bathing, or putting inLo water. 
 Bat— 
 
 4. There is another argument upon which Mr. Cleave- 
 land chiefly dwells, and upon which he appears greatly to 
 reft the defence of his whole caufe. It is his flrong hold 
 againft immerfion, and for fprinkling ; and it is this : Bap- 
 tifm with water, or baptifm as a Chriftian ordinance, is to 
 fignify Chrift's baptizing with the Holy Ghoft. I have no 
 where found that he hath proved that this is the great and 
 principal thing which baptifm fignifies ; nor do I by any 
 means obtain convidlion that the mode of baptizing is to be 
 determined, with certainty, from this particular thing, even 
 fhould it be granted that one important defign of baptifm 
 is to fignify Chrift's baptizing with the Holy Ghoft. But, 
 as Mr. C. feems to depend upon the ftrength of this argument 
 more than he does upon the ftrength of any other, we will 
 grant for the prefent, that baptifm with water was appoint- 
 ed particularly, if not mainly, to fet forth the mode in 
 which Chrift baptizeth with the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Now the great queftion is, In what manner or mode, by 
 fprinkling or overwhelming, did Chrift Jefus baptize with 
 the Holy Ghoft ? Mr. C. in his treatife, replies abundantly, 
 by fprinkling, certainly. We will put this fubjed to the 
 teft, by inftancing the moft remarkable feafon which ever 
 was, in which Chrift, in a moft remarkable, public ar.d 
 aftonifnino- degree was baptizing widi the Holy Ghoft. I 
 pvefume were Mr. C. now alive he could not, with any face 
 cf propriety, objefl againft taking a fample for the whole, 
 the moft remarkable inftance which ever hath been, and, 
 perhaps, which ever will be exhibited of Chrift's baptizing 
 
Serm. IV.] f Bapfifm. 4? 
 
 with the Holy Ghoft. I am willing to fubmit the (Iron* 
 argument of Mr. C. to this great fample of Chrift's baptiz- 
 ing with the Holy Ghoft. Are not all you, my hearers, 
 willing to leave the weight of his argument to fuch a de- 
 ciiion i I am perfuaded you all fay, Yes. 
 
 We will then bring his argument to the propofed teft. 
 
 Ihe inftance which we will take, forfurely it is the mod 
 aftoniftiing one, is that which Chrift foretold, as related, 
 Adts i. 5. "John truly baptized with water, but ye mail be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghoft, not many days hence." 
 i he accompliftiment of this prediction and promife we have 
 related in the four firft verfes of the next chapter. It is 
 thus ; When the day of Pentecoft was fully come, they 
 were all with one accord in one place. And fuddenly 
 tnere was a found from heaven, as of a rufhing, mighty 
 wind, and it filled all the houfe where they were fitting. 
 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of 
 rue, and it fat upon each of them. And they were all filled 
 with the Holy Ghoft. 
 
 Here was truly a wonderful inftance of Chrift's baptizing 
 with the Holy Ghoft. * 6 
 
 Here 1. All the houfe was filled with the found, wind 
 or Spirit fiom heaven. 2. Cloven tongues, like as of fire, 
 wl'hfnTGhot ' them ' * Th ^ -ere all filled 
 
 We here fee that they were all overwhelmed ; for all the 
 houfe, where they were fitting, was filled ; and not only 
 were they all overwhelmed, but they were alfo filled. 
 
 It is left with you to determine, what becomes of Mr. 
 C s. argument, upon which he lays fo much ftrefs, and of 
 which he fpeaks with fo much confidence, and not unfre- 
 quently with an air of triumph. Is there a word about 
 fprinkling m any part of it ? or is there any thing which 
 looks like it ? Does it not look coniiderably like immerfion 
 or overwhelming ? At leaft, does it not favour immerfion, 
 or overwhelming, as much as it does fprinkling ? If fo, then 
 It proves nothing for fprinkling. It is left with you to 
 determine which fide it favours. 
 
 It is poffible, however, that fome of you may fuppofe, 
 that Mr. C. might intend that baptifm, if it may be fo 
 called, which the Holy Ghoft minifters, when it creates the 
 foul anew. To this fuppofition, I will juft obferve, " The 
 Wind bloweth (faith Chrift) where it lifteth, and thouheareft 
 
4? The Mode and Subj:fls [Scrm. IV. 
 
 the found thereof, but canfl: not tell whence it comtth, or 
 ivhither it gorth ; fo is every one that i.-> born of the Spirit.'' 
 Would it not be extreme folly to fuppofe that water baptifm 
 reprefents die operations of the Spirit, when none can know 
 whence it cometh, or whither it goeth ? It may repi 
 the effect of the Spiiit's operations, and it is called, a being 
 born, not fprinkled, of the Spirit. 
 
 5. In reading Mr. C'. c . defence cf fprinkling, as being 
 authentic baptifm, I noticed but one more diftmcT: argu- 
 ment, and it is diis : 
 
 " Nipto, baptizo, louoy brecho, pluno, or apopluno, all fignify 
 to wain." The conclufion which he draws from this is, in 
 fhort, the following : To baptize is not to immerfe, but to 
 fprinkle. I fee no connexion between his premife and con- 
 clufion. Befides, Mr. C. tell us, page 80, that the Jews, 
 by adhering to the tradition of the elders, obferved the 
 wafliing of hands, and divers other things, as a religious 
 ceremony. Now, if all the words which Mr. C. mentions, 
 fignify to wafli, and yet fome of diem fignify common 
 warning, and another, and that baptizo, fignifies ceremonial 
 wafhing, and that be to put into water, as is the cafe, whit 
 does his argument prove ? It proves jult nothing to his 
 point. Had he proved, what he hath not even attempted, 
 that they all fignify the fame kind of warning, and that the 
 wafhing fignified was not immerfion, but fprinkling only, 
 then his conclulion would have followed, that fprinkling is 
 baptifm. 
 
 If the above arguments will not fupport Mr. Cleaveland's 
 theory, it muft ail come down ; for they are the fubiiance, 
 if not all the arguments, which he hath adduced, and 1 
 prefume better cannot be found. 
 
 I thought to have taken Dr. Lathrop's arguments upon 
 the fame fubjccl, into cor. : but upon re-examining 
 
 them I find there is no materia! diffimilarity between his 
 and Mr. C*s. ; they therefore both fland or fall together. 
 A word or two may be neie added. 
 
 Dr. Ladirop aifures us that Gyprian, who wrote within 
 about one hundred and fifty years of die apoftles, fpeaking 
 of fprinkling, fays, " In the facrament of falvation (that is 
 baptifm; when neceffity compels, the fhorteft ways of tranfacl- 
 ing divine matters do, by God's grace, confer die whole 
 benent." The Dcftor adds, " The ancients praEliJed int. 
 tnerfia 
 
 L. -5- 
 
Serm. IV.] of Baptifm. 49 
 
 By this quotation of the Doctor's from Cyprian, and 
 confeffion of his own, being put together, it appears at once 
 that all his preceding arguments are erroneous ; for Cyp- 
 rian does not intimate that fprinkling was from heaven, 
 but fays it was from neceflity. Befides, his calling baptifm 
 the facrament of falvation, fliows us the error, whence the 
 neceflity of fprinkling came, namely, a belief that the ordi- 
 nance of baptifm was neceflary to falvation. This being 
 the cafe, and it alfo being true, as the Doctor acknowledges, 
 that the ancients practifed immerfion, fave when neceflity 
 compelled, as they erroneoufly fuppofed, the confequence is 
 fairly this, that immerfion is from heaven, the ancients be- 
 ing judges ; and that fprinkling is from men, from neceflity, 
 or rather from error. 
 
 I thought to have added no more upon the Doctor's 
 mode of Chriftian baptifm. However, one argument 
 ought to be taken out of his hands, left it mifguide fome 
 of his readers. He tells us that baptixo, in Mark vii. and 
 Luke xi. is ufed to fignify the application of water to the 
 hands. The only anfwer needed is, It is not thus faid, in 
 Mark, or Luke, or in any other part of the Bible. When 
 the Doctor fhall re-examine the pailages, he will probably 
 fee the mi flake. 
 
 Will gentlemen, and Chriflians too, forever contend 
 againft immerfion^ the inftitution of heaven, and for fprinkling^ 
 which hath nothing but error and convenience for its fupport I 
 
 g 
 
50 7 'be Mode and Subjtch [Serm. V. 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Co ye, ihirtfrre, and teach all tuitions, baptising them in the mine 
 of the Father, and of th. Son, and of the Holy Chofl ; ! 
 ing them to ohferve all things ivhatfoever I have commanded 
 you : And, lo, I am with you a/way, even unto the end of the 
 luprld. Amen* 
 
 HAVE confiderce in you, brethren, that ye will keep 
 the ordinances, as I (hull deliver them to you, and prove 
 them to be from the word of the Lord. 
 
 One thing I would fiiil know of you, my brethren, 
 whether you, like the more noble Bereans, will receive the 
 word with readinefs, feauhirg the fcriptures daily, that 
 yon may know the truth of what you hear. 
 
 Ycu will bear in mind, that whofbever loveth father or 
 mother, hotife or hinds, wife or children, more than (Thrift, 
 is not worthy of him. If, through affection for any of 
 thefe, ycu fkould rcfufe to obey Chrift, it will be too evi- 
 dent that you love them more than you do him, and fo are 
 not worthy of him. 
 
 Should you love any erroneous belief and practice more 
 than you do the truths of Chrift, you will, fo far as you 
 manifeft it, prove that you are not worthy of him. 
 
 Should you defpife me for delivering and vindicating the 
 truths of Chrift to you, you will at the fame time defpife 
 him. You will therefore give good heed to what you 
 and to what you do in this matter; for if it be of God, 
 it will ftand, and none can overthrow it. It is hoped none 
 of you will be found fighting againft God. 
 
 This difcourfe may contain a review of what we , 
 paifed over, together with fome application. In nn ilrft 
 difcourfe to you on the fubject, which we have ftiil before 
 us, the following are the principal things to whi< 
 attended. 
 
 I. I propofed a number of plain truths, confidcved to be 
 as firft principles, for your attention. 
 
 1. Eaptifm is a poiitive inftmition, about which we can 
 know nothing, as to its being a Chriftian ordinance, but 
 
Serm. V.] of Bsph/ni. $\ 
 
 from what Chrift, and thofe infpired by his Spirit, have 
 taught us. 
 
 2. All which we are required to believe and practifc, 
 with refpect to the Chriftian ordinance of baptifm, is de- 
 clared to us by Jefus Chrift, and by his forerunner and 
 apoitles. 
 
 3. When Jefus Chrift firft inftituted the ordinance of 
 baptifm, he no doubt delivered his mind {0 clearly and hilly 
 upon the fubjecl:, that his difciples and immediate followers 
 uaderftood and practifed as he would have them. 
 
 4. Every thing which hath, by the precepts and corr- 
 hiandmenls of men, been added ilnce, is aiide irorn the 
 ordinance, and makes no part of it. 
 
 5. No man, nor body of men, hath any more authority 
 to add to or diminiih from this ordinance, than they have 
 to inititute a new one and call it Chrift's. 
 
 6. Whenever, and wherever, the ordinance of baptifm is 
 fo changed as to lofe the intent of the inftitution, then and 
 there the ordinance is loft, and becomes no Chriftian ordi- 
 nance at all. 
 
 II. I defined for your information a number of words 
 which appertain to the ordinance of baptifm. 
 
 We found all thefe to be juft as we might expect to have 
 found them, provided immerfion be baptifm, or the mode 
 in which it is administered. 
 
 Baptijlerlon, a place in which to wafti the body. Bc$ttfm% 
 immerfion, or dipping one all over in water. Bapi'i'z-o fig- 
 ivifies to dip, or wafh, the body all over in water. Load (a 
 word feveral times ufed in reference to, or fignifying the 
 fame, as baptifm) is, to wafh, to rinfe, to bathe, &c. Then 
 
 III. I fet before you all the texts in the New-Teftament 
 which relate either to the baptifm of John, or to that of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift. In the next place, I propofed for your 
 meditation the paffages of fcripture where wafhing is men- 
 tioned, and. the Greet: words which are ufed. I then call- 
 ed your attention to thofe paffages in which fprinkiing is 
 mentioned, and to the Greek words which arc made ufe of. 
 Lajlly, I read to you thofe fcripture^j&jheie to dip is men- 
 tioned, and aifo the Greek words which are rendered to dip. 
 
 In no: one of the places, where the ordinance of baptifm 
 is brought to view, do we find one word about fprinkiing, 
 or any thing whichdooks like it. In every place, where to 
 dip is mentioned, we find a near relation to baptifm; every 
 
$% The Mode and Sttbj eels [Serm. V. 
 
 word which is ufed, coming from the fame root or theme, 
 from which bapti-zo comes. 
 
 As to the word iva/J:, we find no relation between the 
 words which fignify to wafh, and thofe which fignify to 
 baptize, fave in thoib few infiances where the meaning is to 
 vaih the body, or put into water, or waih a thing all over. 
 When we come to the Greek words which fignify to fprin- 
 kle, we find no firnilarity, or likenefs, between them and the 
 word to baptize. 
 
 In all the places where baptizing is mentioned, not a 
 word is ufed which looks like fprinkling ; where fprinkling 
 is mentioned, there is not a word ufed which appears like 
 baptifm. 
 
 In my next difcourfe, I produced my evidence, that my 
 definitions of baptifm and to baptize were accurate and jult. 
 I dwelt largely upon this evidence, for the merit of the 
 whole fubjeel depends greatly, if not entirely, upon the de- 
 terminate meaning of the words, which our Lord ufed in the 
 inftitution of the ordinance, and when fpeaking of it. When 
 we know the determinate fignification of his words, we 
 know what he fays, and what we ought to underftand by 
 the words whicli he ufes. The evidence which I produced, 
 was, in fhort, the following. 
 
 I. The Greek Lexicon, Butterworth's Concordance, 
 Bailey's and Entick's Dictionaries, bear their united teftimo- 
 ny, that the plain, literal, and common, if not univerfal, fig- 
 nification of the words baptifm and to baptize, is immerfion 
 and to immerfe, bury in water, to dip, or to plunge, a per- 
 fon all ffltfer in water. Here are four learned and pofitive 
 witnefTes to the fame thing. Indeed, they give no other 
 fignification, fave it be to wafh, which we have feen intends 
 a ceremonial wafhing, which is to put into water, or to 
 bathe. 
 
 2. I repeated fome of the attendant or circumftantial 
 facts, which have relation to the ordinance of baptifm. 
 John baptized in the river Jordan. He was baptizing in 
 Enon ntar to Salim, becaufe there was much water there. 
 The word laptijlery fignifies a place in which to waih the 
 body all over. Baptifm fignifies to dip, to plunge, immerfe, 
 or to waih the body all over in water. Baptizer fignifies 
 one who dips, plunges, or wafhes the body all over in water. 
 To baptise .fignifies to immerfe, plunge under water, or under 
 any other liquid thing, or to dip, or to put into water. To be 
 
Serm. V.j of Baptifm. 5$ 
 
 baptized is to be plungeJ, immerfed, or wafhsd all over in 
 water. 
 
 Thefe things being true, is it not eafy to determine what 
 the ordinance of baptifm fignifies ? 
 
 3. The words baptlfmos and bapiiz.j> have two, and only- 
 two, tranflations in the New-Tetiament. Thefe two are 
 baptifm and wafting. Where their meaning is,wafhing, or 
 
 2 they are thus translated, it is a ceremonial wafhing, 
 which is to put into water, or bathe the He ih in water, as 
 you may fee, Levit. xi. 32. Numb. xix. 19. When they are 
 translated baptifm, or to baptize, the thing intended is the 
 baptifm of water, of fire, of fufferings, or of the Holy Gholt. 
 
 4. I brought forward feveral noted witneifes, to bear 
 their united -teitimony, that I had given a juft definition of 
 the word baptizo : thefe were, John Calvin, Zanchius, and 
 Dr. Owen. 
 
 In the next place I mentioned to you that Paul repeated- 
 ly ufes the word loud, where he means the fame thing a* 
 where he ufes the word baptizo ; that he ufes thefe words 
 as Signifying the fame thing. "Whereas, loud fignifies to 
 wafh and to bathe the body in water, and confequently bap- 
 tize means the fame. 
 
 Lajlly. I brought forward Paul's expdfition of the word 
 lapti/m, and mowed you, that he expounds it, as being bu- 
 ried with Chritl in baptifm, or immerfion. 
 
 In my difcourfe, which I next preached to you, I produ- 
 ced evidence, that the apoftles and primitive Chnilian«, not 
 only understood the matter as I have defcribed it, but prac- 
 tiled accordingly. 
 
 In fupport of the apoftle's practice, I cbferved, that the 
 word hud, of determinate Signification, which they ufed to 
 lignify their practice, or what was done by them in baptifm, 
 determines or fixes their practice to be immerfion. I farther 
 observed, that they were commanded to praclife baptifm, 
 or to baptize, as I have defcribed it ; and that the fcriptures. 
 teftify, that they thus did ; and alio that the apoftle's fay, 
 the mode of baptizing in their day was, by burying the fub- 
 jec"is, in baptifm. 
 
 For witneifes that the primitive church practiced immer- 
 iion, we have Mofheim, Bailey, Calvin, Baxter, and many 
 others, all agreeing in this one point, that the mode of uap» 
 tiding, or baptifm itfelf, among the undents, was immerfion, 
 
54 T/jc 1 Mode and Subjects [Serm. V. 
 
 We have alio evidence that the church thus pra&ifed, for 
 thirteen hundred years, fome extreme cafes excepted. More- 
 over we have evidence that all the church, in Europe, in 
 Afia, and in Africa, five that part of it, which is now, or 
 hath been, under the bewildering power of the popes, do 
 now, and ever have, practifed immeriion. . 
 
 Btlidcs all* this, the very reafons which the Pedobaptifts 
 affign, why they have laid afide immeriion, fnow that iprink- 
 ling is not commanded by the Lord, but is taught by the 
 precepts of men. 
 
 You fee we have an ocean of witnefTes and evidence 
 againft us; and all, or nighly fo, from our own denomina- 
 tion of Chriftians. What a world of evidence might we 
 reaforrably expedt that the Baptifts would be able to bring 
 for themfelves and againft us and our practice, would we 
 hear them, when our own fide bring fo much againft their 
 Own practice and for the Baptifts ! Beiides, this evidence ap- 
 pears to ftand in its full force againft us, there being no op- 
 pofite evidence to weaken its force. Indeed we are, in this 
 matter, much like criminals, who plead, at leaft the leaders 
 of them, guilty to the whole indictment. However, fome 
 have made a lull plea of not guilty, but in part. At the 
 fame time, numbers of them, in their plea, have convicted 
 themfelves of being guilty throughout. 
 
 In the laft difcourfe, after holding to your view the pur- 
 port, end and defign of baptifm, I examined one of their 
 pleas of, not guilty. But what evidence did the good man 
 give of his innocence ? Can the largeft ftretch of charity al- 
 iow more than this, he I/uuj not what he did? Was truth 
 ever brought to fuch ilraits as to require to be fupported by 
 fuch arguments ? 
 
 APPLICATION. 
 
 FROM a review of the whole fubjecl, the following appear 
 to flow as neceifary confequences. 
 
 I. Whether we allow immerfion to be the fcripturc 
 mode of baptifm, and the only one which it requires, or 
 not ; one thing is clear, that we have as much evidence of 
 its being {o y as we could have, on fuppofition that it were. 
 
 The fcriptures declare, in various ways, that this is the ! 
 mode, and mention no other. The fcriptures expound 
 themfelves to mean immerfion, or burying. 
 
Serm. V.] of Baptifm. $$ 
 
 We find not a Tingle trace, in all the fcriptures, where the 
 ordinance is fpoken of, of any thing ftiort of immeriion be- 
 ing mentioned. 
 
 Good men, who are fkilful in the true import of words, 
 have agreed, that the plain, literal and accurate meaning of 
 the word, to baptize, is to immerfe or bury in water, &c. 
 Nor have any been able to fhow that in any part of God's 
 word it hath any oppofite meaning or application. 
 
 The church of Jefus Chrift have, in all ages, underftood 
 the matter of baptifm as I have explained it. We muft, 
 however, except, for the laft three or five hundred years, 
 many of thofe branches of the church, which have been, or 
 are now, under the jurifdiction of the church of Rome. 
 The purport, end and defign of baptifm alio intimate to us, 
 •that this is the manner of baptizing. 
 
 Indeed, if there be any words in the Greek language by 
 which the Lord of the Baptifmal Inftitution could have told 
 us what he intended, the words ufed do this. For there 
 are no two words in the language, or, at leaft, none which 
 have come to our knowledge, which fo literally, fo uni- 
 formly, and fo exprefsly, fignify to immerfe, or warn, or 
 bathe the body in water, as do the words baptl-zd and loud. 
 Hence, if immerfion be baptifm, the Lord, if I may fo fay, 
 could not have told us of it in the New-Te (lament, if the 
 ( words, chofen by the Holy Ghoft, do not afford this infor- 
 mation. If baptifm be immerfion, then the two mofl fuit- 
 able words have been chofen to exprefs it ; but if fprinkling 
 be baptifm, two words which were farther from the point 
 could not have been found. We find no inftance, in the 
 Bible, where they are thus ufed. In fliort, no two words, 
 which mention the application of water in any way, are far- 
 ther from the idea of fprinkling, than are thofe two which 
 are ufed when baptifm is intended. It therefore appears, 
 that whilft we have ufed fprinkling for baptifm, we have 
 departed from the plain and primitive import of the words 
 ufed, as far as we could without a complete omifllon of 
 water. None can be at a farther remove from the inftitu- 
 ted, fcripture baptifm, than we have been, without denying 
 it in whole. 
 
 2. Error is very infinuatihg and deceiving. Surely it 
 hath proved thus in the fubjecT: of fprinkling. 
 
 Cyprian, who wrote within about a hundred and fifty 
 years of the apoflles, fpeaking of fprinkling, fays, as quoted 
 
56 The Mode and Subjecls [Serra. V. 
 
 by Dr. Lathrop, " In the facrament offahation, (i. e. bap- 
 tifm) when necejjity compels, the lliorteft ways of transacting 
 divine matters, do, by God's grace, confer the whole bene- 
 fit." Here we fee the origin of fprinkling for baptifm. 
 
 It was an early error in the church, that baptifm was 
 necelfary to falvation. Hence, when it was judged,, that 
 life would be endangered by immerfion, the perfon mu[t 
 either lofe his life by baptifm, or lofe his foul for want of 
 being baptized, or fome other mode mull be invented. Or» 
 if the lick perfon was Highly dying, he muil be baptized 
 without immerfion, or probably lofe his foul, before he 
 could be conveyed where the ordinance might be adminif- 
 tered. Under tbefe circumftances, man's fruitful invention 
 devifed fprinkling as a fubftitute for baptifm. Here is the 
 origin of fpi inkling, as the ancients have told us. 
 
 In procefs of time, found ladies and gendewomen wish- 
 ed to have fprinkling fubftituted for baptifm in their behalf; 
 afterwards others, till at laft, it became a general cuftom 
 in many of the European nations. In the mean time, the 
 Baptifts, and many others, objected againft the practice, as 
 being contrary from the command of Chrift. Hence aro'cr 
 the neceffity of defending it, or clfe having it comldered 
 as a departure from the lairh. Matters being thus, the in- 
 vention of many was in full exerciie co defend fprinkling, as 
 being of divine origin. A number of ceremonial rites of 
 the Levitical law were prelfed into this fervice ; feveral paf- 
 fages of the New-Teftawient were wreded from their nat- 
 ural meaning to a forced interpretation*; and out of the 
 motley mixture weie formed what were ftyled argum 
 bur fuch arguments can ftand no longer than while pre- 
 judice lives to iupport them. 
 
 However, the molt difagreeable part is, a good number 
 of very pious and learned men have been carried away in 
 this whirlpool of deception. Their being deceived has- 
 deceived others; and we are, or have been, among the 
 deceived. 
 
 3. Sprinkling is not from heaven, but of men. This 
 too, if I miftake not, by the fully and fairly implied concef- 
 fion of thole, who have written in its defence. 
 
 If from heaven, why, in the-firft place, ufe it only when 
 neceffity compelled ! as was fuppofed to lave fouls from 
 hell ? If from heaven, why, afterwards, ufe it only in cafes 
 
Serm. V.] of Baptifnu $y 
 
 of lefs urgent, neceflity ? If from heaven, why bring in the 
 coldneis of the country as an excufe for ufing it ? If from 
 heaven, why not mentioned in the inftitution of the ordi- 
 nance, or in fome palfage where mention is made" of bap- 
 tifm, or in fome other place in all the writings of the Evan- 
 gel ids and Apoftles ? If from heaven, why not intimated as 
 being fo, by thofe who firll introduced it ? If fprinkling be 
 from heaven, why fo many inconclnftve arguments in its fup- 
 port ? Is the word of God deficient in this particular, and 
 hath it revealed what cannot be fupported by it ? If from 
 heaven, why not commanded, enjoined, required, or fo much 
 as once hinted, as being a mode of a goipel ordinance, in 
 any part of that revelation which we have received from 
 heaven ? 
 
 4. Another confequence is, That the fcripture mode of 
 baptifm is immerfion, and for aught we know, the only 
 mode, and neceflary to the adminiftration cf the ordinance. 
 This is the plain, literal, fcripture fenfe of baptifm ; there- 
 fore this is the plain, literal, fcripture mode. The fcriptures 
 mention no other mode ; therefore this may be, and is, for 
 aught appears, the only fcripture mode. 
 
 5« Fiom what we have gone over, one thing appears 
 certain : That Chriit never commanded any of his follow- 
 ers to adminifter any gofpel ordinance by fprinkling, and, 
 at the fame time, to fay, / baptize. For to do thus would 
 be to command them to do one iking, and to fay that they 
 did another. 
 
 To fprinkle is to ranfize, which hath no vifible connexion 
 with baptifm. To fay, Chrift commanded his difciples to 
 rantize, and, at the fame time, to fay, We baptize, is what 
 no Chriftian would, knowingly, be willing to fay. This 
 would, if I miftake not, be making Chriit. the minifter of fin. 
 But what I have long, implicitly, though ignorantly, done, 
 others may ftill do. 
 
 6. Another confequence is, cuftom hath great influence 
 upon the human mind. It furely hath upon us. For, even 
 after we have full evidence that fprinkling, for baptifm, is 
 not irom heaven, but was the offspring of error, and fofter- 
 ed by the dark ages of Papiilical ufurpation, we are hardly 
 perfuaded to renounce it. But, my brethren, my expecta- 
 tion is, that after you have fearched your Bibles through and 
 through, and find nothing of it there, you will jive it up. 
 
58 The Mode and Sub/efts [Senn. V. 
 
 Should the Lord inquire of us, why we fubftitute fprinkling 
 for baptizing, and lay unto us, Whence is this fubditution, • 
 from heaven, or of men ? Would there not be great : earn- 
 ings among us what anfwer to return ? Should we fay, From 
 heaven ; he might reply, How do you prove it : Should 
 we lay, Of men, then might he aik, Why do you pracViie it ? 
 
 7. Another conicqu^nce i;, we have the fame kind of 
 evidence, and perhaps more cf it, that baptifm is to be ad- 
 ministered by immerfion, or dippisg, or putting into water, 
 than we have to fapport any other gofpel precept, or prac- 
 tice. The evidence which wc have^in either cafe, is the fig- 
 nilication r»f the words which are uud to point out the thing 
 to be believed, or praclifed. 
 
 Were it not for the influence of habit, or cultom, you 
 would as readily and naturally conclude, from the very 
 words ufed, that immerfion, or dipping, or wafhing the 
 body in water, was the meaning of baptifm, as diat a religious 
 eating of bread, and drinking of wine, in commemoration 
 of our dying Lord, was the way to obferve the Lord's 
 fupper. 
 
 8. We appear to be brought to this dilemma : We 
 mud either embrace the tradition of the elders, for the rule 
 of one part of our practice ; or we muft no more fprinkle, 
 and call it baptifm. 
 
 9. Another confequence is, Thofe, whofirft introduced 
 fprinkling for baptizing, had no more right fo to do, than 
 they had to inftitute a new rite, or ordinance, and call it 
 Cm-id's. 
 
 What authority have we to follow their erroneous and 
 hurtful practice ? 
 
 10. We have another confequence worthy of confidera- 
 tion, and it is this : The Chriftian ordinance of baptifm is a 
 molt folemn and fignificant ordinance, and of very high im- 
 portance. 
 
 I fpeak not of the vifible, or actual, adminiftration of it, 
 in particular ; for I never faw it adminillered, as Chrift 
 hath delivered it to his people: But 1 refer to the purport, 
 end and defign of it. It is, among many other things, the 
 great dividing line, which Heaven hath appointed trt be 
 drawn between the viable kingdom of Immanuel, and the 
 men cf this world. Doubdefs there are a large number 
 who bebngi to Chrid's invifible kingdom, who are not, 
 
Serm. V.] of Baptifm. 59 
 
 ftrictly fpeaking, or regularly, in his kingdom vifibly, hav- 
 ing not fubmitted to this ordinance, which is the great and 
 important line of diftinction. 
 
 11. It appears that we are, truly, in a trying ftrite. 
 We muft depart, in one inftance, from a long habit, or con- 
 tinue to do as we have done, and yet not be able to vindi- 
 cate, by the fcriptures of truth, our own conduit. 
 
 Lq/Hy. We come, at length, to the anfwer of this old 
 and difficult and perplexing queftion : Where, and when, 
 did the religious feci, called Baptifts, arife ? The anfwer is, 
 plainly, this. They arofe in Judea, at the time when John 
 came, preaching in the wildernefs the baptifm of repentance. 
 I mention this confequence with confiderable aflurance, be- 
 caufe the New-Teftament abundantly favours it, and no 
 man is able to contradict me. Should any attempt it, he 
 will fail for want of evidence. I ihould, not long fmce, 
 hive been gratified, could I have found their origin any 
 where in the dark ages of Popery, or at the commencement 
 of the reformation, among the famous enthufiafts of Ger- 
 many, Holland, Switzerland, or Weftphalia. But, after 
 having long purfued the perplexing refearch, I found their 
 origin, where [ leaft of ail expected it, in Enon and Jordan. 
 A few queftions are now to clofe the prefent fubject. 
 
 1. Is not immerfion the fcripture baptifm ? 
 
 2. Is fprinkling a mode of baptizing warranted by fcrip- 
 ture ? If fo, where ? 
 
 3. Are Old-Teflament rites to explain New-Teftament 
 ordinances ? Is Mofes to correct what Chrift hath left in- 
 complete ? Is it io ? 
 
 4. Will Chvift approve of that practice of men, which fo 
 changes his pofitive inftitution, as to lofe, greatly to lofe, the 
 purport, end and defign of it ? 
 
 5. Was it ever right, and is it now, for men to change 
 what Chrift hath commanded to be in perpetual obferva- 
 tion ? Did the fuppoied extreme cafes juftify this change at 
 firlt, and will trifling inconveniences juftify us now ? 
 
 6. Will it be wife- and fafe for us continually to forfake 
 the commandment of Chrift for the precepts of men ? 
 
 7. Do you, my brethren, or can you, blame me for wifh- 
 ing you to keep the ordinances of Chrift as he hath deliver- 
 ed them to the faints i 
 
60 The Mode and Subjects [Serin. V. 
 
 8. Should I have manifefted myfelf your friend, or 
 Chrift's, if, after having found fuch a precious, new and old 
 treajure in his word, as is the Chrjftian ordinance of baptifm, 
 I had not .ventured my life, or in other words, my reputa- 
 tion, my eafe, my property, and my every worldly confeder- 
 ation, to bring it forth to your view and acceptance, that 
 you might more fully walk in all the ftatutcs and ordinances 
 of the Lord blamelefs ? 
 
 One requeft, my brethren, I pray you to grant me, and 
 it is this : Search the fcriptures devoutly, and follow me fo 
 £ar as I follow Jefus Chrilt, your Lord and mine. 
 
Serin. VI. J &f Baptifm, 6i 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptixhig them in ti: 
 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl ; teaching 
 them to obferve ail things tuhaifoevir I have commanded you : 
 And, lo, I am with you alivay, even unto the end of the 
 ivor Id. Amen. 
 
 I HAVE already obferved to you that Chrill Jefus, the 
 Head of the church, and Lord of all, was now confti- 
 tuting his prefent and fucceeding difciples to be apoftle^ 
 unto all nations. My text is their commiffion, and general 
 and particular orders. In it they are directed — 
 J. To go and difciple all nations. 
 
 II. To baptize them in the name of die Father, &c, 
 
 I I I. He directs thefe newly conflitutgd. apoftles, and all 
 their fucceffors, to teach their baptized difciples to obferve 
 all things whatfoever he had given in commandment. 
 
 Laflly. For their encouragement and comfort, he adds, 
 And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world. Amen. 
 
 What 1 purpofed to fay to you, particularly, upon the 
 fecond proportion, I have raid. I now recur to the 
 
 I. Which contains Chrift's command to his difciples to 
 go and difciple all nations. 
 
 I have already fhowed you what baptifm is,> and the 
 defign of it. I am now, if the Lord will, to lay open what 
 is commanded to be done before baptifm be adminiftered, 
 alfo the evidence which the Lord may afford me to prove 
 to you that my inftrucHon is of him. 
 
 Your feelings, my brethren and peopje, have no doubt 
 been highly wrought up, whilft I have opened before you 
 one of the laws of Chrill's kingdom amongft men. I have 
 Hill more things to fay unto you reflecting the rules and 
 regulations of this kingdom. I pray the Lord, that yo-ir 
 minds may be fo prepared to hear, that you may not fc-r- 
 fake me and flee, as many of Chrill's profeffed friends did, 
 F 
 
62 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. VI. 
 
 when he preached on a fubjeci which greatly crofted their 
 prejudices and carnal expectations. 
 
 Your bufy minds, no doubt, will, before you are aware, 
 be inquiring what great and good men, in our days and in 
 the days of our fathers, have faid and thought of thefe 
 things ; but we fhould look farther back than to our fore- 
 fathers. The man Chrift Jefus, and his infpired prophets 
 and apoftles, fhould be the men of our counlel. Should I 
 fpeak according to thefe, you may hearken to me with 
 iafety ; if contrary, convict me by the word and teftimony 
 ©f Jefus Chrift ; for I appeal to thefe, for by them 1 ought 
 to be judged. 
 
 One requeft, my hearers, I pray you to grant me ; 
 namely — Lay prejudice afide, and let fcripture, reafon and 
 common fenfe be heard for a few minutes. 
 
 Surely you muft coniider my cafe more trying than any 
 of yours. For it is, perhaps, as difficult for me to combat 
 my own prejudices and carnal feelings, as it is for any of 
 you to contend with his : Befides this, I have to look your 
 * prejudices in the face, while 1 venture to bring any of your 
 iAd practices to the fcriptures for trial. Yes, more than all 
 this, I have many trials to encounter, which you have not, 
 nor can have. 
 
 I fhould net have made the attempt to bring our former 
 practice to the ftandard for trial, had not my difficulties 
 been fo great, that I durft proceed no farther, without 
 proving my works. One of my practice* hath been weigh- 
 ed in the balance, and is found wanting. I am now, if my 
 heart deceive me not, willing to lead another of my woik^, 
 or the fubjec"rs on which fame of my works have been, to 
 the bar for trial. If this fhall be found of wood, hay or 
 ftubble, may the fire of truth burn it up, and may the lire 
 oi love caufe me to rejoice while it fhall be confuming. 
 
 The proportion which will bring this Other of my works 
 to the trial, is — 
 
 Chrift commands his miuifters to go and difciple al! na- 
 tions. I have engaged to be one of thefe minifters. The 
 command is, therefore, binding upon me. I have gone 
 forth, that I might obey. The great thing to be deter- 
 mined is, whether I have underftood what it is to difciple, 
 or to make difciples, and have practifed accordingly. 
 
SfeVm. VI.] bf Baptifnu . 6$ 
 
 The important queftion to be/decided is jtffl; this : If I 
 difciple any of you who arc parents, do I, as a neceftary 
 eonfequencej difciple all your children and houfeholds ? 
 
 The only difficulty, in this queftion, relates to children 
 and houfeholds. What it is to difciple the mafter c£ a 
 family) is a thing in which Chriftians generally agree. 
 
 1 ought juft to remark to you, that matheteufdte, to teach* 
 is, in its literal and genuine fenfe, to difciple, or lb to teach 
 as to make difciples. 
 
 To bring the queftion before you as fully as I can, ) 
 wifh you, each one of you, to fix his attention upon forre 
 one family in this town, in which family not a Ghriftian is 
 to be found. If each one have his mind fixed upon fuch ?. 
 Chriftlefs houfehold, I will now put the queftion : — 
 
 Suppofe I, inftrumentally, difciple the Either of this 
 iamily, do 1, as a certain cc nfeqiunce, make difc pigs of 
 the whole family ? 
 
 Before you determine the qucfliwn, it may be well tQ f " 
 in your minds what a diiciple is. Let the fcriptures fpeak. 
 The difcipks were called Chriftians tint at Antioch, Ads xi. 
 26. The commiftion which Chrift gave to the firft min- 
 ifters, and to all fucceeding ones, as recorded Mark xvi. 
 15, 16, is, Go ye into'all the world, and preach the gofpel 
 to every creature ; he that belicveth, &c. Here a believer 
 is the fame as a difciple. Here we fee a difciple, in the 
 fenfe of my text, is a believer, a btdiever in Chrift, a Ghrif- 
 tian. This is the idea which the New-Teftament, from 
 beginning to end, gives us of a difciple. There is, how- 
 ever, mention made of difciples, who were fo but by pro- 
 feffion, or who were vifible difciples only ; not having the 
 4ove of God in them. 
 
 Now try the queftion with refpecl to both forts of thefe 
 difciples. 
 
 Suppofe T, inftrumentally, difciple the father of a Chrift- 
 lefs family, do I, as a neceftary confequence, make Chrif- 
 tians of all in his boufe ? You will pleafe to make up your 
 minds, on this queftion, decidedly. 
 
 vSuppofe again, that I, inftrumentally, difciple the father 
 of a Chriftlefs family, do I, as a neceftary confequence, 
 make ivfiblc difciples of all his family I Let your minds be 
 rly determined as to the anfwer. 
 
 Once more ; fuppofe I, by delivering the Lord's meflao-e, 
 convert, or make a difciple of the father of a Chriftlefs 
 
Mode and Subjccls [Serm. VI. 
 
 family, do I, of neceflary confequence, make my one of 
 oufehold bef!des himfelf a difciple ?* 
 
 Let fcripture, let reafon, let common fenfe, let any thing 
 fpeak, which \v i i 1 fpeak the truth, and determine there 
 qiieftions. Confider, take advice, and fpeak your minds. 
 
 Can you fuppckvor can you not, that to make a lather 
 of a family a diiciple, his wife, his fervants, and his chil- 
 dren, are al! difciples of courfe, or of neceifary confequence ? 
 
 Is not this a clear cafe 1 and yet the great and moment- 
 ous lubjeet before us turns altogether upon the anfwer of 
 this quefticn. 
 
 If difcipling the father of a family renders all his houfe 
 difciples, they are all i;jbje<5ts of baptifm, they have the 
 fcripture qualiri ration for it ; if it do not, then they have 
 not the qualification which my text requires to be in thofe 
 who are baptized. 
 
 You will judge for yourfelves whether houfeholds do 
 thus become difciples ; as for the reft, the fcriptures deter- 
 mine : if they be difciples, they are to be baptized ; if not, 
 they are not to be. 
 
 I know what ycur anfwer muft be, for by inconteftable 
 
 facts, in this town, the difcipling of a father of a family 
 
 not difciple his houfehold ; it does not even make 
 
 them viiible difciples, or give them even the appearance of 
 
 being fo. 
 
 The following is for evidence, that perfons muft be made 
 difciples before they are baptized. 
 
 i. John made his hearers difciples before he baptized 
 them. He required, in order for baptifm, that they ihculd 
 bring forth fruits meet for, or as evidence of, repentance, 
 Matt. jii. 8. and Luke iii. 8. 
 
 2. Chrill's difciples baptized none but fuch as were 
 made difciples firft, John iv. i, 2. 
 
 3. Chrift, in my text, gives no liberty to baptize any 
 but fuch as are rirft difcipled. Yes, he commands his min- 
 ifters to difciple before they baptize. 
 
 The account which Ma Us of the Apoftles' a rh- 
 
 milTion, and of the 13aptiirn.il Initiation, is c 
 evidence in this matter, xvith chapter, 15.I1 and 16th v cries : 
 • Preach the gofpel to every creature : He that bclieveth 
 
 * Prejudice may reply, Yr,u are to difciple the houfehold b) 
 dzing liicm. 1 his cpntrddicb my text, i;m I c ■: fiMJ. 
 
Serm. VI. j of Baptifm. 65 
 
 and is baptized,' Sec. Here believing is put before baptifm. 
 The way adopted by fome to avoid the force of this text 
 is, if they be baptized, fay they, no matter when, before or 
 after believing. This way of getting clear of the diificulty 
 appears neither wife nor candid ; for it injures the plain 
 meaning of the text, and makes Matthew's and Mark's 
 account of the commiffion to difagree. 
 
 What remains are a number of plain truths, fafts and 
 confequences, which have a more near or remote relation 
 with the fubject on hand, and may ferve to throw light 
 upon it. 
 
 In the First place, we may take notice of two par- 
 ticulars, which perhaps hare not been fufficiently noticed. 
 One is, the ceremonial law. and the covenant ofcirculm- 
 cifion which was annexed to it, appear to be difannulled 
 and pa ft away. 
 
 The following may make this matter plain : The dif- 
 annulling or abolifhing of the law we fee, Heb. vii. iS. 
 There is verily a difannulling of the commandment going 
 before, for the weaknefs and unprofltablenefs thereof. Alio 
 Gal. iii. 19, Wherefore then ferveth the law ? It was added 
 becaufe of tranfgreffions, till the feed mould come to h/honr 
 the promtfe was made. What feed this is, to whom the 
 promife was made, we are told in the 16th verfe of the fame 
 chapter, " Now to Abraham and his feed were the promifes 
 made : He faith not to feeds, as of many ; but as of one, 
 And to thy feed, which is Chrift." We hence fee, that 
 Chrift was the feed to whom the promifes were made, and 
 that the laiv (the ceremonial law) was added becaufe 
 tranfgrefllons, till the feed, i. e. Chrift, ihould come. It i- 
 hence plain, that the ceremonial law was to continue no 
 longer than till Chrift came. 
 
 The covenant of circumcifion appears to be annexed to 
 this law. For fays Jefus Chrift, John vii. 23, If a man on 
 the fabbath day receive circumcifion, that the laiv of Mofcs 
 ' fhonld not be broken, are ye angry at me ? & c. 
 
 That this covenant of circumcifion, or the Sinai covenant, 
 which includes it, hath paffed away, or is difannulled, fee 
 Heb. viii. 13. * In that he faith a new covenant, he hath 
 made the firft old : now that which decayeth and waxcth 
 old, is ready to vaniUi away.' 
 
 Befides, circumcifion is evidently a very important part 
 a>( that law, which is difannulled ; for, faith Paul to the Ga- 
 F2 
 
66 The Mode find Subjects [Sc-rm. V!. 
 
 latians, chap. v. 2, 3. If ye be circumcijed Chrift ihall profit 
 you nothing. For I teftify again, fays he, to every man that 
 is circumcijed, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 
 
 It is hence plain, that the ceremonial law is no longer 
 bidding ; and that the covenant of circumcifion, which was 
 incorporated with it, hath vanifhed away. 
 
 The other particular is this ; the promifes which were 
 made to Abraham and his feed, were not made to him in 
 circumcifion, but in uncircumcifton ; and the covenant which 
 was confirmed of God to Abraham in Chrift, was while he 
 was in uncircvmcifi-,n, and about twenty-four years before 
 the covenant of circumcijion was given. Rom. iv. 8, 9, 10. 
 —Gal. hi. j 6, 17. — Gen. xii. 3, 4, 7, and xvit. 10, 17. 
 
 Moreover, when Paul fpeaks of the covenant which was- 
 c^nfirmed of God in Chrift, he points out the exact year 
 when this was made known or confirmed with Abraham, 
 as though he had a forefight, as certainly the Holy Ghort 
 had, of the contention which fhouki be long continued for 
 Want of judicioufly understanding what covenant fliculd be 
 difannulled, and what covenant the law could not diiannul. 
 He tells us, Gal. iii. 17, that this covenant, which cannot 
 be made void, was four hundred and thirty years before 
 the law ; whereas the covenant of circumcifion was about 
 four hundred and fix years before the law, with which cir- 
 cumcifion was united. 
 
 Seeing matters are thus, what, I pray you, my hearers, 
 
 have we to do with the covenant of circumcifion ? If we 
 
 keep it, Chrift ihall profit us nothing ; if we obferve fome- 
 
 «thing which we fubftitute in its place, Chrift may profit us 
 
 as little in fuch obfervance. 
 
 I know it will be aiked, Is not the church the fame now 
 that it was in Abraham's day ? I anfwer, yes, and the 
 fame that it was in Noah's, Enoch's and Adam's, and the 
 fame that it ever will be. It will be aiked again, Is not the 
 covenant the fame which it was in Abraham's time ? Yes, 
 the covenant which was confirmed of God in Chrift is un- 
 changeably the fame ; but the covenant of circumcifion 
 which God made with Abraham, renewed with Ifaac and 
 Jacob, and folemnized with Ifrael in the wildernefs, (Deut. 
 sxix. 10, 11, 12, 13,) is far from being the covenant, the 
 new covenant, which God makes with the houfe of Ifrael in 
 our day. The covenant of circumcifion was, more 
 ;han 1700 years ago, decaying, waxing old, and ready to 
 
Serin. VI.] of B apt if m. 6j 
 
 vaniih away. But you will again fay, Is not the church 
 conipoied of parents and children, and of houfeholds, now, 
 as it was in Abraham's day ? Let Paul anfwer how it was 
 (as touching the gofpel) in Abraham's day and after. 
 Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8. ' They are not all Ii'rael which are of Ifrael, 
 neither becaufe they are the feed of Abraham, are they all chil- 
 dren: but in Ifaacfhall thy feed be called. That is, they that are 
 the children of the fleih, thefe are not the children of God : 
 but the children of the promife are counted for the ieed. 
 Juft {o now. The children of God, the children of the 
 promife are counted for the feed, and compofe the church ; 
 and of ihofe who appear thus mould the vifible church be 
 made up, and of none elie. But, if by the quefticn be 
 meant, Does not church-memberihip defcend from parents 
 to children, and from mailers to fervants, as it appears to 
 have done under the old covenant of circumcihon ? The 
 anfwer is. The New-Teilament no where -acknowledges, nor 
 does it know, any thing about a church thus made up. "jt 
 would that all good men would conient to take New-Tefta» 
 meat directions and examples by which to conftitute and 
 guide Nevv-Teftameiit churches. 
 
 But it will be afeed once more, Hath not baptifm come 
 into the place of circumcihon, and to be applied to hmilar 
 fubjects ? Anfwer. Circumcifion was a poiitive inftitution, 
 and fo is baptifm. Abraham and the Ifraelites knew noth- 
 ing to whom circumcifion ihould be adminiftered, but as 
 they received direction from the Divine Indicator ; juft fo 
 it is with refpect to the adminiftration of baptifm. The 
 Christians at Antioch, the Elders at Jerufalem, the 
 church of Galatia, and Paul and Barnabas, knew 
 nothing of baptifm being fubftituted for circumcifion. 
 Ails xv. x to 35 ; Gal. iii. and v. chapters. We know 
 nothing, and can know nothing, as to whom baptifm is to 
 be adminiftered, but from what Chrift hath told us as to 
 the fubjects. Now — 
 
 Secondly^ I alk, What evidence have we from the Bible 
 that infants are to be baptized ? 
 
 You may reply, They are included in the covenant. What 
 covenant? In that of circumcifion ? Surely not, for that 
 hath vanifhed away. If you fay, In the covenant that was 
 confirmed of God in Chrift, I an/wsr, It was not this cove- 
 nant which entitled Abraham's houfehold to circumcifion ; 
 
68 The Mode and Subjefls [Serm. VI. 
 
 therefore, though your children be in this covenant, that 
 does not, of itfelf, entitle them to baptifm ; whether bap- 
 tifm be in the place of circumcifion, or not. You will thea 
 fay, What can entitle our children to baptifm ? Anjiuer. 
 Their being difciples, and fo coming within the compafs, or 
 pale, of ^he baptifmal inftitution. 
 
 As we can know nothing of the fubjecls of baptifm, any 
 more than Abraham and Ifrael could of the fubjecls of cir- 
 cumcifion, but from what we are informed in the inditu- 
 tion, and in what is faid upon it, we will inquire what the 
 Bible faith of this matter. 
 
 If the Lord, in his word, hath not given us fufficient in- 
 ftru&ion upon this fubjecl, we mult prattife in the dark, for 
 we have no where elfe to go. 
 
