BAP 
 KI6I 
 
^' 
 
 ni 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Q_ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 'C 
 
 
 ^w 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 nJ 
 
 
 
 f ^ 
 
 Ti: 
 
 
 
 ^«» Hs 
 
 -C 
 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 S) ^ 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 ^»^ 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 c 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 "oj 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 E 
 to 
 
 1 
 
 } 
 
 
 _Q 
 
 s; 
 
 ^ 
 
 -o 
 
 ■5^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 #> 
 
 CL 
 
 s 
 
 Jo 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 

TMJATISE oaf BAPTISM, 
 
 IN WHICH 
 
 ITS XrATTTRZ:, SUBJECTS, 
 
 AND 
 
 MODE OF ADMINISTRATION 
 
 ARE SCRIPTUBALLY AND RATIONALLY STATED AND VINDICATED 
 
 ?rznczpa:l ailgux^sstts and objectzoxs 
 
 OF 
 ANTIPiEDOBAPTIST WRITERS 
 
 CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND ANSWERED, 
 
 BY JAMES M LAUGHLIN. 
 
 LONDONDERRY: 
 
 PAINTED BY MOSS. HEMPTON, FERRYQUAY^STREET. 
 
 1834. 
 
PRx::rA€£& ^ "-^ '^>> - 
 
 W'lTHOUT detaining the reader with a lengthened preface^ which such 
 as may read the work itself will not require, and from which, such as 
 ■will not read the work could not form a correct judgment, respecting 
 the arguments it contains — the autlior would just observe, tliat; his 
 apology for appearing before the publick on the present occasion, is 
 a conviction that (notwithstanding the many excellent books already 
 published on Baptism,) the following pages may be useful to persons 
 not having much time for research and liable to hear the subject 
 misrepresented. To the intelligent reader it will be evident, that 
 different writers have been consulted, and several old arguments again 
 produced, which, (their original proprietors being now unknown,) are 
 like a kind of common stock ^ree for everi/ man's use . and which 
 like sterling coin, never having been refuted, have lost nothing of their 
 value, through either their age or their frequent circulation. The 
 author farther observes, that among the different works to which he 
 acknowledges himself indebted, he would particularli/ notice, "Wat- 
 son's Theological Institutes," as that which has served him most, as 
 best suiting his design. It is not, however, to the persons who may 
 have said such or such things, that he %vishes so much to direct 
 the attention, as to the things thejuselves. For he considers it of 
 greater importance to ascertain, whether Injcmt Baptism, and Baptism 
 hy pi,uritig and sprinkli7ig, be true or false, whether they be agreeable 
 to scripture and reason or not, than to know who may have been 
 their advocates. 
 
 The existence of a diversity of sentiment among Pa;dobaptists on 
 some particular points, can no more affect their cause, than a similar 
 diversity among Antipaedobaptists can affect theirs — than for instance 
 a difference in sentiment between such Baptists as Mr. Carson, Mr. 
 Robinson, Dr. Gale, &c. respecting the meaning of Bapto and Baptizo, 
 can affect the Baptist cause. Indeed to make this an argument on 
 either side, is to argue in favour of Infidelity and against Christi- 
 anity, whose professors and defenders, on several points, think differ- 
 ently. Hence it follows, that this principle affords no ground for 
 construing the insignificancy of a writer, or the imperfections attached 
 to the method in which he treats his subject, to the disadvantage of 
 the cause he espouses. That a good cause has sometimes suffered 
 through the feeble, although well meant efforts of its advocate, must 
 be admitted, but that in suffering thus it suffered unjustly must also 
 be maintained. For a. few good arguments, like a few pj'oper wic- 
 nesses, are sufficient to establish a fact, although there may be others of 
 no value brought forward with them. Therefore, unless our prin- 
 cipal arguments for Baptism being a covenant transaction, for the 
 children of believing parents being proper subjects for the ordinance, 
 and for pouring or sprinkling being a rational and scriptural mode of 
 administering it— unless these be shewn to be false, unless they ba 
 fairli/ met and refuted, our opponents cannot be calculated upon as 
 having dene any thing to purpose j our cause raust triuRiph. As for 
 
angry words, disrespectful epithets, and slanderous insinuations, such 
 as our last pages shew Mr. Carson has cast out against his opponents, 
 they are no more to be considered as capable of affecting the persons 
 or cause agains-t which they are cast, than a good fortification and the 
 persons intrenched therein, are to be considered as affected by distant 
 sound and smoke ! 
 
 The assertion of Baptists that children are as well entitled to ;>«>'- 
 iake of the Lord's Supper as to be baptized, that they are as Jit for 
 the one ordinance as they are for the other, is an assertion unsupported 
 by scripture and contrary to reason. For, as the two ordinances are 
 liever mentioned in conncxioyi in the New Testament, nor, as if a 
 right to the one included a right to ihe other ; and as they are different 
 in their nature, have diflerent ends to answer, and are given upon 
 different grounds, they must require different qualifications, conse- 
 quently the representing that the person who is fit for the one ordinance 
 must he fit for the other — that whosoever is fit for Baptism , must be fit 
 for the Lord's Supper, is both an unscriptural aird an unreasonable 
 representation ! 
 
 The fallacy of supposing that the obligation to baptize the child of art 
 unbeliever is as gi-cat as what it is to baptize the child of a believer, 
 because the one is as holy, and therefore as fit for the ordinance cX 
 Baptism as the other — the fallacy of such a supposition will be manifest, 
 if we consider, L That the right to the ordinance or the fitness for it 
 xloes not consist in the one child being more holy than the other, as in 
 this respect there is no difference. 2. That as religion will not allow 
 any man being deprived of his rightful property, and as the unbeliever's 
 children are his rightful property, they must not be taken from him 
 iand given for training to the Christian church, the School of Christ. 
 And, 3. That to profess to initiate children by Baptism, into the 
 'church of Christ, in order to their being instructed in the doctrines 
 and duties of Christianity, and then afterwards to leave them to the 
 disposal of ungodly parents who would deprive them of such in- 
 struction, would be folly in the extreme. Hence it is clear the children 
 tof believing parents only should be baptized. 
 
 To conclude, as certain readers on the author's own side of tlie 
 question may think differently from him, respecting the propriety of 
 Jiaving introduced some of the subjects contained in the following 
 notes, and also respecting the manner in which he has arranged his 
 arguments, and performed his task, he would in the words of an 
 Apocraphal writer, just observe in reference to both maltcr and manner, 
 *' That if he have done well and as fitting the subject, it is that 
 which he desired : but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which he 
 could attain unto." 
 
 Londonderry, March 1834, 
 
-\. <^.^' 
 
 A TREATISE ON BAJ»TIStt, 
 
 !<■ 
 
 ^^- "^i:^J 
 
 That, to make little ihmgs great, or great things little^ is 
 wrong, both scripture and reason certify ; for, according 
 to both every thing should be estimated in proportion to 
 its real value. Hence, according to reason, water, as 
 being more valuable than wine, should be more highly 
 esteemed, and, on the same principle, bread should 
 be preferred to gold. And according to scripture, the 
 soul should be preferred to the body, 3'ea to the whole 
 world ; the things which are not seen, which are eternal, 
 to the things which are seen, which are only temporal ; 
 the reproach of Christ to the treasures of Egypt, the 
 suffering affliction with the people of God, to the enjoy- 
 ing of the pleasures of sin for a season, yea, to all the 
 riches, honours, and pleasures of a vain and transitory 
 world ; as those things are, in their connexions and 
 consequences, of a vastly superior value to these, 
 whioh the deluded sons of earth so highly prize and so 
 ardently pursue.* 
 
 Now, that the Scribes and "Pharisees, in opposition to 
 both scripture and reason, made lUtle things greats by 
 paying tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and by mag- 
 nifying their tradition above the commandment of God, 
 is, on scripture authorit}^, manifest beyond contra- 
 diction; and that they also m?id.e great thmgs Utile, by 
 omitting the weightier matters of the law, jud*:n.ert, 
 mercy, and faith, and by making the commandment of 
 (}od of no effect through their tradition, that they 
 thus strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel, the sa- 
 cred pages as clearly testif3^f 
 
 * Mat. xvi. 26.-- 2 Cor. iv. 18.— Heb. xi. 24—26. 
 f Mat. XV. 1 — 6. — xxiii. 22 — 25. On the last cited text we may 
 observe, that it is strange that such a false print as, strain ai a gnat, which 
 
 B 
 
And that there are persons in our own day, whose 
 character is essentially different from that of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees, persons who do not omit the weightier 
 matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faitli, who do 
 not make the commandment of God of no effect, through 
 their tradition ; yet who do make little things ^reat by 
 attaching an importance to certain modes and circum- 
 stantials of religion, which the scriptures do not war- 
 rant ; requires not any rxtraordmary degree of wisdom 
 to discern. And that such persons as lay a particular 
 stress on the mode of applying the water, in the ordi- 
 nance of Baptism, are of this description, that such per- 
 sons are making /^/^/e things ^rc«/, appears as evidently 
 as it would appear, that such persons would be of this 
 description, as in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, 
 would lay a particular stress on the mode of its cele- 
 bration. 
 
 For, as both Ordinances are of Divine appointment, 
 as it is as expressly said, '^'Do this in remembrance of me," 
 as it is said "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost," a compliance with the command is in both 
 cases equally imperative ; and as in the case of F>ap- 
 tism, (as we shall by and by make appear,) the mode of 
 applying the water forms no part of the Divine com- 
 mand, any more than in the case of the Lord's Supper, 
 the mode of its celebration forms a part of the Divine 
 command. Hence, the persons, who, in the Ordinance 
 of Baptism, lay a particular stress on the mode of ap- 
 
 quite alters the sense, should be suffered to run through so many edi- 
 tions of our English Bibles, and that it should not rather be, as it still 
 stands, in some of our first translations, "strain oni a gnat" — viz. 
 from the liquor you are going to drink, lest it should choke you. For 
 in those hot countries gnats were apt to fall into wine if it were not 
 carefully covered ; and passing the liquor through a strainer, that 
 no gnat, or part of one, might remain, grew into a proverb for ex- 
 actness about little matters ; and swallow a camel — the expression is 
 proverbial, and was made use of by our Lord on this occasion, tc 
 signify that the Pharisees pretended to be exceedingly afraid of the 
 smallest faults, as if sin had been bitter to them, like death, while they 
 indulged themselves secretly in the uniestrained commission of the 
 grossest immoralities. See Macknight, Doddridge, Wesley, anii 
 A. Clarke, on the passage. 
 
plying the water, are as much of the description of tliose 
 who make little things great, as the persons would be, 
 who, in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, would lay 
 a particular stress on the mode of its celebration. 
 
 Therefore, if in the case of the Lord's Supper, persons 
 would act foolishly, who would lay a particular stress 
 on i\\e place in which it should be celebrated whether in 
 an upper room, on a first floor, &c. who would lay a 
 particular stress on the time of the day* in which it 
 
 * But although there are no disputes among the different denomi- 
 nations of professing Christians re<-pecting the time of the day, in 
 which the Lord's Supper should be celebrated, yet whether the fol- 
 lowers of Christ be bound to communicate every first day of the 
 -»veek, is a question, which, we conceive, has been agitated with a de- 
 gree of feeling fully proportioned to its importance. The advocates 
 for weekly communion contend, that, by the Apostles and first Chris- 
 tians breaking bread, is td be understood, their partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper; they contend also, that, in all things, not extraordinary 
 c-r miraculous, we are bound to follow their example. And that as 
 they came together upon the tirst day of the week to break bread, we 
 must come together every first day of the week for the same purpose. 
 See Acts xx. 7. 
 
 Now, to this we reply, by observing, that it is a trite, but, at the 
 same time, a true remark, that, whatever proves too much proves 
 nothing. Hence, if by the Apostles and first Christians breaking bread, 
 must be understood their partaking of the Lord's Supper, and if, in 
 all things, not miraculous or extraordinary, we are bound to follow 
 their example, then, as they " continued daily breaking bread from 
 house to house," we must have, not a weekly, but a daily com- 
 munion, and that alternately from house to house. And as they had 
 all things common, as none of them said that ought of the things 
 which he possessed was his own, we also must have a community of 
 goods, none of us must say that any of the things which he possesses 
 is his own, all things must be common among us also. And in re- 
 ference to the Disciples coming together upon the first day of the week 
 to break bread, as in the text above quoted, we would observe, that 
 it is not there said that they came together et<?r^ first day of the week 
 for such a purpose. Hence, we observe, that the same mode of ex.. 
 pression would have been used had they not come togethei for fifty- 
 two weeks before, or were they not to have met again for the same 
 purpose for the same length of time afterwards; still in the recording of 
 tl)e transaction of their meeting together, it would be said that they came 
 togfcther on the first day of the week to " break bread." Therefore, we 
 observe that from the mere form of expression used in stating the cir- 
 cumstance, no certain conclusion in favour of weekly communion can 
 be drawn, any more than from its being recorded, Mark. xvi. L — 2, of 
 
8 
 
 should be celebrated, whether in the morning, at noon- 
 day, in the evening, &c. — on any particular number ot 
 communicants, whether twelve, or twelve hundred 
 
 &c on the posture in which the communicants should 
 
 be placed, whether standing, sitting, kneeling, re- 
 clining, &c. — on the quantity and quality of the 
 bread and wine to be used, whether as much as at a 
 common meal, or any other definite quantity ; and whe- 
 ther the quality be such as is commonly used, or of some 
 other particular description. If persons who would lay 
 a particular stress on these things, which are only the 
 modes and circumstantials of the Ordinance, of the po- 
 sitive institute, and form no part of the Divine command, 
 '^Do this in remembrance of me ;" if such would act 
 foolishly, must not those also, on the same principle of 
 making little things great, act equally so, who, in the Or- 
 dinance of Baptism, lay a particular stress on the mode 
 of applying the water, which, as we will shortly shew, 
 forms no part of the Divine command, '' Go and teach 
 all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, any more than 
 the quantity and quality of the water to be used form a 
 part of the Divine command. 
 
 For the scriptures leave the case, at least, as much un- 
 certain women that they had bought sweet spices that they might come 
 and anoint Jesus, and that very early in the morning, the first day of 
 the week, they came unto the sepulchre, any more than from this, we 
 could infer that they came there very early every succeeding first day 
 of the week for the same purpose. But even supposing the advocates 
 for weekly communion, who are in the habit of looking upon all 
 that are not of their mind on this subject, as acting in opposition to 
 the authority of the Most High in his word; supposing they could 
 even prove from the scriptures, what they cannot — namely, that theirs 
 was the original practice. Still we would ask them, might not a 
 change in circumstances justify a change from weekly communion, as 
 well as a change in circumstances has, in their own judgment, (unless 
 they condemn what they at present practice,) justified a change from 
 daily communion, and from having all things common? But as the 
 Apostle's language on this subject is, as often as ye eat this bread 
 and drink this cup, without specifying fioiu often, our conclusion is 
 in this, as well as in every other case, respecting which the scriptures 
 do not decide, to let every man peaceably do, as he is fully persuaded 
 in his own mind is best, for promoting God's glory, and his own 
 comfort and edification. 
 
d-etermined, respecting the mode of applying the water 
 in the Ordinance of Baptism, as they do respecting the 
 mode of receiving the Lord's Supper, yea even as much 
 as they do respecting the quantity and quality of water 
 that should be used in the form of Baptizing ; for, as 
 Baptizontes, the original word used by our Lord in the 
 commission given to his Apostles after his resurrection, 
 (Mat, xxviii. 19.) is, as our margmai references even 
 now shew, and as we shall fully establish when we come 
 to treat particularly of the mode of administering Bap- 
 tism, and to answer the objections made to our state- 
 ment ; as this woid is, in the sacred volume, applied to 
 the different modes oi^ pouring, sprinkling, and dipping, it 
 raustnecessarilybe an accommodating word, and, (at least 
 so far as the meaning of the word is concerned,) thus 
 leave any of these particular modes undetermined.* 
 
 But, indeed, were we even here to grant, what we posi- 
 tively deny, namely that the original word Baptize, 
 properly means only dipping; and were we, conse- 
 quently, to grant, that the original mode of Baptizing 
 was by dipping, still it would no more follow that we 
 .should adopt the same mode of administering this Or- 
 dinance, than it would follow, that because the original 
 mode of receiving the Lord's Supper was as a feast, or 
 common meal, was at night, was on couches, in a re- 
 clining posture, and in an upper room, that we also 
 should adopt the same mode of celebrating it, in every 
 one of these several particulars. 
 
 On this subject we shall here produce a case of criti- 
 cism, from Edwards's candid reasons for renouncing the 
 principles ot Antipcedobaptism, " That," says Mr. Ed- 
 wards, "on which this case is founded, is as follows : 
 It is well known that und( r the present dispensation 
 there are two instituted Ordinances ; the one in scripture 
 i» expressed by the term Deipnon, a Supper, the other 
 by Baptisma, Baptism. The proper and obvious mean- 
 ing Q^ Deipnon, is a feast or common meal. Mark vi. 2L 
 — John xxi. 22, The proper meaning of Baptisnia is ^aid 
 to be the immersion of the whole body : the case then is 
 this — if because the proper meaning of the term Bap- 
 
 * Reb. ix. iO. 1 Cor. x. 1,2. Mat. xxvi. 23. Dan. iv. 33. S,c. 
 
10 
 
 tismaj Baptism, is the immersion of the whole body, a 
 person, who i? not immersed, cannot be said to have 
 been Baptized, since nothing short of immersion, amounts 
 to the fidl import of the word Baptism ; if this be true, 
 I should be glad to know, that as Deipnoiiy a supper, pro- 
 perly means a feast or common meal, whether a person 
 Avho, in the use of that Ordinance, takes only a piece of 
 bread of half an inch square, and drinks a table spoon- 
 ful of wine, which is neither a feast nor a common meal, 
 and so does not come up to the proper meaning of the 
 word, can be said to have received the Lord's Supper." 
 
 Surely if because the proper meaning of Baptism be 
 immersion, and if no person who has not come up to the 
 proper meaning of the word by being immersed, can be 
 said to be baptized ; it must, on the same principle, fol- 
 low, that because the proper meaning of a supper is a 
 feast or common meal, that no person has ever obeyed 
 Christ's command, " Do this in remembrance of me," 
 who has not come up to the proper meaning of the word 
 by receiving the Lord's Supper as a feast or common 
 meal. And, consequently, as our Baptist brethren, not- 
 withstanding all their talk about precepts Qnd precedents^ 
 do not receive the Lord's Supper after this manner, they 
 are, according to their own principles, living in the most 
 tlagrant neglect of this Divinely instituted Ordinance. 
 
 But the simple fact is, that it is not upon the mere 
 mode of doing these things, that the scriptures lay the 
 stress ; that the things should be done, that Baptism 
 should be administered, and that the Lord's Supper 
 should be received, are truths which revelation establish- 
 es ; but in reference to the several modes of doing 
 them, the sacred pages, as we have already observed, do 
 not decide. 
 
 Indeed, the scriptures, in several other cases beside 
 those noticed above, respecting Baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper, require things to be done without specifying the 
 particular manner in which they should be done; for 
 instance, they require good to be done, benevolence to 
 be exercised, the hungry to be fed, the naked to be 
 clothed, &c. But the particular manner in which such 
 things should be done, they leave to be regulated by ex- 
 isting circumstances, and conseguently, undetermined ; 
 
11 
 
 for, whether such things should be done by a daily minis- 
 tration, from a common stock, by a weekly contribution, 
 for such purposes as those just now mentioned, or by every 
 man becoming his own almoner, and thus, personally, ac- 
 cording to thi2 ability which God giveth, ministering to 
 the wants of the necessitous, the sacr,5d pages do not de- 
 cide ; for, as the Holy Scriptures sanction the adopting of 
 these several different tocty^ of relieving the needy, without 
 ever repealing any of them, they must necessarily leave 
 any particular way undetermined. They therefore merely 
 require that such things should be done, but not the parti- 
 cular 7wa7?«er Iwiv ; this they leave to be regulated by the 
 performers of the duties themselves, as they, being ra- 
 tional creatures, may, under existing circumstances, 
 judge proper.* 
 
 That the doing of things is required by the Most 
 High in his ivord, while the manner in which they should 
 be done, or any particular mode of doing them, is left 
 undetermined, and consequently to be regulated as ex- 
 isting circumstances may require, is farther illustrated 
 in, and confirmed by the history of the Israelites in tiie 
 wilderness. For although Moses was appointed to be 
 the judge of that people, to make known to them the 
 mind and will of God on the several subjects concern- 
 ing which they came to him from day to day to enquire 
 — although he was to make known to them ''the statutes 
 of God and his laws ;" yet the manner in which this 
 was to be done, the particular mode of communicating 
 this knowledge, or of judging that people, was left un- 
 determined. Hence, when Jethro, his father-in-law, saw 
 his mode of proceeding, when he witnessed the manner 
 in which Moses administered justice to, and judged be- 
 tween one another of that great people, he said, ac once, 
 the thing is not good, that is, the mode of judging thou 
 hast adopted, the manner in which thou proceedest iii 
 the administering of justice, thy bearing the whole of 
 this burden thyself is not good ; for, as is evident froiw 
 
 * Mat. xxii. 39, Luke x. 27—37. Mat xxv. 35—4,6. Rom. 
 xii. 13,21. 1 Tim. vi. IS. Gal. vi. 10. Heb. xiii. IG, &c. 
 
 Acts ii. 44., 45. iv. .34—37. v. 1—4. vi., 1. xi. 27—30. 
 1 Cor. xvi. i— 3. 2 Cor. viii. 9, &c. 
 
12 
 
 the sequel, It was not with the thing done, that this wise 
 and good man, Jethro, found fault, but with the man- 
 ner in which it was done. Hence, he does not propose 
 a better standard by which justice should be administer- 
 ed, than that which Moses used, "the statutes of God 
 and his laws ;" indeed to have done such a thing would 
 have been absurd and blasphemous ; but what he pro- 
 poses is, a better mode cf using the standard already- 
 erected; and this mode, from the weight of the reasons 
 advanced by its proposer, Moses immediately adopts. 
 So we see that God in his word requires things to be 
 done, the particular manner of doing which, He leaves 
 undetermined.* 
 
 That the scriptures require things to be done without 
 specifying the particular manner of doing them — we 
 have still another instance, in the case of swearing, or 
 taking an oath ; for while the oath itself is required for 
 confirmation to be an end of all strife ; any particular 
 U'rtj/ of taking it is left undetermined. For, the sacred 
 pages, by setting before us approved precedents of con- 
 firming things in different xvays, or by different modes 
 must consequently leave any particular ii^ay undetermin- 
 ed. And that they do, by oath, require truth to bo de- 
 clared and confirmed, whether as referring to an asser- 
 tion respecting something which is stated to have alrea- 
 dy taken place, or to be still in existence ; or to an en- 
 gagement respecting the accomplishment of some 
 promise yet unfulfilled, or of something yet future, we 
 Jiave, as our marginal references clearly shew, the most 
 decisive evidence. f And that the mode or manner of 
 declaring and confirming truth has been various, that 
 the external act or acts accompanying a declaration 
 and confirmation thereof by oath^ have been very differ- 
 ent is equally evident from the sacred volume; for that 
 the oath has been taken, and truth thus declared and 
 confirmed, by the putting of the hand under the thigh; 
 by passing between the parts of the divided sacrifice; 
 
 * Exod. xviii. 13— 2G. 
 
 t Heb. vi. 16. Deut. vi. 13. x. 20. Isa. xix. 18. ,Ter. xa 
 IG. Zeph. i. .>. Num. v. 12,'98. Mat. xxvi. (i.S. Ivk 1 Sam, 
 xxvl. \(j. JoAi. ii. 8—22. vi. 22— 2.3. ix. 3—21. 1 Sam. xx. 
 11 — 17, &e. 
 
13 
 
 by lifting up the hand; by holding up the right hand and 
 the left ; by having a little book open in the hand, and 
 setting the right foot upon the sea, and the left foot 
 upon the earth, and crying with a loud voice, as when a 
 lion roareth, and lifting up the hand to heaven, and 
 swearing by him that liveth for ever and ever, &c.* 
 And also, by swearing by God's name ; by calling upon 
 him for a record ; by appealing to him as a witness ; by 
 imprecating his vengeance, :[: without any particular mode 
 or manner^ without any particular act or acts being 
 specified, as accompanying the declaration and con- 
 firmation thus made, every man who regards scripture 
 authority must unhesitatingly admit. 
 
 Therefore, from the whole, our reason and common 
 sense oblige us to conclude, that the scriptures, in many 
 cases, require things to be done, the particular manner of 
 doing which they leave undetermined ; and that the Or- 
 dinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as well as 
 the duties of doing good, of exercising benevolence, of 
 administermg justice, and of declaring truth, are among 
 the things which belong to this description. And, con- 
 sequently, that the man who, in these several different 
 cases, lays a particular stress on the viode or manner of 
 doing such things, goes out of his proper province ; falls, 
 with the Scribes and Pharisees, into the error of making- 
 little things great, of attachmg an importance to 
 the modes and circumstantials of religion which the 
 scriptures do not warrant; of being wise above what is 
 written ; of laying in such cases, the stress where the 
 wisdom of God does not lay it ; and of thus unnecessarily 
 widening the breach already made between the professed 
 followers of the same master, Christ ; yea, of (although 
 ever so unintentionally,) putting stumbling blocks, and 
 occasions to fall in the way of weak brethren. 
 
 But as the mode of administering Baptism shall be af- 
 terwards particularly examined, we will now; leave these 
 introductory remarks, which have been made in order to 
 illustrate our observation respecting the making of little 
 
 * Gen. xxiv. 2. xlviii. 29—31. xy. 9—18. xxi. 22—32. xiv. 
 22, 23 Dan. xii. 7. Rev. x. 1—6. 
 
 \ Heb. vi. 16. Deut. vi. 13. x.20. Isa. xJx. 18. Jer. xii. 16. Zeph. 
 i. 5. 1 Sam. i. 1 1. I Cor. i. 23. Phil. i. 8. 1 Tlies. ii. 5. 1 Sam. xxv. 22. 
 
14 
 
 things greaty and great things Utile, and which have 
 been lengthened bejond what we at tirst intended; we 
 will leave these and proceed to our main design of af- 
 fording satisfaction to such as may have been baptized, 
 by pouring or sprinkling in their infancy ; and as may 
 have had their children also, at an|^ early age, dedi- 
 cated to God in a similar' manner. For our design is, that 
 jsuch persons without suffering their minds to be per- 
 plexed with the mere modes and circumstantials of re- 
 ligion, may earnestly and importunately seek for them- 
 selves and their offsprmg, those things which according 
 to scripture, the Ordinance of Baptism particularly re- 
 presents — namely, the washing away of the guilt and 
 jlollution of sin, and the receiving of the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. As without the enjoying o^ these blessings, 
 no matter what mode may be adopted in the administering 
 or the reeeiving of any ordinance, neither safety nor hap- 
 piness, in time or in eternity, can be the consequence. 
 
 Nov*-, in order the better to accomplish our purpose, 
 we shall consider, 
 
 T. The nature of Baptism, 
 IJ. Its subjects. And, 
 III. The mode o^ its administration. And 
 
 I. — We are to consider the nature of Baptism. But 
 before we enter directly uposi this part of our work, 
 it may be necessary to make a few preliminary ob- 
 servations, i^nd, 
 
 First, we would observe, that the Ordinance of Baptism 
 is founded upon Divine authority, such as, first, the 
 solemn command given by our Lord, after his resurrection, 
 to his Apostles, saying, "Go and teach all nations, bap- 
 tising them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost." Second, upon the Apostles' practice, 
 upon thewthus shewing that they did not in this case un- 
 derstand their master's words m any other, than in a 
 literal sense ; hence, »ve find the Apostle Peter, on the 
 day of Pentecost, addressing such as were convinced of sin, 
 and earnestly enquiring what they should do, we find him 
 exhorting them thus, "repent, and be baptised every one 
 
15 
 
 of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Sec* 
 Second — We observe, that we dare not presume to 
 imagine that the most High, whose ways are just and 
 equa/y who is no respecter of persons, and who de- 
 clares, that the so7i shall not bear the iniquity of the 
 father^ we dare not presume to imagine, that He would 
 suffer any child, dying in infancy, because unbaptised, to 
 perish eternally, to perish for a parent's neglecting to 
 have it baptised. Hence, it is evident, that we do not 
 consider Baptism to be really and properly regeneration, 
 and consequently, as indispensably necessary to qualify 
 for heaven ; that in both these respects we dissent from 
 the Church of Rome, which teaches that Baptism is real- 
 ly and properly regeneration, and therefore absolutel}' 
 necessary to salvation, that every one dying without it 
 must perish everlastingly ; which teaches that every 
 baptised infant is thus freed from all original sin, from 
 all /ntcarf/and hereditary corruption ; and that ever}'' adult 
 is thus freed from, not only the inxvard and hereditary im- 
 purity to which every injant is subjected, but also from 
 the guilt of all inxvard and outn^ai'd transgression, trans- 
 gression of the heart and of the life, from which no 
 adult, merely human, has ever been exempted ; which 
 teaches, that every one, whether infant or adnh, is solely 
 and immediately by this means, by the mere external rite. 
 of Baptism, at once prepared for heaven. f But it may 
 be needful here, to show a little more at large, why we 
 
 • Mat. xxviii. 19. Acts ii. 38. viii. 26— 39. xvi. 15— -33. xix. 
 1. 6. tec. 
 
 I Since the writing of the above, a Roman Catholic, in con- 
 versation, stated to the author that the doctrine of the Church of 
 Rome, on this subject, was not, that children dying unbaptised perish 
 everlastingly ; but that children of this description never enter either 
 heaven o»- hell. Now, freely granting this to be the case, we would 
 siili ask how it can overturn our statement ? For if such children 
 are everlastingly excluded from heaven, are we not fully justified ip 
 . raying they perish everlastingly ? It matters not whether they bf 
 sent to oblivion, to limbus infantum, or to the everlasting fire prepared 
 for the devil and his angels; still when they are to be everlastingly 
 shut out of heaven, they must be said, accordinsr to both scripture 
 and reason, to perish everlastingly ; and they must also be said to 
 perish, not for their ov.n transgression, but for the transgres&ion oi 
 
16 
 
 neither believe Baptism to he really and properly regQ' 
 Deration or the new birth, nor consequently absolutely 
 necessary to salvation and eternal life, why in both these 
 respects we dissent from the Church of Rome. Now, we 
 conceive that the best way we can do this is by just simply 
 
 some other person, and whether it be, for that of their immediate pro- 
 genitor, or of their first father Adam, matters not to them. We 
 furtlier stated, abov», that we dissented from the Church of Rome, in 
 our not believing that Baptism was really and properly regeneration or 
 the new birth, and consequently absolutely necessary to eternal ^ife. 
 And we expressed ourselves thus, because there is a sense in which 
 Baptism is in scripture termed regeneration, or the being born again. 
 And in this sense we are to understand the term in a few places, (see 
 John iii. 5. Titus iii. 5. 1 Peter iii. 21.) where the means are put 
 for the end, the sign for the thing signified, for the inward and spiritual 
 grace, thereby represented and conferred. For the Baptism with 
 water not only represents the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, but is 
 also followed by it, when received in faith, where that heavenly gift had 
 not been before conferred; and although Baptism was one way in 
 which Christ was confessed, and although the scriptures represent 
 the confessing of Christ to be oftentimes as necessary to salvation as 
 the believing in him, yet still it is upon the grace which Baptism re- 
 presents that the scriptures lay the stress, and not upon the mere 
 external rite, which, in itself, has no efficacy to change men's natures 
 and fit them for heaven, and which in certain circumstances may be 
 absolutely impracticable ; and, consequently, no duty for the time 
 being, to such as are thus circumstanced. Hence, although Baptism, 
 when it can be had, should not be neglected : although our Lord 
 equally enjoins it with faith upon all nations, yet it is not, for men's 
 not having been baptised, but for their not having believed, that he 
 declares they shall he finally condemned. Mark xvi. 16. Hence, 
 St. Paul is not to be understood as laying the stress, so much upon the 
 washing of regeneration or baptism as upon that which it represents 
 — namely, the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Titus iii. 5. And St. 
 Peter shows that the Baptism which saves us, is, not merely the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh, but that, which thi«, when re- 
 ceived in true faith, is the means of obtaining — namely, a good con- 
 science through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 1 
 Peter iii, 21, Hence, it is not? Baptism itself, but the grace thereby 
 represented, and (when received in true fnith, as the means.) thereby 
 obtained, that saves us and makes us meet for heaven. Consequently, 
 it is not the mere external rite of Baptism but the grace and spirit of 
 Christ which ii represents, that can qualify for heaven, or change 
 men's natures, neither is it the not having been baptized but the not 
 having obtained this change of nature, the not having obtained this 
 grace and spirit, that can cause any to perish everlastingly, to be 
 everlastingly excluded from eternal life. 
 
17 
 
 stating our sentiments on this point, in reference to both 
 infants and adults. And, 
 
 First — In reference to infants, we believe that as the son 
 shall not bear the iniquity of the father, any more than 
 the father shall bear the iniquity of the son ; that as by 
 the righteousness of one, (the Lord Jesus Christ) the 
 free gift came upon all men to justification of life; we 
 believe that none shall perish for ever for Adam's per- 
 sonal offence, that none shall suffer eternally but such as 
 shall be found to have made themselves actualli/ guilty 
 by tvil/id and personal transgression. And, therefore, 
 that as infants shall be found incapable of having done 
 this, we believe, that, notwithstanding their being born 
 with an impure nature, that they shall be purified by the 
 grace and spirit of Christ, and thus made meet for hea- 
 ven. So, we believe, that they shall be eternally saved, 
 whether dying, baptized, or unbaptized.* And, 
 
 Second — In reference to adults we believe, that as ihei/ 
 shall all be found to have been guilty of xvilfid and per- 
 sonal transgression, we believe that none of them shall 
 be found among the pardoned and purified but such as 
 shall be found to have personally repented and believed 
 the Gospel.f For, on scripture authority, we do assert, 
 that there is not any other way, in which the forfeited fa- 
 vour and image ot God can be regained, in which re- 
 mission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost can be 
 enjoyed ; that there is not any other way in which a 
 guilty sinner can be reconciled to God, can be adopted 
 into his family, and put in possession of the necessary 
 meetness for heaven, even of that << holiness without 
 which no man shall see the Lord." But let it be here 
 particularly observed, that when we speak of being 
 found to have personalli/ repented and believed the 
 Gospel, we speak only in reference to such as shall hore. 
 been favoured with the Gospel. For, as the mo::,t High 
 will never be found to.be a hard or tyrpn^ilcal master, 
 nor to act contrary to that character which lie has given 
 of himself in his holy word, his revealed ./ill to man; 
 as He will never be found to act inconsistently with his 
 
 * Ezek. xviii. 20, 23, 29. Rom. v. 18. 
 
 f Rom, iii. 23. Isa. liii. 6. Luke xiii. 5. Acts xvii. oO, 
 Luke xxiT. IG, 47. Mark xvi. 16. John iii. 16, 36, &c. 
 
Divine perfections of justice, wisdom, goodness, truths 
 &c, as therein declared ; so he will never be found re- 
 quiring to reap where he shall not have sowed, nor to 
 gather where he shall not have strewed;* he will 
 never be found requiring the improvement of talents 
 which he shall not have given, nor of advantages which 
 he shall not have afforded. Indeed, as soon might we 
 suppose, that the just, the wise, the good, and the faith- 
 ful God, would require men to walk without legs, or to 
 jHy without wings — yea, that he would require them to 
 stop the sun in his course, or the earth on her axis, as 
 that he would require the improvement of talents which 
 he had not given, or of advantages which he had not af- 
 forded : both suppositions are in direct opposition to his 
 Divine character and perfections, as revealed in the Holy 
 Scriptures. Hence, we conclude, that those only who shall 
 be found to have enjoyed the advantages of the Gospel dis- 
 pensation, shall be judged by the Gospel standard.^ But, 
 Third — We observe, that we do not, like the Quakers, 
 understand Baptism in a mystical or spiritual sense, so 
 as to reject the external rite, as one of the beggarly 
 elements of former dispensations ; for, although we do 
 not lay a particular stress on the mode in which water 
 should be applied in this ordinance, yet we do contend 
 that it should be literally applied, in one way or other ; 
 but whether by pouring, by sprinkling or by dippings 
 does not seem to us of great importance. Now, we 
 contend for this literal application of water, for two rea- 
 sons : — 1. Because we think it wrong to depart from 
 the literal meaning of scripture, unless where a literal 
 meaning would be absurd, or where a mystical or spiri- 
 tual sense is evidently pointed out ; and as in the case be- 
 fore us, a literal meaning is not absurd, nor a mystical 
 or spiritual sense pointed out, nor so much as even 
 hinted at, we, therefore, conclude, that the command 
 given to baptize should be complied with in a literal 
 inanner. And 2d. We do this because the Apostles and 
 first Christians understood this command in the same 
 
 ^ Mat. XXV. 14—30, &c. 
 
 t See Carson's reply to Wardlaw and Ewing on Baptism, where 
 our sentiment, as expressed in tbe above concluiion, is adf ucatcd, 
 CTen by a particular Baptist. 
 
19 
 
 way, because they obeyed it literally, by literally ap- 
 plying water in the administration of the ordinance ; yea, 
 and let it be here particulary noted, that they didthis 
 even after the Christian dispensation was established 
 among both Jews and Gentiles ; after the Holy Ghost 
 was poured out upon both ; and so the promise made 
 by Christ to his Disciples respecting his Church, truly 
 and powerfully fulfilled.* Hoto, or according to what 
 particular mode^ the water was applied in the ordinance, 
 principally during the Apostolic a ^(r, shall be carefully ex* 
 amined in its proper place. 
 
 Fourth — We, therefore, hasten to observe, that we do 
 not consider Baptism, with the generality ot Socinians, 
 as a mere mode of professing the religion of Christ ; 
 nor do we, with some of them particularly look upon it 
 as a mere ceremony of induction from Judaism or Pa- 
 ganism into the society of Christians ; and, consequently, 
 to be altogether unnecessary when conversions cf this 
 description do not occur. We do not, with such, ima- 
 gine that it might be wholly laid aside in professedly 
 Christian nations, where such conversions do not take 
 place. 
 
 But having, by the making of these few observations, so 
 far cleared our way, we come noxu directly to consider, 
 as we proposed. 1. The nature of Baptism, to consider 
 what we understand by it. 
 
 And, in doing this, we state Baptism, (from the Greek 
 Baptizo,) to be, not only a rite or ceremony, by which 
 persons are initiated into the profession of the Christian 
 religion, or an appointed jnode by which a person as- 
 sumes the profession of Christianity, or is admitted to a 
 participation of the privileges belonging to the Disciples 
 of Christ; but we state it still more fully, to be a federal 
 or covenant transaction, an initiation into the covenant 
 of grace, an acceptance thereof required of us by 
 Christ, as a visible expression and act of that faith in 
 him, which he has made a condition of his salvation.f 
 
 • John x'tv. 16, 17, 26. xv. 26, 27. xvi. 7—16. Acts ii. 41— 
 47. viii. 12, 36—38. x. 47, 48. xvi. 31—33. xix. 1—5. Rom, 
 VI. 3, &c. Gal. iii. 27. Col. ii. 12, &c. &c. 
 
 f See Watson's Theological Institutes ; also his Scripture and 
 Theological Dictionary. 
 
2ft 
 
 Now, as the establishing of this statement, particular- 
 ]y in reference to the covenant character of the or- 
 dinance, will be of importance in settling the controversy 
 respecting the proper subjects of Baptism, we consider 
 it as entitled to our particular attention. Therefore, we 
 proceed to observe, that the covenant made v?ith 
 Abraham, of which circumcision was the sign and sealy 
 was the general covenant of grace, and not wholly nor even 
 principality a political or national covenant, as Baptists 
 are in the habit of representing it. This appears from 
 considering the several engagements made in the cove- 
 nant itself.* And, 
 
 First — From the Lord God promising to ** bless 
 Abraham." For although this promise comprehended 
 temporal blessings, yet that it referred chiefly to the 
 blessing of his justification by the imputation of his 
 faith for righteousness;, and to the spiritual advantages 
 consequejit upon the relation thus establishd between 
 him and his God in time and in eternity ; we learn from 
 the Apostle Paul, who informs us, that Abraham '' re- 
 ceived the sign of Circumcision," as " a seal of the 
 righteousness of the faith which Jie had yet being un- 
 circumcised," and also that *' the promise that he should 
 be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or his 
 seed through the law, but through the righteousness of 
 faith." And yet again, that it was Abraham's believing 
 God that '•' was accounted to him for righteousness." J 
 
 Second — From the promise, that Abraham should be 
 the *' father of many nations," the same thing is evident 
 — namely, tliat the covenant made with him was the 
 general covenant of grace ; for the Apostle, just quoted 
 above, teaches us to interpret this promise, more in re- 
 ference to the Patriarch's spiritual seed, the followers of 
 that faith whereof cometh justification, than to his na- 
 tural descendants. Hence, he says, " that the promise 
 might be sure to all the seed, not to that which is of the 
 law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, 
 who is the father of us all," of all believing Gentiles as 
 as well as Jews — '* That he might be the father of all 
 them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that 
 
 ♦ Gen. xvii. 7—14-. xii. 1—3. xv. 4—6. 
 \ Horn, iv 11, 13. Gal. iii. 6. Rom. iv. 3. 
 
