Digitized by 
 
 tine InternetxArclnive 
 
 
 
 in 2014 
 
 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/baptismofbelieveOObald_0 
 
4 
 
 A? 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Particular Communion 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BAPTIST CHURCHES, 
 
 EXPLAINED AND VIMDICATcD. 
 
 IN THREE PARTS. 
 
 THE FIRST — Published origimally is 1789; 
 
 THE SECOaD— In 179+ ; 
 
 THE THikD — An Appssdix, c()NTAll^l^G Additional 
 Observations and Argu ments, with Strictures on 
 several late publications. 
 
 -BY THOMAS BALDWIN. 
 
 This is the love of God, that we keep his commandmetit*. Jo UN 
 
 PART I. 
 S£COyi) EDITION, REVISED. 
 
 Bofton : 
 
 Printed and fold by Manning ^ Loriso, No. 2, Cornhuh 
 1806. 
 
SlSTAlCT OP MASSMeBV3l7TS, tO Wit . 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the tenth day of Serteaiber, in 
 tlie thircy-firft year of the independence of the United States of 
 America, Ma n n' i n c; £? Lo r t n c, of the faid diflnft, have dcpof- 
 ited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim as 
 Proprietors, in the words following, to if/* :— "The Baptifm of Be- 
 lievers only, and the Particular Communion of the Baptift ChurcheSj 
 explained and vindicated- In Thice Pans. The firfi — pnbliflied ori- 
 ginuliy in 1789 j the fecond— in 1794; the third — an Appendix, con- 
 taining Additional Obfervations and Arguments, with Stri£lures on 
 Icveral late Publications. By Thomas Baj.dwin." 
 
 In conformity to the Aft of the Congrefs of the United States, enti- 
 tled, " An A£i for the encouragement of leurning, by fecuring the 
 copies of maps, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of 
 ■fuch copies, (luring the times therein mentioned ;" and aHoto an Aft, 
 entitled, " An Aft fiipplementaiy to an Aft, entitled, 'An AR for 
 the Lncfuir;i;:;cment of learning, by fecuring the copies of maps, charts, 
 and b ;ok>, to the Auihors and Proprietors of fuch copies, during the 
 times therein mentioned;' and extending the benefits thereof to the 
 aits of defigning, engraving, and etching hiflorical and other prints." 
 
 WILLIAM S. SIl.iW, Clerk ^ft/ie Dijlria of Majackufttls- 
 
P R E F A ,C K 
 
 f HE firft of thefe Trads was written while tlie author 
 refided in the State of New Hampfhire, by the particular 
 requeft of the Woodftock Aifociation.* Without defign- 
 ing to enter the wide field of controverfy, a few thoughts 
 were liaftily collected, rather as an apology for the purlieu- 
 Jar communion of tlie Baptifts, than an intended attack upon 
 the fentlments and practice of others. The fubltance of 
 ^hat was then written, was prefented to the above AlFoci- 
 ation, at their meeting at Marlow, in the autumn of 1788, 
 and puhliflied the fpring following. 
 
 In 1 79 1 die Rev. Noah Worcejler, paftdr of the Congre- 
 gational church in Thornton., publilhed a reply, entitled, 
 *' A Friendly Letter,^' &c. addrelfed to the author. This 
 Letter, though written with a confiderable degree of Chrif- 
 tian candour, contained fome mifreprefentations and errors, 
 •which it was thought defirable to have correded. Accord- 
 ingly, in 1 794 the fecond Tra£t was prefented to the public, 
 in the form of a " R.eply " to the foregoing Letter. A 
 fecond edition was called for in a few weeks ; and a third 
 was fome time after publilhed in Connedicut. The re- 
 jieated calls for this work, rendered its republication necef- 
 fary. 
 
 The controverfy had confiderably fubfided, particularly 
 »n the fide of the Baptifts, as very few tilings had been 
 publiflied by them for the fpace of ten years ; Uil at length 
 Mr. Edwards's " Candid lieafons (as he is pleafed to call 
 them) for renouncing the principles of the Antipardobap- 
 tifts," reached this country. They were immediately re- 
 printed, and diftributed in all directions. This book ac- 
 quired peculiar celebrity, on tlie account of its coming 
 from one who had been a profcHed Baptift. It was fup- 
 pofed,th3t he underllood the T^a-f/, wherein our^r*i3/ Jlrengtk 
 l(iy, and would confequenily be more hkely to embarrafs 
 ©ur arguments than any other man. 
 
 What is now cffered to the public in the fcllowirg page'=, 
 as an Appendix, was at firft deligned only to contain re* 
 marks on this author. But finding tlie controverfy renewed 
 
 • Compofed of Baptift ehurchas In New Hampfhire and VemKftft. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 by our Psdobaptift brethren with uncommon zeal, and ia 
 fome inftances with an acrimony whicii but little becomes 
 tliofe who profe£s to contend for the truth, it was thought 
 proper to extend our obiervations to thole articles which 
 form the " ground work " of infant banrilm. The meni- 
 berfhip of infants, as founded in the covenant of circum- 
 cifutn, and the famenefs of the JewiHi and Chriftian churches, 
 are the principal data from which Paedobaptifm is argued;- 
 thefe have llierefore received particular confideration. 
 
 The reader will perceive, that our ft'ridures on Mr. 
 Edwards have been dire<Eled to thofe arguments only, 
 which he confidercd as principal in this dilputc. Our 
 limits would not allow us to attend to any thing more. 
 It has not been our defign to fpealc dinifpciftfully of the- 
 jnan : to his own MaUer he muft (land or fall. 
 
 Two Difcourl'es of the Rev. Samuel Worcefter, have 
 iilfo received our animadverfions. His arguments being 
 in fuhjlance the fame with thofe of Mr. hd wards, it was 
 deemed nnnecedary to go over the ground , again. As 
 iLefe difconrfes were de/igned not only to llrength.en and 
 fuppoM Pxdobaptilm, but to pull down and bring into dif^ 
 repa:e r>.e fentiments of his Baptifl nt-igiiliours, wlio dwell 
 peaceably I)y him, we make no apolog;- for attempting to 
 pj! ve h.ij niisiiatements and niirreprefentations. We muft 
 1-.C i..Ti..i,;t-.i.)-i.vcv.»r, to f.iy, wc h.uvc aimed to be candid, 
 .1., : lo U -;:L iiis p^rfon with due reipcot, whiifl. we have 
 freely cenfured liis errors. 
 
 Two Difcourfes by the Rev. Dr. Ofgood have alfo been 
 briefly noticed. Ihefe are written in the Uodlors ufual 
 ''^^yie of elegance and perfpicuity, and contain feveral very 
 candid cblervations. r\ few inconfiftencies have however 
 • been noticed ; and there are fome other things which we 
 think liiglily reprehenfible, fuch as his comparing the Bap- 
 tifl minillers to the div'il ! and charging them with creeping 
 into wen's houfes ! &c. (page 33.) It is conceived that a 
 man never creeps into another's houfe, when he is lionour- 
 ably invited. 
 
 The whole is with great deference fubmitted to a candid 
 public. The author would lincerely unite with the pious 
 of all denominations, in fervent prayer to Almighty God, 
 for an incrcafe of fpiritual light, love, and knowledge, until 
 error and prejudice (hall be exterminated, and all Clniilians 
 1)0 of one heart and one mind to forve the Lord in the beantf 
 of holinefs. 
 
 Doft»n, December Z3, .1806. 
 
Contents^* 
 
 PART I. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 "•^ -nnrUs on the unfrirndly ACpjifions caft upon t!;e Baptifts, fcr 
 liiuling Communion wi;h other Dr nominations — The Gofpcl 
 j^r.cliiiie of a Church and Qu*l'fi<^^''°" Members— 
 W iih itrifturcs on Bjpiif.ii, tl 
 
 SECTION U. 
 Thi Irapropriety of ihe Baptift Cluirches communicating with 
 thofc of other Denominations confuiered, and their difference in 
 Sentiment more particularly ]>oinied out, 87 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Th€ Arguments for free Communion confidcred — others offered 
 is Vindication of the Clole Cornuiunionifts, 37 
 
 PART n. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 ?reliminnry Obfervations on the Subjeft in Difpute, £3 
 
 SECTION II. 
 ProfeiTcd Believers the only iii'jxiintcd Subjects of Baptifm, 58 
 
 SECTION III. 
 V\'l;c!her John's Bapiifm bilonged to .he Jewifli or ChriCian 
 D.f>*nfation, particularly coiifidi-red, 69 
 
 .SECTION IV. 
 The Mode of Baptifni, and its Connexion with the Suhjefi in 
 Pifputc, jxir'icu'.arly confideied, 76 
 
 ■ > S E C T I O N V. 
 I hc Mode o'Bainiftn fiiiiSer il:unrnied, from the Prafticeof ilic 
 ffimitivf Ch'iPiaiis; i the M;:iiijcr in which i; was icduced 
 from Immtifion 10 .Sprinkling, biietly pointed out, g3 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 Godly Siacerlry, as conneftid vnth e.xtein<tl Oi)c:d'.ena;,.conGdcred, ioi 
 
COS' TEN T^. 
 
 .SECTION Vll. 
 , iK-lhcr Hierch" a-iy Morjii.y in Exurnals or Scntimen-s; and 
 A i. iher SmcLiity of Heart iecurts the Jucl>;iucTit frojii llrioi ; 
 i .ufly coiifidtn d, 
 
 SECTION ■VIII. 
 \Vhciher the Divine ConJurt iow,;r;is i:s be the Rule of Duiy* 
 K'w.irds our C^iriPim Brtjhrcn, radicr than God's rcveaki 
 Will ; britfiy coi.iidcra:, 
 
 SECTION' IX. 
 Oiirervaiions on the Plan oi Comrmjiiioo propofcd in tlie ' Fricnd- 
 iy Lcttei,' w'lih Rcma/ks on icxerjl other Things connefted 
 with the Subjeft, l^e 
 
 SECTION X. 
 iiicvetaJ Objections particularly anfwered. The Subjeft concluded, 148 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 SECTION I. 163 
 
 SECTION II. The ArgumenU for Infant Memberlhip in 
 
 the Golp l Church, inferred from the Covenant of Circum- 
 cifion, confidered, 17* 
 
 SECTION III. Whether the Jewifh and Chriflian Churches 
 
 are the fame. Or whether the lattei is a diflinft Church, or a 
 mere Continuation of the forrtier^ cocfidcKd, 191 
 
 S-ECTION IV. Stfiaures on the Rev. Peter Ed- 
 war us's " Candid Reafons for renouncing the Principles of 
 Antipaedobaptifm," 218 
 
 ■fcECTJON V. Striaures on Two Difcoutfes on the Perpc 
 
 tuity and Provifion of God's gracious Covenant with Abraham 
 Mnd his feed. RySAMUEi Wo r c E ste r, A . M. Pa (lor of 
 I lie Tabernacle Church in Salem, 236 
 
 SECTION VI. The Baptifts vindicated from the Charges 
 
 Inoaijht aj^ainil them by the Rev. Samue l WoRC este R, 883 
 
 ??ECTION VII. Striftures on the Obfervations of the R?v. 
 
 Mc. Worcester, Dr. Osgood; and others, upon the 
 MODE of Jiap'ifni, 805 
 
 SECTION! VIII. The Principles of Open Communion ex- 
 
 amWicd. The SukjcSi concluded, 3J> 
 
Open Communion examined. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 Jlcmarks on the unfriendly Afperfions cafi upon the 
 Baptijh^for rcfuftng Comniuhioniviih other Denom- 
 inations — The Gofpcl Do^lrine of a Church and 
 Qiialljicalion of the Members — Wiih S:riclures on 
 Buplifm. 
 
 The Baptift churches in general have long 
 been blamed for holding and praftifing what is 
 commonly called clofe communion^ as if this prac- 
 tice were wholly inconliftent with Chrifiian char- 
 ity, or that muttial forbearance which the gofpel 
 requires : and by fome it is conlidered as in- 
 compatible with the exiftence of grace, and for 
 which we have been loaded with many re- 
 proachful names. 
 
 We are charged with making the want of a 
 little water only^ a bar to communion ; and that we 
 are fo fuperftitioufly fond of the watery element, 
 that we place the whole of our religion in what 
 they call a mere circumfi-ance of the ordinance of hap- 
 tifm : and fome even affert, that we hold that 
 none can be faved without being immerfed. And 
 that thereby we put baptifm in the place of re-> 
 deeming blood. 
 
 But why fuch unfriendly charges ? Surely 
 tliey greitly impeach our dodlrinal principles, 
 and arc per^ctly inconfiftent with our avowed 
 and confUnt ^r^^ 
 
1 2 Unfriendly Afperfions on the Baptijl,s. 
 
 For it is too notorious to admit a plea of ig- 
 norance, in any ot our opponents, that we con- 
 fider no one as a proper fubjecl of baptifm, who 
 docs not profefs repentance towards God, and 
 faith in our Lord Jefus Chrift ; who does not, 
 in other words, appear to be in a ftate of falva- 
 iion. 
 
 Nay, fo far from making baptifm a faving or- 
 dinance, w€ do not, we cannot, confider any 
 one as a proper fubje6t of it, who looks upon it 
 in that light. 
 
 But, however, we defire to pay a proper def- 
 erence to that, as well as to all other of Chrift*s 
 inftitutions ; and not to treat it as though it 
 were left to our choice, either to praclife or 
 omit it : although we do not confider it as ef- 
 fentiai to fahaiion, yet we do think it effentiai to 
 the regular vifibiHty of a gofpcl cliurch ; and 
 confequen'cly to communion at the Lord's table j 
 for that is a church ordinance, and ought never 
 to be adminirtered but to members that are 
 in fpecial covenant. 
 
 I am periuaded that the Baptifts are not the 
 ©nly people who believe baptifm to be a pre-re- 
 5'////^/6' to the Lord's fupper. 
 
 Were a Turk to be brought from Mecca to 
 America, and fliould here be convinced of the im- 
 pofture ofMahon)et, and become a true convert 
 to Chriftianity ;. lliould he innTiediately After at- 
 tend a Psedoba'ptift church, on one of their ihted 
 feafons to celebrate the I^ord's flipper ; and 
 fhould the folemnity and beauly of the ordi- 
 nance at tradl his mind, and excite in him aj cleiit 
 delires to partake in it; would th.y peririt 
 fcim ? I am ppibaciled ihc> would not. But 
 why would tfiey not rece^v^ feifti ? Isk.becaufe 
 
Unfriendly Afperftons on the Baptifis. 13 
 
 they do not look upon him as a Chriftian ? No, 
 for thoy really do. But do they not believe 
 God has received him ? Yes, they do. But do 
 they not believe Chrifl communes with him //>//•- 
 itually ? They do. How can they then Jhut him 
 out ? Doubriefs, becaufc they view him to be 
 unbaptlzei, and not a member of any church. 
 Their conducl in refufing him, would be con- 
 liftent with the tendereft feelings of Chriftianity. 
 Therefore we do not commune merely as Chrif- 
 tians, but as fuch in a regular, 'vifible Jlanding. 
 
 But to illuftrate the point further, fuppofe a 
 minifter of Chrift was providentially in one of 
 our new fettlements wliere were a number ot 
 inliabitants, refpe-dlable on other accounts, but 
 who had never been baptized in their infancy, nor 
 had any church been gathered in the place— he 
 is invited to preach — his labours are fo far fuc- 
 cecded, that in a few days conliderable numbers 
 are hopefully brought to tht knowledge of the 
 truth — the next Lord's day they defire him to 
 break bread to them. What will he do ? If free 
 communion is to be eftablifhed, here is a good 
 opportunity for it to operate in its fuUeft lat- 
 itude : for if it be lawful and right to break 
 bread to one that is unbaptized, it may be to a 
 whole fociety. But, however, if he be a Pcsdo- 
 baptiji minijier, I prefume he will not be guilty 
 of fuch an / rregularity : nor would a conftjient 
 Baptift. And I feel fafe to conclude, that our 
 Padobaptijl brethren would not blame us for re- 
 fufing communion v/ith fuch a fociety, who did 
 not fubmit to baptifm in fome rnode or other, 
 however amiable their Chriftian cbaraftcrs 
 might appear in other refpefls. 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 Go/pel DoSlrine of a Church. 
 
 If they would acquit us from blame in the 
 foregoing initance, why ftiould they fault us 
 for refufmg communion with thofe that we 
 verily believe have never been baptized according 
 to Chrift's inftitution : for, agreeably to an an- 
 cient writer, " They who are not rightly bapti- 
 zed, are, doubtlels, not baptized at all."* 
 Wherefore we conclude, that communion does 
 not belong to Chriftians merely as fuch, but to 
 them as baptized members of fome gofpel 
 church. 
 
 Neither yet fhould we be quite fafe to open 
 our doors for communion, to all who are in a 
 church ftate, and profefs to be baptized. 
 
 Therefore, it will be necelLiry in the next 
 place, to attend to the fcripture account of the 
 Faith and Order of a Gofpel Church. 
 
 A gofpel church muft be built upon a gofpel 
 plan. If we candidly look into the fcriptures, 
 we fhall eafily perceive, that the church is a fo- 
 tiety of faints, of faithful men and women in 
 Chrift Jefus, that are joined together in holy 
 fellowfhip, that are incorporated into a vifible 
 church ftate, and by agreement meet together 
 to carry on the worfhip of God, to glorify him, 
 and edify one another. 
 
 The church does not appear to be national, 
 provincial, or parochial ; but truly congrega- 
 tional. It is not built of dead materials, but of 
 lively f ones ;t each of them fitted before they 
 are laid in the building, " fo that there is nei- 
 ther hammer nor axe heard in all the houfe 
 while it is in building ;"J how wonderful ! how 
 
 • Baptifnium quiimritc non habeant fine dubio non liabwit. Tti- 
 tull. de bapiifmo, cap. xi. page 230 
 
 i I Pet. ii. 5. \ I Kingj vi. 7. 
 
Cofpcl Dodrine of a Cbiinb. 
 
 15 
 
 iuperb \ and yet how exad the model, fo that 
 there needed no alteration to bring them all to- 
 gether with that exadnefs^ that bone comes to 
 its bone. 
 
 The church is called by St. Paul, *• The pillar 
 and ground of the truth."* 
 
 The gofpel rule gives none a right in the 
 church of Chrift, but true believers : and all 
 that enter not in by Chrift the door, are thieves and 
 robbers. 
 
 Tiie church is Chrift's myftical body, which 
 he liath loved and gi-ven himfelf for, " that he 
 might fan<51:ify and cleanfe it, with the waflnng of 
 water by the 'word."'\' 
 
 If we wifli to underftand the apoftolick form 
 of a gofpel church, we muft expect to find it in 
 the Acts of the apoftles, or fome of their writ- 
 ings. The firft gofpel church that was gathered 
 after the afcenfion of the Mejjiab, was that at 
 Jerufalem, which is defcribed in the following 
 order : " Then they that gladly received his 
 WORD wevj baptized ; and the fame day there 
 were added unto them about three thoufand 
 fouls : and they continued Jledfajlly in the apof- 
 tles' do6trine and felloiijhip."\ 
 
 When Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, came 
 and lied to the Holy Gholl, and pretended they 
 were friends to Chrift, wlien they were not, and 
 were both fallen dead ; great fear fell upon the 
 attending multitude. " And of the rejl durfi no 
 man join himfelf unto iheni." (That is, fach as they 
 were, carnal, hypocritical profeffors.) " But 
 believers were the more added unto the Lord, mul- 
 titudes both oz men and women. "§ So early 
 
 •iTLn. iiLij. tEph. V. i6. f Afts ii. 41, 41. 5 Afts 7. 
 
16 
 
 Go/pel Dodrine of a Church. 
 
 did falfe pretenders try to get a place in the 
 churcli of Chrift. 
 
 This church at Jerufalem being gathered un- 
 der the infpiraiion of the Holy GhoJ}^ may be con- 
 fidered as a model for all fucceeding ones ; every 
 circumftance related concerning it, difcovers it 
 to be a body of true believers in Chrift. 
 
 The next church gathered by the apoftles 
 was that at Samaria^ which exaclly agrees witli 
 that at Jerufalem — " When they helieved Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of Jefus Chrift, they 
 were baptized, both men and womefi.'^j 
 
 The church of Corinth alfo appears to be in 
 the fame method ; '* Many of the Corinthians 
 hearing, believed, and were baptized." \ The 
 church at Ephefus was addrefTed by the apo/lle, as 
 *' faints and faithful in Chrift Jefus and as 
 ihofe who had been raifed from the dead, and 
 quickened by fovereign grace, turned from the 
 courfe of this world, delivered from the fpirit 
 xhit wor/ieth in the children of difobedience. The 
 Corinthians " firft gave their own felves unto 
 the Lord, and unto one another by the will of 
 God."* And none can, in a gofpel fenfe, give 
 themfclvcs up in church covenant, till they pre- 
 vioufly give themfelves to the Lord. 
 
 1 think that no one that is indebted to the 
 New Teftament for his knowledge refpecling a 
 gofpel church, will try to gainfay the foregoing 
 deicription. 
 
 Tlierefore I would obferve, that if the fore- 
 going defcription be a fcriptural rcprcfentationof 
 ii gofpel church ; then confequently, that church 
 winch does not agree thereto, is not ftriclly upon 
 
 « Afti viii. 12. t Ads iviil, 8. t » C^jr. vili. 
 
Gcfpel Doclrine of a Church. \ f 
 
 the gofpel phin^ unlefs it can be proved, that 
 tliere are two modes of gofpel churches. 
 
 That there may be churches formed, that in 
 many particulars may rcfemble a gofpel church, 
 I wifh not to deny ; — and that in thofe church- 
 es there may be many real Chriftians, is a mat- 
 ter I have no defirc to fcruple : fo I have reafon 
 to fuppofe that there are many Chriftians, not 
 united to any church. 
 
 Again, the Chriftian church is built on 
 Chriit's authorif)>, and is fupported and defended 
 by the fame : He is the chief corner Jlone^ on 
 which their fpiritual building is erecled, " dif- 
 allowed indeed of men ; but chofen of God, 
 and precious. Therefore, that church that 
 is built on worldly e/iab!ijh/ncnts, and depends on 
 civil aid for its fupport and defence, is not 
 ftriftly conformed to the golpel plan, 
 
 Ezra, who led the people out of Babylon, refu- 
 fed to a{k aid of the civil arm, to aflifl; him againft 
 the enemies in the way, faying, " I was afliamed 
 to require of the king a band of foldiers and liorfe- 
 men, to help us againft the enemies in the way : 
 becaufe we had fpoken to the king, faying, The 
 hand of our God is upon all them for good that 
 feek liim : but his power and his wrath is againft 
 ail them that forfake him."* 
 
 Chrift's " kingdom is not of this %uorld .-"f 
 and in a religious fenfe is not connc<!T:ed with, 
 nor any ways dependent thereon for its being or 
 fupport. 
 
 It will doubtlefs be granted, that there are 
 many churches in the land, that are not formed 
 according to the foregoing method, as may be 
 made evident, and will appear in the following 
 
 Ezra viii. %%, | John xviii. 36, 
 
1 8 Gofpcl Dodrine of a Church. 
 
 particulars, i. e. That a heart belief, or favlng 
 faith in the Lord Jefus Chrill, is not coniidered 
 by many of them as ^ pre-requfitc to baptifm," 
 or to their being admitted in full communion 1 
 which does not agree with the truly apoftolic 
 rule. Philip's words to the Eunuch who defired 
 to fubmit himfelf to the ordinance of baptifm, 
 were, " If thou belicve/i with all thine heart, thou 
 mayeft.*'* Philip was directed to this chariot by 
 the Spirit of God, and mull be conhdered as act- 
 ing under the influence of that through the 
 whole tranfacfion : and if he required any tiling 
 more of the Ethiopian convert, than what was 
 nece/fary, really ncccffary to that ordinance, it 
 would difcover a degree oi partiality which few 
 would be willing to admit, conhdering the in- 
 fluence he afted under. That this was not the 
 cafe is evident from St. Paul's words, " with 
 the heart man bcHeveth unto righteoufnefs, and 
 with the mouth corfejion is made unto falva- 
 tion.'"'\ This heart belief is the only Iclief that is 
 unto righteoufnefs, and this muft precede acon- 
 feflion with the mouth, if not the confeflion 
 will be but a falfehood. 
 
 Again, Many of the Pcedobaptijls hold the cov- 
 <Snant made with Abraham, called by Stephen 
 " the covenant of circiancifion," to be the covenant of 
 grace.\ From hence they infer the right of in- 
 i\nt memberfhip ; and confider the natural feed 
 of believers as the children of Abraham ; and 
 on this ground claim the fpecial privileges of 
 the gofpel for them as fuch. 
 
 This rather differs from Paul's idea, who tells 
 us, " the promife — was not to AbraJyam nor to 
 his feed through the law, but througli the right- 
 
 * viii, 37, f Rem. i. lo. } A<£i5 vii. i. 
 
Go/pel Dottrinc of a Church. 
 
 19 
 
 eoufnefs of faith. Therefore it is oi' faith, that it 
 might be by grac'e, to the end the promife might 
 be Tare to all the feed."* " And if ye be Chrilt's, 
 tlien are ye Abraham's feed, and heirs according 
 to ihs promife."] Hence we may infer, that if 
 we be not Chrift's, then we are not Abraham's 
 fed, and are not heirs according to the promife. 
 
 Again, I'hc apoftle P<.'.'i?r calls the members of 
 tlic Chriftian churcli, " an holy prieft-iicod, to 
 offer up fpiriiual facrifices acceptable to God by 
 Jefus Chrift ;"| which no carnal profcffor CAXi do ; 
 neither can men in their natural flate, for fpir- 
 itual things are foolillincfs to them ■" but the 
 children of God are " an holy nation, a pectdiar 
 people, to fhew forth the praifes of him who hath 
 called them out of darknefs into his marvellous 
 light." Can we by this dei'cription find the 
 features of an infant in his natural fiate ? or do 
 they not rather refemble true believers in Chrift. 
 But it is further added, " which in time pail 
 were not a people, but are new the people of God, 
 'wh.xch. had not obtained w.-t'/vy, h\^t iiow have ob- 
 tained mercy." 
 
 But how will this agree with the notion of 
 infants being born with an hereditary right to the 
 fpecial ordinances of the goljpel ? If it be true 
 that they have a right, then there is no time 
 when they are not a people after they are born 
 into the world : and that they obtained mercy 
 in the fame way that Levi paid tithes, i. e. in the 
 loins of his father. Upon this fcale, that parents 
 convey a right of church privileges to their in- 
 f ant feed, I cannot fee why they do not hold 
 their church privileges by the fame tenure as 
 they hold their layids. 
 
 * Rom. iv. I J— i6. t G;U, iii. 19. | i Pet. il 
 
20 Gofpel Doarim of a Church. 
 
 But perhaps it may bs-thouglit I ani trying to 
 expofe a fcnthncnt that the Padobaptijls do not 
 hold, i. e. that grace is ejljitial to church mem- 
 berfhip ; however, one of two things is evident 
 by their pra6lice, either ift. That grace is coH- 
 vsyed as above defcribed ; or 2d. That grace is 
 not ejj'ential to church memberfliip. To fuppofe 
 the lormer, would fuperfede the neceffity of re- 
 generation — to fuppofe the latter, would be to 
 lay the foundation for a gracelcfs church ; and 
 would leave no other difference between thcrt 
 and the world, than what confifts merely in 
 name and external form. 
 
 If v/hat has been obferved already from the 
 laft will and teftanient of our Lord be true, it 
 iBuft fufficiently appear, that evidences of grace 
 are abibluiely nccejjury to the adniiflion of a 
 member to church fellowfhip or fpecial ordi- 
 Kances. 
 
 At a certain time our Lord inquired of his 
 difciples, whom men faid that he was. After a 
 relation of the diflerent opinions of others, Pe- 
 ter believingly affirms, *' Thou art the Christ 
 THE Son of I'HE LIVING GoD. And Jefus an- 
 fwered and faid unto him, Blefled art thou, Si- 
 mon-barjona, for flejh and Uood hath not re'veahd 
 it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
 And I fiiy unto thee, thou art Pe^^er ; and upon 
 tliis ROCK 1 will build my church, and the gates 
 of hell fliall not prevail againft it."* 
 
 Churches in general, of all denominations, 
 improve this declaration as a promife in their fa- 
 vour. Bat to determine tlie propriety of the 
 daim^ it is necelTary to confider two things, ift. 
 
 * Matt, xvi, 13—19. 
 
Go/pel Doarim of a Church. 21 
 
 What we are to underftand by the Rock. 2d. 
 TJae manner of the building upon it. 
 
 Now, fhould we build upon another rock in- 
 ftead of that referred to by our Lord, it would 
 naturally fedude us from the promifc. 
 
 Again, Should we build and lay the true Rock 
 as our foundation, but at the fame time fhould 
 not attend to the manner of building as de- 
 fcribed by Chrift, we might iiill be left without 
 any jufi: right to the promile. Therefore I 
 would here obferve, that Chriftians in general 
 (Papifts excepted) acknowledge this rock to re- 
 fer to Chrift. But fhould the reader think I 
 take fomething for granted that is not proved, 
 let him confult the following fcriptures, Ifaiah 
 xx-viii. 16. Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a 
 ftone, a tried ftone, a precious corner ftone, a fure 
 foundation. 2 Sam. xxi. 2. The Lord is my rock. 
 Again in the 3 2d verfe, Who is a rock fave our 
 God. Alfo, fee 1 Sam. ii. 2. Neither is there any 
 rock, like our Gov. Again, 1 Cor. iii. 11. For 
 other foundation can no 7)ian lay than that is laid, 
 which is Jesus Chris r. The apoftle fpeaking of 
 the houfehold of God, fays. They are built upon 
 the foundation of the apofUcs and prophets, Jefus 
 Chrlfi himfclf being the chief corner ftone : Eph. 
 ii. 20. 
 
 By the above quotations it is made evident, 
 that this Rock on which the church of Chrift is 
 built, is Chrift himfelf, who is tlie " root and off- 
 fpriii^ of David, the bright and the morning flar?* 
 This is the Rock implied in Peter's confeffion. 
 . Biit let us obferve in the next place the man- 
 ner of the building to be erected on this Rock. 
 A profefiion of faith, in adults, in order to their 
 admifiion to fpecial communion, is a point gen- 
 
•22 
 
 Go/pel Dodrine of a Church. 
 
 (!rally acknowledged : but if this be the only 
 idea that is to be taken — that they ftand in the 
 aifle, and give their tacit confent'to the articles 
 and covenant read ; confenting to fubjed tliem- 
 felves to the rules of any particular church : if 
 this be all that is pleaded for as neceflary to the 
 building of the church of Chrift, I lhall take 
 leave to demur. For moft perfons that have 
 been educated in the theory of the Chriftian 
 religion could fubfcribe to this implicit faith : 
 but thofe members that are fit materials for this 
 fpiritual building, make a confelllon in fubftance 
 as Peter did ; and this fprings from a Chrift re- 
 vealed in them ; ^'^ fhfh and blood hath not re- 
 vealed it unto thee." Without fuch a revelation 
 as this, no perfon can be a fit member for a gof- 
 pel church ; neither can they get upon this rock 
 without it : for until this is made to their fouls, 
 they neither know God nor Jefus Chrift ; for 
 it is exprefeiy declared by Chrift, Mat. xi. 27, 
 No man kmweth the Son but the Father ; neither 
 knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and he to 
 ujijomfoever the Son will reveal him. And if they 
 do not know Chrift, they are not his JJ^cep : for 
 he fays, John x. 14, I aju the good fycphcrd, and 
 know my fneep, and am knovjn of mine. Nov/ if 
 they are not Chrift's fheep, what riglit have they 
 in his fold. Chrift fixes a faving iffae upon 
 coming to him, hearing his fayings, and doing 
 them : Mat. vi. 47. And it is faid, John vi. 
 44, No man can come to me except the Father which 
 fent me draw him : This is the man that digs deep 
 and lays his foundation ( hv faith and repentance J 
 upon this blefl"ed ROCK/ 
 
 For the prefent let us view the matter in a 
 different light : if the divine rule will admit of 
 
Go/pel Doarine of a Churcfj. - 23 
 
 ans unregenerate perfon's being received as a 
 proper piember of a gofpel church, it \\ ill of i%vo ; 
 and if of two, it will of ten ; and fo confequent- 
 ly there may be a whole church and not a true 
 believer in it ; but would any one dare to call 
 fuch a fociety of people, a church of Chriil ? 
 Would it not rather refemble a fynago^iie of Sa- 
 tan ? But perhaps it will be objecled, that it is 
 not likely fuch an inftance ever will take place ; 
 furely there is nothing but divine interpojition to 
 hinder it, if this method is allowed to bo rule- 
 able. 
 
 But it may be further objected, that a perfecl 
 church is not to be expected in this imperfedt 
 ftate. To which I anfwer, the divine rule re- 
 
 I quires that they be perfecl : Mat. v. 48. 2 Cor. 
 
 i xiii. 11. Heb. xiii. 21. The queftion is not, 
 
 I whether, after all, we fliall not have fome hypo- 
 crites, or unregenerate perfons in the church ; but 
 whether we may knowingly receive fuch, or 
 otherwife receive them that give no evidence to 
 
 : the contrary. 
 
 I Now it will be readily granted that the di- 
 
 ! vine rule requires every Chriftian to be perfed. 
 
 \ But what if fome fhould fay, We do not expect 
 Chriftians to be perfect, and fo ihould take \\h- 
 erty to indulge themfelves in Jin ; could the di- 
 vine rule be plead in their favour ? Would it not 
 
 ' rather ftare them in the face ? Equally fo does 
 the gojpel rule every carnal and hypocritical pro- 
 
 But it may be further objected that it is the 
 duty of every perfon to attend to all the exter- 
 nals of religion, as means which God lias ap- 
 pointed for their converlion. To Avhich I an- 
 fwer, it is the duty of every rational creature 
 
24 Gdfpel Doarinc of a Church. 
 
 immediately to love God, and that perfedly as Ga- 
 •briel does ; for without a principle of real love to 
 God, tlie finner cannot perform any C'hriftian 
 duty. Short of this, his duties are like a dead 
 corpfe without a fpirit : For the end of the com- 
 I7ia7idmcnt is charity out of a pure heart : 1 I'im. i. .5. 
 
 If the gofpel direfts the finner to a progref- 
 live ufe of jncavs or ordinances, in order to his 
 converfton, then it does not require him imme- 
 diately to believe, or to exercife evangelical re- 
 pentance : means always precede the end for 
 which they were defigned. But is it not plain 
 that every duty which the law or gofpel requires 
 of any creature, it requires it to be done from 
 a principle of fupreme love to God ; and with- 
 out that, all his pretenfions to duty are but 
 hypocrify. Prayer, or reading of God's word, 
 attending to the word preached, and fpccial or- 
 dinances (in an orderly way) are duties held up 
 before every perfon : but they are required to 
 attend them with penitent hearts. If the hnncr 
 attempts to pray with a heart of impenitency 
 and unbelief, he does but deceive himfelf and 
 mock God : for his motives can)iot fpring from 
 a higher fviirce than that which rules his heart, 
 which is fclflove. If he attends divine fervice, 
 and imagines he has been worfliipping God, he 
 doQS hut deceive hinfelf : for they that ucorflnp 
 God, worfhip him in fpirit and in truth ; whilft thiS; 
 infcription might be juftly written upon his 
 moft refined afts of devoficn. To the unknown 
 God. Should he be I'prinklcd from the bap- 
 tifmal lavcr, or immerfed in Jordan's fwelling 
 flood, it would avail him nothing without a neNv; 
 heart. Should he come to the facrcd table o£ 
 our Lord, and receive the outward elements. 
 
Go/pel Do^lrine of a Church. 25 
 
 yet ftill he does not commune with Chriji ; for 
 Chhjl is light, and he is darknefs, and they have 
 no communion together. 
 
 That the proclamation of the gofpel is to be 
 made in the ears of Tinners, will be readily grant- 
 ed ; and wherever it comes, it makes a demand 
 for the linner immediately to furrender his heart. 
 His refudil is criminal, and lays him under con- 
 devination : John iii. 1 8. But that the gofpel in- 
 vites impenitents, while fuch, to partake of its 
 fpecial ordinances, I choofe rather to deny ; for 
 unto the wicked God faith. What hafl thou to do to 
 declare yny flatutes, or that thou JJmddtfi take my 
 covenant in thy mouth ? Pial. l. 16. But it may 
 be po/Iible that fome may objed, that I hereby 
 excufe the finner from attempting any duty, be- 
 caufe he has not love to God : I am far from 
 making excufes for impenitents, but would 
 rather fliow them their inexcufiblenefs. Should 
 the queftion be alked me. Whether it be the 
 duty of a finner to pray, I fhould readily an- 
 fwer, Yes ; and add, that he muft pray in faith ; 
 for whatfoever is not of faith is fvi : Rom. xiv. 23. 
 And without faith it is imp'ffible to piccfe God : Heb. 
 xi. 6. How then Jhall they call on him in whoin they 
 have not believed : Rom. x. 14. I can fee no 
 valuable end anlwered to the Redeemer's caufe, 
 or to the fouls of men, either by urging or re- 
 ciiving unregenerate fmners into the church. If 
 they can be perfuaded that they are doitig fome- 
 thing that is acceptable to God as the matter of 
 their duty, this may afford their confciences a 
 temporary relief, and may be the means of their 
 delaying to embrace that which alone can prove 
 the falvation of their fouls. 
 
 c 
 
2G Co/pel Do^rine of a Church. 
 
 Should one of the fervants of Chrift be called 
 to viiit a dying perfon, on entering the room 
 fliould difcover that </6>^//>wasjuft ready to receive 
 him in his icy arms — that he was pail hope of re- 
 covery. The crifts is important — a few minutes 
 will decide his cafe for eternity ! The dying man 
 fixes ghaftly eyes upon him, as a mqfier in Ifrael, 
 and expects fome directions from him, while 
 with a faultering tongue he thus relates his fad 
 cafe J I am a poor undone finner, juji going into eter- 
 nity, and have no evidence of an interefl in Chrifi ! 
 What Jhall I DO ? Will the faithful minifter now 
 tell him, he muft attend the ufe of means, as 
 God's appointment for his converfion ? Will he 
 direft him to receive haptifm, or to join to the 
 church, or receive the facred fupper ? all which 
 he may do and yet be damned ; or will he not 
 rather adopt St. Paul's direftions to the jailer, 
 Believe on the Lord Jefus Chrifi, and thou fhalt he 
 faved : Acts xvi. 31. And tell him, if he believ- 
 eth not, he Jhall die in his fins : John viii. 24. It 
 will undoubtedly be granted, that the laft men- 
 tioned is fafeft for the dying man ; if fo, it is 
 alfo fafeft for living men ; for living men are 
 all dying men ! and we know not which will 
 die firfl, either \\\^ fick or the well I Therefore, 
 we ought ever to give fuch dlre(5tions to tinners 
 at all times, as would be fafe to give them when 
 on a dying bed. 
 
 Having taken this brief furvey of the gofpel 
 relative to the charader of God's pro- 
 fefiing people, and the churches of our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift, v/e find this to be the account : 
 That thofe w]\o had been fo taught as to under- 
 ftand the doctrine of the crofs, and fo learned of 
 the Father a:> to come to the Son, immediately 
 
Communicating with ether Denominations. 27 
 
 manifcfted the'yr faith by their works of obedi- 
 ence, in fubniittirg themlelves to the ordinance 
 of baptifm. After thus publickly giving theni- 
 felves up to the Lord, " they gave themfelves 
 to one another by the will of God," or accord- 
 ing to his will. Then they broke bread and 
 continued in fellowfhip. 
 
 But we have no account of any one's beliezrng 
 before taught, " for how lhall they hear without 
 a preacher ?" Nor of any one's being baptized 
 before he believed, (or profefled to believe.) Nor 
 of any that came to the fa cred /upper before they 
 were baptized. We then believe it to be the 
 apoftolick order, to baptize none till they profefs 
 their faith in Chrift ; and that till then, they 
 cannot be confidercd as qualified members for a 
 gofpel church, nor be received into their fei- 
 lowfhip at the Lord's table. Iherefore, before 
 we are blamed too much, let a different line of 
 conduft be proved from the writings of the 
 evangelifis or apcflles, and it will be our happinefs 
 if we are wrong, to be cont-inced, that we may 
 have opportunity to reform. 
 
 But that our reafon for refufing communion 
 with other denominations, may more fully ap- 
 pear, let us go on to confider the following 
 things : 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 The Impropriety of the Bapiifv Churches comtnunicating 
 with thofe cf other Dencivinations confidered, and 
 their difference in Sentiment more particularly 
 pointed out. 
 
 The Baptift churches believe, that no perfon 
 can be a difciple of Chrift, that is not capable of 
 felf-denial ; for the Author of our religion has 
 
28 Impropriety of Baptijl Churches 
 
 faid, " Whofoever he be of you that forfakeih 
 not all that he hath, he cannot be my dijciple : 
 Luke xiv. 33." " Let him deny himfe/fznd take 
 up his daily crofs and follow me : Luke ix. 23." 
 And if he be not a d'lfciple^ he cannot be confid- 
 ered a proper fubjed: of fpecial ordinances. 
 
 We believe in one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm. 
 
 ift. That this one Lord is the woman's seed, 
 the Immanuel, born of the virgin, the one 
 Mediator between God and man, the Head of 
 the Church, and Zion's King, a Leader and 
 Commander of his people, the great Pattern and 
 Example for all true Believers. 
 
 2d. One Faith ; that faith that works by love 
 and purifies the heart ; which is the only faith 
 of God's elect, and which alone can give a right 
 to fpecial ordinances ; for without it, it is impoffi- 
 ble to pleafe God. And that this o?ie faith, is 
 particularly in each qualified fubjeft, and cannot 
 give a right to any but thofe that have it. 
 
 Sd. One Baptifn ; that this one baptifm is an 
 Immerfion in water, in the name of the triune 
 God ; which is to be continued until Chrift's 
 fecond coming. 
 
 Should any fuppofe this one baptifm to be the 
 baptifm of the Holy Ghofi and fire, Ipoken of by 
 John Baptifi and our Saviour, I 111 all take leave 
 to diflTent from their opinion, and give fome 
 reafon for my own. 
 
 The baptifm of the Holy Ghoft was fpoken of 
 by Chrift and his harbinger as that which had 
 not then taken place. 
 
 I think any one would take fingular freedom 
 to fay, that there were then no Chriftians who had 
 experienced the bleffings of grace in an ordina- 
 ry converfion ; if it be not fojthis confecjucnce 
 
Comniunicatw^ laitb other Dcncmimiicns. 29 
 
 nmft follow, that thofe whom Chrift had chofen, 
 fome of whom he had fent forth to teach and 
 do miracles, w^ere ignorant of the fpiritualily of 
 religion, and were ftill in their fins. 
 
 Again, further, if the baptifm of the HolyGhcJi 
 be the one intended, it would exclude water bap- 
 tifm in every mode : For we can as eafily con- 
 ceive of t%vo Lords as of i%vo baptifms referred 
 to one inftitution. 
 
 The doflrine of baptifms mentioned by the 
 apoftle, Heb. vi. 2. has no reference to the gof- 
 pel inftitution of baptifm ; but is the fame 
 Greek word that is tranllated wajhings in another 
 chapter of the fame epiftle, Heb. ix. 10. There 
 is a negation fixed to thefe baptifms, and they 
 were to be left, becaufe they were law ceremonies, 
 and not go/pel mjlitidlons. 
 
 But here will a queftion arife. What are we to 
 underftand by the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft and 
 fire ? fpoken of by John, Matt. iii. 11. and by 
 Chrift, Acls i. 5. John's words are, " I indeed 
 baptize you with water unto repentance ; but 
 he that cometh after me is mightier than I, 
 whofe flioes I am not worthy to bear ; he fhall 
 baptize you with the Holy Ghift and fre." Chrift's 
 words are, " And being aflembied he command- 
 ed that they fiaould not depart from Jerufalem, 
 but wait for (he promife of the Father ; which, 
 faith he, ye have heard from m^e, for John truly 
 baptized with water, but ye ftiall be baptized 
 with the Holy Ghoft, not many days hence." 
 Doubtlefs thefe, at this time, had as great a 
 meafure of the Spirit, as Chriftians in general 
 have, and yet were not baptized with the Holy 
 GhoJi. 
 
 c2 
 
30 Impropriety of BapilJ} Cburchti 
 
 But the explanation of the foregoing, we 
 nieet with in the beginning of the next chapter§» 
 foon after Chrift's afcenfion, " They were all 
 with one accord in one place, and fuddenly 
 there came a found from heaven, as of a mighty 
 rufhlng wind, and it filled ail the houfe where 
 they WTre fitting : and there appeared junto 
 them cloveii tongues^ like as of Jire., and it fat upon 
 each of them, and they were all filled with the 
 Holy Gbofi, and began to fpeak ivifb other ionguesy 
 as the Spirit gave them utterance : Acts ii. 1^ 
 2,3. 
 
 Here is the Holy Ghoft and fire that was 
 mentioned. For Jefus was now glorified, and 
 the Holy Ghoft according to his promife given. 
 I think it is very evident, that the baptifm of the 
 Holy Gbofi and fire did not rcfpecl the ordinary 
 influence of God's Spirit, either in the conver- 
 fi.on of finners, or in its confirming influences on 
 his people : But muft refpecl the extraordinary 
 and miracidous gifts beftowed on the apoftles and 
 otbcrs, for the confirmation of the gofpel ; fuch. 
 as the gifts of tongues, healing, prophefying, &c. 
 
 But as thefe obfervations may differ from the 
 general opinion, I muft therefore be a little 
 more particular. Will any perfon dare to fay, 
 that thofe believers at Samaria, whom Philip bap- 
 tized, were not true converts ? If they were 
 not, then baptized a number of unqual'fied 
 
 fubjeds, that were ftr angers to the love of God. 
 If they were true converts, I think my pbferva- 
 tion muft ftand ; for it is further obferved of 
 them, that " when the apoftles that were at 
 Jerufalem, had heard that Samaria had received 
 the word of Cod, they fent Peter and John unto 
 them, who prayed for them, that they might 
 
Commumcaibrg 'with other Dcnminaticrs . S 1 
 
 receive the Holy Ghojft, (for as yet he was fajlen 
 upon 7ioTie of them ; only they were baptized in 
 the name ot the Lord Jefus.) Ihen laid they 
 their hands on them, and they received the Holy 
 Gbojl ;" Ads viii. 14, \6, 16. Ihe fame idea is 
 further iilullrated by St. Paul, who, when " l>e 
 came to Ephejus, found certain difeiplss^'* and 
 " he faid unto them. Have ye received the Hciy 
 Gh'Ji Jince ye believed P" Their acfwer was, " We 
 have not heard whether there be any Holy 
 Ghoft :" Acts xix. 1, 2 — 6. The apoftle it 
 feems prefumed, that if they were difciples, they 
 were baptized ; therefore did not inquire, 
 whether they were baptized, but unto zuhat they 
 were luipized. " And when Paul had laid his 
 ha fids upon them, the Holy Ghoft came on them, 
 and tliey fpake with tcn^ues and prophefied." 
 
 Although they had never heard of the Holy 
 Ghoft in thefe miraculous operations, yet they 
 were difciples and believers. 
 
 Therefore I think I have a right to this con- 
 clufion, that the baptifm of the Holy Ghoft 
 ceafed when thefe miraculous gifts ceafed ; and 
 ;that the one baptifm referred to, is water baptifm : 
 yea, even this baptifm of the Holy Ghofi never fu- 
 .perfeded or deftroyed the necefiity of water 
 ,baptf>n, as an inilitution of Chrift. See it exem- 
 plified. Ads X. 44 — 48. 
 
 But let none conclude I mean to deny that 
 \Cliriftians have any influences of the Holy Ghoft 
 ^n this day ; I do not : neither do I believe they 
 'Were without them when Chrift was upon earth, 
 .or even before he came. And yet thefe extra- 
 ordinary influences were not given, for Jefus 
 was not yet glorified. Therefore the inftitution of 
 baptiioa ftands unlhaken upon the firm bafis of 
 
32 Impropriety of Baptijl Churches 
 
 a divine command, which will continue it until the 
 end of time, notwithftanding many ancient and 
 modern corrupters, of whatever name, or fed. 
 
 The Baptifts not only believe that this one 
 baptifm is an inftitution of Chrift, but that it is 
 ever to be adminiftered in one mode, and to one 
 kind of fuhjeds. Our opponents fuppofe (at leaft 
 many of them) that it may be adminiftered 
 upon a profellion of faith, or without it ; ei- 
 ther by immerfion oxfprinkltng. They acknowl- 
 edge immerfion to believers to be lawful bap- 
 tifm ; could we, with a good confcience, allow 
 the fame of infant fprinkling, much of our dif- 
 pute would be at an end. " But our fixed and 
 avowed perfualion will not permit us to allow, 
 that infani fprinkling, though performed with the 
 grcateft folemnity, is worthy of the name. Con- 
 fequently, though they, confiftently with their 
 own principles, may receive us to communion 
 among them, yet we cannot admit them in fel- 
 lowfhip with us at the Lord's table, without 
 contraditling our profeffed fentiments. For it 
 appears to us, on the moft deliberate inquiry, 
 that immerfion is not a mere circumfiance, or a 
 mode of baptifm, but elTential to the ordinance : 
 fo that in our judgment, he who is not immer- 
 fed is not baptized. This is one of our reafons 
 for refuiing communion to our Psedobaptift 
 brethren, whom in many refpecls, we highly 
 efteem, and towards whom we think it our duty 
 to cultivate the raoft cordial affeftion."* 
 
 We really believe one mode of baptifm to be 
 of divine appointment j all others but human ir,' 
 mention. 
 
 Booth's Apol. p. 14. 
 
Communicating with other Denominations. 33 
 
 But is this ordinance of our Lord left in fuch 
 cbfcurity, that an honeft mind mnft be always at 
 a lofs how to pradife it ? To plead this, is to 
 impeach Chrift, that he has not been as faithful in 
 his own hcife as a fcn^ as Mofes was as a fcrvant : 
 Heb. iii. 5, 6. 
 
 But from whence does it appear that baptifm - 
 is a duty ? Not from any moral precept, but from 
 a pofitivc inflitution. " All poiitive inflitutions 
 depend entirely upon the uuU! \nd declaration of 
 the perfon who inftitutes thciii, with rcipecl to 
 the end and defign of them ; and alfothedue 
 manner of performing them."* But are not 
 pofittve Inflitutions as plain as moral precepts ? If fo, 
 why do we blame the finner for not complying 
 with one, and excufe the Chriftian for negleding 
 the other ? 
 
 But it is faid, they do not negleft it, but only 
 pradife it in a different way ! But is this differ- 
 ent way a divine inftitution, or fomething fubfti- 
 tuted in its room ? If the former, we may pre- 
 fume that it is made plain in the word, as it is 
 not deligned for men of fcience only, but for iir.- 
 learned men and ivcmen, and for babes in Chrift. 
 
 The inftance recorded in fcripture concern- 
 ing Saul w ho was fent to deftroy Amalek, with 
 the prophet's reply to him at his return, may 
 ferve as a fpecimen to difcover the nature and ef- 
 feils Qi difobedience. The command was 
 tive, and was in part obeyed ; but " the beft of 
 the flieep and oxen were faved alive." Saul 
 was very confident he had performed the will 
 of the Lord, and thus addrefl'ed Samuel : " Bleff- 
 ed be thou of the Lord ; I have performed the 
 commandment of the Lord :^ 1 Sam. xv. 18, 
 
 * Letters to Bifliop Hoadlcy. 
 
34 Impropriety of Baptijl Churches 
 
 And doubtlefs 5<7z// would have carried his point, 
 h:\d not an infpired prophet withftood him. It 
 is likely Saul had fome fpecious pretences for his 
 conducl : he might flatter himfelf that thefe 
 fheep and oxen might be a large faving of the 
 property of Ifrael ; and that to fave them to do 
 facrifce to the Lord, was a laudable dcfign ; he 
 did not pretend he had the leail regard to felf 
 in the whole affair, but was now prudently- 
 taking care that Jeboz-ah's altar might be loaded 
 with the richeft facrinces. But the prophet 
 foon gave him to underftand, that obedience to 
 divine appointments, fuch as depend entirely on 
 an exprefs command, is better in the fight of 
 God than hecatombs of bleeding beafts, or 
 clouds of fmoaking incenfe : For rebellion is as 
 the fin of witchcraft^ and fhihbornnefs is as iniquity 
 and idolatry : 1 Sam. xi. 25. 
 
 When the children of Ifrael were returned 
 from their captivity, they gathered themfelves 
 to Ezra the fcribe, to be intruded in their duty 
 out of the law, " And they found written in 
 ■the law which the Lord had commanded by 
 Mofes, that the children of Ifrael fhould dwell 
 in booths in the feaft of the feventh month : 
 Neh. viii. 44." This was a pofitive inflitutiony 
 and juftly claimed the obedience of all Ifrael. But 
 notwithftanding this, it had not been kept in the 
 inftituted way from the days of Jc/^.v/?, until the 
 days of Nehemiah. Was the inftitution to 
 blame for their negleft, or mull: the blame fall 
 on them ? On them, furely. But migiit not 
 fome plnufible objedions be made againft refor- 
 mation ? What if fome had afked the queiUon, 
 " If this be fo, why did none of the learned 
 fathers find it out ? Were not Samuel^ Davids Sol- 
 
Communicating with other Denominations. 3S 
 
 onion, Jehojhaphat, Afa, Jofiah and Hezekiah, all 
 good men ? and they did not keep this feaft in 
 booths." What if others had faid, " We do not 
 underftand the word booths in fuch a point of 
 light : a booth means a fort of tent, the defign of 
 which is to fcreen us from the fcorching beams 
 of the fun, and defend us from the injuries of 
 the weather ; and as our houfes anfwer thefe 
 purpofes, we efteem it lawful for us to eat this 
 feaft in them." 
 
 But what would all thefe objeftions, and 
 many more that might be made, avail in the 
 mind of a man who was defirous for reforma- 
 tion, and had his eyes open to read in the law 
 of the Lord ? " It was found zaritten in the law 
 of the Lord therefore it was a fufficient rea- 
 fon for every one to engage in reformation, 
 whofe heart was brought to love tiie law of his 
 God. 
 
 We profefs to take the word of God for a 
 perfeft rule of faith and practice ; if fo, we are 
 not to follow the opinions of the bcft of men, 
 though ever fo learned and great, any further 
 than they follow Chrift, or walk according to 
 his inftitutions. " To the law and the teftimo- 
 ny," this is our. only guide in matters of religion. 
 And from hence we find, that baptifm is Tipo/i- 
 tive injVuution of Chrift, left in his church for the 
 benefit of his people ; concerning which we 
 can know nothing but from the revealed will of 
 the great Lawgiver. Had the baptifm of un- 
 believers been intended, it would have been de- 
 clared : if it were either exprejfed or implied, the 
 apojiles muft have underftood it, and their 
 //a* would have difcovered it ; ofwhicli nothing 
 certain has ever yet been made to appear. ' 
 
36 Impropriety of Baptljl Churches, ^c. 
 
 If fprinkling had been the divinely appointed 
 mode, it ' would be rational to expecfl to find it 
 exemplified in fcripture ; and that inftead of 
 their going to the water, that they brought the 
 water to them. " It behoves us therefore, well 
 to confider the rule which our Lord has given 
 relating to this ordinance."* " Becaufe we can 
 have no other direction in thefe fort of duties, 
 unlefs we have recourfe to mere invention, 
 which makes them our own in/lit ut ions, and 
 not the inftitutions of him who iiril appointed 
 them."t 
 
 Therefore we find, after tlie mofl: deliberate 
 inquiry, that there is fuch a real difference in 
 our fentiments and practice, that what the Pcs- 
 dohaptijls believe and pradife for baptifm, is fo 
 effentially different from Chrift's appointment, 
 that in our opinion it cannot be baptifm. 
 
 Then furely we mull bo the moft inconfijlcnt 
 fet of Chriftians in the world, to hold up the ne- 
 ccffity of baptifm by our profejfion, and yet when 
 we come to the Lord's table, praSiicaliy deny if, 
 by receiving thofe to our communion whom we 
 do not hefitate to tell the world, we look upon as 
 unbaptized perfons ; and fo for the lake of hold- 
 ing free communion, we mufl '* build again the 
 things that we have deflroyed, and thereby make 
 ourfelves tranfgrejfyrs," for once renouncing 
 them. 
 
 But let us go on to fee, what fuch a praclice 
 is built upon. 
 
 * Booth's Apol. p. J4. I B. Hoadtey's p. ac p. 3. 
 
Arguments for free Communion confideredi 37 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The Arguments for free Communion confidered — others 
 offered in Vindication of the Clofe Communionifls. 
 
 Should all that has been obferved in the pre- 
 ceding pages be aflented to, yet this queftion 
 may be put : Cannot the Baptift churches com- 
 miinicate with the Padobaptijis, where they obtain 
 l^itiofaclion that they are Chrijiians, and 2xe fin- 
 cere ? Let us try the matter. The brother pro- 
 pofnig to commune informs the church to 
 whom he applies, that he has reafon to fuppofe 
 he was baptized in his infancy, and has never 
 feen it to be his duty to be baptized fmce. Did 
 he but fee it to be duty, he would cordially 
 comply with it ; but as he does not, defu'es to 
 partake with them as he is. 
 
 What can the church do ? Muft the man be 
 debarred from doing his duty in one inftance, 
 becaufe he cannot fee it in another ? Or will 
 they drag him into the water ^ againft the light oi 
 his own confcience ? Surely not the latter. 
 Some reafons muft be given, or the man ought 
 to be received. But what is the ground of "his 
 application ? Why, he is a Chrijiian, and \s fin- 
 cere, and he is baptized to himfelf, or he confiders 
 himfelf fo. 
 
 That he is a Chrifliany the church may he fully 
 fatisficd ; and that he may he fncere, they do not 
 pretend to deny ; hnt Jincerityis not the term of 
 communion : but being conformed to the apof- 
 tles' dodrine, and continuing fieadfafily therein : 
 Ads ii. 42. 
 
 D 
 
5S Arguments far free Cmmunion confidcred. 
 
 If fincerity be the term of communion^ why might 
 not Paul have been admitted when he was a 
 member in good ftanding in the Jewip church ? 
 But it may be objected that he perfecuted the 
 faints of Jefus : it is true ; but who can challenge 
 his fincerity from his own declaration ? / verily 
 thought with niyfelf that I ought to do jnany things 
 contrary to the name of Jefus of Nazareth : A6ts 
 xxvi. 9. And whatever we praftife that is not 
 according to the will of Chrift, is contrary there- 
 to, although we be ever fo fincere in doing it. 
 
 May we not fuppofe that fome of all de- 
 nominations are Jincere, although ever fo errone- 
 ous ? But to illuftrate the idea, fuppofe one who 
 had been educated a Roman Catholic, Ihould 
 become a true convert, fo as to fatisfy a judg- 
 ment of charity : he alks for communion at the 
 Lord's table, but at the fame time lets the 
 church know, that he could not, with a good 
 confcience, receive the euj>. Although he has 
 renounced the church of Rome, the mother of 
 abo??iir?atia?is, yet he would not rejed any thing 
 that appears to him to be right, becaufe that 
 church held the fame ; he now acts honeftly, 
 according to the beft light he has. Would any 
 Proteftant church commune with him ? Surely 
 if they mean to praclife free ccmmionon they 
 ^ ©ught to. The man is allowed indeed to be in 
 an crror^ but then it is of that kind that is called 
 " non-effential, 7wi fundamental^ merely circwrjlan- 
 tial" — " the Jlrong ought to bear the infirmities 
 (he weak" — he muft be received. 
 At their nc?;t communion feafon, there comes 
 a difciplc of George Fax, who denies water baptifn 
 in every mode, but he is convinced of one 
 error in his part)-, refpe<5ting the facred fupper^ 
 
Arguments for free Comimmicn coiifidcrcd. 39 
 
 and is now defirous to tcftify his obedience to 
 this injlltutlon. Free cor,min:lon is too liberal in its 
 fentiments to reject him ; his plea is ftncerity, 
 which no one has a right to fcruple, without 
 falling under that fevere reproof, " Who art 
 thou that judgeft another naan's fervant ? to his 
 oivn mafter he ftands or falls." Neither of the 
 foregoing inftances can be more inconfiflcnt, 
 than for a Bciptiji church to commune with a 
 Psedobaptift, whilft they hold him to be unbap- 
 tized. And the arguments that will vindicate 
 the conduct of one, will fcrve the fame purpofe 
 for the other. 
 
 But it may be profitable here to have recourfe 
 to the fcripture doctrine in this matter, and if 
 that approves of fuch a line of conduct, we 
 ought to drop the difpute ; if not, to contend 
 earnefdy for this article of the Chriftian faith. 
 
 It muft be acknoy/ledged, that there is a con- 
 nexion between the two poiitive inftitutions 
 of Chrift, and that one of them muft be prior to 
 the other. For a man cannot partake of the 
 Lord's fupper, and be baptized, at the fame 
 time. 
 
 It is reafonable to fuppofe, that thefe appoint- 
 ments, with regard to their order and connex- 
 ion, depend as much on the fovereign will and 
 pleafure of the Lawgiver, as the appointments 
 themfelves. " Here then the queftion is. Has 
 our fovereign Lord revealed his vvdll, in regard 
 to this matter ? To the law and to the teftimo- 
 ny." How readeft thou ? " To determine the 
 query, we may firft confider the order of time 
 in whicli the two pofitive inftitutions of the 
 New Teftament were appointed : That baptifm 
 was an ordinance of God ; that fubmiflion was 
 
40 Arguments for free Comnmnion csnfidered. 
 
 required, and that it was adminiftered to mul- 
 titudes before the facred fupper was heard of 
 or had exiftcnce, are undeniable facts."* John 
 Baptift, the apoftles, and even the Son of God 
 incarnate, all pra<5i:ically recommended baptifm, 
 at a time when it would have been impious to 
 have eaten bread and drank v.'ine, as an ordi- 
 nance of divine worfliip. Baptifm therefore 
 Iiad the priority in point of inftitution. 
 
 Let us next confider the order of ivords in the 
 great commiffion. When a rifen Saviour faid to 
 his difciples, " all power is given me in heav- 
 en and in earth ; go ye therefore and teach all na- 
 tions, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft ; teaching 
 them to OBSERVE all things whatsoever I 
 HAVE COMMANDED YOU :" Mat. xxviii. 18, 19, 
 20. The firft article of the commiffion is, to 
 teach, then — v/hat ? To baptize, or to adjiuntfier 
 the Lord^ s fupper ? let every confcience judge. 
 
 Let us next confider the apoftolic practice. It 
 is very evident the apoftles underftood our Lord 
 in the fenfe for which we plead, and pracHfed ac- 
 cordingly. For when a number were " pricked 
 in their heart, and cried. Men and brethren, 
 what fliall we do ? Then Peter faid unto them. 
 Repent, Tindi^' — what, break bread ? Nay, verily ; 
 but " be baptized every one of you." The 
 willing converts followed his diredlion. " Then 
 they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 tized." 
 
 The next ftep was, to join themfelves to the 
 church, and afterwards they united in breaking 
 of bread. This is apoftolic order, and cannot 
 
 • Booth's Apol. p. 31. 
 
Arguments for free Comviunion confidered. 41 
 
 be denied, without contradiding the cracks of 
 truth. 
 
 When Chrift has thus revealed his will, for 
 us to difpute it, is rebellion. It rather becomes 
 us, with humility, to rejoice that he hath made 
 the path of our duty fo plain. 
 
 If what has already been obferved ftands con- 
 fiftent with fcripture, a contrary pradlice cannot 
 be proved from the word ; unlefs it be like a lead- 
 en rule, that will apply to any thing. Then if this 
 be the order in which the two gofpel inilitu- 
 tions Hand, we fliall do well to confider, who 
 hath given us a difpenfmg power, to fet afide 
 one which claims a prior right on the convert's 
 obedience, for the fake of indulging him in 
 another. 
 
 INIofes had no right to alter a fingle pin in the 
 tabernacle^ but was admoniflied to make all things 
 according to the pattern Ihown in tlie mount. 
 And whofoever inverts the order of Chrift's 
 appointments, muft be confidered as didating to 
 
 INflNlTE WISDOM. 
 
 The next thing that I fliall confider is, the 
 arguments drawn from St. Paul's ivords to the 
 Romans : Receive ye one another as Chri/i alfo hath 
 received us : Rom. xi. 7. Hence our opponents 
 argue, that fuch as God has received, we have 
 reafon to fuppofe he communes with. We can- 
 not, therefore, in the exercii'e of a Chriftian 
 tern. per, refufe to receive them. But is this re- 
 ceiving limited to communicating at the Lord's ta- 
 ble ? Is there no other way for us to manifeft 
 our love to our brethren of other denomina- 
 tions, but for us pradically to give up what we 
 confcientioufly believe to be the order of God's 
 houfe ? Before wc make fuch a mQveineiit, it 
 D 2 
 
42 4rgunmis for fres Cgmmumm confidercd. 
 
 "vvHl be proper to inquire into the apoflle's mean- 
 ing ; and inftead of giving my own thoughts 
 pn tlie text, I choofe rather to tranfcribe a paf- 
 i'age from a Paedobaptift writer,^ quoted by Mr. 
 BooTH,t who, dlffenting from what our oppo- 
 nents infer, obferves-— " This difference is glar- 
 ingly forced and wide, difcovering their igno- 
 rance of the true meaning and defign of the 
 text, who make it. The apoflle is not here 
 fpeaking of admiffion to church memberfhip at 
 all ; nor does he confider thofe to whom he 
 writes in the precife light of the church univer- 
 fal, but as members of a particular church or 
 body, among whom there was fome difference 
 of opinion about meats, &c. which was like to 
 break their communing together, as is plain 
 from the preceding chapter. The apoftle fets. 
 himfelf to prevent this, and to accomplifh a 
 reconciliation ? And after a number of healing 
 things, he concludes with thefe words — Receive 
 ye one another ; that is, ye who are faints at 
 Rome, who have agreed to v/alk together in" 
 the commandments and ordinances of the Lord 
 Jefas ; ye who are profefledly united in church 
 communion, receive ye one another in love, as 
 becometh faints united in one body for mutual 
 benefit. Bear ye one another's burdens : watch 
 over and admonifli one another in love, not- 
 withftanding fome diiference in fentiments 
 among you, as to the eating certain meats, and 
 regarding certain days ; but let not that differ- 
 ence make any breach in your communion to- 
 gether as a church of Chrifl. But let the flrong 
 bear with thofe that are weak ; and the weak 
 
 * Smith's Compend. Acc. of the form and order of the chBrch, p. 
 119. t Apology, p. 85. 
 
Arguments for free Ccnwrunion conjidercd, 4? 
 
 not be oifipnded v/ith the liberty of the ftrong. 
 Judge n(ft one another uncharitably ; but let 
 brotherly love continue. This is preciiely the 
 :ipoftle's meaning, as will appear to thole who 
 look impartially into the connexion of his argu- 
 ment, and by no means ferves the purpofe for 
 wliich the objcclors bring it." There is an 
 elTential difference between their eating or not 
 eating meats in the apoftolic times, and our be- 
 ing baptized or noi baptized, prior to commun- 
 ion at the Lord's table. The latter being a 
 Iblsmn inftitution of divine worfliip : but can 
 this be alferted of the former ? Surely it muft be 
 ftraining things beyond bounds, to let thefe ob- 
 folete, antiquated rites in contrail with a golpel 
 inftitution. 
 
 Another argument made ufe of in favour of 
 free communion is, that if they are God's children, 
 be communes with them ; and if fo, it would 
 be fuperftition for any to refufe to come to the 
 facred table with them. But it is not what 
 God can or does do, but his revealed will, that 
 is the rule of our duty. Many have left tlje 
 word of God out of a partial regard to the 
 charafters of gi'eat and good men. But it may 
 be remembered, that when the Lord fent the 
 prophet from Judah to cry againft the altar at 
 Bethel, that he was forbid to eat bread or drink 
 ■v/<iter, in that place. For a time he kept clofe 
 \o the word of the Lord, and profpered. But 
 3^ter he was gone, an old prophet purfued after 
 him, and finally prev^ed with him to return. 
 Had he appeared as an open enemy, it is not Hke^ 
 \y the prophet would have heard to him ; but 
 tbis is the way in which he prevailed with hjm, 
 by telling him—/ alfo am a prophit ; and that an 
 
44 Arguments for free Commumon conftdered. 
 
 angd fpakc unto mo to bring thee back. But though 
 a prophet, or an angel from heaven had fpoken 
 unto him, he had no warrant to leave the word 
 of God ; and for his difobedience was foon flain 
 of a lion.* 
 
 Another argument made ufe of by thofe who 
 plead for open communion is, that we can join in 
 pi-ayer, either in our families or in public, with 
 Psedobaptifts, or can hear them preach occa- 
 fionally, and yet, after ail, cannot come to the 
 Lord's table with them. It is true, and perhaps 
 fome caufe can be flicwn for our conduft. 
 We efteem it not only hrjiful, but to be our in- 
 difpcnfable duty, to manifeft xiur love to all that 
 love the I^ord, in every way that is not incon- 
 fiftent with a revelation of the divine will in 
 fome other rcfpec^s. 
 
 I prefume it will be a given point, that cir- 
 cunicifion was abfolutely neceilary for every 
 male, in order to partake at the pafchal fupper ; 
 this was not the effeft of any bigoted notion 
 in the Ifraelites, but by a pofitive command 
 of Jehovah : Exod. xii. 48. Had Enoch, who 
 walked with God as a faint, and who, as a 
 prophet, foretold the coming of Chrift to judg- 
 ment ; or Noah, who was an heir of the righteouf- 
 nefs of faith, as well as a preacher of it ; or 
 Melchifedek, that illuftrious type of the great 
 Meffiah ; had thefe been contemporary with Mo- 
 fes, and fojourners in the fame wildernefs, they 
 could not have been admitted to communion in 
 the Ifraelitifti church, without fubrnitting to 
 circumcifion. Yet had Enoch been in the camp 
 of Ifrael when Korah and his company fnutinied, 
 and had been difpofed to have given the reb- 
 
 * Sec this account, i Kings, xiii. 
 
Arguments for free Conmun'ion ccnftdcred. 45 
 
 els a lecture on the fecond coming of Chrifi:, 
 I cannot fuppofe his offered fervice would have 
 been rejected by Mofes, merely becaufe he was 
 not circumcifed. Had Noah been prefent when 
 the tabernacle was erected, and had been dif- 
 pofed to have given the people a fermon on 
 the future incarnatlcn of the Son of God, and 
 the rightcoufncfs of faith, of which that facred 
 ftrufture had a typical regard, I cannot but 
 think they would have given him a hearing ; 
 and yet the pofttive Iwjj of Jehovah would 
 have forbidden their partaking at the pafchal 
 fcaft. 
 
 Our Lord, though he warned his hearers 
 againft tJie pride and hypocrify, the unbelief 
 and covetoufnefs of the" Pharifees and Scribes, 
 yet exhorted the people to regard the truths 
 they delivered : Mat. xxiii. 1, 2, 3. Yet 
 would any affcrt that our Lord would have 
 admitted thefe ecclefiaftics to communion in 
 fpecial ordinances ? When the beloved difci- 
 ple faid, " Mafter, we faw one cafting out 
 devils in thy name, and we forbid him, be- 
 caufe he followed not with us Jefus anfwer- 
 ed, *' Forbid him not ; for he that is not 
 againft us, is for us :" Luke ix. 49, 50. From 
 hence it appears, that we ought to encourage 
 thofe who are fighting againft the common 
 enemy, and are propagating the common truth, 
 although we cannot commune in fpecial ordi- 
 nances together. 
 
 Another argument which has been addreffed 
 with conftderabie effect, to the feelings and paf. 
 fions of Chriftians, is, tlie confequences that 
 will follow upon clofe communion, i. c. that if 
 Chriftians cannot communicate together in this 
 
46 Arguments for free Qomrmnian confidersd' 
 
 world, how can they expeft to enjoy fellow- 
 fliip together in heaven. 
 
 This is fomcthing very frightful indeed I 
 that there muft be two heavens for feparate 
 fpirits ! 
 
 But this may be anfwered by attending to 
 a few things. Who would dare to anathe- 
 matiize all thofe who deny the ufe of both 
 ordinances ? Or, who will venture to fay, that 
 among the different kindreds, tongues and 
 tribes, who will appear in that illuftrious 
 throng, at the decifive hour, there will be 
 none who never faw nor praclifed the facred 
 ordinances in any form ? Or, who will afBrm, 
 that none who are excommunicated perfons 
 win ever be admitted into heaven ? 
 
 And yet upon gofpel principles, it would 
 be unlawful to commune with them while 
 Tuch. 
 
 But thefe objedlions muft appear of no 
 weight to the candid.* For where is there a 
 church of any denomination that there is not 
 fuch difference of opinion in fome things 
 among them, as at fome times to produce 
 trials, and at others, lharp contentions ? And 
 yet may we not fuppofe that one heaven will 
 hold them all after death ? Yes ; death, the 
 great leveller, will put an end to our party 
 difputes, and bring the duft of contending 
 Chriflians to refl in fweet agreement in the 
 grave ! equally fo will the fiery trial, which 
 lliall burn up all the hay, wood and fixihhlc from 
 the foul, bring the fpirits of all good men to 
 dwell in a ftatc of uninterrupted felicity. 
 
 The lafti thing that I flnll confider, which is 
 brought as a plea for open communion, is, that 
 
Arguments for free Communion confidercd. 47 
 
 the fcripture account of baptifm is left in fuch 
 darknefs and ambiguity, both as to the fubjects 
 and mode, that nothing certain can be deter- 
 mined. Therefore it calls for our charity to- 
 wards thofe who differ from us. It may be re- 
 membered, that when the talents were com- 
 mitted to the fervants to occupy, the two that 
 improved made no complaints ; the other had 
 a hard mafter, an aujlere man ; a great many 
 difficulties ftood in the way of duty. That the 
 baptifm of infants is not made plain, we fliall 
 not deny : but, that believers were baptized, is 
 as plain as words can make it ; and fliines 
 through the New Teflamcnt as if written with 
 a fun-beam. If fprinkling be the mode intended 
 in the New Tefbament, we muft concede to the 
 propofition that is not made plain. It would 
 feem like an ambiguous affair indeed, to relate, 
 that both the adminijirator and the perfon bap- 
 tized, went down into the water, and came up out of 
 it again, when all that was to be done, was only 
 to fprinkle a little water ra the face. Yea, to 
 read in the volume of infpiration that multi- 
 tudes were baptized in the river Jordan ; and 
 that they were baptized in Enon, bccaufe there was 
 much water there^ when a few bafons of water 
 would have ferved the purpofe equally well. 
 This would feem indeed to be fo dark, that com- 
 mon fenfe mufl have been at a lof^, how to have 
 reconciled this ancient account with modern prac- 
 ticCy had it not been that fome gentlemen of 
 great invention, have lent their friendly aid, 
 and call peculiar light upon the fubjecl. They 
 have informed the world, that the large quanti- 
 ty of water was neceffary for the ufe of the 
 camels and liTes the i^eopk- rode upon ; whereas 
 
48 Arguments for free Communion conjtdercd. 
 
 the only thing that the fcriptures bring, into 
 view, is the conveniency/of baptizing. That the 
 Padobaptijh confider it as not made plain in 
 fcripture ; or, that it is left to be pradifed in- 
 differently, as circumftances may require, is 
 abundantly evident from their conduct ; for 
 many of them adminifter both ways ; fometimes 
 in the meeting-houfe, and then in a river. What 
 flrange amphibious Chriflians ! 
 
 If the Greek verb baptize has not been rightly 
 explained, we have no reafon to fuppofe it ever 
 will be. 
 
 And this evidence we find in our favour from 
 the various expofitors upon it, that all the Bap- 
 tifts agree, that the word in its firft or primary 
 fenfe, fignifies to dip or plunge, and only in a 
 fecondary and confequential fenfe, to ivajh* 
 Many of the Pxdobaptifts allow the firft fenfe 
 of the word to be the fame as we do :t and if 
 others deny it, yet ftiil the evidence ftands in 
 our fovour ; for none would give it up againft 
 « themfelves, if they were not obliged in juftice 
 to do it. A number of ancient, learned expofi- 
 tors upon the Greek allow this fenfe. J The mat- 
 ter is out of difpute in our minds ; and we re- 
 ally think, that the combination of ivords and 
 cireumjiances recorded in the New Teftament, 
 have made it as plain as any others could, fo 
 that " he may run that readeth." So plain 
 that " no wayfaring man, though a fool, needs 
 err therein." Yet many who have been cducat- 
 
 • Dodor Gill's anfwcr to Mr. Dickgnfon, p. 90. 
 
 f Sec the learned Henry, on Rom. vi. 4. Alfo quoted by Mr. 
 Fofter, Dr. Doddridge, Mr. Uurlci'tt, Dr. Maclainc, Dr. Wuli, and Mr. 
 Poole. 
 
 \ Scapula, Sclirevelius, Budreus, Calvin, Bcza; Ctilauboii, Cirociuii, 
 &c. quoled With their words by Dr. Gill. 
 
Brief Addrefs to the Baptifi Churches. 49 
 
 ed in the theory of the Chriftian religion, from 
 their early days, excufe themfelves from this 
 duty, becaufe they cannot fee it. But it is fo 
 plain that an Ethiopian Eunuch^ who, but a few- 
 minutes before, did not underjland -what he read, 
 was foon inftrufted in the weighty concerns of 
 his foul, and believed in the truth loith all his 
 heart ; which immediately led him to come 
 down from his chariot, and go down ififo the 
 water. Surely the Chriftian who boafts fuperior 
 advantages above an Ethiopian, muft Hand ad- 
 moniflied by this example. If Ananias of Da- 
 jnafcus, was to meet fuch an indifferent brother, 
 would he not addrefs him in his admonifhing 
 language, " Why tarrieft thou ? Arife and be 
 baptized." Would not the ready obedience of 
 the jailor, who " arofe the faftie hour of the 
 night, and was baptized, he and all his ftraight- 
 way," reprove fuch a delaying brother ? 
 
 Could not Lydia leave the river fide, where 
 the Lord firfb opened her heart, before ftie gave 
 proof of her faith, by fubmitting to this ordi- 
 nance ? Then let the doubting lift their eyes and 
 fee what a cloud of witnefles we are furrounded 
 with, and lay afide every weight, and run the 
 felf-denying race ; and fee that they do not 
 make void the commandments of God, through 
 their tradition. 
 
 Having thus gone through with what I pro- 
 pofed, I fliall clofe the whole by a brief addrefs 
 to the Baptift Churches. 
 
 Bear Brethren, 
 
 It was at the requeft of a number of you that 
 I attempted to write ; and if I fhould fail of 
 anfwering your expedations, yet ftill I have the 
 
 £ 
 
50 Brief Addrefs to the Baptijl Churches.. 
 
 teftlmony of my confcience, to the reftitude of 
 my inteniion ; and my inaDiiity you will tender- 
 ly impeach. You will find a great difference in 
 th )fe who objed againftour order, with regard 
 to chfe communion. Some, no doubt, are to be 
 confidered in the light of thofe we meet with, 
 Ezra iv. 2, who requefted of thofe Jewifti fa- 
 thers, to build with them j their plea was, " We 
 feek your God as ye do ; and we do facrifice to 
 him fince the day of Efar-baddon, king of Af- 
 fur." Thefe were not admitted, for they were 
 enemies, and only fought to overthrow thole 
 who were building. 
 
 But you will meet with others, who, joying, 
 and beholding your order, would gladly take 
 privileges with you ; who Hand high in your 
 efteem as friends to the caufe of truth ; thefe 
 demand the tendereft expreflions of your love. 
 Yet it is never to be expreffed in a way contrary 
 to God's revealed will. Therefore, if our pro* 
 feffion be confiftent with the word of truth, let 
 our praftice be fo too. Let thofe who open 
 their doors for free communion confider, wheth- 
 er they do not give more liberty than the fcrip- 
 tures do, by fitting down at the holy table 
 with thofe whom they look upon as unbaptized^ 
 They will do well to fearch for a precedent for 
 their condud in the word of God. I am per- 
 fuaded, if they were to afk the Chriftian world! 
 in general, they would readily join with the 
 apo'ilG and fay, " We have nofuch cuftom, nor 
 the churches of God'* that were before us, as to< 
 receive unbaptized perfons to communicate 
 with us. 
 
 Let thofe who praAife according to their jrt-o- 
 felTion, never be apamed of the crofs of Chrill f 
 
Brief Addrefs to the Eaptijl Churches. 51 
 
 but remember that it is enough that the difcipte 
 be as his Lord, and the fervanthe as his mafter. 
 Remember the apoille's words to the Theffaloni- 
 ans, " Now we command you, in the name of 
 our Lord Jefus Chrift, that ye withdi-aw your- 
 felves from every brother that walketh difor- 
 derly, and not after the tradition which he re- 
 ceived of us :" 2 Their, iii. 6. It may be your 
 duty to withdraw from them that you confider 
 as not conformed to the tradition of the apof- 
 ties ; fo far, as not to partake together at the 
 Lord's table. 
 
 But I fhall clofe with the woi'ds of the belov- 
 ed Paul -to the Corinthians : " Now I befeech 
 you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, that ye all fpeak the fame thing, and 
 that there be no divifions among you ; but that 
 ye be perfectly joined together in the fame 
 mind, and in the fame judgment 1 Cor. i. 10. 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Particular Communion 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BAPTIST CHURCHES, 
 
 F.XPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 
 
 IN THREE PARTS. 
 
 THE FIRST — Published ORIGINALLY in 1789; 
 THE SECOND— In 1794; 
 
 THE THIRD— An Appendix, containing Additional 
 Observations and Arguments, with Strictures on 
 several late publications. 
 
 
 
 BY THOMAS BALDWIN. 
 PART II. 
 
 fOVJlTH EDITION, REVISED. 
 
 Bofton : 
 
 Printed and fold by Manning y Loring, No, 2, Cornhill. 
 1806. 
 
DisTRtcT OF MAssAcwnrrty to wit: 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the fevcnth day of Auguft, in 
 the thiny-firft year of the independence of the United States of 
 America, M,\ N n i n" o Lo r i N c, of the faid diftrift, have depof- 
 ited in this office the title cf a Book, the right whereof ihey claim a» 
 Proprietors, in the words following, to wit : — " The Baptifiii of Be- 
 lievers only, and the. Particular Communion of the Baptift Churches, 
 explained and vindicated. In Three Parts. The firfl — pub 11 fhed ori- 
 ginally in 1789; the fecond — in 1794; the third — an Appendix, con- 
 taining Additional Obfervations and Arguments, with Striftures on 
 feveral iate Publications. By Thomas Baldwin." 
 
 In conformity lo the Aflof the Congrefs of the United States, enti- 
 tled, " An Aft for the encouragement of learning, by fecuring the 
 copies of maps, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of 
 fuch copies, during the times therein mentioned and alfoto an Aft, 
 entitled, " An Aft fupplemeiiury to an Aft, entitled, ' An Aft for 
 the encouragement of learning, by fecuring the copies of maps, charts, 
 and books, to the Authors and Proprietors ot fuch copies, during jhe 
 times therein mentioned ;' and extending the benefits thereof to the 
 arts of deligning, engraving, and etching hiftorical and other prints." 
 
 N. GOODALE, CM of the Diftria of MaJJaehufetts. 
 A true Copy of Record. 
 
 Attcft 1 N. Goo»AiE, C/fri. 
 
A 
 
 BRIEF VINDICATION, &c* 
 
 SECTION I. 
 Frellmirtar;^ Obfervatiotis on the SubjeSi in Difpute. 
 
 REVEREND SIR, 
 
 Your Frieridh Letter, which vas publlflied in 
 December, 1791, 1 could not obtain until feveral months 
 after ; and have not the pleafure of acknowledging 
 your politenefs in fending me a copy ; although from 
 an apology ofl'ered by your generous brathers, i am in- 
 clined to hope it was not a dedgned omillion. 
 
 In my other Piece I obferved, ^' that it was not the 
 love of controverfy which induced me to write." I 
 have the happinefs ftill to believe, that this is not my 
 greatefl motive. And had your arguments proved our 
 fentiments and praftice refpefting communion, to be un- 
 fcriptural, or iuconfijlcv.t with that brotherly afFedtion 
 which the gofpel requires, I I'hould indeed • have been 
 a gainer by the controverfy,' and would have acknowl- 
 edged myfelf indebted to you for the inftruftion. But 
 after I had carefully examined yoiir arguments, I did 
 not find the evidence fulficient to produce conviftion : 
 therefore, am obliged in Jtncerity to abide by rAy former 
 opinion. 
 
 Were the difpute between us to be confidered mere- 
 ly perfoual, and unconnefted with the interefts of re- 
 
 * This Part muft Hill be confid«red as a Reply to the remarks of the 
 Rev, Noah IVerceJler, A. B. in his FrUndly Letttr to the Author. 
 
56 
 
 Preliminary Ohfervations. 
 
 ligion, I fliould not think myfelf called upon to 
 attempt a reply. But fince the honour of Chrift as 
 Head of the church, and Law-giver in his own king- 
 dom, and the peace and tranquillity of two denomina- 
 tions of Chriftians are in fome meafure involved in this 
 difpute, it appears to me of importance that the ground 
 of the controveriy fliould be fully afcertained. And as 
 you have endeavoured to lay the blame wholly to our 
 denomination^, I fhall moft cheerfully come forward, 
 ■with a vindication of rnyfelf and brethren. 
 
 In pui fuing my 'prefent defign, I fliall be led to re- 
 nark upon feveral things., which are offered to confid- 
 «>raj.ion in your Friendly Letter. lu doing of which, I 
 hope to be governed by a fpirit of candour and Chrit- 
 tian love •, and can affure you, that nothing would give 
 me more fenlihle reget, than to mifconceive, or mifrep- 
 refent your meaning. In fome inilances I could have 
 wiihed that you had been more explicit, which would 
 have relieved me from the fear of miftaking you. 
 
 It win not be exported, that I Ihould follow you in 
 the exa(ri: order in which you have treated the fubje(St ; 
 nor that I fliould reply to all that you have written. 
 Some of your oI)fervations are agreeable to my views ; 
 and fome of them appear to be unconnefted with the 
 I'ubjeft in difpute. 'fo avoid prolixity, I fliall omit 
 many things which might with propriety be urged in 
 the prefent controverfy. 
 
 You have obferved, that with fome degree of care 
 you had perufed the pamphlet which I had written : if 
 fo, you muil; have obi'erved our main objedions to free 
 communion confill: efleiitially, in two things; viz. l.That 
 baptifm is a divinely appointed pre-requihte to com- 
 munion at the Lord's table. 2. That iminerfiou upon 
 a profeffion of faith is eflential to gofpel baptifm. The 
 firll of thcfe I take for granted you have given up : for 
 you obferve, (p 9.) * The queftion is not, whether 
 baptifm in feme mode be an ejfential qualification ;' you 
 alio add, (p. 13.) 'I do not deny that baptifm was 
 prior to coming to the Lord's table in th& apoftolick 
 praflice. I fuppofe it was : and I alfo fuppofe their ex- 
 ample to be worthy' of imitation in like circumllances.' 
 
PreHmittary Ohfervations. 
 
 57 
 
 Thus, Sir, he who is unbaptized, however amiable his 
 character may appear, is ejj'entially difaual'ified in your 
 efteem. In this particular we feem to be agreed, that 
 baptifm in fome mode is eflential to a due qualification for 
 the Lord's table. And I believe this to be the general 
 lenfe of the two denominations. The other objeftion 
 remains yet to be confidered ; which may be divided into 
 two queftions : i. e. Who are the proper /iv^V^j- of bap- 
 tifm ? And, what is the appointed mode ? I have faid in 
 my other Piece, that we conhder «« profeffed believers 
 as the only proper }''ubje(^ts of baptifm j" and "that im- 
 medion is net a mere drcumf.ance^ or mode of baptifm, 
 biit eflential to the ordinance." I have not obferved in 
 your Letter that you have difproved thefe fentiments ; 
 but what you have faid in this refpei^ fhall be attended 
 to in its place. For the prefent we lhall only fay, that 
 you have raifed a huge hoft of fuppofitiotu and ccnj'iquen- 
 ceSf and brought them all againft our fentiments, as if 
 you were determined to frighten us out of our alle- 
 giance to the great Lanv-giver : but we may fay as 
 Saint Paul in another cafe, None of theft things -imve us. 
 
 If I have rightly comprehended your reafoning in 
 favour of free communion, the moft material arguments 
 are the foUowifig. ]. < Tr>at the eflence of baptifm 
 does not confift in any one particular mode whatever.' 
 (p. 10.) 2. If it Ihould finally appear, that you had 
 miffed the divine appointment, yet, as ' godly fmarity 
 is the very soul and essence of conformity to Chrifl,' 
 you are therefore < as well accepted in the fight of God, 
 as though your outward condudi liad been according to 
 the appointed mode.' (p. 19, 21.) 3. ' Suppoflng that 
 the Psedobaptifts are really in an error, if Chrill does 
 not view the error as fo effcntial but that he will com- 
 mune with them, why cannot you commune with thofe 
 at the table, with whom God communes V (p. 28, 29.) 
 
 Thefe appear to be the main pillars on which your 
 fuperftrudlure is built ; and ihall each of them be par- 
 ticularly confidered. Having thus ftated the conftitu- 
 ent parts of the difpute, we are now prepared to attend 
 to each particular. 
 
'68 Believers the only appointed SuhjeHs of Baptifm. 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Profejfed Believers the only appointed SubjeSls of Baptifm, 
 
 your third part you obferve, ' The queftion to 
 be difputed is fummarily this : "Whether, for a perfon 
 to be baptized by immei fion, after believing, be an ef- 
 fential term of communion at the Lord's table ?' Of 
 this queftion you inform your readers that I ' take the 
 affirmative fide.* But, my dear fir, you have not ftated 
 the queftion right : that is, if you mean to have me take 
 the affirmative. Nor will your quotations from me fup- 
 port fuch a ftatement. The paffhges quoted, and from 
 which you make the miftake, are in thefe words j that 
 baptifm is to be adminiftered only in one mode, and 
 to one kind of fubjefts." That " profefled believers 
 are the ouly proper fubjefts of baptifm." I fuppofe the 
 difference to be eafily difcerned. I faid « profefled 
 believers," you fay " to be baptized after believing." 
 The former I'uppofes that a perfon may fatisfy a judg- 
 ment of charity, and yet be a hypocrite : the latter, 
 that he is infallibly a believer. I conclude, that a perfon 
 may be baptized according to Cl. rift's inftitution, and 
 yet be a hypocrite j but he cannot be baptized inftitu- 
 tionally, without a profeffion of faith. We are obliged 
 by the gofpel rule to require a profeflxon j but we are 
 not obliged to know the fmcerity of the perfon who 
 makes it. 
 
 Now, Sir, to fome the queftion may appear to be the 
 fame but it is evident that there is a very fpecific dif- 
 ference ; and, fi-om the wrong manner in which you 
 have ftated it, you have gone on to draw falfe conclu- 
 fions, and to crowd a train of difagreeable confequencas 
 upon our fcntiments, which v/ill appear of no force, 
 when the queftion is rightly conftdered. 
 
 You inform your readers, (p. VI) that v/e fuppofe, 
 " not only that immerfion is effential to the ordinance 
 of baptifm, but tlipt none are proper fubj^cts of it but 
 vifible believers." From this you draw the following 
 inference : < If none are proper fubjedls but vifible be 
 
Believers the only appointed Subjelis of Baptifm, 59 
 
 llevers, none are proper fubjefts but real believers.' 
 You jlluftrate it as follows : * For althouglx a perfon's 
 outwardly appearing to be a proper fubje^t, may give 
 him a right in the light of men, it does not in the fight 
 of God.' 
 