 We will begin with John. I. Did he baptize any chil- 
 dren ? We have no evidence that he did. Befides, he told 
 the multitude which attended his miniftry, not to plead 
 Abraham, or Abraham's covenant, as a title to baptifm. 
 Matt. iii. 7, 8, 9, 10. 
 
 2. Did Chrift's difciples, whilft he was with them, and 
 whilft they made and baptized more difciples than John, bap- 
 tize infants, or any viiibly unbelieving children ? No evi- 
 dence that they did. 
 
 3. Is there any evidence frrm my text, which contains 
 the words of the inftitution, that infants, or unbelieving 
 houfeholds, were to be baptized ? None, but the contrary. 
 
 4. Is there any palfage in the New-Teftament, which 
 commands, or fays fo much as one word, that infants are 
 to be baptized ? Not one. 
 
 5. Is there any example, which fliows that the apoftles 
 baptized any upon the faith of parents, or mailers, or upon 
 the faith or promifes of any others ? 
 
 I know, my brethren, there are three inftances, which 
 are fuppofed by fome to favour the affirmative of the ques- 
 tion. I have rather been of the fame opinion. If it be fo, 
 may facts convince us. 
 
 We will look at each of thefe examples feparately. 
 
 The firft fuppofed example we find at Philippi. Here 
 was a woman, named Lydia ; Ihe appears to have been a 
 woman of bufinefs. She belonged to Thyatira, but was 
 now at Philippi, probably felling her merchandize, with fev- 
 eral attendants. The hiftory is thus related, Acls xvi. 1 3th, 
 14th and 15th verfes, " On the fabbath day, we (Paul and 
 
Serin. VI.] tf Baptifm. 6| 
 
 other difciples) went out of the city, by a river fide, where 
 prayer was wont to be made, and we fat down, and fpake 
 unto the women who reforted thither. And a certain wo- 
 man, named Lydia, a feller of purple, of the city cf Thya- 
 tira, who worlhipped God, heard us, whofe heart the Lord 
 opened, that me attended unto the things which were fpoken 
 of Paul. And when ihe was baptized and her houfehold, 
 ilie befought us, faying, If ye have judged me to be faith- 
 ful to the Lord, come into my houie and abide there." 
 
 This is all we know of the matter. She belonged to anoth- 
 er city. She worlhipped God. She was, on the fabbath 
 day, by the fide of a river, where prayer was wont to be 
 made. The Lord opened her heart to attend to what Paul 
 faid. Her fervants were with her. She had a houfe, either 
 her own, or one taken for the time. She was baptized, and 
 her houfehold. As to her having infants with her, you can 
 tell, as well as I. Moreover, whether her fervants believed 
 the words of Paul, you can, if you attend to the circum- 
 ftances, form as correct a judgment, perhaps, as any other 
 can make up for you. 
 
 The things to be confidered are, i. Lydia was a godly 
 woman. 2. She attended meeting. Paul found her where 
 prayer was wont to be made, where religious women had 
 -been accuRomed to meet. 3. She, like other religious peo- 
 ple, took her houfehold to meeting with her. 4. It appears 
 that Paul baptized none of her houfehold, but fuch as were 
 with her at the female praying meeting. 5. The ftrong 
 probability is, that Lydia, being a pious woman, one who 
 worlhipped God, would felecl for her attendants, maidens 
 or fervants who alfo were worfhippers of God. In verfe 
 40, we are told, the apoftles entered into the houfe of Lydia, 
 comforted the brethren, &c. You will weigh thefe circum- 
 ftances, and make up for yourfelves, fo far as you- can, a 
 righteous judgment. 
 
 The next example is recorded in the fame chapter, and 
 appears to be in fame city. The hiftory of the matter is 
 contained in the 25th verfe, and on to the 34th. The no- 
 ticeable facts, and on which we muff make up our judg- 
 ment, are — The jailer fays, Sirs, What muft I do to be fa- 
 Ted ? Paul and Silas anfwered, Believe on the Lord Jefbs 
 Chrtft, and thou (halt be faved, and thy houfe. And they 
 /'pake unto him the- word of the Lord, and to all that were 
 
Jc The Mode and Subjefts [Serm. VL 
 
 in his houfe. And he was baptized, he and all his, ftraight- 
 way — and rejoiced, believing in God with all his houfe. 
 
 Here are three things to be put together. I. The word, 
 of the Lord Jefus was fpoken to them all. 2. They were" 
 all baptized. 3. The^y all believed in God. Whether here 
 be any example of infant baptifm, you will judge, each one 
 for himfelf. 
 
 As fome have fuppofed that this paffage, and a few others 
 «f fimilar import, afford an argument in favour of fprink- 
 lrng, it may be well to give it a moment's confideration. 
 Here we are told, that the keeper of the prifon brought out 
 Paul and Silas. Where he brought them to, feems plainly 
 enough to be gathered from the 3 2d verfi?, in which we find 
 ihem fpeaking to the jailer the word of the Lord, and to 
 all that were in his houfe. In the next verfe we are informed 
 that the jailer and all his were baptized. Where they were 
 baptized, we are not told. One thing however is plain, it 
 was not in the houfe ; for in vtrfe 34 it is faicl, When (i. e. 
 after the houfehold were baptized) he had brought them 
 into his houfe, hefet meat before them, and rejoiced, believ- 
 ing in God, with all his houfe. From thefe obfervations, 
 the following things appear : — 
 
 1. That Paul and Silas were in the jailer's houfe, when 
 they fpake the word of the Lord to all that were in his 
 houfe. 2. That when the ordinance of baptifm was admin- 
 iftered, they were not in his houfe. 3. That the mode 
 of baptizing then in ufe rendered it inconvenient to be per- 
 formed in the jailer's houfe. 4. After the ordinance was 
 adminiftered, they went into the houfe. How this favours 
 fprinkling I fee not. 
 
 The other fuppofed example is in I Cor. i. 1 6, where 
 Paul fays, I baptized alfo the houfehold of Stephanas. In 
 the xvi. chap. 15th verfe, we have a lhort hiftory of Ste- 
 phanas's houfehold ; it is thus, " Ye know the houfehold of 
 Stephanas, that it is the firft fruits of Achaia, and that they 
 have addicted themfelves to the miniftry of the faints." 
 Whether there is here found any evidence of infant baptifm, 
 you will determine for yourfelves. 
 
 6. Are the encouragements which are given to parents in 
 behalf of their children, made to their having them baptized r 
 or are the blefiings connected with their dedicating them to 
 the Lord, and with their bringing them up in his nurture 
 and admonition ? With which, your Bibles will inform you- 
 
Serm. VI.] of Baptifm. 7 1 
 
 7. Do we, or do any, pretend, that there is any certain 
 evidence, from either precept or example, for the baptizing 
 of infants ? Indeed there is non*. Probably not many fup- 
 pofe it. 
 
 8. Is there, as fome have affirmed, the fame evidence 
 for baptizing infants, that there is for obferving the Lord's 
 clay, for admitting females to communion, and which there 
 is for family prayer ? 
 
 There is a day called the Lord's day, and religious things 
 were to be obferved on it. Are there infants, who are call- 
 ed baptized infants, and are they to be attended to as fuch ? 
 
 Females and males are declared to be all one in Chrift, 
 and fo fit fubjecls for the communion of faints. Are in- 
 fants unequivocally declared to be fit fubje&s of baptifm ? 
 
 We have examples of family prayer, and are commanded 
 to pray with all prayer. Are there fcripture examples of 
 infant baptifm, and aie we commanded to baptize all ; and 
 fo are infants included ? 
 
 9. Ought I to teach you infant baptifm, if our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift hath no where directed me to do thus ? 
 
 10. Hath Jefus Chrift fpoken one word of baptifm, as 
 being fubftituted for circumcifion ? Hath he any where com- 
 manded his minifters to teach this fubftitution ? 
 
 Thirdly. Shall we go, and are we under the neceffity of 
 going, to the law and covenant of circumcifion, to prove in- 
 fant baptifm, when both this law and covenant have long 
 fince waxed old, been repealed, and have 'perifhed ? Heb. 
 vii. 18, 19, and viii. 13. 
 
 But you will afk, Are not the bleffiogs of Abraham 
 come on the Gentiles ? dnf. Yes. You will then fay, Are 
 not our children included in the promife ? Anfwer. If they 
 be Chrift's, then are they Abraham's fetd, and heirs accord- 
 ing to the promife. Gal. iii. 29. Abraham's children, after 
 the flefh, were not included in the promife, as the Pedobap- 
 tifts of cur day would have theirs. But you will fay again, 
 Are not our children included in the covenant ? In what 
 covenant ? In that of circumcifion ?' Surely not. For though 
 that covenant was often renewed, yet it hath long fince 
 paffed away. Is your queftion this ? Are they not included 
 in that covenant, which was confirmed of God in Chrift, 
 twenty-four years previoufly to the covenant of circumci- 
 fion ? I anfwer, No man knoweth, nor can know, but a* 
 your children give evidence, that they poflcfs the Spirit of 
 
yz The Mode and Subjccls [Serm. VI. 
 
 Chrift. Bllt as 1 have obfervcd to you before, fo I fay 
 again, even were your children included in this covenant, 
 and faints ; this does not of itfelf give them anv right to 
 baptifm, any more, than Abraham's being included in the 
 fame covenant gave him a right to circumcifion. This cov- 
 enant determines nothing as to the one, or the other. 
 The covenant of circumcifion determined who were to be 
 circumcifed. So the ordinance or inltirution cf Baptifm, 
 determines who are to be baptized. One determines no 
 more who are to be admitted to the other, than does the 
 covenant of an everlafting prieflhood (Numb. xxv. 13.) de- 
 termine who ihall be minifters in gcipel days. In ihorr, 
 there is no arguing from one to the other in this matter. 
 They are both of them pofitive inftitutions, and nothing can 
 be known of either, but what is revealed in its particular 
 inftitution. 
 
 While viewing this fnhject you will inquire, What will 
 become of our children ? I anfwer, God only knoweth. 
 You may rejoin ; But what fliall we do for them ? jlvj. 
 Dedicate them to God, and, like faithful Chriftians, bring 
 them up for him. 
 
 Fourthly. We will now attend to fome legitimate confe- 
 quences which follow, upon fuppofition that the fubjtcts of 
 baptifm are to be determined from the fubjecls of circumci- 
 fion. 
 
 1. One confequence is, every man who is converted to 
 theChriftian religion is to be baptized, and ail his houfehold, 
 though he may have three hundred and feventeen training 
 foldiers born in his own houfe. Not only are thefe foldiers 
 to be baptized, but their wives, children, and all other fer- 
 vants, who belong to this great man's houfe. A thoufand 
 infidels are to be baptized, becaufe one great man, their 
 mafter, is christianized. 
 
 2. Thefe foldiers, with their wives, children and fervants, 
 are all to be confidered and treated as church members, or 
 as being in covenant. I confels this does not look to me 
 gofpel-like. 
 
 3. Another confequence is, the adults among thefe, and 
 among all others, who are- baptized, are not only to be ad- 
 mitted to the communion, but required to come. I aik, 
 could fuch a communion be called the communion oi: 
 faints ? — one great and good man, with hundreds of uncon 
 verted fervants. 
 
Serin. VI.] of Baptlfm. 7$ 
 
 4. All who have been baptized, and have not, for mis- 
 demeanor, been expelled the church, have a right to baptifm 
 for their children : and no man may forb'd them. 
 
 5. Another confequence is, notwithstanding Chrift faith, 
 My kingdom is not of this world ; yet the regulations were 
 fuch, efpecially the mean of admilTion into it, as ftrongly, 
 and of infallible confequence, tended to make it of this world, 
 and that abundantly fo. 
 
 6. Another confequence is, many learned and pious 
 minifters of New-England are inconfiltent with themfelves, 
 in requiring of perfons baptized in infancy a profeffion of 
 experimental religion, as a term of communion. It was not 
 fo done in Ifrael. 
 
 7. Another confequence is, many of the fame pious and 
 learned minifters are very inconfiltent with themfelves, in 
 refufing baptifm to the children of fuch as are, by their bap- 
 tifm, in regular church memberfhrp, or in covenant, as it ie 
 termed. 
 
 I have taken, as you obferve, for granted, what I do not 
 believe to be true, that fprinkling, or a very partial wafliing, 
 is baptifm. 
 
 Lafiiy. Another confequence is, it doth, fo far as it hath 
 \%s pcrfeQ work, deftroy the very idea of die gofpel church, 
 contradict the prophets, and make Paul, and others, fpeak 
 not the truth, and it throws us back to the Mate of the Jew- 
 iih church. 
 
 Jeremiah, prophefying of the gofpel church, faith, chip. 
 txxx. ^t to 34, Behold the days come, faith the Lord, that 
 1 will make a new covenant with the houfe of ifrael, and 
 with the houfe of Judah ; not according to the covenant 
 that I made with your fathers, in the day that I took them 
 by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; but 
 this {hall be the covenant that I will make with the houfe of 
 Ifrael, After thofe days, faith the Lord, I will put my law 
 it their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will 
 be their God, and they fiiall be my people. And they (hall 
 teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man 
 his brother, faying, Know the Lord, for they {hall all 
 know me, from the leaft of them, unto the greateft of them, 
 faith the Lord. 
 
 If this means any thing, it certainly means that the gof- 
 pel church {hall exceed in purity the Jewiih church ; that 
 it mall, at leaft, be compofed of profeftlng faints, IJmo.h 
 G 
 
74 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. VI. 
 
 fays, chip. liv. 13, All thy children fhall he taught of the 
 Lord. The latter of thefe paffages, our Lord applies to 
 the gofpel day, John vi. 45 : The former is applied to the 
 gofpel church by Paul, Heb. viii. 
 
 Mofes fays in Deut. xviii. 15, 19. The Lord thy God 
 will raife up unto thee a Prophet from the midft of thee, of 
 thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye fhall hearken. 
 And it fhall come to pafs, that whofoever will not hearken 
 unto my words, which he fliall fpeak in my name, I will re- 
 quire it of him. 
 
 This, and much more, Peter applies to gofpel days, and 
 to the gofpel church, ylcls iii. 22, to the end. Mofes truly 
 faid unto the fathers, A Prophet fliall the Lord your God 
 raife up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me ; him 
 fliall ye hear in all things whatfoever he fhall fa-y unto you. 
 And it fliall come to pafs that every foul that will not hear 
 that Prophet, fhall be dejlroyed from among the people. Yea, 
 and all the prophets from Samuel, and thofe that follow 
 after, as many as have fpoken, have likewife foretold of 
 thefe days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
 covenant which God made with our fathers, faying unto 
 Abraham, And in thy feed fliall all the kindreds, of the 
 earth be bleifed. Unto you fiift, God, having raifed up his 
 Son Jefus, lent him to blefs you in turning away every one of 
 you from his iniquities. 
 
 Through the New-Te'ftament, the gofpel church, is, or ap- 
 pears to be, fpoken cf as a fdciety, nation or church of 
 faints ; and :\s being greatly different from the nation of the 
 Jews. But the fuhjecis of baptifm being determined by the 
 iubjects of circumcifion brings the goipel chuich as to its 
 conftituent materials, to the fame condition with the church 
 under the law of carnal ordinances. Indeed, what is now, 
 generally, called the gofpel church is hardly to be diftin- 
 guifhed by its members from the old Jewifh church. 
 
 £)o not thefe- things look as though the twelve hundred 
 and fixty years of Antichrift's rtign were not wholly paft ? 
 Is there not, my brethren, fome defiling error at the root of 
 all this i 1 Can fueh dreams, as are thefe confequences, flow 
 from a pure fountain ? Indeed many good minifters of our 
 land have long flnce difcovered fome of thefe evil confequen- 
 ces, and have laboured hard to rectify them. Preiident 
 Kdwards, and many others, made a noble (land againft this 
 flood of corruption ; yet they difcovered not the fountain, 
 
Serm. VI.] of Baptifm. j$ 
 
 whence thefe ftreams flow, and will flow, till it be removed. 
 Putting or miftaking the covenant of circumcifion, for the 
 covenant which was confirmed of God in Chr'ift to Abra- 
 ham, twenty-four years before circumcifion was known, and 
 iubftituting baptifm for circumcifion, and determining the 
 fubjeits of the one by the fubjects of the other, without any 
 authority thus to do, have produoed all this corruption, de- 
 ception, and world of evil. Would good minifters be per- 
 fuaded to lay the axe at the root' of the tree, as John did, 
 the evils would be foon rectified. 
 
 The fubject, on which we now are, is of fuch high con- 
 cernment to the church of Chrift, generally, and your con- 
 viction of the truth of it, being almoft, or quite, effenti.d to 
 our future peace and union together, T would willingly 
 omit nothing which might chafe away your darknefs, and 
 caufe the true light to appear. I will, therefore, add here 
 the hifiory of infant baptifm. Should we find that infant 
 baptifm is of men, as we have already found fprinkling to 
 be» it is hoped that you will either give it up, or pract'ife it 
 as being of man's device, and not, ;\s Mr. Dickinfon would 
 have it, as belonging to infants by divine right. 
 
 The firlt information which we have of infant baptifm is 
 about the middle of the fecond century j about which time 
 lrenseus, in one of his epiftles, has the following fentence : 
 " The church received a tradition from the apoftles to ad- 
 minifter baptifm to little children or infants.''* 
 
 The next account we have of this matter (if we except 
 Tertullian, who oppofed the practice) is given us by Origen, 
 in about the middle of the third century. His words are, 
 " Little children are baptized for the remtffion of fins." 
 For the remiflion of original fin, or polluiion, for of this is 
 he fpeaking. Again he fays, " The church had an order 
 from the apoftles to give baptifm to infants." 
 
 Another part of the hiftory of infant baptifm we have in 
 a quotation from the decifions of the famous council at Car- 
 thage, in the year 253. It is this : " From baptifm and the 
 grace of God none ought to be prohibited ; efpecially infants 
 need our help and the divine merqy." We have a farther 
 account from Auguftine, who flnurifhed about the middle 
 of the fourth century. His vrcrds (writing of infant bap- 
 tifm) arc, "Let none, therefore, fo much as ivhifper any 
 
 * Pref. Dickinfon on Baptifm. 
 
?6 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. VI. 
 
 other doctrine in your ears : this the church hath always 
 had, has always held." 
 
 The next we hear of infant baptifm is, that the practice 
 was confirmed, and fo put beyond difpute, by Pope Inno- 
 cent the Firft. 
 
 Now fire and fword were the all-conclufive arguments 
 ufed for the conviction and reformation of all who refufed 
 to praclife, or dared to call in queftion, infant baptifm. We 
 will pafs over the horrid perfections, which now began to 
 be, and have ever fince been practifed, at intervals, upon 
 thofe who would not fubmit to the divine right of infants 
 to baptifm, as conferred on them by the ghoftly Popes of 
 Rome. 
 
 Luther, the famous German r&former, fays, " thatanfant 
 baptifm was not determined till Pope Innocentius ;" and 
 Grotius, in his annotations on Matth. x\x. fays, " It was not 
 enjoined till the Council of Carthage."* 
 
 We ought, however, to trace the hiftory of infant baptifm 
 one ftep farther, and notice Calvin, and a multitude fince, 
 who were unwilling to acknowledge their dependence on 
 the Mother of Harlots, for their authority in this matter ; 
 and therefore with great ingenuity have difcovered infant 
 baptifm, as a gofpel ordinance, or the right of infants to it, 
 in the law of Mofes. Indeed they have fuppofed that this 
 doctrine is implied in a number of paffages of the New-Tef- 
 tament. Yet, I believe, none who pra&ife it, are willing to 
 venture this New-Teftament ordinance upon New-Teftament 
 evidence. 
 
 Here you fee that tradition is the foundation of infant bap- 
 tifm ; error, the belief that baptifm ivajhes away original Jin , 
 the nurfe of its tender age ; the church of Rome, the con- 
 firmer and ftrong defender of it ; and the long fmce repeal- 
 ed, ceremonial law of Mofes the evidence for it. You fee, the 
 introduction of infant baptifm was tradition. Upon this foun- 
 dation hath it manifeftly refted ever fmce. All the ingeni- 
 ous arguments of learned and pious men, can, in fact, add 
 no ftrenglh to its firft foundation. The firft we hear of it 
 is, it was placed upon tradition, and there it hath refted, or 
 been [landing uneaiily, ever fince. 
 
 Befides, this tradition, as well as the practice which fol- 
 lowed, is doubtlefs the offspring of error, and man's inven- 
 
 * Ancient Dialogue Revifech 
 
Serm. VI.] of Baptifm. 77 
 
 tion. At bed we have but one witnefs for it, in the mouth 
 of whom nothing can be eflabliihed. Origen fays, " The 
 church had an order from the Apoftlec." Still we h ivebut 
 one witnefs. Moreover, the very exprefiions of the Pedo- 
 baptifts fliow that they were from the beginning oppofed by 
 the Baptifts. Irenseus fays, "We have a tradition/' Ori- 
 gen fays, " We have an order." The Council of Carthage 
 fay, "Infants ought not to be prehib'ited from baptifm." 
 Auguftine faith, " Let none fo much as whifper any other 
 doctrine in your ears." — Does net every fyllable indicate the 
 difpute which the Baptifts had with the inventers and fup- 
 porters of this anti-evangelical principle and practice? 
 
 It is worthy of a moment's consideration, tha»t not one of 
 the mofi; ancient fathers makes the lead pretention that in- 
 fant baptifm is fupported by io much as one parage in ei- 
 ther the Old-Teftament, or the New ; and thuy mention no 
 authority but tradition, and an order from the Apoilles, &c. 
 which, at belt, are very uncertain things. 
 
 Whoever can fix their faith, continue their practice, and 
 venture their refponfibility, on fuch a traditionary founda- 
 tion, I cannot. Upon this foundation for our practice, hav* 
 both we and our fathers ventured to oppofe the Baptifts, 
 with greater or kfs degrees of virulence ; whilft, by our tra- 
 dition, we have greatly injured the ordinance of Chrift, if 
 not, in this inftance, made void the law of God. 
 
 In fine : Was not infant baptifm fir (I introduced to efcape 
 the offence of the crofs ? Is it not, with many, unknowingly 
 continued for the fame end ? It bringeth the church to its 
 former ftate as under the law. If I yet preach clrcwncifion, 
 why do I yet fuffer perfecuticn4 Then is the offence of the 
 srofs ceafed, Gal. v. n. 
 
 G z 
 
?i> The Mode and Subjeds [Serm. VII. 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 MATTHEW xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghofl ; teach- 
 ing them to obferve all things ivhatfoever I have commanded 
 you : And, lo, I am with you ahvay? even unto the end ef the 
 tvorld. Amen. 
 
 I HAVE already fet before you the principal part of what 
 I intended under the two firft. propositions in my text. 
 What remains is to bring forward — 
 
 III. Chrift's command to ail his miniftering fervants to 
 teach all nations, or thofe who mould be difcipled among 
 them, to obferve all things whatfoever he had commanded 
 them. And then — 
 
 Lajlly. His comforting and (lengthening promife, which 
 is, And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world. 
 
 To thefe piopofi:ions, your ferious, Chriftian attention is 
 requefted. The firft is — 
 
 III. Chrift's command to the minifters of his gofpel to 
 teach all nations, or thofe who mould be difcipled among 
 them, to obferve all things whatfoever he had commanded 
 them. 
 
 Here you fee the extenfivenefs of my orders received, 
 and which I mud carefully obferve, would I be obedient 
 unto the Heavenly Teacher, who came from God. 
 
 Chrift Jems, when perfonally on earth, gave a new edition 
 of his own and his Father's mind and will. In this new 
 edition, he abrogated or left out, many ceremonies of the 
 old, as being no longer ufeful. Under the old edition, the 
 church was in its childhood, and therefore under fuch tutors 
 and governors as were not needed in her riper years. In 
 this new edition, Chrift hath pointed ouPwhat is to be pre- 
 ferved of the old. The fum of the moral law and the 
 prophets, were to continue in force. Thefe are, indeed, in 
 the very nature of things, binding on accountable creatures. 
 But when Chrift, the anointed and expecled Meffiah, was 
 tome, then all thofe rites, facrifices and typical inftitutions 
 
Serm. VII.] of Baptifm. 79 
 
 of the ceremonial law, which were, together, as a fchool- 
 mafter to lead the obferver to Chrift, were difannulled, be- 
 ing no longer of ufe. 
 
 You fee what minifters have authority to teach for both 
 doctrine and practice. It is what Chrift hath commanded 
 them, and nothing which is contrary from it. 
 
 In time paft I have taught you the precepts of Chrift, 
 fomewhat largely. As I have taught them, fo you have, 
 as is believed, received them to the faving of your fouls. 
 The ordinance of the fupper I have taught in its fimplicity, 
 and fo have you received it. You have alfo been inform- 
 ed, that Jefus Chrift appointed baptifm, as an ordinance to 
 be obferved in his church. But what that ordinance was, 
 and who were the fubjecls of it, you have not been particu- 
 larly told, till of late. Nor had I, till a fhort time fince, a 
 clear underftanding of either. I, no doubt, ought to have 
 known them before ; but till I did, I could not teach them 
 to you. When I came to the knowledge of them, it was 
 no longer in my power to be faithful to Chrift, and refufe 
 to teach them. In the fimplicity of my heart have I taught 
 you what is baptifm, and who are to be baptized. 
 
 Whether thefe things be, or be not, agreeable to my 
 former notions of them, is nothing to the point. One thing 
 I am fettled in, I have, of late, taught them to you, as 
 Chrift hath commanded me. 
 
 Not only was it my duty to teach you thefe things, but I 
 am commanded to teach you to obferve them : for then are 
 you Chrift's difciples, when you do all things whatfoever he 
 hath commanded you. 
 
 To obferve thefe things, is like obedient children to re- 
 ceive inftrudlion, and then tofearch the fcriptyres, that you 
 may know how thefe things are. It belongs to me to teach 
 you — 
 
 1. To obferve thefe things till you underftand them. 
 And then — 
 
 2. To obferve them in your practice. 
 
 1. Would yea walk in all the ftatutes and ordinances of 
 the Lord blamelefs, you muft obferve thefe things till you 
 underftand them. 
 
 You and I have been unreafonably prejudiced againft 
 light and truth in thefe matters. If I do not misjudge, the 
 Lord hath, in anfwer to prayer, afforded me the needed 
 light and knowledge upon the fubjefl. It was not in a 
 
8o The Mode and Subjecls [Serm. VII. 
 
 day, nor in a month, after my prejudices received a (hock, 
 and my mind partial conviction, that I obtained fatisfaction. 
 Nor can I expect that you will, all of you, poifefs fuch a 
 ready mind, as to give up your long, and almoft inveterate 
 prejudices, and receive the light at once. It is by little and 
 little, that antichriftian errors muft be deftroyed from the 
 church, and from your hearts, as well as from mme. 
 
 You may expect to find me ready f at any time, and at all 
 tinle?, to afford you every inftruction, arid to anfwer any 
 objection which may occur to your candid minds. You 
 fhould have your Bibles always nigh you, and poftefs con- 
 tinually, a prayerful, teachable fpirit. Ee determined to 
 hearken to none but Chrift, and to be obedient to all his 
 commands. 
 
 Be careful to avoid all bitternefs and evil fpeaking. Wif- 
 dom will not dwell with ftrife ; nor will the wrath of man 
 work the righteoufnefs of God. 
 
 2. It belongs to me to teach to obferve the ordinance 
 oFbapiifm, and the proper fubjecTs, in your practice. You 
 muft under/land thefe things before you can acceptably 
 practife them. Some of you, no doubt, fufheiently under- 
 stand them to proceed to practice. But I have not thought 
 it duty to haften your practice, or to lead you by example, 
 left the minds of others fhould be injured. It is a time to 
 weaken prejudices, and not to increafe them. Wifdom 
 dwells with prudence. Many of your minds, as well as 
 mine, are, with pleating expectation, looking forward to the 
 time, when we may, with nighly, or quite, all our brethren 
 with us, keep all the ordinances of the golpel, as Chrift hath 
 .commanded us. 
 
 When you fhall underftand thefe things, happy will you* 
 be if you practife them ; for all golpel obedience gives 
 pleafure in the practice. 
 
 As Moles had much to do in Egypt, before God faid un- 
 to him, ' Speak unto the people that they go forward,' fo, 
 my brethren, I may have much to do before things fhall 
 be in readinefs, and before the Lord fhall bid me (peak, 
 faying unto you, Go roRirjRD. But, if the Lord will, I 
 would live to fee that day. 
 
 After Ifrael went forward, and were baptized unto Mofes 
 in the cloud, and in the fea, they had a tedious wildernefs 
 to pafs ; lb it may be with us. But, fhould we obferve the 
 pillar of cloud and of fire, we fhall come to the promifed 
 
Serm. VII.] of Baplifm. 81 
 
 land ; and it may be, with much fafety and fpeed, fhould 
 we hearken to the good counfel of Jofhua. 
 
 You know, my brethren, as it is my duty to teach you to 
 obferve all things whatsoever Chrift hath commanded me, 
 let it is your duty to receive inftruction, and be obedient. 
 Your obedience is not to be rendered to me, but to Jefus 
 Chrift, and to the word of his teftimony. 
 
 It will doubtlefs occur to your minds, Whom (hall we 
 hear ? One minifter teaches us one thing, and another 
 reaches us differently. You are to hear no man any farther 
 than he lhall teach you as the man Chrift Jefus hath com- 
 manded him. Minifters have no authority, any farther 
 than they receive it from him. He hath given them no 
 power to teach, but what He hath commanded. When 
 they tranferibe out of the old into the new edition of God's 
 word and will, and tell us that die rite and covenant of cir- 
 cumcilion are to explain to us the obfervance of a New- 
 Teftament ordinance, we are not obliged to believe them, 
 unlefs they point us to the place where Chrift hath fo com- 
 manded. You are to obey them who have the rule over 
 you. But even Paul was not to be followed any farther 
 than he followed Chrift. So it ought to be with you, in 
 hearkening to what your teachers fay. Minifters are but 
 men, and they have proved themfelves to be fo, by chang- 
 ing the ordinance of baptifm into quite a different 
 thing, and by adminiftering their new rite to fubjects to 
 whom Jefus Chrift never commanded it. It furely is a fur- 
 priiing thing, and not to be accounted for, but from the 
 relics of human depravity, that fo many good men fhould, 
 unknowingly, do and teach things which are quite afide 
 from what Chrift hath commanded them. 
 
 It is too late for you, my hearers, to cloak yourfelves un- 
 der what great and good men have faid ; for the truth of 
 the Lord hath already been told you. Had I not come 
 and fpoken to you this word of Chrift, you would not have 
 had fin ; but now have you no cloak for difobedience. 
 We now come — 
 
 Lajily, To confider Chrill's comforting and ftrengthen- 
 ing promife to his miniftering fervants : which is, And, lo, 
 1 am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 
 
 Chrift Jefus hath been with his minifters : and he will 
 be— 
 
82 The Mode and Subjefis [Serm. VII. 
 
 T. In preparing them for their office. He was perfon- 
 ally with his firft gofpel heralds, for the fpace of three 
 years, or more ; after this he left them for a fhort fpace ; in 
 this fhort interval they pa/Ted a fevere trial. He was with 
 them again, at times, for forty days. Soon after this he 
 fent his Spirit upon them, and filled them with it to a re- 
 markable degree. Then they were prepared for their office. 
 They fpeedily filled it remarkably, and the effect was won- 
 derful. Threa thoufand were converted in a day. 
 
 Chrift is as really, though not fo apparently, with all his 
 gofpel meffengers in preparing them to go forth into U : s 
 harveft. Thofe, who have not Chrift with them, to pre- 
 pare them for their office, are but as wolves in fheep's cloth- 
 ing, when they go forth into the miniftry. They preach 
 for Jilthy lucre, and frequently have their reward. It is too 
 often the cafe, that thofe, whom Chrift hath prepared, are 
 obliged to go into the field, or make tents for their fupport, 
 whilft fuch as run, not being fent, fwim in luxury. 
 
 2. Jefus Chrift will be with his minifters in bringing di- 
 vine things to their remembrance. 
 
 It is the Lord's Spirit which caufeth divine truth to occur 
 to the minds of his fervants. Truths, which have been for- 
 gotten for months, and it may be for years, or paffages 
 which before were underftood, may be, and not unfrequent- 
 ly are, frefh and plain in the minds of his fervants, for their 
 comfort, or for the comfort and inftrucYion of others, or for 
 the comfort and edification of both. 
 
 3. Chrift will be with his minifters in affording them 
 wifdom, fortitude and faithfulnefs. 
 
 The entrance of his word givtth light. He maketh light 
 their path?, and ordereth all their fteps. He maketh their 
 feet like hinJs' feet, and caufeth them to be fwifter than the 
 eagle, flronger than lions, wife as ferpents, and harmlefs as 
 doves. With what wifdom did Stephen fpeak ! With what 
 fcrtitule did Peter, Paul, and a thoufands ethers, addrefs 
 their auditories ! With what wifdom hath he made his fer- 
 vants to fpeak ! With what fortitude to bear, with what 
 faithfulnefs to endure, for his name's fake ! How remarka- 
 Liv hath it been thus, in time; of perfecution ! And' when 
 will you find a time, when they that are born after the flefh 
 do not perfecute thofe who are born after the Spirit ! How 
 often is it the cafe, when minifters, like Paul, wax bold, and 
 teftify that Jefus is the Chrift, and what are his words and 
 
Serm. VII,.] of'Baptifm. 83 
 
 inftitutions, that they are perfecuted, openly or more fe- 
 cretly ! 
 
 4. Chrift is and will be with his miniftering fervants, 
 whilft they are reprpached and fuffering for his flame and 
 truth fake. 
 
 He fays to them all, If the world hate you, ye know that 
 it hated me before it hated you. When Chrift's minifters 
 are reviled and fufFer for his fake, his truth and Spirit bear 
 their fpirits up. He gives them to believe and know, that 
 though they weep now, they (hall foon rejoice ; that their 
 light afflictions, which are but for a moment, are preparing 
 them for, and working out for them, a far more exceeding 
 and an eternal weight of glory. 
 
 5. Chrift Jefus will be with his faithful minifters in giv- 
 ing them to fee their defire upon his enemies. 
 
 This appears to be particularly implied in my text. 
 They are commanded to go and difciple all nations. Their 
 defire is to fee difciples multiplied. They go forth, Chrift 
 goes forth with them. Many of Chrift's enemies fubmit to 
 his yoke, which is eafy, and to his burden, which is light. 
 In this are they gratified, and their defire on them is ao» 
 compliihed. 
 
 6. Chrift is with his minifters in explaining and defend* 
 ing his truth. 
 
 How did Peter, Paul and others, in the firft ages of 
 Chriftianity, explain and vindicate the truth, to the con- 
 founding of both jews and Gentiles ! Whenever, in ages 
 fmce, he hath fpoken the word, great hath been the compa- 
 ny, >or force, of thofe who have published, explained and 
 defended it. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and a number 
 more in the reformation, were like flames of fire : nothing 
 could ftop them from publifliing, explaining and defending 
 the truths of the Saviour, for he was w'th them. 
 
 You will afk, How is it that Chrift is with his minifters^ 
 when they contradict one the other, and themfelves too ? 
 Anfwer. It is not faid, that Chrift is with his minifters in 
 explaining and defending error. Error is human ; truth 
 is divine. When minifters undertake to fupport error, they 
 go without Chrift's blefting and prefence in this their la- 
 bour. Hence it is that they are fo contradictory and incon- 
 fiftent ; and are obliged to wreft the fcriptures from their 
 plain and eafy fenfe, to fupport & beloved prejudice. But 
 when they take up for truth, plain fcripture fupports them* 
 
84 The Mode and Subjefts [Serm. VII. 
 
 and they have plain and pleafant work, and their fubje<5ts 
 fupported with eafe, as you have feen whilft attending to the 
 f&veral truths in my text. 
 
 Befides, it may be the cafe, that fome very good men 
 may mix truth and error, the commands of God and their 
 own traditions, together ; and, wlulft pra&ifing according- 
 ly, they may enjoy a comfortable frame of mind, and hence 
 conclude that their beloved compound is all from heaven. 
 This may be illuftrated by the following example. Mr. S. 
 finds it to be a truth, that his infant offspring, as well as 
 every thing elfe, fhould be devoutly given to God. He 
 hath received and holds a tradition from the fathers, that 
 his infants fhould be baptized. He publickly gives them to 
 the Lord, and folemnly promifes to inftrucT: them in the way 
 of truth and duty. He, at the fame time, hath the ordi- 
 nance of baptifm adminiflered to them, or adminifters it 
 himfelf. During the whole tranfaction he poffeffes much 
 comfort in his mind. His confequence is, the whole mat- 
 ter is according to truth, juft as God would have it. Is 
 not this going a little too much by fenfe, and not quite 
 enough by fcripture ? Does it not contain a fpicc of enthufi- 
 afm ? Would not die good man have had the fame mental 
 fatisfa&ion, had he poffefied the fame fpirituality, and yet 
 had omitted that part which is enjoined by tradition only ? 
 
 Lqftly : The Great Captain of falvation is with his min- 
 iflers, to teach, lead and comfort them, in all their trials, in 
 all their (traits. Whofoever will leave them, he will not. 
 Though he, the Great High Pried of our profeflion, when 
 fuffering for his people's fins, was left alone — all forfook 
 him ; yet, whenever his friends are afRicled, he kindly calls, 
 faying, Lo, I am with you. This hath been the ftay of 
 good men in all ages, in all circnmftances. Thofe who have 
 wandered about in fheep-fkins and goat-fkins, who have 
 been afHided, tormented, of whom the world was not wor- 
 thy, have found their refuge here. There is nothing like 
 this to fupport the feeble, dUtreffed foul. "When godly min- 
 iflers have been obliged to leave their people, yes, and their 
 families, and fometimes their native country, for the truth's 
 fake, this hath fuuained them — Chrift was with them. Pres- 
 ident Edwards, for a noble attempt at partial reformation, 
 was conftrained to flee his beloved charge : but Chrift was* 
 no doubt, with him. Should I, for laying the axe at the 
 root of the tree, be obliged to leave you, though, for the 
 
Serm. VII.] of Baptifm. 85 
 
 prefent, I fee no particular reafon to apprehend fuch an 
 
 event, yet I truft this will be my hiding place Jefus, 
 
 who will be with me. 
 
 APPLICATION. 
 
 FROM what hath been laid in the preceding difc ourfes 
 it appears — 
 
 1. That the two fides of the controverfy between the 
 Baptifts and the Pedobaptifts ftand thus. 
 
 Before I ftate the two fides of the controverfy, it is but 
 reafonable that I define thofe whom it refpecls. By the 
 Baptifts, on one fide, I mean the regular Calviniftic Bap- 
 tifts. By the Pedobaptifts, on the other, I now intend the 
 Calviniftic Congregationalifts among them. I give this 
 definition, that 1 may be clearly uhderftood. 
 
 You fee both fides are Calvinifts, that is, they are agreed 
 in what are ftyled the dochines of grace. They are both 
 of the congregational order, as it refpects the government 
 of the churches. 
 
 Now for the controverfy, and it is this : The Baptifts 
 hold immerfion only to be baptifm. The Pedobaptifts hold 
 that fprinkling may be fubftituted for immerfion, and may 
 anfwer juft as well. 
 
 The Baptifts hold that the fcriptures know nothing of a 
 Chriftian ordinance of baptifm for unbelievers and infidels. 
 The Pedobaptifts hold that, if a great man, who hath a 
 thcufand flaves, fhould become a difciple, then all his houfe- 
 hold are to be counted difciples, and are to be baptized. 
 
 The Baptifts hold that the church of the New-Teftament 
 is compofed of vifible or profelTed faints. The confident 
 Pedobaptifts hold, that this great man, his thoufand flaves, 
 together with his wife and children, all belong to the gofpel 
 church, though he only be a believer in Chrift. 
 
 The Baptifts hold that none have a right to partake of 
 the Lord's Supper, but thofe who are his friends. The 
 confiftent Pedobaptifts hold, that all the adults in this great 
 man's houfehold, if they be not guilty of grofs immorality, 
 have a right to come. 
 
 The Baptifts plead New-Teftament authority for the de- 
 fence of their principles and practice, where they differ from 
 their brethren of the Pedobaptifts. The Pedobaptifts in 
 fijpport of their fentiments plead convenience, and the cov* 
 
 H 
 
86 The Male and Subjsch [Serm. VII. 
 
 enant and lite of circumcifion, which were decaying, waxing 
 old, and ready to vanifh away, mors than 17CO years ai 
 - The Baptifts bring nigjily thicekore tejts of fcripture, 
 which are plainly and fully to their point in favour of un- 
 meriion. The Pedobaptills mehti< n three or four texts, 
 which, at mod, are hut very doubtfully in their favour; 
 and, when rightly undefftbod, appear fully againft them. 
 
 What advantage, my brethren, have the Pedobaptifts over 
 the Baptifts ? And with what crime or error, in this mat- 
 ter, do they ftand convicted? 
 
 2. It appears that goipel minifters have no authority 
 to teach Chriftians, that their children and fervants ihould 
 be baptized, becaufe Abraham's were circumcifed. 
 
 Chrift hath no w here commanded them to teach thus. 
 Chrift hath no where commanded them to teach infant bap- 
 tiirn at all, or baptifm upoft the faith of another ; much 
 lei's, that they are to be baptized becaufe Abraham's were 
 circumcifed. 
 
 3. It appears, that many of the pious and learned cler- 
 gy of New England have made fome noble and promifing 
 advances towards truth in this matter ; yet in this they are 
 
 ifTftent with themfelves. 
 
 They will receive none to the communion but fuch as 
 proieis faith in our Lord Jefus Chi ill, as well as repentance 
 for fin ; and they will adminifter baptifm to the children of 
 no other. Here, in two inftarfces, they rcfule to follow the' 
 law of circumcifion. One, in rcfufing to admit to the flip- 
 per, impenitent, though civil, baptized perfons ; the other, 
 in not admitting to baptifm the children of all thofe who 
 have been baptized. This is confident with truth fo iar as 
 it goes ; but inconfiuent with the notion that the fflbjetts of 
 baptifm are to be determined from the fubjects of circum- 
 cifion. 
 
 Thefe good men, fo long as they pofiefs their prefent light, 
 muR come over to the true Bap till ground, or fubmit to the 
 imputation of inconfifteiicy. X wifh them to come over. 
 For myielf, I expect to, though my carnal nature hates the 
 name or a Baptiu, as much as theirs dc es. But my better 
 judgment tells me, that the Baptifts are on the goipel ground. 
 
 4. It is a matter ef lamentation, that pious and learned 
 minifters have not a little more felf-denial : then they might 
 be confident with themfelves and with truth tco. Could I 
 be with them, and afk them this plain quefticc. Do you n<^ 
 
Sferm .VII.] of Bi ip t S y 
 
 rind a little bickwardrfefs from iearching critic tlly into the 
 primitive meaning and practice of, baptifm ? I fear fchef 
 would anfwer with fome reluctance. 
 
 To m^, I confefs, it appear* an hard cafe, that the Bap* 
 tkls mould fuffer fo much reproach, merely on account 61 
 their lentiments, when many of otfr bell old divines have 
 given them the'ground, and confeiied, that their fentiments-, 
 as to the mode, are from heaven, and ours from conveni- 
 ence. Our oppoiition to them, on account of the fubjecls, 
 appears hut little better, being but poorly fupported 
 fcripture: they having the plain word, and full current o* 
 all the propliets from r.Ioiei to MalacM, io fkl as ilicV iia' 
 fpoken of the gofpel church, together with the New-Teda- 
 ment, in their favour ; whilft for us, in this particular, noth- 
 ing better can be alleged than the antiquated rite of circura- 
 cifion. If the Baptids be right, why not join them, and 
 iuffer fmall inconveniences? If wrong, why not prove 
 them (o ? It is pitiful that great and good men ihouki be 
 dallying with inconclufive arguments, when the time is long 
 fmee come, that the highway of holinefs fhould be fo plain, 
 that wayfaring men, though fools, fhould not err therein. 
 
 y. We fee why good men have been fo divided among 
 tnemteives, as to infant baptifm. 
 
 The reafon is, they go without Clirift in this matter. 
 Ke is not divided. 
 
 Some baptize all. Others will baptize only the children 
 in the houfeholds of communicants. Some baptize upon 
 the half-way covenant. Some will baptize all who are un- 
 derage. Again, others will baptize all under feven. Oth- 
 ers Mill will baptize upon the good promifes of godfathers 
 and godmothers. You will obferve I ufe the word baptize 
 in a fenfe which I believe to be improper, but I would not 
 id you with a word, when my meaning may be under- 
 ftood. But what propriety is there in all this inoonhden- 
 cy about the fubjeeds of baptifm ? Does not the matter 
 look as though there were no rule to go by, or as though 
 none underaood what it was! 
 
 6. We fee v.vv pood men, when writing; or fpeakhip- of 
 baptifm, are left to fpeak untruths. 
 
 It is doubtlefs beeaaib they will follow their own preju- 
 dices, and not the truth. Error hath divided thcrn, and 
 Chi id is not with them in what they fay. Some good men, 
 no: man/, dare auert, in oppoiition to the Baptilts, that 
 
&8 The Mode and Subjects [Serm. VII. 
 
 there is not a word about immerfion for baptifm, in all the 
 Bible. For lay . thus, hprefump'ion, and for men 
 
 of learning to make the affertipo, is almo/l unpardonable. For 
 they know, or ought to know, that the word, to baptise, 
 is not once mentioned in all the Bible but immerfion is 
 mentioned, unleis they mean to play upon the word ; and 
 then it is a truth, when iaplho is mentioned, immerfion is» 
 if they will give it its plain, literal Euglifh. " 
 
 It the Baptists have the plain, literal and unequivocal 
 fenfe of the fcripture in their favour, is it not enough that 
 they are defpifed and perfecuted by the wicked of every 
 clafs and not helped by any ; but irruft we add to their af- 
 iiiytion,-l)y fallehbod or equivocation? O prejudice, what 
 will thou not do, even in a faint ! 
 
 Beftdes, our good brethren, who are fo warm againft the 
 Baptids, and will not allow them a word for their mode, do 
 not agree together to inform us what the mode fliould be. 
 One tells us, it is fprinkling, another fays, pouring is the 
 mode, a third contends for wafhing the face, a fourth is for 
 putting water on the back of the neck, as the Swifs are faid 
 to do ; whilft others affirm, that all thefe are right. Now, 
 fuppofe the Baptiits are wrong, who fhall we fay are in the 
 
 rio-nr. or t« rnpre r\n vtrrl-ih ir> «■!-.;<. k»jS«u»& t l}r\e>e r\r\t oil 
 
 this look juft as it would were there an error at the bot- 
 tom ? Hath the Great Teacher, who came from God, left 
 matters thus at loofe ends? Does the Bible thus diner, 
 whilft pointing out the mode ? No. Its language is pure 
 and determinate. 
 
 7. It appears, that, in infant fprinkling for baptifm, the 
 intent of the inflituiion is loft, and becomes no Chriftian 
 ordinance at all. 
 
 Both the thing itfelf and the fubjeots of it are changed. 
 
 It is tj lite a different thing from what the Inditutor hath 
 
 Neither this mode nor thefe fubje&s are known 
 
 .!, ncr in any paifage of the Bible, where 
 
 I is mentioned. This mode is of man's device, and 
 
 t have, at bed, but a traditional right. For 
 
 to do thus, whiht th:>y think it confident with 
 
 sruthj appears to be a fin of ignorance ; but if any do thus, 
 
 while they know what the fcriptures enjoin, their practice 
 
 defer ves 1 h rder name. 
 
 8. It appears that dipping, immerfion, or burying in 
 \h. name of t< e Father, arid of the Sen, and of the Holy 
 Ghoftj is baptifm. 
 
Serm, VII.J ef Baptijm -89 
 
 No man of real piety and lbli.l learning, ever dotibteJ it. 
 . ea.s, fprinkling !ri f h been doubted by many, d 
 continually, by a large clafs of Chriltians, and been proved 
 by none to have been ever appointed as the Chriftian ordi- 
 nance of baptifm. 
 
 9. We fee, that every plea which hath been made, for 
 a general or partial neglect of the fcripture mode of baptifm, 
 is ah indirect, though unintentional, charge of negligence, 
 or want of benevolence, or of foreiight,' in the Divine Infti- 
 tu":or. Let every man of candour and common ferae ex- 
 amine this matter. Did not the Lord, who made our 
 northern climes, know how cold they are ? — Did he know 
 them to be too cold for his difciples who might live in mem, 
 to be feparated from the World by being vitibly buried and 
 railed again to join ids kingdom ? Why then did he not 
 
 :n an exception in our favour 1 , and not leave us to fuf- 
 
 ier this inconvenience, or be in perpetual uncertainty and 
 
 ..aal difpnte, to defend our, at bed:, but doubtful prac- 
 
 Dii lie not perfectly know all th 
 . Cyprian and others would, in their erring 
 (lad to break over the bounds of the b ution ? 
 
 then did he mike no p'rewiiion I »r the e zxin me cafes ?' 
 By doing this, lie v.. Paved the Pedobaptifts a 1 world 
 
 of anxiety, contention and cenfure. The frit appears to be, 
 th it our Lord intended, that the way of adntiflxon into ids 
 kingdom fhould be uniform, and that thoie who would not 
 ;f timiit to it, fiiould fuffei' the inconvenience of darknefs, 
 error and ilrire. 
 