21 
 
 righteousness might be imputed to them also ; and the 
 father of circumcision to them who are not of the cir- 
 cumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that 
 faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet 
 uncircumcised."* 
 
 Third — From the promise of Canaan itself to Abraham 
 and his seed, it evidentl}' appears, that the covenant 
 made with him was neither tvhoUj/ r\ov principally a po- 
 litical or national covenant, but the general covenant of 
 grace; for although the promise included the temporal 
 possession, yet that it referred principally to the heaven- 
 ly inheritance of which the other was manifestly but 
 the type, must still be contended for on inspired authority ; 
 for the Apostle to the Hebrews states, that '• by faith 
 he (Abraham) sojourned in the land of promise, dwelling 
 in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him 
 of the same promise." And in order to shew, that the 
 faith of these worthies did not respect the temporal 
 fulfilment of the promise — in order to shew tliat they 
 thus looked beyond the land in which they then sojourn- 
 ed, he assures us, that they ^'looked for a city which 
 hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God" — 
 that they looked for a heavenly country ; and, there/ore, 
 that God was not ashamed to be called their God, as he 
 had prepared for them such a city. 4: The plain meaning 
 is, they looked for the fulfilment of the promise, not on 
 earth, but in heaven, even in the new Jerusalem, the 
 house not made with hands eternal in the heavens — the 
 building of God, which they should receive, when their 
 earthly tabernacle would be dissolved. i| Hence, we 
 conclude, that the covenant which holds forth immortal it i/ 
 and eternal life, can be none other than the general co- 
 venant of grace ; and that as the covenant made with 
 Abraham, as. we have just seen, held forth these ines- 
 timable blessings, it must, therefore, have been this co- 
 venant and no other. 
 
 Fourth — This same truth also appears from the next 
 promise, in the covenant made with the father of the 
 farthful, by the Almighty — namely, that he would be a 
 
 * Rom. iv. 11, 12. , 
 
 t Heb. xi 9—16. 
 
 11 Rtr. xxi. 1— v7. 2 Cor. t. 1. Jobn xir. L 2. 
 
22 
 
 God to Abraham, and his seed after him. For, in the 
 sacred scriptures, we find this promise connected with 
 the highest scriptural blessings, such as remission of sins, 
 the sanctification of our nature, and a visible Church 
 state — yea, it is used to represent the state of the Church 
 triumphant, the glories and felicities of heaven ; and it 
 always, in every case, implies both benefit from God to 
 man, and duty from man to God.* Hence, we con- 
 clude, that as the promise of God becoming the God 
 of any man, is one of the greatest promises which the 
 covenant of grace contains ; yea, is a promise which in- 
 cludes every other made to mankind, and as the co- 
 venant of grace is superior to every other covenant, 
 then, as the covenant made with Abraham contained this 
 promise, we conclude, therefore, that the covenant made 
 with him, was none other than the general covenant of 
 grace. 
 
 Fifth — That the covenant made , with Abraham was 
 the general covenant of grace, and not either wholly or 
 chiefly a national or political covenant, appears even 
 still more clearly from the last promise made to him 
 therein — namely, that in his seed '' all the nations of the 
 earth should be blessed." For St. Paul teaches that 
 this blessing is nothing less than the justification of all 
 nations, that is, of all believers, in all nations, by faith 
 in Christ. Hear his own words — *' And the scripture 
 foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
 faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, 
 in thee shall all nations be blessed ; so then they which 
 be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham ;" they 
 receive the same blessing, justification, by the sami 
 meanSf faith.:}: For, "as Abraham was called when un- 
 godly, when an idolator, and as on his believing he was 
 freely justified ; and as all men have sinned none can be 
 saved by works, and so justification must take place in 
 behalf of the ungodly, inasmuch as all mankind are 
 such ; and as Abraham's state and mode in which he was 
 justified, ar6 the pla?i and rule according to which God 
 
 * Jer. xxxi. 30—31. Heb. viii. 8—12. Luko xx. S-V— 38. 
 Rev. xxi. .3, &c. 
 \ Gal. iii. 8, 9. 
 
23 
 
 purposes to save men, and as this fitate was ungodly, and 
 as the mode of his justification was by faith in the good- 
 ness and mercy of God, and as this is precisely the state 
 of both Jews and Gentiles at present, there can, there- 
 fore, be no other jiiode of justification than by faith in 
 that Christ, who is Abraham's seed, and in whom all the 
 nations of the earth are to be blessed."* 
 
 Now, in reference to what the Apostle states respect- 
 ing Abraham's faith being imputed to liim for righteous- 
 ness, not in circumcision but in uncircumcision, we ob- 
 serve, that from Gen. xv. 6, we learn that faith was 
 counted to Abraham for righteousness; and from Gen. 
 xvii. we learn that circumcision was not instituted until 
 about fourteen or fifteen years after. For faith was 
 counted to Abraham for righteousness at least one year 
 before Ishmael was born ; as is evident from comparing 
 Gen. XV. and xvi. And as at Ishmael's birth Abraham 
 was eighty six years of age, Gen. xv. 16, and as at the 
 institution of circumcision Ishmael was thirteen, and 
 Abraham ninety-nine years old, Gen. xvii. 24, 25. It 
 therefore follows that Abraham's faith was counted to 
 him for righteousness, about so many years before the cov- 
 enant of circumcision was instituted. And also that so 
 far was obedience to the law of circumcision from being 
 the reason of his justification, that he not only received 
 his justification before he was circumcised, but that he 
 received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the par- 
 don which he had before actually received ; and that 
 thus he became the father, (he great head and represen- 
 tative of all them that believe, particularly the Gentiles, 
 who are now in precisely the same state as that in which 
 Abraham was when he received the mercy of God. And 
 as the covenant established with Abraham, Gen. xvii. is 
 the same with that in Gen. xii. and xv. it is manifest 
 that circumcision was not a seal of any new grant, but 
 of the justification and promise which he had received 
 before he was circumcised, and also that that justification 
 and promise included the Gospel covenant in which we 
 are now interested. 
 
 ♦ See Gen. xii. 17. Rora, iii. 9—30. it. 1^25. 
 
24' 
 
 And from the promise that Abraham should be the 
 heir of the world, it is held out that he should be the 
 medium through whom the mercy of God should be com- 
 municated to the world, to both Jews and Gentiles ; and 
 that the mamier in which he was justified should be the 
 rule and manner according to which all men should re- 
 ceive this blessing. For Abraham is here represented 
 as having all the world given to him as his inheritance, 
 because in him all nations of the earth are blessed. 
 This must, therefore, relate to their being all interested 
 in the Abrahamic covenant. And every person now, 
 that the covenant is fully explained, has the privilege of 
 claiming justification through faith in the blood or the 
 Lamb, in virtue of this original grant. Indeed, the 
 whole of the Apostle's reasoning in the fourth chapter of 
 his Epistle to the Romans, and in the third of that to the 
 Galatians, proves, that we, although Gentiles, are the seed 
 of Abraham, to whom as well as to himself the promise 
 was made, and that the promise made to him is the same 
 in effect as that which is now made to us, and consequent- 
 ly, that it is the Abrahamic covenant in which we no\r 
 stand, and that any argument taken from the nature of that 
 covenant and applied to ourselves must be good and 
 valid. Hence, it follows that circumcisioa was a sign 
 and seal of the Gospel covenant under which we are 
 now placed. 
 
 Indeed, the assertion of Antiptedobaptists, that the co- 
 venant made with Abraham was not the general covenant 
 of grace, but that it was merely of a national or political 
 character; and, consequently, that the promises which it 
 contained related only to ^em/poro/ blessings, is an assertion 
 replete with absurdity. For — 1. If, according to the 
 Apostle Paul,* Abraham was justified by believing the 
 promises which God made to him m that covenant, then 
 if the promises which that covenant contained related 
 only to temporal blessings, if they were not Gospel 
 promises relating to Christ and the covenant of grace, 
 it must mevitably follow, not only that Abraham was 
 not justified, according to the Apostle, by faith in 
 Christ, as the promised seed, in whom all the nations of 
 
 * Rom IT. Gal. iii. 
 
25 
 
 tlie earth were to be blessed, but that, in direct opposition 
 to the Apostle, he was justified merely by believing pro- 
 mises, which held tbrth to him only the possession of 
 temporal good. But — 3. If the Apostle, speaking by 
 '' the spirit of Christ," holds forth Abraham for a pat- 
 tern to all succeeding generations, in order that they 
 may obtain justification in the same way that he did. 
 Then, if he was not justified by the faith of Christ, if 
 the promises contained in the covenant made with him, 
 which he believed, and for the believing of which his 
 faith was imputed to him for righteousness, were not 
 Gospel promises contained only in the covenant of grace ; 
 if they were but nzof/y promises of temporal good, then 
 the Apostle would have every man now, whether Jew or 
 Gentile, justified by believing promises which hold forth 
 only the enjoyment of temporal good, and not by faith 
 in Christ. But how contrary this is to the whole of his 
 preaching, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, to 
 the whole of his reasoning throughout his several Epis- 
 tles — yea, to the whole tenor of the sacred scriptures, 
 which holds forth justification, or pardon to guilty man, 
 only through faith in Christ, just as Abraham received 
 it, let every one divested of prejudice, and acquainted 
 with his Bible freely judge. But enough has been here 
 said to shew the absurd consequences which must follow 
 from denying that the covenant made with Abraham 
 was the general covenant ot grace, which must follow 
 from asserting that that covenant was merely of a na- 
 tional and political description. 
 
 But we here particularly observe, that we would not, 
 by any means, h ave it understood, that we charge Qur 
 Baptist brethren with practically looking for justification 
 in any other way than through faith in Christ, the pro- 
 mised seed, as dying for their sins, and as rising again 
 for their justification. We would not have it supposed, for 
 a moment, that we charge them with designedly advocat- 
 ing a new way of salvation, a way different from that in 
 which the Apostle shews Abraham to have received it, 
 and in which he urges all, both Jews and Gentiles, now 
 to seek after it — namely, by faith in Christ. But in their 
 asserting that the covenant made with Abraham was 
 merely or even principally ^ of a national or piolitical cha- 
 
26 
 
 racter, in their denying that it was the general covenant 
 of grace, we do charge them with the inconsistency ot 
 theoretically holding the principles which necessarily pro- 
 duce the absurd and unscriptural^ (although from the pre- 
 mises, the fair and logical,) consequences which we have 
 just noticed above. Hence, the necessity of distinguish- 
 ing between men and their principlesy of observing, that 
 although good or correct principles are most likely to pro- 
 duce good consequences, yet that we may find men, the 
 goodness of whose character we dare not call in ques- 
 tion, some of whose princplesare, as in the present case, 
 decidedly erroneous, if their being contrary to scripture 
 and reason can constitute them such.* 
 
 • When Mr. Pope, in his essay on man, said, " for modes of faith 
 let senseless zealots fight, his can't be wrong whose life is in the 
 right;" had he OTily meant, that none but senseless zealots would per- 
 secute each other for their different religious opinions, that every 
 man should give to another the same privilege which he claims for 
 himself, even that of worshipping God according to the dictates of 
 his own conscience, that he who would deprive another of this is in- 
 deed a "senseless zealot;" had he only meant this he would have 
 been right, or had he meant that every man should not only be 
 privileged with worshipping God in whatever way he pleases, but even 
 tolerated in stating and defending — yea, in propagating whatever re- 
 ligious principles his creed may contain, he could not have been much 
 censured ; provided such principles were not calculated to corrupt the 
 morals of the community, and thus to injure the peace, the safety, 
 and the happiness of society. For were this the case, then the king 
 who is the constituted authority, the father of his people, and 
 bound to care for their welfare, should interfere in their behalf and 
 prevent the dissemination of principles thus calculated to injure them; 
 had he meant that in all other cases men's religious opinions should 
 not be interfered with by the civil power, tliat every man should 
 have the privilege of thinking and acting for himself he would have 
 been entitled to credit. Or had he meant that although " the faith 
 once delivered to the saints" should be earnestly contended for, yet 
 as "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God," as his 
 cause cannot be promoted by the indulging of such a disposition, 
 and as the Apostles and first Christians never indulged in it, as they 
 never adopted or sanctioned such a mode of proceeding in the doing 
 of God's work, as they never either indulged in wrath or had recourse 
 to violence in such matters, as they never used any other weapons than 
 those of scripture and reason in the establishing or promoting of that 
 kingdom which is not of this world, so in the same cause none pro- 
 fessing to be the followers of them as they were of Christ, should act 
 in a manner contrary to that in which they acted. And as in thi& 
 
27 
 
 This covenant with Abraham, says the late Mr, 
 Watson, although it respected a natural seed, Isaac, 
 from whom a numerous progeny was to spring, 
 and an earthly inheritance provided for this issue, the 
 land of Canaan, and a special covenant relation with 
 the decendants of Isaac through the line of Jacob, to 
 to whom Jehovah was to be " a God" visibly and spe- 
 cially, and they a visible and " peculiar people," yet was 
 
 csuse, to use fair argument, loving persuasion, and earnest entreaty, 
 is the lawful, the scripture, the Christian way of contending " for the 
 faith once delivered to the saints," every other way of contending 
 must, on scripture principles, be wrong, and should not be adopted; 
 had Mr. Pope meant, that bitter feelings, and angry brawls, any more 
 than a persecuting spirit, than fire and faggot, cannot have a place 
 in religious controversies save among senseless zealots, his statement 
 would have been of importance, and worthy the attention of every 
 professing Christian. Or had he meant that as no man's life can be 
 trulj/ right in the sight of God, whose heart is wrong, and that as 
 every man's heart 15 naiurnlly wrong, the man whose life is now right, 
 must have had his heart changed by the grace and spirit of Christ. 
 And that although such a man may err in a manner similar to our 
 Baptist brethren, in their denying that the covenant made with Abra- 
 ham was the general covenant of grace, yet that errors of such a na- 
 ture cannot be considered as essentiuUy wrong, inasmuch as the hold- 
 ing of them cannot be supposed to interfere with the enjoying of 
 God's favour on earth, or with the inheriting of his glory in heaven. 
 Had he meant this, no reasonable man would object to his statement. 
 For had he only intended that the man who, from 3 convictien 
 wrought in his heart by the spirit of God, of his lost, of his 
 guilty, polluted, helpless, and perishing estate, and who, under 
 this conviction comes to the Lord Jesus Christ as the sinners' friend, 
 the saviour of the lost, and trusts in hxm alone for pardon and salva- 
 tion, trusts in him as wounded for his transgressions, as dying for his 
 sins, and rising again for his justification, and that the man who, is 
 thus, by believing in Christ, justified from all things from which he 
 could not be justified by the law of Moses, who is thus justified by 
 faith and has peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord, who 
 thus by faith in Christ Jesus, becomes a child, a son of God, and because 
 a son receives the spirit of God into his heart to cry Abba P'ather, to wit- 
 ness with his spirit that he is a son, a child of God, to shed the love of God 
 abroad in his heart ; had Mr. Pope only intended, that the n)an who is 
 thus brought out of darkness into marvellous light loves God, who first 
 loved him, and loved him when an enemy ; that the man w ho, because 
 he thus loves God, who first loved him, and who had mercy up- 
 on him; that such an one loves every man for God's sake, and. 
 who, because he loves evert/ man does good to all, according to the 
 abiliti/ which he pobbe^seth ; had he only intended, that such a man at 
 
under all these temporal, earthly, and external advan- 
 tages, but a higher and spiritual grace embodying itself 
 under these circumstances, as types of a dispensation of 
 of salvation and eternal life to all who should follow the 
 faith of Abraham, whose justification before God was 
 the patterji of the justification of every man, whether 
 Jew or Gentile, in all ages. 
 
 this, ■who thus devotes himself to the service of God and the good of 
 men, is answering the end for which life has been given, is glorifying 
 God with his body and his spirit which are God's ; that such a man's 
 manner of life is ^vell pleasing in the sight of heaven, is essentially 
 right, and that notwithstanding even such an one may err in certain 
 particulars, yet that these minor things, while he thus holds the head, 
 Christ Jesus the Lord, and acts thus under the influence of his grace 
 and spirit, cannot endanger his salvation ; had he only intended that 
 although such a man may err, inasmuch as fhuvianum est errnre et 
 necirej — " to err and to be ignorant belong to humanity" — yea, inas- 
 much as the best of men "know but in part," (1. Cor. xiii. ) and 
 consequently, may err ; had he only meant that although such a man 
 may be mistaken in his judgment respecting many things, yet that 
 in e%'ery thing essential to the salvation of the soul, he is right ; he 
 would have uttered a great and an incontrovertible truth. 
 
 But if he meant that the man who leads what is called a. good moral 
 life, cannot be wrong in matters of faith, let his religious principles be 
 what they may; if this (as we believe,) was his meaning, we mubt, at least 
 as long as we believe the Bible, dissent from such a principle. For, as 
 the old maxim that a man may be moral without being religious, but 
 that no man can be religious without being moral, is a truth 
 founded upon the solid basis of scripture. Then as the language of 
 inspiration assures us, that were a man even so moral as to be able to 
 say with the Pharisee of old, " God, I thank thee that 1 am not as 
 other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publi- 
 can, I fast twice in the we<?k, I give tithes of all that I possess;" yea, 
 that were he oven to give all his goods to feed the ;;oor, yet, that unless 
 these things were done from a right principle, unless they sprung from 
 charity, fagapce) from love, they would profit nothing. As the scriptures 
 assure us that without this charity or love, let a man know what he may, 
 let him do what he may, let him suffer what he may, all, all, will profit 
 him nothing; as they assure us that without this he is nothing in the esti- 
 mation of heaven, but a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. We must 
 5say, therefore, on scripture ground, that, as nothing but what is done 
 from a principle of love is right in the judgment of God, 1 Cor. xiii. 
 1, &c. and as this lyve is the fruit of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the 
 believer's heart, Gal. v. 22 ; and as this spirit is given only in conse- 
 quence of becoHiing the adojjted sons of God, Gal. iv. 6, and as 
 none arc adopted into the family of heaven, and thus constitut- 
 ed sons of God but bv faith in Christ Jesus, John i. 12. GaJ. 
 
20 
 
 Now of this covenant in its spiritual as well as in its 
 temporal provisions, circumcision was most certainly the 
 sacrament, that is, the si^yn and seal. For St. Paul thus 
 explains the case, "and he (Abraham) received the sign 
 of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 •vhich lie had yet being uncircumcised."* And as this 
 
 * Rom. iv. 
 
 iii. 26. and as none have ever yet believed, or trusted In Christ 
 for pardon and salvation, but such as first felt that they had destroyed 
 themselves by sinning against God, but such as first felt their guilty, 
 polluted, and helpless condition, we would say that it is only such as 
 have thus felt (although not all to the same extent, or with the same de- 
 gree of feeling, that it is only such) that have ever prized the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, as the Saviour of sinners. For he himself assures us 
 that " they that are whole need not a Physician but they that are 
 sick" we must say if we take the scriptures as our standard of 
 judging, and if, with the exception of the extraordinary gifts of the 
 spirit, the enjoyment and experience of the children of God be the 
 same now as in the first ages of Christianity, if there be still only the 
 same Saviour and the same salvation^ we must say, that unless men 
 have been ihus "humbled as repenting criminals at Christ's feet," 
 and thus brought to "rely upon his merits as devoted Pensioners," they 
 have not, (no matter how moral their lives may have been, they have 
 not) been brought to the enjoyment of the privilege of the sons of 
 God, to have the Holy Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts, nor to 
 the experience of that love which is only his fruit. Nor consequently 
 to do works right and acceptable in the sight of God, or which he will 
 reward through eternity. Hence their life must be essentially ivrong. 
 The church of England, in her thirteenth article, is fully in ac- 
 cordance with the above statement, when she says *' works done be- 
 fore the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his spirit, are not plea- 
 sant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, — 
 they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be 
 done." Indeed to state that men could do works pleasant in the sight 
 of God, or as he hath willed and commanded them to be done, 
 before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his spirit, by whi^h 
 the heart is renewed and the love of God shed abroad therein, would 
 be to state, in opposition to the declaration of the sacred volume, that 
 an evil tree could bring forth good fruit, that grapes could grow upon 
 thorns and Jigs upon thistles, and as to state this would be as absurd 
 as to state that a good tree could bring forth evil fruit, or that a 
 good man out of the good treasure of his heart could bring forth evil 
 things, and as to state^this, as to state that such a thing might be, 
 would be to state, as some have done, that a state of salvation may 
 be consistent with the greatest of crimes, even with adultery and mur- 
 der, or that the righteous necessarily sin in all their best works, and 
 
 D 
 
so 
 
 rite was enjoined upon Abraham's posterity, so that 
 every uncircumcised man child, whose flesh of his fore- 
 skin was not circumcised on the eighth day, was to be 
 cutoff from the people, by the special judgment of God, 
 and that because he had broken God's covenant ; :j: it 
 therefore follows that this rite was a constant publication 
 
 I Gen. xvii. 14<. 
 as to state this would really be to state that the good tree mai/ bring 
 forth, yea, must bring forth bad fndt, and as to state either this, or, 
 that the corrupt tree may or can bring forth <^ood fruit, would be to 
 contradict the Ijord Jesus, would be to give the lie to him tvho is eter- 
 nal truth, and who declares that such things cannot be, we must, there- 
 fore while guided by scripture, reject such statements. We must 
 deny on the one hand that man, while in his unrenewed and unpar- 
 doned state, can, (be his morality what it may,) do works pleasant in 
 the sight of God, or have any other than a ivrong mode of faith, see- 
 ing by the way in which he believes, or through his mode of believing, 
 he is not justified, his sins are not pardoned, his heart is not purified, 
 he is not put in possession of that love without which every thing else 
 profits nothing. And we must deny on the other hand that the man 
 whose heart has been renewed by the grace and spirit of Christ, who 
 is living under the influence of such a divine principle, as the love of 
 God and man, can, (notwithstanding his otherwise erroneous opinions 
 so long as he lives under the influence of such a principle as this, can,) 
 knowingly and wilfully, do what is e\ihcr offensive to God or injurious 
 to men. We must deny, that a good tree can bring forth evil /ruit, 
 or that a good man out of the good treasure of his heart can bring 
 forth such evil thiyigs. 
 
 To conclude, we would just observe, that while we say with good 
 Mr. Hervey, " only let men be humbled as repenting criminals at 
 Christ's feet, and rely on his merits as devoted Pensioners, and they 
 are on the way to a blessed immortality ;" because, they are thus re- 
 conciled to God, and obtain a renewal of heart, a capability of ser- 
 ving him acceptably, and a meetness for heaven ; while we say this, 
 we must say also, that as among those favoured with the Gospel (for 
 We judge not others) none but such as have been humbled at Christ's 
 feet, have ever truly believed on his name, and that as none but such 
 as have thus believed on his name, have ever received his Holy Spirit 
 to dwell in their hearts, and that as none but such as have received 
 this Holy Spirit to dwell in their hearts can bring forth his fruit, and 
 that as his fruit is love, and as no works are pleasant in the sight of 
 God, or done as he hath willed and commanded them to be done but 
 such as p'pring from this principle, we must say, that, unless a man 
 have been thus humbled before God, unless he have been thus brought 
 1o trust in Christ for life and salvation, unless he have got his heart 
 thus changed !)y the grace and spirit of Christ, and been brought to 
 t^crvc bis God, from a principle of lovr, that unless this have been 
 
31 
 
 of God's covenant of grace among the descendants of 
 Abraham, and its repetition a continual confirmation of 
 that covenant on the part of God, to all practising it in 
 the faith of which it was the ostewsible expression. 
 
 As the covenant of grace therefore made with Abra- 
 ham, was bound up with temporal promises and privi- 
 leges, so circumcision was a sign and seal of the co- 
 venant in both its parts, its spiritual and its temporal, its 
 superior and inferior provisions. The spiritual promises 
 of the covenant continued unrestricted to all the descen- 
 dants of Abraham, whether by Isaac or Ishmael, and still 
 lower down to the descendants of Esau as well as to those 
 of Jacob, circumcision was practised among them all by 
 virtue of its divine institution at first, and was extended to 
 their foreign servants and to proselytes, as well as to their 
 children ; and wheresoever the sign of the covenant of 
 grace was by divine appointment, there it was a seal to 
 all who believihgly used it. For we read of no restric- 
 tion ot its spiritual blessings, that is of its saving en- 
 gagements to one line of descent from Abraham only. 
 But over the temporal branch of the covenant, and the 
 external religious privileges arising out of it, God ex- 
 ercised a rightful sovereignty, and expressly restricted 
 them first to the line of Isaac, and then to that of Jacob, 
 with whose descendants he entered into a special co- 
 venant, by the ministry of Moses. The temporal bless- 
 ing and external privileges comprised undej general ex- 
 pressions in the covenant with Abraham, were explained 
 and enlarged under that of Moses, whilst the spiritual 
 blessings remained unrestricted as before. This appears 
 to have been the reason why circumcision was re-enacted 
 
 the case, be the man ever so moral in his conduct^ be his actions ever so 
 beneficial to men, still, in reference to Ids own salvation, wq must say, 
 they lose their reward, they profit him nothing. It has been ehiefly 
 in consequence of this erroneous principle of Mr Pope's, being, so 
 generally, a received sentiment among such as are unacquainted with 
 the scripture way of salvation, that we have dwelt so long in shewing 
 its absurdity, and the danger to which it exposes those who act under 
 its deistical influence; on this account principally have we so lengthened 
 out this note : we wished also to shew that what we have said in refer- 
 ence to good men being influenced by erroneous principles, is to be 
 understood of the errors of the htnd ( 
 the heart, not of the will, or aflfections. 
 
32 
 
 under the law of Moses. It was a confirmation of the 
 temporal blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, now, by 
 a covenant of peculiarity made over to them, whilst it 
 was still recognized as a consuetudinary rite which had 
 descended to them from their fathers, and as the sign 
 and seal of the covenant of grace, made with Abraham, 
 and with all his descendants without exception. This 
 double reference of circumcision, both to the authority 
 of Moses, and to that of the Patriarchs, is found in the 
 words of our Lord, John vii. 22. <' Moses therefore gave 
 unto yoa circumcision not because it is of Moses, but of 
 the fathers," &c. 
 
 From these observations the controversy in the Apos- 
 tolic Churches respectmg circumcision will derive much 
 elucidation. The covenant with Abraham prescribed 
 circumcision as an act of faith in the promises, and as 
 a pledge, on the part of his descendants, to perform its 
 conditions. But the object on which this faith rested, 
 was " the seed of Abraham," in whom the nations of the 
 earth were to be blessed, which seed, says St. Paul, "is 
 Christ" — Christ as promised, not yet come. When 
 the Christ had come, so as fully to enter upon his re- 
 deeming offices, he could no longer be the object of 
 faith as still to come ; and this leading promise of the 
 covenant being accomplished, the sign and seal of it 
 vanished away. Nor could circumcision be continued 
 in iliis vietv, by any, without an implied denial that Jesus 
 was the Christ, the expected seed of Abraham. Cir- 
 cumcision also, as an institution of Moses, who continued 
 it as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant, both 
 in its spiritual and temporal provisions ; but with respect 
 to the latter made it also, the sign and seal of the restric- 
 tion of its temporal blessings, and peculiar religious pri- 
 vileges to the descendants of Israel, was terminated by 
 the entrance of our Lord upon his office of mediator, in 
 which office all nations were to be blessed in him. The 
 Mosaic edition of the covenant, not only guaranteed the 
 land of Canaan, but the peculiarity of the Israelites, as 
 the people, and visible church of God, to the exclusion 
 of all others except by proselytism. l>ut when our 
 Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached to •' all 
 nations/' and opened the gate of the " common salva- 
 
33 
 
 tion" to all, whether Gentiles or Jews, circumcision, as 
 the sign of the covenant of peculiarity and religious 
 distinction, was done away also. It had not only no 
 reason remaining, but the continuance of the rite in- 
 volved the recognition of exclusive privileges which had 
 been terminated by Christ. 
 
 This will explain the views of the Apostle Paul on 
 this great question. He declares, that in Christ, there is 
 neither circumcision nor uncircumcision ; that neither 
 circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but 
 *' faith that worketh by love," faith in the seed of Abra- 
 ham already come, and already engaged in his mediato- 
 rial and redeeming work : faith, by virtue of which, the 
 Gentiles came into the Church of Christ on the same 
 terms as the Jews themselves, and w^ere justified and 
 saved. The doctrine of the non-necessity of circum- 
 cision, he applies to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, 
 although he specially resists the attempts of the Judai- 
 zers, to impose this rite upon the Gentile converts ; in 
 which he was supported by the decision of the Holy 
 Spirit, when the appeal upon this question was made to 
 the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, from the Church 
 at Antioch. At the same time it is clear that he takes 
 two different views of the practice of circumcision, as it 
 was continued among many of the first christians. The 
 first is, that strong one which is expressed in Gal. v. 2 — 
 4. " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circum- 
 cised, Christ shall profit you nothing ; for I testify again 
 to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to 
 do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto 
 you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are 
 fallen from grace." The second is that milder view which 
 he himself must have taken when he circumcised Timo- 
 thy to render him more acceptable to the Jews — these 
 diiferent views of circumcision, held by the same person, 
 may be explained by considering the different principles 
 on which the rite might be practised, after it had become 
 an obsolete ordinance. 
 
 First — It might be taken in the simple view of its 
 first institution, as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic 
 
34 
 
 covenant ; and then It was to be condemned, as involvipg 
 a denial that Abraham's seedy the Christ, had already 
 come, since upon his coming every old cuvenant gave 
 place to the nexv covenant introduced by him. 
 
 Second — It might be practised and enjoined as the sign 
 and seal of the Mosaic covenant which was still the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, with its spiritual blessings, but with re- 
 striction of its temporal ^vomhes, and special ecclesiaslicat 
 privileges to the line of Jacob, with a law of observances, 
 which was obligatory upon all entering that covenant by 
 circumcision. In that case it involved, in like manner, the 
 notion of the continuance of an old covenant, alter the es- 
 tablishment of the new. For thus St. Paul states the case 
 in Gal. iii. 19. "Wherefore thenserveth the law? It was ad- 
 ded because of transgressions, till the seed should come." 
 After that, it had no effect, it waxed old, and vanished away. 
 Third — Again circumeision might imply an obligation 
 to observe all the ceremonial usages, and the moral pre- 
 cepts of the Mosaic law, a^ong with a general belief in 
 the mission of Christ, as necessary to justification before 
 God. This appears to have been the view of those 
 among the Galatian christians, who submitted to circum- 
 cision, and of the Jewish teachers who enjoined it upon 
 them. For St. Paul, in that Epistle, constantly joins cir- 
 cumcision with legal observances, and as involving an 
 obligation "to do the whole law," in order to justifica- 
 tion. Hence he says, " I testify again to every man that 
 is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law ; 
 whosoever of you are justified by the law ye are fallen 
 from grace" " knowing that a man is not justified by the 
 works of th-elaw, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Gal. 
 ii. 16. To all persons therefore practising circumcision 
 in this view, it was obvious that " Christ was become of 
 none effect." The very principle of justification by 
 faith alone in him was renounced, even whilst his divine 
 mission was still admitted. 
 
 Fourth — But there are ixvo grounds on which circum- 
 cision may be conceived to have been innocently, though 
 not xviseh/ practised among the christian Jews. The 
 first was that of preserving ^n ancient national distinction 
 on which they valued themselves. And were a convert- 
 ed Jew in the present day, disposed to perform that rite 
 
35 
 
 upon his children, for this purpose only renouncing in 
 the act all consideration of it as a sign and seal of the 
 old covenant, or as obliging to ceremonial acts in order to 
 justification, no one would censure him with severity. 
 It appears clearly that it was under some such vieiv, that 
 St, Paul circumcised Timothy, whose mother was a 
 Jewess; he did it because of '« the Jews which were in 
 these quarters," that is, because of their national pre- 
 judices, " for they knew that his father was a Greek." 
 The second ground was a lingering notion that even in 
 the christian church, the Jews who believed would still 
 retain some degree of eminence, some superior relation 
 to God ; a notion which, however unfounded, was not 
 one which demanded immediate rebuke, when it did not 
 proudly refuse spiritual communion with the converted 
 Gentiles, but was held b)' men who " rejoiced that God 
 had also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." 
 
 Now circumcision might not only be practised with 
 views so opposite that one might be wholly innocent, 
 although an infirmity of prejudice ; the other such as 
 would involve a rejection of the doctrine of justification 
 by faith in Christ ; but some other Jewish observances 
 also stood in the same circumstances. For St. Paul in his 
 epistle to the Galatians, grounds his " doubts" whether 
 the members of that church were not seeking to be 
 "justified by the law," upon their observing "days, and 
 months, and times, and years." Had he done more 
 than "doubt," he would have expressed himself more 
 positively. He saw their danger on this point ; he saw 
 that they were taking steps to this fatal result, by such 
 an observance of these " days," &c. as had a strong lean- 
 ing, and dangerous approach to that dependance upon 
 them for justification, which would destroy their faith in 
 Christ's solely sufficient sacrifice. But his very doubting, 
 not of the fact of their being addicted to these observ- 
 ances, but of the animuSy (the mind, the feeling,) with 
 which they regarded them, supposes it possible, however 
 dangerous this Jewish conformity might be, that they 
 might be observed for reasons which could still consist 
 with their reliance upon the merits of Christ for salva- 
 tion. Indeed, he himself, strongly as he resisted the im- 
 position of this conformity to Jewish customs, upon the con- 
 
36 
 
 verts to Christianity, as a matter of necessity, must, in prac- 
 tice have conformed to many of them, when no sacrifice 
 of principle was understood ; for we find, that in order 
 ** to gain the Jews," he himself did become "as a Jew." 
 
 Now from these observations, which have been some- 
 what digressive, we return to observe that not only was 
 the Abrahamic covenant, of which circumcision was tl)e 
 sign and seal, a covenant of grace, but that when this 
 covenant in its ancient form was done away in Christ, 
 then the old sign and seal, peculiar to that form, was by 
 consequence abolished. If then Baptism be not the ini- 
 tiatory sign and seal of the same' covenant, in its new 
 and perfect form, as circumcision was of old, this new 
 covenant has no such initiatory rite or sacrament at all ; 
 since the Lord's supper is not initiatory, but, like the 
 sacrifices of old, is of regular and habitual observance. 
 But several passages of scripture, and the very nature 
 of the ordinance itself, will shew, that Baptism is to 
 the new covenant what circumcision was to the old, and 
 that it took its place by the appointment of Christ. And, 
 
 First — This is proved from our Lord's commission to his 
 Apostles, "go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you." " Go ye into 
 all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. 
 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."* 
 
 But to understand the force of these words of our 
 Lord, it must be observed, that the gate of the " com- 
 mon salvation" was only now for the first time going to 
 be opened to the Gentile nations. He himself had de- 
 clared that, in his personal ministry, he was not sent but 
 to " the lost sheep of the house of Israel." And he 
 had restricted his Disciples in like manner, not only from 
 ministering to the Gentiles, but from entering any city 
 of the Samaritans. By what means therefore were "all 
 nations", now to be brought into the Church of God, 
 which, froni henceforth, was most truly to be catholic or 
 universal. Plainly, by baptizing them that believed the 
 "good news," and accepted the terms of the new co- 
 
 * Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. Mark xvi. 15, IC. 
 
3T 
 
 venant. This is apparent from the very words of the 
 commission ; and thus was Baptism expressly made the 
 initiatory rite, by which behevers of " all nations" were 
 to be introduced into the church and covenant of grace; 
 an office in which it manifestly took the place of circum- 
 cision, which heretofore, even from the time of Abra- 
 ham, had been the only initiatory rite into the same co- 
 venant. Moses re-enacted circumcision ; our Lord not 
 only does not re-enact it, but, on the contrary, he ap- 
 points another mode of entrance into the covenant, in its 
 new and perfected form, and that so expressly as to 
 amount to a formal abrogation of the ancient sign, and 
 the putting of Baptism in its place. 
 
 Second — But the same argument, namely, that Bap- 
 tism is to the church of God, under the christian dis- 
 pensation, what circumcision was, under the Jewish, and 
 has taken its place, may be maintained also, from the 
 words of our Lord to Nicodemus, John iii. 5. " except a 
 man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God." By the "kingdom of God," 
 our Lord no doubt, in the highest sense, means the future 
 state of felicity ; but he uses this phrase to express the 
 state of his church on earth, which is the gate to that 
 celestial kingdom ; and generally indeed speaks of his 
 church on earth, under this mode of expression, rather 
 than of the heavenly state. If then he declares that no 
 one can " enter" into that church but by being " born of 
 water and of the spirit," which heavenly gift followed 
 upon Baptism when received in true faith, (Acts ii. 38. 
 xix. 5, 6,) he clearly makes Baptism the mode of initia- 
 tion into his church, in this passage, as in the last quoted; 
 and in both he assigns to it the same office as circumci- 
 sion in the church of the old Testament, whether in its 
 Patriarchal or Mosaic form. 
 
 Third — That Baptism has precisely the same federal 
 and initiatory character as circumcision, and that it was 
 instituted for the same ends and in its place, is also proved 
 from Col. ii. 10 — 12. " And ye are complete in him, 
 which is the head of all principality and power ;" in 
 whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
 made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins 
 of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with 
 
38„ 
 
 him in Baptism, &c. For here Baptism is also made the 
 initiatory rite of the new dispensation, that by which 
 the Colossians were joined to Christ, in whom they are 
 said to be *' complete ;" ajid so certain is it that Bap- 
 tism has the same office and import now as circumci- 
 sion formerly, with this difference only, that the object of 
 faith was then future, and now it is Christ as come ; that 
 the Apostle expressly calls Baptism " the circumcision of 
 Christ," — the circumcision instituted by him, which phrase 
 he puts out of the reach of frivolous criticism, by adding 
 exegetically, " buried with him in Baptism." For, unless 
 the apostle here calls Baptism «* the circumcision of 
 Christ," he asserts that we " put off the body of the sins 
 of the flesh ;" that is, become new creatures by virtue of 
 our Lord's own personal circumcision ; but if this be ab- 
 surd, * then the only reason for which he can call 
 
 • To state, that the body of the sins of the flesh could be put ofT, 
 or men become new creatures, by virtue of our Lord's own j^f^rsonal 
 circumcision, yea, or even by his jicrsonal righteousness, or obedience 
 to the 7noral law, is absurd, inasmuch as it makes the death of Christ 
 unnecessary. For, if rigliteousness come by the law, Jthen, saith an 
 Apostle, *' Christ is dead in vain." Gal. i. 21. Hence, if the 
 death of Christ was necessary, in order that men might obtain re- 
 mission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost; in order that they 
 might be pardoned and purified ; that they might be adopted into 
 God's family, and thus constituted his sons, and as sons of God, 
 become heirs to the everlasting inheritance ; if the scriptures, re- 
 present the death of Christ as necessary for the accomplishing of 
 these ends ; if they indeed state Heb. ix. 22, 23, &c. that with- 
 out tlie shedding of his blood, there could have been no remission, no 
 redemption, or salvation for guilty, fallen man; then to state that 
 these ends were accomplished by either our Lord's own personal cir- 
 cumcision, or by even his personal righteousness or obedience to the 
 moral law, must be absurd. But that the scriptures state the death of 
 Christ, to be that, by which these purposes have been effected, to be 
 an atonement or expiation for the sin of the world, to be that by 
 which the redemption of man, by which his salvation in time and 
 in eternity is obtained, appears beyond contradiction, evident 
 from the following texts, which are only a sample of what might be 
 produced on the subject, (see Rom. iii. 25. v. 6. Eph. i. 7. v. 
 2—25,26,27. Col. i. 14-, 20, 21,22. 1. Tim. ii. G. Titus ii. 
 14. Heb. ii. 9. x. 10, 14. ix. 12, 28. Eph. ii. 13, IG. L Pet. 
 i. 18, 19. iii. 18. Kev. i. 6, 7. v. 9. &c.) Hence, as Christ 
 Jesus hath been set forth as ai ;)ro/)i7iVi^io/i through faith in his 6/oo(/, 
 for the remission of sins that are past ; as he hath suffered, that re- 
 pentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto 
 
39 
 
 Baptism ''the circumcision of Christ," or christian cir- 
 cumcision is, that it has taken the place of the Abrahamic 
 circumcision, and fulfils the same office of introducing 
 believing men into God's covenant, and entitling them 
 to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings. 
 
 all nations ; as he hath died the just for the unjust ; as he hath borne 
 our sins in his own body on the tree ; as he hath thus laid down his 
 life for us, that we might have redemption through his blood, the for- 
 giveness of sins ; that we might be brought to God, that we might be 
 healed by his stripes; that we might be redeemed from all iniquity; 
 that we might be presented to himself without spot or wrinkle, or any 
 such thing ; that we might be holy and without blemish ; yea, that 
 we might be presented faultless before the presence of his glory 
 with exceeding joy. As the scriptures state these things to be ef- 
 fected by the tleatk of Christ, then surely such as state them to be 
 effected by other means, whether by his own personal circumcision or 
 by his personal righteousness or obedience to the moral law, matters not, 
 burely such make an absi(,rd, because an unscripturnl statement. 
 
 From what we have advanced, may also be seen the incorrectness 
 of the statement of those who say that by Christ's riea^/jwe obtain 
 only remission of sins, and deliverance from death and condemnation, 
 but no right or title to heaven ; who say that we obtain this by his 
 personal righteousness or by his obedience to the moral law in our stead. 
 But, indeed the scriptures never attribute such an effect as our title to 
 heaven, to such a cause as Christ's personal righteousness or obedience 
 to the moral law, they state that we obtain the forgiveness of sins, and 
 become sons of God " by faith in Christ Jesus" — " through Christ's 
 blood." (Johni. 12. Rom iii. 23. Gal. iii. 2(5. Eph i. 7.) and 
 that in consequence of our thus becoming the adopted sons of God, 
 and not because Christ obeyed the moral laiv for us, or in our stead, 
 we have a title to heaven : they state that it is from our sonship, from 
 our being adopted into God's family, that we have our heirship ; 
 that we have a title to the heavenly inheritance — so the Apostle "if 
 sons," "if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with 
 Christ," Rom. viii. 17. and — "if a son, then an heir of God through 
 Christ;" Gal. iv. 7. Therefore, as this is the right, the true, the 
 scriptural way of the matter, those who take any other way of it, must 
 take a way that is unscriptural, and consequently incorrect and false. 
 