 You will permit me here to inquire, whether you 
 have any other method to judge of the * real piety' the 
 * godly ftncerity^ or the proper qualifications of perfons 
 for fpecial ordinances, but what is vifible, or in the 
 fight of men If you have, it is a prerogative which we 
 do not claim. I think, Sir, the inference grants, that 
 they have a right in the fight of men \ and although 
 God may know them to be hypocrites, as he is not plea- 
 fed to interpofe and make the matter vifible, who will 
 dare to challenge their right, and forbid, their proceed- 
 ing ? 
 
 That this obfervation may appear in its proper light, 
 we will bring the matter upon trial and, if you pleafe, 
 we will borrow an example from the New Teftament 
 to illuftrate it by. In the eighth chapter of the Adls, 
 we have an account of Philip's vifiting and preaching 
 the gofpel in Samaria, and of the happy effects which 
 followed. That a people who had long been be- 
 witched, were now reduced to reafon and religion, 
 which was the occafion of great joy in that city ; and it 
 is faid, " when they believed Philip preaching the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name 
 of Jefus Chrifl, they were baptized, both men and 
 luomen." It is alfo added, that Simon believed that is, 
 he appeared to Philip and others to believe : for we cannot 
 fuppofe from the account afterwards given of him, that 
 he was a real believer, though at this time there was 
 nothing appeared to the contrary. Now, what was 
 Philip's duty in the prefent cafe ? It is evident that he 
 required, as a pre-requiftte in his candidates, that they 
 believe with all the heart ; as appears from another cir- 
 cumftance recorded in the fame chapter. And although 
 Simon appeared to him to be a true believer, yet, in the 
 fight of God, he was nothing but a hypocrite. 
 
 It is abundantly evident, that Philip required the 
 fame qualifications, in order to baptifm, that the 
 
60 Believers the only appointed StibjeSls of Baptifm. 
 
 Baptifts do at the prefent day. It is equally evident, 
 that he baptized a pcrfon, who, in the fight of God, 
 had not thofe qualifications. The prefent inquiry is, 
 whether he did right or not ? If you fliould choofe to 
 fay, he did not aft confiftently with his principles ; this 
 will lead us to inquire again, what reafons could deter- 
 mine him in acting otherwife, as he did not know the 
 heart of Simon But as this anfwer would neceflarily 
 involve you in a controverfy with him, 1 lhall for the 
 prefent leave it, to be fettled between you. But fhould 
 you give your opinion in favour of his conduft, by 
 whatever arguments you would vindicate that^ the fame 
 will ferve to vindicate under fimilar circumftances. 
 
 It may be proper here to attend to the confequences 
 you have drawn from the preceding obfervations ; i. e. 
 that upon our principles * it mny be neceffary to admin- 
 ifter the ordinance of baptifm fifty or a hundred times 
 to the fame perfon.' Alarming as thefe confequences 
 may appear to you, they do not greatly terrify us : For 
 our principles have had a practical exiftence for ages 
 paft 5 and yet I can aflure you, I have never heard of 
 a perfon's being baptized Jive and twenty times. Nor is it 
 common with us to baptize a perfon more than once. 
 But if we fliould think it neceffary upon any occafion to 
 repeat it, Psedobaptifts do even the fame. Some of them 
 have become fo liberal, as not only to immerfe, or 
 fprinkle, as the candidate may choofe ; but, to innnerfe 
 thofe who have been fprinkled in inEincy, and have 
 been members of their churches for many years !* If 
 it be neceffary to perform it twice, I know not but that 
 fome circumftances may render it equally neceffary to 
 perform it Jifty times. 
 
 But, Sir, I wifli to bring the inftance of Philip and 
 Simon once more into view, as I think it may fervc to 
 remove fome of your fuppofed difficulties. It will un- 
 doubtedly be granted, that Philip baptized the prcerer, 
 upon the fame footing which he did the other Samari- 
 
 • If I am rightly informed, the Rev Mr. P — paftor of a church 
 in your vicinity, has baptized a numhcr who had been baptized in in- 
 f.incy. 'I hc fane has been done by the Rev. Mr B — of Raiidcjlph, in 
 Vermont. Other inftances might be mentioned if neceffary, 
 
BilUvers the otily appointed Subjects of Bapttfm. 61 
 
 tan converts, i. e. upon a prsfejfion of fiiih. But, when 
 Peter and John came to vifit the brethren at Samaria, 
 and had laid their hands on a number, by which means 
 the niiraailoiis gifts of the Holy Ghoft were conferred, 
 Sitnm beholding, was filled with aftonifliment, and pro- 
 ceeded to offer them money, in order to obtain this 
 power. This conduct betrayed his ignorance of the 
 true fpirit of religion, and expofed him to that mofc 
 levere reproof from Peter ; " Thy money perifh with 
 thee, — thou haft neither part nor lot in this matter -.for 
 thy heart is not right in the fight of God. For 1 perceive 
 that thou art in the gall of bitternefs, and in the bond 
 of iniquity." He was no longer to be conlidered as a 
 Chriftian, but under the reigning power of guilt and 
 unbelief. 
 
 Now fliould we fuppofe Philip to return this way 
 again in a few weeks, and after inquiring into the ftate 
 of his young converts, he is informed of the lituatioa 
 of Sim:n, and from the account he receives is defirous 
 of a perfonal interview with him : It is agreed to, and 
 when the time arrives, Simon comes before him ; blufh- 
 ing and confulion appear in his face ; iliame and forrow 
 mingle in his eyes ; lie paufes — he fighs ! at length 
 thus addrefles the Evangelift : " I have indeed done 
 diflionour to the Chriftian name, and have given ample 
 proof to the world, that I was a ftrarjer to the power 
 and divinity of the gofpel : and althoutrh my admira- 
 tion was raifed by the miracles I beheld, my paflions 
 moved and charmed by the foft eloqueace of your per- 
 fuafive tongue ; yet alas ! I was but in love wi:h my- 
 felf, inftead of a Saviour ; but tiiy iniqiitv has found vie 
 out, and now appears hateful to me." He informs Philip, 
 that the exhortation given him by the apoftle Peter to 
 repent, was fo accompanied with the divine energy, that 
 he had now reafon to hope that he had become a true 
 penitent. Philip, and the church at Samaria, are fully 
 fatisfied, that although Simon, when he made a pro- 
 felBon, v/as in the gall of bitternefs and bond of iniquity y yet 
 that he is now become a true child of God. 
 
 You will permit me here in my turn to inquire, 
 whether Simon can now be looked upon as a "jiftbly qual- 
 
 G 
 
62 Believers the only appointed Sitbje^s cf Bapti/in. 
 
 ified member for church ftllowfliip and communion ? 
 or whether he is to be baptized again ? I do not wilh 
 to anticipate your anfwer ; but as it is a difficulty of 
 your own propofing, I think it reafonable to give you 
 the labouring oar ; and whatever luay you are pleafed 
 to decide in this cafe, will undoubtedly reheve us under 
 fimilar circumftances. 
 
 Upon the whole, does it not appear evident to every 
 candid reader, that we require no more, nor any other 
 qualifications in our candidates for baptifm, than what 
 v/erc required in the apoftolick age ? They required 
 their candidates to believe luith all the heart ; we require 
 no more. Therefore, whatever confequences are fairly 
 deducible from our principles in this point, the fame 
 are equally chargeable upon theirs. '"^ 
 
 Agreeably to the foregoing obfervations r.re the fenti- 
 mpnts of many Paedobaptifl writers. I will here 
 cite the words of one. " It is manlfeft (faith he) 
 that Philip's principles were, to baptize none but 
 what had faving grace, and believed with all their 
 hearts."' Aifo, " It is oianifeft that the apofiJcs did not 
 "itend to baptize any adult perfons, except they had 
 Knowledge or fatisfadlicn that they had the feed of 
 <;race fown in their hearts. Vv^itnefs the inftance of 
 Philip's baptizing the eunijch ; again, for proof, Peter's 
 baptizing Cornelius, and thofe Gentiles that believed, 
 after they had received the Koly Ghoft, as well as 
 the believing Jews : So alfo the inftance of the jailer's 
 family. Not to multiply inftances, it is well known, or 
 may be well known, that faith is always fpoken of in 
 the word of God before baptifm ; and v/e all agree that 
 baptifm is to be adminiftered to a perfon before the 
 Lord's fupper."* If this be a juft ftatement of fa^ts, 
 that neither Philip nor the apoiiles meant to baptize 
 any adults, but thofe who believed with all the heart i 
 and that it is well known that faith is always fpoken of 
 in the word of God before baptizing ; furely the Bap- 
 tiils cannot be reafonably blamed, for endeavouring to 
 imitate apoftolick prui^licc. 
 
 • Frotli Ingham's Right to the Lord's Supper, p. 6j, 6<. 
 
Believers the only appointed SuhjeBs of Baptifn:. 6? 
 
 From the preceding remarks, yoti may probably fee 
 wherein you have miftaken the matter, in charging 
 our lentiments with error refpecling the quahiications 
 of candidates for baptifm. You feem to iuppofe, that 
 becaufe we require them to be vijible believers, that wc 
 are obliged to know that they are real beliei-ers : Thi; 
 is evidently implied in your objection, ' That if none 
 are proper fubje61;s but vilible believers, none are proper 
 fubjcfb but real believers.' That every man vcho pro- 
 feffes religion ought to be what he profefles, no one 
 will deny ; but, that we are obliged to kuoru them to 
 be lirtccrc, I have never yet conceived Wei-e we, for 
 fear of the confequences, to refufe to adminifter either 
 the ordinance of baptifm, or tlie Lord's fupper, untii 
 we abfolutely knew who were Ji/icere, I believe we 
 Ihould adminifter no more until the end of time. 
 
 But, ftiould we allow all the confequences which you 
 have fuppofed to be true, (vv^hich will by no means be 
 granted) and Ihould we then fuppofe again, that fome 
 imagination, more fertile than yours, might fuggeft 
 twice as many more, what then ? Are we to mutilate 
 or lay afide a pofuive inftitution, for fear of confequen- 
 ces which are very unlikely ever to take place ? Is our 
 obedience to be meafured by our own conveniency, or 
 to be withheld becaufe of fome fuppofed. difficulties ? 
 Surely not. 
 
 Pofuive inftitutions require our implicit obedience to 
 the fovereign will of Him who inftituted them, witI>out 
 afligning any reafons for their fitnefs, or making a pro- 
 vifo in cafe of fuppofed difficulties. They r.re well dif- 
 tlnguifhed from moral precepts, by a late learned writer. 
 His words are as follow : «« Moral precepts, are precepts 
 the reafon of which we fee ; politive precepts, are pre- 
 cepts the reafon of wliidi we do not fee. Moral du- 
 ties arife out of the nature of the cafe itfelf, prior to ex- 
 ternal command ; pofitive duties do not arife out of the 
 nature of the cafe, but from external command ; nor 
 v/onld they be duties at all, were it not for fuch com- 
 mand, received from Him whofe creatures and fubjetTts 
 we are."* Our obligations to ^precepts of this kind, 
 
 • Bifliop Battler's Analogy of Religion, p. 172. 
 
64- Believers the only appointed SiibjeBs of Bapiifm. 
 
 are v/ell defcribed by Prefident Edwards ; his Avords 
 arc — " Such precepts are the grcatefl: and mofr proper 
 trial of obedience, becaufe in them the mere authority 
 and will of the Legifiator is the fole ground of the ob- 
 iigarion (and nothing in the natures of the things them- 
 felves 5) and therefore they are the greateft trial of any 
 perfon's refpeft to that authority and will."-* 
 
 Had the excellent Mr. Edwards viewed pofitive in- 
 ftitutions in the fame indifferent light wliich you do, 
 it is not probable he would have written after this man- 
 ner ; but perhaps he had never thought of yom happy 
 fuccedaneum, ^ftr.cerhy,' which, like tlie ancient philof- 
 oplier's ftone, ran turn all cur £,\?t'rAY// omililons of pofi- 
 tive dut'^^ '-r^'-. - n£ig obedience. 
 
 I cc ! not be denied, that profejjcd hdieven 
 
 are p ; , ■ ^ cf beptifm : bur the ciueitiori before 
 
 V;s is, VViitthcr they are the only proper fubje£ls ? 
 When I ufe the term proper, I mean not, what is be- 
 come fo by tradition ; but what is agreeable to the in- 
 jftitution, as recorded in the facred hiftory of baptifm. 
 That no other in fiances are recorded you implicitly ac- 
 knowledge, when you fay, * I would query, whether 
 the evidence that believers were baptized, is any evi- 
 dence that infants were not alfo baptized V This query, 
 in the firft inftance, grants, that there is evidence that 
 believers were baptized. Secondly, it afks, ' Whether 
 that is any evidence that infants were not alfo baptized r' 
 It will be granted tliat it is not pofitive evidence that 
 they were not ; nor is it, that they were not anointed 
 with the holy chrifm, or Jigved with the fign of the crofs, 
 or twenty other things done to them of which the 
 < fcripture is fdtnt.^ E^ut it is circumftantial evidence 
 that they were not : for, that the facred hiftorians, 
 when recording tire many inftances of the baptifm of 
 believers for the fpace of near fixty years, until the 
 volume of infpiration was clofed, and never once men- 
 tioning a fingle inftance of an infant, muft look like a 
 defign, againft infant baptifm, provided it was then in 
 praftice. It is not eafy to account for their negledling 
 to reard zfaB, on which fo much depended, as the fu- 
 
 ♦ Difccurfts on Important Subjects, p. 68. 
 
Believers the only appovitea bubjetts oj isapfijm. 6 a 
 
 ture peace, and order of the church of Chrift. Nor 
 does it appear to us a fufficient apology for an omiffion 
 fo interefting to fay, that the right of infants was fo 
 •well eftabliiheJ under the Jevvifh difpenfation, that it 
 was unneceffn-y that any exprefs mention ihculd be 
 made of it in the New Teftament ; unlefs- baptifm is to 
 be confidered as a Jewifh rite, rather than a Chriltian 
 injlitution. For, under the gofpel difpenfation, the 
 pritjlhood being changed^ there is t?ucie of necejjity a change 
 alfo of the la w, with refpciSl to pofitive inftitutions. 
 
 In order to bring this head to a clofe, you wlil per- 
 mit me to inquire, Whether P^edobaptifts in general 
 do not require, in all unbaptizcd adults, a perfonal pro- 
 feffion of faith, in order to their being admitted to the 
 ordinance of baptifm ? That they do, will appear from 
 their own teftimony : " Baptifm is not to be adminif- 
 tered to any that are out of the vifible church, until 
 they profels their faith in Chrift, and obedience to 
 him."* 
 
 Shall I add to this another, from a late advocate for 
 infant baptifm, who has complained much of the Bap- 
 tifts for their " ajfuming" language, in calling the bap- 
 tifm adminiftered by them, by way of diftinccion, '« Be- 
 lievers' Baptifm." " "Whereas, (faith he) there is no 
 other baptifm adminiftered in our churches but the 
 baptifm of believers, or thofe who are accounted fuch, 
 either upon their perfonal profefllon, or in the repute 
 of the church, and God's gracious acceptation. As to 
 adult perfons unbaptized, they are no oiherwife admit- 
 ted to baptifm among us, it is known, than upon a per- 
 fonal profelTion of f;iith."f 
 
 This gentleman, from the general manner of his ex- 
 preiTions, muft be underftood to reprefent the whole 
 denomination j and evidently carries the matter quite 
 as far as we do. If a profejjkn of faith be the only terms 
 on which you admit adults to baptifm ; if, after this, 
 they fhould prove their profellion to be falfe, you are 
 as much obliged to baptize them ^ffty times, in order 
 
 • Afftmbly of Divines* Catcchifm. 
 t Clatk's Defence of Infant baptifm, p. z. 
 
66 Believers the only appointed Sul'Jefls of Baptifnu 
 
 to be confiftent upon your fentiments, as we are upon 
 ours. The ftrongeft terms you have quoted from m.e 
 are, " That none are proper fubjeds of baptifni but 
 profejfed believen." We have juft heard, that there is 
 •» no other baptifm adininiftered in your churches, but 
 the baptifm of beUevers :" nor will it relieve the mat- 
 ter for any to fay that it is added, " or thofe who are 
 accounted fuch upon their perfonal profefiion." This 
 is alL that we contend for as anfwering the rule : for 
 v/e do not pretend abfolutely to know, that thofe whom 
 we baptize are veal htlieveys, only we account them fuch 
 upon their perfonal profeffion. Nor can it be confider- 
 ed as an exception, what is further added, Tliat they 
 are believers " in the repute of the church :" for no 
 church could confiftently repute a perfon to be a be- 
 liever, without rational evidence that he was fuch. But 
 the laft exprciTion fecms to carry the matter to a de- 
 gree of certainty ; That they arc believers in " God's 
 gracious acceptation :" for although perfons may pro- 
 fefs, aaJ churches may account them to be believers ; 
 yet certainly God, as he caniiot be deceived, will not 
 accept any as fuch, but thofe who arefo in reality. 
 
 We will next take notice of that very fcriptural ac- 
 count given by Dr. Hopkins. When defcribing the 
 fubjeifls of baptifm, he fays, " The proper fubjefts of 
 baptifm, if adult, are thofe who, by profelhon and 
 appearance, are believers in Chrift and true friends to 
 him. None but they who are really fuch, do in heart 
 put 011 Chrijl : They muft therefore be really holy, in 
 order to put on this vifiblity and profellion of it, with 
 propriety and truth, which they do in baptifm : for if 
 they be not really fuch, they are utterly unqualified in 
 the fight of God, to be admitted to baptifm, as it is, on 
 their part, only a piece of hypocrify. Therefore none 
 are to be admitted to this ordinance, but thofe who, in 
 the view of the church, appear to be true friends to 
 Chrift or believers in him, and really holy, and are juftly 
 confidered by them as fuch, who can judge only by 
 outward appearance, and cannot certainly know the 
 heart. 
 
Beiiivcrs the only appointed Subjects of Baptifm. 67 
 
 « That none but fuch, who are thus vifiblv, and in 
 the charitable judgment of the church, and of thofe 
 who adminifter this ordinance, believei-s in Chrift and 
 really holy, are the proper fubjects of this ordinance, 
 and to be admitted to baptifm, is abundantly evident fro^n 
 fcripture, as well as from the nature of the tranfadion, 
 and the reafon of things. The apoftles, when they 
 firft began to adminifter Chriftian baptifm, an'd form a 
 church, baptized none but fuch who gladly received the 
 word. When the eunuch delired to be baptized, Philip 
 faid, If ihcu bslievejl ivith all thine hearty thou mayejf. 
 This implies that he was not qualified for baptifm, or a 
 fit fubjedl of that ordinance, unlei's he were a true be- 
 liever in Chrift :. and that he could not baptize him, 
 unlefs he profefled and appeared to be fuch a believer. 
 Hence all who were baptized, and formed into churches, 
 were confidered and addreffed by the apoRles, in their 
 letters to them, as faints or holy perfons, believers in 
 Chrift, and friends to him ; as tiiofc who were faved, 
 and heirs of eternal life ; or, which is the fame, as real 
 Chriftians ; of which every one muft be fenfible, who 
 reads the Afts of the apoftles, and their epifties." * 
 Thefe are words fitly fpoken, and are like apples of gold, in 
 picfures cffilver. 
 
 If indeed it be evident from fcripture, and in the 
 charitable judgment of the church, " That none but 
 fuch, who are thus vifibly believers in Chrift and really 
 holy are the proper fubjed^sof this ordinance, and to be 
 admitted to baptifm," as h;is juft been afferted ; and, 
 that the apoftles, when they firft began to adminifter 
 Chriftian baptifm, and form a church, baptized none 
 but fuch who gladly received the -lu^rdf we can but wonder 
 that a body of Chriftians who profefs to take the Woiaa 
 'OF God, as their only rule of faith and pradice, ftiould 
 blame us for fo nearly imitating thofe firft builders of 
 the Chriftian churcii ! For had the gentleman but now 
 quoted, been giving a narrative of the fentiments and 
 praElice of the Baptift churches at the prefent day, he 
 could not have given an account dilEmilar, without con- 
 tradidling fober fadt. If it fliould be objected to what 
 
 • Syftem of Divinity, Part II, Chap. v. p. 305, 306. 
 
68 Believers the only appointed Subjccls of Bapttfin. 
 
 has now been faid, that the preceding is only an account 
 of the true quahfications of adults, it will be readily 
 granted, and at the fame time afTerted, that the Bible 
 knows but of one kind of qualifications in candidates for 
 baptifm j it knows nothing of higher and lover, of pcf:- 
 tive and negative qualifications. 
 
 " Neither the forerunner, nor the apoftles of Chrift 
 have faid any thing on which fucli a diftinftion can be 
 founded ; as they infifted on repentance and faith as 
 neceflary in order to acceptance with God, and remif- 
 fion of iins, fo they infifted upon the profejfion of them, 
 in order to their being admitted into the viJibU king- 
 dom or church of Chrift. They baptized none, but 
 upon this ground. Thofe who appeared, to a judgment 
 of charity, to have thefe qualifications, they admitted to 
 baptifm, and thofe only." *' In a word, from the whole 
 tenor of the New Teftament, it is plain, that nothing 
 iefs or lower than a profefllon of faith and true repent- 
 ance was required in order to a perfon's enjoying tlie 
 privilege of baptifm^ And « the diftlnftion of higher 
 and loioer qualifications for the two ordinances, and the 
 notion of negative evidences being a fufficient qualifica- 
 tion for baptifm, was never learnt from the New Tefta- 
 ment, but is, doubtlefs, of human invention."* 
 
 Evidence of this kind might be multiplied, but it is 
 hoped that what has been offered will give full fiitisfac- 
 tion. We hope we (hall not be thought obftinate if 
 we fiiould ftill fiiy. That we think the fcripture abund- 
 antly juftifies the obfervatlon. That prof •fed believers ate 
 the only proper fubjecls of baptifm. If you fl:iould repeat 
 your former query, < Whether that is any evidence that 
 infants were not alfo baptized ?' you will not think the 
 rcqucft unreafonable, if we fliould call on you to make 
 out fcripture proof, that ever one infant was baptized, by 
 Chrift or his apoftles. Should you ajfert it without 
 proof, it will be thought a fufficient anfwer to deiiy it 
 without. 
 
 We fliould now be prepared, in a dire£l: way, to treat 
 upon the Mode of baptifm, were it not for an objeftion 
 you have made againft St. John's baptifm, which it may 
 be ncceffary firft to confider. 
 
 * Dr. Robbins'i Reply to Mr. Cotton's EfTays, n 6, 7. 
 
jfokns Bnptifm conjidercd. 
 
 69 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Whether JohnV B.ipiifm belonged to ihs Jewifo or Chrij- 
 t'tan DifpcnfatioUi particularly crdjidered. 
 
 ■ \ GU afk (p. 10) 'By what authority do you 
 make iaimerfion efiential to the ordinance of baptifm, 
 in contradirtirKftion to other modes and circumftances ?' 
 I anfwer, By the authority of God's ivcrd^ and the con- 
 feffed meaning of the Greek verb [bnpti-zi^) to baptize. 
 
 You have endeavoured to evade part of the fcripture 
 evidence in favour of immerfion, by fug^efting th::t the 
 baptifm adniiniftered by John was not Chrijlian bap- 
 tilm. Your objections are t!ie following. Yon fny, 
 * We have no roafon to fupjiofc that Jolui bap'.Ized in 
 all refpedts agreeably to the Chriftian viode of baptifm ;* 
 But why not Becaufe, < it is pretty evident, that he 
 did not baptize in the name of the Trinity.' But fup- 
 pofe, Sir, he had baptized in the name of Shadmcb^ 
 Mejhachy and Ahediwgo, it would afford no argument in 
 favour of a different mode., or any reafon to fuppofe that 
 the aEl of baptizing was not the fame. John and the 
 apoftles baptized among the fame people ; hence it is 
 moft likely they underftood the ivord in the fame fenfe. 
 In fupport of your obfervation, you mention the inftance 
 in the nineteenth chapter of Adls. From which you 
 infer, that the twelve difciples would certainly have 
 heard of the Holy Ghoft, and would not have been 
 again baptized, had John's baptifm and the Chriftian in- 
 ftitution been the fame. 
 
 It appears evident that the queftion did not refpcct 
 ordinary ififluet:cesy or name of the Holy Ghoft : for, 
 they could not be believers without the former, nor 
 John's difciples without having heard of the latter. 
 John exprefsly declared, at the time of his baptizing, 
 That One fhould come after him mightier than he, who 
 fhould baptize with the Holy Ghost and^;v. This 
 was the fabjeiTt of Paul's inquiry, and had reference 
 only to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, the be- 
 llowment of which they had not yet^heard. But, you 
 
70 
 
 John^s Baptifm conjukred. 
 
 alk, < Why w^ere thefe difciples again baptized ?' I fhall 
 not undertake to tell why, nor do I believe that they 
 were. I fee nothing in the reading which requires this 
 conftruflion : for the paflage before us appears not to 
 be Luke's account of Paul, but Paul's account of John's 
 do£lrine and baptifm. For it is written, Then faidPcult 
 John verily baptized ivith the baptifvi of repentance, faying 
 unto the people, that they fhoidd It /ieve on him who /Ijot/ld 
 come after him, that is, on Chri/l Jefus. IFhen they heard 
 this, (that is, the people whom John taught) they were 
 baptized (by John) in the name of the Lord Jefus. This 
 concludes Paul's account of John. The liiftorian then 
 takes notice of Paul's condiicT:, that when he had laid his 
 hands upon them, the Holy Gh?d come on them and they 
 fpahe ivith tongues, and prophfud. 
 
 You feem to think that thefe difciples were re-bap- 
 tized by Paul in the Chriftian mode ; but did you ob- 
 ferve, Sir, that the Holy Ghofi is not mentioned in the 
 form of adminiftration here recorded ? It is only faid, 
 They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jfus. 
 
 That the reader may not confider us to be partial in 
 the explanation now given, I would obferve that 
 many eminent Psedobaptifts have underftood it in the 
 fame light which we do. I fliall mention but two or 
 three, as fufficient to my prefent puVpofe. Dr. Rob- 
 bins, when fpeaking of John's baptifm, has the follow- 
 ing reniark upon this paffage ; " When they heard 
 this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus ; that is, they were baptized by John himfelf.''* 
 
 In perfect agreement with this are the fentiments of 
 Mr. Poole. « When they heard this, they were baptised 
 in the name of the Lord Jefus ; that is, the difcipleSj or 
 thofe that John preached to, who, v/hen they heard 
 what the Baptifi: faid in the foregoing verfe, were bap- 
 tized." " As for Paul's impofing his hands upon them 
 who are faid to be baptized, it might very well be : 
 That the twelve difciples might have been baptized by 
 John, and now receive the Holy Ghoft in thefe extra- 
 ordinary gifts by the laying on of the hands of St. 
 Paul : For to what end ihou4d thefe difciples, who had 
 
 * Reply to Cctiou's E{ray»,p, ai. 
 
John's Baptifm ccnftdered. 
 
 71 
 
 been baptized •with St. John's baptifm, be ngain bap- 
 tized by Paul ?" He further adds, " It is evident that 
 the apoftles themfelves were only baptized with the 
 baptifm of John, for tliere were none elfe to baptize 
 them."* 
 
 As in the mouth of two or three witncfles every 
 word fhall be eftabhlhed, I will only add the opinion of 
 Calvin. Speaking of thefe twelve difciples, he faith, 
 «< Whereas therefore they anfwer that they know not 
 whether there be any Holy Ghoft, it is to be under- 
 flood as if they had faid, they have not yet heard 
 whether the graces of the Spirit, of which Paul alked 
 them, were given t© the difciples of Chrift. But I 
 [Tant that that was the irne baptifm of John's, and all 
 one and the felf-famc with the baptifm of Chrift ; but 
 1 deny that they were baptized again." And in anoth- 
 t r place he faith, " Whereby alfo it is made moft cer- 
 tain, that the minifiry of John was altogether the fame 
 ]\ was afterwards committed to the apoftles. For 
 iiTerent hands wherewith it v/as adminiftered, make 
 
 ■ he baptifm different ; but, the fame do&ine (how- 
 
 ■ : to be the fame baptifm. John and the apoftles 
 ' in one doftrins ; both baptized into repentance, 
 
 ' into the forgivenefs of fins, both into the name of 
 
 Siiouid it ftill be infilled upon, that they were re- 
 baptized by Paul,Jt wIU by no means help your argu- 
 ment, unlefs proved, that they were fprir.kled, or had 
 water poured on them, inftead of being immerfed. To 
 nllcu' that they were rc-baptized, will (till be in our fa- 
 . and vindicate our conduce in baptizing thofe who 
 not been baptized according to the Chriftian 
 
 In concluding your remarks upon this head, you fay, 
 '■ Jjhn's baptifm was both began and ended under the 
 :h dIf;'>enfation.' But, may I not inquire by what 
 .ority you affert this ? Was there any thing in the 
 :.Vianner of John's miniftry, which refembled a Jewifli 
 
 * VId. Pol. m loc. 
 t Inftitut. Chrift. Rclig.Lib. IV. Chap. xv. 5 i8, 7. 
 
72 
 
 Johri's Bnptiftn confidt t ed. 
 
 pnejl ? Or was there any thing in the Jewifli ritual that 
 required John to baptize repenting finners in Jordan ? 
 If fo, you will oblige us in making it appear. 
 
 If John's baptifm belonged to the Jewifh difpenfa- 
 tion, why v/ere the chief priefts and elders fo furprifing- 
 ly ignorant of it, that when Chrift alked them, Whether 
 it were from heaven or of men, they faid, We cannot tell F* 
 You will pleafe to obferve, that the perfons to whom 
 Chrift put this queftion, were not the ignorant multi- 
 tude, but the c/jief pritfls and elders, and it had particu- 
 lar reference to the authority by which John baptized j 
 which, if received from them, they muft certainly have 
 known it, and it would have been much to their advan- 
 tage in this pinching cafe to have owned it. 
 
 But, Sir, when you lay, * John's miniftry was under 
 the Jewilh difpenfation,' you evidently mean, that he 
 belonged to it. If fo, he muft have been inaugurated 
 accorchng to their ritual, or otherwife be confidered as 
 an impoftor. But do the facred pages any where teach 
 us to believe, that John ever palfed under thofe confc' 
 crating ceremonies, or was ever clad with a prieftly veft- 
 ment ? Or, do you confider him only as a prophet of 
 that difpenfation .'' If John belonged to the Old Tefta- 
 ment difpenfatiouj why did not the tranflators place 
 him with the Jewifh prophets .'' By finding him in the 
 New, the * ignorant and inattentive' will be apt to fup- 
 pofe he belongs to tliis difpenfation. 
 
 But, is it not abundantly evident, that the Jewifli cler- 
 gy confidered John as introducing a new difpenfation ? 
 That this was the cafe, and that the matter may ftand 
 in a fair light, let us conlider what is written, John i. 
 19 — 25. The Jenvs fent priefls and Levites from Jenfa- 
 Icm to afk hiin, (John) Who art thou ? yJnd he confjfed, 
 and denied not but confejfed, I am not the Chrift. And 
 they ajked him. What then ? Art than Elias ? And he faith, 
 I am not.f Art thou that prophet ? (or a prophet ?) And 
 
 * Matt. xxi. ar, 
 
 t It may te ol.ferved, that the [cws were thought to have inihibed 
 the Pythagorean philofophy, v. hich taught the dotlrint of ti anfmigra- 
 t-.on ; therefore, when they afkei John' whether he was Eliaf, their 
 meaning was this, vshetJier t4ic foul of Elia* were not now come in 
 
John^s Bapt'tfm conjidered. 
 
 75 
 
 ht anfiueredt No. Then /aid they unio him. Who art thou ? 
 He /aidt lam the voice of one crying in ike luildernefsi make 
 Jiraight the way of the Mord, ns faith the prophet Efaias. 
 And they afked him. Why baptizejl thou then, if thou bt not 
 that Chriji, nor E/iar, neither that prophet F 
 
 Thcfc inquiries, made by the Jewifh clergy refpefting 
 John's, baptifm, abundantly mnnifeft two things : 1. That 
 they were totally ignorant of John's being a minifter of 
 their difpenfiiion. 2. That they expected, when either 
 Elias or Chrift came, they would introduce a new ftate 
 of things. 
 
 Now as John had come baptizing with water, in a 
 ^*-ay different from all the requirements of the ceremo- 
 :iral law, and by an authority unknown to them, they 
 rerifonably concluded that he rnuft be one or the other of 
 tliofc perfons they were looking for. 
 
 I with to add two paffages of fcriptnre, as fully ccn- 
 firming the above obfervations. The firft is Luke xvi. 
 16. The law and the prophets ivere until John : fince that 
 time the kingdom of God is preached and every man prefetk 
 into it. Tiiis obfervation made by Chrirt, cannot rea- 
 fonably be referred to John's birth or death ; but evi- 
 dently refpedls the beginning of his miniftry : for then 
 he began to preach the kingdom of God, and to pro- 
 claim the advent of the Saviour ; and men in multi- 
 tudes flocked to this nfew difpcnfation, called the king- 
 dom of God. The other pafiage is, Mark i. I — 4. 
 The beginning of the gospel of Jhsus Christ the 
 Son of God : As it is nuriiien in the prophets. Behold, I fend 
 my mtjfenger before thy face, ivhich fiall prepare thy way 
 hifore thee. The voice of one crying in the ivildernefs, Pre- 
 pare ye the way of the Lord, make hif paths flraight. John 
 did baptize in the wilder nefs, and preach the baptifm of re- 
 pentance for the remiffton of fins. 
 
 Thus, Sir, the Evangclifi here calls John's miniftry 
 The beginning of the gofpel of Jefus Chrifl. But you in* 
 form your readers, that it was under, or belonged to 
 I the Jewifli difpenfation. It will now be loft to the im- 
 
 uitSlKr bixly ? To which John aiifwered no. But Ghrift told his 
 difriplc* that Eliaa had already comt, not in the Jewifb, but in a tnjc 
 
 H 
 
74; 
 
 'Johi's Bapfifin conftdered. 
 
 partial to judge, whether, for the fake of fupporting 
 a particular hypothefis, you have not erred from the' 
 truth. And although you concede that every ' candid 
 inquirer' nnift view the matter in the fame light which 
 you do, it is very poffible that fome who are entitled to 
 that character, may difi'er from you. 
 
 But, Sir, you have left your readers fllll under one 
 difficulty refpeiSling the matter. As you deny that 
 John's min'ijlry belonged to the Chriftian difpenfation, 
 you have not informed them when that begun. P'rom 
 the analogy of your reafoning, we muft fuppofe you be- 
 gin it at the death of Chrift. 
 
 You will now permit me to inquire, whether the 
 baptifm adminiftered by the apoftles of Chrift before 
 his death was Jewilh baptifm ? Or, which difpenfation 
 it belonged to ? Or, whether to neither i It is faid, 
 John iii. 22 — 24, After ihefe things came Jejus and his 
 difciples into the laud of judea ; and there he tarried with 
 them, and baptized. And John alfo luas baptizing in Enon, 
 near to Salim, bccaufe there ivas much -water there : For 
 John was not yet cajl into prijon. The Pharifees alfo 
 heard that Jejus made and baptized more difciples than 
 John., ( though Jefus himfelf baptized not, but his difciples. J 
 This baptifm was cotemporary with John's, and un- 
 doubtedly under the fame difpcniation. 
 
 But will Chriftians in general be willing to allow, 
 that both Jefus and John were miniiters of the legal dif- 
 penfation ? And that the ordinances inftltuted, and ad- 
 n^iniftered by them, belonged to that difpenfation ? I 
 faid ordinances ; for, if baptifm is to be confidercd in 
 this light, undoubtedly the facred Supper is to be view- 
 ed upon the fame footing ; for, this was inftituted and 
 adminiftered by Chrift before his death, and never in- 
 ftituted by him afterv^nrds. 
 
 As Chrift was the fame divine perfon before his death, 
 that he was after he arofc, it was by his appointment 
 and authority, that his diiciples were fent to tench and 
 baptize. They did not receive their commidlon from.. 
 the chief priefts, but from Jefus. And John's preach- 
 ing and baptifm were as independent of the Jewilh dif- 
 penfation as that of the diiciples of Chrift. 
 
John*s Bnpt 'tfm eonftdered. 
 
 75 
 
 The authority by which John the Baplijl 3(^:6x1, both 
 in preaching and baptizittg, is exprefsly declared by the 
 EvangeHft John, chap. i. verfe G. There was a manJtM 
 'from Godj ivhofe name was John. The fame came for a 
 '>a)itnefs, 8tc. What St. Paul faid of his commiffion to 
 preach, with a little variation may be faid of John's : 
 For he neither rec/tveii ii of man, neither inu he taught it, 
 but by the revelatkn of Jefus Chriji. Neither ivent he 'up 
 to Jenifalemy to them which were in the frier's 'effice before 
 him ;* but he went into the wildernefs of Judea, and 
 entered upon the work, he was appointed untOj by him 
 who fent him to baptize withwater.f 
 
 The Jewifli rulers knew nothing of John's baptifm as 
 belonging to their difpenlation ; you know nothing of 
 its belonging to the Chriftian ; and perhaps it might 
 puzzle you both, to determine whether it /-was from 
 btaven or of men J 
 
 Upon the whole, if the baptifm adminiftered by John, 
 as the beginning of the gofpel of Jefus Chrij!, and that 
 which was adminittered by the dilciples ofChrift, by 
 his authority, and in his preience, were not Chriflian 
 baptifm, we know of none which is defer'ving of the 
 name. 
 
 I have been more particular upon this point, becaufe 
 modern writers lay lo much ftrefs upon it. But it re- 
 ally appears, that to conlider John's miniftry as a ^art 
 of the Jewiih difpenilition, is both uafcriptural, and 
 prejudicial to the cr.ufe of religion. 
 
 Finally, ihouid it even be fuppofed, that there could 
 be a dilHnftion made between the baptifm of John 
 and the Chriftian inftitution, refpefting the form of 
 words ufed in the adminlftration, it would by no means 
 afleit the cafe before us. For you will pleafe to re- 
 member that the difpute is not about the form of words ; 
 but the acl of baptizing. Hence if Mahomet had writ- 
 ten his iCoran in Greek, and had ordered his difcip'es to 
 be baptized in his name ; and had expreffed the aft by 
 the fame Greek verb by which Chriftian baptifm is ex- 
 preffed } fhould we not reafonably conclude that they 
 baptized in the fame mode which Chriftians did, not- 
 
 • Gal i. II, 17. 
 
 t John i. 13. 
 
76 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 ■withftanding the difference of fmth and names into which 
 they were baptized? Let candour judge, and I w3l 
 abide the decifion. 
 
 Therefore, until you, or fome other pcrfon, n»a!l 
 prove that John's miniftry belonged to the Jewi{h dif- 
 penfation, we fhiall confide in the judgment of the Evan- 
 gelift, that it was the beginmug cf the go/pel difpenjation. 
 And confequently the manner of John's baptizing may 
 be cqnliftently urged to eftabliih the mode of Chriftian 
 baptifm. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Ihe Mode of Baptifm^ and its Connexion nvith the Siihjelt 
 in Difpute, particularly cotftdered. 
 
 Baptism, like man in his primeval ftate, when 
 it firft came out of the hand of its inftitutor, was pure. 
 But it has been bafely contaminated, and perverted from 
 its original dellgn, to very difterent purpofes It is no 
 longer dependent on original inftitution ; but can be- 
 come all things to nil men^ as circumftances may require. 
 
 It is evident, Sir, that you and I differ, both in opin- 
 ion and prafiice, refpeifting the mode of baptifm. I have 
 ventured to fay in my other Piece, that " baptifm is to 
 be adnniniftcred only in one mode," and that *' immer- 
 fion is eflential to the ordinance." You have given 
 it as your opinion, (p. 10) 'That the ejfence of baptifm 
 does not confift in any one particular mode whatever 
 and that ' it may be acceptably performed either by 
 fpritiklingy by pouring on zttater, or by immcrfon^ In the 
 following page you add, < It may be fcrupled whether 
 you, or any other man, can afcertain precifeiy the apof- 
 tolic mode of biptifm.' If this be indeed the cafe, 
 then we may undoubtedly do as the children of Ifrael 
 did when they had no king, evtry man 'what is right in 
 his oiun <ycs. 
 
The Moiie ofBaptifm. 
 
 77 
 
 Cut, whether the fubjecV be involved in fo much un- 
 certainty as you fuggei^, is worthy of ferious inquiry. 
 We cannot fuppofe you to be confident with regard to 
 your own mode, nor that you will attempt to prove it 
 to be aportolic ; unlefs you mei:n to emphafize the 
 adverb * prectfely,' and Include in it all thofe trival cir- 
 cumftances you have mentioned (p. 10.) : Such as, 
 whether < the fubjefts were put into the water backward 
 or forward, or what length of time they kept them 
 under water, or at what time they called the name of 
 the Trinity over them/ &c. But fuppofing it Ihould be 
 difficult to determine upon fome of the circiimftances 
 you have mentioned, and we fliould poflibly milVike 
 one or more of them, would any renfon able perfon con- 
 clude, that fuch an omilTion would atFoft the validity of 
 the ordinance, as much aa to change it from vmntrjion 
 to fprinUing ? 
 
 But, Sir, you fay the ' ejfcnce of bapiifm does not con- 
 fill in any one particular mode whatever.' What you 
 mean by < cjjhice' without, or independent of mode, or 
 of any particular mode, appears unintelligible. For, 
 if the L'JJence of baptifm can exift without the uijlituted 
 tfiode, it can undoubtedly in any mode, or without any. 
 But by what ch'jinical art you extra*^ the elftnce of bap- 
 tifm from the moiU, you have not yet told us We can- 
 not fuppofe by ejjence, that you mean the holy ikftres or 
 gracious difpofitkiis of the fubjedls of baptifm j for, from 
 the infant condition of the greater part of thole whom 
 you baptize, it is prefumed there can be no evidence 
 of their being poflefled of fuch holy tempers. If by 
 the ejjcnce yf baptifm, you mean the frni of -words ufed 
 in the adminiftration of it, then undoubtedly that muft 
 be confidered valid where the due form of words is 
 ufed, although ivatir be wholly left out j M'hich if we 
 may credit hiftory, has been the cafe in feveral in- 
 ftances- 
 
 In the dark ages of fuperfiition, when new-born in- 
 fants dying unbaptized were doomed to eternal death, a 
 pr'ufl was obliged to attend at the call of a midwife j 
 and fometimes, when the infant was likely immediate- 
 
 h2 
 
The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 \j to expire, they not having water prepared, made ufe 
 of wine.* 
 
 An inftance is mentioned by Nicephorus, a Greek 
 .hiftorian of the l-tth century, of «' a certain Jew, who, 
 performing a journey in company with Chrlftians, and 
 being fuddenly feized with a dangerous illnefs, ear- 
 neftly deliied bip.tilm at the hands of his fellow travel- 
 lers. They not having a prieft in their company, and 
 being deftitute of water, were at firft reluftant j but he 
 conjuring them not to deny him the favour, thev yield- 
 ed to his requeft. On which, taking otF his clothes, 
 they fprinkled him thrice with /and, inftead of water ; 
 adding that they baptized him in the name of the Father, 
 and fo on."f Tiie fame author informs us, both from 
 Deylingius and Seckendorf, that a little before the 
 reformation, there were, in Upper Saxony, and in fome 
 other places, thofe who taught and praftifed ba^ tifm, 
 upon iicldy new-born infants, with only uiing the bap- 
 tlfmal form of v/ords, without the application of water, 
 in any form whatever ! " To baptize, by fprinkling a 
 few drops of water ; to uaptize, by fprinkling of fond 
 without any water ; to baptize, by merely pronouncing 
 zform of words ; what an improvement upon the infti- 
 tution of Chrift V'% 
 
 « In the twelfth century, a council in Ireland ordaia- 
 ed, that children (hould be baptized in pure water by 
 trine immerfion \ but, as a hiftory of fatfts cannot be 
 coUefled from mere laws, it may be obferved, that 
 fome of the Irilh baptized by plunging their chil- 
 dren into milk, and were fuperftitious enough to imag- 
 ine, that every part fo plunged became invulnerable."^ 
 
 I might go on to multiply inftances of this kind, but 
 the preceding are fufficient to fliow the abfurdity of 
 placing the ejfence of baptifm in a mere form of words. 
 
 Although we would not attempt, or even wi(h to dic- 
 tate to our Psedobaptift brethren with regard to their 
 
 * Robinfoirs Hiftory ef Baptilm, p. 44J. 
 f Apiul Centur. Magdeburg. Cent. ii. c. vi. p. 8a. in Booth** 
 Paedo. Ixani. p. 144- 
 
 t Ibid. p. 145- 
 S Goiolphin'e Repertorium, in Kobinfon't Hiftoiy. 
 
The Mode if S{qytljhi. 
 
 79 
 
 pi aftice ; yet we ckitn It as a privilege, to judge for Our- 
 lelvos what is elFential. Chriftians in ditRrent periods 
 have had their ditierent opinions of it. TertuUian in 
 the beginning of the third ceniury, and Agrippinus, and 
 Cyprian after him, with many more, rebnptized thofe 
 uiio came to tliem, not merely bec'-ufe they had been 
 baptized by heretics, {as they were pleafed to call 
 thtin) hut becaufe they lacked wliat tliey coniidered 
 effcntial to the ordinance : for they " confldered the 
 probity and good faith of tlie perfon baptized the very 
 ejince oi bapiifm j and if a piofelTor of Chriftianity 
 V?re sn unholy man, they adjudged his baptifm like 
 his profeffion, vain and invalid, and liimfelf not a weak 
 believer pf Chriltianity, but a mere unprincipled pa- 
 gan."* 
 
 ^ 'I'he Council of Nuy, in the 4th century, feemed to 
 confider the ejjbtce o{ baptiiin as conlifting in the form 
 cf words ufed in the adminiftraiion ; and accordingly 
 dire«Sled, that fuch as came to them from the Paulianifts, 
 both men and women, fliould be re-baptized, becaufe 
 the ordinance had not been adminiflered in the name 
 of tlie Trinity : while they admitted the Novatians 
 with only laying on of hands. 
 
 The Bohemians confidered the effence of baptifm as 
 confiiting in the virtue or competency of the adminiftra- 
 tor j and confequently re-baptized thofe who had every 
 other requiGte of baptifm, only a corrupt adminiflrator. 
 
 The Greeks place the cjpme of baptifm in dipping in 
 water ; and had a perfon been fprinkled ever fo decent- 
 . ly in any period of life, they would not therefore think 
 bim baptized ; becaufe, in their opinion, to baptize is 
 to dip, and nothing eife f 
 
 The Baptiit churches in America, and thofe of Great 
 Britain, Poland, Lithuania, Tranfylvania, and many 
 more, alt hold that immeriion in water, and a perfonal 
 proftflion of faith and repentance, are eflential to bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 But, Sir, whatever you are pleafed to confider as ef- 
 fential to baptifm, that being omitted, would undoubt- 
 
 • fliid 461. 
 
 f Vide Robinloa's Hiilory of Baptifm, p. 463, 464. 
 
80 The Mcde of Baptifm. 
 
 edly invalidate the ordinance in your view ; at leaft 
 this is the cafe with us. And why we ftiould thinjjc 
 fome circumftances eflential to baptifm which you do 
 not, will more fully appear in the fequel. 
 
 Many writers on your fide of the queflion, have en- 
 deavoured to prove Chriftian baptifm to have had its 
 origin in the wafliing of Jewiin profelytes \ which may 
 lc?.rcn;ibly be confidered as a Jewifli fakUy unknown in 
 the ritual of Mofts, or any part of the Old Teftament. 
 A practice not to be found in the writings of Jofephus 
 and Philo, thofe two great hiftorians, but is principally 
 taken from writers of a much later date, and particular- 
 ly from the Yad Chazaka of Maimonides.* 
 
 It is worthy of obfervation, that the Paedobaptift 
 writers in this controverfy, rarely, if ever, mention the 
 baptifm adininiftered by John, unlefs in fome negative 
 fcnfe, or to anfwer fome arguments drawn from it 
 againft their fentiments. But the wafhing of Jewifh 
 profelytes is frequently mentioned, as an indifputable 
 auxiliary to infant baptifm, by many noted wrhers on 
 that fule.f 
 
 A queliion here naturally fuggefts itfelf to the mind ; 
 Why do Pxdobaptifts go back to Jewidi tradition, or 
 forward to the death of the Saviour, in order to afcer- 
 tain the origin of gofpel baptifm, and cautioufly omit 
 the firft accounts given of it in the facred hiftory ? 
 Perhaps the moft natural anfwer is, becaufe that ap- 
 pears incongruous with their practice. It will require 
 a large ftock of art and ingenuity, to perfuade a candid 
 inquirer that John baptized any befide adults., or admin- 
 iftered the ordinance in any other way than by immer- 
 fton. The particular places which he chofe for the 
 conveniency of baptizing muft afford a ftron^ argu- 
 ment in favour of immerfion ; nor can there be a very 
 rational account given of his conduct upon any other 
 footing. Had John adminillered in the prefent popu- 
 
 ' ^ A- celebrated Jtwilb writer who was the head of a famous 
 ff'hool' in Egypt, in the beginning of the twelfth century. 
 
 f Dr. Lijjhtfoot, Dr. Wall, Dr. Lathnp of Weft Springfield, and 
 others ; but fcrupled by the learned Dr. B«nfcn, aad pofitirely denied 
 by otiwr*. 
 
The Mode of Bapt'tfm. 
 
 81 
 
 lar mode, I prefume a fingle cafk of water would have 
 been fufficient for all he ever baptized ! — and in what- 
 ever place people had lived, there could have been no 
 want of water fufficient to baptize. 
 
 In order to evade the force of this argument, many 
 things have been faid. One time we are told, that 
 Jotdan was fo fhallow that there was not a fuflicient 
 depth of water to immerfe, or bury a perfon in •, again, 
 that the large quantity of water was necefiary, for the 
 people and their bcal'^s to drink ; again, when John 
 baptized in Enon becaufe there was viuch iva:er thei-e, we 
 are told that ( ndc.Un polla* J many -waierSy means many 
 little fprings, not fuflicient to immerfe in. Now as to 
 t]:e firft of thefe, no perfon who is acquainted wi!> that 
 ancient geographical account drawn by the pen ci infpi- 
 ration, can polfibly believe it If any are at a lofs, let 
 them obferve, that it was only fordable at particular 
 places, as appears by Ehud, Gideon and the Gileadites 
 taking thofe paflages.-j- And alfo David's eroding it 
 with his family in a ferry-boat.:j: As to the fecond ob- 
 fervation, if tliere was much water, it was neccffary to 
 «< fupply the multitudes that came to John's b.jptifm, 
 for drink for themfclves, and their horfes and camels }"§ 
 if John's preaching had been iuch, that it had broken 
 up the city of Jerufalem, and collected all the people 
 from the region round about, and they had all gathered 
 to him in one day, yet ftill it would not be true, that 
 they needed a river half as large as Jordan to ha\e fup- 
 plied them all with drink ; unlefs tliey had drank like 
 like Job's behemoth !\\ I do not remeniber ever to have 
 heard, that when any large gathering of people has 
 been propofed, either for a military review, or for the 
 facred purpole of an ordination, that they have once 
 mentioned the propriety of having it near fomc large 
 river or fountain of water, in order to accomniodate the 
 people and their horfes for drink ; and yet it is highly 
 probable, that upon fome fuch occafion, there have been 
 as many together as ever at one time coUe^ited round 
 the ancient liapttjf. 
 
 * Johniii. I.;. f Judge? iii. 18. vii. 14. xii 6. \ t SanJ. lis. 
 IJ— 18 $ CUrk't defence of infant baptifm, p. 436. || Job xl. tj. 
 
the Mcde of 'BtipVifm. 
 
 The faft appears to be this, that John's mlniftry con- 
 tinued for a confiderable time, and that the people from 
 time to time went out to hear him, and often we may 
 fuppofe he had crowded aflernbhes. It is faid he 
 'rpreached in the •wildernefs of Judea, but he baptized in 
 Jordan. 
 
 Having thus mentioned the places chofen by JoTin, 
 we Ihall next take notice of the place where Philip bap- 
 tized the Eunuch, which you fuppofe to be -n matter 6f 
 neceflity rather than choice ; be that as it may, the ac- 
 count informs us, — thfy cawe uuto a certain ivtiter j fup- 
 pofed by fome to be a fountain in a town called 
 Bethfora, or a river called Eleutherus, which in that 
 road-rauft be pafled over.* 
 
 Jerom defcribes the tovvn of Bethforon, and men- 
 tions the fountain in it, in which he faith,. " the AOs 
 of the apoftles relate, that the Eunuch of queen Gandace 
 was baptized here by Philip.f 
 
 Borchardus is of opinion, that it was " Nehel Efco?, 
 that is, The brook of ihe cltifci-^ from whence the fpies 
 carried the grapes. To the left of this vnlley, for the 
 fpace of a mile, runs a river, in which Philip baptized 
 the Eunuch of queen Candace, not far from bice- 
 lech "X 
 
 Thus we have traced ^ohn atrd his candidates, Hifd 
 Philip and the' Eunuch, to the water fide ; we are now 
 prepared to confider the confeqirent 'aftion. It is faid 
 of John, that the people who went out to him, ivere 
 baptizid of him IN Jordan. — -^nd Jtf'-U when he was bap- 
 tized, ivent up flraightimy OUT OF THE WATER.J It is 
 itdded by Mark — And it came to pafs in thofe daysy that 
 Jefns came from -Galilee, and ivas baptized of John Vn 
 Jordan, and Jlraight-way COMING tJP OUT OF THE WATirR. 
 It is faid of Philip and the Eunuch, they iveut d'.ivn both 
 INTO THE WATER, bAh Fhilip and the Eunuch and he 
 ■baptized him ; and when they were come up out of tlM 1uatii-y 
 'he tve^i on his way rejoicing. 
 
 * Poole's Contin. in loc. 
 
 t De locis Hcbraicis. fol. 89.6. 
 
 ) Dcfcript. terrat Salicl. e. 9. iii Dr. Gill 'lA he. 
 
 § M tt. iii. 6. 16. MiA i 9. 
 
Mode ofBapt 'ifm. 
 
 83 
 
 Now, Sir, can any perfon compare thefe accounts 
 for a moment, and not fee the manifeft: agreement iix 
 the aflioti of John and Philip. Let the rite be per- 
 formed in what mode foever, it is evident it was the 
 fame in the people whom John baptized, and in the 
 Saviour, and in the Eunuch. You obferve in this laft 
 inftance, there is * no account of any particular mode 
 ■whatever.' I muft take the liberty here again to diflent 
 from you ; for, I conclude it is a very particular ac- 
 count of the mode of plunging. Were you to be in- 
 formed by a perfon of your acquaintance, that he faw a 
 minirter who was a ftranger to him, go down into the 
 water with a candidate, and that he baptized him, and 
 that they came up out of the water, I am perfuaded,. 
 without hefitation, you would conclude that they were 
 Baptills ; and the account here given would decide the 
 point in your mind, and perhaps in any other perfon's, 
 in what mode the ordinance was adminiftered. Again, 
 if inftead of faying they went down both into the water, 
 it had been faid that the candidate afcended, or was 
 carried up the pulpit ftairs, (which is now the cuftom 
 in many places) it would affoi-d a ftrong prefumption in 
 favour of affuiion. 
 
 You obferve the inftance abovementioned is the only 
 one, * recorded in fcripture, of going to a river, pond, 
 pool, or brook, to baptize with Chriflian baptifni;' Sir, 
 you will pleafe alfo to obferve, that this is the only in- 
 ftance recorded, after the death of the Saviour, in -vvhich 
 the a£l of baptizing is defcribcd ; and here it evidently 
 defcribes iramerfton. 
 
 But you fay, < If we admit, according to our tranfla- 
 tion, that they both of them went down i/ito the 
 water, this is no evidence that eitber of them were 
 plunged all under water. You will not fuppofe, that 
 this text is a proof that Philip went all untler water. 
 But \vhy not ? If going into the water proves immerfion, 
 it proves that bjih were imiuoril'd ; for they went down 
 both into the water.' 'j'o fome of your readers, this 
 criticifm does not ..iipeir in t:ic mujIe logicjil lH-;iic j for 
 no perfjn ev^r fuppofed, that for Philip and the Eunuch 
 to go into tiie wiavr up to the kru:es or loins would be- 
 
84 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 to Immerfe either ; but when they had got into the 
 water, there was evidently fomething done to one, that 
 was not done to the other ; i. e. Philip baptized or immer- 
 fed ihe Eunuch ; but he did not baptize PhiHp. Therefore, 
 for the fake of inimerfing the Eunuch, they went both 
 into the water, as that could not be confiftently per- 
 formed without. In this light their going info the nuater 
 will appear rational but in every other view, totally 
 inconliftent. Had the objeft been only to fpr'uihU the 
 Eunuch, this could have been performed at the water 
 fide, without going down into it ; yea, probably it 
 might have been done decently in the chariot ; for it 
 is moft reafoiiable to fuppofe, that a porfon of his dif- 
 tinftion and equipage would not travel that defert coun- 
 try, without fome veflels to obtain and convey water, 
 when he came to it ; unlefs he meant to ferve himfelf 
 in the way that Gideon's men did. 
 
 Upon the whole, does it not appear to be the moft 
 eafy and natural conflrudion of the paffage, to fuppofe 
 the bsptifm of the Eunuch to be an immerfion I might 
 here, if neceffary, produce a cloud of witnefTes from 
 Pxdobaptilt expofitors, full to my purpofo ; but I omit 
 them for the prefent. And although I would not ad- 
 drefs you in that full ftrain of affurance, which the great 
 apoftie did king Agrippa, yet I may modefily inquire, 
 Believeft thm mt theje things thyfelf ? y a, 1 dctibt mt but 
 that believeft. 
 
 You take notice of this as a fingle inflance, in which 
 Chriftlan baptifm has the appennmce of immerfion. 
 But, Sir, would you think it rcafonable, that in every 
 inftance where it is faid that perfons were baptized, 
 that all the circumftances relating to the a/?, fhould be 
 particularly defcribed ? Surely you cculd not. You 
 might as reafonably fuppofe, that where cirairrnfion is 
 mentioned, and the ail not formally defcribed, that it 
 was performed upon a different part, or in a different 
 way from what the in.flitution pointed out, as, that bap- 
 tifm was adminiftered in a dtjfertnt mode from the fpeci- 
 niens given of it. 
 
 It may be profitable here to refieft upon the fubjecl a 
 moment, and put a few circumftances together, whith 
 may aflbrd Ibme light in the prefent cafe. 
 
Tf:e Mode of Baptifm, 
 
 . When John, that bright morning ftar, appeared, to 
 give knowledge of lalvation, he came to prepare the 
 way, and proclaim the approach of the Sun of right- 
 eoufnefs. In order to this, he came preaching repent- 
 ance for the remiflion of fins, and baptizing with (or 
 in*) water. The manner in which John baptized is fo 
 particularly defcribed, that very few Chriftians, of any 
 denomination, have doubted its being by immerfion. 
 This was the beginning of the inftitution ; therefore it 
 was proper to defcribe it. The aft was performed in 
 Jordan. But, as the Baptill had informed the people, 
 that there would one come after him mightier than he, 
 I who fhould baptize with the Holy Ghoft and fire : 
 ' therefore, to avoid the danger of a miftake which might 
 . pollibly be made from this, in fuppofing that Chriil, 
 when he came, would introduce a different mode of bap- 
 \ tifin from what John praftifed, we are exprefsly told, 
 
 (not only that he was baptized by John, but that it was 
 adminiftered in the fame way to him, as to the people, 
 j He, alfo, "was baptized in Jordany and came up Jlrai^httvay 
 I out of it. 
 
 After Jefus had pafled in triumph through the dark 
 1 domains of death, he came to his diiciples vefted ^ith 
 I all power in heaven and earth, and, enlarging >their 
 ! commiflion, lent them to preach to Gentiles, as well 
 ■ as Jews ; with an exprefs command, to baptize in the 
 name of the triune God. Now, left we fhould look for 
 fome alteration in the mode of baptifm, it is again ex- 
 emplified, and here we fee it to be the fame as before ; 
 ' Philip and the candidate go down into the water, he 
 is baptized, and they come up again out of it. Thus 
 we iee the baptifm adminiftered by John, in the be- 
 ginning of the Chriftian dilpenfation, before Chrill be- 
 gan his perfonal miniftry ; and that adminiftered td 
 Chrift himfelf ; and that adminiftered after he gave 
 the great coraraifiion, as to the modey were uniformly 
 the fame. 
 
 From this, we think it rational to conclude, that 
 ihofe inftances of baptifm mentioned in the New Tef- 
 
 * The prepofition m might perhaps be better rendered ir, at it !« 
 Mate. lii. 41. aad many otiur places. 
 
86 
 
 The Mode of Baptijm. 
 
 tament, where the aft is not defcribed, were performed 
 in the fame manner as thefe were, of which an account 
 is given. 
 
 Incompetent as this evidence may appear to you, we 
 think it a fufficient anfwer to your queftion, wherein 
 you aik, by what authority we make immerfion efiential 
 to baptifm, &c. I would alfo aflure you, that whenever 
 you will make out as much proof from fcripture for 
 fpr'nikling, as being an infiituted mode of baptifm, as 
 has now been produced in favour of imnu'ijlcnj I will 
 lay down my pen, and forever drop the difpute. 
 
 Although what has been offered may be confidered 
 .^s ample proof of the queftion in difpute, yet being 
 defirous of giving you full fatisfaftion, I fliall proceed 
 to lay before you one confideration more, which ap- 
 pears to us of confiderable weight in the prefent cafe ; 
 and that is, the native hgnification of the Greek verb 
 (bapf'iT,?) to baptize^ which we fuppofe neceflarily requires 
 dipping. We are fully fenfible, at the fame time, that 
 this fenfe has been controverted by many men of emi- 
 nent abilities ; notwithftanding, we think the evidence 
 grently preponderates in our favour. Nor Hiall we 
 thii.i; it a difficult tafk to prove the fenfe for which we 
 plead, from Pa;dobaptifts themfelves ; and that too, 
 from ibme as learned and judicially as any, whofe names 
 adorn the biographical page. This kind of evidence I 
 conclude you can have no reafonable objcftion to, be- 
 <aufe you cannot fufpeft them of any dclign againft 
 themfelves, nor will they make any conccffions to I'enti- 
 ments which they oppofe, further than truth obhges 
 them to ; therefore, I may fay of iheir evidence in the 
 prefent cafe, as David did of Goliath's fword, there is 
 none like it. 
 
 I may have occafion hereafter to mention fome wri- 
 ters of a much earlier date, bat I fhall here begin with 
 Luther. In his tranflation of the New Teftament, he 
 has rendered the Greek word to baptize by the Ger- 
 man tatifen ; and in his works he hath exprefsly de- 
 clared, that the baptifmal verb tauj'en, fignifies to im- 
 ijicrfe, or to plunge into tlie water.* Thus Matt. iii. 1. 
 
 • op. De bap. in Robipfon's Hift. Bap. p. 441, 
 
The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 87 
 
 Zi/Jer zeit kam Johannes der tauffer — In thofe days 
 came John the dtpper. To this we may add the tclli- 
 mony of the Genevan oracle, Calvui, who fays, " The 
 word baptize fignifies to dip 5 and it is certain that the 
 manner of dipping was ufed of the ancient churcli."* 
 Shall I add to this, the teiiimony of that celebrated 
 profelTor of divinity, Witfius ? " It cannot be denied 
 (faith he) that the native fignification of the word haptein 
 and bnptiTchi^ is, to plunge, to dip.'""f Full to the fame 
 point are alfo the words of Vitringa — " The z€i of bap- 
 tizing is the immerlion of believers in water. This 
 expreflcs the force of the word. Thus alfo it was per- 
 formed by Chrilt and his apofi.les."| 
 
 if you pleafe, we will now look at the ancient Hel- 
 vetia confeffion, firft written in the year 1536, by or 
 under the direction of Bucer, ten years before the death 
 of Luther, and afterwards publiflied again by the paf- 
 •tors of Zurich, in 1566 ; in which we have the follow- 
 ing unequivocal declaration : "Baptifm was inftitutcd 
 and confecrated by God, and the firft that baptized was 
 John, who DIPPED Christ in the v/ater in Jordan ; 
 from him it came to the apoftles, who alfo did baptize 
 with water." 
 
 The confeffion of Saxony, written by Melanclhon, 
 in the year 1551, perfedtly agrees with the above: I 
 will now tranfcribe it. " Baptifm is an entire action, 
 to wit, a DIPPING, and the pronouncing of thefe words, 
 / baptize thee in ike name of ike Futher^'' and fo on.|| 
 Thefe two laft are not to be confidered merely as the 
 teftimony of two men, or two particular churches, bat 
 as including a number of churches in two large dirtri<Sts. 
 
 As Dr. Collins was jufdy efteemed a learned and 
 critical expofltor, you will perhaps be willing to hear 
 his opinion in the prefent caie. " A great part (faith 
 he) of thofe who went out to hear John were baptized^ 
 that is, dipped in Jordan.'" '< To be baptized is to be 
 dipped in ivater ; metaphorically, to be plunged in afllic- 
 
 Inflitut. Chrift. Rciig. 1. iv. c. xv. § 19. 
 f CEconom. Foed. 1. iv. c. xvi. § 13. 
 4 Aphor.fmi San(ft. Theolog. Aphori.'". 884. ir Biioth. 
 j| H«raiony of ConfclTions, p. 395, 404. 
 
ss 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 tions : I am, faith Chrift, to be overwhelmed with fuf- 
 ferings and afliiftions."* To this we may add the tef- 
 timony of Mr. Daniel Rogers : « None (faith he) of 
 old were wont to be fprinkled ; and I confefs myfelf 
 unconvinced by demonftratiort from fcripture for infant 
 fprinkling. It ought to be the church's part to cleave 
 to the inftitution, which is dipping and he betrays the 
 church, whofe officer he is, to a difordeily error, if he 
 cleave not to the inftitution, which is to dip. That the 
 rninifter is to dip in water as the mecteft acV, the word 
 lapiizo notes it. For the Greeks wanted not other 
 vs-ords to exprefs any other a<Sl befide dipping, if the 
 inftitution could bear it." «< To dip therefore is exceed- 
 ing malerirJ to the ordinance j which was the ufage of 
 old, without exception of countries, hot or cold."f 
 
 The above quotations are all- made from Pacdobaptift 
 writers, to which I M'ilh to add one obfervation frona 
 a late learned hiftorian : <« 'A lingulft (fays he) deter- 
 mines himfelf by his own knowledge of the Greek 
 language, and an illiterate man, by the beft evidence he 
 can obtain from the teftimony of others, whom by his 
 condition he is obliged to truft. 
 
 «* To the latter it is fufficient to obferve, that the 
 word is confelTedly Greek, that native Greeks muft 
 underftand their own language better than foreigners, 
 and that they have always baptized, and do yet baptize, 
 by immerfion. This is an authority for the meaning 
 of the word infinitely preferable to that of European 
 lexicographers ; fo that a man, who is obliged to truft 
 human teftimony, and who baptizes by immerfion, be- 
 caufe the Greeks do, under ftands a Greek word exact- 
 ly as the Greeks themfelves underftand it ; and in this 
 cafe the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, and their 
 praftice is in this inftance fafe ground of acl:ion."| 
 
 This laft remark is confinr.ed by Dr. Wall, who aflures 
 us that " the Greek church, in all the branches of it, in 
 Europe, Afia, Egypt and Ethiopia, has always prefcrved 
 
 • Poole's Contin. of Annot. on Matt. iii. 6. and xx. ax. 
 \ Treatife of the two Sac. Part I. chap. v. and viii. in Booth's Pscdt- 
 baptift Exam. p. 13. 
 
 I Robinfon't Hiftory of baj-tifni, p. c, 
 
f The Mode of Baptlfm. 89 
 
 the ciif^om of dipping infants in baptifm, that were hi 
 health, and able to bear it."* By the term always, we 
 muft underftand from the time when thej- firft began to 
 baptize infants. 
 
 I will not for the prefent trouble you with any more 
 quotations from Pacdobaptifts, but will hold myieif en- 
 gaged to produce five times as many, whenever thei-e 
 lhall be a reafonable demand. I conclude, if human 
 teftimony can eftabliih any point, we muft allow, from 
 the dilinterelled nature of the evidence now confider- 
 ed, that the native fignification of the Greek verb bap- 
 tizo, (which muft determine the proper fenfe of our 
 Englilh word to baptize) to be fairly fettled. 
 
 Should it be objefted that any, or all the pcrfons 
 above quoted, held, notwithftanding, that baptifm 
 might be lawfully adminiftered, either by pouring or 
 fpr'mkling, in ordinary, or at leaft in particular cal'es ; 
 this would by no means invalidate their evidence, with 
 refpecl to the point in hand ; it would only prove 
 them inconfiftent with themfelves, and that they fii;.--. 
 pofed that they had a right to depart from the inltita- 
 ted way, and adopt one which, in their view, appeared 
 better calculated to ferve the Interefts of religion. 
 
 Should we fuppofe a number of perfons, of eftablilh- 
 ed veracity, to appear before a court of judicature, to 
 give evidence upon oath in a certain cafe, and they 
 Ihould all jointly agree in confirming a particular faft ^ 
 but at the fame time fiiould add, that it was their opinijn, 
 that there might be other circumftances connefted with 
 the attefted fa£l, which, if true, would be equally im- 
 portant to the cafe in hand, although they could not 
 be pofitively proved ; — no perfon would be at a lofs 
 how to decide a cafe of this nature, nor would he put 
 this fuppofititious evidence upon an equal footing with 
 Jlber fa£ly unjefs he were governed by intereft or preju- 
 dice. 
 
 Thus, Sir, we have traced the Mode of baptifm tip 
 to its origin : and have found it firft in the hands of 
 John the Baptift, who had his commillion from heaven f 
 
 • Defence of the hiftory of infant bapiiiin,'p. 'i"48. 
 t John i, 6, 
 I 2 
 
90 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 He adminlftered it to the Saviour, and probably to the 
 difciples,* who by virtue of the great commiflion bap- 
 tized others ; and wherever the aSl is defcribed, it cer- 
 tainly has the appearance of immerfion. 
 
 We have alfo heard the teftimony of feveral cele- 
 brated writers, in eftablifliing the meaning of the word 
 to baptize. Thefe declarations, taken from Paedobap- 
 tifts, muft always remain in our favour, notwithftancl- 
 ing all that may be faid of their praclifing in a differoat 
 way. 
 
 Hence we conceive that immerfion, as the appointed 
 mode of baptifm, has been fairly made out, both from 
 fcripture and reafon, and from the full concellions of 
 the writers upon your own fide. And if what has now 
 been faid, fliould not convince you or any of your breth- 
 ren, yet it will undoubtedly fuggeit fome of our reafons 
 for differing from you in our praftice. 
 
 If the mode of applying the water of baptifm be in- 
 different, then the difpute is at an end ; but, if it be 
 irnportant, the necelEty of one condemns the other. 
 But to me it appears inconliftent to fuppofe, that there 
 can be a poiitive command, and the mode of our obedi- 
 ence be indifferent ; for this at once takes off the au- 
 thority of the command. Yet here. Sir, we have not 
 the happinefs to be agreed in opinion : for you fuppofe 
 the matter to be indifferent, and attempt to illuftrate 
 it by the pofture of the body in prayer. But a mo- 
 ment's refleftion muft convince you, that the cafes are 
 not parallel. The pofture of the body makes no part 
 of prayer, any more than the place does where the man 
 is when he prays : for prayer is properly a mental ex- 
 crcife, and not immediately connefted with any pofition 
 of the body whatever. But this can by no means be 
 laid of the application of water in baptifin : for this 
 makes a material part of the ordinance, and is-elfential 
 to its very exiftence. 
 
 If the inftitution require no more than to fprinkle a 
 few drops of water in the face, any perfon muft be 
 ftrangeVy fuperftitious to be immerfed. And on the 
 ctlver hand, if it does really require immerfion, then 
 
 * Chap, iii, z^. 
 
The Mode of Bapiifrn. 
 
 91 
 
 iK.jfe who only fprinkle muft fall materially fliort, and 
 have Icarcely the lhadow of the ordinance. To fup- 
 yoit that fprinkling, pouring, or immerfion, are all in- 
 different, is in to fuppofe that nothing is command- 
 ed ; or at leaft no more than fprinkling.* When per- 
 fons believe this, there is an end to immerfion : for men 
 are not generally fond of doing more than is required. 
 This, Sir, your practice demonftrates. You believe 
 either vray anfwers the inftitution ; but you, with other 
 Fxdobaptifts in general, choofe fprinkling ; I think it 
 probable that I fhould do the fame, could I be convin- 
 ced that your views were right. It is alfo probable, 
 tliat John the Baptift, Chrift aod his apoftles, Philip, 
 ?.nd the ancient Chriftians, had they viewed the matter 
 ill the fame light which you do, would have invariably 
 adiuiniftered it by fprinkling : for there could have 
 b'^en no poffible occafion which would have required 
 immerfion, in cafe the other way would equally well 
 expi-efs the defign. 
 
 From a careful retrofpe£tion of the arguments made 
 ufe of in the courfe of this lengthy Sedlion, the candid 
 will be able to judge, whether we are unreafonable, in 
 faying that immerfwn is eflential to the right adminiftra- 
 tion of the ordinance. That I have not exaggerated 
 fober faft, will be made evident by a quotation which I 
 ftiall now fubjoin. Dr. Wall, who has before beeti 
 mentioned, was fo highly efteemed by the Englifli cler- 
 gy for his learning and zeal in defending infant baptifm, 
 that in a general convocation, Feb. 9, 1706, they palTed 
 the following vote ; " Ordered, that the thanks of this 
 houfe be given to Mr. Wall, Vicar of Shoreham in 
 Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately 
 
 *The three terms in d!fj)ute are all ufeJ in Lev. ix. 6, 7. in the fol- 
 lowing manner : " And the prieft fliall (kapfii) dip his finger in the 
 blood, and (projiranei) fprinkle of the blood fevcn times before the 
 Lord ; and ihall (etcbeei\J pour all the blood of the bullock at the b«t- 
 tom of the altar." 
 
 That thefe rites were not the fame and to be ufed indifferently, the 
 following familiar tranfpofition will abundantly fhow : And the prieft 
 fliall pour his finger in the blood, and fliall dip of the blood feveu times 
 before the Lord ; and fliall fprinkle all the blood at the bottom of the 
 altar. 
 
 I SeptuagintaJn loc. 
 
92 
 
 The Mode of Baptifnu 
 
 written concerning infant bnptifm." Yet notwithftand- 
 ing this gentleman's profound learning, and all the ad- 
 vantages he had derived from his painful refearches into 
 the remoteft depths of antiquity, to procure materials 
 of defence, — he was obliged to acknowledge, that Dr. 
 Gale had drawn him into a difpute upon the mode of 
 baptifm, " wherein (faith he) he knew, that the exam- 
 ples of fcripture and other antiquity, and the full per- 
 fualion of that people, and of all the Eaftern church to 
 this day, is on his fide ; and I had the difadvan- 
 tage to plead for a way of baptifm, of which the 
 beft I could fay, was, that it was fufficient for the 
 eflence of baptifm ; but could not deny the other (ex- 
 cept in the cafe of danger of health) to be the fitteft."* 
 It muft be acknowledged, that Dr. Wall was under 
 moft painful difadvantages in vindicating his caufe : 
 for he had not only to oppofe the learned Dr. Gale, but 
 the full convi(Stion of his own mind, that fcripture ex- 
 ample, afl5 the whole current of antiquity, were againft 
 him. 
 
 Upon the whole, this much is certain, that there is 
 neither exprefs command, nor example, either in the 
 law of Mofes, or in the gofpel of Jefus Chrift, to fprinkle 
 water upon new-born infants as an initiating feal of any 
 covenant whatever .f Therefore, we may fay with Dr. 
 Whitby, whofe words fliall clofe this Seftion — '< The 
 argument is always good : We read of no fuch doftrine 
 in the fcripture ; therefore it neither is, nor can be, any 
 article of faith, becaufe we have no other rule of faith 
 befides the holy fcriptures.":}: 
 
 * Defence of the hiftory of infant baptifm, p. 404- 
 f The male children of the Jew5 were to be circumcifed on the 
 eighth day, by di"ine appointment ; but paft the middle of the third 
 century, the honeft Bi/hop Pidus wrote to Cyprian of Carthage, to know 
 whether child»cn might be baptized beforj they were eight days old; 
 for by his Bible h; could not tell. Nor could C7priai\ tell, without 
 firft confulting a Council upon the fubjeft. A prelumptive evidence 
 that the buCnefs was new. Primit. Chrift. p. 193. and Robinfon'j 
 hiftory, p. 284. 
 
 \ Annot. on Matt. vi. 9. 
 
The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 93 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 i/'Y' Mode of Baptifm farther illnfrated, from the Pracfice 
 of the primitive Chrifiaiis ; and the ?>lanner in which it 
 •was reduced from Immerfion to Spritikiirigy briefly point' 
 ed out. 
 
 Much has been already faid upon the mode of 
 baptifm ; but as it is evidently a conftituent part in the 
 prefent difpute, it appears necelTury to fet it in the clear- 
 eft light. Hence we fhall proceed to conlider the 
 praftice of the ancient Chriftians. 
 
 The primitive Chriftians not only underftood the 
 word in the fenfe for which we plead, but they prac- 
 lifed accordingly. This has been touched upon already, 
 but will be more fully illuftrated in what follows. 
 
 Dr. Cave, who wrote about a hundred and twenty 
 years ago, (not particularly as a difputant, but as a hif- 
 torian) in defcribing the religion of the fathers, after 
 mentioning feveral things which they conne£ted with 
 baptifm, he faith ; « The aftion having proceeded thus 
 far, the party to be baptized was wholly im;T:ii fd or 
 put under water, which was the almoft univerfal cuftom 
 of thofe times, whereby they did more notably and iig- 
 nificantly exprefs the three great ends and effects of bap- 
 tifm ; for as in immerfion there are in a manner three 
 feveral a£ts, xhe putting tViQ perfon into the water, his 
 abiding there for a little time, and his rfng again. ; fo 
 by thefe were reprefented ChrfYs death, burial, and 
 refurrcciion to a nev/^ courfe of life. By the perfon's 
 being put into the water, was lively reprefented the 
 putting off the body of the fins of the flefh ; by his 
 abode under it, which was a kind of burial in the water, 
 his entering upon a ftate of death or mortification ; 
 like as Chrift remained for fome time under the ftate 
 or power of death ; therefore as many as are baptized 
 into Chrift, are faid to be baptized into his death, and 
 to be buried with him by baptifm into death, that the 
 old man being crucified with him, the body of fin 
 might be deftroyed, thathcnc^orthhe might not ferve 
 
94 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 fin ; for he that Is dead is freed from fin, as the apoflle 
 clearly explains the meaning of this rite. And then, by 
 his emerfion, or rifingup out of the water, was fignified 
 his entering upon a new courfe of life."* 
 
 The words of Mr. Locke are very fimilar to the 
 above ; " We Chriftians (iaith he) who by baptifm 
 were admitted into all the kingdom and church of 
 Chrift, were baptized into a limilitude of his death ; 
 we did own feme kind of death by being buried under. 
 •WATER ; which being buried with him, i. e. in con- 
 formity to his burial, as a confelTIon of our being dead, 
 was to fignify, that as Chrift was raifed up from the 
 dead into a glorious life with his Father, even fo we, 
 being raifed from our typical death and burial in bap- 
 tifm, fhould lead a new fort of life, wholly different 
 from our former, in fome approaches towards that 
 heavenly life that Chrift is rifen to."f 
 
 Mr. Burkit alfo, fully acknowledges this to be the 
 pracStice of the ancient church, when he fays, " The 
 apoftle no doubt alludes to the ancient manner and way 
 of baptizing perfons in thofe hot countries, which was 
 by imnierfion, or putting them under water for a time, 
 and then raifmg them up again out of the water ; which 
 rite had alfo a myftical fignification, reprefenting the 
 burial of our old man fin in us, and our refurreflion to 
 newnefs of life."J Mr. Poole's words are nearly ver- 
 batim.§ 
 
 But, Sir, you are fenfible that very few expofitors 
 have written concerning the prafticc of the firft Chrif- 
 tian church, who have not acknowledged, that it was 
 the almoft universal cuftom of thofe times to baptize 
 by immerfion. This fa<St will nnnifcft itfelf as we pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 You will undoubtedly recollecl, that the firft inftan- 
 ces to be met with in ancient hiftory, wherein they 
 pretended to bapt'rze otherwife than by immerfion, 
 were in cafes of fuppofed necejfity ; and confidered 
 
 * Primitive Chrirtiinity, Part I. chap. x. p. 20j, 204- EJ't- 
 f Paraphrafc On Rom. vi. 3, 4. 
 \ F.xpofitory Notes on Rom, vi. 4. 
 § I'oalc in Inc. 
 
The Mode of Bnpfifm. 
 
 95 
 
 even in thofe cafes as not fully anfwering the inftitu- 
 tion. 
 
 The baptizing of ftck or dyitig perfons by affufion, 
 originated in the third century* (a period fruitful of re- 
 ligious inventions) and had its foundation in error. 
 
 Several things united in bringing it into exiftence : 
 as, 1. Mifconftruing that paflage of the apoftle where 
 it is faid, If they -who have once been ciilighteiied, (which at 
 this time, by many, was underftood of baptifm)yZ't7// 
 fall aivay, it is iivpofftble to reneiu them again to repentance. 
 This led Conftantine, and many other ferious perfons, 
 to delay their baptifm until near the clofe of life. 2. 
 Another fentiment equally erroneous arofe, from a mil- 
 application of the words of Chrift — Except a wan he 
 born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God. Thus on the one hand, they fearing a 
 fatal relapfe after baptifm, and on the other, (as Dr. 
 Cave obierves) " Not daring to pafs into another world 
 without this bndge of their initiation into Chrift, they 
 prefently fignified tlieir earneft ilefire to be baptized, 
 which was accordingly done, as well as the circumftan- 
 ces of a fick bed would permit. Thefe were called 
 Clinici, (of whom there is frequent mention in the an- 
 cient writers of the church) becaufe baptized as they 
 lay along in their beds." " This (continues tJie Doc- 
 tor) was accounted a lefs foknm and perfect kind of 
 baptiim ; partly becaufe it was done not by innncrfion, 
 but by fprinkling, partly becaufe perfons were fuppoletl 
 at fuch a time to dcfirc it chiefly out of fear of death."-|- 
 riiis kind of baptifm was coiilidered fo imperfect, that 
 if the perfons recovered, they were by the Neocx'farean 
 Coimcu, rendered ordinarily incapable of being admit- 
 ted to the degree of prtfhylers in the church. 
 
 We have a fair fpecimen of this in the inftance of 
 Novatus, the Greek philofopher/f According to Eu- 
 fcbius, " he fell into a grievous diftemper, and it being 
 fuppofed that he would die immediately, he received 
 baptifm (being befprinkled with water) on the bed where- 
 
 • Robinfon'i hiftory, p. 449 
 
 f Primitive Cliriftianity, I'art I. c. 10. p 196. 
 
 \ Sometimes called is'ovitiauus 
 
96 
 
 Tbf Mode ofMaptiJm. 
 
 oxi he lay : ( if that (an.be called baptifm.*' )* Thus it ajv 
 pears, that this ancient father will hardly allow fprink- 
 lingXoht .called baptifm. This took place near the 
 middle of the third century, and ferves to fhow in what» 
 light Jprinklitig, even in cafes of tHceJftiyy was viewed ia 
 that day. 
 
 It may afford us further light in our prefent inquiries, 
 to confider the cafe of Conftantine. He has generally 
 been honoured as the firft Chriftian Emperor. But if 
 according to your argument, a man is not to be confid- 
 ered as a Chriftian without baptifm, then he muft be 
 looked upon as a heathen, long after he fought under 
 the banner of the erofs ; and confequently, muft be con- 
 fidered as a Chriftian but a few hours before his death. 
 But, to fuppofe this, 13 to fuppofe, that baptizing a man 
 makes him a Chriftian, which is too abfurd to be admit- 
 ted in this enlightened period. We may as well argue 
 that the epehtte worn by an officer, is what makes him 
 an officer ; as, that baptifm makes the perfon baptized 
 a Chriftian. Whereas a perfon muft be an officer be- 
 fore he can have any right to wear the badge fo a per- 
 fon ought to be a Chriftian, before he takes upon him 
 the facred badge of that profeflion. 
 
 It appears that Conftnntine was brought to believe 
 the Chriftian dodrine in the beginning of his reign, 
 which continued upwards of thirty years ; but he was 
 not baptized until a little before his death.* Being at 
 this time in an ill ftute of health, he repaired to the 
 warm b^ths at Conftantinople ; but his complaints in- 
 crcafing, be went from thence to Helenppolis, and from 
 thence to the fuburbs of Nicomedia ; where he called 
 the Bilhops together, and fpake to them in the follow- 
 ing manner : " This wr»s the time long fmce hoped for 
 by me, when I thirfted and prayed, that I might obtain 
 falvation in God. This is the hour, wherein even we 
 may alfo enjoy that feal which confers immortality. I 
 had heretofore taken a refolution of doing this in the 
 ftream of the river Jordan, where our Saviour himfelf. 
 
 * Eccl. Hift. lib. vL c. p. 113. 
 f He was proUainjied Emperor ui tke ilk year of the 371 Olymplai 
 or A. D. ios. * 
 
Ike Mcde of Baptifm. 
 
 57 
 
 in likencfs to us, is recorded to have partaken of the 
 laver."* After this we are told, that they performed 
 the rites, and completed the divine ceremonies- It is 
 A given point that he was baptized by immerdon ^ bvitj 
 
 it had then been confidered as a matter of fuch indif- 
 ferency, as is plead for in the prefent day, he would un- 
 dotibtedly have excufed himfelf from going into the 
 water, in his ill ftate of health. 
 
 This inftance miift carry a degree of evidence to 
 every unprejudiced mind, in favour of immerfion : for 
 in this we have the opinion of this great man, in what 
 tn}de the Saviour was baptized ; and of his determina- 
 tion to imitate him in it, both as to the manner and 
 place f 
 
 j Perhaps fome into whofe hands thefe fiieets may fall, 
 j may willi to be informed, how immerfion came to be 
 j laid afide, and another rite fo entirely dilFerent, gener- 
 
 ' • Eufel). Life of Conftantine, lib. iv. chap. Ixii. 
 
 f It is abundantly evident, that many pcifons who were born of 
 C-lriftian parcr,l!i, and educated in the Chriftian faith, were not baptized 
 uniilthey came to aJult years, and made a perl'onal profcffiou 
 
 Helena, the mother of Conftantinc, w.is a very devout and zealous 
 Chrikian, yet he Wits not baptized upon htr faith. Nor did he dedicate 
 M-o,vij children to God in baptifm by virtue of his faith: for we arc 
 inf'jrir.eiby t'ocrates, that hisfon Conllantius, who fuceecdtd his father 
 in the empire, was ijaptized by Euzoius when he was preparing for hia 
 (Tptditioa againft Julianus, and iniined'iatcly after ended his life at 
 r.iopfucrenia, twenty-five years after tlie death of his father. Eccl. 
 1 iii^ory, lib. ii. chap, xlvii. 
 
 15 Uil, the fon of Bad, bifliop of Nicene, was baptized in Jordan whcu 
 i.ivanced in years. 
 
 . 'Kory the grcac, the fon of Gregory, bifUop of Naziaiizen, was born 
 his fatiicr was bilhop, and yet not baptized until he was twenty, 
 r.iy thirty years old. See Ofiander's Book, Cent. iv. 1. 3, and 
 p.fon's Hiftory, p. 250. 
 > . uriuj fays, that Chryfoftom was born of believing parents, and wa.i 
 I lacatcd by Mclitius, a bifhoo, yet not baptized till the age of twcnty- 
 
 Erafmiis tcftiiiei, that Jcrom was born in the city of Shydon, of Chrif- 
 tiin p;irciit«, wa» brought up in the Chriilan religion, aud wai baptized 
 iu the thirtieth year of his age. 
 
 Vofliu' affinns, that NciSariui was chofen bi.Tiop of Conilantinople 
 before i.e was baptized. 
 
 Theodolius, the emperor, was born in Spain ; his parents were both 
 C'niilians, and from his childhood had been tr. jned up in the Nicene 
 ' h ; was baptized at {'hciTalouica, by Athalio, when he was upwards 
 lircy years old. Vide Junius, junior, p. 68. Rob. p. jjo. 
 
58 
 
 The Mode of Baptifm. 
 
 ally praclifed in its room ? In anfwer to this, the reader 
 is defired to call to mind what has already been faid, 
 that fprinkling firft made its appearance in Africa, in 
 the third century, in favour of Clinicks or bed-ridden 
 people. But even African Catholics derided it, and re- 
 puted it no baptifm, or at lead: a very imperfect one * 
 They confidered it only as a fubflitute in cafes of im- 
 minent danger, where baptifm in the inftituted way 
 could not with fafety be adniiniflered. Sprinkling in 
 thefe cafes, appears to have been in ufe feveral centuries 
 before pouring was ever praftifed for baptifm. 
 
 The lirft appearance of baptizing by pouring (which 
 has occurred in my reading) was in the eighth century ; 
 when Pope Stephen III. allowed the vahdity of fuch a 
 baptifm of infants in danger of death. 
 
 The queftion propofed to him was. Whether in cafe 
 of tiecejfity occafioned by illnefs of an infr.nt, it were law- 
 ful to baptize by p:un?ig water out of the hand, or a 
 cup, on the head of the infant ? Stephen anfwered, if 
 fuch a baptifm were performed, in fuch a cafe of ne- 
 ceffity, in the name of the holy Trinity, it fliould be 
 held valid. 
 
 The levadd Bafnage makes feveral remarks on the 
 canon of'^te^hei|, referred to above.- " Although 
 (faith he) it is accounted the firft law for fprinkling, yet 
 it doth not forbid dipping : that it allows fprinkling 
 only in cales of imminent dangpr : that the authentici- 
 ty of it is denied by fome Catholics : that many laws 
 were made after this time in Germany, France, antl 
 England, to compel dipping, and without any provifion 
 for cafes of necefHty : therefore, tliat this law did not 
 alter the vtode of dipping in public baptiinis. And that 
 it was not until five hundred and fifty-feven years after, 
 that the legiflature, in a council at Ravena, in the year 
 thirteen hundred and eleven, declared dipping, ox fpririk- 
 
 There was indeed in fome parts of the Chnftian 
 church, long bel\jre this, fuch. a ceremony as pouring 
 
 « Jr. Ani-cK Bcfii de diriicis sxercit. Hift. Jcnce. 
 I JacoV.i Barnii;li, Mi^nument. Vul I. Vrjiiit.. c'.p. v. 5 4. De caM|)« 
 ^itfphini Hi. Pap«- in Robinfou. • 
 
The Mode of Faptlfm. 
 
 99 
 
 vk-atci- upon the head, but was cliftinifc from baptifm, 
 and like exorcifm conikiered only as a prep;iration. 
 This pouring v/<i3 called capit-alivium^ or waihing of the 
 head ; and was ufually performed on Palm Sunday upon 
 the competents, as a preparatory to baptilm. 
 