 10. From what hath been faid in the preceding dif- 
 ccmrfes, is not the following a fair and undeniable conclu- 
 fion ? That I and other Pedobaptift miniilers, fo far as we 
 havefpoken a word againft the Baptifb, and especially that 
 th ife, who have publickly warned their people to avoid the 
 Baptifts and flee from them, as from a dividing and dan- 
 gerous herefy, have in this matter acted the part of the old 
 Scribes, Pharifees, hypocrites — who would not go into the 
 kingdom of God themielves, and thole who were entering, 
 
 hindered. 
 I by no means fuopofe that all who have done thus, are 
 hldeed hypocrites, lave in this particular. No rejthnab'e 
 doubt can be entertained, but many of them are learned, 
 pious, and very ufefol men ; men, whom the Lord hath 
 greatly honoured as labourers, in gathering in the harvetl 
 H 3 
 
<;o • The Mode and Subjccls, kc, [Serm. VII. 
 
 of fouls. Many of thefe have been, in meafure, bold, zeal- 
 ous arid faithful, like Peter J yet when they diifemble, or 
 teach and praitife contrary from the truth, qhey are to be 
 blamed ; yes, they are, in this inftance, worthy to be re- 
 buked. 
 
 It would, indeed, be very injudicious in me to contend, 
 that all which- the Baptifts have faid and done is judicable. 
 i It would be equally injudicious to juftify myfelf, or my 
 brethren, where we have both faid and done things contrary 
 from the church and name of Jefus of Nazareth. It is 
 time for both minifters and people to look to this matter, 
 left the Lord fend leannefs into our fouls. 
 
 ii. From a review of the whole fubject, the following 
 inference appears natural, and at the fame time worthy of 
 much confideration. The divinely conftituted method by 
 winch any cf the fallen race are to enter the kingdom of 
 heaven below, remarkably fets to our view the way by which 
 we are to commence perfect members of the kingdom of 
 heaven above. Our obedience to the former is a practical 
 declaration of our faith in the latter. 
 
 In joining Chrift's kingdom on earth, we profeffedly die 
 unto i'm, go doyn Co the grave, are buried, and rile, as from 
 the deach To'join the kingdom of glory, we muft actually 
 experience what is but ftiadowed forth in baptifm. We 
 r .a ft die, be buried, or return to the duft, and rife from the 
 dead. 
 
 How exactly doth our entrance into the church militant 
 fhadow forth our hoped for entrance into the church trium- 
 phant ! It alio appears that Chrift hath directed, that the 
 cf the- one ihould be profeffedly, what the fubjects of 
 other fhall be actually, all faints. 
 Kow beautiful d^th the church appear, fo far as fhe ob- 
 ferves the commands of her Lord, as to the members which 
 fhc admits, and the manner of receiving them ! She thus re- 
 fembks jerufalem, which is above, which is the mother of 
 us ?11, if we be Chriitians. May the Lord direct our hearts 
 into the love of the truth. 
 
 In the conclusion of die whole, it becomes us to add, to 
 the truths delivered, what Chrift Jefus added to my text ; 
 Amen. 
 
 £hD or VEE SERMONS, 
 
A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 OK THE 
 
 BAPTISTS. 
 
 IT may be pleafmg to fome of my readers to be present- 
 ed witb a brief account of the Baptifts. I (hall extract 
 this account from the writings of thofe who were not of the 
 Baptift denomination, but rather prejudiced againft them. 
 
 Here it may be obferved, that the religious fed, called 
 Baptifts, have caufed the learned world more perplexity and 
 refearch to decypher their origin, than any other fed of 
 Chriftians, or, perhaps, than all others. Yes, this refearch 
 hath baffled all their erudition in ancient ftory. 
 
 It is not difficult to fix the period when one feci of this 
 denomination was firft called Petrobrufians, when another 
 was known by the name of Waterlandians, when a third was 
 denominated Mennonites, &c. But the difficulty is this, to 
 afcertain the time, place and medium, by which Chrift's 
 difciples were led to adopt the peculiar fentiment, which is 
 now held by thofe called Baptifts, and which diftinguifhes 
 them from all other denominations. 
 
 It may be farther obferved, that if no one, however learn- 
 ed and wife, be able to trace this feci to any beginning ihort 
 of the days of the apoftles, or of Chrift, it is poflible that it 
 then arofe. Befides, if all other religious denominations 
 or the Pedobaptifts, who include all which are not Baptifts, 
 can be traced to a probable origin fhort of the apoftles, and 
 the Baptifts cannot be, it affords ftill more probability, that 
 they might have arifen then. 
 
 I wilh my readers to indulge me one queftion, and to give 
 me an explicit anfwer. Are you willing to have the origin 
 of the Baptifts fairly explored, and to open your eyes to the 
 light, (hould light be afforded ? 
 
 You cannot, my Chriftian readers, unlefs your minds be 
 unduly fwayed by prejudice, do otherwife than fay, Yes. 
 For, though you be not very friendly to the Baptifts, you 
 will not deny them what you grant to your worft enemy, 
 
92 A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 liberty to fpeak the truth, and that truth its weight, at Ieaft 
 in meafure. 
 
 It ought to be particularly noted, that my objecl is not to 
 give the hiftory of a name, but of a principle. I fhall not 
 contend who were firft called Baptifts, Anabaptifts, Men- 
 nonites, or the like ; but who have held the peculiar fentf- 
 ment which is adopted by thoie who are called Baptifts. 
 Wherever we find this principle, there wc find the men, the 
 Chriftians, who, had they lived in our day, would he (hied 
 Baptifts. Nor is the prefent controversy this, Whence cam* 
 that mode of baptifm, which is practiced by ail, who are 
 known by the name Baptifts ? For this mode is granted, 
 generally, it" not univerfaily, by all learned and honeft men, 
 to be as ancient as John the Baptift and the apoftles. This 
 mode is, indeed, not peculiar to the Baptifts, for the Pedo- 
 baptifts, for many centuries, pnkctrfed this mode ; and many 
 of them do, to this day, praclife immerlion. 
 
 The peculiar characleriftic of the Baptifts is this : They 
 hold, that the ordinance of baptifm is to be adminiftered to 
 adults, or to vifible believers only. 
 
 One natural confequence of this principle is, when any 
 one who was baptized, or iprinklcd, in hit infancy, comes ov^r 
 to the Baptifts' fentiment, they require him to be baptized. 
 Hence they are called Anabaptifts. Another very natural 
 confequence is, this fentiment conftrains the Baptifts to op- 
 pofe the baptifm of infants. Hence they are diftinguiihtd 
 by the name of Antipedobaptifts. 
 
 I Ihali add one obfervation more, and then proceed to give 
 you a fuccincl hiftory of the Baptifts. The obfervation is 
 this : Whenever and wherever I find perfons, who hold the 
 peculiar, characteriftic, fentiment of the Baptifts, I ihall call 
 them by that name. Their hiftory now follows. 
 
 I. The origin of the Baptifts can be found no where, un- 
 lefs it be conceded that it was at Jordan, or Enon. 
 
 Dr. Moiheim, in his hiftory of the Baptifts, fays, " The 
 true origin of that feci, which acquired the denomination of 
 the Anabaptifts by their adminiftering anew the rite of bap- 
 tifm to thofe who come over to their communion, and de- 
 rived that of Mennonites from the famous man to whom they 
 owe the' greateft part of their prefent felicity, is bid in the 
 remote deptbs of antiquity, and is of confequence extremely dif- 
 ficult to be afcertained." 
 
OF THE BAPTISTS. 93 
 
 Here, Dr. Mofheim, as learned an hiftorian, thoigh not 
 fo candid a one, as the fcience of letters can boaft, beais 
 pofitive teftimony, that the origin of the Baptifts is hidden in 
 the remote depths of antiquity. Nothing is more evident than 
 this ; the Doctor either knew not their origin, or was not 
 candid enough to confefs it. At lead, we have this conclu- 
 fion, that he could find their origin no where fhort of the 
 apoftles. 
 
 II. A large number of the Baptifts were fcattered, op- 
 preued, and perfecuted, through many, if not through all, 
 the nations of Europe, before the dawn of the reformation 
 under Luther and Calvin. When Luther, feconded by 
 feveral princes of the petty dates of Germany, arofe in oppo- 
 fifion to the overgrown usurpations of the church of Rome, 
 the Baptifts alfo arofe from their hiding places They hoped 
 that what they had been long expecting and praying for 
 was now at the door ; the time in which the fufferings of 
 God's people fhould be greatly terminated : but God had 
 not railed Luther's views of reformation to nigh the height 
 the Baptifts were expecting. Their deteftation of the Mother 
 of flarlots, owing to their bitter experience of her cruelties, 
 and the clear gofpel light with which they had been favoured 
 above Luther, and their ardent defire to be utterly delivered 
 from her cruel oppreffions, made them wifh to "carry the re- 
 formation farther than God had appointed Luther to accom- 
 plifh- They were foon difappointed in Luther, and proba- 
 bly did not duly appreciate the reformation which he was 
 inftrumentally effecting. It was as might have been expect- 
 ed j the Lutherans and the Baptifts fell out by the way ; 
 and Calvin, if not Luther, warmly oppofed them. Sec Mo- 
 
 Jheim, Cent. XVI. Chap, ill- Se8. 3. Part 2. 
 
 Mofheim, vol. IV. page 427, fpeaking ,of the Baptifts,- 
 fays, " This feet ftarted up all of a fudden, in feveral coun- 
 tries, at the fame point of time, and at the very period when 
 the firft contefts of the reformers with the Roman Pontiffs 
 drew the attention of the world." From this We have one 
 plain and fair deduction ; that the Baptifts were before the 
 reformation under Luther and Calvin, and therefore did not 
 take their rife from the Enthufiafts under Munzerand Storck, 
 or at th.it time ; or at Manlier. 
 
 III. The Huffites, in the fifteenth century, the Wicklif- 
 fites, in the fourteenth, and the Petrobrufians, in the 
 
'94 A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 twelfth, and the Waldenfes, were all Baptirts.* To this 
 fad Dr. Moiheim bears the following tefliniony.f "It 
 may be obierved that the Mennonites (i. e. the Baptifts of 
 Eait and Weft Friefland, Holland, Gelderland, Brabant, 
 Weftphalia and other places in the North of Europe) are 
 not Entirely m'tflaien, when they boaft their defcent from the 
 Waldenfes, Fetrobrufians and other ancient feels, who are 
 ufually confidered as ivitnejfes of the truth in times of univer- 
 faA darknefs and fuperflition. Before the rife of Luther and 
 Calvin, there lay concealed in almoji all the countries of Eu- 
 rope, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and 
 Germany, many perfons, who adhered tenacioufly to the 
 following doctrine, which the Waldenfes, Wickliffites and 
 had maintained ; fome in a more difguifed and 
 a more open and public manner, vix. That the 
 Chrifl, or the vifible church he had eflablflied upon 
 ran ajjemlly of true and real faults, and ought therefore 
 to be inacceffityzto the wicked and unrighteous, and alfo exempt 
 from all thofe inmUutions which human prudence fuggefls to oppofe / 
 the progrefs of if^quity, or to correel and reform tranfgr effort. 
 This maxim is the true fource of all the peculiarities, that 
 are to be found in the religious doctrine and difcipline of 
 the Mennontte«. (** ^--•-ilf.s in the Nnrt-k ^ t? > - " 
 
 it is moft certain that the greatefl part of thefe peculiarities 
 were approved of by many of thofe who, before the dawn 
 of the reformation, entertamed the notion already mentioned 
 relating to the vifible church of Chriit." 
 
 From this teftimony of Dr. Mofheim we may remark — 
 i. That the Mennonites were Baptifts, or Anabaptitb-, 
 for thefe different names he ufes to exprefs one and the fame 
 thing. 
 
 2. That the Petxobrufians were Bajrifls ; for the B ip- 
 tifts affert, and Moiheim allows it, that they were their pre- 
 genitors in principle and praclice. Bc'Vdes, in hishiftory of 
 the twelfth century, part II. chap. v. led. 7, he exprefsly 
 tells us, that one of their tenets was, that no pi r fans <what:l- 
 ever ivere to be baptized before they nverf come to the fad tiff of 
 their reafon. 
 
 3. That the Waldenfes, Wickliffites and Huffites were 
 Baptifls ; for, as Moiheim fays, they all held to the great 
 
 * No! all, every 01 c; hat all, generally, 
 t Vol. IV. pp. 428, \uq. 
 
OF THE BAPTISTS. 95 
 
 and leading maxim, which is the true fource of all the pe- 
 culiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and 
 difcipline of the Mennonites. Thefe feveral denominations 
 of Chriftians were not known by the ancient, modern and 
 appropriate name, Baptifts. But their doctrine and difci- 
 pline wre the fame with our Baptifts, and were they now 
 living, they would be thus called. In other words ; juft 
 to far as they were coniiftent with their great and leading 
 maxim, and juft fo far as the modern Baptifts are coniiftent 
 with their great and leading maxim, juft fo far thefer.ancient 
 and modern Baptifts are alike the one to the other. 
 
 4. That in the fifteenth century the Waldenfes, Petro- 
 bruiians and other ancient fects (i. e. of the Baptifts) were 
 ufually coniidered as having been witnefTes of the truth, in 
 the times of darknefs and univerfal fuperftition. How dif- 
 ferently from this would and do many confider them in our 
 day ! 
 
 5. That before the rife of Luther and Calvin, there lay 
 concealed in almoft all the countries of Europe, particular- 
 ly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany, many 
 perfons who held the fame doctrine and difcipline with the 
 Baptifts in our day, and were, of necelTary and fair confe- 
 quence, of the fame denomination. 
 
 IV. We have already traced the Baptifts down to the 
 twelfth century. We have alfo found that they were fcat- 
 tered over almoft all the countries of Europe, and were, in 
 the dark ages of popery, the witneiTes of the tiuth ; or 
 have been ufually thus confidered. Befides, we have found 
 that the Waldenfes were, in principle and practice, Baptifts ; 
 or in other words, we have found that the Waldenfes were 
 Baptifts. We will now fee to what origin we can trace the 
 Waldenfes. 
 
 Dr. M.'.claine, who translated Mofheim's church hiftory 
 from the original Latin, gives us, v#l. III. pages 1 1 S, 119, 
 under note, G, the following hiftory of the Waldenfes. His 
 words are, "We may venture to affirm the contrary (i. e. 
 from what Mofheim had juft faid of the Waldenfes taking 
 their name from Peter Waldus) with Beza and other wri- 
 ters of note; for it feems evident, from the beft records, 
 that Vakius derived his name from the true Valdenfes of 
 Piedmont, whofe doctrine he adopted, and who were known 
 by the name of Vaudois and Valdenfes, before he, or his 
 immediate followers, ejafted. If the Valdenfes, or Wal- 
 
96 A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 denfes, had derived their name from any eminent teacher, 
 it would probably have been from Valdo, who was remark- 
 able for the purity of his doctrine, in the ninth century, and 
 was the cotemporary and chief counfellor of Berengarius. 
 But the truth is, that they derive their name from their val- 
 lies in Piedmont, which in their language are called Vaux. 
 Hence Vaudois, their true name ; Hence Peter, (or, as 
 others call him, John) of Lyons, was called in Latin Val- 
 dur,, becaufe he had adopted their doctrine ; and hence the 
 term Valdenfes and Waldenfes, ufed by thofe who write in 
 Englifli, or Latin, in the place of Vaudois. The bloody 
 Inquifitor Reinerus Sacco, who exerted fuch a furious zeal 
 for the deftru&on of the Waldenfes, lived but about eighty 
 years after Valdus of Lyons, and muft therefore be fuppoi- 
 ed to know whether or not he was the real founder of the 
 Valdenfes, or Leonifts ; and yet it is remarkable, that he 
 fpeaks of the Leonifts as a feet that had flourifhed about 
 five hundred years ; 'nay, mentions authors of note, who 
 make their antiquity remount to the apoftolic age. See the 
 account given of Sacco' s booh by the jfefuit Gretfer in the Bibli- 
 otheca Patrum. 1 know not upon what principle Dr. Mo- 
 fheim maintains that the inhabitants of the vallies of Pied- 
 mont are to be carefully diftinguifhed from the Waldenfes ; 
 and I am perfuaded that whoever will be at the pains to 
 read attentively the ad, 25th, 26th, and 27th chapters of 
 the firft book of Leger's Hiftoire des Eglifes Vaudoifes, will 
 find this diftinclion entirely groundlefs. — When the Papifts 
 afk us where our religion was before Luther, we generally 
 anfwer, in the Bible, and we anfwer well. But to gratify 
 their tafte for tradition, and human authority, we may add 
 to this anfwer — and in the vallies of Piedmont. 
 
 To the above we may add, one of the Popim writers, 
 fpeaking of the Waldenfes, fays, " The herefy of the lValden* 
 Jet is the oldejl herefy in the ivor/d."* 
 
 It is here worthy to be particularly noticed — 
 
 1. That Reinerus Sacco fpeaks of the Waldenfes, or 
 Baptifts, of his day, as a feci that had, at that time, flour- 
 ifhed for about five hundred years ; which brings the hiilory 
 of the Baptifts, as a religious feet, down to the fifth century. 
 
 2. That this fame Reinerus Sacco mentions authors of 
 note, who make the antiquity of the Waldenfean Baptifts 
 to remount to the apoftolic age. 
 
 * Prefident F.dwarck's Hift. of Redemption, p. 267. 
 
OF THE BAPTISTS 97 
 
 a, That the Baptifts are the moft ancient of all the re- 
 ligious feels, who have fet themlelves to oppofe the ghoftly 
 powers of the Romanifts. 
 
 4. That, if there be any body of Chriftians, who have 
 exifted during the reign of antichrift, or of the man of fin, 
 the Baptifts have been this living church nf J_fus Chrift. 
 
 5. The confequence of the whole is this : The Baptifts 
 have no origin fhort of the Apoftlcs- They arofe in the 
 days of John the Baptift, and increafed largely in the days 
 of our bleil^d Saviour, when he fhowed himfelf unto Ifrael, 
 and in the days of his Apoftles, and have exifted, under the 
 fevered opprciTions, with intervals of profperity, ever fince. 
 
 But as to the Pedobaptifts, their origin is at once traced 
 to about the middle of the fecond century ; when the myf- 
 tery of iniquity not only began to work, but, by its fermen- 
 tation, had produced this error of fruitful evils, namely, thftt 
 baptifrn was eiTer.tial to falvation ; yes, th.it it was regene- 
 ration. Hence arofe the neceffity of baptizing children. 
 Now comes forward Irenasus, and informs that the church 
 had a tradition from the Apoftles to give baptifrn to infants. 
 We are told in the Appendix to Mofluim's Church 'Hif- 
 tory, that one of the remarkable things which took place in 
 the fecond century was the baptizing of infants, it being 
 never known before, as a Chriftian ordinance for them. 
 
 What a pity it is, that good men, who have renounced 
 the error, which was. as church hiftory informs us, the pro- 
 genitor of infant baptifm, ihouid ftill retain its practical and 
 erroneous offspring, to the prejudice and marring of the 
 church of God ! Not a fingle k&. of the Pedobaptills can 
 find its origin nearer to the Apoftles than the fecond centu- 
 ry. We hence conclude, that their origin was there, and 
 that they then and there arofe in the myftery which was 
 then working. May the Father of lights open the eyes of 
 my brethren, that they may come out of this, perhaps, the 
 laft thicket of grofs error and darknefs. 
 
 1 will now add — 
 
 V. The teftimony which Prefident Edwards bears in 
 favour of the Waldenfes and other faithful ones, who were 
 fcattered through all parts of Europe in the dark ages of 
 Popery. It is the following : 
 
 " In every age of this dark time, there appeared particu- 
 lar perfons in all parts of Chriftendom, who bore a teftimo- 
 ny againft the corruptions and tyranny of the church of 
 I 
 
9§ A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 Rome. There is no one age of antichrift, even in the dark- 
 eft time of all, but ecclefiaftieal hiftorians mention a great 
 many by name, who manifefted an abhorrence of the Pope 
 and his idolatrous worihip, and plead for the ancient purity 
 of doctrine and worfhip. God was pleafed to maintain an 
 uninterrupted fucceffion of witnefles, through the whole time, 
 in Germany, France, Britain, and other countries, as hiftori- 
 ans demorftiate, and mention them by name, and give an 
 account of the teftimony which they held. Many of them 
 were private perfons, and many of them minifters, and 
 fome magiftrates and perfons of great diftinftion. And 
 there were numbers in every age, who were perfecuted and 
 put to death for this teftimony. 
 
 " Befides thefe particular perfons, difperfed here and there, 
 there was a certain people, called the Waldenfes, who lived 
 feparate from all the reft of the world, who kept themfelves 
 pure, and conftantly bore a teftimony againft the church of 
 Rome, through all this dark time. The place where they 
 dwelt was the Vaudois, or the five vallies of Piedmont, a 
 very mountainous country, between Italy and France. The 
 p.uce where they lived was compared with thofe exceeding 
 high mountains, called the Alps, which were almoft imparti- 
 able. The palfage over thefe mountainous, defert coun- 
 tries, was fo difficult, that the vallies where this people 
 dwelt were almoft inacceftible. There this people lived for 
 many ages, as it were alone, where, in a ftate of feparation 
 from all the world, having very little to do with any other 
 people, they ferved God in the ancient purity of his wor- 
 fhip, and never fubmitted to the church of Rome. This 
 place, in this defert, mountainous country, probably was 
 the place, efpecially meant in the xii. chap, of Revelation, 
 6 verfe, as the place prepared of God for the woman, that 
 they fhould feed her there during the reign of Antichrift. 
 
 " Some of the Popifh writers themfelves own that that 
 people never fubmitted to the church of Rome. One of the 
 Popim writers, fpeaking of the Waldenfes, fays, the herefy 
 of the Waldenfes is the oldeft herefy in the world. It is 
 fuppofed, that this people firft betook themfelves to this de- 
 fert, fecret place among the mountains to hide themfelves 
 from the feverity of the heathen perfecutions, which were 
 before Conltantine the Great, and thus the woman fled in- 
 to the wildernefs from the face of the, ferpent, Rev. xii. 6 ; 
 and i'o verfe 14, And to the woman were given two wings 
 
OF THB BAPTISTS. 99 
 
 of a great eagle, that fhe might fly into the wildernefs into 
 her place, where fhe is nourifhed for a time and times and 
 half a time from the face of the ferpent. And the people 
 being fettled there, their pofterity continued there from age 
 to age afterwards, and being as it were by natural walls, 
 as well as by God's grace, feparated from the reft of the 
 world, never partook of the overflowing corruption." 
 
 It is hoped that the reader will very carefully and can- 
 didly compare what is teftified to us by three very learned 
 men, Dr. Mofheim, Dr. Maclaine, and Prefident Edwards. 
 The teftimony of the firft is, that the Waldenfes and irony 
 others who are ufually confidered as ivitnejfes of the truth in 
 the times of univerfal darhnefs and fuperjlition, were effential- 
 ly agreed with the Baptifts of modern date, as to principle 
 and practice, or as to the great maxim, whence flow all the 
 peculiarities of that denomination. His teftimony, in fhort, 
 is this ; the Huffites, the WicklifRtes, the Petiobrufians 
 and the Waldenfes, with other witneffes of the truth, fcat- 
 tered over Europe, in the dark ages of Popery, were ef- 
 fentially the fame with the. Baptifts of later times ; or that 
 they all were what we call Baptifts. 
 
 Dr. Maclaine teftifies that the Waldenfes flourifhed as early 
 as the fifth century ; yes, he informs us that fome authors of 
 note carry their antiquity up to the apoftolic age. 
 
 Prefident Edwards informs us that thefe Waldenfes were 
 the main body of the church in the dark ages, and have 
 been, together with their fcattered brethren, the pure church 
 of Jefus Chrift, during the reign of Antichrift, and, of cer- 
 tain confequence, were fucceffors of the pure church, from 
 the days of Chrift and his apoftles. 
 
 The fair confequence of all is this, that the Baptifts have 
 been the uninterrupted church of our Lord from the apof- 
 tles' day to ours. 
 
 I may, indeed, exclaim, What have I been believing, 
 what have I been doing, with refpeft to the Baptifts, all 
 my days ? 
 
 I know, and I confefs, that the hiftory of the church af- 
 fures me, that the denomination of Chriftians to which I 
 have belonged, and to which I do ftill vifibly belong, 
 came through the church of Rome, and was broken off from 
 the mother of harlots, and it is not greatly to be wondered 
 at, if all her filth lhould not be yet wiped away. At the 
 fame time, the fame hiftory affures me, that the Baptifts 
 
100 A MINIATURE HISTORY 
 
 never have fubmitted to her fuperftitions and filthy abomi- 
 nations. 
 
 I am fomcwhat furprized at my own long continued ig- 
 norance, and at the yet remaining darknefs of my brethren, 
 as to this matter. But above all, what lhall I fay, at the 
 hard oppofition which fome good men yet maintain againft' 
 their brethren, the Baptifts ? Surely, they might with great 
 propriety be addreifed in the words of Gamaliel : " Take 
 heed to yourfelves what ye intend to do, as touching theft 
 men." If ye will not favour them, " refrain from them, 
 and let them alone ; for if their counfel or work be 
 of men, it will come to nought ; but if it be of God, ye' 
 cannot overthrow it ; left haply ye be found even to fight 
 againft God.'' 
 
 All the power, craft and cruelty of the wicked, though 1 
 practifed for nighly one thoufand eight hundred years, have 
 not been able to prevail againft them. Surely the mif- 
 g-uided zeal of pood men will not. 
 
 In this fhort Hiftory of the~Baptifts, we fee the continued 
 accomplishment of one of Chrift's pronriiTbry predictions, 
 which is, Matt. xvi. 18. The gates of hell fhall not prevail- 
 againft the church. That denomination of Chriftians 
 which are called Baptifts, are the only (mown fociety of" 
 profeffing Chriftians, againft which Satan hath not prevail- 
 ed, either in point of doctrine, or difcipline, or both. This 
 church, or old and inveterate herefy, as Satan would call 
 it, he acknowledges, by the mouth of his feivants, the Ro- 
 maliifts, that he could never fubdue. It is true, Satan hath 
 joined many of his legions to it, as he did many falfe breth- 
 ren to the difciples in the days of the apoftles. But he hath- 
 never, no, not for an hour, prevailed upon this ancient and 
 primitive church to give up the doctrines of grace, or the 
 adminiftrations of the ordinances as Chrifl: delivered them 
 to his people. That which fhe firft received, fhe full holds 
 1 . t, and will. In all the libit ory of the church, we r 
 no other body of profeffing Chriftians, after which Satan- 
 hath caft iuch a continual flood of waters $ but hitherto the 
 earth hath helped the woman, and the flood of periecution 
 hath not jwevaiAecL Satan's future efforts will be equally 
 without effect. 
 
 My Fathers and Brethren in the m'niftry, and my breth- 
 ren among the piaftdTed difciples o£.the Lord jeius Chriftj 
 fuier a. word of. exhortation- . 
 
OF THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 I: you will not take up the crofs, and fo incrcafe the 
 niimber of Chrill's continually preferved, yet always fuffer- 
 mg, little flock, be ye careful how ye fet yourfelvcs in array 
 againft them. For more are they who are for them, than 
 are thofe. who are againft* them. With you is an arm of 
 ftefri, in all your oppolitions, but with them is the Lord 
 their God to help them, and he will help them ; and by 
 and by he will help them right early. 
 
 I ihall be very pleaiingly disappointed, mould I not 
 be, by many of you who are rulers in lfrael, fet at nought, 
 for coming over to the help of the Lord againit the- 
 mighty. But, if I may but know the truth, and pleafe the 
 Lord, it is, with me, but a comparatively fmall thing to be 
 judged of you, or of man's judgment. I do, indeed, wifh 
 for the continuance of your good opinion and friendship, but 
 I cannot poftefs them at the expenfe of truth. That I might 
 teftify unto you thefe things, 1 have rifked every thing which 
 the world calls valuable. I am now determined, and 
 through the grace of our Lord jefus Chrift T hope that to 
 the end of my life I (hall be determined, to venture every-" 
 thing in defence of the doctrines and ordinances and church 
 of the Son of God. 1 befeech all of you, Who know the 
 grace of our Lord Jefus, that ye do not as did many of the 
 chief rulers in lfrael. They believed on Chrift, but did not- 
 confefs him, becaufe of the Pharifees, left they ihould be put 
 out of the fynagogue ; for they loved the praiie of men, 
 more than the praiie of God. John xii. 42, 43. 
 
 You have now heard me and know what I do. You- 
 will therefore now make up your judgment. But I pray 
 you, remember one thing : With what judgment ye judge,, 
 ye lhall be judged.' 
 
 / am, Reader, 
 
 T'by Servant, for the Go/pel's J'ah, 
 
 DANIEL MERRILL.. 
 
ExtraB from the Bapt'ijl Mijfumary Magazine^ No. 4. 
 
 Account of the Baptift Church lately conflituted 
 at Sedgwick, Diftrict of Maine. 
 
 THE Rev. Daniel Merrill graduated at Dartmouth 
 College, 1789, was ordained over the Congregational 
 Church in Sedgwick, in September, 1793. His labours 
 have been very much bleffed among his people, who have 
 experienced feveral precious feafons of revival under his 
 miniftry, particularly in the years 1798, and 1801. 
 
 ' Several circumftances occurred to lead Mr. Merrill, in 
 the courfe of the laft year, to review, with more critical at- 
 tention, the grounds on which he had praclifed infant baptifm. 
 The refult of his inquiries may be learned from the pre- 
 ceding Sermons on baptifm, and from the following ac- 
 count of his baptifm, &c. 
 
 At a meeting of the church (or covenanted brethren) 
 Feb. 28, 1805, they voted unanimoufly to fend for a council 
 of Baptift minifters to come and afllft them in the following 
 particulars, viz. ift. To adminifter Chriftian baptifm to 
 them ; 2d. To conftitute them into a church upon the prim- 
 itive Baptift platform ; 3d. To fet over them in the Lord, 
 the Rev. Daniel Merrill, to be their minifter. 
 
 Agreeably to their requeft, Meflrs. Pitman of Provi- 
 dence, Baldwin of Bofton, and Williams of Beverly, ac- 
 companied by a number of brethren, took paftage at Salem, 
 at 8 o'clock on Thurfday evening the 9th day of May, in- 
 ftant, and arrived at Sedgwick the Saturday following, at 
 one, P. M. Lord's -day, half paft 10 o'clock, Mr. Pitman 
 preached from A&s v. 20. After an intermiffion of half 
 an hour, Mr. Baldwin preached from 1 Cor. iii. 9. After 
 another intermiflion of a few minutes, Mr. Williams ad- 
 dreffed the people again from Prov. xxv. 25. At 6, Mr. 
 Baldwin preached again, from Sol. Song, i. 8. 
 
 Monday, May 12, at 2, P. M. the council formed, and 
 then adjourned until the next day. At 3, afTembled in the 
 meeting-houfe, and Mr. Williams preached from John xiv. 
 21. After which proceeded to an examination of the can- 
 didates for baptifm, until the day was fpent. 
 
 Tuefday, 1 3th, examined a number more candidates. At 
 half paft 10, Mr. Williams preached particularly on the in- 
 flitution, from Ads ii. 41. Immediately after, we repair- 
 
REASONS 
 
 FOR. 
 
 SEPARATING 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 EWERJL SYNOD OF ULSTER, 
 
 Y ALEXANDER&6aRSON, A M, 
 
 Ti.btrmcre, Ireland, 
 
 CO.ND EDITION. 
 
 . . — r— 
 
 -L^l- ' Ml ... ' . 
 
 ivjt ai cordii 
 
 iii". io. 
 
 I [irael, that they 
 -, aii(\ let them meafure the 
 1 if ail that the) have done, 
 Jnew them fhion therepj 
 
 -. i:i thereof,, and all the 
 
 tn.d all the Iprrns 
 
 ami write it in their fight, 
 
 ■ form thereof, and all the ordinan- 
 
 . . k. xiiii, io, i], 
 
 EDINBURGH; 
 PP.I.vTIO BY J. RITCHIE. 
 1 Aikman. and \ JoiiNiTo?7E, rdir.bur, 
 ;<.. \Vilm iMio:<f, Glal'gow i and 
 E. Leslie, Dundee. 
 
 33c 6. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 EVery Chiiftian is a member of two kingdoms 
 perfectly diitin<fi, but perfeclly compatible in 
 their interelts. In each of thefe, he has peculiar 
 duties, in the difcharge of which he is to purfue a 
 very different conduct. As a fubjecl of civil govern- 
 ment, he is called to umeferved, unequivocal obe- 
 dience, without waiting to inquire into its nature and 
 quality, or even the legitimacy of the title of thofe in 
 power. If he underftands his Bible, he knows that 
 s< the powers that be, are ordained of God," and that he 
 mull " fubmit to every ordinance of man, not merely 
 tor wrath, but alio for confeience fake." In Britain he 
 will fubmit to monarchy ; in America to a republic ;. 
 and in France be will obey, without puzzling himfelf in 
 determining whether Buonaparte is a legal governor, or 
 a ufurper. But it is not fo in the kingdom of Chriff. 
 Here jt is his duty in every thing to judge for himfelf, 
 and in no inilance to be the difcipie of man. He is 
 commanded to examine, not blindly adopt the dogmas 
 of his fpiri; ual guides. He is r.o where required to 
 f> r ~> and fubmit to that form of church government, 
 under which he has been educated, or to which he nmy 
 at any time have thought it his duty to attach himfelf. 
 He is enjoined to " prove all things, and to hold fall only 
 that which is true." He is (Thrift's i'reedman and 
 fliouldnot fuffer himfelf to become the fervant of man, nor 
 to be lettered by human fyilems. 
 
 Convinced that this is both the duty and privilege of 
 every Chrifrian, I have largely and ltiiuitJy examined 
 the original nature, and prefentjlatv of that church * in 
 
 * 1 2ts obliged fometimes in t is pamphlet to ufe the 
 rd church in this common sccep ation, though cot fo 
 '. ul'ed m any p?.rt of the New Teltamest. 
 
which I was educated, and In which I have for foma 
 yer.rs a&ed as a minifter. I have examined, and am 
 convinced, that both in plan and admimjhation, it is 
 contrary to the word of God. It muff appear to every 
 man of candour, that I could have no interefl in deciding 
 as I have done. Every intereft of a worldly nature 
 was furely on the other fide. The day I gave up my 
 connexion with the general fynod, I gave up all that the 
 world efteems. I facrifice not only my profpe&s in life, 
 and my refpeclability in the world, but every fettled 
 way of fupport. It is ufual for men to defert a church 
 under periecution \ I have delerted one in the tide of 
 her profperity, or as fome of her friends fpeak, in her 
 *' meridian glory" If people never begin to think any 
 thing amils in their religion till they are perfecuted for 
 it, or till fuperior honours and advantages are held out 
 to view, they have reafon to fufpeft. their judgments. 
 But when wealth and refpeftability in fociety are in tie 
 gift of the church, when one of her members fits in judg- 
 ment upon her, (lie is likely to get a fair trial. A man 
 is not apt, upon flight grounds, to reafon himfelf out of 
 his living, his friends, and his reputation. It will not 
 be out of whim he will exchange eafe for labour, refpecl 
 for calumny, prefent competency for the naked promife 
 of God. Notwithstanding this, 1 am perfectly aware 
 that the worft motives and defigns will be attributed to 
 me. 1 would indeed know little of human nature, and 
 lefs of the Bible, if I did not expect the reproat! 
 the world. If they have clled the msfter of the houfe 
 Beelzebub, much more thofe of his household. — He him- 
 felf experienced fuch treatment from the world, and 
 he knows how to fuccour his children in like cncum- 
 fiances. 
 
 The divine right of the prefbyterian form of church 
 government, it may be exp^cird, will now become the 
 preftnt truth among all feels of prefbyterians in this 
 country. Their inveterate rage againlt each other, wiil 
 for a time be fufpended, that they may unite agdinft the 
 common eemy. Every puip-t will refound with the 
 cry of in . ovation ', m >ny ai affecting jeprtfentation will 
 be given of the fufferings of our worthy forefathers, in 
 
erecting the venerable fabrich. I would caution Clin- 
 ic fuller themfeives to be impofed on by fuch 
 ft declam.itions. The appeal on both lule-. muft 
 be to the Scriptures ; not a Hone of the fabrick can 
 be lawfully relied on any other ground. If clafikal 
 prefbytery is in the New feftameut, let its advocates 
 Come forward, and fairly refute my arguments* I have 
 no j-ct but truth, and whatever may be publilhed 
 againlt my pamphlet, in a Chriftian and candid manner, 
 fnall receive every attention. But let them not lole 
 then temper, n^r fubititute railing for argument. Nei- 
 ther let them nioble round the furface of the fubjecl, 
 but let them enter into the eflknce of the debate. It 
 any are convinced, let them beware of Hiding convic- 
 tions. Let them not differ interefl, prejudice, or the 
 fear of reproach, to deter tliem from obeying the leajl 
 of the commandments of Cbrilt. " Whoever (hall be 
 a.hamed of me and my words in this finful and adulter- 
 ous generation, of him alfo fli a 1 1 the Son of man be 
 alhamed when he cometh in the glory of his Father 
 with the holy angels.'' Mark vi'ii. B.— " Fie that 
 loveth father or mother more than me, is not woithy 
 of me \ and he that loveth ion or daugl ter more than 
 me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not 
 his crofs, and followeth after me, is not worthy of 
 me. Ke that findeth his life (hall lofe it, and re that 
 loleth his life for my fake, (hall find it," Mat. x. 37.—' 
 39* 
 
 Though I am decidedly convinced of the complete in- 
 dependency of the apoltolical churches, and of the duty 
 of following them, I would not be underftood as pi 
 undue importance upon this point. Chriftian 
 denomination I love, and I will never 1 hope I 
 
 my hand, or my countenance from any who, after im- 
 partitl investigation, confcientiouily differ from me. I 
 can from my heart fay, " Grace be e who 
 
 love our Lord Jefus Chrilt, in fi:;cerity and t 
 Pity indeed, while theie are fo few friends < f 
 that thofe ihould h i-'our hard thoughts of each ■ tbcr 
 for confcientious d fferences. But let it not 
 ed from this, that 1 ihall " know any man accou!; 
 b 
 
the flclh," or avoid freely cenfuring whatever I iudge 
 unfounded in fciipture, out ot compliment to any ttiend 
 
 who may countenance it. This would be to " waik as 
 men." 
 
 In endeavouring to overthrow the fyflem of prefby- 
 teiiar.iim, 1 have only i.iTaulted the main pill irs of the. 
 edifice ; if I have luccteded, the rcof and all the rub- 
 bifti will fall of courie. The voluminous defences of 
 prefb)iery, of former days, I confider too il ale to 'be 
 particularly noticed. 1 wait till their advocates recog- 
 nize them. But though every pin of that fyltem could 
 be proved to be divine, it would not affect my opinion 
 ot tie duty of feparating from the fynod. I would 
 ftand upon ground ltill tenable 1 do not ilirink from dif- 
 culTion. Truth will finally prevail. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 *^^^^» 
 
 CHAP. Pag. 
 
 I. Reafons a priori, why it is probable that 
 the Soiptures contain a divine model of 
 
 Church Government, I 
 
 II. If there be a Model of Church Govern- 
 ment in the New Teftament, what is the 
 nature of that form we are warranted to 
 expect ? . . . . t . . 9 
 
 III. On the Obligation of Apoftolical Practice, 21 
 
 IV. Prefbytery Examined, . . . . 29 
 V. Of the Office of Lay-Elders, . . 39 
 
 VI. Of Independency, .... 50 
 
 VII. The Independency of the Apoftolical 
 Churches proved from the Apoftolical 
 Injunctions, and inferred from other cir- 
 cumftances in the Epiftles, . . 65 
 
 VIII. Objections Anfwered, . . . • .72 
 
 IX. Reafons why fome are apt to conclude, that 
 
 there is no Church Model in Scripture, 80 
 X. Character of Church Members — or the ne- 
 
 ceffity of Pure Communion, . . 87 
 
 XL Objections Anfwered, ... 06 
 
 XII. Additional Realons for Separating from the 
 
 General Synod, .... 104 
 
 XIII. Objedions v Anfwered, . . , 118 
 
REASONS, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 REASONS a priori * why it is probable that the 
 Scriptures contain a Divine Model of Church 
 Government. 
 
 NOTHING can be more unfair than to determine 
 a priori, with an air of demonftrative certainty, 
 what muft be revealed in Scripture ; and then to open 
 the book and compel it to favour the hypothefis. We 
 are not arrogantly to prefcribe to God what he muft 
 reveal : our conclufions upon what is proper to be re- 
 vealed, muft be ultimately determined by a candid in- 
 fpeftion of the facred volume itfelf. Controvertifts 
 upon the fubjecl of church government have frequently 
 abufed this argument ; and have, as it were, almoft fet- 
 tled the difpute without opening the Bible. Their 
 favourite fyftem muft be there, and they are determin- 
 ed to find it. In proportion to the poverty of fcrip- 
 ture materials, is there a wider fcope for imagination : 
 where Scripture fails them, high probability will amply 
 compenfate for the deficiency, and is even more conve- 
 nient, as it will vary according to the neceffities of the 
 different writers. 
 
 A 
 
 * By a priori, T mean thofe arguments that render it pro- 
 bable that there is in the New Teftament a Divine Model 
 of Church Government, previous to the inveiiigation of 
 Scripture, and I ufe it here and elfewhere to prevent a cir- 
 cumlocution. 
 
But though this argument has been abufcd, we are 
 not on that account entirely to abandon it. I appre- 
 hend that there is a legitimate ufe which it may have 
 on many queflions, highly ferviceable, if reftrained with- 
 in its natural limits. Though we are not warranted 
 to conclude with certainty, that there is a divine model 
 or* church government in the New Teilament, till we 
 prove it from itfelf, yet there may be reafons to render 
 the affirmative extremely probable ; which, when con- 
 sidered, will animate us in our fearch, induce us 
 to collect the fcattered fragments, and prepare us 
 to receive, with gratitude, even the fcanty pattern 
 which fcripture may afford. Suppofe I live near a river 
 on which there are many bleach-greens — after a flood I 
 find a web — I am anxious to know to whom it belongs, 
 for different perfons have loll. I inftantly conclude that 
 it will tell its owner itfelf — I open it and examine 
 the ends for the owner's name, but to my gre.it furprize, 
 though both are entire, I find no name. I recur to my 
 argument a priori - -I reafon thus: Can it be poflible 
 that a linen draper would be fo carelefs as not to mark 
 his cloth ? This web is entire — therefore certainly it 
 rauft have a mark, though I cannot difcern it. Encou- 
 raged by this, 1 unfold the web, and glance haftily over 
 it from end to end , but no maik can I find. Sh ill I 
 give over ? No ; the principle upon which my expec- 
 tation is founded, Temains unfhaken, therefore it rauft 
 be owing to my unfkilfulnefs that 1 am unfuc- 
 cefsful. I am not accuilomed to the buiiuefs, and 
 therefore the mark has eluded me. I begin again- -- 
 I fearch more leifurely, not a thread of the woof 
 efcapes my rye. As I advance I fee forae little itrokes 
 marked thus (n. Jl) — this cannot, 1 fay, be the m.uk; 
 However I will keep it in view. 1 proceed again, and 
 in a little I find fome other of the fame unintelligible 
 fpecks (hh) Strange! what does this mean I Thefe 
 are not lettevs fay I, yet they are not accidental. I ad- 
 Vancein hopesof fome clearer diicovetv, hu f all I can ob- 
 tain is fomething like the red ' * ")— The thought 
 occurs to me to bring thefe together, and try what 
 will make when joined. At lalt, after trying and tilt- 
 
o 
 
 ing them a thoufand ways I make A H. Overjoyed, I 
 exclaim, this h Mr H — 's my neighbour's web. Juft 
 fo I reafon, and fo I acl, upon the fubjeft under confe- 
 deration. I fee an evident neceflity for fcriptural di- 
 rection on this, head. I percevs itrong antecedent rea- 
 fons to expeft that the New Tellament will contain the 
 model of the- apoftolical churches for our direction. 
 With thefe lentiments I open the Bible ; I read and 
 read, collect and compare, and when I get the fcatter- 
 ed fragments to make nn harmonious whole, I am not 
 doubtful of its divine origin. 
 
 1. Human manners are much affected by the differ- 
 ence of civil government. The genius of the confti- 
 tution gives a turn to general manners and modes of 
 thinking. Nations have their characleriftic habits and 
 cuftoms which the philofopher can trace to this fource. 
 May not the fame effects be expected from particular 
 forms of church government '? This influence may not 
 be difcernible in a companion of two individual Chrift- 
 ians, trained under different forms of church government, 
 but will be fenfible when feels are compared in the bulk. 
 The government that is moft fpiritual will unavoidably 
 communicate a tin£lure of its fpirit to the mafs of its 
 fuhjecls. Now, if the mode of the government of the 
 church be in the fmalleft degree influential of manners, 
 I cannot conceive that Chrift would leave this to human 
 difcretion. 
 
 2. The different theories which have been adopted 
 on this fubjecl, have materially influenced the fentiments 
 of their refpeclive advocates, not only in the explanation 
 of the paffages of fcripture immediately concerned, but 
 alfo of many in which they are not under the influence 
 of a party fpirit. All fcripture truths have a mutual 
 connexion, and it will often inevitably happen, that adopt- 
 ing a wrong theory upon one point, will lead us into 
 other miltakes in the interpretation of fcripture, or hide 
 from us the true key of analyfis. To thofe who have at- 
 tentively fludied this controverfy, it will appear evident 
 that the elucidation of many places in fcripture is affect- 
 
cd by it. Now, if a difference of opinion on this ftibject 
 affeft the explanation of other paffages in fcripture, theie 
 is, befides its own importance, an additional reafon why 
 it is worthy the interpofition of God. 
 
 3. The general fenfe of profeffing Chriftiar.s in all 
 ages, argues the neceffity of fcriptural direction on this 
 point. This argument is ufed with fuccefs in favour of 
 revelation, and I fee no reafon why it fhould not have 
 all its weight here. The great bulk of profeffing Chiift- 
 i«r.s have in all ages fuppofed, that they have found in 
 fcripture, at lea!t the ground-work of their refpcclive 
 plans. When was the divine right giving up ? Not 
 till the enlightened advocates of worldly churches faw 
 that it could no longer be pleaded with advantage. 
 When they found that the witnefs would not fpeak in 
 their favour, they endeavoured to keep him out of court 
 left he fhould fpeak againft them. 
 
 4. Either unanimity on this point is not a duty, or 
 the fcriptures muft afford us the means of effecting it. 
 Now, the apoflle frequently calls our attention to this 
 as a duty in all things. True, indeed, perfect unanimity 
 is not to be expected j but is this the fault of a defective 
 revelation, or of our remaining corruptions and blindnefs ? 
 There can be nothing a duty which is not revealed. 
 Our differences about the fmalleft matters in religion 
 are owing to ourfelves, and not to a want of fcripture 
 direction. Now I know of no way to effect unanimity, 
 but by propofing felf evident truth;, or the authority of 
 God in revelation. That the mode of church govern- 
 ment does not belong to the former, is fufncier.tly evident 
 from experience ; it mull therefore belong to the latter. 
 But unanimity upon this point is confcquenlially oi more 
 importance, than upon many others of more intrinfie 
 importance. Upon many other points, if Chriitians have 
 differences of opinion, they have it to themfelves 5 upon 
 this their difference affects each other. Either I mult 
 fubmit to be ruled by the opinion of my neighbour, by 
 a church government which I think Chrift did not ap- 
 point, or he mult do fo to me, 01 we muft form differ* 
 
5 
 
 ent feels. Now upon many other queftions perhaps 
 more intrinfically important, each of us may hold our 
 own opinions, and bear with each other in the fame 
 church. I cannot think then that God would l«ave us 
 without fcriptural direction on this matter. 
 
 5. Will there ever be a day when all fe&s (hall 
 coalefce ? I can fee no reafon to doubt of this. With- 
 out it, I csnnot conceive that perfect harmony, the fcrip- 
 tures, with the general confent of profefling Christians, 
 give us reafon to expect. Discrepancy on this point is 
 too great to be confident with the increafe of knowledge 
 of the latter days. Whether is this to be effe&ed by a 
 new revelation, or by a more plentiful effufion of the Spi- 
 rit upon Chriftians, and a greater attention to the revealed 
 will oi God Is there any other way in which revelation 
 cant filet this union, but by giving us a model, or direc- 
 tions on this point ? I think it not fuppofable, that the 
 want of amodelinfcripture would be a means of unitingall 
 Chrilt ians. For if there is no model or direction in fcrip- 
 ture, unanimity or unformity is not a duty. This would 
 be faying, that the opinion that union is not a duty, 
 would effe£t union. Never would there be a greater 
 variety than when this notion mould prevail. To effect 
 union, on this fuppofition, it would appear to me to be 
 neceffary to enlarge the powers of the human mind, 
 beyond what hath ever yet appeared in man. The fub- 
 limeft geniufes on earth have their differences of opinion 
 on every thing but felf-evident truths. But to effect 
 union in this manner is derogatory both to revelation 
 and the office of tke Holy Spirit. 
 
