-nJP^*** Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/twodiscoursesonpOOworc fiyc^^ TWO DISCOURSES, ^'^TV^^ ON THE t^EUPETUlTY AND PROVISION GOD'S GRACIOUS COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED. Hr SAMUEL WORCESTER, A. M. PASTOR OF THE TABERNACLE CHURCH IN SAIEM. SECOND EDITION, RE\1SED. To which are annexed, LETTERS TO THE REV. THOMAS BALDIVLV, D.D. on his Book, entitled THE BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY, &c. O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosea ones ; be ye mindful always of his Covenant, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ; even of the Covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac ; and hath confirmed the same unto Jacob for r. law, and to Israel for an everlastint^ Covenant. David. That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and cf the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. Paul. So shall he sprinkle many nations. IsjMah. SALEM: PRINTED BY HAVEN POOL, FOR THE AUTHOR. 1807. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO VVfT : ^^^•jre E IT REMEMBERED, that on the twenty ninth day uTi'^vs^-l*^ of January, in the thirty first year of the Independence of the United States of America, Samuel Worcester, of the said District, has deposited in this Office the Title of a Book, the Right whereof he claims as Author, in the words following, to wit : " Two Discourses, on the perpetuity and provision of God's gracious Covenant with Abraham and his seed. By Samuel Worcester, A. M. Pastor of the Tabernacle Church in Salem. Second edition, revised. To which are annexed, Letters to the Rev. Thomas Baldwin, D. D. on his Book, entitled The Baptism of Believers only, Sec. " O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob his cho- sen ones ; be ye mindful always of his covenant, the Avord which he commanded to a thousand generations ; even of the covenant •which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac, and hath confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. — David. That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. — Paul. So shall he sprinkle many na- tions. — Isaiah." In conformity to the Actof the Congress of the United States, in- titled, ''An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Pro- prietors of sucli Copies, during the Times therein mentioned ;" and also to an Act intitled, "An Act supplementary to an Act, in- titled, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the Authors and Pro- prietors of such Copies during the times therein mentioned ; and extending the Benefits tliereof to the Arts of Designing, En- graving and Etching Historical and other Prints." WILLIAM S. SHAW,] %ll*5i„?,^;f' At a meeting of the Tabernacle Church in Salem, August 19, 1805, Voted, unanimously, to request our Rev. Pastor to furnish a copy of his Discourses, lately delivered in the Tabernacle, on the Perpetuity and Provision of God's gracious Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, for publication from tlie press. Extract from the Records. Attest, JOHN PUNCHARD, Church Clerk. Salemy Aug. 20, 1805, TO THE TABERNACLE CHURCH AN.D SOCIETY IN SALEM, THESE DISCOURSES, vorld, are b«stov,cd in puvsuance of seme existing covenant. ( 6 ) By the influence of Judaizing teachers, many of the Xialatians appear to have been removed from him who had called them into the grace of Christ, unto another gos- pel. They renounced the doctrine of free grace, and insisted on the deeds of the law as constituting, at least in part, the ground of justification before God. To cor- rect this error, in this material point, was evidently the primary object of this inspired epistle. Having touched upon his subject in the preceding chapters, the apostle enters, in this third chapter, upon a train of argument, peculiarly close and solemn. After upbraiding his Gala- tian brethren with their folly in departing from the doc- trine, which he had taught them, and seriously expostu- lating with them on the subject ; he alledges, for the re- futation of their error, and for their conviction of the truth, the memorable case of Abraham. Abraham be- lieved God^ and it zuas accounted to him for righteousness. And the scripture, foreseeing that God -would justify the ■lieathen also, thraiigh faith ^ preached the gospel unto Abra- ■ham, saying, Li tjiee shall all nations he blessed. As it is, therefore, a matter, which ought to be well understood, ihat all xvho are of faith are the children of Abraham ; so, it is equally certain, that they are blessed zuith him. As he was justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, so also are they. As the law, indeed, requires perfect obedience, and pronounces its curse against every one who continueth not in all thinp-s. xvhich are tvritten in it, to do them; it is exceedingly plain, that none of man- kind, all of whom are transgressors, can ever be justified by the deeds of the law. But Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the laxv, being made a curse for us ; that through him the blessi?ig of Abraham might come on the 'Gentiles ; that rve also ?night receive the promise of the spirit, through faith. Brethren, says the apostle, I speak after the manner of men : I will illustrate the argument by a familiar case : ( 7 > Though it be but a Man's covenant^ yet if it be confirmed^ no man disannuUeth or addetft thereto. Noiv^ to apply thf: case, to Abraham aiid his seed xvere the promises made . Noty indeed,?© seeds as of many^ or as if different sorts were intended, some believers, and some unbelievers, some to be justified by faith, and some by the deeds of the law ; but to seed^ ais intending but one sort or descrip tion, namely, Christ in person, and all true believers as included and blessed in him.* But if the promises wer<< made to Abraham and his seed : if the covENANT,which respected him and all true believers, and which insured their justification by faith, xvas confirmed by God in Christ ; then, it is manifest, that these promises, this COVENANT, the laxvy which zvas four hundred and thir-^ ty years after ^ could not disanmd. The law was not in= tended to exhibit the terms of justification before God j these were fixed in the covenant made with Abraham, and were not to be altered. The law is not against the promises of God ; but it was added because of transgres- sion ; and was intended to convince those who were un- der it of sin, to shew them the impossibility of their own works, and as a schoolmastor to direct them to Christy that they might be justified by faith. But now, since faith is come^ or since Christ the object of faith has ap- peared, as the end of the law for righteousness to every- one that believethy we are no longer ^ in the sense that the Jews formerly were, wider a schoolmaster. The darkness is past and the true light now shineth. There is no longer a distinction of nations, conditions or sexes, in respect • to the privileges and blessings of the covenant. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christy have put on. Christ. There is neither fexv nor Greek^ there is neither bond nor free y there is neither male nor female ; for. ye ARE ALL ONE IN ChRIST JeSUS. AnD IF YE BE ChRIST*S, THEN ARE YE AbRAHAm's SEED, AND HEIRS ACCORDING * Compare verse 16, -with verses 7 ami 26, with our text, and other parallel passages. ( 8 ) TO THE PROM rsE. If vc be Christ's, then are ye brought into a covenant relation to Abraham ; are justified in the same manner in -which he was ; and are entitled to all the privileges and blessings, which -were contained in the promises made to him arid his seed. Suck, my brethren, is the train of reasoning employed by the apostle in this instructive chapter. If is particu- larly to be remarked, that with a view to convince his G^fetian brethren of their unhappy error, in respect to justification, he ascends to the memorable period of the institution of the church in the family of Abraham ; takes THE COVENANT, then made with Abraham and HIS SEED, and traces it down, in the transmission of its privileges and blessings, to the Gentile churches. His whole argument proceeds on the plain scripture gi-ound, that THE COVENANT, which was made with Abraham, and which constituted the church in his family, was still in force, and was never to be abrogated ; that the Gentile churches were embraced in that covenant, as making one with the Jewish church ; and that, by virtue of that COVENANT, believers of every age and nation were to be considered as the children of Abraham, inheriting by- divine right, all the privileges and blessings comprised in the promises made to him and his seed. The text, then, thus contemplated in its connection, presents, for our consideration, this great and interesting doctrine, viz.— ^ In God's covenant or promise with Abraham, PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CHURCH FORMED BY IT, AND THUS FOR THE TRANSMIS- SION OF THE PRIVILEGES AND BLESSINGS CONTAINED IN IT, FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION, DOWN TO THE CLOSE OF TIME. With a view to establish and illustrate this doctrinal ( 9 ) proposition, I propose, as the general method of dis- course, I. To shew, that the covenant which was made with Abraham, and by which the church was formed in his family, was intended to be perpetual, or to continue throughout all generations : And, II. To shew more particularly, what provision was tnade in that covenant for the continuance of the church formed by it, and the transmission of the blessings con- tained in it. It cannot be necessaiy, in a labored manner, to prove, that, bv the covenant made with Abraham, a church was formed in his family. Of this fact, as it may appear in the course of our subject, the scriptures afford the most plenary evidence. To Abraham and his seed in the line of Isaac and Jacob, pertained^ as the apostle to the Ro- mans assures us, the adoption^ and the glory ^ and the cove- nants^ and the giving of the /fliy, and the service of God,, and the promises. More than what is here expressed certainly could not be necessary to constitute a church in the strictest sense. Accordingly, though the tei-m church is not used in the old testament scriptures, yet other terms of equivalent import are abundantly used. And in the new testament the body of God's ancient acknow- ledged people, constituted by the covenant made with Abraham, is expressly recognized as a church. It was thus recognized by Stephen, when, in his memorable ad- dress before the Jewish Sanhedrim, speaking of Moses, he said. This is he, that v/as in the church iji the ■wilderness, rvith the angel that spake to him in the mount Sina, and ivith ottr fathers ; who rtceivcd the livshj ora- cles to give unto ?/?.* * Act# vii. 33. B ( 50 ) That the covenant made with Abraham, and constitut-' ing a church in his family, was intended to continue, and actually did continue, until the coming of Messiah, and the introduction of the Gospel dispensation, is conceded on ail hands. It will be, moreover, conceded, that if it did not ceases, on the introduction of the gospel dispen- sation, it is still in force ; and consequently the church formed by it still continues, and will continue to the end of time. It might, therefore, suffice for our present pur- pose should it be made to appear, that the covenant with Abraham and his seed did not cease, when the gospel dispensation was introduced. But this, and more than this, it is believed, will be made clearly to appear. Several arguments in support of the proposition, that the covenant made with Abraham and his »eed,^and con- sequently the church formed bv it, did not cease, on the introduction of the gospel dispensation, but were intend- ed to continue throughout all generations, I will now, my brethren, submit to your serious consideration : 1. By the covenant made with Abraham, he was con stituted THE TATHEfi of all them that believe, Abraham was, unquestionably, a man of pre-eminent faith. But it was not on account of the pre-eminence of his faith, simply, that he obtained die title of the father of the faithful. This venerable title, bestowed upon him by the Spiiit of inspiration, is of a much higher im- port, than merely that he was an eminent examplar of faith. As for me^ says God to Abraham, behold my cove- nant is ivith thee^ and thov shalt be a father of MANY NATIONS.-* This is explained, in the fourth of Romans, as referring, not merely to Abraham's natural posterit}'- ; but also to his children bij faith. Therefore it is of fait n^ says the apostle, that it mi^ht be bij grace, * Gen. xvii. 4. ( 11 ) TO THE F.KD THE PROMISE MIGHT BF. SURK TO ALL THK SE3D, XOT TOTHATO>fLY WHICH IS OF THE LAW, BUT TO THAT ALSO WHICH IS OF THE FAI.TH OF ABRAHAM, WHO IS THE FATHER OF US ALL, flJ it iswrttteU, I HAVE MADE THEE A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. Hciewe are taught, that the covenant of promise, made with Abraham, had respect to other seed besides his natural posterity ; and ^t/ that covenant he was constituted the father of all them that believe. And he received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had^ being yet wicirctcmcised ; for this very purpose, that he might be the father of all them that believe^ though theij be not circumcised^ that righteousness might be imputed to them also. But, mv bretkren, in what respect was Abraham con- stituted the father of all who believe ? Certainly it was a constitution of very high import, or it would not have been attended with so remarkable a solemnity, nor have been referred to by the sacred writers with so great an interest. But what was its import? If the covenant made with Abraham has been disannulled, and the church formed by it, abolished ; if, on the introduction of the Christian dispensation, anew church was formed, and a new covenant instituted, materially different from that made with Abraham ; in what important respect can Abraham be considered as the father of christian believers ? If we be members of a different church, form- ed by a different covenant from that of Abraham, what relation have we to Abraham ? In what respect arc we his children ? How is it that we are blessed with him ? that we arelieirs according to the promise made to him ? and that on his account, as our father, righteousness is imputed unto us ? But Abraham -zfrz^made the father of many nations ; and all who are of faith arc his children, and ort" blessed with him. This is according to the covenant of pvrqiji:-' ( 12 ) which God made with Abraham. He received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the righteousness of the faith 7vhich he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED, though thc}' be not his natural posterity, that righteousness might be im-^. PUTED TO THEM ALSO. By the covenant, made with Abraham, a church was formed, which was to be continued down, through all successive generations, and which was to embrace, not only his natural posterity, but the faithful of all nations. Of this church Abraham was the covenant father ; and, in the capacity of covenant father, he received the prom- ises. As the fadier of the church, and the heir of the xvorld, the whole inheritance was conveyed to him for himself and his seed ; and the act of conveyance was solemnly ratified and sealed, by the sign of circumcision. The covenant made with him had respect to the whole church, of which he was the representative and father ; and the blessings of the covenant were to be transmitted to the latest generations. In this view of the subject, AbraJiam appears to be the father of the faithful, in a respect exceedingly inter- esting and important. In this vicAv of the subject, it is easy to see how the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gentiles : how all who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham ; and, partly at least, in what sense, if we be Christ's we are Abraham's seed, and heirs ac- cording to the promise. But in any other view, these scripture representations will appear, it is thought, conir paratively unrneaning and unimportant, if not utterly un- intelligible and incongruous. On the whole, it is plain, that it was by the cov- iNANT OF PROMISE which God made with him, that A- ( 1^> ) braham was constituted the father of all ^vho belkvc ; and believers of cveiy age and nation are his children, and heirs according to the promise, only by virtue of THEIR COVENANT RELATION TO HIM. And from this, the conclusion is equally plain, that the covenant made with Abraham, and consequently the church constituted by it, did not cense on the introduction of the gospel dis- pensation ; but were intended to be continued to the •latest periods of time. For, if believers, to the latest pe- riods of time, are to be accounted children of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise made to him ; then the covenant, by virtue of which they become children and heirs, and consequently the clmrch fonr.cd by it, must continue. 2. God's covenant of promise made with Abraham comprised all the blessings and privileges ever promised to believers, and to the church. Irvill establish mtj covenant betxueen me and thee and thy seed after thee^ s^.ys the Lord to Abraham, for an everlasting covenant^ to be a God unto thee and to THY SEED APTER THEE :* AnD IN THEE, AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE SLES- SED.f These promises, my brethren, are of vast com-» prehension. As they respect Abraham and his seed, in their personal and family capacity, they comprise everv personal and family blessing, pertaining both to the life which now is, and to that which is to come. As they respect Abraham and his seed in their church capacity, they comprise the Messiah, and all the blessings ever to be conferred upon the church and upon the world through him. To Abraham and his seed^ says the apostle, -vera the * Gen. xvii. 7. f Ibid, xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18. xxvi. 4. aid xxviii. 14. ( 14 ) promises made. To Abraham and his seed, compre* hending Messiah, and all true believers as included in him, were njade the promises, which comprise all the blessings ever to be conferred upon the church and peo' pie of God. Was this covenant, then, so vastly comprehensive in irespect to its blessings, ever to be abrogated ? Was the church which was formed by it, and so richly endowed, ever to be abolished ? Was there to be another covenant, comprising more and greater blessings? another church, mare lar^^ely and richly endowed ? No, my brethren ; smother covenant, comprising more and greater blessings, could not be constituted ; another church, more largaly and richly endowed, could not be formed. It is true, indeed, that under the gospel the church eiy'oys greater privileges than it could enjoy under the law. So in the days of Moses and Joshua the chut;ch enjoyed greater privileges than it did in the days of Abraham and Isaac ; and in the days of David and Solomon, greater than in the days of Moses and Joshua ; and in the days of Christ and his apostles, greater than in the days of David and Solomon. And in the' days of the Mellinium, the church will enjov greater privileges than at present it enjoys. But, all the privileges ever enjoyed, and ever to be en- joyed, by the church, were comprised in God's covenant of promise with Abraham ; and, in pursuance of that covenant, have been conferred, and will be conferred, from period to period, according to the progression ot the great work of redemption, and the advancement of the church towards its ultimate perfection. Accordingly the sacred writers, not only in the old testament, but also in the new, constantly recur to the covenant with Abraham, as the grand source of all the blessings, and the grand charter of all the privileges of the people and church of God, as well under the Chris- ( 15 ) tian, as under the Jewish, dispensation. He hath holptn his servant Israel^ says the mother of our Lord, in re- mcmbrance of his mercy ^ as he spake to our fathets^ to A- hrahayn and his seed forever. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel^ says Zacharias, for he hath visited and redeemed his people^ and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David ; to perform the mercy pro77iised to our fathers., and to remember his holy cove- nant ; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham. TV are the children of the prophets^ says Peter to the multi- tude assembled at the beautiful gate of the temple, Te are the childrefi of the prophets^ and of the covenantxvhich God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thif seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, says Paul, that the blcssijig of Abraham might come on the Gen- tiles through Jesus Christ, If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it to Abra- ham by proJnise, And if ye be Christ^s, ye are Abraham^s seed, and heirs accordijig to the promise.^ Thus it ap- pears that Israel was holpen by the coming of Mes- siah, IN REMEMBRANCE OF THE MF.RCY PROMISED TO ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED FOREVER. The horn of Salva- tion, raised up in the hou&e of £)avid, even christ, WAS ONLY TO PERFORM THE MERCY PROMISED TO THE FATHERS In the COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM. All the kindreds of the earth ard blessed under the gospel, on- ly IN PURSUANCE OF THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM. The blessings which come upon the Gentiles through Christ, ARE ONLY THE BLESSINGS COMPRISED IN THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM. The inheritance was given to Abraham, as the father of the Church, and the heir of the world, in the promise to him ; and belie\-ers under the gospel, as the children of Abraham, are heirs, only ACCORDING Td the COVENANT WHICH GoD MADE WITH • I.uke i. 54, 55. Ibid, 68—73. Acts iii. 25. Context aniTejit. ( 16 ) iiisi, an'd inherit only the BtEssrltGs or tstat coVe- NANT. Was the covenant made with Abraham, then, ei-et t& be abrogated ? No, my brethren, to abrogate that cov- evant were to abrogate the grand charter of all the bless- ings and privileges of God's people. Was the church formed by that covenant ever to be abolished ? No ; to abolish that church, were to abolish the kingdom and glory of Messiah. Was there ever to be another covenant instituted, and another church formed ? No, for all the promises of God are made to Abraham and his seed; all the blessings of Messiah arid his kingdom are secured and entailed by covenant, and by oath, to the church formed in Abraham.'s family, and can ne^"er be alienated. The numerous and precious promises, recorded in the Psalms and in the Prophets, concerning the glory of Christ and the extension and blessings of his kingdom, are only an unfolding in detail of the promises of the covenant with Abraham. They are addressed to Jacob, to Israel, to Zion, to the church originally formed in Abraham's fam- ,jlv ; and as they can never belong to any other covenant, r.or be applied to any other church, they afford the most plenary assurance, that the Abrahamic covenant and church shall continue, as long as the sun and moon en- dure.* * As nothing could be move unfounded, so what could be more derogative of the hoi-.or of the God of Abraham, tlian the sentiment that the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, v/as only a te?i2/>oral covenant, and included only temjioral bleijs- ingsl Have not temporal blessings been bestowed upon mankind unirersally ; and, upon man)-, in as great abundance, asu])on the ])atriarch and his descendants ? Why then may not Jehovah be said to have been a Gcd to all the individuals and families of the earth, as v/ell as to Abraliam and his seed ? But at the same time that we are told, that the covenant with Abraham Avas only a temfwral co\ enant, including only tempo- ral blessings ; Ave are also told, that the great promise of this co\ - cnant, to be a God to Abraham and to his seed after him, had respect, not to his iratural, but only to his s/ii ritual seed. A SPIRITUAL seed; but a merely temporal covenant and mere- ( 15^ ) 3. The covenant, made with Abraham aiicl his seed, IS the covenant of" which, in the new testament, Christ is said to be the M'.^diator, and which is dcsi^iated as the covenant to be established with the church in the days of tlie gospel. This ?.? the covenant that I 7ri// make luhh the house of Isra-c!^ after ihose days^ saith the Lord^ I will put my laws in their windy and rv rite them in their hearts ; and I Vv-ILL BE TO THEM A GoD, AND THEY SHALL BE TO ME A PEOPLE. t This is called, indeed, a xlw covenant : and on thlr? account has sometimes, for want of proper attention to the subject, beeri supposed to be difftirent from any cov- enant before established -\\'ith the church. It is called a XEw covenant, because of its revival and renewal, after it had been for a long time greatly obscured, and almost lost out of sight, by the legal Jews, who placed their chief dependence, on the law of Moses, the covenant viade rvith their fathers at Mount Simsi^ rvhen the Lord hroifght them out of the land of Egypt ; and because of its new and greater clearness, and extension, under a new, ly TEMPORAL blessings 1 Yes ; to the father of the faithful, and to believers of every nation and age, God onlv promised to j^ive them the land of Canfian for a possession I Such, according to the An- tipxdobaptist t'\eory, such is the l)'essing of Abraham '.vhich was to come upon the Gentiles tiiroiigh Jesus Christ ! Such is the in- heritance, which Avas given by promise to the patriarch of the churc!i : and to which tliose v/ho are Christ's are, by covenant and by oath, made heirs ; Alas I believer, child of Abraham. heir accordirig to th-e proniise ; \\nw greatly ha-jt thou been deceived In respect to th.'j inhcritai:cc '. But is this a jv:st account of the r^.atter ? Can it be admitted for a moment? Should we not indeed, l;e ready to conclude, that it v/as in vicv.' of some sentiment like this now in question, that the apostle of the Gen- tiles, jealous foi' the hr.nor of his God, and the Go.i of his father Abraham, so explicitly protested, that the patriarch and his faith-. ful iiLcd drftirc a nETTER country^ that is^ mi hkavexly ; and therefore, that God iv not ashamf n to hr crr^rd tiieiti Gon, I OR he kath'prepared foi; ; ' + Jer. xxxi. o.l. Heb. viii. 10. f ( 18 ) and brighter, and more extended, dispensation. So the great commandment t)f love, which zvas from the beghi- ?img, is, under the gospel, called a new coinmandment ; because the darkness is past and the true light 7iorv shin- eth.^ The Sinai covenant, the Mosaic /axv ofcfimmand- vients contained in ordinances., as it was added but for tem- porary purposes, has waxed old, and is vanished aAvay. But the covenant originally made with Abraham and his seed, as the permanent constitution of the church, Avill never wax old, but will always be new. As the Lord said to Abraham, Ixvill establish my cov- enant between me and thee and thy seed after thee — to be A God unto thee and to thy seed after thee ; so he said to Israel in Egypt, I will take you to me FOR A PEOPLE AND I WILL 3E TO YOU A GoD tf and SO he said concerning the house of Israel, and the house of Judah in the days of the Gospel ; I will put my law in their inward parts and xvrite it in their hearts ; and I WILL BE THEIR GoD AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. The covenant, or the great and leading promise of the covenant, as expressed in these several instances, is the same. In the last instance, indeed, there is an intima- mation of a renewal of heart, in those, with whom the co- venant is established. The same also, was intimated, at the first establishment of the covenant with Abraham and his seed, by the sign of circumcision, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith., and a sacrament signif- icant of a renovation of heart, or a nexv creature. For the promise that he should be the heir of the xvorldxvas not to Abraham or his seed through the laxv, but through the righteousness offaith.% Accordingly in the old testament a renovation of heart, or inward conformity to the law of God, is abundantly inculcated ; and the promise of the Spirit to God's' covenant people, and to their seed for * John ii. r, 8. t Exod. ii. 7. \ Rom. iv. 13. ( 19 ) this purpose, is often repeated. And in the new testa- jnent wc are taught, that the promise of the Spirit, was included in the covenant with Abraham, or in that bless- ing of Abraham which comes upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Thus we read in our context ; Christ hath redeemed Its from the curse of the law^ being made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesvs Christ ; that we might re- ceive THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH FAITH. On the slightest inspection it is plain, that the cove- nant, mentioned in the several instances now before us, is one and the same. In the first instance it was establish- ed with Abraham and his seed : comprising the church under every dispensation, to the end of time. In the second instance it was propounded to the nation of Isra- el in Egypt ; comprising, at that period, the body of Abraham's seed, and therefore oi the church. In the last instance it was prapounded anew to the hxDuse of Is- rael and to the hoiise of Judah under the gospel, as the covenant to be continued with the church in gospel times. And in each of the instances, the great promise is, TO BE A God to the church, and to the seed of the CHURCH. For as in the first instance the covenant was established with Abraham and his seed ; so in the second, it was made with the nation of Israel, including their lit- tle ones ; and in the last, with the house of Israel : And it is well understood that the term house, when used in this sense, always comprises both parents and children. This is the covenant, of which Christ is the Mgdi- ATOR, and which is said to be a better covenant., establish- ed upon better promises, than that which was added to it, and made with Israel at Mount Sinai. This is the cov- enant which was to be continued with the church, after the Sinai covenant had v/axed old and vanished away. ( 20 ) Accordinglr, Peter, as before quoted, says, Tt are the children of the prophets^ and of the covenant xvhich God made with our fathers^ saying unto Abraham^ Aridin thy seed shall all the kindreds oftheearthbe blessed. This address, it will be remembei-ed, was made to the people, after the ascension of the Saviour, on the full risen morn- ing of the gospel day. In another address, delivered a- bout the same time, the same apostle says ; Repent and be baptizedevery one of you in the 7iame of the Lordfesus^ for the remission of sins ; mid ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Tor the promise is to you and to your childre?i^ and to all that are afar off^ even as many as the Lord our God shall call.^ In this passage, as well as in the former, there is a most evident allusion to the cov- enant made with Abraham. The promise is to you and to your children ; for the Lord said to Abraham, Ixuill be a Godwito thee and to thy seed after thee. It is also, to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord cur God shall call ; for the Lord said fui-ther to Abraham, Ln thee, and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be bles- sed. But, my brethren, if this covenant with Abraham and his seed, was abolished on the coming of Messiah, and was to have no existence under the gospel ; why is it in this solemn manner, on the bright morning of the gospel day, brought forward by this distinguished apostle, made the basis of his exhortation to the people, and re- ferred to as the very source of all the blessings to them and their children, and to all the nations of the earth ? In our context, as we have already seen, as vrcU as in the' passage just quoted from his epistle to the He- brews, the apostle Paul treats most explicitly of the cov- enant with Abraham and his seed, as being the constitu- tion of the church in gospel times. He declares it to be a covenant, confirmed in Clirist, and which could not be ^ Acts ii. 38, 39, ( 2t ) ^istuinulled ; and refers the churches to it as their grand and unalterable charter. In the fourth chapter of this same epistle to the Ga- latians, the apostle again brings forward the covenant as the basis of his argument. It vs tor it ten that Abraham had two sons^ the one by a bond mnid^ the other by a free xvoman. Exit he xvho xvas of the bond xvotnan "was borri after tbefesh ; bitt he of the free xvovxanxvas by promise. JVhich things are an allegory ; for these are the trvo cove- nants ; the one from mount Sina^ xjohich gender eth to bond- age^ xvhich is Agar^ or the bond woman. For this Agar is, allegorically, mount Sina in Arabia^ where this covenant was given, and ansxvereth to ferusalem xvhich noxv isy and is in bondage xvith her children ; or to the unbeliev- ing Jews, who, through their blind adherence to this Si- nai covenant, are in bondage with their children to the weak and beggarlv elements. But Jerusalem xvhich is above, the true and spiritual church of God, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, but principally hitherto of Jc\vs, is free, xvhich is the mother of us all, as Sarah, the free woman was of Isaac. Noxuxve, brethren, we Gen- tile believers, as well as Jewish, as Isaac xvas, are the children of promise. The two covenants, allegoricallv represented, the one by the free woman, and the other by the bond wo- man, are e^ idently the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, and the covenant which was added at mount Sinai. For these are the covenants of Avhich the apostle had been largely treating in the preceding chap- ter, and with rcicrgnce to which he continues his di.'^ course in this ; and of no other covenant is there any mention made throughout this epistle. Tlie bond wo- man i-epreserj:ed the covenant at mount Sinai, which is cdLiX. out and TOolished. But the free v.oman represented ( 22 ) the gracious covenant of promise, according to which Isaac was born, and became an heir of the blessing. — ■■ This covenant is not cast out, is not abolished ; but still continues in all its vigor, and in all its glory. So theiiy hrethren^ concludes the apostle, ive are not children of the bond ivoman^ but of the free. We are not children of the covenant made at Sinai, and allegorically repre- sented by Hagar, the bond woman ; but we are children of the covenant, originally established with Abraham and his seed, and allegorically represented by Sarah, the free woman.* So plain from the scriptures it is, that the covenant made with Abraham is continued under the gospel; and therefore, that the church formed by it is also still con- tinued. 4. The church under the gospel is uniformly in the scriptures represented as being the same church, or a continuation of the same church, which was fprmed in !' foundation in truth. Tlie law of Moses, we, as well as cur opponents, believe, has been blotted out and nailed to the cross. But because the Mosaic law, the covenant made with Israel at Sinai, is abolished, it by no means follows, that the Abraharnic covenant is also abolished. Between these two covenants the scripture uniformly observes a most important distinction ; and wh;le it informs us that the former is abolished, it informs us also, and with equal clearness, that the latter is not. The unscriptural blending of these two covenant, together has been a most prolific source of error. From this source sprang the error of the legal JewG, in former ages ; and from this sani^ source has sprung the error of the deniers of the Abi-ahamic .covenant and church, or the Antipxdobaptists, in modern times. It was with his eye upon this source of error, that our Lord, when, in discourse with the Jews, he took occasion to mention circumcision.^ the original seal of the Abraharnic covenant, was particular to remind theni, that /.' ivas not of Moses, but of THE FATHKas. John vii. 22. ( 23 ) the case. It would be very remarkable' indeed, if, in the scriptures, Abraham and his seed were represented as making two, or more, distinct and quite different fam- ilies ; or if the children of Abraham, under the gospel, who are only heirs according to the promise made to him, were represented as composing a church, entirely dis- tinct and different from that which was founded in the family of their father. But such a representation is, in the scriptures, no where to be found. All the predictions and prophecies of good things to tome, addressed, in the Psalms and in the Prophets, to the church under the former dispensation, but to have their completion under the gospel, most clearly represent the Christian, as being orJy a continuation and enlarge- ment of the ancient Abrahamic, church. Of innumerable passages to this effect, the sixtieth chapter of Isaiah, thev/hole of which is in point, but a part of which only can be cited, may suffice as a specimen. Arise^ shine; Jor THY light is come^ and the glory of the Lord is risen 7//>on TMEE. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, a7id kijigs to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about ^ and see ; all they gather themselves to- gether^ they come to thee ; thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. The abun- dance of the sea shall be converted unto tvl^t., the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. They shall come up xvith acceptance upon mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory. The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee, and all they that des- pised thee shall bcav themselves dozen at the soles of thy fset ; and they shall ccdl thee the zion or the lord OF hosts. Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated so that no man ruent through thee^ I zvi 11 make thee, ah eternal excellency, a Joy of many generations. — These gracious promises were addressed to Zion, to the church of the living God, under the ancient dispensa- ( 24 ; tion, about seven hundred years before the coming of Messiah ; but they evidently look forvv-ard to the bright and glorious days, yea, even to the brightest and most glorious daj'-s, of the gospel. To this same Zion assur- ances were given, that her light should come, and the glory of the Lord should rise upon her. That the Gen- tiles should come to her light, and kings to the bright- ness of HER rising. That the abundance of the sea should be converted unto her, and the forces of the Gen- tiles come unto her. That she should be called the Zion of the Lord of hosts; and that she should be made an ETER>rAL excellency, a joy of many generations* Can vv'c refrain from f{stonishment,my brethren, when we hear it said, that this ancient church of God, this Zion of the Lord of hosts, concerning Avhich such glo- rious things are spoken, was no church, or at best, was only a shadow or type of the Christian church ? Can we refrain from astonishment, when we hear it said, that this same Zion, which was to be made an eternal excel- lency, the jo}^ of many generations, and unto which the forces of the Gentiles were to come, has long since ceased to' exist, and given place to an entirely new church ? Is it not certain, beyond all contradiction, that, if there be no failure in the promises of God, the ancient Zion still exists, and has been enlarged by accessions from the Gentile nations ; and will continue to exist and to be en- larged, until every nation and kingdom, which will not serve her, shall have utterly perished ? And is it not equailv certain, tiTfat if there has been any other church formed, under whatever name, and with whatever pi-e- tensions ; it is a church which Vv^as entirely unknown in ancient prophecy as a true church of God, and which must ere long come to a perpetual end ? The representations In the new testament, concerning the church, ni'e perfectly correspondent with those in thr^ old. C ^s ) Not as though the xvord of God^ says the apostle, had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraha7n are they all children ; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That isy theyzvhich are the children of the fleshy these are not the children of God; bid the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Know ye nof, therefore^ that they which are of faith., the same are the children of Abra- ham. And if ye he Christ's., then are ye AbrahantCs seedy and heirs according to the promise.^ From these pas- sages, and many others of similar import, it appears, that believing Gentiles, as well as believing Jews, are the covenant seed of Abraham, and members of the same church of which he was the father. / say^ then., hath God cast away his people ? God for- hid. For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham. God hath not castaway his people., whom he foreknew. Blindness in port i*, -indeed, happened u7ito Israel., until thefidness of the Gentiles be come in. But if some of the branches be broken off., and thou being a tvild olive tree^ xvert grafted in among them., and with them partakest.of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not agaitist the branches ; but if thou boast., thou bearest not tJie root., hut the root thee.\ In the eleventh of Jeremiah the Jewish, or Abrahamic, church is called a green olive tree., fair and of goodly fruit ; and under this beautiful figure is it represented by the apostle, in the passage now cited from the eleventh of Romans. This good olive tree, according to the apostle's representation, did not die, on the introduction of the gospel dispensation ; but still had root, and life, and fatness. But some of the na- tural brances, a great proportion, indeed, of the Jews, visible members of the church, natural branches of the olive tree, were, by reason of unbelief, at that time bro- * Romans ix. 6 — 8. Context and Text. t RoraanB xi. 1, 2, 25 ; 17, 18. D ( 26 ) ken off; and the Gentile belkyers were grafted in among- the still remaining natural and flourishing branches of the same olive tree, and became partakers of its root and fatness. This, my brethren, is far from representing the an.- cient Abrahamic church as abolished, and a new church, formed. It, indeed, represents, in a manner at once the most beautiful and the most striking, that the Abrahamic church was continued in its true character ; and that the Gentile believers were brought into the same church, and admitfcd to a participation of the same privileges and blessings. And, what is particularly noticeable, the Gentile believers are solemnly cautioned against thinking /too meanly of the Jews, and too highly of themselves ; and are admonished to bear it in remembrance, that they, by special favor, were admitted to the privileges and blessings of that covenant and church, from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off. Boast not against THE BRANCHES ; BUT IF THOU BOAST, THOU BEAREST NOT THE ROOT, BUT THE ROOT THEE. Thou COntribut- cst nothing to Abraham and his descendants, but dcrivcst all thy privileges and blessings from the covenant which was made with them I* The apostle proceeds to inform us, that the Abraham- ic church, thus continued down, and enlarged by the ac- * It is here submitted to the serious and candid consideration lion of the reader, whether those who deny, or disclaim, the Abra- hamic covenant and church, are not chargeable with the veiy thing, agamst which the apostle has entered his most solemn and pointed "premonition J Do they not boast against the bra^ichts ? Do thev not boast, and claim a high preeminence indeed, over the whole ancient church, both branch and root ; and over all the gospel branches, which acknowledge that church, as the stock into which they are engrafted, ^ and of the root and fatness of -which they have the privilege to partake ? And if so, does it not behove them to attend, with awe, to the warning which the apostle subjoins : Be not high minded^ but fear. For if God afiared not the natural branches, take heed lest he alu'i f-Jwrc nO' thee. ( 27 ) cession of the Gentile believers, is to continue until the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in. Then the natural branches shall be engrafted again into their o^A•n olive tree. The Jews shall be reinstated in the church, and in all the privileges of the covenant made with Abra- ham their father. So plain it is, that the church under the Christian dispensation, is only the ancient, Abrahamic, church con- tinued and enlarged according to the promises, made to Abraham and his seed ; and that this church, and, of course, the covenant by which it vras originally formed, is to be continued down to the latest generations. So plain it is, that, as the apostle to the Ephesians expresses it, the Gentiles arefelloio heirs^ A^'D of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel.^' Accordingly, as intimated under the former article, in all the predictions and promises, uttered by the prophets, concerning the extension and blessings of Messiah's kingdom under the gospel ; this kingdom is designated by the names Jacob, Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, the well kno^vn names of the ancient Jewish, or Abrahamic, ehurch. 5. The covenant, made with Abraham, is expressh- declared to be an everlasting, or perpetual covenant ; a covenant to continue to the latest generations. And I will establish rmj covenaJit between me and thce^ a)\dthij seed after thee., in their gejierations., for an ev- erlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. It is well understood, that the term, everlasting, v.'hen used in a limited sense, imports a duration, equal to that of the subject, to which it is ap- plied. When the Lord, therefore, testified, that he would establish his covenant with Abraham and his seed * Eph, jii. 6. * ( 28 ) after him, for an everlasting covenant ; he was, doubtless, understood to mean, that, as long as Abiaham should have a seed on the earth, this covenant should continue. That he was thus to be understood is further manifest, from the very noticeable phrase, in their gen- erations. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee^ in their generations, FOR an everlasting COVENANT. This certainly im- ports that the covenant was to continue, even to the latest generations of Abraham's seed. But it already appears, that in some sense, and that too the covenant sense of the terms, believers of every nation and of every age, as well as his natural posterity, are Abraham's seed. If, therefore, God meant to es- tablish his covenant with Abraham and with his seed af- ter him, in their generations for ah everlasting covenant ; then, according to the very terms of the covenant, as long as there is a generation of Abraham's seed on the earth,, this covenant is to continue. If there were in the apos- tolic age, true believers in Christ, they were a generation of Abraham's seed J and the covenant established with Abraham and with his seed after him, in their genera- tions, for an everlasting covenant, was established with them. If there be in the present age true believers in Christ, they are a generation of Abraham's seed ; and the covenant established with Abraham and with his seed after him, in their generations, is established with them. And if there shall be in the last age of the world trvie believers in Christ, they will be a generation of Abraham's seed ; and the covenant established with A- braham and with his seed aftei* him, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, Avill be established with them. The text now before us is not the only one, in which the govcnant with Abraham is declared to be an everlasting ( 29 ) covenant. Sarah thy tvifcy said the Lord to Abraham, shall have a son, atid thou shalt call his name Isaac ; and I xvill establish my covenant uuith him, for an everlast- ing COVENANT, AND WITH HIS SEED AFTER HIM. ye seed of Israel his servant, says David, ye children of jfa- cob, his chosen 07ies. He is the Lord our God. Hisjudg- fiients are in all the earth. Be ye mindful alzuay of his covenant^ the word ivhich he commanded to a thousand GENERATIONS ; even of the covenant which he made with Abraham f and of his oath unto Isaac j and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a lawi^ and to Israel for an e ver- J.ASTING COVENANT. . - Such, my hearers, is a compendious view of the scrip- ture proofs that the covenant, which was made with A- braham, and by which the church was constituted in his family, was intended to be perpetual, or to continue throughout all generations. I say, a compendious view, for in order to give an ample and complete view, we should be obliged to present the whole scriptures in their connexion. The whole scriptures, in their connexion, testify, that Abraham is, under God, the father of the church ; that to him and his seed all the promises were made; that the church, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, is one ; that the covenant confirm- ed in Christ, with Abraham and his seed, four hundred and thirty years before the commencement of the Mosaic dispensation, was never to be disannulled; and, there.- fore, that if ye be Christ's, then, by virtue of that zovt- Xi^xaty ye are Abraham^ s seed, a7id heirs according to the promise.^ All this will, perhaps, be made to appear with * By some it may be thought, that, on this first general head, T^-e have dwelt longer than was necessary on a proposition so rslain. But wlien it is considered, that the doctrine here in proof is at the foundation of the dispute between the paidobaptists and the antipaedobaptists, and that, if this doctrine be proved, the pxdobaptist sentiment and practice must be allowed to rest on the most solid ground ; it is hoped that the several arguments ( 30 ). Still greater clearness, by what is to be offeree^ under the other general head ; which is, II. To consider more particularly what provision was made in the Abrahamic covenant, for the continuance of the church formed by it, and the transmission of the bles- sings contained in it. God's gracious promise to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him, in their generations, evidently pur- ported, that the blessings of the covenant should be transmitted from Abraham to Isaac, from Isaac to Jacob, and so down from generation to generation, in the line of natural descent. That this great promise had prima- ry respect to Abraham's natural posterity is manifest from the very terms in which it is expressed ; from the application of the token or seal of the covenant ; from the general tenor of the scriptures ; and from the well known course of the divine dispensations. The covenant with Abraham contained the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. As a provision for the life which now is, and as an earnest, ©f the blessings of that which is to come, the land of Ca- naan was particularly promised to him and his seed for an inheritance. As the land of Canaan was a pledge, and an earnest of that better country, which is an hea- venly, and of all the blessings promised in the covenant ; it is in several instances, by a common and beautiful figure, put for the whole of those blessings. But the promise of the land of Canaan had respect, unquestiona- bly, to Abraham's natural seed ; and, therefore, as God promised to be a God to that same seed, to which he adduced, will not only be read once^ but if necessary will be pa- tiently and candidly revienvsd^ before the reader proceeds any further. Are not the arguments scriptural and fair ? Is not each of them by itself conclusive ? And do not all of them to- gether establish the doctrine beyond all reasonable controversy ? C 31 ) ffould give the land of Canaan, it is plain that all the promises of the covenant had primary respect to Abra- ham's natural descendants. Ixvill give unto thee^andto THY SEED after thee, all the Itnd of Canaan, and Ixvill be THEIR God.* Circumcision, originally the token and seal of the co- venant, was, by divine appointment, put upon Abraham^^s natural seed. But why was the token and seal of the covenant put upon them ; if to them the promise of the covenant had no primary, no special respect ? The apostle Peter, in his before cited address to the people, at the Beautiful gate of the temple, says, Te are the children of the prophets, and or the covenant tt'/^ic)^ Cod made xuith our fathers ; saying, unto Abraham, And in thif seed shall all the yiations of the earth be blessed* Unt0 YOU FIRST, God, having raised up his Son ^esus, sent him to bless tjou in turning axvay every one of you from his iniquities. Thus, addressing himself to a pro- miscuous multitude of the natural descendants of Abra- ham, the apostle testified to them, that they were the* children of the covenant ; and that, on this account, unto them first God had sent his Son Jesus to bless them. This plainly imports that the promises of the covenant, even the promises of spiritual blessings had primary res- pect to Abraham's natural posterity. Paul, in the ninth of Romans, says, I could xvish that myself -were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen accord- ing TO the flesh. who are ISRAELITES ; TO WHOM PERTAINETH the ADOPTION, AND THE GLORY, AND THE COVENANTS, AND THE PROMISES. But hoW COuld hc thus say, if the promises of the covenant had not a pri- mary respect to Abraham's natural posterity ? It is, in- deed, on the ground, that the promises of the covenant * Cren. xvii. 8. C 32 ) hful a primary respect to Abraham's natural posterity, that the apostle's whole argument, throughout this and the two succeeding chapters, evidently proceetis. But the passage in the eleventh chapter, respecting the olive tree, is peculiarly clear and decisive. In that passage the Jews are represented as being natural branches of the good olive tree, and the Gentile believers as only ENGRAFTED hrauches- But what pertinency or justness could there be in this representation, if the covenant with Abraham had no special, no primary respect to his natural descendants ? As the sentiment, now in proof, runs through the whole scriptures ; so it is most strongly confirmed bj the divine dispensations. For nearly two thousand years, the blessings of the covenant, transmitted from genera- tion to generation, were almost wholly confined to Abra- ham's natural seed. To them God said, Tou only Have J hioxvn of all the natio7is of the earth. Though, at the time of the introduction of the Christian dispensation, a great proportion of the natural branches were broken off" from the good olive tree ; yet there was still a precious remnant spared. Though blindness hi part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be cotne in ; though, as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for the Gentiles^ sakes ; yet, as touching the election, they are still beloved for the fathers^ sakes. And the time is at hand, when as a body, they are to be brought into the faith of the gospel, and reinstated in all the privileges of thq everlasting covenant.* God's promise, then, or proposal, to Abraham, was to be a God, not only to him, but also to his seed after him. The same was his promise, or proposal, to Isaac ; the same, to Jacob j and so down from generation to gene- * Rom, xj. 23—3?. ( 33 ) ration ; ahd thus in the line of natural descent, were the blessings of the covenant to be transmitted and the church continued. But though the promise of the covenant had primary respect to Abraham's natural posterity ; yet Abraham was made the father of many nations ; and had the prom- ise, that in him, and in his seed, all the families of the earth should be blessed. Though the church was to be continued down in the line of his natural descendents ; yet provision was made for the adoption and incorpora- tion of other families and nations. Accordingly, under the former dispensation, strangers of difFex-ent nations were admitted to the privileges of natural born Israelites ; and on the introduction of the present dispensation, Gen- tile believers, by hundreds and by thousands, were ad- mitted to the same covenant, and became fellow heirs of the same body, and partakers of the same promise by the gospet. As Abrahani Was constituted the father of all them, that believe ; so, correlatively, believers of every nation and age, though not his natural, are yet his adopted and covenant children ; and as such are to be admitted to all the privileges and blessings of his natural children of promise. As, therefore, God promised, or proposed, to Abraham to be not only his God, but also the God of his seed ; so he now promises, or proposes, to every be- lieving parent to be, not only a God to him, but also to his seed after him ; and the same promise, or proposal, to believing parents is to continue down from generation to generation, to the latest periods. Accordingly, Pe- ter, when addressing the mixed multitude, who on the day of pentecost were pricked in their hearts, called upon them to repent and be baptized; and that he might pifesent the strongest motive, he added, For the projnise E ( 34 ) is to z/oz^AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are ofay off^even to as many as the Lord our God shall call. But it is here, my brethren, to be^ particularly noted, that the promises of the covenant, though in respect to Christ and his church, as a body, absolute ; yet in respect to individual persons, are conditional. It was on the ground of Abraham's faith and uprightness, that God promised to be a God to him ; and it was on the same general ground, that he promised to be a God to his seed. Walk before me^ said God to Abraham, and be thou perfect ; and Ixvillmakemy covenant between me and thee.^ To become entitled, then, to the blessings of the covenant, Abraham must walk before God, and be per- fect i must have true faith, and be sincerely obedient. This was necessary, as it respected himself personally, and equally necessary, as it respected his children. The promise to be a God to his childieA, was not in such a sense absolute, as that God was engaged to be their God, whether Abraham believingly took hold of the promise, and was faithful in respect to it or not : but if Abraham vrould become entitled to the promise, he must believe in it, and practise in conformity to it.-^ — Hence, God said of Abraham, / know hhn^ that he will eornmand his children^ and his household after him; and they shall keep the way of the Lordto do justice and judg- ment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that rvhich he hath spoke?! ofhim.j it was on the ground of Abra- ham's knov.'n fidelity, that God thus testified concerning- his children, that they should keep the xvay of the Lord, and that the blessings promised to Abraham should come upon him. Agreeably to this, God said to Isaac, Izvill be xvith thee, and will bless thee ; and I xvill perform the oath xvhich I sxvarc imto Abraham thy father ; and I xvill make thy seed to tnidiiply as the stars of heaven ; and * Gen. xvii. 1, 2. jlbid. xviii. ]P. ( 35 ) ivill give unto thy seed all these countries^ and in thy seed shall all the natioiis of thb earth be blessed. Because THAT Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my CHARGE, MY COMMANDMENTS, MY STATUTES, AND MY LAWS.* From this it Is plain, that it was in conse- quence of Abraham's faith and fidelity, that God Avas a God to Isaac and established with him his covenant. In the ninth of Romans, the apostle anticipates an objection to this effect, that if God should reject the na- tion of the Jews, as had before been intimated, he would not be faithful to his covenant with Abraham, respecting his seed. To obviate this objection, he says. They are 7iot all Israel^ who are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. There are many of Abraham's descendants,who,thGugh members of the visible church, are not the true people of God ; and there are many of Abraham's seed, who, tliough visibly Children of the covenant, are not partakers of covenant blessings. For they xvhich are the children of the fleshy vncxely^ are not the children of God ; but the children ,0F THE promise, the children in respect to v/hom th^re is that faith and fidelity, which are the conditions of the promise, are counted tor the sekd.j From this pas- sage it is, on the one hand, plain, that the promise to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed after him, had res- pect, primarily, to his natural descendants ,; and, on the other hand, it is equally plain, that merely their being the natural descendants of Abraham, did not bring then. within the promise. To be children of the promise, thev must be children of faith ; children, concerning whom * Gen. j'xv, 3, 4, 5. t Rora. ix. 6, 7, 8. This passage thongli by some Lhought to militate with our sentiments respecting the covenant, the autlior canrjot bnt consider as absokitcly conclusive in favor of them. Ifthere he no promise to believing parents respecting their chil- dren ; -what then are we to understand by cniLi)R;vN of the ''RO?JISK ? ( 36 ) there is on the part of the parent, or parents, the faith of Abraham in the covenant of God. The promise, then, to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed after him, was of this purport, that on condition of faith and fidelity on Abraham's part, in respect to his children, they should become subjects of grace, and heirs of the blessings of the covenant. The same promise was made to Abraham's posterity in their successive genr erations ; and the same is now made to all true believers, his adopted children, of every nation. This is a special and most important provision, of the Abrahamic cove- pant, for the transmission of the blessings contained in it, and the continuance of the church formed by it. It is further to be observed, however, that as Christ is eminently the seed of Abraham, and as Abraham, at the time the covenant was made with him, represented the whole church ; the promise of the covenant to Abra- ham and his seed had respect not jnerely to indiyiduals, but also to Christ as the Mediator of the covenant, and to the whole church as one in and with him. Hence, though in one respect the promises of the covenant are conditional } yet in another respect they are not. Though in respect to individual believers, the promises are not absolute, but have respect to their faith and fidelity as a condition ; yet in respect to Christ, and the Church as one with him, the promises are yea and amen. Though God is not by his covenant, absolutely engaged to give to every believer that faith in the promises respecting hi§ chil- dren, which will certainly, through grace, secure to his children, and all of them, the blessings of the covenant ; yet he does, it is conceived, stand absolutely engaged, to Christ and the church, to give such a measure of grace and faith as shall preserve in the line of the church, or some part of the church, a righteous seed on the earth. 4s for mf, this iajny covenant ivith them^ sait/i the Lord ; ( sr ) my spirit that is upon thee^ ayid mywords that I have put hi thy mouthy shall riot depart out of thy mouthy nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the rnoicth of thy seeds seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and forever. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off- spring "with them. I xdiU pour my Spirit upon thy seed^ and my blessing upon their offspring. And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the zvater courses. One shall say, I am the Lcrd''s, and another shall subscribe zvith his hand unto the Lord ajid surname himself hij the name of Israel. They shall be my people and I will be their God. And I will give them one heart wid one way, that they may fear me forever, for the GOOD of them andofrnzm children after them. These, my brethren, are covenant promises, made in Christ to the Abrahamic church ; and are only an exposition, or a more clear and particular expression of the great prom- ises originally made xo Abraliam and his seed. But they give the most positive assurance that the Lord will always have a faithful seed in the church ; and that in consequence of their faith and fidelity the Holy Spirit, in his gracious influences, shall be poured out upon their children ; so that there shall be among them also a faithful seed. And thus though many, through unbelief and unfaithfulnes3, be cut off from the blessings of the covenant ; yet in consequence of the faith and fidelity of others, the blessings of the covenant will be transmit- ted in the line of the church from generation to genera- tion, even unto the last. The provision, then, in the Abrahamic covenant, for the transmission of its blessings, and the continuance of the church, was a promise to Abraham, and to all be- lieving parents individually, on condition of their faith and fidelity, of renewing grace, and all the blessings of the covenant, to their children; and a promise to Abraliani ( 38 ) and his seed, comprising Christ and his church in union, of such a measure of grace and faith as should preserve in the line of the church, a holj' and faithful seed on the earth. And to these was annexed a promise that acces- sions of those, who were strangers and foreigners, should from period to period be made to the church, until the abundance of the sea should be converted unto her, the forces of the Gentiles should come unto her, and all flesh should see the salvation of God. I -will establish my covenajit between me and thee and thy seed after thce^ saith Jehovah, ybr an everlasting cove- nant^ to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. Thou shalt be a father of many ?iations : and in thee and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Accordingly, Christ hath redeemed us froyn the curse of the laxv being made a curse for uSy that the blessi?ig of A- hrahar.i might come on the Gentiles through fesus Christ ; that roe might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. There is neither yew nor Greek^ there is neither bond nor free^ there is neither male nor fern ale ^ for ye are all one in Christ jfesus ; and if ye be Christ^s, then are ye AbrahajrCs seed and heirs according to the promise < SERMON II GALATIANS* HI. 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and heirs according to the promise. Jl HE doctrine, my brethren, which was deduced from this text, and to establish and illustrate which was the bvisiness of our former discourse, Very readily suggests many articles of great practical importance ; some of the more prominent of which may be selected for more particular attention and IMPROVEMENT. 1. We are led to a grateful and devout contemplation of the great design, the gradual progress, and the ulti- mate extension and glory, of the church of God, origi- nally established in the family of Abraham^ At a period abovit fifteen hundred years after the creation of the world, the Lord looked doxvn fi'om heaven upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt ; for all flesh had corrupted his xvay upon the earth. And the. Lord said unto Noah, the end ofallfesh is come before me ; for the earth is filled -with violence through them, and behold I xvill destroy them with the earth. Pursuant to this his righteous deterniination, after giving them solemn admo- nition for the space of a hundred and twenty years. ( 40 ) while the ark was in building ; he, at length, opened the' •tvindo-ws of heaven^ and broke up the fountains of the great decp^ and destroyed the whole world of the ungodly "with a deluge of waters. From this memorable and aw- M catastrophe only Noah and his family were saved.- With this righteous and promising stock the worid wais begun anew. But righteous and promising as the stock was, such is the hereditary depravity of human na- ture, that in about four hundred aftd thirty years after the evacuation of the ark, idolatry was so extensively spread among the descendants of Noah', that open defec- tion from the true God and his worship had biecome al- most universal. At this important aera it pleased God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, toreveal his gracious purpose, which he had purposed in the Messiah, to, prevent the utter extinction of the true religion ; to preserve to himself a righteous seed, and to uphold the institutions of his wor- ship oh the earth, through all succeeding ages, and ulti- mately to spread the knowledge and glory of his name to all the ends of the world. In his wise and sovereign manner, he separated A- brahamyrow his country^ and from his kindred^ and from his father^ s house^ and led him forth into a land wherein he was a stranger. There he appeared unto Abraham, and gave him renewed intimations of his gracious de- sign ; and, in about twenty years afterward, in a formal and solemn manner, established his covenant with him and with his seed after him, in their generations, for aa ev'erlasting covenant. In Abraham's family he instituted a visible church ; a visibly covenanted and sealed relig- ious body ; which was to continue through all genera- tions, and ultimately to embrace all the families of the earth. The church, thus instituted, he endowed with ( 41 ) the richest blessings, temporal, spiritual, and eternal ; blessings not all to be conferred in their full effect at once, but successively, from period to period, as best suited the purposes of infinite wisdom, yet all made sure by promise and by oath. Thus solemnly instituted and richly endowed, the church, under special divine protection and guidance, commenced her progress. The covenant, made with Abraham and his seed, was renewed with Isaac and his seed, and confirmed with Jacob and his seed ; and while, in succession, these ven- erable patriarchs, during the space of about two hundred years, dtvelt as strangers in a strange land., and removed from one nation to another^ and from one kingdom to an- other people^ the Lord suffered no man to do them xurong. Tea he reproved kin^s for their sakes^ sayings Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no Harm. At length Israel -went down into Egypt., and facob sojourned in the land of Ham. In Egypt they dwelt for more than two hundred years j and although, during a great part of that long and dreary interval, they were greatly afflicted and oppressed, yet the Lord re?nembered his covenant., and encreased his people exceedingly y and made them stronger than their en- emies. In due time their groanings were heard, and the period of their deliverance came. The Lord sent Moses his servant y and Aaron -whom he had chosen ; and J.hey shexved his signs among the Egyptians, and wonders in the land of Ham, until Egypt was glad to let his people depart. Wifh a mighty hand and a stretched out arm, he brought them forth from the house of their bondage. He spread a cloud for their covering, and a fire to give light in the night. The people a:ked and he brought quails; and satisfied them with the bread of Heaven. He F ( 42 ) opened the rocky and the xvaters gushed out ,• and rdn in the dry places like a river. For he remembered his hoitf prcmsie, cxd Abraham his servant. Previously to their leaving Egypt, however, the Lord was pleased to institute the passover, to be afterwards observed by his people as another sealing ordinance of his covenant with them. The pascal lamb, at once com- memorated the manner of their signal deliverance from Egypt, and prefigured the manner of the great redemp- tion of the whole church, by the one sacrifice of the Lamb of God. At Mount Sinai, the Lord appeared in terrible and glorious majesty, and, recognizing the ransomed tribes as the seed of Abraham, renewed with them his cove- nant; and gave them a code of statutes and ordinances, called also a covenant, which were to continue until Mes- siah should appear, and the ritual parts of which were prefigurative and typical of good things to come. Here the tabernacle was built, and all the splendid rites of the Mosaic economy were instituted. Here the Lord taught jfacob his laio and Israel his testimonies^. And here he gave to his church a form, and established in it an order and discipline, which were to continue until that which was more perfect should come. This was an important sra of the church. At thrs period the great designs of God, and the gracious prom- ises of his covenant, were much more clearly unfolded, than at any former period they had been ; and his church received a very great advancement. This was indeed, the commencement of a new dispensation, in many res- pects exceedingly different from the preceding ; but still the church was the same, formed bv the same covenant, ^nd continued in the same liae of Abraham's seed. ( 43 ) After receiving the law, and the splendid ritual of di- vine service, the church continued under Moses in the wilderness for the space of about forty years ; removing from place to place, under the miraculous guidance of the pillar of cloud and of fire, and miraculously supported from day to day, by bread from heaven and water from the rock. For forty years their raiment waxed not old upon them^ neither did their shoe wax old upon their foot. During that remarkable period, they saw the works of the Lord who led them about ojid instructed them ; and from time to time received from him, by the hand of Moses his servant, many important revelations of his will. But with mayiy of them God xvas not well pleased. Provoked by their obstinate perversity and unbelief, he sware in his xvrath that they should not enter into his rest. Yet though they consumed av/ay under his terrible mal- ediction, and died by hundreds and by thousands, in the wilderness, still he was mindful of his covenant. Tho' multitudes perished in unbelief, God, nevertheless, re- served to himself, even of that generation, a faithful seed ; and upon the generation then rising he graciously granted a remarkable effusion of his Holy Spirit, so that Israel became holiness to the Lord, and the first fruits of his irxr ease. Having thus, by his various dispensations, prepared his church for a settled state, the Lord led forth his cho- sen tribes out of the great and terrible wilderness^ and by the hand of his servant Joshua, brought them into the promised land. Nations greater and mightier than they disappeared before them like the mists of the morning ; the land was .livided by lot ; the tabernacle was pitched at Shiloh ; and divine worship %vas established according to its instituted forms. ^ Though nearly five hundred vears had elapsed, after che covenant v,'as made with Abraham, before Abra- ( 44 ) ham's seed wer« put in possession of tlie promised land ; yet God was not unmindful of his covenant, neither was he slack concerning his pramise. And as the land of Ca- naan was intended to be a sure pledge, and earnest to the whole church, of all the blessings of the covenant ; so, though in respect to the fulfilment of some of the prom- ises, the time to us seem long ; still he who hath prom- ised is faithful and will certainly perform. As certain as it is that he put his ancient church in possession of the land of Canaan, so certain it is that he will, in due tirne^ fulfil every promise of the covenant, and finally put his whole redeemed church in possession of that better coun- try which is an heavenly* Thus settled in the good land, which Go5 had prom- ised unto their fathers, the church continued with alter- nate elevations and depressions, but without any very remarkable advancement, for another long period of about four hundred years. But under David and his son Solomon, both eminent types of the Messiah, the church attained to the highest glory, to which it ever at- tained under the Mosaic dispensation. The school of: the prophets was instituted ; great additions were made to the written oracles of truth; a magnificent temple for the divine honor and service was built at Jerusalem, the city -which God chose to piece his name there ; several important institutions for the improvement of the divine worship were added to those given by Moses j and the promises and prophecies respecting Messiah and hir, kingdom became much more particular and clear. The church, l:owever, still continued the same, though in a very advanced state, and under a very different econ- ^my ; and all the blessings, then actually enjoyed, were only bestowed in faithful fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham. ( 45 ) From the memorable and splendid period, now in view, to the appearance of the Messiah, a period of about one thousand years, the church passed through many- interesting, but diversified scenes. The division of the tribes of Israel into two distinct kingdoms ; the general apostacies in the days of Athaliah, Ahaz, and Manasseh, and the memorable reformation in the days of Jehosha= phat, Hezekiah, and Josiah ; the destruction of the tem- ple, the dispersion and captivity^ in the days of Jehoia- chin and Zedekiah ; the return, the rebuilding of the temple, and the resettlement of the church and of the worship of God, in the days of Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; the cruel persecutions and oppressions of the church under Antiochus Epiphanes, and the signal deliverances wrought in her behalf under Judas Macca- beus and his successors ; were all, as they respected the church, very memorable, and important events. But low as the church was at several successive periods re- duced, yet she was never destroyed. God remembered his covenant and was gracious. And if the church was not on the whole in other repects advanced ; yet as the time of Messiah drew nearer, the promises made to the fathers, and from time to time renewed and repeated, were more clearly unfolded, and the scene of prophecy became less shadowy and obscure. At length the long predicted, and long expected aera arrived. All nations were shaken, and the desire of all nations came. In the midst of the church the promised Messiah, tJie Seed in whom all the blessings of the covenant were comprised, appeared, a light to lighten the Gentilea^ and the glory of his people Israel; to pefom the mercy prom- ised unto the fathers^ and to remember the holy cove- nant. On his appearance, the shadows of the Mosaic iispensaticxn fled av/ay ; the law of commandments cop.- ( 46 ) tained in ordinances was abolished ; the ir.iddle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was broken down ; a new and brighter dispensation was introduced ; the Lord arose upon his church and hif glory was seen upon her^ and the Gentiles came to her light^ and kings to the brightness of her rising. But great as the change at this eventful period was, and glorious as the scene appeared, it was all in fulfil- ment of the promises to Abraham. Though a new and a brighter dispensation was introduced, yet the church continued the same, which had almost two thousand years before been established by the covenant made with Abraham and his seed ; that covenant which was to con- tinue for perpetual generations, which neither the insti- tution nor the abolition of the Mosaic economy could disannul, and by virtue of which the Gentiles becayne fel- low heirsy and of the same body^ and partakers of the J)romise in Christ by the gospel. Thus advanced to a more elevate^ and improved «tate, illumined with vastlyjincreased light, and enlarged by the accession of the Gentile nations, the church con- tinued for many years to gain extension and establish- ment, lengthening her cords and strengthening her stakes. Founded upon an immoveable rock, she has remained stedfast amidst all the convulsions and revolutions of the world, by which kingdoms and empires have been sunk in ruins. Neither the fury of ten successive persecutions under Pagan Rome, nor the still more sanguinary and persevering violence and machinations of Papal Rome, could overthrow or destroy her. God has remembered his covenant, and the combined powers of earth and hell have exerted themselves in 'vain. The church is still continued ; is extending herself on every side ; and is rising in beauty and in glory. ( 47 ) The blessing^ of Abraham has come upon the present generation : the promises made to him, and from period to period renewed and unfolded to the church, are in a train of rapid and grand accomplishment. And the day, the millennial day, is at hand, when the kingdom and the greatness of the kingdom^ and the dominion under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the nwst high God, and when in Abraham and his seed^ all the kindreds and families of the earth shall be blessed. Such, my brethren, was the great design of the church; such has been itsprojpress ; and such are its prospects. Such has been the stability of God's covenant with Abra- ham and his seed, and such his faithfulness to his pro- mises. If then^ ye be Abraham's seed, and heirs accord- ing t(y the promise., how firm is the foundation of your hopes ; how rich and how durable is your inheritance. 2. From the view which we have talcen of the cove- nant made with Abraham it appears, that this covenant is never established with any but true believers, or the subjects of true religion. God's promise to those with whom this covenant is established is to be a God to them, and to their seed af- ter fhem. But God is not in this covenant sense a God to any but true believers, or the subjects of true religion. Hence, that he may be a God to the house of Israel^^ox to the church and her seed, he says, I •will put my laivs in their tn/inds, and -write them in their hearts. This obvi- ously imports all which is understood by the regenera- tion or renewal of the heart by the Spirit, in righteous- ness and true holiness; and, therefore, clearly imports that the covenant is established only v,^jth true believers, •r th« subjects of true religion. ( 48 ) Abraham was a true believer ; and as a condition on which God would establish his coveJiant with him, to be a God to him and his seed after him, he was required to walk before God and be perfect. Isaac, and after him, Jacob, were also true believers ; and with them, as such, God established his covenant, to be a God to them, and to their seed after them. In after-ages, when God re- newed his covenant with the Israelites, the jiosterity of Abraham, he always required of them, and they always professed to have, a truly obedient and believing heart. It is also particularly observable, that it was because of unbeliefs that the carcases of so many thousands fell in the wilderness ; that, a long time afterwards, both Israel and Judah %ere carried away captive from their land and dispersed among the nations ; and that, finally, so large a proportion of the Jevrs were broken off from the visible church of God, and rejected from being a people. And under the gospel, it is only true believers, such as are in Christ by faith, who are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.* 3. It appears that a cordial and obedient belief in all which God has proposed, in his gracious covenant, is of high and everlasting importance. God's covenant promise, or proposal, my brethren, is to be a God to you, and to your seed after you. If, with a believing and obedient heart, you take hold of his cov- enant, and give up yourselv«s to him in Christ, he will be your God ; will give you grace for grace, will be- stow upon you every good thing, and wall keep you by his mighty power through faith unto salvation. And, if with the same believing and obedient heart, you give up * Though the covenant is never, on God's part, established ■with any but true believers ; yet all who have taken the vows upon them ought to feel thennselves sacredly bound to fulfil their engagements. If they have opened t'-.elr mouths untc the Lord, they cant:ot go back. ( 49 ) xour children to him, he will also be a God to them , will in due time bestow upon them, in answer to your be- lieving prayers, his renewing grace, xvillput his laws into their minds and write them in their hearts^ and will make them heirs of the righteousness oj" faith, and of all the blessings of his gracious and everlasting covenant. But if you refuse, and continue in unbelief, whatever your profession or visible standing may be, you can have no title to the promises, no real interest in the covenant. if you do not believingly and obediently give up your- selves to him, he will not be your God ; but will regard you as' strangers, and foreigners, and enemies. And if you do not believingly and obediently give up your chil- dren to him, even though you give up yourselves j yet you will not be entitled to claim the blessings of his gracious promise in respect to them. If, without faith and fidelity in respect to the one part of his promise, God is not by his covenant engaged tob« your God ; so neither, without faith and fideility in res- pect to the other part of his promise, is he by his cove- nant engaged to be the God of ijour children. It is not, indeed, supposed to be certain, tliat if you be unbelieving and disobedient, your children will be finally lost ; for God may, as often in his sovereign mer- cy he ^oes, go out of the limits of the church, and bestow his grace on those who are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise. But if in this case he does bestow grace upon your chil- dren, it will not be in pursuance of any covenant engage- ment to you. And as he has declared that he will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children^ if you be unbelieving and unfaithful in respect to your children^ 7/111 you not have reason for the«most fearful apprehen- sions, lest they should perish in their sins ? Is it r.ot G ( 50 > » then important, infinitely important, that you take holcj of the promises of God, and with a truly believing and obedient heart, give up, not only yourselves, but your children also, to him, in a covenant not to be forgotten ? 