 Now, as it is absurd to suppose that any law whatever could re- 
 quire both obedience and satisfaction, then if we owing a debt of 
 obedience to God, paid that debt by delegation, that is, if Christ 
 paid it for ns, if he obeyed the law in our stead, it must follow, not 
 only that the law had no claim upon him for satisfaction to its pre- 
 cepts transgressed by us, and consequently that his death was un- 
 necessary, but also, that we stood in no need of pardon. For, if no 
 creditor can refuse the proper sum due, nor deny an acquittance when 
 it is paid, then, if Christ obeyed the law for us, or in our stead, and 
 
40 
 
 Third — That Baptism has the same federal and initi- 
 atory cliaracter as circumcision, and that it was insti- 
 tuted for the same ends and consecjijently in its place, 
 is also proved from Gal. iii. 27 — 29. " For as many of 
 you as have been baptized irito Christ, have put on 
 
 thus paid our debt, if his obedience was equal to, was an equivalent for 
 our obedience, whom he is said to have represented, then the law could 
 have no Jarlher claim either upon him or us, consequently, according 
 to this doctrine, which represents Christ as having obeyed the law in 
 our stead, his death was unnecessary to make satis/action, as in his 
 obedience to its precepts, it had all it could demand ; and therefore 
 we, having in the obedience of Christ, paid our debt by delegation, 
 could not owe any thing or stand in need of pardon. But how con- 
 trary this is to the whole tenor of God's book, which shews that %ve 
 are all sinners before God, that w© all need forgiveness from him, and 
 that our sins are pardoned when we believe in Christ, with the heart 
 unto righteousness, and consequently not before, which shews that 
 God pardoneth and absolveth all them, and them only, that truli/ re- 
 pent and un/eignedlj/ believe his holy Gospel, every man acquainted 
 with his bible may easily perceive. (Mark i, 15. Luke xxiv. 44, 47. 
 John i. 12. iii. 'l 6, 36. Acts ii. 38. xiii. 38, 39. xx. 21. xxvi. 
 18. Rom. iii. 25, Eph. ii. 8, &c. ) Hence, from the whole, we must 
 conclude, that the law did not receive obedience in the life of Christ, in 
 the stead of those for whom it received satisfaction in his death. 
 
 And as the Lord Jesus, in his various discourses, delivered while 
 he tabernacled among us, enforced the moral law as a rule binding 
 upon all ; and as his Apostles were careful herein to tread in his steps, 
 as both he and thei/ held it forth as the standard by which the children 
 of men should be tried, as that by which they should regulate their 
 lives now, as being that by, or according to, which they should be 
 either acquitted or condemned ^ere«/i(er. (Mat. v. vi. vii. xii. 36, 37. 
 xix. 16—19. XX. 36—40. xxii. 21. xxv. 1—46. John v. 28, 
 29. Rom- ii. 1—29. xiiz. 7, 10. xiv. 10, 12, 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 Eph. v. 1, 2. Jas. ii. 8—11. iv. 11, 12, Rev. xx. 11, 12, 1.3. &c.) 
 Astliis is therefore the case, what he has said about not coming to de- 
 stroy, but to fulfil the law. Mat. v. 17. may, yea must be understood 
 in some such manner as — think not that I am come to destroy 
 the law, think not that I am come to dissolve the connexion which 
 subsits between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to 
 have their lives regulated by its moral precepts ; nor am I come to 
 dissolve the connecting reference it has to the good thiyigs pixmised. 
 But I am come to fulfil, (plerosdi,) to complete — to perfect its con- 
 nexion and reference, to complete everj thing shadowed forth in the 
 jMosaic ritual, to fill up its great design ; and to give grace to all my 
 followers, fplerosai,) to Jill up, or complete every moral duty, to love 
 the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, and 
 their neighbour as themselves j and this is all the law and the prophets 
 
41 
 
 Christ ; there is neitlier Jew nor Gentile, there is neither 
 bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye 
 are all one in Christ Jesus ; and it ye are Christ's," by 
 thus being "Baptized," and by putting "on Christ," 
 " then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the 
 
 —his words in accordance with reason, and the general tenor of scrip- 
 ture, may be thus safely understood. But cannot, as we have already 
 shown, without contradicting both reason and scripture, be under- 
 stood as if he by his own personal obedience to the law had so fuljilled 
 it, as to deliver his people from their obligation to perform all moral 
 duties. And the words of the Apostle also, "by the obedience of 
 one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. v. 19.) may be under- 
 stood of Christ, as our Mediator, as in obedience to the will of his 
 heavenly fathei, whose will he comes to do, (Heb. x. 6 — H.) may be 
 understood of him, as laying down his life for us : and thus, as the 
 same Apostle elsewhere states, becoming '* obedient unto death, even 
 the death of the cross;" (Phil. ii. 8 ;) but not of him as obeijing the 
 moral laiv for vi, or in our stead ; not of him as making tis thus 
 righteous, unless v. e set brth reason and scripture at defiance; and, as 
 before observed, render his death, in giving himself as a sacrifice for 
 us, as altogether unnecessary. But as we cannot here enter fully into 
 a discussion of this sul)ject, we must hasten to a conclusion, referring 
 such as may desire to see it examined, in all its bearings, to a treatise 
 on justification, published first by John Goodwin, upwards of a hun- 
 dred and eighty years ago. 
 
 Yet still we would farther observe, as briefly as we possibly could, 
 that such passages of holy writ as, " Their righteousness is of me 
 saith the Lord," Isa. liv. 17. *' The Lord our righteousness," Jer. 
 xxii. 6. " The righteousness which is of God," Phil. iii. 9, &c. 
 may be understood, in accordance with reason, and the general tenor 
 of scripture, as stating our righteousness to be thus of the Lord, to be of 
 his procuring, bestowing, and effecting ; as stating him to be the au- 
 thor, the procurer, the bestower, and, by his grace and spirit, the ef- 
 fector of it in our hearts and lives. And this interpretation adopted, 
 would Free us from all those contradictions and absurdities, with 
 which the doctrine of Chrhi's personal righteousness, or hh obedieyice 
 to the moral law, in our stead, being imputed to us, is, as we have al- 
 ready shown, so unavoidably clogged. Hsnce as it is a given point, 
 that as the scriptures in no case contradict reason, although they do in 
 many cases rise above it, and as the doctrine of the imputation of 
 Christ's jyersonal righteousness, as shewn above, contradicts reason, this 
 doctrine should.not be an article in the creed of any man, who makes 
 the Bible the sole rule of his Jaith. 
 
 That Christ died in our stead is a great, glorious, and scriptural 
 truth, that there is no redemption, but through his blood, is asserted 
 beyond all successful contradiction in the oracles of God ; but to 
 Siiy that he has fulfilled all ri^'hteousness for us, or in our stead, if by 
 
 M 
 
42 
 
 promise." Now the argument here is also decisive. 
 For it cannot be denied that it was by circumcision be- 
 lievingly submitted to, " that strangers" or heathens, as 
 well as Jews, became the spiritual " seed ot Abraham," 
 and heirs ot the same spiritual and heavenly "promises." 
 
 this is meant his fulfilment of all moral duties, is neither scriptural 
 nor true. For there are a multitude of duties which the moral law 
 requires, which Christ never fulfilled in cur stead, and indeed never 
 could; we have duties of a domestic kind, which belong solely to 
 ourselves, in the relation of parents, husbands, wives, servants, &c. 
 but es Christ never stood in such relations, he has fulfilled none of 
 these duties for us; consequently that Christ has fulfilled all moral 
 duties for us, is neither a true nor a scriptural doctritie, is not that 
 which gives any man a title to heaven. But, indeed, this sentiment 
 makes not only those for whom it represents Christ as having tlius 
 fulfilled the law, those to whom it represents his obedience as thus im- 
 puted, as notstanding in need of pardon, as not being in a state of trial ,»s 
 notbeing accountable creatures, as not being rewarded according to their 
 works; and consequently makes the "son of man," when all nations 
 shall be gathered before him, as judging only himself ; this sentiment 
 makes not only the death of Christ unnecessary, but it makes the 
 salvation of all those impossible, who have stood in the relation of 
 parents, husbands, wives, tSiC— in such relations as Christ never stood. 
 For, if it be only Christ's personal righteousness, imjnited to us, if it 
 be only his having fu//i/ fed aU7noral duties in our stead, that can give 
 us a title to heaven, then those to whom his personal righteousness is 
 not imputed, those in whose stead he has not performed all moral du- 
 ties, can have no title to heaven, the salvation of such must be im- 
 possible. Therefore, as he never fulfilled for parents, husbands, 
 wives, &c. the duties which the mor«/ /aiw requires of them in such 
 relations ; as his obedience cannot be imputed to them in those se- 
 veral respects, they can, according to this principle, have no tide to 
 heaven — //^^i?- salvation must be impossible. 
 
 That errors both in divinity and philosophy, have been popular, and 
 that although popular they remained errors still, are propositions 
 which are not likely to be controverted. And that the opinion, that 
 the white robes in which the glorified saints are represented as clothed, 
 niev. vii. 9.) the fine linen, white and clean, in which it is granted to 
 the bride, the Lamb's wife, to be arrayed, (^ Rev. xix. l.,'fi.)h\hi personal 
 righteousness of Christ, or his obedience io the mox&X law in the stead 
 of those to whom it has been stated as thus imputed, who are said 
 to be thus clothed therewith; that this has been long a popular opi- 
 nion will also be readily admitted : but whether it be a true opinion, 
 still remainsa (juestion— and a quctsion which theelder who conversed 
 with St. .John, and who was well accjuainted w ith tiie nature of the 
 white robes, and of those who wore them, has helped us to answer. 
 For when he proposes the query to the beloved disciple respecting 
 
43 
 
 But the same office, in this passage, is ascribed to Bap- 
 tism also believingly submitted to, and the conclusion 
 is therefore inevitable. The same covenant character of 
 each rite is here also strongly marked, as well as that the 
 covenant is the same, although under a different mode of 
 
 those who were thus clothed ; when he asks the Apostle, " what are 
 these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came tliey ?" lie 
 himself replies " these are they whicli came out of great tribulation, 
 find have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
 Lamb." (Rev. vii, 13, H ) Now from this answer we learn, 1. that 
 these white robes iiad been defiled, that they stood in need of wash- 
 \n^ ; 2. that the wearers of them had themselves ivasked them ; 3. 
 that it was in the hlond of the Lainh they had icas/ied them and made 
 them while. "Rut to understand this of Christ's righteousness, to say 
 that his obedience needed washing — that his conduct needed to be 
 atoned for — that the i,aint!i could or did rt'ash his righteousnesa 
 in his own blood ; to say that Christ's righteousness, was washed in the 
 blood of Christ, is absurd in the highest degree, if it be not even 
 blasphemy itself! Hence the white robes, in which the glorified saints 
 are represented as having been clothed, were not the personal righteous- 
 ness of Christ imputed to them, were not his obedience to the moral 
 law in their stead. But the plain meaniiig of the passage evidently is, 
 that it was from the atoning blood of Christ, the righteousness of the 
 saints derived its value and acceptableness witii God. 
 
 If by the awkward, ambiguous question, sometimes put forth by the 
 advocates for the doctrine of Christ's personal righteousness, or his 
 obedience to the moral law being imputed to believers ; the question, 
 " in what, righteousness do you expect to stand before God at the last 
 day ?" If by this be meant, for whose sake do you expect to enter into 
 the glory of God? we answer, without hesitation, for the sake of 
 Jesus Christ the righteous ; Ave answer that it is for his sake alone 
 that aH believers are saved, that is justified, pardoned, and accepted, 
 sanctified, made holy, and glorified, taken to heaven — But to under- 
 stand the question so as to make the personal ri<ihteousness of Christ im- 
 puted to us, or his obedience to the moral law in our .stead, as necessary 
 to our standing approved in the day of judgment, we have just shewn 
 to be absolute nonsense. 
 
 That faith is imputed for righteousness, is stated in different parts 
 of scripture ; but in no part is it said, that Christ's obedience to the 
 moral law, is imputed to ani/ man. " The truth is," saith Dr. A. 
 Clarke, *' the moral law was broken, and did not now require obedience ; 
 it required this before it was broken ; but after it was broken, it re- 
 quired death; either the sinner must die or some one in his ifenrf. 
 I3ut there was none whose death could have been an equivalent for 
 the transgressions of the u'orld, but Jesus Christ. Jesus therefore 
 died for man ; and it is through his blood, the merit of his passion 
 and death, that we have redemption ; and not by his obedience to any 
 
44 
 
 administration. In no other way could circumcision 
 avail any thing under the Abrahamic covenant, than as 
 it was that visible act, by which (jod's covenant to jus- 
 tify men, by faith in the promised seed, was accepted by 
 them. It was therefore a part of a federal transaction ; 
 that outward act which lie, who offered a covenant so 
 gracious, required as a solemn declaration of the ac- 
 ceptance of the covenanted grace, upon the covenanted 
 conditions. It v/as thus that the Abrahamic covenant 
 was offered to the acceptance of all who heard it, and 
 thus that they were to declare their acceptance of it. 
 In the same manner there is a standing offer of the same 
 covenant of mercy wherever the Gospel is preached. 
 The good news which it contains is that of a promise, 
 an engagement, a covenant, on the part of God, to remit 
 sin, and save all that believe in Christ. To the coven- 
 ant in this neXK) form he also requires a visible and Jbrmal 
 
 moral law in our stead. Our salvation was obtained at a much AZ/^A- 
 er price. Jesus could not but be righieons and obec'ienl ; tbis is con- 
 sequent on tbe immaculate purity of bis nature : but bis death was 
 not a necessary consequent. As tbe law of God can claim only the 
 death oi i\iQ transgressor, for sucb only forfeit their rigbt to life ; it 
 is the greatest miracle of all, that Christ could die, whoae life was 
 jxevQY Jorfeited. Plere we see tl e indescribable demerit (f sin, that it 
 required such a death ,• and here we see the stupendous mercy of God, 
 in providing the sacrijice required. It is therefore by Jesus Christ's 
 death, or obedience unto death, that we are saved, and not by his ful- 
 filling any moral law. That he fulfilled the moral law we know, 
 ■^vitbout which be could not have been qualified to be our mediator : 
 but we must take heed, lest we attribute that to an obedience, (which 
 was tbe necessary consequence of bis immaculate nature,) which be- 
 longs to his;ja55io« and death. These were freewill oiferings of eter- 
 nal goodness, and not even a necessary consequence of his incarna- 
 tion," We shall therefore noio conclude this lengthened note in the 
 beautiful and appropriate language of a highly esteemed Poet, who, 
 with the scriptures, ascribes salvation, not to tbe circumcision of 
 Christ, not to hh personal righteousness or obedience to the moral law ; 
 but to his passion and death, we shall cheerfully join in ascribing the 
 same effect to the same cause, in saying or singing 
 
 To his meritorious passion, 
 
 All oiu' hapijiness we owe; 
 Pardon, holiness, salvation. 
 
 Heaven above, and heaven below ; 
 Grace and glory 
 
 From that open fountain flow. 
 
45 
 
 act of acceptance, which act when expressive of the r- 
 quired faith, makes us parties to the covenant, and enti. 
 ties us, through the faithfulness of God, to its benefits 
 "He that believeth and is baptized .^hall be saved ;" or, 
 as in the passage befors us, as many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and if ye be 
 Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according 
 to the promise." 
 
 Fourth — The same view of Baptism as an act of co- 
 venant acceptance, and as it relates to God's gracious en- 
 gagement to justify the ungodly by faith in his son, we 
 have, 1. Pet. iii. 20. *' which sometime were disobedient, 
 when once the long-suffering of God, waited in the days 
 of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that 
 is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure, 
 whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us, (not the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a 
 good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ." 
 
 When the Apostle, Peter called Baptism the "figure" 
 (antitupon.) the antitype of tho transaction, by which 
 Noah and his family were saved from perishing with the 
 ungodly and unbelieving world, lie had doubtless in 
 mind the faith of Noah, and that under the same view 
 as the Apostle Paul, Heb. xi. 7, *'by faith Noah being 
 warned of God of things not seen, as yet, moved with 
 fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the 
 which act of faith, he condemned the world, and became 
 heir of the righteousness which is by faith." An ex- 
 pression of the same import, as if he had said, " by 
 which act of faith he was justified before God." — Noah's 
 preservation, and that of his family was so involved in 
 the fulfilment of the more ancient promise, respecting 
 the Seed of the uomany and the deliverance of man from 
 the power of satan, that we are warranted to conclude 
 that his faith in the promise respecting his own delirer- 
 ance from the deluge, was supported by his faith in that 
 greater promise, which must have fallen to the ground 
 had the whole race perished without exception. His 
 building of the ark, and entering into it with his family, 
 are therefore considered by St. Paul, as the visible ex- 
 pression of his faith in the ancient promises of God re- 
 
46 
 
 ?nc'Cting the Messiah ; and for this reason Baptism i& 
 called by St. Peter, Avithout any allegory at all, but in 
 the sobriety of fact, <' the antitype'' of this transaction ; 
 the one exactly ans-.vering to the other, as an external 
 expression of faith in the same objects and the same pro- 
 mises. 
 
 But, (^s Mr. Watson, from whom we have largely bor- 
 rowed in the above observations, farther remarks,) the 
 Apostle does not rest in this general representation. He 
 proceeds to express in a particular and most forcible 
 manner, the nature of christian Baptism. " Not the 
 putting away the filth of the fiesh ; but the answer of a 
 good conscience towards God by the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ." Now, says he, whether we take the word 
 (eperotnna) rendered in our translation, "answer," for a 
 demand or requirement ; or for the answer of a question 
 or questions ; or in the sense of stipulation ; the general 
 import of the passage is nearly the same. If the first 
 sense be taken, then the meaning of the Apostle is, that 
 Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the fiesh, 
 not a mere external ceremony ; but a rite which de- 
 mands or requires something of us, in order to the at- 
 tainment of a " good conscience." What that is we 
 learn from the words of our Lord ; it is faith in Christ, 
 " he that believclh and is baptized shall be saved," which 
 faith is the reliance of a penitent upo,n the atonement of 
 the Saviour ; who thus submits with all gratitude and 
 truth to the terms of the evangelical covenant. If we 
 take the second sense, we must lay aside the notion of 
 some Lexicographers and Commentators, who think 
 that there is an allusion to the ancient practice of de- 
 manding of the candidates for Baptism whether they 
 renounced their sins, and the service of satan, with other 
 questions of the same import ; for ancient as these 
 questions may be, they are probably not so ancient as 
 the time of the Apostle. We know, however, from the 
 instance of Philip and the eunuch, that there was an ex- 
 plicit requirement of faith, and as explicit an answer or 
 confession, <'and Philip said, if thou believest with all 
 thine heart thon mayest ; and he answered, I believe 
 that Jesus is the son of God." Every administration of 
 Baptism indeed implied this demand ; and Baptism, if 
 
47 
 
 we understand St. Peter to refer to this circumstance, 
 was such an *' answer" to the interrogations of the ad- 
 ministrator as expressed a true and evangelical faith. If 
 we take the third rendering of '' stipulation," which has 
 less to support it critically than either of the others, still 
 as the profession of faith was a condition of Baptism, 
 that profession had the full force of a formal stipulation, 
 since all true fiiith in Christ requires an entij-e subjection 
 to him as Lord as well as Saviour. 
 
 In the passage under consideration, St. Peter evident- 
 ly preserves the correspondence between the act of 
 Noah in preparing the ark, as an act of faith by which 
 he v/as justified, and the act of submitting to christian 
 Baptism, 'vvhich is also obviously an act of faith, in order 
 to the remission of sins, or the obtaining of a good con- 
 science before God. Hence, he immediately adds, " by 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ;'* a clause which our 
 translators by the use of a parenthesis, connect with 
 *' Baptism doth also now save us," so that their meaning 
 is, Me are saved by Baptism, through the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ ; and, as he rose again for our justification, 
 this sufficiently shews that the Apostle by our being 
 saved, means our being justified by faith. 
 
 But the text needs no parenthesis, its true sense may 
 be thus expressed; " the antitype to Avhich water of the 
 flood, Baptism, doth now save us ; not tlie putting away 
 the filth of the flesh, but that which intently makes a 
 good conscience towards God, through faith in the re- 
 surrection of Jesus Christ." But however a particular 
 word may be disposed of, the whole passage can only be 
 consistently taken to teach us, that Baptism is the out- 
 ward sign of our entrance into God's covenant of mercy ; 
 and that when it is our act of true faith, it becomes an 
 instrument of salvation, like that act of faith in Noah, by 
 which, when moved with fear, he " prepared an ark to 
 the saving of his household," and survived the destruc- 
 tion of an unbelieving world. 
 
 From what has been said it will then follow, that the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and the christian covenant is the 
 same gracious engagement on the part of God to shew 
 mercy to man, and to bestow upon him eternal life, 
 through faith in Christ, as the true sacrifice for sin, dif- 
 
48 
 
 fering only in circumstances ; and that as the sign and 
 seal of this covenant, under the old dispensation, was cir- 
 cumcision, under the new it is Baptism, which has the 
 same federal character, performs the same initiatory of- 
 fice, and is instituted by the same authority. For none 
 could have authority to lay aside the appomted seal, but 
 the being who first instituted it, who changed the form 
 of the covenant itself, and who has in fact abrogated the 
 old seal by the appointment of another, even Baptism, 
 which is made obligatory upon "all nations," to whom 
 the Gospel is preached, and is to continue to the end of 
 the world. 
 
 This argument is sufficiently extended to shew that the 
 antip«ed«baptist writers have iii vain endeavoured to 
 prove, that Baptism has not been appointed in the room 
 of Circumcision ; a point on which they were bound to 
 employ all their strength ; for the substitution of Bap- 
 tism lor circumcision being estabHshed, one of their 
 main objections to infant Baptism, as we shall shortly 
 shew, is rendered wholly nugatory. 
 
 But before weenteruponour^fcowf/ general proposition; 
 before we come to consider who the proper suhjects of 
 Baptism are, it may be necessary here to examine a few 
 objections. And, 
 
 First — It is objected, that the covenant of circumci- 
 sion first made with Abrnhavj, and afterwards renexued 
 and enlarged \\'\i\\ Moses, was not the general covenant of 
 grace, because this covenant is, both in the new Testa- 
 ment and by the prophet Jeremiah, when speaking of 
 Gospel days, called, "anew covenant."* 
 
 J3ut to this we an«;vver ; that no objection to this co- 
 venant having had a previous existence, can be founded 
 upon its being called a 7iew covenant, any more than an 
 objection to the previous existence of the commandmenty 
 which our Lord gave his disciples, to love one another^ 
 can be founded upon its being called a new command- 
 nient.f But it is evident, that when cur Lord says to his 
 disciples, *' A yz^tu command^ient give I unto you, that 
 ye love one another even as I have loved you," he does 
 not mean that the duty of love had never before bet n 
 
 * Heb. viii. 13. Jor. >xx*. SI. 
 f Jchn xiii. 34:. 
 
49 
 
 enforced upon mankind ; as this indeed, would be to 
 take away that upon which "all the law and the pro- 
 phets" do hang, the two great commandments, and con- 
 sequently to make our Lord, who, before taught this 
 doctrine, now contradicthimseir.* Yet still the command- 
 ment by which our Saviour enforced the duty of love 
 upon his disciples, was with the greatet propriety 
 termed a new commandment, although the substance of 
 it had been as old as "the law and the prophets." For, 
 although, " thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," 
 was a positive precept of the law, (Lev. xix. 18.) 3^et 
 still it was, as enforced by our Saviour, a nexjo command- 
 ment, inasmuch as he enforces it in a new decree ; inas- 
 much as he does not merely say, thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyself, but as he says, "that ye love one 
 another, even as I have loved you. Now Christ more 
 than fulfiled the Mosaic precept; he not only loved his 
 neighbour as himself, but he loved him more than him- 
 self^ for he laid down his life for the children of men. 
 And in this he calls upon the disciples to imitate him ; to 
 be ready on all proper occasions to lay down their lives 
 for each other. This was, therefore, strictly a iic-m com- 
 mandment, as no system of morality ever prescribed any 
 thing so pure and disinterested as this. " Our Lord," 
 (says Dr. A. Clarke, whom we before quoted,) "has 
 outdone all the moral systems in the universe in two 
 words: L Love your enemies : 2. Lay down your lives 
 for each other." Therefore as this commandment was 
 called " a nex\:i commandment, "J although in substance 
 
 * Mat. xxii. 37—39. 
 
 \ It has bc^en in substance frequently, ^although in words some- 
 times somewhat differently,) stated, that the venerable Archbishop 
 Usher, of Armagh, being, at onetime, in that part of Scotland, con- 
 tiguous to where the celeljrated Scotch divine IMr. Samuel Ruther- 
 ford lived ; and hearing much of his piety and devotion, and 
 particularly of it being his practice to spend a considerable i)art of 
 every Saturday night in prayer, desired to wiuiess himself what had 
 been told him. But how to accomplish this without being known was 
 the difficulty. At length having arrayed himself in a mendicant's at- 
 tire, he, in that order arrived at Mr. Rutherford's late on a Saturday 
 evening. After having readily obtained lodging until the Monday 
 morning following, he was sent into the kitchen to stop with the ser- 
 vants. Now it was Mr. Rutherford's custom every Saturday 
 
30 
 
 as old as the ''law and the prophets;" so the covenant 
 of circumcision first made with Abraliam, and afterwards 
 renewed and enlarged with Moses, although the general 
 covenant of grace, was called " a ncxv covenant" by the 
 prophet Jeremiah, when speaking ot Gospel days, anJ by 
 the -luthor of the epistle to the Hebrews when quoting 
 the prophet's words ; not because it had not had an ex- 
 istence previouslj/ to Christ's being manifested in the 
 riesh, ^for as there could have been no salvation to fallen 
 man through any other covenant, it must have existed in 
 
 evening to call together his servants, and the better to prepare them 
 for the approaching Sabbath, to examine and instruct them in re- 
 ligious matters. But at the time in which th« family was thus visit- 
 ed by our stranger, Mr. li. being absent on congregational duty, and 
 not expected home until a pretty late hour, the work of examination 
 and instruction devolved upon Mrs. R,. herself; who always faith- 
 fully attended to such things in her husband's absence. Whilst thus 
 engaged with her servants, she, wishing to be useful also to her iieiu 
 guest, the poor beggarman, asked him, how many commandments 
 there were. To which he answered eleven. She, on the receiving 
 of this answer, after observing what a shame it was for an old man, 
 with gray heirs, and in a christian country to be so ignorant, as not to 
 know how many commandments there were, passed on to another of 
 her charge and troubled him no more. After receiving some supper, 
 the poor man was shewn to abed in a garret, just (as he gladly learn- 
 ed,) over the room appropriated tc Mr. R's private devotion. Tiiis was 
 the very place in which he desired to be, above all others in the house. 
 IJut, after having long waited in expectation of hearing Mr. R. 
 commence his accustomed employment of prayer, and waited in vain, 
 be thought with himself, what a pity it would be thus to lose his night, 
 by having neither sleep nor prayer. Therefore as INIr. 11. had not en- 
 gaged in this work, according to his common custom, he resolved to 
 engage in it himself. Mr. R. who was still awake, although not as 
 yet engaged in his usual exercise, hearing the beggarman's voice in 
 prayer, was at first souiewhat astonished. But, on waiting at the garret 
 door until the conclusion, he in the poor man, recognized the vener- 
 able Archbishop of Armagh, with whom, it is said, he had been pre- 
 viously in the habit of corresponding, allhough not personally ac- 
 (juainted. It was then mutually agreed, tliat the Bisliop should be 
 supplied with clotiies out of Mr. R's wardrobe, that he should not 
 be discovered, that they should both go out early in the morning into 
 the fields, and that on their return he should be introduced by Mr. R. 
 to the family, -as a strange minister passing by who had )nomised to 
 ))reach for him that day. When Iklrs. R. at the breakfast hour, made 
 enquiry respecting the poor man her guest, she was informed that he 
 had gone away without the knowledge of the family, before they 
 were out of bed. A iter the strange minister (intrcduced by Mr. R. 
 
51 
 
 substance from the first promise of a Saviour, "the Seed 
 of > the woman," was given to Adam,*) but, because that 
 in consequence of this manifestation, in consequence of 
 the Redeemer's Hfe, death &c. it underwent several im- 
 portant changes. And in reference to these several 
 changes (some of which we shall briefly notice,) it is 
 therefore properly termed a " w^iu covenant." For, 
 
 First — The covenant of grace, under the christian dis- 
 pensation is a uetv covenant as being ratified by the 
 death of Christ. The church of God under the patri- 
 
 * See Baxter's Aphorisms on Justification, &c. 
 
 according tr agreement,) and the rest of the family had breakfasted, 
 and together worshipped God, they all repaired to the public congrega- 
 tion, where he preached, from John xiii. SI* ''a jiew commandment 
 give I unto you, that ye love one another." In the course of the 
 sermon he observed, that this miglit be reckoned the eleventh com- 
 mandir.ent. — Mrs. R. on hearing this observation, said to herself, 
 •* that is indeed the very answer which tiie poor man (whom I am 
 now sorry for having rebuked so sliarply,) ga^e me last night." 
 After public worship, the Bishop and Mv. R. spent the evening to- 
 gether, to their mutual Satisfaction : and, early on Monday morning the 
 former went away in the dress in which he came, without being dis • 
 covered. 
 
 Now, whether the venerable Bishop, in preaching on the " new 
 commandment," considered it as new in any other respect than that 
 which we have stated above, than as to the degree of it, we know not ; 
 but we know that he was too good a theologian lo deny, that it was 
 substantially as old, as "the law and the prophets," in which we have 
 shewn it was always contained. Be this however as it may, we shall 
 notice a few things which we conceive the anecdote naturally sug- 
 gests. And, 
 
 Firsts We observe, that the Bishop was considerably influenced by 
 what we would call a principle of curiosity, which led him, in order 
 to Its gratification, to encounter difficulties and ^ubmit to privations, 
 and also that we have seldom, if ever, known a man of worth, as a 
 member of either civil or religious society, who was not so far influ- 
 enced by the same principle, as to be willing, in order to its laivful in- 
 dulgence, to make sacrifices. But while we speak thus, we also 
 observe, that in order that this principle may not lead those influenced 
 by it, to become " busy bodies in other men's matters," and almost of 
 consequence, "tattlers," "talebearers," "separating chief friends," 
 the pests of society ; that in order to this, it requires to be kept under 
 a prudential restraint, that it requires, like wit, to be under the ma- 
 nagement of wise men, who know when, and how far it should be in- 
 dulged ; and also when, and to what extent, it should be restrained, 
 "We observe farther, that the good Bishop's conduct, in reference to the 
 
52 
 
 arclialilutl Jewish dispensations enjoyed this blessing only 
 mrtualUj and by wa}" of promise and a7iticipation. The 
 covenant form under other dispensations, on!}' held forth 
 a Christ to come, the future Seed of Abraham in whom 
 all the nations of the earth were to " be blessed." But 
 now its form is Christ, actually come " into the world, to 
 save sinners," yea, even the very chief, Christ as " having 
 died for our sins and risen again for our justification."* 
 
 Second — It is a 7ietv covenant, as being now freed from 
 those burdensome rites and ceremonies with which it 
 
 * 1 Tim. i. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. Rom. x. 9. iii. 21—26. iv. 24., 25. 
 
 manner in whicli lie visited Mr. Rutherford's, is not to be imitated, 
 that to act iti any such way, would even t/ien have been, and would 
 noiv be, highly improper, in almost any other person, or on almost any 
 other occasion. 
 
 Second — We observe, that it was then the custom, for the " servants 
 of the Most High God," in their private devotion, to pray in a dis- 
 tinct, and audible manner. Hence the Bishop goes to Mr. Ruther- 
 ford's house, in expectation oi hearing him engaged m private prayer. 
 And, according to tliis custom, the bishop himself, while shut up in his 
 garret, and praying to his " father who seeth in secret," is heard by 
 jVIr. Rutherford. It was then as well as now, the opinion of many, 
 that, even in private, the mind is more impressed, and the individual 
 more benefitted by the distinct articulation of the words, than by 
 mere mental exertion. 
 
 Thiid — We observe that wherever there is trxie religion there is also 
 ^enwrne benevolence, so an Apostle "he that seeth his brother in need 
 and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the 
 love of God in him." (I John iii. 17.) Hence Mrs. Rutherford, 
 Samaritan like, attends to the wants of the Stranger, and that without 
 regarding his country, creed, or even character. No doubt she re- 
 membered the words of our Lord, *' I was a stranger and ye took me 
 in," and, " inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these 
 my brethren ye have dene it unto me." (Mat. xxv. 35 — -lO.) And 
 also those of the Apostle, " be not forgetful to entertain strangers." 
 (Heb. xiii, 2.) That there have been always wise children of this 
 world, (not indeed children of light, nor wise with the wisdom that 
 Cometh from above,) who have found excuses for acting differently 
 from Mrs. Rutherford, or the good Samaritan whom she imitated, 
 and concerning whom the Saviour says, to every man, " go and do 
 thou likewise." (Luke x. 37.) — that there have ijeen such we know. 
 But that either religion or humanity, (always on the side of mercy,) 
 will admit of excuses from these wise wordlings, for withholding com- 
 passion from those who tieed it, (no matter what the creed, country, or 
 even, for the moment, the character of the needy individual may be,) we 
 must, while guided by reason and scripture, positively deny. 
 
53 
 
 was formerly encumbered ; which according to St. Paul 
 were " added because of transgressions," and were only 
 *' a shadow of good things to come," And which, ac- 
 cording to St. Peter, were " a yoke" that neither the 
 Jews of his day, nor their fathers before them ** were 
 able to bear." But from which Christ hath now made 
 both Jew and Gentile completely free, which he hath 
 *' abolished," yea taken away and "nailed to his cross."* 
 Third — It is a nevo covenant, as, in its present form 
 it contains a more full and clear account of true religion, 
 
 * Gal. iii. 19. Heb. x. 1. Aets xv. 10. Gal. v. 1. Col. ii. 14—17. 
 
 Fourth— We observe, the necessity of guarding against hasty 
 conclusions, as such are frequently wrong. For, had Mrs. Rutherford 
 waited to hear the old man's reasons for saying, that there were eleven 
 commandments, she would have been satisfied then, as well as after' 
 wards while hearing him preach, that he was not that ignorant person 
 she supposed hira to be. Hence the truth of the wise man's words, 
 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and 
 shame unto him." Prov, xviii. 13. 
 
 Fifth — In the last place we observe, that these great and good men 
 do not lay the stress of religion on such modes and forms as the scrip- 
 tures have not made essential ; that, with them, a difference in judg- 
 ment respecting minor matters, does not make any in affection. 
 For their hearts agree while their heads differ, they love alike while 
 they think differently. Hence Mr. Rutherford, a conscientious Dis- 
 senter requests a minister of the Established Church to occupy his 
 pulpit and preach to his people. And the venerable Archbishop 
 Usher, a conscientious Episcopalian, appears in the form of a Dissent- 
 ing minister, before a Presbyterian congregation, preaching '* the 
 unsearchable riches of Christ." That the spirit of philantrophy, by 
 which these eminent servants of the Most High God were so blessed- 
 ly influenced, is on the increase, is, indeed, matter of joy and grati- 
 tude to every real lover of Zion. And that it may abound yet more 
 and more, that the spirit of these Elijahs, may rest in a " double por- 
 tion" upon the Elishas of our day, who now occupy the place of these 
 their predecessors, should be matter of earnest and constant prayer. 
 Then indeed would the little things, the different opinions about church 
 government, the modes and ceremonies of religion, &c. cease to se- 
 parate, like partition walls, the children of God from each other; then 
 would these no longer be made great things ; and if they would not be 
 even altogether removed, they would become so little as to be leaped 
 over, and all the children of the same family, who hold the head 
 Christ Jesus the Lord, would be so far one as to unite with all their 
 hearts in strengthening each other's bands in the promoting of their 
 Common Father's blessed cause, *' Glory to God in the highest, on earth 
 peace and good will toward men." Luke ii. li. 
 
 F 
 
54s 
 
 than under any preceding dispensation. Former dis- 
 pensations were glorious, but this, according to St. Paul, 
 '' excelletli in glory." Hence the language used to 
 the disciples of John the Baptist, by the Redeemer — 
 *< Verily," saith he, *' I say unto you, among tliem that are 
 born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John 
 the Baptist; notwithstanding he that is least in the king- 
 dom of heaven is greater than he." Inasmuch as if he had 
 said, John the Baptist, whose message ye now bear, hath 
 a greater knowledge of me, as the true Messiah, and of 
 the nature of my government among men, than any of 
 his predecessors ever had, yet notwithstanding this, the 
 least subject of that kingdom which I am about to set up^ 
 and which is now at hand, the least among those, who 
 shall truly believe in me, after I shall have died, risen, 
 ascended, and poured out of my spirit in his promised 
 fulness, shall know more of me as a Saviourt have a 
 greater knowledge of the nature of my Salvation, and be 
 better acquainted with my Redemption and the glory of 
 my reign in the world, than even John the Baptist him- 
 self.* 
 
 Fourth — It is a «etu covenant also, as being now at- 
 tended with a larger -measure of the Holy Spirit, than at 
 any former period, so says the evangelist, St. John, when 
 explaining his Lord's words spoken on the last, the great 
 day of the Jewish feast, *' He that believeth on me, as 
 the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of 
 living water," says, that, " This spake he of the Spirit, 
 which they that believe on him should receive ; for the 
 Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was 
 not yet glorified. "f Now on this passage we would ob- 
 serve, 1. That we are not to understand the evangelist as 
 denying, that the Holy Spirit did formerly strive with the 
 Antediluvians for a hundred and twenty years, while the 
 ark was a preparing and when the Most High said, " My 
 Spirit shall not aln)r,ys strive with man. "J Nor, that of 
 old, holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
 Holy Ghost. ^ Nor that all scripture is given by in- 
 qnration o^ GoA^W Nor that the ancient prophets pos- 
 
 * 2 Cor iii. 10. Mat. xi. 11. t John vii. 38, 39. 
 
 ^ Gen. vi. 3. § 2 Peter i. 21, [j 2 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
55 
 
 sessed this Holy Spirit to comfort and uphold or esta- 
 blish them — that David, for instance, bad this divine gift, 
 when he prayed to God and said, '' cast me not away 
 from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from 
 me."* But we are to understand the Apostle as deny- 
 ing that the Holy Spirit in his saving gifts and graces 
 was given, even to true believers, in that full measure, 
 before Christ's glorification, which he was afterwards. 
 
 To attach any other meaning than this to the passage, 
 to us, geems absurd. For, to deYij that there have been 
 good men, under even/ dispensation, even before the 
 establishment of Christianity, to deny that there have 
 been men, who after having served God here on earth, 
 were, by him, taken to heaven to serve him there for 
 ever, would be to contradict the scriptures, and deny, 
 that such men as Abel, Enoch, Melchisadec, Moses, 
 Elijah, &c. ever had an existence, as the scriptures de- 
 clare, concerning such men, that they served God on 
 earth, and are now serving him more perfectly in heaven. f 
 Therefore as none are naturally good, as none are meet 
 for the kingdom of heaven, until born again, until born 
 from above, born of God. And as it is by his Spirit that 
 God works this great work in man, that he works in 
 him both to will and to do of his good pleasure, yea, ail 
 his works ; as it is by his Spirit that he strives with him, 
 that he draws, enlightens, convinces, persuades, comforts, 
 purifies, establishes, and finally prepares him for glory ; 
 so without this Holy Spirit there could have been no 
 salvation and eternal life obtained under any dispensa- 
 tion ; and as according to the scriptures there have been 
 salvation and eternal life obtained under every dispensa- 
 tion, then this Holy Spirit must have been given under 
 every dispensation, consequently this is not what the 
 evangelist is denying when he says, *' the Holy Ghost was 
 not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.'* 
 But 2. — We would observe that it is not of the Holy 
 Ghost in his miraculous gifts that the passage speaks, as 
 is evident from the very form of expression used therein. 
 For when the Saviour saith, *' He that believeth on me, 
 as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow 
 
 * Psalms, li. 11. f Matt. xvii. xxii. Heb. vii. xi. &Cv 
 
56 
 
 riversof living water," it is the same as if he had said, every 
 one that believeth on me or ^^ ivhosoever believeth on me." 
 And in this sense he elsewhwere saith, ** God so loved 
 the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that lo/fo^o- 
 ever believeth on him should not perish, but have ever- 
 lasting life ;" and again, " He that believeth on the son 
 hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the son 
 shall not see life, but the v^^rath of God abideth on him ; 
 and yet again, " He thatbelieveth and is baptized shall be 
 saved, he that believeth not shall be damned." Hence it 
 is plain that the words, *' He that believeth," mean every 
 one chat believeth, and that we must conclude that the 
 passage speaks of the common privilege of believers, 
 that it speaks of what every believer possesseth. But 
 the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gifti, is not what every 
 believer possesseth, is not the common privilege of be- 
 lievers in any age^ or under any dispensation. Therefore, 
 it is not of the Holy Ghost, in his miraculous gifisf that 
 the passage speaks. 
 
 Now that every believer, even in the Apostolic age, 
 did not receive the Holy Ghost in his miraculous gifts, 
 is evident from the reasoning of St. Paul on this subjects 
 For after he, in writing to the Corinthians, states, that 
 God hath set in the church, first apostles, secondly 
 prophets, thirdly teachers, &c. He then enquires, are 
 all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers ? Are 
 all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? 
 Do all speak with tongues ? Do all interpret ?* Which is 
 the same as if he had said, all are not apostles, all are 
 not prophets, all are not teachers, all are not workers 
 of miracles, &c. For as the several questions here pro- 
 posed by the Apostle are all proposed in the same form j 
 they must all receive answers of a similar description. 
 That is, they must all be answered affirmatively, or ne- 
 gatively. But if it would be absurd to answer them all 
 affirmatively, if it would be absurd to say that, even in 
 the Apostolic age, every member of the church was an 
 apostle, was a prophet, was a teacher. &c.^ Then it 
 would be equally absurd to say, that all were workers of 
 
 * 1 Cor. xii. 28—30. 
 