 6. There cannot be that prompt, cheerful, and duti- 
 ful obedience to church rulers, if the model and laws 
 of the church be not in fcripture. If church rulers 
 have a difcretionary power to ena£t laws, they may abufe 
 that power, and therefore their decrees muft be received 
 with examination and caution. Thus there may be 
 a difference of opinion with regard to their propriety j. 
 and, at all events, the conviction of the duty of obedi- 
 ence will be more flowly and circuitoufly obtained. 
 
 A3 
 
6 
 
 This will gradually introduce either a fp'uit of difobe- 
 dience, or of abject fervility, famong church members. 
 They will be led either to flight the authority of church 
 judicatories, or receive their dictates with a flavifh fub- 
 mifllon. The truth of this remark is abundantly evi- 
 denced among thofe fefts which more or lefs claim the 
 right of acling according to circumftances ; of enacting 
 iaivs of expediency and difcretion. The people are ei- 
 ther the flaves and dupes of their church rulers, receiv- 
 ing the decrees of ecclefiaftical affemblits, as the dic- 
 tates of heaven j or they make light of, and defpife their 
 authority. Complete, unequivocal, cheerful, and con- 
 fcientious obedience is to be found only among thofe who 
 dire not command without opening their commiflion, 
 and appealing to the laws to which they enforce obedi- 
 ence. Here there is no room either for difobedience on 
 the one hand, or flavifh obedience on the other. Church 
 members fee clearly they are not obeying man but 
 God. 
 
 7. Either all forms of church government are alike cal- 
 culated to promote edification, or if one is better than 
 another, that which is belt will be fo evident, that all 
 Christians will readily agree in it, or the fcriptures mutt 
 afford us fufficient means to difcover it ; otherwife they 
 are deficient. I know not that there are any who will 
 agree to the firlt, and it appears from fa6t that the fecond 
 is not juft. In the fame times, in the fame city, we find 
 almoft all the varieties of church government that have 
 exifted in times and countries the molt remote. Now, 
 if it is a matter of importance to adopt one form rather 
 than another, and if the children of the fame family as 
 well as the inhabitants of the fame city, will differ in their 
 opinions on this fubjcct, it would appear to be a matter 
 worthy of divine interference. If there is no divine- 
 model, I cannot fee how God is not to blame for all the 
 variety of fedts occafioned by difference of fentimer.t on 
 this fubjedt. If we are left to our own judgment and 
 prudence, there can be no fin in ufing them} and a vari- 
 ety of fefts is the unavoidable confequence. 
 
8. Whatever is left to human difcretion in religion, 
 is of fuch a nature, that there is no room for the weakeft 
 Chriftianto err, nor the leaft foundation to difpute j nor 
 would the fmalleft advantage have accrued to the church, 
 by having thofe things determined, which are left 
 undefined ; but on the contrary fuch a determination 
 would have been attended with inconveniencies. Such, 
 for inftance, are the times of meeting for public worfhip 
 on the Lord's day, the order of the fervices, &c. Who 
 ever complained that thefe things were not confined ? 
 Would it have been of any advantage to Chriftians, that 
 Chrift had appointed certain ftated hours for public wor- 
 fhip ? Nay, would not this have been attended with many 
 inconveniencies ? But it is quite otherwife with the point 
 in queftion. The determination of this would have 
 been attended with no inconveniencies, but with many 
 and important advantages. The leaving of it unde- 
 termined would give unavoidable cccafion to diffention 
 and fchifm. 
 
 9. Civil government and legislation require the high- 
 eft exertion of human genius, and the greater! men who 
 have written on the fubje£t, are by no means agreed 
 even in theory, what is the form belt calculated to pro- 
 mote the happinefs of mankind. In what refpeft is 
 church government a lefs important or difficult matter 
 than civil government ? nay, I conceive the former to 
 be the more difficult, by how much the government of 
 the mind is more difficult than that of the body, and the 
 more important as fpiritual is greater than temporal hap- 
 pinefs. Is it then fuppofable that Jefus would leave a 
 matter of fuch importance to the difcretion of man ? Be- 
 fides, Chrift's difciples, upon whom this duty would de- 
 volve, are the unfitteft imaginable for fuch a bufinefs. 
 They are generally " the weak things of this world." 
 True indeed, they all have fpiritual wifdom, for " they 
 are all taught of God 5" but this requires political rather 
 than fpiritual wifdom. It is evident that every human 
 form of church polity is. and muft be, on the model of 
 the mod approved civil polities. A Chriilian then to 
 be calculated for a legislator in the church mult have 
 
8 
 
 the qualifications of a civil legislator. But the great 
 body of Chriltians are deftitute of thefe prerequifites. 
 They mutt then either yield to be led implicitly by the 
 few learned and enlightened men among them, or be li- 
 able to the greateft miftakes. 
 
 io. I fuppofe there is not another queftion in religion 
 about which fo much human blood has been Qied, or on 
 account of which the earth has been filled with lb much 
 confufion, as this very queftion. Does not this argue 
 the neceftity of a divine model, that God may be vindi- 
 cated, and the blame be wholly attachable to man ? 
 
 T I. If no divine model had been given, it would have 
 been impoflible to prevent ambitious men from impos- 
 ing on the fimplicity of the multitude, and promoting 
 fchemes for their own aggrandizement, under the fpeci- 
 cus cover of zeal for religion. Such men as Diotrephes 
 would always aflame the pre eminence. Antichrift 
 would on this fuppoiuion have iome apology. Nay, in 
 fuch a cafe fome fort of Antichrift is unavoidable 3 and 
 it is not very material whether he be one man, or fe- 
 ver?! hundreds. I do think, then, that to leave the 
 Chriltians of the firft ages without excufa — that men 
 may be clearly chargeable with the guilt of rearing and 
 nuituring that monfter, it was neccffary that a divine 
 model fhould have been given, from which the frnalleft 
 deviation was Snful. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 If there.be a mode of Church Government in the 
 New I'eflament, what is the Nature of that Form 
 we are warranted to expetl ? 
 
 i. That form of church government which is prac- 
 ticable in all countries, ages and circumftances, is likelier 
 to be the Scripture model than one which is not. Now 
 there is no country, age or circumftance, in which the 
 independent plan is not practicable ; but to make either 
 prefbytery or prelacy practicable, there muft be a num- 
 ber of congregations formed in a particular dillricl. If 
 there were but a fingle congregation in a kingdom, the 
 independent government would not be affected ; if eve- 
 ry individual of a nation were a Chriftian, it is equally 
 adequate. In the former fituation prefbytery could not 
 exift ; in the latter, if there were a fufficient number 
 of pallors for every congregation, a general affembly 
 would be altogether unwieldy. Independency is not 
 fitter for one country than another j prefbytery and 
 prelacy are each peculiarly fuited to one form of civil 
 government rather than any other. The former was 
 fuited to the Republic of Geneva, the latter to the Ro- 
 man Monarchy. Independency meddles not with 
 the ftate, but in things civil, confcientioufly obeys 
 '• the powers that be," whatever be their form or 
 quality. 
 
 2. That form of church government that is capable 
 of the leaft abufe, is the likelieft to be divine. Now 
 unqueftionably this is independency. If a particular 
 church on this plan degenerates, becomes erroneous, or 
 indifferent, it has no power to injure others, or draw 
 them into its errors. If all the independent churches 
 of a nation were to degenerate except one, that one 
 
10 
 
 cannot be compelled or overawed into their errors. 
 But it is quite contrary with preibytery. When one 
 congregation becomes dead or erroneous, it has an in- 
 fluence on all the reft : and when fuch become the 
 more numerous, they have power to corrupt thofe 
 that are more pure. On the other hand, in a pe- 
 riod of general lukewarmnefs or apolla'cy, if any 
 particular independent church be irapreffed with the 
 duty of reformation, there is nothing in their connec- 
 tion with other churches to clog or prevent them ; but 
 a congregation in fuch a fituaticn among prtfbytevians 
 would find the whole weight of the connection hanging 
 upon them, and that it would be abfolutely impoffible 
 for them to fucceed, without bringing the majority of 
 the whole body to their mind, or by feparation. 1 
 know indeed it is faid that preibytery is better calculat- 
 ed to prevent error from creeping into congregations, by 
 the power the majority claims over the minority. But 
 how fhould one man or one congregation keep another 
 from error > By compulfion or perfuafion ? I apprehend 
 there is no lawful means for one church to keep another 
 from error, but by remonftrance and exhortation. Nay, 
 there is no other method can be fuccefsful : if this fails, 
 pains, penalties, imprisonments, confifcations, and death 
 would be ufelefs. Force may make hypocrites, but will 
 never make a Chriftian. A law of fynod may prevent 
 a miniller from preaching error, as to the five points, 
 but can it enable him to preach " the truth as it is in 
 Jefus ?" Will it enable " the blind to lead the blind, 
 without both falling into the ditch i n Where is the 
 great difference between poiloning the fheep, and ftarv- 
 ing them ? But let the hiilory of fynods vouch their 
 utility and efficacy in retraining error, and prefcrving 
 vital religion. They may, for a time, preierve ortho- 
 doxy in the letter, but midnight darknefs may reign 
 with an orthodox creed. " 1 he natural man cannot 
 know the things of the Spirit, becaufe they are Spiri- 
 tually difcerned." Vital religion feems in a great ruea- 
 fure extinguished, even among thofe feels who make the 
 higheft pietenfions to orthodoxy. A violent wrathful 
 Ipirit of party, and an ardent zeal for human forms and hu« 
 
11 
 
 man creeds, feem pretty generally fubftituted for fpiri- 
 tuality, and catholic Chriilian love. Now all the means, 
 of remonftrance, perluaiion, exhortation, and en- 
 treaty are equally open to independent churches, to 
 preferve each other from backfliding and error. An 
 independent church may reform other churches, but can 
 receive no injuiy from them : a prelbyterian congrega- 
 tion may be injured by its connexion, if they are cor- 
 rupt, butVannot leform them in any other way than 
 what is praclicable by an independent church. I con- 
 clude then, that as indeperdency hath all the advan- 
 tages without any of the diladvantages of prefbytery, 
 as to their influence of connexion, it is more likely to 
 be the fcripture plan. 
 
 3. It is a maxim in philofophy as well as in divinity, 
 that God does nothing in vain. According to this, if 
 all the ends of government can be obtained in an inde- 
 pendent church, all foreign interference being ufelefs, 
 cannot be appointed of God. That a church under this 
 form of government can fubfift in vigour, is evident from 
 experience j and that it is capable of exerting all necef- 
 iary influence in preferving others from backfliding, we 
 have alfo feen. What poflrble advantage can be gain- 
 ed by a numerous fubordination of courts ? If a light 
 licit of fur be fufficient to prelerve my head from the 
 weather, why w ill I cover it with a mill- Hone ? 
 
 4. That form of church government which cannot 
 preferve purity of doclrine without human expedients, 
 is not fo likely to be the Scripture model, as that which 
 can attain and preferve the higheit pofllble degree of 
 vital religion, as well as purity of doclrine, without ad- 
 mitting, in any inttance. the devices of the wifdom of 
 man. Now it is generally acknowledged by prefbyte- 
 rians themfelve<;, that it is in:p<;flible to prelerve uni- 
 formity of opinion among them, without a formula or 
 confeffion of faith to be publicly regognized by their 
 members. Now, it mull be evident to every unpreju- 
 ciccd perfen, that there is no formula in the Scriptures. 
 That eonftitution, then, that requires one to maintain pu- 
 
12 
 
 rity, is not likely to be of God. The fame may be 
 argued from the neceflity they are under, to decide 
 by majorities, inftead of uniformity •, dcbarances, 
 invitations, tokens of admiflion to the Lord's table, 
 &c. 
 
 5. That form of church government that leads us moil 
 to the fcriptures, and requires in church-members the 
 greateft acquaintance with them, is the moft likely to 
 be that of the New Teftament. Now, without an in- 
 timate acquaintance with the Bible, independents cannot 
 advance a ftep in church affairs. I might Jfpeak from 
 what I have witneffed of the knowledge of the fcrip- 
 tures among independents. I fpeak only of its neceflity, 
 arifing from the conftitution of their churches. With 
 them it is absolutely neceffary not only in church rulers, 
 but private members. The Bible is their code of laws ; 
 they have no other confeflion or book of difcipline. 
 They can do nothing without it ; it muft be continually 
 in their hand. The rulers rule only by the word of 
 God. — But a man may be a prefbyterian a-11 his life, 
 either pallor or private member, with a very {lender 
 
 'acquaintance with the Bible. The knowledge of forms 
 and of ancient ufages, of ecclefiaftical canons, and books 
 of difcipline, are the chief qualifications that are nectf- 
 iary for a prefbyterian judicatory. 
 
 6. That form of church government that needs moft 
 the prefence of God and prayer, is the moft likely to be 
 the Divine model. — Now the independent is the only 
 plan in which there is, ftricYly fpeaking, room for the 
 manifej} interpofition of God. There are inftances in 
 which prayer is their only refource. Their doing all 
 things by unanimity, creates a peculiar neceflity for pray- 
 er. If there be but one member of a different mind 
 from the reft, it is the fame as if there were the one 
 half. In fuch a fituation, the promifed prefence of Je- 
 fus is their only refuge j prayer is their only remedy j 
 and when the difficulty is thus removed, which perhaps 
 will fcarcely ever fail, if explanation, remonftrance, and 
 intreaty be affectionately applied, all the praife will be 
 
13 
 
 feen to belong to God. — On the other hand, a prefby. 
 terian court can proceed as independent of God as a 
 court of civil juftice. True, indeed, it is ufual to afk 
 him to prelide •, but can they not proceed fmoothly 
 enough without him ? Is there ever a Situation in which 
 they are not as competent to do bufinefs, and fettle the 
 mod critical affair, as the parliament of England? I cannot 
 think, then, that an inltitution is of God's appointment, 
 which does not need God's prefence. 
 
 7. That form of church government which is mod 
 favourable to liberty of confcience, in which the indi- 
 vidual experiences the leaft undue influence in deter- 
 mining his- principles and conduct in religious matters, is 
 the moft likely to be the fcripture model. — The fcrip- 
 tures are the only rule of faith and practice, and every 
 man is bound to judge of them, and determine their mean- 
 ing for hi.-nfelf. He may ufe < e I p s to understand them j 
 but if he understands rhem differently from others, he is 
 bouua to a£t upon his own belief, rather than that of 
 another. Now this liberty can be completely enjoyed 
 as a righ' in no other than an independent church. 
 True, indeed, in fome prefbyterian connexions, indivi* 
 duals mayenjoy all the liberty they defire ; but does tiis 
 flow frum the nature of the constitution of claffic il pref- 
 bytery, ov from the indulgence, or indifference of thofe 
 connected with them ? The very leading idea in pref- 
 by tery, that for which it is moft prized by its greateft 
 admirers, is this very power of reftraining principle and 
 conduit in matters of religion, if prefbytery is robbid 
 of this power, what end does it ferve ' Ir i< then nothing 
 more than a feleftion of members from different congre- 
 gations met for counfel and advice. But where is the 
 prefbytrry that a£ts folely upon this principle ? V there 
 be any, they are, as to conftitution, a fort of independents. 
 There are indeed prefbyterian connexions in which indi- 
 viduals may be Socinians or Caivittifts, but this is the re- 
 fult of connivance in the general body, and not the ge- 
 nuine frui: of pr..-fbv f ery. Whenever the body choofes 
 to claim its right, a majority may compel an individual 
 to embrace every fhibboleth of their creed, and direft 
 B 
 
14 
 
 and cjrcumfcribe his labours as they plcafe. But view 
 genuine preiby Try ;-.mong the ftiiclrr feels rnd it will 
 clearly appeal that in all things dure mufl be a com- 
 plete uniformity. Forbearance is not known. 1 do not 
 fay that we are bound to hold religion intercourfe with 
 any individual, or body of men, that we judge deHitute 
 of the truto. But as long as we can look upon a m^.n 
 as a brother born again and walking in the command- 
 ments of God. we are bound to exercife forbear, nee to- 
 wards \\m in other matters of comparatively lefs impor- 
 tance. But if there are fome preib terian connexions 
 liberal as to principle, are they equally fo as to religious 
 conduct ; Can any of their members enjoy the pi ivilege 
 of idling for htmfelf, as well as of thinking ? Is he not 
 amenable to their b-ir, if he tranfgrefs any laws of theirs, 
 rlthough he judge them contrary to the laws ot Chrift ? 
 1 conclude, then, that although fiom connivance, there 
 may be more liberty of conlcience in fome prefbyterian 
 connexions than others, yet as a power of companion is 
 inherent in the very nature of prtibytery, it is not likely 
 £o be the fcripture model. 
 
 * 8. Nothing is more univerfal'y felt in the human 
 heart than ambition. Nothing our Lord found more 
 difficult to reprefs in his immediate followers. That 
 form of church government, then, which affords the few- 
 eft incitements to ambition, is likely to be the model 
 which he would pitch upon. Here alio, the indepen- 
 dent will ftand foremoft. It is not capable of an adult- 
 erous alliance with the world. Its Qpiiitual nature has 
 no charms to tempt the meretricious embraces of world- 
 ly men. Though prefbytery is not the molt exaepwon. 
 able in this vietv, yet it is not without objections. It 
 has been courted by, and wedded to the world, and a 
 hideous progeny has iflued from the connexion, it has 
 fought for, and in its turn obtained temporal power and 
 riches j and whillt it held the fword, it was more like to 
 IMahomet of Mecc?, than Jefus of N zateth, II e for- 
 enfic nature of their courts, -jllo, is loo much calculated 
 to fofter pride, by inducing men to afpire to be the le;.d- 
 
ers of patties, and make a figure in affembiies, collected 
 from tveiy paft of a province or kingdom. 
 
 9 If there he any particular model of church govern- 
 men: in tne New ledament. 1 is probable that the en- 
 lij.lreneci advocates of it will reit the caufe on the fame 
 foundation, however various may be their arguments. 
 For if feveral intelligent men embrace the fame model, 
 and have the fame means of information, they have every 
 inducement to unarrin |ty, and if uninterefted, ot unpreju- 
 diced, are likely to defend it on the fame .general ground. 
 If they take different and oppofite bypothefea to ferve 
 as a ground wo\k for their fuperitruclure, they are not 
 likely to have had a common ground in fcripture. Now 
 t.ie advocates of prefbvtery take quite different grounds 
 to reft it on. Some defend the whole machine as di- 
 vine, to the fmalleft pin. Others pretend to fee only 
 the fkeleton in fcripture, with a power to fill up the 
 outJines. Others defend it as a lawful human fyftem, 
 upon the ground that we are bound to no particular 
 mode of church government in fcripture. Some find 
 the prefbyterian elder in fcripture, and fome make him 
 only a prudential human expedient. Some give him a 
 feat in eccleiit Heal . ffemblies in his own right ; others 
 in right of the people whom he reprefents. — They are 
 as divided alfo about the right of nomination of elders. 
 Some give this right to tne congregation, or feat holders, 
 whether fervants of Chriit or of Satan j others claim it 
 for the old feffion. Now, I think the inference which 
 any rational difinteretf ed, unprejudiced roan would 
 draw from this, is, that they have no common fource 
 from which they draw their ideas. If they had, cer- 
 tainly prefbytcry would not be fuch a caraelion. If they 
 all faw the fame picfture in the fcriptures, furely they 
 would not give fo many contradictory accounts of it, 
 when it was their interert to agree. If prrfbytery had 
 been in fcripture, of all its friends Dr. Campbell o£ 
 Aberdeen, was the beit able to defend it ; yet Dr. 
 Campbell gives up its divine right, and proves beyond 
 contradiction, that the apoftolical churches were inde- 
 pendent. If ever prtfbytery could be found in fcrip» 
 
16 
 
 ture, the luminous and penetratiog mind of Dr. Campbell, 
 who lived and died at the head of a Scotch univerfity, 
 would certainly have traced it. The pen that hath fo 
 unanfwerably overthrown -the Jus divinum of the church 
 of England, would not have failed to have eftdbliihed 
 the church of Scotland on that enviable foundation, had 
 it been poffiule. 
 
 10 The end of church government, and church meet- 
 ings of every kind, mult be the edification and growth 
 of the members, and the promotion of brotherly love. 
 That form which is belt calculated to promote thefe 
 ends, is the moil likely to have been initituted by Chrift. 
 Now, we might reft this upon matter.-, of fa£t, in favour 
 of the independents ; but we lhall content curlelves by 
 obferving, that their peculiar advancement in experi- - * 
 mental religion, deadnefs to the world, di votednefs to 
 Chrift, zeal for his caufe, and love towards the brethren, 
 are much the refult of the principles ot their conftiu- 
 tion, in which they are diflinguifhed from other ftxicties. 
 Some of thefe are their feparation from the wo lc into 
 a fpiritual communion, in which they can all 'eok upon 
 each other as Chriftians, upon good evidei.ee — their fre- 
 quent church meetings, and mutual public exhortations 
 —the care and watchiulr.efs that eveiy member has over 
 every other as his ' brother's keeper," and not commit- 
 ting church powet to a few — the opportunity of dilco- 
 vering every talent, and occupying even the fmalleft in 
 its proper fphere— the clofe union of all the members 
 ricn and poor, each acling on the other as the different 
 wheels of a watch fet in motion by the main fpring. 
 Their church order refembles the Macedonian phalanx, 
 which fo long as it kept its ranks, w as invincible. There 
 is htre no pofllbility of playing the coward ; each en- 
 courages, and in a manner compels the other to do his 
 duty, as a good loldier of Chrift. When individuals are 
 under temptation to give ground, nnd begin to backfhde, 
 the wlole body acls as a rere rank, to encourage t! era 
 to behave valiantly, to fuppoit them when overpowered, 
 to give tbem an opportunity to rally when they are 
 thrown into confufion, to prevent them from running 
 
17 
 
 from the field of battle, and to pufh them on again to 
 the engagement. The gre<<t piety and seal, discovered 
 in individuals of other feels, is no objection to this. Such 
 perfons would have been Itiil more eminent, had they 
 enjoyed a purer communion r l leie may be h'plthy 
 men in a very unhealthy climate. This, however, would 
 inot induce any man to lay. that India is as health ;.il a 
 climate as Ireland. Compare the nature of the church 
 conliifutions, and then compare the general body of the 
 members of the one, with that of the otl er, nnd if jou 
 are unprejudiced, you will rot be lor.^ in fpt-.ce. I 
 forbear to draw a piclue of the generality < f p-efbyte* 
 rian connexions : it is really too hideous to be reviewed. 
 Befides. many of the evils among fome of them, are 
 not the neceflary refult of the prt fbyterisfh conltitu- 
 tion. 
 
 II. Chrifl's inftitmions father their ifelves. If a child 
 had been loft, and after man> 1 pretenders 
 
 had come to the father, and there be nbt fu'ilV lent evid- 
 ence from tellimony to determine between them.' would 
 it not be very proper to look for a refemblanc'e to the 
 parents, and their other children, eit! er in bodily ap- 
 pearance, temper, or genius ? If fuch a finking r^fem* 
 blance is found in any of them it will be inftahtly' 4 con- 
 cluded that he jathers him/elf.— In the fame manner it 
 is reafanable to expect a family likenefs fo all the ordi- 
 nances and work^ of God. Let us the;i apply this rule 
 in ^fcertaining the divine legitimacy of the form of church 
 government. Chrift has had fi:ch a child, but he has 
 been exchanged at the nurfe, and a vile impoftor rus 
 been impofed upon the world, during all the dark ages 
 of the reign of Antichritt. Since the refos motion, vari- 
 ous pretenders have laid claim to the honour of heaven- 
 ly birth, h might be highly ferviceable in judging of 
 their pretenfions, to compare the feature's, mien, temper, 
 and genius of each claimant, with thofe of the fatherland 
 rm other undoubted children I fh >ll content rm fell" at 
 prefent, bv examining and tracing a few of he linea« 
 saents of two of them, prefbvtery and independency* 
 £3 - 
 
18 
 
 God's wifdom is foolifhnefs to the world, and the wif- 
 dom of the world is foolifhnefs with God. Whatever, 
 then, be the divine form of church government, it is evi- 
 dent that it muft not be one which would he fuggefted 
 by human prudence or policy, that it may appear to be 
 of God, analogous to his precedure in other inftances, 
 and having a neceflity for his prefence and guidance. 
 It mult be one which would appear defective and inade- 
 quate, in the eftimation of the wifdom of this world, 
 that God may have all the glory of upholding it himfelf. 
 This is exactly the manner of the Divine procedure in 
 tvery other inltance. The wifdom of the world expect- 
 ed Chrift to have appeared in far different and oppolite 
 circumflances, and to have acted in a quite contrary 
 manner, in erecting and eftablithing his kingdom : but 
 the Divine wifdom appears in this, that the Almighty 
 power of God is manifeited in accompliming what had 
 evidently no other fupport. As the gofpel was fiiff pro- 
 pagated by means the moll unlikely to fucceed, in thero- 
 felves the molt inadequate j to mew that the unfeen hand 
 of God upheld and lpread it, and that the Divine pro- 
 cedure be confiftent, it feems neceffary that the govern- 
 ment be feen folely to reft on Immanuei 's moulders. 
 As this King was introduced and inaugurated, and his 
 kingdom ertcted in a manner directly the reverfe of hu- 
 man prudence and policy, fo alfo is it probable will he 
 govern it. To conduct the government of his king- 
 dom upon any of the plans of human governments by 
 meafures and affcmblies formed upon a worldly model, 
 wou'd be inconfiitent with the whole conduct and proce- 
 dure of Jefus. 
 
 Now, if there be any jufiice in this reafoning, a very 
 child may apply it to the point in hand — nay, let our 
 enemies themfeives be the judges. The very arguments 
 by which they fupport prefhytery, the very objections 
 which they make to independency, fully prove to which 
 of them this character belongs. Prefhytery has every 
 feature of a child of this world's wifdom. It is entirely 
 a political inftitution, every part of it analogous to civil 
 polity. In this view, it is leally a vigorous republic, 
 
19 
 
 and fo far as its power extends, it fhews that it knows 
 well how to exert it. Its decifion, by majorities, inftead 
 of unanimity ; reprefentation in ecclefiafticai affemblies ; 
 fubordination of courts j and the right of appeal ; forms 
 and etiquette of bufinefs, &c. are all borrowed from the 
 world. On the contrary, independency, like Chrift 
 himfelf, has never approved itfelf to the wifdom of this 
 world. Nay, the only arguments that can plaufibly be 
 urged againft it, is its inlufficiency for any other than 
 primitive times. In no civil institution in the world, are 
 the diftinguifhing features of independency to be found. 
 It could not govern a private family ot unregenerate 
 men. It has been called by thofe who did not under- 
 if and its conflitution, the pureji democracy, hut it is evi- 
 dent that it is rather a Chrijlocracy. Chriit alone gov- 
 erns. There is not a law or regulation left to the wif- 
 dom of man. What civil government ever exifted, in 
 which the unanimous confent of every member was necef- 
 fary, in every inltance ? Human affairs could nevei be 
 conducted in this manner, r.or could a body of unconver- 
 ted men be governed in a church in this way. Nothing 
 but the unfeen, almighty power of God could have pro- 
 tected and propagated the gofpel, in the circumftances of 
 its appearance, oppofed by all worldly powei> : nothing 
 but the prefence and power of Jefus could make the ample 
 machine of independent church government, effeft its 
 end. I conclude, then, that if a likenefs to God, and 
 an analogy to his procedure in other inftances, be any 
 token of childfhip, independency, and not prefbytery, 
 is the lawful heir. 
 
 But let us purfue the comparifon in fome other inftan- 
 ces, and we will fee that prefbytery has not a feature of 
 the family. In all the inftitutions of God there is a -re- 
 markable fimplicity, but claflkal prefbytery is the moft 
 clumfy and complicated machine that could poffibly be 
 invented, and a tedious round-about way of fettling dif- 
 ferences, and tranfacling church bufinefs. Several hun- 
 dred men, from the moft diftant parts of a province or 
 kingdom, meeting annually, befides all their fubordinate 
 meetings, is a thing that bears no refexnblance to the fiio- 
 
20 
 
 pile i ty of other gofpel inftitutions. When united Ic 
 thofe, it is like a lober, plain-dreiTcd gentleman, with a 
 huge military hat and feather j or like a fmall neat chapel 
 with a towering fteeple. But peep for a minute into 
 thtir general fynod or alTembly. What pomp, what 
 ftatelinefs, what importance do they ^ilume ! See yon 
 young orator artfully apologizing for his youth, and this 
 aged gentleman looking importance from his years of 
 Handing. Stop a little ; here is rudenefs ; ■' chair .'" 
 "chair /" there will be a quarrel about a trille ; " but the 
 apoitles quarrelled at feiufalem." — Here now are feve- 
 ral days lpent, and what is done ? Nothing about religion 
 for its advantage ; nothing but what could have been 
 done to better purpofe in any congregation. 
 
 I might trace the picture much further, but I (hail 
 only barely mention, that preibytery is too expenfive 
 for a Ci kingdom not of this world." The other children 
 of the family live on a trifle j. if this is the heir, he is a 
 Take. 
 
21 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 On the Obligation of ApoQolical Praflice, 
 
 Having given fome reafons to (hew the antecedent 
 probability of a divine model of church government, 
 with fome obfervations with refpeft to the plan we are 
 entitled to expect, before I proceed to ex?mme the 
 fcriptures reflecting the claims of prefbytery and inde- 
 pendency, I fhall endeavour, in this chapter, to ettablifh 
 the obligation of the practice of the apoftolic churches. 
 Not that this is more neceffary to me than to the true 
 pre/by terians, but becaufe it is beginning to.be fafhion- 
 able with the members of worldly churches, when they 
 are oriven from the fcriptures; to take refuge in the li- 
 berty of deviating from the example of the cpnflles *. 
 
 i . The combined weight of all the arguments a priori, 
 fall into the fcale of the obligation of the example, of the 
 apoitolical cnurches. We cannot pofitively determine 
 what the Biole contains, till we examine it; but if there 
 be every reafon antecedently to expect a divine form of 
 church government, and if it isp >fiible to trace the practice 
 of the apollolical churches, is there not every reafon to 
 look upon this as the divine model, exhibited in the fcrip- 
 tures as an univerfal pattern ? The arguments a priori, I 
 grant are inconclulive, if no form could be pointed out from 
 the fcripture ; but if it be poffible fo 'fcertain th' confti- 
 tution of the apoftolical churches, I fee no good reafon 
 why they 'mould not have their full force. Like an 
 in figures, they draw all theii value from their fituation > 
 
 * Dr Stillino fleet is the great patron of thi? hypothefis. 
 In his Irenuwn he endeavours to unite prefbytenans and 
 episccp-iiunb by pirtpofing a feheme o' a lort of prtfbyieiian- 
 cpiscopacy But to tffcd this, it was nectfTary for him to 
 rid himfUf of the obligation of taking tlie apottles of Jtfus 
 Chu:1 for an example. I originailv intended to have fol- 
 lowed the Doclor through his p-rformanre ; but I found I 
 could not do lb without exceeding all bounds. 
 
22 
 
 Handing alone they are worth nothing; united to the 
 approved apoftoli&l practice. I do not fee •■: their 
 
 worth c.»n be depreciated or then force invalidated. 
 
 If a divipe plan of church government be extremely 
 neceff-uv, by what authority does any man reje& the 
 apoftolicai ? 
 
 2. Not only the general fenfe of profelTing Chriftims 
 is on the fide of the obligation of apoftolicai example, 
 but the very advocates or fe contrary opinion evi.ient- 
 Jy betray their chagrin, that st i' not in their Savour. — 
 H w anxious are they to cattfh at every thing that looks 
 like pproving of their respective c lurche* 1 What a- 
 bundant pains do they take to de'ed every part of the 
 
 of t ! eir adveri.iries, that is not ipoftolic 
 feci goes as far as it can in company with the apolties 5 
 it u not 'ill they cannot follow, that the apoitle* are 
 acknowledged p.s'inlufficient guides. Did ever any man 
 t $nhfk oi this bypothefis, till he found npoflolic-d practice 
 agaihft him ? Could any of the woildiy churches produce 
 uniform apdftolical practice on their fide, how would 
 they triumph ! 
 
 3. If the apoftolicai churches are not a mof'el to us, 
 then all thofe numerous fcriptures that are employed in 
 defcribing thsm, or in giving them direcli ins, are ufeiefs 
 to us. Why is fuch lumber contained in the word of 
 God ? Ail fcripture is faid to be " given by infpiration," 
 and " to be neceflary ;" but if we are not to imitate the 
 apoi-olica! churches, there, are many paffages in the New 
 Teftament that are now abfolutely ufeiefs. Accordingly, 
 it is very evident how uninteresting fuch portions of 
 fcripture are to all that hold themfelves at libetty to 
 deviate from apoltolcal practice, buch perfons have a 
 much more barren and jtjune revelation than others. 
 
 4. Either the apoftles acled by divine direction, or by 
 their own wifdom, in the constitution of churches. If 
 the latter, they would undoubtedly have told us fo.— 
 But if, as there is every reafm to believe, they acted by 
 divine command, the form of church government they 
 
23 
 
 inftituted, can never be changed but by the fame autho- 
 rity. If any form is better than another, furely the 
 npoitoiical is the bell. It c mnot then be a matter of 
 indifference whether we follow the belt, or adopt a vvorfej 
 If the rio.y Gbolt had judged it expedient to dopt a 
 diffttcnt loim in a different period, or in different cir- 
 cumitiinces, would we not have fome intimation of it ? 
 Without a Divine licenfe we are not at liberty to alter 
 or infringe in the fmalleft degree. We may as well af- 
 fume the right of altering any other apoftolical inftitu- 
 tion, as that of church government. 
 
 5. There can be no danger in the clofeft imitation 
 of the apoftolical churches. Is any man lure that he 
 does not difpleale God by refufing to imitate them ? Be- 
 tween the certainty of pleafing, on the one fide, and the 
 poffibility of offending on the other, the choice which 
 a Chriftian (hould make, is evident. 
 
 6 No peifon who pleads the authority of apoftolical 
 example for the firft day Sabbath, or any other purpbfe, 
 can confiftently reject it in this inftance. 
 
 *j f A plan in model, and not in fyftematic defcriptioo, 
 is waat we are entitled to exptft. A direct and formal 
 treatife on the fubjedl, which fome people look for, 
 would be altogether anomalous in {cripture. After- ages 
 are no where addreffed but in the perfons. as it were, 
 of the apoftolical churches : we are not known but as 
 tnembers of them. Whatever is f.iid to them, is faid to 
 us. 1'hus our Lord, promifing his continual ptefence 
 with his fervants in preaching the gofpel, addreffe them 
 all in every age, in the peifon of the apoftles then pre- 
 ient, •' Lo I am with you alway to the end of the world.' 1 '* 
 *' Where two or three of you are met, there am I." 
 The apoftlts alfo, fpe king of what was to happen in 
 every after-age, addrefs thofe to whom they write as 
 concerned, and Warn them of what was to happen to us 
 and our fuccefl'Mrs to the end of the world. *' We, 
 " which are alive and remain unto the coming of the 
 " Lordj.ihall not pieveut thtm which are alleep.'*— 
 
24 
 
 Here the apofile addreffes, in the perfon of the church 
 of tie I heiTilonians, which then Was thofe Chriftians 
 which (hill be on the earth at the time of the kcor.d 
 coming of our Lord. I mi^ht quote innumerable ex- 
 amples, were it neceffary Now this being the cafe, 
 that after-ages are addieiTed only in the perfon of apof- 
 tolical churches, how ablurd is it to expecl a formnl trea- 
 tife on church government ? Every ncctffary inftru&ion 
 mult have been given in the forming of the churches. 
 How prepofterous would it be for an apoftle, after he had 
 formed a church, and left it, to write a treatife to that 
 church on the method of forming a church ! All then that 
 can be expedted, is an incidental account of apoftolical 
 practice. The fubjeft cannot be formally, but inuirecl:- 
 ]y, and. as it were, unintentionally handled. Suppofe, 
 for inftance, the apoltle Paul had founded the churches 
 of Edirburgh, and after his departure, had written - let- 
 ter to them, to eftabliih them in the faith : would any 
 rational man expecl: a treatife on the conltiuuion of a 
 church, which he had already conftitut'-d • No, all we 
 couid expeft, would be an allulioii to what he had done. 
 1 fay, then, according to the analogy of the manner of 
 revelation, there js not room for any other inlornntion 
 on church government, than an account of apoftolical 
 practice. Here, 1 think, Dr. Cambell fails of his u!ual 
 acumen, or he would not have expedled the fubjecl trea- 
 ted in " another n<anner," upon the luppnfition, that we 
 are abfolutely bound to the conftitution of apoftolical 
 churches. But lome othei obfervations on this fubject, 
 I will referve to another place. 
 
 8. The tabernacle itfelf was made according to mo- 
 del, and not from a verbal delineation, or treatife. 
 *' Mofes was admonifhed of God, when he was about 
 to make the tabernacle. For fee, (faith he.) that thou 
 make all things according to the pattern (hewed to thee 
 in toe mount. ' Now we have alfo a pattern in the 
 mount, for our New Teftament chuiches, exhibited to 
 us, in thole ot apoftolical conftitution. — To this pattern, 
 we are to look for every part of our conftitution and 
 dilcipline. Let every man t ke care that he make every 
 thing in a gofpel church, after the pattern of that ex- 
 
25 
 
 hibited to us in the fcriptures. This is a divine model ; 
 to add to it, or take from it, will fpoil the beauty, and 
 diminifh the ftrength of the building. 
 
 9. We are often called upon, to be followers of the 
 apoftles, without any exception or limitation. — By what 
 authority then do any except from this rule, the conduct 
 of the apoftles, in the formation of churches ? From eve- 
 ry general command, I think there can be no lawful ex- 
 ception, but what is impoffible, finful, or otherwife de- 
 termined. If we are called upon without referve, to fol- 
 low the apoftles, 1 think the injunction extends, not mere- 
 ly to their conduct as men, but particularly as our exam- 
 ples in all church affairs If I jultifya quarrelfomedifpofl- 
 tion from the ex ample of Paul and Barnabas, I am co. ulemn- 
 ed by the fcriptures. But this quarrel was not record- 
 ed for nothing. It is for an example^ to j^uardus againft 
 fuch a temper. If any one would contend tor the duty 
 of celibacy, from the example of Paul, his example, in 
 this, is declared not to be binding. If any man would 
 take it into his head to work miracles, like the apoftles, 
 this is impoffible, withost receiving the power of an a- 
 poftle. Yet thefe, and fuch as thefe, are the mighty ob- 
 jections alleged by Dr. Stillingfleet, againft the obliga- 
 tion of apofto!ical example. But I afk, is the imitation 
 of apoftolical churches finful, impoffible, or otherwife 
 deter mined, in anv part of fcripture. If not, I demand 
 a reafon for excepting it from the general injunction *. 
 With what reafon, then, does Dr. Stillingfleet refufe, 
 
 * Not only the conduct of the apoftles in the churches, 
 is exhibited as an example to us, but their very antecedent 
 characters, as well a? their after-trials, fupports. joys, &c are 
 recorded for our encouragement, inft rudtion, or example, 
 to avoid or practiie. The great defignof the Almighty, in 
 allowing the rebellion of Paul to proceed to fuch a height, 
 is faid, to be an example to us, that the moft notorious tin- 
 ners mi^ht not be afraid to conr.e to Chrifi, 1 Fim i. 16. 
 Paul's declining to avail himfelf of his right to live by the 
 gofpel, and his working- with his own hands, are declared 
 to be for an example to Chriftians to fupport themklvesby 
 induftry, 2 Theff. iii. 9. 
 
26 
 
 *vith triumph, to be bound by apoftohcal example, till 
 we produce him an exprefs commar.d, for that particular 
 inftance ? May we not, with the fame reafon, demand a 
 pofitive command, at the end of every apoftohcal ex- 
 ample ? Here is a general command ; let it be (hewn, 
 why this particular inltance of the obligation of their ex- 
 ample, in the conltitution of apoltolical churches, (hould 
 be excepted. Befides, if the observation above bejuft, 
 that we are known only as members of the apoltolical 
 churches, what room was there for a command to after- 
 ages, as diltinit from that in which they wrote ? An ex- 
 prefs command to a church, to continue the form of go- 
 vernment, which an apoftle instituted, we would think 
 iuperfluous. This is always fuppofed, without a pofitive 
 declaration to the contrary. No, it lies not upon us to 
 produce iuch a command but on thofe who take upon 
 them, to let afide the obligation of apoftohcal example ; 
 it is certainly incumbent, that they fliould produce their 
 warrant. If God inftituted the independent plan, 
 before any man can warrantably deviate from it, it 
 behoves him to produce from fcripture a fpecific li- 
 cence. 
 
 10. But though the manner of divine revelation for- 
 bids us to expedt a dirc<Et addrefs to after-ages upon the 
 obligation of apoltolical practice, yet we have what is 
 equal to it. There are inftances in which an older, 
 completely organized apoltolical church, is exhibited 
 as a pattern to others, more imperfect. Now, if the a- 
 poftolical churches are exhibited as a model to others, 
 and if fome are prailed or blamed for their conformity 
 to, or difagreement from them, it is very clear, that the 
 apoltles intended that all churches, in every age, Ihouid 
 be upon the fame model 1 Cor. vii. 17. '• So or- 
 dain I in all churches." 1 Cor. xiv. 33. " For 
 God is not the author of confufion, but of peace, as in 
 all churches of the faints." Here, the fame order is in- 
 timated to exilt in all churches. But how is God the 
 God of order and peace in all the churches of faints, if 
 he has not ordered every thing bimfelt ? If he has lett 
 men to choofe their form of church government, and to 
 
27 
 
 male laws for themfelves, could it be faid, that l:e is noff 
 a God of confufion ? Ihe confufion th<it would exift 
 on that furpofuion, would be boundlels and endiefs. 
 I Cor. xi. 16. '• We have no fuch cuftom, neither the 
 chuiches of God/' Here the other apoftolical churches 
 are exhibited, as a model to this, i Cor. xvi. i. " Now, 
 concerning the collection for the faints, as I have given 
 order to the churches of Galatia, even fo do ye." Here, 
 the example of the churches of Galatia, is exhibited as 
 a model to the church of Corinth. Titus, i. 5. '• For 
 this purpofe. left I thee in Crete, that thou fhouldft fet 
 in order thf things that are wanting, and ordain elders 
 in every city, as I had appointed thee " Here, we fee, 
 that in letting in order the things that were wanting, 
 even the evangf lilt Titus was i^ot left to his difcretion,. 
 but was to a£t in every thing, as Paul had appointed, 
 Titus had his inductions, as an officer from his general, 
 Can we pretend to greater power ? 
 
 ri. Is it poffible for a church to exift and flourifti. 
 without obferving any other laws, rules, or regulations, 
 without any other offices, or modification of offices ; 
 without any other difcipline or fanclion of difcipline j 
 without any otner teft of admiffion, or means of pre- 
 ferving purity ; but what are to be collected from apo- 
 ftolical example and the (cattered information of Scrip- 
 ture ? Jf this queltion can be aniwered in the affirma- 
 tive, what apology can men plead for their innovations ? 
 The advocites for a liberty of deviating from the form 
 of apolfolicai churches, lay the weight of their caufe 
 upon this argument : " No form of church government 
 could anfwer all ages, countries, and circumftances." 
 What do men mean by this jargon ? Do they mean, 
 that no form would anfwer for a civil eftabliffiment 
 under every form of civil government ? Do they 
 mean, that none could be given to fuit the various hu- 
 mours of carnal men ? Yes, the true meaning of this 
 objection, if they would put it into words, is, that no 
 one form could be given to ferve as a part of a poli- 
 tical fyllem, under different forms of civil government 
 — that the fimple apollolical model, fuited only apoC» 
 
28 
 
 tolical times, being incapable of governing that mix- 
 ed multitude, of which all worldly churches CDniift — 
 and that it was unfuitable to the dignity of an afpir- 
 ing clergy. But thefe are' the very credentials of its 
 divine appointment. It is eminently calculated to go- 
 vern Chrift's children, who. like the Spartan youth, 
 have their minds moulded to their laws ; but it will al- 
 ways be found to fail, when members are ad fitted, 
 not of the character of the members of apoftoli- 
 cal churches. N*y, one impure member, if not cut 
 off, when detected, would ftop the harmonious proce- 
 dure of the whole machine, as effeftually as a watch 
 is flopped by the accidental admiffion of a hair. 
 But, can a man be pleated % ith toe proditation of his 
 wife ? Can Chrift be pleafed, or his caufe advanced, 
 by the proftitution of his ordinances ? S< all the fpiri- 
 tual kingdom of Chrift, change its appr nance, with 
 the fluctuating opinions of tije world ; the varying laws 
 of temporal kingdoms j or the caprice of carnal 
 men i 
 
29 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 PRESBYTERY EXAMINED, 
 
 Having, in the preceding chapters, dated fome rea- 
 Tons to render a divir.e model of church government 
 probable — having thevin iome chara&eritlics of that 
 which is likely to be the fcripture model— and endea- 
 voured to ellablith the obligation of apoilolical example 
 — let us now procetd to it quire, What is aBuatly the 
 mind of the Scriptures upon this point ? Let prefbytery 
 firlt come under review. One tiling I would premife, 
 as a caution to myfeU* and all who treat this fubjeft— « 
 Let us never forget, whtn we are interpreting fcripture 
 texts, that they are the words of the Holy Gbtift. He 
 that forces them, to make thenxcounteuance or avoid dif- 
 countenancing his fyilem, is guilty of an attempt to com- 
 pel the Holy Ghoft to fpeak a lie, and bear falie witnefs. 
 How guilty ! how infamous is the wretch that employs, 
 or compels another to petjure bimfelf to feive his in- 
 tereft ! But how much more criminal and infamous is 
 the man who would put a forced interpretation on the 
 language of the Holy One I 1 have heard a man fay, 
 that indeed it was very criminal to employ a perfon to 
 fwear a lie ; but if at an affizes he lhould run ihort of 
 an evidence, he would think no great harm of getting 
 one to fwear the truth for htm, though he was r.ot a 
 witnefs of the truth of the matter. 1 am afraid there 
 are loo many fcripture critics who act upon this princi- 
 ple. They lay it down as a matter indifputable, that 
 fuch a tenet is true, and exprtfftd clearly in fome paf- 
 fages of fcripture, and therefore they will let about to 
 filer.ee, or force other texts to compliance, by perver- 
 fion. .Let us then attend fimply to the tefiimony of plain 
 C3 
 
Scripture, in its plain acceptation. It is really the in. 
 tereft of the Christian, it he could allow himfelf to 
 think fo, to difcover and embrace truth, though ic fiiould 
 deprive him of the dearell earthly puffeflion. 
 
 Another thing that muft be attended to, by all who 
 plead for the divine right of any particular form of 
 church governn ent, is, that nothing be admitted but 
 what is clea: ly founded in the fcriptures, either in pre- 
 cept or example. Thofe ti<at pretend a divine model, 
 mult produce it, without the help of conjecture, or pro- 
 , Labilities, to complete it. 
 
 e great bulwark of Prefbytery, according to its 
 friends, is contained in the 13th chap, of the Acts of 
 -.' e Apoflles. Let us therefore examine this portion of 
 fcripture, by the rules of candid criticifm, and fee if in 
 any thing, it £,:ve "us countenance to this mode of church 
 government *. The matter of fa& related, feems to be this : 
 Certain teccr.ers had gone down to Antioch from Judea, 
 who had inculcated the neceffity of the observance of 
 Mofaic law. Fiom verie 24, it appears, that if they 
 were not actually fent out by the church of Jerufalem, to 
 preach th* gofpel, they at leaf! wifhed to have it uhder- 
 they had apoftolical authority. The church 
 of Jerufalem, in their letter, acknowledge that they 
 went out from them, and do not deny their being fent 
 by them ; but affirm that they had no fuch doftrine in 
 charge from them, as the circumcifipn of Gentile con- 
 verts. Previous to this, Paul and Barnabas had return- 
 ed thither from their fir It itinerancy. Of cenfequence, 
 thev oppofed this dodtrine ; and after they had much 
 fruitless difcufiion upon the fubjec"t, it was refolved by 
 the brethren in Antioch to fend Paul and Barnabas, and 
 certain others, to confult the apoftles and church of Je- 
 rufalem from whom thefe teach eis had come out. But 
 let us read the chapter with calmnefs and attention, and 
 
 * This fubjecl is fully and abiy difculL-d by Mr Ewipg 
 of Gtafgew, in "A Lecture en part of the 15th Chapta) of 
 the Ads of the Apoftles," v/hich "the reader would do well 
 to confult, 
 
31 
 
 we will fee that it contains not one feature of modern 
 prefbytery. 
 