4. From our subject Vre may infer, that for believing parents to give their children to God, in baptism, is a great and important duty. When God established his covenant with Abraham, he gave him the sign of circwncision^ a seal of the righ' teousness of faith ; andifi the self-sayne daywas Abraham circumcised and Ishmael his son / and all the men of his kouse^ born in the house^ and bought xvith ynoney of the stranger^ xvere circumcised xuith him. Anciently circu?n- cision was the appointed seal of the righteousness offaithy the sign or ^token of God's gracious covenant^ and the mark or badge of solemn dedication to him ; and the re- quirement that the children of the church, as well as- dielr parents, should be circumcised Was enforced with the greatest solemnity^ But if the covenant and the church are the same, con- tinued down from the days of Abraham, if God's prom- ise be still to be a God not only to believers, but also to their seed ; then, as the outward seal of the covenant was originally required to be administered to the infant seed of the church; so, unless it has been expressly prohib- ited, it is still to be administered to them. But whera, my brethren, is the prohibition to be fonad ? In what part of the word of God is it declared, or intimated, that the appointed seal of the covenant is no longer to be ad- ministered to the infant seed of the church ? The seal has indeed been altered. Circumcision has been discon- tinued, and baptism appointed in its place. But no or- der, no intimation has been given, that the seal in its ( 51 ) present form is not, as it was expressly required in its ancient form, to be applied to the children of the church. That baptism has taken the place of circumcision, is exceedingly evident. Circumcision under the former dispensation signified'the necessity of a regeneration, or renovation, of the heart by the Holy Spirit ; baptism un- der the present dispensation signifies the same. Circum- cision was formerly a seal of the righteousness of faith; baptism is now a seal of the same righteousness. Cir- cumcision was formerly a token of God's gracious cove- nant withi his people; baptism is now a token of the same covenants Circumcision was formerly a mark or badge of solemn dedication to God ; baptism is now a mark or badge of the same solemn dedication. Circumcision was formerly an appointed prerequisite of admission to the church of God ^ baptism, is now an appointied pre- requisite of admission to the same church. In a word, baptism is of the same import, and of the same use in the church under the present dispensation, as was cir- cumcision under the ancient. It is true, indeed, that under the ancient dispensation the seal of the covenant was applied only to males ; while imder the present dispensation it is applied to both males and females. It is also true, that this is not the only im- portant distinction, which was made between males and females, under the ancient dispensation. But whatever distinctions, were formerly made, we are assured by the apostle that, in respect to the privileges of the covenantjf there is to be no longer any distinction ; for in Christ "Jesus there is neither male nor female^ Nothing, therefore, appears to militate with the sen- timent, that baptism has in fact taken place of circumci- sion ; but the whole analogy of scripture goes to 6up|H- it. Accordingly the apostle, in the second of Cc •? ( 52 ) sians, evidently speaks of b?vptism as being the circum- cision of Christ, or Christian circumcision. But if baptism has been appointed in the place of cir- cumcision, as the seal of the righteousness of faith, a token of God's gracious corenant with his people, and a mark or badge of solemn dedication to the Lord ; then, as circumcision was anciently administered to the chil- dren of the church ; so, as before observed, unless there have been a divine prohibition, baptism is now to be ad- ministered to them. As there was under the former dispensation an express precept for administering the seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church j that precept, varying only as the seal is varied, still re- mains in force, unless it have been expreisly repealed. It is arrogance, therefore, to demand, for we have no right to expect, an explicit renewal of this precept to be found in the new testament, any more than of the pre- cept for the observance of the Sabbath. In the Old Testament there is an explicit precept for the observance of the Sabbath, and also an explicit pre- cept for the application of the seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church ; and as the change of the Sab- bath, under the present dispensation, from the seventh to the first day of the week, is not to be considered as a repeal of the precept respecting the Sabbath j so neither is the change of the seal of the covenant, from circum- cision to baptism, to be considered as a repeal of the pre- cept respecting the application of the seal. The church remains the same, and the covenant the same ; the re- lation of the children of the church is the same, and the seal of the covenant, though varied in form, is still of the same import, and of the same use, and to be applied to the same subjects.*' * Though the antipxdopainists deny that the great promise rt the coveniiiit, in its true and spiritual import, had any spe- ( 53 ) It is not incumbent on us to shew, that the precept lor administering the appointed seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church has not been repealed ; but it is indispensibly incumbent on those who deny infant baptism, to shew in the clearest manner, that it has been repealed. For a precept, once in force, ai\d not limited to any certain period, is ever afterwards tobe considered as in force, unless known to have been repealed by the same authority by which it was given. There is not, however, in the whole word of God, cial respect to Abraham's natural seed ; yet they admit, and even insist, that children, the natural seed of Abraham, were members of the church or community, of which he was the co- venant father \ We are told, moreover, that the church, or community, form- ed by the covenant with Abraham and his seed, was a tyfie of the gospel church. But if, in that church, supposed to be ty- pical, children were admitted to the seal of the covenant, and were recognized as members ; and if, in the gospel church they are- neither to be recognized as members, nor admitted to the seal of the covenant ; how does the antitype answer to the tyfie ? What is gained to the argument of the antipaedobap- tists, or lost to ours, by supposing the Abrahamic church to have been merely typical? The very palpable inconsistencies, noticed in this and two former notes, it may not be improper to exhibit together in one point of view. 1. The covenant made with Abraham and his seed, was only a temporal covenant, and formed only a temporal church ; yet the great promise of the covenant had respect, not to natural^ but only to spiritzial seed 1 2. Though the great promise of the covenant had respect, not to natural, but only to spiritual seed ; yet the covenant wab Icng ago abolished. Since the coming of Tviesbiah God is no longer, by covenant, the God of Abraham and his [fpirituar^ seed 1 3. Though the great premise of the covenant had no respect to natural seed ; yet the natural seed were not only admitted to the seal cf the covenant, but even, as members, to all the privileges of the church ! 4. Thcugh the Abrahamic church was a type of the Christian church, and in that church children were adrnitied to the seal of the covenant, and to all the pririleges of members ; yet in the gospel church, they are neither to be recognized lis mem- bers, nor even » egarded as fit subjects for the seal of the cove- nant '. Such are a few of the absurdities of the antinaedobaptist ^•"hcmc- ( ^4 ) tlie least intimation that this precept has ever been rt- pealed ; there is not in the whole woid of God the least intimation, that the seal of the covenant is not, under the present dispensation, as it was under the former, to be applied to the children of the church. Neither the commission, given to the apostles, Go and teach all nations baptizing the^n-, nor the exhortation addressed by them to the people, Repent and he baptized., comes near to touch the point in question. Neither the one nor the other goes to prove any thing further, than that those, who have not received baptism, must not only believe, but be baptized, in order to a regular standing in the visible church of God. It was precisely thus under the former dispensation. Those who had never been circumcised were required to be circumcised, in order to their regular standing in the church. But whenever parents who had never been circumcised, were admitted to the church, they were not only circumcised them- selves, jbut were afterwards required to offer their chil- ^en in the same sealing ordinance^ Had the seal of the covenant never been altered, tlie commission, given to the apostles, would have been. Go and teach all nations^ circumcising them; and their ex- hortation to those who had never received circumcision, would have been. Repent and be circumcised ; for the promise is to you and to your children. But had the case been thus, who would ever have imagined, that there was any thing, either in the commission, or exhor- tation, like an intimation that children were no longer to receive the seal of the covenant. The real case, how- ever, is substantially the same- Those who have never received baptism are required not only to believe, but also be baptized, in order to their regular standing in the church ; but having been regularly admitted, they are to offer their children also in baptism, as formerly ( 55 ) they were required to offer them in circumcision. For the promise is now the same that it formerly was, to be a God not only to them, but also to their seed after them ; and on the ground of this promise, parents arc still required, as formerly they were, believingly to give up, not only themselves, but their children also, to the Lord.* * It is no small infeUcity,attending the arguments of the anti- dsedobaptists, that they go wide of the point, to which they are professedly directed. When they would prove that the Abra- hamic covenant has ceased, the arguments advanced only go to shew that the Mosaic law, or Sinai covenant, is abolished ; which we, as well as they, admit and believe. And when they would prove, that the infant seed of the church oaght not to be baptized, the arguments adduced only go to shew, that be- lievers, who have never received baptism, ought to be bap- tized ; which we as well as they, admit and believe. But, as when it is shewn that the Mosaic law, or Sinai covenant, i$ abolished, nothing is done towards proving that the Abra- hamic covenant has ceased ; so when it is shewn that believers, who have never received baptism, ought to be baptized, noth- ing is done towards proving that the infant seed of the church ought not to be baptized. Nothing more is done, in either case, towards proving the point in question, than would be done to- wards proving that female members of the church are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, should it only be shewn that male members are to be admitted. Yet wide as these argu- ments go of the points to be proved, they are urged and i^e- peated with as much assurance, as if they were pertinent and conclusive ; and with weak, unstable, and undiscerning, mindsj they have but too often their intended effect. The celebrated Mr. Baxter, when employed, in his stuuiy, in writing a defence of infant baptism, heard the hawkers cry- under his windows, " Baxter's Arguments FOR Believ- ers' Baptism. The fact was, in some of his publications, speaking of the terms of the baptismal covenant, Mr Bax- ter had shewn the necessity of a justifying faith in order t& baptism. From these publications, though Mr. Baxter had been careful to declare that he spoke in reference to adults on- ly, collections were made, and published in a pamphlet, as ar- guments against infant baptism. Upon this Mr. Baxter ob- serves, " The men that cite authors at this rate, cite me against myself with the like confidence." Baxter's More Proofs for Infant Baptism. In a manner similar to this some of the primitive fathers, as particularly Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and even Aus- tin, who, in his dispute with Pelagius, had expressly alledged infafit baptism in proof of the doctrine of original sin, have been quoted by the antipaedobaptists, as if favoring their cause. ( 56 ) Suffer little children^ says Christ, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Repent^ says Peter to the thousands who had never been baptized, Repent and be baptized— for the promise is to you and to your children. Tor the unbelieving husband, says Paul, is sanctified by the tvife, and the unbelieving xvife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your children unclean^ but now are they holy. These plain intimations are in perfect agreement with the language of ancient prophecy, concerning the church in gospel davs. Their children also shall be as aforetime^ and their congregation, or church; shall be established. Aforetime the children of the church were solemnly dedicated to God, and seal-' ed with the seal of his everlasting covenant. Accord- ingly we have examples on record in the new testament of believing parents dedicating their children, and ob- taining for them the baptismal seal. Not only did Christ receive little children into his arms, and bless them ; but ijis apostles baptized whole households. Lydiawas not only baptized herself; but afterwards had her whole household also baptized. The believing Jailor was bap- tized himself, a7id all his straightway. The household of Stephanus was also baptized. As we have sufficient evidence that it was the prac- tice of the apostles, pursuant to the tenor of God's gra- cious covenant with Abraham and his seed, to baptize the households of believing parents ; so we have the testimonv of the earliest of the Christian fathers, that this was the universal practice of the church, in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles. And in a manner equally unfair and preposterous, are Christ and his apostles often quoted. In a word, the arguments most in use among the antipsedo- baptists, and of the greatest efficacy, as a sort of popular charm, do not touch the points of real difference between us and them ( ^J' ) For more than three thousand years the seal of the covenant was universally applied to the children of the church, no one forbidding it. It was thus during the space of about four hundred years, which intervened be- tween the first establishment of the church, in the family of Abraham, and the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. It was thus for the space of about fifteen hundred years, during which the Mosaic dispensation was continued. And it was thus for the space of about eleven hun- dred years, after the introduction of the Christian dis- pensation. And if, during the last three hundred years, there have been some in the different parts of Christen- dom, who have forbidden little children to be brought to Christ, and denied thfe application of the seal of the cove- nant to them ; yet, thanks be to God, in respect to this interesting matter, the great body of the church has still adhered to the divine institute, and to the uniform prac- tice of the faithful in all former ages.*" * As there was no dispute about baptis:n in the first ages of Christianity, it should not be expected tliat much v/ouki be found, particularly on the subject, in the writings of those ages. But because there is nothing directly on the subject, either for or against infant babtism, in the fragments which have come down to us, of the writings of the first century, the antipxdobaptists, with an assurance peculiar to theiiiselves, have undertaken to assert, not to p.rove, that during the first century, infant bap- tism %uas not practised in the church. With equal propriety we might assert, even had we no proof to support our assertion, that it was practi.'^ed universally. But we are not reduced to this extremity. The sacred truth is, there is as much evidence, as, from the state of the case, couid reasonably be expected, that during the first century, and for several succeeding age^, infant baptism was practised in the church, universally, and without contradiction or question. In the writings of Clemens Romanus and Hermks Pas- tor, both cotemjjoraries with the apostles, and both mentioned by Paul, the ftirmcr in his epistle to the Phillipitins, and the latter in his epistle to the ilomans, passages are extant, vv^hich by fair implication prove the practice ol infant baptism in their day. — Justin Martyr a.id Iren-^us, the former of whom was born "within three or four years after the" death of the apostle John, and the latter of whom was the disciple of Polycarp, the bish- op or angel of the church of Smyrna, to whom John, in the Re- velation, addressed his epistle, are more particular and clear, to :he same j^urpose. Tektullian, whe was ab&ut ekven H ( 58 ) It is not to be expected that the limits of an infei*- snce, in a discourse like this, will admit of an exhibition of all the various and abundant proof, which might be exhibited, and which has from time to time by different years old when Polycarp died, and was many year? cotemporray with Irensius ; and Origkn, who v/as cotemporary wrth Teiv tullian, arc direct and explicit on the subject. Speaking of the. moral pollution of infants, Origen says, " What is the reason, that, wliereas the baptism of the church is given for forgivenesSy iNFAivTs also, by the usage of the church, are baptized ; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted forgiveness or mercy, baptism would be needless to them." Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith, only about five years after the death of Origen, was presideiit of" a. council, which consisted of sixty six bishops, or pastors of churches, and which delivered an unanimous opinion, *' that the baptism of infants was not to be deferred," as some supposed it should bo, '' to the eighth day, but mij^^iJt be given to them any time before." Gregory NazianzeIt, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome, all of whom flourished within about a hundred years of Origen and Cyprian, ai-e all ex- plicit on the subject ; explain the design of infant baptism, men- tion it as comin;^ i.i the place of circumcision, and speak of it as. the universal and undisputed p]-actice of the church. Austin, who was cotempoi-ary with some of these last, aad who flourished only about two hundred and eighty years after the apostles, in a controversy with Pelagics, alledged the practice of infant baptism, in proof of the doctrine of original sin. " Why- are infants," says he, " baptized for the remission of sin, if they" have none ? Infant baptism the whole church practices ; it was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use." Pelagius, whose interest it was to set this argument aside, was so far from denying the alledged fact, that, in reply to the suggestion of some that by denying original sin, he denied the right of infants t« baptism, he utterly discards the idea, and affirms, " that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants," This testimony is impregnable. Pelagius v^-as a man cf great reading, and had travelled extensively. He was born in Britain, resided some time at Rome, and made the cour of the Christianized parts of Africa and Asia, by the way of Egypt and Jerusalem. Yet in the whole of his reading and of his travels, he never read or heard of any, who denied the di- vine institution of infant baptism 1 From this period, the matter is clear, beyond dispute. Dr. Gill himself, one of the most learned of the antipsdobaptist writers, acknowledges that " infant baptism was the practice of the church, universally, from the third to the eleventh century." "For the first four nt ndred years," says Dr. Wall, in his History of inuuit Baptism, '■' there appears enly one man, Tcrtullian, that advised the delay of infant baptism, in some cases ; and one Gregory, v.ho did perhaps practise such delay, in the case of his own children : hut no society, so thinking cr sc ( 59 ) writers been exhibited, in support of infant baptism. But the summary proof which has now been ofFered, may suffice for our present purpose. If the Abrahamic covenant be still the covenant of .the church, and if the view \vhich we have taken of the covenant be substantially correct ; it will be admitted, on practising, nor one man so saying, that it was iinlaAvful to bap- tize infants. In the next seven hundred years, thei-e is not so much as one man to be found, that either spojaior practised such delay, but all the contrary. And when ^oiit the year ILHVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY, o^c sfc? among the Waldenses (declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable cf salvation j the main body of that people rejected their opinion. ^nd the sect that still held to it, quickly dwindled aivjiy and disajificcred. And there ivas nothing- more heard of holding Hhat tcnety till the year FIFTEE^T hundred and twen- ty TWO." In confirmation of this statement it may be proper to observe, that Mr. Whiston, a maii eminent in literature, •who for certain rsasons left the commanion of the established church cf England, and went over to the antipxdobaptists, frank' ly declares, that Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, as to the facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and mig^ht be de- pended upon by the Baptists themselves." The unprejudiced reader will now judge, with hovr rnuch can- dor and truth, an attempt has been made in scnie late publica- tions, to make the unlearned and unstable believe, that the prac- tice of infant baptism had its rise in the dark ages, under the in- fluence of popery. To give countenance to this attempt, some passages have been quoted from Walafrid Straso, m which he has represented the doctrine of original sin, and the doctrine of infant baptism, as having had their origin about the time of St. Austin. But the representations of Strubo, a man of but Jit- tle reading, but of great affectation to say something new, v.-ho ■wrote, about the middle of the eighth century, in the very midst of the Gothic darkness, as they go directly in the face cf the primitive fathers of the c^^rch, are stn-ely cii'".itied to very little regard. As to the assertion in "A Miniature History o^ the Baptists," that " the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hu.ssiies were bapti^its," it may sufr.ce to sa) , there is sulncient eviderxe that it has no foundation in trjuth. The sentiments hoidenbv them with respect to the church, as stated by Dr. Mooheim, are also hoiden by ma- ny of the fi£dobafuist churches cf the present day. And the same reasoning, if reasoning it must be called, by which it was supposed to be proved, thut the Waldenses, Wickli&ites, Hus- sites, and other witnesses for 'the truth in the dark ages, Avers antipsdohaptists, would equally prove that the Tabernacle Church arc antipaedcb^plists. This the writer ; r "A Miniature History" has himself been brought to acknowledge. ( 60 ) all hands, that the seal of the covenant is still to be ad- ministered, as formerly it was, to the infant seed of the church. Those who deny infant baptism are reduced to a denial also of the Abrahamic covenant and church ; that covenant which was established for an everlasting covenant, and which, though the mountains depart and the hills be removed^ Jehovah has declared shall never be removed; and that church which is to be called the city of the Lord^ the Zion of the Holy One of Isrsel^ and which Jehovah has declared he -will make an eternal excellency^ a joy of mcmy generations ! But this covenant, my breth- ren, you cannot reject : this church ^jou cannot renounce. And adhering religiously, to the everlasting covenant and church of God, you cannot forbid water that your children should not receive the appointed seal. Nor is it to be thought that this is a light matter. Let it not be lightly, let it not, as too often it has been, even contemptuously be asked, What good can it do in- fants to be baptized ? Such a question, surelv, comes with no very good grace from persons, who place even, perhaps, an undue stress upon the baptism of adults. With equal pertinency it might be asked, What good could it do the infants of the church, anciently, to be circum- cised. With equal pertinency it might be asked, What good can it do infants b'elievingly to give them up to God, to pray for them, or, as they grow in understanding, re- ligiously to mstruct them ? Nay, with equal pertinency it might be asked, What benefit cau it be to believing pa- rents themselves to be baptized, if they never before have been ? The outward rite, we know, will never of itself, save any one, v/hether infant or adult. But if God has been pleased gi-aciously to promise, to be a God unto us and to our seed after lis ; and on the ground of this pro- mise, has required that we give not only ourselves, buf^ ( 61 ) «ur children also to him, in an everlasting covenant ; and that the appointed seal of the covenant be not only upon us, but also upon them ; then the duty is as plain as it is important. Whenever we undertake to question the propriety or utility of God's requirements, we throw ourselves at once into the snare of the devil ; and we shall be entirely indebted to sovereign grace, if we ever get rid of the entanglement. To give up our children to God, on the ground of his gracious promise, believingly to offer them for the bap- tismal seal of the covenant, to pray for them, to com- mand them after us in the way of righteousness and truth, and to train them up in the nurture and admoni- tion of the Lord, ar© great and important covenant du- ties, and have so intimate and so solen.n a connexion with each other, that none of them can be denied, or ne- neglected, without great fault, and great hazard. 3, It may be inferred from our subject, that sprink- ling, or aifusion, is a valid and scriptural mode of bap- tism. It has been, as we trust, clearly shev/n, that the cove- nant, made with Abraham and his seed, and the church formed by it, were intended to continue, froni genera- tion to generation, down to the latest periods of time. For this purpose provision was made in the covenant itself ; and Jehovah, whose covenant it is, who made the provision for its perpetuity, and engaged to carry that provision into effect, has certainly never failed, in res- pect to his design. He has continued his covenant iand his church, according to his purpose and promise. But if there have been, in every period, a true church in the v/orld ; then there have been, in every period, es- sentially, con-ect views of the sacran^ents and seals of the ( 62 ) church. In particular, since the alteration cf the first seal, there must have been essentially correct views of baptism. For it were no less absurd in itself, than in- compatible with the purposes and promises of God, to suppose that, at any period a true church has existed, without essentially correct views of the first sacrament and seaL It is, however, a well supported fact, that in the first ages of Christianity, and for about twelve or fifteen hun- dred years, baptism, by sprinkling, or affusion, was uni- versally allowed to be scriptural and valid. Even those, who in ordinary cases, baptized by immersion, did not deny, but admitted, the validity of baptism by sprinkling or affusion. Hence, if baptism, by sprinkling or affusion, be not valid and scriptural ; then for the first twelve or fifteen hundred years, the views of the whole body of the Christian world respecting baptism, the first sacra- ment or seal of the church, were essentially erroneous. It is also a well known fact, that for several gene ra- tions at least, baptism, by sprinkling or affusion, was not only acknowledged to be scriptural and A'alid; but was almost universally practised, by those parts of the pro- fessedly Christian world, which, by protestants, are be- lieved to have constituted, in those periods, the true church of Christ. Where was the church of Christ, my brethren, in the days cf the reformation, under Luther and Calvin, Me- lancthon and Zuinglius, and their co-workers and succes- sors, if the churches, formed under them were not true and regularly constituted churches ? But Luther and Calvin, Melancthon and Zuinglius, and their co-workers and successors, administered baptism in the mode of sprinkling or affusion. Where has been the church of Christ, for these two or three hundred years past, if no ( 63 ) part of it have been to be found among the Lutherans of Germany, Denmark or Sweden ; nor among the Presby-! terian Calvinists of Switzerland, Holland, or Scotland; nor among the persecuted Hugonots*'of France ; nor among any of the communions, either Episcopal, Pres- byterian, or Congregational, of England or America ? But in all these reformed communions, baptism, by sprinkling or aJEFusion, has been universally admitted as valid, and almost universally practised. Is this mode of baptism', then, utterly invalid and un- scriptural ? Are all these communions, embracing the great body of the Protestant Christian world, to be en- tirely set aside, as constituting no part of the true church of Christ ? Is it among the Anabaptists* only ; is it . among those who utterly renounce the Abrahamic cove- * Anabaptist. This is not intended as a term of reproach. It is the name by which the sect, sometimes called baptists, was orig- inally denominated, and is Used in the connexion in which it stands, as the most proper term of distinction. The term, baji- tisty does not properly distinguish the sect in question from oth- ers. VVe are all baptists ; that is, we all hold to baptism. The term, anabafnist, properly distinguishes those who rebaptize-, or baptize again, such as go over to them from other co:nmunions ; as the tei*m, antipadobafuisty propei'ly distinguishes liose whe oppose the baptism of children. It would be unnecessary to be thus particular about names, were it not that a disposition has lately been manifested on the part of the anabaptists, or antipsdobaptists, to turn the name, baptist, which they have assumed, to their advantage. The au- thor of Letters to Rev. Mr. Anderson has not only gratuitouRly coined, and contemptuously bestowed upon us, a new name ; but because he finds that Johp, the harbinger of Chriit, is called the Baptist, very shrewdly concludes that those who were baptized by John, were also baptists, &c. But upon being asked by vLi author of these Discourses, whether the term baptist, was applied to John in the same sense in which it is now applied to those who are called baptists, he confessed the truth, and said it was not. The term baptist, as applied to John, signified a baptizer, or one commissioned to baptize. And that an attempt should bs made, such as appears in Letters to Rev. Mr. Anderson, to im-. pose upon the unlearned,by the mere form and sound of the word, must be matter of equal astonishment and regret t« every candid friend of truth. ( 64 ) nant and church, that, nevertheless, the true church of God is only to be found ? The anabaptist«, or antipsedobaptists, rriy brethren, are a sect of modern date. They had their origin some- time after the reformation under Luther and Calvin ; and their origin, certainly, though we would by no means reproach our more regular brethren of the present day with it, was but very little calculated to impress a belief that the true church of God was only to be found among them, * If at any earlier period, there were any who denied infant baptism, they were an irregular sect of the Wal- densCs, small, of short continuance, and by the great body of the good Waldenses, constantlv opposed. It is not, however, certain, that even the Petrobrusians, the sect here alluded to, were anabaptists. And if they were not, ecclesiastical history gives us no information of any antipaedobaptist societies or churches, until they appeared in Germnny, at the period just mentioned. From that period to the present, though they have considerably increased, and, some of them, in maay res- pects, improved ; yet thev have ever been but a very small proportion of the Christian world. I do not rtiean that they have been but a small proportion of the nomi- nally Christian world ; but a very small proportion of the true atid fait/if a I ■professing people of God. Allow- ing them all which candor and charity can require, and we would certainly be candid and charitable, they have always been, and still continue to be, vastly outnumbered by other professors and churches, among whom there has been, at least, as much Christian knowledge, and as much of the spirit of the gospel, as among thfim. Can we, then, believe that their mode of baptism only ( 65 ) is scriptural and valid ? If so, what becomes of the faith^^ fulness of God to his promises ? If for many centuries, the whole Christian world were in an error, which, in ef- fect, destroyed the validity and the very being of the first sacrament or seal of the church ; if for several ages God's true and faithful people were almost universally in an unbaptized and unchurched state ; and if now only that small proportion of his professing people, wh'-) deny the Abrahamic covenant and church., are to be accounted the true church of Christ ; what then becomes of the design for v/hich the Abrahamic church was formed, and of the covenant provision v/hich was made for its continuance throughout all generations. Can it, my brethren, be believed, that so vastly the greater part of God's most faithful and praying people, of his purest and most enlightened churches, and of his most approved and successful ministers have been, for so many hundreds of years, in such a state of gross error and wickedness, as that their baptism, their covenant I'ows, their church state, their ordination solemnities, their sacred celebrations of the holy supper, and their whole ecclesiastical order and administration, have been not a mere nullity only, but a solemn mockery of God, an offensive smoke in His nose ! Can it be believtid that an utter renouncement, a public and solemn abjuration, of this baptism, these covenant vows, this church state, these ordination solemnities, these sacred celebrations of the holy supper^ and all this church order and admh> istfatiori, ought to be proclaimed with joy and exulta- tion, as a conx^ersion from darkness unto light ? And that he, who does the most to disturb and diminish, to disperse and overthrow these churches p.nd ministers, does God the greatest service ? No, my brethren : no candid Christian, no judicious person, can believe it. It is utterly incompatible with the great design for v/hich the church was instituted; it is repugnant to r>.]l the re- I (66 ) presentations of scripture respecting the church ; it is di- rectly in the face of the covenant promises of Jehovah.^ And the man, who could believe it, would find but little difficultv in believing, that the Bible is a cunningly, devi- sed fable ; that the Christi"an church, with all its institu- tions, is a gross imposition upon the world j and that the religion of Jesus is of no higher origin, than that of Mo>= hammed, or of Brama ! The fair and invincible conclusion then is, that sprink- ling or affusion, the mode of baptism practised in these churches, is scriptural and valid. Accordingly there is nothing in the scriptures against it, but m.uch, as might be shewn, did time permit, in favor of it. We have no evidence in the scriptures, that, in the days of Christ and his apostles, any person was baptized, by dipping, or immersing. After all the laborious and ostentatious criticism, upon the Greek word baptizo^ it still remains a fact, well known to all who are versed in the Greek language, that" the use of that word determines nothing, in respect to the particular mode, in which water is to be applied in baptism. It is in a variety of instances in the Greek scriptures, and in other Greek writings, used to signify a washing or cleansing, which was performed by sprink- ling or pouring J and may as properly signify sprinkling or pouring, as plunging or dipping.* . *It has been a commou thing Nvith the antipacdobaptists, to speak very disrespectfully of learning and learned men. But of late, one can hardly meet with an antipsdobaptist, who is not prepared to^talk so fluently, and so learnedly, of the meaning of Greek and Latin words, as almost to amaze one. Even the au- thor of Seven Sermons, on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism, " desires to thank God that he knows the Greek as well as anf man;" and has two or three Sermons ahnost wholly -upon the meaning of a few Greek and l.ixtin words. On thissubject, how- ever, tliongh from his manner one might be led tosuppote it had nsver before been attended to, he has rothirc. r,:attr;i;, - '■"" ■ C 6r ) In two or three instances we read indeed, of their going down into the water and coming up out of the wa- ter. But the original particles rendered in these instances, into^ and out of, are as properly, and much more com- monly, rendered simply to and from. And it is pai;fic- Nothing but what was furnished to his hands by Dr. Gill, and other anabaptist writers ; and nothing but what has been re- peatedly and unanswerably answered. He asserts riiuch ; but proves very little. And yet with an authoritative air, but little be- coming a Christian minister, he requires us all to submit to his assertions, on pain of being placed at the ban q£ the kingdom of Christ . ■ The word ba/ittzo,'^s conceded on all hands, signifies io ivash. If it be said, that sprinkling or affusion is not washing ; it ma.y> aiBO, with equal pertinency, be said, that dipping is not washing. If, in reply, it be said, that dipping is one mode in which wash= ir.g is performed ; it may, in i-ejoinder, be said, so also is sprinkling or affusion, one mode in which wasTiing is performed ; and that, too, the mode in which the scriptures most commonly represent ceremonial and spiritual washings. It was by sprink- ling clean nvater upon them, and not by dipping them in water, that God's people were to bs so effectually washed, as from ail {heir Jilthiness, and from, all their idols, to be cleansed. It is by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and not by being dipped in v., that believers are so effectually washed, 'as to be admit- ted to the holy presence and kingdom of the livmg God. It is important to be remembered, that when words are used in reference to divine institutions, and to spiritual things, they have -an appropriate meaning, which can never be" determined from the meaning which they have in their common use. The Greek wo^'d deihnon, i-endered supper, in common use, sigr-ified a feast, or a common meal ; yet, in the sacrament ofth© supper, we suppose it to be sufficient to eat a very small piece of bread, and to drink but very little of a cup of wine. But from the ordinary meaning of the word deipfion, it might be as prop- erly, and as strpngly argued, ihat those who have only eaten a small piece of bread, and tasted of a little wine, have not supped, agreeably to the institution of the Lord's supper ; as from the or- dinary meaniag of the word baptizo, {nsiash, not inimerse'\ it can be argued, that those who have only been sprinkled have not been laashed, or baptized, agrseably to the institution of bap- tism. And should any zealous Christians thmk it necessary to make literally a feasc, or a full mejj. at the Lord's table ; ther might with as much propriety, and as much of the Christian spirit, seperate themselves from the communion of those who only partake of a little bread and wine, and charge them with refus- ing to keep the ordinance of the Lord ; as those, who think it necessary to be plunged all ever in water, can separate tliem • selves from the communion of those, who have only been baptized by sprinkling, and charge them with not keeping the ordiaancfr jt the Lord. ( 63 ) dlarly to be remembered, that, when they vrcnt down to the water, or into the water, it is not, in » single instance, said how they were there baptized, whether by dipping, or by sprinkling. Will any person, then, of intelligence and candor, alledge the passages, now in view, as con- taining the least real evidence in favor of imniersion ? Upon a candid and attentive consideration of the several accqunts of baptisms, recorded in the scriptures, I think it will appear, that those baptisms were performed in the most easy and convenient mode. To accommodate the people, who flocked by hun- dreds and by thousands to his baptism, which, however, was not the Christian baptism,* John chose, for the scene *That John's baptism was not Christian baptism, is evident from many considerations, a few of which only, can be briefly suggested. 1. John did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. j1c(s xix. 2> 3, 4. 2. Persons who had received John's baptism v/ere afterwards baptized with the Christian baptism. Ibid, verse 5. 3. John Tvas not a Christian apostle, but a minister under the Mosaiclav/. He was sent to p.re/iare the ivay of the Lord., and preacbed that the kingdom of heaven^ or Christian dispensation, luaa at hand, not that it was already come. 4. If John's baptism were Christian baptism, then the great body ©f the Jewish nation were Christians ; for there went out to Jiiiji Jeru-tclern., and allJudea, and all the region round about Jordan, and ivere bafiiized of hiy^ in, or at, Jordan. But if John's baptism were not Christian baptism, then thebap- tisi» of Christ by John, in whate^'er mode admanisteredj wa» no example for Christians. ' Christ's baptism was designed regularly to introduce him into his priestly office, according to the law of Moses ; under which he commenced his ministry, and whick it behoved him to fulfil. Dees not the idea, then, cf following Christ into the water, v/hich has, unhappily, so powerful an effect upon many mhids, partake very much of the v.ture of delusion and superstition ? — There is no evidence ths:t Christ was buried in water ; and even if he were, his baptism v/asof an import very different from thp.t of the baptism which ha afterwards instituted for his followers. Are v/e to go into the water, under the idea of following Chriit — into his priestly c£ce 1 — Ought we to call this delusion and su- perstici')n ; or ought we to call it thehtight of impiety ? We. should be extremely sorry to wound a single tender mind ? but v;? consider it cf high iinp-nrtance, that tender minds should b^ % ( 69 -j *f his ministry, a situation at Enon, and another by the river Jordan, where the multitudes and their beasts might find water for their refreshment ; and, when assembled upon the banks of the Jordan, the most convenient way would be for them to go down to the brink of the water, and there be l^aptized by affusion or sprinkling. But on the day of Pentecost,when three thousand were baptized in a very short time, they were at the temple, in th& midst of Jerusalem : where the most convenient, if not the only, way would be to have water brought in a bason, or some other vessel, and baptize them in the same mode. As Philip and the Eunuch were travelling on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, where, as travellers assure us, there was no river, or body of water, sufficient for the purpose of immersion ; the way most convenient for them was to alight from the chariot, and step down to the small rivulet which presented, and there solemnize the ordinance. But as Paul was at the house of Judas in Damascus, and as Cornelius and the Jailor were at home ; the most conveirient way for them, and indeed, the only way for Paul and the Jailor, was to have water brought, and to be baptized in their respective houses. In HO single instance, is there the least intimation of leaving the place of worship, wherever it might be, and going away to a river, or a pond, for the purpose of bap- tism ; and, therefore, for such a practice there is no scrip- ture warrant. The two passages of the apostle, in v/hich the term buriedy is used in connexion with the term, i^T^ifw??:, deter- mine nothing, as I have heretofore shewn at large,* and guarded against mistaking the glare of error for the light of truth, ani the delusive impulses, of their passions, for the guiding influ- ence of the Holy Spirit. For a more comfilete view of the tnlnhtrij of Jokn^ see Mccs^ Miss. Magazine. Vol. iv. Nos, i ic 5. * See Mass. Miss. Mag-azine.—'*' ^ •■ • • ( 5^0 ) as has often been shewn, in respect to the mode of bap- tism. They offer no more reason why, at the time of our baptism, vre should ht buried, than why we should be planted, and circumcisedy and crucified. They describe the effects of the baptism of the Holy Spirit ; but have no respect to the mode of the external ordinance. As baptism is not designed to commemorate the death of Christ, which is the special design of the holy supper ; but to represent the application of his blood for our jus- tification, or the renovation of the heart, by the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit ; is it not plain, that sprink- ling is a mode, much more properly significant, than dip- ping ? In reference to tke application of the blood of Christ, we never read ofdipping, or immersing; but con- stantly of sprinkling or pouring. Te are come to the blood ©/"sprinkling. j4/2f/ sprinkxing of the blood of Christ. Ixvill POUR OUT my Shirit upon all flesh. JzuillsvniUKLE, clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. So shall he (Christ) SPRINKLE, not dip, mant^nations. Such are the uniform representations of scripture,) And, my brethren, is it not more congenial with the simplicity of the gospel, is it not more compatible with every idea of propriety and decencv, is it not more con- ducive to religious order and solemnity, to perform the sacred rite of baptism in the house of God, where he has appointed in a more special manner to meet his church, and^ivhere the most solemn rites of his woi-ship are performed ; than to leave these hallowed courts, and this impressive scene of silent solemnity and devotion, and with great inconvenience, great parade, and, per- haps, great tumult, go abroad for the administratipn of the ordinance, to a river or a pond.