 § From this passage it also appears, that God never intended every 
 member of the church to be a public teacher, any more tlian he in- 
 
ST 
 
 miracles, that all had the gift of healing, that all spake 
 with tongues that all had the interpretation of tongues. 
 Hence we must answer them negatively, and say, all are 
 not apostles, all are not prophets, all are not teachers, 
 all are not workers of miracles, Ac. But if the gift of 
 the interpretation of tongues, which was one of the 7ni- 
 raculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, had been common to 
 all the members of the church, then there would have 
 
 tended every member thereof to be a worker of miracles. Indeed to 
 suppose that the Most High ever intended, that men should be engaged 
 in a work for which they were not qualified, would be a reflection on 
 his wisdom, which always suits the means to the end. Consequently, 
 as every member of the church does not possess the necessary qualifi- 
 cations for teaching ; as every member thereof does not possess a good 
 natural understanding, a "sound mind," and a capability of reasoning 
 " of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," of "persua- 
 ding men," of " warning the unruly," of " convincing gainsayers," &c. 
 And as it is necessary to constitute a teacher a " workman that needeth 
 not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth," " giving to 
 each a portion of meat in due season," as it is necessary to constitute 
 such a teacher, that he should possess such qualification for the work, 
 that he should possess a "sound mind," a discriminating judgment, 
 and a capability of using "sound speech that cannot be condemned," 
 of expressing himself intelligibly and scripturally on the different sub- 
 jects connected with Christianity, and with which the sacred oracles par- 
 ticularly require mankind to be made acquainted. As it is necessary 
 that every teacher in the church should possess such qualification ; and 
 as every member thereof does not possess it, then it must follow, that 
 God, as a God of wisdom, never intended that such as are not qualified 
 for the work should be engaged in it — that he never intended every 
 member of the church to be a teacher therein, any more than he inten- 
 ded every member thereof to be a worker of miracles. Consequently, 
 as God's plan is, to have only such engaged in teaching as are qualified 
 for teaching : rnd as all the members of the church are not qualified 
 for teaching, it must follow that the principle which would have all tea- 
 chers, is at variance with God's plan. 
 
 But that every member of the church should not be a teacher there- 
 in, is still farther confirmed by Heb. v. 12. 13, where we read — " For 
 when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach 
 you again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God : and 
 are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For 
 every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness." 
 Now from this passage it is evident, that these persons were members 
 of the church, and addressed as such by the apostle ; and yet that they 
 were not qualified for teaching, being unskilful in the word of righ- 
 teousness, and consequently should not be engaged in such a work — it 
 is evident that they were but babes, and, as such, instead of teaching 
 
58 
 
 been no need for an interpreter, in reference to either 
 speaker or hearer, when the members of the church 
 tvere assembled together. But as there was a necessity 
 for an interpreter, when the members of the church met 
 together, (1 Cor. xiv. 27, 28.) Then the gift of the in- 
 terpretation of tongues was not common to all the mem- 
 bers of the church, even in the Apostolic age. Nor, 
 
 and feeding others, had need themselves to be taught and fed : to be 
 fed even with milk and not with meat ; and to be taught the very first 
 principles of the oracles of God — were these then to teach what they 
 had yet to learn— is this the plan of infinite wisdom ! 
 
 That the principle which requires every member of the church to be 
 ateacher therein is at variance with God's plan, as revealed in his word, 
 is also manifest from 1 Tim, ii. li, 12. where we read, " let the woman 
 learn in silence with all subjection. But 1 suffer not a woman to teach, 
 nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence," compared 
 with 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, " let your women keep silence in the church- 
 es, for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are com- 
 manded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they 
 will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home : for it is a 
 shame for women to speak in the church." Now by these two passages of 
 scripture the apostle speaking by the Spirit of God puts it beyond suc- 
 cessful cavilling, that women, (although many of them worthy mem- 
 bers of the church, and very useful in their own proper province that 
 they) should be public teachers, yea that they should be teachers at all 
 in the church, that they should when the members thereof are promis- 
 cuously assembled, either teach or ask questions : hence, if it be, as 
 the apostle states, a shame for married women, whom he allows, when 
 they desire to learn any thing, to ask their husbands at home, that be- 
 ing the proper place to ask, and those the proper persons ; if it be a 
 shame even for tliem to speak in the church, to either teach or ask 
 questions therein, then surely for the unmarried women thus to speak, 
 would be a greater shame ! 
 
 The last passage we shall produce to prove that it is contrary to God's 
 plan that every member of the church should be a teacher therein, is 
 Eph. iv. 11, 12. where we find that the head of the church, the Lord 
 Christ, "gave" only "some pastors and teachers" together with the 
 other extraordinary messengers of "apostles, prophets, and evangelists" 
 " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the 
 edifying of the body of Christ." Now from this it is evident that as 
 God gave oijly i,o?}ie teachers to his church, those w!u) will have nil 
 teachers, in their turn, are at variance with God's plan, and must have; 
 among tlieir teachers such as God never gave, and consecjuently sucli 
 as cannot profit his people ; such as cannot edify his body the church ! 
 
 From these observations it must follow that sucli scriptures, as Acts 
 viii, 1, -l, Ileb. x. 25, &c. must be understood with certain restrictions 
 
59 
 
 consequently, the several miraculous gifts of the Spirit, 
 of which the interpretation of tongues was one. 
 
 But we may here go even a step farther and shew, that 
 the Apostles themselves did not possess the spirit in his 
 miraculous gifts at all times, but only at certain times, 
 when God saw it necessary. For if St. Paul was not a 
 whit behind the chief of the Apostles, and if his Bro- 
 ther companion in labour, and fellow-helper, Epaphra- 
 
 and limitations. The former passage which speaks of the church be- 
 ing all scattered abroad except the apostles and of those who were thus 
 scattered going every where preaching the word cannot be interpreted &f 
 alt the members of the church. For if so, then who would have remained 
 for Saul to make havock of? Where would the men and women have 
 been in every house, for him to hale and commit to prison ? Where 
 would the persons have been for him to persecute, or for the apostles 
 to teach ? We must therefore understand the passage as speaking only 
 of all the other " teachers, except the apostles, who though in the most 
 danger staid with the flock." The latter passage which requires the 
 members of the church to " exhort one another," cannot be understood 
 eitlier' of public exhortation, or as applicable to every member of the 
 community without contradicting both reason and the several scriptures 
 produced above. It with all others of a similar description can only 
 be scripturally and rationally understood as referring to such members 
 of the church as have received the gift of exhortation : see Rom.xii. 7. 
 We would here particularly observe that what we have advanced is 
 rict levelled at what is commonly called lay preachers or teachers, as 
 there have been among these men who have excelled botli in talents 
 and usefulness, witness Calvin and Knox, with other of the early re- 
 fonners, not to mention numbers in our own day, on whose head hands 
 were never laid. Luther it is true had ordination, but if we consider 
 for what purpose he had it, and from whom, we will not be disposed to 
 lay much stress upon it. If we must admit as a self-evident truth, that 
 no man can give to another what he has not himself. Then as the 
 scriptures assure us, that no wicked man has authority to declare God's 
 statutes or to take his covenant in his mouth (Psal. 1. 16.) itmustfollow 
 that no wicked man can give any authority to teach or preach in God's 
 church. Now as there have been confessedly, at certain times, very 
 wicked men' in the church, who have pretended to possess, and to 
 give authority to teach and to preach, it must follow that those who 
 conceived that they received authority from characters of this descrip- 
 tion have been greatly deceived, inasmucii as the men could net give to 
 others what they did not themselves possess. This doctrine of succession 
 like that of intention, is completely spoiled by the wanting of even 
 one single link in its chain, \ihereas it evidently wants many. But 
 indeed both doctrines are now nearly alike descarded by protestants of 
 every description. The simple fact then is, that God never sent a man 
 to convert others who was unconverted himself. No matter therefore 
 
60 
 
 ditus, was sick and nigh unto death, and, if this sickness 
 was cause of sorrow to St. Paul, ond if the removal of 
 it, was God's having mercy upon both him and his friend. 
 Then it is evident that he did not, at that timet possess 
 the gift of healing, else he would have removed the 
 sickness under which his friend laboured, and whidi 
 caused himself such sorrow. And it is also evident, that 
 he did not possess this gift when he left Trophitaus at 
 
 by whom the unconverted man may have been sent, he has not the sanc- 
 tion of God. No matter whose hands may have been laid on the head 
 of the proud, overbearing, intolerant impatient lover of the world, he 
 has no commission from heaven. He in whom the spirit of Christ does 
 not dwelU no matter what he may have from man, has no authority 
 from God to teach meekness, gentlesess, longsufiering, and the other 
 graces of that Holy Spirit which he has not. Now as on the one hand the 
 Most High will not sanction such teachers or preachers as he himself 
 does not qualify with gifts and grace, as he will not sanction such as 
 he does not himself thus give to his church ; no matter by whom 
 they may be appointed to labour in his vineyard, they are only intru- 
 ders. So on the other hand those whom he thus qualifies and sends, 
 no matter by whom they may be disapproved or rejected, he will be 
 with always, even to the end. He will use to convert sinners from the 
 error of their way, to save souls from death ; to open the eyes of the 
 people to whom he sends them ; to turn them from darkness to light, 
 and from the power of satan to God, that they may receive forgive- 
 ness of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified. Thus 
 these are known by their fruit. But what we have been opposing is, 
 either layman or other man, teaching or preaching without the neces- 
 sary qualification of gifts and grace for the work. And that such are 
 opposed to God's plan, as have adopted the principle of having all 
 the members of the church teachers, we think we have sufficiently 
 shewn. 
 
 But from what has been advanced above, it must also follow, that it 
 is contrary to both reason and scripture, for every member of the 
 church to have a share in its government, to have a vote in its deci- 
 sions. For if the want of proper qualification be sufficient to pre- 
 vent every member of the church from teaching, the want of proper 
 qualification must also prevent every member thereof from governing. 
 If the want of *' a sound mind," a good natural understanding, and 
 a discriminating judgment, disqualify several members of the church 
 for correctly and scripturally stating its doctrines, and enforcing its 
 duties, for being teachers, for speaking " according to the oracles of 
 God," the only true rule for every christian teacher, (1. Pet. iv. 11.) 
 Then on the same principle the want of such qualification must pre- 
 vent several members of the church from engaging in the examining 
 and judging of the various causei which she must have to examine 
 and decide. '* 
 
61 
 
 Miletum sick, else he would not have left him there m 
 such a state.* Hence we must conclude, from the whole, 
 that it is only of the ordinarj^, and not of the extraordi- 
 nary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, the passage 
 speaks, that it treats only of his saving operations, influ- 
 ences, and fruits. And thatthese are given inalarger mea- 
 sure under the christian dispensation, than under any 
 other. Hence the Gospel covenant is, under this dispensa- 
 
 • 2 Cor. xii. U. Phil, ii, 25—27. 2 Tim. iv. 20. 
 
 That " Novices" — that the young and inexperienced ; that the 
 "unskilful in the word of righteousness," who have need to be taught 
 the first principles of the oracles of God ; that such as are incapable 
 of examining almost any cause, that such as are destitute of intellect, 
 although not without the fear of God ; (and where is the congre- 
 gation that wants such persons ;) that these should have matters 
 of the greatest moment to a church, brought before them, for them 
 to try and decide, is contrary to reason, and consequently not 
 agreeable to scripture. That females should in conjunction with 
 males, be called upon to form a tribunal and try, the incestuous Co- 
 rinthian, or characters of a similar decription, let him who cau believe 
 agreeable to scripture. But we must, while exercising our reason 
 respecting that modesty which the scriptures so frequently attribute 
 to the fair sex, and so uniformly require from them, we must on this 
 ground decline from believing — we must indeed, while exercising our 
 reason, decline from believing this to be their province, or that such a 
 work was ever by the great head of the church required at their 
 hands. Whether that form of church government which makes 
 every separate congregation a complete church in itself, subject to 
 neither counsel nor controul from any man, or number of men under 
 heaven, whether such a form of government be the best or not still 
 remains a question on which christians may think differently. But 
 that it \yas not the Jtrst form, that it was not the form adopted by the 
 Apostles and Evangelists, and practised by them until the end of their 
 lives, the scriptures put beyond doubt. For we find from the sacred 
 records, that wherever these servants of the Most High planted 
 churthes, that notwithstanding their then appointing pastors over 
 them, they still continued to exercise a superintendance over them 
 themselves, they still continued to subject both them and their pastors 
 to their own counsel and control. To quote in proof of this, would 
 be to transcribe a great part of the Acts of the Apostles, together with 
 the whole of the several Epistles written by them to the different 
 churches, some of which they had never planted, yea had never even 
 
 seen 
 
 That to appoint to the oflRce of the ministry was not the work of 
 the people is manifest from the New Testament, for there we find that 
 the Apostles were ordained by our Lord himself, the Evangelists by 
 
62 
 
 tlon, with the greatest propriety termed a neto covenant. 
 Fifth — The Gospel covenant, or covenant of grace 
 under the Christian dispensation, is termed a neiu coven- 
 ant because that, in all its blessings and privileges, it is 
 now extended to all men, to Jews and Gentiles, without 
 exception. For it was only after the perfecting of the 
 Gospel dispensation, by the coming of the Holy Ghost 
 in his promised fulness, it was only after the Apostles 
 
 the apostles, and the elders, in every church, both by apostles and 
 evangelists. In Acts, xiv. 23, we read of Paul and Barnabas, "That, 
 when they, observe not when the people, but, " when they had ordain* 
 ed elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commend- 
 ed them to the Lord." Even the deacons whose appointment is 
 mentioned, Acts vi. (and some of whom afterwards became evangel- 
 ists, see Acts xxi. 8.) although " looked out" by the disciples even as 
 men of honest report, did not enter upon their office until solenuily 
 appointed thereto by the apostles. Nothing is clearer in the New 
 Testament, than that all the candidates for th« ministry, were judged 
 of by those who had been placed in that office themselves, and that 
 they received their appointment from them. Hence such as will ori- 
 ginate the ministry from the people, are opposed to the scripture plan. 
 From the several exhortations given to christians to " obey them 
 thai have the rule over them," to "submit to them," and to " esteem 
 them very highly for their works' sake," and to "remember them;" 
 from these and such like exhortations, and also from the titles given, 
 not only to the apostles, but ev«n to those elders or presbyters which 
 the apostles themselves ordained and placed over the churches and 
 who are called "rulers," "overseers," &c. and commended for ruling 
 well, and directed to " charge," to "reprove," to "rebuke," to ''si- 
 lence," to " put away," &c. from these things, and the account tliat 
 tJiey must give to God, how they have performed their duty, it is evi- 
 dent tliat their office and responsibility were peculiar and personal, 
 and much greater than any private member of the church ; and also, 
 that the ministerial office is not one of mere agency under the abso- 
 lute direction of the votes of the collected church ; that every mem- 
 ber of the church should not have a voice in such matters, or have 
 such things brought before him for his decision. That the people 
 should be secured, that their pastor, teacher, or preaclier, shall not depart 
 from that system of doctrine and discipline to which be and they have 
 mutually acceded as being agreeable to God's holy word, that they 
 should be secured, that if he change his mind, be shall leave them 
 and Uieir system as he found them, without attempting at innovations ; 
 that every people should have such security from their teacher, is 
 consistent with reason, and not contrary ta scripture. But that the peo- 
 ple should be co-administrators with their pastor in teaching and 
 governing, or rather that they should both teach and govern by him, 
 is a principle which neither scripture nor reason support. " To raise 
 
63 
 
 were thus, in Jerusalem, " endued with power from on 
 high," that they were to go " into all the world and 
 preach the gospel to every creature," that they were to 
 " preach repentance and remission of sins," "in the name 
 of Jesus Christ of Nazareth," "to all nations beginning 
 at Jerusalem."* 
 
 Sixth — But in the last place it is a new covenant, be- 
 cause in its present form, under the Christian dispensa- 
 
 • Acts i. 8. Luke xxiv. 47, 49. Mauk xvi. 15. Mat. xxviii. 19. 
 
 into legislators and censors all the members of a church is to do them 
 great injury. It is the sure way to foster debates, contentions, and 
 self-confidence, to open the door to intrigue aad policy, to tempt for- 
 ward and eonceJted men to become a kind of religious demagogues, 
 and entirely to destroy the salutary influence of the aged, experienced, 
 and gifted members, by referring every decision to members and suf- 
 frages, and placing all that is good and valuable, and influential 
 among the members themselves at the feet of a democracy." Now, 
 that a democratical form of government is best in civil matters, the 
 experience of different nations at different times, for ages past, is very 
 far from proving. And whether it be the best in religious matters, 
 whether it be the best form of governing the church, whether it be 
 most for her advantage to constitute all her members legislators, and 
 thus to decide her causes by their votes, is a question that may still be 
 agitated as a matter of expediency. But tliat it was not the first 
 form, that it was not the form adopted by the apostles and evangelists 
 in their governing of the churches, the scriptures, as we have shewn 
 above, put beyond the power of successful cavilling. Hence we 
 conclude that such passages as Mat. xviii. 17. 1 Cor. v. 2 Cor. ii. 
 6—8 are not to be understood as if the cases therein referred to or 
 recorded, were to be made known to the whole of the members of the 
 church when collected together, in order to be decided by their vote ; 
 but indeed no such construction can be put upon thexu, unless it can 
 be proved that the Most High would have men employed in doing that 
 for which they were unqualified. Unless he would have the unskil- 
 ful in the word of righteousness try causes by a standard with which 
 they were unacquainted, according to that word in which they were 
 unskilful ; unless he would have such as need to be taught the first 
 principles of the oracles of God, decide causes according to these 
 oracles the first principles of which they have yet to learn ; unles? 
 the woman should not be in subjection to the man in silence, but by 
 speaking, silence the man and put him in subjection to her, unless it 
 can be proved that the original plan was for teachers to have their 
 appointment to office from the people, and that in the administration 
 of both doctrine and discipline they were only the people's passive 
 agents, that they had no peculiar and personal responsibility, nothing 
 greater than private merabci's. Unless these things can be proved, 
 
64 
 
 tion, it is never to be abolished. Hence it is termed 
 the '* everlasting covenant," Heb. xiii. This is that king- 
 dom spoken of by the Prophet Daniel, *' which shall ne- 
 ver be destroyed." That " everlasting dominion" which 
 " passeth not away," that kingdom which, according to 
 the Apostle, <* cannot be moved." Yea, of which accord- 
 ing to the Angel's language to Mary there shall be no 
 end.* Hence the period of the Messiah's kingdom, the 
 period of the Christian dispensation, is termed by St. 
 Paul the *' ends of the world," 1. Cor. x. 11. and is called 
 " the last days," both by the Prophet Joel when speaking 
 
 * Dan. ii. 44. vii. 13, 14. Heb. xii-. 28. Luke i. 32, 33. 
 
 and proved they can never be, unless the scriptures be proved to con- 
 tradict themselves. Then it must follow that those veho state that 
 Christ's command (Mat. xviii. 17.) "tell it to the church," cannot 
 be obeyed on any other plan than that of having the case laid before 
 every member of the church when collected together and decided by 
 their vote, it must follow that such are mistaken, and consequently 
 that the text, in question, in accordance with both reason and scrip- 
 ture, can be understood only of the elders or rulers of the church. 
 And in this sense indeed, we speak of the rulers of out own nation 
 when we call the laws which they make, the laws of the nation, or 
 when we speak of any complaint made to them asof a complaining to the 
 nation. Tliis, observe, we speak of them, not in reference to the 
 manner in which they became rulers, but only in reference to them 
 in their official capacity, as sustaining such an office. The passage 
 in 1 Cor. v. respecting that church being "gathered together" to 
 deliver the offender as there specified to satan, or to excommunicate 
 him, does not at all oppose what we have advanced ; for the sentence or 
 judgment there passed, is, as is evident from the third verse, alto- 
 gether the act of the apostle himself, before the church assembled at 
 all, and not that of the several members thereof either by vote or 
 any other way ! The other passage in 2 Cor. ii. 6 — 8, respecting the 
 "punishment inflicted of many;" as it is a reference to the same 
 transaction which we have just noticed as recorded in 1 Cor. v. chap- 
 ter, and, as we have shewn the judgment, or passing of the se«- 
 tence there specified to be exclusively the act of the apostle, and 
 not that of the several members of the church either by vote or any 
 other way— as this is the fact, then what is here said of the "pun- 
 ishment" as " inflicted of many" can only be understood of the 
 whole of the members of that church as acquiescing in the apostle's 
 decision, or of their executing the sentence which he, not they, had 
 previously passed. Therefore we conclude that God does not intend 
 every member of the church to be either a ruler or a teacher, any more 
 than lie jjitends every member thereof to be a worker of miracles. 
 
65 
 
 ©f future times, and by the Apostle Peter when quotinj^ 
 and applying the Prophet's words — " Behold it shall 
 come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will 
 pour out of my Spirit on all flesh ;" and also b}-^ St. 
 Paul, who says, that <* God who at sundry times, and in 
 divers manners, spake unto the fathers by the Prophets, 
 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." And 
 the son himself hath spoken unto us by his Apostles, 
 whom " he hath set forth last^ as it were appointed unto 
 death," and who are expressly styled, " ambassadors for 
 Christ," and concerning whom he saith, " he that hear- 
 eth you heareth me."* Hence, we conclude, that this is 
 the last dispensation of divine grace and mercy with 
 which man shall be favoured ; that we are not hence- 
 forth to have any ncvo revelation; that the canon of 
 scripture is now complete ; that nothing is to be taken 
 from it nor added to it; that the covenant in its present 
 form is never to undergo a change, yea, is never to be 
 abolished. And, therefore, although in substance as old 
 as the *' law and the Prophets," is still with the greatest 
 propriety termed '• a neto co,venant.'' But, 
 
 Second — To our statement, it is objected, that as cir- 
 cumcision had a reference only to males, and as Baptism 
 refers equally to both males and females, the latter cannot 
 have come in the room of the former ; Baptism cannot 
 be to the church of God under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, what circumcision was under former dispensations, 
 under the Patriarchal and Jewish ; but to this we reply, 
 by observing. 
 
 First — That to found objections upon a mere dissimi- 
 larity, in some particulars, between certain things, is not 
 wise. To deny that one thing can come in the room of 
 another, or take its place, unless there be a perfect simi- 
 larity in every particular, between the two things ; be- 
 tween that which takes the place ©f the other, or comes 
 in its room, and the other, the place of which it takes, 
 or in the room of which it comes, is foolish indeed ! For, 
 according to this principle as there was not in every 
 thing a perfect similarity between the Tabernacle and 
 Temple, as there was a dissimilarity between them in 
 
 ♦ Joel. ii. 28. Acts ii. 17. Heb. i. 1, 2. 2 Cor. iv. 9. v. 20. 
 Luke X. 16. Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
 G 
 
66 
 
 several particulars, such as in dimensions, certain ma- 
 terials, number of worshipers, &c. we must, in opposition to 
 matter of fact, to the statement of scripture, deny that 
 the latter took the place of the former, or came in its 
 room, that the Temple came in the room of the Taber- 
 tiacle.* Yea, on this principle we must deny that the 
 Gospel or Christian dispensation has come in the place 
 of the Jewish ; for, as it differs from the other in se- 
 veral particulars, (some of which we have noticed al- 
 ready,) then on the ground of dissimilarity we must de- 
 ny that it has taken the place of the other, or come in 
 its room. But, if to deny that the Jewish dispensation 
 has vanished away, and that the Christian has come in its 
 room, and is to remain for ever, if to deny this, would 
 amount to a denial of the authority of the sacred scrip- 
 tures, the whole of which go to support this statement, 
 and to assure us that " the law was given by Moses, but" 
 that '' grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."f Then, as 
 long as we receive the testimony of scripture, we must, 
 in order to be consistent with ourselves, cease from 
 founding objections to things coming in the room of 
 each other, on the mere ground of a dissimilarity exist- 
 ing between th'em, in certain particulars, we must see the 
 iolly of founding objections to Baptism having come in 
 the room of circumcision, upon the dissimilarity between 
 the two ordinances ; upon circumcision refering particu- 
 larly to males, and Baptism refering equallij to males 
 and females. But although what we have advanced 
 fully overturns the objection stated above, yet we pro- 
 ceed to observe — 
 
 Second — That it is no sufficient objection to Bap- 
 tism having taken the place of circumcision or come in 
 its room, that while under the Jewish dispensation, 
 males were admitted into the church of God, by cir- 
 cumcision, there is no mention made oi the express 
 manner in which females were admitted ; for, as there 
 is, as we have already shewn, an increase of privilege and 
 blessing under the Christian dispensation, so in this in- 
 prease of privilege and blessing is particularly included, 
 
 * Exod. XXV — xxvii. xxxw — xl. Num. vii. 
 1 Chron. xxii — xxix. 2 Chron. iii— -vi. &c. 
 t John i. Ileb. x. &c. 
 
67 
 
 yea, even specified, the abolition of those distinctions 
 which formerly existed between males and females, as 
 well as between Jevos and Greeks. We say an increase 
 of privilege and blessing, because until the commence- 
 ment of the Christian dispensation, the children of Abra- 
 ham, in their successive generations, possessed privileges 
 and blessings above all the nations then existing upon 
 the face of the earth, yea, to which every other people 
 were strangers.* Yet while we say that, to deny that 
 the covenant of circumcision first made with Abraham, 
 and afterwards renewed and enlarged with Moses, con- 
 ferred peculiar benefits, would be to contradict the lan- 
 guage of inspiration in the most positive terms ; we also 
 say, that to deny that the Christian dispensation confers 
 still greater benefits would not be less a contradiction of 
 truth. I But surely an extension of privilege, such as 
 the Baptising of females (which we are, for the moment, 
 supposing not to have had a previous existence,) in com- 
 mon with males, and thus professedly initiating them into 
 the Christian church, is quite different from an infringe- 
 ment of privilege, such as is, evidently, the denial of 
 Baptism to all infants, whether males or females. For, as 
 the Jewish church, by circumcision, professedly acknow- 
 ledged all male children as her members, the denial of 
 Baptism to all irfants under the Christian dispensation, 
 and thus refusing them the privilege of membership, 
 must necessarily be an infringement of privilege. But 
 while the extension of privilege, for which we contend, 
 fully corresponds, as we have just shewn in our marginal 
 references, with the superior nature of the Christian 
 economy, which expressly says, that *' there is neither 
 Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
 neither male nor Jemale, for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus ;*' the infringement of privilege which we op- 
 pose, which excludes all children from Baptism, and con- 
 sequently from church membership, is contrary to the 
 whole genius and spirit of the Christian system — But 
 more of this shortly, when we cpme to treat particularly 
 of the subjects of Baptism. *'' 
 
 • Gal. iii. 28. Tsal. cxlviil. 20. Rom. ix. 5. &c. 
 \ Mat. xi. 17. xiii. 11. 2 Cor. iii. 6— -11. Gal iv. 1—7. 
 H€b. i, 1. iii. 3, ic. 
 
6S 
 
 Third — We further observe, that the considering 
 how the offspring of Abraham were particularly bound 
 to marry into their own families and tribes, the consider- 
 ing how they were prohibited in the most express man- 
 ner from intermarrying with the other nations who feared 
 not the Lord;* the considering how the males and fe- 
 males were thus identified with each other in reference 
 to God and his worshij)> and also, how in the fulfilment 
 of the promises made to the males, and of the threat- 
 enings with which they were threatened, we always find 
 the females participating ; the considering of these 
 things leads us to view them also, as interested in the 
 covenant of circumcision, and so far, identified with the 
 males, as to be entitled, through the faithfulness of God, 
 in common with them to all the blessings and privileges 
 which that covenant conferred upon that so highly fa- 
 voured people. And if we believe an Apostle's testi- 
 mony, a highly favoured people they were.J But in our 
 thus identifying the females with the males so as to en- 
 title them in common with the males, to all the immunities 
 conferred, by the covenant of circumcision, upon Abra- 
 ham's race, we no more confound the sexes, the one with 
 the other, than our Baptist brethren do, when they, in 
 order to prove tliat they have positive precept for Jemale 
 communion, tell us, that man signifies both man and wo- 
 man, and produce *' God called their name Adam ;" 
 and also, " let a man examine himself, and so let him eat 
 of that bread," &c.I| Hence, we conclude, that as our 
 friends adopt this mode of argument, this inferential rea- 
 soning in support of their cause, they cannot, with any 
 shew of impartiality, object to our adopting it also, in fa- 
 vour of ours, especially when it is considered, that we 
 adopt it only according to what it is, as indirect evidence, 
 not as direct positive proof ; whereas they produce such 
 evidence (foolishly enough indeed ! ) as positive proof, as pre- 
 cept and example. But as the subject of positive proof, of 
 precept and example shall be afterwards examined, and as 
 we have now met and refuted the objection to Baptism hav- 
 
 * Gen. xviv. 3, 4. xxvi. 31, 36. xxvii. 46. xxviii. 1, 2, Num. 
 xx^vi. 6. Deut. vii. 3, 4«. Joshua xxii. 12, 13. 
 t Uom. ix. 4, 5. 2 Cor. iii. 9, 10, li. 
 II Gen. V. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 28. 
 
69 
 
 ing come in the room of circumcision which is founded upon 
 their dissimilartiy, in reference to sex, as we have met 
 and refuted this in all its bearings, we shall proceed to 
 consider another, made to our statement, one founded not 
 upon sex, but upon character. For, 
 
 Third — An objector further states, that as circumcision 
 had no reference to character, as it required no profession 
 of faith from those on whom it was performed ; and as 
 Baptism particularly respects character, as it requires a 
 profession of faith in Christ from its candidates, therefore 
 it cannot have taken the place of circumcision or come in 
 its room. Now to this we answer, 
 
 First — That nothing is more false than the statement 
 which Antipaedobaptists make in asserting, that circum- 
 cision had no reference to character ; for according to 
 the Apostle, was not Abraham's circumcrsion a sign 
 and seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 had before he was circumcised.* Was not his character 
 thus fixed, and he thus distinguished as a true believer 
 in the true God? Is not this St. Paul's statement of the 
 case ? And, can any Antipaedobaptist give a better than 
 that which the Apostle has given? Hence, if the Apostles 
 statement he correct^ their s who say that circumcision 
 had no reference to character, must be Jalse ! But, 
 
 Second — There being in certain cases, > no notice 
 taken, or mention made of the character or profes- 
 sion of the faith, of those who were circumcised, 
 ^such as in the case of the Shechemites, for instance,^) 
 does not prove that such persons were destitute of 
 character, or of a profession of faith in the true God, 
 any more than there being no mention made nor notice 
 taken of the character or profession of the faith of those 
 in Lydia's house who were Baptized with her, proves that 
 they were destitute of character and profession of faith — 
 proves that they were not believers- But if this principle 
 were established, (and Mr. Carson in his book on Baptism, 
 lias endeavoured, although in vain, to establish it in re- 
 ference to the Shechemites,) if it were established that 
 persons are always destitute of whatever they are not 
 said to possess, that there is no proper character, no true^ 
 
 * Rom. iv, xi, § Gen, xxxlv. j Acts xs'u U, 15, 
 
70 
 
 faith where the Scriptures are silent respecting it, then 
 were the Baptist cause ruined. For if there be no pro- 
 per character, no true faith where the Scriptures are silent 
 on the subject, and if without a proper character con- 
 stituted, if without a true faith professed, there can nei- 
 ther be Baptism scripturally administered, nor salvation 
 and eternal life obtained in heaven. Then, as the Scrip- 
 tures are silent respecting the character or the profession 
 of the faith of those of Lydia's house, who were Bap- 
 tized with herself,I| they, of course, must have been with- 
 out a proper character, without a profession of the true 
 faith, they must have been either infants or unbelievers; 
 and consequently, according to Antipaedobaptists, equally 
 unfit for being members of Christ's church. And so the 
 Apostle, according to the principle we oppose, must have 
 been wrong in baptizing them, and thus constituting 
 them members ! Hence, we see the absurdity of de- 
 nying that circumcision had any reference to character, 
 or profession of faith ; and of endeavouring to support 
 the statement, by representing persons as always desti- 
 tute of proper character, and of a profession of true 
 faith, where the scriptures are silent on the subject, or 
 unless they particularize the contrary. But in reference to 
 the case of the Shechemites, as mentioned above, and on 
 which much stress has been laid, it makes nothing in fa- 
 vour of the cause which it is produced to support, be it 
 viewed in what light soever it may. For, could it even 
 be proved, what cannot, namely, that these people whom 
 Jocob's sons treacherously persuaded to be circumcised, 
 in order that they might murder them ; could it even be 
 proved that they were destitute of character, that they 
 made no pre)/ ess ion of faith in the true (jod prior to their 
 circumcision ; yet still, as the scriptures narrate the cir- 
 cumstance, without approving of it, yea, with marked dis- 
 approbation, it cannot in the smallest measure serve our 
 opponents' cause. Surely the sacred oracles do not ap- 
 prove of every thing they record. But, 
 
 Third — The Jewish nation is styled ''a holy people unto 
 the Lord their God ;" for it is stated, that the Lord 
 God chose them to be a peculiar people unto himself 
 above all people on the face of tlie earth ; that he en- 
 tered into a ct>venant with them, even with all the men 
 
71 
 
 of Israel, and also with their little ones, and their ijoives, 
 and Viith the stranger in their camp, from the hewer of 
 wood, unto the drawer of water; that they avouched him 
 to be their God, and that he avouched them to be his 
 people ; that they entered into a covenant with the Lord 
 their God, and into his oath, which he made with them, 
 that he might establish them tor a people unto himself, 
 that he might be their God as he had said unto them, 
 and as he had sworn unto their fathers, to Abraham, and 
 to Isaac, and to Jacob. Hence, we find Moses saying to 
 this favoured people, ''Neither with you^nly do I make 
 this covenant, and this oath, but with him that standeth 
 here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also 
 with him that is not here with us this day." And as for 
 such as would turn aside from following the Lord, and 
 would depart from his covenant, they were not to be 
 spared, but they were to be separated unto evil, they 
 were to be '' rooted out of the land in anger, and in wrath, 
 and in great indignation," &c.* Hence, may be seen thein- 
 correctness of the writer, who states, that a man might be 
 a professed Deist or even an Atheist, and yet be entitled 
 to participate in all Jewish ordinances, who says, that 
 circumcision had no respect to character or profession 
 of faith. J But surely as it was by circumcision that 
 both strangers and Israelites were brought to constitute 
 the Jewish nation, or church in the wilderness, or king- 
 dom of God ',§ and as holiness was so peculiarly required 
 of the whole of that nation, of all the members of that 
 church, of all the subjects of which that kingdom was 
 composed, which were as we have just seen, all taken in- 
 to covenant with Gud. Therefore, circumcision must in 
 a very particular manner have had respect to character 
 and profession of faith. 
 
 That there were persons belonging to this Jewish 
 Church, this nation or kingdom of Israel, who were not 
 properly of Israel, who walked contrary to their profes- 
 sion, who despised the statutes of their God, who abhor- 
 red his judgments, neglected to keep his ordinances, or 
 to do his commandments, yea, who broke his cove- 
 
 * Deut vii. 6. xiv. 2. xxix. 10—29. xxxvi. 17, 18. 
 
 I See Carson's Reply to Ewing and Wardlaw, on Baptism. 
 
 § Gen. xvii. 1, &c. Acts vii. 3, 8. Matt. viii. 11, 12. xm, 43... 
 
72 
 
 nant,* does not any more prove that the covenant ot 
 circumcision had no respect to character or profession of 
 faith, than that there have been improper persons found 
 in the church of God, under the Christian dispensation, 
 proves that the church under this dispensation has no 
 respect to character or profession of faith. For persons who 
 broke the covenant of their God, who despised his sta- 
 tutes, who neglected to keep his ordinances, and to do 
 his commandments, were then condemned under that dis- 
 pensation, and persons of such a description, persons 
 who act thus, are now, under this superior dispensation, 
 still more severely condemned. H All who belonged to 
 the Jewish nation were obliged, at least, occasionally to 
 make a profession of their faith in the true God, by 
 joining in his worship.^ And that the church of the 
 Lord Most High enjoys superior advantages, under the 
 Christian dispensation, we have already proved, and con- 
 sequently that she should now excel in hohness ; that it is 
 not by the standard of that inferior dispensation her 
 members are now to be tried, we readily admit, yea, ear- 
 nestly contend; but that she, ever under any dispensa- 
 tion, has been without a mixture ot tares and wheat, we 
 positively deny ; and require those that are of another 
 mind to produce their strong reasons. Or that a period 
 will ever arrive before the time of harvest, before the 
 end of the world, when the foolish virgins shall not min- 
 gle with the wise, when the tares and the wheat shall not 
 grow together, we do not conceive the scriptures autho- 
 rize us to expect. J But as it will not prove that the 
 church under the Christian dispensation shall have had 
 no respect to character, that improper persons shall be 
 found to have always existed in her, such as Judas, Ana- 
 nias and Sapphira, Hymeneas and Alexander, Demas, 
 Diotrephus, those whose love waxed cold, those who 
 were neither cold nor hot, foolish virgins, &c. — so that 
 improper persons have been found in the churcii, under 
 the Jewish dispensation, such as whited sepulchres, ser- 
 pents, .&c. will not prove that she, under that dispensa- 
 sation, had no respect to character ; neither will it prove 
 
 * Deut: iv. 1—9. vi. 1—15. 
 
 II Matt. xi. 20—24-. Heb. iii. 3. x. 28, 29. 
 
 \ Deut. xvi. 1—17. Luke ii. 11. § Matt, xiii. 30, ZSi, xxv, 1,. 
 
73 
 
 that Baptism is not that to the church under the pre- 
 sent dispensation, which circumcision was under the for- 
 mer, nor that it has not come in its room.^ 
 
 Fourth — But another objection made to our statement 
 of Baptism having come in the room of circumcision is, 
 that they were both practised at the same time, from the 
 commencement of John's ministry until the death of 
 Ckrist, and that the same person, Timothy, was circum- 
 cised after having been baptized — To this we reply, that 
 our granting that circumcision was practised, together 
 with Baptism from the commencement of John the Bap- 
 tist's preaching, until the death of Christ, does not at all 
 affect the question at issue, nor militate in the smallest 
 measure against our statement. For Baptism could not 
 be made the initiating rite into, could not be made the 
 sign and seal of the perfected covenant of grace, before 
 that covenant was both perfected and fully explained 
 and proposed for acceptance ; but the covenant was not 
 perfected, nor consequently explained and proposed for 
 acceptance in its perfected state, until Jesus bowed his 
 head, said it is finished, and gave up the Ghost ; until af- 
 ter " the blood of the everlasting covenant" was thus 
 shed. Then it was that our Lord, after his resurrection, 
 taught its import fully to his Apostles, who were appoint- 
 ed to publish it to all nations ; then it was, that we find Bap- 
 tism, for the Jirst time, made the rite of initiation into this 
 covenant in its perfected state; then the Apostles were 
 commisioned to "Go and teach all nations^ baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost ;" and assured that " He that believeth and 
 is baptized shall be saved." Hence, as Baptism was not 
 until then made tfce rite of initiation into, was not made 
 the sign and seal of the covenant of grace in its perfect- 
 ed form, circumcision being before that time practised 
 with it, could not effect the statement we have made res- 
 pecting Baptism coming in the room of circumcision. 
 John's Baptism was performed in consequence of a pro- 
 fession of repentance, and of faith in the speedy appear- 
 ance of Him who was to come after, of Him who was to 
 
 § John vi. 70. Acts v. 1—11. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 
 3 John 9. Matt. xxiv. Rev. ill. Matt. xxv. I— &c. 
 
74, 
 
 baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.* And our 
 Lord's Baptism, by his disciplesf during his pubh'c mi- 
 nistry, refers to those Jews who believed on Him, as 
 the Messias, and who, like the Apostles themselves, wait- 
 ed for a fuller manifestation of his character and offices. 
 These Baptisms, both of which looked to something yet 
 to come, could not be that Baptism in the name " of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,*' which 
 was afterward instituted as the standing initiatory rite into 
 the Christian church. And respecting the circumcision 
 of Timothy it has already been accounted for.^ If the 
 Baptists, indeed, could shew that the Apostles sanctioned 
 the practice as a seal of the old covenant, either as it was 
 Abrahamic or Mosaic, or both, then there would be 
 some force in the argument, that the one could not suc- 
 ceed the other, if both were continued under inspired 
 authority. But the apostle Paul enters his most decided 
 protest against any such use of circumcision, and makes 
 itj when practised in such a vievo, as nothing less than a 
 total rejection of Christ[and the new covenant.^ Hence, 
 it must follow, that when the practice of it was continued 
 by any connivance of the Apostles, (and surely they did 
 no more than connive at it,) it was practised in some way 
 which did not view it as the 5^a/ of awj/ covenant, from/ 
 national custom or prejudice, from some such feeling as 
 that to which the Apostle Paul yielded in the case of Ti- 
 mothy.^ He circumcised him, it is true, but not from 
 any conviction that the thing was necessary ; for his uni- 
 form practice was, to declare circumcision to have, 
 through the bringing in of a better hope, vanished away 
 with that dispensation of the covenant, of which it was 
 the sign and seal.\\ Therefore, as Baptism and circum- 
 cision were not both continued to be practised under in- 
 spired authority, their being practised in a»y other way, at 
 the same time, is no reasonable objection to our statement, 
 to Baptism having come in the room of circumcision. 
 
 But having now met and refuted such objections to the 
 covenant made with Abraham bt^ing the covenant of 
 
 • Matt. iii. 11. f John iv. 1, 2. \ See page 44. 
 
 \ Gal. V. 2. Acts xv. 1. &c. 
 
 § Acts xvi. 3. 
 
 [| Col. ii. 4. &c. Heb. vi, vii, viii, ix, x. 
 