 1. Where do we find here the Prefbyterian fubordi- 
 nation of courts ? Was the matter firlt tried by the 
 church felTion at Antioch ? Was it next carried to a 
 prefbytery ? Was this appeal from a prefbytery at An- 
 tioch ? Who fent Paul and Barnabas to Jerufalem ? 
 It will puzzle the molt metsphyficnl head to difcover a 
 feflion and a prefbytery, or either, at Antioch ; yet, if 
 it cannot be proved that this appeal came from a pref- 
 bytery of miniflers and lay elders at Antioch, the meet- 
 ing at JerufaU.n cannot be a fynod. 
 
 2. If this be allowed to be a fynod, it will cut oft* all 
 fupeiior and inferior courts. There cannot be a fupe- 
 rior court, for this determined for the whole Christian 
 world, and trom it there could be no appeal. There 
 cannot be fubor.iinate prefbyteries and church fefllons ; 
 for this appeal was not from any inferior court, but im- 
 mediately from the brethren at Antioch. I know it is 
 faid, that the prefbytery of Antioch deputed Paul and 
 Barnabas ; but it is eaiier to fay this than to prove it. 
 The antecedent to the verb " determined," is not clear- 
 4tf exprefled. The Ifrudlure of the fentence, if the 
 ienfe of the pafTage would admit, would allow Paul and 
 Barnabas, or the falfe teachers themfelves. or both to- 
 gether, to be the perfons, who " determined." But 
 this will make nothing for prefbytery j nay, it would 
 overthrow it. For jf Paul and Barnabas, or thefe with 
 the falfe teachers, or if the latter only, " determined" 
 to depute the meffengers, there is an end to prefbytery. 
 It is no unufual thing, however, in reading the Ntw 
 Teftament, to be obliged to look back a little for the an- 
 tecedent to the verb, or to take it from the general fenfe 
 of the paffage. The moil natural interpretation is, that 
 the brethren deputed Paul and Barnabas ; or that it 
 was done conjointly by the brethren, the falfe teachers, 
 and Paul and Barnabas. This is clearer, from the words, 
 as they ftand in the original, which are more Hterally 
 trar.iUted : " They appointed Paul ar.d Barnabas, and 
 
32 
 
 certain other of them, to go w/>,*' &c. The falfe teach- 
 ers could not appoint Paul and Birnabas to go up to 
 Jerusalem, nor is it likely they defired it, as they muit 
 have known that they received no fuch charge from that 
 church. But be this as it will, upon no fuppolitiou 
 could they have been fent by a prefbytery, becnufe no 
 fuch thing is mentioned in the connexion. Whatever 
 be the antecedent to tTxgxc,xv, it mult bt found among 
 the pertons lpoken of in tne preceding verfes. It may 
 as well be laid that the magiftrates of Antioch fent them, 
 as the fuppofed prefbytery of that place. There is the 
 f;rr.e evidence for the one as the other. Befides, if the 
 appeal had been from a piefbytery, w.^uld not the an- 
 fWer have betn to the aj-pe'i ints > Tie letter of the 
 church of Jerufalem would not have beer, addrttTcd to 
 the brethren, which are of the Gentiles, but to the 
 prefbytery of Antioch r 
 
 3. This aiTembly carried all thirgs by complete un- 
 animity ; therefore can be no model to any aiTembly, in 
 which a mpjoiity decides for the whole. Suppcie it to 
 have actuahy been a fynod, no decree of a modern fy- 
 nod could plead its authority, which was net carried un- 
 animously. 
 
 4. Suppofe this to h*.ve been a fynod, it only warrants 
 their meeting, as matter of difpute may arife among 
 the churches. It would give no countenance to te- 
 gular periodical meetings. But prtfbyterian courts 
 have their dated meetings, whether or not there be 
 bufinefs of importance to juftify their meeting. 
 
 5. The decinon of the church at Jerufalem was obii- 
 ga' orv, not only in the church of Antioch, which had 
 appealed, but upon all crurches in the world. In the 
 letter, verfe 23, Svria and Cilicia are exprefsly includ- 
 ed. And in Paul's fecond journey, he and his com- 
 panion gave the churches in the cities through which 
 they palTed, the decrees ordained by the apoltles and 
 elders at Jerufalem. Will any man fay, that there were 
 xeprefentatives from thefe places, in the Jerufalena 
 
O.J 
 
 affembly ? It cannot then be a model for a fynod, 
 where none are bound, but thofe reprefented. If fy- 
 nod» will quote this for a precedent, they mull: no long- 
 er confine themfelves to make laws for their own con- 
 nexion, but decide in matters of religion for the whole 
 Chriftian world. But as this affembly confifted folely 
 of the members of one church, if it be a warrant for 
 foreigfi interference of any kind, it will prove that an 
 individual church, confilting of its rulers and breth- 
 ren, mould give law to all the churches of the uni- 
 verfe. 
 
 6. By what authority is the meeting at Jerufalem 
 called a fynod ? Who were the members that compofed 
 it ? Were they not the apoftles, the elders, and the bre- 
 thren of the church at Jerufalem only ? Was there a 
 fingle reprefentative either minifter or lay elder, from 
 any other church upon earth ? Thofe who accompanied 
 Paul and Barnabas from Antioch, were not reprefenta- 
 tives but meffengers of that church to report the mat- 
 ter ot fa£r, and receive the decifion. Accordingly, 
 the letters are in the name not of a reprefentative 
 council, but of tne apoftles, the elders, and brethren at 
 Jerufalem, from whom the troublefome teachers went 
 out. How abfurd would be their language, upon the 
 fuppofition that there were reprefentativesinit, from the 
 church of Antioch, and others " For as much as we 
 have heard, that certain which went out from us."" Could 
 the Antioch, and other reprefentatives, put their figna- 
 tures to this letter ? Could they fay that they went out 
 
 from them ? They went out from the church at Jerufa- 
 lem, and no one could fay, " they went out from //J," 
 but the church at Jerufalem. The language " went out 
 
 from »/," plainly excludes from that affembly, all mem- 
 bers from foreign churches. 
 
 7. As there ware no reprefentatives in this meeting, 
 from any other church, h all the members or brethren 
 of the church at Jerufalem, were admitted. What 
 is there fimilar to this in preibytery. So far from be- 
 ing admitted into general meetings, they have no Ih3re 
 
34 
 
 in the adminiflration of the affairs of a fingle congrega- 
 tion. T.e minifter and elder*, are the fole jud^ 
 all difputes. The people muft make their mud known, 
 by petition to church courts Upon the fuppofition, that 
 tiis was a representative affembly, coniifting of mem- 
 bers from the different churches of Jude.d, Samaria. An- 
 tioch, &c. by what authority did the brethren of the 
 church at Jerufalem, take a (hare in the deliberations ' 
 Whit peculiar right had they over the brethren of all 
 other churches, to a place in this -ffembly ? Why did not 
 the church at Jerufaltm choofe reprefentatives, as well 
 as the other churches ? Or, if the Jerufnlerr. brethren 
 were to be admitted, why not all the members of al] the 
 churches, or at lead, as many of them as might choofe 
 to attend - 1 What prelbyterian affembly is fo conilitut- 
 ed ? This would deftroy the balance of power. The 
 admiffion of the brethren of the church at Jerufalem, 
 plainly fhews that it was not a reprefentative affem- 
 bly. 
 
 8. This was an appeal to infpired authority, which, 
 in alter ages, could be imitated only by appealing to 
 the spoftolical writings. The meffage was to the 
 apoltles, and to the elders, who were men endowed 
 with the gifts of the Spirit. This was nothing elfe 
 than our appeal to the Scriptures. The *«po{tolical 
 writings were not then in exillence \ the apoltles them- 
 felves were in the room of the New Feltament. There 
 was no other poffi'jle way of deciding the difpute. The 
 Scriptures that were then in being had nothing cxprefs 
 upon the fubjecl. But what queltion can now arife in 
 any church, which the Scriptures cannot determine. 
 They contain a full and perfeel rule of faith and prac- 
 tice. This queftion is fettled for ever, and the deci- 
 fion is a part of Scripture. Never can the fame, or a 
 fimilar, again recur. Paul *nd Barnabas, it is true, 
 were at Antioch ; but they, in tome fort, were esteem- 
 ed a party, by the judiizing teachers. Bolides this 
 important queliion. the condition upon which the Gen- 
 tiles were to b*. received into the church, behoved to be 
 difcuffed and fettled in the moll public manner, that the 
 
Jews in every part of the world, might the more readily 
 unite with them. Accordingly, it feems probable that this 
 was the time, and this the occauon, that Paul went up 
 to Jerusalem, by revelation, Gal. ii. 2*. The apoitles 
 might have decided the quellion themfelves, but it be- 
 hoved to be done in this manner, becaule it was a mat- 
 ter in which the church of Jerufalem was concerned, 
 as the falfe teachers had gone out from them, and be- 
 caufe they wiihed in this firft church, to give a puolic 
 fpecimen of tranfafling church bufinefs. This fhews 
 us, that matters of public concernment to a church, are 
 not to be fmuggled through a feffion, but conducted in 
 the prefence, and by the confent, of the whole bre- 
 thren. Though, then, it affords not a precedent for 
 one church to appeal to another, yet this portion of 
 Scripture will, to the end of the world, be uleful to 
 direcl: us in tranfadting church bufinefs. 
 
 9. The decinon of the church at Jerufalem was the 
 jffue of the infallible interpretation of Scripture, and 
 the voice of God in the previous onverfion of the 
 Gentiles. Peter arguts, that if God had already given 
 them conveifion without circumcifion, the matter muft 
 be already determined, as they were really already fa- 
 ved when they were converted. If* then, circumci- 
 fion, or the Mofaic l^w, bad been neceffary, they mult 
 have received it before converfion He argues from 
 their belief, that the Gentiles and themfelves fhould be 
 faved in the fame manner, that is, wholly through the 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, which could not be the cafe, if they 
 mutt be circumcifed. James proves the fame, by an 
 inference from a paflage of one of the prophets. Now, 
 none can plead this as a precedent for any body of 
 men to fettle controverted matters for others, who 
 c,in:iot plead the gift of infallible interpietation of 
 Scripture. 
 
 10. If the apoftles prefumed not to give their deci- 
 fio:i, without giving fuch reaions, upon which it was 
 
 * See Innes's Rcafuns, page 39. 
 
36 
 
 founded, how arrogant are thofe p.flfemblies, who make 
 their own opinion cf expediency the law of every in- 
 dividual ! \\ ere fuch sfitrr.blies of God's own appoint- 
 ing, yet, if their jioceedings are not directed by the 
 Scriptures ; if they cannot plead the fanttion of the 
 Scriptures for every decifion. their a£\s would be inva- 
 lid. Let fynods apply this criterion to their^lecrecs, 
 and it will at once fvveep away all their prudmtiat re- 
 gulations and human expedients, and every aft that can- 
 not plead txprefs Scripture. It will not be enough, 
 that fuch a thing is the " mind of this fynod" but that 
 fuch a thing is the mind of Scripture, the voice of 
 God. 
 
 II. No body of men can plead this as a precedent 
 to determine in matters of religiontor others, who can- 
 not preface their decree with ; " It feenitd good unto 
 us, and to the Holy Ghoji.''' 1 Without this, their deci- 
 fion is as invalid as an act of Parliament without the 
 fanttion of the king. 
 
 12. Whatever be the divine model of church go- 
 ■vernroent, it is in no mealure irsvefied with a power 
 of legiflation. The queftion of a right to make laws 
 according to circumitances, for the government of 
 Chrifi's church, and the inquiry into the divine ioim 
 of its government, are entirely diftincl. Whether 
 epifcopacy, prefbytery, or independency be of God, to 
 none of them can belong a right to enact new laws, 
 any more than to promulgate new doctrines. The bu- 
 firtl's of church lulers is not to make laws, but to exe- 
 cute the laws which they find enaded by Chtifi, in the 
 New Teftament. If an individual independent church, 
 were to take upon itfelf to enadl laws, draw up a plan 
 of rules and regulations for their government, and v\or- 
 fnip, I would have the fame objections to it, that I have 
 to prefbytery. To fuppofe a liberty to enact laws or 
 regulations, according to the exigence of circumftances, 
 is to artaign the competency of Chrift, as the King of 
 the church, and a declaration that he hath left the code 
 of laws imperfect. Executive and legiflative authori- 
 
37 
 
 ty, even in civil affairs, are entirely diftincl:, and in the 
 bed governments are lodged in different hands. The 
 parliament enacts laws, and the civil naagiftracy exe- 
 cutes them. As well might the civil magifi rates of a 
 ■county meet to frame laws, in imitation of the parlia- 
 ment, as church rulers plead the right of making laws, 
 becaufe the infpired apoftles of God did fo. Church 
 rulers are to execute the laws which the apofiles enac- 
 ted. Every new law is an a& of treafon againft Chrift, 
 and an attempt to rob him of the moil valuable prero- 
 gative of his crown. How aftonifning is it to hear 
 men arguing fo warmly, that Chrilf would not leave 
 his church without a form of government, who fuppofe 
 that he has left it without a fufficient code of laws ! 
 Surely it is as neceffary to have divine laws for the 
 government of (Thrift's church, as a divine plan of exe- 
 cuting tboie laws. If the laws are human, what avails 
 it that the plan of government be agreeable to the 
 Scripture model ? Were we then to allow that the plan 
 of church government, by fynods, &c. &c. was the 
 true one, (fill their bufinefs would be very different 
 from what it is. They would not meet as leg:fhtors, 
 but as jurors, to judge of the application of Chrift's 
 laws. Suppofe, for inflance, that a member of their 
 communion was charged with being an extortioner, a 
 reviler, a drunkard, &c. there is an exprefs law of Chrift, 
 thnt he fiiould become" a fubjcct of difcipline. Now, 
 their bufinefs would be to judge the offender by the law 
 of Chrift, examine proofs, and determine whether or 
 not the charge was fairly applicable. But it happens, 
 that this rule is given to the brethren of an individual 
 church, and not to a fynod or preibytery. 
 
 But the very idea of a right of legiflation in the 
 church of Chrift, fuppofes infallibility in the legiflators. 
 To fuppofe that Chrift would give a commiffion to men, 
 to make laws, and a command to his people tc* obey 
 them, while at the fame time, he would lesve fuch men 
 without infallible direction, is moniiroufly abfurd. If 
 fynodb are fallible, they may eincT; finful law*, and en- 
 force them in the awful name, and by the authority of 
 D 
 
33 
 
 teLord Jefus Chrifl. If they are not infallible, why 
 do they enforce their laws, as if they were infallible ? 
 Do they not enforce the fmalleft la*w they enaft, with 
 the fame rigour they ci;uld do a law of Gcd ; Nay, it 
 is very poffible to break many of the laws of God with. 
 impunity, while a law of fynod or prefbytery mult be 
 inviolable. If an individual approve not of any law, 
 the only redrefs he has, is to ftparate. He has no li- 
 berty to aft upon his own convictions. Thtir opinion 
 of expediency muft be his guide. Now, if they are 
 not infallibly right, why do they not leave individuals 
 to aft according to their own convictions ? Is not 
 this, to " teach for doftrines the commandments of 
 men ?" 
 
 r 
 
 Upon the whole, in the 15th chap, of Acts, we have 
 no precedent for any foreign interference among the 
 churches of Chriit. The diitinguilhing features in this 
 afiembiy, are not to be found, nor ever can be found, 
 in any affembly on earth. If it be alked, of what ufe is 
 this relation to us, if it does not warrant us to decide dif- 
 ferences in a Gmilar way, I would anfiver, that whenever 
 a text of Scripture is fo explained, as to be rendered 
 ufelefs to after-ages, I readily grant, that it certainly 
 mull be a forced explanation. But have we not here 
 a precedent for appealing to the apoltles. in all our 
 controverlies, as the church of Anticch did > Have we 
 not here a precedent of applying every doftrine, and 
 cbfervance, and rite and regulation of churches to the 
 ■word of God ? If the apoltles d:ew their conclusions 
 from this fource, (hall human prudence, and expedience 
 direft church rulers > Every tittle mult be brought "to 
 ihel w ?nd to the tellimony •, whoever fpeaks not agree- 
 able to this, it is becaufe there is no light in them." 
 Hav we not here an -dmirable model for the trandc- 
 tion of all church bufinefs. The queftion could, in- 
 deed, only be determined by apofiles ; but as it was an 
 affair in which the church at ferufalera was concern- 
 ed, and to give us a living model for tranfafting church 
 bufinefs, the apoltles ooniider the matter in conjiv.ftion 
 with the whole church. What a beautiful pifture does 
 
3D 
 
 it give us of a church meeting ! It is not a minifter 
 and feffion, nor the minivers and lay elders of a diftricl, 
 but the apollles, ekrers or pallors, and brethren. When- 
 ever the paftors and brethren of a particular church 
 come together now, they mud have the apoftles in their 
 , by whofe writings they ate to condudl all their 
 affaiis. i 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Of the Office of Lay- Elders. 
 
 Having, in the laft chapter', examined the pretentions 
 of prefbyterians, as founded on the relation contained 
 in the 15th chapter of the A£ts of the apofHes, I in- 
 tend, in this, to enquire into the validity of the office 
 of lay elders. Preibyterians themfelves are not agreed, 
 either as to the foundation, extent or prerogatives of 
 this office ; a circumftance that will go far, in the judg- 
 ment of every unprejudiced inquirer, to prove that the 
 office is not fcriptural. As to the fcripture authority 
 of lay-elders, fome refer us to the office of deacon. 
 " Though the name is not fcriptural, (fay they,) yet 
 the office is." But here I would remark, that the 
 names are not more different than the offices. A fcrip- 
 ture deacon is an officer in the church of Chrift, for 
 managing its temporal concerns, and attending to the 
 wants of the poor brethren. He has no concern in the 
 ruling of the church, more than the reft of the bre- 
 thren. A lay-elder is compounded of a New Tefta- 
 ment deacon, the half of a New Teftament elder or 
 paftor, as he is a church ruler, and a part of the office 
 of an apoitie, as a legifiator, to make laws for the 
 church. In the fuperior courts, he is looked upon by 
 fome as a reprefentative of the people ; by others as 
 the reprefentative of his own order. In either view, 
 
40 
 
 his office h derived from our ideas of civil policy ; for 
 there is not the (h idow of any luch reprcientation ru the 
 word of God. It is abfyrd in trie extreme, to found 
 his Office on that of the Scripture deacon, iVciny it ex- 
 tends fo much farther. If he is the fame *as the deacon r 
 let him do the deacon's office onlv. Befides, if he be 
 the de.icon, why has he been called elder ? Has not the 
 father the beft ri«ht to give the name to the child ? 1$ 
 not the Spirit of him who inftituted the office, the beft 
 judge of the mod fitting n^me ? Efpecially as the name 
 was appropriated to another order in the church, why 
 was it chofen ? If men thought that they could give a 
 more proper and decent name to this office, than the 
 Spirit of God had done, which is not a very modeft 
 fuppofition, why did they take that which he bad af- 
 iigned to paftors } Has not the tendency of this been 
 to miflead the EngLifh reader, and make him believe, 
 that where he meets the word elder, in the New Tef- 
 tament, the prelbyterian elder was intended, and not the 
 pallor. This has been one of the moft fuccefsful artifi- 
 ces of prieftcraft in all ages. But there are others who 
 pretend to find both name and office in the New Tef- 
 tament, and produce as their authority, I Tim. v. 17. 
 " Let the elders that rule well, be counted worthy of 
 double honour, efpecially thty who labour in word and 
 doclrine." '" Here (fay they) is an evident diftinclion, 
 between ruling and teaching elders. There mult be 
 fome elders to rule, and others to teach." To this I 
 arifwer, 
 
 I. Allowing the prefbyterlan explanation of this text, 
 in its utmoft latitude, what does it make ? Granting 
 that there ffiould be a body of lay elders to join with 
 the preaching elders, in ruling a church, does this give 
 any counten mce to a church feffion as. a body of legilla- 
 tors, to make laws, rules, and regulations for the con- 
 gregation ' Their being church rulers, does not confti- 
 tute them church legillators. Upon this fuppofition, 
 their oufinefs would be to carry the laws of Clriif into 
 effect, not to make laws. Neither would this give any 
 countenance to a minifter and feflion, exclufively judg- 
 
41 
 
 ing of the application of difcipline, and engroffing the 
 whole power of the church into their own hands. 
 Whether the elders of a particular church be all pallors, 
 or fome ruling, and others teaching elders, to neither 
 would belong the fole right of judging when the laws of 
 Chrilt were to be applied. If a brother was accufed, the 
 whole church would judge him according to the law of 
 Chrilt;, and if he is found guilty, the bufinefs of church 
 rulers is to execute the law of Chrilt, which the church 
 has judged applicable ; juit as a judge pronounces the 
 verdict found by the jury. But a church feffion is not 
 only a parliament to make laws, but a jury to judge of 
 the application of both their own and Chrift's laws. 
 The brethren are entirely excluded. They may lodge 
 a complaint, or appear as a witnels, but in judging of the 
 guilt or innocence of the accufed, they have no (hare. 
 I do not ftay here to (hew that this is contrary to the 
 apoltolical commands, in which the whole church is in- 
 truded and charged with judging of the application 
 of difcipline. This I intend to fhew in another place. 
 What I would obferve here, is, that according to their 
 own interpretation of this text, there is no foundation, 
 for the legiflative or exclusive judicial authority of 
 church feffions. 
 
 2. Allowing, from this text, an order of ruling el- 
 ders, diltinct from teaching elders, this gives no coun- 
 tenance to a body of what are called by-elders : that 
 is, men not invefted with the p;ltoral office. Such rul- 
 ing elders would be as really pallors, bifhops, miniilers, 
 &c. as the preaching elders. The office of a preach- 
 ing elder would not be fuperior to that of the ruling el- 
 der The ruling elder would be a paftor of the church, 
 inverted with the perioral character, in as full a man- 
 ner as the preaching elder. The only legitimate con- 
 clufion that could be drawn from this interpretation, 
 would be, that in every chu'ch there fhould be two or- 
 ders of ministers, the ore for ruling, -nd the other for 
 preaching ; and that neither of thefe had a right to in- 
 terfere in the department of the other. Tht preach- 
 ing elder was not to rule, any more than the ruling el- 
 D 3 
 
42 
 
 3er was to preach. The preaching elder, then, fliould 
 not prefi.de in the fefiion, nay, he iliould have no feat 
 in it, any more than tne ruling elder fliould have in the 
 pulpit. If the one is only to rule, the other is only to 
 preach. If the one mull not mount the pulpit, neither 
 mull the other fit in church court. All theo that can be 
 fairly inferred from this interpretation, is, that in the pa- 
 floral office, there are two diftindl departments, which 
 fliould not interfere with each other ; that thole ap- 
 pointed to rule, fhould rule ; and thofe appointed to 
 preach, fliould preach j which inftead of fervin^ would 
 overthrow, from the foundation, the whole prelbyterian 
 fyflem. If, then, we fliould allow that there is in this 
 text, an order of ruling elders, diftincl from another 
 order of preaching eldeis, ftill fuch ruling elders would 
 be pjftors or biihops, and nothing a kin to preihyteiiafc 
 elders. Nay, the ruling elders would be more eminent- 
 ly, if not exclusively, the bilhops or overleers. Over- 
 light furely belong* rather to the ruler, than the preach- 
 er. 
 
 3. Is it poffible that two orders fo different as that 
 of minifl ers and lay elders, (hould be called invariably in 
 Scripcure, by the fame name ■> is this like the perfpicuity 
 of the Bible > Is it probable, that when the New Ief- 
 tament writers employ fo many words to denote the 
 fame office, hs bifliop, prefbyfer, ihepherd, &c they 
 could not afford a diltindt. name for tie office of lay el- 
 der if it was apoilolical - L this agreea ile to the ufe of 
 any language, upon any fubjtcl Elpecially, is it agree- 
 able to the genius of thj philofop'iic language of Gieece, 
 where every [hide of difference in idea, is nruiked by a 
 different word," expreflive of ii r But the Englilh ree- 
 der of the riaoft common underflanding muft be con- 
 vinced that it is impoflible for the Greek t\ord jrgec£v- 
 t.^;; to denote two lo widely different officers hom the 
 ule of our own woid elder. I hough this is the exacl 
 tranflation of the Greek word, and in the estimation of 
 pre(h\ teiians mull include both minilter and lav-t-lder, 
 yet to avoid confuuoii, it his been appropriated by them 
 to denote the latter only. What preibyten..n {peaks 
 
43 
 
 promifcuoufly of minifters and lay-elders by the com* 
 mon name elders ? Or who would underftand him if he 
 did } Yet fuch undefined, indetermined language, they 
 fcruple not to put into the mouth of the Holy Ghoit. 
 If ever they ule the word elder to denote the minister, 
 they are obliged to prefix the word lay to it, when at- 
 tributed to the preibyterian elder, to prevent oblcuri- 
 ty. Now, if we cannot talk, in Englilh of minifters 
 and preibyterian elders by the fame name, is it pof- 
 fible that the Scriptures fhould be guilty of this obiu- 
 rity ? 
 
 4. Granting that this text does confiitute two orders 
 of elders, then there will be three orders of officers in 
 every church, and the preibyteiians want the third. 
 They have not the deacon. '" Yes, (fay they), our el- 
 der is the deacon. 1 ' But upon what authority do they 
 combine oflicts, xvkich rhe apoiiles kept diitinct. There 
 is incont'eftibly an order of deacons \ if there be two 
 orders of elders, there fhould be three diitinct orders 
 in every church. No man hath \uthority to combine 
 any two of them into one, any more than to make a 
 new order over the reft. If it be faid, that the office 
 of the lay elder and t.iat of the deacon are the fame, I 
 have already fhewn that they are widely different. 
 The office of the deacon is to take care of the poor ; 
 whereas, if there be a diftinct order of ruling elders, 
 their office mud be to rule the church. Is there any 
 evidence in Scripture, that thefe two offices were com- 
 bined into one ? Ti e office of the deacon is in itfelf no 
 more connected with ruling, than with preaching. To 
 rule in the church, and to take charge of the poor, are 
 offices diftind in themfelves, and feparated in the New 
 Teltament. 
 
 5. If there had been two orders of elders, fo difiincl: 
 as that of lay and preaching elders, is it poffible that 
 their offices and qualifications fhould oe included in 
 the fame defciiption ; In defcnbing the office of the 
 elder, and his qualifications, no notice is tt.ken of two 
 orders, one -as requiring a different kind of qualifica- 
 
44 
 
 tions from the other. They are called upon, with- 
 out exception, to feed the flock, take the overlight of 
 it, &c. 5 and are all required to be ^^xy.rtKc?, " fit to 
 teach," which, as Dr Campbell lias oblerved, could 
 hardly be the cafe, if fome of them were to have no 
 concern in teaching. This candid inquirer has given 
 up this text, and thinks it is too trivial a circumftance, 
 upon which to found fo material a ditlindtion. It is 
 not faid, that a preaching elder mull have fuch and 
 fuch qualifications, and do fo and fo, but the elder, 
 which mull include every difiinclion of elders. Be- 
 fides, the words elder and bifliop are perfectly inter- 
 changeable, conftantly applied to the fame otficers, as 
 all prefbyterians will allow. Now, if there be an or- 
 der of lay elders, there mull be aifo an order of lay- 
 biihops j that is, men who have the paj} oral office \ yet are 
 not pajlors, 
 
 6. Commentators feem generally agreed, and the 
 18th verfe abfolutely requires that nuv) here tranflated 
 *' honour, " fign'fies the honourable mintenance of the 
 tninifters of the go/pel. The apoftle proves that they 
 are worthy of this ti/xt) from the law of Mofes refpedl- 
 ing the ox employed in treading out the coin, and from 
 the words of our Lord, with refpeft to thole engaged in 
 preaching his word. Now, the argument drawn from this, 
 goes directly to fhew that all thofe elders, fpoken of in 
 the i 7th verfe, are worthy ot honourable iupport. It 
 dot' not indeed require that a church is in every fitua- 
 tion to Iupport all its labourers. Some may not need 
 it j the church may be fo poor that it cannot Iupport 
 more than one pallor. There is nothing to prevent it 
 from ufing the labours of fome who fupport themfelves 
 by lawful induftry. But the text undoubtedly implies, 
 that all elders are worthy of fupport, and if they need, 
 and the church can give it, it is their right. Do pref- 
 byterians tiiink it their duty to fupport their elders, or 
 will <ny one fay, that they are worthy of it ? If not, they 
 cannot be the elders of which the apoltle fpeaks. Be- 
 fides, the iSth verfe proves inconteitibu , that nil the 
 elders fpoken of in the 17th veife, have the fame paf- 
 
45 
 
 tonl character, and are employed in the fame work* 
 They are all " treadeis out of the corn,' 1 all " labour- 
 ers worthy of reward." How do prefbyterian elders 
 " tread out the corn ? " In what manner do the mod 
 confcientious of them labour fo as to be worthy of re- 
 \v r iid ; Thefe figures reprefent the elders as labouring 
 conflantly in the work, of the gofpel, and having that 
 lor their employment as the ox was daily employed in 
 early d/tys, and till the prefent time in fome countries, in 
 " treading out the corn," and as a labourer is employed, 
 not occalionally, but conftantly in his labour. bhoald 
 it be laid, that the illuftrsrion in the 1 8th verfe is ap- 
 plicable only to the latter part of the 17th verfe, I an- 
 fwer, that befide the necelTity of referring it to the 
 whole verfe, the texts quoted by the apoille, would not 
 be relevant in that view. They go to prove the pro- 
 priety of fupport in general, and not a fuperiority of 
 lupport. 
 
 7. Hitherto I have Ranted, that this text does create 
 two orders of elders ; and even on that fuppofition, have 
 (hewn that this constitutes two different orders of pallors 
 in every church, not a feparate order of what are called 
 lay elders. I will now endeavour to (hew, that the text 
 neither proves nor admits a diftin&ion of order among 
 the elders fpoken of. The oppofition is not between 
 ruling elders and preaching elders, but in the firft part 
 of the verfe, between thofe who difcharge the office well 
 in genera/, and thofe who are particularly employed and 
 diftinguifhed for talents and labour in that difficult, im- 
 portant, and laborious branch of the office, the preaching 
 continually to large public affemblies. In every apofto- 
 lical church, that was prefeclly organized, there was a 
 plurality of elders or pallors, of different gifts. Some 
 were diftinguifhed as public fpeakers, others as church 
 rulers, others for a talent of private exhortation, peculiar- 
 ly fitted to converfe with the faints* on the ftate of their 
 fouls, and to pour the balm of confolation into the 
 wounded fpirit. Now. each of thefe fullained the whole 
 of the paltoral office or character, and might occalionally 
 be employed in any part of it, while each was ui'ually 
 
46 
 
 employed in that department of his office, for which his 
 talents, and his temper, fitted him. The advantages 
 which would thus accrue to the church, are obvious 
 and admirable. It enjoyed this diverfity of gifts, while 
 at the fame time, if any of the elders were abfent or 
 lhould die, or that it could not procure, or fupport for 
 iome time, as many elders or paftors as were necefTdry, 
 any one of them could officiate in the peculiar depart- 
 ment of any other. Churches which have not this 
 plurality of pallor's, and diverfity of gifts, are not 
 aware of the difadvantage under which they labour. 
 At the fame time, fome congregations which have a 
 plurality of paftors, do not feem to know how to ufe 
 them. They do not wiTign their paftors, each the pe- 
 culiar province for which he is bell qualified, but each 
 ftatedly labours in every part of the office, alternately. 
 This plurality of elders, is rather fuitcd to the indolence 
 of the labourer, than the edification of the church. 
 This being the cafe, the reafon of the injunction of the 
 text is obvious and important. All luch elders are 
 worthy of " honourable maintenance :" thofe who are 
 diftinguiuhed in their office, have a right to a double por- 
 tion ; efpecially thofe who are peculiarly and ufually 
 employed in preaching. This requires peculiar, and 
 perhaps rarer talents j much more time, ftudy, and ex- 
 pence to qualify them for the office j has much great- 
 er labour and fatigue j incurs more expence, by fre- 
 quent excurfions : expofes much more to public cenfure 
 and odium ; and requires much more intenfe applica- 
 tion to furnifh the mind, fo as to be a workman that 
 needeth not to be afhamed, rightly dividing the word of 
 truth. To difcharge this part of the office in a proper 
 manner, requires a life folely devoted to it. Such is my 
 view of this text j now to confirm it. 
 
 The word tranflated rule, is by no means exclufively 
 applicable to that department of the paftoral office call- 
 ed ruling. Upoisui is rather a commander* in the field 
 
 * As the word imperator, from fignifying a military 
 came to fignify a civil officer, fo this word is ufually era-' 
 ployed for a governor or magillrate. 
 
47 
 
 than a prefident in an anembly. IT^of^a? would be the 
 -moll proper word for the latter. Accordingly, in the 
 Athenian council of 500, the feven of the Prytanes 
 c ho fen by lot to prefide every week were called wgwSgai ; 
 and the piefident of the day was called t?rtrciTtis. This 
 is a too peaceful and inactive office to give a name to 
 Chrilt's officers. I know not that they are ever fo call- 
 ed io the New Teilament, though they early affumed 
 this title. But tt^ois-sj is a word which fully expreffes 
 their arduous, dangerous, and honourable office. It 
 fignifies an officer who goes before his men, and Hands 
 jn the front of the battle. He encourages them by his 
 example and exhortations, and leads them into a&ion. 
 Officers have the command and the care of the army j 
 train and discipline the foldiers ; and keep them to their 
 duty. They take care to fupply them with provifions, 
 and prepare them for battle, by military fpeeches. Such 
 an officer is the eider in the church of Chrilt. Like a 
 military officer, he trains and difciplines his troops ; 
 fupplies them with wholefome provifions ; rules them 
 by the laws of Chrift •, infhucts them in the will of 
 their king 5 and prepares them for Battle by his public 
 preaching. I apprehend, then, that the word ^ass^rs? 
 here, is not to be referred exclufively, to any one part 
 of the pafioral office, but to the office in general. It 
 means the elders who discharge in an eminent manner, 
 the duty of an officer in the army of Chrift, and 
 preaching is as effential a part of this, as ruling. That 
 jr^esftf? refers to the office in general, is farther evi- 
 den:, from 1 Theff. v. '2. where the fame perfons who 
 are faid to labour among them, and to admonifh them, 
 are called alfo 7r?ai« - #f«s»'«$. Indeed I am afto;">iihed 
 that any perfon who has ever looked into the Greek 
 Teftament ihould think that the tt^^mth were an 
 order inferior to preachers. There is not a higher 
 word to denote paftor, in all the word of God. They 
 ere Chriit's military officers Accordingly they are 
 called dfo. Heb. xiii- 17. yyaftmi or military leaders. 
 Agreeably to this we find, that when one of the el- 
 ders began to be diitinguilhed above his coileigues, he 
 ■eftlnned thefe very appellations as the moil honourable. 
 
48 
 
 He exclufively Tporopriated to himfelf. x£»;?»« and 
 H7»,«f»«? as well as i/riaco-m or biiliop. But efpecially, 
 can there be any thing more unfit to the character of 
 military officers, than an otder of lay-eldevs ? 
 
 My fenfe of the paffage may be illustrated by a 
 fimile. " Let the kings who rule well be accounted 
 worthy of double honour, efpecially thofe who diiiin- 
 guifh themfelves as the protectors of religious liberty." 
 Here ruling well, refers to the whole kingly office, and 
 the word " efpecially," diftinguifhes a particuinr de- 
 partment of the duty of a king. " Let virtuous and d:t- 
 tinguifhed legislators, be etteemed worthy of double 
 honour, efpecially thofe who labour for the abolition 
 of the flave trade.'" Who would infer from this, that 
 members of parliament were each confined to a par- 
 ticular department ? E<ch member has a right to 
 fpeak and vote up ni every fubjecl, though his time 
 and talents may be chiefly employed on his favourite ob- 
 je£L 
 
 Befides, if I am not greatly miftaken, grammar re- 
 quires that o; fitTTHA'VTts have n-^oirurtg trgw/Si/rfgw, and not 
 merely TrptcZvTipoi., for its antecedent. 1 he phrafeology 
 IS e; xuXui Trpa-faTi; TPieZvTtPtl, and not »i Tpttr/Swrtpw et 
 kxXms 7r£cira>n;. But common fenle requires that the 
 
 5J-gO£«-»T:; 7TPl(F(ivT£POt include the KOTlUVTic i» Aoy.V K.Ui Cldxe- 
 
 xxX:x. If a general, after a viclory would write thus 
 to the fecretarv at war. " The officers merit the high- 
 eft praife, efpecially the general officers," he would 
 write fenfe. But how ridiculous would it be to lay, 
 " the fubaltern officers meiit the highell praife, efpe- 
 cially the general officers." In the firir inftance, the 
 word " officers" includes the general officers . but 
 in the fecond the general officers are not included 
 among the fubaltern officers Now, this is ex- 
 actly what the prelbyterian interpret. .tion ol this 
 text makes the apoflles fay, " Let ruling ciders be 
 counted worthy of honour, efpecially the preaching ci- 
 ders." M.--:A.-« is properly uled, when a part is diftin- 
 guifhed out of the whole j or one out of a number. 
 
49 
 
 Compare this paffage with 2 Tim. iv. 1 3, '" Bring with 
 vou the cloak, and the books, efpecially the parch- 
 ments." Here, the generic word books includes the 
 parchments, as a particular lort of the books which he 
 hA defired him to bring. But how ridiculous would 
 it have been to have faid, " Bring the cloak, efpecially 
 the parchments." 
 
 Thus have I examined the meaning of this much dis- 
 puted portion of fciipture. I have fir it endeavoured to 
 fhew. that granting prelbytenans their own interpreta- 
 tion of this text, and that it fully elfablilhes an order of 
 lay-elders, or an order of rulers in the church, who arc 
 not parlors, that even this did not give a church feffion 
 any authority to judge in all matters for the church or 
 congregation. Even in this cafe, the whole church 
 fliould judge, and thofe officers carry the refult into ex- 
 ecution. Again, that granting the exclufive manage- 
 ment of church dft.urs to the <ellion, g dVe it no authori- 
 ty to legifltte, as the whole church, or the united voice 
 of all the churches upon earth, have no light to make 
 the {lighten alteration, amendment, or addition with re- 
 fpeft to the laws of Chrill's church. Further that 
 granting a diftinction of order in elders to be eftabiilhed 
 from this verfe. it would m ke two orders of pallors, 
 and not * diftintt order of lay-elders. And, laftly, that 
 a diilinclion of order of any kind, is neither neceffary, 
 probable, nor poffible, from this vtrfe. It constitutes, 
 indetd, a plurality of pallors, in every perfeclly organ- 
 ized church, who, being or different gifts, fhoulci be 
 ufually emplo>ed in the department belt fuited to each j 
 th t there ihould be a gradation of fupport iccording to 
 talents, zeal, and diiigente ; and that the higheft is due 
 to thofe who are diftmguifhedy&r labouring in word and 
 doElrine. This plurality or elders or pallors in a church, 
 is c<lled (1 Tim. iv. 14 \ the preibytery 01 elderfhip. 
 The modern fignification of the word preibytery, as con- 
 firming ot the miniflers and repreftntative lay elders of 
 the congregations of a whole dill lift, is not known 
 in fcripture, nor in all the fir ft ages of Chnftianity.* 
 
 * ChryfoltoT fuppofed the pnlbyttry l'poken of, 1 fim. 
 iv. 14, to have been a lynod of biihops. To what extra- 
 E 
 
58 m- 
 
 will. men run, who g.ve themfelves up to a F^Hfeft 
 3j|€ their opinions troin their led, and not from'^BB^ 
 
 B 
 
 J*- e h 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 OF INDEPENDENCY. 
 
 I have an objection againft impofing names of human 
 invention upon the things oj the Sp'rit. When 1 ufe the 
 words independency and independents, for tnat form, of 
 church government, inltituted by the apoftles, and thofe 
 who now embrace it, I would be understood to do it, 
 not of choice, but of nectffity. The difcipies of Chrift 
 are properly called Cbnjiians, /hints, or brethren, and 
 an hffembly of thofe, lor the purpofe of enjoying the or- 
 dinances of Chrill, according to his appointment, is cal- 
 led a church. Now, thele are the words I would al- 
 ways wifh to ufe to denote tfte fame ejects ; but it has 
 happened that fome of thtm have been fo abufed and 
 proitituted to other fignificntions. that it is impoflible to 
 ufe thefe plain fcripture words without obfeurity. l'here 
 is now the church of Rome, the cLurcli of England, 
 the church of Scotland, the church of Secrflion, &c. 
 &c. &c In fpeaking therefore of a church formed on 
 the model of toe apoftolical churches, we are obliged to 
 ca 1 it an independent church, to diltir.guilh it ftom the 
 otbeis, which have ufurped the name. Still, however, 
 we ufe this, not as the name of Chriit's church, but of 
 the particular mode of the government of an apoftolical 
 church, to mark, its diitindtive feature. The apoflles 
 had no occafion to ufe this, or any other word of the 
 tame nature, for the fame purunle. becaufe no different 
 form of government had been erected. It is obvious, 
 
then. 
 
 rt 
 
 then, that this ufe of {he word independency, is very dif- 
 ferent from Gacraaaent* euchariit % altar, clergy, and a 
 rm^ti'uderaJjtbeV fuch names, allien the wifdom of 
 -men has imjroed uporfMie ordinances of God. 
 
 That the government of Cbrift's appointment, is what 
 is called independent, is obvious from the rule which he 
 gave for the fettling of private offences among his dif- 
 ciples, M at. xviii. t 5, — 18. "Moreover, if thy bro- 
 " tber fhali trefpafs agninlt thee, go and tell him his 
 *' fault, between thee and him alone ; if he fhall hear 
 " thee, thou haft gained thy brother. But if he will 
 " not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, 
 " that in the mouth of one or two witneffes, every word 
 " may be eftabliftied. And if he fhall neglect to hear 
 " them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglett to 
 V hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen, 
 " roan, and a publican." Here the lift appeal is to the 
 church. He does not fay, if he does nci *ear the church, 
 take him to the prefbytery, and if he does not hear the 
 prefbytery, take him to the fynod, &c. but if he hear 
 not the church, " let him be unto thee as an heathen 
 man, and a publican. 1 ' I know, indeed, that various 
 fubterfuges have been invented to evade the force of 
 this plain fcripture. Jivery feci has attempted to find 
 its own diicipline in this palfage, whilft individuals, to 
 apologize for what they cannot juftify, have attempted 
 to darken its meaning fo as to make it of no practical 
 ufe. The multiplicity of interpretations, in the opinion 
 of Dr. Stillingfleet, is an argument to prove that it is 
 totally inexplicable ; in my opinion it proves only what 
 is proved by the variety of fentiments on every other 
 point in fcriprure, the perverfity, the felfifhnefs, or the 
 prejudice of profefling Chriftians. What ! has the Lord 
 Jefus given a precept, in a cafe of fuch importance, and 
 of fuch frequent occurrence, which cannot be under- 
 ftood ? Did he ui(h to be, or could he not avoid being 
 unintelligible ? Muft the Holy One of Ifrael fpeak with 
 the darknefs and evifion of an heathen oricle ? If he 
 did not mean to be underftood, why did he lpe.^k ? if he 
 meant to be underftood, why did he not fpeak in intel-' 
 
52 
 
 ligiblc language I If we cannot find out who are the di- 
 ▼inelv appointed arbitrators of our differences, he might 
 as well have faid nothing on the iubject. What an in- 
 fult upon the Holy Ghoft to reprtitnt his language to 
 be lo vague *nd indeterminate, thst it cannot be under- 
 ftood ? Chrift has faid, " tell it to the church j" is there 
 no way of coming at his meaning > His the word church 
 no determinate meaning in the New Teliament ? Kut 
 Dr. Scillingflcet is of opinion, that if the difcipline Chrift 
 has appointed, be executed, it is not material by whom. 
 Is it then the fame thing, whether a law be enacted by 
 the lawfully appointed legiflators, or by any other body 
 of felf confticuted men > or that a criminal be tried by 
 » lawful judge and jury, or bv men who affume the right 
 of judgment, without the countenance of lawful autho- 
 rity ? If Chrift has appointed any particular referees, it 
 is as really a breach of his injunction to appoint ai.y 
 other, as it would be totally to neglect that inftance of 
 difcipline. But is there any native neceffary obfcurity 
 in the precept, arifing fiom the promifcuous ufe of the 
 word church, in the New Teftament > If it is now in 
 any meafure obfeure. it has been rendered fo, not from 
 the ambiguity of the fcriptute ufe of the word, but from 
 its prolHtuted application in modern acceptation, and 
 the fophistry. and fubtleties of interefted, prejudiced, or 
 bigotted men : we find no difficulty in the p iTige until 
 we hear the forced explanations of it given by contro- 
 vertifts, and our mind begins to be diffracted, and the 
 fubje'et obfeured by the fmoke of their unhallowed 
 fires. 
 
 I lay it down, then, as an axiom, that Chrift meant 
 fome determinate thing by the word church, and that 
 there mutt be iufficient evidence in the New Teftament 
 to lead the humble, teachable inquirer into that mean- 
 ing. Chrift muft have fpoken intelligible language. 
 No ^, to inveitigate the fenpture-ufe of the word 
 church. 
 
 In every language there are two different procefTes re- 
 cognifed, which affect the fignification of words, appro- 
 
53 
 
 priation and extenfion. The one confines them to a 
 part of their original territories, the other extends them 
 a little beyond their natural limits. This is not pe- 
 culiar to the language of icripture, but is practiled in 
 treating of all the arts and fciences, and the whole bufi- 
 nefs of life. Thus the word angel literally figmfies a 
 mefTenger, and is not naturally confined to any delcrip- 
 tion ot mefTengers. But the Bible hath in a manner 
 appropriated that word to denote an order of oeings, 
 whole employment is that of meffengers of the Molt 
 High, lent forth to minilier to the heirs of falvation. 
 And though it may occafionally, even in fcripture, claim 
 its natural rights, being lometimes ufed lor other mef- 
 fengers, yet it is the appropriated name of that order of 
 beings called angels. The fame may be f tid of the 
 words apojlle, eider, bijhop, &.c. Ibmetimes they are ap- 
 propriated upon particular fubje&s or departments, 
 while chey enjoy the hill extent of their fignification 
 upon others ; and fom-times the fame word is differently 
 appropriated upon different luojecls. Thus, while the' 
 words an#el. apoitie, &c. are ufually confined to a par- 
 ticular province in fcripture, rhey have unbounded li- 
 cence in profane authors of the lame date ; and thus 
 when men ufe the word minifter. converting upon poli- 
 tical fubjt&s, it is immediately underftood that they 
 mean the firft minifter of ftate. But if they are con- 
 verfing on religion, it is as readily underftood to be the 
 minijier oj the congregation On the other hand, fome- 
 times a word will come through time to exceed its na- 
 tural ooundaries, and be extended to include ideas not 
 neceffirily, nor naturally inherent in it. Thus, wgortnu 
 liter ally fignifies to vote bv holding up the hand, and 
 was ufed in the popular affemblies of Athens in contra- 
 difti icYion to the vote by fcrutiny, which was denoted 
 by -J;n?ify<> from •v^a* the pebble ufed by the voters. 
 But in an advanced period of the hi'lory of this word, 
 we find that it fometimes dropped the principal idea al- 
 together, and was extended to denote election in any 
 manner, and even the conferring of an office, not by 
 election but individual nomination. Oar language has 
 iecognifed the fame abufive principle, in the words mart- 
 £3 
 
54 
 
 midwife, head-pleurify. &.c. Now, to apply this rea- 
 soning to the point in dilute. We are to enquire what 
 ikhXwix literally fignifies ; what it was oiiginally ■ pplied 
 to ; what it came to be applied to in the procel«> of its 
 hiftory; what is its ufe in other inltances in Scripture •, 
 how it is uled in profane authorsof the lame date ; whe- 
 ther in the New Teilaraent, it hath been appropriated, 
 or extended j and if appropriated, to what ; Pioceednig 
 thus, we (hall find, that in the New Tellament it is in- 
 variably ufed, ei'her for an individual congregation, or 
 the whole community of Chrilhans. 
 
 I,i«a.»ff-4« literally fignifies an afftmbly called out from 
 others, and is ufed among the Greeks, particularly the 
 Atl er.ians, tot their popular affembhes furr.mom-d by 
 their chief magiitrate, and in winch none but awzttis 
 had a right to fit. By inherent power it may be ap- 
 plied to any body of men called out, and aJJembUd in 
 ene place. If ever it lofes the ideas of calling out and 
 ajjimb/ing, it loies its principal features, and its primi- 
 tive ule. I will not fay, that by the operation ot the 
 abufive principle 1 have defcribed, it might not have 
 . come to lofe even boih, after a length of time from its 
 firlt introduction j but this I fav, that i no where find it 
 in profane writers, nor in the fcriptures fpeaking of civil 
 affaiis. to have loll either, but efpecially the latter. 
 Nor will 1 be driven from my pofition by the ufe of 
 this word in the 19th chapter of Adls. That affembly, 
 however tumultuous, irregular, and unlawful it may 
 have been, was a meeting 0/ the c-iti%em called together 
 by the filverlnsiths. The craftsmen were called together, 
 (verie 25,) by Demetrius, who, uflaroed by his Ipeech, 
 burft out into intemperate acclamations to their goddels 
 Diana The reit of the citizens were roufed and af- 
 iemblcd by their noife, and adopting their zeal, though 
 mar.y of them knew not the caufe, they rulhed into the 
 theatre — the very place of public deliberation. Though, 
 then, it was an irregular, lawlefs aiiembly, it was no- 
 thing akin to an Englilh mob, but rather like a parlia- 
 ment affembling being furcmoned, not by the king but 
 by fome incendiary ar^ong themtelves. Still more 
 
55 
 
 ftrongly may it be affirmed, that it is no where ufed by 
 prof tne writers to denote any body or men, but in their 
 aJJ'i ml/led capacity they are called, iKKtonx only as. eJJ't ta- 
 bled. 
 