*^ . *■. * So far as the dispute between us and the anabaptists, with respect to the mode of baptism, is of importance, it is important ( 71 ) 6. It appears from our subject, that there is a great and important duty devolving on the church, in respect to their baptised children. Though baptized persons, previously to their taking, personally, the vows of the covenant upon them, are nei- ther entitled to the privileges, nor subject to the disci- pline, of the church, as members in complete standing ; yet, as the children of the covenant^ their relation to the church is saered, and the correspondent duty is great. The parents, as individuals, have selemnly given them up to God ; and engaged to bring them up for him in holy nurture and admonition. This is a most solemn en- gagement, and should certainly be felt as such by every parent in covenant. By their covenant vows parents are sacredly bound, believingly to trust in the promise of God respecting their children ; daily to bear thepi on their hearts at the throne of grace, praying with them and chat the point in dispute should be distinctly holden in view„ The question properly between us is not this, whether any were baptized in the days of Christ and his apostles by immersion or dipping ; but it is precisely this, whether immersion or dipping be the only valid mode of baptism. Could it even be proved, as however it cannot be, that some were baptized in the apostles' days by immersion ; it would avail nothing against our practice, unless it could be proved, that none were baptized in any other way. For if any were baptized in any other way, then immer- sion is not the only valid mode of baptism. Nay, if it were even in the most extreme cases only, such as those of sickness and im- prisonment, that baptism was administered in the way of sprink- ling or affusion, the argument would remain tke same : for if iu any case whatever, baptism might be administered by sprinkling or affusion ; then immersion is not essential to the ordinance. But if immersion be not essential to the ordinance of baptism, as we have abundant evidence that it is not ; is it not a soiema affair, that the anabaptists take it upon themselves to declare our baptism to be no baptism, and our churches to be no churches, thus unbaptizing and unchurching the great body of the Christian world ; that they utterly separate themselves from our commun- ion, thus making an unwarrantable schism in the body of Christ • and that they place such a stress upon baptism in their mode, as to make it the subject on which to display their greatest zeal., Uius making people believe, iu too ir.ajiy instances, that going ( '^2 ) for tiiern ; faithfully to instruct them, as they become ca- pable of receiving instruction, in the doctrines and pre- cepts of the gospel; vigilantly to restrain them from vice and guard them from error ; perseveringly to use with into the water will answrer all the purposes of their present com- frft, and of their eternal salvatioi.. We are told, indeed, that there is 07ie baptism ; and this we believe. J'or b-g, one spirit arc we all bafifrzed in'o one bo- dy, ivhether Jews or Getifiles, 'ivhcther bond or free. Will the anabaptists undertake seriously to say, that in assert'Tij one bap- tism^ the apostle had reference to the mode, in which water is to be applied in the external ordinance ? Holding their mode to be essential to the ordinance is it not incumbent on them to prove, from the plain 'word of God, .that the apostles baptized on]y by immersion, and that they immersed exactly in the present ana- baptist manner ? This they never can prove. " The ancient Christians," siys Dr. Wall, " when they were '^'baptized by immersion, ivere all baptized naked; whether '* they were men, women or children. Vossius has collected sev- *' eral proofs of this ; which I shall omit, because it is a clear *' case." It is, moreover, a clear case, that when they were bap- tized by immersion, they were immersed three times ; once in the name of each of the divine Persons of the holy Ti inity. At their baptism, also, they were signed with the cress ; and on coming out of the water, were clad in white robts^ and fed with a n-Ax' ture of honey and milk. Let it not be said, that this was the tiian- ner of popish immersiors: It was the manner of the earliest immersions of which we have an account. And that it was the common if not the uniform, manner of the eaily immersions is as certain, as that any were baptized by immersion in early times. How then can the anabaptists be sure, that their manner of bap- tizing fay immersion is scriptural and valid? Why da they hot baptize in the manner of those who baptized by immersion in for- mer times ? Is it for the sake of decency and convenience, tkat they have so fa^ departed from the manner of the first immer- sions ? Are they not aware, that if the mode be so essential to the ordinance as they contend, either their immersions are not valid, or '.\)aseiy arranged parts of one great and interesting whole ? Was not the establishment of the church in his family, as one visible body, the obvious purpose, for vv^liich Abra- ham was first called to leave his native country ? Was not the delay of this establishment evidently intended to afford opportunity, for the trial, and manifestation of the patriarch's faith ? Were rot all the divine appearances to him and the promises and renewals of promises, previous to the formal institution of the church, manifestly pre- paratory to that high transaction ? Was not the sign of circumcisio?i, which he received, a seal of the righteous- ness of the faith^ which he hadbefer.'^ as well as at the time, he was circumcised,- and by that sacred seal, were not all the promises, ever made to him and liis seed, solemnly ratined and confirmed ? And vvas not the solemn oath of God, at the time of his last extraordinary ajjpearancc, graciou.ily intended to give to the same covenant, v/hich LETTER IV. 2j before was sealed with the sign of circumcision, its high- est possible confirmation ; that the patriarch, and all his faithfnl seed to the end of the world, might have strong consolation ? . To me, at least, the whole appears with a degree of clearness not to be resisted ; arid I confess, Sir, it is not without astonishment, that I have observed attempts by mv!n, who profess to know and venerate the scriptures, to make out two distinct, and unconnected, covenants with Abraham : — attempts, in my view, violently to put asun- der, what God has joined together, and most presump- tuouslv to maraud disarrange the harmonious and beau- tiful plan of infinite wisdom and grace. In the view now exhibited of Jehovah's transactions with Abraham, all is harmonious and beautiful ; but upon your unfounded hypothesis, all is disjointed and confused. Pardon me, Sir, when I say unfounded hypothesis ; — for such I certainly consider it ; and I see not but that you might as well suppose eight covenants with Abraham., as the two, which you have designated. You might as ^•'e]l talk of the covenant at Ur, or at Haran, of the covenant at Moreh, of the covenant between Bethel and Ai, of the first covenant at Mamre,of the second covenant at Mam- re, of the third covenant at Mamre, of the covenant at Gerar, or Beersheba, and of the covenant at ?rIoriah, as of "the covenant of circumcision," and the covenant twenty four years before. The promises, first made to Abraham fotir himdredand^ thirty years befoi-e the lazv was added at Horeb, were from time to time renewed until, about twenty four years af- ter they were first given, they were solemnly ratified and sealed, in the form of a covenant ; just as proposals, first made to day, may be renewed at several diH'erent times, during any given period, and, at length, may be ratiaed, and sealed, in the form of a civil contract. I have more. Sir, to offer upon this subject, but lest I should be tedious, I will extend this Letter no further. I ?.yi still, dear Sir, ?::c. Let, D 26 LETTER V. REV. ist DEAR SIR, IN my last, I presented a connected view of God^s covenant transactions with Abraham, from which it must appear, I think, with great clearness, to every unprejudi- ced mind, that they were all intimately connected, as so man)- component parts of one great and important whole. Possibly, however, you may yet be disposed to object, that the gospel promise, more especially in question be- tween us, viz. In thee shall all nations be blessed., was not explicitly mentioned, at the time the covenant of the church was sealed, w'ith. the sign of circumcision;'^ and therefore ought not to be considered as belonging t(?lhat covenant. But unquestionabl}'^. Sir, this great promise belonged to some covenant., made with Abraham and his seed ; for, agreeably to your own acknowledgment, it was to this promise, that the apostle, in my text and context referred, when speaking of the covenant. I ask then, to what cov- enant did this promise belong ? If you say, it belonged to that covenant, which was four hundred and thirty year's befoi-e the law ; 1 then ask again, what covenant was that ? in what Avas it different fr^ the covenant afterwards rat- ified and sealed with the sign of circumcision ? and for what purpose was it instituted ? If it v\^as for the purpose of establishing the church in his family, which I believe you will not undertake to de- ny, that Abraham was called away from his country, at the time the promise, now in question, was fii"st given to him ; what shadov/ of reason is there to suppose, that this promise was not, as others, first given at the same time^ certainly were, included in the covenant, by which the church in his family was formed. And especially. Sir, when jt is considered that this same promise, for substance, was the very promise, on which, for two thou- * It is true that by the " new testament martyr," Stephen, this covenant is designated as "the covenant of circumcision." Chi'ist also says of the sacramental cup., This is the new testa' merj. Both expressions are evidently figurative. The sacramentai cup is not the new testament itself, Imt a seal of the new testa- ment ; and circumcision was not the covenant itself, but a seal of the covenant By applying figurative expressions, in a literal sense, many have been niisled. LETTER V. 27 sand years htiore, the church had rested; does it not amount to a moral certainty that it was continued, as still the foundation of the church, under the Abrahamic and every succeeding dispensation, and therefore was includ- ed in the Abrahamic covenant ? I here repeat the question ; is it to be believed, that the church of the living God, when advanced to an im- proved state, and formed as one visible body, in the fami- ly of the consiitntedjather of the faithful^ was removed from the glorious foundation, on which, for two thousand years before, it had securely rested, and placed upon an entirely different, and merely temporal ground ? Cer- tainly this is not to be believed, without some proof, in- finitely stronger than your mere assumption. The truth is, at no less than eight different times the Lord appeared to Abraham, and gave and renewed to him promises ; but on each of those occasions, there was seme variation with respect to the proniises particularized. But although there was a variation, there was yet a sim- ilarity, in the promises, sufficient clearly to shew, that they were all intimately connected, that they all had reference to one great object, and all belonged to one comprehen- sive covenant. But I have further to obs«rve, that if the promise, In thee and thy seed, shall all nations he blessed, was not spe- cially particularized, at the time the covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision ; it was nevertheless, evi- dently comprised in the comprehensive promises ex- pressly mentioned on that occasion. You yourself, in- deed, seem to be apprehensive, that it might be compri- sed in the comprehensive promise, A Father of many nations have I made thee. But this promise you attempt to explain away, by connecting it with other promiees. The * expressions,' A Father of jnany nations have I made thee^ and / will make thee exceeding fj^itfid^ and I ivill make nations of thee^ and kings shall come out f thee., " TAKEN TOGETHER," vou assert, " do not a- mount to a promise, that any nations should be bless- ed in Abraham." Had not your manner, Sir, been s-* possitive. I might possibly have used the freedom, un- der authority of the apostle, directly to contradict your assertion. But as the case now is, I take leave to ask, if, by the promise, A father of many nations I have made, or». 'constituted, thee, Abraham was made, or roifstituted, the. 28 LETTER V. father of believers of all nations ; then, were net believers of all nations, by the same divine promise, constituted his childreji and heirs ? And if, by this promise, believ- ers of all nations are constituted the children of Abra- ham, and heirs of his blessings ; ihen does it not clearly amount to a promise, that in him all naticns shmld be blessed? Is it not by becoming his children and heirs, that any are blessed in him ? But, my dear Sir, that, by this promise Abraliam was constituted the father of believers of all nations, and, cor- relatively, believers of all nations were constituted his children and heiis, was certainly the apostles opinion ; for he has quoted the promise to this very purpose. Therefore it is cffaith^ says he, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise 7night be sure to all the peed ; net t9 that onli/, which is of the laxu^ but to that^ also., xvhich is of the faith of Abraham., who is the tather of us ALL, as it is -written^ A father of many nations have I MADE THEE.* Thus the apostle considered this pro- mise as having respect to believers of all nations, as A- braham'o constituted children and heirs ; and, therefore, ?.s clearly "amounting to a promise" that in him all na- tions should be bUised. Whether it was for v.'ant of duly considering the con- nexion, in v.iiich this promise, in the Abrahamjc cove- nant stands, and which you suppose so important to be observed, that the apostle held an opinion respecting it, so opposite to yours, I leave. Sir, for you to determine \ In the mean time, until you ai'c pleased to ofTer some proof, other than your bare assertion, hov/ever positive, that the apostle was in an error, you >vili excuse me, if I give the preference to his opinion. On the \vhoic, the promises, A father of many nations have I made thee., — anU, Iji thee shall all nations be bles- sed, are clearly correlative promises ; and, as such, the one essentially implies the other. For when the t>atr;arch's nan.e v.as char.ged from Abram to Abraham., imd he was divinely constituted the faiher of believers of ail naiiona; believers of all nations were, by the same divine act, ccrrelatively constituted his children ar.d heirc, and it is b}' thus being his children and heirs, that any are rediv blessed in him.. This, Sir, I consider as clear and direct scripture proof, that the promise, In thee shali all nations be blessed., was essentially included in that co- ' * Rorr.. iv. 16, 17. LETTER VI. 29 venant, which was established with Abraham and his seed, at the time he was formally constituted the father of all nations, and as a sacred seal^ received the sign of circioncision. To this direct proof, much more, if possible, still clearer and stronger, might be added, some of which, I propose to offer in my next Letter. Your'*, dear Sir, &c. LETTER VL REV. Isf DEAR SIR, AS the issue of the serious controversy, between t]fie Paidobaptists and the Antipsedobaptists, appears, at present, to be suspended on the question, whether the ancient gospel promise. In thee, and in thy seed shall all nations be blessed, were included in the covenant, es- tablished with Abraham and his seed, and sealed v/ith the sign of circumcision ; I shall be justified, I think, in giving, and requesting you to give, to this question, very particular attention. Agreeably, therefore, to rny pro- mise, in my last letter, in addition to the evidence al- ready exhibited, that this great promise rvas included in the covenant, I now proceed to offer further proof to the same important point. In the fourth of Romans, speaking of Abraham, the apostle says : And he received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the rightecusyiess of the faith, zohich he had^ being ijet uncirciimcised ; that he might be, that is, might be solemnly constituted, the father of all them that be- lieve, though they he not circitriicised ; that righteousness :night be imputed to them also ; or that they might be blessed in hiiij. The char;£<;e3, v.hich, with so much zeal, you have been pleased to advance against m.e, with res- pect to this passage ; and the freedom v;hich you have thought yourself v/arranted to use with the apostle, I propose so consider in another place. At present, I have only to observe, that ihe passage, as now quoted, rests upon i'.s cv/n bottom j and if the two exegetical 50 LETTER VI. clauses, which I have inserted, be not correct, you are at liberty to reject them. I ask, then, does not the apostle, in this passage, di- rectly refer to the establishment of the church in Abra- ham's family ? Does he not say, that, on that memora- ble occasion, Abraham received the sign of circumcision^ a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being imcircmncised ? Is it not clearly his sense, that Abraham received the sacred seal, that thus he might he formally constituted the father, of believers of all na- tions ? And does he not say, or clearly teach, that all this svas done, that unto believers of all nations, as the patri^ arch's constituted seed, righteousness, even the righte- ousness of faith, might he imputed? — But, if, at the time the church was established in his family, the patriarch was thus solemnly constituted, the father of believers of all nations, that unto them, as his constituted seed and heirs, the righteousness of faith might be imputed ; — then I ask finally, was not the promise. In thee shall all nations be blessed, essentially included in that covenant, by which the church was then established, and to which the sign of circumcision was affixed, as a sacred seal ? This, again, must be admitted as clear and direct proof. But there is yet, Sir, another consideration, too in^^ portant to be omitted in this argument. Abraham was not only an individual believer, but, as it already sulHciently appears, he was divinely consti- tuted the patriarch and representative of the church. Was the promise, then, In thee, and in thy seed, shall all nations be blessed, merely personal, or was it of a public nJiture. Did it belong to Abraham only, as a favored individual, or did it belong to him in his public capacity, as the patriarch and representative of the church ; and consequently to the church, of which he was the patri- arch and representative ? This promise, it is acknowledged, on all hands, com- prised the INIessiah and all the blessings of his kingdom. It vvas, for substance, the very same promise with that first given in Paradise, that the seed of the wojnan should bruise the serpent's head ; and on which the church, while in the family state, for two thousand years, had rested. It was in fact, the gospel, as preached to Abraham, in those early times ; and which, afterwards, at sundry times and in divers manners, was more fully and clearly un? folded. LETTER VI. 3t I ask, then, again, did this great promise belong to Abraham as a favored individual only, or did it belong to him, in his public capacity also j and consequently to the church of which he was the constituted patriarch and representative ? Unquestionably it belonged to him, ia his public capacity, and to that church, to "which pertain- ed the adoption^ and the glory ^ and the covenants^ and the giving of the laxv^ and the service of Gcd^ and the pro- mises. Ves, Sir, this promise always belonged to the church of God ; and, therefore, was alv.ays included in the covenant by which the church was formed. Accordingly as a covenant promise, it was expresslv renev/ed to Isaac, and to Jacob ; and in after-ages, its renev, al was oftea repealed to the Abrahamic church, with increasing clear- ness and fulness. After the death of Abraham, the Lord appeared, on a special occasion, to Isaac, and said. Sojourn in this land., and I will be with thee and will bless thee ; for unto thee andtinto thy seed zvill I give- all these countries^ and I WILL PERFORM THE OATH, WHICH I SWARE UNTO A- BRAHAM THY FATHER. And I will make thy seed to mxdtiplif as the stars of heaven ; and -will give unto thy .feed all these countries., and in»thy seed shall all the NATIONS OF the EARTH BE BLESSED : becoitsc that Abra- ham obeyed my voice., and kept my charge., mif command- ments find my lazvs,^ You will be pleased to observe. Sir, that, as Abraham in the covenant of the church was expressly required to walk before God, and be perfect., as a condition of the promised blessings ; so here the Lord expressly assures Isaac, the heir of the promises, that because Abraham had obeyed., the promised blessings should be conferred. You will not, I believe, undertake to denv, that this was, undoubtedly, a renewal v.ith Isaac of the covenant, established vv'ith his father, and the seal of v.hich was in Isaac's flesh. But in this renev/al, the promise. In thy seed shall all the natioKs of the egrlhbeblessed, is not only implicitly, but explicitly, included. How different, Sir, is thvs from v/hat you have been pleased to asset t ! To Jacob, when at Bethel, on his v.-ay from Beersheba to Padanaram, the Lord appeared, and said^ I am the * Gen. xxvi. 2 — 5. •32 LETTER VI. Lord God (jf Alraham thy father^ and the God of Isaac : the land ruher con thou liest to thee v.nll I give it^ and ta thy seed,' and thij seed shall he (is the dust of the earth ; AND IN THEE, AND IN THY SEED, SHALL ALL THE FA- MILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.* In this renewal of the coven-.lDt with Jacob, almost a hundred and forty years after it was sealed with the sign of circumcision^ the great promi^s in question, was, again, explicitly con- cluded. When blessing his sons, just before his decease, Jacob, by the spirit of prophecy said ; The sceptre shall not de- part from fudah nor a laxvgiver froth betxveen his feet^ until Shiloh come ; and unto him shaLl the gather- ing OF THE PEOPLE BEf — All the cuds of the earthy said David, by the same prophetic spirit, shall reraember^ and turn unto tlie Lord ; and all the kindreds of the nations shall ivorship before thee. A seed shall serve hirn^ and it shall be accounted unto the Lord for a generation.^ ■^>^, that day^ said the Lord by the prophet Isaiah, there shall be a ROOT ofjessc, lohich shall stand for an ensign of the people : to it shall the gentiles seek, and hi^ rest SHALL BE glorious — Itis a light things that thou shoiddst be my servayit^ to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to rC' store the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee FOR A light to the GeNTILES, THAT THOU MAYEST ES MY SALVATION TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. Arise shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to THY light and KiNGS TO THE BRIGHTNESS OF THY RIS- ING. Thy gates shall be open continually ; they shall not be shut day nor 7?ight, that men may bring unto thee THE FORCES of THE GeNTILES,' AND THAT THEIR Kings may be brought.jI These, and numerous other similar passages, you will certainly acknowledge to be of the same general import, with the assurance first given in Paradise, that the seed of the xvoman should bruise the serpenfs head, and v/ith the gracious promi'^e to Abrahara, to Isaac and to Jacob, In thee, and thy seed shell all the 7iati07is cf the earth be blessed. They are all the game gospel, morf clearly and fully unfolded, as, from age to age, the work of redemp- » Gen, xxviii. 13. 14. f ^b. :-:i. lo i Psalni x^ii. 27, 20. |' Isa. xi. 10. v!ix. 6. b:. l—U. LETTER VI. S3 tion proceeded, and the church was advanced. But these, you will please to observe, were all addressed to the church; to the church divinely formed in the family of Abraham ; to the ancient Zion of the Holy One of hrael: and were, therefore, essentially included, in the covenant, by which the church was established. Accordingly Zacharias, in the grateful effusion of his heart, in view of the birth of the long expected Messiah, says, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hathvisit- ed and redeemed hh people, and hath raised zip an horn cf salvation for us ifi the house of his servant David; as HE SPOKE BY THE MOUTH OF HIS HOLY PROPHETS, WHICH HAVE BEEK SIVCE THE WORLD BEGAX-^TO PERFORM THE MEftCY PROMISED TO OUR FATHERS, AND TO RE- MEMBER HIS HOLY COVENANT; THE OATH WHICH HE SWARE TO OUR FATHER ABRAHAM. In this passage £gain, we have clear and decisive proof, that all the ?r.ercy to be performed, by the coming of the Messiah, had been promised to the fathers, had been spoken of to the church. by the holy prophets, from the bc-ginning of the zvorld, and was comprised in the holy covenant, sealed to Abra- ham and his seed, by the sign of circumcision, and con- firmed by an oath. I will here only add the direct testimony of the apos- tle Peter. After the ascension of the Saviour, address-' ing himself to the Jews, assembled at the Beautiful gate of the temple, he took occasion to say, Te are the chil- dren of the prophets, and of tire covenant, which God MADE WITH our FATHERS, soying unto Abraham, And- IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE KINDREDS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED. This single testimony, Sir, is of itself cc;n- clusive against you. This very promise, which you are pleased repe-atedl}^ to assert had no connexion with the covenant of the Abrahamic church, is here, by this dis- tinguished apostle, brought forward as a principal article of that covenant : Yes, Sir, a principal article of that co- venant, of which the Jews were declared to be the chil- dren. Is it not, Sir, a very great infelicity, when a senti- ment, or scheme, supported by bold assertions, goes so directly in the face df both the C'ld Testament and New ? With du« consideration, your, &c. Let. E LETTER Vir. REV. IJf BEAR SIR, IF you have offered any thing, entitled to be called argument, by which to shew, that the ancient Gospel pre- 7nise was not included in the covenant of the ancient church, it is what you have said v.'^ith reference to the 16th verse of mv context. For reailv, Sir, I consider your "mathematical demonstration," which vou appear to have regarded with such parental complacency, as of no more pertinency, or avail, than v.'ould have been a ^'mathematical demonstration," that the renewal of the promises to Isaac was about a hundred years, and to Ja- cob, about a hundred and sixty years, after they were first sealed to Abraham and his seed, with the sign of circumcision. In thy seed .shall all the nations of the earth be bleessed^ — " That we might not mistake this," yon are pleased to observe, "as referring to the promise made in the co- venant of circumcision, and so to Abraham's natural seed, the apostle adds, He saith not^ Andto seeds, as of many ; hut as of ONE, and to thy seed which is Christ. The promises in the covenant of circumcision M'ere to many ; to Abraham's seed generally.''^ And in your ow'n manner you proceed to ask, " Will any person pre- sume to say, that these promises referred to Christ, or were made to him ; or that he was the seed here in- tended ? Were kings to come out of his loins, and na- tions to be made of him ? Was the land of Canaan pro- mised to Christ for an everlasting possession ?"* In my turn, Sir, permit me to ask, " Will any person presume to say," that the promises were not made to Abraham, as well as to his seedV Did not " kings come out of his Isins," and were not "nations made of him?" — Was not "the land of Canaan" also given " to Christ for an everlasting possession," in the most important sense ; literally, in subserviency to his great work of redemption, and typically, in that better country, which is an heavenly P And is it not, in scripture, called. Thy LAND, O Immanuel? — These questions, Sir, are at least, I think, as pertinent as your's. In contradistinction to seed as of one., you undertake * Appendix, p. 261. LETTER VII. 35 to say, that " the promises, in the covenant of chxumci- sion were to many ; to Abraham's seed generally ;" and hence you condude, that the apostle must have " rea- soned from a promise entirely distinct from them." — With great, seriousness. Sir, you will suffer me to ask ; did you intend, that your readers should under- stand that, in what you call "the covenant of circumci- sion," the promises were made not to se^d^ as of snlishment of the covenant with Abraham and his seed, by the sign of circumcision, which was a seal of the righteousness of faith ^ and a sacrament significant of a renovation of heart, or a neiv creature. For the promise that he should be the heir of the worlds was not to Abraham or to hisseed^ through the laxv^ but through the righteousness of faith* Accordingly in the Old Testament, a renoveiiion of hearty or inward conformity to the law of God, is abundantly in- culcated ; and the promise of the Spirit to God's cove- nant people for, this purpose^ is often repeated. And in the New Testament, we are taught that the promise, of the Spirit was included in the covenant with Abraham, or in that blessing of Abraham, which comes upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." The public. Sir, will now judge of the " cold indiffer- ence, with which the Pastor of the Tabernacle Churcl* in Salem speaks of the work of the Holy Spirit, in renew- ing the heart ; and the candour and fairness, with which the Pastor of the Second Baptist Church in Boston writes his Strictures ! — ^I forbear to make any comment ; and merel}' remark, that this is not the only instance, in which you have thought proper to treat me in this, or a similar manner. My third argument however, still remains unimpaired, and by what I have offered in the preceding Letters is more firmly established. — Those parts of your book, which more directly militate with my fourth head of ar- gument, I reserve for subsequent consideration. *'5. The covenant, made with Abraham, is expressly declared to be an everlastirtg, or perpetual, covenant ; a covenant to continue to the latest generations." In your " Strictures" on my Discourses, you have no- thing, as I recollect, directly touching this J?/>/i argument ; but in the second Section of your Appendix, vou have a note, which ought not to pass witiiout some attention. "The word everlasting^^ you say, "has a threefold ap- plication, as connected with this covenant. The first is general. It is called an everlasting covenant. The pos- session of the promised land, an everlasting- possession. The mark, left upon the subjects of this bloody rite is thus expressed; My covenant shall be in your flesh', for LETTER XI. 35- in everlas't'ing coveyiant. Our brethren very tenaciousiy retain the fii st of these, but have no difficuky in dispens- ing witli the two last. "> To us they appear so entirely connected, that we are led to consider them all of the same import. Yea, it appears to us that the two latter nre encgetical of the former. At leasts no part of the covenant can, by fair construction, be carried to a greater extent of time, than the mark of circmnci&iQn in the fleshy and the possession of the land of Canaari^bo'th of -which are ^aid to be everlasting.'''' P. 174. -This note, if it means any thing, undoubtedly means, that the whole covenant with Abraham and his seed, if not merely te^nporal^ as opposed to spiritual, was at least temporary, as opposed to eternal: for whether any spir- itual blessings were contained in it, or not, "no part of the covenant can bv fair construction," you sav, "be ca|*- ried to a greater extent of time, than the mark of circum- cision in the flf'sh, and the possession of the land of Ca- naan." But both "the naark of circumcision in the flesh," and "the possession of Canaan," you considered, most ^\\(\tnt\\',i3i%oi temporary duration. In a word, you obvi- ousl}- mean, that the whole covena"ht with Abraham, and his seed, has long since been abrogated, or ceased to be in force. That part of the covenant, then, by which Abraham was made the heir of the xoorld, and the father sf believers o/"all najfions, that righteousness might s.lso be imputed to them and thus all nations be blessed in him, has long since been abrogated ! — That part of the covenant, which con- tained the promise of a numerous and excellent seed, a seed as the -'.tars of heaven^ and as the sand upon the sea shore, in number, and as kings and priests unto God, in dignity and glory ; which was expressly confirmed by the solemn oath of Jt-hcvalT; and which is particularly noted hv the apostle as a source of strong consolation to tiiose, xvho have fed for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them ; has long since been abrogated ! — And that part of the covenant, in which the All sufficient God, en- gaged to be-a God to Abraham and to his seed, through- out all generations, has long since been abrogated! — Alas I Sir, and what is to become of you and me ? — What is to become of the church at lai"ge ? — What is to become of all the nations of the earth? "\Miat is to become of us, if that gracious covenant, ia S^ LETTER XI. which provision was made for the bnputatlon of tM RIGHTEOUSNESS of faith to believers of all nations, and from which the apostle to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Hebrews, expressly argues the doctrine or justification, is no longer in force ? What is to become of the church at large, if God has ceased to be a God to A- braham and his seed ? What is to become of the world, if that covenant, which proved that in Abraham and his seed, all nations should be blessed, is utterly annulled !— And what, Sir, has become of the ancient heirs of the promises^ ivho confessed that they -were strangers and pil- grims on the earth P — If " no part of the covenant can be carried to a greater extent of time, than the mark of cir- cumcision in the flesh ;" how vain, alas ! were their raised- hopes of an eternal inheritance ! The " mark of circumcision," Sir, is not said to be an: everlasting " mark ;" but the " mai'k," if we must use the word, of an " everlasting covenant ^ There is nothing, therefore in what is said of circumcision, which warrants the assertion, that " no part of the covenant can be car- ried to a greater extent of time, than this m^ark in the flesh." And as for the possession of Canaan, I believe it to be, in its highest covenant sense, aneverlasting fos- session, an eternal inheritance. Notwithstanding all, which you have thought proper to say to the contrary, I yet firmly believe that God is still, and will forever be, the covenant God of Abraham, his seed, and that he hath prepared for them a city. And instead. Sir, of your having " destroyed the Abrahamic covenant," as by one of your friends it was exultingly said you had done, I desire to bless God, and in this I am confident of the grateful concurrence of millions of the patriarch's seed, that the gracious and holy covenant is not yet "destroyed," nor ever can be "destroyed." For, says Jehovah, the God of Abraham, the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant o? MY PEACE BE REMOVED. Youv's, dear Sir, he. 57 LETTER XII. HRV.ls" DEJR SIR, AS the covenant made with Abraham and his seed v/as the cdnstitution of the church, formed in his family ; the covenant and church were undoubtedly intended to be commensurate in their duration. If the covenant were intended to be temporarij., the church was to be tempo- rary ; but if the covenant were intended to be perpet- ual, the church was also to be perpetual. In my Discourses, therefore, I considered the perpe- tuity of the covenant, and the perpetuity of the church, as implying each other ; and accordingly in my series of proof that the covenant was intended to be perpetual, my fourth head of argument iVas, that " The oiiurch^ under the gospel, is unifcrmly, in the scriptures^ represented, as being the same church, or a continuation of the same church, •£vhich xvas formed in the family of Abraham, In your Strictures, you have said nothing, as 1 recol- lect, directly to this point ; but in the third Section of your Appendix, without any regard to the arguments ex- hibited to prove that the post-Christian church is only a continuation under a new dispensation, o( the pre-ChriS' tian,^ you attempt to prove that it is not. In your introauctory remarks relative to this subject, you have several implications, of no very respectful na- ture, to be sure, respecting the covenant and church of God, under the ancient dispensation ; and are pleased broadly to insinuate, that those, who hold to their con- * By nothing almost are people more commonly misled than by names. Because the covenant with Afjraham and his seed, is sonrtetimes called " the covenant of circwncision" some are ready to conclude, that circumcision coiistituted the very essence of the covenant ; whereas it was only a token, or seal. So, also because the ancient church is sometimes called the Jewhh church , sonae, (and I perceive. Sir, that you are of the number,) from this simple cit-cumstance, are led to infer, that thf present church is not a continuation of the ancient. 1 cuocjc, therefore, to use such names as I consider the most proper, ana the least likely to mi'ilead. For using the tip rue Jtrr- Chris nan to designate the church under the ancient dispensation, and /.'oi-CArrs^/cn'to de- signate the same church under the ^.n-esent dispensation, I have the authority of tlie learned and excellent F.'^jJEri, — The an- cient church of God is no where in scripture called the Jcmah chui'ch. — A niinute remark indeed ; but iiOt,-.perhitps, iiiineces- sary '. Let. H 58 LETTER XII. timiance, under the present dispensation, are guilty of acting the same part, with " those Judaizing teachers, ■whom St. Paul, in his epistles to the Galatians, Philip- pians, and others, so severely reprehended." To these, and numerous other implications of a similar nature, w,ith which your book abounds, I am not at present concerned to reply. If, on sober reflection, they afford you any pleasure, I can assure you, Sir, I envy you not the en- joyment. But careful, though you have been, to keep our proofs out of sight ; while I pasfs by your impassioned appeals to the feelings and prejudices of your readers ; your ar- guments^ in tfiis Section) I shall endeavor directly to meet and answer. 1. "The two churches," you say, meaning the pre- Christian, and post-Christian, differ essentially in their constitutions. " By the constitution of the Jewish church, we may understand those primary laws, by which they were unit- ed and distinguished as one ecclesiastical body. These laws contain a declaration of the rights and privileges, the duties and obligations of all the members ; and also the qualifications, which constitute the right of member- ship. Circumcision^'* you add, '■'■holds the first and most important place in' this system!''^ p. 192. If you really suppose. Sir, that " circumcision held ih& first and 7nost important place" in " the constitution, and among " the rights and privileges, the duties and obligations," of the ancient church of God, we must cease to wonder that you allow yourself to speak of the *' church" and its " constitution" with so little respect. But that such an opinion should be held, by any serious believer in the scriptures, an opinion, so repugnant to truih, and so derogatory to the character of the all-sxrffi' cie?it God, M'ho gave " the constitution," and owned " the church" as his peculiar treasure, — cannot fail to strike the reflecting and pious mind with astonishment. Is an external rite, then, to be considered as holding " the first and most important place in the constitution of an ecclesiastical body?" Is an external sign of more importance than the thing signified ? — Is a seal of more importance than the thing sealed? — Is the token of a co- venant of greater importance than the covenant itself? "Was it of greater importance for Abraham and his seed k LETTER XII. S9 to be circumcised, than to walk before God and Ife perfect ? Was circumcision of greater importance to them, than that RIGHTEOUSNESS offaith^ of which it was an institut- ed seal ? — A moment's attention to the subject, must be sufficient for the conviction of every candid mind. Circumcision^ under the ancient dispensation held no higher, or more important, "place," than baptism holds, under the present. But, my dear Sir, if you consider baptism as holding " the first and most important place," in the present constitution of the church ; we must cer- tainly be excused, if we continue to think, that " you lay upon this ordinance an undue stress." * But I ask, Sir, what was "the constitution" of the pre-Christian church ? Was it not the covenant, by which the church was formed ? Was it not in the cove- nant, that *' the rights, and priviliges, the duties and ob- ligations of the members" were declared ? Unquestion- ably it was. I ask, then, again, what were "the duties and obliga- tions of the members," as expressed in the covenant t — • yVcYt they not comprised in the comprehensive in- junction, Walk before w?e, and be pe} feet ? — And what were "the rights and privileges," to which the true members of the church were by covenant entitled ? Did they not consist in having the all sufficient Jeho- vah for THEIR God, and in holding a part in all the immunities and blessings of his people ? In what respect, then, did " the constitution" of the church under the ancient dispensation " differ" from the present ? Obviously, Sir, iii no essential respect. In regard to external rites and appendages, indeed, a dif- ference is manifest ; but extei-nal rites aifd appendages are neither the church itself, nor " the constitution" of the church. " The " constitution of the church" is the covenant of the church ; and it has been proved, I trust, conclusive- ly, that, however different the external rites and append- ages may be, imder the present dispensation, from what they were under the ancient, the covenant^ nevertheless, is still the same. As the ancient members of tiie church were required to xvalk before God and be perfect^ so are the present. And as the true members of the church, anciently, had the all siiffcient fehqvah for their God, and held a part in all the immunities and bkgsings of 60 LETTER Xn. his people ; thfe same, also, to this day, are the peculiai^ "privileges and rights of the true members of the church."' n But " the qualifications for membership" were not, you contend, the same anciently, as at present. For " to constitute a person a corjiplete rnember of the^Jewish church,'? you say, "required nothing more than to be bought with Jewish money, or born of Jewish parents, and to be circumcised." P. 194. This, Sir, is an assertion, which, I believe, can never be proved. If by a complete member^ you mean a true sv.ember^ or one entitled to all the privileges and bless- ings, promised in the covenant of the church ; does not 3'our assertion go directly in the face of both the Old Testament and New ? At the formal establishment of the church in Abra- ham's family, the express requirement was, Walk be- TpRE ME, AND BE PERFECT. On the renewal of the co- venant at Sinai, when th% law xvas added^ Moses took the book ef the covenant^ and read in the audzefwe of the peo- ple ; and they said, All that the Lord hath said WILL WE DO, and BE OBEDIENT.