75 
 
 grace, and to Baptism having come in the room of cir- 
 cumcision, as we deemed of much importance ; and having 
 particularly examined the objections founded upon the 
 dissimilarity existing between Baptism and circumcision, 
 we shall, before we come to consider the subjects of Bap- 
 tism, briefly state the correspondence between the two 
 ordinances. For it is not enough, in stating the ordi- 
 nance of Christian Baptism, to consider it generally as 
 an act by which man enters into God's covenant of grace ; 
 as under this general view several particulars are con- 
 tained, which it is of great importance rightly to under- 
 stand. Baptism, both as ^sign and seal, presents an entire 
 correspondence with the ancient right of circumcision. 
 Let it then be considered, 
 
 First — As a sign. Now, under this view, circumcision 
 indicated, by a visible rite, the placability of God towards 
 his sinful creatures; and held out the promise of justi- 
 fication, by faith alone, to every truly penitent offender. 
 It went farther, and was the sign of sanctification, or 
 the taking away the pollution of sin, *' the superfluity of 
 naughtiness," as well as the pardon of actual offences, 
 and thus became the visible emblem of a regenerate 
 mind and a renewed life. It was the sign also of pecu- 
 liar relation to God, as his people.* 
 
 In all these several respects Baptism, as a sign of the 
 new covenant, corresponds to circumcision ; like that, 
 its administration is a constant exhibition of the placa- 
 bility of God to man ; like that it is the initiatory rite 
 into a covenant which promises pardon and salvation to 
 a true faith, of which it is the outward profession ; like 
 that it is the symbol of regeneration, the washing away 
 of sin, and ** the renewing of the Holy Ghost ;" and 
 like that, it is a sign of peculiar relation to God, Chris- 
 tians becoming, in consequence, " a chosen generation, 
 a peculiar people" — his " church" on earth, as dis- 
 tinguished from " the world." ''For we," says the Apos- 
 tle, " are the circumcision" — we are that peculiar peo- 
 ple and church now, which was formerly distinguished by 
 the sign of circumcision, " who worship God in the 
 spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi- 
 dence in the flesh." 
 
 * Rom. iv. 11. ii. 2a Deut, xxx. 6, Jer. iv. 3. Deut. x. 15, 16. 
 
Second — As a seal also or confirming sign, Baptism 
 answers to circumcision. By the institution of circum- 
 cision a pledge was constantly given by the Almighty to 
 bestow tne spiritual blessings of which the rite was the 
 sign, pardon and sanctification through faith in the future 
 seed of Abraham, peculiar relation to him as his " peo- 
 ple," and the heavenly inheritance. Of the same bles- 
 sings, Baptism is also the pledge, along with the higher 
 dispensation of the Holy Spirit which it represents in 
 emblem. Thus, in Baptism, there is on the part of God, 
 a visible assurance of his faithfulness to his covenant 
 stipulations. But it is our seal also; it is that act .by 
 vvhifth we make ourselves parties to the covenant, and 
 thus " set to" our '* seal that God is true." (John iii. 33.) 
 In this respect it binds us as in the other, God mercifully 
 binds himself for the stronger assurance of our faith. 
 We pledge ourselves to trust wholly in Christ for par- 
 don and salvation, and to obey his laws — " Teaching 
 them to observe all things whatsoever I have command- 
 ed you." (Mat. xxviii. 20.) In that rite also we under- 
 go a mystical death unto sin, a mystical separation from 
 the world, which St. Paul calls being '♦ Buried with him 
 in (or by) Baptism," and a mystical resurrection to new- 
 ness of life, through Christ's resurrection from the dead. 
 Thus, in circumcision, an obligation of faith in the pro- 
 mises made to Abraham, and an obligation to holiness of 
 life, and to the observance to the divine laws, was con- 
 tracted ; and Moses, therefore, in a passage above re- 
 ferred to, argues from that peculiar visible relation of 
 the Israelites to God, produced by outward circumcision, 
 to the duty of circumcising the heart — <* The Lord had 
 a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their 
 seed after them, even you above all people; circumcise. 
 therefore the foreskin of your heart." (Deut. x, 15.) 
 
 If, then, we bring all these consideration! under one 
 view, we shall find it sufficiently established that Bap- 
 tism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under 
 its perfect dispensation; that it is, the grand initiatory 
 act by which we enter into this covenant, in order to 
 claim all its spiritual blessings and to take upon our- 
 selves all its obligations. That it was appointed by 
 Jesus Christ in a manner which plainly put it in the 
 
11 
 
 place of circumcision — that it is now the means by which 
 men become Abraham's spiritual children, and heirs with 
 him of the promise, which was the office of circumcision, 
 until "the seed," the Messiah should come; and that Bap- 
 tism is therefore expressly called by St. Paul '• the cir- 
 cumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision, in a 
 sense which can only import that Baptism has taken the 
 place of the Abrahamic rite. 
 
 But before we conclude our remarks on the nature of 
 Baptism, we would observe, the incorrectness of the state- 
 ment of an esteemed Baptist writer,* who represents 
 Abraham's circumcision as " simply a token, or pledge, 
 of the future appearance of the Righteous One," or 
 Messiah, "as one of his posterity, and thus of that 
 righteousness or justification, which was to be accom- 
 plished by him, and which is received by faith." On 
 the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteous- 
 ness of Christ, or his obedience to the moral law in the 
 stead of those whom he is said to have represented, 
 which is here held forth, we shall now say nothing, as 
 we have before expressed our sentiments on that sub- 
 ject.f To what we then said, we now refer such of 
 o'ur readers for satisfaction as desire to be acquainted 
 vvith our views on this point. That Abraham's laith ne- 
 cessarily implied his believing that the Messiah would 
 descend from his loins, would take upon him, or rather 
 take hold of his seed,:|: and thus become incarnate, is 
 readily granted ; but that the merely believing of this con- 
 stituted the iaith which was counted, reckoned, or im- 
 puted to him for righteousness, and of which he received 
 circumcision as the sign and sea/, is absolutely denied. jj 
 For, if the believing ot this constituted the faith by which 
 Abraham was justified, and fur which he is held forth as 
 a pattern to all nations, Jews and Gentiles, in all suc- 
 ceeding generations, in order that they may obtain jus- 
 tification in the same way that he did, in order that he 
 mig^ht be the father of all them that believe. (Rom. iv. 11, 
 
 * Stce Innis on the Reijjn of Heaven, 
 f See note, pages 38 — 41 inclusive. 
 ^ Heb. ii. IG. 
 
 II Gen. XV. 6, Rom. iv. ?, 22. Gal. iii. C. Jas. ii, 23. Rom 
 iv. 11. 
 
 H 
 
78 
 
 12.) If this were the faith by which God *<justifieth the 
 ungodly," then the absurdity must follow, that every 
 one believing this truth were justified as well as Abra- 
 ham. Then those who shall be found in the day of judg- 
 ment to have prophesied, and done many wonderful 
 works in the name of Christ, (which certainly implies 
 their belief in him as Abraham's seed, as the promised 
 Messiah) must be justified, although Christ himself shall 
 then say unto them, ** I never knew you," I never ap- 
 proved of you, your heart was never right in my sight, 
 *' depart from m.e ye that work iniquity."* But indeed 
 if the believing that Christ, according to the flesh, either 
 was to be or was a descendant of Abraham, the true Mes- 
 siah ; if the believing of this constituted justifying faith, 
 then, as Judas must have believed this truth when he be- 
 came Christ's disciple, and as there is no proper ground 
 for supposing that he ever afterwards, in this respect, 
 changed his mind, he must therefore have been justified 
 as well as Abraham, and also must stand acquitted in the 
 day of judgment, although Christ has said, " better for 
 that man he had never been born."J Yea, according to 
 the above stdliement, the principle which we are now 
 opposing, the devils themselves must be justified, seeing 
 they believe all that the believing of, is represented by 
 Mr. Innis, as constituting that faith in Abraham, by which 
 he was justified, and of which his circumcision was the 
 sign and seal.\\ Hence, we must conclude, not only that 
 the above statement is absurd, but also, that as justifying 
 faith implies a resting upon Christ for life and salvation, 
 a trusting in him as having loved us and given himself 
 for us, as having died for us while we were yet sinners, 
 as having died for our offences, and risen again for our 
 justification, as having died in our stead, the just for the 
 unjust, &c.} and as Abraham's faith, of which his cir- 
 
 * Mat. vii. 23. Psal. i. 6. Acts viii. 21. 
 
 ^ Mat. xxvi. 24, 
 
 II Mat. viii. 29—32. Mark i. 24, 25. Luke iv. 33—35. Acts 
 xvi. 17, 18. Jas. ii. 19- 
 
 § Eph. i. 12, 13. Gal. ii. 20. Rom. iii. 24, 25. iv. 22—25. 
 V. 1. 1 Pet. iii. 18, &c. "NVe would here observe, in reference to 
 Christ being given for us or in our stead, in reference to his vicarious 
 sutferings and sacrificial death, that on no other ground can the divine 
 
79 
 
 cumcision was the sign and seal, was of this description, 
 was justifying, as it is as such held forth by the Apostle 
 for the imitation of all nations, in order that they also may 
 be justified ; then we must conclude that his circumcision 
 which was a sign and seal of this, of the righteousness 
 of the faith, which he had, was a sign and seal of his 
 being in covenant with God, a sign of his being a pardon- 
 ed and an accepted man, and consequently of God's wil- 
 lingness to be reconciled to the guilty, to pardon every 
 truly penitent offender, who forsakes his wicked way, 
 
 government be consistently and rationally maintained, and mercy ei- 
 tended lo guilty man, on no other ground can " God be" held forth 
 as "just, and the justifier of him that believeth." 
 
 The Christian doctrine of atonement is grounded upon the liability 
 of man to punishment in another life for sins committed against the 
 law of God in this. That men are capable of committing sin, and 
 that sin is productive of misery and disorder, are positions that cannot 
 rationally be denied. And that to violate the laws of God, and des- 
 pise his authority, are not light crimes, is clear from considerfng them 
 in their general effect upon society and upon the world. Neither is 
 there any foundation for supposing that the punishment assigned to sin 
 by the judicial appointment of the Supreme Governor, is confined to 
 the present life, hence the doctrine of future punishment is obvious. 
 For not only is there an unequal administration of punishments in 
 the present life, so that many eminent offenders pass through the pre- 
 sent state, without any visible manifestation of the divine displeasure 
 against their conduct ; but there are strong and convincing proofs that 
 we are placed here in a state of trial, which continues throughout life, and 
 the result of which can only be known, and consequently we our- 
 selves can only become subjects of reward and punishment, after our 
 existence in this world has terminated. 
 
 It is also the doctrine of Scripture, that this future punishment of 
 the incorrigible, shall be final and unlimited ; and that the atone- 
 ment for the sins of men, which was made by the death of Christ, is 
 the means by which mankind may be delivered from this awful ca- 
 tastrophe of eternal dtath. This end the Christian system professes 
 to accomplish by means which, with respect to the Supreme Governor 
 himself, preserve his character from being mistaken, and maintain the 
 authority of his government ; and with respect to man, give him the 
 strongest possible reason for hope, and render more favourable the cir- 
 cumstances of his earthly probation. 
 
 To talk of Christ, as dying for us only as a Martyr, in confirmation 
 of the truths which he taught for our good, is absurd, and contrary to 
 the manner in which the Scriptures speak ; for the sacred oracles speak 
 of Christ and of his death in a way entirely different from that in which 
 they speak of any other person or martyrdom— they speak of him as 
 «' the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," (John 
 
80 
 
 and unrighteous thoughts, and returns to him, a sign of 
 liis willingness to justify every such person, by faith alone, 
 as lie did the father of the faithful himself; and a seal 
 also or covfirming sign, his circumcision was a pledge 
 from the Almight}?^, that he would bestow upon him, 
 through faith in the future and promised seed, the bless- 
 ings of which, the rite was principall}^ the sign, namely 
 as noticed above, pardon and sanctification, peculiar re- 
 lation to himself, as one of his favoured people, and the 
 heavenly inheritance. The Patriarch's circumcision was 
 
 i. 29.) as "wounded for our transgressions," as "bruised for our 
 iniquities," as having " the chastisement of our peace upon him," as 
 lieah'ng us " with liis stripes," as having the " iniquity of us all lafd 
 upon him," (Isa. liii.) They speak of him as of a " I^amb without ble- 
 mish, and without spot," "having redeemed us with his precious blood," 
 (1. Pet. i. 18, 19.) as putting '' away sin by the sacrifice of himself," 
 Hcb. ix. 26. as having "by one offering of himself perfected for ever 
 them that are sanctified," ( Heb. x. 12.) The Scriptures speak of Christ 
 as dying for us while sinners, and of our being justified by his blood 
 and saved from wrath through him ; of our being " reconciled to God 
 by the death of his son," (Horn. v. 8 — 10.) of our being " sanctified by 
 the offering of the body of Christ, once for all,"" &c. (Heb. x. 10.) 
 Now it must be evident to every man acquainted with his Bible, that 
 nothing similar to the above language is said of any other person, and 
 that no such efficacy is imputed to any other martyrdom. In the 
 above quoted passages, and many others that occur in the New Tes- 
 tament, it is asserted, that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the 
 procuring of human salvation. For as such expressions are not used 
 concerning any other person, nor the death of any other person, it is 
 therefore evident that Christ's death included something more than a 
 confirmation of his preaching : something more than a pattern of a 
 holy and patient martyrdom : sonicthing more than a necessary ante- 
 cedent to his resurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof 
 of our resurrection from the dead. Christ's death was all these, but 
 it was something more. It was an atonement for the sins of man- 
 kind ; and in lliis way only it became the accomplishment of our 
 eternal redemption. 
 
 How sin may be forgiven, without leading to such conceptions of 
 the divine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby 
 weaken the influence of the divine government, must indeed be consider- 
 ed as a problem of very difficult solution. For, a government which 
 admitted no forgiveness, would sink the guilty to dispair ; and a go- 
 vernment which never punished would bo a contradiction — could not 
 exist. Now not to punish, would be to dissolve authority, and to 
 punish without mercy, would be to destroy, and where all were guil- 
 ty, the destruction must be universal. That no man can sin with 
 impunity is a matter determined. Tor the ruler of the world is not 
 
81 
 
 an assurance on God's part of his faithfulness to his cov- 
 enant stipulations, in reference to both Abraham and his 
 seed, a security to the Patriarch for the continuation and 
 increase of the grace of the covenant, as both he and his 
 offspring when they became subjects of moral choice were 
 prepared to receive it. 
 
 Now as Abraham's justification was, according to the 
 Scriptures, (Rom. iv.) the pattern of the justification of 
 every man, whether Jew or Gentile, in all ages, then as 
 circumcision was a sign and seal to him, so must it also 
 
 careless concerning the conduct of his creatures ; and that penal con- 
 sequences are attached to oflence, is not a subject of argument, but is 
 made evident from the daily observation of the events and circum- 
 stances of the present life. It is a principle therefore already estab- 
 lished, that the authority of God must be preserved ; and it ought to 
 be remarked, that in that kind of administration, which restrains evil 
 by penalty, and encourages obedience by favour and hope, we and all 
 moral creatures are the interested parties, and not the divine governor 
 himself, whom, because of his independent and all-sufficient nature, 
 our transgressions cannot injure- The reasons therefore, which in- 
 duce him to maintain his authority, do not terminate in himself. If 
 he treats offenders with severity, it is for our sake, and for the sake 
 of the moral order of the universe, to which sin, if encouraged by a 
 negligent administration, or by entire or frequent impunity, would be 
 a source of endless disorder and misery. And if the granting of par- 
 don to offence be strongly and even severely guarded, so that no less 
 a satisfaction could be accepted than the death of God's own Son, we 
 are to refer this to the necessity of the case as arising out of the gene- 
 ral welfare of accountable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, 
 and not to any reluctance on the part of " our Maker," to forgive, 
 much less to any thing vindictive in his nature. These are charges 
 which have been most inconsiderately and unfairly said to be implied 
 in the doctrine of Christ's, vicarious sufferings. 
 
 Hence, if it be true, that the release of offending man from future 
 punishment, and his restoration to the divine favour, ought, for the ■ 
 interests of mankind themselves, to be so bestowed, that no licence 
 shall be given to offence ; that God himself whilst he manifests his 
 compassion, should not appear less just, less holy than he really is ; 
 that his authority should be felt to be as compelling, and that disobe- 
 dience should as truly, though not unconditionally, subject us to the 
 deserved penalty, as though no hope of forgiveness had been exhibited ; 
 we ask, on what scheme save that developed in the New Testament, on 
 that of satisfaction made to divine justice by the death of Christ, we ask, 
 on what other scheme are these necessary conditions provided for? And 
 necessary conditions we must admit them to be, unless we contend for 
 a licence, and an impunity which must annul all good sovernraent in 
 the universe* 
 
82 
 
 hkve. been to every one that received it according to 
 God's appointment. To all such it must have been, a 
 sig7i of tiieir being also in covenant with God, and ac- 
 cepted of him ; and a seal, a security from him that he 
 would bestow upon them also through their believing the 
 grace of the covenant, a continuation of his favour, a 
 peculiar relation to himself as his people on earth, with 
 such a supply^ of temporal blessings during the days of 
 their pilgrimage, as he would see necessary for them, and 
 in the end of their eternal life in Heaven. 
 
 Tho scljeme, which soir.e who do not put much value on the Scrlp- 
 tijro statement have adopted, the scheme of brinjjing men within the 
 exercise of a merciful prerogative, does not meet the obvious difficulty 
 of the case. I'or, if in the exercise of the divine prerogative, sin may 
 be pardoned without satisfaction, then the exercising of this prerogative 
 to a part of mankind, could not be reconciled to the divine character, 
 and the extending of the benefit to all, would necessarily bring govern- 
 inent to an end. Neither would this plan be improved l)y confining 
 the act of grace to repentant criminals. For, in the immediate view 
 of danger, what offender, beholding the approach of the delayed pu- 
 nishment would not repent? Indeed, were the principle of granting 
 pardon to repentance to regulate human governments, every criminal 
 would escape, and judicial forms would become a subject of ridicule. 
 The Supreme Governor of the world, does not act on this principle, in 
 liis conduct to men in the present state, although in this world pu- 
 nishments are not final and abrjlute: he does not, on repentance, re- 
 store health injured by intemperance ; property wasted by profusion ; 
 or character once stained by dishonourable practices. Indeed, if re- 
 pentance alone could secure pardon, then all must be pardoned, and, 
 as in the case of forgiveness by the exercise of mere prerogative, all 
 government must be dissolved. And if an arbitrary selection be 
 rnade, then different and discordant principles of government are in- 
 troduced info the divine administration, v»hith tosuppose, is derogatory 
 to the Mo^t High. 
 
 To add relbrmation to repentance, and restrain forgiveness to those 
 only, wlio, to their penitence, add a course of future obedience to the 
 divine law, as some have done to avoid the difficulty in which the re- 
 jecting of Christ's atonement involves them, does not answer their 
 purpose. For a change of conduct does not, any more than repent- 
 ance, repair the mischiefs of former misconduct. Even in this world 
 we see that the sobriety of the reformed man, does not always restore 
 health : neil-her do the industry and economy of the formerly negligent 
 and wasteful, repair the losses of his extravagance. It is not neces- 
 sary to dwell upon the contradiction which this tiieory involves to all the 
 l)rinciples of government established among men, which, in flagrant 
 cases, never suspend puni&^raent in antidpation of a change of 
 conduct ; but in the inflicted penalty, look steadily to the crime actual-- 
 
83 
 
 To object to the ordinance of circumcision being a 
 privilege and a blessing, on the ground of it being a 
 painful rite, shews at once the weakness of the cause 
 which needs such support. For, are not afflictions 
 paintul things ? yet does not David say, ** It was good 
 forme to be afflicted?" Does Kot the Apostle Paul say, 
 in reference both to himself and those to whom he writes, 
 " our light affliction which is but for a moment, worketh 
 out for us a far more exceeding and eternal v»eight of 
 glory?" (Psal. cxix. 71. 2 Cor. iv. 17) Hence the folly 
 of objecting to circumcision bemg a privilege, being ad- 
 
 ly committed, and to the necessity of vindicating the violated majesty 
 of the laws. 
 
 How mercy may be extended to offending creature";, the subjects 
 of the divine government, without encouraging vice, by lowering the 
 righteous and holy character of God, and the authority of hsi govern- 
 ment, in the maintenance of which, the whole universe of beings are 
 interested, is one of the most important, and one of the most difficult 
 questions that can occupy the human mind. This is a question to 
 which none of the theories opposed to Christianity, affords a satisfac- 
 tory solution. These all assume principles, either destruciive of 
 moral government, or which cannot, in the circumstances of man, be 
 acted upon. The scriptures alone shew, and indeed, they alone profess to 
 shew, how God may be "just," and yet the " justifier" of the imgcd- 
 ly. Other schemes shew how he may be merciful ; but the difficulty 
 does not lie in this. The Gospel alone meets it by declaring " the 
 righteousness of God," at the sam.e time, that it proclaims his mercy. 
 The voluntary sufferings of the Son of God " for us," that is, in 
 our room ar.d stead, magnify the justice of God ; display his h.a- 
 tred to sin ; proclainn the exceeding awfulnes of transgression, by 
 the extreme sufferings of the substitute ; warn the persevering of- 
 fender of the terrihlcness, as well as the certainty of his punishmer.t, 
 and open the gates of salvation to every true penitent, through faith 
 in the offered Saviour. 
 
 It is also a part of the same divine Gospel plan, to engage the in- 
 fluence of *he Holy Spirit, to awaken penitence in man, and to lead 
 the wanderer back to his God ; to renew our fallen nature in righteous- 
 ness, at the moment we are justified by or t?nough. faith, and to place 
 us in such circumstances, as that «-e may henceforth *' walk not after 
 the flesh, but after the spirit." Here, in this plan, ajid in no other, 
 are all the ends of government answered; here no licence is given to 
 offence; the moral law is unrepealed ; a judgment day is still ap- 
 pointed ; future and eternal punishments still display their awful- 
 sanctions ; a new and singular display of the awful purity of the 
 divine character is afforded ; pardon is offered to all, and the whole: 
 world may be saved. See Wesleyan Catechism, and Wat^cn's B\br* 
 lical and TheoloGrical Dictionary. 
 
84 
 
 vantageous on the ground of it being a painful rite. 
 But that the Jewish nation enjoyed privileges above 
 every other people then upon the face of the earth, is, as we 
 have already shewn, the scriptural statement of the case. 
 And that it was by this rite, persons were recognized as 
 belonging to that nation, and consequently as entitled to 
 those privileges, is equally certain upon the same autho- 
 rity, (Psal. cxl. vii. 20. Rom. ix. 4, 5. iii. 1, 2.) But 
 having dwelt so long on the nature of Baptism, we now 
 come as we proposed to consider, 
 
 II. Its subjects. 
 
 And that believers are the proper subjects of Bap- 
 tism, as they were of circumcision, is readily admitted to 
 be an incontrovertible, scriptural truth. For as it would 
 undoubtedly have been a great perversion of circumci- 
 sion, to have administered it to any adult person, who 
 did not believe in the true and livmg God, and in the 
 promised *' seed of Abraham," in whom all the nations 
 of the earth were to be blessed : so to administer Bap- 
 tism to any person of mature age, who did not profess 
 faith in Christ, and give proper evidence of the genuine- 
 ness and sincerity of his profession, would unquestionably 
 be a misapplication of the ordinance. But this is not the 
 point at issue, the question now to be considered particu- 
 larly, is, whether the infant children of believing parents 
 are proper subjects for Baptism or not? whether they 
 should thus, by the act of their parents, be professedly 
 made parties in the covenant of grace or not? The 
 proving that believing adults, or persons professing faith 
 in Christ, are proper subjects for Baptism, does not prove 
 that infants sliould not be baptized ; any more than the 
 proving that believing adults shall be saved, proves that 
 infants shall be lost. Or any more than the Socinian or 
 Arian plan, which Mr. Mitchel, for instance in his sermons 
 in favour of Arianism, (which have since been ably re- 
 futed by Mr. Bagot,) has adopted, the plan of proving 
 that Christ was truly man, any more than this proves that 
 he was not God, yea, that he was not "God overall 
 blessed for ever," (Rom. ix. 5.) For as in this case no- 
 thing is gained by proving that Christ was truly man, 
 
85 
 
 that he took to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, 
 because no Trinitarian possessing common sense denies 
 this, and therefore it no more proves him not to be God^ 
 than the proving him to be God proves him not to be man. 
 So the proving that believers are proper subjects of Bap- 
 tism does not any more prove that infants should not be 
 baptized, than the proving that infants should be bap- 
 tized, proves that believing aduUs should not. In the 
 one case, the proving that Christ possessed human na- 
 ture, that he was man gains nothing, because this is not 
 denied, and therefore is not the subject of controversy, 
 neither is any thing gained in the other case, by proving 
 adult, or what is called believers' Baptism because this is 
 admitted on both sides, and therefore is not a subject of 
 argument, and can only tend to puzzle or misrepresent 
 the real question at issue, which is, are infants fit subjects 
 for Baptism or are they not? we state that on Scripture 
 principles they are proper subjects, and should by the 
 administration of this ordinance, be professedly acknow- 
 ledged as members of Christ's church on earth, as dis- 
 tinguished from the world ; and that from the following 
 considerations. 
 
 First — From our Lord's words to the Jews,* to whom 
 he says, " the kingdom of God shall be taken from you 
 and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 
 For this kingdom, or church of God which our Lord in- 
 formed the Jews should be taken from them, and given 
 to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, namely, to 
 the Gentiles, this church has been the same, in all 
 ages, and alwaj'S consisted of infants and adults. 
 Therefore, as there has been only a transfer of the sauje 
 kingdom or church of God, and as this kingdom or 
 church of God, consisted of infants as well as adults, as 
 infants, as well as adults, had, from Abraham's day been 
 by circumcision received into it, and so constituted its 
 members, the man, who would now exclude iheyn, acts 
 in a manner which the scriptures do not sanction, yea, 
 assumes an authority which God has not given him. 
 And surely when men introduce changes into God's 
 church, it is but reasonable that they should be able to 
 
 *^ Mat. xxi. 43. 
 
36 
 
 produce some proper authority for doing so. That the 
 mode of initiation into this same kingdom or church, has 
 been changed from circumcision to Baptism the scriptures 
 plainly shew; but that its subjects are changed, or that 
 tnjants are excluded from constituting its members wotu, 
 any more than formerly, there is not the least intimatiou 
 given in the sacred page. Hence, taking the scriptures 
 for our rule, we must contend, that as circumcision for- 
 merly admitted, both believing parents and their in;ant 
 children^ into the church of God, so Baptism noiv admits 
 both into the sa7ne church. 
 
 "Hence as the church of God has always been one church 
 in all ages, and as this church formerly admitted, to 
 membership by circumcision, infants with their believing 
 parents, and as her subjects have never been changed, in- 
 fants must still be admitted. This is still farther confirmed 
 by the Apostle's reasoning,* where he observes, not that 
 the olive tree is destroyed, (consequently, the same 
 church remains^) but that the natural branches only are 
 broken off, and the Gentiles graffed in ; that they may 
 *' partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree," that 
 is, that they may partake of all the spiritual blessings 
 and privileges, which the Jews in consequence of their 
 relation to God, as his church, formerly enjoyed. Now, 
 among these spiritual blessings and privileges, was, as 
 we have already seen, the right of placing their children 
 in covenant with God ; tor the membership of the Jews 
 comprehended both children and adults, therefore the 
 graffing in of the Gentiles, so as to partake of the same 
 " root and fatness" with the Jews, must include a right 
 to put their children also into the covenant, that they 
 also as well as the adults, may become members of 
 Christ's visible church, have God to be " their God," 
 and be acknowledged by him in the special sense of the 
 terms of the covenant, to be his "people." 
 
 Second — That infants are proper subjects for Bap- 
 tism, and should thus be received into Christ's visible 
 church, appears also from the words of St. Peter to the 
 Jews, on the day of Pentecost, :|: " Repent," says he, ** and 
 be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
 
 * Horn. xi. 17—24. I Acts ii. 38, 39. 
 
87 
 
 Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost. For, the promise is to you, 
 and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as 
 many as the Lord our God shall call." For here is a 
 promise without restriction or limitation, to both Jews 
 and Gentiles, and to their children with them. The 
 words, as many as the Lord our God shall call, do not in 
 any measure limit the promise, as the Gospel is to be 
 preached to every creature, whether Jew or Gentile, they 
 only shew, that as the promise is to all that are afar off, 
 to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, that when they 
 believe, then they and their children with them, are ad- 
 mitted to equal privileges with the believing Jews and 
 their children. That the Apostles words prove, that in- 
 fant children, as well as their believing parents, are pro- 
 per subjects for Baptism, will clearly appear beyond rea- 
 sonable contradiction, from the following considerations : — 
 
 First — From considering the resemblance between the 
 language used in this promise, and that in the promise 
 made to Abraham* — ** To be a God unto thee, and un- 
 to thy seed after thee." For, as has been well observed, J 
 the resemblance between these two promises lies in two 
 things. 1. Each promise stands connected with an or- 
 dinance, by which persons were to be admitted into 
 church-fellowship; the one by circumcision, the other by 
 Baptism. 2. They both agree in phraseology ; the one 
 promise is, "to thee and thy seed;'' the other is, *'to 
 you and your children." Now, every one knows, that 
 the word (Spertna,J seed, means children ; and that 
 (Tecna,) children, means seed ; and that they are pre- 
 cisely the same. Therefore, from the connexion of each 
 of these promises with a similar ordinance, and from the 
 sameness of the phraseology used in both, we fairly infer 
 that the subjects expressd in each are the very same. And 
 consequently, as it is certain i\iB.t parents and infants were 
 intended by the one, it must be equally certain^ that both 
 parents and infants are intended by the other. 
 
 Second — But from considering in what sense the Apos- 
 tle him&elf must have understood the words, " the pro- 
 mise is to you, and to your children," we shall still see 
 
 * Gen. xyii. 7- \ See Edwards on Baptism. 
 
88 
 
 the subject in a clearer light. Now, he, as a Jew, must have 
 known, that the ordinary practice of the church was 
 to admit infants, by circumcision, to church-membership, 
 and that he himself must, in his infancy, have been ad- 
 mitted in this very manner. And he must likewise have 
 known, that the church in this practice of receiving in- 
 fants, as members, acted on the authority of God's pro- 
 mise to Abraham,* where he promises to be a God unto 
 him, and to his seed after him. Now, as the Apostle 
 knew all this, in what sense, do we suppose he could un- 
 derstand the term children, as distinguished from their 
 parents. He well knew that by the term seed was intended 
 infants, though not mere in/ants onlu ; and he knew also, 
 that infants were circumcised and received into the 
 church as being the seed ; what else the.i could he under- 
 stand by the term children, when mentioned with their 
 parents than infants ? Those, indeed, who will have him, 
 by the term children^ to mean adult posterity only, will 
 have him understand the term differently from all other 
 men ; they indeed, attribute to him a sense of the word, 
 which lie, as a Jewy must consider the most forced and 
 infamiliar. 
 
 Third — In order to set this point in a still clearer light, 
 we will consider in what sense the Apostle's hearers must 
 have understood him, when he said, " the promise is to 
 you, and to your children. Now, from the context, we 
 learn that many of St. Peter's hearers, as he himself was, 
 were Jews, and as Jews, therefore, had been accustomed 
 for many hundred years to receive infants by circum- 
 cision into the church as members. And this they did, 
 as before observed, because God had promised to be a 
 God to Abraham and his seed. For they had under- 
 stood this promise to mean parents and their infant off- 
 spring, and this idea must have become familiar to them 
 by the practice of many centuries. What, then, must 
 have been their views, when one of their own comimunity 
 says to them, "the promise is to you, and to your chil- 
 dren" If their practice of receiving infants was founded 
 on a promise exactly similar, as it was, how could they 
 possibly understand him, but as meaning the same thing, 
 
 * Gen. xvii. 7. 
 
8D 
 
 since he himself used the same mode of speech ? This 
 must have been the case, unless we admit this absurdity, 
 that they understood him in a sense to which they had 
 never been accustomed. 
 
 Were we, in order to come at the truth, to imagine our- 
 selves Jews, and as such in the habit of circumcising in- 
 fants, and receiving them into the church ; and were we 
 then to fancy one of our own nation and religion ad- 
 dressing us in the language of Peter, and saying, **the 
 promise is to you, and to your children," could we for 
 a moment suppose, that such a one, by children, meant 
 adult posterity only, could we suppose that children or 
 posterity cad not include the youngest infants? Surely 
 we could not! 
 
 Third — This same truth appears also from the words 
 of St. Paul to the Corinthians,* where he calls the chil- 
 dren of believers Ao/y, that is, he speaks of them as se- 
 parated to God, and standing in a peculiar relation to him. 
 That the holiness here mentioned, is to be understood in 
 a relative rather than in a real sense, is evident, from 
 considering that there is no difference naturally between 
 the children of believers and unbelievers. Hence the term 
 holy^ is here used in the same sense as that in which the 
 whole nation of Israel is called holy. For the whole of 
 that people, as separated from the surrounding idolatrous 
 nations, in order that they might worship the true God, 
 were called a holy people, &c. and those from whom 
 they were thus separated were called unclean^ &c.f Now, 
 the Apostle states, that the unbelieving parent through 
 union with the parent who believes, is so sanctified as 
 that their mutual offspring are not unclean or heathen. 
 That is, that they are holy^ or included in God's visible 
 church, together with the parent who believes, and con- 
 sequently, that they are entitled to Baptism — the visible 
 sign of this privilege. 
 
 Fourth — But, that little children, that infants are pro- 
 per s&bjects for Baptism, our Lord himself establishes 
 in two remarkable passages of Scripture. The first we 
 shall cite is, from St. Luke's Gospel, |1 where we read, 
 
 * 1 Cor. vii. 14. f E»od. xix. 6. Deut. vii. 6. Ezra ix. 2. 
 las. XXXV. 8 Acts x. 28. |j Luke ix. 47, ^. 
 
 I 
 
90 
 
 that " Jesus took a child and set him by him, and said unto 
 them, whosoever shall receive this child in my name, re- 
 ceiveth me ; for he that is least among you all, the same 
 shall be great." We readily grant that this is an instance 
 of teaching by parabolic action ; and, that the intention of 
 Christ therein, was to impress the necessity of humility 
 and teachableness upon his disciples, and also, to afford 
 a promise to those who should receive them in his name, 
 of that special grace which was implied in receiving him- 
 self. But, then, were there not a correspondence of cir- 
 cumstances between the child taken by Jesus in his arms, 
 and the disciples compared to this child, there would be 
 no propriety in the action, and the same truth might 
 have been as forcibly stated, without any action of this 
 kind at all. We must, therefore, remark these corres- 
 pondences, in order to estimate the amount of their mean- 
 ing. The humility and teachableness of the true disci- 
 ple corresponded with the same dispositions in a young 
 child ; and the receiving a disciple in the name of Christ, 
 corresponds with the receiving of a child in the name of 
 Christ. Now, this receiving ot each, can only mean a 
 receiving with kindness on account of a religious relation be- 
 tween each and Christ; and snch^ religious relation can on- 
 ly be rationally understood of a church relation. And in- 
 deed, this is still more evident, is still further confirmed, 
 by the next point of correspondence noticed, namely, the 
 identity of Christ both with the disciple and with the child; 
 for, says Jesus, " whosoever shall receive this child in my 
 name receiveth me; but such an identity of Christ with 
 his disciples stands wholly upon their relation to him, 
 as members of his mystical body, .the church. It is in 
 this respect only, that they are " one with him ;" and, 
 therefore, there can be no identity of Christ with " little 
 children," but by virtue of the same relation, that is, as 
 they also are members of his mystical body, the church ; 
 and of this membership. Baptism is noxv, as circumcision 
 was then, the initiatory rite. Such, indeed, was the re- 
 lation in which the very child the Redeemer then took up in 
 his arms, stood to him by virtue of its circumcision. For, 
 as a Jew, (and that it was of no other nation, is evident 
 from our Lord being sent, in his personal ministry, 
 only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,) it wascir- 
 
91 
 
 cumcised, and, consequently, a member of his Old Tes- 
 tament church. But, as he is here speaking of his dis- 
 ciples, as the future teachers of his 'perfected covenant, 
 and of their reception in his name under that character, 
 he manifestly glances at the church relationship of chil- 
 dren to him which was to be established, by the Bap- 
 tism to be instituted in his perfect dispensation. 
 
 This is, however, expressed even still more explicit- 
 ly in St. Mark's Gospel* — where we read — *' And they 
 brought young children to him, that he should touch 
 them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said 
 unto them, suffer the little children to come unto me and 
 forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. 
 Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the 
 kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter there- 
 in. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands 
 upon them, and blessed them." On these words we may 
 
 observe, I That the children here spoken of, are *' little 
 
 children," of so tender an age, that our Lord " took 
 them up in his arms." 2. — The purpose for which they 
 were brought to Jesus, namely, that he might put his 
 hands upon them and bless them. This was the purpose 
 for which they were brought to Christ, and not as some 
 Baptist writers would suggest, that he might heal them 
 of diseases. For, what is meant by that he might touch 
 them^ in the Jirst verse of the above quotation from St. 
 Mark, is explained in the last^ not by, he healed them, 
 but by, he "put his hands on them and blessed them ^ 
 which explanation is still farther confirmed by St. Mat- 
 thew, who says that the little children were brought to 
 Christ, that he should put his hands on them and pray.J 
 Therefore, it appears clearly enough, that the purpose 
 for which these children were brought to Christ, was in 
 order to receive his blessing. Now, as there is not any 
 evidence that it was the practice of common unofficial 
 persons to put their hands on those for whom they 
 prayed, the persons who brought these children to 
 Christ, must have been among those yho believed him 
 to be a Prophet, yea, that Prophet^ or the Messias ; and 
 
 • Mark X. 13—16. § Mat. xix. 13* 
 
^2 
 
 who. on that account, earnestly desired his prayers for 
 the children which they brought to him, and his official 
 blessing upon thera. And so ready, yea, we might say 
 so anxious, was he to bestow this official blessing upon 
 these little ones, the blessing which he, by virtue of 
 his Messiahship was authorized and empowered to be- 
 stow, that he was much displeased with his disciples tor 
 rebuking those who brought them to him ; and at the 
 same time gave a command which was to remain in force 
 to all succeeding generations. Saying, "suffer the little 
 children to come unto me," in order that they may re- 
 ceive my official blessing, *• and forbid them not, for o/ 
 such is the kingdom of God." 
 
 But, Antipaedobaptists endeavour to evade the force 
 of this Scripture, by criticising upon the phrase in it, 
 " of such," by saying that this means *' of such-like," that 
 is, that it means adults, who are of a child- like disposi- 
 tion, but this criticism takes away all meaning from pur 
 Lord's words. For what kind of reason was it for Christ 
 to assign, for permitting children to come to him, that 
 adult persons, not children, who were of a child-like dis- 
 position, were the subjects of the kingdom of God. 
 But the absurdity of this criticism is its own refutation, 
 since the reason for children being permitted to come 
 must, according to our Lord's words, be found in them- 
 selves, and not in others. But another attempt to evade 
 the force of the argument, from this passage, is to un- 
 derstand by ♦' the kingdom of God," or as St. Matthew 
 has it, "the kingdom of heaven," exclusively the hea- 
 venly state in the invisible world. Now, that all children 
 dying before they have committed actual sin, are, through 
 the merits of Christ, admitted into heaven, we gladly ad- 
 mit, yea, strenuously contend * But for this very reason 
 we contend also, that it must follow, that infants are pro- 
 per subjects for being introduced into God's visible 
 church on earth. The phrases, however, " the kingdom 
 of God," and " the kingdom of heaven," are more fre- 
 quently used to denote the church in this present world 
 than in its state of glory. And since all the children 
 brought to Christ to receive his blessing were not likely 
 
 * See page 17. 
 
93 
 
 to die in their infancy, it could not be affirmed respect- 
 ing these, that " of such is the kingdom of heaven," if by 
 that phrase be understood the state of future blessedness 
 exclusively. True, a& children they might all be mem- 
 bers of the church on earth ; but not all as children^ 
 members of the church in heaven, seeing they might 
 live to become adult, and be cast aWay. Thus, there- 
 fore, if children are expressly declared to be members 
 of Christ's church, then are they proper subjects of 
 Baptism, which is the initiatory rite into every portion 
 of that church which is visible. 
 
 But let us admit, for the sake of argument, that our 
 Lord, by *' the kingdom of God," or "®f heaven," means 
 the glorified state of his church ; still it must be granted 
 to us, that none can enter heaven, who are not redeem- 
 ed by the blood of Christ, and who do not stand in a 
 vital relation to him, as members of his mystical body. 
 To suppose the contrary, would be to place human 
 and fallen beings in that heavenly state, who are uncon- 
 nected with Christ as their Redeemer, and uncleansed by 
 him as the sanctifier of his redeemed. Now, unless we, 
 contrary to the Scriptures, assign the work of sanctify- 
 ing the fallen nature of man, to a future state, we must 
 admit that this vital, redeeming, sanctifymg relation be- 
 tween Christ and little children must exist on earth, be- 
 fore it can exist in heaven. Therefore, if infants are 
 thus redeemed and sanctified in their nature, if they are 
 thus, before death, made *' meet for the inheritance of 
 the saints in light," so that in this world they are placed 
 in the same relation to Christ as adult believers, who 
 derive sanctifying influence from him, they are there- 
 fore, the members of his church — they partake of the 
 grace of the covenant, and are comprehended in that 
 promise of the covenant — " I will be to them a God, aad 
 they shall be to me a people." In other words, they are mem- 
 bers of Christ's church, and entitled to be recognized as 
 such by the administration of the visible sign of initiation 
 into some visible branch of it. 
 