 Such being the origin and ufe of this word among 
 the Greeks, 10 what may it be legitimately applied 
 when uicd in facred things ? It m*y iigmfy any a film- 
 b/y called out t'rom the world, and united in L'kr Jl A- 
 greeably to this, whenever it is ufed in Scripture in a 
 facied lenle, that is, as applicable to believers, we find 
 that it is invariably appropriated to an individual nlTcm- 
 blv of Cnnitians. meeting to enjoy the ordinances of 
 Chrilt, or the Chriftian community in general. When- 
 ever the apoltles made a number of converts in any 
 place, they ieparated them from the congregation, by 
 forming them into an wxA««-<» or church. And juit 
 asi n the Athenian affemblies none but citizens could (it 
 or vote, fo none but the citizens of the ne>v Jerulaiem 
 were allowed to join themlelves to this company. As in 
 the parliament many may be prtfent to hear, though 
 none but fenators fpcnk or vote-, fo in a crutch of 
 Chrilt, many are prefent to hear the gofpel of falvation, 
 but none are admitted as members of the ikkXyio-hc 
 but thofe who are firlt by that gofpel make citizens 
 of heaven. But with equal propriety may this word 
 be applied either to all the Chrhtians on earth, or all 
 both in heaven and earth, as affembled in Jefus. Nor 
 does this application tiretch it a whit beyond its natural 
 and intrinfic meaning. It is as literally and as truly 
 applied to the one as to the other. All the faints on 
 earth, all the faints in heaven, are affembled in him, as 
 really as the branches of a vine are united in the trunk, 
 the Hones of a building upon the foundation, or the 
 members of the body with the head. With the fhicleft 
 truth all Chriihin" may be faid to be already " in hea- 
 venly places in Chrilt." This double application of 
 the word is neither foreign nor forced, incorrect nor 
 indiltinit. When it is ufed indefinitely, it tpplies to 
 the community of believers affembled in Cnrilt : vvheo. 
 it is ufed with lelpeft to an individual church, which is 
 its molt general application, the context, or the nature 
 
5<S 
 
 of the circumftances, gives fufficient intimation. Let 
 any one tike tie trouble to tun over ail the places 
 where it i» found in the New Teltament, and I will be 
 bol^i to fay, he will not find a (ingie text, which will 
 not faiily explain on this hypothetic. The caies where 
 it may occur in the civil or unappropriated fenle, are 
 riot accompanied with the fmalleit difficulty, the con- 
 text, or a note of appropriation, as " church of Chrilt," 
 &c. lutficiently markirg the difference Thole who, 
 from this circumttance, woitld argue the impolTibiiify 
 of alcertaining the meaning of the word church in Mat. 
 xviii. 17. and tile where, will find the lame difficulty 
 in the words apottles, angel, and innumerable others. 
 Indeed the admiilion of this principle, and I fee it ad- 
 mitted, and acted upon, by fome very ingenious men, 
 would involve, in impenetrable darknefs. the cieareft 
 point in theology. If it be maintained, that the mean- 
 ing of a word lb important, io frequently ufed in the 
 epiltles, cou.d not be afcertained, why ihould not this 
 be the cafe with others ? Were fuch a principle eita- 
 blifhed in criticifm, 1 have no hefitation in faying, that 
 there is not an ancient aut'or could be undtrliood ; that 
 there is not a paffage fo clear in any author, in any lan- 
 guage, upon any lubjeft, which could not be Io perltx- 
 ed by the ingenuity of a fophilt, that the ableft critic 
 could r.ot unravel it. Critics would be afhamed to rea- 
 lon thus on a pafTage in Homer or Sophocles. Grant 
 only to the infpned writers, what will be granted to all 
 —that they had a meaning in their words, and wrote 
 to be understood, and it will be our fault it we cannot 
 underltand them. 
 
 Having Hated the literal meaning, the pn fane and 
 facred application of the woid ixy-X/ic-iec let us next 
 examine tne claims of its modern * icceptations. It is 
 quite a cameleon. It is as virious in its meaning, as 
 the necefiuies of each party require. Sometimes it is a 
 church fellion : foinetimes in individual church ; fome- 
 times a ci tTical prcfbvtery j fomctimes a fynod , lome- 
 times a general afiembly ; fometimes church ruiersj 
 
 * I call them modern, becaufc they are later than the 
 New Tcilament. 
 
*7 
 
 o 
 
 fometimes all the churches of a province or kingdom. 
 Truly, jf the Scripture gives ground for all f hr<e, it 
 is more dark nn>i pirplexing than was ever an anfwer of 
 the Sybil. Is not the bare ltatement a refutation of 
 the tact ? and the fuppofition a calumny on the oracles 
 of God ? But the practice of prefbv etians themfelves, 
 is a complete refutation of this hypotheSis. They do 
 not (peak piomilcuouily of all their affemblies by the 
 name chinch, but have a distinct name for each, as the 
 congregation, the ielTion, the prrfbyte-y, the fynod, &c. . 
 Now, if each order of thefe courts be a church, as well 
 as each congregation, and the collective congregations, 
 why do they not fpeak of them by the fcripture name ? 
 Why have they impofed upon them names of their own 
 invention ? Evidently becaufe they would otherwife be 
 unintelligible. If one of their writers on church dif- 
 cipline was to fpeak of all their affemblies by the name 
 church, without additional marks of distinction, his rea- 
 ders would not understand him : yet this is the very in- 
 accuracy they charge upon the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment. They fuppofe them to fpeak promifcuoufly of 
 the greateft variety of fubordinate courts, as well as af- 
 femblies of a different na-yre, by the fame name, with- 
 out any mark of distinction to guide the reader. Now, 
 I think this is a very fair criterion j fcripture ordinances 
 Should be fufficiently intelligible by fcripture names, 
 without the ufe of any other. I believe it will be found 
 a very juft conclusion, that the injlitutims which have 
 not a name in fcripture^ have not an exjlence in fcripture. 
 Let p cfbyterians, then, ufe nothing but the Scripture 
 names, and their doctrine of fubordinate courts will be 
 jargon. By their unnatural extenfion of this word, 
 they have taken it in modern ufe from tbit which alone 
 deierves it — the individual affemblies of the faints. Let 
 us fuppofe, then^-that m.x.M<ri* might have been legi- 
 timately appropriated to >ienote any one of thefe affem- 
 blies, this appropriation will take it from alt the re St. 
 If a feiTion is a church, then a congregation cannot be 
 a church ; if either of thef<- be a church, then a piffby- 
 tery cannot, without cor fufiop, be ufually fo denomina- 
 ted j and if a preStnrery is a church, then it will take 
 that name from all inferior and fuperior courts. . Now, 
 
53- 
 
 if thefe courts be fcriptural, let their advocates produce 
 their diitincl fcriptural names. No word can have two 
 appiopnate meanings .upon the fame fubjed j ixxtoriot 
 may be a civil affembly and- appropriated alfu to a reli- 
 gious affembly j but in neither civil nor religious mat- 
 ters can it be appropriated as the diftinclive name of 
 two different alTembiies, the one fubordinate to the other. 
 It may denote a particular affembly of faints, and the 
 community of Christians affembled in Jefus ; but with- 
 out confulion, it cmnot be ufed as the appropriated 
 name of a particular and general affembly of the fame 
 fort. This is clear from the names of civil courts. 
 Though fome of thefe be fuch as to be literally applica- 
 ble to all, yet they are not fo appropriated. Thus fef- 
 fions. affizes, &c. Thus alfo in the church of England, 
 though each of the orders are called clergymen, yet for 
 this very reafon it could not be the appropria:ed di- 
 ftinftive name of any one of them. There is curate, 
 re£lor, bifhop, &c. For the fame reafon, though bifhop 
 was the common name of all prefbyteis originally, yet 
 when it was appropriated to one of the number, it was 
 taken from all the reft. If, then, the word church be gene- 
 rally applicable to fuch a vai .« ty of affemblies, each af- 
 fembly muft have a diftindlive name belides ; to produce 
 which out of Scripture, will be rather an arduous talk. 
 Befides, in fpeaking particularly of each of thefe affem- 
 blies, the common name could not be ufed, any more than 
 the name clergyman would diltinguifti a biihop from a 
 prefbyter. When our Lord fays, then " tell it to the 
 church ;" if he intends prefbyterian ecclefiaftical courts, 
 to which does he refer ? It to the feffion, then all high- 
 er appeals are cut off; for if the offending brother will 
 not " hear the church, let him be as an heathen man 
 and a publican ;" if it means a general fynod or affem- 
 bly, then al' inferior courts are cut off. But if church 
 be alfo the fcripture name of an individual affembly of 
 faints, confiding of pallors and church members, is not 
 the obfcunty flill increafrd Whether mult the congre- 
 gation or the leffion be appealed to ? 
 
 I have hitherto combated this multifarious applica- 
 tion of the word, upon the fuppofition that it was equal- 
 
59 
 
 ly proper to any one of the things fignified. But I hav* 
 objections againit the propriety of applying it either to 
 church rulers, or the afibciated churches of a province 
 or kingdom, both from the meaning of the word and its 
 original application, as well as its ule in Scripture. Ac- 
 cording to the intriniic ideas contained in &**A>jo-«s 
 the churches of a province or kingdom could not be fo 
 called, becaufe they are never affembled. Now this 
 would be an etffemb/y, never affembled. Should it be faid 
 that they are prefent in their representatives, as the 
 nation may be faid to be prefent in the parliament, (be- 
 fides that this is too figurative for a diftinclive or ap- 
 propriated name.) then private individuals can no more 
 be called members of the church of Scotland, &c. than 
 private fu'ojects members of parliament. N<-ne are 
 members ot ar aflembly, but thofe actually poflefling a 
 right to fit in that aflembly. A national or provincial 
 church, in this view, confifts of church rulers alone, or 
 rather a feleciion of church rulers. Befides, church 
 is uled in Icripture, according to its literal fignification, 
 for an aflembly of faints aSfuaiiy aflembled j it would 
 not therefore be ufed in fuch a ioofe fenfe in the firft 
 ftages of its hiitory. Words may come to lofe their 
 leading idea, but ir is always by the operation of time 
 and change of circumflances. Add to this, that the 
 Greeks did not ufe it for reprefentative afltmblies ; 
 but aiiVmbiies in which all the citizens had a right to 
 be prefent. None were reprefented but the members 
 who compofed the aflembly. Children, females, and 
 flavcs were not reprefented. This laft objection lies 
 equally againit church rulers being at any time exclu- 
 fively called the church. EkkMo-hi was a popular af- 
 fembly. diflinguiihed from cvvx.M<rnt an aflembly of no- 
 bles or fenators. It ieems very clear that this latter 
 would be the moll appropriate name for a court of church 
 rulers : 1 freely acknowledge, that the literal ideas con- 
 tained in the v\ord acxtorta, might be applicable to a 
 court of church rulers, out it would be upon a princi- 
 ple different from its ufual application among the Athe- 
 nians, as well a*, its other acknowledged applications in 
 Scripture. A church of Chrtft is fo called, bec;iutt it 
 coniilts of members called and feparated from the world 
 
60 
 
 by the gofpel of (Thrift, and united in the enjoyment or. 
 his ordinances. But if a court of church* ruiers were 
 fo caLed, it would be not becaufe they were tailed out 
 of the world, and united in the fervice ot C!irilt, but 
 calie i out fiom their brethren to Jegifl.ite for, and go- 
 vern them. Now iuch a ule of the woid would be no- 
 thing a kin to the other. They would not be the fan e 
 word, though compufed of the fame letters. Between 
 the particular and general ule of the word church, the 
 leading ideas are comnon ; both are cdled out of the 
 world by the gofpel. fepara'ed from it. and afftmbled 
 in Chrilt But between thefe and the word as ti/nity- 
 ing church ruiers, tnere is no relemolance. To appro- 
 priate a word for a double purpole upon the fame lub- 
 ject, by a procefs fo different, is altogether unexanrpU d. 
 Neither is this agreeable to the piinciple th:it generally 
 operates in language, to extend and riiverliiy the figi iti- 
 cation of words. They fire ufualiy conecliy and am- 
 biguoufly applied at furl j variety or fignification. grows 
 by abide and time, as a facl i elated bv many indivi- 
 duals will be known in different countries, with a lofs 
 or addition of circumlt .nces. Add to this, that in a 
 new fcience or art, when an author is obliged to bor- 
 row and appropriate a word, he doth fo generally 
 agreeably to its natural import and approved ufe in 
 the language from which it is tik.cn. if. then, our 
 Lord had t^ken ikkXy^iu to denote an individual af- 
 femb!y of faints, he wouid hare taken Gwx.\r,<riei for a 
 court of ciiuich rulers, if he had inltiiuted fuch a 
 couit. 
 
 But w^at faith the fcrip^ure ? This muft final'y de- 
 cide the pretenlions of thefe different claimants. Is 
 there a fingie p ffage in which this word mult be ac- 
 knowledged to have any of thofe fignifications I com- 
 bat ? Does it occur in any prce wh j re it plainly l tiers 
 to a court of church rulers, or to a number of chuiches 
 under an affuciated government ? Are not ail the pal- 
 fages in which it is faid to be fo ufed as undecided as the 
 prtfent ; 4|jJ >on what principle, then ot lair critici m 
 can it be argii' d ? If they could produce any one oc- 
 currence of it, in wuich it mult incontelhbly be fo un- 
 
derftood, tliere might be fome colour of ground fo to 
 Undcrftand it in others, though ufed with lefs perfpicui- 
 ty. Rut without ah acknowledged foundation, they ne- 
 ver can raife a fuperftru&UTe. If the word church was 
 in any one place explained to be a reprefentative ai- 
 fembly, and an affociation of the churches of a king- 
 dom, they might plead fuch a fenfe here with efficacy. 
 Eut if it is never fo explained, never can it be fo inter- 
 preted here. On the other hand, we can produce texts 
 innumerable, where it figniiies an individual affembly of 
 f.iints, and in which our opponents muft and do acknow- 
 ledge that it hath fuch a fignification. We can produce 
 a number of paffages in which a church of Chrift is ex- 
 plained to confilt of the faints of a particular church. 
 By what authority, then, can they refufe it to have fuch 
 a fignification here ? There is not the leaft intimation 
 in any part of the New Teftament of a reprefentative 
 government. Nothing is faid about a number of church 
 rulers being felecltd as an ecclefiaftical council over a 
 number of individual churches ; nor any fuch ufe of the 
 word church, as including a number of individual 
 churches. When the infpired writers fpeak of a fingle 
 affembly of faints, they invariably call it a church ; 
 when they fpeak of a number of churches, or the 
 churches of a province or difiricl:. they do not call them, 
 a church, but churches. Thus when Paul writes to the 
 Corinthians, he addreffes the " church of God which is 
 at Corinth :" but when he writes to the Galatians, he 
 addreffes the churches of Galatia. Thus alfo when the 
 church of Jerufalem is fpoken of. it is called a church ; 
 but when the aggregate of the individual churches 
 of Judea and Samaria are fpoken of, thty are not call- 
 ed the church of Judea, or the church of Samaria, but 
 the churches of Judea, and the churches of Samaria. 
 Thus alio the church of Cencbrea, (Rom.xvi. i.) and 
 the churches of Achaia : the church of Ephefus, the 
 tburcbot Smyrna, &c But when they are fpoken of in 
 the aggregate, it is the feven churches of Alia, not the 
 church of Ana, Rev. i. 4. and ii. 1. &c. 1 know in- 
 deed that with refpeft to Jerufalem and Cot in: h, it is 
 alleged that the faints in thofe cities muft have been too 
 numerous to have affembled in one place. But I need 
 F 
 
62 
 
 not take up my time in (hewing how or where they 
 might nvTemble, or in ascertaining their numbers. They 
 are not more numerous then I wilh them to have been j 
 and the icripture itfelf refutes the objection in both in- 
 ftances. Acls ii. 44. 1 Cor. v. 4. and xi. 18. In thefe 
 paiT . js they are exprefsly (hewn to have met in the 
 lame place. 
 
 But if there were really any ambiguity in Mat xviii. 
 17. can there be a better way of afcei tuning truth than 
 by referring to the ufe of it in the writings of the New 
 Terlament of a later date, thus comparing Spiritual 
 things with fpiritual ? Can there be a better commen- 
 tary on the gcfpels, than the epiftles f If any thing is 
 not fully explained, but hinted at, by Chrift, where will 
 we go for farther information, but to the apoftles, who 
 were to fini(h the revelation he had begun, and fully 
 illustrate, what may be did to lie in embryo in his 
 words ? Can any thing then be a cleat er commentary on 
 Mat. xviii. 17. if it needed any, than 1 Cor. vi. i. — 
 where Paul fpeaks of another fimilar cafe of difcipline ? 
 Can it be fuppofed that the apoftle would inftitute one 
 way of terminating difputes, and his Mailer another ? 
 The apotlle makes \.hz faints of an individual church at 
 Corinth, the arbiters of civil difputes. Would he have 
 done fo if his Lord had referred peifonal difputes to the 
 cognizance of an ecclefialtical council ? No man will fay 
 fo. 
 
 The ingenious Dr. Campbell, who, in his Lectures on 
 church hiltory, has treited this fubjeft with demonftra- 
 tive ciearnefs, alleges the acceptation of the word among 
 the Jews with fignal fuccefs *. He (hews that it was 
 appropriated with them in the fame manner either to 
 the whole nation or church of Ifrael, which was a type 
 of the univerfal church of Chrift, or to thofe that met 
 for'worfliip in the fame fynagogue. Now, this being 
 the then received acceptation in the time of our Lord, 
 Ire would not have been underftood, had he em- 
 
 * See Dr. CambeU's Leflures on Church Hiflory, vol. i. 
 page 3Zo. 
 
63 
 
 ployed it in any other j and as he could not intend the' 
 whole commonwealth of Chriitians, it mud be a congre- 
 gation of Chriitians. But how unintelligibly do they 
 reprefent Chrift as fpeaking, who give fo many accep- 
 tations to the word church ? Suppofe we inlert congre- 
 gation intlead of church, who would underfiand him 
 to refer to ecclefiaftical courts ? Yet congregation is 
 no more fixed by prefbyterians to their affemblies for 
 public worfhip, than £xxA«s7# was to denote the mem- 
 bers of a fynagogue, or of an apoftolical church. Nei- 
 ther is exxA»<r<« more applicable, nor indeed is it fo 
 applicable to the various prefbyterian affemblies, as 
 congregation. A fynod or general affembly might 
 have been at firft denominated congregation as well as 
 by the term by which they are now known. What pref- 
 byterian now would fay " tell it to the congregation,'* 
 intending by that a church court. Yet this would not 
 be more fenfelefs than what they attribute to the Lord 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Another argument Dr Campbell brings, equally con- 
 vincing, is derived from the practice of the churches in 
 the firft ages. M Another collateral and ^corroborative 
 M evidence," fays he, " that by ixxXiifm is here meant 
 " not a reprefentative body but the whole of a particu- 
 " lar congregation, is the actual ufage of the church 
 41 for the firft three hundred years. I had occafion 
 " formerly to remark, that as far down as Cyprian's 
 44 time, which was the middle of the third century, 
 " when the power of the people was on the decline, 
 " it continued to be the practice, that nothing in mat- 
 44 ters of fcandal and cenfure could be concluded, with- 
 M out the confent and approval of the congregation, 
 " And this, as it appears to have been pretty uniform, 
 44 and to have fubfilled from the beginning, is, in my 
 44 opinion, the beft commentary which we, at this 
 44 diilance, can obtain en the p*iTage." See page 3-5. 
 vol. i. 
 
 I may add farther, that the circumftance of tie 
 woid church being afterwards ufed to Ggnify the hc-ufe 
 oi worlhip, is a very clear conoboiaiive argument 
 
64 
 
 argument to fhew that an individual worfhipping afiem- 
 bly of Chriftians, and not a representative body of church 
 rulers, or the churches of a particular diilrift, was firfl 
 fo called. Though this be not fcriptural, yet it (hews 
 the primitive application of the word, when the houfe 
 received the name of the affembly. Juft as the Jewiih 
 houfes of worfhip were called Synagogues, from the 
 affemhline of the people therein. This (hews what 
 fort of affembly a church was. Had it been a meeting 
 of church rulers, like a fynod, &c. none but the placet 
 of their affembling would have been called churches. 
 This, in my opinion, is the moft unexceptionable fpecies 
 of historic proof. It can never be biafed, and is often 
 the fureft criterion of the truth of fafts. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Independency of the ApoJloUcal Churches pro- 
 ved, from the ApoJloUcal I?ijun£lions, and inferred 
 from other circumflances in the Ep files. 
 
 Not only is the independency of individual churches 
 proved from the origin, and profnne andfacred accepta- 
 tion of the word by which they are denominated j but 
 the laws and regulations given hv the anoftles for their 
 direction, put the matter beyond doubt. — The whole 
 difcipline of Chrift's houfe is>, without exception, com- 
 mitted to the individual church, confiding of the parlors 
 and brethren of one congregation. Apollolical injunc- 
 tions, which cannot be obeyed in any other than an in- 
 dependent church, implies the neceffity of independency. 
 Now of this fort, are all the rules, with refpecl to the 
 adminiftration of difcipline. It is the whole church, 
 and not a church feflion, that is to receive members. 
 Rom. xiv. i. " Him that is weak in the faith, receive 
 ye." — " Receive ye." Now, no prefbyterian congrega- 
 tion could comply with this injunction. The brethren 
 have nothing to do with the receiving of members. 
 This province is entirely ufurped by the minifler and 
 lay-elders. — The epiftle to the Corinthians, is addreffed 
 to the church of God at Corinth, which is explained, 
 (i Cor. i. 2. > to confift, not of minifler and lay- elders, 
 but of " them that ate fanctified in Chrift Jtfus, called 
 to be faints." Now, the power of excommunication is 
 ■ exprefsly veiled in the whole church, (chap. v. 3.) not 
 in church rulers alone. If a prefbyterian congregation 
 would prefume to interfere with their rulers upon fuch 
 a point, it would be actual rebellion. Nay, the whole 
 congregation, minifier, elders and people, could not put 
 way from their communion the groffeft adulterer, if 
 * 3 
 
66 
 
 the fuper'or ecclefiaftical judicatories would think pro* 
 per to fcreen him. But the church at Corinth, i" com- 
 manded to put away from amon% themftlves. that wicked 
 perfon, (verfe 13,) and to purge out the old leaven, 
 (verfe 7.) To judge of the application of difcipline, 
 th/it is to examine and judge whether a crime be charge- 
 able upon an accufed member, is alfo Hated, (verfe 12.) 
 to be the bufinefs of the wt ole church. " Do ye not 
 judge them that are within ?" The whole church is to 
 judge the accufed peifon, though the church iulers are 
 to execute the judgment. Now, a church which can- 
 not admit an apoltolical direction, cannot he apoltoli- 
 cally confthuted. Incited. excommunication, though 
 the highefl ac5r of church authority, is fo peculiarly the 
 buiine's of the whole church, that the -ipoflle dots it 
 rot hnnfeif by an a<5t of apoftolical authority, but com- 
 mits it to the faints themfelves, that there might be an 
 example and model to all future ages. Likewife, in 
 Gal v. 12. he does not f-v. " I cut off thofe that trou- 
 ble you." but " I would that they were cut off." The 
 reftoration of fallen brethren upon repentance, is alfo 
 the duty of the whole church, , 2 Cor. ii. 6, 7. 8 Gnl. 
 vi. c. 1 Here, it is obfervable, that the excommunication 
 was not the act of a felect part of the church, but ' was 
 inflicted of many. 7 ' We have alio feen that the church 
 was the final judge of perfonal and civil difputes among 
 its members, Mat. xvrii. 17 1 Cor. vi. In thefe and 
 other instances, the instructions and commands given, 
 neceffarily fuppofe the constitution of the church to 
 which they were diiected, to have been independent j 
 for to no oi her could they have been applied j in no 
 other could they have bttn executed. 
 
 It will not be deemed a fafFcient ar-fwer to this, that 
 the apoltolical difciplioe may be executed in fpfrit 
 fttbftanee, though not by thofe spoftoheally appointed. 
 The thing niull net only be done, but done as it is corn- 
 ed. 'I he command rr.uit not only ue ebeyed in its 
 prim an object, but in the appointed manner, by tl 
 vinely appointed agents. Bere we bave not only the 
 thing commanded to be erne, but the ptrfem. coram 'ud- 
 td m do it. We may as well fay, that we .need not e\e- 
 
67 
 
 cute apoflolical discipline, as that it may not be done by 
 thofe fpoOoiically appointed. The judges are here as 
 clearly appointed, as the thing to be judged. I'o ful- 
 fil a law, vve muft not oniy do the thing the law directs, 
 but in the manner directed by the law. I he law or- 
 dains the murderer to die, but it does not warrant any 
 but thole legally appointed to judge, condemn, and ex- 
 ecute him. The kino fummons his parliament : but the 
 fen itors. intent upon their rural amufements, or the im- 
 provement of their ellates, fend tneir Rewards. They 
 meet v they enact laws ; they fend them to the king. 
 Viil he, will the constitution, lecognize kich legislators ? 
 And will the Lord Chriil recognize the proceedings of 
 tlit unconstitutional judicatories, of what are called re- 
 prefentatjve churches ? Shall they be excufed. wtio, on 
 account or bufinefs, amnfement, or indolence, have neg« 
 lected the:r duty as church members ? Tney have no 
 more au hority to delegate the perform nice of this, than 
 of any other duty which they owe to fociety, to their 
 families, or to God. — Would private Chriifians let any 
 one perfuade them, that they were to be prefent in hea- 
 ven by reprefentation only ? It would be every whit as 
 e-ify r o prove the one as the other. In all the New 
 Ttftamer.t, there is not the (hadow of a reprefentation, 
 in the church of Chriil, 
 
 To attend to the affairs of Chrilt's houfe, is theprivi/efe 
 of all church members. It argues ingiatitude, con- 
 tempt, and indifference, to transfer that riyht to others. 
 But this is not only a privilege, but a duty, and each 
 member is anfwerable for the perfonal difcharge of it. 
 Every individual member has the king's commiffion, 
 and the king's command, to attend to the affairs of his 
 kingdom, in concert with his brethren. If any neglect 
 their dn.ty or pretend to depute others to rep refent them, 
 they are guilty of difobedience to Chrirt, indifference to 
 his laws, intereit, and honour j and are traitors, a^ pre- 
 fuming to alter the constitution of his church. If my 
 man. or body of men. uffume the right by invafion, or ac- 
 cept it by delegation tbey are ufurpers, and act without, 
 and contrary to the king's commands. Eut the very 
 
68 
 
 idea of a transference of duty, in religious mattes, is ab- 
 iurd. None can think, judge, or aCl ior another, vvilh 
 refpeft to Spiritual tilings. 
 
 I have fuppofed the work to be done, and discipline to 
 be duly ;iaminilierc-d But i deny that this ever is or can 
 be the cafe in a perfeft manner, when they do not the 
 work who are divinely appointed. the imperfect Hate 
 of discipline, in all prefbyterian churches, iuily proves 
 the afiettion. Some or" them, indeed, have a multipli- 
 city of human rules, which they are vei y rigorous in put- 
 ting into execution ; but I know not any, that aft lully 
 up to the difcipline of the chuiches of the New Teila- 
 ment. 
 
 Not only is difcipline and all church power commit- 
 ted to the individual church, but every direction, com- 
 mand, and exhortation is iuited to Such alone. There 
 aie laws Sufficient in the New Teilamcnt for the govern- 
 ment and condufting of an independent church, but not 
 a fingle rule, or precept, or example ior the government 
 of a number of churches combined. All its rules and 
 examples are applicable to individual congregations only. 
 Independent churches have either precept or example 
 for every cafe that can poffibly occur. They are not 
 obliged to proceed one Rep upon dubious ground. But 
 it is evident that pre/bytenans are obliged to vindicate 
 their difcipline, &c. by borrowing what is applied to in- 
 dividual chuiches. Thus the epiitles to the church at 
 Rome, to the church at Corinth. &c. &c. are epiftles 
 to individual churches, and fpeak uniformly either of 
 individual duties, or reciprocal duties of church-mem- 
 bers, and of the duties of the elders to the flock, and of 
 the flock to the elders. But there is not a word as to 
 the duties of elders as members of an ecclefiaftical af- 
 fembly. or of the duties of private Chriftians as members 
 of an ffociated church. Now. if there wasfuch a thing 
 as an atTochted church under the fame government, is it 
 not llrange we fhouid have no rules with relpeft to it j 
 that eiders fhou'd have no directions as to their duties 
 in thefe affemblies ; and private Christians as to their 
 'relations to them ? The individual flock is often called 
 
6.9 
 
 upon to obey their paftors or rulers, but never is either 
 flock or (hephercl commanded to obey a fuperior afTem- 
 bly. The apoftles frequently and earneilly inculcate 
 love among the church members, and warn them againft 
 ichifm and divifions. Not a word, however, do they fay 
 as to the duty of union among feveral churches under 
 the fame government, nor of the fin of one church ie- 
 parating from another. Is not this a plain proof that 
 thev were not externally joined ? But men have got a 
 convenient way of quoting fcripture now ; for what is 
 foid (^i Cor. i. 10.) againit the members of the fame in- 
 dividual church going into factions and parties, they ap- 
 ply to prove the fin of one church feparating from ano- 
 ther, or individuals feparating from the church in which 
 they were educated. We never hear the terrific word 
 fchifm in any other fenfe in modern application. But it 
 is evident that the fchifms which the apoftle here repro- 
 bates, are not the feparation of a part even of an indivi- 
 dual church, fo as to form another ; for this may be of- 
 ten done to advantage ; it is the members of the fame 
 church running into faclions and cabals, againft which he 
 fpeaks. Thus, in every other infiance, they have to 
 borrow what is fpoken to individual churches, and apply 
 it to affociated churches. Either the fcriptures are 
 lame, or fuch affociations are unfcriptural. 
 
 There are various other indirect hints in the epiftles, 
 which will occur to the reader who is accuftomed to 
 mine into the word of God, and wei^h each particle, as 
 more precious than the gold of Ophir. Truth is ever 
 confillent, and that opinion which does not gain ftxength 
 from a progrefiive acquaintance with the fcripture, is not 
 likely to be a fcripture truth. That hypothefis that for- 
 bids a minute attention to the rcoft carnal and indirect 
 encumftance divinely recorded, cannot be well founded. 
 An inftance of wh-.t 1 mean, we have in 2 Cor. iii. i. 
 The apollle reafons that he had not, like others, need of 
 recommendatory letters either to or from the church at 
 Corinth. Now, the manner of the apoftie's fpeaking 
 here, would have been altogether improper, had the 
 church at Corinth be<-n under prefbyteriarj church 
 government. He fpeaks of the recommendatory let- 
 
70 
 
 ters as neceffary to fome, but unneceffary to him, as com- 
 ing from the church, not tbe preibytery. Had the a- 
 poiUe been a piefbyterian, he would have fubjecled bim- 
 felf and this church to fevere cenfure, had he received 
 credentials from it. This is tbe prerogative of the pref- 
 bytery or church rulers alone *. How would a modern 
 chuich judicatory refent it, if a probationer were to re- 
 ceive credentials from one of their congregations ? The 
 apoitle himlelf could nor be received into the general 
 fynod, if he could not produce his credentials from his 
 preibytery. Nor could any minifter or congregation 
 regularly give him their pulpit. 
 
 The whole ftrain of the letters of the apoflle Paul to 
 the churches, ihews them to have been independent. 
 He uniformly addrtffes, praifes, or blames the church it- 
 felf, and never a church fefiion or ecclefiaftical council 
 of any fort. Jn chapter v. and xi. of 1 Cor. he blames 
 the whole members, with refpect to the incestuous 
 perfon and their irregularities in eating the Lord's Sup- 
 per. Had they been under prefbyterian government, 
 the brethren could not have been guilty; in keeping the 
 fornicator, becaufe they had no authority for putting him 
 out. The feffion and fuperior courts would have been 
 exclusively to blame j aud would, undoubtedly, have re- 
 ceived marked apollolical cenfure. If improper perfons 
 are admitted to communion among prefbyterians, whit 
 private member takes the guilt upon himlelf ; but, if he 
 difapproves of it, exclaims againft the fetlion. Upon the 
 fame perfons fhould the abufes of the Lord's Supper 
 have been principally chargeable. 
 
 In like manner, when our Lord writes to the feven 
 churches of Afia, he praiies or blames them individually. 
 He never cenfures one, for the errors of another, though, 
 with great feverity, he reprimands each, for tbe errors 
 of any part of itfelf. He charges the whole church as 
 guilty, in keeping or retaining in communion an errone- 
 
 * See alfo Acls xviii. 27. When Apollos was rlifpofed 
 to pals over into Ac'uaia, he received recommendatory letieis 
 from the brethren, not a claflical picfbyttry. 
 
71 
 
 ous or profligate member ; but he never charges one 
 church, with the errors of another. Now, if they had 
 been under the prefbyterian foim of church government, 
 all the churches would have been chargeable with the 
 faults and defects of each, as much as the whole indivi- 
 dual church was chargeable with thofe of its members. 
 Neither does he call upon the one to reform the other ; 
 but each to reform itfelf. Now, had the churches of 
 Ltfler Alia been prefbyterian, our Lord would have 
 written to the fynod or prefbytery, and not to the indivi- 
 dual churches to reform themfelves. A prefbyterian 
 congregation cannot reform rtfelf. Chrift, therefore, 
 could not have been the author of prefbytery. 
 
72 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Having invefligated the claims of preAiytery and in- 
 dependency upon Icriptuve evidence, it may be proper 
 to take notice of fome objections that I h*ve heard urg- 
 ed againft the fcheme which I defend. Some of 
 are really fo futile, that I am almoit afh imed to bring 
 them forward, to give them a formal refutation. But 
 I have obferved in convention on this fu~jeft, that 
 when the advoc .Us of prefbytery are driven from the 
 fciipture?, they fometiroes fhelter themfelves under the 
 fuppofed defefts of independency, or adv intakes of pref- 
 bytery. And it is really aftonithing with what (uper- 
 ficial renfoning. they will impofe upon themfelves. A 
 few of fuch objections I will mention, and diipaich with 
 the utmoft brevity. 
 
 i. It is alleged, that " there are too many feels al- 
 « ready, and that we ihould rather endeavour to unite 
 «' thofe that are already formed, than form another." 
 I pe.feftly agree with the ol :jec"lor, that there are too 
 ma.iv feds already, and that it is our duty to endea- 
 vour to unite ChriaimiS in all things. But how is tins 
 to be done ? Is it by eacn party propofing to throw 
 a. vay a part of what they look upon to be truth, and 
 embrace a little of what they coniider wrong, that they 
 may fplice up a worldly union ? Is it by the church 
 rulers of different fefts, meeting to compromile their dif- 
 ferences, like a reference after a quarrel in a country 
 fair ' Is it by fuch language as this, '' I will give up 
 fo much, give you up fo much, and we will meet : * Is 
 this a fcriptural way to unite lefts ? Is it not rathe 
 etch to appeal to the Bible, and meet on that con 
 
73 
 
 ground ? Should not the language be, " We cannot all 
 " be right, let us then try our fyftems by the ftandard 
 11 of truth, adopt whatever it recommends, and reject 
 '.' whatever it condemns ?." Truly it is a very modeft. 
 way of reafoning, that there are fo many feels already, 
 that there is no room for introducing the model which 
 Chrift has left us in the churches of the apoftles ! If 
 once Chriftians could be brought to feel it their duty to 
 ceafe from man, and renounce every ftandard but the 
 Bible, they would not be long in uniting. Every union 
 that is attempted, or iffe&ed upon other grounds, is not 
 of God, but of the world. 
 
 2. It is fufpe&ed that " the encouragement that is 
 11 given to call in queftion the opinions of our fore-fa- 
 " thers, and fcrutinize them fo feverely by the fcriptures, 
 " will excite iuch a fpirit of innovation, that it will lead 
 " to univeifal fcepticifm." Nay, fome go fo far as ac- 
 tually to fix the time when fuch inquirers muft be advan- 
 ced into atheifts. 
 
 Truly it is a very aftonilhing thing that a habit of 
 fearching the word of God, of relying implicitly upon. 
 it, and comparing all humui opinions with that ftand- 
 ard, muft lead to fcepticifm. As well may it be faid, 
 that a habit of trufting God will lead us to diftruft him. 
 The fcriptures then are to blame for commending the 
 Bereans for " fearching the fcriptures daily whether 
 thefe things were fo." If our ancefiors at the reforma- 
 tion, had been afraid of thefe confequences, they never 
 would have dared to call in queftion the antient ufages 
 of their fathers, or to have condemned them by the word 
 of God. Never can any hurt arife from fearching the 
 fcriptures and a habit of being regulated by them. 
 " To the law and to the teflimony j if they fpeak not 
 agreeable to this word, it is becaufe there is no light in 
 them." 
 
 I do not however mean to fay, that there are no ex- 
 tremes on this fide ott! e queftion : but J do fay. that 
 thefe do not confift m comparing every human opinion 
 about divine things, with the word of God > in reject- 
 G 
 
71 
 
 Ing every tittle of what is contrary to this ftandard ; 
 and adopting themereft minutire or" what is pointed out. 
 To run ir.ro extremes here, mull be to go farther than 
 the fcriptures. Wnile we keep upon this ground, we 
 cannot advance too far. But in fearching the fcriptures 
 upon this, as well as every other fubject, there is great 
 need of humility, and a confcioulnefs of our own noMiing- 
 nefs in the fight of God. If ever we begin the fearch with 
 a defire to go beyond others, and have the honour to be 
 more fharp- lighted than thole who preceded us, we ihall 
 certainly err. The natural pride of the human heart 
 ihews itfelf in various ways, and it is not ftrange that it 
 ihould fometimes lead even good men into (insularities. 
 The fcriptures are plain, but it is only " the Spirit that 
 can lead us into all truth." In fearching the fcriptures 
 for the mind of God, we ihould never neglect to afk, 
 not formally, but earneltly and continually, the guidance 
 of th it heavenly conductor. O tvhat prayer ! what felf- 
 abnfement ! w hat a thirft for truth ! what felf denial, are 
 necefiary in thofe who would advance in the knowledge 
 of divine things ! If we depend upon our own fuperior 
 fagacity, if we prize not the frralleft fcripture truth as 
 more prtcious than rubies, and are not ready to give up 
 the dearelt earthly poffeflions and connexions rather than 
 part with it ; if we hive not irmplicity of view, and a 
 {Ingle eye to the glory of God, it will not be ftrange if 
 we go ailray in our fearch. But if we are made willing 
 to receive truth at the greateft rifk. ana 1 , confeious of 
 our weaknefs, inc.fluntly and importunately to cave 
 the direction of the Spirit, I do not think that the God 
 of tiuth will fuffer us to be led allray. Wliillt, there- 
 fore', we, like the Berenns. fearch the fcriptures for our- 
 felves, let us not br hcor/y or high-minded, but hum- 
 bly wait at the feet of'Jefus, to learn wildom from his 
 lips. 
 
 3. It is alleged that " the piefbyterian form of go- 
 " vernment is better calculated to reprefs 1 erefy, pre- 
 *' ferve purity of doctrine, aird authoritatively lettle all 
 M dilputes that arife among their congregations." But 
 I afk, hotv have they this power ? Is it by force or per- 
 iuafion ? If it is by the latter, then independents ei joy 
 
75 
 
 it in its utmort latitude ', if it is by the farmer, then the 
 go r pel difcl-ims it ; Chrift abhors it. Is not this evi- 
 dently inconfiltent with the whole fpirit and letter of 
 the gofpel ? F'nefe are carnal, not fpiritual weapons. 
 Is not this to put a hand to the ark, and a diftrul* of the 
 power of the great head of the church, who bears it upon 
 his own fhoulders ? What is the crime in the nations 
 which God hath always punifhed with the greateft rig- 
 our ? Is it not that of prefuminy to t <ke upon themfelves 
 the defence and protection of his people the Jews? 
 Thofe who injured his people, are indeed punifhed ; but 
 thofe who ftepped in between him and them, to take 
 their confidence oft" himlelf, are punifhed with the ut« 
 moft feverity. Egypt, that oppreffed Ifrael, was pu- 
 nifhed •, but the crime was, as it were, afterwards for- 
 gotten ; but Egypt that became the ft iff of Ifrael, is not. 
 pardoned till this very day. From the overthrow of 
 Neeianebus by Ochus, 350 years before Chrift, it never 
 has had a king of its own Degraded from among the 
 nations, governed by foreigners, erflaved and oppreffed, 
 God hath exhibited it as a malefactor in the gibbet, 
 for a warning to others. He is as jealous of the prero- 
 gative of fupporting his church, as a hufband is of the 
 confidence and affeclion of his wife, and views every 
 foreign interference, as an attack upon his honour. Will 
 men, then, never learn to truft God with his own caufe, 
 and ufe only the means that he hsth appointed to pre- 
 ferve his truths ? Will they never ceafe to provoke his 
 jealoufy, by affociations to defend his church ? Is there 
 any fear that ever the gates of hell will (hake it offlm- 
 manuel's fhoulders ? Alas that ever Chriftians (hould 
 have thought of fubilitutinghuman bulwarks, for the con- 
 tinual p'efence of Jehovah, who is as a voait of Jire 
 around his Zion ! 
 
 But the prefhyterian method of preferving orthodoxy, 
 and fettling difputes, is not only unfcriptural, but is al- 
 ways without any real advantage. They may keep 
 their members from preaching contrary to their ftand- 
 ard bar can they enable *" the blind to lead the blind, 
 without both falling into the ditch." Force may make 
 
76 
 
 a hypocrite, but can never make a Chriftian. Intereft 
 may conflrain a carnal man to profefs the leading truths 
 of the gofpel, but midnight darknefs will reign in his 
 congregation. Among many there. is a continual crv of 
 faundmfs and orthodoxy, who appear to everv fpiritual 
 man to be detiitute of the truth, as it is in Jefus, and to 
 hold the truth in unrighteoufiiefs. Even among the 
 ilri6ter feels of prefbyterians, lam conftrai.ned to fay, 
 that while fome of them do not fail to (hew their zeal 
 by lifting tip a teftimony againft the corruptions of the 
 general ly.no. 1, they appear to be bunting after the world 
 with equal avidity. And 1 know where it is faid, •' If 
 any man love the world, the love of the father is not in 
 him." 
 
 4. It is alleged in behalf of prefbytery, that " in the 
 " multitude of counfellors there is fafety ; that feveral 
 " congregations muft have more wifdom than one j and 
 M that an affembly of learned men muft be better quali- 
 " fled to tranfaft church matters than an ignorant mul- 
 titude." 
 
 This reafoning might have fome effeft, if there wai 
 any thing left to the wifdom of man. The generality 
 of Chriftians, are the " weak things of this world." and 
 of all men living they are the leaft qualified for the ar- 
 duous duty of legiflation. But thanks be to God, he 
 hath left no fuch things to be done by any. Evei v ne- 
 ctffary law and direction are given, and nothing more is 
 neceff.iry, than to judge of their application, to which 
 the moll ordinary capacity is equal, in the ufe of the 
 appointed means, and under the promifed guidance of 
 the Spirit. Poor defpifed Chriftians would indeed be ill 
 qualified to appear in what is impioufly llyled a court 
 of (Thrift. But the meaneft and moll ignorant of them 
 are equal to judge of every cafe of difciplme, that can 
 occur in Chrift's houfe ; for it is faid that " they (hall be 
 all taught of God " And indeed I would expeft a 
 more ju'ft determination from fuch, than from the repre- 
 fentatives 1 f all the churches on earth. Chrift's pre- 
 fence is with the one, as being according to his own ap- 
 
77 
 
 pointment, while it is likely the other (hall be left to 
 their own wifdom *. 
 
 * Such objrclors differ very widely from the Apoftle 
 Paul, who luppoles that even the weakeft Dints aie capa« 
 ble of judging not merely of the fpiritual concerns of the 
 church, but alio of fettling the civil difputes of the bre- 
 thren, i Cor vi. 4 " If then ye have judgments of things 
 pertaining to this life, fet them to judge who are leaft ef- 
 teemed in the chutch " We are not to fuppofe from this 
 however, that a church is always to felecl " the leaft ef- 
 teemed" for the arbitration of civil differences. In my opi- 
 nion the fpirit of the palfage is this— differences among 
 brethren fhould be fettled by arbitration of the church. 
 Some of the Corinthians had trarifgreffed this rule, and 
 (hewn, by their appealing to the civil law, that they fup- 
 pofed there were not any among their brethien fit for this 
 office The apoftle takes fire at the fuppofition, that thoje 
 who were to judge wicked men and angels as affeffors with 
 Chrift in the great day, mould be efteemed unfit to judge 
 in fuch comparatively trivial matters; and to fhew them 
 that he looked upon all Chriftians to be qualified for this 
 bufinels, he bids them choofe from among themfelves even 
 thofe that were accounted the weakeft. As if he had faid, 
 to (hew you that they are wife in whom the Spirit of God 
 dwells, let the *' leaft efteemed" brethren be fmgled out 
 upon any emergency, and they will wifely determine the 
 matter. Then he fubjoins, " I fpeak this to your fhamei" 
 you have looked upon all your brethren as unwife or un- 
 juft ; the Spirit of God declares them all, even the leaft ef- 
 teemed of them, to be qualified to fettle your difputes. Arc 
 you not then afhamed of your opinion and corducl, with 
 refpecl, to your brethren, judging fo unfavourably of them, 
 and differing fo much fiom the judgment of God ? That the 
 apoftle looked upon all the faints as fit for fuch an office, 
 is clear, not onlv from the words ** leaft efteemed," but 
 alio from the arguments of illutt ration in the 2d and 3d 
 verfes — the faints judging the world and fallen angels. 
 All the faints fmall and great, (hall have thishonour; there- 
 fore, to make the argument conclufive, all the faints mud 
 be fit for the duty of arbitration But that a church is not 
 bound alwayr to ftleft the - " leaft efteemed" for this pur- 
 pofe, is clear, not only from the fpirit of the paffage already 
 explained, but from what follows in the 5th verfe — " Is it 
 fo that there is not a wife m?n amongft you ? No, not one 
 that fhall be able to judge between his brethren ?" This 
 queftion fuppofes, that the church was at liberty to choofe 
 G3 
 
78 
 
 I have heard, that the moft ufoal, and the molt effec- 
 tual way that certain perlons have taken to prejudice 
 the minds of the people of this country againlt indepen- 
 dents, is, by representing them as " difoiderly j" — 
 " without diicipline j" — " breaking down the hedge j" 
 •— " not coming in by the door." 
 
 In the New Tcftament, Chrift calls bimfelf the doorj 
 if any one, then, come-not in at this door, 1 heartily 
 confent that all pulpit doors be Ihut against him. God 
 is laid to have made a hedge about his vineyard. But 
 it feems now, that not Cm ill, but the prefbytery, is the 
 door, and, that the hedge 01 God's laws and institutions 
 is not Sufficiently high and prickly to keep out wild 
 bealls, but it muft be new-made, or at ltalt mended by 
 fynodical authority. I am afraid that the generality, 
 even of Christians, in this country, are much miftaken 
 in tneir notions of the diicipline of Chriffs houfe. It 
 is not the punctual attention to a wide fyftem of human 
 rules and regulations, that deferves the name of difci- 
 pline, but the faithlul execution of all the laws, given by 
 Chrift in the New Testament. Thofe fects, w ho, in this 
 country, are molt highly ppplauded for difcipline, have 
 indeed, a iigorous code of human iaws, and are peculiar- 
 ly Strict in the obfervance of them ; but this is not dif- 
 cipline, but eccieiiaflical ufurpationand tyranny. Christ's 
 difcipline is calculated to prevent the entrance of the 
 carnal profefibr, or to discover him, if he has been ad- 
 mitted. But fuch a perfon, it he his a decent behavi- 
 our, and a found of orthodoxy, might pafs his life in 
 the mjft rigorous prefbyterian connections, without de- 
 tection. He muft, indeed, have a considerable portion 
 of pharifaical righteoufnefs, but he will be admitted and 
 
 feft among the brethren. V then, the " leaft eRcem- 
 ed," are qualified judges, they are inexcu fable, who will 
 not be amenable to the decifion of the moft elteemed in the 
 church. Coioilarv — If the weaker! brethren are qualified 
 to decide in matteis of property, without appealing to tie 
 fupeiior learning, wifdom, or judicial knowledge of a pref- 
 bytery or fynoJ, nay without even appealing to the civil 
 law, much more are they qualified to judge cf every thing, 
 as to the difcipline of Clirdt's houfe. 
 