* When the covenant was^ renewed, just before the passage oyer Jordan^ ,io take possession of the promised land, Hoses s«:d to the people, 1 This dai/ the Lord hath commanded yo^c to do these statutes' and judgmejits. Thou s halt, therefore, keep and do them, WITH all thy heart, and with all thy SOUL. Thou hast avouched thI: Lord, this day to EE THY God, and to ivalk in his xuays, and to keep his- slatutae, and his co7nmandments, and to hearken to his voice. And the Lt»RD PAT^ avouched thee,, this day, TO SE HIS p«oPLE,'tf* he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldst keep his commandment s.\ Was there nothing, Sii", in all this, "more than to be bought with Jewish money, or born of Jewish parents, and to be circunicistd :-*? I ask you, Sir, seriously, ivhat more is pow requii ed, in order to complete, ortriic, jhembership rn the chinch of God, than was anciently required and professed ? Suffer me to ask further ; what did the apostle mean, when to the Romans, he said, They are not all Israel, who are of IsraeFP Did he mean, that tliey were not all ''• bought with Jewish money, or born of Jewish pa- * i'..xxi. xaiv. 7. t •L'eut. xxvi. 16 — 1'J. LETTER XII. 61 rf nfes, and circumcised ? What, then, did he tnean, when he said. He is not a Jj^v, xuliich is one outwajid- XY, neither is that circumci&ion -which is outward in THE FLESH ; biit he is a Jt^^ which is one inwardly ; and CIRCUMCISION is that cf the ^zav^t:, inthe^spirit^and not in the letter^ wh.ose praise is not of me^, but of God ! I ask once more ; why "\^'^s it that God so often and solemnly, complained of his ancient church for their treach of covenant ? Was it because they v.ere not "' bought with Jewish money, or bora of Jewish pa- rents, and circumcised V Was it for this cause, that they were so often, and so signally ciiastised ?%And was it for this, that the greater part of them Tfrere at length broken off from the olive tree, and made examples, and monuments, of God's peculiar displeasure ? No, Sir; it v/as on an account \%^'y different from this : it xvas be- cause o/' unbelief. But perhaps by "a complete member," you did not mean a true member, but only a person visibly entiled to all the external rights and privileges of the church. But even in this sense, it has never been proved, neither do I believe it to be true, that " to constitute ti person a complete member of the Jewish church, required no- thing more, than to be bought v^-ith Jewish money, or born of Jewish parents, and to be circunicised." Circumcised children were members of the church, I believe, only in a sense, analogous to that, in which chil- dren, whose name^ are enrolled in the public records as born in this commonwealth, are members of this civil community."^ By virtue of their relation to their parents, children of the civil community enjoy many pri\'ileges, and are placed under many advantages ; and the government stands engaged, conditionalh-, for their recognition, their protection, and welfare. Bvit though, in a sense, members of the community, they are not hov/ever, com- plete members ; that is, they are not invested ^ilh all the rights and privileges of citiz-ns., until furiiier qua- lified according to established i^g ■lations. Analogous to this, was the case with circumcised chil- dren, under the former dispensation, as it is also with baptized children under the present- Though, in a * For the sake or iuuiTiration, iipiricual laingi rn ly be cpiii- pared with secular^ without any derogiition. 6S LETTER XII. -sense, members of the church, yet they were not com- fkte members ; that is, were not invested with all the rights and privileges, appertaining to the church ; until further qualified according to the prescribed forms. Different as the forms might be, there was, neverthe- less, a public profession, a public and formal consent to the covenant, necessary to complete membership, under the former dispensation as under the present. Accord- ingly, in the 31st of Deuteronomv, we have on record a standing order of the church to this effect. In the fortieth year^ after their departure from Egypt, in the elcjenth ?nonth^ en the frst day of the months the tribes of Israel were assembled on the plains of Moab, for a solemn renev/al of covenant. On this interesting occasion, after a particular and impressive rehearsal, Mo- ses said unto them : Keep therefore the xvords of this co- vena'it^and do them^ that you may prosper in all that you do. Te st-and this day all of ycu before the Lord your God^ your captains of your tribes^ tjour elders and your officer Sy -with all the men of Israel ; your little ones^ your wives^ and the stranger that is in thy camp^ from the hexver of thy -woed unto the drawer of thy rvater^ that THOU SHOULDEST ENTER INTO COVENANT WITH THE Lord thy God, and into his oath, -ivhich the Lord thy God maketh xvith thee this day : That he may fSTABLISH THEE TO DAY FOR A PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF^ AND THAT HE MAY BE UNTO THEE A GoD, aS he hath said unto thee^ and as he hath sworn unto thy fa- thers, TO Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. — Deut. xxix. 9 — 13. And Moses wrote this laxv^ and delivered it unto the priests^ the sons of Levi^ xvhich bare the ark of the^'^cove- nant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them saying. At the end of every seve7i years, in the solemnity of the year of release in the feast cf tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord till/ God, in the place, xvhich he shall choose, thou, shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, jnen, ayid women, and childre72, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they }>iay hear and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the xvords of this laxu : And their CHILpnEN WHICH RAVE NOT KNOWN, MAY HEAR LETTER Xir. 63 AND LEARN" TO FEAR THE LoRD YOUR GoD, dS long aS- tjelt^e in the lond^whither ye go over yordanto possess it. Thus in everv seventh, or sabbatical year, a year es- pecially appropriated to religious purposes, there was ordered to be a public and solemn rene^val of covenant v,'ith God, such as was attended on the plains of Moab. And it is particularly observable, that this order had a special reference to the young, that those of them, who had come to years of understanding, might have op- portunity to learn their obligations, and personally to ' coi"isenL to the covenant. In this public profession, in thus personally and sol- emnlv consenting to the covenant, they severally engaged to wnlk after the Lordxvith all the hearty and vj'ith all the $oul ; as appears from the tenor of the co venarlt itself, and also from an account of one of these solemnities, given in 2d Kings xxiii. 2, 3, which you will consult at your leisure. But was there in all this, Sir, "nothing more than being bought with Jewish money, or born of Jewish parents, and circumcised." On the whole, is not all, which you have said, so much to the disparagement of the ancient Zion of the Holv One of Israel, respecting the constitution of the church, and the qualification's for membership, under the ancient dispensation, not onlv destitute of scriptural support, but directly contrary to plain scripture testimony. Is there not proof, " as strong as proof of holy writ" can be, that "circumcision" did not hold the first and most important place in the constitution of the pre-Christian church. And that it is not true, that " to constitute a person a complete member of the church required nothing more than to be bouglit with Jewish money, or born of Jewish parents, and to be ciixumcised ?" What more does God now require, in order to com- plete membership in bis church, than he anciently re- quired ? And what more does he promise novr, to those, who are true to his covenant, than what he ancientlv promised ? But if the requirements are for substance the same, and the promises the same ; or, in other words, if the covenaMt, or "constitution," bt essentially the same, notwithstanding any difference in the outward rites and forms; is it not then clear, that the church, though under % different dispensation, is nevertheless 64 LETTER XIII. the same Zion, which God anciently promised to jnake an ETERNAL EXCELLENCY, AND THE JOY OF MANY GEN- F.H ATIONS ? Your other arguments, I: will consider in their order. Your's, dear Sir, See, LEtTER XIIL HE V. isf' DEAR Slii, THREE of the argur/ients, by which you attempted to prove, that the post-Christian church is not a con= tinuation of the pre-Christian^ remain yet to be consid= ered. *' 2. Our second argument^ you say, is taken from the actual differ ence in the visible form of the two churches. Tfie feivish church, in every stage of it, has heeji national. The gospel church is selected aitd particular.'''' P. 195. The fact is simply this : For two thousand years, from the beginning to the call of Abraham, the church <5f God, built upon the first gospel I^romise, v,'as contin- ued in the domestic, or family, state. In the days of Abraham a new dispensation commenced. From tliat era, for about two thousand years more, the Lord was pleased so to order it in his speciul providence, that, his church, still restitig on the same gospel promise, but more clearly revealed, should dwell compactly together : And being in that situation, they were necessarily asso- ciated, in a civil as well as ecclesiastical capacity. Their civil state, however, was one thing, and their ecclesiastical state was distinctly another. But after the M essian had come, a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the glory of his people Israel, the great purposes of the former economy being accomplished, and the middle wall, between Jew and Gentile, broken down ; the church, resting still upon the same Gospel, now un- folded with meridian splendour, was extended to diffe- rent and distant nations, and has since continued to be spi'ead abroad over the face of the globe ; that the an- cient promise, that in Abraham a?td his seed all the fami- lies of the earth 'should be blsssed, might bs eventually fulfilled. - ' '- LETTER Xlli. 65 But what docs all this prove ? Does it prove, that the present is not the ancient churcR continued ? No, Sir ; but i,t proves, that the great design of God is one^ that the -.vork of redemption is one, that the church of the redeemed is one j but advanced from stage to stage, under successive dispensations, as best answers the Mind of infinite wisdom and grace. But the "gospel church," 70U say, " is composed of none but professing believers." In the same sense. Sir, that this is true v/ith res- pect to the ^05f-Christian church, it is also true, with respect to the ^r^-Christian. This, in answer to your first argument, I have shewn at large. And diffi- cult as it may be to reconcile the concession with the ge- neral tenor of your book ; yet you yourself have expli^ citly conceded, that " the Jezvs^ as a nation^ professkd to he his (Christ's) people.''' P. 240 & 242. If therefore, " it cannot be proved, ^lor fairly inferred, from any thing recorded in the Nev/ Testament, that ever a single person, was considered as a member of the y?(j5f- Christian church, who did not pTofess faith in Jesus Christ ;" so neither can it " be proved nor fairly infer- red," from any part of the scriptures, that ever a single person was considered a " complete" member of the pre-Christian church, who did not profess faith in the same glorious Messiah. In your second argument, then, there is nothing of the least avail to prove, that the present church is not the an- cient church continued ; and all, which you have thought proper to advance with reference to it, I mav fairly, I think, consider as either totally unfounded, or totally ir- relevant. 3. "That the Jewish and Christian churches are not the same, may be argued," you say, " from several pas- sages of scripture, which represent the gospel church, as commencing at a different period from the ancient church." Your principal passage, and that indeed, on which all the rest depend, is the following. -Li the days of thete kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom^ which shall ^ever be destroyed ; and the kingiom shall net be left to cthi r . . * Dan. ii. 44. Let. I 66 LETTER XHr. not consider this as a prediction of the gospel cKurcfi- But if this church had been set u,p more than thirteen hundred years before, why should- Daniel speak of it as an event still future ?" That God had a spiritual "kingdom" in thp world, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation., long before the coming of the Messiah, youvvill not, I believe. Sir, un- dertake to deny. The excellent Dr. Fuller, as quoted by yourself, speaking of -the natural seed of Abraham, says — " It was among them that God set up his spirit- ual kingdom^ giving them his lively oracles, sending to them his prophets, and establishing among them his holy worship ; xvhich great advantages were^ for many ages, in a manner confined to thern^"* It was not, then, the commencement of the "kingdom," or church of God, strictly considered, but the com.- mencement of a new dispensation, to which this pro- phecy referred ; and "no christian expositor," so far as I know, has ever considered it in a different light. Nay, Sir, strange as it may seem, even you yourself in this connexion, adopt this same explanation. "Con- formably to this sentiment," you' say, "we find our bles- sed Lord,, often speaking of the ^04;/'(?/<^i.s/)f7Z5'a?ion, under the 7netaphor of a kingdom." In tM&, then, we are agreed, that the prophecy, now in question, referred to the. gospel dispensation ; and I agree with you further, that in the days of Daniel the gospel dispensation was future ! — But what is this to your point ? Because the gospel dispe7isatio7i, which by way of dis- tinction was called the " kingdom of heaven," had not taken place in the days of Daniel, but was then "future ;"~ does it thence follow, that the church of God, under this dispensation, is not a continuation of the ancient Zion ? Is this, Sir, argument ? is this scriptural pi oof ? Your other texts, brought under this head, I take leave to set down together, that they \nay strike the mind, with their united force. Therefore, I say unto yon, that the kingdom of God, shall be taken from you and given to a natio7i bringing forth the fruits thereof'^ — Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and harlots go into the king- darn, of Gcd before you. For fohncame unto you in the zuaij of righteousness, and ye believed hi77i not: but the * iMat. xxi. 43. t Ibid. *!, 32. LETTER XIII. 67 •publicmis and the harlots believed Azw.f Except your rigteousness shall exceed the righteoxisness of the scribes end Pharisees^ ije shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.^ Jesus answered, jMY kingdom is kot of THIS WORLD.f These are solemn texts, and desen'e the most serious consideration. But realy. Sir, to discern in them any thing like proof, that the church under the present dis- pensation is not the ancient church continued, must re- quire a peculiar kind of sight, of which I frankly con- fess myself destitute. Doubtless no christian believes, that false professors and hypocrites, such as were the scribes and pharisees, are fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven. Biit is it not a melancholy fact, that many such there are, even in the visible "gospel church !" " It would be an insult," you say, " upon the under- standing of men to attempt to maintain the two opposite points, that new born infants must be -admitted to mem- bership in the christian church, and that the church was nevertheless not of this world, but a spiritual body. A ina?i, who cculd believe this, zvould have but little di^culty in believing transubstantiation, or any other absurdity T^ Thisi, Sir, I quote as a sample of your spii-it and manner under this argument. But do I mistake, or is it in fact true, that the same DIVINE PERSON, wlio said, My kingdom is not of this •world; also said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of HEAVEN ! — ">Vhether, in your haste, you have not virtually charged the gracious Immanuel with being a "man, who ceuid find but little difficulty in believing transub- stantiation, or asy other absurdity," I most certainly will not undertake to say ! I submit it for 3'ou to considei-. In what sense children are to be considered members of the church, I have before endeavored to explain. "No man," you are pleased to sav, "who examines Avith candor the history of the Jewish church from the days of Abraham, till the destruction of their nation and temple by Vespasian, but what must conclude, that the true believers, at any period, would have been, when compared with the whole nation, only a small minority, or remiiant according to the election of graced P. 202. ^ Mat. V. 20: t John xviii. 36. k 68 XSTTEll XIV. And what, Sir, if the same would hold true, with res- pect to the visible christian church at large, from thej^ J days of Christ to the present? Certainly it would be a ^ subject for deep lamentation. But would it prove that God does not require all the members of his church, un- der the present dispensation, as he certainly did under the ancient, to walk before him and be perfect ? No, Sir ; not in the least. Hitherto, then, we have found in your arguments, (for so we must calf them,) nothing of the least avail to your point. Your fourth and last argument I reserve for another Letter. I am, Sir, &c. LETTER XIV. JtET.Uf DEAR SIR, *' Our fourth aad last argument, to prove, that the gospel church is totally distinct from, and independent of, the Jewish, shall be drawn," you say, "from facts, recorded in the New-Testament. P. 204. If it would not have the appearance of burlesque, and would my limits permit, I should be strongly inclined to transcribe the whole, which you have thought proper to offer under this head, as a sample of your spirit and man- ner of reasoning. " Christian reader, If your Bible be at hand, turn t© the third chapter of Matthew, and read and examine carefully." Such is the manner in which our attentisn is summoned. And what, Sir, shall we find in the third chapter of Matthew ? Whv, truly, that Joh?! preached in the ivU' derne~is of Judea ; and that Jesus -was baptized of John at Jordan. These are the simple facts, .to which you are pleased to call our attention, as proof that the church, under the present dispensation, "is totally distinct from, and independent of," the ancient church ! " Stubborn facts" indeed ! But "did John," you ask, "derive his authority tb preach and baptize from the Jewish church ?" And in my turn, Sir, I ask ; did Elijah, in whose spirit and power Johr\ LETTER XIV. 69 was sent^ "derive his authority to preach," and anoint prophets and kings, "from the Jewish church ?" You "ask again, did John preach the same doctrine, which the leaders of this church did?" — And again, Sir, I ask ; did Elijah, did Isaiah, did any of the ancient pro- phets of the Lord, "preach the same doctrine," which the ancient false prophets, too often "the leaders of the church," preached ? Or do all the ministers of the visi- ble church, at this day, preach the same doctrine ? My questions, I believe, are, at least, as pertinent a« yours ; and may suffice to shew, that in the same way in which you attempt to prove, that John did not belong to the Jevv^ish church, it might equally be proved, that none almost of the ancient prophets, or saints, did. " But was there any institution, or even custom, in the Jewish church, which required John to baptize his • converts in Jordon V — And was there any institution or even custom, in the Jewish church, which required "Ez- ra to establish synagogues, for divine worship, in all - parts of Judea ? Had not John, Sir, as a prophet of the Highest, a special commission from heaven to call the Jewish peo- ple to repentence ? — to turn the hearts of the fathers ts the chiJdren, and the hearts of the children to their fathers ? by his baptism, specially instituted for this purpose, to confirm the covenant, even the ancient covenant of God, with ynarjy ? — regularly to induct the Messiah into his sacred office, and make him mariifest to Israel P — and thus to prepare the way for a new dispensation ? A dis- pensation, on the introduction of which, the true and faithful part of the Jews, haying the ccvenaJit confirmed with them^ were to retain their standing in the church of God ; while the false and hypocritical, who were only Jexvs outxvardly^ and who remained irreclaimably im- penitent and corrupt, were to be broken off" and rejected. Of what avail to your purpose, then, were a thousand facts and questions, such as you have here thought prop- er to present ? And of what pertinency is your impas- sioned address: " Reader, lay your hand on your heart, and ask yourself in the fear of God, if you can possibly believe, that either John or Jesus, in the whole of the transactions related in this chapter, had any thing to do with the Jewish church or their leaders !" — Yes, Sir, they had much to do with them ; for it was to them. 70 LETTER XIV. to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that they were es- pecially sent ; and the fan vas then in motion, the foor Tsf the church was to be thoroughly purged, and while the -wheat was te be gathered into the garner, the chaff wa^ to be burnt vp with unquenchable f re .' And what, Sir, if a similar fanning ©f the church should again take place ? Would it prove the commencement of an entirely new church ? Did a new church, commence at the tinae of the reformation from popery ? Certainly not. — But to proceed. " If we look into the next chapter," you say, " we shall find the manner in which Christ proceeded, in gathering the New Testament church. At the 18th verse, it is said : And Jesus xvalking by the sea of Galilee, saw two hrethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrexv his brother, ■casting a net into the sea, for they ruere fishers. An^he ^aid unto them follow me, and I -will make you fishers of meii. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. And when he had gone a little further, thence, he saiv fames the son of Zebedee, and fohn his brother, who alsoroere in the ship mending their nets; and straight- xuay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the ship, xuith the hired servants, and went cfter him. Having cited, in connexion with these, the account of the two disciples of John, who followed Jesus,^ of the scribe, who would yi/Zoif him -whithersoever he -went^ of Matthew the publican,^ and of Philip and Nathaniel ; § you proceed to say, " these facts, recorded by the evan- geWists, place befo^re us a complete history of the commence^ rnent of the gospel church /" Really, Sir, I supposed it was your opinion, that the "Gospel church" commenced three or four years prior to any of " these facts*'' , imder the ministry of John ; rvhen yerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about, xvere baptized by hijji at Jordan. But if you are disposed to give up that ground, for which you and your brethren have so earnestly contended, but which I believe you iind to be absolutely untenable ; I have no objection to meet you upon this new ground, which you have here assumed. But v/hat are the " facts" which you have here placed before us ? Substantially these, that when Jesus went about preaching the Gospel, some of the people followed * John i. 35, 37. f Mat. viii. 19, 21. \ ix. 9. § John i. 45, 46* LETTER Xly. 71' him ; and some of those who follo%ved Him were ap' pointed to be his principal ministers, under the new dis- pensation, which, he proclaimed, was then at hand! All this, Sir, we very well knew before. We knew that " Jesus during his personal ministry, did collect a large number of disciples and followers of both sexes ; and that he sent forth seventy disciples at one time, to preach the Gospel, and to evince its power by miracles." But that in this there is proof, that the church under the pre- sent dispensation is not a continuation of the ancient Zi- on, we did not know ! Neither did we know, that Jesus and his disciples "stood totally unconnected with the old Jewish church.'* For we had understood, that Jesus taught those whO' followed him, that as the scribes, and pharisees sat in Moses seat, what they said was to be obser'ued, though their works were not to be approved; that both he and his disciples constantly attended on the synagogue wor- ship, on the solemn feasts of the church at Jerusalem^ and on all the institutions of the ancient dispensation ; and that he, as well as his forerunner John, constantly preached, that the kingdom of heaven, or gospel dispen- sation was at hand, not that it had already come. We, therefore, did not know, neither do we yet believe, that " the disciples of Jesus, with their Master at their head» constituted a church, a complete church in gospel order ^^ any more than did John's disciples with " their master at their head."* They all belonged to the same church to which Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David * "But," you say in your Strictures on Mr. Edwards, "who would have thought that a man professing to be a Christian minister, could be so attached to the old Jewish system, as to deny Christ, and his disciples the honour of composing and con- stituting the new Christian church." As it is for arguments of this sort, addressed not to the understanding, but to the passions, that you appear to have a peculiar fondness; I take leave, in my turn, to ask, "Who would have thought that a man, profess- ing to be a Christian minister, could" have had such a prejudice against the ancient economy of God, as to imagine, that it would have been a dishonor to the Messiah, in. the days of his fiesh, i:o have had any connexion with that church, which from the be-- ginning had been founded on the promise of redemption by him, which for ages had been looking for his comnig with transport- ing expectation, and to which he had given the most endearing assurances of perpetual love ? — Notwithstanding all her elevated hopes, and her joyful songs of praise, in prospect of his coming, ajtd notwithstanding his solemn protestations, that he was mar- 72 LETTER XIV. and Elijah, and Isaiah, and Sin'ieon, and Anna, and all the ancient saints belonged. Inxieed, Sir, in all the "facts" which you have placed beforeus, wesee nothinglike "a church in gospel order," and " totally independent" of the ancient Zion of the Ho-' ly One of Israel. We only see that, when Jesus, as well as John, preached in different parts of the land of Israel, calling the people to repentance ; under their preaching, the ancient coveijant of God was confrmed xlxith Tnany^ that the vrhole natural seed of Abraham might not be cast off from the church, when the new dispensation should commence The next set of "facts," which you are pleased to pre- sent, are to this effect ; that the scribes and pharisees, and a great part of the Jewish church, in the days of Christ were hypocrites, unbelieving and wicked ; that they were not the true spiritual children of Abraham ; that they did not receive Christ, but persecuted him with virulence, and finally put him to death. All these are solemn " facts," and " facts" which we have often, and seriously pondered. But we had never discovered in them any proof of your antipsedobaptist theory. This discovery, Sir, was reserved for you, or some one of your brethren ! We knew, that for their unbeVief and their obstinate rejection of the Messiah, a very considerable part of the Jewish people, natural^ but dead, branches of the good OUve tree^ were broken off^ and cast away ; — -utterly cast away from the church of God. But we had also under- stood, that the living natural branch'es of the Olive tree were spared; that with those believing Israelites, who were not only outxvardly^ but, inwardly also, Jews^ the ancient covenant of God was confirmed ; and that among them, under anew dispensation, believers of other nations, branches of the Olive by nattire xvild, were graft- ed in — ^were made fellow heirs of the same body- — that the blessing of Abraham Alight come on the Gentiles. I ask you, dear Sir, were not most of the ancient pro- phets despised, and persecuted, by the corrupt part of the ancient church ? And have not the faithful ministers of Christ been despised and persecuted, and thousands ried unto her, and would never forsake her ; yet no sooner did he make his public appeav:\iice in the world, than he utterly dis- owned, and cast off, his anciently beloved Zion, and took to him- self another bride ! — Is this. Sir, the " honour" which you claim for the adorable Bridegroom of the church." LETTER XIV. Y3 of them even to martyrdom, by the corrupt part of the professedly Christian church? What then, if John the Baptist, and Christ and his apostles were despised and persecuted by the corrupt part of the church, in their day ? Is there in this the least shadow of proof, that the church of God has not, in all ages, under the ancient, and under the present, dispensation, been essentially one and the same? Certainly, I believe, no candid person will suppose it. The Psedobaptists, yoii say, " uniformly argue, that the Jewish and Christian churches are the same ; and that the latter is no more than a continuance of the for- mer : but they have never shewn us xuhen^-where^ or how^ the latter church was connected xvith the former : and it is believed that they never can. They have seemed wholly to step over this point." P. 207. How was it possible. Sir, for such an assertion to drop froni your pen ? Have we not constantly shcAvn, that the covenant of the church, under the ancient dis- pensation, and under the present, has been always the same ? — that the church has, in all ages, been built on the same foundation of the apostles and prophets, fcsus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ? — that, when the middle xvall of partition xuas broken down^ the Gen- tiles became fellow heirs with God's ancient people, and of the same body^ and partakers^ of the promise by Christ in the gospel? —t\\2it the branches from the olive by nature zvild rvere grafted in among the natural bran:ches of the good olive tree?— In a word, that, on the introduction of the present dispensation, when the corrupt part of the ancient church, the unbelieving scribes and pharisees,the despiset-s and persecutors of Christ, who were only yezvs outwardly^ were rejected, the sound part, those who were fexus inwardly ^iind trut to the covenant, were retained, and confirmed in their standing, and witn them converts from the Gentile nations were incorporated in the same church ? — And is there nothing in all this, Sir, which shews "when, how, or where" the post-Chris- tian church "was connected" with the pi^-Christian ?; — It is devoutly to be hoped, that before you undertake' to •vvrite again, you will give yourself time to review the pub- lications of the psedobaptists "upon this point." In this third Section of your Appendix, and other parts of your book, particularly in your Strictures on Let. K 74? LETTER XIV. "Mr. Edwards, you appear to take a peculiar satisfaction, in degrading the ancienl? covenant and church of God. You think proper to give your readers to understand, that the covenant did not contain the promise of the spi- rit, but "was onlv outward inthe flesh,"* (notwithstand- ing the apostle's declaration, that circumcision was of the heart ;) that "in the constitution of the church, compris- ing the rights and privilpgos, the duties and obligations of the members, circumcision held the first and most important place ;"f that there is no evidence that even the men of Abraham's house werepenitents,"J (notwithstand- ing the testimony of God, that they should keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment ;) that the Jewish religion was so diverse from Christianity that for one of that religion to become a christian ''his heart must be changed," and until such a change " he was no better than a Judas ;"i| that "to constitute a person a complete member of the Jewish church required nothing more than to be bought with Jewish money or born of Jewish parents, and to be circumcised ;"§ that "the Jewish church did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God ;"•[[ that they were "pharisees and sadducees, publicans and harlots," the despisers, persecutors, and murderers of Christ and his followers !^ These things, Sir, and numerous others of a similar complexion, you have thought proper to represent, in gen- eral terms ; as if such was the character of the ancient church generally ; and not only so but as if there was nothing in the covenant, or constitution, of the church, which required any thing better. Yet this is the covenant, which the Lord confirmed unto Jacob for a larv, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant ; and this is the church, which the Lord declared should be unto him a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS a7id a HOLY NATION, which he ac- knowledged as his PECULIAR TREASURE, and which he promised to mrke an eternal excellency, a joy of MANY generations ! Now I entreat you, Sir, solemnly to consider, whether the course, which, in your zeal for antipsedobaptism, you have thought proper to adopt be not almost exactly the course, which infidels have taken, to bring into reproach both the CHURCH or God, and the God himsele of the CHURCH. * Api^endix, p. 213. t P. 192. \ p. 193. || p. 235. §p. 194' ^1 p p. 194, 201, 210, Sec. Sec. LETTER XIV. 75 We know, Sir, very well, that the ancient church, as well af the modem, was guilty of most awful defection and apostacy : but it is the ancient church, not in its corrupt and apostatized state, as you would make yeur readers believe,* but in a reformed and advanced state, that we hold, has been continued under the present dis- pensation. We do not hold, that it was among those hran- ches^ which, through unbelief were broken off^ that the branches from the olive bij nature xvUd^ -were ingrafted into the good olive tree. But we believe, and think it sufficiently proved, that the living natural branches^ of the olive tree ■were spared^ and that among them the foi-eign. Gentile, branches were ingrafted^ that of the rsot and fatness of the olive they might partake together. Do you wish, Sir, to have it forgotten, that if the pre- Christiau church had its dark, it had also, its bright side ? At what period under the present dispensation, has there been a greater proportion of the visible church true to the everlasting covenant, than there was, under the iincient dispensation, at the period to which her God referred, when he was pleased to say : / remember the kindness of thy youth, ihe love of thine espousals, when thoM xVentest after me in the wilderness in a land that was not soxvn P Israel was holiness to the Lord, and the first IRUITS OF HIS INCREASE Was it not under the ancient dispensation, t4iat Zion so rapturously sung ; / will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in viy God ; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; he hath covered me with, ihe robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels ? And was it not to the church, under the ancient dispensation, that Jehovah gave-his assurance of per- petual love ? But Zion said the LsrJ hath forsaken me, and mij Lor dhg.th for gotten me. Can a xvoman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb ? Tea^ they may forget, yet will not I forget thee. Behold I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands ; thy xvalls are continually before fne. Is the ancient Zion then to be despised, andjoaded with reproach, by the professed friends of her God ? Is she unworthy even to be named, with the church under the present dispensation ? If through Jesus Christ the * Appendix, p. 211, and elsewhere. 76 I-ETTER XV. blessing of Ahrahain has come vpon us Gentiles ; does i^ become us to boast ; not remembering that we bear not the root, hit the root tis ! — Do you hope for any thing better than to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and jfacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God! I confess to you, Sir, that I am often lost in amaze- ment, when I read, or hear the reproaches, and vehe- ment declamations, which so commonly come from your quarter, against the ancient covenant and church of God, And I cannot but think, that if these are the best argii- ments, which you can employ against us j you might very well give up your side of this dispute into the hands of the avowed enemies of the Bible, who have always ta- taken a peculiar pleasure, in loading the church, both ancient, and modern, with invective and contempt. Pardon me. Sir, this plainness. I certainly impute to you no unchristian design. The honour of God, and the interests of truth and religion, I trust, He near your heart. And, therefore, the more to be lamented I con- sider it, that an overweening zeal for a favorite theory, should hurry you away so far upon the enemies' groundo On the whole, it is by this time, I trust, sufBciently plain, that all your argiiments to prove, that the Chris- tian church is not a continuation of the ancient Zion, are totally unavailing ; and that my arguments to prove that the church, as well as the covenant of God, is but onc^ throughout all generations, remain unshaken. Your's, dear Sir, &Co LETTER XV» REV. \^. DEAR SIR, HAVING shewp at large, that the covenant and church of God are essentially the same, under the pre- sent dispensation as pnder the former ; and answered your objections and arguments against this doctrine ; I now pass to consider, more particularly, the connected pubject of BAPTISM. A qucstzoi^ of considerable consequence between ub. I LETTER XV> 77 a^d proper to be considered in this place, is, Whether baptism have come in the 'place ef circumcision ? You hold that it has not ; I hold that it has. Your reasons for holding, that baptism is not in the place of circun?cision, you have been so good as to state in the second Section of your Appendix. To these rea- sons, I take lea^^e to give a moment's attention. " 1. The law of circunacision was a positive law, not at all dependent on the nature and fitness ©f things : — p this is precisely the case with baptism j therefore, there can be no arguing from one to the other." P. 187. If there "■ can be no arguing" frofn one " positive" in- stitute to another ; yet one "positive" institute may certainly come in the place of another. Your quo- tation from Dr. Emmons, therefore, relative to this point, is entirely irrelevant ; and your impeachmeat of his " consistency" equally, I think, unfounded. "2. The institution of circuipcision was expressly limitted to maie^." Ibid. ThiS) Sir, we acknowledge ; and it is also well known, that, between males and females, under the ancient dis- pensation, a distinction, in several important particu- lars, with respect to divine institutions, was made. But we are clearl}^ taught by the apostle, that, under the pre- sent dispensation, this distinction no longer obtains ; for now, there is neither Jexv nor Greeks there is neither bond nor JreCy there is neither male nor EEMALEi *' There is now no distinction of nations, ranks, or sexes, with respect to gospel acceptance, privileges, and bless^ ings ; no diflference between Jew and Gentile, or mas- ter and servant, or male atid female ; — as there was in former despensations."* As the distinction is thus abolished, and females ave placed on the same footing with males, with respect to divine institutions ; no reason appears why an ordi- nance, to which females as well as males are now admit- ted, may not have come in the place of an ordinance which was anciently restricted to males. " 3. The law of circumcision," you say, "required no previous profession of faith and repentance, neither in adults nor infants, as a qualification for that institution ; but the gospel positively requires such a profession in order to baptism, without even an exception in favor of infants." * Guise on GaL iii. 28. f8 LETTER XV. This, Sir, Is begging the very question in dispute. Neither part of your proposition is either admitted on ear side, or proved on yours. But in direct opposition to what you here assert, I have proved at large, that an explicit and sincere profession of religion, in order to complete membership in the church, was required un- der the ancient dispensation, as well as under the present. Are you willing, Sir, to have it understood, that you are so little read on the subject, as not to know, that when proselytes would join the ancient church, an ex- plicit profession of religioa was required of them, previ- ous to their circumcision ? — With respect to " infants," as the covenant and church are still the same,, their rela- tion to the church remains also the same. *' 4. A male slave, bought with money of an age above eight days, whether a believer or an infidel, whether an idolator, or an atheist, had the same right to circum- cision, as the infant seed of his master had." This, Sir, in the terms in which it is stated, is not ad- hiitted as correct ; and proof of it you have not been pleased to offer. But were it admitted in its whole ex- tent, it would constitute no valid argument in the pre- sent case. For as already shewn, under the second ar- ticle, the distinctionljetweenyrtfe and boJid^ as well as be- tween male and female, is not known under the present dispensation. Masters and servaats, with respect to the church and its institutions, are now placed upon the same footing. " We ask," you say, " and we hope we shall have a fair and canded answer, if such an one can be given, When and where has the right of servants, as distin- guished from that of children, been repealed." P. 179. *' Such an answer, can," Sir, be given, and I am ready to give it. "The right of servants^ as distinguished from that of children," is repealed, or a declaration of the repeal is made, in the spme twentij -eighth verse of the third chapter of Galatians^ which I have just before had occasion to quote. For you will be pleased to ob- serve, that though' it is expressly declared, that, , un- der the present dispensation, there is neither few nor Greeks neither male nor female^ neither free nor bond ; it is not added, there is neither parent nor child ! So plain it is, that while, under the present dispensation, ^' bond men," as such, are not known, with respect to LETrER XV. 79 divine institutions ; children, as such, are kno^vn ; and according to the express word of prophecy, remain as afore-tbne. Had this, Sir, been duly considered, you and your brother Merrill would probably have spared yourselves much fervid declamation, in which, particularly on the subject of ''^ southern planters and their slaves" you ap- pear to have indulged with peculiar satisfaction, " 5. The rite itself is so very vnlike the gospel insti- tution, that it seems extremely unnatural to infer one from the other." That baptism is not in its form like circumcision is readilv admitted. But what does this prove ? Cannot one thing take the place of another, unless they be in form alike ? Has not the public worship of God, under the present dispensation, come^in the place of the ancient v/orship ? But v/hat can be more " unlike" than the forms of worship now observed, and those of the ancient Tabernacle, and Temple ? " 6. Circumcision," you say, " might be lawfully admi- nistered by any person, at least any head of a family, \Thether male or female ; baptism is to be administered bv particular officers, in the Christian church, calied^nd qualified for the work." This, rf true, is only a circumstantial difFei;ence, not in the least affecting the nature of either institution ; "and, therefore, can afford no availing argument. Before the time of Moses, sacrifices might be offer- ed " by any person," at least by any " father of a family ; but under the Mosaic economy sacrifices were to be of- ^ fered " by particular officers of the church, called and qualified for the work." Yet who, from this difference, ever imagined, that the sacrifices under the Mosaic eco- nomy, did not take the place of the sacrifices offered, under the preceding patriarchal dispensation ? " Other dissimilarities," you say," might be urged, but these are thought sufficient to shew, that it is not the easiest thing in the world, to infer baptism from circum- cision." And in your favorite style you are pleased to add : " It certainly requires a large^stock of mystical, Je- suitical^ znge?iuity to make an inference plausible, where the nature, act, and design are so different." — And do you not think, Sir, that it requires no very small "stock" of patience and moderation, to read aad attempt to an- 80 LETTER xri. swer a ^ook, in which, instead of argument, one meet^,- at every turn, with the out-breakings of a sp^irit, so little beconaing the professed disciples oi the meek and lowly Jesus ? Had you proved, Sir, that baptism is essentially *' dif- ferent," in its "nature and design," from circumcision, you would have proved something to your purpose. But this you have not proved ; and until this be proved, a Rundred "dissimilarities" of a merely circumstantial liature will avail you nothing. I am, dear Sir, &Co LETTER XVI. REV. ijf DEAR SIR^ IN my last Letter, I endeavored to answer the arguments, by which you would prove, that baptism has not come in the place of circumcision ; in this^ I pro- pose briefly to state the arguments, by which I would prove that it has. 1. Baptism is now, as circumcision anciently was, an instituted pre-requisite to a regular stafiding in the visi- ble church. With respect to this point, simply, there is no dispute between us. Whether children are to be considered, as in any sense members of the church, or not ; in this we agree, that Under the present dispeiisation, baptism is required, as was circumcision under the ancient, in or- der to regular membership. In this respect, then, bap- tism is certainly in the place of circumcision. 