 If hiftory can eftablilh any fact, it undoubtedly does 
 this, that baptifm was univcrlally adminiftered by irr, 
 nu-rfton in the whole Chriftian Church (except in cal 
 of neceflity as above) for thirteen hundred years togeti: 
 er ; and continued fo in the Engiiih nation until about 
 the middle of the fixteenth centcry. And how the 
 change was made in the Engli-.h church, we are faili- 
 cientiy informed by Dr. Wall. •« Ci-lvin (laith he) 
 was, I think, the tirit in tl>.e world, that drew up u 
 form of liturgy, that prefcribed /w/.-vw^r ^^'^^y£'r on the in- 
 fant, abfolutely without faying any thine, of <//<>/>w^ (thi; 
 was done in the year 1556.) It was his admirers - ! 
 England, who in queen Elizabeth's time, brought pour- 
 ing into ordinary ufe, which before was ufed only to 
 weak children. Bat the fucceeding Preftyterians in 
 Eneland, about the year 1(564>5 (when their reign began) 
 r farther yet from- the ancient way ; and inflead of 
 •:g, brought into ufe in many places fprinkimg. De- 
 g at the fame time againrt all uie of fonts, bap- 
 /.es, &:c."* 
 
 . v. i/h to add one remark more from Dr. Wall un- 
 der this head. There has (f.iith he) no novelty or 
 alteration, that I know of, in point! of baptifm, been 
 brought into our church, but in the nccy or nutmier of 
 adminillering it. The way that is now ordinarily ufed, 
 we cannot deny to have been a novelty, brought into 
 this church by thofe that learned it in Germany, or at 
 Geneva. And they were not content to follow tlie ex- 
 ample of pouring a quantity of water, (which had there 
 been introduced infiead of immerfion) but improwd it 
 (if I may fo abufe that word) from pouring to fprink- 
 Hng ; that it might have as little refemblance of the 
 ancient way of baptizing as polFible."f 
 
 » Defence of the Hlflor)- of Infant Baptifm, p. 146. 
 t Ibid. p. 403, .104. 
 
100 The Mode of Baptijm. 
 
 This indefatigable hiftorian has afligned two reafons 
 for this alteration, which are as follow ; " I muft ow 
 in the firft place, that many of the clergy feem to b 
 of the opinion of the late bifl op of Salifbury, that the 
 coldnefs of our climate is a good reafon to change dip- 
 ping into pouriug." Upon which he obferves, «« That 
 our climate is no colder than it was for thofe thirteen 
 cr fourteen hundred years from the beginning of Chrif- 
 tiAuity here, to queen Elizabeth's time, ar.d not near fo 
 cold as rVadcovy, and feme other countries, where they 
 do ftill dip their children in baptifm, and find no incon- 
 venience in it."* Although this, with many, might be 
 accounted a luflicient reafon for the alteration, the Doc- 
 tor fuppofes the following had more influence. That 
 «' It was not the coldnefs of the climate, but the imita- 
 tion of Calvin and the church at Geneva, and fome 
 others tliereabouts." 
 
 Thus, Sir, from the obfervations now made, we 
 clearly fee what was the praftice of the ancient Chrif- 
 tians ; and how the alteration has been brought about. 
 If the now related by Dr. Wall are true, (and he 
 is certainly fupported by the current teftimony of hifto- 
 ry) I hardly think you will again afk, By luhat authority 
 nue nuihe immerjion ejfehtial to boptijm. 
 
 As fprinkiing is acknowledged to be a tioveliy by thofe 
 who praftife it, and that it was brought in, in « imitation 
 of Calvin," and not in " imitation of the baptilm of Je- 
 fus Chrift," we do not fee our way clear to acknowl- 
 edge the validity of it. The advice given to Ifrael of 
 old may be applied in the prefent cafe j Thus faith the 
 
 * It is probable the following incident had net taken place when the 
 Drjdor wrote his defence, or he would hive made an eiception. 
 
 It is faid by an Englifti hiftorian, that at I'cterfburg they fotnetiojes 
 baptize their children in a river or c.iniil, by cutting b h»le through 
 ihe ice, upon which he obferves, " I hane heard that a prieft, in lin* 
 merCng a child, (for baptifm is perjornitd by the imnierfion of the 
 Y.hole body) let it flip, through iii;atention, into the water. The child 
 WES drowned ; but the t-nly man fiiffcred no coi ftcrnation. " CtDt 
 n:t anotbtr" faid he, with the uimoft compolure, "/er tbr Lord both 
 taktn that to binfelj " '1 he Empreff, howiver, having other ufes for 
 her fuhje(5ts, and not deGring thai the Lord Ihould have any ir.cre, in 
 th.-\t way, at leail, gave orders that all children to be baptized in the 
 hole in the river ihould henceforth be let dow^n in a balket." W. Rich. 
 arUfon'j Anecdotes cf the Rutfun Etuplre, p. 335.. in Robinfon. 
 
Godly Sincerity. 
 
 101 
 
 Lord, Stand ye in the nvays and fee, ajk for the old paths, 
 •u ht-re is the good tuay, and nvalk therein ; and ye Jhalljind 
 rejl for your fouls* 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 j Godly Sincerity, as conneclid loith externa! Obedience, con- 
 i fidered. 
 
 In my other Piece, I have a few times ufed the 
 i term ftncere, and its fubftantive ftncerity. I have fai^., 
 I tiut " lincerity is not the term of communion, but be- 
 I ing conformed to the apoftles' doctrine, and continuing 
 fteadfaftly therein." I have alfo fiid, that " whatever 
 we pra£life which is not according to the will of Chrifl:, 
 I is contrary thereto ; although we be ever fo fincere in 
 doing it." To this you reply, ' If I rightly conjecture, 
 it exhibits a fentiment which is falfe in its nature, per- 
 nicious in its confequences, and a firft principle of your 
 iniuake refpetfting clofe communion." Sir, if your 
 conjeElure be right, we are now in a fair way to get at 
 ' the root of the difficulty. You however acknowledge 
 the firfi: part of the fentence, " thart whatever we prac- 
 tife which is not according to the will of Chrift, is 
 contrary thereto This, you fay; ' is very plain and 
 good doftrine j' but when I added, although we be 
 I'ver fo fincere, you lay, I prefent a difRcuhy. Really, 
 Sir, it appears to me as you ccnifrue the paifage, it pre- 
 fents a much greater difficulty : for, if an aft were really 
 dilagreeable to the will of Chrift, and cur peiforniing 
 it in fincerity would render it agreeable, we muft fup- 
 pofe his will to be dependent on the fincerity of his 
 creatures ', if fo, his will cannot be a rule of condudt 
 for us, but we muft be governed by our own iincerity. 
 
 That we may not dil'pute about words rather than 
 fentiments, it may be proper hero to fcuir ibe n earing 
 
 * Jer. vi. i«. 
 
 It '2 
 
0-2 
 
 Godly Sificeriiy. 
 
 of the term f^icet e. You allow that < the word is am- 
 biguous in the cuftomary ufe of it i' but conclude, * as 
 it is ufed inlcripture, it generally, if not invariably, Im- 
 plies or intends pure and upright afFeftions of heart/ 
 That it is ufeci in this fenle in the epiftle to the Pliiiip- 
 pians, will be granted ; birt, that it is uied in fnme- 
 what -of a different fenfe by the apoflle Peter, muft alfo 
 be acknowledged : For he fpeaks of the fmcere milk of 
 the word, which being of the neuter gender, does uot 
 includre afFeiSHons of any kind. 'I hefe two, are per- 
 haps the only inftances in fcripture, in which this adjec- • 
 live is ufed, except in the marginal reading. 
 
 But Ibould it even be granted that the word , w*lieii 
 ufiad in Icripture, is conrtantly ufed in the fenfe for 
 which you plead ; will you hence argue that I am ' 
 obliged to ufe it in this fenfe Have 1 not a right to 
 ufe it according to common acceotation ? Surely I 
 have not mentioned godly, or fcripture fwcerky. I have 
 indeed annexed the adverb ever, to fmcere ; which you 
 are pleafed to fay, < extends to all kinds and to all de- 
 grees of fiacerity." But have you, by the fair rule* 
 of criticifm, a right to this conclufion ? Moft certainly 
 you have not. It will be allowed, that the term ufed 
 will extend to the higheft degree ; but by no means 
 determines the kind or quality of fincerity. 
 
 Should you agree to meet a friend tomorrow even- 
 ing at eight o'clock, and Ihould fay, ' I will not fail of 
 being there although it (hould be ever i'o dark' — It 
 might with as much propriety be argued, that this in- 
 cluded all kinds of darknds, natural, preternatural, 
 moral, and fpiritual ; as, that ever fo fmcere include* 
 all kinds of fmcerity. 
 
 To prevent any miftake in future, I am wliUng to let 
 you know how I underftand the word, and how I wifii 
 to be under ftood when I ufe it. The plain, natural 
 ugnification of the word appears to be this — The hoveji 
 perjuiijion cf ihe mind, according io the degree of light in the 
 iinderjiiiiidrng ; and in general is to be underftood in 
 diftiuftion from hypocrify Thus, a man may be a fin- 
 cere friend to the Federal Conflitution, He may be a 
 good man in a moral fcnfc, and yet his fmcere attach- 
 
Godly Sinceriiy. 
 
 103 
 
 , lo the laws of bis country, may be the effeift of 
 , jl'uical fentiments, rather than his piety. Another 
 .... may fincerely believe the xxxix articles of the 
 i Ciiurch of England, and as fincerely believe that all 
 I i:'e dilli-iitcrs are wrong. I fluH not pretend to fay 
 t this is godly fincerity, or that it is not j but I will 
 ure to fay he may be a good man, and this may be 
 J iDccre opinion. 
 
 In fartlier remarking upon this part of the fubjeft 
 ; lay, ' Your words imply, that a perfon may, in the 
 cile of godly fincerity, act contrary to the will of 
 ift.* In order to make a fatisfaclory reply to this, 
 k1 be proper to inquire what is meant by the will 
 iirift. When I ufe the term, I mean his will re- 
 i in his "zuord : For I know nothing of his will far- 
 than lie has therein made it known. It is a gen- 
 maxim with Protel'tants, that the word of God is a 
 . .1 fc(5t rule of faith and practice. Therefore, to talk of 
 things as being agreeable or dilagreeable to the will of 
 Chrift, in any other fenfe than as they are approved or 
 difapproved by the 'word of God, is to talk merely upon 
 the footing of conjecture. Hence, Sir, ifyouunder- 
 ftand the will of Chrift in this fenfe, I freely acknowl- 
 edge it to be my opinion, that a good man may fincerely 
 a£t contrary to it. You may call this g'dly fmeerity^ or . 
 by any other name that you pleafe. 
 
 If good men cannot be fincerely wrong, or in other 
 words, fincerely erroneous, then all their errors and 
 miftakes, muft be confidered as agreeable to the will of 
 Chrift ; or otherwife, as a£ts of criminal hypocrify ! 
 But you aik, < Is not godly (incerity the y&xy fcul and' 
 f'Jfeuce of conformity to Chrift V I anfwcr, it is impoiTible 
 to conform to the luill' of Chrift without fincerity, or 
 uprightnels of heart ; but mere fincerity is by no means 
 conformity to Chrift's will, with refpeft to pofitive infti- 
 tutions. It can only be confidered as a necefi'ary quah- 
 fication for conformity. Under the Mofaic economy, 
 a lamb for facrifice maft be without blemilh ; but the 
 perfection of the lamb did not make it a facrifice, this 
 only rendered it fuitable ; but it was its being adtually 
 offered up. So with regard to our obeying any pofitive 
 
lot 
 
 Godly Sincerity. 
 
 precept, fincenty is abfolutely neceffary to acceptable 
 obedience. A man may be convinced that it is his 
 duty to relieve a needy brother ; and alfo fincerely de- 
 termine at a convenient feafon to do it ; yet certain 
 circumftances may take place, fo as finally to prevent 
 its being accomplifhed. That God may approve of his 
 fwcdve intention^ will not be difputed ; but we can have 
 fellovvfliip in his charity no farther than we hnoiu it» 
 which is only by his ading it out. It will be granted 
 that Chrift judges the moral qualities of our aftions by 
 the intentions of the heart ; but he has not given this 
 as a rule to us, any farther than it difcovers itfelf in the 
 r.ftion. Chrift pronounces the man guilty of adultery, 
 who looks on a woman criminally to luft after her ; but 
 we have no right, either by the laws of God or man, to 
 charge any perfon with that crime, without the actual 
 commiflion of it. 
 
 I conclude, that a good man may, in one period of 
 )'dG,Jiiicere!y believe that he is afting according to the 
 will of Chrift, and at another, as ftnccrely believe that 
 what he then did, was never commanded, or enjoined 
 by Chrift ; but was the mere effeft of education or tra- 
 dition. 
 
 Nothing can bring the matter more familiarly into 
 view, than the fubjedt now in difpute. We will fup- 
 pofe, that in the fincerity of your heart, you have de- 
 fired to open a door for free communion with forae of 
 the Baptifts and as * Jincerity is the very elTence cf con- 
 formity to Chrift,' wo muft conclude, in this particular 
 yon aft agreeably to his will. On the other hand, the 
 Baptifts to whom you make the friendly propofal, as 
 Jincerely believe, that it is not according to the v/ill of 
 Chrift, that they (hould communiicate with you in your 
 prefent fituation. This alfo contains the elTence of con- 
 formity to Chrift. 
 
 Thus, Sir, if I underftand your argument, this muft 
 be the conclufion ; that it is the will of Chrift, that the 
 Psedobaptifts ftiould communicate with the Baptifts ; 
 aad at the fame time, it is his •will, that the Baptifts 
 fhould not communicate with them ! I ftiall take it for 
 granted, that the Baptifts do in the Jmcerity of their 
 
Godly Swcer'ii\ 
 
 105 
 
 I ts, refufe to communicate with thofe whom they 
 K ok upon as not baptized according to Chrift's inftitu- 
 tion. If this rcfufal be made godly fiiiccy'tty, {2X\6. 
 
 who will dare to fliy it is not ?) then according to your 
 argument, it mufl: be ' above every thing elfe pleafing 
 to Chrift equally fo, as communicating with other 
 denominations at the table. 
 
 To ilhiftrate your doctrine of f.ncerity you afk, < Would 
 it be according to the will of Chrift, for a perfon to 
 conform to ycur mode of baptifm, while he really 
 thinks it would be contrary to the will ofChrifl for him 
 fo to do ?' To aufvver this, it will be necefiary firft to 
 inquire, whether the node of baptifm prafHfed by us, 
 is according to Chrift's revealed will ? If not, neither 
 our thinking, or not thinking, can poflibly make it fo. 
 If it be acccording to his will, our thinking otherwife 
 cannot alter if, unlefs his will is entirely dependent on 
 the opinion of his creatures. 
 
 Again, you alk, • Would it be according to the will 
 of Chrift, for a perfon to negkEl to have his children 
 baptized in ottr mode, while he really thinks it is the 
 will of Chrift for him thus to bring them to the ordi- 
 nance ?' Aiif'wer. If Chrift has any where declared it 
 to be his will, that new-born infants fliould be dedica- 
 ted to him, by fpr'nikitng water upon them in the name 
 of the facred Trinity, it can by no means be duty to 
 ntgleli it. If not, it may whh propriety be afked, Who 
 hath required this fervice at your hatidj ? 
 
 But may we not farther inquire, Would it be ac- 
 cording to the will of Chrift, for a perfon to neglefl to 
 have his male chilttren circumciftdy while he really 
 thinks that it is the will of Chrift that they Ihould be ? 
 
 Again, Would it be according to the will of Chrift, 
 for a perfon to negkEi to bring his baptized infants to 
 the communion, while he really thinks that it is his 
 will that they Ihould be brought .•** In ftiort, to grant 
 your argument, will not this be the confequence, that 
 every thing which a pious perfon ftticerely believes to be 
 according to the will of Chrift, is according to it, how- 
 ever abfurd or inconfiftent it may be ? 
 
 ♦ Vide I'icrcc's EfTiy on giving the Eucharift to Children. 
 
Godly Slnceffty. 
 
 You have attempted to extricate youiTelf from thig 
 confequence, in your marginal note, (p. 24-) whierein 
 } ou fay ; ' -What has been fuid does not Imply, that a 
 man always does right when he thinks he does right j 
 nor that a man's conduct is always acceptable to 
 God, when he acts agreeably to his own fentiments.'- 
 ' A man may zct according to his own ientiments from 
 felfiflj defires,-7ii, well as from l.cl^ difirs* True, Sir j 
 and how are we to know wJiich of thefc gOTern his coii- 
 duft ? You have now fuggefted the difficulty ; but have 
 not propofed a remedy. If men's actions did always 
 reprefent the fentiments of their hearts, we fliould not 
 be expofed to the liability of a miftake ; but as ihey 
 do not, we may fuppc^fe that ihey mEy deceive them- 
 felves, and others, with refpect fo their motives of fin- 
 cerityi as well as any thing elfe. 
 
 As you have put your ihsofy of fincerity upon trial, in 
 feme of the foregoing iultai:ces, we are willing to com- 
 pare the matter a little farther. We will grant, that 
 the Pscdobaptifts, in the ftfuerity of their liearts, believe 
 I': to be the will of Chrid, that they fhoukl give up their 
 cliiUren to him in baptifm j and that fprinkling fulE- 
 ciently anfwers the mode. On the other hand we' will 
 allow, that the Baptifts, influenced by the f.me kind of 
 fmcerity, really believe that it is the will of Chrift, that 
 they fliould be immerfed upon a profefiion of faiih 
 (»-hether they have been fj^rinkied in infancy or not) 
 and that there is no command to baptize their children j 
 bat to bring them up iti the nurttire and admonition of the 
 Lord. Now, fincerity being the very « eifence of con- 
 formity to Chrift, and under the cxercife of godly fin- 
 cerity they cannot aft contrary to his will,' they are 
 both in complete conform.ity to it ; unlefs you Avill un- 
 dertake to prove one of them iniincere. Hence it fol- 
 lows, that it is the will of Chrift, that one part of his 
 church (hould imitate His baptifm in Jordan, by being 
 immerfed ; and that another part fliould believe, that 
 the baptifm of Jfas Chrif} ir not to he imitated by Ckrf- 
 tiniis. Tliat one branch of his church (hould give up 
 their children to him in baptifm, and thereby initiate - 
 them into the fchool of the lacred myftcrles, without 
 
Goiily Sincerity, 
 
 107 
 
 . knowledge or confent, at a pcriotl of life when 
 4 y are incapable of acting for themfelves ; and that 
 another part of his church Ihould, from pritictple, ne- 
 gledt the baptifm of their infants ; whililthey coniider 
 Clirifiianity as addreffing itielf to the confciences of all ; 
 and that none can become the difciples of Chrift, with- 
 out tkeir perfonal confent. How complex ! how variable, 
 does this do(5trine reprefent the will of Chrift ! 
 
 But you inform us that you have ' one more ferious 
 ^ueftion to aflc (it fiiall now be attended to.) ' Is 
 the will of Chrift fuch, that, while a perfon is a Piedo- 
 baptift in fentiment, ho muft be under a natural and 
 unavjidclle neccfllty of difobedience V This queftion 
 appears to me, ratlier more curious than ferious. To 
 fuppofe a perfon to be under a natural and uriavoidablt; 
 necefiity of difobedience, is to fuppofe he adts without 
 choice, or that he has not natural ability to do other- 
 wife. I confefs I cannot fee any natural neceffity, 
 which compels one peribn to be a P^edobaptift, rather 
 than another ; or of contiiniing in thofe fentimtnts, 
 rather than to embrace others. Our fentiments ever 
 are, and ever ought to be, the zftcCt of choice ; and not 
 of uettural lu'cffifj. If we choofo fentiments contrary 
 to the will of Chrift, fo long as we retain them, we 
 ncceffurily difoboy him ; but this is by no means * natural 
 and unavoidable neceflit/,' but entirely of a different 
 kind. I humbly conceive, there can be no natural ne- 
 cefiity, of either faints or jinners difobeying Chrift: 
 for there is a degree of criminality in difobedience, 
 which is not to be found in ' nc,L:iral unavoidable necef- 
 fit.. 
 
 To illuftrate the doflrino of fuceritf r.o-u under con- 
 fidi-MMtion, you introduce the following fimile. * A 
 phyfician may, in certain circumftnnces, with benevo- 
 lent intention, through miftake, adminifter a potion to 
 his pa';i'int, which may be-produdive of immediate 
 death. In this cafe he is not criminal. Here is no 
 evilj but « natural evil, to be imputed to his conducft.' 
 Sir, I have no deftre to run the mdiiElment any higher 
 than you do. But, (hould the patient be fo happy as 
 tJ difcover li.e pl.yi'clan's miftdce, v/ould he be under 
 
lOS 
 
 Godl>f Sincerity. 
 
 any obligation to take the deadly potion, bccaufe It was 
 not delivered with criminal intention ? Yea, would he 
 not be in the higheft fenfe criminal to do it ? To apply 
 this figure. Admitting, that with benevolent intention, 
 you have propofed free communion with us, yet if we 
 really believe it to be inconfiftent with fome part of 
 ChrilFs revealed will, we cannot with the fame purity of 
 intention comply. 
 
 But it is time to attend to the application you make 
 from the above obfervations. You fay, ' Granting that 
 immerfion be the appointed mode of baptifm, and be- 
 lievers the o?dy proper fubje^ts, yet if a Pa:dobaptift re- 
 ally think otherwil'e, and with an obedient heart offer up 
 his children in our mode, the perfon in fo doing, is as 
 well accepted in the fight of God, as though his out- 
 ward condudl had been according to the appoi/iied mode 
 of baptifm.' Granting this, and I beg to know what 
 foundation Psedobaptifm ftands upon ! If it be not fup- 
 ported by divine appointment., it can have no other origin 
 than human tradition j and coniequently mull; fall to 
 the ground ; unlefs you can make it appear, that your 
 Jmccre opinion is of equal authority with divine appoint- 
 ijients. ' If a Padobaptifl really think otherv)ife What 
 then ? Why this fuperfedes the whole force of the di- 
 vine comm uKl, and authorizes his own opinion as the 
 rule of his conduft ! And left he fhould fcruple the 
 validity of it, he is alTured, that in < lb doing he is as 
 well accepted in the fight of God, as though his out- 
 ward conduit had been according to the appointed 
 mode.' According to this argument, divine appoint- 
 ments are of little confequence to Pa;dobaptills, if they 
 have a riglit whenever they think proper to fet them 
 alide, and fubftitutc others in their room. Per- 
 haps the following words of our Saviour may not be 
 thought wnolly nr.ipplicable to this fentiment. Full 
 iveil ye rejeH the ojir.inandnient of God, that yt may keep your 
 own tniiiitiins* 
 
 Is it reafonable to fuppofe, that God would make 
 appointments for his people v/hich he did not think 
 proper for them to oblerve ? Or lias he left difcretion- 
 
 • A'ark vii. 9, 
 
Godly Siticerity* 
 
 109 
 
 ary orders with any man, or any body of men, to fet 
 afide, alter, or amend any of his pofitive inftitutions ? 
 But I recolledl: you have faid, (p. 6.) that * it is not 
 necelTary that men fliould think in all refpetSts as God 
 thinks and perhaps this is one inftance where you 
 would apply it. For, if God has thought fit to appoint 
 the mode, and defcribe the fubjedts of baptifm ; and a 
 Paedobaptift may ofFer JuhjeEis elTentially different from 
 thofe defcribed in the inftitution, and that in a mode 
 quite unlike the divine appointment, and yet be ' as 
 ivell accepted^ as though he had obferved the mod: exacH: 
 conformity to God's law \ furely then, we may very fm- 
 cerely make void tlie commandments of God, and eftab- 
 lifli our oivn pious traditions ! 
 
 To fanftion the foregoing argument you fay, * This is 
 agreeable to common fenfe and revelation.' 
 
 How far common fenfe may be in favour of your ar- 
 gument I fliall not here pretend to fay ; but if divine 
 revelation fairly eftablifli it, it muft be conceded to. 
 But before we decide upon this point it may be proper 
 to hear revelation fpeak for itfelf. Decked, with fove- 
 reign majefty it thus addrelTes us j " What thing foever 
 I command yoity obferve to do it : thou Jlialt not ADD thereto^ 
 nor DIMINISH from it."* What, not if we ' really think 
 ether-wife ?* By no means. But conflantly " Teaching 
 them to OBSERVE all thi«<;s whatsoever I HAVE 
 COMMANDED Y0U."f Granting this ; but, if we fm- 
 cerely think, and a£t otherwife, fliall we not be ' as well 
 accepted ?' " To obey is better than facrifice., and to hearken 
 than the fat of rams"X " If ye love keep my command- 
 ments"^ For " /;/ vain do ye ivorfhip me, teaching for 
 diclrines the commandments of men"\\ 
 
 This is the voice of revelation with refpcifl: to pofi- 
 tive inftitutions ; and notwithftanding you have chal- 
 lenged the judgment of common fenfe in favour of your 
 fentiments, we are willing to recommit the matter, and 
 abide the impartial decilion. If it be not a dictate of 
 common fenfe, that God's commands fliould be implic- 
 itly obeyed, and his pofitive inftitutions ftrictly obferr- 
 
 • DcHt. xii. 31, t Matr. xxvi!'. ao. | i Sam. xv. aj. 
 § John xIt. 15. g Matt. ev. 9. 
 
110 
 
 Godly Sincerity. 
 
 ed, without the leaft known deviation ; and that the 
 Jtncere ohfervaiice of his appointments Ihould be more ac- 
 ceptable to him than the fincere neg'ecl of them ; then, 
 of courfe your argument will be eftablilhed, and w'e 
 muft conclude, that like the Athenians, in thefi things we 
 have been too fupcijUtioiis. 
 
 You acknowledge, (p. 27) that * integrity of heart 
 does not render the judgment infallible, with refpecl to 
 afcertaining the will of God.' This indeed appears to 
 me to be true ; but why then do you blame me for 
 fuppofing a perfon with godly nncerlty may act contra- 
 ry to the will of ChriftV I thiiik it undeniably fol- 
 lows, that if he may with integrity of heart riii/lake his 
 will, or not njcertain it, then he may with the fame i^p- 
 rightnefs acH: contrary to it. But did you not tell us 
 above, that < fincerity is the v-ery foul and ejfcnce of con- 
 formity to Chrift ?' What, in the height of conformi- 
 ty to the ivill of Chrift ! and yet not able to afcertain 
 what it is ? This, at bef}, 13 but accidental conformity ! 
 
 The fcntiment exprefled in my other Piece, of ailing 
 contrary to the will of ChriH:, " although we be ever lo 
 fuicerc" you ' conjefliire to be faife in its nature, and 
 pernicious in its confequences.' It is true, conjecture 
 is not the mofi: forcible argument ; but yet it may be 
 right. I am not fatisfied, however, that you have 
 proved the fentiment to be fife or that it is in your 
 power to do it, after granting the lirft part of it. As 
 to the pernicious confequences which you have difcov- 
 ered in it, I may have overlooked them -, probably, be- 
 caufe they are rot fo high coloured as the charge. But 
 what pernicious confequences can we imagine from our 
 conformity to the apoll;les' doctrine, and fledfafl: con- 
 tinuance in it Or from following the plain dire£tion» 
 in God's v\-ord, rather than our own fancied notion bf 
 fincere oled:ct:ce, without external conformity ? I think 
 you will not pretend to fty, that 1 have inllfted upon a 
 confoi-mity to the apoftics' dot^trine, which did not in- 
 clude fmccrity. You cmaot fay it without injuring me, 
 and contradicting yourieif.* • 
 
 *i If.aeyoufayi (p. ia) Iinfift upon a perfon's being a real believer in 
 
 /\rr1<T tn Vipinor a nronrr fiihir i'l nf haiitifm. then lie muft certaillir 
 
G:dly Sincerity. 
 
 'ppears to me, that the particular fentiment now 
 .../ ■.nite will come to this point. I am contending for 
 I fincere ccnforniity tb the podtive inftitutions of Chrirt, in 
 the e:<a£l order in which he hp.s placed them. You are 
 pleading for the acceptablenels of fmcerc dcviaticiu from 
 I ChriiVs appointments. 
 
 To proceed — You obferve, that < it is not the cx!tr~ 
 .•tducl which is pleafing or difploaling to Ciirift ; 
 X hjtnceri.'y cr inftnceriiy.' I am far from thinking 
 : the ftriftert externa! confoniiity vithout llncerity 
 V. c-;d be pleaflng to him. Yet, I thirk it reafonaWe 
 lippofe, that tifiKcere extcnu:! obedience to the poil- 
 commands of Chrill, nmft be more pleanng to him 
 Tifiucere cmiiuon of them. For, faith he, IVhcj'j- 
 thref^re J1:jU break one of thefc Icnft commandmenis, 
 . :ach men fc^ he Jball be called the le ^jJ in the kingdom 
 .:i-en : but vjhofoever Jhall DO and TEACH them, ti e 
 ihal! be called great in. the kingdom of heaven* Should 
 lay this has fpecial reference to the 7noral law, it 
 be granted ; but it may not be wholly inapplicable 
 .2 cafe before us. Therefore, with a little variation, 
 i r.v.iy ufe the language of an infpired writer ; " Sliov^ 
 me thy fncerity without thy external cbedienee to the ap- 
 pointments of Chrift J and I will iliow thee my fncerity 
 by my external obedience to them," 
 
 Whether ftncerely departing f/om God's pofluve com- 
 mands, be as plealing to him as fmcer e external confor- 
 mity, will more fully appear in what follows. * 
 
 When God had fciit Samuel to anoint Saul king-Over 
 the chofen tribes, he thought proper to try his loyalty, 
 by fending him to deftroy the Amalekitcs, for their 
 cruelty to his people when they came up out of Egypt. 
 The command was. Utterly diflroy all that they have, and 
 fpiirc iher.i not ; hut fay both man and ivonian, infant and 
 fiichlin^, ox and fjeepy annel and af. Saul went with his 
 chofen band, and fprcad death and carnage through 
 H^malek's devoted country ! He undoubtedly returned 
 froip the victorious field, in full confidence of meeting 
 tl'.3 proi:het's approbation. But while coming, God 
 
112 
 
 Godly Sincerity. 
 
 made known to Samuel, that Saul had turneel back from 
 folloiving him. When Samuel came forth in the morn- 
 ing, Saul met him, and thus addrefled him : — « BlelTed 
 be thou of the Lord, I have performed the command- 
 ment." Although he had not gone to the exteait of 
 the commandment, yet he might fincerely think, as he 
 had made ample provifion for one of the richeft facrifi- 
 ces that ever fmoaked upon the Jewilh altar, that in 
 thus doing, he fliould be ' as ivell accepted,' as though 
 he had wholly followed the divine command. We 
 may fuppofe his foul almoft in an ecftafy, fully expeft- 
 ing the prophet's benediftion ; when, to his furprife, 
 the grieved Seer thus interrogates — What tneaneth this 
 bltatiiig of the JJjcep in mine ears ! and the lonuing of the 
 oxen ivhich I hear ? What meaneth this ? Why, the 
 people /pared the hcfl of the Jhecp end oxen, to do facrifce to 
 the Lord thy God. A very pious defign indeed ! Who 
 would challenge their fincerity ? I do not recolleft that 
 the prophet charged Saul with hypocrify, or infinceri- 
 ty j but with the want of external obedience. I fliall 
 not pretend to fay that Saul had any godly fincerity, or 
 that he had not ; but it is evident until this time, that 
 his charafter was unimpeached, and he was honoured 
 as the Lord's anointed. 
 
 Another inftance ftill more to our purpofe, prefents 
 us in the facred page. When the wicked fons of Eli 
 were flain by the Philiftines, they took the ark of the 
 Goci of llrael, and carried it into the temple of their 
 idol. The uncircumcifed had fcarcely began to rejoice, 
 when they found themfelves involved in ftrange and 
 unlooked for calamities. Their idol Dagon fell before 
 the ark, while terror, death and deftruftion were 
 fpreading every where. The ark of God foon became 
 more terrible to them than an army with banners. A 
 general council was called — they refolved to fend it 
 back inio the land of Ifrael j but not being acquainted 
 with the facred oracles, they were at a lofs as to thei^ 
 mode of conveyance. It was finally determined to fstnd. 
 it in a new undirefted cart, drawn by two milch-kihe:' • 
 When it was come into the land (^Ifrael, after a fl»ol|; 
 
Godly Sinctftiy. 
 
 lis 
 
 '.arry at Bethftemefh, it was carried to Kivjath-jcarim, 
 into the houfe of Abinadab, where it was kept for 
 twenty years, until David was eftablifhed upon tiie 
 throne. After this, he afTembleJ thirty thoufand chofen 
 men, with a view to bring the ark of the God of Ifrael 
 up into the city of David. 
 
 This ark by divine appointment was to be borne by 
 the priefts, by the ftaves which went tilrough the rings 
 of it. But as the inftituted mode might appear rather 
 inconvenient at this time, they might think the one 
 adopted by the Philiftines would do as well. And as 
 they might call to mind, that " God delighted more in 
 mercy than in facrifice j" both David and his people 
 \eryji>;cert'ly concluded, that it would do to carry it in 
 a decent new cari. But the way being rough, and the 
 oxen unaccuftomed to this hallowed bufinefs, fo agitat- 
 ed the facred ark, that Uzzah put forth his hand and 
 took hold of it. And the anga- of ike Lord was k'nidUd 
 u^cithl Uzz/th, and God fmote htm there fir his error, and 
 there he died by the ark. 
 
 What there was, either in the conduct or difpofltioR 
 of Uzzah, which was fo offenfive to the Divine Being, 
 as to mark him out as a monument of facied difpleafure, 
 is perhaps unknown to mortals. It is evident that Da- 
 vid did not difcover any crimiualiry in tue conduct of 
 Uzzah ; for if he had, he would not have bten dif- 
 pleafed becaufe the Lord made a breach upon him. 
 There was at leaft the appearance of Juicere regard, in 
 his attempting to fteady the agitated ai-k. But God 
 feeth not as man feeth ; and has ever been jealou.; for 
 his own honour as lawgiver, vvlach glory he will not 
 give to another. 
 
 This alarming providence checked their pious joy, 
 and put a fudden period to all their tuneful numbers. 
 An awful fear of the great Jehovah was now imprefled 
 upon their minds. Silent, and folenin, they retire and 
 leave the ark without the city ! 
 
 Will any perfon fay that David did not go in the^w- 
 ctrity of his heart ? Let thcfe who deny it, tnukt o;:t 
 tiie proof. 
 
114. G^J/y Sh.'ceriiy. , • 
 
 It may perhaps be difficult for us to difcovcr any- 
 real difference in the dejgfi, or Jincerity, of, David and 
 Jiis people at this time, or three months after, when 
 they brought up the ark into the city of David with 
 flxouting. But, we flia'l readily difcover a difference in 
 their viiible conduft. In the former, they followed 
 their own imaginations. In the latter they went ac- 
 cording to divine appointment. Their depariing from 
 the inftituted way, (however fmcere) drew on them 
 God's difplcafure. Their obedience to it obtained his 
 approbation. If I miitake not, Sir, this inllance is a 
 fair trial of your argument, and it appears to nic that 
 it fails. 
 
 I have one more obfcrvation from fcripture to make 
 upon this head. If I rightly underftand the revealed 
 ivill of God, we are llridlly forbidden to worfiiip any 
 creature, however exalted. Fcr ii is ivritietiy thou fhali 
 luorjiyip the Lord thy God, n;ul kin: onlyjhdt thou fervc* 
 
 Yet I fnd that the apoille John twice fell down to 
 worfliip an angel ! I hardly think you will fcruple the 
 iincerity of the beloved difciple upon this occafion. 
 The que.n:ion now is, whether it were agreeable to the 
 will of Chrifl: for John to vvordiip the angel ? It is evi- 
 dent he thought it to be his duty ; and his conduct has 
 every appearance oifnctriiy. Allowing John to be f:n- 
 cerc, and his conduct i;i iliis particular inftance agreea- 
 ble to the will of Chriir, tlien the above-mentioned 
 prohibition muft be undcrftood conditionally. " It is 
 v/ritten, thou Ihak worfiiip the Lord thy Cod, and him 
 cfj/y llialt thou ferve ;'' urd.cfs thou fbalt fiiicerely think it 
 duty to nvoijlip a creature. If it were not agreeable to 
 the will of Chrift that John fliould worfliip the angel, 
 then it necoiVr.ri'.y follows, that a good perlbn may, in 
 the exercife oi Jincerity, acl contrary to his will. 
 
 If, to evade the force of this argument, you fljould 
 fay, ' Although John ilncerely thought it to be his 
 duty to worfhip the angel, yet he was undoubtedly 
 miftaken,' this is to give up the argument : for we 
 have always been willing to allow that Chriftians may 
 be fificercf and yet be miftaken as to the will of Chrift. 
 
 * Matt. iv. xo. ^ 
 
Godly Sitictiity. 
 
 115 
 
 Thai this was the cafe, witli either John, or the angel, 
 is abundantly evident. And in order to lave your ar- 
 LTument from falling, it appears neceffary to be proved, 
 either that it was agreeable to the will of Chriit for 
 John to wordiip the angel ; or, that he was infincere 
 in attempting it. Until one or the other is made out, 
 we lhall conclude he fmccrely attempted to do that, 
 which was exprefsly forbidden in the revealed will of 
 
 ! God. Many more inftances might be produced, but 
 the preceding are thought fufficient, to ihow the ab- 
 
 1 furdity of conlidering ilncerity of heart as actual ccn- 
 
 j formity to the will of Chrift, with refped to his politive 
 
 I iaftitutions. 
 
 In purfuing your argument you conclude, thofe per- 
 lons differ from Chrift, who ' fuppofe, that a good tree 
 may bring forth corrupt fruit' They certainly do, if 
 the words are taken in a proper fenfe. But if by the 
 i;:;^/ tree we undcrftand a Chriftian, including all his 
 exorcifes both of ilefli and fpirit, it is not true, that he 
 iii'rrJ bring forth corrupt fruit. To deny this, would be 
 •u) aliert that he is in a ftate of fmleis perfe(51ion : for 
 ad imperfect and depraved creatures can and do fm. 
 
 Now if good men have Ibn-ie /.c/v, and fome felfifn 
 defires ; and are fometimes governed by pure, and 
 fometimes by corrupt motives \ how are we to know 
 which of thefe govern their conduct, when they plead 
 their lincerity in departing from God's appointments ? 
 
 I conclude, Proteftants in general looic upon Calvin 
 as a good man ; but as a tree he bore fome fruit, which 
 the taite of a modern Chriftian would not call good : 
 particularly his unchriftian refentment, and inhuman 
 treatment of Servetus.*' It is evident that Calvin, in 
 
 • This leamod and ingenious Spaniard was born at Villeneuva, in 
 Aragon, 1509. He Iludied the civil l^w at Toulous, where hd begStl 
 to read the Icriptures, and to be fond of trinitarian notions. He loon 
 became refolved to retire into Germany and fct up for a reformer. He 
 there printed two trads, De Trinitatis erroribus, and DialojToium ds 
 liinitate, libri duo; this fpread his name throughout all Europe.. 
 After this, Servetus returned to Paris, and was admitted a do&or of 
 phyfic in the iinlvtrCty there. Here a correlpontlence betwixt Calvin 
 and him commenced, which was kept up for fixteen years : notvvith- 
 llancing which, he continued in his former opinion, and refolved to 
 publiih <t third work iu favour of it ; this came out at Tieuna, in 
 
116 
 
 Godly Situertty. 
 
 this piece of conduft, thought he was doing God fer- 
 vice. To fuppofe the contrary, and that he was not 
 ftncere, would be to fiippofo him a much greater monjhr 
 than he reprel'ented cr veins, Allov/iiig jhis to be an 
 ■jtdi of fun erity, and the qaeftion is fair before us, Was 
 it agreeable to the wiii of Chrift, for Calvin thus to 
 perfecute Servetus ? If 3'ou fhould anfwer in the neg- 
 ative, you give up your theory ; if you Ihould anfwer 
 in the affirmative, then it will neceffarily follow, that 
 if it were the will of drift two hundred and forty 
 years ago, that antitrinitarians and anabaptifts fhould be 
 burnt, merely for their fentiments, it undoubtedly is 
 agreeable to his will now, jis he is the fame yefterday, 
 to-day, and forever- 
 
 In the mild reign of Edward VI. king of England, 
 but two perfons fuffered for their religious fentiments. 
 And although thefe perfons were both put to death, I do 
 not find that they were charged with any other crime, 
 ^than differing in opinion from the ruling party. 
 
 witb this title, Chrifti^nifmo Reftitutio, &c. witliout Iiis name ; but 
 Calvin took care to inforni the Roman Catholicks in France who wa* 
 the author. On this Servetus was iniprifoned, and would certainly 
 have been burned then, if he liad not made his efcape. He prcpof* Jto 
 retire to Naples, but was imprudent enough to go through Geneva, 
 where he was ieizcd on Calvin's information, and prcfecutcd for herefy. 
 All his public writings and private letters to Calvin, were ranfacked ior 
 every tiling that could bo ftrained to a bad feiife ; in confequence of 
 which the unfortunate Sonf.tus was burned alive, Odl. a7th, 1553, 
 " to the eternal ihame of his inconfiftent brutal reformed perfecutorsv" 
 £ervctus was a man of great acutcuefs, of prodigirus learning, ani 
 admirably (killed in his owu profeffion. — See Calvin's Life, Glafgov/ 
 edition, p. 17, 19 — and Northouck's Biographical Diiftionary. 
 
 Calvin's hiftorian informs us, that the death of Servetus raifed fuch 
 a flame, as ftt Poland, Tranfylvania and Hungary all on fire ; which 
 he fuppofcd Servetu" to have foretold by the fpirit of the devil. Thit 
 controvcriy led many rationally to iiiqsire, whether hereticks ought to 
 be put to death, or left to the judgment of God ? 
 
 That Servetus was an antitrinitavian will not be denied. This 
 probably wa» the greatefl caulc of Calvin's oppoCtion to him, but rot 
 the whole : for he confidered him as a " monfter compofed of many 
 ancient and piodigious herefies." He calls him an anabaptifl, and has 
 attempted to anfwer twenty argument! brought by Servetus againft 
 infant baptifm.-^liiftitttt. Chrift. Kelig- p. 
 
Godl'j Sincerity. 1 1 7 
 
 The former of thefe was Joan Eochcr, commonly 
 called Joan of Kent.* Archbiftop Cranmer was em- 
 ployed to perfuade the young king to fign the warrant 
 againll: her. He ufed various reafonings, which ferved 
 rather to lilence, than fatisfy the king. But at length 
 he did it with tears in his eyes, telling Cranmer, that if 
 he did wrong, fince it was in fubmiflion to his authori- 
 ty, he Ihould anfwer for It to God. This made fuch an 
 impreffion upon the mind of the bifhop, that he ufed far- 
 ther means for her conviction ; but as ihe obftinatcly 
 continued in her fentiraents, flie was finally burnt 
 alive. 
 
 That Cranmer was Jtr.cere in this piece of condufl, we 
 have the teftimony of bilhop Barnet, who fays, " One 
 I thing was certain, that what he did in this matter flow- 
 I ed from no cruelty of temper in him, no man being 
 farther from that black difpofition of mind ; but it was 
 truly the effefl of thofe principles^ by which he govern- 
 ed himfelf."f 
 
 I confefs here is a difficulty in my mind (and proba- 
 bly may be in many others) to conceive, how this con- 
 duct could be agreeable to the all-merciful Redeemer, 
 ivho came not to dejlroy metCs lives, but to fave them. It is 
 not to be believed from any thing which Chrift has 
 faid J but merely becaufe it was the fiucere opiiaon of 
 an arclibilhop ! I have no difficulty in believing the 
 fincerity of Cranmer, but I have not yet attained to the 
 f.ulh of ajj'urance, that his cojiduct was agreeable to the 
 revealed will of Chrift. 
 
 It may alfo be obferved, that Mr. John Rogers, that 
 famous martyr, cordially con Tented to the burning of 
 Join of Kent. "For (faith Mr. Fox) when the f ro- 
 iijlani bifhyps had refolved to put her to death, a friend 
 of Sir. John Rogers, the divinity-reader in St. Paul's 
 church, came to him, earneftly deliring him to ufe hts 
 iatereft with the archbiiliop, that the poor woinan's 
 
 * The other was George V: n Pare, a Dutchman ; he was burnt in 
 .Smithfield, April 25, 1 JJt. Ht I'uiTered with great conflaiicy of mind, 
 and kiffed thj flake and faggots that were to burn hini. He isfaid to 
 have been a man of uncommon ftriiSnefs of I'fc and devotion. Thefe 
 perfons were both Baptiils. Vide Hift. Keicrm. Vol. ii. lis. i. p. 11a. 
 t 'bid. 
 
118 
 
 Godly Sincerity. 
 
 life might be fpared, and other means ufed to prevent 
 the fpreading of her opinions. — Rogers on the ot"i\er 
 hand pleaded, flie ouglit to be put to death. Well, 
 then, fays his fritnd* if you are rcfolvcd to put an end 
 to her life, together with her opinion, choofe foms 
 other kind of death, more agreeable to the gentlcnefs 
 and mercy prefcribed in the gofpel ; there being no 
 need that fuch tormenting deaths fhould be taken up 
 in imitation of the papills. Rogers anfwfired, that 
 burning alive was no cruel death, but eafy enough. His 
 friend then hearing thefe words, which exprefled fo 
 little regard to poor creatures' fufferings, anfwered him 
 with great vehemence — Well, perhaps it may fo happen^ 
 thai you yoiirfelf flmll have your hands full of this mild burn- 
 ing. And fo it came to pafs ; and Rogers was the firfl: 
 man Avho was burnt in Queen Mary's time." 
 
 " This Rogers (fays Pierce) was a nonconfrmifr, and 
 a very excellent man, and died nobly in the caufe of 
 Chrift ; but this barbarity of his deferves to be expof- 
 ed J and the rather, becaufeGod in his providence feems 
 to have fliewn his great difpleafure againfi: it."f If 
 this indeed were the cafe, it could not be agreeable to 
 the will of Chrirt. 
 
 It is quite remarkable, that Cranm.er, Ridley., and 
 Rogers, who had a principal hand in burning thefe two 
 perlbns in the reign of Edward, were all burnt in the 
 fucceeding reign of Mary. 
 
 I do not mention theie things with a view of glory- 
 ing in the liiiferings of my own denomination, nor for 
 the fake of reproaching others j but to Ihow what 
 enormous cruelties good men may praclife, under the 
 fpecious fi;ow of godly fa/cerity and a zeal for the truth. 
 
 * Suppofcd to be Fox hlmfelf. 
 f I'icrct's Anfwerto Nichols, p. 33, in Crofjy. 
 
Of Morality -III Externals or Seiiiiments 119 
 
 SECTION Vil. 
 
 I Whether there be any Morality In * Externals' or * Senti- 
 ' ments and ivhether fncerity of heart fecurcs the judg' 
 iv.ent from error ; brief y corfidered. 
 
 SiRj you have anticipated an objefHon againft 
 your theory •, i. e. ' That a good intention will fan«fiify 
 a wicked aftion.' We fnall only notice two things in 
 your anfwer. Fir ft you fay, ' That mere externals are 
 neither holy nor finful, is evident from this coniidera- 
 tion, that the fame modes of external conduft are con- 
 vertible to both good -unA bad purpjfes* But, Sir, is 
 
 • ' ore no morality in good and bad purpofes ? You feem 
 
 convert them neither to one or the other, but to a 
 . .te of indifFerency. I fuppofe the fame external 
 •.nodes of conduct may be the * expreffions both of holy 
 and linful affections.* But this by no means proves, 
 that there is no morality In our external conduCi:. If 
 •-ve are rational agents (and we certainly are) whatever 
 mode of external conduft we purfue, muft be our choice, 
 rather than any other j and how this can be without 
 •r.orality, I am totally at a lofs. 
 
 I conclude, Sir, that you will allow that eating brer.d 
 p.nd drinking wine, are external acfts ; but if there be 
 no morality in them, it is hardly worth while to walle 
 our time in a difpute about Aach trifling things. I do 
 not conclude, however, that the morality of the adt is 
 merely in mafticating bread, or in Avallowing wine, 
 which a brute may do as well as an intelligent agent ; 
 but the cii;cumftances which lead us to choole and adopt 
 this particular mode of conduct, undoubtedly tinge the 
 uc! with morality. 
 
 Your other obfervation which I fliall take notice of, 
 IS the following, that < There is nothing of a moral 
 nature in mere fent'nr.oits or mere externals' If by 
 
 * mere fentimests,' you mean no more, than thofc fugi- 
 tive thoughts which flutter upon the furface of the 
 
 • Alargiiial Note, p. 24. 
 
1 20 Of Morality in Externals or Sentiments. 
 
 brain, as hutterjlies do in the fun-beams, we fliall not 
 contend. But, if by fentimenty we underftand that re- 
 fult of the mind which leads us on to external afts, we 
 fhall undoubtedly find that it is connefVed with the 
 heart, as well as the head. The fool hath faid, not in 
 his head, but in his hearty there is no God. This is his 
 fentiment, and a very innocent one it is, if deftitute of 
 morality. 
 
 You will permit me to add a remark from a very 
 fentimental writer. Saith he, ** Error in judgment and 
 fentiment, efpecially in things of a moral nature, is al- 
 ways wrong ; and does not confift or originate merely 
 in any defeft of the moral faculties of the mind ; but 
 is of a moral nature, in which the tafte, affeflion, or in- 
 clination of the heart is concerned ; and therefore is 
 always, in every degree of it, morally wrong, and more 
 or lefs criminal. Were the moral faculties of the mind, 
 were the heart, perfectly right, man would not be capa- 
 ble of error, or of judging wrong, or making any mif- 
 take, efpecially in things of religion. The natural fac- 
 ulties of the mind, confidered as feparate from the in- 
 clinaiion or will, do not lead, and have no tendency in 
 themfelves, to judge wrong, or contrary to the truth of 
 things. To do fo, is to judge without evidence, and 
 contrary to it, which the mind never would or could do, 
 werie not the inclination or heart concerned in it, fo as 
 to have influence, which muft be a wrong inclination, 
 and contrary to truth and to evidence ; and therefore is 
 morally wrong or criminal." 
 
 «* Therefore, all the miftakes and wrong opinions 
 which men entertain refpe£ting the doBrines, inflttutions 
 and duties revealed in the bible, are criminal, and of a. 
 bad tendency."* If this reafoning be true, it cannot 
 be faid that there is nothing of a moral nature in our 
 fentiments. 
 
 I conclude that the bible exhibits a fair fyftem of 
 truth, fupported by rational evidence ; and were it not 
 for the blindnefs of the human hearty and the prejudices 
 occafioned by ftnful nffeclions, men would yield their 
 cheerful affent to truth, in exadl proportion to the evi- 
 
 Hopkios's Syd TreatiTc tn the Milieu. Vol. II. p. 6i. 
 
Of Morality in Exttrnah or Sentitnetits. 12 1 
 
 dence laid before them ; and would not choofe darkntfs 
 rather than light. It is believed that good men, (how- 
 ever they may differ in opinion here) in the coming 
 ftate will fee eye to eye : perhaps not owing fo much 
 to the fupei ior light of truth, as to their being delivered 
 I from thofe fmful afFe£lions which oppofe the truth. 
 , This obfervation will appear evident from this confider- 
 I ation, that thofe who have the greateft advantages to 
 i know the truth, often appear to be moft oppofed to it. 
 I The Jews, who had the oracles of God, and confequent- 
 ly the beft information refpe<Sting the Meffiah, when he 
 ' was preached to them, oppofed and blafphemed, while 
 t'.o Gentiles believed. 
 
 l^pon fuppofition, that ' there is nothing of a moral 
 'V in mere fcntimems,' why is uvbilief a crime ? or 
 y is a man to blame for being an infidel P this is a 
 1. ere fentimcnt. In (hort, why do we blame the Jews 
 for accufing and delivering Chrift to be crucified ? It 
 is evident they did not believe him to be the Son of 
 God. The apoftle Peter, after charging them with 
 killing the Prince of Life, faid to them ; I<!oio, brethren, 
 Iw-J that through igtwratice \r did it, as did alfo your 
 rulers * Saint Paul fuppofcd that they did not know 
 him to be the Mefliah : for, faid he. None of the princes 
 this world knew it : for had they known it, they 
 '.vould not have crucified the Lord of Glory.f No, they 
 would have been fiiocked at the horrid thought ! But 
 i their fent'vneiits were that he was a deceiver, and a blaf- 
 i phemer ; and they had a law given them by Mofes 
 I againft fuch, and by this law they faid he ought to die. 
 i And their external couditH was to put him to death, 
 j Now where was their criminality You will probably 
 I fay it originated in their hearts, ' where all real crimi- 
 I nality is to be found ' It will be granted. And did 
 nut their fentiments originate there likcwife ? Out of 
 the HiiAkT proceed evil thouglits, murders, &c. and not 
 out of the head as unconnected with it. 
 
 In order to apply the foregoing obfervatlons to the 
 fiibject before us, we are willing to acknowledge, that 
 we do not think a man to blame, for fmcerely a^king 
 
 • A<ns lii. i;. f J Cor. H. 8. 
 
 M 
 
122 Of Morality in Externals or Sentiments. 
 
 according to his confcience, although it be ever fo erro- 
 neous. But he may be exceedingly to blame, for hav- 
 ing an erroneous confcience. If we do not improve 
 the beft means of information which we are favoured 
 with, we are certainly to blame for the negleft. 
 
 It is a maxim in civil law, < That a man is obliged to 
 know it at his peril.' This holds good with regard to 
 the divine law. The man who tranfgrefled the law of 
 Mofes through ignorance, however lincere, was never- 
 thelefs guilty ; and when it came to his knowledge he 
 was obliged to offer a facrifice.* And he who killed 
 his neighbour at unawares, without in the leaft defign- 
 ing his death, was neverthelefs doomed to fuffer a cer- 
 tain punifliment ; for, to be confined to a particular 
 city, without permiffion upon any occafion to go out 
 until the death of the high-prieft, cannot be accounted 
 otherwife.f 
 
 Upon the whole, what reafon can be given for our 
 conftruing the divine law differently ? Or why (hould 
 one man fee a revealed truth, and another under equal 
 advantages fhould not ; unlefs the latter be under 
 the influence of moral blindnefs ? If the politive in- 
 ftitutions of the gofpel are fufficiently plain (as they un- 
 doubtedly are) why fhould we read and underftand the 
 fame bible fo very differently ? I cannot think we are 
 both right. If Chrift has commanded his people to 
 dedicate their infant-feed to him in baptifm, then we 
 muft conclude that all the Baptifl churches are in an 
 error in this particular. On the other hand, if the gof- 
 pel teacheth us, that with the heart man believeth unto 
 righteoufnefs, and with the mouth confejfton is made unto 
 falvation 5 and that this confeflion is to be made by 
 every candidate for baptifm ; then we muf^ fuppofe our 
 Pjedobaptift brethren are in an error, in not infifting 
 upon the fame vifiblc qualifications which the apoflles 
 did. In fhort, can it be fuppofed that the fame divine 
 law, which enjoins either the one or the oihcr^ can ap- 
 prove of the ncgleft ? If not, it mufl neccfTarily fol- 
 low, that if you are right, we are wrong ; and fo vice 
 •verfa- 
 
 I Ni>:vili. XXXV. 25. 
 
Of Morality in Externals or Sentiments. 
 
 12S 
 
 But it is often faid by our opponents, < We are will- 
 ing to acknowledge your baptilhi to be valid, and why 
 cannot you be as liberal with refpeft to ours ?' We are 
 forry to bear the charge of illiberality \ but had much 
 rather do it than violate our confciences. When per- 
 fons are fo liberal, as to be willing to divide and mangle 
 an inftitutionofChrift, in order to accommodate a pain- 
 ful difpute ; while it leems to fhow a condefcending 
 temper in them, it at the fame time exciies a fufpiciou 
 of the jiijike of their caufe. This kind of liberality of 
 fentiment naturally leads us to recoUecT; an inftance re- 
 corded in ancient hiftory, concerning two women who 
 came to a certain king, to decide a controverfy between 
 them refpefting a living child. Each contended that 
 Ihe was the true riotker, and that the child was her's. 
 For a time, their claims appeared equally founded, un- 
 til at length the wife king called for a fword, and pro- 
 pofed to divide the living child, and give half to tlie 
 one and half to the other ! The woman whofe the 
 child was, could by no incms confent ; but would 
 either have it alive undivided, or elfe give it up fo to 
 the other : but the other faid^ Let it be neither mine nor 
 thine, but divide it. To have divided the child, would 
 have deftroyed its exigence : So to divide an inftitution 
 of Chrift, is to make it mean any thing, and every 
 thing, and confequently nothing. For when a divine 
 law is fuppofed to be conditional, and is to be left to 
 the judgment or fancies of men to determine, whether 
 one mode of obedience be not as acceptable as another, 
 it of courfe lofes its authority, and ceafes to be a law. 
 
 From the above argument it will not be concluded, 
 that one man has a right to di£late, or prefcribe a mjode 
 of obedience for another : for to our otxjn MaJhPnije 
 Jland or fall. Neverthelefs, the divine law is not con- 
 ditional, but abfolute ; and its requirements muft be 
 fixed and determinate, although we may not underftand 
 them. One law yZ»«// be to him that is home born, and 
 unto the flranger that fojotirneth among you. 
 
 To conclude this Seftion, dear Sir, I wilh you feri- 
 oufly to confider your arguments upon fincerity, wheth- 
 er you have not carried the matter too far ; and 
 
124 Of Morality in Externals or Sentimetrts. 
 
 whether they are not calculated in fome inftances, to 
 differve the caufe of Chrift, and ftrengthen the hands 
 of error. For admitting that either you or we are in 
 an error with refpefl to one of the inftitutions of Chrift, 
 yet as your fentiments affure us, that if we fincerely 
 think we are right, * We are as well accepted in the 
 fight of God, as if our external conduit had been ac- 
 cording to his appointments,' fhall we not be apt to 
 releafe ourfelves from a painful inquiry into the evi- 
 dences for, and againft our particular fentiments ; and 
 coEcIude to Aide fmoothly on, in the good old way 
 which our fathers went ; and, perhaps, have no higher 
 reafon to believe it to be right, than becaufe they be- 
 lieved it to be fo ? 
 
 It is often faid,' « "When we get to heaven, we (hall 
 not be aflced what particular principles we were of 
 This objeftion implies too great an indifferency to the 
 requirements of truth ; and leads us to fuppofe that 
 Eiany determine to get to heaven as cheap as they can. 
 And whenever perfons would wifli a releafe from the 
 toil of inquiry, and expenfe of retraftion, they may im- 
 prove your arguments as a cordial auxiliary. 
 
 But were we even to grant fincerity to be a term of 
 communion, yet ihould we not be obliged to fix upon 
 fome external a£ts of obedience, as evidential of fincer- 
 ity ? Or are we to judge a man to be fincere by the 
 looks of his face .'' Or by the tindture of his thoughts ? 
 Or are we to believe it becaufe he profeffes to be fin- 
 cere ? Perhaps the man was never yet found propa- 
 gating any fentiment of religion whatever, who would 
 own himfelf infinceret 
 
 Jf Jwcerity be the only thing fought for, and agree- 
 m^fin fentiment unnecelTary to Chriftian fellowfhip, 
 then we may open the door wide, and receive all who 
 appear to be fincere, however erroneous, and by what- 
 ever tiames diftinguifhed, wherever they appear fincere. 
 
 Perhaps there is no one atfl in the circle of Chriftian 
 dutVj which exprefl^es more fellowlhip, than communi- 
 cating at the Lord's table. And if we can occafionally 
 communicate together, why can we not ftatedly ? We 
 fiiall alfo be led farther to inquire, upon what principle 
 
Of Morality in Ekternah or Sentiment J, 125 
 
 is reparation to be juftified ? Why did the Proteftants 
 come out from the church of Rome i There were un- 
 doubtedly many fincere Chriftians in that church, not- 
 withftanding the body of clergy might be thought to 
 be corrupt. Why did the diifenters leave the church 
 of England, and the independents the prelbyterians, and 
 thefe diflent one from another ? It would be unchar- 
 itable to fuppofe, that there were not many fincere 
 Chriftians in thofe churches. Objedtions fimilar to 
 thofe now mentioned have in faft taken place. 
 
 When pi ejbyterianifm was about to be eftabliflied by 
 the Britifti government, the aflembly of divines at Weft- 
 minfter appointed a committee to hear and anfwer the 
 petition of thofe who Ihould not conform to the gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 To thefe the independents prefented their requeft, 
 Dec. 4th, le ts, which was only this : < That they may 
 not be forced to communicate as members in thofe par- 
 ifhes where they dwell ; but may have liberty to have 
 congregations of fuch perfons who give good teftimony 
 of their godlinefs, and yet out of a tendernefs of con- 
 fcience cannot communicate in their pariflies, but do 
 voluntarily offer themfelves to join in fuch congrega- 
 tions.' 
 
 To this the aflembly gave a flat denial, Dec. 15th. 
 The independents, unwilling to lofe the privileges of the 
 eftablifliment, made the following concefllon. « That 
 they would maintain occafional communion in their 
 churches." But ftill their prefbyterian brethren would 
 not allow them feparate congregations. They rather 
 improved this compliance, to ftrengrhen their argu- 
 ments againft granting fuch liberty. " If (fay they) 
 they may occafionally exercife thefe afts of communion 
 witla us once, a fecond, or a third time, witliout fin ; 
 we know no reafon why it may not be ordinarily with- 
 out fin, and then feparation and church-gathering 
 would have been needlefs. To feparate from thofe 
 churches ordinarily and vifibly, with whom occafional- 
 ly you may join witliout fin, feemeth to be a moft un- 
 juft feparation."* 
 
 * Schifm tried and condcmnen, p. 2j, a?, a8. in Crclby, 
 m2 
 
126 Of the Rule of Duty towards Chrif iait Brelhrcr.. 
 
 Every candid reader will judge, whether the quef- 
 tions now fuggefted, are not involved in the idea of 
 occafional communion, upon the term of finceritf. 
 Another interefting queftion appears to be connected, 
 viz. Whether it be confiftent to communicate with any 
 perfon, or body of Chriilians, with whom we could not 
 unite in full fellowfliipj as members of the fame ci\urch ? 
 If there be any acl more folemn, more expreffive of 
 unity and agreement, let it be pointed out ! For per- 
 fons to feparate from each other, merely on account of 
 difagreement in f<.ntiment, and yet hold occiifional com- 
 munion (which exprefles their agreement) is the height 
 of abfurdity. 
 
 Upon the whole, if ' baptifm was prior to coming to 
 the Lord's table in the apoftolic praiSlice' (which you 
 have acknowledged, p. 13) — if it was then an immer- 
 fion upon a profeflion of faith, which I truft has 
 been made ^out in the preceding pages j and no 
 fcripture ev^jd^ce appearing to the contrary j then 
 you will not blame us for corttiuul-ig in the apojlohc 
 doElriney and for endeavouring carefully to imitate 
 their praclke. Hence it is probable our obje8ions 
 may continue, until proof fliall be made out from the 
 word of God, that the apoilolic church did admit per- 
 fons to her communion merely upon the footing of fin- 
 cerity, without any regard to the exiei -lal mode of their 
 obedience to Chrift's other appointments. 
 
 , SECTION VIII. 
 
 Whether the Divine CuiuhiB towards us be the Rule of 
 Duty towards eur Ch/flian Brethren y nithtr than God's 
 revealed Will ; briefly coufidered. 
 
 It will be readily granted, that feme parts of the 
 divine condu£t are to be imitated by all who loVe God. 
 Yet our obligation to he followers of God as dear children^ 
 ^oss not originate fo much from what he does^ as from 
 
0/ the Rule of Duly to-awds Chri/liati Brdhrvtu 127 
 
 It he commends. Therefore, we are not to imitate 
 divine conduft, in any thing which would lead us 
 aary to his revealed will. 
 
 There are Ibme parts of the divine condutTl, whlth it 
 v.ould be iiighly improper for us to attempt to imitate ; 
 j fuch as the following : He fufpcndcd the cftabliOied 
 ]aw5 of nature, " and held, t\>c falling day," until Ifrael 
 
 J. gained tlie vi^ftury over his enemies. He arreflred 
 ..an in its courie, and ccinpelled its waters to retire, 
 made a p ifiage for his chofen tribes. Ht opened 
 
 ; r:50uth of Balaam's afs, anclcaiifed t!ie ftupid brute 
 . rtprove the more brutilh prophet. He comiTranded 
 . . juham, as a teft of his love and obedience, to od'er 
 
 1 his beloved fon for a facrifice ; and it is certain he 
 
 j.ily apj'ioved of Abraham's conduct, and bleffed his 
 ■jferved obedience. I prellnne no one will infer 
 
 ,m this, that we are to exprofs our love to God by 
 r.'.crificing oar children to him. God has at feveral 
 times deilroyed his enemies by fire from heaven ; but 
 when the tv.'o difciples were defircus of puaiihing the 
 ungrateful Samaritans in the fame way, Jefus reproved 
 their bhnd zeal, and told them plainly, they knew not 
 w! at fpirit they were of.* 
 
 luftances might be multiplied from fcripture, to fliow, 
 that the divine condudt is not in all cafes the rule of our 
 duty ; but you have fuppofed which you conclude 
 is worthy of our imitation — It lhall now be the fubjeit 
 of our inquiry. 
 
 You take it for granted, that God communes with 
 the Psdobaptifts at his holy table ; and hence afk, 
 « Why cannot you commune with thofe at the table, 
 with whom God communes ?' As this quertion was 
 anticipated in my other Piece, you have from thence 
 Introduced the following reply, i. e. ♦ It is not what 
 God can or does do, but his revealed will, v/hich is the 
 rule of our duty.' On this you obferve, ' I hope. Sir, 
 I fiiall never obje£t to your making the revealed will of 
 God the rule of your duty. But this, Sir, is a part 
 ' of his revealed will, Be ye followers of God, as dear chil- 
 dren. And if God be willing to commune with Psedo- 
 
 * Gsji. xk. 34. a Kings i. to. Luke ix. 54. 
 
128 Of the Rule of Duty towirds Chrifttan Brethren, 
 
 baptifls, why fliould you be unwilling to imitate his ex- 
 ample in this refpeft !' 
 
 You will permit me, Sir, to inquire, whether you fin- 
 cerely think, that the apoftles had particular reference 
 to communion at the Lord's table, when he exhorted 
 the Ephefians to be foUoivers of God ? If he had not, it 
 affords no proof for your argument. If this were his 
 obje£l, he muft be underftood as addrefEng them in the 
 following manner : Brethren, God communes with 
 you, and why cannot you commune with one another ? 
 Be ye follonuers of Godf as dear children. Bat was the 
 church of Ephefus at this early period fo divided, that 
 they did not hold vifible communion together ? Were 
 there then in the church Paedobaptifts, and Anti-paedo- 
 baptifls, who had fetup feparate communions ? When 
 this is fairly proved, we ought to believe it. You go 
 on to fay — ' Suppofing that the Psedobaptifts are really 
 in an error ; if Chrift does not view the error as fo 
 effential, but tliat he will commune with them, why 
 fhould you ? Is the fervant greater than his lord ?' 
 By no means : for the fervant ktiiyweth not nvtmt his lord 
 doeih. And although he giveth rules to his fervants to 
 regulate their conduiH: by ; yet he is not particularly 
 bound by them himfelf. But you feem to fuppofe, that 
 Chrift communes with you in a certain fenfe, in which 
 we are unwilling to. But how arc we to underftand 
 you .'' Surely not that Chrift comes perlbnally among 
 you, or that he aftually communes with you in the 
 bread and wine .'' If not, we muft fuppofe it is fpiritu- 
 ally ; i. e. he may own and blefs you, notwithftand- 
 ing there may be fome imperfections in your obedience. 
 But are we unwilling to commune with you fpiritually ? 
 Have not all good men, as far as they have the knowl- 
 edge of each other, communion in this fenfe ? And do 
 they not heartily approve of alljincere Chriftians, as 
 far as they view them walking in the truth ? We may 
 not from hence infer, that Chrift approves of the 
 errors of any, or that the moft profufe charity requires 
 it of us. 
 
 To fuppofe that the Psedobaptifts are in an error, 
 and that this is of fuch a nature that Chrift could not 
 
Of the Rule of Duty towards Chrifiian Brethren. 1 29 
 
 I commune with or blefs them, would it not be to fup- 
 f pofe it fatal, and inconfiftent with their eternal falva- 
 . tion ? And fliould it be granted, < that God communes 
 
 (at his table with the pure in heart of both denomina- 
 tions,' yet never in fuch a fenfe as to approve of the 
 errors of either, 
 i That God has communed with, or blefled good men, 
 j notwithftanding they were guilty of fome errors, will 
 j appear from what follows : — It is faid of Solomon, that 
 : he loved the Lord, and walked in the ftatutes of David 
 j his father ; only he facrihced and burnt incenfe in high 
 I places. The fame is faid of Jehoafh, and Jotham, that 
 ; they did that nuhich was right in the ftght of the Lord : hut 
 ^ the high places were not taken away : the fteople fiill fucrificed 
 I and buint incetfe in the high places* We can here only 
 I conceive, that God approved of what was right according 
 I to his commandments ; whrle he wholly condemned 
 their facrifices in high places and groves. 
 
 When the ordinance of tlie paflbver had not for a 
 long time been obferved as it was written, king Heze- 
 kiah iflued his proclamation, fummoning all ifrael to 
 attend the folemn feaft. But when the people came 
 j together, many of them had not thofe external qualifi- 
 cations which the ordinance required •, and confcquent- 
 ly did eat the pajlver otherwife than it was written : hut 
 .Hezeltah prayed for them, faying^ The good Lord pardjn 
 ,'v'ry one that prep.ireth his heart to feek God, the Lord God 
 ■ r fathers, though he be not cteanjed according to the pitri- 
 ■:ni of the fnncluiiry.\ Hence it is evident, that they 
 v '.re in fome degree guilty, for omitting thofe external 
 pre-requifites which the ort'inance required notwith- 
 ftanding they prepared their hearts to feek the Lord. 
 If this were not the cafe, they could not have needed 
 a pardon, for this ever fuppofcs guilt. Thus wlille they 
 experienced the divine approbation in preparing their 
 hearts to feek God, they needed his pardon for fome 
 externa', omiflions. 
 
 You will recolleiH:, Sir, that you have given it as your 
 opinion, ' 'I'hat the ejjlnce of i.iptifm doe;; not confiit ia 
 
 ♦ I Kirgs iii. 3. 2 King; xiL I, j.andiv ,u, 3J. 
 t % Chron. r.\x. \%, 19 
 
1 30 Of the Rule of Duty towards Chrijiian Brethren, 
 
 any one particular mode whatever.' Undoubtedly this 
 may be faid, with as much propriety, refpedting com- 
 munion j that the ejfetice of it does not confift in any 
 particular mode whatever ; but in right afFe£tions of" 
 heart. 
 
 If this cbfervation be juft, that the eflence of an 
 ordinance does not confift in the externals of it, but in 
 fincerity of heart ; and that Chriftian communion does 
 not require agreement in fentiment, but only a union of 
 * affections and defires ;* in this fenfe, I prefume, the 
 Baptifts and Pxdobaptifts do cordially commune. 
 
 In remarking upon the motto of my other Piece, 
 you have faid, ' There muft be a union bctwen God 
 and man, or they cannot commune togeiher — there 
 muft be a cordial union. We muft love the fame ob- 
 jeCls which God loves, and hate that which he hates,' 
 You fuppofe, * the fame kind of agreement is eflential 
 to our walking together.' Now, Sir, if this cordial af- 
 feftion and union can fully exift, and we difagree in 
 one divine inftitution, why can it not, and we difagree 
 in another ? Why is it thought more elTential to our 
 Chriftian fellowftiip and union to be agreed in the or- 
 dinance of the fupper, than in the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm Or are there any reafons for exalting the former 
 fo much above the latter ? If agreement in fentiment 
 be neceflary to our Chriftian fellowftiip, then it can be 
 of no confequence for us to be agreed in the ordinance 
 of the fupper. For according to this argument, two 
 perfons or churches may enjoy mutual communion to- 
 gether, although one of them ihould partake of the 
 bread and wine, and the other fit by at the fame time 
 and not partake. 
 
 Upon the whole, I fee nothing to forbid this conclu- 
 fion, That we do commune with the Paedobaptifts in 
 the fame fenfe which God does. We may not indeed 
 in the fame degree, as we have not the fame degree of 
 knowledge, with refpefl to their conformity to his moral 
 image, or pofitive requirements i but fo far as we fee 
 them bearing the image of truth, fo far we love and ef- 
 teem them. 
 
Of the Rule ef Duty towards Chriflian Brethren. 1 3 1 
 
 But, Sir, do you conceive that God communes with 
 you in a higher, or different fenfe, in the ordinance of 
 the fupper, than what he does in the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm ? If not, why may you not draw an argument 
 equally forcible from that, to urge us to a compliance 
 with your mode of baptifm ? I am willing to own, that 
 I am enthufiaftic enough to believe, that God ?.s really 
 manifefts his all-approving prefence with us in the ordi- 
 nance of baptiftn, as in that of the fttpper. But, fliould 
 vjQ from hence urge the propriety of your adopting our 
 mode of baptifm, without producing any other proof in 
 fiipport of it, would you think the argument conclufive ? 
 Moft certainly you would not. 
 
 You have taken it for granted, that God com- 
 munes with the Paedobaptifts, and that his example 
 i'- worthy of imitation. But have we not as much rea- 
 ibn to believe, that the baptifm of Chrift by an immer- 
 fion in Jordan, was defigned as an example for believ- 
 ers through every age, as that his communing with your 
 denomination is defigned as an example for us to imi- 
 tate ? But, the facrilegious practice of imitating Jefus 
 Chrift in his baptifm, has been loudly exploded, by 
 the united efforts of two learned gentlemen,* in a 
 publication with this extraordinary title, " The Baptifm 
 of Jtftis Chnfly not to he imitated by Chrifians." A perfon 
 cannot refleft upon this title a moment, without con- 
 cluding, that feme Piedobaptifts cautioufly endeavour 
 not to imitate the baptifm of Jefus Chrift ! We can 
 hardly forbear alklng, Who do they mean to imitate ? 
 Surely not John ; for they fay he was under the law. 
 Not Chrift, becaufe he was baptized before his death. 
 Not Philip, and the Eunuch, for they ivent dcw/t both 
 J.NT0 THE WATCR. Not the primitive church ; for we 
 are authorized, upon the teftimony of Paedobaptifts 
 themfelves, to fay, that imirvrfi ?} was theuniverfal prac- 
 tice (except in particular c;iic.s) for nearly thirteen hun- 
 dred year: after the Chriftian lera. 
 
 We cheerfully acknowledge that this is not the cafe 
 with us •, for v/e do really endeavour to imitate the bap- 
 tifm of Lhri/1 ; nor did we ever yet feel confcious of 
 
 • MffTrs. Fj{h and Craac. 
 
132 0/* the Rule of Duty iowards Chrijlian Brethren. 
 
 reproof, for the prefumptuous aft ! It is argumer\t 
 of no fmall weight in the minds of many, that our 
 baptifm Is an imitation of his, who has taught us to 
 take up our crofs and follow him. Were it not ne- 
 ceflary to invite you to follow an example fo evidently 
 defigned for imitation, I might addrefs you in the fpon- 
 taneous language of a text preffed into your fervice ; 
 Be ye folloivers of God, as dear children. 
 
 Should you think the queftion not fully anfwered by 
 what has been already obferved, and ftill inquire, ' If 
 God communes with the Piedobaptifts, why fhould you 
 be unwilling to follow his example ?'■ — I would wifh to 
 afk, "Whether you would think it duty for us to be fol- 
 lowers of God, otherwife than according to the rules 
 laid down in his word ? You will permit me to remind 
 you, that you have acknowledged, that thofe rules re- 
 quire baptifm antecedent to communion. 'I'his is evi- 
 dently your meaning when you fay, ' I do not deny that 
 baptifm wz?, prior to coming to the Lord's table in the 
 apoftolic praftice. I fuppofe it was.' I iuppofe fo too. 
 Sir 5 and would beg to know, whether there has been 
 any different 7-ule of praftice eftablifhed iince i If fo, 
 by whom was it done, and by what authority ^ If the 
 fyllemof infplration was clofed by the apoftles, then 
 undoubtedly the praftice of the church, as recorded by 
 them, is a proper rule for us. To this you feem t9 af- 
 fent (though with a degree of caution) when you fay, 
 ' I aiTo fuppofe their example to be worthy of imitation 
 in like circumftances.' As if fome circumftances might 
 take place, which might make it ncceflary to alter the 
 7r.odc or order of divine inftitutions. But, Sir, if inftitu- 
 tions are divini;, it is not in the power of circumQanceSy 
 h(i\vt'ver combined, or any thing elfe fhort of the power 
 vs'l'.iii i:,:.'J>e them, to alter either mode or order. Some 
 c'r i. ,1 : .cer, may render it necefiary to omit, but never 
 to alter an iri'litm ion. The moment we alter an infti- 
 tutiop., we clef* 10/ its authority. It can no longer 
 claim the aigii prAiiejj;e of ^ divine origin; but muft 
 be looked upon ai the bife-born offspring of human 
 i/ivefitic:. 
 
Of the Rule of Duty towards Chrijlian Brethren. 133 
 
 That there can be circumftances in our prefent fitua- 
 tion which may render it neceflary, or even juftifiable, 
 to depart from the apo/lolic prailice, I cannot conceive. 
 Yet here we are not fo happy as to be agreed in opin- 
 ion ; for you fay — ' I am not certain that there can be 
 no circumftances in which it might be lawful to admit 
 to the Lord's fupper prior to baptifm.' Efpecially if 
 the mode of baptifm be immerfion. ' For a real Chrif- 
 tian may for many years be fubjefted to fuch bodily 
 dlforders, that it would be prefumption rather than 
 duty, to be plunged all under water ; and yet at certain 
 t'.nes he might be able to attend the ordinance of the 
 l.crd's fupper. And muft he be debarred this privilege, 
 : forbidden this duty, merely becaufe he is unabl^p 
 
 • immerfed ?'* 
 
 It appears to me, Sir, that you draw conclufions 
 without premifes. For you fuppofe v/e debar a perfon 
 from a pnviUge in one inftance becaufe he is unable to 
 do his duty in another. I fuppofe you are miftaken ia 
 both. For firil, I do not believe that God requires 
 T\ny duty of his creatures, which his holy providence has 
 rendered them unable to perform : which is the fup- 
 ■lofed'cafe with rcgird to baptifm. Nor fecondly, do I 
 oelieve that it is tLe d'.ity or privilege of any perfon to 
 attend one facred ordinance, while God in his provi- 
 dence prevents his attending another, which has a prhr 
 claim on his obedience ; and while the latter, by ♦ apof- 
 tolic praftice/ is a necelfary qualification for the/orwfr. 
 This idea you have fully illuftrated in your next page, 
 where you obferve, that < Many things which are or- 
 Jmarily incumbent duties are not fo in all circumftan- 
 ces.' This obfervation appears perfeiStly ju(t, and the 
 very circumftance you have mentioned of the perfon's 
 being unbaptized, renders it inconfil'lent with duty for 
 him to partake of the Lord's fupper. 
 
 For I can as eafdy conceive of its being a perfon's 
 duty or privilege to go to meeting, while by the provi- 
 dence of God he is confined at home as to belieTe 
 -that h is his duty to go lo the communion-tabie, while 
 
 * Page 14. 
 
134 Of the Rule of Dttty towards Chrifiian Brethren. 
 
 by the fame providence, he is unable to attend the pre- 
 vious qualifications which the inftitution requires. 
 
 Allowing immerfion to be eflential to gofpel baptifm, 
 and a perfon to become a real Chriftian when but nine 
 years old, and the ftate of his health fuch as would ren- 
 der it unfuitable for him to be baptized, ftiould he live 
 to be nine hundred and fixty-nine, I fhould never fup- 
 pofe it to be his duty to communicate while in that fit- 
 uation ; nor can I fuppofe any well enlightened Chrif- 
 tian would ever defire it. 
 
 But, fliould it even be fuppofed, that the order of 
 the inftitutions might be difpenfed with in particular 
 eafes, fo fnr as to admit to communion pious perfons, 
 whofe bodily infirmities would not allow of their being 
 baptized — What then ? Shall we from hence argue 
 to a general practice, and admit unbaptized perfons to 
 communion who have no fuch infirmities to plead ; If 
 this be not the cafe, your argument lofes the whole of 
 its force ; unlefs your communicants are all invalids ! 
 
 The inconclufivenefs of this argument will more 
 fully appear by attending to the obfervations you have 
 brought to illuftrate it by. The firfi: is, the inilance of 
 David's taking the f^e-w bread. You obferve, * He was 
 hungry, and had need of it for the fuflenance and pref- 
 erviuion o£ life but will you from hence conclude, 
 that it was laA^ful for David, or any other perfon in or- 
 dinary cafes, to have taken the haHovj.'J bread, when 
 thcre\vas no fuch neceiilty 1 If this be no: the cafe, it 
 vnW not help your caufe ; for the matter in difpute is 
 not a cafe of necfftty, but of fuppofed conveniency ; 
 and which, in order to its being praaifed, muft be law- 
 ful in ordinary cafes. Your other obfervation refpe£l- 
 ing a peVlbn's being necefiarily detained from the houfe 
 of God, is much of the fame tenor : for grantij^g that u 
 perlbn's infirmities nuy excuie him from the duty of 
 attending public worii ip, (hall we hence infor that this 
 is any e.xcufe for others, or even for the fame perfon 
 when well ? Surely we lhall not. 
 
 You fuppofe when David violated a pftlve precept^ 
 he did it to prefer ve his life, and that in this fenfe he 
 conducted himfeif agreeably to the tncrtl Now, 
 
OJ the Rule of Duty to-war di Chrj/lian Brethren. IS,', 
 
 Sir, when it can be made to appear, thxt a perfon\ 
 lue, or eternal falvation, depend on coniirunicating at 
 the Lord's table, I cannot lay but in fucUa cafj it may 
 be lawful to go contrary to pofitive inftitutions ; to de- 
 part from ap^jlolic praRice and plunge ourfelves into 
 almoft every inconliftency, rather than a iveak broths 
 jhould pert/}}, for whom Chriji died. 
 
 Your obfervations in favour of giving the commu- 
 nion to the fick w^ho are not inltitutionally qualified to 
 receive it, lead us to compare it with the ancient cuftora 
 of baptizing the c/inics. 
 
 A learned hiftorlan obferves, " At firft all timss were 
 alike, and perfons were baptized as opportunity ami 
 occafion Icrved ; bat it was after rellrained to two 
 
 ,emn and ftated times of the year, viz. Erjler and 
 I'Intfitntide'* Thefe included the fifty days between : 
 
 Yet if there was a uecfjftty^ (as in caie of ftcknrfs and 
 danger of death) they might be baptized at any ether 
 time."* And notwithftanding they allowed immerfion 
 to be the proper mode, yet, in cafe of danger of death, 
 they would fprinkle perfons as they lay in their beds. 
 It is evident they overrated the inftitution ; and your 
 notion of giving the communion to the fick who ?.re un- 
 able to be baptized, has a little of the fame appearance. 
 
 I do not find that thefe ancient Chriftians plead apof- 
 tolic authority for tliis praftice, nor did they allow of 
 ■this mode of baptifm in ordinary cafes. 
 
 But why (hould it be thought necelTary for a real 
 Chriftiian to receive the communion, fo long as his bod- 
 ily infirmities forbid his being regularly baptized It 
 cannot be thought neceffiiry to his eternal falvation j 
 for if a Chriftian, that is already fecured : nor that the 
 gofpel rule requires it ; for that enjoins, that all things 
 be dene decently and in order : nor yet the glory of God j 
 for that never requires fubmillion to :xny pofitive la-w, 
 but of thofe who are capable of the pofitive pre-requi- 
 fites to obey it. Hence I conclude, that every unbap- 
 tized Chrifrian, whofe infirmities may be fuch, as to 
 render it unfuitable for him to be baptized and join 
 the viCble church, ought fubmiflively to wait, until 
 
 * Dr. Cave's Primitive Chriftian'.ty, p. 194. 
 
-1 36 Of the Rule of Duty tc-u-a-ds Chrijltan Brethren. 
 
 God in his providence opens a door for him in a regu- 
 lar manner to approach his holy table ; and not to aft 
 fooliftily like Saul, who grew impatient in waiting for 
 Samuel, and forced himfi-lf and offered a hurnt-offtrhig-* 
 
 I have endeavoured thus far to trace your argument, 
 and have net yet found fufFicient reafon to depart from 
 the apojhiic profJke but as we are fo happy as to b«; 
 agreed in this point, that baptifm according to their 
 practice was prior to coming to the Lord's table, on 
 this ground we will bring the matter to trial. Now, 
 Sir, 1 would wifh to afk, How we can conuAcntly 
 communicate with you ? If we communirate with you 
 as baptized perfons, we praflically give up cur princi- 
 ples j if we communicate with you as utibfipiized, then 
 we unwarrantably depart from the apoftolic practice. 
 You cannot be infenfible, my dear Sir, that this is the 
 very pith of the controvcrfy ; and that one or the other 
 of the above difficulties will inevitably fall to our 11. are, 
 in cafe we cftablifli communion with you. 
 
 It is a faiSt generally known, and wbich we do not 
 wifh to conceal, that we cannot acknowledge ihfnttt 
 ■ fprinkling to be gcfptl tnp:ijin. Could this be allowed, 
 the difpute would be at an 'end, snd our fentiinents at 
 . i; itui wirh it. I'or if the iiiftitution rct^uires no more 
 than fprinklingi then p'/mging muft be forever unnecefla- 
 ry ; and befides, we fiiall be juftly chargeable with re- 
 baptizing, a pradliice we condemn as much as you dp. 
 But you feem to be willing that we fl.ould be Baptifts, 
 and yet blame us for not communicating with other 
 denominations. But, why do you not /ay the axe to tie 
 red of the tree, and blame us for being Baptifts, and not 
 blame us for being confiftent ? 
 
 I doubt not but every unprejudiced mind will readily 
 perceive that the matter comes to this poijit with ns, 
 that in order to communicate with you, we muft either 
 give up what you and we agree was the apoftolic prac- 
 tice, or our fentimcnts as Baptifts. One or the other of 
 thefe will be a rational inference from our conduit. 
 
 From what has now been obferved, it will be eafy to 
 perceive the different fituations we ftand in to eacii 
 
 X Sam. xiii. 12. 
 
Of the Rule of Duty towards Chriflian Brethren. 1 37 
 
 ether. When perfons join your churches, who have 
 been baptized by us, I have never heard of your bap- 
 tizing them again. On the other hand, vire always bap- 
 tize thofe who come from your churches to us, unlefs 
 they have been immerfed upon a profeflion of faith. 
 But is this difference of conduft to be attributed to ca- 
 tholicifm in you, or the want of it in us ? By no means. 
 The truth is this, iinmerfion includes fprivkling ; but 
 fprinkling does not include immerfion : therefore the 
 perfon who is immerfed, is in your view lawfully bap>- 
 tized ; whilft he who is only fprinkled, is not fo in 
 curs. It hence follows, that, confiftently with your 
 fentiments and views of the * apoftolic prailice^ you may 
 invite us to communicate in your churches ; while we> 
 having the fame views, cannot invite you. 
 
 It is hoped that the preceding obfervations will fully 
 fatisfy our Psedobaptift brethren, that cur reafons for 
 not communicating with them do not arife from the 
 want of brotherly affection towards them ; but from a 
 confcienticus regard to what wc underftand to be the 
 srder of the ^ofpel. 
 
 So long as we allow the gofpel to contain a complete 
 fyftem of faith and pra(5lice, we muft endeavour to fol- 
 low the rules there given, rather than imitate other fup- 
 pofed parts of the divine condutSt. 
 
 But fhould we even carry the matter as high as you 
 have fuppofed ; that Chrift fliould perfonally come to 
 one of your communions, and actually partake with 
 you j and fhould addrefs you as his friends, and bid you 
 eat and drink j I am not certain that his conduct in fo 
 doing would call for our imitation, fo long as the 
 eftablifhed laws of his kingdom remain as they now 
 are. 
 
 When Chrift firft commiflioned his difciples, and fent 
 them forth to preach the gofpel, heal the fick, &c. — he 
 commanded them faying, Go ?ioi into the way of the Gentiles^ 
 and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.* Never- 
 thelefs, he himfelf went into the borders of Tyre and 
 Sidon, and there healed the daughter of the Syrophe- 
 aician woman, who was a Gentile.f He alfo pafled 
 
 • Matt. X. s- t Mark vii. 24 — jO. 
 
 N2 
 
138 Of the R ule of Duly toivards Chrijhan Brelf. ren. 
 
 through Samaria ; converfed with the woman at the 
 ivell, where he made kno\> n himfelf to her as the Mef- 
 fiah. And afterwards, at the requeft of the people, he 
 tarried two days ; in which time many more bJieved cn 
 him.* Hence we fee, that Chrift did thofe things 
 vrhich his difciples were not authorized to do. There- 
 fore I conclude we are to follow the particular rules 
 laid down by Chrift in his word, rather than any fup- 
 pofed appearances or manifeftations he may make to 
 his people in any way whatever. If this be not the 
 cafe, we are likely to ramble in eternal uncertainty ! 
 But, blefled be God, we have a more fure iverd of p-opht- 
 cy, io ivh'ich ive do ivell to take heed. 
 
 It may be proper here to take notice of the confe- 
 quences you have drawn, from the fuppofition of our 
 proving, that a conformity to our mode of baptifm is an 
 eflential term of communion. You fay, * Should this 
 be made to appear, it will then alfo appear, that all the 
 Pa:dobaptifts, who have thought they enjoyed com- 
 munion with God at his table, have been mofl miferably 
 deluded.' If fo, the confequence is dreadful indeed ! 
 Enough to {hock the tender feelings of every pious 
 Pjedobaptift, and lay an effedtual bar in the way of their 
 admitting the evidence of a truth fo difgufting, though 
 fhining with the greateft clearnefs. You alfo conclude, 
 that if baptifm in our mode be an eflential qualification ; 
 « then the Paedobaptifts are eflentially wrong and ivkhed 
 in coming to the table j' and their conduft an abcmina- 
 tion in the fight of God.f My dear Sir, are you fo in- 
 toxicated with fentiment as to forget your own fyftem ? 
 No farther back than page 20, you have faid, ' I deny 
 that there can be any moral evil in conduft which pro- 
 ceeds from godly fincerity ; yet I grant there may be 
 natural evil, or incongruity, through inadvertency or 
 mifapprehenfion.' Is it pofllble that ' natural evil' or 
 * incongruity,' ihould account for all the frightful things 
 now mentioned, fuch as ' miferaole delufio/.,' • tuicked' 
 conduct, even fuch as is ' ab^mitialioti in the fight of 
 God ?' If not, your argument fails in one or the other : 
 
 * John iv. a6, 39,4c. f Pagea8. 
 
Of I he Rule ofDufs tonvards Chnfnan Erttlren. 13f 
 
 eitlier ) our concUidl: mull be chargeable with moral evil ^ 
 or your coniequeiices cannot be jult. 
 