79' 
 
 continued without the life and power of godlinefs. ThJ9 
 is a bold charge ; if any feft of prdb)terians think, it 
 unjuft, let them repel it. Before they can do this, they 
 rnurt be able to declare, that there is not an individual 
 in their connexion, that they do not look upon as a 
 member of Chtift. If they cannot make this declara- 
 tion, their difcipline is defective. I can refer them to 
 an independent church, confining of more than 600 
 members, in which etch individual can make this de- 
 claration concerning his brethren. I am therefore con- 
 strained to charge luch obiedors either with the groiY- 
 elt ignorance, or wilful mineprefentation. A want of 
 difcipline. is what I charge upon prefbyterians. This 
 is among the chief o'ojeftions I have to them. " Ey 
 their traditions, they have made void the law of God." 
 But let them produce one fingle mle of difcipline, ap- 
 pointed by Chriit, which independents refufe to admit. 
 If they can (hew them any thing in lcripture, which 
 they have not hitherto obferved, I am fure they will 
 not aft up to their principles, if they do not adopt it 
 with gratitude. But if they mull; be called " difordeily," 
 becaufe they reject the interference of man in the things 
 of God, becaule they refu!e obedience to any rules but 
 thofe of Chrift, they are not concerned to repel the 
 charge. 
 
 6. When prefbyterians are driven from the Eible, 
 they fometimes (belter themfelves under the wings of 
 learned and pious men. " Are you wiier or better than 
 u our anceftors, who have (lied their blood for prefby- 
 " tery ? If ever the Spirit of God was with any body 
 " of men, it was with the Wertminfter divines." With 
 fome, it is very common to point at the reformation as 
 perfeft, and every declenfion in principle or praclice in 
 profeffors, is a declenfion, not from the fcriptures, but 
 the rtformation. They muft indeed be blind, who do 
 not look upon the reformation as the greateft national 
 bleffmg any people ever experienced j but thole who 
 thus idolize the reformers, are guiity of fetting up ano- 
 ther God in Ifrael. However much we have been 
 benefited by their labours, however eminent were their 
 attainments, it is "to the law, and to the teiilmony," 
 
80 
 
 not to the reformers, we are direcled as the flandard of 
 truth. As to the Weftminiter affembly, I am neither 
 concerned to accufe nor condemn them — Epifcopacy, 
 prefbytery, and independency have each had fome of 
 the molt pious men in the lid of their defenders ; the 
 Chriltian thtn can have no fafe guide but the Bible. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Reafons why fome are apt to conclude, that there is 
 no Church-model in Scripture. 
 
 I have now given my reafons, why it is probable 
 that the fcriptures of the New Teflament contain a mo- 
 del of church government, and have examined the pre- 
 tentions of prefbytery and independency. Before I dif- 
 mifs the fubjeft of church government, I think, it not 
 amifs, to point out a few reafons, why fome ingenious 
 and pious men have not been able to difcover any de- 
 finite plan of any kind, if difinterefted enquirers differ 
 materially uDon any point, in the examination of which 
 they draw from a common iource, there is likely to be 
 fome circumftanccs in their fituation which lead to the 
 difference ; fomething that tends to involve the fubjecl 
 of inquiry. 
 
 I. In my opinion, one tl ing that tends to prevent 
 fome from feeing a model ot church government in the 
 New Teftament, is, their being accuflomed to take their 
 ideas of the government of a fpiritual, from that of a tem- 
 poral kingdom. 1 hey are apt to expecl a vigorous plan, 
 a-kin to their ideas of the beft conftituted civil govern- 
 ments. Whatever they judge the beft calculated to 
 govern a kingdom of this world, they look upon to be 
 the fitted for the kingdom of Chrift. In examining the 
 fcriptures, then, it is no wonder they pafs and repafs 
 the apoftolical model, without feeing it. This is too 
 
fimple to be effectual. Like Naaman the Syrian, wh© 
 thought be was mocked by the prophet, when he pre- 
 fcribed as his cure, to wafh in the water of Jordan, they 
 do not think it worth their trouble, even to give it a 
 trial. l'hev muft have a firm and coercive plan, calcu- 
 lated to fuftain C'iriftianity, and avenge it of its adverfa- 
 ries, as civil rights are by civil laws. In this view, I 
 grant that the apoftolical government muft difappear, 
 when brought into contraft or competition with either 
 prefbytery or epifcopacy. Preibytery is a vigorous 
 republic ; but as I faid elfewhere, this is not calculated 
 to govern a fingle carnal family. It would be totally 
 inefficient in worldly policy. Tothofe,then who have 
 thefe worldly ideas of Chrift's kingdom, independency 
 is like David going out with his fling and pebbles againft 
 Goliah. 
 
 2. Others are much influenced by the carnal inftitu- 
 tions, and pompous and maltifarious Jewifli heirarchy 
 and fanhedrim. They are apt to transfer their ideas of 
 the government of the [ewifh church, to that of the 
 Chriftian. If they are too impartial and enlightened to 
 pretend to fee any thing of this nature in the New Tef- 
 tameut, they are inclined to think, that for this reafon, 
 we are left to form a mode of church government for 
 ourfelves, according to time and circumfiances. They 
 do not find wnat they expect, and they haftily conclude 
 that nothing is to be found. 
 
 3. Many inquirers have been all their lives fo accu- 
 flomed to tre •pompou", multif irious. and complicated 
 fyftems of prefbytery, and epifcopacy, that when they 
 go to the New I eftament they are led to overlook the 
 fimple apoftolical plan. Their minds are fiiled with thefe 
 intricate ind punctilious fyftems, and are fo habituated 
 to the voluminous canons, laws, rules, regulations, adfs, 
 &c. &c. &c. which are to be found in almoft all 
 modern churches, that the Scripture directions for 
 church govemn ent, appear altogether defective, ob- 
 fcure, and unadequate. I'hey look into the Scriptures 
 —they can find neither the church of England, nor 
 the church of Scotland, nor any of the numerous fefls 
 
82 
 
 formed on the fame model — they inftantly_ conclude, 
 that there is no form of government revealed, or at 
 molt, is only coarfely blocked, to be vaiioufly formed 
 or fhaped according to the dilTerent humours of fucceed- 
 ing ages. 
 
 4. Another reafon why fome are inclined to conclude 
 that there is nothing delivered in Scripture fufhcient 
 for the government of a church, is, that many writers 
 liave represented the matter much more clear, full, and 
 exprefs, than it is in reality. With fome there is not 
 a doftrine more cleirly and filly revealed in Scripture. 
 They can fee their favourite fyltem in almoft every page. 
 When we hear men arguing from the tabernacle of Mo- 
 fes, to the polity of the Chritlian church, and afferting 
 thu Chrift's faithfulnefs engaged him to be as explicit, 
 full and particular, in giving a model for the govern- 
 ment of his church, as Moles was in erecYmg the Ta- 
 bernacle, and thus determining a priori, with the moil 
 arrogant confidence, what Chrifl muft have done, inftead 
 6f considering what he has actually done, we are apt to 
 expe£t the mojljlately fabric. When we go to the 
 Scriptures themfelves, if we cannot fee through the 
 magnifying glafTes of particular fe£ls, and fwallow their 
 high probalides for demonstration, we are ready to con- 
 clude that there is no definite model at all. They make 
 us expe£t a giant ; we fee a man, of nothing but the 
 ordinary fize ; and from our difappointment. we are 
 ready to look upon h ; m as a very dwarf. When we 
 are made to expect too much, we are apt to be chagrin- 
 ed with our difappointment ; and front our previous 
 high imagination, we think the objeft more infignifi- 
 cant than it really is. Dr Pococke tells us he had 
 formed fuch an idea of the celebrated catarafts of the 
 Nile, from the exaggerated accounts of former travel- 
 lers, that when he came in fight of them, fo very much 
 did they fall below his expectations, fo far from thinking 
 thefe to be the objects of his curiofity, he afked when 
 he fhould reach them ; and it was not without furprife, 
 that he was told they were already in view. Such is the 
 cife with many when they go to look for church govern- 
 ment in the Scriptures. 
 
S3 
 
 *5- Another thing that tends to hide the Scripture 
 mock 1 from fome inquirers is their expedition of a fyf- 
 tematic plan, or a formal treatife on the fubjtcl. They 
 look for a jointed fcheme, as methodically detailed, as 
 prefbytery is exhibited in the Weitminifter Confeffion. 
 When they look into the New Teflament for fuch a 
 plan, there is nothing like it to be found ; the half 
 of the whole epiftles would fcarcely contain fuch a fyf- 
 tem. The conlufion then is, that no form of church 
 government is revealed. I would alk fuch inquirers, 
 upon what do they found their expectation of a fyf- 
 tem, or formal treatife on church government ? Is there 
 in the whole range of revelation, any thing like a fyf- 
 tem, upon any fubjeel ? Is there any doclrine, is there 
 any precept in fcripture delivered fyftematically ? Tske, 
 for inftance, the doctrine of the atonement j we do not 
 find all the texts that illullrate this doctrine, collected 
 into a fyftem, but fcattered from the beginning to the 
 end of revelation. In the lame manner, doctrines and 
 precepts are not kept diiiii:cl, but intentionally inter- 
 mingled, as it were, to prevent daring men from fepar- 
 ating them, and feting up the one in opposition to the 
 other. Doclrines are there taught praclicaily, and pre- 
 cepts as flowing from the doctiines. We have in the 
 fame reafoning, in the fame period, doctrine arid pre- 
 cept. Thus in Plulipians ii. 5, — 11, we have the 
 doclrine of Chrift's equality with the Father, and the 
 precept of humility, as flowing from this, in the fame 
 period. 
 
 • 
 Indeed the rmnner of the revelation of divine truth, 
 feems every where calculated and intended to excite 
 to induftry and fearch, and overcome our natural love 
 of eafe. Nothing is got by the lazy ard inattent've. 
 While on the one hand the great truths of revelation 
 are fo plain, that a man may, as it were, " run and 
 read," beingTo.und in every pt'ge, fothat *' the wayfar- 
 ing man, though a fool, cannot err therein j" on the 
 other, it is fo wifely regulated to fpur us to exertion, 
 that to exhibit completely in all its features and bear- 
 ings, and effectually prove any one point, it is neceffary 
 to turn over and over, fearch eveiy page, compare ipi- 
 
84 
 
 ritual things with fpiritual, and examine the fame doc- 
 trine in the different connexions and views in which it 
 is fousd in Scripture. In one text a doctrine is taught, 
 perhaps with all its tffential parts, but with fome of its 
 features more marked and prominent than others, ac- 
 cording to the purpofe the Holy Spirit meant it to 
 ferve on th it particular occafion. In another, the fame 
 truth is brought forward in a different point of view, to 
 ferve a different purpofe, with the features that were 
 lefs prominent in the other, now more marked and di- 
 flinct. Like a painter who would exhibit the fame 
 fcene :n a multiplicity of views, alternately bringing 
 forward and putting into the back ground the diff rent 
 objects which he wants to reprefent. In 01 e reprefen- 
 tation we have a palace as the chief object of attention, 
 and its owner and family walking at fome diftance, are 
 feen indiitin£Hy. In another, the owner, if a celebnt- 
 ed pevfonage, is reprefented as the chief object, and the 
 pal ice is put in?o the fhade. In another, if the pain- 
 ter has an intention to fhew us principally, fome farprif- 
 ing and romantic fcenery, we will fee the palace and the 
 mailer ioth put into the back-ground. Now, that we 
 may form a clear and diilincl notion of the matter, the 
 palace, and the fcenery, we muft view all the three 
 pictures alternately, though all are reprefented in eve- 
 ' ry one of them. Juft fo it is in Scripture. Its truths 
 are (o fcattered, and vaiioufly reprefented, upon fuch 
 various occafions, for fo many dillincl: pur poles, that we 
 cannot have a complete view of any one of them with- 
 ont examining the whole Bible. They are fo interwo- 
 ven, and have fuch a connexion and mutual dependence 
 upon each other, that a knowledge of one truth cannot 
 thoroughly be obtained without a pretty general ac- 
 quaintance with all the reft *. How ablurd is it then, 
 to expect a fyftem or formal treatife on church govern- 
 
 * I am fure I have found the advantage of this mode 
 of revelation in examining this fubject. Had it been me- 
 thodicaHv ^id down in one place, ;.nd been 'ccomparned 
 with no difficulties, I would have been deprived or much 
 additional knowledge, which 1 obtained, on many, points, 
 in my iearch. 
 
ment ! If the greatelt truths of Scripture are reveale 1 
 in this manner, how unreafonable is it to expect a dif- 
 ferent method on this point ! Yet it appears to me 
 that an attentive obferver will find that the reafon why 
 many conclude there is no form of church govern- 
 ment laid down in Scripture, is becaufe they do not find 
 afy/lem. 
 
 b. Some are led to think that there is no com- 
 plete model intended to be exhibited in the New Tef- 
 tament, becaufe all we have on this fubjecl is given in- 
 directly, and as it were unintentionally, and not iuffi- 
 ciently and fully explained. I have already hinted at 
 the reafon why the fubjecl: could not be confidently 
 handled in an exprefs and copious manner. As we are 
 no where known in Scripture, but in the peifon of the 
 firiT churches, we could not expect a direct addrefs on 
 the fubjecl of church government : what is faid to them 
 is laid to us. And a< it would be abfurd to expecl; that 
 an apoflle, after forming a church in any place, would, 
 in a fubfequent letter, give them exprefs directions for 
 the formation of a church, feeing this was already done j 
 all we can expecl is an indirect, and as it were, an un- 
 intentional allufion to what was done, and a fcattered 
 picture of their church order. Ir.llead, then, of being 
 difappointed at this mode of communication, no other 
 can we reafonably expect.. Indirect hints, incidental 
 obfervations, and a paffing view of their practice, i* all 
 that the manner of revelation can admit. The know- 
 ledge of their church order muft neceffarily be obtain- 
 ed from paffages where the apoftles are profeffedly treat- 
 ing of fomething elfe. But this is not the only thing 
 to be proved in this manner. The chief knowledge 
 that we have upon many other points, is obtained exact- 
 ly in this indirect and circuitous way. A diitinction be- 
 tween ordinary and extraordinary officers is generally ad- 
 mitted ; yet the exadt boundaries of their office is no 
 where profeffedly and exactly treated. A (landing mi- 
 ril'try is generally granted, yet the chief proofs of this 
 muft be ob -lined from incidental, indirect, ;»nd as it 
 were, unintentional hints, and *he example of the a- 
 poftolical churches. To piove the truth of the Scrip- 
 H 
 
86 
 
 tures themfelves, or any of their do&rines, nothing 
 more is neceflary than fufficient evidence o convince 
 the humble earneft enquirer. It is by no means ne- 
 ceflary to filcnce the caviller, and divert the difobe- 
 dient of every pretext. There is not a (ingle doclrine 
 of revelation, the inveftigation and proof of which, 
 is not accompanied with difficulties. " There muft 
 be herefies, that they which ore approved may be made 
 manifeft. 11 If, then, there are difficulties, even with 
 refpeft to truths neceflary to falvation,is it rtrange that 
 there fhould be more in matters of comparatively lefs 
 importance ? 
 
 But though the fubjeft is no- largely explained and 
 direftly inculcated, the fc ittered incidental hints we 
 have, when united, will be found not at all deficient for 
 the puipofes of church government. Thty will be 
 found lb complete, that a church of Chrifl will not be 
 obliged to advance a Hep but on lacred ground. If 
 this be the cale I would afk, what more do people 
 want > I acknowledge, that this mode of conveying di- 
 vine truth does not fuit thofe who enquire under the 
 influence of a worldly fpnit When this is the cafe, 
 it will not be ft*. ange it the Sciipfural materials (hould 
 appear extremely fcanty, and oblcure or confufed. He 
 will be too ready to think hin fell jullifiable tot ike the 
 lid'" of worldly interelt. unlefs the glaTe of evidence 
 be fuch that it is impoffi lie to refilt it. He mull be 
 driven to duty by t^e t ur.ders of Sinai, and rot con- 
 tained by the gentle voice of Chiilt, when he Lys, 
 11 He that loveth me, keepeth my commandments." 
 But we fhould not afk, like Henry IV. of France, " Is 
 there falvation in fuch a church ?" but with the ;pof- 
 tle " Lord what would'lt thou have me to do ?" 
 lead) to perform the lenrt. as well as the grearel* of 
 his commandments. We rt> mid continually hang upon 
 the lips of our Malier, ready with the alacrity and 
 alertnefs of an an, el. to perform his plenfure, girl of 
 difcovering it. though it fhould rob us of our property, 
 Or even our life. Such enquirers, I apprehend, will, 
 after leilurelv investigation, have no need to complain 
 of a want of Scripture materials on this fubjeft. 
 
S7 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Charatfer of Church Members — or the necejjity of 
 pure Communion, 
 
 I have now ftated my views of church government, 
 which, after an impartial and leifurely learch, I have 
 been conftrained to embrace. But I have other rea- 
 fons for feparating from the general fynod, which ttill 
 more pungently touch my confcience. One of thefe is 
 the continual neceffity 1 would be under, of proftitut- 
 ing the ordinances of Chriit by promiscuous communion* 
 I ihall therefore devote this chapter to point out the 
 chara&er of the members of the apoftolical churches, 
 and prove the neceffity of pure communion. If I fuc- 
 ceed, it will be evident, that 1 cannot confcientioufly 
 remain in a connexion in which I am obliged to tranl- 
 grtfs fo important a law of Chrift. Even were I itill 
 a friend to prefbyterian government, I could not hold 
 communion wita the general fynod, nor any other pref- 
 byterian connexion that I am acquainted with. In none 
 of them that I know of, is there purity of communion. 
 — Many of them, indeed, have raifed very high human 
 hedges around the Lord's table, and have enjoined very 
 rigid terms of communion : but in none of them, I be- 
 lieve, is credible evidence of the neiv birth the 'eft of 
 memberfhip. The gate is indeed (hut againft the open- 
 ly profane, but the decent worldling may paTs At 
 the same time, the child of God is excluded, if he can- 
 not digeft all the peculiarities of the feft, and load his 
 foul with a mafs of human obligations. If I am mif- 
 taken with reipeft to any involved in this charge, I 
 will be glad to retradt my cenfure, upon convincing 
 
information. I do not write to compliment, neither do 
 I write to expofe, but to reform. This is a point which 
 I know miny prefbyterians will not difpute. They ac- 
 knowledge its defirablenefs, but doubt, in the prefent 
 ftate of the church, as they fpeak, its practicability. 
 Nay, all who exclude any, virtually ackowledge this 
 principle. For if they exclude one fort of finners, by 
 xvhat authority do they admit another r I beg, there- 
 fore, that prefbyterians of this defcription will accom- 
 pany me through this chapter. Though they are able to 
 difprovc; all I have faid on the fubjedf. of church go- 
 vernment, yet if I can convince them, of the finfulnefs 
 of admitting to communion, any but the credible dil- 
 ciples of Chrift, and to perfuade them to a£t up to 
 their convictions, I will not have loft my labour. I 
 would be glad indeed, to fee any of the prefbyterian 
 connexions, even thus far reformed. I acknowledge, I 
 have been guilty in this inltance, hitherto, and am per- 
 iuaded, that nothing has contributed fo much to render 
 my labours fo unfruitful, though I had not the fame 
 views of the fubje6l which I have at prefent. I look 
 upon promifcuous communion to refemble adultery — 
 it muft be viewed by a jealous God with the utmoft dif- 
 pleafure. What is the reafon, while there are multi- 
 plied feels of flnmingly orthodox prefbyterians that 
 darknefs covers oar land, and grofs darknefs the people ? 
 Is the fanlt in man or in God r " Behold the arm of 
 the Lord is not fhortened that he cannot lave, nor his 
 ear heavy, that he cannot hear,"'' &c. 
 
 When we look into the epiftles for the character of 
 the members of apoftolical churches, we find that they 
 were considered as members of the body of Chrift, 
 I Cor. i. 2. In writing to the church at Corinth the 
 .-<poftle denominates the members fanclified in Chrift 
 Jefus, called to be faints. Were I not already too vo- 
 luminous, I would quote and illuftrate the addreffes and 
 many other pafftges of the ep;ftles to the churches, to 
 fhew the character of the members of the apoftolical 
 churches; 1 mull be contented with refeiringro them, 
 Horn. i. 7. 2 Cor. i. 1. Eph. i. 1. Fhil. i. 1. Col. i. 2. 
 and ii. 6. 1 Theff. i. 1. 2 Theff. i. 1. 1 Pc|. i. 2. 
 
89 
 
 2 Pet. i. r. i Cor. vi. rr, 19, 20.— x. 17.— xii. 27. 
 
 I I'licff. ii. 13, 14. I Cor. x. 16 17 l"hefe paffages 
 will clearly point out what is the character of thofe who 
 ought to be recongnized as church members. The 
 church at Rome is commanded to receive him that is 
 ivtak in the faith. Now. tl is fuppofes that they were 
 in the habit of judging of thofe whom they admitted to 
 memberfhip and that thofe who had no Jaiih were not to 
 be received. Foi if they delibctattly received any without 
 evidence of faith, there could be no propriety in com- 
 manding them to receive him that was weak in Jaith, 
 M Give not that which is holy unto do#s," is as much a 
 command of Chrift as " thou (halt nor kill \ n and what- 
 evei be its primary meaning, it is a general precept, and 
 will hold more eminently true in this inftance than in any 
 other 1 am acquainttd with. 1 C01. iii. 10, — 16. is 
 more naturally interpicted of the admiffion of church 
 members, than of doctrines. Both the preceding, and 
 fucceeding conntxian fix it to this. Christians, not doc- 
 trines, are the lively ftones in God's building, and God's 
 hufbindry. His temple is to be built ufthefe materials. 
 It is not any dcclrine, with refpeel: to Chrift., that i' (aid 
 to be the foundation ; but he is the foundation himfelf. 
 New members might be added to apoltolical churches, 
 bur new do£t rines could not be lawfully promulgated In 
 this fenfe, the apofties not only laid the foundation, but 
 finifhed the houfe. There are neither gold, filver, nor 
 precious ftones now remaining to be built upon the foun- 
 dation of theapoftolical doctrines. Butthe gold, filver and 
 precious ftones, beautifully reprefent converted church, 
 members, who are not injured by the fire, and their dif- 
 ferent degrees of value *. All are valuable ; but while 
 fome are filver, others are gold, and others precious 
 flones. On the other hand, unconverted church mem- 
 bers are like wood, hay, and ftubble, which will be con- 
 fumed whenever fire is applied. The fire of temptation 
 and peifecution will try every church, during which, un- 
 converted members will fhew their combultible nature, 
 
 * This interptetation is ftrengthened from llaiah liv. 
 
 I I — >3i in which church members are repreftnted under fi- 
 n.ilar figures. 
 
 K 3 
 
and be confumed. At leaft the fire of the great judg- ' 
 ment will try the houfe of what fort of materials it is 
 built, and the builders will either have lofs or gain, ac- 
 cording to the refult of the trial. " And he himfelf 
 fhall be faved. yet fo as by fire," with the utmnft dif- 
 ficulty, as a man efcaping from the midtt of the flames. 
 He being a fervant of Cbrirt hirr.felf, (hall certainly have 
 an entrance, but not an abundant entrance into heaven. 
 Yea, and very probably, when the church is trying, by 
 means of the fire of temptation and ptrfecution, although 
 he may be pitferved from filling, he w ill be " faved by 
 tire." Heavy trials and afflictions may be laid upon him, 
 ;md the Lord may chaftife him fore, though he may not 
 give him over to death. He may be forely fcorched in 
 the fire of affliction, although he be not burnt up. If 
 this be the true interpretation of the p-ffage, which is 
 adopted by fome of the belt commentators, and which I 
 haveaiw;<)s thought the molt natural, frcm the firft 
 time I heard it fuggefled. there is an awful Itffon in it 
 to every church ruler, and to every church member, not 
 to hazard the peace and comfort ot their own fouls here, 
 nor the lofs of a part of their reward hereafter, by build- 
 ing God's houfe with combuftible materials ; admitting 
 unconverted tinners to member (hip. But the character 
 of church members is clearly determined from Act ii. 47. 
 '• And the Lord added to the church daily fuch as 
 fhould be faved," which is literally tranfLted thus: 
 * The Lord added the faved daily to the cnurch." It 
 does not meat: that the Lord added to the church uni- 
 verfal by converfion, though that is previoufly fuppofed j 
 but that he added fuch as were converted to the church 
 at Jerufalem. As loon as finners are converted, they 
 are faved, and none but the favtd were added to the 
 church at Jerufalem. It was the Lord added them, be- 
 cause the terras of adm;ffion were not the prudential 
 regulations of the church, but the Scripture evidence of 
 their being faved. The church was only God's instru- 
 ment. " The Lord faved them," and the church feeing 
 this, received them. 
 
 When we cenfider the character of the generality who 
 fit down at the Lord's table, and then read that awful 
 
91 
 
 afieveration (1 Cor. xi. 27.) it is enough to make the 
 hind to tremble which diltributes among them the em- 
 blems of the body and blood of Chrift. Indeed, I am 
 really aftonilhed that my confcience could ever have 
 borne it. Ah ! the guilt of profeffing Chriftians, in 
 this fingte inftance. If every unworthy communicant 
 is a murderer, yea a murderer of the Lord Chrilr^what 
 muft be the guilt of all fe&s of prelhyterians ; Is it any 
 wonder that the labours of faithful individuals among 
 them, mould be in a great meafure unprodu&ive. If the 
 murder of a man like ourfelves be a crime fo heinous, in 
 the eftimation of God and man, how aggravated a crime 
 is the murder of the Son of God ? What countlefs thou- 
 fands of ftupid finners are peimitted ralhly to embrue 
 their hands in the blood of Chrift ? Dreadful fentence ! 
 ' : Whoever (hall eat this bread, and drink this cup of 
 the Lord unworthily, fhall be guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord." Now, how much more aggravat- 
 ed is the guilt of the church that admits fuch memoers, 
 and the paftor that admintfters this ordinance to them ? 
 1 know, indeed, that* they ufually hold themfelves ex- 
 cufed, by faithfully warning them of their danger, and 
 thus laying their blood upon their own heads. I his 
 indeed was my own refuge. I wifhed to perfuade my- 
 lelf, that if I was faithful to point out the characters 
 of fuch as were unworthy, in a clear and explicit man- 
 ner, and fervently warn them of their dinger, that then 
 I was, innccent. But I now clearly lee that this re- 
 fuge was untenable, and have plainly told my people, 
 that I would no more adminifier th»t ordinance among 
 them, in the fame promifcucus manner than I would 
 dtfcer.d from the pulpit with a fword in my hand to de- 
 ft roy them. I have no ftandard' but the Bible, and am 
 ready to change any erroneous fentiment or couduc>. as 
 foon as I difcover it. We are frequently mitlaken for 
 want of having made any matter the fubje£t of particu- 
 lar consideration. But if any mininer of a feeling coo- 
 'fcience, can allow himfelf in the promifcuous admmi- 
 ftration of this ordinance, after his attention has 
 been called to the fubjeft, and having made it a matter 
 of prayer and inveftigktion, I am really aftonilhed. 
 The apology of faithfully warning, will not ftand even 
 
92 
 
 in human judgment, far lei's in the awful day of God. 
 If I put a fword into the hand of an angry madman, it 
 will be no excufe for me that 1 have warned him not to 
 kill the perfon againft whom he is enraged. I might 
 have known he would not have lillened to my counfel. 
 So if I put the emblems of Chrift's body and blood in- 
 to the hands of impenitent finners, I may warn and 
 warn, they are mr.d. and will not tnke warning, but ru(h 
 upon their ruin. Suppcfe there is a madman (landing 
 in an apothecary's (hop, while the apothecary is mixing 
 up a dofe of poifon in a liquor of which the madman is 
 very fond — the mandman alks for a drink of it — the 
 apothecary tells him there is poifon in it — and tint it 
 will furely kill him if he drink it — the madman infills 
 to have it, alleging that there is no fear, and that he can 
 drink it without any injury — the apothecary ftill aflerts 
 thar it will kill him if he will drii,k it j but if he per- 
 lifts in d« firing to have it, he will give it him, rather 
 than difoblige him — the madman re-.ches for it — 
 the apothecary gives it, taking the madman, and thofe 
 prefent, and God himfelf to witnefs. that he is clear 
 of his blood, for he hath faithfully warned him— t; e 
 madman diinks — and dies. Reader, were you or.e of 
 the jury to try the apothecary, would you clear him' 
 Will the Lord clear him in his judgment ? And in what 
 does the apothecary differ from the pallor, who puts the 
 emblems of Child's body and blood into the har.ds of 
 impenitent finners ? In nothing but in the degree of 
 their guilt. The latter is the more guilty, inafmuch 
 as the ihedding of the blood of Chnft is a greater crime 
 than the (bedding of the blood of a meie man ; and in 
 as much as the murder of a foul is a greater crime, than 
 the murder of the body. It is no excufe that gieat as 
 the crime of unworthy partaking of the Lord's fupper 
 is, it is neverthclefs pardonable. This is altogether 
 with God, whether he will grant pardon and repentance 
 or not •, and although the individual is afterwards par- 
 doned, the pallor's crime is not thereby mitigated. I 
 have applied it particularly to the paftor, but every 
 church member is guilty, and will be accountable j 
 for it is not to one or a few, but to the whole church, 
 that Chiift has committed the difcipline of his houfe. 
 
93 
 
 I believe that debarring or fencing the tables, and 
 giving of tokens, like all other human expedients in re- 
 ligion, have been of the raoft feiious injury *. It is a 
 bungling expedient to fupply the want of Scripture dif- 
 cipline, and an apoflolically conilituted church. If none 
 bat thofe who are credibly Chriftians, were admitted to 
 church memberlhip, what occalion would there be for 
 tokens of admiflion, or debarring. They will take their 
 feats around Chrift's table, as naturally as children will 
 feat themfelves unalked around the table of their earth- 
 ly father. Who dare debar any fuch ? And who dare in- 
 vite any other ? The cuil om of debarring, under the ap- 
 pearance of excluding the unworthy, is, in reality, only a 
 pretext for admitting worldly men, without feeming to 
 fhare in their guilt. Church rulers dare not profefledly ad- 
 mit unregenerate men, from fear of offending God, and 
 they dare not candidly deny them admiflion, from fear 
 of men. They have therefore found out a way to com- 
 promife the matter between God and the world, by 
 fencing the tables. Thus, they avoid giving individual 
 offence, and driving unregenerate men away from their 
 fociety, and imagine themfelves clear as to the crime of 
 proftituting the ordinance of Chrift. I afk, was ever 
 this mean found effectual to preferve purity of commu- 
 nion ? I am fure 1 have tried it in the molt awful man- 
 
 * Every one who receives a token h*s the folemn de- 
 claration of cliurch rulers, that they confider them as real 
 Chriftians For if it is granted that none but teal Chiiftians 
 have a right to this ordinance, of what is this a token, if 
 not of their fitnefs, at lead in the eftimation of thofe from 
 whom they receive it ? Now, if church rulers give i token 
 to any whom they do not upon good evidence confider to 
 be Chriftians, they are guilry of the moft awful deceiving 
 of finners that can be imagin.d. They lead them with a 
 blind upon their eyes to the brink of a precpice, and tell 
 them, as they are failing, that they are tumbling into per- 
 dition. T befeech thofe Chrifliar.s who are engaged in this 
 murderous bulinefs. to flop and reflect ; to weigh this with 
 ftrioufnefs and prayer. I believe that there are many who 
 give tokens with a trembling heart, and a fmiting confcience. 
 .Let t em beware ielt confcience, by the repetition of guilt, 
 become callous and feared. Their ftate is awful, if it has 
 ceafed to fmite. 
 
94 
 
 ner in my power, and I do not know that it was in any 
 degree effectual. O^ten. very often, the hardened una- 
 wakened linner will let ail pa's through his ear as the 
 path of an arrow through the air, while the weak and 
 timid Chruiian \ill take what is fiid as againll himfelf, 
 and be dilcouraged. indeed, they know very little of 
 the human heart, who think that an unawakened (inner 
 will take fuch a waning I hive laboured feveral hours 
 with individuals, without convincing tnem of thtii dan- 
 ger. Till the Lord open the eyes of their underftand- 
 ing, they will dill have lume refuge of lies. How then 
 could it De expelled to prevail with a multitude, in a 
 few minutes fpeaking, betore the administration of the 
 fupper ? 1 demand th.it thofe who praftile it will pro- 
 duce me either prectpt or example, either expeffed or 
 implied, for debarring and tokens of admiflion at the 
 Lord's lupper. If this cannot be produced, 1 aigue 
 that that church which cannot maintain apollolical 
 purity, without huonn expedients is not apoftolical- 
 ly conllituted. When I fee a wall fupported by a 
 buttrefs, I judge it has not a good foundation. When 
 I fee a human invention tmpl jyed to prop an ordi- 
 nance of Chrift, i form a fnnilar judgment. 
 
 But not only is the neceffity of pure communion 
 proved from the chancer of the members of the apo- 
 llolical churches, and direct Scripture precept — the 
 very model of the apollolical churches could not be 
 otherwife preferved. (Thrift's laws are not at all cal- 
 cu! ted to govern the devil's fuhjefts. Spiritual laws 
 will take no hold of carnal men. if there are unrege- 
 nerate members admitted and retained, they will throw 
 all into contufion. They will ltop the equability of 
 the ciiurch's motion, and whenever the fire of tempta- 
 tion begins to burn, the houie will fall with a cr^lh in 
 the midlt of the flames. I' they are not excluded, a 
 majority mull indantly be luoltituted for unanimity > hu- 
 nun laws and hum in fandioos mull be luollituted 
 for tliofe of the New Fellament. From one Hep to 
 another, they will arrive to a full grown antichrill, and 
 the more heads he will have, the more monftrous will 
 he be. 
 
95 
 
 I may add, there are ordinances of Chrift which can- 
 not be attended to, if ftrict purity of communion is not 
 preferved, i Cor. vii. z. — That civil difputes fhould be 
 determined by the church, is an apoftolical ordinance, 
 for the neglect of which, the Corinthians are feverely 
 reproved. But this is an ordinance which no church 
 can ever obferve, if they admit unregenerate men to 
 memberihip. Such petfons will yield to the deciiion of 
 the church, if it be in their favour ; but if it be againft 
 them, they will (hew little refpedt to the determination. 
 Neither does the apoftie's reafoning hold good with ref- 
 pecl: to fuch as judge, for they will not " judge the world.'''' 
 
 . Something like this, may, in fmaller matters, be attempt- 
 ed in a mixed communion, among a few individuals, ge- 
 nerally poor, and not able to maintain law fuits, having 
 little civil intercourse ; but can never effe&ually take 
 place in all cafts, except purity of communion be ftricl- 
 
 ly adhered to. 
 
 Mutual exhortation in church meetings *, is another 
 apoltolical ordinance, I Cor. xiv. 29.— I ThefT. v. n. 
 Let any prefbyterian congregation give this liberty to 
 private individuals, and they will fcon fee the houfe 
 in flames. The wood, the hay, and the ftubble, would 
 inftantly Like fire, and it would be altogether impoflible 
 to preferve my fort of order or decorum. This would 
 fhiver them, as a cedar in Lebmon is fplintered by the 
 lightning. None but the children of Chrift could bear 
 or improve fuch a privilege. — Now, that church which 
 cannot bear an apoltolical inftitution, is not apoftoiically 
 conftituted. 
 
 * As hypocrites will occafiona'ly find admittance into the 
 •churches of Chrift, fuch otrlinances as thefe, feem vilely 
 calculated to detedt them. That which appears to worldly 
 churches the mot exceptionable m thefe oidinances, is, in 
 reality, their great perfection, and prove their heavenly 
 birth. Thev aff>rd an expeditious way to difcover, and ex- 
 clude carnal proteffors They aie alio ufefut to difcipline 
 the true foldiers of Jefus ; they grind off their afperities, 
 accuflom them to forbearance, exercii'e their patience, and . 
 improve all their graces. 
 
96 
 
 CHAPTER XT. 
 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Mant who look upon purity of communion as a de- 
 firable thing, and go a certain length in effecting it. do 
 not aim at a ltricTt feparation, apprehending the attempt 
 to be euher fruitlefs or dangerous. — Some go lo far as 
 to fhield thtmfelves under Scripture example : 1 was 
 once of this number myfelf. I fhall therefore employ 
 this chapter in anfwering the objections ufually alleged 
 againlt any attempt to effedt a pure church. 
 
 Objection I. It is faid, " We cannot know men's 
 " hearts ; if they are fober and decent in their external 
 " conduct, and acknowledge their belief of the orthodox 
 " dodtrines, we can go no farther." 
 
 This objection, if there was any thing in it, would go 
 to (hew that Chrift has given a command to the churches* 
 which it would not be in their power to put into prac- 
 tice. If Chrilt has faid, " Give not that which is holy 
 unto dog c ," be fuppofes we are able to diftinguifh the 
 perfons whom he intends, otherwife his advice is unim- 
 portant. A phyfician cannot look into the inner part 
 of the human body, to fee what is the difeafe of his pa- 
 tient, yet he judges of this, by the fymptoms and ap- 
 pearances he beholds. Jult fo are we to judge of the 
 human heart. If the fountain be fait, fo will the ltreams ; 
 if the ftreams are frefh, we may judge that the fountain 
 has alfo been made frefh. Our Lord tells us theft a tree 
 is known by its fruits. If there is faith in the heart, 
 thei t will be obedience in the life. If t^ere be fpiritual 
 life, there will be fome fymptoms of it. The true pe- 
 nitent will bring forth fruits meet for repentance. The 
 
man who is born of the Spirit, will know the tilings of 
 the Spirit, and will lead a fpirkual life. If he be renew- 
 ed in the image of him that created him, he will evi- 
 dence this by his knowledge, righteoufnefs, and holinels. 
 If he loves Chrift, he will keep his commandments. I£ 
 his heart is with God, his perfon will not ufually be 
 found in the company of the wicked. If be loves him 
 that begat, be will alfo love them that are begotten, 
 and prefer their company and converfation to that of 
 all others. In (hort, if there be a real change of heart, 
 it will manifeft itfelf in the life. In fome inftances, avi- 
 fing from particular circumftances, there may be diffi- 
 culty ; and if, after much prayer and neceffary invefti- 
 gation, a church is deceived in any inftance, it is 
 not guilty. I dare fay if the members of a church 
 would take as much trouble in this, as they do in giving 
 out their money upon intereft, they would feldom be 
 deceived. They are not apt, out of exceffive chariry, 
 to hazard it with a man of a merely fpecious appearance, 
 till they enquire minutely into his ciicumftances and 
 character. 
 
 Obj. 2. I have heard fome allege, " that if they 
 " would go to fuch ftii£tnefs, they could admit very 
 " few." 
 
 I perfeclly agree with them in this fer.timent : but 
 this objection is not an alleviation, but a dreadful ag- 
 gravation of the crime. Such paftors are building a 
 Babel, not a temple of God. When their work will 
 be tried by the fire of the great day, it will be burned 
 up, and they (hall fuftain a dreadful lofs •, and be faved, 
 admitting they are the difciples of Chrift, with the ut- 
 moft difficulty. But this is not the remedy, but the very 
 caufe of their fewnefs. If a church is once formed upon 
 the apoftolical model, and walking in the commandments 
 and ordinances of the gofpel, it is impoffible, but they 
 will increafe. Though at firft there (hould be no more 
 than a dozen, the Lord will be adding daily to them, 
 fuch as are faved. The prefence of Chrift (hall be with 
 them, and continuing in prayer, they (hall be multi- 
 plied j for whatever two of them agiee in ajking, they 
 
9S 
 
 ftnll receive. I am convinced, from experience, that 
 this h the cvtfe. Since I ceafed to prollitute the Lord's 
 fupper at home and abroad, rry labours have been moie 
 vilibly blelled, and I have had more evidence of a work, 
 of grace going on. than I had in the whole five years 
 of my minillry ; and I am convinced that if a gofpel 
 church is formed amongft us. and ruled by the laws of 
 Chrift, we (haii have ilill more promifing profpecls. 
 But be this 2s it may, as to rayfelf, I hope I would not 
 again adrniniiter the Lord's fupper in the fame promif- 
 cuous way, for any earthly confideration. 
 
 Obj. 3. It is faid, that " this fort of ftrictnefs wiU 
 " drive finners away from the gofpel altogether, and 
 M therefore will defeat its own end." 
 
 What a pity that Cbriit had not the benefit of the 
 advice of thefe fage counfellors ! he would not have gi- 
 ven a command fo contrary to his own intention. Such 
 objectors may have an othodox creed, but the objection 
 arifes out of prefumption and unbelief. Not to mention 
 that the reje&ion of unregenerate perfons, is often over- 
 ruled to their converfiou. our bnfinefs is to obey God, 
 and le^ve events to himftlf Have we a greater inte- 
 reft, or are we more heartily concerned in enlarging his 
 church, than he is himfelf ? He h?th the hearts of all 
 men in his hands, and he turneth them as rivers of wa- 
 ters. He can make the mull violent enemies, the moil 
 devoted friends of his gofpel, whenever he pltales. It 
 he fays, •' Saul, StuI, why perfecuteft thoj me r" the 
 anfwer would be, " Lord, what wilt thou have me to 
 do ? Every human invention to enlarge and fupport 
 the church of Chrill. will not onlv utterly prove abor- 
 tive, but generally will hhve a tendency directly the re- 
 verfe of what is propofed. The great encouragement 
 given to the heathen tn renounce their re!i_'i f :\ buied 
 Chrifthnity in * heap of ru'tnim. in the time ot Conilan- 
 tine. And in everv age the admiffion of impure mem- 
 bers, to make a partv refpec"lable from their numbers, 
 has had 'he word eff< fts While the life of thofe that 
 are fpiritual is almoft extiuguifhed, the unregenerate 
 become fecured and hardened,. Nothing can tend more 
 
99 
 
 effectually to retard the progrefs of the gofpel, and 
 keep the eyes of the multitude continually blinded, 
 than to give them the Chriliian name and privileges, 
 whilft they are Mill the fervnnts of Satan. They think 
 they are fafe, and believe they are Chriflians, though 
 not k> good as fome others. If their minifter is fo faith- 
 ful as to lay open their character in public, and (hew 
 them their danger, they will either (huffle it off upon 
 their neighbour, or apologife to themfelves for their own 
 conduft. Thofe who are p.ccuftomed to examine the 
 hopes of fi oners, will find that admiffion to what they 
 Call Chriftian privileges, is a very prevalent ground of 
 hope. If all the churches of Chrift were to treat the 
 world as heathen?, till they are born again, it would be 
 a likely mean in the hand of the Spirit to roufe them 
 to inquiry, and lead them to repentance. Even thofe 
 wY-> are in the habit of refuting admiffion to perfons of 
 a fcandnlous character, very frequently do it in an impro- 
 per manner. They ground their tefufal, not upon their 
 w^nt of conversion, but their irregularities, or their not 
 fubmitting to rules. This tends to miflead the (inner, 
 and keep him ignorant of his real flate ; whereas, if he 
 were faithfully told that his non-adraiflion was the con- 
 fequence of his want of the new birth, and not of the 
 ftr.mened rules of a party, he would be more likely to 
 receive it with benefit, and even lei's irritation. Often 
 the minifter will throw the blame upon the fefiion, 
 and they again upon their rules, from a cowardly difpo- 
 fition, left they (hould give offence. Thus the perfon 
 is led to believe that the fault lies more in the ftrait- 
 nefs of the rules, thin in himfelf. The placing of his 
 ad mi ill on or rejection upon his difcharge of certain ex- 
 ternal duties, has the fame mifchievous effect. He is 
 led to look upon this, not as an evidence of his ftate, 
 but as forming his title \o heaven. One thing I would 
 afk at thofe who make this objection ; let them anfwer 
 it candidlv to their own confeience. Whether are you 
 more afraid that this would leffen the church of Chrift, 
 or ike Jlipend ? Whether are you more afraid of injur- 
 ing the caufe of Chrift, or the credit of your party .* 
 
 Obj. 4. It is pleaded in defence of promifcuous com* 
 
100 
 
 munion, " that Judas was admitted to the Lord's table." 
 Judas was once a pillar upon which I thought I could 
 lafely reft my defence ; but fince I have more maturely 
 and impartially confidered the matter, I have entirely 
 given that up. We are never in a likely way to obtain 
 truth as long as we are fearching for a juftification of 
 our own conducl, rather than the mind of the Spirit. 
 I am afraid that there are many who examine this que- 
 ition in this temper. A drowning m3n will catch at 
 any twig before he will fink. Thus many, overwhelm- 
 ed by pofitive Scripture precept, perhaps producing 
 fome qualms of confcience, catch at Judas to keep them 
 above water. They do not fee any thing to extricate 
 themfelves from their difficulty, and becaufe, in their 
 prefent fituation, they cannot comply, they too eafily 
 impofe upon themfelves, as to the fin of fetting the word 
 of God at variance with itfelf. There is certainly a 
 difficulty in determining whether Judas was, or was not, 
 prefent at the inftitution of the fupper. It would ap- 
 pear to me, from the molt impartial examination of the 
 gofpels which record the relation, that he was not. We 
 know Scripture cannot contradict itfelf ; and when it 
 feems to do fo, that analyfis muft be admitted, which is 
 moft conformable to the general tenor of the whole. If, 
 then, there are innumerable paffages to prove the duty 
 of pure communion, and if the prefence of Judas at the 
 fupper be contrary to this, that paffage which feems to 
 fay he was, muft be underftood fo as to agree with that 
 which pofitively, or even apparently fays he was not. 
 1 think alfo that Luke's account can more eafily be ex- 
 plained in confillency with John's, than John's in confil- 
 tency with the order of the narration of Luke. The 
 inverfion of order in the narration of fa£b, is no lingular 
 occurrence in the gofpels ; but John ftates the facT po- 
 fitively, circumftantiaily, and minutely. John xiii. 30. 
 " He then having received ihefop*, went immediately 
 <jut." To make Luke agree with this, we have nothing 
 to do but what muft be done in many other cafes, to 
 fuppofe an inverfion of order in the narration. But 
 this I mention, rather to reconcile the evangeliftf, than 
 
 * This was in eating the pafLiver. 
 
101 
 
 (To fupport my argument in the point under debate. I 
 do not think, that in order to prove the duty of pure 
 communion, there is any necelfity to exclude Judas from 
 the firft fupper. What was Judas ? He was a poiiihed 
 hypocrite. What is a hypocrite ? Not a man who pre- 
 tends to be religious, figns an oithodox creed, and leads 
 a heterodox lite, but a man to all human appearance a 
 real Ciiriftian, and for a time walking as one, though 
 in heart and in the fight of God an impenitent tinner. 
 Such wis Judas. There was not a more plaufible cha- 
 racter among the apollles than this very man. None 
 of his brethien fufpedted him more than themfelves.— 
 Even when our Lord declared that one of them fhould 
 betray him, their language was not, " Lord, is it Judas *"' 
 but, " Lord, is it I ?" Now luch characters might be 
 in any church without the imalleft blame being attach- 
 able to either church rulers, or church members. If 
 the church receives them as real Chriftians, it is guilt- 
 lefs, though they are like Judas. This, however, is no 
 apology for thofe who admit carnal men, who difcover 
 no evidence of convtrfion, nay frequently of whom they 
 have no hopes at all. It is argued, that though Judas 
 was a hypocrite, yet that our Lord knew him to be fuch. 
 A fddl-moft unqueftionable ; but our Lord's omnifcience 
 is no rule of conducl for us, nor did he aft according to 
 ic in many other cafes. He had various and important 
 reafons for choofing this hypocrite to the apoftlefhip, 
 and the fame he might have had for allowing him to 
 take his feat at his fupper. Our Lord, by afting as the 
 adminiftrator of this ordinance, had no need to avail 
 himfelf of his omnifcience, by forbidding Judas to par- 
 take ; becaufe in this he could have been no example 
 to us, as we bad not the fame means of detecting hypo- 
 crites. Befides, he might defign to (hew us, that if 
 fuch crma£fers as Judas would afterwards get admiffiou 
 into any of his churches, they would be blamelefs. The 
 guilt, in this matter, is not in receiving hypocrites, but 
 in retaining them, after they difcover their true charac- 
 ter. Judas the hypocrite might be a church member, 
 but Judas the betrayer never was, nor could be. Grant- 
 ing every thing, then, that the abettors of impure com- 
 munion themlelves can demand from the cafe of Judas, 
 13 
 
102 
 
 to what does it nmount ? that a hypocrite may be ad- 
 mitted to the Lord's table without fin in the church. 
 Will any fay that becaufe Chrilt knew this man to be an 
 hypocrite, that therefore we may admit pcrfons whom 
 ive know to be hypocrites ; if we know them to be hy- 
 pocrites, then they are no longer hypocrites ; ior we 
 cannot know this as Chrift knew it, by looking into 
 their hearts, but from their difcovering this by their 
 lives and converfation. The cafe of Judas cinnot fairly 
 he drawn any farther. Btfidts, if it is alleged to jufti- 
 fy the admitTion of members who give evidence that 
 they are not partakers of the grace of the gofpel, it will 
 let Chtilt the mailer, and Paul the fervant at variance. 
 The latter pofitively commands them not fo much as 
 eat with one who is called a brother, when once he dif 
 covers an inconfifiency between his character and pro- 
 feiiion, i Cor. v. 1 i. Timothy is itricliy charged to 
 withdraw from thofe " who had a form of gcdlinefs, 
 but denied the power thereof."' 
 