 If it be asked, of what import then is Baptism to chil- 
 dren, if, as infants, they already stand in a favourable 
 relation to Christ, we answer, it is of the same import 
 as circumcision was to Abraham, which was *' a seal of 
 
94 
 
 th€ righteousness of the faith, which he had yet 
 being uncircumcised :" it confirmed all the promises of 
 the covenant ot grace to him, and made the churcli of 
 (jod visible to men. It is of the same import as Bap- 
 tism to the Eunuch, who had faith already, and a wil- 
 lingness to submit to the rite before it was administered 
 to him. He stood at that moment in the condition, not 
 of a candif^ate for introduction into the church, but af 
 an accepted candidate; he wsls viitualli/ a member, al- 
 though not formally so, and his Baptism was not merely 
 a sign of his faith, but a confirming sign ot God's cove- 
 nant relation to hin) as a pardoned and an accepted man, 
 and gave him a security for the continuance and increase 
 •of the grace of the covenant, as he was prepared to re- 
 ceive it. Jn like manner, in the case of all trid?/ believing 
 adults applying for Baptism, their relation to Christ is 
 not that ot mere candidates for membership with his 
 church, but that of accepted candidates, standing already 
 in a vital relation to him, but about to receive the seal 
 which was to confirm that grace, and its increase in the 
 ordinance itself, and in future time. Thus this previous 
 relation of intants to Christ, as accepted by him, is an 
 argument for their Baptism, not against it, seeing it is 
 by that they are visibly recognized as the formal mem- 
 bers of his church, and have the full grace of the cove- 
 nant confirmed and sealed to them, with increase ot 
 grace as they are fitted to receive it, besides the advan- 
 tage of visible connexion with the church, and of that, 
 obligation which is taken upon themselves by their pa- 
 rents to train them up in the *' nurture and admonition of 
 the Lord." 
 
 In both views, then, " of such is the kingdom of God ;" 
 members of his church on earth, and of his church in 
 lieaven, if they die in infancy, for the one is necessarily 
 involved in the other. No man can be of the kingdom 
 of God in heaven, who does not stand in a vital sancti- 
 fying relation to Christ as the head of his mystical body, 
 the chiurch, on earth ; and no one can be of the kingdoiu 
 of God on earth, a member of his true church, and die 
 in that relation, without entering that state of glory, ta 
 which his adoption on earth makes him an heir, through, 
 Christ. 
 
95 
 
 But having established our point and proved, to the 
 satisfaction of impartial readers, that iri/ants are proper 
 subjects for Baptism, we might now proceed to consi- 
 der what we proposed respecting the mode in which this 
 ordinance should be administered; nevertheless as the 
 fixing of the subjects of Baptism is a matter of import- 
 ance, we shall add a iew additional arguments in order 
 more fully to corroborate what we have already advan- 
 ced. And, 
 
 Fifth — We shall next notice the argument for the bap- 
 tizing of infants which is founded upon Apostolic prac- 
 tice — that practice was to baptize households. Now if 
 we take the instances of the Baptism of whole houses, 
 as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they must be 
 understood eitlier as marking the common mode of pro- 
 ceeding among the first Preachers of the Gospel, when 
 the head or heads of a family believed, or as insulated 
 and peculiar instances. If the former, which, from the 
 matter of course manner in which the cases are mention- 
 ed, as is most probable ; then innumerable instances must 
 have occurred of the baptizing of houses or families, just 
 as many in fact as there were of the conversion of heads 
 of families in the Apostolic age. That the majority of 
 these houses must have included infant children is, there- 
 fore certain, and hence it follows, that the Apostles prac- 
 tised Infant Baptism. 
 
 The Baptists, however, think that all the persons in- 
 cluded in these houses were adults; because it is said con- 
 cerning the jailer's family, that the Apostle spoke the 
 word of the Lord to all that were in the house; and be- 
 cause it is said concerning the house of Stephanas, that 
 they " addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 
 Now, we grant that what is said respecting the jailer's 
 house having the word of the Lord spoken to them, re- 
 fers principally, although not exclusively, to such as were 
 of sufficient age to understand it. And that when he is 
 spoken of as rejoicing, and believing in God with "all his 
 house," that it is chiefly such persons that are alluded to. 
 But we contend that in the case of Lydia's house, which 
 was baptized with her, there is no mention of the Lord'* 
 opening any one's heart but. her oivn, yet they were all 
 baptized. And therefore, as it does not appear that ti>» 
 
96 
 
 Apostles, although they baptized infant children, baptized 
 unbelieving adult servants, because their masters or mis- 
 tresses believed, and yet as the house of Lydia were 
 baptized along with herself, when no mention is made 
 of the Lord opening the heart of these adult domestics, 
 nor of their believing, we do contend, the fair inference 
 is, that " the house" of Lydia means her children only, 
 and that being of immature years they were baptized 
 with their mother according to the common custom of 
 the Jews, to baptize the children of proselyte Gentiles 
 along with their parents, from which practice Christian 
 Baptism appears to be taken. And also when we read of 
 the house of Stephanas " addicting themselves to the min- 
 istry of the saints," we do contend that the same thing 
 might be said of, that an equal commendation for hos- 
 pitality and charity might be given in the present day 
 with perfect propriety, to, many pious families, several 
 members of which are still in a state of infancy. Indeed 
 it was sufficient to warrant the use of such expressions 
 as those of the Apostle, that there were in these fami- 
 lies a few adults, whose conduct gave a decided character 
 to the " whole house." And when we read of houses 
 or Jamilies being baptized, we are to understand them 
 as comprising children of all age«, when no explicit note 
 of the contrary appears, which is not the case in any of 
 the instances we have mentioned. 
 
 Those who are opposed to infant Baptism argue strong- 
 ly against the practice, because there is no express men- 
 tion made of it in the New Testament. But this can be 
 easily accounted for, when we consider, that, as we have 
 proved, Baptism took the place of circumcision. Hence 
 the Baptism of infants was so much a matter of course, 
 as to call for no remark. Indeed the argument from si- 
 lence is one upon which the Baptists least of all should 
 dwell, since, as we have seen, if it had been intended to 
 exclude children from the privilege of being placed in 
 covenant with God, which privilege they unquestionably 
 enjoyed under the Old Testament, this extraordinary 
 alteration, which could not but produce remark, required 
 to be particularly noted, both to account for it to the 
 mind of an affectionate Jewish parent, and to guard 
 against that mistake into which we shall just now shew 
 
97 
 
 Christians from the earliest times fell, since they ad- 
 ministered Baptism to infants. It may further be observed, 
 in reference to the Acts of the Apostles, that the events 
 narrated there did not require the express mention of the 
 Baptism of infants, as an act separate from the Baptism 
 of adult*. That which called for the administration of 
 Baptism at that period, as now, when the Gospel is prea- 
 ched in a heathen land, was the believing of adult per- 
 sons, and not of persons already believinj:^, bringing 
 their children for Baptism. On the supposition that Bap- 
 tism was administered to the children ot the parents 
 who thus believed, at the same time as themselves, and 
 in consequence of their believing, it may be asked how 
 the fact could be more naturally expressed, when it was 
 not intended to speak of infant Baptism docirinally or 
 distinctlijy than that such an one was baptized, " and all 
 his house;" just as a similar fact would be recorded by 
 a modern missionary writing to a church at home prac- 
 tising mfant Baptism, and having no controversy on the 
 subject in his eye, by saying that he baptised such a 
 heathen, at such a place, with all his family. For it can- 
 not be denied that the Greek term, rendered hotiscy like 
 the old English word Jamily, used in our translation, 
 must be understood to comprehend, either the children 
 only, to the ex'clusion of the domestics, or both domes- 
 tics and children. 
 
 From the several instances of houses mentioned in 
 scripture, such as that of the Jailer, ot the nobleman at Ca- 
 pernaum, of Lydia, of Stephanas, of Cornelius, of Cris- 
 pus, &c.* It IS much more reasonable to suj^pose, that 
 such phrases, as " fearing God with all his house," believing 
 ■with all his house,*' &c. include young children under 
 the believing adults, whose sentiments they would gene- 
 rally imbibe, and whose religious profession they would 
 follow, so that they might be called a christian family, 
 than that so many houses or families should have been 
 constituted only of adult persons, to the entire exclusion 
 of children of tender years. 
 
 We would here just observe, that we would not have 
 it understood, that we suppose the adults in a family are 
 entitled to Baptism in consequence of the head or heads 
 ♦ Acts xvi. Z\. John iv. u3. Acts x. 2. 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 
98 
 
 of that family believing. This, as we before intimated, is 
 not our opinion. For indeed we as well as our opponents 
 are fully persuaded, that no adult to whom the Gospel is 
 preached, has, without believing, any scriptural claim to 
 either Baptism or Salvation. Now although our Lord 
 gave Baptism a particular designation, yet, that it was 
 no new ordinance when he instituted it, we will by and 
 by make appear. Did he not on several occasions, adopt 
 into his service many things which had before been ap- 
 propriated to other purposes, and used in another way ? 
 Was not the practice of teaching by parables in use 
 among the Jews long before the Saviour's day, yet, who 
 spake by parables more than Jesus Christ? And what 
 is the most distinguished and appropriate rite of his re- 
 ligion, but a service grafted on a Passover custom among 
 the Jews of his day ? It was not ordained by Moses, 
 that a part of the bread they had used in the Passover 
 should be the last thing they ate after that supper ; yet 
 this our Lord took as he found and converted into 
 a memorial of his body. The ** cup of blessing" has no 
 authority whatever from the original institution; yet this 
 our Lord found in use, and adopted as a memorial of 
 his blood ; taken together these elements form one com- 
 memoration of his death. Probability, arising to rational 
 certainty, therefore, would lead us to infer, that what- 
 ever rite Jesus appointed as the ordinance of admission 
 into the community of his followers he would also adopt 
 from some service already existing, from some token fa- 
 miliar among the people of his nation. 
 
 In fact, we know that " divera Baptisms'* existed un- 
 der the law, and we have every reason to believe, that 
 the admission of proselytes into the profession of Ju- 
 daism, was really and truly marked by a washing with 
 water in a ritual or ceremonial manner. " In all ages," 
 says Maimonides, (the great interpreter of the Jewish 
 law,) " when a heathen (or a stranger by nation) was 
 willing to enter into the covenant of Israel, and gather 
 himself under the wings of the Majesty of God, and 
 take upon himself the yoke of the law — he must be first 
 circumcised, and secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a 
 sacrafice ; or if the party were a woman, then she must 
 be first baptized^ and secondly bring a sacrifice." He 
 
adds, " at this present time when (the temple being 
 destroyed) there is no sacrificing, a stranger must be first 
 circumcised, and secondly baptized-' Dr. Lightfoot 
 shews also from the Babylonian Talmud, that Baptism 
 was in most frequent use among the Jews many centuries 
 before either John the Baptist, or Christ and his Apos- 
 tles made their appearance ; and that it was used for the 
 very same end that Christians now use it, namely, for 
 admitting proselytes into the church : and that the term 
 used, by the Jews, for describing proselyte Baptism, 
 was different from that used for describing Baptism, or 
 washing from uncleanness, yea, he shews that with them 
 it was a common axiom, that " no man is a proselyte 
 until he be circumcised and baptized,'' But the Doctor 
 proceeds to shew from Jewish records that young children 
 were baptized with their parents ; that " They baptize a 
 little proselyte according to the judgment oi the San- 
 hedrm ;" that is, as the gloss renders it, " If he be de- 
 prived of his father, and his mother brings him to be 
 made a proselyte, they baptize him, (because none 
 becomes a proselyte without circumcision and Baptism) 
 according to the judgment, or rite, of the Sanhe- 
 drin ; that is, that three men be presentat the Baptism, who 
 are now instead of a father unto him." The Gamara a 
 little after says, " IftuzVA aproselyte, his^ow^andhis daugh- 
 ters are made proselytes also, that which is done by their 
 father redounds to their good." R.Joseph saith, ''when 
 they grow into years they may retract :" where the gloss 
 writes thus, " This is to be understood of little childreuy 
 who are made proselytes with their father, &c.* 
 
 But so notorious was proselyte Baptism among the 
 Jews, to the heathen in Italy and Greece, that it furnish- 
 ed Epictetus, the philosopher, with an object of com- 
 
 * See Dr A. Clarke's Commentary, Observations at the end of 
 St Mark's Gospel. 
 
 We may here observe that the Mishna is a Jewish code of tradition- 
 al law, collected and arranged under distinct heads after forty years' 
 labour by one of their Rabbies named Johuda in the second cen- 
 tury : and the Gamara, the Supplement or Commentary, which with 
 the Mishna forms the Jerusalem Talmud, was written by a president of 
 a school in Palestine. The Gamara, which with the Mishna forms 
 the Babylonian Talmud, was also written by another of the Jewish 
 Rabbi«s. See Edinburgh Encyclopsedia, Article Talmud. 
 
100 
 
 parlson. Hence, when blaming those who assume the 
 prolession of philosophy without acting up to it, he hath 
 these words, "why do you call yourself a Stoic? why 
 do you deceive the multitude ? why do you pretend to 
 be a Greek, when you are a Jew? a Syrian? an Egyptian? 
 and when we see any one wavering, we are wont to say, 
 this is not a Jew, but acts one. But when he assumes 
 the sentiments of one who hath been baptized and aV- 
 cumcisedy then he both really is, and is therefore called 
 a Jew. Thus we (saith the Philosopher) falsifying our 
 profession'are Jews in name but in reality something else. 
 Now Epictetus lived to be very old. He is placed by 
 Dr. Lardner A. D. 109 ; by Le Clerc, A. D. 104. He 
 could not be less than sixty years of age when he wrote 
 this ; and he might obtain his informotion thirty or for- 
 ty years earlier, which brings it up to the time of the 
 Apostles. From this may be seen how far from being 
 correct the assertion of that celebrated Baptist writer. 
 Dr. Gill is, who says, that ** there is no mention made of 
 any rite or custom of admitting Jewish proselytes by 
 Baptism^ in any writings or records before the time of 
 John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles ; nor in any age 
 after them for the first three or four hundred years ; or 
 however before the writing of the Talmud."* 
 
 Thatshortly after our Saviour's time it was the custom 
 of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circum- 
 cise, all their proselytes, cannot, as we have just seen, 
 be successfully controverted. And as their writers treat 
 Jargely of the reasons for Baptism, without giving a hint 
 of its being a wove/ institution, the probability is that this 
 had been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, 
 whose account of the rile of circumcision, and of the 
 manner of performing it, is by no means circumstantial. 
 It is true, indeed, that baptism, after circumcision, might 
 have come into use gradually from the natural propriet}'^ 
 of the thing, and its easy conformity to other Jewish cus- 
 toms. For if no Jew could approach the tabernacle, or 
 temple, after the most trifling uncleanness, without wash- 
 ing, much less would it be thought proper to admit a 
 proselyte from a state so impure and unclean as heathen- 
 ism was conceived to be, without the same mode of pu- 
 
 • See Facts and Efidences on Baptism, by the Editor of Calmet. 
 
101 
 
 rification. That the practice of Jewish proselyte Bap« 
 tisra obtained before and at, as well as after our Savioul-'s 
 time, is confirmed by the many testimonies of Jewish , 
 writers, who, as Wall has shewn, without one dissenting 
 voice, allow thiS to be the fact. The testimonies of the 
 Jewish writers are of the greater, weight, because the 
 practice, reported by them to have been of so ancient a 
 date, did still remain among them ; for if it had not been 
 of that antiquity o which it pretends, if it had not been 
 before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would 
 ever have become a custom among the Jews afterwards. 
 Would they begin to proselyte perrons to their religion, 
 by Baptism, in imHation of the disciples of Jesus of Na- 
 zareth whom they held accursed ; And yet, if this pro- 
 selyte Baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time 
 of Christ, it must have been a mere innovation in imita' 
 tion of Christians, which is most unlikel}^. The man 
 who is capable of believing that the Jexvs could institute 
 proselyte Baptism, at the very moment when the Christians 
 were practising Baptism as an initiatory rite, is not to be 
 envied for the correctness of his judgment; certainly he 
 is capable of believing what the Scriptures no where re- 
 quire, namely, things not above, but contrary to reason. 
 Our conclusion therefore is, that proselyte Baptism dates 
 much earlier than our Saviour's time. And on no other 
 ground than of allowing Baptism to be known, and of fre- 
 quent use among the Jews, can the question of the Sanhe- 
 drin, by their messengers, to the Baptist, (John i. 25.) be 
 accounted for. They do not enquire at John the reason of 
 Baptism, or what it meant, (this they appear to have been 
 well acquainted with,) but they enquire at him from 
 whence he had received his authority to baptize. 
 
 The Baptism of proselytes therefore, as Lightfoot has 
 fully shewed, was a Baptism of families,, and comprehend- 
 ed their infant children; and the rite was a symbol of 
 their being washed from the pollutions of idolatry. Very 
 different indeed in the extent of its import and office was 
 Christian Baptism from the Jewish Baptism ; neverthe- 
 less, this shews that the Jews were familiar with the rite 
 as it extended to children, in cases of conversions from 
 idolatry, and, as far at least as the converts from pagan- 
 ism to Christianity were concerned, they could not but 
 
102 
 
 understand Christian Baptism to extend to the infant chil- 
 dren of Gentile proselytes, unless there had been, what 
 we no were find in the discourses of Christ and the writ- 
 ings of the Apostles, an express exception of them. In 
 like manner, their own practice of infant circumcision 
 must have misled them. For if they were taught that 
 Baptism was the initiatory seal of the Christian covenant, 
 and had taken the place of circumcision, which as St. 
 Paul informed them was "a seal of the righteousness 
 which was by faith," how should they have understood 
 that their children were no longer to be taken into cove- 
 nant with God, as under their own former religion, un- 
 less they had been told that this exclusion of children 
 from all covenant relation to God, was one of those joe- 
 culiarities of the Chistian dispensation in which it differ- 
 ed from the religion of the Patriarchs and of Moses ? 
 This was surely a great change, a change which must 
 have made great impression upon a serious Jewish pa- 
 rent, who could now no longer covenant with God for 
 his children, or 'iipll^ place them in a special covenant 
 relation to the Lord of the whole earth ; a change indeed 
 so great — a placing of the children of Christian parents 
 in so inferior, and, so to speak, outcast a condition, in 
 comparison of the children of believing Jews, whilst the 
 Abrahamic covenant remained in force, that not only, in 
 order to prevent mistake, did it require an express 
 enunciation, but in the nature of the thing it must have 
 given rise to so many objections, or at least inquiries, that 
 explanations of the reason of this peculiarity might na- 
 turally be expected to occur in the writings of the Apos- 
 tles, and especially in those of St. Paul. On the con- 
 trary the very phraseology of these inspired men, when 
 touching the subject of the children of believers only 
 incidentally, was calculated to confirm the ancient practice, 
 in opposition to what we are told is the true doctrine of 
 the Gospel upon this point. For instance how could 
 the Jews have understood the words of Peter at the Pen- 
 tecost, as before noticed, but as calling upon both them 
 and their children to be baptized ? 
 
 Sixth — The next argument we shall adduce in favour 
 of infant Baptism, is founded upon the address of St. 
 Paul, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he says, 
 
103 
 
 " Children obey your parents in the Lord." For how 
 could these children obey "in the Lord," if they them- 
 selves were not " in the Lord?" But in every instance 
 this expression "in the Lord," marks incorporation into 
 the Christian body. For example, when the Apostle 
 distinguishes those of the family of Narcissus, who were 
 Christians, his language is, " Who are in the Lord." In 
 like manner, Onesimus, when reconciled to his master, 
 was, in consequence of his conversion doubly dear to 
 him, as " a brother beloved — both in the flesh and in 
 the Lord ;" beloved " in the flesh," from having been 
 formerly domesticated with Philemon, and beloved " in 
 the Lord," as being now his fellow Christian. The equi- 
 valent expression, "in Christ," occurs in the same senscy 
 as marking incorporation into Christ's body, the Church, 
 in St. Paul's salutation of A.ndronicus and Junia, 
 " who," he says, " also were in Christ before me."* 
 
 Respecting the age of those whom the Apostle ad- 
 dresses as (tatecna) children, there can be no question; 
 as in the fourth verse of the same chapter, they are dis- 
 tinctly stated to be such children as were the subjects of 
 instruction and discipline — children whom their fathers 
 were commanded to bring up. But it must not escape 
 notice, how exactly the sequel of the Apostle's address 
 accords with the commencement; the injunction being 
 given as to those in express covenant. " Honour thy 
 father and thy mother, which is the first commandment 
 with promise." For had those addressed been out of the 
 Christian church, this language would have been inap- 
 plicable. In that case they would have been "aliens 
 from the common wealth of Israel, and strangers to the 
 covenants of promise" — not within the range of the di- 
 vine commandment, and consequently not warranted to 
 assume an interest in the promise. As then, even the 
 pressing of the sacred injunction, supposes the persons on 
 whom it is urged to be Jellow citizens with thesahits, their 
 acknowledged interest in the promise, proves them of 
 the household of God. With rational unprejudiced men, 
 who are willing to abide the decision of Scripture ; this 
 single passage should set the troublesome controrersy 
 
 • Eph. vi. 1, Rom. xvi. 11. Philemon 16. Rom, xvi. 7. 
 
104 
 
 respecting infant Baptism for ever at rest. For as none 
 can be acknowledged members of the church, (our op- 
 ponents themselves being judges,) but by Baptism; and 
 as the Apostle addresses these children as members oi 
 the church, it must necessarily follow, that they had been 
 baptized. Therefore St. Paul so establishes infant Bap- 
 tism in this single passage, as that it shall never be over- 
 turned by succeeding generations. But in order to shew- 
 that our statement fully corresponds with the practice of 
 the church in all ages, since the establishment of Chris- 
 tianity. We proceed, 
 
 Seventh — To the last argument we shall notv notice in 
 favour of Infants being proper snbjccls for Baptism : — 
 This argument shall be drawn from the antiquity of the 
 practice. On which Mr. Watson writes thus : — 
 
 *' If the Baptism of the infant children of belie- 
 vers was not practised by the Apostles and primitive 
 churches, when and where did the practice commence ? 
 To this question Antipaedo- baptists can give no an- 
 swer. It is, according to them, an innovation, not upon 
 the circumstances of a sacrament, but upon its essential 
 principle', and yet strange to tell, its introduction, was 
 never noticed by any general or provincial council, pro- 
 duced no struggle, excited no controversy ; on the other 
 hand, the only ancient writer who opposed infant Bap- 
 tism, namely, Tertullian, who lived in the second cen- 
 tury, can be plainly pointed out. But his opposition to 
 the practice, with the principles upon which he made it, 
 fully prove, that the practice was more ancient than him- 
 self. He regarded this sacrament superstiliously, he ap- 
 pended to it the dipping, not once but three times, called 
 the trine immersion, in the name of each of the persons of 
 the Trinity ; he gives it as a reason why infants should not 
 be baptized, that Christ says "suffer the little children to 
 come to me," therefore they must stay till they are able to 
 come, that is till they are grown up : lie would also pro- 
 ,hibit the unmarried, and all in a widowed state, from Bap- 
 tism, because of the temptations to which they may be li- 
 able. Now the whole of this is solved by adverting to 
 that notion of the efficacy of this sacrament in taking 
 a\yay all previous sins, which then began to prevail, so 
 that an inducement was held out for delaying Bapiisna 
 
105 
 
 as long as possible, till at length in many cases it was 
 postponed to the article of death, under the belief that 
 the dying who received this sacrament were the more 
 sure of salvation. Tertullian, accordingly, with all his 
 zeal, allowed that infants ought to be baptized if their 
 lives he in danger^ and thus evidently shev/s that his op- 
 position to the Baptism of infants in ordinary, rested 
 upon a very different principle from that of the modern 
 ^Nntip^edobaptists. Amidst all his arguments against 
 this practice Tertullian, however, never ventures upon 
 one which vvould have been most to his purpose, and 
 which might most forcibly have been urged, had not 
 Baptism been administered to infants by the Apostles 
 and their immediate successors. That argument would 
 have been the novelty of the practice, which he never 
 asserts, and which as he lived so early, he might have 
 proved, had he had any ground for it. On the contrary 
 Justin J martyr, and IrencEUS, in the second century, and 
 Origin in the beginning of the third, expressly mention 
 infant Baptism as the practice of their times, and by 
 the latter this is assigned to Apostolical injunction. 
 Fidus, an African Bishop, applied to Cyprian, Bishop of 
 Carthage, to know, not whether infants were to be bap- 
 tized, but whether their Baptism might not take place 
 before the eighth day after their birth, that being the 
 day on which circumcision was performed by the law of 
 Moses. This question was considered in an African syn- 
 od, held A. D. 254-, at which sixty-six Bishops were pre- 
 sent, and, it was unanimously decreed, that it was not 
 necessary to defer Baptism to that day, and that the 
 grace of God, or Baptism should bo given to all and es- 
 pecially infants. This decision was communicated in 
 a letter from Cyprian to Fidus.* We trace the practice 
 also downwards. In the fit^th century Ambrose say?, 
 *' that infants who are baptized, are reformed from wick- 
 edness to the primitive state of their nature, "f and at 
 the end of that century, the famous controversy took 
 place between Augustine and Pelagius concerning ori- 
 ginal sin, in which the uniform practice of baptising in- 
 fants from the days of the Apostles was admitted by 
 
 * Cyp, Ep, o9. f Comment l\\ Lucam c. 10. 
 
m 
 
 both parties, although they assigned different reasotid 
 lor it. So little indeed were Tertujlian's absurdities re- 
 garded, that he appears to have been quite forgotten by 
 this time; for Augustine says he never heard of any 
 Catholic or sectary, who taught any other doctrine than 
 that infants are to be baptized.* Infant Baptism is not 
 mentioned in the canons of any council ; nor is it in- 
 sisted upon as an object of faith in any creed ; and 
 thence we infer that it was a point not controverted at 
 any period of the ancient church, and we know that it 
 was the practice in all established churches. Wall says, 
 that Peter Bruis, a Frenchman, who lived about the year 
 1030, whose followers were called Petrobrussians, was 
 the first Antipaedobaptist teacher who had a regular con- 
 gregation.f The Anabaptists of Germany took their 
 rise in the beginning of the fifteenth century ; but it 
 does not appear that there was any congregation of Ana- 
 baptists in England, till the year 1640. J Now that a 
 practice which can be traced up to the very first periods 
 of the church, and has been till within very modern 
 times, its uncontroverted practice, should have a lower 
 authority than Apostolic usage and appointment, may be 
 pronounced impossible. It is not like one of those trif- 
 ling though somewhat superstitious additions, which, 
 even in very early times began to be made to the sacra- 
 ments ; on the contrary, it involves a principle so im- 
 portant as to alter the very nature of the sacrament it- 
 self. For if personal faith be an essential requisite of 
 Baptism in all cases, if Baptism be a visible declaration 
 of this, and vicious without it, then infant Baptism was 
 an innovation of so serious a nature, that it must have 
 attracted attention, and provoked controversy, which 
 would have led, if not to the suppression of the error, 
 yet to a diversity of practice in the ancient churches, 
 which in point of fact did not exist, Tertullian himself 
 allowing infant Baptism in extreme cases." But we now 
 proceed to answer, what are deemed the principal of the 
 objections made to this doctrine. And, 
 
 First — It is objected against the baptizing of infants, 
 
 * De. Pecc. Mor. Cap. 6. f Hist. Part 2. c. 7. t Bishoi^ 
 Tomline's Elemenfs. 
 
m 
 
 tliat as tiiere is no command for baptising them, there- 
 fore they should not be baptized. But, 
 
 First — To this we reply, that there was no need of a 
 command for that which had always by common use pre- 
 tailed. The whole of the Jewish nation knew well 
 enough that the long established practice was, to bap* 
 tize little children with their proselyted parents. If at 
 royal proclamation were now issued lorth in these words^ 
 " Let every one resort on the Lord's day to the public 
 assembly in the church," would he not be mad who in 
 after times should argue from this, that pra2/ers, sermons^ 
 and singing of psalms, were not to be celebrated on the 
 Lord's day in the public assemblies, because there is 
 no mention of them in the proclamation. For the pro- 
 clamation provided for the celebration of the Lord's day 
 in the publick assemblies in general ; but there was no 
 need to make mention of the peculiar kinds of the divine 
 worship to be celebrated there, when they were alivays 
 and everi^ where well known, and in daili/ use, before the 
 publication of the proclamation, and ixihen it was pub- 
 lished. The case is the same in Baptism. On the other 
 hand therefore, there was need of a plain and open pro* 
 hibition that infants and little children should not be bap- 
 tized, if our Saviour would not have them baptized. For 
 since it was most common in the preceding ages, that 
 little children should be baptized ; if Christ had been' 
 minded to have that custom abolished, he would have 
 openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence and the si- 
 lence of the Scripture in this matter, confirms Paedo- 
 baptism, instead of overturning it, and consequently^ 
 should never be produced by the Baptists as an argu- 
 ment in favour of their cause. 
 
 Second — We still farther reply, that if infant Baptism 
 should not be practiced because there is no command 
 for it ; then female communion should not be practised 
 because there is no command for it. For surely if the 
 want of a precept, yea, and even precedent also, be a 
 siifficient reason for not baptizing infants, then the want 
 ot a precept and precedent for female communion, must 
 be a sufficient reason for excluding women from the 
 Lord's Table. Therefore if our Baptist brethren will 
 avoid the imputation of inconsistency, if they will not 
 
108 
 
 have recourse to " divers weights and divers measures," 
 if they will try the right of females to receive the Lord's 
 Supper by the same standard that they try the right of 
 infants to be baptized, namely, by the sacred Scriptures, 
 and if they admit of only the same kind of evidence for 
 the one practice as for the other, if nothing less than 
 positive precept or example will do for either, then as 
 the Scriptures contain neither precept nor precedent^or 
 either, both practices must cease for ever. 
 
 On this subject our Baptist brethren feel themselves 
 considerably embarrassed. For they admit v/omen to 
 the Lord's Table while they forbid water to baptize //^^/c' 
 children ; and yet, the Scriptures are no more express for 
 Jemale communion than they are for infant Baptism. 
 Many Baptist writers, sensible that xve have as good a right 
 to demand a precept or precedent ^ an express warrant from 
 thenii for female communion^ as what they have to make 
 such a demand upon us for infant Baptism^ and knowing 
 that they can produce nothing of the kind, have pru- 
 dently passed over the subject in silence. But others 
 who have ranked among the most zealous and most dis- 
 tinguished of the advocates in the Antipaedo-baptist 
 cause, have felt that they must say something upon the 
 point, and consequently have produced their strong rea- 
 sons ; but unfortunately for them, as we shall just now 
 shew, they are only their reasons still, and neither pre- 
 cept nor pecedent from the sacred page. Hence upon 
 their otvn principles, they must go for nought* 
 
 But we shall proceed now to notice the principal 
 of those arguments which are offered to us for pre- 
 cept and precedent, for an express warrant for female 
 communion, and to examine whether they be counter- 
 feit or sterling coin. It is therefore enquired, " Does 
 not Paul when he says * Let a man examine himself, 
 and solet him eat,' enjoin a reception of the sacred Sup- 
 per? Does not the term anthropoSi there used, often 
 stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex ? 
 Have we not the authority of Lexicographers, and, 
 which is incomparably more, the sanction of common 
 sense, for understanding it thus in this passage ? When 
 tiie sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for 
 a man is not anthropos, but aner. Besides when the 
 
109 
 
 Apostle delivered to the church at Corinth what lie had 
 received of the Lord, did he not deliver a command — 
 a command to the whole church consisting of women as 
 well as men ? When he further says, we, being many, are 
 one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of 
 that one bread; does he not speak of women as well 
 as men ? Again, are there any pre-requisites for the holy 
 Supper, of which women are not equally capable as men ? 
 And are not male and female one in Clirist ?"' 
 
 Now as the above arguments, taken from Mr. Abra- 
 ham Booth's work on Baptism,* contain in substance 
 ail that has been advanced for precept and example in 
 favour of female communion; as iMr. Carson himself 
 (the last and not the least in this cause,) has added no- 
 thing, we shall briefly attend to the above in order, and 
 see whether or not, they have any claim to express war 
 rant, toprecept or precedent 
 
 And 1. Mr. Booth enquires, does not Paul when he 
 says, " Let a niaii examine hwisel/ and so let him eat," 
 enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper ? We answer, 
 without hesitation, yes. 2. He enquires '* does not the 
 term nnthropos, there used, often stand as a name of our 
 species, without regard to sex ?" We answer, it does often 
 stand thus ; but as we shall shew presently, it sometimes 
 stands othenvise — it often denotes the male as distinguish- 
 ed from the female, and consequently is neither a pre- 
 cept nor an explicit warrant for female communion. 3. 
 He enquires " have we not the authority of Lexicogra- 
 phers, and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of 
 common sense, for understanding it thus in this passage ?" 
 Now to this we reply, that it is the business of a Lexi- 
 cographer to give us the sense of a word : but when a 
 word has more than one meaning, then it is the Commen- 
 tator's business to inform us of its import, in any par- 
 ticular passge. When a Lexicographer says that a cer- 
 tain word has often such, or such a meaning, he leaves us 
 to infer that it is sometimes, at least, taken in another 
 sense ; and then his authority cannot settle which is the 
 true meaning, wherever it occurs. But what LeXrico- 
 grapher says that anthropos ahvaj/s includes the female 
 
 * See Pasdo-baptism examined vol. ii. page 73, &c. 
 
no 
 
 sex ? And as to common sense — how is that to settle the 
 meaning of a Greek word? Why? according to Mr. 
 Booth " when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, 
 the word for a man is not anthropos but aner. Now 
 this Mr. Peter Edwards has proved to be absolutely 
 false, by producing no less than nineteen instances out 
 of the Bible in which, when the sexes are distinguished 
 and opposed, the word for a man is anthropos and not aner.* 
 And a hundred texts he observes, may be produced from 
 the New Testament, where the word anthropos does not 
 include the female sex. This text, therefore, is not at 
 all express for female communion. The English word 
 man like the Greek word anthropos is often used as a 
 name of our species ; but who ever supposed that it a/- 
 luays includes women ? Besides the masculine pronoun 
 is here used, the words are, **Let a man examine ^m- 
 sel/J' Now unless it can be shewn that the words, " Let 
 a man examine himself*' mean, Let a woman examine 
 herself, the psssage is far enough from being, express in 
 favour oi female communion. Surely infants are as clear- 
 ly included in the " All nations," which are commanded 
 to be baptized, as tvomen are included in the word man. 
 But 4. " Besides," saith Mr. Booth, "when the Apostle 
 delivered to the church at Corinth, what he had received 
 of the Lord, did he not deliver a command — a command 
 to the whole church, consisting of women as well as 
 men ?*' We answer, what he received of the Lord, he 
 states in the words which immediately follow. For, says 
 he, " I have received of the LorcV that which also I de- 
 livered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in 
 which he was betrayed, took bread and when he had 
 given thanks he brake it, and said, take eat," &c. Here 
 he delivered to the Cerinthians the command which our 
 Lord gave to his Apostles, the same night in which he 
 was betrayed. But that was no command to women, 
 there were none of the sex present at that time, or ad- 
 
 • See Gen. ii. 24. xxvi. 11. xxxiv. U. Deut. xx. 7. xvii. 5. 
 Jer. xliv. 7. Gen. ii. 18. Lev. xix. 20. Num. xxv. 8. Deut. 
 xxi. 15. xxii. 30. Esther iv. 11. Mat. xix. 10. xix. .3. Mark 
 X. 7. 1 Cor. vii. 1. Mat. xix. 5. Kev. ix. 7, 8. Eph. v. 31. 
 See Edwards's candid reasons for renouncing Antipado-baptisra 
 pages 11. 12. 
 
Ill 
 
 dressed on that occasion. And he mentions nothing 
 about either the i^ihole church, or ivomen. Surely everi/ 
 command given to a church, does not respect every 
 member of it, both male and female. To suppose such 
 a thing would be the extreme of absurdity. Mr. Booth 
 proceeds to enquire, 5. '< When he," the Apostle, ** says, 
 * We being many are one bread and one body ; for we 
 are all partakers of that one bread;* does he not speak 
 of luomen as well as men ?" We answer, the Apostle him- 
 self has mentioned in express terms to whom he spake 
 these words, let us therefore hear him. " I speak," says 
 he, " to towe men, judge ye what I say. The cup of 
 blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the 
 blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not 
 the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being 
 many are one bread," &c. That women may be included 
 in this passage we grant ; but that it is far enough from 
 being express in their favour, must be manifest to every 
 one whose vision is not obscured by prejudice. Their 
 participation in the sacred rite, from this can at most be 
 only inferred. But 6. Mr. Booth further asks, ** Are 
 there any pre-requisites for the holy Supper, of which 
 women are not equally capable as meyi ?" We answer cer- 
 tainly not: and, therefore think this a good argument. 
 But still it is of no use to the Baptists' cause, inasmuch 
 as they deny that any one has a right to o. positive institute 
 in whose behalf neither a precept nor a precedent can 
 be found in the Bible. Now does not every one .«ee 
 that pre-requisites are neither precepts nor precedents ? 
 Mr. Booth, in the last place, enquires *' Are not male 
 and female one in Christ?" We reply certainly, and there- 
 fore grant that this is a sufficiently explicit warrant for 
 females being in Ghrist ; but not a word or hint is here 
 respecting the holy Supper ; their right to that is only 
 inferred from their interest in the Saviour ; and a far- 
 fetched inference it is. Indeed if it follow, that because 
 females are in Christ as well as males, they have an equal 
 right to the Lord's Supper ; it will also follow, that^e- 
 males have an equal right with males to the ministry* 
 For, the argument goes upon the principle, that an 
 equality of interest in Christ among iwen and laomen, giveg 
 an equality of right to his institutions. If this be denied, 
 
U2 
 
 the argument Is good for nothing, and if it be admitted, 
 then it must foHow, that since the ministry is as much 
 an institution of the Saviour, as eating bread and drink- 
 ing wine in remembrance of him, it must follow, on this 
 ground, that women have as good a right to stand up in the 
 ])Ulpit, as to sit at the Lord's Table. But farther still, as 
 the Baptists admit that infants may be in Christ as well 
 as adults ; as they allow that children dying in infancy 
 are saved, and saved by Christ. It will therefore follow 
 according to this Baptist argument, which is, that being 
 in Christ gives a right to all his institutions, it will follow, 
 that because infants have an interest in the Saviour, that 
 ihey have an explicit warrant to both Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper ! 
 
 But let it be here particularly observed, that it is^ot 
 against the ri^ht o^ females to the Lord's Supper, we are 
 objectirg, but to our Baptist brethren saying, that they 
 have such evidence for this, as they really have not, 
 and such as they inconsistently enough require in the case 
 of infant Baptism. For to talk of express tvarranls, jjrecepts 
 and precedents^ upon this subject, is egregious trifling ; 
 there are no such things to be found in the Bible. Hence, 
 as the Lord's Supper is as much a positive institute as 
 Baptism, and as there is neither: precept nor precedent 
 for females partaking of it, our Baptist brethren should 
 either withhold the communion from women, or cease 
 from demanding henceforth and for ever, precept or 
 precedent for infant Baptism ; or otherwise explain the 
 reason why a precept or precedent is necessary to enti- 
 tle an in/ant to Baptisyn, when neither is necessary to 
 entitle a woman to participate of the Lord's Supper. But 
 having dwelt so long upon the objection to infant Baptism, 
 which is toanded upon there being no command for it; 
 the objection which states, that every person having a 
 right to a positive institute, must be expressly mentioned 
 as having that right, and that because infants are not 
 thus mentioned, therefore they have not such a right. 
 Having dwelt so long on this objection, and shewn its 
 rallacy in reference to infants; having shewn that there 
 was no need for a command to baptize them^ as the prac- 
 tice of baptizing them with their proselyted parents was 
 in common use, and consequently, if not to be continued, 
 
113 
 
 required to be prohibited, and also in referenee to fe- 
 males, which, on the principle of the objection we are 
 combating and exposing, must never come to the Lord's 
 Table. Having dwelt so long upon this objection and 
 thus shewn its fallacy, we proceed 
 
 • Second — To consider the objection which states, that 
 the Scriptures universally require faith and repentance 
 as requisites for Baptism, and that as infants have not 
 these, yea, as they cannot have them, tkey therefore are 
 not proper subjects for Baptism, they should not be bap- 
 tized. Now to this we reply, by first simply asking of 
 it'/iom do the Scriptures require faith and repentance ? 
 Every one acquainted with his Bible knows, that it is of 
 adults that such things are required ; every such person 
 must know that these things are never required of infants 
 in order to Baptism or salvation — in order to any ttiing. 
 There is not a single text in the whole Bible which says 
 that none but behevers are to be baptized. That there 
 are texts which plainly prove that believers were bap- 
 tized is an incontrovertible fact ;* but as such texts 
 make no mention of children, they are neither Jbr nor 
 against their Baptism. 
 
 To argue from what is said of adults to the case of 
 children, is absurd. The commission of our Lord will 
 furnish a much stronger argument against the salvation of 
 infants, than against their Bajptisin. "He," saith our 
 Lord, " that bclieveth and is baptized shall be saved. "-|- 
 Now in the order of these words, faith is put before sal- 
 vation as well as before Baptism. If it therefore follow 
 that infants ought not to !)e baptized, because they can- 
 not believe, it will equallu follow, that they cannot be 
 saved, because they cannot believe''; for faith is made as 
 necessary to salvation as what it is to Baptism. But let 
 us look at the other side of the proposition, which is, 
 ** He that believeth not shall be damned." Hence, ac- 
 cording to the manner in which our Baptist brethren rea- 
 son on the text, as infants cannot believe, all who die in 
 a state of infancy shall be damned. But as no such text 
 can be found as " He that believeth not shall not be 
 .baptized," the words evidently supply a much^Stronger 
 
 * See Acts ii, ,41. viii. 12, 37, 38. xviii. 8, &c. f Mark xvi. l^. 
 L 
 
114 
 
 argument against infant salvation^ than against infant 
 Baptism. Our Lord in his preaching restricted salvation 
 to betievcrs. " He that believeth rot is condemned" — '* he 
 that believeth not the Son shall not see life — the wratli 
 of God abideth on him," &c. Indeed for one text in 
 which Faith and Baptism are connected together, it would 
 be eas}' to produce txventy in which Jaith and salvation 
 are connected together. The Baptists admit that there 
 are other texts which prove the salvation of infants ; 
 neither do they pretend that such texts have the smal- 
 lest tendency to contradict the above. Why then we 
 would ask, do they oppose to the evidence we adduce in 
 favour of infant Baptism such texts as speak onlij of 
 faith in adults? but so it is. 
 