 In your next page you go on to fay, < Granting that 
 immerfion be tlie appointed mode of bapciim, and be- 
 lievers the itily proper fubjects, yet if a Pitdobaptift 
 
 \U-j thir.h otherwife, and with an obedient heart offer 
 ,1 his children in our mode, liis conduct is not charge- 
 a'-le with any vioni! evil. Ail tlie evil which is to be 
 imputed to his conduct, is of the tiatuml kind. And 
 t!ie perfon in f ) doing is as well • accepted in the fight 
 Of God, as if his external conduiTl: had been according 
 to the appointed mode of baprifm.' It is pecuHar in- 
 deed, that witii regard to the inlVitution of bnptifmy you 
 ll;ould contluJc, that if you honeftly niiftake both the 
 JuhieBs and Wi; it-, and praclife in a way entirely differ- 
 tJit, it by no means hinders the divine approbation and 
 acceptance ; but with regard to the ordinance of the 
 fi-pper., if it fliould be proved that you had as honeftly 
 made a nrditake with regard to a previous duty, and 
 have thought that you enjoyed communion with God 
 at his table, the confequence muft be, that you have all 
 been inifcrably deluded .' 
 
 According to the above argument, all that is necefiary 
 to render b.iptifm acceptable, is only to < really think 
 you are right : hence by a parity of reafoning, if you 
 are not accepted of God in the ordinance of the fupper, 
 we muft fuppofc you do not ' really think' you are right 
 when you come to the table. But are you not as lin- 
 cere in coming to the Lord's table, as in offering up 
 your children ? If you are not, I lhall join with you, 
 that your conduft is an abomination to the Lord. But, 
 allowing you to be fincere, and to really think you are 
 right, and we muft fuppofe that you have as much rea- 
 fon to think you have been ' miferably deluded' in the 
 Jormer, as in the latter. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured carefully to attend to 
 the argumentative part of your Friendly Letter, and have 
 attempted to anfwer thofe argumer>ts on which I fup- 
 pofed you laid the greateft ftrefs j either in a direct 
 way, or by ihowing the invalidity of the evidence by 
 vvhich they were fupported. And however au impar- 
 
uo 
 
 Ohjtrvat'vjv.s on the 
 
 tial public maj' judge, I have the fatisfafllon to think, 
 that in the preceding {hects tae following particulars 
 have been fairly eftablithed, by evidence from fcripture, 
 reafon, and the concurring teftimony of many eminent 
 Piedobaptift writers. 1. That vifible, or profeffing be- 
 lievers, are the only proper JubjeBs of bapiifm, known and 
 delcribed in the word of God. 2. That an entire im- 
 merfion in water, is neceflary to the due adminiftration 
 of the ordinance. 3. That by apoftolic practice, which 
 is a ftanding law to the church of Chrirt, baptifm ivns, 
 and therefore ftill /V, prior to coming to the Lord's table. 
 Hence it follows, by * neceffary confequence,' that a 
 conformity to our mode of baptifm (if that has been 
 proved to be the gofpel mode) is to be confidered as a 
 neceffary pre-requillte or (if it fuits you better) term of 
 communion at the Lord's table, fo long as we think it 
 important to follow the ' npoJloUc praEiice' "We do not 
 mean by this to dictate to our brethren of other de- 
 nominatiom; with regard to their terms cf communion ; 
 but only fhow the general principles on which we pro- 
 ceed among ourfelves. 
 
 SECTION IX. 
 
 Obfervattons on the Piatt of Communion propofed in the 
 
 < Friendly Lettery ivith rettiarks on feveral other Things 
 cotifieBed with the Subject. 
 
 Sir, your profeffed defign in writing, has too 
 much of the appearance of friendlhip, to be paffed over 
 unnoticed. But whether if your plan were adopted, 
 it would produce the defired effect, is a matter of feri- 
 ous inquiry. 
 
 < To promote the peace and profperity of Zion, by 
 opening a door for free communion betwen the Baptifts 
 and Piedobaptifts,' is your profeffed objedl. And not- 
 withftanding I have appeared upon the other fide of 
 
propofed Plan of Communion, is'c. 
 
 14-1 
 
 the queftion, I perfuade myfelf, that no perfon would 
 be happier in feeing our objeftions fairly removed, and 
 a confillent way pointed out for a mutual interchange 
 >-^f communions. But if it muft be done at the expenfe 
 f' our fenthnents as Baptifts, you will not think us nn- 
 
 ifonable in requiring ample proof that we are wrong, 
 Dcfore we do it. 
 
 The particular boundaries of your plan are exprefled 
 in tlie following words ; ' It is not my defign, nor my 
 defire, to have a door open for free communion among 
 all who profcfs religion on either fide ; but only with 
 regard to thofe whofe ■vifible conduct h evidential of 
 real piety.' It is a little difficult here to underftand 
 your meaning. If you mean to eftablifh communion 
 with fome churches which you may confider as ortho- 
 dox in docb ine, and regular in difcipline, while you re- 
 ject others, your plan may be practicable. But as the 
 terms or qualifications /ou propofe, may be the lot of 
 individuals rather than churches, it appears to be at- 
 tended with fome difficulty. For it is reafonable to 
 fuppofe that in every Chriftian community there may 
 be fome found, < whofe vifible conducl: is evidential of 
 real piety.' With thofe it feems you would wiih to 
 communicate, while with the church as a body you 
 could by no means hold fellowfliip. 
 
 In order to reduce the idea to pra(rtice, we will fup- 
 poi'e ten m-cmbers of a Baptill church in yoxir vicinity 
 attend at one of your communion feafons, with a defire 
 XO enjoy privileges with you ; but when the church is 
 called upon to adt upon their requeft, they inform thole 
 brethren that with five of them they are fully fatisfied, 
 and bid them a cordial welcome to a feat in their com- 
 iBuaion ; but to the others they obferve, they have not 
 obtained the evidence of their ' real piety and there- 
 fore muft confcientiouilv refiife to partake with them. 
 It is natural to fuppofe that the feelings of thele breth- 
 ren would be wounded upon fuch an occafion ; fome on 
 their own account, and iome on account of others. 
 And the church to which they belong migbt confider 
 tkeinfelves iujured i and it is likely tbeeficd vould be 
 
142 
 
 Ohfervatlons on the 
 
 coniention, rather than peace. Difficulties fimilar t« 
 tlie above are fairly fuppofeable. 
 
 If you pleafe, Sir, we will now fuppofe a different cafe. 
 It lb happens, that I'everal of your brethren remove into 
 the neighbourl-.ood of a Baptift church, and from their 
 lituation are defirous of enjoying privileges with them. 
 The Baptifts, enlightened by your fentiments, are 
 equally defirous of indulging them ; and although 
 thefe brethren have not received baptifm in the way 
 which the church unJerftand the inltitution, yet as they 
 appear to be fuwere, which ' is the very soul and es- 
 sence of conformity to Chrift,' the church cordially 
 grant their requeft. For a fcafon they enjoy privileges 
 together, and no particular difficulty arifes ; but at 
 length one of thofe communicants becomes dilTatisfied 
 with refpecl to his infant baptifm ; and in the exercife 
 of godly fmcerity is led to believe, that it is his indifpea- 
 fable duty to be immerfed. But while waiting a con- 
 venient opportunity for that purpofe, a communion fea- 
 fon intervenes •, it now becomes a ferious qucftion, 
 both with him and the church, whether it be duty for 
 him to communicate in his prefent fituation ? As the 
 church adopted this new mode of commimion in con- 
 formity to your fyilem, they think proper to recur to 
 it, in order to decide the prefent doubtful cafe. They 
 firft confult the terms on which you propofe free com- 
 munion ; thefe they find to be « real piety or <■ godly ft n- 
 cerity' That the man was a fubjecSl: of thefe qualifica- 
 tions when they firft admitted him, they have no 
 doubt ; and they are equally fatisfied of his Jincerxtj 
 and puiy with his prefent views •, and at firft are in- 
 clined to think it may be his duty to communicate. 
 But there is one difficulty ftill which feems to embarrafs 
 their proceeding ; that is, if they underrtand you right, 
 (p. 9) it IS not a qucftion with you, ' Whether baptifm 
 in fome mode be an ejfential qualification.^ And although 
 the perfon once ftncerely believed himfelf to be baptized, 
 Ue now as fmcerely believes he is not ; and * as a man 
 thiriketh in his heart Jo is he' For the fcripture being 
 ♦ filent refpefting his infant baptifm,' the only thing 
 which gave it validity, either with himfelf or the 
 
propofed Plan of Communion, (s'c, 143 
 
 church, was his fincerity ; but t/jat falling in this par- 
 ticular, this mult confequently fail with it ; and he can 
 no longer be confidered as baptized, than while he fin- 
 cerely believes himfelf to be fo. He is now, in his own 
 view, and in the view of the church, unbaptized. And 
 I cannot fee but that he muft appear in the fame light 
 to you, upon your own fcale of reafoning. But, how- 
 ever, he is unqueftionably poflefTed of real piety and 
 gccl/yjificeriiy, which are your diftinguiOiing terms of 
 communion j and yet, as he is in his own opinion un- 
 baptizcd, he lacks an < e(Jdtitial qualifcaiion.' It follows, 
 that by your fyfiem he is both qualified, and unqualifi- 
 ed, at the fame time. 
 
 Belides, the Baptift church would not appear in the 
 ■ oft confiftent light, to baptize a perfon with whom 
 icy had probably communed feveral years ; and 
 yer the man cannot a£t confiPjently with godly fincerity 
 v.-ithout it. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think, 
 when you review your plan in its operation, you will 
 conclude fome auiendments are neccflary. 
 
 In connexion with your defign, you have another ob- 
 fervation, upon which I lhall make one or two remarks. 
 You fay, « I fliall negleft to pay any particular attention 
 to the fubject of infant bapiifm not becaufe that I 
 think our fide fails cf fcripture evidence, but becaufe 
 many abler hands have been employed on the fubjeft', 
 and becaufi I think it to be needlefs witii refpedt to the 
 fubjeft of clofe communion.* This oblervation appears 
 a little extraordinary, and that for tv/o rar.fons. 1. 
 That you fhould fuggeft that the fcnpture aftbrds am- 
 ple proof in favour of your fentimcnts ; and yet in 
 another part of your Letter, (p. 35) if I do not much 
 miftake, you make this lionelt concefiion, That the 
 fcripture as to infant baptifm is silent ! Strange indeed ! 
 Full of evidence^ and yet fiieut ! entirely iilent ! We 
 cheerfully yield you tiie unmolciled enjoyment of all 
 the evidence which infant baptifm can derive from the 
 filence of fcripture relpecling it.* 2. That you fliouid 
 
 * 1 hst the fcripture it ftleni, i$ ackaowledged by Mr. Clark, Tlie 
 Pxdobaptlfts (faich lie) do not place the evidence of irfart baptifm, in 
 th« hillory of fad, or iu :'ny espr-fs mention of it in t'lc New Tcft* 
 
144 
 
 Ohfervations tn the 
 
 fuppofe tliat infant baptifm is not connefled with the 
 fubjed in difpute. I fuppofe, Sir, that it is particularly 
 conneded ; for it is entirely upon the fuppofition of its 
 validity^ that you claim a right to communicate with us. 
 Therefore, had you brought forward that teftimony 
 from fcripture which you inform us your < fide does not 
 fail of,' and had proved by CKample or precept.^ (I mean 
 not by file7it evidence, however) that infant baptifm was 
 of divine appointment, this would have ended the 
 whole difpute.* You cannot be infenfible that this ob- 
 je£tion has always been made on our part, and to me it 
 appears rational and important. I endeavoured care- 
 fully to ftate it in my other Piece, and as yours is faid 
 to contain an anfiver to it, I did not- expeft it in this 
 way, that ' you fhould neglect: to fay any thing 
 about it.' 
 
 It may be proper in the next place to attend to tte 
 manner in which you anfwer a cafe propofed in my 
 other Piece. The cafe was plain, and I humbly 
 conceive quite to the point in hand. The fubftance 
 of the quefi:ion was this •, Had Enoch, Noah, or Mel- 
 chizcdeck, been contemporary with Mofes, would he 
 have permitted them to comm.union in the pafchal 
 fupper while uncircunicifed Or had Noah been pref- 
 ent when the tabernacle was erefted, and had been 
 difpofed to have given the people a fermon, upon the 
 incarnation of the Son of God, and the righteouf- 
 nefs of faith, of which that facred ftruflure was typ- 
 ical, would not Mofes and the people have cheerful- 
 ly heard him ? And yet the pofitive law of Jehovah 
 would have forbidden his purtaking at the pafchal 
 fealt. 
 
 ment. No man ever pretended it" " That if tlitre be ro dirtil evi- 
 dence for ;nf.iiit baptilm fiojo the iiiftorical rclatinn of fafts in the 
 New Itftarncnt iureiy no argument ag<iii:il it can be made out from 
 the f.Uiu-c of the- [a< i tG wiiteri iii reference thcicunLo." Defence of 1b- 
 fan: buptilni, p. 71;, 85 
 
 *• lo ad.uit tiiat tiie fi'cnce of fcripture rcfpeding any point in dif- 
 
 ' pute affurds full evidence in its f.ivoiir, appears to mc as irrational a^co 
 udmit tbe evidence cf the viatch fi t to keep the body of Jtfus, vifi^ 
 
 ' declared that his dilclpUs fiok him away wiiile tuev slui- v! 
 
Plan of Communion, is'c. 
 
 145 
 
 . To this you anfwer, « We fliall not difpute but that 
 Mofes would have admitted thofe ambalTadcrs to preach ; 
 being convinced of their divine commiffion Nor would 
 he have forbidden their partaking of the pafchal feaft, 
 had they been clrcumcifed, whether it were done in 
 infancy or adult age, before or after believing, with 
 a knife, a razor, a fcythe, a fickle, or even a (harp 
 ftone.' 
 
 Sir, did you think this would be confidered as an 
 anfwer ? It certainly will not. Inftead of looking the 
 argument fairly in the face, you have endeavoured quite 
 to evade it. 
 
 You agree that Mofes would have admitted thofe am- 
 bafladors to preach. The queftion then was, whether 
 he would have received them to the pafchal feaft, 
 while uncircumcifed ? Inftead of a dire£t anfwer, 
 YQu reply, < Nor would he have forbidden their par- 
 taking of the pafchal feaft had they tec'ft circumci- 
 fed.' True, Sir ; nor will your viaory coft you any 
 thing ; for this point was never difputed. You pro- 
 ceed to remark feveral circumftances refpecling circum- 
 cifion ; but take particular care not to mention any 
 which would affect the validity of the rite. Nor are 
 the cafes parnlle! between the circumftances mentioned, 
 and that of intaut baptiihi. This will fufficiently ap- 
 pear by what foil ows I as 1. * ^'^hether it were done m 
 infancy or adult age,' no matter which ; for i'lfants of 
 eight Jays old were cxpreisly mentioned in the inftitu- 
 tion, and they were commanded on that dav to circum- 
 cife them ; and repeated examples from fcripture prove 
 that it was done. Let the right of infants to bisptiiin 
 be as fairly made out, and the point will be given up. 
 2. Whether « before or after believing this was en- 
 tirely immaterial. For the command was, Ami he that 
 is eight days old fljall he ciriunuifcd anicng you, every maw 
 child in ycur generations, he that is lorn in the hiife or 
 bcit^ht 'with money of any Jl ranger, ivhick is not of thy fed — 
 m'ujfl needs be circtimciftd.* It hence follows, that believ- 
 ing was not required in the fubjefts for circumcifion, 
 nor yet that the parents ftiould be believers \ for th<. 
 
 * Gen. XV i. ii, 13. 
 O 
 
U6 
 
 Olfervatlans on the 
 
 child o£ an idolatrous heathen, bought for a flave, had 
 as fair a claim to that inftitution, as any of the believing 
 fons of Abraham. This cannot be faid of the gofpel 
 inftitution ; for when one faid, See here is water ) what 
 doth hinder me to be baptized ? The reply was, If 
 thou helievcjl with all thine heart, thou viayejl* And al- 
 though fome believing parents claim the privilege of 
 baptifm for their children, I do not remember to have 
 heard that any ever did for their Jcrvants. Nor does 
 the benevolent do<ll:rine of infant baptifm make any pro- 
 vifion for the ill-fated infant, whofe parents are both 
 unbelievers. 3. Whether circumcifion were performed 
 ' -with a knife, a razor, a fcythe, a fickle, or even a fharp 
 ftone,' we acknowledge it equally valid, providing the 
 rite was performed. So likewife Ihould we look upon 
 baptifm to be valid if performed in Jordan, in the 
 Tiber ^ in a pond^ in a pocly in a ciJJer/i, in a font, or in any 
 other place Vvhere water could conveniently be had fuf- 
 ficient to immerfe in. 
 
 .Cut if you pleafe, Sir, we will vary the circumftances 
 a httle. If inftead of perf"orming the rite upon the 
 part appointed, a perfon had ojiened a vein in his arm, 
 .cut otf the end of his toe, his thumb, or the tip of his 
 right ear ; had either of thefe been performed with all 
 the folemnities of the other rite, it ci^nnot be fuppofed 
 that it would have been accepted for circumcifion. 
 And yet, perhaps, the difiamilarity is not greater be- 
 tween either of the fuppofed. cafes and the commanded 
 rite, than between fprinkling and immerfion. 
 
 We will now take notice of what you obferve (p. 31) 
 You fiy, ' It has been difficult for us to fee the confjft- 
 encv of your coiiduit, in refufing to commune at the 
 Lord's table with our denomination ; while at the fjime 
 time, you pra£lically acknowledge our Minifters to be 
 authorized and qualified to preach the gofpel.' That 
 . we arc perfectly free from incoafiftency will not be pre- 
 tended ; J^or do we think that a compliance with your 
 mode of communion, would free us from the charge. ^ 
 Perhaps with our prefent different views, we cannot, act 
 more confiftently tlv^i- to follow the advice given by 
 
 * Aasviii 36,3: 
 
Plan of Communion^ (jf c. 
 
 U7 
 
 the npoftle j " Whereto we luave already attaiKed, let 
 u-; walk by the fame rule, let us mind the fame thing."* 
 We have aUnined to an agteem^nt in praying to the 
 i ame God and Father of all ; and alfo in preaching the 
 I'ofpel of his Son Jefus Chrill:. But we have not at- 
 tained to an agreement with refpeit to the fubjeib and 
 mode of baptifm ; nor in the vifible qualifications of 
 .i-nunicants for the Lord's table. How can two walk 
 ■.•ther except they be agreed ? But muft we bo 
 rgcd with inconfillency, for not difagrceing in the 
 igs we are agreed in, or merely becaufe we ?.n: 
 ccd in fome tilings, and not in all ? If fo, we mult 
 ently fubmit to the charge, until the happy time 
 :ies when we ir..\n Ice eye to eye. • 
 Although we do not think of clearing ourfelves of 
 mfiftcncy, by charging your conduct witli the fame ;j 
 • it may not be improper here to inquire, whether 
 ;r conduct towards us in fome inftances, be quite 
 iiftent with your profellions of frieudfiiip in eftab-. 
 i.-c'^^^free communion with us ? If you confidor lis ad 
 a branch of Chrift's church, with whom you would be 
 wilting to enjoy Chriftian communion, why do you rcr* 
 fufe to difmifs and recommend your members to us^ 
 when they are in good Icanding in your churches, and 
 wifli to join ours ? I conclude, Sir, you are fenfible 
 that this privilege has been generally denied, and this 
 reafon has been often afligned for the denial ; That to 
 difmifs a member to a Baptift church, would be to ac- 
 knowledge it a church of Chrift. But would you be 
 willing to communicate with any who do not belong to 
 his church ? You certainly would not. 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to mention one thing more. Why 
 are your pulpits fo frequently denied to the Minifters 
 of our denomination ? Is it becaufe they are hetercKlox 
 in doftrine, or vicious in their conduft ? They are nof 
 charged with either. Is it becaufe they may want 
 literary accomplifhments ? This might be imagined, 
 were it not that thofe who poflefs them are often denied 
 as well as others. Is it becaufe we do not communicate 
 with you at the table If you complain of our being 
 
 • Phil. iiL 1 6. 
 
MS 
 
 Obje£lions anfwerei. 
 
 uncharitable in this, remember you are not to render 
 evil for evil \ but contrariwife.* 
 
 Thefe objeflions are not to be taken indifcriminately ; 
 BO, many of our Psedobaptift brethren meet us upon the 
 moft friendly terms •, reciprocal love and efteem mingle 
 in our lociety ; and although we pretend mt to have 
 domitiron over each other's fail h, yet we become helpers of ene 
 einoiher's joy.-\ 
 
 SECTION X. 
 
 Several ObjcBions pariicitlarly anfioercd.-^ The Siibjclf 
 
 coiicluded. 
 
 Sir, I cannot do juftice to myfelf and the de- 
 r.omination to which I belong, without taking notice of 
 feveral charges which you have brought againft us. In 
 fhe firfi: place, you have charged me with * quoting 
 fcripture' in a method calculated to miflead the ignorant 
 and inattentive of ' arrogancy and uncharitablnefs 
 and of « havitig done great injury to the apoftle Paul.' 
 (Page 17, 35, 38.) 
 
 The firft inftance of which you complain, is in the 
 following words j " Sincerity is not the term of com- 
 munion but being conformed to the apoftles' doctrine, 
 ?.nd continuing ftedfaftly therein. A61s ii. 4-2." Upon 
 which you thus ohferve ; * From the manner of your 
 citing, or rather alluding, to this text, it would be nat- 
 nral' to expedt that upon examination we fliould find 
 rhe infpirecl writer defcribing the terms of communion.' 
 I conclude, Sir, upon examination this does abundantly 
 
 * Perhaps fome who have thus been denied, by their ' fincere' but 
 differing brethren, have been indulged with the fpacious temple of their 
 royal Mafter, and with much the fame accommodations which he had. 
 Whihl ' The Lord of lords and King of kings, is neither afraid nor 
 Efhanied' to accompany them to fome friendly jft^/</f, or to a humble 
 fall, reicmbling the birth-place of Immanuel ; and thcra blcffcs their 
 Ubouri> to the comfort and falvation of his people, 
 f 2 Cor. i. 24. 
 
ObjeBions anfivered. 
 
 149 
 
 appear. Nor am I convinced, that the palTage is not 
 jiertincnt to the purpofe for \vhi»h it was cited ; and 
 if it does not defcribe the terms of communion. I know 
 not of any one which does. « But (you fay) inliead of 
 this, we find him fr.npiy relating the conduct of fome 
 young converts, who had been already admitted to 
 communion.' But, Sir, do you not miftalce ? H'.^ is 
 l.ere defcribing the very manner in whicii tbeie, con- 
 . ts were admitted ; and which fully fiiows the * apof- 
 ^;ic practice.' 
 
 Bin what is the accoimt given of their proceedings 
 You anfwer, < Let us read tue 41(1 and 42d verfes in 
 connexion.' Then they luho gla Jy rtccroed the word ivere 
 baptized ; and the fame day there ^ivere added unto them 
 abcut three thou/and fouls. And they ccntinued Jlcdfalily in 
 the apojilei doHrine and feiloiijhip, and in kn aking of breads 
 and in prayers. And were they not baptized until they 
 received the word No, they were not ; and were 
 they baptized and r.o others .'' Tlie fcripture is totally 
 • filent' as to any others. Nor did they join the body 
 of believers or church, until they received the word, 
 and were baptized. You fay, ' 'I'hey had already been 
 admitted to communion.' I would beg to know, where 
 you find any account of their having been admitted be- 
 fore this ? 
 
 You farther obfei ve, * That any perfon of good dil- 
 cernment may fee, that in this text thej-e is no appear- 
 ance of delign to afcertain the terms of communion..' 
 Let ti.e defign be what it may, here is evidcsitly afcer- 
 tained the apcftolic prr.dice \ and the exacl manner, 
 ftep by flep, in wluch the^' proceeded to communion. 
 
 ihe pafiage of fcripture which you isitrouuce, as be- 
 ing fo very appofite to your mode of communion, and 
 on which you lay much la els, is this ; ' Bt ye foUowsrs of 
 ■God as dear children^ 'i he ' diicerning reader' u'Ul novv 
 judge, v.hether in this pall>ge tiiere is any greater < ap- 
 pearai^ce of delign, to afceitain cbe tCirns of commu- 
 nion,' than in the one which i alluded to. But, how- 
 ever, <« If to be conformed to the apoiliitis* dodrine, and 
 continuing fcedfaftly in it," be a dangerous pradtice, giid 
 ' calculated to njifiead the igno/ anc in?.t:eutiYc,' wc 
 
 o 2 
 
Objeciiijfis anfniuyeil. 
 
 fhould be glad to fee the danger pointed out, and a bet- 
 ter fyftem of doctrine propofed for imitation. 
 
 In my other Piece, in anfwering feveral pleas in fa- 
 vour of free communion, I obferved that it had been 
 urged, *' That the fcripture account of baptifm, was 
 left in fo much darknefs and ambiguity, both as to the 
 fubjefts and mode, that nothing certain could be deter- 
 mined." In remarking upon which I made the follow- 
 ing obfervation ; «« It may be remembered that when 
 the talents were committed to the fervants to occupy,- 
 the two who improved made no complaints ; the ether 
 had a hard malter, an auftere man, and a great many 
 difficulties flood in the way of duty." After making 
 your farcaftical paraphrafe upon my obfervation, you 
 bring forward your charge of ' arrogancy and unchar- 
 itablenefs to which it may be replied — The obferva^ 
 tion was defigned entirely for thofe who make th« 
 above plea ; and no one will feel himlelf injured by the 
 application, if he be not the charadter defcribed. And 
 however ' arrogant and uncharitable' it may appear, 
 thus to blame the conduft of thofe v.-iio bring forward 
 the plen, fo long as they are conlidere J only as fervams ; 
 it cannot be thought more fo, than the plea itfelf, againlt 
 Chrift our royal mafter. 
 
 To plead the want of fufficient light in the fcriptures, 
 as the reafon of our wrong fentiments, is indeed to im- 
 peach Chrift. " To fuppofe this, (faith Dr. Hopkins) 
 is a reproach on divine revelation, and the Author of it, 
 and an implicit denial that it comes from God."* 
 
 But laftly, you accufe me of having ' done great in- 
 jury to the apoftle Paul.' If it be lb I fhall be ferry 
 indeed. Cut what have I done to the apoflle ? Why 
 you fay, ' You have quoted his words without ?.ny 
 appearance of regard to the connexion.' And what 
 then ? Is this injuring the apoftle ^ Are we never to 
 ufe the words of the infpired writers in any other fenfe 
 than what they did Do not the beft writers frequent- 
 ly quote fcripture (by way of accommodation, or for the 
 fake of the phrafe) without attending ftridtly to the 
 connexion ? In fhort, have you not frequently done it 
 
 • Vid. Syftem, Vol. ii. p. 3«3. 
 
CijiLiiohi uti/wtred. 
 
 151 
 
 Tourfelf ? One or two of your quotations will deter- 
 mine the matter. ' As a man thinheth in his heart fo is 
 he' Did you attend to the connexion here, and ufe 
 the words in the fame fenfe which the royal preacher 
 did ? It is evident you did not. Again, when you 
 v. ould fix the charge of inconliftency upon us, for re- 
 ttillng to comununicate with thofe with whom you 
 luppole Chrift communes, you can introduce the apoftle 
 Paul as exhorting the Baptifts, * to be followers of God 
 as dear children.' I lhall not lay that you have ' great- 
 ' injured the apoftle but I hardly think that in the 
 ..iTa^e above, he had reference to our communicating 
 ith you at the Lord's table. 
 
 The palT.ige which I quoted was the following ; 
 Now we command you in the name of our Lord Je- 
 :s Chrift, that ye withdraw yourfelves from every 
 -other who walketh difordei'Iy, and not after the tra- 
 ition which he received of us."* In applying this to 
 TV brethren, I obferved, "It may he your duty to with- 
 raw from them whom you confider as not conformed 
 3 the tradition of the apoftles, fo far, as not to partake 
 gether at the Lord's table." No candid mind can be 
 ; a lofs, as to the exa^l fenfe in which I ufed the apof- 
 le's words ; nor can they think that I ufed the word 
 adiiion abfolutelv in the fame fenfe which he did. 
 ' i,s wortls are cjuite in the imperative^ m.ine in the mild 
 ; i'fuficlive mood. 
 You have been pleafod to ftyle St. Paul an ' eminent 
 ■nee maker and have coUeited many paflages of fcrip- 
 iire to prove, that to this end * he ivas made all things to 
 ... (not for the fake of communicating with them, 
 * that he might by all means SA\E Jhne.' But fliall 
 \vf, from the condei'cending light in which you have 
 repiei'ented the apoftle, conclude, that if he were among 
 the Baptifts, he would become a Baptift ; and fully ap- 
 prove of their mode of baptilm, and of their denying the 
 right of infants, while at the fame time he might know, 
 that the inftituiion did not require the former, and that 
 it exprefsly enjoined the latter ? Or on the other hand, 
 if be were among the Psedobaptifts, fliall we fuppofe 
 
 • sTheff. iii. 6 
 
152 
 
 OhjcEi'tons anfwei'Ld. 
 
 him one with them ; and th:it he wcould cordially ap- 
 prove of their mode of baptizing infants, when at the 
 fame time he might know, that neither ftibJeBs nor mode 
 were according to the inftitution ? Would fober reafon 
 venerate fuch a rharadter as this ? No. It would look 
 upon him as an unprincipled tinie-ferver. 
 
 To fuppofe that St. Paul would conform to every 
 party which he might occafionally be among, would be 
 to make him refemble t\\zt prcttiiar afiimal, which par- 
 takes of the colour of every fubftance which it happens 
 to be upon ! I confefs, I form no fuch opinion of this 
 great apofHe's catholicifm ; but conclude, were he 
 among us, he would fay to thofis in the right, « Now 
 I pratfe you, hret!:ren, that ye remember me in all things, and 
 keep the ordinancts, as I delivered them to you." But to 
 thofe in the v>'rong, " Nciu in this that I declare unto youy 
 I prn 'ife y^tt ?i:L"* 
 
 But we pafs on, 
 
 S:-cchdly, To confider the charges which you exhibit 
 againft our fentiments. In your viith. part you proceed 
 to iliow, wh?-t appears to you to be the natural tenden- 
 cy of our fentiments and practice ; and finally conclude, 
 that they • tend to break up all churches, and to de- 
 stroy all vifible communion among Chriftians.'f If this 
 be the cafe, no wonder you are alarmed. But, Sir, you- 
 miftHke. Tlie churches of our denomination in 
 America, contain upwards of fixty thjiifand members^ 
 which hold vifible communion together : nor did I ever 
 know, that any attempt had been made on our part, to 
 deftroy the vifible communion of Chriftians in general. 
 And cortair.ly, were our fentiments univerfaliy to op- 
 crate, they would unite in one great body all Chrillians 
 to the ends of the earth. 
 
 * 1 Cor. 3, ' 7. 
 f Although 1 have not written documents to prove, yet I have cred* 
 iblt information, tliat a Conference or Council was i'omc time Cace 
 called at Well Stockbridge, to advifi-, whether it were conCfient for the 
 two denominations in that place t ) 1 ui!d a church, and walk together. 
 It was unanimoufly apreeGd in the negaiive. Two of tlie Pstdobaptiil 
 Miniftcrs were. Rev. Dr. WtsT, Rev. Mr. Camp, iiuptills, Rev. Mcflii. 
 V/ottui.N., and Blood. 
 
ObjeHions aufwered. 
 
 153 
 
 But you object again and fay, * Your fentlnient and 
 pradtice tend to lead people to place the eJfciK-e of religion 
 ill the external obfervance of ceremonial inftitutions, to 
 the neglecl: of the weightier matters of the law.' 
 
 TJiis, Sir, is not true. For our fentiments carry the 
 fuUeft demonllration to the contrary. It is a fact uni- 
 verfally known, that no perfon can be admitted as a 
 member in a Baptift church, let his exirrnals be what 
 they nay, without fufficient evidence that he has expe- 
 rienced a change of heart, and has become a real Chrif- 
 tian. We do not baptize perfons to m:i'rce them Chrif- 
 tians, but becaufe we look upon them to be fuch already. 
 And it is well known, that a perfon cp.naot be accepted 
 wiih us, on account of lineal defccnt from Abi-aham, or 
 any other believer j nor by virtue of a pretended^f^/frfl/ 
 holinefs ; nor can they make a profeOion by proxy or 
 fponforj i but by their own voluntary act Y/ e never 
 baptize perfons out of our ordinary way, who are in 
 danger of death ; ncr do we ever give the communion 
 to any who are unbaptized. How then can you pofli- 
 bly fay, wirh any appearance of modefty cr juftice, that 
 pur • fentiments tend to lead people to place the ejpnce 
 of religion in the external obferv.ince of ceremonial 
 iailitutions .'" 
 
 You follow this charge with a number of ungenerous 
 refleiflions upon the Minifters of our denomination. 
 To make this appear, I would only alk ; Were I to 
 charge your iNiinifters with ' taking up much of their 
 time in public and in private, difputing about' infant bap- 
 tifm ; and Hiould have the vanity to fay, they had bet- 
 ter « inculcate upon their hearers the nature and i.mpor- 
 tance of univerfal benevolence, the duties of brotherly 
 love, juftice, mercy, and compaffion ; to live ufcful lives, 
 ferviiig their generation by the will of God (as it theie 
 were almoll, if not entirely negledled ; and ihould af- 
 fure them, that if they would take my advice) ' they 
 would do much more good in the world, appear much 
 iefs like the Scribes and Pharifees, which xhey now re- 
 fefltible, ' and much more like Christ jjnd his Apos- 
 tles,' which ne fo exaftly imitate; wouli you -not 
 tliink me juflly chargeable with * aryogai:cy and uad.ar- 
 
Objeclions atifwsred^^ 
 
 itahhncfs /" I leave the matter to your own feelings. A 
 word to the wile is fufficient. 
 
 Another thing you charge us with, is, that wc lay an 
 ' undue Jlrefs^ upon the ordinance of bnptifm, or at leaft 
 upon our particular mode. This comes rather with an 
 ill grace, from one of a denomination, which evidently 
 make as much, if not more of the ordinance than 
 we do. 
 
 But v^'e will not reft the matter here, without % fair 
 examination. Do we infift on baptifm in cry mode, ais 
 ejfiutial to falvation ? You allow that we do not. Do 
 we place it in the room of ;Yfl'pf;«/«_§' WW, and think that 
 by our immerlion we wa(h away our fins ? No, you 
 acquit us from this alfo. Do we look upon it as an in- 
 ftitution of Chrift, which we are facredly bound to ob- 
 lerve ? We do j and fo do you. Do we look upon it 
 us an enjoined pre-requilite to communion ? We do j 
 and fo do Psedobaptifts in general. But how does it 
 appear then that we lay an ' undue ftrefs' upon it 
 Why you fay, < I veril; yiv7r .''—(quite a conclufive way 
 of arguing ; but go on) ' I verily fear, that with maiiy, 
 a change in fcvA'uncnt in favour of your opinion, lias 
 been allowed great'weight as an evidence of a real change 
 of hvart.' I with, Sir, you had proved the matter, in- 
 ftead of fuggefting your fears. But you add, « It has 
 been freciiiently mentioned by thofe of your ■denomina- 
 tion, as an evidence of great lelf-denial, f(>r a perfon to 
 be a Baptift, or to be plunged. And when I hear fuch 
 things, it always excites fears in my mind.' — Sir, the 
 mere thoughts of a pcrfon's being plungcdy feems to 
 have ftruck you with a hydropb.obia, and quite agitated 
 your mind ! — But let us try calmly to examine the 
 raatter. 
 
 It will probably be granted, that the time has beeni 
 when it required fome degree of filf-d'-nial to be a Bap- 
 tift ; when the pen of the hiftorian, and the tongue of 
 the orator, were inviuioufly employed, in reprefenting 
 us in the mofl: ridiculous and whimfical light ; while 
 the pulpit thundered, and tTie prefs groaned with heavy 
 charges againft the daring innovators. At the fame 
 time, the civil law added its mild difcipline of ejcciiony 
 
OhjeSnom nnfivertd. 
 
 155 
 
 hanljJ .iui::, ■and prefer ion . But thanks be to Heaven, 
 a milder morn has dawned upon us •■, the crofs is 
 lightened, and we have few complaints of this kind to 
 make. 
 
 It may be proper now to corifider, whaty?/-^ has 
 been, and laid upon this ordinance, by P?edobaptifts. 
 It was faid by our Saviour, " Except a man be born of 
 tuattr, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
 This paflfage was very early expounded literally of wa- 
 ter baptifm, and the confequence admitted, that no per- 
 fon could be faved without it. Hence all infants dying 
 unbaptized, inevitably perifhed. 
 
 In the year 416, a council was held at Mela in Nu- 
 midia, in order to eftablifh a law to compel Chriflians 
 lo baptize their infants. They iffued twenty-feven 
 D€W commandments, among which are the following. 
 " It is the pleafure of all the bifliops prefent in this 
 holy fynod to order, 1. That whofoever faith Adam 
 was created mortal, and would have died, if he had not 
 finned ; be accurfed. 2. Alfo it is the pleafure of the 
 bifhops to order, that whofoever denieth that infants 
 newly born of their mothers are to be baptized, or faith 
 that baptifm is to be adminiftered for the remiffion of 
 their own fins, but not on account of original fin derived 
 from Adam, and to be expinied by the laver of regene- 
 ration j be accurfed."* 
 
 In the reign of the emperor Charlemagne, a law was 
 eftablifhed, making it death for a man to refufe to be 
 baptized ; and a heavy fine was levied on the parent, 
 who did not have his child baptized within the year. 
 But as at firft; they only baptized at two times in the 
 year, it was found that many died between } to remedy 
 which, priefls were empowered to baptize at any time, 
 and in any place, in cafe of fickncfs. When it was re- 
 marked that a prieft was not always r.t hand, new canons 
 
 •• Vij.^ Cpnci[. ?<^iievitin,. in Robirifon. " An 'lortft indignation, 
 (Ijyi ji hSftoriai]') fifes at the lo-jr.il of fuch tyranny; und if a n-.an 
 ■v?eTr (]riv;r to the n*cc(T:ty of cK.icilni^ 6ix lirint out of tw o canditlart j, 
 it would rot bL- .-.udin, it would he Saint Babani, the fon < f Bofor, wl.o 
 i;idef4 ioYj:4. thi^ \?.2g«t of , UTTigiitcoufncrs, as n^ny other faints huvc 
 d.iDi:; but w ho with aU his rryduefs had refpedl enout'li I'oi tho Deity 
 to fay, Ht-U- fi^il I cur/i 'u b m G J hatbn^t c^rfcd "- 
 
156 Obje^ions anfivered. 
 
 empowered him to depute others to perform the cere- 
 mony, and midwives were licenfed. It happened fome- 
 times, while the midwife was baptizing a child not like- 
 ly to live many minutes, the mother was neglefted and 
 died. It was finally decreed, that any body, licenfed or 
 unHcenfed, a Jew, or degraded prieft, a fcuUion or felon, 
 might baptize.* 
 
 Let us now attend to an inftance of a later date. 
 About the year 1690, there were two dilTenting Minif- 
 ters in W?.pplng. Hercules Collins, who taught a Bap- 
 tift congregation •■, and- Francis Mence, who taught a 
 congregation of Independents. Collins publifhed a 
 book of reafons for believers' baptifni, in which he ob- 
 ferved, among other things, that there was no " rcafon 
 to baptize an infant under pretence of faving it ; for 
 that original lin was not wafhed off by baptifnial water, 
 but by the blood of Chrifi:, and the imputation of his 
 righteoufr.eis." Mence thought it his duty to guard 
 his congregation from this error ; and he both preached 
 and printed, th.r.t this was " infant-damn'ing dcFlrine^^ 
 «« The princii^le (he faid) evidently excluded dear in- 
 fants from the kingdom of God, which was an auda- 
 cious cruelty ; fending them by fwarms into hell !" 
 Collins attempted to explain himfelf, anrd vindicate his 
 dodtrine — but all in vain. The oppolition rofe to fuch 
 a height, that his life was endangered ; the ftreets re- 
 founding with the cries of tender moihers, who fliriek- 
 ed as thev fold hih, " Tlicre go,'s C-iLitis, who holds the 
 damnation of infants. "f And all this becaufe he de- 
 nied the neceflity of baptifin to their falvation. But 
 the fentiments of :he prefent day, next call for our at- 
 tention. 
 
 The fonn of fervice now in ufe among our brethren 
 of the Epifcopal church, leads us to fuppofe, that they 
 afcribe quite as much eiTtcacy to the ordinance as we 
 do. For they, ima;ediately after baptizing, make the 
 foUowiiig addrefs : " Seeing, dearly beloved brethre«, 
 that'this child is i-.-^cuiratt, and grafted into the body of 
 Chrift's church, let'us give thanks to Almighty God for 
 
 » Robinfoii's Hill p 417- Ami Primitive Chrillianity, p 191 
 f Robiiifon's Hiftoiy, p. 476. 
 
Gbje^i'nm mifwtred. 
 
 1-57 
 
 thelc benefit?. — ^^Ve yield thfe heart t tltanks, molt 
 nicrciful Father, that it hath pleafeJ thee to Vig-nerate 
 tlii> infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for 
 thine own child by adopfisn." And when the children are 
 rhoiight capable of catechetical initruction, the catechift. 
 .i;s interrog;ates ; " Who gave thee this name ? My 
 i >nfors in my baptifm, whf.kkin I was made a mem- 
 . » of Ciirill, a child of God, ?.nJ aa inheritor of the 
 I;ingdo.ii of heaven."* Dr. Hopkins, when fpeakuig 
 ur the Wfftminfter Catechifm, takes notTce of thi* an- 
 I'wer 5 "Baptifm is a facrament, wherein the wail ing 
 v. ith water, in the name, &c. cLthftgn'-f^ and feal our in- 
 'fting into Chri/i. — ^This catechllm is received by the 
 lurch of Scotland, and by all, or moil of the Prelby- 
 rian and Congregational churches in England, Ireland, 
 L.iJ America ; and taught to their children." He then 
 nclds, " If baptif.n lignifics and feals wlut it is here faid 
 to do ; then infants, when they are baptized, are vifibly, 
 or in the view of the churdj, ingrafteil into Chrijl, and 
 iHide partakers of the blelllngS of the covenant of 
 grace. "f 
 
 Now, Sir, let us jnft coUefl thefe fcattered rays of 
 e vidence to a focus. — To conclude that all who die uu- 
 b aptized eternally " perith to '« levy heavy fines" to 
 oblige parents to baptize their children ; to «< licenfe 
 even mid-wives to baptize, rather than it ihouid not be 
 done ; to *' curfe" thofe who deny the necelfity of it to 
 tiie falvatiort of infants ; to call the denial of it " injant- 
 damning d'jElrine " to thank God that the infant by 
 b iptifm is " rf^£«fifl/f(y to teach children to believe, 
 that in their baptifm they were " made memhers cf Chrifi^ 
 and ci.'ildren of G'jd" and that baptifm doth fignify, and 
 " Jtcil their ingr.ifting into Chrijl,"^ and that thev are 
 thereby made partakers of the bleflings of the covenant 
 of grace. 
 
 If, after attending to the evidence here exhibit- 
 ed, the charge againft us of laying an '« undue Jlrefs" 
 upoa baptifm iho'oi I be continued ; the author of the 
 ' Friendly Letter' is modei'tly requeued to prod ice proof 
 
 ♦ ViA The ofBce of public biptifin of infants, afld ihscafcebiiu, 
 \ Syftem, Vt!. ii. p. 394. 
 
 R 
 
158 
 
 ObjeSHons anfwered. 
 
 from the writings of the Baptifts to (how, that they al- 
 cribe any greater elEcacy to it than their Pjedobaptift 
 brethren do.* 
 
 The laft thing which I fliall remark upon, is a < query' 
 which you fuggeft in the following words : < May it 
 not be owing to the manner in which fame preachers of 
 your denomination have treated the fubjedt of baptifm, 
 that fo many profelTors of your fe£l: have turned Deifts^ 
 Shakers, Uinverfalijis, &c. ? ' Upon this I would briefly 
 obferve j It is thought you would have afted more con- 
 fiftently with your title page, and other profeflions of 
 candour, that if you had known any inftances in which 
 the JuhjeEi had been fo treated, to have pointed them out 
 to the imprudent teacher, rather than to have caft 
 t\\Qjlur indifcriminately upon the whole denomination. 
 But, Sir, we cannot admit the fuppofed fadl to be true. 
 For although it may be difficult to determine the exaft 
 numb r of Dei/ls, Shakers, and Univerfali/}s, and what 
 their fentiments have heretofore been ; yet we think 
 ourfelves under as good advantages to know the rtate 
 of our churches^ ?is any others can be : for we have an 
 annual correfpondence with them from the diftri(Si: of 
 Maine to the ftate of Georgia ; and aifo with our breth- 
 ren on the other fide the Atlantic. Hence we are con- 
 fident, that if they principally originate from us, their 
 number muft be fmali. 
 
 But (hould it even be allowed, that a greater number 
 of our denomination had gone over to the a'>ove fenti- 
 ments than from any other, will it hence follow, that 
 
 • It is a queftion with fome thinking perfons, whether to teach 
 children to bcUeve, that by l)iptifrn they are " regeii-rated" and " In- 
 grafted into Chrifl, and made part»kers of the blefliu^s of the covenant 
 of it not laying an . und le flrefs upon the . r.ii.iance ? — I will 
 
 add tlie fentinicnt of a late writ.T " A virtaous l^liion," I'aich he, 
 "of the Chrirtiaii religion is fiunded in faich in ChriR, and from this 
 firft cU nient all after aAions naturally flow : but where, as in proftlfing 
 infants, the primordial element is not and cannot be, religion rifrs on a 
 poftnlinum, or afTumcd proof. The lives of fuch nominal Chrittians 
 give to ) much evidence, thit they arc Chriftians only l>y prcpoffririons, 
 and hence come innumerable errors, p iflio and vices Having no 
 reafons cf their own for eitiier faith or virtue, they know nxliin^ of 
 *he religion which they profef), and avoid none of th; crimes it w:- 
 ,iiteo«Ud to defiroy." 
 
ObjeHiens atifwered. 
 
 15S 
 
 :[ was beciule they had once been 'plunged all under 
 'rater?' Do you. ferioully think that one in thirty 
 would aclcnowledge, that any circunalbmces conneded 
 with their bein;^ iinmerfed, led them to embr.ice thofe 
 I'eiitimcnts ? It is doubted whether this would appaar 
 upon examination. 
 
 You inform us that you *ruggen: this query without 
 any defign to reproach.' Sir, your drft^in falls not 
 within our jurifdiclion to judge; but the query itfe!f, we 
 are obliged to view as a groundlefs, illiberal reflection. 
 
 If the caufe you are engaged in cannot be fupported 
 by f'yber faffs, founded on rational cjidence, without 
 making ufe of fuch feeble auxiliaries as your own ^ fears, 
 fuggifiions, and queries^ you will not think it .ftrange if 
 we ihouid not become convert? to ycur fentiments. 
 But you continue your fuggcition and afk, ' Is it not 
 fuppofeable, that from the manner in which fame have 
 treated the fubjeft of baptifm, theie apoliates were firft 
 led to fuppofe it a great attainment in religion, to be 
 pUinged all under water } This fuppolition places the 
 whole of thefe apoflates (as you call them) to our ac- 
 count : and that they were led on to this apoftafy 
 merely by wrong iiiftructions refpecling baptifm. But, 
 do you know this certainly to be the cafe with any one 
 individual } or wit!i any conllderable number of them ? 
 If not, your fuppolicion mud appear in an unfriendly 
 light, and ' calculated to miflead the ignorant and in- 
 attentive.' 
 
 You conclude your alarming defcription, by prefenl- 
 ing them to the eye of imagination, as « ncnu ftnking'm 
 the quickfands which border on final pe. dition ! Fan- 
 !-> ai fatal box could fcarce contam more evils than you 
 trib ite to baptifn by immeraon ! Enlightened reafon^ 
 . wover, makes a paufe, — and alks, Can it be f ? Hoary 
 . ^ rience inltantly comes forward, and aflerts that the 
 ii known to be otherwife. 
 O tiiou condelcending Redeemer, is an humble imi- 
 tation of thy lunoc^'nt example thus charged with load- 
 ing the_/i^/«; way to infiddiity, and ' final perdnio i r' Haft 
 thou not com nandaJ us to follow thee ? and faid, <' If 
 ye I'jve ma, keep iriy coaima^idments r" 
 
1G(I 
 
 Cohcliifion^ 
 
 Sir, I have now finilho;! my reimrlcj apoa y<xur 
 Erie.i.lly Ldiei', aivl fiiall only bsg leave to ad.l my fin- 
 cero wilh-os for your profperitr in the cajfe f truth ; 
 and that you mriy be honoured as an inftrument ia 
 bringing ^luny Ions to glory. I now cheerfully fub- 
 mit the foregoing obfervations to the judgment of a 
 candid public. At the fame time humbly imploring 
 the Father of mercies fo to o*eirule the prefent coa- 
 troverfy, that trutii may be fupported, error detefted, 
 and the ordi.'i.i/ices rettored to their primitive purity : 
 that we may be agreed, not only fo as to hold occalionaL 
 communion together, but according to the apoftle's de- 
 fire, that wc may he perfefflj jniied tj^dhcr in the Uime 
 mind, and in the fame judgiitcnt, •with refpeft to the 
 MODE and ORDER- of gofpel inflitutions ; and that ive 
 ma\; all /peak th: fiWte thing.. Then indeed, what the 
 prophet faw in viiron lhall in a gofpel fcnfe be accom- 
 pli I hetl The tnvy of Ephraim /hiill depart, and the adver- 
 furies of Judah fh.ill he cut off t Ephraim Jball not env^ 
 'Judah, and Judah /hall not vi.\ Ephraim* With joy we 
 anticipate the happy day, when in a peculiar fenfe, The 
 Lord fhall be King ever all the earth : in that day there 
 Jhall be one LoRD, and his name one Jf One faith .' One 
 baptifm !% His church, one b^dy ; and the watchmen^ 
 with regard to gofpel inflitutions,_/&ij// fee eye to eye ; and 
 all difputing ceafe forever. 
 
 While waiting the arrival of that happy period, Tt- 
 fiiail be my conftant prayer, 
 
 " If I am right, thy grace impart, 
 
 Mc in the right to ftay ; 
 If I am lui onj^, O teach my heart 
 
 I'o find t\\i.X. l/cttct itiuy." 
 
 *lfaL xi. ly. I Zech. xiv 9. { Eph. iv. ^. 
 
 In page 67, ftcotxJ paragraph, inftcad of the three firft lines, read as- 
 fbllows : — Tf indeed it be t-vU'tnt frtm fcriftute, " 'Ti.it note but fucb, tvlo 
 xtc tiui vi/il 'y, tind in lie cLi^ritulle JtnUment of the (buret, Mievttf," &t» 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 Particular Communion 
 
 OF 
 
 THE BAPTIST CHURCHES, 
 
 EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED. 
 IN THREE PARTS. 
 THE FIRST — Published originally in. 1789 ; 
 
 THE second—In 1794; 
 
 THE THIRD — Ks ApffNoix, containing Additional 
 Observations and Arguments, with Strictures on 
 f VERAL late Publications. 
 
 BY THOMAS BALDWIN. 
 PART III. 
 
 Boflon : 
 
 Primed and fold by Manning ^ Loring, No. 2, Cornhill. 
 1806. 
 
 S 
 
DismcT OF AlMSAcausBtTi', to wit: 
 
 BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the tenth day of Scptemher, in 
 the thirty-firft ) car of die independence of ibe Uniied States of 
 America, Mann i no & Lo k i ng, of the faid diftrift, have depof- 
 ited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof ihey claim ai 
 Proprietors, in the words following, to wit: — "The Baptif:n of Be- 
 lievers only, and the Particuhr Communion of the Raptill Churches, 
 explained and vindicated. In Three Parts. The firll^publiflied ori- 
 gmally in 178Q; the fecond — in 1704; the third^an Av)pcndix, con- 
 tainiitf; Additional Obfervations and Arguments, with Striftures on 
 feveral late Publications. By Thomas Baldwin," 
 
 In conformity to the Aft of the Congrefs of the United States, enti- 
 tled, " An A£\ for the encouragement of learninc. by fccuring the 
 copies of maps, charts, aiid books, to the Authors ;iiicl Proprietors of 
 fuch ccjMcs, during the times therein tr.cntioied ;" and alfo to an Mi, 
 entitled, " An Aft fupplementary to an Aft, entitled, 'An Aft for 
 the encouragement of learning, by (touring the copies of :naps, charts, 
 iand books, to the Authors ana Prcprieiors of fuch copies, during the 
 limes therein mentioned ;' and eA';niiirg the benefits thereof to the 
 arts of dcfigning, engraving, and 1 jching hiftorical and other prints." 
 WILLIAM S. ^HA VV, Cltrk cf the Dijlrid of MajTachuJitt'. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SECTION 1. 
 
 It is with a mixture of regret and pleafure, that 
 Ae Author of the enfuing work again refumes liis pen 
 m this unpleafant controverfy. To be obliged to oppofe 
 the fentiments and practice of a body of Chriftians, fa 
 fefpeftable for their number, learning, and piety, and 
 fcr many of whom he entertains cordial fentiments of 
 ftiendlhip and Chriftian affection, is matter of no fmali 
 regret. But he feels a degree of pleafure in believing, 
 that he is not influenced by an improper partiality for 
 a particular {eO:, but with a laudable zeal for the honour 
 of Chrift, as Lawgiver and King in Zion. 
 
 The fubjeft of particular conniuniofi, has at length be- 
 come the moft important article of difpure, between 
 the Baptifts and Psdobaptifts. The latter urge their 
 objeftions with much addrefs, and feem determined if 
 we will not give up this part of our practice, lo have no 
 religious connexion with us whatever. 
 
 We have attempted, in a very plain, undifguifed man- 
 ner, to affign the true reafons of our conduct. Thefe 
 have beer, either overlooked, or deemed unfatisfa^bory. 
 They on the other hand have laboured to convince us, 
 that the whole of our prafiice wherein we differ from 
 them, is unfcriptural, and oppofed to the true fpirit of 
 the gofpel. We have, witii all the candour we could 
 command, endeavoured critically to examine and weigh 
 tl^eir arguments, but have not been able to fee their 
 concluiivenefs. Of courCe we remain unconvinced. 
 
164 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 It is a fatSt well known, that the Baptift chunht-o 
 from time immemorial, have in general held and prac- 
 tifed, what is called clofe or particular commutiioh I'hat 
 is, they have refufed to communicate at the Lord's 
 table with thofe whom they deemed unbaptized. When 
 they were few in number, and univerfally defpifed, this 
 was little complained of. It was fometimes juft men- 
 tioned in the clofe of a long catalogue of errors in this 
 way, " And befide all this, they refufe to commune 
 with us." 
 
 "We wifli not to attribute the unufual and increafing 
 oppofition that is made to our fentiments in this particular, 
 to unworthy motives ; but we are at a lofs in fome in- 
 ftances how to account for it, on the principles of Chrif- 
 tian fincerity. Can we fuppofe, that thofe who unceaf- 
 ingly fcandalize our praiftice, and endeavour to repre- 
 fent our fentiments in the moA unfavourable light, are 
 fincerely defirous of communicating with us at the 
 Ivord's table } We certainly cannot, unltfs we fuppofe 
 them as inconfiflent as they reprefent us. For whrt 
 purpofe then, it may be afked, is this kue and ay fet up 
 about clofe communion ? It is believed by niany, that 
 the true anfwer would be, becaufe it is known to be the 
 moft popular objection which can be urged againft our 
 fentiments. Immerilon has confeffedly fo many advan- 
 tages over fprinkling, and the baptifm of a believing 
 adult to that of an unconfcious infant ; that little head 
 could be made againll: a practice which has fo much the 
 appearance of being apoftolic, were it not for its con- 
 nexion with the " antichriftian" fcheine of clofe com- 
 munion. 
 
 Our Paidcbaptift brethren know as well as we, that, 
 cur particular communion is a natural coiifcquence of 
 our i'tntimetits refpefling baptifm It is feen at once, 
 that the former is direftly conne^led with the latttr ; 
 yea, that it arifes out of it. But inAead of approving 
 of it upon this ground, they infer, that our vitwi of 
 baptifm muft be wrong, or they would not produce fiich 
 uppleafant confequences. We are fatisfied that there 
 is fault fomewhere. Either they are to blame for it- 
 Jtclitig the coutijel of God la tut being laptiztd agreeably to 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 tne inftitution ; or we are, for rot acknowledging them 
 to be baptized when we verily believe they are not. 
 
 We think, however, we cannot be confidently blamed, 
 lor refufing to comjiiunicate at the Lord's table witli 
 luch as wc deem unbapti2ed, efpocially by fuch as them- 
 felves hold baptifm to be a pre-requifite for that ordi- 
 nance. This we confider to be precifeiy the ground 
 on which otir Psadobaptirt brethren ftand. We know 
 of none who are eftcemed found in dodtrine, and or- 
 derly in practice, who do not agree with us, in refufing' 
 to communnicate with any perfons however pious and 
 amiable, until tht;y are baptized. 
 
 There are fome indeed, to get rid of the difficulty in 
 r]\€ eafiert way poflible, who tell us, (but who never re- 
 duce their fentiments to practice) ihey couid comntune 
 witb thofe who had never been baptized in any way, 
 provided they had fufficient evidence of their piety. 
 But we conclude the Pa^dobaprifts in general^ would 
 join with us, in rejecting a fentiment ib fubverfive of 
 gofpel order, and fny with the apoftle, '< We have no 
 iuch cuftom, neither the churches of God." 
 
 If thefe obfervations be juft, they will bring us to the- 
 ti ue ground of the controverfy ; which is, not whether 
 we ought to communicate with . unbaptized perfonsj 
 but whether we ought not to believe that to be gofpel 
 baptifm which is adminirtered by fprinkling only, and 
 to i'uch fubie(ft:s as make no profeliion of their faith .'' 
 For notwithlianding they conftantly blame us for refu- 
 iing them communion at the Lord's table, they do, it 
 always upon the fu^ipofition, that they.are baptized as- 
 well as we. Wc have repeatedly declared, that wc 
 could not confcientioufly believe them to be baptized, 
 according to the retjuircment of the inftitution. We 
 chink our brethren ought to believe us. Our practice 
 lu/iiciently demonftrates the fincerity of the declaration, 
 l or could we witli a good confcieuce recede from a 
 pracH^ice fo very obnoxious to other Chviftians, they cer- 
 tainly muft fuppofe wc fliould wifti to do it. Therefore 
 to charge us with holding the fentiment merely from 
 party fpirit, or with aview^to make a fchifm in the 
 body of believers, is both ungenerous and unjuft. We 
 <L2 
 
166 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 folemnly declare, if we know the motives of our con- 
 dutft, that nothing lefs than a confcientious regard to 
 what we believe to be the will of God our baviour 
 manifefted in his word, influences our prai^tice in this 
 particular. 
 
 If we have been able clearly to comprehend and ftate 
 the fubjeft of the difpute, and to fliew where the dif- 
 ficulty lies ; the next queftion will be, What can be 
 done to bring the matter to a favourable ifTue ? We 
 fee at prefent only two ways, in which this can be ef- 
 fefted. The firft is, for each party to drop the difpute 
 wholly, and to conclude his brother may be aChriftian, 
 though in fome points he may be erroneous. Each 
 concluding to retain their fentiments entire, until they 
 are convinced by the light of truth that they are wrong. 
 Determining like the Bcreans to learch the fcriptures, 
 and fee if thefe things are fo ; and in the mean time to 
 unite in every thing in which they are agreed, in aid- 
 ing the common caufe of our glorious Redeemer. 
 
 (Should the above be rejeifted, we conceive the only 
 remaining way will be, for each party to bring their 
 whole ftrength to the conteft, and determine to conquer, 
 or be conquered. 
 
 The former of thefe, is certainly the mnfr pleafant 
 and defirable ; and if it can be thought pradlicable 
 ought to be purfued. What real objedticn can there 
 be to a practice which approximates to that chnnty ivhich 
 MUvfth nil things, hopeth all things ? What ohjeflion ? 
 a very ferious one, fays niy Pa;dobap*i:t brother ! You 
 refule to admit me to your communion table ; and this 
 you pretend to do, becaufe you fay 1 am not rightly bap- 
 tized. You therefore evidently " confider me as one of 
 I lie antichrijliaii world." And by thus treating me, 
 " you place me without, W^^rf are dogs, and forcerers,and 
 whortinongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and 'zukofoi.vcr 
 loveth and maketh a lie."* No, my dear brother, you in- 
 fer too haftily. We do not confider you as «« one of the 
 nntichriftian ivorld" but as a dear child of God : yet we 
 i'erioufiy think you are in an error refpefting baptifm. 
 We can by no means bring ourfelves to believe, that 
 
 • Vid Mr. Audio's Letters, p. j, 8. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 167 
 
 to be a Chrifiian, and to be baptized, are precifely the 
 i.ime thing. You feem to fuppofe, that we lay an un- 
 due rtrefs upon baptifm. But is it not evident that you 
 l.iv much more ? For the want of it, wholly unchi-if- 
 tianizes a perfon in your view : in ours, it only proves 
 ins obedience defective, without impeaching his motives. 
 We fuppofe that b'iminefs tn pari has hcpper.ed to bim, but 
 ;lo not determine his heart to be prevailingly wicked. 
 
 The want of baptifm can take no more from a man, 
 than the poiTeilion of it could add to him ; for if bap- 
 tifm alone would not make him a Chriuian, then the 
 want of it cannot wholly unchriftianize him. Bclides, 
 if you have that charity which beareth all thhigs^ and 
 which endioeth all things^ will it not enable you to bear 
 n.mtk us a little in this Jolh,* if indeed you efteem it to 
 be luch ? 
 
 Should we not all a£l much more in character as 
 Chritlians, to unite in every point of truth in which we 
 are agreed, rather than to treat each other with fuch 
 unchriftian indiflerence, merely becaufe we are not 
 agreed in every thing ? No, replies another Psdobaptiffc 
 brother, all your profellions of friendihip are of no 
 avail, fo long as you " withhold communion from us, 
 thereby treating us as unchriltened heathens, aliens 
 from the church and covenant of God."f My dear 
 Sir, you do not do us juftice. Your inference is the 
 mort unfavourable that could be made. We certainly 
 mean no fuch thing by the practice which you repre- 
 hend ; noi- can we fee that it neceflariiy implies what 
 you infer. Is there no other poflible way in which we 
 I an manifefi: our Chriftian affeftion to each other, un- 
 Lls we meet at the fame communion table ^ If the 
 members of a particular church have no other way of 
 i-xprefllng their love to each other, than at periodical 
 Icaions to meet together at the Lord's table, we mult 
 I onclude they are unacquainted with many of the prin- 
 cipal advantages to be derived from iha Chriftian pro- 
 hdlion. 
 
 The fcriptures lead us to concei-ve that this nsyjlic rl.'e 
 was deligned by our bleiTed Saviour to reprefcrt his 
 
 ♦ 3 Cor. iL I, f Dr. Ofgood's Ulfc. on Baptifm, p. lo. 
 
1G8 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 death, and as an expreffion of our bopeof interoft in it ; 
 and lb, by confequence, to be o/ie token of Chriftian fel- 
 lowfliip. But how many thoufands of Chriftians there 
 are of the fame denomination, who have fellowfhip with! 
 each other, but who never did, and perhaps never will, 
 meet together at the fame facramental table. 
 
 It is fully believed that a confiderable proportion of 
 the two denominations are agreed in the moft important 
 articles of the Chriftian faith. It is hence certainly de- 
 firable they fIiould< unite their efforts to advance this- 
 befl of interefts, and to oppofe the enemies o£ our comr 
 mon falvation^ 
 
 Many of our brethren tell us, they have leng ardentt. 
 ly defired this union among all real Chriftians but 
 — but what ? Why we have, fay they, one very im- 
 portant objeftion ; you will not tidmit us to communion 
 with you. Suppofmg we cannot confcientioufly ; what 
 then ? Why then, we think it beft to have no religious 
 connexion with you whatever. Well, if it muft be fo, 
 it niuft. But admitting we are in an error in this par- 
 ticular, is it of fuch a nature as aftually to forbid all 
 Chriftian iutercourfe with us ? We really believe you. 
 to be in an error as it refpecls both the fubjects and the 
 mode of baptifm. We are willing to allow you to fornn 
 the fame opinion of us with rel'pedt to our terms of com- 
 munion ; (for it muft be remembered that you can readily 
 overlook, all the reft of our errors,; if we would only 
 confent to free communion) now what decifion can it 
 be fuppofed an impartial judge would pais upon our 
 difference of opinion on thefe points ? Would he not 
 rationally conclude, that all who are in heart friendly, 
 to the Lord Jefus ChriiV, and who agree in the effential 
 articles of the Chriftian fiiith, ought cordially to unite 
 their endeavom:^ to build up the caufe of the dear Re- 
 deemer ? Here we think we are willing to meet our 
 brethren, and leave every thing of lefs moment to the. 
 light of. truth to adjuft. Who then are the blameable- 
 caufe of the prefent difunion ? Attempts will undoubt- 
 edly be made, to lay it at the door of the Baptifts : 
 yea, it is already placed to their, account. For, fays ai 
 Rev. Pwdobaptill brother, « Were they equally liberal 
 
APPENDIX. 1G9 
 
 arid candid, (as we are) the utiity of thcfp'irit in the botid 
 of peace mxghx be preferved, and all clamour, ftrife, and 
 divilion, happily prevented. Upon whom then, does 
 the guilt of thefe evils lie ?"* We are unwilling to 
 bear the blame, if we can honourably clear ourlelvcs 
 of it ; and we are determined to make an eiFort to that 
 purpofe. 
 
 In meeting our brethren on the ground above ftPted, 
 we think we meet them fairly. V/e nlk no relinquilh- 
 ment of fentiment on their part. We admit them juft 
 as they are. But in propofing to unite with us, they 
 tnfift upon our giving up an article which is interwoven 
 with every pait of our fentiments as Baptifts. The im- 
 partial will hence judge which party is juftly chargeable 
 with the want of candour. 
 
 If our brethren are determined on this point, that 
 they will have no religious connexion with us, nor fellow- 
 ftiip us as members of the houiehold of faith, unlefs 
 we give up our particular communion, we think we have 
 a right to expert from them fatisfaftory proof of one of 
 the two following articles. Namely, 
 
 F'nj}. That baptifm is not, by the order of the gofpel, 
 required as an indifpenfable pre-requifite to a vilible 
 ftanding in the church of Chrift, and confequently to a 
 participation at the Lord's table. Or, 
 
 Secondly. That neither a viilble profeflion of faith, 
 rror an immerfion in water, are elfential to gofpel bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 We think we have a right to expcvS^ them to furniiTi 
 proof on one of thefe points, or ceafe to blame us for 
 our limited communion. We fee no way at prefent 
 how we can give up the former, or adin'.t the latter, 
 without violating our own confciences. And yet every 
 perfon of common difcernment muft fee, that we prac- 
 tically admit one or the other, by uniting in free com- 
 munion with fuch as we deem unbaptized. 
 
 Will our brethren, who charge us with being con- 
 tracttd in our views, attempt to prove, that believers in 
 the apoflolic age were admitted to communicue to- 
 gether at the Lord's table, without iirft fubmitting to 
 
 • Dr. 0'"gi>od'> Difc.p. xi. 
 
17a 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 baptifm, as a prior inftitution ? We think they will not. 
 An attempt of this kind would have to encounter not 
 only the fciipture hiftory, but the univerfal fentiment 
 and practice of Chriftians of all denominations, from the^ 
 commencement of the gofpel difpenfation, down to the 
 prefent day i we hence conclude none will undertake 
 it. As the fubjeft in difpute has not, as we recoiled, 
 been alTumed on this ground, we fliall not at prefent 
 attempt to adduce arguments to oppofe it. We ftali 
 therefore take it for granted, until fome one attempts to 
 prove the contrary, that the two denominations are 
 agreed on this point. 
 
 The queftion in difpute may be reduced then to this 
 fingle point : Whether thofe who have only been fprink- 
 Icd in infancy, before they had any knowledge of good 
 or evil, and confequently before they were capable ef 
 profefBng faith in Chrift, are to be confidered as bap- 
 tized perfons, (and hence duly qualified for communion 
 at the Lord's table) according to the divine inftitution ? 
 To this queftion, the Bapcifts give their decided nega- 
 tive. They have uniformly infilled, that none have a 
 right to the inftitution, but fuch as profefs to believe 
 •with all the heart* It alfo appears clear to them, that 
 any application of water, fhort of an entire immerfion, 
 or bathing of the whole body, cannot be confidered as 
 gofpel baptifm. The Psdobaptifts take the oppofite 
 fide of the queftion, and attempt to prove the right of 
 infants to baptifm, not from New Teftament authority, 
 but from the covitiafit of circuvuiftsn made with Abra- 
 ham and his feed ; and from the fimentfj of the Jewifli 
 and Chriftian churches. They alfo attempt to juftify 
 fprinkling, or any partial application of water for bap- 
 tifm, principally on the ground that the inftitution is 
 delivered in fuch indefinite language, that nothing more 
 can be pofitively determined, than that water in the 
 name of the facred Trinity is fome how or other to be 
 applied. 
 
 From this plain ftatcment, the reader vyill readily 
 perceive the different ground the parties take, and will. 
 
 * Ads viii. 37. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 171 
 
 be able, It is hoped, in the fequel, to determine fatisfafto- 
 rily which fide has the fupport of truth. 
 
 That we may avail ourfelves of all the light which 
 our opponents have to offer in favour of the above fen- 
 timents, we fliall begin with an examination of their ar- 
 guments in fupport of them. 
 
 SECTION n. 
 
 The Arguments for Infant Memherfhip in the Gcfpel Churcl?^ 
 inferred from the Covenant of Circumctfion, confiderecl. 
 
 The covenant of circumcifion is a general topic 
 reforted to by nearly all the advocates for infant bap- 
 tifm. Few have attempted to defend it as having de- 
 rived its authority entirely from the New Teftament. 
 Hence when you aflc a P^edobaptift for his warrant fat 
 infant baptifm, he will at once refer you to the xviith. 
 chapter of Genefis, and repeat a part of the covenant 
 ■of circumcifion j (for it muft be obferved, that Psedo- 
 baptifts claim no intereft in the greater part of that cov- 
 ^ant, any more than the Baptifts do.) Here he will 
 inform you, that God was gracioufly pleafed to make 
 'a grant in favour of the infant feed of the Jewifli pa- 
 triarch, and promifed that the blefllng of Abraham 
 fhould come on the Gentiles through faith. The fame 
 grant, he will tell you, fecures to the offspring of every 
 believer the right of admiflion to the gofpel church and 
 its privileges. As if this ftatement were an unequivocal 
 anfwer to your inquiry, you may expeft him to turn upon 
 you with an air of affurance, and demand of yOu cate- 
 gorical proof, when and where this rite of infants was 
 roer vacated ? 
 
 But it muft bfe obferved, that this is taking for 
 granted the very point in difpute ; i. e. That infants 
 have a right to gofpel baptifm, becaufe infants under the 
 law had a right to circumcifion. That the male off- 
 fpring of Abrahajtn, and of his natural feed, and of his 
 
172 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 fervants and their feed, were proper fubje6ls of the rii( 
 of circiimcifion, no Baptill: we beheve ever difputed. 
 But, that the partial rite of infants (for it was only fuch) 
 under the legal difpenfation, Ihould, without any renewal 
 of the grant or other intimation, fecure for them gener- 
 ally a right to baptifm under the gofpcl difpenfation, is 
 an inference that cannot be admitted without proof. 
 This proof is what the Baptifts have long alked for, 
 but have never yet been able to obtain. The agreement 
 between thefe two difpenfations will be more particu- 
 larly confidered under the next head. 
 
 Our bufinefs at prefent is, to examine the evidence 
 in favour of uifant memberlhip in the Chriftian church, 
 as founded and refting on the covenant of circumcifion. 
 Faffing over for the prefent, God's covenant with Abra- 
 ham, which contained the promife of the Meffiah, and 
 the bleffing of the Gentile nations in him, we lhall pro- 
 ceed immediately to the confideration of this covenant.* 
 
 In the xviith. chapter of Genefis this covenant is re- 
 corded at large. Tne i'everal articles of it may be enu- 
 merated and diftlngulihed as follows. 
 
 Art. I. / luill make my ccvenant hdnveen me and thee^ 
 AND WILL MULTIPLY THI F. EXCEEBINGLY, Gen. Xvii. 2. 
 
 The promlflory part of this article refpefted the nat- 
 ural offspring of Abraham, and nothing more, as appears 
 by numerous other pafTages of fcripture, as well as the 
 one before us : unlcfs it Ihould be thought that Abra- 
 ham's natural feed was typical of his fpiritual. The 
 promife in this article has been literally and extenfively 
 fulfilled 
 
 Art. II. Behold my avctiant is ivith thee, and thou Pah 
 he a FA7HER OF many nations, ver. 4, 5. 
 
 The fulfilment of this part of the covenant is eafily 
 traced in the facred hiffory. A number of diftin<£t na- 
 tions did arife from the feed of Abraham, fome of which 
 remain to the prefent day. There is nothing in this 
 article which points us directly to the church of Chrift. 
 The utmofl that can fairly be naade out, will be only a 
 typical reference. 
 
 • As this covenant wa; called by a New-TeftaiheM Martyr tke cov* 
 enant of cir«inj«iCon, \\e know of no better flame by which to call it 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1T3 
 
 Art. III. The third particular promifed on God's 
 behalf to Abraham, was, not only that he fhould be the 
 Father of a riuniercus, but of a roya/ race. And KINGS 
 SHALL COME OF THKE, ver. G. 
 
 This refpefted not the church of God, as fuch, under 
 any dirpenfatioii ; but the natural offspring of the pa- 
 triarch. Nor is there any difficulty in tracing the lit- 
 eral fulfilment of this p?.rt of the covenant. If we ex- 
 amine the hiltory of Iibmael, Abraham's firft-born, or 
 the family of Ifaac, the immediate heir of promife, we 
 lhall find kings in abundance did fpring from Abraham. 
 The account which has come dmvn to us in the facred 
 pages, refpe^^ing thefe nations and their kings, furnilbes 
 inconteftable proof, that by far the greateit part were 
 very wicked, and many of them grofs idolaters. View 
 them coUe^lively or individually,and you will fcarcely be 
 a')le to trace a typical refemblance of thatchorch, which 
 Jcfus Chrift fet up, under the new difpenfation \ much 
 lefs the cliurch in an organized gofpel ftate. 
 
 Art. IV. / %vUl ejlablijh viy covenant bt'liveen me and 
 thee, niiti thy feed afttr thte, in their generations, FOR AN 
 EVERLASTING COVENANT, TO BE A GoD UNTO THEE 
 AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE. AnD I WILL GIVE 
 UNTO THEE AND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE, THE 
 LAND WHEREIN 1 HOU ART 4 STRANGER, ALL THE 
 
 LAND ov Canaan, for an EvtRi.AsriNG possession, 
 AND I WILL BE iHtiR Gou, ver. 7, 8. 
 
 As this part of the covenant contains tlie great prin- 
 ciple, from whence our Pardobaptlft brethren draw their 
 main arguments, we will endeavour to examine every 
 part of it carefully. 
 
 Here are two leading ideas in this article. The firft 
 is, God's promile to be a GoD to /ibraham and his feed. 
 The fecond, to give them the land cf Cana in. This cove- 
 nant, taken collcdively, is cdled an everlajling covenatit ; 
 and the grant of the land of Canaan, an everbjling pcffiffton. 
 Whatever bleflings were included in this covenant, or 
 granted by this poircilion, all were conveyed by the fame 
 tenor. The fame words of perpetuity are affixed to each. 
 
 That God has long fince by his prophet pronounced 
 • Leammi upon that people,* and by his righteous prov- 
 
 • Hof. i. 9. 
 
171 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Idcnce rejefted them from all fpecial vifible relation to 
 him, can no more be denied, than that he has fuffered 
 them to be driven Out, and difpoflelTed of the land of 
 promife. 
 
 Wc will now proceed to inquire more particularly 
 n liat was promifeJ in this evcrlafting covenant * The 
 language is, / will eflnbli/lj my covenant, Ikc. to he a God 
 Unti thee, and to thy feed after thee. The queflion is, whrxt 
 did Gcd engage by this promife ? " Every thing," fays 
 one, that a God of mercy can bc ftox upon fallen 
 creatures, for time and eternity." Indeed this is a gen- 
 eral poftulatum, taken by the writers on that fide of the 
 conrrovsrfy. But is it correft ? Will they be willing 
 to abide by all the confequcnces, which will unavoida' 
 bly follow fuch a fuppofition ? "When God faid, / ivill 
 be a Gcd to thee, and to thy feed, " the proniife is as mi:ch 
 to the feed, as to Abraham," fays a zealous advocate 
 for infant memberftiip.:}: Very well. But what was 
 engaged in this promife } Was it a promlle of abfolure 
 faving bleffings ? If not, we are difputing about noth- 
 ing. 
 
 * Some perfons appe.ir to lay an iiiuluc ftrefi upon the word ivtrlaft- 
 ing, which is annexed to this covenant, as though it were a peculiar 
 chacadcriftic of it. Whatever ideas ve attach to this exprelfion, we 
 certainly ought to explain it corrcfpondcnt to fad, to the adual llate 
 of thiiu's. 
 
 'J'lio word everlafting tons dort not appear peculiar as ipplied in the 
 cafe before m. It is frequently ufed with rcfpedl to other oovcnants.f 
 It has a threefold applicaticjn as connided with this covenant. The 
 firft i-^ general. It is called an evt rlaftir.fr covenant. The p( filffion 
 of ^he proniif.;d land, an everlafting polTeflion. The mark left upon 
 the fubicif 4 of this bloody rite is thus exprilTtd ; My covenant ftiall be 
 in )our jirji for an encrlnjlirig covmant- Our hrtthnn very tcna«ioufly 
 ret;.in the tirft of thtfe, but have no difficulty in difpcnfing with the 
 two laft. To n» they appear fo entirely connec'tcd, that we are led to 
 coi>fidcr them all of the fame import. Yea, it appears to us that the 
 two latter are exegctical of the former. Ax. leaft, no part of the cove- 
 nant can, by fnir conflnidion, he carried to a greater extent < f time, 
 than the mark of circiimcifion in the flefh, and the pofllflion of the land 
 .6f Canaan, both of which are faid to be evcrlafting. Hence we fee, 
 that two part? of.tliis covenant called evcrlafting have come to an end, 
 V hile in oiie inflance the exprefllon is retained, for the purpofc of aid- 
 Ipg Infant baptifm. 
 
 \ See Lev. Tiiv. 8. xiii. 17. 4 Satn. xxilL 5, &c, 
 \ Mr. P. EJw'ards, p. 77. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 175 
 
 We fliall take the liberty to ftate a few queries, in 
 ■ J jr to throw light on the lubjeft. 
 : . r. Did this promife, to be a God to Abraham's feed, 
 <jct his natural or fpiritual feed ? If the former, then 
 Gentiles cannot be included, for this plain reafon, 
 V arc not his otlspring. If the latter, none but be- 
 . I S can be intererted ; for no other are the fpiritual 
 uf Abraham. In either cafe it fupports no claim in 
 >Lir of the unbelieving children of the Gentiles. 
 ■Jd. Was this promifo abfolute ? or was it conditional ? 
 If ablblute, (suid it contained the faving bleffings of 
 ' 'omption) will it not prove that all the defcendants 
 Vbraliam to the latefl: period of time will be faved ? 
 think this v. ill unavoidably follow. But this proves 
 loo much, becaule it proves againft fa£l, ;md fo deftroys 
 itfelf. If we are Loconfider this as a conditional promife 
 of liilvation, it will oblige us to inquire, 
 
 3d. What were the conditions on which its blefljngs 
 jTcre fulpended ? Were they any thing Ihort of faith 
 and repentance ? If fo, it could not be a promile ex- 
 tending to all Abraham's poUerity containing eternal 
 life •, for none but penitent believers have any fuch 
 promifi; made to them. Nor will any others, let them 
 aefcend from whom they may, ever flrare in the final 
 bleflings of redemption. 
 
 4th. Whatever elfe might be contained in the prcm- 
 ife made to Abraham and his leed in this covenant, if it 
 did not ccHitain an abfolute promife of eternal life, it is 
 urged again (t us in this controverl'y to no purpole ; and 
 tnuft in tliat cafe be acknov/ledged to be tHrentially dif- 
 ferent from what God has promifed to behevers. God's 
 promifes rcfpecfing his believing people are abfuUue. 
 They are not yea and nay ; but yea cutd anun to the glory 
 of God by lis. He that heareth my %u^rjs, faid Jeius, and 
 htiievtth on him that fent me, hath everloftiug life, and Jhall 
 NEVER COME INTO CONDEMNATION.* 
 
 5th. If all Abraham's defcendants, through every pe- 
 riod of time, are not liived with a complete and everlaft- 
 ing falvation ; will it not prove beyond a reafonable 
 doubt, that God promil'ed no fuch thing, in his engagc- 
 
 * John V. 24. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ment, to be a God to Abraham and his feed ? We 
 think that none, unlefs they are Univerfahfts, will have 
 the madnefs to fay, that all the natural offspring of 
 Abraham have been, or will be faved. Nor will any 
 impioufly dare to charge God with a violation of his 
 promife. 
 
 6th. If it fliould be faid, that God did not engage 
 abfolutely to fave all Abraham's pofterity, including the 
 fon of the bond-woman, the fix fons of Keturah and 
 their defcendants ; Efau, Achan, Korah, Dachan, and 
 Abiram, with all that unbelieving race, whofe carcaffcs 
 fell in the wildernefs ; but that he only engaged to five 
 fuch as trulled in, and obeyed him ; this would be a 
 complete abandonment of the argument ; for it 
 would place fuch as claim intereft in the covenant of 
 circumcifion exactly upon a level with all others. God 
 has engaged to fave all others who reverence, wor(hip, 
 and obey him j thugh Abraham be ignorant of them, and 
 Ifrael acknowledge them not.* We have no difficulty in 
 bflieving, that all who are truly pious, whether circum- 
 cifcd or uncircumcifed, baptized or unbaptized, will be 
 faved. 
 
 7th. We muft be allowed to query once more. If 
 God has not promifed falvation abfolutely to the feed of 
 Abraham generally, including all the unbelievers of 
 that nation ; can the promife be fuppofed to make any 
 better provifion for the unbelieving feed of Gentile be- 
 lievers ? It certainly cannot. For if God fpared not 
 the natural branches bccnufe of unbeliif, it can hardly be 
 fuppofed that Gentile unbelievers, whether young or 
 old, can have any real intereft in, or union to, the True 
 Vine. 
 
 If the reader can keep in mind the above queries, 
 and can without prejudice allow them their proper 
 weight, he will want much more than mere aflertion to 
 fatisfy him, that the infant feed of believers have a right 
 to membcrlhip in the gofpel church, in confequence of 
 the promife made to Abraham and his feed in the cov- 
 enant of circumcifion. 
 
 • Ifu.kiii. 1 6. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 177 
 
 Could we believe with our brethren, that the 
 above protnife mude to Abraham and his feed, has de- 
 ftended in the ful'eft: extent to Gentile believers and 
 their feed, the preceding queries would prefent the 
 fame difficulties in iliis application of it, as in tlie for- 
 mer. It would in this cafe be extremely natural to afk. 
 What has God promifed to the children of Pxdobaptift 
 believers, m <re than to the children of other believers ? 
 Has he promifed falvation t6 any while impenitent, cm 
 the account of the piety of their parents ? or merely 
 becaufe they have been baptized ? It rauft be anfwercJ 
 in the negative. 
 
 From thefe different views of the fubjeft, the argu- 
 ment feems tc be verging to a point ; and this will be 
 the only juft conclafion. He that believetk,titid is bjptizfd, 
 whether defcendcd from believing, or infidel parents, 
 
 Jhall be faved ; aud he thiit beluveth iiU, liowever pious hi; 
 ancfcftors,^a// be damned. The fame Lord over all^ it ruh 
 unto all luhj call up,n him : for there is no refbeEl cf per- 
 
 fons with C.d. 
 
 In attempting to accommodate this covenant with 
 its dilhnguilhing inftitute, to the ft:ue of the Gentile 
 church under the gofpel economy, we meet with diili- 
 culties at every ftage. We are obliged to pafs through 
 a long train of analogical and inferential reafoning^, 
 which few perfons are competent to, in order to find i 
 plain gofpel inftitution, equally defigned for men and 
 women of all nations and capacities ! But for wh:vt is ail 
 this labour ? Is it not to fupport a tradition which hris 
 no foundation in the word of God, nor in any authcn- 
 lic hiftory of the primitive apoftolic church ? Does h 
 not appear inuch more natural and fafe to go firth by tit- 
 
 fiotjcps of the flock ; following our good SnEtHiRD in 
 his own example ; remembering, that ivhttt he piilUlh 
 
 forth his own Jheep, he goeth before th-t^n ? 
 
 We think it has been made fuillcient^y plain in the 
 preceding remarks, that if the covenant promife to 
 Abraham's feed refpeflcd his natural feed, none of thc 
 Gentilcs can be interefted in it. If it refpeeled hk 
 fpiritual feed, none but believers can be interefted ; for 
 no others, in the language of the New Teftament, arc 
 B 2 
 
178 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 confidered as the children of Abraham. Honre wo fee 
 nothing to fupport the claim of infants, to membcrihip 
 in the gofpel church. 
 
 But fhould we admit the premifes laid down by our 
 Psedobaptifl: brethren, will they confent to abide the 
 fair legitimate confequences of their own arguments 
 We very much doubt it. 
 
 Their ftatement, if we underftand them, is this; That 
 believers and their offspring imder the prefent difpen- 
 fation, ftand in the fame covenant relation to God, as 
 Abraham, and his offspring did, under the former. 
 And that they are under the fame obligation to baptize 
 their children, that Abrrdiam and his pofterity were to 
 circumcife theirs. Let us now bring the matter to trial. 
 
 By what authority did Abraham prefume to circum- 
 cife the males of his houfe ? By the undoubted author- 
 ity of God. Here it follows ; y^nd God faid unto Abra- 
 ham, thou Jhalt keep my covenant., therefore^ thou and thy feed 
 after thee in their generations. This is my covenant whicij 
 ye ffmll keep bt'liveen me and you, and thy feed after thee 4 
 every man-child among you fhall be ctrcumcifcd. -And ye fiull 
 circumcife the f,fh of your forejkin^ and it fhall be a token bf 
 the covenant betivixt me and you. He that is eight days c^d 
 JJmll be circumcifed among yo/u ; every man-child in your gen- 
 erations ; he that- is botight -with thy money of any flranger 
 that is not of thy fad. 'Me that is born in thy houfe, and he 
 that is bought 'luith thy money mujt -needs be circumcifed : 
 and mv co-v^tianifJoall be in your fl'fh for ii«'Bv6Rl,ASTir^G 
 
 COVENANT.* 
 
 Here we fee, that Abraham was obliged to circumcife 
 all the males of his houfe, whether old or ^bung, with- 
 out the leaft r3!jard to their moral qualillcatidns. No 
 previous dcclaraltoii of faith and repentance was re- 
 quired", either in aduhs or infants. If this be indeed 
 " the great charter of all our privileges," and the very 
 law on which houfehold baptifm depends ; we a(k, and 
 alk ferioufly, ought not our brethren to prsictile ac- 
 cording to it in it's full Extent, if they would be con- 
 fiftent I The patriarch not only believed, but obeyed. 
 
 In the felfsatoe'^day was' Ifc- 
 
 * Gcii. Jtvii. 9 — 14. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1:9 
 
 / his Jen, ami all the men of his hoiifc; born in his lx>ufe, 
 / bought with mofiry of the Jlrangevy were cirmmafed 
 :k him.'* Do Poedobaptills adminifter baptifm to the 
 ne extent as Abraham did circumcillon ? Is it ufual 
 "ichthem to Iraptize not only the children of a family, 
 but all the domeftics, upon the faith of the niafter, or 
 head of the family ? 
 
 The argument by which the right of infants is fup- 
 ported is this, " a precept once in force, and not lim- 
 ited to any certain period, is ever after to be confidered 
 in force, unlefs known to have been repealed by the 
 fame authority by which it was given."f We alk, and 
 hope we fliall have a fair and candid anfwer, if fuch 
 an one can be given. When, and where has the right 
 •of fervants as diftinguifhed from that of children been 
 repealed ? If the right of children to memberlhip refts 
 on this covenant, is not the right of fervants com- 
 pletely fecured by the fame ? fhis we are equally 
 -bound to believe as the former, until it chn be fhown 
 to the contrary. ■ 
 
 How many men-fervants Abraham had at th* time 
 circumcifion was inftituted, w^ know not ; but ioine 
 time before he had three hundred. Probably as many, 
 or more at this time. All, were they mtore or le(«, 
 were circumcifed. But would it not be a very nov^l 
 light to fee one of oar fouthern planters baptized, aiid 
 all the flaves on his plantation in the fame day. If they 
 were all true Chriftians, it would be a blelled light in- 
 deed ; but not otherwife. 
 
 This argument will probably be very unplealant to 
 our oppoiieiits, but we appeal to them, and to a candid 
 public, w4ieiher-it is not correft, and whether it can 
 be fairly ev.iJcd ? If the covenant of circumcilion will, 
 by fait- <onltrn£l;ion, fupport the right of infants to 
 memhorfhip in the gofpel church, we verily believe, 
 and we mart contend, that the right of fervMits can be 
 liipported by it to the fame extent. 
 
 2. Ailecond coiilequence aiiling from the premifes 
 laid down by oarbretiuen is, that infants, if admitped to 
 bap*ifi», h^ve-an undoubted right to all the other; priv- 
 
 >«oOsn,^»it 16, 17. •. If Mr; a WotccfUv'4 Difci J.. '56, 
 
180 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ileges of the gofpel church. It is conceived that no 
 reafon can be alligned, why a perfon who Is qualified 
 for one ordinance, Is not equally qualified for another. 
 No diftinclion has been made under any difpenfatlon. 
 Circumclfion was the principal t[ualifying pre-requiiite 
 for communion in the pafchal feaft, and for all the 
 privileges of complete mcmbcrfliip in the Jewidi church. 
 Under the gofpel difpenf.\tion, They that gladly nceivtd 
 the n'ord -were baptized j added to the church, and then 
 united in breaking bread. Do Paedobaptifts admit all 
 fuch as they baptize in their infancy, to a participation 
 in all the privileges of the Chriftian church ? It is well 
 known they do not : and yet coniiflency moft plainly 
 requires it. 
 
 That we reafon fairly, and agreeably to the views of 
 Psdobaptifts themfelves, the following quotations will 
 abundantly fhow. " Circumcilion," fays a late writer, 
 «« was formerly the appointed pre-requifite of ndmi/fion to 
 the church of God ; baptifni is now the appointed pre- 
 requifite of admiflion to the fame church. In a word, 
 baptifm is of the fame import, and of the fame ufe in 
 the church under the prcfent difpenfatlon, as was cir- 
 cumclfion under the ancient."* Says another, " by this 
 fignlficant rite (circumclfion) they were dedicated to 
 God, and dijllngulfljed from the rejl of the world, as his 
 church and pcoplr."-\ According to thefe gentlemen, 
 and we believe they are corretSt In this, baptifm is the 
 appointed medium of introduction into the Chriitian 
 thurch. (It is hoped that the reader will remember 
 this, as we lhall probably have occafion to make fome 
 further ufe of it by and by.) But how glaringly la- 
 confiftent muft their conduct appear when compared 
 with their reafonings I 
 
 In order to carry a point againft the Baptifts, they 
 infifi: upon it that their baptized infants are church 
 members. But their pra<^tice tells every body, that 
 they believe no fuch thing. We appeal to common 
 obfervation. Do they conftantly bring their children 
 to the communion table ? Do they maintain any 
 church difcipline over them ? Are they .permitted to 
 
 * Mr. S. Worceftcr's Difc.p. 5a, 54- 
 
 t Dr. Ofgoed. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 181 
 
 ^ and afl in church matters ? Are there any inftan- 
 in which the profane and Hceniious have been the 
 icfts of church ccnfure ? A lilent negative mud be 
 . cn to all thefe queftions. From the general conduct 
 ui the churches that hold infant baptifm, a candid 
 mind would naturally luppofe, that the memberfhip of 
 infants, if it ever exifted, ceafed as foon as they were 
 b J prized. 
 