 But can there be anything more truly iidiculous 
 than for thofe who julfity impure communion by the 
 example of Judas, to lpend whole hours in debarring 
 and fencing } If our Lord did not debar Judas, and if 
 this Ihews the propriety of admitting perfons whom we 
 know to be unworthy, the conclufion is, that it would 
 be improper to for bid them. If the fober worldling is 
 admitted, I afk, by what authority is the drunkard, the 
 i wearer, the fornicator, &c. denied admiflion ? Ah ! 
 brethren, you mult be at a great lofs for a foundation, 
 when you are obliged to build upon Judas. It mult 
 be an ill built houfe, in which Judas bimfelf is the chief 
 comer-Hone. 
 
 Obj. 5. The parable of the tares 3r.d the wheat, is 
 ufually one of the bulwarks of impure churches *.— 
 
 * For a full, clear, and fat::. factory explanation of this 
 parable, fee " Mr Innes's Reai'ocis for feparating from the 
 church of Scotland." I decline a full explanation of this, 
 and fome other things, as they are largely tr ated in that 
 pamphlet, which 1 trunk Ihould be in the hands of all who 
 w.'h for information on this ful'jecL 
 
103 
 
 But this obje&ion is founded on a mifapplication of the 
 parable. It fuppofes that the field is the church, where- 
 as our Lord himi'elf exprefsly explains it to mean the 
 world. The tares are confidered as church members ; 
 whereas, this would make our Lord's injunction con- 
 trary to that of the apoitle Paul, " Purge out the old 
 leaven." " Do ye not j-idge them that are within ?" 
 It was alfo the devil who fowed them, and not Chrift's 
 fervants by miftake. Thofe, who from this, plead for 
 promifcuous admiffion, acknowledge themfelves to be, 
 not the fervants of Chriit, but of Satan, employed in 
 fowing the tare-feed in Chrift's field, while his fervants 
 ileep. But without fpending time in (hewing why it 
 cannot have this interpretation, I will juft briefly 
 point out what I take to be its obvious and confiftent 
 meaning. The wheat represents the children of God j 
 the tares the children of the wicked one ; they both 
 grow in the fame field, the world. The fervants of 
 Chrift are not to endeavour to root out the latter, left 
 in doing fo, they would root out the wheat. The de- 
 fign of the parable, is to (hew the impropriety of per- 
 fection, fiom this reafon, that if the wicked of one ge- 
 neration were cut off, thoufands of the children of God, 
 who are to fpring from them, would thereby be prevent- 
 ed from coming into being. The lives of the wicked 
 are now preferved, becaufe they are the anceftors of 
 multitudes, who (hall turn to God in 'the hitter days. 
 This 1 take to be alfo the meaning of Matt. xxiv. 2Z. 
 M For the e/effs fake, thofe days (hall be fhortened." 
 By eleSi here, tve are, in my opinion, principally to un- 
 derftand the unborn elect. The Jews, who efcaped at 
 the (lege of Jerufalem, were fpared, becaufe they were 
 to be the fathers of all thofe Jews who fhall turn to 
 God in the restoration. God could have preferved the 
 elecl that were alive in the time of that fiege, in vari- 
 ous ways. But in what other way could the prophecies 
 of the reiioration of the Jews, have been accomplished, 
 than by preferving a number of that wicked generation, 
 for the purpofe of introducing his future people into ex- 
 ill er.ce ? If all the Jews had been cut off then, what 
 would have become of thofe countlefs thoufands and 
 millions of their dependents, that fhali fei ve Chrift in 
 
104 
 
 their return ? The Jews, fince their reje&ion of Chrift, 
 have been preferved, perhaps cbirfy for the fake of their 
 future offspring. This is clearly exprcffed in the pro- 
 phecy of Ifiiah lxv. 8. As the unripe bunch of grapes 
 is preferved for the lake of the wine that it lhall alter- 
 wards yield, fo God prefcrves the Jevvilh nation for 
 the fake of their future defcendents, who are to ferve 
 him. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Additional Reafons for Separating from the General 
 Synod. 
 
 Though I had no objection to the government of claf- 
 fical prefbytery, and could effect parity of communion 
 in my own congregation, without experiencing any hin- 
 drance from fortign interference, liill 1 could not with a 
 good confeience remain a member of the general lynod. 
 I have many reaions for this conviction j a few of them 
 1 will here llatc. 
 
 i. " How can a man mount a very high hill with a 
 " weighty burthen, having feveral hundreds pulling him 
 " back by the fkirts ? Is it n«t much better to climb up 
 " the precipice in company with others who are going 
 " the lame way, to go arm in arm, the ftrong bearing 
 " the weak, fo that if a foot flip, we may not be dalhed 
 " to pieces by a fall ?" The former was exactly my 
 fituation , the whole weight of my connexion being as a 
 clog upon me, retarding my progrels, by their laws, ex- 
 ample, and fpirit. We have all too much inclination to 
 indifference and negligence in our Lord's caufe. There 
 is no need of an external hindrance. " Can a man take 
 fire into his bofom. and not be burned " Who will fay 
 that the verv fociety of men indifferent to religion, is 
 iiot a ftrong temptation to relax exertion in the caufe of 
 Chrilt ? But cfpecially, if they are not only indifferent, 
 
105 
 
 but inimical to tlic Threading of the gofpel, the danger is 
 increafed. If* the religion of the Bible be called enthu- 
 fiafm and madnefs, there is a flrong temptation to hide 
 its peculiar features, and appear lefs zealous for its dif- 
 fulion. " Two cannot walk together except they are 
 agreed." What concord, then, can there be between 
 thtm and me ? They view me with jealcufy, and I con- 
 fnter them traitors to rry matter *. — My exertions for a 
 revival of religion they think ufelefs. Some fuppofe 
 that I am actuated by a love of applaufe, while others, 
 more friendly, think I am only mad. Now, in this 
 fituation, what mutual happinefs can there be from the 
 fociety of men fo oppofile in their views and conduft ? 
 We both contribute to make each other uncomfortable. 
 I am fure I have never fuffered more acute pain in my 
 life, than in their affemblies. I avoided their meetings 
 as much as I could, for I always entered them with hor- 
 ror and reluctance. But of late, I underffand they have 
 determined that 1 fhould not enjoy that liberty. Is it 
 not, then, much better that I fhould aft feparately, for 
 1 am fure they are not more offenfive to me, than I am 
 to them ? Shall I, for a morfel of bread, facrifice my 
 own happinefs, and remain under continual reftraint and 
 temptation ? " A man's life confiffeth not in the abun- 
 dance of the things he poffeffes." He muft be a very 
 inexperienced Chriffian indeed, who thinks that he 
 does not need rather to be fpurred than curbed in his 
 courfe. 
 
 2. " I cannot be a member of the general fynod, 
 " without renouncing my Chriffian liberty, and fubmit- 
 " ting my confcience to be ruled and lorded over by 
 " man." 1 am not allowed to be direfted by my own 
 confcience in the fervice of my maffer. I muff aft not 
 on my own conviftion of what is right and wrong, but 
 
 * When I involve the fynod in a general cenfure, I al- 
 ways intend a majority of the members, and not every in- 
 dividual, becaiife a majority is the fynod, and can rule the 
 minority as they pleafe. I pretend not to determine what 
 may be the number of faithful I'eivaMs of Chrift in that 
 connexion. Fur fuch, whatever be <Wrc d.ffcrencfc of opi- 
 |UOfi| I have the mofl coidial affection, 
 
106 
 
 Recording to the caprice of others •, my of thofe Ief- 
 teem as decided enemies to the caufe of the Lord Jefus. 
 I mi g it get drunk, frequently ; sffbeiate with the moil 
 profligate; fpend thr Sabbath afternoons in gay puties ; 
 follow the world the whole week, with my whole heart ; 
 preach agai iff the peculiar doctrines of revelation - y de- 
 ny the very Lord and Saviour of men ; attend the 
 theatre, balls, a d card parties ; and Rill my brethren 
 would extend their charity to me: except a formal 
 charge would be brought againft me by my own con- 
 gregation, I might even pifs unnoticed. Here human 
 frailty, and freedom of inquiry, would plead my excul'e. 
 But if I would dare to preach the gofpel out of my own 
 bound?, or admit an evangelical miniller of another de- 
 nomination to occupy my pulpit, dreadful would be the 
 thunder that would be hurled agarnft me ! Nothing 
 lets than public rebuke for the rirft, and fufpenfion for 
 the fccor.d commiffion of fuch mortal Jim. " Whereas 
 " it appears, that our laws refpe&ing the admiffion of 
 " men. not members of this body, or licentiates under 
 •• its care, to officiate for us, are too generally expreffed 
 *' to be of any practical ufe : It is now enafted, that no 
 " man, not a member of this body, or a licentiate under 
 " its care (the prefbytery of Antrim, and fcuthern af- 
 " iociation excepted,") fh all be permitted to officiate for 
 " us in our congregations, until he (hall firft fubmit his 
 " credentials to the prefbytery, in whole bounds he 
 " wilhes to preach, aud until he fhall be approved of by 
 " the prefbytery : and any minifter of this body, viola- 
 " ting this law, fhall, for the firft offence, be publicly 
 " rebuked by his prefbytery, before his congregation, 
 " and for the fecond be fufpended ab officio, fine die.'''' 
 If ever a child was known by its reiemblar.ee to the 
 parent, this lure muft be the daughter of the mother of 
 lnrlots. This is her prominent feature : this is her very 
 temper and genius. " O, ye Scribes and Phariiees, 
 how long will ye make void the law of God by ycir 
 traditions! In vain do you worfhip him, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men. 1 ' Where is their 
 authority for impaAng fuch reftraints upon the lervauts 
 of the Lord I 1 CTmnot fubmit to this tyranny without 
 calling men my mailer, contrary totheexprefs comm 
 
107 
 
 of Jefus. I am commanded " to fland fart in the liber- 
 ty with which he has made me free." Though the apos- 
 tle fpeaks this immediately of the Jewiih yoke, yet. as 
 no fcripture is of any private interpretation, it equally 
 forbids any human impofition, in the things of God. 
 When Chrift has left us free, we are not to allow any 
 man or body of men to bind us, or even to bind our- 
 felves. Every human reflraint in religion is ufurpation 
 and treafon. A Chriftian, indeed, is fometimes to de- 
 cline ufing his liberty, to avoid Humbling his weak bro- 
 ther, but he is not even in this cafe to come under bond- 
 age to him, dill lefs is he to come under reftraint to 
 plcafe thofe who are enemies to the pure g'fpelofjaha- 
 i.on. 
 
 I ?m truly concerned for the fpiritual daiknefs of my 
 native land. While the v\ork of the Lord is liouriihing 
 in both parts of Britain, there is in this ifiand as yet but 
 little done. Ah ! the troufands that are perifhing for 
 lack of knowledge ! What profligacy of n. aimers do 
 we fee every where abounding ! I am convinced that 
 there is no other remedy for the evil but the unadul- 
 tt rated gcfpeloj Chrijl. Shall I then fubmit to be croop- 
 ed up in a corner, and reftrained by human fetters from 
 lending a lrand to refcue my brethren from the pit of 
 deftruclion ? " lime is (hort j" the day of work is but 
 a blink ; I muft: foon give an account of my flewardfhip, 
 and I know that however much I may incur the difplea- 
 fure of men, however great may be my temporal lofs,in 
 the end I (hall not repent the ftep I have taken. 1 
 know that God judgeth not as man judgeth. I know, 
 indeed, it is faid that I might employ all my time in my 
 own congregation ; but I anfwer, that I may do much 
 abroad, and not do the lefs at home. I believe we will 
 generally find, that thofe who do moil abroad, likewise 
 do moil in their own congregation. It is my duty to 
 ferd the poor of my own neighbourhood rather than 
 thofe at a difiance ; but it would be a hard matter, if 
 I was fo bound that I could not giv^r halfpenny to a 
 ftarving begoar on my journey. Hfide% the public 
 preaching of the gofpel is that part of the office in winch 
 I take peculiar delight, and in which I am never weary.. 
 
108 
 
 The hireling may work his hours, hut he that loves 
 Jcfus, mould, like him, " go about doing good ;" like 
 him it fliould be his very " meat and drink, to do the 
 will of his heavenly Father." 
 
 3. " I do not find myfelf juflified in recognizing as 
 " minifters, thofe whom I confider as deltitute of the 
 " qualifications deemed effential by an apoft'e." A 
 bifhop mull be blamelefs, the hufband of one wife, 
 vigilant, fober, of good behaviour, given to hofpi'ality, 
 apt {rather Jit) to teach — not given to wine — no Jlriker 
 — not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient — not a brawler 
 nor covetous — one that ruleth well his own houfe, hav- 
 ing his children in fubjeftion with all gravity. (For if 
 a man know not how to rule his own houfe, how (hall 
 he take care of the church of God ?) Not a novice, left 
 being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation ■ 
 of the devil. Moreover, he muft have a good report of 
 them which are without* left he fall into reproach and 
 the fnare of the devil," 1 Tim iii. 2 — 7. " A bifhop 
 muft not be fell* willed — not foon angry — a lover of good 
 men — jujl, holy, temperate — holding fafl the faithful 
 word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able, by 
 found doiStrine, both to exhort and convince the gain- 
 layers," Titus i. 7 — 9. J forbear to make the applica- 
 tion. Suffice it to fay, that if thefe are effential qualifi- 
 cations in a paftor, I cannot recogiiize as brethren many 
 of the members of the general fynod. 
 
 4. " A Calvinift and a Socinian or Arian can with 
 " no propriety worfhlp together." They do not addrefs 
 the fame God. When they unite in prayer, they are 
 like a friend to the Pretender, and another of king 
 George, drinking the king, as a toaft, when each intend- 
 ed his own favourite. They do not addrefs the fame 
 being, though they ufe the fame name. If I addrefs the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, as my God, he that de- 
 nies the Godhead of the Son and Spirit, muft look upon 
 me as an idolater. In return, I look upon him as an 
 atheift. " He tba^Ienieth the Son, the fame hath not 
 the Father ; he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth 
 not the Father that hath fcnt him." When he prayeth, 
 
109 
 
 he addtefles not the Jehovah of the Scripture, but an 
 idol of his own creation, as different from the true God, 
 as Jupiter or Apollo *. His God is as really of his 
 own making, as if he had hewn bim out of wood or 
 ftone. He fteals from the Scripture account of the 
 true God, fome of his properties, and thofe attributes 
 that fuit him beft. When he robs him of bis juftice, 
 and abufively extends his meicy, he can difpenfe with 
 the facrifice of Jefus ; he has got a god to h's mind : an 
 idol of his own imagination. This god he loves, be- 
 caufe this god does not hate fin ; but the Jehovah of 
 the Scriptures he hates, becaufe he is the enemy of fin, 
 and " hath revealed his wr^th againft all ungodlineis 
 and unrighteoufnefs of men." In what then are we a» 
 greed ? Not even in the God we worfhip : not in the 
 way of falvation. How improper is it, then, for us to 
 make each other the organ of prayer ? How can we co-. 
 operate, feeing our principles are fo entirely oppofite ? If 
 each of us be confcientious, we muft be at conftant war. 
 With as great propriety, might the French and Englifh 
 officers meet in a council of war, before an engagement, 
 to concert the meafures that each were to adopt, as 
 people of fuch oppofite fentiments to fit in the fame fy- 
 nod. 
 
 5. " By remaining in connexion with the fynod, I 
 " contribute to deceive the public, as to the radical 
 " difference between my principles, and tbofe maintained 
 " by many in the fynod." My example by continuing 
 in that connexion, might be the means of keeping fome 
 of the people of Chrift under the miniftry of thofe who 
 corrupt the gofpel. It is natural for people to judge 
 that there cannot be any momentous points in which 
 we differ, or we would not continue to co operate and 
 acknowledge each other as brethren in Chrift. This I 
 
 * The fame thing will hold againft making any unre"-e- 
 nerate man the organ of prayer. When fuch men are fet 
 up to offer the prayers of an affembly, as they " know not 
 God," fo " they worfhip they know not what " They 
 cannot pray with the Spirit, and confetjuently they cannot 
 pray at all. Thofe who join them are partakers in their 
 abominations. 
 
 K 
 
110 
 
 know to be the cafe. The generality of private Chri- 
 ftians in the gener<l fynod. have no conception that we 
 differ fo materially. Suppofe, then, I could remain 
 a member of fynod. without injury to mylelf, yet 
 I am guilty of deceiving others. If I think that any 
 miniittrs of that body, are wolves in (beep's cloathing, 
 not feeding, bur devouring the flock, I am a partaker 
 of their foul murder, if 1 do not give the alarm, and 
 warn the (heep to fly. 
 
 What is the ufe of the 8th chapter of i Cor. to us ? 
 Does it not teach us, that, if in any particular inftance, 
 the ufe of our Chrillian liberty may prove an occafion 
 of (tumbling to weak brethren, we ought to forego it, 
 rather than he fhould be injured ? If I (it in the idol's 
 temple, eating the flelh of animals offered in ficrifice, 
 though I eat it (imply to fatisfy my hunger, knowing 
 that there is no divinity in the idol, and that the meat 
 cannot be rendered in itfelf impure, by this improper 
 ufe, yet my weak brother f.eing me there, partaking 
 with idolaters, is led to think, that I am joining them 
 in their worfliip. and by my example, is emboldened to 
 eat it as a facrifice to the idol. — " Through my know- 
 ledge (hall the weak brother perifh for whom Chrift 
 died '"' Suppofe, then, that my connexion with the fy- 
 nod was a matter not finful in itfelf, yet by its confe- 
 ■quences, it becomes finiul. Many may be encouraged 
 by my example, to fit under a minifiry, in which the 
 gofpel is depraved, or hidden. If I (hould be the oc- 
 cafion of Rumbling one of Chrift's little ones, the lofs I 
 would fuftain in the day of the Lord Jefus, would be 
 infinitely greater than all I cm lofe by leaving the fy- 
 nod. Awful will be our refponfibility. and it is requir- 
 ed, above all things, in a fie ward, that he be faithful. 
 If this be not a lawful application of Scripture, I know 
 of no ufe that this chapter can be at prefent. 
 
 6. " Mv connexion with the fynod is contrary to the 
 " law of love, and the dutv I owe the members of it as 
 " men" If I believe, that '* Except a man be born a- 
 gain, he cannot fee tl e kingdom of God ;" and if I be- 
 lieve that few of them evidence fuch a change j nay, if 
 
Ill 
 
 I know many of them to deny and ridicule this truth 
 8$ cni'iufiafm, I would not be t eir friend, it in any 
 thing in y conduct would lead then to believe, that I 
 coniidered t.ieir fifuition to be lefs dmgerous, than ill 
 real ty I know it to be. Now, as long as I remain a 
 member of fvnod and aft with t^-em as brethren in 
 Chrift, it is impoffible tor them to thmk that I am real- 
 ly in earned, as to the importance of my views of the 
 truths of the go'pel. Beficies, there are many who 
 would fubfcribt: perhaps every docbineof the gofpel, 
 of whole date I nave no better hopes Such perfons, 
 then, would have reafon to complain of me in the judg- 
 ment of the great day. that I . died an unfriendly part 
 towards them ; that while I considered them as " in 
 the gall of bitternefs and bond of iniquity," I acled with 
 them as minifters of Chrilt ; by which means they were 
 led to conclude that I could have no very unfavourable 
 opinion of them. I know I will be charged with a 
 want of charity of fentiment, when I exprefs fuch an 
 opinion of the fynod. Charity, however, is not mat- 
 ter of opinion, but of feeling, and a man may have the 
 purefl love for another, while he is molt ftrongly con- 
 vinced of his guilt and danger. A juror may have every 
 wilh that the criminal may be acquitted, yet he may, by 
 evidence, be obliged to join in the verdi£t, " guilty." 
 Shall I go pad my neighbour's houfe at night, feeitjgit 
 on fire, and not awake him, left I mould diftuib or 
 grieve him ? Shall 1 rather fuffer him to be confirmed 
 in the flames, than alarm him ? Yet this is the murder- 
 ous charity for which many plead ; that, while we have 
 the cleared: evidence that men are living without God, 
 we fhould believe, or feign to believe, that they may be 
 faved in their fins. In other words, we hope God is a 
 liar — that he will not do as he has faid. Dr Johnfon 
 faid, that every man was to be held unlearned, till he 
 proved the contrary The obfervation is equally juft 
 when applied to religion. No man has a ri^ht to be 
 efteemed a Chrifiian. till his fruits prove it. What 
 would we think of the man who would fay, that in the 
 judgment of charity, he looked upon all, or the greater 
 part of men to be learned > The fame fhould we think 
 of the man who profeffes to believe, that men are 
 
112 
 
 Chiiflians, who give no evidence of the facl. We have 
 the word of unerring wifdom, declaring that all men are 
 " by nature the children of wrath y* until we have 
 evidence that they are born again, and adopted into the 
 lamily of God, we are not warranted to look, upon them 
 as Chiiftians. Eternal life is the word 1 with to any 
 member of the fynod, or to any man on earth j but if I 
 believe God, I muft believe that all " who know not 
 God, and obey r.ot the gojpcl of our Lord Jems Chrift, 
 fhall be punilhed with everlufting dellruclion from the 
 prefence of the Lord, and fiom the glory of his power." 
 
 7. " I cannot corifcientioufly join in licenfing and 
 " ordaining tbofe whom I know do not poffefs the pre- 
 " requifite qualifications, pointed out in the word of 
 M God." Paul ftates thefe minutely to Timothy and 
 Titus. I do not think that it is right to give our coun- 
 tenance to any candidates, who do not anfwer to this 
 defcription. The candidate for u the office of a bi- 
 lhop," muft not be even a novice, or new convert, left 
 from his inexperience he ihould fall into temptation 
 from the natural pride of the human heart *. But if 
 it be improper to appoint newly converted men to the 
 charge of a flock, how dreadful muft be the fin of ap. 
 pointing the blind to lead the blind, and unregenerate 
 men to feed the flock of Chrift ? Paul fays to Timo- 
 thy, (1 Tim. v. zz.) " lay hands fuddenly upon no 
 man, neither be partakers of other men's fins : keep 
 thyfelf pure." It appears, then, that thofe who give 
 their fauction to unworthy men to preach the gofpel, 
 are partakers of their fins. They fhare with them in 
 the guilt of all the evil they commit in deftroying the 
 fouls of men. He does not direct him to ordain no 
 man without fub'cribing a human confeffzon of faith. 
 This could have been done in an inltant ; if this had 
 
 * Thofe who juftify the appointment of unconverted 
 
 men to prei~h the gofpel, and tike charge of a chuichpf 
 
 , from 'he example of Judas, would do well to con- 
 
 rhe i;np >rt of this portion of Scripture. If a man 
 
 newly converted be unfit for the p^!!or'j orRce, much mote 
 
 15 he who is not converted at a!. 
 
113 
 
 been the teft, there would have been no need of delay. 
 The caution implies not only that Timothy fhould not 
 ordain perlons of a Icandalous cli rafter, but even tnat 
 perions who leemed to ponds the requilite qualitica- 
 tions, ihould not be appointed to the paitoral office, till 
 they had given fufficient evidences that they were what 
 they teemed to be. All unregenerate men are the fer- 
 vants of oatan j and let ihemfubfcribe an /wear what 
 they will, Satan they will lerve, " until they aie turn- 
 ed from darknefs unto light, and from the power ot Sa- 
 tan unto God.'' How dreadful then is the crime of 
 giving a public fanclion to iuch men, as the fervants of 
 Chrilt ! They will preach orthodoxy or heterodoxy as 
 belt fuits their temporal intereft, but though they have 
 the form, they have none of the power of godlinefs. 
 They may preach a dead, dry fyllem,'but being blind, 
 they cannot lead the blind j and having no fpintual or- 
 gans to " difcem the things of the Spirit, they cannot 
 know them." I acknowledge the moft conlcientious 
 may be deceived, but x* is really awiul to hear lome 
 good men pleading tor tHe propriety of fending out un- 
 converted men to preach the gofpel, becaufe judas was 
 an hypocrite. It is no wonder, then, that fome feels, 
 with all their boafted orthodoxy, have little more of 
 the life and power of godlincfs than thofe who do not 
 make fuch high pretenlions. Once acknowledge the 
 principle that the fervants of SiUn, if taey are ortho- 
 dox and fober, are proper perfons to feed the flock of 
 Chrilt, and in a fhort time deidnefsand torpor will per- 
 vade the body. Ail the zeal of individuals will not 
 be able to keep it alive, A profeflion of orthodoxy 
 was not the tell ufed by the apoftles. " And when 
 James, and Cephas, and John, who feemed to be pillars, 
 perctived the grace that was given unto me, they gave 
 to me ano Barnabas the right hand of telowfhip, that 
 we fhould go unto the heathen, and they unto the cir- 
 curacifion," Gal. ii. 9. The evidence of his qualifica- 
 tions was not the fubfeript ion of a formula, but his ap- 
 pearing to have received the grace of Lrod. 1 cannot 
 fee how an unconverted orthodox minilter is a lefs dan- 
 gerous man than he who is moft openly hoftile to the 
 doctrines of the gofpel. In my opinion the former is 
 
114 
 
 the more dangerous of the two, as men are lefs aware 
 of him. Paul, fpeaking of the deacons, (iTim. iii. 
 iz.) fays, "Let thefe alfo full be proved." This 
 fhews the great care that fhould be taken in choofing 
 church officers. Their acknowledgment of the leading 
 doctrines of the gofpel is not given as a teft. Even 
 perfons that appear to poffels the neceflary qualifica- 
 tions, are not to be haltily appointed to office - y they 
 ■tnujl be proved. " Thtfe alfo," that is, deacons as well 
 ?.s pafiors. If this reafoning be juft, it is applicable to 
 all the denominations of prelhyterians, with which I 
 am acquainted. But I am not obliged to red any part 
 of this argument upon the finfulnefs of licenfir.g and 
 ordaining merely unconverted men. As a member 
 of the general lyncd, I may be forced to join in K- 
 f enfing and ordaining men who He cbaraRers and doc- 
 trine* 1 condemn. I may be obliged to be the very or- 
 gan of licenfing and ordaining a man who preaches an 
 oppoiite gofpel from what 1 believe to be true. What 
 a mcnlirous inconfiftency is here ! If I believe the doc- 
 trines I preach, 1 rnuft be convinced that I am fending 
 cut a muderir inileaJ ot a phyfician. Am I not guil- 
 ty, then, of .ill the blood he fpills ? Surely 1 am par- 
 ( ,. r of this man's fins. Yes. I take fhame and con- 
 fufioi of face to myfelf, that I have fo long fan&ioned 
 nailer's enemies 1 acknowledge myfelf to have 
 hitherto been a partaker of the guilt of thofe who 
 are the " enemies of the crofs of Chrift, whole God is 
 their belly, vvhofe glory is their fhame, who mind earth- 
 ly things.'* 
 
 8. " I have a pofit've and exprefs command to 
 '.' fepaiate from a corrupt church." z Cor. vi. t % % — 18. 
 " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, 
 for what fellowship hath 'ighteoufnefs with unrighteouf- 
 nefs? And what coonmunion hnth light with darknefs ? 
 And what concord hath Child with Belial? or what 
 Tt ath he that believeth wkh an infidel ? And what 
 agreement hath the temple of God with idoU ? for ye 
 are the tempi: of the living God; as God 'ath laid, I 
 will dwell in them and walk in them; and I will be 
 llieiv God ; and they ffia.l be my people. Wherefore 
 
115 
 
 come out from among tbem, and be ye feparate, faith the 
 Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will re- 
 ceive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye 
 fhall be my fons and daughters, faith the Lord Almigh- 
 ty." The Corinthians are here commanded to leparate 
 from their unbelieving and idolatrous neighbours: to aban- 
 don their worfhip, and form no intimate alliances of any 
 kind with them. This command is given to me as well 
 as to the Corinthians, for I am no ctherwife addrefled 
 but as a member of the apoftolical churches. All un- 
 converted men are idolaters, and unbelievers, and a con- 
 nexion with them is even more dangerous in a country 
 called Chriflian, than in a heathen country. The fame 
 reafon alfo that forbids the marriage of believers with 
 unbelievers, will equally forbid our connexion in church 
 communion with fuch. It is alfo exceedingly obvious, 
 that though the command is particularly levelled againil 
 joining in the idolatrous worfhip of the heathens, it is 
 exprefitd in a general manner, fo as to include the view 
 I now give of it, as literally, and with as Uriel precifion, 
 as the other. " Be ye not untqually yoked together 
 with unbelievers." 'This will hold not only in this or 
 that inflance, but it is univei fally applicable to the for- 
 mation of any intimate union of believers with unbelie- 
 vers, efpecially in church communion. Befides, t; ere 
 is not an argument here ufed to (hew the impropriety 
 of this union but what equally applies in this view. All 
 believers are righteous, all unbelievers are unrighteous. 
 All believers are light, all unbelievers are darkness. 
 Ci.rift dwells in all believers, Beiial dwells in ai. un- 
 believers ; he is the fpirit that now worketh in the chil- 
 dren of difobedience. Unbelievers of every del. rip- 
 tion nave different views, obje£h of purfuit, p eniures, 
 and averfions, from believers. 1 hey have no common 
 ground upon which they en found any ir.timate union. 
 Every believer is a temple of Gor., which he inhabits 
 through the Spirit ; idols of one kind or ori'er inhabit 
 the heart o v every unbeliever. 1 \ u] j ufl further 
 obltrve, that if fome of chofe who hav< lo._ ..c elsful- 
 ly quoteo this portion of Scripr ire u ii. ■ w the duty of 
 feparati g from tl e ;. enerel fj vould look a little 
 
 more narrowly into it, they nng.it find that they mould 
 
116 
 
 carry their feparation to a greater length. I think it 
 fairly condemns the admiffiun of all carnal men to 
 church communion. It is an union ot believers with un- 
 believers, not merely of orthodox with heteiocox, which 
 is here forbidden. " Be ye not unequally yoked toge- 
 ther with unbelievers." 
 
 A fimilar command have I in Rev. xviii. 4. " Come 
 out ot her my people, that ye be not partakers of her 
 fins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." This in- 
 deed is immediately fpoken of the mother of harlots, 
 but it will equally hold with relpecl to each of her 
 daughters. It we are to leave one corrupt church, we 
 are certainly to leave another. If our remaining in 
 communion with the fpiritual Babylon would make us 
 partakers of her fins, aid fubjeft us to fhare her plagues, 
 the fame reaioning *\iil prove that we are partakers of 
 the fins of any corrupt church with which we are con- 
 nected. If we mult come out of the one to free us 
 from her fins, the fame thing will be neceffvtry with 
 refpecl to every other. As long as we countenance 
 them we are Iharers of their guilt, and liable to ihaie 
 their punifhment. 
 
 Paul gives Timothy (2 Tim. iii. I, — 5.) a lift of 
 characters who would sffume a profeffion of religion, 
 without the power of it. From thefe. he pofuively 
 commands him to " turn away." Now, if there be any 
 fuch characters evidently in the general fynod, it is 
 equally my duty to withdraw from them. This is ano- 
 ther paffnge which the advocates of impure minilleri 1 
 and Chriftian communion would do well to cor.fider. 
 Thefe might be very orthodox men •, they had a M form 
 of godlinefs." They would have no objection to fub- 
 fcribe the Weftminlier Confeifion. Molt of them ap- 
 pear alfo, not to have been openly immoral. They 
 might have a very finftified air in a church court. Yet 
 from fuch, there is a peculiar necelTity to withdraw j 
 from fuch there is a peculiar danger. When men of 
 fuch a character .appear, and are acknowledged in a 
 church of Chrift, " the times are perilous." The de- 
 vout worldling is more dangerous than the openly pro- 
 
117 
 
 fane. Timothy is alfo commanded to withdraw from 
 every teacher who would teach otherwife than the apo- 
 flle had dire&ed. " And content not to wholefome 
 words, even the words of our Lord Jefus Chrift, and to 
 the doctrine which is according to godlinefs," 1 Tim. 
 v, -.3 l — j- Certainly, then, I am not juftifiable in re- 
 maining in connexion with the general fynod. 
 
 In writing to the church of the Theffalonians, Paul 
 gives them this charge : " Now I command you, bre- 
 thren, in the name of our Lord Jefus Chrift, that ye 
 withdraw yourfelves from every brother that walketh 
 diforderly, and not after the tradition which he received 
 of us." What Chrift fpeaks to a church in general, is 
 ipoken to each individual, in particular. Though claf- 
 fical prefbytery were of God's appointing, yet, if there 
 were but one diforderly member in the general fynod, 
 and I could not get him removed, it would be my duty 
 to withdraw ; otherwife I am a partaker of his fins. As 
 long as I am a member of that body, I am an accom- 
 plice with every irregular perfon in it, whether minifter 
 or private member *. We are pofitively commanded 
 to " have no fellowfhip with the unfruitful works of 
 darknefs, but to reprove them," Eph. v n. This 
 precept we can never obey, while we hold profefled 
 communion with unbelievers. Nay, fo far from holding 
 communion with them in the ordinances" of Chrift, we 
 are not even allowed to have a friendly intimacy with 
 thole that are called brethren, if their charafters belie 
 tneir profeffion. This would be a fcandal to the reli- 
 gion of Chrift, and would give occafion to the wicked 
 to blafpheme. I cannot, then, be a member of the ge- 
 neral fynod and an obedient fervant of Chrift. 
 
 * If there be any juftice in this remark, it is a confider- 
 able argument again!* an aflociated church government. 
 We would in that c^le, be accountable for the conducl of 
 tl.ole of whom \vt could not polliblv have any knowledge. 
 
lit 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 
 
 Having in the laft chapter given fo-ne reafons for 
 feparating from a corrupt church, I will conclude this 
 pamphlet bv taking notice of a few o'ljeftions that 
 have been frequently urged upon me to diffuade me 
 from giving up my connexion with the general fy- 
 nod- 
 
 I. " It is faid that a material error prevailed in the 
 " churches of Galatia, and that in writing to them, 
 " the apoftle dots not command one part of them to fe- 
 *' parate from the other, upon the fuppofition that 
 ** the najority would not return to the truth — that in 
 " cafe the majoritv of the Corinthian church had taken 
 M part with the inceftuous man, and refufed to obey 
 •' the apoftoiical injunction, Piul gives no command 
 " to the minority to fepirate from the majoritv — and 
 " that our Lord, in reproving the churches of Alia, 
 '• does not commmd any feparation of individuals in 
 44 cafe the greater part in any church might not return 
 •' to their duty." 
 
 With refpeft to each of thefe inftances, I anfwer, that 
 there is not one of thera parallel to my fituation. Thefe 
 churches, with all their declenlions and corruptions, 
 were Itill churches of Ctarilt, apoltoUc^Uy onitituied, 
 and the bulk of them real, though cenlurable faints. 
 Co'ifequently, when their errors would be laid before 
 them, Uiey would unite in correcting them. But the 
 matter is widely different with r foect to a church nei- 
 ther upon the apoftolical model, nor conllituted of mem- 
 
U9 
 
 bers like thofe of the apoftolical churches. As to the 
 churches of Galatia, there was no room to give any fitch 
 command. The apoftie lays, Gal. v. 10. " 1 have con- 
 fidence in you, through the Lord Jefus, that you will be 
 not e othcrwifc minded." If he had fuch an opinion of 
 them, and believed that they would comply with his in- 
 junctions, where would have been the propriety of giv- 
 ing a command of feparation to the few, in cafe of the 
 difobedience of the immy > The error of the judaizing 
 teachers, had indeed infefted the body, fo that the apo- 
 ftie found it neceffary to exprefs his doubt of them * ; 
 but he had confidence that they would return to the 
 truth when he called them to it. Nay, he fuppofeth 
 the whole matter to arife from a very few j " but he 
 that tn.ubleth you. (hall bear his judgment, whofoever 
 he be" " I would they were even cut off that trou- 
 ble you." " A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." 
 Here he counts upon the allegiance of the great bulk 
 of the members of the churches, and even intimates his 
 wifh, that the authors of this falfe dodlrine fhould be 
 cut off. In what, then, does this countenance the re- 
 maining in a corrupt church ? Nay, it is direclly againft 
 it. The apoftie knew that the greateft part of them 
 would return to the truth, therefore could not fuppofe 
 it neceffary to advife individuals to feparate upon the 
 fuppofition that it would be otherwife. But the few 
 that fpread this doclrine, he advifes to be cut off. This 
 fhews us what vie fhould do with thofe who trouble a 
 church with falfe doctrines. They are not, out of falfe 
 lenity, to be fi.ffered to remain and corrupt the body, 
 but removed as morbid members. 
 
 This objection is entirely founded upon an improper 
 conception of the nature of a church of Chrifl. judging 
 of it as a worldly fociety. in which the majority is fup- 
 pofed to be the whole, and is enabled to direct all its 
 proceedings. But it is rot numbers, but the obedient, 
 that conftitues the church, whether they be the majo- 
 rity or minority. Had all the members in any one of 
 
 * Even this doubtinc (hews what he formeily took them 
 to be, when organized as a church. 
 
120 
 
 the Galatian churches, except two or three, refolved to 
 retain their error, in contempt of the apoftolic authori- 
 ty, to tliefe two or three obedient difciples the apolHe's 
 direction was (till given, " I would that they were cut 
 off that trouble you." — Obedience is the teft of difci- 
 plefliip. Had the majority of any of thefe churches re- 
 futed to obey, the obedient few were bound to " cut 
 off" the difobedient many. Thofe few, go where they 
 would, were ftill the church. 
 
 Indeed if it be a duty to " cut off" one or a few dis- 
 orderly and troublefome members, it will ftill be more 
 fo with refpeel to many. There is not one argument 
 why three thouiand mould cut off three, which will not 
 prove that three lhould cut off three thoufand, with an 
 Bcceffion of ftrength proportioned to the increafe of 
 numbers. " If a little leaven leaveneth the whole 
 lump," if not purged out, there ftill is greater reafon to 
 dread, that the leavened mafs will foon infect a few par- 
 ticles. If a whole church is in danger from one, two, 
 or three ; one, two, or three mult be in much greater 
 danger from a corrupt body. What is the reafon of 
 cutting off one diloiderly nicnber ? Is it not left he 
 bring a fcandal upon the religion of Chrift j be a Hum- 
 bling block, to weak Chriftians ; infect the body 5 be- 
 come an offence to unbelievers j and to reclaim the in- 
 dividual. Each of thefe renfons will derive additional 
 ftrength when applied to numbers. 
 
 The fame reafoning will hold good with refpect to 
 the church of Corinth, and the churches of Afia. The 
 apoltle addreflVd the Corinthians as '"faints, farctified in 
 Chrift Jefus j" and every where through his epiltle 
 confiders them as true believers, though in many re- 
 fpecls greatly to blame. How, then, could he fuppofe 
 that they would not obey him ? This would have been 
 as if the king would lend an order to the houfe of com- 
 mons to try one of their members for fome improper 
 language or conduct, at the fame time applauding the 
 members for their fidelity and zeal, and then add, " yet 
 if a majority unite to fcreen the offender, let the faith- 
 ful minority proteft." How incongruous would fuch 
 
121 
 
 language be > Yet not more fo than what fuch ol.jtdois 
 would expedt from the apoftle. After all, I will lup- 
 pofe that the whole church at Covinth had taken part 
 with the inceftuous perfon againft the apoftle, except 
 one, two-, or three, ftill it would have been the duty of 
 fuch to have withdrawn from the diforderly fociety, 
 which no more deferved the name of a church of Chrift, 
 than a congregation ot Muffelmen. The few that obey- 
 ed the apoftle were the church, and to them the com- 
 mand was given, i Cor. v. 4. 4fc In the name of our 
 Lord Jefus Chrift, when ye are gathered together, and 
 my fpirit, with the power of our Lord Jefus Chrift, to 
 deliver fuch an one," &c. The offender, and all who 
 fided with him, were to be removed as diforderly bre- 
 thren. The farce may be faid as to the cafe of the Afia- 
 tic churches. To the very worft of them Chrift faid, 
 " As many as I love I rebuke and cbaften." They 
 were much to blame, but with all their faults, they 
 were true churches of Chrift. Nay, the very accufa- 
 tions Chrift alleged againft them, not only fhews the 
 bulk of them to be faints, but proves the neceffity of 
 Dure communion, and of cutting off impure members. 
 He blames fome of them for having the propagators of 
 falfe doctrines among them. This fhews that a church 
 is to purge out the old leaven, and become a new lump. 
 And if he blames them, for having a few falfe teachers 
 among them, how much more has he had occafion to 
 blame me, for continuing fo long with a corrupt body ? 
 With what propriety, then, can a Chriftian allege the 
 ilate of thefe churches to juftify their continuance in 
 corrupt focieties ? With what face can any church al- 
 lege this, to juftify impure communion ? If thefe apo- 
 ftolical churches had any improper member amon^ them, 
 they are not praifed 5 they are not held excufable ; they 
 are feverely reprimanded for it 
 
 2. Another objection is, u that I give up an import- 
 " ant ftation. I cowardly defert the field of battle, 
 " and in all probability deprive myfelf for ever of an 
 " opportunity of preaching the gofpel. Now Paul fays, 
 ** Woe unto me, if I preach not the gofpel.' Chrift 
 " fays, * The harveft is plenteous and the labourers few.' 
 L 
 
12* 
 
 M It rauft then be highly improper to leave a ripe har- 
 w velt without labourers to reap it." 
 
 What is the amount of this objection ? It is, " Do evil 
 that good may come." If I have (hewn that fuch a 
 connexion is finful, no fuppofed advantages refulting to 
 religion from it (hould have the fmallcit weight, becaufe 
 they are nothing in reality. What good could 1 do in 
 any fituation on earth, without God's bleffing upon my 
 labours ? And is it fuppofable that I am likely to have 
 this bleffing, when I refufe to obey him ? Before my at- 
 tention was turned to this fubjecl, when my views were 
 not fo clear, God might have partially blefled my 
 labours. But I could no longer look for a bleffing, nor 
 with a good confcience preach the gofpel at all, while 
 confcious that 1 was not complying with his will. " I 
 leave an important fituation." What fort of language 
 in the mouth of a Christian ? If I had an opportunity of 
 preaching the gofpel in every parilh in the lrland, could 
 I of myfelf call one (Inner to repentance ? A ftation is 
 only important as there may be the probability of do- 
 ing good, and I can fee no probability of this, as long 
 as we live in the wilful neglect, or the breach of the 
 leaft part of the known will of God. Ah ! friends, I 
 am afraid if we fearch our hearts to the bottom, the 
 real motive of remaining in corrupt churches, is rather 
 the importance of it to our own temporal intereft, than 
 a concern lelt the work of the Lord fliould ftand un- 
 done. " Sirs, ye know that by this craft we b^e our 
 gain." But " I am running as a coward, out of the field 
 of battle." No, I am only repairing to the liandard of 
 say captain, and deferting his enemies. I am only put- 
 ting myfelf in a fituation in which 1 can fight without 
 reftraint, and whether I am to be an officer or a private, 
 mud be left to my general, who employs every man in 
 the fituation that fuits him bell, and in which he can 
 render the moft efiecluU fervice. But " is it not a fin 
 for me to put myfelf out of a condition to preach the 
 gofpel ?" Yes, if I would give up preaching the gofpel 
 for the moft fplendid throne in Europe, I would be un- 
 worthy of opening my mouth to proclaim the glad tid- 
 ings of falvation. If I would quit my ftation for the 
 
123 
 
 fake of a little more of the unrighteous mammon, I would 
 be inexcufable. If I would quit preaching for fear of 
 man, " woe would be upon me." But if i quit a fta- 
 tion by the command of my general, I am not to blame. 
 
 But u the harveft is great, and the labourers are few." 
 True, very true ; and what is the confequence ? Is it 
 that I muft tranfgrefs the orders of Chrift to reap the 
 harveft ? Is there no way of obeying one command, 
 without breaking another > Put the objection into words, 
 and it will run thus : " O Lord, thou haft a great har- 
 M veil and few to reap it •, I am an aclive young labour- 
 *' er, but I cannot ferve thee unlefs thou allowed me to 
 " break one of thy commandments. It is but a little 
 " one, and it is much better for thee to give me this 
 " liberty, than to want my fervices, for thou canft not 
 *' do well without me. Thou muft either take me on 
 •' thefe terms, or thou muft lofe thy grain ? " Were I 
 to reafon and acl: thus, the Lord of the harveft could 
 foon lay me afide, and let me fee, he could have the 
 work done without me. It is for us to do what is duty, 
 and leave events to God. If he has any work to do at 
 prefent in Ireland, I am fure I am taking the way to do 
 it. If he has work to do, who is he moft likely to era- 
 ploy as his inftruments ? Will he let me ftand idle in 
 the market place, and employ others to ferve him, 
 whofe fole object is to ferve themfelves ? If it be my 
 fupreme delight to win fouls to Chrift, I do not think I 
 fhall be difappointed. If it be in any meafure my meat 
 and drink to do his will, it is not likely he will refufe 
 to give me employment. " And whatever we afk we 
 receive of him, becaufe we keep his commandments, and 
 do thofe things that are pleafing in his fight." " He 
 that loveth me, keepeth my commandments." " Fol- 
 low me, and I will make you fifhers of men." " Ye 
 are my friends, if ye do whatfoever I command you." 
 ." And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the 
 things which 1 fay." 
 
 3. No argument hath been more frequently ufed to 
 reconcile me to the fynod, than " the duty I owe my 
 " family. " He that provideth not foi his own, efpe* 
 
1'24 
 
 '* cially for thofe of his own houfehold, hath denied the 
 " failh, and is worfe than an infidel." ' I acknowlege 
 the obligation of this fcripture in 'ts fuller! extent. 
 hit am I obliged to neglect one dutjkby attending to 
 another ' 1 am to provide lor my famuy •, but will any 
 fay, 1 fliould rob and murder to fupport them ? I am 
 to provide, but it is things that are lawful. I am not 
 to fupport them at the ex pence of a good conference. 
 It 1 cannot truft my family upon God, how will I truft 
 hirn with my fdul ? He hath not only laid, u He that 
 provideth not," &c. but he hath alfo faid, " Setk ye 
 firit the kingdom of God and his righteoufnefs, and all 
 thefe things ihall be added unto you." I muft either 
 renounce the 6th chap, of Matthew, or I muft do duty, 
 and truft myfelfand family to him who feedeth the 
 fowls of the air, and clothes the lilies of the field. He 
 that feedeth his enemies will not fuffer his friends to 
 ftarve. With what confeience could I prefs others to 
 truft in providence, when I diftrufted him myfclf ? 
 When I read the hiftory of Ariftides, the Athenian, and 
 many other pagan fages, who fcorned riches for earthly 
 fume, I am a(hamed that the glories of heaven, and the 
 love of Jefus, fliould have a flighter impreffion upon me. 
 Cyrus was fed upon brown bread and creffes, to fit him 
 for a confummate general ; and fhall I think it a 
 grievance to fubmit to that difcipline, to enable me more 
 iuccefsfully to fight the battles of my Lord. I muft 
 " endure hardnefs, as a good foldier of Jefus Chrift." 
 Perhaps there never was a general of diltinclion, who 
 has not undergone more hardlhips, fatigues, wants, and 
 dangers to procure temporal glory, than I have any pro- 
 fpe£r. of in my more honourable warfare. " Now they 
 do it for a corruptible crown, but we for an incor- 
 ruptible." A few years hence, and all my wants and 
 forrows fhall be no more. I will be where " the wick- 
 er a ceafe from troubling, and the we.iry are at reft." 
 41 They that are wife (hill fhhie as the brightnefs of the 
 firmament, aud they that turn many unto righteoufnefs 
 a«. the liars for ever and ever." 
 
125 
 
 And muft I p^rt with all I have, 
 
 My dearefl Lord for Thee > 
 It is but ng]f$, fmce thou halt done 
 
 Much more than this for me. 
 
 Yes, let it go — one look from thee, 
 Will more than make amends 
 
 For all the loflfcs I fuftain, 
 Of credit, riches, friends. 
 
 Ten thoufand worlds, ten thoufand lives, 
 How worthlefs they appear, 
 
 Compar'd with Thee lupremely good, 
 Divinely bright and fair ! 
 
 Saviour of fouls ! could I from Thee 
 
 A lingle fmile obtain, 
 Though deftitute of all things elfe, 
 
 I'd glory in my gain. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 PRINTED B? J RtTCHIi