2. Baptism, under the present dispensation, is of the same significance, with circumcision, under the ancient. As a sign^ circumcision signified the renovation of the h^art, or regeneration. Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, said Moses, and be no more stiff necked. And again. The Lord thy God zoill circumcise thine HEART and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy Gcd^ xvith all thine hearty and with all thy soul^ that thou mayest live. This injunction to circumcise their tETTER XVI. 81 hearts, is evidently equivalent with that in EzekJel, to tnake them nexv hearts ; and the assurance, that the Lord would ciramicise their heart and the heart of their seed^ is, also, of the same import with the promise in Eze- kiel, A nexv hearty also, will I give thee, and a new spi- rit will I put within thee. Accordingly the apostle to ^he Romans says, I£e is not a'^erv^which is one outxvard- ly, neither ts that circumcision, xvhich is oiitxuard in the Jlesh: but he is a yew, xvhich is one inrvardly, and cir- cumcision is of the HEART, i;i the spirit and not in the letter. As circumcision signified the renovation of the heart, or regeneration ; so baptism signifies the same thing. Except a man be boRn of water, and of the spirit, said Christ to Nicodemus, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God. In this memorable passage, being born of ■water ^ or baptized with water, and being born of the Spirit, or baptized with the Spirit, are presented toge- • ther, the one as the sign, the other as the thing signi- fied. For by one spirit, says the apostle, are zve all baptized into one body. By his mercy he saved its, by the WASHING OF regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. This is evidently equivalent tt being boryi of water and of the Spirit. As it is in renewing the heart that the Holy Sprit ap- plies the great atonement, for cleansing and justification j so-bapti'sm alludes not only to the influence of the Spirit, but also to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ : and to the blood of Christ, as an atonement for sin, evident re- ference was also had in the bloody rite of circumcision. On the whole, it is too plain to admit of any reasona- ble dispute, that baptism now signifies the same thing, which was anciently signified by circumcision. And as baptisni is now an ins^iituted sign to be used in the church, signifying the renovation of the heart, and the Sprinkling of the blood of Christ, as circumcision anci- ently was ; in this respect, again, baptism has evidently taken the place of circumcision. 3. Baptism, under the present dispensation, is a seal of the same thing, of which circumcision was a seal un- der the ancient. We have the express declaration of the apostle, that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith ; of that faith xvhich Abraham had before he zvas Let. L 82 LfeTTER XVI. circumcised^ as well as afterwards, and of which every true believer is the subject. There is but one rightE' ousNESS of faith., or which is the object of true faith ^ namely, the righteounsess of Christ, by which be- lievers, in all ages, have been, and rill be, justified. Of this righteousness circumcision was a seal. Of the same righteousness of faith, baptism is now also a seal. . The imuard seal of the righteousness of faith ^ is the Holy Spirit renewing and sanctifying the heart, and applying the blood of Christ; and as baptism is a sign of this gracious operation of the Spirit, it is also an outward seal of the same righ' teousness. For as many^ — as have been baptized iJito Christy have put on Christ. The righteousness of faith, in a word, includes all the promised blessings ; and bap- tism now, as circumcision anciently was, is, undoubted- ly, a seal of God*s gracious oovenant with his church j and in this respect therefore, the one has taken the place of the other. 4. That baptism has come in the place of circumci- sion, we are decisively taught, by the apostle, in CoU ii. 10—13. And ye are complete in Christy who is the head of all principality and poxver. In xvhom also ye are circum- cised^ ruith the circumcision made without hands ^ input- ting off the body of the sins of the fleshy by the circumci- sion of Christ ; buried with him in baptism^rvherein also ye are risen with him^ through the faith of the operation of God, zuho raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your si?is^ and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with hir.i, " The plain obvious ideas, which lie upon the face of this passage, are these: circumcision and baptism sig- nify the same thing; the thing signified by both is the renovation of the heart, or the resurrection from spi- ritual death to spiritual life ; and this renovation of the heart, or spiritual resurrection, is the fruit of the spe - cial operation of God.*" The apostle, it is true, is here speaking of spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism. But if being buried xvith Christy in spiritual baptisjn, is the same as being circumcised with the circumcision made ruithout hands ; then external baptism, it rnust certainly be concluded, has come in the place of external circum- cision. * Emmcn's Sermon on Baptism. LETTER XVH. S3 The four arguments now offered. Sir, are neither ^hnys- iicaP^ nor '■^Jesuitical ^^^ but plain and scriptural ; and in my view amply sufficient to establish the point, now in proof. If baptism is now, as circumcision anciently was, an instituted pre-requisite for regular membership in the church j if it is a sign of the same significance ; if it is a see applied to the infant seed of the church. Your objections and implications, so profusely scat^ tered up and down in your book, respecting die want of faith, or other qualification?, in infants, though cal- culated to operate an effect upon such as are more in- fluenced by declamation than by argument, are as totally irrelevant, as thev are highly improper. TheA might » Appendix, p. 232. t p. 235. 86 LETTER Xvni. . every one of them be urged with equal pertinen cy, a- gainst infants being admitted to the seal of the covenant, under the ancient dispensation, as under the present.— r For as the church is the same, the covenant the same, and the seal, though different in form, yet of the same significance and design ; no reason can appear whv in- fants are not now as duly qualified, and in aU respects as proper subjects, for baptism, as anciently they were for circumcision. But God, who is infinitely wise, certainly saw fit to institute, that the seal of his covenant should be applied to the infant seed of his church ; and does it, then, become men, does it become his professed friends, not only to call in question, but even to reproach, his sa- cred institution ? Respectfully yours, &c<, LETTER XVIIL MEF. b" DE^R SIR, GOD, though a sovereign, does not act without plan. Throughout his whole vast system, means and ends are connected, with the most perfect arrangement. If, in his sovereign purpose in Christ Jesus before the world was, the eternal salvation of his elect, was deter- mined ; the way and the moans of their salvation were also determined. And if in his gracious and everlasting covenant, he has been pleased to make known his pur- pose to continue the church, from age to age to the end of the world ; it would be reasonable to conclude, that he has also made known the way and the n^eans of its continuance. Accordingly ample provision for the continuance of tTie church is evidently contained in the promises of the covenant. Ixvill be a God to<:thee and to thy seed after thee^ in their generations ; and in thee and in thy seed shall ail the nations of the earth be blessed. In the first of these promises it was provided, that, through sovereign grace, the church should be continued from generation to generation, in the line of natural descent ; and in the second, that, from period to period, strangers andfortign- LETTER XVIII. "^ ers shonld be brought within the pale of its privileges and blessings, until all the families of the earth should bc" come FELLOW HEIRS, AND OF THE SAME BODY, AXD PARTAKERS OF THE PROMISE by the Gospel. ^ But though it was graciously provided, that the church should be continued down in the line of natural descent; or,thatin every generation there should be, amongthe natu- ral offspring of the church, a holy seed, with whom the covenant should be confirmed ; yet it v/as not engaged, that all the natural offspring should certainly be heirs of the promises. The promise respecting the children of the church was in a sense conditional ; and none were to be considered as the children of the promise, but those with respect to whom the conditions of the promise were fulfilled. Had not Abraham walked before God, accoiding to the covenant requirement, and faithfully commanded his children and his household after him ; God v.'ould not have stood engaged by the covenant so to impart his grace to them, as to make it certain that they would keep the, wav of the Lord to do justice and judgment, and so in- herit the promised blessings. As it was with Abraham, so it was to be with his successors in the church, whether of his natural descendants, or of other nations : if they would be entitled to claim covenant blessings for their children, they must fulfil the conditions of the promise respecting them ; they must have the faith^ and do the Xi)orks of Abraham.^ * Upon this subject of conditionality I wiih to be cleai ly under- stood. The conditions of a promise, I consider in the light of means to an end. If I promise a man a sum of money, on condilion of his doing apiece of service, his doing,- that service is a viean of obtaining that money ; if I promise k child a favor, on conditicn of his good conduct, in any specified instance, his good conduct, in that instance, is a mean of obtaining the promised favor. So, if God promise mankind the pardon of sin, on co?ididoii of their believing in Christ, their believing in Christ is a mean of cbtair,- int^ pai'don : and if he promise to believers the rewards cf his heavenly kingdom, on condidsn of their persevering in the life of faith unto the end, their perseverance in faith is a mean of obtaining those eternal rewards. But it is worthy to be noted, that ends are not the less certaia because they are connected with mea7is. If God have determin- ed, that any supposed ends shall take place, but that they shall take place in connexion with certain antecedent means ; then, though the means are necessary to the cr^dsy yei the ends ?.re as certain as if tkcrc were no means ya. the case. Fgr the divine 88 LETTER XVlIf* This is a summary view of the provision of the cove.' nant, according to the explanation given of it, under ht second geJieral head oi my " Two Discourses." But td this you have thought proper to object ; and have pro- fessedly undertaken to shew, that my "application of the promise is unscriptural." Your objections to this part of my Discourses, as offered in your " Strictures," and other things militating with it in other parts of yoUr book, it may be useful briefly to consider. But here, Sir, I take leave to premise, that rightly to understand the provision of the covenant, is unqestiona- bly of vast imporl-^nce to all ; and the question respect- purpose secures both the one and the oilier. And if God have engaged, by pi'onaise, or by covenant, to bestow any blessings upon mankind, but to bestow them on certain conditions ; though the conditions, in this case, are necessary to the attainment of the blessings ; yet the blessings may.be as certain as if no con- ditions were required : For all the grace, necessary to the ful- filment of the CQnditions, on which the blessings are to be con-f ferred, may be secured in the covenant, or promise. If God's flurjiose of election secures the sa,lvation of some of mankind, it also secures the means a?td conditions of their sal- vation ; and if his ^va.cions firoinise secures the eternal blessed- ness of all who believe in his Son, it also secures that fierseve" ranee in the life of faith, with which their eternal blessedness is connected. But neither the purpose, nor the promise of God, renders the means, or conditions, of salvation, unnecessary. To apply these remarks to the case now in hand : — The pro* mise, to be a God to the church and to the seed of the church, is not the less certain, because, in the sense explained, it is con- ditional. For if God engages to be a God to the, church and to the seed of the church, to the latest generations ; he also en- gages to bestow all the grace necessary to the fulfilment of the conditions of the covenant, with resjiect to those^ who are to be counted for the seed. I know Abraham, he says, that he will command his children, and his household after him, and they SHALL keep^ the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment ; THAT THE Lord may bring upon Abraham that whicit HE HATH SPOKEN OF HIM. I WILL pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon their ojfspring ; and they shall spring up as aTuong the grass, as willows by the water courses. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. And I WILL GIVE THEM ONE HEART AND ONE WAY, THAT THEY MAY FEAR ME FOREVER, FOR THE GOOD OF THEM, AND OF THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM- In a word, though in one sense the promise is cbnditional, yet in another sense, as stated in my Discourses, it is absolute.— - Though it requires parents to be true and faithful to the cove- nant, as a condition of covenant blessings to their seed ; yet it absolutely secures the transmission of these blessings to some pfthe seed of the church, from generation to generation. LETTER XVIII. . 3^ ing it, instead of being treated as a matter of party" con- cern, can never be considered with too much seriousness and attention. Respecting this question, we know there are different opinions, even among pseclobaptists. But it is particu- lar}' to be observed, that the main subject in dispute, between us and you, does not depend upon this point. Those of mv brethren, who differ from me, with respect to the import of- the covenant, are nevertheless upori strong ground, for the support of the doctrine and prac- tice of Infant Baptism. For if God have been pleased to institute, as certainly he Has, that the token of the covenant should be applied to the infant seed ot the church ; then whether we rightly understand the purport of the institution or net, it is undoubtedly our duty, and our privilege, sacredlv to observe it. Is Infant Baptism, or the application of the token and seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church, of divine institution ? is one question : and \v'hat is the true im.port and "profit" of it ? is distinctly another. What- ever differences of opinion may obtain with respect to this latter question, thev do not essentially affect the former. And in our dispute with you, it isnotnecessarilvincum" bent on us to shew the import, either of the promise res- pecting children, or of the application to them of the seal ; but only to shew, as has been abundantly done, that such an application is of divine institution. These observations I have thought proper to premise j as you and your brethren have shewn a disposition to a* Vail vourselves of some differences of opinion among us, respecting the provisions of the covenant ; and even to hold a language, as if it were incumbent on us to shew what is the import of Infant Babtism, in order to prove its obligation. In replvingto your objections and remarks, with respect to my \aews of the provision of the covenant, my first duty is to correct a very material misstatement. In this part of your Strictures, you undertake to shew, that " the application of the promise to believers and un- believers^ or to believing parents and their unbelieving children, is unscriptural."* And after shewing at large, that "beli-jvers onh' are considered as partaking in the * Appendix, n. 263. Let. M 90 LETTER XVIII. blessings of the promise," you are pleased to say : "But the author of the Discourses has advocated a sentiment exceedingly different from this : it implies the following, ^ye^ parents one or both of }0U, he Christ's, then are ye, and ALL your chWdxtn^Abrahavi^s seed^ and heirs according to the promise '.'*'* Much to the same effect is to be found in different parts of your book ; and upon the assumption, that our views of the covenant make unbelievers,, as v/ell as believ- ers, cAy/^re-n o/'^^rc/jam and heirs of the promise^ the most of your objections and remarks proceed. Now, Sir, I must take leave to saj', that I can scarcely conceive of a more palpable misstatement of my senti- ments, than this which you have thought proper to ex- hibit. No where, in my Discourses, is any thing to be found like what you represent as being my " application of the covenant to believers and unbelievers.*^ No where, in my Discourses, can vou find the least intimation, that *' unbelieving children" are Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise. — Nor is this all. Not only is no such sentiment to be found in my book ; but the di» rectly opposite sentiment is most clearly and abundantly expressed. Page 280, you have this remarkable passage ; "In- deed it is believed, that Mr. Worcester himself has fully conceded this ver}' point, notAvithstanding all his labored arguments to prove, that the baptized children of gen- tile believers are Abraham's seed. His words are, " To become entitled; then, to the blessings of the covenant, Abraham must walk before God, and be perfect ; must have true faith,, and be sincerely ohedieJit. This was ne- cessary as it respected himself personally, and equally necessar)' as it respected his children." — This quotation you adduce as a concession ; and you evidently inteild, that your readers should understand, that my "labored arguments" had been employed to prove " a sentiment exceedingly different from -^his." I am constrained. Sir, to ask, Did you read my Dis- courses? Or did you only glance your eye over them, and happening to light on the passage here quoted, im- mediately conclude, that this was something "exceeding- ly different" from what I had attempted to prove ? This passage, Sir, which vou have chosen to quote, as a concession, is not a passage which inadvertantly escaped LETTER XVIII. 91 TOC. It Stands in connexion with a traia of reasoning and illustration, under my second general head, the whole of which is in perfect coincidence with it. And instead of adducing it as a concession^ you might with great propri- ety have adduced it, with its connexion entire, as proofs that I held no such sentiment, as you had attributed to me ; and that, in all which you had previously said, you had totally misrepresented my views. Yes, Sir, I certainly did say, as you have quoted, that, *'to become entitled to the blessings of the covenant Abraham must walk before God and be perfect ; must have truefaitk^andhe sincerely obedient'; and that "this was necessary as it respected himself personally, and equally necessary as it respected his children." And in perfect agreement with this is the whole, which I said, with leference to "the application of the covenant." Not only was the whole of my illustration of my second doctrinal head, perfectly coincident ; but in my improve- ment, I was, if possible, still more explicit. My second article of improvement was as follows . — *' From the view, which we have taken of the covenant made with Abraham, it appears, that this covenant is never established with any but true believers, or the sub- jects of true religion." This inference, it was an object with me to illustrate and enforce, in a manner so plain, that none should misunderstand me ; and I confidently appeal to every person, who has read it, whether it be capable of being understood. The closing sentence of the article is in these words : " And under the gospel, it is only true believers, such as are in Christ by faith, rvho are Abraham^s seed, and heirs according to the promise. But notwithstanding this explicitness, and perfect con- sistency throughout, you have thought proper to repre- sent, that I "applied the covenant to believers and wn- believers /^ and that I "advocated a sentiment, which implies, that If ye, parents, one or both of you, be Christ's^ then are ye, all your childre?i, Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise^ I can assure you. Sir, it is with extreme regret, that I find myself obliged to return to you, and to state before the public, so palpable and so injurious, a misrepresen- tation. But palpable and injurious as it is, you have thought proper to carry it through no less than about izoenty pages of your book. From the 263d page to the SJ LETTER XVIII. 283d, the principal part of what you have offered, pro- ceeds upon the assumption, that I had applied the cove- nant to believers and unbelievers /" — Your strictures, of course, are totally irrelevant. Something similar to what you have here done, I am sorry to say, Sir, is not uncommon. So far as I have been acquainted with antipaedobaptists, they seem dis- posed, generally, to give a similar representation of our views. Against this procedure, therefore, I here take leave to record my serious and solejyin protest. Let our sentiments be represented in their true light ; and if they v/ill not stand by the word of God, then let them fall. I ho!d. Indeed, that all true believers are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise ; that as God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed., so he promises to be a God to all true believers, and their seed. But as Abraham was required, as a condition of the promise, to walk before God and be perfect ; to give up his children according to the divine institution, and to command them after him to keep the ~x)ay of the Lord ; the same also is now required of all believers. And there- fore, though God, according to his promise, bestows his grace upon children, in covenant faithfulness to their parents ; vet the covenant is established only with believ- ers., and none are to be considered as children of Abra- ham, until they are made the subjects of renewing grace. These views of the covenant I believe to be correct and scriptural i and if they be, they are certainly of vast importance; and may serve strongly to enforce the duty ©f applying the seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church. But whether correct or not, let it again be particularly noted, the doctrine of Infant Baptism does oot depend for its support w^on this ground. For as God has been pleased to appoint, that the; token of the covenant should be applied to the infant seed of the church, this institution is to be sacredly obseived, whether we see the reason or profit of it correctly or not. ■"■ Your's, dear Sir, &c. Sid LETTER, XIX. HEV.i:; DEAR SIR, THOUGH by far the greater part of what you itij tended should bear upon my second doctrinal head, as it proceeded upon a wrong statement of my sentiments, is totally irrelevant ; yet there are some things interspersed in your book, which militate with what I really hold to be the provision of the covenant. These I shall now at* tempt to collect and answer. 1. " By the special appointment of God, Abraham," you say, was placed in a situation, different froni all other believers ; and in this peculiar situation, many thingis were promised to his seed, which are not promised to the seed of other believers." P. 269. This, Sir, in a limited sense, is true. Abraham un- doubtedly was, "by the special appointment of God," made the patriarch of the church, and the father of theni that believe ; and to him, in this high character, some promises were made, which are not, in the same sense, made to other believers. Biit it does not hence follow, that the promise; to be a God to thee., and to thy seed after thee., was in such a sense peculiar to Abraham as to have no application to others. On the contrary, from express declarations of scripture, too numerous to be cited, it is evident this great promise is 6f general application, I knciv Abraham., that he uill coyiUAJfii his children^ and his household after hi7n ; and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that xvhith he hath spoken of hi?n.* It will not, I trust, be deemed, that in this de- claration, the Lord had reference, directly, to the pro- mise made to Abraham, to be a God to him and to his seed after him. But in perfect coincidence with this is thei general direction and promise : Train itp a child in the rvay he shoidd go ; and xvhen he is old., he xvill not depart therefro7n.\ In perfect agreenicnt with this also, are the memorable words of the Psalmist .• He established a teS' thnony in facob., and appointed a law in Israel., ivhich he commanded our fathers that they shdidd make them known to their children ; that the generation to come might know them^ even the children that shuidd be born^ who * Gen. xviii. 19, t Prov. xxii. 6. 94 tETTBR XIX. should arise and declare them to thejr children t That THEY MIGHT SeT THEIR HOPE IN GoD, AND NOT FORGET THE WORKS or God, but keep his commandments.* In this passage, is it not clearly represented, that accor- ding to the covenant of God, piety was to be handed down from parents to children, by means of parental fidelity and care ? One principal purpose, for which John was sent, in the spirit and power of Elijah, was, to turn the heart of the father unto the children^ and the heart of the children to their fathers ; and in this way, according to the tenor ^f the everlasting covenant, to make ready a people pre' pared for the Lord; kst he should come, and stnite the earth with a curse.'f Please to observe, Sir ; so important was the covenant provision, with respect to children, that owing to a neg- lect and contempt of it, the earth was in danger of being smitten with a CURSE. As for me, this is my covenant roith them^ saith the Lord. (What covenant P Undoubtedly the covenant with Abraham and his seed.) My spirit ruhich is upon thee^ and my words rvhich I have put in thy mouthy shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy SEED, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord^ from henceforth and forever. And I wiill direct their work in truth; and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And tkeir seed shall be known among the Gentiles^ and their offspring among the people* All that see them shall acknoxvledge them^ that they are the seeq which the lord hath blessed. They shall not labor in vain^ nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord^ and their offspring with them. And they shall be my peopky and I will be their God. Arid I will give them one hearty and one way^ that they may fear me for ever^ for the good of them, '-and of their children after THEM. J Now, Sir, suffer me to. ask, are not children, in these covenant promises, connected with their parents ? Does not Jehovah, here, expressly engage to bestow spiritual, and saving blessings upon the offspring of the church, as he promised to be a God to Abraham's seed? And if so ; * Psalm Ixxviii 5—7 f Hopkins System, Vol. p. 259 % Mat. iv. 6. Luke i. 17. LETTER XIX. 9-5 of what avail to yonr point is 3'our distinction between the situation of Abraham and that of other believers ? Upon your antipaedobaptist principles, what can be the meaning of these, and numerous other similar promises, with which the Scriptures abound ? Why are children, in covenant promises made to the church, so constantly connected with their parents ? The question is worthy of your serious consideration ; and is entitled to a fair and satisfactory answer. 2. You make a distinction between " the natural de- scendants of Abraham and Gentile believers." After conceding " in a general xvay^^ as you seem to have been constrained to do, by an unpropitious quota- lion from the excellent Dr. Fuller, "that spiritual bless- mgs xvere promised^'* in the covenant, *' to the natural seed I of Abraham^'' you are pleased to observe : " All this may be readily admitted^ with respect to Abraham and his descendants ; but it does not prove, that the same things are engaged, or fulfilled, to gentile be- lievers !" P. 271. Really, Sir, this is ''^ admitting'' a great deal. We have always understood you to hold, that God's ancierit covenant with his church has been annulled ; but we had not, until now, understood, that you would so "readily admit" that oovenant to have contained greater and richer promises, than are made to the church, under the present dispensations ! According to your "admission," in his ancient cove- nant, God did engage, " in a general way", to believers, to be a God, not only to them, but also to their seed; not only to save them, but also to bestow " spiritual blessings" upon their ofispring. But " to Gentile be- lievers the same things are neither engaged^ nor fulfill- ed !" — After this, Sii-, you will no more, I hope, think it strange, that we, of the psedobaptist faith, are zealous in our adherence to God's gracious covenant with Abra- ham and his seed ! However, I trust I have not failed to make it appear, that the same everlasting covenant, which v/as to abide, though the mountains depart^ and the hills be removed^ is still God's covenant with his church j and therefore, that " the same things," for substance, are now " engaged, and fulfilled, to Gentile believers," which anciently were fo the patriarch, and his descendants." All who are 96 LETTER XIX. Christ'' 3 are Abraham'' s seed, and heirs according to tfie promise. And therefore, the blessing of Abraham^ not merely " external church privileges, such as the bap- tizing and constituting children church members," as, when it suits your purpose, you would have it thought that we hold, but every blessing of the covenant, has come upon the Gentiles. 3. A great proportion of believers, " you say," are single persons, who have neither companions nor chil- dren ; and many who live and die childless." P. 266. This you have repeatedly alledged, with an air of great assurance, as if it were a conclusive proof, that God's covenant with the church can have no respect to children. " We ha\*e already seen," you are pleased to assure us, " that a large proportion of believers die without issue. If this promise, "in its full force," you add, "has been transmitted to them, it required, besides, their faith and fidelity, pother condition, which the author of the Dis- courses has overlooked. It must run to them and to their seed, provided they have any.^' Really, Sir, there is a very great infelicity, attending* your objections and arguments. The righteous is ever merciful and lendeth; his seed (" provided he have any," according to you it should have been !) is blessed. The just man walketh in his integrity ; his children (" provided he have any !") are blessed after him. The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the -wife, and the un- believing -w'lfe is sanctified by the husband; else -were your children (" provided }^hich infinite wis- dom had before appointed ; and that in rio single instance will the purpose ofGcd^ according to election, standi with- out the means which, in that purpose, were made ne- <:esEa5;;y to the end. On this principle, there is evident propriety in preach- ing the gospel, and beseeching men to become reconciled to God j and v/e have every inducement to diligence, and fidelity, in the great and interesting work. And on this same principle, the faith and fidelity of parents in cove- nant, with respect to their children, instead of being re- proached and treatejl Ayith lightness, ought ever to be considered, and inculcated, as of infinite importance* This Letter is already drawn out to a greater length than I intended j but before I close it, a moment's attenr lion must be given to a series of " questions," and " con- sequences," in the second Section of your Appendix; with which, it is, manifest you were very much con- fused yourself, and seem to imagine that your opponents must be no less confounded. " 1. Did this promise to be a God to Abraham's seed respect his natural or spiritual seed V Answer. It respected all, who are heirs according to the promise ; primarily "those of his own posterit\% ^nd secondarily those of ether nations. T/ze children ^ the PROMISE are counted for the seed. "• 2. Was, this promise absolute^ or was it conditionfiPy Anstver. As already explained, it was in one sense conditional, and in another sense absolute. " 5. What were the conditions, on vvhich its blessing? were suspended ?" Ans. Faith and obedience, or fidelity. These concise and simple answers are sufficient, I trust, to shew, that your questions are net to Ui' so cor;- LETTER XIX. lOi founding, as you seem to imagine they must be ; and that all, which, in connexion with them, you have thought proper tq say, about " absoUite promises," about " uni- versalists" and "madness," about " Esau, Achan, Ko- rah, Dathan, and Abiram," about "■ Gentile unbeliev- ers," and about " tradition," only serves, to furnish additional proof, how liable men are to darken coun- sel by words without knowledge, and to utter themselves at random, when they iiave nothing to the purpose to offer. With respect tQ the subject of '^southern planters and their slaves," on which you, and your brother Merrill ap- pear to dwell with uncommon satisfaction, I have only to repeat, that although, under the present dispensation, there is neither- male nor fenmle^ neither bond nor free ; yet there arc parents and children."^ As Vv'c are not, in order to be consistent, obliged to adr mit servants upon the same footing with children; so neither are we obliged to admit baptized children to all the privileges of the gospel church. None are entitled to all the privileges of the church, but complete mem- bers ; but as I have already shewn, and even as your own practice purports, something more than mere baptism is necessary to complete membership. But "■ the law of the passover," you say, " makes no distinction between infants and adults." From this. Sir, I must certainly take leave to dissent. It does not ap- pear, that infants were required to eat the passover ; anc}, from the very nature of the -case, it is evident they were not. After careful attention to the subject, I am clearly of the opinion, that circumcised chiidren'were not required to eat the passover, until they had attained to years of •cmderstanding, and personally consented to the covenant. And in this opinion, I am supported by eminevit divines, among whom are Witsius, Doddridge, and Stackhouse. Infants may be the subjects of the renewing of the Ho- li4 Ghost ^ and sprinkling of the blsod of Christy signified by baptism ; but they cannot discern the Lord\s body, and commemorate his deaths in the holy supper. This single obvious remark I deerri a sufficient answer to all which you have said, and to all which " the Rev. James Pierce * See Letter, XV. 402 LETTER. XX. of Exoiis" has said, oij the subject of infant communion, at the Lord's table. Yours, dear Sir, Stc LETTER XX. liEF.isr' DEAR Sm, IN my Two Discourses, after a general survev'cf the covenant, its perpetuity and provision, its privileges and duties, I had occasion to present the tollowingstatsment ; ** As we have sufficient evidence, that it was the prac- tice of the apostles, pursuant to the tenor of God's gra- cious covenant with Abraham and his seed, to baptize the households of believing parents ; so we have the tes- timony of the earliest of the Christian fathers, that this was the universal practice of the church, in the ages im- mediately succeeding the apostles. — For more than three thousand years, the seal of the covenant was universally applied to the children of the church, no one forbid* ding it." In support of this statement, I subjoined a note, pre- senting a summary view of the testimony of the primi- tive fathers, in which it was cleai'lv shewn, that during the first century, and several succeding ages, Infant Baptism v/as practised in the church, universally, and withoiit contradiction, or question, as to its being pf divine in- stitution. This point is so clear, and so amply supported, that you have neither ventui'ed to denv, nor attempted to dis- prove it ; but I am sorry to have occasion to say, that, imitating too closely a common practice with those, Avho have a bad cause to support, what you perceived you could not answer, you have atteinpted to ridicule. You would have it, indeed, that '■'there is an ingenious obscurity in my manner of quoting the ancient fathers,''' and that ''an incautious reader might suppose, tiiat they all lived in, or near, the first centui'v, whereas the fact is they extended through four cr five." — Tertullian, as I stated, was about eleven years old when Polycarv died. "Put how are we ^o know^" you shrewdly ask^ LETTER XX. 103 "when Polycarp died?" — I had just before informed you, Sir, that Polycarp was the bishop, or anf>el, of the church of Smyrna, to whom St. John, in the Revelation^ acklrtssed his epistle. From this I supposed it notvery difficult to conclude, that his death could not have been a great many years after the death of that apostle; and, therefore, that Tertullian must have been sufficiently near to the apostolic age, to be a competent witness to what was the practice of the primitive church. Again, Cyprian, I observed, suffered martyrdom for the christian faith, only about five vears after the death of Origen. '' Ah, indeed," you exclaim, " it is presumed that every body knowswhen Origen died!" — I had irr- formed you. Sir, that Origen was contemporary with Tertullian ; that Tertullian was only eleven years old when Polycarp died, and was many years contemporary with Irenceus, a disciple of Polycarp ; and that Polycarp was the angel of the church of Smyrna, to whom John the Revelator addressed his epistle. Is there any '' ob- scurity," Sir, in all this ? Is it not perfectly clear ? Is it not plain to the 'owest capacity, that there is a connected chain of testiix.ony, from the da\'s of the apostles to the latest of the fathers whom I quoted ? Bid you not. Sir, see it to be too plain to be fairly withstood, and, there- fore, choose your measures accordingly? No, Sir J it is not " absolutely incredible," it is not fven very wonderful, that "a country bishop by the name of Fidus" should have a question, whether it wer^ not most proper '* to defer the baptism of infants until the eighth day." But ^Mf it had" not "been the constant practice of the christiaa church, from the first institution of baptism, to baptize infants ;" woi.ild it not have been wonderful indeed, would it not have been " absolutely incredible," that in a council consisting of sixty six bish- ops, only about 150 years after the apostles, such a ques- tion as Fidus proposed should have been unanimously answered, without the least question, or doubt, whether Infant Baptism were of divine institution ? Whatever might have been the peculiar sentiments of Origen, or of Gregory, they were unquestionablv compe- tent witnesses to a well known matter of fact j and their testimony is not to be set aside by any such suggestion^ as you are pleased to throw out. On the whole, Sir, had you passed overmy note, cr. i(j4> iETTER XX. {he testimony of the primitive fathers, in total silence, it ivould not have been so manifest, as it now is, that you felt its force, and perceived that it could not be invali= dated; But though yoi: have not ventured to deny, or attempt =• ed to disprove, what I stated on the subject of primitive practice j your friend and brother, ]\Ir. Merrill, who is So very unhappy as not to didtinguish between argument and assertion, between fact and mere figment, nor be-- tween truth and falsehood, has been more adventurous. In his own manner, he has undertaken tO assert, that, in niy staternent, '^' there is not so much as a shadow of truth !" that in my note, *' the spirit of Antichrist appears to have done its utmost in spreading, perhaps, the last blind over the minds of God's people !" and that "a great- er stretch of misrepresentation and groundless assertion perhaps never escaped the pen of man!"* — ^Now all this'; Sir, no doubt, was ifttended to be very terrible ; but for some reason or other, it does not disturb me at all. I pity the man, who can write at this rate. " A Volume of testimonies," Mr. M. afHrms, "indi- rect c;ontradiction to what he, (Mr* Worcester) asserts, might be easily produced." — But what are the testimo- nies, which he thinks proper to select ? The first thing, which he adduces, is to this effect ; that " St. or rather Sinful Austin," (it is his own phrase) *'inthe year 595 came into England, with about fort}- of his papistical associates," (this, again, is his own phrase) and required, that the British christians should embrace the ceremonies of the church of Rome, pai'ticularly in the time of keeping Easter, and in baptizing their children." From this Mr. Merrill concludes, that, before that time^ Infant Baptism had not been practised in the "British church."! More than a hun.dred years iigo, this same thing wa^ alledged by an English antipedobaptist by the name of Danvers, and it was afterwards conclusively answered by Dr. Wall. The simple truth appears to be this ; Bede, who, in the year T'Sl, wrote the church history of the British nation, related, that when Austin came into England, finding that the Britons held to some rites and traditions, peculiar to themselves, made a proposal to * Letters occasioned 8;c. p, 56. t i^^id. p. p. 51. 