 Another circumftance which ftrves to corroborate 
 our laft obforvation is, that they admit all whom they 
 treat as church members, in a manner funilar to what 
 we do. Hence we arc frequently told, on fuch a day 
 a number of perfons were received into the Rev. 
 
 Mr. *s church, and at another time twenty more 
 
 were added, and fo on. if our Pa'dobaptift; brethren 
 ferioufly believe what tliey endeavour to make us be- 
 lieve, that all their baptized children were, by that a£>, 
 admitted to vilibie inemberfliip in the church, we can 
 hardly fee the propriety cf their being admitted a fec- 
 ond time ; unlefs by fome mifconduft of their own, 
 they had loft their ftanding, like the man in the church 
 at Corinth, whom the apoftle exhorted them again to re- 
 ceive, when he became repentant. 
 
 What conclufion would any candid perfon put upon 
 the condu£\ of a Pa^dobaptift church, on feeing them 
 receive by their ufual folemnity, a number of perfons 
 into vifible fellov/fliip with them Would not the con- 
 viction be irrefiftible, that they had never before been 
 confidered as cliurch members ? Indeed, for any to 
 have obferved the conduit of thefe perfons, and cf tlie 
 church towards them, during the whole intervening 
 period from their baptifm in infancy, to their making 
 this engagement ; would it be poffible to drav.' the cor.- 
 clulion, that any relation had fubfifted between them, 
 which had had the leaft influence on the conduct of 
 either ? Is it not perftft'y aftonifhing, that men of 
 learning and of piety, and who claim the privilege ot be- 
 ing thourht conlifteni, lliould not fee as well -.is others, 
 that theii feniimcnts and practice are totally at variance 
 » ith each othel' ? As much as they lind fault with our 
 particular >.omir.union, they have neser yet been able 
 
182 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 to prove it inconfiftent with our fentiments refpecling 
 baptifm. Indeed many Psedobaptifts have acknov.'l- 
 edged, that they thonght us entirely confiftent in this 
 particiihir. 
 
 3. We proceed to notice a third confequence from 
 the pofition laid down by our brethren, i. e. That if 
 baptized perfons ftand in the fame relation to the 
 church under the prefent difpenfation, as circumcifed 
 perfons did under the former ; tiiey are equally obliged 
 by the fame penalties, to attend the fublequent duties 
 of the gofpel church, as the others were thofe of the 
 Jewifii. 
 
 Our meaning will be fully illuftrated by carefully 
 attending to the ordinance of the paffover. The law 
 concerning it is in the following words ; And the Lord 
 /aid unto Mofcs and Aaron , This is the ordinance of the 
 f>ajj'over ; There pall no Jlranger eat therecfs but every tnan's 
 ftrvant that is bought jar nionty, -when thou haji circumcifed 
 him, then JJyall he eat thereof : All the ccngregcition of IJrcul 
 fl)all keep it ; and tuhen any flranger fhall fojourn nvith thee., 
 and tvi/l keep the pnffover to the Lord, let all his males ht 
 circumcifed, and then let hir^ ccme near and keep it.* 
 
 Every circumcifed perlbn, who was not prevented by 
 ceremonial uncleannefs, or by being abfent, was not only 
 permitted, but obliged to keep the paffover, on pain of 
 being cut o-ff frcin his people : for thus it is written ; But 
 •the man that is clean, and is not ia a journey^ and forheareth 
 •to keep the paJfiTver, ewn that fame foulfhnllhe cut off from 
 his people.^ 
 
 Do our brethren confider all their baptized children 
 and fervants under the fame obligation ? If fo, ought 
 jnot mini-llers tourge the duty, and heads of families and 
 members of churches, to fee it carried into effect ; and if 
 any wereftubborn, to cut them off by .in aft of excluGon? 
 This would indeed eitablifli infant communion to all 
 intents and purpof'es ; but what of that ? Can tlicre be 
 an inftance produced, from the hiftory of the Jewilh 
 church, where a Itate of nonage or minority has been, 
 mentioned as a difqualifying circumftance for commu- 
 nion in the pafchal feuft ? We do not recoUcdt any. 
 
 Eiod xii. 43, 44, 47, 48. f Niuiib. Lx. 13. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 183 
 
 : law of the pafTover makes no diftinftion between 
 , uits and adults. To be circumcifed, and to be free 
 from ceremonial uncleannefs, were the only conditions 
 required. 
 
 Should any reply, that the Lord's fupper is a holy 
 ordinance ; and requires, in every recipient, faith to 
 difcern the Lord's body, we readily grant it ; but 
 muft be allowed to aflc, is not baptifni a holy ordinance 
 likewil'e ? If fo, is not a perfon who is qualified for 
 one, fit for the other Do the fcriptures require dif- 
 ferent qualifications for the two ordinances ? The ar- 
 guments which are employed in behalf of infants, in or- 
 der to evade the fcriptural requirements of faith and 
 rft>entii>ice, by Mr. Edwards, will equally ferve their 
 n with regard to the Lord's fupper. If what is faid 
 . Iteming and repeating in order to baptifm, applies 
 r,!y to adults ; the fame may be faid with regard to 
 the facramental fupper. 
 
 To Ihow that we reafon fairly, we will take one of 
 his arguments, and only by placing the Lord's fupper 
 in the room of baptifm, it will ftanJ thus, " Are infants 
 proper fubjects of the Lord's /upper, or are they not ? 
 It will clearly follow, that all thofe places which relate 
 to believers can prove nothing; the reafon is, they have 
 no relation to the queftion." If you pleafe, take an- 
 other ilatement from the fame writer. " They (i. e. 
 the Ijaptifts) fay the fcriptures recpiire faith and repent- 
 ance in order to baptHin. I afk, fays he, of whom ? 
 the anfwer muff be, of adults ; for the fcriptures never 
 require them of infants in order to an\ ihing."* Very 
 well, Mr* Edwards ; you will have no great difficulty in 
 this way, in getting them to the communion table. 
 The want of faith to difcem the Lord's body, can no more 
 be urged againft the claim of infants to this inftitution, 
 than the want of faith and repentance can be urged 
 againft their baptifm. The lame arguments which 
 would prove their right to one inftitution, Avould equal- 
 ly fupport their claim to the other. The words of 
 Chrift, Suffer little children to coine unto me and forbid thtm 
 nitf may be applied with quite as much propflety'to 
 
 * Mr. Edwards, p. s, 3, 41. 
 
184. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 this inftitution as to baptifm, and might be addrcfled 
 with as much pathos to the tender feehngs of a parent. 
 Let Mr. Edwards, or any other man, difprove the right 
 of infants to the communion table, and we pledge our- 
 felves by the fame arguments to difprove their right to 
 baptifm. 
 
 To give additional force to the preceding obferva- 
 •tions, let it be rememb red, that infa/it bnptifm, and in- 
 font communion, make their appearance in ecclefiaftical 
 hirtory nearly together. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. James Pierce, of Exon, about cigl;ty 
 years ago, volunteered his fervice in the caufe of infant 
 communi'jt), as Dr. Ofgood has lately done in favour of 
 their baptifm. Mr. Pierce lias fuftained the right of 
 infants to the cucharift on the fame ground, and de- 
 fended it by the fame arguments, as modern Padobap- 
 tifts do their right to baptifm. It will be difficult to 
 jhew wherein his arguments fail of being equally as 
 conclnrive as theirs. 
 
 Should it be f.iid that there is no mention made in 
 the New Tcftament of infant communion, the lame 
 may be faid of infant baptifm. It will be equally in 
 vain to urge their incapacity to underftand, or to derive 
 fpirit\ial advantage from this folemn rite ; the fame may 
 be ohjecled to their baptifm. That tlie eucharift was 
 given to feme who were" called infants, towards the 
 clofe of the third century, we have the authority of 
 Dr. Moll.eim.* It is not certain, however, that thcfc 
 iiifiinis were hahts. It appears to have been a cuUom 
 at this time to call all minors infants. It is evident 
 beyond a doubt, that the infants whole baptifm Tertul- 
 lian oppofed, were not babes, but probably children of 
 fcven or eight years old. iiuch as were capable of 
 *' aiking to lie baptized," but fuch as, in his judgment, 
 vere not fufliclently enlightened and cftablilncd in the 
 doctrine of Chrlft. His words are thus rendered ; 
 «« The condefcenfion of God may confer his favours as 
 lie pleafes ; but our wiflies may miflead ourfclves and 
 others. It is therefore moft expedient to Hefer bap- 
 tifm, and to regulate the adminiftration of it, according 
 
 « fccLHift. Vol I. p. a8j. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 185 
 
 to the dirpofition, and the age of the perfons to be bap- 
 tixed : (prscipue tamen circa parvulos) and efpeci.iliy in 
 the cafe of little cms."* The general tenor of his reafon- 
 ing obliges us to underft.unl him in this light. This 
 will appear lefs lingular when we conlider that he had 
 been in the praiuce of the law, before he became a 
 teacher of religion. That minors are frequently called 
 infants in law, will appear by a quotation from judge 
 Blackftone : " Infancy, " fays he," is nonage, wiiich is 
 a defect of the underftamling. Infants under the age 
 of difcretion ought not to be punilbed by any criminal 
 profecution whatever. What the age of difcretion is, 
 in various nations, is matter of fome variety."f 
 
 It matters not, however, in the prefent argument, 
 whether thei'e infants were mere bahcs, or children who 
 were old enough to aik for baptifm. It is evident that 
 infant communion commenced nearly if not exactly at 
 the fame time that infant baptifm did. Dr. Wall 
 makes this acknowledgment, when fpeaking of giving 
 the communion to infants. " Very near half the Chrif- 
 tians in the world do ftill continue that practice. The 
 Greek church, the Arwemans, the Marotiitfs, the Cophti, 
 the Abajfmsy the Mufcovites, &c. ; — and fo, for aught I 
 know, do all the reft of the eaftern Chriilians."| The 
 Doctor further acknowledges, that this cuftom prevailed 
 in St. Auitin's time, who commenced his miniftry in the 
 year 391, (about as early as we have any authentic ac- 
 count of infant baptifm) — I'hat it continued in the 
 weftern church for fix hundred years — " Tliat the 
 Roman church, about the year one thoufand, entert. lin- 
 ing the doctrine of traufubftaniiation, let fall the cuftom 
 of giving the holy elements to infants ; and the other 
 ivejltrn churches, moftly following their example, did the 
 like upon the fame account. But that the Greeks, not 
 having the faid doctrine, continued, and do ftill con- 
 tinue, the cuftom of communicating infants."§ 
 
 * Parv.lui, the word ufcd by Teriuilian, is of yague figtiificatlcn. 
 It is uot i;i.:tlILrily,»nd in Ua^ cafc cuo by uo aiCaOa be, confioid lu ah 
 
 f Comment Bock iv. Chap. Li. 
 \ Hift. of iufaut b5p;.lfnD, p. 317. 
 S Ibid. . 
 S 
 
186 APPENDIX. 
 
 As the preceding quotations refer us back to Atw^ 
 tin,* we think it beft to give our readers his fenrlmeots 
 upon the fubjedl in his own words. It appears that 
 from a miftaken view of thofe words of Ciirift, John 
 iii. 5> Eiuept a man be bortt of nvattr and of the Spirit 
 he cannot eiit£r hiio the kbig/iom of God ; he, with many 
 others, inferred the neccffity of baptizing infams in 
 order to their falvataoQ. The fan^e erroneous couftruc- 
 tion of John vi. oS. Except ye eat the fiefj (f the Sm of 
 Man, and dri/tk hu blood, ye have tio lif£ in ycu ; led him 
 with much zeal to plead for the admiffion of infants 
 to tiae Lord's table. With regard to the latter, his 
 words are, " Let us hear th'e Lord, I fay, not ind«e«d 
 fpeaking this of the holy laver, but of the facranient of 
 the holy table, (whither none rigktly come UNtEss 
 BApyizEU) Except ye eat my f«/hy and drink my bloody ye 
 fbail have no life in yotu What do you feek for forther ? 
 What can be faid in anfwer to this, unlefe one would 
 fet hirafelf again ft clear aiad inTi«cible truth ? Will 
 any one dare to fay this, that thi« pafFagc does not be* 
 long to infants ; and that they can have life in them* 
 felves without partaking of his body and blood ?" And 
 th« necefiity of this, as well as of baptifm to eteniai 
 life, he fays, the African Chriftians took to be an ao- 
 cient and apoftolic tradition, f Tliey did not pretend 
 that either of them v/ere in the Bible. 
 
 It will be afkod, how came infant communion to be 
 laid aiide, after its having travelled hand in hand with 
 hifant baptifa for fo many centuries ? The reafon 
 affigned by Br. Wall is,' the admiffion of tbat ghoftly 
 do^Si ine of tranfuhfantiation. We are at a lofs how 
 this fiiould afFe<5t it ; unlels by this foppofed change of 
 the ©len^nts, they thought them too to be trifled 
 whh in this way. 
 
 That thefe little Chriftians, who had not yet been 
 drawn from the brcafl, nor learnt doBriMe^ itiight not rofuf* 
 the elements when offered, the following rule was eftab- 
 lirtjed ; " Care," fay th^7, « is to be taken concepning 
 infants, that they ftiOuid ftot without the utmofl uc- 
 
 * Auguftine,but often called Aufioib 
 f Ep. 1 06. Sonifacio, eontr. Pelag. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 187 
 
 •etity receive any food or fudi after th«y are baptized, 
 before they communicate in the facrament of our 
 Lord's body."* 
 
 h will require much ingenuity to maintain the right 
 of infants to member(hip in the gofpel church on the 
 footing of circunicifion, and not admit all the confe- 
 quences above rtated. For ourfelves, we fee no way to 
 j embrace one, without admitting the other : and to ad- 
 1 mit either, appears to us to be fubverfive of the great 
 I defign of the gofpel, which was to form a church, diC- 
 I tinft from the world. But if infant baptifm brings 
 I them into the church, it totally deftroys that diftinftion, 
 i and blends the world and church together. This idea 
 ! will be more particularly confidered in its proper place. 
 As our Pxdobaptift l»ethren lay fo much ftrefs upon 
 this part of the fubjecV, we muft be allowed to view it 
 gn all lides. 
 
 Could we be brought with them to conllder the in^^ 
 fant offspring of Gentile believers, as ftanding in the 
 fame covenant relation to God as the natural feed of 
 Abraham did, yet ftill we fee nothing, either in the 
 old or new law, which would authorize their baptifm. 
 An article every way fo different as baptifm is from cir- 
 cumcifion, feems not to be fufficiently fupported by 
 mere inference, but needs the firm bafis of plain pofi- 
 tive infiitution to reft upon. To infer the right of in- 
 fants to baptifm from the covenant of circumcifion, 
 appears to us extremely forced and unnatural. Some 
 of the difficulties that an inference of this kind labours 
 under, are the following : 
 
 1 . The law of circumcilion was a pofitive law, not 
 at all dependent on the nature and fitnefs of things : 
 hence every thing which related to the inftitute, de- 
 pended on the exprefs declaration of ihe inftitutor. 
 This is precifely the cafe with baptifm ; therefore theM 
 can be no arguing from one to the other. 
 
 2. The inftitution of circumcifion was exprefsly lim- 
 ited to males. Females, though defcending from the 
 fame parents, were not fubje£ls of the token of that cov- 
 
 ' * Ordo Roftianus Tit. de Bipt. in Piirre. 
 
1S8 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 enant : but the baptifmal inftitution includes botk 
 men and women. 
 
 5. The law of circumcifion required no previous 
 prpfeffion of faith and repentance, neither in adults nor 
 infants, as a qualification for that infi:itution : but the 
 gofpel pofitively requires fuch a profeflion in order to 
 baptifm, without even an exception in favour of in- 
 fants. 
 
 4. A male flave bought with money of an ageabote 
 eight days, whether a believer or an infidel, whether an 
 idolater or an atheift, had the fame right to circumcif- 
 ion as the infant feed of his mafi:er had. The gofpel 
 inftitution makes no provifion for flaves until they are 
 made free h\ the Son ; and then it requires, as a pre-re- 
 quifite to baptifm, the fame public profeflion of them as 
 of their believing mafters. 
 
 5 The rite itfelf is fo very unlike the gofpel inflitute, 
 that it appears extremely unnatural to infer one from the 
 other. Circumcifion was a painful bloody rite, per- 
 formed by cutting the flefh of a particular part, "(which 
 delicrxy forbids us to name.) Baptifm is an immerfion, 
 or -^valhing of the whole body in pure water. 
 
 6. Circumcifion might be lawfully adminiftered by 
 ativ perfon, at leaft by any head of a family, whether 
 mala or female.* Baptifm is to be adminifi^ered by 
 particu'ar ofiicers in the Chriftian church, called and 
 qualified for the work. 
 
 Other difllmilarities might be urged, but thefe are 
 thought fuflicient to (hew, that it Is not the eafiefi: thing 
 in the world to infer baptifm from circumcifion. It 
 certainly requires a large ftock of myftical jcfuitical in- 
 genuity, to make an inference appear plaufible, where 
 the nature, aft, and defign are lo diflx-rent. If infants 
 are to be baptized, there can be no doubt but the infti- 
 tution makes ample provifion for them, without fubjeft- 
 ing us to the perplexity of tracing it out from an anti- 
 quated Jewilh rite. 
 
 Paidobaptifts, when they reafon with one another, 
 and are not fufpicious that the Baptifts are watching to 
 
 * Zipporah clrcumcifed the two fons of Mofes with a fharp flone. 
 Midwives have frequently adminiftered baptilni, that is, fpriokling, la 
 dyirg Infant*. Vid. Robinloa'* Hift of Bap. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 189 
 
 take advantage of their conceflions, reafon juft as we 
 (\o. This remark will be eftabliihed by a quotation 
 from Dr. Emmons's Diflertation on the qualifications 
 for the Chriftian facraments, &c. againft Dr. Hem- 
 nionway. AVc think the whole work worthy a can- 
 did perufal, but can only feledt a part of one of his ar- 
 guments. " Dr. Hemmenway," fwys he, has followed 
 other writers in arguing from the former difpenfations 
 of the covenant of grace, to the prefcnt, and endeavour- 
 ing to prove what the peculiar duties of believers are, 
 under the prefcnt dxfpenfation of the covenant of grace, 
 from what they were under its former difi)enfations. 
 But this mode of reafoning is by no means conclu- 
 Iive. It was the duty of believers under former dif- 
 penfations of the covenant of grace, to offer facrilices ; 
 but can we hence infer that it is their duty now ? It 
 was the duty of believers under former difpenfations 
 of the covenant of grace, to circumcife their children 
 and aitend the paflbver ; but does it hence follow that 
 thofe iiuties are ftill binding Or can we juftly con- 
 clude, that it is the duty of believers now to circumcife 
 their children, or even to baptize them, becaufe h-iv.is 
 onct their duty to circumcife them .'' The truth is, we 
 muft learn the peculiar duties of believers under the pref- 
 ent difpenfation of the covenant of grace, from the dif- 
 penfation itfelf, which enjoins all thu peculiar du- 
 ties WHICH BiLLONG TO IT. If believers are to l)aptize 
 their children, as they undoubtedly are, it is not becaufe 
 they were once obliged to circumcife them." "The 
 Chriftian difpenfation, which is allowed-to be the frecft 
 from types and ligures, plainly fpeaks for itfelf. And 
 -we ought to look into the clear difpenfation of the gof- 
 pel, in order todifcijver the peculiiir duties of believers, 
 at the prefent day."* Would it not be a higii r.?fleftion 
 upon Dr. Emmoiis's confiffency, to fuppole, after fuch 
 an explicit, candid, antl rational ftatenient, he would ever 
 attempt to prove infant baptifm from the covenant of 
 circumcifion, or from any thing elfe but the New Tefta- 
 ment ? Whether he has, or has not, we leave thoie who 
 are acquainted with his writings to determine. Ouf 
 
 • Diir. chap ii. fcA. V. 
 S 2 
 
190 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 thingj however, vve muft bepermitteJ to fay, We vfr\]j 
 believe that could tlie Dottor, with an unprfjudjc^d 
 mind, admit thp f»ir conclufioa which muft arile iropy 
 his own reafoning, it would inevitably bring hitu \o 
 believers' baptifm, or leave him in corpplete iiwonfif- 
 tency ! 
 
 Having carefully examined every article in the cov- 
 enant of circumcifion, and traced fome of the copfe- 
 quences which muft follow on admitting its «ippli9ati<?n 
 to the pr.efent ftate of (he Chrillian church, we think 
 it is deraonftrably plain, that its firft ?nd imrnediate 
 promifes and requirements r^fpefled th^ poflerity ^f 
 Abraham ; that it has at malt, only ^ typical r^f^ren^e 
 to the gofpel Gentile church ; and tha^ ^v^n this typ- 
 ical relation, like all other types, ought to be applied 
 with great caution and circunifpeftion. It is worthy qf 
 obfervation, that types and the things that are repr^- 
 fented by th^m, aHhough ther^ ii C?n^e \ii5;euef^ 9re 
 always diftinft. 
 
 The promifes which were irifide to Abrgh^^Bi ?efpe^- 
 ing the Gentiles, that /« A/w, and in his feedy all the na- 
 tions or famihes of the earth fhpuld be bleffed^ w^^ 
 neither expreffed nor included in the cQvenant of cif* 
 ^umcifion 'f but were entirely ^iftin^j and independent 
 of it. It ought nev«r to be forgotten by all who ?ttpn4 
 to this controverfy, that the gr?at promif(? which Gp(l 
 ii-vade to Abraham, and which is fo much cont^ndecj fpr> 
 vas made twenty-tfour years before the covenant of c^r- 
 tumcifion ;* and was renewed about twenty years a^- 
 ter ;t mentioned in the whple of that tranfaftipr^ 
 
 The promile to Abrahaip, th^ in l;iipi all tbt; families if tbf 
 earth Jfjould be bUfed^ was predicate(J, we humbly con^eiv?,. 
 pn the covenant of red^mptipn, confirmed befure of Hqd^ 
 iti Chrifi 4 and was ratified by the fplemuity of 
 oath, which woyld have carried it into <;omplete qffe(\, 
 had the covenant of cirqurocifton never <?x,ifte4. Tb* 
 fjurther illuftration *nd propf of wh^t we hay? now 
 ferted, will be referved for anotlier pwt pf thM* wOTfe* 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 191 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 H^hnther tht JcLvip and ChAJiian Churches are iht fun**. 
 Or nvhether tht latter is a dijiincl Church ^ o*- a mere can- 
 tittuaibn cf the foruur, anftdered. 
 
 entire filence of the New Teftament with 
 refpect to the baptiftn of babes, has led its advocates ta 
 .trace its origin back to the covenant of circumcifion. 
 Their arguments iaiplicitlv tell us, that they do not 
 wifh to hazard its defence upon the footing of its 
 being an inftitution of the gofpel but choofe rath- 
 er to confider it as a right eftablifhed and fecured 
 to infants, under the former difpenfation. That the 
 male infants of the Jews were circumcifed, conformably 
 to the covenant which God made with Abraham their 
 anceftor, recorded in the xviith chapter of Genefis> 
 no one can difpute who reads the writings of Mofes. 
 Were it equally plain from the writings of the evangelift* 
 and apoftles, that infants were baptised, the difpute 
 would beat an end> But of the latter, no proof can be 
 found ! Who then can wonder, that the friends of in- 
 fant memberftiip fhould not be willing to let go a 
 certainty, for an uncertainty." 
 
 But in^ order to fupport the foregoing hypothefis, the 
 
 fofpel church alfo muft be judaized v that is, it muft 
 e completely incorporated with the old Jewifh church> 
 infant baptifm, after all, rauft languilh for want ctf 
 ^Ivine inftitution to fupport it. Whether fuch an at.- 
 t?rapt does not refemble the conduct of thofe judaizing 
 teachers, whom St. Paul in his epiftles to the Galatians, 
 PhiUppians, and others fo feverely reprehended, ought 
 fgrioufly to be confidered. To foroe it has this afpeft. 
 Cir<;umcilion was. the theme on which they perpetually 
 dwelt. And certain men, fays the hiftorian, which came 
 down from Judea, (to Antioch), taught the brethren and 
 fitidi Except ye be circumcised after the mtinner of Mofes, ye 
 cannot be faved. Alfo, there rofe up certain of the feEl of the 
 Pbarifees ivkich ir/iev ed, faying^ That it ivas needful to cir- 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 eumriji theniy and to conwiand them to keep the laiu cf 
 Mofes* 
 
 That our Psedobaptift brethren conlider the gofpel 
 church only as the Jewifh church continued, and not 
 as commencing under the miniflry of Jefus Chrift, or 
 his immediate forerunner, is clear from all their writ- 
 ings. That it may be feen that we ftate the rubie(Si: fairly, 
 we fubjoin the following quotations. Mr. P. Ed-wards : 
 ** The firft Gentiles, of whofe calling we read, are faid 
 to have been added to the church ; but there was no 
 church exifting to which they could be added but the 
 atic'unt Jeivi/h church, of which all the apoftles and dif- 
 ciples Gl our Lord were members."! Mr. S. WcrccJIer : 
 '♦• Though a new and brighter difpenfatlon was intro- 
 duced, yet the church cotitiriued the fame, which had almoft 
 two thoufand years before been cftablilhed by the cove- 
 nant made with Abraham and his feed." " Circum- 
 cifion was formerly the appointed pre-requifite of ad- 
 miffion to the church of God, baptifm is now the ap- 
 pointed pre-rcquifitc of admiffion to the fame church "X 
 Thefe gentlemen are quoted as a fpecimen of the com- 
 mon manner in which they ftate the fubjedl, rather than 
 to prove a point which it is prefumed no one will deny. 
 
 "We will now proceed to compare thefe two churches, 
 and fliew fome of the points in which they difagree. 
 
 I. They differ iffet.t tally in their conjlitutious . 
 
 By the conftitution of the JewiHi church, we may un- 
 derftand thofe priihary laws by which they were united 
 and diftinguifhed as an ecclefiaftical body. Thefe 
 laws contain a declaration of the righis and privileges, 
 the duties and obligations of all the members ; and alfo 
 the qualifications which conftitute the right of meni- 
 berlhip Circumcifion holds the firft and moft im- 
 portant place in this lyftem. This formed the difcrim- 
 inating fine between the members of this church and 
 all others. It was the initiating badge of niemberfl.ip \ 
 for no male of the feed of Abraham, nor any others, 
 
 * Ads XV. I, ^. 
 
 t Candid Reafons, &c. p. 54. 
 } Two Difc. p. 48, /3, J4- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 193 
 
 could be admitted to the privileges of that church 
 without it. 
 
 The qiieftion now to be determined, is, whether the 
 qu.iHfications for this rite were precifely the fame, or 
 even the fame in iubftance, as thofe required in order 
 to memberfhip in the gofpel church ? Abraham was 
 the firft that adminiilered circumcifion under the for- 
 mer difpenfation. John, the forfruniicr of Chrift, was 
 tlio firft who adminiftered baptifm under the new dif- 
 penfation. Abraham circumcifed Iflimael, and all the 
 men of his houfe, in the felf-fame day. Khmael was at 
 time thirteen years old. This is an age lufceptible 
 of religious infiru'Ilion, and when its influence on the 
 moral temper can be fatisfadlorily afcorrained. Nothing 
 appearo in the whole account to juftify an opinion, that 
 lihmael was now a penitent (whatever he might be after- 
 wards) and from tliat conduft, which led to his expul- 
 fion from Abraham's family, we have much reafon to 
 believe the contrary.* Nor is there any more evidence 
 that the men of Abraham's houfe were penitents, than 
 that Illimael was. Neither can we find any evidence, 
 that the inftitution required it in order to qualify them 
 for circumcifion. On this fubje£V, fo necelTary to fup- 
 port the pofition, that the Jewilh and the Chriftlan 
 churches are tlie fame, the fcriptures prcferve a pro- 
 found iilcnce ! To qualify a perfon completely for cir- 
 cumcifion, nothing more was required, either in aiiults 
 or infants, than that they were defcendants from Abra- 
 ham, or were Jewi(h property, having been bought with 
 money. Can any man with the Bible in his hand con- 
 fcienrioufly fay, that he verily believes thefe qualifica- 
 tions the fame which were required in order to baptifm 
 either by John the Baptift, by Jefus Chrift, or by the 
 apoftlcs .'' 
 
 As if exprefsly defigned to convince us of this differ- 
 ence in the outfet, the harbinger of our Saviour who 
 was fcnt to introduce his new difpenfation, and to mani- 
 fert him to Ifrael as xUsLainb ofGjd luho taketh aivav thejtn 
 of the nvorldy has made the very diftinftion for which we 
 plead. Bui when he J'l.iu many of the Pharifees at:d SadJucets 
 
 Gen ni 9. 
 
194 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 nme to his laptifm, be /aid unto tbentyO generation of viperjf 
 ivho hath luarned you to fieefrom the wrath to come ? Bring 
 firth therefore fruits mett for repentance ; and think not to 
 fay tuithin yourfelves, we have Abraham to OUR Father : 
 fjr I fay unto you, God is ahle of thefe flones^ to raife up chil- 
 dren unto Abraham.* Who were thefe Pharifees and 
 Sadducees ? Were they heathens ? No ; they were 
 members of the Jewifh church, and in full communion, 
 for aught that appears to the contrary. We have Abra- 
 ham to our father. This was the very ground on which 
 their memberfliip in that church refted, and which hadi 
 never before been difputed. But John demanded qual-i 
 ifications of a much higher nature, and every way dif.» 
 ferent in a moral view, from thofe which had beforCj 
 been allowed. In the true fpirit of a gofpel teacher,, 
 he required the genuine fruits of repentance. And 
 thofe who did not bring forth thefe fruits, and fubmi*. 
 to this new inftitution, Chrift himfelf has denounced,' 
 as rejecting the counsel of God againfl themfehesy in nUt. 
 ieing baptized of him. f 
 
 The different qualifications required by the initiatii^, 
 inftitutes of the two churches, clearly defignate the dif- 
 ferent character of the members. To conftitute a per- 
 fon a complete member of the Jewlfti church, required 
 nothing more than to be bought with Jewilh money, 
 or born of Jewifli parents, and to be circumcifed. To 
 conftitute a perfon a proper memberof the gofpel church, 
 he muft indeed be bought with a price > but not with fd- 
 ver and gold, and fuch corruptible things., btii with the pre- 
 cious blood of the Son of God, as of a lamb without bhtn- 
 i/h ! And whether born of Jevvifli parents or others, 
 is of no confequence ; he muji be born again, not of bloody 
 nor of the will of the Jlifb, nor of the will cf man^ but 4f 
 God-X He muft be born of water and of the Spirit, or be, 
 can never be confidered as duly qualified to enter the 
 go/pel kingdom, or church. This plain ft<Kement inevi- 
 tably brings the mind to this conclufion That unlefs to 
 be bought witli money to be a fewi/h fervant, and to be 
 bought with the precious blood of Chrift to be his free 
 tnen, are precifely the fame things ; and to be born of 
 
 ♦ Matt. iii. 7 — 9. t Luke vii. 30. \ J«lin i 13, &c. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Jx?\ri{h parents, according to the flefti, and to he bom 
 Iff Gad bj- the operations of the Holy Spirit, hare the 
 fame meaning ; then the moral charafter of the meitt- 
 bers, as req-uired hj the two infHtutes, aioii be ac- 
 knowledged to be totally difl^^^ent. 
 
 We do not think ourfelves hound to prore, that 
 there is no fimilarity, no points of agreement between 
 die two churches ; it is fufficient to oar purpofe to 
 riuow, that they differ fo efTentially that they cannot 
 be conildered as one and the fame. To fhow the dif» 
 ference between two men, it would ntjt be ueceflary to 
 prove, that one walked on two legs, and the other apoa 
 four : although they might bear a coniiderable refem<» 
 blance to each other, yet there would be vifible points 
 of diflBrence, fuiiicient to ftiow tliat they were not ore. 
 
 2. Qur fecond argument is taken from the a£hial 
 difterence in the vifible form of tlie two clim-ches. 
 The Jewiili cbitfch, in erery ftage of it, has been na* 
 tional. The gofpel church is felefted and particular. 
 The former in its conflitution had a direct tendency to 
 form and e&ibhfli a mixed church ; to blend believers 
 and umbelievers, faints and finners, tlie vinruous and 
 iricious together in one general commonion ; witlioat 
 containing in iifelf the means of feparating the nior* 
 ally clean firom the unclean. 
 
 The plan of the gofp^^l chtirch is totally different. 
 This is corapofed of none but profefEng believers. A 
 pcopie chcft-n, and called cut from the world. Not dif-- 
 tingui^hed indeed by family defccnt, or any mark hi tht 
 fitjh ; but by having the truth engraved upon their hmrU 
 by the SfArii of the living God, by which means they be* 
 come Irwjig epifiles, htjo'wn and read of all men, 
 
 Mr. Edwards has denied that the Jewifli church was 
 national during the firft three or four centuries from its 
 commencement. But wliat reafon does he affign for 
 it } Why becaufe " it had no levitical priefthood, no 
 inilritution of tythes, &c." (p. 104.) The reader will 
 remember that we are not diQjuting about the inftitu- 
 tion of the priefthood nor tytlies, but about member- 
 fliip- If the Jewifli nation did not commence its ex- 
 iilanoe in the factiiLy of Abraliam as cealljt as the l&mSk. 
 
196 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 church, we acknowledge our argument will be weak- 
 ened ; but if it did, it will not be in the power of foph- 
 iftry to overthrow it. 
 
 During the above period, this nation and church 
 ■were both in their infancy, and both progrefled in the 
 fame ratio. The queftion then does not depend on 
 the numbers which compofed either the nation, or 
 church, but whether the one was co-exiftent and co- 
 extenfive with the other ? Can this be denied in any 
 ftate of that nation ? Does not the bible eflablifh the 
 fa(St in the cleareft manner ? To fuppofe that this 
 church was not national merely becaufe it had no '< in- 
 jlituted priefthood or tythes," would be equally as 
 abfurd as to fuppofe, that the nation did not exift, until 
 it exifted in its kingly form in the days of Saul. In fadt, 
 if the Jewiih church did not exift in its national form 
 until the days of Mofes, it did not exift in any regular 
 vifible form whatever. View it in every poffible light, 
 from the eftablirtiment of circumcifion, until the gofpel 
 church iucceeded it, and you will find that it com- 
 prifed the whole body of the Hebrew or Jevnfli nation. 
 We know of nothing which can denominate a church 
 as being national, but its comprifing the nation at large, 
 and its religious ritos enforced by national authority. 
 Such we underftand the Jewiih to have been. 
 
 To determine whether the gofpel church does not 
 eflentially differ in its viiible form from the preceding, 
 we fliall confult only the New Teftament. It matters 
 not to us what forms have been eftablifhed at Rome or 
 Conftantinople, at Geneva or in Great Britain, The 
 New Teftament alone muft determine us in our prefent 
 inquiries. Here nothing can be found which looks like 
 a national church. The gofpel, though firft fent to the 
 Jews, was far from being generally received. Chrift came 
 unto his oivn, i. e. to his own nation, and his own received 
 him not : but as many as received him, to them gave he 
 power to become the Jons of God even to them that believe 
 on his name. Of thefe Jewifh believers the gofpel 
 church was compofed ; and to thefe the converts from 
 among the Gentiles were added. The great body of the 
 Jewiih church, notwithftanding the gofpel was preached 
 
APPENDaX. 
 
 197 
 
 them attended with miracl(?s, adhered to their 
 I'.tiorval religion, and perfecuted Jelus of Nazareth 
 impoftor. In tliis particular, I am happy enough 
 >;nce to agree with Mr. Edwards : Ipeaking of th.j 
 pco. le he fa^s, As to their charailler, it is certain 
 th.\t, a few only excepted, they were upon the whole, 
 the DEADLY ENEMIES cf Chrift and his dovTtrine." (p. 
 
 It has never yet been proved, nor do we believe It 
 can be fairly inferred, from any thing recorded in the 
 New Tertament, that ever a lingle perfon was confid- 
 c rcd as a member of the Chriftian church, who did not 
 profefs faith in Jelus Chrlft. The account given us in 
 the fecond chapter of Acts is plain, and eafy to be un- 
 derftood. The gcfpel was faithfully preached by Peter ; 
 tiie confciences of his hearers were folemniy addreffed j 
 the Holy Ghoft accompanied the word in fuch a man- 
 ner, that it is faiu, Then ihey that gladly received his luord 
 ivern baptized ; and the Janie day there ivere addc-d unto thent 
 about three thcufand fiuls. No more were baptized, nof 
 were any added to the church but fuch as gladly re- 
 ceived the word. A careful attention to the remaining 
 part of this chapter will convince any one, that thefe 
 pcrfons were in general real beUevers. The account 
 tlofes with thefe remarkable words ; And the Lord 
 added to the church dai/y, such AS SHOULD BE SAVED. 
 From this laft remark there is abundant evidence, that 
 in a judgment of charity, they were true believers. 
 Probably a large (iroporcion of the three thoufands 
 were heads of families ; yet there is no mention mad« 
 of their children or fervants being baptized, according 
 to the right of memberBiip for which our brethren plead. 
 
 The particular mode of addrefs adopted by St Paul 
 to the leveral churches to which he wrote, naturally 
 leads to the conclufion, that they were compofed only 
 of vifible faints, or fuch as profelTed to believe in, and 
 love Chrift. His language is, To ali that be in Rone, 
 BELOVED OF God, call,ed to s&\hts, grace to you, 
 and peace from God the Father, and the L'jrd Jefus Chr'ifi. 
 Umo the church of Gcd ivhich is at Ccrtnthy to them thai 
 mre SANCTiyiED in Christ Jesus, called to be 
 
 T 
 
198 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 SAi}*TS,* The addreffes in the other epiflles are very 
 liinilar. 
 
 Can any man in his fober fenfes fay, that he verily 
 beheves that thele churches were made up of all de- 
 fcriptions of character, like the old Jewiih church ? We 
 very much doubt it. The convi£tion muft be irrefifti- 
 ble that they were compofed of none but profefftd faints. 
 We fpeak with this caution, becaufe that human dif- 
 ccrnment is not ahvays lulficient to dete£l hypocrify. 
 Thofe who take the greatell heoi kciv they buHd^ may at 
 times be deceived, as Philip was with Simon. He ap- 
 peared no doubt to the etangelift to be lavingly 
 wrought upon ; but afterwards manifcfted, th£t he /.ad 
 neither lot nor part in i/w matter. This is after all a \(.TV 
 diSFerent thing from admitting perfons without any 
 profeiiion, and of whom charity icfelf cannot gather a 
 hope, that they ever knew any thing experimentally 
 about religion. 
 
 The true gofpel church has never been national hnce 
 its commencement, and probably never will be until the 
 jMilleniuni, whatever it may then. 
 
 It is thought probable that there is as large a propor- 
 tion of true Chrirtians in thefe United States, as there 
 lias ever been in any nation including the fame number 
 of inhabitants, fince the Chrifliin era. But is there* 
 I'erious perfon of any denomination in this land who 
 would dare to fay, that in his opinion this whole nation 
 was, according to the rules exhibited in the Now Tefta- 
 nienc, properly qualitied for memberfliip in the Chrif- 
 tian church .'' We prefume the contrary. The general 
 praftice of all the churches (however lax their dif- 
 •cipline may be) goes to eltablifh our fentiment. 
 
 That the Jewith and Chriftian churches are not the 
 fame, may be argued, thirdly, from feveral paffages of 
 j'cripture which reprefeut the gofpel church as com- 
 mencing at a different period, as well as exifting in a 
 diiTerent form from the ancient church. 
 
 In explaining the image which Nebuchadnezzar 
 faw in his dream, Daniel foretold, that four great 
 Kienarclues Ihould fucceed each other, and that the laft^ 
 
 • Ronv i. 7. I Cor i. 2. 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 199 
 
 (houki be diviued into ten kingdoms, &c. h> the days 
 of thfff kif/gsy hxith he,Jh(i/l the God of ke.iveti fet up a 
 kingdom which fljtdl never k difyD\cd \ and the kingdom fyall 
 not be left to othr people, but it fhall break in pieces and con- 
 fume all thefe kifigdonij, and it fhal! fand for cvt f.'^ 
 
 '•This defcription, faith Bilhop Newton, can with pro- 
 priety only be underftood, as the ancients undcrftood it, 
 of the kingdom of Chrill. And in the days of thcjc kings, 
 that is, in the clays of fome of them. And it muft be 
 during the days of the laft of them ; becaufe they are 
 reckoned /o«r in fuccellion, and confequently this muft 
 be the fifth kingdom. Accordingly the kingdom of 
 Chrift was fct up during the days of the laft of thefe 
 kingdoms, that is, the Roman. The fione was totally 
 a diifercnt thing from the image, and the kingdom of 
 Chrift is totally different from the kingdoms of this 
 woHd. The fione ivas cut out cf the mountain ivithout 
 hands, as our heavenly body is faid tc be a building of 
 God, an hcvfe not made iL-ith hands, that is, fpiritual, as 
 the phrafe is ufed in other places. This the fathers 
 generally apply to Chriil himfelf, who was miraculoufly 
 born of a virgin ; without the concurrence of a man : 
 but it ftiould rather be underftood of the kingdom of 
 Chrift, which was formed out of the Roman en.pire, 
 not by number of hands, or ftrength of arraies ; bat 
 without human means, and the virtue of fecond caufes. 
 This kingdom was fet up by the God of heaven ; and 
 from hence the phrafe of the kingdom of heaven, caiv.e to 
 lignify the kingdom of the Meffiah. It was fo ufed 
 and undcrftood by the Jews, and fo it is applied bv 
 our Saviour in tlie New Teftament. Other kingdoms 
 were raifed by human ambition and worldly power ; 
 but this was the work, not of man but of God. This 
 was truly, as it is called the kingdom of heaven. A king- 
 dom not of this -world ; its laws, its powers were all 
 divine." " As we may prcfume to fay, that this is the 
 only true and genuine interpretation of this paiTage, 
 fo iikcwife it is the moft confonant to the fenfe of all 
 ancient writers, both Jews and Chriftians."f 
 
 * Dau iL 44. f DifT. on.the Piophsties, p. 243, 2^4. 
 
APrENDlX. 
 
 We know of no Chriftian cxpolitor who does n«t 
 Gonfider this as a prediclion of the gofpel church. But 
 if this church had been (et up move than thirteen hun- i 
 xlred years bcfc re, why ihould Daniel ipeak of it as an 
 event ftill future. That we might not be hable to mif- i 
 take, he foretold the period when it ihould take place, j 
 In the days of thffe kings ; or during the continuance of ^ 
 one of them, the Roman monarchy, Chrifi: fliould 
 make his appearance, and fet up his gofpel kingdom. 
 
 Conformably to this fentiment, we find our bleffed 
 Lord olteu fpeaking of the gofpel difpenfation under 
 the metaphor of a kingdom. He ufes the fame lan- 
 guage with refpedc to his church. When he faid to 
 the Jews, // / caj out devils by the Spirit of God^ then the 
 lit!gdc77i of God is c»me unto ycu ;* here he evidently 
 Kieant the gofpel difpenfation. 
 
 We think the fame was meant in that folemn threat- 
 ening denounced againff the Jews for their unbelief, in ; 
 the following wortls ; Therefore fay I unto you, that the 
 i:i;:gdcn! cf God [hall he ttken from you, and given to a j 
 nation byi/:fj:g forth ihe fruits thereof By which he 
 evidently meant the gofpel difpenfation, with all its j 
 privileges and bleflings : not the old Jewifh difpenfa- I 
 tion and the rites belonging to that. No ; thefe, in ! 
 the fenfe of our Saviour, were neither taken from them, 
 nor given to any others. The Jews ftill retain many 
 of them, and in their prefent fituation exhibit much 
 the fame appearance of vinbility as a church, as they | 
 did during the firft four hundred years, before their 
 deliverance from Egyptian bondage. CircumcilioQ was 
 tlie principal rite by which they were then diftinguillied 
 from other nations : They arc to this day diftinguilhed 
 by the lanie. 
 
 Our Lord, upon a different occafion, replied to 
 the fame cavilling Jews, Vtrily I fay unto ycu, that the 
 fuhUcans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before 
 you. For John came unto you in the way of righteoufmfs, 
 and beiicvtd him not ; but the publicans and the harlots 
 BELiEVUD him. And ye, ivhen ye had feen it, 'RI PEKTUD 
 not afterward that ye might BELIEVE him-X As the pharifses 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 201 
 
 litre charged with impenitence and unbciief, we 
 
 V fuppofe that the pubHcans and harlots avIio are 
 i.i .vl to go inti ihe kingdotn Gul, were fuch as under the 
 miniftry of John were brought to true repentance, to 
 beUeve on the Mefliah whom he decbrcd to be at h^nd, 
 and to be baptized of him. If the kingdom of God, 
 or gofpel church, and the Jewifh church were the 
 fame, then thefe /)«/'/uv7«j and /rar/cts, before they em- 
 braced John's dodtrine, yea, and the pharifees too, were 
 all in the kingdom of God ! for they undoubtedly all 
 belonged to the Jewifh church. 
 
 The fcribes and pharifees fat in Mofes' feat, and 
 were perfons of the firft eminence in the Jewirti church ; 
 but Jelus faid to his difciples. Except your righteoufnefs 
 exceed the righicoiifmfs of the fcribes and pharifees, yf fjall in 
 no cafe ENTtR into the kingdom of heaven.* 
 
 Whether the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of 
 glory be intended in this paffage, this much is evident, 
 that being membei-s of the JewiQi church, did not 
 qualify for either. 
 
 This argument will be further illuftrated and flrengtli- 
 ened by the words of our fuffering Redeemer, when in- 
 terrogated by Pilate. Thine oivn nation, faid he, and the 
 chief priifls have delivered thee unto me. What hajl thou 
 done ; fefus nnfwered, My KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS 
 WORLD ! f my kingdom were of this world, then would my 
 fervants fight, that I Jhould not be delivired to the j£ws.\ 
 By this declaration Jefus has given an indelible charac- 
 ter to his church ; and which nuift ff.rever diftinguilh 
 it from the Jewiih church. The latter was not only 
 organized as a body politic, but its men of war were 
 marflialled, and frequently led to the light by mil- 
 itary chieftains. 
 
 It muft be evident to every candid mind that the 
 Jewilli church, in every ftage of it, notwithftanding it 
 contained ibrae true believers, was principally of this 
 world. This muft be the cafe with evtry other cliurch, 
 formed ftridtly upon the principles of infant meraber- 
 (liip, whether they are admitted by circumcifion or 
 baptifm. We appeal to the common fenfe of Chrif- 
 
 • M»tt. V. i3. -f John jvlii. 35, 36. 
 
 T 2 
 
202 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tians, whether, to atlniit the hypcthefis laid down by 
 the Paedobaptifts, that all the children cf believers have 
 a right to memberihip in the golpel church, would rot, 
 if put in practice, make fuch as are of the world, a valt 
 majority in moft churches ? Are not the baptized, in 
 moft Psedobaptift congregations, to thofe who actually 
 take upon theailelves a voluntary profeffion of religion 
 and give evidence that they are real Chriftians, as two to 
 one ? Pjfobably a much greater majority. If thefe arc 
 all included in the Chriftian church, (and they muft be, 
 or their argument is loft) can it be faid, that fuch a 
 church is not of this world ? We might with as much 
 propriety fay, that a town-meeting was not of this 
 world, becaufe a number of the qualified voters were 
 Chriflians. For in the latter there would probably be 
 about the fame proportion of Chriftians, as in the 
 former. 
 
 It would be an infult upon the underftanding of men, 
 to attempt to maintain the two oppolite points, that 
 new-born infants muft be admitted to memberfnip in 
 the Chriftian church, and that the church was never- 
 thelefs not of this nvorlJ^ but a fpiritual body. A man 
 %vho could believe this, would have but little difficuky 
 in believing tranfubjlantiation, or any other abfurdiry. 
 
 No man who examines with candour the hiftory of 
 the Jewifh church from the days of Abraham, till the 
 deftruftion of their nation and temple by Vefpafian, but 
 what muft conclude, that the true believers at any pe- 
 riod would have been, when compared with the whole 
 nation, only a J'mall minority ! a remnant according to the 
 eleEiion of grace. They were fo few, and fo unknown in 
 the time of EHjah, that he thought he was left alone. 
 And notwithftanding the anfwer of God happily con- 
 TinceJ him of his miftake, yet the number mentioned 
 were few compared with the tlioufands of Ifrael and 
 Judah. 
 
 Can we ferioufty fuppofe that it was the intention of 
 Jefus Chrift to continue this church in its then vihblc 
 form, or to fet up another like it ? Does the New Tef- 
 tament lead to fuch a conclulion ? Does not the lan- 
 guage of Chrift and his apoftJes confirm exaclly th^ 
 
w 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 203 
 
 oppofite ? ')fe are the light of the -wor/cl, faid Jefus to his 
 Httle church. ^ city that is fet on an hill cannot be hid.* 
 If ye luere of the worlds the luorld would love his own but 
 becHufe ye are not of the world, but I have chofen ym out of 
 the avorldy therefore the world hateth you.-\ This is the 
 manner in which our bleffed Lord dellgnated his dil- 
 ciples. The particular manner in which they were 
 brought to an intereft in the bleffings of this kingdom, 
 is thus exprefled by the apoftle to the Colollians : 
 Who hath delivered us from the power of darhiefs, and 
 hath tranflated us into the kingdom of his dear Bon.\ Every 
 perfon who claims the privilege of the Chriftian name, 
 ought to be able to give the fame reafon of his hope. 
 Such perfons may fay with the apoftle, Wherefore we re- 
 ceiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, 
 or grant us grace, whereby we may ferve God acceptably. 
 None but fuch as experience renewing grace, poffefe 
 any one of thefe qualifications. No others are lights in 
 the religious world. No others have been tranflated 
 from the darknefs of the world and fin into the kingdom 
 of God's dear Son. No others have received this im- 
 moveable kingdom. 
 
 When the Saviour afked his difciples their opinion 
 concerning himfelf, Peier anfwered, Thou art the Lhrifly 
 4the Son of the living God J And ffus anfivcred and [aid 
 ■unto him, BleJJ'ed art thou Simon Barjona ; for fitfij and 
 blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is 
 in heavett. And I fay unto thee^ thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock will I build my church ; and the gatts of hell Jhall 
 not prevail againji it. The Jewi{h church did not be- 
 lieve that Jefus Chrift was the Son of God. They con- 
 lidered and treated him as an impoftor. They charg- 
 ed him with blai'phemy, and faid, he being a man made 
 himfelf God. But every truly enlightened Chriftian 
 can fubfcribe with Peter, Thou art the Chrift, the Son 
 of the living God. The rulers of the JewiQi church 
 blafphemoufly replied to him, Say we not well that thou art 
 a Sam.iritan, and haji a devil ? Tliis was the infulting lan- 
 guage of the leaders of that very church, which we are 
 
 * Matt. V. 14. XT. 19. \ Col, i, 13. 
 
204 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 told was the gofpel church, and was continued without 
 any " eflential alteration."* 
 
 Onr fourth and laft argument to prove that the gofpel 
 church is totally diftinct from, and independent of, the 
 Jewifli, ihall be drawn from fafts recorded in the New 
 Teftament. «' Fafts arc ftubborn things." 
 
 If (as the advocates for infant baptifm aflert) the 
 gofpel church did incorporate with the old JewiQi 
 church, we may expedt fuch an account of it in the 
 writings of the evangelifts and apoftles, as to put the 
 matter out of difpute. Should we find them entirely 
 filent \>n a fubje^t of fo much moment, its truth might 
 very juftly be called in queftion. But if, inilead of be- 
 ing fdent, we find them to have recorded fafts which 
 irrefiftibly prove the contrary, we fiiould fuppofe Ikep- 
 ticifm itfelf would ceafe to doubt. Let us proceed to 
 examine the proof. To the laiv and to the teftimcNy, as 
 the final umpire, we cheerfully repair, and pledge our- 
 felves to abide the decifion. 
 
 If our minds are open and candid, we fnall find the 
 narrative plain and fimple •, the facts fo abundant, and 
 fo varioully interfperfcd, that we cannot eafily miftake 
 them. In order to trace them with preciiion, we muft 
 .travel back to the commencement of this new difpenfa- 
 tion, » 
 
 Chriftian reader, if your Bible be at hand, turn to 
 the third chapter of Matthew, and read, and examine 
 it candidly •, or. will yoa permit me to repeat a few 
 fentences, and make fome remarks upon them ? In 
 ihofe days came John the Baptijl^ preaching in the ivilder- 
 ■ tiefs of Judca. Who was this John the Baptift ? He 
 was the perfon of whom Kaiah fpake in prophecy. 
 The voice of one crying in the ivildernefsy Prepare ye the 
 nuay cf the Lord, mjke his paths ftraight. Did John de- 
 rive his authority to preach and baptize from the Jew- 
 i(h church ? Mofi: certainly he did not. For it appears 
 that he had been in the deferts from early life until the 
 day of his fheiuing unto IJrael.\ How came he then by 
 his authority .'' The evangelift John fliall anfwer : 
 There ivas a man sent FROM GoD luhofe name luas John. 
 The Jewifh church fent a deputation of prieAs and 
 
 ■» Vid. P. EdvTards, p. i ^ Luke i. $0. 
 
APPENt)IX. 
 
 205 
 
 Levites to him to inquire who he was; whether he 
 rc the Mefliah ? if not, why he baptized r* By 
 ith it appears that he did not Itand in connexion 
 that church, nor aft under its authority. It will 
 be here recollected how completely Chrilt confounded 
 the leaders of that church by this fimple queftion. 
 'Ihf baptlfin of John, faid he, ivhcur>[ivas it ? from hcavcu 
 or cf t/ienPf The chief prieft was among the party ; they 
 mult therefore certiunly have known if John had been 
 inducted into the prieft's office by them ; or had in any 
 way received his authority from them. There can bV 
 no imaginable reafon aiilgned for their concealing it, if 
 this had been the cafe. Could they with propriety have 
 aflerted the 'faft, it would have relieved them from 
 their prefent embarrailment. If John did not derive 
 his authority from the oflicers of the Jevvifh church, 
 (the only proper medium through which it could pafs) 
 he mufthave a£ted indeoetidently of them. 
 
 We alk again, did John preach the fame doftrine 
 which the leaders of this church did ? It is manifeft 
 he did not : for they taught for doclri/ie the command- 
 ments of men, Chrift himlelf being judge. But John 
 preached the true gofpel of the kingdom. He pointed 
 his hearers to the Saviour, as the Lamb of God iuk$ 
 taketh away the Jin of the world, and exhorted the people 
 to repent and believe on him. Such as received his 
 doftrine, and confeffed their fins, he baptized in 
 Jordan. 
 
 Was there any inftitution, or even cuftom in the 
 Jewilh church, which required John to baptize his con- 
 verts in Jordan ? None has ever yet been produced. Al- 
 though there were divers ivnflnngs appointed in the 
 ritual of Mofes, and others ^ded by the fupcrftitious 
 Pharifees ; yet they all differed widely from John's 
 baptifm, both in manner and delign. 
 
 Towards the clofe of this chapter, we have the fol- 
 lowing account of our Saviour. Then comet h Jrfus 
 from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be haptiz. d of him. 
 But John ftrbade him, faying, I have need to he haptized of 
 thee, and comejl thou to me ? ■'And Jtfus anfwering, faid 
 
 * JoV.n i. 
 
 t Matt. x.xi. 35. 
 
906 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 unto him^ Suffer if to be fo nciv for thus it hecomtth us tt 
 fitljil all rigbleoujt.tfu Then hi j'uffered him. And JefuSy 
 luhtn he "was baptized^ went up straightway out of 
 THE WATEU. Reader ! lay your hand upon your 
 heart, and r.lk yourfelf, in the fear of God, if you can 
 pofilbiy believe tiiat either John or Jefus in the whole 
 of the tranfaclions related in this chapter, had any thing 
 to do with the Jewifh church, or their leaders ? In 
 Ipite of all your prejudices, is there not a monitor 
 "within that tells you, they had not ? 
 
 Much pains has been taken to prove that when Chrifi; 
 faid, thus it becamdh u> to fulfil all righteoujnefs, his 
 meaning was, that it wa;; neceffary for him to be bapti- 
 zed by John in Jordan, to fulfil a law which required 
 the fons of Aaron, when entering into the prieft's oflice, 
 to be wallied at -the clcor of the tabernacle.* What a 
 happy knack fome men have, in reafoning from analogy? 
 But there is one unlucky circumftance attendmg this 
 argument, and which wholly ruins it. That is, that by 
 the iiime law which required the above walhing at the 
 door of the tabernacle, Jefus Chrift could not be a 
 prieft of that difpenlation •, us he was neither of the 
 Ions of A:xron, nor of the tribe of Levi ; but of the tribe 
 of fud.ih, of whijh tribe Mcfcs fpake 'nothing concerning 
 priejhood. 
 
 If we look into the next chapter, we fball find the 
 manner in which Chrift proceeded in gathering the 
 New Teftament church. At the 1 8th vcrfc it is laid ; 
 And Jefus "walking bj the fea of Galilee ^ fail) tivo brtthretiy 
 Simon called Peter ^ and Andrew his. brother^ t^'f^i^'g ^ 
 i?ito ihi' fa, for they ivere ffhers. And he faith unto them^ 
 Fcllciu me, and I ivill make you ff'ers of men. And th^ 
 fraightivay left their nets and fUowed him.\ And tohm 
 he had gone a little farther thence, he fauu fames the fen of 
 'L'-iiJee, ai:d John his brother^ "who alfo uoere in the fjip 
 t,Jt/nu/;y tkjir nets ; am' jlrdighttvay he called thcm^ and 
 ihey left their father Zibedee in the pip vjith the hired fer- 
 va'its, and went after him X Again, the next day after, 
 f ;hu jhid, and tii i of his dijc-phi, and looking upon jfm 
 
 ' Vid. Miff ? i'ifh and Crane, ard ctV:rs. 
 f Mitt. iv. iS — t M.irki. 19,29. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 207 
 
 ms ke '.l alhed, he faith. Behold the Lamh of God ! And the 
 two difeipUs heard him fpeak, and they fol'oiL'ed Jefus.'* 
 
 And a certain fcrihe (ame and fiid unto him-, Alajier^ I 
 %utt{ follow thee ivhitherfoever then gc^Ji ; and amiher of 
 his difc:ples faid unto him. Lord, fuff, r me firft to go and 
 bnry my father. But Jtfus faid tifto him, Folhw me, and 
 let the dead bury their dead f And as Jefus faffed forth 
 fr',m thence, he faiv « men named yl iattheiv fitting at the 
 receipt if cuflom ; and he faith unto him, Follc%v me. And 
 he arofe and follonued him J 
 
 The daf folhiving Jefus -would go forth info Galilee, and 
 findcth Philip, and faith ufilo him, Follo%u me. Philip 
 caught the iSpirit of this new feet lb entirely, as not only 
 to be willing to follow Jcfus, bvit to ufe Lis influence 
 ti> profelyte c.hers. He foon after met withNathanael, 
 and faid to him, We have fcumi HIM of whom Mofes in 
 the law, and the prophets did write, Jefus of Nazareth, 
 the fon of Jofeph. And Nathannd faid unto him. Can there 
 any good thing come cut of hi.Tia.'eth ? Philip fiitb unto 
 him. Come and fee 
 
 Thefe fafts, recorded by th; evangeliftc, place before 
 us a complete hiftory of the commencement of the gos- 
 pel church. But in this account not a trace of its con- 
 nexion with the Jewilli church can be perceived. 
 
 When Jefus Chrilt appointed his apoftles the firft ofE- 
 eers in liis new church, did he confult the chief priefls, 
 the Jcribes and pharifees ? Or did he appoint them by 
 his own authority, totally independent of them ? Fafts 
 all unite in demonftruting the latter. 
 
 The reafonings of our Piedobaptift brethren have 
 nlways appeared to us exceedingly defective on this 
 point. They uniformly argue, that the Jewifli and 
 Chriftian churches are the fame ; and that the latter is 
 no more than a continuance of the former : but they 
 have never fhown us when, where, or how the latter 
 church was connefted with the former : and it is be- 
 lieved that they never can. They have feemed wholly 
 to (tcp over this point. At one time they prefent to us 
 the Jewifh church under the covenant of circumcifion, 
 enjoying many privileges and bleflings ; by and by, they 
 
 * John i. — 37. f Matt. viii. 19, i I. 9. 
 
208 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 prefent us the gofpel church enjoying very difiiJrent 
 and much greater privileges, and tell us that this is the 
 Time church, only under a differem difpenfation. But 
 if this be a faft, would not Jefus Chrift and the leaders 
 of the Jevvifh church have afted in concert ? and 
 would not the difciples of Chrift, and the members of 
 thar church have been in harmony with each other ? 
 Would there not be as much propriety in faying that 
 the proteftant church, and the papal church from 
 which they feparated were one and the fame ? Some 
 branches of ,the proteftant church approximate much 
 more to the papal, than the gofpel church did to the 
 Jewifti. But if proteftants acknowledge their chyrch 
 to be but a continuance of the old papal church, we 
 think they ought at leaft to make fome confeftion for 
 having abufed their Aiwa Maier, by calling her the 
 " eld whore of Babylon" — " The mother of abom- 
 inations, &c." 
 
 It is a faft which no one can deny, that Jefus Chrift, 
 during his perfonal miniftry, did collect a large number 
 of difciples and followers of both fexcs : that he fent 
 forth feventy difciples at onetime to preach the gofpel, 
 and to evince its power by miracles. That thcfe all 
 ftood. totally unconne^Sted with the old Jewifli church 
 is abundantly evident, from the unceafmg oppofition 
 which the latter made to the former. We beg to know 
 whether Chrift's difciples, with their Mafter at their 
 head, did not conftitute a church, a complete church 
 in gofpel order ? If fo, here were two churches exifting 
 at the fame time in direft oppofition to each other : 
 for it muft be remembered that the kingdom of God 
 was not yet taken from the Jews and given to the Gen- 
 tiles. We alk, which of thcie two is to be conhdered 
 as the truf church ? The Jewifli church continued its 
 vifible ftate, and retained its vihble forms of worfliip 
 long after the eftablirtiment of Chriftianity. And there 
 >vas juft as much friendfliip in this old church towards 
 the followers of Jefus, when they ftoned Stephen to 
 death for no other fault, than becaufe he was filled with 
 the Holy Ghoft, and when they caught Paul in the 
 temple and were ready to pull him in quarters, as whea 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 209 
 
 Jt-rus was in the midft of tliem, teaching and preaching 
 the kingdom of God. 
 
 Did Chrift treat the Jewifh church in fuch a manner, 
 or receive fuch treatment from it, as would lead us to 
 fuppofe that he conlidered it as his church, which he 
 purchafed with his own blood ? 
 
 To elucidate the idea, pleafe to examine the debate 
 between Chrift and the leaders of this church, recorded 
 in the eighth chapter of John. In this, Jefus declared 
 hiuifelf the light of the ivorld. The Pharifees difbelieved 
 it, and told him plainly that he bore record of himfef, and 
 
 i his record was not true. (ver. 12, 13.) Chrift told 
 
 ;n that they were ignorant both of him and of his 
 
 lier. (v. 19.) Te are, faid he,yrow; beneath) I atn from 
 e'l ye are of this lucrkl, I am not of this tuorld. — If ye 
 
 ■, ve not that Jam he, y fhalldie in your Jlris. (v. 23, 24.) 
 1!) order to evade the force of Chrift's dodtrine, they 
 pleaded their covenant privileges : We be Abraham's feed. 
 ' '::w that ye are Abraham's feed, replied Jcfus ; tut ye 
 to kill vie, beciiufi my ivord hath no place in you. I 
 
 <l that which I have feen with my Father, and ye dt 
 :,'..U which ye haue feen with your father. They anfwered 
 i-iid [aid unto him, Abraham is our father. Jefus faith unto 
 
 >!, If ye were Abraham's CHILDREN, you would do the 
 ':s of Abraham. Chrift feems to admit that they 
 c Abraham's natural feed, but denies that they were 
 
 children in a fpirituul fenfe. Unwilling to acknow!- 
 themfelves deftitute of religion, and to prove that 
 they had a fair title to heaven without being indebted 
 to him, they declared that God was their Father. Jfus 
 faid unto them. If God were your Father, ye would love me : 
 for I proceeded forth and came from God ; neifher came I 
 of myfeljy but he fent me. (v. ^l, 4 2.) At length Chrift 
 faid to them, 21? are of your father the devil, and the lufts 
 of your father ye will do. (v. 44-.) With a view no doubt 
 to fhow the keennefs of their refentment at this plain 
 dealing, they anfwered him, Say we not well that thou art 
 a Samaritan, and hafl a devil ? Does this look like that 
 language of love which fubfifted between Clii-ift and 
 . his true church ? Every candid heart will reply, No. 
 
21t 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Is it poffible to bring our minds to believe that the 
 true church could ever treat the blelTed Saviour as the 
 Jews treated him ? They not only defpifed and held 
 him in contempt, calumniated and abufed him, but ac- 
 tually perfe«uted him to death ! Who was it that the 
 traitor covenanted with, to ft-ll his Lord for thirty 
 pieces of filver ? Was it to an ignorant mob, made up 
 of Gentile libertines, and headed by fome fanatical 
 leader ? No fuch thing. Judas made his calculations with 
 more certainty. He went diredHy to the chief priests, 
 the principal leaders in this church. And do you 
 think they would let fo fair an opportunity pafs, to get 
 into their hands a man whom they hated ? Surely no. 
 The bargain was clofed at once ; and Judas was fent 
 with a band of men to arreft him.* Who was it firft 
 formed the defign of putting Jefus to death ? The princi- 
 pal leaders of the Jewifh church, ^r.d ivhen the morn- 
 ing ivns come, ALL THE CHIEF PRIESTS AND ELDERS of 
 the people took couvfel againjl Jefus to put him to death. In 
 order to accompUfh their murderous defign, he muft 
 be delivered to Pilate the governor, to pafs fentence 
 of death upon him. Pilate, though a Gentile, feemed 
 to have Ibme fenfe of moral juftice, and was denrous to 
 underftand the real caufe of their complaint. But who 
 arraigned him before Pilate's bar ? Thine oivn naihn, 
 faid he, and the chief priefls have delivered thee to me — 
 What hafl thou dene ? Jefus at once ftated the true 
 ground of the controverfy. My kingdom, faid he, is not 
 of this luorld. The more Pilate heard and faw, the 
 rtronger was his convi(Slion of the innocency of Jefus. 
 Several means had been employed to avert the fentence, 
 but without efFeft. At length, recoiled^ ing that it had 
 been a cuftc/m at this feaft to releafe a prifoner, and 
 having two, he hoped they would choofe Jefus. But in 
 this he was deceived. His perfuafions vrere all in vain. 
 Malice had fixed the infernal purpofe too ftrongly in 
 their breafts to be fliaken by his reafonings. No, Jefus 
 muft die. His crucifixion was determined on. Hence 
 the chief priefls and elders perfuaded the multitude that they 
 fiould aJk Barabbas, and deflroy Jefus.\ O thoa infulttd. 
 
 • Mitt. 14, ij. 47- t M«t. xwii. 10. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 211 
 
 fuilVring Lamb of God ! were thefe the leaders of thy 
 church, thy true gofpel church ? Muft we confider 
 them as thy friends, while manifefting this murderous 
 oppolition to thee, merely becaufe they defcended from 
 the loins of Abraham ? We cannot. Our hearts revolt 
 at the horrid thought. 
 
 Nor can we believe that this was the church into 
 which the .Gentile converts were grafted. No ; it was 
 the church gathered by Jeliis, and his apoftles ; from 
 among the Jews indeed, but compofed only of the con- 
 verts to his new doctrine ; of feparates from the old 
 Jewilh church and religion. No others compofed any 
 part of the New Teftament church. Muft we not fhut 
 cur eyes againft the cleareft light to believe -other wife ? 
 We certainly muft. 
 
 This, however, is one of the main pillars on which 
 P<edobaptilm rcfts, That this old Jewifli church and the 
 New Teftament church, are the fame. Th.i? is Mr. 
 Edwards's potent argument, with which he has afl'ailed 
 the Baptifts, and laid them (in his imagination) heaps 
 upon heaps, as Samfon did the Philiftines with the 
 jaw-bone of an afs. But with all his zeal to maintain 
 the famenefi of the Jewilh and Chriftian churches, his 
 confcience compelled him to make one very juft concci- 
 lion. His confcience, did I fay' ? No, I rather think he 
 was a httle off his guard. Speaking of the Jewifh 
 people coile<flively, he fays ; " As to their eh, lacler, 
 it is certain that, a few only excepted, they were upon 
 the whole the deadly enemies of Christ and his 
 doftrine." (p. 62.) Reader! paufe a moment, and re- 
 flect upon this declaration. That the Jewilh church, a 
 few, a very fiivy excepted, were the deadly enemii's of 
 Chrift and his doiflrine ! And yet, if there be any truth 
 in Mr. Edwards's argument, this was not only a fawple 
 of the gofpel church, but the church in reality ! the 
 fame with that under the gofpel difpenfation. A little 
 altered indeed in " diet" and " drefs," but identically 
 the fame.* And was this one of Mr. Edwards's " can- 
 did reafons for leaving the Baptifts," becaufe they do 
 net believe Chrift's church to be principally made up of 
 
 • Vid. p. 46,48- 
 
2l2 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 his deadly enemies ? The Baptifts entertain no fuch 
 horrid idea. If he believes his own reafoning, it wis 
 certainly a very fuificient one for his lesving a com- 
 munity who think very differently : For hoiv tan ticc 
 •u-alk togethet-y except they be agreed P 
 
 We have thus briefly ftp.ted a fevir fafts which ferve 
 to ftiow the temper and feelings of the Jewifh church 
 towards our blelTed Redeemer and his dodh-ine, and 
 alfo what treatment he received from them. 
 
 We will now inquire, whether the apoftles of J fus 
 Chrift agreed in fentiment with the advocates for infant 
 baptlfm, with refpe£l: to the famcnejs of the Jewiih 
 and Chriftian churches. 
 
 Immediately after the afcenfion of the Saviour, we 
 are prefented with a view of h.\s liith flock ; this new 
 gofpel church in a company by themfelves. Here wc 
 lind a body of difciples, amounting to about one hun- 
 dred and twenty, afTcmbled in an open room at Jerufa- 
 lem. Thefe all continued lo'ith cne accord^ in prayer and 
 f applications 1 iviththe women y and Alary the mother of Jefus^ 
 and ivith his brethren. Here were no frribes nor phari- 
 fees intermixed. No one who retained his ftanding in 
 the Jewifh chui-ch, nor any who felt unfriendly to the 
 interefts of Jcfus. The traitor himfelf no longer ob- 
 truded his unhallowed prefence among them. They 
 were all united in love.* When the day cf pentecofl -uas 
 fulh come, we find them again together, ivith one accord 
 in one place. Here the apcfiles experienced the fulfil- 
 ment whr>t hud been predicted bv John, and promif- 
 ed by Chrift. They were all baptized ivhh the Holy 
 Ghod andf.ye. No fooner was this noifed abroad, than 
 a vafi multitude colleded. Some were ftruck with 
 wonder and amazement ; others mocked, and faid thefe 
 men are full of ne-m ivine. But Peter ftood up and ad- 
 drelTcd the multitude in a difcourfe peculiarly adapted 
 to the occafion, and to the circumftances of his audi- 
 ence. Kis preaching was attended with a marvellous 
 difplay of divine power. He courluded in the following 
 words ; Therefre let am. the hotfe of Ifrael know affurcdly, 
 lh.1t Ged hath wide that fame ffus, "juhoni YE HAVE CR\> 
 
 « ,A(35 i 14- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 , t u, ht/j Lord ami Cbrifi. Here the huife of Ifrael \ 
 
 church coUectivxMy, is charged with having takf:i 
 Son of God, and with wicked hands cruciiied and 
 1 him. The word delivered by Peter became 
 j'cr than z t-iuo-edged ftuord ! And they luere pricked 
 'u ir heart, and Jald unto Peter , and to the rejl of the 
 A. f.liS, Men and brethren, lohat fJjall %ve do ? Ih^n Feter 
 faid unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you' in 
 the name of Jifi'S Chrifi,for the rewifftonoffuis, and ye 
 pall receive the gift of the Holy Ghofl. For the promife is 
 unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar o^, 
 evi. n as many r.s the Lord our G^d fhall call.* 
 
 What fjall we ds ? was the language of thofe wound- 
 ed-hearted iinners. Repent, faid Peter, and be bepnxid 
 every one of you. He commanded none to be ha'^tizeJ, 
 but what he firfl commanded to repent. The j romile 
 of remiiTion of fins, and of the gift of the Holy Gliof:, 
 •was not made to all indiu;rinainaieiy, but was predicated 
 \tpon their repentance and baptifm, upon their being 
 called by the Lord, and not upon the baptifm of ira- 
 pcnitents. The promife quoted by the apoftle, as an 
 encouragement to them and to their children to repent, 
 ir.uft alfo be underftood with this limitation. 
 
 * The apiiftic here no doubt allijded to the rrniKi. r.- oraed by tlie 
 piophet J crcir.iah. Scbold the days ottney fiiith ti.c J-tr^'y I lojl! >i:uke 
 a Ntw COVENANT -with the lioufe of IJrucl and \i't h ih, hoij: of JuaA- : 
 net aicvrding to tlie covenant t 'uut I made iviih lh:ir fjtl.rrs in tie j'jji 
 leben I totk then: by the Imndte bring tier;: qu: tf the Liud of £^-yit, n-l'i.i 
 my eovenjnt they brole, atttuu->l) I '^vas an hujh.iiid unto tlum , f.:i:'j the Lo' i 
 Hut this fhall be the covenant thai I willviatc -with the Lnufc oflf.atl ..fiir 
 tbofe days, faith the Lt)d, I wiiL ru r My law ih tiucik inwh^d 
 PARTS, AND WRITE IT IN TUEiR HE.\ETS, and icill be tbar God. c:J 
 ibey fhall be my people. And they /hall teach ttt mare e-v.-ry ma,: hn i.ciih- 
 hour, and every man bis bfcther,Jayinif, Knoiv ye the Ltrd ; for ih y s ii a i, l- 
 ALL K,NOiy ME,/,e<a the leafi of the m unto the great.-f -/' tlr^.f^nh tie 
 Lord i for I itiiil forgi-ue their iniquity, and remember / , - ' ■ : ^ \ 
 
 This new covenant was eitabllllicd upon bet:er pro;?.-.;: . n- 
 
 tained in the covenant of circumcifioii. God did: it 
 the renewing influences t.f tiie Holy Spirit, toput hij ,, zi a,d- 
 
 p»rtt. That covenant was outward in the f.<fh ; this ii. inward, the 
 lu-u) written upon the heart. Tn this new covcoant, the very haft knows 
 the Lord. In that, many who were tlie greatfi in office and po^ver, 
 lm*w cot the Lord. 
 
 I Jer. Mxi. 3t — 34. 
 U 2 
 
.14 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 We cannot poffibly agree with Mr. Edwards in Lis 
 explanation of this pafTage. His reafoning, to us ap- 
 pears both fophiftical and abfurd. He is i'o very anx- 
 ious to lecure a place for infants in the gofpel church, 
 that he fcems willing to pafs over the real bleffings con- 
 tained in the promife, and fix on one which by his own 
 reafoning they were already in poiTeflion of. After 
 holding the word ehiUIreti in a ftate of torture, until it 
 has paired three ftages of dilcuffion, he thinks he has 
 gained the important point ; i. e. " That infants are 
 placed in the fame relation to baptifm, as they were of 
 old to circumcilion." (p. 71, 72.] 
 
 What an admirable comment upon the apoftIe*s 
 words ! Here were a number of perfons pricked in the 
 heart, and crying out in diftrefs, What Jhallive do P They 
 are told for their comfort, that ihe promife is to ycu and 
 to your children ; by which they were to underftand that 
 they were placed in the fame relation to baptifm as they 
 were of old to circumcifion J What confolation this 
 muft be to a heart throbbing under the pangs of con- 
 \i£\ion, or inquiring with the ardor of a new-born fouV 
 after duty ! But we will leave Mr. Edwards for the 
 prefent. 
 
 Let us now hear the conclufion of the facrcd hifto- 
 jian. Then they that gladly received his -werd were haf- 
 tized J and the fame day there were added uritj them about 
 three thoufatid fouls. We alk, To whom were thefe con- 
 verts added Was it to the old Jewilh church .'' or 
 lo the new gofpel church .'' for they both exilted at 
 this time ; but in total oppoiition to each other. We 
 only wilh that confcience may make the decilion. This 
 folemn and interefting account clofeswith thefe words i 
 ylnd the Lord added to the church daily, fuch as Jljould be 
 faved. What church, we alk again, was this I Was it 
 the old j)erfecuting Jewifli church ? no one we think 
 can pcfiibly believe it. No j they were taken from 
 that, and added to the Chriftian church. We are con- 
 fident that there cannot be an inftance produced 
 of a fingle aft of Chriftian fellowlhip between thefe 
 two churches. How often in the book of Afts, that 
 authentic hiftory of the primitive Chrifiians, do we 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 215 
 
 the leaders of the gofpcl church dragged before the 
 
 mlts of the Jewifh church, and by their orders beaten 
 iud imprifoned ; and ftraitly charged to Ipeak no 
 more in the name of Jefus ! If both were the church of 
 Chrift, his kingdom was certainly divided againft itfelf i 
 and our Lord has told us the fate of fuch a kingdom. 
 The papal and proteftant churches were never more 
 at variance in the hotteft times of perfecution than 
 thefe two churches were, until the gofpel difpenfatioii 
 was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. 
 
 It may poffibly be faid that thefe arguments only 
 prove the corruptions that were in that church, but do 
 not affect its real ftate. To determine whether an old 
 houfe ought to be taken down, in order to build a new 
 one in its room, it would not be necelTary to know 
 what it once was, but only to examine it in its prefent 
 ftate ; and fiiould a few pieces of timber be faved 
 from tliis old wreck, and put into the new building, 
 we fhoukl hardly fuppofe any perion would fay it was 
 the fame, the very ianie houfe. The application is eafv. 
 
 hi order to bring this argument to a dofe, we aik. 
 Were not the principal oppolers and perfecutors of Jeius 
 Chrift and his followers, officers and members of the 
 Jewiih church ? Were they not conlidered ai the 
 time to be in regular fianding ? To exemplify the 
 queftion, we will {'ele£t one only , it fhall be the great 
 apoftle of the Gentiles. Was he not a member of the 
 Jewilli church, at the very time he was perfecuting 
 the poor faints of Jefus, and haling ihein both mea 
 and women to prifon ? 
 
 The account which Paul has given of himfelf vjill 
 probably fatisfy us on this point. In a ftatement which, 
 he made to the Galatians refpeftlng his call to preach, 
 he fays ; But I certify you, brethren, ikat the gofpel luhich 
 was preached of me, is iiot after man ; for I neither received 
 it of jnan, neither luas I taught it, but by. the re-iMiolion of 
 Jefus Chrifi. For ye have heard fvf wy convetfatim in time 
 pajl, in THE Jews' rei.igioh •,, ho-w that beyond mtajure 
 I perficuted the church of God, and wafied it. And prof ted 
 in the feivs* religion above tnany my equals in mine onvn 
 nation ; being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of 
 my fathers. jSwX— But pray, Paul, let us interrupt your 
 
216 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 narrative a moment, that you nuy explain yourfclf. 
 You have twice mentioned the Jews' religion, as if it 
 were diftiuift from the relij^ion of Jefus Chrifi:. You 
 have alio laid, that you perfcuUcJ a>u! iLwfici! the church 
 OF GOD. You moft certainly do noc mean the old Jew- 
 i{h churchj for if we undediand you, you were adliug 
 in concert with. that. " My manner of life from my 
 youth, which was at the firft among^mine own nstic 
 at Jerufalem, know all the Jews ; who knew me frcn 
 the beginning, (if they would teftify) that after the 
 STRAiTEST SECT OF OUR RELIGION, I lived a pharifee/' 
 And in my zeal for that church, I verily thought with 
 myfelf, tliat I ought to do many things contrary to the 
 name of Jefus of Nazareth. Which thing I alfo did in 
 Jerufalem ; and many of the faints did I fhut up in 
 prifon." I did not do it however, in a riotous mann . . 
 without the concurrence of my brethren, but " hani;:^ 
 received aiitho ity from ike thief priejis. And when they 
 were put to death, I gave my voice againft them. And 
 puniflied them oft in every fynagogue, and compelled 
 them to blafpheme : and being fixceedingly mad agaiml 
 them, I perfecuted them tven unto ilrange cities."* 
 " But when it pleafed God, wii,o feparated me from my 
 mother's womb, and culled me by his grare, to reveal his 
 Son in me, that I might preach him among the hea- 
 then ; immediately I conferred net witii flelh anci 
 blood — but I went into Arabia and returned again to 
 Damafcus. And was unknown by face unto the 
 churches of Judea,. which were i/i Chrijl but they had 
 heard only, that he who perfecuted us in times paft, 
 flow preacheth the faith luhich ttue he dtjlroyed. And 
 they glorified God in nie."j- . 
 
 In this man, before his converfion, we have a com- 
 plete fpecimen of the general temper of the Jewifh 
 church, during nrofl of the time the gcfpel was con- 
 tinued among them. This will be evinced by the fol- 
 lowing quotation froiTi one of his epiftles. " For ye, 
 brethren, became followers of the churches of Gcd, 
 which in Judea are in Chrifi Jefus : for ye have alfo 
 fuflcred like things of your civn ccuntrymen, even as they 
 
 • Afts ixvi. 4, J, 9, 10, II, 
 
 f Gal i, II— 17 arjd as— 24- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 217 
 
 } jve of the yfws : who both killtd the Lord Jefus, 
 • and their own prophets, and ha\e perfecuted us; and 
 theyphafe not God, and are contrary to all men "* 
 From the evidence ariling from the fa^ts which hare 
 } been briefly detailed in the preceding pages, the follow- 
 I ing conclufion irrefillibly forces itfclf upon the mind, 
 v',;:. That the gofpel church is not a continuation of t^ie 
 old Jewilli church, but totally diftinct : That it dif- 
 fers elleivially in its conftitution ; in the qualifications 
 required in order to memberfliip ; in its vifible form, 
 tliat being national, this being (elected and particular : 
 That the predictions and declaration of the prophets, cf 
 Jefus Chrilt and his apoftles, all prefent it to us as a dif- 
 titicl body : That {a.iEls which cannot be controverted, 
 determine that they never were united, althoLJgh they 
 both actually exifted at the fame time but that tiie 
 latter was conftantly oppoied and psrfecutec by the 
 former. 
 
 Hence we conclude, that as the two churches are 
 every way fo diftincV, the right of infants to member- 
 fliip in the Jewilh church is infufficicnt to fufrain their 
 claim to niemberlliip in the gofpel church. If they 
 have any claim to memberfliip under the goipel dif- 
 pcnfation, it mult be founded in the fpecial provilions 
 of this dilpenfation, and not inferred from any thing in 
 the former. " The truth/' fpjthDr. Em.mons, "io, we 
 mull learn the peculiar duties of believers under the 
 prefent difpenfafion of the covenant of grace, from 
 the difpenfation icfeif, which enjoins all the peouliar 
 duties which belong to it. If believers are now to 
 baptize their children, — it is not becaufe they were 
 once obliged to circumcife them."f 
 
 If thefe things are true, as we verily believe they are, 
 we beftcch our brethren not to fliut their eyes againft 
 the light, and rejcdt them. O that the great Head of 
 the church would enlighten each of us more perfect'y 
 in the knowledge of his will ! 
 
 * : ThclT. iL 14, 15. 
 
 t RspJy to Dr. Hemniiuway. 
 
218 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Str't&ures on the Rev. Peter EdwaHds's '< Candid 
 Reafons for rensttncing the Principles of Antipadohap' 
 tifm." 
 
 This gentleman has been feveral tinies named 
 in the preceding pages, and the book now before us 
 referred to. 
 
 My defign is only to make ftri(Etures. It cannot 
 therefore be expefted that I fhould follow hir.; in all 
 his long-laboured fyllogifms, nor attempt to unravel all 
 his intricate windings. This talk is rendered the lefs 
 neceflary, as Dr. Jenkins's very able reply is before the 
 public. In this, a candid reader will difcover much 
 folid learning, and a thorough knowledge of the fubjeft 
 difcufled. 
 
 In writing thefe ftri<rtures, I have no wilh to detract 
 from Mr. Edwards's " hard-earned fame," nor to fpeak 
 diminutively of his abilities as a polennic writer. I wifh 
 I could in juftice acknowledge him to be a fair and 
 honourable difputant. Whether my judgment is warp- 
 ed by prejudice, is not for me to fay ; but his reafonings 
 have ever appeared to me extremely fophiftical and un- 
 candid. The reafons on which I found this opinion 
 •will be feen in the courfe of thefe animadverfions. 
 
 The reader is alfo notified, that no attempt will ht 
 made in the enfuing pages to vindicate Mr. Booth, as 
 the writer has never feen his book to which Mr. Ed- 
 wards has replied. Nothing therefore will be noticed, 
 only what implicates our fentlments generally. 
 
 Mr. Edwards, in. his introduction, gives what he calls 
 *• a fair ftatement of the queftion." This ftatement is 
 divided into five Thefes. His firft: Thefts we fhould not 
 object to, had he conducted the difpute according to 
 the principles there ftated. It ftands thus — Thefts 1. 
 «' That we fet afide all thofe things about which we are 
 agreed, and fix our attention to that only on which a 
 difference of opinion may fall." " Secondly, that this 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 219 
 
 :ifterence be ftated in a manner the moft plain and 
 nniple." The reader will judge, whether Mr. Ed- 
 wards has not violated the firft of thefe rules, in the 
 mo ft flagrant manner. Has he not brought up the 
 fubjecl of female communisn, and employed it as a main 
 argument againft the Baptifls ? Yea, the very argu- 
 ment, which he boaftingly tells us that he has ufed 
 with fo much dexterity, as to filence every Baptift he 
 has met with in a quarter of an hour. And yet this is 
 a fubject that we are entirely agreed in. What has 
 I female communion to do with infant baptifm ? Nothing 
 at all. 
 
 \ Thefts 2. — " Antipscdobaptifts confider thofe perfons 
 as meet fubjedls of baptifm, who are fuppofed to pof- 
 fefs faith in Chrift, and thofe only. Pjedobaptifts 
 agree with them in this, that believers are proper fub- 
 ; jefts of baptifm, but deny that fuch only are proper 
 I fubjefts. They think, that, together with fuch believ- 
 ; ing adults, ivho have r.ot yet been baptized^ their infants 
 j have a right to baptifm as well as their parents." The 
 I laft part of this pofition implies what is not true, which 
 I will be feen in our remarks upon the next. 
 I Thfts 'S. — " From this view of the fentiments of 
 each, it appears that both parties are agreed on the 
 article of aduit baptifm, which muft therefore be fet 
 afide, as a matter entirely out of difpute ; for it can 
 anlwer no good purpofe for one to prove what the other 
 will not deny." An incautious reader by this ftate- 
 ment would be led to fuppofe, that the two denomina- 
 tions had the fame views of adults being proper fub- 
 jefls of baptifm. But it is evident that we differ widely 
 on this fubjeft. It is not true, that Pxdobaptifts allow 
 adult baptifm, only under certain limitations. They 
 indeed admit fuch as have never been baptized in in- 
 fancy, when they come to be believers. But why do 
 they ? Evidently becauie they could never baptize 
 them before. Their own, or their parents' confent was 
 wanting. But could they carry their fentiments into 
 complete effefl, it would put an entire end to believers* 
 baptifm ; for they would baptize every infant foon after 
 it was born \ nor would they allow them ever after. 
 
220 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 fliould they become believers, to be baptized agreeably 
 to their own confciences, upon the pain of being de- 
 nounced as Anabaptifts. This difference of fentiment 
 on this point cannot be denied, without denying an 
 obvious truth. It is therefore but mere evafion, to fay, 
 that we are agreed on this point, and that they hold to 
 believers' bapt'ifm as well as we. They certainly would 
 exterminate it out of the world if they could. 
 
 But what is Mr. Edwards making this preparation 
 for ? The anfwer is eafy. It is to get rid of that bur- 
 den of proof ariiing from thofe qualifications, indifcrim- 
 inately required in order to baptifm, with which his 
 denomination have conftantly been prelTed by the Bap- 
 tifts. 
 
 We fhall not at prefent objecl to his ftatement in 
 the clofe of this polition, viz, " The fimple queftion 
 ■which remains to be decided is this, Are infants fit fub- 
 je^ls of baptifm, or are they not ? On tliis queftion tlie 
 whole turns. The Pa^dobaptifts affirm, and the Anti- 
 paeilobaptifts deny." But we fiir.ll take the liberty to 
 difprove their fitnefs, by urging their want of thofe qual- 
 ifications required by the initiimion, without alking iNIr. 
 EdwarUs's confcnt. 
 
 Thcfs 4'. — " The nmple queftion being as r.e have now 
 ftated it, Are infants fit fubjeas of baptifm, or are they 
 not i* it v/ill clearly follow, that all thofe places which 
 relate to believers' baptifm, can prove nothing on tlie 
 fide of the Eaptifts \ and the reafon is, they have no 
 relation to the queftion." No, Mr. Edwards, we fhall 
 not confent to this. You might very eafily indeed beat 
 us all in a quarter of an hour, if we- v/ould be fo foolilh 
 as to confent to let you firft lie our hands. But in vain 
 is ihe fiicre fprend in ihe Jight of any bird. You alk, " Are 
 infants fit fubje£ts of baptifm ?" How are we to judge 
 of the fitnefs of a fubjeft any otherwife than by the 
 qualifications required by the inftitution .'' No, no, fay 
 you, thefe all refpe<Sl adults, and therefore are irrelevant 
 to the fubjeft. Allow, if you pleafe, that thefe refped 
 adults only, and will not this conclufion inevitably fol- 
 low, that none but adults were to be baptized ? 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 221 
 
 * "Kthe qualifications indefinitely required by the in- 
 ftitution of baptifm, (I fay imlifnitely, becaufe the fcrip- 
 nires give us no idea of one kind of qualifications for 
 adults, and another for iiifants) if thefe are to form no 
 part of the rule by which we are to judge of ihc^iiefs 
 of infants, what are we to judge by ? Why truly, Mr. 
 Edwards has furnifhed us wit^i a very compendious 
 naethod" indeed. V/'e mufi: go back almoft two thou- 
 fand years before the iiiftitution of baptifm cxifled, and 
 examine another inftitutioii every waj different in its na- 
 ture, mode, and defign, and belonging to another church 
 equally different from the Ciirlftian church ; and upon 
 this we are to mnke up our judgment refpefting thu 
 fitnefs of infants for a New Teflament inftitution ! P.Iufl: 
 not a man have a front like brafs, who ca i charge his 
 opponents with fophiitry, while he himfelf is guilty of 
 fuch management as this, to keep men from feeing the 
 truth ? It is believed, that there is not another fubjedl 
 in the v/orld^on wliich men would reafonfo inconclui'ive- 
 ly. Were a difpute to arife concerning the right of citi- 
 zenihip in the United States, how fhoald we determine 
 the quelHdn ?. Should we determine it by the confti- 
 tution of Great-Britain, or by the conftitution of the 
 United States ? AVe think there would be but one 
 opinion in this cafe, /. e. that it muft; be determined by 
 the conftitution under which we now live. Whv fliouid 
 we not determine the qualificj^tions for an inftitution of 
 the gofpel in the fame way ? 
 