 For Mr Carson, in his book on Baptism, says, in reference 
 to oar Lord's commission to his Apostles,* *' If I had 
 not another passage in the word of God, I will engage 
 to refuteSny opponents from the words of this commis- 
 sion. Dr. Wardlow thinks he has shewn as clear as a 
 sunbeam, that the words of this commission have no 
 bearmg on the subject. I will risk the credit of my un- 
 derstanding on my success in shewing, that, according 
 to this commission, believers only are to be baptized. It 
 is impossible that a command to baptize believers, can be 
 extended to any but believers. We need not say this 
 cannot be done by inference, /say it cannot be done by the 
 most express command or explanation. No command, no 
 explanation, can bring unbelievers into the commission that 
 enjoins the Baptism of believers."^^ On this we remark, 
 
 First — That Mr. Carson here as in other parts of his book, 
 takes irifants for unbelievers, than which nothing is more 
 false. The Bible gives him neither precept nor precedent 
 for this; it uses no such language respecting them. Foe 
 while it informs us on the one hand, that *' he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned." That *' the unbelieving 
 shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and 
 brimstone," &c.f| It also informs us on the other, re- 
 specting the little children, that " of such is the king- 
 dom of God."<|[ Every man of common sense, who will 
 
 * Mar: xxviii. 19. Mvk xvi. 15. 16. 
 
 § See Carson's Reply to Ewin;; and WarcUaw, page 205. 
 
 (I Mark. xvi. 16. liev. \\\. 8. ^ Mark x. 14, 
 
115 
 
 allow himself to think upon the subject, with a mind 
 divested of prejudice, must admit, that it is not the want 
 of a capacity to believe, but a rejection of offered trufli, of 
 God's testimony as recorded in his loordy which consti- 
 tutes an unbeliever. Hence as this is, (as Mr. Carson 
 himself in his reply to the Edinburgh Reviewers grants,) 
 what constitutes an unbeliever, and as according to the 
 commission, it is the being an unbeliever that disqualifies 
 for both Baptism and Salvation ; them as infants are in- 
 capable of rejecting God's testimony and thus becoming 
 unbelievers, it must follow that the commission which re- 
 quires believers to be baptized, and assures them " of 
 eternal Salvation ;" and which excludes mibelievers from 
 lieaven, and certifies of such that they shall be damned," 
 it must follow that such a commission has no reference 
 whatever to infants, that it leaves them under the Gos- 
 j)el dispensation, in the same situation it found them, iu 
 the same relation to Go<iandhis churchwhich they stood un- 
 der the former dispensation, that it now leaves them en- 
 titled to church membership by Baptism, with their be- 
 lieving parents, as they were before, as we have shewn 
 above, by circumcision. Hence we would now ask 
 Where is the credit of Mr. Carson's understanding, 
 which he, as above stated, risked on his success in shew- 
 ing that, according to this commission, believers only are 
 to be baptized? As he has been unable to shexu that this 
 commission has any bearing upon infants, that it any more 
 excludes them from Baptism, than from Salvation, must 
 not all that he has risked on such shelving be incontro- 
 vertibly lost? But, we observe, 
 
 Second — That there are other portions of Scripture 
 which speak m full as definite a manner, as what our 
 Lord's commission does ; and yet to interpret them as, 
 in ani/ measure referring to infants, would be the extreme 
 of absurdity. We shall here instance in one passage of 
 this description. " The Lord Jesus shall be revealed 
 from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking 
 vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not 
 the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : Who shall be 
 punished vvith everlasting destruction from the presence 
 of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."* Now 
 * 2 Thes. i. 7—9. 
 
116 
 
 prejudice aside! Is there not as much authority from this 
 passage, for representing infants as devoted to the ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
 irom the glory of his power, as devoted to the divine 
 vengeance, as there is from the commission of our Lord for 
 excluding them from Baptism ? For surely infants are no 
 more capable of hioxving God, or of obeying the Gospel 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, which this text requires of 
 such as shall escape eternal ruin, than what they are of 
 believing the Gosjjel. But such texts as the commission 
 to the Apostles, and that now under consideration, speak 
 only 0? foithy of knoxvledge, and ot obedience in reference to 
 adults; consequently in/ants are no way concerned. 
 Such Scriptures, on principles of reason and common 
 sense, cannot have any bearing upon them. 
 
 Third — We observe that if the commission in Marky 
 *' Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to 
 every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved ; he that believeth not shall be damned."* If 
 this be understood without limitation or restriction, as 
 excluding all but believers from Baptism, then, as we 
 have already seen, it will in spite of all the sophistry 
 that can be used by the sons of men, exclude all but 
 lelievers from Salvatioyi ; so that if infants be excluded 
 in the one case, they must also be excluded in the other ; 
 if they must not be baptized because they are incapable 
 of believing, then they must not be saved because they 
 are incapable of believing. But if the commission in St. 
 Mark, must be understood so as to exclude injants from 
 Baptism, and consequently from Salvation ; then the 
 commission in St. Matthew,^ must also be understood 
 without limitation or restriction, as including infants in 
 the " All nations," which are to be taught and baptized 
 by it. Consequently, according to the manner in which 
 Baptists explain the commission as recorded in St. Mark, 
 the commission of St. Matthew, must have All nations 
 baptized ; kings and subjects, high and low, rich and 
 poor, masters and servants, parents and children, young 
 and old, the believers and the unbelievers, the willing 
 and the unwilling, all, all must be baptized! Thus ac- 
 
 § Mat. xxviii. 19. 
 
117 
 
 cording to the interpretation which we are opposing, 
 which refers the text to injanfs, in order to exclude them 
 from Baptismy if any be unwilling, force must be used, 
 persecution must be resorted to ; for the commisson is, to 
 ^^ Teach and baptize all nations.'' Hence, infants as be- 
 ing included in " All nations,'' must also be baptized. 
 Thus we see, that Baptists in forcing the commission, as 
 recorded in St. Mark, to bear upon infants, in order to 
 exclude them as unbelievers from Baptism must in giving 
 a similar interpretation to the commission as recorded in 
 St. Matthew, establish infant Baptism ! Hence Baptists 
 in thus adopting such a mode of interpretation, not only 
 set the commission m the owe passage, at variance with 
 the commission in the otJter, they not only thus make the 
 one Scripture equally exclude infants and unbelievers from 
 Baptism, yea, make even iifants themselves unbelievers, 
 and thus shut them owt oi heaven ; but they make the 
 oitier, baptize " All nations," whether infants or unbe- 
 lievers, and thus (although unintentionally) establish not 
 only infant Baptism, but in case of opposition, a spirit 
 of persecution with all its horrors ! 
 
 Fourth — We observe, on Mr. Carson's story, or illus- 
 tration (for we must not call it argument) respecting 
 government giving orders to a Colonel, to fill up a com- 
 pany with men of a certain height, and the Colonel 
 giving his recruiting officers instructions accordingly, 
 and their disobeying they orders the received from him 
 by taking men under the prescribed height, and his re- 
 prehension of them for so doing, with their apology, Szc. 
 On this we observe, that the whole of it is wide of the 
 mark, is altogether inapplicable to the pointin hand, and 
 only calculated to deceive the simple. It is founded 
 upon the same false principle noticed above, namely, 
 that none are to be received into God's church here, nor 
 consequently into heaven hereafter but believers only, and 
 that, as infants are incapable of believing the}^ must be 
 excluded from both Baptism and salvation, that believers 
 only are proper subjects for such blessings. 
 
 This argument against infant Baptism principally con- 
 sists in the absurdity of applying to infants what belongs 
 only ioadidts. Foraccording toth^sfalse'principle because 
 adJt2 who will not repent must perish, infants must peris^^ . 
 
Its 
 
 because Incapable of repenting ! Because it is said of 
 adults, that if they will not work neither should they 
 eat. Then because wjants are incapable of working they 
 must, in opposition to both nature unA religion, he Ae- 
 prived of nourishment. Because the Scriptures say in. 
 reference to adults, "Blessed are they that do his conn- 
 mandments," then, on this principle, because infants are 
 incapable of obeying, they, in opposition to our Lord's 
 taking them up in his arms and blessing them, in opposi- 
 tion to his saying of such is the kingdom of God, they 
 must not be blessed, either in earth or in heaven. Fi- 
 nally because «^w/^5 who believe are io he baptized 2ir\^ 
 saved, then because injants cannot believe, they must be 
 excluded from any place in the church of God, either 
 militant or triumphant. They must neither be baptized 
 nor saved! But this argument and illustration of the 
 Baptists which we are opposing, go to say that none 
 should be baptized M'ithout repei;itance and faith, (as ac- 
 cording to Mr. Carson, the standard by which the men 
 for the Colonel's company should be tried,) and thus make 
 even the Baptism of Christ himself tvrong, inasmuch as 
 be not being a sinner, cowW have neither ya///i nor re- 
 2oentance ! To say that Christ was baptized for an exam,', 
 jple to us, is saying in effect, that liis Baptism was an ex- 
 ample for baptizing tmthout faith and repentance, such as 
 were incapable of repenting and believing, and conse- 
 quently an example for baptizing infantSy who cannot 
 either repent or believe ! 
 
 Now from the above observations, may be clearly seen, 
 what portion of correctness the following conclusion of 
 Mr. Innis contains, as applied by him to infants : — " That 
 they only are to be acknowledged as belonging to this 
 kingdom, (meaning the church of God,) who profess to 
 be of the truth, and give some evidence that they are 
 luider the influence of those principles which essentially 
 distinguish the subjects of the kmgdom,"* Indeed the 
 whole of this, as thus applied, goes upon the same false 
 principle which we have just been exposing, namely, 
 that an incapacity to repent and believe, and consequent- 
 ly to make a profession of faith, or being of the truth, dis- 
 qualifies for ]5aptism. But the establishing of the right ot, 
 * See Jnnis's Reign of Heaven, page 20,, 
 
119 
 
 infants to Baptism, as we have done above, also shews the 
 following assertions of Mr. Carson, as applied to infants, lo 
 be wholly destitute of truth ; and the following awful and 
 menacing language which he uses to be altogether in- 
 applicable. " None," says he, " can be saved by the 
 Gospel but such as believe the Gospel ; none can be hap- 
 tized with the Baptism of the Gospel but such as believe 
 the Gospel. There is no exception to either." "i^h! 
 my brethren, it is an awful thing to do in the Lord's 
 name, that which the Lord has not appointed, who hath 
 required this at your hands ?" *' Who is he that dares to 
 substitute infant Baptism for the Baptism of believers? "* 
 But as we have fully shewn, in opposition to all the 
 conelusions, assertions^ and interrogatories of Baptist 
 writers, that the commission of our Lord as much 
 excludes infayits from Salvation as from Baptism ; that 
 it excludes them from neither ; that it has no bearing 
 whatever upon the subject of infant Baptism ; that it 
 leaves the "/?"^//e children* m the same relation to God 
 and his church under the present dispensation, which 
 they were under the former dispensation ; having shewa 
 that this commission refers wholly to adults, or persons 
 capable of moral choice ; and also, that God himself did 
 constitute in his church the membership of infants, and 
 admitted them to this privilege by a religious ordinance,, 
 namely, by circumcision, and that this right of infants to 
 church membership has never been taken away, (al- 
 though the manner of admitting, whether infants or 
 adults to the privilege, has been changed from circumci- 
 sion to Baptism,) as we have shewn that they must there- 
 fore still be received, and that it must follow, as in- 
 fants must still be received into God's church, and as 
 none must be received without Baptism, that it must fol- 
 low that infants (according to the order instituted by the 
 Most High himself, and which he has never reversed,) 
 must be baptized! Having shewn these things, we 
 would also in turn propose a few questions, — we would 
 ask, who is he that dares to substitute the exclusion of 
 infants from the church for the receiving of them into it ? 
 And as there is no authority for doing this, in "The law: 
 
 *• See Carson's Reply to Ewiag and "VVardlaw, page 206, 210; 
 
120 
 
 and the prophets," we would ask such as have taken 
 the lihertyy as have assumed the power, Where did you 
 receive your commission ? From whom did you obtain 
 this n-evo revelation ? We would say to all such, in Mr. 
 Carson's language : "Ah ! brethren, it is an awful thing to 
 do in the name of the Lord vvhat he has not appoitited;" 
 we would say, it is indeed an awful thing to prohibit what 
 God himself has commanded ; to overturn what he has es- 
 tablished ; to exclude from his church, in opposition to his 
 authority, infants^ which he himself took into it. We 
 would say, brethren, voho hath required this ixt your hands? 
 To say that infants, of whom the Saviour saith, " Of 
 such is the kingdom of God," and upon all of whom, 
 according to St. Paul, " The free gift has come to jus- 
 tification of life."* To say that because such of these 
 as have lived until capable of making a choice, have in- 
 
 * Mark x. l-i. Horn, v 18/ In addition to what we said in re- 
 ference to the doctrine contained in this last quoted text, page, 17. 
 We would now observe ; that as it attributes an equal extent to the 
 ctFect of Christ's death in man's recovery, that it does to the effect of 
 Adam's transgression in his fall ; as the one transaction is contrast- 
 ed with the other ; as it is as truly said, " By the righteousness of 
 one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life:" as it is 
 said, " By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condem- 
 nation. Hence it must either be admitted, that every man through 
 Christ receives a personal existence, is restored to the divine favour 
 lost in Adam, and shall obtain a resurrection from the dead : or the 
 fall of man be denied to all intents and purposes. That men turn 
 these several blessings into curses alters not the nature of the case. 
 That "they fhat have done evil shall come forth to the resurrection 
 of damnation" does not in any measure oppose the Apostle's state- 
 ment, when he says, " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall 
 all be made alive." This only shews that men may turn what God 
 intended for their greatest good, into the greatest of all evils. In- 
 deed did man not i)ossess this awful power from God, he could not 
 be an accountable creature, he could not be constituted guilty in the 
 sight of heaven, his sin and misery could not be laid at his ow n door. 
 To say, as some have done, that every man is acting according to the 
 design and will of God, is saying in effect that God's will and de- 
 sign arc opposed to that character which he has given — to that revela- 
 tion which he has^ made of himself in the holy Scriptures, his reveal- 
 ed will to mankind. To say that it is because it does not please the 
 Most High to give grace to men, to convince them of their need of 
 a Saviour, or to enable them to trust in him for life and salvation ; to 
 say that it is thus for want of grace, and not for the abuse of it, that 
 
121 
 
 variably preferred " the evil to the good," and '* sought 
 death in the error of their ways ;" have yielded to the 
 influence of what the Apostle terms, ( Phronema Sarkos,) 
 the fleshly, or '• carnal mind," which is " enmity against 
 God," the corruption, or, as termed by the church of Eng- 
 land, in her ninth Article, the "infection of nature/' which 
 every person born into the world brings with him. To 
 say that because these have thus forfeited the divine 
 favour, and constituted themselves personally guilty be- 
 fore God, and consequently exposed themselves to his 
 righteous indignation, to his everlasting displeasure — 
 
 they perish in their iniquity, is indeed to clear them and lay their sin 
 at God's door. This is also to represent the Ti-ue and Faithful 
 JehoTah who cannot lie, as swearing that he has " no pleasure in the 
 death of the wicked," and as declaring that be " wUleth all men to 
 be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," while at the 
 same time, he is determined to withhold that grace from thera through 
 which alone they can be saved ! This is truly to represent the Holy 
 and Righteous One as the author of all the sin, and consequent 
 misery that are in the world. This is to represent him as designing 
 and willing every thing which comes to pass, and then as calling up- 
 on laeu to repent of having done his will, yea, as punishing them 
 everlastingly for answering his own intended end, for accomplishing 
 his own fixed purpose ! But if we would avoid the above absur- 
 dities and contradictions, we must admit, that whatever man is ne- 
 cessitated to, he cannot be either rewarded or punished for, any more 
 than fire for ascending or a stone for falling ; ihat wherever necessity 
 begins virtue or vice must end. The attempt of Necessarians ta 
 evade the force of truth, by saying, that men are always influenced by 
 the strongest motives, or reasons, is very foolish. For were this 
 the case, then men would never do wrong, but always what is right, 
 as the strongest reasons are unquestionably always on the side of 
 virtue. Hence we must conclude, that while from first to last, every 
 saved soul must acknowledge that bis ^^ Salvaiion is of the Lord,'* 
 and every lost soul admit through eternity, that his destruction is of 
 himself; yet we must conclude that the saved, farther than conviction^ 
 are not irresistibly wrought upon ; that they " are saved by grace 
 through faith," that God first apprehends them, seeks them, works in 
 them, bestows a talent upon them, proposes the Gospel to tbem, ffor 
 we are speaking only of such as are Javoured with the Gospel,) we 
 must conclude, that these need then to seek God, apprehend him, work 
 with him, occupy the talent received from him, and believe the Gos- 
 pel proposed by him, we must conclude, that upon their believing or 
 not believing the Gospel, their salvation in time and eternity is 
 suspended. For, " He that believeth shall be saved, but he that 
 believcth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16, 
 
122 
 
 — to say that such of these as in their infancy were dedi- 
 cated to God by Baptism, <' In the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," whe- 
 ther by water poii7-ecl or sprinkled upon them, or by their 
 being dipped into it, as we shall just now shew, matters 
 not — to say that such when " saved by grace through 
 faith," should be again baptized, is an assertion which has 
 no authority from Scripture. Indeed the principle which 
 requires those who were baptized in infancy, after having 
 incurred the divine displeasure by personal transgiession, 
 to be re-baptized, when converted, will require that every 
 adult baptized upon the pro fessiono^his faith and repentance 
 that shall again fall into sin, be again baptized when 
 recovered from his fall. For, if infants who, after their 
 Baptism, have by sin become enemies to God, must 
 when reconciled, when converted, be again baptized ; 
 then, on this principle, baptized adults whose sins have 
 again separated between them and their God, must, when 
 afterwards restored to the joy of God's salvation, be 
 again baptized. Thus we are likely enough to have a 
 multiplication of Baptisms. 
 
 But we positively deny that there is any authority 
 whatever, from the AVtu Testament for again baptizing 
 any person who had before been baptized ni the name of 
 the Holy Trinity^ or in the name of the Lord Jesus^ and 
 Mre call upon those who think differently, to shew th$ir 
 authority, to produce their strong reasons. The princi- 
 pal text of Baptists on this head, is Acts xix. 5, which 
 has indeed no bearing upon the subject ; as the persons 
 there mentioned had never before been baptized into 
 tlie Christian, faith. But we shall conclude the present 
 head with what a certain Commentator, to whom we 
 have already been more than once indebted, says upon 
 this text,* " As there is," says he, '* no evidence in the 
 New Testament, of persons being re-haptized unless this 
 be one ; many criticisms have been hazarded to prove 
 that these persons were not re-baptized. 1 see no need 
 of this. To be a Christian, a man must be baptized in 
 the Christian faith: these persons had not been baptized 
 into that faith ; and therefore were not Christians : they felt 
 this, and were immediately baptized into the name of the 
 * Dn Adam Clarke. 
 
123 
 
 Lord Jesus. This is a plain case : but let one instance be 
 produced of a person being re-baptized, who had before 
 been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, or even in 
 the name of Jesus alone. In my view it is an awful thing to 
 iterate Baptism when it had been before essentially per- 
 formed ; by '• essentially performed," I mean administer- 
 ed by sprinhlingr, washing, or plunging, by or in water ; 
 in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being invok- 
 ed at the same time. Whoever has had this, has the es- 
 sence of Baptism, as far as it can be conferred by man : 
 and it matters not at xvhat period of his life he has had it ; 
 it is a substantial Baptism, and by it the person has been 
 fully consecrated to the Holy and blessed Trinity ; and 
 there should not be an iteration of this consecration on 
 any account whatever. It is totally contrary to the 
 canon law; it is contrary to the decisions of the best 
 divines ; it is contrary to the practice of the purest ages 
 of the church of God; it is contrary to the New Tes- 
 tament, and tends to brings this sacred ordinance into 
 disrepute," But we now come to consider, 
 
 III. The mode of administering Baptism. 
 
 And although we have before shewn, that the mode 
 of applying water in the ordinance of Baptism, is no 
 more a matter of importance than the mode of receiving 
 the Lord's Supper, is a matter of importance ; and that 
 ( Baptizo,) the original word for Baptism, is in Scripture, 
 used as an accommodating word, for the several modes of 
 p)ouring, sprinkling, and dipping. Although we have 
 shewn, that were it even granted, (what is positively de- 
 nied, namely,) that the original ivord meant only dippings 
 and that the original mode of baptizing w^as by dipping, 
 still that it would no more follow that dipping should be 
 the mode adopted by us in the administering of this ordi- 
 ance, than it would follow, that because the original mode 
 of receiving the Lord's Supper was as a Jeast or com- 
 mon meal, was at night, was on couches, in a reclini?ig 
 posture, in an upper room, &c. that tve should adopt the 
 same mode of celebrating zY, in every one of these several 
 particulars !* Yet as we before only referred to the 
 * See pages 6 — 10. 
 
124 
 
 particular passages which prove, that the term Baptism, 
 is used by the sacred writers for -pouring and sprinkliiig, 
 we shall now transcribe the texts at large, and shew, 
 P'irst — that we have not misapplied them ; that con- 
 sistently with reason and common sense they can bear 
 no other meaning : yea, that the greatest torture cannot 
 force them to countenance the dipping cause. Second 
 — we will then proceed to examine such arguments as 
 are generally brought to prove, what we absolutely denyj 
 namely, that one clear case can be produced from the 
 New Testament, of Baptism being administered by 
 immersion. 
 
 First — We are to shew, that we have not misapplied 
 the texts before produced in order to prove, that the 
 sacred writers use the term Baptism, for both pouring 
 and sprinkling, as well as for dipping. The first passage 
 adduced in support of our statement, was Heb. ix. 10. 
 which reads thus, << Which stood only in meats and 
 <irinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, im- 
 posed on them until the times of reformation." Now 
 that this is a cpnclusive proof of Baptism being used for 
 poming and sprinkling we shew by observing 1. That the 
 ''divers washings," here mentioned are in the Greek 
 ^" diaphorois Bnptisrnois" J divers Baptisms. 2. That 
 these " divers Baptisms" include all legal Jewish pari- 
 Jications. 3. That these legal Jewish purifications con- 
 sisted of purifications by /;o^/f ;joMn;io- and sprinkling, as 
 well as by dipping, consequently Baptism is here used for 
 pouring and sprinkling as well as for dipping. Our first ob- 
 servation, that the •" divers washings" mentioned in the 
 text, are in Greek ''divers Baptisms" is not controverted. 
 The second has been both inconsistently and unsuccess- 
 fully cavilled with. For while Mr. Carson the Herculas in 
 the Baptist cause, contends on the one hand, that the 
 "divers washings" or Baptisms here mentioned are not 
 Baptisms performed in different ways, or according to dif- 
 ferent modes, such as by pouring and sprinkling, but 
 Baptisms of different things ; such as of persons and 
 utensils ; Baptisms in different things, such as in water 
 and in blood, and in blood and water together — while he 
 on the one hand contends thus, he on the other admits, 
 -that the (diaphorois Baptismois.) the "divers Baptisms" 
 
125 
 
 in this verse, may be translated ^'•different purifications/^ 
 as including all legal purifications, consequently, he in 
 this admission grants us all we contend for, and so over- 
 turns all his former efforts to evade the force of truth. 
 For, if these "divers Baptisms" maybe translated "di- 
 vers purifications," and understood as including all legal 
 'purifications^ then as these legal purifications consisted of 
 both pouring and sprinkling as well as of dipping,* it 
 must inevitably follow, on Mr. Carson's own admission, 
 that the Apostle in this passage usls Baptism for pouring 
 and sprinkling as well as for dipping ! 
 
 The second text we produced to prove, that Bnptizo is 
 an accommodating word, and applied in the sacred vol- 
 ume to the different modes of pourings sprinkling, and 
 dipping ; and that consequently in our Lord's commis- 
 sion, it leaves any of these particular modes undetermi- 
 ned, was 1 Cor. X. 1, 2, " Moreover, brethren, I would 
 not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers 
 were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; 
 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea." Now the Apostle here uses the word where dip- 
 ping is evidently out of the question ; he states respect- 
 ing the tohole of the Israelites that came out of Egypt, 
 that they were all baptized — he says, " all our fathers 
 were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; 
 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea.'' But Jww were they baptized in the cloud ? Not sure- 
 ly by being dipped into it, for it was above them. Hence 
 we read, that " He spread a cloud for a covering,"-]' that 
 they " were all under the cloud." In this case therefore 
 they could be baptized onl}' by sprinkling or at most by 
 pouring. It follows therefore, St. Paul being judge, 
 that to be baptized by sprinkling or pouring is as efiec- 
 tual a Baptism, as to be baptized by immersion. And 
 what is said of being baptized in the sea, can no more be 
 understood of immersion than what is said of being bap- 
 tized in the cloud which was above them, which they were 
 under, can be understood of immersion. The giving of the 
 passage such a meaning contradicts the plain statement 
 of the divine Spirit which is, (not that they were all im- 
 * See Lev. viii. 6, 10 — 12. Kum. xlx. 17 — 19. Exod. xxiv. 6, 
 8. &c. t Psal. cv. 39. 
 
126 
 
 mcmed in tlie sea, but) that they " passed through" it "as 
 on dry land.*'* Therefore in this case, if the spray of the 
 sea be referred to, it could not anymorehe a Baptism by 
 immcrsiun than in the former case the rain from the 
 cloud could be a Baptism by immersion. Hence, in the 
 New Testament at least. Baptism is used for pouring or 
 sprinklings consequently, those who say that there is no 
 Eaptism without immersion, must be wrong, if the New 
 Testament statement be allowed to be right. 
 
 The third text we produced to prove, that Baptism has 
 other significations than imrnersioji, that it also means 
 pouring, and sprinklings and consequently that the mean- 
 ing of the word, leaves it wholly undetermined, whether 
 our Lord's commission should be executed, and so the 
 divine ordinance administered, hy pouring, by sprinkling, 
 or by dippij/g. The third text produced by us for this 
 purpose, was Dan. iv. 33, which according to our trans- 
 lators says, respecting Nebuchadnezzar, that " His bo- 
 dy was tvct with the dew of heaven." But the word of 
 the Septuagint, (Ebaphe,) translated in our version, xicet, 
 our Baptist brethren themselves freely grant, signifies to 
 baptize. Hence the text reads, *' His body was baptized 
 will) th.e dew of heaven." Now to understand by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's being baptized with the dew of heaven, its 
 gently Jailing upon him, is agreeable to reason and com- 
 iDon &ense. But to say that there is no Baptism with- 
 out immersion is absurd, and m this case makes it ne- 
 cessary for Nebuchadnezzar, previously to his being 
 thus baptized to have been raised, if not above our atmos- 
 pliere, (which on an average, is allowed to surround our 
 earth to the height of about forty-five miles,) at least, 
 which n akes it necessary for him to have been raised above 
 that particular place in the heaven, from which the dew 
 dei'Cended for him, to be thus baptized into it. But instead 
 of being baptized i7iio the dev/oi heaven, the text says bap- 
 tized ivith the dew of heaven. Hence the mode of bap- 
 tizing mentioned in this text, is altogether in accordance 
 witli the n.jode of" baptizing hy j^oiiring or sprinkling, with 
 that n, ode which the Almighty hinjself has established, 
 tbat mode wliich makes the subject of Baptism j^^^ssixe, 
 i.-nd the dc :nent aetire. For v\ hen the Most Higli gives the 
 * Exod. xiv.TC^24. lltb. li. 29. 
 
127 
 
 ordinance he always adopts this plan. When he bap- 
 tizes with the Holy Spirii, he does it by pouring, by 
 shedding, &c. When he baptized the Israelites, Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, &c. it was also after this manner. But as we 
 niay afterwards resume this subject, and as to wait to 
 prove that Baptism signifies dipping, would be unneces" 
 sary, seeing our Baptist brethren freely admit this, we 
 therefore proceed as we proposed ; 
 
 Second — To examine such arguments as are gener- 
 ally brought to prove what we absolutely den}^ namely, 
 that one clear case can be produced from the I^eiv Tes- 
 tament, of the ordinance of Baptism being administered 
 by immersion. And, 
 
 First — John the Baptist's baptizing " in Jordan," and 
 "in yEnon near to Salim, because there was much "-Mater 
 there,"* is produced as conclusive evidence, that John's 
 Baptism was by dipping, and consequently that dipping 
 is the only proper mode of baptizing. A few observa- 
 tions however will shew, whether or not this be conclu- 
 sive evidence for immersion Baptism. And, 
 
 First — We observe, that as John's Baptism was es- 
 sentially different from the Baptism of Christ, could it 
 even be proved (which as we will shortly shew cannot,) 
 th^t John s mode 0/ baptizing in the land of Jiidea \v2iS, 
 by dipping: it would not any more follow, that Christian 
 Baptism, should, either there, or in any other part of the 
 tvorld, be administered by dipping also, than it would 
 follow, that because John baptized Pharisees and Sadu- 
 cees, a generation of vipers, all that came unto him, 
 that every description of character should note be bap- 
 tized and thus constituted members of the Christian 
 church. Now that the Baptism of John was essentially 
 different from that Baptism instituted by Christ as the 
 standing initiatory rite of admission into his chureh, un- 
 til the end of time is manifest. 1. From Johns Bap- 
 tism being only a preparatory rite ; unto repentance, 
 From him not holding forth the Messiah, the Christ, as 
 already come, but only as about to make his appearance, 
 as coming after :J ani from Christian Baptism, con- 
 sisting in being baptized into the faith of Jesus as being 
 
 * Mat. iii. 6. John iii. 23. \ Mat. iii. 11. 
 
128 
 
 the promised Messiah, " the Christ" as having come in- 
 to 'M. the world to save sinners," as having died *' for us 
 men, and for our salvation." as having " died i'or our sins 
 and risen again for our justification," as having been " led 
 as a sheep to the slaughter,'' &c.* 2. From Johns Bap- 
 tism being restricted to the Jews, to the offspring of Abra- 
 ]iam :f and from the Baptism of Christ extending to 
 Jexvs and Gentiles, to " All nations. "J 3. From John 
 not baptizing in the name of the Holy Trinity, from him 
 not baptizing in the name of Jesus or of the Holy Ghost ;\\ 
 and from Christ's Baptism being '' in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."^ But, 
 Second — We observe, that the texts quoted above 
 respecting John baptizing " in Jordan," and " in Mnoi\,'* 
 do not at all prove that John's mode of baptizing was 
 by dipping. They indeed shew, 1. the fact that John 
 baptized) 2. They shew the places wherehe baptized, '* in 
 Jordan" and "in lEnon" 3. The reason why he baptized 
 *' in iEnon," namely, "because there was much wsiiev 
 there." But farther than this they afford no evidence, 
 respecting the manner in which he baptized, they say 
 nothing. "To remove a difficulty," says Mr. Carson, " it 
 is sufficient that the thing alleged is possible ; to be an 
 argument the thing alleged must be in evidence,"^ must 
 be incapable of any other meaning. Therefore as we have 
 just proved above, that the word Baptism is used for all le- 
 gal Jewish purifications, and that these legal Jewish purifi- 
 cations were performed by sprinhling and pouring as well as 
 by dipping, and consequently that as the word itself in- 
 cludesall these several 7?zoa?f5of baptizingitprovesnothing, 
 so for any thing, which, what is said of John's Baptism, or 
 of John baptizing, proves he may have used any of these 
 several modes. Nothing in favour of any one of them 
 
 * Actsviii. 26—38. f Mat. iii. 5, 9. 
 
 + Mat. xxviii. 19. U Mat. xi. 3. Acts xix, 2— 5. 
 
 § Mat. xxviii. 19. That John did not baptize in the name of 
 Jesus, is evident from him not knowing that he •wb.s indeed come, 
 and from those he had baptized being afterwards baptized in that sa- 
 cred name. And that he did not baptize in the name of the Holy- 
 Ghost, appears from those whom he had baptized, not having as yet 
 heard of such a blessing, as the gift of the Holy Ghost, to be enjoyed 
 by those who believed, as thgir privilege. 
 
 ^ Carson's Reply to E wing and Wardlaw, page ISO. 
 
129 
 
 can be proved from the mere meaning of the word. This 
 does not enable us to say which of them he used. 
 Hence, according to Mr. Carson, as it is possible for 
 Jo.hn to have baptized otherwise than by dipping; the 
 ivhole of the difficulty as connected with the meaning of 
 the word, is removed. 2. And as to what is said about 
 the much water " in ^non," being chosen as a proof 
 that John baptized b}- dipping. We, on Mr. Carson's 
 plan, remove this difficulty also, by simply stating that 
 the place where there was much tvnter might have been 
 chosen in that country, where water was comparatively 
 scarce, for the accommodation, yea, for the actual pre- 
 servation of the vast multitudes who attended on John's 
 ministry, and who could not subsist any length of time, 
 without this necessary of life. Indeed the Baptists them- 
 selves must allow, that had John judged the much tvater 
 of /Enon, necessary, only for the mere purpose of dip- 
 ping the candidates for his Baptism, he would not have 
 left Jordan, as that was capable of affording him xcater 
 enough for any such purpose. That, when Sennacherib 
 invaded this very country, he needed much tvater, (although 
 no one ever dreamed, that it was for the purpose of bap- 
 tizing his army that the Assyrian nconarch needed it,) 
 but that he needed it is manifest, from the people of the 
 land, under the counsel of king Hezekiah and his prin- 
 ces, gathering together, and, in order thus to defeat their 
 terrible foe, stopping '< all the fountains, and the brook 
 that ran through the midst of the land," and, saying. 
 Why should the kings of Assyria come, and find much 
 tvater?* So the much tvater is no evidence that John bap- 
 tized by dipping. 3. The baptizing '• in Jordan" does - 
 not necessarily mean that John baptized in the river of 
 Jordan, or, that he baptized there by dipping. The 
 phrase "in Jordan" 7nay indeed, with great propriety 
 be taken as a note of place and not of mode. Hence the 
 "in Jordan" of St. Matthev/ is explained by St. John 
 to be *' in Bethabara beyond," or situate on '' Jordan, 
 where John was baptizing.'-}- The expression may ■ 
 tlierefore be equivalent to " at Jordan" or " at Bethabara-r 
 beyond," or situate on " Jordan." 
 
 * 2 Chron. xxxii. 4,, f John i. 28. 
 
130 
 
 It has been remarked that the preposition (^«,) has in 
 the New Testament been rendered at, more than a 
 hundred times, and that in a hundred and fifty other 
 places it is translated with.* The bare possibility^ that 
 en may be here rendered at or xmth according to Mr. 
 Carson, as before observed, removes our difficulty and 
 prevents any argument for Baptism by immersion being 
 founded on this passage. Thus it would be, John bap- 
 tized at Jordan, or xvith the water of Jordan, so that 
 there is no proof here of Baptism by dipping. Or even 
 retaining the present, rendering still the expression "in 
 Jordan" might be taken for being in the bed of the ri- 
 ver, into which he might have decended with those 
 whom he was about to baptize, in order that he might 
 take up water with his hand, or with some small vessel, 
 as represented in bas-reliefs, to pour it out upon them. 
 And thus when within the bed of the stream, he might 
 as truly be said to be in the river, when xnevQ place was 
 the principle thing to be pointed out, as if he had been 
 immersed in the water,]so that there is here no argument for 
 immersion. Now the Jordan, according to Maundrell, 
 IS remarkable for an outermost bank formed by its occa- 
 sional swellings. This travellcK says, "After having de- 
 cended the outermost bank, you go vl Jurloncr upon a level 
 strand before you come to the immediate bank of the 
 river." Any of these views, of the import of the 
 phrases " in Jordan," " in the river of Jordan," used plain- 
 ly with the intention to point out the place where John 
 exercised his ministry, will sufficiently explain them, 
 without involving us in the inextricable difficulties which, 
 as we shall shortly shew, embarrass the theory that John 
 baptized only by immersion.f 
 
 It is evident that John may have chosen " Jordan" 
 and " iEnon," as places to baptize in for two particular 
 reasons. l.As central places " Then went out to him 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about 
 Jordan'X And 2. in order as before hinted, that these 
 vast multitudes of people might have water for the pre- 
 servation of life, health, and cleanliness, during the time 
 
 * See Buck's Theological Dictionary, article Baptism. 
 f See Watson's Theological Institutes, 3d vol. page 437. 
 t Mat. iii. 5. 
 
131 
 
 they must have been obliged to stay with him. That 
 these were the reasons which induced John to choose 
 such places for baptizing in, is more than -possible, 
 which according to Mr. Carson's statement, is quite suf- 
 ficient for our purpose, which removes the difficulty 
 from our side, and prevents the above passages from 
 being any evidence whatever for Baptism by immersion. 
 To choose a river as the place for baptizing would in 
 such countries as our own, naturally suggest a very dif- 
 ferent idea. But even if neither of the above reasons 
 could be assigned, Baptism in rivers would not neces- 
 sarily imply immersion. Of this, as Mr. Watson shews, 
 we have an instance in the customs of a people of Me- 
 sapotamia, mentioned in the Journal of Wolfe, the Mis- 
 sionary. This sect of Christians call themselves " The 
 followers of St. John the Baptist, who was a follower of 
 Christ." Among many other questions Mr. Wolfe in- 
 quired of one of them respecting their modeoi Baptism, 
 and was answered, " The Priests or Bishop baptize chil- 
 dren thirty days old. They take the child to the bank 
 of the river; a relative or friend holds the child near 
 the surface of the water, while the Priest sjninMes it 
 with water."* The same account was given afterwards 
 by one of their Bishops or High Priests. Mr. Wolfe 
 asks, " Why do they baptize in rivers ? And is answered, 
 '< Because St. John the Baptist baptized in the river 
 Jordan." Thus we have in our own times river-bap- 
 tism without immersion. And among the Syrian Chris- 
 tians, though immersion is used, it does not take place 
 till after the true baptismal rite, pouring water upon the 
 child in the name of the Trinity, has been performed. 
 Hence it must be evident to every impartial, unpreju- 
 diced examiner, that from John's baptizing " in Jordan" 
 and '*in ^non," there is no more evidence in favour of 
 dipping, than of pouring or sprinkling. That he did 
 baptize in these places, admits of no controversy ; but 
 as to the manner hotv, there is nothing determined. We 
 have already shewn that there are other reasons why he 
 may have cliosen such situations than for the purpose 
 of dipping his disciples, yea, that such situations were 
 absolutely necessary, when such multitudes were assem- 
 * See Wolfe's Journal, 2d vol. page 311. 
 
132 
 
 bled, for their accommodation and preservation, vvliether 
 the Baptism were performed by pouring, b}' sprinkling, 
 or by dipping. But, 
 
 Third — We observe, that although we do not attach 
 so very much importance to the mode of baptizing as 
 some others, yet, we do conceive, that the Apostles 
 must have used some mode, and that instead of immer- 
 sion having exclusive claims to be that mode which they 
 used, we do think, on principles of reason, that sprink- 
 ling and pouring have superior claims to Apostolick 
 practice. To enquire how the Baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit was administered, will go far to shew, the mode 
 according to which John the Baptist, baptized the mul- 
 titudes who came to him. Now that Joha did not 
 baptize by immersion appears evident from what he 
 himself said when baptizing *' in Jordan," ** I indeed 
 baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that 
 cometh after me is mightier than I ; he shall baptize 
 you with the Holy Ghost and with fire."* The history 
 of the completion of this prophetic declaration, shews, 
 not only, that Christ did baptize his disciples with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire ; but also, the very mode in 
 which this Baptism was effected. " And there appeared 
 unto them cloven tongues like as o^ fire and it snt upon 
 each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost."f Thus we see that the Baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost and of fire was a descent ujjon, and not an immer- 
 sion into. With this too agree all the acounts of the 
 Baptism of the Holy Spirit : they are all from above, 
 like t\\e jyouring out or shedding of water upon the head : 
 nor is there any expression in Scripture which bears 
 the most remote resemblance to immersing, dipping or 
 plunging in the Holy Ghost. Wlien our Lord received 
 the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, " The Spirit of God 
 decended like a dove, and lighted upon him." W'hen 
 Cornelius and his family received the same gift, " The 
 Holy G\\o%\. fell on all them which heard the word;" 
 *' And they of the circumcision that believed were as- 
 tonished, because that on the Gentiles a/^o was ;;oz<rert? 
 (mt the gift of the Holy Ghost." The common phrase, 
 
 * Mat. iii. 11. 
 
 f Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16. John i. 33. Acts i. 5. xi. 16. 
 