52. LETTER XX. IQS them, in which, among other things, he required, that they should "keep Easter at the right time, and perform the office of baptizing, according to the cmtom of the Ro- wan and apostolic church.''^* In one edition of Fabian's Chronicle, written about the year 1500, the account of this matter, taken from Bede, agrees with the account which Bede himself had given. "Then he (Austin) sayed to them," says Fabian, "Assent ye to me especial- ly in thre thyngs. The first is, that ye kepe Esterdav in. due fourme and tyme, as it is ordeyned. The second, that ye give Christendom to the children in the jnanner that is used 271 the chyrche of Roh-'f. And the thyrd, that ye preche unto the Anglis the word of God." But in another edition of this same Chronicle, the words — *'f;2 the manner that is used in the chyrche of Rome''''— -?ixe. omitted ; and the proposal Stands thus, That ye give Christendom to the children.^ This incorrect statement, in the last miefitioned edition of Fabian's Chronicle, has been eagerly seized by the Ahtipedopaptists as a proof, that Infant Baptism was not practised in the primitive British church ; and is now brought forward anew, by Mr. Mcr\;ill, as a conspicuous part pf his " volume of testimonies, in direct contradic- tion" to mv statements. But the account, as originally given by Bede, and as given in the more correct edition of Fabian, affords no- thing in vour fa:-'vOur. It waT not that the Britons should baptize their children, (for this they had been in the prac- tice of doing before,) but that they should baptize them ^^according to the custom of the apostolic church ^''^ \\vkt Austin proposed. And it is particularly to be remem- bered, that this same Austin, as well as Pelagius, who was born in Britain, expressly testifies, that he "never read or heard of any Christian, either catholic or secta:- ry, who denied Infant Baptism." So clear it is, that the primitive British church, as well as all other churches in tTie primitive ages, uniformly practised the baptism of their children. Mr. Merrill next brings forward Salmasius and Sui- cerus, as saying, that "in the two first centuries, no one * Bedofc Ecci. Hist. L. 2. c. 2. — This was before the church cf Rome became papistical. t Wall's Hist. In. Bap. B. II. Chap. 4. Let O. 106 LXTTER XX.- was baptized, except being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer." And "Johannes Bohemi- us," he observes, "as quoted by Mr. Andrews, says, *It was in time past the custom, to administer baptism to them that were instructed in the faith,' &c. These testimonies, again, are noticed, and answered by Dr% Wall.^ Suicerus, it appears, quoted' from Sal- masius ; and as for Bohemius, he was one of those "au- thors who o»ly serve," says the Dr. "to fill up a crowd of names, and to put an abuse upon a pliain honest reader 1" Have we any such, Sir, at the present day ? At most, these ai*e only the assertions of modern wri- ters, are entirely unsupported by any proofs frorn^ anti- quity, and are directly contradictory to the full and explicit testimony of the primitive fathers of the church. Mr. Merrill, indeed, himself undertakes to assert, that Infant Baptism was not practised in the primitive church. But of what avail is his assertion, unless supportecjl by substantial proof? when Austin and PeLigius, who flourished only about three hundred year-s after the apostles, and who were men of great reading and ex- tensive travel, both aver, that they "never read or heard of any who denied Infant Baptism ;" and their testi- mony is confirmed by a cloud of witnesses of the pri- mitive ages. Of as little avail is- the unsupported as- sertion of Salmasius, and Bohemius, and a hundred mo- dern writers. It is important, Sir, to be well consfdered, that, for facts of ancient date, we are not to rely on the unsup- ported authority of modern names. Let Mr. Merrill, let any other person, adduce the testimony of any of the primitive fathers, that Infant Baptism was not in use in the primitive church, and I pledge myself to give it the most serious and candid attention. But such testimony,. Sir, has never been adduced, and, I am confident, never can be. Mr. M. after many other antipedopaptist writers, has thought proper to bring forward Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Austin, as instan- ces of persons born of Christian parents, yet not baptized in infancy ; and thence, concludes that their parents were * Wall's Hist. In. Bap. B. II. Chap., 2. tETTER XX. iof antipedobaptists. Alas ! to what mere shadows will a man not resort, when he has no solid arguments of which tq avail himself. Of Gregory, it is not certain whether his father were a heathen, at the time he was born, or not ; or what was the reason why he was not baptized. With respect to Jerome, there is no evidence, that he was hot baptized in his infancy. But as to Ambrose, Chry- sostom, and Austin, their parents, so far as appears, were heathen, at the time they were born, and for many years afterwards.*" A sufficient reason this, why they were not baptized in infancy, but no proof that their pa- rents were antipedobaptists. Is it not, Sir, a little re- markable, that Mr. M. should attempt to make his rea- ders believe that Austin's father was an antipedobaptist ? when Austin himself declares, that he never heard of any christian who denied, " that infants were to be bap- tized for the remission of sins." When I published my Two Discourses, I thought it very doubtful, whether even the Petrobrusians denied Infant Baptism. Dr. Wall, I know, supposed it proba- ble that they did ; but Perin, the historian of the Wal- denses, believed that they did not. I, therefore, thought myself warranted to state, that it was not until txvehe or fifteen hundred years after Christ, that any forbade the seal of the covenant to the infant seed of the church. And whether the Petrobrusians, who did not flourish un- til about the middle of the twelfth century, denied In- fant Baptism, or not, Mr. M, ci^tes them in vain, to dis- prove my general statement. But " if no one forbade the baptism of new born in- fants, how came it to pass," says Mr, Merrill, " that Au- gustine, in the fourth century, warned his readers and ;hearers to beware of the baptists and the antipedobaptists of his day." Let Mr. M. Sir, shew that such was the fact, and I will answer his question as well a,s I can ; but this he cannot shew. Strabo did not "fordid" Infant Baptism, nor produce any proof, that it had ever been y forbidden," neither did the council of Carthage. Thus, Sir, I have considered Mr. Merrill's " volume of testimonies," and feel no reluctance to submit the whole to the judgment of a discerni i-or r-biic. Not con- tent, however, with nierely exhibiting his own testimo- f WaU's Hist. In. Bap. P. II. C. iii. 10^ t«:TTER XX. nies, Mr. M. undertJtkes to invalidate the testimonies of the primitive fathers, by which my positions were supr ported ; and it is not a little amusing to observe with what dexterity he proceeds in his purpose. "In the writings of the first century, we haye the best evr idence," he says, " which the cirsumstances of the case admit, that Infant Baptism was then unknown."— What is this evidence ? Merely to this effect, that of adults^ previous to their being baptized, a profession was requir- ed of repentance and faith I — -This, Sir, no one disputes ; but what is this to the point? Do not we, of the pcdo- baptist faith, still continue in the apostolic practise. Do not we require of unbaptizeda^/i^/^^, previous to their be- ing baptized, a profession of repentence and faith? But does this prove, that we do not, according to the divine institution, also practise Infant Baptism ? How long. Sir, shall we be obliged to answer, over and over again, this impertinent argument?^ " This council," says Mr. Merrill, " composed of Af- rican bishops" (sixty six, with the Martyr Cyprian for their president,) "is the first we read of, which expli- citlv admitted the superstitious Sind a^itichristiati practice of infant Baptism !"— Let Mr. M. Sir, produce a coun- cil, composed either of "^y?-fcan," or European, or Asi- atic, bishops, of the primitive times, in which Infant IBaptism was either "explicitly," or in;plicitly, denied^ or Stigmatized, as a '■^ superstitious , and antichristian prac- tice^'' and we will confess, that he has done something. But the curiosity is, that Mr. Merrill should object to the testimony of the council of Carthage, because it was " composed oi African bishops." Perhaps he supposed, ♦ Imfiertincnt arg.umerj. If there be an apparent harshness in this expression, it will find, I.trust, an apology in the sub- ject, to which it applies. The argument, herein question, is the Verv same with that, which is pretendedly brought frond the sacred history. In its simple form, it is no more, nor less, than this : ' It was required of adults, who had never received bap- tism, that they should rejisnt^ or believe, and be baptized ; there- fore^ mfants -were not to be baptized 1' Now, I ask candidly, ■whether a weaker, more illogical, or more impertinent, argu- jntnt, was ever employed for the support of any serious cau^e ? Yet this is the argument, on which antipedobap'tism depends for its principal support ; and though it has been a thousand times exploded, it is still urged, with as much assurance as if it had the greatest solidity, LETTER XX. i09 that, because they lived in Africa, they must certainly have beeu black ; and, therefore, could have no know- ledge of divine institutions, or of the practice of the christian church. At any rate, I can see no other, or better, reason tor his objecting to their testiniony.-— Throughout his book, however, Mr, Merrill represents Infant Baptism, as a doctrine of the church of Rome.— Does he suppose, that Rome was in Africa? In replv to the direct testimony of Austin and Pelar gius, that Infant Baptism was in their day, and had been from the days of the apostles, the universal practice of the christian church, Mr. Merrill appears to have put forth his whole strength. With respect to Pelagius he says : " 1. The whole of this, so far as it has any formidablcr ^ess, may be a forgery /" — So then, it is only for Mr* Merrill to sav of a piece of ancient writing, " It viaij be a forgery r and we must all consider it " a forgery," and set it down for nought ! ^ " 2. It is but the assertion of one man /'WWe never supposed, Sir, that Pelagius was more than one man. But unfortunately for Mr. M. and for the antipedobap- tist cause, the testimony of this one man is amply sup- ported by the concurrent testimony of many others. " 3. This one man does not assert, that there is none who denies Infant Baptism ; but that he has heard of none !"•— We must conclude, then, that Pelagius was aa honest and prudent man ; so far, at least, as not to assert further than he knew, or could prove. But this, it ap- pears, Mr. Merrill considers a great disparagement of ^is testimony * " 4. Tlje visible church of Christ was, at this tijne, hidden in the place, which God had prepared for her ; and little or nothing was now seen, or heard, of the true gospel church, in svhat was called the Christian world ; but the church of Antichrist*^ (that is the church which held to Infant Baptism) ''was in high repute i" — So then, in about three hundred years after the apostles, the true church of God v/as so far lost, or hidden, from the world, that neither the learned Pelagius, nor Austin, ever knew, or heard any thing about it ! — But about this same church and its primitive state and practice, Mr. Merrill, who Nourishes fourteen hundred years after them, is perfectly- well informed ! lllS XIITTER XX. *'As it what Austin saj's," continues Mr. M. *^ Infant Saptisvi the -whole church practises ; it xvas not instituted by councils^ but was ever in use, we answer — "1. That he had respect to the church o^ Antichrist^ which alone was in reputation in his day." — The church of Antichrist, to be sure, because it held to Infant Bap- tism. But that no. other church "was in reputation" in the primitive times, but that which held to Infant Bap* tism, we readily admit. *' 2. As to Austin's saying, *Infant Baptism was ever «rt ws-e,' we NEED only observe, if Austin thus said, he made a large mistake ! !" — Yes, Sir, we must, doubtless, admit, that Austin, who lived within three hundred years of the apostles, " made a large mistake," about the pri- mitive practice of the church ; for Mr. Merrill, who lives only about fourteen hundred years later, says, thathe did ; and this is all which ^'- needed'^ to be done, in order to put the matter beyond all question ! Svich, Sir, is the manner in which Mr. Merrill can dispose of the most positive, and well authenticated, tes- timony of the primitive fathers. As we must, in charity, consider him an honest, and well meaning man, who would not, for the world, designedly impose upon the public ; we must certainly conclude, that he really sup- posed his remarks to be neither false, nor ignorant, nor impertinent, nor vam, nor puerile ; but such as ought without fail, to convince, and edify, every reasonable be- ing. Such, also, they are doubtless supposed to be, by his antipedobaptist admirers; among whon», as you have Ijiven us to understand, you are not unwilling yourself to be numbered. And for myself, Sir, I should deem it a Taost ungenerous aud felonious thing indeed, for any one to attempt to detract from any of Mr. Merrill's writings , the smallest particle of real merit. It is however, no small satisfaction to me, that my ■statements, with respect to the primitive practice of the church, not only have not, either by yourself, or Mr. Merrill, baen shewn to be, in the least point, incor- rect ; but by Dr. Reed, in his late excellent work, and hv others, have been abundantly supported and confirm- ed. My statements, most certainly, were not made at random, but were the result of deliberate and diligent research ; and on a deliberate and diligent review of the tETTER XXr. Slf subject, I am more and more settled in the persuasion aC their substantial correctness. With due respect, I am, 8cc, LETTER XXr. MEKkP" DEAR SIR, AS it was not the design of my Two Discourses-, so neither does it fall within the plan of these Letters, to exhibit, at large, the evidences of Infant Baptism. God^?. everlasting covenant with his church is my subject; and jiipon this subject I have prescribed to myself principally to dwell. But as Infant Baptism is intimately connected with the covenant, I have been unavoidably led to givf^ it some attention ; and shall, in this Letter, take leave to present,, in one connected, but very compendious, view, the grounds on which it rests. I. In God's covenant with his church, children are cxpressly connected with their parents ; and on the ground of this connexion, it has been divinely instituted^ that parents should have the initiating seal administered to their infant seed. Hence, as God's everlasting covenant is still in force, and as his special institution, respecting the infant seed of the church, has never been annulled ; it is clearly a duty, as solemnly binding on parents now, as anciently it was, believingly to devote their offspring to God, and bbedientlv to have his appointed seal put upon them.— This argument, or rather this great and practical truth» which I have had occasion to illustrate more at large in my Two Discouises, and some preceding Letters,* is certainly, in my view, too plain and too important, to be treated with lightness.. II. Not only is there no intimation, in the scriptures- that the covenant connexion between parents and chil- dren, has been dissolved ; but we are very clearly taught • See, particularly. Letter XYII. 11» LETTER XJfr. that this Important connexion was to continue, under the present dispensation. In a memorable prophecy of Gospel days, Jehovah was graciously pleased to say, respecting his covenant people, Their children also shall be as aforetime, ayid their congregatio?i shall be established before me.''^ Afore- time^ undeniably, the children of God's people were con- ' nected in his covenant with their parents ; and were dis- tinguished by the sacred token and seal, which he v»^as graciously pleased to appoint for the purpose. But here we are expressly assured, that under the Gospel dispen- sation, THEIR CHILDREN SHALL BE AS AFORETIME i. Now, Sir, give me leave to ask, do not your antipaedo- baptist principles and practice, which utterly exclude children from all relation to the covenant, and its sacred seal, go directly in the face of this gracious and explicit declaration of God ? sAs the children of God's people are to be now as cc- Jonelime; so it is particularly to be observed, that in this~ way, their congregation^ or church,f is to be establishfd. Accordingly It is further said, Thet) shall nat labour in vain^ nor bring forth for trouble ; for theij are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offsprijig -with them. Jbid I -will give thein one heart and one xvaij, that they may fear ?ne forever, for the good of them, and OF THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM. J These again are, unquestionably, prophecies and promises, respect- ing Gospel days ; and the obvious import of them is, that the covenant connexion of children with thcirparents was to remain as aforetime ; and that, in the way of this connexion, the church was to be continued, and^'^stablish- edj to the latest generations. Agreeably to this, John, the harbinger of the Messiah, was especially commissioned to turn the heart of the fa- thers to the childreu, and the heart of the children, to their JatherSy as the grand and appointed way to make ready a people prepared for the Lord^ under his new dispensation, then to be introduced. § * Jer.ixx. 20. t The Hebrew word, in the Old Testament, rendered conqre- ^ation^ is of the same signification with the Greek word, in the New Testament, which is rendered church. \ Isa. Ixv. 23. Jcr. xxxii. 39, § Mai. iii. 6. Luke i. 17. LETTER XXI. Il3 When the Messiah was come, and was engaged in his public ministry, that he might conjirm the projjiises before given, respecting children, and repel every suggestion, that they were no longer to be considered as having any sacred relation to his covenant and church ; on a memo- rable occasion, he solemnly rebuked his disciples, and said. Suffer little children^ and Jo r hid them not to come nnto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.* We do not suppose, that the little children were brought to Christ for baptism ; for Christian baptism, as a seal of the covenant in the place of circumcision, had not then been instituted, nor was it, until after Christ's resurrec- tion. But we say, that Christ explicitly recognized the relation of the little children of his people to the kingdom of heaven, or to the church under the gospel dispensation. And I ask you, Sir, if the infant seed of believers, under the present dispensation, have no connexion with the church ; what did the Saviour mean, when he so expli- citly declared, of such is the kingdom of heaven f\ This relation of children, thus recognized by Christ, was solemnly adverted to, and insisted on, by the apostle Peter, on the illustrious day of Pe^jtecost. For^ says he, the promise is to y 021^ and Ta your children, and < to all that are afar off, eve?i as many as the Lord our God shall call.X Upon this same relation, the apostle Paul, also, re- peatedly insists. If the first fruity says he, be holy^ the lump is also holy; arid if the root be holy-, so are the branches.^ In this he has primary reference to Abraham and his natural descendants ; but he applies the princi- ple to gospel days. And in perfect coincidence with this, he further says, The unbelieving husband is sancti- fied by the wife^ and the unbelieving xuife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, EUT NOW ARE THEY HOLY.J! We kflow that by holiness here cannot be intended real, positive, internal holiness ; for Abraham did not communicate this, either to his natural descendants, or to his spiritual children ; nor can any parent, to whatever degree his faith is increased, communicate grace to his children. But by virtue of * Mat. xix, 14. Mark x. 14. Luke xviii. 16. t Those, of whom he thus spoke, were certainly infants in a^f. i Acts ii, 39. § Rom. xi. 16. 1! 1 Co;-, vii. 14, Let. P, 114. LETTER XXf. their relation to Abraham, his descendants were con-' sidered as being, in a federal, or covenant, sense, holy, and were entitled to the sacred sign of relationship tb God and his church. And by virtue of a similar rela- tion to their parents, the children of God's people, under the present dispensation, are to be considered as holy^ in the same federal, or covenant, sense, and as having the same right to the sacred sign and seal. Less than this the Apostle cannot mean, when he speaks of branches being hely^ be<:ause of their connexion with a holy root ; oi children being holy^ because of their relation to sancti- Jied parents.'^ This covenant connexion of children with their pa- rents', in the church of God. is also clearlv implied by the Apostle, when he assures us. that the believing Gentiles are ingrafted into the sa?ne olive tree, from which the un- believing Jews were broken off"; and are made fclloxv- heirs^ and of the same body, and partakers of his pro- mise i?i Christ by the gospel. For if believing Gentiles are ingrafted into the sa77ie stocky and made felloxv-heirs^ and of the same body, wiih God's ancient people ; then their children, it is clear, must be as aforetime^ having the same relation to the church, and entitled to equal privileges. Indeed, throughout the New Testament, as well as the old, the holy relation of children to the church, and con- sequently their right to the sacred sign and seal, arc clearly recognized, and holden in view, as the ground of correspondent duty and hope. III. As we are clearly informed, that the relation of children to the church was to continue under the present dispensation, so we have evidence sufficiently clear, that, by the apostles, children were baptized. Christ's commission to his apostles was. Go., and teach, or disciple, all natio7is^ baptizing thefit in the na7ne of the Father^ afid of the Son, a7id of the Holy Ghost; teaching * To pretend, that the terms, unclean, and hohjy in the pas- sage here referred to, mean illegitimate and legitimate, is but a poor evasion. " The terms ( akatbartos ) unclean, and (hagios} holy occur almost numberless times in the Seve7iii/, and in the Kew Testament ; but I do not find, that they are ever once used to signify illtgiti/iiate and legitiinate, which is the sense that some would hei*e put upon them." Guise on the place. • LETTER XXI. 115 them ts observe all thivgs^ zvhatsoever I have commanded yoii. With evident reference to baptism, as a sacred rite, .significant of the sanctifying influences of the Spirit, and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ ; it was prophetical- ly said of the Messiah, *S'(9 shall he sprinkle many nations. Accordingly, in his commission to his apostles, his di- rection was, that all nations should be baptized. Al- ready have both the prophecy, and the commission, been in part fulfilled. Already have some o( 7na?2T/, perhaps of a//, nations^ infants as v/eU as adults, been sprinkled^ or baptized. And the glorious day is at hand, when not onlv to a part, but even to the whole, of all nations^ the sacred seal will be applied, and they will all be holiness to the Lord. But as children constitute a part of every nation, when all nations shall be sprinkled, or baptized, and the Lord shall give them one hearty and one xvaij^ to fear him forever^ for the good of them^ and of their chil" dren after them^ children, we may be sure, will all be bap- tized. From this part of their commission, then, it is plain> that the apostles were authorized, and enjoined, to bap- tize children. Under the ancient dispensation, not only were the Jewish children circumcised ; but when proselytes from other nations were admitted to the church, the children, as well as their parerits, were always baptized. From this, again, it is plain, that when the apostles received their commission to baptize all nations, they must have understood it as extending to children. Moreover, Christ had before expressly declared to the apostles, that little children were to be considered as having still a sacred relation to the church ; that of such, is the kingdom ^f heaven; and, therefore, had solemnly commanded them, to suffer little children lo coine^ or to be brought,* xinto him. This, therefore, they were to teach all nations to observe; for thev were to teach them, to observe all things^ zvhatsoever their divide Master had co?!i7nanded them. Accordingly we are expressly informed, that, in ful- filnient of their commission, the apostles actually bap- tized, not only believing parents, who had never before * The little children zvcre brought tc him. 116 LETTER XXI. Ijeen baptized, but Jilso their households. When Lydia feelieved, she was baptized, and her household ; when the jailor believed, he was baptized, and all hh straightxvay; and the household of Stephanus^ as well as himself, were also baptized. IV. As Infant Baptism was practised by the apostles, in pursuance of their commission; so it appears, from the most authentic testimony, that it was practised in the church, universallv, for many ages after them. My limits avIU not allow me, neither is it neces3ar}%to give a fall recital of the testimony of the fathers. But after a careful attention to the subject, I feel myself safe, in stating the following positions as correct, and capable of substantia' proof. 1. In the first ages after Christ, baptism 2aid regenera- tion were considered as the same thing. * This is a position, to which Dr. Wall has brought the inost ample proof ; and which none, I believe, who are conversant with the primitive writings, will undertake to deny. It is not to be understood, that the primitive fathers held to no other regeneration^ than that by xoater. They, as well as the orthodox moderns, believed in both an in- ternal, and external, washing, or cleansing; an internal cleansing by the influence of the Holv Spirit ^ and an ex- ternal cleansing by the application of water j and the lat- ter they held to be symbolical of the former. ' But the external cleansing, as well as the internal, they called re- generation ; and hence customarily spoke of persons, ivhen baptized with water, as being regenerated.* To this manner of speaking, they appear to have been led, by the memorable words of the Saviour to Nicodemus, JExcept a man be born of xoater^ and of the Spirit ; he can- not enter into the kingdom of God; words, on which they insisted much, and of which they made abundant use. By being born ofxvafer, they understood being bapt^izcd Tvithxvater ; 3.S hy he'ix)^ born of the Spirit, they under- stood being baptizedxvith the Spirit: and, therefore, they applied the terms regeneration, regenerated, and being born again, as well to the external cleansing by the wash_ * This primitive mode of speaking the Church of England stijl retains. LETTER XXI. iir ing of water, as to the internal cleansing by the influences of the Holy Spirit. '"' "" • ' ' - ' Quotations from the fathers, to this pv;rpose, might b^ adduced without number; but a single passage of the apostolical Justin Martyr, taken from his first Apology to the emperor A-ntotiinus Vms, may suflSce. Speaking oT such as wfre baptized into the Christian faith, he savs, " They' ^te regenef (if e J, by the saipe way, by which vrd were reg-eneratcd; for thev p.re rvasked 7vith Tvater^mtht^ name of Ijo'd; the Father and Lord of all things, and of pUr Saviour Je^^us Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. FoiJ Christ says, Unless ye he regenerated, rjoii cannGt eriter ikfo the, kingdom cf lieo^eTi'^* But as the prirnitive fathers understood, that non^ could belong to the kingdom of heaven, unless baptized, or regenerated, with water, as S'i'^ell as bv the Spirit ; and as they also understood Christ to have given assurance^ lho.t littleju-fii/dren (in huk^, ta irephe, infants J might belong to the klhprdom of heaven ; it is unavoidable to (Conclude, that they must have held to Infant Baptism. For if none can belong to the kingdom of heaven, but such as are baptized, and yet infants may belong to the kingdom of heaven ; then infants certainlv may be hap-j tiztd, or, as expressed by. the fathers, regenerated, \ ■ Accordingly Ireneus, of the age immediately succeed- ing the apost;es, speaking of Christ says ; " ^Je came to save all persons by himself ; all, I mean, who are by him regenerated (or baptized J unto God ; Infants^ and little OJies, and children, and vouths, and elder persons. There- fore he went through the several ages ; for infants, being made an infant, that he might sanctify infants ; to little ones, he was made a little one. Sec."*" And in perfect consent with this is-the language of the primitive fathers generally* - . 2. The primitive church held baptism to have come in theY>lace of circumcision. — This again is a point too clear to be contested. In his Dialogue with Tryphon, Justin MartjT says, "We also, who by him have had access to God, have not received this carnal Circumcision^ but the spiritual circj/.mci 91071; and v,'e have received it hy baptism,, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners : It is allowed ' • Ireueus against Heresies, B. U. Chap. 39. 118 LETTER XXI. to all persons to receive it by the same way," "A Jew," says Basil," " doep not delay circumcision, because of the threatening, that every soul that is not circumcised .the eighth day shjill be cut off from his people ; and dost thou put off the circumcision made without ha7icls^ in the putting off the flesh, wAz'cA is performed in baptism^ when, thou hearest our Lord himself say, Verihj^ verily^ -^-^^f/ unto y'ou, except one he born of -water ^ and of the Spirit^ he cannot enter i?ito the, kingdom of Gq4''''* — " Our cir- i^umcisiony I mean the grace of baptismy"^ says Chyysos- tom, " gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thou- sand benefits. And it has no determinate time, as that (the ancient circumcision) had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision^ mode nvithout hands^'^ From these testimonies, (and with these the fathers all concur), it is decisively clear, that they held baptisin. to have come in the place of circumcision ; and that they understood this to be taught by the apostle, in Col. ii. Jl. a passage, which, ia my sixteenth Letter, I adduced for this very purpose, and to which Basil and Chrysostoin both particularly refer. But if the fathers held baptism to have come in the place of circumcision ; then, undoubtedly they held it proper and important to be administered to infants. Ac- cordingly, to receive circumcision by baptism, Justin says, " is alloxoed to all persons^^ infants as well as adults. ,And if a Jew .did not dare to delay tlje circumcision of his children ; "..dost thoii," says Basil, " put off the cirr cumcision^ — ^which is performed by baptism /" And ac- cording to Chrysostom, this christian circumcision^ or baptism^ " 07ie that is in the very beginning of his age may receive." — This proof. Sir, is strong. ,, 3. The earliest direct testimonies, Which we have qt\ the subject are clear, and decisive, that Infant Baptisni was uniformly practised in the church in the Apostle's davs, and downwards for many ages. For many years after Christ, as there was no dispute about Infant Baptisirl, the evidences which we have of the practice of the church, in this particular, is rathe;- incidental and indirect. Incidental, however, and indi- rect as it is, the evidence, as already shewn, is clear and strong; and is altogether in favor of Infant Baptism, a:: LETTER XXi* 119 the universal practice of the primitive church. But on the first occasion for the purpose, the testimonies afford^ cd were direct and decisive. About a hundred years after the apostles, Origin had occasion expressly to speak of Infant Baptism as having been handed down from the apostles, and as a conclu- sive proof of original sin.* At Carthage, about 150 years after the apostles, the question was submitted to a council of sixty six bishops, ' Whether the Baptism of infants ought to be deferred until the eighth day.' To this, without the least ques- tion as to the right of infants to be baptized, it was unan- imously answered, that their baptism ought not to be deferred. About 300 years after the apostles, the testimonies fur- nished by the Pelagian controversy are full and invinci- ble. Against Pelagius and his adherents, who denied the doctrine of original sin, the doctrine of Infant Bap- tism was constantly and victoriously urged, by all the or- thodox fathers, with Austin at their head. " Why are infant^ baptised for the remission of sins," says Austin, *' if they have none. — Infant Baptism the ivhole Church practises ; it was not instituted by councils^ but xvas ever in use.''^ With this argument the Pelagians were con- stantly pressed by Austin, and Jerome, and all the or- thodox fathers. — But how did the Pelagians get rid of its pressure. — Did they deny the fact? Did they alledge that Infant Baptism was not a divine institution ; was not an apostolic practice, but a mere human invention ? — No, Sir : but Pelagius himself, that he might effectually repel the suggestion that he would deny Infant Baptism, frankly conceded to the.correctness of Austin's statement, and affirmed, " that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, rvho denied baptism to infants?'' And in this his adherents all concurred. Though this controversy continued long, was agitated with great zeal, and engaged on both sides, the greatest talents and learning of the age ; yet no one pretended that Infant Baptism was not a doctrine of the apostles : but on the one side it was constantly urged, and on the other as constantly conceded, that it had always been the uniform practice of the church. * Sec note^ p. 57 of my Two Discourses. i^O tSTTEli xM. This evidence is so full, s<3 clear, iind direct, as t6 have constrained the aclcnowledgement, on all hands, that, at the period now in view. Infant Baptism was uni- versally in nse ; and had been, for so long a time, that the best informed men of the age had no idea that it had ever been otherwise. But let it be remembered, Sir^ this was only about 300 vears after the apostles. It is now about 300 years since the reformation from Popery, under Luther and Calvin. But where is ther^ a man of any knowledge, who does^ not know, whether the fathers of the reformation held, or not, to the bap- tism of infants ? Is it then to be supposed, that, within 300 years after the Apostles, the whole church should havi swerved from the apostolic practice, in this particu- lar ; and this, too, in so silent a manner, that the best informed ministers of the church, both orthodox and he- terodox, were totally unapprisedof the change ? To be- lieve this. Sir, must certainly require the utmost stretch of sectarian credulity. Undoubtedly, if the baptism of infants was not author- ized by the apostles, it could never have been introdu- ced into the church, without vehement struggles and dis- putes. But no such struggles and disputes, on this sub- ject, were known in the primitive ages. The practice universally obtained in the church ; and for several of the first centuries, not a single person appears to have disputed its divine original. Turtullian, in(?eed, about the commencement of the third century, and Gregory Nazianzen, about 150 years after hiin, for some strange reasons, entertained the opin- ion, that, in ordinary cases, it would be better if baptism were deferred.* But thev both held that in case of *Gregory thought best to defer it until infdiits were i;irce years old ; and Turtullian. until afier they tvfre married ! That Tertullian should hold an opinion so singular, was mt very sur- prising, as he was a man of a peculiarly whimsical mind ; fell into the error ot the Montanists, who held that one Monanus was that Paraclete, or Comforter, whom the Saviour had pro- mised ; and that better and iMer discoveries were iT»ade to him than had been made to the apostles ; and firmlly was ejected, from the communion of the church. Yet this man, merely be- cause he advised to defer baptism, is by the antipedobaptists, accounted of sufficient authority, to place in opposition to the whole body of the fathers. His t£sti?7io7iy, hcvever, is clearly in our favor. tETTER 5txV. 121 sickness, and danger of death, children should be bap- tized without'delay ; both of them spoke on the subject as if Infant Baptism was universally practised in the church ; and neither of them disputed its having been thus practised, even from the days of the apostles. Of these men, therefore, it is particularly to be observed, that though their opinions were singular ; their testiyncny^ with respect to the practice of the church, was perfectly concurrent with that of all the other fathers. That the clear and direct testimony, now adduced^ may, with the utmost confidence, be relied on as correct, is further evident from this important fact ; that cata- logues of all the primitive sects of professing christians Were early written, and are still extant ; but in none of those catalogues is there any, riiention of any wlTo denied baptisrri to infants. The writers were Ireneus, Eplpha- nius, Philastrius, Austin, and Theodoret.* Ireneus, who, about twenty years alter the death of St. John, was a hearer of Polycarp at Smyrna, and afterwards was bishop of Lyons in France, wrote his treatise con- cerning Sects about 76 years after the apostles. In this treatise he mentions, professedly, all the sects which arose in the time of the apostles, and which had sprung up in the sevent}" six vears after their death. Epiphanius, Philastruis, and Austin, all wrote their respective catalogues, in a period, from about 270 to 290 years after the apostles. The sects enumerated by Epiphanius amounted to 80, which he said were all he had ever heard of in the world ; Austin, who wrote a little later, mentions 88 ; and Philastrius, who made a difference of opinion about any trifling matter a heresy, gives the number of different sects at 100. Theodoret's account of heresies was written after the apostles, about 330 years ; and is very learned, methodi- cal, particular, and full. In all these several catalogues, the differences of opin- ion which obtained in the primitive ages, respecting baptism, are particularly recounted, and minutely desig- nated. Some sjects are mentioned, as the Valentinians, the Manichees, &c. Vi'ho made no use of water baptisni tor any, either infants, or adults ; and the different forms * \Vairs Hist. In. Bap. P. I. Chap. x:;i. J et. Q. 123 liETTER XX IT. and ways, in which baptism was administered by differ- ent sects, are distinctly described. But in no one of these catalogues is there to be found the least intimation of any, (except such as denied water baptism altogether,) who did not hold to the baptism of irfants as a divine institution. Now, Sir, what proof could be more satisfactory than this ? What evidence more clear, or more direct, could \fe have, that Infant Baptis-m was practised in the church, universally, from the days of the apostles, down the lapse of many succeeding ages ? And in view of this proof, of how little weight are the unsupported assertions of Walefred Strabo, Ludovicus Vives, Salmasius, B©hemi-^ us, or any modern writers ? Of how little weight all the shadowy things, which are said to perplex the minds of the unlearned, and to divert their attention from solid argument and fact ? In this summary view, many collateral and detached proofs of Infant Baptism are necsssarily omitted. But the evidences now exhibited, are such as I deem connect- ed, clear, and conclusive ; especially as there is no argu- ment, of the least solidity, to be opposed to them. Upon the ground of these evidences, therefore, I feel mvself strong ; and can hear, undismayed, all the vehe- ment declamations, censures, and anathemas of Antipedo- baptism. Yes, Sir ; undismayed, and unmoved, I can hear mvself called a bigottcd^Wisrzzcr, an abetter of Ant'i^ Christy an adherent of the beast^ a liar and deceiver, and all the opprobrious names, which Mr* Merrill, and hi» zealous partizans, have thought proper so liberally to be- stow upon me. Yours, dear Sir, 8tc- LETTER XXII. JREV. If DEAR SIR, Of the substantial correctness of my statements and re- marks, in my Discourses, relative to the mode of baptism, I am fully persuaded ; nor are they in the least degree ii^alidated, by any thing which you have thought proper IZTTER XXt. 123 •to offer in opposition to them. Some things, however, in this part of your Strictures, ought not, perhaps, to pass, without some notice. But here, I must be as brief as possible, as mv Letters are already extended to a greater length, than I at first contemplated. With reference to the mode of baptism, I had occasioa to state, that 'the question properly bet^Tee^l us is not this, Whether any were baptized, in the davs of Christ and his apostles, by immersion ; but it is precisely this. Whether immersion, or dipping, be the only valid mode of baptism.' — Upon this ycu have thought proper to ob- serve : "By this it v.'ill be seen, that if it be not A ques- tion between us and them, whether some were baptized, in the davs of Christ and his apostles, by immersion> then it must be a conceded point, that there were some .immersed at that period." And you afterwards proceed as if I had made such a concession. P. 306. Now, Sir, were I only to intimate, that vou do not know the logical difference between the question^ and a questio7i, would you not be offended ? But if you do know this difference, how is it to be accounted for, that, in the present instance, you should. not observe it. Is it possible, that you would purpnwelv take advantage of the supposed ignorance, ov credulitv, of \X)\ir readers ? I did, indeed, say, 'the ^wevficr?, properly between us, is not, Whether any were baptized, in the davs of Christ and his apostles, by immersion, or dipping :' for this, ,eertainlv, is not the question, on which our dispute turns. But I did lifcjt say, this is not a questioyi between us. |! did not concede., that some, in the days of Christ and his apostles, were baptized bv immersion. But I said, and I now repeat it, that could it even be proved, a?, hoxvev^ er^ it CANNOT, that some were baptized, in the apostles days, by immersion ; it would avail nothing against our practice ; unless it could also be proved, that none were baptized iii any other wav.— But this you thought con- venient to represent as a contradiction.—- Is not this, Sir, getting along, at a miserable rate ? Another statement, which I had occasion to niake, was as follows : *It is, however, a well supported fact, that, in the first ages of christianitv, and for twelve or ^fteen hundred years afterwards, baptism by sprinkling, *)r affusion, was universally allowed to be scriptural and f alid. . Even those, who, m crJi^ari/ cji^£'5, baptized bs- t24i lETTER XX£I. immersion, did not deny, but admitted, the validity of baptism by sprinkling, or affusion.* Upon this you have been pleased to observe : "The reader will here notice another y?/// and fair concession., that the manner of baptir 2ing was, in ordinary cases., by immersion.''^ And a-r gain : "Mr. Worcester has conceded., not only implicitly, but in direct terms, that immersion was the ancient ordi- mary mode?'