 Mr. Edwards's fifth Thefts is a mere recapitulation 
 of the preceding ; therefore it is thought uuneccliary to 
 ftate it. 
 
 We fhall now proceed to his ftrtement of the argu- 
 ments which the Baptifts bring againll infant bapufni. 
 «* Of thcfe," he tells us, " there are two only." If he 
 had allowed us to fpeak for ourfelvcs, it is more than 
 poffible we might have rtiuftered up one or two more. 
 But what are the two which he allows us to bring ? 
 
 Firft, " A perfon ivho has a right to a pfstivc injlitution 
 mufi he exprcfsly nietitioned as having that right ; hut itfant^ 
 Hre not fo mentioned, therefore they have not that right J' 
 
 This argument he fuppofes requires that exprefs 
 mention be made in the fcripturcs of the baptifm of 
 
APPENDljr. 
 
 infants. This he fays, is « Sfflluniag, contrafted, faffb." 
 " It is very aiTuming, becsufe it feems to didlate to the 
 ever bleflcd God in v-'hat manner he ought to fpeak to 
 his creatures. Since it is no where contained in bis word, 
 and he knows heft how to communicate his mind to 
 men, it little becomes fuch creatures as \ve are to lay 
 down rules by which hfe fliall proceed." Is it not X 
 little njfumlng for Mr. Edwards to infift upon out re^. 
 ceiving and approving a practice which he allows not 
 to be conla'med in the word of God ! Reader, paufe a 
 moment,, and reflect upon this «« precious confeffion " 
 If you are a Baptiit, will you not feel more thankful 
 than ever, that the fentiments you prafHfe are moft 
 plainly contained in God's word ? Will not Mr. Ed- 
 wards's new friends blufh for this unguarded conceffion, 
 and wifli he had been a little more careful ? He adds, 
 « it is very contradVed, becaufe it fuppofes we cannot 
 underftand what God fays, but when he fpeaks to us in 
 one particular way." No Sir, you miftake : it fuppofes 
 we cannot underftand him when he does not fpeak at 
 all. For you will pleafe to remember, you have juft 
 {'aid, it is no ivhere contained in his ivord. And this is 
 the only medium through v^hich he has fpoken to us 
 refpedting pofitive inlHtutions. But, 
 
 •« It is very falfe : becaufe (to wave all other inftan- 
 ce3, and fix on one only) a fubjeft is admitted to a pofi- 
 tive inftitute, and that axlmi{Ron is according to truth, 
 and fo held and pra6lifed by all who ufe Chriftian rites, 
 ■when there is no exprefs law or example to fupport it 
 in all the v/ord of God. It is the cafe of women to 
 which I allude, and their admiflion to the Lord's 
 table." 
 
 This is Mr. Edwards's knock-down argument, "with 
 which he has fo often vanquifiied the Baptifts. He 
 has fpent twelve pages in attempting to prove that there 
 is no explicit warrant for female commtmion ; and 
 therefore that it ftands upon the fame footing of infant 
 baptifm. His meaning is, that the right of infants to 
 baptifm is equally plain, and as well fiipported by the 
 fcriptures, as the right of females to communion. But 
 he has unhappily deftroyed his argument by his own 
 Rttcrnvnt. For he fays, female communion *' is hctd 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 pr:itt 'fed by all ivho ufe Chrljlian riUsJ* If infant 
 
 .ptii'in were eqii.iliy as plain, what reafon can be al- 
 ii, Tied for its not h^.»ing as univerlally admitted ? He is 
 uiiJoiibtedlv correit lu this, that no Chriitian feit who 
 have admitted the celebration of the Lord's fupper, 
 h;ive difaUo.ved the right of females. It is equally 
 certain, that f-oin the Hrft mention ot intant baptifm in 
 tcc;efiiirtical hiftory, it has met with oppofition- This 
 oppofuion iias not Ijeen made by thoie v.-ho profeflei 
 to be governed by the decrees of popes aod councils , 
 but fach as profeffed to cake the word of God for their 
 guide in all matters of religion. What rational account 
 can be given for the oppoiition made to iniant baptiun 
 from time immemorial to the prefenr, wilile females 
 have all this time remained in the unmolefted enjoy- 
 ment of communion ; unlefs it be, that the latter is 
 clearly eftablilhed in the New Teftament, while no evi- 
 dence can be found for the former. 
 
 Thofe who deny infant baptifm, have undoubtedif 
 the fame tender afFedtion for their children as thole 
 who praftife it ; nor can we admit that they feel lefs 
 concerned for their eternal falvation. Hence nothinj^', 
 hut the want of fcriptnre to fupport it, leads the;n to 
 deny its validity. 
 
 We will now take the liberty to vary Mr, Ed .>.'ar Js's 
 third Tkefify and put female cofhinunion in tlie place of 
 mdutt baptifm, and he and his friends will then fee the 
 full force of his argument. 
 
 Thefts 3. — " From this view of the fentimentE of each, 
 it appears that both parties are agreed in the article of 
 fetnale communion^ which muft therefore be fet ailde, aa 
 a matter entirely out of difpute : for it can ani\ver no 
 good purpofe for one to prove what the other will not 
 deny.'"' Very well : then here we will leave it. 
 
 Argument 2. — ^The fecond argument which Mr. Ed- 
 wards allows the Baptifts to bring againft the baptifm 
 of infants, he exprefles as follows : 
 
 ** The fcripiuns require faith and repentatice as rcquiftte 
 U baptifm, but as infants cannot have thcfe, they are not 
 pruper fubje3s cf baptifm. Infants, fay the Baptifls, cannot 
 kd'^tye, ejnnst yipint ; and none f&i^u/d be baptized -without 
 
224. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 " The mofl expeditious way, f.iys Mr. Edwards, of 
 (^ffro-jitig this argument is this. They fay the fcrlptures 
 roquire faith and repentance in order to baptifm. I alk 
 of whom > The anfwer tniiji be of adults ; for the fcrip- 
 lurcs never require them of infants in order to any 
 ihing." My Baptift brethren ! do you not tremble 
 iir tlie fate of your argument, fmce it has fallen into 
 the ha:)ds of fuch an ApoUyon But how is he going 
 ro work to t.V?;rv it ! Wliy by telling you that all the 
 cjr.aliiicat^u. k re r,;, 'red by the inftitution, have refpeiSt 
 ti''}' to :! NC'v propcriion of the candidates for 
 
 . - . tliac no qualifications at all are re- 
 
 iiuircd of far tbe ,c;rcater part. 
 
 Mow does 'Jlr. Edv/ards prove that the fcriptures do 
 ticit ie."jLi're faith and repentance of all who are to bt 
 . 'n un J :o br.ptifni ? He does it in this way, by ad- 
 -^ ••1,, u ^vclrd adults. But it muft be remembered, 
 tl.r.t the fcriptures do not mention either adults or in- 
 fants but prefcribe thefe qualifications generally and 
 without .ai}- exoeption. We fh all therefore infift, that 
 the wr.nt of thefe qualifications muft forever bar the 
 cl^im of all others to this ordinance, whether adults or 
 infants. 'Vl 'ii is ground we fhall by no means give up, 
 until it fhall be fairly proved, that either Chrill or his 
 apoflles did adtually admit perfons to baptifn:., who 
 made no profcfii' n of faith and repentance. This 
 lias never yet been done, and we believe it never can 
 be. However, we have no objection to any perfon's 
 making the attempt. 
 
 Edwards, after working over this argument, fo as 
 to fuit himiclf by changing and diminiihing the force 
 cf the rarjor prnpoiition, at length declares it " a glar- 
 ing jlphif/u.^' But iii what does the fophiftry confii't ? 
 In his own management, and in nothing elfe. The 
 flrfl; ftatement re.'.da thus ; " The fcripcures require 
 faith and repentance in order to bapiifni " The 
 meaning is generally and without any exception. 
 When altered by Mr. Edwards, it Hands thus : — ♦< The 
 fcriptures require iaitli and repentance of adults, in 
 order to baptilm." It is this addition alone which 
 can poflibly expofe the argument to the charge of 
 foohifiry. Place the argument upon its native ground, 
 ai.d it will ftand thus : 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 225 
 
 ' The fcriptures require, in r.H perfjnty faicli and 
 ■ tanc? as reqiiifite to baptifm •■, but fonie perfons 
 ■hot fsith and repentance : therefore, all impeni- 
 whether adults or infants, are not proper fubjeiTts 
 
 viptifm." The reader will determine fop- himfelf, 
 wiiich party is juftly chargeable with fophiftryi 
 
 After altering the arguinent 35 above Jefcribed, 
 Mr. Edwards goes on to prove it falfe. We will now 
 briefly examine his proof. He propofes " firll t6 fho\y 
 that the argument is entirely fillacious ; fecond, point 
 out wherein its fallacy confifts." " 1. Of the fallacy 
 of thi.^ argument. 'I he principle of it is, that infants 
 are excluded from baptifm, becaufe fometliing is faid of 
 baptifm which will not agree to infants. To fee there- 
 fore the tendency of this argument whether it wiR 
 prove on the fide of truth or error, I will try its opera- 
 tion on tliefe four particulaj s." 
 
 1. "On the cinumcifion of infants. That Infants 
 were circumcifed, is a facV. That they were eircum- 
 cifed by the exprefs coainumd of God, is a proof of 
 rijht, &c." This will not be difputed by any one. But 
 how does this prove the argument of the Baptiits to be 
 falfe ? Wily in this way, « circumci'ion, as it was a 
 folemn entering into the church of God, did lix an ob- 
 ligation on the circumcifed, to conform to the laws and 
 ordinances of that church."* How is this proved 
 From Gal. v. 3. " Every man luro is circumciftd is a 
 debtor to do ihi ivbsle la-w." What is the inference 
 Here it follows in Mr. Edwards's own words ; " Then 
 it is clear, there was foiaethtng faid of circumcifion 
 which did no more agree to intant3j than if it had 
 been faid. Repent and be baptized." Suppofmg, Mi\ 
 Edward.-!, we Ihould retort a little of your logic upon 
 yourfelf, and affirm, that when the apoftle fays, Ev<;rj 
 man ivh) is drcumcifcd is a debtor to do the "ivkole Livj^ 
 he murt mean, every adult : " for the fcriptures never 
 require fuch ot dlence of infants in order to any thing." 
 Now, Sir, if your logic is good, your argumem is good 
 
 • It wcul I, we believe, be very difficult to df fcribe the great/c/*«n.-^j. 
 which an infant of eight Jayb oid difcovcred, at this time of ii» entrance 
 iuto the chbrcb, 
 
 ■W 2 
 
for nothing. For the fame mode of reafoiilng which 
 you have adopted to deftroy our argument, will dein uy 
 your own. But I mean to (how its fallacy in 2\30ther 
 way. 
 
 To the above inference our author adds, « In this 
 refpeft, baptifm and circumcifion are upon a level ; lor 
 there is fomcthing fa;d concerning both, which will by 
 no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand 
 cannot believe and repent ; and thefe are connedcd 
 with baptifm ; and on the other hand, infants cannot 
 become debtors they cannot keep the law, and thefe 
 are connected v.'itli circumcifion." If I fliould reafon 
 after this manner, I Hiould expsQ. to be roundly charged 
 with fophiftry. f<- Connetled with baptifm j" '■Uonne8td 
 with circumcifion," {z\s Mr. Edwards. But, Sir, are 
 they connected alike } Muft not every perfon, by a 
 moment's reflection, fee that they are totally different ? 
 Baptifm does not merely " fix an obligation" to believe 
 and repent at feme future period ; but requires a pro- 
 feflion of faith and repentance, as a previous qualifica- 
 tion for the ordinance. Circumcifion did not require 
 any previous obedience to the law, in order to qualify a 
 perfon for that rite. The utmoft that can be faid of it 
 with regard even to fuch adults as voluntarily choofe 
 it for themfelves is, that they thereby made themfelvcs 
 debtors to do the whole law. The apoftle's meaning is 
 evidently this, that thofe who ftill infilled upon circum- 
 cifion, as that was one of the firft articles of the legal 
 <^ifpenfation, could not be fuppofed to have embraced 
 the gofpel and if they depended on their obedience 
 to the law for juftification, wliich was implied in their 
 holding to circumcifion, they muft then confider thenv- 
 felves debtors to do the whole law. But can it be fui>» 
 pofed, that the mere act of circumcifion, performed on 
 a helplefs infant, without his knowledge or confent, 
 fhould make him a debtor to do the whole law ? It 
 is evident Paul had nothing of this in view, when he 
 circumcifed Timothy. I do not think it conftituted 
 him a debtor to do the whole law. But had he chofen 
 that method of juftification in preference tp the gofpel, 
 rt certainly would. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 9^1 
 
 Duf will not every perfon who is capable of reafoning 
 i -upon a lubjeft, fee a wide difference between qualijica- 
 tkus prevhujly required by an ordinance, and an obligch- 
 iiQit jisccl by the ordinance itfelf ? The great Author of 
 being fixes at\, obligation upon every rational creature 
 as foon as it exifts, to love and obey him. But he re., 
 quires no previous exercifes of Ipve and obedience in 
 order to qualify us for exiftenc?. It hence appears that 
 the two cafes ftated by Mr. Edwards, as being entirely 
 fimilar, " and upon a level," are totally unlike. There- 
 fore, until it can be made out that qualifications for an 
 ordinance, and fubfequent duties zT\{\ngfrom it, are the 
 fjme thing, we muft fet down Mr. Edwards as a 
 fophiftical reafoner ! But the whole will be fubmitted, 
 grgumentum ad judicium, to all whom it may concern.* 
 
 Mr. Edwards next argues againft the general require- 
 ment of faith and repentance, from the " baptifm of 
 Jefus Chrift." He fuppofes as " he was no finner, he 
 could have no repentance ; and fince he needed no fal- 
 vation from fin, he could not hare the faith of God's 
 ^ elea." 
 
 t ' Are there any Chrifkians who fuppofe that JefusChrift. 
 W5S baptized for prccifely the fame reafons as thofe by 
 which he has enjoined the duty upon his people ? Or in 
 other words, whether his baptifm fignified the fame- 
 things which our's does ? If not, his argument is noth- 
 jr-; to the purpofe. But let us hear Mr. Edwards's own- 
 explanation. <' With regard to the ufe of baptifm," faitl^ 
 he, " I confider it in the light of a meati of grace, and I, 
 view it in the fame way when applied to infants." (p, 
 184.) Does Mr. Edwards fuppol'c that the baptifm of 
 Chrift was a mean of grace to him ? If not, it muft 
 certainly be very different from the baptifm of any 
 other perfon. We do not think that Jefus Chrift ftood 
 in neetl of any fuch mcafis of grace as infant baptifrn, 
 Hence his not being a fubjcft of faith and repentance, 
 cannot with any fairnefs be urged againft the general 
 requirement of the inftitution, nor be pleaded as an 
 ejccptioji in behalf of finful creatures. 
 
 • The reader will cxcufc my ufing thefe logicaj terms, -wkoi he rtcel- 
 kfti i fto) retfoning with a very logical man. 
 
228 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Mr. EdwarJs draws his third arp;ament from the 
 
 faivation of hifants." Thefc he prefumcs are faved 5 
 and faved toD without either faith or repentance. 
 
 We fufpeft he may find this arj^ument rather unman- 
 ageable. It may poflibly take a greater extent of lati- 
 tude, and fpread much wider than he intended. If in- 
 fants may be faved without faith or repentance, (the 
 qualifications for baptifm) it muft be plain that all in- 
 fants may be faved. If this be an argument in favour 
 of the baptifm of fome infants, it will prove equally in 
 favour of the baptifm of all infants, whether their par- 
 ents are Chriuians, heathens, or infidels, unlefs the 
 poffibility of their falvation be denied. We fee but 
 two ways (to ufe his own modefi: language) to fave his 
 " argument from perdition." The firfi: is, to prove that 
 no infants will be faved, but fuch as defcend from be- 
 lieving parents : or, fccond, to extend liis practice of 
 binti^inr: th.Mi to all infants, without exception. For 
 
 ::';-u 'i; to this ordinance U to be fupported upon 
 
 f \e ;>;\".: . '. t y of their falvation, then it cannot depend 
 at all on ihe nioral condition of tbeir parents, unlefs their 
 falvation depends on that hkewife, which it woidd be 
 abfurd to pretend. We only ;.dd, if they may be faved, 
 though incapable of the qualifications required by the 
 baptifmal inftitution, we Ihould certainly fuppofe their 
 baptifm might be alfo omitted, unlefs that be thought 
 of more ccnfequence in the article of falvation than faith 
 and repentance. 
 
 Mr. Edwards's fourth and laft argument to prove 
 that the Baptifts reafon fophiftically wlieathey infift on 
 a profefljon of faith and repentance in order to baptifm, 
 5s drawn from the "temporal fubfiflence of infants." 
 He endeavours to make out that our argument goes to 
 prove, that infants ought to be left to itarve to death. 
 His reafoning is founded on Paul's words to the Thef- 
 falonians : IVe cymmnnded you, faith the apoftle, if any 
 •would not ivork, neither Jhculd he eat. 
 
 Our argument, as ftated by Mr. Edwards, is, that 
 « the fcriptures require faith and repentance as requi- 
 flte to baptifm •, but as infants cannot have thefe, they 
 arc not proper fubjssfts." This argument fuppofes, that- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 229 
 
 ?.«; infants cnnnot exhibit the fcriptiu'al qualifications, 
 tliev are not to blame ; neither; are they injured in our 
 view in not being admitted to I)aptifm. But the cafe of 
 the icHfiil id'.er is every way different. He is fuppofed 
 to polTcfs fufficienc ability to obtain the fomfnrtable 
 luei'ns of fubdilence, but by a criminal negligence be- 
 comes cb.argeable to the church. It is wonderful to 
 fee what this do£trine of analogy can do ! It can make 
 fobjei5Vs the moft antipodal, appear to fland in perfedt 
 harmony ; and fuch as in their natm^e are every way 
 tinlike, to be pevfedly a)ia]ogous. 
 
 By the preceding ani.nadvorfions it will be feen that 
 Mr. Edwards's four arguments, when weighed in an 
 even balance, are found wanting. It needs only to 
 remove their extraneous parts, and they appear at once 
 wholly irrelevant to the rubie<5t. The argument which 
 lie oppofes does not of iclelf prove againft the truth, nor 
 has it any unfriendly afpect but what it derives from 
 his torturing hand. 
 
 His next attempt is to (liow wherein the fallity of this 
 •rgument confifts. This, he informs his readers, is by 
 our placing "one thing in the premifes, and another 
 in the, concliifion.'' But the reader man: not forget 
 that he tlated the premifes, and made the conclufioii to 
 fuit himfelf. But, wherein do they difagree ? The 
 fiaptifts, he fays, place adults in the premifes, arid hijdiits 
 in the conclufion. This is not true. The Baptifts 
 make the premifes general, and the conclufion general. 
 
 But let us inquire whether Mr. Edwards does not, 
 by his own ftatement, get more in his conclufion from 
 circiimcihon than can be found in the premifes. His 
 argument runs thus : — The male infants of Abraham and 
 his pofterity, were by God's com nand to be cir- 
 cumcifed. What is his conclufion ? Therefore the in- 
 fants of fuch as belong to the Chriflrian church, both 
 mnki and females, are to be baptized. Has Mr. Edwards 
 here got no more in his conclufion than is found in his 
 pren\il"es " O fiiaiue, where is thy blufh !" 
 
 We will now meet Mr. Edwards upon his nrgumen- 
 turn ad bominem, and fee what the refult will be. 
 Now, faith he, to make the argument of the Baptius 
 
appi:ndix 
 
 sonfiftent, we mufl: place infants in the premifes ac 
 well as in the conclulion, and the argument will itand 
 thus : — The fcriptures require faith and repentance of 
 infants in Order to baptifhi ; but infants have not faith> 
 &c. therefdre infants are not to be baptized." 
 
 We will how try his argument. iNIr. Edwards fuf- 
 tains the pUa in favour of the baptifm of infants both 
 male and female, from the covenant of circumciOon ; 
 but by that covenant no female infant was admitted to 
 circunicifion j therefore no female infant muft be ad- 
 mitted to baptifm. 
 
 Again, « infants, in order to vifible memberfhip^ 
 were the fubje<Sks of a religious rite for «« circumcif- 
 ion was a religious rite but female infants were not 
 the fubjetfls of that religlcwis rite, therefore female ia- 
 fants vv ere not admitted to metnberflilp in the vifible 
 church. 
 
 iThus we fee, that Mr- Edwards's logic will prove his 
 owh arguments falfe, and exclude female infants both 
 from baptifm and from vilible memberfliip iu the 
 church. It is impofllble to fupport the claim of femal* 
 infants to baptifm upoa the covcjiant of circumciuoo, 
 without getting more into the conclufion than can b^ 
 found in the premifes. This may not be ftigmati^ed 
 a " glarilig fophifm" in a Pjedobaptift i but it will bf 
 remembered what Mr. Edwards has faid of it with t^^ 
 fped to the Biptifts. 
 
 We will now fpend a fe-,v minutes in exaaniniHg Mf.» 
 Edwards's arguments on the iide of infant baptifm." 
 
 " Infant baptiHnj faith he, is to be proved in th* 
 fr.me way a& female communion /. e. by " inference 
 and analogy." Well> go on, Mr. Edwards, and inaka 
 your itatement. « In the firfk pUca, it is a faft ac- 
 knowledged by th^ Baptifts thenifelyes, that infants 
 were at an early period coufvituted raenibars of the 
 church of God." This, SLr, is about half true. No 
 well informed Baptifl: could aiJmit it in tiiis un^jualified 
 fenfe ; for it fuppofeq that infants, females as well a» 
 males, without limitation were admitted : this wants 
 pf oof. But, proceed. " In the next glace, I pro- 
 
 * Candid Roaroas, p 39. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 231 
 
 (^iice proof, that they have a right to be fo now ; and 
 that the conftitution of Gocl by which they were made 
 fnembcrs, has not been altered to this day." Should you 
 fiicceed, Sir, in this attempt, thefe confequences will in- 
 evitably follow. 1 . That circumcifion is ftill in force ; 
 Or, that the conftitution of God, which exprefsly en- 
 joined circumcifion, has been altered ; and altered too 
 by divine authority, fo as to admit of baptifm in its 
 toovn. 2. If this conftitution remains unaltered, female 
 infants have no place in it : for they were neither nam- 
 ed nor included in that rite by which you tell us infants 
 wore admitted to " vifible memberfhip." (p, 39.) Have 
 you got through witli your ftatement. Sir ? Not wholly. 
 Then pleafe to proceed. «• In the laft place, I fhall 
 .*ny down this dilemma, which will conclude the whole 
 biifinefs ; namely : — As infants, by a divine ttnalterahJt 
 cnnjiituiiony have a riglit to be received as church mem- 
 bers, they muft be received either with baptifm or 
 without it. If they are not to be received without 
 l-.iptifm, "then the confequence is, that they muft be 
 baptized, bccaufe they muft be received." Infants muft 
 be received, and therefore muft be baptized, and they 
 tnuft be baptized becnufe they muft be received. The 
 potency of this reafcning no man will dare to difpute. 
 
 This dilemma viewed at a diftance, has, to before, a 
 frij^htful afpecl ; but upon a nearer infpeftion, its for- 
 mid.ible appearance vanilhes av.-«y. The fiim of it is 
 this. That jf infants have a right by the divine injlitutian to 
 memberjhip in the Chriflinn church, then they muji be ad- 
 mitud according to that injVitution. 
 
 If Mr. Edwards, by this unalterable conftittition, means 
 the covenant of circumcifion, as he moft cenainly does, 
 we wiih to know whether female infants were admitted 
 to memberfhip bv any religious rite, agreeably to that 
 •conftitution ? It fo, what was that rite .'' If that corjlitti- 
 tion faid nothing about female infants, and it was in its 
 nature una'.terabley we wiOi to be informed how they 
 -came by the right they now enjoy in the Chriftian 
 church. I am afraid after all, Sir, your argument will 
 •prove fatal to the memberftiip of thefe poor little fe- 
 male infants ! Do,Sir,have a little compaftion on them, 
 and try fome way or other to provide for their mem-- 
 
232 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 berfl'ip. It will be in vain, however, to tell us that in 
 the inftitutlon of the gofpel church there is mkJ.er male 
 nor fttmaley that they are all one in Chrijl Jtfus. This is 
 not the unalterable conllitution on which you defend 
 their right. And it is true only of fuch as are believers, 
 fuch as are the children of God by faith in Chrifl Jfftts ,* 
 not fuch as are his merely by circumcifion or baptifm. 
 Thefe infants, if they are any way interefted in Chrift's 
 fiilvation, have no faith, by your own acknowledgment ; 
 for you have fuppofed them incapable of it. 
 
 In this firft argument, Mr. Edwards fuppofes he has 
 eftabliihed the right of infant memberfhip in the Chrif 
 tian church. But the utmofl that can be fairly deduced 
 from his arguing is, that male infants were admitted by 
 divine appointment to mcmberfliip in the JeivfJ} church. 
 Two points, which are all-impcrtant, yea, which are the 
 \tryfi/if qua non to fupport his fcheme, he has left to- 
 tally without proof, viz. That the Jewilh and Chriftian 
 churches are the fame ; and that female infants were 
 admitted to memberlhip by divine appointment. It 
 Mr. Edwards has proved nny thing more tlian I have 
 allowed him, I have not yet been able to difcern it. 
 The refult which he has formed upon his own argu- 
 ment, vrill fliow us what lie fuppofes he has done, and 
 w'lat courfe he ineans to take in future. "Thefe tv.o 
 parts of the prcpof»tion, faith he, being evinced ; name- 
 ly, 1. The church memberlhip of infants ; and, 2. 
 Their aclmiiiion to it by a religious rite ; the whole 
 propofition which I undertake to maintain, and to lay 
 as the ground-work from which to conclude the bap- 
 tiim of infants, is this, — God has conftituted in his 
 church the memberfliip of infants, and has admitted 
 them to it by a religious rite."-}- 
 
 The reader will here fee the ground-work ifinfiutt 
 baplifm ! that it is placed at the diftance of near two 
 thuufand years from the gofpel dilpenfation ! that it 
 does not look to that for its fupport, but depends en- 
 tirely upon the unalterable conjflitulion of the Jewifli 
 church. 
 
 From this data Mr. Edwards proceeds to his fecond 
 argun^ent, as follows : " The church meiuherfljip of injants 
 
 * Gal. iii. l6, 28. \ Prgc 43. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 233 
 
 -.-vfr Jet a fide by God cr man but continues in force, 
 ■ ike Jancticn of God, to the prefeiit day." 
 . llipport of this argument, he realons thus : " Ev- 
 iie knows, that what was once done, and never 
 :ie, muft of courfe remain the fame : And that 
 was once granted, and never revoked, muft needs 
 ;me as a grant." (p. 4.5.) " That whatever God 
 eitablifhed ihould be fuppofed to continue, though 
 I'uld bring proof of its continuance, unlefs we 
 ..iinly told, that he has ordered it otherwife." Ic 
 i not do, I fuppofe, in this inftance, Mr. Edwards, 
 . prove its continuance bv " analogy" or «' infer- 
 ! ' Nothing but hsing plainly to/d," can be ad- 
 .iiLieJ in this cafe. 
 
 To five us the trouble, however, of proTing that this 
 irant is vacated, Mr. Edwards has generouUy volun- 
 eered his frrvices to prove that it is not. This proof 
 ■vill now be examined. " There was, fays he, only one 
 joint of lime, in which it is even fuppofed the church 
 .nemberfliip of infants was fet afide ; and that was 
 ivhen the Gentiles were taken into a vifible church 
 late." 
 
 Here Mr. Edwards is thought to have ftumbkd upo» 
 ;he very threfliold. He has ta'cen for granted, what 
 rannot be admitted without the moft clear and une- 
 quivocal proof ; that is, that the apoftles and difci- 
 jles of Jelr.s, with their Mafter at their head, did not 
 .onftitute a new church, purely upon gofpel principles, 
 jut that they were incorpor.ited with the old Jewifh 
 rhurch, and condu(fted in all things agreeably to its 
 inalterable confiitution. Not'iing in our view can be 
 farther from the truth than this fentiment. It ftands 
 ;ondemned by all the facts recorded in the New Tefta- 
 nent. But having treated this fubjecl more at large 
 n a preceding part of this work, the reader is referred 
 ;o that for proof of what is here alTerted.* It is fufH- 
 tient here to fay, If Chrift, with more than leventy dif- 
 siples, acting by his authority, totally independent of 
 he Jewifh church and its leaders, did not conftitute the 
 Chriftian church, we can have no idea of its exiftente 
 
 • See Scft. IV. 
 
234- 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 at any other period. To fay that Chrift and his difci- 
 ples were united as members of that old church evef 
 after Jefus commenced his public miniftry, and called 
 thefe difciples to follow him as their head and leader, 
 v.'ould be to contradict the whole hiftory of h£ts re* 
 corded by the Evangelifts. 
 
 Mr. Edwards fuppofes the " moft carnal Jew that 
 ever fat in the regions of darknefs could not give a 
 more frigid account of circumcifion than Mr. Booth 
 has done." It is believed he would be puzzled to find 
 a Jew, either in the regions of darknefs or light, when 
 Chrlft was upon earth, or at any period fince, who 
 would acknowledge with him that the Jewifh and 
 Chriftian churches ::.re the fame. No j they know 
 that they and their fathers hated and oppofed Jcfus of 
 Nazareth and his doctrine ; that they perfecuttd him 
 and his followers. Yet Mr. Edwards tells us, that " tht 
 firft Gentiles of whcfe calling we read are faid to have 
 been added to the church ■■, biit there was no church 
 exifting to which they could be added, but the atuuni 
 Jenxiip church, of which all the apoftles and difciples of 
 our Lord were members." Is there another man upon 
 earth that can believe this ? that can entertain fuch a 
 degrading thought of Jefus and his difciples, as not to 
 acknowledge them to be the true gofpel church "We 
 know that the Jev/idi priefts and people difowned theiiij 
 and treated them as the enemies of their church j but 
 tvho would have ever thought that a man, profefling to 
 be a Chriftian minifter, could be fo attached to the old 
 Jewilh fyftem, as to deny Chrift and his difciples tlie 
 honour of compofing and conftituting the nciv Chrijlicin 
 church .' Let every perfon Avho can read the New Tef» 
 lament, read it carefully and prayerfully, and fee if he 
 can find a fingle hint in the whole account, that ever 
 the apoftles and difciples of Jefus were in any fenfe 
 connected with that church, after they became the fol- 
 lowers of Chrift. Mr. Edwards fays, thefe " apoftles 
 and difciplts were members of the ancient Jewiih 
 church." The evangeiift John fays, The Jews had 
 agrted already, fl ut if ,i!!y man did confers t}mt he ivas the 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 255 
 
 he flxuhl he put tut of the fyiiagogue.* Did not the 
 ies and difciples confcfs Chrift openly? Or did 
 y diflemble, and fo keep their place in the Jewiill 
 ! lurch ? We leave the dilemma to Mr. Edwards and 
 " friends. 
 
 ill the npoftles of Jefus thank Mr. Edwards for 
 .'-ting them with his " deadly enemies ?" Or im- 
 .;y charging them v.ith the duplicity of the Phari-- 
 who are faid to believe on hira, but who loved the 
 c of men more than the praife of God, and there- 
 did not confefs hini openly } The Jews were fo 
 ii om acknowledging Chrift and his followers as be- 
 .i.g members of their church, that they exultingly told 
 the man whom Jefus had reftored to his fight, Jhou art 
 his lUjWpk, hut fje are Mcfcs^ difciples. W e k/iow that 
 God fpc'he unto Mcfss : as for this flloiViive krioxv not fior.t 
 whence he is. \ 
 
 It would not help ]Mr. Edwards's argument to fiy, 
 that the Jewifii church now confifted of fuch only as 
 embraced Chriil and his doctrine. This would but 
 deceive his readers ; for this was not the JewiOi, but 
 the gofpel church. This was compofed of converts frcm 
 Judaifm to Chriftianity. But if Judaifm and Chrillianiiy 
 are the fame, it would be nonfenfe to talk of being 
 converted from one to the, other. For a Jew to be- 
 come a Chriftian, a much greater altera* ion was recol- 
 fary than merely to chang; his " clothing" j.r;,n «< .ii- 
 et (p. 46, 48) his heart muft be ch:uigei, or ■ o 
 would be no better than a Judas. 
 
 For Mr. Edwards therefore to prove thr.t n: .!c in- 
 fants \\tA a right to memberihip in the Jcwifh cUurcii, 
 is proving what nobody denies ; and will afford no 
 Aipport to his argumen>, uiilefs it can be proved, that 
 the two churches are one and the fame. This he has 
 indeed afierted, but has given no fufficient proof of it. 
 Nor will any man who h inquiring after truth be fatif- 
 fied by ha^'iiig it proved, that there were fome points 
 of agreement ; fome analogy between the two churches. 
 It muft be proved, that Chrift and his difciples did 
 aclually unite with the old Jewifli church, and became 
 
 • Jp'lU ix. 2 7,. 
 
 f Jpliii ix. a8, z') 
 
'259 APPENDIX I 
 
 onf with that body, or elfe his argument will prot« 
 nothing to the point in difpute. M 
 Nor will it help his caufe to fay, " that the right o? 
 infants in tlat church was never fet afide either by God 
 or man." The queflion is not, whether infants were 
 admitted to the Jewilh church, but whether Chrift has 
 iniiituted the meniberlhip of infants in the gofpel 
 church. Let this be proved, and the difpute will be 
 :*r ?n end. 
 
 Mr. Edwards feems willing to let go every body and 
 eTcry thing which belonged to that church, but the 
 memberlhip of infants. He acknowledges that the 
 jreat body of that " church were, upon the whole, the 
 deadly enemies of Chrift and his doiftrine that 
 " feverrd infiitutions did ceafe, and fome new ones were 
 ordained," but his dr.rling point was not aftefted. (p. 
 46, 6".) How wonderful it is, that in this general 
 irreck, he fhould be fo fortunate as to fave the mem- 
 berfhip of infants. Not only to fecure it in its ancient 
 form, but to extend it to females as well as males. He 
 liad indeed anticipated this difficulty, in carrying for- 
 v.'urd his famenefs of uicmberflup. But what are the 
 greatefl mountau-is before fuch a Zerubbabel .'' They 
 are at once levelled to a plain. He acknowledges that 
 women, (the antithefis required him to have faid, fe- 
 rniile infants) were not admitted into the Jewilh church 
 liy any ijiitiating rite, and concludes, " that whereas 
 the church ftate among the Jews included males botli 
 adult and infant, fo to the Gentile church, together 
 with thefe, there is, by the exprcfs order of GW, the fuper- 
 addition of females." But pray, fir, does this exprefs 
 trJ-:r of Gc.l include female infants Or does it in- 
 clude only believing women If there be any " ex- 
 prcfs order of God"' refpcdling femnle infants in the 
 Ne .V Teftament, do, in your great wifdom, be io good as 
 to point us to it. If Mr. Edwards knows of any exprefs 
 trder of God, he can have no diiiiculty in pr^ fcnting it 
 to our complete conviction. 
 
 We know that believing 'wjmen are cxprcfsly men- 
 tioned ; bv.t this does nothing to eft.ibliQi his argument. 
 It 13 faid of the Samaritans, tb^tnuhm they kt'Heved Philip 
 
l ifi^ the things conct rtiing the kingdcrn of Gcd, and the 
 -f y^l'*^ ChriJ}^ they ivere baptized btih men and 
 . >:. Here we have exprefs mention of women, but 
 ii t of children. 
 
 It will appear, no doubt, to the candid reader, that to 
 prove the exillence of any right under the Jewifh 
 difpenfation, is not to prove the exigence of the 
 fame right under the gofpel difpenfation 5 the quahfi- 
 cations for ir.emberfliip under the latter, being fo very 
 different from thofe required by the former, tiiat no 
 j plea of right can be argued from one to the other. It 
 might as well be argued, that becaufe a fmali borough 
 in the county of Cornwall in England has a right to 
 fend a member to the Britiili parKament, therefore a 
 town containing the fame number of inhabitants in 
 Maffachufetts has a rigiit to fend a member to Con- 
 grefs. 
 
 We will now proceed to Mr. Edwards's proof that 
 the memberfbip of infants was carried forward into 
 the Gentile church. His firft argument is taken from 
 I Matt. xxi. 43. " Therefore fay I unto you, that the 
 kingdom of God Hiall be taken from you, and given to 
 a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."' The quef- 
 tion here is, what was taken from the Jews, and what 
 was given to the Gentiles ? Was it the old Jewiih 
 church privileges .'' or, was it tlie gofjoel difpenfation, 
 which Chrift called the kingdom of God ? What did 
 John mean when he thus addreffed the Jews who at- 
 tended his miniftry, Repent) for the kingdom of God is at 
 hand ? Did he mean that the Jewifh church ftate was 
 at hand ? This would agree with Mr. Edwards's defi- 
 nition. Muft it not be manifeft to every candid minJ 
 that lie meant tlie gofpel difpenfation, containing the 
 fpiritual kingdom of Chrift } 
 
 It -nay be afted how this could be taken from them, 
 unlcfs they hriT: had it. We anfwer, tiiis kingdom ivat 
 among them, although it did not come by obfervation. 
 The gofpel with all its privileges was firft publiflicd fb 
 the Jews. And notwithftanding they had delivered 
 Ghrift to be crucified, yet he commanded his difciples, 
 
 X 2 
 
^38 
 
 ArP£NDIX, 
 
 after he rofe from the deatl, to preach jtpent^:).:e 
 remiffion of liiis to ail nations, br^innm^ at jeruJaUm. 
 
 Here they began ; and on the iliv of pemeco 
 three thoufand fouls were converted, und addnl te .' 
 church. We appeal to the conftientious, (and we be- 
 lieve there are many fuch among the pjedobaptifts,} 
 whether the church here mentioned was the old Jew- 
 i(h church, or the body of believers which had been 
 coUeded under the perfonal miniftry of ChriiV? The 
 latter muft be admitted ; nor can v,'e think there would 
 be a^diffenting voice. But to admit this, would ruin 
 INTr. Edwards's whole plan. For he has no other fup- 
 port for the memberlhip of infants but what is de- 
 rived from the u!■!^n of thefe two churches. 
 
 The reader will now look at his explanation. " The 
 taking of the kingdom, faith he, from the Jews and 
 giving it to the Gentiles^ denotes ; 1. The ceafmg of a 
 regular church ftate among the Jews. And this ac- 
 •lually rook place, by the deftruflion of fome, and the 
 dii'perllon of others who did not receive the Lord Jcfus 
 Chrill as the lent of God ; while thofe who did receive 
 him were at length removed from Judea, and by de- 
 grees ioft the name of Jew, in that of Chriftian." (p. 
 47.) This account looks pretty plaufible ; but it has 
 one very eiTential defedl:. It happens to difagree in 
 almoft every point with matter or iacl ; for inflead of 
 the deftruilion and diiperfion of the Jews at the fetting 
 lip of the gofpel church, it was the Chriftians that were 
 difperfed and fcattered abroad by the perfecution of the 
 Jews.* " Thofe who did not receive the J^ord Jefus 
 Chrift," at this time, and for many years after, remained 
 in the fame church order as before the appearance of 
 Chrift. Nor is it faiTl, that the name of 'Jeiv was loft 
 \a that of Chrjjlian. That name and that church ftill 
 continued for nearly thirty years after the disciples 
 •wen-ftrj called Chrjstuns at Aiitioch. 
 
 It would leem by this confuied ftateraent which Mr. 
 Edwards has made, that the change from Judaifm to 
 Chriilunity was \ery gradual ; that it took nearly forty 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 239 
 
 yt.irs to bring it about. That the Chrlftians were 
 united with the Jews all the time until their difperfioiu 
 (p. 47.) Nor was the change, according to him, of any 
 ccnl'equence when it had taken place. It coniifted prin- 
 cipally in the abolition of a few Jewilh rites, and the 
 adoption of others in their room, both meaning the 
 f.-rne thing : *<for rituals are to a church, as diet and 
 ornaments are to a man." (p. 48.) Thefe do not eflen- 
 tially alter him. 
 
 Mr. Edwards argues fecondly from Rom. xi. 23, 24% 
 from the breaking off of the Jews from the olive tree 
 and the grafting in of the Gentiles. His explanation 
 of this figurative paflage is as follows. " 1 . The olive 
 tree is to denote a vifible church ftate. 2. The Jews 
 are faid to be natural branches, becaufe they defcended 
 from Abraham, to whom the promife was made : I ivilt 
 he a God to theet and to thy feed. 3. The Gentiles were 
 brought into the fame church ftate from which the Jews 
 were broken off," &c. 
 
 Upon the above we obferve — If the breaking off of 
 the Jews from the olive tree denoted the diffolution of 
 their church ftate, then the flicls will not correfpond 
 with each other ; for the Gentiles were grafted into 
 the Chriftian church long before the vifibility of the 
 Jewiili church ceafed. 
 
 The periecution and martyrdom of Stephen, appears to 
 have taken place the fame, or the year follcv/ing.the cru- 
 cifixion of our Lord. On this per;"ecution it is faid the 
 church was all fcattered abroad, excepting the apoftles. 
 Was this the old Jewiui church that was perfecuted ? 
 If fo, we aik who perfecuted them ? Did the few 
 Chriftians perfecute the whoie Jewifh church and fcat- 
 ter them What abl'urdities follow upon admitting the 
 arguments of our opponents. This perfecuticii was over- 
 ^ ruled for the fpread of the golpel among the Gentiles. 
 Philip went down to Samaria. Saul was converted 
 at Damafcus and b.-^gan to preach ; and not long after 
 there was a church planted at Antioch in Syria. From 
 this, Paul and Barnabas were fent into Afia Minor. 
 Here they found fome of their cowr.vrymen, and ea- 
 
240 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 deavoured to convince them that Jefus was the McfTiah.! 
 Some believed, but the greater part oppofed and bla'^ 
 phcmed. Then Paul ami Barnab.is n<axed hold 
 /aid, It ivas neccjja>^ that the 'ivcrd of God p.ould firjl ha 
 been J^oken to yoii ; but feeing ye put it from ycUy at:d jud^ 
 yourf elves tmucrthy of everlnfling life, lo, loe turn to t' 
 Gentiles ; for fo hath the Lord conunmidtd us.* In this wa 
 it appears, that the kingdom of God was taken fro 
 the Jews and given to the Gentiles. 
 
 Upon the olive tree Mr. Edwards obfcrves, " 3. 
 The Gentiles were brought into the fame church ftate 
 from which the Jews were broken off." The objeft of 
 this ftatement is eafily difcerned. It is made, no doubt, 
 to fave the memberfhip of infants. Ho has no difficul- 
 ty in admitting that this church fate \s -AtSTQiX in 
 almoft every thing elfe. But the memberfhip of in- 
 fants mnft be retained, " although we have no proof of 
 its continuance, unlefs we are plainly told to the con- 
 trary." But this whole ftatement appears to be erro- 
 neous. 
 
 If the gwd " olive tree Is to denote a viflble church 
 ftate," the wild olive tree muft denote the fame. 
 The antithefis certainly requires this conftruftion. But 
 was there any thing among the Gentiles at this time- 
 which might be called a church ftate ? We can form 
 KO fuch idea. The Gentiles were confidered as branch- 
 es of one tree before believing, and of another after.. 
 Tbefe tv/o trees are both called olives, and diftinguiftied 
 only by their qualities ; the one a good, the other a- 
 v/ild olive. By the good olive tree, therefore, we rather 
 think Chrift hlmfelf is intended. If fo, it may be 
 afked, how can it be faid, that the unbelieving Jews- 
 were branches, (as they muft have been in fome fenfe) 
 or they could not be broken off .'' We anfwer, They 
 were fo confidered, in confeqiience of their vifible pro- 
 feffion. As a nation, they profelfed to be his people. 
 The believing fpiritual branches continued in Chrift ; 
 and were, under his iminediate direftion, formed into a 
 fpiritual church in vifible gofpel order, and the unbe- 
 lieviag branches cutoff and rejefted. This reprcfcnta- 
 
 • A<S.» xiii. 46, 47. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 241 
 
 von agrees with Chrift's own words in tkc fifteenth 
 chapter of John. lam, faith he, t/^e true vine ; my 
 Fniher is the hujhandman. Every branch in me that hear- 
 rth not fruit he taheth aivay ; and every branch that bear- 
 eih fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 
 
 Here are two kinds of branches, and both faid to be 
 in Chrift ; one barren, the other fruitful. The fnrt- 
 lefs branches were in him only by profelTion ; the 
 fruitful branches were united to him by a Uving faith 
 and onenefs of nature. 
 
 By the lijild olive tree, we think the apcftle meant to 
 reprefent Adam, as the original ftock from whence all 
 the human family fprang ; and all who are not by the 
 Spirit of God grafted into Chrift the true olive, ftill 
 ftand in this wild or natural ftock. 
 
 Chrift is the holy root, which fiippliesthe branches with 
 all the real holinefs they poHefs. From him each living 
 member will forever draw fap and nouriihment. The 
 apoftles were the firj} fruits of Chrift's perfonal miniftry ; 
 they were made kcly by virtue of their union with him. 
 Jf the firj} fruits, faith the r.poftle, be holy, the lump alft 
 will he holy. As the firft fruits were accounted a 
 pledge of the future harveft, fo were thefe firft converts 
 confidered as a fample of the church, which (hould be 
 gathered under the miniftry of the word. But to con- 
 lider Abraham as the root, as many do, is to place the 
 branches upon a very incompetent ftock. Good man ! 
 all the real holinefs he ever had, was derived from him 
 who is the Root and Offspring of David : nor could 
 he communicate the fmalleft degree of that to his pof- 
 terity. Abraham, like the wife virgins, had no oil to 
 impart. 
 
 It was unbelief that firft procured the excifion of the 
 Jewilh branches. This was the caufe of the gofpel's 
 being taken from them, and given to a nation bringing 
 forth the fruits thereof. Ihe Gentiles individually 
 ftand in this olive tree by faith. An unbelieving Gen- 
 tile can no more ftand in the good olive tree than an 
 unbelieving Jew. And they alfo, if they abide not ft'ill in un- 
 bilieffhall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in 
 again. It hence follows, that neither Jew nor Gentile 
 
24.2 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 can have any union with the good ohve tree, but Ly 
 faith. 
 
 If fome unbelievers were broken off, no renfon can be 
 afligned why any ihould be retained. If none were re- 
 tained but real believers (which we have every reafon 
 to fuppofe was the cafe) then infants were not retairied, 
 as they are not behevers, by Mr. Edwards's own con- 
 ceffion. All his arguing therefore from this paiTage 
 will be of no avail, unlefs he can prove^ that notwith- 
 ilanding fome unbelievers were broken olF, vet frill a 
 vaft proportion were retained. The idea is almoft too 
 abfurd to exift, even in fuppofition. The reflefting 
 reader will here afk, Did not infants and minors make 
 a large proportion of Jewifh branches which were 
 broken oft"? Is it not faid exprefily, that the Gentiles 
 who are grafted in, Jfami by fdtth ? But Gentile infants 
 have no faith : how then do the/ ftand in this good, 
 olive tree 
 
 It is worthy of obfervation, that the Gentiles are faid. 
 to be grafted in contrary to nature. It is fo, in aimoft every 
 fenfe. The whole of religion is contrary to our de- 
 praved natures •, but more efpecially in the following 
 things. 1. We never graft a fcion but upon the prin- 
 ciple of its being better than the ftock into which it is 
 fet. 2. The fcion, though gr?.fted into another ftock, 
 and nourifhed by it, ftill retains its own nature, and 
 bears its own fruit. 3. A bafe ftock is rendered valu- 
 able, in confequcnce of the good fruit produced by the 
 engrafted part. But in grafting in the Gentiles, ail is 
 reverfed. They are not cholen on account of their own 
 excellency, but on Chrifir's account. By being grafted 
 into this holy fbock, their nature is fo changed, that 
 tlaey bring forth the fruits of holinefs. They add noth- 
 ing to the eflential value of the ftock into which they 
 are grafted, but receive all their real excellence from it. 
 
 Before \*-e difmif; this argument it may be proper to 
 anfwer one or two objections 1. If Chrift be intended 
 by the olive tree, why does the apoftle c.dl the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, w!io could have no real intereft in him, 
 fiittural branches ? Anfwer : Tiiele Jewj had no real 
 ii^tereft in liini j but as tliey profeii'id to be his people, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2i3 
 
 ?7 were confidereJ ?.s natural branches ; that is, it 
 
 3s much more natural to fuppofe, that the Jews who 
 had the oracles of God cominitted to them, and confe- 
 quently were better informed refpefting the Mefliah, 
 fhould believe on him, than the idolatrous Gentiles, who 
 had not thefe adv antages. 2. If Chrift be intended by this 
 figure, v/hy does the apoflle, fpeaking of the Jews, call 
 him their ov;n oiive tree ? Anfwer : He was their civti, 
 as it refpected his human nature. He defcended from 
 the ftock of Abraham, .md was a Branch •uihich fpratig 
 from the Jlem of Je[fe, In this fenfe he was •* bone of 
 their bone, and' fieOi of their fle(h." Hence Pilate 
 ivhen addrefling him called the Jews his own ncuion. 
 •« Thine own nation and the chief priefls have delivered 
 thee to me " 'I his mode of exprclVion is frequently 
 made ufc of by Chrift-ians when praying for the con- 
 verfion of the Jews, <« That they may ctnbrace /i>a> o%un 
 Mefliah." In this fenie it is faid, He came to his own 
 and hi! own received him not. Thefe, notwithftanding 
 their profeflion, were not his own in any faving fenfe 
 they were not the children of God. If God ivere your 
 leathery faid Jefus, ye would love me for I proceeded forth 
 and came from God. Thefe were not fpiritual, but natu- 
 ral branches only. 
 
 Every believing Gentile has great reafon to be hum- 
 bled under a fenfe of the divine goodnefs. It would 
 illy become them to boaft againft the Jewifli branches ; 
 and Ihould they, they would neither bear nor fuftainthe 
 root, but the root them. 
 
 One obfervation fhail clofe our remarks on this ar- 
 gument of Mr. Edwards. It is this : If the Jews were 
 broken off becaufe of unbelief, it is pe rfedtly inconfiftent 
 to fuppofe that they will ever be grafted in again while 
 remaining in the fame ftate. Therefore no fuppofition 
 can be admitted, that their engrafture will be national^ 
 or even by fauiilies, including a few believers, and many 
 unbeUevers. Such a fentinient can neither be fupport- 
 ed by reafon, nor by any thing which the apoftle has 
 faid in this epiftle. The penitent Jews will undoubted- 
 ly come as individuals, as all others do who embrace the 
 Saviour. For rehgion is at ali tlm.is pcrfonal ; no one 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 can believe for another, any more than they can be fa- 
 ved for another. But when the Chriftian church fliall 
 travail in birth for this dear negledled people, we may 
 hope that many fpiritual children will be born among 
 them. But even then it may be afked, Shall the earth be 
 made to brittg forth in a day ? Or JJjall a nation be born at 
 once ? Ifai. Ixvi. 8. 
 
 Mr. Edwards argues, thirdly, from Rom. xi. 17. '*And 
 if fome of the branches be broken off," &c. This text 
 he endeavours to render fubfervient to a number of 
 conclufions drawn from his preceding argument. The 
 whole ftrength, therefore, of what is faid under this 
 head, is predicated upon that. Hence, if we have inval- 
 idated his arguments under that head, his condufions 
 under this will fall of courfe. 
 
 The entire force of thefe argumeots taken together, 
 refts upon this abfurd and falfe hypothecs, namely, that 
 while the great body of the Jewifh church, including 
 adults and infants, was broken off, fome believing adults, 
 together with their unbelieving offspring, were contin- 
 ued. But this is taking for granted the very point in 
 difpute ; which is, whether any unbelievers, either 
 adults or infants, ftill retained their ftanding in the good 
 olive tree \ or were admitted, as fuch, to the privileges 
 of the Chriftian church. The account which we have 
 already given in this work* of the gathering of the firft 
 Chriftian church, muft, we think, convince every un- 
 prejudiced mind, that it was compofed of individual be- 
 lievers only. The" falftty of Mr. Edwards's arguments 
 will be fully perceived by all v/ho take the pains to com- 
 pare them with the facts recorded in the New Tefta- 
 ment. He has ftated his condufion as follows : ''The 
 text informs us, that fome of the branches were broken 
 off, and if only fome, then not all, and that remnant^ 
 continuing in their former fate conftitnted the ftill exift- 
 ing church of God." (p. S-t.) It here needs only to 
 remove what is falfe, and this conclufion lofes all its 
 iijrce againft the Baptifts. The falfehood lies in this 
 member of the fentence ; "And that remnant continuing 
 in their firmer flate,^' &c. By their former fate is rnfeant, 
 
 • See Sc(ft. HI. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ^4* 
 
 Itat they continued fome of all defcriptions believers 
 md unbelievers, parents, cliildien, and lervanti bought 
 with money ; for this was their former rtate, yea, their 
 primitive itate. This we have denied, aiid think we 
 tiave proTed it untrue. We ihall m iincain this ground 
 until proof is iv.zde out that fome were retained in the 
 good olive tree beiidcs btlierers. This fentiment is the 
 very ground work of his fcheme. It runs tlirough and 
 forms the centre of all his arguments. Hence the re- 
 moval of this, unhinges his whole plan. 
 
 We proceed to Mn Etiwards's ■ fourth argument, 
 founded on Eph. ii. 14'. " For he is our peace, who 
 hath made both one, and hath broken down the mid- 
 dle wall ef parthion between us." 
 
 From this paflage, he informs his readers, the fame 
 conclufions muft be drawn as from the preceding. 
 
 1. " That the Jewifli church continued as before, 
 and was not diiTolved at the calling of the Gentiles." 
 This may be true ; but what is this to tiic argument ? 
 The papal church continued as before, and was not dif- 
 folved at the fetting up of the proteftant church. Thefe 
 Gentile converts had no more to do with tlie old Jew- 
 ifli church, than we have with the church of Rome. 
 
 2. " That the Gentiles were not formed ir.to a new 
 c'-iurch, becaufe the breaking down of a partition united 
 them to the Jewilh church, and n:ade than on:.^' 
 
 That the Gentiles v/erenot formed into a new church 
 is true. But it is not true, if we can undevttand the 
 Bible, that they were united to the old Jewiih church ; 
 nor to any other which bore the name oi a Jc.vilh 
 church •, but to the difcipies of Chrift, or Chriftian 
 church. This was indeed formed of believing Jews, 
 but of fuch only as feparated from the old Jewiili 
 church. Mi\ Edwards adds, • 
 
 3. " That infants were in actual memberdiip in that 
 church to which the Gentiles were united." No, Mr. 
 Edwards, this cannot be admitted. Your ccncluilon is 
 built on falfc premifes. You adduce it from this poftu- 
 latum, That a part of the old Jewilh church, contiiting 
 of believers and unbelievers, coniliiuted that body to - 
 
 Inch the Gentile converts were added. This, it is be- 
 
246 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 lievcd, has no fouiulation in truth, and can be fupported 
 only by your fophiftical reafoning. 
 
 The union between Jews and Gentiles, fpoken of in 
 this text, was not between them generally, but only be- 
 tween believers. The Jewidi church flood as far aloof 
 from the Gentiles as ever. 
 
 Had Mr. Edwards duly confidered the verfe follow- 
 ing that from which he has drawn the above inferences, 
 and admitted the complete fenfe of the lafl: claufe, 
 it would have favcd him, in all probability, one half 
 of his book. We will here add it, fo that the reader 
 may compare it with his remarks. Having, faith the 
 apoftle, abolijljed in his fiefo the eiimity, even the law of com' 
 tnaudinents contained in ordinances, fcr to make in hivifelf 
 tf twain ONE kew man, fo waling peace. Here the 
 apoftle informs us, that in order to e&ccl this union, 
 the law of ceremonial ordinances which characterized 
 the Jevvifli church ftate, and which was the occalion of 
 perpetual enmity betwc«n them and the Gentiles, was 
 aboliihed in the fieih of Clirift. Circumcilion was a 
 principal caufe of this enmity. " The Jews reproached 
 and hated the Gentiles, as being uncircumcifed. Tha 
 Gentiles defpifed the Jews for being circurnciled."* 2. 
 The text ftiows us where they were united, namely, in 
 himfelf : that is, in Chrift. There never has been any 
 real union between Jews and Gentiles but in Jefus 
 Chrifb 3. The text alfo fiiows us the great end and 
 clcfign of their being united ; for to make of twain 
 ONE NEW MAN. By this neiu man, the Chriftian 
 church is undoubtedly intended. No other fair con- 
 Itrudtion, we conceive, can be put upon the words. 
 P'jes this language coriefpond with the fentiment we 
 f.re oppofing ? Can any man believe the old Jewifli 
 church was intended ? That what the apoftle calls a 
 tu'w WiJWjWas not really fo ; but only the old one a Uttle 
 altered in his " clothing, ornaments and diet," but 
 « identically the fame ?" Is it not plain, that by this 
 metaphorical language, the apoftle prefcnts us with a 
 view of the New Teftament Chriftian church, compofed 
 enly of believing Jews and Gentiles ? For in Chrifi 
 
 • ViJ. Pcole's Expof. in be. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2i7 
 
 *'-f(fus, ihtrf is neither Jrw nor GrreL ; but believers 
 TiTQ ctie in him. It hence appears, tbat the apoftle was 
 ■very far from the fcheme which Mr. Edwards advocates. 
 He appears not to have entertained the nioft difl:ant 
 idea, that the Chriftian cliurch (when compared with 
 the Jewifli) was the fane mnn with only his " clothes 
 changed," but a ticnv man : created in Chrifi: to good 
 vorks. The reader will now judge, whether the love 
 of liypothefis has not carried the Author of " Candid 
 Reifons," &c. wide of the truth. 
 
 In the conclufion which Mr. Edwards draws from 
 the preceding arguments, he makes this remark — "If a 
 law could be found in the New Teftament to repeal 
 thst which hud been efVabliflied in the Old, I grant 
 freely, that all that has been faid on the four palTages 
 of icripture, would fignify nothing." (p. .58.) The only 
 queftion of importance liere is this •, Is that law, which, 
 by the ftatement of this writer, gave infants a viliblft 
 Aanding iu the church, repealed in the New Teftament, 
 or is it ftill in force ? "Was there any law pricr to, or 
 independent of the law of circumcifion, which gave 
 them this right ? If fo, let it be pointed out. If in- 
 fants had a right to membcrHiip independent of circum- 
 cifion, it would have continued, whether they were cir- 
 cumcifed or not. If their right refted wholly upon cir- 
 cumcifion, then it muft ftand or fall with that inftitu- 
 tion. A right which depends on a particular law, can- 
 not exift any longer than that law remains in force. 
 The queftion then comes to this fingle point. Is cir- 
 cumcifion aboliflied in the New Teftament, or is it 
 rot ? We prefurrc no perfon will pretend it lis? -jny 
 place in the gofpel church. On what then, we alk, does 
 the right of infants depend ? We (hall probably be told, 
 on the di'iine declaration, « / -rvi// be a God to thee, and 
 to thy ft ed after thee." If this promifc contains a prior 
 riglit, and v.-hich exifts independently of circumcifion, it 
 will undeniably follow, that uncircumcifed infants, or 
 thofe that are unbaptized, ftand in covenant relation to 
 God. If this be true, then the children of thole be- 
 lieving parents who deny infant baptifm, ftand intereft- 
 ed in this promifc, as rcaHy as tliofe who are initiated 
 
24« APPENDIX. ■ 
 
 according to tV>e inftitution. The parent may, ind«eM 
 be chargeable with feme negle£t of duty ; but this cafl 
 not invalidate the claim of the child, nor make iH 
 promife of God of twne cffeB. ^ 
 
 Neither Mr. Edwards, nor any other writer on that 
 Cde of the controverfy, h::s attempted to trace the 
 right of infants further back than the covenant of cir- 
 ciimcifion. They feem by common confent to leave 
 them for two thoufand years before, to the mercy of 
 God, without any covenant relation, or any initiating 
 rite. If iriant siiemberllnp had no exiflence but in con- 
 nexion with circnnicifion, it is difficult to fee, when 
 this has ccafed, how that can be continued. To us it re- 
 quires fonie new law, under a difpenfation every way 
 Jiflerent, to fupport and continue it in exiftence. 
 
 As an auxiliary to infant inemherfhip, Mr. Edwards 
 argues ficm their bringing children to Chrift •, and 
 endeavours to make it appear that this aifords evidence 
 of tlieir belonging to the church. He does not pretend, 
 as moft Piedobaptids do, that they were brought to 
 him to be baptized, but fuppofes <'it is moll likely they 
 were brought to receive the bencdiftion of Chrift. 
 Matt. X. J 6." (p. 67.) 
 
 The bringing of thefe children to receive Chrift's 
 blelling, affords no more evidence of their belonging to 
 tiie church, than for the mother of Zebcdee's children 
 to alk the privilege for her two fons to iic, the one on 
 Chrift's right baud the other on his left, in his kingdom, 
 was evidence that they belonged to the Jewiih church. 
 
 For whatever reafcns tliefe children wen; brought 
 to Chrift, one thing is certain ; that is, that it was 
 not a common thing. This appears to be a fohtary 
 inftance. The conducl: of the difciples m forbidding 
 tliem, is full proof of this ail'crtion. Neitlier the fim- 
 plo account ftated by the evangelifts, nor Mr. Ki!wardi.'s 
 laboured gloflary, adbrd any latisfaclory e\idtj;cc that 
 they were brought, or blefted, on account of their rc- 
 iklion to the church, nor that they were at this time, or 
 any time after, baptized. . 
 
 The evangelifts afilgn at moft but two reafons for 
 ihcir biiriging thefe cliildrcn to Clu-ift ; one is, that 
 
APPEND IK. 
 
 249 
 
 lie \vcu'd lay bis hands on them aid pray ; the other, 
 liut he would blels them : probably both meant the 
 ilime thing.. As the aft of bringing thera had no con- 
 nexion with their being church inembsrs, nor ;:ny th:ng 
 which Chrill did particubrly applicable to them as fuch, 
 we leave the account juft as we find it Itaied in the 
 fcriptures, and ackiiowk-J.ge we know no more about it 
 than what is there recorded. 
 
 We muft beg the reader's indulgence while we juft 
 notice Mr. Edwards's argument from Adts ii. 38, 39. 
 «« Then Peter faid unto them, Repent and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the 
 remiflion of fins, and ye lhall receive the gift of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft. For the promile is to you and to your chil- 
 dren, and to all that are afar oil, even its many as the 
 Lord our God fiiall call." Fro-.n this text Mr. Edwards 
 argues that the phrufe, " to yen, :iud to ycur chiLh fu^ iu- 
 - tends adults and infants." 
 
 Upon this we obfervc, if the pro.T.il.- n'.eiitior.od 
 in this text be not li.nitej by their }uyihi:n>ry or by 
 this claufe, as many as the Lord our G':djva!i call^ it 
 muft be confidered as unhmited. If limited above, 
 then it can embrace rone but fuch as are true pe^iitfuts, 
 fuch as are called cf God, by an holy calling. In tliis v.'ay 
 it will abfoiuteiy exclude infants, unti! theyaie the fub- 
 jc£ts of repentance. If taken in an uidunited fenfe, it 
 will prove that all the children of believers iliall receive 
 remiflion of fins, and the gift of the Hoiy Glicit. In 
 this it will prove too much, and fo defiroy itfelf totally. 
 Mr. Edwards here moans to apply it to the promife in 
 the 17th chapter of Genefis nude to Abraham and hi;, 
 feed. But if this be the promife intended by the apof- 
 tle, it will include ail the feed of Abraham as well as 
 the infants of believing adults. For Mr. Edwards has 
 before told us, th.a that promife was as " much to his 
 leed as to him." Rrpiutitig, and being called of God, 
 then, are out of the queft'ion ! O no, not wholly fo. I 
 faid, replies Mr. Edwards, it intends adults and in- 
 fants." By adults, Sir, I conclude you mean, that pa- 
 repts cannot be admitted without repentance, and being 
 called of God j but upon tJxeir believing, their infauv 
 
250 
 
 ArPENDIX. 
 
 ofFspring ccme into the immediate polTenion of a rig 
 founded in the promife made in the covenant of circu 
 cifion. This, v;e conclude, will be granted. It wou 
 be deGrrLble here to know whether Mr. Edwards raea 
 to apply this promife to the children of believers inde 
 initely, cr to infants only. The apoftle fays, to you an 
 to your children ; Mr. Edwards fays, to adults and infants 
 \Ye will ftate a cafe, and a very probable one too, and 
 fhould be glad of a candid ^nfwer to it : it is this, 
 the age of fixty, two perfons,who are the parents of 
 numerous family, are brought to repentance : they ap- 
 ply to Mr. Edwards to be admitted to the privileges of 
 the Chriftian cliijrch. They have a number of ch 
 dren of different ages, from thirty-five, dov/n to twenty 
 one ; but no infants. Will he addrefs them in the Ian 
 guage of the ?poftie, and tell them, the promife is lo yen 
 and lo yctir children ; and on this ground admit them 
 all to baptifm ? We very much doubt it. The prac 
 tice of Pjedobaptifl-s generally tells us, they would not. 
 But on what principle can thefe children be refufed ^ 
 The promife is to you and to your children. Thefe 
 are as much their children, as if they were infants of 
 only eight days old. The apoftle has ufed the term 
 children, without any limitation as to age. If the right 
 be founded in this, that their parents are believers, then 
 a perfon of fifty years old may claim this right for him- 
 felf, with as much propriety as any could have chal- 
 lenged it for him when he was in a ftate of infancy. 
 
 We will fappofe one cafe more, and one which fre- 
 quently occurs : it is this. The parents of a family, at 
 the age of about forty-ftve, are brought to embrace the 
 gofpel : they have children of every grade, from eight 
 days old, up to more than tv/enty years. We wiOi to 
 know whether they. all are to be received to member- 
 fhip on their jwrents' account If not, what age dif- 
 qualifics them from coming If they may be received 
 cm their parents' accoimt at the age of twenty, we fee 
 nothing to forbid them at twenty-five, at thirty, at 
 forty ; yea, at any age while their parents live to fupport 
 thoir cluini. If the promife in the text gives any of 
 the children of believers a right tomomberfirip without 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 251 
 
 repentance, or being called of God, it gives them all 
 » right. 
 
 However abfurd thefe things may appear, they are 
 but the fair legitimate confequences of Mr. Edwards's 
 argument. There is but one way for him honourably 
 to clear himfclf, and that is, now to prove that tekna 
 means only infants of a certain age, and not children 
 generally. This we think he will find rather difficult. 
 
 His conclufion from the pafTage is, " that infants are 
 placed in the fame relation. to baptifm, as they were of 
 old to circumcifion." (p. 71'.) That rite placed uncir- 
 cumcifed infants, and unclrcumcifed adults all upon one 
 footing as to right. It alfo placed Abraham's fervants 
 upon the fame level with his natural feed. 
 
 On the whole, this argument fpun out of the promife 
 made iii the covenant of circumcifion, is one of the 
 nioft fingular that we ever attempted to trace. It pof- 
 fefles certain elaftic qualities, by which it is rendered 
 capable of being extended or contradled, fo as to fuit 
 the convenience of the perfon who ufes it. Viewed 
 in its fuUeft extent, and it proves the right o: fervants 
 as well as children ; hi this it proves too much for the 
 purpofes of infant memberfiiip. Viewed in a limited 
 fenle, and it will fupport only the right of males ; in 
 this it proves too little, and of courfe makes no provifion 
 for females. Yet upon the whole, it proves juft enough 
 to fecure the right of infants, both males and females, 
 and no more. 
 
 Let us now for a moment review the paffage, in or- 
 der vo afcertain the plain fenfe of the apoftle. " Then 
 Peter Paid unto them, Repent and be baptized, ewry one 
 cf yju" That he did not mean infants is plain, from 
 realbn, and from Mr. Edwards's own conceffion ; who 
 fays, that " faith and repentance are never required of 
 infants, in order to any tiling." ^-ut he required re- 
 pentance of the fame perfons, that he called upon to be 
 baptized in the name of Jefus Chrift. To fay, that he 
 called on adults to repent and be baptized, and at the 
 fame tim« to- bring all their impenitent children to the 
 ordinance, appears to be a conftruftion too unnatural 
 and forced. The apoftle adds, And ye pall receive the 
 
252 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 gift of ike Holy Ghojl, If he included all the children of 
 believers, did he engage the gift of the Holy GhcJ} to 
 them all ? For, faith he, the promfe is to you, and to you' 
 children, and to all that are afar off', even as many as th': 
 Lord our God pall call. Is it not plain to every one, 
 that the lafi: fentence is here defigned as a limiting 
 claufe ; and that there would be as much propriety in 
 leaving it out in every inflance, as in one ? We ought 
 either to read it thus — The proinife is to you, and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, and fo con fitter it 
 r>s being univerfal ; or elle conncft this limiting claufe 
 with each fubject mentioned in the text. If the latter 
 be true, it would be underftood thus, The promife is to 
 you, who now appear to be true penitents ; it wifl 
 equally embrace your children, whenever they become 
 penitent ; and alfo the Gentiles who are afar off, even 
 as many of all as the Lord our God fhall call. Rut no 
 fuch thing as a promife to unbelieving children can be 
 inferred from this pafllige. To fuppofe this, would be 
 to make the apoflle acV the part of a god-father, and 
 proinife chat thefe children fliould rep?nt, and receive 
 remifflon of fins, and the gift of the Holy Ghoft, &c. 
 at f jme future period. We cannot believe that the 
 apoftle ever trifled in this manner. 
 
 Mr. Edwards attempts to get over the difficult? of 
 this limiting claufe in this way. «' As the apoftle, faith 
 he, extends the promife beyond the called ia the flrft 
 claufe, we mufi: follow his example, and extend it be- 
 yond the called in the laft claufe — ^Thns the promife 
 is to as many as the Lord our God fhall call, and to 
 their children." (p. 79.) It does not appear that tlie 
 apoftle did extend the promife in the firft clanfe beyond 
 the called. There is no evidence that he meant to ap- 
 ply the promife to children upon any other principle 
 than as he applied 't to parents ; namely, upon their re- 
 penting and being baptized. The promife would as 
 naturally e.nbrace impenitent parents as impenitent 
 children. On the whole, this paffage muft be torftired, 
 or it will not fpeak a fingle word in favour of infant 
 b;iptifi». Some very fenfible and learned Pai-.lobaptift'r 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 25? 
 
 kave given it up, as affording no argument in favour of 
 their fentiment. 
 
 In what an undignified light does the fcheme of our 
 ©pponent reprtfent the aportle Peter. On the memo- 
 rable day of Pentecoft: — fuch a day as had never been 
 fince time began, and probably fuch an one as will never 
 occur again while time lafts — the Holy Ghoft lent 
 down from the afconded Saviour ! Peter Handing ia 
 the midi't of throe thoufand deeply diilrelTed perfor.s 
 who were crying out, Wh.-d Jhall il'c- do ? To this earned 
 inquiry, the holy apoftle is reprefented in this very ab- 
 furd light as telling them, "that infants are placed in the 
 iame relation to bapiifm as they were of old to circum- 
 ciiion." (A fu'Vieft which they made no inquiry abou", 
 and vhicli we prefume had not at this time come into 
 their thoughts.) Had the aportle been as intent upon 
 infant baptifm as ^Ir. Edwards himfelf, we cannot fup- 
 pofe, at Jijch a time and to fuch an inquiry, he v/ould 
 have given fuch an anfwer. 
 
 In the preceding animadverfions, we have in a very 
 brief manner examined Mr. Edwards's pretended refu- 
 tation of cur arguments againfl infant baptifm, and have 
 endeavoured to ihow the inconclunvenefs of his reafon- 
 ing. In order to render his tafk more ealy, he has 
 attempted, at the very outfet, to deprive us of thofe 
 great advantages which the icrip:urcs aftbrd us in this 
 controverfy. But thefe will not be relinquifhed. He 
 has alfo laboured abundantly to evade the force of thefe 
 arguments, by endeavouring to embarrafs and pei plex 
 them. But when difentangled from his fopUiftical web, 
 they itiil appear correcc and uninjured. 
 
 We have alfo confzdered the two leading arguments 
 iji his prefcnt fyftem. In the firlt, he underiak.3S to 
 prove, that " God has inrtitu'ed in his church the 
 memberliiip of infants, and admitted them to it by a 
 religious rite." In his fecoad argument, his objetii is 
 to prove the continuvmce of this right of memberliiip. 
 From thefe taken together, he infers the right of infants 
 to baptil'm in the golpel church. 
 
 We have attempted to fliow the inconclufivenefs of 
 the y///7, by proving that the Jewifli and Chrif\iaa 
 
254 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 churches were not the fame : That therefor* no infer- 
 ence can be drawn from one to the other refpesSting any 
 pofitive inftitution. 
 
 With reference to the fecoml, we have endeavoured 
 to llioA', that this right cannot be continued in confe- 
 quence of that law which gave it exiiVence, unlefs con- 
 tinned according to that law : namely, that a law 
 obliging a parent to circumcife his male infants, cannot 
 bind him to baptize them, both male and female. That 
 Tvhatever dnties were enjoined by the JewiQi difpenfa- 
 tion belonged to that difpenfation ; and that whatever 
 duties are required by the gofpel difpenfation, are clear- 
 ly and particahrly enjoined by it, and not left to be in- 
 ferred from any thing elfe. This is efpecially the caf« 
 T/ith whatever relates to pofitive inftitutions. 
 
 It will now be referred to the decifion of the reader^ 
 uh ether we have not demonftrated, in a manner too 
 plain to be denied, that the Chriftian church, collefted 
 under the perfonal miniftry of Chrift and his apoftles, 
 was entirely diftincTt from the Jewifli church and inde- 
 pendent of it. If fo, all Mr. Ed-.vards's arguments, 
 founded on a contrary hypothefis, are unavailing. They 
 prove nothing but his own inconfiftency. 
 
 Having thus Atowu that thefe two arguments, which 
 are the main pillars in Mr. Edwards's fyftem, are both 
 defedlive, and totally unable to fuftain tlie fuperftruc- 
 ture raifed over them ; we fnall not trouble the reader 
 at prefent with animadverfions qn his other collateral 
 arguments, many of which are but mere ramifications 
 of the fame. It is evident, that on thefe he placed his 
 main dependence. All his other arguments are de- 
 figned only to corroborat«e and ftrengthen thefe. Yea, 
 he tells us exprefsly, that " the whole defence of infants 
 refts on two arguments. 1- That God did conftitute 
 in his church the memberfuip of infants^ and admitted 
 them to it by a religious rite. 2. That the right of 
 infants was never taken away." (p 8"".) 
 
 The firit of thefe is admiited under certain qualifi- 
 cations with refpeirb to the Jewitli church. But even 
 IB this", infants were not generally admitted by any re- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 .ijs rite. It was only infants of a certain defcrip- 
 . n who were thus admitted. 
 
 With regard to the fecond, fliould we admit the 
 premifes, we muft deny the conclufion. For though 
 this right had never been taken away, it would not be- 
 long to any other church than that to which it was 
 given. If this be the foundation on which " the de- 
 fence of infants refts," then it depends certainly on no 
 new additional grant made under the gofpel difpenfa- 
 tion j of confequencc, there can be no more in it now, 
 than was originally in it. If the whole defence of in- 
 fants reds on this, then no part of it can reft on any 
 thing elfe. This privilege can no more be enlarged 
 without fome fpecial aft of the Lawgiver, than it can 
 be wholly taken away and difannuUed. Hence if this 
 right remain at all, it mufl: remain precifely in its in- 
 ftituted form, and no othervrife ; unlcfs fome new law, 
 making an important alteration, can be produced. 
 
 What efFect Mr. Edwards's writings may have in ef- 
 tablilhing his Prcdobaptifi: brethren, we pretend not to 
 fay; but we are perfuadcd that i'uch " candid reafons" 
 as he has oftered, when Itript of their fophiftical drefs, 
 will have little influer ce on the minds of real Baptifts. 
 We know of no one who has been brought by them to 
 "renounce the principles of Anti-pa;dobaptifm but 
 on tlie contrary, fevcral have been brought to embrace 
 them. His reafonings have produced the fame effects on 
 others, which he informs his readers that Mr. Booth's 
 did on him. 
 
 If what we have offered to the reader in the prece- 
 ding pages be according to the oracles of truth, we 
 pray the great Head of the church to fucceed it for the 
 comfort and eftabiifliment of fuch, as are feeking,or con- 
 tending for the truths and for the conviftion of fuch as 
 are adrocating error. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 S rniCTURES on Two D'lfcourfcs on the Perpetuity mid 
 Provifton of God's gracious Covimnit ivith Abraham and 
 his feed. £y SaMUEL WORCESTER, A. M. Pa/lor of 
 the Tabtftieclc Church in Sakin. 
 
 the piety and talents of the Author of thcTe 
 flifcourfes, we entertain fentiments of refpe^tful efteeni. 
 And although we feel impelled to animadvert ui)on his 
 writings, we fliall ftill hold his perfon facred. We do 
 not blame him for endeavouring to defend his own fen- 
 timents, and guard his flock againfi; what he confiders 
 to be error. But from his former profefiions of candour, 
 \7e had no juft reafon to expect, that he would fo far 
 mifreprefent our known and avowed fentiments, as to 
 lead his readers to fuppofe, that we were deftitute both 
 of religion and common decency that we " difplay 
 our greatefi: zeal in making people believe, in too many 
 iriftances, that going into the water will anfwer all the 
 purpofes of their prefent comfort, and of their eternal 
 fjlvation," (Note, p. 73.) 
 
 Had Mr. Worcefter contented himfelf, by proving to 
 demonftration every iota of his own plan, without in- 
 vading the right of others ; his difcourfes might in all 
 probability have paffcd down the ftrcam of tune un- 
 noticed. Si'.chan attempt would have given norcafon- 
 able offence to any man living. But when he digreffes 
 from this point, for the purpofe of reprefenting in an 
 unfriendly light the fentiments and practice of a nume- 
 rous body of Chrirtians, who think they have at leall: 
 equal pretenfions to apoflolical purity of fentiment, we 
 Kiuft view it with the deepeft regret. 
 
 The author of the difcourfes before us has commen- 
 ced the attack ; and if we do not miftake him, has ini- 
 p'icitly invited us to the conteft. If this be not his 
 meaning, we think he has at leaft fupcrfedcd the necef- 
 fity of an apology on our part, if we tcft him by his own 
 principles. The paragraph to which we refer is in the 
 following words : '< Any caufe or dodlrine which ^jrifiis 
 from the light of fair inveftigation, or. will not endiire 
 
APPENDIX. 2.57 
 
 :he teil of fcripture argument, certainly cannot be the 
 caufe of truth, Kor a dotStrine according to godlincfi. 
 And tholo who will be offended or hurt by a fair and 
 candid exhibition of argument, and vindication of fen- 
 r'.ivients in oppoCcion to their own, give the greateft 
 evidence that they are not contending, or concerned 
 tor the caufe of truth, but only for the caufe of a par- 
 tv." (p. 78.) The common adage fays, " It is a poor 
 rule that will not work both ways." 
 
 If Mr. Worcefter meant to apply this to the Baptifrs, 
 and fuppofe that they would fhrink from a fair fcrip- 
 tural inveftigation of the fubje<rt in difpute, he may be 
 alTured he has miffaken the men whofe fentiments he 
 has attacked. No, let him and his brethren treat us ia 
 this way, and I believe they will not find us to '< flirink 
 from the light of fviir inveftigation." Nor do wo be- 
 lieve, that the Baptifts «< will be oiJended or hurt by a 
 fair and ir.tnlid exhibition of argument." But, if inftead 
 of this, he lhall attempt to filence us by an oblique ref- 
 erence to the ghoftly ftory of Munfter, (which by the 
 way we were no more concerned in, than we v> ere in 
 the ivhchcyaft in Salem) or, to deter us from following 
 the example of our blefil'd Redeemer, by the tales of 
 a Vojfust of " naked men and women," he need not be 
 furpr.U'd, if fuch arpiunents as thefe do not produce 
 convidion. But even thefe fliall be noticed in their 
 proper place. 
 
 The difcourfes before us are founded on Gal. iii. 29, 
 And if y be Cbriji's, then are ye Abraham'' s feed, and heirs 
 Kccordirg to the provufe. 
 
 The doftrine which the author adduces from the text 
 is this : " In God's covenant of promife with Abraham, 
 provilion was made for the continuance of the churck 
 formed by it, and thus for the tranfmiflion of the privi- 
 leges and bleflings contaiaed in it, from generation to 
 generation, down to the clofe of time." 
 
 In order to illuftrate this doctrine, Mr. Worcefter 
 firft attempts «* to (how, that the covenant which was 
 made with Abraham, and ivhichthe church luat formed 
 in his family^ was intended to be perpetual." By this 
 covenant he evidently intends the covenant of circum- 
 
258 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 cifion ; for no other has ever been fuppofed to form 
 Abraham's family into a church ftate. This conclufion 
 IS drawn not merely from the above ftatement, but from 
 the whole tenor of his reafonings. That this is a fair 
 ftatement, it is prefumed, will not be denied. 
 
 We proceed therefore to confider this " candid ex- 
 hibition of argument." And fliall attempt, jirft., to 
 prove, that Mr. Worcefter has totally miflaken the 
 promife in his text ; that the apoflle referred to a pro- 
 m'lfe entirely diftindt from that from which he has rea- 
 foned. 
 
 Second. W e fliall attempt to fhow that his applica- 
 tion of this promife to believers and unbelievers, or 
 to believing parents and tlieir unbelieving children, is 
 unfcrlpiural, and contrary to the apoftle's reafoning 
 tlu-oughout the context. 
 
 The reader will keep in mind that the promife made 
 to Abraham and his feed in the covenant of circumci- 
 fion, is the daium from which the author of thefe dif- 
 courfes reafons. In order to prove that he has mif- 
 taken his text, and reafoned from a promife not ex- 
 i-'reffed nor intended by the apoftle, we begin at the 
 fixth verfe, where the fubjefl is particularly introduced 
 m the context. Eufii as Abrahnm belirved God, and it 
 luas accounied to him for rightecujnefs. (verfe 7.) Kmnxi 
 ye therefore, that they nvhich ar e of faith, the fame are the 
 (hildrcti oj Abraham, (verfe 8.) And the fcrlpture fore- 
 fedtig that God uuould jufify the heathen through faith, 
 preached before the gcfpel unto Abrahmn, faying. In THF.E 
 SHALL ALL NATIONS BE BLESSED. This is the promife, 
 from which the apoftle reafons throughout the chapter, 
 But it rnuft be obferved, that this promife is not found 
 in the covenant of circumcifion, which is recorded at 
 large in the feventeenth chapter of Gcncfis. By ex- 
 amining this, we fliall find that the above promife is 
 neither exprefled nor contained in it by fair implica- 
 tion. The promife quoted by the apoftle is in the 
 ■ twelfth chapter of Gencfis, and third verfe. This was 
 made to Abraham at the time when he was called to 
 leave his country and kindred, to go and fojourn in a 
 ftrange land. The Meffiah, in whom the nations were 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 . blefled, was revealed in this promife. Hence the 
 lie calls this the preaching of the gcfpel to Abrahain. 
 - was probably the period alfo referred to by our 
 ;, when he faid to the Jews, Tour father Abraham 
 r-jiireJ to fee mv da\, and he faiv it and ivas gl^d.* On 
 the above, a learned commentator makes the follovHng 
 remark : " The apoftle qiioteth the promife, Gen. xii. 
 3, where God teils Abraham, that in him all the na- 
 tions (or families) of the earth fhoiild be blefled. This 
 is to be imderftood of thcfe fpiritual bleflings which 
 are in Chrift Jefus : for all the nations of the earth 
 were no otherwife blcffed in Abraham."f 
 
 Tliis promife was made twenty-four years before the 
 covenant of circumcifion exifted ; and was as independ- 
 ent of that, as the covenant made with Noah refpect- 
 ing the drowning; of the world. It did not depend at 
 all upon the obedience of Abraham, oi- any other crea- 
 ture. It was in no lenfe conditional. The divine ve- 
 racity was pledged for its fulfilment. And whether 
 circumcifion had been inftituted or not, God v/ould in 
 the fulnefs of time have fent his Son into the world, 
 .and would hr.ve bleiTed the nations in him. 
 
 That this promife was made to Abraham twenty- 
 four years before the covenant of circumcifion, is proved 
 firom the following circumftances. 1. Abraham was 
 feventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran,^ 
 which was the time when this promife was C 09 
 made.:^ '^'^s ninety-nine yesrs old when he -< J}_ 
 was circumcif3d.§ See the margin. 
 
 Abraham received this promife, believed in iis ac- 
 complilhmcnt, faw by faith the day of the Lore! Je- 
 fus, and was jiiftified through faith — all while he v/iiS 
 in uncircumcilion.il Not one of thefe circumfkances 
 could have ever been aJtered, had that never been in- 
 ftituted. Nor does it appear that this promiie was di- 
 reftly connected with, or hicluded in that covenant. 
 For notwithll:anding it is there f>nd, a father of many tia- 
 ticni -iuiil I }>:ah thee ; and although this might in a 
 metaphorical fenle allude to his being the father of be- 
 
 * John viiL 56. •)■ Poori Gontin. is loc. \ Gen, xii. 4. 
 
 § xvii. 1. H Vid. Rem. iv 9, 10. 
 
260 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 iever s in all nstiors ; yet it rriuft be ohferved, that 
 ifanJs immediately connefted with tlie following wordsl 
 j^fid I will make thcc exceeding fruitful ; and I will 
 NATIONS OF THKE, and hivg.i fhatl ccme of thy toil 
 Thcfe expreiTions, tiiken together, do not amount to : 
 prrTTiiie, that tlie nr.tions which fliould Tpring fror 
 Abrahnn-.'s loins, cr any others fliould be blefled 
 liim. It was not therefore defcending from fhe loir 
 of Abraham, but pofleffing Ins faith, which gave a title ' 
 to the prornife. Tbe promife that he Oonld be the 
 •father of v.any naticnt, ;;nd that hifjgs fwuld ccmc of 
 him, has been literally and fully accoinpUfhed. 
 
 The proiniic wliich refpecled the blefling of the 
 Gentile n.uions in Chrift, was renewed again to Abra- 
 ham about twenty years after the covenant of circum- 
 eiGon- This w;\3 under circumftances peculiarly folemn : 
 It was when he was called to offer up his beloved fon 
 Ifaac. We hnv« much reafon to believe, that in this 
 tranfatlion, Abraham faw more of the myUcry of re- 
 demption, through the incarnation and facrii^ce of the 
 Son of God, than he had ever feen before. The Lord 
 now gracioufly condefcended to comfort him, by repeat- 
 ing the promife which he made to him more than forty 
 years before, with this variation ; In thy seed fhall all 
 the r.aiious of the earth he bli ffed. 
 
 ] . The ap oftle is particularly cai-eful to diftinguifh this 
 proinife relprfling the seed in whom the Gentile na- 
 tions fliould be blefled, from that made in the covenant 
 cf circumcifion refpeiSting the poflerity of Abraham. 
 The ivoman's seed, who was to h-uife the ferpeut's head, 
 was^alfo the seed, promifcd to Abraham, in whom the 
 believing Gentiles fliould be bleffed. But primarily 
 his natural feed, or at raofl: his fpiritual feed, and n( 
 Chrift, was intended, by the feed in the covenant < 
 circumcifion. The nations have never been blofled 1: 
 any other of Ahrahim's feed but Chrift, 2. 'I'he apo 
 tie farther diftinguidies th.e promijc under confideratior. 
 .in the lixteentJi verfe. Noncyfaiih he^ to Jh'ahan o,... 
 his fed lucre the PROMisFS- wjad?. He speaks in the piv;- 
 ral, promifes." In G&n. - xii' 8,' n is-foidV'^-^"' "i^^ 
 f0.ill all families cf thi eai-ib h' bleffed. And in G;:'n. xxi:. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 IS, it is fjid, In ih) sri-D p.^al! all i'c fmtioiis of ihe carih 
 be bltffed. That we might not miftake the latter, as 
 rcferriniT to the proniiCe nude in the covenant oi 
 ti/cu.ncillon, and ib to Abraham's natural feed, tl\f 
 apoftle adds, « He faith not, And to feeds, as of many , 
 but as of ONE, and to thy seed, which is Christ. The 
 promifes in the covenant of circumcifion were to many ; 
 to Abral-.am's feed generally. Will any perfon pre- 
 fume to fay that thefe proiiiifes referred to Chriil, or 
 were made to him ; or that he was the feed there in- 
 tended ? Were kings to come out of his loins, and 
 nations to be made of him } Was the land of Canaan 
 promlfed to Chrift for an everlafting poffeffion Thefe 
 were fome of the promifes made and fulfilled to 
 Abraham and his natural leed. Chrift claimed no in- 
 tercfl: in the land of Canaan : no., not fo much as the 
 foxes ; for they had holes to burrow in, but the Son of 
 Nan had not where to lay his head. It will hence, we 
 think, undeniably follow, either that the promifes nude 
 to Abraham's feed in the covenant of ciicumcii'-on re- 
 ferred to Chrift, and had particular reft>eirt to iiim; or 
 fife that the apoflle reafoned from a promife entirely 
 diftincl from them. 3. lliat the apoftle did not refer 
 to the promifes in the covenant of circumcifion, is fur 
 ther evident, from what he has faid in the 17th verfe : 
 And this I f^yt that the covenant that was confirmed before 
 tf God in Chr'fty the law which ivas fur hundred and 
 thirty years after, cannot difanmdy that it fmdd make the 
 promife of none effeB. 
 
 Here are feveral things v/orthy of confideration. 
 1. This covenant was confirmed of God in Chriil. It 
 confequently ftood independent of the obedience either 
 of Abraham or his pofterity. 
 
 2. This covenant, if confirmed in Chrift, could not 
 be broken or difannuUed. There could in the nature 
 of things be no failure. Even a fufpicion of this kind, 
 would be derogatory to the honour and veracity of 
 Chria. 
 
 3. This promife, which is the fame referred to ia 
 the 29th verfe, the apoftle informs us was thus niade 
 and confirmed, four hundred and thirty years before 
 
 2. 2 
 
L 43° 
 
 262 APPENDIX. ^ 
 
 the giving of the law. This will forever diflinguifh it 
 from the promifes in the covenant of citciimcifiou. 
 For this was inftituted only four hundred and fix years 
 before the giving of the law. The covenant in the 
 xviith chapter of Genefis was in the year before Chrift 
 1897. The law was given fourteen hundred and 
 ninety-one years before the fame era, which f iSg;! 
 leaves but four hundred and fix. See the mar- } '^^J 
 
 gi"- L ^ 
 
 But the promife quoted by the apoftle from Genef 
 xii. 3, v^-hich was made to Abraham twenty-four y< 
 before, when he was in uncircumcifion, exaftly. cor 
 pares with this ftatement in the context, of four hut 
 dred and thirty years. This promife, according to tl 
 Bible chronology, was made to Abraham in the yea 
 before Chrift, 1921. The law, as. obferved 
 above, was given H'91, which makes exaftly 
 the time fpecified. See the margin. 
 