133 
 
 to receive the Holy Ghost, is also inconsistent with the 
 idea of being immersed, plunged, or dipped into the Holy 
 Ghost. And, when St. Paul connects the Baptism with 
 water, and the Baptism of the Holy Ghost together, as 
 in the words of John the Baptist, just quoted, he ex- 
 presses the mode of the Baptism of the Spirit in the 
 same manner. " According to his mercy he saved us 
 by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly through 
 Jesus Christ our Saviour, &c."* That the mode, there- 
 fore, in which John baptized was by pouring water upo?i 
 his disciples, follows from his using the same word to 
 express the pouririg out, the descent of the Spirit upon 
 the disciples of Jesus. For, if Baptism necessarily 
 means immersion, and if John baptized by immersion, 
 then did not Jesus baptize his disciples with the Holy 
 Ghost. He might bestotv this gift upon them, but, ac- 
 cording to the immersionists, he did not baptize them 
 with it, since he only poured it upon them, shed it upon 
 them, caused it to Jail upon them ; none of which, ac- 
 cording to them is Baptism. It follows therefore, that 
 the prediction of John was never fulfiled, in their sense 
 of baptizing, because none of the disciples of Jesus 
 mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles ever received the 
 Holy Ghost but by effiision. This is the dilemma into 
 which Baptists put themselves. They must allotv that 
 Baptism is not in this passage used for immersion ; or 
 they must deni/ that Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy 
 Ghost, 
 
 This Baptism of the spirit hy falling, hy pouring, by 
 shedding, &c. is very embarrassing to our Baptist breth- 
 ren. If they cannot get over this difficulty, their cause 
 is lost. Hence many attempts are made to accomplish 
 this end. Consequently, in reference to the disciples 
 being baptized with the Holy Ghost, on the day of Pen- 
 tecost, Mr. Carson uses the following language, " The 
 descending is not the Baptism, the wind descended to fill 
 the house, that when the house was filled with the wind, 
 the disciples might be baptized in it. Their Baptism con- 
 sisted in their being totally surrounded with the wind, 
 
 * Mat. iii. 16. Acts X. 44., 45. xi, 15 16. xix. 1—7, 
 Titus iii, 5, 6, &c. 
 
IS4. 
 
 not in the manner in which the wind came.*'* On thi? 
 we observe 1, That it is not the tvind which is saidin the 
 text to fill the house, but the ^^ sound ;" and the manner 
 in which the sound from heaven filled the house, was " as 
 of a rushing mighty wind." 2, We observe, that even 
 granting that by this sound the Spirit's Baptism is in- 
 tended, still this will not help the Baptists in their man- 
 ner of administering the ordinance. Inasmuch, as the 
 sound came dotvn, descended upon them. Instead of their 
 descending into the baptismal element it came upon them. 
 The element was active^ the subjects were passive. This 
 exactly corresponds with pouring or sprinkling, but is in 
 direct opposition to the Baptist mode of dipping which 
 makes the subject who goes into the element active, and 
 the element which receives him passive. 3. We observe, 
 that if when Mr. Carson says, '* the descending is noc 
 the Baptism,'' he mean that this was not the manner in 
 which the Baptism was performed. He is at variance 
 with the Scriptures, as is manifest from tbe following 
 texts. 1. *• Wait," saith our Lord to his Apostles " for the 
 promisi of the Father, which, ye have heard of me : forjohn 
 truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptizedwith the 
 Holy Ghost, not many days hence." And 2. " There- 
 fore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having 
 received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, 
 \\t\\iii\\ shed forth this, which ye now see and heary\ For 
 the first of these texts clearly proves, the promise of the 
 Father to be the Baptism of the Holy Ghost : and the 
 second as clearly proves, that the promised Baptism was, 
 administered by shedding forth. Consequently the Holy 
 Spirit's mode o^ baptizing was by shedding forth, or de- 
 cending upon, &c. and not by dipping into. The above 
 evidence must be considered as conclusive in favour of 
 the Pa^dobaptist mode of administering the ordinance by 
 pouring or sprinkling, because the term to baptize is ap- 
 j)lied equally to the water and the Spirit, and because in 
 the explanations of the Spirit's Baptism, the allusion is not to 
 dipping orplun£cing,but io pouring, to shedding. Sec. Hence 
 as far as the force of the term can go, in settling the question, 
 the immersion or dipping practice is here utterly excluded. 
 
 *■ Carson's reply to Fwing and Wardlaw, page 12G. 
 f Acts 1, 4<, 0. Luke xxiv. 49. Acts ii. 33. 
 
135 
 
 Fourth — We observe, that when Mr. Carson, speaking 
 of ihe disciples, says, in the above quotation, " Their 
 Baptism consisted in their being totally surrounded with 
 the wind, not in the mariner in which the xvind came'' he 
 seems to forget, that in this statement he contradicts 
 what he before adduced when opposing Doctor Gale for 
 advancing this very sentiment. And also when he 
 in reference to the term for baptism observed, "My 
 position is, that it ahmys signifies to dip; never ex- 
 pressing any thing but mode."* But here, in order to 
 get out of his present embarrassment, he, instead of 
 saying as before, that Baptism ^'- never expresses any 
 thing but mode." Says that the Baptism of the dis- 
 ciples " consisted" " not in the manner,'' or mode in 
 which the element or "wind came" upon them; but 
 " in their being totally surrounded" with it. Now is not 
 this Mr. Carson contradicting Mr. Carson? Does not 
 this prove, that Mr. Carson, although a great m^an, is not 
 infallible ? Does not this shew that the opposing oj truth, 
 and consequently the suj)porting of error, is difficult 
 •work, and that even a great man requires some little al- 
 lowance to be made for the inconsistencies and contradic- 
 tions into which he must unavoidably fall, while thus 
 employed? 
 
 Mr. Carson howevei* still endeavouring to get freed 
 from this Baptism of the spirit, by shedding forth, &c. 
 which is to him so perplexing, which unavoidably des- 
 troys his dip)ping scheme — still desirous of accomplish- 
 ing this end. he proceeds to represent the statement of 
 the spirit's mode oi Baptism hy shedding Jorth, by falling 
 upon, &c. as absurd and blasphemous, as the very error 
 of the Anthromorphites, who understood every thing 
 £.poken in Scripture in a literal ^ense, and consequently 
 maintained that God himself had a human shape — yea, he 
 proceeds to repjesent this statement as even converting 
 the Godhead into matter.\ But on this representation we 
 observe, I. That if to state that the promise made to the 
 disciples, of being baptized with the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire, was fulhlled — if to state that this Baptism was 
 effected by the Holy Ghost being shed Jorth, and by the 
 
 * Carson's Reply to Ewing, &c, pp.4., 51. f Ibid pp. 119.122. 
 
136 
 
 cloven tongues of fire descending and sitting upon the 
 persons then and there assembled— If to state that this 
 was the mode or manner in which the promised Baptism 
 was fulfilled be blasphemy, &c. then, as it is the sacred 
 Scriptures which make the statement, it is against the 
 Scriptures and not against his opponents, that the 
 charges contained in Mr. Carson's representation are 
 levelled! We observe, 2. That the representing, of the 
 Pentecostal Baptism as an immersion or dipping Baptism, 
 full as much makes God a material being, as what the 
 jwuring or sprinkling Baptism can do, for, in order to be 
 dipped in the Spirit^ there must have been a raising above 
 the spirit, consequently the spirit must thus have been, 
 at least, as much circumscribed and made a material be- 
 ing, as by any other mode. But Mr. Carson says, this is 
 only according to the Catechristic or figurative mode of 
 speech ; which is indeed with him, the happy recipe for 
 getting rid of every thing injurious to his system, and 
 not otherwise to be prevented from destroying it. Thus 
 it is that he can overcome every thing in Scripture 
 opposed to his plan, either by making himself sole mas- 
 ter of language, by condemning all Lexicographers, and 
 so rejecting the commonly received meaning of words; 
 or, by explaining away into the figurative mode, the 
 plainest statements of the sacred page, if they make 
 against him. But 3. we observe, that the having re- 
 course to these or such expedients in favour of a system ; 
 the making of such representations as Mr. Carson has 
 made in order to reject the plain statements of Scrip- 
 ture respecting the 7node of the Spirit's Baptism, by 
 shedding forth, by falling upon, &c. of the Baptism of 
 Nebuchadnezzar with the dew from heaven, Sec. seems to 
 us dangerous, and calculated to foster that spirit of in- 
 fidelity which already so much prevails in the world. 
 For, on the same principle that Mr. Carson makes the 
 accounts of the Spirit's Baptism by shedding forth, by 
 falling upon, &c. the Baptism of Nebuchadnezzar with 
 the dew from heaven, S:c, to be no real accounts, but 
 only a Catechristic or figurative manner of speaking ; on 
 the same principle do the Socinians make the accounts 
 of the fall of our first parents, of the garden of Eden, 
 of the universal deluge, ot supernatural agency, of the 
 
337 
 
 divinity and atonement of Christ, of the influences and 
 operations of the Holy Ghost, &c. to be no real ac- 
 counts, but only an allegorical or figurative manner of 
 speaking. Indeed on this figurative principle the very 
 history of the creation of the heavens and the earth 
 may be explained away and made only a figurative ac- 
 count. And as for any objections made to the accounts 
 of the Spirit's Baptism by jmuring out, by shedding forth, 
 by falling upon, by descending in the likeness of a dove', 
 &c. as founded upon the difficulty of comprekendin<r how 
 such things can be, must also lie equally against tfe ac- 
 counts of God assuming the human form, and thus wrest- 
 ling with Jacob ; and of Jacob thus wrestling with God 
 and with man, and prevailing ; yea, of God being manifest^ 
 ed m the Jlesh, of the fulness of the Godhead dtvellino- 
 bodily in Christy of God being in Christ reconcilino- the 
 world to himself, &c.* because the truths stated in the 
 latter case are as much above the comprehension of rea- 
 son, as what the truths stated in the former case can be. 
 But according to Mr. Carson's plan, of rejecting the 
 meaning of words as established by all dictionary wri- 
 ters ; and of making qy cry plain account that does not a<Tree 
 with his own system, as figurative language, accordin^o- to 
 this, every thing in scripture, essential to the Salvation of 
 man, may be made null and void! And on the principle of 
 rejecting whatever has difficulties attached to it, whatever 
 is to us mcomprehensible, we must deny all revelation 
 from God to man, and consequently the whole of Christi- 
 anity as contained in the Scriptures, and as founded 
 upon the evidence of the senses ; thus we must become 
 Deists at once. But indeed on this principle we must 
 deny every thing with which we are surrounded in the 
 heavens above, and in the earth below. And because 
 we are even a mystery to ourselves, because we cannot 
 comprehend the connexion that exists between our souls 
 and bodies, because we cannot comprehend how it is, 
 that if but a thorn run into the hand, pain is felt in the 
 soul, that if the soul feel fear or violent anger the body 
 trembles, that at the command of the soul the hand is 
 lifted up, &c. because we cannot comprehend how such 
 • Actsii. 16, 18,33. viii. 14—17. x. 44—47. Mat hi Ifi 
 C-en. xxxii. 24, 30. Col. ii. 9. 2 Cor. v. 19. ' 
 
 L 
 
138 
 
 and such things can produce such and such effects, we 
 must deny the facts themselves and with them our own 
 existence. Yea, on this principle we must also deny the 
 very existence and perfections of God himself. For as 
 lie is infinite in both his being and perfections, and as 
 we are but finite creatures, and as finite cannot com- 
 prehend infinite, then as we cannot comprehend God 
 we must deny him ; as we cannot comprehend either his 
 being or perfections we must deny both, and so at once 
 sink into the monstrous absurdity of Atheism itself! 
 
 But Mr. Carson **says, as respects the transaction 
 on the day of Pentecost, there was a real Baptism in the 
 emblems of the Spirit."* Kow on this Baptism in the 
 emblems of the Spirit, we observe 1 , That it was not, even 
 retaining Mr. Carson's phraseology, emblems of the 
 Spirit, that it was not a Baptism in the emblems of the 
 Spirit, but a Baptism mth the emblems of the Spirit. 
 For, the disciples, as we before noticed, were not dipped 
 in, but baptized tiith the sacred emblems. 2. We ob- 
 servfe, that Jire is held forth in the Scriptures, as one of 
 the most expressive symbols of the divine presence, that 
 the Lord when covenanting with Abraham is represent- 
 ed as assuming the form of "a smoking furnace and a 
 burning lamp," and thus passing between the parts 
 of the divided sacrifice ; as appearing to Moses on 
 mount Horeb, **in a Jlame of Jire in a bush ;" as de- 
 sce7tding in Jire upon Mount Smai, &c.f We observe, 
 3. That there was no promise of being dipped in or bap- 
 tized tvith either wind or sound. The promise was to be 
 baptized "with tl<e IJ0I2/ Ghost and with Jire" If. and this 
 promise, according to St. Peter, had its accomplishment 
 when on the day of Pentecost the disciples were all 
 Jilled with the II0/2/ Ghost ; and when he by the cloven 
 tongues of Jire sat upon each of them. Hence as this 
 was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and as there was 
 110 dippitig in the case it must follow, that those who say 
 that Baptism always means to dip, are at variance with 
 the Scriptures- And it must also follow, that John the 
 Baptist did not bpptizc by dipping, inasmuch as he him- 
 
 ♦ Kci)ly to Ewiiig and Wardlow, pnge 122. 
 
 f Gen, XV. 7 — 18. Exod. iii. 2. Exod. xix. 18. A':ts vii, 
 SO, &c. \ INIatiii. 11. Acts ii. 3, 4. 
 
139 
 
 self uses the same terra to express his own Baptism that 
 he does to express the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
 which as we have seen was not by dipping, but by de- 
 scending and sitting upon. We observe 4. That all that 
 Mr. Carson has said about the communications and 
 operations of the Holy Spirit being represented by dew, 
 rain, a river, wind, breathing, oil, fire, &:c. and how 
 such as contend for the Holy Spiric's mode of baptizing 
 by pouring out, by Jailing upon, &c. should have also a 
 likeness of the above several representations of the Holy 
 Spirit in their Baptism,* must all go lor nought. 1. 
 Because such reasoning is only calculated to puzzle 
 the simple reader, by turning away his attention from 
 the main point of controversy which is not, whether 
 other things should be 'jsed with water in Baptism ? But 
 ho'M should water itself be applied in the ordinance. 
 Whether should it be poured or sprinkled upon the per- 
 son, or, the person be dipped into it ? 2. Because all 
 the instances Mr. Carson has produced make against the 
 dipping inodcy and consequently against himself. For 
 the deiv and the rain descend i'vom heaven, the river runs 
 along or over its channel, the -wind blows itpon the ob- 
 ject, the Saviour breaths upon his disciples, the oil is 
 poured upon the anointed head, the cloven tongues of 
 fire descend upon the first members of the Christian 
 church, &c. Hence the whole of these instances are 
 in favour of the pouring or sprinkling cause ! But 3. 
 what has been produced about the " well of water spring- 
 ing up to everlasting life," has no allusion whatever to 
 the Spirit's Baptism or communication, but wholly to 
 the effects which he produces in those who receive him. 
 And had Mr Carson attended to the scriptural distinc- 
 tion between the Spirit's communications or Baptisms, 
 and his operations ; between the manner in which he is 
 receivedy and the effects he produces where he dwells ; 
 had he attended to this distinction he would not have 
 thus confounded the springing up of the water with the 
 rectiving of the Spirit or with his Baptism. Hence 
 we see that even Mr. Carson himself has in such reason- 
 ing as the above shot wide of the mark, and shewn the 
 
 ♦ Reply to Evring and Wardlaw, page 120, &c. 
 
]40 
 
 weakness of his cause which obliges him to have re- 
 course to such shifts for its support ! 
 
 But we would here ask such as assert that John the 
 Baptist's mode of baptizing, was by dipping. Was it 
 possible for him to dip nil the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 and Judea, and of all the country round about Jordan? 
 Can any man, on principles of reason, suppose that all 
 this vast multitude, old and 7/o?/;zg, men and women, were 
 in a proper state for being dipped with sajety? Or is at 
 all to be supposed, seeing John's Baptism was in many 
 respects an entirely new thing in the land of Judea, that 
 this vast assembly of people would co.tie together, pro- 
 vided with change of raiment for the dipping purpose ? 
 And would not their lives have been endangered by 
 dipping them in their wearing apparel, when no change 
 of raiment was provided? And would not the very sup- 
 position of such a promiscuous throng of men and wo- 
 men, &c. being dipped naked outrage every idea of de- 
 cency, not even to mention that mo»lesty which religion 
 is always calculated to inspire ? 
 
 But farther still. " It seems,'' says a certain writer 
 on this subject,* an observation of some weight in this 
 debate — that as water was vised by di\ine appointment 
 under the Jewish law, in a figurative and sacramental 
 manner, or as an emblem of moral purity ; and as the 
 Christian ceremony ot baptizing is, undoubtedly, adopt- 
 ed from this usage under the law ; so the only way, in 
 which one person (the priest) was ever directed or known 
 to use it upon another, for this symbolical or sacramental 
 purpose, was by sprinkling or pouring it on, and never 
 by dipping him into it. 
 
 " There were divers Bap-tisms under the law,[| and 
 these Baptisms were generally performed by the priest; 
 but the priest amongst the various rites he is directed to 
 use, to sanctify and cleanse a person, and receive him 
 into the church, is never once to dip or plunge him in 
 water, but only to sprinkle or pour it upon him. 
 
 " The priest's plunging a person, in order to his se- 
 paration or cleansing, is a ceremony quite strange, ami 
 
 * Towgood on dipping, not the only manner of baptizing, page 
 lOi. Note, 4th edit. 11 Heb. ix. 10. 
 
141 
 
 absolutely unheard of through all rhe sacred record.*. 
 Persons were, indeed, on some occasions directed to 
 plunge or bathe themselves ; but that one man should 
 take another, and plunge him under water, is a thing ut- 
 terly uncommanded, unprecedented, and unknown, 
 throughout the whole constitution and history of the 
 Jewish church." There is therefore no reason for sup- 
 posing that John would adopt any such practice. 
 
 ** For John being of the priestly rate ; and beginning 
 his ministrations agreeable to their law, at thirty years 
 old ; and using, like them, an application of water to 
 the body, as an emblem of moral purity ; it is left to 
 any impartial judgment, whether he is, most rationally 
 supposed to have plunged men under water, (a thing un- 
 practised amongst them) or, whether he only sprinkled or 
 poured it upon them — a rite divinely instituted, and every 
 day familiarly practised in that church." From the 
 whole we must conclude, unless we contradict both our 
 reason and common sense, that there is no evidence 
 whatever of John's Baptism having been administered 
 by dipping. And indeed we may add, without fear of 
 reasonable contradiction, that if there is no evidence 
 for John's Baptism having been administered by dip- 
 ping, there is no evidence for a dipping Baptism in the 
 New Testament. Nevertheless as our Baptist friends 
 are in the habit of producing other proofs on this point 
 we shall proceed to examine them briefly, and in order. 
 
 Second — Another proof adduced by the Baptists in 
 favour of inmiersion, is taken from the Baptism of our 
 Lord, who is said to have gone " up straightway cj^f 0/ 
 the water."* This, however, as the Greek term fapoj 
 translated, out of, is, in the New Testament, used about 
 a hundered times to signify y}o»7, affords no proof of 
 our Saviour's immersion. Hence we read " Who hath 
 warned you to flee fapoJ from^' not out of " the wrath 
 to come, c^-c.J I" this sense it here simply means '• he 
 went yx"^ from the water. It is true this might have been 
 properly said in whatever way the Baptism had been 
 previously performed ; but then certainly in itself, it 
 aff'ords nogroundforan argument in favour of our Saviour 
 
 * Mat. iii. IC. \ .Mat. iii. 7, &c. &c. 
 
U2 
 
 fiaving been baptized by dipping. Indeed it being even 
 said ot him that he went up out of the water, does not 
 prove that he was dipped in it. For he might be said to 
 have come up out of the water, although he had been 
 €mly ancle deep in it ; and in that state baptized, by either 
 pouring or sprinkling ! Bu^t 
 
 Third — What is supposed to be the great, the un- 
 answerable argument for immersion baptism, is founded 
 upon the liistory of Philip and the Eunuch.* " And 
 they went down both into the water, both Philip and the 
 Eunuch, and he baptized him ; and when they were come 
 up out of the water," &c. This is relied upon as a deci- 
 sive proof of the immersion and emersion of the Eunuch, 
 But unfortunately for our Baptist friends, this proves toa 
 much to serve their cause and consequently nothing :. 
 as there is nothing said here of the Eunuch which is 
 not also said of Philip. For \i the going down into the 
 water, or the coming up out cf the water proves im- 
 mersion ; then Philip must have immersed himself as 
 well as the Eunuch, seeing it is said, that " Tl.ey weivt 
 down both into the water," " And when they were come 
 up out of the water ;" '* Nor," says Mr. Watson, J " will 
 the prepositions determine the ease. They would have 
 been employed properly had Philip and the Eunuch 
 gone into the water by partial or by entire immersion, and 
 therefore come out of it on dry land ; and with equal 
 propriety, and according to the habitual use of the same 
 prepositions by Greek writers, they would express going 
 to the water without going into it, and returning y?-ow ity 
 and not out of it. For m is spoken of place, and pro- 
 perly signifies at, or it indicates motion towards a certain 
 jimit, and, for pny thing that appears to the contrary in 
 the history of the Eunuch's Baptism, that limit may just 
 as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in 
 the middle of it. Thus the Ixx. say Isai. xxxi. 2, " The 
 King sent llabshakehfrom Lacliish, (m) ^o Jerusalem," 
 certainly not into it, tor the city was not captured. The 
 sons of the prophets ** came (eis) to Jordan to cut wood." 
 2. Kings vi. 4. They did not, we suppose, go into the wa- 
 ter to perform that work. Peter was bid to "go (eis} 
 
 * Acts viii. 38, 39. 
 
 § See Theological Institutes, vol. iii. page 439. 
 
14^ 
 
 to the sea and cast a hook" Mat. xvH. 27, not sisrely U> 
 go into the sea ; and our Lord, Mat. v. 1, " went up feisj 
 to a mountain," but not into it. The corresponding pre- 
 position fekj which signifies, when used c^f place, from,, 
 out o/y must be measured by the meaning of eis. When 
 eis means into, then ek means out of ; but when eis means 
 simply to, (as in the above examples) " then ek can express 
 no more than from. Thus this passage is nothing to the 
 purpose of the immersionists." 
 
 f'ourth — Another proof, as urged by our Baptist friends* 
 for christian Baptism by immersion, is a supposed al- 
 lusion to this mode in Rom. vi. 4. where the Apostle 
 speaks of being "buried with Christ m (or by) Bap' 
 tism." Now the manifest object of the Apostle in the 
 whole of this part of his Epistle to the Romans, as the- 
 most superficial unprejudiced observer may perceive, was 
 to shew, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, 
 vohich he had just been establishing, could not,-in any true 
 believer, lead to licentiousness of life. Hence he ex- 
 claims, " What then shall we say ? shall we continue in 
 sin that grace may abound ? God forbid ! How shall we 
 that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" The reason 
 then which is given by the Apostle why true believers 
 cannot continue in sin, is, that tli=ey are '* dead to sin !" 
 which is his answer to the objection. Now, this mystical 
 death to sin, he proceeds to attribute to the instrumenta- 
 lity of Baptism, taking it to be an act of that faith in 
 Christ of which it was the external expression ; and then 
 he immediately runs into a favourite comparison, which< 
 under various forms occurs in his writings, sometimes 
 accompanied with the same allusion to Baptism, and some- 
 times referring only to faith as the instrument ; a com- 
 parison between themystical death, burial, and resurrection 
 of believers, and the death burial and resurrection of Christo. 
 This is the comparison of the text ; not a comparison 
 between our mystical deaths and Baptism ; nor between 
 Baptism and the death and burial of Christ.; either of 
 which lay wide of the Apostle's intention. Baptism, as 
 an act of faith, is in fact,, mads not a figure of the ef- 
 fects which follow, 1^ stated in the text, but the means 
 of effecting them, " Know ye not that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into \\\^ 
 
U4 
 
 death ;" we enter by this means into the experience of 
 its efficacy i'^i effecting a spiritual death in us ; in other 
 words xvc die with him, or " Our old man is crucified 
 with him" by Baptism; (dia ton Baptismatos^) throiighf 
 or b^ means 0/ Baptism, "We are buried with him;" 
 that is, we not only die to sin and the world, but we are 
 separated from them, as the body of Christ was sepa- 
 rated from the living world, when laid in the sepulchre; 
 the connexion between sin and the world, and us, is 
 completely brokcin, as those who are buried and put out 
 of sight are no longer reckoned among men, so, " That 
 we should not serve sin ; for he that is dead is freed 
 from sin." But we also mystically rise with him ; " That 
 as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." 
 having new connexions, new habits, new enjoyments, 
 and new hopes. 
 
 We hav? a similar passage, Col. ii. 12. *' Buried with 
 him in Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, 
 through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
 raised him from the dead." In the preceding verse the 
 Apostle had been speaking of the mystical death of 
 Christians, under the, phrase " putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh." Then as in his epistle to the 
 Romans, he adds our mystical burial with Chri&t, which 
 is a heightened representation of death; and then also 
 our rising again with Christ. Here too all these three 
 effects, are attributed to Baptism, as the means. We ' 
 put off the body of sins " by the circumcision of Christ," 
 that is, as we have seen by Christian circumcision or 
 Baptism ; we are buried with him by Baptism ; en being 
 obviously used here, like dia, to denote the instrument; 
 and by Baptism we rise with him into a new life. 
 
 To institute a comparison between a inode of Bap- 
 tism and the burial of Christ, wholly destroys the mean- 
 ing of the passage. For surely the Apostle does not 
 speak of Baptism as an emblem of Christ's burial, when 
 he argues from it as the instrument of our death into sin, 
 and separation from it by a mystical death. Neither is 
 Baptism here used as the emblem of our own spiritual 
 death, burial, and resurrection. As an emblem, al- 
 though immersion might put forth a clumsy type of burial 
 
145 
 
 and rising again, still it is wanting in not being emblemati- 
 cal of death ; and yet all three, our mystical deaths biiri- 
 aly and rising again, are distinctly spoken of, and must 
 all be found represented in some ti/pe. But the ti/pe 
 made use of by the Apostle .is manifestly not Baptism, 
 bat the death, the burial, and the resurrection of our 
 Lord. Hence he says, '* For he that is dead is freed 
 from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe 
 that we shall also live with him ; knowing that Christ 
 being raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath 
 no more dominion over him. For in that he died^ he 
 died unto sin once ; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto 
 God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead in- 
 deed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord." 
 
 But this passage, in its connexion, speaks ftot only of 
 our being buried with Christ, in or by means of Baptism,, 
 but of our being planted together," still by Baptism, 
 " in the likeness of his death. Yea of our being cruci- 
 Jied with Christ, and that also by Baptism. Now why- 
 do not our Baptist friends go forward to the verses in- 
 separably connected with those which they are so ready- 
 to quote, and shew us a resemblance not only between Ba|>- 
 tism by immersion, and bemg buried with Christ ; butalso 
 between immersion and being planted as a tree in the 
 ground, or grafted with Christ as a branch in a tree, yea, 
 between immersion and being cruc?yied with Christ. Why 
 do they not come forward and shew us how dipping in water 
 resemblesthenailingof abody to thecross. If Baptism be 
 made an emblem of the burial of Christ, it must also be 
 made an emblem of his crucifixion. For both planting and 
 crucifying are as much in the passage as buryingy and 
 should as much be represented by Baptism. So that if 
 there must be in Baptism an emblem of burial by a total 
 immersion, there must be an emblem of planting or of 
 grafting by a partial immersion ; and also of crucifixion or 
 nailing to the cross. And how the advocates for dipping 
 will effect this, in or with water, we leave to themselves 
 to judge. We have, however, said enough to convince 
 the unprejudiced, that the Apostle is here attribut- 
 ing the mystical death, burial and resurrection of believers,, 
 to the instrumentality of Baptism, taken as an act of that 
 
146 
 
 faith III Christ, of which it was the external expression ; 
 and that it is between the effects of i\\\s faith and the 
 deaths burial^ and resurrection of Christ, that he forms 
 the comparison ; and not betioeen our mystical death and 
 Baptism, nor between Baptism and the death and burial 
 of Christ. Indeed by explaining the text into a fancied 
 resemblance between a burial, as it is called, of the body 
 in water, and the burial of Christ, this stricking and 
 important passage is completely darkened and enervat- 
 ed : as if a dip or plunge could resemble that separa- 
 tion from the living, and that laying aside of a body in 
 the Sepulchre which burial implies I But, 
 
 Fifth — That three thousand persons should, by the 
 tivelve Apostles, be all dipped on the day of Pentecost, and 
 thus added to the church, is any thing but probable ! That 
 they were added to the church in one day, the Scriptures 
 clearly state ; and as there was no adding but by Bap- 
 tism, that they were all baptized in the same time is 
 absolutely certain. But as to the manner in which the 
 Baptism was performed, the sacred oracles say nothmg. 
 Wlien we talk of the danger of cold bathing to certain 
 constitutions, our Baptist friends refer us to the opinions 
 of Physicians, who have recommended the practice as 
 salutary. But we would ask where is the Physician that 
 would at any season of the year recommend the bath 
 to a number of people without previous preparation ? 
 Now the three thousand who were baptized on the 
 day of Pentecost, consisted of course, of both sexes, and 
 of a great varieti/ of bodily constitutions, infirmity, and 
 habit. But let any Baptist take three thousand persons 
 promiscuously out of any crowd, and try if he can find 
 a Physician who will pronounce it either salutary or 
 safe for them all to be immediately plunged into a cold 
 bath. There was, observe, no waiting here until the 
 body would be in a proper state to enter the water, as 
 they were all baptized the same day. This indeed in it- 
 self is sufficient proof that they were not immersed. 
 That the Baptist's mode requires delay in certain cases, 
 connot be disputed ; but if they can produce one in- 
 stance of the Apostles delaying Baptism, we will yield 
 the whole cause. If they cannot, the necessary conclu- 
 sion is, that since immersion will not agree with Apos- 
 
147 
 
 toJIc practice, the Apostles did not use it ! But even sup- 
 posing that the Apostles might in the one day have been 
 able to dip, each his two hundred and fifty persons, the 
 twelfth part of the three thousand ; and supposing also, 
 that the txJiole of the three thousand were in a proper 
 state of body for being dipped with safef}'. Still there 
 is another insuperable difficulty remains in the way. 
 For as on Baptist principles, every candidate who offers 
 himself for Baptism and church membership, must give 
 a distinct and particular account of his faith and con- 
 version to the whole of the members of that church, 
 with which he desires to be connected. Here then are 
 three thousand persons to give an account of their faith 
 and conversion, of their religious views and attainments, 
 to the whole church at Jerusalem, in order that their 
 fitness for Baptism and church membership may be thus 
 determined. Now to say nothing of the time taken up 
 in preparing for, and administering of, the ordinance, 
 Furely it must be evident that not a tenth part of three 
 thousand people could undergo a modern Baptist ex- 
 iimination in one day. Consequently the people, on the 
 day of Pentecost, must not have been added to the 
 church according to the modern Baptist manner. 
 
 And as the Baptism of Saul, Lydia, the Philippian 
 Jailer, and the family of Cornelius, arf all instances of 
 house-baptism, they are for that reason erf/z /c55 likely to 
 have been by plunging or dipping. True the immersion- 
 ists invent tanks, or *' baths" in all these houses for the 
 dipping purpose ; but as there is nothing of this desciip- 
 tion appears on the face o^ the history, or is even sug- 
 gested in it, the suppositions of our Baptist brethren 
 cannot be admitted as evidence^ or supposed to prove 
 any thing for their cause. But, 
 
 Sixth — The antiquity of the practice is also urged in 
 favour of the dipphig scheme. That immersion with 
 many other superstitious appendages to Baptism, adopted 
 to make the rite more emblematical and impressive, such 
 as immersion three times, anointing with oil, &c. maybe 
 traced to the second century, is readily granted : first 
 mentioned by Tertullian, and the invention of men like 
 himself, who with much genius and eloquence had little 
 judgment, and were superstitious to a degree worthy 
 
148 
 
 of the darkest ages which followed. This authority led 
 Wall and other writers on the side of infant Baptism to 
 surrender the point, and conclude that immersion was 
 the Apostolic practice, fc^ome national churches too, 
 like our own, swayed by the same authority, are favour- 
 able to dipping, although they do not think it binding, 
 and generally practice pouring or sprinkling. 
 
 But neither Tertullian nor Cyprian was so strenuous for 
 immersion as to deny the validitij of Baptism by sprink- 
 ling or pouring. In cases of sickness or weakness they 
 only sprinkled water upon the face, which we suppose 
 no modern Baptist would allow. Clinic Baptism too, 
 or the Baptism of the sick in bed, by pouring is allowed 
 by Cyprian to be valid; so that "if the persons re- 
 cover they need not be baptized by immersion."* Gen- 
 nadius of Marselllis. in the fifth century, says that Bap- 
 tism was administered in the Gallic church in his time, 
 indifferently by immersion or sprinkling. In the thir- 
 teenth century Thomas Aquinas says, "That Baptism 
 may be given, not only by immersion, but also by ef- 
 fusion of water, or sprinkling with it." Erasmus af- 
 firms, that in his time it was the custom to sprinkle 
 infants in Holland and to dip them in England. Hence, 
 immersion is not the only mode (vhich can plead antiqui" 
 ty in its favour. That the superstition of antiquity 
 has evidently gone most on the side of Baptism by im- 
 mersion, appears quite plain, from considering that the 
 ancient^ the primitive Christians, as they are called by 
 the advocates for immersion, baptized the candidates 
 naked. So Robinson, in his history of Baptism, says, 
 that " there is no ancient historical fact better authen- 
 ticated than that the primitive Christians baptized naked'' 
 And Wall also says " The ancient Christians when they 
 were baptized by immersion, were all baptized nakedy 
 whether they were men, women, or children. They 
 thought it better represented the putting off of the old 
 man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the cross ; 
 moreover, as Baptism is a washing, they judged it should 
 be the washing of the hodyy not of the clothes.'' St. 
 Chrysostom speaks of men being, when baptized, as 
 " naked as Adam in Paradise." And St. Ambrose says, 
 • Epiiit. C9. 
 
Ud 
 
 that " men come as 7ialed to the font, as they come in- 
 to the world.'' And where Chrysostom complains of 
 his enemies coming aimed into his church, and killing 
 some of his people, he speaks of the terror of the wo« 
 men in the baptistry, who were unclothed, in order to be 
 baptized ; and of their fleeing away naked, to escape 
 the brutality of the soldiers.* Now if antiquity be 
 pleaded as a proof of immersion Baptism, it must also be 
 pleaded in favour of the gross and offensive circum- 
 stance of baptizing naked, which, as we have seen, was 
 considered of as much importance as the other. And 
 then let any man say whether the three thousand, added 
 to the church, on tHe day of Pentecost were baptized 
 7iaked\ end whether the other New Testament Bap- 
 tisms were thus performed. Or (prejudice aside) whether 
 immersion, with all its appendages, of dipping three 
 times, nakedness, &c. bear not manifest marks of that 
 disposition to improve upon God's ordinances for which 
 even the close of the second century was remarkable ? 
 But might we not here enquire, if the practice of dip- 
 ping people in their clothes can be traced back three 
 centuries ? Certainly if Baptism by immersion be in- 
 tended for a washing of the body, there is more com- 
 mon sense in washing naked, than in one's clothes. For 
 what wise man would go to wash his Jeet, with his shoes 
 and stockings on, or his hands, with his gloves on ? Hence, 
 we must conclude, that, as the practice of Baptism by 
 immersio?i, has no appearance of a religion of mercy, 
 which suits itself to every clime, age, constitution, and, 
 sex ; as it is repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the 
 health offensive to delicacy, destitute of a " Thus saitli 
 the Lord," of all Scriptural authority, and of reallj/ pri- 
 mitive practice, such as that of ihejirst ages of Chris- 
 tianity, we must conclude with leaving such as can 
 be satisfied with it, under such circumstances, to its un- 
 envied possession ! 
 
 In reference to what Mr. Carson says abqut having 
 shewn '* Baptism to be immersion, by a strength of 
 
 * See Watson's Theological Institutes : Robinson's History of 
 Baptism ; Wall's ditto : Isaac's Baptism discussed : Bingham's Anti- 
 quities of the Christian Church ; Buck's Thtologicwl Dictionary : 
 Mosheim's Church History, im. 
 
150 
 
 evidence that no true scholar — no sound critic will at- 
 tempt to overturn," we do not feel much concerned. For 
 as we have shewn, the Scriptures use the term for both 
 pouring and sprinklings where immersion is altogether out 
 of the question, and as one clear case, cannot be produced 
 therefrom of any person having been added to the church 
 in Apostolic times, by the dipping modey we feel fully 
 satisfied to yield up to Mr. Carson the quiet and peace- 
 able possession of such true scholars^ and sound critics^ 
 as will not attempt to overturn the unscriptural statement 
 he has made, m saying that Baptism means onli/ to dip, 
 that it never means any thing else; we shall willingly sub- 
 mit to his claim, in resigning all part and lot in such scho- 
 lars and critics as will not oppose him tvhen he thus op- 
 poses the statement of the oracles of truth. We shall 
 here insert from an acknowledged scholar an observa- 
 tion with which Mr. Carson himself has fought, but could 
 not conquer. *' Some may think," says Mr. Ewing, in his 
 book on Baptism, " it was not necessary to use a word 
 directly to express the ernersion, because if immersion 
 really was enjoined, the emersion must be understood to 
 follow, of course from the necessity of the case. This 
 is a perfectly natural thought, but it cannot help the 
 Antipcedobaptist cause. For according to their views 
 Baptism is a two -fold symbol, representing two things of 
 distinct and equal importance. The immersion and emer- 
 sion are both of them parts of this symbol ; the first repre- 
 senting the death, and the second the resurrection of 
 Christ. Now if this be the case, the word Baptizo, is a 
 name for the one half only of their ordinance of Baptism. 
 It entirely fails them as to the other half. A word may 
 have various meanings, but it cannot have two of them 
 at the same time. If therefore, this word pops them 
 down, it certainly cannot give any warrant for their 
 popping up again." Hence it is evident, that the Bap- 
 tists in exclusively limiting the meaning of the word to 
 dip, defeat their own purpose by contradicting their 
 own system. For, if Baptism must be an emblem of the 
 resurrection of Christ as well as of his death and burial, 
 then, if the commission to " baptize aJl nations," mean 
 onliy to dip, it cannot signify their being raised up again, 
 it must keep them down always, and so must be a name 
 
151 
 
 for the one half of the ordinance only, but cannot be an 
 emblem of the other, the resurrection of Christ, according 
 to the Baptists' own statement ! 
 
 But farther, if our Lord require his ministers whom 
 he has commissioned to preach the Gospel, to baptize 
 all nations, and not the "all nations" to baptize them- 
 selves either in whole or in part ; then if Baptism imply 
 a total immersion, ministers must themselves put the 
 ivhole body of such as they baptize under the water. 
 Their putting under water the head or even a little more 
 of a candidate who has thus far immersed himself^ cannot, 
 be considered as a baptizing of him by them. But as 
 ministers are commanded to baptize the people, and as 
 many ministers are incapable of dipping some persons 
 they have to baptize, then it must follow, as the Most 
 High does not command impossibilities, that to baptizCy 
 does not mean to dip, that he does not command the 
 ordinance to be performed according to the dipping mode. 
 We would also observe that notwithstanding all that has 
 been said about precept and precedent, and about laws 
 being precise, &c. we would observe, that if it be un- 
 lawful to do any thing for which there is not 2i precept nor 
 an example; then because there is neither precept nor 
 example for dipping people either naked or with their 
 clothes on, for baptizing the children of Christian parents 
 when grown tip ; for puttins: the head, feet, &c. first into 
 the water; for admitting females to the Lord's Table, &-c. 
 because there is neither precept nor example for these 
 things, they must be all unlawful, and consequently not 
 practised. Hence a strict adherence to precept and 
 precedent, cannot be more injurious to Pasdobaptists, 
 than to their opposing brethren themselves, who while 
 they censure those from whom they differ, for doing 
 certain things without an express precept, or a clear ex- 
 ample, do themselves practice many things, in favour of 
 which, they from the holy Scriptures can produce neither. 
 
 From v/hat we have advanced upon the whole, the 
 impartial reader will perceive how little ground Mr. Car- 
 son has in his " Reply," &c. for representing his.opponents 
 as interested men, destitute ot *' integrity," *' dull of ap- 
 prehension," " not having penetration," *' wanting com- 
 mon sense," " no scholars," " teaching to avoid the 
 
152 
 
 commandments of Jesus Christ ;" and for representing 
 what they have advanced in their own defence, as ' ' intolera- 
 ble presumption," "the ravings of bedlam," " worse than 
 insanity," «S:c. Might not Protestants get credit for 
 even a little integrity and common sense, although they 
 would think for themselves^ and be incapable of seeing 
 with Mr. Carson s eagle eye. We grant indeed that the 
 strewing of opponents and their works with such flowers 
 as this gentleman is accustomed to do, is an old way of 
 arguing. But whether it spring from a tincture of the 
 old spirit, which has produced fire and faggot, fines and 
 imprisonment, &c- we shall leave others to judge. Ob- 
 serving at the same time, that we are glad to state that 
 many professing Mr. Carson's principles, give no evidence 
 of possessing his spirit, yea, give evidence of possessing 
 another spirit. Whether he through the seeing of his cause 
 in danger lost the government of his temper, or, thought 
 to supply what his arguments want in strength, by the 
 using of strong ijoords, he must be allowed to know best 
 himself. 
 
 But having now considered Baptism, in reference to 
 its nature, subjects and 7node of administration ; having 
 shewn it to be a covenant transaction, and come in the 
 room of circumcision, that little children, as well as be- 
 lieving adults, are proper subjects for it, and that pouring 
 and sprinkling are effectual and scriptural modes of ad- 
 ministering it ; having shewn that the divers washings, or 
 Baptisms of purification under the Jewish law were per- 
 formed according to these different modes ; and also that 
 the Baptism of the Israelites unto Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea ; of Nebuchadnezzar with the dew from 
 heaven; of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, &c. 
 were severally performed according to the pouring or 
 sprinkling manner ; and having also, as we conceive, 
 fairly and impartially examined the principal ox gxxmQnis 
 and objections of our Antipaedobaptist brethren, we 
 leave the whole before the unbiassed and intelligent 
 reader, who will wisely try every thing advanced on 
 either side by the standard of eternal truth, the '* ora- 
 cles of God," and decide accordingly. 
 
 FIN13.