* Now, Sir, let it be supposed, that you had somewhere had occasion to say, 'Formerly, even those of the anti- pedobaptists, who, in ordinary cases, baptized by sprin* Jcling, did not deny, but admitted, the validity of baptism by immersion .* Were a school boy, only ten years old, so grossly to mistake, misconstrue, or misrepresent, vour vrords, as to say, *Dr. Baldwin has made a full and fair concession,, that, formerly, the antipedobaptists, in ordi- nary C(2.s^5, baptized by sprinkling ;' would you not think him to deserve a severe reprimand ? — I submit the ques- tion, Sir. to your conscience ; for the cases are similar. No, Sir, I have made no such concession., as vou have thought it convenient to assume, I did not say, that, in the first ages of Christianity, "the manner of baptizing was, in ordinary cases., by immersion. Nor that immer- sion was the ancient ordinary mode.*' But I said that 'in the first ages of Christianity, those, (however many or few) who, in ordinary cases, baptized by immersion, did jiot deny, but admitted, the validity of baptism by sprink- ling, or affusion.* And on the correctness of this state- ment, Sir, I still feel myself warranted to inskist. In page 311 you have presented, in one view, what you wish to have considered as my '"''coyicessions,^' and *^contradictionsi' the principal of which are those, on which I have now remarked ; and immediately afterr wards, you have made an essay towards an attempt to make out another "-inconsistency^* in my statements. But as your readers, I trust, generally, however it may be with yourself, will readily perceive, that, without any '■^inconsistency,''* a writer may speak of a thing as proved ^byfair implication* where he acknowledges the proof is not ^'direct ;** any further attention to this part of your Strictures, would, probably, be deemed a reprehensible waste. But will you p^fdon me. Sir, if I take leave to pbserve, in the general, with respect to this seventh sec- tion of your Appendix, that I ca;mot but think that on % lETTER 3fXII. 125 serious review of it, you will see abundant reason for re- ■gret, that you suffered it to go so hastily to the press. The proof Sir, which in my Discourses I exhibited, •that immersion is uot the only authorised mode of bap^ tism ; but that sprinkling, or affusion, is, at least, equally scriptural and valid ; I must still be allowed to consider* as solid and conclusive. But in confirmation of this, and an opposition to the assertions, not only of yourself but cf antipedobaptists in general ; narrow as my present lim- its are, it may not be improper to present the following plain and concise statements, which I seriously and caur didly believe to be correct, and capable of solid support. 1. The Greek words, baptizo^ baptismos^ &c. render-' cd bapjize^ and baptism^ do not necessarily, nor primari- ly, signify im.mersion, any more than affusion or sprink- ling, Baptizo is a derivative from bapto. But in the Greelt language, it is a general pr'nciple, or rule, that derivatives in izo are not limited to the original meaning of their primitives \ but have uniformly a secondary, conseqneru' tiaU and extended meaning. Wettings xvctshing, or cleansivg^ is a consequence of dipping. If, then, bapto^ signifies to dip^ or immerse ; the consequential and prop- er meaning of its derivative, baptizo^ is to xvet^ to xvash^ or cleanse ; without -determining at all the mode^ in which the wettings washings or cleansijig^ is to be per- formed. That this is accc ling to the analogy of the Greek language, is shewn I , the soundest philological criticism, in a late publication,* by the Rev. Mr. Sweat of Sanford ; and that such is the true sense of the word, babtizo, has been abundantly shewn, from the best lexicograph<;rs and critics, by many writers on this sub- Xect. Hence, had it been the intention of the Saviour, to confine his followers to dipping or immerbion ; the prop- er word to express this ordinance would have been, not baptizo^ but bapto. The constant and invariable use, therefore, of the derivative, baptizo^ to rvet^ to xuash^ to cleanse, instead of the primitive bapto^ which origiivalhf^ * Entitled "A Critical Investigation of the Mode OF Baptism, Sec." a publication replete with solid learnincj ; and in which are exposed, in a most clear and convincing liglit, the unsoundness and iutility of the unlearned, criticisms ia favor pf imraersionj with which the age has been deluged. IS^ LETT'ER XXif.. \xa.i. not invariably^ signifies to dip, Is, to my mind, « clear proof, that the Saviour did not intend to enjoia jjnmersion, as the only valid mode of baptism. . 2. There is no evidence that any of the baptisms, cither by John the Baptist,* or by the apostles, were performed by immersion. Their going down to the water, and coming up from the -water, as expressed in the original ; or even into the -water, and out of the water ^ as expressed, with very doubtful correctness, in our translation ; is certainly np proof, that either Christ, or the Ethiopian eunuch, wa« immersed. As they were abroad in the open country, it is by no means strange, that they should step down to, or even into^ a water, near at hand, in order to be bapti* zed, by affusion or sprinkling. And it is particularly to be observed, that it is not said, they were dipped^ or itnr versed, 3. The circumstances, attending the baptisms, record- ed in Scripture, are strongly in favor of sprinkling, or affusion, as the mode in which they were performed. In the open country about Jordan, a place favorable, by reasoH of the plenty of water, ( polla hudata, many lit- tle streams,) for the ntultitudes with their beasts ; but remote from any accommodations, for changing their apparel ; thousands of the Jews, from all parts of Judea, were baptized by John. Is it to be supposed, that John was in the water all the time, or even so great a part of it as he certainly must have been, had he baptized by immersion P Is it probable, that those multitudes, gath- ered from all parts of Judea, were in a situation to change their apparel, or otherwise to be decentlyf im- mersed? Do not the whole circvunstances clearlv in- dicate, that they must have been baptized, by spriniUjig^ or affusion ? On the day of Pentecost, three thousand from differ- ent parts of the world, were baptized by the apostles ajt Jerusalem. Have we any intimation, Sii, of their gOr ing to a pond, or a riter ? Were they, when assem- bled at the temple in Jerusalem, in any situation to be * Not that John's baptism was Christian baptism. t Decently. Notwithstanding your impassioned appeals on the subject of decency, the Gospel certainly re^uireSj that.«iJ thintrs be done PECENTLY. \ Cor. xiv. 40. tETTER SSlt. 1'2Y immersed P Is It conceivable, that the apostles, in the short time allowed for this service,* should have bapti- zed the whole three thousand by immersion ? Do not the whole circumstances again prove, that they must have been baptized by afFusion, or sprinkling? Cornelius and his household were baptized bv Peter. Is there anv intimation of their going abroad for this purpose ? Is there not, on the contrary, everv reason to b^elieve, that, when Peter said, Can any -man Jorbid wa- ter that these should not he baptized^ water was immedi- ately brought, and they v.'ere baptized in the house where they were ? At dead of night, in the city of Philippi, the yailer, and all his, \7ere baptized, by Paul and Silas. Is it to be believed, that in a citv, guarded by Roman centinels, the prisoners, Paul and Silas, when their Jailer had re- ceived a strict charge, at his peril, to keep them safely, would, nevertheless, take him and his family abroad, in the night, just after the whcxle city had been roused by an earthquake, and go to a pond, or a river, to baptize them by immersion \\ No, Sir ; this is not to be believ- ed, by anv impartial mind. In all these several instances, are not the circumstan- ces clearlv in favor of sprinkling, or affusion f And do thev not infinitely outweigh the simple circumstances, so much insisted on by antipedobaptists, of John's baptizing at Enon, because there ivas much water (for the conve- nience of the multitudes with their beasts) there ; of Christ coming up from the water, and of Philip and the eunuch going down to the water ? 4. The signification of baptism is clearly in favor of affusion, or sprinkling. Baptism, as, in my sixteenth Letter I had occasion to shew, signifies the renewing of the heart by the Holy Spirit. Bat the scripture never speaks of men, as being; dipped, or immersed, in the Holy Spirit ; but constantly represents the influences of the Spirit, as htm.'^poured or. sprinkled^ upon them ; as coming dozuri upo'z them, like * The time cguld not have been mere than six hoyrs. But had all the apostles been employed, during six hours, less than a minute and a Aa// would have been ailowed for the baptism of each of the three thousand 1 t Nothing can be more unfounded, than the idea of their belr.p; immersed in prison. ISS LKTtER JCXII. ram iipon the mown grass, and Hie shcwefs, tvhzch r^^- ter the earthi 5. The references to baptism', ifi the different parts of scripture, are clearly in favor of sprmkUng^ or affiisioru Referring to gospel times,- the prophet Isaiah, speak- ing of Christ says, So shall he sprin'KLE many nations. In a promise to the Jews, which was also to have its ul- timate fulfilment in gospel davs, Jehovah, by the mouth of Ezekiel, said : Ixuill Sprinkle clean rvaterupon them^ and they shall be clean. And in the new Testament, man- kind are represented ^s being cleansed by the sprink** lA^G of the blodd of C '-ist. '''^ tJnder the ancient ec6nomy, various purifications were enjoined, of which by far the greater part were by sprink' ling. The unclean, in order to be cleansed, were to be SPRINKLED zvith the zvater of purification ; and almost alt things were purged^ or cleansed, by the sprinkling of water, and of blood. But by the apostle to the Hebre\vs these various purifications, or sprinklings^ are expressly v-'olled (diaphorois baptismois) diverse bapti.'nns. When passingthro' the sea, on dry land^ the Israelites, as we are assured, were sprinkled^ with spray from the sea, and with rain from the cloud, which covered them. The earth shook^ the heavns^ also, dropped at the pres- ^ ence of God. Thou, God, didst send a plentiful RAIN, Tjuhcreby thoudid-st confirm thine inheritance xvhen it xvas zuecry. This sprinkli?ig with spray from the sea, and rain from the cloud, is by the apostle to the Corin- thians called a baptism. Al! our fathers, says he, rvere BAPTIZED tcnfo 3Ioses, in, or by, the cloud and the sea. A decisive proof this, t\\-xi sprinkling \& baptism. With reference to the sufferings, which he was to en- dure, Christ repeatedly spoke of a baptism, with which he was to be baptized. But what was that baptism ? " The sacred body of the blessed Jesus was truly, and literally baptized. He was xvct, and bathed, in his own tears^ and sxveat, and blood, while in his agony in the gar- den, when scourged, and when nailed to the cross.'* This was the baptism. " Accordingly it was a common expression of the ancient fathers, concerning the mar- tyrs, — that they were baptized with their own blood." Here again is clear proof against the dogma, that im- mersion only is baptism. LETTER XXIII. 129 The wonderful effusion of the Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, was declared by Peter to be in fulfilment of the prophtcy in Joel, I tuill pour out my Spirit upon all Jlesh^ &c. Chrht^ says thijs apostle, hein^^ by the right hand of God^ exalted^ and having received of the Father the promise of the Hohf Ghosts he hath shed forth this, which ye ncxu sec and hear. Thus were they baptized by the Hoi v Ghost ; not immersed or dipped in the Spi- rit ; but the Sp'nlt poured out, and shed forth upon them. Now I ask you. Sir, are not these plain references to baptism clearly in point ? Are they not all decisively in favour oi sprinkling or affusion^ as a scriptural mode of baptism ? Do they not, at least, form an argument in favour of sprinklings of tenfold greater weight and so- lidity, than can be formed in favour of immersion^ by the dubious phrases, into the tvater^ and out of the xvater, and buried in baptism^ on which, for a sectarian charm, such perpetual changes are rung. What I have here exhibited is but a very summary View of the evidences of sprinklings as a proper and scriptural mode of baptism. But,even from this summa- ry view, it will be seen, I trust, that the scripture through out is clearly in our favor ; and therefore, that to declare, as we often hear it declai-ed, that we have not a word of scripture for our practice, savours but very little of true christian modesty. Yours, dear Sir, &c. LETTER XXIII. REV.^ DEAR SIR, Though nothing was farther from my heart, than a de- sign to calumniate the antipedobaptists ; yet I thought it my duty to give, in my Discourses, a faithful represent- ation of some of their errors and irregularities. This I did under a high sense of responsibility, and not without a foresight, that it would draw upon me much odium and reproach. But I must confess to you, Sir, that, consid- ■rin^ your station and character, I hardly expected, that; Let. R. 130 ^ iRTTfa xxTir. toy serious r'fcp^csefttatlons, would bv you be pubHcly de- nounced, as bitter "invectives," and the effusions of a. ^^'persecuting spirit." As it is, however, I must be al- lowed to reply to you, upon this head, with great serious- ness and plainness.— What you have chosen to call my '■'■invectives against the baptists," you have numerically arranged, under several distinct articles. *'l. We are charged," you say, "with imbibing the er- ror of the old legal -Jexvs^ by unscripturally blending the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, and what is called the Sinai covenant, together." That you do blend these covenants, Sir, is an undeni- able fact ; and that in consequence of this, you are entan- gled in the toils of error, is what I seriously believe, and would devoutly deplore. Is it not by blending these covenants, that you are led to conclude, that because the Sinai covenant, the laiv of conunandments contained in or- dinances^ has been done axvay, God's everlasting covenant rvith Ahraharyi and his seed mnst also have been done a- way ? This, Sir, I consider a great error, and the conse- quences of it I believe to be exceedingly deplorable. *'2. They denv God's everlasting covenant of supera>- bounding grace, the grand charter of the inheritance and privileges of his people, the source of blessings to all the kindreds of the earth." This serious representation, is what you are pleased to call my second " invective ;" and upon this you ex- claim : "If there were any law in force to burn heretics^ I know not, my brethren, how we should feel to have such a charge as this yr/ZwizTZfl^e-^ against us!" Such is the manner, in which you would turn the attention of your readers from a serious consideration of your error, and fix in their minds aa odium against me. But this, Sir, must not avail you. That God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is his 'everlasting covenant of superabounding grace, the grand charter of the inheritance and privileges of his people, and the source of blessings to all the kindreds of the earth,' I trust I have sufficiently shewn. But that you, and your brethren, generally, do 'deny* this cove- nant, utterly disavow all connexion with it, and even re- proach, as '"'■yudaizers.''* and abetters of '■^Antichrist" those who professedly adhere to it— is it not a fact ar notorious, as it is solemn ? LETTER XXni. ISl **3 They deny the church of God, which was formed' in the family of Abrahajn, &c." This you have set down as my third ^''inveCtive^^-^But "how," say you, **has Mr. Worcester proved this ? Kow ! by his own assertion^ as he has most of his other charges." Did you mean, Sir, to impress a belief, that my rcpre- .sentation,in this instance, was not just ? Is there anv man, who will doubt, whether you do deny the church of God, which was formed in the famil}' of Abraham, and utter- ly disclaim all connexion with it, as if it were unworthy even to be called a church? if so ; let such an one only listen, for the shortest time, to the daily language of an- *ipedobapt!Sts ; let him only read any antipedobaptist pub- lication ; let him only cast his eye over your book, and particularly, the third Section of y<;ur Appendix ; and he will doubt no longer : but if he be a serious man, and a friend to the ancient Zion of the Holy Gne of Israel, his feelings will be shocked, his heart will be distressed, and he will solemnlv yield to the conviction, that my representation of vour error, in this instance, is neither to be treated with lightRess, nor attributed to a spirit of persecution. "4. The grand provision, which, in his infinite v/isdom and grace, ^^ehovah has been pleased to make, for the pre- servation of a righteous seed upon the earth, and for the maintenance and promotion, from age to age, of his cause and kingdoiT^ in this hostile world, they i>ot only deny, but openly contemn." This, Sir, you have noted as my fourth "invective^* ; and with reference to this, you say, "This charge appears -to us so totally unfounded^ and so far from that spirit of meekness, which the love of Christ inspires, that we shall attempt no other vindication, but a solemn appeal to facts, and to the feelings of our fellow men." You then proceed, in an impassioned, (I will not say boastful) representation of the piety and zeal, the labors and self- denial, the love and success, of yourself and your breth- ren. But what is all this, Sir, to the purpose ? Great as your piety and zeal, your labors and self-denial, your love and your success j may be ; do you not, after all, utterly deny, and openly contemn, that provision, which in his infinite wisdonl and grace, Jehuvah has been pleas- ed to make, (hrj connecting children xv.it h their parents^ in his everlasting covenant,) for the preservation of a 132 XETTER XXrit. righteous seed upon the earth, and for the maintenance and promotion, from age to age, of his cause and king- dom, in this hostile world ? That it is in the way of this covenant connexion of children with their parents, and the obli^tions and du- ties involved in it, that God has been pleased to provide for the preservation of a righteous seed, and the roain^ ■ tenance of his church in the world, has by this time, I trust, been sufficiently proved. And that in this way, principally, a righteous seed has actually been preserved, and the church of God maintained, from the earliest ages to the present, no one, I believe, who will seriously review the history of the church, will deny. Was it not. Sir, in the line of Abraham's descendants, principallif^ that a righteous seed was preserved on the earth, from the first establishment of the covenant with Itiwa.^ until the Messiah came, the middle wall of parti- tion was broken down, and the blessing of Abraham came upon the gentiles P Is it not a fact too plain to be contes- ted, that since the gentiles first became felloxv heirs arid of the same body, and partakers of his promise i7i Christ by the gospel ; piety and all the blessings of the covenant, have been transmitted from parents to children,, down from generation to generation ; and that in this wav, prin- cipally, the cause and church of God have been maintain- ed and perpetuated? And is it not an obvious and in- teresting fact, that of those, who, in our age and countrj', are hopefully brought into the kingdom of Christ, notr only in the Pedobaptist connexion, but even in your^St a very great proportion are persons, who were publicly given up to God by their parents, and baptized in their infancy ? Yes, Sirj it is, I believe a generally acknowledged fact, that by far the better part of the members of your churches are persons, who had pedobaptist parents, and vrere baptized in their infancy '.—^persons, to whom, if in- deed they be subjects of grace, God has manifested his mercy in faithfulness to his covenant ; but who, never- theles, have, by some means, been prev(iile4 on, ungrate- fully to disavow that very covenant, and contemn the gracious provision made in it for their children. Affec- ting thought ! Most earnestly. Sir, would I recommend it to vour serious consideration. God will be faithful to his covenant, and bless his own institutions, notwithstanding the contempt, with which LETTER XXIII. ISS they are treated. Hence, It is in the tteighbourhood mostly of pedobaptist churches, that your churches flour- ish. You are built up with proselytes from the pedobap-. tist faith, and your best members are gained over front pedobaptist connexions. And I can canfHdly declare it mv serious belief, that without pedobaptists you could not subsist ; — if there were no pedobaptists, your church-. es would decay, and eventually become extinct. The preaching of the gospel is certainly of vast im- portance. But God, though a sovtreign, dispenses his grace in his own instituted way. It is, thei-efore, not to be expected, thai, in gospelized lands, the preach.- ing of the gospel will be attended with much success, without an observance of his other histitutions, and par- ticularly the sacred dedication, and holy 7wrtiire, of children, which his covenant enjoins. Were these du- ties, therefore, miiversallv, neglected, the churches would decay, and eventually fail.* Shall children, then, and young persons, be taught, and persuaded, to despise the holy covenant and ordi- nance of the living God ? Shall parents be taught, and persuaded, to neglect the great duty to their children, * in connexion with the above remarks, without any intention to reproach, but ^yith the deepest concern, I would submit, for serious consideration, the following queries. Was not the State of Rhode-Island originally settled on and-' pedobaptist principles ? And have not those principles, there, been left to their free, and uncontrolled, operation and influ- ence .' Is it not to Rhode-Island, therefore, that we are to look for the fullest and fairest experiment of antipedobaptism, ever made in thi« country, or perhaps, in the world ? If then, the principles of antipedobaptism were true, and scriptural ; might we not reasonably look to Rhode-Island for a more general pre- valence of divine knowledge, a more general and sacred obser- vance of divine institutions, more pure and flourishing chui-ch- es, and moi-e of the spirit of primitive Christianity, than is to be expected in almost any other })nrt of the globe ? But what is the actual result of this experiment ? Alas I let the forsaken and decayed houses of God — let the profaned and unacknowledged day of the Lord — let the unread and even cxilttd oracles of divine truth — let the neglected and despised ordinances of religion — let the dear children and youth growing up ill the most deplorable ignorance of God, his word, and his sacred institutions. — let the few friends of Zion, weeping in se- cret places, over her desert, her affecting, and wide-spread des- ert, around them — let the deeply impressed missionaries, who in oliedience to the most urgent calls, have been sent by pedobap- tist societies into different parts of the State — be allowed to tcs> tify I — If there be religion there, is it not almost wholly confinecl i34 tETTER XXIII, vhich God'requires ? Shall baptized persons, wheUier young or old, be taught, and persuaded, to disavow and contetnn the seal of God which is upon them ? Shall any be taught, and persuaded, to disavow and contemn, that act of their pious parents, by which with humble- faith, with fervent prgiyer, with tears of tenderness, devo- tion, and hope, they were givep up to God, according to his sacred institution i Shall children, thus given up, be seductively torn away from those churches, which wit* nessed the solemn vows made for them, and bore a part in the tender and holy solemmties ? And shall all this be done, Sir, under the imposing pretence of doing -God serv'-ice, and maintaining the honour of his special insti- tutions ? Alas ! the deceptions v/hich may be passed upon mankind, and even upon christians ! " 5. They deny and contemn the grace, so kindly of- fered for the spiritual renovation, and everlasting salva- tion, of the seed of the church. " — This, Sir, ypu have put down as my fifth ^'.invective." ^o those places, in which pedobaptist churches are established, and a pedobaptist Influenc-- has ejffect ? Witness the late revi- %'als ! But if such be the result of the fairest experinient ever made •f antipedobaplist principles ; what reason have we to suppose, that, were antipedobaptism to become as predominant in the o- ther States, our country, at large, would not soon exhibit a sim- ilarly dark and dreary aspect -?— in what light, then, are the friends of Zion, and the friends, of humanity, to look upon the so loudly proclaimed prevalencef'pf antipedobaptism, in this age of abounding error ? Let us not be deceived in this matter. Doubtless it is not to those places, where a pedobaptist influence prevails, that we are to look for the true character and tendency of antipedobap- tism : but to those places where anti}>edobaptist principles are left to their own uninfluenced operation. That zeal which is bk'wn into a flame, by a predominant opposite influence, may die awav, and go out, when that opposite influence is no longer felt ; that cngagedness in religio/i, which is found necessary, while struggling for an ascendency, may subside and disappear, •w^ven the desired ascendency is attained ; and even thatsec/orz'« an love, which, bv motives of party, is often raised to the high- est ardour, and which sometimes discoveis itself in demonstra- tions oi fondness^ to the sober mind as disgusting, as they are evidently indecent, may give place to indifference and coldness, when those motives of party cease to operate. — 1 appeal to facts. In this reference to Rhode-Island, so obviously in point, and necessary to my purpose, but in which nothing is less intended than a reflection upon the State, I throw myself) frai.kly, upoi> the candor of all cocccrnf d. tETTER 3£XIir. fS'S After a number of observations and questions, which 1 am not concerned to answer, you take occasion to saj'', ** We know of no other grace, nor can we conceive of a- nv, which the author can have reference to, but the grace of Infant Baptism. We know nothing, which dis^ tinguishes the children of pedobaptists from the children of other believers, but their baptism. " — Had I not, Sir, throughout mj' Discourses, spoken of the gracious prom- ise of the Covenant respecting children ? Is not the "grace^^ set forth in this promise something more than baptism ? And did you not understand it, did you not ** concei'oe^^ of it, as lx;ing something moi'e ? But if the covenant contains a gracious promise res- pecting children, and by faith in this promise a pedobap- tist believer gives up his children to God, and agreeably to his holy institution hars the sacred sign and seal put upon them j is there not then an important difference be- tween his children, and the children of an antipedobap- tist,. who utterly denies the promise, despises the holy institutron, and presumptuously leaves his children to the " uncovenanted mercy of God. " * Yes, Sir, we of the pedobaptist faith, if true and faith- ful, indeed may "present our supplications for our chil- dren, upon a different footing from what the bap'ists do.'*^ We may humbly plead their dedication to God, accord- ing to his own institution ; and his infinitely gracious promise in Christ, to be a God to us, and to our children after us. And this. Sir, let n»e assure you, how lightly soever by you it may be treated, will ever be esteemed by a true and faithful pedobaptist, as a privilege unspeak- ably, impcr/tant and precious. Dear as his children are naturally to him, they will be doubly endeared bv the affecting consideration, that God, his chosen portion, has condescended to speak graciously cbncerning them i has spoken of his set-vants house, for a great x^hiie to come. Let me ask you, then, dear Sir, is it a small thing to be the children of such a parent ? A parent, who ivalks in the steps of the faith of Abraham, and can humbly and believingly plead for them God's covena-nted mercy in * You speak of leaving children to the " uncovenanted mercy Qf God, " as it" it were even a meritorious thin^. But are yc?: -willing, Sir, to leave yourself in this way ? 13j& LETTER XXin. Christ. Is not this something more, thnn to be the chil-' ey must be holden in view. But you are pleased to ask, " Would not the Pedobaptists " exult''' a little, if a Baptist jninister^ his ivife^ three deacons f and eighty others, should all come over to them at once ?" To this, Sir, I answer with perfect sincerity and frankness, that should " a Baptist nmiister, his ti'ije, three deacons, and cigh» ty others, all come over to us at once," under circumstances similar to those, which preceded, accompanied, and followed^ the revolution at Sedgwick ; instead of considering it a subject oi ^^ exultation," I should certamly, for one, consicler it a just cause for the deepest humiliation. Sedgwick ninll not long be to you a very pleasant sound. But you proceed : " Has net the defection of Mr. Edwards from our sentiments been a theme of as much exultation among them ? — Not only so, but has not an instance of one, who by the <' overwhelming attentions of the Baptists," had like to have been one, but mercifully escaped, been widely proclaimed a^ broad! Fid. the lucubrations of a vzttico at thiest, OVER lETTER XXIII. 139 Upon this head, as upon every other, I only wish Aat the real truth may appear. If I have been deceived, and if the public have been deceived, with respect to your sentiment and practice, in this particular ; happy indeed sliould I be to have the deception done away. But will you suffer me, Sir, to bring the matter to a point ? Either there was an acknowledged church of Christ at Sedgwick, or there was not. If there was ; I ask, then, again, with the utmost seriousness, how could you and your brethren go down, and, in the open face of the world, demolish that church, and treat all its sacred things, as unholy and profane ? But if you acknowledged no church of Christ at Sedgwick ; why then attempt to im- press the public mind with a belief, that you do acknow- ledge our churches I Again, either you do acknowledge us to be churches of Christ, or you dp not. If you do thus acknowledge us ; how then can you separate yourselves from our com- munion ; take away our members, without regarding at all their sacred relation to us ; and treat all our cove- nant engagements and solemnities, as things which may at pleasure be trampled in the dust ? But if you do not acknowledge us churches of Christ ; then suffer me ag.\in to ask, why would you hold out a shew as if you did thus acknowledge us ? the signature of Lydia, in the Mass. Miss. Mag. / .'" Yes, Sir ; these are your own words ; for I find them in the three hundred and thirty-ninth page of your book ; and without any comment, I return them to you for your sober reflection. I as- sure you, however, that from the pointless shafts of vulgar ridi- cule, by whomsoever wielded, the serious writer of the" serious" piece, in the Mass, Miss. Magazine, under the signature of Ly- j)iA, has but little to fear. In the different parts of your book, instances of a similar fiu- ritii and dignity of style are conspicuous ; sei^eral of which I once had it in mind to collect and present together, in one lumi- nous viev/. But really, Sir, it is not without extreme pain, that I have given from a Christian writer^ and one whom I have been accustomed so much to respect, the single specimen now ex- Jiibited. I will just, however, observe, that you have one pas- sage, (p. 320.) which, though evidently penned with great com- placency, no consideration whatever should prevail on me to transcribe ; as I would admit nothing upon my page, which jnight not be read, in any circle, v/ithout crimsoning the Jhxr ■Tf modesty. 140 LETTER XXm. But is it possible, that after all. you should have in this case, a reservation P Could you mean that you acknow- ledge us indeed to be churches' — but not churches of Christ ? Language of this sort, from antipedobaptists, I have long indeed been accustomed to hear. Even Mr. Merrill calls us churches — church rs of Anti- christ.- — But surely, Sir, you could not, intentionallv, thus trifle with the public, in a case of this serious na- ture. You could not, from any motives of popularity, or party interest, intend to disguise the truth, by ambi- guously acknowledging us to be cAz/rcA^5, but not chirch- ^5 ^/Christ. This subject, however, I now leave to your own reflections, and to the judgment of a candid pubUc, " 7. The author of the Discourses," vou say, " has charged the ayiabaptists^ with placing such stress upon baptism, in their mode^ as to make it the subject on which to display their greatest zeal ; thus making people be- lieve, in too many instances, that going into the water vill answer all the pui-poses of their present comfort, anci their eternal salvation." It is here to be observed, I did not say nor imply, that you intended to make people thus believe ; but that your zeal, on this point, whether intentionally, or not, really had this eflfect. But upon this you warmly ask, " Can Mr. Worcester lay his hand on his heart and solemnly declare, that he believes the above charge to be true r" Yes, Sir, I can ; and declare it too, as ' solemnly,' as if at the bar of our common Judge. And as I am by no means singular in this belief — a belief very generally impressed ; so neither have I taken it up lightly, or without serious regard to * evidence.' Upon this subject, Sir, a subject of high solemnitv, I %vould not for my life let a single word escape from my pen, but under the fullest conviction of its truth. Nay,' it is not without deep concern that I make the statements, which, in truth and diity^ I am called upon to make. But is it possible, Sir, thnt you shoulei be unapprized of what is eo generally known ?nd deplored, that reli- giotts revivals of the most hopeful appearances have very often been checked- and made to subside, bv antiprdo- * Tiiis i btiii cor.iiider the proper name. IKTTER XXIII. 141 baptists coming in, and zealously pressin]^ the subject of baptism in your mode ? So numerous, indeed, and so notorious, are instances of this sort, that whenever, ia times of revival, antipedobaptists come into our societies j it is almost invariably considered, by the most serious and judicious, both ministers and people, as a sad indica» tion, or presage, that the gracious work will not much longer continue ; and that the great essentials of religion will soon be lost out of sight, in the zeal^ not according to knoxuledge^ for modes vci\d forms. For the correctness of this statement, I confidently appeal to the best inform* ed ministers and christian people, throughout our coun*- try at large. Many, Sir, within my knowledge, have been the in- stances of persons, under serious awakenings, whose at- tention has been turned, by the preaching or conversation, of antipedobaptists, from subjects, the most intimately connected with their eternal salvation' to the subject of goijig into the ivater^ as if this were of the first and high- est concernment. Many the instances of persons in these solemn circumstances, to whom representations have been made, as if, by going into the wafer, they Mould immediately find peace. And bv representations of this sort, not a few, as there is the utmost reason' to fear, have been induced to make the pattering experi- ment ; and having gone into the water in a vain confi- dence, have afterwuids sit down in a delusive peace, as if all were well. Aias ! Sir, is it not a solemn thing for people to be misled to their eternal destruction ! God grant they may see their error, before it be too late. Here, however, that I may not be misunderstood, nor make on any mind an undue impression, I feel it incum- bent on me to declare, and I make the declaration with great satisfaction, that \vKi\t I believe the affecting in- stances now -described, to be many ; I also as fully be- lieve that many, wha go into the zvater^ are graciously renewed disciples of Christ j and that they go into the water with an honest view to answer a good^ though not zvel! ififornted^ conscience. '■'• 8. The next thing which we shall notice," you say, *' is a charge against us of delusion and superstition, on the account of our pretending to follow Christ into the water." Christ's baptism, as you yourself acknowledge, was un^ doubtedly of an import altogether different from that, which he afterwards instituted for his followers. Np reason, therefore, appears, why his baptism should be considered, as an example for us, any more than any Other thing, which, as the Saviour of the world, it beho- ved him to do, or to suffer. And should any zealous persons be imprt^ssed with the idea, that they must b^ circumcised, or fast forty days in the wilderness, or ride on an ass to Jerusalem, or even die upon across, in order to follow Christ ; and this should be represented to them as delusion^ or siiperi,t7tkn ; why might they not call such a representation an ' invective,^ and adopting your words, ardently reply, ""It seems then^ Christ did not in" tend that his foV.oxvers should follow him I Na^, why might they not go through and with all your pathos, add, " There are some who seem to exult, that they are not so deluded as to follow him in these pa»*ticulars. Wc envy them not their happiness ; but we freely confess •we aspire after the felicity of those, of whom it will one day be said, " These are they^ -which folloxv the Lamb,, -whithersover he goeth !" Doubtless, Sir, they might talk as movingly as you dOj about " taking up the cross ;" they might use w possible suppressed. Neither do I consider it in the least incompatible with the most perfect charity anc kindneso, candidly and faithfully to' withstand the cvro'- of erring brethren. ISiJ ■ LETTER M::ir. From several intimations in your book, as v/eli as iii Mr. Merrill's, the uninformed public might be led to conclude, that there had been a great falling awav of my people to your denomination ; tfiat of those who remain, many are in a wavering and unsettled state ; and that this is the reason of mv employing the endeavours, which 1 have thought it my duty to employ, to stav the tide of antipedobaptism. But intiniations of this sort, I can as- sure you, Sir, might verv v;ell have been spared. In mv endeavours, in this instance, I have certainly had reference particularly to my own people. A's a pastor, car- ing for his flock, it has been my earnest wish to fortify the minds of my people against prevailing error, and tq establish them, as firmly as possible, in the covenant and truth gf God. And I have the satisfaction to believe, that, by the blessing of God, my endeavours have not proved altogether unsuccessful. But with pleasure, Sir, lean assure you, and with reference to the' intimations new in viev/, I feel it my du- ty to assure you, that anqiidst all the changes of these chan- ging times, both the church and society at large, with which I have the happiness to be connected, have evin- ced an exemplary stability, with which I have the utmost reason to be satisfied. I have now, Sir, gone through with the design, and e- ven exceeded the original design, with v/hich these Let- ters were commenced. With what success it has been executed, a candid public will determine. These Let- ters, indeed, in considerable part, I huve written, as t now bring them to a close, in a very impaired and pre- carious state oi health ; and consequently under many dicad./antages, and with- great interruptions. Faulty, however, as in other respects they mav appear, they will not, I trust, be pronounced uncandid. Bat whatever the judgiu^rnt of the public may be, I can assure vou. Sir, that amidst all tlie solicitudes and depressions of my present situation, it aifords me mat- ter of great thankfulness, and no small consolation, that I have been enabled to finisli, tiiough in a very imperfect manner, this decided testiir.onv-in favour of the everlast- ing covenant, and the chosen Zion of God. And ihir; "consolation I should have, did I even know this to ^'^ the liV <■ ' ^b""'-.!- '■■!' ;-ny liff'. LETTER XXIV. 155 With fervent prayers for the prosperity of Zion, and for the union of all the people of God, in the truth and fellowship of Christ, and with sentiments of undissem- bled affection and respect, I subscribe myself, Yours, dear Sir, in the hope of the Gospel, SAMUEL WORCESTER. .et. r m-- C 154 > POSTSCRIPT. AT the end of Mr. Merriirs Lettei*s, occasioned fey xny Discourses, a note is given, purporting, that " a re- markable coincidence would he observed, between the arguments contained" in those Letters, and yours con- tained in your book. This I deem correct ; and therefore consider an answer to vour arguments, as being also, ia general, an answer to his. A few things, however, of an historical nature, found in his book, I have taken occasiony in my twentieth Letter, to notice. After the specimens exhibited of his stvle and manner, the public, I am per- suaded, will not think it incumbent on me, to bestow upon him any further attention. You have intim ited, indeed, that for the gentlemen, who have engaged in the controversy with Mr. Merrill^ *' it xvou!d be injinitely disgraceful to be beaten by him,** For myself, I have never pretended to enter the lists with Mr. Merrill ; but I must confess to you. Sir, that, for any gentlemrm of christian profession and character to *'beat him," rvit/i the zveapons, xuhich he has choseji for the combat, v/onld be, in my view, an mdeliable reproach to the christian cause. The matter, referred toby me, which, notwithstanding the substantial testimonies in support of it, he has thought proper again to deny, and to treat as a " slander,^'' I have given into the hands of the gentlemen, who heard the expression from his own mouth, who have written to him on the subject, and are prepared for any further measures, which the circumstances of the case may require. With a man, who will deny a fact, directly in the face of txvo or three witnesses^ I cannot contend* CONTENTS. LETTER I. Preliminary survey. LETTER II. Dr. Baldwin's " mathematical demonstration*' considered. LETTER III, The church originally founded on the pro* mise in Paradise. LETTER IV. God's covenant transactions with Abraham. LETTER V. The great gospel promise included in the covenant wiih Abraham and his seed. LETTER VI. Same subject continued. LETTER VII. The one seed, which is Christ, considered. LETTER VIII, A cardinal point noted and fixed. LETTER I^. The seal of the righteousness of faith. LETTER X. The comprehension of God's ancient co*^ venant. LETTER XI. The perpetuity of the covenant. LETTER XII, Oneness of the pre-Christian and post- Christian church. LETTER XIII, The same subject continued. LETTER XIV. The same subject continued. LETTER XV. Is baptism in the place of circumcision ? LETTER XVI. The affirmative of the question proved. LETTER XVII. Points made. LETTER XVIII, Provision of the covenant respecting chil- dren. X LETTER XIX. Same subject continued. LETTER XX. Testimony of the Fathers vindicated. LETTER XXI. Summary view of the evidences of Infant Baptism. X LETTER XXII. Mode of Baptism. LETTER XXIII. Reply to Dr. Baldwin's vindication of the Baptists, y LETTER XXIV, Pretensions of the Baptists considered, Ccnclusion. ERRORS, Page 11. I'ne 29, for ever read eve7i, 13. bottom, for including^ read inchukd in» 17. top, ioY thus x&z<\ (heii. — lint; 2, iov a thou- sand^ read two thoiisayid. 93. 1. 12, from bottonj> for deemed^ read denied. Some less material errors the reader will notice, and have the goodness to correct,