 Here the matter is reduced to mathematical cer- 
 tainty. Any perfon who will take the trouble ir. com- 
 pare the dates in his Bible, of the xiith chapter of Gene- 
 fis, and the xxth of Exodus, referred to above, wili feel 
 himfelf completely fatisfied. The moft invincible prej- 
 udice will find it difficult to refift the light of denion- 
 flration. 
 
 If the obfervations which have now been made are 
 correal:, they will bring us unavoidably to this conclu- 
 lion, viz. That Mr. Worcefter has totally miftaken the 
 promife in his text, and reafoned from one to which 
 the apoftle had no immediate reference. Hence the 
 whole of his laboured fuperftrufture is left without 
 foundation ! The fate of iuch a building may be feea 
 in the clofe of the fixth chapter of Luke. In order to 
 fet afide this conclufion, three things mufh be fairly 
 proved. 
 
 1. Th;'t the apoftle throughout this chapter did ac- 
 tually mean the promife in the covenant of circum- 
 cifion, -although he has not mentioned a iingle paflage 
 contained in it ; but exprefsly quoted one clearly dif- 
 tinguifhed by the time of its being delivered, and al'c 
 by the terms and import of the projnife itfeli. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2. It muft be proved, that the covenant of circum- 
 cifion was 430 years before the giving of the law, not- 
 withftanding fcripture chronology places it but four 
 hundred and lix. 
 
 3. That the feed of Abraham., mentioned in the cov- 
 enant of circumcifion, and the seed in whom all the 
 families of the earth fhould be blefled, were the fame : 
 or in other words, thit the feed of Abraham, expreffed 
 in that covenant, meant Chrift \ for the apoflle has ex- 
 prefsly told us in the context, that he was the perfon 
 to whom the promife, from which he was then reafon- 
 ing, exclufively referred. 
 
 Until thefe are fairly proved, we fliall infift upon the 
 concluCon above ftated. We have too good an opinion 
 of Mr. Worceftcr's candour, to think that he will deny 
 that he Las reafoned from the covenant of circumcifion 
 throughout his difcourfes. If he can honourably extri- 
 catehimfelf from theforegoing dilemma, he wilhmdoubt- 
 edly do it ; and in doing it he will inftru(St the writer of 
 thefe ftriftures, and probably relieve fome of his breth- 
 ren, who have, it is thought, already felt the difficulty. 
 We now proceed. 
 
 Secondly, to Ihow, That the application of this 
 promife to believers and unbelievers, or to believing 
 parents and their unbelieving children, is unfcriptural, 
 and contrary to the apoftle's reafoning throughout the 
 context. The apoftle predicates his reafonings upon t^o 
 diftinifl topics, viz. upon Abraham's faith, and the prom- 
 ife made to him refpefting the Gentile nations. With 
 regard to the firft, he faith, Abraham believed God, and 
 it lUMS accounted to him for righteoufuefs. Kno-w ve, there- 
 fore, that they luhich are of faith, the fame are the children 
 of Abraham- (Ver. 6, 1.) Here it muft be obvious to 
 every unprejudiced mind, that Gentiles, v/hether young 
 or old, cannot claim this relationfhip to Abraham, un- 
 lefs they are of faith : that is, unlefs they believe God, as 
 Abraham did. Viev/ed in this charafter, as the " father 
 of tiie faithful," and the fame diftindiion will alfo apply 
 with refpedt to his natural pofterity. None of his 
 feed are conlidered as his children in this fenfe, 
 but fuch as are of faith. This diftinftion was made by 
 
ArPLNDIX. 
 
 Chrift hirr.felf, \vl;eii leafoning witli tlic phnrifees, 
 the viiilli of John. Feeling theinfelves prefTect by 1 
 argumei-its, they fled to their ccmmon refuge, We 
 Abrahatn^s feed. '^fffus aufwered thsnit I know that ye or 
 Abraham's feed, h-jt ye feek to kill me, hecaufe my luord hat 
 no place in you. If ye ivere AbraJhisns CHILDREN, ye ivjuid 
 do the works of Abrah im.* The works of Abraham 
 comprehended both his faith and liis obedience ; and 
 for any one to claim interefk in him as theirr father 
 until they are the fubje£ts of faving faith in Jefus 
 Chrift, would be equally as unavailing as the claim 
 the rich man, who addreffed Abraham as his father, b 
 could not obtain a drop of water to cool his tor 
 mented tongue.f 
 
 We have already made fome remark; on the 14th 
 Terfe, but it comes in courfe to be confidered more par- 
 ticularly. The apoftle in the preceding verfe makes, 
 this ftatement ; That <' Chrifl hath redeemed us from 
 the curfe of the law, being made a curfe for us, that 
 the bleffing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, 
 through Jefus Chrift." Is it poifible for any perfon to 
 fappcfie, that by the blejjlng ef Abraham, the apoftle in- 
 tended external church privileges ? fuch as the bap- 
 tizing, and conflituting children church members ? We 
 cannot think tbefe were the blelilngs expreffedor intend- 
 ed by the apoftle. For according to him, the blefling 
 of Abraham comes on the Gentiles, through J'fis Chrijl, 
 and through no other medium. But the blciling of in- 
 fant baptifm, and infant memberHiip, comes on chil- 
 dren through their parents : it depends altogether 
 upon them, whether the children ihali enjoy thefe 
 bleffings or not. But according to the apoftle, They 
 which be of faith, are bleffd with faithful Abraham, v/hether 
 their parents are believers or unbelievers •, whether 
 friends or enemies to the crofs of Chrift. 
 
 According to Mr. Worcefter, if we underftand him:, 
 the falvation of the children of believers depends prin-- 
 cipally upon the " faith and fidelity" of their p-arents. 
 His words ar:, "The promife, then, to be a God to. 
 Abraham, and to his feed after him, was of this pot- 
 
 *J'>lmv;;.. 33, 37, 39. 
 
 + Luke xti. 24. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 26.5 
 
 I fyrt, that on conJitlori of faith and fIJelitf on .Abra- 
 ham's part, in refpeft to his children, they Oioulcl be- 
 fuhjecls of grace, and heirs of the bleffings of the 
 \n-enant. The fame promife w?s made to Abraliam's 
 poAeritf, in their fucceTIivc generations and the lame 
 IS now ni.xtc to all true believers, his adopted children 
 of every nation."* This doftrine, we believe, has been 
 aflerted by other Fxdobaptill minlfters, bejules Mr. 
 Worcefter ; but we acknowledge freely that we have our 
 doubts refpecting its correftnefs. Will any one aiTert 
 that all Abraham's own children were faved ? If not, 
 will they venture to fay it was owing to his want of 
 faith or felelity towards them ? Was Ij'aac diltinguilhed 
 by Abraham's faith and fidelity before he was conceiv- 
 ed in the womb of Sjrah, -as the child of promife ? Or 
 does it appear that Abraliam ever cxercifed any pre- 
 eminent faith or lidelity towards ilaac, mere than to- 
 wards Ilhniael } 
 
 If wedefcend a ftcp further, into the fam:ly of Ifltac, 
 we fhall fee flill rtlearer proof of the incoi-reclnefs of 
 the fentiment under confideration, li is too evident to 
 be denied, that Ifaac had a partiality for Efau. It is 
 alfo evident that his faith had fixed on him as the heir 
 of promife ; for he intended, and actually thouglu he 
 had given him the blefling. Yet the purpofe of God, ac- 
 cording to election, fuperfeded both his «' faith and fideli- 
 ty," with refpe^t to Efau, and gave the blefnng to Jacob. 
 
 Will any one hazard the allbrtion, that Ifaac had any 
 different exercife oi faith for Jacob, or manifefted any 
 fidelity towards him, which he did not towards Efiiu ? Or 
 was ic the fovereign ple.ifure of God alone. That made 
 Jacob the lot of his inheritance, rather than Efau, totaliv 
 independent of either the faith or fidelity of the pious 
 parents ? 
 
 Throughout the chapter on which the difcourfes 
 before us are founded, the apoftle has afferted the per- 
 fnnal intereft of believers, a.-id of no others in the blef- 
 fing of Abraham. There is not a word of this condi- 
 tiitia! bufiiiefs, about the " faith and fid;lity"' of parents, 
 by which their children become " fubjedU of gr^ice :" 
 
 • Dire Y- o8- 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 but, according to the apoftle, both parents and chil- 
 dren " become fubjefts of grace," only by becoming 
 believers in ChriO:. This is being bleffed with Abra- 
 ham in fome proper fenfe, and to fome certain and 
 valuable purpofe. 
 
 There is alio a very material diiFerence with refpeft' 
 to the kind of faith with which the blefling of Abra- 
 ham is connecled. The apoftle gives no intimation 
 that he means any other faith, than that which is com- 
 mon to every believer : that is, faith in the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift: as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. 
 But Mr. "Worcefter's faith, to which the promife of 
 God is cotiditiorially made, feems to be a faith refpeft- 
 ing the falvation of our children. He reafons thus ; 
 " Hence," iuiih he, '< though in one refpeft the prom- 
 ifes of the covenant are conditional ; yet in another 
 they are not. Though in refpeft to individual believ- 
 ers, the promifes are not abfolute, but ha-ve refpeft to 
 their fahh and fidelity as a cotidiiioti ; yet with rcfpedl to 
 Chrift, and the church as one with him, the promifes 
 are yea and amen. Though God is not by covenant 
 abfolutely engaged to give every believer that faith in 
 the promifes, refpefting his children, which will cer- 
 tainly through grace, fecure to his children, and all of 
 them, the bleffings of the covenant,"* &c. This faith 
 refpeiTting children is entirely diftinft from that "faith 
 by which Abraham and all other believers are juftified : 
 it is a kind of faith which probably few believers have ; 
 which many never have, and which many never can 
 have. A great proportion of believers are fingle per- 
 fons, who have neither companions nor children ; and 
 many who marry, live and die childlefs. None of thefe 
 can be fuppofed to have this kind of faith. But we 
 alk ; Has not the blefling of Abraham come on them 
 through Jefus Clirift I Are they noi hl.Jj^d with faithful 
 Abraham ? 
 
 We have no doubt but fome believing parents have 
 had ftrong faith given them rerpe»n:ing the converfion 
 of their children ; or at leaft fome of them, or polH- 
 bly fome of their neighbours, or ihdv children. But 
 it is equally evident, that many have been fo happy as 
 
 • Difc p 38, 39. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 267 
 
 :c their children brought to know the Lord, who 
 \ e never fenfible of any fpecial faith concerning them 
 r.rticuiar. On the other hand, it is reafonable to 
 ofe, that that ardent dcfire which it is common for 
 . s parents to feel for the falvation of their children, 
 led them to believe many things refpefling them, 
 h they never did, nor ever will reahze.* 
 Whatever faith parents may have refpefting their 
 ::ren, it is certain they cannot give ihtni faith, and 
 equcntly cannot convey the blelling of Abraham to 
 i.i. This bleffing refts on npne but fuch as are 
 ; :.i.mfelves the fubjecls of faith ; on true believers only. 
 This promife therefore cannot, confiftently with the 
 jpofile's reafoning, be applied to children Oii the account 
 vt their parents' faith, if ever they receive the bUJftng 
 if Abraham, it will come on thetn ihrcugh Jefus ChriJ} ; 
 and they will reft in a moft fatal dduQon, if they reft 
 in any thing fliort of this. 
 
 " Vain are the hcpes that rebels place 
 
 Upon their birth and blood ; 
 Dd'cendcd from a pious race, 
 
 Their fathers now with God." 
 
 ^ The inaar.ce of the Rev. Mr. VVhittfie'.d, rtrpeiT-irn: his fon-, ftiall 
 fcrve is a fpccin-en. In I'thruar)', 1744 (lays Dr. Gillies) aa tvenf 
 happened to him, which, anudft ull his fuccL-'s, tended to keep him 
 hunible, and ferved to cure iiini of a wejkucfs to whith lie h.id' been 
 liable, the trufting to grourdlefs iirprtGions. It v i.s ihc dtath of his 
 only child, concerning whom he was fo impreffed, th^t he made no 
 temple of dcthrinfT before the birth,. that the child would be a fon ; 
 tnd that he hoped he v.culd live to preach the' Gofpcl. Several nar- 
 row cKapes, which Mrs. Whitefitld had d-jring her pregnancy, con- 
 firmed him in his exf e<Satio«s ; whith were fo high, thst after he had 
 publicly baptized the child r.t the I abcmacle, all went away big with 
 the hopes* of his beinp fpartd to be employed in the work of God. 
 But thele ford expcili-tions were !o(;n blafted by the child's death, 
 xvhen he wr.s about four moi ths old. This was, no doubt, very hum- 
 bling to the ftther ; but he was help?d to make the wifeft and beft 
 improvement of it " Though I -m d.r^ppoiijted, fays he, (writing to 
 a friend) of a living preacher, by the death ot my fon ; 'yet 1 hope what 
 happened bcff re his birth, ind fnice his death, has taught me fuch 
 IcITons, as if duly improved, may render his miftiiken parent more cau- 
 tiouf, more fcbcr minded, more experienced in t>atan's devices, and 
 coofcqucntly more ufeful in his future labours to tlie church ol God."* 
 • Mimoiri cftlc life of the Rev. Get. IVbitefcU. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Whether ihclr Withers are gone to heavea or n«t, re'*- 
 ligion is at all times a perfonal concern. The rrioft pioui 
 parents cannot fave their ungodly children. God de- 
 clared by the prophet Ezekiel, that when he fiiou'd 
 fend his judgnicnts upon a finful land, though Noah, 
 Daniel and Job were in ity they JJmtld deliver but their 
 6ivn fouls by their righteoufr.efs. As I live, faith the Lord 
 God, iheyjhjll deliver neither fins nor d n/ghters* Thefe 
 were three eminent Aiints ; we flioulu hence Tery nat- 
 urally fuppofe, their children would derive as much 
 ndvantape from tlieir " faith and fidelity," as the chil- 
 dren of f.iints in general : yet it feeras that the children 
 muft hsvo fome pcrfonnl religion, independent of the'i- 
 p;:rents, to exempt them froui even temporal judgments ; 
 how mach more to fecurs them from the wrath to 
 come ! 
 
 . I'he fentim.erit we have been contemplating refpctH:- 
 i.;g the promife of God made to Abraham, to his pof- 
 terity, and to Gentile believers, to nrake their children 
 «• fubjefts of grace," on cond'ti^n of their faith and 
 iidelity," involves, if we miftake not, another impor- 
 tant error. It fappofes, that every Gentile believer, 
 who is the head of a family, ftands in the fame relation, 
 «nd is entitled to the lame promifes that Abraham was. 
 That every true believer is bieffed with the K;me blef- 
 lings of pardon and jufllfitation, with interefl; in the 
 Melli;ih, the prcmifed feed, will be readily admitted : 
 but it does not hence follow, that the iam.e promifes are 
 made to. them refpe£t:ng their pofterity which were 
 made to him. No, by no means ; for this would con- 
 ilitute every believing head of a family, an Abraham ; 
 a patriarch of the church ; a father of the faithful. Is 
 there a Mefliah to fprirg from every believing Lioily 
 Are all t!ie nations of the earth to be bleHed in their 
 feed .'' Does the promife of the land of Canasn defcend 
 to the children of believers, as it did to the children of 
 Abraham ? Has God promifed any Gentile believer 
 that his feed lhall become numerous as the ftars of 
 heaven ? That nations and kings fliall fpi ing from 
 him .'' — All thefe queftions muft be anfwcred in the ncr; 
 
 • Eeek. lir. ij - x6. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Z69 
 
 .iLive. It will hence appear that by the fpecial appoint- 
 ment of God, Abraham was placed in a fituation difler- 
 ent from all other believers ; and in this peculiar fit- 
 uation many things were promifed to his feed, which 
 are not promifed to the feed of other believers. 
 
 Cut it will probably be faid, we have mentioned every 
 thing elfc but the promife itfelf, which contained Abra- 
 ham's principal blelliiig, and which has been tranfmit- 
 ted to Gentile believers, viz. That God promifed to be 
 a God to him, and to his feed. From the general tenor 
 of the difcourfes before us, we conclude the author con- 
 fidered this as the promife refen-ed to in his text. 
 Hence, to be Chrift's, is to be Abraham's feed, and heirs 
 according to this promife : i. e. That God will be a God 
 to us and our feed. 
 
 We truft it has been made faiHciently evident in the 
 preceding page?, that this could not be the promife 
 intended by the apoftle ; and that whatever bleflings 
 were contained in this, that bleffing of Abraham which 
 is laid to have come on the Gentiles through Jefus 
 Chrift, was a blefling diftind from this, and one which 
 he enjoyed long before this covenant exlfted. 
 
 The qaeflicn now to be determined is this, Does 
 God ftaud engaged by covenant to every believer, to be 
 a God to him and to his feed after him, in the fame 
 fenfe, as by that covenant he flood engaged to Abraham 
 and his feed ? If a theory does not correfpond with faft, 
 it is a certain argument that it is not right. We have 
 already feen that a large proportion of believers die 
 without ilTue. If this promife in its full force has been 
 tranfmitted to them, it required, befides their " faith and 
 fidelity," another conditiotiy which the author of the 
 difcourfes has overlooked. It muft: run to them and 
 their feed, provided they have any. This prornife, as it 
 refpefted Abraham, did not require this condition ; for 
 he had previoufly the promife of God, that his feed 
 Ihould become as the duft of the earth. 
 
 To give a corredl view of what is contained in this 
 promife, we fliall quote the words of an excellent wri- 
 ter : " To afcertain the meaning of this promife, (faith 
 he) we can proceed on no ground more certain tkan 
 
270 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 faft. It Is facl, that God in fucceedirg ages took th^t 
 feed of Abraham to be a peculiar people unto himfelf, 
 above all other nations; not only giving them 'the land 
 of Canaan for a pofTeffion,' but himfelf to be t/jcir God, 
 King, or temporal Governor. Nor was this all : it was 
 among them that he fet up his fpiritual kingdom, giv- 
 ing them his lively oracles, fending to them his proph- 
 ets, and eftabii''!ing among them his holy worflnp \ 
 which great advantages were, for many ages, in a man- 
 ner confined to them ; and what was (till more, the 
 threat body of thcfe who were eternally faved previoufly 
 to the coming of Chrift, were faved from amongft them. 
 Thefe things taken together were an immenfely greater 
 favour than if they had all been literally made kings 
 ind priefts. Such then being the faBsy it is natural to 
 luppofe that futh was the meaning of the promife."* 
 
 • Fuller's Fxpclitory Difc. on Gen. xvii. 7. To the above he fub- 
 jv;iiis t:ii following note. 
 
 As an .'.iitipadebaptift I fee no ncccRity for denying that fpirituai 
 b'tiijngt were proinifcd, in this general -way, fo li e natural feed of 
 Abraham ; nor can it, I thick, be fairly denied. The Lord engaged to 
 ao that which he adtially did ; namely, to take out of them, rather than 
 other nations, a people for himfelf. 1 his, I fiippofe, is the feed proniilcd 
 to Abrahani, to which the apoftle refers when he lays, " They -wliich 
 ere the children of the Pefh, thcfe are not the children of God ; but the 
 children of the promife are counted for the feed." (Rom. ix. S.) Ey 
 ••■ the children of the promife" he ilid not mean the eIc<S: in general, 
 tompofed of JeV;s and Gentiles, but the eledl from amcngll the Jews* 
 Hcr.ce iie rcdions himfelf " an Uraeiice, of the fted of AbrahiDi, and 
 th.; tribe of Benjamin," as a living proof that " God had not cafl. away 
 "tit people whom he foreknew." Rotni xi. i, 1. 
 
 But I perceive not how it follows from hence, that God has promifed 
 to take a people from amongfi: the nataral defcendants of believers, in 
 dlflimftion from others. Wh it v. as ( roiiiiled to Abrahani, v/as neither 
 promifed nor fulfilled to every good mr,n. Of the poflcrity of his kinf- 
 man Lot, i.othirg good is rccordtd. It is true, the labours of thofc 
 parents who '■ bring up their children in the liurture and adn onition of 
 ihe lord," are ordinarily blelTtd to the converfion offome of them: 
 asd the fame may be faid of the labours of faithful niinifters, wherever 
 providence flations them. But as it docs not follow in the ene cafe, 
 that the g. acclels inhabitants .tre more in covenant with God than tliofe 
 «f i thcr places, neither does it follow in the other, that the gracelcft 
 •ffspring of hclievtrs are more in covenant with God than thole of un- 
 believers. " New Teflament faints have nothing more to do with the 
 Abrahamic covenant, than the Old Teflament bejicvtrj who lived prior 
 tt) .\braham." 
 
 I am aware that the word* of the apoflle in Gal. iii. 14, " the blelTing 
 •f Abraham is come on the Gentiles, through Jefus Chrift," are alleged 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 271 
 
 r'ais may be reidily admitted," with refpect to Abra- 
 and his dofcendants ; but it does not piove that 
 the ume things are either engaged or fuHilled to Gen- 
 tile believers. Their feed is not diftinguilhod by any 
 fpeclal acts of Divine Providence, as the feed of Abra- 
 ham was. The uncircumcifed might not mingle with 
 the circumcifed in the common a£ls of worfhip. Bnt 
 the difpenfation under which we live, has no law for- 
 bidding the unbaptized, or even the irreligious from 
 attending public worfliip with the faints. They are 
 not compelled now to worfhip in the outer court, but 
 may fit upon the fame feats, and hear the precious gof- 
 pel. Circumcilion forbade the ufual civilities of fecial 
 life to the uncircumcifed ; but this is not the cafe in 
 Chriftian focieties. 
 
 But fhould we admit this to be the promife intend- 
 ed in the pafTige, on which the difcourfes before us are 
 founded, (which wc lhall by no means gr.xnt) and that 
 
 in proof of the contrary. IJiit the mcani»g of that paffige, I conceiv;, 
 is not, that through Jefus Chrill every believer becomej an Abraham, a 
 father of the faitliful ; but that he is reckoned among his children : not 
 a Jlock on which the f aturc church fhould grow ; but a brr.ncb, partaking 
 •f the root and fatncfj of the olive tree. So, however, the context ap- 
 pears to explain it — ^" They which are of faith are the cblUren of f.uilij ul 
 Abraham." ver. 7. 
 
 Bat if it vrere granted, that the blclTing of Abraham i« fo come on 
 the beiiei-ing Gentiles, as not only to render tkem bleffcl as his fpiritual 
 children, but to infure a peoplj for God froniamongft their natural pr.f- 
 "teriiy, rather th.\ii frjm thol'e of others ; yet it is not as tJieir n.ituml 
 po:Urity tliat they are individually entitled to any onefpiritua! bleJmt; ; 
 tor this was more than was true of the natural feed of Abrnnam Ivor 
 do I fee how it follows from hence, that we are warranted to bantize 
 them in their iniancy. Abraham, it if true, v/as commanded co circum- 
 cifc l>is male children ; and if wc h.id been commanded to bapti/ie cur 
 maks, or females, or both, or any example of the kind had been lefc in 
 the New Teflament, w; Ihould be as much obliged to comply in the 
 one calc, as he was in the other. But we do not think ourfelves wax- 
 raated to reafon from circumcifion to baptifm ; from the circunicifioa 
 of males to the baptilhi of m.iles and females ; and from the circura- 
 f.iion of the children of a nation, (the greater part of whom were un- 
 believers) and of " fcrvints born in the Iioufe or bought with money," 
 to the baptifm of the children of believers. In fhor:, we -lo not thinkour- 
 ielves warranted in matters of pofuivc inllitution, to found our practice 
 cn analogies, v/hethcr real or fuppofed ; and ftill Icfs on one fo circuit- 
 ous, aiiVmant, and uncertain as that in quellion. Our duty, we con. 
 ceive, is, in futh cafes, to fellow the precepts atd exaniplis of the dif- 
 pcrjfati«n under which we live. 
 
272 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 it has defcended to Gentile believers in the fuUeft ex- 
 tent, yet we conceive that no fair inference can be 
 drawn from it in favour of infant baptifm. For the 
 rituals of that difpenfation were peculiar to it, and 
 have nov,' entirely ceafed. The Gofpel difpenfation 
 under which we live, has its own rituals totally uncon- 
 neiSled, and independent of that. This will appear by 
 this lingle circnmftance, that the fame perfons who had 
 been circumcilbd in infancy, under that difpenfation, 
 were baptized when they became bchcvers. If, accord- 
 ing to our opponents, infant baptifm ccnnes in the room 
 of circumcifion, we fee no reafon why they fliould not 
 now be baptised when they become believers, as the 
 Jewifli converts were formerly. If, as is contended for, 
 circumcilton was a feal of the covenant, and baptifm h 
 a feal of the fame covenant, why were they fealed over 
 a fecond time ? This was certainly ^«is-fealing, which 
 would look quite as inconliftent as y^ra-baptifm. 
 
 If the Jewilli church and the Chrillian church are 
 th.e fame, where is the impropriety of calling the form- 
 er the Gofpel church, and the latter the Jewifli ? or in 
 ufing the terms interchangeably, as may appear moft 
 convenient ? i^greeably to this, fome Pasdobaptifrs 
 have called their infant baptifm " Cliriftian circumci- 
 jion." This is Judaizing with a witnefs. The lan- 
 jTuage of Pfedobaptift writers, and that of the writers 
 of the Nev/ TeAament, vvbcn compared together, will 
 r.ppear widely different on !l;efe points. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has fo flrangely blended different 
 tilings, promifed to Abraham at different times, that 
 an incautious reader - will be likely to miftake one for 
 another. As a fpecimen of what may be found in va- 
 rious parts of the work, the reader will notice the fol- 
 lowing paragraphs. 
 
 « God's covenant of proraife made with Abraham, 
 comprifed all the bieflings and privileges ever prom- 
 ifed to believers and the church." 
 
 " / ivi// eJlabliJJj my covenant Uttoeen me and thee and 
 thy feed after thee, fays the Lord to Abraham, for an 
 everlajling covenant, TO BF. A GoD UNTO THEE AND TO 
 THv SEED AFTER TiiEE." This is the moft extcnfive 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 273 
 
 pi o.Tiife in the covenant of circu'.ncllion. But dul this 
 " CO nprife all the bleliings and privileges ever promife J 
 to believers ?" It certainly did not. Nor did Mr. 
 Worcefter feel willing to relt his aff;rtion upon this ; 
 but has fubjoined another promife made to Abraham 
 long before the coven?.nL to which he refers exilled ; 
 and which was renewed to him, and to Ifaac and Jacob 
 afcerwards. This promife he has given us in the fol- 
 lo A-ing words, « and in thee, and in thy s:;ed shall 
 
 ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED." (page 
 
 1 +.) This promife, indeed, comprifes every thing, be- 
 caufe it comprifes the Melliah, the seed in whom fome 
 of all nations fliall be bleffed.- But this forms no part 
 of the covenant of ci> cumcifion, though coartantly 
 blended in the difcourfes before UJj as if it were one 
 of the moil prominent articles in it. 
 
 The author of thefe difcourfes feems to anticipate in- 
 numerable diiHculties, on the fuppoiition that the Gof- 
 pcl church commenced with the prefent difpenfation. 
 «'If," faith he, " the covenant m .de with Abraham has 
 been difannuUed, and the church formed by it abo!- 
 ifhed ; if, on the introduction of the Chriftian difpenfa- 
 tion, a new church was formed, and a new covenant in- 
 ilituted, materially different from that made witli Abra- 
 ham ; in what important refpecl can Abr.iham be con- 
 lidered as the father of Chriftian believers ?" He fur- 
 ther adds ; "If we be members of a different church, 
 formed by a different covenant from that of Abraham, 
 what relation have we to Abraham ? In what refpect 
 are we his children ? How is it that we are bleffed with 
 him ? that we are heirs according to the promife made 
 lo him ?" (page 12.) 
 
 All thefe difficulties we think will be obviated and 
 removed, by correcting a very eflential error in his 
 next pai-agraph. In this, if we miftake not, he has 
 mifquoted the Apoftle's words, mifapplicd them, and 
 made him give a verv important conclufion, without 
 any premifes ! " Theie," fays the reader, " are charges 
 of confiderable magnitude : they ought therefore to be 
 made out fairly, or retraced." We engage to do one 
 cr the other. The quotation to which we refer is 
 
 Aa 2 
 
'^■71. APPENDIX. 1 
 
 in the following words : " He received ihe fign of circum- J 
 tfton, a feal of the nghifcufncfs ojfaithy that Hii MIGHT .1 
 BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE, THOUGH | 
 THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED." (page J.'2.) That the \ 
 reader may better judge, we will give the paragraph 
 entire. ] 
 "But Abraham was made the father of many na- | 
 tions ; and all who are of faith are his children, and 
 »re blefied with him. This is according to the cove- 
 nant of promife which God made with Abraham." 
 This is all very well, but he adds, " He received the f.gn 
 of circumcftotJi a feal of the iighteouftiefs ef faith, THAT 
 HE MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL THEM THAT BEt 
 LIEVE, THOUGH THEY BE NOT CIRCUMCISED, though 
 
 they be not his natural pofterity, that righteous- 
 ness MIGHT BE imputed TO THEM ALSO." If iNlr. 
 Worcefler is correft, it was Abraham's circumcilion, 
 and not his faith, which conftituted him the father of 
 believers ! 
 
 The paffage here referred to, is Rom. iv. 11. And 
 we complain, 1. That the words are mifquoied' To 
 prove this, we need only compare them witli the facred 
 text. Mr. Worcefter fays, " a feal of the righteoufuefs of 
 faiths that he might be a father, &c." The apoftls fays, 
 a feal of the righieotfnefs of THE faith "which he had, yet 
 being ttncircumcifed. Although the words hs had, are- 
 not in the original, they are neceffhrily implied andj 
 underftood, as in cur tranflation. Had the words been 
 quoted as they are read in our Bibles, they would have 
 conveyed quite a different meaning. We do not infifk 
 that an author fhould always quote fcripture verbatim, 
 but if hiy variations give a different fenfe, he is certaift,. 
 ly accountable for it. 
 
 2. We complain that the words are mlfapplied. 
 They are applied as they ftand in the Bible, only to 
 Abraham. Circumcifion was a feal to Abraham of his 
 faith, but it is not faid to be fuch to his pofterity, or to 
 any other perfon upon earth. Mr. Worcefter has madp 
 it a feal of the righteoufiiefs of faith generally. What faith 
 can it be fuppofed that an infant has of eight days old ? 
 Was there any faith fealed to fuch ? WJj?t fiiith was 
 
 i 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 t fealed to a fervaiit bought with tnonej, who had been 
 brought up in idohtry, and perhaps (till attached to it, 
 only compelled to conform to the religion of the Jews, 
 becaufe he was a llave ? No man believes that either of 
 the two were fubjefts of filth. How then, we a^k, was 
 circumclfion -a leal of the rig-hteoufnefs of faith to 
 them ? But it will be faid, that God commanded them 
 to be circumcifed, and therefore it mufr have been 
 right. With this we fully agree ; but God has no 
 where (laid that it was a feal of the righteoufnefs of 
 faith to them. A man may as well believe that every 
 baptized infant is lealed with the righteoufnefs of faith, 
 though he mayafterwards prove to be a profligate infidel, 
 as that circumcifion placed them in this privileged con- 
 dition. He muft give up his common fenfe to believe 
 either. We therefore conclude, that if IMr. Worcefter's 
 word-; mean, what the fame expreilions mean when ufed 
 by others, he has appiied an expreSion generally, which 
 the npaftie appiied only in a particular cafe j which v/e 
 confider as a mifapplication of the text. 
 
 3. We have charged Mr. Worcefcer, with making 
 the apoftle eoiKliuh •without prcmifes. This we are now 
 to make out. In order to render it plain to every ca- 
 pacity, we will again fet down his quotation. " He re- 
 ceived the fign of ciixumcilion, a feul of the righteoaf- 
 nefs of faith, that he might be the father of ail them 
 that believe, though they be net circumcifed," The 
 apoftle is here made to fay, that Abraham was circum- 
 cifed, fo that he might be the father of believers that 
 are uncircumcifed ! We alk, in the name of common 
 fenfe, why it v/as necefTary for Abraham to be circumr 
 f 'lpd^ in order to conftitute him the father of believers 
 .that are utich ciimc 'ijcd ? If there can be any other mean- 
 ing to the argument, as Mr. V/orcefter has phced it be- 
 fore the public, we confefs we have not difcernment 
 enough to fee it. But is it poOible that the apoftle 
 ihould reafon at this rate He certainly did not. He 
 is placed in this awkward fituation only for the want of 
 having his argument fairly prefented. In order to fee 
 the force of his reafoning, the following words v/hich be- 
 gin the quotation, ought to be confidered as a parenthc- 
 
276 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 fis, as they really are, viz. ( Aud he received the fign if 
 circumcifion, a feal of the righttoufuefs of the fiiih 'which l 
 had, yet being uncircumcifed.) The fenfe of the paffr.:, 
 will then be plain. I'he apoftle fta.tes his argumem 
 thus : For ive fay, that faith luas reckoned to Abraham fr 
 righteoufticfs. Hoiu luas it then reckoned ? •when he ivas in 
 circumcifion, or in uncircumcifion ? not in circumcifion, hut 
 in uncircumcifion, (and he received the fign, &c.) that 
 he might be the father of all them that believe, though they 
 be not circumctfed." Here the argument refumes its 
 native force, and teaches us that faith was reckoned to 
 Abraham for righteoufnefs, when he was in uncircum- 
 cifion; fo that he might be the father of all other be- 
 lievers, though they be not circumcifed. Not that he- 
 received circumcifion, " for this very puri-osk," as. 
 Mr. Worcefter ailerts (page 11) to qualify liim to be the 
 father of uncircumcifed Gentile believers. 
 
 For what purpofe^ it may be aiked, was the apoftie's 
 argument in this m.utilated form introduced into the 
 difcourfes before "cs undoubtedly, to give force to the 
 covenant of circumcifion. If it were circumciaoa 
 that conftituted Abraham the father of believers, it 
 would attach a degree of connJeration to that rite,,- 
 which it would not otlierwife poiFefs. In this way, it 
 is thought to aid the caufe of infant baptifm. But we 
 aflc, was it net Abraham's faith wliich he had long be- 
 fore his circumcifi-on, which, according to the apoftle's 
 argument, conftituted him the father of the faithful I 
 He being the firft that fubmitted to that rite, might 
 conftitute him the father of the circumcfnn ; but it was 
 bis FAITH that conftituted him the father of believers- 
 It is conceived that the author of the difcourfes.^ 
 might with as much propriety have argued from this. 
 palTage in his context : — For it is written, Curfed is every 
 ene that hangeth on a tree ; that the hleffing of Abraham 
 might come on the Gentiles through fefus Chv'ft"* It 
 Avould be impofllble here to fee the propriety of this 
 conclufion as it now ftands before us : it is equally fo 
 in the one which Mr. Worcefter has introduced above. 
 But place this in its proper order, and it will alfo re- 
 
 * Gal, iii. 13, 14. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 277 
 
 fume its nntlve force. The argument flands thus. 
 Chri/1 hath redeemed, us from the curfe of the law^ bang 
 made a curfe for us : (for it is witten, Curfed is evei-y one 
 that hangeth on a tree :) that the h'ejfing of Ahrah.xm 
 might come cn the Gentiles through Jcftis Chrijl. The 
 blelling of Abraham does not come on the Gentiles, 
 ' "ciufe every one is curfed who hangeth on a tree ; 
 
 . becaufe Chrift hath redeemed us from the cirfe of 
 : . law. So, neither was Abraham by be;ng circum- 
 ciied conftituted the father of believing Ge: tiles who 
 are uncircumcifed ; but by believing God, and having 
 ' h reckoned to him for righteoufnefs, when he was 
 Lincircumcifion. We now leave it with a candid 
 ; iblic to determine, whether, in his zeal to fupport his 
 hypothecs, Mr. Worcefter has not entirely miftalcen and 
 niifreprefented the apoftle's argument, and finally drawn 
 a conclufion favourable to his own fcheme, but drawn 
 it without any premifes. 
 
 From Mr. Worcefter's arguments thus corre£ted, we 
 fee nothing which leads to the condiifion that the gofpel 
 churcli (coiapofed of profeJing believers only,) may not 
 be confiderod as the children of Abrahtim, not by circum- 
 cifioL!, but by f.iith,and ccm\>\(A.c\v hhfj'ed in him through 
 Jefus Chrifi ; notv, irhftmding the covenant, which con- 
 tained circumciiion. and all the other Jewifh rites, has 
 •waxid old and vctnif :d /r;. :iy- if our relation to Abra- 
 ham can be fuftained on i o '.etter ground, than that 
 we have had the feal of th^ covenant, as it is called, 
 applied to us in our infancy, (whether by cii-cumcilion 
 or b.iptifm it matters not,) it will leave us in the iame 
 wretched condi'ion of the_ unbelieving Jews. Let us 
 not deceive ourfelves by fpending our efforts in defend- 
 ing the lliadow, whilft we give up the fubftance. 
 
 Tk-y which be of faith, faith the apoftle, are hlelfed 
 •with faithful Abraham ; and they ivhich are of faith, 
 the fame are the children of Abraham. The fcriputre hath 
 concluded all under fin, that the promise by faijh of Je- 
 sus Christ might be givf.n to them that believe. 
 Far ye are all the children of God by faith in Jefus Chrijl. 
 For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrijl, have 
 put en Chrijl. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there ft 
 
275 APPENDIX. 
 
 neither bond ncr free^ there is neither male nor fetnnle j foryg^ 
 mre all nne in Chrijl Jcfus. And if ytr be Chri/i's, then are 
 ye Abraham's feeJ^ and heirs according to the prctnife''' Every 
 fentence which we have now quoted, feems to look, 
 with a forbidding afpeft upon the membcrfliip and 
 baptifm of unbelievers. If the apoftle had really de- 
 figned to have barred the claim of infants, and all other 
 unbelievers, he could fcarcely have ufed language more 
 decifive. He has firft informed us that Abraham was 
 blefled in believing God. He believed the gofpel that 
 was preached to !iim, concerning his feed, the Mefliah, 
 in whom all fumiUes of the earth fJjould be blejfed. This 
 glorious promife has been fulfilling for ages ; and the 
 blefling of Abraham ftill comes on the Gentiles through 
 Jefus Chritl, and through no other medium. 
 
 The apoftle is particularly careful to eftablifh this 
 point, that Abraham's Jaith vjas reckoned to him for right- 
 eoufnefs, nvhen he tvas in uncircumcifion. By this he has 
 excluded circumciiion from cUaining the fmalleft fhare 
 of honour in the falvatlon of Abraham, or in kis being 
 the fiUher of other believers. He appears equally 
 cautious in difcriminating the characters who are blelT- 
 ed with Abraham. His language is, That God ivonld 
 juflify the heathen through faith. He adds, Zo then, THEY 
 IVHICH BE OF F,U7'H are Ucjfed luith faithful Abraham. 
 Again, Th.it the blt'/ft/ig of ylbrahain might come on the Gen- 
 tiles THROUGH Jesus Ciii'.isT. We muft find fomechiug 
 more favourable to unbelievers than wljat is here ex- 
 prefled, or we fliall-be as unable to blels theni, as Ifirac 
 was Efau, aftdr he had given the blefling cxclufively 
 to Jacob. 
 
 Still to imprefs the feni:iment more deeply, the apoftle 
 again refumes his fubjefl towards the dole of the chap- 
 ter, and adds ; For ye are all the children of God ^ by faith 
 in Chrifl Jefus. Not by defcending from Abraham, nor 
 any other believer •, nor by any external rite whatever. 
 For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrifiy have 
 put on Chrifl. This language agrees perfe£lly with the 
 idea of thoir being all profeflbrs. But how a paflive 
 infant, of eight days old, can be faid to put on Chrifl, to 
 us is inconceivable. It might be fald of fuch as are bap- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 '.zed in Infancy, that Chrift-, that Is, his name is put 
 > n them, without either their knowledge or confent ; 
 : how it can he rendered actively, yen have put on 
 \% difficult to reconcile either to coirmon fenfe 
 '. r to truth. There is lu 'ther Jew nor G' - elc, there is 
 'cr bond nor free, there is neither male nor f.;mle ; FOR 
 ARE ALL ONE IN Ckrist Jesus. "W'.at ! whole 
 'ihes ! believing parents (at lead: one of them) and 
 i-'ciieving children? faints and finners, all one in 
 ■jl ? Strange union indeed ! V/lmt communion hath 
 ■ r:t iviih dcrhnifs ? and iuh.it coficcrd hath Chriji noith 
 Belial ? or ivhat part hath he that telievrth ivith an infidel?* 
 If S*. Paul were to addrefs a modern congregation, 
 where perhaps feven-eighths of them had been baptizied 
 in infancy, could he with propriety addrefs them as he 
 did thefe Galatian Chriftians : j^s many of you as have 
 been baptized into Chrifl, have put on ChriJl ? Te are all one 
 in Chr'ifl ? Do Pjcdobaptift Chriftians themfelves believe 
 this of their families ? Do they believe that their bap- 
 tized but unregenerate children have put on Chrift ? 
 That they and their children of this dcfcription are 
 all one in Chrift Jefas ? They certainly do not treat 
 them as if they believed any fuch thing ; nor can we 
 fuppofe they do ferionfly believe it. Yet if they do 
 hot believe it, will they not feel this conviiTtinn, that 
 their churches differ eflentiaily from thafe in the apof- 
 tolic age ? As the rpoftlcs themfelvcs did not profcfs 
 to know the hearts of others, the language addrefied to 
 the Galatians, would be proper to any body of baptized 
 profefTors who acted in character as Chriftians. 
 
 It only remains here to obferve a few words upon the 
 text itfelf. And if ye he Chrifsi then are ye Abraham's 
 feed, and heirs according to the prcmifc. 
 
 We have already fcen that the promife here men- 
 tioned did not refer to the covenant of circumcHion, 
 but to a previous promife made to Abraham, and con- 
 firmed of God in Chrift. We have alfo feen that be- 
 lievers only, or fuch as are of faith, arc confidered as 
 partaking in the bleflings of tliat promife. Cut If there 
 were nothing in the context to detcrmnie us with re- 
 
 * & Cor, vi. 14, 15. 
 
289 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 gard to the fubjeft, one would fuppofe that the text it- 
 felf fpeaks a language irreconcileable to the dcdrine of 
 infant baptifm.* If ye be Chriji's this deterniines cur 
 title to the bleffing. This determined the title of our 
 anceftors, and this will determine the title of our chil- 
 dren. But the author of the difcourfes has advocated 
 a fentiment exceedingly dift'erent from this : it implies 
 the following ; If ye parents, one or both of you, be 
 Chrifl^s, then are ye, and all your children, Abraham^ s feedy 
 and heirs according to the promfe. But it will be aiked, 
 In what fenle can unconverted Gentiles be confidered 
 as the children of Abraham ? What promlfe has God 
 ever made to Abraham of fpiritual bleffings, that un- 
 converted Gentiles may claim, by right of heirlhip ? 
 The anfwer muft be, None at all. 
 
 Indeed it is believed that Mr. Worcefter himfelf 
 has fully conceded this very point, notwithllanding all 
 his laboured arguments to prove that the baptized 
 children of Gentile believers are Abraham's feed. 
 His words are, "To become entitled then to the blef- 
 fings of the covenant, Abraham muft walk before God, 
 and be perfeft ; inufi: have true f ajth, and be 
 terdy obnUent. This was neceffary as it refpedted him- 
 felf perfonally, and equally neceffary as it rcfpcBed his chil- 
 driv" (page 36.) If " t: ue faith" was necelTary to en- 
 title Abraham and his children to the bltfilngs of the 
 covenant. Is not the fame neceffary for us and our chil- 
 dren ? This perfectly agrees with the language of the 
 apoftle In the text, as we underftand him. if y-: 
 Chriji's, that is, have "true faith" in him, then are ye 
 Abraham's feed, ^c. No Baptift, we believe, ever dif- 
 puted but that all fuch, whether 3'oung or old, us have 
 true faith in Chrirt.are Abraham's fpiritual feed, and 
 heirs according to the promlfe, tiiat all nations fliould bs 
 blefled in his seed. It appears to us, that many of our 
 
 * '} liis tot flavds fo fcnt!n;cntally oiijoftd to infant bjytifm, that it 
 has httn a 1 tt't furpr;f;r.g that Mr. Vi orcdler fiiould choofc it as the 
 founcation oi li'u diic< urk-s. Kc mult, we conceive, have thought it 
 wore frieiKlly to liis lubjcct tlisn it appears to ii'; : for we ir« unwilling 
 to fiipfi'Ic he cholf it Uj on the principle which Sociatcs is faid to have 
 ch.'ifsn orve cf his wives, tlie noted Xr,titrj>/'e, (ore o{ the Aowardeft 
 women in the world) i. e. /« Jiotn khjli/l in nana^ing her. 
 
APPENDIX. " 2S1 
 
 P«dubaptift brethren miftake the fubjeri; on this ground. 
 That tlie promiies which were raado to Abraham, 
 which refpeded his fpirilual feed only, they apply indif- 
 criminately to the natural feed of Gentile believers. 
 
 In the ninth of Romans it is faid, They, are tict all If- 
 rael ivho are of Ifrasl ; neither, bccaufe thcj are the feed of 
 Abrtham, are they all children. They iiho are the children 
 »f the jlifii thefe are not the children of God : but the chil- 
 dren of the proinife are counted for the fed.* Are not the 
 children of Gentile believers, children of the f-ep, as 
 really as others ? If fo, the apoftle has decided the 
 point, that they are not the children of God, nor the 
 feed of Abraham : fcr the children cf the promife are 
 counted for the feed. By thefe we think no perfon can 
 doubt, but the apoftle meant fpiritual perfons, as dif- 
 tinguiOied from the children of the fleOi. This perfect- 
 ly correfponds with the general tenor of the fcrip- 
 tures. This will alio aflift us in determining who are 
 intended by Abraham's feed in the text. 
 
 On the whole, we cannot perceive that a fingle blef- 
 fing is promifed to any unbehever, throughout the 
 whole chapter on which the difcourfes are founded. 
 We therefore conclude, that the author, in applying 
 them to believing parents, and their unbeUeving off- 
 fpring ; and by endeavouring to prove, that they are 
 all Abrahartis feed, and heirs aicording to the pr:,mife, has 
 applied them in a fenfe, which neither the fcriptures 
 in general, nor the apoftle's reafoning throughout the 
 context, will juftify. The reader will judge, whether the 
 preceding reafoning will fupport this concluCon or not. 
 
 It will be remembered, that we propofed in the be- 
 ginning of thefe ftriclures to attempt the proof of two 
 points : 
 
 1. That Mr. Worcefter had niiftr.ken the pro.nife 
 in his text, and reafoned from one totally different from 
 the one which the apofde reafontd from. 
 
 2. Wc propofed to fliow, that his application of 
 the promife to believers and unbelievers, or to believ- 
 ing parencs and unbeUeving children, was unfcriplural, 
 and contrary to the apoftle's reafoning. 
 
 • Rom, jx. 6—1. 
 B b 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 On the firft, we have fhov/n, that the promhe qaoied 
 by the apoftle was dlftinft, in its nature and defign, 
 from the oae on which the difcourfes are founded ; 
 and that the time at which it is flated to have been 
 given, will not agree with the covenant of circum- 
 cifion. 
 
 On the fecond, we have fhown, that by the apoftle's 
 reafoning in the context, and other fcriptures, the 
 blefling of Abraham is annexed only to faith : That it 
 comes pn Gentile believers indivlduallv, and not other- 
 wife : That parents, by faith in Jefus Chrifr, may en- 
 joy the bkffing of Abraham, v.'hile their unbelieving 
 children lie under all the miferies of the curie : That 
 the blefling of Abraham comes on believing children, 
 through Jefus Chrjlt and not through their parents : 
 That they are not laved by their parents' faith, but by 
 their own. 
 
 If the two preceding points have been demonftrated, 
 it is all that we undertook. We do not pretend to 
 have conlidered all Mr. Worcester's arguments, nor to 
 have expofcd all his errors. Our limits forbid that w e 
 fliould enlarge on this part of the fubjeft. "We have 
 confcientioully endeavoured not to mifreprefent his fen- 
 timents ; if it Ihould be found, in any inftance, to be 
 the cafe, it will be iincerely regretted when pointed 
 out. 
 
 May the Spirit of the living God, that Spirit which 
 was promifed by Jefus to his difciples, diicover to each 
 of us his errors, by hadi/ig us into the truth. And may 
 we be alv/ays ready to receive the truth, whenever it is 
 prefented to our minds, although it may crofs our 
 preconceived opinions. If we love the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift, v/e are folemnly bound to keep his command- 
 ments. In order to this, we muft be wiping to know 
 what they are, and how they are to be obferved. And 
 lot us fee to it, that we do not make void his command- 
 ments through our tradition. 
 
 To the tribunal of public opinion, the preceding re- 
 marks are cheerfully fubmitted. And were it not for 
 fome charges particularly brought againft our denom- 
 ination in the difcourfes before us, we fnculd here take 
 
APPEND EX. 
 
 tiar leave of them •, but, under prefent circumfiances, 
 \vc iliould be wanting to ourfelves, not to attempt a 
 ▼indication. We mull therefore aik the reader's pa- 
 tience a Httle longer, hoping that he will candidly at- 
 tend to what we have to fay to the things laid to our 
 charge, and then judge whether they ought to be placed 
 to our account or not. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Hit Baptijls vindicated from the Charges brought (igaliiji 
 them by the Rev. Samuel Worcejler. 
 
 To reprove a Chriftian brother, and to do it 
 in the temper of the gofpel ; and efpecially, when we 
 feel ourfelves injured by the faults which call for re- 
 proof, is by no means one of the leaft difficult duties of 
 our holy religion. 
 
 If the things of which we are about to complain had 
 emanated from avowed enmity, or had been vocifer- 
 ated only by the tongue of flander, they had never 
 excited any other emotions in our minds, than pity and 
 lilent contempt : but when thev are ufnered upon the 
 public, as undeniable facts, and fanftioned too by ail 
 the gravity of the pulpit, they aiTume a very frrioUs and 
 dangerous afpeft, and imperioufly call us to ielt-defence. 
 
 Our hmits will not allow us to animadvert on nil that 
 INIr. Worcefter has faid againit us ; and even the few 
 articles which we do touch upon, we are obliged to han- 
 dle with great brevity. 
 
 Without particularly noticing feveral preceding re- 
 marks, in which he probably aimed his ihafts at the 
 Baptifts ; yet, as he neither named, nor hit any one, 
 we fiiall proceed to what is directly applied to us. 
 
 1. In a note, page 23, we are charged with imbib- 
 ing the error of the old " legal Jews," by uiifcripturally 
 blending the covenant of circumcifion made with Abra- 
 ham, and what is called the Sinai covenant, together. 
 
284 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 This charge comes rather with an ill grace, from a 
 man, who has, throughout the difcourfes before us, con- 
 ilnntly blended the promifes of the covenant of circum- 
 cilion, with the promife of the Meffiah, made to Abra- 
 ham, years before that covenant exifted. From this 
 " unfcriptural blending" of thcfe two covenants, which 
 in their nature are every way diftindl, it is thought, he 
 has given the chief plaufibility to his arguments, which 
 they poflefs. Had he confined himfelf to the covenant 
 of circunicifion, he could not with propriety have infer- 
 red thofe great bleffings, wliich come on the Gentiles, 
 through Jefus Chrill, under the gofpel difpenfation. 
 
 But if Mr. Worccfter has done wrong, in blending 
 two covenants which are really difiinct, it will by no 
 means exculpate the Baptifts, if they have been guilty of 
 the fame. How far thii charge can be fupported we 
 know not. Had it been accompanied by the words of 
 the writers referred to, we could more readily hare 
 iudged of its accuracy- This would alfo have given 
 the perfons implicated, if living, an opportunity to 
 have vindicated themfelves. But it now refls upon the 
 denomination at hirge. 
 
 In reply, we can only fay, we know of no writer on 
 our fide of the controverfy, who has blended the cov- 
 enants referred to, any farther than the fcriptures have 
 blended them. What Mr. Worcefter and other Paedo- 
 baptili; v/riters call the Si/jni conennrit, wants definin^i;. 
 They fometimes fpeak of it in fuch a way as would 
 naturally lead us to fuppofe, they meant the ten com- 
 mandments, or moral law. But furely thefe commands 
 tre not aboliflied The moral precepts of that law 
 given from Sin.ii can never be abrogated. If by the 
 iSinai covenant, tlicy mean what the apoflle calls, Thu 
 Innv cf cimir.andtneiiis. ccntaitied in cyclinancct ;* we aik, 
 AVas not circumcilion blended with thefe ordinances 
 Yea, was not this the principal article which occaGon 
 ed the " enmity" between Jews and Gcp.tiles, which 
 Chrift by the Gofpel difpcnfation and by his death 
 abolifhed ? That circumcifion was blended with the 
 ritual of Mofes, is clear from the words of Chriil t« 
 
 • FfK ii. IS. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 285" 
 
 the Jews. Mofes therefore, faid be, g 've iint:pu drcum- 
 djton (not bccaufe it is of Mofes, but of the fathers) 
 mnd ye on the fahbath-ilay c'lrcumrife a man. If a man on 
 the fabbaih-day receive circumdj'tcn, that the LAW of 
 Moses should not bil broken ; are ye angry. Sec. 
 " The unlcriptural blending of thefe two covenants 
 together, fays l\Ir. Worcefier, has been a moft prolific 
 fource of error. From this iburce fprang the error of 
 the legal Jews, in former ages ; and from the fame 
 fource has fprung the error of the Antipsedobaptilts, 
 in modern times." He further adds ; " It was with 
 his eye upon this fource of error, that our Lord, when 
 in difcourfe with the Jews, he took occafion to men- 
 tion circumcifion, the original flal of the Abrahamic 
 covenant, was particular to remind them, that it was 
 not OF Moses, but of the fathers." How Mr. 
 Worcefirer came by his information, tliat Chrili had 
 his "eye upon this fource of error," we know not. 
 We can lee nothing in the context to juftify fuch an 
 opinion. Chriit, in vindicating himielf for having heal- 
 ed a man upon the fabhath-day, adverts to their con- 
 duct in circumcifing the child which might happen to be 
 eight davs old on the fabbath. This was certainly ac- 
 cording to the law of INIofcs,* and it was certainly ac- 
 cording to the law given to the fathers.f How then 
 does it appear that they were in an error about circum- 
 cillng the child on the fabbath ? It does not appear at 
 all. Their error did not lie in this, but in condemn- 
 ing the Saviour for doing a deed which no more mil- 
 itated with the law of the fJjbsth, than circumcifing 
 the child. 
 
 But if thefe covenants were fo diftintl, how came 
 Mr. Worcelter himielf to blend them ? He conflders 
 the Sinai tranfacHon a renewal of the former covenant. 
 His words are, " At Mount Sinai, the Lord appeared 
 in terrible and glorious majerry, and, recognizing the 
 ranfomed tribes as the feed of Abraham, reneivcd with 
 them his covenant ; and g".ve them a code of fiatutos and 
 ordinances, called alfo a covenant, which were to con- 
 tinue until the Meffiah fi.ould come," &c. What Mv. 
 
 Lev xli. 3, f Ge». svti. 3«. 
 B b 2 
 
Worcefter here calls a renewal of the covenant, if he 
 refers to Exodus xix= 5 — 8. we think nioft likely to be 
 the covenant which the prophet Jeremiah had in view, 
 which he faitl God made iv'Uh their fathers in the day 
 that he took them by the hand, to bring them out of 
 the land of Egypt, luhich my covenant thes brake, although 
 I was an hujband unto them, faith the Lord. The Jews j| 
 were very tenacious of the law or ritual of Mofes. They' Ik 
 adhered to this long after they had loft the fpirit of 1 
 obedience- But vyhether it were this, or the laiu of 'A 
 sommandments contained in ordinances, circumcifion was <i 
 connected widi both. And if circumcifion was not con- 1 
 tained in the hand ivriiing of ordinances, v.duch Chrift - ' 
 blotted oat, and nailed t? his crofs, we think it may be 
 difficult to prove, that i: has ever been abollllied. We 
 do not fuppofe from this, that any abfolute promife 
 v/hich God ever made to Abraham, or any other per- 
 fon, has ever been aboliihed. Conditional promifes, 
 ■fuch as Mr. Worcefter tells us thofe were which ref- 
 pecled the falvation of Abraham's feed, and the feed 
 of other believers, can be obligatory upon the promifer, 
 only by the conditions being fulfilled. And as he has 
 ftated thefe conditions, it does not appear that either 
 Abraham or Ifaac, or any of their pofterity ever fulfilled 
 them. If they failed, we ferioufly doubt whether any 
 other believer has ever complied with them fully : at 
 leaft, it wants proof. 
 
 In all denoniinitions, fome men differ in opinion from 
 others, and fonie have errors which it would be ungen- 
 erous to charge upon the whole : but we think we are 
 authorized to fay, that the Bapiifts believe, that every 
 promife which God made to Abraham refpefling his 
 natural feed has been, or will be fulfilled, in cafe the 
 conditions on their part are fulfilled ; but that the 
 promifes feciired to Abraham by covenant refi)e6Ung 
 the Mefliah, and the blefiing of the nations in him, re- 
 tnain unaltered. Thefe promifes, which include all Abra- 
 ham's fpiritual feed, are abfolute. They are i-n Chrift 
 Jefus and in him they are y a and amen. We conceive, 
 that it no more depended on Abraham's faith whether 
 the MelBah fhould fpring from him, or whether the iia- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2S7 
 
 tlons fliould be blefled in the promifecl feed, that is, in 
 Chrift, by believing the gofpel, than it did, whether 
 Chrift fliould rife from the dead on the third day. 
 
 ■But has not the author before us drawn a little from 
 this " prolific lource," and blended two other coven;ints 
 which are manifeftly dirtinft ? We mean the covenant 
 of circumcifion, and the new covenant mentioned in the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah.* Speaking of the latter, he 
 fays, " This is called, indeed, a new covenant, and on 
 this account has fometimes, for want of proper attentioji 
 to the fubjeft, been fuppofed to be different from any 
 covenant before eftablillied with the church. It is 
 called a new covenant., becaufe of its revival and renewal 
 after it had been for a long time greatly obfcured," &c. 
 (page 18.) But after all his ingenious labour to prove 
 his point, he has failed ; and in the very next page, with 
 much feeming reluftance, conceded to an important 
 difference. Speaking of the new covenant, he fays, 
 " In the laft inftance, indeed, there is an intimation of a 
 remwal of heart, in thole with whom the covenant is 
 eftabliflied." " An intiniatitn" Sir ; is this all ? Is 
 there not a pofltive, folemn engagement ? This is an 
 article, which niuft forever diftinguilh this new cove- 
 nant. An intimation of a renewal of heart !" We 
 could not have believed, had we not feen it from his 
 own pen, that the '« Pallor of the Tabernacle Church 
 in Salem," could ever have fpoken with fuch cold indif- 
 ference of the work of the Holy Ghoft in renewing 
 the heart. 
 
 That we have properly " attended to the fubje£l," 
 we prefume not to fay ; but this we are free to declare, 
 that it appears to us, that God himfelf has diftinguiflied 
 this covenant not only from the one contrafted with it, 
 but from all others which preceded it. Mark the lan- 
 guage ! — The days come, faith the Lordythat Iivili mah a 
 HEW COVENANT; not revive an old one. / luillput my lain 
 in their iniuard parts, and nvritt it in their hearts. This 
 is not the tenor of any former covenant. Is there any 
 fuch engagement in that of which circumcifion vras tha 
 
 • J«r. ixii. jr, 3a, 
 
28t 
 
 ArrENDix. 
 
 feal ? The fign of that covenant was outward, in tl-.e 
 flefh. Thoulands had this fign, which in thei'e dif- 
 courfes is called the fed of the righteoufnfjs of faiik^ who 
 never, as we have any reafon to believe, had any true 
 faith. In this new covenant, oil hioiv ike Lord, from 
 the^leajl to the greatefl. A vaft proportion of thofe who 
 were interefted in the covenant of circuincifion, and 
 had that feal put upon them, we muft conclude, if we 
 believe the fcriptures, never knev/ the Lord. To faj 
 the leait, this covenant is quite as diftinft from the 
 Abrahamic covenant, as that was from the covenant 
 which God made with the Ifraclites, when he took 
 them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt. 
 
 2. Another charge, though not the next in order, 
 which Mr. Worcefter has exhibited againft the " Ana- 
 baptifts," as he very faftidioufiy calls us, is fo clcfely 
 conne61ed with this, that wc proceed next to confider it. 
 
 " They deny, faith he, God's everkfting covenant of 
 fuperabounding grace, the grand charter of the inher- 
 itance and privileges of his people, the fource of blef- 
 fings to all the kindreds of the earth." (page 78.) 
 
 If there were any law in force to burn heretics, I 
 know not, my brethren, how we flioukl feel to have 
 fuch a charge as this fulminated aguinft us ; but as 
 things T\o\y are, I am inclined to think, we fliall be able 
 to meet it with a good degree of calmnefs. 
 
 But on what is this dreadful charge founded ? The 
 writer has not condefccnded to inform us ; he has made 
 the affertion, and gone on his way. He has left us to^ 
 gather his meaning from tlie general tenor of the dif- 
 courfes before us. From thefe we are led to fuppofe 
 he muft refer to our not allowing, that the covenant 
 made with Abraham, which obliged him to circumcife 
 all the males born in his houfe and bought with money, 
 obliges Gentile believers to baptize their infants, both 
 male and female. This we do not believe : we cannot 
 believe it. But is this full proof, that we " deny God's 
 everlafting covenant of fuperabounding grace ?" We 
 can by no means admit it. Our confciences bear us wit- 
 nefs, that we do not knowingly deny any covenant 
 which God has revealed in l\is word ; nor do we feel 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 2S9 
 
 any other conviftion in our minds from this terrible 
 charge, th:in of the miftaken zeal of its author. No, we 
 l ave ever acknowledged " God's everlafting covenant" 
 which contained the promifeofthe IVJefliah, the only 
 " fource of bleflings to all the kindreds of the earth." 
 We niuft therefore view with the deepeft regret, a de^ 
 claration fo evidently unfounded ; a declaration pecul- 
 iarly calculated to inflame the paflions, and increafe the 
 unhappy prejudices of thofe who differ from us. 
 
 Nor is it true, that we deny what is called the 
 « Abrahamic," or covenant of circumcillon. We think 
 we acknowledge it in its full extent, as flated by the 
 infpired writers, as really as our brethren do. It is true, 
 we do not acknowledge all the inferences they draw 
 from it. But is this denying the covenant itfelf ? Might 
 we not with as much propriety charge them with a 
 *' denial" of the ordinance of baptifm, becaufe they do 
 not comply with our views of it, as for them to charge 
 us with denying God's covenant, becaufe we under- 
 ftand it dillerently from themfelves ? 
 
 Some of our reafpns for difbelieving that Gentile 
 Chriftians are under the covenant of circumcifion, as 
 the feed of Abraham were, are founded on the refuk 
 of the firft Chriftian council, ftated in the xvth of Afts, 
 as may be feen in what follows. 
 
 When certain men were come from Judea to Anti- 
 rfch, they taught the brethren, who Avere Gentile 
 believers, that except they were circumcifed after the man- 
 ner of Mcfes, they could not be faveJ. Paul and Barna- 
 bas withftood them, but could not convince them. It was 
 finally concluded to fend a deputation to the apoftles and 
 I'lders at Jerufalem. And after much confultation this 
 was the relult : For it feemcd good to the Holy Ghost, 
 
 tinn ; from ivhich if ye keep yourfelves, yefl:all do ivell. 
 Fare ye tuell. 
 
 By the refult of this council, we fee circumcifion 
 totally given up, as it refpeded the Gentiles, and n» 
 
290 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 fubftitute named in its room. Had there been but 
 a few P^dobaptifts in tliat council, it is thought the'y 
 would have fettled the bufinefs at once. How eafily 
 they might have flopped the mouths of thofe fticklers 
 for circumcifion ! It would have been only to have 
 ufed the modem argument, that baptilin is placed in 
 the room of circumcifion. That as they ufed to circum- 
 cife their children, (that is, the males) they had need 
 only to baptize them. It is perfetTtly unaccountable 
 that Paul and Barnabas, while contending at Antioch. 
 againft circumcifion, Ihould never once think of this ar- 
 gument. Paul was certainly a very accute reafoner. 
 In general we find him to have fully comprehended his 
 fubjeft, and alfo to have availed himfelf of the befl: to- 
 pics of argument. He feems in this infi^ance to have 
 neglected the only rational ground of defence. But is 
 it not pafling fiirange, that not one in the council, which 
 was compofed of nearly all the apoftles and elders of 
 the ChriiHan church, fiiould ever once have mentioned 
 the only argument which would have fatisfied or con- 
 founded their opponents ? You cannot now talk with 
 a Paedobaptift five minutes on the fubjeft, but he will 
 tell you, " baptifm came In the room cf circumcifion." 
 There never was a cafe which more urgently called for 
 this argument, nor when it might have been ufed willi 
 greater profped of complete fucccfs. How can we ac- 
 count for its omifiion ? In one way, we conceive, and 
 in one only : it had then probably no exifirence. 
 
 Had this argument been brought forward in that 
 council, it mufi have produced the happieft effefls. It 
 would have cut like a two-edged fword ; for it would 
 not only have ftilled thofe Judaizing Chriftians, who 
 were clamouring about circumcifion, but would alfo 
 have filenced every obje(flion which any Antipcedobap- 
 tift could have raifcd. 
 
 We wifh here to aflc one quefliion, and leave it with 
 our Paedobaptlfi: friends to anfwer ; and we hope they 
 will anfwer it confcientioufly, in the fear of God. 
 Should a number of the defcendams of Abraham, at the 
 prefent day, embrace the goipel, and embody into e 
 church fl:ate, after which a number of Gentile believers 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 291 
 
 Ciould propofe to unite with them ; but in order to this 
 union, they flioulJ infilt upon their being circumc'ifed 
 after the manner cf Mofos : £hculd both parties agree to 
 refer their didiculties to a council, to be compofed 
 wholly of Paidobaptifts, — we wifh to aik, whether they 
 do not think that their principal argument with thele 
 believing Jews would be, " that circuaiciiion had been 
 fuperfeded by baptifm r " Or, in other v/ords, " That 
 they v.-ere now tobaptize their infants, inftead of circum- 
 ciling them ?" We wifli not to anticipate their anfwer 
 any farther than jurt: to fay, that fiiould tliey not avail 
 themfelves of this argument, they would reafon very 
 differently with them, from what they do with us. 
 Anfwer it as they may, they muft, we think, either 
 differ from themfelves, or from the council at Jerufa- 
 lem. 
 
 We beg the reader's indulgence here, while we di- 
 grefs a few moments from our fubjeft, to anfwer an ob- 
 je«5lion which has often been brought by Pzedobaptills, 
 againft giving up circumcifion without a fubuitute. 
 They have conftantly ai-gued, that the Jews were fo 
 tenacious of this privilege for their children, that they 
 would never have peaceably religned it, without fome- 
 thing in its room ; and yet it has often been faid, that 
 there was never any diipute about it. Mr. Edwards, 
 reafoning upon thii very point, has the following re- 
 marks : " If," faith he, " we take into confideration the 
 charafter of thofe perfons, among whom this cuftom 
 had prevailed, and among whom it is fu jpofed to have 
 ceafed, we fliall have fafncient reafon to thiiik it impof- 
 fible, that a cuftom of this nature (hould be abrogated, 
 and they not oppoje a fnigle word."* Will not the reader 
 slk, Had Mr. Edwards never read the xvth chapter of 
 Afts Had he never obferved that the very firft dif- 
 ficulty in the Chriftian church which required the in- 
 tervention of a councU, was occafioned by a contention 
 raifed about circumcifion by certain Jewilh believers 
 We fee nothing in the fcriptures to juftify the opinion, 
 that the Jews were tenacious of this privilege^ any 
 otherwife, than as they confidered it an ordinance of 
 
 * C»nd. Reaf. p. 6*. 
 
292 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 God, which they were bound to obferve on pain of 
 the dN'ine difpleafure. It appears to us, that Pacdobap- 
 tifts rate the privilege much higher than ever the Jews 
 did. Ftter certainly confidered it as a yoke, and a 
 grievous one too ; which neither their fathers tier 
 they were able to bear. 
 
 It feems to be generally concluded by Psedobaptifts, 
 that the only reafon why the believing Jews made no 
 difficulty about the abrogation of circumcillon, was, 
 that infant baptifm was fubftituted in its room. But 
 if other Jewifh believers viewed it as Peter did, as a 
 yoke, is it not probable, when they were brought into 
 the pure liberty of the gofpcl, they would be willing to 
 difperfe u ith fuch a yoke of bondage ? 
 
 Wc wiih the reader ferioufly to confider the two fol- 
 lowing obfervations : 
 
 1. That the apoftles had continually to contend 
 T/ith Judaizing Chriftians, on the fubjeft of circum- 
 cillon, although Mr. Edwards and others will not allow 
 that they «< oppofed a lingle word." 
 
 2. That in all the inftances in which the apoftles 
 had to oppofe the advocates for circumcillon, they never 
 once n^ade ufeof this argument, that the baptifm of in- 
 fants was fubilituted in its room. 
 
 Both of thefe remarks will be confirmed by a careful 
 examination of the following fcriptures : Except ye be 
 circuniciffd, and heep the law of Mcfs ye cannot be faved* 
 Thou feeji, brother, how mauy thoufand of the Jews there are 
 which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law : and 
 they are informed of the:, that thou teachefi all the Jews 
 which are among the Gentiles, to for fake Mcjes, faying, that 
 THEY OUGHT NOT TO CIRCUMCISE THEIR CHILDREN. f 
 
 See alfo the apoftle's exhortation to the Galatians : 
 &tand fafl, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Chrifl hath 
 made us free, and be net entangled again with the yoke cf 
 bindage. Behold, I Paul fay unto you, that IF YE BE cir- 
 cumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.:!: To 
 the Philij)pians he fiiith, Beware of dogs, beware of evil 
 •tvorkers, beware of the concifion, Ss'c.J And to Titus, 
 
 • Ad* XV. f, 5. t Ac^s xxi. 20, 11. } Gal. v. i, a. 
 
 ■5 i'hii. iii. a. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 293 
 
 Thci-e are- many unruly and vain talkers and dereiva'f, es- 
 pecially THET OF THE CIRCUMCISION ; tv/:cfe ^miiihs 
 fntffi he Jlopped ; "who Jubvert whole houfes^ teaching things 
 which they ought not, for filthy lucre's fake* 
 
 Can any man ferioufly confider thefe palTages, with 
 many others of the lame import, and then conclude, 
 that the Jews made no difficulty about giving up cir- 
 cumcifion ? that they did not " oppofe a fingle word ?" 
 We fliould think, that we were only beating the air to 
 reafon with fuch a man. 
 
 If our reaionings on tliis head fliould produce no 
 other effect, will they not exonerate us from the un- 
 chriftian charge, that we " deny God's everlafting cov- 
 enant ?" Feeling ourleives acquit, we leave the author 
 to anfwer it to his God, and to his confcience. 
 
 3. " They deny (faith he) the church of Gofl, 
 which was formed in the family of Abraham," &c.f 
 
 How has Mr. Worcefter proved this How ! by 
 his own aff rtion, as he has the moft of his other 
 charges. We are obliged to find out his meaning, if we 
 can, from the general drift of his difcourfes. As this 
 charge immediately follows the one we have juft been 
 coniidering, it is probably drawn from the fame prem- 
 ifes. And in anfwer to it we need only fiiy, we are not 
 confcious of denying any tiling refpec'ting the " church 
 formed in Abraham's family," which the fcriptures 
 eftabl-lh, or which reafon requires us to believe. We 
 know of nothing on which the charge can be founded, 
 but what has been obviated under the preceding article, 
 unlefs it be this ; that we do not believe the gofpel 
 church to be a mere continuation of the old JewiOi, but 
 a fpiritual houfe binlt up of lively ftones. We conceive 
 the charge, thtrefore, as unfounded as it would be to 
 charge us with denying that Great Britain, with which 
 we were once connected, wr.s a lawful government, be- 
 caufe we are not now under it, but enjoy different and 
 greater privileges, under a different conftitution. 
 
 Without " difplaying any thing like a fpirit of perfe- 
 cution, or even of uncharitablenefs," (fee page 78,) 
 Mr. Worcefter proceeds to fay, 
 
 * Tit. i. 10, II. t^l>id- 
 c c 
 
291 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 4. "TJie grand provifion, which, in his infinlt« 
 wifdom and grace, Jehovah has been pleafed to make 
 for the prefervation of a righteous feed upon earth, and 
 for the maintenance and promotion, from age to age, of 
 his caufe and kingdom in this hoftile world, they not only 
 deny, BUT OPENLY contemn." Is it not a profanation 
 of language to talk of " charitablenefs" towards any feft 
 of profefling Chriftians, and at tiie Aime time to charge 
 them not only with denying, but openly contemning the 
 grand provifion which God has gracioufly made, for the 
 promotion of his caufe and kingdom in the world ? 
 This charge, however, appears to us fo totally unfound- 
 ed, and fo far from that fpirit of meeknefs, which the 
 iove of Chrift infpires, that we fliall attempt no other 
 •findication, but a folemn appeal to fafts, and to the 
 feehngs of our fellow-men. Let thofe, who are befl 
 acquainted with our fentimentfi, with our do£trine, with 
 oar daily converfiition nnd pra£lice, teftify, if they think 
 us the open ciemers and ccntcumers of the pi'ovifion which 
 God has made for the «' promotion of his caufe and 
 kingdom in the world " Let the thouGinds in Amer- 
 ica, v/hom God has gracioufly condefcended to convert 
 by our miniftry, teftify, if they have ever feen any thing 
 in our conduiSl towards themfelves or others, which 
 could julbfy fuch a charge. Let the converted Hin- 
 doos of Hindoftan declare, if they think the men who 
 have left their friends, their country, and almofl: every 
 enjoyment held dear by civilized man, to publilh in 
 thofe benighted regions the precious name of a Saviour : 
 let thefe teftify, if they have feen any thing in them, 
 •which looks unfriendly to the promotion of the caufe 
 ef God in the world. Although we have much reafon 
 to lament the languor of our zeal in this precious caufe, 
 yet our confciences bear us witnefs in the fight of God, 
 that we love and pray for its profperity ; and whiift 
 thus unjiiftly charged, we think we can rejoice, that our 
 Judgment is with the Lord, and our work with cur God.* 
 
 5. The auihof of the dilcourfes, ftill continuing his 
 0rain of accufation, adds — " They deny and contemn the 
 grace which is fo kindly and fo condefceudingly oflered 
 
 * Ifa xlii. 4. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 295 
 
 for the fpiritual renovation and everlafting falvation of 
 the feed of the church." (page 79.) 
 
 An inquifitive mind, if permitted, would naturallv 
 alk two or three qiieftions upon this article. Do not 
 the fcriptures confider the church as the bride., the Lamb^s 
 ni-ife, and the Saviour himfelf as the Bridegroom ? 
 What feed then has the church, that are not '« renovat- 
 ed r" Has the church, properly fpeaking, any children 
 but fpiritual ones ? What grace is that fo " kindly offer- 
 ed," which the Baptifts " deny and contemn ?" And to 
 whom is it offered ? to parents for their children, or to 
 children for themfelves ? We know of no other grace, 
 nor can we conceive of any which the author can have 
 reference to, but the grace of infant baptijm. We knovir 
 of nothing which dilHnguifhes the children of Psedo- 
 baptifts from the children of other believers, only their 
 baptifm. It will be admitted, that there are unworthy 
 profcfTors in all denominations, from whom it wonld be 
 improper and difingenuous to form a judgment of the 
 whole. But it is not perceived, that Paedobaptifts in 
 general difcover any more folicitude for the eternal fal- 
 vation of their children, than what is apparent in other 
 Chriftians. Do they more generally reftrain them frr,n 
 the vanities of the world ? Or do they pray more fre- 
 quently, or more fervently for them thnn others ? They 
 may indeed prefent their fupplication upon a diflcrent 
 footing from what the Baptifts do. They may plead 
 their covenant relation to God ; that they have Abraham 
 to their father : whereas others have nothing to plead 
 for theirs but the merits of a Saviour, or what is call- 
 ed " the uncovenanted mercy of God." An obfervation 
 made by Paul, in his epiftle to the Romans, may caft 
 fome light upon the fubjecSl. What advantage then, faid 
 he, hath the je-w ? Or luhat profit is there of circumcifton ? 
 Much every way ; chiefly, becaufe that unto them nvere com- 
 mitted the oracles of God.* If to enjoy the oracles of 
 God was the chief advantage which the circumcifed Jew 
 had above others ; and " baptifm places children in the 
 fame relation to the church as circunicifion did," it will 
 be difKcult, we believe, to point out any great advan- 
 
 • Rom. iii I, 2. 
 
?96 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 tages, which the children of Psedobaptills enjoy, which 
 are not equally enjoyed by others. The oracles of God, 
 as far as we know, are as freely and fully enjoyed by 
 the children of the Bnptifts, as by any others. St. 
 Paul, in another of his epiftles, gives us his opinion of 
 the real value of all the pri-vileges to be derived from 
 the covenant of circumcifun. TUtigh I might alfo, faith 
 he, have confidence in the Jlefij. If any other man thinketh hi 
 hath luherccf he tnay trujl in the fiefh, I more. Circim- 
 cifed the eighth day, of tbefcck of Ifrael, of the tribe of Ben- 
 jamiUi an Hebreiv of the Hebnivs, ^c. But what things 
 tvere gain to me I counted Ifs for Chri/i. Tea douhilefsy 
 and I count all things but l')fs,for the exci'llaicy of the knoivl- 
 edge of Clyrifl Jefus my Lord for whom 1 1: a ve firfered the 
 lofs of all things, and do count them but dung that I may 
 Kjin Chrifi.* We very much doubt, whether any per- 
 fons who were ever truly humbled before God, under 
 a fenfe of their guilt and unworthinefs, then felt as 
 if they had any thing to plead but pure mercy. All 
 their felf-exaltlng fchemes, founded upon their fuppofed 
 covenant relation to God, at once difappeared, and thofe 
 things which before they had reckoned upon as enti- 
 tling them to divine favour, they counted but dungy that 
 they might ivin Ckrijl. 
 
 The following, founds very different to us, from the 
 ftyle of the New-Teftament writers, viz. Conditional 
 promifes to parents, by which their children may or may 
 not become " fubjects of grace." (page 38.) « Grace 
 fo kindly offered to us for our children." (page 77.) 
 And " gr?xe offered for the fpiritual renovation of the 
 feed of the church." (page 79.) This language is about 
 as uuijitelligible to a Baptift, as that was to Nehemiah, 
 which was fpoken by the children of thofe Jews who 
 had married wives of Aflidod, &:c.f We hence leave it 
 to thofe who can better underlland it ; and proceed to 
 his next charge. 
 
 C. " The great body cf God's vifible profefiing peo- 
 ple, even the most eni.ightened, and the most 
 FAITHFUL, for hundreds of years,' they utterly fet afidc, 
 
 • Phil, lii. 4, J, 7: S'. 
 
 t Ntl.tPi;Ui xiii. J3, 24. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 297 
 
 affconftitutlng no part of the true church of Chrift, but 
 only a part of Aiitichrift." 
 
 We very much regret, that Mr. Worceider fliould 
 throw out fuch an unqualified charge, without produ- 
 cing a fcrap of proof to fupport it. Can we fuppo'e, that 
 he ferioufly beheved this to be the fentiment of the 
 Baptifts in general If fo, we fliall ftill regret, that he 
 has undertaken to reprefent to the world, or rather 
 to miireprefent the fentiments of a people, which he 
 knows fo little about. 
 
 Could any thing be produced from the writings of 
 an individual, which might feera to bear hard upon the 
 vifibility of the Paedobaptift churches, this alone would 
 not prove it to be the general fentiment of the denom- 
 ination. Do not the printed works of the Baptifts, 
 from time iinmcmorial, abundantly Ihow that they hold 
 no fuch fentiment ? 
 
 The writer of thefe fheets thinks it incumbent on 
 himfelf, in this place to declare, that as far as he has 
 been able to underftand the fentiments of his own de- 
 nomination, both in Europe and America, they never 
 have denied that Predobaptiils were vifible Chriftians j 
 that a number of them united together, may be con- 
 fidered as a vifible church ; and that a minifter regu- 
 larly placed over them, may be a vifible minifter of 
 Chrift. Yet they confider them., individually and unit- 
 edly, in an error with refpect to baptifm : that fo far 
 as their vifibility depends on baptifm, fo far it is defeil- 
 ive. We think we can f\y, in the fincerity of cur 
 hearts, that we unfeignedlylove our Ppedobapcift breth- 
 ren, who appear to walk in the fpirit of the gofpel ; 
 and are determined to treat them as Giirifl:ians } Ixit 
 as Chriftians whom we view in an error, as expreficd 
 above, notwithftanding the hard things they are faying 
 of us. If Mr. Worcefter can make out, tliat our deny- 
 ing the validity of their baptifm, is denying that they 
 make any " part of the true church, but only a part of 
 Antichrift," then his affertion may be true, and not 
 otherwife. The fuppofition, however, is too abfurd to 
 be admitted ; for it would bring us to this conclufion». 
 that baptifm conftltuted the true church of Chrift. : 
 c c 2 
 
29« 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 then confequently nothing more woulJ be necefliu-y 
 to make men true Chriftians, but to be rightly baptized. 
 
 fi. The author of the difcourfos has charged the 
 Anahapnjls* with " placing fuch ftrefs upon baptifm in 
 their mode, as to make it the fubject on which to dif- 
 play their greatcjl zeal; thus making people believe, in too 
 many inftances, that going into the water will anfwer 
 all the purpofes of their prelent comfort and of their 
 eternal lalvation." (Note, page 73.) 
 
 Can Mr. Worcefter lay his hand upon his heart, and 
 folemnly declare, that he believes the above charge to 
 be true ? If he believes it, he believes it becaufe he has 
 evidence of its truth ; for he is certainly a ratiomJ 
 man, and no rational man will believe without evidence. 
 If he has evidence, he certainly can exhibit it to the 
 public. And that we may be either proved guilty, or 
 elfe honourably acquitted, we call upon him as a gentle- 
 man, as a man of honour, as a ChrilHan, as a Chrilf ian 
 minirter, to bring forward the proof, that we " difplay 
 our greateil: zeal in making people believe, that going 
 into the water will aniwer all the purpofe^of their pref- 
 ent comfort and of their future falvation," 
 
 If it could be fairly proved, that any minifter who 
 bears the name of a Baptift, had fo far departed from 
 our known and avowed fentiments, as to teach in the 
 manner ftated in the charge, he would, on being con- 
 fi'fled, be immediately rejetSied from our connexion. 
 It is notorious to all who have the leall knowledge of 
 our fentiments, that we baptize only upon a profejfton of 
 faith. That is, fuch pcrfons only as in a judgment of 
 charity are thought to be experimental Clwiftians. 
 
 * The term Anabaptift, has by coniinoncoiifeiit been perrnitteJ to re- 
 pofe for about half a century. During this period, our opponents have 
 generally been content to call us Baptifls : but Mr. Worcclkr thinks; it 
 1101 fuHiciently defcriptive ; for he fays, " We arc all Baptifls," and hence 
 .-oDi-ludes, as we re-baptize (as he calls it) fuch as they have fprinkled in 
 infancy, Anabaptift is the moil proper term of diflinftion. (Sec his note, 
 page 66 ) A gcntlrnian la CouneAicut, who has lately publiflied a laige 
 iiaiiiphUt on thcJiihjeil of Iniptifm, &c fcem* not content with an_y 
 uames they haTe hitherto given us. He choofts to diftinguiih ui by 
 th'j term Dipping Baptitts, and Dutk-dipping Baptifls, and I know not 
 bow many more n.irnes. After all, it will be rernembctcd, that harii 
 i^mM, and hard argutneiit^, arc very differcNt tliinj^ 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 299 
 
 Should any defire to be b.iptizeJ upon th? principle 
 bid down in the charge, it would in our opinion prove 
 them totally unqualified for the ordinance. The pub- 
 lic have the charge before them, but candour requires 
 tliat they lliould fulpend their opinion until proof is 
 exhibited to fubftantiate it. Mere vague report, or even 
 fome folitary inftances of real imprudence, if i'uch could 
 be found, would not be deemed iufficient to fix a charge 
 generally upon the whole denomination. Permit us to 
 alk, Do we preach more frequently upon baptifm in 
 our mode, than Psedobaptifts do upon the fame fubjeft 
 in theirs ? Do we write and publiili more books in 
 defence of our fentiments than they do of theirs ? Facts 
 fpeak fo plainly to the contrary, that we think no one 
 will aflert it. Do we " place I'uch a ftrefs upon bap- 
 tifm in our mode," as to adminifter the ordinance to 
 any who cannot give a fatisfaftory and I'criptural reafon 
 of their hope ? We certainly do not. The minirtcrs 
 of our denomination, perhaps nil of them, have frequent 
 applications for baptilm by perfons who are otherwifo 
 decent, but not being able to give evidence of a change 
 of heart, they are denied. How then does it appear 
 that we are guilty of " making people b>ilieve, in too 
 many inftances, that going into the water wWl anfwer 
 all the purpofes of their prefent comfort and eternal 
 falvation ?" It does not appear at all, at leaft from any 
 thing known to us. On the whole, the charge before 
 us has an afpect fo perfectly refembling what the fcrip- 
 tnres call JJander, that if it liad come from almoft any 
 other quarter befides from the Rev. Mr. Worcefter, we 
 iliould have been liable to have miftaken it for that 
 deteftable vice. 
 
 7. The next thing which we (hall notice, is a charge 
 againft us of " delufion and fuperftition," on the ac- 
 count of our pretending tofolkiu Chrill into the water. 
 (See note, page 71.) 
 
 This charge is indeed in the form of a qiieftion ; but 
 it is evidently intended to aflert what it feems to in- 
 quire after. It is ftated thus : " Does not tlie idea, 
 then, of following Chrift into the water, which has 
 . unhappily fo powerful an effe«5t upon many minds, par- 
 take very much of the nature of dduficn and fuperjlit 'mi 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 That the reader may better underhand Mr- Worcci- 
 ter's argument, we obferve, that the objeft of the note 
 from which the nbove is extratTred, is to explain away 
 the evidence arifing in favour of immerllon, from John's 
 baptifm ; or to prove that John's baptifm was not Chrif- 
 tian baptifm ; therefore, as Chrifi: was baptized by him, 
 it was " no example for Chriftians." 
 
 " Chrift's baptifm," faith he, " was defigned regularly 
 to introduce him into his prieflly office, according to 
 the law of Mofes, under which he commenced his min- 
 iftry, and which it behoved him to fulfil." This fame 
 fentiment was made the theme of a fmall pamphlet, 
 publifhed fome years ago by MeiTrs. Fifh and Crane, 
 entitled, "The baptifm of Jefus Chrift not to be imi- 
 tated by Chriftians." We have noticed obfervations 
 to the fame import in the writings of feveral other 
 P?edobaptifts. 
 
 The author before us continues his apgumcnt thus : 
 " There is no evid-'iice that Chrift was buried in the 
 water ; and even if he were, his baptifm was of an im- 
 port very different from that of the baptifm which he 
 afterwards infticuted for his followers. Are we to go 
 into the water, under the idea of following Chrift — into 
 his prieftly office ? Ought we to cull this deliifim and 
 fupcrjiiiion, or ought we to call it the height of impiety?" 
 
 The reader will here obferve, that this argument 
 denies that Chrift's baptifm would be an example for 
 believers, if it could be proved beyond a doubt that he 
 were immerfed by John, in Jordan. The reafon lulign- 
 ed, is, "his baptifm v/as of a difterent import from that 
 which he iaftituted for his followers." So it feems then, 
 he did not intend his flla-ivc-rs fliould follow him. Was 
 not every other a6l of Chrift's life, after he entered on 
 his public work, as really of a " different import " from, 
 the work alligned us, as his baptifm ? If fo, in what 
 then are we to follow him ? 
 
 Our Prcdobaptift brethren argue their mode of fprink- 
 ling from the fpi inklings under the law. Thefe, no 
 doubt, were prccifely of the fame import of infant bap- 
 tifm : no difficulty in tracing a complete refemblance 
 here, though the fprinkling were only of blood and 
 aDics ! But if we talk of following Chrift into the 
 
APPENDIX. 30 r 
 
 water, fo as to have our baptifm refemble his, we are 
 chargeable with the " height of impiety !" 
 
 We will now confidcr the arguments by wliich this 
 charge is fupportcd. It is faid that " Chrifl's baptifm 
 was defigned regularly to introduce him into his prieitly 
 office, according to the law of Mofes." Hence this 
 conclufion is drawn, that for any to pretend to imitate 
 him in his baptifm^ muft be a facriicgious intrufion upon 
 his prieftly office. 
 
 But the fentiment ftatcvl above labours under feveral 
 important diilicultles : a few of them will be briefly 
 noticed. 
 
 1 By the. law of Mofes, no Jlravger who was not of 
 the feed of Aaron, might come near to o3er incenfe on 
 pain of death.* Every thing which pertained to the 
 i'ervice of the tabernacle was committed to the Eevites, 
 and the Jlranger that fliould dare to come nigh was to 
 be put to death.\ By the flranger here, we are not to 
 underftand the Gentiles, but any of the other tribes. 
 As the tribe of Levi was felecled for all the outward 
 fervice of the tabernacle, fo the priefthood was exclu- 
 fively given to the houfe of Aaron. How then, we 
 alk, could Jefus Chrift be baptized, to introduce him 
 « regularly into his prieftly office, according to the law 
 of Mofes," when by that very law he could not be a 
 pritft? 
 
 2. If Jefus had been of the tribe of Levi, and of the 
 family of Aaron, his baptifm by John in Jordan could 
 not have "regularly introduced him into his prieftly 
 office, according to the law of Mofes ;" for it did not 
 correfpond at all with that law, refpefting a regular in- 
 du£lion into the prieft's office. The form of induftion, 
 as prefcribed by Mofes, is as follows : — And this is the 
 thing that thou Jhalt dj unto theui, to hallciv them, to min^ 
 ijler unto me in the priijls" office. Take one young builcck, 
 and tnvo rams luilhout bleinijh ; and unleaiwned bread, &c. 
 And Aaron and his fans thiu Jljait bring unto the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and Jljuli ivaj}} them •u hh 
 ivaicr, &c. After this they were to be adorned with 
 holy garments, the bullock and the rams to be facri- 
 
 * Kumb. ivi. 40. + i. ;i. 
 
502 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ficed, and Aaron and his fons fprlukled with the blood- 
 This account may be feen at large in the twenty-ninth 
 chapter of Exodus, which the reader is defired to com- 
 pare with the baptifm of Jefus by John in Jordan ; and 
 then let him afk himfelf, whether he can poflibly believe 
 that the latter was intended " regularly to introduce 
 him into his prieftly office, according to the law of 
 Mofes." Had John attempted to have waflied Jefus at 
 the door of the tabernacle, with a -view to induft him 
 into the priefl's office, it is probable the whole nation 
 would have rifen up againft them : for they were fo 
 zealous of the law of Mofes, that Mr. Edwards tells us, 
 " they would wrangle for a rite, quarrel for a faft, and 
 almoft fight for a new-moon." 
 
 3. Another infuperable difficulty, which attends Mr. 
 Worcefter's 'explanation of the baptifm of Chrift, is, he 
 lucls fwt made a priejl after the laiu of a carnal command- 
 ment, Init after the power of an endlefs I fe* He not only 
 pertained to another tribe, of luhich no man gave attendance 
 at the altar, but was a prieft of an order every way dif- 
 tinft from the order of Aaron, or any thing prefcribed 
 by the law of Mofes. By the oath of God, Chrift was 
 made a prieft after the order of AJelchizedec.f Let it be 
 fairly proved, that Melchizedec's order of pricfthood 
 required that Jefus fliould be baptized in Jordan, and 
 we will acknowledge the argument to be in point. But 
 even to admit this, would eftablith another interefling 
 idea, i. e. that Melchizedec was alfo a Baptift ! 
 
 From the preceding remarks it appears that Mr. 
 Worcefrer's affertion, that " the baptiim of Chrift was. 
 regularly to introduce him into his prieftly office," is 
 not only without foundation, but we conceive utterly 
 inc-ipable of proof. If the law of Mofes limited the 
 priefthood to the tribe of Levi j then Jefus, who was 
 of the tribe of Judah, could not by that law be regular- 
 ly introduced into the prieft's office. And if by divine 
 appointment the perfons legally qualified to be inducH:- 
 ed into the prieft's office, were to be iixj/hed at the 
 door of the tabernacle — doihed ivith holy garments — and 
 fprinkled -with blood, then the baptifm of Jefus in Jordan^ 
 
 • Heb vii. 1 6, f PLlw ex. 4, 
 
APPEKDIX. 
 
 \ 
 
 308 
 
 «s it diflered from every thing prcfcribed by the law of 
 Mofes, cannot be conlldered as anfwcring any require- 
 ment of that law. And if Chrift were a prieft after 
 the order of Melchizedec, then the law of Mofos re- 
 fpefting the Aaronic priefthood, had liothing to do 
 with his induction into his prieftly office.* 
 
 Is it not aftoni^^.ing that men who have the Bible in 
 their hands, can rcafon at fuch a rate j and, with " an 
 ailurancc peculiar to themfelves," affcrt, that " the bap- 
 tifm of Clirill: is not to be imitated by Chriftians but 
 was *' intended to introduce him Into his prieftly of- 
 fice therefore to pretend to follow him into the water, 
 mult be '* delufion and fuperftition," if not the very 
 "heij;ht of impiety ?" 
 
 What effect Mr. Worcefier's alarming charge of 
 " delufion and fuperftition," may have on futh of his 
 brethren as are diflatisfied with their infant baptifm, 
 and who have almoft determined to follow Chrift in his 
 holy ordinances, we know not. It is poflibie that it 
 may deter them from their duty a little longer, but we 
 Ihink in the end, they muft fee, that all his " exhibi- 
 tion of fcripture argument,"' amounts to nothing mor€ 
 than a bold afiertion. If there be any law of Moles, that 
 required Jekis to be baptized in Jordan, we lhall thank 
 Mr. Worcefter to point it out to us ; for we cannot 
 find it in our Bibles. If no fuch bw ever exifted, we 
 
 • Gffcat ES Abrah.-im the patriarch and Lther of the Jcwiiti cllunh 
 Vvn, t!ie J^ricfthood of Chri.l is reckoned after the order of one who 
 Was fuid to Kc greatir than liim. (Hel). vii. 7.) As Melchizedec 
 brouf^ht forth breaJ ond ivint to -Abraham when he was returning frorti 
 the flaiightcr of the kings and blciTcd him ; fo Chrill inftituted bread 
 anil ■u.ine at the fynibols bjr which hi* deatk fhouW Lc commemorated 
 to the end of time. 'I his, and hi« otferinK of hiniicif upon the tree of 
 the crofs, were afts whiih partituiuily uiftiiiguiflied the prieftly office 
 of Chrifl. We have no account of his ever officiating as a pricft in the 
 tciuple. He prcfcnted htithcr blood nor incenfc, befides his own. 
 Fur if be ■uere on ear.'i, faid the apoftle, 6e Jbnild not he a f:>ejl, feeing 
 that there are priejlt tint i,pr gift: acitrdiii^ to the U'm.\ 1 hciefore 
 Chriil, as the great Apoftlc and High Fricft of our profeffion, wheh 
 he hid made this i)!:e oiTcring for fin, did not enter into the holy place 
 hiade with handa, but into heaven icfilf, b)r his own blood, and nulir 
 appe;ri iu the prefeacc of God for us. 
 
 f Hell. »iii 4. 
 
304. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 muft conclude the bapufm of Chi-ilt had fomc othei 
 meaning. 
 
 Tlie reader will compare the obfervatlons we have 
 made, with thofe parts of the facred fcriptnres to which 
 they refer ; particularly to Paul's account of the prieft- 
 hood of Jefus Chrill:, in his epillle to the Hebrews. If 
 this examination be made by an honeft mind, aided by the 
 enlightening influences of the Spirit of truth, we have 
 no doubt but all his fears of its being mere " delufion 
 and fuperfrition," to follovv the blelled Saviour in his 
 baptifmal example, will inltantly vaniih away. He will 
 with grateful and adoring views of the condefcenfion of 
 the Son of God, moft cheerfully follow him into his 
 watery grave, and be buried ivith kirn in baptifniy in the 
 full and firm hope of riling to ivalk with him in newnifs 
 cflife. 
 
 If the author before us intended to fix his charge 
 of delufion^ fi.perjlitioiiy and impiety only on fuch as 
 tncati by following Chrift into the water, to " follow 
 him in his prieitly ofRce," it will implicate none of the 
 Baptills : for we prefume none of them ever believed 
 him to be baptized for that purpofe. None but Pjedo- 
 baptirts, who cautioufly ihun the awful delufion of " imi- 
 tating Chrift in his baptifm," beheve any fuch thing. 
 There muft be a greater difplay of " fcripture argument" 
 than we have ever yet feen, to convince us thnt Chrift 
 was immeried by John to fulfil the law of Mofes. 
 
 It is plain to be feen, how much Mr. Worcefter re- 
 grets, that the idea of " following Chrift into the wa- 
 ter, which he fays has unhappily fo powerful an effect 
 upon many minds," ftjould after all be left in the hands 
 of the Baptifts, to be ufed as a " fort of popular charm," 
 to get people into the water. That it has a very " pow- 
 erful effect" upon a heaven-born foul, we have no 
 doubt ; but v/e never before heard that it was an " un- 
 happy " effcit. If thofe who have felt its influence are 
 the proper judges, the evidence will certainly be turned 
 againfl him. On the whole, we fee nothing which bids 
 fairer to come under the denomination of " delufion," 
 than to be left to believe, that Chrift did not intend his 
 liiptifin JI:ould be imitated by his fdhivers- The Jews 
 boalted that they were not C'hrift's, but Mofes's difciples ; 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 335 
 
 and fotne Pa^dobaptlfts feeni to exult that they are not 
 fo deluded as to follow him into the water, to imitate 
 his baptifmal examjile. We envy not their happinefs, 
 but we freely conftf^, we afpire after the felicity of 
 thofe of whom it will one day be faid, Thcfe are they 
 •which FOLLOW THE Lamb ivhitherfoevcr he goeth.* 
 
 There are many other things in the difcourfes which 
 have been the fubjeiSt of thefe animadverlions, which 
 we confider as highly reprehenfible, but cur limits for- 
 bid that we fliould enlarge. A few things, which re- 
 fpeft the mode of baptifm, will probably be noticed 
 in our next fection. Mr. Edwards propofed a fliort 
 method with the Baptifts, but Mr. Worceiter has taken 
 a ftill fliorter ; for while the former attempted to run 
 down one or two of their main arguments, the latter 
 has only to declare that they do not " touch the point," 
 and the bufinefs is done. His words are, " The argu- 
 ments moft in ufe among the Antipxdobaptifts, and of 
 the greateft efficacy, as a fort of popular charm, do not 
 touch the points of real difference between us and 
 them." (Note, page 58.) If the " real points of differ- 
 ence have not been touched," in the preceding Iheets, 
 we fliall only have to regret our inability to difcern 
 them. Our objeft has been to " touch " them fo as to 
 be felt, yet in a rcfpcctful candid manner ; whether we 
 have failed in the attempt an impartial public will judge. 
 Confcious of having direcfted our arguments to the " real 
 points of difference," it would give us little pain ihould 
 any gentleman modejlly declare them nothing more than 
 " a popular charm." We pray God to fucceed them, 
 for the removal of real djffiretices between good men. 
 
 SECTION VII. 
 
 St r inures on the Obfer vat ions of the Rev. Mr. Worcej^er^ 
 Dr. Of good, and ethers, upon the MODE of Baptifm. 
 
 It is extremely difficult to write or fpeak fo 
 as not to be cenfured by thofe who are difpofcd to cavil. 
 " If your fentiments are confiftent," fay our opponents, 
 • Rev. xiv. 4. 
 
SOfi 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 " why do you talk about tJie motle of baptifm ? Immer- 
 fiou and baptiGn muft be fynonymous terms with you." 
 They are indeed fo with us, and when we talk or write 
 to thole of our own denomination, we ufe them in this 
 fcnfe. But, fays another, « the difpute is not about 
 baptifm itfelf, but only about a tnrre mode of baptifm." 
 Very well ; let it be mode, if we can only underlland 
 one another. We fliall therefore ufe the term mocky 
 not meaning by it to concede that there are different 
 modes equally valid, but as being beft adapted lo explain 
 the different views of the two denominations. " The 
 queftion," faith Mr. Worcefter, " properly between us, 
 is not this, Whether any were baptized in the days of 
 Chrift and his apoftlesby immerfion or dipping ; but it 
 is precifely this. Whether immerfion or dipping be the 
 only valid mode of baptifm." (Note, page 73.) 
 
 If Mr. Worcelter himfelf can " touch trie points of 
 real difference between us and them," and this is an 
 accurate Uatement of one of them, it will narrow the 
 o-roimd of controverfy confideiably. By this ftatement 
 it will be fcen, that if it be not a queftion betvv^een us 
 and them, *' whether fome were baptized in the days 
 of Chrift: and h:s apoftles by immerfion," then it muft 
 be a conceded point that there were fome immerfed at 
 that period. And if it be not a queflion, whether im- 
 merfion or dipping be a valid mode of baptifm, but 
 whether it be the " otily valid uT^de," then immerfion 
 is unqueftionably a valid mode. The " point of differ- 
 ence" is here fo nicely '< touched," as to leave our 
 ^ r. ctlce on the firm bafis of apoftolic authority. Let 
 ai 'l.ov before us prove fprinkling to be equally 
 v.i.lid and there will be no queftion about that : it will 
 then be acknowledged by us as well as them, that both 
 are valid. 
 
 That immerfion is an apoflolic valid mode, is as capa- 
 ble of proof as any other e>ent placed at that dift:ance. 
 But it may be alked, How is it to be proved We 
 anfwer, 1ft, from a fair and candid conftruc^ion of 
 fcriptarc teftimony refpefting the ordinance ; 'id, from 
 the moft authentic ecclefiaftical hiftory, and 3d, we 
 alio prove it from the fall and fair conceffions of many 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 of" the molt learned and pious Pcedobripiifts tlicm- 
 ielves.* 
 
 Afier furnifliing all this kind of proof, in the mod 
 ample and plenary manner, our opponents infift that 
 we muft alfo difpi ive their mode. We can il-e no pro- 
 priety in luch a demand, nor H all we undertake it, iiny 
 further than the proving our own will difprove theirs. 
 If they praclife fprinkling for baptifm, tliey certainly 
 ought to exhibit proof of its validity. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter charges the author of the Seven S.^r- 
 mons on the fubjefls and mode of baptiim, that " h.e 
 ajjlrts much and prcves little." We think that fome cf 
 his own afiertions would have c .rried quite as rnucli 
 conviiftion, if they had been fupported by a litlle more 
 proof. His fifth inference labours for the want of proof. 
 It is ft.ued as follows : "It mry be inferred from our 
 fubjetl, that fprinkling or aftufion is a valid mid fcr 'ih- 
 tural mode of bnptifm." (page 6+.) But from whai is 
 this inference drawn ? Not from r.ny diret^t fciipture 
 teftimony, for the fcriptures are wholly " iiient."f Not 
 from any authentic hiftorv, " becaufe there is nothing 
 direftly on the fubjeft, either for or againft infant bnp- 
 tifm, in the fragments which have come down to us of 
 the writings of the firft century ."J It rauft therefore 
 reft on the following clrcumilances : That a church v.-as 
 conftituted in the fam.ily of Abraham ; that circumcifion 
 was a Teal or token of membcrftiip in that cliurch ; 
 thvt the fame church has been continued under the 
 gofpel difpenfation, and for ages has been excluiively 
 among the Predobaptifls ; that God h.iS owned them as 
 his church ; and they have nlways praclifed fprinkling 
 or atluiion ; therefore, " fprinkling or affuiion is a valid 
 and fcripiural mode of baptiim " If the inference has 
 any thing better than the above to fupport it, we very 
 much millake. As a fpecimen of INIr. Worc.ftcr's rsa- 
 fonirg in lupport of the inference, the reader will take 
 the following : " But if there have been, in every peri- 
 od, a true chisrch in the world ; then there have been, 
 in every period, cflentially correal views of the facra- 
 
 • Sec Part II. Sed. iv. and v. 
 
 ■f Mr. P. Edvarcs, \ Mr. Worccilcr, note, p::gc 60, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 inents and feals of the church. In particular, fince the 
 alteration of the firft feal, there muft have been eflen- 
 tinlly corrcdi: views of baptifm : for it were no lefs 
 abfurd in itfelf, than incompatible with the purpofes 
 and promifes of God, to fuppofe that at any period a 
 true church has exifted without eflcntially correit views 
 of the firft facrament and feal." 
 
 " It is, liowever, (continues the author) a well fup- 
 ported fjft, that in the firft ages of Chriftianity, and 
 for ab. ut twelve or fifteen hundred years, baptifm by 
 fprinkling or afFufion was univerfally allov\'ed to be 
 fcripturai and valid. Even thofe who in ordinary cafes 
 bdpiizid by immaf,ony did not deny, but admitted, the 
 validity of baptifm by fprinkling or affufion." (page 
 6i, 65.) 
 
 The reader will here notice another full and fair 
 concefiion — that the manner of baptizing was in ordi- 
 finry cafes by IMMERSION. This is an undoubted fa£l : 
 but that fprinkling, during the apoftolic age, and for 
 two centuries after, was allowed to be friptiiral^ or, 
 properly fpeaking, valid, we lhall not believe without 
 proof. Eufebius, about the middle of the third century, 
 gives us the following account of Novatus : " He fell 
 into a grievous difiemper, and it being fuppofed that 
 lie would die immediately, he received baptifm (being 
 bfjpriiikled with water) on the bed whereon he lay, if 
 that can be called baptifm."* If fprinkling were con- 
 fidered equally valid as immerfion, why fhould this 
 ancient father make the above exception If equally 
 valid, why ihould the Nc-cafirian Louiicil declare fuch 
 perfons incr.pable of being admitted to the degree of 
 prcfbyters in the church 1 f We have never yet feen 
 any fair proof that fprinkling was in any inftance ad- 
 mitted in the apofiiolic age. But after infpiration had 
 ccafed, and men began to mix their own inventions 
 Avith the pure doctrine of Chrift, and had concluded 
 thai baptifm was tflential to falvation, cafes frequently 
 occurred which they called cafes of neaffiiy ; that is, 
 where perfons were fick and in danger of dying. Thcle 
 were, we acknowledge, in feme inflances fprinkltd : 
 
 * S«« Pan II. page 95. 
 
 t Dr. Csre, page 1 96. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 30*» 
 
 but this fprinkling was almoft as different from that 
 \vhich is now in uTe as immerfion itldf. It was not a 
 tew drops of water put on the face only, but the per- 
 lons were fprinkled from head to foot.* It was an 
 entire wetting, hke what is faid of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who was wet with the tlew of heaven. This wetting 
 ! of the perfon all over by fprinkling, though it were not 
 an immerlion, it approximated to it ; and even this was 
 admitted only in cafes of imperious neceflity. Dr. Cave 
 thus remarks upon it : " This was accounted a hfs 
 foUmn and perfect kind of baptilm, partly becaufe it was 
 done /;;/ by immt-rfion, but by fpriiikiing ; partly becaufe 
 perfons were fuppofed at fuch a time to defire it, chiefly 
 out of fear of death."f The Doftor further adds, " The 
 place where this folemn a^lion was performed, was at 
 jfirll unlimited. Any place where there was water, as 
 Jufcin Martyr tell us, in ponds and lakes ; at fprings or 
 rivers, as Tertullian fpeaks Afterwards they had their 
 [l>apti/hrta) fonts built, at firft near the church, then in 
 the church-porch, to reprcfent baptifm as being the 
 entrance into the myftical church."| Thefe, he in- 
 forms us, were ufually very large- and capacious, lb 
 *' that they might comport with the general cuftoms of 
 tbofe times, of perfons baptized being immerfed or put 
 under water." 
 
 Two things are clearly demonflrated by the above 
 quotations. Firfi:, That imrrurfton, during the firlt 
 centuries, was conGdered as the only fcriptural bap- 
 tifm. becoiid, That fprinkling was admitted only in 
 cafes of fuppofed neceflity, and then contidered as a 
 kind of imperfecl baptifm. This proves that it w^is a 
 mere human invention, a departure from the inltituted 
 niode ; for if it had been fandjoned by apoflolic au- 
 thority, it muft have been conlidered equally valid as 
 immerlion. In fact, there can be no fair realbn affigned 
 why they fhould immerfe hi ordinary cales, or even at 
 all, had they viewed fprinkling equally valid. 
 
 " It is, however, a well fupported faft," faith JNIr. 
 ■Worcefter, " that in the firft ages of Chriftianity, and 
 
 • See Dr. WitCus on the Covenants, Vol. III. 
 f Pritn. ChriftUnity, fage 196. ' ^ Ibid, page I j8, 199. 
 C d 2 
 
31G 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 for about twelve or fifteen hundred years, baptifm by 
 fprinkling or affufion was univerfally allowed to be 
 fcriptural and valid." By whom is this " fafl: fupport- 
 ed ?" Certainly not by Eufebius and Socrates ;* not by 
 Cave,t WallJ Monieim,§ nor Roblnfon.H Thefe all 
 fupport exaftly the contrary; that immerrion was the 
 divinely appointed mode, and that fprinkling, for the 
 ■ iake of conveniency or necefjity, without divine author- 
 ity, was adopted in its room. In proof of this, we add 
 the following: "There has," fays Dr. Wall, "no nov- 
 elty or alteration, that I know of, in point of baptifm, 
 been brought into our church, but in the way or manner 
 of adminirtering it. The way that is now ordinarily 
 
 ufed, WE CANNOT DENY TO HAVE BFEN A NOVSLTY, 
 
 brought into the church by thofe who le.irned it in 
 Germany or at Geneva This honeft confelHon, 
 with what we have quoted from Eufebius and Cave, 
 militates exceedingly with Mr. Worcelter's " well fajv 
 ported raft," of the fcriptural validity of fprinkling. 
 
 After fpending a number of pages, in attempting to 
 prove the validity of fprinkling from the practice of 
 the Paedobaptift churches, without producing the leaft 
 'fcriptttre authority., Mr. Worcefter adds, " The fair and 
 inDincible conclunon then is, that fprinkling or aft'ufion, 
 the mode of baptifm prafiifed in thefe churches, is 
 fcriptural and valid." On what does this invincible con- 
 cluQon reft Why truly, on this, That the Pxdobap- 
 tifts, who are God's true church in an exrlufive fcnle, 
 have for centuries pradtifed fprinkling in the room of 
 immerfion, therefore it muft be " fcriptural and valid." 
 The author does not pretend to have proved it from 
 the Bible, but informs us " there is nothing in the 
 fcriptures againft it, but much, as might be ihewn did 
 titne permit, in favour of it." (page ()9 ) Vvliat a pity 
 it is that he had not fpared fome of his time fpcnt in 
 inveftives againft the liaptifts, and proved this important 
 point. If it had been of no fervicc ro us, it might have 
 helped fome of his wavering brethren, who we conceive 
 
 * Ecd Hift. t Prim- Chrlf. t Hift. Infant Bap. 
 
 § Ecd. Hul. • U Hill: Bap. and Kcd. Refearches. ' 
 \ Defence of Hift. Infant Bap. p. 146. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 sn 
 
 muft be more perplexed than ever, from the confufed 
 contradiclory account he has given of the ordinance. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has conceded, not only implicitly, but 
 in direct terms, that immerfion was the ancient ordinary 
 mode : yea, that it was praclifed in the days of Chrift 
 r.nd his apoftles ; and after all denied thai there is any 
 proof of it. We will place his oblervations before the 
 reader, and leave him to make his own comments. 
 
 Speaking of baptifm in the " firft ages of Chriftiani- 
 ty," he fays, "Even thofe who in ordinary cafes hnptizej 
 h ivvnerficn, did not deny, but iidmitted the validity of 
 bnptifm by fprinkling or atFulion." (page 64, Q3.) 
 Again, «< The queftion properly between us is tut this, 
 Whether ANY were baptized in the days of Christ 
 
 AND His APOSILES BY IMMERSION OR DIPPING ; but 
 
 it is precifely this, Whether immerlion or dipping 
 be the only valid mode of baptifm ? (Note, page 73.) 
 He quotes the following from Dr. Wall : " The 
 ancient Chriftians, wl en they ivere bnpt'Zi'd by lyiy.v.K- 
 srON, were all baptized naked, &c." " It is a clear cjfe," 
 lays the autlior, "that luh^n they 'w^re baptized b;- im- 
 mersion, they were immerfed three times, &c." (Note 
 page 74.) Thefe are fome of the conceifions in the 
 difcourfes before us. The following appear to us like 
 coiitradi»Siions. " We have (faith the author) no evi- 
 dence in t!ie fcriptures, that in the days of Chrift and 
 his apoftles, any perfon ivas bapti:zed by immersion." (page 
 69.) " Could it even be proved, as however it cannot 
 be, thui fome ivere baptized in the apojlUs' days by immer- 
 sion, it would avail nothing againft our praftice, unlel's 
 it could be proved that none were baptised in any other 
 way."' (Note, page 73.) 
 
 It is thought that Mr. Worcefter has fallen into the 
 fame inconfillencies in defending his own practice as in 
 oppofing ours. The following is a fpecimen : " As 
 there was (faith he) no dii'pute about baptifm in the 
 lirft ages of Chriftianity, it ihould not be expefted that 
 much would be found particularly on the fubject, in 
 the writings of thofe ages. But becaufe there is no- 
 thing directly on the subject either for or 
 AGAINST infant BAPTISM, in the fragments which have 
 come down to ,us of the writings of the firft century. 
 
312 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the Antlpxdobaptifts, with an afflirance peculiar to them- 
 felves, have undertaken to ciffcrt., not to prove, that 
 during the firll: century, infant baptifm was not pra£\ifed 
 in the church." (Note, page 60.) After thus acknowl- 
 edging that in the writings of the firft century there is 
 nothing direcftly "either for or againft infant baptifm," 
 he goes on to fay, that " in the writings of CUmunus Ro- 
 manus, and Hermes Paftor, both coteniporaries with the 
 apoftles, paffages are extant, which by fair wiplicalhfi, 
 prove the practice of infant baptifm in their day."* 
 
 * There is an ingenious obfcurity in the manner of Mr. Worcefter's 
 quoting thefe ancient write: s. Had we no other means of .-.fcertain- 
 ing the time when t!iey lived and wrote, but the ftatement in the note 
 before us, it would noc be very eafy to determine in what century they 
 lived. An incautious reader might fujipoic that they all lived in or near 
 the firft century ; whereas the faift is, they extend through four or five. 
 " Tertullian," fays the author !)cfore \is, " was about li years old when 
 Polycarp died " But how are we to know when Polycarp died ? 
 Again, " Cyprian, bifhop of Carthage, who fuffered martyrdom for the 
 Chiriftian faith, only about five years from the death of Origeu " Ah, 
 indeed, it is prefumed that every one knows when Origen died ! But 
 what of Cypri:in Why, lie ' was prefident of a council which con- 
 fifced of fixty-fix bifliops or paftois of churches, and v/hich delivered an 
 unanimous opinion that the baptifm of infants was not to be deferred 
 (as fome hud fii) po!ed it I'hould be) until the eighth day, but mig.'it be 
 given them at anytime before" But wlien was this council held.' 
 Wlir, fome time in the life of Cyprian, and he fuffered martyrdom on- 
 ly five years after the death of Origen. Now who ceuld tell by all 
 this whether this council war held in the firft, fecond or third century 
 But what does the rclult of ic prove, with refpeifl to infant baptlfrn's 
 being an apoftolic praiSice ? Noihing at ail we conceive, but much to 
 the contrary. The faA is, this council was in the year 156. The 
 occafioB was, a country bifhop by the name of Fidus could not deter- 
 mine by his Bible, nor by any \jlV.ge of the church, whether new born 
 infants might be baptized, or whether it muft he deferred until the 
 eighth day. He applied to Cyprian, but he had no rule by which to 
 determine the queftion, until it wa» fettled by the opinion of the above 
 council. If it had been the conftant pradlice of the whole Chriftian 
 church from the firft inftitution of baptifm, which was now more thsui 
 aoo years, to bapliae infants, would luch an important tirciunftance 
 have betti unnoticed all this lime It is abfolutely incicdible. 
 
 To the above account the author adds, " Gregory Nazianzen, Bafil, 
 Ambrofe, C:hryfoftome, and Jerome, all of whom flourilhed within 
 about a hundred years of Origen and Cyprian, arc all explicit on the 
 fubjed ; explain the dtfign of infant baptifm, &c." (Note, page 60.) 
 The above Oientioned ail lived in the fourth century, and one or more 
 cf them in the beginning of the fifth. As thcl'e are faid to-be " explicit 
 on the fubjed, and to explain the dejign of infant baptifm we tbipk 
 it wi.uld pratify our readers, to know v.'hat the difi^n of it was. We 
 will give theav the opinion cf the £rft of them. Gregory, as delivered 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 What a happy knatk fome men have at proving their 
 point. When all other evidence fails, they can prove 
 it completely by implication ; and even from writings 
 too, which fay " nothing direftly on the fiibjeft, either 
 for or againft it." We regret exceedingly, however, 
 that thofe "paffages" which prove infant baptifm by 
 fair implication, had not been fet down, fo that we might 
 have judged of the evidence for ourfelves. Or had the 
 author only favoured us with correft references to the 
 book and page, it is more than probable that fome might 
 have taken the liberty to have cx-.mined the originals 
 for themfeh es. However, it is beft to proceed cau- 
 tioufly ; there might be fome danger apprehended from 
 this i for '< of late (fays he) one can hardly meet with 
 an Antipaidobaptift, who is not prepared to talk fo 
 fluently and learnedly of the meaning of Greek and 
 Z,atifi words, as ahnofl: to amaze one ! ! " Kad fuch 
 references been made, it is pofllble that fome of this 
 evidence by implication mi^ht have been dilputed. 
 
 Several other writers of the two firlt centuries are 
 mentioned ; but none of them as giving explicit evi- 
 dence in favour of infant baptifm, till we come to Ori- 
 gan, towards the middle of the third century. We are 
 willing that the teflimony of Origen ILould have its 
 proper weight ; but we are perfuaded, that fuch as 
 know his true charafler, as it ftands on the page of 
 hiftory, will attach vt ; y little confidence to what he has 
 faid on this point. The following is quoted from him 
 by Dr. Molheim : " The fcriptures are of little ufe to 
 tliofe who underftand them as they are written." To 
 
 in his fortieth Oration in the year .^8r. "But, fay fome, what is 
 your ojiinion of infants, who arc not capable of judgiug cither of the 
 g'are of baptifm, or of the d^imjg' fuftoinctl by the want of it ; fliall 
 We baptize them too ? By ali nicans, if there be. ary apparent danger. 
 tor it were better that they wtrx: fana^fscd ivithout their liiotuin^ H, 
 than that they Ihould die without being iealetl and initiated. As for 
 otlwri, I give my opinion, that when they arc three years of ajje, or 
 thereabouts (for then they are able to hear and arifwer fome of the 
 myftical words, and although they do not fui'y underftar.d, they may re- 
 ceive impreflions) they may be fandified both foul and boily by the 
 great myllcry of initiation " (Greg. Naz. Orat. xL in ' Robinfoo ) 
 What wondciful children, to underftand fuch profound my fit i ies at three 
 years old ! And what an amazing effcift this bufinefs of initiation had, 
 to fandify thtni throjohcut in foul and botly. 
 
314. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ■which the Doftor adds this obfcrvation : " He could not 
 find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted, as long 
 as he interpreted that facred book according to its literal 
 fenfe>,"* It is of little confeqnence in this difpute, to 
 know that men in the third and fourth centuries ap- 
 proved and praflifed infant baptifm. Nor do we con- 
 ceive that the "impregnable teftimony" of Pelagius, 
 (a man condemned by all the ancient fathers as a her- 
 etic) adds any ftrcngth to Mr. Worccfter's argument. 
 
 Another argument in favour of fprinkling, and againft 
 immerfion, which makes a confiderable figure in thefe 
 difcourfes, and in the writings of fome others, is, that 
 fprinkling is the nicjl eafy and convenient mode. "Of the 
 fevernl accounts of baptifms recorded in the fcriptures, 
 I think (fays Mr. Worcefter) it will appear that thofe 
 baptifm-. were performed in the mofl eafy and convenient 
 mode." (page 70.) He fuppofes that when John's can- 
 didates were " affembled upon the banks of the Jordan, 
 the mod: convenient way would be for them to go down 
 to the brink of the water, and there be baptized by 
 affufion or fprinkling." " On the day of penteco/iy (he 
 adds) when three thoufands were baptized in a very 
 fhort time ; they were at the temple in the midft of 
 Jerufalem, where the mofi: convenient, if not the only 
 way, would be to have water brought in a bafon, or 
 fome other vellel, and baptize them in the fame way." 
 (page 72.) It would feem, by thefe obfervations, that 
 the command of God muft yield to our conyeniency. 
 What exalted ideas fuch men muft have of the authority 
 of God in his pofiitive inltitutions, to fuppoi'e we are to 
 accommodate them to our own convenicncy ! Had good 
 old Abraham, at the age of ninety-nine, confultcd his 
 convenicncy, would he not probably have preferred cut- 
 ting the end of his little finger, to the part appointed 
 by the inftitution of circumcifion ? 
 
 We have no right nor willi to fay, that our brethren 
 fliall not confult their convenience in the adminiftration 
 of the ordinance ; but for ourfclves, we hope never to 
 think it inconvenient to obey the commands of Chrift, 
 and follow the example of him who thought it no inccn- 
 
 * Moftcini, Vol. 1. page zyr, rote. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 315 
 
 vei)ietKS to travel on foot from Galilee to Jordan, to be 
 immerfed by John in that river. 
 
 Sprinkling is -^ilfo faid to have another great advan- 
 tage over immerfion : It is not only n-.ore convenient, 
 but " more compatible with every idea of propriety and 
 DF.cENCY." (page 73.) 
 
 Dr. Ofgood * dilates largely on the decency of their 
 practice, and the indecency of ours. " To ine, (faith 
 he) indeed, this (fprinkiing) appears the only mode in 
 which the ordinance can be adminiftcred with that 
 order, liecency" &c. He adds, "Their leaving the place 
 of worfnip,y?rfrt/7j/w^ away in the open air to fome pond 
 or river, and in all fenfons and crimates, changing their 
 apparel in order to their being totally immerfed in the 
 •water, out of which they corne drenched and Jlnvering^' 
 &c. (page 8.) He concludes, however, that " baptifm 
 by immerfion might not, perhaps, eighteen hundred 
 years ago, be ofFcnfive in Judea ; nor can we fay that 
 it would difguft the uncultivated and unclothed inhab- 
 itants of South Africa, even now ; but it is certain, that 
 the cuftom of plunging mixed multitudes of men and 
 women, either in thin veftments or in their ufual drefs, 
 is deemed indecorous by rnoft people accuftomed to 
 poliftied manners." (page 14.) Eighteen centuries ago, 
 it feems, then, it might not have been offenftve for Jefus 
 and his difciples to be immerfed, but it is now abfolutely 
 " indecorous " to follow their example ! And is there 
 nothing, dear fir, ''indecorous" in comparing the ftate 
 of manners in the priiritive Chriftian church, contain- 
 ing Chrift and all his difciples, to the loweft dregs of 
 the human race to the Bofckemen or %vild Hottentots 
 of South Africa ? Muft not iuch a Gomparifon ftrike a 
 tender mind with horror, and be conlidered as a moft 
 fevere reflexion on the great Head of the church, and 
 all his immediate followers .'' Who can help reflefting 
 on the prophetic language of David, when pcrfonating 
 Chrift, The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen 
 upon wf.f Is the religion of Jelus, efpecially its inftitu- 
 tions, when pracHfed as they were in « Judea eighteen 
 hundred years ago, deemed indecorous " by people of 
 
 * Two DIfcourfes at Maiden. \ Pfil-.n Ixix. 9. 
 
316 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 « polifhed manners ?" Such people would do well ts 
 remember, that the fr'iendfJnp of the world is etmitty ivitb 
 God and that Chrift, in order to guard his people 
 againft this temporizing fpirit, has faid, Whcfotver Jhall 
 be ASHAM£D of vie, mid of my words, of him fliall the Son 
 oj Man he nfJjamed, •when he fjjall come in his own gfory, 
 and in his Father s, and of the holy angels. \ 
 
 But what aftoniflies us moft of all, is, that' after all 
 this outcry about decency and offending againft polifhed 
 tncinncrs , that the Doftor fhould inform the world, that 
 their minifters will be guilty of doing the fame ! ! Yes, 
 " we are (faith he) far from calling in queftion the 
 validity of theirs, (meaning our mode of baptifm) ; nay, 
 in condefcenilon to the confciences of thofe who requefl 
 it, cur miniften fcruple not to baptize by iintnerfijn" Is it 
 poffible, Doflor ? What ! will your minifters and their 
 people " go ftreaming away in the open air to fome 
 pond or river r" What ! and with as little fenfe of 
 decency as the Baptifts, be "totally immerfed in the 
 water," and like them " come drenched and Ihlvering " 
 out of it ? It is perfectly aftoniiliing ! But why do they 
 thus trefpafs upon the cuftoms of " polifhed manners ?" 
 Why ? not indeed from a confcientious regard to the 
 command or example of Chrift, but " in condefcenfion 
 to the confciences of thofe who requeft it." So great 
 is their condefcenfion ^ that it feems they can become till 
 things to all men, that by all means they may five fsme — of 
 their people from going over to the Baptifts. 
 
 Mr. Worcefter has mentioned one fpecies of inde- 
 cency, which he fuggefts was pradVifcd anciently in im- 
 merfion, v/hlch in this age of improvement is wholly 
 done away. He relates the ftory from Dr. Wall, and 
 he from Vofiius, and where he got it nobody knows ; 
 but it is thus related in the difcourfes before us : " The 
 ancient Chriftians," fays Dr. Wall, " when they were 
 baptized by immerfion, were all baptized naked, whether 
 they were men, women, or children. Vofluis has col- 
 Ie<Sted feveral proofs of this, which I (liall omit, bccaufe 
 it is a clear cafe." (Note, page 74-.) If Mr. Worcefter 
 is acquainted with Dr. Wall's writings, as he undoubt- 
 
 ♦ Jatiicj iv. 4. 
 
 f Lwke ix. 16. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 S17 
 
 edly is, he muft certainly know that the DoiHior has 
 ftrenuoiifly afferted that immerfion was the priinitR-e 
 ordinary mode throughout ahnoft the whole Chrirtiaa 
 world, for thirteen centuries, and in many countries 
 mtich longer.* Can any man in his fenfes iuppole tiiat 
 Dr. Wall ferioufly believed, that during this long pe- 
 riod of thirteen or fifteen centuries, there was not a 
 fcrap of modefty in the whole Chriftian world ? Would 
 he h.ive pleaded for the reftoration of a practice that 
 had conftantly been a reproach to decency ? We hard- 
 ly think it. 
 
 But we Ihould like to know who this Voflius was, 
 who furniflied this indecent ftory, that we may know 
 what degree of credit is due to it. Was it Ifaac V .fftiisy 
 who came over from Leyden ta England in 1670, whom 
 king Charles made canon of Windfor ? Of this perfoa 
 an Englifh biographer thus remarks ; that Charles kaew 
 his character well enough to fay, " there was nothing 
 that Voflius refufed to hdievcy excepting the Bible !" He 
 further adds, « He appears indeed by his publications — 
 to have been a mofl: credulous man, while he afforded 
 many circumilances to bring his religious faith in quef- 
 tion." If there be no other proof that the ancient 
 Chriftians baptized naked, than what can be gathered 
 from the writings of fuch a man, we lliall think our- 
 felves at liberty to doubt it. But, true or falie, Mr. 
 Worcertor has cleared the Baptifts of the difgraceful 
 ftory. For this pradiice is faid by Dr. Wall to have 
 been among the ancient Chriftians. " But the Anabap-. 
 tifts, or Antipajdobaptifts," fays our author, " are a feet 
 of modern date. They had their origin fome time 
 after the reformation under Luther and Calvin." (P. 66.) 
 According to this, the Piedobaptifts may place all thefe 
 naked folks to their own account. And if they 
 confult Dr. Mofheim, (vol. i. p. 227) or Broughton's 
 Hiftorical Library, (vol. i p. 14) they may find an ac- 
 count of others, who, it is faid, went naked, not indeed 
 into the water ^ but into their public afTeinbUes.f 
 
 * Sec Part IT. Scd. iv. and t. 
 
 f That people in warm climates anciently went alirod ii:IteJ, t>i?» 
 with only a covering round the waift, no body will cliipu:c. !! ; , 
 
 E e 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 By dating the origin of the Baptifts " fome time after 
 the retonnation," our opponents exonerate /// from all 
 ■<he indecencies, pious frainls, errors, herefies, and per- 
 fecutions, which difgracedChriftianity before that period. 
 
 We mufi: here beg the reader's indulgence while we 
 digrefs a few moments from our fubject, with a view to 
 repel an ungenerous inlinuation refpefting our origin. 
 The riot at Munfter, in which fome who oppofed and 
 denied infant baptifm were concerned with others who 
 held it, is generally fixed upon as the mofl diflionoura- 
 ble part of our hiftory. We regret that our limits will 
 not allow us to vindicate ourfelves more fully from the 
 unhandfome things which have been fo often fuggefted, 
 from that tranfaftion, with a view to injure our charac- 
 ter as a religious denomination. But we can here only 
 fay, that we verily believe, that to take the account of 
 the German Anabaptifts, as given by their enemies, 
 nothing will be found either more wicked or difgrace- 
 ful in this left, than may be found in the origin of al- 
 moll any other ancient feft, taking their hiftory from 
 the fame fource. 
 
 For inflance ; the Independents in England, from 
 whom the prefent refpeftable Congregational Churches 
 in this country defcended. If you take their hiltory 
 from Ciaretidotiy Echard, Parker^ or even from Raphi, 
 you will find the obfervation juftiried. The latter, 
 though a foreigner, is allowed to have written one of 
 the beft hiftorics of England extant. This illuftrious 
 writer, faith Dr. Mofheim, reprefents the " Independeuts 
 under fuch horrid colours, that, were his portrait juft, 
 they would not deferve to enjoy the light of the fun, or 
 to breathe the free air of Britain ; much lefs to be treat- 
 ed with indulgfnce and cfieem, by thofe who have the 
 c jul'e of virtue at heart." However unjuftly they might 
 be acculcd, "the moft eminent Englilh writers, (adds 
 the Doctor) not only among the patrons of Epifcopacy, 
 but among thofe very Prcjbyterians, with 'whom they 
 are now united, have thrown out againft them the bit- 
 is fiHl pfafliffd by thr inli.ibitants of the torrid zone. That they went 
 into tilt- .v.:tfi ill their ufual drcfs is highly probable ; but that any 
 V. tT: I iipt;z».ii vvitl.out a covering rouad the waiA, we have feen no 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 919 
 
 relr acciifations and the fevereft inve(f>ives, that the 
 ^. M^me^t imagination could invent. rhey have not on- 
 ly been reprcfeiited as delirious, mad, fanatical, illite- 
 rate, factious, and ignorant both of natural and revealed 
 religion ; but alio abandoned to all kinds of wickednefs 
 and ledition, and as the only authors of the odious par- 
 ricide committed on the perfon of Charles I "* We do 
 not pretend to vouch for the truth of thefe things, nor 
 do we believe them generally to be true ; but only men- 
 tion them to ihew that other lecl:s have been a> fevere- 
 ly cenfured as the Anabaptilis. If we compare the ac- 
 counts given by the enemies of the two fedts, this will 
 be about the reiult — ^The fanatics of one, in their wild 
 zeal, fet up a king ; and the fanatics >.f the other pulled 
 down theirs. 
 
 But even admitting all that has been faid of the Ger- 
 man Anabaptifts to be true, and we can fee no more 
 propriety in reproaching the prefent Baptifts with it, 
 than there would be in reproaching the prefent Psedo- 
 baptirts with all the errors, debaucheries, and enormou-; 
 cruelties committed by the Pa'dobaptifts of Rome. The 
 fa£t is, though we agree eiTentially with the German 
 Baptifts in the article of baptilm, yet we totally difap- 
 prove of their diforderly, feditious fanaticifm. So we 
 underftand our brethren, that while they agree with the 
 church of Rome in their infant baptifm, they difagree 
 with their fentiments and praftice generally. The only 
 inquiry which a candid mind would here make would 
 be this ; Is there any thing in immerlion which has a 
 natural tendency to fanaticifm and ffdition ? 
 
 Our objeft in this fe(flion was not particularly to ex- 
 hibit all the proofs in favour of immerlion of which the 
 fubjedt is fufceptible, (as that, we conceive, has beea 
 fulhciently done, Part II fetSt. iv. and v.) but more efpe- 
 eially to remove fome of the obje^lipn.- which have been 
 raifed againft the practice by its oppofers. \Ve have 
 endeavoured candidly to meet the moft weighty and 
 p^'pular objections, and the public will ju ?ge whether 
 we have refuted them or not. A few additional obfer* 
 ▼ations lhall clofe the lection. 
 
 •Eecl. HiQ. vol v p. 181, 183. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 <f The Greek word bapiizo" fays Mr, Worcefter, 
 « determines nothing in refpeft to the particular niot'e 
 in Avhich water is to be apphed." (P. 6!J.) Tins is cer- 
 tainly an unplenfant circumftance, if true, ^hat a word 
 Is made ufe of to defcribe a particular action, and yet 
 that it has no definite meaning, fo that we can pofliblr 
 determine from it what is to be done. " Every ptrfon," 
 faj^s Dr.Ofgood, " who hath the like acquaintance with 
 them (that is, with the original languages as himfelf ) 
 well knows, that the Greek word for baptifm fignifies 
 any kind of wafliing, by fprinkling or affufion, as often, 
 if not much oftener, than by dipping." The object with 
 both thefe writers is evidently the fame : it is to throve 
 the word into a ftate of complete uncertainty, and in 
 this way to fecure the validity of fprinkling. It means, 
 according to them, any kind of wafliing, either by dip- 
 ping, pouring on water, or fprinkling. Nor is there 
 any diredion to what part the water is to be applied ; 
 •whetlier to the head, the hands, or the feet. We know 
 of nothing but cuftom, which has determined the appli- 
 cation of it to the forehead. 
 
 We wifli here to ftate a cafe, and fliould be much 
 gratified in a fair anfwer. Suppofing a family of the 
 defcendants of Abraham were to embrace Chriftianity 
 under the miniftry of the Psedobaptifts, and fliould re- 
 ceive their doftrine of baptifm, as coming in the room 
 of circumcifion ; and (hould hence infift, that in order 
 to render it analogous to that rite, the water muft be 
 ;ipplied to the fame part ; would thefe gentlemen, in 
 their great ** condefcenfion to the confciences" of their 
 Jewifli converts, apply water in this way ? Could they 
 make any fair objedlicn, and ftill fupport their baptifm 
 on -the ground of circumcifion ? We iliould fnppofe not. 
 If the manner of applying water is to be determined by 
 the confcience'^, or rather fancies of the candidates for 
 the ordinance; then any way, and to any part which 
 they may chojfe, muft be confidered as valid baptifm. 
 
 But let us for a moment inquire if the word buptizoy 
 which is rendered buptizei has not a primary meaning, 
 fufficiently definite to direft our praflice. " The word," 
 favs a very fenfible writer, " is confefl'edly Greek. Na- 
 tive Greeks underftand their own language better than 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 321 
 
 foreigners ; and they have always untlerftood the word 
 to me,\n (lipping ; therefore from their firft embracing 
 Chrlftianity to this day, they have ahvays baptized, and 
 do yet baptize by immerfon."* We appeal to our learn- 
 ed opponents to fay, whether the Greek church in all 
 its branches, even the cold regions of Ruffia not except- 
 ed, has not to the prefent time praclifed itnmeyfwn ? We 
 hence reafon in this way : — The New Tefianr.ent was 
 originally written in Greek ; that native Greeks under- 
 ftood the word baptizo as we do, to mean immerfion, 
 and confequenily they always praftifed immerfion : 
 this alone, we fhould fuppofe, would be allowed to be 
 decilive evidence of the meaning of the word. — The 
 beft critics of all the Chriftian fecl:s have agreed with 
 Leigh,f « that the native and proper fignification of it 
 (baptizo) is to dip into water, or to plunge under water" — 
 When the a(SHon is defcribed in tlie New Tetlament, 
 it is defcribed by their going down into the water, a»d 
 coming up out of\t ; which would be abfurd upon any 
 other principle but immerfion. — ^That it was under- 
 ftood in the fame fenfe by the Chriftian church general- 
 ly during the firft centuries ; this is evident from every 
 ecclefiallical writer of any note whofe works have come 
 to our knowledge. Thefe things tonfidered, can there 
 a doubt remain as to its proper meaning ? 
 
 As we have quoted largely from the above clafs of 
 writers in a preceding part of this work, we (hall here 
 only add two or three quotations from Dr. Molheim. 
 In defcribing the rites and ceremonies of the firfl: cen- 
 tury, he fays, « The facrament of haptifm was adminif- 
 tered in this century, in places appointed and prepared 
 for that purpofe ; and was performed by immerfion of the 
 'whole body in the baptifmal font.":j: In this author, there 
 is not a word to be found in the hiftory of this century, 
 of pouring or fprinkhng, as '« a fcriptural and valid mode 
 of baptifm." But what may be done by " fair implica- 
 tion," we pretend not to fay. 
 
 Let us now follow this learned hiftorian into the next 
 century, and fee how the ordinance was then adminif- 
 tered. «« The perfons," faith he, «< to be baptized, after 
 E e 2 
 
 • Robinfon's Hift. Bapt p. j. | Crit. Sacra. 
 
 \ EccJ. Hia. vol.i p. 146. 
 
3^2 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 they had repeated the creed, confeffed stird renounce* 
 their fins, and particularly the devil in his pompous al- 
 lurements, were IMMERSED under -water, and received 
 into Ciirift's kingdom, by a folemn invocation of Father, 
 Son " &c. (Ibid. p. 206 ) 
 
 Thus, according to Dr. Moilieim, (and it niuft not be 
 forgotten that he was aPsedobaptift) the apoftolic mode 
 of baptitm was prefcrved tlirough this century. Had 
 either fprinkling or njfufiou been pra^tiled in thefe centu- 
 ries, is it not perfectly uiisccountable that not a hint 
 fliould be given of if by this author ? What couid in- 
 duce him to keep fuch a fullen filence about it f Had 
 he not the advantage of examining the writings of Cle- 
 mens, He -rnes, Jujt'tn Martp; Irenatis, and all the other 
 ancient writers mentioned by Mr. Worcefter ? He un- 
 doubtedly had, for he has quoted from many if not all 
 of them. 
 
 If the fullefl: evidence could be exhibited of the ex- 
 iftence of infant baptifm, in the third and fucceeding 
 centuries, and that it were then practiled by pouring or 
 fprinkling, it would afford no decifive evidence that ei- 
 ther were pra^tifed by the apoftles. Any one who has 
 taken the pains to trace the progrefs of innovation, will 
 be fully convinced of this : he will find fuch an increafe 
 of rites and ceremonies from century to century, as in a 
 little time to change the vifible afpecT: of almoft the 
 whole Chrifl;ian church. But notwithftanding this gen- 
 eral departure from apoftolic purity both in doftrine ;ind 
 manners, immerji'.n held its indifputable claim, of being, 
 the divinely appointed mode of baptifm. We fay nude, 
 becaufe fprinkling in fome infiances was admitted, in 
 cafe.s of danger of deatii, as a fubfiitute. And we verily 
 believe, that *' after all the laborious and ollentatious 
 criticiim" upon baptizo, to m^ke it mean pouring or 
 fpnnk/ing and upon Vw, apo, and e-a,* there could not 
 be found among the Piedobaptifts themfelves, one per- 
 foii in ten who had ever thought on the fubject, but 
 would freely acknowledge that he believed Jefus Chrift 
 was unmerUd by John in Jordan Nor lio we think our 
 brethren who plead for the validity of fprinkling, difbe- 
 
 * Vid. Dr. Crane'* Sermonsk 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 lieve it thenifelves. If this be indeed ati error, \\c cm 
 think of but one coinp.ete remedy for i: ; and th;it is» 
 to alter the liiblo 1 Whiht the prclent tr uiil^tion is re- 
 ceived, and people are permitted to re.ul and ttiiiik for 
 t ici-nfeUes, it m.iy be expecicd th.it there u'iil be a gen- 
 eral convi<fVion-, th.it Jefus was plunged in Jordan. AnX 
 all attemprs to prove, that this was to anfwer to th6 
 wafhing of the prieih at the t.>bcrnacle door, in order 
 to introduce him into his prieilly office, will help tcr 
 ftrengthen this conviction ; for it will be leen th.^t the 
 Paedobaptirts theinfehes feel the dilliculty, and try to 
 get rid of it in this way. 
 
 We have no where in the courfe of tliefe animadver- 
 tions attempted to vindicate Mr. Merrill, as we think: 
 him able, and believe him determined, to do it himleif 
 but wilh here to notice a criticifin made by Mr. Aul^:iu 
 on John x'i. 10, in his Letters aiidreil'ed to the above 
 author. (P. 39.) " You mention," faith Mr. Auftin, 
 " /ouo, as iignifying the fame with lap'izo, &c. Jf you 
 will (continues he) turn to John xiii. 10, juil: adverted 
 to, a place whicJ\ von have not mentioned, and probably 
 not confidered, you will hnd evidence (hrectly and cm- 
 eluftvtly againrt this idea. « Jefus faith unto him, He 
 that is waihed [o lelcumenzs) needeth not fave to wafh 
 his feet, but is clean every whit." On this Mr. Auftin 
 obferves — " Here the fubje<St fpoken of is not the feet, 
 or hands, or face •, but the man, he, in Greek, o. He is 
 waihed when his teet only are wafhed ; and nipfnjlhai is 
 ufed, to exprefs this wadiing of the feet." 
 
 But has net Mr. Auftin after all mided the force of 
 our Saviour's obfervation .'' Did not jefus intend to ex- 
 prefs two dlitinft acts, one a general, and the other si 
 partial waildng one a b.itl\ing of the vvhjle body, and 
 tiie other a walhing of the feet, and therefore made ufe 
 •f two different wonls ? In ihe firil, Chrift ufes the pafl 
 
 * Patdobaptiftf, who write or fpeak of Mr Merrill, afle<fl to treat 
 •\\m with much contempt, at tl.ough he were a man of inferior learning 
 and tiknt*. if thty biliivc i*, i% it not ailoniliiing that I'o many pen* 
 Ihduld be i-mployed ag-iul! him, and thefe wieidcd ti<o by men of the 
 firft literary emincnc ? If their reprefentations be true, they would 
 gain but little honour (litiaid they btat him ; but would it not be infi- 
 nitely difgraceful to be beaten by him,.aftcr thxis defpiling him ? 
 
92i 
 
 APPENDO. 
 
 tenfe He that is (leloumenos) nvifhed needeth mt fave 
 (nipfarthai) to nvafh b'ls feet, but is clean every whit. He 
 thiit if ivaPji-d, if this referred to the wnlhlng of the 
 feet, needed not to waih at all, according to Mr. Auftin, 
 for this exprefled an act ah-eady done. 
 
 Leil the fenfe we have given above fhoiild be thought 
 to be a mere " imagination of the Baptifts,"* we fubjoin 
 the remarks of tlie amiable Dr. Doddridge. " He that 
 is nuafied already., or that has juft been bathing, needs 
 only to walli his feet, which may indeed be eaiily foiled 
 by the fliorteft walk, and when that is done he is en- 
 tirely clean."f Upon the above he has the following 
 critical note : — " He that h.is been bathing. This render- 
 ing of the Word leloumenos is confirmed by Elfner, (Ob- 
 ferv. vol. i. p. 337, 338) and gives as it were a compen- 
 dious paraphrafe upon it. Clarius has v/ell obferved, 
 that as the apoduterion, or room in which they drefled 
 themfelves after bathing, was different from that in 
 which they bathed, the feet might be fo foiled in walk- 
 ing from one to the other, as to make it neceffary im- 
 mediately to wafli them again." 
 
 If Dr. Doddridge be right, it affords a high proba- 
 bility that Mr. Merrill may alfo be right. If, according 
 to the above, two diftinft afts were intended by Chrift, 
 then Mr. Auftin has overlooked the real meaning of the 
 paflage.^: 
 
 On the whole, we have one undeniable advantage 
 over our opponents in this difpute about the mode of 
 baptifm. Ours correfponds with the primary fenfe of 
 the original word to baptize, and certainly with the 
 practice of the primitive Chriftians. Theirs, by the 
 confeffions of many of their beft writers, is a departure 
 from both. If it had been the intention of the great 
 Head of the Church, that this rite fliould have been per- 
 
 * Dr. Ofgood, p. 21. t Expof. vol. ii. p. 426. 
 
 \ Mr. Auftin appears peculiarly unfortunate in the choice of the word 
 nffufitn to reprefent the mode of applying water in baptifm, as it neither 
 agrees with the Bible, nor his own praflice. No one will deny but a 
 man may be as thoroughly wet by pouring water on him, as by dipping 
 him into it ; but the queftion is, has Mr. Auftin produced any inftance 
 where the Greek verb ekeo, (to affuf or pour) luis been r'ntlcrfd 
 biptizc ; if not, what argument is there in his atta'cbing it ti^ ';..]: ti5ii 
 lixty times over 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 3^5 
 
 formed by pouring on waier, would not ^l'f:^(to affufe, to 
 pour) have been i!fed,infl:ead of baptizo (to dip; to plunge, 
 &c.) ? Or if fprinkling had been intended, ftiould we 
 not fometimes have found ranUxo (to afperfe, to Tprinkle) 
 ufed to exprefs the act of baptizing, infiead of a word, 
 which in its primary fenfe lignilies immerlion r 
 
 Figurative exprefliorfs are conftamly reforted to by 
 our brethren to fupport their practice : fuch as /brink- 
 ling ntnfij nati ns, fpriiikHtig clean ivatcr, pouring cut of the 
 Spirit, 8tc. Wirh thefe, v/e have only to contraft other 
 fcriptures, which reprefent the Hune things by an entire 
 wafliing or plunging : furh as the following. /// i/:cjt 
 dny thjre Jhnll be n fountain 'opened to the houfe of DaviJy 
 and to the inhabitants "J eruf idem ^ for ftn and for unclean^ 
 nefs.* Unto Him that loved us, and ivafjed us from our 
 fins IN his oivn blood. ■\ Thefe are they nvho came out of great 
 tribulation, and have 'wtfhed their robes and made them 
 •white IN ihe blood of the Lanib.\ Thefe latter afford juft 
 as much evidence of inimerfion, as the former do of 
 fprinkling. But as neither of them have any thing to 
 do with the fubje£l:, neither of them afford any direft 
 proof in the cafe. 
 
 « There is an expreffion," fays Dr. Ofgood, ** occur- 
 ring once or twice in the writings of St. Paul, which 
 feems to have full poffeffion of the imagination of our 
 Baptift brethren, and renders them pofitive that immer- 
 fion was the primitive mode of baptifm. It is found 
 Rom. vi. 4. « We are buried with him in (by) baptifm 
 into death.' Again in Col. ii. 12. Burled with him in 
 baptifm,' &c." 
 
 But what has " poffefied the imagination" of fo many 
 Pxdobaptifts, to give the fame explanation, and to agree 
 with us, that the apoftle, by the term buried, alluded to 
 the mode of baptiiin by immerfion }^ 
 
 A writer wlio refers to " fmall things," on a fmall fi;b~ 
 ject, contained in a Jvudl bo:k, may affift us on the 
 prefent occafion ; as fmall things often fliow which way 
 the wind blows H " If any of the learned fathers," fays 
 
 * Z"ch. xiii, ;. f Rev. i 5. \ Rev. vii 14. 
 
 § Vid. Civt, Locke, B.irkitt, Poole, in l^c 
 II Vid. Mr Amlcrfoii's cftimatc cf imaicifii n, note p. 1 1. 
 
826 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 this author, '-• have faid things, in favour of haptizing by 
 immerfion, they may have been indebted for it to their 
 i^ading Greek authors, more than to their critical atten- 
 tion to the New Teftament." (Note, page 11.) What 
 an admirable apology for men, whofe profefTed objeft 
 was, to write critical expolhions on the facred text ! 
 '< Hence (continues this author) we learn why probably 
 Calvin, and many others, made conceflions in favour 
 of immerfion, and yet baptized by affufion. They were 
 kencft*** As claffic fcholars in the Greek language 
 they- made their concelhons, but as behevers, taught by 
 the words which the Holy Ghoft teachcth, they bap- 
 tized as we do " (Page 2S.) 
 
 Will Mr. Anderfoii's brethren thank him for this 
 Angular ftatement ? For the preinifes which he has 
 placed before us furnilh us with the following conclu- 
 jGon, viz. That thofe who will not concede the fame 
 things which Calvin and many others did, that " to- 
 baptize is to immerfe," are either unacquainted with 
 the G ecian clajftrs, or elfe that they are not honejl ! 
 But how does Calvin's honefty appear ? in his believing 
 one thing and praftifing another i How Why, in this 
 way : as a clajjic fchcla , thoroughly acquainted with 
 Grecian literature, he was compelled to own, that " the 
 word baptiz.j lignifies to flip ; and it is certain (adds he) 
 that the manner of dipping was ufed by the ancient 
 church."* " i3ut ns a believer, taught by the words 
 which the Holy Gholl teacheth," he could conftrue 
 baptizj to me.«j pouring, or fprinkling, or any kind of 
 wetting ! But where and how does the Holy Ghofh 
 teach that new born babes fiiould be fprinkled ? Not 
 in the fcriptures ; for manv others, whole honefty can 
 no more be fcrupled than C ilvin's, have confelled, that 
 the fcripture? were totally " filcnt nor by the tefti- 
 mony of thofe wiio were cotemporary witii the apoftles, 
 for there " is nothing diree^tly on the fubjctli:, either for 
 er againft infant baptifm, in the writings of the hrft 
 centui'y." But where will this lentiment lead us, that 
 the " Holy Ghoft teacheth," that words, wlien ufed in 
 the facred fcriptures, have a meaning totally diiferent 
 
 * Inft. Chiift. Rflio-. 1 iv c. !j § 19 
 
3f7 
 
 from what they have in common ufe ? Will it rot lead 
 into all the devious paths of error ? Js it not Oi 'igemfm 
 revived with a witnefs ? and does it not eltabliih the 
 feiitiment of that mylbc writer, that " the fvriptures 
 are of little ufe to thole who underftand them as thev 
 were written ?" 
 
 Uut thefe men, who made conccfTions in favour of 
 immerlion, lays Mr Anderfon, "were honelL" Did 
 he mean to fuggeft, that men are lels honeft at the 
 prefent day ? we Ihould hardly fuppofe it 5 and yet 
 there is feme ground for i'uch a fufpicion. It is under- 
 ftood, that many plumply deny 1* hat their pious and 
 learned anceilors freely acknowledged : not only fo, 
 but we find their works interpolated. In the firii edi- 
 tion of Pooled expolition on Jolin iii. I S. fpeaking of 
 John's baptizing at Enon becnufe the e ivas much water 
 iherd, ti^e writer thus expounds : «< It is from this appa- 
 rent, that both Chrift and John baptized bv dipping the 
 body in ivnter, elfe they needed not have fought places 
 where had been great plenty of water : yet it is probable, 
 they did not conitantly dip, from what we read of the 
 apoftles' baptizing in houfes " Nothing more is added 
 upon this me.iibcr of the text. Although Dr. Collins, 
 the writer of this article, has long fince been dead, yet 
 fome facrilegious hand has dared to alter this in a late 
 edition, printed at Edinburgii 1801, in the following 
 manner : »' It is from thi^ apparent, fay fome" &c. 
 «* Others fay it is not apparent,' &c. ; and leveral argu- 
 ments are here urged, to difprove what ilands decidedly 
 in favour of immerlion in the firft edition. This artful 
 interpolation we conlider as a real impofuion upon the 
 public : for in this way any of the ancietjt writers may 
 be made to fay things wiiich they never laid, and deny 
 things which they freely acknowledged. If fuch frauJs 
 are allowed to be pradifed, all confidence in the tefti- 
 mony of thofe who have gone before us will be de- 
 ftroyed. 
 
 The oppofers of immerfion make ufe of the fame 
 kind of arguments to diiparage this practice, which tiie 
 enemies of revt latiou employ againll Chriltianity geo- 
 eraily ; we mean, by arguing from the abufe. of it. 
 One would think, by fome of their reprefentations, that 
 
82S 
 
 APrENDIX. 
 
 our baptifmal occafions were a fcene of riot and confu* 
 fion ; the truth is exaftly the reverfe of this ; they are 
 ufually feafons of peculiar folemnlty. We have fre- 
 Cj^-ient and repeated inftanccs of perfons' being ftrutk 
 under conviction, while witneffing the due adminillra- 
 tion of this impreffive inftitute. But were the ridicule 
 and oppofition much greater than what we hare at any 
 time experienced, we ihould fuppofe our brethren would 
 be the laft perfons in the world to complain. Fiom 
 whom does this oppofition and ridicule proceed ? Surely 
 riot from the Baptirt^ themfelves, nor from any who are 
 
 friendly to ihem ; but from we will not fay 
 
 whom, though they are often well known. 
 
 It muft be peculiarly grateful to the feelings of a , 
 p'ous Baptift, when reproached for following the exani- 
 ple of his Lord and Mafter, that immerfion, after fuf« 
 taining every oppoiition wliich learned ingenuity can 
 make, ftill maintains its indifputable claim, of being 
 apoftolic baptiiin. Nor will it give him the leaft unea- 
 linefs, that his Psedobaptift brethren can make out a 
 bare probabilitj^ that water might pojjibly have been ap- 
 plied in fome extreaie cafes otherways. From the evi- 
 dence which the facred fcriptures, ecclefiaftical hiftory, 
 «nd ihe teftimony of the moft pious and learned of tlie 
 Piedobapilfts exhibit, that immerfion was the conftant 
 practice of the primitive church, he will feel a fafety in 
 following their example ; he will reft confident, that 
 there cannot be the fame degree of evidence in favour 
 of any other mode. This, Pa:dobaptifts themfelves ac- 
 knowledge to be valid ; all others are doubtful. 
 
 Though conlidertd by our opponents as a ** little 
 modern feft," * if we have the truth on our fide we 
 need not fear. " They have ever been (faith Mr. Wor- 
 cefter) but a very fmall proportion of the Chriftian 
 world. I do not mean (faith he) that they have been 
 but a fmall proportion of the nominally Chriftian world, 
 but a very fmall proportion of the true ai d faithful pro- 
 feffing people of God." This is to us another of the 
 mylterious unintelligible ftatemcnts made by this author. 
 It would leem by tiiis, that the Baptifts have fome time 
 
 • Dr. Ofgood, page 41, and Mr. Worc.ftcr, page 66. 
 
or other made a large proportion of the profelTing 
 Chriftlan world. But as a drawback upon this, ihey 
 had a niuch larger proportion of mm'iital profeflbrs than 
 fell to the Piiare of other denominations. If it be a 
 f that we h.^ve a greater proportion of tioviituil pro- 
 fefibrs than Pa^dobaptifis, we are extremely puzzled to 
 account for it. If we baptized infants, and iniifted that 
 they WL-re all difciples^ although they had never learned a 
 word concerning Jefus Chrift, nor was it certain that 
 they ever would : or if we admitted members into our 
 churches without evidence of their having experienced 
 a moral change, and in many inftances, without aflcing 
 them a fingle queftion concerning their religious exer- 
 cifei : or if a confiderable proportion of our minifters 
 were ordained without any examination refpecting their 
 particular ientiments or experimental knowledge of the 
 truth, and who of courfe would be interefted in keeping 
 their hearers prejudiced againft the fanaticifm of expe- 
 rimental religion ; then we might reafonably conclude 
 that we had a larger proportion of nominal profeflbrs 
 than thofe churches who admit only fuch as give a 
 fatiifaftory n-dfoti of ihe hope that is in them. 
 
 It is true, indeed, we neither make difciples, admit 
 members, nor orJain minifters, in this way ; yet, after all 
 our care in examining them according to the bep light lue 
 haw, we are very liable to err. Our brethren, it would 
 feem, are not fo much expofed ; for, if they have not 
 Overrated them.felves, " the light of ihe truth has been 
 a hundred, perhaps a thousand fold greater, in the 
 Paedobaptift churches than in the Baptift."* Mirabile 
 di£iu ! What an amazing difference ! Who does not 
 pity the poor benighted Baptifts ? Alfo all the piety, 
 learning, and talents, belonging to the Chriftian world, 
 our brethren claim, almofi: exclufively for themfelvcs.-j- 
 For all this vaft fuperiority, we moft refpedtfuUy ten- 
 der them " the homage of our high confidcraticn 
 but beg them in future, not to overwiielm ys with I'uch 
 arguments as thefe. 
 
 Mr. Anderfon, in his zeal to make a fair fjow of em- 
 inent men in the Paedobaptift churches, has fomehow 
 
 • Mr. Andcrfc/n'i Leu. p. 14. -i Vid. Mr. Worccfltr's Difc. p. 6S. 
 F f 
 
330 
 
 .^J:'PENDIX. 
 
 flipped in among them the author of the PiLGRiAfs 
 Progress.* Bunyan, though a Baptift, we fuppofe it 
 will ,be allowed was one of the good fort, for he held 
 to open communion. This being the cafe, how came 
 the Paedobaptifts to perfecute and imprifon him ? Was 
 it for any immoral conduft that he was configned to a 
 loathfome jail twelve years and a half? The reader, 
 perhaps, could judge better, if he Avere to know the 
 crime that was laid to his charge. The bill of indict- 
 ment preferred againft him runs tlms : " Jdfi Bunyan 
 — hath cievilipjly abjahied from coming to church, to hear 
 divine fervice ; and is a common upholder of feveral U7i- 
 laivful mtdings and conventiclesl to the diflurhance and dif- 
 trallion of the good fuhje£ls of this kingdom, contrary to the 
 laius of our fovereign lord the king,* For thus daring 
 to preach the gofpel, contrary to the laws of a tyran- 
 nical hierarchy, this good man was fent to prifon for.' 
 twelve years and fix months ! 
 
 It has often been urged, as an argument in favour 
 of the divinity of the Chriftian religion, that it made 
 its way at fir ft againft the learning, power and policy of 
 the world, by the inftrumentality of a few illiterate 
 ffhermen ! Does not this argument caft its full weight 
 into the fcale, in favour of our diftinguifliing fen- 
 timents, if the obfervations of our brethren refpeCling 
 us be juft ? Let the candid mind decide. May the 
 Lord preferve us from becoming vain by profperity. 
 We have great reafon to adore our Saviour Gnd, .that 
 our duty is made fo plain in his bleffed word ; that we 
 have fuch abundant proof that we are treading in the foot- 
 Jleps of the flock, and are followers of them who through 
 faith and patience are gone to inherit the promifes. 
 
 Notwithftanding our pradlice of immerfion, which 
 « is deemed indecorous by moft people accuftomed to 
 poliflied manners," and " denial of the extei-nal rite of 
 baptifni to the infant feed of believers yet, if it were 
 not for our " antichriftian pra£lice of clofe commu- 
 nion," it feems that our brethren could receive and treat 
 us as Chriftians. We therefore add a few obfervations 
 on free communion before we clofe. 
 
 • Lett. p. aj. t Notes on Claude, vol. ii. p, 228. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 S31 
 
 SECTION VIII. 
 
 The Principles of Open Communion examined — The Subje£l 
 concluded. 
 
 Is the communion for which our brethren plead, lim- 
 ited, or unlimited ? If limited, we wifli to be inform- 
 ed what ar«- its boundaries. If unlimited, then it muft, 
 we conceive, embrace all who bear the Chri/tian name. 
 « In thefe United States (faith a refpedlable writer) 
 there are probably more than fix millions of people 
 ivearing the Chrijllan name."* Is open communion 
 charitable enough to embrace all thefe ? No, furely ; 
 the thought is too extravagant to be ferioufly entertain- 
 ed. A conliderable proportion of thefe, have no other 
 connexion with Chriftianity, than only as it is the re- 
 ligion of the country in which they happened to be 
 born. However, they are all brought forward, and 
 each counts one againft the Baptifts.f 
 
 But to fay no more of this. If we open our doors 
 for free communion, muft we not,, to aft confiftently, 
 receive all whofe right of memberflnp can be fup- 
 ported ? If fo, muft we not commune with all the bap- 
 ' tized children which belong to PiedobaptiR* congrega- 
 tions ? Our brethren place the right of their infants 
 on the fame footing with their own •, therefore, if their 
 argument be good, if we receive them, we muft re- 
 ceive their children alfo. Should we admit the be- 
 lieving parents, and refufe their baptized children, 
 might they not ftill continue the dreadful charge, that 
 we " deny God's everlafting covenant of fuperabound- 
 ing grace, the grand charter of the inheritance and 
 privileges" of their infant feed ? We fee nothing to 
 forbid. But it may be faid, this is more than they 
 praftife themfelves ; and therefore, it would not be 
 expefted of the Baptifts. We grant that they do not 
 praftife it ; and on that account we think them ex- 
 tremely inconfiftent. In contending with us, they 
 ftrenuoufly infift upon the right of their infants to 
 memberfliip, and yet themfelves deny them the moft 
 
 ♦ Dr. OfgocdjDifc. p 41. f Ibid. 
 
1)38 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 eflcntial privileges which every member has a right t© 
 enjoy ! 
 
 But n)ould we give up this idea, arid narrow the 
 field of free communion, fo as to include onlv fuch 
 as are a^lual members of Pa;dobaptil"t churches ; we 
 ftould ftill wifli to inquire, whether it would be ex- 
 peiSted, that we fhould commune with all of them, 
 whether Cahinifts, Arminians, Semi-Arians, Socinians, 
 or Unitarians ? If not, where are we to fix the difcrim- 
 inating line ? Do the ftricl Calviniftic or Hopkinfian 
 churches commune with thofe whom thcv confider as 
 Arminians, or Semi-Arians ? If not, do they not prac- 
 tile clofe communion as well as the Baptifts ? Do 
 thofe churches which require of erery peribn in order 
 to memberfiiip, either a verbal or written declaration 
 of their experience of a work of grace upon their 
 hearts, hold communion tvith t]\ofe churches which 
 require no fuch experience, and which believe nothing 
 in fuch a work ? If they do not, are they not incon- 
 iiftent to blame us for our particular communion ? If 
 thev do, are they not ftill more inconfiftent ? 
 
 With a view to reheve thefe difficulties, fome have 
 ftated the plan of free communion in this way : — That 
 we fhould hold communion with all fuch, and with fuch 
 only, as we confcientioufly believe to be real Chriftians ; 
 God's own dear children by the Spirit of adoption and 
 a living faith. This is indeed by far the moft con- 
 fiftent plan j but even this is attended with fome fe- 
 xious difficuhies. It is believed that in all Chriftian 
 communities there may be found fome of the above 
 defcription. There ivere even ir: Snrdis a few natms 
 ivhich had not difiled their grnnetits, though living in a 
 church which had moft awfully apoftatized from the 
 truth. On this principle we might freely commune 
 with one member, and rejeft another at the fam.e time, 
 whole Ihmding was equally good in the church to 
 which they belonged. But what heart-burning and 
 confufion this would produce ; and yet it might be un- 
 avoidable in many cafes. 
 
 The faft is, we conceive, that there is but one con- 
 fiftent method, by which oceafional communion can be 
 pra£tifed between the members of fifter churches. This 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 333 
 
 is not upon the principle of individual, but of church 
 ftUoivJlnp. If we could receive one member of a church, 
 by the fame rule we could receive every member of 
 the fame church. We do not know the precife order 
 in which our Pjedobaptift brethren proceed ; but think 
 it the general pradice in our churches, that when a 
 brother, w^ho is a ftranger, requefts occafional com- 
 munion, if by a certificate (or otherwife) he can fatisfy 
 us, that he is a member in regular {landing, in any 
 church of the fame faith and order with ourfelves, he is 
 readily admitted. The only evidence which we have 
 of the man in this cafe is, from the character of the 
 church of which he is a member. We imagine the 
 practice of our brethren is not very diffimilar. 
 
 There are fome P^edobaptifl churches which appear 
 to be built of lively Jlones, and where the truths of the 
 gofpel in general are preached, and a good degree of 
 difcipline maintained. With thefe we have no material 
 difficulty, excepting in the article of baptifm. We 
 could mofi: cheerfully unite with them in every aft of 
 Chriftian duty, which would not in our view contravene 
 fome other part of the revealed will of Chrift. In the 
 article of communion, we feel bound to treat them juft 
 as we do our own members, after they are received in- 
 to our fellowlhip, but not baptized. Should we treat 
 them as baptized perfons, would they not with great 
 propriety charge us with our inconfiftency 
 
 There are other churches, with which we freely ac- 
 knowledge we could not commune, if we had no ob- 
 jeftions to their baptifm. It is not becaufe we do not 
 think them refpeftable members of fociety, but becaufe 
 we have no evidence that they are real Chriftians. We 
 have no doubt but in thefe communities, there may be 
 fome fincer* believers ; but where a change of heart is 
 not conlidered as a necefl'ary qualification for member- 
 fliip, there is always a high probability, that a large 
 proportion of the members are unacquainted with the 
 truth, as it is in Jefus. On the whole, we fee no way 
 that looks more confiftent than our prefent practice. 
 From all the evidence which has been fet before us, 
 we cannot bring ourfelves to believe that any thing is 
 
APPENDIX^ 
 
 baptifm fhort of immerfion. Nor can we fee our way 
 clear to invite any to the communion table until they 
 have been baptized. 
 
 But why is it thought fo important, that different 
 denominations fliould be agreed in the article of table- 
 communionj more than in other things ? Is it any more 
 eflentlal to falvation, that we commune together at the 
 Lord's table, than that we fliould be rightly baptized ? 
 For ourfelves, we believe neither of them effential to- 
 falvation. We are hence unable to difcern, why our 
 refufing to admit the Psedobaptifts to communicate 
 with us, fhould injure their churches, any more than 
 their not admitting us fliould injure our's. 
 
 Our brethren charge us with laying an undue ftrefs 
 upon baptifm ; at leaft upon a particular mode of it. 
 But their arguments have been infufficient to produce 
 conviftion. On the other hand, we think they lay an 
 undue ftrefs on our communicating together at the Lord's 
 table. Ritual duties, they have conftantly inflfted, 
 were to be claffed among the non-ejpntials of religion. 
 How then fhall we reconcile the conduct of thofe min- 
 ifters and churches, who profefs t© hold the doctrine 
 of fovereign difcriminating grace, and yet unite with 
 others, who hold every grade of doftrine, down to So- 
 ctnianifniy merely becaufe they are agreed in the article 
 of infant baptifm? At the fame time, they reject all 
 kind of connexion with their Baptift brethren, who 
 believe and preach the fame important truths which 
 they profefs to believe. Nay, do they not in fome 
 inftances, warn their people to fhun them as they 
 would the peftilence ? 
 
 Our pulpits have been generally open to all evangelic 
 minifters, whether they have been buried in baptifm, or 
 only fprinkled-,. and we rather think. they will ftill re- 
 main fo. Some of our brethren, in return, invite us 
 into their's ; while ^others very confcientioufly refufe, 
 afligning as a reafon, their fears, that it would have a. 
 tendency to make a divilion among their people. Did 
 •we differ in points of do£trine, the objeftion would have 
 weight, but now it is of little force. We do not be- 
 lieve that an inftance can be named, in which any have 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 preached upon their diftinguilliing fentiments, when 
 in each others' pulpits. Where then is the mighty- 
 danger ? No where but hi imagination. We have 
 Mever apprehended any danger, from their preaching 
 the truth to our people. 
 
 Nor are we conicious of feeling, or difplaying, that 
 rage for profelyting, which our opponents charge us 
 •with. " Eadh individual, (fays Dr. Oi'good) whom they 
 can perfuade to renounce Ins former baptifm,, by being 
 thus baptized over again, they confider as being recov- 
 ered from a firate cf heathcnifm." (P:1.0.) We think, 
 the Doctor would have fpoken more correclly, If he had 
 faid, " They baptize all fuch as we cannot perfuade xo keep 
 out of the water." Whenever a perfon renounces P;cdc- 
 baptifm, and comes over to t'-ce Baptil^s, it is immediately 
 laid, " Somebody has been perjuadmg him." So far is 
 this from being true generally, that we have reafon to fear 
 that the dread of being accufed of profelyting, has, in 
 too many Infhinces, kept us from fully declaring this part 
 of.the couiifel of God. We appeal to Pafdobaptift min- 
 ifters to fay, whether they have not, (many of them at 
 leaft) had repeatedly to ufe all the arts of perfuafton to 
 keep their people from being Baptifts ? If there be 
 nothing In the Bible which looks with a favourable af- 
 pe<St upon the Baptlfr fcntiment, we alk, how it happens 
 that fo many P3cdobapi;ift minifters have confeiTed, that 
 at fome former period of their lives, (though through 
 mercy they are now well eftabllHied) they had ftrong 
 doubts refpedtlng their infant baptifm What but the 
 bible perfuaded Mr. Dunfter, the firft Prefident of Har- 
 vard Univerfity, to embrace the Baptift fentiments ?. 
 Surely he could not have been perfuaded by, the Baptifts •,. 
 for at this time they were fcarcely allowed to breathe 
 the air of Maflachufetts. It is faid, " he thought hlm-s- 
 felf under obligation, to bear his teftimony In fome fer-- 
 mons, agalnft the adminlftration of baptifm to any In- 
 fants whatfoevcr."* What his temerity cort him, the 
 author of the Hiftory of MaiTachufelts will Inform us. 
 Speaking of the rife of AmlpiEdobaptifm in the prov- 
 ince, he fays, " Mr. Dunfter, the Prefident of the Col- 
 
 • Mitchcl'* Life, p. 67, ia Backus. 
 
336 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 lege, made profefHon of it, and was forced to quit his 
 prelidentihip." To which he adds, " Mr. Chauncy, his 
 fucceffor, hi'ld Immerfioii necejfary^ but was content that 
 the ordinance ihould be adminiftered to infants, pro- 
 vided it was done in that way." He further remarks, 
 that " in Mr. Hooker's time, foon after the year 1(540, 
 it appears by his letters, that many were inclmeJ thai way, 
 and he exprelTes his apprehenfions, tliat the number 
 would increafe."* Whether his apprehenfions were 
 excited by a prophetic fpirit, we pretend not to fay ; 
 but they appear to have been well founded. We wifh, 
 in future, vvhenever the Tons of Harvard zt& difpofed 
 to treat the advocates of immerfion as being deftitute 
 of literary patronage, they may remember, that their 
 two firft Prefidents underiiood baptifm, as we do, to 
 mean immersiom. 
 
 The preceding remarks contain forae of our difficul- 
 ties refpetSting the plan of free communion. To us, the 
 ftanding of many churches at the prefent day, appears 
 to be fimilar to thofe of Afia, to which John was dire£t- 
 ed to write. Although they were not difowned of 
 God, yet the moft of them were reproved for having 
 departed from their original purity. 
 
 There are many individuals in the different commu- 
 nities with whom we could moft cheerfully communi- 
 cate at the Lord's table, did we believe them to be bap- 
 tized. But their arguments in favour of their practice 
 do not fatisfy us, and we cannot fee how they can fatisfy 
 them. To acknowledge that the fcriptures are our " c«- 
 ly rule of faith and praclice" and then proceed to argue 
 from, their ftUtice, looks to us as inconfiftent, as to admit 
 the teftimony of the guard, who reported that the dif- 
 ciples of Jefus ftole him away while they flept. 
 
 When the mode of our obedience to a politive infli- 
 tute, (Inftead of better ground) reforts to this, that 
 •« there is abfolutely no text or fentence in the Bible 
 forbidding it :"f or, that " there is nothing in the 
 fcriptures agalnft it :"f it eftabliflies to us one point,' 
 and one- only, that is, that the caufe which requires it 
 
 * Hutch, Hift. Maff. p. 129. 
 f Dr. or^ood, p. 49. Mr. Worcefter, p. 69. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 337 
 
 labours exceedingly. The ve;iclcr will contrnft the fol- 
 lowing obfervatioiis with the above. 
 
 " Religion, (faid the excellent Claude) in all its parts, 
 ought to proceed from God : for as he has not left it 
 to the choice of man to have or not have a religion ; 
 fo neither has he left it to his f^mc^ to invent fuch a wor- 
 fhip as he choofes."* An old Engliih divine fays, 
 " We muft have God's warrant for God's worfliip. 3t. 
 Paul proves, that the tribe of Judah had nothing to do 
 with Aaron's priefthood, from the ftlence of Moles ; of 
 ivhich tribe M-jfes fprihe miking concerning priejlhood." 
 He reafons as follows : "God employed Mofes to re- 
 Teal his will to the Jews. Mofes fpakc nothing of Ju- 
 dah's priellhood. Therefore God would not have 
 that tribe officiate in the prieft's ofiice. What God 
 would have his church practife, lince the abolition of 
 Judaifm, he has revealed by Chrift and his apoftles. 
 The apolHes have regijlcrcd ihrfe appointment! in thefcrip^ 
 turej"\ It hence appears, that St. Paul confidered the 
 ftlence of the fcriptures, in a light exaftly oppofite to 
 what our brethren do. He argued from it, that what 
 was not written was implicitly forbidden. They argue> 
 that what is not forbidden, may lawfully be pradHfed. 
 
 We oppofe infant baptifm becaufe we do not believe 
 it to be divine. If it be an apoftolic tradition, it is an 
 unwritten one. We baptize believers, becaufe we have 
 politive fcripture proof that they were baptized in the 
 days of Chrift and the apoftles. We pradlife immer- 
 fion, becaufe to us it appears exceedingly plain from 
 the fcriptures that John the Baptift, who was fcnt 
 from God to introduce tliis now difpcnfition, baptized 
 IN Jordan ; and in Enon becaufe there was much ivater. 
 'i'he much water is mentioned, as necelHiry to his bap- 
 tizing, and to nothing elfe. V/ e alio believe that Jefus 
 our Lord and Saviour was plunged in Jordan. We fur- 
 ther believe that this was the only way in which the 
 apoftles received and adminiftered the ordinance. 
 
 Jefus firft wade d'rfciples, and then baptized them. 
 The commiflion which he gave to teach and baptize, 
 correfponds with his own praiLlice. " The order runs 
 
 *■ Difc. on a Ser. vol. i. p. ai6. 
 ■(• Gouge on the riith. of Hebrews. 
 
338 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 thus, Teach al! tiatious baptizing them. The thing fpeaks- 
 for itfelf 5 the ftyle is popular ; the fenfe plain : it muft 
 mean either — baptize whole nations, or fuch of all na- 
 tions aj receive your inftruftions, and defire to be bap- 
 tized. The fn-ft is too grofs to be admitted, becaufe 
 it cannot be effected without force ; and the groflhefs 
 of the one inftantly turns the mind to the other, the- 
 plain and true fenfe. , In the principles of the kingdom 
 of Chrift there is neither fraud nor force ; nor is it fuit- 
 able to the dignity of the Lord Jisfus Chrift, to take 
 one man by coiivlBion, and his ten children by furprifeT* 
 Bifhop Beveridge, with many others, have tried to 
 make out, that the Greek word [matheteufate) to teach, 
 or make difciples, would admit of making them without 
 teaching. "But I believe (faid a very correct writer) 
 it would pnzzle a whole conclave of Jeiuits, to make a 
 ilifciple of Chrift, or z Chri/Iian, without ieackivg." Col- 
 ledling our ideas of a difaph from the New Teftament, 
 and we are at once led to a believer in the Lord Jefus 
 Chrift. Thefe difciples all defire the fiticere milk of the 
 WORD : hvit thjjfe "little difciples" defire no higher 
 nourifliment than what a good healthy nivfe can afford 
 them. But it is faid, " they are entered into Chrift's 
 fchool, and deftined to learn."f Indeed ! — But do men 
 enter their children as fcholars as foon as they are born, 
 becaufe they intend to fend them to fchool, fhould they, 
 live to be four or five years eld ? A man may be fup- 
 pofed to form an intention, foon after the birth of a fon, 
 to bring him up at college ; but would he not be thought 
 a madman, fliould he attempt to enter him as foon as he 
 was born, or before he was fitted, or was even capable 
 of receiving the loweft degree of inftruction ?. We will, 
 only fay, nve have not fo learned Chri/l. 
 
 Notwithftanding we cppofe with fome degree of zeal 
 what v/e -look upon to be error ir) our brethren, yet. we 
 rejoice whenever we hear or fee the work of God 
 among them- Concerned as we are, that the ordi- 
 nances fliould be kept pure, as they were delivered by 
 the apoftles, it is ftill a minor confideration. Our firft 
 xnd great concern is, that men be made Chriftians. 
 
 • Roliinfons 
 
 t Dr. Ofgood's Difc. p. 7i. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 339 
 
 %V'e have no Idea that baptifm in any mode will make 
 Chriftians, either of infants or adult*.* 
 
 We baptize fuch as have been fprinkled in their 
 infancy, when they defire it of us, provided they can 
 fatisfy us that they are fit fubje<Sts ; becanfe we think 
 with Teriullfan, " that he that is not rightly baptized, 
 is doubtlefs not baptized at all." Such as have been 
 baptized, that is, Inimerfod, upon a .profeflion of faith, 
 by Pxdobaptifls, we do not re-baptize : but if they have 
 only been fprinkled, though adults, when they come 
 over to us, we baptize them.f Infant baptifm to us is 
 defeflive, both in the fubjeci and 7iiodr, and has a ten- 
 dency to defeat the defign of the ordinance, which was 
 intended to be a fignificant fign of faith in Chrift. 
 
 If baptizing fuch as have not been rightly baptized 
 "be anabaptifm., then there were hundreds and thoufands 
 long before the madmen of Munfter (as their enemies 
 are pleafed to call them) in 1522. Befides many indi- 
 viduals from Tertullian down to the Reformation, were 
 there not large fects, fuch as the Donatifts, in the fourth 
 century, the Paulicians, in the feventh, eighth and 
 ninth, the Waldenfes in the eleventh, who baptized 
 fuch as came over to them from other fedls .'' Dr. 
 Mofheim allows, that " the origin of the {&€t is hid in 
 
 * The quedion was once aflced one of the Paulianifts (an ancient 
 .fe(ft,) " Why do you not haptizc your fon, to expel the devil out of 
 • Tiira ? Oh, anfwcrcd he, no water can waft the devil out of the child. 
 Monfter ! faid ti e other, you deny baptifm and the influence of the 
 Holy Gkall." Monftrous abfurdity ! 
 
 t Mr. Worcefier feettis to be much difturbed at the proceedings of 
 the Baptills at Sedgwick, for admioiftering baptifm, forming a church, 
 &c. , " 1 hus (fays he) in the face of the world, was the great body of 
 our churches and minifters, &c. deitbcrattly fet at nought. 'J his has 
 been widely, and with great exultation, fpread abroad by the Anti- 
 pjfcdobaptiftt." And would not the Pazdobaptifts " exult" a little, if a 
 Baptifl rainifter, his wife, three deacons, and eighty others, ftould all 
 come over to them at once ? Hjs not the defeftion of Mr. Kdwards 
 from our fcntimerts, been a theme of as much " exultation " among 
 them ? Hss not a folitary inftance of a Afrs. Jackfon, in the State of 
 Vermont, been conveyed to Bofton, and attached to fcveral publications, 
 and vaft pains taken to fpread it ? Not only fo, buc has not an inftance 
 of one, whu by the " overwhelming attentions of the Baptifts," haa liic 
 U have teen ene, but mercifully efcaped, been widely proclaimed abroad? 
 Vid. the lucubrations of a fetticoot prieji, over the fienature of LroiAi 
 iH ttc Mair. MiiT. Mag. 
 
340 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 the remoteft depths of antiquity that they " O.irted 
 up all of a fudden in feveral countries, at the lame point 
 of time, under different .leaders, at the vny period when 
 the firft conteft of the reformers with the Roman pon- 
 tiffs drew the attention of the world," &c. 
 
 But -having far exceeded our propofed limits, we 
 halten to cloie the fubjeft with a few words of addrcfs. 
 
 To the Pacdobaptiflis. 
 
 I?ELOViD Brethren- — When you caft your eyes upon the Baptift 
 churches, you behoid a people ffread abroad, who h.ive riftn fr<.m a 
 handful to a great multitutie Like the primitive cliurch, thty have 
 hiH to encoujitcr all the prejudices of the learned and of the ignorant. 
 As thty liave never been aided by civil power, their progreft niuft be 
 attributed to fomc other caufe. We befecch you candidly to weigh the 
 evidence exhibited in the preceding; woik, and conip re it with thjt by 
 which you Tuj port your own fentiment»; and may tliv Lord help y<m 
 to know and do his will. 
 
 To the Baptlfts. 
 
 BELOVro BreTHKF.N — Unto you it is gi'jen, in tie kth.ilf of Ch)iJl,Kot 
 only to belic'oe on him, but al/o to fuffer fir his fake. From the days of 
 your perfecuted anceftor, who was ohlrged to crols the Patucket, to en- 
 joy among favages thofe rights of tonfcieiice, which had been denied 
 him by Chrilli.!)is, yrur hilioiy exhibits repeated inflancet of cruel 
 nioiUngs, and of the ft'oii'ng r,f y,ur goods and fbnic of bonds nnd imprifon- 
 ment. The American revolution has meliorated your condition. Truth 
 nuift prevail. Its progreis will naturally be more rapid, when not im- 
 peded by religious eftab!ilhment$, and penal laws. 
 
 We beleech you, brethren, a-. pilgrims and jir angers, to adorn your pro- 
 fefiion, by a holy, humble walk. The pro>jre(s of your principles, and 
 incrcafe of your churches (under God) depends not lefs upon the nn- 
 blameablenefs of your lives, than upon the purity of your /cntiments. 
 If your brethrin hate you, and cajl you out fur hit name's fale, requite 
 them (jnly with kindnel's. ' In this way you will put to filence the igno- 
 ranci of foolifh Ken. 'I'hc prcfeut period is aufpicious; (3 for wifdom to 
 improve it. See that you fall not out by the way. Finally, brethren, 
 •we lefeich you, that you ivalL v/orthy of the ■Docatlon ivheie'.vitb you are 
 tailed ; 'uiitb all Uiulintfs and mciln f, with ling-fuffering, f oi hearing one 
 another in Itvt ; endeavouring t» hep tie unity of ti,t Spirit in the ionJ <f 
 ftaet. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
r 
 
 I 
 
 1